MECHANICAL PRINCIPLES

(ENGD1005)-
MEASUREMENT OF
THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY
by Daniel watts: p16216250

LAB TUTOR: MAHMUD MUSTAFA

 Thermal conductivity measurement

Introduction
The conductivity in materials is its ability to pass energy to and from an inlet to an outlet of
a device or object. There are different levels of conductivity between different materials
such as certain metals like copper and steel which were used in this experiment. In addition,
there are different types of conductivity which pass different types of energy through a
device such as electrical conductivity or in this case thermal conductivity which passed
energy by means of heat transfer which was due to a certain temperature rise in a certain
length of time. Thermal conductivity has units of W/m.K (watts per meter kelvin). The
benefit of knowing what the conductivity is in a design is that it can help with quality control
purposes for example when checking the purity of feed water and drinking water by
calculating the number of ions in a solution or direct measurement of components in
process solutions. [1] In addition, the different materials which are used have different
conductivity measurements such as copper for example which has an electrical conductivity
of 58.5 (10.E6 Siemens/m) and a thermal conductivity of 401 W/m.K [2]. This therefore has
one of the highest electrical and thermal conductivities of all stainless steel, metals and
other conductive materials. Moreover, stainless steel has in comparison one of the lowest
electrical and thermal conductivities as it has an electrical conductivity which varies from
1.28 (10.E6 Siemens/m) to 1.32 (10.E6 Siemens/m) [2]. The thermal conductivity of this
metal has a range depending on the type of stainless steel which is from 14.2 W/m.k to 16.3
W/m.k [2].

Aims and objectives

The aims and objectives of this experiment are to find out what the conductivities are for
stainless steel and copper which are inside the Dewar vessel and comparing these
experimental values to the actual values to find out if they are similar and to work out the
percentage error on these vales. In addition, another aim is to find out what the different
temperatures are from the temperature of the cooling water going in to the temperature of
the cooling water going out measured in kelvin (K). This can help us to determine the
thermal conductivity from using the Fourier equation and the energy transfer to the water
for each specimen (stainless steel and copper). In addition, another aim is to compare my
results of the thermal conductivities of the two metals by producing a graph of temperature
with length and to see the difference in the gradient of the two lines produced from the two
metals as the angle/gradient of the line from the horizontal can help me to determine how
thermally conductive each metal is with a smaller angle representing the metal being more
thermally conductive whereas a larger angle would mean that it Is a better insulator.
Background
In addition, the equations and formulas used in this experiment were the equation for
KA (∆ T )
conductivity which is =m∙ c p(Tout-Tin), the area equation A=πr2 and the equation for
L
experimental−theoretical
the percentage error which is %error= .100 . [3]
theoretical

Apparatus
The apparatus used were 2 specimens (stainless steel type 1.4305 and copper) which were
placed in a Dewar vessel. Furthermore, a water measurement jug was used to collect the
water which was being passed through the device. A stop watch was used to record the
time that the water in the device took to be heated and pass in and out of the device.
Moreover, there were 4 thermocouples used in the specimen two for each material.

Methodology and procedure

The methodology and procedure which was used to carry out this experiment was firstly,
the setting up of the machine which was already done by my lab tutor so this was not
necessary. In addition, the measuring of the water flow rate was recorded using the timer
which was helpful to work out the volume of water flowing through the machine per
second. Furthermore, the temperature of the water was recorded using thermometers at
the inlet and outlet valves of the device which was used to record the change in
temperature of the water due to the different thermal conductivities of the specimens
which were passing energy to the water which was therefore heating it up at different rates.
The recording of the water volume (ml) was made over a certain time, the reading of the
vale for the temperature in and the temperature out was measured by each member of the
group and the most common measurement was recorded.

The 4 thermocouples which were linked to the 2 specimens (stainless steel and copper)
were measured twice and an average was taken after checking the device at the measuring
point switch on the machine. Once these readings were made the timer was stopped and
the recording of the water volume and time was put into a table along with the
temperatures of the cooling water and the 4 thermocouples. The thermal conductivity could
then be calculated using the Fourier equation and the energy transfer to the water which
were rearranged to get k (thermal conductivity of the specimen). The temperatures were
also converted to kelvin. In addition, in order to work out the thermal conductivity the cross
sectional area of the specimens needed to be worked out and the distance between
temperature readings on each specimen needed to be known as well as the mass flow rate
of the cooling water and the specific heat of water needed to be known or calculated.
Moreover, the thermal conductivity needed to be worked out for each specimen (stainless
steel type 1.4305 and copper) [3] once these values were calculated the percentage error
could also be calculated by the difference in the theoretical and actual values divided by the
theoretical and times by 100, this was done for both specimens (stainless steel and copper).
A graph was then drawn with temperature against length for the two specimens to show
the different thermal conductivities which was linked to the angled the line made with the
horizontal as a smaller angle meant more thermally conductive and a large angle or steep
gradient meant the material was more insulating.

