PORTABLE METHOD OF MEASURING THERMAL PROPERTIES OF CERAMIC BRICKS

Rodney Chang
Professor Vijay Modi
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Columbia University
Abstract
Thermal conductivity and thermal diffusivity are important material properties in the study of heat
transfer, and thus determining their values is vital in correctly modeling thermal behavior. The
following method is not intended to replace existing high accuracy methods, but is intended to provide
just enough accuracy to discern the difference between commonly used refractories. More importantly,
the setup is simple to fabricate, requires little specialized equipment, and is fully portable.

1. Introduction
Ceramic bricks are a ubiquitous construction material. Their properties include high
compressive strength, low cost, ease of manufacture from readily available materials, and of course,
favorable thermal properties even at high temperatures. Despite their common use in high temperature
settings, their thermal properties are not always known precisely, as the values vary depending on
composition, porosity, and other factors. The ability to measure the thermal diffusivity and conductivity
of bricks with enough accuracy to discern their insulating capability has the potential to improve
energy efficiency. Furthermore, if such a device were available in a portable, durable, and inexpensive
package, a large number of settings from undergraduate student laboratories to remote construction
sites may benefit greatly.
Therefore, an apparatus and repeatable procedure should be devised to measure accurately the
thermal properties of bricks or refractories with as little and as simple equipment as possible, all in a
portable rugged package.

2. Theory
2.1 Thermal Behavior of a Metal Block
Since metals typically have low Biot numbers under atmospheric conditions, lumped
capacitance is a reasonable assumption. In other words, the temperature within the metal object is
uniform and depends only on time. The relationship between the rate of heat addition and temperature
is:
dQ d
= mcT
dt dt
where m and c are the mass and specific heat of the metal block respectively. If the properties of the

metal are approximately constant for the temperature range of the experiment, the equation becomes:
dQ
dT
=mc
dt
dt
Assuming constant heat addition rate Qm into the metal and no convective losses, the temperature rise
of the metal block is linear.
dQ
dT
=mc
= Q m
dt
dt
dT Q m
=
dt mc
Q
T T 0= m t
mc
where T0 is the initial temperature of the metal. Since m can be easily measured and c found in tables,
Qm can be determined by using a least squares linear fit on the temperature vs. time data. If convection
were to be taken into account, then the equation becomes slightly more complicated:
dT
=Q m hAT T f
dt
Q
dT hA
hA

T = m
T
dt mc
mc mc f
hA
t
Q m
Q m mc
T T f = T 0T f
e
hA
hA
mc

where h is the convective heat transfer coefficient, A is the area exposed to convection, and Tf is the
temperature of the air. Note that after a long time (t),
T =T f

Q m
hA

which is a result from the steady state equation that balances energy input rate Qm and convective
output rate:
Q m =hAT T f

2.2 Thermal Behavior of a Refractory

Since refractories typically have much lower thermal conductivity than metals, lumped
capacitance is not a reasonable assumption. Thermal diffusivity also tends to be much lower, so semiinfinite transient analysis is used to keep time scales to a reasonable level. The equation that governs
transient conduction (assuming constant thermal conductivity) is:

q 1 T
2
T =
k t
where T is the temperature, k is the thermal conductivity, q is a constant internal heat generation rate
per unit volume, and is the thermal diffusivity. In this case q = 0, and the heat transfer is assumed to
be approximately 1-D. After these simplifications, the equation becomes:
2 T 1 T
=
x 2 t
After solving this second order PDE and applying boundary conditions (constant heat flux qs at x=0,
T=Ti at t=0 for all x, and TTi as x), the solution becomes:
2

2q t 0.5 x q x
x
T T i= s e 4 t s erfc

k
k
2 t
where Ti is the initial temperature, qs is the heat flux rate into the surface of the semi-infinite region (x
= 0), x is the distance from the surface of the region, T1 is the temperature at x1, and T2 is the
temperature at x2 In this case,
q s=

