Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Applied Thermal Engineering 28 (2008) 801–808

www.elsevier.com/locate/apthermeng

Review

A survey of wind convection coefficient correlations

for building envelope energy systems’ modeling
J.A. Palyvos *
Solar Engineering Unit, School of Chemical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Greece GR-15780

Received 30 September 2007; accepted 6 December 2007

Available online 15 December 2007

Abstract

The thermal losses to the ambient from a building surface or a roof mounted solar collector represent an important portion of the
overall energy balance and depend heavily on the wind induced convection. In an effort to help designers make better use of the available
correlations in the literature for the external convection coefficients due to the wind, a critical discussion and a suitable tabulation is
presented, on the basis of algebraic form of the coefficients and their dependence upon characteristic length and wind direction, in addi-
tion to wind speed. Finally, simple average correlations are produced from the existing ones, useful for quick, gross estimates.
Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: External convective losses; Wind loss coefficient; Forced convection heat loss; Review of heat convective coefficients

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 801
2. The traditional correlation for the wind loss coefficient and its variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802
3. Boundary layer type correlations for the wind loss coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 804
4. Correlations for the wind loss coefficient explicit in V, L, and/or the wind direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806
5. External convection algorithms used in building simulation programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806
6. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807

1. Introduction ing/cover heat losses were in the range 26.5–40.0% of the

It is well documented that the thermal losses from
external building surfaces and such solar components as
collectors, chimneys, and ventilated photovoltaic arrays,
constitute a large portion of the respective energy balance.
In support of this statement, recent calculations and mid-
winter data regarding a tilted solar chimney mounted on
an NTUA campus building’s rooftop showed that glaz-
*
Tel.: +30 210 7723297; fax: +30 210 7723298.
E-mail address: jpalyvos@chemeng.ntua.gr
incident solar radiation, depending on duct geometry,
ambient temperature, solar energy flux, and wind velocity.
A more pronounced ‘‘cover” heat loss to the ambient
was recorded in the case of a ventilated photovoltaic array,
situated close to the chimney and having the same dimen-
sions and tilt angle.
Major parameter affecting the usual modeling of losses
to the ambient from such building envelope related compo-
nents is the wind convection coefficient, hw, a quantity not
very well documented, improper use of which can easily
cause 20–40% errors in energy demand calculations [1].

1359-4311/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2007.12.005
802 J.A. Palyvos / Applied Thermal Engineering 28 (2008) 801–808
Nomenclature
A surface area of plate (m2)
C circumference of plate (m)
cp heat capacity of air (J/kg K)
hw forced convection coefficient due to wind (W/
m2 K)
j Colburn j-factor, dim/less (=St Pr2/3)
k thermal conductivity of air (W/m K)
L length (m)
L1, L2 dimensions of plate (m)
LR characteristic length for Re (=4A/C) (m)
l length along wind direction (m)
Nu Nusselt Number, hL/k (=St Re Pr)
Nux local Nusselt Number
NuL average (over L) Nusselt Number
Pr Prandtl Number, cpl/k
Re Reynolds Number, LVq/l (=LV/m)
Rec critical Reynolds Number
Rf surface roughness factor-multiplier
St Stanton Number, h/qcpVf (=Nu/RePr)
Ta ambient temperature (K, °C in Eq. (1))
u wind velocity component in x-direction (m/s)
v wind velocity component in y-direction (m/s)
V wind speed (m/s)
Compared to radiation losses, on the other hand, external
convection losses are 3–4 times as big [2–4]. And since in
many situations there has been enough skepticism toward
the ‘‘standard computational correlation” for the wind loss
coefficient, namely that of Nusselt–Jürges [5], a plethora of
analogous correlations have appeared in the literature in
recent years. (One of the early reviews on the subject is that
of Cole and Sturrock [6].)
A discussion of the ‘‘pros” and ‘‘cons” of using a simple
linear correlation such as the Nusselt–Jürges one, should be
preceded by a rough categorization of the various expres-
sions that have been used so far. On the basis of parametric
dependence, the wind convection loss coefficient for an
external flat surface or bluff body has appeared in the liter-
ature as:
 an experimentally determined constant value, usually
given on tables (cf. [7–10]);
 a very simple expression, usually linear or power law
function of the wind speed (cf. [9,11–13]);
 an expression involving, in addition, a characteristic
length of the surface in question, either explicitly or
implicitly, i.e. via the Reynolds Number (cf. [14–17]);
 an analogous relation which also takes into account the
wind direction with respect to the surface (cf. [1,3,18]).
On the basis of the various test rigs, whose data were
used to produce the correlations for the wind loss coeffi-
cient, there are expressions stemming from:
Vaz wind speed at height z (m/s)
Vo wind speed at standard conditions (m/s)
Vw wind speed at monitored surface (m/s)
Vf free stream wind speed (10 m above roof) (m/s)
w wind velocity component in z-direction (m/s)
Wf wind modifier, dim/less (1 for windward, 0.5 for
leeward)
x distance from leading edge of plate (m)
z height of monitored wall above ground (m)
z0 height at which Vf measurements are taken (m)
Greek letters
a angle of attack (°)
a, b terrain-dependent coefficients, dim/less
h wind direction (°), + east of North
l shear viscosity of air (N s/m2)
m kinematic viscosity of air (m2/s)
q density of air (kg/m3)
u yaw angle (°)
Subscripts
L average over the length L
x local value
 wind tunnel measurements and model studies on rela-
tively small plates and bluff bodies-obstacles (cf. [19–
21]);
 full-scale/field data recordings, i.e. measurements on
actual building facades and roofs (cf. [22–26]).
Thus, the prospective designer/modeler must be aware of
the diversity of the available correlations and must make
sure that he has examined the specific conditions under
which they have been produced, before he can safely use
them. After all, there is an obvious lack of physical equiva-
lence between easily controlled indoor experimental studies
and the hard reality of the field. Out there, monitoring the
wind or establishing uniform conditions for the relevant
measurements is a formidable job. It has been reported,
for example, that average wind speed measurements in the
proximity of an external surface such as a solar collector
cannot have less than a ±0.5 m/s variation [27].
2. The traditional correlation for the wind loss coefficient and
its variants
In its most general form, the Nusselt–Jürges correlation
between the wind convection coefficient, hw, and the paral-
lel to the surface component of the wind velocity, Vw,
which drives the convection can be written as
    n 
294:26
hw ¼ 5:678 a þ b V w 0:3048 ð1Þ
273:16 þ T a
 J.A. Palyvos / Applied Thermal Engineering 28 (2008) 801–808 803

