Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 17 (2020) 100484

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Thermal Science and Engineering Progress

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tsep

Optimizing rectangular fins for natural convection cooling using CFD T

a,⁎ b a
R.C. Adhikari , D.H. Wood , M. Pahlevani
a
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
b
Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Efficient heat transfer from finned-surfaces under natural convection is a critical consideration in the design of
Natural convection cooling heat sinks for microelectronics and thermal devices. Previous experimental studies on natural convection from
Rectangular fins rectangular fins on horizontal surfaces have shown that maximum heat transfer per unit base area occurs within
Heat transfer and flow patterns a narrow range of fin spacing in tall fins, and over a wider range of fin spacing in shallow fins. However, the heat
Optimum fins
transfer and flow characteristics of optimum fin configurations and the combined effects of fin geometrical
Dynamic-Q algorithm
parameters have not been sufficiently scrutinized in the literature. This work is primarily focused on char-
acterizing the optimum heat transfer and flow patterns using three-dimensional, steady-state, laminar, conjugate
heat transfer simulations, which serve as the fundamental basis for determining optimum fins. The main fin
design parameters are the fin spacing, height, and length. Multi-parametric computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
optimization was conducted to determine the combined effects of fin spacing, height, and length on heat
transfer. To find a global optimum fin design, we performed a multi-parametric optimization using the dynamic-
Q algorithm, rather than through a single parameter variation as is commonly done in previous studies. It was
found that the fin spacing, height, and length strongly affect the flow through the fin channel ends, and hence the
temperature gradient and heat transfer rate from the fin surfaces. The results demonstrate that the dynamic-Q
optimization could efficiently find the global optimum CFD solutions for the design objectives: the maximum
heat transfer per unit base area and the maximum heat transfer per unit base area and fin weight. The results are
validated through the experimental results available for typical fin designs, as well as an experimental mea-
surement of an example fin design in this work.

1. Introduction
Efficient cooling is one of the key design challenges for thermal and
electronics devices due to increasing miniaturization. Natural convec-
tion-cooling through finned-surfaces is the most desirable technique as
it does not require any moving parts such as fans or pumps, which are
the points of failure and cost. Natural convection occurs due to buoy-
ancy forces as a result of differential heating of air around the fin sur-
faces and heat transfer from the finned-surface across the thermal
boundary layer [1,2]. A circulatory thermal flow field develops around
the finned-surfaces as a result of downward flow of denser air and
upward flow of warm air. The upward flow results in a vertical con-
verging draft of air, commonly referred as a “chimney” or “plume”, on
which the natural convection heat transfer relies [1,3–6]. As a result,
the flow field exhibits a very complex three-dimensional fluid motion
with heat transfer. Therefore, deeper understanding of the flow and
heat transfer characteristics around the finned-surfaces is crucial to
optimize convection cooling. Incorrectly designed finned-surfaces not
only lead to lower heat transfer than the surfaces without fins but also
increase the footprint area and weight of the finned-surfaces
[3,4,7–11].
Whereas fin designs may vary widely depending upon the specific
device design and applications, the most common configuration is the
rectangular array of straight fins on a horizontal surface as depicted in
Fig. 1. Natural convection from such fins has been studied extensively,
and various correlations have been suggested for estimating the heat
transfer rate [3,4,12,13]. However, these correlations do not often
converge to consistent results, particularly when determining the op-
timum design of fins [4,7,14]. For instance, Jones and Smith [4]
showed that the empirical correlations recommended by Harahap and
MacManus [12] over-predicted by more than 94% their measured heat
transfer for similar fin designs. Jones and Smith [4] argued that the use
of n in the correlation, and consideration of fin length (L) as the char-
acteristic dimension, instead of fin spacing (s), which was shown to be
important in their study, could be the main reason for this significant
deviation. This reveals that the correlations may not capture the

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: rc.adhikari@ucalgary.ca (R.C. Adhikari).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsep.2020.100484

