High Temperatims-High Pressures. Vol. 43. pp.

L1-37
Reprints available directly I'rom the publisher
Photoeopyinj permitted by liecnse only

62014 Old City Publi.shing. Inc.

Published by license under the OOP Science itnprint.
a member ol" the Old City Publishing Cirotip

Experimental and theoretical study of

microthermocouple used as cooling device
S. AMRANE', P. BAUCOUR', E . GAVIGNET' AND F . LANZETTA'*
'FEMTO-ST Institule, Energy Dept. UMR6174, CNRS / University of Franche-Comt
Parc technologicjue, 2 avenue Jean Moidin 90000 Belforl. France
Received: April 15, 2013. Accepted: September 25, 2013.

This paper describes an experimental study and a numerical model of a

microthermocouple used as a cooling device. The operating principle is
based on the cooling of a thermocouple junction by the Peltier effect. The
main objective is to determine a compromise between the thermoelectrieal
couple, wire diameters, and injected current in order to obtain the largest
temperature drop. The experimental setup consists of two microthermocouples glued together and electrically isolated from each other. The first
one, excited by a cunent. cools down due to the Peltier effect. The second
one is used to measure the temperature variations of the system. The
numerical model is based on several phenomena as heat conduction into
the wires, heat exchange with ambiance through convection, heat exchange
with its surroundings through radiation and the Joule and Peltier effects.
The results are very close to those obtained during the experiment, thereby
reasonably validating this model.
Keyword.^: Microthermocouple. Peltier effect. Joule effect. Transient measurement.

1 INTRODUCTION
At the beginning of the W" century, the thermoelectrieal effect was discovered by Thomas Seebeck. He demonstrated that a difference in temperature at
the junction of two different electrical conductors creates a difference in
potential [1]. A few years later, Jean Peltier discovered the second thermoelectric effect: He found that a direct electrical current passes through a junction of two different electrical conductors, heat is absorbed or released at the
Corresponding author; francois.lanzetta@univ-fcomte.fr

13

14

S. AMRANI; et al.

junction based on the direction of the cunent. In 1851, William Thomson

(Lord Kelvin) showed that the Seebeck and Peltier effects are related [2]. In
1860, James Prescott Joule discovered the Joule effect which involves the
heat manifestation of electrical resistance. It occurs when an electric current
is passed in any conductive material.
The Peltier effect was largely ignored by the scientific community until
the 1950s. In response to the environmental problems related of CFC gases
from conventional refrigeration equipment, the development of equipment
based on the Peltier effect has been promoted. This effect has been applied to
relrigeration systems [3,4], air-cooling systems [5,6], and other devices such
as psychrometers [7-9].
In tTiany industrial and medical applications, the determination of different
flow parameters is required to control a process or to characterize fluid flow
with precision. For example, numerous sensors have been developed to detect
the local velocity of gases or liquids, the local temperature, thermal properties, humidity, pressuie, and gas concentration. In all these sensors, high sensitivity and short response time are indicators of good performance. Since the
development of microfluidics, the reduction of sensors size has been greatly
focu.sed on. Irrespective of the applications, a weakly intrusive sensor is
required to be developed to characterize micro-systems such as micropumps
and micromixers [10,11], heat exchangers [12], or lab-on-chip devices [13].
The rapid progress in fabricating and utilizing micro-clcctro-tnechanical systems (MEMS) during the two last decades has not been matched by cotresponding advances in the understanding of the physics involved in the
manufacture of very small devices. MEMS refer to devices having a characteristic length between 1 (im and 1 mm. Micromachining techniques have
enabled the realization of sensors whose sensitive element can be introduced
in the microsystem. For example, in the case of flow velocity measurement
for which thermal methods are frequently used, the heating element can be
realized by micromachining techniques in the microsystem [14,15]. Several
studies have surveyed the fluid flows in micro-systems with or without heat
transfer [16-19], but very few have focused on analyzing fluid flows using
active sensors like microthermocouples as cooling devices in order to measure temperature and humidity of gas quasi-simultaneously.
The temperature drop by the Peltier effect is a function not only of the materials type, the wires diameter, and applied cunent but also of the convection
around the junction, the conduction in the wires, radiation, and the Joule effect.
This study provides a comparison between the experimental and numerical results of microthermocouple cooling by the Peltier effect.
In our experiment, we used two microthermocouples electrically isolated
from each other; the junction of the first one is cooled by current injection, and
the second one is used to measure temperature variation. The nutnerical lnodel
relates the geometric aspect (length and diaineter of the wires), the Peltier
effect, the Joule effect, and the current applying, and it considers the different

EXPURIMI;NTAI. AND THEORI;TICAI. STUDY OI MICR()THF,RM(X:()UI>I.;

15

modes of heat transfer named above. The main objective of our study is to
determine the best configuration (thermocouple type, wire diameters, and the
applied current) in order to obtain the largest temperature drop.

2 EXPERIMENTAL SET-UP
This section presents the microthermocouples setup and the experimental
device. The device is composed of two microthermocouples glued together
and electrically isolated from each other (figure 1). The first one is cooled by
the Peltier effect when a cunent is applied, and the second one confinuously
measures the temperature variation generated hy the Peltier effect. As cooling
effect is dependent on the cunent intensity, the thermocouple type, and
the wire diameters, we try to determine a compromise between these three
parameters. In a previous study [20], several devices have been tested. We
considered three thermocouple types, E-type (Constantan - Chromel), J-type
(Constantan - Iron), and K-type (Chromel - Alumel) in combination with three
different diameters 80^im, 125nm, and 250iim. As expected, the E-type thermocouple exhibits the largest temperature drop owing to the Seebeck coefficient. Therefore, the E-type thermocouple is used in the present study and the
exact dimensions of the junction are obtained via image analysis (figure 1).

