Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GRADUATION THESIS
Project Consultant : Prof. Dr. AL PINARBAI
STANBUL,2016
CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY
1.INTRODUCTION.............................................................................3
1.1Radiation Exchange With Emitting And Absorbing
Gases.....................................................................................................5
1.2 Emissivity and Absorptivity of Gases and Gas Mixtures.............8
2.CALCULATIONS..........................................................................19
2.1 Parameters...................................................................................19
2.2 Determination Of The Rate Of Heat Transfer By Radiation
Consisting Of Boiler Combustion Gases............................................21
2.3 Chart Analysis............................................................................31
RESOURCES
1. INTRODUCTION
Radiation heat transfer, eventhough is not a popular subject in literature, is a
dominant heat transfer mechanism especially in high temperatures thereby
improving energy efficiency. In this study, models provided by theorical
background on radiation heat transfer in enclosures applied on household builtin ovens. In the firt section of the thesis, the main concepts that constitute
radiation heat transfer is introduced. Surface radiation has been divided into to
sections: at first idealized surfaces that called black body than the real ones
(gray surfaces). Here, the methods that are used to solve surface radiation
between gray surfaces before mentioning fundamentals about gas radiation. The
second section is referred to the application of the study and the experimental
setup in High Temperature Heat Transfer Laboratuary that the studies carried
with the 1001 project 111M048 supported by TUBITAK. Afterwards, the surface
radiation in the original oven is investigated. At first, the cavity set empty, than
the brick is been placed in the center to be studied to provide the basis for
improvements. In the following two subtitle, the radiation exchange factor and
emissivity are determined as parameters. At first, the prototype that the size of
the cavity is changed is investigated to determine the effect of exchange factor
relationship. Moreover, the standart position of the test brick is set to different
locations to link energy consumption of the oven and position of the brick. As it
is noticed that the energy resources of our planet is alarming, the researches
have started to give their attention to decrease the consumptions. For that
purpose, the household appliances are one of the important field to focus.
Thanks to these studies, the efficiency levels are improving. During 90s the
energy efficiency of a domestic oven was in approximetely 12-13%, nowadays
the levels are lift up to 25%. Nevertheless, the standardization of the energy
consumption experiments has become to be identified more detailed by the
commities. European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization
(CELENEC) has announced in 1996 and, give its final version in 2005 as EN
50304 for the energy consumption experiments for domestic ovens. The
complexity of analytical solution of radiation problems have pave the way for
numerical solutions beside them. Radiosity Irradiosity Method (RIM), Discrete
Transfer Method (DTM), Discrete Ordinate Method (DOM), Finite Volume
Method and Monte Carlo Method are some of the most popular numerical
methods in radiation problems. Monte Carlo Method, which is used in this
study, is a statistical method that models a physical problem. Markhov chain and
random numbers set a base for this method which gives rapid results. Monte
Carlo aprroach has been adapted to radiation problems by Howell . These
models have been used oftenly in industrial cases. These studies and a large
literature summary are present in. On the other hand, numerical studies in
domestic ovens have been conducted by various studies including the effects of
radiation in addition to natural convection. In the present work, such an analysis
including the effects of radiation and convection in domestic ovens has been
performed by the means of S2S radiation model and k-epsilon turbulence model.
Three different enclosure models have been designed in a built-in oven in order
to improve the efficiency of radiation. The main goal was to improve efficiency
by improving the contribution of view factor effect. The experimental study has
been carried out in order to compare the models from the view points of energy
consumption and cooking time. By the way, the computational study focused on
the mechanism of heat transfer in cavity. During the study on the emissivity of
the oven the concept low emissivity oven examined at first. The studies
carried on a prototype supplied by supporter firm that showing reducing
emissivity reduces temperature gradient thus decreasing heat loses. The results
obtained by this section pave the way for a critical view on the concept.
Therefore, it has been stated as a projection that the emitter plates should be
high and collector plates should have low emissivity. The projection has been
validated by experimental results that the energy consumption can be reduced
so. Finally, in the last section of the thesis, the effect of moist air in the cavity on
the gas radiation mechanism is being searched. Firstly, by the view of
engineering aspect the order of the gas radiation in the oven is stated. Results
have shown that gas radiation cannot be neglected. Secondly, two different
numerical models one considering gas radiation (Disrete Ordinates) the other
only surface radiation (S2S) are compared for a cavity that filled with moist air.
