Thermal Lab Report

Team 26: Ryan Hamilton

April 11, 2015

Contributors:
Brent Oursler
Keya Gemechu
Chris Barnes
Chris Chu
Scott Gilmour

Executive Summary
We understand that the majority of energy losses within the DW272 are
converted to heat. By investigating the sources of heat during steady state
operation, our team was able to estimate both the locations and causes of
these losses. We were also able to examine the current thermal
management system of the DW272 and its characteristics. We found that.

Table of Contents

Calculating Heat Load of the DW272

In order to measure the temperatures at the various positions of the
DW272, we employed temperature dependent resistors, or thermistors.
These resistors have a voltage drop across them that increases linearly with
temperature within the voltage and temperature range we were measuring.
Therefore, we were able to calibrate each thermistor with only two
temperatures: room temperature and a known water temperature inside a
beaker. Voltage was supplied using an Arduino Uno, which also measured the
voltage across the thermistor. Because this voltage was encoded using a 10bit encoder, our outputs were not the actual voltage, but a relative value
from 0-1023. Converting this to an actual voltage was not necessary for our
experiment. Voltage drop was recorded for both room temperature and water
temperature, and the sensitivity for each thermistor was determined. We
recognize that because we used a voltage divider to measure the
temperature, the sensitivity will be slightly nonlinear even if the change in
resistance vs temperature is linear, but in the range that our data was
recorded, we determined this effect to be negligible.
The Arduino sketch that was used gathered data for all thermistors at
one-second intervals over a range of 10 minutes for both heating a cooling.
In our haste to collect data on time, we did not use the provided Arduino
sketch for the test we performed. Instead, we used the provided calibration
sketch and later manually converted our readings into temperatures. This
procedure produced the exact same results as would have been present
using the alternative sketch. This was done using the sensitivity equation we
found during thermistor calibration. A sample of our readings and
conversions can be seen in the figure below.

Figure 1-1
Because of the limited length of each thermistor wire, it was difficult to
physically connect all the wires to a single breadboard. Extra stress was put
on connections because some wires were pulled taught in order to
accommodate our conditions. This was likely the cause of the error we
experienced with our grip handle data. Due to clutter on the breadboard and
open resistor wire (figure 1-2), extra care was needed to avoid shorting wires
through contact. The exact locations and orientations of the thermistors on
the DW272 may have also not been ideally implemented in our test to
produce consistent data. Finally, the use of tape to provide contact between
the thermistor and the tool may not have been the best solution. The tape
conducted heat and may not have ensured the best contact patch for
conduction to occur.

Figure 1-2

The tool was placed in a vice and left in continuous operation mode for 10
minutes while data was recorded. After this interval, the tool was shut off and
left to cool in the vice for an additional 10 minutes. Thermistors were placed
on the various locations of the DW272 seen below.

Figure 1-3

Figure 1-4

Our test produced the results seen in the two graphs below for heating
and cooling.

Figure 1-5

Figure 1-6
As we can see from the graph, it is very likely that the data recorded
for the grip handle is inaccurate. Initially, we had attributed this fact to
inconsistent thermistor contact with the grip handle. However, upon further
inspection, we were able to rule this theory out because of the massive and
immediate temperature spikes observed. It is most likely that this thermistor
suffered from a floating ground wire at the base of the sensor. Therefore, we
cannot confidently use this variable in our temperature analysis.
As seen from the cooling curves, we cannot confidently say that any of
the temperatures reached a steady state value during our 10-minute cooldown period. The only set of data that may be up for debate is the outlet
airflow. Although it appears to begin to level off as it nears the end of the
trial, there is too much noise in our data to decisively declare this. Therefore,
we can conclude that it takes longer than 10 minutes for the DW272 to
return from steady-state operating conditions to non-steady-state operating
conditions.

The heating curves, on the other hand, do appear to reach steady state
values. The least aggressive of these curves was the gear case. Assuming an
exponential relationship and first order system behavior, we found the time
constant () of this data to be 3.01 min. After 5, the temperature should
reach a value that is 99.5% of its steady state value. Therefore, since 5 x
3.01 = 15.05 min, we cannot say that the tool completely reaches a steady
state temperature. However, at 9.03 min, the gear case will have reached
95% of its steady state value (3). Therefore, we can say since all other
measurements reached steady state values, that the DW272 is extremely
close to reaching a steady state operating temperature within our 10 min
trial.
Using the same time constant method, we were able to calculate the
time to reach steady state for each critical point. Table 1-1 shows these times
as well as the maximum temperatures that are reached.

Position

Steady State Heat Time

Max Temperature

Motor Brush
Inner Case Airflow
Airflow at Outlet
Grip Handle
Gear Case

(min)
3.67
0
8.09
N/A
15.05

(C)
32.9
26
30.2
N/A
32.1

Table 1-1
None of the cooling curves we produced reached 63% of their steady
state non-operating temperature within the trial period. Therefore, it is

