Heat Transfer

Fin Analysis
Fin Analysis

T¥
 Fin Analysis

• Increasing h might require increasing the flow rate, i.e.

the pump or blower output.

Ø This might not be economically viable.

• Decreasing the fluid temperature might well be physically

impossible.

• This leaves the option of increasing the surface area A,

and this is what fins are designed to do.
 Fin Analysis

• The figure below illustrates various possible fin

configurations

Fig. 2.4 Fin configurations: (a) Straight fin of uniform cross section,
(b) Straight fin of non-uniform cross section, (c) Annular fin, (d) Pin
fin of non-uniform cross section
 Fin Analysis

Conduction Analysis

• The objective here is to develop a general heat

conduction equation for ONE-DIMENSIONAL heat flow
through a fin, with convection heat transfer boundary
conditions.

• This analysis should also allow for non-uniform cross-

section of the fin.

• With reference to the figure below, a heat balance is

performed on the differential volume illustrated.
Fin Analysis
Fin Analysis
 Fin Analysis

• The convection heat transfer is given by

where dAs(x) is the surface area of the differential element.

d dT dAs
• Thus, taking dx → 0, k ( Ac ) - h (T - T¥ ) = 0
dx dx dx
• Dividing through by kAc
d 2T 1 dAc dT h dAs
+ - (T -T¥ ) = 0
dx 2
Ac dx dx kAc dx
• Although this derivation was illustrated for one particular
geometry, the final heat conduction equation applies to both
straight and round fins, of variable cross-section in the x
direction.
 Fin Analysis

Fins of Uniform Cross-Sectional Area

• To solve the heat conduction equation, the variation of
the fin geometry, specifically As and Ac, must be
specified.
• The simplest examples are straight and round fins of
uniform cross-section, as below.
• Each fin is attached to a base surface of temperature
T(0) = Tb and extends into a fluid of temperature T
¥
 Fin Analysis

• In these cases Ac is constant and the surface area

As = px
where the surface area is measured from the base (x =
0) to x, and p is the fin perimeter. For uniform x-section
fins, p is constant. Hence

dAc dAs
=0 = p
dx dx
• The heat conduction equation then becomes
d 2T hp
- (T - T¥ ) = 0
dx 2 kA
c
 Fin Analysis

• To simplify the analysis, we define an excess

temperature Q, as Θ( x) = T ( x) -T¥

• Substitution in the heat conduction equation leads to

d 2Θ - m2Θ = 0
dx2
hp
• where m2 = is a constant
kAc

• This equation is a linear, homogeneous, second order

differential equation with constant coefficients.
 Fin Analysis

• The general solution is Θ = C1emx + C2e-mx

• To evaluate C1 and C2, it is necessary to specify

appropriate boundary conditions.
• One such condition must be specified in terms of the
temperature at the base Tb.
Θ(0) = Tb -T¥ = Θb
• Hence C1 + C2 = Θb

• The second condition, specified at the fin tip x = L, may

correspond to any one of four different physical
conditions.
 Fin Analysis

• Case (i) considers convection heat transfer from the fin

tip (the most general case).
• Apply an energy balance to a control surface about the
tip, in which the rate at which energy reaches the tip due
to conduction must equal the rate at which energy is lost
due to convection

• This leads to - kAc dT = hAc (T (L) -T¥ )

dx x= L
 Fin Analysis

• Or hΘ(L) = -k dΘ
dx x= L
• Then
h(C emL + C e-mL ) = km(C e-mL - C emL )
1 2 2 1

• Solving for C1 and C2 leads, after MUCH manipulation

(see details in the notes), to

cosh m( L - x) + h sinhm(L - x)
Θ= mk
Θb coshmL + h sinhmL
mk
 Fin Analysis

• The form of this temperature distribution is shown

• Note that the magnitude of the temperature gradient

decreases with x.
• This is due to the reduction in conduction heat transfer
due to progressive loss of heat from the fin due to
convection heat transfer.
 Fin Analysis

