Coupled radiative and convective heat

transfer in enclosures: Effect of inner

heater–enclosure wall emissivity contrast
Cite as: Phys. Fluids 32, 093606 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0021010
Submitted: 07 July 2020 . Accepted: 27 August 2020 . Published Online: 15 September 2020

S. Saravanan , and N. Raja

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Centrifugal filtration convection in bidisperse media

Physics of Fluids 32, 084109 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0015649

Sound propagation in porous materials containing rough tubes

Physics of Fluids 32, 093604 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0017710

Unified simplified multiphase lattice Boltzmann method for ferrofluid flows and its
application
Physics of Fluids 32, 093302 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0021463

Phys. Fluids 32, 093606 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0021010 32, 093606

© 2020 Author(s).
 Physics of Fluids ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf

Coupled radiative and convective heat transfer

in enclosures: Effect of inner heater–enclosure
wall emissivity contrast
Cite as: Phys. Fluids 32, 093606 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0021010
Submitted: 7 July 2020 • Accepted: 27 August 2020 •
Published Online: 15 September 2020 •
Publisher Error Corrected: 15 September 2020

S. Saravanan1,a) and N. Raja1,2

AFFILIATIONS
1
Centre for Differential Equations and Fluid Dynamics, Department of Mathematics, Bharathiar University,
Coimbatore 641 046, Tamil Nadu, India
2
Department of Mathematics, KPR Institute of Engineering and Technology, Coimbatore 641 407, Tamilnadu, India

a)
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed: sshravan@buc.edu.in

ABSTRACT
The problem of thermal radiation in the presence of nonuniform emissivity arising through different types surfaces involved in thermal-
control systems is addressed. In particular, its effect on natural convection driven by an inner hot plate kept inside a square enclosure is
studied. The enclosure considered is either horizontally or vertically cooled, and two different primary orientations of the inner hot plate are
considered. The corresponding governing partial differential equations were solved by the finite volume method on a uniform and regular
grid system. While doing so, the net radiation method was used to determine the radiative surface fluxes. The effect of two opposing emis-
sivity contrasts between the inner hot plate and enclosure walls is studied for the Rayleigh numbers Ra ≤ 107 . The flow and heat transfer
mechanisms at the resulting steady state are discussed via isotherms, streamlines, and average Nusselt number Nu. The findings arrived out
of this comprehensive study shows that prominent heat transfer enhancement occurs when the emissivity of the inner hot plate is higher.
Significant changes introduced by the emissivity contrast in the velocity and temperature fields can be seen for higher Rayleigh numbers.
Moreover, better heat removal through the combined radiation and convection mechanism is observed invariably for the vertical hot plate in
the presence of emissivity contrast. It is found that the heat transfer can be augmented up to around 35% through a good knowledge of the
emissivity contrast.
Published under license by AIP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0021010., s

I. INTRODUCTION closed enclosures, the radiation exchange between the enclosure

The study of thermal radiation has witnessed a fascinat-
ing growth and still continues to develop in many areas start-
ing from the manufacture of small-scale materials such as chips
and circuit boards to thermal stress analysis in large-scale struc-
tures such as space stations and utility furnaces. Thermal radia-
tion coupled with natural convection in simple geometries, par-
ticularly closed rectangular enclosures, can be found in many
industrial and engineering applications, such as solar collec-
tors, nuclear reactors, cooling of electronic equipment, crystal
growth, melting and solidification of the phase change mate-
rial, and chemical energy production systems.1–4 When a radia-
tively transparent medium such as air is present inside such
walls termed surface radiation becomes important and signifi-
cantly affects the corresponding convective heat transfer. Numerous
investigations, both experimental and numerical, have been car-
ried out on the combined surface radiation and natural convection
in enclosures.5–13
The configurations involved in several technological appli-
cations are complex and consist of fluid filled enclosures with
solid bodies mounted inside. The literature review shows several
experimental and theoretical studies belonging to the past few
decades on natural convection in such enclosures, subjected to exter-
nal heating both horizontally and vertically.14–24 Some of them
have focused on coupled natural convection and surface radia-
tion in enclosures with some obstructions.25–34 Sri Jayaram et al.25

Phys. Fluids 32, 093606 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0021010 32, 093606-1

Published under license by AIP Publishing
 Physics of Fluids ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf

studied the effect of aspect ratio and wall emissivities in a partitioned
rectangular enclosure. They found that the surface radiation sup-
presses convection and the wall emissivity leaves weak and strong
influences on convection and radiation, respectively. Mezrhab and
Bchir26 investigated the influence of a vertical partition in a dif-
ferentially heated square enclosure. They concluded that the flow
is controlled by vents at the bottom and top of the partition and
the obstruction effect can be ignored for large Rayleigh numbers.
An inclined enclosure with multiple vertical partitions was consid-
ered by Rabhi et al.27 They found that the total heat transfer rate
can be enhanced under thermal radiative heat flux and be reduced
through the blocking effect by increasing the number of partitions.
Saravanan and Sivaraj28 investigated the influence of an inner hot
plate mounted inside the enclosure. It was concluded that when the
emissivity increases, the influence of convection to the overall heat
transfer also increases for the horizontal plate, whereas it decreases
for the vertical one. One may refer to Refs. 29–34 for results aris-
ing due to obstructions in the form of a solid body with non-zero
thickness.
In many practical situations, the emissivities of enclosure walls
and inner body do not necessarily match in general. Components
of a thermal-control system are usually made up of different types
of material, possibly with different coatings, and their emissivities
vary even at the same temperature (see Table I). However, very
few researchers have paid due attention to this aspect while deal-
ing with combined surface radiation and convection.35–39 Balaji and
Venkateshan35 considered a differentially heated square enclosure
with different emissivities for the vertical and horizontal walls. In
the presence of fixed higher emissivity at the insulated horizontal
walls, the convective drop decreased with an increase in emissiv-
ity of the vertical side walls. An experimental study was then per-
formed by Ramesh and Venkateshan36 in a fully partitioned square
enclosure with differentially heated vertical walls. The bottom and
top insulated walls were painted black to achieve a high emissiv-
ity, whereas the emissivities of side walls and partition were con-
sidered with different combinations. They concluded that natural
convection is supplemented by surface radiation, and the total Nus-
selt number is reduced for high emissivities of the enclosure walls
and partition, independent of the Rayleigh number. The study car-
ried out by Ridouane et al.37 in an enclosure heated from below and
cooled from above with insulated vertical walls predicted a sudden
rise in the total Nusselt number with the emissivity of active walls,
whereas no change was observed with the emissivity of insulated
walls. Ashish Gad and Balaji38 studied the same problem with dif-
ferent aspect ratios and found that the onset of Rayleigh–Benard
convection is delayed for increased emissivities of insulated walls.
Sun et al.39 considered the enclosure cooled from above and below
with a square inner body of very low emissivity compared to the cold
and side walls and predicted that the Rayleigh number for the transi-
tion to unsteady flows is considerably increased under the influence
of radiation.
It is well-known that an insulated surface cannot receive net
energy in the steady state heat transfer. This is because energy can-
not be stored by a surface in steady state, and as a result, it must
be re-radiated back into the enclosure. When surface emissivities
within an enclosure are different, the temperature distributions of
the insulated surfaces are significantly altered. This in turn affects
convective heat transfer in a way different from that corresponding
to uniform surface emissivity. Hence, the objective of this work is to
study how convection is affected by surface radiation when surfaces
of different emissivities are involved in thermal control systems. For
this, we consider a rectangular enclosure with an inner hot plate
mounted inside, which, in principle, resembles the basic set up often
encountered in the design of a heat removal system.
II. MATHEMATICAL FORMULATION
We consider a two-dimensional air-filled square enclosure of
dimension L with an inner hot thin plate, of temperature T h , length
L/2, and thickness δ, placed at its center (see Fig. 1). The Cartesian
coordinates (x, y) are chosen with the origin in the bottom left cor-
ner of the enclosure, and the gravity ḡ is acting vertically downwards
perpendicular to the x-axis. Horizontal and vertical orientations of
the inner hot plate are considered. The vertical walls are cooled
at the constant temperature T c and the horizontal walls are insu-
lated [Fig. 1(a)] or vice versa [Fig. 1(b)]. Thus, the inner plate and
enclosure walls represent active and passive surfaces, respectively.
The surfaces of the enclosure walls and inner plate are assumed
to be opaque, gray, and diffuse emitters and reflectors of radiation
with emissivities ϵw and ϵp , respectively. Except buoyancy causing
density, all fluid properties are considered constant in line with
the Boussinesq approximation. Since air is non-emitting and non-
absorbing under moderate temperature conditions, it is considered
to be radiatively non-participating.7 Nevertheless, radiation emis-
sion by the surfaces changes their temperature and thereby exercises
a strong influence through the coupling between thermal and flow
fields within the framework of the Boussinesq approximation. Then,
the governing equations for the resulting incompressible laminar
flow are
∂u ∂v
+ = 0, (1)
∂x ∂y

TABLE I. Some of the low and high emissivity materials with its emissivity at the ∂u ∂u ∂u 1 ∂p ∂2u ∂2u
temperature range 20 ○ C–40 ○ C. +u +v =− + ν( 2 + 2 ), (2)
∂t ∂x ∂y ρ ∂x ∂x ∂y
Low emissivity materials ϵ High emissivity materials ϵ
∂v ∂v ∂v 1 ∂p ∂2v ∂2v
Aluminum (24ST, 75ST) 0.1 Graphite 0.7 +u +v =− + ν( 2 + 2 ) + gβ(T − Tc ), (3)
Chromium 0.08 Smooth glass 0.95 ∂t ∂x ∂y ρ ∂y ∂x ∂y
Copper (polished) 0.07 Copper (black) 0.78
Nickel (electroplated) 0.11 Paints and varnishes 0.9
∂T ∂T ∂T ∂2T ∂2T
Mild steel 0.1 Steel (oxidized) 0.8 +u +v = α( 2 + 2 ). (4)
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂x ∂y

Phys. Fluids 32, 093606 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0021010 32, 093606-2

Published under license by AIP Publishing
 Physics of Fluids ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf

FIG. 1. Physical configuration: (a) verti-

cally cooled enclosure and (b) horizon-
tally cooled enclosure.

The boundary conditions are A. Net radiation method

t = 0 : u = v = 0, T = Tc at 0 ≤ x ≤ L and 0 ≤ y ≤ L, A characteristic difference between the present problem and
t > 0 : u = v = 0, T = Tc at the isothermal walls, the one involving pure convection alone is the appearance of the
net radiative flux parameter that appears in the insulation bound-
∂T qrd (5)
u = v = 0, = at the insulated walls, ary conditions. We determine the net radiative fluxes at the sur-
∂n k faces comprising the enclosure walls and the inner plate using the
u = v = 0, T = Th at the inner plate, Net Radiation Method (NRM) described by Siegel and Howell.40
where qrd is the net radiative flux. For this purpose, the enclosure walls and the sides of the inner
On introducing the non-dimensional variables X = x/L, Y = y/L, plate are replaced by N non-overlapping radiative surface elements,
U = Lu/α, V = Lv/α, P = L2 p/ρα2 , τ = αt/L2 , and θ = (T − T c )/ΔT, the which coincide with the control volume fluid–solid interfaces.
governing equations become On introducing the scales Qrd,k = qrd,k /σTh4 , Rk = qo,k /σTh4 , and Θk
= T k /T h , we obtain the non-dimensional form of the net radiative
∂U ∂V flux and outgoing (radiosity) and incoming (irradiation) radiative
+ = 0, (6)
∂X ∂Y components of the kth element (k = 1,2, . . ., N), respectively, in the
form
∂U ∂U ∂U ∂P ∂2U ∂2U
+U +V =− + Pr( 2 + ), (7) Qrd,k = Rk − Ik , (11)
∂τ ∂X ∂Y ∂X ∂X ∂Y 2
N
∂V ∂V ∂V ∂P ∂2V ∂2V Rk = ϵk Θ4k + (1 − ϵk ) ∑ Fkj Rj , (12)
+U +V =− + Pr( 2 + ) + RaPrθ, (8)
∂τ ∂X ∂Y ∂Y ∂X ∂Y 2 j=1