Q b
Ab

where Ab is the surface area over which Qb is applied. With two sets of temperature data (T1 and T2) at
locations x1 and x2 respectively and the time data, the equation can solved for the unknown thermal
diffusivity . Note that for the following equation, x1 should be greater than x2 (or Ti < T1 < T2 when t <
0) for best numerical results.
2
1

T 1T i
=
T 2T i

0.5 x
x
t
2 e 4 t x1 erfc 1

2 t
2

x 2

0.5
x2
t
2 e 4 t x 2 erfc

2 t

With known, thermal conductivity can also be determined:

2
2

2q s t 0.5 x
q x
x
k=
e 4 t s 2 erfc 2
T 2T i
T 2T i
2 t
Note that T2 should correspond to the location closer to the heater to minimize thermocouple error. If
the specific heat capacity is needed, it can be calculated from the thermal diffusivity and conductivity:
c=

k
, where is the density

2.3 Inverting the Semi-Infinite Equation

Solving for thermal diffusivity in the semi-infinite equation is difficult even by numeric
methods, so a simplification is introduced. First, consider the case when time is reasonably large, on the
order of 102 s. Second, assume is on the order of 10-6 m2/s and x is on the order of 10-2 m. As a result,
x
x
x
is on the order of 10-1, 4 t is on the order of 100,
is on the order of 100, erfc
e
2 t
2 t
0.5
t
and 2 is on the order of 10-2.

x
x
t 0.5
is on the order of 10-3. Though
In the end, 2 e 4 t is on the order of 10-2, and x erfc
2 t

not a completely good approximation, the equation can be greatly simplified by eliminating the
x
terms:
relatively smaller x erfc
2 t
2
2

x x
T 1T i
e 4 t
T 2T i

2
1

More importantly, the desired value can be isolated to yield the equation:

x 22 x12
T T i
4t ln 1

T 2T i

Further analysis reveals this approximation to be quite poor over the range of x1, x2, , and time
required in the experiment. Despite this fact, the equation does provide some insight in what may be a
good approximation. Rearranging terms yields:
1
t x 22 x 21
4

1
T 1T i
ln

T 2 T i

The above equation is observed to have the form:

ta 1 x 1, x 2 , where

1
T 1T i
ln

T 2T i

If a linear relationship between t and does not give a good approximation, then perhaps a general
power series may.
n

t a i x1, x 2 i
i=0

For simplicity n is set to 2, and the equation becomes quadratic. N can be increased if a quadratic does

not give a good fit.

2

ta 2 x1, x 2 a1 x 1, x 2 a 0 x 1, x 2
When a2, a1, and a0 are fitted using least-squares linear fit, the approximation is quite good; except
T 1T i
0 , the error of the approximation is less than
when the dimensionless temperature T*=
T 2T i
0.6%. Figure 2.2.1 shows the percent error of times t as a function of T*. In this particular case, x1 =
23mm and x2 = 7mm as measured from the surface with the heater. The product of and t ranges from
510-6 m2 to 110-3 m2. In other words, in order to maintain the accuracy of the approximation,
should fall between 6.2510-8 m2/s and 2.010-6 m2/s for an experiment run time of 80 s to 500 s. This
range of thermal diffusivity is sufficient for measuring most ceramics and wood.
One interesting note is that when the dimensionless temperature approaches zero, the error grows large.
T* approaching 0 implies T1 Ti and T2 > Ti, a condition that occurs early in the experiment. However,
this mathematical error is greatly overshadowed by the error of the thermocouples, which can be as
large as 1.1 C. As a result of hardware limitations, T* may not have the correct sign, so data from this
region is unusable and the approximation error is of little concern.

