trata de temas de termodinámica

© All Rights Reserved

24 views

trata de temas de termodinámica

© All Rights Reserved

- Free and Forced Convection
- ANSYS Fluent WB Kumpul2
- Cooling Tower Lewis Factor
- Lee & Garimella 2006 Thermally Developing Flow & Heat Transfer in Rectangular Microchannels of Different Aspect Ratios
- Untitled
- Numerical and Experimental Study on Temperature Crossover in Shell and Tube Heat Exchangers
- Natural Convection in Tubes
- CONVERSÃO
- Fire Heat Flux to Unwetted Vessels for Depressuring Calculations
- Agitating Vessel
- _Exact and Mean Beam Length Calculations for Radiative Heat Transfer in Gases
- Combined Convection and Radiation PDF
- Heat and Mass Transfer in Structured Packings
- CFD_1Rod_Rev1
- VessFire Offshore Technology White Paper
- Experiments and Modeling of Bubble Column Dehumidifier Performance
- 0085_paper_85
- Ventilation Roofs
- 1-s2.0-S0017931001003143-main
- 2005 Marias.pdf

You are on page 1of 8

com

www.elsevier.com/locate/apthermeng

Review

for building envelope energy systems’ modeling

J.A. Palyvos *

Solar Engineering Unit, School of Chemical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Greece GR-15780

Available online 15 December 2007

Abstract

The thermal losses to the ambient from a building surface or a roof mounted solar collector represent an important portion of the

overall energy balance and depend heavily on the wind induced convection. In an eﬀort to help designers make better use of the available

correlations in the literature for the external convection coeﬃcients due to the wind, a critical discussion and a suitable tabulation is

presented, on the basis of algebraic form of the coeﬃcients and their dependence upon characteristic length and wind direction, in addi-

tion to wind speed. Finally, simple average correlations are produced from the existing ones, useful for quick, gross estimates.

Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 801

2. The traditional correlation for the wind loss coefficient and its variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 802

3. Boundary layer type correlations for the wind loss coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 804

4. Correlations for the wind loss coefficient explicit in V, L, and/or the wind direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806

5. External convection algorithms used in building simulation programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806

6. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 807

incident solar radiation, depending on duct geometry,

It is well documented that the thermal losses from ambient temperature, solar energy ﬂux, and wind velocity.

external building surfaces and such solar components as A more pronounced ‘‘cover” heat loss to the ambient

collectors, chimneys, and ventilated photovoltaic arrays, was recorded in the case of a ventilated photovoltaic array,

constitute a large portion of the respective energy balance. situated close to the chimney and having the same dimen-

In support of this statement, recent calculations and mid- sions and tilt angle.

winter data regarding a tilted solar chimney mounted on Major parameter aﬀecting the usual modeling of losses

an NTUA campus building’s rooftop showed that glaz- to the ambient from such building envelope related compo-

nents is the wind convection coeﬃcient, hw, a quantity not

*

Tel.: +30 210 7723297; fax: +30 210 7723298. very well documented, improper use of which can easily

E-mail address: jpalyvos@chemeng.ntua.gr cause 20–40% errors in energy demand calculations [1].

1359-4311/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2007.12.005

802 J.A. Palyvos / Applied Thermal Engineering 28 (2008) 801–808

Nomenclature

C circumference of plate (m) Vo wind speed at standard conditions (m/s)

cp heat capacity of air (J/kg K) Vw wind speed at monitored surface (m/s)

hw forced convection coeﬃcient due to wind (W/ Vf free stream wind speed (10 m above roof) (m/s)

m2 K) w wind velocity component in z-direction (m/s)

j Colburn j-factor, dim/less (=St Pr2/3) Wf wind modiﬁer, dim/less (1 for windward, 0.5 for

k thermal conductivity of air (W/m K) leeward)

L length (m) x distance from leading edge of plate (m)

L1, L2 dimensions of plate (m) z height of monitored wall above ground (m)

LR characteristic length for Re (=4A/C) (m) z0 height at which Vf measurements are taken (m)

l length along wind direction (m)

Nu Nusselt Number, hL/k (=St Re Pr) Greek letters

Nux local Nusselt Number a angle of attack (°)

NuL average (over L) Nusselt Number a, b terrain-dependent coeﬃcients, dim/less

Pr Prandtl Number, cpl/k h wind direction (°), + east of North

Re Reynolds Number, LVq/l (=LV/m) l shear viscosity of air (N s/m2)

Rec critical Reynolds Number m kinematic viscosity of air (m2/s)

Rf surface roughness factor-multiplier q density of air (kg/m3)

St Stanton Number, h/qcpVf (=Nu/RePr) u yaw angle (°)

Ta ambient temperature (K, °C in Eq. (1))

u wind velocity component in x-direction (m/s) Subscripts

v wind velocity component in y-direction (m/s) L average over the length L

V wind speed (m/s) x local value

Compared to radiation losses, on the other hand, external wind tunnel measurements and model studies on rela-

convection losses are 3–4 times as big [2–4]. And since in tively small plates and bluﬀ bodies-obstacles (cf. [19–

many situations there has been enough skepticism toward 21]);

the ‘‘standard computational correlation” for the wind loss full-scale/ﬁeld data recordings, i.e. measurements on

coeﬃcient, namely that of Nusselt–Jürges [5], a plethora of actual building facades and roofs (cf. [22–26]).

analogous correlations have appeared in the literature in

recent years. (One of the early reviews on the subject is that Thus, the prospective designer/modeler must be aware of

of Cole and Sturrock [6].) the diversity of the available correlations and must make

A discussion of the ‘‘pros” and ‘‘cons” of using a simple sure that he has examined the speciﬁc conditions under

linear correlation such as the Nusselt–Jürges one, should be which they have been produced, before he can safely use

preceded by a rough categorization of the various expres- them. After all, there is an obvious lack of physical equiva-

sions that have been used so far. On the basis of parametric lence between easily controlled indoor experimental studies

dependence, the wind convection loss coeﬃcient for an and the hard reality of the ﬁeld. Out there, monitoring the

external ﬂat surface or bluﬀ body has appeared in the liter- wind or establishing uniform conditions for the relevant

ature as: measurements is a formidable job. It has been reported,

for example, that average wind speed measurements in the

an experimentally determined constant value, usually proximity of an external surface such as a solar collector

given on tables (cf. [7–10]); cannot have less than a ±0.5 m/s variation [27].

