IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMPONENTS AND PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, VOL. 31, NO.

1, MARCH 2008

23

Comprehensive System-Level Optimization

of Thermoelectric Devices for Electronic
Cooling Applications
Robert A. Taylor and Gary L. Solbrekken, Member, IEEE

AbstractAdvanced cooling solutions are needed to address

the growing challenges posed by future generations of microprocessors. This paper outlines an optimization methodology for
electronic system based thermoelectric (TE) cooling. This study
stresses that an optimum TE cooling system should keep the electronic device below a critical junction temperature while utilizing
the smallest possible heat sink. The methodology considers the
electric current and TE geometry that will minimize the junction
temperature. A comparison is made between the junction temperature minimization scheme and the more conventional coefficient
of performance (COP) maximization scheme. It is found that
it is possible to design a TE solution that will both maximize
the COP and minimize the junction temperature. Experimental
measurements that validate the modeling are also presented.
Index TermsElectronic cooling, system optimization, thermoelectric (TE).

NOMENCLATURE
Area [m ].
Electric current [A].
Thermal conductivity [W/mK].
Length [m].
Number of thermocouples.
Heat flow [W].

min
opt

Ambient.
Average.
TE cold side.
Element.
Electron heat pumping on cold side.
Electron heat pumping on hot side.
TE hot side.
Junction.
Joule heating.
Minimum.
Optimum.

TE

Heat sink.
Thermoelectric.

ave

I. INTRODUCTION
ECENTLY, there have been multiple studies exploring
thermoelectric (TE) refrigeration applied to electronic
systems. Simons, et al. [1] completed a server cooling application case study using a conventional off-the-shelf TE module.
Their conclusion was that current TE materials cannot provide
large enough coefficients of performance (COPs) to be competitive with conventional vapor compression refrigerators. A
similar finding was reported by Phelan, et al. [2]. Bierschenk
and Johnson showed that current materials can operate with
COPs well above unity [3] provided the temperature difference
across the TE module is kept below the maximum possible
level. A study by Solbrekken, et al. [4] presented an operational
envelope over which TE refrigeration provides a performance
advantage over an air-cooled heat sink. That system based
study was completed by determining the operating current such
that the junction temperature is minimized in the presence of
a finite thermal resistance heat sink. A later study showed that
the operating current can be chosen to both maximize the COP
and minimize the junction temperature [5].
In addition to TE system optimization studies outlined above,
research is being conducted to develop better TE materials.
Venkatasubramanian, et al. [6] have demonstrated a doubling
in the TE figure-of-merit for superlattice materials.
Other reports of new nano-engineered materials are reported
in [7][10]. Ghamaty and Elsner are developing quantum-well
materials while Skutterudites are being researched by Fleurial,

Electrical resistance
.
Temperature [K].
Input electric work [W].
TE material figure-of-merit,

Subscripts

K.

Symbols
Seebeck coefficient [V/K].
Difference in value.
TE element geometry area-to-length ratio [m].
Electric resistivity [
m].
Thermal resistance [K/W].

Manuscript received September 20, 2006; revised April 17, 2007. This work
was recommended for publication by Associate Editor C. Lee upon evaluation
of the reviewers comments.
R. A. Taylor is with the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287 USA.
G. L. Solbrekken is with the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211 USA (e-mail:
solbrekkeng@missouri.edu).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TCAPT.2007.906333

1521-3331/$25.00 2007 IEEE

24

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMPONENTS AND PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, VOL. 31, NO. 1, MARCH 2008

Fig. 2. Baseline system thermal resistance network.

