Extended Fin Analysis

Formal Report
Unit Operations Lab
Section 802 Group C

By:
Jack Favazza
Jacob Beach
Brendan Cross
Benita Nassali

13 November 2018
Abstract
This experiment was designed to empirically determine the convection coefficient, h,
for a fin in this case a rectangular aluminum rod. A temperature profile in the apparatus was
employed to obtain the necessary experimental data required to calculate, h and heat transfer
rate, Q.

Introduction

Heat transfer can be defined as the process by which there is a transfer of energy from
one location to other, provided a proper temperature gradient exists. This transfer can be caused
by the various mechanisms like conduction, convection and radiation. Conduction can be defined
as the transfer of energy from a higher temperature region to lower temperature region by means
of the free electron movement and also the lattice vibration. Convection is defined as heat energy
transferred between a surface and a moving fluid with different temperatures (McCabe, 2005).
Fins increase the surface area of a solid, and because the rate of heat transfer is directly
related to the surface area, fins consequently increase the rate of heat transfer from that solid
(Geankoplis, 2018). It is very important for engineers to have accurate and precise convection
coefficient values because these values are used to calculate heat transfer rates that are vital in
the design process.
Heat from the steam pipe or hot water supplies heat to the fin, and the steam or hot water
is finally discharged at the outlet. The heat supplied to the base is conducted in the z direction by
the fin and thermocouples that are placed along the length of the fin allow temperature
measurements to be taken at various distance intervals. Figure 1 gives a typical steady-state
temperature profile for the fin pictured.

Figure 1: Schematic Drawing of Extended Fin Experiment

The figure also shows a corresponding steady-state temperature profile.

 The heat transfer characteristics of fins are known as conduction-convection systems. The
thermal energy is conducted away from a steam pipe into the base and along the fin length. This
energy is then taken away by surrounding fluid if the environment is at a lower temperature than
the base temperature (free convection).
Equation 1: Conductive Heat Transfer for Steady One-Dimensional Transfer

𝑑𝑇
𝑄 = −𝑘𝐴
𝑑𝑥

Where,
Q = rate of heat transfer (BTU/hr)
𝑑𝑇
= temperature gradient in the direction of heat flow
𝑑𝑥

K = thermal conductivity (BTU/hr.ft2.°F)

A = area normal to the direction of heat flow (ft2)

Convective heat transfer rate can be given as

Equation 2: Convective Heat Transfer Rate Equation

𝑄 = ℎ𝐴(𝑇 − 𝑇∞ )

Where,
Q = rate of heat transfer (BTU/hr)
h = convective heat transfer coefficient (BTU/hr.ft2.°F)
A = area of fin (ft2)
T = temperature of the surface of the body (°F)
T∞ = bulk temperature of surrounding fluid or gas (°F)

In the case of fins, TS, varies along the fin length. An energy balance on a differential element of
length, dx, yields
 Equation 3: Energy Balance of Heat Transfer along a Fin
𝑑2 𝑇 ℎ𝑃
= (𝑇 − 𝑇∞ )
𝑑𝑥 2 𝑘𝐴

Where,
T = temperature at position, x (°F)
P= perimeter of the fin (ft)
K= thermal conductivity of the fin (BTU/hr.ft2.°F)
A= area of the fin (ft2)
In this experiment, there were three different theoretical cases in which heat transfer is observed.
The first of the cases was one where the fin was assumed to be long enough so that the
temperature of the ambient air and the temperature of the end of the fin were equal. The second
case was one where the fin was assumed to be short enough that convection losses at the end of
the fin were lost to the ambient air. The third case assumed that the end of the fin was adiabatic,
so no heat transfer between the fin and the ambient air was to be observed, and the heat transfer
was zero. These cases are used to show which modes of heat transfer are most likely to occur in
an experiment, or in everyday natural occurrences.

Apparatus and Procedure

The apparatus for this experiment, seen in Figure 1 below, was an insulated pipe through
which high pressure steam flows through. Only a small portion of the pipe isn’t insulated, which
is where the extended fin is attached. Two hoses are attached to the end of the pipe, one carrying
steam into the system and one carrying steam out into a cold-water bath. Thermocouples are
attached to the inlet of the pipe, on the extended fin, and just prior to the condensate trap to
measure the temperature. A pressure regulator is used to control the pressure of the steam
entering the pipe, along with a pressure gage to read the pressure of the entering steam.
 Figure 2. Apparatus for extended fin experiment.