a very simple expression, usually linear or power law

function of the wind speed (cf. [9,11–13]); 2. The traditional correlation for the wind loss coeﬃcient and

an expression involving, in addition, a characteristic its variants

length of the surface in question, either explicitly or

implicitly, i.e. via the Reynolds Number (cf. [14–17]); In its most general form, the Nusselt–Jürges correlation

an analogous relation which also takes into account the between the wind convection coeﬃcient, hw, and the paral-

wind direction with respect to the surface (cf. [1,3,18]). lel to the surface component of the wind velocity, Vw,

which drives the convection can be written as

On the basis of the various test rigs, whose data were n

used to produce the correlations for the wind loss coeﬃ- 294:26

hw ¼ 5:678 a þ b V w 0:3048 ð1Þ

cient, there are expressions stemming from: 273:16 þ T a

J.A. Palyvos / Applied Thermal Engineering 28 (2008) 801–808 803

Table 1 Table 3

Values for the constants in Eq. (1) [28,29] Relation of the parallel component of the wind velocity to the free stream

value [22]

Vw < 4.88 m/s 4.88 6 Vw < 30.48 m/s

Windward Leeward

Surface texture a b n a b n

Vf > 2 m/s Vw = 0.25Vf Vw = 0.3 + 0.05Vf

Smooth 0.99 0.21 1 0 0.50 0.78

Rough 1.09 0.23 1 0 0.53 0.78 Vf < 2 m/s Vw = 0.5

where a, b, n are empirical constants, and Ta the ambient generated the above equations were taken on a vertical

temperature in °C. The correction in the innermost paren- square copper plate with 0.5 m sides subjected to parallel

thesis is dictated by the fact that the original correlation ﬂow of air, a situation that is hard to meet in real life.

was developed for a reference temperature of 294.26 K In order to circumvent the lack of proper values for Vw,

(21.1 °C) [28,29]. (This temperature correction is equivalent Ito et al. [22] tried to correlate this parallel to the surface

to a density correction, which is necessary since the mass component with the free stream velocity, Vf, introducing,

velocity rather than the linear velocity is more appropriate at the same time, gross wind direction, i.e. diﬀerentiat-

for the description of forced convection [30]). The three ing the results for windward1 and leeward conditions (cf.

constants in Eq. (1), which take values that depend on Table 3). This procedure, which at the time was also

the external surface texture and the wind speed, are listed adopted by ASHRAE [37], allows the use of a single corre-

in Table 1, giving hw in SI units. lation for the convection component of the outside heat

Actually, the original 1922 global correlation of Nus- transfer coeﬃcient for either direction, namely

selt–Jürges [5] based on their copper plate data, if written

hw ¼ 18:63V 0:605

w ð5Þ

for SI units would have the form

hw ¼ 7:13V 0:78 0:6V w This power law equation (which, aside from the S.I. units,

w þ 5:35e ð2Þ

was actually derived by Kimura on the basis of earlier data

that is, it includes a decay term. This equation was special- of his Japanese group [37, p. 78]), as well as the linear Eqs.

ized two years later by Jürges [31] for three types of sur- (3) and (4) have been adopted as algebraic forms by most

faces (cf. Table 2). However, it was the original authors researchers for their own data ﬁtting procedures. An exten-

who ﬁrst suggested that, for practical calculations, it is suf- sive but not exhaustive tabulation of such equations are gi-

ﬁcient to use a linear interpolation formula for wind speeds ven in Tables 4 and 5.

up to 5 m/s and to ignore the second term for higher speeds It turned out that in many cases the linear regression

[5]. In SI units, the proposed original linear equation would equations were equally eﬀective in ﬁtting the experimental

be data, even though fundamental heat transfer theory pre-

hw ¼ 5:8 þ 3:95V w ð3Þ dicts a power relation between convective coeﬃcient and

wind speed. On the basis of data generated by thirty such

having constants which are very close to the values used in linear correlations listed in Table 4 for windward surfaces,

recent years on the basis of the McAdams [28] recast of Eq. a purely empirical ‘‘average” correlation of this simple but

(1), which for smooth surfaces is convenient form can be derived, namely

hw ¼ 5:7 þ 3:8V w ð4Þ

hw ¼ 7:4 þ 4:0V f ðwindwardÞ ð6Þ

This last and much quoted correlation has been widely

used in modeling, simulations, and relevant calculations In the wind velocity range 0–4.5 m/s, the maximum devia-

(cf. [32–34]), in spite of its shortcomings. It has been ar- tions of the individual windward equations’ predictions

gued, for example, that this dimensional equation includes from those of Eq. (6) average to 18%. A similar ‘‘average”

radiation loss in addition to convection [35], and that the correlation can be derived for leeward surfaces, using the

average-across the surface-wind speed as well as its direc- remaining six correlations of Table 4

tion must be considered [36]. Moreover, the data which

hw ¼ 4:2 þ 3:5V f ðleewardÞ ð7Þ

Values for the constants in Eq. (1) based on the original correlations of of the individual leeward equations’ predictions from those

Jürges [31], ignoring the decay terma

of Eq. (7) average to 22%.

Vw < 4.88 m/s 4.88 6 Vw < 30.48 m/s It should be noted at this point that many of the individ-

Surface texture a b n a b n ual correlations listed in Tables 4 and 5 use constants with

Hydraulically smooth 0.973 0.214 1 0 0.499 0.775

Rolled 1.005 0.214 1 0 0.497 0.780

Very rough 1.087 0.226 1 0 0.522 0.784 1

A surface or data are classiﬁed as windward if the angle of incidence

a 0.6 V

The decay term is ae , where a takes the values 5.12, 5.35, and 5.84 between the normal to the monitored surface and the wind direction is less

for the three surface types, respectively. than ±90° and leeward for all other directions [23].

