To: Professor Ashley Emery, Shazib Vijlee

Cc: Professor Vipin Kumar

From: ME 495 – Team B: Clyde Downing, Nick Gacek, Alexandra Gramling, Vasili Ialanji
Subject: Radiation Experiment
Attachments: Final Report

Dear Professor Emery,

Earlier in this quarter we were given the task of designing, constructing, and testing an
experimental set up to be used for the radiation portion of the Introduction to Heat Transfer
course. The attached report is the culmination of our work throughout the quarter regarding this
experiment.

In the report we will walk you through our process of designing and building this experiment, as
well as set ups and materials that were tested and failed during this process. We will also cover
our finalized design set up as we are currently leaving it, and the results we found from this set
up. Our report will also cover improvements and changes that we have recommended; these
should be implemented either before the lab is used in the actual course or periodically during its
use.

As per the request by both Professor Kumar and Shaz in our appendix we have also attached a
lab handout for the students and T.A. to use when running this lab.

If given more time there are improvements and additional testing we would have liked to run, but
overall we anticipate this lab to be a valuable addition to the heat transfer curriculum that will
keep students engaged and helped to enhance their understanding of radiation.
 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON – DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Radiation Experiment
ME 495 Spring 2012 Kumar

Team B:
Alexandra Gramling
Vasili Ialanji
Nick Gacek
Clyde Downing

6/4/2012

The University of Washington Department of Mechanical Engineering currently lacks a

laboratory experiment covering radiation in its Introduction to Heat Transfer course. Our team
undertook the challenge of developing an experiment for students that which cover the
fundamentals of radiation in addition to maintaining student interest during testing through the
addition of a “visible” radiation component. The final experimental set up involved utilizing a
hot plate as a radiative source to boil water in one of three Pyrex cylinders with varying base
materials. The varying materials of the cylinders allow students to vary the emissivity in the
experiment and take notes on its effect on the boiling water. The distance between the cylinders
and heat source can also be changed to enable students to understand how view factor affects the
radiation reaching the water as well. This experiment resulted in error comparable to and in some
cases less than those found for the existing conduction and convection experiments currently in
use. While additional testing is necessary to locate the sources of error and remove them from
the system, the overall set up is adequate for students to run experiments in the upcoming
quarter.
Table of Contents
List of Figures: ......................................................................................................................... 3
List of Tables: .......................................................................................................................... 4
Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 5
Radiation ................................................................................................................................. 6
Project Development: ................................................................................................................ 8
Design Ideation ........................................................................................................................ 9
Finalized Design: .....................................................................................................................11
Experimental Procedure: ...........................................................................................................15
Results and Calculations: ..........................................................................................................17
Determining a view factor .....................................................................................................22
Discussion: .............................................................................................................................22
Conclusion: .............................................................................................................................26
Future Work and Recommendations: ..........................................................................................26
Appendix A – Student Lab Handout: ..........................................................................................29
Prelab: ................................................................................................................................29
Lab Instructions: ..................................................................................................................29
Calculations: ........................................................................................................................30
Appendix B – Raw data from DaqView: .....................................................................................36
Appendix C – Gantt Chart: ........................................................................................................37
Bibliography: ..........................................................................................................................38
List of Figures:
Figure 1: General view factor equation. ........................................................................................... 7
Figure 2: Design prototype provided by client using a hot plate and beaker combination. ...................... 9
Figure 3: Base design prototype.....................................................................................................10
Figure 4: Final experimental design. ..............................................................................................12
Figure 5: Pyrex test cylinders with varying bases. ............................................................................12
Figure 6: Beaker stand with beaker in place. ...................................................................................13
Figure 7: Beaker support system. ...................................................................................................14
Figure 8: Variac for experiment. ....................................................................................................15
Figure 9: Beaker flush with insulation during testing. .......................................................................16
Figure 10: Apparatus Schematic ....................................................................................................17
Figure 11: View factor equations for coaxial parallel disks. .......................................................19
Figure 12: Graph of view factor versus height. ................................................................................22
Figure B.1: An example of the raw data produced in DaqView for the AISI 303 Steel..........................36
Figure C.1: Gantt chart covering work during the quarter. ................................................................37
List of Tables:
Table 1: Measured data from experiment. .................................................................................17
Table 2: Calculation results. ............................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 3: Final calculation results. ..............................................................................................21
Table 4: Shows results for multiple experiment runs. .......................................................................25
Introduction

According to ABET standards, the University of Washington’s Department of Mechanical

Engineering requires students to take an introduction to heat transfer course. In this course the
three main concepts of heat transfer are covered: conduction, convection, and radiation. These
concepts are taught to students through the combination of lectures, homework, and two labs.
The two labs currently used in the heat transfer course cover conduction and convection. Our
team’s goal was to create a third lab that can be added to the course covering the core concepts
of radiation.

As students who have already completed the heat transfer course, we approached this challenge
with the intent of creating a lab that would not only help students gain additional knowledge
about radiation, but would also be visually appealing to students, so as to maintain their interests
during a long lab session. We also wanted to set up an experiment that was easy to use, within
our ME495 budget, and safe for students and T.A.’s alike.

In order to attempt this challenge we began by first understanding the underlying concepts of
radiation that are covered in the course, and what concepts needed to be covered in the lab. Both
a brief background of radiation, and the principal concepts we focused on are discussed in detail
in this report.