2451-9049/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

R.C. Adhikari, et al.
Nomenclature
Ab Base surface area of fin array (= ntL + (n 1) sL ), m2
At Total surface area of fin array (=
2nLH + (n 1) sL + ntL ), m2
h Convection coefficient (= Q/ At T ), W/m2K
H Fin height, mm
K Thermal conductivity of fin material (= 167 W/mK)
k Thermal conductivity of air, W/mK
L Fin length, mm
lc Characteristic length, mm
M Molecular weight of air, gm/mol
n Number of fins
p Pressure, Pa
Q Total heat transfer, W/m2K
Qb Total heat transfer, W/m2K
Qopt Optimal heat transfer, W/m2K
Ra Rayleigh number (= g Tlc3/( ))
R Ideal gas constant, J/mol K
Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of natural convection from a rectangular fin array on a heated horizontal surface. The upward flow of heated air and downward flow of
denser air results in the convection of heat as a chimney or plume.
combined effects of fin geometrical parameters on the flow and heat
transfer. It is not sufficiently studied what heat transfer and flow field
characteristics constitute optimum fin designs. For instance, the ex-
perimental results of Jones and Smith [4] showed that maximum heat
transfer per unit base area occurs within a narrow range of fin spacing,
particularly in tall fins, but the flow and heat transfer mechanisms were
not investigated in detail.
In the literature, both experimental and numerical studies have at-
tempted to characterize the heat transfer of rectangular fin arrays on
horizontal surfaces in natural convection. Early experimental studies
include [3,4,12]. These studies were conducted on similar fin designs,
and have derived correlations in terms of average heat-transfer coeffi-
cient h, and other non-dimensional parameters. Jones and Smith [4]
studied the effects of fin height H and s on h at constant fin length L.
They found that H has little influence on h, whereas s has significant
effects. They correlated the data of s and H for optimum fins as
Hs 360 mm2 for fins with L = 254 mm. They compared their results
with Harahap and McManus [12], and found inconsistencies in the
results for similar fin designs. Here, the performance of two fin arrays
which are similar except for the number of fins n, can be compared.
Jones and Smith [4] used n = 7 for all fin configurations, and Harahap
and McManus [12] conducted experiments by varying n from 17 to 33.
At n = 17, L = 254 mm, H = 38 mm, and s = 6.35 mm, the results of
Harahap and McManus [12] for h agreed well within 10% to that of
Jones and Smith [4] for n = 7 , L = 254 mm, H = 36.57 mm, and
s = 6.35 mm for all temperature differences tested (see Fig. 4 of Ref.
[4]). Despite this increase in width W by more than twice, the effect on
2
Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 17 (2020) 100484
s Fin spacing, mm
sopt Optimal fin spacing, mm
T Fin surface temperature, °C or K
T Ambient temperature, °C or K
Tf Film temperature (= (T + Ts )/2 ), °C or K
t Fin thickness, mm
u Air velocity in x-direction, m/s
v Air velocity in y-direction, m/s
W Width of fin array, m
Wt Weight of fin array, kg
w Air velocity in z-direction, m/s
Thermal diffusivity of air, k / cp , m2/s
Coefficient of thermal expansion of air (= 1/ Tf ), 1/K
T Temperature difference between fin surface and ambient,
(=Ts T ) °C or K
Kinematic viscosity of air, m2/s
Density of air or fin material, kg/m3
0 Operating density of air, kg/m3
h is small. Thus, the experimental test cases of Jones and Smith [4] are
considered in the present study. Other experimental studies include
[15,16]. Shobhan et al. [15] studied the variation of heat flux and
temperature in the central fin of a three fin array, with a focus on
qualitative descriptions of the flow in transient heating and cooling
regimes. They obtained a similar trend in heat flux over a narrow range
of fin spacing as obtained by Jones and Smith [4] for the particular fins
studied. Yüncu and Anbar [16] measured the effect on h of varying H
from 6 mm to 26 mm and s from 6.2 mm to 83 mm at constant
L = 100 mm and t = 3 mm. They presented a correlation in terms of
non-dimensional parameters for the particular fins studied, however, no
explanation for the conditions of optimum fin performance are pro-
vided. Although not the subject of this work, the thermal performance
of moving, and more complex, fin shapes, such as exponential and
trapezoidal, can be better than stationary, rectangular, and straight fins.
Turkyilmazoglu [17,18] studied the efficiency of moving trapezoidal
and exponential shaped fins as compared to rectangular fins. He de-
veloped closed-form solutions for the temperature field and the fin ef-
ficiency for both shapes, and showed that longitudinal trapezoidal fins
with thicker tips have better heat transfer than rectangular fins. Simi-
larly, he showed that straight rectangular fins could have lower or
higher performance depending upon the exponential fin configurations.
However, it is not clear whether the comparison was based on the
optimum rectangular fins or not, and whether this conclusion holds true
for stationary fins. Nevertheless, it indicates the significance of design
optimization of rectangular fins, as well as the above fin shapes.
Previous numerical studies using steady, laminar, heat transfer
R.C. Adhikari, et al.
simulations include [14,19–27]. Tari et al. [14] studied heat transfer
from inclined plate fins, including the horizontal orientation. They
studied the flow structure and developed correlations. Dogan et al. [19]
computed the general flow patterns of different shapes of fin arrays on a
horizontal surface, and also suggested correlations. Baskaya et al. [20]
studied the general flow and heat transfer features using CFD by
varying the fin geometrical parameters. They concluded that optimum
performance could not be obtained by simply focusing on variation of
one or two parameters, e.g. variation of single parameter at a time as in
most experimental measurements. However, they did not investigate
the specific characteristics of optimum combination of geometrical
parameters. Mobidiy et al. [21] simulated the quasi three-dimensional
flow over short rectangular fins on a horizontal surface, and char-
acterized the single and multiple chimney flows, that are shown in
Fig. 1. Karvinen and Karvinen [22] examined the optimization of plate
fins for maximizing heat flux based on an approximate analytical so-
lutions. Similarly, Huang et al. [23] studied the dynamic chimney flow
behavior of rectangular fins in natural convections for the fins with
L = 56–500 mm with H = 6.4 and 38 mm and a fixed s = 6.4 mm.
Their important finding is that the effect of the downward flow of cool
air on heat transfer is not significantly different for taller compared to
shallow fins due to thicker boundary layers in the fin channels. Wong
and Huang [24] conducted a parametric study on the dynamic natural
convection from long horizontal fins with dimensions L = 128, 254 and
380 mm using a 3-D unsteady numerical analysis. They characterized
the oscillating chimney flow with reference to variation in L and H
variation and its impact on heat transfer in general. Shen et al. [25]
studied the heat transfer from rectangular fins at different orientations
of the fin array. The literature survey revealed that the predictive
capability of the correlations suggested in the literature for determining
heat transfer characteristics is limited in general, and the results are
often conflicting. Also the numerical studies are presented in general-
ized form, rather than as specific characteristics of optimum fin con-
figurations. Thus, the characteristics of heat transfer and the underlying
flow patterns are very important in guiding the optimization of fins.
The first novel feature of this work is the investigation of the effects
of fin height, spacing, and length on the heat transfer and flow, with
particular attention to determining the characteristics of optimum fins.
We conducted three-dimensional, steady-state, laminar, conjugate heat
Fig. 2. Variation of air properties with temperature used in the simulations. Experimental data taken from Cebeci and Bradshaw [6].
3
Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 17 (2020) 100484
transfer simulations of the fins studied experimentally in [3,4], which
are the most systematic experimental studies that we could find. An-
other novelty is that, rather than seeking a single-parametric optimi-
zation as is commonly done in the literature, we undertook a multi-
parametric computational fluid dynamics (CFD) optimization using the
dynamic-Q algorithm, which efficiently searches for a global optimum
in a computationally expensive problem. A simple experimental test
was also conducted to verify the optimization results. To summarize the
review and statement of our objectives: the purpose of this study is to
characterize the heat transfer and flow features of optimum fins and
perform multi-parametric CFD optimization to determine an optimum
combination of geometrical parameters.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 de-
scribes the computational model used in the study. Section 3 outlines
the model validation. Section 4 contains the main results, with a par-
ticular focus on heat transfer characteristics and flow patterns in op-
timum fins. Extending these results, a multi-parametric CFD optimiza-
tion using a dynamic-Q algorithm is conducted on example design
problems. Results are verified through the experimental results avail-
able in the literature, and experimental testing on an example fin design
conducted in this study. Finally, Section 5 summarizes the main find-
ings.
2. Computational model
We analyze the conjugate heat transfer and flow using three-di-
mensional, steady-state, laminar flow simulations. The simulations
were conducted on the commercial Computational Fluid Dynamics
(CFD) code ANSYS Icepak-Fluent [28]. The governing equations are the
conservation of mass (continuity), momentum, and energy for the flow,
and the heat conduction equation for the solid, which are written in
Cartesian co-ordinates as follows. As shown in Fig. 4, x is in the di-
rection of the fins, y is vertical, and z is in the transverse direction
normal to the fins.
The continuity equation for the steady flow is
u v w
+ + =0
x y z (1)
where is the density, and u , v and w are the velocities in the x,y , and z
R.C. Adhikari, et al. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 17 (2020) 100484