Results and calculations

The results and calculations made during the experiment were firstly, the table of results for
the water volume (ml), the time in seconds of the water flow, the temperature in and out of
the water measured using the thermometers and the 4 thermocouples which were
measured on the device twice and an average was taken by adding the two values and
dividing by 2. Below is a table of these recordings:

Water Time Temperature Temperature T1 T2 T3 T4

volume (s) in (°C) out (°C) Copper Copper stainless stainless
(ml) (K) (K) steel (K) steel (K)
520 378 16 22 427.25 421.95 416.65 307.65
427.35 422.05 416.75 307.75
427.30 422.00 416.70 307.70

The temperature which was read on the machine for the thermocouples was in degrees
Celsius however, this needed to be converted into kelvin as this was the absolute value and
the equation used to work out the thermal conductivity had the units in kelvin so 273.15
was added onto each of the temperature values. The thermal conductivity of each specimen
can then be calculated using the Fourier equation and the energy transfer to the water
Lm̊Cp (Tout−Tin)
which is rearranged to get k (thermal conductivity) = , where L is the
A (∆ T )
distance between the temperature readings on each specimen, m̊ is the mass flow rate of
the cooling water this can be worked out by density ×V̇ of the water flowing in the machine
as density is given and volume is calculated V̇ can be determined by the volume divided by
the time therefore times density of water by volume flow rate which equals ṁ=1.376×10-
3kg/s. In addition, Cp is the specific heat capacity of water (4189J/kgK), T out and Tin is the
temperatures of the cooling water going in and out, A is the cross sectional area of the
materials (stainless steel type 1.4305 and copper) and finally ΔT which is the temperature
difference across the samples of T1 – T2 or T3 – T4 (K)[3]. Therefore, the thermal conductivity
65× 10−3 × 1.376× 10−3 × 4189(22−16)
value for copper was K= =338W/mk.
π ×(20 ×10−3)2(154.15−148.85)
The thermal conductivity value for stainless steel was K=
65× 10−3 × 1.376× 10−3 × 4189(22−16)
=16.4W/mk.
π ×(20 ×10−3)2(143.55−34.55)

experimental−theoretical 338−400
The percentage error for copper= .100 = ×100 =±15.5%
theoretical 400

16.4−16.3
The percentage error of stainless steel= .100=±0.613%
16.3

The reason for these percentage errors could be down to a number of reasons such as the
reading of the thermometers could be in accurate due to parallax errors for example. In
addition, another reason for the percentage errors could be due to an inaccurate reading of
the water volume which could have led to an inaccurate reading for the volume flow rate
and in turn the mass flow rate which would have affected the value for the thermal
conductivity. Moreover, there could have been a problem with the machine which would
therefore have produced false/unreliable results for the thermocouple readings for example
which therefore would have also effected the thermal conductivity result for each specimen
and therefore the percentage error would have been effected. The percentage error for the
copper is much larger than the percentage error for stainless steel, with copper having a
15.5% error whereas stainless steel was only 0.613% this could be due to the reasons stated
above or another external influence. In addition, another reason could be due to the length
of each specimen being different to the distance between the temperature reading
(thermocouple readings) taken [3].

This is a graph for temperature of T1, T2, T3 and T4 against length of the specimen used in
the experiment. T1 and T2 are copper and T3 and T4 are stainless steel.

180

160

140

120
temperature (°c)

100

80

60

40

20

0
10 75 85 150
length (mm)
Discussion
The value for the thermal conductivity of copper obtained was 338W/mK compared to the
standard value which is 400W/mK this shows that the experimental value is much smaller
than the theoretical value which could mean that there may have been other variables
which would have affected the results of the experiment which led to the results being
different. This could be for example the reading of the thermometers which may not have
been read accurately due to parallax errors or that they were not working accurately
enough. On the other hand, the thermal conductivity value for stainless steel type 1.4305
(grade 303 stainless steel) obtained from the experiment was 16.4W/mk compared to the
theoretical value of 16.3W/mk this is therefore a very accurate experiment for the thermal
conductivity of the stainless steel as the experimental value is almost the same as the
theoretical value this also therefore shows that the experiment was varied with the
accuracy of the experimental values compared to the theoretical values in relation to the
two specimens.

In addition, the value for thermal conductivity of copper was much higher (338W/mk)
compared to stainless steel (16.4W/mk) this therefore shows that copper is much more
thermally conductive than stainless steel and that stainless steel is a much better insulator
than copper. Furthermore, in terms of achieving the aims and objectives set the thermal
conductivities for each specimen where calculated using the Fourier equation and a graph
was produced which shows the difference in the temperature gradients of the two
specimens. The key features of this graph are the gradients of the lines which represent how
thermally conductive each specimen is, with a smaller angle that the line makes with the
horizontal meaning it is more thermally conductive and a larger angle/steeper gradient
meaning it is more conductive.

This therefore shows that the copper gradient line has a smaller angle with the horizontal
and therefore is more thermally conductive compared to the larger angle made with the
stainless steel line. This is also supported by the results and calculations made during the
experiment. In addition, the graph has a 10mm length gap in between the two lines this is to
represent the glue which is used to connect the specimen to the device this therefore
means that the specimens are not in direct contact with the device this is to prevent
thermal contact resistance across a bonded joint and the thermal conductivity of the bulk
material [4]. Moreover, in terms of errors which may have occurred during the test the
reading of the thermometers accurately could have been a problem and may have provided
inaccurate results if incorrectly read for example in addition, much of the reasons stated in
the end of the results and calculations section mention the possible causes for errors or
inaccurate results however, these errors could be reduced by for example looking at the
thermometer readings in parallel to avoid parallax errors and to repeat the experiment
more than once will help to make the results more accurate and reliable for example.
Moreover, using another device and seeing if the same results are obtained will help to get
rid of any errors related to the devices ability for example the thermocouple readings.

Conclusion
In conclusion, from the results it can be determined that the thermal conductivity for
copper is much larger (338W/mk) than that of stainless steel (16.4W/mk) which means that
copper is more thermally conductive than stainless steel whereas stainless steel is a better
insulator than copper. In addition, there are a smaller variation in the thermocouple
readings of copper compared to stainless steel and the percentage errors for copper (15.5%)
were much larger than the percentage errors for stainless steel (0.613%).

references
[1] http://www.analytical-chemistry.uoc.gr/files/items/6/618/agwgimometria_2.pdf

[2] http://www.tibtech.com/conductivity.php

see worksheets [3]

http://mhtl.uwaterloo.ca/pdf_papers/mhtl07-6.pdf [4]