177 views

Uploaded by Vinod Kumar

- Free and Forced Convection Lab Report
- Free and Forced Convection
- Natural and Forced Convection Experiments
- Free and Forced Heat Convection
- (91481689) [Senior]Free and Forced Convection (Repaired)
- ME3122-2 Lab Forced Convection Heat Transfer
- Lab 2 Updated1
- Free and Forced Convection
- Force convection experiment
- LS4 - Forced Convection
- Forced convection lab report
- Lab Convection Forced
- Forced Convection
- RESULTS Forced Convection
- Forced Convection
- Natural and Forced Convection Experiments-2
- Natural Convection
- Thermal Conductivity
- 159462298 Free and Forced Convection Lab Report
- Forced Convection

You are on page 1of 76

JUNE 5, 2006

PARTNERS:

GREG ROTHSCHING

STEPHEN JOHNSON

JEN DIROCCO

i

ABSTRACT:

The convection experiment was separated into two parts. For the first part, we attached a flat

aluminum plate inside an air duct. We proceeded to supply a constant 20 watts to the plate while

we ran air over the duct at forced velocities of 0, 2.5, 5, and 10 meters per second. Measurements

were taken of the steady state temperature of air and of the surface of the plate. The second part

of the experiment was exactly like the first, except a finned plate was used for our heated surface.

This experiment had three main objectives. The first was to correlate the effect the forced air

velocity had on the heat transfer coefficient. The second was to analyze how well our predictive

equations were at matching the experimental heat transfer coefficients. Finally, we needed to

determine how the addition of fins to the surface aided the heat transfer rate.

It was determined from our experiment that the heat transfer coefficient increased linearly

with an increase in the square root of air velocity for both the flat and finned plates, over the

range of forced convection. From a jump in velocity of 2.5 to 10 m/s, the heat transfer coefficient

over the flat plate jumped from 39.4 to 78.1 W/m

2

s, while that for the finned plate jumped from

32.1 to 55.8 W/m

2

s. However, the limiting value to convection is not zero at zero forced air

velocity, but instead a finite value due to natural convection, though the predictive equations were

not able to model this effect quite accurately. Also, we saw that the predictive equations yield

excellent results in predicting the trend of the heat transfer coefficient, but not the absolute

numbers, yielding errors of 80% on the flat plate and 40% on the finned plate. Nevertheless, if

one point is taken then we can add a correction coefficient to the predictive equations to increase

error to an acceptable one of only 7%. Finally, we determined that the addition of fins increased

the heat transfer rate at all velocities, but that its effectiveness diminished as air velocity

increased. For the low velocity reading it was able to reduce the surface temperature by 40

0

C, but

at the high velocity it only reduced the surface temperature by 18

0

C.

The results of this experiment are of great importance for both process and design engineers.

This data shows that they can increase the heat transfer coefficient of their system by increasing

the flow rate of the heated fluid. Also that predictive equations can be used as long as their

geometry matches that of the assumptions for the equations. And if it is close, a simple fudge

factor can be added by reading only one data point. It makes the engineer aware that even at zero

velocity, a finite and substantial amount of convection will still take place. Finally, the addition of

fins will greatly help to increase the heat transfer rate at low fluid velocities, but will not provide

a substantial increase at higher fluid velocities.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

iii

INTRODUCTION:

In the field of chemical engineering and in every day life itself, convection is one of the

most important forms of heat transfer. From running 150,000 lb/hr of hot water through a

heat exchanger, to simply turning on a fan to cool down on a hot day, the principles and

uses of convection remain the same.

Essentially, forced convection is one of the most significant designs of heat exchangers.

In order to increase the temperature of their inputs, which allows a faster rate of reaction,

or decrease the temperature of waste, or possibly to recover heat that would otherwise be

wasted, a majority of processing plants have need of heat exchangers. For example, the

pulp and paper industry use heat exchangers to preheat their milling water before it is

sent to the separator and, also just as significant, to cool their waste water before it is sent

to water treatment. This last principle would permit a plant to recover the heat that would

be wasted and channel it for use in other areas of the plant. (CADDET) However, diverse

operations will require varying amounts of heat transfers. Thus, process engineers at

these plants need to calculate in the area needed for the heat transfer they desire. Such

information is only available as a result of convection.

Natural convection has many applications. Free convection, strongly, influences the heat

transfer from pipes and transmission lines, as well as from electric baseboard

refrigeration units to the surrounding air. It is, also, relevant to the environmental

sciences, where it manipulates oceanic and atmospheric motions. The most relevant use

of natural convection for the chemical engineer, however, is in the cooling of electronic

components. Both the performance reliability and life expectancy of electronic equipment

are inversely related to the component temperature of the equipment. The relationship

between the reliability and the operating temperature of a typical silicon semi-conductor

device demonstrates that a reduction in the temperature corresponds to an exponential

increase in the reliability and life expectancy of the device. Therefore, controlling the

temperature of the device by natural convection (which is a free resource) is of vital

importance. (Icoz and Jaluria) Computer engineers, by studying and mastering natural

convection, are better able to arrange the area, position, and location of heat sinks to cool

their electronic components.

iv

To study the effects of convection, I selected to flow air at room temperature on both a

flat plate and a finned plate at an elevated temperature for a total of eight trials through a

convection chimney. In the first four trials, a flat vertical aluminum plate was placed near

the top of the chimney and heated with a constant 20 watts input. Then, air was flowed at

2.5, 5, and 10 meters per second over the plate. Temperature readings of the inlet air and

the surface of the plate at steady state were recorded. To find the effect of natural

convection, I repeated this setup for an air velocity of zero meters per second. For the

remainder of the final four trials, the experiment was then repeated with a finned plate in

place of the flat plate. With this data, I was able to correlate how the heat transfer

coefficient changed with the air velocity. I was, also, capable of comparing the heat

transfer rate of the finned plate to the flat plate at the same air velocity. As a final

outcome of the recorded data from my experimentation, I can test predictive equation

results with those obtained from the experiment.

This experiment had three main objectives. First, to study the effect the air velocity had

on the heat transfer coefficient; second, to examine the accuracy of current predictive

equations and finally, to find the effectiveness of the fins at different air velocities. With

this information, the principles of designing heat exchangers take form.

THEORY:

Introduction to Convection: The Convection Problem

Heat transfer due to convection involves the transfer of energy between a fluid at one

temperature moving over a solid surface at another temperature. Consider the situation

shown in Figure 1.

v

T

8

A

8

u

8

T

s

A

s

L

Figure 1: Convection over flat plate.

Here a fluid, namely air, of velocity

u

a flat aluminum surface of length L (meters) and area As (meters

2

). The temperature of

this surface is assumed to be uniform at Ts (C) such that Ts > T. This will result in a

temperature gradient forming from the surface and extending into the fluid. We know

from Newtons Law of Cooling that heat transfer at the surface will occur via a rate that

is proportional to the difference between the surface temperature Ts and the temperature

of the fluid T. Thus, we can write the local heat flux (heat transferred per unit area) as

(1) ( )

s

q

h T T

A

Where q (Watts) is the heat transferred per unit time, A (meters

2

) is the surface area

available for heat transfer, and h (Watts/m C) is the constant of proportionality known as

the local heat transfer coefficient. Note that both q and h are referred to as local. This is

because flow conditions will vary from point to point along the plate causing both q and h

to vary with position x (meters). The total heat transfer rate Q may be obtained by

integrating the local heat flux over the entire surface. That is,

(2)

s

s

A

q

Q dA

A

vi

(3)

( ) ( )

s s s

s s s s s

A A A

q

Q dA h T T dA T T hdA

A

We can then define an average heat transfer coefficient h (W/m C) as,

(4)

1

s

s

s

s

A

s

s A s

A

hdA

h hdA

A

dA

.

Thus, the total heat transfer rate may also be expressed as

(5) ( )

s s

Q hA T T

.

Note, that for our flat plate, we are considering flow in only one direction, namely the x

direction. Thus, we may rewrite Equation 4 as

(6)

0

1

L

h hdx

L

.

Equation 5 illustrates two very fundamental uses. First, with this equation, we have

available a method to experimentally measure our average heat transfer coefficient over a

flat plate. In short, if one has all the variables (measure of heat flux being convected from

the plate; the surface area of the plate, the temperature of the flowing air, and the steady

state temperature of the surface of the plate ) needed in the equation then, one is able to

obtain the average heat transfer coefficient for the flat plate.

Secondly, to find the total heat transferred from a heated plate to a flowing fluid, we only

need to know the average heat transfer coefficient, surface area of the plate and the

temperature of the surface and of the bulk fluid. However, in order to arrive at the

average heat transfer coefficient, we must, first, know how the local heat transfer

coefficient varies with x direction along the plate. This is dependent upon numerous fluid

properties such as viscosity, density, thermal conductivity, specific heat etcetera as well

vii

as the flow conditions along the plate. This multitude of independent variables in

determining the average heat transfer coefficient has been termed the problem of

convection. One way to determine all of these variables is to consider the concept of

boundary layers.

The Velocity Boundary Layer

Developing the Boundary Layer

To develop the concept of boundary layers, consider, again, the flow situation

represented by Figure 1 below.

T

8

A

8

u

8

T

s

A

s

L

Figure 1: Flow of fluid over a flat plate.

When fluid particles make direct contact with the surface, we assume their velocity is

reduced to zero due to viscous action between the surface and the fluid. These particles

will then act to retard the motion of particles in the adjoining fluid layer to a lower

velocity, which will then retard the motion of the next fluid layer and so on. The

retardation of fluid motion is due to shear stresses

(N/m

2

) acting between parallel fluid

layers. This retarding of motion will continue until we reach a distance where the velocity

of the fluid particles flowing over the plate are unaffected by the plates presence and

continue at a velocity of

u

whose velocity is unaffected is (meters) that is known as the boundary layer thickness.

Accordingly, we can develop a boundary layer velocity profile which shows the manner

in which u varies with the y direction throughout the boundary layer. This is represented

below in Figure 2.

viii

T

S

A

S

T

8

A

8

u

8

u

8

L

Figure 2: Velocity boundary layer forming over a flat plate.

This boundary layer will form whenever a fluid flows over a flat surface. Its shape will

depend on how the shear stress varies with shear strain

u

y

conditions we are experiencing. Assuming, we have a Newtonian fluid, we can evaluate

the shear stress as,

(7)

u

y

where

(kg m/sec) is the viscosity of the fluid. As for the flow conditions, there are

typically three patterns seen.

Describing the Flow Conditions

First, in laminar flow, the motion of air particles is very orderly with all particles at a

position y moving in a straight line parallel to the pipe walls. Secondly, in turbulent flow,

the particles move around and have different velocity components in all directions.

Thirdly, a transition flow has mixed properties of the previous two. From observation, it

was hypothesized that fluid travels in a laminar motion when it is moving slowly and

converts to turbulent motion when it has a faster velocity. But this information was not

very useful in that it only gave us qualitative definitions of our flow. As a result, in the

1880s, Osbourne Reynolds designed an experiment which involved inserting dye into

the center of a water stream which was flowing through a glass tube and where the

ix

velocity was controlled by a valve. After many experiments, he developed the following

equation,

(8)

Re

x

ux

3

), and x is the distance along

the plate in the x direction. He found that the dye made a straight line and stayed in the

center when Re <

5

5 10 (laminar), and that the dye formed fishhooks when Re > 10

7

(turbulent). Later this term was given a more scientific understanding, namely

(9)

forces viscous

forces inertial

Re

.

