REP: Thermal/Heat Transfer/Fluids lab

27th March 2025, IIST, Thiruvananthapuram

HEAT TRANSFER LAB: EXPERIMENT 2

HEAT TRANSFER ON EXTENDED SURFACE

Benciya (SC23B060), Dishant (SC23B061), Manab (SC23B062), Avinash (SC23B063), Bhanu (SC23B064), Sanjay
(SC23B065), Shareef (SC23B066), Suchitra (SC23B068)

ABSTRACT natural convection and thermal radiation. The setup involved

This experiment looked at how heat moves along a long, thin heating one end of the fin using an electric coil, while the other
surface, focusing on natural convection and radiation. One end end was left at ambient temperature. This allowed heat to flow
of the rod was heated, while the other stayed at room tempera- along the fin and dissipate into the surrounding air.
ture, and the system was allowed to settle. Temperatures were To monitor the temperature profile, thermocouples were
measured at different points along the rod to see how the heat placed at several points along the fin. These sensors recorded
spread. Because the rod was thin, sensors were placed in one line temperature values once the system reached a steady state, mean-
instead of around it, and the heat flow was treated as happening ing that the temperature at each point remained stable over time.
in just one direction. The experiment mainly studied how heat This ensured accurate data collection for heat transfer analysis.
left the rod into the air through natural convection and radiation, A key parameter used in the analysis was 𝑚, defined by the
not through the rod itself. The results matched well with theory, equation:
√︃
showing that extended surfaces help improve cooling by giving ℎ𝑝
more area for heat to escape. 𝑚=
𝑘𝐴
where ℎ represents the convective heat transfer coefficient, 𝑝 is the
NOMENCLATURE
perimeter of the fin cross-section, 𝑘 is the thermal conductivity
𝐴𝑠 Total area of the extended surface (m2 ). of the fin material, and 𝐴 is the cross-sectional area. The fact
ℎ Heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 K). that 𝑚 remained constant throughout the experiment suggested a
𝑄total Total heat loss from the rod (W). uniform relationship between the material properties, geometry,
𝐿 Length of rod (m). and heat transfer behavior of the fin.
𝐷 Diameter of rod (m).
𝐻c Average heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 K).
2. THEORY
𝑇𝑠 Average temperature of the rod (K).
Heat transfer through convection is always enhanced by in-
𝑇𝑎 Ambient air temperature (K).
creasing the surface area. This is achieved by adding extended
𝐻𝑟 Heat transfer coefficient due to radiation (W/m2 K).
surfaces, known as fins or pins. The equation below is obtained
𝜎 Stefan-Boltzmann constant (W/m2 K4 ).
by applying the steady-state energy balance to an extended sur-
𝐹 Shape factor.
face made of a uniform material with a constant cross-sectional
area. It describes the heat transfer equilibrium in the fin under
1. INTRODUCTION
steady-state conditions.
Extended surfaces, commonly known as fins, are often used
in thermal systems to improve the rate of heat dissipation. They 𝑑2𝜃
achieve this by increasing the surface area through which heat − 𝑚2 𝜃 = 0 (1)
𝑑𝑥 2
can be transferred from a solid object to its surroundings. This
enhancement is particularly valuable in applications such as heat where 𝐿 is the length of the rod (distance from 𝑇1 to 𝑇8 ), and
exchangers, radiators, and electronic cooling systems where effi- 𝐷 is the diameter of the rod. The average convective heat transfer
cient thermal management is critical. coefficient 𝐻𝑐 can be calculated using the following simplified
In this experiment, the focus was on studying the temperature empirical relationship:
distribution along a fin to understand how heat is lost through both (︃ )︃ 0.25
𝑇𝑠 − 𝑇𝑎
Documentation for asmeconf.cls: Version 1.37, April 8, 2025.
𝐻𝑐 = 1.32 (5)
𝐷

1 Copyright © 2025 by ASME

 3. APPARATUS
2 ℎ𝑝 1. HT10XC Heat Transfer Service Unit: This computer-
𝑚 = , 𝜃 = 𝑇 − 𝑇∞
𝑘𝐴 compatible unit provides a stable variable DC power supply
At the base, the temperature difference is given by: (0–24V, up to 9A) to power the heating element. It also
features ten temperature input terminals for accurate tem-
𝜃 𝑏 = 𝑇𝑏 − 𝑇∞ perature measurement and data acquisition.