Once we had determined which radiation concepts were wanted to focus on, we set out to build
and test our experiment. We found that through the use of multiple beakers with varying base
materials we could vary emissivity, and through the addition of a beaker stand to allow for height
variation, we could also easily vary the view factor. After finalization of our experimental set up
we began tests runs, and the results of those runs are covered in detail in our report. Following
this we also discuss the meaning of these results and then discuss changes and recommendations
for future work. In our appendices we also provide the student lab hand out, as well as other
miscellaneous calculations and results from testing.
Radiation

Thermal radiation is one of the principle mechanisms of heat transfer. It involves the emission of
electromagnetic radiation due to an object's temperature, while acting in the absence of a
medium. According to the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, the emissive energy that is released per unit
area is proportional to the fourth power of the absolute temperature of an object's surface.
According to Incropera et al [3], it is necessary to introduce the concept of blackbody.

1. A blackbody absorbs all incident radiation, regardless of wavelength and direction.

2. For a prescribed temperature and wavelength no surface can emit more energy than a
blackbody.
3. Although the radiation emitted by a blackbody emitted by a blackbody is a function of
wavelength and temperature, it is independent of direction. That is, the blackbody is a
diffuse emitter.

For a blackbody surface, the emissive power is given as:

(1)

Where σ is the Stefan Boltzmann constant (5.670E-8 W/m2K4), and T is the absolute temperature
of the surface. However, a blackbody is only an ideal surface. For real surfaces, heat flux is also
dependent on the emissivity of the material. The blackbody model is a standard against which
the radiative properties of actual surfaces can be compared. Emissivity is defined as the ratio of
the radiation emitted by the surface to the radiation emitted by a blackbody at the same
temperature. Emissivity is a function of wavelength and intensity. Incropera explains how
assuming emissivity is constant over a range of temperatures is a close approximation. For real
surfaces radiation energy is given by:

(2)
Where ε is the emissivity of the surface and has a range of values between zero and one. If a hot
object is radiating energy to its cooler surroundings the net radiation heat loss rate can be
expressed as:

(3)

Where Th is the absolute temperature of the hotter surface, Tc is the absolute temperature of the
colder surface, and Ac is the surface area of the colder surface.

A surface absorbs energy from its surroundings by irradiation, while some of the irradiation is
reflected back to the surroundings. Thus Radiosity (J) accounts the total radiant energy leaving a
surface; emitted and reflected. When determining the rate of thermal radiation between two or
more surfaces, their radiative properties, temperatures, geometry and orientation need to be
considered. As shown in Figure 1, the geometry and orientation in respects to one another are
determined by using view factors. View factors are defined as the fraction of the radiation
leaving surface (i) that is intercepted by surface (j), which is represented by .

Figure 1: General view factor equation.

After mathematical manipulation, calculating view factor becomes:

∫ ∫ (4)

Some view factors for common geometries and orientations of two surfaces are listed in heat
transfer handbooks to simplify common radiation problems.

Project Development:

When approaching this challenge, our team decided to focus on two major concepts of radiation,
which are emissivity and view factor. In addition to covering these concepts in our experimental
design, we aimed to create a setup that would allow students to visualize the radiation occurring
by attempting to boil water. We planned to implement our design concept by positioning a
beaker with water above a hot plate. The ideal result would be that the water in the beaker could
be made to boil (or have a significant temperature increase) without any outside intervention
beyond the heat from the plate, thus providing students with a visual example of radiation.

The emissivity as mentioned in the previous section is related to a materials ability to absorb
energy and then emit it as radiation, and is also strongly dependent on both surface finish and
type of material used. To accomplish our design goals, our team spent time brainstorming ways
to incorporate these radiation criteria into our experiment. Our final design concept incorporated
varying the material of the beaker used so that students could observe how low emissivities
versus high emissivities affected whether or not the water boiled.

We also focused our design on incorporating view factor into our experiment. While the view
factor depends on the shape of the surface that is radiating and the shape of the surface that is
receiving, it also strongly depends on distance between two objects. In order to factor these ideas
into our project we thought that varying the shape of the beakers or possibly the shape of the hot
plate might demonstrate our concept. However through further research we realized that
obtaining beakers that vary from a cylindrical shape could be difficult and expensive. Upon
learning that this method wouldn’t work, we decided that through the addition of a beaker stand,
similar to those used in a chemistry course, we could use this to change the height of the beaker
relative to the hotplate and thereby vary the view factor.

Design Ideation

Figure 2 shows a Solid Works model of the initial design provided by our client. This initial
prototype utilizes a cylindrical hot plate and a beaker filled with water separated by an evacuated
chamber in order to eliminate natural convection from the experimental set up. From this base
design our team tried multiple experimental set ups in order to determine the best set up for our
final laboratory design.

Figure 2: Design prototype provided by client using a hot plate and beaker combination.
After reviewing our clients request we first wanted to make sure that we could boil water under
the given conditions. To accomplish this we set up a make shift design using a square hot plate
and beaker stand, in addition to a Pyrex beaker, shown in Figure 3.
 Figure 3: Base design prototype.
We placed the beaker approximately an inch above the hot plate and then added 200mL of water.
Within 5 minutes the water had begun to boil. This meant that we could accomplish our client’s
ambitious goal of boiling water. However, we also wanted to be sure that should any problems
arise during construction we had alternate set ups which involved the possibility of melting ice,
or simply monitoring a temperature change in the water.

