Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10



Studies by varying the fin Material, Size of Perforation and Heat Input using
Taguchi –ANOVA Analysis

10.1 Introduction

The data used in this Taguchi analysis were obtained experimentally for various
materials like mild steel, copper, and aluminum, by different heat inputs and varying the
size of the perforation (Solid, 10mm and 20mm perforations having Porosity ratio 0, 0.38
and 0.5) Fig 10.1 shows the copper fin arrays being tested. In these experiments, the four
fins were mounted on the base plate of size 120×120×12mm. Fin dimensions were (H ×
L), 100×100mm, fin thickness 3mm and the fin spacing S=20mm. Using the Taguchi
experimental design method, the influence of the parameters like material, porosity ratio
and heat input on the rate of heat transfer were investigated. Heat transfer coefficient was
considered as performance parameters. An L9 (33) orthogonal array was selected as an
experimental plan.

Fig 10.1 Perforated fin arrays of material Copper with 20mm size of perforation
(Experimentation for Taguchi ANOVA analysis)

10.2 Taguchi Method
For all types of experimental findings , it require to design the experiment and
take the enough actual readings. To support the outcomes of the reaserch. That can be
done by different ways:

i) trial-and-error approach :

By conducting the series of actual experiments those which gives diierent

understanding. This requires taking actual readings after each experiments. so that
analysis of data of readings will give idea to decide what to do next - "Which
parameters can be varied and at what extent". In many cases it may not work may lead
to negative results it will discourage, and or may not lead to selection of exact influencing
parameter. Such experimentation will not reach to end or number of experiments will be
more. Thus data may be insufficient to reach any significant conclusions and the main
problem still remains unsolved.

ii) Design of experiments:

In a systematically planned set of experiments, having included parameters of
interest are changed for a specified range, this is good approach to gain systematic data.
In Mathematical language, such a full set of experiments is set to give desired results. In
such cases number of experiments and resources (materials and time) required are
possibly large. Many times researchers decides to carry out a subset of the total set of
experiments to save efforts and money. Even though, it does not simply provide itself to
understanding of art behind the phenomenon. The investigation is not so simple and
obvious effects of different parameters on the practical data are not readily noticeable.

ii) Taguchi Method

The Taguchi method involves reducing the variation in a process through robust
design of experiments. The overall objective of the method is to produce high quality
product at low cost to the manufacturer. The Taguchi method was developed by Dr.
Genichi Taguchi, a method for designing experiments to investigate how different
parameters affect the mean and variance of process performance characteristics that
defines how well the process is functioning. The Taguchi method gives the S/N ratio as

the performance index to evaluate the characteristics of the product or process. It can be
easily defined as the ratio of the mean (signal) to the standard deviation (noise) by S/N
ratio. The S/N ratios may be depended on the particular type of performance
characteristics, including smaller-is-better (ZS) or larger-is-better (ZL)
1 2
z s = −10 log 
∑Y  i
 (10.1)
i =1

1 n
1 
z L = − 10 log 
n ∑Y 2

 i =1 i (10.2)

Where n is the number of tests in trial Yi is the performance value of ith experiment.

In this study, Orthogonal array L9(33) [50] experimental design method was
chosen to determine the experimental plan. In this study the control parameters like
porosity, heat input, and thermal conductivity of material were set as a level as shown in
Table 9.5. In order to observe the effect of noise to source ratio on the heat transfer
coefficient each experiment was repeated three times under the same condition as per
L9(33) table. Values were determined by comparing the standard method and analysis of
variance (ANOVA) which is based on the Taguchi method. The objective was to obtain
performance characteristics (maximum heat transfer coefficient) hence, larger the better
was chosen.