National Instruments
CompactDAQ

Desktop
Labview Software

Stagnant air in a sealed jar

at a fixed temperature
Thermocoupie cooled down
by current injection

FIGURE 1
Experimental set-up and junction details.

16

S. AMRANE et al.

0,00

10,00

20,00

- Temperature

30,00
40.00
Time [s]

50,00

60,00

70,00

Current

FIGURE 2
Topical results.

All E-type microthermocouples junctions are prepared by welding with a

microburner, A smaller microthcrmocouple (K-type, 25.4 [im) welded by
capacitive discharge is glued on the junction and is used to measure the temperature variations of the whole system (figure 1 ).
The test bench consists of a National Instruments CompactDAQ managed
by LabVIEW software. It can measure the temperature variations and control
the current injection (square signal). The OPA 548 amplifier is connected as
a follower circuit, and the current limit is adjusted with a resistor
Eigure 2 shows the temperature variafion lccorded by the K-type 25.4 |i,m
microthermocouple glued on E-type microthermocouple 125|im. Eor a current of 35 mA, we measured a temperature drop of -1.52C when there is a
current flow. Similar results were obtained for all the devices tested. Eor an
easy understanding of the results, all the pulses are merged on the same axis
as shown on figure 8 and the relaxation periods are not considered.

3 MODELISATION
In order to perform a detailed analysis of a thermocouple carrying electric
current, a model was developed. Several phenomena were required to be
included in the model:
f, Heat conduction into the wire,
2, Heat exchange with ambiance through convection.
3. Heat exchange with the model's surrounding through radiation.

EXPRIMENTAI, AND THI;OI!HTICAI. STUDY or' MICROTHERMCX-OUPI.H

17

4. The Joule effect.

5. The Peltier effect.
The last two phenomena should be explained in further detail because they
strongly interact. The Joule effect takes place along the wire and causes the
heating of the thermocouple of length L and section S. The heat power Pj,,,,,,
can be calculated according to eq. 1 :
,2

'

We assume that the electrical resistivity p,,,, varies linearly with temper-ature
T, with a reference p * ' at 7,,, and a for cylindrical wire of diameter d; hence,
equation 1 is transformed into the following equation.
4o"^ L
Pj,. = -^^.r-{l+b.(T-T^^^))

(2)

TTCl'

The thermoelectric effect appears only at the contact of 2 metals. In our case,
the thermoelectric effect is observed at the junction of the two wires of the
thermocouple. Usually a thermocouple generates an electromotive force
(emf) or voltage that is directly proportional to the temperature gradient, owing to the Seebeck effect. In the present study, the thermocouple is used in
reverse, i.e. it carries a current. Therefore, the junction cools down due to the
Peltier effect, and the cooling power (f .;>,) is written as:
PFeiu=-^n'T

(3)

whereCT,:is the Seebeck coefficient depending of the nature of the two metals
(referred to as metal 1 and metal 2) and /, the current.
The three thermoelectric coefficients, -n (Peltier coefficient), u (Seebeck
coefficient) and r (Thomson coefficient) are interrelated:
77 = 7-^

(4)

and
dT

^'^

Thus, the Seebeck coefficient can be expressed as function of Peltier or

Thomson coefficient:
T

IT

c7 = - = ~

r T

-dT

(6)

18

S. AMRANM et al.

TABLE I
Values of thermoelectric coefficients at ambaint temperature T,,,,,i, = 293 K.
Material

Peltier
coefficient

7r|//Y|
Chromel
Alumel
Iron
Constantan

Thomson
coefficient
T\IIVK-']

Seebeck
coefficient Eq. 6
a[,iVK-']

Seebeck
coefficient Ref. [2]

6500

5.9

22.2

22.2

-5300

-6.7

-18.1

-18.2

3900

-7.9

13.3

13.3

-11000

-22

-37.5

-38.3

The equation 6 can be integrated if we want to determine the absolute electromotive force E that occurs in a material:
E= ( GdT= \ -dT
Jo

J{) J

=-\

\ -dT

(7)

Ju J T

If any one of the coefficients is known, the other can be calculated.

Table 2 gives the values of Peltier, Thomson and Seebeck coefficients at
ambiant temperature T,,,,,i, = 293 K. In the proposed model, the Seebeck coefficient is expressed as function of Peltier or Thomson coefficient and the Seebeck coefficient between 6 and data from [2] are equal.
On the one hand. Joule heating occurs along each wire and at the junction
of the thermocouple, and on the other hand the Peltier cooling takes place
only at the junction. Hence each wire heats up due to the Joule effect, and
simultaneously a cooling point appears at the junction. In order to model the
tempeiature variation with time and along the wires, we should consider
heat conduction along each wire and at the junction, heat exchange with the
surroundings by convection and radiation, and the thermoelectric effects
(cqs. 2 and 3).
3.1 Governing equations
Figure 3 illustrates the system with different heat fluxes.
A complete model of a thermocouple should be divided in three parts.
1. Temperature description along wire 1
2. Temperature description along wire 2
3. Junction description
3.1.1 Along the wires
By performing a heat balance on a small element of length dx, we obtain
the following partial differential equation that governs temperature T\ of
wire 1 :

EXPI;RIMI;NTAI. AND THI:ORI;TICAI. STUDY oi'

Wire X : Constantan

Junction

(Ni 45 % - Cu 55%)

19

Wire 2 ; Chiromei

(Ni 90% - Cr 10%)

FIGURE .3
Heat fluxes in a microthermocouple.

