Design and Analysis of Fins with Realistic Boundary

Conditions

P M V Subbarao
Associate Professor
Mechanical Engineering Department
IIT Delhi

Design for Maximum Benefits for a given Cost….

Linear Second order ODE with Constant Coefficients

d2

2
m  0
2

d x

θ  x   C1e mx
 C2 e -mx

At the base of the fin:

 base  Tbase  T
 Most Realistic Boundary Condition

Convection or Equivalent convection at tip:

qcond  qconv

 hAcs Ttip  T 
dT Convection or Radiatio
 kAcs
dx x 0

 hL Ttip  T 
dT
 kAcs
dx x 0

dT 
 kAcs  hP  T ( x  0)  T 
dx x 0 2
Corrected adiabatic tip:

bcorr  adi b
2
 Strip Fin : Adiabatic Tip

θ(x=bcorr  adi )=θb

The boundary condition are:
q(x) x  0 =0
Using these gives:  (x = b
corr -adi ) =  b  C1e  C 2e
mb -mb

d
and q(x = 0) = kL
dx

 kLm C1e mx  C 2 e -mx  x=0
x=0

q(x = 0)  kLm(C1  C 2 )  0

The foregoing shows that: C1  C2  C

 b = C e mb
e -mb

 With the general solution for the temperature excess

C1  C2  C

θb=C e  mb
e -mb
  C  mb

θb
e e -mb


cosh mx 
  x   mb -mb e  e   θb
θb mx -mx

e  e  cosh mb
The heat flow through the fin at any location x is:

d d  cosh  mx  
q x   kL  kL  b 
dx dx  cosh  mb  

sinh  mx 
q x   kLm b
cosh  mb 

And at x=b (heat entering fin base): qb  kLm b tanh  mb 

qb   2hk  L b tanh  mb 
12
For a strip fin:
 Cost – Benefit Analysis of Fins
• The benefit of a fin is defined as effectiveness of a fin.
• An ideal fin will have highest value of effectiveness.
• An ideal fin is the one whose temperature is equal to temperature of
the surface.
• This is possible only if the thermal conductivity of fin material is
infinitely high.
• The effectiveness of an actual fin material is always lower than an
ideal fin.
• The relative performance of a given fin is defined as efficiency of a
fin.
• Provision of fins on a surface requires more material and hence more
capital cost.
• A judicial decision is necessary to select correct factors of fin design.
• Best fin design should have higher benefits with a lower amount of
material.
 Effectiveness of A Fin : Strip Fin

• The fin effectiveness,fin , is defined as the ratio of the

heat dissipation with fin to the heat dissipation without a fin.

qwithfin
 fin 
qwithoutfin

hPkAcs  Tbase  T 
 fin ,infinite 
hAcs  Tbase  T 

 fin ,adiabatic 
 2hk 
12
L tanh  mb  Tbase  T 
hAcs  Tbase  T 
 Efficiency of Strip Fin

The fin efficiency, , is defined as the ratio of the actual

heat dissipation to the ideal heat dissipation if the entire
fin were to operate at the base temperature excess

qactual

qideal

  2 Lb 
qideal  h SURFACE  b  2hLb b
For infinitely long strip fin:

qact inf  hPkAcs  Tbase  T 

For Adiabatic strip fin:

qact  adi  hPkAcs  Tbase  T  tanh  mb 

 Strip Fin: Infinitely Long

q act -inf hPkAcs  Tbase  T 

inf  
q id hAsurface b
inf  0
 Strip Fin: Adiabatic tip
qact-adi hPkAcs θb tanh mb
 adi  
qid 2hLbθb

m tanh mb
ηadi  2
mb

tanh mb
 adi 
mb
Longitudinal Fin of Rectangular Profile: Adiabatic tip

 Temperature Excess Profile

cosh mx
  x  b
cosh mb
 Heat Dissipated
= Heat Entering Base
qb  kLmθb tanh mb

 Fin Efficiency tanh mb


mb
Fin Efficiency

mb
 Strip Fin of Least Material
• The heat flux is not constant throughout the fin
surface area.
• It decreases as some function of distance from the
fin base.
• Two models are possible:
• For a constant heat flux, the cross-section of the
fin must also decrease as some function of
distance from the base.
• Schmidt reasoned that the problem reduced to the
determination of a fin width function, (x), that
would yield minimum profile area.
b

Ap     x  dx
0
 Longitudinal Fin of Least Material Constant Heat Flux
Model

d
Consider Q  kAcs
dx
With A a function of x. Then
d Q

dx kAcs

For a constant heat flux (with k a constant by assumption):

d
 C1 and   C1 x  C2
dx
which is a linear temperature excess profile. The practical feasibility
of this solution depends on ease of manufacturing.
 Strip Fin of Least Material : OPTIMUM SHAPES
• Least profile area for a given rate of heat transfer can be modified
as maximum rate of heat transfer for a given profile area Ap
•For a Longitudinal fin of Rectangular Cross Section with L = 1:

1/ 2
 2h 
qb  k   b tanh mb ( L=1)
 k 
1/ 2
 2h   2h  3 / 2
With Ap  b , let  R  mb  b   Ap  
 k  k 