Figure 2.3.1: Percent Error of Alpha*time vs. Dimensionless Temperature (x1=0.023m, x2=0.007m)
The values of a2, a1, and a0 are a nonlinear function of x1 and x2, so different x values result in slightly
different curves. If the equation were intended to be completely generalized, this variation would be a

problem. However, x1 and x2 can be chosen at the users discretion as long as those positions exhibit a
reasonable temperature rise in order to minimize thermocouple error. The following table lists
recommended sets of x1 and x2 and their corresponding coefficients a2, a1, and a0 for different sample
materials. These points were chosen based on locations where significant temperature rise is expected
after assuming a reasonable thermal diffusivity.
Table 2.3.1: List of Recommended Measurement Points
Thermocouple position as measured from Corresponding coefficients a2, a1, and a0 for
brick surface
curve of best fit
Material

x1 [m]

x2 [m]

a2

a1

a0

wood

0.015

0.005

7.892010-5

-5.558310-5

-6.888710-7

wood

0.017

0.005

1.137510-4

-7.321610-5

-7.387710-7

Insulating
brick

0.019

0.006

1.337710-4

-8.963910-5

-8.155210-7

Insulating
brick

0.020

0.006

1.552310-4

-1.003010-4

-8.355810-7

Common
brick

0.021

0.007

1.554910-4

-1.075510-4

-8.774210-7

Common
brick

0.023

0.007

2.033510-4

-1.314410-4

-9.102010-7

3. Approach and Justification

In order to find the thermal properties of the refractory, observations must be made on how it
reacts to heat addition or a temperature gradient. An electric heater is not the most accurate method, but
it is the simplest and least expensive.
The acquired heater is an electrical resistance type that plugs into a 120V 60 Hz wall outlet. The
one bit of information known about the heater is that its rate of output is constant. Nothing is known
about its temperature. Therefore, determining the heat flux rate into the refractory is an important
boundary condition in solving the transient heat conduction equation and by extension, finding the
thermal properties. The geometry of the heater is a nearly flat plate with sides 52mm by 53mm and
maximum thickness of 4.7mm. Heat escapes from both sides of the heater. Simply attaching the heater
to the refractory would mean heat loss to the ambient air. This loss can be quantified, but adds
unnecessary complications and uncertainty. The equation is:
Qloss =hAT heater T f
A is easy to determine, and Theater and Tf can be measured with additional thermocouples. The
convective heat transfer coefficient h is much more difficult to find and depends on Theater :
1

hL
10.0107Pr
=0.14 Ra 3 [
]
k
10.1Pr

where k is the thermal conductivity of air, L is the length of the heater, Prandtl number Pr=

, and

g B T L3
. is the thermal expansion coefficient of air, is the kinematic

viscosity, g is the gravitational constant. All air properties except are evaluated at film temperature.
All values have some associated uncertainty.
Rayleigh Number Ra=

Calculations can be greatly simplified by covering the other side of the heater with a highconductivity metal block insulated from the ambient air. With the use of an insulated metal block as a
heat sink, convection can be neglected and assuming no other heat loss, the heat flux rate Qb into the
brick can be found.
Q m
Q b= Q heater
The only material properties used in this method are the mass and specific heat of the block, reducing
the number of potential sources of error when compared to the convection approach.
Sandwiching the heater between two ceramic samples was also an option, but further research
found this setup to be more limiting and unnecessarily complicated. First, this setup required two
identical samples and a symmetrical heater in order to assume equal heat distribution. Even some
discrepancy in the thermal properties of the samples will result in a nonsymmetric temperaturedisplacement profile. In this case, the single unknown becomes two unknowns. However the thermal
properties of a metal block, if employed, can be measured once in the lab, and the block reused for all
other field measurements. In addition, the use of high-k material such as aluminum or copper as
opposed to low-k material such as another refractory allows assuming lumped capacitance, simplifying
calculations. Second, the two samples must also have matching surfaces. In other words, measurements
on the interior of cylindrical cookstove would be tedious, if not impossible.
Based on the argument above, the setup was decided as a metal-heater-refractory sandwich. The
metal and refractory are assumed to absorb all of the heater output. Only one thermocouple is need to
measure the temperature of the block, which is assumed to be uniform. At least two other
thermocouples are needed to measure temperature of the refractory, which is not uniform. See diagrams
below for potential setups for standard bricks.

Metal Block

Thermocouple 1

Electric Heater
Brick Sample
Thermocouple 2

Thermocouple 3
Figure 3.1: Potential Setup 1
Thermocouple 1

Thermocouple 3

Thermocouple 2
Figure 3.2: Potential Setup 2
The orientation of setup 2 appears to fit the semi-infinite assumption better, as it has a smaller Fourier
number than setup 1. In addition, the smaller face area may decrease non-1D behavior.