directions respectively. The three momentum equations are steady state Laplacian for the temperature with constant thermal dif-
fusivity.
u u u p u u u
u +v +w = + µ + µ + µ Eqs. (1)–(5) were solved using the steady-state laminar flow model.
x y z x x x y y z z In natural convection problems in fins, Rayleigh numbers Ra < 108
(2) indicate a laminar flow, with transition to turbulence occurring over the
range of 10 8 < Ra < 1010 [28]. As Ra 9.46 × 107 in the fins examined
v v v
u +v +w in this work (considering the fin length as a characteristic length), these
x y z
flows might be turbulent or transitional. All simulations, however, as-
p v v v sumed laminar flow which can be justified on the grounds of the good
= + µ + µ + µ +( 0) g
y x x y y z z (3) agreement to the measurements that is demonstrated in the next sec-
tion. Radiative heat transfer was considered using the surface-to-surface
u
w
+v
w
+w
w
=
p
+ µ
w
+ µ
w
+ µ
w radiation model [14,19,28]. For brevity, we have omitted the model
x y z z x x y y z z equations, which can be found in references [19,28]. To account for the
(4) variation of air properties, such as density, viscosity, thermal con-
ductivity, and diffusivity due to changes in T and p, the ideal gas law
where p is the pressure and is the viscosity. These equations are
was used with experimental data for the property variations. µ was
solved for the three velocity components and p. The single energy
computed using Sutherland’s law [6] as
equation for the temperature, T, is

T T T T T T 8 T 3/2
µ = 1.45 × 10
u +v +w = + + +S T + 110 (6)
x y z x x y y z z (5)

where is the thermal diffusivity, and S is the source term for radiation. where T is expressed in degrees Kelvin and µ in kg/ms. Similarly,
The temperature distribution within the fins was computed by the density is calculated from the ideal gas law as

Fig. 3. A three-dimensional hexahedral computational mesh used in the simulations (a). The blue region is the fin array. Zoomed views of a typical mesh resolution
on the fin walls (b) and a cross-section of the mesh resolution around the fins (c).

4
R.C. Adhikari, et al.
p between the computed and experimental results, which is a fairly good
= R
M
T (7)
where R is the universal gas constant and p is the (atmospheric) pres-
sure. The variation of air properties used in the simulations are pre-
sented in Fig. 2.
The computational domain was discretized with fully structured
hexahedral grids with high resolution in the near wall region to capture
the effects of thermal boundary layer more accurately. A typical com-
putational mesh used in the simulation is shown in Fig. 3. The second
order upwind numerical scheme was adopted, as this offers a more
accurate finite difference approximation of the spatial derivative and is
more robust [28]. Convergence criteria of 10 4 for the velocities and
10 7 for the energy were used. “Open type” boundary conditions were
used at all sides of the computational domain, Fig. 4, with the buoyancy
enabled, and temperature on the boundary was that used in the ex-
periments. This figure shows that the fin was placed at the centre of an
open computational domain whereas in all experiments, the fin array
sat on a solid surface at some height. There was no heat transfer from
the back of the array. No experimental information, however, was given
on any boundary layer development over the surface, so we chose to
model the array as shown in the figure for simplicity. A grid con-
vergence study was performed to confirm the adequacy of the grid re-
solution by gradually refining the grid size until an acceptable con-
vergence was achieved for the convection coefficient h (= Q/ Ab T ),
which was systematically assessed by computing h for an experimental
case of Jones and Smith [4]. A total of 463,334 elements were required
to produce grid independent results for h, which corresponds to less
than 1.2% numerical uncertainty between the last three results. The
results of grid independence study are summarized in Table 1. All the
computations were performed with at least this number of grid ele-
ments. We confirmed the predictive capability of the computational
model for a range fin design problems by comparing the computed
results for the convection coefficient, h, with the experimental results
for different fin geometries available in references [3,4].
3. Model validation
The computational model was validated against the measured heat
transfer from rectangular fins on horizontal surfaces by Starner and
MacManus [3] and Jones and Smith [4], which are possibly the most
systematic experimental studies in the literature. The details of geo-
metrical parameters and experimental results are available for different
fin configurations, which allowed us to make comparisons between the
CFD and experimental results to assess the predictive capability of the
CFD model and investigate the heat transfer and flow characteristics.
The details of the fin design parameters and temperature variations in
the experimental measurements used in the CFD simulations are sum-
marized in Tables 2 and 3.
All the fin configurations tested by Jones and Smith [4] had
L = 254 mm, t = 3.17 mm, and n = 7. Only H and s were varied, and
thus the width of the fin array, W, was different for each s. In the
measurements of Jones and Smith [4], average surface temperature and
ambient were considered to calculate the temperature difference. It is
also experimentally verified by Jones and Smith [4] that the heat sink
was nearly isothermal with only a few degrees difference. The tem-
perature difference in the CFD calculations is based on the difference
between the maximum temperature on the fin surface and the ambient
temperature. To quantify the thermal performance of a particular fin
configuration, the heat transfer per unit base area, Q/ Ab , and convec-
tion coefficient, h, were used as by Jones and Smith [4]. Here,
h = Q /At T , where Q is the total heat transfer, At is the total fin surface
area and the base, and T is the temperature difference between the fin
surface and the surrounding air. A comparison of the experimental re-
sults of Jones and Smith [4] and the CFD results for Q/ Ab and h is shown
in Fig. 5. A maximum relative error of about 11.34% was found
5
Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 17 (2020) 100484
agreement between the two in view of the uncertainties incurred in
both the experimental measurements and the numerical calculations.
Jones and Smith’s experimental results have about ±10% uncertainty.
Importantly, the computed Q/ Ab has its maximum at the same s as the
measurements, despite the difference in magnitude. Similarly, the
comparison of the experimental results of Starner and Harahap [3] and
the CFD results for h is shown in Fig. 6. A maximum relative error of
about 8.3% was found between the computed and experimental results.
A more detailed investigation of the heat transfer characteristics and
the flow features including a multi-parametric optimization is pre-
sented in the following sections. We have considered the experimental
test cases of Jones and Smith [4] in the analysis as their experimental
study extended the results of Starner and MacManus [3].
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Heat transfer behavior and flow patterns
Simulations were conducted at experimentally tested H = 23.9,
36.6, and 49.3 mm, and s = 4.05, 6.35, 12.7, 25.4, 36.88, and
49.28 mm. Fig. 5 shows that the taller fins exhibit the maximum Q/ Ab
within a narrow range of fin spacing, sopt = 6–8 mm. Another re-
markable heat transfer behavior is that shallow fins, e.g. H = 36.58 and
23.88 mm, have a relatively wider range of optimum spacing, sopt , or
flat performance curve as depicted in Fig. 7. This reveals that fin op-
timization for taller fins is relatively more complex than shallow fins,
and thus is an important design consideration. As a general guideline,
Jones and Smith [4] correlated the experimental data for optimum fins
as Hsopt 360 mm2. It is evident that this correlation may be realistic
only for tall and wider fins.
At H = 49.28 mm and s < 6 mm, it can be seen that Q/ Ab has de-
creased sharply, which is due to the flow restriction in the narrow fin
channels. The reason could be that the flow velocity is too low to de-
velop a thermal boundary layer in the channel walls. Similarly, for
s > sopt , Q/ Ab has decreased but h has increased sharply to a maximum.
Here, the relative increase in Q is greater than the increase in At for
constant H, which has increased h. In contrast, as s increases, the re-
lative increase in Ab is greater than the increase in Q, leading to overall
reduction in Q/ Ab . The results in Fig. 5 illustrate that it may be possible
to increase Q by increasing H up to some value, but determining sopt
becomes more complex as maximum heat transfer in tall fins occurs
over a narrow range of s. It can be readily inferred that for each s, there
is an optimum height Hopt , at which Q/ Ab is maximum.
Fig. 4. Computational domain with the boundary conditions.
R.C. Adhikari, et al. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 17 (2020) 100484

