Performance Evaluation and Development of

Design Guidelines for Displacement Ventilation

Final Report to ASHRAE
TC 5.3 - Room Air Distribution
TC 4.10 Indoor Environment Modeling
on ASHRAE Research Project - RP-949
Principal Investigators: Qingyan Chen and Leon Glicksman
Research Assistants: Xiaoxiong Yuan, Shiping Hu, Yongqing Hu, and Xudong Yang
Building Technology Program
Department of Architecture
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Room 5-418, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139-4307
Phone (617) 253-7714, Fax: (617) 253-6152, Email: qchen@mit.edu
July 20, 1999
1
Abstract
This report presents the research results on displacement ventilation sponsored by
ASHRAE TC 5.3 -Room Air Distribution and TC 4.10 Indoor Environment Modeling
through Research Project 949.
We first reviewed the literature concerning the performance of the traditional
displacement ventilation. On the other hand, we conducted a survey that shows the
interests of architects in using the displacement ventilation in U.S. buildings. The survey
also shows that U.S. buildings have different layouts and larger internal heat gains than
those studied in the literature. It is necessary to develop design guidelines of displacement
ventilation for U.S. buildings under different climate conditions.
To develop the design guidelines requires two important models that were not
available from the literature: a model to calculate the temperature difference between the
head and foot level of an occupant and a model to determine the ventilation effectiveness
at the breathing level. The investigation developed the models from the results of 56
cases of the displacement ventilation obtained by a Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
program. Those cases include a wide range of thermal and flow conditions similar to
those found in U.S. offices, classrooms, and workshops. The CFD program 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 office with partition, and a quarter
of a classroom. The data includes airflow patterns and the distributions of air velocity,
temperature, contaminant concentration, and turbulence. The validation also used some
data obtained from the literature. The CFD program has also been used to assess the
performance of the displacement ventilation, such as airflow pattern and the distributions
of air temperature, percentage dissatisfied due to draft, predicted percentage dissatisfied,
contaminant concentration, mean age of air, and ventilation effectiveness. The
investigation also conducted energy and first costs analysis.
The results show that the displacement ventilation system can provide a thermally
comfortable indoor environment at a high cooling load through careful design. The indoor
air quality in a space with displacement ventilation is better if the contaminant sources are
associated with the heat sources. The displacement ventilation system can also save
energy but requires a separated heating system if the displacement ventilation is applied
to building perimeter zones. The study has developed a ten-step design guideline to
design the displacement ventilation system for U.S. buildings.
2
Table of Contents
Abstract 1
Table of Contents 2
Nomenclature 4
1. Introduction 5
1.1. Statement of the Problem 5
1.2. Displacement Ventilation 5
1.3. Special Feature in U.S. Building 7
1.4. Project Objective and Research Procedure 8
2. Literature Review and Survey 9
2.1. Temperature Distribution 9
2.2. Flow Distribution 16
2.3. Contaminant Distribution 23
2.4. Comfort Aspects 29
2.5. Energy and Cost Analysis 32
2.6. Design Guidelines 36
2.7. Survey 37
3. Experimental Study and Validation of CFD Program 45
3.1. Experimental Facility 46
3.2. Test Procedure 50
3.3. Experimental Results 53
3.4. Computational Fluid Dynamics Model 53
3.5. Validation of CFD Program 56
3.6. Conclusions 65
4. Models For Prediction of Temperature Difference and Ventilation Effectiveness 66
4.1. A Database of Displacement Ventilation 67
4.2. Model of the Air Temperature Difference between Head and Foot Levels 78
4.3. Ventilation Effectiveness Model 83
4.4. A Simplified CFD Program 85
4.5. Conclusions 89
5. Performances Evaluation of Displacement Ventilation 90
5.1. Evaluation Criteria 90
5.2. Performances Evaluation of Displacement Ventilation 93
5.3. Discussion 100
5.4. Conclusions 102
6. Energy and Cost Analysis 104
6.1. Load Calculations 104
6.2. Secondary Systems and Plants 109
6.3. Energy Analysis for U.S. Conditions 112
6.4. First Cost Analysis for U.S. Conditions 118
6.5. Conclusions 121
7. Design Guidelines 122
3
8. Conclusions 128
References 130
Appendix A: Comparison of Results between Experiment and CFD
136
Appendix B: Detailed Experimental Data for Validation of a CFD Program 175
Appendix C: Performances of Displacement Ventilation 202
Appendix D: Energy Analysis of the Displacement Ventilation System 224
4
Nomenclature
A area [ft
2
] or [m
2
]
Ar Archimedes number, ghT
r
/u
s
2
[-]
C dimensionless contaminant concentration [-]
c contaminant concentration [ppm]
C
p
specific heat at constant pressure [Btu/(lb
o
F)] or [kJ/(kg K)]
d hydraulic diameter of a heat source [ft] or [m]
g gravity [ft/s
2
] or [m/s
2
]
H height of a room [ft] or [m]
h height of a diffuser [ft] or [m]
h heat transfer coefficient [Btu/h ft
2 o
F, W/m
2
K]
l length of a line heat source [ft] or [m]
Q heat source or cooling load [Btu/h] or [W]
q heat flux [Btu/h ft
2
, W/m
2
]
R thermal resistance [h
o
Fft
2
/Btu] or [
o
Cm
2
/W]
s vertical temperature gradient [
o
F/ft] or [
o
C/m]
T temperature [
o
F] or [
o
C]
U dimensionless velocity, u/u
s
[-]
u velocity [fpm] or [m/s]
U dimensionless fluctuating velocity, u u
s
' / [-]
u fluctuating velocity [fpm] or [m/s]
V volume flow rate [ft
3
/h] or [m
3
/h]
Greek symbols
heat transfer coefficient [Btu/(h
o
Fft
2
)] or [W/(
o
Cm
2
)]
gas thermal expansion coefficient [1/K]
difference
dimensionless temperature, (T - T
s
)/( T
e
- T
s
) [-]
density [lb/ft
3
] or [kg/m
3
]
Subscripts
a air
c convection or ceiling
e exhaust
f floor
r radiation or room
s supply or surface
t total, time, transmission
5
1. Introduction
1.1. Statement of the Problem
Since the energy crisis in 1970's, the insulation of buildings has been improved in
order to reduce heat loss in winter, heat gain in summer, and the infiltration of outdoor
air. As a consequence, the heat extracted from or supplied to a room for maintaining a
comfortable air temperature is reduced and the ventilation rate has also been reduced by a
corresponding amount, sometimes much more if building envelope is made tighter.
However, such a reduction of air supply causes an increase of concentration of indoor
pollutants and sometimes generates a non-uniform distribution of air temperature and
contaminant concentration. Draft (thermal comfort problems) and "sick-building"
syndrome (indoor air quality problems) are very familiar ailments today that are the direct
results of the poor distributions of airflow, temperature and contaminant concentrations.
The solution of the thermal comfort and indoor air quality (IAQ) problems without
consuming too much energy is a very challenging subject for both ventilation engineers
and architects.
Currently, the United States consumes more than 1/3 of its energy in buildings.
There is a possibility to save up to 20% of the energy consumed in buildings. Saving
energy may result in the reduction of fresh air supply. This may cause poorer IAQ. Since
people spend up to 90% of time in indoors, IAQ is increasingly recognized as an essential
factor for the prevention of human diseases and the promotion of people's comfort 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 productivity and economic loss. A survey conducted
in the New England area of 94 state government office buildings showed an average
productivity loss of 3%, which is attributed to poor IAQ (Axelrad 1989). If these results
are applicable nationwide, the economic cost of the nation would be in the order of $60
billion annually. Therefore, it is necessary to provide a good ventilation system that can
provide good IAQ and save energy.
1.2. Displacement Ventilation
Displacement ventilation has been used quite commonly in Scandinavia during
the past twenty years. Since displacement ventilation was first applied to a welding
industry in 1978 (Belin 1978), it has been increasingly used in Scandinavia 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
6
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 devided into three types:
) Traditional displacement ventilation as shown in Figure 1.1
) Displacement ventilation with chilled ceiling panel
) Displacement ventilation with raised floor
The current investigation focused on the first type: the traditional displacement
ventilation.
Exhaust
Diffuser
Figure 1.1 Sketch of displacement ventilation
A typical displacement ventilation system for cooling, as shown in Figure 1.1,
supplies conditioned air from a low side wall 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 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 a careful design of the
system configuration and operation to adequately handle the space cooling loads. The
supply temperature, velocity, and vertical temperature gradient in the occupied zone are
all very important comfort-related design parameters. Compliance with the specification
7
of ASHRAE Standard 55-1992 (ASHRAE 1992) for acceptable vertical temperature
difference in the occupied zone places limitations on the magnitudes of supply-room
temperature difference and/or space cooling loads for a given supply air flow rate. This is
especially important when the system is applied to U.S. building 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 heights of
around 9 ft (2.7 m), displacement ventilation cannot maintain acceptable comfort for
cooling loads above 8 - 10 Btu/(h ft
2
) (25 - 30 W/m
2
) unless the air supply volume is
increased, or additional heat removal capacity is provided through the use of cooled
ceiling panels. With higher ceiling heights, displacement ventilation systems are capable
of removing larger heat loads.
A stable vertically stratified temperature field is essential for this type of system to
function properly. Numerous studies show that, when properly designed, displacement
ventilation can take advantage of the naturally occurring thermal stratification in the
room, and thus, can increase the ventilation efficiency.
1.3. Special Features in U.S. Buildings
The research of displacement ventilation has been mainly conducted in
Scandinavian countries. Many U.S. cities have higher temperatures in summer than those
in Scandinavian cities. Besides, the U.S. offices may have more lighting/equipment that
produces more heat. Therefore, the cooling load could be higher in the U.S. than that in
Scandinavian countries. In many U.S. offices, there are large core spaces that are
completely isolated from the external climate. Cooling is always needed in the core
spaces. There is a great potential to use displacement ventilation in such spaces.
On the other hand, heating and cooling are required in the perimeter spaces. In
Scandinavian countries a radiator is often used to offset heating load in winter and fresh
air is supplied by the displacement ventilation system. This implies the supply 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. office buildings, air-
conditioning systems are often used for both heating and cooling and there is no radiator
available. If a displacement ventilation system is used in the 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 and operating costs with
two systems would be different. Displacement diffusers can be used for heating as well,
but the airflow pattern will be mixing type.
In addition, many U.S. offices and restaurants are large spaces with many
partitions to form individual work stations/dinning areas, while most European
offices/restaurants are small ones. Therefore, direct application of the Scandinavian
results for U.S. design is not feasible.
8
1.4. Project Objective and Research Procedure
As mentioned above, displacement ventilation may improve indoor air quality and
have potential to save energy. However, the performances of displacement ventilation are
still not totally understandable. The special features of US buildings have not been
considered in previous research. These motivate the current research project. The
objective of the project is to answer the following two questions:
) whether displacement ventilation is suitable in US buildings
) how to design the displacement ventilation systems
To evaluate a ventilation system, we need to consider simultaneously its impact
on indoor air quality, comfort, energy consumption, and costs. In order to obtain
necessary information to answer the above questions, we carried out the following
research:
(1) literature review, to identify the existing results and problems;
(2) survey, to obtain information on typical configuration and cooling load of US
buildings and to know the interests of architects on displacement ventilation;
(3) experimental study, to get reliable data, including the distributions of velocity,
turbulence intensity, temperature, tracer-gas concentration, etc;
(4) validation of a Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) program by the
experimental data, to identify the accuracy of the program;
(5) numerical simulation of a large number of cases by the CFD program, to
establish a database on the performance of the displacement ventilation;
(6) model development, to develop models needed for design guidelines;
(7) energy and cost analysis, to assess the impact of energy and first costs, and
(8) development of design guidelines, to help designers in the U.S. to design
displacement ventilation.
Chapter 2 of this report first presents a state-of-the-art review on displacement
ventilation. Busy readers may refer to the conclusions at the end of each section. Chapter
2 also shows the survey results among U.S. architects on using displacement ventilation
systems and a field survey of layouts and heat gains in nineteen buildings in Greater
Boston area. Chapter 3 describes the experimental study in a full size test room
simulating a small office, a large office with partitions, and a classroom. The
experimental results are used to validate a CFD program. Chapter 4 established a
database of displacement ventilation by CFD computations of numerous cases for
different thermal and flow conditions for different types of U.S. buildings. Based on the
computed results, two models are developed for prediction of the air temperature
difference between head and foot level and the ventilation effectiveness at head level.
Chapter 4 also introduces a simplified CFD program for calculating indoor airflow.
Chapter 5 presents the performance of displacement ventilation. Chapter 6 describes
9
energy and cost analysis. Chapter 7 proposed a 10-step design guideline for displacement
ventilation. Finally, the report draws some conclusions obtained from the present study.
10
2. Literature Review and Survey
This chapter reviewed the studies concerning displacement ventilation. The results
include the distributions of temperature, velocity, and contaminant, comfort, energy and
cost analysis, and design guidelines are reviewed in separate sections below. The chapter
also presents the survey results obtained from U.S. architects on using displacement
ventilation systems and the results of a field survey of layouts and internal heat gains in
nineteen buildings in the Greater Boston area.
2.1. Temperature Distribution
Since displacement ventilation systems supply cold fresh air directly to the
occupied zone, potential draft exists in the floor level. In addition, the large temperature
stratification that exists in a space with displacement ventilation may also cause
discomfort. Therefore, a designer needs information on the air temperature distribution in
spaces with displacement ventilation.
Dimensionless temperature and vertical temperature gradient
Researchers found that the air temperature in a space appears to vary linearly with
space height in the stratified zone and is nearly constant in horizontal directions except in
the region near the supply diffusers. Figure 2.1 presents a typical temperature profile
assumed for a room with displacement ventilation, where T
s
, T
f
, and T
e
are air
temperatures at supply outlets, near the floor in the occupied zone, and at exhausts,
respectively. This linear profile is widely used by most investigators, e.g., Mathisen and
Skaret (1983), Flatheim (1984), Sandberg (1985), Holmberg et al. (1987), Nielsen (1993),
and Skistad (1994).
height
Ts Tf Te
Figure 2.1 Simplified vertical temperature profile in a room with displacement
ventilation
11
Figure 2.2 plots the vertical dimensionless temperature profiles, ),
T T
T T
(
s e
s

= in
normal offices obtained from several different investigations. The dimensionless
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 supply and extract air,
varies from 0.2 to 0.7. In addition, the air temperature gradient is not the same for
different investigations. The temperature does not vary linearly from the floor to the
exhaust for most cases. The discrepancies among the profiles in 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
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Height [m]

[
-
]
Holmberg, 1987 Holmberg, 1987
Holmberg, 1987 Holmberg, 1987
Sandberg, 1985 Sandberg, 1985
Chen, 1988 Chen, 1988
Chen, 1988 Chen, 1988
Chen, 1988 Nielsen et al, 1988
Nielsen et al, 1988 Nielsen et al, 1988
Nielsen et al, 1988 Nielsen et al, 1988
Nielsen et al, 1988 Mundt, 1996
Mundt, 1996 Mundt, 1996
Mundt, 1996 Li, et al, 1992
Li, et al, 1992 Li, et al, 1992
Li, et al, 1992 Brohus & Nielsen, 1996
Brohus & Nielsen, 1996 Brohus & Nielsen, 1996
Figure 2.2 Temperature profiles in office rooms.
Since the temperature difference between head and feet is a critical criterion of
thermal 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 x 12
ft x 8.3 ft or 4.2 m x 3.6 m x 2.5 m) with displacement ventilation. The results show that

f
is between 0.56 and 0.48 when the air change rate is between 2 and 4 ach. The results
of Chen et al. (1988) from a test chamber of 18.7 ft x 10 ft x 10.7 ft (5.6 m x 3.0 m x 3.2
m) confirmed that
f
is a function of ventilation flow rate. The
f
decreases from 0.4 to
12
0.2 when the air change rate increases from 3 to 5 ach. Similar results can be found from
Mundt (1990), Li et al. (1992), etc.
Mundt (1990) developed a formula to calculate
f
based on the assumption that
the convective heat transfer from the floor to air arises the air temperature from T
s
to 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:
1
1 1
A
C V
1
cf r
p
f
+
|
|
.
|

\
|

= (2.1)
where V = ventilation flow rate
= air density
C
p
= specific heat at constant pressure
A = floor area

r
= radiative heat transfer coefficient from ceiling to floor

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 measured
data in the literature (the same references cited in Figure 2.2) when
r
= 0.9 Btu/(h ft
2 o
F)
(5 W/m
2
K) and
cf
= 0.7 Btu/(h ft
2 o
F) (4 W/m
2
K). Point "1" in Figure 2.3 is relatively
small because the walls were covered with aluminum in the experiment and 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 only 5
0
F (2.8
0
C) in the experiment.
Equation (2.1) accounts for the impact of cooling load on
f
because ventilation rate and
cooling load are inter-related.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0 5 10 15 20 25
V/A [m/h]

f
[
-
]
Eq. (2.1)
Measured data
1
2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
0 5 10 15 20 25
V/A [m/h]
s
H
/

T
e
[
-
]
Eq. (2.3)
Measured data
Figure 2.3 Dimensionless temperature near Figure 2.4 Dimensionless temperature
the floor vs. supply flow rate. gradient vs. supply flow rate.
13
If the temperature varies linearly with the elevation, the temperature gradient, s,
can be estimated as:
s = (1 -
f
) (T
e
- T
s
)/H (2.2)
or,
sH
T V c
A
e
f
p
r cf

