Gio Papio

FABE 3130- Heat

and Mass Transfer
Dr. Dennis
Heldman
21 February 2017
Summary of Key Results:
With 6 different methods of heating and cooling, the temperature change of a solid

aluminum cubed with defined dimensions was measured for 45 seconds. As

expected, the in a body of hot water, the temperature of the cube rose, while it

dropped in all other fluid bodies. The rate at which the temperature changed

seemed to rely on a variety of factors, including the composition of the block, the

temperature of the surrounding fluid, the temperature of the block, and the

dimensions of the block.

Introduction:
Heat transfer coefficients are dependent of several contributing parameters

including the properties of the object being tested. The heat transfer coefficient can

vary based on other factors too, including whether or not convection is forced or

natural. This experiment focused on testing heating and cooling characteristics of a

solid with negligible internal resistance, while finding a measurement for the heat

transfer coefficient using the temperature analysis from class.

Experimental Procedures:
In groups of 4 or 5, students went to the front of the class. There, they first were

given the dimensions of a small, aluminum cube. Then, the temperature of the fluid

that would be surrounding the cube was measured. In our case, it was the

temperature of hot water (but not boiling). The cube was then put into the hot

water, and the temperature was taken as soon as it entered the water. Depending

on the groups task, the cube was either heated or cooled. After the initial

temperature was recorded. The temperature was then recorded every 5 seconds. To

accomplish this, one group member would call out the time every 5 seconds, then

another group member would call out the temperature, and yet another group
 member would record the temperature and the time. This process was continued for

45 seconds. After the final time and temperature was recorded, a graph was created

using the following equation and several given variables:

T - T / To - T = exp [-(h A /cp V) t ]

And the natural logarithm of both sides were taken. The slope of the graph

displaying the natural logarithm was assumed to be -(h A /cp V). From there, the

convective heat transfer coefficient, h, was found.

Data and Results:

(all data and Time(s Temp Lumped graphs given for

Conditions ec) (degC)
h-value Parameter LN
0 40 1 0 C, Heating Hot
A Boiling 1953.2
Cooling Still Air 36.5 -
B water)
0.901962
Heating Hot 814.4
5 75 0.405772496 632
C Water
-
D Cooling Fan 150.2
1.408612
Heating Hot 101043.1 84.5 0.244482173 884
E Water
-
Cooling Cold 496.4
1.803715
F Water
15 89.2 0.164685908 205
-
2.173733
20 92.2 0.113752122 564
Lumped Parameter

-
2.486605
25 94 0.083191851 886
-
2.714864
30 95 0.066213922 538
-
3.046221
35 96.1 0.0475382 673
-
Time (s)
3.382693
40 96.9 0.033955857 91
-
3.980530
LN

45 97.8 0.018675722 911

Time (s)
Analysis of Data:

Cp= 910 J/kgK

p= 2707 kg/m3

V= (.0254m)3=1.64e-5m3

A=6(.02542)=.00387m2

Lumped Parameter= T - T / To - T

LN= ln(Lumped Parameter)

h-value= cp V slope/A

Discussion of Results:

1) The heating curve from Team C (my team) shows a negative logarithmic

curve. I believe that all curves involving heating showed a more intense

negative curve, while the curve of cooling is less intense. However, all

heating and cooling patters surely displayed some form of a logarithmic

curve. I believe our logarithmic curve is actually slightly off, which is due to

human error, as there was a time delay between the time being spoken and

the temperature to be said then recorded. Also, initially there was some

confusion with the time, and the temperature took longer to record than 5

seconds.
2) The magnitude of the heat transfer coefficient seems to display some

pattern. When cooling, the heat transfer coefficient was clearly lower for all

tests run. Cooling occurred in Tests B, D, and F. In all of these tests, the heat

transfer coefficient is less than 500. However, regarding the heating tests, A,

C, and E, were all significantly greater than 500. The reason for this is
 because of the specific heat values of the surrounding fluid. Water has a

generally high Cp value, 4.186kJ/kgK, while air has a Cp value of only 1.0

kJ/kgK. A higher Cp value encourages heat transfer. This explains why cold

water had the highest heat transfer coefficient of all the tests of cooling.
3) From the given properties of the Aluminum cube, it can be assumed that the

convective heat transfer coefficient can be found by dividing the found slope

by 0.00096. However, some estimates can be simply by looking at the data. If

the temperature changes significantly and approaches the surrounding

temperature in a relatively short amount of time, it can be assumed that it

has a fairly high heat transfer coefficient. However, if it is not changing

intensely, and it takes longer for the temperature to become steady, this

means that it has a lower heat transfer coefficient.

4) In general, the dimensions and composition of the object being tested seem

to have the largest impact on the heat transfer coefficient. If there is a high

surface area, heat will transfer faster, causing a higher heat transfer

coefficient. However, if the volume is higher, it will take longer for heat

transfer to occur. This will lead to a lower heat transfer coefficient. However,

with these trials specifically where the surface area and volume are the same

for each test, the temperature difference seemed to have the greatest

influence on the convective heat transfer coefficient.

Conclusions:

With the experiment performed as expected, the data from each group was then

compiled and analyzed. This experiment allowed students to develop more

understanding with convective heat transfer coefficients, and its relationships with

the parameters used to find it. This includes the dimensions and properties of the
object being tested, as well as the temperature and specific heat value of the

objects surroundings.