MEMORANDUM

To:

Dr. Pam Ridgely, Lecturer, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Cal Poly SLO
pridgely@calpoly.edu

From:

Kevin Hunt

Moulay Salahdin

kjhunt@calpoly.edu

msalahdi@calpoly.edu

Niklas Possinger

Tyler Hooks

npossing@calpoly.edu

thooks@calpoly.edu

Date:

02/10/2016

RE:

DYNAMIC CALIBRATION: THE TIME CONSTANT 5B Bench #3

In the experiment we used a PolyDAQ (Cal Poly Data Acquisition system) to collect the
cooling curve of two different gauge type K thermocouples. This data was then analyzed to find out
what the time constants of the thermocouples are. To ensure the data represented the true cooling
curve we compared the six different trials that we took. To have a comparison, we calculated the
theoretical time constant of both thermocouples and ran percent difference calculations.

Background:
Measuring devices are extremely important pieces of scientific equipment, without them
science would never have been able to progress. Now all devices have pros and cons but one of the
primary cons with temperature devices is the fact that their reported values lag the true temperature.
Due to this, calculations need to be done to figure out what the lag of a device is. In this experiment
we calculated the time constant of our thermocouples in two ways. First, we calculated them using
the cooling curve and graphical techniques, then we used the theoretical formula to calculate them.
In order to gather the data for our cooling curve, the thermocouples were placed in a hollow
aluminum block that was sitting on a hot plate set at 50 degrees Celsius and allowed to reach thermal
equilibrium. To prevent a short in the circuits the thermocouples were electrically insulated with a
piece of paper. Then, with the PolyDAQ collecting data every 0.1 seconds, the thermocouples were
removed from the heated environment and left to cool in the ambient air.

Analysis:
The first method to calculate the time constant of our thermocouples was performed
graphically. Starting from the first law of thermodynamics, that states that the energy change of a
system is equal to the net heat transfer to or from the system, and following a series of derivations
shown in the prelab [1], the temperature of an object at any given time can be calculated, if its initial
and final temperatures are known along with its time constant. In order to do that, equation (1) should
be used,
()
= 1 (/)

(1)

Where Ti is the initial temperature of the object, T is its final temperature, T(t) is its temperature at
any time t, and is its time constant.
After that one time constant has passed (t = ), it turned out that the change in the
thermocouple temperature reaches 63.2% of the maximum temperature change. This result is
illustrated in equation (2),
() = 0.632

(2)

Where Tmax is the maximum change in temperature.

To define the time constant of each thermocouple, we started by calculating the maximum
change in each thermocouples temperature Tmax by subtracting the final temperature T from the
initial one Ti. After that, we calculated the temperature equivalent to one time constant using
equation (2). Using the temperature graphs of both thermocouples, we were able to define the time
constants, which is the time in which 63.2% of the maximum change in temperature occurs.
The second method that we used to measure the time constant of both thermocouples relies
on the geometric shape of their junctions, and the time constant definition (3),

(3)

where m is the mass of the junction, c is its specific heat, h is its convection heat transfer coefficient,
and As is its surface area.
Since a thermocouple junction is made of more than one metal in addition to the attached
wires, getting a precise estimate of the mass and the specific heat is a very difficult task. To avoid all
the uncertainties from measuring these variables, the ratio of both time constants was taken,

(4)

where c is the time constant of the Coarse (20ga) thermocouple and F is the time constant of the
fine (30ga) thermocouple. Since were dealing with the same thermocouple type, we assume that
their junctions have the same specific heat and the same convection heat transfer coefficient.
Equation (4) becomes then,

(5)

We then used the definition of density to figure out the mass (6),

(6)

where is the density of the junction, m is its mass and V is its volume.

By inspection, the overall shape of the junctions is a cylindrical. We then substitute the mass
and the volume of the junctions into equation (5) and we get the estimate ratio of the time constant of
both thermocouples (7),

(7)

where c, Vc and Ac are respectively the density, the volume and the area of the coarse thermocouple
junction. F, VF and AF are respectively the density, the volume and the area of the fine thermocouple
junction we the assumed that both junctions have the same density and the ration of both time
constants was defined as in equation (8),

=

=

(1 + )
(1 + )

(9)

where Rc and hc are respectively the radius and the height of the coarse thermocouple junction, and
RF and hF are the radius and the height of the fine thermocouple junction.