= =
+
|
\

|
.
|
|
+
1 1
1
1 1
1

(2.3)
Unfortunately, Equation (2.3) do not correlate the temperature gradient, as shown by
Figure 2.4, where the points represent the measured data (the same references 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
concentrated heat source, the gradient of dimensionless temperature decreases slightly as
the Archimedes number (ghT
e
/u
s
2
) increases. The gradient is strongly related to the
surface temperature of the heat sources (Nielsen 1992). Nielsen (1996) later presented a
design chart shown in Figure 2.5 from experimental results in rooms with heights of 8.3 ft
to 15 ft (2.5 m to 4.5 m) to determine dimensionless temperature of air near the floor.
Figure 2.5 A design chart for the dimensionless temperature near the floor
14
It is a common practice to assume adiabatic thermal conditions for internal walls.
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 down
flow (if the walls are colder) or up flow (if the walls are warmer). In addition, 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 air and internal
walls. Most of the investigations neglect the impact of internal wall temperature on the
vertical temperature gradient.
A study conducted by Jarmyr (1982) showed vertical temperature profiles at 5
different times of day in a workshop. The temperature gradient increased from 0.23
o
F/ft
(0.38 K/m) in the early morning to 0.42
o
F/ft (0.7 K/m) at noon and then decreased
slightly to 0.39
o
F/ft (0.65 K/m) in the evening. The non-dimensional temperature 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 temperature gradient.
Li et al. (1992) showed that heat conduction through walls and radiation between
room surfaces, particularly between ceiling and floor, have a significant contribution to
the vertical temperature profile. For example, the dimensionless air temperature near the
floor was changed from 0.62 to 0.3 when the black walls were covered with aluminum.
To include the contribution of radiative heat transfer and conduction 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 measured data.
Mundt (1996) recently extended her early model (Mundt 1990) to consider the
influences of heat transfer through the building enclosure and the heat sources on the
vertical temperature profile. The new model relates air temperatures near the floor and
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) could
predict the measured data of Li et al. (1992). However, the models do not closely predict
the results of various investigators. Since both models assume the air temperature
gradient to be constant, they need improvements.
Cooled ceiling panels with displacement ventilation are often used in spaces with
a high cooling load. The vertical temperature gradients in the spaces with the cooled
ceiling panels are smaller than those without the panels. The temperature distributions 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 ventilation could be transformed into
mixing ventilation.
15
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
C
a
s
e
1
C
a
s
e
2
C
a
s
e
3
T
e
-
T
s
Measured
Li et al (1992)
Mundt (1996)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
C
a
s
e
1
C
a
s
e
2
C
a
s
e
3
T
a
f
-
T
s
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
C
a
s
e
1
C
a
s
e
2
C
a
s
e
3
T
a
c
-
T
s
Figure 2.6 Comparison of the temperatures between the models and the experiment
Impact of space height
Displacement ventilation is more suitable for high spaces, such as concert halls
and workshops (Skistad 1994). Skistad (1989) studied temperature profiles in a concert
hall with supply openings under chairs. The temperature rises rapidly from the supply air
temperature at the floor to the elevation where people are located. Above the people,
there is only a slight temperature gradient, up to the elevation where 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.
Recently, 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
elevation in the zone lower than 23 ft (7 m). In the upper zone the temperature is almost a
constant. These measurements confirm again that the vertical temperature gradient is not
a constant. Large spaces may be divided into a few zones for determining the temperature
distribution.
Impact of diffuser type
Skaret (1985) and Nielsen et al. (1988) investigated the impact of supply diffusers
on the temperature distribution. It is better to increase the entrainment of room air so as to
decrease the temperature gradient in the occupied zone. The performance of diffusers is
critical to avoid draft near the diffusers. Recently, manufactures have developed 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
occupied zone are two of the most important parameters to evaluate the performance of
displacement ventilation in terms of comfort. The ventilation rate or cooling load has a
, Li et al.
16
significant impact on the two parameters. It is possible to determine the air temperature
near the floor but it is difficult to calculate the gradient.
The type and position of the heat sources and wall heat transfer also influence the
air temperature near the floor and the vertical temperature gradient. Some of the
contributions have been estimated in previous investigations. However, the estimation
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 desirable to
use a more sophisticated model.
A good diffuser should mix the supply air with the surrounding air quickly to
reduce possible draft.
It is necessary to develop a universal but simple equation that can glue all the
results together for design purpose.
2.2. Flow Distribution
One important feature in displacement ventilation is to properly control and
design the airflow distribution. Proper distribution will ensure good air quality and
comfort level in the space. For example, well designed displacement ventilation can
achieve a one dimensional displacement flow in the occupied zone and transport the
contaminants 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 the
entrained flow as a function of height. The thermal plume generated by a heated object
will increase its volume with the height above the object as shown in Figure 2.7.
17
Figure 2.7 A thermal plume above a heated object.
According to Baturin (1972), the flow rate, V, at a height, y, from a concentrated
heat source in homogeneous surroundings can be expressed by:
V = 0.005Q
c
1/3
(y + y
0
)
5/3
(2.4)
where y + y
0
= distance from a virtual origin of the flow, (y
0
can be approximated as 2d
and d is the hydraulic diameter of the heat source),
Q
c
= convective heat emission from the source.
This equation is valid for y > 2d (Kofoed and Nielson 1990). Q
c
can be estimated by Q
c
=
k Q
t
where Q
t
is the total energy consumption of the heat source (including convective
and radiative). The coefficient k is 0.7 - 0.9 for pipes, 0.4 - 0.6 for small components and
0.3 - 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(Q
c
/l)
1/3
(y + y
0
) l (2.5)
where l is the length of the source. y
0
is 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 surroundings.
18
In an environment with temperature stratification, such as a space with
displacement 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. Therefore,
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 plume in a space with a
vertical temperature gradient is a little smaller than that without the gradient. The
maximum height of the plume is significantly shorter. If the height of a 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 the upper zone. Therefore, the
maximum height of a plume is an important design parameter. Mundt (1992) presented
the following equations to calculate the flow rate and the maximum height of a plume in a
space with air temperature gradient:
V = 0.00238 Q
c
3/4
s
-5/8
(0.004 + 0.039 y
1
+0.380 y
1
2
- 0.062 y
1
3
) (2.6)
y
max
= 0.98 Q
c
1/4
s
-3/8
- y
0
(2.7)
where y
1
= 2.86 (y + y
0
) Q
c
-1/4
s
3/8
(2.8)
V = flow rate in a plume [m
3
/s]
y
max
= maximum height of the plume [m]
s = air temperature gradient [K/m]
Q
c
= convective heat emission [W]
y = height above the heated object [m].
y
0
= 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 range of 1.1
to 2.2 ft
3
/s (30 to 60 l/s) through a section 2.5 ft (0.75 m) above the persons head.
According to Clark and Edholm (1985), the flow rate may increase as the surrounding
temperature decreases, because of the increase of a persons metabolism. Danielsson
(1987) showed that the vertical temperature gradient in the air surrounding 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 the chart, the flow rate at 6 ft
(1.8 m) above the floor may decrease from 1.56 ft
3
/s to 0.74 ft
3
/s (42 l/s to 20 l/s) when
the room temperature gradient is increased from 0.3 to 0.9
o
F/ft (0.5 to 1.5
o
C/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 maximum height of
a plume generated by a person is about 6.6 to 10 ft (2 to 3 m), depending on the vertical
temperature gradient. The measured flow rates by Mundt (1992) are about 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). The calculated results agree
reasonably with the measured data (Mundt 1992, Kofoed and Nielsen 1990).
19
Figure 2.8 Volume flow rate around and above a person
The flow rate in a plume generated by a lamp is smaller than that generated by a
person, and the flow rate in the plume created by a desk lamp is much smaller than that
created by a computer (Mundt, 1992), although the energy consumption is at the same
level. Figure 2.9 presents the measured data of Mundt (1992) for the volume flow rate
above a desk lamp, a fluorescent lamp, and a personal computer. Equations (2.6) to (2.8)
may be applied to fluorescent lamps, and personal computers. The results seem logical
because a point heat source has a smaller area that would entrain much less 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 with a
double convective heat emission 2 Q
c
. The flow rate of a plume close to a corner is about
one quarter of the rate in a free plume with 4 Q
c
. The plumes generated by a number of
sources near each other may form a large plume with a flow rate of about N
1/3
V, where N
is the number of the heat sources and V is the flow rate in a free plume (Nielsen 1993).
Eq. (2.4)
Eq. (2.6), s = 0.6
o
C/m
Eq. (2.6), s = 1.5
o
C/m
20
Figure 2.9 Volume flow rate above a personal computer and a lamp
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 T
w
2/5
y
6/5
l (2.9)
where V = flow rate in the boundary layer [m
3
/s]
T
w
= temperature difference between room air and the wall surface [
o
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 flow along the
wall may be as large as that from several heat sources in the room such as people or
equipment.
Cold down-draft from vertical cold surfaces may cause a stratified flow with a
typical wall jet profile near the floor. Heiselberg (1993) measured the profiles and
presented formulae to calculate the maximum velocity in the flow and to evaluate the
draft risk. The maximum velocity near the wall and the floor is about 40 fpm (0.21 m/s)
for a 5 ft (1.5 m) high cold wall with a difference of 18
0
F (10
0
C) between the cold wall
surface and the room air.
21
Impact of diffusers
Since relatively cold air is supplied directly to the occupied zone in displacement
ventilation, the velocity has to be well-controlled to avoid draft. The velocity near a
diffuser depends on the flow rate from the diffuser, the temperature difference between
the supply and exhaust T
e
, and the diffuser type. Figure 2.10 shows a typical velocity
distribution near a diffuser (Nielsen 1993).
Figure 2.10 A typical velocity distribution near a diffuser
Skistad (1994) divided the flow near the floor into two regions: the primary region
(where the flow is dominated by the characteristics of the diffuser) and the secondary
region (the remain part outside the primary region). He presented a formula to calculate
the maximum velocity in the primary region through (1) the induced ambient air flow
volume caused by the dynamics of the jet discharged from the diffuser, (2) the entrained
air flow volume caused by the shear in the boundary layer between the supply air and the
ambient air, (3) the thickness of the supply air blanket, and (4) the Archimedes number
Ar
h
(ghT
e
/u
s
2
). More research is needed to calculate parameters (1), (2), and (3).
In the secondary region, Nielsen (1993) presented the following equation to
determine the maximum velocity in the center plane u
max, x
in a distance x from the wall-
mounted diffuser:
u
max, x
= K
dr
(h/x)u
f
(2.10)
where h = diffuser height
u
f
= face velocity defined as the volume flow rate divided by the face area of the
diffuser.
K
dr
= a function of the Archimedes number and strongly depends on the structure
of the diffuser.
22
Nielsen (1993) also provides K
dr
data as shown in Figure 2.11. The K
dr
depends
on diffuser tape.
Figure 2.11 Measured value for some diffusers
The distance from a wall-mounted diffuser to the 40 fpm (0.2 m/s) velocity
contour along the center line, l
n
, is an important parameter. According to ASHRAE
Standard 55-1989, the air velocity should be no higher than 50 fpm (0.25 m/s). Skistad
(1994) suggested to discharge air obliquely to both side, with some degree of turbulence
to reduce l
n
and to use perforated panels instead of a filter mat to reduce the draft effect.
To make l
n
smaller is a primary goal for diffuser manufacturers. Normally, the
manufacturers provide charts to determine l
n
and 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 will
merge 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 oblique
discharges are located too close, the discharged flows meet and turn straight into the
room, and l
n
could be several meters (Skistad 1994).
23
Figure 2.12 Design chart for choosing a diffuser
Conclusions
Stratification height, which is a function of the flow rates of supply air and
thermal plumes, is an important design parameter for displacement ventilation. The flow
rate 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 the flow
rate and the maximum height of a plume.
To avoid draft, velocity in the occupied zone, especially near the diffusers, need to
be well controlled. Previous studies provide sufficient information to develop design
guidelines. The design charts provided by diffuser manufacturers are also useful.
2.2. Contaminant Distribution
The advantage of displacement ventilation is that it may provide better indoor air
quality in the occupied zone than mixing ventilation. It is therefore important to study the
impact of different parameters, such as contaminant source type and location, human
body convection, wall surface temperature, and space height, on the contaminant
distribution.
24
Impact of contaminant source type and location
Typically, the occupied zone with displacement ventilation has a lower
contaminant concentration level than that in the upper zone, as shown in Figure 2.13
(Heiselberg and Sandberg 1990). Chen et al. (1988) showed that both the energy and
ventilation efficiencies of displacement ventilation are higher than those of mixing
ventilation, when the contaminant source is combined with a heat source. The ventilation
efficiency increases as the ventilation rate increases or the cooling load decreases.
Figure 2.13 Typical profiles of the contaminant concentration
vs. different ventilation rates
Olesen et al. (1994) reported that the concentration distribution depends on the
contaminant density (Figure 2.14). However, the amount of contaminants must be
sufficient large to form the density difference. In most measurements using tracer gas
technique, the impact of density is negligible.
25
Figure 2.14 Concentration profiles with different type of tracer gases
There are cases when the contaminant concentration is not lower in the occupied
zone 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 in the low level and
outside of the thermal plume (Nielsen 1996). In this case, the lower zone has a high
contaminant concentration level.
Figure 2.15 Concentration profile with pollutant source located at low level and without
heat source (Nielsen 1996)
26
Stymne et al. (1991) showed that contaminant concentration level varies
significantly in both vertical and horizontal directions, depending on the position of
pollutant sources related to the thermal plumes. As illustrated in Figure 2.16, the
contaminant concentration in the occupied zone is high when the contaminant is
combined with a weak heat source. The thermal plumes are too weak to reach the upper
zone.
Figure 2.16 Concentration contours in a room with a tracer gas emitted above a 4 W
heat source in a low level
Mundts (1996) measurements showed that the local air quality is good when a
tracer gas source is placed above a heat source that produces a plume that can reach the
ceiling (A plume that can reach the upper zone should be able to maintain a good air
quality in the low zone). When the tracer gas source was placed outside of the thermal
plume, the local air quality depends strongly on whether the tracer gas has a positive or
negative buoyancy and on the room flow pattern. In this case, the occupied zone might
have a high contaminant concentration level. The conclusions are similar to those of
Stymne et al. (1991).
27
Impact of convection from human bodies
Holmberg et al. (1987) found that a free convection flow around a person may
protect the breathing zone from surrounding contaminants at the head level, but it may
also bring contaminants from the source below the breathing zone. Saeteri (1992) showed
that CO
2
concentration in the air inhaled is lower than that at the same elevation some
distance from the person because the convection flow around the human 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 computational-fluid-dynamics simulation.
As indicated in Figure 2.17, Brohus and Nielsen (1994) showed that the
concentration in the inhaled air is 0.58c
e
, the same as that at 1.7 ft (0.5 m) below the
breathing level, although the concentration outside the thermal boundary layer around the
person at the breathing level is 0.96c
e
. They found the concentration of inhaled
contaminant C
i
may be expressed as a linear function of the stratification height, y
st
, as
follow:
C
i
= C
y
-(C
y
- C
f
)y
st
/y
b
(y
st
< y
b
) (2.11)
where C
y
= concentration outside the thermal boundary layer around the person at the
breathing height, y
b
.
C
f
is the concentration at the floor.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
c/ce
y [m]
Vertical concentration profile outside
the boundary layer around the person
Figure 2.17 Inhaled air is located below the breathing level. (The measured
concentration of the inhaled air at 1.5 m is 0.58c
e
, instead of 0.96c
e
)
Impact of wall surface temperature
Nielsen (1993) pointed out that the down draft caused by a cold wall or window
may bring polluted air from the upper zone to the lower zone and reduce ventilation
efficiency.
28
Skistads (1994) measurements showed that, in a displacement ventilated room
with cooled ceiling panels, the contaminant concentration increased quickly in the region
from the floor to the elevation of 3 ft (1 m), and the concentration in the breathing zone
was almost the same as that near the ceiling. Kruehne and Fitzner (1993) observed a
downfall of polluted air from the upper part into the occupied zone when the cooled
ceiling panel temperature was low. However, when Niu (1994) placed contaminant
sources within thermal plumes in a space with cooled ceiling panels, he found that the
concentration profile would be similar to that without the cooled panel, if the panel
temperature was kept at 68
o
F (20
o
C).
Impact of space height
Many researchers reported that the benefits of displacement ventilation are more
likely to be realized in spaces with high ceilings, such as industrial spaces, than those
with low ceilings. Skistad (1989) measured the concentration of carbon monoxide
emitted by a silicon carbide furnace in a workshop. A clean occupied zone was found in
the measurements. Niemela and Koskelas (1996) measurements in a large industrial hall
indicated that the concentration of hexavalent chromium in the occupied zone was 2 or 3
times lower than that in the upper zone, whereas opposite results were observed for dust.
Impact of other parameters
The distribution of contaminants is sensitive to disturbances in room airflow, such
as those caused by opening or closing of doors and the movement of people. Mattsson
and Sandberg (1994) showed that both air change efficiency and contaminant removal
effectiveness increase when a person simulator moves forward and backward at velocities
less than 60 fpm (0.3m/s). However, when the velocity increases beyond this point, the
efficiency will decrease and the displacement ventilation may instead take the form of
mixing ventilation. Brohus and Nielsen (1996) found that the movement of people causes
an increase of the concentration of inhaled contaminants 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-mounted
displacement system is better than that with a ceiling-mounted mixing system, while the
thermal environments are almost the same between the two systems. Tanabe and Kimura
(1996) measured the mean age of air in an office room with three different ventilation
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.
29
Conclusions
Contaminant concentration distribution depends on contaminant source type and
location and its associated plume strength, etc. Low contaminant concentration may be
obtained in the occupied zone when the contaminant source is associated with a heat
source and the thermal plume generated by the heat source is sufficiently strong to reach
the upper zone.
Because the upward free convection around a person brings the air from lower
level 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
concentration in the occupied zone, because of possible down flow driven by the walls or
panels.
It is more beneficial to apply displacement ventilation for spaces with high
ceiling, 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 IAQ
environment. However, the ventilation must maintain an acceptable comfort level.
Previous investigations showed that large vertical temperature gradient and draft are the
two main causes of discomfort with displacement ventilation. To reduce the temperature
gradient, the supply flow rate must be increased. This will lead to a high air velocity at
the floor level and to a high draft risk. It is also not feasible to increase ventilation 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 coordinate is
percentage of dissatisfied people and horizontal coordinate is air temperature. The results
showed that the ankle and foot (below chair height) is more sensitive 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 range of 72 to 81
0
F (22.1 to 27.0
0
C).
Skistad (1994) noted that the air velocities in the range between 0.5 and 0.7 ft/s (0.15 and
0.2 m/s) are acceptable for air temperatures of about 68
0
F (20
0
C), and velocities of up to
0.83 ft/s (0.25 m/s) seem acceptable for higher temperatures.
30
(a) (b)
Figure 2.18 Predicted percentage of discomfort (a) above chair height, (b) below chair
height
Many researchers (Chen 1988, Sandberg and Blomqvist 1989, Kegel and Schulz
1989, Olesen et al. 1994, Akimoto et al. 1995, and Taki et al. 1996) reported that
displacement ventilation may generally provide a good thermal comfort environment in
various spaces. However, the draft risk in the floor level seems rather high in spaces with
displacement ventilation. Melikov and Nielsen (1989) evaluated the thermal comfort
condition in 18 displacement ventilated spaces. Within the occupied zone, they found that
33% of measured locations had higher than 15% of percentage dissatisfied people due to
draft. Also 40% of the locations were found to have a temperature difference between
head and foot larger than 5.4
o
F (3.0
o
C).
Some measures are available to reduce discomfort level caused by temperature
gradient. Glicksman et al. (1996) used low flow-rate fans in the floor level to reduce the
temperature difference between ankle and breathing level of a seated person. The measure
does not affect the flow in the upper zone in a room with displacement ventilation, 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 some
researchers. Most of the studies show that the displacement ventilation system can only
provide acceptable comfort if the corresponding cooling load is less than about 13 Btu/(h
ft
2
) (40 W/m
2
). With higher ceiling heights, the displacement system is capable of
removing larger cooling loads (Skistad 1994).
31
criteria
considered
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Chen et al 1988, s, velocity
Kegel et al, 1989, s, velocity
Sandberg et al 1989, s
Svensson 1989, general
comment
Niu 1994, s, PD
Taki et al 1996, s, PD, PPD
Taki et al 1996, s, PD, PPD
Olesen et al 94, s, PD, PPD
Akimoto et al 1995, s
Q/A [W/m^2]
System3, comfort
System2, comfort
System1, discomfort
System1, comfort
Figure 2.19 Ranges of cooling load per floor area for three types of displacement
ventilation: side-wall diffuser (system1), side-wall diffuser with cooled ceiling panel
(system2), and rise floor (system3)
By increasing the area of the air supply outlet (e.g., supplying air through a
perforated floor), or by providing additional heat removal capacity (e.g., using cooled
ceiling panels), displacement ventilation may be applied to a space with higher cooling
load. Olesen et al. (1994) found that no thermal comfort problems existed under the
tested conditions with the cooling loads up to 14 Btu/(h ft
2
) (44 W/m
2
) in a room with a
perforated floor. Niu (1994) showed that the displacement ventilation combined with
cooled ceiling panels may provide a comfort environment at a cooling load up to 16
Btu/(h ft
2
) (50 W/m
2
).
Taki et al. (1996) measured the vertical temperature profiles for four different
cooling loads with and without cooled ceiling panels. The results showed a significant
influence of the panel temperature on the air temperature distribution in the room. The
cooled ceiling panel may create down drafts in the occupied zone. To avoid it, the surface
temperature should be higher than 59
0
F (15
0
C) and the ratio of panel area to ceiling area
should be less than a certain amount. The minimum surface temperature is also required
to avoid condensation on the panel surface.
Conclusions
Large vertical temperature gradient and draft are the two main causes of
discomfort with displacement ventilation. Previous researches show that displacement
ventilation without cooled ceiling panels is suitable for spaces with a cooling load less
than 13 Btu/(h ft
2
) (40 W/m
2
) (However, the current study, as shown in Chapter 6,
indicates that the upper limit is much higher.) With cooled ceiling panels, displacement
32
ventilation can remove a cooling load of 16 Btu/(h ft
2
) (50 W/m
2
). It is important that the
surface temperature of the panels should not be lower than 59
o
F (15
o
C). Low flow-rate
fans at floor level may reduce the vertical temperature difference and extend the
application range.
2.5. Energy and Cost Analysis
Annual energy consumption, first costs, and operation and maintenance costs over
a life-cycle are important criteria for evaluation of a ventilation system. Almost all the
energy analyses in the literature were done by numerical simulation, because it is too
expensive and time consuming to conduct hour-by-hour measurements for a building
based on a yearly basis.
Energy analysis
Seppanen et al. (1989) evaluated the energy performance of displacement
ventilation systems and mixing ventilation systems in U.S. office buildings. The study is
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 with different
components, such as re-circulation, economizer, and heat recovery device. The energy
consumption was found to depend very much on the control strategies and air handling
systems, as shown in Figure 2.20. The energy consumed by displacement systems with
heat recovery and variable-air-volume flow control is similar to that of mixing systems.
Figure 2.20 Comparison of annual energy cost of different systems to the same costs for
system 1 (VAV mixing system) in the Minneapolis climate (Seppanen et al. 1989)(M -
mixing ventilation, D - displacement ventilation)
33
Seppanen et al. (1989) used an average cooling load of 4.4 Btu/(h ft
2
) (14 W/m
2
)
and maximum load is 7.5 Btu/(h ft
2
) (24 W/m
2
) in the core space of US office buildings
(Table 2.1). Since the core region does not need heating, application of displacement
ventilation is particularly attractive. However, the load is much higher in the perimeter
region. The cooling load in the perimeter seems too high to use a displacement ventilation
system. According to the results shown in Table 2.1, the traditional 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 that the traditional displacement ventilation
system can handle.
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/h ft
2
)
Heating (W/m
2
)
Cooling (Btu/h ft
2
)
Cooling (W/m
2
)
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/h ft
2
)
Heating (W/m
2
)
Cooling (Btu/h ft
2
)
Cooling (W/m
2
)
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
14.0
South zones
Heating (Btu/h ft
2
)
Heating (W/m
2
)
Cooling (Btu/h ft
2
)
Cooling (W/m
2
)
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
Chen and Kooi (1988) pointed out the significant impact of the vertical
temperature gradient on energy consumption in a room with displacement ventilation
when 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 investigations.
34
Table 2.2 The costs of annual energy consumption
Ventilation
systems
Air handling systems Supply air
temperature
o
F (
o
C)
Energy
consumption
($/m
2
)
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
Nius (1994) calculation showed that the annual energy consumption of
displacement ventilation with water-cooled ceiling system is almost the same as that of an
all-air system. His investigation used a variable-air-volume system.
Recently, Zhivov and Rymkevich (1998) compared the energy consumption
between displacement and mixing ventilation system for a restaurant in different U.S.
climates. They found that the displacement ventilation can save up to 50% of cooling
energy but may increase heating energy.
Previous studies show that both the supply air temperature and the exhaust
temperature 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 temperature difference for
displacement ventilation can be larger for high spaces and, therefore, supply airflow rate
can be reduced considerably. Note that displacement ventilation may use more natural
cooling, since the supply air temperature is 4-6
o
F (2-3
o
C) 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 variable-air-volume system and
constant-air-volume system, and systems with different components, such as re-
circulation, economizer, and heat recovery device. Figure 2.21 shows that the first costs
of displacement systems are substantially higher than that of mixing systems when cooled
ceiling panels are required. Without cooled ceiling panels, the costs of the displacement
system are similar to those of mixing system. Skistad (1994) also reported that there is no
significant first cost difference between the two systems, except for the cost of diffusers
in the displacement ventilation is higher than that in mixing ventilation.
35
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)(M -mixing
ventilation, D - displacement ventilation, in northern or southern zones cooled panels are
required)
Conclusions
There are not many publications in the literature concerning energy and cost
analysis for displacement ventilation. Energy consumption varies significantly with
climate regions. Compared with mixing ventilation, displacement may or may not save
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 studies
show that it may not be appropriate for perimeter zones in most region of the U.S.
because the cooling load is too high. If cooled ceiling panels are used, the first cost of
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 south zone of U.S.
office buildings.
Displacement ventilation combined with radiators is used in Europe for winter
heating. However, the U.S. uses different heating methods and few studies are available.
2.6. Design Guidelines
36
According to the analysis in the previous sections, the following parameters are
most 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 gradient
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
cooling load and the air temperature difference between supply and exhaust
openings.
(2) Find the required airflow rate for removal of pollutants according to ventilation
standards.
(3) Choose the larger of the two flow rates determined at Steps 1 and 2 as the
ventilation rate.
(4) Determine supply air temperature under assumptions of
f
= 0.5 and constant
vertical temperature gradient.
(5) Choose supply diffusers according to the data provided by manufacturers in order
to avoid draft.
Despite the simple design guidelines, there are problems. Figure 2.2 shows that
f
varies from 0.2 to 0.7, and the vertical temperature gradient is not a constant. If the actual
T
f
< 0.5 T
e
, the vertical temperature gradient will be larger than the expected gradient.
The design guidelines assume T
f
= 0.5 T
e
. If the actual T
f
> 0.5 T
e
, the selected V
based on T
f
= 0.5 T
e
will 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 information of indoor
airflow, indoor air quality, and thermal comfort for various configurations of spaces.
Unfortunately, the atlas at present does not cover a wide range of spaces and conditions.
It seems necessary to improve current available design guidelines for displacement
ventilation system to ensure good indoor air quality and thermal comfort in the space.
37
2.7. Survey
Applications of the displacement ventilation systems to other buildings must be in
harmony with architectural design, since architects play a key role in building design and
spatial arrangement. We have conducted a national survey among many leading
architectural firms to find whether architects would use displacement ventilation in their
designs. In the survey, we proposed different types of buildings in which displacement
ventilation may be used. The survey results, as illustrated in Figure 2.22, show that
architects are rather interested in the displacement ventilation. About 83% and 70% of
architects would consider using displacement ventilation for offices and classrooms,
respectively. In addition to industrial workshops, offices and classrooms are likely to have
more problems of indoor air quality than other types of buildings. Therefore, design
guidelines should be developed for U.S. industrial workshops, offices and classrooms.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
o
f
f
i
c
e
c
l
a
s
s
r
o
o
m
l
i
b
r
a
r
y
a
t
r
i
u
m
h
a
l
l
h
o
t
e
l
r
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
c
i
n
e
m
a
t
h
e
a
t
e
r
s
h
o
p
p
i
n
g
g
y
m
n
a
s
i
u
m
m
a
c
h
i
n
e
d
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
p
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
a
n
s
w
e
r
s
Figure 2.22 The survey results from the architects
Since U.S. buildings may be different from those in Scandinavia, we have
conducted a field survey on the typical layouts and the internal heat gains in different
buildings in greater Boston area. Nineteen buildings studied, as shown in Table 2.3,
consist of offices, classrooms, restaurants, laboratories, and workshops.
Figures. 2.23 to 2.25 shows typical layouts for offices, classroom, and restaurant.
38
Table 2.3 Buildings in Greater Boston area surveyed.
Bldg. Building type Layout Problems
1 modern office skyscraper Individuals in the perimeter &
cubicles in the core
2 mid-age office Mainly cubicles
3 modern office Individuals in the perimeter &
cubicles in the core
4 modern office Individuals in the perimeter &
cubicles in the core
5 mid-age office & lab Individuals
6 mid-age office, lab &
classroom
Individuals IAQ & comfort
7 old office & workshop Individuals IAQ & comfort
8 well maintained office &
classroom
Individuals
9 classroom
10 Caf restaurant
11 Caf restaurant
12 diner with partitions
13 diner with partitions
14 fast food restaurant with partitions
15 restaurant
16 Gourmet type restaurant
17 diner with partitions
18 restaurant
19 Fast food restaurant
39
Figure 2.23 Typical office layouts.
40
Figure 2.24 Typical classroom layouts.
(a) without partitions
41
(b) with partitions
Figure 2.25 Typical restaurant layouts.
Tables 2.4 to 2.9 present typical heat gains in these nineteen buildings. It seems
that these buildings have a high internal heat gain. The averages of the internal heat gains
are 12, 16, and 18 Btu/h ft
2
(37, 50, and 58 W/m
2
) for restaurants, individual offices and
large offices, respectively. The internal heat gains for service areas, laboratories, and
workshops are generally much higher than those in Scandinavia. In most cases, the
internal heat gains are higher than 13 Btu/h ft
2
(40 W/m
2
).
Table 2.4 Typical internal heat gains in individual offices
Size Light PC Printer Copier Fax Occupants Total
Bldg. m
2
W W W W W W W/m
2
Btu/h ft
2
1 16 150 150 300
1
- - 75 40.4 12.8
2 21 204 150 300 - - 75 34.3 10.9
3 16 180 150 - - - 75 24.2 7.68
3 25 260 300 300 - - 150 38.9 12.3
4 16 128 150 - - - 75 21.1 6.69
4 22 256 300 300 - - 150 45.1 14.3
6 37 420 1800 1100 - - 600 89.6 28.4
5 9.3 140 150 300 - - 75 69.4 22
7 13 280 150 - - - 150 42.4 13.4
7 24 840 300 300 400 400 150 +many
visitors
90.2 28.6
42
Table 2.5 Typical internal heat gains in cubicle offices
Size Light PC Printer Copier Fax Occupants Total
Bldg. m
2
W W W W W W W/m
2
Btu/h ft
2
1 50.4 600 600 800 - 400 300 51.9 16.4
1 80.6 1200 1050 800 400 400 525 52.5 16.6
2 34.2 408 600 800 400 - 300 71 22.5
4 45 540 600 800 - 400 300 56.8 18
Table 2.6 Typical internal heat gains in service area of office buildings
Size Light PC Printer Copier Fax Occupants Total
Bldg. m
2
W W W W W W W/m
2
Btu/h ft
2
1 26 200 300 1600 1200 400 75 141 44.7
Table 2.7 Typical internal heat gains in laboratories and workshops
Size Light PC Printer Equipment Occupants Total
Bldg. m
2
W W W W W W/m
2
Btu/h ft
2
1 40 450 2100 800 150 84 26.6
++
2
6 124 1540 1050 800 2 ovens,
3 spectroscopes
600 31.1 9.86
++
2
5 24 280 1050 800 6 hardware
tower
450 104 33
++
2
5 88 1120 600 300 a lot 450 27.1 8.6
++
2
5 88 1120 600 800 a lot 450 32.6 10.3
++
2
3 32 831 2250 800 hardware 150
1
120 38.2
++
7 85 595 2700 300 - 450
1
18 chairs
46 14.6
7 343 10920 450 - cutting tools, metal
tools
600 33.8 10.7
++
2
1
number of occupants is an average
2
laboratory equipment is extra
43
Table 2.8 Typical internal heat gains in classrooms
Size Light VCR/Audio Equipment Occupants Total
Bldg. m
2
W W W W W/m
2
Btu/h ft
2
6 37 768 - - 25 chairs 20.1 6.38 +
1
9 52 768 - overhead
projector
17 chairs 14.2 4.5+
1
7 57 1024 - - 25 chairs 17.5 5.56+
1
8 59 1280 - - 35 chairs 21.2 6.72+
1
9 99 1856 - 2 overhead
projectors
62 chairs 18.1 5.73+
1
8 153 1536 - - 160 chairs 9.8 3.1+
1
9 221 3712 one VCR
audio
- 130 16.3 5.15+
1
1
occupants are extra
Table 2.9 Typical internal heat gains in restaurants
Size Light Occupants Equipment Total
Bldg. m
2
W W W W/m
2
Btu/h ft
2
10 203 2600 5250 4100 58.87 16.58
11 310 5600 6750 2200 46.94 13.22
12 280 10500 4425 1050 57.05 16.07
13 199 2900 3375 450 33.79 9.519
14 333 5000 4725 1550 33.86 9.538
15 150 3300 3300 1400 53.33 15.02
16 160 1000 2625 700 27.03 7.614
17 114 1500 2550 150 36.84 10.38
18 285 2800 4050 1300 28.6 8.055
19 90 800 3000 0 42.22 11.89
From the above review, we may conclude that design guidelines available in the
literature cannot be used with confidence. Many assumptions need further clarification, so
that designers can use the design guidelines with confidence. Clearly, U.S. buildings,
especially perimeter zones of such buildings have a high cooling load. It is not clear how
to design displacement ventilation for these zones. In addition, there are no design
guidelines available for winter heating, especially with typical heating devices used in the
U.S. There are also not sufficient studies for special U.S. types of buildings, such as large
44
office buildings with partitions and for buildings with serious problems of indoor air
quality, such as schools.
Three types of buildings are selected for detailed investigation in the current
project. Since offices, classrooms, and industrial workshops are typical buildings and they
are related to most people, these buildings are selected for investigation.
For these types of spaces, we have carried out experimental tests to obtain reliable
data on the performances of displacement ventilation. A CFD program was validated
against these data. By using the program, we conducted numerical simulations of a large
number of cases of displacement ventilation in the three types of spaces and established a
database on the performances. Based on the database, a model for prediction of
temperature difference between head and foot levels and a model for ventilation
effectiveness have been developed for design purpose. The study has also further
compared the energy and first costs of the displacement ventilation system with a mixing
ventilation system. Finally the report presents design guidelines of the displacement
ventilation system developed from the study. These will be discussed in the following
chapters.
45
3. Experimental Study and Validation of CFD Program
Displacement ventilation may provide better indoor air quality and save energy.
There is the question of the usefulness of this technology in US buildings with higher
cooling requirements. A first step in preparing a design guideline is careful study of
displacement ventilation for several typical U.S. buildings.
Two main approaches are available for the study of airflow and pollutant transport
in buildings: experimental investigation and computer simulation. In principle, direct
measurements give the most realistic information concerning indoor airflow and pollutant
transport, such as the distributions of air velocity, temperature, relative humidity, and
contaminant concentrations. Because the measurements must be made at many locations,
direct measurements of the distributions are very expensive and time consuming at
present. A complete measurement may take many months of work. Moreover, to obtain
conclusive results, the airflow and temperature from the Heating Ventilating, and Air
Conditioning (HVAC) systems and the temperatures of building enclosure should be
maintained unchanged during the experiment. This is especially difficult because the
outdoor conditions change over time and the temperatures of the building enclosure and
the airflow and temperature from the HVAC systems will also change accordingly.
An environmental chamber may be used to simulate an indoor space, to isolate the
measured system from the external world. However, such an environmental chamber
costs more than $300,000 with necessary equipment for measuring air velocity,
temperature, relative humidity, and contaminant concentrations. Furthermore, it may not
be easy to change from one spatial configuration to another.
On the other hand, the airflow and pollutant transport can be determined
computationally by solving a set of conservation equations describing the flow, energy,
and contaminants in the system. Due to the limitations of the experimental approach and
the increase in performance and affordability of high speed computers, the numerical
solution of these conservation equations provides a practical option for computing the
airflow and pollutant distributions in buildings. The method is the Computational Fluid
Dynamics (CFD) technique.
The CFD technique is a powerful tool to solve indoor environment problems, such
as airflow pattern and the distributions of air velocity, temperature, turbulent intensity,
and contaminant concentrations. Due to limited computer power and capacity available at
present, turbulence models have to be used in the CFD technique in order to solve flow
motion. The use of turbulence models leads to uncertainties in the computed results
because the models are not universal. Therefore, it is essential to validate a CFD program
by experimental data.
46
Many experimental data are available in the literature but very few of them can be
used for validation. Experimental data for CFD validation must contain detailed
information of flow and thermal boundary conditions as well as flow and thermal
parameters measured in the space. The data must also include an error analysis.
Unfortunately, not many of the experimental data include such detailed information.
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 for forced
convection. However, it is still not certain that a CFD program validated by their data can
be used for normal room airflow with a mixed convection (a combination of natural and
forced convection).
This chapter presents detailed experimental data for displacement ventilation.
Displacement ventilation is mixed convection and represents ventilation reality in many
buildings. If a CFD program is validated by experimental data for displacement
ventilation, the program should be able to predict other indoor environments. The flow
characteristics between displacement ventilation and other mixing ventilation are similar
both have strong pressure and buoyancy driven flows.
The experimental data will be used to validate a CFD program with a suitable
turbulence model. There are many turbulence models available. The "standard" k- model
(Launder and Spalding 1974) is probably most widely used in engineering calculations
due to its relatively simplicity. However, the model sometimes provides poor results for
indoor airflow. Many modifications have been applied to the standard model. However,
the modified models do not have a general applicability for indoor airflow. Chen (1995
and 1996) calculated the various indoor flows with eight different 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 ventilation in a room with the experimental data.
3.1. Experimental Facility
The chambers and HVAC systems
The environmental test facility built at MIT for the ASHRAE Research Project-
949 is also intended for research and teaching of indoor air quality, thermal comfort,
energy efficiency, thermal insulation, and HVAC systems.
The test facility, shown in Figure 3.1, consists of a well-insulated enclosure. Not
shown in the figure are two doors at either end. A movable wall divides the enclosure into
a test chamber and a climate chamber. At present, we use the larger one as the test
chamber and the smaller one as the climate chamber. The lower part of the movable wall
is an insulated exterior wall and the upper part is a double-glazing window extending
almost the whole width. Table 3.1 shows the dimensions and thermal resistance of the
chambers.
47
Figure 3.1 Sketch of the test facility
Table 3.1 Dimension, thermal resistance and HVAC system capacity of the test facility
Length
Width
Height Test Chamber Climate Chamber
Length 17 ft (5.16 m) 10 ft (3.08 m)
Width 12 ft (3.65 m)
Height 8 ft (2.43 m)
Dimension
Partition height
window width
3.9 ft (1.16 m)
11.5 ft (3.45 m)
Partition wall 30 ft
2
h
o
F/Btu (5.3 K m
2
/W)
Partition window 1.5 ft
2
h
o
F/Btu (0.27 K m
2
/W)
Other walls 30 ft
2
h
o
F/Btu (5.3 K m
2
/W)
Ceiling 30 ft
2
h
o
F/Btu (5.3 K m
2
/W)
Floor 30 ft
2
h
o
F/Btu (5.3 K m
2
/W)
Thermal
resistance
Door 30 ft
2
h
o
F/Btu (5.3 K m
2
/W)
Preheater 8 kW
Supply fan 560 cfm (930 m
3
/h)
Chiller 21 kW
Reheater 8 kW
Humidifier 11 kg-steam/h none
Return fan 560 cfm (930 m
3
/h)
Capacity of
HVAC
system
Dampers 560 cfm (930 m
3
/h)
The test chamber has two linear diffusers, two circular ceiling diffusers, a grille
ceiling exhaust, two flexible displacement diffusers, a grille diffuser installed on the rear
wall near the ceiling, and another grille exhaust on the rear wall near the floor. The
48
climate chamber has one ceiling diffuser, one rear wall diffuser, one ceiling exhaust, and
one rear wall exhaust. All the diffusers and exhausts can operate simultaneously or
individually in both chambers.
Each chamber has a separate HVAC system. The two systems are nearly identical.
Table 3.1 also shows the capacities of the HVAC systems. Figure 3.2 illustrates the
HVAC system configuration and control interface. Three louvers control outdoor air rate
between 0% and 100%. The supply fan and return fan have a variable speed drive. The
interface allows an interactive control of the systems. An operator can change any
parameters, such as airflow rate, supply and return temperature and humidity by moving
the signs or by typing a number to the appropriate position. The air parameters in
different sections of the HVAC systems are shown in the monitor and/or are written into a
file in the time interval specified by the operator. Nine-probe hot-wire anemometers,
arranged in a matrix form, are used to measure the airflow rate. The HVAC and control
design allows a variable air supply rate ranging between 1 ach to 20 ach for the test
chamber and 2 ach to 40 ach for the climate chamber.
Figure 3.2. The control interface of the HVAC system
Equipment
The major measuring equipment of the test facility includes:
) A flow visualization system for observing air flow patterns
) A hot-sphere anemometer system for air velocity, velocity fluctuation, and
temperature measurements
) A tracer-gas system for measuring contaminant concentrations and humidity
49
) A thermo-couple system for measuring surface and air temperatures
The test chamber has two long slots and several observation windows on the
walls. Light penetrates through the slots and forms a thin light sheet. By injecting smoke
into the room, the airflow pattern can be observed through those observation windows
normal to the light sheet. We have painted the walls of the room black to enhance
visualization. The test facility has two types of smoke sources: a theater fog generator and
an air current kit. The theater fog generator produces smoke with a temperature far above
the environmental temperature. The smoke is cooled through a 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 is distributed 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 very small amount of smoke locally.
Air velocity in the occupied zone is often lower than 50 fpm (0.25 m/s) because of
the comfort requirements. Most hot-sphere and hot-wire anemometers have great
uncertainties when they are used for the measurements of low velocities. The reason is
that the natural convection from the hot-sphere or hot-wire produces a false air velocity of
the same magnitude. Although a Laser Doppler Anemometer (LDA) can be used, the time
and effort are tremendous because the measurements must be done for many locations in
a room, and it is difficult to move the LDA to different measuring locations. In recent
years, Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) systems have attracted considerable attention. A
PIV system can measure two-dimensional field velocities. However, at present, a PIV
system is not able to measure an area larger than 2 ft x 2 ft (0.5 m x 0.5 m) with a
reasonable resolution even with a powerful Nd-Yag laser and a good recorder. It is not
feasible to use the PIV system for the field measurements in an indoor space nowadays.
Hence, there is no effective technique at present to measure low air velocities
throughout an indoor space. In the experiment, we used the hot-sphere anemometers for
the measurements of air velocity, velocity fluctuation, and temperature in the room. An
ADD 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 is 2 fpm (0.01
m/s) or 2% of the readings. The anemometers cannot reliably measure velocity when the
magnitude is lower than 20 fpm (0.10 m/s). The measuring errors for air temperature are
0.8
o
F (0.4) K, including the errors introduced by the data acquisition systems. Since the
probe size is large (about 1/8 in. or 0.003 m in diameter), the probes are not sensitive to
high frequency velocity fluctuation. It is difficult to 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. The present
investigation used SF
6
and CO
2
. SF
6
is better than CO
2
because the background
concentration of SF
6
is almost zero. CO
2
is inexpensive and was used to check the results
obtained with SF
6.
In addition, we also measured the water vapor concentration for
50
determining relative humidity in the room. The error for measuring concentration is at an
acceptable 10%.
We also used thermo-couples to measure air temperature and surface temperature
of the room enclosures. Many state-of-the-art data acquisition systems use ADD boards.
However, most ADD boards we tested have a 0.9
o
F (0.4 K) error and have at least 0.4
o
F/month (0.2 K/month) drift. Therefore, we decided to use a data logger and found that
the error for measuring temperature by the entire system is about 0.8
o
F (0.4 K).
3.2. Test Procedure
We conducted several measurements with different configurations: a small office,
a large office with partitions, and a classroom. Figure 3.3 shows the configurations used
in the experiment.
(a)
(b)
51
(c)
Figure 3.3 Space layout used in the experiment: (a) small office,
(b) large office with partitions, and (c) classroom
The internal heat sources and the ventilation rate used in the experiment are listed
in Table 3.2. These cases present some typical situations in the United States but they do
not cover a wide range. The main purpose is to obtain experimental data to validate 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. The
effective area ratio is 10%. The exhaust, 1.4 ft x 1.4 ft (0.43 m x 0.43 m), was at the
center of the ceiling.
Table 3.2 The cases specification for the experimental measurements(I-P unit)
Case Type Persons
[number]
Equipment
[Btu/h ft
2
]
Lighting
[Btu/h ft
2
]
Internal load
[Btu/h ft
2
]
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 class- 6 2.9 3.4 13.9 8 Summer
6 room 6 0 3.4 11.0 4 Winter
52
Table 3.2 (Continued) (SI unit)
The occupants in the test room were simulated by boxes, 1.3 ft (0.4 m) long, 1.2 ft
(0.35 m) wide, and 3.6 ft (1.1 m) high, each heated by three 25 W light bulbs. The
measured surface temperature was between 82 and 86
o
F (28 and 30
o
C). Two point
sources of SF
6
were introduced at the top of the two boxes to simulate contaminants from
the occupants, with an initial velocity of 9 fpm (0.045 m/s in the horizontal direction.
Two PCs were used to generate heat. One generated 108 W and the other 173 W. Six 34
W fluorescent lamps were used during the experiment as overhead lighting. In addition,
two tables and two file cabinets were also in the room. The ventilation rate was 4 ach
corresponding to a face velocity of 18 fpm (0.09 m/s) at the diffuser. The ventilation rate
is very high, compared to that used in Scandinavia. This is because U.S. buildings has a
much higher cooling load. A lower ventilation rate will requires a lower supply air
temperature. This will lead to draft at ankle level. The supply air temperature
corresponding to 4 ach was controlled at 62.5
o
F (17.0
o
C). The window surface
temperature was 81.1 82.6
o
F (27.3 28.1
o
C) and the surface temperature on the
movable wall was 75.6 79.9
o
F (24.2 26.6
o
C). The surface temperatures on the other
walls were 73.9 78.8
o
F (23.3 26.0
o
C).
Five movable poles were placed in the test room and each supported six hot-
sphere anemometers and six air sampling tubes. Additionally, two thermo-couples were
also attached on each pole to measure air temperature near the floor and ceiling. A total of
40 thermo-couples were used to measure the surface temperatures of the floor, ceiling,
window, and walls.
Measurements were conducted under steady-state conditions by stabilizing the
room thermal and fluid conditions for more than 12 hours before recording the data. Air
velocity, air temperature, and SF
6
concentration 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 turbulent intensity and
the measured concentrations can be used to find the local mean age of air. Since the
omni-directional anemometers have a large uncertainty in measuring low air velocity, we
feel the fluctuating velocity, |u|, could provide more accurate information than turbulent
Case Type Persons
[number]
Equipment
[W/m
2
]
Lighting
[W/m
2
]
Internal load
[W/m
2
]
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 class- 6 9.2 10.8 43.9 8 Summer
6 room 6 0 10.8 34.7 4 Winter
53
intensity. This investigation has further used the step-up and decay method to determine
the mean age of air, :
dt ]
) 0 ( c ) ( c
) 0 ( c ) t ( c
1 [
0