• The total loss of heat from the fin can be calculated in

several ways.
• However, the simplest way recognises that all heat that
is lost from the fin surface must be equal to that
conducted into the fin at its base.
• Thus

Q! f = Q!b = -kAc dT = -kAc dΘ

dx x=0 dx x=0
sinhmL + h coshmL
= hpkAc Θb mk
coshmL + h sinhmL
mk
 Fin Analysis

• In case (ii) the heat transfer from the fin tip is neglected,
in which case the tip is treated as an adiabatic surface.
dΘ =0
dx x=L
• This equation leads to C1e mL - C2e -mL = 0

• Solving for C1 and C2, and manipulation (see notes)

leads to Θ coshm(L - x)
=
Θb coshmL
• And total fin heat transfer rate is then
Q! f = hpkAc Θb tanhmL
• These results are reduced forms of results for case (i),
with h << mk.
 Fin Analysis

• In case (iii) the fin tip temperature T(x = L) = TL is

prescribed.

• This leads to the result (see notes)

ΘL sinhmx + sinhm(L - x)
Θ = Θb
Θb sinhmL

• And total fin heat transfer rate is then

Θ
coshmL - L
!
Q f = hpkAc Θb Θb
sinhmL
 Fin Analysis

• In case (iv) the fin is assumed to be very long. In this

case as L ® ¥ , Q(L) ® 0.

• The solution is then (see notes)

Θ = e-mx
Θb
• And total fin heat transfer rate is then

Q! f = hpkAc Θb
 Fin Analysis

EXAMPLE 9
• A very long rod 5mm in diameter has one end maintained at
1000C.
• The surface of the rod is exposed to ambient air at 250C, with
a convection heat transfer coefficient of 100W/m2K.

• Determine the temperature distribution along rods composed

of (i) Copper, (ii) Aluminium and (iii) Stainless Steel.
• What are the corresponding total heat losses from the rods?
• Estimate how long each rod must be for the assumption of
infinite length to yield an accurate estimate of the heat loss.
 Fin Analysis

SOLUTION
• Assuming a mean temperature for the fin material of
62.50C, thermal conductivity values can be obtained
from Fig. 2.2.
• For copper k = 398W/mK,
• For aluminium, k = 245W/mK,
• For stainless steel, k = 14W/mK.

• From boundary condition (iv) above

Θ = e-mx
Θb
 Fin Analysis

• Thus T = T¥ + (Tb - T¥ )e - mx = 25 + 75e - mx

• Where m = hp 4h
=14.18, for copper
=
kAc kD
=18.07, for aluminium
= 75.59 for stainless steel
• The temperature distributions for the three cases are
100
90
80
70
Cu
T (0C)

60
Al
50
SS
40
30
20
0 100 200 300
x (mm)
 Fin Analysis

• From this figure it is clear that little additional heat

transfer takes place beyond about

• 300mm for copper

• 200mm for aluminium
• 50mm for stainless steel
 Fin Analysis

• The heat loss from the fin

Q! f = hpkAc Θb =
p hkD 3 Θ = 8.31W, cu
b
2
= 6.52W, al
=1.56W, s.s.
• Cases (ii) and (iii) above give the same results if tip
temperature TL = T¥ and both give the same result as
case (iv) if tanh mL is approximately 1.

• If we take tanh mL = 0.99 as a limit, then mL = 2.65.

 Fin Analysis

• This implies that L values given by 2.65/m are sufficiently

long for the fin to be regarded as infinitely long.

• With the m values as above,

• L = 187mm for copper
• L = 147mm for aluminium
• L = 35mm for stainless steel.

