You are on page 1of 16

Mini-project report

Radiator heat transfer augmentation by


changes to wall surface roughness and
emissivity
Mr Krys Bangert
dtp09kb@sheffield.ac.uk
June August 2010

Radiator heat transfer augmentation by changes to wall roughness and emissivity


1) Abstract:
This mini-project is a part of ongoing work carried out at Sheffield University by Dr Stephen Beck and
multiple PhD and MEng students looking into the effects of combined radiation and convection on household
radiators. This study looks at how changes to a walls surface finish can affect a radiators heat transfer. A
series of tests and computer simulations were run comparing the heat loss from a radiator when the wall
roughness and emissivity directly behind it was changed. To gather the empirical data needed for the study
an existing radiator test rig built to approximate European Standard EN 442-2 was used. Thermocouples
were mounted on the radiator, wall, inlet/outlet pipes and in the air gap behind the radiator, to gather
temperature readings for levels of conduction, radiation and convection in the system. Three tests were
carried out under steady state conditions, with a 10C drop across the radiator to comply with the British
Standard. The first test used a plain wall as a control, the second and third tests had sandpaper sheets
matching the profile of a radiator attached to the wall behind the radiator. The sheets were sprayed in gloss
black and silver paint respectively, to modify the surface emissivity. A computer simulation of the setup and
tests was also created for comparison using the CFD (computational fluid dynamics) program Fluent.
Unfortunately the results from the tests and simulations were inconclusive due to high levels of experimental
error and convergence issues in the CFD model. However, the data did show that the overall trends
discovered in previous work relating to emissivity are valid. It is hoped that in future work more accurate
results can be obtained based on the recommendations of this study.
Keywords: E-Futures, CFD, Heating, Radiator, Convection, Radiation, Heat transfer.

2) Introduction:
Domestic energy consumption is one of the key areas currently been looked at by environmental
researchers. It has been estimated that the domestic sector accounts for over 30% of the current UK national
1
energy demand, the second largest usage behind the transport sector .
If the greenhouse gas emission targets set by the UK government are going to be met in the coming
decades, the way we use energy in the home is going to have to become more efficient. One of the best
ways to achieve this, in the short to medium term is to upgrade the existing housing infrastructure to make it
as energy efficient as possible. This will help to offset the transition as new zero carbon housing gradually
replaces the ageing housing stock.
The biggest domestic efficiency gains are to be made in space and water heating, which account for 58%
2
and 24% of the energy use respectively . Since the 1970s the rates of overall domestic heat loss have fallen
3
progressively due to improvements made in the levels of insulation . However, the single largest contributor
to this heat loss; the heat lost through walls, is still a common problem today3.
The focus of this mini-project is to continue the work carried out in Sheffield Universitys department of
mechanical engineering, looking into new methods of increasing household thermal efficiency. This study
looks into the effect that wall surface roughness and emissivity have on domestic radiator heat output. This
work will be building on the findings gathered by former MEng student S.G. Blakey and current PhD student
4-6
A.K.A Shati. In their previously published work , it was found that if surfaces with a higher emissivity were
placed behind a radiator at an optimal distance (s/L = 1/12. Where s is the separation and L is the vertical
4
height of the radiator), a larger heat output could be obtained from the radiator . It was then subsequently
discovered that if large scale roughness was also added to the surface finish, the heat flow could be
increased even more (upto 26% using a high emissivity saw-tooth surface)6. With further analysis it was
found that these effects were caused by the wall heating up due to its higher emissivity (more infrared
radiation was absorbed than a plain/reflective wall). This heating in turn created a convecting surface behind
the radiator which increased the air flow. The addition of roughness to the wall further amplified this effect by
increasing the surface area for heat transfer and creating more turbulence, which improved the mass
transfer and heat flux in the air gap behind the radiator.
This mini-project will look into how the heat transfer is affected by using a different geometry on the wall
surface with dissimilar emissivities. The experiments and simulations will be carried out in a similar fashion to
the previous studies, but the surface finish will be based upon coarse grain sandpaper with different emissive
coatings.