Ah
heac accumulalion

cnnucliun

(8)

where p, is the density; Ci, the heat capacity; ku the thermal conductivity; hu
the heat transfer coefficient by convection; s,, the emissivity; i/,, the diameter
of the wire; and /, the current. Further, (jg = 5.67 10 ^' W in'- K-\
Similarly, for wire 2 we obtain the following equation:

dt

dx^
4

(9)
T^ - ;,,)
7;,,)]

Table 2 lists all the thermophysical parameters of the thermocouple (i.e. wires
1 and 2 and junction).
3.1.2 Junction model
The thermocouple junction is considered as a truncated sphere whose dimensions are measured by image analysis, as shown in figure 1. owing to the
absence of data on the thermophysical properties of the junction itself, a mixing rule should be applied to evaluate all the parameters. The values are summarized in table 2. The temperature of the junction (Tj) is supposed to be
homogenous, i.e. no thermal gradient is taken into account inside the junction (the Biot number Bij is less than 2 10 ' and the Fourier number Foj is

'(?a/.

20

TABLE 2
Thermophysical parameters from Omega [21]. The junction properties are evaluated via a
mixing rule (50% / 50%) [22-24].
Symbol

Unit

Name

Metal t

Metal 2

Chromel

Constantan

Ni 90%/Cr 10?i5 Ni 55%/Cu 45%

Composition

Junction

Density

l>

kg nr'

873

892

Heat capacity

J kg-'A:-'

448

394

421

Thermal conductivity

Vf-iir'-K-'

19.26

21.19

20.225

Length

mm

I>1

ft m

7.06 10-'

4.89 10-'

5.975 10-'

4.1 lO-"

-10-'

2.381 10-"

Electrical resistivity

882

Temperature coefficient

Emissivity

0.45

0.87

0.66

Diameter

(I

fim

125

125

267.7

Seebeck coefficient

6.049 10-'

VK'

bigger than 10* for the final time). By performing a heat balance on the junction we obtain the following equation:

heat accumulation

^
,
heat amduclion frum wire 1

dx

^
'I
heal cunduction from wire 2

Pcllicrcilcct

I^^/

-h,Sj(T, - TJ - e,a,5,(r;
Joule elect

convection

where Si and 52 are the cross sections of wires 1 and 2 respectively; Vj, Sj and
O are the volume, surface, and radius of the junction respectively; and a and
a are the abscissa of the junction.

The electrical resistance Rj should include further details because the junction is not a cylinder and its resistance is calculated as follows:

nirj - X

dx
log

r, -\-a
a

(11)

EXPERIMENTAL AND THEORHTICAL STUDY or MICROTHERM(X;OUI'U-;

21

3.1.3 Boundary conditions

In addition to equations 8, 9 and 10 the boundary conditions (BCs) of the
system should be established, considering the fbllowing assumptions:

There is no temperature jump in the temperature profile along the two

wires and the junction, i.e. there is no contact thermal resistance at the
junction or, mathematically, a continuous function T{x). This means
T,ix = -~a) = T,ix = + a) = T,

(12)

For the two opposite ends of the wires, we consider of a fixed temperature Tf.
(13)

It should be noticed that these particular BCs (cq. 13) have no impact on the
result near the junction when an infinite thermocouple is considered (see A
for a detailed model of a finite length thermocouple; especially A.3).
3.1.4 Heat transfer coefficient
According to figure 3, the heat transfer coefficients should be evaluated for
thin wires and a small sphere in free convection. Recent studies on this subject focus on the e evaluation of local coefficients and plume ascending from
the cylinder simulation [25-28], Eor obtaining average values, we could refer
to Morgan [29] or Churchill relationships [30]. The later offers the advantage
of a single relationship for a wide Rayleigh number (Ra) range and is recommended by Incropera [31].

Nusselt numbers for the wires

inders of diameter dr.

Nu. = 0.6

0.387

(M,).

The wires are regarded as long cyl-

with/?a,, <10'-

and/ = 1 or 2

(14)

0.559
Pr

Nusselt numbers for the junction {Nu). The junction is regarded as a perfect sphere of diameter d, = l- ry.
with Ra,

=2+
0.469]"
Pr j

(15)

22

S. AMRANI; et al.

These relationships allow us to determine Nusselt numbers (and consequently

the / coefficients) as a function of the Rayleigh and Prandtl numbers. Therefore, the heat transfer coefficient is common for the two wires (same dimension i/| = /: and temperature drop) and is expressed as h hi hi and
calculated using equation 14.
3.2 Steady state analysis: an analytical model
According to Carslaw [32], solving equation 8 or 9 analytically is difficult
without strong restrictions (see 3.2). Nevertheless, it can be solved analytically using the following hypothesis:
f. Steady state analysis.
2. No heat accumulation in the junction i.e. an '/Jea/'junction with no volume and surface.
3. No heat exchange by radiation.
4. No Joule effect in the junction {Rj /?i ,,,2).
5. No dependency of the electrical resistivity on the temperature.
In the usual temperature range these conditions do not modify the final result
greatly. Therefore, equations 8 and 9 can be shortened as:
^ %
dx

m ' e . - G;

with / = 1 or 2,

(16)

with the reduced temperature G, = T T^, and

,. = P ^

' pk

and G. = ' '^""''. with / =\or2

(17)

kd*

'

