Heat Transfer Engineering

ISSN: 0145-7632 (Print) 1521-0537 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhte20

A Critical Review of Extended Surface Heat

Transfer

Panagiotis Razelos

To cite this article: Panagiotis Razelos (2003) A Critical Review of Extended Surface Heat
Transfer, Heat Transfer Engineering, 24:6, 11-28, DOI: 10.1080/714044411

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/714044411

Published online: 21 Jun 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 313

View related articles

Citing articles: 31 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uhte20
Heat Transfer Engineering, 24(6):11–28, 2003
Copyright C Taylor & Francis Inc.
ISSN: 0145-7632 print / 1521-0537 online
DOI: 10.1080/01457630390232690

A Critical Review of
Extended Surface
Heat Transfer
PANAGIOTIS RAZELOS
Professor Emeritus, College of Staten Island, CUNY, New York

This article is devoted to the re-examination of extended surface heat transfer basic treatment that
appears in heat transfer textbooks. It demonstrates that—unlike what is suggested in textbooks—the
emphasis on efficiency should be shifted to effectiveness instead. Graphs display how the heat
dissipation of a given fin is directly obtained without any reference to the efficiency, which is now the
standard approach, and total effectiveness is proposed to replace the total efficiency. It is further
shown that the effectiveness approach aids in verifying some of the simplifying assumptions and
shows that extended surfaces must be thermally and geometrically thin in order to fulfill their
function. The results of a brief excursion to the optimum fin problem will help students become
involved in a preliminary fin design, a topic conspicuously absent from many textbooks. Three
postulates extend certain results of the unidirectional analysis of the constant thickness fins to other
shapes and two-dimensional problems.

INTRODUCTION to tip is called the profile. The geometry and terminol-

Extended surfaces are widely used to enhance the
transfer of heat from a surface (primary) to the sur-
rounding medium. They are referred to in the literature
as fins, a concise generic term that is also used here. Be-
cause of their wide applicability, fins have attracted the
attention of numerous researchers, and a vast literature
is devoted to their analysis.
In this article, we do not attempt to review the entire
literature but instead re-examine the basic treatment of
fins that students have been exposed to through text-
books and handbooks for more than five decades. We
consider the three basic ones: longitudinal (straight),
circular pin (spines), and annular (radial, circular). The
variation of the fin thickness along its height from base
Address correspondence to Dr. Panagiotis Razelos, 2 Kanigos St., Suite
4-17, Athens, 106 77, Greece. E-mail: razel@ath.forthnet.gr
ogy of these three types of fins are shown schematically
in Figure 1.
The decision to re-examine this rather elementary fin
treatment was prompted by two basic observations: first,
it is our firm belief that a thorough, basic understanding
of this simple problem will help solve more complicated
cases, and second, the treatment shown in several text-
books and research papers is inadequate. For example, in
perusing the pertinent literature on fin treatment, we note
that the similarity analysis is often missing and, more
importantly, authors tend to ignore the basic function of
the fin (i.e., to enhance the heat transfer from the prime
surface), the consequences of which are erroneous con-
clusions and misleading statements. The absence of any
fin design or methodology, including optimization, in al-
most all the textbooks is also worth noting. Hence, our
work is focused on the educational aspects of this topic
instead of the research-oriented approach. In addition,

11
 the objective of this article is to present a simple method
that will permit students to evaluate the performance of
an extended surface and above all to perform at least a
rudimentary design analysis. In order to accomplish this
goal, we have included several graphs and correlations
of certain results.
To introduce the readers to this subject, it is helpful
to first present a brief historical background.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The first mathematical treatment of fins started some

eighty years ago with the appearance of the pioneer
work by Harper and Brown [1]. They investigated the
heat transfer in air-cooled engines equipped with rect-
angular or wedgelike fins. Discussing their work, Jakob
[2] states: “In addition to their tremendous mathematical
accomplishments, they introduced a new practical term,
η f , the effectiveness of the surface, defined as the ‘ratio
of the heat dissipated by the fin to that, which would
have been dissipated under same conditions if the entire
surface of the fin was held at the base temperature.”’
This is equivalent to the assumption that the fin is made
of a material with an infinite thermal conductivity. From
this definition, it follows that the value of the effective-
ness is always between zero and one.1 Therefore, if h
is function of S f we have the following expressions:
qf qf
ηf =  = (1a)
T Sf hd S f T h̄ S f

q f = ηh̄ S f T (1b)

where the symbol h̄ represents the space average heat

transfer coefficient. Hence, if the effectiveness, which
was renamed later by Gardner [3] efficiency, of a given
fin is known, the heat dissipation q f can be readily ob-
tained from Eq. (1b). In a comprehensive paper, Gardner
[3] employed a rigorous mathematical analysis and de-
termined the efficiency for eleven profiles of longitudi-
nal, radial, and pin fins. The fins treated by Gardner, with
the exception of the constant thickness fins, have zero tip
surfaces. One of his assumptions was that these zero tip
surface fins have a tip temperature equal to the ambient
temperature. Gardner’s treatment is based on the fol-
lowing assumptions, known as the Gardner-Murray [4]
simplified assumptions, which we have modified here:

1. There is a steady-state heat flow.

2. The fin material is homogeneous and isotropic.

1 Incertain cases where h is the function of temperature, such as boiling

Figure 1 Schematic fin diagrams (a, b, c). heat transfer, the efficiency can be much larger than one (see [68]).