3) Experiments/methodology
Test setup:
To perform the experiments an existing domestic central heating test rig from the previous studies was
reused (see appendix 1.0-1.1). This setup was designed and built to approximate European standard EN
7
442-2 , this enabled pervious test results to be compared with the performance figures for commercially
produced radiators.
The setup consisted of the following apparatus:
Amount:
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
10
6
1
-

Description:
Standard 600mm high by 600mm wide single plate radiator with 50mm expanding foam
insulation covering one side
3kW immersion heater regulated by a PID temperature controller (accuracy: 0.1C).
Hot water cylinder with insulation.
Water cistern.
Control valves to regulate water flow: two control valves on the radiator, one bypass valve to
the water tank and one output valve.
Class F mains powered pump operating at 60W 2000 RPM.
Rotormeter to measure the water flow rate.
Pico technology TC-08 Serial thermocouple interface.
Pico technology TC-08 USB thermocouple interface.
Type T thermocouples (accuracy: 1C)
Type K thermocouples (accuracy: 1C)
Digital thermistor type anemometer (accuracy: 0.3C and 0.015m/s)
15mm copper piping with foam lagging (10mm thick).
20mm thick High density particle board.

For each test the radiator was mounted 150mm above the floor and 50mm away from the wall, to match the
previous test setups. These measurements were used again because it was discovered that the maximum
4
values of heat transfer occur at this distance away from the wall in Blakelys initial study . The thermocouples
were arranged on the radiator, front and back of the wall, inlet and outlet pipe and in the air gap behind the
radiator (see appendix 1.2-1.3). A thermocouple was also used to take the ambient air temperature readings
and the thermocouple linked to the PID controller was attached to the radiator inlet pipe for temperature
feedback; it was assumed that the external pipe temperature was the same as the water. The rest of the
thermocouples were linked to a PC for data logging using the PicoLog software, the sample rate set to a 1
minute interval for each interface. The anemometer was also linked to a computer for data logging using the
manufacturers software. The sensor was mounted using a clamp and stand to give readings at the top of the
radiator in the middle of the air gap (see appendix 1.1).
To comply with the European standards the temperature gradients across the radiator must have a 10C
drop and be maintained with 0.1C. To calibrate the setup the heater was set to 80C using the PID and left
over night to achieve steady state conditions. The valves were then adjusted to get a temperature drop
required. However, it was subsequently found that this could not be achieved without stopping the water flow
completely. So a compromise value of approximately 8C was used for the tests with a flow rate of 0.2 L/min.
Each test surface was constructed of 9 sheets of 40 grit coarse grain sandpaper held together using fabric
tape. The surface was then cut to a 600mm x 600mm size to match the profile of the radiator. One of the
surfaces was then spray coated with black gloss multi-surface enamel paint and the other with silver radiator
and appliance spray paint (see appendix 1.4). The surfaces were attached to the test wall using fabric tape
for each of the tests. Holes were made for the air temperature thermocouples to protrude and the wall
thermocouple was attached to the surface using a small piece of fabric tape sprayed in the same finish as
the relevant test surface.

Test method:
Before the tests were carried out the PID controller was set to 80C and the system was left for a minimum
of 6 hours to reach steady state conditions with an appropriate temperature drop. Once this was achieved
each test was run for a period of one hour with the thermocouple and anemometer readings taken
automatically by the appropriate software and the initial rotometer flow reading taken manually (previous
tests had shown it to be consistent in steady state conditions). The first test was run with a plain wall, the
second with the black surface and the third with the silver wall. The test data was then collected from the
software and complied in Microsoft Excel for analysis (see digital appendix).
CFD modelling:
To find the full effects of the heat transfer and air flow a series of CFD simulations were carried out using
similar geometry to the physical test setup. The software used for this was Gambit version 2.2.30 and Fluent
version 6.3.26.
A 2D mesh was created in Gambit which featured a 4 by 3 meter room with 0.1m walls (to comply with the
European standard), a 0.6m by 0.02m radiator, 0.050 by 0.6m of thermal insulation (which was attached to
the radiator) and a 0.6m separate surface attached to the left hand wall (see appendix 1.5). A quadrilateral
mesh was used with the highest density elements around the radiator. The model contained 22058 cells,
45440 faces, 23370 nodes and 1 partition.
The 2D mesh was imported into fluent and the following properties and boundary conditions were applied:
Entity:
Room wall material
Room fluid
Radiator insulation material
Radiator wall material
Rough surface material

