Proceedings of HT2005

2005 ASME Summer Heat Transfer Conference

July 17-22, 2005, San Francisco, California, USA

HT2005-72567

CFD THERMAL ANALYSIS AND OPTIMIZATION OF MOTOR COOLING FIN DESIGN

Ya-Chi Chen Bing-Chung Chen Chung-Lung Chen

Applied Computational Physics, Rockwell Scientific Company

Thousand Oaks, CA 91360, USA

Jimmy Q. Dong

Advanced Development, Power System, Rockwell Automation

Greenville, SC 29615, USA

ABSTRACT system is measured by the thermal resistance to heat convection

This study is focused on improving cooling performance of
the housing fin for Total Enclosed Fan Cooled (TEFC) motors.
We conducted a sensitivity study on the motor housing fin to
determine key design parameters and developed an
optimization procedure. The goal is to use the optimizer to
achieve an efficient design process for optimal fin design under
specified operating conditions. Response Surface Methodology
(RSM) was constructed out of the numerical data with multi-
quadratics (MQ) as basis functions to predict the response. The
RSM, in conjunction with generic optimization methods, was
used to find the optimal fin design in the parametric design
space. The parameter database was non-dimensionalized so that
the optimizer can be applied to various motor frame sizes.
Compared with the original fin design, in some cases the
optimal fin configuration reduces thermal resistance to heat
convection from the fin surface by more than 50%.
from the fin surface.
Parametric studies through CFD simulations led to a
general design guideline for improving thermal performance.
However, to avoid intensive CFD evaluations, a RSM approach
was adapted to develop an evaluation/optimization tool to
speed up the design process. Design of Experiment (DOE)
methodology is also applied to minimize the necessary CFD
runs for the database.
NUMERICAL APPROACH
CFD Thermal Modeling
Figures 1 and 2 show the single-fin model configuration.
pressure outlet

INTRODUCTION
Effective cooling is essential to motor performance. Good
pressure outlet pressure outlet
thermal management reduces the temperature rise in motor and
increases motor life. We have applied Computational Fluid
Dynamics (CFD) and thermal modeling to study the fan-fin
cooling system for Total Enclosed Fan Cooled (TEFC) motors
[1,2] and achieved good agreement with measured data. fan cover
fin
The objective of this study is to analyze the effect of fin
configuration on cooling performance and settle on an velocity inlet
optimized housing fin design. To determine key design
constant heat flux
parameters, a sensitivity study was done with three-dimensional
frame
thermal models developed in FluentTM. We investigated the
effects of fin pitch, fin height, fin thickness, and fan-fin Figure 1. Computational domain of single-fin flat plate model.
interaction. The cooling performance of a finned housing

1 Copyright © 2005 by ASME


fin height
thickness
fin pitch
Figure 2. Single fin configuration.
Default implicit segregated steady-state solver in FluentTM
was used for this conjugate heat transfer problem. We specified
uniform flow at the velocity inlet. RNG k-ε turbulence model
with two-layer zonal model for near-wall treatment was chosen
for this low-Reynolds-number flow. Details of choosing an
appropriate turbulence model can be found in Chen et al [1].
Fine grids are required within the viscosity-affected near-wall
region to resolve the mean velocity and turbulent quantities in
that region.
Response Surface Methodology (RSM)
The response surface methodology is a mathematical
modeling technique to approximate the response of a target
function based on given scattered data obtained from
experimentation or numerical simulations. This methodology is
particularly useful when each objective function evaluation is
computationally time-consuming. As a result, it is well-justified
to construct a mathematical response surface model to
approximate the objective function in place of expensive
computational simulations.
One of the distinguishing features of a mathematical
response surface model is the use of radial functions as the
basis functions to ensure the approximate response surface will
pass through the pre-specified data points. Mathematically, this
model is in the following form:
F (x) = ∑ β i φ (ri ) (1)
i
where φ ( ri ) is the radial basis function; the radial distance
function ri ( x) = x − x i is the distance (L2 Euclidian norm)
between point x and the i-th data point xi in the n-dimensional
parameter space x ∈ R n . Choosing the appropriate radial basis
function is critical to the success of the response surface
method, and is dependent on the nature of the data. The multi-
quadratic (MQ) functions are chosen as the basis radial function
to approximate the CFD simulation data. Compared with the
polynomial-based response surface model, MQ-based models
have the capability to approximate a complex objective
function with little supplied data. A multiple-quadratic function
in a one-parameter design space is:
φi ( x, h ) = (x − xi )2 + h (2)
where h is a non-negative smooth parameter; the larger the
smooth parameter, the smoother is the basis function. For the
extreme case when h vanishes, the multiple-quadratic
degenerates into a piece-wise linear function. In general, the
approximated surface is smoother when h becomes large.
However, when h is too large, the accuracy of the
approximation deteriorates significantly because the conditional
number of the coefficient matrix increases monotonically with
the increase of h [4].
RSM-Based Optimization
Based on the response surface, we can combine the surface
with generic optimization techniques to find an optimal design
in the design space. The RSM-based design optimization
methods use the aforementioned mathematical model to
approximate the objective function, and then the optimum
search is performed based on the response surface to find the
optimal point in the design space. This surface paves a path for
the optimum search, thus making the design optimization
process more efficient without resorting to excess CFD
evaluations. The extreme point on the response surface
corresponds to an optimal system configuration under practical
design constraints. A new CFD model is built based on the
optimized configuration for validation. If the deviation exceeds
the tolerance, the new CFD calculation will be added into the
CFD database to refine the response surface and the optimizer
will be used again to find the optimal configuration. This
iterative process is continued until the difference between the
prediction of the response surface and the result of CFD
calculation are within a specified tolerance. The final
converged design is the optimized structure; it can be used for
prototyping. The design engineers may use the optimizer to
determine the optimal design within the given constrained
conditions. The accuracy of the response surface can be further
improved by augmenting new data points through either CFD
modeling or experiments to refine the response surface.
We developed a suite of MATLAB programs, along with
the MATLAB optimization toolbox, using RSM/MQ method to
find the optimal fin design.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Effect of fin pitch
The CFD results for varying fin pitch normalized by the
original fin pitch are shown in Fig. 3. The scale on the left is for
the inverse of convection thermal resistance (hc*A), which is
the product of the area-averaged heat transfer coefficient, “hc”,
and fin effective surface area “A.” The scale on the right is for
the maximum frame temperature rise over ambient (∆Tframe). As
fin pitch is reduced, the total effective heat transfer surface
increases significantly. The inverse of convection thermal
resistance (hc*A) increases and the maximum temperature rise
(∆Tframe) decreases. Adverse cooling effect occurs when the
normalized fin pitch is smaller than 0.5 because large flow
resistance hinders the airflow into the fin channels and
deteriorates heat convection from the fin surface.
2 Copyright © 2005 by ASME
 Effects of fin height and fin thickness
10 60 Analysis on cooling effect of fin height is presented in
fan flow velocity = 1200 fpm
Figs. 4 and 5. The color bars in Figure 4 display the

