4.7 Article

Numerical analysis of PM2.5 particle collection efficiency of an electrostatic precipitator integrated with double skin facade in a residential home

期刊

BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENT
卷 162, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106245

关键词

Particle collection efficiency; Indoor air quality; Electrostatic precipitator; Double skin facade; Residential home; Computational fluid dynamics

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea [NRF-2017R1C1B2011561, NRF-2018R1D1A1B07050503]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, the electrostatic precipitator (ESP) integrated with a double skin facade (DSF) was proposed as a new method to overcome natural ventilation constraints due to outdoor particles and the particle collection efficiency of an ESP integrated with a DSF (EPID) was evaluated using numerical analysis. The particle collection efficiencies of two models of ESP integrated with DSF (EPID) with air cavity depths of 0.2 m and 0.5 m were evaluated according to the horizontal and vertical installation positions of the ESP in the air cavity and the voltage intensity during operation. Changes in the particle collection efficiency depending on the inlet air velocity at the EPID inlet were also analyzed. A computational fluid dynamics model was suggested for analyzing the airflow in the EPID, particle behavior, and electrostatic precipitation and validated by comparison with existing experimental data. The particle collection efficiency of the EPID was high when it was adjacent to the inner skin of the EPID and located in the upper section of the air cavity, and positions inside the air cavity with a reduced velocity for the main airflow helped increase the particle collection efficiency. When the air velocity at the EPID inlet was controlled at 0.5 m/s, a particle collection efficiency of 92.8% could be expected at 12 kV. These results indicate that integrating the ESP with the DSF can effectively reduce the inflow of external particles.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据