12 heat transfer engineering vol. 24 no. 6 2003

 3. There are no heat sources or sinks in the fin.
4. The heat flow to or from the fin surface at any point
is directly proportional to the temperature differ-
ence between the surface at that point and the sur-
rounding fluid (convective fins).
5. The thermal conductivity of the fin material is
constant.
6. The heat transfer coefficient is the same over the fin
surface.
7. The temperature of the surrounding fluid is uniform.
8. The temperature at the base of the fin is uniform.
9. The fin thickness is so small compared to its height
that temperature gradients normal to the surface
may be neglected (i.e., one-dimensional conduc-
tion). We shall later modify this assumption.
10. The heat transferred through the outermost edge
of the fin is negligible compared to that dissipated
through the sides (i.e., the tip of the fin is insulated).
11. The square of the slope of the lateral surface is small
compared to unity (i.e., d S ≈ d x).
12. The width of the longitudinal fins is much larger
than either the height or the base thickness (i.e.,
negligible temperature variation along the width).
13. The end faces of the longitudinal fins along their
width are adiabatic.
Assumption 11 is referred in the literature as the Length
of Arc Idealization, or LAI. Gardner [3] mentions that
his solutions are based on this assumption.
Gardner [3] also introduced another parameter, ε f ,
which he calls effectiveness. It is defined as “the ratio of
the heat transferred by the fin to that, which would have
been transferred from the primary surface, that is cov-
ered by the fin’s base under the same thermal conditions,
in the absence of the fin.” Although different names or
both symbols are used for efficiency and effectiveness
in the literature, Gardner’s definitions of η f and ε f are
almost universally accepted. One other common term
for the effectiveness that can be found in the literature
is removal number, which was introduced by Kern and
Kraus [5]. Assuming that the temperature at the base of
the fin is equal to Tb , the effectiveness can be expressed
in terms of the efficiency
qf Sf
εf = = ηf (2)
qb Sb
Gardner [3] points out that “in most practical cases,
the addition of the extended surface to the metal wall
would cause a depression of the base temperature, thus
the effectiveness is a misleading indication of the value
of the extended surface.” Equation (1a) has been fur-
ther modified to include the portion of the primary sur-
face Su corresponding to each fin (unfinned surface) to
heat transfer engineering
obtain an overall or total efficiency. Under the assump-
tion that the heat transfer coefficient in the entire surface
St = Su + S f is the same h̄, the overall or total efficiency
is equal to
q f + qu (η f h S f + h̄ Su )T
ηt = =
h̄ St T h̄ St T
Sf
=1− (1 − η f ) (3a)
St
The total heat transfer is then equal to
qt = ηt h̄ St (Tb − Ta ) (3b)
According to Eq. (3a) ηt and therefore qt increase with
increasing η f . However, this is a contradiction, since
with increasing η f the heat transfer from the fin de-
creases. In order to eliminate this paradox, we introduce
the concept of total effectiveness as follows:
Sb Sb
εt = 1 + (ε f − 1) = 1 + (ε f − 1) (4)
Sb + Su S pt
We shall see that Gardner’s [3] comments about ef-
ficiency and effectiveness had an unfavorable but pro-
found effect on fin analysis. Fin efficiency became the
only parameter for evaluating the performance of an ex-
tended surface. His mathematical expressions together
with his efficiency graphs appear in virtually all the text-
books and handbooks. Even today, many authors treat
fin efficiency with the same meaning as the efficiency of
a thermal engine or a thermodynamic cycle. Since the
efficiencies η f and ηt appear like proportionality factors
in the Eqs. (1b) and (3b), which are used to determine
the heat dissipation, many authors are tempted to as-
sume fins with the highest possible values of efficiency.
Indeed, the literature survey reveals that this attitude of
“higher efficiency means better fin performance” is not
just a temptation but also the general practice. In virtu-
ally all the handbooks and textbooks, it is suggested to
use fins that have large (close to one) values of η f , and
many fin experiments have been designed on large effi-
ciency values. Typical examples from the heat transfer
literature (by all means not exhaustive) that clearly indi-
cate this attitude include Trumpler, who, in discussing
Gardner’s [3] work, states “in most commercial instal-
lations, fin efficiency is greater than 90 percent.” This
statement is also cited by Kraus [6]. In the Handbook
of Heat Transfer by Rohsenow et al. [7], it is stated, “in
a good fin design, the efficiency is usually greater than
80 percent.” Huang and Shah [8] assert, “in practice the
fins in compact heat exchangers have efficiencies greater
than 96 percent.” In handbooks by Fraas and Ozisik
[9] and Kakac et al. [10], it is stated, “Fin efficiencies
typically will be of the order of 90 percent, for shell and
vol. 24 no. 6 2003 13
tube heat exchangers.” In his excellent analytical solu-
tion, Yeh [11] points out that “it is interesting to observe
that the optimum efficiency of a pin fin is higher than that
of an optimum longitudinal fin.” However, there is no
explanation what exactly determines the spine’s higher
efficiency. White [12] recommends, “for longitudinal
constant thickness fins, the parameter u [this important
parameter is defined in the next section], should be lim-
ited to the O(1.5) 2 , otherwise the fins will become in-
efficient” (author’s words in quotes). In examples cited
in textbooks by Bayazitoglou and Ozisik [13], Holman
[14], Incropera and Dewitt [15], Kreith and Bohn [16],
Leinhard [17], Mills [18], Thomas [19], and White [12],
the parameters are conveniently chosen so that the re-
sulting efficiencies are between 89 and 99.5 percent. In
the experimental work of Kraus and Peters [20], it is
stated, “In all cases, the small particle system exhibits a
general trend of higher values of fin efficiency, hence
better heat transfer characteristics.” Mote et al. [21]
assert that “the fin’s efficiency under present circum-
stances was always slightly, 2%, less than unity.” Samie
and Sparrow [22] designed their experiments so that the
resulting “η f varied between 93 and 98 percent.” Mutlu
and Al-Shemmeri [23] report “efficiencies larger than
0.95,” while Karagiozis et al. [24] refer to efficiencies
near unity. However, there is an apparent contradiction
in using Eq. (1b): as η f increases, q f decreases, and
eventually, when η f is equal to one (which is materi-
alized when S f = 0), the heat dissipation is equal to
zero. Kraus [6], using Gardner’s [3] arguments, states,
“The use of the effectiveness is somewhat limited and
the employment of the fin efficiency as design parame-
ter has prevailed.” From the definition of the efficiency,
(Eq. (1a)), however, we can see that it is impossible for
η f to be considered as a design parameter. Leinhard [17]
was first to realize the above limitation of the efficiency
and asserts: “The efficiency cannot be used to determine
a priori the heat transfer from the fin but only after the fin
has been designed.” In addition, the heat transfer com-
munity widely accepts the following statements, which
result from the above efficiency concept:
1. fins should be very efficient (i.e., the efficiency
should be close to one);
2. fins should always be made from high thermal con-
ductivity materials;
3. in a primary surface that separates two streams, it is
more efficient to place the fins in the stream with the
lower heat transfer coefficient.
From these statements, the first is incorrect, and the two
others must be carefully examined, because heat trans-
2 The symbol O should read “order of magnitude of. . . . ”
14 heat transfer engineering
fer coefficient alone cannot determine where the fins
should be placed. Finally, the key question with regard
to Eq. (1a) is: “Since this expression indicates that, in
order to obtain the efficiency we must first calculate the
heat dissipation from the fin, then why do we need to
go back to the efficiency to calculate the heat dissipa-
tion?” It will be shown shortly that instead of efficiency
graphs, one can create similar heat dissipation graphs
that can be used to obtain directly the heat dissipation;
hence the efficiency can be eliminated. A thorough ar-
gument that effectiveness is a better performance indi-
cator than efficiency is presented in the recent article by
Heggs [25], which ends up with the statement “good by
efficiency.”
FIN PERFORMANCE
We begin this section with the definition of an ex-
tended surface and the pertinent parameter that evalu-
ates the performance of the fin:
An extended surface (fin) is a device attached to the surface
(primary) of a structure protruding in the adjacent fluid, where
its sole purpose is to increase the heat transfer from the surface
to the fluid or vice versa.
The parameter, which evaluates the performance of the
fin, is evidently the effectiveness (removal number),
which compares the heat transfer from the fin to that
which would have been transferred in the absence of
the fin. We can put the above comments in following
formal expression:
“The results of any fin analysis must meet the test, which the
effectiveness submits them.”
That is, they must not predict heat dissipations, which
are incompatible with the effectiveness.
We have introduced here two basic concepts with
regard to heat transferred from extended surfaces: one
is the definition of an extended surface and the second
is the evaluation of its performance. It will be shown
shortly that authors who neglect to take into account the
above concepts have obtained several erroneous results.
We now introduce the following postulates:
1. The one-dimensional analysis always overestimates
the heat transfer from the fin in comparison to that
determined through two-dimensional treatment.
2. The heat transfer for constant thickness fins is al-
ways larger in comparison to that for any other shape
fin with the same base thickness and height and its
borders lying within the boundaries of the constant
vol. 24 no. 6 2003
 thickness fin (fins with tip thickness smaller than the
base).
3. For any fin with a heat transfer coefficient that in-
creases monotonically from the base to the tip, the
heat dissipation is overestimated when it is evaluated
assuming constant heat transfer coefficient and equal
to its average value (the case of most convecting fins).
The proof of the above postulates is rather simple: al-
though it is beyond the scope of this work, the proof
of the first postulate is given in the Appendix, and re-
sults that were either obtained elsewhere or derived here
confirm the first two postulates. For example, Gardner’s
[3] efficiency graphs for straight fins and spines readily
verify the second postulate.
We consider now the type of fins treated by Gardner
[3], since his results are included in all the textbooks.
Clearly, assumptions 1–12 simplify the analysis, and
their validity has been the favorite subject for many
researchers. The dimensionless parameters that these
authors use to analyze longitudinal fins, for example,
are the ratio K = L/wb and Bi (see [32], [33]). How-
ever, these are not the appropriate dimensionless param-
eters. To illustrate how useful the similarity analysis is,
and introduce the appropriate dimensionless parame-
ters that describe the problem, we consider a constant
thickness fin of base thickness 2w, height L, and width
W, which can be considered to be equal to one without
loss of generality, and with lateral and tip heat trans-
fer coefficients h and h t , respectively. We assume that,
with the exception of the 10th, all other simplified as-
sumptions are satisfied. The dimensionless temperature
θ = (T −Ta )/(Tb −Ta ) must satisfy the following differ-
ential equation and boundary conditions (see Figure 1a):
 
d dθ
w − hθ = 0 0 ≤ x ≤ L (5a)
dx dx
θ(L) = 1 (5b)
 
dθ
k − h t θx=0 = 0
dx
x=0 (5c)
Introducing
√ the dimensionless coordinate ξ = (x/L)u =
(x/w) Bi in Eqs. (5a)–(5c) obtains the following new
set of equations:
d 2θ
−θ=0 0≤ξ≤u (6a)
dξ2
θ(u) = 1 (6b)
 