In our case, the microthermocouple could be considered as infinite with a

ratio Vj > 500. The analytical solution for a thermocouple of finite length is
detailed in A; however in the case of L -^ 00, the solufion will converge to
e , = ( 6 , - K,) exp (/77,x) + K,

with - L , < x < 0

^^^^

, = (6^ - A",) exp (-m,x) + AT, with 0 < jc < + L,

with the particular solution AT, expressed as
/^. = - ^ = i % I - / 2
m'
h-TT'd

withi = l o r 2

(19)

For the junction, equation 10 becomes

7;
' dx

= k.

dT,

Further, in the Q x referential, it could be expressed as

(20)

EXPERIMI-NTM. AND T H I O R I T I C A I . S T U D Y Ol' MlCROTHHRMOCOUI'l.E

ae.

23

(21)

By sub sti tuting equations 18 in 21, we can determine the junction temperature Qj

0. =

(22)

Td- \Ah

Fquations 18 and 22 are established for validation i.e. the comparison of an

analytical model of the steady state and a full transient numerical model.
Furthermore, equation 22 can be used to predict the temperature drop at the
junction and the select the best configuration (i.e. current, diameter, type of
thermocouple ...) to obtain a larger temperature drop (see 4.2).
3.3 Transient mode: a numerical model
3.3.1 Numerical sclieme
A numerical procedure is essential to obtain a complete description of the
temperature along the wires through time, i.e. T {x, t). A finite difference
approach with an implicit scheme is developed on top of equations 8,9, and
10. As shown in figure 4, each wire is discretized in n -h 1 temperatures (i.e.
Tun to r,,,, for wire 1 and T.,, to Tj.:,, for wire 2). The node T,.,, = T,. =
T = Tj represents the junction and is common for both wires.
In addition to discretization in space, the problem must be discretized in
time. Therefore, the temperature of wire ; at a specific location x and a specific time t (i.e. T, (x, t)) is expressed as T, (j Ax, p At), where Ax and Ai
are the increments in space and time, respectively. For notation purposes
Ti (j Ax, p At) referred to as T/'.. With an implicit scheme, equations 8 and
9 become:
Junction

Wirel

-a

X=0

Wire 2

-\-a

FIGURE 4
Numerical discretization in space of the temperature along the wire.

+L2

24

S. AMRANI; er a/.

Ah

Ax(23)

Regrouping the terms

(24)
with
X,

i, j

'

*'7-'/74-l

(25)

(26)
where Foi and ./, are the well-known non-dimensional numbers, respectively.
Unfortunately, there are no such numbers for radiation and Joule eifect; therefore, we introduce II,,,,/1 (in fP) and n,;<.c,, (in fi K W~')
,11,.,,,,,, -

p.c.-K-d*

For the temprt ure at the junction, the subscript / = lor 2 is not considered
and equation 10 thus becomes
+1

T>'
"'"
-

Ar

"

TP + ' .
I, S -^

' '

l.H-l

Ax

'2.I + I

'H

AA-

- 7;:)

(27)

or
Fn T'''^' A-X T''^'~ Fa

rhi''

(28)

where
X,, = 1 + Fo^j + Fo,j + BijFj + n,,,,
PeUU'i'-

'''elec.J"J'

^rj-p

(29)

Exl'HRlMliNTAI. AND TuiiORHTICAI. STUDY OI- MlC-KOl'HHRMOCOUI'M;

25

(30)
with the following definitions:
kAt
' ; with / = 1 or2

Fo.j =

V,

II mdj

_ a,^j\t

_ p,,f J

The adiabatic condition at both ends of the wire is stated as

(31)
Equations 24-29 and 30 form a set of In + 1 equations that can be written as
a sparse non linear-system.
rrp + l

"LO

-Fo,

pp

- Fo,
rp + 1
'2.2,,

(32)
The non-linearity is due to the main diagonal because the terms X,; and X,,
take into account the radiative effect in 7^. Hence, the main diagonaf depends
directly on the unknowns 7^.^ ', as shown in equation 25. This imphes that the
system should be solved by an iterating procedure such as a fixed point iteration algorithm [33] which is given as follows:

26

S. AMRANI; et al.

1. Assume temperature *7^y ' is equal to the one from the previous time step
2. Solve the system from equation 32 via the TriDiagonal Matrix Algorithm
(TDMA) [33] to obtain an approximate value of 7^^"'
3. Use the approximate temperature obtained as '7^''.+ ' for the next iteration
4. Iterate over steps 2 and 3 until

' TT + '

T'P

Steps 1 t o 4 should be repeated for each time step Ar. Usually, the criterion
is reached in less than 5 iterations.
3.3.2 Simttlation software
The simulation has been performed on a standard Linux PC with Python.
Python is a high-level language for numerical computations and has the ability to manipulate matrix and plot data via the Numpy [34-36], Scipy, [37]and
Matplotlib [38] libraries. In order to speed up the resolution, the TDMA is
implemented in Cython [39]. A 20000 points grid (n = 10000) with 2000
iterations over time (i.e. final time 20 s and Ai = 10 ms) is calculated in afew
seconds (plotting and saving times included). Such timings allow us toeasily
study the influence of different parameters such as current, diameter, wires
length, and heat transfer coefficient i.e. (I, d, Lj, /?).
3.4 Calculus Initialization
Estimation of the initial value of the parameters is challenging, particularly in
the case of the heat transfer coefficient. In fact, equations 14 and 22 demonstrate a mutual dependency between the heat transfer coefficient h and the temperature difference between the wire and the surroundings (0) via the Rayleigh
numbers {Ra). To solve this issue, for a known set of parameters such as cuiTent
and diameter, the temperature difference is set to 2C and used to calculate h
from eq. 14. Next, an iterating procedure as shown in figure 5 is initiated to
detennine the temperature junction drop and the heat transfer coefficient.

