MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

ME312 THERMAL ENGINEERING

EXPERIMENT 3
A METHOD FOR MEASURING EMISSIVITY OF A SURFACE
By
Abdul Ahad Naeem - 2177228
Muhammet Sait Yazgan - 2097582
Serhan Serce - 1940220

LAB GROUP B15

1
Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 3

2. SAMPLE CALCULATIONS........................................................................................................................ 4

3. DISCUSSION........................................................................................................................................... 7

4. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................... 9

5. REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 10

2
 1. INTRODUCTION

Objective
The objective of this experiment was to determine the emissivity(ε) of a real surface. To this
end, two concentric cylinders at different surface temperatures were used, and by calculating
the heat flux between them, and using several assumptions, the emissivity value was obtained.

Experimental Equipment and Procedure

The set up consisted of two stainless steel concentric horizontal cylinders, thermocouples, A.C
Power Supply and a nichrome wire heater. The cylinders were about 480mm in length, and had
inner and outer diameters of 21mm and 80mm respectively. A nichrome heater wire was
passed through the inner cylinder to heat the inner surface, and the annular space was
evacuated to prevent heat loss through natural convection.
The procedure was quite straightforward. Thermocouples were attached to four points at both
the outer surface of the outer cylinder and the inner surface of the inner cylinder. The
thermocouples were attached to the data logger, from which the readings were taken. The
voltage and current supplied by the power supply was recorded to obtain the power through
the nichrome wire.
Calculations were then done to obtain the average surface temperatures of both cylinders, heat
flux from the inner to outer cylinder and, finally, the emissivity value using the equations given
in the textbook.
These calculations are explained in the following section.

3
 2. SAMPLE CALCULATIONS

Data Obtained:

Inner
T (mV) T (°C)
Cylinder
1 74.234
2 98.661
3 104.353
4 81.610
Outer
T (mV) T (°C)
Cylinder
1 31.741
2 33.326
3 33.486
4 31.968

Voltage 25 V
Current 0.43 A

Calculations

Power 10.75 W Cylinder Properties

q1-2 10.75 W Length: 480 mm
q"1-2 339.47 W/m² Do: 80 mm
Tinner 89.72 °C Di: 21 mm
32.63 Stainless Steel
Touter °C
ɛ 0.7434

4
Sample calculations:

Let us first calculate the area. Since that will be used in the subsequent calculations:

𝐴 = 𝜋 ∗ 𝐷𝑖 ∗ 𝐿 = 𝜋 ∗ 0.021 ∗ 0.480
𝐴 = 0.031667 m2

1) Heat Supply Rate to the Inner cylinder (𝑞1→2 ) :

Assuming that power supply to the nichrome wire is equal to the heat loss from the
inner cylinder (more will be said about it in later sections), we can write:

𝑞1→2 = 𝐼 ∗ 𝑉 = 25 ∗ 0.43
𝑞1→2 = 10.75 𝑊

2) Heat supply rate per unit area to inner cylinder (𝑞 ′′1→2 ):

𝑞1→2
𝑞 ′′1→2 =
𝐴
𝑞 ′′1→2 = 10.75/0.031667 = 339.47W/m2

3) Outer surface temperature of inner cylinder (T1):

We can just take the average of the temperatures. However, there is an underlying
assumption in using this method. Refer to the discussions section.
Average Surface temperature of the Outer Cylinder:
𝑇1 + 𝑇2 + 𝑇3 + 𝑇4 31.741 + 33.326 + 33.486 + 31.968
𝑇𝑜 = = = 32.63 °𝐶 = 305.78 𝐾
4 4
5
4) Inner surface temperature of outer cylinder (T2):

Average Surface temperature of the Inner Cylinder:

𝑇1 + 𝑇2 + 𝑇3 + 𝑇4 74.234 + 98.661 + 104.353 + 81.61
𝑇𝑖 = = = 89.72 °𝐶 = 362.87 𝐾
4 4

5) Emissivity of the surfaces (𝜀) :

From equation (5) in the lab sheet, we have:

1 + 𝑟𝑐
𝜀=
𝜎(𝑇14 − 𝑇24 )
+ 𝑟𝑐
𝑞′′1−2
rc= Di/Do = 21/80= 0.2625

then, putting all the values in the above equation, we obtain:

