8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
1/140
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
2/140
About the Authors
Qingyan (Yan) Chenis a professor of mechanical engineering at Ray W. HerrickLaboratories, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana. He received his B.Sc. degreefrom Tsinghua University and M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees from Delft University of Tech-nology. He has published over 80 archival journal papers and more than 60 conferencepapers. Since 1995, he has been the principal investigator or co-principal investigatorof 30 sponsored research projects, including five from ASHRAE. He has been electedto the International Academy of Indoor Air Sciences. Currently, Prof. Chen serves as
an associate editor for theInternational Journal of HVAC&R Researchand as an edito-rial board member for the International Journal of Ventilationand the InternationalJournal on Architectural Science.
Leon R. Glicksmanis a professor of building technology in the Department ofArchitecture as well as professor of mechanical engineering at Massachusetts Instituteof Technology (MIT). He received his B.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees from MIT and his M.Sc.degree from Stanford. Currently, Prof. Glicksman is leading an MIT effort to developenergy-efficient, sustainable building technologies and compatible designs. He hasconducted research sponsored by the EPA, NSF, DOE, ABB, and numerous industrialsponsors. He has written over 180 technical articles and chapters in four books.Currently, Prof. Glicksman serves as an associate editor for ASHRAEsInternationalJournal of HVAC&R Research.
This publication was prepared under ASHRAE Research Project 949 in cooperationwith TC 5.3, Room Air Distribution, and TC 4.10, Indoor Environment Modeling.
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
3/140
Qingyan Chen
Leon Glicksman
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating
and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
System Performance Evaluation
and Design Guidelines for
Displacement Ventilation
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
4/140
ISBN 1-931862-42-7
2003 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating
and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
1791 Tullie Circle, N.E.Atlanta, GA 30329
www.ashrae.org
All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
Cover design by Tracy Becker.
ASHRAE has compiled this publication with care, but ASHRAE has not inves-
tigated, and ASHRAE expressly disclaims any duty to investigate, any product, service,
process, procedure, design, or the like that may be described herein. The appearance of
any technical data or editorial material in this publication does not constitute endorse-
ment, warranty, or guaranty by ASHRAE of any product, service, process, procedure,design, or the like. ASHRAE does not warrant that the information in the publication
is free of errors, and ASHRAE does not necessarily agree with any statement or opinion
in this publication. The entire risk of the use of any information in this publication is
assumed by the user.
No part of this book may be reproduced without permission in writing from
ASHRAE, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages or reproduce illustra-
tions in a review with appropriate credit; nor may any part of this book be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any way or by any meanselectronic,
photocopying, recording, or otherwithout permission in writing from ASHRAE.
ASHRAE STAFF
SPECIALPUBLICATIONS
Mildred Geshwiler
Editor
Erin Howard
Assistant Editor
Christina Helms
Assistant Editor
Michshell PhillipsSecretary
PUBLISHINGSERVICES
Barry Kurian
Manager
Jayne Jackson
Production Assistant
PUBLISHER
W. Stephen Comstock
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
5/140
v
Contents
PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Displacement Ventilation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
1.2 Special Features in U.S. Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Objective of This Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
CHAPTER 2LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1 Temperature Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
2.2 Flow Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
2.3 Contaminant Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.4 Comfort Aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.5 Energy and Cost Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.6 Design Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
CHAPTER 3EXPERIMENTAL STUDY ANDVALIDATION OF CFD PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.1 Experimental Facility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
3.2 Test Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
3.3 Experimental Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
3.4 Computational Fluid Dynamics Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
3.5 Validation of CFD Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
3.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
CHAPTER 4MODELS FOR PREDICTION OF TEMPERATURE
DIFFERENCE AND VENTILATION EFFECTIVENESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
4.1 A Database of Displacement Ventilation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56
4.2 Model of the Air Temperature Difference
Between the Head and Foot Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .704.3 Ventilation Effectiveness Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77
4.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
6/140
System Performance Evaluation and Design Guidelines for Displacement Ventilation
vi
CHAPTER 5PERFORMANCES EVALUATION
OF DISPLACEMENT VENTILATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
5.1 Evaluation Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815.2 Performance Evaluation of Displacement Ventilation . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
5.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
5.4 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
CHAPTER 6ENERGY AND COST ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
6.1 Load Calculations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
6.2 Secondary Systems and Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
6.3 Energy Analysis for U.S. Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
6.4 First Cost Analysis for U.S. Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
6.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
CHAPTER 7DESIGN GUIDELINES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
CHAPTER 8CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117NOMENCLATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
INDEX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
7/140
vii
Preface
This book presents system performance evaluation and design guidelines for
displacement ventilation.The authors first reviewed the literature concerning the performance of tradi-
tional displacement ventilation. Since U.S. buildings have different layouts andlarger internal heat gains than those studied in the literature, it was necessary todevelop design guidelines for displacement ventilation for U.S. buildings underdifferent climatic conditions.
The design guidelines present two important models that were not available inthe literature: a model to calculate the temperature difference between the head andfoot level of an occupant and a model to determine the ventilation effectiveness atthe breathing level. The investigation developed the models from the results of 56cases of displacement ventilation obtained by a computational fluid dynamics(CFD) program. Those cases include a wide range of thermal and flow conditionssimilar to those found in U.S. offices, classrooms, and workshops. The CFDprogram was validated by six sets of detailed experimental data obtained from a full-scale environmental chamber simulating a small office, a quarter of a large officewith partition, and a quarter of a classroom. The data include airflow patterns anddistribution of air velocity, temperature, contaminant concentration, and turbulence.The validation also used some data obtained from the literature. The CFD programwas also used to assess the performance of displacement ventilation, such as airflowpattern and distributions of air temperature, percentage dissatisfied due to draft,predicted percentage dissatisfied, contaminant concentration, mean age of air, andventilation effectiveness. The investigation also conducted energy and first costsanalysis.
The results show that a displacement ventilation system can provide a thermallycomfortable indoor environment at a high cooling load through careful design. Theindoor air quality in a space with displacement ventilation is better if the contami-nant sources are associated with the heat sources. The displacement ventilation
system can also save energy but requires a separate heating system if it is applied tobuilding perimeter zones. This book presents a ten-step design guideline to designthe displacement ventilation system for U.S. buildings.
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
8/140
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
9/140
ix
Acknowledgments
This book is based on the research performed for ASHRAE Research Project
RP-949, Performance Evaluation and Development for Design Guidelines forDisplacement Ventilation. The research was sponsored by TC 5.3, Room Air
Distribution, and TC 4.10, Indoor Environment Modeling. Throughout the research,
the project monitoring committee and the members of the two technical committees
made a substantial contribution to the project, including numerous suggestions in the
project meetings, critical comments on the final report, and a site visit. The authors
are very grateful for their support and help. The authors would also like to thank their
former research associates and students, Dr. Xiaoxiong (John) Yuan, Mr. Shiping
Hu, Ms. Yongqing Hu, and Prof. Xudong Yang, for their hard work on the project.
Without their contributions, such a book would not exist. Last, but not least, the
authors are grateful to the ASHRAE Special Publications staff for their careful and
beautiful work on the book layout and edit.
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
10/140
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
11/140
1
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Since the energy crisis in the 1970s, the insulation of buildings has been
improved in order to reduce heat loss in winter, heat gain in summer, and the infil-tration of outdoor air. As a consequence, the heat extracted from or supplied to aroom for maintaining a comfortable air temperature is reduced and the ventilationrate is also reduced by a corresponding amount, sometimes much more if the build-ing envelope is made tighter. However, such a reduction of air supply causes anincrease in the concentration of indoor pollutants and sometimes generates a non-uniform distribution of air temperature and contaminant concentration. Draft (ther-mal comfort problems) and sick building syndrome (indoor air quality problems)are very familiar ailments today that are the direct results of the poor distribution ofairflow, temperature, and contaminant concentrations. Solving these thermalcomfort and indoor air quality (IAQ) problems without consuming too much energyis a challenge for both ventilation engineers and architects.
Currently, the United States consumes more than one-third of its energy inbuildings, and there is a possibility of saving up to 20% of this energy. Saving energymay result in the reduction of the fresh air supply. This may cause poorer IAQ. Since
people spend up to 90% of their time indoors, IAQ is increasingly recognized as anessential factor for the prevention of human diseases and the promotion of people'scomfort and welfare. In the United States, about 800,000 to 1,200,000 commercial
buildings with 30 to 70 million people have problems related to IAQ (Woods 1989).The problems include eye, nose, and throat irritation, headache, recurrent fatigue,drowsiness or dizziness, and reduced powers of concentration (Spengler 1995).Dissatisfaction with the working environment could result in reduced productivityand economic loss. A survey conducted in the New England area of 94 state govern-ment office buildings showed an average productivity loss of 3%, which is attributedto poor IAQ (Axelrad 1989). Fisk (2000) estimated that the economic impact related
to respiratory illness, allergies and asthma, and sick building syndrome is $20 to$200 billion. Therefore, it is necessary to provide a good ventilation system that canprovide good IAQ and save energy.
