MAE 404

Bomb Calorimeter

December 1, 2022

Raul Santamaria

De pa rt ment of M echanical and A eros pace En gineer ing

C ora l Ga ble s, F L 33 124

Rrs119@miami.edu

Group: Al exi M atthie u, Mit chell H urta do, J am es L o

1
Tab le of Co nt ent

Abstract: ........................................................................................................................................ 3

Theory: ........................................................................................................................................... 4

Equipment: .................................................................................................................................... 7

Method: .......................................................................................................................................... 8

Results: ......................................................................................................................................... 10

Error Analysis: ............................................................................................................................ 13

Con cl usi on and Dis cussi on:................................................................................................... 15

References:................................................................................................................................... 16

Calculations: ................................................................................................................................ 17

Appendix:..................................................................................................................................... 19

2
Abstract:

The experiment's goal was to use a bomb calorimeter to measure the increased heating value of an

unidentified fuel. The fuel's average heating value is 12703.22 2428.41Cal/g, according to our

calculations. We also utilized a t-test to assess if the fuel used during the experiment was gasoline,

as we failed to reject the null hypothesis that the experimental heating value is equal to the

theoretical value of 11089.87 Cal/g. Figure 2 shows how the initial temperature stays constant up

to combustion, which causes a rise in temperature within the bomb calorimeter, and that the system

then returns to equilibrium with the final temperature.

3
Theory:

The objective of the experiment is to be able to determine the higher heating value from an

unknown fuel. In order to calculate the higher heating, we carried a control combustion inside a

bomb calorimeter, that measure the heat transfer as the temperature rise occurred during the

combustion. The bomb calorimeter allows us to have control variables such as the amount of fuel,

volume of the water bath, pressure inside the calorimeter, which in turn standardizes the test

procedure allowing us to compare our data with others.

The water bath surrounding the bomb calorimeter functions as an isolator to prevent heat losses to

the surrounding, hence the following equation describe the heat transfer inside the bomb

calorimeter.

𝑊𝑊1 + 𝑊𝑊2 = 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚Δ𝑇𝑇 (1)

Where:

- W1 is the heat produce by the combustion of the fuel

- W2 is the heat produce by the current through the wire

- M is the mass of the bomb calorimeter system

- C is the specific heat

- ΔT is the change in temperature of the system

4
The higher heating value of a fluid is obtained from the following equation:

𝑊𝑊1 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚Δ𝑇𝑇 − 𝑊𝑊2

ℎ𝑓𝑓 = = (2)
𝑚𝑚1 𝑚𝑚1

where:

- The mass of the liquid fuel is M1.

The heat produce by the wire is describe using the following equation:

𝑊𝑊2 = (𝐿𝐿1 − 𝐿𝐿2 )ℎ𝑛𝑛 (3)

Where:

- L1 : initial length of the wire

- L2 : final length of the wire

- Hn : heating value of the wire

o For nickel is 2.3 Cal/cm

The following equation is used to compute the heat transfer from the water.

5
 𝑊𝑊3 = 𝑐𝑐𝑤𝑤 (𝑚𝑚2 + 𝑚𝑚3 )(𝑇𝑇2 − 𝑇𝑇1 ) (4)

Where:

- The mass of the water bath is M2.

- The calorimeter's mass is M3.

- T2 is the final temperature

- T1 is the initial temperature

Based on the conversation of energy:

𝑊𝑊1 + 𝑊𝑊2 = 𝑊𝑊3 (5)

Based on the previous equations the higher heating value of the fuel is:

𝑐𝑐𝑤𝑤 (𝑚𝑚2 + 𝑚𝑚3 )(𝑇𝑇2 − 𝑇𝑇1 ) − (𝐿𝐿1 − 𝐿𝐿2 )ℎ𝑛𝑛 𝑄𝑄(𝑇𝑇2 − 𝑇𝑇1 ) − (𝐿𝐿1 − 𝐿𝐿2 )ℎ𝑛𝑛
ℎ𝑓𝑓 = = (6)
𝑚𝑚1 𝑚𝑚1

Where:

- Q is the energy equivalent of the calorimeter

o for 2 liter of water is 2656.65 Cal/C

6
Equipment:

The specifications of the equipment used during the experiment were listed in full in the table

below.

