ME 480 THERMOFLUID MEASUREMENT AND DESIGN, DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL

ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI AT MANOA

Steady-State One-Dimensional Heat Conduction

of Brass and Aluminum Using a Voltage
Controlled Heat Source and Water Cooling
Jeffrey Oshiro, Yingsen Tang, Frankie Chan, Yiyang
Xiao, Dave Horton, Ada Garcia
Author: Jeffrey Oshiro
10/3/2014

Table of Contents
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 2
Theory ......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Experimental Setup and Procedure ............................................................................................................ 5
Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 9
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 14
References ................................................................................................................................................ 15
Appendix ................................................................................................................................................... 15

Abstract
Fouriers law was applied to a one-dimensional steady-state heat conduction experiment
to determine the thermal conductivity and thermal contact resistance. Brass and aluminum
specimens were sandwiched between a heating and cooling section of brass. The heating and
cooling sections generated a temperature gradient which was measured by thermocouples
positioned at regular intervals. The effects of thermal contact resistance on heat conduction were
analyzed with the brass specimen and the effect of composite layers was analyzed with the
aluminum specimen. For the brass specimen the temperature gradient and thermal conductivity
for the heating, intermediate, and cooling sections were determined to be -0.1933, -0.1733, and 0.1533 K/mm, respectively, and 105.37, 117.59, 132.86 W/(m*K), respectively. The thermal
contact resistance at the heating and cooling interfaces were determined to be 0.0359 and 0.6123
K*W-1, respectively. For the aluminum specimen the temperature gradient and thermal
conductivity for the heating, aluminum, and cooling sections were determined to be -0.2333, 0.4002, -0.2167 K/mm, respectively, and 87.3079, 50.910, 94.0238 W/(m*K), respectively.

Introduction
There were three objectives for this experiment. The first was to investigate the
principles of heat conduction. The second was to apply Fouriers law to one-dimensional steadystate heat conduction. The third was to determine thermal conductivity and thermal contact
resistance.
One-dimensional steady-state heat conduction is the simplest form of heat conduction.
The one-dimensional description indicates that the temperature changes in a single direction and
the steady-state description indicates that the temperature gradient does not change over time.
Most real-life systems do not exhibit this behavior. Instead, heat transfer in most systems occurs
in different directions and varies over time. However, for the purposes of understanding heat
conduction it is easiest to start with the one-dimensional steady-state model. The temperature
gradient for this model is linear and is thus called linear heat conduction.

In this experiment linear heat conduction was observed in two different systems. The
first system consisted of three brass cylinders stacked on top of each other. The second system
consisted of an aluminum cylinder in between two brass cylinders. These systems were
subjected to a temperature gradient and the temperature was measured at different distances
throughout the system. The differences in heat transfer in uniform material versus a composite
material are discussed as well as the heat transfer at a surface interface.

Theory
This linear heat conduction experiment applies Fouriers law to determine the
temperature gradient across two different systems. The first system is of uniform material and
the second system is a composite material. Two phenomenas are observed: the effects of
different thermal conductivities and the effects of thermal contact resistance.
Heat Conduction
Heat conduction is the mode of heat transfer that occurs through a solid medium.
Thermal energy is transmitted from an area of higher energy concentration to an area of lower
energy concentration. This results in a temperature gradient, where the temperature changes
with respect to distance for steady-state heat transfer.
There are two classifications for heat transfer problems: steady-state and transient.
Steady-state implies no change with time at any time within the medium. For a steady-state
system, the temperature changes with distance. In this experiment, a cylinder is subjected to
constant temperature gradient. One side of the cylinder is heated at a constant rate and the other
side is cooled at a constant rate. Transient implies a variance with time or time dependence. The
temperature for a transient problem changes with time. An example of a transient problem
would be a steel ball heated to an initial temperature and then allowed to cool.
Heat transfer is said to be one-dimensional if the temperature changes in one direction.
The cylinder in the experiment was heat from one side and the temperature changed in the
longitudinal direction. The temperature change in the radial direction was assumed to be small,
uniform, and symmetrical. These assumptions meant that the radial temperature change could be
considered negligible and the heat transfer one-dimensional.
3

Fouriers Law
For a steady-state problem, the rate of heat transfer through a medium is proportional to
the temperature difference across the medium in the direction of heat transfer and inversely
proportional to distance in that direction. This behavior is described by Fouriers law of heat
conduction:

Equation 1

where

is the rate of heat conduction, k is the thermal conductivity of the material, A is the

area normal to the direction of heat conduction, dT/dx is the temperature gradient. The
temperature gradient is the slope of the temperature curve when plotting the temperature with
distance as the input.
Thermal Conductivity
The thermal conductivity of a material is a measure of that materials ability to conduct
heat. Specifically, the thermal conductivity is the rate of heat transfer through a material per unit
area normal to the direction of heat transfer and temperature difference. Thermal conductivity is
a material property and is determined experimentally. A material is said to be a good conductor
if its thermal conductivity is high, that is, it transfers heat easily. A material that is a poor
conductor is said to be a good insulator.
The temperature gradient is constant for a homogeneous medium. The cylinders used in
this experiment are an example of a homogeneous medium and therefore the temperature
gradient is expected to be constant for each cylinder. The temperature gradient is expected to
change across materials of different thermal conductivities. The interface between the cylinders
affects the temperature gradient and is the next topic of discussion.
Thermal Contact Resistance
The temperature gradient changes at the interface between two solids in contact with each
other. This is due to microscopic imperfections on the surface of the solids. The imperfection
4

result in tiny gaps between the two bodies and decrease the area for heat conduction to occur.
Since these bodies are not in perfect contact the rate of heat conduction decreases at the interface
between them. This shown in Figure 1 where two solid bodies A and B are in contact. The
temperature gradient decreases at the interface between them.

Figure 1: Thermal contact resistance

This interface causes a resistance in heat transfer and this is called thermal contact
resistance. The thermal contact resistance is determined experimentally. Thermal contact
resistance is expressed as

Equation 2

where Rc is the thermal contact resistance and

is the temperature difference at the

interface. If the rate of heat transfer and area remain constant, then the thermal contact resistance is
expected to increase if the temperature difference increases.

Experimental Setup and Procedure

The experimental procedure followed for this experiment came from the ME 480 lab
handout. A detailed description of the equipment is described in that document. This section
describes how the procedure was performed.
5

Equipment Description
The linear heat conduction accessory used in the experiment was comprised of a heating
section and a cooling section which could be clamped with interchangeable intermediate sections
sandwiched between them. Each intermediate section contained a different specimen of metal
conductor that allowed a plane wall of the same material or composite walls with different
materials to be created for evaluation. The temperature difference created by an application of
heat to one end of the resulting wall and cooling at the other end resulted in the flow of heat
through the wall by heat conduction.
The heating section is manufactured from a 25 mm diameter cylindrical brass bar with an
electric heating element installed at one end. A lead from the heating element is connected to the
service unit. Power could be supplied, varied, and measured with the console. Three
thermocouples (T1, T2, and T3) were positioned along the heating section at uniform intervals of
15 mm. The terminating thermocouple (T3) was positioned 7.5 mm away from the end of the
surface of the heating section.
The cooling section was also manufactured from a 25 mm diameter cylindrical brass bar
and was cooled at one end by cooling water passing through galleries in the section. Three
thermocouples (T6, T7, and T8) were positioned along the cooling section at uniform intervals of
15 mm. The terminating thermocouple was positioned 7.5 mm away from the end surface of the
cooling section.
Sample Description
Brass specimen (instrumented with two thermocouples)
The brass specimen was a 30 mm long cylindrical brass bar with a 25 mm diameter. It
was fitted with two thermocouples (T4 and T5) positioned at uniform intervals (15 mm). When
this section was clamped between the heating and cooling sections it created a long plane wall of
uniform material and cross section.
Aluminum alloy specimen (non-instrumented)

The aluminum specimen was a 30 mm long, 25 mm diameter aluminum alloy bar. It was
used to demonstrate the effect of a change in material thermal conductivity on heat conduction.
There were no thermocouples in the specimen.
Sample Setup
Thermal paste was applied between the adjacent faces to minimize the contact thermal
resistance across the joints. The paste layer was made as thin as possible and spread evenly
across the surfaces. The thermal paste was cleaned after each test.

Figure 2: Heat Transfer Service Unit Console (front)

Equipment Setup
The linear heat conduction accessory was put alongside the heat transfer service unit.
The VOLTAGE CONTROL potentiometer (C) on the front of the service unit (see Figure 2) was
set to the minimum (anticlockwise) and the selector switch (B) to MANUAL. The heater lead
from the heating section of the linear heat conduction accessory was connected to the socket
marked OUTPUT 3 at the rear of the service unit. A lab tap water supply was connected to the

cooling section of the linear heat conduction accessory using a flexible plastic tube. The cooling
water outlet tube was directed to the tap water sink.