Due to many engineering applications, like ovens, combustion chambers,
condensers etc. there are many researches devoted to coupled heat and mass
transfer in enclosures. For high temperature applications, radiative heat transfer
should be taken into account hence there are also some paper covered heat/mass
transfer with radiation. However, it is possible to claim that radiative heat
transfer plays a nonnegligible role in heat transfer even in very low temperature
differences .In addition to computational studies, including radiative heat
transfer or not, it is also an important factor that whether radiation is treated as a
surface phenomenon or a whole-domain phenomenon. A numerical study on this
issue has shown that it is possible to obtain completely different results by using
different treatments. Therefore, for the ones who are willing to conduct a
numerical study on the radiation phenomena, it is vital to determine which type
of treatment would be sufficient to obtain an agreement between experimental
and numerical results. Briefly the object of this study is to investigate the
coupled heat/mass transfer with radiation in an enclosure and proposing a
limitation for participating medium assumption with a comparative study on two
radiation models. In this study, the governing equations are solved by means of
finite-volume approach with a commercial CFD program (FLUENT). All
equations are temporally discretized by first order implicit time integration
Beers Law
Consider a participating medium of thickness L. A spectral radiation
beam of
intensity I, 0 is incident on the medium, which is attenuated as it
propagates
due to absorption. The decrease in the intensity of radiation as it
passes
through a layer of thickness dx is proportional to the intensity itself
and the
thickness dx.
(Figure 1.1)
The attenuation of a radiation beam while passing through an
absorbing medium of thickness L.
Figure 1.2
Spectral absorptivity of CO2 at 830 K and 10 atm for a
path length of 38.8 cm (from Siegel and Howell, 1992 ).
Figure 1.3
Figure 1.4
Figure 1.5
Figure 1.6
w = Cw.w, 1 atm
Note that Cw _ 1 for P _ 1 atm and thus (Pw _ P)/2 _ 0.5 (a very low
concentration of water vapor is used in the preparation of the
emissivity chart in Fig. 1.3 and thus Pw is very low). Emissivity
values are presented in a similar manner for a mixture of CO2 and
nonparticipating gases in Fig. 1.4 and 1.6.
Now the question that comes to mind is what will happen if the CO2
and H2O gases exist together in a mixture with nonparticipating gases.
The emissivity of each participating gas can still be determined as
explained above using its partial pressure, but the effective emissivity
of the mixture cannot be determined by simply adding the emissivities
of individual gases (although this would be the case if different gases
emitted at different wavelengths). Instead, it should be determined
from
Figure 1.7a
Figure 1.7b
Figure 1.7b
Emissivity correction _ for use in g = w + c - when both CO2
and H2O vapor are present in a gas mixture
(1 m . atm = 328 ft . atm) (from Hottel, 1954, Ref. 6).
and
Table 1.1
be expressed as Eg = gTg^4. Then the rate of radiation energy
emitted by a gas to a bounding surface of area As becomes
If the bounding surface is black at temperature Ts, the surface will
emit radiation to the gas at a rate of AsTs^4 without reflecting any,
and the gas will absorb this radiation at a rate of AgAsTs^4 , where
g is the absorptivity of the gas. Then the net rate of radiation heat
transfer between the gas and a black surface surrounding it becomes
2.CALCULATIONS
2.1 PARAMETERS
L
(m)
D
(m)
Tg
(K)
Ts
(K)
%CO2 %H2O Pg
(atm)
Pout
(bar)
1.5
450
373
0.4
14
3.5
1.75
500
423
0.5
7.5
15
1.25
550
473
0.6
16
1.5
4.5
2.25
600
523
0.7
8.5
17
1.75
2.5
650
573
0.8
18
Table 2.1
L= boiler size
D= radius of boiler
= spreading coefficient
%CO2= rate of carbon dioxide in the boiler
%H2O= rate of water vapor in the boiler
Pg= pressure of gases
L=3m D= 1,5m
Tg=450K Ts=373K
=0,4
CO2=%7 H2O=%14
Pi=2atm Pout=1bar
Assumptions: 1 All the gases in the mixture are ideal gases. 2 The
emissivity determined is the mean emissivity for radiation emitted to
all surfaces of the cylindrical enclosure. 3 All interior
surfaces of furnace walls are black. 4 Scattering by soot and other
particles is negligible.