Table 1: Equipment Specifications

Equ ipm ent M od el R an ge Re sol utio n Ac cura cy

Calorimeter Parr 6100 52-12000 Cal .0001° C 0.1-0.2%

Digital Scale Tree HRB 10001 0-3000 grams 0.01 grams 0.1 grams

Stopwatch iPhone NA NA NA

7
Method:

The following series of step where used:

1. Fill the bath with 2 liters of water

2. Cut 5 inches of nickel wire

3. Shape the wire based on figure 1

a. Make sure the wire can be fully submerged on the fuel without making contact

with fuel container

4. Connect the wires to the sides of the calorimeter lid

5. Weight the fuel container empty

6. Weight the fuel container with fuel up to 0.7g

7. Position the container in the bomb calorimeter lid

8. Set up the bomb calorimeter

9. Fill the calorimeter with oxygen and pressurize it to 20 atmospheres (gage).

10. Place the bomb calorimeter inside the water bath and close the cover

11. Initiate the test

12. Record the temperature displayed every 30 seconds.

8
Figure 1: Fuel Container, Nickel Wire and Calorimeter Lid

9
Results:

Figure 2: Bucket Temperature of All Groups

As we can see in the graph above the initial temperature remain constant, until the combustion of

the fuel occurs and generates a temperature spike around the 180 second mark. After the

combustion, the temperature inside the bomb calorimeter reaches steady state once again.

10
 Table 2: Higher Heating Value for All Groups

Group Higher Heating Value (Cal/g)

Tue_Gr1 9569.19

Tue_Gr2 10912.94

Tue_Gr3 10582.20

Tue_Gr4 10128.21

Tue_Gr5 19886.13

Thur_Gr1 12020.48

Thur_Gr2 17288.28

Thur_Gr3 12795.50

Thur_Gr4 11146.07

Mean 12703.22

On the table above we can see the higher heating value obtain by all 9 different groups, we obtained

an average higher heating value of 12703.22 Cal/g.

Table 3: T-Test Performed on Higher Heating Value Data

T-Test Single Sample at 97% Confidence Values

Null Hypothesis 0

P(hf>|hf theoretical|) 0.21

11
We compared fuel’s higher heating value obtained from the experimentation against the expected

value for gasoline (petrol) using the t test for a single mean sample. We tested the null hypothesis

that the data obtained from the bomb calorimeter comes from a normal distribution with mean

equal to theoretical heating value of gasoline(11089.87 Cal/g ). We can see from the table, at 97%

confidence level the fuel used during the experiment was gasoline (based on the theoretical value

obtained from engenieeringtoolbox.com), since we fail to reject null hypothesis.

12
Error Analysis:

The t-distribution depicts the area between the sample and the total number of standardized data

sets. Setting three criteria allows you to perform a two-tailed t-test to statistically assess the

hypothesis. As can be seen, bounds 1 and 3 show that the sample mean is within the range of the

theoretical mean.

Figure 3: t distribution

Bias errors resulting from instrument faults and precision mistakes resulting from human

involvement are the two primary sources of inaccuracy in measurements. The following formula

can be used to compute the precision error from the t-test with 95% confidence:

13
 𝜎𝜎
𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 = �𝑡𝑡𝛼𝛼 , 𝑣𝑣� × (8)
2 √𝑛𝑛

Where:

- PE = pre cision n er ror

- 𝑡𝑡𝛼𝛼 = t-tes t sco re at α

2

- C = conf idenc e leve l

- 𝛼𝛼 = sign ific anc e level = 1-C

- n = sam ple siz e

- v = deg ree es of fr ee dom = n-1

In the following table we can see the mean heating value of the fuel, the standard deviation, and

the precision error. Since we previously established the fuel used during the experiment was

gasoline, we can determine the data has a percentage error of 12.7% based on the theoretical value

of 11089.87 Cal/g for gasoline

Table 4: Error Analysis of Higher Heating Value Data

Error Analysis Values

mean Hf [Cal/g] 12703.22

Std Deviation 3327.88

Precision Error [Cal/g] 2428.41

14
Summary and Remarks:

The experiment's goal was to use a bomb calorimeter to measure the increased heating value of an

unidentified fuel. We determine the fuel has an average heating value of 12703.22 ± 2428.41Cal/g.

We also performed a t-test to determine if the fuel used during experimentation is gasoline, as we

fail to reject the null hypothesis that experimental heating value is equal to the theoretical value of

11089.87 Cal/g. We also observe from figure 2, how the initial temperature remains constant until

the combustion, which generates a temperature spike inside the bomb calorimeter, and later on the

system returned to equilibrium as the final temperature.

15
References:

ASTM. "Stand ard Test Met hod for H eat of Com bustion o f Liquid H ydr o car bon Fuels by B

omb C alori met er." 1 November 20 19. PDF. 1 De cember 202 2. <https://l earn-us-

east- 1-prod-fleet01-xythos.conte nt.blackboardcdn.com/blackboard.lea

rn.xythos.prod/5a33ed4 744755/39130.

Fuels - Hig her and L ower Calo rific Va lues. 2003. On line. 30 No vember 2022. <https://w

ww.engineer ingtoolbox.c om/fuels-higher-calorific-values-d_169.html#:~

:text=Higher%20Calorific% 20Value%20%28%3D%20Gros s%20Calorific

%20Value%20-,heat%20contained%20in%20the%20wa ter%20vapor%20i

s%20recovered>.

16
Calculations:

MATLAB code:

clc
clear all
format bank

Data Import
% Set up the Import Options and import the data
opt s = spread sheetI mpor tOptio ns("N um Vari ables", 10);

% Specify sheet and range

op ts.Sh eet = "gr ap h";
op ts .Da taRa nge = "A3: J 1 7";

% Specify column names and types

opts.VariableNames = ["Times", "Tue_Gr1", "Tue_Gr2", "Tue_Gr3", "Tue_Gr4", "Tue_Gr5", "Thur_Gr1",
"Thur_Gr2", "Thur_Gr3", "Thur_Gr4"];
opts.V ari abl eTyp es = ["doub le", "dou ble", "doub le ", "d oubl e", "double", "double ",
"dou ble", "dou ble", " do uble", "double"];

% Import the data

Buck etTe mper at ure = readtable(" C :\Users \rauls\OneD rive - Univ ersi ty of
Miami\universidade s\UM \2022 fa ll\MAE 404\LAB 5\LAB5.xlsx", o pts, "UseEx cel", e);

Graph
figure(1)
hold all
plot(BucketTemperature,"Times","Tue_Gr1",'LineWidth',2)
plot(BucketTemperature,"Times","Tue_Gr2",'LineWidth',2)
plot(BucketTemperature,"Times","Tue_Gr3",'LineWidth',2)
plot(BucketTemperature,"Times","Tue_Gr4",'LineWidth',2)
plot(BucketTemperature,"Times","Tue_Gr5",'LineWidth',2)
plot(BucketTemperature,"Times","Thur_Gr1",'LineWidth',2)
plot(BucketTemperature,"Times","Thur_Gr2",'LineWidth',2)
plot(BucketTemperature,"Times","Thur_Gr3",'LineWidth',2)
plot(BucketTemperature,"Times","Thur_Gr4",'LineWidth',2)
ylim([0 inf])
title("Bucket Temperature","FontSize",25)
ylabel("Temperature [C]","FontSize",20)
xlabel("Time [s]","FontSize",20)
set(groot,'defaultLineLineWidth',2.0)
legend(["TueGr1", "TueGr2", "TueGr3", "TueGr4", "TueGr5", "ThurGr1", "ThurGr2", "ThurGr3",
"ThurGr4"],'Location','best','Orientation','horizontal','FontSize',20)

