Solar Energy,Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 33--41, 1982 0038-092X/821010033-09803.

00/0
Printed in Great Britain. Pergamon Press Ltd.

EFFECT OF LEEWARD ORIENTATION, ADIABATIC

FRAMING SURFACES, AND EAVES ON
SOLAR-COLLECTOR-RELATED
HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS

E. M. SPARROW,J. S. NELSON and W. Q. TAO

Department of MechanicalEngineering,University of Minnesota,Minneapolis,MN 55455, U.S.A.

(Received 13 July 1981; revision accepted 24 December 1981)

Abstract--Wind tunnel experiments were carried out to determine forced convectionheat transfer coefficientsfor
the leeward face of a roof-like structure. The experiments encompassed a variety of surface configurations,
including: (a) a leeward face which transfers heat to the airflowover its entire surface, (b) a leeward face on which
a thermally active zone is flanked by an adiabatic frame, and (c) eaves positioned along the lateral edges of the
windward and leeward faces. Heat transfer coefficientswere also measured on the windward face. It was found
that in the operating range of flat plate collectors, the leeward-faceheat transfer coefficientsexceed those for the
windward face. For a leeward face where adiabatic framing surfaces are situated along the lateral edges of a
thermally active zone, the heat transfer coefficientsare higher than those for the unframed case. On the other hand,
framing adjacent to either the upper or lower edge of the face has little effect. Eaves situated along the lateral
edges of the windwardand leewardfaces bring about only a slightincrease in the leeward-facetransfer coefficients.
A flow visualizationstudy revealed that the flowpattern adjacent to the leewardface is shaped by fluid which wells
up from the sides of the roof-like structure.

INTRODUCTION the direction of the oncoming flow, such as occurs, for

The prediction of the performance of flat plate solar
collectors involves consideration of various heat loss
mechanisms as well as of the insolation and its ab-
sorption. One of the prominent heat losses is due to
wind-related forced convection at the upper cover plate
of the collector. Until the recent past, the heat transfer
coefficients needed for the computation of the wind-
related heat losses were universally evaluated from a
dimensional formula in which the coefficient is a function
only of the wind velocity[I-3]. As discussed in [4], the
application of this formula to solar collectors involves
considerable uncertainty because it does not take ac-
count of the dimensions of the collector and because it is
specific to airflow parallel to a surface. Recent wind-
tunnel experiments by the authors [4--6] have resulted in
a dimensionless correlation for the heat transfer
coefficient which takes account of both the wind velocity
and plate dimensions and which is relatively insensitive
to the angle at which the wind is incident on the surface.
Comparative collector performance calculations
employing both the new correlation and the formerly
standard formula are reported in [7].
Quite apart from the question of accuracy, both of the
aforementioned representations for the heat transfer
coefficient share a common characteristic--namely, that
they are intended to be applied to surfaces which face
into the wind. This preoccupation with windward-facing
surfaces also runs through the recent solar literature, as
exemplified by[l-3]. In practice, however, the collector
may face away from the wind. Such a leeward orien-
tation is encountered when the collector faces south (as
is common in the northern hemisphere) and the wind is
from the north, the northeast, or the northwest.
It is well known that when a surface faces away from
example, on the back side of a cylinder or sphere in
crossflow, that surface may not be in direct contact with
the main forward-moving flow. This is because the
mainflow is unable to turn sufficiently rapidly to get
around to the back side and, instead, it separates from
the contour of the body before the turn. As a con-
sequence, the leeward-facing surface may be washed by
a recirculating flow (i.e. an eddy) which occupies the
separated region.
Examination of the extensive literature on cylinders in
crossflow (e.g.[15-17]) indicates that the heat transfer
coefficients for the leeward portion of the cylinder sur-
face (i.e. washed by the recirculating flow) are quite
different from those for the forward-facing portion of the
cylinder. At lower Reynolds numbers, the coefficients for
the forward portion exceed those for the rear portion,
while at higher Reynolds numbers the opposite relation-
ship may prevail.
The foregoing discussion serves to set the stage for the
present investigation, which is focused on the experi-
mental determination of heat transfer coefficients rele-
vant to a leeward-facing solar collector. The in-
vestigation has several foci. Among these, the first is to
make comparisons between leeward-face and windward-
face heat transfer coefficients and, by this, to provide
perspective on the presently standard use of windward-
face coefficients in design calculations.
The second focus has to do with the fact that solar
collectors frequently do not occupy the entire surface of
the roof to which they are affixed. In such cases, the
portion of the roof which is not covered by the collector
is, in effect, a thermally inactive frame which surrounds
the collector. One consequence of this arrangement is
that the hydrodynamic edges of the system (i.e. the outer