4 RESULTS
4.1 Validation
4.LI Steady state: Analytical -Numerical validation
For validation, a reference case (stated as case N 1 ) has been studied to show
the good fit between the analytical and numerical models. The following
parameters are used:

E-Type thermocouple. The thermophysical properties are listed in 2.

Initial temperature of 20C i.e. T,,i, = 20C.

EXPERIMENTAI, AND T H E O R H T I C A E S T U D Y O E M I C R O T H E R M I K O U P E I -

27

Known vaiues of Current (i)

and Dianneter (d)
The maximum temperature^
difference is located at the
junction
I

JTI

Temperature difference
at the junction
(Equation 22]

- Final values of h, @j
FIGURE 5
Estimation of the heat transfer coefficient /( and the temperature drop at the junction 9,.

Exchange with the fluid through convection at 20C i.e. T^ = 20C.

Exchange with the surroundings through radiation at 20C i.e. 7; = 20C.
Current / = 35 mA.
A diameter of 125 |jim.
With such parameters, the heat transfer coefficients obtained from the procedure explained in paragraph 3.4 and figure 5 are

For the wire, is h = 96 W nr^ K' '

For the junction, Ay = 148.9 W w - ' / s r '

In the same way, equation 22 is used to determine the temperature drop

ev = -1.62C.
The results are presented in figures 6 and 7. As expected, the temperature
increases along the 2 wires owing to the Joule effect, and a cold point appears
at the junction owing to the Peltier effect. After a few seconds (about Ism
this particular case) the thermoelectric effects are counter-balanced by heat
transfers through convection and radiation to finally reach a steady state. This
2-stage phenomenon can be observed with the junction, where the temperature rapidly reaches its minimum value at around 2 s before a slight increase
until equilibrium. As shown in figure 7, radiation has a slight positive impact
on the temperature which is usual for the temperature range considered
(around 20C).
A good fit can be observed between the numerical and analytical models
especially far from the junction. Further a perfect match between the analytical and the numerical models is obtained for the 2 wires when there is no

28

S. AMRANI; e

a/.

22.0

-am

-QtK

QOO
Distance [m]

0.02

QM

FIGURE 6
Temperature profile along the wires (Case Nl). Comparison of the analytical and numerical
models.

Wire 2 : x - 4.25 mm

Steady state

with radiation

. .

Without radiation

.f" J.'^"'-^',9n. L ^=. P .'y}'^

10

15

Time tsl
FIGURE 7
Temperature difference (T - T^,) vs. time for different positions (Case Nl). Wire 1 at .r =
25 mm; Wire 2 at .t = +25 mm; and the junction at x = 0. For each position, 3 models are
calculated. [-] denotes the numerical model with radiation, [] denotes the numerical model
without radiation, and [ ] denotes the steady state model (straight line).

radiation, this match can be explained by the lack of radiative effect in the
analytical model (see 3.2 and eq. 16). It should be noted that radiation has no
impact on the junction temperature as heat exchange surface is very small

29

ExPERtMI'NTAt. AND T H I O R H T I C A I . S T U D Y Or MlCROTHKRMOCOUI'Lli

{Sj = 4-\0 ' nr) as compared to that for the wire (5, = 5, = 1.96 10-"^ /-).
Unfortunately, the hypothesis of an '/i/ea/'junction considered in the analytical model (see 3.2) leads to an overestimation of the temperature drop at the
junction Gv, ,,,, = -1.24C against By = -1.62C from equation 22.
4.1.2 Transient mode: Experimental - Numerical validation
As discussed in section 2 several experiments have been conducted with a
E-type thermocouple and different levels of current. Table 3 gathers all the
parameters for each level of current in the various experiments and summarizes the results in terms of the temperature drop.
In order to compare the various experiments, the data have been transformed in terms of 6 i.e. T - 7"^, and plotted on figure 8. The final value of
the temperature at the junction is well predicted by the numerical model with
absolute enor of less than 0.02C (see 3). It should be noticed that this result
is obtained without any optimized parameters such as heat transfer coefficient
or emissivity or even the thermophysical properties of the junction. On the
other hand, the transient behavior of the junction is determined much faster
numerically than experimentally.
To indicate the differences between the numerical model and the experiments, several issues are listed:
TABLE 3
Experimental parameters and results at the junction.
Symbol

Unit

N2

N3

Current

mA

10.43

21.8

Initial temperature

19.5

19.54

Case

Values

Exchange by convection

T..

19.5

19.54

Exchange by radiation

T,.