Thus, when inertial forces such as pressure and mass flow overcome the viscous forces,

we have a large Re and our flow is very turbulent, however, if the viscous forces are

larger, than all of the particles stick together and stay in line and we arrive at laminar

flow.

Momentum Equation of the Boundary Layer

In order to study the motion of particles, we need a method to model the interaction and

motion of any fluid element in the boundary layer. This data can be obtained by

performing a momentum balance on the fluid particles and developing what is known as

an equation of motion for them.

Consider an arbitrary volume element. Momentum can be transported into and out of this

volume element by three different mechanisms. The first is through convection, the bulk

flow of fluid across the surface. The second is via forces that act on the surface of the

volume element and the third is by body forces which act on the entire volume of the

element in order to change its momentum. We are able to arrange these three mechanisms

to fit a verbal differential equation shown below.

Rate of Net rate of Net rate of Net rate of

x

(10) change of = momentum + momentum + momentum

momentum convected into V creation by creation by

surface forces body forces

Equation 10 is the verbal representation of the momentum balance on this fluid element.

The next step is to put this equation into mathematical terms.

The rate of momentum change caused by convection is determined by the rate at which

mass will enter and leave this fluid element and the velocity of this fluid. The local

volumetric flow rate of fluid across a surface element dA is the velocity of fluid

multiplied by the area, or in other words, udA. Thus, the rate of mass transfer in and out

of this element is given by (udA). Multiplying this by the velocity determines our first

term of the equation. Note, that this equation is negative because it assumes the

momentum is being convected into the surface element. If momentum is in fact leaving

the surface element in a larger amount than the dot product, then, this will ensure that the

term turns out positive.

(11) ( ) Rate of momentum convected u u d A

The rate of momentum change created by surface forces is caused by molecular motion

and interactions within the fluid itself. This rate of molecular diffusion can be described

by the shear stress on the volume element multiplied by the area on which this stress acts.

These shear stresses are acting to compress this volume element and, thus, this term must

also be negative.

(12)

A d

forces surface by

created momentum of Rate

Body forces acting on our volume element may be gravitational, surface, electrical, or

magnetic. However, in the present situation, the most common forces are only

gravitational and surface, and will be the only ones considered here. The gravitational

force is, simply, the acceleration due to gravity pulling down on the mass of the element,

where the surface force is the external pressure acting to compress our volume element.

xi

(13)

dV g A Pd

forces body by

created momentum of Rate

+

Finally, we can write the rate of accumulation of momentum into and out of this volume

element as,

(14) ( ) Rate of accumulation of momentum u dV

t

(15)

( )

. . . . . . . . . . C V C S C S C S C V

u dV uu d A d A Pd A gdV

t

Mathematically, C.V. signifies an integral across the control volume of our fluid element

and C.S. represents an integral across the surface of our fluid element. However as it

stands, this equation cannot be solved easily. In order to simplify this equation, we would

need to organize our data into the same units and transform the integrals into differentials

which can be more easily applied to a given situation. Fortunately, we have from Gausss

theorem which is the ability to convert each integral over the control surface to an

integral over the control volume thereby standardizing the integrals. This is achieved by

using the gradient vector, as shown below:

(16)

. . . . C S C V

u d A udV

Thus, we can now write Equation 15 as:

(17)

( )

. . . . . . . . . . C V C V C V C V C V

u dV uudV dV PdV pgdV

t

xii

Now, Equation 17 illustrates that all terms have a triple integral over the control volume.

Provided that no math teachers are looking, we can cancel out all the integrals and arrive

at:

(18)

( ) g p P dV

t

+

Equation 18 is what is generally referred to as the equation of motion for a fluid. Just to

be certain nothing is lost in the math, we will define the physical significance of each

term. The term on the left side of the equal sign is the rate at which we accumulate

momentum in our fluid element. On the right side of the equation, the first term describes

the change in momentum due to convection via fluid flow. The second term accounts for

change in momentum due to molecular diffusion which is based off the viscosity of the

fluid and the shear stresses placed on it. The third term describes the change of

momentum that is caused by a pressure drop due to the friction experienced by flowing

along a plate. Finally, the last term on the right takes into account the gravitational force

on our fluid element.

The Navier-Stokes Equation

Inserting Equation 7 into Equation 18, we have developed what is known as the Navier-

Stokes equation where we assume that we have a Newtonian fluid, a constant density,

and a constant viscosity. This equation is shown below for flow in the x direction in a

Cartesian coordinate system:

(19)

x x x

x

g v

x

P

v v

t

v

+ +

2

However, we could greatly simplify Equation 19 by factoring in a few more assumptions.

First, we will assume that flow is only in the x direction and that momentum is changing

only in the y direction. Secondly, we will again assume that the pressure drop for our

external flow is negligible. Applying these assumptions to Equation 19 and dividing

through by

xiii

the working momentum equation of the boundary layer under laminar flow conditions,

namely,

(20)

2

2

u u u

u

x y y

1

+

1

]

.

The Thermal Boundary Layer

Developing the Boundary Layer

The development of the thermal boundary layer is similar to that of the velocity boundary

layer. Consider the flow situation represented by Figure 3, shown below.

T

S

A

S

T

8

A

8

T

8

u

8

L

Figure 3: Flow of fluid over a flat plate.

At the leading edge, the temperature profile of the fluid is uniform. However, once the

fluid makes contact with the plate the particles at the surface will achieve thermal

equilibrium at the plates surface temperature. These particles will, then, exchange energy

with the layer of fluid particles above them, who will exchange energy with the fluid

particles above them. This will form a temperature gradient in the fluid from the surface

at a temperature of T

s

to a distance

t

fluid T

. Here

t

the fluid in which the temperature gradients exist.

xiv

Energy Equation of the Boundary Layer

Just as we developed the momentum equation of the boundary layer, we will develop the

energy equation of the boundary layer by performing an energy balance on the fluid

particles inside the boundary layer. Energy is carried in and out of any arbitrary volume

element by three mechanisms. Convection is the first mechanism by the bulk flow of

fluid across the surface. The second is through conduction, the energy transfer from

molecular vibrations of particles adjacent to the control element. With the third being

viscous work where the body forces act on the entire volume in order to change its

momentum. By combining all three mechanisms, we arrive at a verbal energy equation

shown below in Equation 20.

(21)

Energy convected Energy convected Heat conducted Net viscous work

in at x in at y in at y done on element

+ + +

Energy convected Energy convected Heat conducted

out at x dx out at y dy out at y dy

+ +

+ + +

Note: that energy being convected into a control volume element is calculated by the

mass flow rate entering multiplied by the enthalpy of that mass. In mathematical terms

we transcribe it as,

(22)

p x position x position

Energy convected C u T dy

Also, the energy being carried in by conduction is, according to Fouriers Law, equal to

the conduction heat transfer coefficient multiplied by the temperature gradient at this

position. Hence, in mathematical terms we can write.

(23)

y position

T

Energy conducted kdx

y

1

1

]

xv

Finally, the viscous work being done on the element is equal to the viscous-shear force

acting on the element (

u

dx

y

unit time (

u

dy

y

(24)

2

u

Viscous work dxdy

y

,

Therefore, we can plug Equations 22,23, and 24 into Equation 21 to yield the differential

energy balance,

(25)

2

2

2 p

T T u T u

C u T dxdy k dxdy dxdy

x y x y y y

1 _ _

+ + + +

1

, , ]

Then using the continuity relation

0

u

x y

1 _

+

1

, ]

and dividing through by

p

C

, we

arrive at,

(26)

2

2

2

p

T T T u

u

x y y C y

1 _

+ +

1

] ,

which is the energy equation of the boundary layer under laminar flow conditions. In this

equation

p

k

C

further simplified by realizing that the second term on the right side of Equation 26 is

only of importance for highly viscous fluids and is therefore negligible for air in our

operating temperatures. This leaves us with our working energy equation for laminar

boundary layers, namely,

xvi

(27)

2

2

T T T

u

x y y

1

+

1

]

.

The Flat Plate in Parallel Flow

Solving the Momentum Boundary Layer Equations

Consider the flat plate situation shown below in Figure 4.

u

8

H

dx

dy

A A

Figure 4: Velocity Profile in thermal boundary layer.

In order to solve for a velocity profile and the boundary layer thickness along the plate,

we must perform a momentum balance and a force balance on this arbitrary element.

Starting with the momentum balance we have,

(28)

Net Momentum Flow Momentum carried out Momentum carried in

Since we know that momentum in our situation is only carried in and away by mass, we

can make use of the equation

* Momentum mass flow velocity

and write for the

momentum entering through the left side as

xvii

(29)

2

0

H

u dy

(30)

2 2

0 0

H H

d

u dy u dy dx

dx

_

+

,

.

The momentum flow through the bottom must be zero since there is a solid plate there,

and we are left with only the momentum through the top. This equation is complicated.

First, we need to know the mass flow entering the top. This can be found from the

difference between the mass exiting through the right and the mass entering through the

left as there is no creation or destruction of mass in this volume element. Thus, the mass

flow through the top is,

(31)

0 0 0 0

H H H H

d d

u dy dx u dy u dy u dy dx

dx dx

_ _

+

, ,

.

This mass must carry with it a momentum equal to its mass flow rate times its velocity.

Since this area is above the boundary layer, we know that its velocity must be that of the

free stream. Therefore the momentum through the top is,

(32)

0

H

d

u u dy dx

dx

_

,

.

Combining Equations 32, 30, and 29 into Equation 28 yields us with our net momentum

flow out of our element as,

(33)

2

0 0

H H

d d

Net Momentum Flow u dy dx u udy dx

dx dx

_ _

, ,

.

xviii

Then using the product rule from calculus, we can rewrite the second term in this

equation as

(34)

0 0 0

H H H

du d d

u udy dx uu dy dx udy dx

dx dx dx

_ _ _

, , ,

.

Accordingly, we can rewrite Equation 33 in more useful terms as

(36)

2

0 0 0

0 0

( )

H H H

H H

du d d

Net Momentum Flow u dy dx uu dy dx udy dx

dx dx dx

du d

u u udy udy

dx dx

1 _ _ _

1

1

, , , ]

_ _

+

, ,

Next, we need to do a force balance on this same volume element. The force at the left

and right sides are due to pressure force. The force at the left side is

pH

and that at the

right side is

dp

p dx H

dx

1 _

+

1

, ]

. Due to shear stress from the wall, the force at the bottom

can be written as

0

w

y

u

dx dx

y

only the force at the top. However since this section is outside our boundary layer, we

know there are now velocity gradients here and thus no force. Collecting terms, we arrive

at the net force balance as

(37)

w

w

Net Force Force out Force in

dp

Net Force pH p dx H dx

dx

dp

Net Force dx H dx

dx

1 _

+

1

, ]

_

,

.

Then from Newtons Law, the net force on an object is equal to its net increase in

momentum, we can set Equations 36 and 37 equal to each other to obtain.

xix

(38)

0 0

( )

H H

w

du dp d

H u u udy udy

dx dx dx

_ _

_

+

,

, ,

For our system, we will assume that pressure across the plate is relatively constant

allowing us to cross out the second term on the left hand side of the equation. As a direct

result of the constant pressure assumption, we know the free stream velocity is not a

function of x, consequently, we can cross out the last term on the right hand side of the

equation. Finally from our definition of the boundary layer, we know that u=u

for y> ,

thus we can change the limit on the integral to instead of H. This leaves us with,

(39)

0 0

( )

w

y

u d

u u udy

y dx

where we have brought in our definition of viscosity to rewrite the shear stress as a

function of the velocity gradient.