dθ √ Eq. (8)), the correct inequality
− C h Biθξ=0 = 0 (6c)
dξ ξ=0
heat transfer engineering
The above equations√refer now to a new fin, which has
height u, thickness 2 Bi, and lateral surface heat trans-
fer coefficient
√ equal to one. The tip heat transfer coeffi-
cient is C h Bi, where C h = h t / h. One can now readily
obtain the following well-known solution [5]:
√
cosh(ξ) + C h Bi sinh(ξ)
θ= √ (7)
cosh(u) + C h Bi sinh(u)
Note that in order to retain the validity of the one-
dimensional assumption, the ratio
√ of the thermal resis-
tances, which is now equal to Bi/1, must be much
smaller than one. It will be shown later that for the fin
to √
be effective, the ratio of the height to semithickness
u/ Bi = L/w must be also larger than one. We should
also mention here that similar equations could be de-
rived for any type of fin (triangular, parabolic, etc.) or
spine.
The dimensionless heat dissipation is equal to
√
qf √ tanh(u) + C h Bi
Ql = = Bi √
2kT 1 + C h Bi tan(u)
√ √
= BiD(u, C h Bi) (8)
√
The function D(u, Bi) denotes the fraction in the right-
hand side of Eq. (8) that, as shown by Razelos and
Georgiou [26], is very useful for fin computations. No-
tice that Bi = hw/k is the well-known Biot number,
which represents the ratio w/k of the wall to the ambi-
ent 1/ h fluid thermal resistances, and u 2 = h L 2 /kw =
h L/(kw/L), which is known in the literature as the con-
vection /conduction coefficient. Razelos and Georgiou
[26] used Eq. (8) to derive the following interesting re-
sults. Taking the derivative of Eq. (8) with respect to u,
we get
√ √ √
d Ql Bi(1 + C h Bi)(1 − C h Bi)
= √ (9)
du cosh2 (u)(1 + Bi tanh(u))2
The second derivative is obviously√ negative. For C h =
1, the value of Bi = 1 (actually Bi = 1) maximizes the
√
heat dissipation, which is equal to Q l = Bi. Several
authors designated this value of Bi as optimum, although
the word optimum is meaningless in this case. Note that
the same result is obtained for u → ∞.
Schneider [27] applies a similar approach, conclud-
ing that in order for the fin to have a cooling effect, the
value of the Biot number (which he calls the Nusselt
number) must satisfy the inequality Bi ≤ 1, giving the
fin an insulated effect for Bi > 1. Schneider also charac-
terizes the value of Bi = 1 as optimum. As was pointed
out in Razelos and Georgiou [26] (and as is evident from
√ for the fin to have
√ a heat
transfer enhancing effect is Bi ≤ 1 or C h Bi ≤ 1.
vol. 24 no. 6 2003 15
Although this inequality sets bounds on the value of Bi,
it is a rather vague criterion that does not prescribe how
much smaller than 1 the value of Bi should be. To ob-
tain this information, we resort to the effectiveness. The
dimensionless heat dissipation from the fin’s base area
in the absence of the fin is Q b = qb /2kT , which is
determined from Eq. (4) by setting u = 0 and, in di-
mensionless form, Q b = Bi. The effectiveness is then
equal to
  √ the value of the other important parameter u, which will
1 tanh(u) + C h Bi
εf = √ √ (10)
Bi 1 + C h Bi tanh(u)
The above equation is indeed very useful. For example,
we can see from Eq. (10) that the maximum value of
the second fraction is one. This value can√be achieved
in two ways: when setting the value C h Bi = 1 for
any value of u and when u tends to infinity (actually
u = 3 suffices). In the first case, we get ε f = 1, which
indicates that the finned and unfinned surfaces dissipate
the same amount of √ heat, confirming the previously ob-
tained constrain of Bi ≤ 1. This means that the fin
should be thermally thin, a condition that should mod-
ify the simplifying Eq. (9), requiring only that the fin be
thin. In the second case, we obtain the following result:
1 u
εf < √ (11)
Bi
We may observe here that the same results are obtained
when the fin tip is insulated (C h = 0). It is also note-
worthy that the first two postulates extend the validity of
the above inequality to the two-dimensional fin analysis
for fins of all other shapes (triangular, parabolic, etc.).
We should clarify here that the above inequality pro-
vides only a qualitative
√ result and does not indicate how
small the value of Bi or Bi should be. The decision for
a suitable value of the Biot number will be determined
from the effectiveness, available space, and other con-
siderations. The authors in [26] suggest that due to the
several simplifying assumptions—especially the con-
stant heat transfer coefficient that overestimates the√ heat
dissipation—one should consider only values of Bi to
be of the order O(0.1). Similarly, Bejan [28], uses the
definition of effectiveness and concludes that for longi-
tudinal fins and spines, ε f  1. Therefore, fins operat-
the two-dimensional analysis should be applied.” This
statement is apparently in violation of the first postulate;
thus, a two-dimensional analysis is not going to be of
any help.
We must emphasize here that one should carefully
consider Eq. (11) and not expect that by decreasing the
value of Bi it will result in an indefinite increase of
the heat dissipation. This is a required but not sufficient
condition. Note that we have not yet said anything about
be discussed later. We can only conclude here that fins
must be designed so that the value of the Biot number
is much smaller than one. Previous studies have deter-
mined that for these values of the Biot number, Eqs. (9),
(10), and (11) retain their validity. We can now obtain
the following simple expressions for a longitudinal fin:
√
Q l / Bi = tanh(u) = D(u) (12)
tanh(u)
εfl = √ (13)
Bi
The expressions for the efficiencies are as follows:
D(u)
ηf = longitudinal fins and spines (14a)
2D(v, β)
ηf = annular fins (14b)
v(β2 − 1)
In Eq. (14b), it is preferable to use the parameter
v = u/(β − 1) instead of u, which was used by Gardner
[3]. The expressions of the function D(u) and D(v, β)
for Gardner’s [3] fins are shown in Table 1. Compar-
ing the expressions for η f presented here with those
in textbooks, we can see that similarity analysis con-
siderably simplifies the efficiency equations. Note that
without the assumptions of insulated tip and/or LAI, η f
for straight and pin fins becomes a function of two vari-
ables, while for radial fins it becomes one of three vari-
ables; therefore, their graphical representation would
have been cumbersome. For pin fins, Razelos [29] de-
fines the dimensionless heat dissipation as
hq f
Q= = Bi3/2 D(u) (15)
21/2 kT
ing with such effectiveness must also have Bi  1. Bejan
[28] then arrives at an interesting conclusion, which was Razelos and Imre’s [30] definition of the dimensionless
also derived earlier in Razelos and Georgiou [26]: “The heat dissipation for radial fins resembles the one for
criterion for the validity of the unidirectional heat con- longitudinal fins:
duction has a new meaning, which is the restriction of
the values of the effectiveness.” However, perhaps from q f /2π Ro qr √
Qr = = = BiD(v, β)
an oversight, he further states: “if ε f is marginally larger 2kT 2kT
than one, this does not mean that the fin is not effective, √
it means that the unidirectional treatment is invalid and = BiD(u, β) (16)
16 heat transfer engineering vol. 24 no. 6 2003
Table 1 The functions D(u), D(u, β), and D(v, β) for the
Gardner’s fins

Straight fins, profile y/w = ξn , ξ = x/L, Bi = hwb /k n

tan h(u) 0
1
I2/3 (4u/3)/I−1/3 (4u/3) 2
I1 (2u)/I0 (2u) 1
3
I2 (4u)/I1√(4u) 2
2u/(1 + 1 + 4u 2 ) 2
Spines, profile y/w = ξn , ξ = x/L , Bi = 2hwb /k
tan h(u) 0
I1 (4u/3)/I0 (4u/3) 1/
2
I2 (2u)/I1 (2u) 1
(2u/3)/(1 + 1 + 4u 2 /9) 2
Radial fins, profile y/wb = ξn , ξ = rb /r, Bi = hwb /k
G 1 ×K 1 (u/(β−1))−I1 (u/(β−1))
G 1 ×K 0 (u/β−1))+I0 (u/(β−1))
0, u, β
G 2 ×I−2/3 (2u/3(β−1))−I2/3 (2u/3(β−1))
I−1/3 (2u/3(β−1))−G 2 ×I1/3 (2u/3(β−1))
1, u, β
G 3 ×K 1 (v)−I1 (v)
G 3 ×K 0 (v)+I0 (v)
0, v, β
G 4 ×I−2/3 (2v/3)−I2/3 (2v/3)
I−1/3 (2v/3)−G 4 ×I1/3 (2v/3)
1, v, β
Figure 3 Heat dissipation versus u in Gardner’s straight spines.
I2/3 (2uβ/3(β−1))
G1 = I1 (uβ/(β−1))
K 1 (uβ/(β−1))
, G2 = I−2/3 (2uβ/3(β−1))
I2/3 (2vβ2/3 /3) of magnitude values of the parameter u: for longitudi-
G3 = I1 (vβ)
K 1 (vβ)
, G4 = I−2/3 (2vβ2/3 /3)
nal and radial fins, u must be of O(1.5), and for spines,
u must be of O(2) (as seen in Leinhard [17]). Taking
further into consideration the previous results regard-
√
We shall later see that the above expression is inap- ing the effectiveness, which restricts the value of Bi
propriate to use due to the right-hand side of Eq. (16), to O(0.1), we obtain an order of magnitude O(15) for
which employs the parameter u. Here we are using it the ratio L/w, in longitudinal fins. Therefore, in prac-
only to keep the parameters consistent with those used tice, there are not (or should not) be any thick fins. It
by Gardner [3]. The variation of the function D versus u is noteworthy that Figures 2 and 3 confirm the second
or u and β are shown in Figures 2–5. Consequently, one postulate. We can also observe from these two figures
can obtain the heat dissipation directly for any given that for a given base thickness, the heat dissipation in-
fin without refering to the efficiency. Another impor- creases as u(L) increases. The results for radial fins (as
tant fact that can be obtained by examining the shape of plotted in Figures 4 and 5), however, show an inconsis-
these figures is the suitable magnitude of the parame- tency: by increasing u, the heat dissipation with fixed
ter u. By applying the principle of diminishing returns, w and β reaches a maximum and then decreases as u
we can readily determine the following suitable order continues to increase. In addition, a closer inspection of

Figure 2 Heat dissipation versus u in Gardner’s straight fins. Figure 4 Heat dissipation in Gardner’s radial fin versus u.
heat transfer engineering vol. 24 no. 6 2003 17
 Figure 6 Heat dissipation in Gardner’s radial fin versus reduced
height.
Figure 5 Heat dissipation Gardner’s radial fin versus u.

these two figures reveals that the second postulate is not
confirmed. This is an example of the inconsistent results
that have been obtained by choosing inappropriate non-
dimensional parameters. To explain this discrepancy, let
us examine the parameter u:
 
 lows the practicing engineers to determine the influence
u = L h/wk = (β − 1) hrb2 wk = v(β − 1)
If one uses u as a parameter, then the ratio β, which is
a given parameter, also appears in the abscissa. Razelos
and Imre [30] analyzed the circular fins using the in-
dependent dimensionless variables β and v. Note that
v 2 = hrb2 /kw = Br2 /Bi, where Br = hrb /k, the surface
√
Biot number. Substituting the parameter Bi = Br /v
in Eq. (16), we obtain the following dimensionless heat
dissipation:
qf
Qr =
4π hrb2 T
dissipation by changing the fin parameters instead of
obtaining it from the efficiency.
In the next section, we discuss the optimization of
fins and present a method that permits the students to be-
come familiar with preliminary fin design. This method,
which considerably simplifies the design process, al-
(17)
of the thermal parameters h and k upon the fin’s opti-
mum dimensions. Before embarking on the assessment
of the simplifying assumptions and optimization, how-
ever, we develop some interesting relationships that will
enable anyone to evaluate the performance of a given fin
from its geometry only. Considering Eq. (3) and taking
(18)

The functions D(v, β) = v Q r are shown in Table 1

and have been plotted in Figures 6 and 7 versus the
reduced fin’s height β − 1, with different values of v
for the constant thickness and hyperbolic profile fins.
In addition, the efficiency of the constant thickness fin
has been plotted in Figure 8. Now, the comparison of
the results shown in Figures 6 and 7 confirm the second
postulate. Recall that the Figures 2–7 should be used
strictly to determine the performance of a given fin in
exactly the same way that it was done up to now using
the efficiency. We feel that it will be educationally more
advantageous to the students to use these graphs that Figure 7 Heat dissipation in Gardner’s radial fin versus reduced
give a visual perception as to what happens to the heat height.