Fig. 1. Baseline system configuration.

et al. [11] and [12]. In each of the cases noted above, the material improvements are created by reducing the effective material
thermal conductivity.
This study takes an in-depth look into the optimization of an
electronic system cooled by TE refrigeration. The COP maximizing and junction temperature minimizing approaches are
reviewed and used to illustrate how TE operation can be optimized. A comparison between the two optimization approaches
is conducted to demonstrate their relative merits and to identify
a common point of operation that could be considered to be an
overall optimum. That operating point maximizes the required
heat sink thermal resistance for a problem with a specified maximum temperature, similar to what is encountered in electronic
cooling (the junction temperature and ambient temperature are
both typically specified). Experimental measurements are taken
on commercial modules to validate the system modeling and
to demonstrate the existence of a common optimum when both
minimizing the junction temperature and maximizing the COP.
II. MODELING
Including a TE module in an electronic cooling system provides many opportunities for design optimization. System parameters such as the heat load, maximum junction temperature,
and ambient temperature are typically defined by product requirements. Conversely, the geometry of the TE module, the
applied current, and the heat sink thermal resistance are controlled by the design engineer. Therefore, it is in the best interest to select the TE module and operating current to maximize
the thermal resistance of the heat sink to minimize consumed
resources. It has been demonstrated in previous studies that to
properly optimize the system performance, the entire electronic
system needs to be modeled in addition to the TE module [4] and
[5]. For purposes of this study the system is optimized when the
junction temperature is minimized and/or the TE module COP
is maximized.
A. Baseline Configuration
A baseline configuration is defined for this study that consists of an air-cooled heat sink attached directly to a heat source
(CPU) with a thermal interface material (TIM) placed between
the heat sink and heat source. Fig. 1 shows this configuration. A
1-D thermal resistance network for the baseline system is shown
in Fig. 2.

Fig. 3. Sketch of a TE cooled electronic system.

Fig. 4. Thermal resistance network for TE cooled system.

sumed at both of the interfaces. The thermal resistance network

is drawn in Fig. 4.
and
each represent the TIM and heat
In Fig. 4,
represents the thermal resisspreading resistances while
tance of the final heat sink. It should be noted that each of these
resistances could include a heat spreader, a heat pipe or some
represents the conduction thermal
form of liquid cooling.
resistance of the TE module elements as defined in (1).
As implied by Fig. 4, the operation of the TE module requires
external input work. Similar to a vapor compression refrigerator,
the work is needed to drive heat from cold to hot. The electric
work is modeled as electron heat pumping at the hot and cold
and
) and Joule heating
junctions of the TE module (
. The total input work is eventually converted to heat which
must be dissipated by the heat sink (as illustrated in Fig. 4 by the
additional heat flow term through the heat sink resistance). This
additional heat load raises the entire system temperature and
limits the application of TE refrigeration relative to the baseline
configuration. Rigorous system level modeling is the only way
to estimate the temperature rise.
It is of general interest to establish the amount of heat that
can be cooled by the TE refrigerator. This is found through an
energy balance around the cold junction of the TE module, and
is given by [13]

(1)

B. TE Cooled Configuration
A sketch of the TE configuration is shown in Fig. 3. The
system is effectively the baseline configuration with a TE
module placed between the heat sink and CPU. A TIM is as-

Electron
Heat
Pumping

Joule
Heating

Conduction
Heat
Leak

TAYLOR AND SOLBREKKEN: COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM-LEVEL OPTIMIZATION OF THERMOELECTRIC DEVICES

25

where
(2)
The temperature difference across the TE, T, is defined as
. In (1), it is assumed that the absolute value of the
Seebeck coefficient, the thermal conductivity and the electric
resistivity for n-type and p-type materials are the same. Equation
(2) refers to the area of one TE element divided by the length
of that element. The input work, or electric power, used by the
TE must overcome the Seebeck voltage as well as the Joule
heating [13]

Fig. 5. COP as a function of current-

= 0.001 m and T = 50

C ( 323 K).

(3)
Electron
Heat
Pumping

Joule
Heating

Using these equations along with knowledge of the TIM and

heat sink thermal resistance, the CPU junction temperature can
be found
(4)
Here, the heat sink thermal resistance has been added to
.
the TIM and spreading thermal resistance to obtain
. By counting the variables in
That is,
(1)(4) we can see that there are 11 variable parameters . Two of these, current ( )
, can be optimized. The following discussion
and geometry
shows how they can be chosen for optimal performance.

