Solar Energy 80 (2006) 1063–1071

www.elsevier.com/locate/solener

Convection coefficient equations for forced air

flow over flat surfaces
Ernani Sartori *,1

Universidade Federal da Paraı́ba, Av. Silvino Lopes 425/404, 58039-190 João Pessoa PB, Brazil

Received 28 July 2005; received in revised form 16 November 2005; accepted 18 November 2005
Available online 27 December 2005

Communicated by: Associate Editor Brian Norton

Abstract

In this paper, various comparisons among well-known equations of the convection heat transfer coefficient for forced
air flow over flat surfaces and particularly over flat plate solar collectors, with the aim at arriving at a consensus on which
of such equations is more accurate are carried out. Through the application of basic principles, various accuracies, inac-
curacies and validations of the considered equations have been found and shown, and a consensus reached. Such consen-
sual equation, which comes from the boundary layer theory and takes into account the determining laminar and turbulent
flows as well as the wind direction and the decay of the convection coefficient over the surface, also showed close agreement
with different experimental works and tends to represent more accurately the actual heat transfer from/to any flat surface
submitted to forced convection.
 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Solar collector; Flat surface; Convection heat transfer coefficient; Heat loss; Laminar/turbulent flow

1. Introduction In this paper, these equations are compared with

The forced convection heat transfer coefficient
for flat surfaces or particularly for flat plate solar
collectors has mainly been calculated through well-
known empirical equations. Despite the worldwide
utilization and dissemination of such equations, up
to now a consensus has not been found or achieved
on their validations or accuracies (e.g., Oliphant,
1980; Francey and Papaioannou, 1985; Sharples
and Charlesworth, 1998).
*
Fax: +55 833 247 8181.
E-mail address: solar@members.ises.org
1
ISES Member.
those that come from the boundary layer theory
with the aim at detecting corresponding accuracies
and validations, and trying to find a consensus on
which of them is more exact for the calculation of
the heat transfer coefficient by forced convection
over plane surfaces, and particularly over flat plate
solar collectors. For this, basic principles are
applied as well as comparisons with experimental
results are carried out.
2. Equations of the forced convection coefficient
Up to now, the equations used to calculate the
heat transfer coefficient for forced convection over