Radiator heat source


External wall boundary

Property:
3

Brick Density: 1850 (kg/m ), Cp: 800 (j/kg-k), Therm al conductivity: 0.595 (w/m-k),
Absorption coefficient: 0.9 (1/m), Scattering coefficient: 0 (1/m), Refractive index: 1.
3
Air Density (Boussinesq): 1.225 (kg/m ), Cp: 1006.43 (j/kg-k), Thermal conductivity: 0.0242
-5
(w/m-k), Viscosity (kg/m-s): 1.7894x10 , Absorption coefficient: 0 (1/m), Scattering
coefficient: 0 (1/m), Thermal expansion coefficient (1/k): 0.00343, Refractive index: 1.
3
Foam Density: 320 (kg/m ), Cp: 1455 (j/kg-k), Thermal conductivity: 0.0485 (w/m-k),
Absorption coefficient: 0.9 (1/m), Scattering coefficient: 0 (1/m), Refractive index: 1.
3
Steel Density: 8030 (kg/m ), Cp: 502.48 (j/kg-k), Thermal conductivity: 16.27 (w/m-k),
Absorption coefficient: 0.85 (1/m), Scattering coefficient: 0 (1/m), Refractive index: 1.
3
Test surface (black sandpaper) Density: 0.69 (kg/m ), Cp: 830 (j/kg-k), Thermal
conductivity: 0.2 (w/m-k), Absorption coefficient: 0.97 (1/m), Scattering coefficient: 0 (1/m),
Refractive index: 1.
3
Test surface (Silver sandpaper) Density: 0.69 (kg/m ), Cp: 830 (j/kg-k), Thermal
conductivity: 0.2 (w/m-k), Absorption coefficient: 0.47 (1/m), Scattering coefficient: 0 (1/m),
Refractive index: 1.
Wall Roughness (Both surfaces) - Roughness height: 0.000425(m), Roughness constant:
0.5.
Fixed value - Temperature: 353 (k) [80C]
3

Temperature: 293 (k) [20C], Wall thickness: 0(m), Heat generation rate: 0 (w/m ).

Five simulations were run emulating the physical tests. The first with ordinary plain wall, the second and third
with high emissivity rough and smooth surfaces and the fourth and fifth with a low emissivity rough and
smooth surfaces (see table above). The emissivity of all the walls except the test surface and radiator was
set to 0.93, with the exception of in the plain wall test in which the left wall and the test surface had the same
emissivity. The two tests with rough surfaces used the standard wall function with additional wall roughness
attributes added to the simulation. The other simulations used the enhanced near wall functions. Due to the
test surfaces have a relatively uniform roughness, it was assumed that the roughness height corresponded
to the average sand particle diameter (P40 grit sandpaper = 425 Average particle diameter (m) = 0.000425
m). The roughness constant was left at the default value of 0.5, which is taken from empirical resistance data
for pipes roughened with tightly-packed uniform sand-grains (ref: Fluent 6.3 Users Guide). The standard k-
turbulent with full buoyancy and thermal effects (when using enhanced wall function) was used; along with
the Discrete transfer (DTRM) radiation models. The gravity was set at -9.81(m/s2), an operating temperature
at 303 (k) with 1 atmosphere pressure. The rough and smooth high and low emissivity surfaces were
modelled for comparison purposes due to uncertainty with the simulation of near wall effects.

4) Results/Discussion:
To calculate the heat transfer of the radiator the thermodynamics of the system needed to be analysed. In
order for the first law of thermodynamics to be obeyed, the energy input to the system must equal the output.
Because the radiator itself does not perform work, this energy (in the form of heat) must come from the water
passing through it. As the radiator heats up due to the conduction of the water, the heat is then transferred to
the air by the process of convection and radiation. This causes the water flowing through the radiator to lose
5
heat energy . Because the water is flowing within a closed loop system, if its temperature is measured on the
input and output of the radiator, the net heat loss demonstrates the heat transfer into the surroundings.
However, this calculation is only applicable under steady state conditions within the system (hence the setup
tests mentioned in the previous section).
To calculate what proportion of the heat loss is down to convection, conduction and radiation, the energy
flows in and out of the system must be considered (see appendix 1.6). The heat flows can be grouped into
the following main categories; convection into the air, radiation to the room and wall (with some reflection
back into the radiator) and conduction through the wall. The amount radiated into the room is so small it was
disregarded in this study. Taking these flows into consideration the following equations have be derived:
Heat transferred from the wall surface to the air:

 
   

Convection heat transfer from the radiator to the air:

   
 

Total heat transfer to the air:

 
  

1
2
3

By combining equations 1 and 2 into equation 3 the total heat transfer to the air can be calculated. This is
done using the equation for water heat flow (eq:5) and wall conductive heat transfer (eq:6):

 
    4
Where

!"
.
 