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
12/140
System Performance Evaluation and Design Guidelines for Displacement Ventilation
2
1.1 DISPLACEMENT VENTILATION
Displacement ventilation has been used quite commonly in Scandinavia duringthe past twenty years. It was first applied to the welding industry in 1978 (Belin
1978) and has since been increasingly used as a means of ventilation in industrial
facilities to provide good indoor air quality and save energy. More recently, its use
has been extended to ventilation in offices and other commercial spaces where, in
addition to air quality, comfort is an important consideration. In 1989 in Nordic
countries, it was estimated that displacement ventilation accounted for a 50% market
share in industrial applications and 25% in office applications (Svensson 1989).
Displacement ventilation system can be divided into the following three types:
Traditional displacement ventilation, as shown in Figure 1.1
Displacement ventilation with a chilled ceiling panel
Displacement ventilation with a raised floor
This book focuses on the first type: traditional displacement ventilation.
A typical displacement ventilation system for cooling, as shown in Figure 1.1,
supplies conditioned air from a low sidewall diffuser. The supply air temperature is
slightly lower than the desired room air temperature, and the supply air velocity is
low (lower than 100 fpm or 0.5 m/s). Through the diffuser, the conditioned air is
directly introduced to the occupied zone, where the occupants stay. Exhausts are
located at or close to the ceiling through which the warm room air is exhausted from
the room. Because it is cooler than the room air, the supply air is spread over the floor
and then rises as it is heated by the heat sources in the occupied zone. These heat
Figure 1.1 Sketch of displacement ventilation.
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
13/140
Introduction
3
sources (e.g., persons and computers) create upward convective flows in the form of
thermal plumes. These plumes remove heat and contaminants that are less dense
than air from the surrounding occupied zone.Traditionally, the amount of supply air in a displacement ventilation system has
been less than that of mixing-type systems. This necessitates careful design of thesystem configuration and operation to adequately handle the space cooling loads.The supply temperature, velocity, and vertical temperature gradient in the occupiedzone are all very important comfort-related design parameters. Compliance with thespecification of ASHRAE Standard 55-1992 (ASHRAE 1992) for acceptable verti-cal temperature difference in the occupied zone places limitations on the magnitudeof supply-room temperature difference and/or space cooling loads for a given supplyairflow rate. This is especially important when the system is applied to a U.S. build-ing in which the cooling load can be high and weather can be hot.
Previous research (Svensson 1989; Sandberg and Blomqvist 1989; Wyon and
Sandberg 1990) has indicated that in office environments with normal room heightsof around 9 ft (2.7 m), displacement ventilation cannot maintain acceptable comfortfor cooling loads above 8 to 10 Btu/(hft2) (25 to 30 W/m2) unless the air supplyvolume is increased or additional heat removal capacity is provided through the useof cooled ceiling panels. With higher ceiling heights, displacement ventilationsystems are capable of removing larger heat loads.
A stable, vertically stratified temperature field is essential for this type of systemto function properly. Numerous studies show that, when properly designed,displacement ventilation can take advantage of the naturally occurring thermal strat-ification in the room and, thus, can increase the ventilation efficiency.
1.2 SPECIAL FEATURES IN U.S. BUILDINGS
Research on displacement ventilation has been mainly conducted in Scandina-vian countries. Recently, REHVA (2002) published a guidebook on designingdisplacement ventilation in non-industrial premises. Many U.S. cities have highertemperatures in summer than those in Scandinavian cities, and U.S. offices may havemore lighting and equipment that produces more heat. Therefore, the cooling loadcould be higher in the U.S. than in Scandinavian countries (Chen et al. 1999). Inmany U.S. offices, there are large core spaces that are completely isolated from theexternal climate. Cooling is always needed in the core spaces, and there is great
potential for the use of displacement ventilation in such spaces.
On the other hand, heating and cooling are required in the perimeter spaces. InScandinavian countries, a radiator is often used to offset heating load in winter andfresh air is supplied by the displacement ventilation system. This implies that thesupply air temperature in winter can still be somewhat lower than the room air
temperature, and a stratified flow can be maintained. However, in many U.S. officebuildings, air-conditioning systems are often used for both heating and cooling andthere is no radiator available. If a displacement ventilation system is used in the
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
14/140
System Performance Evaluation and Design Guidelines for Displacement Ventilation
4
perimeter spaces, a separate heating system is needed to maintain the flow pattern.Convectors, baseboard heaters, radiant panels, or resistance wires can be used.
However, the first costs and operating costs with two systems would be different.Displacement diffusers can be used for heating as well, but the airflow pattern will
be of the mixing type.In addition, many U.S. offices and restaurants are large spaces with many parti-
tions to form individual work stations or dinning areas, while most European officesand restaurants are small spaces. Therefore, direct application of the Scandinavianresults for U.S. design is not feasible.
1.3 OBJECTIVE OF THIS BOOK
Displacement ventilation may improve indoor air quality and has the potentialto save energy. However, the performance of displacement ventilation is still nottotally understandable, and the special features of U.S. buildings have not beenconsidered in previous research. The objective of this book is to answer the follow-ing two questions:
Is displacement ventilation suitable for U.S. buildings? How should displacement ventilation systems be designed?
To evaluate whether a ventilation system is suitable for U.S. buildings, we needto consider, simultaneously, its impact on indoor air quality, comfort, energyconsumption, and costs. In order to design such a ventilation system, it is necessaryto provide a design guide. This book tries to answer the above questions by providingthe following information for displacement ventilation systems:
1. Literature review to identify the existing results and problems
2. Experimental study to get reliable data, including the distribution of velocity,
turbulence intensity, temperature, tracer-gas concentration, etc.3. Validation of a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) program by the experimental
data to determine the accuracy of the program
4. Numerical simulation of a large number of cases by the CFD program to establisha database on the performance of displacement ventilation
5. Model development to develop models needed for design guidelines
6. Energy and cost analysis to assess the impact of energy and first costs
7. Guidelines to help designers in the U.S. to design displacement ventilation
Chapter 2 of this book presents a state-of-the-art review on displacement venti-lation. Chapter 3 describes the experimental study in a full-size test room simulatinga small office, a large office with partitions, and a classroom. The experimental
results are used to validate a CFD program. Chapter 4 describes a database ofdisplacement ventilation by CFD computations of numerous cases for different ther-mal and flow conditions for different types of U.S. buildings. Based on the computed
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
15/140
Introduction
5
results, two models are developed for prediction of the air temperature differencebetween head and foot level and the ventilation effectiveness at head level. Chapter
4 also introduces a simplified CFD program for calculating indoor airflow. Chapter5 discusses the performance of displacement ventilation. Chapter 6 describes energyand cost analysis. Chapter 7 outlines a ten-step design guideline for displacementventilation. Chapter 8 offers important conclusions about displacement ventilation.
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
16/140
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
17/140
7
CHAPTER 2
Literature Review
This chapter discusses some of the literature on displacement ventilation,
including studies on the distribution of temperature, velocity, and contaminants,comfort, energy, cost analysis, and design guidelines.
2.1 TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION
Since displacement ventilation systems supply cold fresh air directly to theoccupied zone, potential draft exists at floor level. In addition, the large temperaturestratification that exists in a space with displacement ventilation may also causediscomfort. Therefore, a designer needs information on the air temperature distri-
bution in spaces with displacement ventilation.
Dimensionless Temperature and Vertical Temperature Gradient
Researchers found that the air temperature in a space appears to vary linearlywith space height in the stratified zone and is nearly constant in horizontal directionsexcept in the region near the supply diffusers. Figure 2.1 presents a typical temper-ature profile assumed for a room with displacement ventilation, where Ts, Tf, and Teare air temperatures at supply outlets near the floor in the occupied zone and atexhausts. This linear profile is widely used by most investigators, e.g., Mathisen andSkaret (1983), Flatheim (1984), Sandberg (1985), Holmberg et al. (1987), Nielsen(1993), and Skistad (1994).
Figure 2.2 plots the vertical dimensionless temperature profiles, = (T Ts/Te Ts), in normal offices obtained from several different investigations. The dimen-sionless temperature near the floor, f, or the ratio of the temperature difference
between the supply air and the air near the floor to the difference between the supplyand extract air, varies from 0.2 to 0.7. In addition, the air temperature gradient isnot the same for different investigations. The temperature does not vary linearly
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
18/140
System Performance Evaluation and Design Guidelines for Displacement Ventilation
8
from the floor to the exhaust for most cases. The discrepancies among the profilesin Figure 2.2 could be due to different thermal and flow conditions, such as:
ventilation rate
cooling load
heat source type and position
wall temperature and wall radiative characteristics
space height
diffuser type
Figure 2.1 Simplified vertical temperature profile in a room with
displacement ventilation.