= (step-up) (3.1)
) ( c ) 0 ( c
dt )] ( c ) t ( c [
0


=

(decay) (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.
Table 3.3 The measured parameters
The measured flow patterns and vertical profiles of temperature, concentration,
velocity, and turbulent intensity are illustrated in Figures A1 to A6 corresponding to Case
1 to 6, respectively, in Appendix A. The profiles are presented in non-dimensional forms.
Appendix B presents the detailed specifications of the six cases and the measured data.
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 ventilation.
The CFD program used in the present investigation is a commercial program (CHAM
1996). The program uses a re-normalization group k- model.
T
s
T
e
Tracer- c
s
c
e
u
s
Case Type [
o
F] [
o
C] [
o
F] [
o
C] gas [ppm] [ppm] [fpm] [m/s]
1 Small 62.6 17.0 80.1 26.7 SF
6
0 0.42 18 0.09
2 office 63.0 17.2 75.4 24.1 CO
2
562 725 18 0.09
3 Large 62.8 17.1 73.6 23.1 CO
2
520 602 36 0.18
4 office 62.2 16.8 75.9 24.4 CO
2
493 657 18 0.09
5 class- 67.6 19.8 76.3 24.6 CO
2
477 723 37 0.19
6 room 66.2 19.0 78.4 25.8 CO
2
432 924 20 0.10
54
The Re-Normalization Group (RNG) k- model
The governing equations for the RNG k- model are:

+

S )
x
(
x
) u (
x
) (
t
j j
j
j
(3.3)
where
t = time
= air density, kg/m
3
= 1 for mass continuity
= u
j
(j = 1, 2, and 3) for three components of momentum
= k for kinetic energy of turbulence
= for dissipation rate of turbulence energy
= T for temperature
= c for contaminant concentration
x
j
= coordinate

,eff
=effective diffusion coefficient
S

= source term
The ,

and S

are further listed in Table 3.4.
Boundary conditions
Since the RNG k- model is valid for high Reynolds number turbulent flow, wall
functions are needed for near wall region where flow Reynolds number is low. The
present investigation uses the following wall functions (Launder and Spalding 1974):
) For velocity:
) log(
1
*
2 / 1
E
y
y
U

|
|
.
|

\
|
= (3.4)
where
U = velocity parallel to the wall
= wall shear stress
= von Karman constant (0.41)
y = distance between the first grid node and the wall
E = an integration constant (9.0)
y
*
= a length scale
) For kinetic energy of turbulence:
55
Table 3.4. Values of ,

and S

S

1 0 0
u
i +
t
) T T ( g
x
p
0 i
i

k ( +
t)
/
k
G +G
B
( +
t
)/

(C
1
G - C
2
+ C
3
G
B
)/k + R
T /
l
+
t
/
t
S
T
C ( +
t
)/
c
S
c
where
is laminar viscosity

t
C
k
=
2
is turbulent viscosity
G
u
x
u
x
u
x
t
i
j
i
j
j
i
= +

( ) is the turbulent production

G g
T
x
B i
t
t i
=

Pr
is the turbulent production due to buoyancy
R
C
k
=

3
0
3
2
1
1
( / )
is the source term from renormalization

= S
k
, S = (2S
ij
S
ij
)
1/2
, )
x
u
x
u
(
2
1
S
i
j
j
i
ij

=
C

=0.0845, C
1
= 1.42, C
2
= 1.68, C
3
= 1.0 are the model constants

k
= 0.7194,

= 0.7194,
l
=0.71,
t
= 0.9,
c
= 1.0 are Prandtl or
Schmidt numbers
|
|
.
|

\
|

2 / 1
1
C
k (3.5)
) For dissipation rate of turbulent kinetic energy:
y
|
|
.
|

\
|

=
1
2 / 3
(3.6)
) For temperature:
q = h
c
(T
w
- T) (3.7)
where
q = heat flux
h
c
= convective heat transfer coefficient
56
T
w
= wall temperature
We use Equation (3.7) for temperature boundary instead of the "standard" wall
function proposed by Launder and Spalding (1974). This is because the wall function
would predict grid dependent heat flux and cause an unacceptable error. The h
c
used is
the one based on our experimental data (Chen et al. 1989). This is undesirable in
numerical prediction, because the h
c
is generally unknown. Very recently, we have
developed a new one equation model for the near wall flow (Xu 1998). The heat transfer
can be correctly calculated with the new model.
Numerical technique
The governing equations are solved numerically. The whole computational
domain, the space of the room, needs to be divided into a number of finite volumes by a
grid system. The flow variables, such as velocity, temperature and concentration, are
solved at the center of each finite volume. The more grids used, the more accurate the
results will be. However, fine grid will cost more computing time and capacity. Table 3.5
shows the computing time for three different grid sizes in an SGI R-5000 workstation.
The difference between the results with two finer grids is very small. Therefore, we use
48x44x24 grid for the comparison with the experimental data.
Table 3.5 Grid refinement
Grid size CPU time [hour]
72 x 66 x 36 180
48 x 44 x 24 45
29 x 30 x 19 13
A commercial CFD program (CHAM 1996) was used for the computations. By
default, the code uses the finite-volume method and the upwind-difference-scheme for the
convection term. The convergence criterion was set such that the respective sum of the
absolute residuals of p, u
i
, T, c, k and must be less than 10
-3
.
3.5. Validation of CFD Program
We validated the CFD program by comparing the flow patterns, vertical profiles
of temperature, concentration, velocity, and turbulence intensity between measured data
and computed results for a small office, a cubicle office, a quarter of classroom, and a
workshop.
Small office
The validation uses Case 1 shown in Table 3.2 as the small office. Figure 3.4
shows the flow pattern, observed by using smoke and computed by the CFD technique in
57
the mid-section through the diffuser. The velocity determined from the smoke-
visualization is rather reliable because the speed is low. The computed flow pattern
agrees with the observed one. Due to buoyancy, the cold air from the supply diffuser
spreads on the floor level. This cold air flow is like a jet and induces the surrounding air.
As a result, the induction causes a reverse flow in the layer between 1.5 to 3 ft (0.5 to 1
m) above the floor. The figure does not show the thermal plumes generated by occupants
and computers, because they are in a different section.
Figure 3.4 The airflow pattern observed by using smoke visualization (left figure) and
computed by the CFD program (right figure) in the mid-section. The length of the
arrqchenows is proportional to the velocity magnitude.
Figures 3.5 to 3.8 present, respectively, the measured and computed temperature,
SF
6
concentration, velocity, and velocity fluctuation in the office. The measurements
were done with nine poles, each pole had ten sensors to measure temperature and six
sensors to measure velocity and tracer-gas concentration. The vertical axes are
dimensionless elevation normalized by room height (Z = 0 is the floor and Z = 1 is the
ceiling). The horizontal axes are dimensionless measured parameters.
Figure 3.5 clearly shows that the displacement ventilation system created
temperature stratification. The temperature gradient in the lower part of the office is much
larger than the one in the upper part, because most heat sources (occupants and
computers) are located in the lower part of the room. Since occupants stay in the lower
part of the room, the temperature stratification represents a potential risk of draft. One
important criterion in design of displacement ventilation system is to ensure the
temperature difference is sufficiently small between the head and foot level. The
agreement between the computed temperature and measured data is excellent.
58
59
60
61
62
Figure 3.6 shows the tracer-gas concentration profiles in the room. The tracer-gas sources
were introduced at the head level of the two occupants (the two small squares in the right
bottom figure. The SF
6
concentration in the occupied zone is much lower than that in the
upper zone. The concentration increases rapidly between Z of 0.4 and 0.5, which can be
considered as the stratification height. Since convective flow around the human body may
bring the air at the lower level to the breathing level, the displacement ventilation
provides better indoor air quality than mixing ventilation.
There are discrepancies between the computed concentration profile and the
measured data. Since the tracer-gas is a point source and recirculating flow exists in the
upper part of the office, the tracer-gas concentration in the upper part is not uniform and
very sensitive to the position and boundary conditions. For example, the results for Pole 9
show the difference of the concentration distributions between two positions that are only
1ft (0.3m) apart. Nevertheless, the accuracy of the computation is acceptable.
Figure 3.7 illustrates that the velocity in most of the space, except near the floor,
is lower than 10 fpm (0.05 m/s). The magnitude is so low that the hot-sphere
anemometers may fail to give accurate results. Nevertheless, the measured velocity is
close to that observed through the use of smoke, and the computed results agree well with
the data. The velocity near the floor is larger than that in the center of the room, because
the diffuser is installed on the floor level. Draft risk exists in the near diffuser area, such
as indicated in pole 1, where the air velocity is high and the air temperature is low.
The experiment also measured velocity fluctuation. Figure 3.8 shows the
normalized fluctuating velocity by the mean supply air velocity, instead of the local mean
velocity, in order to avoid additional uncertainty of the low local mean velocity. The
computed profiles in the figure are the quantities of 2k , where k is the turbulent kinetic
energy. The computed values are larger than the measured ones. This might be due to the
errors introduced by the anemometers we used for measurement of the fluctuating
velocity. Because of the large probe size, 1/8 in. (3 mm) in diameter, the anemometers
may not able to measure the high frequency velocity fluctuations.
Furthermore, the turbulence model may not accurately calculate turbulent energy.
Therefore, it is not surprising to see the large discrepancies between the computed
profiles and measured data.
Figure 3.9 shows the measured transient CO
2
concentration at the middle of pole
4. From the measured data, we have calculated the mean age of air in the office. Figure
3.10 compares the computed (contours) and measured (values in boxes) mean age of air
in the mid-section of the office. Table 3.6 further shows that the measured mean age of
air is 10% smaller than the computed one. The mean age of air is younger in the lower
part of the office with displacement ventilation than that in the upper part. This is why
displacement ventilation can provide better indoor air quality in the occupied zone, that
is, in the lower part of the space.
63
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
10:00:00 11:12:00 12:24:00 13:36:00 14:48:00
time
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
[
p
p
m
]
Figure 3.9 Typical concentration history
Figure 3.10 The computed (contours) and measured (values in boxes) mean age of air in
the mid-section of the office (second).
Table 3.6 Comparison of the mean age of air between CFD computation and
measurement
Position Mean age of air Point
x [ft] ([m]) y [ft] ([m]) z [ft] ([m]) CFD [s] Data [s]
1 5.8 (1.74) 6.3 (1.88) 0.5 (0.15) 575 511
2 5.8 (1.74) 6.3 (1.88) 2.2 (0.65) 728 609
3 5.8 (1.74) 6.3 (1.88) 5.2 (1.55) 1083 900
4 12.2 (3.66) 6.3 (1.88) 0.5 (0.15) 600 556
5 12.2 (3.66) 6.3 (1.88) 2.2 (0.65) 683 621
6 12.2 (3.66) 6.3 (1.88) 5.2 (1.55) 1166 888
7 8.6 (2.58) 6.3 (1.88) 8 (2.43) 1087 966
64
Appendix A provides more results of the validation. Figure A2 in Appendix A
shows the computed and measured results for the office under a winter condition (Case
2). The conclusions concerning the validation are similar between Case 1 and Case 2.
Since the external wall has good insulation and the external window is double-glazed, the
impact of outdoor climate is not significant. Chapter 5 will present more cases to show
this impact.
Cubicle office
Figures A3 and A4 in Appendix A present the computed and measured results for
Case 3 (summer) and Case 4 (winter), respectively. The space is for a section of a large
office with cubicles. The tracer-gas sources were placed at the head level of the two
occupants. Figures A3 and A4 are in the same format as those in Figure A1. Again, we
obtain the same conclusions as those for Case 1.
Classroom
We used the environmental chamber to simulate a quarter of a classroom with 24
students. Figure A5 is for summer condition and Figure A6 for winter condition. The
tracer-gas sources were placed at the head levels of two of the occupants as shown in
Figures A5(c) and A6(c). In general, the agreement between the computations and
measurements is similar to that for the small office.
Industrial workshop
The experimental data of a industrial workshop were provided by Brohus and
Nielsen (1996). The test room is 26 ft (8 m) long, 20 ft (6 m) wide and 13 ft (4 m) high,
as shown in Figure 3.11. The air is supplied through a diffuser in the middle of a side wall
and is exhausted through two openings on the ceiling. The heat sources in the room
include a thermal manikin, two person simulators, and a point heat source. The person
simulator is a 3.3 ft (1 m) high black-painted closed cylinder with a diameter of 1.4 ft (0.4
m), heated by four 25W light bulbs. The point heat source consists of heat coils mounted
on an iron base surrounded by a 0.7 ft (0.2 m) high tube with a diameter of 0.5 ft (0.15
m). In the experiment, the outputs of the point heat source and the thermal manikin are
100 W and 75 W, respectively. The tracer-gas source is located above one of the person
simulator at an elevation of 10 ft (3 m).
The vertical profiles of air velocity and temperature were measured at the location
T and the concentration profile was measured at the location of c, as shown in Figure
A7 in Appendix A. Figure A7 shows the comparisons of the profiles between
computation and measurement. Good agreement was found for the temperature and
velocity profiles between the computation and the measurement. The discrepancy of the
tracer-gas concentration between the computation and measurement is 30%.
65
Figure 3.11 Configuration of the industrial workshop
3.6. Conclusions
The experimental data of displacement ventilation for a small office, a large office
with partitions, and a classroom is available for validation of CFD programs. The data
includes detailed information such as
) thermal and flow boundary conditions
) airflow patterns observed by using smoke
) the distributions of air temperature, concentration of tracer-gas, air velocity, and
velocity fluctuation.
) the mean age of air
The experimental data includes error analysis for the measuring equipment.
A CFD program with the RNG k- model of turbulence has been used to predict
the airflow pattern, the distributions of the air temperature, concentration of tracer-gas, air
velocity, and velocity fluctuation, and the mean age of air in a small office, a large office,
a classroom, and a workshop. The computed air temperature and velocity agree well with
the measured data. However, some discrepancies are found between the computed and
measured tracer-gas concentration. The agreement is less satisfactory between the
computed and measured distributions of velocity fluctuation. The discrepancies between
computed and measured mean age of air are about 10%. Despite the discrepancies, the
CFD program can be used for simulation of airflow in a room with displacement
ventilation.
66
4. Models for Prediction of Temperature Difference and Ventilation
Effectiveness
As reviewed in Chapter 2, displacement ventilation generally provides an
acceptable comfort level in the room. However, a risk of draft exists in the floor level,
because of the high air velocity and low air temperature. In addition, the temperature
difference between the head and foot level may be too large due to the vertical
temperature stratification. Melikov and Nielsen (1989) evaluated the thermal comfort
condition in 18 displacement ventilated spaces. Within the occupied zone, they found that
33% of measured locations had higher than 15 percent dissatisfied people due to draft.
They found that 40% of the locations having a temperature difference between head and
feet larger than 5
o
F (3 K), the limit defined by ASHRAE Standard 55-1992 (ASHRAE
1992). Obviously, these displacement ventilation systems were not properly designed.
The Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) technique and a full-scale experimental rig
can be used to determine the temperature and velocity distribution in a room with
displacement ventilation. Nevertheless, the tools are not generally available for most
designers. The designers need a simple model to predict the temperature difference
between the head and foot level.
It seems difficult to predict the non-linear vertical temperature profile. This is
because many parameters, such as ventilation rate, heat source type and position, wall
temperature and wall radiative characteristics, space height, and diffuser type, contribute
to it (Yuan et al. 1998). Actually, it is not necessary to predict the whole vertical profile.
Only the air temperatures between the head and foot level are required in the design of
comfort conditions.
If the air temperature at the head level of a sedentary person is defined as the room
design temperature, it is determined by comfort and is known in the design. If we can
establish an accurate model to calculate the air temperature difference between the head
and foot level, we can calculate the air temperature near the floor, T
f
. With Mundt's
model relating T
s
and T
f
(Equation 2.1) and the steady-state room energy balance
equation:
Q
t
= C
p
V(T
e
T
s
) (4.1)
we can determine the air supply temperature T
s
and exhaust temperature T
e
. Therefore, a
model of the air temperature difference between the head and foot level is important to
design a displacement ventilation system.
On the other hand, the primary purpose of displacement ventilation is to improve
indoor air quality. A designer needs a model to estimate the ventilation effectiveness in a
room with displacement ventilation. However, the literature review and our studies show
that the distributions of contaminant concentration and ventilation effectiveness are
strongly influenced by the position of the contaminant sources and the heat sources.
67
Therefore, no general model for the ventilation effectiveness at the breathing level is
available at present. Displacement ventilation has higher ventilation effectiveness than
mixing ventilation. The required amount of fresh air can be reduced for displacement
ventilation to save energy. Most designs use an assumption of complete mixing to
estimate the amount of fresh air needed. Such a calculation would lead to a substantial
error.
Therefore, the objective of the present study is to develop simple models to
estimate the air temperature difference between the head and foot level and the ventilation
effectiveness at the breathing level.
4.1. A Database of Displacement Ventilation
To develop models to estimate the air temperature difference between the head
and foot level and the ventilation effectiveness at the breathing level, information about
the air temperature and contaminant distributions in rooms with displacement ventilation
are needed. The air temperature and contaminant distributions are needed for a large
number of cases to develop an accurate simplified model. This requires a database of the
air temperature and contaminant distributions for rooms with various kinds of
geometrical, thermal, and flow boundary conditions.
There are two approaches to establish the database of air temperature and
contaminant distributions: direct measurements and numerical simulations. The direct
measurements in rooms with different geometrical, thermal, and flow boundary
conditions give the most realistic information. However, they are very expensive and time
consuming for many difficult cases. The control of thermal and flow boundary conditions
is also difficult. The use of numerical simulations seems a good choice at present.
To establish a large database, the present investigation uses the CFD technique to
simulate the air temperature and contaminant concentrations in different rooms with
displacement ventilation. The CFD program has been validated by comparison to seven
sets of measured data from a small office, a large office with partitions, a classroom, and
an industrial workshop, as presented in the previous chapter. In this chapter, the validated
CFD program is used to expand the database to 56 cases for four types of indoor spaces in
the U.S.: small offices, large offices with partitions, classrooms, and industrial
workshops.
Figure 4.1 shows the typical configurations of the four types of spaces. The 56
cases break into 18 cases of small offices (SO), 12 cases of large offices with partitions
(LO), 14 cases of classrooms (CR), and 12 cases of industrial workshops (WS). The
thermal and flow conditions for the cases are summarized in Table 4.1. The cases vary the
space height (H), ventilation rate (n), heat generated by occupant (Q
o
), heat generated by
equipment (Q
e
), heat generated by overhead lighting (Q
l
), heat from transmitted solar
radiation (Q
slr
), and heat from the building envelope other than the transmitted solar
radiation (Q
wl
). The table summarizes also the total cooling load (Q
t
) per floor area.
68
(The floor area is 17 x 12 ft
2
or 5.16 x 3.65 m
2
)
(a)
(The floor area is 76 x 52 ft
2
or 23.2 x 15.8 m
2
)
(b)
69
(The floor area is 38 x 30 ft
2
or 11.7 x 9.0 m
2
)
(c)
(The floor area is 86 x 68 ft
2
or 26.2 x 21 m
2
)
(d)
Figure 4.1 Typical rooms studied: (a) a small office, (b) a large office with partitions, (c)
a classroom, (d) a workshop.
70
Table 4.1a. Case specification (I-P units)
SO small offices
Case H
ft
n
ach
Q
o
/A
Btu/h ft
2
Q
e
/A
Btu/h ft
2
Q
l
/A
Btu/h ft
2
Q
slr
/A
Btu/h ft
2
Q
wl
/A
Btu/h ft
2
Q
t
/A
Btu/h ft
2
T
fs
o
F
T
cs
o
F
T
s
o
F
SO1 9.2 4 2.52 3.71 3.17 3.17 2.14 14.7 76.3 82 60.8
SO2 8 4 2.52 3.71 3.17 3.17 2.14 14.7 75.2 81.7 57.7
SO3 11 4 2.52 3.71 3.17 3.17 2.14 14.7 77.4 82.4 64.4
SO4 9.2 3 2.52 3.71 3.17 3.17 2.14 14.7 75.7 82.8 55.2
SO5 9.2 6 2.52 3.71 3.17 3.17 2.14 14.7 76.8 81.3 66
SO6 9.2 4 1.26 3.71 3.17 3.17 2.16 13.5 76.1 81.5 62.1
SO7 9.2 4 2.52 0 3.17 3.17 2.23 11.1 76.1 79.9 64.4
SO8 9.2 4 2.52 1.85 3.17 3.17 2.19 12.9 76.1 81 62.6
SO9 9.2 4 2.52 3.71 0 3.17 2.23 11.6 75.7 80.4 64
SO10 9.2 4 2.52 0 0 3.17 2.33 8.02 75.6 78.3 67.5
SO11 9.2 4 2.52 3.71 3.17 0 0 9.41 76.3 80.1 66
SO12 9.2 4 2.52 3.71 3.17 6.34 2.04 17.8 76.6 83.5 57.7
SO13 9.2 4 1.26 0 0 12.7 2.13 16.1 76.5 82 59.4
SO14 9.2 6 2.52 3.71 3.17 6.34 2.07 17.8 77.4 82.6 64
SO15 9.2 6 2.52 3.71 3.17 14.1 1.91 25.4 78.6 85.6 59.2
SO16 9.2 8 2.52 3.71 3.17 14.1 1.91 25.4 79.3 84.9 63.5
SO17 9.2 9 2.52 3.71 3.17 14.1 1.91 25.4 79.5 84.6 64.9
SO18 9.2 15 2.52 3.71 3.17 27 1.63 38 83.1 88 66.2
Table 4.1a (continued)
LO large office.
Case H
ft
n
ach
Q
o
/A
Btu/h ft
2
Q
e
/A
Btu/h ft
2
Q
l
/A
Btu/h ft
2
Q
slr
/A
Btu/h ft
2
Q
wl
/A
Btu/h ft
2
Q
t
/A
Btu/h ft
2
T
fs
o
F
T
cs
o
F
T
s
o
F
LO1 9.8 4 2.07 3.04 3.8 3.17 1.19 13.3 78.1 81.7 63
LO2 11 4 2.07 3.04 3.8 3.17 1.19 13.3 78.4 81.9 64.6
LO3 13 4 2.07 3.04 3.8 3.17 1.19 13.3 79 81.9 66.9
LO4 11 3 2.07 3.04 3.8 3.17 1.19 13.3 78.3 82.4 60.4
LO5 11 6 2.07 3.04 3.8 3.17 1.19 13.3 78.6 81.1 68.5
LO6 11 4 2.07 0 3.8 3.17 1.29 10.3 77.9 80.2 66.9
LO7 11 4 2.07 1.52 3.8 3.17 1.22 11.8 78.3 81 65.7
LO8 11 4 2.07 6.09 3.8 3.17 1.1 16.2 79 83.5 62.4
LO9 11 4 2.07 3.04 0 3.17 1.32 9.6 77.5 79.7 67.6
LO10 11 4 2.07 0 0 3.17 1.38 6.62 77 78.1 69.8
LO11 11 4 2.07 3.04 3.8 0 0 8.91 77.2 79.7 68.4
LO12 11 4 2.07 3.04 3.8 6.34 1.06 16.3 79.9 83.5 61.9
71
Table 4.1a (continued)
CR classrooms
Case H
ft
n
ach
Q
o
/A
Btu/h ft
2
Q
e
/A
Btu/h ft
2
Q
l
/A
Btu/h ft
2
Q
slr
/A
Btu/h ft
2
Q
wl
/A
Btu/h ft
2
Q
t
/A
Btu/h ft
2
T
fs
o
F
T
cs
o
F
T
s
o
F
CR1 11 3 5.64 0 3.8 3.17 1.17 13.8 78.6 82.2 59.7
CR2 9 3 5.64 0 3.8 3.17 1.2 13.8 77.5 81.7 55.2
CR3 13 3 5.64 0 3.8 3.17 1.17 13.8 79.3 82.4 63
CR4 11 5 5.64 0 3.8 3.17 1.2 13.8 79 81.3 66.6
CR5 11 3 4.28 0 3.8 3.17 1.2 12.5 78.3 81.5 61.2
CR6 11 3 7 0 3.8 3.17 1.14 15.1 79 82.8 58.3
CR7 11 3 5.64 1.2 3.8 3.17 1.14 15 78.8 82.9 58.5
CR8 11 3 5.64 0 1.9 3.17 1.24 11.9 78.1 81.1 61.9
CR9 11 3 5.64 0 5.71 3.17 1.11 15.6 79.2 83.3 57.7
CR10 11 3 5.64 0 3.8 0 0 9.45 77.4 79.9 64.9
CR11 11 3 5.64 0 3.8 6.34 1.05 16.8 80.1 84 55.9
CR12 11 3 5.64 0 3.8 9.51 0.92 19.9 81.5 85.8 52.2
CR13 11 3 5.64 0 0 9.51 1.05 16.2 80.4 83.7 56.3
CR14 11 4 5.64 0 3.8 3.17 1.17 13.8 78.8 81.7 64
Table 4.1a (continued)
WS industrial workshops
Case H
ft
n
ach
Q
o
/A
Btu/h ft
2
Q
e
/A
Btu/h ft
2
Q
l
/A
Btu/h ft
2
Q
slr
/A
Btu/h ft
2
Q
wl
/A
Btu/h ft
2
Q
t
/A
Btu/h ft
2
T
fs
o
F
T
cs
o
F
T
s
o
F
WS1 15 3 4.85 1.94 3.17 3.17 1.14 14.3 74.8 79.9 62.2
WS2 10 3 4.85 1.94 3.17 3.17 1.17 14.3 72.9 79.7 54.5
WS3 18 3 4.85 1.94 3.17 3.17 1.2 14.3 75.2 79.7 64.6
WS4 15 2 4.85 1.94 3.17 3.17 1.11 14.2 74.7 81.3 56.5
WS5 15 4 4.85 1.94 3.17 3.17 1.17 14.3 74.8 79.2 64.9
WS6 15 3 2.42 0.97 3.17 3.17 1.4 11.1 73.9 78.1 64.4
WS7 15 3 4.85 0 3.17 3.17 1.39 12.6 74.5 78.8 63.3
WS8 15 3 4.85 1.94 0 3.17 1.49 11.4 73.9 77.9 64.2
WS9 15 3 4.85 1.94 3.17 0 0 9.95 73.9 77.9 64.9
WS10 15 3 4.85 1.94 3.17 6.34 1.3 17.6 75.6 81.7 60.1
WS11 15 3 4.85 1.94 3.17 9.51 1.2 20.7 76.5 83.5 57.9
WS12 15 3 4.85 1.94 0 9.51 1.3 17.6 75.6 81.3 60.1
72
Table 4.1b Case specification (SI units)
SO small offices
Case H
m
n
ach
Q
o
/A
W/m
2
Q
e
/A
W/m
2
Q
l
/A
W/m
2
Q
slr
/A
W/m
2
Q
wl
/A
W/m
2
Q
t
/A
W/m
2
T
fs
o
C
T
cs
o
C
T
s
o
C
SO1 2.8 4 7.96 11.7 10 10 6.74 46.4 24.6 27.8 16
SO2 2.4 4 7.96 11.7 10 10 6.74 46.4 24 27.6 14.3
SO3 3.3 4 7.96 11.7 10 10 6.74 46.4 25.2 28 18
SO4 2.8 3 7.96 11.7 10 10 6.74 46.4 24.3 28.2 12.9
SO5 2.8 6 7.96 11.7 10 10 6.74 46.4 24.9 27.4 18.9
SO6 2.8 4 3.98 11.7 10 10 6.82 42.5 24.5 27.5 16.7
SO7 2.8 4 7.96 0 10 10 7.04 35 24.5 26.6 18
SO8 2.8 4 7.96 5.84 10 10 6.9 40.7 24.5 27.2 17
SO9 2.8 4 7.96 11.7 0 10 7.04 36.7 24.3 26.9 17.8
SO10 2.8 4 7.96 0 0 10 7.34 25.3 24.2 25.7 19.7
SO11 2.8 4 7.96 11.7 10 0 0 29.7 24.6 26.7 18.9
SO12 2.8 4 7.96 11.7 10 20 6.44 56.1 24.8 28.6 14.3
SO13 2.8 4 3.98 0 0 40 6.72 50.7 24.7 27.8 15.2
SO14 2.8 6 7.96 11.7 10 20 6.54 56.2 25.2 28.1 17.8
SO15 2.8 6 7.96 11.7 10 44.4 6.04 80.1 25.9 29.8 15.1
SO16 2.8 8 7.96 11.7 10 44.4 6.04 80.1 26.3 29.4 17.5
SO17 2.8 9 7.96 11.7 10 44.4 6.04 80.1 26.4 29.2 18.3
SO18 2.8 15 7.96 11.7 10 85.2 5.14 120 28.4 31.1 19
Table 4.1b (continued)
LO large offices
Case H
m
n
ach
Q
o
/A
W/m
2
Q
e
/A
W/m
2
Q
l
/A
W/m
2
Q
slr
/A
W/m
2
Q
wl
/A
W/m
2
Q
t
/A
W/m
2
T
fs
o
C
T
cs
o
C
T
s
o
C
LO1 3.3 4 6.54 9.6 12 10 3.76 41.9 25.8 27.7 18.1
LO2 3 4 6.54 9.6 12 10 3.76 41.9 25.6 27.6 17.2
LO3 3.9 4 6.54 9.6 12 10 3.76 41.9 26.1 27.7 19.4
LO4 3.3 3 6.54 9.6 12 10 3.76 41.9 25.7 28 15.8
LO5 3.3 6 6.54 9.6 12 10 3.76 41.9 25.9 27.3 20.3
LO6 3.3 4 6.54 0 12 10 4.06 32.6 25.5 26.8 19.4
LO7 3.3 4 6.54 4.8 12 10 3.86 37.2 25.7 27.2 18.7
LO8 3.3 4 6.54 19.2 12 10 3.46 51.2 26.1 28.6 16.9
LO9 3.3 4 6.54 9.6 0 10 4.16 30.3 25.3 26.5 19.8
LO10 3.3 4 6.54 0 0 10 4.36 20.9 25 25.6 21
LO11 3.3 4 6.54 9.6 12 0 0 28.1 25.1 26.5 20.2
LO12 3.3 4 6.54 9.6 12 20 3.36 51.5 26.6 28.6 16.6
73
Table 4.1b (continued)
CR classrooms
Case H
m
n
ach
Q
o
/A
W/m
2
Q
e
/A
W/m
2
Q
l
/A
W/m
2
Q
slr
/A
W/m
2
Q
wl
/A
W/m
2
Q
t
/A
W/m
2
T
fs
o
C
T
cs
o
C
T
s
o
C
CR1 3.3 4 17.8 0 12 10 3.7 43.5 26 27.6 17.8
CR2 2.7 3 17.8 0 12 10 3.8 43.6 25.3 27.6 12.9
CR3 3.9 3 17.8 0 12 10 3.7 43.5 26.3 28 17.2
CR4 3.3 5 17.8 0 12 10 3.8 43.6 26.1 27.4 19.2
CR5 3.3 3 13.5 0 12 10 3.8 39.3 25.7 27.5 16.2
CR6 3.3 3 22.1 0 12 10 3.6 47.7 26.1 28.2 14.6
CR7 3.3 3 17.8 3.8 12 10 3.6 47.2 26 28.3 14.7
CR8 3.3 3 17.8 0 6 10 3.9 37.7 25.6 27.3 16.6
CR9 3.3 3 17.8 0 18 10 3.5 49.3 26.2 28.5 14.3
CR10 3.3 3 17.8 0 12 0 0 29.8 25.2 26.6 18.3
CR11 3.3 3 17.8 0 12 20 3.3 53.1 26.7 28.9 13.3
CR12 3.3 3 17.8 0 12 30 2.9 62.7 27.5 29.9 11.2
CR13 3.3 3 17.8 0 0 30 3.3 51.1 26.9 28.7 13.5
CR14 3.3 3 17.8 0 12 10 3.7 43.5 25.9 27.9 15.4
Table 4.1b (continued)
WS industrial workshops
Case H
m
n
ach
Q
o
/A
W/m
2
Q
e
/A
W/m
2
Q
l
/A
W/m
2
Q
slr
/A
W/m
2
Q
wl
/A
W/m
2
Q
t
/A
W/m
2
T
fs
o
C
T
cs
o
C
T
s
o
C
WS1 4.5 3 15.3 6.11 10 10 3.59 45 23.8 26.6 16.8
WS2 3 3 15.3 6.11 10 10 3.69 45.1 22.7 26.5 12.5
WS3 5.5 3 15.3 6.11 10 10 3.79 45.2 24 26.5 18.1
WS4 4.5 2 15.3 6.11 10 10 3.49 44.9 23.7 27.4 13.6
WS5 4.5 4 15.3 6.11 10 10 3.69 45.1 23.8 26.2 18.3
WS6 4.5 3 7.63 3.05 10 10 4.42 35.1 23.3 25.6 18
WS7 4.5 3 15.3 0 10 10 4.4 39.7 23.6 26 17.4
WS8 4.5 3 15.3 6.11 0 10 4.69 36.1 23.3 25.5 17.9
WS9 4.5 3 15.3 6.11 10 0 0 31.4 23.3 25.5 18.3
WS10 4.5 3 15.3 6.11 10 20 4.09 55.5 24.2 27.6 15.6
WS11 4.5 3 15.3 6.11 10 30 3.79 65.2 24.7 28.6 14.4
WS12 4.5 3 15.3 6.11 0 30 4.09 55.5 24.2 27.4 15.6
These thermal and flow boundary conditions cover a wide range in U.S. buildings:
) 8 ft room height 18 ft (2.43 m room height 5.5 m)
) 2 ach ventilation rate 15 ach
) 6.6 Btu/(h ft
2
) Q
t
/A 38 Btu/(h ft
2
) (21 W/m
2
Q
t
/A 120 W/m
2
)
) 0.08 Q
oe
/Q
t
0.68
) 0 Q
l
/Q
t
0.43
74
) 0 Q
ex
/Q
t
0.92
where Q
t
= the total cooling load in the room
A = the floor surface area
Q
oe
= the heat generated by the occupant and equipment
Q
l
= the heat generated by the overhead lighting
Q
ex
= the heat from exterior walls and windows and the transmitted solar
radiation.
Since there is a temperature stratification in a room with displacement ventilation,
the ceiling and floor surface temperature are unknown. In this investigation, we use the
two temperatures in the CFD program to calculate the air temperature and contaminant
distributions. The following discuss a procedure used to estimate the temperatures.
In a space with displacement ventilation as shown in Figure 4.2, the steady-state
heat balance on the surfaces of the floor and the ceiling can be expressed as:
Q
af
= Q
sf
+ Q
rf
+ Q
of
(4.2)
Q
ac
= -Q
sc
+ Q
rc
+ Q
oc
(4.3)
where Q
af
= the convective heat transfer from the floor to the air
Q
sf
= the radiative heat transfer from the heat sources to the floor
Q
rf
= the radiative heat transfer from the ceiling and walls to the floor
Q
of
= the heat transfer from the space under the floor to the floor surface
Q
ac
= the convective heat transfer from the air to the ceiling
Q
sc
= the radiative heat transfer from the heat sources to the ceiling
Q
rc
= the radiative heat transfer from the ceiling to the walls and floor
Q
oc
= the heat transfer from the ceiling surface to the space above the ceiling
Further, Newtons law reads
Q
af
=
cf
(T
fs
T
f
)A (4.4)
Q
ac
=
cc
(T
c
T
cs
)A (4.5)
where
cf
= the convective heat transfer coefficient on the floor
T
fs
= the floor surface temperature
T
f
= the air temperature near the floor