804 J.A. Palyvos / Applied Thermal Engineering 28 (2008) 801–808

Table 4

Linear equation form for the wind convection coeﬃcient (W/m2 K): hw = a + bV

a b Comments References

5.8 3.95 Wind tunnel measurement (WTM), plate, parallel ﬂow, Vw < 5 m/s [5]

5.7 3.8 WTM, plate, parallel ﬂow, Vw < 5 m/s, smooth surfaceb [28]

6.2 4.3 WTM, plate, parallel ﬂow, Vw < 5 m/s, rough surface [4]

6.05 4.08 WTM, vertical plate, rough surface, V 6 5 m/s [30]

5.82 4.02 WTM, vertical plate, rolled surface, V 6 5 m/s [30]

7.82 3.50 Very smooth surface, no speed limit [39]

8.9 3.71 Smooth wood, plaster, no speed limit [39]

10.7 4.96 Cast concrete and smooth brick, no speed limit [39]

23 5.7 WTM, exposed face of a 23 cm cube for the range 3–10 m/s [6]

11.4 5.7 Nocturnal ﬁeld measurements (NFM) on heated strips, exposed surface [6]

5.7 6.0 NFM on heated strips, normal surface [40]

0 5.7 NFM on heated strips, leeward facing surfaces [6]

5.8 2.9 NFM, wall, Vf > 3 m/s, windward (if leeward and Vf > 4 m/s, hw = 13 W/m2 K) [22]

8.7 9.4 NFM, Vw > 4 m/s, leeward, h independent of wind direction [22]

2.8 3.0 Vw, revised Ref. [5] data to exclude radiation and free convection contribution [35]

6.22 1.824 Kimura’s ‘‘4th ﬂoor model”, ﬁeld measurement (FM) on window, windward surface [41]

6.22 0.4864 Kimura’s ‘‘4th ﬂoor model”, FM on window, leeward surface [41]

7.55 4.35 NFM in a Canadian Arctic location, window, Vf rooftop speed [42]

5.8 4.1 Based on Ref. [5] data, Vw (for roofs design V’s are 1, 3, and 9 m/s) [43]

4.5 2.9 Smooth surfaces (glass, paint) at ordinary temperatures (rough: 50% higher) [11]

8.55 2.56 Rectangular plate exposed to varying wind directions, Vbar sqrt(u2 + v2 + w2) [44]

0.036 2.2 Laboratory measurements, inclined and yawed real collector, Vw, leeward [3]

5.1 1.7 FM on facßade of tall building, Vw = f1(Vf) = 1.8Vf + 0.2 windward [23]

5.1 1.7 FM on facßade of tall building, Vw = f2(Vf) = 0.2Vf + 1.7 leeward [23]

7.0 2.1 Flat plate PV module, experimental, 1.0 < Vw < 1.5 m/s, 0° < Ta < 35 ° [65]

6.47 6.806 ASHRAE/DOE-2 model, rough surfacesa – excluding radiation [45]

4.955 1.444 Daytime FM on central region of vertical wall, Vf, plate shielded from sun [13]

8.91 2.00 FM on plane, smooth facßade test surface, Vf (Vw = 0.68Vf 0.5), windward [24]

4.93 1.77 FM on plane, smooth facßade test surface, Vf (Vw = 0.68Vf 0.5), leeward [24]

10.03 4.687 Indoor laboratory measurements on box-type solar cooker [12]

12.2 6.548 Indoor laboratory measurements on basin-type solar still [12]

8.3 2.2 FM, collector mimic on 35° pitched roof, Vf, incidence angle i = 0° [46]

6.5 3.3 FM, collector mimic on 35° pitched roof, Vf, incidence angle i = 90° [46]

6.42 3.96 Multipoint FM, V = sqrt(avg(u2 + v2 + w2)), developed turbulent boundary layer on horizontal roof [26]

4.47 10.21 Multipoint FM, V = sqrt(avg(u2 + v2 + w2)), on vertical wall [26]

4.214 3.575 Collector glass cover [9]

5.82 4.07 Based on photovoltaic systems’ analysis [67]

5.5 2.2 Outdoor measurements on PV modules without considering wind direction [68]

a

For smooth surfaces hw = 3.12 + 3.83V 0.047 V2 – excluding the constant 5.11 W/m2 K radiation contribution. A recent similar equation is

hw = 12.667 + 1.5946V + 0.0041V2 [63].

b

ASHRAE proposes a = 5.62, b = 3.9 ([60], p. 3.14). Another variant is a = 5.67, b = 3.86 [64].

more signiﬁcant ﬁgures than one would expect to obtain j-factor, expressing the analogy between (sublimation)

during a wind speed measurement in the ﬁeld. Also, small mass transfer and (convection) heat transfer. Using the rel-

diﬀerences in the values of the constants in the Nusselt–Jür- evant deﬁnitions, j = St Pr1/3, and St ¼ qcphV f ¼ RePr

Nu

, where

ges equations, as reported by various authors, could be the St is the Stanton Number, Pr the Prandtl Number, q the

result of units-conversion errors which probably have been density, and cp the heat capacity of air, respectively, the

propagated over the years by indirect referencing. average Nusselt number, NuL , on an inclined rectangular

plate subject to an oncoming airﬂow can be written as

3. Boundary layer type correlations for the wind loss NuL ¼ 0:86Re1=2 Pr1=3 ð20:000 < Re < 90:000Þ ð8Þ

coeﬃcient

In this correlation, and in similar ones involving square

Thermal boundary layer theory has led to correlations plates or plates with stabilizing extensions (cf. Table 6),

for hw or, equivalently, for the Nusselt Number, Nu, which the characteristic length for Re is LR = 4A/C, where A is

implicitly involve a characteristic length via the Reynolds the plate area and C its circumference. If the plate is rect-

Number, Re, which also appears in the correlations. In a angular, with sides L1 and L2, then

series of wind tunnel experiments on naphthalene plates,

Sparrow and his group [18,19,15,38] have produced corre- 2L1 L2

LR ¼ ð9Þ

lations of the form j = aReb, where j is the familiar Colburn L1 þ L2

J.A. Palyvos / Applied Thermal Engineering 28 (2008) 801–808 805

Table 5

Power law form for the wind convection coeﬃcient (W/m2 K): hw = a + bVn

a b n Comments References

a

0 7.13 0.78 Wind tunnel measurement (WTM), plate, parallel ﬂow, 5 < Vw < 24 m/s [5]