• Thus we see that basing the fin length on total heat loss
gives substantially smaller estimates of the required fin
lengths.
 Fin Analysis

Fin Effectiveness
• Fins are used to increase the heat transfer from a surface by
increasing the effective surface area.
• However, the fin itself represents a conduction resistance to
heat transfer from the original surface.
• Hence there is no assurance that the use of fins will actually
result in higher heat transfer rates.
• For any fin set-up we can define the fin effectiveness ef as the
ratio of the actual fin heat transfer rate to the heat transfer
rate that would occur without the fin, thus
Q! f
ef =
hAc,bΘb
• where Ac,b is the fin cross-sectional area at the base
 Fin Analysis

• Because of the extra costs associated with the fins, use

of fins is not justified unless ef > 2.
• For example, the infinitely-long constant cross-section fin
discussed above has a fin effectiveness given by
hpkAc Θb pk
ef = =
hAcΘb hAc
• From this result a number of conclusions can be drawn:
Ø (i) Fin effectiveness is increased if the thermal
conductivity k is increased. Thus one might choose
copper in preference to aluminium. However, aluminium
is cheaper and lighter, and is the more common choice.
 Fin Analysis

Ø (ii) Fin effectiveness is increased by increasing the ratio

of perimeter to cross-sectional area. For this reason the
use of thin, but closely-spaced fins is preferred.

Ø (iii) Fin effectiveness is higher in conditions in which h is

low. Thus fins are more likely to be used when the fluid
is a gas, rather than a liquid, and particularly in
conditions with natural convection.

Ø Hence if fins are used on surfaces separating a liquid

flow and a gas flow, then the fins would be placed on the
gas side.
 Fin Analysis

Example 10

• Evaluate the fin effectiveness for the three rods in

Example 9 above.

Solution

pk 4k
ef = = = 56.43, Cu
hAc hD
= 44.27, Al

=10.58, S.S.
 Fin Analysis

Fin Efficiency
• The maximum possible driving potential for convection
heat transfer from the fin is the temperature difference
between the base (x = 0), and the fluid temperature, i.e.
Θb = Tb - T¥
• Hence the maximum possible rate at which heat could
be dissipated from the fin would be that given if the
whole of the fin were at temperature Tb.
• In reality a temperature gradient must exist along the fin
and this value is an idealisation which can never be
reached.
 Fin Analysis

• The fin efficiency h f is defined as the ratio of the actual

heat transfer rate to this idealised rate, thus
Q! f Q! f
hf = =
Q! f , max hAf Θb
• where Af is the total surface area of the fin.
 Fin Analysis

Example 11
• Obtain the fin efficiencies of the three fins in example 9,
assuming the length of the fins are the minimum values
found in that example.
Solution
Q! f hpkAc Θb 1 kD
hf = = = = 0.377
hAf Θb hA f Θb 2L h for all three cases.
• Clearly if the fins are made longer than necessary, the
fin efficiency will decrease.
• Decreasing the fin length would appear to increase the
fin efficiency, using this equation. However in that case
the equation that should be used for Q! f would be from fin
tip boundary case (i), (ii) or (iii), not case (iv).
 Fin Analysis

Fins of Non-Uniform Cross-Sectional Area

• The fin efficiency equation can be used to treat fins of
non-uniform cross-section, for which solution of the heat
conduction equation may be tricky (see Appendices 1
and 2).

• Fig. 2.7 gives plots of fin efficiency for three different

straight fins, the rectangular (y = const.), the triangular (y
~ x) and the parabolic (y ~ x2).
• Note that the results are presented in terms of ‘corrected’
fin lengths Lc, which takes account of heat transfer from
the tip of the fin, where appropriate.
 Fin Analysis

• To use these results, it is necessary to calculate the

maximum heat transfer rates. For these straight fins, this
is given per unit length by
Q! = hpLcΘ » 2hLcΘ
f ,max b b

Example 12

• Obtain the fin effectiveness and fin efficiency of the (a)

triangular and (b) parabolic fins in Figure 2.7, with h =
150W/m2K, k = 200W/mK, t = 5mm and L = 50mm.

• Compare with the solutions from Appendices 1 and 2.