cc
= convective heat transfer coefficient on the ceiling
T
cs
= the ceiling surface temperature
A = floor/ceiling area
The convective heat transfer on the floor causes an air temperature increase from
the supply temperature to the air temperature on the foot level. Therefore,
75
Figure 4.2. Heat transfer in a space with the displacement ventilation
Q
af
= C
p
V(T
f
T
s
) (4.6)
The radiative heat transfer from the heat sources to the floor and the ceiling, respectively,
may be estimated by:
Q r Q
sf fj j
j
= (4.7)
Q r Q
sc cj j
j
= (4.8)
where Q
j
= heat emitted by j
th
heat source, including transmitted solar radiation
r
fj
= the fraction of radiative heat transfer from j
th
heat source to the floor
r
cj
= the fraction of radiative heat transfer from j
th
heat source to the ceiling
The r
fj
and r
cj
need to be estimated from the room geometry.
According to Mundt (1996), the radiative heat transfer from the ceiling and walls
to the floor, Q
rf
, and the radiative heat transfer from the ceiling to the floor and walls, Q
rc
,
can be estimated via:
Q
rf
=
r
A (T
cs
T
fs
) Y
1
(4.9)
Q
rc
=
r
A (T
cs
T
fs
) Y
2
(4.10)
where
r
= the radiative heat transfer coefficient
Y
1
and Y
2
= coefficients.
Q
sc
Q
sf
Q
rf
Q
af
T
e
T
fs
T
f
T
c
T
cs
Source
Q
of
T
of
Q
rc
Q
ac
Q
oc
T
oc
T
s
76
The values of Y
1
and Y
2
depend on the distribution of surface temperatures and the
geometry of the room envelope. Mundt (1996) showed that the Y
1
and Y
2
are between 0.6
to 0.8 for rooms with displacement ventilation. The lower value corresponds to rooms
with a high H/A (the ratio of the room height to floor area).
The heat transfer from the space under the floor to the floor surface, Q
of
, and the
heat transfer from the space above the ceiling to the ceiling surface, Q
oc
, can be expressed
as:
Q
of
= A(T
of
T
fs
)/R
f
(4.11)
Q
oc
= A(T
cs
T
oc
)/R
c
(4.12)
where T
of
= the temperature of the space under the floor
T
oc
= the temperature of the space above the ceiling
R
f
= the thermal resistance from the space under the floor to the floor surface
R
c
= the thermal resistance from the space above the ceiling to the ceiling surface
The total cooling load is offset by the ventilation system, i.e.,
Q
t
= C
p
V(T
e
T
s
) (4.13)
where = air density
C
p
= specific heat of air
V = volume flow rate from the supply
T
e
= air temperature at the exhaust
T
s
= air temperature at the supply
From the above equations, Mundt (1996) developed the following equation to
calculate
f
f s
e s
T T
T T
=

f
sc oc sf of
t cc
sf of
t r p e
cc r cf p e
Q Q Y Q Q Y
Q Y
Q Q
Q Y
AH
C VH
Y
Y Y
AH
C VH
=
+ +
+
+
+
+ + +
( ) ( ) ( )
1 2
1 1
2
1 1
1 1
(4.14)
With the assumption of a constant vertical air temperature gradient in the space, s,
we have
e
f e
H
T T
s

= (4.15)
where H
e
= the exhaust elevation.
77
Combination of
f
with Equations (4.13) and (4.15) leads to:
e p
f t
VH C
) 1 ( Q
s

= (4.16)
Once
f
and s are obtained, the temperatures can be determined for a given design
as follows. The air temperature near the floor is,
T
f
= T
h
s H
h
(4.17)
where T
h
= desired design room temperature at the head level of a sedentary person
H
h
= the head elevation
The exhaust air temperature is:
T
e
= T
f
+ s H
e
(4.18)
The supply air temperature is
T
s
= T
e
Q
t
/(C
p
V) (4.19)
The floor surface temperature is
T
fs
= T
f
+ C
p
V(T
f
T
s
)/(A
cf
) (4.20)
The air temperature near the ceiling is
T
c
= T
e
+ (H H
e
)s (4.21)
The ceiling surface temperature,
T
T Y T Q Q A
Y
cs
cc c r f sc oc
cc r
=
+ +
+


2
2
( ) /
(4.22)
Since Q
of
, Q
oc
, and Q
t
depend on T
fs
and T
cs
, iterations are necessary between Equations
(4.11) to (4.22). The calculated temperatures are listed in Table 4.1.
The above derivation assumes a constant vertical temperature gradient in the room
air. This assumption is only used for the estimation of the surface temperatures on the
floor and the ceiling and the supply air temperature. The experimental data from the
literature shows that the gradient is not a constant in many cases, but the average value of
the data is close to constant. The CFD program will provide detailed temperature
distributions. From the results of the 56 cases, we can obtain the air temperature
78
difference between the head and foot level and the ventilation effectiveness at the
breathing level of a sedentary person.
4.2. Model of the Air Temperature Difference between the Head and Foot Level
In a room with displacement ventilation, as illustrated in Figure 4.3, the air in the
layer between the head and foot level of a sedentary occupant is heated by the occupants,
equipment, transmitted solar radiation, overhead lighting, and walls. In other words, the
temperature increases from the foot to the head level results from the convective heat
from the occupants, equipment, transmitted solar radiation, overhead lighting, and the
heat gain/loss through the exterior walls/windows. Obviously, the heat from the
occupants and equipment contributes more significantly to the temperature increase in
this layer than that from overhead lighting. This is because the occupants and equipment
are located in this layer.
Figure 4.3. Sketch of a room with the displacement ventilation
We can assume the heat transfer to the air between head and foot level by
T
hf
C
p
V = a
oe
Q
oe
+ a
l
Q
l
+ a
ex
Q
ex
(4.23)
where Q
oe
= the heat generated by occupants, desk lamps, and equipment, (Q
o
+ Q
dl
+
Q
e
)
Q
l
= the heat generated by overhead lighting
Q
ex
= the heat from the exterior wall and window surfaces and the transmitted
solar radiation
a
oe
, a
l
, and a
ex
= weighting coefficients for the contribution of the convective heat
to the air between head and foot level.
Since
V = nHA (4.24)
Occupant
Lamp
Equipment
head level
foot level
79
where V = the supply flow rate
n = the air change rate
H = the room height
A = the floor area
Equation (4.23) turns to
nHA C
Q a Q a Q a
T
p
ex ex l l oe oe
hf

+ +
= (4.25)
Equation (4.25) is a model to calculate the air temperature difference between the head
and foot level of a sedentary person in a room with displacement ventilation. Based on
the database for the cases listed in Table 4.1, the coefficients that give the best agreement
are,
a
oe
= 0.295
a
l
= 0.132 (4.26)
a
ex
= 0.185
The model should only be applied to cases within the range of the present
database. This range covers most US buildings except large spaces such as theaters and
atria. We recommend the use of a validated CFD program or experimental measurements
to design displacement ventilation systems in large spaces.
For people and unhooded equipment, the cooling load factor is about 0.75. The
model (Equation 4.25) indicates that 1/3 of the cooling load enters the space between foot
and head level. The other 2/3 enters the upper space by the thermal plume. The radiative
heat from the overhead lighting to the building envelope is about 20% of the total energy
input to the lamps. About 2/3 of the radiative heat is projected to the floor and lower part
of the wall. This eventually heats the air between foot and head level. Mundt (1996)
measured the air temperature profile in a room with displacement ventilation. The only
heat source is a simulated person. The temperature difference between the head and foot
level of the occupant over the temperature difference between the return and supply air is
0.3 that is in excellent agreement with the a
oe
value. This suggests the values of the
weighting coefficients, a
oe
, a
l
, and a
ex
, are physically sound.
Figure 4.4 compares the air temperature difference obtained from the database and
calculated by the model (Equation 4.25). The temperature differences calculated with the
assumption of a constant vertical temperature gradient, (T
e
T
f
)/H, are also presented in
the figure for comparison. The correlation between the model and database is very good.
This implies the temperature differences calculated with the model are close to those by
the CFD simulation. It is not surprising that the average values calculated by the model
agree with the simulation since the values of the coefficients were obtained from the same
simulations. It is gratifying that the model does accurately capture the influence of
individual parameter variations on the foot to head temperature difference. However, the
80
assumption of a constant temperature gradient from floor to ceiling is not very good.
Straub (1962) has provided a good explanation how temperature gradient is formed.
Obviously, the constant gradient assumption neglects many factors despite of its simple
form.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
CFD data [K]
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
r
e
s
u
l
t
[
K
]
Model
(Te-Tf)/H
Figure 4.4. Correlation of the air temperature difference between the head and foot level
Figure 4.5 provides a more detailed case by case comparison for the small offices,
large offices with partitions, classrooms, and industrial workshops, respectively. The
results show that the assumption of a constant temperature gradient is more problematic
when the ceiling height is high, such as in the workshops shown in Figure 4.5(d).
81
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
S
O
1
S
O
2
S
O
3
S
O
4
S
O
5
S
O
6
S
O
7
S
O
8
S
O
9
S
O
1
0
S
O
1
1
S
O
1
2
S
O
1
3
S
O
1
4
S
O
1
5
S
O
1
6
S
O
1
7
S
O
1
8
Case

T
h
f
Model
CFD data
(Te-Tf)/H
[
K
]
(a)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
L
O
1
L
O
2
L
O
3
L
O
4
L
O
5
L
O
6
L
O
7
L
O
8
L
O
9
L
O
1
0
L
O
1
1
L
O
1
2
Case

T
h
f
Model
CFD data
(Te-Tf)/H
[
K
]
(b)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
C
R
1
C
R
2
C
R
3
C
R
4
C
R
5
C
R
6
C
R
7
C
R
8
C
R
9
C
R
1
0
C
R
1
1
C
R
1
2
C
R
1
3
C
R
1
4
Case

T
h
f
Model
CFD data
(Te-Tf)/H
[
K
]
(c)
82
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
W
S
1
W
S
2
W
S
3
W
S
4
W
S
5
W
S
6
W
S
7
W
S
8
W
S
9
W
S
1
0
W
S
1
1
W
S
1
2
Case

T
h
f
Model
CFD data
(Te-Tf)/H
[
K
]
(d)
Figure 4.5. Comparison of the T
hf
obtained by the model, the CFD data and the
constant temperature gradient assumption. (a) small offices, (b) large offices with
partitions, (c) classrooms, and (d) industrial workshops.
Figure 4.6 compares the T
hf
obtained by the model and the constant temperature
gradient assumption with the measured data from the literature. The agreement between
the model and the data is less satisfactory in some cases, such as those cases from
Holmberg et al. (1987) and Nielsen et al. (1988). No temperature information on the
walls are available from Holmberg et al. (1987). The temperature difference from head to
foot will be influenced by heat transfer from the vertical walls. There is no indication of
wall temperatures to determine if the wall adds or removes heat from the room air. In
Nielsens cases, there was a large glass wall in the test room for which no temperature
information is available. Among the three cases from Brohus et al. (1996), the calculated
values agree with the last two cases, but not with the first one. The measured T
hf
in the
first case should be much larger than that in the third one, because the heat sources are
almost the same between the two cases and the ventilation flow rate in the first case is
less than half of that in the third case. Thus, some other unreported changes in room
conditions may have occurred. For all other cases, the T
hf
calculated by the model are
close to the measured data. The above comparison shows that the model estimates the
temperature difference between head and foot level much better than the assumption of a
constant temperature gradient from floor to ceiling.
83
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
H
o
l
m
b
e
r
g
e
t
a
l
,
8
7
H
o
l
m
b
e
r
g
e
t
a
l
,
8
7
H
o
l
m
b
e
r
g
e
t
a
l
,
8
7
H
o
l
m
b
e
r
g
e
t
a
l
,
8
7
N
i
e
l
s
e
n
e
t
a
l
,
8
8
N
i
e
l
s
e
n
e
t
a
l
,
8
8
N
i
e
l
s
e
n
e
t
a
l
,
8
8
N
i
e
l
s
e
n
e
t
a
l
,
8
8
N
i
e
l
s
e
n
e
t
a
l
,
8
8
N
i
e
l
s
e
n
e
t
a
l
,
8
8
S
a
n
d
b
e
r
g
,
8
5
S
a
n
d
b
e
r
g
,
8
5
C
h
e
n
,
8
8
C
h
e
n
,
8
8
C
h
e
n
,
8
8
C
h
e
n
,
8
8
C
h
e
n
,
8
8
L
i
,
e
t
a
l
,
9
2
L
i
,
e
t
a
l
,
9
2
L
i
,
e
t
a
l
,
9
2
B
r
o
h
u
s
e
t
a
l
,
9
6
B
r
o
h
u
s
e
t
a
l
,
9
6
B
r
o
h
u
s
e
t
a
l
,
9
6
M
u
n
d
t
,
9
6
M
u
n
d
t
,
9
6
M
u
n
d
t
,
9
6
M
u
n
d
t
,
9
6
Y
u
a
n
e
t
a
l
,
9
7
Y
u
a
n
e
t
a
l
,
9
7
Y
u
a
n
e
t
a
l
,
9
7
Y
u
a
n
e
t
a
l
,
9
7
Y
u
a
n
e
t
a
l
,
9
7
Y
u
a
n
e
t
a
l
,
9
7
Model
Measured
(Te - Tf)/H

T
h
f
[
K
]
Figure 4.6. Comparison of the T
hf
obtained by the model, measured data and constant
gradient assumption
The model (Equation 4.25) shows that a large cooling load can cause a large T
hf
.
The head to foot temperature difference, T
hf
, should be less than 3.6
o
F (2 K) for
comfort consideration. Therefore, the cooling load has an upper limit for acceptable
comfort with displacement ventilation. However, the model suggests that the air
temperature difference between the head and foot level not only depends on the total
cooling load but also the type of heat gains. The maximum cooling load is not a fixed
value for thermal comfort in displacement ventilation. If a majority of the cooling load is
from overhead lighting or other heat sources above the stratification level, displacement
ventilation can operate with a much higher cooling load and still provide comfortable
conditions.
The model indicates that an increase of the ventilation rate, n, may reduce T
hf
.
However, the air speed from the diffuser cannot be too high. To maintain a thermally
comfortable environment requires a large diffuser area when the ventilation rate
increases. Therefore, the maximum cooling load depends on the area available for
installing diffusers and the distribution of heat sources. Note that a higher ventilation rate
will consume more energy from the fan and requires a larger air-handling unit.
4.3. Ventilation Effectiveness Model
It is difficult to derive a general model for ventilation effectiveness with
displacement ventilation. We restrict our efforts to a model for rooms where the
contaminant sources are associated with the heat sources.
The database was used with a technique similar to that for the model of the air
temperature difference (Equation 4.25). The model for prediction of ventilation
84
effectiveness, , at the breathing level of a sedentary person in a displacement ventilated
room is:
t ex l oe
3 / n
Q / ) Q 63 . 0 Q 45 . 0 Q )( e 1 ( 83 . 2 + + =

(4.27)
where n = ventilation rate
s e
s h
c c
c c

= (4.28)
where c
h
= the mean contaminant concentration in the head level of a sedentary person
c
s
= the contaminant concentration at the supply air
c
e
= the contaminant concentration at the exhaust air
Equation (4.27) is purely an empirical best fit with the data. However, the ratios
between the coefficients for Q
oe
, Q
l
,and Q
ex
are the same as those for the model of the air
temperature difference (Equation 4.26). The ventilation effectiveness in the database is
with contaminants from the occupants - the contaminant sources are combined with heat
sources. The ventilation effectiveness model (Equation 4.27) is only valid for the same
conditions. Additionally, the ventilation effectiveness is not a constant in both verical and
horizontal directions. The model calculates the aveage ventilation effectivemess
throughout the room at the height of the breathing level.
One must also consider occupants standing in a space with displacement
ventilation. Saeteri (1992) and Brohus et al. (1996) showed that the air inhaled originates
at a lower elevation because the convective flow around the human body brings fresher
air from the lower level to the breathing level. Therefore, the air quality inhaled by a
standing person is probably close to the quality of that at the breathing level of a
sedentary person. The model may still be valid for spaces primarily occupied by standing
people.
Figure 4.7 compares the ventilation effectiveness between the model and
database. The correlation is good. Figure 4.8 provides a detailed case-by-case
comparison. The values of ventilation effectiveness predicted by the model are generally
in good agreement with the CFD results. The ventilation effectiveness for the 56 cases
varies between 1.2 and 2. Since the ventilation effectiveness for perfect mixing
ventilation is 1.0, displacement ventilation does provide a better indoor air quality.
85
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
CFD data
M
o
d
e
l
Figure 4.7. Correlation of the ventilation effectiveness at the breathing level between the
model and CFD data
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
S
O
1
S
O
3
S
O
5
S
O
7
S
O
9
S
O
1
1
S
O
1
3
S
O
1
5
S
O
1
7
L
O
1
L
O
3
L
O
5
L
O
7
L
O
9
L
O
1
1
C
R
1
C
R
3
C
R
5
C
R
7
C
R
9
C
R
1
1
C
R
1
3
W
S
1
W
S
3
W
S
5
W
S
7
W
S
9
W
S
1
1

CFD data
Model
Figure 4.8. Comparison of the ventilation effectiveness between the model and CFD data
The model indicates that the effectiveness increases as the ventilation rate
increases. When the ventilation rate is sufficiently low, the increase of the effectiveness
with ventilation rate is very pronounced. The model also suggests that the ventilation
effectiveness is high, when the fraction of the heat sources in the occupied zone (Q
oe
)
over the total heat source is large. This is because a large Q
oe
generates strong thermal
plumes that can transports the contaminants from the occupied zone to the upper zone.
4.4. A Simplified CFD Program
The model developed in the previous sections should only be used for the
conditions within which the models are developed. The models may not have general
applicability. For example, the models may not be used for designing displacement
ventilation for an atrium. This section shows how to obtain the flow, comfort, and IAQ
information for conditions not studied in the previous sections, such as an atrium.
86
Many HVAC design engineers do not have the access to a large computer. It is
important to develop a simple model to simulate indoor airflow on a personal computer.
The model can calculate airflow pattern and the distribution of air velocity, temperature,
contaminant concentrations, and pressure. In another ASHRAE research project (RP-
927), we have developed a simplified CFD program with a new zero-equation model.
In this new model, the turbulent influences are lumped into the effective viscosity
as the sum of the turbulent viscosity,
t
, and laminar viscosity, :
+ =
t eff
(4.29)
We use a single algebraic function (a zero-equation model) to express the turbulent
viscosity as a function of local mean velocity, V, and a length scale, l:

t
= 0.03874 V l (4.30)
This equation has no adjustable constants between different flow conditions.
This new zero-equation model has been used to predict indoor airflows of:
) Natural convection
) Forced convection
) Mixed convection
) Displacement ventilation
The agreement between the computed results and measured data is acceptable for design
(Chen and Xu 1998).
This section used the simplified CFD program to calculate the displacement
ventilation case shown in Figure 3.4. Figure 4.9 shows the computed airflow distribution
that is similar to the observed airflow pattern as shown in Figure 3.4.
Figure 4.9 Predicted airflow distribution in the office with displacement ventilation.
87
Figures 4.10 and 4.11 compares the computed and measured air velocity and
temperature at nine different locations in the room. The agreement between the computed
results and measured data is good for design purpose.
Figure 4.10 The computed and measured velocity (U = u/u
s
, u
s
= 18 fpm (0.09 m/s))
versus room height (Z = z/h, h = 8 ft (2.43 m))
88
Figure 4.11 The computed and measured temperature (T = (T
a
T
s
)/(T
e
T
s
), T
s
= 62.6
o
F (17.0
o
C), T
e
= 80.1
o
F (26.7
o
C)) versus room height (Z = z/h, h = 8 ft (2.43 m)).
The CPU time and number of grid points used for the simulation are given in
Table 4.2. The table shows the computing time for other two cases for ASHRAE RP-927.
Computing time for the three dimensional problems is under fifteen minutes per case. The
calculations have been done on a PC Pentium Pro200. Such a PC can be easily found in
most designers office. Therefore, the simplified CFD program can provide the designer
an alternative tool to predict the indoor airflow with available computer resources.
A manual how to use the simplified CFD program is under preparation. The
manual will be delivered together with the source code to ASHRAE by the end of this
year as a deliverable of ASHRAE RP-927.
Table 4.2 Computing time used for the prediction of indoor airflow
Case Grid number CPU time
[min:sec]
Natural convection in a room with infiltration 27x22x20 13:11
Forced convection in a room with a partition wall 28x22x17 11:26
Mixed convection in a room with displacement ventilation 27x20x18 10:32
89
4.5. Conclusions
A model has been developed to estimate the air temperature difference between
the head and foot level in a space with displacement ventilation. The model was
developed from a database of 56 displacement ventilation conditions by use of a validated
CFD program. The 56 cases cover four different types of buildings: small offices, large
offices with partitions, classrooms, and industrial workshops under different thermal and
flow boundary conditions normally found in the U.S. buildings. The model should not be
applied to large spaces such as theaters and atria, until it is validated for such conditions.
This investigation shows that the maximum cooling load in a room with
displacement ventilation is not a fixed value. The cooling load depends on the
distribution of the heat sources and the ventilation rate of the indoor space.
Based on the same database, a model of the ventilation effectiveness at the
breathing level of a sedentary person has also been developed. The model is applicable to
indoor spaces where the contaminant sources are associated with heat sources. The study
also shows that the ventilation effectiveness is high when a large fraction of the total heat
sources is in the occupied zone.
For large spaces such as theaters and atria, a simplified CFD program has been
developed. The program can predict indoor airflow with less than 15 minutes computing
time on a PC. The computed results are in good agreement with the experimental data.
90
5. Performance Evaluation of Displacement Ventilation
At the design stage, a designer needs to predict the performance of displacement
ventilation. The performance is often evaluated by the thermal comfort level, indoor air
quality, energy consumption of the HVAC system, and the first and maintenance costs of
the system. The air temperature distribution, the percentage of dissatisfied people due to
draft (PD), and the predicted percentage of dissatisfied for the thermal comfort (PPD) are
widely used as criteria to evaluate the thermal comfort. The contaminant concentration
distributions and the mean age of air are often good indicators for indoor air quality. The
energy consumption is related to air temperature distribution and ventilation rate. All
these performance parameters are determined by the thermal and flow boundary
conditions, such as the space size and geometry, heat sources, and contaminant sources.
5.1. Evaluation Criteria
This chapter will evaluate the performance of displacement ventilation for
individual small offices, large offices with partitions, classrooms, and industrial
workshops. The investigation uses the CFD program validated in Chapter 3. This
program is used to calculate the flow and thermal distribution for a large number of
different boundary conditions. However, normal CFD programs do not calculate PD,
PPD, and the mean age of air. We have implemented the following models in the CFD
program to calculate these parameters.
Fanger et al. (1989) developed a model to calculate PD as:
PD = 0.021 (93.2 T)(u 9.8)
0.62
(3.14 +0.0019u Tu) [%] (I-P) (5.1a)
PD = (34 T)(u 0.05)
0.62
(3.14 +0.37u Tu) [%] (SI) (5.1b)
for PD > 100%, use PD = 100%
where T = air temperature [
o
F,
o
C]
u = air velocity [fpm, m/s], for u < 10 fpm (0.05 m/s), use u = 10 fpm (0.05 m/s).
Tu = turbulent intensity.
We use
Tu = 100(2k)
0.5
/u [%] (5.2)
where k = the turbulent kinetic energy.
The PPD can be calculated via (ISO 1990):
PPD = 100 95exp(-0.03353PMV
4
0.2179PMV
2
) [%] (5.3)
91
The predicted mean vote, PMV, in the equation is determined by:
PMV = 3.155 [0.303 exp(-0.114 M) + 0.028] L (I-P) (5.4a)
PMV = [0.303exp(-0.036M) + 0.028] L (SI) (5.4b)
where L = M W
{ 1.196x10
-9
f
cl
[(T
cl
+ 460)
4
(T
r
+ 460)
4
] + f
cl
h
c
(T
cl
T)
+ 0.97 [5.73 0.022 (M W) 6.9 P
a
]
+ 0.42(M W 18.43) + 0.0173 M (5.87 0.69 P
a
)
0.00077 M (93.2 T)} (I-P) (5.5a)
L = M W
{3.96x10
-8
f
cl
[(T
cl
+ 273)
4
(T
r
+ 273)
4
] + f
cl
h
c
(T
cl
T)
+ 3.05x10
-3
[5733 6.99 (M W) P
a
]
+ 0.42 (M W 58.15) + 1.7x10
-5
M (5867 P
a
)
+ 0.0014 M (34 T)} (SI) (5.5b)
with M = metabolism [Btu/h, W]
W = external work [Btu/h, W]
f
cl
= cloth factor [-]
T = local air temperature [
o
F,
o
C]
T
cl
= cloth temperature [
o
F,
o
C]
T
r
= mean radiant temperature [
o
F,
o
C]
h
c
= convective heat transfer coefficient between the cloth and air [Btu/h ft
2 o
F,
W/m
2 o
C]
P
a
= partial water vapor pressure [in.-water, Pa]
The f
cl
, T
cl
and h
c
are determined by the following equations:
f
cl
= 1.05 + 0.645I
cl
for I
cl
0.078 (5.6)
f
cl
= 1.00 + 1.290I
cl
for I
cl
< 0.078 (5.7)
T
cl
= 96.3 0.156(M W) I
cl
{1.196x10
-9
f
cl
[(T
cl
+ 460)
4
(T
r
+ 460)
4
]
+ f
cl
h
c
(T
cl
T)} (I-P) (5.8a)
T
cl
= 35.7 0.028(M W) I
cl
{3.96x10
-8
f
cl
[(T
cl
+ 273)
4
(T
r
+ 273)
4
]
+ f
cl
h
c
(T
cl
T)} (SI) (5.8b)
The convective heat transfer coefficient, h
c
, is determined from
h
c
= 0.361(T
cl
- T)
0.25
for 0.361(T
cl
T)
0.25
0.151 u
0.5
(I-P) (5.9a)
h
c
= 2.38(T
cl
- T)
0.25
for 2.38(T
cl
T)
0.25
12.1 u
0.5
(SI) (5.9b)
h
c
= 0.151 u
0.5
for 0.361(T
cl
T)
0.25
< 0.151 u
0.5
(I-P) (5.10a)
h
c
= 12.1 u
0.5
for 2.38(T
cl
T)
0.25
< 12.1 u
0.5
(SI) (5.10b)
where I
cl
= clothing insulation [
o
F ft
2
h/Btu,
o
C m
2
/W]
92
u = air velocity [fpm, m/s].
The mean age of air, , is defined as the averaged time for all air molecules travel
from the supply diffuser to that point. It can be derived from the measured transient
history of the tracer-gas concentration. Li and Jiang (1996) shows that the mean age of air
is governed by a transport equation:
+

)
x
(
x
) u (
x
) (
t
j j
j
j
(5.11)
with the following as the boundary conditions:
= 0 at the supply diffuser,

x
j
= 0 at the exhaust and walls.
The ventilation effectiveness is defined as:
s
s e
c c
c c

= (5.12)
where = ventilation effectiveness [-]
c
e
= contaminant concentration at the exhaust air [ppm]
c
s
= contaminant concentration at the supply air [ppm]
c = contaminant concentration in the room air [ppm]
In addition, a CFD program will calculate the airflow pattern and the distributions
of air velocity, temperature, and contaminant concentration. We will be able to evaluate
the thermal comfort and indoor air quality provided by displacement ventilation in terms
of
) Airflow pattern
) Temperature distribution
) PD
) PPD
) Contaminant concentration distributions
) Mean age of air
) Ventilation effectiveness
The energy consumption of the HVAC system and the first costs and maintenance costs
of the system for displacement ventilation are also important parameters to evaluate the
performance of displacement ventilation system. The research results are reported in the
next Chapter.
93
5.2. Performance Evaluation of Displacement Ventilation
For the 56 cases as listed in Table 4.1, we have calculated the airflow patterns and
the distributions of air temperature, PD, PPD, CO
2
concentration, the mean age of air, and
ventilation effectiveness. This section uses the results for a classroom shown in Figure
4.1(c) as an example. The classroom has a teacher, 24 pupils, an exterior window/wall,
overhead lighting, and diffusers in all the four corners. More detailed information is
provided in case CR01 in Table 4.1. The results for other cases, as illustrated in Appendix
C, can lead to similar conclusions.
Airflow pattern
The classroom uses one diffuser in each of the four corners. Figure 5.1 shows the
airflow patterns in three different sections of the room: a horizontal section at the ankle
level, section A-A, and section B-B (see Figure 5.1(a) for the section location). The
relatively cold air from the diffusers falls toward the floor. The falling flows behave like
jets and the jets can meet in the center of the room. The wall temperature determines the
flow near the walls. The heated objects, such as the occupants, generate strong plumes in
the room that bring the contaminants from the lower zone to the upper zone. If the walls
are assumed to be isothermal and have the same temperature as the average room air
temperature, the wall flow in the lower part is upward and in the upper part of the wall
the flow is downward. This is because room air temperature in the lower part is lower
than that of the walls and in the upper part higher than that of the walls. However, in our
experiment, we found that the temperature of the walls is higher than the room air
temperature. Therefore, the flows near the walls are all upward as shown in Figure 5.1.
The air velocity in the room with displacement ventilation is generally small (less than 40
fpm or 0.2 m/s) except in the thermal plumes and the flow near the floor and walls.
In the winter, the downward flow near the exterior window and wall might bring
pollutants from the upper zone to the lower zone. To prevent such a downward flow
requires a heating device placed near the exterior window or wall at the floor level. The
heating capacity should be slightly larger than the heating load from the exterior window
or wall.
Temperature distribution
Figure 5.2 shows that the air temperature is nearly uniform in the horizontal direction
except in the region close to an occupant. The supply air is heated first by the floor and
mixed with room air by induction. As a result, the air temperature near the floor, T
f
, is
higher than that of supply air
.
To avoid draft, the supply air temperature cannot be too
low. The supply air temperature depends on the room geometry, cooling load, and heat
source type. Generally, the supply air temperature is in the range of 65 68
o
F (18 20
94
Figure 5.1 The airflow pattern in the classroom: (a) at ankle level, (b) at section A-A, and
(c) at section B-B.
95
Figure 5.2 The air temperature distribution in the classroom: (a) at section A-A and (b)
at section B-B.
o
C). There is a vertical gradient of the air temperature. The vertical temperature gradient
depends on the distribution of the heat sources. The gradient in the lower part will be
larger than that in the upper part if most of the heat sources are in the lower part of the
room. Although Figure 5.2 shows a high air temperature near the ceiling, the ceiling
surface temperature is several degrees lower. In general radiation from the ceiling may
not be felt, unless the air temperature near the ceiling is very high.
Percentage dissatisfied due to draft (PD) and predicted percentage dissatisfied (PPD)
The PD and PPD are generally less than 15% in the occupied zone, if the design
uses the guidelines to be shown in Chapter 7. Figures 5.3 and 5.4 show that, only in the
region very close to the diffuser (1.6 ft or 0.5 m), the PD and PPD are higher. Therefore,
displacement ventilation presents a satisfactory comfort level.
96
Figure 5.3 The PD distribution in the classroom: (a) at the ankle level, (b) in section A-A,
and (c) in section B-B.
97
Figure 5.4 The PPD distribution in the classroom: (a) at the ankle level, (b) in section A-
A, and (c) in section B-B.
98
Figure 5.5 The CO
2
distribution in the classroom: (a) in section A-A and
(b) in section B-B.
Contaminant concentration distributions
The present study uses CO
2
as an indicator for contaminants. With displacement
ventilation, the CO
2
concentration in the lower zone is lower than that in the upper zone,
as shown in Figure 5.5. The CO
2
level at the inlet is 400 ppm. The indoor CO
2
sources
are from the occupants, and the occupants are the heat sources as well. The heat generates
thermal plumes that can bring the CO
2
to the upper zone. In most buildings, many
contaminant sources are associated with the heat sources, such as printers, computers, and
other heated equipment. Displacement ventilation provides better indoor air quality than
mixing ventilation for these cases.
The convective flow around a human body brings the air at lower zone to the
breathing zone. Therefore, the occupant actually breathes air with lower contaminant
concentrations than those at the nose level in the middle of the room.
However, displacement ventilation may not provide better indoor air quality than
the mixing ventilation if the contaminant sources are not associated with heat sources,
such as the volatile organic compounds from building materials. The concentration is
indeed very sensitive to the locations of the contaminant and heat sources, wall thermal
conditions, and disturbances, such as moving objects in the room.
Mean age of air and ventilation effectiveness
99
Figure 5.6 illustrates the mean age of air in the classroom. Clearly, the mean age
of air in the lower part of the room is much younger than that in the upper part of the
room. The mean age of air at the breathing level in the classroom is about 600 s. For
complete mixing ventilation, the mean age of air in the classroom is 900 s. The
distribution of ventilation effectiveness shown in Figure 5.7 also indicates that the
classroom with displacement ventilation system has higher ventilation effectiveness. With
a perfect mixing ventilation system, the ventilation effectiveness is one. A perfect or
complete mixing is impossible in practice. The corresponding mean age of air will be
older in the occupied zone than displacement ventilation and the ventilation effectiveness
will be lower than one. Hence, we can conclude that displacement ventilation does
provide much better indoor air quality than mixing ventilation.
Figure 5.6 The distribution of mean age of air in the classroom: (a) in section A-A and
(b) in section B-B.
100
Figure 5.7 The ventilation effectiveness distribution in the classroom: (a) in section A-A
and (b) in section B-B.
5.3. Discussion
We are particularly interested in studying cases with a high cooling load. Our
survey in several buildings in Greater Boston area shows that the cooling load can be as
high as 40 Btu/(h ft
2
) or 120 W/m
2
. Some investigators suggested that the maximum
cooling load the displacement ventilation system can handle is about 13 Btu/(h ft
2
) (40
W/m
2
) without increasing ventilation rate. In order to design the displacement ventilation
for the U.S. buildings, the ventilation rate must be increased because of the high cooling
loads. A displacement ventilation system may maintain a comfortable environment with a
cooling load upto 40 Btu/(h ft
2
) (120 W/m
2
) with increased ventilation rate.
We have studied a case with such a high cooling load in a small office. As shown
in Figures 5.8 and 5.9, the PD and PPD in the occupied zone can still be less than 15%.
The air temperature difference between head and foot levels is 3
o
F (1.6
o
C), In this case,
the ventilation rate is 15 ach. The high ventilation rate would require a large fan, duct,
and air handling unit. It may not be economically feasible, compared to mixing
ventilation. In other words, energy efficiency and cost might limit the maximum cooling
load that will be discussed in the next chapter. In addition, the available area of the walls
for installing supply diffusers will limit the maximum cooling load.
101
Figure 5.8 Distribution of the percentage of dissatisfied people due to draft in a small
office with a cooling load of 40 Btu/(h ft
2
) (120 W/m
2
): (a) at the ankle level, (b) at the
head level.
Figure 5.9 Distribution of the predicted percentage of dissatisfied people for thermal
comfort in a small office with a cooling load of 40 Btu/(h ft
2
) (120 W/m
2
): (a) at the ankle
level, (b) at the head level.
In winter condition, downward flow near the exterior window and wall might
bring polluted air from the upper zone to the lower zone. A heating device placed near to
the exterior wall on the floor level may prevent the downward flow. If the displacement
diffuser is used to supply warm air, the air will move upwards. The advantage of
displacement ventilation for better indoor air quality will disappear. Figure 5.10 illustrates
the computed flow pattern with a baseboard heater with a capacity equal to the heating
load from the exterior wall and window, while Figure 5.11 shows the flow pattern with a
heating capacity equal to 80% of the heating load. It can be seen from the figures that the
heating capacity should be at least equal to the heating load.
102
Figure 5.10 Flow pattern with a heating capacity equal to the heating load from the
exterior wall and window
Figure 5.11 Flow pattern with a heating capacity equal to 80% of the heating load from
the exterior wall and window
5.4. Conclusions
With proper design, displacement ventilation can maintain a thermally
comfortable indoor environment. The air velocity is smaller than 40 fpm or 0.2 m/s. The
temperature difference between the head and foot level of a sedentary occupant is less
than 3.6
o
F (2 K). The percentage of dissatisfied people due to draft (PD) and the
predicted percentage of dissatisfied are less than 15%.
Compared with mixing ventilation, the displacement ventilation provides better
indoor air quality when the contaminant sources are associated with the heat sources. The
thermal plumes bring the contaminants to the upper zone and the contaminant
concentrations in lower zone are lower. The mean age of air is younger and the
103
ventilation effectiveness is higher in a room with displacement ventilation than those with
mixing ventilation.
A high cooling load in a room would require a high ventilation rate that may limit
the application of displacement ventilation.
104
6. Energy and Cost Analysis
Proper design of displacement ventilation requires the information of its energy
consumption and first costs. A good ventilation system should save energy and be cost
effective. This chapter presents the fundamentals of energy and cost analysis and the
corresponding results of the displacement ventilation. The investigation uses a mixing
system for comparison.
Energy simulation method ranges from manual to detailed computer simulation
methods. Manual methods, such as degree-day and bin methods (ASHARE 1997), are
still widely used in practical design, although they are not accurate. The modeling
strategy used in building energy simulation is in a sequence of load, system, and plant
(Sowell and Hittle 1995), no matter a manual or detailed computer simulation method is
used. Degree-day uses only one value of temperature, while bin method calculates energy
over several intervals (bins) of temperature. However, detailed methods often calculate
energy in an hour-by-hour interval. Although the manual methods are simple, they could
not, for example, be used for the comparison of energy consumption by displacement and
mixing ventilation systems. The detailed computer simulation can consider the difference
between displacement ventilation and mixing ventilation. The method is also powerful
for analyzing a number of alternatives in order to make an optimal design on HVAC
system. Therefore, the present investigation uses a detailed computer simulation method.
The detailed methods calculate cooling and heating loads hour-by-hour for an
entire year for a building. Then the secondary systems are simulated to calculate the
required energy flows at the air handlers or other equipment supplied by the central plant.
The next step is to calculate the source energy requirements in the central plant. Finally,
one would calculate the costs of the source energy, sometimes introduce capital and other
costs for a complete life-cycle economic analysis.
6.1. Load Calculations
The heat balance method and weighting factor method are the two principal
methods used in the past few decades. It is well known that heat gain is not the same as
cooling. For example, the lighting energy in a room does not convert to 100% convective
heat. A part of it is by radiation that is absorbed by the building enclosure and furniture.
The radiative part of the heat may be released back to the room air in a late time, because
of the room thermal capacity. The weighting factor method estimates the ratio of
convective heat over the total lighting energy in a time sequence. The weighting factors
depend on building material properties. The weighting factors may be pre-calculated and
presented in tables for certain types of buildings. These tables can be used for hand
calculation of load if the actual building is close to the one used to produce the weighting
factor. Earlier programs using weighting factors are the Post Office Program (GATC
1967), NESCAP (NASA 1975) and DOE-1 (Diamond et al. 1971).
105
The energy balance method ensures energy balance for room air and enclosure
surfaces to determine the loads. NBSLD (Kusuda 1978) is probably the earliest program
of this kind. Other current programs use energy balance method are such as BLAST
(Hittle 1979) and ESP-r (Clarke 1985). The ACCURACY program (Chen and Kooi
1988) we developed is also based on the energy balance method. The energy balance
method allows changing conditions to be modeled appropriately. For example, room
surface convective coefficient can be a variable and room air temperature can be non-
uniform. Enclosure surface temperatures computed by the energy balance method can be
used to determine the radiant temperature.
The weighting factor method was popular in the 1970s because of limited
computing capacity at that time. Most weighting factor and heat balance programs use
response factors and transfer functions to calculate transient conduction through walls,
roofs, and floors, with the assumption that the heat conduction is one dimensional. The
response factors or transfer functions are based on control theory. The mathematical
background is rather complicated. However, they determine heat conduction much faster
than the finite-difference method. Due to the development of computing capacity, the
finite-difference method could replace the response factor and transfer functions (Chen et
al. 1995). The finite-difference method does not have to assume the one-dimensional heat
conduction. It would yield much more accurate results for corner walls and would provide
temperature distribution in a wall that is useful for analyzing condensation.
Unfortunately, the method still requires too much computing effort.
Therefore, we decided to use ACCURACY program for our investigation. The
fundamentals of the program is discussed here.
Room air energy balance equation
The energy balance equation of room air is:
t
T C V
Q Q Q Q Q A q
p room
extraction _ heat iltration inf appliances people lights
N
1 i
i c , i

= + + + +

=
(6.1)
where

=
N
1 i
i c , i
A q = convective heat transfer from enclosure surfaces to room air
N = number of the enclosure surfaces
A
i
= area of surface i
Q
lights
, Q
people
, Q
appliances
, and Q
infiltration
= cooling loads of lights, people,
appliances and infiltration, respectively
Q
heat_extraction
= heat extraction via HVAC device
t
T C V
p room

= room air energy change
= air density
106
V
room
= room volume
C
p
= air specific heat
T = temperature change of room air
t = sampling time interval
In order to determine the convective heat flux from surface i, q
i,c
, we need the
energy balance equations for building enclosure.
Energy balance on a wall, ceiling, floor, roof, or slab
Figure 6.1 Energy balance on the interior surface of a wall, ceiling, floor, roof or slab.
For a wall, ceiling, floor, roof, or slab as shown in Figure 6.1, we have the
following energy balance equation:
c , i
N
1 k
ik t , i i
q q q q + = +

=
(6.2)
where q
i
= conductive heat flux on surface i
q
i,t
= transmitted solar heat flux re-absorbed by surface i
q
ik
= emitted radiative heat flux from surface i to surface k
ACCURACY program determines q
i
by Z-transfer functions. The radiative heat
flux is
) T T ( h q
k i r , ik ik
= (6.3)
where h
ik,r
= radiative heat transfer coefficient between surfaces i and k
T
i
= temperature of interior surface i
T
k
= temperature of interior surface k
And
q
i,c
= h
c
(T
i
- T
air
) (6.4)
where h
c
= convective heat transfer coefficient
q
ik
Wall
q
i,c
Room
q
i,t
q
i
107
T
room
= room air temperature
Most existing energy simulation programs assume T
air
to be uniform in the entire
room/building. The assumption is appropriate for a room with a mixing ventilation
system where the room air temperature is relatively uniform. However, a single
temperature is not good for displacement ventilation because the non-uniform
temperature distribution in displacement ventilation can have a major impact on energy
consumption of the HVAC system. The air temperature at the boundary layer of a wall is
an important factor for the heat transfer through convection in the air-wall interface. This
study uses the air temperature at 4 in. (0.1 m) from a wall surface (T
i,air
in Figure 6.2) as
the T
air
. If the air temperature in the center of the occupied zone is controlled to be T
room
,
Equation (6.4) becomes:
q
i,c
= h
i,c
(T
i
- T
i,air
)
= h
i,c
(T
i
- T
room
) - h
i,c
T
i,air
(6.5)
where T
i,air
= T
i,air
- T
room
T
i,air
T
room
T
i,air
surface i
T
T
k,air
k,air
h
h
i,c
k,c
i
k
T
T
73 F
71 F
72 F
Temperature used in ACCURACY program Temperature computed by CFD program
Figure 6.2 Schematic presentation of the coupling between flow and energy programs.
The T
i,air
can be directly obtained from CFD simulation as shown in Figure 6.2.
However, this could be very time consuming if the CFD simulation would be done hourly
for a whole year. Hence, the present investigation uses the temperature model developed
and used in Chapter 4 to determine T
i,air
.
108
Energy balance equation for window
For a window shown in Figure 6.3, we have the following energy balance
equation:
Figure 6.3 Energy balance on the interior surface of window.
c , i
N
1 k
ik t , i s , i i
q q q q q + = + +

=
(6.6)
where q
i
= conductive heat flux on window i
q
i,s
= inward heat flux of the absorbed solar radiation by window i
q
i,t
= transmitted solar heat flux re-absorbed by window i
q
ik
= emitted radiative heat flux from window i to room surface k
ACCURACY program can calculate q
i
, q
i,s
, and q
i,t
. The q
ik
and q
i,c
are
determined in the same way as those for walls.
Let
q
i,in
= q
i
+ q
i,t
for walls, ceiling, floor, etc.
q
i,in
= q
i
+ q
i,s
+ q
i,t
for windows
Then we have
[H] [T] = [q] + [h T] (6.7)
where [ ]

+
+
+
=

=
=
N
1 k
r , Nk c , N r , 1 NN r , 1 N
r , N 2
N
1 k
r , k 2 c , 2 r , 21
r , N 1 r , 12
N
1 k
r , k 1 c , 1
h h h ... h
... ... ... ...
h ... h h h
h ... h h h
H (6.8)
q
ik
Window
q
i,c
Room
q
i,t
q
i
q
i,s
109
[ ]

=
N
2
1
T
...
T
T
T (6.9)
[ ]

+
+
+
=
room c , N in , N
room c , 2 in , 2
room c , 1 in , 1
T h q
...
T h q
T h q
q (6.10)
[ ]