The next step is to find an equation for the velocity profile for use in Equation 39. Using

an approximate development, we can assume that this relation will be in the form of a

simple polynomial. To calculate approximately how many terms we need, let us list the

conditions that must be satisfied: (a) the velocity at the surface must be zero due to

viscous forces; and since our definition of our boundary layer is the only region in which

velocity gradients exist we arrive at: (b) the velocity at the top of the boundary layer

must be equal to the free stream velocity; and (c) the velocity gradient must be zero. For

our final condition, since we are at a constant pressure situation, we can solve Equation

20 with our other conditions to obtain (d) the velocity gradient must stop changing at the

plate surface. We can express these mathematically as,

(a)

u

=0 at y=0

(b)

u

=

u

at y=

(c)

0

u

y

at y=

xx

(d)

2

2

0

u

y

at y=0.

The simplest polynomial that could satisfy all four conditions is,

(40)

2 3

1 2 3 4

u C C y C y C y + + + .

Applying the four conditions (a) through (d), we arrive at an expression for the velocity

as a function of y position in the boundary layer,

(41)

3

10

3 1

Re 5 10

2 2

u y y

for

u

_ _

<

, ,

.

We can now plug Equation 40 into Equation 39, perform the integration and solve for

x

,

(42)

2

2

2

10

1

2

39 3

280 2

140 140

13 13

140

2 13

140

@ 0, 0 0

2 13

4.64

Re 5 10

Re

x

u d

u

dx

d dx dx

u u

x

Const

u

x

x Const

u

for

x

,

+

<

which will then tell us the boundary layer thickness as a function of x along the plate.

Solving the Thermal Boundary Layer Equations

In order to find the temperature gradient in the boundary layer, we must solve the energy

equation of the thermal boundary layer, Equation (27). The conditions that this equation

must satisfy are: (a) the temperature at the surface of the plate must equal the surface

xxi

temperature because we have zero velocity at this point and the volume elements here

must be in thermal equilibrium with the plate; (b) the temperature gradient should be zero

at the top of the thermal boundary layer. This is a direct result of our definition that the

thermal boundary layer is the area in which we experience temperature gradients, thus the

temperature gradients must stop as we leave the boundary layer; (c) the temperature at

the top of the boundary layer must equal the free stream temperature, this is also a direct

result of our definition of the thermal boundary layer, since we are outside the area of

temperature gradients, we are outside the area which is affected by the plate, thus our

temperature must equal the free stream temperature we originally had; (d) finally the rate

of change of the temperature gradient must also be zero at the wall because the velocities

are zero at the wall thus there is no driving force to change the temperature gradient. We

can express these conditions mathematically as

(a) T=T

S

at y=0

(b)

T

y

=0 at y=

T

(c) T=T

at y=

T

(d)

2

2

T

y

=0 at y=0.

We now assume that the temperature profiles at various x positions must all have the

same functional dependence on the y position. Consequently, the simplest method to

solve Equation (27) with the four conditions (a) through (d) is to fit them to a third degree

polynomial with arbitrary constants, namely,

(43)

2 3

1 2 3 4

s

s

T T

C C y C y C y

T T

+ + +

(44)

3

10

3 1

Re 5 10

2 2

T T

y y

T T for

_ _

<

, ,

xxii

Now, we have found an equation for the temperature profile of the thermal boundary

layer. However, we now need to find a relation for the thermal boundary layer thickness.

This can be achieved by an integral analysis of the energy equation of the boundary layer

shown again in Figure 5 below.

T

8

T

A A

dx

w

w

dT

dq kdx

dy

H

u

8

Figure 5: Temperature Profile in thermal boundary layer.

Performing an energy balance yields

(45)

Energy convected in Viscous work within Heat tr ansfer at wall Energy convected out + +

The energy convected into the left side is,

0

H

p

C uTdy

side is,

0 0

H H

p p

d

C uTdy C uTdy dx

dx

_ _ _

+

, , ,

; the energy due to mass flow through the

top is,

0

H

p

d

C T udy dx

dx

_ _

, ,

xxiii

2

0

H

du

dy dx

dy

1

_

1

1 ,

]

w

w

T

dq kdx

y

. Combining all

of the above relations into Equation 45 yields,

(46)

2

0 0

( )

H H

p

w

d du T

T T udy dy

dx C dy y

1

_ _

_

+ 1

1 ,

, ,

]

However, the net viscous work term is negligible unless we have a highly viscous fluid,

which air is not; therefore we will ignore this term and arrive at,

(47)

0

( )

H

w

d T

T T udy

dx y

_ _

, ,

This is the energy boundary layer equation for our laminar flow over a flat plate. The

next step in calculating the thermal boundary layer thickness is to insert our temperature

profile Equation 44 and the velocity distribution Equation 41 into Equation 47, which

will then look like this,

(48)

0 0

3

3

0

( ) ( )

3 1 3 1

1

2 2 2 2

3

2

H H

H

T T

T

w

d d

T T udy udy

dx dx

d y y y y

u dy

dx

T

y

_ _ _ _

, , , ,

1

1

_ _

_ _

1 +

1 ' ;

, , 1 1 , ,

]

]

S

. Allow us to assume

T

is smaller than , which is the

case for air and most fluids, we can change the integrals to sum up to instead of H.

Performing the necessary integration we arrive at,

xxiv

(49)

2 4

3 3 3

20 280 2

T T

T

d

u

dx

1 _

_ _

1

_

, ,

1

, ]

,

and because

T

4

T

_

,

is negligibly small compared to

2

T

_

,

and we

can write

(50)

2

3 3

20 2

T

T

d

u

dx

_

_

_

,

,

,

performing the differentiation gives

(51)

2 3

2

2

1

10

t

t t

d

d

u dx dx

_ _ _

_ _ _

,

+

, , ,

,

,

But from the development shown in Equation 42 we know,

2

140

2 13

x

u

so that we can

write,

(52)

3 2

13

4

14

t

t t

d

x

dx

_ _

_ _

,

+

, ,

,

,

xxv

but noting that

2 3

1

3

t

t t

d

d

dx dx

_ _

_ _

,

, ,

,

we realize that Equation 52 is a first order

linear differential equation whose solution is

(53)

3

3

4

13

14

t

Cx

_

+

,

For our situation, we will assume that the boundary layer starts forming at x=0 but that

the heat of the plate doesnt start until x=x

0

. These will give us our two boundary

conditions, namely,

(a)

0

0 @

t

x x

(b)

0

0 @

t

x x

_

,

We can solve these simultaneously with Equation 53 to yield

(54a)

1/ 3

3/ 4

1/ 3 0

1

Pr 1

1.026

t

x

x

1

_ _

1

, ,

1

]

,

or if the heat of the plate starts immediately at x=0,

(54b)

1/ 3 10

1

Pr Re 5 10

1.026

t

for

_

<

,

.

In these equations we noticed a ratio that has been in numerous equations throughout this

development. This ratio is

P

C

k

ratio we see it is a ratio of the kinematic viscosity. A ratio of this kind of viscosity

conveys information about the rate at which momentum diffuses through a material, and

xxvi

the thermal diffusivity, which conveys how heat diffuses through a material, each by

molecular vibrations. It is through this ratio that we discover the relative magnitudes of

momentum and thermal diffusivity in the material, which is the information needed to

determine the relative sizes of the momentum and thermal boundary layers. This link

between the velocity field and the temperature field is so important that it was named, as

is shown in Equations 54, Pr, the Prandtl number.

Putting it all Together

Visualize, again, the situation where we have a fluid flowing over a hot plate, shown

below in Figure 6.

T

S

A

S

T

8

A

8

T

8

u

8

L

Figure 6: Temperature Profile in thermal boundary layer.

The temperature of the surface is at T

s

, the temperature of the fluid is at T

, and the

boundary layer thickness is at a height of

T

. At the wall we have zero velocity due to

viscous forces, thus the heat transfer from the wall into the boundary layer must be done

through conduction. Therefore, our heat flux into the boundary layer must be

(55) s

s

surface

Q T

k

A y

xxvii

(56) 3

2

wall

s t

T

k

y

k

h

T T

.

We can now plug in Equations 54 and Equation 42 to yield,

(57)

1/ 3

3/ 4

1/ 2

1/ 3 0

Re

.332 Pr 1

x

x

x

h k

x x

1

_

1

,

1

]

However, from our development, we realize that we can use this equation for all similar

geometries. Hence, we wish to nondimensionalize this equation such that it will be

applicable to all flat plates that we will encounter. We will divide both sides by / x k

which will give us,

(58)

1/ 3

3/ 4

1/ 3 1/ 2 0

Nu .332Pr Re 1

x

x x

h x x

k x

1

_

1

,

1

]

It is at this point that we have defined another useful dimensionless parameter known as

the Nusselt number. As is stated in the above paragraph this makes for an important

parameter. Through the development of a flat plate, we expect that we can create a single

correlation for a given similar geometry and then use dimensionless parameters such that

this correlation can be used for all fluids and all absolute dimensions of the relative

geometry. The Nu, Pr, and Re all provide us with this ability. In fact, from this

development, we can now state with a fair amount of certainty that h is a function of Nu

which is a function of Re and Pr. Thus for all other geometries, we can run numerous

experiments with different fluids and create correlations for h based on different

manipulations of the these three dimensionless parameters. Since most of the geometries

are very difficult to solve analytically, this is the exact procedure we use to obtain the

correlations for a number of turbulent flows in different geometries.

Back to the analysis, we want to extend our relation for the heat transfer coefficient for

the flat plate in forced flow to include one more step. We want to have the average heat

xxviii

transfer coefficient over the entire plate such that we can use an average equation for the

entire plate instead of integral analysis every time.

From the definition of average, we can calculate

(59)

0

0

2

L

x

L L

h dx

h h

dx

Thus we can plug Equation 59 into Equation 58 and obtain the working relationship for

forced laminar flow over a flat plate as,

(60a)

1/ 3 1/ 2 10

.664Pr Re Re 5 10

x

hL

Nu for

k

<

(60b)

1/ 3

1/ 2

3/ 4

1/ 3

10 0

0

.332Pr 1

1 Re 5 10

L

x u x k

h dx for

L x x

1

_ _ _

<

1

, , , 1

]

The analysis to arrive at this equation assumed that all physical properties were constant.

If this is not the case, it is suggested by many textbooks to use properties at the film

temperature,

(61)

2

w

f

T T

T

+

.

The Flat Plate in Free Convection

Physical Considerations

In our previous discussion, we examined the situation of a flat plate and a fluid with a

forced velocity flowing over it causing forced convection. However, convection can also

result when there are density gradients caused by temperature gradients producing the net

effect of buoyancy forces on the molecules present due to the gravitational field.

xxix

Consider the situation represented in Figure 7

T

s

T

8

8

U = func(y)

= fucn(y)

Figure 7: Boundary Layer development on heated vertical plate.

In this situation, a heated vertical plate at T

s

is surrounded by air at T

the plate is at a higher temperature and less dense than fluid far removed. Therefore,

buoyancy forces induce a free convection boundary layer in which the fluid at a higher

temperature rises vertically, entraining fluid from the fluid far removed. The resulting

velocity distribution, shown in Figure 7, is unlike that we have seen before and thus

requires a new development.