0 7.11 0.775 WTM, plate, parallel ﬂow, hydraulically smooth surface, 5 < Vw < 24 m/s [31]

0 7.52 0.784 WTM, plate, parallel ﬂow, very rough surface, 5 < Vw < 24 m/s [31]

0 7.2 0.78 Recast of data in [5,31], V > 5 m/s, smooth surface [28]

0 7.6 0.78 Recast of data in [5,31], V > 5 m/s, rough surface [28]

0 6.97 0.666 WTM, ﬂat plate, measurement on the rear [47]

0 6.60 0.6 Vertical surface behind wedge-separated subsonic ﬂow [48]

0 18.65 0.605 Field measurements (FM), Vw–Kimura’s ‘‘6th ﬂoor model”b [37]

0.685 11.8 0.5 WTM, small (0.16 m) collector mimic [49]

0 2.38 0.89 FM, window, low-rise building, forced convection only, windward (MoWiTT)c [45]

0 2.86 0.617 FM, window, low-rise building, forced convection only, leeward (MoWiTT)c [45]

0 16.15 0.397 FM, ﬂat vertical panel, windward, Vw = f(Vf) = 0.68Vf 0.5 and 0.2Vf 0.1 [24]

0 16.25 0.503 FM, ﬂat vertical panel, Leeward, Vw = f(Vf) = 0.157Vf 0.027 [24]

0 16.21 0.452 FM avg correlation for combined windward and leeward conditions [24]

0 14.82 0.42 FM on a 6th ﬂoor vertical surface in 200 mm recess, windwardd [50]

0 15.06 0.53 FM on a 6th ﬂoor vertical surface in 200 mm recess, leewardd [50]

0 9.4 0.5 FM, collector mimic on 35° pitched roof, Vf [46]

18.192 0.0378Tav 0.8 External coeﬃcient in large commercial ducts, Tav = (Tduct,surf + Texterior)/2 [66]

Note. Ref. [69] examines convective cooling of photovoltaics.

a

ASHRAE proposes b = 7.2 for 5 6 Vw 6 30 ([60], p. 3.14).

b

Vw = 0.25Vf for Vf > 2 m/s, Vw = 0.5 for Vf 6 2 m/s (windward) and Vw = 0.3 + 0.05Vf (leeward) [45].

c

Same for DOE-2 with an additional multiplier for rough surfaces, Rf.

d

Also: correlations for 4 more depths and alternate correlations involving Vf instead of Vw.

Table 6

Boundary layer equation form for the wind convection coeﬃcient (W/m2K): Nu = a RebPrc + d

a b c d Comments References

0.10 0.666 0 0 Wind tunnel measurement (WTM), vertical plate, windward [47]

0.20 0.666 0 0 WTM, vertical plate, leeward [47]

0.42 0.6 0 0 WTM, considers house as equivalent sphere [14]

0.931 0.5 0.333 0 WTM, global correlation for inclined (attack) and yawed square plate [18]

0.86 0.5 0.333 0 WTM, global correlation for inclined rectangular plate of ﬁnite width [19]

0.930 0.5 0.333 0 WTM, global correlation for pitch and yaw-square plate [38]

0.86 0.5 0.333 0 WTM, global correlation for collector with extension surfacesa [15]

0.0253 0.8 0 3 WTM, local Nu equation for mixed (lam. and turbulent) ﬂow over a ﬂat plate [20]

0.036 0.8 0.333 f1(Pr)b Laboratory, avg Nu on inclined and yawed real collector, with L = L(L1, L2, u)e [3]

0.032 0.8 0 84.5 Laboratory, avg Nu on inclined and yawed real collector (Pr = 0.706) [3]

1.23 0.5 0.333 0 WTM, plate ﬂush on wooden roof model, angle of attack a < 40° [51]

0.90 0.5 0.333 0 WTM, plate ﬂush on wooden roof model, angle of attack a P 40° [51]

0.568 0.524 0 0 WTM, ﬂat-plate model collector ﬂush on 30° roof of model house [52]

1.067 0.466 0 0 WTM, ﬂat-plate model collector ﬂush on 45° roof of model house [52]

f2(Re, Pr)c 0.8 1 0 Nu for parallel to plate ﬂow, turbulent boundary layer [9]

0.023 0.891 0 0 Multipoint ﬁeld measurement (FM), Re = (l/m)sqrt(avg(u2 + v2 + w2)), developed turbulent [26]

boundary layer on horizontal roof

0.0296Rf 0.8 0.333 0 FM, local Nu for horizontal roof, turbulent ﬂow – Rf surface roughness multiplier [25]

0.037Rf 0.8 0.333 0 FM, avg Nu, horizontal strip of length L, turbulent ﬂow, DT = 0, L > xc 0 [25]

0.664Rf 0.5 0.333 0 FM, avg Nu, horizontal strip of length L, turbulent ﬂow, DT < 0, L > xc = 5 105l/(qVf) [25]

0.037Rf 0.8 0.333 f3(Pr)d FM, avg Nu, horizontal strip of length L, turbulent ﬂow, DT < 0, L P xc = 5 105l/(qVf) [25]

a

The hydrodynamic dimensions are used for the characteristic length in Re.

b

f1(Pr) = 95.0Pr1/3.

c

f2(Re, Pr) = 0.037/(1 + 2.443Re0.1(Pr2/3 1).

d

f3(Pr) = 871RfPr1/3.

e

The characteristic length is L = L1L2/(L1 cos u + L2 sin u), with L1, L2 the collector side lengths and u the yaw angle.

