QuadTech Chemicals

“We have a tradition of being awesome.”

Date: March 29, 2018

To: Dr. Sadeddin Kherfan, Senior Lecturer, BamaChem

From: Kristi McCoy (Team Leader)

Colm Boyer (Team Technician)

Zoe Istas (Writing Editor)

Cole Johnson (Consultant)

Subject: Report on Experiment 6: Transient Heat Transfer in a Metal Sphere

Executive Summary

The goal of this experiment was to measure the transient temperature profiles for three metal
spheres of two different sizes and two different materials. These temperature profiles were
compared to the temperature versus time profiles predicted by the lumped heat capacity model. It
was found that cooling was faster in smaller spheres, that cooling was faster for brass than steel,
and that cooling was faster in water than in air.

Introduction

The lumped heat capacity model is deemed appropriate based on the Biot number (Bi) of the
system. The Biot number is a comparison of the heat transfer via convection versus heat transfer
via conduction. If the Biot number is less than 0.1, then conduction is assumed to be much faster
than convection and the lumped heat capacity model can be utilized. The Biot number is defined
via Equation 1 [1].

LC h
Bi = (1)
k

Where Bi is the Biot number, LC is the characteristic length defined as v olume

for a solid (m),
surf ace

h is the convective heat transfer coefficient (W/m-K), and k is the thermal conductivity of the
r
material (W/m2-K). For a sphere, the characteristic length, LC, simplifies to 3
(m).

The following equation is found from equating heat lost by the sphere to the amount of heat
gained by the surrounding coolant [1].

mC p ddT = hA(T − T ∞ (2)

)

Rearranging Equation 2 and taking the integral gives [1]:

T
(3)
∫ dT
= h·A

dt (T −T ∞ ) mC p
∫
T =T 0

The integration of Equation 3 and manipulation results in Equation 4 [1].

-2-
 −hA
T = e (ρC pV t (T i − T ) + T (4)
∞ ∞
Where T is the current temperature of the sphere (K), T∞ is the temperature of the surroundings
(K), Ti is the initial temperature of the sphere (K), h is, again, the convective heat transfer
coefficient (W/m2-K), Cp is the specific heat capacity of the sphere (J/kg-K), A is the surface area
of the sphere (m2), ⍴ is the density of the sphere (kg/m3), V is volume of the sphere (m3), and t is
time elapsed (s). Assuming the lumped heat capacity model is valid, the temperature change with
respect to time can be predicted by Equation 4 [1].

Experimental

FIGURE (1) Original Illustration of the Heating Process and the Cooling Processes to Measure
Temperature over Time Profiles

The initial hot water bath brought the spheres up to the higher starting temperature. The sphere
was then either placed in the ice water bath, the ambient water bath, or on the nail bed to undergo
cooling via convection.
Three metal spheres were used: a steel sphere with 1.5” diameter and two brass spheres of
diameter 2.0” and 1.5”. A thermocouple was inserted into the sphere to record the temperature at
the center of the sphere over time until the temperature reached equilibrium. The metal spheres
were placed in a hot water bath and until the sphere reached the 60 ℃. The spheres were then
removed from the hot water bath and placed either in an ice bath (0 ℃), the ambient water bath
(22.4 ℃), or on the nail bed (22.4 ℃). The two water baths underwent convection from water,
whereas the nail bed underwent convection from air. With both fluids stagnant, free convection
was the dominant cooling force.

Results
The transient temperature profiles of the hot metal spheres as a function of time in an ice bath are
shown in Figure 2.

FIGURE (2) Transient Temperature Profiles of Cooling Metal Spheres in an Ice Bath

Figure 2 shows that the data follows the same downward sloping trend established by the
theoretical data. Comparing by diameter, the 2” brass sphere took longer to cool than the 1.5”
brass sphere. Comparing brass to stainless steel, the brass sphere cooled quicker than the steel
sphere of equal size.
Transient temperature profiles of hot metal spheres in an ambient temperature water bath is
shown in Figure 3.