The Governing Equations

In order to analyze this situation, we again need the momentum and energy equations that

we derived from the related conservation principles. Thus, for momentum, we return to

Equation 19,

(19)

x x x

x

g v

x

P

v v

t

v

+ +

2

We can, again, simplify this equation by assuming that flow is only in the x direction and

that momentum is changing only in the y direction. However, we cannot ignore the

pressure drop term, as its value is no longer negligible nor can we ignore the body force

term that gravity imparts on our system. Applying these to Equation 19 and dividing

through by

, noting that

xxx

(62)

2

2

1 u u p u

u g

x y x y

+ +

.

We can rewrite this equation by noting that the x pressure gradient in the boundary layer

must be equal to the pressure gradient in the surrounding fluid, but in the surrounding

fluid u=0. Applying this we can solve Equation 62 for the surrounding fluid to find,

(63)

p

g

x

(64)

2

2

u u u

u g

x y y

_

+ +

,

.

Note: the new term in this equation represents the buoyancy force present in our system

due to the density gradient. We can make this equation more functional if we assume that

density variations are caused solely by temperature variations, in which case we may take

advantage of the fluid property known as the volumetric thermal expansion coefficient.

This property measures the change in density with a change in temperature at constant

pressure.

(65)

1

p

T

,

However, we will further simplify Equation 65 with the Boussinesq approximation,

which allows us to approximate the derivative so that we arrive at,

(66)

1 1

T T T

_

,

xxxi

which can be solved for

and then directly substituted into Equation 64 to yield

the working momentum equation for free laminar flow along a vertical plate,

(67)

2

2

( )

u u u

u g T T

x y y

+ +

.

Again note, that the buoyancy force as we are representing it only has an effect on our

momentum equations, thus we can rewrite our working expressions for the mass and

energy equations exactly how they were for forced convection. This provides us with our

three working equations from which we can solve our free laminar boundary layer,

namely,

(68)

0

u

x y

+

(69)

2

2

( )

u u u

u g T T

x y y

+ +

(70)

2

2

T T T

u

x y y

1

+

1

]

.

Solving the Governing Equations

If we nondimensionalize the equations, we realize that we can obtain much more

practical expressions for our correlations. Hence, we define the following variables

0 0

, , , ,

s

T T x y u

x y u T

L L u u T T

0

u

is an arbitrary reference velocity. Applying these substitutions into Equations 69 and 70

yield the following nondimensionalized free laminar boundary layer equations

(71)

2

2 2

0

( ) 1

Re

s

L

g T T L u u u

u T

x y u y

+ +

(72)

2

2

1

Re Pr

L

T T T

u

x y y

+

xxxii

where we have a new dimensionless parameter as a result of the buoyancy force,

2

0

( )

s

g T T L

u

reference velocity. Thus, we will multiply this parameter by

2

2

Re

o

L

u L

,

and obtain

what is known as the Grashof number,

(73)

2

3

2 2

0

( ) ( )

s o s

L

g T T L u L g T T L

Gr

u

_

,

.

The Grashof number is the free convection equivalent to the Reynolds number in forced

convection. Where Reynolds was the ratio of inertial to viscous forces, Grashof is the

ratio of the buoyancy force to the viscous force acting on the fluid.

In order to solve Equations 71 and 72 for our situation, we can take two directions. The

first involves us creating differential elements and balancing momentum and forces,

deriving expressions for the velocity and temperature distributions, and finally solving for

a functional relationship of the boundary layer thickness. Such a route is quite tedious

and provides below satisfactory results for its exact correlation. The second method we

can take is to recognize that in forced convection, the Nusselt number was a function of

the dimensionless parameters present in forced convection, Pr and Re. In consequence,

we can assume that once again we are going to experience the Nusselt number to be a

function of the dimensionless parameters present and write,

(74) Nu (Pr, Gr ) L

L

function .

Then, we simply need to run a multitude of experiments to determine the correct

correlation for our system. This is the method utilized by Churchill and Chu, according to

Welty, Wicks, Wilson, and Rorrer. In their process, they defined a new dimensionless

parameter which is simply a manipulation of our current dimensionless parameters. This

new parameter is called the Rayleigh number and is defined as,

xxxiii

(75)

3

( )

Pr

s

L L

g T T L

Ra Gr

.

They then anticipated the functional relationship of Equation 74 would be

(76) Nu Ra

n

L

L

hL

C

k

.

Churchill and Chu proceeded to run multiple experiments in the range of

9

10

L

Ra and

found the working relationship for laminar flow to be,

(77)

1/ 4

4/ 9

9/16

.670

Nu .68

.492

1

Pr

L

L

Ra

+

1

_

+

1

,

1

]

.

Finned Surfaces

Physical Situation

It is a frequent practice to add extended surfaces to a flat plate to increase the rate of heat

transfer away from the surface. As shown in Figure 8 below, we have added rectangular

fins to the plate.

xxxiv

dx

P

L

z

t

dq

convection

= h

f

*P dx * (T

fin @ x

- T

8

)

Figure 8: Conduction and Convection through parallel fin.

Heat generated in the surface is being conducted through the fin and then convected away

to the surrounding fluid. The temperature at the base of the fin is T

S

and the temperature

of the surrounding fluid is T

conduct an energy balance around our fin.as calculated below

(78)

2

2

2

2

( )

( )

0

x dx

Energy conducted in Energy conducted out Energy lost by convection

dT dT

kA kA hPdx T T

dx dx

dT dT d T

kA kA dx hPdx T T

dx dx dx

d T hP

dx kA

+

+

_

+ +

,

where

T T

. In order to solve the above differential equation, we need two

boundary conditions. To simplify the math, we will assume the tip of the fin is insulated,

which basically means that there is no driving force for heat transfer at the tip which is

mostly the case. Thus, we can now label our two conditions as follows: (a) the

temperature of the fin at its base is equal to the temperature of the surface; and (b) there is

no temperature gradient at the tip (insulated). Mathematically we can write these

conditions as,

xxxv

(a)

0

@ 0 x

(b) 0 @

d

x L

dx

Solving the above second order linear differential Equation 78 with the two boundary

conditions a and b, we find the temperature distribution along the fin as,

(79)

0

cosh( ( ))

cosh( )

m L x

mL

2

hP

m

kA

, to make the math easierr to follow.

Noting that all of the heat lost by the fin via convection must be conducted into the base

of the fin by conduction, we may write an expression for the total heat lost by the fin as,

(80)

0

0 2 2

0

1 1

1 1

tanh( )

x

mL mL

dT

q kA

dx

q kA m

e e

q hPkA mL

_

+ +

,

To make this relation more applicable, we would like to combine the heat convected from

the plate and the heat convected from the fin into one equation. In order to do this, we

define the fin efficiency as follows,

(81)

f

actual heat transferred

Fin efficiency

heat which would be transferred

if entire fin area were

at base temperature

For our case ,we can determine this mathematically as

xxxvi

(82)

0

0

tanh( ) tanh( )

f

hPkA mL mL

hPL mL

.

For this reason, we can describe convection from a flat plate with fins as,

(83) ( )

( )

0 0

f

f f s

q h A h A T T

+

where

0 0

h A

are for the flat plate without fins and

f

f f

h A

from our equations will be the

heat convected from the fins. Consequently, all we need to do is measure the areas of the

flat plate and the fins and the temperature of the surface and the surrounding air, and the

total heat produced within the plate to find the heat transfer coefficients of the plates and

of the fins.

Of particular note here, we may also find an estimated heat transfer coefficient of the fins

by using Equation 60, which we developed for flat plates. This is a good approximation

because the fins are in essence flat plates but with less uniform temperatures. However,

because the conductivity of the plate is very high, we can assume that the temperature is

fairly uniform.

Establishing Steady State

There were a total of eight runs used for this experiment. Six of these were for forced

convection with the other two for natural convection. As for the latter, steady state values

were obtained by allowing the system to run for an hour and a half. Measurements were

then taken for each variable. Because of the extended run time, these readings were

assumed to be steady state values.

For the six forced convection runs, measurements were taken every 5 minutes for an

hour, or until the readings started leveling out. This data was then inserted into Newtons

Law of Cooling model to determine the steady state values. From Newtons Law of

Cooling, we know the rate of change in temperature is proportional to the driving force.

xxxvii

In this case, a constant times the difference between the steady state temperature and the

current temperature, or in mathematical terms,

(84) ( )

dT

k T T

dt

Solving this separable differential equation we arrive at

(85) ( ) exp , Constant T T Kt K

+

Thus, we can graph Temperature versus and guess values of K to give us a good

correlation. The y-intercept of this graph will be the steady state temperature the system

is trying to attain.

xxxviii

EQUIPMENT:

For these experiments, the medium of heat transfer was air, which was flowed through a

duct with the use of a pump. The duct (chimney) has a cross sectional area of 120mm by

70mm and stood about 1.5m tall. Air velocity was controlled by the variac controller on

the pump and could be further adjusted by a slide cover in front of the chimney.

Measurements of air velocity were made by a portable analog anemometer mounted on

the duct. Readings were taken in meters per second. A 20 watt power control circuit

manufactured by Armfield Technical Education Co., HTG-B Serial Number 3681-3,

which had a direct reading digital watt meter imbedded in it, heated the surface.

Temperature measurements were taken to a resolution of .1

0

C through the use of

thermistor probes and a digital temperature indicator which read in

0

C which is located on

the control circuit. All equipment is shown below in Figures 9 and 10.

Chimney

Viewing Window

Anemometer

Figure 9: Front view of convection duct.

xxxix

20 watts

Temperature Probe

Pump and Slide

Cover

Inlet Air Measurement

Boundary Layer Profile Measurement

Heated Surface

Power Supply

Figure 10: Side view of convection duct.

There are two surfaces that will be used in this experiment both are made from an

aluminum alloy with an estimated conductivity of 166.5

0

Watts

m C

. The first surface is a flat

plate, with a length of 100mm and a width of 110mm. Subsequently, the second surface

is a finned plate, which has 9 fins that are 4mm thick at the base, 2mm thick at the top,

100mm long (in direction of air flow) and 68mm in depth. These 9 fins have a horizontal

spacing of 12-13mm across a flat plate identical to the first surface. Pictures of these

surfaces are shown below in Figures 11 and 12.

T

8

A

8

u

8

xl

Figure 11: Flat Plate and air flow direction.

T

8

A

8

u

8

Figure 12: Finned Plate and air flow direction.

PROCEDURE:

1. Insert the flat plate in the proper position in the chimney. Plug in the

power supply to the flat plate. Attach the temperature sensor into the flat

plate.

2. Insert the Temperature probe into the air inlet hole.

3. Turn on the anemometer. Turn on the pump and adjust the variac

controller and the slide cover to achieve an air velocity of 2.5m/sec.

4. Turn on the power source. Adjust power output to 20 Watts.

5. Start taking readings every 5 minutes until the system reaches steady state,

or after an hour of measurement time, which ever comesfirst.

6. Move the temperature probe into each of the three profile holes near the

middle of the plate. Allow the probe 5 to 10 minutes to reach steady state

and record the reading.

7. Document all data.

8. Repeat steps 2 through 7 for air velocities of 5 and 10 m/sec. Then, repeat

steps 2 through 7 once more with the pump turned off to record a

measurement for natural convection. Note this last run may take up to two

hours to reach steady state. Readings do not have to be taken for every 5

xli

minutes as long as you leave enough time for the system to reach steady

state.