This differential equation is known as the fin equation, and 2. HT15 Cylindrical Fin: The brass cylindrical fin with good
its general solution is: thermal conductivity acts as the extended surface for heat
transfer analysis. When connected to the HT10XC service
𝜃 (𝑥) = 𝐶1 𝑒 𝑚𝑥 + 𝐶2 𝑒 −𝑚𝑥 (2) unit, the cylindrical fin forms a complete experimental setup,
as shown in Figure 1. One end of the fin is heated using a
where 𝐶1 and 𝐶2 are arbitrary constants. This can be solved coil, while the other end remains at ambient temperature.
by applying various boundary conditions. In the experiment, The fin is insulated on one side to ensure heat dissipation
the fin is insulated at the tip, so the boundary condition is the occurs primarily through natural convection and radiation.
negligible heat loss at the fin tip, and the other boundary condition
is the temperature at the base of the fin: 3. K-Type Thermocouples: The setup uses 9 K-Type thermo-
couples, known for their ability to handle a wide range of
𝜃 (0) = 𝜃 𝑏 = 𝑇𝑏 − 𝑇∞ temperatures. They are built with base metals like nickel,
making them durable and reliable for this experiment.
Applying the boundary conditions, the solution of the differ-
ential equation is: • (T1 to T8) are attached along the HT15 cylindrical fin,
spaced 50 mm apart.
• The ninth one (T9) is exposed to measure the ambient
𝑇𝑠 = Average surface temperature of the rod in K), air temperature.

𝑇𝑎 = Ambient air temperature ( 𝑇9 in K). 4. Connectors: The connectors link the thermocouples to the
service unit. They ensure the temperature readings are ac-
The average radiative heat transfer coefficient 𝐻𝑟 is obtained
curate.
using the following relationship:
Before starting, the voltage control is set to its minimum,
𝑇𝑠4 − 𝑇𝑎4
(︃ )︃
𝐻𝑟 = 𝜎𝜖 𝐹 (6) and the selector switch is turned to manual mode. The setup is
𝑇𝑠 − 𝑇𝑎 ready to go once the connections are checked and everything is
If the fin’s thermal resistance were zero, heat transfer would correctly linked to the power supply.
be maximized. However, in reality, resistance causes a tempera-
ture drop along the fin, reducing heat transfer. To account for this, 4. SETUP AND PROCEDURE
fin efficiency is defined as the ratio of actual heat transfer to the 1. The HT15 fin is mounted alongside the HT10XC service
ideal heat transfer if the entire fin were at the base temperature. unit on a stable surface, ensuring it is away from external
Fin efficiency is given by: heat sources and airflow disturbances.

̇ tanh(𝑚𝐿) 2. The thermocouples are inserted into the designated sockets

𝑄fin = 𝜂adiabatic,tip𝑄̇ fin,max = (7)
𝑚𝐿 on the service unit, ensuring proper labeling for accurate
The temperature distribution along the fin is given by: data collection.

𝑇 (𝑥) − 𝑇∞ cosh(𝑚(𝐿 − 𝑥)) 3. To find the surface temperature of the fin, the first and last
= (3) thermocouples are located at 25mm intervals, while the rest
𝑇𝑏 − 𝑇∞ cosh(𝑚𝐿)
are situated at 50mm intervals. One more thermocouple is
The total heat loss from the rod is given by: used to record the ambient air temperature (assuming the
fin is insulated at the other end). Assume that the thermal
𝑄tot = 𝐻 𝐴𝑠 (𝑇𝑠 − 𝑇𝑎 ) (4) conductivity of brass is constant along the length.

where 𝐻 is the combined heat transfer coefficient due to 4. The HT10XC Service Unit is turned on, and the voltage is
natural convection and radiation: set to 10 V.