Table 1
Effect of mesh resolution on heat transfer coefficient, h [H = 49.28 mm,
s = 50.8 mm, and T = 151 °C ]
Grid elements Convection coefficient, h [W/m2K]

120,000 6.08
351,034 7.20
383,234 7.87
425,210 7.36
447,427 7.53
463,334 7.45

Table 2
Fin design parameters (Starner and MacManus, [3])
Length, L Height, H Spacing, s Width, W No of Thickness, t
[mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] fins, n [mm]

254 38.1 6.35 127 17 1.01

254 25.8 7.95 127 14 1.01 Fig. 6. Comparison of the experimental results of Starner and McManus [3] and
254 12.4 6.35 127 17 1.01 the CFD results for the convection coefficient (h = Q/ At T ).
254 6.35 6.35 127 17 1.01

Table 3
Fin design parameters (Jones and Smith [4])
Length, L Height, H Spacing, s [mm] No of Temperature
[mm] [mm] fins, n difference, °C

254 23.88 4, 6.35, 8.38, 12.7, 7 151

25.4, 50.8
254 36.58 4, 6.35, 12.7 7 151
254 49.28 4, 6.35, 12.7, 19, 7 151
31.75, 50.8

In natural convection, the temperature distribution is coupled to

velocity field as the air density is related to the temperature difference
between the surface and the surrounding air in the buoyancy term. To
analyze the influence of s on heat transfer and flow features in tall fins,
the temperature contours and velocity vectors are plotted in Figs. 8–10
for H = 49.28 mm at s = 4.05, 6.35, and 12.7 mm. In general, it can be
observed that a three-dimensional converging vertical flow is devel-
Fig. 7. Comparison of the experimental results of Jones and Smith [4] and the
oped above the centre of the fin array as a result of horizontal inflow of
CFD for the effect of height H on Q / Ab [L = 254 mm and T = 111 °C].
air from each channel ends. This type of flow is called “chimney or
plume” and was also experimentally visualized by Jones and Smith [4]

Fig. 5. Comparison of the experimental results of Jones and Smith [4] and the CFD results for the heat transfer per unit base area, Q / Ab , and the convection
coefficient, h = Q/ At T , [H = 49.28 mm, L = 254 mm and T = 151 °C].

6
R.C. Adhikari, et al. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 17 (2020) 100484

Fig. 8. Temperature contours at the mid-planes, taken at transverse plane (left) and longitudinal plane (right) of each case, illustrating the temperature resulting into
a single plume [H = 49.28 mm, n = 7, and T = 151 °C]. At s = 4.05 mm, the temperature gradient is almost zero in the inter-fin spacing, whereas at
sopt = 6.35 mm, there is considerable temperature gradient.

Fig. 9. Velocity vectors plotted at the mid-plane in the fin channel in longitudinal direction, illustrating the air flow from the channel ends toward the array centre
and development of a chimney flow [H = 49.28 mm, n = 7, and T = 151 °C].