33
34 E. M. SPARROWet aL
edges of the frame) are displaced from the thermally
active zone (i.e. the edges of the cover plate). There is
evidence for forward-facing collectors/8] that the dis-
placement of the hydrodynamic edges of the system
from the thermally active zone can substantially affect
the heat transfer coefficient. This issue is addressed here
for leeward-facing surfaces.
The final focus of the research is a set of experiments
to determine the effect of eaves (i.e. overhangs) on the
heat transfer coefficient. These experiments were
motivated by the conjecture that the presence of the
eaves might affect the nature of the recirculating flow
that washes the leeward-facing surface.
The experimental work was performed in a wind tun-
nel, using a model rather than an actual solar collector.
To facilitate the experiments, mass transfer measure-
ments were made rather than direct heat transfer
measurements, and the resulting mass transfer
coefficients were converted to heat transfer coefficients
by employing the analogy between the two processes. In
addition to the mass transfer measurements, a flow
visualization experiment using the oil-lampblack tech-
nique was performed to investigate the pattern of fluid
flow adjacent to the leeward-facing surface.
A search of the literature did not reveal any prior
experimental work on heat transfer to leeward-facing
surfaces of the type considered here--the leeward face
of a roof-like structure. The most closely related work
deals with the rear surfaces of cylinders, spheres, and
plates in crossflow, but those cases differ markedly from
the roof-like geometry of the present experiments. Some
initial results of the experimental work were presented
earlier as a progress report/9]. That presentation was
limited to data which relate to only one of the seven heat
(mass) transfer graphs which are included here (in actu-
ality, all of the initially reported data runs were repeated
and their Reynolds number range extended).
THEEXPERIMENTS
The naphthalene sublimation technique
The use of mass transfer measurements, performed via
the naphthalene sublimation technique, as an indirect
way of obtaining heat transfer coefficients has a number
of advantages over direct heat transfer measurements.
Included among these are significant simplifications in
the experimental apparatus, higher accuracy of
measurement, minimal extraneous losses, and greater
likelihood of attaining the equivalent of uniform wall
temperature (a standard thermal boundary condition).
To use mass transfer measurements for determining
heat transfer coefficients, it is first necessary to establish
the validity of the analogy between the two processes.
This has been done by Eckert[10] from a consideration
of the conservation equations which respectively govern
beat and mass transfer. The proof of the analogy is free
of assumptions for laminar flow, but for turbulent flow it
requires the assumption that the turbulent diffusion of
heat and of mass are equal in magnitude.
A recirculating flow in a separated region, such as
occurs adj.:cent to a leeward facing surface, although
eddying in nature, may not have the same turbulence
characteristics as a boundary layer flow or a pipe flow.
Therefore, it is not unreasonable to inquire whether
Eckert's proof of the heat/mass transfer analogy is ap-
plicable to a recirculating flow.
To examine this issue, mass transfer experiments have
been performed at the University of Minnesota for flows
over bodies for which there is a recirculating region that
significantly affects the rate of heat (mass) transfer. The
two cases studied are the sphere and the cylinder in
crossflow, both of which have been extensively in-
vestigated in the heat transfer literature and for which
well-established heat transfer correlations exist. For the
cylinder in crossflow, the measured dimensionless mass
transfer coefficients [11] typicallyfell within 2-3 per cent of
the heat transfer correlation of Zukauskas[12] over a
Reynolds number range that spanned an order of mag-
nitude, with a maximum deviation of 5 per cent. For the
sphere, the mass transfer data (unpublished) all fell
within three per cent of the Whitaker heat transfer
correlation/13], also over an order of magnitude in Rey-
nolds number.
These findings buttress the Eckert proof and lend
strong support to the use of the heat/mass transfer
analogy for recirculating flows on leeward-facing sur-
faces.
Experimental apparatus
A schematic of the experimental model is shown in
Fig. 1. The main part of the figure is a pictorial view,
while the inset at the lower right is a side view. As seen
in the figure, the model is a roof-like structure which
includes two sloping faces, respectively serving as the
windward and leeward surfaces. In the pictorial diagram,
the model is viewed from behind, looking in the direction
of the oncoming airflow.
The pictorial view also shows eaves in place along the
lateral edges of the windward and leeward surfaces. The
eaves are indicated by dashed lines because they were
used only during two of the eight sets of data runs that
were made. For the other six sets of runs, the eaves were
absent.
The sides of the model were flat, as was the bottom.
As indicated in the inset, each of the sloping surfaces of
f J f J
i/ i II
ii// iIj
L/_.
LEEWARD
FACE
~N~
Fig. 1. Schematicdiagramof the experimentalmodel.
 Solar-collector-relatedheat transfer coefficients
the model makes an angle of 450 with the horizontal, so
that at the apex, where the two surfaces meet, the angle
is 900. The velocity vector of the air approaching the
model was also horizontal.
The model was supported from below by a pair of thin,
flow-aligned struts which elevated it above the floor of
the wind tunnel in which the experiments were per-
formed. The struts are not shown in Fig. 1 because their
presence did not affect the pattern of fluid flow on the
sloping surfaces of the model. Indeed, the flow pattern
on these surfaces corresponds to the case in which the
flow passes freely (without blockage or obstruction) un-
der the model. The study of blockage effects is beyond
the scope of the present investigation because the wind
tunnel cross section is too small to accommodate ad-
ditional blockages beyond that of the model itself. Fur-
thermore, in view of the general acceptance of blockage-
free heat transfer coefficients in the solar literature, it is
appropriate to perform these first leeward-face experi-
ments for no-blockage conditions.
The aforementioned concern about excessive blockage
of the wind tunnel cross section played a decisive role in
the selection of the dimensions of the model. The wind
