4.7 Article

A numerical investigation into the effect of windvent dampers on operating conditions

期刊

BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENT
卷 44, 期 2, 页码 237-248

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2008.02.012

关键词

CFD; Buildings; Passive ventilation; Natural ventilation; Sustainable resources

资金

  1. EPSRC
  2. Midtherm
  3. Naturally Driven Ltd
  4. The Whitworth Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The United Kingdom has made a commitment to reduce buildings carbon emissions, placing a greater Onus on sustainable energy sources, Therefore, an anticipated increase of usage of zero carbon technologies in new and existing building has led to the emergence of passive ventilation devices as an alternative to mechanical ventilation and air conditioning. The windvent is a commercially available passive ventilation device. The device is constructed from sheet metal and works on the principle of pressure differential. Whereby air rises, creating a low pressure in the receiving room, which then draws in the fresh air. The ensuing air delivery velocity is controlled by the dampers, installed at the room entry interface. The dampers are actuator operated, and form the basis of the control system for the device. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the control mechanism for the device and ascertain an optimum operating range. Numerical analysis is carried out using a commercial computational fluid dynamics (CFD) code, to investigate the effect of various damper angles (range 0-90). The results show that optimum operating occurs at a damper angle range of 45-55, at the UK average 4.5 m/s external wind speed. The operating range when considered in tandem with macro climatic influences is central to determining the overall control strategy for the fresh air supply. The results provide useful information for both engineers and architects when examining ways to reduce new and existing buildings running costs, and conform to new legislation. (C) 2008 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