Fig. 10. Temperature contours at the mid-

plane in the fin channel in transverse di-
rection (a) and velocity vectors at a mid-
plane of fin channel along the longitudinal
direction (b), illustrating the temperature
gradient and air flow from the channel ends
toward the array centre and development of
a chimney flow [H = 49.27 mm,
s = 12.7 mm, n = 7, and T = 151 °C].

and Harahap and MacManus [12], but no experimental measurements
of the flow (e.g. velocity) were made. As the heated air moves upward
from around the centre of the fin array, the velocity of air in the fin
channels would increase the heat transfer. It can be observed that the
temperature contours have a smoother boundary separating nearly
uniform buoyant air from the surroundings, which resembles an
axisymmetric turbulent plume separating sharply from the ambient air
[5]. In such flow structures, part of the heat transfer takes place due to
“entrainment” or mixing of the surrounding air into the plume [5].
To quantify the influence of s on Q/ Ab at H = 49.28 mm, the
temperature and air velocity in the fin channels, at mid-height and top
of the fins, are plotted in Figs. 11 and 12 respectively. Fig. 11 shows

7
R.C. Adhikari, et al.
Fig. 11. Comparison of temperature and velocity measured at the top and mid-
height sections of the fins at s = 4.05 mm, illustrating the heat transfer rate.
The zero velocity indicates the fin positions.
Fig. 12. Comparison of temperature and velocity measured at the top and mid-
height sections of the fins at sopt = 6.35 mm, illustrating heat transfer rate. The
zero velocity indicates the fin position.
that the heat transfer to the air in the fin channel is almost zero for
s = 4.05 mm. This clearly indicates the restriction of flow in channels,
and hence the cooling effect. Here it is evident that the velocity is too
low to form the thermal boundary layers, in which the heat transfer
occurs. Thus, the fin surface area for heat transfer is equivalently re-
duced to the flat plate surface area or the base area, Ab , the thickness of
the flat plate being equal to H. This is the main reason for the significant
drop in heat transfer. Furthermore, the integral of the vertical velocity
over the channel cross-section (the results are not shown) shows the
volume flow rate of cool air into the channel is small for narrow fin
channels, e.g. s = 4.05 mm. As expected, when s was increased to
sopt = 6.35 mm, both the temperature gradient and air velocity in the
fin channels increased as shown in Fig. 12. The reason is the increase in
base surface area, Ab , and the air inflow in the channels from the ends.
The velocity of the horizontal inflow from the channel ends, i.e. cool air
replenishing the warm air from the walls of the fins, caused a significant
temperature gradient across the channel section. At wider spacing,
s = 12.7 mm, the flow is well distributed in the channel with a larger
temperature gradient as shown in Fig. 13, but as Ab has also increased,
the total heat transfer per unit base area, Q/ Ab , has decreased. This
implies that increasing s provides more air flow into the channel and
8
Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 17 (2020) 100484
also improves h, but not necessarily Q/ Ab . It is noted here that Ab will
increase as s is increased for the same number of fins. Jones and Smith
[4] conducted experiments at varying H and s but at constant length
L = 254 mm. They stated that L could have significant influence on
Q/ Ab , and suggested further investigation. In the next section, the in-
fluence of L is studied as an optimization problem.
4.2. Multi-parametric optimization using dynamic-Q
Fin design optimization for natural convection is a constrained,
multi-parametric non-linear problem, which is often computationally
expensive. The optimization objective is to maximize the total heat
transfer per unit base area, Q/ Ab , for minimum weight, i.e. minimum
H , L , s , and n. The fin design parameters are H , L , s, n , and Q, and T
is a constraint. Due to a large number of design parameters, it is often
difficult or impossible to obtain a global optimal solution using single-
parametric studies as is done in the literature. Further, CFD-based op-
timization is computationally expensive for problems involving a large
number of design parameters. Here, we conducted multi-parametric
conjugate heat-transfer CFD simulations, in which all possible combi-
nations of geometrical parameters are evaluated to determine an op-
timal combination.
The objective function for heat transfer per unit base area, Q/ Ab , is
defined as
Q
maximize f (Q , s, n , L) = [((n 1) s + nt ) L]
subject to minimum H , L , s and n for H > 0, L > 0, s > 0, n > 0,
(8)
where Q, s, L and n are either design constraints or variables. The multi-
parametric simulations were first tested with the experimental case of
Jones and Smith [4], and then simulations were conducted with all the
geometrical parameters s, H , and L as variables for a given T . Simi-
larly, in a design problem where weight is critical, the objective func-
tion is defined for heat transfer per unit base area per unit fin weight as
Q
maximize f (Q , s, n , L , H ) = [((n 1) s + nt + nH ) Ab Lt ]
subject to minimum H , L , s, and n for H > 0, L > 0, s > 0, n > 0.
(9)
Eqs. (8) and (9) were solved using the dynamic-Q optimization al-
gorithm, which applies a dynamic-trajectory-optimization algorithm to
successive quadratic approximations of the optimization problem
Fig. 13. Comparison of temperature and velocity measured at the top and mid-
height sections of the fins at s = 12.7 mm and H = 49.28 mm, illustrating the
heat transfer rate. The maximum temperature and zero velocity indicate the fin
positions.
R.C. Adhikari, et al.
[28,29]. This algorithm was chosen as it efficiently solves optimization
problems in CFD with minimum storage requirements, where function
evaluations are computationally expensive as is the case of the present
problem [28,29]. The description of the dynamic-Q optimization al-
gorithm is presented in the Appendix. In this work, three problems were
analyzed. The first is aimed at finding computationally the optimum
geometry determined experimentally by Jones and Smith [4]. The
second is not, strictly, an optimization problem. It is to test the accuracy
of the CFD results for varying T in a fixed geometry by comparison to
new experiments. The first two problems are, therefore, validation ex-
ercises. The third problem is the most complex as the optimization in-
cludes minimizing the weight of the fins.