From this base prototype our team began brainstorming ways to improve on our clients existing
design, and make this set up a reality. Our first step was to decide which concepts were crucial
for the experiment in order to accomplish the inclusion of view factor and emissivity variation.
We also wanted to base our set up on materials that we had readily available due to our limited
budget and time constraints for the project. Beyond this we were also concerned with the overall
time of the lab, safety of students in the lab setting, and not exceeding the electrical system
limitations when running the experiment.

In order to vary emissivity our initial brainstorming results were to use a range of beaker
materials. To accomplish this we researched multiple websites and spoke to different chemistry
equipment supply companies however we were only able to find the standard Pyrex beaker,
which we already had, and plastic or stainless steel beakers. It would’ve been possible to use the
stainless beakers in our experiment however the plastic beakers could not withstand the heating
conditions. We were also concerned that the temperatures would not only be high enough to
melt the plastic, but harmful chemicals could also be released. After learning that materials for
standard manufactured beakers were extremely limited we decided that a better alternative
approach would be to use Pyrex cylinders, and attach a separate base material to allow for
variation of emissivity. Using this design concept, we were able to choose three different base
materials, aluminum, stainless steel 303 and 304, ranging from low to high emissivity’s
respectively.

After deciding how exactly to vary the emissivity we then set out to finalize the view factor
variation in our experiment. While we had previously planned on just using a beaker stand to
vary the height between the beaker and the hot plate, we also looked into possible alternatives,
one of those alternatives being building our own device to allow for an easier level change
between the plate and the beaker. We soon realized that this idea would prove to be too much to
accomplish in our time frame so we chose to abandon that plan. We also considered varying the
beaker diameter during testing instead of changing its height however this would’ve required that
we purchase multiple items for holding the varying beakers in place, so it too was abandoned.

Finalized Design:

Our final design can be seen in Figure 4. In this set up we have temperlite being used to support
the hot plate. Due to the high temperatures involved in this experiment releases a large amount of
heat not only to the beaker being used, but also through the base of the plate. In order to safely
conduct this experiment we determined it was necessary to use an insulative material; in this case
temperlite that can withstand high temperatures underneath the plate in order to prevent
destruction of the surface supporting the system. The box enclosing the plate works both as a
safety mechanism as well as insulator that prevents the heat from the plate from escaping to the
surroundings.
 Figure 4: Final experimental design.
The final beaker design involves three Pyrex cylinders with a variety of metal disks. The metal
disks are attached to one end of the cylinders with high temperature silicon, shown in Figure 5.
The metals chosen were stainless steel 303, 304 and aluminum. The emissivity values for these
are 0.74, 0.4, and 0.09 respectively.

Figure 5: Pyrex test cylinders with varying bases.

We chose these materials because it is relatively easy to obtain thin machine-able sheets for the
materials used, and the emissivity variation will allow students to see how a higher emissivity
material versus a low emissivity material affects the water boiling.

To hold the beaker above the plate as well as change its height so that we can the view factor we
obtained a beaker stand commonly used in chemistry labs. Attached to this stand is a beaker
holder that is long enough to hold the beaker above the center of the plate so that the optimum
amount of radiation reaches the base of the beaker, shown in Figure 6. Around the beaker we
also used a 3” automotive muffler clamp in combination with rubber tubing lining the inner
portion of the clamp as a beaker support system, shown in Figure 7. This was done because
condensation builds up on the beakers during testing, and we wanted to ensure that the beaker
wouldn’t slip and fall when this happens. The rubber also helps to cushion the beaker and reduce
the risk of breakage between the metal and Pyrex interface.

Figure 6: Beaker stand with beaker in place.

 Figure 7: Beaker support system.
In order to regulate the temperate of the hot plate a variac, shown in Figure 7, was added to the
experimental set up. Due to electrical constraints in the lab, a voltmeter was also added to the
wiring attached to the variac in order to monitor its current output. Thermocouples are utilized
throughout the system in order to provide temperature readings to DaqView. DaqView is a
program that allows real time data to be collected and easily exported to data manipulation
programs such as MatLab or Excel.
 Figure 8: Variac for experiment.

Experimental Procedure:

When running the experiment the following procedure was followed. One of the three beakers is
chosen as the current test beaker and filled with approximately 200 mL of water. The beaker is
then weighed using the digital scale provided in the lab, and the weight recorded to the nearest
tenth of a gram. It is then converted to milliliters using the following relation:
(5)

Once weighed the beaker is then fit snuggly into the beaker support system and set at a
predetermined distance between two to five centimeters from the hot plate depending on the
current test run. As shown in Figure 9, the beaker is also ensured to be flush with the top portion
of the insulation in order to remove as much natural convection as possible from affecting the
results.
 Figure 9: Beaker flush with insulation during testing.
Once the beaker is placed above the hot plate, a lid is placed on top of the beaker in order to
prevent evaporation before steady state. The variac is then turned to 63V which maintains the
current below 25A, and keeps the setup from exceeding the voltage settings in the lab. The hot
plate under these conditions will reach approximately 700°C, however due to the insulation
laying on top of the plate the temperature is increased to approximately 850°C. After this point
the water is allowed to reach steady state at 100°C. As soon as the water reaches the steady state
temperature the DaqView program is activated and the lid removed. It is imperative that the
program be activated as soon as the water starts to boil in order to reduce error. The system is
allowed to run at steady state for 15 minutes after which testing is stopped and the beaker is
again weighed. After this another beaker is chosen and the process repeated, or the height is
changed and the same beaker is again used for testing.
Results and Calculations:

Figure 10 shows the schematic of our apparatus. All of the surfaces and distances are labeled.
These labels will be referenced in the following calculations.