4. Assumptions
4.1 Lumped Capacitance Assumption
The metal block is assumed to be small enough and the heater output low enough such that the
temperature is roughly uniform at any given time. In other words, the Biot number of the metal
block is assumed to be small.
hL
Bi= 0.1
k
For pure aluminum k is around 240 W/(m*K), h of natural convection in air is on order of
magnitude of 101 W/(m2k), and the longest side of the medium Al block is 51 mm. Using these
numbers,
Bi=0.00210.1

As a result, lumped capacitance is not an invalid assumption. The temperature versus time
graphs observed during experiments also confirm this assumption.
4.2 1-D and Semi-infinite Assumption
The temperature gradient in the refractory directly below the center of the heater is assumed to
be nearly 1-D, but this assumption is unlikely to hold near the edges of the heater. Therefore,
the ends of the thermocouples should be aligned with the center of the heater during the
experiment. Multi-dimensional effects are potentially one of the most significant sources of
error in this experiment, but are also one of the most difficult to quantify. This is one of two
major factor limiting the run time of the experiment.
The refractory is assume to exhibit semi-infinite behavior. In other words, the Fourier number
of the brick is assumed to be small.
F 0=

t
0.05
2
L

Assuming is at most on the order of magnitude of 10-6 m2/s, time is on the order of magnitude
of 102 s, and L is on the order of magnitude of 102 mm, then
F 0=0.010.05
As a result, semi-infinite is not an invalid assumption. Maintaining a proper Fourier number is
the second major factor that limits the experiments run time.
4.3 Accuracy of Thermocouples
The absolute error of the thermocouples is rated at 1.1 C. Since the temperature difference is
used for calculations, the error is effectively doubled to 2.2 C. Thermocouple are one of the
most significant sources of error early in the experiment, but are less important with increasing
temperature rise. Thermocouple error will be detailed after discussion of results.
The time response of the thermocouples is close to negligible when considering the moderate
rate of temperature rise.
4.4 Electric Heater
The heater plugs into an unregulated standard wall outlet. As a result, it may exhibit minor
oscillatory behavior and is subject to small voltage variations, though they are unlikely to be
significant compared with other sources of error. In addition, the temperature sample rate of the
program is only 0.5 Hz. Regardless, future versions of the device should run off a battery and
voltage regulator to eliminate this possibility and increase portability.
The heat into the brick is assumed to be roughly constant. This assumption should be valid as
long as the heater's output and the thermal properties of the brick and metal block remain
roughly constant.
Since the heater area is much smaller than the face area of the brick, the heat transfer is not
completely 1-D, especially along the edges of the heater. To account for non 1-D effects, an area
larger than the heater area was used in calculations of flux. The effective heater area is assumed

to be:
Ab =l2 tw2 t
where l and w are the length and width of the heater respectively, and t is a thermal
length scale. Note that can be replaced with a value characteristic to the material.
4.5 Neglecting Convection, Radiation, and other Heat Loss
The entire output of the heater is assumed to go either into the refractory sample or the metal
block. A correction factor may be needed. For example, 5% of the output is lost to surroundings.
This factor is unlikely to be needed if the metal block is insulated.
Convection is neglected. As long as insulation is used, the temperatures are kept moderate,
and the experiment setting is neither drafty nor cold, this is a reasonable approximation.
Radiation is neglected. As long as the experiment temperatures are kept moderate, energy
losses from radiation should not be an issue.
Contact resistance is neglected. Even with thermal paste, this is likely to contribute some error.
Correction factors for each interface (heater-metal, heater-brick, thermocouple-brick, and
thermocouple-metal) should be quantified, and if needed, included.
4.6 Procedures
Cavities in the sample are assumed to have a negligible effect on the heat flow.
Theoretically, collecting data for different time intervals should not give different results as long
as the 1-D semi-infinite model holds.
The effect of different-sized heatsinks is negligible as long as the lumped capacitance
assumption still holds.
Positioning the thermocouples is one of the most significant sources of error in the experiment,
and unlike temperature error, it does not diminish with time. For example, 1mm positioning
error at each location may result in greater than 10% error in thermal diffusivity. Positioning
error will be detailed after discussion of results.