and
∂θ ∂θ ∂θ ∂2θ ∂2θ
+U +V = + , (9) N
∂τ ∂X ∂Y ∂X 2 ∂Y 2 Ik = ∑ Fkj Rj . (13)
j=1
with the corresponding conditions
τ = 0 : U = V = 0, θ=0 at 0 ≤ X ≤ 1 and 0 ≤ Y ≤ 1, The constant F kj in the above equations is the configuration factor,
τ > 0 : U = V = 0, θ=0 at the isothermal walls, which stands for the fraction of radiation energy leaving the kth sur-
∂θ face and striking the jth surface. We follow Hottel’s crossed string
U = V = 0, = NRC Qrd at the insulated walls, method (see Ref. 41) to calculate the configuration factor through
∂n
U = V = 0, θ=1 at the inner plate.
1 2
(10) Fkj = ∑(Lkj,i − Lkj,2+i ). (14)
The non-dimensional parameters appearing in the above equa- 2Ls i=1
tions are the Prandtl number Pr = ν/α, the Rayleigh number Ra Here, Lkj,1 , Lkj,2 and Lkj,3 , Lkj,4 are the shortest lengths of the crossed
= gβΔTL3 /(να), the radiation–conduction number NRC = σTh4 L/ and uncrossed strings, respectively, joining the outer edges of the
(kΔT), and the net radiative flux parameter Qrd = qrd /(σTh4 ). surfaces k and j. Similarly, Ls represents the length of the kth surface.

Phys. Fluids 32, 093606 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0021010 32, 093606-3

Published under license by AIP Publishing
 Physics of Fluids ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf

The obstruction and shadow effects of the inner plate are also taken TABLE II. Comparison of Nu with the numerical study of Wang et al.10 for different
into account while calculating the configuration factors. values of Ra and ϵ.

B. Heat transfer rate Nu Nu Difference

ϵ (Numerical study) (Present study) in %
In order to calculate the overall heat removal from the inner
hot plate, the local convective and radiative Nusselt numbers are Ra = 104 0.0 2.246 2.2552 0.40
introduced first. They are defined at the enclosure cold walls as 0.2 2.767 2.7682 0.15
follows: 0.8 4.650 4.6243 0.55
qcv ∂θ
Nucv = = , (15)
qcd ∂n Ra = 105 0.0 4.540 4.5528 0.28
q 0.2 5.484 5.4934 0.17
Nurd = rd = −NRC Qrd , (16)
qcd 0.8 9.385 9.3517 0.35
respectively. Their respective average Nusselt numbers are then Ra = 106 0.0 8.852 8.8944 0.47
determined by integrating their local analogues along the cold walls 0.2 10.736 10.7757 0.36
and then taking their mean. In the present problem, both the ver- 0.8 19.080 19.0290 0.26
tically and horizontally cooled enclosures are considered with two
opposing cold walls, and hence, to have a comparison in between
them, the mean of Nus at the two cold walls is calculated in each case.
The average Nusselt number representing the total heat transfer rate TABLE III. Comparison of Nu with the experimental study of Ramesh and Venkate-
through the enclosure Nu is then defined as their sum, i.e., shan7 for different values of ϵ
Nu = Nucv + Nurd . (17)
Nu Nu Difference
ϵ (Experimental study) (Present study) in %
III. METHOD OF SOLUTION
Gr = 106 0.05 8.283 8.4817 2.39
The Finite Volume Method (FVM) was used to solve the gov- 0.85 16.754 17.7725 6.07
erning conservation equations. Accordingly, we employed a uniform
and regular mesh of finite volumes spread over the enclosure. The
SIMPLE algorithm of Patankar42 was used to take care of the cou-
pling between pressure and velocity fields. We adopted the power A. Solution accuracy and convergence
law difference scheme, which is capable of giving due importance
to diffusion and convection terms, based on the finite volume Peclet The validation of the present numerical model for the com-
number. Then, the solution of the resulting set of algebraic equations bined convection and surface radiation in an empty square enclosure
is obtained through the line-by-line procedure of the Thomas algo- was performed against numerical and experimental results of Refs.
rithm.42 Since we are interested in the steady state results alone, they 10 and 7, respectively (see Tables II and III). Moreover, the code
were considered when the convergence criterion developed for the combined natural convection and surface radi-
ation in a square enclosure containing a square solid obstruction,
∑i,j ∣ϕi,j − ϕi,j ∣
m m−1
with the inner body ratio 2L/5, was validated against the benchmark
≤ 10−6 (18) results of Sun et al.39 (Table IV). It shows a good agreement with our
∑i,j ∣ϕi,j ∣
m
numerical model. Finally, a grid independent study of the current
is achieved wherein ϕ represents the variables U, V, or θ, the super-
script m refers the iteration number, and (i, j) refers the space
coordinates. TABLE IV. Comparison of Nucv with that in the work of Sun et al.39 for Ra = 2 × 105
and different values of ϵ
In the following, we outline the primary step by step proce-
dure that was used to obtain the required steady state solution of
Cold Nucv Nucv Difference
the present problem involving coupled radiation–convection.
Case wall (Numerical study) (Present study) in %
1. First, find the configuration factors F kj .
2. Set the initial and boundary conditions. ϵc = 0.0, Bottom 2.5346 2.5191 0.61
3. Solve the conservation equations and determine the tempera- ϵs = 0.0 Top 6.4778 6.4119 1.01
ture on the insulated walls. ϵc = 0.1, Bottom 2.4910 2.4741 0.67
4. Solve the radiosity equation and obtain Qrd , k . ϵs = 0.1 Top 6.4770 6.4126 0.99
5. Update the values of all dependent variables.
6. Repeat the three steps (3)–(5) until the convergence criterion ϵc = 0.05, Bottom 2.9873 3.0011 0.46
(18) is achieved. ϵs = 1.0 Top 6.6339 6.5618 1.08
Adopting the aforementioned procedure, a code was developed ϵc = 1.0, Bottom 1.4540 1.4454 0.59
in Fortran to find the numerical solution of the problem formulated ϵs = 1.0 Top 6.3673 6.3125 0.86
in Sec. II.