Problem I was addressed using two separate simulations. First, a
multi-parametric optimization was applied to verify the optimal con-
dition of Fig. 5 at H = 49.28 mm and T = 151 °C by varying s and
keeping the other parameters constant. A second optimization was
conducted by varying L and s to quantify the effect of L on Q/ Ab at
H = 49.28 mm and T = 151 °C. The influence of L on Q/ Ab is shown
in Fig. 14. The results for L = 260 mm followed the experimental re-
sults of Jones and Smith [4] at L = 254 mm, indicating that the dy-
namic-Q algorithm accurately reproduces the optima found in the
measurements. The results show that the increase in L from 200 to
260 mm significantly decreased Q/ Ab . The physical basis for this result
is that in longer fin arrays, velocity of the flow entering from the
channel ends would not be sufficiently developed to reach the centre of
the array or the extra frictional resistance prevents sufficient air getting
into form a plume, and thus decreasing the cooling effects or the heat
transfer rate.
Problem II in Table 4 determines Q as a function of T for a given
fin design, i.e. constant H , L , and s. An experimental setup was devel-
oped as shown in Fig. 15. A regulator was attached at the base of the
fins as a heat source, and the base was insulated. There was no heat
transfer from the back of the array. The increase in T was measured by
increasing Q. The experiment was conducted in a large room with
stagnant air and the room temperature was constant at 24.2 °C. A FLIR
E75 thermal imaging camera was used to measure the fin surface
temperature. As per manufacturer’s data-sheet, the maximum experi-
mental measurement error of the thermal camera is ±2%. For each test
case, the temperature was recorded after the heat sink attained a steady
surface temperature. This occurred at around 20–30 min. To ensure
reproducibility of the measurement, temperature was measured at
different sections of the fin surface by changing the location of the
camera pointer. The maximum temperature difference between the
different sections at same fin height was 0.1 °C. In the CFD optimiza-
tion, Q was computed at experimentally measured temperature differ-
ence values, T . The comparison of the experimental and the optimi-
zation results are summarized in Fig. 16, which shows a good
agreement between the two. The results demonstrate the good accuracy
of the dynamic-Q algorithm over a wider range of temperature differ-
ence.
In most design applications, Q/ Ab per unit weight of fin material is
an important consideration. A third optimization problem was solved
for the maximum heat transfer per unit base area for minimum weight,
Q/ Ab Wt . Here, Wt = (tb Ab + ntLH ) is the mass of the fin array.
Simulations were conducted to maximize Q/ (tb Ab2 + Ab ntLH ) for
Tmax = 166 °C by varying s, H and L. Fig. 18 shows the results of op-
timization for minimum weight, in which it is evident that the optimum
points for maximum Q/ Ab and Q/ (tb Ab2 + Ab ntLH ) are different. Op-
timum value for Q/ Ab Wt was obtained for the minimum H = 36 mm
and L = 200 mm, and s = 9.12 mm. At L = 254 mm, sopt = 6–8 mm for
maximum Q/ Ab , whereas for maximum Q/ (tb Ab2 + Ab ntLH ) , the op-
timum s and L were found as 9.12 mm and 200 mm respectively. The
total heat transfer rate at the optimum points, Qopt = 184.7 W for
L = 254 mm and sopt = 6–8 mm, whereas at sopt = 9.12 mm and
L = 200 mm, Qopt was computed as 111 W. It is noted here that L was
varied from 200 to 260 mm in the optimization problem and H from 36
9
Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 17 (2020) 100484
to 49.28 mm. These results clearly indicate that shorter and wider fins
would transfer more heat per unit base area per unit weight, Q/ Ab Wt ,
than longer, taller and wider fins. These results are consistent with the
experimental results of Jones and Smith [4], and empirical relations for
taller fins, Hs 360 mm2. Similarly, taller and longer fins transfer more
total heat, Q, than shallow and shorter fins. This indicates that H is
important in maximizing Q/ Ab Wt . It may thus be concluded that L , H ,
and s have significant effects on Q, Q /Ab and Q/ Ab Wt of the fin array,
the optimization of which requires a multi-parametric CFD optimiza-
tion as presented in this work. It is worth mentioning here the com-
putational time for typical optimization problems. Fig. 17 shows that
there are 16 CFD test evaluations during the optimization, and Fig. 18
shows that there are 9 CFD test evaluations to finally reach the op-
timum values. The total computational time for each test evaluation
depends on the initial and boundary conditions, number of geometrical
parameters, and the objective function. For the computational model
and mesh resolution used in this study, the total recorded computa-
tional time for the optimization problem reported in Fig. 17 is
49.07 min and 66.37 min for the optimization problem reported in
Fig. 18 on an eight-core parallel computer.
5. Conclusions
We have presented an analysis of heat transfer characteristics and
flow patterns of optimum rectangular fin configurations in natural
convection for fin design optimization. Three-dimensional, steady-state
laminar heat transfer simulations were conducted on experimentally
tested rectangular fins reported in the literature to analyze the optimum
fins. Multi-parametric CFD optimization was conducted using dynamic-
Q optimization algorithm to determine the optimum geometrical
parameters, followed by measurement of an example fin design to
verify the CFD predictions of the total heat transfer dependence on the
surface temperature. The key findings can be summarized as follows.
• The results of heat transfer simulations showed a good agreement
with the experimental results reported in the references [3,4]. Dif-
ferent fin geometries with varying fin spacing s and height H were
tested at constant L to assess the predictive capability of the com-
putational model for the heat transfer. From the CFD results, air
velocity vectors, and temperature contours in the fin channels were
analyzed to characterize the heat transfer behavior in optimum
conditions.
• In high fins, optimal heat transfer occurs within a narrow range of
fin spacing, whereas in shallow fins, optimal heat transfer occurs
over a wider range of fin spacing. A generic three-dimensional flow
Fig. 14. Optimization results for the effect of length L on Q / Ab at varying s for
the optimization problem I in Table 4 [H = 49.28 mm and T = 151 °C].
R.C. Adhikari, et al. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 17 (2020) 100484