= 1 A and T = 50

The corresponding optimum COP is

C. Coefficient of Performance Maximization

Probably the most common optimization strategy for implementing TE modules is to utilize the devices in the most efficient
way possible [1][3] by maximizing the COP. The method is
based strictly on the performance of the device and does not explicitly account for the heat sink thermal resistance. The COP
is defined as the ratio of the amount of heat pumped and the
amount of work needed, or by combining (1) and (2)
COP

Fig. 6. COP as a function of element geometryI

( 323 K).

(5)

, and k, (5)
For a given TE material with properties of
suggests that there are four other unknown parameters to be
, and I).
determined in order to solve for the COP (
, and T are given
It is common practice to assume that
for a particular application, leaving the operating current to be
optimized.
Fig. 5 shows the COP as a function of the operating current
0.001 m and
50 C ( 323 K). The plot indicates
with
that there is a current which maximizes the COP. The process
to find the optimum current is to take the derivative of (5) with
respect to and set it equal to 0. The details can be found in
many references, such as Angrist [13], with the resulting COP
maximizing current given as
(6)

COP

(7)

, is the average of
and . We
The average temperature,
can see from (7) that COP is merely a function of the temperatures,
, and the TE material. Fig. 5 shows that (6) and (7)
do predict the maximum COP for the indicated temperature differences. The COP takes on values greater than 1 for T values
less than 30 K, dismissing a widely held mis-perception that the
COP for TE modules is necessarily low.
The operating current is oftentimes the only parameter optimized. However (5) suggests that the geometry, , could also
be optimized (the cold side temperature, , and the temperature difference, T, happen to be one sided functions without
50 C and
1 A in Fig. 6
optimums). Plotting (5) with
graphically illustrates the parabolic relationship. Taking the partial derivative of the COP [(5)] with respect to and setting it
equal to 0 provides the expression for the optimum. After some
manipulation and recognizing that all material parameters and
the electric current will be positive, the one physically meaningful solution is
(8)
Plotting (8) in Fig. 6 does show that the optimum has been
found. What is interesting with (8) is that it can also be obtained

26

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMPONENTS AND PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, VOL. 31, NO. 1, MARCH 2008

Fig. 7. Junction temperature as a function of current

25 C ( 298 K).
0.001 m, T

= 0.3 K/W, =

by solving (6) for . This implies that (6) and (8) are not independent of one another. Therefore either the current or can be
arbitrarily chosen and the second parameter optimized.
When the optimum COP operating current is used in a system
configuration, the required heat sink thermal resistance needs
to be determined, something not considered in [1] or [2]. For a
given cooling load, , the required heat sink thermal resistance
and T is [3]
to obtain the assumed
(9)
There is a practical concern to using the optimum COP in
a system configuration. As noted above the temperature difference, T, must be assumed. A common assumption is to use the
maximum T from TE manufacturer data sheets. However that
T is obtained by ignoring the impact of the heat sink and results in off-optimum system operation as noted by Solbrekken,
et al. [4]. To truly optimize system performance using the COP
maximization approach an iterative process must be used to establish a more appropriate T.
D. Junction Temperature Minimization
As just noted, the primary disadvantage of the COP optimization strategy is that it is necessary to assume a temperature difference across the TE module and the cold side temperature.
This section will outline the process where those assumptions do
not have to be made while ensuring the junction is minimized.
In exchange, the COP will not necessarily be maximized.
Current Optimization: Solbrekken et al. [4] recognized that
for most applications, the TE temperature difference is a response to input conditions, such as the cooling load and heat
sink thermal resistance, and is not known a priori. Further, the
goal of electronic system performance is often to provide the
lowest junction temperature possible. Therefore a new current
optimization strategy was proposed whereby the junction temperature was minimized. To demonstrate that there is indeed an
optimum current that will provide the minimum junction temperature, the junction temperature is plotted as a function of the
electric current for a heat sink thermal resistance of 0.3 K/W,
0.001 m and a range of heat flows in Fig. 7. The plot shows