Phys. Fluids 32, 093606 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0021010 32, 093606-4

Published under license by AIP Publishing
 Physics of Fluids ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf

TABLE V. Results of grid independence study in terms of Nu for ϵp =0.8, ϵw =0.1 at Ra = 107 .

Enclosure type plate 63 × 63 83 × 83 103 × 103 123 × 123 143 × 143

VCE Horizontal plate 7.3832 7.3591 7.3430 7.3316 7.3230

Vertical plate 9.2023 9.2349 9.2499 9.2584 9.2635
HCE Horizontal plate 6.6547 6.6685 6.6766 6.6818 6.6851
Vertical plate 7.9043 7.9291 7.9413 7.9484 7.9529

numerical solution was made, and the relative error of Nu between
123 × 123 and 143 × 143 grid systems is found to be less than 0.15%
(Table V). Hence, the 123 × 123 grid system was fixed throughout
the calculations in this study, considering the high cost associated
with other finer grid systems.
It is worth mentioning that the present iterative solution
procedure converges much faster for the vertically cooled enclo-
sure. Moreover, the inclusion of surface radiation, in general,
delays/advances the reach of the converged steady state in the pres-
ence of the horizontally/vertically oriented hot plate. Finally, in
order to have a rough idea on the intermediate values of the vari-
ables during iteration, isotherms and streamlines are plotted in the
case of the vertically cooled enclosure alone in Fig. 2 for Ra = 107 ,
ϵp = 0.8, and ϵw = 0.1.
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The present study is made to analyze the interaction between
surface radiation and buoyancy convection induced by a hot thin
plate inside an enclosure. For this purpose, the plate thickness δ was
chosen as one grid space in the computational domain. All com-
putations were carried out for Pr = 0.72 representing air and Ra
= 105 –107 corresponding to the laminar flow regime. The charac-
teristic temperature difference ΔT and the average temperature of
air T 0 were chosen to be 20 K and 308.15 K, respectively. Follow-
ing this, the radiation–conduction number (N RC ) can be calculated
through Ra, ΔT, and L. We examine the following two contrasting
emissivity combinations of the active and passive surfaces:
Case (i): ϵp = 0.8 and ϵw = 0.1 representing a positive contrast
Case (ii): ϵp = 0.1 and ϵw = 0.8 representing a negative contrast
Consequently, the resulting steady states alone are considered
and the corresponding isotherms and streamlines are exhibited in a
single plot following symmetry considerations.

A. Vertically cooled enclosure (VCE)

The results corresponding to the pure natural convection case
(ϵp = ϵw = 0) serve as the benchmark throughout and are shown
in Fig. 3 for Ra = 107 . In general, two counter-rotating convection
cells are seen. The horizontally oriented plate itself acts as a barrier
to oppose the resulting upward flow to a certain extent and makes
conduction a dominant mechanism below it. On the other hand,

FIG. 2. Isotherms and streamlines at different time steps for the case of positive FIG. 3. [(a) and (b)] Isotherms and streamlines of the pure natural convection case
contrast in VCE with the horizontal plate at Ra = 107 . in VCE for Ra = 107 .

Phys. Fluids 32, 093606 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0021010 32, 093606-5

Published under license by AIP Publishing
 Physics of Fluids ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf

FIG. 4. (a) Net radiative flux and (b)

temperature distribution of the bottom
and top insulated walls in VCE with the
horizontal plate for Ra = 107 .

convection becomes a more active one with a bi-cellular flow pat-

tern, except near the bottom wall, in the presence of the vertically
oriented plate.
Figure 4 shows the net radiative flux and temperature on the
bottom and top insulated walls at Ra = 107 when the hot plate is ori-
ented horizontally. The inclusion of surface radiation significantly
alters the temperature distribution. Bottom and top insulated walls
receive the inward radiative energy from the plate in the presence
of positive emissivity contrast. However, at the steady state, we see
from Fig. 4(a) that the bottom wall receives additional inward radia-
tive energy and this generates the convective flux. This additional
heating of the bottom most fluid layer enhances the buoyancy mech-
anism in the system at such high Ra. On the other hand, in the
presence of negative emissivity contrast, the bottom and top insu-
lated walls lose their energy through outgoing radiation, and hence,
their temperatures are significantly reduced when compared to the
case of positive contrast. The convective current hitting the top wall
makes it lose energy, leading to a cooling down effect on the adjacent
fluid layer. From Fig. 4(b), one may compare the temperature distri-
butions of the insulated walls with the pure natural convection case.
The temperature of the bottom/top insulated wall is raised/reduced
significantly compared to the benchmark case in the presence of
positive/negative contrast.
Figure 5 shows the corresponding isotherms and streamlines
when the plate is oriented horizontally. The effect of surface radi-
ation is visible near the bottom and top walls. At Ra = 105 , the
radiative heating due to the incoming radiation creates convective
flux near the bottom wall in the presence of positive contrast. For
increased Ra, the buoyancy mechanism already present in the sys-
tem gets strengthened further. Thus, the convective flow becomes
active below the plate as well when compared to the benchmark case
[see Fig. 3(a)]. The appearance of isotherms near the bottom wall in
Fig. 5(a) reflects this. On the other hand, a cooling down effect in
the presence of negative contrast, as discussed earlier, significantly
alters the temperature distribution near the top wall as anticipated. FIG. 5. [(a) and (b)] Isotherms and streamlines in VCE with the horizontal plate for
different values of Ra.
As a result, the primary eddies extend laterally. One should notice

