See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233580203

Mathematical models of dependence of surface temperatures of exposed

metal plates on environmental parameters

Article  in  Corrosion Engineering Science and Technology · March 2006

DOI: 10.1179/174327806X94045

CITATIONS READS

36 2,203

2 authors, including:

Ivan Cole
The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
222 PUBLICATIONS   5,366 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

New inhibitor systems for steel and zinc View project

Soon to move to RMIT as Director of enhanced capability in advanced materials and fabrication View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ivan Cole on 21 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 MATHEMATICAL MODELS OF THE DEPENDENCE OF SURFACE

TEMPERATURES OF EXPOSED METAL PLATES ON ENVIRONMENTAL

PARAMETERS.

I.S. Cole* and D.A. Paterson

CSIRO Building, Construction and Engineering

PO Box 56, Highett, Victoria 3190, Australia

ABSTRACT

Keywords: surface temperature (A), wind speed (B), cloud base (C), wetness (C),

metal surfaces (C).

1. Introduction

Although it has been long established1 that atmospheric corrosion is at least partially

controlled by the wetness on a surface, and surface wetness itself2 can be predicted

from a knowledge of deliquescent relative humidity (RH) of any salts that may

contaminate the surface and the RH at the surface, little work has been undertaken to

define the factors controlling surface RH. A major influence on surface RH is surface

temperature. It is well established the surface temperature of exposed plates is

controlled by the processes of solar heating, irradiation to the night sky and

convection interaction with air3.

Work by Dean and Reiser4 investigated the effect of convection and thus wind speed

on undercooling of metal plates at night. Recent work by Cole et al.5 has looked at

how surface wetness, cloud cover and wind speed may affect the difference between

surface temperature and ambient air temperature. This experimental study found that a

daily cycle in temperature difference (between surface and ambient temperatures)

existed across a number of location but the extent of temperature difference was

strongly affected firstly by the presence of moisture on the surface and secondly by

wind speed and cloud cover.

This paper will present a number of models of the surface temperature of metal plates

and their dependence on climatic parameters. Data derived from these models will be

presented and compared to experimental data. Approximations to these modelled

results that are more readily useable will be presented and the implications to

corrosion studies discussed.

MATHEMATICAL MODEL

Heat Transfer Coefficient

Surface temperature is controlled by a range of thermal processes and factors

including conduction, convection (between the metal and the air layer adjacent to the

metal) and radiation.

An object of low thermal mass may be assumed to be in thermal equilibrium with its

environment. The heat passing through a given area is related to the temperature

difference and the heat transfer coefficient h defined by:

Q
= h (Ta − T ) (1)
A
where Q is the heat flow rate (watts), A is the surface area through which the heat

passes, T is the average temperature of the surface of the plate, and Ta is the average

local air temperature. This heat transfer coefficient need not be a constant and in general

won’t be constant. Heat transfer coefficients from different thermal processes can be summed.

A form that is useful in this paper is:

h = h1 + h2 + h3 + h4 + h5 + h6 + h7 (2)

Where h is the total heat transfer coefficient and the individual heat transfer

coefficients h1 to h7 are for the following processes in turn:

1. Conduction

2. Natural Convection

3. Forced convection

4. Radiative heat losses to the sky

5. Radiative heat transfer to or from the ground

6. Incoming solar radiation

7. Evaporation and condensation

Equation 1, the equation of conservation of heat, is solved using the quasi-steady

assumption Q = 0 .

This is solved iteratively for the surface temperature T. Assumptions in the equations

of this report are that thermal storage in the object can be ignored (i.e. timescales are

longer than 5 minutes), that the concentration of solutes in the water on the surface

can be ignored, and that the surface tension of water drops on the surface can be

ignored. In all the calculations the Raleigh number (defined in Eq. 6) was high enough

for the flow to be fully turbulent.

Conduction
The thermal conductivity of the air governs how much heat is passed from the plate to

the air by conduction. For pure conduction the heat transfer coefficient is given by:

h1 = k / L (3)

where k is the thermal conductivity and L is a typical length scale associated with the

plate. For air, k = 0.0257 Wm-1K-1. The conduction of heat within the plate is not

taken into account in this analysis, it is usually fast enough to be ignored. This is

certainly true for exposed metal plates.

Natural Convection
For exposed metal plates, the heat transfer due to conduction is usually much less than

that due to natural convection. In natural convection, the heat transfer can be

considered to be governed by the Nusselt (Nu) and Raleigh (Ra) numbers. The heat

transfer coefficient h2 is calculated from the Nusselt number:

Nu = h2 Lk −1 (4)

where L and k have the same meanings as they did for convection.