Figure 10: Apparatus Schematic

The bottom surface, labeled , is referring to the hot plate in our set up. All of the values and
measurements that relate to the hot plate will have a subscript with a number 1 (Ex: ). The
beaker is labeled with the number 2; therefore all the measurements referring to the beaker will
have a subscript labeled 2 (Ex: ). The distance between the surface of the beaker bottom and
hot plate surface is labeled . Insulation is illustrated on the schematic and labeled. The purpose
of designing any kind of lab is to give students a hands-on experience with the theory that is
taught in class. This lab requires raw data collection during the procedure of the entire lab. Some
of the data is recorded manually while some data is collected using the DaqView program. Table
1 shows measurements that were taken during one of the tests.

Table 1: Measured data from experiment.

Measured data
Mass of water before

Mass of water before

Distance of beaker

convection
Radious of the beaker
Emisivity of beaker

above hot plate

Beaker type

experiment

experiment

coeficent
Natural

type e2 L M1 M2 rad h
[cm] [g] [g] [cm] [W/m^2K]
303 0.74 5 300 275 3.81 5
For this experiment a beaker with an AISI 303 steel bottom was used, as indicated in the first
column of the table. Emissivity values for each material were found using Engineering
Toolbox[1] and Holan Engineering[2].

Most of the data was collected electronically using DaqView. The program was set up to record
the temperature, in Celsius, of the hot plate at 7 different locations spread over the entire surface
of the hot plate. Temperature measurements were recorded and saved automatically in 1.125
second intervals. Raw data is shown in Appendix B. Due to the length of the raw data,
temperature values given in appendix only span one minute of time. This is enough to show that
temperatures in the hot plate have reached steady state and the water is consistently boiling.
Using the temperature data shown in appendix, an average value was found for columns 3
through 10. These values are used in equation 1. The average temperature can be found in Table
2. Using the first and final entries from the time column of our raw data and taking the difference
we find that the total boiling time, .

∑ (6)

(7)
The next step is to find the view factor between two coaxial parallel disks. Figure 11 shows the
equation used to calculate the view factor; the result is given in Table 2. Using the values shown

Figure 11: View factor equations for coaxial parallel disks.

Table 2: Calculation results.

View Factor (F_1-2=F_2-

Area of open hot plate
Temperature of beaker

Area of beaker bottom

Radious of the beaker

Emisivity of hot plate

bottom (surface 2)

calculation's value

calculation's value
Intermidiate

Intermidiate
surface

1)
rad T2 A2 A1 e1 R* S* F
[cm] [K] [m^2] [m^2]
3.81 373 0.005 0.005 0.78 1.000 3.000 0.382
in Table 1 and equation 7, the area of each disc is found, results are given in Table 2. Initially we
made the assumption that our hot plate had an emissivity of .9, but after further examination we
determined that our plate was made out of copper. Copper oxidizes at a very fast rate at high
temperatures so we searched for and found an emissivity of .78 for “Copper heated and covered
with thick oxide layer” [1], found value is given in Table 2.

As shown in Figure 10, our set up creates a 3 surface enclosure. This type of set up is discussed
in Chapter 13 of Introduction to Heat Transfer [3]. This type of set up creates 3 surfaces between
which the radiation occurs. In addition to 3 surfaces in an enclosure, we have a perfectly
insulated, reradiating surface. For this type of set up, the heat transfer rate through radiation
between surfaces is given in equation 8 below. Because our insulation is assumed to have
reradiating surface, all of the heat radiated from the plate must be absorbed by the beaker bottom.
The heat rate calculated from this is found in Table 3.

(8)

In order to compare the total heat radiated we must find how much total heat was radiated during
the time that experiment was run. This can be done by using equation 9, using values from Table
1 and Table 2; result is given in Table 3.

(9)

The ultimate purpose of the lab is to find the error in the experiment. To do accomplish this one
must compare the theoretical value found in equation 9 to the measured amount through
experimentation. Using equation 10, we find how much mass of water was evaporated during the
experiment; the result is listed in Table 3. Applying equation 11 we are able to obtain the actual
amount of heat needed to evaporate the measured mass of water. The heat of vaporization
, the result is listed in Table 3.

(10)

(11)

To compare results of the experiment, equation 12 is used to find the percent error between
actual and calculated heat values, results are given in Table 3.

| |
(12)

Although natural convection has a small affect associated with it, we must consider it in attempt
to minimize error. As discussed earlier, our set up creates a three surface disclosure. This means
that air is partially blocked inside the enclosure, and is restricted from exchanging with the
surrounding air. Having a low air movement dictates a low natural convection coefficient;
chosen value is listed in Table 1. To find the heat transfer rate caused by natural convection we
must apply equation 13; and results are given in Table 3. Applying equation 9 to find total heat
gained by natural convection will allow us to find total heat gained by radiation and
natural convection together .This can be achieved by adding them together, using equation
14 and results are given in Table 3. To see the effect of natural convection on our results we will
use total heat gained to find a new percent error using equation 12 again.