Phys. Fluids 32, 093606 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0021010 32, 093606-6

Published under license by AIP Publishing
 Physics of Fluids ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf

FIG. 6. (a) Net radiative flux and (b)

temperature distribution of the bottom
and top insulated walls in VCE with the
vertical plate for Ra = 107 .

that this is the reason for the increase in |Ψ|max and the presence of
slanting isotherms near the top wall when compared to the case of
pure convection. One may refer to our earlier works28 for further
discussion on this pattern.
Figure 6 shows the net radiative flux and temperature on the
insulated walls when the inner plate is oriented vertically, and Fig. 7
shows the corresponding isotherms and streamlines. Even though
Figs. 4 and 6 admit few qualitative changes, the effects of surface
radiation and the ensuing temperature distribution on the insulated
walls remain similar to those of the horizontal plate [see Figs. 4(a)
and 4(b)]. In particular, when the emissivity contrast remains posi-
tive, the bottom wall temperature distributions are seen to be equal
for both orientations of the plate. This observation is seen for both
positive and negative contrasts. From Fig. 7, we see that unlike the
benchmark case [see Fig. 3(b)], the entire enclosure becomes con-
vectively active with a vertical thermal stratification on both sides of
the plate, similar to the case of uniform emissivity.28 However, one
should notice that the emissivity contrast starts showing its signifi-
cant effect as Ra takes higher values (see Figs. 5 and 7). It dampens
convective cells in the bottom half of the enclosure when it becomes
negative even though there is an increase in |Ψ|max . This behavior
makes the convection mechanism to play a decisive role in the asso-
ciated overall heat transfer reduction across the enclosure. Hence, it
is clear that convective cooling could be enhanced when the emissiv-
ity contrast remains positive. Moreover, the temperature difference
between the bottom and top insulated walls remains greater in the
presence of vertical plate, which in turn supports the stratification
discussed earlier.

B. Horizontally cooled enclosure (HCE)

The flow and temperature patterns displayed in Fig. 8 are those
of the benchmark pure convection case for Ra = 107 . They show a
pair of Rayleigh–Benard type cells of strong intensity above the hor- FIG. 7. [(a) and (b)] Isotherms and streamlines in VCE with the vertical plate for
different values of Ra.
izontally oriented plate and a pair of counter rotating cells on either

Phys. Fluids 32, 093606 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0021010 32, 093606-7

Published under license by AIP Publishing
 Physics of Fluids ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf

FIG. 8. [(a) and (b)] Isotherms and streamlines of the pure natural convection case
in HCE for Ra = 107 .

side of the vertically oriented plate except the enclosure bottom. Flat
isotherms occupy the enclosure bottom.
The net radiative flux and temperature distribution on the insu-
lated side wall is shown in Fig. 9 for the horizontally oriented plate,
exploiting symmetry. From Fig. 9(a), we see that the insulated side
walls receive additional inward radiant energy in the presence of
positive contrast, whereas they lose their energy through the out-
ward radiation in the presence of negative contrast. Thus, it causes
heat gain and loss at the insulated side walls in the presence of
positive and negative contrasts, respectively, when compared to the
benchmark case [see Fig. 9(b)].
Figure 10 displays the isotherms and streamlines correspond-
ing to the horizontally oriented plate. At Ra = 105 , the flow patterns
do not exhibit much difference between positive and negative con-
trasts. Due to the incoming radiation received, convective outflux FIG. 10. [(a) and (b)] Isotherms and streamlines in HCE with the horizontal plate
for different values of Ra.
is generated and it alters the flat isotherms near the insulated side

FIG. 9. (a) Net radiative flux and (b) tem-

perature distribution of the left (or right)
insulated wall in HCE with the horizontal
plate for Ra = 107 .

Phys. Fluids 32, 093606 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0021010 32, 093606-8

Published under license by AIP Publishing
 Physics of Fluids ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf

FIG. 11. (a) Net radiative flux and (b)

temperature distribution of the left (or
right) insulated wall in HCE with the ver-
tical plate for Ra = 107 .

walls in the presence of positive contrast, and this becomes signifi-

cant for increased Ra. Also, it is interesting to see the appearance of
two small secondary cells adjacent to the center of the side walls. This
is anticipated due to the corresponding maximum inward radiative
energy at the enclosure walls [see Fig. 9(a)], which in turn drives
the convective flux. On the other hand, in the presence of negative
emissivity contrast, the temperature gradients near the side walls
are greatly modified by surface radiation. As explained earlier, due
a substantial reduction in the side wall temperatures [see Fig. 9(b)],
the adjoining descending fluid stream is made to travel further down
and induces considerable flow below the horizontal plate, better than
the positive contrast case. Nevertheless, the flow momentum is less
pronounced in the presence of negative contrast compared to the
positive one.
The net radiative flux and temperature distribution on the side
walls and the corresponding plots of temperature and flow are dis-
played in Figs. 11 and 12, respectively, for the vertically oriented
plate. A significant gain/reduction in temperature of the side walls
in the presence of positive/negative contrast compared to the bench-
mark case [see Fig. 11(b)] is clearly visible. One may notice that the
flow becomes weaker and the descending streamlines remain closer
to the sidewalls, which in turn act as cold walls when the emis-
sivity contrast becomes negative. This behavior ensues as a result
of detached isotherms from the inner vertical plate and, of course,
favorable decreasing temperature with depth on the sidewalls. More-
over, it is observed that the effect of emissivity contrast becomes
sensitive for higher values of Ra. It plays an important role in damp-
ening the overall heat transfer through convection as it becomes
negative.