0038-092X/$ - see front matter  2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.solener.2005.11.001
1064 E. Sartori / Solar Energy 80 (2006) 1063–1071
Nomenclature
a, b coefficients in empirical equations
hc forced convection heat transfer coeffi-
cient (Wm2 K1)
L surface length in the wind direction (m)
n exponent in empirical equations
Nu Nusselt number (dimensionless)
flat plate solar collectors have mainly been empiri-
cal, which normally are of the general form
hc ¼ a þ bV n
In view of the fact that these empirical equations
frequently differ only by the values of the a and b
coefficients, only some of them are considered in
the present analysis. It is not intended here to review
all existing empirical equations on the matter,
because this would represent a repetition of the
procedures adopted in this paper and a certain loss
of space and time due to the similarity of such
formulas. However, this paper can serve as a guide
for comparisons with other equations that have not
been taken into account here. Below is a brief
presentation of the equations considered in this
paper.
The following empirical equation to calculate the
hc, first suggested by Jurges (1924) for a vertical sur-
face of 0.5 m · 0.5 m and referenced by McAdams
(1954), Duffie and Beckman (1974, 1980, 1991),
Goswami et al. (2000) and others has still been
widely employed for flat plate solar collectors.
hc ¼ 5:7 þ 3:8V ð1Þ
According to Duffie and Beckman, it is not reason-
able to adopt Eq. (1) for plate lengths higher than
0.5 m. Even with such a recommendation, this equa-
tion has often been applied to flat plate solar collec-
tors greater than 0.5 m, due to the lack of a
corresponding reliable equation.
Watmuff et al. (1977) suggested that in Eq. (1) the
effects of radiation are probably included and for
this reason they proposed the following expression,
which has also been widely used for flat plate
collectors
hc ¼ 2:8 þ 3:0V ð2Þ
Lunde (1980) presents the equation
hc ¼ 4:5 þ 2:9V ð3Þ
Pr Prandtl number (dimensionless)
Re Reynolds number (dimensionless)
t a, t s air and surface temperatures (C)
tf film temperature = (ts + ta)/2 (C)
V wind velocity (m s1)
xcr critical length (m)
Duffie and Beckman (1980, 1991) also quote the
Sparrow et al. (1979) correlation for flow over a
horizontal flat plate developed in a wind tunnel
Nu ¼ 0:86Re0:5 Pr1=3
and from it the hc can be obtained and remains as
0:5
hc ¼ 4:96V 0:5 Lm ð4Þ
The characteristic length Lm, according to Sparrow
et al., is four times the plate area divided by the
plate perimeter. Thus, it is not a length that consid-
ers the wind direction.
Sharples and Charlesworth (1998) carried out an
experimental investigation placing an apparatus
onto a house roof simulating the behaviour of a flat
plate solar collector (1.81 m · 0.89 m) submitted to
real conditions of wind. Their flat plate collector
was a bluff body 0.33 m high, the upper plate was
electrically heated from below and the wind velocity
was measured about 2.6 m above the top of the col-
lector. They proposed the following equation
obtained after a regression analysis to fit their mea-
sured data:
hc ¼ 9:4V 0:5 ð5Þ
where a = 0.
On the other hand, we have the well-known Nus-
selt relations which apply for constant surface tem-
perature and for horizontal flat surfaces:
Nu ¼ 0:664Re0:5 Pr1=3 ð6Þ
which is valid for laminar flow and
Nu ¼ 0:0369Re0:8 Pr1=3 ð7Þ
that is valid for the fully turbulent flow.
As well-known, Eqs. (6) and (7) come from the
boundary layer theory, which represents the basis
of the science on convection heat transfer and its
theoretical and experimental validations are consol-
idated and have extensively been demonstrated and
 E. Sartori / Solar Energy 80 (2006) 1063–1071
shown in main textbooks (e.g., Schlichting, 1968;
Chapman, 1974; Kays, 1975; Holman, 1976; Incrop-
era and deWitt, 1985). Additionally, ‘‘an essential
first step in the treatment of any convection problem
is to determine whether the boundary layer is
laminar or turbulent. Convection transfer rates
depend strongly on which of these conditions
exists’’ (Incropera and deWitt, 1985). All empirical
equations employed so far for the calculation of
the forced convection heat transfer coefficient and
as a consequence of the heat loss due to convection
from flat plate solar collectors do not take into
account these fundamental concepts.
From Eq. (6) the hc is obtained in the following
way
hc ¼ 3:83V 0:5 L0:5 ð8Þ
When xcr/L P 0.95 and the front edge, the flow and
surface conditions are smooth, Eq. (8) should be
employed.
From Eq. (7) we have
hc ¼ 5:74V 0:8 L0:2 ð9Þ
When the surface is rough, the flow disturbed, an
abrupt leading edge is present, or, for instance, if a
branch of tree or an electric wire vibrates close to
the leading edge of a solar panel, the flow over its
total length tends to be fully turbulent since the lead-
ing edge, the heat loss is then higher and Eq. (9)
should be used. ‘‘It is well known that even small dis-
turbances cause the flow to be turbulent’’ (Incropera
and deWitt, 1985). McCormick et al. (1984) also
consider that ‘‘the relatively low turbulence levels
tend to enhance the heat transfer over the laminar
solution and at some point of increasing intensity
cause the effect to become similar to turbulent pre-
dictions’’. Francey and Papaioannou (1985) also
support this perception when they say: ‘‘the finite
thickness of the collector presents a blunt leading
edge to the wind and presumably produces turbulent
flow over the surface. This turbulence is thought to
lead to an increase in the heat loss at the surface’’.
When transition from laminar to turbulent flow
occurs sufficiently upstream of the rear edge (xcr/
L 6 0.95), the surface average coefficients are influ-
enced by conditions in both the laminar and turbu-
lent boundary layers (Incropera and deWitt, 1985).
Thus, from a combination of Eqs. (6) and (7) we
get the hc for the mixed boundary layers over a hor-
izontal flat plate:
hc ¼ 5:74V 0:8 L0:2  16:46L1 ð10Þ
1065
Eq. (10) was developed considering Re = 4 · 105,
which value represents a critical length where the
flow changes from laminar to turbulent (e.g.,
Schlichting, 1968; Chapman, 1974; Kays, 1975;
Holman, 1976; Incropera and deWitt, 1985). The
critical Reynolds numbers Re = 4 · 105 and Re =
5 · 105, are commonly employed for the transition
from laminar to turbulent flows, and represent aver-
age values, as usual in engineering calculations. For
this transition to occur it mainly depends on the
length, shape and roughness of the surface, on fluid
velocity or on other perturbation introduced to
the fluid flow. When there is a long surface or when
xcr/L 6 0.95, then Eq. (10) is recommended. When
L  xcr the term 16.46L1 becomes negligible and
Eq. (10) converts to Eq. (9).
A tf = 40 C has been used for the development
of Eqs. (8)–(10), which are valid for general flat sur-
faces and not only for glazed solar collectors. The
effect on the convection coefficient of varying tf is
not significant (Rowley et al., 1930). Eqs. (8)–(10)
employ the wind direction as a variable and as
experimentally verified by Oliphant (1980) ‘‘the
wind pattern across a collector is a function of wind
direction’’. Lacy (1977) showed that the wind oscil-
lates in relation to its predominant direction by
about ±15.
3. Results and discussion
Through the application of basic principles and
comparisons with experimental data, the equations
above are analysed with the aim at arriving at a con-
sensus on which is more accurate for calculating the
hc for forced air flow over flat surfaces and particu-
larly over flat plate solar collectors.
Fig. 1 shows a direct comparison among Eqs.
(1)–(5) and (8)–(10) representing the hc from a sup-
posed solar collector of 2.0 m · 1.0 m submitted to
wind velocities ranging from 2.0 to 5.0 m s1 and
flowing in the direction of its highest dimension.
Although Eq. (1) is supposed not to be valid for
lengths greater than 0.5 m, in Figs. 1 and 2 it is
applied to lengths greater than this, in order to
check its accuracy for cases where it has frequently
been utilized. Eq. (4) was originally developed in the
laminar range from Re = 2 · 104 to 9 · 104, but
Duffie and Beckman (1980, 1991) suggest that an
extrapolation to the turbulent flow should be made
for it. This extrapolation is applied in Figs. 1 and 2
and Eq. (4) is then adopted for both the laminar and
turbulent flows. Once for L = 2 m the laminar flow
1066 E. Sartori / Solar Energy 80 (2006) 1063–1071