Pressure
Regulator
Pressure Gage

Thermocouple Fan

Extended Fin

Outlet Hose

Condensate Trap

Cold-Water Bath

Initial measurements of the extended fin must be taken using a ruler before proceeding
with the experiment. Then, regulate the pressure of the inlet steam to a pressure between 10-15
psi using the pressure regulator. While wearing gloves, slowly open the condensate release valve
to allow any trapped steam to exit the pipe, then close the valve. Once the steam is at an
appropriate pressure, open LabVIEW to obtain the temperature and pressure data. Ensure the
thermocouples are functioning properly by touching them to the bare pipe and getting a
consistent value from LabVIEW. Allow the system to reach steady state. Measure the mass flow
rate of the condensate over at least a 5-minute interval using a stop watch and bucket. To prevent
the condensate from evaporating, have the outlet collection bucket placed in a cold-water bath.
Place a thermocouple in one of the divets along the fin and wait for a steady temperature reading.
Once the temperature stabilizes, record the temperature and move the thermocouple to another
divet and repeat. Once all the divets, tip of the fin, and base of the fin have temperature
measurements, remove the fin and reattach it in a different direction. After all three positions
have temperature measurements, repeat the three positions with the addition of a fan cooling
them. Once all the measurements have been recorded, remove the fin and clamp from the pipe
and close off the steam valves.
Safety

In this experiment, water is the only fluid being used, in both liquid and vapor phase.
Water in the liquid phase will be cooled, which the only hazard is potential slipping due to
spillage. To prevent slipping, any split water will be mopped up. With the use of superheated
steam flowing through the pipe the fin and pipe will become very hot. This poses a burning
hazard, which can be minimized by wearing gloves when handling the steam valves and fin
(Sigma-Aldrich Corporation, 2014). In regard to personal protective equipment, close-toed
shoes, long pants, and eye protection should be worn at all times.

Standard Operating Procedure (Bowman, 2017)

Startup:
1. Using a ruler, measure the distance between each divet on the fin as well as the length
and width
2. Measure the pipes dimension using the Vernier caliper
3. Ensure the steam inlet valve is open
4. Adjust the pressure on the regulator to between 10 and 15 psi and allow the system to
reach steady state
Operation:
1. Use either thermocouple 2 or 4 to make all the fin and atmospheric temperature
measurements
2. Record the air temperature using a thermocouple
3. Record the inlet and outlet temperature using a thermocouple
4. Measure the mass flow rate of the condensate via stop watch and bucket method
5. Mount the fin in the positive x-direction (right side when facing steam outlet)
6. Allow the system to reach steady state
7. Record the temperature at the base of the fin
8. Repeat steps 3 and 4
9. Record the temperature at each divet along the fin
10. Remove the fin and allow it to cool
11. Repeat steps 8, 9, and 10 for the fin mounted in the vertical position
12. Repeat steps 8, 9, and 10 for the fin mounted in the negative x-direction
13. Repeat all steps with the addition of a fan used to cool the fin

Shutdown:
1. Close the inlet valve of the pipe
2. Remove fin from pipe
Data Analysis
The fin was angled in several different positions to determine how natural convection varied
depending on the angle of the fin. A computer program was used to measure the inlet and outlet
pressure to ensure that they remained relatively constant throughout each trial. Thermocouples
were also attached to the apparatus in order to measure the inlet temperature, outlet temperature,
ambient temperature, and the temperature of the fin. The temperature gradient was determined
by measuring the temperature of the fin at divots which were a uniform distance from each other,
as well as taking the temperature at the base and end of the fin.
The rate of heat transfer was calculated for three separate cases. The first case assumes that the
fin is infinitely long, so the temperature at the end of the fin equals the ambient temperature. The
second case assumes that the fin is short enough that there is energy lost to the surroundings by
convection. The third case assumes that the end of the fin is adiabatic, meaning that the rate of
heat transfer at the end of the fin is zero. Hypothetically, the values for Case 1 and Case 3 should
be equal because both of these cases have the rate of heat transfer at the tip of the fin equal to
zero.
The data was evaluated using graphical methods and mathematical models. The values of m
were approximated using Microsoft Excel from a plot of the distance from the base of the fin
versus the quotient of the difference between the temperature at x and the ambient temperature
and the difference between the temperature at the base of the fin and the temperature at x. The
values of m calculated from Case 1 were used in the calculations for the rate of heat transfer for
Cases 2 and 3.