18 heat transfer engineering vol. 24 no. 6 2003

 One-Dimensional Conduction

Irey [31] and Lau and Tan [32] investigated the cri-
teria for the validity of the one-dimensional conduction
for the three types of fins considered here. Irey exam-
ined the cylindrical spine using the parameters Bi and
L/w, with their values ranging between 0.04 and 10 and
0.01 and 100, respectively, while Lau and Tan exam-
ined the straight and annular type fins, using the same
parameters with values of 0.01 ≤ L/w ≤ 500 and
0.01 ≤ Bi ≤ 10. In both papers, the conclusions are
confusing, due to the incorrect dimensionless param-
eters L/w and Bi and the wide range of their values.
Despite their correct analytical solutions, the authors ne-
glected to consider the practical aspects of the problem.
For example, have the authors ever seen in any practical
application the height of the fin to be much smaller then
its thickness? On the other hand, they should have been
aware of Schneider’s [27] mild restriction on the values
Figure 8 Efficiency of annular fin versus reduced height. of the Biot number. However, their graphs that are con-
fined in the range of L/w and Bi encountered in practical
applications, as discussed in the previous section, reveal
into account that the efficiency is always less than one,
that the resulting error by using the unidirectional con-
we obtain the following inequality for the effectiveness:
duction is less than 1 percent. Both graphs confirm the
first postulate. Since we have already established that for
Sf
εf < (19) fins (which act as good heat transfer-enhancing devices)
Sb the Biot number must be Bi  1, the one-dimensional
conduction is valid. Despite the previous results, sev-
For the fins considered here, we readily obtain the fol- eral authors have attempted to solve fin problems us-
lowing expressions: ing the two-dimensional approach, either analytically
or numerically, and compare their results with those ob-
L tained using with the one-dimensional model. However,
εf < longitudinal fins (20)
w they never took into consideration the reasons for using
fins—to enhance the heat transfer from the primary sur-
ε f < 2L/w pin fins (21) face, which is expressed by the effectiveness—or all
previously derived constraints regarding the appropri-
L(β + 1)
εf = radial fins (22) ate dimensionless variables, small values of Bi, and the
2w restrictions on the fin geometry expressed by Eqs. (20)–
(22). In every case, the one-dimensional analysis was in-
Therefore, one can now readily estimate the limits of valid, having used Bi values larger than one, very short,
the fin’s effectiveness without getting involved with any thick fins, and a L/w much smaller than one—which
mathematical analysis. Note that the above expressions means that these authors did not really analyze fins but
and those obtained earlier show that fins must always perfectly insulated surfaces, which resulted in erroneous
be thermally and geometrically thin. conclusions.
With all due respect to the authors, we are compelled
to cite the following typical examples of such fin analy-
ASSESSMENT OF THE SIMPLIFYING ses: Aziz and Nguyen [33] employed the finite element
ASSUMPTIONS method to obtain the two-dimensional effects in a tri-
angular convecting fin. They use the same parameters
In this section, we briefly discuss the validity of the and same range of values as in Lau and Tan [32]. We
simplifying assumptions, starting with the comparison believe that their results are incorrect, and even in the
of assumptions 1 (one-dimensional conduction) and 11 practical range of values 5 ≤ L/w ≤ 15 and Bi = 0.01,
(length of arc idealization) that both depend on the Biot the authors have obtained very large errors. They have
number. also concluded that for certain values of Bi > 1, the
heat transfer engineering vol. 24 no. 6 2003 19
heat dissipation obtained using the two-dimensional
method can be larger than the one determined by the
one-dimensional conduction, and that for given ratios
L/w and Bi, the triangular profile fin dissipates more
heat than its rectangular counterpart. These results vi-
olate both the first and second postulates. In another
paper, Aziz and Tesarik [34] consider a constant thick-
ness longitudinal fin with asymmetric boundary condi-
tions, where the base and the tip were held at constant
temperatures. In their analysis, they use the parameters
0.1 ≤ L/w ≤ 100, Bi = 0.005, 0.01, 0, 1, 0.5, 1, 2, 5,
and 10, and dimensionless temperature ratio θ∗ =
(Te −Ta )/(Tb −Ta ) = 0.00, 0.5, 0.75, and 1. The authors
not only used inappropriate dimensionless parameters,
but instead of subtracting the two heat fluxes from the
ends of the fin, they added them; as a result, they have
obtained erroneous results that show that when θ∗ in-
creases, the total heat transfer increases instead of de-
creasing. (Razelos and Krikkis [35] have obtained the
correct solution of this problem.)
Also, Aziz [36] examined the effects of internal
heat generation, anisotropy, and base temperature non-
uniformity on the performance of a rectangular longitu-
dinal fin. He used a finite-element program to solve this
problem, considering it to be two-dimensional. How-
ever, his analysis is based on many mathematical errors
and employed several inappropriate dimensionless pa-
rameters. Although a thorough discussion of this work
is not possible here, we will only point out that due to
his incorrect Eq. (11), he obtained the fallacious result
where the fin heat dissipation increases by increasing
the internal heat generation, which violates the basic
energy equation. In another paper, Aziz and Nguyen
[37] attempted to analyze the two-dimensional perfor-
mance of convecting-radiating fin of different profiles.
The authors again are using inappropriate dimensionless
variables, and their Eq. (2b) is incorrect. As shown by
Razelos and Kakatsios [38], the appropriate dimension-√
less parameters for convecting-radiating fins are Bi, u,
and the ratio h r / h, with h r being the radiation heat trans-
fer coefficient εσ Tb3 . Consequently, Aziz and Nguyen
[37] have obtained several incorrect results. For exam-
ple, in their analysis of the four profiles they consid-
ered, they have determined that when Bi = 10, the heat
dissipation obtained by employing the one-dimensional
model is smaller to the one predicted using the two-
dimensional analysis. The same authors have made sim-
ilar mistakes in another paper [39].
Thomas [19] states: “For values of Bi much greater
than 0.1 multidimensionality must be accounted for in
the fin analysis.” This statement contradicts the first
postulate, which indicates that the two-dimensional ap-
proach is not going to be of any help. Aparecido and
Cotta [40] present “an improved one-dimensional fin so-
20 heat transfer engineering
lutions,” which is also discussed by Huang and Shah [8].
They use the dimensionless parameters 1 ≤ L/w ≤ 5
and values of Bi = 0.01, 0.1, 1, and 10. They also con-
sidered a tip Biot number Bi∗ = h e w/k = Bi. They jus-
tify their analysis with the erroneous statement: “Appli-
cation of one-dimensional classical approach is severely
restricted to situations with Biot numbers much smaller
than unity.” Apparently, the authors were not even aware
of Schneider’s [27] mild criterion on the value of Bi.
Their solution is an infinite series, the eigenvalues of
which are determined from the roots of a certain tran-
scendental equation. It has been shown, however, in
Razelos and Georgiou [26] that due to the nature of the
roots of the pertinent transcendental equations and the
restriction of using very small values Biot numbers,
the solutions for the three types of fins considered are
represented adequately by the first term of the series;
hence the two-dimensional solution is no more com-
plicated than the one-dimensional one. For example,
in the case of a constant thickness longitudinal fin, the
two-dimensional expression for the heat dissipation is
reduced to
 √ 
qf √ C h Bi + α1 tanh(u)
Q 2−D = = 2 Bi
2kT α1 1 + Bi + α21
(23)
In Eq. (23) we use the symbols C h = h e / h, and α1 =
1 − Bi/6. For very small values of Bi, we may neglect
Bi in comparison to one; thus, the above expression be-
comes identical to the one-dimensional solution Eq. (8).
Finally, certain comments on the latest treatise Ex-
tended Surface Heat Transfer by Kraus et al. [41] are in
order, because the purpose of this book is to guide stu-
dents and practicing engineers interested in the analysis
and design of fins. In their preface, the authors correctly
state: “Extended surfaces, in the forms of longitudinal
or radial or spines are ubiquitous in applications where
there is a need to enhance the heat transfer between a
surface and the adjacent fluid.” Discussing further the
usefulness criteria for longitudinal fins of rectangular
profile, they rederive Schneider’s [27] argument that
fins must be designed with values of Bi < 1; other-
wise, the heat flow would be retracted, as the fin will act
as an insulation surface. However, in their discussion
of the multidimensional heat conduction, they point out
that according to Lou and Tans [32], “as Bi increases
the error (meaning the difference between one and two-
dimensional solutions) is as high as 60% for Bi = 10,
and L/w > 1”. Unfortunately, this book is swarming
with discussions of examples that contain many erro-
neous results, such as those mentioned earlier in this
section.
vol. 24 no. 6 2003
The Length of Arc Idealization (LAI)
Razelos and Georgiou [42] have examined this prob-
lem with regard to the forms of the fins considered here.
They have assumed a general fin profile of the following
form:
y as shown in Figure 1a, except that the y-axis is now
f (ξ) = = λ + (1 − λ)ξn (24)
wb
where in Eq. (24) ξ = x/L and λ = we /wb . In this
case, the lateral surface without the LAI becomes
 1/2
dS Bi
= 1 + 2 (1 − λ2 )n 2 ξ2(n−1) (25)
dξ u
Evidently, the maximum error is introduced when ξ = 1
and λ = 0, while there is no error for λ = 1, the constant
thickness fin. Notice that all the profiles considered by
Gardner [3], with the exception of the constant thickness
fins, have tip to base surface ratio λ = 0. The error in the
heat dissipation, which is introduced by approximating
the above equation with d S/dξ = 1, has been evaluated
in [42], and it was found that values of Bi and u, which
are compatible with the effectiveness argument given
earlier, are less than 1%.
Variable Thermal Parameters k and h
(assumptions 5 and 6)
In this case, new parameters will enter in the differ-
ential equations, and the solution can be obtained either
analytically or numerically. One such example is the
case where the heat transfer coefficient at the top and
the bottom of the fin are different. Look [43] addressed
this problem using the two-dimensional approach, but
he did not obtain any results. He based his investiga-
tion on the following rather absurd statement: “A sit-
uation where the usual one-dimensional assumption is
particularly in error is when the heat transfer coeffi-
cients (other than the tip) are not equal.” This statement
is also quoted in Kraus et al. [41]. Why the different heat
transfer coefficients would require a two-dimensional
solution approach neither Look nor the authors in [41]
could explain. To show how ridiculous this statement
is, consider for example the extreme case where h at
the bottom is equal to zero (adiabatic bottom surface).
In this case, the heat transfer coefficients at the top and
bottom are equal for a fin of thickness 4wb . As we have
already shown, the only requirement here for justifying
solution, provided that the criterion of validity of one-
dimensional conduction is retained. We should mention
here that for a fin to be effective, the above require-
ment is mandatory. Now consider a constant thickness
rectangular fin of thickness 2wb and height L. The heat
transfer coefficients at the top and bottom of the fin are
h + and h − , respectively. The coordinates are the same
located at the distance of some equivalent distance weq
from the bottom. The semithickness weq is defined as
follows:
2wb
we = where C h = h − / h + (26)
(1 + C h )
Introducing the usual dimensionless
 parameters Bieq =
h + weq /k, u eq = (L/weq ) Bieq and ξ = x/L, we ob-
tain the solution of the fin problem that was previously
discussed. Note that in this case, the adiabatic surface
is located at y = weq . For h − = h + , Eq. (26) yields
weq = wb , while as h − decreases, the adiabatic surface
moves towards the bottom and for h − = 0, weq = 2wb ;
thus the bottom surface is now adiabatic. Details of the
solution to this problem are given in Razelos [44]. We
should point out here that the preceding analysis is not
limited to constant thickness fins.
Variable Base Temperature (Assumption 8)
Carslaw and Jaeger [45] solved the problem where
the heat transfer coefficient is the same in all surfaces
over forty years ago. Look [46], who apparently was
not aware of the Carslaw and Jaeger solution, has also
considered this problem, but instead of focusing on the
temperature variation, he instead considered different
coefficients on all three surfaces of the fin. His solution
contains the roots of some erroneous transcendental
equations. He did not use any dimensionless temper-
ature, considered one rather unrealistic base temper-
ature distribution, and employed some unacceptably
large values of the Biot numbers ranging from 0.1 to 1.
Let us assume here that the temperature at the base of a
longitudinal fin is
θb = f (y/w) = f (η) (27)
The dimensionless temperature θ is defined as θ =
(T − Ta )/(T̄b − Ta ). For the sake of brevity, we consider
here the solution given [45] for an insulated tip. As we
have pointed out earlier, in order for the results to be
compatible with the effectiveness, we should consider
the one-dimensional conduction is the value of the Biot only values of Bi  1. We have also shown in Razelos
number 2hwb /k  1. In fact, this problem of different and Georgiou [26] that in this case it would suffice to
heat transfer coefficients admits a simple unidirectional take only the predominant first term of the series. We
heat transfer engineering vol. 24 no. 6 2003 21
then have the following expression for dimensionless distinct cases: in the first one the profile of the fin is pre-
temperature: scribed, while in the second case we are searching to de-

