Heat

Transfer Lab
Report 2 Heat transfer from finned surface

Name: Hugo Felippe da Silva Lui

Date: 11/13/2014

Introduction

The experiment aimed to measure the temperature distribution along a finned
surface. In addition, compare the theoretical and computational results.
The rate of heat transfer surface from a surface area at a temperature ! to the
surrounding fluid at ! is given by Newtons Law of cooling:
= ! (! ! )

(1)

Where:
h - Convection heat transfer coefficient
! Heat transfer surface area
Usually the temperature ! and ! are fixed by design considerations, therefore,
there are two ways to increase the rate of heat transfer. The first way is increase the heat
transfer coefficient h, it may require the installation of some turbomachinery, but this
approach may not be practical. The second way is to increase the surface area by adding
fins to surface. Finned surfaces are commonly made of highly conductivity materials.
In the analysis of fins, we consider steady state, no heat generation in the fin,
constant cross sectional, and we assume the thermal conductivity k of the material to
remains constant. We also consider the convection heat transfer coefficient h constant
over the entire surface of the fin. From energy balance and the assumptions above, one
obtains:
!
! = 0
!

(2)

Where:
!!
! = !!

p perimeter of fin
! cross sectional area
= !

The solution of the differential equation Eq (2) is

= ! !" + ! !!"

(3)

Where C1 and C2 are constants whose values depends on the boundary conditions at the
base and at the tip of the fin.
The temperature of the fin base is known. Therefore, at the fin base we have the
following boundary condition:

 0 = ! = ! !

(4)

In the experiment, the fin tip is insulated, and the boundary condition at the fin tip
can be expressed as,
!"

!" |x = L = 0

(5)

Applying the boundary conditions (4) and (5) in equation (3) yields, after some
manipulations, the temperature distribution:
!
cosh ( )
=
! !
cosh

(6)

As a result, we expected an exponential temperature distribution according to

equation (6).
The results that we expected are:
a. When we increase the energy input, it is expected that the temperature gradient
increase.
b. When the fin length increases, it is expected that the minimum temperature
decrease.
c. When the fin diameter increases, it is expected that the maximum temperature
decrease. However the minimum temperature will shows a slight shift with the
increase of the maximum temperature
d. For different fin conditions, it is expected that the temperature distribution
changes only at the end of the fin, and this change will be small.
For validation of theory and their considerations, we used both experimental and
computational tools.

Method

Figure 1. Cross sectional view of experiment set up

Equipment
HT15 Extended Surface Heat Transfer Accessory
HT10X - Heat Transfer Service Unit

Procedure
First connect HT15 heater to the HT10X, after that connect the nine
thermocouples from HT15 to the HT10X. Then, set the minimum voltage. Next, set
selector switch to manual, after that set heater voltage to 6 V. It is necessary that the
system be stabilized before stating to record the temperatures of each thermocouple,
where T1 to T8 are the temperatures at each position along the fin and T9 is ambient air
temperature. Repeat for 9 V and 12 V the above procedure.

Results and Discussions

Figure 1. Temperature distribution for different energy inputs

In figure 2, the temperature profile for all energy input has an exponential trend.
The energy input, which has the largest temperature gradient, is 12 V and the smallest
temperature gradient is 6V. This occurs because at the base of the fin, the rate of heat
transfer, the voltage, is equal to the rate of rate conduction into the base fin. Thus the
temperature gradient should vary proportional to the energy input. Therefore, the higher

the energy input, the greater the temperature gradient. In figure 2, it is observed that at
0.25 m of the fin, the temperature changes between thermocouples become negligible. In
figure 2, it indicates that the temperature drops along the fin exponentially and reaches
the air ambient temperature at some length.

Figure 3. Predicted temperature distribution vs. experimental temperature distribution.

In figure 3, shows the predicted and experimental temperature distribution for
energy input of 9 V. In figure 3, it is observed that despite the small difference of the
curves, we can consider that the temperature distributions match. The reason is that the
temperature measurements were good. Another factor, the convection heat transfer
coefficient chosen for calculation of predicted temperature distribution matches with the
characteristics of the experiment.

Figure 4. Temperature distribution of each fin length

In figure 4, the temperature profile for all fin lengths has an exponential trend. As
the fin length increases, the minimum temperature decreases. The reason is that the
Equation (6) is function of position, as we increase the length, the right hand of the
equation becomes smaller. Therefore the temperature decreases. In figure 4 it is observed
that the temperature gradients of fin length: 0.35, 0.55, 0.75 and 0.95 m are similar. From
position 0.35 m, the temperatures at the end of fin almost the same. Thus, the use of fin
length 0.55, 0.75 and 0.95 m, it would not be a good choice since it would be a waste of
material, then money. Thus, the fin length 0.35 m has an optimal design.

Figure 5. Temperature distribution of each diameter

In figure 4, the temperature profile for all diameters has an exponential trend. As
fin diameter increases, the maximum temperature decreases, and the minimum
temperature practically remains constant. The maximum temperature decreases because;
by increasing the base area, the right side of equation (6) becomes smaller, therefore the
maximum temperature decreases. The minimum temperature remains constant because at
the end of fin is unheated, therefore the minimum temperature does not depend on base
area. It does depend on fin length and energy input.

Figure 6. Temperature profile for different conditions at the end of fin

In figure 6, the temperature profile for all conditions has an exponential trend.
They differ slightly at the end of fin. This is because the fin used in the simulation has a
length of 35 mm, as mentioned a few paragraphs before, this length of the fin has an
optimal design. Thus, all the heat will flow from the heater to the fin by conduction and
from the fin to the surrounding medium by convection. Then at the end of fin is unheated.
Therefore, the boundary conditions at the end of fin have no effects on minimum
temperature.
The experiment setup is diameter 0.01m, fin length 0.35 m, adiabatic tip and rate
of heat transfer 12 V, which is the red curve in figure 1. In figure 5, the blue curve
represents the computational with the same experimental settings. Comparing the
temperature distributions, it is noted that they are similar. Therefore, the experimental
data are consistent with the theory that is used for computational calculations.

Conclusion
The experiment was intended to measure the temperature distribution along a finned
surface and compare the theoretical and computational results. We determine the
temperature distribution for the energy inputs: 6, 9 and 12 V. It can be concluded that
when the energy input increases, the temperature gradient increase. The minimum
temperature decreases with increasing the length of the fin. An increase in diameter
causes a reduction of maximum temperature, and the minimum temperature shows a
slight shift with the increase of the maximum temperature. For different fin conditions,
the temperature distribution changes slightly at the end of the fin. The verification of key
points was performed by experimental and computational methods and they showed good
validation for the confirmation of extended surfaces theory.

References
[1] Kreith, F., Manglik, R. M and BOHN, M S. Principles of heat transfer, seveth edition,
2011.
[2] F. P. Incropera and D. P. DeWitt. Introduction to Heat Transfer. 4th ed. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, 2002.