(13)

(14)

Table 2: Final calculation results.

by

natural
Heat flow rate through beaker

Total heat gained by radiation

Mass of water evaporated

gained
Heat lost by evaporation

ERROR with convection

and natural convection
by
bottom by radiation

heat

gain
convection
radioation

ERROR
Total

Heat

q2 rad M evap Q actual Q rad %ERR q2_conv Q total %ERR*

[kW] [kg] [KJ] [KJ] % [kW] [kJ] %
0.194 25 56.4 99.93 44 0.017 108.9 48
Determining a view factor

Figure 12: Graph of view factor versus height.

The graph in Figure 12 above shows view factor as a function of height of beaker above the hot
plate. View factor from beaker bottom to hot plate equals the view factor of hot plate to the
beaker bottom for the following two reasons. First, the area of the hot plate is equivalent to the
area of the beaker bottom. Second, the two areas are located directly above each other and are
parallel to each other. According to the equation shown in Figure 11; if the area of both disks is
the same then view factor . According to Figure 12 view factor decreases exponentially.
In order to effectively illustrate the effect of different view factors we decided to use 2 different
heights. The two different heights are 2 and 5 centimeters, corresponding to view factors .59 and
.29 respectively. Chosen view factors will give significant change in the heat transfer for students
to detect during the experiment.

Discussion:

As mentioned earlier, the purpose of our experiment was to show the effect of surface emissivity
and view factor for radiation heat transfer phenomena. In order to achieve this goal we picked
used three different metals as beaker bases resulting in a wide range of emissivity values.
Emissivity values for Steel 303, Steel 304 and Aluminum 606 are given in Table 4 (Note that the
aluminum has two different emissivity values which are explained later). Emissivity values for
these metals were found in the heat transfer textbook currently used in the course curriculum. It
is important to mention that emissivity of aluminum in lines 11-13 has a bigger value than in
lines 9-10. That is because oxidation of metals changes the emissivity value significantly, and
during testing the high heat caused the aluminum to oxidize. When interpreting results we
considered aluminum as both an oxidized surface and the original not oxidized material. The
steel however had very little oxidation occur during testing meaning it’s emissivity value had
very little if any change during testing.

To demonstrate how much of an effect oxidation had on aluminum we ran calculations for both
the oxidized and unoxidized emissive values. Lines 9-10 in Table 4 consider the literature value
of .09 for calculations; this generates an error value of -177% without convection. As the
aluminum surface becomes oxidized the emissivity tends to increase, and the suggested value
from the literature is .2 [2]. Using suggested oxidized aluminum value the error is decreased to -
33%. This shows that oxidation has a significant influence in emissivity of aluminum, which in
turn greatly affected our results.

Table 4 also shows negative and positive values for percent error. In order to understand what
negative and positive errors mean we must look at the equation 12, which was used to find the
percent error. In order for a result to be negative heat evaporated must be bigger than
calculated value . Negative percent error means that more water was evaporated than
heat gained from hot plate. This can only be justified by the fact that emissivity value has been
increased, because it is impossible for the water to gain heat from the environment, since the
surroundings are at a lower temperature than water. Positive error means that according to
calculations more water should have been evaporated. If not enough water was evaporated, this
means that some of the heat was lost to the environment.

Losing heat to the surroundings from our apparatus could have been the result of many outside
factors. In our calculations we have assumed that insulation used is perfect insulator and is a
reradiating surface. Although material used is a highly insulative, it is still not a perfect insulator,
and may in fact be absorbing some of the radiation emitted by the hot plate. Another error could
have been caused by water loss before and after the steady state. Although vaporization before
steady state is minimized by placing a lid on top of the beaker, vapor is still able to escape
through the gaps. Any vapor loss that was not accounted for could, if large enough, result in a
positive percent error in our results. Alternatively, the error could have been created by the heat
loss to the surroundings from the sides of the beaker. Glass beakers were used with the intent to
make the boiling water be visible to eye, however this means that glass will conduct heat from
boiling water to the surrounding air. Convection with the surrounding air could also cause a
positive error to our calculations.

Considering all of the errors and unaccounted emissivity changes due to oxidation, our maximum
error was 50% for both of the steels used. Specifically, steel 303 has a percent error range of
27% to 44%. While 304 has a range of error from -32% to 20%. If we consider the effect of
natural convection, percent error is increased by approximately 5%. This is because natural
convection helps the heat transfer from hot plate to beaker; however in many cases we still had
less water evaporate then anticipated meaning while natural convection may be helping it is more
than likely minimal.

While an error of 50% may seem high, in comparison to other currently used experiments such
as the conduction lab, which can result in an error of up to 400%, this amount seems reasonable.
If additional tests could be run, as well as if more equipment was available for our use during the
design process, we could find where our error is occurring and then ways to reduce that error.
Table 3: Shows results for multiple experiment runs.