termine the profile. (A third type, which we are not going
2 Bi2 + λ21 cos(λ1 η)(cosh(λ1 ξ)) to examine here, is an extension of the above two prob-
θ= 2
lems, where the optimization considers the entire fin as-
Bi + λ21 + Bi cosh(u)
sembly.) The results of the first two types of problems
 1 will introduce the students to preliminary fin design.
× f (η) cos(λ1 η)dη (28)
0
Optimization Problem One: Given the Fin’s Profile
In the above equation, ξ = x/wb , and λ1 is the positive
root of the transcendental equation This is the more practical of the two problems. In
line with our principle of always using the similarity
λ1 tan(λ1 ) = Bi (29) analysis and considering fins that abide with the ex-
√ tended Gardner-Murray simplifying assumptions, we
It can be readily shown that the root λ1 ≈ Bi only for define below a dimensionless volume U for each type
small values of Bi. Therefore, as we have done earlier, of fin.
the above equation is simplified to
√ √ h2 V
 √ Ul = = uBi1/2 longitudinal fins (32)
cos( Biη) cosh( Biξ) 1 2k 2 C V
θ= f (η) cos( Biη)dη
cosh(u) 0
21/2 h 3 V
(30) Us = = uBi5/2 circular pin fins (33)
π k 3CV
Because Bi1/2  1 and 0 ≤ η ≤ 1, we √ can further
kV g(β)
simplify the above equation by taking cos( Biη) ≈ 1 Ur = = 2 radial fins (34)
to obtain the following simple first approximation:
4
4π hrb v
√ The symbol C V in Eqs. (32) and (33) represents the
cosh( Biξ)
θ= θ̄ (31) ratio V /Vc , where Vc is the corresponding constant
cosh(u) thickness longitudinal fin or spine. For radial fins, the
function g(β) is equal to (β2 − 1)/2, (β − 1)(β + 2)/6,
Note that for ξ = 1, the base temperature is equal to θ̄; and (β − 1)/2 for the constant thickness, triangular,
hence this is the one-dimensional conduction solution and least material (hyperbolic) fins, respectively. For
with base temperature equal to θ̄. longitudinal fins and spines, the stationary values of
We feel that the temperature variation at the base Q (given previously) and U must satisfy the
of the fin across its thickness is not that significant. In √ following
relationship, where for the sake of brevity Bi will be
longitudinal fins, however, the variation of the base tem- denoted here by t:
perature along the z-axis might be important. Razelos      
[47] has tackled this problem and shown that under the ∂Q ∂U ∂Q ∂U
− =0 (35)
simplifying assumption 13, the heat transfer from the ∂t ∂u ∂u ∂t
fin can be obtained simply by using the space average
base temperature. Note
√ that we always refer to the optimum parameters
t ( Bi) and u; by introducing the corresponding ex-
pressions of Q and U into Eq. (35) and carrying out the
OPTIMIZATION algebra, we obtain the transcendental equations
d D(u)
Fletcher [48] considers the subject of optimization 3u − D(u) = 0 longitudinal fins (36)
to be a fascinating blend of heuristics and rigor, the- du
ory and experiment. Considering only an isolated fin, d D(u)
optimization is determined as “given the volume or the 5u − 3D(u) = 0 pin fins (37)
du
desired heat dissipation of the fin, determine its dimen-
sions that will maximize the heat dissipation or will The solutions of the above equations determine the
minimize its volume.” The problem, however, is not optimum values of u and D, hence the parameters Bi
completely specified, because one more piece of in- and L/w. Note that the functions D(u) for 11 profiles
formation is needed that separates the problem in two treated by Gardner are shown in Table 1. What is of
22 heat transfer engineering vol. 24 no. 6 2003
Table 2 Optimum values of D, u, w∗ , L ∗ , V ∗ , and η, for Recall that in the above equations, the symbols u and D
Gardner’s fins always refer to their optimum values (the subscript opt
Longitudinal fins with profile y/wb = ξn is omitted). Therefore, the optimum dimensions of any
1 3
n 0 2
1 2
2 fin are determined from the above expressions, which
CV 1 2
3
1
2
2
5
1
3
depend solely on the fin’s profile; hence it is logical to
D 0.8894 0.8323 0.7773 0.7333 0.7071 bear the name profile coefficients. The interesting obser-
u 1.4192 1.3540 1.3094 1.3218 1.4142 vation here is that the influence of the thermal param-
w∗ 0.3160 0.3609 0.4138 0.4649 0.5000 eters upon the optimum dimensions is quite different
L∗ 0.7978 0.8139 0.8423 0.9013 1.0000 when the optimization is based on a given q f or V . No-
V∗ 0.5043 0.3906 0.3485 0.3352 0.3333
η 0.6267 0.6147 0.5936 0.5548 0.5000
tice that the coefficients for any given volume can be
readily obtained from those given q f . Therefore, it suf-
Pin fins with profile y/wb = ξn ξ = x/L
n 0 1
1 2 fices to give only their values for given q f , and for all
2
CV 1 1 1 1 types of fins treated by Gardner [3], which are shown
2 3 5
2 1 1 in Table 2. From the tabulated results, we see that the
CS 1 3 2 3
values of the optimum efficiencies of straight fins are
D 0.7256 0.6123 0.5526 0.5000
u 0.9193 1.1749 1.4322 2.0000
0.5 ≤ η f ≤ 0.6257, which may prompt someone to
W∗ 0.4582 0.5131 0.5494 0.5873 declare these fins to be quite inefficient. However, in
L∗ 0.4400 0.5951 0.7505 1.0838 radial fins, the optimum dimensions depend not only on
V∗ 0.2903 0.2462 0.2373 0.2349 the parameters β and v but also on the values of Q or U ,
η 0.7893 0.7817 0.7717 0.7500 (q f or V ), whichever is specified. As a result, plots of
β and v versus Q are exhibited in Razelos [29] and also
vital importance here is that the solutions (values of included in the paper by Aziz [50]. In practical appli-
the optimum values of u and D(u)) are independent cations, there is no zero tip surface or even nearly zero,
of the specific values of U or Q. They depend only on and the most common profile is the trapezoidal, which
the fin’s profile. Razelos [49] introduced the following is described the ratio λ = wb /we . This practical reality
optimum dimensionless quantities (expressed in terms was recognized first by Chung et al. [51] who deter-
of u and D), the values of which for longitudinal mined the optimum dimensions longitudinal fins with a
fins and spines are shown in Table 2. They serve to trapezoidal profile. Razelos and Satyaprakash [52] and
determine directly the optimum dimensions of the fin Das and Razelos [53] have also considered trapezoidal
for a given q f or V and clearly show how the optimum profiles of straight fins and spines. To facilitate the cal-
dimensions are influenced by the thermal parameters culations in [52, 53], correlations of the profile coeffi-
h, k, and the given q f or V : cients have been obtained in terms of the parameter λ.
Given heat dissipation q f , For the longitudinal fins, the author proposes the fol-
lowing expression valid for 0.01 ≤ λ ≤ 0.5 when q f is
hkwopt 0.25 specified:
w∗ = = 2 (38a)
(q f /T ) 2 D
w ∗ = 1/(2.41704 + 0.90496 × λ − 0.18124 × λ2 )
h L opt 0.5u
L∗ = = (38b) (40a)
(q f /T ) D
L ∗ = 1/(1.87783 + 0.21467λ − 0.39364λ2
h 2 kVopt 0.25Cv u
V ∗ = 2w∗ L ∗ = = (38c)
(q f /T )3 D3 + 0.32341λ2 ) (40b)