9. Turn the power source off. Unplug the flat plate power source and

temperature sensor. Remove the flat plate. Insert the parallel fins. Plug the

power source and the temperature sensor into the parallel fins.

10. Repeat steps 2 through 8 for the parallel fin setup.

11. Turn the power supply off.

12. Clean up the lab.

RESULTS:

Steady State

For the six forced convection runs, we arranged the data to a graph of temperature versus

exp( ) k t

. The data for this can be seen in Appendix 2. The two natural convection runs

had actual steady state measurements taken during their analysis, therefore no

manipulation of data was required to obtain their steady state values. The steady state

values of all runs are shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Steady State Temperatures

Flat Plate:

Air Velocity(m/sec) Air Inlet Temp (C) Plate Surface Temp (C)

0.0 25.5 93.8

2.5 25.7 71.8

5.0 24.9 58.8

10.0 25.0 47.1

Finned Plate:

Air Velocity(m/sec) Air Inlet Temp (C) Plate Surface Temp (C)

0.0 25.0 47.1

2.5 25.0 31.1

5.0 25.0 29.9

10.0 25.0 28.9

Table 1: Steady state temperature values.

Flat Plate Heat Transfer Coefficient

xlii

During this experiment, I determined the heat transfer coefficient across a flat plate at

four different velocities each by three different methods. The first was to measure it

experimentally. The second method involved using the theoretical analysis presented in

the theory section of this report to come up with a predicted estimate of the heat transfer

coefficient. Estimating the heat transfer coefficient with the final method is a direct result

of comparisons of the experimental and predicted results. It involves a minor adjustment

to the theoretical prediction equation to account for turbulent mixing.

I will begin to explain my results for the flat plate by comparing the first two methods of

estimating the heat transfer coefficient, experimental and predicted.

In order to determine the experimental heat transfer coefficient, I measured the power

output, the area of the plate, the steady state temperature of the air, and calculated the

steady state temperature of the plate, during the lab. From this data, I used Equation 5 to

determine the average heat transfer coefficient over the plate for all four experiments.

The second calculation involved using a theoretical analysis assuming laminar flow of the

air over the flat plate. During the lab trials, I recorded the velocity of the air, and

calculated the film temperature of the air. With this data, I was able to use Equation 60 to

calculate the average heat transfer coefficient over the plate for the three forced

convection runs and using Equation 77 for the natural convection prediction. Table 2

shows the results of these calculations.

Table 2: Heat transfer coefficients along flat plate (W/sqm deg C)

Flat Plate:

Air Velocity(m/sec) Experimental Experimental Error Theory Percent Error in Predictions

0.0 26.6 12.1% 6.8 292.8%

2.5 39.4 7.7% 22.0 79.6%

5.0 53.6 6.4% 30.9 73.7%

10.0 78.1 1.4% 44.4 75.9%

Table 2: Heat transfer coefficients along flat plate.

If one were to examine the table , they would be able to note that both experimental and

predicted results follow the same trend of increasing with increasing velocity. In order to

more clearly see the effect that velocity has on the heat transfer coefficient, it is

convenient to graph the data in Table 2. This is shown in Figure 13 below.

xliii

Heat transfer coefficients versus velocity for laminar flow over flat plate

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

(Velocity (meters per second))^.5

h

(

W

a

t

t

s

p

e

r

m

e

t

e

r

s

q

u

a

r

e

d

d

e

g

r

e

e

s

C

e

l

s

i

u

s

)

Predicted

Experimental

Linear (Predicted)

Figure 13: Heat transfer coefficients versus velocity for flat plate.

From this graph, it is clear to see that both the experimental and predicted heat transfer

coefficients increase almost linearly with the root of air velocity. Also, from Figure 13, it

is obvious that the theoretical predicted equation is not providing good results for our

experimental conditions. This conclusion led to the third method of prediction, turbulent

mix predictions. This prediction method is exactly the same as the original theoretical

prediction method except that I use a different coefficient in Equation 60. The new

predicting equation for this method is shown below,

(86)

1/ 3 1/ 2

1.169Pr Re

x

hL

Nu

k

.

Using this new method for my predicted heat transfer coefficients and comparing it to my

experimental measurements are shown below in Table 3.

xliv

Table 3: Heat transfer coefficients along flat plate (W/sqm deg C)

Flat Plate:

Air Velocity(m/sec) Experimental Experimental Error Theory Percent Error in Predictions

0.0 26.6 12.1% 0.0 #DIV/0!

2.5 39.4 7.7% 38.7 2.0%

5.0 53.6 6.4% 54.4 -1.4%

10.0 78.1 1.4% 78.2 -0.1%

Table 3: Heat transfer coefficients along flat plate.

The most important thing to note from this table is the large decrease in percent error in

the predictions. With this new equation, we have obtained an average error of only 1%. In

order to find the functional relationship of the heat transfer coefficient and the air

velocity, it is more suitable to see the data from Table 3 in a graph. This is shown in

Figure 14 below.

Heat transfer coefficients versus velocity for laminar flow over flat plate

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

(Velocity (meters per second))^.5

h

(

W

a

t

t

s

p

e

r

m

e

t

e

r

s

q

u

a

r

e

d

d

e

g

r

e

e

s

C

e

l

s

i

u

s

)

Turbulent Mix Predicted

Experimental

Linear (Turbulent Mix Predicted)

Figure 14: Heat transfer coefficients versus velocity for flat plate.

Figure 14 above, illustrates that the new predictive equation also follows the trend of heat

transfer coefficients increasing linearly with the root of air velocity. Also from this graph,

xlv

one is able to visualize that our experimental data lines up well with the new predicted

data.

Finned Plate Heat Transfer Coefficient

The analysis of the finned plate is similar to that of the flat plate. Once again, we will

compare three determinations of the heat transfer coefficient. The first will be via

experiment. We will measure the temperature of the air, the steady state temperature of

the plate, the area of the plate, and the power input to the plate. This data however is not

enough to solve for the heat transfer coefficient for the fins. According to Equation 83,

we also need the heat transfer coefficient of the plate. I am going to presuppose that this

value is equal to the value found for the flat plate at the same velocity in the previous set

of experiments. Thus with all of this data, we are able to solve for our experimental

value. Next, we will calculate the value of the heat transfer coefficient as predicted from

theory for laminar flow over the plate. This calculation is exactly the same as it was for

the flat plate, with the use of Equation 60. The data for this part of the experiment is

shown below in Table 4

Table 4: Heat transfer coefficients along finned plate (W/sqm deg C)

Finned Plate:

Air Velocity(m/sec) Experimental Experimental Error Theory Percent Error in Predictions

0.0 5.1 20% 6.6 -22.9%

2.5 32.1 13.2% 22.0 45.7%

5.0 41.5 11.8% 31.1 33.2%

10.0 55.8 2.1% 44.0 26.6%

Table 4: Heat transfer coefficients along finned plate.

It is important once again to note the trend and the percent error from this table. As

before both the experimental and predicted heat transfer coefficients increase with

increasing air velocity. In addition, a large error is seen in our predictions from theory

and our experimental results. In order to determine the effect of air velocity on the heat

transfer coefficient, it will be more convenient to see the data in Table 4 in graphical

form. This is presented below in Figure 15.

xlvi

Heat Transfer Coefficients for flow over Finned Plate

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

(Velocity (meters per second))^.5

h

(

w

a

t

t

s

p

e

r

m

e

t

e

r

s

q

u

a

r

e

d

d

e

g

r

e

e

c

e

l

c

i

u

s

)

Predicted

Experimental

Linear (Predicted)

Figure 15: Heat transfer coefficients versus velocity for finned plate.

Two things become apparent from Figure 15. First, both the experimental data and

predictive data increase with increase velocity and second, our predictions from Equation

60 once again do not provide satisfactory results. Consequently, I tried to change the

coefficient from Equation 60 and create a new turbulent mix predicting equation shown

below.

(87)

1/ 3 1/ 2

.90Pr Re

x

hL

Nu

k

Note the newly developed predicting correlations, Equations 86 and 87 are not the same.

The next step was to compare the results obtained experimentally with those obtained

from Equation 87. The results of these calculations are shown below in Table 5.

xlvii

Table 5: Heat transfer coefficients along finned plate (W/sqm deg C)

Finned Plate:

Air Velocity(m/sec) Experimental Experimental Error Theory Percent Error in Predictions

0.0 5.1 20% 0.0 #DIV/0!

2.5 32.1 13.2% 29.9 7.4%

5.0 41.5 11.8% 42.2 -1.8%

10.0 55.8 2.1% 59.7 -6.7%

Table 5: Heat transfer coefficients along finned plate.

From this table, it should be noted that our error in predictions have dropped

substantially, as we now only have an average error of 6%. We would like to again graph

this data such that we can more easily see the relationship between the heat transfer

coefficient and the air velocity. This is shown below in Figure 16.

Heat Transf er Coef ficients f or flow over Finned Plate

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

(Vel oci ty (meter s per second))^. 5

Turbulent Mix Predicted

Experimental

Linear (Turbulent Mix Predicted)

Figure 16: Heat transfer coefficients versus velocity for finned plate.

From this figure, it should be noted that our newly predicted heat transfer coefficients

follow the same trend of increasing linearly with the root of air velocity. And again, our

experimental data line up quite well with our newly predicted data.

Effectiveness of Fins

xlviii

To satisfy my last objective, I need to compare how much the addition of fins helped with

the heat transfer from a plate. The easiest way to accomplish this is to run the same

amount of power into the flat plate and the finned plate, then compare the difference

between the temperature of the surface with the temperature of the inlet air for each. In

order to analyze this data, it should be noted that at a constant q,

flat flat flat fin fin fin

h A T h A T

. Thus a smaller T would indicate that better heat transfer

is being established because more of the heat being pumped in must be being carried

away.

Thus in Figure 17 below, I have graphed my T s for each run from the fin and the

plate.

Overal Heat Transfet Comparison (a)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Velocity (meters per second)

D

e

l

t

a

T

(

d

e

g

r

e

e

s

C

e

l

s

i

u

s

)

Flat Plate

Finned Plate

34 deg

18 deg

29 deg

40 deg

Figure 17: Temperature Differences recorded for flat and finned plates.

Figure 17 reveals that in all cases the fin has increased the heat transfer rate. However,

another important aspect of Figure 17 is the decreasing difference of

fin

T

with

flat

T

as

xlix

velocity increases. This implies that the fin is becoming less effective at increasing the

heat transfer rate at higher velocities.

Discussion of Results:

Effectiveness of Air Velocity on Heat Transfer Coefficient

The first objective of my experiment was to find the effect that increasing air velocity

would have on the heat transfer coefficient, both for a flat plate and a finned plate.

Figures 13 and 15 reveal the answer to this correlation. The heat transfer coefficient

increases linearly with the square root of air velocity. This relationship agrees with the

theoretical correlation produced by Equation 60.

This result is logical. An increase in the free stream velocity, will increase the velocity of

the air in the boundary layer. Let us imagine we are an air molecule near the surface of

the plate in the boundary layer. At the beginning of the boundary layer, we are floating by

at a temperature close to that of the free stream temperature. As we float by at a lower

temperature than the plate, we cause heat transfer from the plate to us. This will result in

our temperature increasing, which means that we as we move down the plate, our

temperature gradient becomes less and we are causing less transfer. Thus at 10cm down

the plate, we are causing significantly less heat transfer. However, if we increase our

velocity, then we will be effecting the same temperature gradient in the beginning but not

sit at the same point long enough to absorb as much heat. Instead, we will be replaced

more quickly by the air molecules behind us at the same temperature. Thus, our

temperature gradient 10 cm down the plate will not be as diminished as it was at the

lower velocity. The net result of this will increase the heat transfer coefficient.

