Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Building and Environment 38 (2003) 873 – 881

www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

Field measurements for estimating the convective heat transfer

coe"cient at building surfaces
Aya Hagishima∗ , Jun Tanimoto
Interdisciplinary Graduate School of Engineering Sciences, Kyushu University, 6-1 Kasugakoen, Kasuga-shi, Fukuoka, 816-8580, Japan
Received 26 November 2002; received in revised form 31 January 2003; accepted 18 February 2003

Abstract

To establish a comprehensive and qualitative prediction basis for the convective heat transfer coe"cient (CHTC) for various urban
canopy surfaces mainly consisting of building envelopes, a series of outdoor experiments were performed. Multi-point measurements of
surface heat balance lead to a distribution of the CHTC on an actual building envelope. Several turbulent statistical values acquired at
two di4erent sites enabled the development of an experimental equation depicted by non-dimensional numbers that express a relationship
between CHTC and wind velocity containing a turbulent factor. An important thing is the fact that the two measuring sites, one a rooftop
slab and the other the vertical wall of a test dwelling, have di4erent scales and di4erent surface directions facing the wind.
? 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Convective heat transfer coe"cient; Field measurement

1. Introduction the phenomenon of convective heat transfer, have been pre-

Recently, the convective heat transfer coe"cient (CHTC)
of building surfaces has been regarded as an important
parameter in discussions not only of the building thermal
load, but also of the urban environment, since CHTC is
crucially important in estimating convective heat 6ux in
urban climatology.
However, the conclusions concerning CHTC in various
studies that have been conducted on the subject seem to be
ambiguous.
For example, CFD has become a popular technique,
backed by the recent growth of computer performance,
for use in estimating the thermal environment of an urban
canyon [1]. And yet, some researchers have assumed that
the CHTC is constant [1], because of a lack of knowledge
of the CHTC for building surfaces, which should be taken
into consideration when making CFD calculations.
In the =eld of heat transfer, particularly related to mechan-
ical engineering, many empirical equations containing the
Nusselt number, the preponderant dimensionless number in
∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +81-92-583-7646; fax: +81-92-
583-7600.
E-mail addresses: aya@cm.kyushu-u.ac.jp (A. Hagishima),
tanimoto@cm.kyushu-u.ac.jp (J. Tanimoto).
sented for various situations [2]. However, the representa-
tive 6ow speed of those equations is de=ned in a sphere out
of boundary layer that can be regarded as a uniform 6ow.
For an actual urban area the representative 6ow speed is not
readily determined. The urban canopy inevitably has a com-
plex air pattern, which is encouraged by the roughness of
the canopy, and the natural wind 6ow originally contains a
great deal of turbulence and uncertainty of wind direction.
Therefore, it can be di"cult to apply these empirical equa-
tions to CHTC in an urban climatology model.
The circumstances discussed above have led dozens of
researchers in building physics to attempt to perform out-
door measurements on the CHTC of building envelopes [3].
Urano estimated the CHTC of the rooftop of buildings by
obtaining the residual term of a heat balance equation that
contains measured net radiation and conductive heat 6ux
[4], which seems an orthodox method. This author’s group
made ‘SAT meters’, which consisted of an insulated board
covered with a black-painted copper plate or hundreds of
black-painted copper leafs, which were used to estimate the
CHTC for a bare soil surface [5] and a turf covered sur-
face [6]. Narita reported a marvelously unique method for
estimating the CHTC on an actual building surface [7]. In
his study, the measured evaporation rate that came from the
transient weight change of wet paper stuck onto the build-
ing surface led to CHTC based on Lewis’s law. Barlow and