Fig. 8. Junction temperature versus geometryI

25 C ( 298 K).
T

= 4 A,

= 0.3 K/W,

that for each heat dissipation point there is one optimum current. An expression for the optimum current is found by taking
the partial derivative of (4) and setting it equal to 0

(10)
Equation (10) is unfortunately nonlinear in that it requires
iteration about the cold side temperature, . Equation (10) is
solved for each of the cases shown in Fig. 7 and can be seen
to predict the minimum junction temperature for each case. As
the heat load increases for a given TE module, the minimum
) increases, as does the optimum
junction temperature (or
current.
Fig. 7 can also be looked at in a different way. For this configuration, 85 C can only be maintained up to approximately
75 W of heat dissipation. Therefore, the configuration must be
changed to broaden the range of applicability for TE cooling.
Aspect Ratio, , Optimization: There is no reason to believe
that the TE module geometry cannot be optimized in addition to
the electric current. The junction temperature is calculated for
a heat sink resistance of 0.3 K/W and a constant input current
of 4 A over a range of , the TE element area to length ratio.
Fig. 8 shows that for large values of the junction temperature
asymptotes to a constant value. This behavior can be explained
by imagining that the overall TE footprint area is held constant.
In this case a larger value of implies that the TE elements become vanishingly thin the overall system configuration reverts
to the baseline case shown in Fig. 1 with a heat sink and TIM
only. The asymptotic temperature from Fig. 8 is the same as
would be achieved in that configuration. It is then obvious for
higher heat loads that there is no advantage to using TE cooling
over just a heat sink.
For all but the 100 W heat load, there is a value of that
does minimize the junction temperature. To find the optimum,
the partial derivative of (4) is taken with respect to and set to
0. After some algebraic manipulation the expression is

(11)

TAYLOR AND SOLBREKKEN: COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM-LEVEL OPTIMIZATION OF THERMOELECTRIC DEVICES

Fig. 9. T as a function of geometryQ

25 C ( 298 K).

= 100 W,

= 0.3 K/W, T =

The junction temperature at the optimum value of is plotted

in Fig. 8 and is seen to predict the minimum temperature for heat
flow cases up to the 75 W case. For the 100 W case the calculated
optimum for is negative, which is physically unrealistic.
Looking further into the calculation reveals that for the 100 W
case the first term in the denominator of (11) becomes negative.
The first grouping of terms in the denominator is the difference
between the Peltier cooling for a single element and the heat
load-per-element. If the amount of heat that needs to be dissipated exceeds the Peltier cooling capacity it is obvious that
adding the TE module will not provide an advantage over a heat
sink alone.
Combined Geometry and Current Optimization: The previous two sections outlined the process for independently
optimizing the TE element aspect ratio and the electric. For
system implementation there is no reason to not optimize both
parameters simultaneously. Furthermore the number of thermocouples, , has not been discussed. The present discussion
will focus on simultaneously optimizing those parameters.
An example of simultaneous optimization of the electric current and TE element aspect ratio is shown in Fig. 9 for a range
of . The heat load is 100 W and the heat sink thermal resistance is set at 0.3 K/W. For each of the data points the optimum
current is found using (10). It can be seen that the gamma value
that minimizes shifts to smaller values (thicker elements for a
given footprint area) as the number of thermocouples increases.
What is interesting, however, is that regardless of , the value of
the minimum junction temperature appears to be the same. Manipulating the optimization equations suggests that the product
should be a correlating parameter and is hence plotted in
of
Fig. 10 for each of the data points from Fig. 9. Clearly
successfully correlates the junction temperature for the combined
optimization and provides an additional degree of freedom that
can be chosen ( or can be arbitrarily chosen as long as the
other is selectively chosen according to the optimum). The same
behavior is seen for different heat dissipation values. The value
that provides the minimum junction temperature for a
of
range of heat dissipation values is shown in Fig. 11. Fig. 11 also
shows the comparison of an optimized TE cooled system and
the baseline configuration of a heat sink alone. At heat loads

27

Fig. 10. T versus module footprint ratioQ

T 25 C ( 298 K).