tunnel cross section is rectangular, 30.5 x 61 cm (1 x 2 ft),
width x height, respectively. To achieve a blockage ratio
(blocked cross section divided by total cross section)
well below 3 per cent, each of the sloping faces of the
model was chosen to be a square with a 7.62 cm (3 in.)
side dimension. This yielded a projected area (normal to
the flow direction) equal to 2.2 per cent of the total cross
section--a percentage sufficiently small so that the
results of the wind tunnel experiments should be applic-
able to an unbounded flow. The model was positioned by
the support struts so that it was centered in both the
width and height dimensions of the cross section.
The model was fabricated from a solid block of alu-
minum. As indicated in Fig. 2, a recess was cut into one
of the sloping faces of the model in order to accommodate
a cassette which housed the naphthalene test plate. The
cassette was detachable from the model and, as will be
described shortly, it served as one of the parts of a mold
in which the naphthalene plate was cast. It was fabri-
cated from an aluminum plate into which a cavity was
milled for housing the naphthalene casting. The cavity
walls (the heavy black lines bordering the naphthalene
surface in Fig. 2) were kept as thin as possible consistent
with strength and straightness.
As can be seen in Fig. 2, the upper and lower edges of
DETACHABLE
CASSETTE
F~. 2. Diagram of the model showing the detachable casset~
w~ch houses the naphthflene test sufface.
35
the cassette were beveled. These bevels facilitated the
precise mating of the cassette with the model proper. In
addition, the rear face of the cassette was fitted with a
short cylindrical boss which mated with a corresponding
cylindrical recess in the contiguous face of the model.
The boss ensured precise and consistent positioning of
the cassette. A set screw, which could be tightened
against the cylindrical surface of the boss, locked the
cassette in place.
The support system of the model was such that the
naphthalene test surface could be positioned in either the
windward or leeward orientations. A set of data runs was
made in the windward orientation in order to provide
baseline data against which to compare the results for
the leeward orientation.
Aside from windward vs leeward positioning, several
other variants of the basic apparatus were used in order
to fulfill the other objectives of the research. As noted in
the Introduction, one of these objectives was to examine
the situation in which a thermally active zone (i.e. the
collector cover plate) is flanked by a thermally inactive
frame. Within the context of the mass transfer analogy,
this situation is modeled by a mass transfer surface
flanked by a framing surface where there is no mass
transfer. With regard to the naphthalene sublimation
technique, any portion of a naphthalene surface can be
instantly converted from a zone of active mass transfer
to a zone of zero mass transfer by affixing a highly
adhering pressure-sensitive tape (3M Company no. 56,
0.005 cm (0.002 in.) thick).
In view of the foregoing, various arrangements of an
active surface framed by an inactive surface can be
obtained by taping over those portions of the naph-
thalene test surface where mass transfer is to be sup-
pressed. The framing arrangements that were in-
vestigated here are shown in Fig. 3. Cases A and B are
characterized by inactive zones along the lateral edges
(lateral-edge framing), while cases C and D correspond
to top-edge and bottom-edge framing. For Cases A, C
and D, each segment of the frame is one sixth of the
A B
HH
/////A
I jjjjjl
Fig. 3. Leeward-face framing arrangements. The cross-hatched
regions denote the zones which do not participate in the mass
transfer.
36 E. M. SVARROWet al.
overall dimension of the plate; for Case B, each frame
segment is one third of the plate dimension.
Another apparatus modification was the attachment of
the eaves that are illustrated in the pictorial view of Fig.
1. The eaves were made of 0.038cm (0.015in.) thick
sheet metal, especially chosen for surface smoothness.
Four eaves were fabricated, one for each of the lateral
edges of the windward and leeward faces of the model.
Each eave overhangs the model by 1.27 cm (~~in.).' It was
anchored against the side of the model by the same
pressure-sensitive tape as was used to suppress mass
transfer at selected zones of the naphthalene surface, as
described in the foregoing paragraph.
Two sets of data runs were made with the eaves in
place. In the first set, eaves were attached only to the
lateral edges of the leeward face of the model (no eaves
on the windward face), while in the second set the eaves
were in place at both the windward and leeward faces.
Experimental procedure.
Each data run was preceded by a number of pre-
paratory steps. The first step was the casting of the
naphthalene test surface. To begin, the naphthalene
remaining in the cassette from the prior data run was
removed by melting and evaporation. Then, the cassette
was placed face down on a highly polished stainless steel
plate, and molten naphthalene was poured into the mold
cavity through an aperture in the back face. In addition to
the pouring aperture, three smaller apertures were pro-
vided to allow air to escape from the mold cavity. Upon
cooling of the mold, the cassette was separated from the
stainless steel plate, thereby exposing the naphthalene
surface that had solidified against the plate. The finish of
the thus-exposed surface was comparable to that of the
plate. When the casting procedure was completed, the
pouring and air-escape apertures were sealed with pres-
sure-sensitive tape.
The next preparatory step encompassed two suc-
cessive equilibration periods, during which the model
was placed in the wind tunnel to attain thermal equili-
brium with the airflow. To prevent unwanted sublimation
during these periods, the naphthalene test surface was
capped with a tight-fitting plexiglass cover which was
sealed with tape. At the end of the initial equilibration
period, whose duration was at least one hour, the cas-
sette was detached from the model and weighed, with the
cover removed. Then, the cover was replaced and the
cassette re-installed in the wind tunnel for a second
equilibration period, which was of twenty-minutes dura-
tion.
At this point, the cover was removed and the data run
initiated. During the run, the air temperature and the
dynamic pressure were read at one-minute intervals,
while the tunnel static pressure and the barometer were
read periodically. The run was concluded by the capping
of the test surface and the deactivation of the wind