0360-1323/03/$ - see front matter ? 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0360-1323(03)00033-7
874 A. Hagishima, J. Tanimoto / Building and Environment 38 (2003) 873 – 881
Belcher also tried this technique using naphthalene sublima-
tion instead of water evaporation in a wind tunnel experi-
ment [8].
When reviewing these previous studies, it is necessary to
consider certain problems when comparing the experimen-
tal equations proposed in the studies. One is the fact that the
height of the representative wind velocity di4ers from re-
searcher to researcher. In addition, the fact that those heights
are de=ned so as to be several metres or more away from the
building surface presents another problem. Because of this,
it is almost impossible to apply the equations used in those
experiments, since a wind 6ow pattern around a building
6uctuates considerably, which means that the wind pro=le is
highly dependent upon distance from the building envelope.
In addition to the outdoor measurements, wind tunnel ex-
periments have also been performed in order to study the
distribution of CHTC on an urban surface [9]. Although it
is possible to obtain a large amount of data by performing
wind tunnel experiments under various conditions, such as
building arrangement, wind direction, and so on, the results
are inexact, because the wind deviation or turbulence in a
wind tunnel is much less than that of outdoor natural wind.
In summary, the former studies do not provide a universal
predictive methodology for estimating the CHTC of building
surfaces as the sub model for the urban canopy model or
the k–e model. In order to present the universal equation of
the CHTC of building surfaces, it is necessary to consider
the height of reference velocity, and to make veri=cation
based on the several outdoor measurements under various
conditions.
In this paper, we present the results of two types of out-
door measurements. First, we measured the multi-points heat
balances at the rooftop of an actual building in order to
identify the horizontal distribution of the CHTC. Next, we
measured the CTHC and the turbulent statistic values at two
surfaces, which had a di4erent wind direction and di4erent
representative length. From these results, we found a uni-
versal relationship between the CHTC and wind velocity.
Table 1
Measurement sites and time periods
Site
Survey-1a Horizontal roof slab of two-storey
building attached to four-storey build-
ing. Slab size was 22:2 m × 15:3 m.
Survey-1b (ALC board of 100 mm thick-
ness+polyurethane board of 20 mm
thickness+a water resistant layer of as-
phalt sheet roo=ng)
Survey-2 Vertical wall of test dwelling sited
on the turntable at the rooftop of
four-storey building. Wall size was
2:4 m × 2:4 m. (insulation 20 mm
+ wood board coated with a black
non-glossy paint to avoid re6ection)
An important factor to consider is that in our equation, the
de=ned height of the wind velocity was measured as being
very close to the building surface, to compensate for the
high correlation and universality. Given this, the proposed
equation seems to be useful as a wall function of the k–
model.
2. Features of the measurement site and time period
2.1. Measuring site and items
Table 1 shows the features of the measurement site and
time periods during which the measurements were taken.
Figs. 1 and 2 show the plan and photos of the measurement
site, respectively. Two objective sites were chosen in order
to obtain the measurement data under di4erent conditions
for both the air patterns and the scale expressed by the rep-
resentative length.
We mounted 16 measuring points in a lattice at the
rooftop in survey-1a, because the horizontal distribution
was expected to 6uctuate extensively due to the neighbour-
ing four-storey building. In addition, there was a rain gutter
on the edge of the rooftop. The gutter had a height of about
25 cm. Since the test dwelling was situated on a turntable
which could be revolved, we were able to adjust the direc-
tion of the vertical wall of survey-2 according to the natural
wind direction.
The features of the measuring items and instruments used
are listed in Table 2.
The surface temperature, conductive heat 6ux, and global
solar radiation were measured at 16 points in survey-1a. The
net radiation, wind velocity, and downward long wave radi-
ation were also measured. The measurement data related to
the heat balance in survey-1a and survey-2 were recorded
at 1-min intervals, and those in survey-1b were recorded
at 2-s intervals. Five minute averages of those data were
used for the following analysis. In survey-1b and survey-2,
Period Note
1/Jan/2000 –31/Aug/2000 Surface heat balance was measured at
16 points simultaneously.
2/Dec/2000 –3/Dec, Surface heat balance on four points
7/Jun/2001–14/Jun and turbulent statistical values near the
surface were measured simultaneously.
22/Dec/2000, 29/Dec Surface heat balance on the central
point and turbulent statistical values
near the surface were measured simul-
taneously.
 A. Hagishima, J. Tanimoto / Building and Environment 38 (2003) 873 – 881 875

Fig. 1. Site plan of the measuring site.