"C

19.5

19.54

Number of cooling phases

95.3

Results
Heat transfer coefficient lor the
wire from procedure infig.5

/)

93.4

Heat transfer coefficient for the

junction from eq. 15

/),

V^.i--.K-'

147.2

Temperature drop predicted by

eq. 22

148.4
-1.38

-0.82

Temperature drop predicted by

the numerical model

By,,,,,,,,

-0.62

Temperature drop observed from

experinicnts

Bj,,,,,

-0.63

-1.03
-1.05

30

S. AMRANHefl/.
U.2

> Dat>CuaN'2

:J
n

>-DauCaseN3

-0.2
.-.
^
^^

-0.4

UncerUinUos
Stfnuition Caso N'2
SonulatMin Caso N'3

DatCae^"

"

'

-0.6

\inp '

..
-

m....

-1.1)

-1.2

-1 4
K)

Time [si

FIGURE 8
Temperature at the junction. Comparison between experimental data [0] and sim-ulation results
[-]. Case N2: / = 10.43 mA and 5 experiments. Case N3: / = 21.81 mA and 4 experiments.
Experimental data are reported with uncettantes of 0.1C [ ] .

Modeling issues
- Scarcity of data on the junction, especially for the thermophysical parameters such as density and heat capacity {pj, c.). As shown in eq. 8, these
parameters are crucial to determine the dynamic behavior of the junction.
- In the model, the heat transfer coefficients arefixedprior lo modeling and
do not change with time. Therefore, the initial heat transfer coefficient is
higher than the one fixed via procedure 5. Eurthermore, relationships 14
and 15 have to be selected; however, according to [40], numerous correlations are available and can differ from each other (up to 50% error).
- In the model, the Seebeck coefficient is fixed. In reality, it slightly varies with temperature.
Experimental issues
- The main drawback of the experiments remains in the temperature collection via a smaller thermocouple glued to the junction studied. The
glue will forms a thermal resistance between the cooled junction and
the smaller thermocouple that effectively records the temperature.
Therefore, the cooling process is not recorded in-stantaneously but with
a lag time, and the experimental data exhibits a time constant much
higher than the one from the model,
- The current applied to the thermocouple is controlled via an electric
tension and for a supposedly fixed electrical resistance of the thermocouple. However, during the experiment, the temperature varies along
the wires as the total electric resistance changes. Therefore, the total
load in the current may slightly change during the experiment.

EXPRIMENTAI, AND THEORI;TICAI, STUDY O MICROTHERMOCOUPEE

31

4.2 Current / Diameter influence

In order to obtain the larger temperature drop at the junction, one should
select a good compromise between the current and diameter. For the selection
of the material, it is relatively easy to compare the values of the Seebeck coefficient; according to Omega (thermocouple wire manufacturer) and our
experiments the E-type thermocouple is the best option. To evaluate the relative influence of the current and the diameter, we can work with the analytical
(eq. 22) or the numerical model (eqs. 24 to 32). As an example, working with
a microthermocouple of 125|im at different levels of current first shows an
increase in the temperature drop 0y until a critical value of current is reached;
this is followed by a decrease in 9 , to even reach a point where no cooling
appears. The results are given in figure 9.
As shown previously in figs. 6 and 7, the analytical model predicts a temperature drop higher than the numerical one. However, both models exhibit
the same trend and predict a maximum temperature drop at around 35 mA.
Beyond this value, the Joule heating becomes dominant over the Peltier effect.
One should note that the heat transfer coefficients remain constant around
95 W /; -- K ' for /? and 145 W m- K ' for hj.ln fact, the temperature di 1ference is relafively small (below 2C), and relationships 14 and 15 may not
vary for such small variations of temperature. Experimental results are in a
range with a lower limit determined by the analytical model and the upper
limit by the numerical model.
In the plan I - d, the temperature drop 9y shows a rift and stays in a range
between 0C and -1.75C (see fig. 10). These results extent the conclusion
made at 35 mA. Both analytical and numerical models predict the same optimal

30

40
Current [mA]

50

FIGURE 9
Temperature drop 0y vs, eiirrent /. Experiments [OJ. niimerieal [-]. and analytical [] models.
The diameter remains constant of 125|i,m, and the heat transfer coefficients /( and h, are calculated with fig. 5 and displayed as remainder at the top of the figure.

32

S. AMRANE et al.
Temperalure drop Q = (7" - T ) [ C l
Analytical

Numerical

FIGURE 10
Temperature drop 9 / vs. current I and d for the analytical model (IOa) and the numerical model
(10b) for a diameter range o d =\ - 250|Uii and current range of / =1 - 100mA. Only the
negative temperature drop is displayed.

point (i.e. the best choice of / and d) but at different levels. Therefore, the opfimal path may be obtained by using eq. 22 and not the numerical model, which
should be only used to predict the dynamic behavior of the thermocouple.