Analysis: The volumetric analysis of a gas mixture gives the mole
fractions yi of the components, which are equivalent to pressure
fractions for an ideal gas mixture. Therefore, the partial pressures of
CO2 and H2O are
The average emissivity of the combustion gases at the gas temperature
of Tg =1200 K was determined in the preceding example to be g=0,4
c, 1 atm = 0,1
w, 1 atm = 0,26
and
These are the base emissivity values at 1 atm, and they need to be
corrected for the 2 atm total pressure. Nothing that
0,14+ 1
=0.57 atm
2
( Pw + P )
2
and 1.6,
Cc = 1,11
and
Cw =1,45
Both CO2 and H2O are present in the same mixture, and we need to correct for
the overlap of emission bands. The emissivity correction factor at T = Tg =
450K is, from Figure 1.7,
= 0,014
Ts
Tg
Ts
Tg
= (0,14atm)x0,9mx
373 K
450 K
= (0,28atm)x0,9mx
373 K
450 K
= 0,342ft.atm
= 0,684 ft.atm
c, 1 atm =0,095
and
w, 1 atm=0,25
c=
Cc
w = Cw
Tg0, 65
.
Ts0, 65
Tg0,45
0,45
Ts
c, 1 atm =(1,11) x
. w, 1 atm =(1,45)x
450 K 0,65
373 K 0,65
x (0,095)= 0,119
450 K 0,45
x (0,25)
0,45
373 K
=0,394
DH
+2
D
4
1,5m).(3m) + 2
1,5
4
= 17,67 m^2
Then the net rate of radiation heat transfer from the combustion gases
to the walls of the furnace becomes
Q
Q
As(m^2)
17,67
20,027
net(W)
6,89 x 10^3
7,80 x 10^3
22,383
24,740
8.72 x 10^3
9,64 x 10^3
27,096
10,56 x 10^3
Table 2.2
c, 1 atm
w, 1 atm
( Pw + P )
2
Cc
D=1,5m
0,14
0,28
0,9
0,413
0,826
0,1
D=1,75m
0,14
0,28
1,05
0,482
0,964
0,11
D=2m
0,14
0,28
1,2
0,55
1,1
0,12
D=2,25m
0,14
0,28
1,35
0,62
1,24
0,13
D=2,5m
0,14
0,28
1,5
0,68
1,37
0,13
0,26
0,27
0,28
0,32
0,32
1,14
1,14
1,14
1,14
1,14
1,11
1,13
1,1
1,08
1,15
Cw
1,45
1,44
1,43
1,4
1,39
0,014
0,474
0,017
0,496
0,018
0,514
0,022
0,566
0,0235
0,57
0,342
0,39
0,45
0,51
0,56
0,684
0,79
0,91
1,02
1,13
c, 1 atm
w, 1 atm
0,095
0,1
0,11
0,12
0,125
0,25
0,25
0,29
0,3
0,32
c
w
0,119
0,14
0,136
0,146
0,162
0,394
0,42
0,451
0,457
0,483
0,015
0,018
0,019
0,023
0,024
0,498
0,542
0,568
0,58
0,621
As(m^2)
17,67
21,30
25,13
29,15
33,37
11,89
14,36
19,80
21,48
g
PcL
Ts
Tg
ft.at
m
PwL
Ts
Tg
ft.at
net(x10^ 9,81
3W)
Table 2.3
FOR Tg = 450K , 500K , 550K , 600K , 650K
The values
Pc(atm)
Pw(atm)
L(m)
PcL(ft.atm)
PwL(ft.atm)
c, 1 atm
w, 1 atm
Tg=450
0,14
0,28
0,9
0,413
0,826
0,1
Tg=500
0,14
0,28
0,9
0,413
0,826
0,1
Tg=550
0,14
0,28
0,9
0,413
0,826
0,1
Tg=600
0,14
0,28
0,9
0,413
0,826
0,1
Tg=650
0,14
0,28
0,9
0,413
0,826
0,11
0,26
0,26
0,25
0,25
0,25
( Pw + P )
2
1,14
1,14
1,14
1,14
1,14
Cc
1,11
1,2
1,12
1,2
1,2
Cw
1,45
1,44
1,44
1,44
1,44
0,014
0,474
0,014
0,48
0,014
0,466
0,014
0,466
0,014
0,478
0,342
0,308
0,28
0,25
0,236
0,684
0,616
0,56
0,51
0,473
c, 1 atm
w, 1 atm