Distance of beaker above hot

beaker

Area of open hot plate surface

Avg temperature of hot plate

Natural convection coeficent

ERROR with convection

Area of beaker bottom
Radious of the beaker

Emisivity of hot plate

of
bottom (surface 2)
Emisivity of beaker

Temperature
Beaker type

ERROR
plate
T1 e2 L rad T2 A2 A1 e1 h % %ERR*
# type
[K] [cm] [cm] [K] [m^2] [m^2] [W/m^2K] % %
1 303 1130 0.74 2 3.81 373 0.005 0.005 0.78 5 39 43
2 303 1112 0.74 2 3.81 373 0.005 0.005 0.78 5 38 42
3 303 1110 0.74 2 3.81 373 0.005 0.005 0.78 5 39 44
4 303 1128 0.74 2 3.81 373 0.005 0.005 0.78 5 27 33
5 304 1090 0.4 2.2 3.81 373 0.005 0.005 0.78 5 -32 -16
6 304 1154 0.4 2.2 3.81 373 0.005 0.005 0.78 5 -12 0
7 304 1169 0.4 2.2 3.81 373 0.005 0.005 0.78 5 0 11
8 304 1110 0.4 2.2 3.81 373 0.005 0.005 0.78 5 0 11
9 Alum 1135 0.09 2.2 3.81 373 0.005 0.005 0.78 5 -177 -87
10 Alum 1142 0.09 2.2 3.81 373 0.005 0.005 0.78 5 -174 -86
11 Alum 1141 0.2 2.2 3.81 373 0.005 0.005 0.78 5 -31 -7
12 Alum 1142 0.2 2.2 3.81 373 0.005 0.005 0.78 5 -22 1
13 Alum 1102 0.2 5 3.81 373 0.005 0.005 0.78 5 -46 -16
14 304 1127 0.4 5 3.81 373 0.005 0.005 0.78 5 19 29
15 303 1134 0.74 5 3.81 373 0.005 0.005 0.78 5 44 48
Conclusion:

Our mission this quarter was to design and construct a functional radiation lab that the
Mechanical Engineering students at the University of Washington would enjoy. The first step in
undertaking the task was to learn as much as we could about radiation. This was a more difficult
task than we anticipated. We spent two weeks learning about view factors and emissivity
because those are the keys to understanding radiation.

After getting a grasp on these concepts, we began analyzing the initial design that was proposed
to us by Shazib V. We then redesigned to simplify the construction and ensure boiling even
though it made the calculations more complicated because we had to account for convection. We
ultimately decided to have many beakers with different material bottoms to vary emissivity and
to raise and lower the beakers to vary the view factor.

We hit many snags in the quarter, some of which include blowing fuses on the variac, tripping
breakers in the room, and having inadequate insulation among others. Now as the quarter comes
to a close we have a simple lab that will help the department show students the effects of
emissivity and view factor in radiation. Radiation is a critical component of heat transfer and we
have now provided the Mechanical Engineering Department with a working lab that
demonstrates its two main attributes. With some additional work in the future it can be polished
into a solid lab that will entertain students more than the other labs in this department.

Future Work and Recommendations:

If more time were available there would be a number of improvements we would make to our
existing experiment. The first of these would be to purchase a new plate for the currently used
hot plate. During testing it appeared that a possible coating or paint over the top of the plate was
burning off with each use. Initially we anticipated that this process would stop once the coating
was entirely burnt off, however as it continued we realized that the high temperatures required
for the experiment were causing the copper plate to oxidize at an accelerated rate, and resulting
in damage to the thermocouples embedded in the plate. Therefore it is our recommendation that
a new plate be purchased and periodically replaced in order to avoid increased error in results
due to plate failure, or through the purchase of a new metal plate that can withstand high
temperatures.

In addition to the additional plate replacements, we are also recommending that an electric kettle,
and additional beaker support systems be purchased. The electric kettle would allow water to be
preheated to just below steady state, and would reduce the time necessary to cause the water
contained in the beaker to reach boiling. Additional beaker support systems would be ideal for
increasing student safety as well as reducing lab time. With the current set up only one stand is
utilized therefore it needs to cool after testing, or the use of heat resistant gloves is required to
place it on the next beaker for testing.

After running multiple tests with the varying beaker materials it was discovered that the
aluminum beaker was similar to the hot plate, subject to oxidation after multiple runs. A safety
hazard was also discovered with the use of aluminum, in that should a student for whatever
reason happen to consume the water boiled in the aluminum beaker it could be harmful to their
bodies. Therefore it is highly recommended that the aluminum beaker no longer be used and
another low emissivity metal or other high temperature capable material be used.

During testing two materials were used as insulation, temperlite and hydroperm. The temperlite
through continued use began splitting as it cooled, and is therefore no longer recommended for
the experiment. Following the failure of the temperlite, hydroperm was printed using a Z-
Corporation three dimensional printer, it appeared that the hydroperm would work however in its
printed state it was too fragile. It is recommended that hydroperm continue to be used, however a
casting of hydroperm should be made instead of a printed model. Multiple insulation pieces
should also be made so that as the height of the beaker is varied, insulation can be stacked up to
correspond to these changes.

While it is anticipated that the majority of students would not touch the hot plate or beakers
during testing with their bare hands, accidents happen. This is why we also feel it would be
beneficial to create a clear enclosing for the experiment. The enclosure would have a door so that
after a test has been run a T.A. or student could remove the necessary items and reset the
experiment for another run, closing it before they do so. This addition it would keep students
from accidentally bumping or touching something while it is at a high temperature, while still
allowing them to observe the experiment as its running.

In order to enhance the visual experience of the lab a temperature color indicator would also be a
valuable addition. This indicator would give students a visual cue that the experiment had
reached steady state rather than sitting and monitoring temperatures in DaqView. If a water
temperature indicator cannot be found a coating or material for the outside of the beaker that also
results in a color change corresponding to temperature could also be used.