Figure 3: Heat Transfer Service Unit Console (rear)

Lab Procedures
Exercise 1: Heat conduction in a brass specimen
The intermediate brass specimen was clamped between the heating and cooling sections.
The eight thermocouples were connected to the appropriate sockets on the front of the console.
The front main switch on the front of the console was switched on. The tap water was turned on.
The VOLTAGE CONTROL potentiometer was adjusted to give a reading of 12 V and the
selector switch was set to position V.
The linear heat conduction accessory was allowed to stabilize. The temperature was
monitored using the selector switch (G) and the panel meter (J) on the front of the console. The
system was deemed stable if the reading for T1 did not change with a one-minute time period.

When the system was stable, the following values were recorded: temperatures T1 to T8
were recorded, the voltage across the heating element V, and the current through the heating
element I. Once the data was recorded, the VOLTAGE CONTROL potentiometer was set to
minimum. The front main switch was turned off. The cooling water was turned off. Then the
brass specimen was removed.
Exercise 2: Heat conduction in an aluminum alloy specimen
The intermediate aluminum specimen was clamped between the heating and cooling
sections with the surfaces lightly coated with thermal paste. The front main switch was turned
on. The cooling water was turned on. The VOLTAGE CONTROL potentiometer was set to 12
V and the selector switch to position V.
The linear heat conduction accessory was allowed to stabilize. The temperatures were
monitored as in Exercise 1. When the system was deemed stable, the following values were
recorded: temperatures T1 to T3 and T6 to T8, the voltage across element V, and the current
through element I.
After the data was recorded, everything was powered down as in Exercise 1.

Results and Discussion

The data collected from exercised 1 and 2 were used to generate plots for temperature
gradient. From the data the thermal conductivity and thermal contact resistance were
determined. For both exercises the voltage was 12 V, the current was 1.2 A, and the power was
14.4 W.

Exercise 1: Brass Results

The data for the brass specimen is tabulated in Table 1. This data was recorded from
exercise 1.

Table 1: Brass specimen data

Thermocouple

Position [m]

Temp [ C ]

Temp [K]

T1

53

326

T2

0.015

50

323

T3

0.03

47.2

320.2

T3

0.045

43.9

316.9

T5

0.06

41.9

314.9

T6

0.075

30

303

T7

0.09

27.8

300.8

T8

0.105

25.4

298.4

Figure 4: Plot for readings of the eight thermocouples (T1 to T8) as a function of distance of these
thermocouples from the thermocouple T1 on a plot

The data in Table 1 was used to generate the plot in Figure 4. Three best-fitting straight
lines were developed for each section. Each line was extended to the end surfaces of each
corresponding section. The heating and specimen sections taken together appear to have a
consistent temperature gradient where a straight line could be fitted through the five points with
10

a reasonable R2 value. It is curious that the temperature drops sharply at the specimen-cooling
section interface. This could be due to an inadequate application of thermal paste at that
interface.
Table 2: Summary of results for the brass specimen

Heating

Thermal Contact
Resistance Rc[K*W-1]
Temperature Gradient

Brass Specimen

0.0359

Cooling

0.6123

-0.1933

-0.1733

-0.1533

105.37

117.59

132.86

Thermal Conductivity k
[W/(m*K)]

The thermal contact resistance, temperature gradient, and thermal conductivity for the
brass specimen are tabulated in Table 2. The thermal contact resistance was calculated using
Equation 1. The temperature difference across the interface was extrapolated using the best fit

lines. The thermal gradient for each section was the slope of each best fit line. The thermal
conductivity was calculated using Equation 1 with the power 14.4 W used as the rate of heat
transfer.
The thermal contact resistance increased with an increase in temperature difference
across the interface, as expected. The temperature gradient decreased after each subsequent
interface.
The known thermal conductivity of brass1 is 109 W/(m*K). The heating section was
affected the least by thermal contact resistance and its thermal conductivity was 105.37 W/(m*k) with a
percent error 3.33%. The other values were somewhat close to the known value. The thermal
conductivity increased after each interface.