C. Heat transfer characteristics

Figure 13 illustrates variation in the total heat transfer rate
against Ra for both positive and negative emissivity contrasts. It is
noticed that higher Ra results in increased N RC and improved buoy- FIG. 12. [(a) and (b)] Isotherms and streamlines in HCE with the vertical plate for
different values of Ra.
ancy and hence corresponds to higher Nu. One may also observe that

Phys. Fluids 32, 093606 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0021010 32, 093606-9

Published under license by AIP Publishing
 Physics of Fluids
Nus corresponding to positive emissivity contrast are always
higher.
Earlier works have revealed that the heat transfer rate remains
higher when the plate is oriented vertically in the presence of
both pure convection and coupled radiation–convection mecha-
nisms.16,28 In fact, the contribution of the convective mechanism to
the overall heat transfer was found to decrease with emissivity for the
vertical plate, and see Ref. 28 for the underlying physics. However,
a VCE with uniformly emissive surfaces (zero emissivity contrast)
alone was considered in those works. The present study extends
the validity of this result for a HCE as well as enclosures exhibiting
non-zero emissivity contrasts.
Table VI shows convective and radiative Nus for different pos-
sible situations considered in this work along with the percentage
increase compared to the pure convection benchmark case. For a
better understanding, the table also includes results corresponding
Phys. Fluids 32, 093606 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0021010
Published under license by AIP Publishing
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf
FIG. 13. [(a) and (b)] Variation in average
and convective Nusselt numbers against
Ra for all possible combinations.
to uniform emissivity, which were computed separately. Notably,
one can observe that in the case of uniform emissivity,
vertical plate horizontal plate
Nu < Nu for HCE (19)
even though Nucv of the vertical plate exceeds that of the horizon-
tal one, unlike VCE. The reason for this deviation from the trend
reported earlier in the literature is found to be a significant reduc-
tion in Nurd for the vertical orientation of the plate. Nevertheless, it
is noticed that the usual trend can be recovered once the emissiv-
ity contrast between the inner plate and enclosure walls is consid-
ered. This result is important since a good quantitative insight of the
behavior is crucial while fabricating a much better heat removal sys-
tem. We sum up the following useful results in terms of hike in Nu
from that of the pure convection benchmark case arrived out of the
32, 093606-10
 Physics of Fluids ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf

TABLE VI. Average Nusselt numbers for positive and negative emissivity contrasts with percentage hike from the benchmark case.

Enclosure type Inner hot plate orientation Active mechanism Nucv Nurd Nu |Ψ|max

VCE Horizontal Convection 8.0754 ... 8.0754 30.8084

Convection + radiation
+ve emissivity contrast 9.7977(+21%) 3.3218 13.1195(+62%) 28.9338
Zero emissivity contrast 9.7101 15.4790 25.1891 31.9369
−ve emissivity contrast 6.0342(−25%) 4.1866 10.2208(+27%) 36.3799
Vertical Convection 12.5045 ... 12.5045 27.0815
Convection + radiation
+ve emissivity contrast 13.6213(+9%) 3.5614 17.1827(+37%) 27.2639
Zero emissivity contrast 10.7309 22.4466 33.1775 35.7635
−ve emissivity contrast 9.1848(−27%) 5.9191 15.1039(+21%) 36.1779

HCE Horizontal Convection 6.6205 ... 6.6205 79.9723

Convection + radiation
+ve emissivity contrast 8.1269(+23%) 3.4911 11.6180(+75%) 58.5465
Zero emissivity contrast 7.4467 20.6476 28.0943 64.6484
−ve emissivity contrast 5.7070(−14%) 3.4690 9.1760(+39%) 41.3020
Vertical Convection 10.0554 ... 10.0554 46.7469
Convection + radiation
+ve emissivity contrast 11.0645(+10%) 3.3305 14.3950(+43%) 55.4644
Zero emissivity contrast 11.2663 15.3051 26.5714 53.9460
−ve emissivity contrast 9.5078(−5%) 4.1496 13.6574(+36%) 44.2379

present study, ● In a VCE, positive emissivity contrast leads to radiative

heating at the enclosure bottom, whereas negative con-
positive contrast negative contrast
Hike in Nu > Hike in Nu , trasts results in convective cooling at the enclosure top. In
horizontal plate vertical plate a HCE, heat gain and loss are observed in side walls under
Hike in Nu > Hike in Nu , (20)
the presence of positive and negative emissivity contrasts,
HCE VCE respectively.
Hike in Nu > Hike in Nu .
● The negative emissivity contrast dampens convective cells
As a final remark, it is worth noting that in general, there is a in the bottom half of the enclosure. This behavior makes
decrease in Nucv , even though there is an increase in |Ψ|max for some convection mechanism to play a decisive role in the overall
cases, compared to that of the benchmark case when the emissivity heat transfer reduction through the enclosure. Thus, convec-
contrast is negative. It is of interest to see the corresponding flow tive cooling could be enhanced when the emissivity contrast
patterns shown earlier at this stage. In this situation, a large amount remains positive. Moreover, the emissivity contrast shows its
of net radiative flux leave from the enclosure walls and lead to an effect significantly for higher Ra.
effective radiative mechanism, represented through maximum Nurd . ● When the surfaces involved possess uniform emissivity, the
Thus, the radiative mechanism dominates the convection coun- overall heat transfer rate is found to be always higher for
terpart, which causes the aforementioned significant reduction in the vertical orientation of the plate in a VCE; the opposite
Nucv . trend is observed in the case of a HCE. However, the former
result is found to be true for both types of enclosures in the
presence of emissivity contrast.
V. CONCLUSION ● The heat transfer can be augmented up to around 35%
The effect of two contrasting combinations of surface emis- through a good knowledge of the emissivity contrast. More
sivities on the combined radiation and convection inside an enclo- than 60% hike in the heat transfer enhancement can be
sure containing an inner hot plate was studied. Both vertically and observed in the presence of positive contrast compared to
horizontally cooled enclosures were considered with two different the pure convection case when the inner heater is oriented
orientations of the inner plate. The study leads to the following horizontally. In the presence of vertically oriented inner
concluding remarks: heater, the hike is around 40%.

