Experiment A - Linear and Radial Heat Conduction

Experiments Conducted 09/02/2021 & 09/09/2021

CHME 323L Report, Due 09/16/2021
Group 1: Andrzejewski S., Badawy M., Barrera J., & Dat Doi
Summary
The purpose of this experiment was twofold: to observe how the presence or absence of a metal
conductive layer affects the distribution of heat when observing linear conduction, and to
observe the differences between steady-state and transient radial heat conduction while gathering
experimental data necessary to use Fourier’s law to calculate an unknown thermal conductivity,
“k”. For the first experiment, the temperature at 6 different points in the apparatus was measured
at varying voltages with a 25 mm brass connector, 25 mm aluminum connector, and no connector
separating the heating and cooling side. In this experiment, the results found that the presence of
a metal conductive layer improves the conduction in the system and creates a more stable
temperature curve with a decreased overall temperature range. Specifically, the 25 mm aluminum
connector was the best conductor, allowing heat transfer to create temperatures anywhere from
10 to 20 degrees Celsius lower than measured in the base system. In the second experiment, the
radial heat transfer apparatus was used similarly to the linear apparatus. During the steady-state
portion of the experiment, temperatures at 6 different points in the device were measured at
various voltages of the heating element. During the transient portion of the experiment, the
temperature was recorded as a function of time, gathering data every 30 seconds while changing
the voltage at set time intervals. The data from the transient curve was consistent with the theory
of Fourier’s Law. Using Fourier’s Law, the value for the thermal conductivity was calculated to
be 207.19 W/m*K and 281.66 W/m*K for 12 and 24 volts respectively and demonstrated that all
of the experimental data collected was consistent with what was expected theoretically.
Introduction
For this experiment, we were monitoring the temperature differences between six successive

thermocouples from one end of an “ideal” plane wall to the other. Certain assumptions are made

throughout this experiment, stating that the heated and cooled sections are clamped together

tightly, creating proper thermal contact between the two end faces; moreover, the two sections

are assumed to be of uniform cross-section and material to ensure an ideal scenario. Three

different experimental scenarios will be conducted, each of which evaluates the accuracy of the

linearity behind different variations of Fourier’s Law of Heat Conduction. Once the temperature

at each thermocouple is recorded, its gradient is tabulated and divided by the distance between

each thermocouple (dT/dx). The objectives of each two successive experiments respectively

include: (1) Measuring the temperature distribution for steady-state conduction of energy through

a uniform plane wall and demonstrate the effect of change in heat flow, (3) To measure the

temperature distribution for steady-state conduction of energy through a composite plane wall

and to determine the overall heat transfer coefficient for the flow of heat through a combination

of different materials in series. The scope of this experiment is to evaluate the conductivity

constant of heat observed at various heat fluctuations in accordance with Fourier’s Law of Heat

Conduction. The experiment represented steady-state heat conduction through the radial wall of

a cylinder in order to determine the system's thermal conductivity constant (k). The method

which our group used to gather the necessary information to calculate the thermal conductivity

constant was to measure the temperature differences between the inner radius and outer radius of

the cylindrical disk when the system is at steady state. Thermal conduction is driven by the

second law of thermodynamics when there is a temperature difference present in the system.
Procedure

The experiment consisted of two parts: Linear Heat Conduction and Radial Heat Conduction.

Linear Heat Conduction:

Exercise A:

The heated and cooled sections of the HT11C were clamped together. The flow rate of the

cooling water was set at 1.5 liters/min. Using the knob on the module, the heater voltage was

adjusted for different scenarios. Six thermocouples, three of them on each heated and cooling

section, denoted as T1-T3 and T6-T8, measured the temperatures along the column, as shown

below.

(Computer Compatible Linear Heat Conduction Accessory, 2012)

The heater voltage was first set at 9 volts. The results were recorded after letting the temperature

stabilize (when the increase in temperature of all the readings stopped) from T1-T3, T6-T8. The
heater voltage was changed to 12 volts, 17 volts, and 21 volts. The same process was utilized-let

the temperature to stabilize then read the readings.-for each voltage change.