The choice of such a length was dictated by the intuitive Another experimental series involving a real (albeit half-

involvement of the surface area of the plate, and the very size) solar collector under controlled environmental condi-

high transfer rates observed at the edges, thus bringing also tions in the laboratory [3], produced a slightly diﬀerent cor-

the circumference into the picture [19]. Eq. (9) is nothing relation for the average Nusselt Number, namely,

more than the simplest combination which yields a length 4=5

dimension. NuL ¼ 0:036ReL Pr1=3 95Pr1=3 ð10Þ

806 J.A. Palyvos / Applied Thermal Engineering 28 (2008) 801–808

The critical Reynolds Number was estimated at 70,000, evaluation of the thermo-physical properties which partic-

implying an early development of turbulence which can ipate in the Reynolds and Prandtl Numbers, for speciﬁc

be explained by the obvious lack of a sharp leading edge temperatures, although the latter are not always reported

on the collector. As the latter was both inclined and yawed (cf. [17]). They have the general form hw = aVb/Lc, that

with respect to the on-coming air, the appropriate charac- is, they include a decay of the wind convection coeﬃcient

teristic length for Re was along the surface in the direction of the wind. For example,

L1 L2 the fully turbulent ﬂow convective coeﬃcient can be writ-

L¼ ðu < 90 Þ ð11Þ ten as

L1 cos / þ L2 sin /

hw ¼ 5:74V 4=5 L1=5 ð13Þ

with a similar equation for yaw angles, u, greater than 90°

[3]. It turned out, however, that, as in the case of Sparrow’s for a ﬂat surface such as a solar collector [17]. If the latter is

yawed plate [18], the inﬂuence of the yaw angle was small, ﬂush-mounted on the (inclined) roof of a house, then

over the entire range of u’s tried (0, 90, 135, and 180°), but

8:6V 0:6

not insigniﬁcant. The relevant reduction of hw with u was hw ¼ max 5; 0:4 ð14Þ

in the range 5–15% [3]. On the other hand, the wind direc- L

tion has also been found not to have a signiﬁcant eﬀect in where L is the cube root of the house volume in meters [32,

the case of large walls [13]. p. 166]. The constant 5 in this last relation represents the

Table 6 includes additional boundary layer type correla- minimal hw value which is observed in solar collectors un-

tions. Among them, is the following equation for the local der zero wind.

Nusselt Number, Nux, The rest of the correlations in Table 7 are explicit only in

Nux ¼ 0:037Rf Re4=5 Pr1=3 871Rf Pr1=3 ð12Þ V, having the form hw = aVb, i.e. without the decay factor.

Each one is given for either wall surfaces or roofs of low-

in which x denotes distance from the leading edge and Rf is rise isolated buildings, and for a particular wind direction.

a surface roughness dependent convection multiplier, As an example, for a ±45° surface-to-wind angle the rele-

assuming values in the range 1.00 < Rf < 2.10. (The similar- vant equation for walls is

ity between Eqs. (10) and (12) is worth noting.) The same

hw ¼ 3:34V 0:84

f ð15Þ

authors also give relations involving explicitly the wind

incidence angle, h, for the forced convection heat transfer according to recent CFD calculations [1].

coeﬃcient averaged over rectangular roof strips [25].

5. External convection algorithms used in building simulation

4. Correlations for the wind loss coeﬃcient explicit in V, L, programs

and/or the wind direction

In view of the lack of a universally acceptable wind con-

A number of correlations for hw, explicit in V and L are vection coeﬃcient or correlation (as clearly demonstrated

also listed in Table 7. Some of them have been the result of by the large, yet non-exhaustive, compilations of Tables

Table 7

Explicit in V, L form for the wind convection coeﬃcient (W/m2 K): hw = aVbLc

a b c Comments References

8.6 0.6 0.4 Convection over buildings, L = cube root of building volume [14]

5.79 0.8 0.2 Single ﬂat-plate PV panel, Vw P 0.3 m/s, L = ‘geometric scale’ [65]

2.537WfRfa 0.5 0.5 BLAST model: V = Vaz, wind speed modiﬁed for height zb [16]

2.537WfRfa 0.5 0.5 TARP model:V = Vaz, wind speed modiﬁed for height zc [16]

5.74 0.8 0.2 Fully turbulent ﬂow over horizontal, constant temperature surface [17]

5.1 0.5 0.5 Field measurements (FM), plates, global, 313 K mean plate-air temperature [46]

11.42 0.891 0.109 FM, local h, V = sqrt(avg(u2 + v2 + w2)), both for horizontal and vertical enveloped [26]

5.15 0.81 0 FM, walls of isolated, low-rise building, 0° angle of attacke [1]

3.34 0.84 0 FM, walls of isolated, low-rise building, ±45° angle of attacke [1]

4.78 0.71 0 FM, walls of isolated, low-rise building, ±90° angle of attacke [1]

4.05 0.77 0 FM, walls of isolated, low-rise building, ±135° angle of attacke [1]

3.54 0.76 0 FM, walls of isolated, low-rise building, ±180° angle of attacke [1]

5.11 0.78 0 FM, roof of isolated, low-rise building, 0° angle of attacke [1]

4.60 0.79 0 FM, roof of isolated, low-rise building, ±45° angle of attacke [1]

3.67 0.85 0 FM, roof of isolated, low-rise building, ±90° angle of attacke [1]

a

Wf = wind modiﬁer (1 for windward surfaces, 0.5 for leeward ones), Rf = surface roughness multiplier, L = (surface area/perimeter).

b

Vaz = V0(z/z0)1/a (z0 = 9.14, a is a terrain-dependent coeﬃcient).

c

Vaz = V0b(z/z0)a (a, b are terrain-dependent coeﬃcients).

d

Pr has been evaluated at 293 K.

e

DT = surface-to-air temperature diﬀerence = 10 K, wind speed 1–5 m/s.

J.A. Palyvos / Applied Thermal Engineering 28 (2008) 801–808 807

4–7), users of large building energy simulation programs a quick gross estimate, one can always use the average

such as EnergyPlus [53], TRNSYS [54], and ESP-r [55], simple correlations proposed in this work, i.e. Eqs. (6)

should be able to choose the most suitable form oﬀered and (7).

by the respective program. In fact, they should be also In view of the above, the expressions from the literature

given the option to supply ‘‘their own” model, as the cor- which are listed in Tables 4–7 should prove useful, pro-

relations for the external convection coeﬃcient adopted vided the reader has access to the original works cited

by such programs are not standardized [56]. therein in order to assess the respective applicability to

EnergyPlus, for example, oﬀers six ‘‘outside convection his/her own problem at hand. However, the obvious lack

algorithms: a simple second degree polynomial in Vw pro- of generality of the existing wind convection coeﬃcient cor-

posed by ASHRAE [8] (which, however, includes a con- relations presents a challenge for future research. More

stant radiation component of about 5 W/m2 K), the more realism is needed, i.e. ﬁeld rather than laboratory measure-

detailed algorithm of Sparrow et al. [19] as well as similar ments, as well as some sort of standardization in the choice

expressions in the BLAST and TARP programs [16] and, of such things as the wind velocity sensors or the measure-

ﬁnally, the MoWiTT and the DOE-2 models [45]. The ment topology, e.g. height above ground and/or distance

MoWiTT algorithm oﬀers a reasonable balance between from the facßade wall or roof, etc. In this way, a much smal-

accuracy and ease of use [57] while the DOE-2 model is a ler set of well proven and generally accepted correlations

combination of the MoWiTT and BLAST algorithms may emerge, which will greatly help the designer/modeler.