0,095
0,095
0,09
0,09
0,085
0,25
0,25
0,24
0,23
0,23
c
w
0,119
0,138
0,14
0,147
0,146
0,394
0,410
0,410
0,410
0,425
0,015
0,015
0,015
0,015
0,015
0,498
0,53
0,535
0,542
0,556
As(m^2)
17,67
17,67
17,67
17,67
17,67
19,77
32,34
50
74,7
Tg=523
0,14
0,28
0,9
Tg=573
0,14
0,28
0,9
g
PcL
Ts
Tg
ft.at
m
PwL
Ts
Tg
ft.at
net(x10^ 9,81
3W)
Table 2.4
FOR Ts =373K , 423K , 473K , 523K , 573K
Tg= 650K Received
The values
Pc(atm)
Pw(atm)
L(m)
Ts=373
0,14
0,28
0,9
Tg=423
0,14
0,28
0,9
Tg=473
0,14
0,28
0,9
PcL(ft.atm)
PwL(ft.atm)
0,413
0,826
0,11
0,413
0,826
0,11
0,413
0,826
0,11
0,413
0,826
0,1
0,413
0,826
0,11
0,25
0,25
0,25
0,25
0,25
1,14
1,14
1,14
1,14
1,14
Cc
1,2
1,2
1,12
1,2
1,2
Cw
1,44
1,44
1,44
1,44
1,44
0,014
0,478
0,014
0,478
0,014
0,478
0,014
0,478
0,014
0,478
0,236
0,27
0,3
0,33
0,36
0,473
0,53
0,6
0,66
0,72
c, 1 atm
w, 1 atm
0,085
0,09
0,09
0,09
0,095
0,23
0,23
0,24
0,24
0,23
c
w
0,146
0,142
0,132
0,124
0,123
0,425
0,401
0,398
0,381
0,350
0,015
0,013
0,014
0,015
0,017
0,556
0,53
0,516
0,49
0,456
As(m^2)
17,67
17,67
17,67
17,67
17,67
68,48
59,61
48,75
36,23
c, 1 atm
w, 1 atm
( Pw + P )
2
g
PcL
Ts
Tg
ft.at
m
PwL
Ts
Tg
ft.at
net(x10^ 74,7
3W)
Table 2.5
FOR %CO2 =7, 7,5 , 8 , 8,5 , 9
The values
Pc(atm)
Pw(atm)
L(m)
PcL(ft.atm)
PwL(ft.atm)
%7
0,14
0,28
0,9
0,413
0,826
0,1
%7,5
0,15
0,28
0,9
0,442
0,826
0,11
%8
0,16
0,28
0,9
0,472
0,826
0,12
%8,5
0,17
0,28
0,9
0,50
0,826
0,11
%9
0,18
0,28
0,9
0,53
0,826
0,12
0,26
0,27
0,27
0,27
0,27
1,14
1,14
1,14
1,14
1,14
Cc
1,11
1,12
1,12
1,12
1,1
Cw
1,45
1,45
1,45
1,45
1,45
0,014
0,474
0,015
0,5
0,016
0,509
0,015
0,5
0,016
0,507
0,342
0,36
0,4
0,41
0,44
0,684
0,684
0,684
0,684
0,684
c, 1 atm
w, 1 atm
0,095
0,1
0,1
0,1
0,11
0,25
0,25
0,25
0,25
0,25
c
w
0,119
0,126
0,126
0,126
0,136
0,394
0,394
0,394
0,394
0,394
0,015
0,014
0,015
0,015
0,0165
0,498
0,506
0,505
0,505
0,513
As(m^2)
17,67
17,67
17,67
17,67
17,67
10,72
11,11
10,74
10,88
c, 1 atm
w, 1 atm
( Pw + P )
2
g
PcL
Ts
Tg
ft.at
m
PwL
Ts
Tg
ft.at
net(x10^ 9,81
3W)
Table 2.6
FOR %H2O = 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18
The values
Pc(atm)
Pw(atm)
L(m)
PcL(ft.atm)
PwL(ft.atm)
%14
0,14
0,28
0,9
0,413
0,826
0,1
%15
0,14
0,3
0,9
0,413
0,88
0,1
%16
0,14
0,32
0,9
0,413
0,944
0,1
%17
0,14
0,34
0,9
0,413
1
0,1
%18
0,14
0,28
0,9
0,413
1,06
0,1
0,26
0,27
0,27
0,28
0,29
1,14
1,15
1,16
1,17
1,18
Cc
1,11
1,11
1,11
1,11
1,11
Cw
1,45
1,44
1,42
1,43
1,435
0,014
0,474
0,015
0,484
0,0155
0,478
0,016
0,495
0,0165
0,506
0,342
0,342
0,342
0,342
0,342
0,684
0,729
0,782
0,82
0,878
c, 1 atm
w, 1 atm
0,095
0,095
0,095
0,095
0,095
0,25
0,29
0,28
0,287
0,29
c
w
0,119
0,119
0,119
0,119
0,119
0,394
0,454
0,432