Table 1 Table 3
Values for the constants in Eq. (1) [28,29] Relation of the parallel component of the wind velocity to the free stream
value [22]
Vw < 4.88 m/s 4.88 6 Vw < 30.48 m/s
Windward Leeward
Surface texture a b n a b n
Vf > 2 m/s Vw = 0.25Vf Vw = 0.3 + 0.05Vf
Smooth 0.99 0.21 1 0 0.50 0.78
Rough 1.09 0.23 1 0 0.53 0.78 Vf < 2 m/s Vw = 0.5

where a, b, n are empirical constants, and Ta the ambient
temperature in °C. The correction in the innermost paren-
thesis is dictated by the fact that the original correlation
was developed for a reference temperature of 294.26 K
(21.1 °C) [28,29]. (This temperature correction is equivalent
to a density correction, which is necessary since the mass
velocity rather than the linear velocity is more appropriate
for the description of forced convection [30]). The three
constants in Eq. (1), which take values that depend on
the external surface texture and the wind speed, are listed
in Table 1, giving hw in SI units.
Actually, the original 1922 global correlation of Nus-
selt–Jürges [5] based on their copper plate data, if written
for SI units would have the form
hw ¼ 7:13V 0:78 0:6V w
w þ 5:35e
that is, it includes a decay term. This equation was special-
ized two years later by Jürges [31] for three types of sur-
faces (cf. Table 2). However, it was the original authors
who first suggested that, for practical calculations, it is suf-
ficient to use a linear interpolation formula for wind speeds
up to 5 m/s and to ignore the second term for higher speeds
[5]. In SI units, the proposed original linear equation would
be
hw ¼ 5:8 þ 3:95V w
having constants which are very close to the values used in
recent years on the basis of the McAdams [28] recast of Eq.
(1), which for smooth surfaces is
hw ¼ 5:7 þ 3:8V w
This last and much quoted correlation has been widely
used in modeling, simulations, and relevant calculations
(cf. [32–34]), in spite of its shortcomings. It has been ar-
gued, for example, that this dimensional equation includes
radiation loss in addition to convection [35], and that the
average-across the surface-wind speed as well as its direc-
tion must be considered [36]. Moreover, the data which
generated the above equations were taken on a vertical
square copper plate with 0.5 m sides subjected to parallel
flow of air, a situation that is hard to meet in real life.
In order to circumvent the lack of proper values for Vw,
Ito et al. [22] tried to correlate this parallel to the surface
component with the free stream velocity, Vf, introducing,
at the same time, gross wind direction, i.e. differentiat-
ing the results for windward1 and leeward conditions (cf.
Table 3). This procedure, which at the time was also
adopted by ASHRAE [37], allows the use of a single corre-
lation for the convection component of the outside heat
transfer coefficient for either direction, namely
hw ¼ 18:63V 0:605
w ð5Þ
This power law equation (which, aside from the S.I. units,
ð2Þ
was actually derived by Kimura on the basis of earlier data
of his Japanese group [37, p. 78]), as well as the linear Eqs.
(3) and (4) have been adopted as algebraic forms by most
researchers for their own data fitting procedures. An exten-
sive but not exhaustive tabulation of such equations are gi-
ven in Tables 4 and 5.
It turned out that in many cases the linear regression
equations were equally effective in fitting the experimental
data, even though fundamental heat transfer theory pre-
ð3Þ dicts a power relation between convective coefficient and
wind speed. On the basis of data generated by thirty such
linear correlations listed in Table 4 for windward surfaces,
a purely empirical ‘‘average” correlation of this simple but
convenient form can be derived, namely
ð4Þ
hw ¼ 7:4 þ 4:0V f ðwindwardÞ ð6Þ
In the wind velocity range 0–4.5 m/s, the maximum devia-
tions of the individual windward equations’ predictions
from those of Eq. (6) average to 18%. A similar ‘‘average”
correlation can be derived for leeward surfaces, using the
remaining six correlations of Table 4
hw ¼ 4:2 þ 3:5V f ðleewardÞ ð7Þ

