# Heat Transfer Correlations for Star-Shaped Fins
## 3 Results and Discussion  
The results of the numerical analysis for individual variants are shown in Table 8.  
For each variant of the numerical analysis, the calculation of heat transfer and pressure drop was performed. The results of the calculation are presented in Table 9. The data reduction and interpretation are described in detail in [31].  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Fin Thickness** & **Fin Pitch** & **Skewness** & **Orthogonal Qual.** & **Aspect Ratio** & **Elements/Nodes** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\(1\)} & \multirow{3}{*}{4.5} & min. \(1.3\times 10^{-10}\) & min. 0.1 & min. 1.07 & \multirow{3}{*}{el. 11,334,069} \\  & & max. 0.917 & max. 1 & max. 31.6 & & \\  & & av. 0.24 & av. 0.86 & av. 2.7 & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\(0.7\)} & \multirow{3}{*}{4.5} & min. \(1.3\times 10^{-10}\) & min. 0.111 & min. 1.07 & \multirow{3}{*}{el. 11,062,274} \\  & & max. 0.9 & max. 1 & max. 32.5 & & \\  & & av. 0.24 & av. 0.85 & av. 2.74 & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\(0.3\)} & \multirow{3}{*}{4.5} & min. \(1.3\times 10^{-10}\) & min. \(8.8\times 10^{-2}\) & min. 1.07 & \multirow{3}{*}{el. 10,736,408} \\  & & max. 0.91 & max. 1 & max. 91.76 & & \\  & & av. 0.24 & av. 0.85 & av. 2.87 & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\(0.5\)} & \multirow{3}{*}{3.0} & min. \(1.3\times 10^{-10}\) & min. 0.14 & min. 1.04 & \multirow{3}{*}{el. 8,042,694} \\  & & max. 0.899 & max. 1 & max. 36.2 & & \\  & & av. 0.25 & av. 0.85 & av. 3.0 & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\(0.5\)} & \multirow{3}{*}{6.0} & min. 1.3 & min. 0.1 & min. 1.0 & \multirow{3}{*}{el. 13,742,299} \\  & & max. 0.918 & max. 1 & max. 36.5 & & \\  & & av. 0.23 & av. 0.86 & av. 2.6 & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\(0.5\)} & \multirow{3}{*}{8.0} & min. 1.3 & min. 0.1 & min. 1.0 & \multirow{3}{*}{el. 17,402,882} \\  & & max. 0.94 & max. 1 & max. 36.5 & & \\  & & av. 0.22 & av. 0.86 & av. 2.45 & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 7: Mesh quality elements for geometric model variants.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variant** & **1** & **2** & **3** & **4** & **5** & **6** & **7** & **8** & **9** & **10** & **11** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\(T_{out}\)} & K & 325.76 & 314.74 & 307.66 & 323.84 & 312.89 & 305.81 & 321.8 & 311.1 & 304.3 & 318.8 & 308.49 \\ \cline{2-11}  & Pa & 10.403 & 48.894 & 188.77 & 8.909 & 41.51 & 158.82 & 8.10 & 37.48 & 142.84 & 7.404 & 33.907 \\ \cline{2-11}  & Pa & \(-2.11\) & \(-12.4\) & \(-52.47\) & \(-2.139\) & \(-12.33\) & \(-52.36\) & \(-2.10\) & \(-12.28\) & \(-52.52\) & \(-2.044\) & \(-12.14\) \\ \hline
**Variant** & **12** & **13** & **14** & **15** & **16** & **17** & **18** & **19** & **20** & **21** & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\(T_{out}\)} & K & 302.32 & 328.27 & 316.28 & 308.46 & 317.4 & 307.67 & 301.89 & 313.46 & 304.98 & 300.0 & \\ \cline{2-11}  & Pa & 128.49 & 11.197 & 49.427 & 183.38 & 6.756 & 32.356 & 125.19 & 5.808 & 28.70 & 112.66 & \\ \cline{2-11}  & Pa & \(-52.28\) & \(-2.132\) & \(-12.38\) & \(-53.19\) & \(-2.067\) & \(-12.06\) & \(-51.39\) & \(-2.131\) & \(-11.73\) & \(-49.89\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 8: Results of numerical analysis for individual variants of the studied geometry.