Figure 3. Theta vs. Distance for Vertical Fin Towards Center Graph

Theta Versus Distance for Vertical Fin Towards Center

1.2

1
q (T-Tinf)/(To-Tinf)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2 y = 0.9108e-0.727x

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Distance from Base (m)
 Figure 4. Theta vs. Distance for Horizontal Fin Towards Center Graph

Theta Versus Distance for Horizontal Fin Towards Center

1.2

1
q (T-Tinf)/(To-Tinf)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2
y = 0.9866e-0.911x
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Distance from Base (m)

Figure 5. Theta vs. Distance for Vertical Fin Towards Wall Graph

Theta Versus Distance for Vertical Fin Towards Wall

1.2

1
q (T-Tinf)/(To-Tinf)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2
y = 0.9272e-0.807x
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Distance from Base (m)
 Figure 6. Theta vs. Distance for Fan On, Vertical Fin Towards Wall Graph

Theta Versus Distance for Fan On, Vertical Fin Towards

Wall
1.2

1
q (T-Tinf)/(To-Tinf)

0.8

0.6
y = 1.058e-2.007x
0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Distance from Base (m)

Figure 7. Theta vs. Distance for Fan On, Horizontal Fin Towards Wall Graph

Theta Versus Distance for Fan On, Horizontal Fin Towards

Wall
1.2

1
q (T-Tinf)/(To-Tinf)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2 y = 1.1153e-2.004x

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Distance from Base (m)
 Figure 8. Theta vs. Distance for Fan On, Horizontal Fin Towards Center Graph

Theta Versus Distance for Fan On, Horizontal Fin

Towards Center
1.4
1.2
q (T-Tinf)/(To-Tinf)

1
0.8
0.6
0.4 y = 1.1946e-2.822x
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Distance from Base (m)

Table 1: Values of m based on the Orientation of the Fin

Orientation of Fin and Forced Convection m (ft-1)
Vertical Fin Towards Center 0.727
Horizontal Fin Towards Center 0.911
Vertical Fin Towards Wall 0.807
Fan On, Vertical Fin Towards Wall 2.007
Fan On, Horizontal Fin Towards Wall 2.004
Fan On, Horizontal Fin Towards Center 2.822

These values for m were then used to calculate the convection coefficient, and Equation _ was
used to calculate the rate of heat transfer for case 1 from the value of m.
Equation 8: Convection Coefficient
𝑚2 𝑘𝐴
ℎ=
𝑃
Where:
h = Convection Coefficient (Btu/hr-ft2-oF)
k = Thermal Conductivity (Btu/hr-ft-oF)
A = area of face of fin (ft2)
 P = perimeter of face of fin (m)

Equation 9: Rate of Heat Transfer from Graph

𝑄 = 𝑚𝑘𝐴(𝑇0 − 𝑇∞ )

k = Thermal Conductivity (Btu/hr-ft-oF)

A = Area of face of fin (m2)
T0 = Temperature at the base of the fin (oF)
T∞ = Ambient Temperature (oF)

To ensure the accuracy of the above calculation, a mathematical model derived from Fourier’s
Law was used to calculate the rate of heat transfer from the convection coefficient that was
determined.