Table 4 pattern as a vertically directed heat convection plume or chimney

Design parameters for the multi-parametric optimization problems was observed above the centre of the fin array. The flow patterns
Parameter Problem I Problem II Problem III and temperature contours indicated that the most important factors
that affect the heat transfer rate are the size of air flow inlet area of
L, mm 200–260 75 200–300 the fin channel, i.e. fin spacing and height. In narrow non-optimal
n 7 6 7
fins, the lack of a thermal boundary layer in the fin channels due to
s, mm 4–20 6 4–20
H, mm 49.28 17 36–49.28
low air velocity was found to be the main cause of poor heat
t, mm 3.17 1.25 3.17 transfer.
T , °C
Function to be maximized
151 variable 151 • At optimal fin spacing, both the temperature gradient and air ve-
[(n
Q
1) s + nt ] L [(n
Q
1) s + nt ] L [(n
Q
1) s + nt + nH ] Ab tL
locity in the fin channels increased. The increased velocity of the
horizontal inflow from the channel ends replenishing the warm air
from the channels caused a significant temperature gradient. At
wider spacing, the flow is well distributed in the channel with more
temperature gradient, but as the base area Ab has also increased, the
total heat transfer per unit base area, Q/ Ab , is decreased. This im-
plies that increasing s provides more air flow into the channel and
also improves h, but not necessarily Q/ Ab . It is noted that Ab will
increase as s is increased. Therefore, optimal Q/ Ab depends both on
the temperature gradient and the total channel or fin surface area.
• Multi-parametric conjugate heat-transfer CFD simulations using
dynamic-Q optimization algorithm were conducted to determine
optimum fin parameters. Validation of the optimization results was
by comparison to previous experimental results. It was found that
the computed optimum geometry was close to the experimentally
determined one. In addition, an experimental test was conducted on
a fixed fin geometry to verify the computed heat transfer rate over a
wide range of temperature differences. The optimization results
showed that optimum geometrical parameters for the maximum
heat transfer per unit base area and for the maximum heat transfer
per unit base area and weight are different. The dynamic-Q opti-
mization algorithm was found to be and efficient and accurate op-
timization method for simulating heat transfer in rectangular fins
from natural convection.
• This paper emphasizes the determination of optimum fin config-
urations using numerical multi-parametric optimization, rather than
suggesting a generalized empirical correlation. We believe it is not
possible to determine a specific optimum fin-array for all combi-
nations of fin geometries and temperature differences through em-
Fig. 15. Experimental setup for the fin array in problem II, Table 4 pirical correlations. In other words, the effects of parameter varia-
[H = 17 mm, L = 75 mm, and s = 6 mm]. tion are best determined computationally. The techniques
developed in the paper should yield optimal fins in related situa-
tions, such as in the presence of combined forced and natural con-
vection, or cases where the fins are inclined. It may be possible to
develop a semi-empirical correlation for optimum fin geometry, but
extensive simulations on a wide range of fin configurations and
Rayleigh numbers are needed.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

R.C. Adhikaria: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation,

Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. D.H.
Wood: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing - review
& editing. M. Pahlevani: Conceptualization, Resources, Project ad-
ministration, Writing - review & editing.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial

interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.

Fig. 16. Comparison of the CFD and the present experimental results for the Acknowledgement
heat transfer and temperature rise for the fin design problem II in Table 4
[H = 17 mm, L = 75 mm, and s = 6 mm].
The authors would like to acknowledge the CMC Microsystems
Canada for providing ANSYS license to perform thermal flow simula-
tions.

10
R.C. Adhikari, et al. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 17 (2020) 100484

Fig. 17. Optimization of heat transfer per unit base area, Q / Ab , for Tmax = 166 °C and varying s for the optimization problem I in Table 4. Optimum Q / Ab = 9,986 W/
m2 was obtained at L = 254 mm, s = 7.18 mm, and H = 49.28 mm.

Fig. 18. Optimization of heat transfer per unit base area per unit weight, Q/ Ab Wt , for Tmax = 166 °C at varying s, H and L. Optimum Q/ Ab Wt = 12,880 W/m2kg was
obtained at s = 9.12 mm, L = 200 mm, and H = 36 mm.

Appendix A. Appendix

A non-linear constrained optimization problem can be written as

minimize f (x ); (x1, x2 , ….,xn )
subject to gj (x ) 0, j = 1, 2, …, p,
hk (x ) = 0, k = 1, 2, …, q (10)
where f (x ), gj (x ) , and hk (x ) are scalar functions of x. The dynamic-Q algorithm generates sub-problems P [i], i = 0, 1, 2, 3 …, at successive
approximations x i of the solution x , by constructing spherically quadratic extrapolations f (x ), gj (x ) , and hk (x ) of functions f (x ), gj (x ) , and hk (x )
respectively [28], which are written as
1
f (x )=f (x i ) + Tf (x i )(x x i ) + 2 (x x i )T A (x x i );
1
gj (x )=gj (x i ) + T g (x i )(x
j x i ) + 2 (x x i )T Bj (x x i); j = 1, 2, …, p ;
1
hk (x )=hk (x i ) + Th
k (x
i )(x xi) + 2
(x x i )T Ck (x x i ); k = 1, 2, …, q (11)
where A , Bj , and Ck are the Hessian matrices expressed as:

11
R.C. Adhikari, et al. Thermal Science and Engineering Progress 17 (2020) 100484

A = diag (a, a, …, a) = aI; Bj = bj I; Ck = Ck I (12)

Eq. (12) shows that the sub-problems, P [i], are spherically quadratic [28]. In solving the problem, a linear approximation is made by setting the
curvatures a, bj , and ck to zero for the first sub-problem, i.e. i = 0. In the next step, a, bj , and ck are chosen in such a way that the approximating
functions, i.e. Eqs. (11) and (12), interpolate their corresponding functions at both x i and x i 1, which can be written for i = 1, 2, 3, …as:

2[f (x i 1) f (x i ) f (x i )(x i 1 x i )] 2[gj (x i 1) gj (x i) gj (x i )(x i 1 x i )] 2[hk (x i 1) hk (x i ) hk (x i )(x i 1 x i )]

a= ; bj = ; ck =
||x i 1 x i ||2 ||x i 1 x i||2 ||x i 1 x i||2 (13)
In Eq. (13), if the gradient vectors f, gj , and hk can not be computed analytically, they are approximated from the data by means of first-order
forward finite difference schemes [28]. It is imperative to note that as the second derivatives of the objective function and constraints are ap-
proximated using function and gradient data, the (n2 order) calculations and storage, which would be required for the second derivatives, are not
needed. The computational and storage requirements are thus reduced to order (n) . These savings become significant when the number of design
parameters is large such as in this paper. In summary, following optimization steps are followed in the dynamic-Q algorithm [28]:

1. Define a starting point x 0 and a step . Initialize i = 0 .

2. Compute f (x i ), gj (x i), hk (x i ), f (x i ), gj (x i ) , and hk (xi ) . If optimization criteria are satisfied, then stop iteration.
3. Construct a local approximation for the sub-problems, P [i], to the optimization problem at x i .
4. Solve the approximated sub-problem P [i] using the constrained leap-frog method as described below with x 0 = x i and then compute x*i .
5. Iterate with i = i + 1, x i = x *(i 1) and return to step 2 for more iterations until the optimization criteria are satisfied.

