Extended Surfaces Lab

MAE 4310 Heat Transfer Laboratory

Section 3 Group 2

Alexander Rutsch, Caleb Herup,

Alex Parrott
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this lab was to determine how heat transfers from a rod to the environment
via convection. To determine the effects of convection on a fin with an adiabatic tip, the
temperature was mapped across the fin at equal intervals along its length for three different heat
fluxes. The experimental data demonstrated a set of temperature curves that leveled out towards
the end of the fin. COMSOL simulations were also performed comparing the temperature profiles
from varying fin lengths, diameters, and fin tip conditions. Finally, a separate COMSOL
simulation was run that compared the theoretical temperature curve against the experimental data.

INTRODUCTION
It is often the case that multiple means of heat transfer are present in a system. For example,
in an extended surface (a fin), conduction occurs through the fin, and convection occurs on the
surface of the fin. Conduction is a means of heat transfer in which heat travels through the
molecular interactions within a solid or contact of solids. Convection is the means of heat transfer
between the surface of an object and a fluid in contact with that surface. Extended surfaces are
protrusions on a larger main body. At the point of contact between the fin and the main body, there
exists a heat source. The heat source travels and leaves the fin via conduction, convection, and
radiation. For the purposes of this lab, radiation is assumed to be negligible. It is often of interest
to know the temperature profile along the length of the fin.
There are two basic laws that cover heat transfer through a fin: Fouriers Law, and
Newtons Law of Cooling. Fouriers Law describes the conduction within the fin, and is defined
as follows:[1]

= (1)

The variable represents the heat transfer rate (W) through the material, and is a function of the
thermal conductivity (W/mK), the cross-sectional area (m2), and the temperature gradient

across the material (K/m). Equation (1) assumes that heat transfer is 1-dimensional.
Newtons Law of Cooling describes the convection that takes place at the surface of the
fin. It is defined as:[1]
= ( ) (2)
The variable represents the heat transfer rate (W) between the surface of the object and the
surrounding fluid, and is a function of the convective heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K), the
surface area exposed to the fluid (m2), and the temperature difference between the surface and
the bulk fluid temperature ( ) (K). The convective heat transfer coefficient is assumed to
be constant.
For this lab, it was assumed that the temperature was only a function of the distance from
the main body along the extended surface, meaning the temperature of all points at a cross section
normal to the direction of heat transfer are the same. The temperature profile is a curve that is
dependent upon the tip of the fin. For an adiabatic tip, the temperature profile is:[2]
cosh(( ))
= (3)
cosh()
where is the excess temperature (K), is the excess temperature at the root (K). The constant m
is a general constant that describes basic system dimensions and properties (m-1), is the length
of the fin (m) and x is the distance along the fin from the root of the fin (m). The excess temperature
is:
= (4)
where T is the temperature at a point (K) and is the temperature of the convective coolant (K).
The root excess temperature is:
= (5)
where is the temperature at the root (K) and is the temperature of the convective coolant
(K). The value m is defined as:[2]

= (6)

where h is the convective heat transfer coefficient (W/m2K), P is the perimeter of the cross section
of the extended surface (m), k is the thermal conductivity of the extended surface (W/mK), and Ac
is the area of the cross section of the extended surface (m2).

METHOD
The following equipment was used for this lab: HT15, HT10X, and a timer. A solid
cylindrical brass bar with constant diameter of 10 mm was used as the extended surface in the
HT15 apparatus.
The steps taken in this lab began by connecting the HT15 to the HT10X and connecting
thermocouples to the HT15 to the HT10XC. These thermocouples are spaced 50 mm apart with a
9th thermocouple reading the ambient room temperature. The voltage control potentiometer was
set to minimum, and the selector switch was set to manual. The heater voltage was initially set to
6.1V. The system was left to reach a steady state by waiting 30 minutes before recording data. The
voltage was then set to 9V and 12V with each being allowed to reach steady state by waiting 30
minutes.
In addition to the experimental portion of the lab, COMSOL simulations were run for three
different scenarios. In the first evaluation, five different fin lengths were evaluated under similar
heat input to examine the effect that fin length has on convection. The second evaluation studied
5 different fin diameters at the same length and heat input to determine the effect of fin diameter
on convection performance. Finally, the third study evaluated the effect of the tip condition by
comparing fins with convective, constant temperature, and adiabatic tip conditions.
RESULTS