For natural convection on horizontal plates, the following formulae have been used6:

Upper surface:

Nu = 0.27 Ra1 / 4 for 105 < Ra < 1010

Lower surface: (5)

Nu = 0.54 Ra1 / 4 for 10 4 < Ra < 107

Nu = 0.15 Ra1 / 3 for 107 < Ra < 1011

Ra = gβ ′ ∆T L3ν −1α −1 (6)

where:
g = 9.81 ms-2 is the acceleration due to gravity

β ′ = 1/ T is the coefficient of thermal expansion

ν = 15.0 × 10 −6 m2s-1 is the kinematic viscosity of air (7)

α = 21.2 × 10 −6 m2s-1 is the thermal diffusivity of air

∆T = | Ta − T | is the temperature difference between air and plate

Forced Convection
In all winds except for very light winds, the effect of forced convection is stronger

than that of natural convection.

For forced convection with flow along one side of a plate the heat transfer coefficient

is calculated from7:

h3 = 3.0V for 0 ≤ V < 5 ms-1 (8)

where V is the speed of the wind in ms-1. 5 ms-1 is a typical average wind speed for

eastern Australia.

Radiative Heat Loss to the Sky

The rate of heat transfer between the surface of a plate and the sky through radiation

depends on whether any clouds are present. When no clouds are present it is given

by:8

h4 (Ta − T ) = εσ (Tsky
4
−T 4) (9)

where h4 is the heat transfer coefficient, ε is emissivity, σ is the Stefan–Boltzmann

constant (= 5.6697 × 10–8 W m–2 K–4), Tsky is the mean temperature of the sky, T is

the temperature of the surface of the plate, and Ta is the local air temperature.
The temperature of the sky when there is no cloud can be calculated from the local air

temperature and dewpoint temperature using the following formula:3

1/ 4
 T − 273 
Tsky = Ta 0.8 + d (10)
 250 

where Td is the dewpoint temperature. The dewpoint can be calculated from the local

air temperature and RH:

RTa2
Td = Ta + ln(RH ) (11)
∆H v M w

where R is the gas constant ( = 8.314 J mol–1 K–1), ∆Hv is the latent heat of

vaporisation of water, and Mw if the molecular weight of water, and ∆HvMw = 4.5 ×

104 J mol–1.

Clouds act by reflecting incident radiation back to the ground and plate. The amount

of incident radiation which is reflected back is known as the cloud albedo (Rc) and

depends on cloud thickness (Rc ranges from 0.2 with a cloud thickness of 50 m to 0.9

with a cloud thickness of 1000 m.8 Thus, radiative heat transfer to the sky from metal

surfaces in the presence of clouds becomes:

εσ
h4 (Ta − T ) = ((1 − Rc )Tsky
4
+ Rc (1 − t12 )T14 − (1 − Rc t12 )T 4 ) (12)
1− Rc t12 (1 − ε )

where t1 is the transmittance through the air beneath the cloud and T1 is the mean

temperature of that air. Both t1 and T1 can be calculated from the local air

temperature and relative humidity ( t1 is roughly 0.37 at a local air temperature Ta of

293 degrees, 0.53 at 288 degrees, 0.67 at 283 degrees, 0.78 at 278 degrees and 0.87 at

273 degrees). The value of Ta − T1 is 10.5 degrees at a Ta and RH of 293 degrees and

25%, 5.5 degrees at 273 degrees and 25%, 5.5 degrees at 293 degrees and 95%, and
0.5 degrees at 273 degrees and 95%, and can be interpolated linearly within those

limits.

Radiative Heat Transfer to/from the Ground

For radiative heat transfer between the plate and the ground:

ε
h5 (Ta − T ) = σ (Tg4 − T 4 ) (13)
2−ε

Where Tg is the average temperature of the ground. Where there are objects between

the plate and the ground, the ground temperature in this equation needs to be replaced

by a weighted average of the ground and object temperatures.

Incoming Solar Radiation

During the daytime the plate is heated by incoming solar radiation.

When the incoming solar radiation q s is in W m-2 and the solar absorptance is a , the

heat transfer coefficient due to solar radiation is given by:

h6 = q s a /(Ta − T ) (14)

The incoming solar radiation is the sum of the direct and diffuse solar radiation on the

object and depends primarily on the height of the sun above the horizon. The diffuse

solar radiation is not completely zero even when the sun is slightly below the horizon.

Evaporation and Condensation

The latent heat of vaporisation affects the undercooling of plates at night when there

is condensation on the plates and affects the heating of plates in the morning when the

plates have been wet by rain or condensation.

The heat transfer coefficient for evaporation (or condensation) is given by

 ∆H vVv  Psat Pa 
h7 =  −  (15)
F (Ta − T )  T Ta 

Where the following formulas for the partial pressures of water vapour in the

atmosphere come from Stull (1988)9.

17.67(T − 273.16) 
Psat = 611.2 exp  
 T − 29.66 
17.67(Ta − 273.16) 
Pa , sat = 611.2 exp  (16)
 Ta − 29.66 
RH
Pa = Pa, sat
100

∆H v = 2.5 × 10 6 J kg-1 is the latent heat of vaporisation of water.