tunnel, immediately after which the cassette was
weighed.
Subsequent to each run, an after-run was made. Its
purpose was to determine a correction to the measured
mass transfer to account for possible extraneous subli-
mation, which might have occurred during the second
equilibration period or during the uncapping and capping
of the naphthalene surface at the beginning and end of
the actual run. The after-run was identical in all respects
to the actual run (including the twenty-minute equili-
bration period), except that the exposure of the naph-
thalene surface to the airflow was omitted. Generally, the
corrections determined from the after-run were in the
1-2 per cent range.
The amount of mass sublimed during a data run was in
the range of 100mg, with run times extending from
15-60rain., depending on the Reynolds number. These
run times were selected so that the average recession of
the naphthalene surface during a data run did not exceed
0.0025 cm (0.001 in.).
The velocity of the airflow was measured by a
retractable impact tube in combination with a wall static
tap, with the pressure signals being sensed and converted
to a voltage output by a Baratron capacitance-type solid-
state pressure meter capable of detecting 10-4mm Hg.
With regard to temperature measurements, preliminary
data runs had demonstrated that the readings of a ther-
mocouple embedded in the model agreed very closely
(within 0.2°F) with the readings of a thermometer situ-
ated in the airstream just downstream of the model.
Since the use of the thermocouple caused a certain
amount of inconvenience in the setup and disassembly of
the apparatus, the thermometer was used for all of the
final data runs. The thermometer was ASTM certified
and had a smallest scale division of 0.1°F.
The mass of the cassette was measured with a Mettler
analytical balance with a smallest scale division of 0.1 mg
and a total weighing range of 200 g.
Flow visualization.
As noted in the Introduction, the oil-lampblack tech-
nique was used to visualize the pattern of fluid flow
adjacent to the leeward-facing surface. To use this tech-
nique, lampblack powder is mixed with oil, and the
mixture, when brushed on a surface, produces a glossy-
black coating. The fluidity of the mixture can be
regulated by the selection of the viscosity of the oil and
by the proportions of the lampblack powder and of the
oil.
The general procedure for using the technique is to
brush the oil-lampblack mixture on a surface and then to
expose the surface to the airflow whose patterns are to
be studied. Ideally, under the action of the shear stresses
exerted by the flow, the mixture will move along the
surface, following the paths of the fluid particles that
pass adjacent to the surface. If, however, the mixture is
too stiff, it will not respond to the shear stresses, and no
path lines will be observed. On the other hand, if the
mixture is too light, it will be completely blown off the
surface without giving an indication of the flow pattern.
The degree of fluidity of the mixture is an especially
relevant factor when flow adjacent to an inclined surface
is to be visualized, as in the present investigation. In
such a situation, the mixture will sag under the action of
gravity, unless it is constituted so as to be stiff. This
requirement limits the visualization study to high Rey-
 Solar-collector-relatedheat transfer coefficients
nolds numbers, where the shear stresses are relatively
higE It also makes the attainment of high-resolution,
aesthetically pleasing visualization patterns more
difficult.
In light of the foregoing, the visualization was per-
formed for R e - 100,000, which was the highest Rey-
nolds number attainable in the wind tunnel. Extensive
visual observations indicated an unambiguous flow pat-
tern, a sketch of which will be presented later.
For all the visualization runs, the leeward-facing sur-
face was coated with white, plasticized contact paper in
order to provide the highest possible contrast for the
black streak lines induced on the surface by the flow.
DATA REDUCTION
The procedures used to determine mass transfer
coefficients and Reynolds numbers from the experimen-
tal data will now be described, as will the transformation
of the mass transfer results into heat transfer results. For
heat transfer,
Nu =/(Re, Pr) (1)
and, according to the analogy between heat and mass
transfer,
Sh =/(Re, Sc) (2)
where the Sherwood and Schmidt numbers, Sh and Sc
respectively, are the counterparts of the Nusselt and
Prandtl numbers. The essential feature of the analogy is
that the function f is the same for both heat and mass
transfer. For external flows, it is widely accepted that
Nu = Pr~/3F(Re), Sh = Scl/-~F(Re). (3)
Alternative forms of eqn (3) can be obtained by intro-
ducing the Stanton numbers for heat and mass transfer
Sth = Nu/RePr = h/pcoU~ (4)
St,, = Sh/ReSc = K/U= (5)
in which h and K denote the heat and mass transfer
coefficients. If equations (4) and (5) are introduced into
(3) and F(Re)/Re is denoted by G(Re), there follows
(h/pcp U~) Pr 2/3 = (K/U~) Sc2/~---j = G(Re) (6)
in which the symbol j is Colburn's j-factor.
According to eqn (6), the j-factors for heat and mass
transfer are equal in magnitude at any given Reynolds
number, Thus, if (K/U~)Sc 2/3 is determined by experi-
ment as a function of the Reynolds number, then the
variation of (h/pcpU~)Pr 2/3 with Reynolds number is,
thereby, also determined. With this as background,
attention is now turned to the evaluation of j =
(KIU~) Sc2/3 and Re from the experimental data.
The ingredients needed for the evaluation of the mass
transfer coefficient K are the rate of mass transfer per
unit area rh and the densities of naphthalene vapor at the
37
subliming surface and in the free stream. From the mass
measurements made before and after a data run (along
with the after-run correction), the duration time of the
run, and the area of the subliming surface, rn was
evaluated. The naphthalene vapor density at the surface
was obtained from a two-step calculation. First, using the
measured temperature as input, the naphthalene vapor
pressure at the surface was evaluated from the Sogin
vapor pressure--temperature relation[14]. Then, the
corresponding naphthalene vapor density p,,~(s ~surf-
ace) was computed from the perfect gas law. In the free
stream, the naphthalene vapor density is zero since the
wind tunnel was operated in the open-circuit mode, with
air drawn from within the building and the discharge
vented outdoors.
In light of the foregoing, K = rhlp.,, so that, from eqn
(6)
j = (KI Us) Sc2/3 = Ohlp,s U~) Sc2/3 (7)
where U~ is the measured free stream velocity and