Table 10.1 Control Parameters and Levels for Maximum Heat Transfer Coefficient

Control parameters Level I Level II Level III

A Porosity ratio 0 0.38 0.5
B Heat input (watt) 40 60 80
C Material (Thermal Cond.) Cu Al MS

10.3 Taguchi and ANOVA Analysis

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is one of the statistical models used to study the
difference among group means plus their connected procedures like differences between
groups. In ANOVA, the variance observed in a prescribed parameter is divided into parts

attributable to various sources of deviation. ANOVA provides a statistical test of means
for several groups are equal or not and accordingly generalizes the t-test for more than

two groups. By many t-tests of two-samples will increase chance of a type I error.
Because of which, ANOVAs are useful in comparing three or more means for statistical
significance. As explained above the parameters chosen are: Heat input, Porosity and Fin
material and the heat transfer coefficient was the measure of the outcomes of varying
these parameters.
In this study, from experimental readings, the average heat transfer coefficient
(ha) was calculated using Eq. (10.1). Eq. (10.2) the larger- is the better, used to calculate
the S/N ratio.

Table 10.2 .S/N Response Table for Maximum Heat Transfer Coefficient

Experiment ha S/N
no. (W/m2k) Ratio
1 1 1 1 9.0 19.08
2 1 2 2 9.3 19.37
3 1 3 3 8.65 18.74
4 2 1 2 9.1 19.18
5 2 2 3 8.56 18.65
6 2 3 1 10.83 20.69
7 3 1 3 9.24 19.31
8 3 2 1 12.38 21.85
9 3 3 2 13.07 22.33

Both the values of ha and S/N ratio, are presented in Table 10.2. After calculating
the S/N ratio for each experiment, the average S/N value is calculated for each factor and
level. For example, the mean S/N ratio for the heat input level II can be calculated by
averaging the S/N ratios for experiment no. 1, 4, 7, and for level II experiment no. 2, 5, 8
and for level III experiment no 3, 6, 9. The mean S/N ratio for each level of the other
parameters can be computed in similar manners that are presented in the response Table
10.3. The main effect of each parameter is nothing but difference of highest and lowest
value among the levels.

Table 10.3 Orthogonal Array L9(33) of the Experimental Results And Corresponding S/N

Parameters Level I Level II Level III
(A) Porosity 19.06 19.51 21.16a 2.1
(B) Heat Input 19.19 19.96 20.59a 1.4
(C) Thermal
20.54a 20.29 18.90 1.64







0 0.38 0.50 40 60 80 Cu Al MS
Porosity Heat Input Mterial

Fig.10.2 the Effect of Parameters on Heat Transfer Coefficient (ha)

The plot in Fig.10.2 shows the degree of effect of the each parameter on the
performance characteristics. The procedure can be explained with an example, for an
instance, Fig 10.2 shows the variation of the performance characteristics with the porosity
ratio. Now, let us try to determine the experimental condition for the first data point. The
porosity ratio for this point is 0, which is the level I, the performance characteristics value
is 19.06 which is tabulated in Table 10.3. Similarly for second data point, the
performance characteristics value is 19.51 under level II. Similarly for third data point
and so on.
The numerical value of the maximum point in each graph shows the best value of that
particular parameter. They also indicate the optimum conditions in the range of the
experimental conditions. The most effective parameter to enhance the heat transfer rate is
the porosity ratio. Fig.10.2 shows that the design parameter combination A3 B3 C1, and

the corresponding values of each factor for the maximum heat transfer coefficient i.e. A3
porosity ratio (0.5), B3 heat input (80), material (Copper).
Table 10.4 summarizes the ANOVA results for maximum heat transfer coefficient
and shows percentage contribution and variation of factors A B and C.

Table 10.4 ANOVA to Maximize Heat Transfer Coefficient

Factors SS DOF MS F actual
A 11.19 2 5.59 41.70 50.23
B 4.54 2 2.27 16.93 20.39
C 6.54 2 3.27 24.39 29.38
Error 0.2864 2 0.1341 - --
Total 22.55 8 - - 100


% Contribution





Porosity Heat Input Thermal Cond.

Fig.10.3 Percentage Contribution of Each Control Parameter to Enhance the Heat

Fig 10.3 indicates that porosity ratio having 50.23 % contribution and more
significant, material (thermal conductivity) having 29.38% contribution and heat input
having 20.39%contribution and less significant influence upon the maximum heat
transfer coefficient in our study.