25 Fig. 1 confirms the known increase of the hc with

1
the wind speed increasing. We also note the close
L=2m
20
5 agreement of Eq. (2) with Eq. (9). Additionally,
3 9 we observe the sudden rise of the hc by Eq. (10) in
relation to the hc by Eq. (8). The very good numer-
2
hc (W/m2K)

15 ical agreement and also the almost identical slopes

of the curves generated by Eqs. (2) and (9) demon-
10 strate that Eq. (1) was developed in turbulent flow
4
and this influenced Eq. (2). The slope of the curve
10
generated by Eq. (9) is due to the equation power
5
8
equal to 0.8, which identifies turbulent flow. That
is, up to date the empirical Eqs. (1)–(3) and certainly
0 many equivalent ones not shown here, present the
2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
V (m/s)
corresponding slopes and magnitudes for turbulent
flow and this means that they were (unconsciously)
Fig. 1. Convection heat transfer coefficient according to wind obtained from as well as been applied to flat plate
velocities. Equation numbers are listed at the curves.
solar collectors (and probably from/to other flat
surfaces) located in the turbulent air flow. The curve
25 1 by Eq. (5) presents the slope equivalent to the lam-
inar flow, due to the equation power equal to 0.5,
5 but its magnitudes correspond to the turbulent flow.
20 3
This means that the Sharples–Charlesworth’s exper-
iments were in fact conducted in turbulent flow,
2
hc (W/m2K)