Sc = 2.55 for diffusion of naphthalene vapor in air.
Attention will now be turned to the Reynolds number.
As mentioned earlier, experiments were performed for
various configurations including mass transfer from: (a)
the windward face, (b) the leeward face, (c) the leeward
face with mass transfer occurring on only part of the
surface, and (c) the leeward face with eaves in place
along the lateral edges. In order to enable an unam-
biguous comparison of these results, the Reynolds num-
ber was defined in the same way for all cases. If S
denotes the side of the square sloping faces of the model
(S = 7.62 cm, 3 in.), the Reynolds number was defined as
Re = U~S/v (8)
where v is the kinematic viscosity of air.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In view of the analogy between the two processes, the
terms heat transfer and mass transfer will be used
intechangeably throughout the presentation of results.
The presentation will begin with the information
obtained from the flow visualization studies, with the
heat (mass) transfer results to follow.
Flow visualization results
As noted earlier, the oil-lampblack technique was used
to investigate the pattern of fluid flow adjacent to the
leeward-facing surface. A sketch is presented in Fig. 4
which conveys what was observed when the leeward
face was viewed head-on (i.e. looking perpendicular at
the face) during and subsequent to the period when the
airstream passed over the model. In interpreting this
diagram, it should be noted that prior to the initiation of
the airflow, the entire face was covered with a uniform
black coating (i.e. the oil-lampblack mixture). Thus, the
pattern in evidence in Fig. 4 represents a significant
rearrangement of the oil-lampblack mixture in response
to the forces exerted by the fluid flow.
One of the remarkable features of Fig. 4 is the array of
38 E. M. SPARROWet al.
Fig. 4. A sketch of the observed oil-lampblackflow-visualization
pattern on the leeward face.
more or less parallel horizontal lines which emanate to
the right and left from a black band that is centered
between the lateral edges of the surface. These lines are
actually traces of flow paths along which fluid moves
from the center toward the respective lateral edges. The
presence of such transverse flows, whose direction is
parallel to the top and bottom edges of the surface and
perpendicular to the lateral edges, is quite surprising.
The explanation of this unexpected flow pattern is
given in Fig. 5, which shows a pair of parallel, counter-
rotating eddies whose axes are parallel to the lateral
edges of the surface. The direction of rotation of the
eddies is such that for the right-hand eddy, the fluid
adjacent to the surface moves rightward from the cen-
terline of the surface toward the lateral edge; in the outer
part of this eddy (i.e. away from the surface), the fluid
moves from the edge toward the center. A similar but
oppositely directed flow pattern occurs in the left-hand
eddy.
The flows in the outer portions of the two eddies
collide as they approach the centerline of the surface,
and the collision gives rise to a stagnation line which is
shown in Fig. 4 as the black band that is centered
midway between the lateral edges.
Another prominent feature of Fig. 4 is the two black
bands respectively situated adjacent to the lateral edges.
J in Fig. 6 as a function of the Reynolds number, which
Fig. 5. Eddy pattern adjacent to the leeward face.
These bands again represent zones of collision between
two oppositely moving flows. For concreteness, the band
adjacent to the right-hand edge may be considered. For
this band, the corresponding collision is between the
already discussed rightward moving flow adjacent to the
plate and a flow that is sweeping leftward over the edge,
coming from the side of the model. This invading flow is
induced by the relatively low pressure that exists ad-
jacent to the leeward face. As the invading flow sweeps
in over the edge, it drags against the surface, giving rise
to the narrow array of horizontal lines in evidence in Fig.
4 (adjacent to the edge) and to the collision which creates
the black band.
The aforementioned flow which sweeps over the
leeward face from the sides of the model is, in fact, the
agent which drives the counter-rotating eddies. Thus, the
flow pattern which prevails over most of the leeward
face is shaped by fluid which comes from the sides of the
model, rather than by fluid which passes over the top of
the model.
Only in the upper portion of the leeward face does the
fluid which passes over the top of the model act to shape
the flow pattern. As actually observed, the streak lines in
the upper portion of the face were not as sharply etched
as was the horizontal array of lines, but the flow pattern
was unambiguously that portrayed in Fig. 4. It appears
that fluid which passes over the top of the model tends to
drag lightly against the upper portion of the leeward
surface before being forced toward the lateral edges by
the aforementioned eddies.
There are several heat transfer ramifications of the
just-discussed fluid flow pattern. For example, upon
considering the stagnation line that is centered in the
surface and the lateral flows emanating from the stag-
nation line, it may be conjectured that the highest heat
transfer coefficients would be encountered in the central
region of the surface. This expectation is based on the
characteristics of stagnation-type flows, where the
highest coefficients occur at the stagnation line (or stag-
nation point) and decrease in the direction in which the
flow moves away from the stagnation zone. Other
ramifications of the fluid flow patterns will be discussed
during the presentation of the heat transfer results.
Heat (mass) transfer results.
The results for the heat (mass) transfer coefficient will
be reported in terms of the j-factor of eqn (6). J-factor
data for both the leeward and windward faces are plotted
spans the range from about 25,000-100,000. For both
orientations, j is seen to decrease with the Reynolds
number, a trend which is altogether reasonable since
j - Nu/Re and Nu - Re m with m < 1 for all known flows.
Of greater interest is the fact that the j-factors for the
two orientations show different Reynolds number
dependencies, with the result that the curves cross. The
crossing point of the curves, Re - 60,000, is not believed
to signify a flow transition. At the lower Reynolds num-
bers (i.e. below 60,000), the heat transfer coefficients for
the windward face are greater than those for the leeward
face, but the deviations do not exceed 10 per cent in the
 Solar-collector-related heat transfer coefficients 39
8