Phys. Fluids 32, 093606 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0021010 32, 093606-11

Published under license by AIP Publishing
 Physics of Fluids ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf

The above results shall be helpful in selecting proper material o outgoing radiation
surfaces for the better design of thermal cooling enhancement solu- P plate
tions applicable to electronic components, solar collectors, building rd radiation
architecture, etc. A three dimensional extension of this study, by W wall
taking into account the size and positions of the active and passive
surfaces, may unfold new results.
DATA AVAILABILITY
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were
created or analyzed in this study.
The authors thank UGC, India, for its support through the
DRS Special Assistance Program in Differential equations and Fluid
dynamics. One of the authors (R.N.) thanks the Bharathiar Uni- REFERENCES
versity, Coimbatore for its financial support through the University 1
A. Yucel, S. Acharya, and M. L. Williams, “Natural convection and radiation in a
Research Fellowship. square enclosure,” Numer. Heat Transfer, Part A 15, 261–277 (2008).
2
Y.-Y. Chen, B.-W. Li, J.-K. Zhang, and Z.-D. Qian, “Influences of radiative
NOMENCLATURE characteristics on free convection in a saturated porous cavity under thermal
non-equilibrium condition,” Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer 95, 80–91 (2018).
F kj configuration factor from the kth element to the jth element 3
M. Cánovas, I. Alhama, E. Trigueros, and F. Alhama, “Numerical simulation of
g gravitational acceleration, ms−2 Nusselt–Rayleigh correlation in Bénard cells. A solution based on the network
IK dimensionless irradiation of the kth element simulation method,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Heat Fluid Flow 25(5), 986–997
k thermal conductivity of fluid, W m−1 K−1 (2015).
4
L length of the enclosure, m M. Canovas, I. Alhama, G. Garcia, and E. Trigueros, “Numerical simulation
of density-driven flow and heat transport processes in porous media using the
N total number of radiative surfaces network method,” Energies 10, 1359 (2017).
Nu average Nusselt number 5
M. Kassemi and M. H. N. Naraghi, “Analysis of radiation-natural convection
N RC radiation–conduction number (σTh4 L/kΔT) interactions in 1-g and low-g environments using the discrete exchange factor
p pressure, Pa method,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 36(17), 4141–4149 (1993).
P dimensionless pressure (pL2 /ρα2 ) 6
M. Akiyama and Q. P. Chong, “Numerical analysis of natural convection with
Pr Prandtl number (ν/α) surface radiation in a square enclosure,” Numer. Heat Transfer, Part A 32, 419–
q the flux, W m−2 433 (1997).
7
Q dimensionless flux N. Ramesh and S. P. Venkateshan, “Effect of surface radiation on natural
convection in a square enclosure,” J. Thermophys. Heat Transfer 13, 299–301
Ra Rayleigh number [gβΔTL3 /(να)] (1999).
Rk dimensionless radiosity of the kth element 8
S. K. Mahapatra, S. Sen, and A. Sarkar, “Interaction of surface radiation and vari-
t time, s able property natural convection in a differentially heated square cavity—A finite
T temperature, K element analysis,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Heat Fluid Flow 9(4), 423–443 (1999).
9
u, v velocity components, ms−1 E. H. Ridouane, M. Hasnaoui, A. Amahmid, and A. Raji, “Interaction between
U, V dimensionless velocity components (uL/α, vL/α) natural convection and radiation in a square cavity heated from below,” Numer.
x, y cartesian coordinates, m Heat Transfer, Part A 45, 289–311 (2004).
10
X, Y dimensionless coordinates (x/L, y/L) H. Wang, S. Xin, and P. L. Quere, “Numerical study of natural convection-
surface radiation coupling in air-filled square cavities,” C. R. Mech. 334, 48–57
(2006).
Greek symbols 11
S. Hamimid and M. Guellal, “Numerical study of combined natural convection-
α thermal diffusivity, m2 s−1 surface radiation in a square cavity,” Fluid Dyn. Mater. Process. 10(3), 377–393
(2014), available at www.techscience.com/fdmp/v10n3/24580.
β thermal expansion coefficient of fluid, K−1 12
L. Soucasse, P. Rivière, A. Soufiani, S. Xin, and P. Le Quéré, “Transitional
ΔT characteristic temperature difference, K regimes of natural convection in a differentially heated cubical cavity under the
ϵ emissivity of the radiative surface effects of wall and molecular gas radiation,” Phys. Fluids 26, 024105 (2014).
θ dimensionless temperature (T − T c )/∇T) 13
S. H. Ahmed, H. F. Oztop, and K. Al-Salem, “Natural convection coupled with
Θ dimensionless temperature ratio (T k /T h ) radiation heat transfer in an inclined porous cavity with corner heater,” Comput.
ν kinematic viscosity of fluid, m2 s−1 Fluids 102, 74–84 (2017).
14
ρ density of fluid, kg m−3 J. M. House, C. Beckermann, and T. F. Smith, “Effect of a centered conducting
σ Stefan–Boltzmann constant, W K−4 m−2 body on natural convection heat transfer in an enclosure,” Numer. Heat Transfer,
Part A 18, 213–225 (1990).
τ dimensionless time (αt/L2 ) 15
J. Y. Oh, M. Y. Ha, and K. C. Kim, “Numerical study of heat transfer and flow
Ψ dimensionless stream function (ψ/α) of natural convection in an enclosure with a heat-generating conducting body,”
Numer. Heat Transfer, Part A 31, 289–303 (1997).
16
Subscripts H. F. Oztop, I. Dagtekin, and A. Bahloul, “Comparison of position of a heated
thin plate located in a cavity for natural convection,” Int. Commun. Heat Mass
c cold wall Transfer 31, 121–132 (2004).
cv convection 17
S. Saravanan and P. Kandaswamy, “Free convection in an inclined enclo-
h hot wall sure with internal heat generation,” in Proceedings of the 4th Asian Compu-
i incoming radiation tational Fluid Dynamics Conference (CNKI, 2000), pp. 664–669, available at