The sub-problems, P [i], for the constrained optimization are solved using the dynamic-trajectory “leap-frog” method with the penalty function
formulations [28]. In its unconstrained form, the leap-frog optimizer determines the minimum of a function, f (x ) , by formulating the motion of a
particle of unit mass in an n -dimensional conservative force field [28]. The potential energy of a particle at a point x (t ) at time t is defined by the
function f (x ) . The trajectory of the particle requires the solution of the following equations of the motion [28]:
X¨ (t ) = f (X (t )) (14)
with initial conditions
X (0) = X0 , X (0) = 0 (15)
The solution of the above equations over the time interval [0, t] is expressed as
1 1
||X (t )||2 ||V (0)||2 = f (X0 ) f (X (t )); f (t ) + T (t ) = f (0) + T (0) = K
2 2 (16)
where T (t ) is intantaneous kinetic energy of the particle, and K is a constant determined by the initial conditions. It is noted that energy is conserved
in the above equation. It is also evident that f = T , and as T increases, f decreases. This forms the basis of the dynamic-trajectory method, which
means that the ”leap-frog” optimization algorithm computes an approximation to the trajectory followed by the particle in the force field [28]. The
above leap-frog optimization algorithm is modified to handle constrained problems, such as the fin design problems of this paper, by means of the
penalty-function, the details of which can be found in [28].

References [16] H. Yüncü, G. Anbar, An experimental investigation on performance of rectangular

[1] W.M. Kays, Convective Heat and Mass Transfer, McGraw-Hill Education, Tata,
2012.
[2] J.H. Lienhard, A Heat Transfer Textbook, Courier Corporation, 2013.
[3] K. Starner, H. McManus, An experimental investigation of free-convection heat
transfer from rectangular-fin arrays, J. Heat Transfer 85 (3) (1963) 273–277.
[4] C.D. Jones, L.F. Smith, Optimum arrangement of rectangular fins on horizontal
surfaces for free-convection heat transfer, J. Heat Transfer 92 (1) (1970) 6–10.
[5] J. Turner, Buoyant convection from isolated sources, Buoyancy Effects Fluids
(1973) 165–206.
[6] T. Cebeci, P. Bradshaw, Physical and Computational Aspects of Convective Heat
Transfer, Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.
[7] A. Bar-Cohen, Fin thickness for an optimized natural convection array of rectan-
gular fins, ASME J. Heat Transfer 101 (1979) 564–566.
[8] A. Bar-Cohen, W. Rohsenow, Thermally optimum spacing of vertical, natural con-
vection cooled, parallel plates, J. Heat Transfer 106 (1) (1984) 116–123.
[9] N.S. Effendi, K.J. Kim, Orientation effects on natural convective performance of
hybrid fin heat sinks, Appl. Therm. Eng. 123 (2017) 527–536.
[10] K. Ong, C. Tan, K. Lai, K. Tan, Heat spreading and heat transfer coefficient with fin
heat sink, Appl. Therm. Eng. 112 (2017) 1638–1647.
[11] B. Freegah, A.A. Hussain, A.H. Falih, H. Towsyfyan, Cfd analysis of heat transfer
enhancement in plate-fin heat sinks with fillet profile: investigation of new designs,
Therm. Sci. Eng. Progress (2019) 100458.
[12] F. Harahap, H. McManus, Natural convection heat transfer from horizontal rec-
tangular fin arrays, J. Heat Transfer 89 (1) (1967) 32–38.
[13] F. Harahap, H. Lesmana, I.A.S. Dirgayasa, Measurements of heat dissipation from
miniaturized vertical rectangular fin arrays under dominant natural convection
conditions, Heat Mass Transfer 42 (11) (2006) 1025–1036.
[14] I. Tari, M. Mehrtash, Natural convection heat transfer from inclined plate-fin heat
sinks, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 56 (1–2) (2013) 574–593.
[15] C. Sobhan, S. Venkateshan, K. Seetharamu, Experimental analysis of unsteady free
convection heat transfer from horizontal fin arrays, Warme-und Stoffubertragung
24 (3) (1989) 155–160.
fins on a horizontal base in free convection heat transfer, Heat Mass Transfer 33
(5–6) (1998) 507–514.
[17] M. Turkyilmazoglu, Efficiency of the longitudinal fins of trapezoidal profile in
motion, J. Heat Transfer 139 (9) (2017) 094501.
[18] M. Turkyilmazoglu, Heat transfer from moving exponential fins exposed to heat
generation, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 116 (2018) 346–351.
[19] M. Dogan, M. Sivrioglu, O. Yílmaz, Numerical analysis of natural convection and
radiation heat transfer from various shaped thin fin-arrays placed on a horizontal
plate-a conjugate analysis, Energy Convers. Manage. 77 (2014) 78–88.
[20] S. Baskaya, M. Sivrioglu, M. Ozek, Parametric study of natural convection heat
transfer from horizontal rectangular fin arrays, Int. J. Therm. Sci. 39 (8) (2000)
797–805.
[21] M. Mobedi, H. Yüncü, A three dimensional numerical study on natural convection
heat transfer from short horizontal rectangular fin array, Heat Mass Transfer 39 (4)
(2003) 267–275.
[22] R. Karvinen, T. Karvinen, Optimum geometry of plate fins, J. Heat Transfer 134 (8)
(2012) 081801.
[23] G.-J. Huang, S.-C. Wong, Dynamic characteristics of natural convection from hor-
izontal rectangular fin arrays, Appl. Therm. Eng. 42 (2012) 81–89.
[24] S.-C. Wong, G.-J. Huang, Parametric study on the dynamic behavior of natural
convection from horizontal rectangular fin arrays, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 60
(2013) 334–342.
[25] Q. Shen, D. Sun, Y. Xu, T. Jin, X. Zhao, Orientation effects on natural convection
heat dissipation of rectangular fin heat sinks mounted on leds, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transfer 75 (2014) 462–469.
[26] S. Mandal, A. Deb, D. Sen, Mixed convective heat transfer with surface radiation in
a rectangular channel with heat sources in presence of heat spreader, Therm. Sci.
Eng. Progress 14 (2019) 100423.
[27] M. Bayat, M.R. Faridzadeh, D. Toghraie, Investigation of finned heat sink perfor-
mance with nano enhanced phase change material nepcm, Therm. Sci. Eng.
Progress 5 (2018) 50–59.
[28] ANSYS, Ansys academic research icepak, release 18, ANSYS.
[29] J. Snyman, A. Hay, The dynamic-q optimization method: An alternative to sqp,
Comput. Math. Appl. 44 (12) (2002) 1589–1598.

12