Fin area and heat transfer direction

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the assumptions made in heat transfer analysis of fins, specifically regarding the neglect of side surface areas in one-dimensional heat transfer calculations. Participants clarify that heat transfer in fins is considered one-dimensional due to the temperature gradient existing only along the length of the fin, which simplifies the analysis. The side surfaces are often ignored because their contribution to heat transfer is minimal compared to the main surfaces, allowing for easier calculations without significantly impacting accuracy. The importance of modeling simplicity is emphasized, suggesting that complexity can be added later if necessary.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of heat transfer principles, specifically conduction and convection.
  • Familiarity with fin design and efficiency calculations in thermal systems.
  • Knowledge of one-dimensional heat transfer analysis.
  • Basic mathematical modeling techniques in engineering.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the principles of one-dimensional heat conduction in fins.
  • Learn about the impact of neglected surface areas on heat transfer calculations.
  • Explore advanced modeling techniques for heat transfer analysis.
  • Investigate the role of temperature gradients in thermal systems.
USEFUL FOR

Mechanical engineers, thermal system designers, and students studying heat transfer who seek to understand the assumptions and simplifications in fin analysis.

Axe199
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
So, i was studying some fin design in a heat transfer course , and then came the part where the efficiency is to be calculated, then i noticed that when he calculated the surface area and the sides of a rectangular fin weren't included, so i searched and i found out that it was neglected because it's a one dimensional system, i understand how will that add an extra dimension, but i don't understand how is this a one dimensional system to begin with, we have conduction in x direction and convection in y direction so that's 2 directions
edit: i just watched a video where he said he neglected the sides because they have negligible area...makes sense but i am not sure that this is 100% right because he also ignored the tip and we don't ignore it in our course
 

Attachments

  • 2016-07-28 14_29_44-Student_Slides_M3.pdf.png
    2016-07-28 14_29_44-Student_Slides_M3.pdf.png
    2.8 KB · Views: 553
Last edited:
Science news on Phys.org
Axe199 said:
So, i was studying some fin design in a heat transfer course , and then came the part where the efficiency is to be calculated, then i noticed that when he calculated the surface area and the sides of a rectangular fin weren't included, so i searched and i found out that it was neglected because it's a one dimensional system, i understand how will that add an extra dimension, but i don't understand how is this a one dimensional system to begin with, we have conduction in x direction and convection in y direction so that's 2 directions
edit: i just watched a video where he said he neglected the sides because they have negligible area...makes sense but i am not sure that this is 100% right because he also ignored the tip and we don't ignore it in our course
Well, I believe you have two questions here: 1-Why do we assume that heat transfer in fins is one dimensional? and 2-Why is the side surface area of the fin neglected?
So first of all I have never heard of a 3-D convection or a 2-D convection or simply one dimensional convection though we do hear about these in conduction. Convection mainly depends upon the exposed surface area and in which direction is heat being convected is of no interest to us. When it comes to conduction in fins it is very much one dimensional. Note that conduction occurs only when there is a temperature gradient within the medium (in this case the fin). There is temperature gradient only in the direction along the length of the fin hence heat transfer occurs only in that direction within the fin. So heat transfer within the fin material is 1-D.
For the second question I think whether you want to neglect something or not depends entirely upon the level of accuracy required. If neglecting a dimension does not create a large error but eases the calculation process then there is no harm in that!
 
benny_91 said:
Well, I believe you have two questions here: 1-Why do we assume that heat transfer in fins is one dimensional? and 2-Why is the side surface area of the fin neglected?
So first of all I have never heard of a 3-D convection or a 2-D convection or simply one dimensional convection though we do hear about these in conduction. Convection mainly depends upon the exposed surface area and in which direction is heat being convected is of no interest to us. When it comes to conduction in fins it is very much one dimensional. Note that conduction occurs only when there is a temperature gradient within the medium (in this case the fin). There is temperature gradient only in the direction along the length of the fin hence heat transfer occurs only in that direction within the fin. So heat transfer within the fin material is 1-D.
For the second question I think whether you want to neglect something or not depends entirely upon the level of accuracy required. If neglecting a dimension does not create a large error but eases the calculation process then there is no harm in that!
i think i got the one dimensional thing, but i don't get it why the sides are ignored, i mean every single textbook is doing the same thing , and when i asked my professor he simply said " because it's one dimensional " and then he called me stupid :D but anyway, aren't the sides exposed area? then why aren't we considering it? my professor's answer doesn't indicate that it's a matter of accuracy, but it's simply mathematically incorrect
 
Axe199 said:
i think i got the one dimensional thing, but i don't get it why the sides are ignored, i mean every single textbook is doing the same thing , and when i asked my professor he simply said " because it's one dimensional " and then he called me stupid :D but anyway, aren't the sides exposed area? then why aren't we considering it? my professor's answer doesn't indicate that it's a matter of accuracy, but it's simply mathematically incorrect
The surface area of the sides and the far end is much smaller than the surface area of the faces where most of the heat transfer is occurring. And, if you neglect the heat transfer on these other faces, the analysis is much simpler. After the simpler analysis is complete, you can go back and calculate how much heat transfer has been omitted by neglecting the other faces. You can then decide for yourself whether it is worth the great amount of additional effort necessary to include this small effect.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: benny_91
maybe, but if this was the case he would've mention it, and why ignore the sides but not the tip?
the sides are also considered in the proof but ignored in every single question specially when using efficiency
 
Axe199 said:
maybe, but if this was the case he would've mention it, and why ignore the sides but not the tip?
the sides are also considered in the proof but ignored in every single question specially when using efficiency
I thought I answered these questions in my response. Whenever you are doing modeling, you look at the simplest situation first. You then have an answer in a very short time. You then can refine the model and add complexity if you judge that this is necessary for the degree of accuracy you feel you need.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Axe199
Chestermiller said:
I thought I answered these questions in my response. Whenever you are doing modeling, you look at the simplest situation first. You then have an answer in a very short time. You then can refine the model and add complexity if you judge that this is necessary for the degree of accuracy you feel you need.
ok thanks
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
8K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K