F = 0.58 is a factor found from calibrating the result using wet-bulb thermometer

equations.

Vv is proportional to the velocity of the water vapour in m s-1 and is calculated as

follows.

First lump together all convection (forced and natural) and conduction effects into a

single heat transfer coefficient hc = h1 + h2 + h3 . The transfer of water vapour by

convection and conduction can be calculated directly from this heat transfer

coefficient as follows:

hc = 0.91ρ C pVv for laminar flows

(17)
hc = ρ C pVv for turbulent flows

where

C p = 1007 J kg-1 K-1 is the specific heat of air

ρ = 1000 kg m-3 is the density of water

The evaporation (or condensation) rate Ve can be calculated from the heat transfer

coefficient for evaporation (or condensation) by:

ρ ∆H vVe = h7 (Ta − T ) (18)

Computed values of condensation rate have not yet been checked against

experimental data and must be regarded as tentative

RESULTS

Base Scenario
The balance of these effects is best considered for given scenarios. Consider the

scenario of a near-horizontal galvanised steel plate with L = 8 m with the top open to

the sky. The top is subjected to wind of speed V and has air temperature Ta . The

underside is enclosed (Vu = 0) but well ventilated ( Tg = Ta ) and objects below have

the same temperature as the air temperature and the same emissivity ( ε = 0.12) as the

plate. Cloud, when present, has albedo Rc = 0.65 . The solar absorptance is a = 0.65 .

Undercooling with Clear Sky

Using the conditions given in the base scenario, Table 1 and Table 2 have been

derived for the maximum night time undercooling as a function of air temperature and

air RH for still air and for a slight breeze (1 m/s) assuming a clear sky in both cases.

Table 1 Maximum Night –Time Undercooling of a Metal Plate in Still air with a clear

sky

Air Temperature (K)

268 273 278 283 288 293
Relative 5 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.8
Humidity 25 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8
% 50 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.3
 75 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.0
95 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.8

Table 2 Maximum Night –Time Undercooling of a Metal Plate in a slight breeze

(1m/s).

Air Temperature (K)

268 273 278 283 288 293
Relative 5 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.4
Humidity 25 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
% 50 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3
75 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2
95 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0

Undercooling with Cloud

Given the base scenario, the maximum undercooling in the presence of clouds has

been calculated and is presented in Table 3 and Table 4 for the cases of still air and a

slight breeze.

Table 3. Maximum Undercooling of a Metal Plate in Still air on a cloudy night sky

Air Temperature (K)

268 273 278 283 288 293
Relative 5 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.8
Humidity 25 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.3
% 50 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9
75 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.6
95 1.7 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

Table 4 Maximum Undercooling of a Metal Plate in a slight breeze (1m/s) on a

cloudy night.

Air Temperature (K)

268 273 278 283 288 293
Relative 5 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.7
Humidity 25 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3
% 50 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1
 75 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9
95 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9

Comparison of Predicted and Measured Undercooling.

The extent of undercooling predicted by the mathematical model as presented in

Table 1-4 is compared with the average annual undercooling measured in Wagga

Wagga (NSW-Australia) as detailed in Cole et al.5 for the same conditions. Full

condition of site details are found in Cole et al.10 The experimental RH and

temperature are the average annual values for that climatic condition (eg. Clear-

breeze) which are matched to the closest modelled conditions.

Table 5 Comparison of Predicted and Measured Undercooling

Condition Undercooling Undercooling RH Temperature

Modelled Experiment % °C

Clear-breeze 1.3 1.7 68 282

Cloudy-still 2.1 2.0 93 277

Cloudy-breeze 0.9 1.6 88 280

PLATE HEATING

The local air temperature and solar radiation have been extracted from readings near

the spring equinox (21 Mar 2000) at the weather station at the CSIRO DBCE site at

Highett, Victoria, latitude 38°. For overcast days, the data in Table 6 is the average

from 5 days for days with no rain in the period from 1 hour before sunrise to 4 hours
after sunrise. For clear days, the temperature data is from the average of 6 days and

the solar radiation data is derived from the pyrometer readings for 21 Mar 2000.

Table 6 . Air Temperature Rise and Solar radiation at CSIRO (Highett) in March

Cloudy Days Sunny Days

Air Temperature Solar Air Temperature Solar
Time after Sunrise
Rise Radiation Rise Radiation
(hrs) (°C) (W m )-2
(°C) (W m-2)
-1 0 0 0.00 0
-0.5 -0.2 0 -0.08 0
0 -0.38 1 0.00 9
0.5 -0.32 11 0.60 31
1 -0.14 28 1.28 171
1.5 0.24 48 2.18 281
2 0.46 68 4.25 376
2.5 0.64 108 5.93 468
3 0.68 117 7.17 549
3.5 0.94 193 7.67 632
4 1.42 222 8.40 696
On cloudy mornings without rain, the minimum air temperature occurs at 5 to 10

minutes after sunrise. On clear days, the minimum air temperature occurs about half

an hour before sunrise.

