Department of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering

MEC701 Heat Transfer - Lab Report No. 4

FREE CONVECTION
Program: Mechanical Engineering Lab Section 3 Lab Date: March 12, 2008 Due Date: March 26, 2008 Prepared for: Instructor: Dr. D. Naylor Teaching Assistance: Mr. Ebrahim Poulad

Names Aman, Aditya Kalashnikov, Andrey Lin, Xu Zhong Matharoo, Raj (Manager) Shanmugasundram, Sujeethan

Student ID xxx025078 xxx098084 xxx558915 xxx551613 xxx726181

Signature*

1

Summary
In this experiment, the free convective heat transfer coefficients for a horizontal aluminum cylinder and an aluminum plate were calculated and compared. A hot air gun was used to heat both the specimens for a specified time interval. Corresponding calculations were made and then tabulated as displayed in the results section. A graph of the log of Nusselt number vs the log of Prandtl Number was also plotted. A certain degree of errors were seen in performing the experiment which could be attributed to poor ventilation and also uneven heating of the aluminum bar. Here the percent errors in the range of 42 – 47% were seen for the measured and theoretical values of h in the horizontal cylinder, whereas errors in the range of 22%-35% were seen for the vertical plate. Also the Biot number was calculated to be lower than 0.1, which subsequently proved that lumped capacitance could also be used for corresponding calculations. Generally the experiment was considered to be a success despite the percentage errors seen and the objectives were met as well.

2

Table of contents:
1. Introduction and Theory …………………………………………………….Pg.4 2. Apparatus…………………………………………………………………….Pg.6 3. Procedure…………………………………………………………………….Pg.7 4. Results………………………………………………………………………. Pg.8 5. Discussion……………………………………………………………………Pg.10 6. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………...Pg.11 7. References……………………………………………………………………Pg.12 8. Appendices…………………………………………………………………...Pg.13

3

1.0 Introduction
A heated fluid tends to rise in the presence of the Earth’s gravitational field and density differences within the fluid produces buoyant forces that drive the flow. This buoyancyinduced flow is called free convection or natural convection. A horizontal cylinder of diameter D and a vertical flat plate of height L, is shown in Figure1. Both objects have surface temperature TS and are immersed in a large body of quiescent fluid at temperature . Most fluids expand when heated. So, the heated fluid

near the surface of the object will be less dense than the surrounding fluid. This fluid will rise, producing a thermal boundary layer on the surface, and thermal plume above the object.

Figure 1: Free Convection from an isothermal horizontal cylinder and an isothermal vertical plate. The following relationship predicts the Free Convective Heat Transfer

4

--------------------(1) Where is the average Nusselt Number and Ra is the Rayleigh

number. In Equation (1), C and n are empirical constants which are determined from experiments or analysis. The fluid properties in equation (1) are evaluated at the film temperature, (TS+ )/2.

The characteristic dimension used in the Nusselt number and Rayleigh number depends on the geometry of the problem. For free convective heat transfer the dimension it has the biggest effect on the convective heat transfer rate is the overall height of the object. So, for a horizontal cylinder, the characteristic length is the diameter D. Similarly, for a vertical plate, the characteristic length is the height, L. Using these characteristic dimensions, the equation (1) is modified to the following equation (2) valid for: Horizontal Isothermal Cylinder

----------------(2)

Vertical Isothermal Cylinder

5

-----------------(3) The values of both C and n depend on the Rayleigh number and are different for different geometries.

2.0 Apparatus
The following apparatus was used for the experiment: 1. A long aluminum cylinder 2. A square aluminum plate 3. Plastic threaded rods 4. Thermocouple

6

3.0 Procedure
1. The air disturbance nearby the apparatus was kept at a minimum level. 2. The ambient temperature T and atmospheric pressure were recorded. 3. The experiment was started with the vertical plate first to avoid any interaction with the plume from the horizontal cylinder. The vertical plate was heated to 160170  F by using a hot air gun. 4. The plate’s internal temperature was kept uniform by leaving it for 2 minutes after the heating was completed. 5. The plate’s temperature was taken every 120 seconds for 16 minutes. 6. The above steps were repeated for the horizontal cylinder.