11

Exercise 2 Aluminum results

The data for the aluminum specimen is tabulated in Table 3. Note that the aluminum
specimen lacked instrumentation, thus accounting the absence in the table. The temperature for
the aluminum at the specified distance was determined from a best fit line created between the
interfaces.
Table 3: Data for the aluminum specimen

Thermocouple

Position [m]

Temp [ C]

Temp [K]

T1

54

327

T2

0.015

50.3

323.3

T3

0.03

47

320

0.045

43.7

316.7

0.06

36.2

309.2

T6

0.075

32.9

305.9

T7

0.09

29.7

302.7

T8

0.105

26.4

299.4

The readings of the six thermocouples (T1 to T3 and T6 to T8) were plotted as a function
of the distance of these thermocouples from the thermocouple T1 in Figure 5Figure 4. Two bestfitting straight lines were fitted through the data points for the heating section and cooling
section, respectively. Each best-fitting line was extended to the end surface adjacent to the
aluminum alloy specimen.
The values of thermal contact resistance were assumed to be the same as those obtained
for the brass specimen in Exercise 1. The temperatures at the two end surfaces of the aluminum
specimen were calculated and a straight line was developed on the plot indicating the
temperature distribution in the aluminum specimen.

12

Figure 5: Plot for readings of the six thermocouples (T1 to T3, T6 to T8) as a function of the distance of these
thermcouples from the thermocouple T1 on a plot.

The temperature gradient and the thermal conductivity were calculated in the same as the
brass specimen. The results of these calculations are tabulated in Table 4.
Table 4: Summary of results for the Aluminum specimen

Temperature Gradient

Thermal Conductivity
k[W/(m*K)]

Heating

Aluminum
Specimen

Cooling

-0.2333

-0.4002

-0.2167

87.31

50.91

94.02

13

Conclusion
The three objectives for this experiment were: to investigate the principles of heat
conduction, to apply Fouriers law to one-dimensional steady-state heat conduction, and to
determine thermal conductivity and thermal contact resistance. To fulfill these objectives, two
different systems were analyzed. The first system consisted of a brass specimen sandwiched
between a brass heating section and a brass cooling section. This created a multilayer plane wall
of uniform material, which the effects of thermal contact resistance could be observed. The
second system consisted of an aluminum sample sandwiched between the same brass heating
section and brass cooling section. This created a multilayer plane wall of composite material,
which the effects of varying the thermal conductivity on heat conduction could be observed.
For the brass specimen, the temperature gradient, thermal contact resistance, and thermal
conductivity were determined for the heating section, sample section, and cooling section. The
temperature gradient for the heating, sample, and cooling sections were calculated by finding the
slope of temperature change as a function of distance from a specified reference point. These
values were determined to be -0.1933, -0.1733, and -0.1533 K/mm, respectively. The thermal
contact resistances at the heating-sample section interface and the cooling-sample section
interface were determined to be 0.0359 and 0.6123 K*W-1, respectively. The thermal
conductivities for the heating, sample, and cooling sections were determined to be 105.37,
117.59, 132.86 W/(m*K), respectively.
The temperature gradient decreased by 0.0200 K/mm after each section interface.
Because the surface of each section is not completely, perfectly smooth gaps exist between the
layers in contact. This decreases the area available for heat conduction, which in turn decreases
the temperature gradient if the rate of heat transfer remains constant.
The thermal contact resistance increased by 0.5764 K*W-1 at the cooling-sample section
interface. This was due to the temperature difference at the cooling-sample interface being
larger than the temperature difference at the heating-sample interface. It is possible that thermal
contact resistance increases with increasing layers in a plane wall. A future experiment to verify
this would simply measure the temperature gradient for similar setup with additional layers.

14

Literature values for the thermal conductivity of brass place the value at 109 W/(m*K).
The thermal conductivities determined in this experiment are reasonably accurate. The thermal
conductivity increased by about 13.5 W/(m*K) after each interface. From this result it is
obvious that a multilayer plane wall of uniform material cannot be treated as a possessing
uniform thermal conductivity.
For the aluminum specimen, the thermal conductivity and temperature gradient for each
section was calculated. The thermal contact resistance at each layer interface was assumed to be
the same as those for the brass specimen.
The thermal conductivity for the heating, aluminum, and cooling sections were
determined to be 87.3079, 50.910, 94.0238 W/(m*K), respectively. The temperature gradient for
the heating, aluminum, and cooling sections were determined to be -0.2333, -0.4002, -0.2167
K/mm, respectively.
The thermal conductivity decreased sharply from the heating section to the aluminum
section before increasing from the aluminum section to the cooling section. This suggests heat
conduction impedance for the composite plane wall. This is similar to when a object collides
with another object with different mass and their respective velocities differ from each other after
contact in keeping with conservation of energy. In this case the thermal conductivity for the
composite multilayer plane wall decreased and increased at the appropriate points. Overall the
thermal conductivity of the composite wall decreased in comparison to the uniform material
plane wall. The change in temperature gradient at each layer also supports this.