(see Tables 4, 5 and 7 for the respective expressions).

Most of the relevant components in TRNSYS, on the References

other hand, ask the user to supply the heat transfer coeﬃ-

cient (although the linear form of Eq. (4) is built in, for [1] M.G. Emmel, M.O. Abadie, N. Mendes, New external convective

example, in the Type 19 subroutine). The most popular heat transfer coeﬃcient correlations for isolated low-rise buildings,

algorithm used for the external convective coeﬃcient is Energ. Build. 39 (2007) 335–342.

the quadratic polynomial in Vw [58,59], whose constant [2] P.I. Cooper, The eﬀect of inclination on the heat loss from ﬂat-plate

solar collectors, Solar Energy 27 (5) (1981) 413–420.

coeﬃcients are tabulated for six types of surface texture [3] G. Thomaidis, J.A. Palyvos, N.G. Koumoutsos, The inﬂuence of the

[60]. wind on the eﬃciency of the ﬂat-plate solar collector, in: Proceedings

Finally, external convection in ESP-r is modeled via of the 1st National Conference on ‘‘Soft Energies”, Institute of Solar

time varying wind driven convection coeﬃcients, calculated Engineering, Salonica, Greece, 20–22 October, 1982, HEX, pp.1–15

(in Greek).

with a choice of two diﬀerent correlations: a simple linear

[4] M.G. Davies, Build. Heat Transfer, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.,

one (cf. [35]), with suitable amendment of the velocity value Chichester, England, 2004, § 5.7.

on the basis of surface orientation and wind direction rela- [5] W. Nusselt, W. Jürges, Die Kühlung einer ebenen Wand durch einen

tive to the surface [61], and the MoWiTT model [45]. (The Luftstrom (The cooling of a plane wall by an air ﬂow), Gesundheits

ESP-r repertoire, however, is much more ﬂexible when it Ingenieur 52. Heft, 45. Jahrgang, (30 Dezember 1922) pp. 641–642.

comes to internal building surfaces, for which it oﬀers an [6] R.J. Cole, N.S. Sturrock, The convective heat exchange at the

external surface of buildings, Build. Environ. 12 (4) (1977) 207–214.

option of ﬁve empirical correlations and ﬁxed values for [7] ASHRAE, Cooling and heating load calculation manual, GRP 158,

the internal convection coeﬃcient [62]). ASHRAE, New York, second printing 1979, p. 3.12.

[8] ASHRAE, Handbook of Fundamentals, Atlanta, GA, USA, 1993.

6. Conclusions [9] U. Eicker, Solar Technologies for Buildings, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.,

Chichester, England, 2003, § 3.1.10.4.

[10] P. Konttinen, T. Carlsson, P. Lund, T. Lehtinen, Estimating thermal

Since the importance of the external convection coeﬃ- stress in BIPV modules, Int. J. Energ. Res. 30 (2006) 1264–1277.

cient due to the wind in, practically, all the energy calcula- [11] P.J. Lunde, Solar Thermal Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, New

tions involving the building envelope has been well York, USA, 1980, p. 17.

documented, the prospective designer/modeler must be [12] S. Kumar, V.B. Sharma, T.C. Kandpal, S.C. Mullick, Wind induced

heat losses from outer cover of solar collectors, Renew. Energ. 10 (4)

extra careful when seeking a correlation for hw to suit

(1997) 613–616.

his/her needs. This is also true when one uses the major [13] S.E.G. Jayamaha, N.E. Wijeysundera, S.K. Chou, Measurement of

building energy analysis programs, which accept user sup- the heat transfer coeﬃcient for walls, Build. Environ. 31 (5) (1996)

plied correlations and constant values for hw or oﬀer a 399–407.

menu of such correlations. [14] J.W. Mitchell, Heat transfer from spheres and other animal forms,

Being aware of the diversity of the available expressions, Biophys. J. 16 (1976) 561.

[15] E.M. Sparrow, S.C. Lau, Eﬀect of adiabatic co-planar extension

some of which are the result of laboratory tests while others surfaces on wind-related solar-collector heat transfer coeﬃcients,

stem from actual ﬁeld measurements, one must make sure Trans. ASME J. Heat Transfer 103 (1981) 268–271.

that he/she has fully examined the speciﬁc conditions under [16] T.M. McClellan, C.O. Pedersen, ASHRAE Trans. 103 (2) (1997) 469–

which they have been produced, before he/she can safely 484.

[17] E. Sartori, Convection coeﬃcient equations for forced air ﬂow over

use any one of them. Moreover, the understandable lack

ﬂat surfaces, Solar Energy 80 (2006) 1063–1071.

of physical equivalence between certain experimental stud- [18] E.M. Sparrow, K.K. Tien, Forced convection heat transfer at an

ies and the reality of the ﬁeld, should help in narrowing inclined and yawed square plate – application to solar collectors,

down the options. If, on the other hand, one merely seeks Trans. ASME J. Heat Transfer 99 (1977) 507–512.

808 J.A. Palyvos / Applied Thermal Engineering 28 (2008) 801–808

[19] E.M. Sparrow, J.W. Ramsey, E.A. Mass, Eﬀect of ﬁnite width on [45] M. Yazdanian, J.H. Klems, Measurement of the exterior convective

heat transfer and ﬂuid ﬂow about an inclined rectangular plate, ﬁlm coeﬃcient for windows in low-rise buildings, ASHRAE Trans.

Trans. ASME J. Heat Transfer 101 (1979) 199–204. 100 (1) (1994) 1087–1096.