10.4 Confirmation Test

In this study ANOVA was used to analyze the effects on the heat transfer
coefficient of porosity, heat input and thermal conductivity of the material. ANOVA is
the statistical technique used to find the influence of all control parameters. In the
analysis, the percentage distributions of each control factor were used to measure the
corresponding effects on the performance characteristics. The significance level of 5%,
i.e. for 95% level of confidence was considered in this analysis. ANOVAs values
belonging to the experimental results for the heat transfer coefficient and S/N ratios are
shown in Table 10.1 the optimal heat transfer coefficient was obtained by taking into
account the influential parameter within the evaluated optimum combination. The
predicated optimum heat transfer coefficient was calculated by considering the individual
effect of the parameters A3, B3 and C1 and their levels using Eq. (10.3)
(ha)p =Tha+(A3-)+(B3- Tha)+(C1- Tha) (10.3)
Where Tha is the total mean value of the heat transfer coefficient. A3, B3, and C1
are the (11.56,10.85 and 10.73) ha of experimental trials at the corresponding parameter.
The optimal heat transfer coefficient is computed as 13.13 (w/m2k). The confidence
interval for the predicated optimal values is calculated as follows
8 8
CI = Ö×ËØ Ø »ÌÀ gÙ , Êh (10.4)

Where ×ËØ Ø is the F-ratio required for (α=0.05 with a confidence of 95%) »8, »<
are the number of degrees of freedom of the mean and the number of degrees of freedom
of error, »ÌÀ is the error of variance, r is the number confirmation experiments. heff is no.
of effective measured results defined as [51]
heff = 8 H ÜÛÜC$ âÝãFÝÝ Ûä äFÝÝâÛà Ûä (10.5)
äCåÜÛF æ Ýâ äÛF ÑFÝâßåÜßÛá

The total number of experimental trials are 9, with error of variance 0.134,
number of confirmation experiments 3, heff calculated using Eqs.(10.5) which is
1.28.Therefore, the CI is computed to be CI = ±0.820.The confirmation test result are
presented in Table 10.5. The optimal levels of corresponding parameters are Porosity at
level III (i.e. 0.5), Heat Input at Level III (i.e. 80W) and Material at Level I (i.e. Cu) for

this combination real experimental value of ha is 13.54, which falls between the predicted
confidence interval.

Table 10.5 Results of confirmation experiment

Average heat transfer coefficient (ha)

Prediction Real
Interval CI
13.13 ±0.82 13.54

The most important parameter affecting heat transfer enhancement is the

porosity ratio (50.23% contribution). A perforation in the fin enhances the heat transfer
and enhancement increases with an increase in the porosity ratio for tested range.

Secondly, thermal conductivity also plays an important role in enhancing the heat

Average heat transfer coefficients of perforated fin arrays of both 0.38 and 0.5
porosity ratio’s are higher than solid fin arrays (0 porosity ratio) for materials (Cu, Al,
MS). Finally one of the most important benefits of the utilization of perforated fins
(increases porosity ratio) is reduction of fin’s weight. Low weight certifies saving
material of fins and related equipments such as heat sinks. From the experimental trials
and Taguchi results, new design of the fin structure (copper fin with perforation) can
maximize the rate of heat transfer.

10.5 Effect of Heat Input

The results of the perforated fin arrays with and without cross fin, non perforated
fin arrays with and without cross fin at the center shows that the average heat transfer
coefficient increases with increasing with heat input which has proved by both
experimental as well as CFD analysis. This is explained by the increase in local fin
surface temperature when fin base Watt heat input is increased, which results in an
increase in the local and average heat transfer coefficient. And also from Taguchi
analysis; it is proved that heat input has least contribution in enhancing the heat transfer.

10.6 Closure

Taguchi analysis is carried by varying the fin material, porosity and heat input as a
parameters of heat transfer coefficient. This reveals that the factor most affecting the
enhancement of heat transfer is the porosity i.e. size of the perforation and secondly the
thermal conductivity of the material.