      5 and  #  $$%   $$&   6

These calculations were performed on the averaged data from all three of the tests and compiled in a
Microsoft excel spreadsheet (see digital appendix 1). The experimental error due to equipment data logging
accuracy (see table 1) was not incorporated into the calculations.
Test data analysis:
The graphs showing the various heat transfers from the radiator and through the wall are included in
appendix 1.9 and the digital appendix. It can be seen that the black sandpaper wall has the highest heat
output to air (86.5w), followed by the plain surface (84.6w) and the silver surface with a much lower output
(37w). This result seems to validate the prediction that a black surface should aid convection and produce
the largest heat output. However, when the heat transfer by conduction and total heat transfer are also
compared, some major abnormalities are present. It was predicted that the silver wall covering have the least
heat loss via conduction (due to its lower emissivity), followed by the plain wall and then the black. But the
results demonstrate the exact opposite, with Silver, Plain and Black having 67.5, 43.5 and 37.3 Watts
respectively. The radiator air temperature profiles also show a different correlation of results, after
compensating for ambient temperature. The results show that both rough surfaces give higher outputs than
just the plain wall alone, but the silver produces the highest temperature overall. This result as also opposed
by the total heat transfer reading which shows that during the silver sandpaper experiment the radiator
produced a lower heat output compared to the others.
It is difficult to see a clear trend with the results because the data sets appear to be contradictory, but after a
careful review of the data and inspection of the experimental apparatus there is a possible explanation.
Following the silver sandpaper experiment it was discovered that the thermocouple at the back of the wall
had become unstuck from the wall surface. This caused an ambient temperature reading which made the
heat loss through the wall calculations artificially high for the silver sandpaper experiment.
It has also been shown that the temperature drop across the radiator was not uniform for each experiment,
especially the silver again. The plain, black and silver experiments had drops of 8.8, 8.5 and 7.2C

respectively). These main factors along with other smaller experimental errors (discussed later the in the
report) are likely to have produced such an unexpected set of correlations.
CFD data analysis:
Each of the CFD models converged with all residuals to the power of x10-3 (see digital appendix). The two
simulations with roughness added to the test surface however did show minor oscillations still present in the
turbulence residuals. Each of the simulations shows a heat flux error in the region of -25 watts, which
indicates the models solutions have a reasonably large error in the predictions (approx 6%). Each of the
models also shows similar velocity and thermal flow characteristics (see appendix 1.7-1.8) with a
convectional current present around the walls of the room and radiation causing the heating of the wall
behind the radiator as expected. However, there is a slightly anomaly in the convection current because it
appears to split into two flows on the floor of the model rather than forming a single enclosed flow circuit as
expected. Many different meshes were tried to see if this artefact was grid dependant, but each time it was
found consistently. The source of this abnormality was not found, but the results varied by a small enough
degree to be classed as been converged for the purposes of the mini project.
The total energy output of the radiator was shown to be highest for the black smooth wall, followed by the
plain wall, rough black wall, plain silver wall and the rough silver wall (see appendix 2.0). This trend seems to
support the hypothesis that a higher emissivity surface increases the radiator output, but it does not show
that the turbulence generated from the rough finish helps. In fact, the roughness seems to reduce the output
of the radiator (especially in the case of the black surface), making it less efficient than the plain wall alone.
However, this result could be artificially low due to problems in convergence with the two rough models and it
is also uncertain whether the near wall boundary layers are properly represented using this technique.
Further simulations would need to be carried to validate these results, but due to time constraints
unfortunately this was outside the scope of this project.
Comparison:
The results from the experiment and model were compared in another spreadsheet (see digital appendix).
The total power output of the radiator and the thermocouple readings for the top, middle and bottom of the
air gap behind the radiator were compared with the CFD analysis (see appendix 2.0). There is a large
difference between the power outputs from the model and the experimental data. It is not known what has
caused this discrepancy; it could be due the oversimplification of the model, unconvergence, experimental
error and/or many other possible factors. The trends do not match between the two data sets for the reasons
mentioned previously. The air gap temperature readings show a good correlation for each of the wall
surfaces, will most of the readings within the two error bars. The CFD readings again support the wall
emissivity hypothesis and not the roughness, but the difference in temperature increase is very small (less
than 1C between the plain and black walls). The biggest difference in results between the experimental and
simulations is the radiator bottom reading. The simulation trend shows a temperature similar to the radiator
middle value but the experimental shows a much more linear drop off. This difference could be due to the
radiator mounting bracket and weight (see appendix 1.1) disrupting airflow under the radiator.
5) Conclusions and further work.
The findings of this mini-project are on the whole inconclusive, with the exception of some simulation results
showing that higher emissivity coatings behind a radiator can improve its heat transfer. There have been
many avoidable experimental errors made and problems with the method highlighted during the course of
the study. If these issues can be addressed by the next group of students following on from this work,
significant progress can be made. In particular I think the experimental test setup can be improved by
changing the test surface mounting mechanism, securing thermocouples differently, using a more accurate
data logger and altering the radiator mounting from to reduce air drag. Other forms of data logging such as
using thermal imaging cameras and surface velocity tests could also be beneficial, along with making the
setup closer to British standard and making the test samples more uniform. Many other improvements could
be made to the test procedure by eliminating further experimental error (see below). In addition to the
physical testing the CFD simulations also need to be improved in accuracy. The roughness effects need to
be looked into and possibly new equations developed, the mesh also needs to be properly tested to see its
affect on the simulation (invariance testing), a 3d model could potential produce more accurate results. If
some of these issues can be addressed in the future work, more useful results can be obtained giving a