5 CONCLUSION
In order to explore fiuid flows in systems (macro- and micro-systems), we
developed a sensor based on a microthermocouple used as a cooling device by
the Peltier effect. The sensor is made of two microthermocouples glued
together and electrically isolated from each other. The first one is cooled by the
Peltier effect when a current is injected, and the second one continuously measures the temperatui"e variation generated by the Peltier effect. The main objective is to determine a compromise between the thermoelectrieal couple, wire
diameters, and injected current in order to obtain the largest temperature drop.
Three thermocouple types were tested (F, J, K). The E-type thermo-couple
exhibits the largest temperature drop owing to its Seebeck coefficient.
A transient numerical model of the sensor has been developed to analyze
a microthermocouple caiTying electric current, including the heat conduction through the wire, heat exchange with ambiance through convection,
heat exchange with surroundings through radiation and the Joule and Peltier
effects. In addition, an analytical model has been obtained to describe the
steady state. In this particular case, the analytical and numerical models are
compared. The numerical model and experiments were compared in transient conditions. The theoretical results are in good agreement with experiments. In order to obtain the largest temperature drop at the junction a

EXPERtMt;NTAI. AND THHORr.TICAI. STUDY Ol- MlCROTHERMOCOUPLi;

33

compromise between current and diameter is established. The analytical

model predicts a temperature drop higher than that predicted by the numerical one. However, both models exhibit the same trend and give a maximum
temperature drop of -1.5C around 35 mA with the 125 p,m diameter for the
E-type thermocouple.
The final objective of our researches will be to explore gas flows and to be
able to determine two parameters with the same microthermocouple sensor
i.e. temperature and relative humidity.

A ANALYTICAL MODEL FOR A THERMOCOUPLE OE

EINITE LENGTH
A.I Eixed temperature boundary conditions
Boundary conditions 12 and 13 become
e;(x = L,) = e,, and e,(jc = O) = e ,

(33)

Equation 16 has an analytical solution.

e, =

-I- AT, with - I

<x<0

2 =

sinh (m,L,)

, with 0<x<
with the particul ar solution K/ dened in eq. 19. However, equations 34 are
not fully determined and the value Qj is still unknown. Transfonning equation 10 in the 9 - X referential allows the calculation of the junction temperature Qj
. dQ,

' dx

1=0

.1-0

nd'

" '^

mX {&, -K,)
tanh(/w,L, )
^a,J.(e,+T

)
(35)

sinh

34

S. AMt^ANR et al.

where the following groups A\', A-l, A are dened as follows:

with i = \ or 2
A' =
'
tanh(/77,.L,)

(36)

A.2 Adiabatic boundaries conditions

In the case of adiabatic behavior,
dT,
dx
dT,
dx

=0
(37)

= 0

Boundary conditions 12 and 13 transform into

dx

= 0 and 9, (x = O) =

(38)

x=L,

Equation 16 has an analytical solution.

cosh(m,(L,+^))
cosh (nilL,)
cosh^OTj (. L,^

9, = 9,-/f,

- A", with - L, < X < 0

(39)
. with 0<x<+L.

cosh (m^Lo)

with the particular solution Ki defined in equation 19 and the junction temperature 9y expressed as
(40)

where the groups /Ii, A^, A-^ are defined as follows:

A. = m.k. tanh [tn-L. ) with i = \ or2
/4, = - ^

(41)

A.3 Remark
It should be noted that for an infinite length {i.e. Li ^ 00 and Li -^ 00) both
equation 39 and 34 will converge to the same expression detailed in the article (see equation 18).

EXPERIMENTAI. AND THEORETICAL STUDY OI" MlCROTHERMOUI'EE

35

NOMENCLATURE
Greek Symbols
e
Radiative emissivity
TT
Peltier coefficient
Dimensional numbers
n,,,,, Dimensional numbers
Density
p
Electrical resistivity
Pekc
Stefan-Boltzmann coefficient
OB
Seebeck coefficient between metals 1 and 2
On
T
Thomson coefficient
0
Reduces temperature
Roman Symbols
b
Temperature coefficient for electrical resistivity
Bi
Biot number
c
Heat capacity
d
Wire diameter
Fo
Eourier number
h
Convectivo heat transfer coefficient
I
Current
k
Thermal conductivity
L
Length
Nu
Nusselt number
P
Heat power
Pr
Prandtl number
R
Electrical resistance
r
Radius
Ra
Rayleigh number
S
Section
T
Temperature
V
Volume
Subscript!s
*
1 or 2
/
ij
J
Joule
P
Peltier

ref

Intermediate value
Subscript for wire 1 or 2
Eixed
Wire i. Node j
Junction
Joule effect
Time index
Peltier effect
Reference

H
[V]
[OK W'j
[K']
[kg-m-^]
[i-m]
[W m-^-K-"]
[V-K-'i
[V-K-'i
[K]

[K-'l
[-]
[J-kg-'K-']
[m]
[-]
[W-m--K-']
[A]
[W m - ' - K ' ]
[m]

[-]
[J]

[-1
[fi]
[m]

[-]
[K]