[20] X.A. Wang, An experimental study of mixed, forced, and free [46] S. Sharples, P.S. Charlesworth, Full-scale measurements of wind-

convection heat transfer from a horizontal ﬂat plate to air, Trans. induced convective heat transfer from a roof-mounted ﬂat plate solar

ASME J. Heat Transfer 104 (1982) 139–144. collector, Solar Energy 62 (1998) 69–78.

[21] J.L. Francey, J. Papaioannou, Wind-related heat losses of a ﬂat-plate [47] H.H. Sogin, A summary of experiments on local heat transfer from

collector, Solar Energy 35 (1985) 15–19. the rear of bluﬀ obstacles to a low speed airstream, Trans. ASME J.

[22] N. Ito, K. Kimura, J. Oka, A ﬁeld experiment study on the convective Heat Transfer (1964) 200–202.

heat transfer coeﬃcient on exterior surface of a building, ASHRAE [48] J.W. Mitchell, Base heat transfer in two-dimensional subsonic fully

Trans. 78 (1972) 184–191. separated ﬂows, Trans. ASME J. Heat Transfer (1971)

[23] S. Sharples, Full-scale measurements of convective energy losses from 342–348.

exterior building surfaces, Build. Environ. 19 (1984) 31–39. [49] N. Onur, J.C. Hewitt Jr., A study of wind eﬀects on collector

[24] D.L. Loveday, A.H. Taki, Convective heat transfer coeﬃcients at a performance, in: Proceedings of the ASME Solar Energy Division,

plane surface on a full-scale building facade, Int. J. Heat Mass Century 2 Solar Energy Conference, San Francisco, CA, August 19–

Transfer 39 (8) (1996) 1729–1742. 21, 1980.

[25] R.D. Clear, L. Gartland, F.C. Winkelmann, An empirical correlation [50] A.H. Taki, D.L. Loveday, External convection coeﬃcients for framed

for the outside convective air-ﬁlm coeﬃcient for horizontal roofs, rectangular elements on building facades, Energ. Build. 24 (1996)

Energ. Build. 35 (2003) 797–811. 147–154.

[26] A. Hagishima, J. Tanimoto, Field measurements for estimating the [51] S. Shakerin, Wind-related heat transfer coeﬃcient for ﬂat-plate

convective heat transfer coeﬃcient at building surfaces, Build. solar collectors, Trans. ASME J. Solar Energy Eng. 109 (1987)

Environ. 38 (7) (2003) 873–881. 108–110.

[27] G.L. Morrison, D. Gilliaert, Unglazed solar collector performance [52] N. Onur, Forced convection heat transfer from a ﬂat-plate model

characteristics, Trans. ASME J. Solar Energy Eng. 114 (1992) 194–200. collector on roof of a model house, Wärme und Stoﬀübertragung 28

[28] W.H. McAdams, Heat Transmission, third ed., McGraw-Hill (1993) 141–145.

Kogakusha, Tokyo, Japan, 1954, p. 249. [53] http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/.

[29] J.A. Clarke, Energy Simulation in Building Design, second ed., [54] http://sel.me.wisc.edu/trnsys/.

Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, England, 2001, § 7.6.2. [55] http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/Programs/ESP-r.htm.

[30] A. Schaak, Industrial Heat Transfer, Chapman & Hall, London, [56] S.J. Rees, D. Xiao, J.D. Spitler, An analytical veriﬁcation test suite

1965. for building fabric models in whole building energy simulation

[31] W. Jürges, Der Wärmeübergang an einer ebenen Wand (Heat transfer programs, ASHRAE Trans. 108 (1) (2002) 30–42.

at a plane wall), Beiheft Nr. 19 zum ‘‘Gesundh.- Ing.” (1924), [57] F.C. McQuiton, J.D. Parker, J.D. Spitler, Heating, Ventilating, and

appearing in Gesundheits-Ingenieur 9. Heft, 48. Jahrg., 1925, p. 105. Air Conditioning, Analysis and Design, ﬁfth ed., John Wiley & Sons

[32] J.A. Duﬃe, W.A. Beckman, Solar Energy Thermal Processes, third Inc., New York, 2000, p. 226.

ed., John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006, § 3.15. [58] D. Bradley, TRNSYS engineer, private communication.

[33] D.Y. Goswami, F. Kreith, J.F. Kreider, Principles of Solar Engi- [59] J.S. Coventry, in: Proceedings of the 40th ANZSES Solar Energy

neering, second ed., Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia, PA, USA, Conference, 2002.

2000, p. 98. [60] ASHRAE, Handbook of Fundamentals, SI Edition, Atlanta, GA,

[34] G.N. Tiwari, Solar Energy-Fundamentals, Design, Modeling and USA, 1997.

Applications, Alpha Science International Ltd., Pangbourne, UK, [61] http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/Programs/ESP-r_CodeDoc/esrubld/

2002, p. 74. convect2.F.html.

[35] J.H. Watmuﬀ, W.W.S. Charters, D. Proctor, Solar and wind induced [62] ESP-r Ver. 9, Data Model Summary, § 5.6, ESRU, University of

external coeﬃcients for solar collectors, Comples. Int. Rev. d’Hellio Strathclyde, 2001.

Tech. 2 (1977) 56. [63] L. Zhang et al., Research on system identiﬁcation of wall surface heat

[36] M.V. Oliphant, Measurement of wind speed distributions across a transfer processes, Exp. Heat Transfer 15 (2002) 31–47.

solar collector, Solar Energy 24 (1980) 403–405. [64] C. Cristofari et al., Thermal modeling of a photovoltaic module, in:

[37] ASHRAE Task Group, Procedure for determining heating and cooling Proceedings of the 6th IASTED International Conference Modeling,

loads for computerizing energy calculations. Algorithms for building Simulation, and Optimization, September 11–13, 2006, Gaborone

heat transfer subroutines, ASHRAE, New York, 1975, pp. 76–78. Botswana, pp. 273–278.