Figure 2.2 Temperature profiles in office rooms.
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
19/140
Literature Review
9
Since the temperature difference between head and feet is a critical criterion ofthermal comfort, it is desirable to have a model to predict the vertical temperature
gradient in the occupied zone.
Impact of Ventilation Rate and Cooling Load
Sandberg (1985) measured vertical temperature profiles in a test room (14 ft 12 ft 8.3 ft or 4.2 m 3.6 m 2.5 m) with displacement ventilation. The resultsshow that f is between 0.56 and 0.48 when the air change rate is between 2 and 4ach. The results of Chen et al. (1988) for a test chamber of 18.7 ft 10 ft 10.7 ft(5.6 m 3.0 m 3.2 m) confirmed that f is a function of ventilation flow rate. Thef decreases from 0.4 to 0.2 when the air change rate increases from 3 to 5 ach. Simi-lar results can be found from Mundt (1990) and Li et al. (1992).
Mundt (1990) developed a formula to calculate fbased on the assumption thatthe convective heat transfer from the floor to air raises the air temperature from Tsto T
f. The radiative heat transfer from the ceiling to the floor keeps the energy balance
on the floor surface. The f is a function of ventilation rate given as
(2.1)
where
V = ventilation flow rate,
= air density,
Cp = specific heat at constant pressure,
A = floor area,
r = radiative heat transfer coefficient from ceiling to floor, and
cf = convective heat transfer coefficient from the floor to room air.
As shown in Figure 2.3, Equation 2.1 is in good agreement with most measureddata in the literature (the same references cited in Figure 2.2) when r= 0.9 Btu/(hft2F) (5 W/m2K) andcf= 0.7 Btu/(hft
2F) (4 W/m2K). Point 1 in Figure 2.3is relatively small because the walls were covered with aluminum in the experimentand the radiative heat transfer to the floor was small. Point 2 is relatively large
because the cooling load was small and the total temperature difference was only5F (2.8C) in the experiment. Equation 2.1 accounts for the impact of cooling loadon fbecause ventilation rate and cooling load are interrelated.
If the temperature varies linearly with the elevation, the temperature gradient,s, can be estimated as
s = (1 f) (Te Ts) / H (2.2)
or
f1
VCpA
--------------1
r-----
1cf-------+
1+
-------------------------------------------------- ,=
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
20/140
System Performance Evaluation and Design Guidelines for Displacement Ventilation
10
(2.3)
Unfortunately, Equation 2.3 does not correlate the temperature gradient, asshown by Figure 2.4, where the points represent the measured data (the same refer-ences cited in Figure 2.2).
Impact of Heat Source Type and Position and Wall Characteristics
Nielsen et al. (1988) showed that, in a room with constant load from a concen-trated heat source, the gradient of dimensionless temperature decreases slightly asthe Archimedes number (ghTe/us
2) increases. The gradient is strongly related tothe surface temperature of the heat sources (Nielsen 1992). Nielsen (1996) later
presented a design chart, shown in Figure 2.5, from experimental results in roomswith heights of 8.3 ft to 15 ft (2.5 m to 4.5 m) to determine dimensionless temperatureof air near the floor.
It is a common practice to assume adiabatic thermal conditions for internalwalls. In many cases, the internal walls are not adiabatic. Since wall area is large,a small temperature difference between the walls and room air could result in a
significant downflow (if the walls are colder) or upflow (if the walls are warmer). Inaddition, the temperature along a vertical line of an internal wall is not a constant,and there is a temperature gradient in room air. Heat transfer occurs between room
sH
Te--------- 1 f 1
1Vcp
A------------
1r-----
1cf-------+
1+
------------------------------------------------.= =
Figure 2.3 Dimensionless temperature near the floor vs. supply flow rate.
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
21/140
Literature Review
11
Figure 2.4 Dimensionless temperature gradient vs. supply flow rate.
Figure 2.5 A design chart for the dimensionless temperature near the floor
(Nielsen 1996).
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
22/140
System Performance Evaluation and Design Guidelines for Displacement Ventilation
12
air and internal walls. Most of the investigations neglect the impact of internal walltemperature on the vertical temperature gradient.
A study conducted by Jarmyr (1982) showed vertical temperature profiles atfive different times of day in a workshop. The temperature gradient increased from0.23F/ft (0.38 K/m) in the early morning to 0.42F/ft (0.7 K/m) at noon and thendecreased slightly to 0.39F/ft (0.65 K/m) in the evening. The nondimensionaltemperature near the floor,f, varied from 1/3 in the morning to 1/7 in the afternoon.It is clear that heat from external walls and windows contributes to the temperaturegradient.
Li et al. (1992) showed that heat conduction through walls and radiationbetween room surfaces, particularly between ceiling and floor, make a significantcontribution to the vertical temperature profile. For example, the dimensionless airtemperature near the floor was changed from 0.62 to 0.3 when the black walls werecovered with aluminum. To include the contribution of radiative heat transfer andconduction through walls, Li et al. (1992) suggested a four-node model and a multi-node model. Good agreement was found between the models and their measureddata.
Mundt (1996) recently extended her early model (Mundt 1990) to consider theinfluences of heat transfer through the building enclosure and the heat sources on thevertical temperature profile. The new model relates air temperatures near the floorand ceiling to room geometry and the heat transfer among the room air, heat sources,floor, and ceiling.
Figure 2.6 shows that the models of both Mundt (1996) and Li et al. (1992) couldpredict the measured data of Li et al. (1992). However, the models do not closelypredict the results of various investigators. Since both models assume the air temper-
ature gradient to be constant, they need improvements.Cooled ceiling panels with displacement ventilation are often used in spaceswith a high cooling load. The vertical temperature gradients in the spaces with the
Figure 2.6 Comparison of the temperatures between the models and the
experiment.
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
23/140
Literature Review
13
cooled ceiling panels are smaller than those without the panels. The temperaturedistributions are almost uniform in the upper zones, as reported by Skistad (1994)
and Taki et al. (1996). If the panel temperature is too low, the displacement venti-lation could be transformed into mixing ventilation.
Impact of Space Height
Displacement ventilation is more suitable for high spaces, such as concert hallsand workshops (Skistad 1994). Skistad (1989) studied temperature profiles in aconcert hall with supply openings under chairs. The temperature rises rapidly fromthe supply air temperature atthe floor to the elevation where people are located.Above the people, there is only a slight temperature gradient up to the elevationwhere the lights are located. At that level, another temperature jump occurs, which
brings the air temperature up to the exhaust air temperature at the ceiling level.
Niemela and Koskela (1996) made measurements in a large industrial hall with
a height of 90 ft (27 m). Their results show that the temperature increases with eleva-tion in the zone lower than 23 ft (7 m). In the upper zone, the temperature is almosta constant. These measurements confirm again that the vertical temperature gradientis not a constant. Large spaces may be divided into a few zones for determining thetemperature distribution.
Impact of Diffuser Type
Skaret (1985) and Nielsen et al. (1988) investigated the impact of supply diffus-ers on the temperature distribution. It is better to increase the entrainment of roomair so as to decrease the temperature gradient in the occupied zone. The performanceof diffusers is critical to avoid draft near the diffusers. Recently, manufactures havedeveloped new products, such as the aspirating diffuser and the modulating diffuser.
The performance data can be found from product catalogs.
Conclusions
The air temperature near the floor and vertical temperature gradient in the occu-pied zone are two of the most important parameters to evaluate the performance ofdisplacement ventilation in terms of comfort. The ventilation rate or cooling load hasa significant impact on the two parameters. It is possible to determine the air temper-ature near the floor, but it is difficult to calculate the gradient.
The type and position of the heat sources and wall heat transfer also influencethe air temperature near the floor and the vertical temperature gradient. Some of thecontributions have been estimated in previous investigations. However, the estima-tion sometimes gives erroneous prediction of the vertical temperature gradients
because some of the influential parameters are not accounted for.If displacement ventilation is used for space with a high ceiling, it is desirableto use a more sophisticated model.
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
24/140
System Performance Evaluation and Design Guidelines for Displacement Ventilation
14
A good diffuser should mix the supply air with the surrounding air quickly toreduce possible draft.
It is necessary to develop a universal but simple equation that can put all theresults together for design purpose.
2.2 FLOW DISTRIBUTION
One important feature in displacement ventilation is to properly control anddesign the airflow distribution. Proper distribution will ensure good air quality andcomfort level in the space. For example, well-designed displacement ventilation canachieve a one-dimensional displacement flow in the occupied zone and transport thecontaminants to the upper zone. Both thermal plumes and supply air from diffusers
play an important role in the airflow distribution.