36

REFERENCES
[1] Finn B. Advances in Electronics and Electron Physics 50 (1980) 175.
[2] Bentley R,E, Handbook oj Teinjieratiire Measurement Vol. 3: The Theory and Practice of
Thermoelectric Thermometry. Spiinger. 1998, 1" edition.
[3] Astrain D., Vian J,. Albizua J. Applied Thermal Engineering 25 (2005) 3149. URL http://
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/ pii/S135943l 105001079
[4] Gehring F. Ciyogenics 41 (2001) 521. URL http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/
SOO11227501001242
[5] Cosnier M.. Fraisse G,, Luo L. International Journal of Refrigeration 31 (2008) 1051.
URL http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/SOI40700707002502
[6] Min G. Energy Conversion and Management 41 (2000) 163. URL http://linkinghub.
elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0196890499001028
[7] Skierueha W. Sensors and Actnators A: Physical 118 (2005) 86. URL http://linkinghub.
elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0924424704005473
[8] Aneey P. Sen.wrs and Actuators B: Chemical 27 (1995) 303. URL http://linkinghub.
elsevier.coni/retrieve/pii/0925400594016061
[9] Rawlins S. Agricultural Meteorology 3 (1966) 293. URL http://wwvi'.sciencedirect.com/
science/ article/pii/0002157166900136
[10] Tsai J., Lin L. Sen.wrs and Actuators A: Physical 97-98 (2002) 665.
[11] Suzuki H., Yoneyama R. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical 96 (2003) 36.
[12] BauH. Internationaljournal of Heat and Mass Transfer 4\ (1998)2717.
[13] Nika P., Bailly Y., Jeannot J., De Labaehelerie M. International Journal of Thermal Sciences 4H2(X) 1029.
[14] Fricke K. Sen.mrs and Actuators A : Physical 45 ( 1994) 91.
[15] Qiu L., Hein S., Obermeier E., Schubert A. Sensors and Actuators A: Physical 54 (1996)
547.
[16] Hetsroni G., Mosyak A., Pogrebnyak E., Yarin L. International Journal of Heat and Mass
Transfer 4,% (2m?i) 1982.

[17] Hetsroni G., Mosyak A., Pogrebnyak E., Yarin L. International Journal of Heat and Mass
rra/L/c 48 (2005) 5580.
[18] Lofdahl L.. Gad-el Hak M. Progress inAerospace Sciences 35 (1999) 101.
[19] Thome J. International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 25 (2004) 128.
[20] Amrane S., Gavignet E., Baueour P., Lanzetta F. Paris: Congrs Intemational de Mtrologie, 2011.
[21] Omega. Thermocouple sensors physical properties of thermoelement materials. Technical
Report Z-16, Omega: 2005. URL http://www.omega.eom/temperature/Z/pdf/ zO16.pdf
[22] Leitner J., Chuchvalec P., Sedniidubsky D., Strejc A., Abrman P. Thermochiniica Acta
395 (2002) 27. URL http://www.sciencedirect.eom/science/article/B6THV-45PTTlS-2/2/
ecl4b82062920t73722cef837c8be52b
[23] Leitner J., Vonka P. Sedmidubsky D., Svoboda P. Thennochinnca Acta 497 (2010) 7. URL
http://www.sciencedirect.eom/seience/article/B6THV-4X0PBWT-2/2/52faad458510eec4
28e440596fa67ba9
[24] Spencer P.J. Thermochiniica Acta 314 (1998) 1. URL http://www.sciencedirect.coiTi/seience/article/B6THV-3T3K9KS-14/2/65d8cd244b3e4ad50a3e3e526e4b647e
[25] Gebhart B., Pera L.. Schorr A, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 13 (1970)
161. URL http://www.sciencedireet.eom/science/article/B6V3H-4829JBV-XH/2/50d95c3
34da598bbOcc31 e6fea 15840f
[26] Kuehn T.. Goldstein R. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 23 (1980) 971.
URL http://www.scieneedirect.eom/science/article/B6V3H-482GGTG-37/2/04abal8a0cd
47050a64f00633273b855
[27] Duluc M.C.. Xin S., Qur PL. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 46 (2003)
341. URL http://www.sciencedirect.eom/scienee/artieie/B6V3H-4741RJ7-2/2/731a85462
dfb2d1f755d5002abc125c4
[28] Duluc M.C.. Xin S., Lusseyran K, Qur PL. International Jtntrnal of Heat and Fluid Flow
29 (2008) 1125. URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V3G-4S7B2KV-l/
2/28033b744a860829ee07569bc348136f

EXPI-RIMENTAE AND T H F . O R E T I C A E STUDY OE MiCROTHERMOCOUPEE

37

[29] Morgan V.T. Advance.'! in Heat Transfer t l (1975) 199. URL http://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/ article/pii/S0065271708700753
[30] Churchill S.W.. Chu H.H. International Jotirnal of Heat and Mass Transfer 18 (1975)
1049. URL http://www.scienccdirect.com/science/article/pii/0017931075902227
[31] Incropera F.P.. DeWitt D.P.. Bergman T.L., Lavine A.S. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass
Transfer. New York, 2001, 5'"edition.
[32] Carslaw H.S., Jaeger J.C. Conduction of Heat in Solids. Oxford University Press. USA,
1986, 2'"' edition. URL http://amazon.eom/o/ASlN/0198533683/
[33] Quarteroni A.. Sacco R., Saleri F. Numerical Mathematics. New York, 2000.
[34] Oliphant T.E. Guide to NumPy. Provo, UT: 2006. URL http://www.tramy.us/
[35] Dubois P.F., Hinsen K.. Hugunin J. Computers in Physics tO (1996).
[36] Ascher D.. Dubois P.F.. Hinsen K., Hugunin J., Oliphant T. Numerical Python. Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory. Livermore. CA, ucrl-ma-128569 edition: 1999.
[37] Jones E., Oliphant T., Peterson R. et al. SciPy: Open source scientific tools for Python:
2001. URL http://www.scipy.org/
[38] Hunter J.D. Computing In Science & Engineeritta 9 (2007) 90.
|;39] Behnel S.. Bradshaw R.. Citro C , Dalcin L., Seljcbotn D.. Smith K. Computing in Science
Engineering 13 (2011) 31.
[40] Fand R., Bnicker J. International

Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 26 (1983) 709.

Copyright of High Temperatures -- High Pressures is the property of Old City Publishing, Inc.
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.