Table 2 In the same wind velocity range, the maximum deviations

Values for the constants in Eq. (1) based on the original correlations of of the individual leeward equations’ predictions from those
Jürges [31], ignoring the decay terma
of Eq. (7) average to 22%.
Vw < 4.88 m/s 4.88 6 Vw < 30.48 m/s It should be noted at this point that many of the individ-
Surface texture a b n a b n ual correlations listed in Tables 4 and 5 use constants with
Hydraulically smooth 0.973 0.214 1 0 0.499 0.775
Rolled 1.005 0.214 1 0 0.497 0.780
Very rough 1.087 0.226 1 0 0.522 0.784 1
A surface or data are classified as windward if the angle of incidence
a 0.6 V
The decay term is ae , where a takes the values 5.12, 5.35, and 5.84 between the normal to the monitored surface and the wind direction is less
for the three surface types, respectively. than ±90° and leeward for all other directions [23].
804 J.A. Palyvos / Applied Thermal Engineering 28 (2008) 801–808

Table 4
Linear equation form for the wind convection coefficient (W/m2 K): hw = a + bV
a b Comments References
5.8 3.95 Wind tunnel measurement (WTM), plate, parallel flow, Vw < 5 m/s [5]
5.7 3.8 WTM, plate, parallel flow, Vw < 5 m/s, smooth surfaceb [28]
6.2 4.3 WTM, plate, parallel flow, Vw < 5 m/s, rough surface [4]
6.05 4.08 WTM, vertical plate, rough surface, V 6 5 m/s [30]
5.82 4.02 WTM, vertical plate, rolled surface, V 6 5 m/s [30]
7.82 3.50 Very smooth surface, no speed limit [39]
8.9 3.71 Smooth wood, plaster, no speed limit [39]
10.7 4.96 Cast concrete and smooth brick, no speed limit [39]
23 5.7 WTM, exposed face of a 23 cm cube for the range 3–10 m/s [6]
11.4 5.7 Nocturnal field measurements (NFM) on heated strips, exposed surface [6]
5.7 6.0 NFM on heated strips, normal surface [40]
0 5.7 NFM on heated strips, leeward facing surfaces [6]
5.8 2.9 NFM, wall, Vf > 3 m/s, windward (if leeward and Vf > 4 m/s, hw = 13 W/m2 K) [22]
8.7 9.4 NFM, Vw > 4 m/s, leeward, h independent of wind direction [22]
2.8 3.0 Vw, revised Ref. [5] data to exclude radiation and free convection contribution [35]
6.22 1.824 Kimura’s ‘‘4th floor model”, field measurement (FM) on window, windward surface [41]
6.22 0.4864 Kimura’s ‘‘4th floor model”, FM on window, leeward surface [41]
7.55 4.35 NFM in a Canadian Arctic location, window, Vf rooftop speed [42]
5.8 4.1 Based on Ref. [5] data, Vw (for roofs design V’s are 1, 3, and 9 m/s) [43]
4.5 2.9 Smooth surfaces (glass, paint) at ordinary temperatures (rough: 50% higher) [11]
8.55 2.56 Rectangular plate exposed to varying wind directions, Vbar sqrt(u2 + v2 + w2) [44]
0.036 2.2 Laboratory measurements, inclined and yawed real collector, Vw, leeward [3]
5.1 1.7 FM on facßade of tall building, Vw = f1(Vf) = 1.8Vf + 0.2 windward [23]
5.1 1.7 FM on facßade of tall building, Vw = f2(Vf) = 0.2Vf + 1.7 leeward [23]
7.0 2.1 Flat plate PV module, experimental, 1.0 < Vw < 1.5 m/s, 0° < Ta < 35 ° [65]
6.47 6.806 ASHRAE/DOE-2 model, rough surfacesa – excluding radiation [45]
4.955 1.444 Daytime FM on central region of vertical wall, Vf, plate shielded from sun [13]
8.91 2.00 FM on plane, smooth facßade test surface, Vf (Vw = 0.68Vf  0.5), windward [24]
4.93 1.77 FM on plane, smooth facßade test surface, Vf (Vw = 0.68Vf  0.5), leeward [24]
10.03 4.687 Indoor laboratory measurements on box-type solar cooker [12]
12.2 6.548 Indoor laboratory measurements on basin-type solar still [12]
8.3 2.2 FM, collector mimic on 35° pitched roof, Vf, incidence angle i = 0° [46]
6.5 3.3 FM, collector mimic on 35° pitched roof, Vf, incidence angle i = 90° [46]
6.42 3.96 Multipoint FM, V = sqrt(avg(u2 + v2 + w2)), developed turbulent boundary layer on horizontal roof [26]
4.47 10.21 Multipoint FM, V = sqrt(avg(u2 + v2 + w2)), on vertical wall [26]
4.214 3.575 Collector glass cover [9]
5.82 4.07 Based on photovoltaic systems’ analysis [67]
5.5 2.2 Outdoor measurements on PV modules without considering wind direction [68]
a
For smooth surfaces hw = 3.12 + 3.83V  0.047 V2 – excluding the constant 5.11 W/m2 K radiation contribution. A recent similar equation is
hw = 12.667 + 1.5946V + 0.0041V2 [63].
b
ASHRAE proposes a = 5.62, b = 3.9 ([60], p. 3.14). Another variant is a = 5.67, b = 3.86 [64].