1 + 0.2625
𝜀=
5.67 ∗ 10−8 (362.874 − 305.784 )
+ 0.2625
339.47

Finally, we get ε= 0.7434

6
 3. DISCUSSION

The result obtained for emissivity is very close to the actual value of 0.74 (Stainless Steel 303).
Infact, the error is 0.46%, which is negligible!
This discrepancy is understandable if we consider the myriad of assumptions made in the
experiment (expounded in detail below). Also, human and other sources of errors inevitably
affect the results of any experiment. Hence, within experimental errors, the value obtained is
extremely accurate.
Although most of the assumptions were justified, and did not affect the results significantly,
they do deserve mention, and are explained one by one in detail:
Assumptions
1) Steady state behaviour
As with any heat transfer experiment, this assumption was made to ease the
calculations. To approximate steady state behaviour closely, the apparatus was set up
long before the readings were taken. Although this minimized fluctuations in
temperature, it must be born in mind that no situation is ever completely steady, and
some oscillations about the mean keep on occurring at all times.

2) Diffuse and gray body

A ‘real’ body is neither diffuse nor gray. This is because the absorbed or emitted
radiation varies with direction and wavelength for all bodies. However, for cylinders
which are very long and are enclosed, diffuse and gray behaviour is not a bad
assumption and the little loss in accuracy more than justifies the otherwise cumbersome
task of evaluating triple integrals to take into account spectral and directional
dependence. Hence, it was assumed that emissivity was the same in all directions and i
for all wavelengths.

3) Perfect vacuum in the annular space

Although the annular space was evacuated, a complete vacuum was not created,
because some air was still present (it could be seen from the pressure gauge that the
pressure drop was not 760 mmHg, but slightly below the value). This could be due to
some small leakages present in the set-up. This means that some heat was lost due to
natural convection. Hence, our emissivity values might be slightly overstated due to this
assumption.
7
4) Infinitely long cylinders
This was a very important assumption which enabled us to neglect the effect of the
sides on radiation. Hence, their shape factors and space resistances did not have to be
considered in the emissivity calculations. However, one should keep in mind that in
reality, no cylinder is infinite, and the sides may contribute to some radiative exchange.
(Thermocouples on the sides of the cylinders were showing lower temperatures, which
shows that the assumption for infinitely long cylinder is not perfectly valid).

5) Thermocouples measure temperature of the desired sides of each cylinder

This, infact, was not true, since the thermocouples were attached to the inner surface of
the inner cylinder and the outer surface of the outer cylinder. This was done to make
sure the thermocouples were fixed to the surface, otherwise, they would fall off if
exposed to the near-vacuum in the annular space. However, this precaution meant that
the thermocouple was not measuring the outer side of the inner cylinder, or the inner
side of the outer cylinder (which is what was required, since those are the surfaces
which take part in radiation heat transfer).

6) Negligible conduction resistance in the cylinder walls

This is in line with the previous one. This was assumed so that we could directly use
recorded temperatures in our calculations. However, the actual temperatures were
different, since a temperature gradient must exist within the cylinder walls to enable
heat transfer to occur.

Besides the above stated 6 assumptions, there are more sources of error. These include:
 Human error in measuring cylinder diameter and lengths
 Error while recording the temperature data
 Not placing the thermocouples evenly, which might skew the temperature
measurements

8
 4. CONCLUSION

This experiment enabled us to determine the emissivity of stainless steel cylinders, and gave us
greater insight into how radiation works, and what parameters affect it. It also showed us that
how several wise assumptions can greatly simplify an experiment, and yet yield acceptable
answers. The use of shape factors, and the application of the electric circuit analogy to heat
transfer were also reinforced via this experiment.

The experiment could be improved by measuring temperatures at more locations, and using
more cylinders of different materials, so that students can compare and contrast values of the
emissivity of different materials. Furthermore, the effect of sides can be made more
pronounced by using shorter cylinders, so that students can appreciate that one cannot
consider any cylinder as infinite and sometimes, side effects must be taken into consideration.
All in all, this last experiment of the ME312 course was very interesting, and a great learning
experience for students.

9
 5. REFERENCES

Incropera, Frank P, and David P DeWitt. Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer. 6th ed. New York:
Wiley, 2007.

Table of Emissivity. (n.d.). Retrieved May 13, 2018, from http://www-

eng.lbl.gov/~dw/projects/DW4229_LHC_detector_analysis/calculations/emissivity2.pdf

10