• Compare also with the uniform cross-sectional fin for the
same parameter values.
 Fin Analysis

Solution
• For straight fins the fin effectiveness and efficiency
equations become
! ! ! !
Q
Qf Qf Qf f
ef = = hf = »
hAc,bΘb htΘ hAf Θb 2hLΘ
b b
 Fin Analysis

• To obtain the fin efficiency

from the chart
1.5 2h 0.5
Lc ( )
kLt
1.5 2 ´ 150
= 0.05 ( ) 0.5
200 ´ 0.05 ´ 0.005
= 0.0112 ´ 77.50 = 0.866

• Giving from the chart

h f = 0.75

• In Appendix 1 the series

solution is found to be 0.75
 Fin Analysis

• To obtain the fin efficiency

from the chart

1.5 3h 0.5
Lc ( )
kLt
1.5 3 ´ 150
= 0.05 ( ) 0.5
200 ´ 0.05 ´ 0.005
= 0.0112 ´ 94.87 = 1.063

• Giving hf = 0.67

In Appendix 2 the solution is

found to be 0.67
 Fin Analysis

• To obtain the fin efficiency

for the uniform x-section
case from the chart
1.5 h 0.5 h 0.5
Lc ( ) = Lc ( )
kLc t kt
150
= 0.0525( ) 0.5
200 ´ 0.005
= 0.643

• Giving hf = 0.78
 Fin Analysis

• Clearly the chart, which apparently shows that the

efficiencies of the non-uniform cross-sectional fins are
higher than that of the uniform cross-sectional case,
must be treated with caution

• The values of the governing parameter vary significantly.

 Fin Analysis

• The same information, but for annular fins of rectangular

cross-section, is given in the figure below. In this case
Q! f ,max = 2p h(r22, c - r12 )Θb
 Fin Analysis

Example 13
• Steam flows through tubes whose outer diameter is D1 =
3cm and whose walls are maintained at a temperature of
1200C.
• Annular aluminium fins of outer diameter D2 = 6cm and
constant thickness t = 2mm are attached to the tube.
• The spacing between the fins is 3mm, thus there are 200
fins per metre of the tube.
• Heat is transferred to the surrounding air at T¥= 250C,
with a convection heat transfer coefficient h =160W/m2K.
• Determine the increase in heat transfer per metre of the
tube as a result of adding the fins.
 Fin Analysis

Solution
• As in example 7, for aluminium at mean temperature
72.50C, k = 245W/mK.
• Firstly consider tube without fins: A = πD1 = 0.0942m2,
per unit length of tube.
• Hence Q! wf = hA(Tb - T¥ ) = 160 ´ 0.0942(120 - 25) = 1431.8W
• per unit length of tube.
• Now with fins attached: Required for the chart
Lc =
D2 - D1 t 0.06 - 0.03 0.002
+ = + = 0.016m A p = Lc t = 3.2 ´ 10 -5 m 2
2 2 2 2
D2 t 0.06 0.002 r2c 0.031
r2c = + = + = 0.031m = = 2.067
2 2 2 2 r1 0.015
 Fin Analysis

0.5
æ
1.5 ç h
ö
Lc ÷
ç kAp ÷
è ø
0.5
1.5 æç 160 ö
÷÷
= 0.016 ç
-5
è 245 ´ 3.2 ´ 10 ø
= 2.039 ´ 10-3 ´ 142.86 = 0.291

• Then from the chart

hf = 0.90
 Fin Analysis

• For each fin the fin area

A f = 2p (r22 - r12 ) + 2pr2 t = 2p (0.032 - 0.0152 + 0.03 ´ 0.002)

= 4.618 ´ 10 -3 m 2
• Thus for each fin
Q! f = h f A f h(Tb - T¥ ) = 0.90 ´ 4.618 ´ 10 -3 ´ 160 ´ (120 - 25)
= 63.18W
• For each space between fins

As = pD1s = p ´ 0.03 ´ 0.003 = 2.827 ´ 10 -4 m 2

• Then
Q! s = As h(Tb - T¥ ) = 2.827 ´ 10 -4 ´ 160 ´ (120 - 25)
= 4.30W
 Fin Analysis