Maxmimum temperature increase ( 0C)

hcA (W/ C) and hc (W/in - C)

50 temperature distribution of the area, which covers horizontally

2 0

from the center of the fin to the center of the fin channel and
1 40 vertically from the frame interior to 125% of the fin height of
hc*A
the tallest (original) fin. When the fin height is reduced below
hc 30 80% of the original, heat transfer significantly deteriorates
because fin surface area decreases. However, no significant
0

maximum DT

0.1 20
difference between the original fin height and 80% of the
original indicates that a designer can find the optimal fin height
without compromising the cooling performance from material
10
cost and weight point of view.
Figure 5 displays the data presented in Fig. 4 graphically,
0.01 0
as well as the effects of the fin heights greater than 100%. From
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3
Normalized Pitch
this information the designer can choose fin heights that are
consistent with design space, cost and weight constraints.
Figure 3. Maximum temperature rise, hc and hc*A vs.
normalized fin pitch.

100% (original) 80% 50% 10% 0

Figure 4. Temperature contour plots for various fin height.

10 130 To study the effect of fin thickness on cooling

fan flow velocity = 1200 fpm
120
performance, fin taper must change when the fin thickness is
reduced to less than 50% of the original. This modification in
Maxmimum temperature increase ( C)
0

110
fin taper should not change the conclusion drawn from the
hcA (W/ C) and hc (W/in - C)
2 0

1
100 analysis because fin taper shows a negligible effect in our
90 previous parametric study [1].
hc*A
The results with various fin thicknesses are shown in Fig.
hc 80
max. DT 6. The cooling performance between different fin thicknesses
70 does not change significantly. Even with only 10% of the
0

0.1
60 original fin thickness, heat can still be transferred from frame to
50
fin and convected to surrounding air. Table 1 shows the
maximum temperature for the corresponding fin thickness in
40
Fig. 6.
0.01 30
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Table 1. Maximum temperature in Fig. 6
% fin height
at various fin thickness.
Figure 5. Maximum temperature increase, hc and hc*A % original fin thickness 100 50 25 10
vs. fin height. Mximum temperature 64 59 59 62

3 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

 100% 50% 25% 10%
Figure 6. Temperature contour plots for various fin thicknesses.

10 130 increases flow into the fin channel and enhances heat removal
fan flow velocity = 1200 fpm (Fig. 11).
120

Maxmimum temperature increase ( C)

0
110
hcA (W/ C) and hc (W/in - C)
2 0

1
100
Fan cover radius fin
90
hc*A
80
hc
max. DT 70
0

0.1
60

50

40

0.01 30
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
% fin thickness

Figure 7. Maximum temperature increase, hc and hc*A

vs. fin thickness.
Axial distance
Figure 7 is expressed in the same temperature range as in
Figure 8. Single-fin flat plate model
Fig. 5 to show the insignificant effect on cooling from fin
thickness compared with fin height. The conclusion is that fin
height is a more important design parameter on fin cooling
10 65
performance than fin thickness. Therefore, fin thickness is not fan flow rate = 49 cfm
included as a design parameter in the fin optimizer.

