4.7 Article

Simplified calculation method for design cooling loads in underfloor air distribution (UFAD) systems

期刊

ENERGY AND BUILDINGS
卷 43, 期 2-3, 页码 517-528

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.10.017

关键词

Underfloor air distribution (UFAD); Cooling load; HVAC sizing; Overhead air distribution (OH); Mixing ventilation

资金

  1. California Energy Commission (CEC)
  2. Center for the Built Environment, University of California, Berkeley

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper describes the development of a simplified calculation method for design cooling loads in underfloor air distribution (UFAD) systems. The simplified design tool is able to account for key differences between UFAD and traditional mixing overhead (OH) systems. These include: (1) difference between design day cooling load profiles, (2) impact of a thermally stratified environment for UFAD versus well-mixed for OH, and (3) impact of heat transfer (temperature gain) in underfloor air supply plenums. The new design tool allows the use of a familiar load calculation procedure for OH mixing systems as input to the UFAD design tool. Based on 87 EnergyPlus simulations, four regression models have been developed to transform the OH cooling load into the UFAD cooling load, and then to split this total load between the supply plenum, zone (room), and return plenum. The regression models mainly depend on floor level, and position (interior or perimeter) and orientation of the zone under analysis. Although considered in the analysis, supply air temperature, window-to-wall ratio, internal heat gain, plenum configuration, climate, presence of the carpet and structure type do not strongly influence the developed models. The results show that, generally, UFAD has a peak cooling load 19% higher than an overhead cooling load and 22% and 37% of the total zone UFAD cooling load goes to the supply plenum in the perimeter and interior, respectively. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. 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