This result was in agreement with both the experimental and the theoretical predictions.

The significance of these results is most evident in the design of heat exchangers. If we

are operating a heat exchanger to heat up fluid A by using fluid B, but it is noted that we

need to increase the outlet temperature of fluid A by more than its current value, then we

l

must increase the amount of heat transferred. From the results above, we know that if we

increase the velocity of fluid B, then the average heat transfer coefficient will also rise,

allowing us to transfer more heat to fluid A and thus raising its outlet temperature.

Comparison of Experimental results to theoretical

Forced Convection

The second objective of my experiment is to compare my results obtained from these

experiments with those predicted by theory. From Tables 2 and 4, we see that the

predicted results are not in agreement with the experimental results. For the flat plate,

ignoring natural convection, our average prediction error was around 80%, while for the

finned plate our average error did drop, but still remained relatively high at a value of

35%. Comparing this to the average experimental error which stayed relatively low for

both setups at an average of 6%, it would appear that the predictive equations do not give

excellent results.

However, this may not necessarily be the case. Looking back at Tables 2 and 4, or by

looking at Figures 13 and 15, we can see a couple of important characteristics. First, the

error in the prediction seems to diminish as we increase the velocity. I rationalized this

information to mean that as the flow becomes more turbulent from a Reynolds number

standpoint, though still laminar, then the predicting equation produced better results.

Next, we see a large decrease in experimental error when we move from the flat plate to

the finned plate, however, the error is still substantial. I interpreted this to be the fact that

the boundary layer was forming over a plate that was separated from the surface of the

chimney, extending away from it.

As a result of combining the above observations, I came up with the following

conclusion. Because the flat plate is along the level of the chimney, though a bit raised,

then we must be starting a boundary layer along the chimney before even reaching the

flat plate. Of course ,only the flat plate is heated thus we would have to use Equation 60b

to find the average heat transfer coefficient. However, without doing the math, we can

see that this cannot fully explain what is happening. If this were truly the case ,then from

Equation 42, we know the boundary layer will be thicker over the plate then it would

li

have been from our original assumption of the boundary layer starting at the leading edge

of the plate. But a thicker boundary layer would push the free stream temperature farther

away from the plate, making it harder to transfer heat. Therefore this result would only

lower the predicted heat transfer coefficient and thus increase our error. Something else

must be happening.

It is my hypothesis that the boundary layer is starting along the chimney, however,

because the flat plate is a bit raised, it is causing turbulence in the boundary layer when it

reaches the flat plate. This may cause the mixing in the boundary layer to be turbulent

even though it is still at a low Reynolds number as shown below in Figure 18.

T

8

A

8

u

8

u

8

Duct Wall

u

8

Turbulence begins because the

boundary layer formed over the

duct wall hits the edge of the

flat plate which is slightly

raised, thus disturbing the mole-

cules in the boundary layer to

form a turbulent mix

Figure 18: Turbulence over flat plate.

This is not a far stretch to explain my results.. As people have run the Reynolds

experiment described earlier and found turbulence at low Reynolds numbers by adding

factors to increase mixing. Thus if we experience better mixing in the boundary layer, we

will increase the heat transfer coefficient because we will ensure that molecules farther

up in the boundary layer at a lower temperature are being forced closer to the plate. This

would increase the average temperature gradient close to the plate and result in higher

experimental heat transfer coefficient as compared to if the flow was perfectly laminar.

lii

To test this theory with my data I had to make a conjecture. Because the Reynolds

probably remains at the laminar level, assuming the velocity of molecules in the turbulent

mixing boundary layer havent changed much, than the correlation of Equation 60 that

the Nusselt number is a function of Reynolds to the one half power and Prandtl to the one

third power probably remains true. However, due to the turbulent mixing I feel that the

coefficient of this equation should increase, because the increase of the average

temperature gradient near the plate should proportionally raise the heat transfer

coefficient. I fitted the data using

(88)

1/ 3 1/ 2 1/ 3 1/ 2

(Pr Re ) Constant Pr Re

L x

hL

Nu function

k

.

From the analysis of the flat plate I obtained,

(86)

1/ 3 1/ 2

1.169Pr Re

x

hL

Nu

k

.

I then extended this analysis to the finned plate. For this situation, the boundary layer

could not have started early because the fins are protruding into the air with no surface

before them. However, as a result of their blunt, non aerodynamic shape, they might be

causing the incoming air to also form a turbulent mix boundary layer. When the air hits

the fins, as shown in Figure 19 below, it will cause the stream lines to form eddy circles

which result in a turbulent mix at the low Reynolds number.

liii

T

8

A

8

u

8

u

8

Turbulence begins because the

incoming air will hit the blunt

side of the fin, causing the

molecules to be disturbed in

many different directions. This

causes the boundary layer to

have a slight turbulent mix.

Figure 19: Turbulence around fins.

Thus, I performed the same analysis as before using Equation (88) for the finned plates I

obtained,

(87)

1/ 3 1/ 2

.90Pr Re

x

hL

Nu

k

Returning to the comparison of the experimental results with the new predictive

equations using turbulent mixing, we have Figures 14 and 16 as well as Tables 3 and 5.

Our new predictive equations yield us excellent results when compared with those

obtained from experiment.

With so few data points, it is hard for me to tell whether these equations are truly

accurate. However, a couple of features of these equations do give me confidence in

declaring these equations as a more accurate model to what is happening in this lab. First,

both of the constant increased. This agrees with my theory that mixing is turbulent and is

increasing heat transfer proportionately. Second, the constant for the flat plate is larger

than the constant for the small plate. This is logical because they are both experiencing a

different type of situation when they become a turbulent mix. The flat plate has a built up

liv

boundary layer which is being distorted allowing it to already be built up on the plate as a

turbulent mix layer. However, the fins boundary layer only forms once it hits the fins

leading edge, causing it to alleviate some of the turbulence into the free stream air above

the plate instead of retaining it all in the boundary layer. Subsequently, the fins boundary

layer will be less of a turbulent mix and thus it has a lower coefficient.

In summary, the theoretically derived predictive equations, do not provide excellent

results. However, the defining equations used to develop these equations, Equation 88,

which led to Equations 86 and 87, does provide excellent results. Therefore, although we

probably cannot increase accuracy above 30% without building the exact situation, we

can quickly develop equations which can achieve an accuracy of about 15% by running a

simple convection experiment.

Natural Convection

Again, looking back at Tables 2 and 4, or by looking at Figures 13 and 15, we see that

our predictive equations for natural convections, also, do not provide satisfactory results.

The error over the flat plate is about 300%, while the error for the finned plate was close

to an acceptable value of -22%. In all probability, these percent errors are not giving the

true accuracy of the equation because of only one data point for each measurement. But

from the large error over the flat plate, it is my conclusion that the predictive equations

for natural convection will not provide good results.

I dont have an answer as to why the predictive results do not match the experimental

results. My only guess would be the assumptions used to create the natural convection

models probably arent applicable to all situations. Therefore if an engineer wishes to use

natural convection in his process, he should try to determine the heat transfer coefficients

from small scale experiments of his situations rather than use the predictive equations.

However, these conclusions are only a result of one data point for each situation and thus

I would need more data to make a more solid judgment.

On the other hand, this doesnt mean that the results from this experiment are useless.

Although, we werent able to accurately predict the values of the heat transfer coefficient

at natural convection, we were able to prove that natural convection is present. Our

lv

experiment has concluded that the limiting value to convection is not zero at zero velocity

as forced convection theory predicts. but that heat transfer still takes place, and at a

sufficient level, when there is a zero velocity atmosphere.

The significance of the above results is to enlighten engineers about natural convection. If

they are armed with this information they would be prepared and can account for its

presence in their design if it calls for a piece of equipment at a certain temperature. Or

more importantly, if their design only requires a small amount of heat transfer to keep an

electronic device at a low temperature, then they can save money by not installing a

pump to create forced convection, but instead let the density gradient due the work for

free in creating the necessary heat transfer rate.

Effectiveness of Adding Fins to a Flat Plate

My final objective was to determine how much the fins helped in the heat transfer from

the flat plate at the same velocity. From Figure 17, we see the temperature differences for

both the finned plate and the flat plate. Since the heat being convected away from each is

a constant, the lower T , signifies a greater heat transfer rate has been achieved. From

the first two data points, it appears that the fins become more effective moving from

natural convection to forced convection. With the data from this figure, we see that for

every run the fins provide a faster heat transfer rate than the flat plate. However, this is

fairly obvious because we are adding more area for heat transfer.

Another, and more important issue, is the trend we see in the effectiveness of the fins. For

all of our runs at constant q, we have,

flat flat flat fin fin fin

h A T h A T

. For the fins, we have

increased area to increase the heat transfer rate. This provided us with a lower T .

However, as our air velocity increased, the increase in both

flat

h

and

fin

h

, to obtain higher

heat transfer rates overshadowed the increased area provided by the fins. Thus, the effect

of the extra area provided by the fins dropped. Accordingly as the air velocity increased,

the heat transfer rate of the flat plate greatly increases, however the heat transfer rate of

the fins does increase, but not as dramatically. Therefore, the effectiveness of adding the

fins drops as we increase the air velocity.

lvi

If an engineer is trying to decide whether he should add the extra cost of installing fins to

his surface, the variable he should look at is his operating fluid velocity. If the velocity is

high, the gain in heat transfer rate will probably not be worth the cost. However, if he is

operating at a fairly low fluid velocity, it will probably be worth the cost to add the fins,

because the increase in heat transfer will be substantial.

Conclusions:

This experiment provided four results that are very important in the life of a process or a

design engineer. First, this experiment proved that the heat transfer coefficient increased

linearly with an increase in the square root of air velocity. This is shown in Figures 13

and 15. The significance of this result is most obvious in the design of heat exchangers. If

the engineer has an old exchanger that he would like to use and performs all of the

calculations at a given flow rate but finds that he is not providing enough fluid to heat up

the cold product, he now knows that he only needs to increase the flow rate of the heating

fluid to increase the heat transfer between them. However, I should note that an increase

in velocity usually also means an increase in pressure drop, the engineer should be aware

of this in making his design.

Secondly, this experiment has proven the theoretically derived equations for convection

but have large errors associated with them in trying to predict the absolute values of the

heat transfer coefficient if not applied to the exact geometry described with their

assumptions as shown in Tables 2 and 4. Nonetheless, the equations are useful for

predicting the trend. It is recommended to first run small scale experiments to obtain a

constant fudge factor which can be applied to the correlation stated in the predictive

equations. This was shown to reduce error to an acceptable level as shown in Tables 3

and 5. The significance of this result is it allows engineers to use correlations of heat

transfer coefficients for the design of heat exchangers. It would be too expensive for the

engineer to try multiple heat exchangers, run tests and pick the right one. Thus, the

engineer must run through the equations derived for convection heat transfer in heat

exchangers to predict the type, length, and area of his heat exchanger. This data proves

that such correlations will yield acceptable results.

lvii

The third major result of this experiment is the effectiveness of fins. At all velocities, this

extended surface provided a great heat transfer rate. Therefore, if the engineer wishes to

achieve a large heat transfer rate, but is limited in his length/area requirement, he will be

able to simply add fins to the surface. However, he should note that the effectiveness of

the added fins decreases as the velocity increases, as is shown in Figure 17. The

significance of this result comes into play when an engineer is designing a heat exchanger

which must dissipate a certain amount of heat to the surroundings. Before he chooses his

design, the engineer should check the velocity of the flowing fluid. If the velocity is high,

the added fins will probably not be worth the cost. If however, the velocity is low, the

cost of adding the fins will be overshadowed by the large increase in the heat transfer

rate.