(a) (b)

survey-1a and survey-1b (horizontal roof slab) survey-2 (vertical wall of test dwelling)

Fig. 2. Photo of measuring site (a) survey-1a and survey-1b (horizontal roof slab); (b) survey-2 (vertical wall of test dwelling).

the wind velocity and air temperature were measured near
the measuring points at a height of 13 cm at 0:1 s intervals in
order to obtain the turbulence statistical values to establish
a wall function of the turbulent k– model. The averaging
time of the statistical values was 5 min.
Before survey-1a, we con=rmed a small horizontal dis-
tribution of surface temperature on the rooftop by infrared
radiation images. Conductive heat sensors were painted the
same colours at the two measuring sites in order to maintain
the same solar re6ectance and emissivity.
2.2. Method for estimating the CHTC
The CHTC was identi=ed from a set of measurement data
based on the following process.
A heat balance equation on a general surface can be ex-
pressed by Eq. (1). Then, the convective heat 6ux on a sunny
day in a succession of sunny days can be drawn if the terms
of the net radiation and conductive heat 6ux are measured,
since the evaporation rate can be neglected.
Rnet + CD + CV − l · EV = 0;
where, CD is the conduction heat 6ux (W m−2 ); CV the
convection heat 6ux (W m−2 ); EV the evaporation rate
(kg m−2 s−1 ); l the evaporation heat (J kg−1 ), and Rnet the
net radiation (W m−2 ).
The CHTC can be estimated by the following equation
using the convective heat 6ux and the temperature di4erence
between air and the surface.
h = CV=(Tair − Tsurf ); (2)
where, h: convective heat transfer coe"cient (CHTC)
(W m−2 K −1 ); Tair : air temperature [K], and Tsurf : surface
temperature [K].
In survey-1a, the net radiation was measured only at point
10. Then, the net radiation rates at the other measuring points
were estimated based on Eq. (3).
4
LR =  · (Fi; wall · LR wall + Fi; sky · LR sky − Tsurf ); (3)
where, Fi; j is the con=guration factor from the point i to
faced j, LR j the long wave radiation from the faced j
(W m−2 ), SR the net solar radiation (W m−2 ),  emissiv-
ity (assumed as  = 1:0);  the Stefan–Boltzman constant
(W m−2 K −4 ), subscript i the measuring point, subscript
(1) sky the sky, and subscript wall the wall around the measure-
ment site.
The long wave radiation rates from the wall of the neigh-
boring four-storey building and sky were identi=ed from the
876 A. Hagishima, J. Tanimoto / Building and Environment 38 (2003) 873 – 881

Table 2

Items Instruments Note

(a) Measuring items and instruments (survey-1a and survey-1b)

Air temperature Platinum resistance thermometer Sensors were positioned in the instru-
ment shelter with forced draft. At a
height of 1:2 m in the center of rooftop
Relative humidity Electrical capacitance hygrometer
Solar radiationa Solar meter 16 points
Net radiation Radiation meter 1 point (point-11)
Downward long wave radiation 2 points (point-2, point-10)
Conductive heat 6ux Heat 6ow meter 1 × 16 points
Surface temperature T-CC thermocouple 0:3 mm 4 × 16 points
Wind velocity
Wind direction 2D ultrasonic anemometer 1 point at a height of 60 cm in the
centre of rooftop
3D ultrasonic anemometer 2 points, at a height of 13 cmb

(b) Measuring items and instruments (survey-2)

Air temperature Wind velocity 3D ultrasonic thermo-anemometerc 1 point, at a height of 13 cm Spans of
probe were 5 cm
Solar radiation Solar meter 1 point
Net radiation Radiation meter 1 point
Conductive heat 6ux Heat 6ow meter 1 point
Surface temperature T-CC thermocouple 0:3 mm 4 points
a The solar re6ectance was also measured by the albedo-meter.
b Turbulent statistical values were measured at a 10-Hz interval on points 7, 8, 9 and 14 at survey-1b.
c Turbulent statistical values were measured at a 10-Hz interval.