Impact of Thermal Plumes
For proper design of displacement ventilation, it is important to calculate theentrained flow as a function of height. The thermal plume generated by a heatedobject will increase its volume with the height above the object, as shown in Figure2.7.
Figure 2.7 A thermal plume above a heated object.
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
25/140
Literature Review
15
According to Baturin (1972), the flow rate, V, at a height,y, from a concentratedheat source in homogeneous surroundings can be expressed by
V= 0.005Qc1/3(y+y0)
5/3, (2.4)
where
y+y0 = distance from a virtual origin of the flow (y0can be approximated as 2dand
dis the hydraulic diameter of the heat source) and
Qc = convective heat emission from the source.
This equation is valid fory> 2d(Kofoed and Nielson 1990). Qccan be estimatedby Qc =k Qt, where Qtis the total energy consumption of the heat source (includingconvective and radiative). The coefficient kis 0.7 to 0.9 for pipes, 0.4 to 0.6 for small
components and 0.3 to 0.5 for large machines (Nielsen 1993).
A line source generates a two-dimensional plume, for which Skaret (1986)
suggested using the following formula to calculate the flow rate:
V= 0.014(Qc/l)1/3(y+y0) l (2.5)
where l is the length of the source andy0is one to two times the heat source width.
Stabi (1988) presented a list of volume flow rates above different heat sources
(including people, machines, windows, and radiators) in homogeneous surround-ings.
In an environment with temperature stratification, such as a space with displace-ment ventilation, the air temperatures in the plume and surrounding are identical at
a certain level. Higher than this level, no buoyancy force exists in the plume. There-fore, the thermal plume can only reach a maximum height in an environment with
temperature stratification. Mundt (1992) found that the flow rate of a thermal plumein a space with a vertical temperature gradient is a little smaller than that without thegradient. The maximum height of the plume is significantly shorter. If the height ofa plume is less than the height of the occupied zone (6 ft or 1.8 m from floor), the
contaminants within the plume will spread in the occupied zone and cannot reach theupper zone. Therefore, the maximum height of a plume is an important design
parameter. Mundt (1992) presented the following equations to calculate the flow rateand the maximum height of a plume in a space with air temperature gradient:
V= 0.00238 Qc3/4 s-5/8 (0.004 + 0.039y1+0.380y1
2 0.062y13) (2.6)
ymax= 0.98 Qc1/4 s3/8y0 (2.7)
where
y1= 2.86 (y+y0) Qc1/4 s3/8 (2.8)
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
26/140
System Performance Evaluation and Design Guidelines for Displacement Ventilation
16
V = flow rate in a plume, m3/s
ymax = maximum height of the plume, m
s = air temperature gradient, K/m
Qc = convective heat emission, W
y = height above the heated object, m
y0 = distance between the virtual origin of the plume and the heated object, m
Many researchers investigated the plume generated by a sedentary person.Mierzwinski and Popiolek (1981) reported that the convective airflow is in a rangeof 1.1 to 2.2 ft3/s (30 to 60 l/s) through a section 2.5 ft (0.75 m) above the personshead. According to Clark and Edholm (1985), the flow rate may increase as thesurrounding temperature decreases because of the increase of a persons metabo-
lism. Danielsson (1987) showed that the vertical temperature gradient in the airsurrounding a person has a strong impact on the flow rate above the person. He also
provided a chart for determination of the flow rate above a person. According to thechart, the flow rate at 6 ft (1.8 m) above the floor may decrease from 1.56 ft3/s to 0.74ft3/s (42 l/s to 20 l/s) when the room temperature gradient is increased from 0.3 to0.9F/ft (0.5 to 1.5C/m). Fitzner (1989) confirmed the results.
Kofoed and Nielsen (1990) further reported that the flow rate may be influenced
by not only the temperature gradient but also the ventilation rate. The maximumheight of a plume generated by a person is about 6.6 to 10 ft (2 to 3 m), dependingon the vertical temperature gradient. The measured flow rates by Mundt (1992) areabout twice as much as those measured by Danielsson (1987) and Fitzner (1989).Figure 2.8 shows the flow rate of the plume calculated by Equations 2.6 and 2.7. Thecalculated results agree reasonably with the measured data (Mundt 1992; Kofoed
and Nielsen 1990).
The flow rate in a plume generated by a lamp is smaller than that generated bya person, and the flow rate in the plume created by a desk lamp is much smaller thanthat created by a computer (Mundt 1992), although the energy consumption is at thesame level. Figure 2.9 presents the measured data of Mundt (1992) for the volumeflow rate above a desk lamp, a fluorescent lamp, and a personal computer. Equations2.6 to 2.8 may be applied to fluorescent lamps and personal computers. The resultsseem logical because a point heat source has a smaller area that would entrain muchless air than a heat source with a large area.
In many cases, a heated object is placed close to a wall. Due to the Coanda effect,
a plume close to a wall can be considered as one half of the flow in a free plume witha double convective heat emission 2 Qc. The flow rate of a plume close to a corneris about one quarter of the rate in a free plume with 4 Qc. The plumes generated by
a number of sources near each other may form a large plume with a flow rate of aboutN1/3V, whereN is the number of the heat sources and Vis the flow rate in a free plume(Nielsen 1993).
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
27/140
Literature Review
17
Figure 2.8 Volume flow rate around and above a person.
Figure 2.9 Volume flow rate above a personal computer and a lamp(Mundt 1992).
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
28/140
System Performance Evaluation and Design Guidelines for Displacement Ventilation
18
Impact of Walls
Buoyancy will drive airflow up (or down) along a hot (or cold) vertical surface,such as a wall. The flow rate in the turbulent boundary layer may be calculated from(Nielsen 1993)
V= 0.0028 Tw2/5y6/5l (2.9)
where
V = flow rate in the boundary layer, m3/s;
Tw = temperature difference between room air and the wall surface, C;
y = length measured from the leading edge, m;
l = horizontal width of the surface, m.
The up or down airflow along a wall is a typical wall jet. Heiselberg (1993)presented a formula to calculate the maximum velocity in the layer. For a modest
temperature difference of a few degrees between the wall and room air, the flowalong the wall may be as large as that from several heat sources in the room such as
people or equipment.A cold downdraft from vertical cold surfaces may cause a stratified flow
with a typical wall jet profile near the floor. Heiselberg (1993) measured theprofiles and presented formulae to calculate the maximum velocity in the flowand to evaluate the draft risk. The maximum velocity near the wall and the flooris about 40 fpm (0.21 m/s) for a 5 ft (1.5 m) high cold wall with a differenceof 18F (10C) between the cold wall surface and the room air.
Impact of Diffusers
Since relatively cold air is supplied directly to the occupied zone in displace-ment ventilation, the velocity has to be well controlled to avoid draft. The velocitynear a diffuser depends on the flow rate from the diffuser, the temperature difference
between the supply and exhaustTe, and the diffuser type. Figure 2.10 shows a typi-cal velocity distribution near a diffuser (Nielsen 1993).
Skistad (1994) divided the flow near the floor into two regions: the primaryregion (where the flow is dominated by the characteristics of the diffuser) and thesecondary region (the part outside the primary region). He presented a formula tocalculate the maximum velocity in the primary region through (1) the induced ambi-ent airflow volume caused by the dynamics of the jet discharged from the diffuser,(2) the entrained airflow volume caused by the shear in the boundary layer betweenthe supply air and the ambient air, (3) the thickness of the supply air blanket, and (4)the Archimedes number Arh(ghTe/us
2). More research is needed to calculateparameters (1), (2), and (3).
In the secondary region, Nielsen (1993) presented the following equation todetermine the maximum velocity in the center plane umax,xin a distancexfrom thewall-mounted diffuser:
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
29/140
Literature Review
19
umax,x= Kdr(h/x)uf (2.10)
where
h = diffuser height
uf = face velocity defined as the volume flow rate divided by the face area of the
diffuser
Kdr = a function of the Archimedes number that strongly depends on the structureof the diffuser
Nielsen (1993) also providesKdr
data as shown in Figure 2.11. The Kdr
dependson diffuser tape.
The distance from a wall-mounted diffuser to the 40 fpm (0.2 m/s) velocitycontour along the center line, ln, is an important parameter. According to ASHRAEStandard 55-1992, the air velocity should be no higher than 50 fpm (0.25 m/s). Skis-tad (1994) suggested discharging air obliquely to both sides, with some degree ofturbulence to reduce ln, and using perforated panels instead of a filter mat to reducethe draft effect. To make lnsmaller is a primary goal for diffuser manufacturers.