L- (b) o
6

o
~C) 4

_ _ UNFRAMED LEEWARD
o LEEWARD FACE - FACE
o WIDE LATERAL-EDGE
~0_ FRAMING
2' L I I I I I I III L
I 2 4 6 8 I0 20 x
•- - (a)
Re x I(] 4 -- 0
Fig. 6. Heat (mass) transfer coefficients for the leeward and
windward faces.
_ _ UNFRAMED
_ LEEWARDFACE
range investigated. At higher Reynolds numbers, the 0 NARROW LATERAL-EDGE
FRAMING
leeward-face coefficients exceed those for the windward L l I I I I l lll J
2 4 6 8 I0 20
face. At Re = 100,000, the deviation is 15 per cent, but an Re x I(~4
extrapolation suggests a deviation in the 40-50 per cent
Fig. 7. (a), (b) Effect of lateral-edge framing on the leeward-face
range at Re=200,000. Extrapolation beyond Re= heat (mass) transfer coefficient: (a) narrow framing, 0a) wide
200,000 is, in the opinion of the authors, unfounded. framing.
The Reynolds numbers for wind-related airflow over a
solar collector should exceed 60,000 for most ap-
plications. It follows, therefore, that the use of wind- [ (d)
ward-face heat transfer coefficients for leeward-facing
collectors will yield a low estimate for the wind-related
heat loss.
The just-discussed trends with Reynolds number can -- UNFRAMED LEEWARD FACE