Fig. 11. Optimum geometry as a function of

25 C ( 298 K).

= 100 W,

= 0.3 K/W,

= 0.3 K/W, T =

less than 100 W there is a substantial benefit in using TE refrigeration, while at 150 W there is virtually no difference between
the configurations.
Heat Sink Influence: For the previous minimum junction
temperature analysis the heat sink thermal resistance has been
assumed to be constant, answering the question of what the
optimum system performance would be for a given heat sink.
An alternate approach is to set the junction temperature at
say 85 C ( 358 K) and determine the necessary heat sink
to achieve that temperature while still optimizing the current
and TE geometry. From Fig. 11 it can be seen that an 85 C
junction temperature will result when using a 0.3 K/W heat
sink and the optimum geometry at a heat load of about 110 W.
In this section we seek to find the smallest heat sink (largest
thermal resistance) that will keep the junction temperature at
85 C for different heat loads.
The optimization, (10) and (11) are solved by holding constant. The solution process is iterative and was completed using
a C program. Fig. 12 presents the heat sink thermal resistance
required to achieve an 85 C junction temperature over a range
values, as well as the maximum heat sink resistance
of
for a given heat load. The maximum resistance (smallest heat
is about 1 m. Further, as the
sink) interestingly occurs when
value of
increases, the heat sink resistance tails off slowly

28

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMPONENTS AND PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, VOL. 31, NO. 1, MARCH 2008

Fig. 14. Comparison of COP

and
optimization approaches (
100 W for
and
35 K for COP ).

Fig. 12. Maximum thermal resistance versus module footprint ratio to achieve
85 C ( 358 K).

T =

Fig. 13. Comparison of COP

and
100 W for
and
5 K for COP

1T =

Q =

optimization approaches (
).

and appears to asymptote to a constant value. The explanation

for this trend is the same as was used to describe the asymptotic
behavior of Fig. 9. Based on this interpretation, the difference
between the maximum thermal resistance and the asymptotic
value is the advantage of using TE refrigeration over a directly
attached heat sink (Fig. 1).
III. OPTIMIZATION COMPARISON
TE optimization in the context of an electronic cooling
system has been explored from the standpoint of maximizing
the operating COP and minimizing the junction temperature. It
is instructive to compare the two approaches.
A. Operating Current Comparison
Recall from above that was calculated by assuming a temperature difference across the TE module for the COP maximization scheme. This creates three performance regimes that
can be examined for that geometryone where the resulting
for the
approach is larger, equal to, and smaller than
that assumed for the COP
approach. A plot of COP and
for the first regime where T is larger for
is shown in
Fig. 13.
100 W and
The conditions used to generate Fig. 13 are
0.3815 K/W for the
analysis. The heat sink resis-