FIGURE (3) Transient Temp. Profiles of Cooling Metal Spheres in Ambient Temp. Water

Figure 3 again shows downward sloping temperature trends similar to the ice bath trial. Transient
temperature profiles for hot metal spheres in air on a nail bed is shown in Figure 4.

FIGURE (4) Transient Temperature Profiles of Cooling Metal Spheres in Air

Figure 4 again corroborates the same temperature trends for diameter and material seen in the ice
bath and the ambient temperature water bath. The cooling process is slower for the ambient air
trial.

The transient temperature profiles for the 1.5” brass metal sphere within the three different
conditions, ice water bath, ambient temperature water bath, and ambient temperature air, is
shown in Figure 5.

FIGURE (5) Transient Temperature Profiles of a 1.5” Brass Sphere in Different Conditions

Figure 5 illustrates the different convective heat transfer rates for the different conditions. The
1.5” brass sphere was selected due to its smaller size and higher conductive heat transfer
coefficient. This insured that the lumped heat capacity model was applicable.

The following table displays the Biot number of each sphere under the various conditions of the
experiment.
 Table (1) Biot Numbers of Each Sphere for Each Conditions
Ice Water Ambient Water Ambient Air
(h = 52 W/m2K) (h = 75 W/m2K) (h = 5 W/m2K)
2.0” Brass 0.0110 0.0076 0.0004
1.5” Brass 0.0083 0.0057 0.0003
1.5” Steel 0.0598 0.0413 0.0024

All of the trials run can be appropriately approximated by the lumped heat capacity model.

Conclusion
The transient temperature profiles for each metal sphere were compared to the profiles predicted
by the lumped heat capacity model. As predicted, the smaller the sphere, the faster it cooled.
Brass cooled faster than steel due to its lower specific heat. It was found that the lumped heat
capacity model was applicable for all of the trials conducted.
Recommendations
There were several sources of error that occured during this experiment. The thermocouples were
not securely attached to the metal spheres and would detach frequently causing inaccuracies and
reducing precision. This was considered to be a relatively small source of error. It is
recommended to ensure the thermocouples are securely fastened to each metal spheres before
beginning the experiment. Another source of error was that the metal spheres would often come
into contact with the metal surface of the ice bath or with each other, causing further inaccuracies
when trying to measure heat loss. It is recommended to use a container for the ice bath that
would minimize the amount of heat lost if there was accidental contact between the sphere and
the surface. Finally, it was considered that some heat was lost during the transfer of each sphere
from the hot water bath to the cooling medium. It is recommended to minimize the amount of
time spent transferring each sphere from the bath and to use tongs that will minimize the amount
of heat conducted from the spheres. This was considered to be a very small source of error.

References
[1] Holman, J. P., Heat Transfer, 9th ed., McGraw-Hill, 2002.
 APPENDICES
Appendix A
Sample Calculation:

Solve the Biot number for lumped heat capacity of a 1.5 in diameter stainless steel sphere, where
h, the heat transfer-coefficient, is 10 W/(m2·K), the k, thermal conductivity, is 35 W/(m·K).
First calculate the characteristic length, Lc.
r (.75 in) (.0254 m)
Lc = 3 = 3 · 1 in = .00635 m
Next, calculate the Biot number for lumped heat capacity using equation (1).
(h)(Lc ) (10)(.00635)
Bi k
= 35
= .00181
A Biot Number of less than 0.1 shows that the lumped heat capacity can be assumed to be
accurate.

Next, assuming a time of 30 seconds, solve for the temperature using equation (4).
T∞, temperature of the bulk, is 298 K, and T0, initial temperature of the sphere, is 353 K.
−10(4π)(.019052 )
(ρC−hA t ( (30))
T =e pV (T i − T ∞) + T ∞ = e (940)(460)(4/3)(π)(.019053 ) (353 − 298) + 298 = 347.3 K
T = 347.3 K