Exercise B:

The intermediate (25 mm) brass section was clamped in between the heated and cooled section

of the HT11C, as shown below.

(Computer Compatible Linear Heat Conduction Accessory, 2012)

The cooling water flow rate was kept the same at 1.5 liters/min. The heater voltage was set to 12

volts. After letting the temperature stabilize, readings from T1-T8 were recorded, excluding the
readings from thermocouples T4 and T5. The same steps were done when changing the voltage

to 17 volts.

Exercise D:

For this part, the intermediate (25 mm) aluminum section replaced the brass section used in the

previous part, clamped in between the heated and cooled sections, as shown below.

(Computer Compatible Linear Heat Conduction Accessory, 2012)

The two Voltages used were also changed to 9 and 12 Volts, respectively. All other methods as in

Exercise B were kept the same.

Radial heat conduction:

Exercise A:

The system used for this experiment was assembled according to the figure. The cooling water

flow rate was 1.5 liters/min. The radial heat was shown in terms of temperature measured by the

thermocouple T1-T6. The process for this part included manipulating the heater voltage, waiting

for the temperature to stabilize, and recording the reading from T1-T6. The heater voltages used

for this part were 12, 17, 21, and 24 volts, respectively.

(Computer Compatible Radial Heat Conduction Accessory, 2012)

Exercise B:

The data from Exercise A, was used for the calculations of thermal conductivity coeffecint. The thermal

conductivity for each heater voltage was calculated using the equation below and is tabulated in the

results section:

(Computer Compatible Radial Heat Conduction Accessory, 2012)

Exercise D:

A computer was used to record and create a graph showing the temperature change for the whole

process for every 30 seconds. After starting sampling, the heater voltage was set 21 volts initially

and was let to stabilize. After waiting 1 minute, the voltage then was set to 12 volts, and the same

process was executed. After waiting for another minute, the cooling water flow rate was reduced

dramatically, but not closed completely. The data record ended after waiting for the reading to

stabilize and recording for an additional minute.

Results

Figure 1 shows the increase in temperature with voltage due to linear thermal conduction, in the

absence of any metal layer in between the power source and the thermocouples. We include

voltage as one of the lines as well, in order to provide an easier representation of what would be

representative of proportional temperature increase. The slope of the voltage is 1, and thus any

lines steeper show faster temperature gain, whilst flatter lines show slower temperature gain.
In Figure 2, we plotted the readings for 9 and 12 volts, of the heating apparatus, with a 25mm

brass layer inserted in the center. As there are only 2 readings, the calculation of correlation of

the trendline (R^2) is useless, and no real determination of linearity can be made.
As in Figure 2, Figure 3 shows the results of temperature measurements plotted against our

readings of voltage. Once again, linerality is taken for granted due to only having 2 reading

points of Temperature vs Voltage (see Analysis of Error).

In Figure 4, we plot the steady-state conduction in a radial system as a function of voltage. We

again notice an indistinguishably constant linear pattern across all thermocouples. As has

become the norm, the first three thermocouples express much higher temperature increases than

do the last 3, due to the increased distance (and hence resistance) to conduction.
 Table I. Calculation of k, conductivity coefficient
Voltage (V) 12 24
Current (Amp) 0.5 0.5
Temp T1 (K) 315.15 368.15
Temp T6 (K) 298.15 303.55
Temp Diff 17 64.6
Radius R1 (m) 0.007 0.007
Radius R6 (m) 0.05 0.05
x (m) 0.0032 0.0032
Q = V x I (W) 6 12

207.1909553 281.6631398

In Table I, the calculations for the conductivity coefficient (k) are laid out. A critical error, to be

described in length in Analysis of Error, is the value for Current. However, we nevertheless note

the increased temperature difference at the higher voltage levels, as well as the change in the

conductivity coefficient.

Figure 4 shows the qualitative shape of Temperature curves when put under transient state conditions.
Discussion
Linear Systems

In Experiments 1A, 1B, and 1D, we were tasked with determining if Fourier's law of

conduction applies, by proving a linear trend between heating power (expressed by us as

Voltage potential only, see Analysis of Error) and the subsequent increase in the temperature

readings. We clearly see a linear trend in Figure 1, which expresses very high R^2 values (all

greater than 0.96). It is thus fairly accurate and reasonable to see that Fourier's law applies here

to a great extent.