0,446
0,452
0,015
0,016
0,016
0,0165
0,0168
0,498
0,557
0,535
0,548
0,554
c, 1 atm
w, 1 atm
( Pw + P )
2
g
PcL
Ts
Tg
ft.at
m
PwL
Ts
Tg
ft.at
As(m^2)
17,67
net(x10^ 9,81
3W)
17,67
17,67
17,67
17,67
9.08
9,26
9,70
10,04
Table 2.7
FOR Pg= 1atm , 1,25atm , 1,5atm , 1,75atm , 2atm
The values
1atm
1,25atm
1,5atm
%2atm
0,105
0,21
0,9
0,309
0,619
0,09
%1,75at
m
0,122
0,245
0,9
0,360
0,723
0,095
Pc(atm)
Pw(atm)
L(m)
PcL(ft.atm)
PwL(ft.atm)
0,07
0,14
0,9
0,2066
0,4132
0,084
0,0875
0,175
0,9
0,25
0,5
0,088
0,2
0,24
0,245
0,25
0,26
0,57
0,7
0,85
1,14
Cc
1,62
1,15
1,32
1,2
1,11
Cw
1,1
1,08
1,2
1,41
1,45
0,0065
0,3495
0,0075
0,352
0,012
0,419
0,013
0,453
0,014
0,474
0,1712
0,2
0,256
0,3
0,342
0,3424
0,4
0,513
0,6
0,684
0,036
0,086
0,09
0,095
0,095
c, 1 atm
w, 1 atm
( Pw + P )
2
g
PcL
Ts
Tg
ft.at
0,14
0,28
0,9
0,413
0,826
0,1
m
PwL
Ts
Tg
ft.at
c, 1 atm
w, 1 atm
0,18
0,21
0,23
0,248
0,25
c
w
0,153
0,111
0,113
0,128
0,119
0,239
0,246
0,330
0,380
0,394
0,0068
0,0077
0,013
0,0135
0,015
0,3852
0,349
0,43
0,494
0,498
As(m^2)
17,67
17,67
17,67
17,67
17,67
7,69
8,87
9,03
9,81
net(x10^ 6,89
3W)
RELATIONSHIP L AND Q
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
3.5
4
L(m)
4.5
2.25
2.5
Q(W)
Graph 2.3.1
RELATIONSHIP D AND Q
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
1.5
1.75
2
D(m)
Q(W)
Graph 2.3.2
7.5
8
%CO2
8.5
Q(W)
Graph 2.3.3
15
16
%H2O
17
Q(W)
18
Graph 2.3.4
RELATIONSHIP Tg AND Q
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
450
500
550
Tg(K)
600
650
523
573
Q(W)
Graph 2.3.5
RELATIONSHIP Ts AND Q
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
373
423
473
Ts(K)
Q(W)
Graph 2.3.6
RELATIONSHIP Pg AND Q
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
1.25
1.5
Pg(atm)
1.75
Q(W)
Graph 2.3.7
RELATIONSHIP AND Q
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Q(W)
Graph 2.3.8
3.ABSTRACT
Gases with asymmetric molecules such as H2O, CO2 CO, SO2, and
hydrocarbons HnCm participate in the radiation process by absorption
and emission. The spectral transmissivity, absorptivity, and emissivity
of a medium are expressed as
w= Cw. w, 1atm
and
c=Cc.c,1 atm
where Cw and Cc are the pressure correction factors. For gas mixtures
that contain both of H2O and CO2, the emissivity is determined from
g= c + w
w, 1atm
RESOURCES
[1] Yunus engel, Heat And Mass Transfer , 3rd Edition ,2012
[2] Prof. Dr. Fethi Halc, rneklerle Is Geii - Is Transferi , 2rd
Edition, 2012
[3]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214157X14000
100
[4] http://nptel.ac.in/courses/113104058/mme_pdf/Lecture31.pdf
[5]http://www.mhtl.uwaterloo.ca/courses/ece309_mechatronics/lecture
s/pdffiles/summary_ch12.pdf