Research Papers: Conduction

Transient Method for Convective Heat Transfer Measurement With Lateral Conduction—Part II: Application to an Isolated Spherical Roughness Element

[+] Author and Article Information
J. Bons

 Ohio State University, 2300 West Case Road, Columbus, OH 43235

Daniel Fletcher

 Boeing Company, 100 North Riverside, Chicago, IL 60606-1596

Brad Borchert

 Brigham Young University, Provo, UT 84602

J. Heat Transfer 131(1), 011302 (Oct 15, 2008) (7 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2976785 History: Received October 10, 2007; Revised May 19, 2008; Published October 15, 2008

The effect of lateral conduction on convective heat transfer measurements using a transient infrared technique over an isolated spherical roughness element (bump) is evaluated. Comparisons are made between a full 3D finite-volume analysis and a simpler 1D transient conduction model. The surface temperature history was measured with a high resolution infrared camera during an impulsively started hot-gas flow at a flow Reynolds number of 860,000. The boundary layer was turbulent with the bump heights equivalent to 0.75, 1.5, and 3 times the boundary layer momentum thickness. When considering transient conduction effects only in the bump wake, the 1D approximate method underestimates the actual Stanton number estimated with the 3D model. This discrepancy is only 10% for a 75% change in St number occurring over a surface distance of 10 mm (the half-width of the wake). When the actual bump topology is accounted for in estimating the Stanton number on the bump itself with the 3D analysis technique, the increased surface area of the finite-volume cells on the protruding bump actually decreases the predicted value of St locally. The net result is that the two effects can cancel each other, and in some cases the 1D approximate technique can provide a reasonably accurate estimate of the surface heat transfer without the added complexity of the 3D finite-volume method. For the case of the largest bump tested, with maximum surface angularity exceeding 60 deg, the correction for 3D topology yields a 1D St estimate that is within 20–30% of the 3D estimate over much of the bump surface. These observed effects are valid for transient measurement techniques while the opposite is true for steady-state measurement techniques.

Copyright © 2009 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Facility used for bump study

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Velocity and turbulence profiles relative to bump height

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Surface temperature map for 8 mm bump measured with IR camera (t=50 s)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Time-averaged (80<t<100 s) St maps for 8 mm bump

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Time-averaged (80<t<100 s) Stanton number ratio along the bump centerline (x/R=0) for all three configurations: 3D and 1D method results shown. Also, data from Henry (8) and 2D computation from McClain (13).

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Time-averaged (80<t<100 s) Stanton number ratio across bump wake (z/R=2) for all three configurations: 3D and 1D method results shown

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Time-averaged (80<t<100 s) Stanton number ratio along the bump centerline (x/R=0) for 8 mm bump: 1D method results compared with 3D with and without accounting for bump curvature




Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In