𝐻 = 𝐻 𝑐 + 𝐻𝑟 5. Temperature readings from all nine thermocouples are taken

at 3-minute intervals until a steady state is reached in the fin.
and 𝐴𝑠 = 𝜋𝐷 𝐿 is the surface area of the rod. (Assume that the heat loss by the fin to the surroundings is
negligible.)

2 Copyright © 2025 by ASME

5. EXPERIMENTAL DATA 7. RESULTS
Dimensions of the fin:
𝐻𝑐 = 7.98 W/m2 K
• Length: 0.35 m
𝐻𝑟 = 6.802 W/m2 K
𝐻exp = 𝐻𝑐 + 𝐻𝑟 = 14.782 W/m2 K
• Diameter (𝐷): 0.01 m

𝑄̇ fin,exp = ℎ𝐴𝑠 (𝑇𝑠 − 𝑇𝑎 ) = 14.782 × 1.099 × 10−2 × 12.95 = 2.144 W

• Perimeter (𝑃) = 𝜋𝐷 = 0.0314 m
𝑄̇ max = ℎ𝐴𝑠 (𝑇𝑏 − 𝑇𝑎 ) = 14.782 × 1.099 × 10−2 × 24.6 = 3.995 W
• Surface area (𝐴𝑠 ): 1.099 × 10−2 m2 𝑄̇ w/o fin = ℎ𝐴𝑐 (𝑇𝑏 − 𝑇𝑎 ) = 14.782 × 7.85 × 10−5 × 24.6 = 0.0285 W

• Cross-sectional area (𝐴𝑐 ): 7.85 × 10−5 m2 ̇

𝑄fin,exp 2.144
𝜂fin,exp = = = 0.5366 (or 53.66%)
̇
𝑄max 3.995
Radiation Properties: ̇
𝑄fin,exp 2.144
𝜉fin,exp = = = 75.22
̇
𝑄w/o fin 0.0285
• Stefan’s constant (𝜎): 5.67 × 10−8 W/m2 K4
Figure 1 represents the observation taken for each time interval
of 3 minutes until the fin attained a steady; the graph shows
• Emissivity (𝜖): 1 how the Temperature varied throughout the fin with time. Figure
2 represents how Temperature varied with each position of the
extended condition until it attained a steady state. As we can see,
• View factor (𝐹): 1
it differs linearly after an amount of time.

Values from the thermocouples were noted, and the data set
was represented in a table (Table 1). All temperature values are
in °C, and readings were taken every 5 minutes.

6. OBSERVATIONS
Table 1 shows the variation of Temperature concerning time;
each T1 to T8 refers to the distance of 5 cm from the base where
the thermocouple T1 is connected very close to the base, and T9
is the farthest from the base.