valuable insight into how radiator and wall design can be improved to make domestic heating more energy
efficient in the future.
Further sources of experimental error:
Thermocouple error +- 5C, timing between data sets +- 10 secs, flow readings too variable, Existing
thermocouple layout not central, CFD materials based on estimates, Lagging not continuous on apparatus
pipe work, temperature taken at surface of pipe not in fluid, backing samples non uniform in surface finish,
alignment of backing samples not correct, air flow from ventilation system affected air flow readings,
thermocouple layout not aligned properly with drilled holes, different to computer model, sand paper backing
not fully flush with wall, mounting tape emissivity and test surface is different material.
Acknowledgment:
Work reported here is supported by the Department of Mechanical Engineering. I would like to thank my
supervisor, Dr Stephen Beck for putting this mini-project together and helping to guide me along the way.
PhD students Abdulmaged Shati and Richard Collins; for their help explaining various processes and using
the Fluent and Gambit software. My friend and fellow DTC classmate Robert Richards, for his help and
collaboration in the initial stages for the project. Technician Malcolm Nettleship for his help setting up the test
rig and Fluent Europe of the use of their software.
References:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Change, D. o. E. a. C. (2010).
Change., D. o. E. a. C. (2010).
Utley, J. I. & Shorrock, L. D. (BRE Housing, 2008).
Beck, S. B. M., Blakey, S. G. & Chung, M. C. The effect of wall emissivity on radiator heat output.
Building
Services
Engineering
Research
and
Technology
22,
185-194,
doi:10.1191/014362401701524217 (2001).
Beck, S. M. B., Grinsted, S. C., Blakey, S. G. & Worden, K. A novel design for panel radiators.
Applied Thermal Engineering 24, 1291-1300, doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2003.11.026 (2004).
Shati, A. K. A., Beck, S. B. M. & Blakey, S. G. The effect of surface roughness and emissivity on
radiator output (awaiting publishing). (2010).
Institute, B. S. in Part 2: Test methods and rating (1997).
Badr, H. M., Habib, M. A., Anwar, S., Ben-Mansour, R. & Said, S. A. M. Turbulent natural convection
in vertical parallel-plate channels. Heat and Mass Transfer 43, 73-84, doi:10.1007/s00231-006-0084z (2006).

Nomenclature:
Symbol:
A
Cp+
g
h
K
L
m+
Q 1234+
Q 567389
Q1237
Q1234:
Q 929
Q6;5
T+;3
T+2=9
T+6>>%
T+6>>&
U
@

T
NuC
R6

Description:
Heat transferring surface area
Specific heat capacity
Gravitational acceleration
Heat transfer coefficient
Thermal conductivity of the fluid
Enclosure wall length
Water mass flow rate
Convection heat transfer from the wall to the air
Net radiation heat exchange between the wall the radiator
Heat loss by Conduction through the wall
Convection heat transfer from the radiator to the air
Total heat transfer from the radiator
Total heat transfer to the air
Water inlet temperature
Water outlet temperature
Wall surface temperature facing radiator
Wall surface temperature facing outside
Thermal conductivity of the wall
Thermal diffusivity
Kinematic Viscosity
Thermal expansion coefficient
Temperature difference
Nusselt number D F
hC