1T =

Q =

tance was chosen such that the resulting junction temperature is

is set to be 5 K and the TE
85 C. For the COP analysis,
,
cold side temperature, , is set to 60 C. The geometry,
is set at 1.4 m for both analysis schemes and the ambient temperature is assumed to be 25 C ( 298 K).
The upper parabolic curve (solid diamonds) and the positively
sloped line (solid triangles) correspond to the junction temperaand COP approaches. The corresponding
ture for the
shape open symbol curves represent the COP for the two apapproach
proaches. It is interesting to observe that for the
the COP does not have an extrema while the junction temperature for the COP approach does not have an extrema.
approach has
In Fig. 13, the current calculated from the
a COP that is less than COP . Surprisingly, the junction temperature at the COP current is lower then that obtained using
approach. To explain how this is possible considering
the
the effort expended to develop the minimum junction temperature model, one needs to consider the amount of heat dissipated
with
5 K and
60 C (
when using COP
85 C or 358 K). Using (1) the heat dissipation is found to
be about 27 W as compared with the 100 W dissipated with the
approach (recall that
is not set when using the COP
method typically used). It is therefore not surprising that the
COP method would predict a lower junction temperature.
A similar comparison can be made, this time assuming T
analysis is 35 K and all other parameters kept
for the COP
the same as in Fig. 13. This time, in Fig. 14, it is seen that for
approach is indeed lower then that for COP . Furthe
is higher than the COP for COP . The
ther, the COP for
explanation for this behavior is similar to the previous explanation, this time with the heat dissipation for the COP method
being about 140 W when assuming T to be 35 K.
The previous two comparisons with responses that are
counter-intuitive based on how T is chosen leads to the question of if it is possible to minimize the junction temperature
AND maximize the COP at the same time for a given heat
load and a specified junction temperature. Through an iterative
process it is concluded that it is indeed possible. Fig. 15 shows
that for a junction temperature of 85 C ( 358 K) and a heat
and COP
operating point will
load of 100 W, the
is set at 1.4 m and the heat sink
be exactly the same if
thermal resistance is 0.3815 K/W. This can be interpreted as the

TAYLOR AND SOLBREKKEN: COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM-LEVEL OPTIMIZATION OF THERMOELECTRIC DEVICES

29

Fig. 15. COP and junction temperature as a function on geometry for both
100 W and
21.35 K).
methods (

Q =

1T =

cheapest heat sink that would keep the electronic component

from operating above 85 C.
It should be noted that
and the heat sink thermal resistance were found from Fig. 12. Recognizing that the heat sink
resistance is a measure of resource consumption, it makes intuitive sense that using a heat sink with the largest thermal resistance will result in the largest possible COP, a result that is
supported by the independent COP analysis using the COP
model. The T and
inputs to the COP
model were obanalysis, illustrating how the two optitained from the
mization strategies can be used in concert to obtain what can
be considered to be a true optimum operating condition. Based
on these results the authors recommend conducting a rigorous
system based optimization where both the COP and junction
temperature are optimized to ensure the most effective use of
cooling resources. Note that for a given geometry, there will be
and COP co-exist [5].
one operating point where

Fig. 16. Flow bench test facility.

Fig. 17. Experimental test section.

IV. EXPERIMENTAL TESTING

The optimization modeling, including the claim that it is possible to obtain an operating configuration that minimizes the
junction temperature and maximizes the COP has been subjected to experimental verification. One reason for verifying the
conclusions is because it is widely held that the optimum COP
current will not yield the coldest junction. Also, the aforementioned models assume 1-D heat flow (air gaps between TE elements conduct no heat) and that the TE material properties are
independent of temperature. Experimental measurements are
taken on off-the-shelf modules to test the modeling assumptions
and to observe the simultaneous-optimal point of operation (see
Fig. 15).
The test bed was built at the University of Missouri as part
of an undergraduate research project [14]. The test bed consists
of a flow bench and duct system, as shown in Fig. 16. The test
assembly based on the model in Fig. 3 was placed in the duct, as
shown in Fig. 17. The heat sink was characterized in a previous
study to provide a relationship between the heat sink thermal
resistance and air velocity [14].
The first set of experiments is intended to validate the
optimum current for a given thermoelectric module. To do this,
the thermoelectric cold side, , is measured with a thermo, and the air velocityand thus the
couple. The input heat,

heat sink thermal resistanceare held constant. The input current to the thermoelectric module is varied around the predicted
optimum to demonstrate the ability of the analytic model to predict junction temperature and COP. In the second set of experiments, the junction temperature is held constant by varying the
heat sink thermal resistance as suggested by (8), while the TE
current is varied. The estimated heat loss through the apparatus
insulation is between 1.0 and 1.5 W and the temperature measurement uncertainty at a 95% confidence level is estimated to
be 1.2 K.
When the initial raw data was compared with the analytic
models there was a significant discrepancy. However, when temperature dependent properties as quoted in [15] were applied
to the model, the predictions were much closer to the measurements. Figs. 18 and 19 compare the analytic predictions
( M in the legends) with the experimental ( EX in the legends) junction temperature and COP measurements. For both
and COP
models, it can be seen that the experthe
imental data closely follows the predicted trends. Further, the
measurements are within experimental uncertainty of the model
predictions, validating the efficacy of the derived models.
model, current, heat load, and heat sink
For the COP
thermal resistance must be changed to achieve the target

30

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMPONENTS AND PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, VOL. 31, NO. 1, MARCH 2008

V. CONCLUSION

Fig. 18. Comparison between experimental and predicted junction temperature.