Time T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9
FIGURE 1: TEMPERATURE VS. TIME GRAPH FOR EACH STA-
0 30 30.1 30.9 29.8 29.2 30.2 29.6 30.3 30.6 TION (5 CM DISTANCE)
3min 38.9 35.1 32.9 30.6 29.4 30.3 29.7 30.3 30.7
6min 43.6 38.9 35.5 32.4 30.4 30.8 30 30.5 30.6
9min 46.7 41.7 37.7 34 31.6 31.6 30.6 30.8 30.8
12min 48.7 43.3 39.1 35.1 32.5 32.2 31.2 31.4 30.8
15min 50.3 45.5 40.2 36.1 33.2 32.4 31.8 31.7 30.8
18min 51.5 45.6 41.1 36.8 33.8 33.4 32.2 32.2 31.1
21min 52.3 46.3 41.6 37.4 34.4 33.8 32.6 32.2 30.9
24min 53 46.9 42.1 37.8 34.6 34.2 32.9 32.4 31.4
27min 53.5 47.4 42.4 38 35 34.4 33.2 32.6 31.3
30min 53.9 47.8 42.8 38.4 35.3 34.7 33.4 33 31
33min 54.3 48 42.9 38.8 35.4 34.7 33.5 32.9 31
36min 54.9 48.3 43.3 39.1 35.6 34.9 33.7 33.1 31.1
39min 55.2 48.8 43.6 39.2 35.9 35.1 33.9 33.2 31.1
42min 55.4 49 43.8 39.1 33.2 36.1 34 33.2 31
45min 55.5 49 43.8 39.3 32.7 36.1 34.2 33.2 30.9
48min 55.5 48.8 43.6 39.1 32.9 35.8 33.9 33 30.9
51min 55.4 48.9 43.6 39 32.8 35.1 35.8 33 30.9
54min 55.5 49 43.7 39.2 32.8 35.9 33.9 33.1 30.9
FIGURE 2: TEMPERATURE VS. POSITION GRAPH FOR EACH
TABLE 1: TEMPERATURE READINGS (T1 TO T9) OVER TIME. POSITION (5 CM DISTANCE) AT A PARTICULAR TIME

3 Copyright © 2025 by ASME

8. CONCLUSION
In this experiment, we successfully analyzed one- dimen-
sional heat conduction along an extended surface, focus- ing on APPENDIX B: ERROR ANALYSIS
the combined effects of natural convection and radiation. The When a quantity 𝐹 is a function of 𝑛 independent parameters
temperature distribution along the fin was recorded and plot- ted, 𝑥1 , 𝑥2 , 𝑥3 , . . . , 𝑥 𝑛 as
demonstrating a steady decline from the base to the tip. The
heat transfer coefficient was theoretically and experimentally de- 𝐹 = 𝑓 (𝑥1 , 𝑥2 , . . . , 𝑥 𝑛 )
termined using these temperature profiles. The theoretical and
experimental heat transfer coefficients were compared, highlight- and if the uncertainty in each of these independent parameters is
ing minor discrepancies due to poten- tial heat losses from the fin given by Δ𝑥𝑖 , then the uncertainty in the calculation of 𝐹 is given
tip, mountings, and thermocouples and the assumptions of negli- by: ⌜
⎷ 𝑛 (︃ )︃ 2
gible conduction. Despite these lim- itations, the results validate ∑︂ 𝜕 𝑓
the effectiveness of extended sur- faces in enhancing heat dissi- Δ𝐹 = · Δ𝑥 𝑖
𝜕𝑥𝑖
pation. This study provides valuable insights into the practical 𝑖=1

application of fins for heat transfer optimization, reinforcing their

Uncertainty in H c
importance in thermal management systems.

APPENDIX A: SAMPLE CALCULATION

|︁ |︁
|︁ 𝜕𝐻𝑐 |︁
𝑈𝐻𝑐 ,𝑇𝑠 = |︁
|︁ |︁ · 𝑈𝑇 = 0.6382 W/m2 K
Sample calculation is performed at 𝑡 = 54 minutes (steady 𝜕𝑇𝑠 |︁ 𝑠