5. Apparatus, Equipment, and Related Data

5.1 Materials and Apparatus
The following table details the materials required to construct the heatsink and set up the
experiment. The metal block must be cut so that it just covers the heater. The shape of the block should
fit the sample being measured. Costs of machine shop services are not included.
Table 5.1.1: Required Materials and Equipment
Qty.

Description

Cost

2024 Al alloy block (1 by 2 by 3)

$30.89

Foil-faced bubble-wrap insulation (24" wide, 25 roll length)*

$33.85

Electric foil heater (40 W)

$32.00

J-type thermocouples (1/16 diameter, 30 AWG solid wire)

$66.00

High conductivity thermal paste

$9.99

Masonry drill bits (1/8 diameter, 3 long)

$6.06

Portable drill

$150.00

Portable drill press

$50.00

Data acquisition card with at least 3 channels

varies

Computer with data acquisition software

varies

Data acquisition program

$0.00

Voltage source

varies
Total:

$378.79

*This item provides much more than what is required to shield the Al block, but is the smallest
amount available for purchase

5.2 Constructing the heatsink

Cut the small metal block so that it just covers the heater surface. Drill a hole in one side of the
block. The diameter should be just large enough to accommodate a thermocouple. The end of the hole
should be at the center of the block. Measure the length, width, height, and mass of the metal block.
Wrap five sides of the block with insulation, including the side with the hole. The uninsulated side will
be in contact with the heater.
Table 5.2.1: Metal Block Measurements
Al Alloy

Length

Width

Height

Mass

51 mm

42 mm

24 mm

138 g

5.3 Procedure
1.) Measure length, width, height, and mass of brick samples.
2.) Drill two holes in the refractory sample based on values found in table 2.3.1. The diameter should
be large enough to accommodate the thermocouples but as small as possible. Depth should be at least
half the heater width and ideally half the brick width. In other words, the tips of the thermocouple
should be directly below the center of the heater, which should rest fully on the brick. The center of the
holes should remain constant with respect to the brick surface. See figure 3.1 or 3.2 for illustrations.
3.) Apply small amount of thermal paste to both sides of heater, to the sample surface, to the
uninsulated metal surface, and to the tips of the thermocouples. Insert the thermocouples into
previously drilled holes.
4.) Plug in the heater and allow it to reach steady state. The heater should not be touching the brick or

metal block.
5.) Place the heater on brick, place the heatsink on the heater, and start the program
6.) The program will stop by itself.
7.) If the program displays NaN, then the number of skipped points needs to be increased and the
experiment rerun after the setup cools. NaN indicates the program is trying to take the natural
logarithm of a negative T*, implying little temperature rise compared to error in one of the
thermocouples.

Table 5.3.1: Refractory Sample Measurements

Length

Width

Height

Mass

x2

x1

Refractory 1

225 mm

114 mm

63 mm

3.4 kg

7 mm

23 mm

Sample 1

192 mm

92 mm

32 mm

1.2 kg

7 mm

23 mm

Sample 2

192 mm

92 mm

31 mm

1.2 kg

6 mm

21 mm

Cookstove

6 mm

20 mm

6. Results and Discussion

6.1 Results of Refractory 1
The first sample to be tested was refractory brick 0.225m by 0.114m by 0.063m. The smallest
possible holes were drilled at 0.007m and 0.023m from the top surface. Due to the materials hardness,
standard masonry bits were used. 27 tests spread over several weeks were performed to determine the
experiments repeatability. The following 2 figures show the results.