more significant figures than one would expect to obtain
during a wind speed measurement in the field. Also, small
differences in the values of the constants in the Nusselt–Jür-
ges equations, as reported by various authors, could be the
result of units-conversion errors which probably have been
propagated over the years by indirect referencing.
3. Boundary layer type correlations for the wind loss
coefficient
Thermal boundary layer theory has led to correlations
for hw or, equivalently, for the Nusselt Number, Nu, which
implicitly involve a characteristic length via the Reynolds
Number, Re, which also appears in the correlations. In a
series of wind tunnel experiments on naphthalene plates,
Sparrow and his group [18,19,15,38] have produced corre-
lations of the form j = aReb, where j is the familiar Colburn
j-factor, expressing the analogy between (sublimation)
mass transfer and (convection) heat transfer. Using the rel-
evant definitions, j = St Pr1/3, and St ¼ qcphV f ¼ RePr
Nu
, where
St is the Stanton Number, Pr the Prandtl Number, q the
density, and cp the heat capacity of air, respectively, the
average Nusselt number, NuL , on an inclined rectangular
plate subject to an oncoming airflow can be written as
NuL ¼ 0:86Re1=2 Pr1=3 ð20:000 < Re < 90:000Þ ð8Þ
In this correlation, and in similar ones involving square
plates or plates with stabilizing extensions (cf. Table 6),
the characteristic length for Re is LR = 4A/C, where A is
the plate area and C its circumference. If the plate is rect-
angular, with sides L1 and L2, then
2L1 L2
LR ¼ ð9Þ
L1 þ L2
 J.A. Palyvos / Applied Thermal Engineering 28 (2008) 801–808 805

Table 5
Power law form for the wind convection coefficient (W/m2 K): hw = a + bVn
a b n Comments References
a
0 7.13 0.78 Wind tunnel measurement (WTM), plate, parallel flow, 5 < Vw < 24 m/s [5]
0 7.11 0.775 WTM, plate, parallel flow, hydraulically smooth surface, 5 < Vw < 24 m/s [31]
0 7.52 0.784 WTM, plate, parallel flow, very rough surface, 5 < Vw < 24 m/s [31]
0 7.2 0.78 Recast of data in [5,31], V > 5 m/s, smooth surface [28]
0 7.6 0.78 Recast of data in [5,31], V > 5 m/s, rough surface [28]
0 6.97 0.666 WTM, flat plate, measurement on the rear [47]
0 6.60 0.6 Vertical surface behind wedge-separated subsonic flow [48]
0 18.65 0.605 Field measurements (FM), Vw–Kimura’s ‘‘6th floor model”b [37]
0.685 11.8 0.5 WTM, small (0.16 m) collector mimic [49]
0 2.38 0.89 FM, window, low-rise building, forced convection only, windward (MoWiTT)c [45]
0 2.86 0.617 FM, window, low-rise building, forced convection only, leeward (MoWiTT)c [45]
0 16.15 0.397 FM, flat vertical panel, windward, Vw = f(Vf) = 0.68Vf  0.5 and 0.2Vf  0.1 [24]
0 16.25 0.503 FM, flat vertical panel, Leeward, Vw = f(Vf) = 0.157Vf  0.027 [24]
0 16.21 0.452 FM avg correlation for combined windward and leeward conditions [24]
0 14.82 0.42 FM on a 6th floor vertical surface in 200 mm recess, windwardd [50]
0 15.06 0.53 FM on a 6th floor vertical surface in 200 mm recess, leewardd [50]
0 9.4 0.5 FM, collector mimic on 35° pitched roof, Vf [46]
18.192 0.0378Tav 0.8 External coefficient in large commercial ducts, Tav = (Tduct,surf + Texterior)/2 [66]
Note. Ref. [69] examines convective cooling of photovoltaics.
a
ASHRAE proposes b = 7.2 for 5 6 Vw 6 30 ([60], p. 3.14).
b
Vw = 0.25Vf for Vf > 2 m/s, Vw = 0.5 for Vf 6 2 m/s (windward) and Vw = 0.3 + 0.05Vf (leeward) [45].
c
Same for DOE-2 with an additional multiplier for rough surfaces, Rf.
d
Also: correlations for 4 more depths and alternate correlations involving Vf instead of Vw.

Table 6
Boundary layer equation form for the wind convection coefficient (W/m2K): Nu = a RebPrc + d
a b c d Comments References
0.10 0.666 0 0 Wind tunnel measurement (WTM), vertical plate, windward [47]
0.20 0.666 0 0 WTM, vertical plate, leeward [47]
0.42 0.6 0 0 WTM, considers house as equivalent sphere [14]
0.931 0.5 0.333 0 WTM, global correlation for inclined (attack) and yawed square plate [18]
0.86 0.5 0.333 0 WTM, global correlation for inclined rectangular plate of finite width [19]
0.930 0.5 0.333 0 WTM, global correlation for pitch and yaw-square plate [38]
0.86 0.5 0.333 0 WTM, global correlation for collector with extension surfacesa [15]
0.0253 0.8 0 3 WTM, local Nu equation for mixed (lam. and turbulent) flow over a flat plate [20]
0.036 0.8 0.333 f1(Pr)b Laboratory, avg Nu on inclined and yawed real collector, with L = L(L1, L2, u)e [3]
0.032 0.8 0 84.5 Laboratory, avg Nu on inclined and yawed real collector (Pr = 0.706) [3]
1.23 0.5 0.333 0 WTM, plate flush on wooden roof model, angle of attack a < 40° [51]
0.90 0.5 0.333 0 WTM, plate flush on wooden roof model, angle of attack a P 40° [51]
0.568 0.524 0 0 WTM, flat-plate model collector flush on 30° roof of model house [52]
1.067 0.466 0 0 WTM, flat-plate model collector flush on 45° roof of model house [52]
f2(Re, Pr)c 0.8 1 0 Nu for parallel to plate flow, turbulent boundary layer [9]
0.023 0.891 0 0 Multipoint field measurement (FM), Re = (l/m)sqrt(avg(u2 + v2 + w2)), developed turbulent [26]
boundary layer on horizontal roof
0.0296Rf 0.8 0.333 0 FM, local Nu for horizontal roof, turbulent flow – Rf surface roughness multiplier [25]
0.037Rf 0.8 0.333 0 FM, avg Nu, horizontal strip of length L, turbulent flow, DT = 0, L > xc  0 [25]
0.664Rf 0.5 0.333 0 FM, avg Nu, horizontal strip of length L, turbulent flow, DT < 0, L > xc = 5  105l/(qVf) [25]
0.037Rf 0.8 0.333 f3(Pr)d FM, avg Nu, horizontal strip of length L, turbulent flow, DT < 0, L P xc = 5  105l/(qVf) [25]
a
The hydrodynamic dimensions are used for the characteristic length in Re.
b
f1(Pr) = 95.0Pr1/3.
c
f2(Re, Pr) = 0.037/(1 + 2.443Re0.1(Pr2/3  1).
d
f3(Pr) = 871RfPr1/3.
e
The characteristic length is L = L1L2/(L1 cos u + L2 sin u), with L1, L2 the collector side lengths and u the yaw angle.