When adjusting these results to other locations on the earth’s surface, the most

important variable is latitude. The most important variation with latitude is the peak

solar radiation on a clear day. Moving from latitude 30 to 38 to 43 reduces the peak

solar radiation at the equinox from 850 to 805 to 720 W m-2. It varies as the cosine of

the latitude.

The second most important variation with latitude is in cloud cover. Further from the

equator the thermal forcing is less and the clouds tend more to stratus than cumulus.

Stratus clouds block a higher proportion of solar radiation on rain-free cloudy days.

The magnitude of this effect is unknown.

The third most important variation with latitude is linked with twilight. The diffuse

radiation received at and before dawn is larger at further distances from the equator

and consequently the time at which the plate temperature (and air temperature) is

lowest is earlier. The idealised diurnal air temperature of Oke (1982) as quoted by

Stull (1988)8 gives a minimum temperature 1 hour before sunrise. The results from

Highett give a minimum from ½ hour before sunrise (sunny days) to 10 minutes after

sunrise (cloudy days).

Given the base scenario and the variation of solar radiation as presented in Table 6 the

rise in temperature difference for clear days for still air and variable wind conditions

are given in Table 7 and Table 8 respectively. As Table 7 demonstrates that

temperature difference does not show a significant dependence on RH and

temperature in rise rate, Table 8 is presented for only one set of temperature and RH

conditions.

Table 7. Dry plate temperature rise in the morning on a clear day with no wind.

Temp RH Plate Temperature above Ambient Air Temperature

at –1 hr at –1 hr at Given time (in hours after dawn)
°C (%) -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
273 5 -3.49 -3.48 -2.41 1.46 14.61 22.51 28.69 34.33 39.09 43.81 47.35
273 50 -2.49 -2.49 -1.27 2.58 15.25 23.09 29.25 34.88 39.64 44.35 47.89
273 95 -2.20 -2.20 -0.90 2.87 15.43 23.25 29.41 35.04 39.79 44.50 48.04
283 5 -3.65 -3.65 -2.59 1.21 14.47 22.40 28.58 34.23 38.99 43.72 47.26
283 50 -2.43 -2.43 -1.20 2.62 15.27 23.11 29.28 34.91 39.67 44.38 47.92
283 95 -2.06 -2.06 -0.73 2.97 15.49 23.31 29.47 35.10 39.85 44.57 48.10
293 5 -3.79 -3.79 -2.75 0.97 14.33 22.27 28.46 34.10 38.86 43.60 47.14
293 50 -2.29 -2.29 -1.04 2.71 15.31 23.15 29.32 34.95 39.70 44.41 47.95
293 95 -1.83 -1.83 -0.43 3.14 15.58 23.40 29.55 35.18 39.93 44.64 48.17

Table 8 Dry Temperature rise in the morning with variable wind conditions

Sky wind Temp RH Plate Temperature above Ambient Air Temperature

speed at at at Given time (in hours after dawn)
–1 hr –1 hr
°C (%) -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
clear still 283 50 -2.43 -2.43 -1.20 2.62 15.27 23.11 29.28 34.91 39.67 44.38 47.92
clear 1 m/s 283 50 -1.43 -1.43 -0.65 1.55 10.86 17.01 21.94 26.51 30.39 34.27 37.19
clear 5 m/s 283 50 -0.50 -0.50 -0.21 0.55 4.75 7.84 10.41 12.85 14.96 17.10 18.73
Cloud still 283 50 -1.79 -1.78 -1.56 0.38 2.81 5.04 7.07 10.66 11.42 17.34 19.43
cloud 1 m/s 283 50 -1.01 -1.00 -0.87 0.18 1.68 3.22 4.67 7.33 7.57 12.14 14.09
Cloud 5 m/s 283 50 -0.34 -0.34 -0.29 0.05 0.60 1.23 1.86 3.06 3.33 5.53 6.34

Figure 1 shows that the main effect of cloud is to reduce the solar radiation on the

exposed plate. The secondary effect of cloud of altering the re-radiation of the heat of

the plate to the sky is only important when the solar radiation is very small.

Figure 1. Plate heating above air temperature vs solar radiation

50.00
Cloud, No wind
Cloud, Wind 1 m/s
40.00 Cloud, Wind 5 m/s
Plate Temperature minus Air Temperature

Clear, No wind
30.00 Clear, Wind 1 m/s
Clear, Wind 5 m/s

20.00

10.00

0.00

-10.00
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Solar Radiation (W/m^2)

The radiation emissivity ε for dry plates is ε = 0.12 and for water is ε = 0.96 .