References
[1] "Thermal Conductivity of some common Materials and Gases." 2005. 10 Oct. 2014
<http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html>

Appendix
MATLAB code for processing the data and graph generation
% ME 480
% Fall 2014
% Jeffrey Oshiro

15

% linear heat conduction lab

clear;
% cross sectional area
A = pi*(30/2)^2; % area in mm^2
Am = A*(1/1000)^2; %area in m^2
dx = 30; %thickness in mm
% Brass exercise 1
TB = [53 50 47.2 43.9 41.3 30 27.8 25.4]; %temp of brass [C]
TBH = TB(1:3);
TBS = TB(4:5);
TBC = TB(6:8);
TBD = [0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105]; %distance [mm]
VB = 12; %voltage brass [V]
IB = 1.2; %current brass [A]
% get the fit
BH = polyfit(TBD(1:3), TBH, 1);
XBH = linspace(0, 37.5, 100);
YBH = polyval(BH, XBH);
BS = polyfit(TBD(4:5), TBS, 1);
XBS = linspace(37.5, 67.5, 100);
YBS = polyval(BS, XBS);
BC = polyfit(TBD(6:8), TBC, 1);
XBC = linspace(67.5, 105, 100);
YBC = polyval(BC, XBC);
% calculations
% thermal contact resistance
P = VB*IB; %power (or q) [W]
% heating and brass
hHB = (min(YBH)-max(YBS))/(P) % K*W^-1
% brass and cooling
hBC = (min(YBS)-max(YBC))/(P)
% thermal gradient
% heating
gBH = BH(1)
% specimen
gBS = BS(1)
% cooling
gBC = BC(1)
% thermal conductivity
% heating
kBH = -P/(A*gBH)*1000
% brass
kBS = -P/(A*gBS)*1000
% cooling
kBC = -P/(A*gBC)*1000

16

% plot data
figure(1);
plot(TBD(1:3), TBH, 'r*', XBH, YBH, 'c-');
hold on
plot(TBD(4:5), TBS, 'g*', XBS, YBS, 'k-');
hold on
plot(TBD(6:8), TBC, 'b*', XBC, YBC, 'c-');
hold on
grid on
ylabel('temperature [C]')
xlabel('distance from T1 [mm]')
title('Uniform material heat conduction (Brass)')
legend('heating','heat fit','specimen', 'specimen fit', 'cooling', 'cool
fit','location','northeast')

% Aluminum exercise 2
TAH = [54 50.3 47];
ADH = [ 0 15 30];
TAC = [32.9 29.7 26.4]; %temp of Al [C]
ADC = [75 90 105];
VA = VB;
IA = IB;
% get the fit
AH = polyfit(ADH, TAH, 1);
XAH = linspace(0, 37.5, 100);
YAH = polyval(AH, XAH);
% get the fit
AC = polyfit(ADC, TAC, 1);
XAC = linspace(60, 105, 100);
YAC = polyval(AC, XAC);
% temp
tAH = min(YAH)-(P*hHB)/A;
tAC = max(YAC)+(P*hBC)/A;
TAS = [tAH tAC];
dS = [37.5 60];
AS = polyfit(dS, TAS, 1);
XAS = linspace(37.5, 60, 100);
YAS = polyval(AS, XAS);
% thermal gradient
% heating
gAH = AH(1)
% specimen
gAS = AS(1)
% cooling
gAC = AC(1)
% thermal conductivity
% heating
kAH = -P/(A*gAH)*1000

17

% brass
kAS = -P/(A*gAS)*1000
% cooling
kAC = -P/(A*gAC)*1000
% plot data
figure(2);
plot(ADH, TAH, 'r*', XAH, YAH, 'c-');
hold on
plot(XAS, YAS, 'g-', 'LineWidth', 3);
hold on
plot(ADC, TAC, 'b*', XAC, YAC, 'k-');
hold on
grid on
ylabel('temperature [C]')
xlabel('distance from T1 [mm]')
title('Nonuniform heat conduction (Aluminum)')
legend('heating','heat fit','aluminum', 'cooling', 'cool
fit','location','northeast')

18