because the magnitudes for laminar flow are always

15
V = 5 m/s much lower than those for the turbulent flow as well
9
as than those from Eq. (5), as can also be compared
10
with the curves of Eqs. (4) and (8). The decision
10 whether to fit experimental data according to linear
4
8
or different power laws is a matter of human choice
and as an illustration the empirical Eqs. (1)–(3) can
5
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 be very well represented by the following quick
L (m) hand-made expressions with the power 0.8. Thus,
for instance, Eq. (1) could be substituted by
Fig. 2. Convection heat transfer coefficient according to length of
hc = 6.83V0.8, Eq. (2) by hc = 4.90V0.8 and Eq. (3)
surface. Equation numbers are listed at the curves.
by hc = 5.23V0.8, which produce results that are in
close agreement with the original ones, and some-
theoretically prevails until V = 3 m s1, Eq. (8) is times differences do not exist, as shown in Table 1.
assumed up to such wind velocity. However, with Although Sharples and Charlesworth (1998) claim
3.5 m s1 on the flow is theoretically in the turbulent a good agreement between their study and earlier
region and as xcr/L < 0.95, then Eq. (10) is ones, especially with Eq. (2), it is also seen from this
employed. Eq. (9) is included in Fig. 1 admitting table that Eq. (2) shows a closer agreement with the
that the fully turbulent flow occurs since the leading quick hand-made equation 4.90V0.8 than with Eq.
edge of the collector. (5). The other quick hand-made equations presented