Current experimental results suggest that it is correct to use the dry plate emissivity

ε = 0.12 for wet plates as well.

In Table 9 and Table 10 the change in temperature difference (plate temperature –

ambient air temperature) is given immediately before and after sun-rise for wet plates

on clear and cloudy days respectively.

Table 9. Wet plate temperature rise in the morning on a clear day

Wind Temp at RH at Plate Temperature above Ambient Air Temperature

Speed –1 hr –1 hr at Given time (in hours after dawn)
m/s °C (%) -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
0 273 75 -2.8 -2.8 -1.9 0.9 8.5 12.3 14.4 16.0 17.3 18.9 19.8
0 273 95 -1.8 -1.8 -0.9 1.6 9.1 12.9 14.9 16.5 17.8 19.3 20.1
0 283 75 -3.1 -3.1 -2.4 0.4 6.3 9.4 10.9 12.1 13.1 14.4 15.1
0 283 95 -1.6 -1.5 -0.8 1.2 7.3 10.3 11.7 12.8 13.8 15.0 15.7
0 293 75 -3.5 -3.4 -3.0 -1.7 4.3 6.7 7.7 8.6 9.3 10.3 10.9
0 293 95 -1.3 -1.3 -0.7 0.8 5.5 7.9 8.7 9.5 10.1 11.2 11.7
1 273 75 -2.2 -2.2 -1.7 -0.3 5.3 8.4 9.9 11.3 12.3 13.7 14.4
1 273 95 -1.1 -1.1 -0.6 0.7 6.1 9.1 10.6 11.8 12.8 14.2 14.9
1 283 75 -2.7 -2.6 -2.3 -1.5 3.4 5.8 6.8 7.7 8.4 9.5 10.1
1 283 95 -1.0 -1.0 -0.6 0.3 4.6 6.8 7.7 8.5 9.2 10.3 10.8
1 293 75 -3.3 -3.2 -3.0 -2.6 1.6 3.4 3.9 4.4 4.9 5.7 6.1
1 293 95 -0.9 -0.9 -0.6 0.1 3.1 4.8 5.2 5.5 5.9 6.7 7.1
5 273 75 -1.7 -1.7 -1.5 -1.3 1.2 2.6 3.1 3.6 4.0 4.8 5.1
5 273 95 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.1 2.1 3.5 3.9 4.3 4.7 5.5 5.8
5 283 75 -2.4 -2.3 -2.2 -2.2 -0.2 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.6 1.8
5 283 95 -0.6 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 1.2 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.6 2.8
5 293 75 -3.1 -3.0 -3.0 -3.1 -2.0 -1.3 -1.9 -2.2 -2.4 -1.9 -1.9
5 293 95 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.5

Table 10. Wet plate temperature rise in the morning on a cloudy day

Wind Temp at RH at Plate Temperature above Ambient Air Temperature

Speed –1 hr –1 hr at Given time (in hours after dawn)
m/s °C (%) -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
0 273 75 -2.3 -2.3 -2.1 -0.8 1.2 2.6 3.8 6.0 6.4 9.8 10.7
0 273 95 -1.3 -1.3 -1.0 0.4 2.0 3.3 4.6 6.7 7.1 10.4 11.4
0 283 75 -2.7 -2.6 -2.4 -1.5 0.6 1.6 2.6 4.3 4.7 7.4 8.2
0 283 95 -1.1 -1.0 -0.8 0.4 1.6 2.6 3.6 5.3 5.7 8.4 9.1
0 293 75 -3.3 -3.2 -3.0 -2.4 -1.0 0.7 1.3 2.7 3.0 5.1 5.7
0 293 95 -1.1 -1.0 -0.8 0.2 1.1 1.9 2.6 4.0 4.3 6.4 6.9
1 273 75 -1.9 -1.9 -1.7 -1.1 0.2 1.0 1.8 3.4 3.8 6.4 7.1
1 273 95 -0.8 -0.7 -0.6 0.1 1.0 1.9 2.7 4.3 4.6 7.2 7.9
1 283 75 -2.5 -2.4 -2.2 -1.8 -1.0 0.2 0.7 2.0 2.2 4.3 4.8
1 283 95 -0.8 -0.7 -0.5 0.1 0.7 1.3 2.0 3.2 3.5 5.5 6.0
1 293 75 -3.2 -3.0 -2.9 -2.6 -2.1 -1.6 -0.9 0.6 0.8 2.3 2.7
1 293 95 -0.8 -0.7 -0.5 -0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 2.1 2.3 3.9 4.2
5 273 75 -1.6 -1.5 -1.4 -1.3 -1.0 -0.7 -0.4 0.4 0.5 1.8 2.0
5 273 95 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 1.4 1.5 2.7 3.0
5 283 75 -2.3 -2.2 -2.1 -1.9 -1.8 -1.7 -1.5 -0.9 -0.8 0.3 0.5
5 283 95 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.8 0.9 1.7 1.9
5 293 75 -3.0 -2.9 -2.8 -2.7 -2.6 -2.6 -2.6 -2.2 -2.1 -1.4 -1.4
5 293 95 -0.7 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.3 -0.2 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.8
Tables 9 and 10 give the plate temperature rises above ambient temperature provided