Normally, the manufacturers provide charts to determine lnand velocity distribution
near the diffuser in their product catalogs. Figure 2.12 shows an example.
The flow from a number of diffusers placed closed to each other on the wall willmerge to a two-dimensional flow, in which the velocity is lower than that in the radial
flow near a single diffuser (Nickel 1990). However, if the diffusers with obliquedischarges are located too close, the discharged flows meet and turn straight into theroom, and lncould be several meters (Skistad 1994).
Figure 2.10 A typical velocity distribution near a diffuser (Nielsen 1993).
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
30/140
System Performance Evaluation and Design Guidelines for Displacement Ventilation
20
Figure 2.11 Measured value for some diffusers (Nielsen 1993).
Figure 2.12 Design chart for choosing a diffuser.
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
31/140
Literature Review
21
Conclusions
Stratification height, which is a function of the flow rates of supply air and ther-mal plumes, is an important design parameter for displacement ventilation. The flowrate at a certain height in a thermal plume can be determined by the heat source type,location, and geometry. The temperature gradient in a space has an impact on theflow rate and the maximum height of a plume.
To avoid draft, velocity in the occupied zone, especially near the diffusers, needsto be well controlled. Previous studies provide sufficient information to developdesign guidelines. The design charts provided by diffuser manufacturers are alsouseful.
2.3 CONTAMINANT DISTRIBUTION
The advantage of displacement ventilation is that it may provide better indoorair quality in the occupied zone than mixing ventilation. It is therefore important tostudy the impact of different parameters, such as contaminant source type and loca-tion, human body convection, wall surface temperature, and space height, on thecontaminant distribution.
Impact of Contaminant Source Type and Location
Typically, the occupied zone with displacement ventilation has a lower contam-inant concentration level than that in the upper zone, as shown in Figure 2.13 (Heisel-
Figure 2.13 Typical profiles of the contaminant concentration vs. different
ventilation rates (Heiselberg and Sandberg 1990).
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
32/140
System Performance Evaluation and Design Guidelines for Displacement Ventilation
22
berg and Sandberg 1990). Chen et al. (1988) showed that both the energy andventilation efficiencies of displacement ventilation are higher than those of mixingventilation when the contaminant source is combined with a heat source. The venti-lation efficiency increases as the ventilation rate increases or the cooling loaddecreases.
Olesen et al. (1994) reported that the concentration distribution depends on thecontaminant density (Figure 2.14). However, the amount of contaminants must besufficiently large to form the density difference. In most measurements using tracergas technique, the impact of density is negligible.
There are cases when the contaminant concentration is not lower in the occupiedzone than that in the upper zone. Figure 2.15 presents a measured concentration
profile in a room with displacement ventilation and a pollution source located at alow level and outside the thermal plume (Nielsen 1996). In this case, the lower zonehas a high contaminant concentration level.
Stymne et al. (1991) showed that the contaminant concentration level varies
significantly in both the vertical and horizontal directions, depending on the positionof pollutant sources related to the thermal plumes. As illustrated in Figure 2.16, thecontaminant concentration in the occupied zone is high when the contaminant is
Figure 2.14 Concentration profiles with different types of tracer gases
(Olesen et al. 1994).
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
33/140
Literature Review
23
Figure 2.15 Concentration profile with pollutant source located at low level
and without heat source (Nielsen 1996).
Figure 2.16 Concentration contours in a room with a tracer gas emitted
above a 4 W heat source in a low level (Stymne et al. 1991).
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
34/140
System Performance Evaluation and Design Guidelines for Displacement Ventilation
24
combined with a weak heat source. The thermal plumes are too weak to reach theupper zone.
Mundts (1996) measurements showed that the local air quality is good whena tracer gas source is placed above a heat source that produces a plume that can reachthe ceiling (a plume that can reach the upper zone should be able to maintain a goodair quality in the low zone). When the tracer gas source is placed outside of the ther-mal plume, the local air quality depends strongly on whether the tracer gas has a
positive or negative buoyancy on the room flow pattern. In this case, the occupiedzone might have a high contaminant concentration level. The conclusions are similar
to those of Stymne et al. (1991).
Impact of Convection from Human Bodies
Holmberg et al. (1987) found that a free convection flow around a person mayprotect the breathing zone from surrounding contaminants at the head level, but itmay also bring contaminants from the source below the breathing zone. Saeteri(1992) showed that CO2concentration in the air inhaled is lower than that at the sameelevation some distance from the person because the convection flow around thehuman body brings fresher air from the floor level directly to the breathing zone.This has been confirmed by Murakami et al. (1997) through a detailed computationalfluid dynamics simulation.
As indicated in Figure 2.17, Brohus and Nielsen (1994) showed that the concen-
tration in the inhaled air is 0.58cethe same as that at 1.7 ft (0.5 m) below the breath-ing levelalthough the concentration outside the thermal boundary layer around theperson at the breathing level is 0.96ce. They found the concentration of inhaled
Figure 2.17 Inhaled air is located below the breathing level. (The measured
concentration of the inhaled air at 1.5 m is 0.58ce, instead of
0.96ce(Brohus and Nielsen 1994).
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
35/140
Literature Review
25
contaminant Cimay be expressed as a linear function of the stratification height,yst,as follows:
Ci= Cy(Cy Cf)yst /yb (yst
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
36/140
System Performance Evaluation and Design Guidelines for Displacement Ventilation
26
found that the movement of people causes an increase of the concentration of inhaledcontaminants due to the disturbance to the free convection flow around people. This
flow transports fresh air from the floor level to the breathing zone.Fukao et al. (1996) conducted measurements in two larger offices with different
ventilation systems. The results indicated that the air quality with the floor-mounteddisplacement system is better than that with a ceiling-mounted mixing system, whilethe thermal environments are almost the same between the two systems. Tanabe andKimura (1996) measured the mean age of air in an office room with three differentventilation systems. They concluded that a wall-mounted displacement system
provides better air quality than a floor-mounted displacement system, and the floor-mounted system is better than a ceiling-mounted mixing system.
Conclusions
Contaminant concentration distribution depends on contaminant source type
and location and its associated plume strength, etc. Low contaminant concentrationmay be obtained in the occupied zone when the contaminant source is associatedwith a heat source and the thermal plume generated by the heat source is sufficientlystrong to reach the upper zone.
Because the upward free convection around a person brings the air from a lowerlevel to the breathing zone, the inhaled air is cleaner than the air at the same height.
Cold walls or cooled ceiling panels may lead to a higher contaminant concen-tration in the occupied zone because of possible downflow driven by the walls or
panels.It is more beneficial to apply displacement ventilation for spaces with high ceil-
ings, if the contaminants are buoyant gases.Prediction of contaminant distribution is more difficult than air temperature and
flow distribution.
2.4 COMFORT ASPECTS
The primary reason for using displacement ventilation is to achieve a high IAQenvironment. However, the ventilation must maintain an acceptable comfort level.Previous investigations showed that large vertical temperature gradient and draft arethe two main causes of discomfort with displacement ventilation. To reduce thetemperature gradient, the supply flow rate must be increased. This will lead to a highair velocity at the floor level and to a high draft risk. It is also not feasible to increaseventilation rate because of energy concerns.
Draft Risk Assessment
In a room with displacement ventilation, Wyon and Sandberg (1990) tested
sensitivity of 36 male and 36 female subjects to different velocity and temperatures.The percentage of discomfort is summarized in Figure 2.18. The vertical coordinateis the percentage of dissatisfied people and the horizontal coordinate is air temper-
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
37/140
Literature Review
27
Figure
2.1
8Predictedpercentageofdiscomfort(a)abovechairheightand(b)below
chairheight(Wyon
and
Sandberg1990).
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
38/140
System Performance Evaluation and Design Guidelines for Displacement Ventilation
28
ature. The results showed that the ankle and foot (below chair height) are more sensi-tive to air temperature than the rest of the body. At a velocity of 0.6 ft/s (0.2 m/s),
fewer than 20% of people will complain of local discomfort in a temperature rangeof 72F to 81F (22.1C to 27.0C). Skistad (1994) noted that the air velocities inthe range between 0.5 and 0.7 ft/s (0.15 and 0.2 m/s) are acceptable for air temper-atures of about 68F (20C), and velocities of up to 0.83 ft/s (0.25 m/s) seem accept-able for higher temperatures.