7

4.0 Results

Table 1 – Summary of Results for horizontal cylinder Measured Average Heat Transfer Coeff, Time step I Predicted Average Heat Transfer Coeff, Difference Between Measured & Predicted Experimental Rayleigh Number, Ra 48048.75 45541.35 43063.17 40852.11 38721.53 36672.54 34724.8 32795.52 Measured Average Nusselt Number

h
(W/m 2 K) 4.215682 4.51839 4.441648 3.850448 4.069024 3.891717 3.873411 4.069629

h

(W/m 2 K) 8.024959 7.880066 7.733628 7.599315 7.47179 7.34539 7.223405 7.100402

h (%)

Nu

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

47.46787 42.66051 42.56708 49.33165 45.5415 47.01824 46.37694 42.68453

7.106598 7.012013 6.914611 6.824092 6.733322 6.642422 6.552412 6.45944

Table 2 – Summary of Results for vertical plate Measured Average Heat Transfer Coeff, Time step I Predicted Average Heat Transfer Coeff., Difference Between Measured & Predicted Experimental Rayleigh Number, Ra 11462784 10977932 10479686 10031267 Measured Average Nusselt Number

h
(W/m 2 K) 6.480549 6.663447 6.999992 5.955623

h

(W/m 2 K) 9.7299 9.553776 9.372095 9.202665

h (%)

Nu

1 2 3 4

33.39552 30.25327 25.31027 35.28371

53.39563 52.6395 51.8388 51.09606

8

5 6 7 8

6.010026 6.403375 5.721765 6.67398

9.045493 8.88379 8.728303 8.569534

33.55778 27.92068 34.44585 22.11968

9610191 9180241 8779885 8367875

50.37808 49.62287 48.89803 48.12858

log Nusselt number vs. log Rayleigh number
100

log Nusselt number

10

1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000 1E+08 log Rayleigh number

Figure 1 – Graph Log of average Nusselt number vs. log Rayleigh number

9

5.0 Discussion
For the horizontal cylinder, percent errors of 42%-47% were apparent for the measured and theoretical heat transfer coefficient. While, for the vertical plate, percent errors were calculated to be in the range of 22%-35% for the theoretical and measured heat transfer coefficient. The reason for the percent errors can be explained by a couple of factors during the experimentation. One of which is that the air in the room was not perfectly quiescent and that it was disturbed because of the poor ventilation. Another factor was the uneven heating of the aluminum bar as the temperature of the entire surface had deviations. Also, inaccurate timing during the cooling stage may have triggered some imprecise results. These errors might have accumulated to a point that it drastically affected the results.

Lumped capacitance method is certainly valid for this type of experiment because the Biot number was less than 0.1. As the conductive temperature resistance is much lower than the convective temperature resistance, this signifies that the temperature variation within the metal plate is much lower than the temperature variation between the metal plate and the air.

 The total heat loss for the vertical plate is mCp∆T ≅ 18W, while the heat loss due to radiation is εσA(T1 4 − T∞ 4 ) ≅ 3W. Hence, heat loss due to radiation accounts for about 10

16% of the total heat loss. Polished surfaces have lower emissivity as compared to rough surface, hence the cylinder and the plate was polished to prevent any major heat loss to radiation.

6.0 Conclusion
The objective of the experiment was to compare the free convective heat transfer coefficients of a horizontal cylinder and a vertical plate. For the calculation of the average convective heat transfer coefficients of the cylinder, the Grashof, Prandtl, Reyleigh and Nusselt numbers were evaluated. The predicted value for h was found to be higher than the measured value, in both cases. Generally percent errors in the range of 42 – 47% were seen for the measured and theoretical values of h in the horizontal cylinder, whereas errors in the range of 22%-35% were seen for the vertical plate. Generally, the horizontal cylinder produced lower values for convective heat transfer coefficients when compared to the vertical plate. In all the experiment was considered to be a success.

11

7.0 References
[1] Naylor D., MEC 701 Heat Transfer Laboratory Manual, Toronto: Ryerson University, 2008.

12

8.0 Appendix
Test conditions for cylinder experiment Barometric pressure: 746.15 mmHg Initial Room Temperature: 72.4 ° F = 295.6 K
Table 2 – Collected data for horizontal cylinder

Index i Time t (sec) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960

Instantaneous Cylinder Temp. Ti (° F ) 160.2 153.7 147.3 141.5 136.8 132.2 128.1 124.3 120.6

Instantaneous Cylinder Temp. Ti (K ) 344.4 340.8 337.2 334.0 331.4 328.8 326.5 324.4 322.4

