4.7 Article

Multi-indicator evaluation on ventilation effectiveness of three ventilation methods: An experimental study

期刊

BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENT
卷 180, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.107015

关键词

Contaminant removal effectiveness; Air change effectiveness; Overall IAQ; Ventilation method; Multi-indicator evaluation

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51978096]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Enhancing ventilation effectiveness can improve indoor air quality (IAQ). Both contaminant removal effectiveness (CRE) and air change effectiveness (ACE) are widely used to evaluate ventilation effectiveness. They reflect two different aspects of IAQ, and an analysis based exclusively on ACE or CRE has important limitations. Firstly, this study is to evaluate the overall IAQ integrating ACE and CRE by using multi-indicator methods. Secondly, this study is to find out an indicator to best characterize the overall IAQ. Twenty-four experiments with different combinations of three ventilation methods (i.e. mixing ventilation (MV), displacement ventilation (DV) and stratum ventilation (SV)), four air exchange rates and two point pollutant source locations are conducted in a simulated office. Three multi-indicator methods are applied and compared, including Z-score method, Rank Sum Ratio method, and Technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution (TOPSIS). The results show that, for ACE, in the occupied zone, DV performs best with the values of 0.76-0.84; in the breathing zone, SV performs best with the values of 1.21-1.35. For the overall IAQ, in the occupied zone, DV performs best (ranking in the top 4-33%), followed by SV (ranking in the top 38-92%), and then MV (ranking in the top 50-100%); in the breathing zone, SV performs best (ranking in the top 8-54%), followed by DV (ranking in the top 4-79%), and then MV (ranking in the top 58-100%). All the three evaluation methods indicate that CRE is more representative than ACE for measuring overall IAQ.

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