40 0 ~ 5˚C 5 ~ 10˚C 10 ~ 15˚C 15˚C ~ temperature di4erence of less than 15◦ C varied widely.
When the temperature di4erence was more than 15◦ C, the
30
variance of the plots was relatively small, and a linear re-
CHTCW/(m2K)

20
lationship was almost established between the CHTC and
wind velocity. This fact implies that forced convection is
10 dominant.
From these results, we adopted the measurement data un-
0 der the condition of di4erences between the surface tem-
0 2 4
wind velocity [m/s]
6 8 perature and the air temperature of more than 15◦ C for the
following analysis.
Fig. 3. Relationship between CHTC and wind velocity classi=ed by the
di4erences of the surface and air temperatures (survey-1a, point-10).
3.2. Horizontal distribution of CHTC of roof slab

downward long wave radiation measured at two points,
point-10 and point-2.
3. Horizontal distribution of CHTC at the rooftop
(survey-1a)
3.1. Relationship between the CHTC and the di6erence
between the air temperature and surface temperature
Fig. 3 shows the relationship between the CHTC of
point-10 and the wind velocity at a height of 60 cm classi-
=ed by the temperature di4erence between the surface and
air. There was a positive correlation between the CHTC
and wind velocity. Since small net radiation gives rise
to measurement error, the plots under the condition of
Fig. 4 shows the horizontal distribution of the CHTC un-
der di4erent wind directions. The CHTC is normalized by
the value of point-10.
In Fig. 4(a), the CHTC near the wall of the four-storey
building was small. Also, the peak of the CHTC could be
observed near the upwind edge of the slab. In contrast, the
pattern of distribution drawn in Fig. 4(b) is likely the in-
version of Fig. 4(a). This fact indicates that the distribution
of the CHTC changes depending on the distribution of the
wind velocity.
3.3. Deviation of CHTC of rooftop
Fig. 5 shows the relation between the averaged CHTC
of 16 points and the wind velocity at a height of 60 cm in
the centre of the rooftop. Though the plots are scattered, a
 A. Hagishima, J. Tanimoto / Building and Environment 38 (2003) 873 – 881 877

Fig. 4. Horizontal distribution of normalized CHTC of roof slab by the value of point-10: (a) 29/Jan/2000 12:50, CHTC of point-10 is 19:6 W m−2 K −1 ;
(b) 4/July/2000 14:55, CHTC of point-10 is 15:6 W m−2 K −1 .

40 h = 2.28V + 8.18 1

0 .8
averaged CHTC [W/m2]

30
0 .6
20
0 .4
10
0 .2
0
0
0 2 4 6 8 0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360
wind velocity [m/s]
wind direction [degree]
Fig. 5. Relationship between averaged CHTC and wind velocity
(survey-1a). Fig. 7. Relationship between the standard deviation of CHTC of 16 points
and wind direction (survey-1a).

1
4. Relationship between the CHTC and wind velocity
0 .8 near the surface (survey-1b, survey-2)
0 .6
4.1. Features of air :ow pattern
0 .4
The three-dimensional wind velocity was measured at
0 .2
0:1 s intervals with an ultrasonic anemometer at four points
0 out of 16 points in survey-1b. It was also measured in
0 2 4 6 8 survey-2 at a central point of the vertical wall of the test
wind velocity [m/s]
dwelling, and the heat balance there was also measured. In
Fig. 6. Relationship between the standard deviation of CHTC of 16 points both cases, the anemometer was mounted 13 cm above the
and wind velocity (survey-1a). surface. Fig. 8 shows the location of the measuring points.
From these measurement data, the relationship between the
CHTC and wind velocity was investigated in this section.
linear relationship seems to exist between the CHTC and Figs. 9 and 10 show the “wind roses” of each measuring
wind velocity. points and the variation of the wind direction of point-8, re-
Fig. 6 shows the relationship between the standard devi- spectively. The wind direction data of survey-1b were mea-
ation of CHTC of 16 points and the wind velocity at the sured by a 2D-ultrasonic anemometer, which was mounted
centre of the rooftop. Fig. 7 shows the relationship between closely to each point. The wind direction data obtained in
the standard deviation of CHTC and the wind direction. survey-2 were measured by a propeller type anemometer
The plots of each graph are scattered, and it is di"cult mounted 15 m above the penthouse at the top of the steel
to establish any obvious correlation between the CTHC and tower. With respect to point-8 in survey-1b, the data can
both the wind velocity and direction. However, the fact that be divided into two periods according to the wind direc-
the variance of CHTC in the rooftop is about 20% was tion, point-8-1 and point-8-2. This is because the separation
con=rmed. and back6ow encouraged by the rooftop edge are extremely
878 A. Hagishima, J. Tanimoto / Building and Environment 38 (2003) 873 – 881