=
air , N c , N
air , 2 c , 2
air , 1 c , 1
T h
...
T h
T h
T h (6.11)
Solving Equations (6.1) to (6.11) together, the surface temperatures of room
enclosure, T
i
, and heat extraction (heating/cooling load) can be obtained.
6.2. Secondary Systems and Plants
Secondary system simulates mass, energy, and moisture balance at various
components (coils, fans, etc.) and junctions (mixing boxes, deviators) in the air handling
systems. Most programs, whole-building simulation programs, provide with a number of
fixed menus of common secondary systems. A typical program is DOE-2. Some
programs, component-based programs, provide component based or modular simulators.
These programs would allow user to interconnect freely the components that are
packaged as algorithms. Generally, those programs are most useful for detailed studies of
special systems, such as active solar heating and cooling systems and for control studies.
At present, detailed simulations of building with many zones for yearlong periods are
impractical for component-based simulators. Typical component-based programs are
TRNSYS (Klein et al. 1994), CLIM 2000 (Gautier et al. 1991), HVACSIM+, ALLAN
(Jeandel and Palero 1990), SPANK (Buhl et al. 1990), and IDA (Sahlin and Bring 1991).
The weak and strong points of the whole-building simulation programs and
component-based programs are complementary. However, to combine the strong points
of the two types of the programs in the mid-1980s was not very successful. The kernel-
based software has yet to apply to practical design. Typical programs of this kind are
SPANK (Buhl et al.1993) and ESP-r (Clarke 1985). SPANK uses symbolic modeling.
This modeling technique could reduce model building time, generates component
libraries for later reuse, and permits automatic generation of solutions even to those
problems involving partial differential equations (Nataf and Winkelmann 1994).
110
Another method is to divide the weather data into several zones in a
psychrometric chart (Paassen 1986). Within the same zone, the air handling process is
assumed to be the same. The product of the energy requirement by an air handling
component and the hour number gives the annual energy consumed by the component in
each zone. This method is not very accurate but it is very straightforward and easy to
understand. With calculated hourly loads, it is even possible to calculate by hands the
energy requirement by secondary systems.
Apparently, the whole-building simulation approach seems the best to compare
the energy consumption by displacement and mixing ventilation systems. The approach is
used for the present investigation. Figure 6.4 shows the air handling systems used. Note
that the figure shows only one of many possible systems.
According to the results shown in Chapter 5, the displacement ventilation system
needs a separated heating system for winter heating. The present investigation used a
baseboard heater, as shown in Figure 6.4. Further, in order to conserve energy, the air
handling systems use economizers and heat exchangers.
(a) Air handling system for the displacement ventilation
Chiller
Heat exchanger
Reheater Fan
Boiler
Exhaust
Outdoor air
Cooling coil
Baseboard
heater
Window
Steam
humidifier
111
(b) Air handling system for the mixing ventilation
Figure 6.4 The air handling systems used by the displacement and mixing ventilation.
The mainstream programs model chillers by curve fits of manufacturers data and
boilers with a single seasonal efficiency. More detailed models are also available, such as
inclusion of combustion calculations in boilers. The present investigation uses variable-
air-volume system with constant air supply temperatures, except in the shoulder season
when the supply air temperature fluctuates for maximum use of free cooling. We use two
COP values for chillers, one for displacement ventilation and another for mixing
ventilation.
Chiller
Heat exchanger
Reheater Fan
Boiler
Exhaust
Outdoor air
Cooling coil
Steam
humidifier
112
6.3. Energy Analysis for U.S. Conditions
This section discusses comparison of energy consumption by the displacement
ventilation with that by a mixing-type system for an individual office building, a
classroom building, and a workshop building. The study is for five climatic regions in the
U.S.: hot humid (e.g., New Orleans, LA); hot dry (e.g., Phoenix, AZ); moderate (e.g.,
Nashville, TN), maritime (e.g. Seattle, WA), and cold (e.g., Portland, ME). Table 6.1
shows the building characteristics and thermal conditions used in the study.
Table 6.1 Building characteristics and thermal conditions
Space type Small office (SO) Classroom (CR) Workshop (WS)
Space size
5.2m x 3.7m x 2.4m
( 17ft x 12ft x 8ft )
11.7m x 9.0m x 3.3m
( 38ft x 30ft x 11ft )
26.2m x 21m x 4.5m
( 86ft x 68ft x 15ft )
Seattle &
Portland
U=0.72W/m
2
K
(R=7.9 ft
2
h
0
F/Btu)
U=0.72W/m
2
K
(R=7.9 ft
2
h
0
F/Btu)
U=0.72W/m
2
K
(R=7.9 ft
2
h
0
F/Btu)
Wall
Phoenix,
New
Orleans &
Nashville
U=0.96W/m
2
K
(R=5.92 ft
2
h
0
F/Btu)
U=0.96W/m
2
K
(R=5.92 ft
2
h
0
F/Btu)
U=0.96W/m
2
K
(R=5.92 ft
2
h
0
F/Btu)
Exterior
envelope
Glazing
1) Double glazing.
U=4.6 W/m
2
K
(R=1.24 ft
2
h
o
F/Btu)
2) 52% of exterior
wall area
3) shading
coefficient =0.5
if facing south &
=0.8 if facing
north.
1) Double glazing.
U=4.6 W/m
2
K
(R=1.24 ft
2
h
o
F/Btu)
2) 44% of exterior
wall area
3) shading
coefficient =0.5
(facing south)
1) Double glazing.
U=4.6 W/m
2
K
(R=1.24 ft
2
h
o
F/Btu)
2) 61% of exterior
wall area
3) shading
coefficient =0.5
(facing south)
Occupancy schedule
8:00am -- 7:00pm
Monday -- Friday
8:00am -- 7:00pm
Monday -- Friday
8:00am -- 7:00pm
Monday -- Friday
Internal load (sensible and
latent)
2 persons: 260 W
(887 Btu/h)
2 computers: 250 W
(853 Btu/h)
lights: 204 W (696
Btu/h)
25 persons: 3,250 W
(11,088 Btu/h)
lights: 1,264 W
(4,313 Btu/h)
112 persons: 14,560
W (49,676 Btu/h)
equipment: 3,362 W
(11,470 Btu/h)
lights: 5,502 W
(18,772 Btu/h)
113
Room temperature set point T=25
o
C (77
o
F) for
cooling
T=23
o
C (73.5
o
F) for
heating
T=25
o
C (77
o
F) for
cooling
T=23
o
C (73.5
o
F) for
heating
T=25
o
C (77
o
F) for
cooling
T=23
o
C (73.5
o
F) for
heating
In addition, the investigation uses the following assumptions/conditions:
) A fixed fan efficiency = 0.60
) A fixed boiler efficiency = 0.75
) A fixed COP for chiller = 2.9 for mixing ventilation and 3.0 for displacement
ventilation
) Pressure drop of the air handling system: 1900 Pa (7.64 in. of water)
) Supply air temperature for the mixing system = 12.8
o
C (55
o
F) for cooling and 40
o
C (104
o
F) for heating.
) Supply air temperature for the displacement system is determined by Equation
(4.19).
) Minimum outdoor air = 10 L/s person (20 cfm/person) for the mixing ventilation
and 7.7 L/s person (15 cfm/person) for displacement ventilation to ensure the
same indoor air quality.
Office building
Figure 6.5 shows the monthly energy consumption of the small office with a
facing south wall and window at Seattle, WA. The displacement ventilation system uses
more fan energy than the mixing ventilation system. Although the exhaust air temperature
with the displacement ventilation system is higher than that with the mixing ventilation
system, the air temperature difference between the air exhaust and supply is smaller. This
is because the air supply temperature in the displacement ventilation system is much
higher. Typically, for the displacement system:
T
exhaust
T
supply
= 81
o
F 64
o
F = 17
o
F or (27
o
C 18
o
C = 9
o
C) (6.1)
and for the mixing system
T
exhaust
T
supply
= 77
o
F 55
o
F = 22
o
F or (25
o
C 13
o
C = 12 K) (6.2)
To remove the same amount of cooling load needs a larger amount of supply air with the
displacement ventilation. The difference is especially large during summer, when the
cooling load is high. However, the fan energy for the displacement ventilation in August
at Seattle is lower than that for the mixing system. The outdoor temperature in August in
Seattle is low. The outdoor air conditions are good for free cooling. The displacement
ventilation has a larger temperature difference between the supply and exhaust air during
free cooling period, that is typically 16
o
F (9 K), while the mixing system has only 9
o
F (5
K). Therefore, the total amount of air for the displacement ventilation is smaller.
114
Consequently, the fan energy consumed is also smaller. Very similar results can be found
in other climate region, e.g. June, August and September in Portland, ME and March and
November in Phoenix, AZ, as shown in Figure D1 of appendix D.
0
50
100
150
200
250
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Month
Fan (Displacement)
Chiller (Displacement)
Boiler (Displacement)
Fan (Mixing)
Chiller (Mixing)
Boiler (Mixing)
kWh
Seattle
Figure 6.5 Comparison of monthly energy consumption between the displacement and
mixing ventilation systems for an individual office in Seattle, WA (Maritime Climate).
In the winter, the heat for the displacement system is mainly supplied via the
baseboard heater. The displacement system supplies only the fresh air. The amount of air
supply is much lower than that of the mixing system. The fan energy consumption should
be lower. Since the office has a high internal heat gain as most U.S. office buildings,
cooling is required during some office hours even in winter season. For these cooling
times, the displacement ventilation system uses more fan energy, as explained above. The
fan energy consumed during winter is similar between the two ventilation systems due to
the combined effect.
Figure 6.5 also indicates that the energy consumed by the chiller in the
displacement ventilation system is also much less. Since the air supply temperature is
higher in the displacement ventilation system than that in the mixing ventilation system,
this would allow the displacement system uses more free cooling during the shoulder
seasons. The COP value is slightly higher in the displacement ventilation (3.0) than that
in the mixing ventilation (2.9). On the other hand, exhaust air temperature in the
displacement system is 4
o
F (2 K) higher than that in the mixing system. More
importantly, the mean room air temperature in the displacement ventilation system is
higher than that in the mixing system, due to the temperature stratification. The cooling
115
load in the summer months is lower in the displacement ventilation. All of these factors
contribute to smaller energy consumption of the chiller.
The energy consumed by the boiler with the displacement ventilation is also
smaller than that with the mixing ventilation. This is especially evident during the winter.
With the displacement ventilation, the ventilation effectiveness is higher. To maintain the
same air quality, the total amount of fresh air can be reduced. As a result, the energy
needed to heat the fresh air becomes less in the displacement ventilation system, as shown
in Figure 6.5.
We have further studied the impact of different building orientations on the
energy consumption. Figure 6.6 shows the annual energy consumption for the individual
office in three different building zones: having an exterior wall and window facing south,
having an exterior wall and window facing north, and having no exterior walls and
windows (core region of a building). All the other thermal and fluid boundary conditions
are the same.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Fan Chiller Boiler Fan Chiller Boiler Fan Chiller
Displacement
Mixing
kWh
Facing South Facing North
Core Region
Seattle
Figure 6.6 Annual energy consumption of the displacement and mixing ventilation
systems for an individual office at different locations of a building in Seattle, WA
(Maritime Climate).
The results show that the energy consumption trend is the same for all the three
building zones. The energy consumption by the boiler is the highest for north facing
zones because of the high heat loss through the exterior wall and window during the
116
heating period. The chiller does not use much more energy in the south facing zones,
because the heat gain due to solar radiation is comparable to the heat loss to the moderate
outdoor air temperature in Seattle, WA. In the core region where no exterior windows and
walls exist, no heating is needed. Therefore, the separated heating system with baseboard
heater can be eliminated in the core region.
In most case, the sum of the energy consumed by the displacement ventilation is
slightly smaller than that with the mixing ventilation. The fan uses a higher energy in the
displacement ventilation, because of the high cooling load found in the U.S. buildings.
Figure D2 in appendix D further shows the study for the five climate regions:
Seattle, ME (maritime), Portland, ME (cold), Phoenix, AZ (hot and dry), New Orleans,
LA (hot and humid), and Nashville, TN (moderate). The study shows very similar results.
Classroom and workshop
The investigation also compares annual energy consumption by the displacement
and mixing ventilation systems for a classroom and a workshop in the five climate
regions. Figure 6.7 shows the results for Seattle, WA. The results of the classroom facing
south are also used for the comparison. The energy consumed is normalized by the floor
area.
Seattle, WA
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Fan Chiller Boiler Fan Chiller Boiler Fan Chiller Boiler
Displacement
Mixing
kWh/m2
Individual Office
Classroom Workshop
117
Figure 6.7 Annual energy consumption per unit floor area of the displacement and
mixing ventilation systems for three different types of rooms in Seattle, WA (Maritime
Climate).
A classroom has less heated equipment than an individual office. The occupants
are the major heat sources. Each occupant has smaller floor area in a classroom than that
in an individual office. Therefore, the amount of fresh air per square foot floor area is
higher in a classroom. The fresh air consists of a large portion of cooling and heating
load. Hence, the energy saving in winter becomes more significant in the classroom with
displacement ventilation than that in the individual office, as shown in Figure 6.7.
The workshop used in the present study has a similar population density as the
classroom, but with more heated equipment. As a result, the workshop needs little
auxiliary heating in winter.
The results for the individual office, classroom, and workshop for all the five
climate regions are shown in Figure D3 in appendix D. Generally, the displacement
ventilation system uses more fan energy, less chiller and boiler energy than the mixing
ventilation system. The overall energy used by the displacement ventilation system is
slightly less.
118
6.4. First Cost Analysis for U.S. Conditions
The first cost analysis has been performed for the individual office building. The
present study has assumed that the building has 100 identical individual offices as listed
in Table 6.1. This would allow us to select reasonable size of the chiller, boiler, and air
handling units and to distinguish the difference between the displacement and mixing
ventilation systems. We have further assume that 1/3 of the offices facing south, 1/3
facing north, and the other 1/3 in the core region.
The equipment capacity is selected to handle simultaneously the maximum load in
the three zones of the building. With the equipment capacity, the first costs of the air-
handling units, chillers, boilers can be estimated by using the 1998 R.S. Means building
construction cost data. Figure 6.8 shows results for the five climate regions. The costs are
for materials and labor, but do not include project overhead.
Air handling unit
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
Seattle Portland Nashville New
Orleans
Phoenix
Displacement
Mixing
(a) Air handling unit
Chiller
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
Seattle Portland Nashville New
Orleans
Phoenix
Displacement
Mixing
(b) Chiller
119
Boiler
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
Seattle Portland Nashville New
Orleans
Phoenix
Displacement
Mixing
(c) Boiler
Figure 6.8 Comparison of first costs of air handling units, chillers, and boilers of the
displacement and mixing ventilation systems
Figure 6.8(a) shows that the first costs of the air-handling units are higher for
displacement ventilation system than those for the mixing ventilation system. This is
because the displacement ventilation system needs to handle a larger amount of air. In
contrast, the displacement ventilation system needs smaller chiller, as shown in Figure
6.8(b) due to a higher air supply temperature and smaller cooling load. However, the
boiler size is almost the same between the two ventilation systems (Figure 6.8(c)).
Although the displacement ventilation system needs a slightly lower boiler capacity, it
falls to the same category by using the building construction data.
The overall first costs, including the costs for air-handling unit, chiller, and boiler,
are shown in Figure 6.9(a). The costs do not include those for air distribution, such as
ducts. The displacement ventilation supplies air at floor level and returns at ceiling level.
It may be more desirable to use wall cavities for the ducts. However, the mixing
ventilation system should use a false ceiling. This will definitely have an impact on
construction costs. Though the first cost analysis provides an insight on the costs of major
units, the results shows only a rough estimation. Figure 6.9(a) shows that the overall first
costs for the displacement ventilation is smaller than that for the mixing ventilation. This
is mainly due to a small chiller as illustrated in Figure 6.8(b).
120
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
$90,000
$100,000
Seattle Portland Nashville New Orleans Phoenix
Displacement Mixing
(a) Without the separated heating system for the displacement ventilation
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
$60,000
$70,000
$80,000
$90,000
$100,000
Seattle Portland Nashville New Orleans Phoenix
Displacement Mixing
(b) With the separated heating system for the displacement ventilation.
Figure 6.9 The comparison of the total first costs between the displacement and mixing
ventilation systems.
The results of the displacement ventilation shown in Figure 6.9(a) do not include
the first costs of a separated heating system needed in the perimeter zones of the building.
If we include the first costs of the separated heating system, the total first costs for the
displacement ventilation becomes slightly higher. Therefore, the displacement ventilation
system is more desirable for the core region of a building where no heating is required.
121
6.5. Conclusions
Present investigation has studied energy consumption of an individual office, a
classroom, and a workshop for five U.S. climate regions. The study has been done for
three building zones in an individual office building: having a facing south exterior wall
and window, having a facing north exterior wall and window, and having no exterior
walls and windows.
The study uses the energy balance method to calculate hourly cooling load. The
load calculation considers the non-uniform temperature distribution in room air. The
secondary systems are analyzed by a whole-building simulation program. The energy
analysis shows that the displacement ventilation may use more fan energy and less chiller
and boiler energy than the mixing ventilation. The total energy used is slightly less for the
displacement ventilation, although the ventilation rate is increased to handle the high
cooling loads found in U.S. buildings.
The study has also analyzed first costs of the displacement and mixing ventilation
systems for the office building. The displacement ventilation needs a larger air-handling
unit, a smaller chiller, and a similar boiler as the mixing ventilation. The overall costs are
lower for the displacement ventilation if the system is applied for the core region of a
building. In the perimeter zones, the displacement ventilation system needs a separated
heating system. This will increase slightly the first and maintenance costs.
122
7. Design Guidelines
The present study shows special features in U.S. buildings, such as high cooling
load and complex building geometry. The literature review also indicates that the design
guidelines available from the literature need revision and further development for U.S.
buildings. This chapter proposes a ten-step design procedure for displacement ventilation
systems. The design guidelines are for the determination of the key parameters in the
displacement ventilation system such as ventilation rate, location and type of supply
diffuser, and supply air temperature.
Step (1): Judge the applicability of displacement ventilation
Displacement ventilation is suitable when the contaminant sources are associated
with heat sources and the ceiling height is no less than eight feet. There is also a
limitation on the cooling load that can be handled by the displacement ventilation. The
current study shows that the maximum can be as high 38 Btu/(h ft
2
) (120 W/m
2
) if the
ventilation rate is increased and if there is sufficient space for installing large diffusers.
When the cooling load is high, the energy consumption with displacement ventilation will
increase significantly. Displacement ventilation is especially effective in the premises
with high ceilings (open atriums, cinemas, theatres, and industrial buildings. In addition,
the displacement ventilation system may require a separated heating system for perimeter
zones of a building to prevent the down flow from cold windows/walls in winter. This
will increase first and maintenance costs. Hence, the displacement ventilation system is
the best for the core region where no heating is needed.
Step (2): Calculate summer design cooling load
Use a cooling load program or the ASHRAE manual method to calculate the
design cooling load of the space in summer. If possible, assume a 1
o
F/ft (2
o
C/m) vertical
temperature gradient in the space in the computer calculation, because the air temperature
in a room with displacement ventilation is not uniform.
Itemize the cooling load into:
) the occupants, desk lamps, and equipment, Q
oe
(Btu/h, W)
) the overhead lighting, Q
l
(Btu/h, W)
) the heat conduction through the room envelope and transmitted solar radiation,
Q
ex
(Btu/h, W)
Step (3): Determine the required flow rate of the supply air for summer cooling
Displacement ventilation creates a thermal stratification. To maintain a comfort
level, the design air temperature difference between the head and foot level of a sedentary
123
occupant, T
hf
, should be less than 3.6
o
F (2 K). The required ventilation rate, n, can be
determined according to Equation (4.25):
) Q a Q a Q a (
HA C T
3600
n
ex ex l l oe oe
p hf
+ +

= (I-P) (7.1a)
) Q a Q a Q a (
HA C T
1
n
ex ex l l oe oe
p hf
+ +

= (SI) (7.1b)
where n = ventilation rate (ach)
T
hf
= 3.6
o
F (2 K)
= the air density (lb/ft
3
, kg/m
3
)
C
p
= the specific heat of air (Btu/lb
o
F, J/kg K)
H = the space height (ft, m).
A = the floor area (ft
2
, m
2
)
a
oe
, a
l
, and a
ex
, = 0.295, 0.132, and 0.185 respectively. The coefficients stand for
the fractions of the cooling loads entering the space between the head and feet of a
sedentary occupant
The ASHRAE Standard 55-1992 requires the temperature difference between the
head and foot level of a standing person not exceeding 5
o
F (3 K). Since the vertical
temperature gradient in the space between 3.6 ft (1.1 m) and 5.5 ft (1.7 m) is generally
smaller than that between 0.3 ft (0.1 m) and 3.6 ft (1.1 m), the design with the above
formula can also provide a comfortable condition for a standing person.
The flow rate required for summer cooling, V
h,
is then:
V
h
= nAH /60 [cfm] (I-P)
(7.2a)
V
h
= n AH/3600 [m
3
/s] (SI) (7.2b)
Step (4): Find the required flow rate of fresh air for acceptable indoor air quality
Use the ASHRAE Indoor Air Quality Standard 62 (ASHRAE 1989) to find the
required flow rate for acceptable indoor air quality, V
r
. This flow rate is based on mixing
ventilation with a ventilation effectiveness of one. As mentioned earlier, displacement
ventilation has higher ventilation effectiveness. For the same indoor air quality,
displacement ventilation requires less fresh air than mixing ventilation. The required flow
rate of fresh air for displacement ventilation, V
f
, can be calculated by:
V
f
= V
r
/ (7.3)
where = the ventilation effectiveness at the breathing level.
The can be determined by,
124
t ex l oe
n 28 . 0
Q / ) Q 5 . 0 Q 4 . 0 Q )( e 1 ( 4 . 3 + + =

(7.4)
Step (5): Determine the supply airflow rate
Chose the greater of the required flow rate for summer cooling, V
h
, and that for
indoor air quality, V
f
, as the design flow rate of the supply air, V.
V = max{V
f
, V
h
} (7.5)
If V = V
f
, the air handling system uses 100% fresh air.
Step (6): Calculate the supply air temperature
T
s
can be determined by the air temperature at the floor level, T
f
, and the
dimensionless temperature,
f
:
T
s
= T
f
-
f
Q
t
/(60C
p
V) (I-P) (7.6a)
T
s
= T
f
-
f
Q
t
/(C
p
V) (SI) (7.6b)
where
T
f
= T
h
- T
hf
(7.7)
Here, T
h
is the room design air temperature; and
) Q 185 . 0 Q 132 . 0 Q 295 . 0 (
V C
1
T
ex l oe
p
hf
+ +

= (7.8)
The
f
can be calculated by Mundt's formula (1992):
1
1 1
A
C V 60
1
cf r
p
f
+
|
|
.
|

\
|

= (I-P) (7.9a)

f
p
r cf
V C
A
=
+
|
\

|
.
|
|
+
1
1 1
1
(SI) (7.9b)
where
r
= the radiative heat transfer coefficient from ceiling to floor (Btu/h ft
2 o
F, W/m
2
K)

cf
= the convective heat transfer coefficient from the floor surface to room air
(Btu/h ft
2 o
F, W/m
2
K)
125
The radiative and convective heat transfer coefficient can be found from ASHRAE
Handbook Fundamentals. As a rough estimate, they are close to 1 Btu/(h ft
2 o
F) or 5
W/(m
2
K).
Then the exhaust air temperature, T
e
, can be easily calculated via an energy
balance for the entire space:
T
e
= T
s
+ Q
t
/(C
p
V) (7.10)
In practice, one air handling system often serves several (N) rooms (N > 1). For
easy control, the supply air temperature should be the same for these rooms. To ensure
the thermal comfort in all the rooms, we choose the highest supply air temperature
calculated by Equation (7.6) as the supply air temperature for all the rooms,
T
ss
= max{T
s,i
}, i = 1, , N (7.11)
where T
ss
= the supply air temperature for all the rooms
T
s,i
= the supply air temperature calculated for room i.
In this case, the supply flow rates for these rooms, V
i
(i = 1, , N), have to be
recalculated. For simplification, V
i
can be estimated via:
( )
ss i , e p
i , t
i
T T C
Q
V

= (7.12)
where, Q
t,i
= the cooling load in the i
th
room,
T
e, i
= the exhaust air temperature in the i
th
roomcalculated by Equation (7.10).
Since T
ss
T
s, i
(i = 1, , N), the supply flow rates with T
ss
are larger than the
ones with T
s,i
. The air temperature differences between head and foot levels with T
ss
are
smaller than those with T
s,i
. The V
i
calculated by Equation (7.12) is not very accurate but
it is acceptable for most design. T
h
for the room should be recalculated. If it is too high
compared to the design room air temperature, V
i
should be increased in small increments
until T
h
is acceptable. An exact V
i
can be calculated by solving Equations (7.6) through
(7.10) together.
The total supply flow rate of the system is

=
=
N
1 i
i s
V V (7.13)
Note that, if the difference between the T
s,i
is large then 5
o
F (3 K), the designer
should consider to use two supply air temperatures, T
ss
. This would allow some of the
spaces being supplied with a lower air temperature and a smaller amount of supply air.
126
Step (7): Determine the ratio of the fresh air to the supply air, r
f
For the room with hazard or toxic contaminants, such as biotech and chemistry
laboratories, the displacement ventilation systems uses 100% fresh air, or r
f
= 100 %. The
energy loss through the exhaust air can be recovered by a heat exchanger. For other
spaces, such as offices, we recommend the use of filtered return air to save energy. The
fresh air ratio is determined via:
N i
V
V
r
i
i f
f
,..., 1 , max
,
=
)
`