Fig. 19. Experimental versus predicted COP.

temperature, 286 K for the case shown in Fig. 18. The heat
sink thermal resistance and heat load are relatively difficult
to control, and hence there is a larger deviation between the
of the COP
measurements and predictions as seen in the
model. Also, in the COP experiments, higher currents cannot
be tested as the required heat sink thermal resistance is smaller
then was feasible with the current heat sink. The lower current
bound was chosen to be sufficiently far enough away from the
optimum point in Fig. 13.
Recall from Fig. 15 that there is one optimum point in which
both methods align for a given module and a given heat sink.
0.337 m), the heat load and
For the TE module tested (
heat sink thermal resistance predicted at the optimum point is
15.5 W and 0.6 K/W. Indeed it can be seen from Fig. 18 the
current that minimizes the junction temperature is about 3.5 A
(triangles). At the same time, from Fig. 19 it can be seen that the
current that provides the maximum COP (diamond symbols) is
also about 3.5 A. This finding does demonstrate that for a given
TE geometry and heat flow there is an optimum current that will
simultaneously maximize the COP and minimize the junction
temperature.
One notable result of the measurements is that the COP can
achieve values of 1.0 and larger for input currents of 2.0 A and
smaller. This reinforces the previous claims that TE COP values
is small enough.
well above unity are possible if the

This study has provided an in-depth look into the system

based optimization of TE cooling applied to electronics. The
study showed that two approaches may be used for optimization; the conventional COP maximization approach and the
junction temperature minimization approach. The COP maximization strategy is based on device level performance while
the junction temperature minimization approach was developed
with system level parameters in mind. The system was constrained to have an ambient temperature of 25 C (298 K) and
a junction temperature of 85 C (358 K).
The development of the junction temperature minimization
process is outlined, demonstrating that the electric current applied to a TE module and the TE element geometry can be
chosen to minimize the junction temperature for a given heat
load and heat sink thermal resistance. The given heat load and
heat sink thermal resistance are chosen to be the independent parameters as they are typically specified conditions in a system
design. An alternate approach was explored where the maximum junction temperature is specified as opposed to the heat
apsink thermal resistance. By contrast, the typical COP
proach requires one to assume a temperature difference across
the TE module and the cold side temperature.
apA comparison of optimization done using the COP
proach and the
approach demonstrated that unexpected
behavior can occur, such as the
approach yielding a
higher COP then the COP
model. It was demonstrated that
the reason stems from the need to assume
for the COP
approach when
in a system configuration is rarely known
a priori. This is one of the arguments for using caution when
trying to utilizing one of the optimization approaches.
A significant result from the optimization comparison study
is the fact that for a given heat load and specified junction tem, opperature, it is possible to optimize the TE geometry
erating current, and heat sink thermal resistance such that BOTH
the COP and junction temperature are optimized. Experimental
measurements taken on an off-the-shelf TE module validates the
existence of this operating point. It is postulated that this is truly
the optimum operating configuration for a system. A second law
analysis is warranted to establish that this is indeed true.
REFERENCES
[1] R. E. Simons and R. C. Chu, Applications of thermoelectric cooling
to electronic equipment: A review and analysis, in Proc. 16th IEEE
Semi-Therm, Mar. 2123, 2000, pp. 19.
[2] P. E. Phelan, V. A. Chiriac, and T.-Y. T. Lee, Current and future
miniature refrigeration cooling technologies for high power microelectronics, IEEE Trans. Compon. Packag. Technol., vol. 25, no. 3, pp.
356365, Sep. 2002.
[3] J. L. Bierschenk and D. A. Johnson, Extending the limits of air cooling
using thermoelectric enhanced heat sinks, in Proc. Itherm04, 2004,
pp. 679684.
[4] G. L. Solbrekken, K. Yazawa, and A. Bar-Cohen, Chip level refrigeration of portable electronic equipment using thermoelectric devices,
in Proc. InterPack03, Maui, HI, Jul. 611, 2003, [CD ROM].
[5] R. Taylor and G. L. Solbrekken, An improved optimization approach
for thermoelectric refrigeration applied to portable electronic equipment, in Proc. InterPACK05, San Francisco, CA, Jul. 1722, 2005,
[CD ROM].
[6] R. Venkatasubramanian, E. Siivola, T. Colpitts, and B. OQuinn,
Thin-film thermoelectric devices with high room-temperature figures
of merit, Nature, vol. 413, no. 11, pp. 597602, 2001.