22.2m normal wind direction

to the wall surface
w measuring point
4-story 9 14 v
building u
(H=16.5m) 7 w
difinition of 15.3m u
w
wind direction
measuring
v
N
8 v u point
pararrel wind direction
to the wall surface
(a) survey-1b (b) survey-2

Fig. 8. Measuring points of turbulent statistical value (site plan): (a) survey-1b; and (b) survey-2.

40 40 60 60
frequen cy [%] frequen cy [%] frequen cy [%] frequen cy [%]
E S E S E S E S
40 40
20 20
20 20

0 0 0 0

N W N W N W N W
8 -1 8 -2

(a) survey1-b, point-7 (b) survey1-b, point-8 (c) survey1-b, point-9 (d) survey1-b, point-14

40
frequency [%] S
E
20

N W
n orm al
p ararrel

(e) survey-2

Fig. 9. Wind rose of every measuring point: (a) survey1-b, point-7; (b) survey1-b, point-8; (c) survey1-b, point-9; (d) survey1-b, point-14; (e) survey-2.

8-1 nents and the turbulent energy. Fig. 13 is a counterpart of

12/Jun/ 2001
8-2 those. Fig. 12 shows that the turbulent energy observed in
point-8-2 is larger than that of the other points, because of
N
Wind direction

sharp changes in the wind direction.

W

Comparing Figs. 11, 13(a) and (b), the deviation of

component-w in survey-2 is less than that of survey-1b.
S

And, it cannot be recognized the signi=cant di4erences

E

between the two wind directions in survey-2.

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 JST

Fig. 10. Variation of wind direction of point-8 (survey-1b). 4.2. Relationship between CHTC and wind velocity

Figs. 14 and 15 show the relationships between

signi=cant in point 8-2. In addition, the wind direction at u2 + v2 + w2 and CHTC in survey-1b.
point-8-2 6uctuated extensively. The data for all those points Concerning the measurement data of point-7, point-9, and
except point-8-2 indicated that the wind direction was al- point-14, a linear relationship can be established as
most stable.


Figs. 11 and 12 show the relationships between
u2 + v2 + w2 and both the variation of the wind compo- h = 3:96 u2 + v2 + w2 + 6:42: (4)
 A. Hagishima, J. Tanimoto / Building and Environment 38 (2003) 873 – 881 879

2 σu p oint-7 2 σu p oint-8 2 σu p oint-9 2 σu p oint-14

σv σv σv σv
σw σw σw σw

deviation [m/s]

deviation [m/s]
deviation [m/s]

deviation [m/s]
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

1 1 1 1

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

0 0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
w ind velocity [m/s] w ind velocity [m/s] w ind velocity [m/s] w ind velocity [m/s]
(a) point-7 (b) point-8 (c) point-9 (d) point-14


Fig. 11. Relationship between u2 + v2 + w2 and the deviation of each composition, u ; v , and w (survey-1b, H = 13 cm): (a) point-7; (b) point-8;
(c) point-9; and (d) point-14.

3 3 3 3
p oint-7 p oint-9 p oint-14

turbulent energy
turbulent energy
turbulent energy

turbulent energy
2 2 2 2

p oint-8-1
1 1 p oint-8-2 1 1

0 0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
w ind velocity [m/s] w ind velocity [m/s] w ind velocity [m/s] w ind velocity [m/s]
(a) point-7 (b) point-8 (c) point-9 (d) point-14


Fig. 12. Relationship between u2 + v2 + w2 and turbulent energy (survey-1b, H = 13 cm): (a) point-7; (b) point-8; (c) point-9; and (d) point-14.