Alpha vs Mean Temperature at x1

1.00E-06
9.00E-07

Thermal Diffusivity (m^2/s)

8.00E-07
7.00E-07
6.00E-07
5.00E-07
4.00E-07
3.00E-07
2.00E-07
1.00E-07
0.00E+00
35

37

39

41

43

45

47

49

51

53

55

Mean Temperature at x1 (C)

Figure 6.1.1: Thermal Diffusivity vs Mean Temperature at x1, Refractory 1

The mean thermal diffusivity is 6.81.1 10-7 m2/s. Based on the graph, the thermal diffusivity appears
to be inversely related to the mean temperature at x1. Though the temperature dependence of thermal
properties on temperature is not surprising, the degree of the dependence is. Normally, material
properties vary significantly over a range of hundreds of degrees, not tens. Note that the smallest
available masonry bits were 1/8 in diameter, which is twice the size of the thermocouples. As a result,
the thermocouples had a 1/16 (1.6mm) range of movement. This error may be partially responsible for
the large variance.
k vs Mean Temperature at x1
1.6

Thermal Conductivity (W/mK)

1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
35

37

39

41

43

45

47

Mean Temperature at x1 (C)

49

51

53

55

Figure 6.1.2: Thermal Conductivity vs Mean Temperature at x1, Refractory 1

The mean thermal conductivity is 1.10.2 W/(m*K). The thermal conductivity, which is calculated
using thermal diffusivity results, do not appear strongly dependent on the mean temperature at x1. As
the error analysis will later demonstrate, these values are strongly dependent on the error of the thermal
diffusivity.
6.2 Results of Sample 2
Sample 2 was only slightly different from refractory 1. Both had similar compositions and about
the same density: 2.1 to 2.2 g/cm3. Not surprisingly, the results of sample 2 are similar to that of
refractory 1. Unfortunately both also exhibit large variances most likely due to the same reasons. The
mean thermal diffusivity is 9.11.1 10-7 m2/s, and the mean thermal conductivity is 0.870.09 W/
(m*K).

Thermal Diffusivity of Sample 2

1.20E-06

alpha [m^2/s]

1.00E-06
8.00E-07
6.00E-07
4.00E-07
2.00E-07
0.00E+00
0

Run

Figure 6.2.1: Thermal Diffusivity, Sample 2

Thermal Conductivity of Sample 2

1.2

k [W/m/K]

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0

Run

Figure 6.2.2: Thermal Conductivity, Sample 2

6.3 Results of Cookstove 1
The third specimen tested was a cookstove designed for developing nations and with an
optimized price-to-performance ratio. The first noticeable difference between this sample and the
previous two was the density and strength of the material; it was much lighter (around 0.75 g/cm3) and
weaker (fingernails could leave a mark), leading to the conclusion that it was more porous. The tests
appear to support this hypothesis. Both thermal diffusivity and conductivity were significantly lower
than the first two.

Thermal Diffusivity of Cookstove

alpha [m^2/s]

4.00E-07
3.50E-07
3.00E-07
2.50E-07
2.00E-07
0

Run

Figure 6.3.1: Thermal Diffusivity of Cookstove 1

The mean thermal diffusivity is 3.00.1 10-7 m2/s. The variance in the thermal diffusivity is much
lower for this sample than either of the previous ones. Values only differed from the mean by about

5%. This observation is likely attributed to the fact that the material could be drilled with regular drill
bits, which allowed more precise sizing of the holes.

Thermal Conductivity of Cookstove

0.25

k [W/m/K]

0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0

Run

Figure 6.3.2: Thermal Conductivity of Cookstove 1

The mean thermal conductivity is 0.190.02 W/(m*K). The thermal conductivities showed as much
variance as the first two experiments.
6.4 Results of Cookstove 2
The fourth specimen was another cookstove, and like the third, it was noticeably different from
the bricks. The stove consisted of a metal shell filled with crushed vermiculite. Measurement was
complicated by the granular nature of the ceramic. Credit goes to E. Lebwohl and Jr. Kanu for
extending this method for testing granular materials. They fabricated a metal-heater-container setup
that mirrored the metal-heater-refractory setup.

alpha [m^2/s]

Thermal Diffusivity of Cookstove 2

1.80E-06
1.60E-06
1.40E-06
1.20E-06
1.00E-06
8.00E-07
6.00E-07
4.00E-07
2.00E-07
0.00E+00
0

Run

Figure 6.4.1: Thermal Diffusivity of Cookstove 2

10

k [W/(m*K)]

