4.6 Review

On Finding the Right Sampling Line Height through a Parametric Study of Gas Dispersion in a NVB

期刊

APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL
卷 11, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/app11104560

关键词

CFD; gas transport; tracer gas method; mixing ratio; Schmidt number

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) [397548689]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the NH3/CO2 mixing ratio inside a barn using CFD, to assess the value of the common height recommendation guidelines for sampling points in the tracer gas method. Results showed that the best height for sampling points was between 1.5 m and 2.5 m in most cases, indicating the importance of proper height selection for accurate air exchange rate evaluations in naturally ventilated barns.
The tracer gas method is one of the common ways to evaluate the air exchange rate in a naturally ventilated barn. One crucial condition for the accuracy of the method is that both considered gases (pollutant and tracer) are perfectly mixed at the points where the measurements are done. In the present study, by means of computational fluids dynamics (CFD), the mixing ratio NH3/CO2 is evaluated inside a barn in order to assess under which flow conditions the common height recommendation guidelines for sampling points (sampling line and sampling net) of the tracer gas method are most valuable. Our CFD model considered a barn with a rectangular layout and four animal-occupied zones modeled as a porous medium representing pressure drop and heat entry from lying and standing cows. We studied three inflow angles and six combinations of air inlet wind speed and temperatures gradients covering the three types of convection, i.e., natural, mixed, and forced. Our results showed that few cases corresponded to a nearly perfect gas mixing ratio at the currently common recommendation of at least a 3 m measurement height, while the best height in fact lied between 1.5 m and 2.5 m for most cases.

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

4.6
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