Discussion
The time constant of the fine wire is roughly six times smaller than the time constant of the
coarse wire. This makes sense due to the thermocouples volume to surface area ratio. The convection
heat transfer coefficient can be neglected when comparing time constants, because of the way they
were both cooled under the same non turbulent air conditions. Also the specific heat of both wires
can be neglected when comparing time constants, because both thermocouples are made of the same
materials. This leaves only the thermocouples mass and surface area at the junction determine a
difference in their time constants. Assuming the thermocouple are made of the same material and
therefore density, the volume and density can be substituted for mass. Again since they are made
with the same material density can be canceled, leaving on the ratio of volume to surface area to
compare the time constants as in equation (9). The assumption of the thermocouple junction shape
must be estimated, which creates error. We decided to assume a cylindrical shape since the junctions
were long with round ends. However, it can also be argued that the shape in reality is much more
complex, which creates error when determine a time constant for both thermocouples.
When comparing the experimental data to our theoretical data there is a large discrepancy.
The theoretical calculations show the time constant ratio of course to fine to be almost one to one.
While the experimental data suggests the ratio is six to one. The large difference can be accounted to
the shape of the junction assumption and the estimation in reading the graph. A cylindrical shape was
assumed for the junction of both thermocouples, however this was not the exact shape of the
junction. Both junctions
resembled two spheres semi-melted together, which would generate error since the time constant in
dependent on both volume, surface area and thus shape.
An additional source of error comes from estimating the graph. Two estimates were taken for
each couple, the first being the total temperature change (Tmax) which was used to find
0.632Tmax. Form this estimate another was taken to determine the time at which 0.632Tmax
occurred. These estimates created and uncertainty in the experimental time constant of roughly seven
Celsius due to the fact that the resolution of both axis is ten Celsius. Using half the resolution of each
axis to be five then RSS them we obtain roughly seven degrees Celsius.
In order to reduce both of these sources of errors some improvements to the lab could be
made by removing some variables. To remove the assumption of thermocouple shape, a standard
shape thermocouple could be given (i.e. square sphere rectangle or cylinder). This would reduce most
of the theoretical error. As for experimental, a container could be placed over the thermocouple
junctions after they are removed from the aluminum block to prevent other modes of heat transfer in
the lab from effecting the thermocouples. Hopefully this would result in a less noisy graph and
therefore need less estimation to determine the time constant.
This experiment gave inconclusive results because there is some limitations and assumptions
that keep the experiment rom matching the theory closely. If the thermocouples were heated to a
much higher temperature, the time constant curves would be longer allowing for a better estimation
of 63% of the total temperature drop. Since the thermocouples needed to be removed from an
aluminum block by pulling and slightly moving in the air will causing the coefficient of convection

heat transfer to not be the same on each thermocouple as assumed earlier. A smoother curve of the
time constant would result if, the thermocouples were place in room temperature water as soon as
they are removed from the heat source. Again with a smoother curve the time constant could be more
accurately estimated.

Conclusion
In This experiment, two thermocouples of different gages were tested in identical conditions
to determine their time constants. The thermocouples were tested experimentally by heating them up
in an aluminum block then graphing their temperature as they cool back to room temperature. From
the graph a time constant for each thermocouple can be estimated. The time constants of the
thermocouples were also calculated theoretically by the thermocouple junction geometry. A
cylindrical junction shape was assumed due to the roundness and two dimensions (height and
diameter). Unfortunately, the theoretical and experimental values varied drastically. The large
difference is attest to the assumption of thermocouple junction shape and the estimation of graph
data.

References:
[1] Thorncroft, G.E., Dynamic Calibration: Time Constant. Polylearn Website.

Attachments
[1] Trial 6 Spreadsheet
[2] Theoretical Time Constant Calculations