Sample calculations for horizontal cylinder m = 0.4505 kg D = 2.46 cm For aluminum alloy 2024-T6 C p = 875( J / kg ⋅ K ) L = 35.6 cm

ε = 0.04 and σ = 5.67 × 10 −8 (W / m 2 ⋅ K 4 )
dT1 T2 − T1 153.7 − 160.2 = = = −0.054167(° F / s) = - 0.030093 (K/s) dt ∆t 120 A= 2πD 2 + 2 LπD = 0.0559762 m 2 4

T1 = (T1 + T2 ) / 2 = 342.6 K

13

h1 =

− mC p

4 dT1 − εσA(T 1 − T∞4 ) − 0.4505 (875)(-0.030093 ) - 0.04(5.67 × 10 −8 )(0.0559762)(342.6 4 − 295.6 dt = 0.0559762(342.6 - 295.6) A(T 1 − T∞ )

h1 = 4.212 (W/m 2 K) Nu D = hD 4.212(0.0246) = = 3.733247 k air 0.027779

T f1 = (T1 − T∞ ) / 2 = (342.5667 - 295.6)/2 = 319.9861K Interpolating the air properties at T=319.98K and using Table A.4 we get:

β = 0.003125(1/K) ρ = 1.094886(kg/m 3 ) µ = 1.94033 × 10 -5 ( N ⋅ s / m 2 ) Pr = 0.704202
Plugging in all this variables into equation for Rayleigh number we get Ra D = gβ (T1 − T∞ ) D 3 ρ 2 Pr = 48048.75 µ2

Now we can find Nusselt number Nu = C Ra n , where C = 0.480 and n = 0.250 because Ra D
D

∈ 10 4 − 10 7

Nu D = 7.106598 From Nusselt number we can calculate the predicted value of h : Nu D k = 8.024959 (W/m 2 K) D h predicted − h h predicted × 100% = 47.46787%

h predicted = %error =

14

Test conditions for plate experiment Barometric pressure: 746.15 mmHg Initial Room Temperature: 71.3 ° F = 294.98 K
Table 2 – Collected data for vertical plate

Index i Time t (sec) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960

Instantaneous Plate Temp. Ti (° F ) 159.8 154.4 149.2 144.1 140 136.1 132.2 128.9 125.3

Instantaneous Cylinder Temp. Ti (K )
344.15 341.15 338.2611 335.4278 333.15 330.9833 328.8167 326.9833 324.9833

Sample calculations for vertical plate m = 0.8002 kg W =0.1524 m C p = 875( J / kg ⋅ K ) H = 0.1524 m D = 0.0127 m

For aluminum alloy 2024-T6

ε = 0.04 and σ = 5.67 × 10 −8 (W / m 2 ⋅ K 4 )
A = 2 (HW+HD+WD) = 0.05419344 m 2 T1 = (T1 + T2 ) / 2 = 342.65 K dT1 T2 − T1 341.15 − 344.15 = = = -0.025 (K/s) dt ∆t 120

h1 = h1 =

− mC p

4 dT1 − εσA(T 1 − T∞4 ) dt = A(T 1 − T∞ )

− 0.8002 (875)(-0.025 ) - 0.04(5.67 × 10 −8 )(0.05419344 )(342.65 4 − 294.98 4 ) 0.05419344 (342.65 - 294.98)

h1 = 6.480 (W/m 2 K) 15

Nu D =

hD 6.480(0.1524) = = 35.56388 k air 0.027771

T f1 = (T1 − T∞ ) / 2 = (342.65 - 294.98)/2 = 319.875 K Interpolating the air properties at T=319.875K and using Table A.4 we get:

β = 0.003126(1/K) ρ = 1.095256(kg/m 3 ) µ = 1.93981 × 10 -5 ( N ⋅ s / m 2 ) Pr = 0.704218
Plugging in all this variables into equation for Rayleigh number we get Ra L = gβ (T1 − T∞ ) L3 ρ 2 Pr = 11462784 µ2

Now we can find Nusselt number Nu = C Ra n , where C = 0.125 and n = 0.333 because Ra L
L

∈ 10 7 − 1012

Nu L = 53.39563 From Nusselt number we can calculate the predicted value of h : Nu L k = 9.7299 (W/m 2 K) L h predicted − h h predicted × 100% = 33.39552%

h predicted = %error =

16

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.