Discussion

Cylinder was highly polished in this experiment. This was because surface
roughness affects convection heat transfer coefficient. In fact the smoother the surface the
smaller the heat flux is. That is why it was necessary to insure that cylinder had smooth
surface in order to achieve the best results.
This lab experiment produced consistent results. This was insured by repeating
Test 2 in the end as Test 6. Condition were attempted to be matched in two tests.
Manometer reading in both experiments was set at 1.3 and room temperature was within
0.5˚C. As the result, the graphs for these two tests had almost the same slope and
equation. This proves the great experimental reproducibility.
The percent error between the experimental and theoretical values for Nusselt
number was found to be 21.20-24.71% depending on the test. The theoretical value was
obtained using Hilbert approximation. Although the percent error is significant, it can be
explained by numerous sources of error.
Firstly, the actual velocity in the wind tunnel was higher than recorded. The
reason was that velocity was found before the cylinder was inserted into the wind tunnel.
When cylinder was inserted, it created the blockage. Therefore the cross sectional area
decreased and velocity inside of wind tunnel had to increase. Increased velocity of air
inside of wind tunnel increases the convection heat transfer coefficient. The approximate
percent error due to blockage effect can be calculated as follows:
1
= 1.1084
1− n

Air velocity increased by 1.1084 times due to the blockage.

ln( Nu ) = 0.5581 ⋅ ln(Re) − 0.9165
is the experimental equation showing relationship between Reynold number and Nusselt
number. For average ln(Re) = 9.6422 , ln( Nu ) = 4.452 . If Reynold number is increased
by 1.1084 the Nusselt number increases by 1.06 times.
Therefore blockage effect alone creates around 6% error.
Second sources of error could have come from the fact that radiation was not
taken into account. Heat loss due to radiation was overlooked. Although impact of
radiation is generally small compared to that of forced convection, it also increases the
heat transfer. Radiation’s effect is more significant at the beginning of the experiment
when the cylinder is at around 80˚C. As the cylinder cools down, the impact of radiation
decreases.
The third source of possible error came from neglecting the convection at the end
of the cylinder.
These three sources of error were the reason why the experimental heat transfer
coefficient due to convection was lower than the theoretical value calculated using
Hilbert correlation.
Conclusion

The discrepancies between experimental and theoretical values were calculated to be in

the range of 21.20-24.71%. While the percentage of error might seem significant, there
were several sources of possible errors in this lab, such as overlooked heat fluxes due to
the radiation, blockage effect and convection at the ends of a cylinder. Blockage effect
alone was calculated to create around 6% of error. All in all, this lab experiment can be
considered successful. The main objective of this lab was accomplished and heat transfer
rate from a circular cylinder in a cross flow of air was calculated. Experiment also
showed that approximate theoretical solutions can be obtained by use of approximations;
in this case Hilbert correlation was used. The reproducibility of the results also confirms
the consistency of the results obtained in this experimentation.