4.1 Article

Numerical evaluation of the effect of traffic pollution on indoor air quality of a naturally ventilated building

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
Volume 52, Issue 9, Pages 1043-1053

Publisher

AIR & WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOC
DOI: 10.1080/10473289.2002.10470846

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A computational fluid dynamics technique was used to evaluate the effect of traffic pollution on indoor air quality of a naturally ventilated building for various ventilation control strategies. The transport of street-level nonreactive pollutants emitted from motor vehicles through the indoor environment was simulated using the large eddy simulation (LES) of the turbulent flows and the pollutant transport equations. The numerical model developed herein was verified by available wind-tunnel measurements. Good agreement with the measured velocity and concentration data was found. Twelve sets of numerical scenario simulations for various roof-and side-vent openness and outdoor wind speeds were carried out. The effects of the air change rate, the indoor airflow pattern, and the external pollutant dispersion on indoor air quality were investigated. The control strategies of ventilation rates and paths for reducing incoming vehicle pollutants and maintaining a desirable air change rate are proposed to reduce the impact of outdoor traffic pollution during traffic rush hours. It was concluded that the windward side vent is a significant factor contributing to air change rate and indoor air quality. Air intakes on the leeward side of the building can effectively reduce the peak and average indoor concentration of traffic pollutants, but the corresponding air change rate is relatively low. Using the leeward cross-flow ventilation with the windward roof vent can effectively lower incoming vehicle pollutants and maintain a desirable air change rate during traffic rush hours.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available