Given fin volume V , V ∗ = 0.34607 + 0.16199 × λ + 0.00216 × λ2 (40c)

 2/3
k w∗ In Das and Razelos [53], the authors give the following
wV∗ = × wopt = (39a)
hV 2 (V ∗ )2/3 correlations for the optimum values of u and D:
 1/3
h w∗ u opt = 1.4183 − 1.28137λ + 1.39199λ2
L ∗V = × L opt = (39b)
kV 2 (V ∗ )1/3
− 0.65847 × λ3 (41a)
qf 1
Q∗ = = (39c)
(kh V ) T
2 1/3 ∗
(V )1/3 Dopt = 0.54413 + 0.07513 × λ + 0.12241 × λ2 (41b)
heat transfer engineering vol. 24 no. 6 2003 23
Radial trapezoidal profile fins are considered in Razelos
and Imre [30]. Razelos used the results obtained there
for values of λ = 1.0 and 0.001 to determine the fol-
lowing correlations:
For constant thickness annular fins,
β − 1 = [(0.39554 + 1.07298Q)1/2
− 0.62892]/0.53649 (42a)
w∗ = 1/[3.15343 + 1.66650(β − 1)
+ 0.18469(β − 1)2 ] (42b)
V ∗ = 1/[1.97522 + 0.91766(β − 1)
+ 0.10042(β − 1)2 ] (42c)
For nearly triangular profile annular fins,
β − 1 = [(0.33589 + 1.021326Q)1/2
− 0.57956]/0.51066 (43a)
w∗ = 1/[2.41100 + 1.21249(β − 1)
+ 0.14477(β − 1)2 ] (43b)
∗
V = 1/[2.85386 + 1.65653(β − 1)
+ 0.22798(β − 1)2 ] (43c)
The quantities w ∗ and V ∗ are similar to those with lon-
gitudinal fins, with the exception that q f is now the heat
dissipation given per unit length of the base perimeter
2πrb . Zubair et al. [54], Laor and Kalman [55], Ulmann
and Kalman [56], and Unal [57] have recently obtained
the optimum dimensions of different profiles circular
fins.
Optimization Problem Two: The Quest
for the Optimum Profiles
Using a heuristic approach, Schmidt [58] was the first
to show that in order to maximize q f in a longitudinal
fin of volume V , the temperature distribution should be
linear along the height of the fin. This linear tempera-
ture variation results in a parabolic profile. Later, Focke
[59] used the same intuitive argument to obtain the same
results for the pin fins. Over three decades later, Duffin
[60] gave a rigorous proof of the Schmidt problem by
assuming the heat dissipation given. We wish to em-
phasize here that all these results were obtained under
24 heat transfer engineering
the Gardner-Murray simplifying assumptions. Jany and
Bejan [61] extended the Schmidt problem by relaxing
the fifth assumption, considering k to be a function of
the temperature. They have shown that in this case, the
requirement is not that the slope dT /d x be constant but
rather the product k(T )dT /d x. They have derived the
corresponding profiles, which are no longer parabolic.
Razelos and Imre [62] also extended Schmidt’s prob-
lem by relaxing the sixth assumption in simply assum-
ing h = h(x). They examined all three forms of fins
considered here. They have shown that under the above
condition, the temperature variation must be linear for
straight and annular fins but not for spines. In their paper,
they have also derived the Jany-Bejan result. The op-
timum dimensions of the Schmidt-Duffin longitudinal
and pin fins are obtained as before from their parabolic
profiles. We now give the expressions of the profile and
the correlations for the optimum dimensions of annular
fins from Maday [63], which have not been reported in
the literature:
y (β − ξ)2 (β + 2ξ)
= ξ = r/ro profile (37a)
w ξ(β − 1)2 (β + 2)
β − 1 = 0.5 × [(9 + 24 × Q r )1/2 − 3] (37b)
hkwopt 1.5
w∗ = = (37c)
(qr /T )2 β+2
kh 2 Vopt 0.75 × (β2 − 1)
V∗ = = (37d)
(qr /T )3 (β + 2)2
Maday [63], Gucery and Maday [64], and Snider and
Kraus [65] challenged (unsuccessfully) the above opti-
mum profiles for the three types of fins by considering
the Schmidt-Duffin problem without the LAI assump-
tion. In the first two papers, the authors (either by using
large values of heat dissipation or by over-specifying
the boundary conditions) have obtained a wave opti-
mum profile. In the third paper, the authors based their
analysis on an apparent contradiction that resulted from
the performance comparison between triangular and
parabolic profile fins. However, it was pointed out by
Razelos [66] that their apparent contradiction was in-
correct. The incorrect contradiction was acknowledged
later by Snider in [67]. We should emphasize here that
these problems are of rather academic interest, and the
resulting profiles, two parabolic and one hyperbolic, are
impractical. They are given here for the benefit of the
students, who can compare these results with those ob-
tained using other more practical profiles.
Finally, we should add here the following remark,
with regard to the optimization of a given profile fin:
vol. 24 no. 6 2003
as we depart from the constant thickness fin to the NOMENCLATURE
triangular, parabolic, etc., the fin is reshaped so that
its height and thickness increase. This observation has A Area perpendicular to the heat flow, m2 or
been verified form the results shown in Table 2, which m2 /m
also show that for a given value of the heat dissipation, Bi Biot number hw/k or 2hw/k
the volume of the fin or spine decreases as the heat dis- Br surface Biot number hrb /k
sipation increases. Evidently, these results make these Ch ratio of heat transfer coefficients Eq. (22)
profiles seem advantageous. However, in these profiles, CS ratio of surfaces in spines S/Sc
as the base thickness increases, the effectiveness de- CV ratio of volumes V /Vc
creases. Therefore, these fins are less effective, and the D function defined by Eqs. (11), (12), (14), and
number of fins that we can put on a given available area (19)
of the primary surface decreases. Hence, these advan- h heat transfer coefficient, W/m2 -K
tages and disadvantages of the various profiles should In first kind modified Bessel function of order n
be carefully examined. Kn second kind modified Bessel function of
order n
k thermal conductivity, W/m-K
LAI Length of Arc Idealization
CONCLUDING REMARKS O(n) Order of magnitude n
q heat dissipation, W/m or W
In the present work, we have re-examined the ba- Q dimensionless heat dissipation in Eqs. (5),
sic treatment of fins that appears in textbooks. A new (11), (12), and (14)
method for evaluating fin’s performance has been pro- r radial distance, m
posed that can be used to determine directly the heat S surface, m2
dissipation of a given fin without any reference to ef- T temperature, K
ficiency graphs. The latter gives a misleading impres- T Tb − Ta , K
1/2
sion since an increase of η f results in a decrease of u dimensionless volume (L/w)Bi
the heat dissipation. For this reason, we have intro- U dimensionless parameter in Eqs. (25)–(27)
duced instead heat dissipation graphs that should re- V fin volume, m3 /m or m3
place those showing efficiency. We believe that the Vc volume of the constant thickness fins
most important future of this work is the introduc- v dimensionless parameter (rb /wb )2 Bi
tion of an inextricable link between the fin’s perfor- x, y, z Cartesian coordinates, m
mance and its effectiveness, which also is used to
verify the validity of some of the simplifying assump- Greek Symbols
tions, and conclude that effective fins must be ther-
mally and geometrically thin. Researchers now have β ratio of re /rb
a new way of tackling fin problems without warring β−1 reduced height of radial fins L/rb
about using the one- or two-dimensional approach. ε fin effectiveness in Eqs. (2) and (4)
Attention has been drawn to effectiveness instead of η fin efficiency in Eqs. (1a) and (3a)
efficiency, the former being instrumental to fin de-
Subscripts
sign while the later cannot be used for this purpose.
Similarly, we have also introduced total effectiveness,
b base of the fin
which we believe should be used instead of total ef-
c constant thickness
ficiency, as well as three postulates that will help to
e tip of the fin
compare the performance of different profiles fins.
f fin
It is hoped that these discussions and results on the
l longitudinal fin
optimum fin problem will help students become in-
r radial fin
volved with at least rudimentary design of extended
s spine
surfaces. Finally, we would like to beg the indulgence
t total
from the authors whose work have been criticized,
for in the course of strengthening the important con-
REFERENCES
cepts introduced here, the criticism of previous work
becomes inevitable. We would like to close this sec- [1] Harper, D. R., and Brown, W. B., Mathematical Equations for
tion by joining Professor Heggs and saying “goodbye, Heat Conduction in the Fins in Air Cooled Engines, NACA
efficiency!” technical report, p. 158, 1922.