17
Error Analysis
hfs = [95 69.19,10912 .94,1 0582.2 0,10128 .21,19 886.13,1202 0.48,1728 8 .28,127 95.50,11 1
46.07];

hfTheo = 46.4; %[MJ/kg] https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuels-higher-calorific-values-

d_169.html#:~:text=Higher%20Calorific%20Value%20%28%3D%20Gross%20Calorific%20Value%20-
,heat%20contained%20in%20the%20water%20vapor%20is%20recovered

R = (10^6)/(4.184*1000); % [MJ/kg] -> [Cal/g]

hfTheo = hfTheo* R;

sam pl esize = leng th(hf s);

alpha = 0.03;

[st d, mea n] = st d(hf s,1);

tS c ore = ti n v((1-alph a),(s a m p le si ze-1 ) );
S E = s t d/ sqrt(s am pl esi ze );
PE = tScore * SE; PER = (abs(hfTheo-mean))/hfTheo;

[ho,p,ci] = ttest(hfs,hfTheo,'Alpha',alpha);
fprintf('H0 = %1.0f, P(hf>|hf theo|) = %1.2f \n',ho,p)
fprintf('Confidence Interval = %8.2f < hf < %8.2f \n', ci(1),ci(2))
fprintf('hf = %8.2f +/- %4.2f [Cal/g] \n',mean,PE)

H0 = 0, P(hf>|hf theo|) = 0.21

Confidence Interval = 9604.32 < hf < 15802.12
hf = 12703.22 +/- 2428.41 [Cal/g]

Published with MATLAB® R2022a

18
Appendix:

Figure 4: Lab Notebook

19
Figure 5: Bo mb Calori meter Data P ost E xper iment

20
 Table 5: Raw Temperature Data

Bucket Temperature [°C]

Ti
me Tue_G Tue_G Tue_G Tue_G Tue_G Thur_ Thur_ Thur_ Thur_
[s] r1 r2 r3 r4 r5 Gr1 Gr2 Gr3 Gr4
21.670 22.079 22.351 21.614 19.734
0 8 3 0 3 5 21.5410 20.2108 22.0029 21.8491
21.678 22.098 22.374 21.943
30 9 1 9 21.628 9 21.5429 21.6799 22.0781 21.9277
21.694 22.131 22.382 21.641 21.999
60 4 1 5 2 5 21.5460 21.7040 22.0804 21.9473
21.699 22.138 22.386 21.636 22.005
90 7 3 4 7 3 21.5498 21.7113 22.0818 21.9602
21.702 22.142 22.389 21.644 21.976
120 6 7 0 1 6 21.5533 21.7153 22.0831 21.9670
21.704 22.145 22.390 21.646 22.010
150 4 6 4 2 1 21.5574 21.7181 23.1220 21.9715
21.705 22.485 23.517 22.613 21.979
180 7 1 6 9 9 21.5612 21.7203 24.1690 21.9749
22.615 23.958 24.438 23.571 22.014
210 5 0 5 2 0 21.5660 22.8163 24.8052 22.9697
23.515 24.479 24.791 23.929 23.933
240 0 2 0 4 2 21.5716 23.9483 25.0821 24.0307
23.852 24.717 24.962 24.110 24.474
270 0 8 2 5 7 21.5789 24.3672 25.2290 24.4072
24.023 24.846 25.054 24.210 24.719
300 2 8 3 2 6 21.5861 24.5686 25.3114 24.5987
24.116 24.919 25.105 24.267 24.850
330 9 9 2 5 0 21.5938 24.6777 25.3572 24.7024
24.170 24.962 25.134 24.291 24.936
360 2 1 1 5 0 21.6026 24.7401 25.3834 24.7607
24.201 25.149 24.960
390 2 0 8 21.6112 24.7755 24.7951
24.983
5 24.7836

21