The choice of such a length was dictated by the intuitive
involvement of the surface area of the plate, and the very
high transfer rates observed at the edges, thus bringing also
the circumference into the picture [19]. Eq. (9) is nothing
more than the simplest combination which yields a length
dimension.
Another experimental series involving a real (albeit half-
size) solar collector under controlled environmental condi-
tions in the laboratory [3], produced a slightly different cor-
relation for the average Nusselt Number, namely,
4=5
NuL ¼ 0:036ReL Pr1=3  95Pr1=3 ð10Þ
806 J.A. Palyvos / Applied Thermal Engineering 28 (2008) 801–808

The critical Reynolds Number was estimated at 70,000,
implying an early development of turbulence which can
be explained by the obvious lack of a sharp leading edge
on the collector. As the latter was both inclined and yawed
with respect to the on-coming air, the appropriate charac-
teristic length for Re was
L1 L2
L¼ ðu < 90 Þ
L1 cos / þ L2 sin /
with a similar equation for yaw angles, u, greater than 90°
[3]. It turned out, however, that, as in the case of Sparrow’s
yawed plate [18], the influence of the yaw angle was small,
over the entire range of u’s tried (0, 90, 135, and 180°), but
not insignificant. The relevant reduction of hw with u was
in the range 5–15% [3]. On the other hand, the wind direc-
tion has also been found not to have a significant effect in
the case of large walls [13].
Table 6 includes additional boundary layer type correla-
tions. Among them, is the following equation for the local
Nusselt Number, Nux,
Nux ¼ 0:037Rf Re4=5 Pr1=3  871Rf Pr1=3
in which x denotes distance from the leading edge and Rf is
a surface roughness dependent convection multiplier,
assuming values in the range 1.00 < Rf < 2.10. (The similar-
ity between Eqs. (10) and (12) is worth noting.) The same
authors also give relations involving explicitly the wind
incidence angle, h, for the forced convection heat transfer
coefficient averaged over rectangular roof strips [25].
4. Correlations for the wind loss coefficient explicit in V, L,
and/or the wind direction
A number of correlations for hw, explicit in V and L are
also listed in Table 7. Some of them have been the result of
evaluation of the thermo-physical properties which partic-
ipate in the Reynolds and Prandtl Numbers, for specific
temperatures, although the latter are not always reported
(cf. [17]). They have the general form hw = aVb/Lc, that
is, they include a decay of the wind convection coefficient
along the surface in the direction of the wind. For example,
the fully turbulent flow convective coefficient can be writ-
ð11Þ ten as
hw ¼ 5:74V 4=5 L1=5 ð13Þ
for a flat surface such as a solar collector [17]. If the latter is
flush-mounted on the (inclined) roof of a house, then
 
8:6V 0:6
hw ¼ max 5; 0:4 ð14Þ
L
where L is the cube root of the house volume in meters [32,
p. 166]. The constant 5 in this last relation represents the
minimal hw value which is observed in solar collectors un-
der zero wind.
The rest of the correlations in Table 7 are explicit only in
ð12Þ V, having the form hw = aVb, i.e. without the decay factor.
Each one is given for either wall surfaces or roofs of low-
rise isolated buildings, and for a particular wind direction.
As an example, for a ±45° surface-to-wind angle the rele-
vant equation for walls is
hw ¼ 3:34V 0:84
f ð15Þ
according to recent CFD calculations [1].
5. External convection algorithms used in building simulation
programs
In view of the lack of a universally acceptable wind con-
vection coefficient or correlation (as clearly demonstrated
by the large, yet non-exhaustive, compilations of Tables