Apart from the above recommendations, in the future it would be beneficial to run additional
tests to locate the cause of the error in theoretical versus experimental results. Additional tests to
calculate the exact emissive value of the materials used would also be beneficial in order to
reduce the overall error seen between theoretical and actual results.
Appendix A – Student Lab Handout:

Prelab:
Solve problem 13.71 from textbook.

Lab Instructions:
1.First select the beaker with Steel 303 as its base. Place
the beaker support system slightly above the middle of
the beaker and tighten the bolts if necessary to ensure
that it is secure, see Figure
2.Fill the approximately ¾ of the beaker with hot water.
3.Weigh the beaker with the water and support on the
electrical scale, and record the initial mass.
4.Place the hot plate so that it is on top of two layers
insulation, see Figure 2. At least two layers of insulation
is necessary in order to prevent the hot plate from
overheat the table.
Figure 1: Beaker with metal support
5.Start the DaqView program and connect the
and water.
thermocouples that are attached to the hot plate.
6.Place the 5cm insulation block onto the hot plate, and
center the beaker holder above the center of the hot
plate as seen in Figure 2.
7.Set the beaker into the beaker holder. Then place a
thermocouple into the water, and cover the beaker with
a lid to prevent evaporation before steady state is
reached. Adjust the height of the beaker holder so that
the bottom of the beaker is flush with the top of the
insulation, see Figure 3. The base of the beaker needs to
be as close to flush with the top of insulation as possible
Figure 2: Hot plate and insulation set
in order to prevent an error in calculations when using
up
this 5 cm value.
8.Turn the variac on, and set it to 65 V. Turn the current
meter on and connect it as seen in Figure 2. Monitor the
current meter during testing to ensure that it does not
exceed 20 A. It should take approximately 30 minutes
for the system to reach stead state where the hot plate is
at 800°C and the water is boiling (100°C).
9.Once steady state is reached, start recording the
temperatures of the system using DaqView and remove

Figure 3: Complete pre-heating set up

 the lid from the beaker. Allow the experiment to run at steady state for roughly 10 minutes.
10. After 10 minutes, stop the data recording, and using the provided heat resistant gloves remove
the beaker from the stand. Place the beaker on the scale and record the weight after boiling;
the difference between these two weights is the amount of water evaporated.
11. Repeat the above (steps 1 through 10) with the beaker using Steel 304 as its base.
12. Now adjust the beaker holder so that L will equal 2 cm (in order to vary view factor) and repeat
the experiment (steps 1 through 11) for both beakers.

Calculations:
1.Draw experiment set up and list assumptions used. (Hint: Assume the hot plate has an
emissivity of 0.9)
2.Write down the measured and theoretical values for: Emissivity of stainless steel 303 and 304,
height of the beaker bottom above the hot plate, the radius of the beaker, the average hot plate
temperature, and the time of the experiment duration. (Note: If any of the values were found
outside of the classroom text be sure to record where they were found in your references.)
3.Calculate the following values, as they will be needed in later calculations: , , , ,

4.Calculate the heat rate transferred to the beaker bottom from the hot plate, q2. (Hint: Use
equation 13.25 from your text.)
5.Find the total amount of heat gained by natural convection, . (Hint: Use equation 1.3 in
your text)
6.Find the total heat gained by radiation and natural convection and heat lost by
evaporation .
7.Find the percent error %ER between the heat lost through evaporation and heat gained by
radiation and natural convection.
8.Complete the same calculations using the data for the other beaker.
9.Write a brief paragraph explaining the results, and discussing the possible cause of errors.
Solutions:
Calculation Question Solutions:

1.Drawing of experiment set up and list assumptions used. (Hint: Assume the hot plate has an
emissivity of 0.9)

a. Hot plate has surface emissivity of 0.9.

b. Insulation is diffuse gray and is a perfect insulator
c. Negligible convection on the sides of the beaker that’s exposed to surroundings.
d. Beaker bottom has a uniform temperature of 100°C at steady state (Boiling temperature)
e.
f. Actual metals used (S303 and S304) have the same emissivity value as litereture
g. Water evaporated before and after the state is negligible.

2.Write down the measured and theoretical values for: Emissivity of stainless steel 303 and 304,
height of the beaker bottom above the hot plate, the radius of the beaker, the average hot plate
temperature, and the time of the experiment duration. (Note: If any of the values were found
outside of the classroom text be sure to record where they were found in your references.)
Answers

3.Calculate the following values, as they will be needed in later calculations: , , , ,

Answers
4.Calculate the heat rate transferred to the beaker bottom from the hot plate, q2. (Hint: Use
equation. (Use 13.25 from your text.)

Answers

kW
5.Find the total amount of heat gained by natural convection, . (Hint: Use equation 1.3 from
your text)

Answers

Assume ⁄
6.Find the total heat gained by radiation and natural convection and heat lost by
evaporation .

Answers
( )

7.Find the percent error %ER between the heat lost through evaporation and heat gained by
radiation and natural convection.

Answers

8.Complete the same calculations using the data for the other beaker.
Answers

9.Write a brief paragraph explaining the results, and discussing the possible cause of errors.