Equation 10: Rate of Heat Transfer Derived from Fourier’s Law

Q = √ℎ𝑃𝑘𝐴 (T0- T∞)

Table 2: Values of for Case 1 From Graph and Fourier’s Law

Vertical Horizontal Vertical Fan On, Fan On, Fan On,
Fin Fin Fin Vertical Horizontal Horizontal
Towards Towards Towards Fin Fin Fin
Center Center Wall Towards Towards Towards
Wall Wall Center
Q C1 Eqn. 5331.11 6636.43 5878.82 9058.50 8217.81 12752.09
2 (Btu/hr)
Q C1 Eqn. 5331.11 6636.43 5878.82 9058.50 8217.81 12752.09
3 (Btu/hr)

For Cases 2 and 3, the value for the convection coefficient found in Case 1 was used for the
calculation of the rate of heat transfer. For these cases, only the model derived from Fourier’s
Law was used to calculate the rate of heat transfer since the values for the convection coefficient
were already verified. The formulas for calculating the rate of heat transfer for Cases 2 and 3, the
heat transfer rates for Cases 2 and 3, and the error for the rate of heat transfer for Cases 2 and 3
are depicted below:
Equation 11: Rate of Heat Transfer for Case 2
ℎ
𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ(𝑚𝐿) +
𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ(𝑚𝐿)
𝑄 = √ℎ𝑝𝑘𝐴 (𝑇0 − 𝑇∞ ) 𝑘𝑚
ℎ
𝑐𝑜𝑠ℎ(𝑚𝐿) + 𝑠𝑖𝑛ℎ(𝑚𝐿)
𝑘𝑚

Equation 12: Rate of Heat Transfer for Case 3

𝑄 = √ℎ𝑝𝑘𝐴 (𝑇0 − 𝑇∞ ) 𝑡𝑎𝑛ℎ(𝑚𝐿)

Table 3: Q Values for Cases 2 and 3

Vertcal Fin Horizontal Vertical Fan On, Fan On, Fan On,
Towards Fin Fin Vertical Horizontal Horizontal
Center Towards Towards Fin Fin Fin
Center Wall Towards Towards Towards
Wall Wall Center
Q Case 2 4735.409 6252.004 5364.685 9222.0512 8413.984 13190.47
(Btu/hr)
Q Case 3 4815.969 5902.215 4998.216 9023.657 8185.902 12748.21
(Btu/hr)

Equation 13: Theoretical Rate of Heat Transfer Without Forced Convection

Q = (kA/L) (To- T∞)
Where:
L = length of fin (m)

Equation 14: Theoretical Rate of Heat Transfer with Forced Convection

Q = (kA/L) (To- T∞) + hA (To- T∞)
 Table 4: Error Between Experimental and Theoretical Values
Vertcal Horizontal Vertical Fan On, Fan On, Fan On,
Fin Fin Fin Vertical Horizontal Horizontal
Towards Towards Towards Fin Fin Fin
Center Center Wall Towards Towards Towards
Wall Wall Center
Theoretical 5888.34 6518.15 6121.82 8433.76 7647.47 13859.06
Q (Btu/hr)
Q Case 1 5331.11 6636.43 5878.82 9058.50 8217.81 12752.09
(Btu/hr)
Q Case 2 4668.92 6252.00 5364.69 9222.05 8413.98 13190.47
(Btu/hr)
Q Case 3 4327.82 5902.22 4998.22 9023.68 8185.90 12748.21
(Btu/hr)
Percent Error 9.463 1.815 3.969 7.408 7.458 7.987
Case 1
Percent Error 20.71 4.083 12.37 9.347 10.02 4.824
Case 2
Percent Error 26.50 9.449 18.35 6.995 7.041 8.015
Case 3

Results Discussion
The following values for the convection heat transfer coefficient, h, were found taking
into consideration the different theoretical cases that were observed in this experiment.

Table 5. Values of h determined with natural convection

Natural Convection
Case 1 Case 2 Case3
Vertical Fin Towards
Center (Btu/hr-ft^2-°F) 13.6271 7.800903 0.00042
Horizontal Fin Towards
Center (Btu/hr-ft^2-°F) 13.63413 11.8713 0.000639
Vertical Fin Towards Wall
(Btu/hr-ft^2-°F) 14.11238 9.599194 0.000516
 Table 6. Values of h determined with forced convection

Forced Convection
Case 1 Case 2 Case3
Vertical Fin Towards Wall
(Btu/hr-ft^2-°F) 39.39951 64.20388 0.00354
Horizontal Fin Towards Wall
(Btu/hr-ft^2-°F) 38.86991 60.52812 0.003338
Horizontal Fin Towards Center
(Btu/hr-ft^2-°F) 44.7339 96.00918 0.005294