the plate remains wet. When the heat from the sun has evaporated off all the moisture,

the plate temperature quickly comes to match that for dry plates tabulated above. The

reverse side of this is that when a dry plate is rained on in the day, the temperature

changes from that of a dry plate to that of a wet plate.

The change from wet to dry depends on the total evaporation. Figure 2 shows the total

evaporation from the surface of a plate in microns of water lost as a function of time

of day when the temperature one hour before dawn is 283 degrees.

Cumulative Evaporation
200
Clear, No Wind, 75%RH
180 Clear, No Wind, 95%RH
Clear, 5 m/s, 75%RH
160 Clear, 5 m/s, 95%RH
Total evaporation (microns)

Cloud, No Wind, 75%RH

140 Cloud, No Wind, 95%RH
120 Cloud, 5 m/s, 75%RH
Cloud, 5 m/s, 95%RH
100

80

60

40

20

0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Time after dawn (hours)
Figure 2.

Evaporation when the wind speed is 5 metres/second and the night-time relative

humidity is 75% is by far the most rapid at early times of those plotted. That’s

because of the effect of forced convection. Evaporation when the wind speed is 0

metres/second and the night-time relative humidity is 95% is by far the most rapid at

early times.
Although not shown on the graph, the evaporation rate increases linearly with, or

slightly faster than linearly with, the wind speed. The effect of sunshine is to greatly

increase the evaporation rate at later times in the morning. By four hours after sunrise

it is nearly 0.7 mm/hr greater on sunny than on cloudy days. Relative humidity has a

big effect on evaporation rates at early times but this effect is much less significant

later in the day.

Comparison of Predicted and Measured Temperature Difference

In Table 11 and 12 experimental data derived from Wagga –Wagga is compared with

experimental predictions. As indicated in Cole et al.5 , the experimental temperature

difference results do not vary significantly with season and thus a comparison of the

yearly average experimental results with theoretical results derived from a particular

season is indicative. In Table 10 experimental data are given when the lifting

condensation level is high (>500m) or low (<500m). In table 11, two values are given

for the modelled data at 75% RH (the first value assumes a cloudy morning and the

second value a clear data. Only the cloudy day value is given for the modelled data

when the RH is 95% as it is assumed that clear skies are improbable under these

conditions. The experimental data is the average value for a full year for the

temperature differences and for the ambient temperature (2 hours after sunrise).

These additional data of ambient temperature and RH are given for wet plates as the

temperature difference is highly dependent on these conditions and omitted for dry

plates as these ambient conditions have little importance in this case.

Table 11 Comparison Of Experimental and Modelled Temperature difference , two

hours after sun-rise for dry Plates
Air Speed Cloud Model Experimental
Low Clear 21.9
Low High 10.6
Medium Clear 10.4
Medium High 7.9
Low Cloud 4.6
Low Low 6,5
Medium Cloud 1.8
Medium Low 4.8

Table 12 Comparison Of Experimental and Modelled Temperature difference , two

hours after sun-rise for Wet Plates

Condition Modelled Experiment Temperature Temperature

(model) (experiment)

Still, 75RH 3.4 - 13.8 7.3 0 3.3

Still, 95 RH 3.2 0.9 10 5.6

Low, 75RH 1.5 - 7.7 2.3 0 3.7

Low, 95RH 1.3 2.1 10 9.9

Med, 75 RH 0.9 - 2.6 0.1 10 9.8

Med, 95 RH -0.9 0.2 10 12.0

Generalised Equations for the difference in temperature between ambient and

plate surface

The tables presented in this paper do nor readily lend themselves to inclusion in an

analytical framework required for the development of integrated or Holistic corrosion

models11. Thus generalised equations for estimating surface temperature of zinc,

given ambient temperature and RH have been derived.

Plate undercooling at night may be approximated by

T-Ts = β - δ*ln(RH) (19)

Now β and δ are a function of temperature and wind speed so that

β = exp(α+χ*T)

δ = exp(ε+φ*T) for clear skies

or δ = ε+φ*T for cloudy skies

where the value of the constants are given in Table 13 for clear skies and Table 14 for

cloudy skies.