Table 7
Explicit in V, L form for the wind convection coefficient (W/m2 K): hw = aVbLc
a b c Comments References
8.6 0.6 0.4 Convection over buildings, L = cube root of building volume [14]
5.79 0.8 0.2 Single flat-plate PV panel, Vw P 0.3 m/s, L = ‘geometric scale’ [65]
2.537WfRfa 0.5 0.5 BLAST model: V = Vaz, wind speed modified for height zb [16]
2.537WfRfa 0.5 0.5 TARP model:V = Vaz, wind speed modified for height zc [16]
5.74 0.8 0.2 Fully turbulent flow over horizontal, constant temperature surface [17]
5.1 0.5 0.5 Field measurements (FM), plates, global, 313 K mean plate-air temperature [46]
11.42 0.891 0.109 FM, local h, V = sqrt(avg(u2 + v2 + w2)), both for horizontal and vertical enveloped [26]
5.15 0.81 0 FM, walls of isolated, low-rise building, 0° angle of attacke [1]
3.34 0.84 0 FM, walls of isolated, low-rise building, ±45° angle of attacke [1]
4.78 0.71 0 FM, walls of isolated, low-rise building, ±90° angle of attacke [1]
4.05 0.77 0 FM, walls of isolated, low-rise building, ±135° angle of attacke [1]
3.54 0.76 0 FM, walls of isolated, low-rise building, ±180° angle of attacke [1]
5.11 0.78 0 FM, roof of isolated, low-rise building, 0° angle of attacke [1]
4.60 0.79 0 FM, roof of isolated, low-rise building, ±45° angle of attacke [1]
3.67 0.85 0 FM, roof of isolated, low-rise building, ±90° angle of attacke [1]
a
Wf = wind modifier (1 for windward surfaces, 0.5 for leeward ones), Rf = surface roughness multiplier, L = (surface area/perimeter).
b
Vaz = V0(z/z0)1/a (z0 = 9.14, a is a terrain-dependent coefficient).
c
Vaz = V0b(z/z0)a (a, b are terrain-dependent coefficients).
d
Pr has been evaluated at 293 K.
e
DT = surface-to-air temperature difference = 10 K, wind speed 1–5 m/s.
 J.A. Palyvos / Applied Thermal Engineering 28 (2008) 801–808
4–7), users of large building energy simulation programs
such as EnergyPlus [53], TRNSYS [54], and ESP-r [55],
should be able to choose the most suitable form offered
by the respective program. In fact, they should be also
given the option to supply ‘‘their own” model, as the cor-
relations for the external convection coefficient adopted
by such programs are not standardized [56].
EnergyPlus, for example, offers six ‘‘outside convection
algorithms: a simple second degree polynomial in Vw pro-
posed by ASHRAE [8] (which, however, includes a con-
stant radiation component of about 5 W/m2 K), the more
detailed algorithm of Sparrow et al. [19] as well as similar
expressions in the BLAST and TARP programs [16] and,
finally, the MoWiTT and the DOE-2 models [45]. The
MoWiTT algorithm offers a reasonable balance between
accuracy and ease of use [57] while the DOE-2 model is a
combination of the MoWiTT and BLAST algorithms
(see Tables 4, 5 and 7 for the respective expressions).
Most of the relevant components in TRNSYS, on the
other hand, ask the user to supply the heat transfer coeffi-
cient (although the linear form of Eq. (4) is built in, for
example, in the Type 19 subroutine). The most popular
algorithm used for the external convective coefficient is
the quadratic polynomial in Vw [58,59], whose constant
coefficients are tabulated for six types of surface texture
[60].
Finally, external convection in ESP-r is modeled via
time varying wind driven convection coefficients, calculated
with a choice of two different correlations: a simple linear
one (cf. [35]), with suitable amendment of the velocity value
on the basis of surface orientation and wind direction rela-
tive to the surface [61], and the MoWiTT model [45]. (The
ESP-r repertoire, however, is much more flexible when it
comes to internal building surfaces, for which it offers an
option of five empirical correlations and fixed values for
the internal convection coefficient [62]).
6. Conclusions
Since the importance of the external convection coeffi-
cient due to the wind in, practically, all the energy calcula-
tions involving the building envelope has been well
documented, the prospective designer/modeler must be
extra careful when seeking a correlation for hw to suit
his/her needs. This is also true when one uses the major
building energy analysis programs, which accept user sup-
plied correlations and constant values for hw or offer a
menu of such correlations.
Being aware of the diversity of the available expressions,
some of which are the result of laboratory tests while others
stem from actual field measurements, one must make sure
that he/she has fully examined the specific conditions under
which they have been produced, before he/she can safely
use any one of them. Moreover, the understandable lack
of physical equivalence between certain experimental stud-
ies and the reality of the field, should help in narrowing
down the options. If, on the other hand, one merely seeks
807
a quick gross estimate, one can always use the average
simple correlations proposed in this work, i.e. Eqs. (6)
and (7).
In view of the above, the expressions from the literature
which are listed in Tables 4–7 should prove useful, pro-
vided the reader has access to the original works cited
therein in order to assess the respective applicability to
his/her own problem at hand. However, the obvious lack
of generality of the existing wind convection coefficient cor-