Table 1
Comparison of hc values from empirical equations with the corresponding ones from the quick hand-made equations developed in this
paper
V Eq. (1) 6.83V0.8 Eq. (2) 4.90V0.8 Eq. (3) 5.23V0.8 Eq. (5)
3 17.1 16.5 11.8 11.8 13.2 12.6 16.3
5 24.7 24.7 17.8 17.8 19.0 19.0 21.0
10 43.7 43.1 32.8 30.9 33.5 33.0 29.7
15 62.7 59.6 47.8 42.8 48.0 45.6 36.4
 E. Sartori / Solar Energy 80 (2006) 1063–1071
in this paragraph, also agree with their correspond-
ing ones better than Eq. (5) does, as seen in Table 1.
This happens because the quick hand-made equa-
tions are not contaminated by empirical errors.
To decide upon the accuracy of Eqs. (2) and (9) we
make use of Fig. 2, which identifies fundamental
characteristics on the behaviour of the boundary
layer theory and corresponding equations, too.
Fig. 2 presents a direct comparison of results from
Eqs. (1)–(5) and (8)–(10) for a constant V = 5 m s1
and varying plate lengths in the wind direction rang-
ing from L = 0.5 m to L = 25.0 m. Eq. (8) is
employed up to L = 1.5 m because of its laminar con-
dition. Given that xcr/L < 0.95 and the turbulent flow
theoretically prevails from L = 1.5 m on, Eq. (10) is
then chosen for this extension up to L = 25 m. Eq.
(4) is applied for both the laminar and turbulent
flows, that is, for the total surface length.
In Fig. 2 the curves from Eqs. (1)–(3) and (5)
remain constant over the entire length of the surface
while the curve from Eq. (9) presents a decay. This
decay is according to L0.2. From the boundary
layer theory, a decay of the heat transfer rate along
the distance of the wind direction over the surface is
proportional to L0.5 for the laminar flow and to
L0.2 for the turbulent flow. This was also verified
for free water surfaces (Sartori, 2000). This is in
agreement with the experimental results by Parme-
lee and Huebscher (1947) who found that the aver-
age convection coefficient of a flat plate decreases
with increasing length. Gates (1962) also described
this effect using a dimensional analysis and stated
that the smaller the surface dimension along the
direction of wind flow, greater is the rate of energy
transfer. The fall of the hc with length was also
found experimentally by Test et al. (1981) and by
Wang (1982). Thus, as Eqs. (1)–(3) and (5) do not
show such behaviour, they are not in agreement
with the boundary layer theory and thus not theo-
retically valid. For long lengths, the empirical equa-
tions present an accentuated inaccuracy. For
example, for L = 25 m, the difference between Eqs.
(9) and (2) is about 39%. For L = 2.2 m, Eqs. (2)
and (9) give approximately the same values for wind
speeds up to about 7 m s1. The length L does not
mean or produce local values, but it corresponds
to the real path of the wind over the surface and
generates average values of the hc for the surface
of unit width.
It is relevant to include the following comments
about empirical equations. Despite the enormous
quantity of experimental data required for the deter-
1067
mination of the hc through this method, it is impor-
tant to mention that this kind of equations is the
result of simple representations of the instantaneous
effects of physical processes from very particular
experiments. Because of this, the physical charac-
teristics of the experimental apparatus, the corre-
sponding experimental errors and the atmospheric
parameters (e.g., wind speed directions and ranges,
radiation effects) are not reproduced spontaneously
by other equivalent investigation, and thus such for-
mulas become closely tied and continue depending
on the very particular and unavoidable situations
that existed when, where and how the original exper-
imental tests were carried out. Empirical equations
also depend strongly on the differences in analysis
techniques used to define the equations, i.e., on
linear and power fits. As a consequence, the corre-
sponding accuracies and validations differ enor-
mously from each other and we could say that
practically one empirical equation already exists
and is needed for each class of conditions and their
unlimited combinations (windy, sunny, cloudy, cold,
warm, day, night, even wind from different quad-
rants, wind ranges, wind tunnels, instrumentation,
physical structure, surroundings, etc.). Sharples and
Charlesworth (1998) conclusions on their own work
also support this analysis: ‘‘Obviously, the results
from this study are strictly only applicable to the par-
ticular experimental conditions existing at the site of
the measurements’’. Oliphant (1980) ratifies saying
‘‘the errors in hc may be compounded by inaccuracies
in the coefficients a and b, and this is brought about
by not accounting for variations in wind direction
and by relying on results obtained from test samples
having different physical characteristics from present
day collectors’’. Hence, when an empirical equation
is taken out of its reference conditions to be used at
other place and situation, the equation tends to
become invalid. We could not say, a priori, which
of the several existing empirical equations for the hc
would be the most correct for a chosen situation,
because we do not have a reference to decide upon.
Obviously, such reference is the theory and no one
empirical equation of the type described above is sup-
ported by any existing theory. Simple changes in