Experimental Results

The data taken during the three lab tests is plotted in the figure below:

70

60

50
Temperature ()

40
6.1V
30
9V
20 12V

10

0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Position (mm)

Figure 1: Temperature Distribution for Extended Surface.

As shown in Figure 1, the temperature profiles have positive curvature while showing an
inverse relationship between temperature and position. Since the tip was considered adiabatic, no
heat transfer occurred there. The slope of the temperature distribution then flattens out at the tip.
The initial temperature is higher with increasing voltage. This is due to a higher heat flow present
through the material. Table 1 below shows the source voltage, current, heat flow and ambient
temperature for varying voltages.

Table 1: Source Power and Ambient Temperature

Source Voltage (V) Source Current (A) Heat Source (W) Ambient
Temperature ()
6.1 0.19 1.159 22.2
9.0 0.29 2.61 22.2
12.0 0.39 4.68 22.1

Since the ambient temperature is considered constant across the various tests as seen in
Table 1, convection would be consistent across the tests, ensuring that the only factor changing
within the experimental tests is the heat flux at the base.
 COMSOL Results

The first COMSOL simulation compared temperature profiles for varying fin lengths, and
the resulting plot is shown in the figure below:

Figure 2: Temperature profiles for varying fin lengths

Fin length directly affects the surface area available for heat transfer via convection. The
larger the surface area, the greater the effect convective heat transfer has on the fin. From Eq. (3),
bulk temperature is directly affected by the fin length with an adiabatic tip condition. When the fin
length is decreased, the surface area is decreased, and convective heat transfer is less effective.
Since the heat flux at the base remains constant, the heat flux out of the fin must remain constant
at steady state conditions. According to Eq. (2), temperature difference between the surface and
the fluid is directly proportional to the heat transfer rate. Therefore, to compensate for a reduced
surface area with a constant convective heat transfer coefficient, the fins temperature profile will
increase. As seen in Figure 2, fins with shorter lengths have higher temperature profiles. As the fin
length increases, the temperature profiles reduce towards the asymptote of the surrounding fluid
temperature. However, due to the adiabatic tip condition, the slope of all the temperature profiles
reaches zero, since there is no heat transfer at the tip.
The optimal fin balances a reasonable fin length with effective heat dissipation. The 15mm
fin, while much shorter, is also much hotter than the other fins, displaying a poor ability to dissipate
the heat flux effectively. The 35mm fin seems to be the most effective for its length, since it is just
a few degrees hotter than the longer fins at the tip, follows their profiles for most of the temperature
distribution, but remains much shorter. The fins get diminishing returns on heat dissipation as they
get longer, and so the 75mm and 95mm fins are longer than necessary for the heat flux they must
manage. The 55mm fin could be justified if very effective heat transfer is needed.
 The second COMSOL simulation varied the fin diameter to examine its effect on
convective cooling. The graph of the temperature distribution for varying fin diameters is shown
below:

Figure 3: Temperature profiles for varying fin diameters

As shown in the above figure, temperatures approach the same asymptote of ambient air
temperature, but have radically different base temperatures. This is due to the effectiveness of
conduction within the fin itself. For the fin to be effective, it must quickly transfer heat from the
base along the fin, and quickly dissipate that heat via convection. The diameter of the fin affects
the conduction within the fin. This property is reflected in Fouriers Law. Heat transferred via
conduction is much greater when the cross-sectional area is greater. The area in this case is driven
by the fin diameter. If the fin diameter is smaller, then the system must compensate with a greater
temperature difference to maintain the same heat transfer according to Fouriers Law.
The optimal fin would keep the base temperature lower than the maximum allowable
temperature for the design, but would not waste material unnecessarily. Since the maximum
allowable temperature varies between applications, it is impossible to determine an optimal fin
diameter for this scenario. It is intuitive given the general operating temperatures of electronics to
assume that the system would generally need to remain under 80 , so a fin diameter greater than
7.5mm or greater would be desirable. Again, the principle of diminishing returns applies here as
well, so ridiculously large fin diameters would be wasteful and unnecessary in almost any
circumstance.
 Finally, a COMSOL simulation comparing different tip conditions was performed. The
resulting plot is shown in the figure below:

Figure 4: Temperature distribution for varying tip conditions

Three different tip conditions were considered: insulated tip (adiabatic), convection at the
tip, and constant tip temperature. Figure 4 above shows that the tip condition had little effect on
the overall performance of the fin. The fins were long enough that the temperature profiles have
largely stabilized towards the tips, so changing the tip condition had little effect. The insulated tip
temperature profile was practically the same as the convective tip because the temperatures at the
tips of both fins are extremely low, and the surface area of the tip is miniscule compared to the
surface area of the fin itself. The only noticeable difference was in the slope of the temperature
profile at the tip. The adiabatic tip had a slope of zero, and the convective tip was a slope slightly
less than that. At the length simulated however, the difference is practically negligible. In many
cases then, a convective tip condition may be simplified to an adiabatic tip condition without a
significant impact on the results. The constant temperature tip condition changed the profile
slightly, but still insignificantly since at the designated fin length of 35mm, the temperature is
already close to its final. Constant temperature tip conditions would only play a significant role
when the fins are very short, such that the temperature at the tip would be significantly greater than
the ambient temperature. With the fin length simulated however, there is plenty of convective
cooling to negate the need for an imposed tip temperature. With that consideration, it would be
easiest and cheapest to use a long fin with a convective tip condition, and model it using the
adiabatic equations.
 Data to COMSOL Comparison

To determine the convective heat transfer coefficient for the lab, a COMSOL simulation
was run, varying h for a 12V, 0.39A power input to match the lab conditions. The results were
then compared with the experimental data, and an appropriate value for convective heat transfer
coefficient was selected according to the best fit. Figure 5 below compares the computational

prediction for the temperature distribution with = 39 2 to the experimental data collected:

Figure 5: Computational to Experimental comparison

Figure 5 shows a comparison of the experimental data matched up against a theoretical

simulation produced by COMSOL. While the curves do not identically match up, this could likely
be due to a lack of steady-state conditions with the experimental data. It could also be that the
surface of the rod is not perfect and fully exposed to the surrounding air. Eight Thermocouples do
need to be attached to the rod in order to measure the temperature.

CONCLUSION
This lab was designed to analyze the heat flow from the effects of convection across the
length of an adiabatic fin by measuring the temperature curve along the length of a fin at various
heat sources. This was accomplished by heating an adiabatic fin at one end, and measuring the
temperature differences along its length at 50mm intervals with thermocouples. Three different
heat flows were applied, and each trial was allowed to reach steady state. In addition, various
COMSOL simulations were done with variable lengths, diameters, and tip conditions. According
to the simulations, increasing either fin length or fin diameter had significant positive effects on
the performance of the fin. Changing the tip condition has a negligible effect if the fin is long
enough, however.
In the experiment, the final tip temperature was slightly higher than the ambient
temperature. This is most likely due to the length of the fin. As fin length increases, the tip
temperature will approach ambient room temperature. Finally, the theoretical comparison to the
experimental data showed a slight degree of error, which can likely be attributed to a non-uniform
rod and lack of steady-state conditions. For a perfect lab set-up, a longer wait period during trials
would improve steady state conditions.

REFERENCES

1. Moushon, Mitchell. MAE 4310 Heat Transfer Laboratory. 10 February 2017. Lab
Notes.
2. Bergman, Theodore, et al. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer. John Wiley and
Sons, n.d. Book.