Finally, the last result is that the heat transfer coefficient is a function of geometry only

not Area. This was first noted in the theory section when Area dropped out and all of the

correlations were made for similar geometries. This was, again, proven in the experiment

when the same predictive equation, Equation 60 was used for the flat plate, at an area of .

011

2

m and for the fins of the finned plate, each at an area of .0068

2

m . Both of the

adjusted equations based from Equation 60 provided great results, thus the geometries of

the flat plate and the fins (flat surface) allowed us to use the same equation, the difference

in their areas had no effect.

lviii

Recommendations:

In my experiment I had trouble gaining too much confidence in my conclusions because

of the lack of data points that I was able to attain. Thus for the next time this experiment

is run I have a few suggestions for the experimenter. First he might want to concentrate

on getting all 8 runs on the flat plate to attain enough data to ensure himself of the

correlations. Or he might want to keep the same 4 runs on a flat plate, 4 runs on an

extended surface, but instead try to make both the fins and the flat plate, more

aerodynamic thus to ensure a fully laminar boundary layer will develop.

lix

Nomenclature:

2

p 0

f

2

A=Area=(m )

J

C heat capacity=

kg C

=Fin

Gr=Grassof Number

m

g=Acceleration due to gravity=

s

_

,

_

,

2 0

0

W

h=heat transfer coefficient=

m C

W

k=Conductive heat transfer coefficient=

m C

L=Length=(m)

Nu=Nusselt number

_

,

_

,

2

N

P=pressure=

m

Pr=Prandtl number

q=rate of heat transfer=(W)

Ra=Rayleigh number

Re=Reynolds number

_

,

( )

s

0

t

=surface

T=Temperature= C

t=time=(s)

=thermal

m

u=velocity=

s

_

,

( )

3

w

V=Volume= m

=wall

x=vertical position=(m)

y=horizontal position=(m)

lx

( )

( )

2

-1

2

0

3

m

=thermal diffusivity=

s

=volumetric thermal expansion coefficient= K

=boundary layer thickness=(m)

=fin efficiency

kg

=viscosity=

ms

m

=momentumdiffusivity=

sec

=T-T = C

kg

=density=

m

_

,

_

,

_

,

_

,

2

3

N

shear stress=

m

m

=specific volume=

kg

=Change in a variable=final-initial

=Property at free stream, far removed fromsystem

Average Property

,

_

,

lxi

References:

1. Centre for the Analysis and Dissemination of

Demonstrated Energy Technologies. Energy Conservation in the Pulp and Paper

Industry. CADDET Analyses Series. March 28, 2001.

2. Holman J.P. Heat Transfer 9

th

Edition . McGraw

Hill, Inc. (2002)

3. Icoz and Jaluria. Rutger University. Design of

Cooling Systems for Electronic Equipment Using Both Experimental and

Numerical Inputs. Journal of Electronics Packaging. May 31, 2004.

4. McCabe, W. L. and Smith, J. C. Unit Operations

of Chemical Engineering, 3

rd

Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1976.

5. Principles of Flow . Ed. Alicat Scientific

TM

. 5

July 2005. http://www.alicatscientific.com/flow_principles.php

6. Welty, J.R., et al. Fundamentals of Momentum,

Heat, and Mass Transfer 4

th

Ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York. (2001)

lxii

APPENDIX:

Appendix 1: Sample Calculations

Run1: Flat Plate Low velocity

Given Variables:

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

2

0

.011

.1

166.5

20

2.5

plate

Area m measured

Length m measured

W

k tabulated

m C

q W measured

m

u measured

s

Experimental Data

Data Points Time (min) Air InletTemperature (C) Plate Surface Temperature (C) exp(-kt) K

1 0 25.7 1.00 0.05

2 5 25.7 35.5 0.76R Squared

3 10 25.7 45.7 0.58 1.00

4 15 25.7 51.2 0.44

5 20 25.7 56 0.33

6 25 25.7 59.5 0.25

7 30 25.7 62.3 0.19

8 35 25.7 64.6 0.15

9 40 25.7 66.3 0.11

10 45 25.7 67.8 0.08

11 50 25.7 69.1 0.06

12 55 25.7 70 0.05

Table 6: Experimental data obtained for flat plate, at 2.5 meters per second.

Calculating Steady State Temperature:

The time, air inlet temperature, and the plate surface temperature were measured

during the lab. Then a K value was assumed to be one. Then data was calculated

of the form ( ) exp * K t

. Then the Temperature of the Surface was graphed

versus ( ) exp * K t

and then sent through a linear regression through excel. Then

K was goalseeked until the correlation coefficient was closest to unity. The graph

below shows the final result of this calculation.

lxiii

Establishing Steady State

y = -47.016x + 71.8

R

2

= 0.9981

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80

exp(-K*t)

T

e

m

p

e

r

a

t

u

r

e

o

f

S

u

r

f

a

c

e

(

d

e

g

C

)

Series1

Linear (Series1)

Figure 20: Steady state calculation for the first run.

From Equation85, we calculate,

0

,

71.8

s steady state

T C

Calculating Film Temperature

,

71.8 25.7

48.75

2 2

s steady state

film

T T

T

+

+

Calculating Properties at Film Temperature:

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

0

0

5

3

166.5

.031

1.94 10

1.102

Pr .703

plate

air

air

air

f

W

k tabulated

m C

W

k tabulated

m C

kg

tabulated

m s

kg

tabulated

m

tabulated

Calculating Experimental h:

From Equation 1 we have,

lxiv

( )

0

2

exp 0

( )

( )

20

.011 71.8 25.7

39.44

s

s

q

h T T

A

q

h

A T T

W

h

m C

W

h

m C

Calculating Predictive h:

From Equation 8 we have

3

5

1.102 2.5 .1

Re 14394

1.94 10

L

kg m

m

uL

m s

kg

m s

( ) ( )

1/ 3 1/ 2 10

0

1/ 3 1/ 2

1/ 3 1/ 2

0

laminar 2 0

.664Pr Re Re 5 10 0

.664Pr Re

.664 .703 14394 .031

.1

21.96

L

L

hL

Nu for x

k

k

h

L

W

m C

h

m

W

h

m C

<

_

,

exp laminar

laminar

Prediction Error 100%

39.44 21.96

Prediction Error 100%

21.96

Prediction Error 79.6%

h h

h

The error from q is derived from the fluctuations of the value read during the

experiment, the error from A was determined based on the accuracy of reading a

ruler, and finally the error in temperatures was given from the manufacturers of

the thermisters.

lxv

( )

( )

1.4 .0005 .1 .1

20 .011 71.8 25.7

.1207 12.1%

s

s

s

s

q hA T T

q

h

A T T

T T q A

h

q A T T

h

h

+ + +

+ + +

Calculating the turbulent mix coefficient for Nusselt number:

Based on the larger error associated with using Equation 60 as my prediction

equation, I moved to calculate my own equation based on turbulent mixing over

the flat plate. This equation uses the same correlation as equation 60 but has an

adjusted coefficient to account for the turbulent mixing. In order to calculate this

coefficient, I used the percent error from all three forced convections runs and

summed them. Then I sought to minimize this error by guessing different values

of the coefficient, using goalseek in Excel. The data from this calculation appears

below.

Forced Convection Run # New coefficient Re Pr h est h exp error

1 1.16819776814393.94 0.703 38.63252 39.4399527 0.807435

2 1.16819776829362.59 0.705 54.33877 53.633682 0.705084

3 1.16819776860632.94 0.706 78.12178 78.1217878 1.14E-05

1.512531

Table 7: Experimental data obtained for flat plate.

Run5: Finned Plate Low velocity

Given Variables:

lxvi

( )

( )

( )

( )

( )

2

0

2 0

.011

.1

.1 ( )

.068 ( )

.206 ( )

166.5

21

2.5

39.44

plate

fins

fins

fins

plate

plate

Area m measured

Length m measured

Length m measured

Depth m measured

Perimeter m measured

W

k tabulated

m C

q W measured

m

u measured

s

W

h calculate

m C

( ) d

Calculating heat transfer coefficient and efficiency

From our previous development we have, Equations 82 and 83,

( )

( )

0 0

0

0

tanh( ) tanh( )

f

f f s

f

q h A h A T T

hPkA mL mL

hPL mL

+

2 f

h P

m

kA

where A

0

is the free are of the flat plate. This area is the total area of the flat plate

minus the area of the 9 fins sitting on the flat plate. Thus we have,

0

.011 9*.0004 .0074

plate f

A A A

The only unknown in the above equations is h

f

, however, these equations are too

complex to try and solve for h

f

explicitly. The calculation of h

f

is therefore a trial

and error procedure solving all three of these equations simultaneously. Thus we

have,

lxvii

( )

0

2 2

2 0

2

0

2

0

21 39.44 .0074 .1224 31.06 25

.206

tanh( .1 )

166.5 .1224

.206

.1

166.5 .1224

f f

f

f

f

W

W m h m C

m C

h m

m

W

m

m C

h m

m

W

m

m C

_

+

,

2 0

32.08

.836

f

f

W

h

m C

Given Variables:

0

,

0

,

0

,

0

,

31.1

25

71.8

25.1

s fin

fin

s flat

flat

T C

T C

T C

T C

, ,

0 0 0

, ,

0 0 0

0 0 0

31.1 25 6.1

71.8 25.1 46.1

46.1 6.1 40

fin s fin fin

fin

flat s flat flat

flat

flat fin

T T T

T C C C

T T T

T C C C

Effectiveness compares T T C C C

Reviewed and Validated by:

Thomas Salerno ____________________________

Jennifer DiRocco ____________________________

Greg Rothsching ____________________________

Stephen Johnson ____________________________

lxviii

Appendix 2: Raw Data

Run 1: Flat Plate Low Velocity

Air Speed (m/sec) 2.5k plate 166.5Air Density 1.102

Power Input (Watts) 20L plate (m) 0.1Pr 0.703

Area (m*m) 0.011Air Viscosity 0.000019423Tf 48.75

Steady State Values

Data Points Time (min) Air InletTemperature (C)

Plate Surface

Temperature

(C) Fin T1 (C) Fin T2 (C)

25.7 71.8

+-0.5

Experimental Data

Data Points Time (min) Air InletTemperature (C)

Plate Surface

Temperature

(C) exp(time) K

1 0 25.7 1.00 0.05

2 5 25.7 35.5 0.76R Squared

3 10 25.7 45.7 0.58 1.00

4 15 25.7 51.2 0.44

5 20 25.7 56 0.33

6 25 25.7 59.5 0.25

7 30 25.7 62.3 0.19

8 35 25.7 64.6 0.15

9 40 25.7 66.3 0.11

10 45 25.7 67.8 0.08

11 50 25.7 69.1 0.06

12 55 25.7 70 0.05

Establishing Steady State

y = -47.016x + 71.8

R

2

= 0.9981

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80

exp(-K*t)

T

e

m

p

e

r

a

t

u

r

e

o

f

S

u

r

f

a

c

e

(

d

e

g

C

)