heat transfer engineering vol. 24 no. 6 2003 25

 [2] Jakob, M., Heat Transfer, vol. I, John Wiley and Sons,
New York, 1956.
[3] Gardner, K. A., Efficiency of Extended Surfaces, Trans. ASME,
vol. 67, pp. 621–631, 1945.
[4] Murray, W. M., Heat Dissipation through an Annular Disk
or Fin of Uniform Thickness, Journal of Applied Mechanics,
vol. 5, pp. A78–A80, 1938.
[5] Kern, D., and Kraus, A. D., Extended Surface Heat Transfer,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1972.
[6] Kraus, A. D., Analysis of Extended Surface, ASME Journal of
Heat Transfer, vol. 10, pp. 1071–1081, 1988.
[7] Rohsenow, W. M., Hartnett, J. P., and Ganic, E. N., Handbook
of Heat Transfer, vol. 2, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1985.
[8] Huang, L. J., and Shah, R. K., Assessment of Calculations
Methods for Efficiency of Straight Fins of Rectangular Profile,
International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, vol. 13, no. 3,
pp. 282–293. 1992.
[9] Fraas, A. T., and Ozisik, M. N., Heat Exchanger Design, John
Wiley and Sons, New York, 1965.
[10] Kakac, A., et al., Heat Exchanger Thermal-Hydraulic Funda-
mentals and Design, Hemisphere Publishing Corp., New York,
1981.
[11] Yeh, R. H., Optimum Dimensions of Longitudinal Rectangular
Fins and Cylindrical Pin Fins with Variable Heat Transfer Co-
efficients, Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering, vol. 74,
pp. 144–151, 1996.
[12] White, F. M., Heat Transfer, Addison-Wesley, New York,
1984.
[13] Bayazitoglou, Y., and Ozisik, M. N., Elements of Heat Transfer,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1988.
[14] Holman, J. P., Heat Transfer, McGraw-Hill, New York,
1990.
[15] Incropera, F. N., and Dewitt, D. P., Fundamentals of Heat and
Mass Transfer, John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1990.
[16] Kreith, F., and Bohn, M. S., Principles of Heat Transfer, Harper
and Row Publishers, New York, 1990.
[17] Leinhard, J. H., A Heat Transfer Textbook, Prentice Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1981.
[18] Mills, A. M., Heat Transfer, R. D. Irwin, Inc., Boston, MA,
1992.
[19] Tomas, L. C., Heat Transfer, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey, 1992.
[20] Krause, W. B., and Peters, A. B., Heat Transfer from Horizontal
Serrated Finned Tubes in an Air-Fluidized Bed of Uniformly
Sized Particles, ASME Journal of Heat Transfer, vol. 105,
pp. 319–324, 1983.
[21] Mote, R., Probert, S. D., and Nevrala, D., The Performance of
a Coiled Finned-Tube Heat Exchanger in a Hot Water Store:
The Effect of the Exchanger’s Orientation, Applied Energy,
vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 1991.
[22] Samie, F., and Sparrow, E. M., Heat Transfer from a Yawed
Finned Tube, ASME Journal of Heat Transfer, vol. 108,
pp. 479–482, 1986.
[23] Mutlu, I., and Al-Shemmeri, T. T., Steady State and Transient
Performance Longitudinal Fin Array, Int. Comm. Heat Trans-
fer, vol. 20, pp. 133–143, 1993.
[24] Karagiozis, A., et al., Natural Convection Heat Transfer from
Arrays of Isothermal Triangular Fins, ASME Journal of Heat
Transfer, vol. 116, pp. 105–111, 1994.
[25] Heggs, P. J., Fin Effectiveness Is a Better Performance In-
dicator than Fin Efficiency, Transactions of the 6th UK Na-
tional Conference on Heat Transfer, Heriot-Watt University,
Edinburgh, pp. 3–12, 1999.
26 heat transfer engineering
[26] Razelos, P., and Georgiou, E., Two-Dimensional Effects and
Design Criteria for Convective Extended Surfaces, Heat Trans-
fer Engineering, vol. 13, pp. 38–48, 1992.
[27] Schneider, P. J., Conduction Heat Transfer, Addison-Wesley,
New York, 1995.
[28] Bejan, A., Heat Transfer, John Wiley and Sons, New York,
1992.
[29] Razelos, P., The Optimum Dimensions of Convective Pin Fins,
ASME Journal of Heat Transfer, vol. 105, pp. 412–413, 1983.
[30] Razelos, P., and Imre, R., Minimum Mass of Circular Fins,
ASME Journal of Heat Transfer, vol. 102, pp. 420–425,
1983.
[31] Irey, R. K., Errors in One-Dimensional Fin Solution, ASME
Journal of Heat Transfer, vol. 80, pp. 175–176, 1968.
[32] Lau, W., and Tan, C. W., Errors in One-Dimensional Heat
Transfer Analysis in Straight and Annular Fins, ASME Journal
of Heat Transfer, vol. 95, pp. 549–551, 1973.
[33] Aziz, A., and Nguyen, H., Two-Dimensional Effects in Trian-
gular Convecting Fins, Journal of Thermophysics, vol. 6, no. 1,
pp. 165–167, 1992.
[34] Aziz, A., and Tesarik, D. R., Two-Dimensional Heat Transfer
from a Rectangular Fin with Asymmetrical Boundary Condi-
tions, Int. Comm. of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 19, pp. 229–
238, 1992.
[35] Razelos, P., and Krikkis, R. N., Two-Dimensional Heat Trans-
fer from a Rectangular Fin with Asymmetrical Boundary Con-
ditions, Int. Comm. of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 29, no. 7,
pp. 1015–1019, 2002.
[36] Aziz, A., The Effects of Heat Generation, Anisotropy, and
Base Temperature Non-Uniformity on Heat Transfer from a
Two-Dimensional Rectangular Fins, Heat Transfer Engineer-
ing, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 63–70, 1993.
[37] Aziz, A., and Nguyen, H., Two-Dimensional Performance of
Convecting-Radiating Fins of Different Profiles, Wärme und
Stoffübertrangug, vol. 28, pp. 481–487, 1993.
[38] Razelos, P., and Kakatsios, X., Optimum Dimensions of
Convecting-Radiating Fins, Part I: Longitudinal Fins, Applied
Thermal Engineering, vol. 20, pp. 1161–1192, 2000.
[39] Nguyen, H., and Aziz, A., Heat Transfer from Convecting-
Radiating Fins of Different Profile Shape, Wärme und
Stoffübertrangug, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 67–72, 1992.
[40] Aparecido, J. B., and Cotta, R. M., Improved One-Dimensional
Fin Solution, Heat Transfer Engineering, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 49–
59, 1990.
[41] Kraus, A. D., Aziz, A., and Welty, J., Extended Surface Heat
Transfer, John Wiley & Sons, New York, pp. xiii, 69, 702,
2000.
[42] Razelos, P., and Georgiou, E., Errors Due to the Length of Arc
Idealization in Convective Extended Surfaces, Heat Transfer
Engineering, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 19–24, 1994.
[43] Look, D. C., Jr., Two-Dimensional Fin Performance: Bi (top
surface) ≥ Bi (bottom surface), ASME Heat Transfer, vol. 110,
pp. 780–782, 1988.
[44] Razelos, P., and Krikkis, R., Two-Dimensional Fin Perfor-
mance: Bi (top surface) ≥ Bi (bottom surface), to appear in
Inter. Com. of Heat and Mass Transfer.
[45] Carslaw, H. S., and Jaeger, J. C., Conduction of Heat in Solids,
2nd ed., Oxford University Press, New York, 1959.
[46] Look, D. C., Jr., Two-Dimensional Fin with Non-Constant
Root Temperature, International Journal of Heat and Mass
Transfer, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 977–980, 1989.
[47] Razelos, P., Heat Transfer Notes, College of Staten Island,
CUNY, New York, 1982.
vol. 24 no. 6 2003
[48] Fletcher, R., Practical Methods of Optimization, John Wiley APPENDIX
and Sons, New York, 2000.
[49] Razelos, P., The Optimization of Longitudinal Convective Fins In this appendix, we present the proof of the first
with Internal Heat Generation, Nuclear Engineering and De-
sign, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 289–299, 1979.
postulate. We consider the constant thickness of longi-
[50] Aziz, A., Optimum Dimensions of Extended Surfaces Oper- tudinal, radial, and circular spines (of thickness 2w and
ating in a Convective Environment, Appl. Mech. Rev., vol. 45, height L) having constant thermal parameters k and h.
no. 5, pp. 155–173, 1992. The base of the fin is at temperature Tb and the am-
[51] Chung, B. T. F., Mahmoud, H., Abdalla, M. H., and Liu, F., bient fluid temperature is Ta . The abscissa and the or-
Optimization of Convective Longitudinal Fins of Trapezoidal
dinate along the fin’s profile and its thickness are lo-
Profile, Chem. Eng. Comm., vol. 80, pp. 211–223, 1989.
[52] Razelos, P., and Satyaprakash, B. R., Analysis and Optimiza- cated at the center of the fin in order to preserve the
tion of Trapezoidal Profile Fins, ASME Journal of Heat Trans- symmetry.
fer, vol. 115, pp. 461–463, 1993. The dimensionless temperature θ = (T − Ta )/
[53] Satyaprakash, D., and Razelos, P., Optimization of Convective (T − Tb ) must satisfy the following problem:
Circular Pin Fins, Int. Comm. Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 24,
no. 4, pp. 533–541, 1997.
   
