4.7 Article

Experimental study on the performance of hybrid buoyancy-driven natural ventilation with a mechanical exhaust system in an industrial building

期刊

ENERGY AND BUILDINGS
卷 208, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109674

关键词

Hybrid ventilation; Industrial building; Buoyancy-driven ventilation mechanical exhaust velocity; Ventilation efficiency

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2018YFC0705300]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of China [51608425]
  3. National Science Funds for Distinguished Young Scholar [51425803]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hybrid ventilation is an effective means of minimizing ventilation energy and improving indoor environment. A scale experimental model with a heat source was created for hybrid buoyancy-driven natural ventilation with a mechanical exhaust system. The aim of this study is to examine the performance of hybrid ventilation in an industrial building. The temperature distributions and hybrid ventilation efficiencies with different mechanical exhaust velocities were analyzed. Results showed that the hybrid ventilation efficiency first increased and then decreased with the mechanical exhaust velocity. A critical mechanical exhaust velocity was identified and the hybrid ventilation efficiency reached maximum at the critical mechanical exhaust velocity. The critical mechanical exhaust velocity was 1.4 m/s at the heat flux of the heat source g = 200 W and 1.0 mks at q = 500 W, and the corresponding ventilation efficiencies were 24.4 and 6.69, respectively. Four modes of hybrid ventilation were investigated, and ventilation strategies of different modes of hybrid ventilation were given. An excessive mechanical ventilation rate will cause consumption of ventilation energy to increase and may lead to short circuiting of airflow and a bad thermal environment. These results should prove helpful in designing of hybrid ventilation systems for industrial buildings. (C) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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