= (7.14)
where V
f, i
= the required flow rate for acceptable indoor air quality determined at Step 4.
Step (8): Select air supply diffuser size and number
The supply air velocity has an upper limit to avoid draft. Our investigation shows
that the maximum face velocity of a diffuser is 40 fpm (0.2 m/s). Based on this face
velocity, the total face area of the diffusers for the i
th
room, A
i
, is
A
i
= V
i
/ 40 [ft
2
] (I-P) (7.15a)
A
i
= V
i
/0.2 [m
2
] (SI) (7.15b)
If each diffuser has a face area of A
d
, the number of the diffuser needed for the
room, N
d
, is
N
d
= A
i
/A
d
(7.16)
According to the space layout, the designer should place the diffusers in the room with
the following rules:
) There should not be large obstacles near the diffusers.
) The diffusers should be placed on the walls opposite to the exterior
walls/windows.
) The diffusers can be placed in the center of a room, such as around a column.
) More diffusers should be placed in the spaces with higher cooling load.
Step (9): Check the winter heating situation
The displacement ventilation system is ideal for cooling. The system should not
be used for heating because the buoyancy and low air supply velocity will drive the hot
supply air to the ceiling level. However, Straub (1962) used a diffuser to discharge hot air
horizontally at floor level for heating. With a high air supply velocity, the air temperature
in the room under heating condition can be rather uniform.
127
For the building perimeter where heating may be necessary in winter, a separate
heating system is necessary to offset the heating load from exterior walls and windows,
when the displacement ventilation is used.
The perimeter heating system can be baseboard convectors, radiators, and fan coil
units at floor level, etc. The heating capacity should be slightly larger than the winter
design heating load from exterior walls and windows. This will ensure an upward flow
near the exterior walls/windows. The perimeter heating device should be placed near to
the exterior walls and windows on the floor level. If a fan coil unit is used, the airflow
direction should be upward.
The displacement ventilation system for winter heating will condition the room air
as if the room has only internal cooling load. Although heating (by a perimeter heating
system) and cooling (by displacement ventilation) are used simultaneously in the winter,
we do not waste energy. This is because the supply air temperature is still much higher
than the outdoor air temperature. The outdoor air must be heated to the supply air
temperature in any system. The ventilation air is heated, but not to as high a temperature
as that in mixing ventilation.
Step (10): Estimate the first costs and annual energy consumption
Estimate the first costs and annual energy consumption when necessary. The
results presented in Chapter 6 are general and valid for most office, classroom, and
workshop buildings in the United States. This step is only necessary when a designer
wishes to compare the displacement ventilation system with a special type of mixing
ventilation system.
128
8. Conclusions
The ASHRAE Research Project 949 "Performance Evaluation and Development
of Design Guidelines for Displacement Ventilation" has led to the following conclusions.
Many studies have been conducted on the performance evaluation and
development of design guidelines for displacement ventilation. However, most of the
investigations were for low cooling load (less than 13 Btu/h ft
2
or 40 W/m
2
floor area) in
cold climate, such as Scandinavia. The design guidelines are not suitable for U.S.
buildings that have a higher cooling load and different building layouts. In addition,
simple models for determining temperature difference between head and foot level of a
sedentary occupant and for ventilation effectiveness at breathing level were not available
from the literature.
In order to develop design guidelines for U.S. buildings, we used a CFD program
to develop the simple models by establishing a database of 56 cases of individual offices,
large offices, classrooms, and workshops with displacement ventilation. The CFD
program was validated by detailed flow fields and the distributions of air temperature and
contaminant concentration measured in a climate chamber. The agreement is good
between the computed results by CFD and the experimental data. The two simple models
developed can predict the temperature difference between head and foot levels and
ventilation effectiveness at breathing level. The calculated results agree with the results
by CFD and from literature.
Compared with conventional mixing ventilation, displacement ventilation may
provide better indoor air quality when the contaminant sources are combined with heat
sources. The displacement ventilation may maintain a thermally comfortable
environment. The percentage of dissatisfied people due to draft (PD) and the predicted
percentage of dissatisfied for the thermal comfort (PPD) are normally less than 15%. The
mean age of air in a room with the displacement ventilation is younger than that with
mixing ventilation. With a careful design, the air temperature difference between the head
and foot levels can be less than 4
o
F (2
o
C). With increased ventilation flow rate, the
displacement ventilation system can remove a cooling load as high as 40 Btu/h ft
2
(120
W/m
2
) floor area without draft.
A high ventilation rate will increase the energy consumed by the fan and require a
larger air handling unit. Nevertheless, the displacement ventilation can use more free
cooling so that it needs a smaller chiller. The total energy consumption by the
displacement ventilation is slightly smaller than that by mixing ventilation. The first costs
are similar between the displacement and mixing ventilation systems. Since the
displacement ventilation requires a separated heating system for perimeter zones of a
building, it will increase slightly the first costs.
129
The investigation has developed a 10-step design guideline for displacement
ventilation systems in U.S. buildings. The system seems the best for the core region of a
building or a building with low cooling load.
130
References
Akimoto, T., Nobe, T. and Takebayashi, Y. 1995. "Experimental study on the floor-
supply displacement ventilation system," ASHRAE Transactions, 101(2).
Axelrad, R. 1989. "Economic implications of indoor air quality and its regulation and
control," The NATO committee for the Challenges of Modern Society, Enrice.
ASHRAE. 1989. ASHRAE Standard 62-1989: Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air
Quality, Atlanta, ASHRAE.
ASHRAE. 1992. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-1992. Thermal Environmental
Conditions for Human Occupancy. ASHRAE.
ASHRAE, 1997. 1997 ASHRAE Handbook Fundamentals, ASHRAE, Atlanta. Ch 27-30.
Baturin, V. 1972. Fundamentals of industrial ventilation. Pergamon Press.
Belin, K. 1978. Allmaen ventilation med displacerande stroemning, BFR-rapport R
77:1978, Stockholm.
Brohus, H. and Nielsen, P.V. 1994. "Contaminant distribution around persons in rooms
ventilated by displacement ventilation," Proceedings of RoomVent '94: Air
Distribution in Rooms, Krakow, Poland
Brohus, H. and Nielsen, P.V. 1996. "Personal exposure in displacement ventilated
rooms", Indoor Air, 6: 157-167.
Buhl, W.F.; Erdem, A.E.; Winkelmann, F.C. and Sowell, E.F. 1993. "Recent
improvements in SPANK: strong component decomposition, multivalued objects,
and graphical interface," Proc. Building Simulation 93, pp. 283-290, Adelaide.
CHAM, 1996. PHOENICS Version 2.1, CHAM, Ltd., U. K.
Cheesewright, R., King, K.J. and Ziai, S. 1986. Experimental data for validation of
computer codes for prediction of two-dimensional buoyant cavity flows. In
Significant Questions in Buoyancy Affected Enclosure or Cavity Flows, (Ed. by
J.A.C. Humphrey, C.T. Adedisian and B.W. le Tourneau), ASME, 75-81.
Chen, Q. 1988. Indoor Airflow, Air Quality and Energy Consumption of Buildings,
Ph.D. Thesis of Delft University of Technology, Delft.
Chen, Q. 1995. "Comparison of different k-e models for indoor airflow computations,"
Numerical Heat Transfer, Part B, 28, pp. 353-369.
Chen, Q. 1996. "Prediction of room air motion by Reynolds-stress models," Building and
Environment, 31(3), pp. 233-244.
Chen, Q. and Kooi, J. van der. 1988. "ACCURACY - a computer program for
combined problems of energy analysis, indoor airflow and air quality," ASHRAE
Trans, 94(2), 196.
Chen, Q. and Xu, W. 1998. "A zero-equation turbulence model for indoor airflow
simulation," Energy and Buildings, 28(2), 137-144.
Chen, Q., Kooi, J. van der, and Meyers, A. 1988. "Measurements and computations of
ventilation efficiency and temperature efficiency in a ventilated room," Energy
and Buildings, 12(2), 85-99.
131
Chen, Q., Meyers, C.A. and Kooi, J. van der. 1989. "Convective heat transfer in rooms
with mixed convection," Proceedings of International Seminar on Air Flow
Patterns in Ventilated Spaces, University of Liege, Belgium, pp. 69-82.
Chen, Q., Suter, P. and Moser, A. 1991. "A database for assessing indoor airflow, air
quality and draft risk," ASHRAE Transactions, 97(2), 150-163.
Chen, Q.; Peng, X. and Paassen, A.H.C. 1995. "Prediction of room thermal response by
CFD technique with conjugate heat transfer and radiation models," ASHRAE
Trans., 101(2), 50-60.
Clarke, J.A. 1985. Energy Simulation in Building Design, Adam Hilger, Bristol.
Clark, R.P. and Edholm, O.G. 1985. Man and his thermal environment. Edward Arnold
(Publishers) Ltd.
Danielsson, P.O. 1987. "Convective flow and temperature in rooms with displacement
system." ROOMVENT 87, Stockholm.
Diamond, S.C.; Horak, H.L.; Hunn, B.D.; Peterson, J.L.; Roschke, M.A.; and Tucker,
E.F. 1977. DOE-1 program manual, Report ANL/ENG-77-04. Los Alamos
Scientific Laboratory.
Fanger, P.O., Melikov, A.K., Hanzawa, H., and Ring, J. 1989. "Turbulence and draft,"
ASHRAE J., 31(7), 18-23.
Fitzner K., 1989, Foerderprofil einer Waermequelle bei verschiedener
Temperaturgradienten und der Einfluss auf die Raumstroemung bei Quellueftung,
Ki Klime-Kaelte-Heizung, Nr. 10.
Flatheim, G. 1984. "Air-conditioning without draft and noise." Proc. Indoor Air 84,
Stockholm.
Fukao H., Oguro, M., Hiwatashi, K., and Ichihara, M. 1996. "Environment evaluation in
an office with floor-based air-conditioning system in an office building."
ROOMVENT 96, Yokohama, Japan, Vol. 3, pp.315-322.
GATC. 1967. Computer program for analysis of energy utilization in postal facilities,
Vol. 1, Users manual., General American Transportation Corporation, Niles, IL.
Gautier, B.; Rongere, F.X.; and Bonneau, D. 1991. "CLIM 2000: the building energy
simulation tool and the modelling method," Proc. Building Simulation 91,
Sophia-Antipolis, Nice.
Glicksman, L.R. Norford, L.K., Okutan, G.M. and Holden, K.J. 1996. "Scale model
studies of displacement ventilation," Proc. of ROOMVENT '96 Conference,
Yokohoma, Japan, July 17-19, Vol. 3, pp. 347-354.
Heiselberg, P., 1993. "Draught risk from cold vertical surfaces", Proc. of the 6
th
International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate INDOOR AIR 93,
Helsinki.
Heiselberg, P. and Sandberg M. 1990. "Convection from a slender cylinder in a
ventilated room," Proceedings of ROOMVENT '90: International Conference on
Engineering Aero- and Thermodynamics of Ventilated Rooms. Oslo.
Hittle, D.C. 1979. Building loads analysis and system thermodynamics (BLAST) user's
manual. Technical Report E-153. U.S. Army Construction Engineering
Laboratory, Champaign, IL.
132
Holmberg, R.B., Folkesson, K., Stenberg, L-G., and Jansson, G. 1987. "Experimental
analysis of office climate using various air distribution methods." ROOMVENT
87, Stockholm.
ISO. 1990. ISO standard 7730, Moderate thermal environments-determination of the
PMV and PPD indices and specification of the conditions for thermal comfort.
Geneva, International Standards Organization.
Jarmyr R. 1982, "Displacerande inblasning - Nagra erfarenheter", Tekn. Meddelanden o.
247, Inst. For Uppv.- o Vent. Teknik, KTH, Stockholm.
Jeandel, A. and Palero, I. 1990. "Thermal modelling and simulation of building at Gaz de
France," Proc. 3
rd
International Conference on System Simulation in Buildings,
Liege.
Kegel, b. and Schulz, U.W. 1989. "Displacement ventilation for office buildings." Proc.
of 10th AIVC Conf., Finland. Vol. 1.
Klein, S.A.; Beckman, W.A.; et al. 1994. "TRNSYS: A transient simulation program,"
Engineering Experiment Station Report 38-12, University of Wisconsin: Madison.
Kofoed, P. and Nielsen, P.V. 1990. "Thermal plume in ventilated rooms." ROOMVENT
90, Oslo.
Kruehne H. and Fitzner K. 1993, "stroemungsuntersuchungen am Klimasystem
Quellueftung und Deckenkuehlung", Ki Klima-Kaelte-Heizung, No. 11.
Kusuda, T. 1978. "NBSLD, the computer program for heating and cooling loads in
buildings. NBS Building Science Series No. 69-R, Washington, DC.
Launder, B. E., and Spalding, D. B. 1974, "The numerical computation of turbulent
flows," Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Energy, 3, pp. 268-289.
Li, X., and Jiang Y. 1996. "Calculation of age-of air with velocity field," Paper presented
in Post-IAQ96 Seminar, Beijing.
Li, Y., Sandberg, M. and Fuchs, L. 1992. Vertical temperature profiles in rooms
ventilated by displacement: full-scale measurement and nodal modelling, Indoor
Air, Vol. 2, pp. 225-243.
Mathisen, H.M., and Skaret E. 1983. "Ventilation efficiency - Part 4, displacement
ventilation in small rooms, Sintef report No. STF15 A84047, Trondheim, May
1983.
Mattsson, M. and Sandberg, M. 1994. "Displacement ventilation influence of physical
activity." ROOMVENT 94, Krakow.
Melikov A.K.and Nielsen J.B.,1989, "Local thermal discomfort due to draft and vertical
temperature difference in rooms with displacement ventilation", ASHRAE
Transactions, Vol. 95, Pt. 2, VA-89-19-5.
Mierzwinski S. and Popiolek Z., 1981, "The convective plume above the human body as
a factor of the ventilation process", Technical University, Gliwice, Poland.
Mundt, E. 1990. "Convective flow above common heat source in rooms with
displacement ventilation," Proc. of the International Conference on Engineering
Aero- and Thermaodynamics of Ventilated Room, ROOMVENT 90. Oslo.
Mundt, E. 1992. "Convection flows in rooms with temperature gradients - theory and
measurements," Proceedings of ROOMVENT '92: Third International Conference
on Air Distribution in Rooms, Copenhagen.
133
Mundt, E. 1996. The performance of displacement ventilation system. Ph.D. thesis, Royal
Institute of Technology, Sweden.
Murakami, S., Kato, S. and Zeng, J. 1997. "Flow and temperature field around human
body with various room air distribution - CFD study on computational thermal
manikin: part 1," ASHRAE Transactions, 103(1).
NASA, 1975. "NECAP: NASA energy/cost analysis program," Vol. I-User's manual and
Vol II-Engineering manual. NASA Report CR-2590. Houston.
Nataf, J.M. and Winkelmann, F. 1994. "Symbolic modeling in building energy
simulation," Energy and Buildings, 21, 147-153.
Nichel, J., 1990, "Air Distribution in displacement ventilation (In Danish), VVS, Teknisk
Forlag A/S, Copenhagen, marts.
Nielsen, P.V. 1988. "Displacement ventilation in a room with low-level diffusers."
Presented at the Kaelte-Klima-Tagung 1988, Deutscher Kaelte- und
Klimatechnischer Verein e. V., Munich.
Nielsen, P.V. 1992. "Air distribution system - room air movement and ventilation
effectiveness," Proc. of the ISRACVE Conference, Tokyo, Society of Heating,
Air-Conditioning and Sanitary Engineers of Japan.
Nielsen, P.V. 1993. "Air distribution in rooms - room air movement and ventilation
effectiveness," International Symposium on Room Convection and Ventilation
Effectiveness, ISRACVE, ASHRAE.
Nielsen, P.V. 1993. Displacement ventilation theory and design. Department of
Building technology and Structural Engineering, Aalborg University, ISSN 0902-
8002 U9306.
Nielsen, P.V. 1996. "Temperature distribution in a displacement ventilated room."
ROOMVENT 96, Yokohama, Japan. Vol. 3, pp. 323-330.
Nielsen P.V., Hoff L. and Pedersen L.G., 1988, "Displacement ventilation by different
types of diffusers", Proc. of the 9
th
AIVC Conference, Warwick.
Nielsen, P.V., Restivo, A., and Whitelaw, J.H. 1978. The velocity characteristics of
ventilated rooms. J. of Fluid Engineering, 100: 291-298.
Niemela R. and Koskela H. 1996. "Air flow patterns in a large industrial hall with
displacement ventilation." ROOMVENT 96, Yokohama, Japan. Vol. 3, pp363-
370.
Niu, J. 1994. Modelling of Cooled-Ceiling Air-Conditioning Systems, Ph.D. Thesis,
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands.
Olesen, B.W., Koganei, M., Holbrook, G.T., Seelen, J. and Woods, J.E. 1994.
"Evaluation of a vertical displacement ventilation system," Building and Energy,
29, 303-310.
Paassen, A.H.C. van 1986. "Design of low energy HVAC-systems with a computerized
psychrometric chart," The 2
nd
International Conference on System Simulation in
Buildings, Liege, Belgium.
Saeteri, J. 1992. "A breathing mannequin for measuring local ventilation effectiveness."
ROOMVENT 92, Aalborg.
Sahlin, P. and Bring, A. 1991. "IDA solver: a tool for building and energy systems
simulation," Proc. Building Simulation 91, pp. 339-348, Sophia-Antipolis, Nice.
134
Sandberg, M. 1985. Luftutbyteseffektivitet, ventilationseffektivitet, temperatureffektivitet
I cellkontor. System med luft som energibaerare. Statens institut foer
byggadsforskning, Meddelande M85:24.
Sandberg, M., and Blomqvist, C. 1989. "Displacement Ventilation Systems in Office
Rooms." ASHRAE Transactions, 95(2).
Seppanen, O.A.,Fisk, W.J., Eto, J. and Grimsrud, D.T. 1989. "Comparison of
conventional mixing and displacement air-conditioning and ventilating systems in
U.S. commercial buildings," ASHRAE Transactions, 95(2), VA-89-19-3.
Skaret, E. 1985. "Ventilation by Displacement - Characterization and Design
Application." Ventilation 85, edited by Goodfellow, Elsevier Science Publishers.,
B.V. Amsterdam.
Skistad, H. 1989. Fortrengningsventilasjon I komfortanlegg med lavimpuls lufttilforel I
oppholdssonene, Norsk VVS Teknisk Forening, Oslo.
Skistad, H. 1994. Displacement Ventilation. Taunton, Somerset, England: Research
Studies Press Ltd.
Sowell, E.F. and Hittle, D.C. 1995. "Evolution of building energy simulation
methodology," ASHRAE Trans., 101, 850-855.
Spengler, J.D. 1995. "From the environmentally-challenged city to the ecological city,"
Proc. of Conference on Cities in North America, NY.
Stabi, V. 1988. Edited by Sorensen, H.H., Teknisk Forlag A/S, Kobenhavn.
Straub, H.E. 1962. "What you should know about room air distribution?" Heating, Piping
& Air Conditioning, January, 209-220.
Stymne, H., Sandberg, M. and Mattsson, M. 1991. "Dispersion pattern of contaminants
in a displacement ventilated room," Proceedings of the 12th AIVC Conference,
Ottawa.
Svensson, A.G.L. 1989. "Nordic experiences of displacement ventilation systems,"
ASHRAE Transactions, 95(2).
Taki, A.H., Loveday, D.L., and Parsons K.C. 1996. "The effect of ceiling temperatures on
displacement flow ad thermal comfort experimental and simulation studies."
ROOMVENT 96, Yokohama, Japan. Vol. 3 pp. 307-314.
Tanabe S. and Kimura, K. 1996. "Comparisons of ventilation performance and thermal
comfort among displacement, under floor and ceiling based air distribution system
by experiments in a real sized office chamber." ROOMVENT 96, Yokohama,
Japan. Vol. 3 pp. 299-306.
Woods, J.E. 1989. "Cost avoidance and productivity in owning and operating
buildings," Occupational Medicine: State of the Art Reviews, 4(4), 753-770.
Wyon, D.P., and Sandberg, M. 1990. "Thermal Manikin Prediction of Discomfort due to
Displacement Ventilation," ASHRAE Transactions, 96(1).
Xu, W. 1998. "New turbulence models for indoor airflow simulation," Ph.D. Thesis,
Department of Architecture, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
MA, USA.
Yakhot V., Orzag, S. A., Thangam, S., Gatski, T. B., and Speziale, C. G. 1992.
"Development of turbulence models for shear flows by a double expansion
technique," Phys. Fluids A, 4(7), pp. 1510-1520.
135
Yuan, X., Chen, Q. and Glicksman, L.R. 1998. "A critical review on displacement
ventilation," ASHRAE Transactions, 104(1), 78-90.
Zhivov, A.M and Rymkevich, A.A. 1998. "Comparison of heating and cooling energy
consumption by HVAC system with mixing and displacement air distribution for
a restaurant dining area in different climates," ASHRAE Transactions, 104(2).
136
Appendix A:
Comparison between CFD Results and Experimental Data
This appendix presents comparison between CFD results and experimental data
with the displacement ventilation. Six sets of experimental data were obtained in a test
chamber at MIT and one from the literature (Brohus and Nielson 1996). The conditions of
the seven cases are summarized in Tables A.1 and A.2.
Table A.1 The case specification for the experimental measurements(I-P unit)
Table A.1 (Continued) (SI unit)
Table A.2 Some measured parameters
T
s
T
e
Tracer- c
s
c
e
u
s
Case Type [
o
F] [
o
C] [
o
F] [
o
C] gas [ppm] [ppm] [fpm] [m/s]
1 Individual 62.6 17.0 80.1 26.7 SF
6
0 0.42 18 0.09
2 office 63.0 17.2 75.4 24.1 CO
2
562 725 18 0.09
3 Cubicle 62.8 17.1 73.6 23.1 CO
2
520 602 36 0.18
4 office 62.2 16.8 75.9 24.4 CO
2
493 657 18 0.09
5 class- 67.6 19.8 76.3 24.6 CO
2
477 723 37 0.19
6 room 66.2 19.0 78.4 25.8 CO
2
432 924 20 0.10
7 Workshop 64.6 18.1 72.7 22.6 SF
6
0 1 197 1.0
Case Type Persons
[number]
Equipment
[Btu/h ft
2
]
Lighting
[Btu/h ft
2
]
Internal load
[Btu/h ft
2
]
Ventilation
rate (ach)
Climate
1 Individual 2 4.7 3.4 10.7 4 Summer
2 office 2 4.7 3.4 10.7 4 Winter
3 Cubicle 2 4.7 3.4 10.7 8 Summer
4 office 2 4.7 3.4 10.7 4 Winter
5 class- 6 2.9 3.4 13.9 8 Summer
6 room 6 0 3.4 11.0 4 Winter
7 Workshop 3 0.7 0 2.5 1.5 -
Case Type Persons
[number]
Equipment
[W/m
2
]
Lighting
[W/m
2
]
Internal load
[W/m
2
]
Ventilation
rate (ach)
Climate
1 Individual 2 14.9 10.8 33.7 4 Summer
2 office 2 14.9 10.8 33.7 4 Winter
3 Cubicle 2 14.9 10.8 33.7 8 Summer
4 office 2 14.9 10.8 33.7 4 Winter
5 class- 6 9.2 10.8 43.9 8 Summer
6 room 6 0 10.8 34.7 4 Winter
7 Workshop 3 2.1 0 7.8 1.5 -
137
The comparison includes:
) Airflow pattern
) Temperature profiles
) Tracer-gas concentration profiles
) Mean velocity profiles
) Fluctuating velocity profiles
Figures A1 to A7 are corresponding to Case1 to 7, respectively.
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
Appendix B:
Detailed Experimental Data for Validation of a CFD Program
This appendix presents experimental data with displacement ventilation. Six sets
of experimental data were obtained in a test chamber at MIT. The flow and thermal
boundary conditions of the six cases are shown in Tables B.1 and B.2.
Table B.1 The case specification for the experimental measurements(I-P unit)
Table B.1 (Continued) (SI unit)
Table B.2 Some measured parameters
T
s
T
e
Tracer- c
s
c
e
u
s
Case Type [
o
F] [
o
C] [
o
F] [
o
C] gas [ppm] [ppm] [fpm] [m/s]
1 Small 62.6 17.0 80.1 26.7 SF
6
0 0.42 18 0.09
2 office 63.0 17.2 75.4 24.1 CO
2
562 725 18 0.09
3 Large 62.8 17.1 73.6 23.1 CO
2
520 602 36 0.18
4 office 62.2 16.8 75.9 24.4 CO
2
493 657 18 0.09
5 class- 67.6 19.8 76.3 24.6 CO
2
477 723 37 0.19
6 room 66.2 19.0 78.4 25.8 CO
2
432 924 20 0.10
The measured data include:
) Detailed configuration of the space
) Surface temperatures of the space envelope
Case Type Persons
[number]
Equipment
[Btu/h ft
2
]
Lighting
[Btu/h ft
2
]
Internal load
[Btu/h ft
2
]
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 class- 6 2.9 3.4 13.9 8 Summer
6 room 6 0 3.4 11.0 4 Winter
Case Type Persons
[number]
Equipment
[W/m
2
]
Lighting
[W/m
2
]
Internal load
[W/m
2
]
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 class- 6 9.2 10.8 43.9 8 Summer
6 room 6 0 10.8 34.7 4 Winter
176
) Air temperature
) Tracer-gas concentration
) Mean velocity
) Fluctuating velocity
The data are presented case by case as follows.
177
B1. Case1: Small Office under Cooling.
Configuration
There are 1 supply diffuser, 1 exhaust, 2 occupants, 2 computers, 2 tables, 2 boxes, and 6
lamps in the room. The sizes, locations, and heat released of these items are listed as
follows.
Item length width height location heat
x [m] y [m] z [m] x [m] y [m] z [m] Q [W]
Room 5.16 3.65 2.43 0.0 0.0 0.0
Window 0.02 3.35 1.16 5.16 0.15 0.94
Diffuser 0.28 0.53 1.11 0.0 1.51 0.03 0.0
Exhaust 0.43 0.43 0.0 2.365 1.61 2.43 0.0
Occupant1 0.4 0.35 1.1 1.98 0.85 0.0 75
Occupant2 0.4 0.35 1.1 3.13 2.45 0.0 75
Computer1 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.98 0.1 0.75 108.5
Computer2 0.4 0.4 0.4 3.13 3.15 0.75 173.4
Table1 2.23 0.75 0.01 0.35 0.0 0.74 0.0
Table2 2.23 0.75 0.01 2.93 2.90 0.74 0.0
Box1 0.33 0.58 1.32 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Box2 0.95 0.58 1.24 4.21 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lamp1 0.2 1.2 0.15 1.03 0.16 2.18 34
Lamp2 0.2 1.2 0.15 2.33 0.16 2.18 34
Lamp3 0.2 1.2 0.15 3.61 0.16 2.18 34
Lamp4 0.2 1.2 0.15 1.03 2.29 2.18 34
Lamp5 0.2 1.2 0.15 2.33 2.29 2.18 34
Lamp6 0.2 1.2 0.15 3.61 2.29 2.18 34
Note: 1. x is from west to east, y from south to north, z from low to high.
z
y
x
178
2. The coordinates of the item in the table are the south-west-low corner of the
item.
3. The heat generated includes radiation and convection.
4. The effective area ratio of the diffuser is 10%.
Measured results
Ventilation rate n = 4 ach
Temperature
Supply air temperature: 17.0
o
C
Exhaust air temperature: 26.7
o
C
South wall temperature (x = 2.58 m, y = 0.0 m)
z [m] 0.1 0.6 1.1 1.8 2.38
T [
o
C] 23.311 24.406 25.725 26.023 25.776
East wall & window temperature (x = 5.16 m, y = 1.83 m)
z [m] 0.1 0.6 1.1 1.8 2.38
T [
o
C] 24.180 24.641 27.221 28.132 26.571
North wall temperature (x = 2.58 m, y = 3.65 m)
z [m] 1.1 1.8
T [
o
C] 25.051 25.949
West wall temperature (x = 0.0 m, y = 1.83 m)
z [m] 1.8
T [
o
C] 25.369
Air, floor, and ceiling temperatures
x = 0.78 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 21.54 20.85 20.97 23.33 24.75 25.76 26.37 26.17 25.90 25.16
x = 1.74 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 23.34 21.51 21.96 23.63 25.06 25.70 26.55 26.53 26.05 25.40
x = 2.70 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.38
T [
o
C] 23.90 22.10 22.44 23.91 25.38 26.10 26.49 26.36 26.19 26.19
x = 3.66 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 24.24 22.56 22.71 23.63 25.33 25.96 26.52 26.89 26.68 25.87
x = 4.62 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 24.72 22.87 22.94 23.43 25.10 26.13 26.57 26.53 26.53 26.13
x = 2.7 m, y = 0.61 m
179
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 23.80 22.01 22.08 23.73 25.40 25.79 26.57 26.49 26.25 24.90
x = 2.7 m, y = 1.22 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 24.11 22.19 23.71 25.30 25.99 26.49 26.38 26.16 24.95 24.95
x = 2.7 m, y = 2.44 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 24.01 22.08 22.15 23.66 25.09 26.07 26.51 26.44 26.51 25.50
x = 2.7 m, y = 3.05 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 23.86 22.12 22.26 23.60 25.16 25.99 26.75 26.94 26.61 25.89
Tracer-gas concentration
Tracer-gas: SF
6
Tracer-gas source1: 40 ml/h at (x, y, z,) = (2.18, 0.84, 1.1)
Tracer-gas source2: 40 ml/h at (x, y, z,) = (3.33, 3.16, 1.1)
Supply concentration: 0 ppm
Exhaust concentration: 0.421 ppm
The concentration in the room:
x = 0.78 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 0.0371 0.0607 0.2817 0.4520 0.5206 0.5213
x = 1.74 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 0.0467 0.0750 0.3004 0.5624 0.5744 0.5587
x = 2.70 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 0.0523 0.0613 0.2568 0.5212 0.5603 0.4013
x = 3.66 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 0.0658 0.0722 0.2903 0.3788 0.3367 0.3558
x = 4.62 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 0.0647 0.0703 0.2492 0.4470 0.3339 0.3388
x = 2.7 m, y = 0.61 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 0.0373 0.0536 0.1528 0.3089 0.2950 0.3286
x = 2.7 m, y = 1.22 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 0.0343 0.0464 0.1333 0.5461 0.3733 0.4021
x = 2.7 m, y = 2.44 m
180
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 0.0407 0.0519 0.2131 0.4244 0.3031 0.4259
x = 2.7 m, y = 3.05 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 0.0374 0.0456 0.2085 0.3244 0.2649 0.3043
Mean velocity and fluctuating velocity
x = 0.78 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.1630 0.0300 0.0620 0.0070 0.0170 0.0380
|u'| [m/s] 0.0276 0.0058 0.0207 0.0050 0.0105 0.0162
x = 1.74 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0840 0.0250 0.0430 0.0180 0.0190 0.0340
|u'| [m/s] 0.0194 0.0061 0.0116 0.0055 0.0040 0.0171
x = 2.7 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0810 0.0310 0.0460 0.0200 0.0260 0.1630
|u'| [m/s] 0.0089 0.0091 0.0076 0.0027 0.0068 0.0170
x = 3.66 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0580 0.0320 0.0310 0.0320 0.0300 0.0280
|u'| [m/s] 0.0096 0.0090 0.0063 0.0092 0.0098 0.0075
x = 4.62 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0380 0.0550 0.0280 0.0170 0.0130 0.0470
|u'| [m/s] 0.0112 0.0151 0.0062 0.0039 0.0071 0.0110
x = 2.7 m, y = 0.61 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0830 0.0390 0.0150 0.0170 0.0340 0.0630
|u'| [m/s] 0.0171 0.0084 0.0067 0.0084 0.0113 0.0169
x = 2.7 m, y = 1.22 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0780 0.0350 0.0270 0.0140 0.0330 0.0610
|u'| [m/s] 0.0164 0.0073 0.0057 0.0054 0.0114 0.0228
x = 2.7 m, y = 2.44 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0840 0.0390 0.0240 0.0160 0.0130 0.0520
|u'| [m/s] 0.0205 0.0074 0.0084 0.0051 0.0075 0.0155
x = 2.7 m, y = 3.05 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0990 0.0420 0.0280 0.0190 0.0200 0.1160
|u'| [m/s] 0.0184 0.0177 0.0067 0.0044 0.0059 0.0244
181
B2. Case2: Small Office under Heating
Configuration
There are 1 supply diffuser, 1 exhaust, 2 occupants, 2 computers, 2 tables, 2 boxes, and 6
lamps in the room. The sizes, locations, and heat released of these items are listed as
follows.
Item length width height location heat
x [m] y [m] z [m] x [m] y [m] z [m] Q [W]
Room 5.16 3.65 2.43 0.0 0.0 0.0
Window 0.02 3.35 1.16 5.16 0.15 0.94
Diffuser 0.28 0.53 1.11 0.0 1.51 0.03 0.0
Exhaust 0.43 0.43 0.0 2.365 1.61 2.43 0.0
Occupant1 0.4 0.35 1.1 1.98 0.85 0.0 75
Occupant2 0.4 0.35 1.1 3.13 2.45 0.0 75
Computer1 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.98 0.1 0.75 108.5
Computer2 0.4 0.4 0.4 3.13 3.15 0.75 173.4
Table1 2.23 0.75 0.01 0.35 0.0 0.74 0.0
Table2 2.23 0.75 0.01 2.93 2.90 0.74 0.0
Box1 0.33 0.58 1.32 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Box2 0.95 0.58 1.24 4.21 0.0 0.0 0.0
Lamp1 0.2 1.2 0.15 1.03 0.16 2.18 34
Lamp2 0.2 1.2 0.15 2.33 0.16 2.18 34
Lamp3 0.2 1.2 0.15 3.61 0.16 2.18 34
Lamp4 0.2 1.2 0.15 1.03 2.29 2.18 34
Lamp5 0.2 1.2 0.15 2.33 2.29 2.18 34
Lamp6 0.2 1.2 0.15 3.61 2.29 2.18 34
Note: 1. x is from west to east, y from south to north, z from low to high.
z
y
x
182
2. The coordinates of the item in the table are the south-west-low corner of the
item.
3. The heat generated includes radiation and convection.
4. The effective area ratio of the diffuser is 10%.
Measured results
Ventilation rate n = 4 ach
Temperature
Supply air temperature: 17.2
o
C
Exhaust air temperature: 24.1
o
C
South wall temperature (x = 2.58 m, y = 0.0 m)
z [m] 0.1 0.6 1.1 1.8 2.38
T [
o
C] 21.811 22.696 23.485 23.397 23.102
East wall & window temperature (x = 5.16 m, y = 1.83 m)
z [m] 0.1 0.6 1.1 1.8 2.38
T [
o
C] 21.808 22.006 20.669 21.175 22.790
North wall temperature (x = 2.58 m, y = 3.65 m)
z [m] 1.1 1.8
T [
o
C] 22.468 22.831
West wall temperature (x = 0.0 m, y = 1.83 m)
z [m] 1.8
T [
o
C] 22.568
Air, floor, and ceiling temperatures
x = 0.78 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 20.31 19.21 19.85 21.68 22.50 23.13 23.68 23.50 23.23 22.52
x = 1.74 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 21.63 20.07 20.54 21.84 22.85 23.15 23.74 23.96 23.51 22.81
x = 2.70 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 22.12 20.81 20.91 21.99 23.03 23.39 23.68 23.77 23.45 23.45
x = 3.66 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 22.13 20.99 21.27 21.65 22.94 23.28 23.82 24.19 23.89 22.77
x = 4.62 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 21.98 21.17 21.11 21.52 22.63 23.21 23.73 23.93 23.35 22.53
x = 2.70 m, y = 0.61 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 22.15 20.71 20.78 21.72 22.86 23.40 23.86 24.14 23.96 22.49
183
x = 2.70 m, y = 1.22 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 22.26 21.19 20.87 21.67 22.89 23.38 23.86 24.10 23.90 22.62