2 2 3 3
σu
σu turbulent energy
turbulent enrgy

σv
deviation [m/s]

deviation [m/s]

1.5 σv 1.5
σw 2 2
σw
1 1
1 1
0.5 0.5

0 0 0
0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
0 1 2 3 4
w ind velocity [m/s] w ind velocity [m/s] w ind velocity [m/s] w ind velocity [m/s]
(a) normal wind direction (b) parallel wind direction (c) normal wind direction (d) parallel wind direction


Fig. 13. Relationships between u2 + v2 + w2 and both (u ; v ; w ) and turbulent energy (survey-2, H = 13 cm): (a) normal wind direction; (b) parallel
wind direction; (c) normal wind direction; and (d) parallel wind direction.

25
30 N o.7,9,14
N o.7
20 N o.9 N o.8-1
25
CH T C [W/m 2 ]

N o.14 N o.8-2
CH T C [W/m 2 ]

15 20

10 15
10
5 y = 3.96x + 6.42
5
0
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
w ind velocity [m/s] 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
w ind velocity [m/s]


Fig. 14. Relationship between u2 + v2 + w2 and CHTC (survey1-b,

Fig. 15. Relationship between u2 + v2 + w2 and CHTC (survey-1b).
points 7, 9, and 14).
880 A. Hagishima, J. Tanimoto / Building and Environment 38 (2003) 873 – 881

35 survey -2(normal) 1E+5

survey -2(p ararrel) survey -1b
30 survey -1(7,9,14) survey -2
CH T C [W/m 2 ]

Nu number[-]
25 1E+4
20
15
1E+3
10
y = 0.023x0.891
5 y = 10.21x + 4.47
0 1E+2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 1E+4 1E+5 1E+6 1E+7
w ind velocity [m/s] Re number[-]

Fig. 16. Relationship between u2 + v2 + w2 and CHTC (survey-2). Fig. 17. Relationship between Re number and Nu number.

The number of data points is 618, and the correlation coef- on the least-squares method is as follows:
=cient is 0.893.
Nu = 0:023 · Re0:891 ; (7)
In contrast, the slope of the data of point-8-1 is a little


bit smaller than that of the others. The CHTC of point-8-2 l · u2 + v 2 + w 2
is larger than that of point-7, point-9, and point-14. This is Re = : (8)

probably explained by the conjecture that the air6ow pattern
around point-8 is di4erent from that of the other three points The sample number is 788, and the correlation coe"cient
because of the separation or back 6ow. is 0.964, which is higher than those of the formerly stated

regression, where, Nu is the Nusselt number, Re the Reynold
Incidentally, u2 + v2 + w2 is exactly equal to the wind
number, l the length from the edge (m), and  the kinematic
velocity V de=ned by Eq. (5), that can be drawn from the
coe"cient of viscosity (m2 s−1 ).
parameters in the k– model.
Consequently, CHTC can be expressed as the following


V = uS 2 + vS2 + wS 2 + 2k; (5) equation, which is derived from Eq. (7) which substituted
the Prandtl number of air calculated at 20◦ C.
 0:891
where, k: turbulent energy. −0:109
h = 11:42 · l · 2 2
u +v +w 2 : (9)
Then, if we assume V as an explanatory variable to estab-
lish a regression line, it may be suitable for the wall function
for the k– model. This equation may be applied to both the horizontal and


Fig. 16 shows the relation of u2 + v2 + w2 to CHTC vertical envelope with any representative length.
in survey-2 with the data of survey-1. You can con=rm the
same relationship in survey-2, even though there were two 4.4. Discussion
di4erent wind directions. However, the slope of survey-2
is larger than that of survey-1b, and the CHTC at the wind Looking over the result of survey-1b, we can reach an
velocity of 1:5 m=s in survey-2 is almost twice that in interesting conclusion;
survey-1b. The regression for survey-2 is as follows:
• The CHTC of three points; point-7, point-9, and point-14,

can be expressed by Eq. (4), even though there are dif-
h = 10:21 u2 + v2 + w2 + 4:47: (6) ferent representative lengths de=ned by the distance from
the edge.
The number of data points is 71, and the correlation coe"-
• The feature of CHTC of point-8 near the parapet is dif-
cient is 0.935.
ferent from the other points.