plate dimensions make them too inaccurate or inva-
lid. Any empirical equation, recent or not, obtained
from experimental tests serves only to reasonably
represent mathematically (not exactly physically)
the original experiment that brought the formula into
evidence and within specific conditions. On the other
hand, mathematical expressions based upon the first
1068 E. Sartori / Solar Energy 80 (2006) 1063–1071
principles of the physical processes produce a more
general applicability and can be validated with
greater accuracy, once the involved physical phe-
nomena are well understood. Moreover, empirical
equations of the form a + bV correspond to a theory
of the 19th century, while the boundary layer theory,
which governs every fluid flow, appeared and was
well established in the 20th century.
Eqs. (4), (8) and (10) need a separate analysis. In
Fig. 2 we see that the curve provided by Eqs. (8) and
(10) presents an initial decrease, a subsequent rise
and another drop afterwards while Eq. (4) shows a
continuous decrease. It is interesting to note that
Eq. (10) alone is responsible for an increase and a
decline of the hc along the corresponding distance:
from about L = 1.5 m the hc increases up to about
L = 5.0 m and then starts its continuous fall. What
we see in relation to this curve is the shape built by
Eqs. (8) and (10) that represents a faithful reproduc-
tion of the basic and generic theoretical profile of
the hc for the laminar, transition and turbulent
regions of the boundary layer for flow along an iso-
thermal flat plate, as seen in Fig. 3.
We can see in Fig. 2 (curves 8 and 10) and in
Fig. 3 that the laminar flow prevails until the end
of the initial drop and after that point the hc
increases. Later on, when the influence is practically
from the fully turbulent region alone, the term
16.46L1 (which generates the curve rising) becomes
negligible, the curve reverts its direction between
Fig. 3. Variation of the convection heat transfer coefficient for
flow over an isothermal flat plate (from Incropera and deWitt,
1985).
L = 5 m and L = 10 m, and then starts the profile
similar to L0.2 which will coincide with the contour
of Eq. (9). For example, for L = 500 m and the same
conditions above, Eq. (9) gives hc = 6.00 Wm2 K1
and Eq. (10) yields hc = 5.97 Wm2 K1. As Eq. (4)
presents a continuous profile along the entire sur-
face and therefore does not confirm such fundamen-
tal profile of the boundary layer theory, this means
that it is not valid beyond the laminar limits in
which it was obtained.
A comparison of hc values from equations with
those from experiments is shown in Table 2. The
Sharples–Charlesworth’s linearly fitted experimen-
tal values are hc = 14.8 Wm2 and hc = 19.3 Wm2,
but to these values the 4.3% and +10% errors
reported by the authors have respectively been
applied, which final numbers are presented in Table
2. These errors have been derived according to the
following considerations. Sharples–Charlesworth
say that percentage error associated with the mea-
sured value of hc ranges approximately from
20% to +20% and the authors add that ‘‘this fig-
ure reflects the difficulty of making field measure-
ments involving rapidly varying variable such as
the wind speed and direction and incoming solar
radiation’’. Thus, a theoretical and more accurate
equation such as Eq. (9) serves as a guide and gives
an insight or indicate us the more accurate experi-
mental errors that should be applied. Eq. (5) is
not accurate because it is a consequence of experi-
mental tests that include several empirical errors.
We can see that the theoretical values from Eq.
(9) agree quite well with the experimental results
by S–C, also indicating that the S–C’s solar collector
and the corresponding experimental tests were con-
ducted in the fully turbulent flow. Farber (1978)
simply mentioned an equation identical to Eq. (9),
but its coefficient is 4.03. Such equation is also
included in Table 2 and we see that its results do
not agree with and remain very far from the exper-
imental ones by Sharples and Charlesworth (1998).
We also verify in Table 2 that the results from Eq.
(4) are comparatively worse than those from the
equation in Farber’s paper and from the turbulent
Table 2
Comparison of hc values from equations with those from
experimental tests by Sharples and Charlesworth (1998)
L V S–C Eq. (9) Eq. (5) Farber Eq. (4)
0.89 3 14.16 14.15 16.28 9.93 7.86
0.89 5 21.23 21.29 21.02 14.95 10.15
 E. Sartori / Solar Energy 80 (2006) 1063–1071
ones by Eq. (9), and thus ratify the theory that the
mentioned extrapolation is not valid.
A comparison of hc values from equations with
those from experimental tests by Kind et al. (1983)
is shown in Table 3. Kind et al. made wind tunnel
tests simulating a collector array of six collectors
each 1.2 m wide placed side by side and installed
on the rooftop of a single-family house, and where
the wind direction was over the highest dimension
of the array, that is, L = 7.2 m. The wind velocity
was measured at a height that corresponds to about
2.1 m above the test collector.
The excellent agreement of Kind et al.’s experi-
mental results with those from Eq. (9) as seen in Table
3 validates Eq. (9) again and confirms once more that
corresponding experimental tests and actual flat plate
solar collectors generally work in the turbulent flow.