[38] K.K. Tien, E.M. Sparrow, Local heat transfer and ﬂuid ﬂow [65] T. Schott, Operation temperatures of PV modules, in: W. Palz, F.C.

characteristics for airﬂow oblique or normal to a square plate, Int. Treble (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th E.C. PV Solar Energy

J. Heat Mass Transfer 22 (1979) 349–360. Conference, London, 15–19 April 1985, D. Reidel Publ. Co., 1985,

[39] B. Jennings, Environmental Engineering, International Textbook pp. 392–396.

Company, 1970. [66] C. Wray, Duct thermal performance models for large commercial

[40] N.S. Sturrock, Localized boundary layer heat transfer from external buildings, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report, LBNL-

building surfaces, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Liverpool, 1971. 53410, 2003.

[41] K. Kimura, Scientiﬁc Basis of Air Conditioning, Applied Science [67] P. Nolay, Developpement d’une methode generale d’analyse des

Publishers Ltd., London, England, 1977. systemes photovoltaıques. MS Thesis, Ecole des Mines, Sophia-

[42] K. Nicol, The energy balance of an exterior window surface, Inuvik, Antipolis, France, 1987.

N.W.T., Canada, Build. Environ. 12 (1977) 215–219. [68] K. Furushima, Y. Nawata, M. Sadatomi, Prediction of photovoltaic

[43] CIBS, Chartered Institute of Building Services Guide Book A, Section (PV) power output considering weather eﬀects, in: Proceedings of the

A3, CIBS, London, 1979. SOLAR 2006 – Renewable Energy, Key to Climate Recovery, July 7–

[44] F.L. Test, R.C. Lessmann, A. Johary, Heat transfer during wind ﬂow 13 2006, Denver, Colorado, USA.

over rectangular bodies in the natural environment, Trans. ASME J. [69] L. Wen, Investigation of the eﬀect of wind cooling on photovoltaic

Heat Transfer 103 (1981) 262–267. arrays, Report DOE/JPL-1012-69, 1982.

- Free and Forced ConvectionUploaded byRenewable Energy Engi
- ANSYS Fluent WB Kumpul2Uploaded byTri Joko Sampurno
- Cooling Tower Lewis FactorUploaded byshivajireturns
- Lee & Garimella 2006 Thermally Developing Flow & Heat Transfer in Rectangular Microchannels of Different Aspect RatiosUploaded byChong Jen Haw
- UntitledUploaded byanilpagar
- Numerical and Experimental Study on Temperature Crossover in Shell and Tube Heat ExchangersUploaded byRisto Filkoski
- Natural Convection in TubesUploaded by130quinteros
- CONVERSÃOUploaded byAdriano Freitas Lima
- Fire Heat Flux to Unwetted Vessels for Depressuring CalculationsUploaded byuetian729
- Agitating VesselUploaded bydigeca
- _Exact and Mean Beam Length Calculations for Radiative Heat Transfer in GasesUploaded byquercitron_7
- Combined Convection and Radiation PDFUploaded byAlexis
- Heat and Mass Transfer in Structured PackingsUploaded byVictor Vazquez
- CFD_1Rod_Rev1Uploaded byAbuFF813
- VessFire Offshore Technology White PaperUploaded byMahesh
- Experiments and Modeling of Bubble Column Dehumidifier PerformanceUploaded byAl-Kawthari As-Sunni
- 0085_paper_85Uploaded byRajendra Kumar Gupta
- Ventilation RoofsUploaded byCristiane Dacanal
- 1-s2.0-S0017931001003143-mainUploaded byvilasap
- 2005 Marias.pdfUploaded bymehdi
- 4238434 1st Cold Exchanger, 10-E-5005Uploaded byHoàng Minh Ái
- HMTUploaded bySuthan R
- 1-s2.0-S0017931083801574-mainUploaded bykov709324
- IJMET_10_01_051Uploaded byIAEME PUBLICATION
- DATA Homework Chapter 6Uploaded byAhmedOM
- Heat Transfer in Flow Past ObjectsUploaded byRosalyne Artho-Phan
- Chapter 11Uploaded byephrem
- simulacionUploaded byJhon Castillo
- 36036666Uploaded bythanis
- 1952 Isopods in the SunUploaded byMichael Konezna

- Homework 7Uploaded byAhmad Khoory
- The Effect of Anti-reﬂection Coating of Porous Silicon on Solar Cells EfﬁciencyUploaded byhanderson_chris
- Chemo-mechanical Coupling Behaviour of Leached Concrete-part1 Experimental ResultsUploaded bycasanovavn
- Ion Exchange newUploaded byAmalVijay
- Reversible control of interface-water induced carrier density in graphene-on-SiO2 by thermal cycling under gate-voltageUploaded byAei OU
- chapter 6 formal report rewriteUploaded byapi-253424201
- Astm d6730 AppUploaded byRuồi Sữa
- Experiment 2.docxUploaded byFully Yours
- Elmer TutorialsUploaded byjepetrovic
- 1-s2.0-S1568786414000445-mainUploaded byilhamcp666
- Nuclear Fusion Reactor - Eco-friendly Atomic EnergyUploaded byBob Johns
- models.woptics.fabry_perot.pdfUploaded byneomindx
- 5054_s12_qp_22Uploaded byxiaokia
- Re-Engineering the Chemical Processing PlantUploaded bymarktanner
- Titrations With EDTAUploaded byalphhabeta
- Edc Objective QuestionsUploaded byMuppala Chiranjeevi
- Lead Free Series 35 Quick-Connect Valves Specification SheetUploaded byWatts
- Characteristics of Living Things PrintUploaded byEchyNia
- ap biology lab write-up answersUploaded byapi-319434623
- Antiwashout Admixtures for Underwater ConcreteUploaded bymanil_5
- Failure analysis semiconductorUploaded byYuvaraja
- A 561-2014Uploaded bykoradiakishan
- MR8008Uploaded byharisaryono
- Tissue Conditioners: A ReviewUploaded byIOSRjournal
- Bio MoleculeUploaded byAlex-Mihai Ciubara
- Nufix Ready PlastUploaded byBharath Reddy ChinthiReddy
- Protein MetabolismeUploaded byAlunaficha Melody Kirania
- Ceramic Tiles from High Carbon Fly Ash.pdfUploaded byamirq4
- 2511-P-eng-A4Uploaded byGLADYS2714
- Bio MotorsUploaded byNeha Srivastava