• So for 1 fin plus 1 spacing

Q! = Q! f + Q! s = 63.18 + 4.30 = 67.48W

• As there are 200 fins plus spacings per metre of the

tube, the total heat transfer rate per unit tube length
Q! tot = 200 ´ 67.48 = 13496 W

• Hence increase in heat transfer rate per metre of tube

Q! = Q! - Q! = 13496 - 1431.8 = 12064.2 W
inc tot wf
• And comparing the tube with and without fins, fin
effectiveness 13496
ef = = 9.43
1431.8
 Fin Analysis

• Let us look in more detail at these charts.

• The parameter Ap is the transverse cross-sectional area

as seen in the figures (slightly augmented to account for
finite fin tip widths).

• Thus per unit length of the fin, Ap characterises the

volume of the fin material.

• The surface area of the fin per unit length is

approximately 2Lc.

• So Lc characterises the surface area of the fin.

• Thus the parameter used in the charts comprises fin

volume and surface area, along with k and h.
 Fin Analysis

• But how are these variables brought together to form the

parameter used in the charts?

• What we have here is a correlation between the non-

dimensional efficiency of the fin and this parameter.

• All such correlations should be in terms of non-

dimensional parameters and examination of the terms
involved shows that this is the case here.
 Fin Analysis

• You should recall from your 2nd year Fluid Mechanics

course a method known as Buckingham’s Pi Theorem

• This allows you to derive non-dimensional Pi’s and relate

them using dimensional analysis.

• If you apply the theorem to this problem then you will

come up with the parameter used here (although with Lc
= L probably). Let us call it Π.
 Fin Analysis

• But is this Π a new fundamental non-dimensional

number worthy of a special name?

• The answer is no.

• Consider this parameter with Lc = L and introducing Ap

proportional to Lt.
3
h L h 0.5 ht 0.5 L
Π = L1c.5 ( )0.5 µ ( ) =( )
kAp kLt k t
 Fin Analysis

• Thus we see that Π is composed of two other Pi’s

• Namely, a lengths Pi, Π1 = L

t

• and Π 2 = ht .
k

• This latter Pi is regarded as a new fundamental non-

dimensional number.

• It is called the Biot number and is denoted by Bi.

• Much more will be said about this number in the next

section of the notes.
 Fin Analysis

• For the moment we will restrict the use of this number to

justify our assumption at the beginning of our derivation
of fin equations that the temperature gradient in the
transverse y direction is very small compared to that in
the x direction.

• From the charts we see that Π = O(1). In our example L/t

= O(10).

ht 0.5
• Thus ( ) = O(10-1) and hence Bi = ht = O(10-2).
k k

• In the next section we will see that this value implies a

very small variation of temperature in the y direction.
 Fin Analysis

• Consider the fin efficiency equations derived

mathematically above.

• In both cases it is seen to be solely a function of Π.

bL b 2 L2
(1 + + + ......)
2 32 2 2hL2
• Case (a) h f = bL =
b 2 L2 b3 L3 kt
(1 + bL + + + ......)
2 2 2
2 3 2
æ ö
• Case (b) hf = tk 2 - 1 + 1 1+
ç
ç 8hL2 ÷
÷
2hL 2 2
ç
ç kt ÷
÷
è ø
 Fin Analysis

• Consider the fin effectiveness equations derived

mathematically above.

• In both cases it is seen to be a function of Π.

kb bL b 2 L2
(1 + + + ......)
2
h 2 32 2hL2 bk L
• Case (a) e f = bL = Þ =2
b 2 L2 b3 L3 kt h t
(1 + bL + + + ......)
2 2 2
2 3 2
æ ö
k ç
1 1 8hL 2 ÷ k kt L
• Case (b) e f = hL çç - 2 + 2 1+ kt
ç ÷
÷
÷
=
hL hL2 t
´
è ø

• But also of L
t