Thermal Conductivity of Cookstove 2

0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0

10

Run

Figure 6.4.2: Thermal Conductivity of Cookstove 2

The mean thermal diffusivity is 1.00.3 10-6 m2/s, and the mean thermal conductivity is 0.130.03 W/
(m*K). Both values are higher than expected. Thermal diffusivity was estimated to be on the order of
10-7 m2/s and k was expected to be 0.06 W/(m*K). The difference may be attributed to the thermal
properties of the container, which had a conductivity one order of magnitude higher than vermiculite.

7. Error Analysis
The thermal diffusivity error can be quantified by their sources: inverting the semi-infinite
equation, thermocouple measurement, and thermocouple positioning. The error from inverting the
semi-infinite equation has already been addressed for the case of x1 = 23mm and x2 = 7mm, and other
cases exhibit similar error curves. This section will mainly discuss the last two sources of error as well
as the thermal conductivity error. The following graphs pertain specifically to refractory 1, but can be
generalized to the other specimens.
7.1 Thermocouple Measurement Error
The manufacturer of the thermocouples quote the error as being 1.1 C for the temperature
ranges in question. They do not specify whether it is random or systematic. If the error is systematic,
then its influence is negligible since only the temperature difference is used in calculations. If the error
is random, then its influence may be significant. Due to the complexity of the equations, analytic
solutions are difficult, so numeric methods are applied. The following figure details a simulation of
random error for each point in an experiment.

Figure 7.1.1: Thermocouple Random Error

As the figure shows, the error can be quite large, especially in the beginning of the experiment when
temperatures are low. However after numerous simulations, the mean error over points not near T* = 0
is seldom greater than 2%. In addition, actual experiments do not show the kind of noise expected from
large random errors. In other words, most of the error is likely systematic rather than random.
7.2 Thermocouple Positioning Error
Since the holes drilled into the bricks were much larger than the thermocouple diameter, their
positioning is less than precise. The following table shows the four worst case scenarios for positioning
error of 1mm.

Figure 7.2.1: Thermocouple Positioning Error

The large error due to positioning is a direct result of the characteristic thermal lengths of the samples.
Due to the insulating nature of the materials, temperature measurements must be taken close to the
heated surface. For x2 = 7mm, a 1mm absolute error is 14.3% relative error. For x1 = 23mm, a 1mm
absolute error is 4.3% relative error. Since the errors are dependent, it is reasonable to assume 18.6%
overall relative error at worst, which seems to translate to a one-to-one ratio between thermal
diffusivity error and the two extremes of the four curves. Note that the positioning error is greatest
when the x1 and x2 are off in opposite directions.
7.3 Error in Thermal Conductivity
Since the thermal conductivities were calculated from the mean of the thermal diffusivity
results, the former is likely to be sensitive to errors in the latter. The following 2 figures show roughly a
one-to-one ratio between the two errors.

Figure 7.3.1: Error of Thermal Conductivity, 10% Error in Diffusivity

Figure 7.3.2: Error of Thermal Conductivity, 20% Error in Diffusivity

8. Conclusion
This method is not without limitations. Precise positioning of thermocouples is absolutely
required but not always possible. Results from the sample like the last cookstove may not be complete
since the metal shell was not considered. However, the project succeeded in accomplishing its goals.
All apparatus are portable in their present state or can be modified to be portable. None of the required
instruments are complex, specialized, delicate, or exceedingly expensive. The results are repeatable for
a wide variety of samples. The measurements clearly determined the material of the cookstoves,
especially the second, as a superior insulator when compared to the bricks.

References
1. Lienhard, John H. and Lienhard, John H., A Heat Transfer Textbook, 3rd ed., Phlogiston Press,
Cambridge, 2008.

Acknowledgments
1. Vijay Modi, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Columbia University

Special Thanks To
1. Emma Lebwohl, Undergraduate student of Mechanical Engineering, Columbia University
2. Jr Kanu, Columbia University