Rayleigh number D

E
HJCK

Units:
2
(m )
1 1
(Jkg K )
2
(ms )
2 1
(Wm K )
1 1
(Wm K )
(m)
1
(kgs )
(W)
(W)
(W)
(W)
(W)
(W)
(K)
(K)
(K)
(K)
1 1
(Wm K )
2 -1
(m s )
2 -1
(m s )
-1
(K )
(K)
(-)
(-)

Appendix 1.0 Schematic of apparatus

Valve
T1

T2
Radiator

Flow rate
control pipe
Tank with
immersion
heater
Flowmeter
Pump

Cistern

Appendix 1.1 Test right setup

Chipboard wall

Fabric tape

Sandpaper
backing layer

Foam
insulation
layer

Inlet pipe and


insulation

Regulator
valves (x2)

Thermocouple (x15)
Serial
thermocouple
interface

Outlet pipe and


insulation

Clamp
and
stand

Airflow monitor

Radiator
50mm
air gap

Mounting frame
and weights

Cistern

USB
Thermocouple
interface

Water pump
Control valve (x2)

Hot water tank


w/immersion
heater

Rotormeter

Temperature
controller/regulator

Appendix 1.2 - USB interface thermocouple layout:

TC 1

TC 5

TC 2

TC 8

Left to right:
TC 7, TC6, TC4

Name
Ambient air temperature
Water temp in
Radiator air temp bottom
Radiator air temp middle
Radiator air temp top
Wall temp front
Wall temp back
Water temp out

TC 3

150mm

Type
T
T
K
K
K
K
K
K

300mm

Thermocouple
TC 1
TC 2
TC 3
TC 4
TC 5
TC 6
TC 7
TC 8

750mm

300mm

20mm
25mm
50mm

Appendix 1.3 - Serial interface thermocouple layout (un-insulated side):


Type
T
T
T
T
T
T
T

TC 2

TC 1

550mm

TC 4

TC 7

TC 3

300mm

600mm

Thermocouple
TC 1
TC 2
TC 3
TC 4
TC 5
TC 6
TC 7

TC 5

50mm

TC 6

50mm
300mm
550mm
600mm

Appendix 1.4 Test surfaces

Silver sprayed surface (left), Black sprayed surface (right)

Appendix 1.5 CFD mesh used.

Close-up of mesh
around radiator

Wall inner
surface
Wall outer
surface

Room Air

Test surface

Radiator
insulation

Radiator

Wall

Appendix 1.6 Energy flows in and out of the radiator system.

Air out
Radiator (1)

Qrad2-1
Wall (2)

Qcond
Qrad1-2
Qconv-w

Radiator insulator

Water in

Qtot

Qconv-R
Water out
Test surface

Air in

Floor

Appendix 1.7 CFD Vector flows (plain wall).

Appendix 1.8 CFD Temperature contours (plain wall).

Appendix 1.9 Experimental results.

Total heat transfer from the


radiator

Heat loss by conduction


through the wall

100

140

80

120

70

80

60

70

80
128.11 123.83

60

104.61
40

90

50
40
67.52
30

Heat Energy (W)

Heat Energy (W)

100
Heat Energy (W)

Total heat transfer to the air

60
50

30
43.48

20

37.32

20

20

10

10

Plain

Black sand

Silver sand

84.63 86.52

40

Plain

Black sand

Silver sand

Plain

37.09

Black sand

Appendix 2.0 CFD results comparison.

Total heat transfer from radiator


700
676.41

670.90
600

652.73

Total Energy output (W)

589.42

567.51

500
400
300
200
100

128.11

123.83

0
Plain wall CFD
Black wall CFD (No rough)
Black wall actual
Silver wall CFD (Rough)

Plain wall actual


Black wall CFD (Rough)
Silver wall CFD (No rough)
Silver wall actual

104.61

Silver sand

Plain wall - 50mm air gap temp


36

Temperature (C)

34
32
30
28
26
24
22
Radiator top

Radiator middle
Plain wall CFD

Radiator bottom

Plain wall actual

Black sandpaper wall - 50mm air gap temp


34
33

Temperature (C)

32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
Radiator top
Black wall CFD (No rough)

Radiator middle
Black wall CFD (Rough)

Radiator bottom
Black wall actual

Silver sandpaper wall - 50mm air gap temp


34
33
Temperature (C)

32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
Radiator top
Silver wall CFD (No rough)

Radiator middle
Silver wall CFD (Rough)

Radiator bottom
Silver wall actual

You might also like