Maxmimum temperature increase ( C)

60

0
hcA (W/ C) and hc (W/in - C)

Effect of fan cover location relative to fin

2 0

55
In the previous parametric study for fin design [1], the 1

location of the fan cover was fixed and there was no overlap 50
hc*A
between fan cover and frame in the axial direction, as shown hc
in Fig. 8. Because the diameter of the fan cover (related to the max. DT 45
0

area ratio of fan outlet to inlet) is one of the design variables 0.1
for the fan system, CFD analysis for variable fan cover radius, 40

and variable axial distance between the fan cover and the fin,
35
are performed to study their influences on fin cooling.
When changing the fan cover radius, with either a fixed 0.01 30
flow rate (Fig. 9) or a fixed velocity (Fig. 10) at fan outlet, 0.96 0.98 1 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08
reducing the difference between the fan cover radius and the Normalized fan cover radius
frame radius enhances cooling performance. When fan cover
radius is greater than that of the fins, thermal performance is Figure 9. Maximum temperature increase, hc and hc*A vs.
not improved. As for the effect of the axial clearance between normalized fan cover radius with fixed flow rate.
fin and fan cover, moving the fan cover closer to the fin

4 Copyright © 2005 by ASME

 10 50
fan flow velocity = 1200 fpm

Maxmimum temperature increase ( C)

0
49
hcA (W/ C) and hc (W/in - C)
2 0

hc*A
1 hc
max. DT 48

47
0

0.1

46

0.01 45 Figure 12. Surface and contour plot of the objective function,
0.96 0.98 1 1.02 1.04 1.06 1.08 hc*A (Y1), in the normalized fin pitch (x1) and fin height
Normalized fan cover radius (x2) response surface and the marked optimal point.
Figure 10. Maximum temperature increase, hc and hc*A vs.
CONCLUSIONS
normalized fan cover radius with fixed velocity.
The objectives of the study were to identify the key
10 50 design parameters for motor fin system of TEFC motors and
fan flow velocity = 1200 fpm develop a fin optimizer to speed up the design process. The
0
Maxmimum temperature increase ( C) CFD parametric study showed: 1) an optimal fin pitch exists
to achieve best fin cooling; 2) fin height has a more significant
hcA (W/ C) and hc (W/in - C)
2 0

1
effect on fin cooling performance than fin thickness; 3)
reducing fan cover radius and axial clearance between fan
hc*A cover and frame enhances cooling performance. Because of
hc 45
max. DT the insignificant effect of fin thickness on cooling
performance, fin thickness is excluded from the design
0

0.1
0.01
0 0.2
Normalized axial clearance between fin and fan cover
Figure 11. Maximum temperature increase, hc and hc*A vs.
normalized axial distance between fin and fan cover.
Fin optimization
The fin optimizer developed in MATLAB has the
functions of finding the optimal fin design and evaluating the
fin performance with a given set of design parameters. Figure
12 shows an example of the optimal fin design in the
normalized fin pitch and fin height design space.
parameters in the fin optimizer.
A fin optimizer with user-friendly interface was
developed to evaluate and improve the cooling fin system of
TEFC motors. Response Surface Methodology (RSM) with
40 multi-quadratics (MQ) approximation is applied to construct
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
response surfaces from CFD data to avoid intensive CFD
calculations. Furthermore, Design of Experiment (DOE)
method was used to reduce the number of required CFD runs.
The multivariate response surface models are used to predict
system performance. MATLAB optimization toolbox was
used as the underlying computational engine, combined with
the response surfaces to search for an optimal fin design. The
database was non-dimensionalized to apply the optimizer to
various motor frame sizes. Significant cooling improvement
was realized. Thermal resistance to heat convection from the
fin surface in some cases was reduced by more than 50%.
In conclusion, CFD thermal modeling combined with a
mathematical optimizer is efficient and cost-effective in
analyzing design features and improving product performance.

REFERENCES
[1] Chen, Y.C., Chen, C.L., Dong, J.Q., and Stephenson, R.
W., “Thermal Management for Motor,” ITHERM 2002,
San Diego, California, pp. 545-551.
[2] Chen, Y.C., Chen, C.L., and Dong, J.Q., “CFD Modeling
for Motor Fan System,” IEMDC 2003, Madison,
Wisconsin, pp. 764-768.
[3] Montgomery, D.C., “Design and Analysis of
Experiments”, John Wiley & Sons, 2001.
[4] Wang, B.P., “Parameter Optimization in Multiquadratic
Response Surface Approximations”, 6th U. S. National
Congress on Computational Mechanics, August 2001.

5 Copyright © 2005 by ASME