4.7 Review

Ventilation performance prediction for buildings: A method overview and recent applications

Journal

BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENT
Volume 44, Issue 4, Pages 848-858

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.05.025

Keywords

Analytical; Empirical; Small scale; Full scale; Environmental measurements; Multizone; Zonal; Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD); Numerical simulations

Funding

  1. U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
  2. Office of Aerospace Medicine
  3. National Air Transportation Center [07-C-RITE-PU]
  4. China's Ministry of Education

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper presented an overview of the tools used to predict ventilation performance in buildings. The tools reviewed were analytical models, empirical models, small-scale experimental models, full-scale experimental models, multizone network models, zonal models, and Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) models. This review found that the analytical and empirical models had made minimal contributions to the research literature in the past year. The small- and full-scale experimental models were mainly used to generate data to validate numerical models. The multizone models were improving, and they were the main tool for predicting ventilation performance in an entire building. The zonal models had limited applications and could be replaced by the coarse-grid fluid dynamics models. The CFD models were most popular and contributed to 70 percent of the literature found in this review. Considerable efforts were still made to seek more reliable and accurate models. It has been a trend to improve their performance by coupling CFD with other building simulation models. The applications of CFD models were mainly for studying indoor air quality, natural ventilation, and stratified ventilation as they were difficult to be predicted by other models. (c) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available