Time

Water Tin C
Water Tout C
T1C
T2C
T3C
T4C
OBSERVATIONS

0 [min]
19.1 0.05
24.9 0.05
75.1 0.05
132.9 0.05
168.1 0.05
184.7 0.05

2 [min]
19.1 0.05
24.9 0.05
75.2 0.05
132.2 0.05
168.6 0.05
185.2 0.05

4 [min]
19.2 0.05
25 0.05
75.4 0.05
132.6 0.05
168.9 0.05
185.6 0.05

Mass of water collected:

490. 0.5 mL
= 490. 0.5 g
= 0.4900 0.0005 kg
Collection time: 6.00 0.005 min = 360 0.3 sec total
m=

0.4900 0.0005 kg
kg
=1.361 103 0.0 0 025
360 s 0.3
s
Percentage Error Propagation:
0.3
+( 100
=0.18537 error
(100 0.0005
)
0.49
360 )
Absolute Error Propagation:
1.361 103 0.18537 =0.00025 kg /s|Error| Propagation

Water Tin
Water Tout
T1
T2
T3
T4

Average Temp. C

19. 1 5 0.05

Average Temp. K
292.3 0.05

24. 9 5 0.05

75. 4 5 0.05

132. 6 75 0.05

168. 8 75 0.05

185. 4 2 0.05

298.1 0.05
347.6 0.05
405.8 0.05
442.0 0.05
458.6 0.05

RESULTS

6 [min]
19.2 0.05
25 0.05
76.1 0.05
133 0.05
169.9 0.05
186.2 0.05

Heat transfer rate through the composite bar:

Average Water Tin = 19.15 0.05 C +273.15 0.05 = 292.3 0.05 K
Average Water Tout = 24.95 0.05C + 273.15 0.05 = 298.1 0.05K
C p =4185.5
H2 O

J
(kg K)

q=m
C p ( T out T )

1.361 103 0.0 0025

kg
J
4185.5
( 298.1 0.05 K 292.3 0.05 K )
s
kg K

)(

J
q=33.04 6.4 =33 6.4 W
s

: Heat transfer rate through the composite bar.

Error propagation: Like above error propagation percentage errors were added
and then converted to absolute error to determine the 6.4W value

Fig. 1

Extrapolation of interfacial temperature difference:

T1 : (6.5mm, 347.6K)
T2 : (31.5mm, 405.8K)
Tinterfacial : (38mm, Tint. (ss))

T3 : (45mm, 442K)
T4 : (95mm, 458K)
Tinterfacial : (38mm, Tint. (al))

Tint (ss) = [(38mm 6.5mm)(405.8K-347.6K)/(31.5mm-6.5mm)] + 347.6K

= 420.9 0.05 K
Tint (al) = [(38mm 45mm)(458.6K-442K)/(95mm-45mm)]+442K
= 439.7 0.05K
Interfacial Temp. Difference

= Tint (al) - Tint (ss)

Interfacial Temp. Difference = 18.7K

Interfacial Thermal Resistance:

q=33 6 . 4 W

Above represents the amount of heat absorbed by the composite materials. This will be
used to calculate the interfacial thermal resistance:
Rt , c =

T A T B
q

Rt , c =

Interfacial Temperature Difference

q

Rt , c =

18.7 0.05 K
33 6.4 W

Rt , c =0. 6 0.1

K
W

Heat Transfer Coefficient

q=hi A (T AT B )

hi

D2 (0.025 m)
A=
=
=4.908 104 m2
4
4
hi=

q
33 6.4 W
W
=
=35 00 707 2
4 2
A(T A T B ) (4.908 10 m )(18.7 0.05 K )
m K

Thermal conductivity of Aluminum (ka)

q=k a A

ka =

26 5

T 4 T 3
L

q
33 6.4 W
=
T T 3
458 .05 K 442 .05 K
4.908 103 m2
A 4
0.064 m
L

W
m K

Thermal conductivity of Stainless Steel (kb)

kb =

q
33 6.4 W
=
T T
405.8 . 05 K 347.6 .05 K
4.908 103 m2
A 2 1
0.038 m
L

4. 4 0.9

W
m K

Thermal Conductivity
DISCUSSION
The closest material based on thermal conductivity for Specimen A is Uranium with a thermal
conductivity of kUranium = 29.6 [W/mK] and Titanium being second closest with kTitanium = 20.4
[W/mK]. The percentage match of uranium to kb is 88% between their respective thermal
conductivity values at 400 Kelvin.
The closest material based on thermal conductivity for Specimen B is the nickel-chromium based
alloy called Inconel with a value of kinconel = 13.5 [W/mK]. A significant gap between the values
exists however of 32%.
The values for ka and kb are significantly different when compared to their tabular properties. The
thermal conductivity of pure Aluminum is 240 [W/mK] and Aluminum alloy 2024-T6 is 186
[W/mK]. This compared to a value of 26 5 [W/mK] Shows significant difference between

the tabular and experimentally derived values. Likewise the tabular value of stainless steel ranges
from 17.3[W/mK] to 15.8 [W/mK] depending on which of the four types of stainless steel values
are selected for comparison. With an experimentally determined value 4.4 0.9 [W/mK]
there lies a difference of minimum 63.3 % and maximum difference of 79.7% depending on the
alloy and upper and lower range of errors selected.
The sources of error for this experiment were the following:
1) Time was calculated with a stop watch on cellular device which allows for human error
2) The person operating the Cussons Thermal Conductivity device was doing it for the first
time and an error could have been made in reading and conveying the instrument
readings to the laboratory participants
3) Three people were involved in: the water collection, when to start the stop watch and
when to read the instrument reading, which would result in the compounding of minor
errors.
4) The Cussons Thermal conductivity apparatus was preselected and the inherent
manufacturing defects or workability of the device are unknown. It could be very
accurate and precise and the lab was performed with a mistake or it could be the opposite
where the device may not be giving accurate readings and the thermocouples inside were
not operating properly. Ideally if this lab was repeated with two of these devices under
same condition it would allow for a better diagnostic of where the sources of error arose
from.
5) The metal alloys may not have been stainless steel and aluminum as indicated by the lab
manual it is possible they were other alloys.
was very small and its contributed error propagation to the rest of the
6) The value of m
lab calculations was fairly large at an average of 20% error propagation where ever the
value was involved and certainly led to large error propagation in many steps of the
calculation.
7) The specific heat value of water (Cp) used in the calculation was a standardized value of
water at 15 degrees and 101.325 kPa. This value was slightly different than the one used
in actual experimental conditions and would contribute a small portion to the sources of
errors.
The two specimens were clamed together in the apparatus. If they had been stacked there would
have been a greater difference of interfacial temperature and subsequently a greater thermal
contact resistance. As small surface imperfections and gaps are minimized due to the resultant
pressure from clamping that would have a greater impact at preventing the transfer of heat from
both specimens if they were simply stacked.
Two methods that could be used to decrease the thermal contact resistance are as follows:

1) Machine the mating surface to a smooth mirror like finishing allowing the tightest
possible seam upon clamping. Also the use of greater pressure would decrease thermal
contact resistance.
2) Furthermore, between the two contact surface use a silicone based thermal paste spread
evenly and thinly over both mating surfaces before clamping. The thermal paste acts as a
thermal conductor allowing for better heat transfer from one specimen to the other.
Similar to the application of thermal paste on CPUs of modern computers
Conclusion
The Cussons thermal conductivity apparatus was used to measure the thermal conductivity of
stainless steel and aluminum specimens. Using the temperature differences between both mating
surfaces and extrapolating the data as shown in the generated graph thermal contact resistance
was also determined between the two materials.