be readily rationalized by considering the differences in o BOTTOM-EDGE FRAMING

the fluid flow patterns for the two orientations. The
windward orientation is characterized by a laminar
boundary layer flow. Such flows yield a simple power-
law dependence such as the j = 0.97IRe 1/2 relationship
found here. On the other hand, as discussed earlier in
connection with Figs. 4 and 5, the flow field on the
leeward face encompasses large recirculation zones. It is
well established in the literature that for external flows,
the heat transfer effectiveness of recirculation zones
increases markedly with increasing Reynolds number--
more markedly than the ~-power dependence for a
laminar boundary layer. For instance, for a fully
separated flow, Nu - Re 2/3 and j - Re-~/3[18]. Therefore,
the trends evidenced in Fig. 6 are consistent with the
literature.
Attention will now be turned to the situation in which
a thermally active zone on the leeward face (e.g. the
collector cover plate) is flanked by a thermally inactive
frame. The framing configurations investigated are dis-
played in Fig. 3. The results for lateral-edge framing are
presented in Figs. 7(a, b), respectively for Cases A and
B, while the results for Cases C and D are presented in
Figs. 7(c, d).
All of these figures have a common format. In each
figure, the heat transfer coefficients for the framed
thermally active zone are compared with the coefficients
for the unframed leeward face. Since the latter have
already been displayed as discrete data in Fig. 6, it was
deemed unnecessary to repeat the data points in Figs. 7
and, instead, they are represented by a continuous curve.
Figures 7(a, b) show that framing adjacent to the
lateral edges gives rise to heat transfer coefficients at the
thermally active zone that are higher than those for the
unframed leeward face. This finding is not unexpected in
light of the discussion which accompanied the presen-
%
-~ (c)
-- UNFRAMED LEEWARD FACE
o TOP-EDGE FRAMING
, I I I I I IIII
2 4 6 8 I0 20
Re x I 0 4
Fig. 7. (c), (d) Effectof top-edgeand bottom-edgeframingon the
leeward-face beat (mass) transfer coefficient:(c) top-edge fram-
ing, (d) bottom-edgeframing.
tation of the patterns of fluid flow. There, it was noted
that the highest heat transfer coefficients should exist in
the neighborhood of the centerline of the surface and
that the coefficients should decrease with increasing
lateral distance from the centerline, Consequently, if
heat (mass) transfer is suppressed in bands that are
laterally displaced from the centerline (as in Cases A and
B of Fig. 3), the remaining thermally active zone, which
straddles the centerline, should have relatively high heat
transfer coefficients.
Furthermore, the wider the thermally inactive frame,
the more is the remaining active area confined to the
neighborhood of the centerline, with correspondingly
higher heat transfer coefficients. This expected behavior
is indicated by the experimental data, as can be seen by
comparing Figs. 7(a) (narrow frame) and (b) (wide
frame).
Further inspection of Figs. 7(a, b) shows that there is a
tendency for the effect of framing to diminish with
increasing Reynolds number. Thus, for the narrow
frame, the increase in the coefficient due to framing
diminishes from 13 to 6 per cent as Re increases from
40 E. M. SPARROWet al.
25,000 to 100,000. The corresponding decrease for the
wide frame is from 23 to 14 per cent. Since operation at
high Reynolds numbers is quite likely, it appears that
lateral-edge framing gives rise to about a 10 per cent
effect.
Heat transfer coefficients for framing adjacent to the
top and bottom edges of the leeward face are presented
in Figs. 7(c, d), respectively. These results correspond to
the framing configurations of Cases C and D of Fig. 3.
Inspection of Figs. 7(c, d) indicates that neither top-edge
framing nor bottom-edge framing yields heat transfer
coefficients that differ significantly from those for the
unframed leeward-facing surface. This signifies that the
transfer coefficients for transverse strips of surface res-
pectively adjacent to the top and bottom edges of the
leeward face are essentially equal in magnitude to the
average coefficient for the face as a whole.
Careful inspection of Fig. 7(c) shows that the
coefficients corresponding to top-edge framing are
slightly higher than those for the unframed leeward face,
with typical deviations of 2 per cent and a maximum
deviation of four per cent. The coefficients for the bot-
tom-framed case (Fig. 7d) do not differ by more than 2
per cent from the unframed case. These minor deviations
dissuaded further study of top-edge and bottom-edge
framing (e.g. wider frames).
The next set of results to be reported are those cor-
responding to the presence of eaves positioned along the
lateral edges of the windward and leeward surfaces. In
the initial experiments performed in this connection, the
eaves were attached only at the lateral edges of the
leeward face (none were attached at the windward face).
The motivation for examining this arrangement was the
conjecture that such eaves might block the fluid flow
which wells up from the sides of the model and inun-
dates the space above the leeward face. Such a blocking
action, if it were to occur, could significantly affect the
leeward-face heat transfer coefficients.
The leeward-face heat transfer coefficients presented in
Fig. 8(a) do not support the aforementioned conjecture.
Rather, the data corresponding to the presence of the eaves
does not differ significantly from those without eaves.
In Fig. 8(b), leeward-face heat transfer results are
presented for the case in which eaves are attached to the
lateral edges of both the windward and leeward faces.
The presence of the eaves is seen to increase the heat
transfer coefficient, but to an extent which depends on
the Reynolds number. The largest increase in evidence in
Fig. 8(b) is about 7½ per cent.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The present experiments have shown that whereas
windward-face heat transfer coefficients exceed those for
the leeward face at lower Reynolds numbers (i.e. for
Re < 60,000), the opposite relationship prevails at higher
Reynolds numbers. At Re = 100,000, the leeward-face
coefficient is about 15 per cent higher than the windward-
face value, and a deviation in the 40-50 per cent range is
projected at Re = 200,000. Since wind-related Reynolds
numbers for solar collectors will generally exceed 60,000,
the use of windward-face coefficients for a leeward-facing
8~ (b)
-- - - U N F R A M E D LEEWARD FACE
o WINDWARD- AND LEEWARD-
%i FACE EAVES
- (o)
- - UNFRAMED LEEWARD FACE
o LEEWARD-FACE EAVES
t I I I I I Illl i
2 4 6 8 I0 20
Re x IO-4
Fig. 8. (a), (b) Effect of the presence of eaves on the leeward-face
heat (mass) transfer coefficient: (a) leeward-face eaves, (b)
windward- and leeward-faceeaves.
collector will yield a low estimate for the wind-related heat
loss.
Experiments were also performed for the situation in
which a thermally active zone on the leeward face (e.g.
the collector cover plate) is flanked by a thermally in-
active frame. Framing along the lateral edges of the
leeward face brings about an increase in the heat transfer
coefficient compared with that for the unframed case.
For Reynolds numbers appropriate to practical solar
collectors, it appears that the effect of lateral-edge fram-
ing on the heat transfer coefficient should not exceed 10
per cent. Framing adjacent to the top and bottom edges
of the leeward face does not have a significant effect on
the transfer coefficient.
When eaves are affixed to the lateral edges of the
leeward face (but not the windward face), the leeward-
face transfer coefficients are essentially the same as
those without eaves. For eaves in place along the lateral
edges of both the leeward and windward faces, the
transfer coefficient is slightly increased (~ 5 per cent).
Flow visualization experiments revealed that the flow
pattern adjacent to the leeward face is shaped by fluid
which wells up from the sides of the model and inun-
dates the space above the leeward face.
It should be pointed out that a wind tunnel experiment
is not able to model, in all details, fluid t~ow conditions in
the outdoor environment such as unsteadiness, tur-
bulence level and scale, and directionality due to special
features in the surroundings. By this same token, owing
to the variability of the outdoor environment, it is not
realistic to think in terms of a universal set of fluid flow
conditions for solar collectors. For example, the
specification of the mean wind speed does not charac-
terize unsteadiness or turbulence. Consequently, model
experiments of any kind, whether performed in a wind
tunnel or outdoors, can only approximate any particular
solar collector application. Despite these reservations,
the information provided by model experiments of the
type performed here serves as a valuable guide to design.
Acknowledgment--This research was sponsored, in part, by the
American Societyof Heating, Refrigeratingand Air-Conditioning
Engineers.
 Solar-collector-related heat transfer coefficients 41