Answers
Less water evaporated then should have. This means some of the heat was lost to the
environment.
This could have been caused by:
a. Natural convection on the sides of the beaker.
b. Actual emissivity of steel might be less than theoretical value used.
c. Emissivity of hot plate might be less than assumed.
d. Some water might have been evaporated before the steady state was reached.
e. Insulation might not be perfect insulator as assumed.
Appendix B – Raw data from DaqView:
Time Date Temperature Of Hot Plate Surface Water Temperature
PD1_A02 PD1_A03 PD1_A04 PD1_A05 PD1_A06 PD1_A08 PD1_A09 PD1_A10
hh:mm:ssMM-DD-YYYY °C °C °C °C °C °C °C °C
16:29:14 5/24/2012 872 963 857 882 713 863 856 100
16:29:15 5/24/2012 873 963 857 882 713 863 856 100
16:29:16 5/24/2012 873 963 857 882 713 863 856 101
16:29:17 5/24/2012 873 963 857 882 713 863 856 100
16:29:18 5/24/2012 873 963 857 882 713 863 856 100
16:29:19 5/24/2012 873 963 857 882 713 863 856 100
16:29:20 5/24/2012 873 963 857 883 713 863 856 101
16:29:21 5/24/2012 873 963 857 883 713 863 856 101
16:29:22 5/24/2012 873 963 857 883 713 863 856 101
16:29:24 5/24/2012 873 963 857 883 713 863 856 101
16:29:25 5/24/2012 873 963 857 883 712 863 856 101
16:29:26 5/24/2012 873 963 857 883 712 863 856 101
16:29:27 5/24/2012 873 963 857 883 712 863 856 101
16:29:28 5/24/2012 873 963 857 883 712 863 856 101
16:29:29 5/24/2012 873 963 857 883 712 863 856 101
16:29:30 5/24/2012 873 963 857 883 712 863 856 101
16:29:31 5/24/2012 873 963 857 883 712 863 856 101
16:29:33 5/24/2012 873 964 857 883 712 863 856 101
16:29:34 5/24/2012 873 964 857 883 712 863 856 101
16:29:35 5/24/2012 873 964 857 883 712 863 856 101
16:29:36 5/24/2012 873 964 857 883 712 863 857 101
16:29:37 5/24/2012 873 964 857 883 712 863 857 101
16:29:38 5/24/2012 873 964 858 883 712 863 857 101
16:29:39 5/24/2012 873 964 857 883 712 863 857 101
16:29:40 5/24/2012 873 964 858 883 712 863 857 101
16:29:42 5/24/2012 873 964 858 883 712 863 857 101
16:29:43 5/24/2012 873 964 858 883 712 863 857 101
16:29:44 5/24/2012 873 964 858 883 712 863 857 101
16:29:45 5/24/2012 873 964 858 883 712 863 857 101
16:29:46 5/24/2012 873 964 858 883 712 863 857 101
16:29:47 5/24/2012 873 964 858 883 712 863 857 101
16:29:48 5/24/2012 873 964 858 883 712 863 857 100
16:29:49 5/24/2012 873 964 858 883 712 863 857 101
16:29:50 5/24/2012 873 964 858 883 712 863 857 101
16:29:52 5/24/2012 873 964 858 883 712 863 857 101
16:29:53 5/24/2012 873 964 858 883 712 863 857 101
16:29:54 5/24/2012 873 964 858 883 712 863 857 101
16:29:55 5/24/2012 873 964 858 883 712 863 857 101
16:29:56 5/24/2012 873 964 858 883 712 863 857 101
16:29:57 5/24/2012 873 964 858 883 712 863 857 101
16:29:58 5/24/2012 873 964 858 883 711 863 857 101
16:29:59 5/24/2012 873 964 858 883 711 863 857 101
16:30:01 5/24/2012 873 964 858 883 711 863 857 101
16:30:02 5/24/2012 874 965 858 883 712 863 857 101
16:30:03 5/24/2012 873 965 858 883 712 863 857 101
16:30:04 5/24/2012 874 965 858 883 711 863 857 101
16:30:05 5/24/2012 874 965 858 883 711 863 857 101
16:30:06 5/24/2012 874 965 858 883 711 863 857 101
FigureB.1: An example
16:30:07 5/24/2012 874
of
965
the raw
858
data produced
883
in DaqView
711 863
for857
the AISI 303101
Steel.
16:30:08 5/24/2012 874 965 858 883 711 863 857 101
16:30:10 5/24/2012 874 965 858 883 711 863 857 101
16:30:11 5/24/2012 874 965 858 883 711 863 857 101
16:30:12 5/24/2012 874 965 858 883 711 863 857 101
16:30:13 5/24/2012 874 965 858 883 711 863 857 101
16:30:14 5/24/2012 874 965 858 883 711 863 857 101
Appendix C – Gantt Chart:

Figure C.1: Gantt chart covering work during the quarter.

Bibliography:
[1] Emissivity Coefficients of some common Materials [Online]. Available:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/emissivity-coefficients-d_447.html
[2] Table of Emissivity of Various Surfaces [Online]. Available:
http://www.holanengineering.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/emissivity_1.pdf
[3] F. Incropera, D. Dewitt, T. Bergman, and A. Lavine, Introduction to Heat Transfer, 5th
ed.: John Wiley & Sons, 2007.
[4] R. Siegel and J. Howell, Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer, 4th ed. Great Britain: Taylor
& Francis, 2002.