TAYLOR AND SOLBREKKEN: COMPREHENSIVE SYSTEM-LEVEL OPTIMIZATION OF THERMOELECTRIC DEVICES

[7] G. Chen, T. Zeng, T. Borca-Tasciuc, and D. Song, Phonon engineering

in nanostructures for solid-state energy conversion, Mater. Sci. Eng.
A, vol. 292, pp. 155161, 2000.
[8] M. S. Dresselhaus, T. Koga, X. Sun, S. B. Cronin, K. L. Wang, and
W. Chen, Low dimensional thermoelectrics, in Proc. 16th Int. Conf.
Thermoelect., 1997, pp. 1220.
[9] X. Fan, C. Croke, J. E. Bowers, and A. Shakouri, SiGeC/Si superlattice micro cooler, Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 78, no. 11, pp. 15801582,
2001.
[10] G. L. Solbrekken, Y. Zhang, A. Bar-Cohen, and A. Shakouri, Use of
superlattice thermionic emission for Hot Spot reduction in a convectively-cooled chip, in Proc. Itherm04, Las Vegas, NV, Jun. 14, 2004,
pp. 610616.
[11] S. Ghamaty and N. Elsner, Development of quantum well thermoelectric device, in Proc. 18th Int. Conf. Thermoelect., Baltimore, MD,
Aug. 30Sept. 2 1999, pp. 485488.
[12] J. P. Fleurial, A. Borshchevsky, T. Caillat, and R. Ewell, New materials and devices for thermoelectric applications, in Proc. 32nd Intersoc. Energy Conv. Eng. Conf., Honolulu, HI, Jul. 27Aug. 1 1997,
vol. 2, pp. 10801086.
[13] S. W. Angrist, Direct Energy Conversion, 4th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn
and Bacon, 1982.
[14] K. Scheel, Heat Sink Characterization, B.S. thesis, Univ. Missouri,
Columbia, Sep. 2005.
[15] D. M. Rowe, The thermoelectric properties of heavily doped hotpressed germanium-silicon alloys, J. Phys. D: App. Phys., vol. 2, pp.
14971502.

31

Robert A. Taylor received the B.S. and M.S. degrees

in mechanical engineering from the University of
Missouri, Columbia, in 2004 and 2005, respectively,
and is now pursuing the Ph.D. degree in mechanical
engineering at Arizona State University, Tempe.
His research interests lie in heat transfer and fluid
systems with a focus on power generation and energy
efficiency.

Gary L. Solbrekken (M06) received the B.S. degree

in mechanical engineering from Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology, Terre Haute, IN, in 1993 and the
M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in mechanical engineering
from the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, in
1995 and 2003, respectively.
Between 1996 and 2000, he was a Lab Manager
at Intel Corporation responsible for the thermal characterization of microprocessors. In 2003, he became
an Assistant Professor of mechanical engineering at
the University of Missouri, Columbia. His research
interests are in the area of thermal management, energy conversion, thermal
metrology development, and biological heat transfer.