It is also noted and reinforced from Table 3 that
Eq. (4) remains far from the turbulent magnitudes.
Moreover, for V = 15 m s1, Eqs. (1) and (2) give
hc = 62.7 Wm2 K1 and hc = 47.8 Wm2 K1,
respectively, results very far from the reality.
Comparison with experimental tests by Test et al.
(1981) can also be performed. The authors carried
out outdoor experimental tests and obtained a
‘‘quasi-local’’ hc using a rectangular box simulating
a solar collector of 1.22 m · 0.81 m, whose upper
plate was electrically heated and where the wind
flowed over its highest dimension and the wind
velocity was measured at a height about 1.0 m
above the experimental surface. For L = 1.22 m
and V = 4.6 m s1 their corresponding graph shows
an hc equal to about 18.5 Wm2 K1 while Eq. (9)
gives hc = 18.7 Wm2 K1. Eq. (4) yields hc =
10.54 Wm2 K1. The agreement of these experi-
mental results with the turbulent flow is noted over
again. Once again, we verify that Eq. (4) remains far
from the turbulent magnitudes, thus not allowing
the already referred extrapolation.
It is important to highlight that the length L
refers to the actual path of the wind and as accurate
as possible its length and direction over the surface,
more accurate will be the agreement with one of the
Eqs. (8)–(10). It is also essential to draw attention to
Table 3
Comparison of hc values from equations with those from
experimental tests by Kind et al. (1983)
L V Kind Eq. (9) Eq. (4)
7.2 5 13.8 14.0 5.9
7.2 10 24.8 24.4 8.3
7.2 15 35.0 33.8 10.1
1069
the fact that the instrumentation (such as various
anemometers) shall not be installed onto or just
over the flat surface, because this would introduce
turbulence to the flow and physically alter the origi-
nal configuration. Thus, the wind would not inter-
pret it as a flat surface and the heat transfer would
be different, too.
Eqs. (8)–(10) have been derived considering the
flow over horizontal surfaces and a remark should
be made regarding their application for inclined sur-
faces. Rowley and Eckley (1932) found through
experimental tests that the convection coefficient
from a 0.30 m flat plate only slightly reduced as
the angle between the surface and air stream was
increased from 15 to 90. They concluded that such
reduction is not significant and the values for paral-
lel flow are satisfactory for design purposes. This
same conclusion can be drawn from the above com-
parisons with experimental tests, because all those
real collectors were installed and tested with differ-
ent angles of inclination, and even so they produced
close agreements with the results from Eq. (9). Fig. 4
shows schematically the possibilities of application
of Eqs. (8)–(10). Fig. 4(a) represents the flow over
a general horizontal flat surface and Fig. 4(b) repre-
sents a flow over inclined surfaces, particularly over
flat plate solar collectors, as shown.
Finalizing, besides the known fact that in practi-
cal applications of the thermal engineering there are
more turbulent flow cases than laminar ones, it is
often expected to find turbulent flows over an actual
solar collector, because this system normally has a
bluff front facing the wind and is commonly
installed onto roofs in relatively high positions
where the wind flow is normally turbulent, near
the edges of roofs, close to corrugated tiles or to
lawns, being all these physical characteristics strong
generators of turbulence. In comparison, these con-
siderations are substantiated by the conclusions
from Wu (1969) who experimentally verified that
Fig. 4. A simple sketch showing the applications of Eqs. (8)–(10)
and the main parameters involved in the calculation of the heat
transfer by forced convection from/to: (a) a general horizontal
flat surface and (b) an inclined surface such as a flat plate solar
collector.
1070 E. Sartori / Solar Energy 80 (2006) 1063–1071
the airflow near water surfaces (surfaces supposedly
smooth) is aerodynamically rough or in the transi-
tion region except at very low wind velocities
(V < 3 m s1). Moreover, the various theoretical–
experimental analyses and comparisons shown in
the present paper make clear that actual flat plate
solar collectors generally work in the turbulent flow.
Additionally, Kind et al. (1983) say that the ‘‘natu-
ral wind is very turbulent’’.
The close agreements of the boundary layer
equations results with those from different theoreti-
cal and experimental works as shown in this paper,
endorse the validation of these mathematical
expressions for the calculation of the hc for forced
air flow over flat surfaces.
4. Conclusions
Various comparisons among well-known equa-
tions of the convection heat transfer coefficient for
forced air flow over flat surfaces and particularly
over flat plate solar collectors with the aim at arriv-
ing at a consensus on which hc is more accurate have
been carried out.
Through the application of basic principles, var-
ious accuracies, inaccuracies and validations of the
considered equations have been found and shown,
and a consensus reached. Such consensual equation,
which comes from the boundary layer theory and
takes into account the determining laminar and tur-
bulent flows as well as the hc according to the wind
direction, also showed to be accurate in relation to
different experimental works.
It was also shown that there must be a decay of