x = 2.70 m, y = 2.44 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 22.08 20.82 20.75 21.58 22.84 23.44 23.76 23.94 23.90 22.89
x = 2.70 m, y = 3.05 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 22.15 20.74 21.28 21.56 22.93 23.47 23.93 24.35 24.14 23.31
Tracer-gas concentration:
Tracer-gas: CO
2
Tracer-gas source1: 15 l/h at (x, y, z,) = (2.18, 0.84, 1.1)
Tracer-gas source2: 15 l/h at (x, y, z,) = (3.33, 3.16, 1.1)
Supply concentration: 562 ppm
Exhaust concentration: 725 ppm
The concentration in the room:
x = 0.78 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 592.2530 601.2160 656.7680 699.2970 685.4650 707.8390
x = 1.74 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 591.4800 603.5550 674.1380 695.5880 715.8850 703.6810
x = 2.70 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 585.2810 600.1100 693.0670 698.6120 714.8470 718.3070
x = 3.66 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 589.1730 590.2520 683.9020 708.4430 715.0700 718.1590
x = 4.62 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 586.6600 592.5630 674.3550 705.9860 709.4550 724.4140
x = 2.70 m, y = 0.61 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 578.1540 595.3750 641.3050 684.8200 706.9860 737.8280
x = 2.70 m, y = 1.22 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 580.6580 596.6200 665.2470 685.6030 707.5330 738.2210
x = 2.70 m, y = 2.44 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 591.4500 595.0830 662.6320 703.8550 712.3750 784.0830
x = 2.70 m, y = 3.05 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
184
c [ppm] 581.9360 586.1760 649.6020 677.8480 733.7040 751.7550
Mean velocity and fluctuating velocity:
x = 0.78 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.1740 0.0390 0.0510 0.0100 0.0100 0.0370
|u'| [m/s] 0.0269 0.0201 0.0212 0.0007 0.0074 0.0180
x = 1.74 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0890 0.0210 0.0330 0.0190 0.0170 0.0340
|u'| [m/s] 0.0197 0.0059 0.0135 0.0022 0.0047 0.0155
x = 2.70 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0590 0.0330 0.0400 0.0240 0.0330 0.2050
|u'| [m/s] 0.0089 0.0100 0.0053 0.0050 0.0074 0.0123
x = 3.66 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0540 0.0370 0.0280 0.0180 0.0220 0.0330
|u'| [m/s] 0.0101 0.0094 0.0075 0.0042 0.0087 0.0194
x = 4.62 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0400 0.0400 0.0270 0.0130 0.0150 0.0390
|u'| [m/s] 0.0108 0.0102 0.0099 0.0046 0.0071 0.0139
x = 2.70 m, y = 0.61 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0750 0.0660 0.0240 0.0240 0.0300 0.0700
|u'| [m/s] 0.0153 0.0082 0.0099 0.0087 0.0070 0.0264
x = 2.70 m, y = 1.22 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0820 0.0390 0.0280 0.0120 0.0100 0.0470
|u'| [m/s] 0.0180 0.0061 0.0064 0.0045 0.0052 0.0214
x = 2.70 m, y = 2.44 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0690 0.0340 0.0370 0.0160 0.0110 0.0760
|u'| [m/s] 0.0139 0.0106 0.0095 0.0046 0.0047 0.0232
x = 2.70 m, y = 3.05 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0760 0.0260 0.0290 0.0190 0.0160 0.1190
|u'| [m/s] 0.0162 0.0119 0.0055 0.0071 0.0059 0.0272
185
Case3: Large Office with Partitions under Cooling
Configuration
z
y
x
There are 1 partition, 1 supply diffuser, 1 exhaust, 2 occupants, 2 computers, 4 tables, 2
boxes, and 6 lamps in the room. The sizes, locations, and heat released of these items are
listed as follows.
Item length width height location heat
x [m] y [m] z [m] x [m] y [m] z [m] Q [W]
Room 5.16 3.65 2.43 0.0 0.0 0.0
Window 0.02 3.35 1.16 5.16 0.15 0.94
Diffuser 0.53 0.28 1.11 2.42 0.0 0.03 0.0
Exhaust 0.43 0.43 0.0 2.365 1.61 2.43 0.0
Partition 0.12 1.84 1.74 2.62 1.81 0.52 0.0
Occupant1 0.35 0.40 1.1 1.42 2.37 0.0 75
Occupant2 0.35 0.40 1.1 3.59 2.37 0.0 75
Computer1 0.4 0.4 0.4 2.12 2.37 0.75 108.5
Computer2 0.4 0.4 0.4 2.84 2.37 0.75 173.4
Table1 0.75 1.48 0.01 1.87 2.17 0.74 0.0
Table2 0.75 1.48 0.01 2.74 2.17 0.74 0.0
Table3 0.75 0.75 0.01 1.12 2.90 0.74 0.0
Table4 0.75 0.75 0.01 3.49 2.90 0.74 0.0
Lamp1 0.2 1.2 0.15 1.03 0.16 2.18 34
Lamp2 0.2 1.2 0.15 2.33 0.16 2.18 34
Lamp3 0.2 1.2 0.15 3.61 0.16 2.18 34
Lamp4 0.2 1.2 0.15 1.03 2.29 2.18 34
Lamp5 0.2 1.2 0.15 2.33 2.29 2.18 34
Lamp6 0.2 1.2 0.15 3.61 2.29 2.18 34
186
Note: 1. x is from west to east, y from south to north, z from low to high.
2. The coordinates of the item in the table are the south-west-low corner of the
item.
3. The heat generated includes radiation and convection.
4. The effective area ratio of the diffuser is 10%.
Measured results
Ventilation rate n = 8 ach
Temperature
Supply air temperature: 17.1
o
C
Exhaust air temperature: 23.1
o
C
South wall temperature (x = 2.58 m, y = 0.0 m)
z [m] 0.1 0.6 1.1 1.8 2.38
T [
o
C] 18.947 18.141 18.778 23.420 22.484
East wall & window temperature (x = 5.16 m, y = 1.83 m)
z [m] 0.1 0.6 1.1 1.8 2.38
T [
o
C] 21.593 22.232 24.818 26.021 24.268
North wall temperature (x = 2.58 m, y = 3.65 m)
z [m] 1.1 1.8
T [
o
C] 22.672 23.592
West wall temperature (x = 0.0 m, y = 1.83 m)
z [m] 1.8
T [
o
C] 22.942
Air, floor, and ceiling temperatures
x = 0.78 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 21.01 19.26 19.17 20.75 22.37 22.86 23.76 23.82 23.62 23.05
x = 1.74 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 20.13 18.79 18.98 21.03 22.62 22.93 23.76 23.90 23.68 23.18
x = 2.70 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 20.54 18.93 19.45 20.89 22.29 22.76 23.20 23.76 23.52 23.52
x = 3.66 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 21.37 19.55 19.90 21.17 22.32 23.08 23.73 24.27 23.81 23.19
x = 4.62 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 21.76 19.90 19.59 20.65 21.93 23.18 23.80 24.11 23.95 23.75
x = 0.90 m, y = 1.28 m
187
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 21.04 19.17 19.24 20.88 22.52 22.88 23.76 24.01 24.13 21.18
x = 0.90 m, y = 2.67 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 19.84 22.94 19.12 20.57 22.33 23.05 23.61 24.12 23.99 21.61
x = 4.36 m, y = 1.28 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 20.79 19.56 19.21 21.07 22.18 23.02 23.68 23.86 23.77 23.06
x = 4.36 m, y = 2.67 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 20.85 19.96 20.33 21.12 21.78 23.12 23.82 24.29 23.93 22.81
Tracer-gas concentration
Tracer-gas: CO
2
Tracer-gas source1: 15 l/h at (x, y, z,) = (1.78, 2.57, 1.1)
Tracer-gas source2: 15 l/h at (x, y, z,) = (3.58, 2.57, 1.1)
Supply concentration: 520 ppm
Exhaust concentration: 602 ppm
The concentration in the room:
x = 0.78 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 525.9740 533.0830 548.9810 575.1970 610.5840 606.5800
x = 1.74 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 526.6070 539.0620 561.6120 572.5890 606.3120 596.5600
x = 2.70 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 529.3570 550.5620 555.8830 589.3620 609.3000 624.1660
x = 3.66 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 527.0360 533.6210 554.1350 577.4820 591.4460 605.9710
x = 4.62 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 524.9930 529.4520 553.2830 566.5640 602.1090 601.4600
x = 0.90 m, y = 1.28 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 523.6190 531.8070 558.1690 592.7400 607.5420 604.6800
x = 0.90 m, y = 2.67 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 524.8160 525.9870 535.8100 579.1640 612.0510 602.8720
x = 4.36 m, y = 1.28 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 523.3350 528.3470 541.1780 595.8540 590.6580 576.5810
188
x = 4.36 m, y = 2.67 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 525.5470 530.5170 538.7120 574.8680 595.1170 593.7600
Mean velocity and fluctuating velocity
x = 0.78 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.1030 0.0230 0.0300 0.0140 0.0090 0.0320
|u'| [m/s] 0.0262 0.0078 0.0111 0.0078 0.0028 0.0103
x = 1.74 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0910 0.0260 0.0200 0.0210 0.0230 0.0380
|u'| [m/s] 0.0328 0.0098 0.0060 0.0046 0.0077 0.0170
x = 2.70 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.1480 0.0410 0.0740 0.0870 0.0610 0.2430
|u'| [m/s] 0.0316 0.0118 0.0157 0.0309 0.0169 0.0191
x = 3.66 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.1110 0.0230 0.0370 0.0190 0.0230 0.0350
|u'| [m/s] 0.0342 0.0062 0.0128 0.0038 0.0067 0.0103
x = 4.62 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0690 0.0540 0.0450 0.0190 0.0160 0.0090
|u'| [m/s] 0.0177 0.0166 0.0199 0.0031 0.0066 0.0037
x = 0.90 m, y = 1.28 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0850 0.0290 0.0340 0.0290 0.0210 0.0090
|u'| [m/s] 0.0257 0.0078 0.0123 0.0092 0.0051 0.0046
x = 0.90 m, y = 2.67 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0890 0.0670 0.0400 0.0120 0.0330 0.0340
|u'| [m/s] 0.0178 0.0126 0.0096 0.0067 0.0153 0.0110
x = 4.36 m, y = 1.28 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0770 0.0610 0.0260 0.0170 0.0130 0.0200
|u'| [m/s] 0.0235 0.0118 0.0066 0.0050 0.0052 0.0065
x = 4.36 m, y = 2.67 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0870 0.0280 0.0570 0.0190 0.0240 0.0300
|u'| [m/s] 0.0260 0.0109 0.0209 0.0065 0.0106 0.0102
189
B4. Case4: Large Office with Partitions under Heating
Configuration
z
y
x
There are 1 partition, 1 supply diffuser, 1 exhaust, 2 occupants, 2 computers, 4 tables, 2
boxes, and 6 lamps in the room. The sizes, locations, and heat released of these items are
listed as follows.
Item length width height location heat
x [m] y [m] z [m] x [m] y [m] z [m] Q [W]
Room 5.16 3.65 2.43 0.0 0.0 0.0
Window 0.02 3.35 1.16 5.16 0.15 0.94
Diffuser 0.53 0.28 1.11 2.42 0.0 0.03 0.0
Exhaust 0.43 0.43 0.0 2.365 1.61 2.43 0.0
Partition 0.12 1.84 1.74 2.62 1.81 0.52 0.0
Occupant1 0.35 0.40 1.1 1.42 2.37 0.0 75
Occupant2 0.35 0.40 1.1 3.59 2.37 0.0 75
Computer1 0.4 0.4 0.4 2.12 2.37 0.75 108.5
Computer2 0.4 0.4 0.4 2.84 2.37 0.75 173.4
Table1 0.75 1.48 0.01 1.87 2.17 0.74 0.0
Table2 0.75 1.48 0.01 2.74 2.17 0.74 0.0
Table3 0.75 0.75 0.01 1.12 2.90 0.74 0.0
Table4 0.75 0.75 0.01 3.49 2.90 0.74 0.0
Lamp1 0.2 1.2 0.15 1.03 0.16 2.18 34
Lamp2 0.2 1.2 0.15 2.33 0.16 2.18 34
Lamp3 0.2 1.2 0.15 3.61 0.16 2.18 34
Lamp4 0.2 1.2 0.15 1.03 2.29 2.18 34
Lamp5 0.2 1.2 0.15 2.33 2.29 2.18 34
Lamp6 0.2 1.2 0.15 3.61 2.29 2.18 34
Note: 1. x is from west to east, y from south to north, z from low to high.
190
2. The coordinates of the item in the table are the south-west-low corner of the
item.
3. The heat generated includes radiation and convection.
4. The effective area ratio of the diffuser is 10%.
Measured results
Ventilation rate n = 4 ach
Temperature
Supply air temperature: 16.8
o
C
Exhaust air temperature: 24.4
o
C
South wall temperature (x = 2.58 m, y = 0.0 m)
z [m] 0.1 0.6 1.1 1.8 2.38
T [
o
C] 18.062 17.639 18.805 23.964 23.703
East wall & window temperature (x = 5.16 m, y = 1.83 m)
z [m] 0.1 0.6 1.1 1.8 2.38
T [
o
C] 21.886 22.719 21.564 22.106 23.782
North wall temperature (x = 2.58 m, y = 3.65 m)
z [m] 1.1 1.8
T [
o
C] 23.051 23.750
West wall temperature (x = 0.0 m, y = 1.83 m)
z [m] 1.8
T [
o
C] 23.697
Air, floor, and ceiling temperatures
x = 0.78 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 22.21 20.65 20.59 21.51 23.59 24.07 24.70 24.98 24.67 23.86
x = 1.74 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 21.68 20.16 20.22 21.74 23.51 24.08 24.66 24.98 24.79 23.95
x = 2.70 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 21.92 20.06 20.12 21.81 23.22 23.72 24.59 24.66 24.37 24.37
x = 3.66 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 22.21 19.86 19.96 21.84 23.48 23.89 24.69 24.78 24.63 22.46
x = 4.62 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 22.31 20.57 20.40 21.64 23.33 24.00 24.44 24.50 24.44 23.52
x = 0.90 m, y = 1.28 m
191
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 22.39 20.62 20.37 21.94 23.26 24.01 24.65 24.96 24.61 23.41
x = 0.90 m, y = 2.67 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 22.21 20.64 20.75 21.78 23.36 23.97 24.69 24.76 24.83 22.83
x = 4.36 m, y = 1.28 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 22.31 20.05 20.11 21.80 23.07 23.84 24.33 24.65 24.29 23.99
x = 4.36 m, y = 2.67 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 22.31 20.73 20.85 21.88 23.26 23.82 24.44 24.73 24.26 23.92
Tracer-gas concentration
Tracer-gas: CO
2
Tracer-gas source1: 15 l/h at (x, y, z,) = (1.78, 2.57, 1.1)
Tracer-gas source2: 15 l/h at (x, y, z,) = (3.58, 2.57, 1.1)
Supply concentration: 493 ppm
Exhaust concentration: 657 ppm
The concentration in the room:
x = 0.78 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 511.0250 519.6910 598.3830 647.5660 685.6100 690.8200
x = 1.74 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 526.4200 537.6360 603.5540 642.1810 666.4760 657.7970
x = 2.70 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 533.5490 541.1740 612.8470 661.6770 674.3040 664.6260
x = 3.66 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 535.8360 546.7310 648.3240 683.5930 694.6860 699.9040
x = 4.62 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 512.0540 523.1000 637.0540 686.0350 704.4550 715.1300
x = 0.90 m, y = 1.28 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 507.7330 542.9920 605.7690 649.7840 683.9930 688.1530
x = 0.90 m, y = 2.67 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 516.2550 524.2490 583.0040 628.9090 669.4800 701.9740
x = 4.36 m, y = 1.28 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 513.1140 556.2030 624.9100 673.3490 680.8030 683.6960
192
x = 4.36 m, y = 2.67 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 520.7110 539.5050 604.6800 669.9170 686.2840 693.5290
Mean velocity and fluctuating velocity
x = 0.78 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0490 0.0280 0.0230 0.0070 0.0070 0.0160
|u'| [m/s] 0.0162 0.0043 0.0080 0.0051 0.0044 0.0082
x = 1.74 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0540 0.0250 0.0470 0.0190 0.0250 0.0520
|u'| [m/s] 0.0228 0.0078 0.0118 0.0039 0.0084 0.0208
x = 2.70 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.1030 0.0210 0.0950 0.0850 0.0380 0.1050
|u'| [m/s] 0.0213 0.0059 0.0120 0.0248 0.0122 0.0161
x = 3.66 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0760 0.0250 0.0530 0.0150 0.0260 0.0900
|u'| [m/s] 0.0215 0.0090 0.0089 0.0054 0.0089 0.0173
x = 4.62 m, y = 1.83 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0480 0.0430 0.0250 0.0150 0.0120 0.0120
|u'| [m/s] 0.0127 0.0131 0.0088 0.0050 0.0048 0.0056
x = 0.90 m, y = 1.28 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0330 0.0230 0.0350 0.0200 0.0180 0.0100
|u'| [m/s] 0.0155 0.0061 0.0144 0.0074 0.0054 0.0037
x = 0.90 m, y = 2.67 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0630 0.0280 0.0270 0.0170 0.0160 0.0380
|u'| [m/s] 0.0141 0.0069 0.0074 0.0105 0.0083 0.0120
x = 4.36 m, y = 1.28 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0470 0.0330 0.0220 0.0150 0.0100 0.0400
|u'| [m/s] 0.0180 0.0112 0.0066 0.0050 0.0048 0.0131
x = 4.36 m, y = 2.67 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0500 0.0240 0.0450 0.0160 0.0160 0.0480
|u'| [m/s] 0.0096 0.0113 0.0073 0.0051 0.0072 0.0113
193
B5. Case5: A Quarter of Classroom under Cooling
Configuration
z
y
x
As shown in the above figure, there are 1 supply diffuser, 1 exhaust, 6 occupants, 1
computer, 4 tables, and 6 lamps in the room. The sizes, locations, and heat released of
these items are listed as follows.
Item length width height location heat
x [m] y [m] z [m] x [m] y [m] z [m] Q [W]
Room 5.16 3.65 2.43 0.0 0.0 0.0
Window 0.02 3.35 1.16 5.16 0.15 0.94
Diffuser* 0.316 0.316 1.11 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.0
Exhaust 0.43 0.43 0.0 2.365 1.61 2.43 0.0
Occupant1 0.35 0.40 1.1 2.65 0.90 0.0 75
Occupant2 0.35 0.40 1.1 2.65 1.64 0.0 75
Occupant3 0.35 0.40 1.1 4.25 0.90 0.0 75
Occupant4 0.35 0.40 1.1 4.25 1.64 0.0 75
Occupant5 0.35 0.40 1.1 2.65 3.08 0.0 75
Occupant6 0.35 0.40 1.1 4.25 3.08 0.0 75
Computer 0.4 0.4 0.6 1.3 1.81 0.5 145
Table1 0.75 1.48 0.01 1.80 0.73 0.74 0.0
Table2 0.75 1.48 0.01 3.40 0.73 0.74 0.0
Table3 0.75 0.75 0.01 1.80 2.90 0.74 0.0
Table4 0.75 0.75 0.01 3.40 2.90 0.74 0.0
Lamp1 0.2 1.2 0.15 1.03 0.16 2.18 34
194
Lamp2 0.2 1.2 0.15 2.33 0.16 2.18 34
Lamp3 0.2 1.2 0.15 3.61 0.16 2.18 34
Lamp4 0.2 1.2 0.15 1.03 2.29 2.18 34
Lamp5 0.2 1.2 0.15 2.33 2.29 2.18 34
Lamp6 0.2 1.2 0.15 3.61 2.29 2.18 34
Note: 1. x is from west to east, y from south to north, z from low to high.
2. The coordinates of the item in the table are the south-west-low corner of the
item.
3. The heat generated includes radiation and convection.
4. The effective area ratio of the diffuser is 10%.
* The diffuser is a quarter of cylinder.
Measured results
Ventilation rate n = 8 ach
Temperature
Supply air temperature: 19.8
o
C
Exhaust air temperature: 24.6
o
C
South wall temperature (x = 2.58 m, y = 0.0 m)
z [m] 0.1 0.6 1.1 1.8 2.38
T [
o
C] 22.810 23.844 24.531 24.768 24.311
East wall & window temperature (x = 5.16 m, y = 1.83 m)
z [m] 0.1 0.6 1.1 1.8 2.38
T [
o
C] 24.197 24.692 26.516 26.896 25.230
North wall temperature (x = 2.58 m, y = 3.65 m)
z [m] 1.1 1.8
T [
o
C] 24.599 24.770
West wall temperature (x = 0.0 m, y = 1.83 m)
z [m] 1.8
T [
o
C] 24.122
Air, floor, and ceiling temperatures
x = 0.78 m, y = 2.40 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 22.39 21.05 20.98 22.78 23.97 24.47 24.89 25.16 25.07 24.49
x = 1.74 m, y = 2.40 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 22.36 21.22 21.21 22.69 24.20 24.55 24.78 25.15 25.17 25.10
x = 2.70 m, y = 2.40 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 23.38 22.02 21.88 22.84 23.86 24.59 24.81 24.88 24.77 24.77
x = 3.66 m, y = 2.40 m
195
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 23.81 22.34 22.25 22.66 23.79 24.62 25.01 24.96 24.58 24.56
x = 4.62 m, y = 2.40 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 24.23 22.74 22.33 22.74 23.89 24.73 24.93 25.00 24.97 25.04
x = 3.20 m, y = 0.61 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 23.18 21.46 21.60 22.78 23.92 24.60 25.17 25.34 24.94 23.45
x = 3.20 m, y = 1.22 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 23.02 21.78 22.80 23.93 24.55 24.98 25.03 24.84 23.69 23.69
x = 3.20 m, y = 2.44 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 23.46 22.28 21.82 22.86 23.62 24.66 24.97 24.97 25.21 24.21
x = 3.20 m, y = 3.05 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 23.39 21.91 22.11 22.84 23.76 24.62 25.18 25.43 25.12 24.12
Tracer-gas concentration
Tracer-gas: CO
2
Tracer-gas source1: 45 l/h at (x, y, z,) = (2.64, 1.10, 1.1)
Tracer-gas source2: 45 l/h at (x, y, z,) = (2.64, 3.28, 1.1)
Supply concentration: 477 ppm
Exhaust concentration: 723 ppm
The concentration in the room:
x = 0.78 m, y = 2.40 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 523.0600 571.5930 668.1020 716.0540 727.3320 695.1710
x = 1.74 m, y = 2.40 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 536.4870 548.6020 659.5980 673.3520 790.1800 699.6450
x = 2.70 m, y = 2.40 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 528.0330 530.6560 532.9100 537.4360 548.6140 565.4710
x = 3.66 m, y = 2.40 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 529.8050 531.7000 537.4180 534.5000 548.6780 557.2100
x = 4.62 m, y = 2.40 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 515.0870 520.5910 527.7740 525.5500 527.5170 533.6620
x = 3.20 m, y = 0.61 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 520.3320 528.6330 540.7280 535.6460 556.7270 562.5750
196
x = 3.20 m, y = 1.22 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 528.0600 533.2840 537.1920 546.1140 570.8720 569.9320
x = 3.20 m, y = 2.44 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 536.1650 543.5650 544.9840 609.4360 736.6850 673.3360
x = 3.20 m, y = 3.05 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 527.4220 520.0570 549.0090 670.5800 782.9670 707.0750
Mean velocity and fluctuating velocity
x = 0.78 m, y = 2.40 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.1430 0.0600 0.0330 0.0140 0.0100 0.0510
|u'| [m/s] 0.0412 0.0115 0.0106 0.0050 0.0021 0.0113
x = 1.74 m, y = 2.40 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.1020 0.0540 0.0250 0.0250 0.0400 0.0490
|u'| [m/s] 0.0272 0.0150 0.0076 0.0076 0.0074 0.0122
x = 2.70 m, y = 2.40 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0800 0.0640 0.0390 0.0250 0.0480 0.0530
|u'| [m/s] 0.0120 0.0119 0.0122 0.0057 0.0048 0.0087
x = 3.66 m, y = 2.40 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0720 0.0300 0.0450 0.0210 0.0250 0.0380
|u'| [m/s] 0.0125 0.0104 0.0080 0.0028 0.0075 0.0160
x = 4.62 m, y = 2.40 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0370 0.0600 0.0370 0.0210 0.0160 0.0140
|u'| [m/s] 0.0132 0.0120 0.0089 0.0038 0.0083 0.0079
x = 3.20 m, y = 0.61 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.1230 0.0450 0.0340 0.0210 0.0230 0.0170
|u'| [m/s] 0.0247 0.0114 0.0131 0.0042 0.0064 0.0112
x = 3.20 m, y = 1.22 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0930 0.0320 0.0440 0.0360 0.0280 0.0230
|u'| [m/s] 0.0159 0.0096 0.0151 0.0151 0.0102 0.0099
x = 3.20 m, y = 2.44 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.1230 0.0380 0.0370 0.0190 0.0210 0.0210
|u'| [m/s] 0.0278 0.0109 0.0168 0.0052 0.0087 0.0054
x = 3.20 m, y = 3.05 m
197
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.1270 0.0220 0.0500 0.0190 0.0180 0.0260
|u'| [m/s] 0.0183 0.0095 0.0092 0.0026 0.0052 0.0059
198
B6. Case6: A Quarter of Classroom under Heating
Configuration
z
y
x
There are 1 supply diffuser, 1 exhaust, 6 occupants, 4 tables, and 6 lamps in the room.
The sizes, locations, and heat released of these items are listed as follows.
Item length width height location heat
x [m] y [m] z [m] x [m] y [m] z [m] Q [W]
Room 5.16 3.65 2.43 0.0 0.0 0.0
Window 0.02 3.35 1.16 5.16 0.15 0.94
Diffuser* 0.316 0.316 1.11 0.0 0.0 0.03 0.0
Exhaust 0.43 0.43 0.0 2.365 1.61 2.43 0.0
Occupant1 0.35 0.40 1.1 2.65 0.90 0.0 75
Occupant2 0.35 0.40 1.1 2.65 1.64 0.0 75
Occupant3 0.35 0.40 1.1 4.25 0.90 0.0 75
Occupant4 0.35 0.40 1.1 4.25 1.64 0.0 75
Occupant5 0.35 0.40 1.1 2.65 3.08 0.0 75
Occupant6 0.35 0.40 1.1 4.25 3.08 0.0 75
Table1 0.75 1.48 0.01 1.80 0.73 0.74 0.0
Table2 0.75 1.48 0.01 3.40 0.73 0.74 0.0
Table3 0.75 0.75 0.01 1.80 2.90 0.74 0.0
Table4 0.75 0.75 0.01 3.40 2.90 0.74 0.0
Lamp1 0.2 1.2 0.15 1.03 0.16 2.18 34
Lamp2 0.2 1.2 0.15 2.33 0.16 2.18 34
Lamp3 0.2 1.2 0.15 3.61 0.16 2.18 34
Lamp4 0.2 1.2 0.15 1.03 2.29 2.18 34
Lamp5 0.2 1.2 0.15 2.33 2.29 2.18 34
199
Lamp6 0.2 1.2 0.15 3.61 2.29 2.18 34
Note: 1. x is from west to east, y from south to north, z from low to high.
2. The coordinates of the item in the table are the south-west-low corner of the
item.
3. The heat generated includes radiation and convection.
4. The effective area ratio of the diffuser is 10%.
* The diffuser is a quarter of cylinder.
Measured results
Ventilation rate n = 4 ach
Temperature
Supply air temperature: 19.0
o
C
Exhaust air temperature: 25.8
o
C
South wall temperature (x = 2.58 m, y = 0.0 m)
z [m] 0.1 0.6 1.1 1.8 2.38
T [
o
C] 23.871 24.763 25.266 25.496 25.134
East wall & window temperature (x = 5.16 m, y = 1.83 m)
z [m] 0.1 0.6 1.1 1.8 2.38
T [
o
C] 24.392 24.944 23.058 23.414 25.081
North wall temperature (x = 2.58 m, y = 3.65 m)
z [m] 1.1 1.8
T [
o
C] 25.314 25.327
West wall temperature (x = 0.0 m, y = 1.83 m)
z [m] 1.8
T [
o
C] 24.902
Air, floor, and ceiling temperatures
x = 1.65 m, y = 0.50 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 24.00 21.55 21.62 24.09 25.16 25.41 25.85 25.96 25.61 24.27
x = 1.65 m, y = 1.35 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 25.68 21.68 23.98 25.16 25.44 25.77 25.72 25.51 24.83 24.83
x = 1.65 m, y = 2.14 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 23.14 21.69 21.71 24.05 25.14 25.42 25.84 25.68 25.40 25.00
x = 1.65 m, y = 2.88 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 22.96 22.35 22.04 23.88 25.16 25.47 25.85 25.75 25.51 24.74
x = 2.56 m, y = 2.14 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 24.00 22.14 22.10 24.02 25.26 25.68 25.83 25.46 25.60 25.60
200
x = 4.41 m, y = 0.75 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 24.00 22.58 23.26 24.11 25.32 25.63 25.81 25.26 25.46 25.46
x = 4.41 m, y = 1.35 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 24.00 23.10 23.07 24.00 25.00 25.41 25.53 25.29 25.42 24.87
x = 4.41 m, y = 2.00 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 24.00 22.99 23.09 24.02 25.12 25.42 25.76 25.73 25.36 24.94
x = 4.41 m, y = 2.88 m
z [m] 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.60 1.10 1.50 1.90 2.30 2.38 2.43
T [
o
C] 24.00 22.84 22.98 24.48 25.17 25.47 25.68 25.71 25.31 24.75
Tracer-gas concentration
Tracer-gas: CO
2
Tracer-gas source1: 45 l/h at (x, y, z,) = (2.64, 1.84, 1.1)
Tracer-gas source2: 45 l/h at (x, y, z,) = (4.24, 1.84, 1.1)
Supply concentration: 432 ppm
Exhaust concentration: 924 ppm
The concentration in the room:
x = 1.65 m, y = 0.50 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 521.5220 609.9360 728.2970 754.4860 739.0530 743.6380
x = 1.65 m, y = 1.35 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 537.1270 605.8590 709.9710 757.5690 761.8370 744.9290
x = 1.65 m, y = 2.14 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 518.8700 534.4460 692.4520 871.0300 838.6600 815.6800
x = 1.65 m, y = 2.88 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 489.1780 553.9620 748.2750 759.4570 772.0940 738.0460
x = 2.56 m, y = 2.14 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 496.1340 513.9640 747.9920 910.0100 776.0380 763.7240
x = 4.41 m, y = 0.75 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 517.2380 532.3550 550.6560 556.7160 573.9430 565.4090
x = 4.41 m, y = 1.35 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 558.5580 565.1770 589.9420 616.9290 655.4100 682.1070
x = 4.41 m, y = 2.00 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
201
c [ppm] 520.1300 539.3480 662.5020 692.6860 686.8680 730.3700
x = 4.41 m, y = 2.88 m
z [m] 0.1500 0.6500 1.1500 1.5500 1.9500 2.3500
c [ppm] 520.2910 521.0510 562.8560 655.5330 653.1030 618.0940
Mean velocity and fluctuating velocity
x = 1.65 m, y = 0.50 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.1300 0.0160 0.0190 0.0190 0.0230 0.0100
|u'| [m/s] 0.0347 0.0054 0.0012 0.0010 0.0042 0.0006
x = 1.65 m, y = 1.35 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.1450 0.0210 0.0220 0.0100 0.0100 0.0240
|u'| [m/s] 0.0351 0.0025 0.0032 0.0005 0.0003 0.0095
x = 1.65 m, y = 2.14 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.1250 0.0210 0.0200 0.0200 0.0260 0.0120
|u'| [m/s] 0.0285 0.0059 0.0003 0.0008 0.0072 0.0072
x = 1.65 m, y = 2.88 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.1070 0.0250 0.0160 0.0120 0.0110 0.0190
|u'| [m/s] 0.0256 0.0076 0.0046 0.0046 0.0017 0.0042
x = 2.56 m, y = 2.14 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0950 0.0380 0.0330 0.0200 0.0230 0.0430
|u'| [m/s] 0.0135 0.0064 0.0038 0.0019 0.0057 0.0082
x = 4.41 m, y = 0.75 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0600 0.0380 0.0320 0.0230 0.0300 0.0460
|u'| [m/s] 0.0118 0.0076 0.0042 0.0049 0.0044 0.0100
x = 4.41 m, y = 1.35 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0580 0.0450 0.0400 0.0240 0.0410 0.0370
|u'| [m/s] 0.0084 0.0089 0.0122 0.0104 0.0167 0.0127
x = 4.41 m, y = 2.00 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.0550 0.0310 0.0300 0.0270 0.0230 0.0550
|u'| [m/s] 0.0128 0.0097 0.0104 0.0094 0.0109 0.0125
x = 4.41 m, y = 2.88 m
z [m] 0.1000 0.6000 1.1000 1.5000 1.9000 2.3000
u [m/s] 0.1020 0.0310 0.0330 0.0230 0.0380 0.0630
|u'| [m/s] 0.0139 0.0090 0.0071 0.0087 0.0179 0.0149
202
Appendix C:
Performance of Displacement Ventilation
This appendix presents the performance of the displacement ventilation in a small
office, a large office with partitions, and an industrial workshop, i.e., Cases SO1, LO1,
and WS1 in Table 4.1. A CFD program, having been validated by seven sets of data with
the displacement ventilation, is used to simulate the flows. The performance is evaluated
by:
) Airflow pattern
) Distribution of air temperature
) Distribution of the percentage of dissatisfied people due to draft, PD
) Distribution of the predicted percentage of dissatisfied people due to thermal comfort,
PPD
) Distribution of tracer-gas concentration
) Distribution of mean age of air
Figures C1.1, C2.1, and C3.1 illustrate the space configurations for the small office,
large office with partitions, and industrial workshop, respectively. The performance
evaluation for the three cases is presented in Figures C1.2 to C3.7.
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
Appendix D:
Energy Analysis of the Displacement Ventilation System
This appendix presents more detailed comparison of the annual energy
consumption by the displacement and mixing ventilation systems. Figure D1 is the
monthly results for the individual office facing south in five U.S. locations, Seattle, ME
(maritime), Portland, ME (cold), Phoenix, AZ (hot and dry), New Orleans, LA (hot and
humid), and Nashville, TN (moderate). Figure D2 compares the impact of room location
in a building. The figure is again for the individual office in five U.S. locations. Figure
D3 shows the annual energy consumption of the displacement and mixing ventilation
systems for three different types of rooms.
225
Seattle
(a) Portland
(b) Phoenix
0
50
100
150
200
250
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Month
Fan (Displacement)
Chiller (Displacement)
Boiler (Displacement)
Fan (Mixing)
Chiller (Mixing)
Boiler (Mixing)
kWh
Seattle
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Month
Fan (Displacement)
Chiller (Displacement)
Boiler (Displacement)
Fan (Mixing)
Chiller (Mixing)
Boiler (Mixing)
kWh
Portland
0
50
100
150
200
250
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Month
Fan (Displacement)
Chiller (Displacement)
Boiler (Displacement)
Fan (Mixing)
Chiller (Mixing)
Boiler (Mixing)
kWh
Phoenix
226
(d) New Orleans
(e) Nashville
Figure D1 Comparison of monthly energy consumption between the displacement and
mixing ventilation systems for an individual office.
0
50
100
150
200
250
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Month
Fan (Displacement)
Chiller (Displacement)
Boiler (Displacement)
Fan (Mixing)
Chiller (Mixing)
Boiler (Mixing)
kWh
New Orleans
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Month
Fan (Displacement)
Chiller (Displacement)
Boiler (Displacement)
Fan (Mixing)
Chiller (Mixing)
Boiler (Mixing)
kWh Nashville
227
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Fan Chiller Boiler Fan Chiller Boiler Fan Chiller
Displacement
Mixing
kWh
Facing South Facing North
Core Region
Seattle
(a) Seattle
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Fan Chiller Boiler Fan Chiller Boiler Fan Chiller
Displacement
Mixing
kWh
Facing South
Facing North
Core Region
Portland
(b) Portland
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Fan Chiller Boiler Fan Chiller Boiler Fan Chiller
Displacement
Mixing
kWh
Facing South
Facing North
Core Region
Phoenix
(c) Phoenix
228
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Fan Chiller Boiler Fan Chiller Boiler Fan Chiller
Displacement
Mixing
kWh
Facing South
Facing North
Core Region
New Orleans
(d) New Orleans
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Fan Chiller Boiler Fan Chiller Boiler Fan Chiller
Displacement
Mixing
kWh
Facing South
Facing North
Core Region
Nashville
(c) Nashville
Figure D2. Annual energy consumption per unit floor area of the displacement and
mixing ventilation for three different room locations.
229
Seattle, WA
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Fan Chiller Boiler Fan Chiller Boiler Fan Chiller Boiler
Displacement
Mixing
kWh/m2
Individual Office
Classroom Workshop
(a) Seattle
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Fan Chiller Boiler Fan Chiller Boiler Fan Chiller Boiler
Displacement Mixing
kWh/m2
Individual Office
Classroom
Workshop
Portland, ME
(b) Portland
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Fan Chiller Boiler Fan Chiller Boiler Fan Chiller Boiler
Displacement
Mixing
kWh/m2
Individual Office Classroom
Workshop
Phoenix, AZ
(c) Phoenix
230
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Fan Chiller Boiler Fan Chiller Boiler Fan Chiller Boiler
Displacement
Mixing
kWh/m2
Individual Office
Classroom
Workshop
New Orleans, TX
(d) New Orleans
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Fan Chiller Boiler Fan Chiller Boiler Fan Chiller Boiler
Displacement
Mixing
kWh/m2
Individual Office
Classroom
Workshop
Nashville, TN
(e) Nashville, TN
Figure D3 Annual energy consumption per unit floor area of the displacement and
mixing ventilation systems for three different types of rooms.