4.3. Analysis using dimensionless numbers
Fig. 17 shows the relationship between the Reynolds num-
ber Re and the Nusselt number Nu of all the measured data,
which include the data set of point-8 which has two di4er-
ent tendencies, as indicated in Fig. 15. The representative
lengths of the Re number are de=ned as the length from
the edge considering the wind direction. By considering the
scale length within the Re number, you can see a similar
tendency in spite of the site di4erence, and even the wind
direction di4erence. The regression of all those data based
Therefore, Eq. (4) can be applied to the area where the tur-
bulent boundary layer is su"ciently developed, but it cannot
be applied to the area with separation or back 6ow.
Eq. (9) presents a contrary fact in the sense that the CHTC
increases with the decrease of the length from the edge. In
contrast, Eq. (9) presents that the CHTC increases with the
decrease of the length from the edge.
That comes from the fact that we considered survey-1b
and survey-2 at the same time. This same sort of con6ict
may be caused by the fact that the representative length in
survey-2 is much smaller than in survey-1b.
 A. Hagishima, J. Tanimoto / Building and Environment 38 (2003) 873 – 881
5. Conclusion
In order to establish a comprehensive and qualitative pre-
diction for CHTC on various urban canopy surfaces, a series
of outdoor experiments were precisely reported.
First, simultaneous multi-point measurements of all the
surface 6uxes, except for the convective element, primar-
ily indicated the horizontal distribution of the CHTC. Next,
the relationship between the wind velocity and CHTC were
examined based on the measurement of the turbulent statis-
tical values on a rooftop slab and the vertical wall of a test
dwelling, being di4erent in both scale and wind direction
against the surfaces.
Consequently, we were able to obtain a regressive rela-
tion expressed by Eqs. (4) and (7). The representative ve-
locity of these equations was de=ned at a height of 13 cm
from the building surfaces based on the measurement data.
Therefore, the proposed relation seemed to be suitable for
CFD calculation by the k– model.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express special thanks to
Dr. Prof. Tadahisa Katayama and Mr. Kouji Tsukimatsu
for their assistance.
This research was partially supported by the Japan Sci-
ence and Technology Corporation, Grant-in-Aid for CREST,
Core Research for Evolutional Science and Technology.
881
References
[1] Yoshida S, Murakami S, Mochida A, et al. In6uence of green
area ratio on outdoor thermal environment with coupled simulation
of convection, radiation and moisture transport. AIJ Journal of
Architecture Planning and Environmental Engineering 2000;529:
77–84 (in Japanese with English abstract).
[2] Japan Society of Mechanical Engineering, JSME data book heat
transfer, 4th ed., MARUZEN Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan, 1996.
[3] Cole RJ, Sturrock NS. The convective heat exchange at the external
surface of buildings. Building and Environment 1977;12:207–14.
[4] Urano Y, Watanabe T. Heat balance at a roof surface and time-varying
e4ect of the =lm coe"cient on its thermal response. AIJ Journal
of Architecture Planning and Environmental Engineering 1983;325:
93–103.
[5] Kagawa H, Katayama T, Hayashi T, Tanimoto J. Experimental study
on hygrothermal properties of lawn and soil surfaces, Proceedings of
ISES 1997 Solar World Congress, Taejon, Korea, (CD-Rom version),
1997.
[6] Hagishima A, Tanimoto J, Katayama T, Nishiyama T. Long-term
=eld measurement on heat transfer coe"cient and heat balance on
grassland surface. AIJ Journal of Technology 2000;11:155–60.
[7] Narita K, Nonomura Y, Ogasa A. Real scale measurement of
convective mass transfer coe"cient at window in natural wind. AIJ
Journal of Architecture Planning and Environmental Engineering
1997;491:49–56.
[8] Barlow JF, Belcher E. The resistance network for transfer from
street canyons, AMS Proceedings of Fourth Symposium on the Urban
Environment, Norfolk, USA, 2002. p. 113– 4.
[9] Narita K, Nonomura Y, Ogasa A. Wind tunnel test on convective
mass transfer coe"cient on urban surface study on convective heat
transfer coe"cient on outside building wall in an urban area part.2.
AIJ Journal of Architecture Planning and Environmental Engineering
2000;527:69–76.