relations presents a challenge for future research. More
realism is needed, i.e. field rather than laboratory measure-
ments, as well as some sort of standardization in the choice
of such things as the wind velocity sensors or the measure-
ment topology, e.g. height above ground and/or distance
from the facßade wall or roof, etc. In this way, a much smal-
ler set of well proven and generally accepted correlations
may emerge, which will greatly help the designer/modeler.
References
[1] M.G. Emmel, M.O. Abadie, N. Mendes, New external convective
heat transfer coefficient correlations for isolated low-rise buildings,
Energ. Build. 39 (2007) 335–342.
[2] P.I. Cooper, The effect of inclination on the heat loss from flat-plate
solar collectors, Solar Energy 27 (5) (1981) 413–420.
[3] G. Thomaidis, J.A. Palyvos, N.G. Koumoutsos, The influence of the
wind on the efficiency of the flat-plate solar collector, in: Proceedings
of the 1st National Conference on ‘‘Soft Energies”, Institute of Solar
Engineering, Salonica, Greece, 20–22 October, 1982, HEX, pp.1–15
(in Greek).
[4] M.G. Davies, Build. Heat Transfer, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.,
Chichester, England, 2004, § 5.7.
[5] W. Nusselt, W. Jürges, Die Kühlung einer ebenen Wand durch einen
Luftstrom (The cooling of a plane wall by an air flow), Gesundheits
Ingenieur 52. Heft, 45. Jahrgang, (30 Dezember 1922) pp. 641–642.
[6] R.J. Cole, N.S. Sturrock, The convective heat exchange at the
external surface of buildings, Build. Environ. 12 (4) (1977) 207–214.
[7] ASHRAE, Cooling and heating load calculation manual, GRP 158,
ASHRAE, New York, second printing 1979, p. 3.12.
[8] ASHRAE, Handbook of Fundamentals, Atlanta, GA, USA, 1993.
[9] U. Eicker, Solar Technologies for Buildings, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.,
Chichester, England, 2003, § 3.1.10.4.
[10] P. Konttinen, T. Carlsson, P. Lund, T. Lehtinen, Estimating thermal
stress in BIPV modules, Int. J. Energ. Res. 30 (2006) 1264–1277.
[11] P.J. Lunde, Solar Thermal Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, New
York, USA, 1980, p. 17.
[12] S. Kumar, V.B. Sharma, T.C. Kandpal, S.C. Mullick, Wind induced
heat losses from outer cover of solar collectors, Renew. Energ. 10 (4)
(1997) 613–616.
[13] S.E.G. Jayamaha, N.E. Wijeysundera, S.K. Chou, Measurement of
the heat transfer coefficient for walls, Build. Environ. 31 (5) (1996)
399–407.
[14] J.W. Mitchell, Heat transfer from spheres and other animal forms,
Biophys. J. 16 (1976) 561.
[15] E.M. Sparrow, S.C. Lau, Effect of adiabatic co-planar extension
surfaces on wind-related solar-collector heat transfer coefficients,
Trans. ASME J. Heat Transfer 103 (1981) 268–271.
[16] T.M. McClellan, C.O. Pedersen, ASHRAE Trans. 103 (2) (1997) 469–
484.
[17] E. Sartori, Convection coefficient equations for forced air flow over
flat surfaces, Solar Energy 80 (2006) 1063–1071.
[18] E.M. Sparrow, K.K. Tien, Forced convection heat transfer at an
inclined and yawed square plate – application to solar collectors,
Trans. ASME J. Heat Transfer 99 (1977) 507–512.
808 J.A. Palyvos / Applied Thermal Engineering 28 (2008) 801–808
[19] E.M. Sparrow, J.W. Ramsey, E.A. Mass, Effect of finite width on
heat transfer and fluid flow about an inclined rectangular plate,
Trans. ASME J. Heat Transfer 101 (1979) 199–204.
[20] X.A. Wang, An experimental study of mixed, forced, and free
convection heat transfer from a horizontal flat plate to air, Trans.
ASME J. Heat Transfer 104 (1982) 139–144.
[21] J.L. Francey, J. Papaioannou, Wind-related heat losses of a flat-plate
collector, Solar Energy 35 (1985) 15–19.
[22] N. Ito, K. Kimura, J. Oka, A field experiment study on the convective
heat transfer coefficient on exterior surface of a building, ASHRAE
Trans. 78 (1972) 184–191.
[23] S. Sharples, Full-scale measurements of convective energy losses from
exterior building surfaces, Build. Environ. 19 (1984) 31–39.
[24] D.L. Loveday, A.H. Taki, Convective heat transfer coefficients at a
plane surface on a full-scale building facade, Int. J. Heat Mass
Transfer 39 (8) (1996) 1729–1742.
[25] R.D. Clear, L. Gartland, F.C. Winkelmann, An empirical correlation
for the outside convective air-film coefficient for horizontal roofs,
Energ. Build. 35 (2003) 797–811.
[26] A. Hagishima, J. Tanimoto, Field measurements for estimating the
convective heat transfer coefficient at building surfaces, Build.
Environ. 38 (7) (2003) 873–881.
[27] G.L. Morrison, D. Gilliaert, Unglazed solar collector performance
characteristics, Trans. ASME J. Solar Energy Eng. 114 (1992) 194–200.
[28] W.H. McAdams, Heat Transmission, third ed., McGraw-Hill
Kogakusha, Tokyo, Japan, 1954, p. 249.
[29] J.A. Clarke, Energy Simulation in Building Design, second ed.,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, England, 2001, § 7.6.2.
[30] A. Schaak, Industrial Heat Transfer, Chapman & Hall, London,
1965.
[31] W. Jürges, Der Wärmeübergang an einer ebenen Wand (Heat transfer
at a plane wall), Beiheft Nr. 19 zum ‘‘Gesundh.- Ing.” (1924),
appearing in Gesundheits-Ingenieur 9. Heft, 48. Jahrg., 1925, p. 105.
[32] J.A. Duffie, W.A. Beckman, Solar Energy Thermal Processes, third
ed., John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006, § 3.15.
