Natural Convection in Vertical Channels

Category: Thermal – Natural Convection | Revised 2026-10-01
CAE visualization for vertical channel natural theory - technical simulation diagram
Natural Convection in Vertical Channels

Theory: narrow channels choke the flow

Overview

🙋

A fanless heat sink cools better with more fins, right?

🎓

Up to a point — then it backfires. In natural convection, air between fins warms and rises on its own. If the gap is narrow, boundary layers from both walls meet and choke the flow, so h drops sharply; if wide, there are too few fins and too little area. In between lies an optimum spacing of maximum dissipation. Let's use the correlation for natural convection between vertical plates to find it for a 100 mm tall heat sink.

The Bar-Cohen–Rohsenow correlation

$$ Nu_S = \frac{hS}{k} = \left[\frac{576}{El^2} + \frac{2.873}{El^{1/2}}\right]^{-1/2},\qquad El = Ra_S\frac{S}{L} = \frac{g\beta\,\Delta T\,S^4}{\nu\alpha L} $$

For symmetric isothermal plates. Small El (narrow) gives $Nu_S \approx El/24$, fully developed channel flow; large El (wide) gives $Nu_S \approx 0.59\,El^{1/4}$, like an isolated plate.

Optimum fin spacing estimate

$$ S_{opt} \approx 2.714\,L\,Ra_L^{-1/4},\qquad Ra_L = \frac{g\beta\,\Delta T\,L^3}{\nu\alpha} $$
Coffee Break Trivia

Elenbaas's experiments

In 1942 Elenbaas at Philips in the Netherlands, thinking about cooling vacuum tubes and lamps, measured natural convection between facing vertical plates and organised the results with a dimensionless number including spacing and height — still called the Elenbaas number. In 1984 Bar-Cohen and Rohsenow in the US combined the narrow and wide limits into one correlation, which became widely used for naturally cooled electronics heat sinks.

Worked example: a natural-convection heat sink

Fins 100 mm tall, 50 mm deep, 1 mm thick on a 100 mm wide base; fin-to-air difference 40 K (air, film 40 °C); fins treated as isothermal. Ra_L = 3.07×10⁶.

SpacingFinsElenbaas numberhDissipation
2 mm340.50.28 W/m²K3.7 W
4 mm207.92.11 W/m²K16.0 W
6 mm15404.99 W/m²K28.0 W
8 mm121266.26 W/m²K27.6 W
10 mm103076.57 W/m²K23.7 W
15 mm71,5566.68 W/m²K16.0 W
20 mm54,9166.69 W/m²K10.7 W

Searching in 0.05 mm steps gives an optimum of 6.60 mm (28.9 W), within 2% of the 6.48 mm estimate. A flat base without fins manages only about 1.3 W.

🙋

The 2 mm spacing has the most fins, yet dissipates only an eighth of the optimum.

🎓

At 2 mm the Elenbaas number is only 0.5 and air in the channels barely moves: h is 0.28 W/m²K, about a twentieth of the optimum. More than twice the area can't make up for that. Widening the gap, h tops out at the single-plate value (about 6.7 W/m²K), and beyond that dissipation falls as fins are removed. Forced-air heat sinks often have fins 1–2 mm apart, so if the fan stops, natural convection barely cools them. This calculation shows whether a design stays safe on fan failure.

Design tips

  1. Start with S_opt ≈ 2.714·L·Ra_L^(−1/4) as a guide.
  2. Orient fins vertically and keep the bottom inlet and top outlet clear.
  3. Account for fin efficiency; thin, long fins lose efficiency.
  4. Add radiation; it can be 20–30% of dissipation in natural cooling.
  5. In an enclosure, check vents above and below don't restrict the flow.
Coffee Break Trivia

“It overheated when the fan stopped”

In outdoor telecom equipment, when a fan failed in summer the unit quickly overheated and shut down. The design assumed natural convection would cope for a while after fan failure, but the heat sink's fins were 2 mm apart for forced air. Under natural convection the air between fins barely moved and dissipation was a fraction of expectations. The revised design widened spacing to about 7 mm, workable in natural convection, and made fins taller to recover area.

Common mistakes

Mistakes and fixes

MistakeEffectFix
Isolated-plate formula in channelsOverestimate at narrow gapsUse channel correlation
Forced-air spacing reusedFails in natural coolingDesign to S_opt
Ignoring radiationDissipation underestimatedAdd radiation
Fin efficiency = 1OverestimateCompute efficiency
Ignoring vent resistanceFlow overestimatedModel the enclosure
🙋

I'd like to learn related topics.

Related Simulators

Experience the theory through interactive simulators in this field

Simulator List

Related Fields

Structural AnalysisFluid AnalysisManufacturing Process Analysis
Rate this article
Thank you for your feedback!
Helpful
More
Detail
Report
Error
Helpful
0
More Detail
0
Report Error
0
Written by the NovaSolver Editorial Team
Built with engineers and AI (editorial policy) — Sitemap
View Profile