Many researchers (Chen 1988; Sandberg and Blomqvist 1989; Kegel andSchulz 1989; Olesen et al. 1994; Akimoto et al. 1995; and Taki et al. 1996) reportedthat displacement ventilation may generally provide a good thermal comfort envi-ronment in various spaces. However, the draft risk at the floor level seems rather highin spaces with displacement ventilation. Melikov and Nielsen (1989) evaluated thethermal comfort condition in 18 displacement ventilated spaces. Within the occu-
pied zone, they found that 33% of measured locations had higher than 15% of dissat-isfied people due to draft. Also, 40% of the locations were found to have a
temperature difference between head and foot of larger than 5.4F (3.0C).Some measures are available to reduce discomfort level caused by temperature
gradient. Glicksman et al. (1996) used low flow rate fans at the floor level to reducethe temperature difference between the ankle and breathing level of a seated person.The measure does not affect the flow in the upper zone in a room with displacementventilation if the vertical momentum of the fan exhaust is kept low enough.
Impact of Cooling Load and Cooled Ceiling Panel Temperature
Figure 2.19 shows the range of cooling load per floor area investigated by someresearchers. Most of the studies show that the displacement ventilation system canonly provide acceptable comfort if the corresponding cooling load is less than about13 Btu/(hft2) (40 W/m2). With higher ceiling heights, the displacement system is
capable of removing larger cooling loads (Skistad 1994).By increasing the area of the air supply outlet (e.g., supplying air through aperforated floor) or by providing additional heat removal capacity (e.g., using cooledceiling panels), displacement ventilation may be applied to a space with higher cool-ing load. Olesen et al. (1994) found that no thermal comfort problems existed underthe tested conditions with the cooling loads up to 14 Btu/(hft2) (44 W/m2) in a roomwith a perforated floor. Niu (1994) showed that displacement ventilation combinedwith cooled ceiling panels may provide a comfort environment at a cooling load upto 16 Btu/(hft2) (50 W/m2).
Taki et al. (1996) measured the vertical temperature profiles for four differentcooling loads with and without cooled ceiling panels. The results showed a signif-icant influence of the panel temperature on the air temperature distribution in theroom. The cooled ceiling panel may create downdrafts in the occupied zone. To
avoid it, the surface temperature should be higher than 59F (15C), and the ratio ofpanel area to ceiling area should be less than a certain amount. A minimum surfacetemperature is also required to avoid condensation on the panel surface.
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
39/140
Literature Review
29
Conclusions
Large vertical temperature gradient and draft are the two main causes ofdiscomfort with displacement ventilation. Previous research shows that displace-ment ventilation without cooled ceiling panels is suitable for spaces with a coolingload less than 13 Btu/(hft2) (40 W/m2). However, the current study, as shown inChapter 6, indicates that the upper limit is much higher. With cooled ceiling panels,
displacement ventilation can remove a cooling load of 16 Btu/(hft2) (50 W/m2). Itis important that the surface temperature of the panels should not be lower than 59F(15C). Low flow rate fans at floor level may reduce the vertical temperature differ-ence and extend the application range.
2.5 ENERGY AND COST ANALYSIS
Annual energy consumption, first costs, and operation and maintenance costsover a life cycle are important criteria for evaluation of a ventilation system. Almostall of the energy analyses in the literature were done by numerical simulation
because it is too expensive and time consuming to conduct hour-by-hour measure-ments for a building based on a yearly basis.
Energy Analysis
Seppanen et al. (1989) evaluated the energy performance of displacement venti-lation systems and mixing ventilation systems in U.S. office buildings. The study is
Figure 2.19 Ranges of cooling load per floor area for three types of
displacement ventilation: side-wall diffuser (system 1), side-wall
diffuser with cooled ceiling panel (system 2), and rise floor
(system 3).
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
40/140
System Performance Evaluation and Design Guidelines for Displacement Ventilation
30
for south, north, and core zones with four representative U.S. climates (Minneapolis,Seattle, Atlanta, and EI Paso). They compared different control strategies, such as
variable-air-volume system and constant-air-volume system, and systems withdifferent components, such as recirculation, economizer, and heat recovery device.The energy consumption was found to depend very much on the control strategiesand air-handling systems, as shown in Figure 2.20. The energy consumed bydisplacement systems with heat recovery and variable-air-volume flow control issimilar to that of mixing systems.
Seppanen et al. (1989) used an average cooling load of 4.4 Btu/(hft2) (14 W/m2),and the maximum load is 7.5 Btu/(hft2) (24 W/m2) in the core space of U.S. office
buildings (Table 2.1). Since the core region does not need heating, application ofdisplacement ventilation is particularly attractive. However, the load is much higherin the perimeter region. The cooling load in the perimeter seems too high to use adisplacement ventilation system. According to the results shown in Table 2.1, thetraditional displacement ventilation system can only be used in the north zone of
buildings in Seattle. For the rest, the cooling loads are much higher than the traditionaldisplacement ventilation system can handle.
Chen and Kooi (1988) pointed out the significant impact of the vertical temper-ature gradient on energy consumption in a room with displacement ventilation when
Figure 2.20 Comparison of annual energy cost of different systems to the
same costs for system 1 (VAV mixing system) in theMinneapolis climate (Seppanen et al. 1989) (Mmissing
ventilation, Ddisplacement ventilation).
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
41/140
Literature Review
31
they analyzed a Dutch office with different ventilation systems. The energy
consumption of displacement ventilation can be either smaller or larger than that of
mixing ventilation, as shown in Table 2.2, depending on the control strategies and
the HVAC systems. The conclusions are similar to those of Seppanen et al. (1989),
although the approaches and weather data are different between the two investiga-
tions.
Nius (1994) calculation showed that the annual energy consumption ofdisplacement ventilation with a water-cooled ceiling system is almost the same as
that of an all-air system. His investigation used a variable-air-volume system.
Table 2.1 Heating and Cooling Loads for
Each Location and Representative Zone in the U.S.
Atlanta El Paso Minneapolis Seattle
Max. Ave. Max. Ave. Max. Ave. Max. Ave.
North zones
Heating (Btu/hft2)
Heating (W/m2)
Cooling (Btu/hft2)
Cooling (W/m2)
19.6
62.0
22.2
70.0
5.2
16.3
10.1
31.9
16.8
53.1
24.6
77.5
4.3
13.6
11.7
36.9
14.1
44.5
17.5
55.3
4.6
14.4
7.8
24.6
9.1
28.7
15.7
49.5
3.2
10.0
7.1
22.3
Core zones
Heating (Btu/hft2)
Heating (W/m2)
Cooling (Btu/hft2)
Cooling (W/m2
)
0.0
0.0
7.5
23.6
0.0
0.0
4.4
14.0
0.0
0.0
7.5
23.6
0.0
0.0
4.4
14.0
0.0
0.0
7.5
23.6
0.0
0.0
4.4
14.0
0.0
0.0
7.5
23.6
0.0
0.0
4.4
14.0South zones
Heating (Btu/hft2)
Heating (W/m2)
Cooling (Btu/hft2)
Cooling (W/m2)
19.2
60.5
37.6
118.7
5.0
15.8
14.1
44.5
16.8
53.0
41.4
130.5
4.7
14.8
17.6
55.6
16.0
50.3
36.9
116.4
5.0
15.9
12.4
39.0
9.1
28.6
35.9
113.2
3.3
10.3
11.3
35.7
Table 2.2 The Costs of Annual Energy Consumption
Ventilation
Systems Air-Handling Systems
Supply Air Temperature
F (C)
Energy Consumption
($/m2)
Displacement Variable air volume 61 (16) 108
Mixing Variable air volume 55 (12.5) 104
Mixing Variable air volume 61(16) 126
Displacement Constant air volume - 241
Mixing Constant air volume - 222
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
42/140
System Performance Evaluation and Design Guidelines for Displacement Ventilation
32
Zhivov and Rymkevich (1998) compared the energy consumption betweendisplacement and mixing ventilation systems for a restaurant in different U.S.
climates. They found that the displacement ventilation can save up to 50% of coolingenergy but may increase heating energy.
Previous studies show that both the supply air temperature and the exhausttemperature in displacement ventilation are higher than those of mixing ventilation.The air temperature difference between the supply and the exhaust is nearly the same
between the two ventilation systems. According to Skistad (1994), the temperaturedifference for displacement ventilation can be larger for high spaces and, therefore,supply airflow rate can be reduced considerably. Note that displacement ventilationmay use more natural cooling, since the supply air temperature is 4F to 6F (2Cto 3C) higher than that of mixing-type ventilation.
First Cost Analysis
Seppanen et al. (1989) found that the first cost of a system is difficult to estimate.They compared different air-handling systems, such as a variable-air-volume systemand a constant-air-volume system, and systems with different components, such asre-circulation, economizer, and heat recovery device. Figure 2.21 shows that the firstcosts of displacement systems are substantially higher than those of mixing systemswhen cooled ceiling panels are required. Without cooled ceiling panels, the costs ofthe displacement system are similar to those of mixing system. Skistad (1994) also
Figure 2.21 Comparison of the first cost of different systems to the same costs
for system 1 (VAV mixing system) in the Minneapolis climate(Seppanen et al. 1989) (Mmixing ventilation, Ddisplacement
ventilation).
