4.7 Article

Modeling deposition of particles in vertical square ventilation duct flows

期刊

BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENT
卷 46, 期 1, 页码 245-252

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.07.020

关键词

Particles; Ventilation ducts; Computational fluid dynamics; Lagrangian eddy lifetime model; Dimensionless deposition velocities of particles; Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations

资金

  1. Natural Science Foundation of China [50878177, 50778145]
  2. National Science & Technology Pillar, China [2008BAJ08B07, 2006BAJ02A10]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The presence, flow, and distribution of particle in heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) ducts influence the quality of air in buildings and hence the health of building occupants. To shed a better light on the flow of particles in HVAC ducts this a paper has considered the effects of drag, lift force, gravity, Brownian diffusion, and turbulent diffusion on the dimensionless deposition velocity of particles in smooth vertical ventilation ducts using fully developed and developing velocity profiles. Based on the Reynolds stress transport model (RSM) at two different air velocities, 3.0 m/s and 7.0 m/s, the aforementioned effects were predicted using Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS)-Lagrangian simulation on square shaped ducts under vertical flows. Preliminary results suggest that the gravity of particles does not directly change the dimensionless deposition velocity in vertical flows. Nevertheless, the gravity of particles contributes to changing the Saffman lift force. It is thus the Saffman lift force that directly changes the dimensionless deposition velocity of particles in vertical flows. In addition, the difference in the dimensionless deposition velocities between fully developed and developing flows is owing to the turbulent diffusion, turbulent intensity, and needless to say, the Saffman lift force under different dimensionless particle relaxation time. (C) 2010 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