NOMENCLATURE performance due to different methods of evaluating wind

cp specific heat heat transfer coefficients. J. Heat Transfer 102, 766-768
h heat transfer coefficient (1980).
j j-factor, (hlpcpU®)Pr2t3 = (KI U~) Sc2/3 8. E. M. Sparrow and S. C. Lau, Effect of adiabatic co-planar
K mass transfer coefficient extension surfaces on wind-related solar-collector heat
rh mass transfer rate per unit area transfer coefficients. J. Heat Transfer 103, 268-271 (1981).
Nu Nusselt number 9. E. M. Sparrow, J. S. Nelson and S. C. Lau, Wind-related heat
Pr Prandtl number transfer coefficients for leeward-facing solar collectors.
Re Reynolds number, U~Slv Paper 2033R, ASHRAE Meeting, Chicago, Illinois (Jan 1981).
S side of square face 10. E. R. G. Eckert, Analogies to heat transfer processes. In:
Sc Schmidt number Measurements in Heat Transfer (Edited by E. R. G. Eckert
Sh Sherwood number and R. J. Goldstein). Hemisphere, Washington, D.C. (1976).
St Stanton number 11. E. M. Sparrow and F. Samie, Measured heat transfer
U~ freestream velocity coefficients at and adjacent to the tip of a wall-attached
v kinematic viscosity of air cylinder in crossflow--application to fins. J. Heat Transfer
p density of air 103, 778-784 (1981).
pns density of naphthalene vapor at subliming surface 12. A. A. Zukauskas, Heat transfer from tubes in crossflow. In:
Advances in Heat Transfer, Vol. 8. Academic Press, New
York (1972).
REFERENCES 13. S. Whitaker, Forced convection heat transfer correlations for
1. J. A. Duffle and W. A. Beckman, Solar Engineering of flow in pipes, past flat plates, single cylinders, single spheres
Thermal Processes. Wiley, New York (1980). and for flow in packed beds and tube bundles. A.I.Ch.E.J.
2. P. J. Lunde, Solar Thermal Engineering. Wiley, New York 18, 361-365 (1972).
(1980). 14. H. H. Sogln, Sublimation from disks to air streams flowing
3. F. Kreith and J. F. Kreider, Principles of Solar Engineering. normal to their surfaces. Trans. ASME 80, 61--69 (1958).
Hemisphere, Washington, D.C. (1978). 15. W. H. Giedt, Investigation of variation of point unit heat
4. E. M. Sparrow and K. K. Tien, Forced convection at an transfer coefficient around a cylinder normal to an airstream.
inclined and yawed flat plate--application to solar collectors. Trans. ASME 71,375-381 (1949).
J. Heat Transfer 99, 507-512 (1977). 16. H. H. Sogin and Y. S. Subramanian, Local mass transfer
5. K. K. Tien and E. M. Sparrow, Local heat transfer and fluid from circular cylinders in crossflow. J. Heat Transfer 83,
flow characteristics for airflow oblique or normal to a flat 483--493 (1961).
plate. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 22, 349-360 (1979). 17. E. R. G. Eckert and R. M. Drake, Analysis of Heat and Mass
6. E. M. Sparrow, J. W. Ramsey and E. A. Mass, Effect of finite Transfer, pp. 403--407. McGraw-Hill, New York (1971).
plate width on heat transfer and fluid flow about an inclined 18. H. H. Sogin, Summary of experiments on local heat transfer
rectangular plate. J. Heat Transfer 101, 199-205 (1979). from the rear of bluff obstacles to a low speed airstream. 3..
7. J. W. Ramsey and M. Charmchi, Variances in solar collector Heat Transfer 86, 200-202 (1964).

SE Vol. 29, No. l--D