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
43/140
Literature Review
33
reported that there is no significant first cost difference between the two systems,except that the cost of diffusers in the displacement ventilation is higher than that in
mixing ventilation.
Conclusions
There are not many publications in the literature concerning energy and costanalysis for displacement ventilation. Energy consumption varies significantly withclimatic regions. Compared with mixing ventilation, displacement may or may notsave energy. The energy consumption depends on the control strategies and air-handling systems.
In U.S. offices, displacement ventilation is ideal for core zones. Previous studiesshow that it may not be appropriate for perimeter zones in most regions of the U.S.
because the cooling load is too high. If cooled ceiling panels are used, the first costof displacement ventilation is much higher than that of mixing ventilation even
though the system may not be able to remove high cooling loads found in the southzone of U.S. office buildings.
Displacement ventilation combined with radiators is used in Europe for winterheating. However, the U.S. uses different heating methods, and few studies are avail-able.
2.6 DESIGN GUIDELINES
According to the analysis in the previous sections, the following parameters aremost important in design of the displacement system:
Supply airflow rate and temperature
Air temperature at floor level
Vertical temperature gradient
Maximum air velocity at floor level
Stratification height (lower zone height) or contaminant concentration gradi-ent
Energy consumption
First costs and maintenance costs
The most complete design guidelines available are those developed by Skistad(1994). He used a five-step approach:
1. Determine the required airflow rate for removal of surplus heat based on the cool-ing load and the air temperature difference between supply and exhaust openings.
2. Find the required airflow rate for removal of pollutants according to ventilationstandards.
3. Choose the larger of the two flow rates determined at Steps 1 and 2 as the venti-lation rate.
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
44/140
System Performance Evaluation and Design Guidelines for Displacement Ventilation
34
4. Determine supply air temperature under assumptions of f= 0.5 and constantvertical temperature gradient.
5. Choose supply diffusers according to the data provided by manufacturers in orderto avoid draft.
A more recent version of the deign guide can be found from the REHVA guide-book (REHVA 2002).
Despite the simple design guidelines, there are problems. Figure 2.2 shows thatf varies from 0.2 to 0.7, and the vertical temperature gradient is not a constant. Ifthe actual Tf< 0.5Te, the vertical temperature gradient will be larger than theexpected gradient. The design guidelines assume Tf=0.5Te. If the actual Tf>0.5Te, the selected Vbased on Tf= 0.5Tewill be larger than needed.
A different approach proposed by Chen et al. (1991) used a design atlas. The
atlas, based on experimental and computational results, contains detailed informa-tion on indoor airflow, indoor air quality, and thermal comfort for various configu-rations of spaces. Unfortunately, the atlas at present does not cover a wide range ofspaces and conditions.
It seems necessary to improve current available design guidelines for thedisplacement ventilation system to ensure good indoor air quality and thermalcomfort in the space.
From the above review and a survey among architects and energy consumptionin the U.S. (Chen et al. 1999), we may conclude that design guidelines available inthe literature cannot be used with confidence. Many assumptions need further clar-ification so that designers can use the design guidelines with confidence. U.S. build-
ings, especially perimeter zones of such buildings, have a high cooling load. Designof displacement ventilation must address these zones. The special features in U.S.buildings considered in this book include offices, classrooms, and industrial work-shops.
For these types of spaces, this book will present experimental tests used toobtain reliable data on the performances of displacement ventilation. A CFD
program was validated against these data. By using the program, this book showshow to conduct numerical simulations of a large number of cases of displacementventilation in the three types of spaces and how to establish a database on the perfor-mances. Based on the database, this book further presents a model for prediction oftemperature difference between head and foot levels and a model for ventilationeffectiveness for design purpose. The book will also compare the energy and first
costs of the displacement ventilation system with a mixing ventilation system.Finally, the book presents design guidelines for the displacement ventilation systemdeveloped from the study. These will be discussed in the following chapters.
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
45/140
35
CHAPTER 3
Experimental Study and
Validation of CFD Program
Displacement ventilation may provide better indoor air quality and save energy,
but there is a question of the usefulness of this technology in U.S. buildings withhigher cooling requirements. A first step in preparing a design guideline is carefulstudy of displacement ventilation for several typical U.S. buildings.
Two main approaches are available for the study of airflow and pollutant trans-port in buildings: experimental investigation and computer simulation. Experimen-tal investigation, although it is reliable, is very expensive and time consuming.Computer simulation is inexpensive, but it may not be reliable. For evaluation of theindoor environment provided by displacement ventilation, the computational fluiddynamics (CFD) technique seems most appropriate, if it is validated by experimentaldata. This combined approach was used to generate the results presented in this
book.
Many experimental data are available in the literature, but very few of them canbe used for the validation. Experimental data for CFD validation must containdetailed information of flow and thermal boundary conditions as well as flow andthermal parameters measured in the space. The data must also include an error anal-ysis. Unfortunately, not many of the experimental data include such detailed infor-mation. Popular data for validating room airflow are from Cheesewright et al. (1986)and Nielsen et al. (1978). Cheesewright's data are for natural convection and
Nielsen's data are for forced convection. However, it is still not certain that a CFDprogram validated by their data can be used for normal room airflow with mixedconvection (a combination of natural and forced convection).
This chapter presents detailed experimental data for displacement ventilation,which is mixed convection and represents ventilation reality in many buildings. Theexperimental data are used to validate a CFD program with a suitable turbulencemodel. There are many turbulence models available. The standard k-model
(Launder and Spalding 1974) is probably most widely used in engineering calcula-tions due to its relative simplicity. However, the model sometimes provides poorresults for indoor airflow. Many modifications have been applied to the standard
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
46/140
System Performance Evaluation and Design Guidelines for Displacement Ventilation
36
model. However, the modified models do not have a general applicability for indoorairflow. Chen (1995 and 1996) calculated the various indoor flows with eight differ-
ent turbulence models. His study concluded that the re-normalization group (RNG)k-model (Yokhot et al. 1992) is the best among the eddy-viscosity models tested.This chapter will also compare this models prediction for displacement ventilationin a room with the experimental data.
3.1 EXPERIMENTAL FACILITY
The Chambers and HVAC Systems
An environmental test facility was used to study indoor air quality, thermalcomfort, energy efficiency, and ventilation systems. The test facility, shown inFigure 3.1, consists of a well-insulated enclosure. Not shown in the figure are twodoors at either end. A movable wall divides the enclosure into a test chamber and a
climate chamber. We use the larger one as the test chamber and the smaller one asthe climate chamber. The lower part of the movable wall is an insulated exterior wall,and the upper part is a double-glazed window extending almost the whole width.Table 3.1 lists the dimensions and thermal resistance of the chambers.
Each chamber has a separate HVAC system. The two systems are nearly iden-tical. Table 3.1 also lists the capacities of the HVAC systems. Figure 3.2 illustratesthe HVAC system configuration and control interface. Three louvers control outdoorair rate between 0% and 100%. The supply fan and return fan have a variable speeddrive. The interface allows an interactive control of the systems. An operator canchange any parameter, such as airflow rate, supply and return temperature, andhumidity. The air parameters in different sections of the HVAC systems are shownin the monitor and/or are written into a file in the time interval specified by the oper-
Figure 3.1 Sketch of the test facility.
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
47/140
Experimental Study and Validation of CFD Program
37
ator. Nine-probe hot-wire anemometers, arranged in a matrix form, are used tomeasure the airflow rate. The HVAC and control design allows a variable air supplyrate ranging between 1 ach to 20 ach for the test chamber and 2 ach to 40 ach for theclimate chamber.