impossible to confidently determine the time required for them to reach

steady state.
The locations we measured do not reach maximum temperatures at
the same time. This is due to the differences in heat flow through the tool. In
some positions, heat is transmitted primarily through convection, while
others are heated primarily through conduction. Convection heating occurs
more quickly in our experiment for some positions because the energy is
delivered directly to the thermistors through airflow, as opposed to indirectly
through convection and then conduction in another component. Our data for
the airflow at the outlet shows a rapid increase and therefore reflects this
idea. Likewise, the outside of the gear case experiences a longer heating
period because the thermal energy must first be transmitted through the
entire gear case. The motor brush is heated very quickly because the
thermistor is in direct contact with a part (brush) that is being supplied
thermal energy through friction. The airflow at the inner case immediately
has thermal energy removed from it by the forced airflow of the fan.
Therefore, it does not show a noticeable rise above room temperature.
After the tool is shut off, we see an increase in temperature at all
critical points of the tool. This phenomenon occurs because the fan is no
longer removing thermal energy from the tool. Although no new thermal
energy is being produced, the energy that has already been stored by
internal components is dissipated to the critical points we measured.
Although the amplitudes and rates vary, the motor brush, airflow at the
outlet, and the gear case all experience an abrupt exponential increase in
temperature followed by a much slower exponential decrease. Since the
motor brush has a much larger increase than any other component and is in
direct contact with the motor, we can infer that the thermal energy in the
motor is most likely much higher than the other components, and that the
thermal management system has the largest effect on the motor and
brushes. The airflow at the inner casing experiences a gradual, but steady,
linear increase in temperature after the tool is turned off. This implies that a

very small amount of thermal energy is transmitted to this part of the

DW272.
In order to calculate the thermal energy removed through airflow, we
first measured the speed of the air at the outlet channel. We used a plenum
with inlet and outlet areas greater than the tool outlet to prevent from
slowing the air. The velocity was measured using an anemometer of equal
channel area (0.000804 m2) and found to be 9.4 m/s. The mass flow rate was
then calculated using the equation:
m
air
m
air

V air x A plenum x air

= (9.4m m/s) x (0.000804 m2) x (1.151 kg/ m3)

m
air

= 0.00870 kg/s

From there, we calculated the total heat load using the specific heat of air at
the mean temperature of the ambient air and the air leaving the tool. The
following equation was used:
Q =

air ,
T air ,out T
air x c p ,air
m

Q = (0.00870 kg/s) x (1007 J/kg-K) x (303.2 K - 299 K)

Q =

36.8 W

This heat load is representative of the energy that is removed from the tool
via forced convection by the fan. Because the tool locations we measured
are no longer increasing temperature at steady state, and assuming the law
of energy conservation is valid, the magnitude of electrical energy being put
into the tool at the cord must be equal to the energy leaving the tool. No
energy is being used to drive a screw, and the rotation of the motor does no
net work. Therefore, the energy must be dissipated in other forms. We now
know that roughly 36.8 W of that energy is converted to thermal energy and
leaves through the outlets surrounding the fan.

Energy Losses as Heat

Heat Transfer Coefficient for the Brushes

In order to analyze the amount energy loss are coming from the brushes and how it is
converted to heat we need to look at the heat coefficient of the brushes. The heat transfer
coefficient will tell us how well heat energy is transferred to or from a part, in this case from the
two brushes into the air. The properties of the heat transfer coefficient are dependent on whether
the airflow is turbulent or laminar. In order to determine the airflow properties, we will have to
first look at the value of the Reynolds number which is dependent on density, viscosity, velocity
of air and the area where it flows.
In order to determine the velocity of air around the brushes, we have decided to use the
law of conservation of mass, which states mass flowrate going into the system will be similar to
mass flowrate out of the system.
=out
=V A
It is safe to assume changes in density between flowrate going into the system and
flowrate leaving the system. The density of air flowing in at measured temperature of 26 degree
Celsius (299 Kelvin) is 1.1614 kg/m3. As the air flows out, at a maximum temperature of 37
degree Celsius (306 Kelvin), the density of the air ends up being 1.14143 kg/m3. The ratio of
density-in to density-out is very close to 1, so it is ok to disregard it in the conservation of mass
equation.
V A plenum =V outA out
A plenum =0.00084 m

V =9.4 m/s
A out =0.000439 m2 We get
Reynolds number D=

V out =17.128 m/s ***

VD ( 1.1614 )( 17.128 )(0.006)

=
=6.466103
7

184.610

The result of our Reynold value shows us the airflow within that are of the system is Turbulent
6.466103 >2300
Nusselt
4

Nu D =0.0296 5DPr 1 /3 For turbulent flow & 0.6 Pr 60

Pr=0.70623
4

Nu D =0.0296(6.466103 )D5 0.706231 /3

Nu D =29.475
Nu D =
k =0.026

hl
k

W
mK

Effective length, which is length of the brush along the direction of air-flow is 0.0127 m.
h=

( 29.475 )(0.026)
W
=60.316 2
0.0127
m k

Theoretical heat load of the brushes:

Q brush=h A brush (T brushT air ,mean )
Qbrush=60.316( .0127.006 )(32.926.0 )=0.0317 W
In section 1D, we calculated the overall theoretical heat load of the entire system to be 36.8
Watts. After analyzing the brushes we found the calculated heat load on the brush to 0.0317
Watts. If we recognize two brushes per motor, we can say the total heat load of the brushes
would be 0.0635 Watts. Therefore, we can concluded the overall heat generation coming from
the two brushes amounts to be 0.08614%. We have made multiple assumptions when calculating
the heat generation of the brushes as well as the overall heat generation of the system. For the
brushes, we made approximate measurements to find the area in which air is flowing assuming
this could have caused us calculate the outlet velocity which would have gave us the wrong value
of Reynolds number. Another assumption we have made is the free stream temperature of the air
flowing by the brush is the average of the inlet and outlet temperatures of the tool (air is halfway
heated by the time it reaches the brushes). This temperature assumption is not accurate because
the air in that area could have been caused of other sources, such as the switch. Since this
temperature is used to calculate the heat load in the brushes, this could have also given us
inaccurate value.