Phys. Fluids 32, 093606 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0021010 32, 093606-12

Published under license by AIP Publishing
 Physics of Fluids
http://cstm.cnki.net/stmt/TitleBrowse/KnowledgeNet/ZGKQ200009001093?db=
STMI8319.
18
M. K. Das and K. S. K. Reddy, “Conjugate natural convection heat transfer in an
inclined square cavity containing a conducting block,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer
49, 4987–5000 (2006).
19
P. Kandaswamy, J. Lee, A. K. Abdul Hakeem, and S. Saravanan, “Effect of baffle-
cavity ratios on buoyancy convection in a cavity with mutually orthogonal heated
baffles,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 51, 1830–1837 (2008).
20
S. Saravanan and C. Sivaraj, “Natural convection in a differentially heated cavity
with parallel heat-generating baffles,” Heat Transfer Eng. 33, 1264–1271 (2012).
21
G. Nardini, M. Paroncini, and R. Vitali, “Experimental and numerical analysis
of the effect of the position of a bottom wall hot source on natural convection,”
Appl. Therm. Eng. 92, 236–245 (2016).
22
N. C. Roy, “Natural convection of nanofluids in a square enclosure with
different shapes of inner geometry,” Phys. Fluids 30, 113605 (2018).
23
A. Bendaraa, M. M. Charafi, and A. Hasnaoui, “Numerical study of natural con-
vection in a differentially heated square cavity filled with nanofluid in the presence
of fins attached to walls in different locations,” Phys. Fluids 31, 052003 (2019).
24
M. Hamid, Z. H. Khan, W. A. Khan, and R. U. Haq, “Natural convection of
water-based carbon nanotubes in a partially heated rectangular fin-shaped cavity
with an inner cylindrical obstacle,” Phys. Fluids 31, 103607 (2019).
25
K. Sri Jayaram, C. Balaji, and S. P. Venkateshan, “Interaction of surface radiation
and free convection in an enclosure with a vertical partition,” J. Heat Transfer 119,
641–645 (1997).
26
A. Mezrhab and L. Bchir, “Radiation-natural convection interactions in parti-
tioned cavities,” Int. J. Numer. Methods Heat Fluid Flow 9(1), 186–203 (1999).
27
M. Rabhi, H. Bouali, and A. Mezrhab, “Radiation-natural convection heat trans-
fer in inclined rectangular enclosures with multiple partitions,” Energy Convers.
Manage. 49, 1228–1236 (2008).
28
S. Saravanan and C. Sivaraj, “Coupled thermal radiation and natural convection
heat transfer in a cavity with a heated plate inside,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow. 40,
54–64 (2013).
29
Y. Liu and N. Phan-Thien, “A complete conjugate conduction convection and
radiation problem for a heated block in a vertical differentially heated square
enclosure,” Comput. Mech. 24, 175–186 (1999).
Phys. Fluids 32, 093606 (2020); doi: 10.1063/5.0021010
Published under license by AIP Publishing
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf
30
A. Mezharb, H. Bouali, H. Amaoui, and M. Bouzidi, “Computation of combined
natural-convection and radiation heat-transfer in a cavity having a square body at
its center,” Appl. Energy 83, 1004–1023 (2006).
31
S. Saravanan and C. Sivaraj, “Combined thermal radiation and natural convec-
tion in a cavity containing a discrete heater: Effects of nature of heating and heater
aspect ratio,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 66, 70–82 (2017).
32
I. V. Miroshnichenko and M. A. Sheremet, “Turbulent natural convection com-
bined with thermal surface radiation inside an inclined cavity having local heater,”
Int. J. Thermal Sci. 124, 123–130 (2018).
33
B. Zamora, “Heating intensity and radiative effects on turbulent buoyancy-
driven airflow in open square cavities with a heated immersed body,” Int. J. Therm.
Sci. 126, 218–237 (2018).
34
S. Saravanan and N. Raja, “Effect of variable sidewall temperatures on the
combined surface radiation-convection in a discretely heated enclosure,” J. Heat
Transfer. 140, 094503-1–094503-5 (2018).
35
C. Balaji and S. P. Venkateshan, “Interaction of surface radiation with free
convection in a square cavity,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 14, 260–267 (1993).
36
N. Ramesh and S. P. Venkateshan, “Effect of surface radiation and partition
resistance on natural convection heat transfer in a partitioned enclosure: An
experimental study,” J. Heat Transfer 121, 616–622 (1999).
37
E. H. Ridouane, M. Hasnaoui, and A. Campo, “Effects of surface radiation on
natural convection in a Rayleigh-Benard square enclosure: Steady and unsteady
conditions,” Heat Mass Transfer 42, 214–225 (2006).
38
M. Ashish Gad and C. Balaji, “Effect of surface radiation on RBC in cav-
ities heated from below,” Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transfer 37, 1459–1464
(2010).
39
H. Sun, E. Chénier, and G. Lauriat, “Effect of surface radiation on the break-
down of steady natural convection flows in a square, air-filled cavity containing a
centered inner body,” Appl. Therm. Eng. 31, 1252–1262 (2011).
40
R. Siegel and J. R. Howell, Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer, 4th ed. (Taylor and
Francis Group, New York, 2002).
41
H. C. Hottel and A. F. Saroffim, Radiative Heat Transfer (McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1980).
42
S. V. Patankar, Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow (Hemisphere Publish-
ing Corporation; Taylor and Francis Group, New York, 1980).
32, 093606-13