In experiments 1B and 1D the heat conductivity of a Brass and Aluminum metal layer

between T3 and T6 were also measured as functions of voltage. Due to only having 2 readings

no real measurement of linerality can be made, and instead, we are forced to rely on the fact

that the slopes of the lines do seem to show a fairly conservative and expected result.

In Figure 2, we can see that the Thermocouples on the heated side (T1, T2, and T3) show

significantly higher rates of heating (approx 7-6 C per increased volt of heating power), and thus

higher temperatures. Meanwhile, the cooled sections (T4, T5, and T6) show substantially lower

heating and temperature gain (only about 1-0.5 C per volt). This is consistent with Fourier's law,

as an increase in distance from the heat source should result in lower heating effectiveness.

In Figure 3, we can also see a similar pattern. We again can notice that the heated

thermocouples show significantly higher rates of heating when compared to the cooled sections,

(3-2 C/volt vs only 0.2-0.1 C/volt). These results are in line with what we had seen previously,

and match what is expected of standard linear Foriourien heat conduction. The greater the

distance the lower the effect of additional heating power.

Radial Systems

For the Steady-state Radical Experiment in Figure 4, we notice that the data still holds a

strong linear trendline that matches with the expected Fouriean description of conduction in a

radial system. In fact, the linear correlation coefficient (R^2) of the trendlines in Figure 4 are

stronger (R^2 > 0.97, and an average value of about 0.988) when compared to those of the

“linear” system of Figure 1 (R^2 > 0.96, an average value of about .965). In either case, both

data sets show a very strong correlation to a linear relationship between heating power and

temperature increase.

In Table I, we use the formula for k, the conduction coefficient, in order to solve for that

coefficient at the two extreme readings for T1 and T2, and V = 12 and 24 V, respectively. The

results are duly calculated in the Results section, and the two final answers come out to be 207

and 282 W/(K * m^2) respectively. However, a vital note of importance, which will be discussed

in further detail in the Analysis of Error Section, is the fact that the values of Current are not

based on readings, rather on back-calculation for a reasonable estimate. Nevertheless, given the

correct values for CUrrent, it would be very possible to easily change the values in the table and

extract the correct values.

Figure 5, shows the qualitative temperature v time curve of transient radial conduction.

The pattern is quite clear: constant heat loss until the elimination of the driving force of a

temperature gradient. Only when the voltage is lowered, and there's a new gradient for heat

conduction is there any change in the temperature of the thermocouples.

Analysis of Error
In the experiment, there were a few possible sources of error. These errors were judged

based on the relative effect that they had on the data or results. Anything that had around a 5%

effect would be considered a ‘small error’ that doesn't have a large effect on the data. Anything

that has closer to a 50% effect would be considered a ‘large error’ that has a great effect on the

data.

One source of error came from the software used to collect thermal data. Although

temperature and voltage were calculable, the measurements for Current always came out as 0

amps. This value is obviously inaccurate and impossible to use in the calculation of any values

of Q or k for Experiment 2B, and thus an estimate of 0.5 Amps was used to allow completion of

the calculation. Since there was no indication of what the current should have been in the

manual it is hard to determine if this should be quantified as a small or large error. For the sake

of ambiguity, it will be designated as a large error with the true impact being unknown.

Another source of error that was prevalent during the entirety of the experiment was an

issue with the voltage reading. Once the experiment was concluded, we observed that the voltage

set on the heat transfer module showed a different reading than the voltage that showed on the

computer program. Typically it was off by about 1 volt (23.5 on the module, 24.5 on the

program). Since 1 volt is only about 4% of 24, this error can be classified as a small error that

should not have too large of an effect on the results.

References
Computer Compatible Radial Heat Conduction Accessory, Issue 4, Armfield, Hampshire,
England, October 2012

Computer Compatible Linear Heat Conduction Accessory, Issue 6, Armfield, Hampshire,

England, October 2012