the hc along the plate dimension in the wind direc-
tion, which is proportional to L0.2 for the turbulent
flow and to L0.5 for the laminar flow. Empirical
equations serve only to reasonably represent mathe-
matically (not exactly physically) the original exper-
iments with the specific conditions that brought the
formula into evidence, and cannot predict the hc
according to such decays and wind direction, and
become very inaccurate. It is recommended that
eventual interests on making experiments with
the sole purpose to obtain new empirical equations
of the hc for general application be completely
abandoned.
The theoretical–experimental analyses and com-
parisons shown in this paper make clear that actual
flat plate solar collectors generally operate in the
turbulent flow. The close agreements of results of
the boundary layer equations with those from differ-
ent theoretical and experimental works as shown in
this paper, endorse once more the validation of
these mathematical solutions for the calculation of
the hc for forced air flow over flat surfaces.
Therefore, the equation that comes from the
boundary layer theory, that provides the hc accord-
ing to the determining laminar and turbulent flows,
that makes available the hc according to the wind
direction, that includes the decay of the heat trans-
fer that exists along the length of the surface, i.e.,
hc ¼ 3:83V 0:5 L0:5 ðlaminar flowÞ
0:8 0:2
hc ¼ 5:74V L ðfully turbulent flowÞ
hc ¼ 5:74V 0:8 0:2
L  16:46L1 ðmixed flowsÞ
tends to calculate more accurately the actual hc (for
each case as seen above) or as a consequence, the ac-
tual heat transfer from/to any flat surface submitted
to forced convection than those which do not in-
clude such fundamental prerequisites.
References
Chapman, A.J., 1974. Heat Transfer, third ed. CollierMcMillan
Int., New York, USA.
Duffie, J.A., Beckman, W.A., 1974. Solar Energy Thermal
Processes. Wiley-Interscience, New York, USA, p. 83.
Duffie, J.A., Beckman, W.A., 1980. Solar Engineering of Thermal
Processes. Wiley-Interscience, New York, USA, p. 137.
Duffie, J.A., Beckman, W.A., 1991. Solar Engineering of Thermal
Processes, second ed. Wiley, New York, USA, p. 173.
Farber, J., 1978. Analysis of low temperature plastic collectors.
In: Böer, K.W., Franta, G.E. (Eds), Proc. of the 1978 Annual
Meeting of the ASES, p. 235–238, Denver, USA.
Francey, J.L.A., Papaioannou, J., 1985. Wind-related heat losses
of a flat-plate collector. Solar Energ. 35, 15–19.
Gates, D.M., 1962. Energy Exchange in the Biosphere. Harper
and Row Monographs, New York, USA.
Goswami, D.Y., Kreith, F., Kreider, J.F., 2000. Principles of Solar
Engineering. Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia, USA, p. 98.
Holman, J.P., 1976. Heat Transfer, fourth ed. McGraw-Hill
Kogakusha, Tokyo, Japan.
Incropera, F.P., deWitt, D.P., 1985. Fundamentals of Heat and
Mass Transfer, second ed. John Wiley and Sons, New York,
USA.
Jurges, I.W., 1924. Gesundheits-Ingenieur, V. 19/1.
Kays, W.M., 1975. Convective Heat and Mass Transfer. Tata
McGraw-Hill, New Delhi, India.
Kind, R.J., Gladstone, D.H., Moizer, A.D., 1983. Convective
heat losses from flat plate solar collectors in turbulent winds.
ASME J. Solar Energ. Eng. 105, 80–85.
Lacy, R.E., 1977. Climate and building in Britain. Her Majesty’s
Stationery Office, London, UK.
Lunde, P.J., 1980. Solar Thermal Engineering. John Wiley and
Sons, New York, USA, p. 17.
McAdams, W.H., 1954. Heat Transmission, third ed. McGraw-
Hill Kogakusha, Tokyo, Japan.
 E. Sartori / Solar Energy 80 (2006) 1063–1071
McCormick, D.C., Test, F.L., Lessman, R.C., 1984. The effect of
free-stream turbulence on heat transfer from a rectangular
prism. ASME J. Heat Transfer 106, 268–275.
Oliphant, M.V., 1980. Measurement of wind speed distribution
across a solar collector. Solar Energ. 24, 403–405.
Parmelee, G.V., Huebscher, R.G., 1947. Forced convection
heat transfer from flat surfaces. Trans. ASHRAE 53, 245–
284.
Rowley, F.P., Algren, A.B., Blackshaw, J.L., 1930. Effects of air
velocity on surface coeffs. Trans. ASHRAE 36, 123–136.
Rowley, F.P., Eckley, W.A., 1932. Surface coefficients as affected
by wind direction. Trans. ASHRAE 38, 33–46.
Sartori, E., 2000. A critical review on equations employed for the
calculation of the evaporation rate from free water surfaces.
Solar Energ. 68, 77–89.
Schlichting, H., 1968. Boundary Layer Theory, sixth ed.
McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.
1071
Sharples, S., Charlesworth, P.S., 1998. Full scale measurements
of wind-induced convective heat transfer from a roof
mounted flat plate solar collector. Solar Energ. 62, 69–78.
Sparrow, E.M., Ramsey, J.W., Mass, E.A., 1979. Effect of finite
width on heat transfer and fluid flow about an inclined
rectangular plate. ASME J. Heat Transfer 101, 199–204.
Test, F.L., Lessmann, R.C., Johary, A., 1981. Heat transfer
during wind flow over rectangular bodies in the natural
environment. ASME J. Heat Transfer 103, 262–267.
Wang, X.A., 1982. An experimental study of mixed, forced, and
free convection heat transfer from a horizontal flat plate to
air. ASME J. Heat Transfer 104, 139–144.
Watmuff, J.H., Charters, W.W.S., Proctor, D., 1977. Solar and
wind induced external coefficients for solar collectors. Com-
ples 2, 56.
Wu, J., 1969. Wind stress and surface roughness at the air–sea
interface. J. Geophys. Res. 74, 444–455.