4.7 Article

Experimental study on air change effectiveness in mixing ventilation

期刊

BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENT
卷 109, 期 -, 页码 101-111

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.09.015

关键词

Ventilation effectiveness; Mixing ventilation; ADPI; All air heating; Tracer gas

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Mixing ventilation is the most common air distribution system, and often the same diffusers provide space cooling and heating. Proper diffuser selection affects characteristics of air distribution. Air distribution with all-air-heating is one of the major challenges for mixing ventilation as temperature stratification and corresponding low ventilation effectiveness may appear. The objective of this study is to provide supporting data for air distribution system designs for several of the most common types of ceiling diffusers in the cooling and heating regime. It defines operation range for selecting diffusers with: high ADPI and ventilation and temperature effectiveness. The study is based on experimental measurements in a full-scale test room. Air change effeteness was measured using CO2 tracer gas decay tests with various types of ceiling diffusers and internal loads. Also, the air flow was changed to produce different corresponding throw for the tested diffusers (T-0.25), which with characteristic space length for the diffuser jet flow (L) defined T-0.25/L, ratio. The results show that under heating conditions the air change effectiveness significantly decreases with decrease of T-0.25/L. Even for the recommended range of T-0.25/L, the value of air change effectiveness and temperature effectiveness are low: 0.56 to 0.87 and 0.58 to 0.75, respectively. Under cooling conditions, air change effectiveness and the temperature effectiveness were close to or higher than 1, regardless of diffuser type. The range of T-0.25/L value that can achieve good mixing under heating condition was significantly smaller than the one under cooling mode. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. 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