Table 13 . Value of constants for Estimating Temperature Difference for Clear Skies

α χ ε φ
Still air 0.56 0.0027 -4.0 0.011
Moving air* -1.46 0.0084 -7.0 0.021

Table 14 . Value of constants for Estimating Temperature Difference for Cloudy

Skies

α χ ε φ
Still air -0.46 0.0053 -0.66 0.0035
Moving air* -0.99 0.0057 -0.43 0.0024

*Moving air was determined at 1 m/s and can be applied if air speed is > 0.5 M/S

The best model for prediction temperature difference after sun-rise is a bi-linear

model. If solar radiation (R) is less than 250 W/m2 and for dry plates then the model

has this form:

Ts –T = B *R

Where B is dependent on wind speed

B = 0.08*e^-0.26V

And if R >250 W/m^2 and for dry plates then :

Ts –T = C + D *R

C=7.25*e^-0.27V

D = 0.045*e^-0.27V

For wet plates if solar radiation (R) is less than 250 W/m2 then

Ts –T = E *R

Where E is dependent on temperature and air velocity

E=(-0.0008*T+ 0.0546)*(0.068 +0.932*e^(-V/0.40))

For wet plates if solar radiation (R) is greater than 250 W/m2 then

Ts –T = F+G *R

Where G is given by

G= (0.011 +0.00927*e^(-T/1.41))* (0.21*0.79 e^(-V/2.83)

And F is dependent of wind speed

For wind speeds less than 1 m/s

F = ( 1-0.0167*T)*(6-10.15*V) V =>1

For wind speeds greater than or equal to 1m/s.

F=( 1-0.0167*T)*(0.21*V-4.4) V>1

Discussion (and relevance to corrosion)

The mathematical modelling indicates that the degree of undercooling depended

primarily on cloud state and wind speed with a significant but reduced dependence on

ambient RH. Ambient temperature had only a marginal effect. For most conditions

modelled undercooling was less than 2 oC and only under exceptional conditions was

undercooling greater than 3 oC.

Plate heating during the daytime depended firstly on whether the plate was dry or wet,

then on whether the sky was cloudy or not. For dry plates the only significant

additional variable was wind speed. In the case of wet plates, the rate of evaporation

and thus the ambient RH and temperature are important. The dependence on sky

conditions (cloudy or not) is directly related to the solar radiation reaching the surface

and thus common algorithms to determine the rise in temperature difference can be

made for days with cloudy and clear skies if expressed in terms of incident solar

radiation.

The temperature rise directly after sun-rise will of course depend on the same

conditions as above. Thus the temperature difference two hours after sunrise may be

characterised as follows

1. For dry plates under clear skies there will be very substantial (>7 oC)

temperature difference

2. For dry plates under cloudy skies and with still to moderate air flow or wet

plates under clear skies and still air there will be significant (>4 oC)

temperature difference

3. For dry plates under cloudy skies and moderate winds or wet plates under

cloudy skies and still air there will be only a small (<4 oC) temperature

difference.

4. For wet plates on both clear or cloudy days if there is any significant wind

plate temperatures are likely to remain below ambient temperatures.

The most critical condition in the morning for corrosion is if course if the plate is wet

from condensation. The above analysis indicates that if there is any significant wind
evaporative cooling will prevent the rise in plate surface temperature for at least the

first two hours after sun-rise. Wind speed data present in Cole et al.5 indicates that

even in the case of still nights it is common for wind speeds to increase after sun-rise.

This delay in temperature increase reflects and contributes to a significant period of

time post-sun-rise when the moisture film is slowly evaporating. These are of course

ideal conditions for atmospheric corrosion.

The trends outlined above for the theoretical models reflect those observed in the

experimental data of Cole et al.5. This same consistency in trends is also indicated in

Tables 5, 10 and 11 which compare the modelled and experimental data for

undercooling and daytime temperature differences. However despite this consistency

in trends the values predicted by the models and observed experimentally are in some

cases quite different. There are a possible number of reasons for these differences.

The models assume that ambient conditions (RH, temperature and wind speed) are

constant which they are manifestly not in the experimental case. (quoted ambient

conditions are at the time when the temperature difference was measured but this

may have been and in many cases where different prior to this time). Secondly in the

experimental case cloud cover is not measured but LBL [Ivan, do you mean LCL?] is

calculated. It is assumed that a high LBL is equivalent to a clear sky and a low LBL is

equivalent to a cloudy sky. This assumption is only an approximation and thus there

may be difference in the cloud state in the experimental and modelled cases. Lastly

there are limitations in the accuracy of the experimental temperature differences.

Errors are associated both with direct measurement errors of two sets of thermo-

couple but also with “errors” associated with placement of the ambient and surface

temperature sensors. The modelled data assumes that the ambient conditions are those
in close proximity of the metal surface. Experimentally, in order to avoid any

reflective effects from the plates and to ensure that ambient sensors do not affect

surface air flow the ambient sensors were placed at some distance from the plates.

This errors are difficult to quantify but could be or the order of 0.5 oC.