Equipment
The major measuring equipment of the test facility includes the following:
A flow visualization system for observing airflow patterns A hot-sphere anemometer system for air velocity, velocity fluctuation, andtemperature measurements
Table 3.1 Dimension, Thermal Resistance, and
HVAC System Capacity of the Test Facility
Length
Width Height Test Chamber Climate Chamber
Dimension Length 17 ft (5.16 m) 10 ft (3.08 m)
Width 12 ft (3.65 m)
Height 8 ft (2.43 m)
Partition heightwindow width
3.9 ft (1.16 m)11.5 ft (3.45 m)
Thermalresistance
Partition wall 30 ft2hF/Btu (5.3 Km2/W)
Partition window 1.5 ft2hF/Btu (0.27 Km2/W)
Other walls 30 ft2hF/Btu (5.3 Km2/W)
Ceiling 30 ft2hF/Btu (5.3 Km2/W)
Floor 30 ft2hF/Btu (5.3 Km2/W)
Door 30 ft2hF/Btu (5.3 Km2/W)
Capacity ofHVAC system
Preheater 8 kW
Supply fan 560 cfm (930 m3/h)
Chiller 21 kW
Reheater 8 kW
Humidifier 11 kgsteam/h none
Return fan 560 cfm (930 m3/h)
Dampers 560 cfm (930 m3/h)
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
48/140
System Performance Evaluation and Design Guidelines for Displacement Ventilation
38
A tracer-gas system for measuring contaminant concentrations and humidity
A thermocouple system for measuring surface and air temperatures
The test chamber has two long slots and several observation windows on thewalls. Light penetrates through the slots and forms a thin light sheet. By injectingsmoke into the room, the airflow pattern can be observed through those observationwindows normal to the light sheet. The walls of the room were painted black to
enhance visualization. The test facility has two types of smoke source: a theater foggenerator and an air current kit. The theater fog generator produces smoke with atemperature far above the environmental temperature. The smoke is cooled througha long tube before entering the room to approach neutral buoyancy. This generator
produces a large amount of smoke and is good for observing how supply air isdistributed in the room. However, it is not ideal for visualizing airflow pattern in a
particular area. The air current kit remedies this problem. The kit generates a verysmall amount of smoke locally.
Since there is no effective technique at present to measure low air velocitiesthroughout an indoor space, the experiment used hot-sphere anemometers for themeasurements of air velocity, velocity fluctuation, and temperature in the room. AnADD board was used for data acquisition. For velocity, the measurement range of
the hot-sphere anemometers is 10 to 1000 fpm (0.05 to 5 m/s); the repeatability is2 fpm (0.01 m/s) or 2% of the readings. The anemometers cannot reliably measurevelocity when the magnitude is lower than 20 fpm (0.10 m/s). The measuring errors
Figure 3.2 The control interface of the HVAC system.
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
49/140
Experimental Study and Validation of CFD Program
39
for air temperature are 0.8F (0.4 K), including the errors introduced by the dataacquisition systems. Since the probe size is large (about 1/8 in. or 0.003 m in diam-
eter), the probes are not sensitive to high-frequency velocity fluctuation. It is difficultto estimate the errors for velocity fluctuation.
A multi-gas monitor and analyzer system is used to determine indoor air quality.The tracer-gas system can measure many different types of tracer gases. This inves-tigation used SF6and CO2. SF6is better than CO2because the background concen-tration of SF6is almost zero. CO2is inexpensive and was used to check the resultsobtained with SF6.In addition, we also measured the water vapor concentration fordetermining relative humidity in the room. The error for measuring concentration isat an acceptable 10%.
We also used thermocouples to measure air temperature and surface tempera-ture of the room enclosures. The error for measuring temperature by the entiresystem is about 0.8F (0.4 K).
3.2 TEST PROCEDURE
We conducted several measurements with different configurations: a smalloffice, a large office with partitions, and a classroom. Figure 3.3 shows the config-urations used in the experiment.
The internal heat sources and the ventilation rate used in the experiment arelisted in Table 3.2. These cases present some typical situations in the U.S. but theydo not cover a wide range. The main purpose is to obtain experimental data to vali-date a CFD program.
A perforated displacement diffuser, 1.7 ft (0.5 m) wide and 3.6 ft (1.1 m) high,was placed at the middle of the right side wall near the floor in the small office. Theeffective area ratio is 10%. The exhaust, 1.4 ft 1.4 ft (0.43 m 0.43 m), was at thecenter of the ceiling.
The occupants in the test room were simulated by boxes 1.3 ft (0.4 m) long, 1.2ft (0.35 m) wide, and 3.6 ft (1.1 m) high, each heated by three 25 W light bulbs. Themeasured surface temperature was between 82F and 86F (28C and 30C). Two
point sources of SF6were introduced at the top of the two boxes to simulate contam-inants from the occupants, with an initial velocity of 9 fpm (0.045 m/s in the hori-zontal direction). Two PCs were used to generate heat. One generated 108 W and theother 173 W. Six 34 W fluorescent lamps were used during the experiment as over-head lighting. In addition, two tables and two file cabinets were also in the room. Theventilation rate was 4 ach, corresponding to a face velocity of 18 fpm (0.09 m/s) atthe diffuser. The ventilation rate is very high compared to that used in Scandinavia.This is because U.S. buildings have a much higher cooling load based on a surveyin Boston (Chen et al. 1999). A lower ventilation rate will require a lower supply air
temperature. This will lead to draft at ankle level. The supply air temperature corre-sponding to 4 ach was controlled at 62.5F (17.0C). The window surface temper-ature was 81.1F to 82.6F (27.3C to 28.1C), and the surface temperature on the
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
50/140
System Performance Evaluation and Design Guidelines for Displacement Ventilation
40
(a)
(b)
(c)
Figure 3.3 Space layout used in the experiment: (a) small office, (b) large
office with partitions, and (c) classroom.
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
51/140
Experimental Study and Validation of CFD Program
41
movable wall was 75.6F to 79.9F (24.2C to 26.6C). The surface temperatures onthe other walls were 73.9F to 78.8F (23.3C to 26.0C).
Five movable poles were placed in the test room, and each supported six hot-sphere anemometers and six air-sampling tubes. Additionally, two thermocoupleswere also attached on each pole to measure air temperature near the floor and ceiling.A total of 40 thermocouples were used to measure the surface temperatures of thefloor, ceiling, window, and walls.
Measurements were conducted under steady-state conditions by stabilizing theroom thermal and fluid conditions for more than 12 hours before recording the data.Air velocity, air temperature, and SF6concentration were measured in nine different
positions with a total of 54 measuring points for air velocity, 72 for air temperature,
and 54 for tracer gas.The measured air velocities can be used for determining turbulence intensity,
and the measured concentrations can be used to find the local mean age of air. Since
Table 3.2 Specifications for the Experimental Measurements
I-P Units
Case Type
Persons
(number)
Equipment
(Btu/hft2)
Lighting
(Btu/hft2)
Internal
Load
(Btu/hft2)
Ventilation
Rate (ach) Climate
1 Small 2 4.7 3.4 10.7 4 Summer
2 office 2 4.7 3.4 10.7 4 Winter
3 Large 2 4.7 3.4 10.7 8 Summer
4 office 2 4.7 3.4 10.7 4 Winter
5 classroom
6 2.9 3.4 13.9 8 Summer
6 6 0 3.4 11.0 4 Winter
SI Units
Case Type
Persons
(number)
Equipment
(W/m2)
Lighting
(W/m2)
Internal
Load
(W/m2)
Ventilation
Rate (ach) Climate
1 Small 2 14.9 10.8 33.7 4 Summer
2 office 2 14.9 10.8 33.7 4 Winter
3 Large 2 14.9 10.8 33.7 8 Summer
4 office 2 14.9 10.8 33.7 4 Winter
5 classroom
6 9.2 10.8 43.9 8 Summer
6 6 0 10.8 34.7 4 Winter
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation
52/140
System Performance Evaluation and Design Guidelines for Displacement Ventilation
42
the omnidirectional anemometers have a large uncertainty in measuring low air
velocity, we feel the fluctuating velocity, |u|, could provide more accurate informa-
tion than turbulence intensity.
This investigation used the step-up and decay method to determine the mean age
of air, :
(3.1)
(3.2)
where c(t), c(0), and c() are the tracer-gas concentration measured at time = t, 0,
and infinity, respectively.
3.3 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Table 3.3 lists the measured air temperatures and concentrations at the supply
inlet and exhaust and the surface velocity at the supply diffuser.
3.4 COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS MODEL
With the detailed experimental data, we can validate a CFD program. A validated
CFD program can then be used to establish a database to evaluate the performance of
displacement ventilation and to develop design guidelines for displacement ventila-
tion. The CFD program used in the present investigation is a commercial program(CHAM 1996) that uses a renormalization group k-model (Yokhot et al. 1992).
Table 3.3 The Measured Parameters
Case Type
Ts TeTracer
Gas
cs ce us
(F) (C) (F) (C) (ppm) (ppm) (fpm) (m/s)
1 Small 62.6 17.0 80.1 26.7 SF6 0 0.42 18 0.09
2 office 63.0 17.2 75.4 24.1 CO2 562 725 18 0.09
3 Large 62.8 17.1 73.6 23.1 CO2 520 602 36 0.18
4 office 62.2 16.8 75.9 24.4 CO2 493 657 18 0.09
5 class-room
67.6 19.8 76.3 24.6 CO2 477 723 37 0.19
6 66.2 19.0 78.4 25.8 CO2 432 924 20 0.10
1c t( ) c 0( )c ( ) c 0( )----------------------------- dt
0
= step-up( )
c t( ) c ( )[ ]dt0
c 0( ) c ( )
--------------------------------------------= decay( )
8/13/2019 ASHRAE - SystemPerformanceEvaluation