 2h 
1/ 2
  2h  1/ 2  1  3/ 2 
Hence qb  k  k  tanh  Ap     
 k    
 
 Optimum Shapes : Strip Fin

Find the best shape where dqb / d R  0 and get

3 R sech  R  tanh  R
2

Solving iteratively gives R=1.4192

 2h  3 / 2
 R  Ap  
 k 
Find the optimum shape for a given Ap
2/3 1/ 3
 Ap  2 h  1/ 2
  2hA
2

    0.7918 
p
    k 
1.4192  k    
 1/ 3
Ap  kAp 
b  1.2629 
  2h 
 Performance of Optimum Profiles : Strip Fin(L=1)

Heat dissipated

qb   2hk   b tanh mb
1/ 2

  2hk   1/ 2b tanh mb

1/ 2

Optimum fin width (mb=1.4192)

23 13
 Ap  2 h  12
  2hAp 
      0.7918 
1.4192  k    k 
 Performance of Optimum Profiles

tanh 1.4192
  0.627
1.4192

Optimum shape for a given qb & b

 2 1/ 3 
 2hAp 
qb   2hk  0.7918   b tanh mb
1/ 2

  k  
   
And solve for Ap with [ tanh (1.4192) = 0.8894 ]
3
0.5043  qb 
Ap   
h k  b
2

 Selection of Fin Material

3
0.5043  qb 
Rectangular Profile: Ap   
h k  b 
2

Consider three popular materials:

  kg m 3  k  W mK 
Steel 7249 43.3
Aluminum 2704 202.5
Copper 8895 389.4
 Selection of Fin Material

For a given length, fin mass is proportional to Ap.

Ap is inversely proportional to thermal conductivity.
 material 2
 material
m   material  Ap m mmaterial 2 k material 2
k material 
mmaterial1  material1
k material1
For given h, b, and qb:
ALUMINUM  2704 43.3
  0.080
STEEL  7249 202.5
COPPER

 8895 43.3  0.136
STEEL  7249 389.4
ALUMINUM  2704 389.4 
  0.585
COPPER  8895 202.5
 Comparison of Longitudinal Fin
3
0.5043  qb 
Ap   
h k  b
2

profile area varies as the cube of qb / b

To double the heat flow, you use two fins

or make one fin eight times as large.

There is a virtue in using short stubby fins.

More Ideas to Save Material…..
LONGITUDINAL FIN OF TRIANGULAR PROFILE
b

qb 
x
b

b
x=b x=a=0

b
Acs ( x)  L  x   L 2 x tan   Lx
b
The differential equation for temperature excess :
 dT 
d  kAc 
 dx 
 hP(T  T )  0
dx
LONGITUDINAL FIN OF TRIANGULAR PROFILE

b

qb 
x
b

b
x=b x=a=0

The differential equation for temperature excess is a form

of Bessel’s equation: 1/ 2
d 2
d  2h 
x   m 2
b   0 ; m 
dx 2
dx  kb 
 Triangular Fin : Adiabatic Tip

The particular solution for  ( x ) is:

 ( x )  b

I 0 2m bx 
I 0  2mb
The fin heat dissipation is:
 L  I1  2mb 
qb   2h b 
 m  I 0  2mb 

The fin efficiency is:

I1  2mb

 mb I 0  2mb
 Optimum Shapes : Triangular Fin

2hb I1  2mb
qb  L=1
mI 0  2mb

With Ap  bb / 2, let

1/ 2 1/ 2 1/ 2
 2h   2h  Ap  2h 
T  2mb  2  b  2 
 kb   kb  b
 4 Ap  
k
 
b
 3/ 2

This makes 2/3

 4 Ap  2 h / k  1/ 2

b   
 T 
Put T and b into qb and than find dqb / dT  0

I1  T 
 
1/ 3
qb  4 Ap  2h k b T
2 1/ 3

I 0  T 
2 I 0  T  I1  T 
I 0  T  I 2  T    I  T 
2
3 T
Put T and b into qb and than find dqb / dT  0

I1  T 
 
1/ 3
qb  4 Ap  2h k b T
2 1/ 3

I 0  T 
2 I 0  T  I1  T 
I 0  T  I 2  T    I 2  T 
3 T
 Optimum Shapes

Iterative solving yields T=2.6188 and

2/3
 4 Ap  2 h / k  1/ 2
  2  2h  
1/ 3

b     13263
.  Ap  k  
 2.6188   
1/ 3
2 Ap  Ap k 
b  10560
.  2h 
b  
 Comparison of Longitudinal Fins

3
0.5043  qb 
Rectangular Profile: Ap  2  
h k  b 
3
0.3471  qb 
Ap  2  
Triangular Profile: h k  b 

For the same material, surrounding conditions and qb / b

which is basically the user’s design requirement.
Triangular profile requires only about 68.8%
as much metal as rectangular profile.
 Comparison of Longitudinal Fin

In both fins, profile area varies as the cube of qb / b

To double the heat flow, you use two fins

or make one fin eight times as large.

There is a virtue in using short stubby fins.