[54] Zubair, S. M. et al., The Optimal Dimensions of Circular Fins 1 ∂ ∂θ ∂2 θ
with Variable Profile and Temperature-Dependent Thermal x m
+ =0 (A1)
Conductivity, International Journal of Heat and Mass Trans-
xm ∂x ∂x ∂y 2
fer, vol. 39, no. 16, pp. 977–980, 1996.
[55] Laor, K., and Kalman, H., Performance and Optimum Dimen- ∂θ(xe , w)
θ(xb , w) = 1, =0 (A2)
sions of Different Cooling Fins with Temperature Dependent ∂x
Heat Transfer Coefficient, International Journal of Heat and
Mass Transfer, vol. 15, pp. 3431–3439, 1996. ∂θ(x, 0) ∂θ(x, w) h
[56] Ulmann, A., and Kalman, H., Efficiency an Optimized Di- =0 + θ(x, w) = 0 (A3)
mensions of Annular Fins of Different Cross-Sections, Inter-
∂x ∂y k
national Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, vol. 32, pp. 1105–
1110, 1989. The exponent m for longitudinal fins is equal to zero,
[57] Unal, H. C., Determination of the Temperature Distribution
in an Extended Surface with a Non-Uniform Heat Transfer
and to one for radial and pin fins that are equal to one.
Coefficient, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, We should point out here that x and y are not neces-
vol. 28, pp. 2279–2284, 1985. sarily the abscissa and the ordinate, respectively, in the
[58] Schmidt, E., Die Wärmeübertragung durch Rippen, Z. Ver. three types of fins considered here, which are treated
Dtsch. Ing., vol. 70, pp. 885–889, 1946. separately.
[59] Focke, R., Die Nadelals Kühlement, Forch. Geb. Ingenieurwes,
vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 38–42, 1943.
[60] Duffin, R. J., A Variation Problem Related to Cooling Fins,
Journal of Math. Mech., vol. 8, pp. 47–56, 1959. Longitudinal Fins
[61] Jany, P., and Bejan, A., Ernest Schmidt’s Approach to Fin Op-
timization: An Extension to Fins with Variable Thermal Con-
In this case, the abscissa x and the ordinate y are
ductivity and the Design of Ducts in Fluid Flow, International
Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, vol. 31, no. 8, pp. 1635–1643, located at the base center of the fin’s base and are 0 ≤
1988. x ≤ L and −w ≤ y ≤ w, respectively. Let us now
[62] Razelos, P., and Imre, K., Minimum Mass Convective Fins with consider the differential surface element d A = W dy,
Variable Heat Transfer Coefficients, Journal of the Franklin which is perpendicular to the heat flow, and set W (the
Institute, vol. 315, no. 4, pp. 269–282, 1983. width of the fin) equal to one meter. After multiplying
[63] Maday, J. C., The Minimum Weight One-Dimensional Straight
Fin, ASME Journal of Engineering for Industry, vol. 92,
by d A Eq. (A1) and integrating, we obtain the following
pp. 461–463, 1974. expression:
[64] Güçeri, S., and Maday, J. C., The Least Weight Circular

 
Cooling Fins, Journal of Engineering for Industry, vol. 93, w
∂2 θ ∂ ∂θ
pp. 1190–1193, 1975. dy + dy
[65] Snider, A. D., and Kraus, D., The Quest for the Optimum ∂x 2 ∂y 0 ∂y
Longitudinal Fin Profile, Heat Transfer Engineering, vol. 8,
pp. 19–25, 1987.
∂2 θ̄ ∂θ(x, w)
[66] Razelos, P., The Quest for the Optimum Longitudinal Fin Pro- = w2 + w =0 (A4)
file, Heat Transfer Engineering vol. 16, pp. 19–29, 1995. ∂x 2 ∂y
[67] Graff, S., and Snider, A. D., Mathematical Analysis of
the Length-of-Arc Assumption, Heat Transfer Engineering,
Due to symmetry, it suffices in the above equation
vol. 17, pp. 67–71, 1996.
[68] Haley, L. W., and Westwater, J. W., Boiling Heat Transfer from to consider only the upper part of the fin. The aver-
w
Single Fins, Proc. 3rd International Heat Transfer Conference, age temperature is equal to θ̄ = (1/A) 0 θd A. Using
Chicago, pp. 245–253, 1966. the boundary conditions Eq. (A3) and the coordinate
heat transfer engineering vol. 24 no. 6 2003 27
ξ = x/L, we get the following expression: Cylindrical Pin Fins

d 2 θ̄ For cylindrical spines, x in Eq. (A1) is now the more

2
− u 2 (θ(ξ, w)) = 0 (A5) familiar coordinate r, which is 0 ≤ r ≤ w, and 0 ≤
dξ
x ≤ L. The differential Eq. (A1) becomes
It is now reasonable to assume that the temperature at the   
fin’s surface θ(x, w) is always smaller than the average ∂2 θ 1 ∂ ∂θ
+ r =0 (A9)
temperature θ̄; thus, we can set θ(x, w) = θ̄(x) − ε(x) ∂x 2 r ∂r ∂r
where ε(x) is a small positive quantity. Hence Eq. (A5)
can now take the form Here the differential surface element here is d A =
2πr dr . Performing the integration as in the previous
d 2 θ̄ cases and using the parameters ξ = x/L and u, we
− u 2 (θ̄ − ε(ξ)) = 0 (A6) obtain the following one-dimensional equation:
dξ2
d 2 θ̄
Radial Fins − u 2 (θ̄ − ε(x)) = 0 (A10)
dx2

For radial fins, we can replace x with the more fa-
miliar parameter r, rb ≤ r ≤ re , L = re − rb , y, which
is exactly as in the longitudinal fins, while the dif-
ferential surface element here is d A = 2πr d y. Fol-
lowing the same approach as in the longitudinal
fins, we readily obtain the following one-dimensional
equation:
d 2 θ̄ 1 d θ̄
2
+ − u 2 (θ̄(ξ) − ε(ξ)) = 0
dξ ξ dξ
In the above equation, ξ = r/L; however, it was pointed
out earlier that it is more advantageous in the above
equation to use the parameters v = u/(re /rb − 1) =
u/(β − 1) and ς = r/rb to obtain the following new
expression:
d 2 θ̄ 1 d θ̄
+ − v 2 (θ̄ − ε(ς )) = 0
dς 2 ς dς
Recall that,√as shown in pin fins, in Table 1 the parameter
u = (L/w) 2hw/k.
In the literatures, standard one-dimensional fin treat-
ment, which is based on the simplifying assumption
9, the quantity ε has been neglected in Eqs. (A6, A7,
and A10). Therefore, because the surface temperature
θ̄ − ε < θ̄, we can conclude that the one-dimensional
approach always overestimates the heat dissipation.
Q. E. D.
(A7)
Panagiotis Razelos is a Professor Emeritus of the
City University of New York. He has a Diploma in
Mechanical and Electrical Engineering from the
National Technical University, Athens, Greece,
and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from Columbia Uni-
versity. Formerly he was director of the Heat
and Mass Transfer Laboratory at Columbia Uni-
versity. Dr. Razelos’s research interests are heat
transfer in regenerators, extended surfaces, con-
vective heat transfer, computational methods,
(A8) simulation, and heat exchangers. He has pub-
lished more than 60 articles in these areas.

28 heat transfer engineering vol. 24 no. 6 2003