In every case of the experiment, the value of the convection heat transfer coefficient
increased during forced convection in a way such that the velocity of the air moved by the fan
was directly proportional to the value of h. The effect of forced convection caused a much more
significant increase in the value of h than the angle at which the fin was positioned. The
difference in temperature played a large role in the fluctuation of the temperature gradient, which
greatly affected the value of h. When the difference between the temperature of the fin and the
temperature of the air was large, the temperature gradient fell at a larger magnitude, which
caused a larger drop in the value of h.
For Case 1, the circumstances are that with a fin of infinite length, the temperature at the
end of the fin (at infinite length) should be equal to the temperature of the ambient air. In such a
case, the value of the convection heat transfer coefficient should be as low as possible so that the
amount of heat does not fall to a minimum somewhere between the base and end of the fin. In
such a case, the value of h calculated with the fin vertical towards the center exhibiting natural
convection is the best value of h for Case 1. For Case 2, it is assumed that at the end of the fin,
where the end of the fin is close to the base of the fin, there are significant convection losses
from the fin to the surrounding air. In this case, the convection heat transfer coefficient would
need to be as high as possible in value. The best value of h for Case 2 is then the value observed
for the Horizontal Fin Towards the Center exhibiting forced convection. For Case 3, it is
assumed that there is no heat loss at the end of the fin, so this would clarify that the value of h
must be as low as possible so that the value of the heat transfer rate is at a minimum at the end of
the fin. For Case 3, the best value calculated for h would be the Vertical Fin Towards the center
exhibiting natural convection. These assumptions are made under the consideration that the
thermal conductivity is uniform throughout the entire fin.
If we compare figure 8 to figure 9, there are some similarities to the curves that are
produced from the data collected.
 Figure 9. Fan on, Horizontal Fin Toward Center (data in y-axis from right side of Eq. 17
from lab manual) (Howley, 2018)

Fan on, Horizontal Fin Toward Center,

(compared data graph)
1.2
y = 0.8964e-2.286x
(T - T∞)/(T0 - T∞)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Distance from base (ft)

Directly, it is clear that the values for m are the closest of any of the other cases or
positioned angles of the fin, having a percent error in the value of m of about 11 percent. By
using the corresponding value of h from Case 1, and the right side of equation 17 from the lab
ℎ𝑃
manual, it can be shown that because there is a similar value of m, and recalling that 𝑚 = √𝑘𝐴,
then mathematically, the values of h in each case must be close to equal.
For all of the trials where the fan was on and the fin was facing or pointing towards the
wall, the calculations of rate of heat transfer for Case 3 yielded the lowest error. This is likely
due to the fact that forced convection played a less significant role in the loss of heat from the fin
since there was less area for the air to travel under the fin when the fin was facing the wall. For
the trial where the horizontal fin was pointing towards the center of the room, Case 2 yielded the
lowest error. This is likely because the air from the fan had more area to travel under when the
fin was pointing towards the center of the room. Additionally, for all of the cases where the fan
was on, the values of Q for cases 1 and 3 were much closer than they were for the cases where
the fan was off. This is likely due to the fin used during this experiment was much larger than the
fins used for past experiments, which impacted the calculation for the value for Case 3, but not
the value for Case 1. For the trials where the fan was off, the Q values for Case 1 yielded the
least error. This is likely the case because convection played a much less significant role in the
heat loss of the fin when the fan was off than when the fan was on.
References:
1. McCabe, W. L.; Smith, J. C.; Harriott, P. Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering, Seventh
ed.; McGraw-Hill: New York, 2005.
2. Geankoplis, C. J.; Hersel, A. A.; Lepek, D. H. Transport Processes and Separation Process
Principles; Pearson: Boston, 2018.
3. Water: MSDS No. 7732-18-5 [Online Catalog]; Sigma-Aldrich Corporation: Americas
Region, (revised: Feb 24, 2014), (accessed: Nov 10, 2018).
4. Bowman, Fornaciari, Gerace, Wakim. “Unit Operations Laboratory Extended Fin Formal
Report” Lowell: University of Massachusetts Lowell. 2017. Print
5. Howley, Maureen. Unit Operations Lab Manual. Lowell: University of Massachusetts Lowell,
2018. 3. Print.