state). |︁
|︁ 𝜕𝐻𝑐 |︁
|︁
𝑈𝐻𝑐 ,𝑇𝑎 = |︁|︁ |︁ · 𝑈𝑇 = 0.00426 W/m2 K
• Temperature Readings at 54 min:
𝑎
𝜕𝑇𝑎 |︁
|︁ |︁
|︁ 𝜕𝐻𝑐 |︁
𝑇𝑏 = 55.5◦ C = 328.65 K 𝑈𝐻𝑐 ,𝐷 = |︁|︁ |︁ · 𝑈𝐷 = 0.00259 W/m2 K
◦
𝜕𝐷 |︁
𝑇𝑠 = 44.25 C = 317.4 K
𝑇𝑎 = 30.9◦ C = 304.05 K Therefore,
√︂
• Electrical Inputs: 𝑈𝐻𝑐 = 𝑈𝐻 2
𝑐 ,𝑇𝑠
2
+ 𝑈𝐻 𝑐 ,𝑇𝑎
2
+ 𝑈𝐻 𝑐 ,𝐷
= 0.6382 W/m2 K

𝑉 = 12 V, 𝐼 = 0.36 A Uncertainty in H r
𝑄input = 𝑉 𝐼 = 12 × 0.36 = 4.32 W
|︁ |︁
• Thermal Properties:
|︁ 𝜕𝐻𝑟 |︁
𝑈𝐻𝑟 ,𝑇𝑠 = |︁
|︁ |︁ · 𝑈𝑇 = 0.06292 W/m2 K
𝑠
𝜕𝑇𝑠 |︁
−2 2 −5 2
𝑘 = 111 W/m·K, 𝐴𝑠 = 1.099 × 10 m , 𝐴𝑐 = 7.85 × 10 m |︁
|︁ 𝜕𝐻𝑟 |︁
|︁
𝑈𝐻𝑟 ,𝑇𝑎 = |︁|︁ |︁ · 𝑈𝑇 = 0.0009755 W/m2 K
𝑎
𝜕𝑇𝑎 |︁
Heat Transfer Coefficients
Therefore,
𝐻𝑐 = 8.63 W/m2 K
√︂
𝑈𝐻𝑟 = 2
𝑈𝐻 𝑟 ,𝑇𝑠
2
+ 𝑈𝐻 𝑟 ,𝑇𝑎
= 0.06293 W/m2 K
𝐻𝑟 = 5.74 W/m2 K
𝐻exp = 𝐻𝑐 + 𝐻𝑟 = 14.37 W/m2 K Total Uncertainty in H

Heat Transfer Rates √︂

𝑈𝐻 = 2 + 𝑈 2 = 0.641295115294 W/m2 K
𝑈𝐻𝑐 𝐻𝑟

𝑄̇ fin,exp = ℎ𝐴𝑠 (𝑇𝑠 − 𝑇𝑎 ) = 14.37 × 1.099 × 10−2 × 4.36 = 0.687 W

REFERENCES
𝑄̇ max = ℎ𝐴𝑠 (𝑇𝑏 − 𝑇𝑎 ) = 14.37 × 1.099 × 10−2 × 13.3 = 2.102 W [1] F.P. Incropera and D.P. DeWitt, Fundamentals of Heat and
𝑄̇ w/o fin = ℎ𝐴𝑐 (𝑇𝑏 − 𝑇𝑎 ) = 14.37 × 7.85 × 10−5 × 13.3 = 0.0150 W Mass Transfer, 7th ed., John Wiley Sons, 2011.
[2] J.P. Holman, Heat Transfer, 10th ed., McGraw-Hill, 2010.
Fin Efficiency and Effectiveness [3] Y.A., Ghajar, A.J. (2014). Heat and Mass Transfer: Fun-
damentals and Applications (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
̇
𝑄fin,exp 0.687 [4] J. B., Kruyt, N. P. and Venner, C. H. “An ex- per-
𝜂fin,exp = = = 0.327 (or 32.7%) imental study of forced convective heat transfer from
̇
𝑄max 2.102
smooth, solid spheres.” International Journal of Heat and
̇
𝑄fin,exp 0.687
𝜉fin,exp = = = 45.8 Mass Transfer Vol. 109 (2017): pp. 1059–1067. DOI
̇
𝑄w/o fin 0.0150 10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2017.02.018.

4 Copyright © 2025 by ASME