Thus the difference in modelled and experimental undercooling (0.6 to 0.8 oC) in

Table 5 may be in part associated with these experimental errors. The differences in

experimental and modelled values temperature difference for dry plates, two hours

after sun-rise are more substantial (1.9 to 11.3 oC) and cannot be just associated with

experimental measuring error. The largest difference is in the comparison of the

modelled data for low air speed and a clear sky with the experimental data for low air

speed and high LBL. The experimental case could differ from the modelled data in

two significant ways. Firstly clouds at a high level may reduce radiation and thus

lower heating effects of the experimental study relative to the modelled data.

Secondly the wind speed may have been higher or the LBL lower than recorded 2

hours after sunrise and this may have reduced the heating of the experimental plates

relative to the modelled plate. Given the possible differences between the modelled

and experimental conditions further analysis of reasons for variations would not be

profitable

In the case of wet plates the modelled and experimental temperature difference two

hours after sun-rise (Table 11) are relatively close. For the modelled data at 75% RH

the temperature difference is given for cloudy and clear skies. The experimental data

includes both cases and thus experimental data could be considered close to the

modelled if it appears within the range for the modelled data. In most cases the
experimental temperature difference are within 1 oC of the modelled values or close to

the mid-point of the range of modelled data.

This study has contributed to our understanding of atmospheric corrosion and the

development of the holistic model11 in two ways.

1. Mathematical approximations have been derived thermodynamic analysis to

predict the degree of under-cooling and surface heating of metal plates and the

dependence of these phenomena on climatic conditions

2. It has been shown that under certain conditions (wet plates under cloudy skies)

the rate of temperature rise in temperature difference between the ambient air

and plate surface temperature is very slow. This can be attributed to the

evaporative affect of evaporation. These conditions would be favourable for

corrosion as during this slow evaporation of moisture droplets, the saline

solutions would concentrate and oxygen diffusion would be promoted through

the thinning moisture film. In the case of wet plates under clear skies the

modelling indicates that a reduced but still significant evaporating phase (with

suppressed surface temperatures) would still occur.

Conclusions

Mathematical models of heat transfer between metal plates and the environment have

been presented and used to determine the possible extent of nigh-time undercooling

and daytime heating of plate surfaces.

1) It is found that undercooling predominately depends on cloud state and wind

speed

2) Plate heating in the daytime depends on whether the plate was dry or wet, then

on whether the sky was cloudy or not. For dry plates the only significant
 additional variable was wind speed. In the case of wet plates, the rate of

evaporation and thus the ambient RH and temperature are important.

In addition to this basic understanding of the factors controlling plate temperature the

paper also contributes to the development of an holistic model and our understanding

of atmospheric corrosion by

3) Provide approximations to predict the degree of under-cooling and surface

heating of metal plates and the dependence of these phenomena on climatic

conditions

4) Defining the evolution of a wet surface post sun-rise and demonstrating that

under certain condition the solar heating of a plate is initially suppressed by

the cooling effects of evaporation leading to a significant period in which the

moisture film is slowly contracting.

References

1. H. Guttman, and P. J. Sereda: in ‘Metal corrosion in the atmosphere’, ASTM STP

435, pp. 326–359, American Society for Testing and Materials, West

Conshohocken, PA, 1968.

2. I. S. Cole, W. D. Ganther, I. D. Sinclair, D. Lau, and D. A. Paterson: J.

Electrochem. Soc., 2004, 151(12), B627–B635.

3. J. A. Duffie, and W. A. Beckman: ‘Solar engineering of thermal processes’, John

Wiley & Sons, New York, 1980.

4. S. W. Dean, and D. B. Reiser: in ‘Atmospheric corrosion’, ASTM STP 1239 (eds

W. W.Kirk and H. H.Lawson), pp. ____, American Society for Testing and

Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1994

5. I. S. Cole, W. D. Ganther, D. A. Paterson and A. Bradbury “Experimental

Studies of the Dependence of Surface Temperatures of Exposed Metal Plates on

Environmental Parameters”

6. F.P. Incropera & D. P. DeWitt, Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, John

Wiley & Sons, New York (1990).

7. Watmuff, Charters & Proctor (1977) "solar and wind induced external

coefficients for solar collectors"

8. J. Seinfeld, and S. Pandis: ‘Atmospheric chemistry and physics’, John Wiley &

Sons, New York, 1998.

9. R B Stull 'An Introduction to Boundary Layer Meteorology', Kluwer Academic

Publishers, 1988.
 10. I. S. Cole, W. D. Ganther, D. A. Paterson, G. A. King, S. A. Furman, and D. Lau:

Corros. Eng, Sci. & Technol., 2004, 39(4), 259–266

11. I. S. Cole, D. A. Paterson, and W. D. Ganther: Corros. Eng, Sci. & Technol.,

2003, 38(2), 129–134.

View publication stats