[33] D.Y. Goswami, F. Kreith, J.F. Kreider, Principles of Solar Engi-
neering, second ed., Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia, PA, USA,
2000, p. 98.
[34] G.N. Tiwari, Solar Energy-Fundamentals, Design, Modeling and
Applications, Alpha Science International Ltd., Pangbourne, UK,
2002, p. 74.
[35] J.H. Watmuff, W.W.S. Charters, D. Proctor, Solar and wind induced
external coefficients for solar collectors, Comples. Int. Rev. d’Hellio
Tech. 2 (1977) 56.
[36] M.V. Oliphant, Measurement of wind speed distributions across a
solar collector, Solar Energy 24 (1980) 403–405.
[37] ASHRAE Task Group, Procedure for determining heating and cooling
loads for computerizing energy calculations. Algorithms for building
heat transfer subroutines, ASHRAE, New York, 1975, pp. 76–78.
[38] K.K. Tien, E.M. Sparrow, Local heat transfer and fluid flow
characteristics for airflow oblique or normal to a square plate, Int.
J. Heat Mass Transfer 22 (1979) 349–360.
[39] B. Jennings, Environmental Engineering, International Textbook
Company, 1970.
[40] N.S. Sturrock, Localized boundary layer heat transfer from external
building surfaces, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Liverpool, 1971.
[41] K. Kimura, Scientific Basis of Air Conditioning, Applied Science
Publishers Ltd., London, England, 1977.
[42] K. Nicol, The energy balance of an exterior window surface, Inuvik,
N.W.T., Canada, Build. Environ. 12 (1977) 215–219.
[43] CIBS, Chartered Institute of Building Services Guide Book A, Section
A3, CIBS, London, 1979.
[44] F.L. Test, R.C. Lessmann, A. Johary, Heat transfer during wind flow
over rectangular bodies in the natural environment, Trans. ASME J.
Heat Transfer 103 (1981) 262–267.
[45] M. Yazdanian, J.H. Klems, Measurement of the exterior convective
film coefficient for windows in low-rise buildings, ASHRAE Trans.
100 (1) (1994) 1087–1096.
[46] S. Sharples, P.S. Charlesworth, Full-scale measurements of wind-
induced convective heat transfer from a roof-mounted flat plate solar
collector, Solar Energy 62 (1998) 69–78.
[47] H.H. Sogin, A summary of experiments on local heat transfer from
the rear of bluff obstacles to a low speed airstream, Trans. ASME J.
Heat Transfer (1964) 200–202.
[48] J.W. Mitchell, Base heat transfer in two-dimensional subsonic fully
separated flows, Trans. ASME J. Heat Transfer (1971)
342–348.
[49] N. Onur, J.C. Hewitt Jr., A study of wind effects on collector
performance, in: Proceedings of the ASME Solar Energy Division,
Century 2 Solar Energy Conference, San Francisco, CA, August 19–
21, 1980.
[50] A.H. Taki, D.L. Loveday, External convection coefficients for framed
rectangular elements on building facades, Energ. Build. 24 (1996)
147–154.
[51] S. Shakerin, Wind-related heat transfer coefficient for flat-plate
solar collectors, Trans. ASME J. Solar Energy Eng. 109 (1987)
108–110.
[52] N. Onur, Forced convection heat transfer from a flat-plate model
collector on roof of a model house, Wärme und Stoffübertragung 28
(1993) 141–145.
[53] http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/.
[54] http://sel.me.wisc.edu/trnsys/.
[55] http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/Programs/ESP-r.htm.
[56] S.J. Rees, D. Xiao, J.D. Spitler, An analytical verification test suite
for building fabric models in whole building energy simulation
programs, ASHRAE Trans. 108 (1) (2002) 30–42.
[57] F.C. McQuiton, J.D. Parker, J.D. Spitler, Heating, Ventilating, and
Air Conditioning, Analysis and Design, fifth ed., John Wiley & Sons
Inc., New York, 2000, p. 226.
[58] D. Bradley, TRNSYS engineer, private communication.
[59] J.S. Coventry, in: Proceedings of the 40th ANZSES Solar Energy
Conference, 2002.
[60] ASHRAE, Handbook of Fundamentals, SI Edition, Atlanta, GA,
USA, 1997.
[61] http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/Programs/ESP-r_CodeDoc/esrubld/
convect2.F.html.
[62] ESP-r Ver. 9, Data Model Summary, § 5.6, ESRU, University of
Strathclyde, 2001.
[63] L. Zhang et al., Research on system identification of wall surface heat
transfer processes, Exp. Heat Transfer 15 (2002) 31–47.
[64] C. Cristofari et al., Thermal modeling of a photovoltaic module, in:
Proceedings of the 6th IASTED International Conference Modeling,
Simulation, and Optimization, September 11–13, 2006, Gaborone
Botswana, pp. 273–278.
[65] T. Schott, Operation temperatures of PV modules, in: W. Palz, F.C.
Treble (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th E.C. PV Solar Energy
Conference, London, 15–19 April 1985, D. Reidel Publ. Co., 1985,
pp. 392–396.
[66] C. Wray, Duct thermal performance models for large commercial
buildings, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report, LBNL-
53410, 2003.
[67] P. Nolay, Developpement d’une methode generale d’analyse des
systemes photovoltaıques. MS Thesis, Ecole des Mines, Sophia-
Antipolis, France, 1987.
[68] K. Furushima, Y. Nawata, M. Sadatomi, Prediction of photovoltaic
(PV) power output considering weather effects, in: Proceedings of the
SOLAR 2006 – Renewable Energy, Key to Climate Recovery, July 7–
13 2006, Denver, Colorado, USA.
[69] L. Wen, Investigation of the effect of wind cooling on photovoltaic
arrays, Report DOE/JPL-1012-69, 1982.