Series1

Linear (Series1)

lxix

Run 2: Flat Plate Med Velocity

Air Speed (m/sec) 5k plate 166.5Air Density 1.124

Power Input (Watts) 20L plate (m) 0.1Pr 0.705

Area (m*m) 0.011Air Viscosity 0.00001914Tf 41.85

Steady State Values

Data Points Time (min)Air InletTemperature (C)

Plate Surface

Temperature (C) Fin T1 (C) Fin T2 (C)

24.9 58.8

Experimental Data

Data Points Time (min)Air InletTemperature (C)

Plate Surface

Temperature (C) exp(time)

1 0 25 69.6 1 0.0581

6 5 24.9 66.3 0.747888

11 10 63.9 0.559337 0.995365

16 15 63.1 0.418322

21 20 25.1 61.9 0.312858

26 25 61.2 0.233983

31 30 60.6 0.174993

36 35 60.1 0.130875

41 40 59.7 0.09788

46 45 24.8 59.5 0.073203

51 50 59.3 0.054748

56 55 59.2 0.040945

y = 9.821x + 58.805

R

2

= 0.9954

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Series1

Linear (Series1)

lxx

Run 3: Flat Plate High Velocity

Air Speed (m/sec) 10k plate 166.5Air Density 1.14475

Power Input (Watts) 19L plate (m) 0.1Pr 0.706

Area (m*m) 0.011Air Viscosity 0.00001888Tf 36.055

Steady State Values

Data Points Time (min)

Air

InletTemperature

(C)

Plate Surface

Temperature (C) Fin T1 (C) Fin T2 (C)

25 47.11

Experimental Data

Data Points Time (min)

Air

InletTemperature

(C)

Plate Surface

Temperature (C) exp(time)

1 0 24.9 58.5 1 0.110469

6 5 53.1 0.575598

11 10 50.7 0.331313 0.999026

16 15 25.1 49.2 0.190703

21 20 48.2 0.109768

26 25 47.8 0.063182

31 30 25.2 47.5 0.036368

36 35 47.3 0.020933

41 40 47.2 0.012049

46 45 0.006935

51 50 0.003992

56 55 0.002298

61 60

y = 10.53x + 47.111

R

2

= 0.999

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Series1

Linear (Series1)

Run 4: Flat Plate Natural Convection

Air Speed (m/sec) 0k plate 166.5Air Density 1.06025

Power Input (Watts) 20L plate (m) 0.1Pr 0.701

lxxi

Area (m*m) 0.011Air Viscosity 0.00001996Tf 59.65

Steady State Values

Data Points Time (min)Air InletTemperature (C)

Plate Surface

Temperature (C) Fin T1 (C)

Fin T2

(C)

25.5 93.8

Experimental Data

Data Points Time (min)Air InletTemperature (C)

Plate Surface

Temperature (C) exp(time)

1 0 25.2 47.3 1 0.035255

6 5 55.6 0.838388494

11 10 60.6 0.702895267 0.999246

16 15

21 20

26 25

31 30

36 35

41 40

46 45

51 50

56 55

61 60

87 25.5 91.75 0.046553076 37.1

Run 1: Fin Plate Low Velocity

Te

Air Speed (m/sec) 2.5Efficiency Estimated 0.236445618Po fin 0.208Ao fin

Power Input

(Watts) 20Efficiency Calculate 0.836044514Pl fin 0.204Al fin

Area 0.011Area fin 0.1224k fin 166.5L fin

Steady State Values

Data Points Time (min)

Air InletTemperature

(C)

Plate Surface

Temperature (C) Fin T1 (C)

Fin T2

(C) Fin T3 (C)

25 31.062 26.6 26.5 26.2

Experimental Data

Data Points Time (min)

Air InletTemperature

(C)

Plate Surface

Temperature (C) Fin T1 (C)

Fin T2

(C) Fin T3 (C)

1 0

6 5 25.5 28.5

11 10 30.1

16 15 30.7

21 20 30.9

26 25 31

31 30 26 31 26.6 26.5 26.2

36 35

41 40

46 45

51 50

lxxii

56 55

61 60

y = -6.4873x + 31.062

R

2

= 0.9992

28

28.5

29

29.5

30

30.5

31

31.5

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Series1

Linear (Series1)

Run 2: Fin Plate Med

Velocity

Air Speed

(m/sec) 5

Efficiency

Estimated 0.350340136Po fin 0.208Ao fin

Power Input

(Watts) 20Efficiency Calculate 0.799479113Pl fin 0.204Al fin

Area 0.011Area fin 0.1224k fin 166.5L fin

Steady State Values

Data Points

Time

(min)

Air

InletTemperature

(C)

Plate Surface Temperature

(C)

Fin T1

(C)

Fin T2

(C)

Fin T3

(C)

25 29.9 26.8 26.75 26.6

Experimental Data

Data Points

Time

(min)

Air

InletTemperature

(C)

Plate Surface Temperature

(C)

Fin T1

(C)

Fin T2

(C)

Fin T3

(C)

1 0 31

6 5 29.9

11 10 29.9

16 15 26.4 29.9

21 20 29.9 26.8 26.8 26.6

lxxiii

26 25

31 30

36 35

41 40

46 45

51 50

56 55

61 60

Run 3: Fin Plate High

Velocity

Air Speed

(m/sec) 10Efficiency Estimated 0.418492739Po fin 0.208Ao fin

Power Input

(Watts) 20Efficiency Calculate 0.750989434Pl fin 0.204Al fin

Area 0.011Area fin 0.1224k fin 166.5L fin

Steady State Values

Data Points

Time

(min)

Air

InletTemperature

(C)

Plate Surface

Temperature (C)

Fin T1

(C)

Fin T2

(C)

Fin T3

(C)

25 28.879 26.7 26.6 26.57

Experimental Data

Data Points

Time

(min)

Air

InletTemperature

(C)

Plate Surface

Temperature (C)

Fin T1

(C)

Fin T2

(C)

Fin T3

(C)

1 0 27.2

6 5 28.6

11 10 28.8

16 15 26.4 28.9 26.7 26.6 26.57

lxxiv

y = -1.6795x + 28.879

R

2

= 0.999

27

27.2

27.4

27.6

27.8

28

28.2

28.4

28.6

28.8

29

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Series1

Linear (Series1)

Run 4: Fin Plate Natural Convection

Air Speed

(m/sec)

Efficiency

Estimated 0.925287356Po fin 0.208Ao fin

Power Input

(Watts)

Efficiency

Calculate 0.969085768Pl fin 0.204Al fin

Area 0.011Area fin 0.1224k fin 166.5L fin

Steady State Values

Data Points Time (min)

Air

InletTemperature

(C)

Plate Surface

Temperature (C) Fin T1 (C) Fin T2 (C)Fin T3 (C)

25 59.8 58.5 58 55.1

Experimental Data

Data Points Time (min)

Air

InletTemperature

(C)

Plate Surface

Temperature (C) Fin T1 (C) Fin T2 (C)Fin T3 (C)

1 0 29.4

6 5 34.5

11 10 38.6

16 15

21 20

26 25

31 30

36 35

41 40

46 45

51 50

lxxv

56 55

61 60

26.4 59.8

5

8

.

5 58 55.1

lxxvi

- Free and Forced Convection Lab ReportUploaded byMoWatts17
- Free and Forced ConvectionUploaded byBunty Perera
- Natural and Forced Convection ExperimentsUploaded byOmar Yamil Sanchez Torres
- Free and Forced Heat ConvectionUploaded byangelaers
- (91481689) [Senior]Free and Forced Convection (Repaired)Uploaded byvenkiee
- ME3122-2 Lab Forced Convection Heat TransferUploaded byLinShaodun
- Lab 2 Updated1Uploaded byFeezah Hanimoon
- Free and Forced ConvectionUploaded byRenewable Energy Engi
- Force convection experimentUploaded byseharis7
- LS4 - Forced ConvectionUploaded bylarokanco
- Forced convection lab reportUploaded byPhuong Le
- Lab Convection ForcedUploaded byFRid AdNn
- Forced ConvectionUploaded bySharath Sharu
- RESULTS Forced ConvectionUploaded byMohd Zakuan Zabri
- Forced ConvectionUploaded byAnya Cooper
- Natural and Forced Convection Experiments-2Uploaded byDare Adeoye
- Natural ConvectionUploaded byvalarkarthi
- Thermal ConductivityUploaded byقاسمي عندام
- 159462298 Free and Forced Convection Lab ReportUploaded byKamal Gamal
- Forced ConvectionUploaded byWeekiet Png
- Ht Forced ConvectionUploaded byMadhuri Gupta
- ConvectionUploaded byElline Ivy Calitis
- Heat Conduction 2014-15Uploaded byShahir Afif Islam
- Forced ConvectionUploaded byRahul Nair
- Flat Plate Boundary LayerUploaded byNasri Jamaludin
- ConvectionUploaded bybekku
- 250440967 Lab Report ConvefctionUploaded byVikneshwaran Balakrishnan
- Lab 5 - Conduction Finalize)Uploaded byKhalil Khir
- Exp 1 Heat ConductionUploaded byHanun Tarmizi
- flat plate boundary layerUploaded byMuhammadKhalisBinKhalid

- 75599Uploaded byamdeva
- Burkhardt.pdfUploaded bymuco
- Fluid Mechanics Lecture Notes_Module3Uploaded byAzad Patel
- IRJET-Optimal Analysis for Improving Performance of Different Liquid Phase Heat Transfer Fluids in Ribbed TubeUploaded byIRJET Journal
- A Review of Cutting Fluid Application in the Grinding ProcessUploaded byprince_ju
- Summer (2010) Two circular cylinders in cross-flow. A Review.pdfUploaded byLisa Poole
- A Simple Algorithm to Relate Measured Surface Roughness to Equivalent Sand-grain Roughness.pdfUploaded byBill Murray
- Design and Control of Pig Operations Through PipelinesUploaded bypedriim
- Air Entrainment LectureUploaded byLuay Kadhum Alwaili
- Engine Engineering ManualUploaded byAnonymous CMS3dL1T
- Baffle Jetting CFD Analysis of Plain Jets Impinging on Fuel RodsUploaded byIbrahim Gad
- Exp#5 Head Loss Due to Friction_2014Uploaded byPraviin Jayakumar
- Final ThesisUploaded byjvarthani
- practicalUploaded byvishalvpatel0909
- Turbulence Physics and Modeling LecturesUploaded byVyssion
- Arumugam_Palaniappan_201511_MAS_thesis.pdfUploaded byBenazir Abate Trujillo
- Hong_thesis.pdfUploaded bychawarep
- Micro SwimmersUploaded byHelpUnlimited
- 02 - Heat ExchangersUploaded byDana Guerrero
- Production LoggingUploaded byMuhammad Nur Ali Akbar
- 78-JMES-248-2012-Kumar.pdfUploaded byKUNAL
- (18) External Forced Convection Part2Uploaded byweezynigga
- DimplesUploaded byraju
- Energy Loss in PipesUploaded byRo Win
- Unmanned miniature Flying Wing Air vehicleUploaded byThirumal Valavan
- Exp#5 Head Loss Due to Friction_2013Uploaded byMurugan Cumarasamy
- 11- Convection & Reynolds NumberUploaded byMahir Mahmood
- 1. p-a hilton (1) (hal 1,10)Uploaded byRizki Harahap
- 255 TOP FLUID MECHANICS Multiple Choice Questions and Answers PDFUploaded byAshish Agarwal
- mixingUploaded byRavi Teja