Comparison of airflow and contaminant distributions in rooms with traditional displacement ventilation and under-floor air distribution systems.(Report): An article from: ASHRAE Transactions
Book Details
ISBN / ASINB00371OVGS
ISBN-13978B00371OVG7
MarketplaceFrance 🇫🇷
Description
This digital document is an article from ASHRAE Transactions, published by American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. on July 1, 2009. The length of the article is 7883 words. The page length shown above is based on a typical 300-word page. The article is delivered in HTML format and is available immediately after purchase. You can view it with any web browser.
From the author: Traditional displacement ventilation (TDV) and under-floor air distribution (UFAD) systems have been used widely because they create better indoor air quality. Many previous studies have compared the TDV or UFAD systems with mixing ventilation systems. This study first compared experimentally the TDV with UFAD systems that use four different diffusers (perforated TDV diffusers, swirl diffusers, linear diffusers, and perforated-floor-panel diffusers) in an environmental chamber that can simulate different indoor spaces of the same size. The two systems had higher ventilation performance than the mixing one under cooling mode as well as under heating mode. Also, the systems with low-height-throw diffusers (all except the linear diffusers) were better. This investigation used a validated CFD program to further study the ventilation performance of the TDV and UFAD systems for an office, a classroom, and a workshop of different sizes. The CFD results further confirmed the findings from the experiment, but with more detailed information and at a lower cost. The air distribution effectiveness with the TDV system and with the low-height-throw UFAD system was in proportion to the ceiling height of the indoor spaces.
Citation Details
Title: Comparison of airflow and contaminant distributions in rooms with traditional displacement ventilation and under-floor air distribution systems.(Report)
Author: Kisup Lee
Publication:ASHRAE Transactions (Magazine/Journal)
Date: July 1, 2009
Publisher: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
Volume: 115 Issue: 2 Page: 306(16)
Article Type: Report
Distributed by Gale, a part of Cengage Learning
From the author: Traditional displacement ventilation (TDV) and under-floor air distribution (UFAD) systems have been used widely because they create better indoor air quality. Many previous studies have compared the TDV or UFAD systems with mixing ventilation systems. This study first compared experimentally the TDV with UFAD systems that use four different diffusers (perforated TDV diffusers, swirl diffusers, linear diffusers, and perforated-floor-panel diffusers) in an environmental chamber that can simulate different indoor spaces of the same size. The two systems had higher ventilation performance than the mixing one under cooling mode as well as under heating mode. Also, the systems with low-height-throw diffusers (all except the linear diffusers) were better. This investigation used a validated CFD program to further study the ventilation performance of the TDV and UFAD systems for an office, a classroom, and a workshop of different sizes. The CFD results further confirmed the findings from the experiment, but with more detailed information and at a lower cost. The air distribution effectiveness with the TDV system and with the low-height-throw UFAD system was in proportion to the ceiling height of the indoor spaces.
Citation Details
Title: Comparison of airflow and contaminant distributions in rooms with traditional displacement ventilation and under-floor air distribution systems.(Report)
Author: Kisup Lee
Publication:ASHRAE Transactions (Magazine/Journal)
Date: July 1, 2009
Publisher: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
Volume: 115 Issue: 2 Page: 306(16)
Article Type: Report
Distributed by Gale, a part of Cengage Learning
