No abstract

Several airflow and contaminant dispersion models have been developed to study air distribution in buildings. This paper reports the results of a comprehensive validation of two models: COMIS and CONTAM. The validation process was carried out at three different levels; inter‐program comparison; validation with experimental data which was collected in a controlled environment; and finally, validation with field measurement data. At the inter‐program level, the airflow rates and pressure values predicted by COMIS and CONTAM for a four‐zone paper building were compared with the airflow rates and pressures predicted by CBSAIR, AIRNET and BUS. The results show good agreement between these software programs. The second level of validation compares the models’ predictions with measured data collected in a controlled environment. Fan pressurisation, smoke and tracer gas tests were conducted to estimate the permeability of building envelope components, to locate cracks, and to determine the interzonal airflow rates between rooms. The results confirm that there is good agreement between predictions made by COMIS and CONTAM; there are, however, some differences between these models’ predictions and the measured data. The predictions made by these models were also compared with the results of a tracer gas measurement carried out in a residential building. The predicted and measured values were in good agreement.

No abstract

This paper reports the results of thermal comfort and indoor air quality measurements aboard aircraft from 43 flights on commercial airlines with a duration of more than 1 h. The measurements were performed contin uously during the whole flight (from the departure gate to the arrival gate), and the parameters monitored were temperature, relative humidity and carbon dioxide con centration. The results were then compared with the ASHRAE Standards for the thermal comfort (ASHRAE Standard 55-92) and indoor air quality (ASHRAE Stan dard 62-89). The evaluation of the indoor air quality was based mainly upon comparison of the carbon dioxide concentrations measured with standards and recom mendations for the indoor environment. Overall, the lev els of relative humidity were far lower than the limit set by the ASHRAE Standard 55-92. The levels of carbon dioxide on most flights were higher than that recom mended by the ASHRAE Standard 62-89. The results of this study, mainly the low level of humidity and high con centrations of carbon dioxide, led us to expect that the crew and the passengers would have been dissatisfied with their degree of thermal comfort and the quality of the air in the cabin. This conclusion is based simply on a comparison of our measurements with the values stated in the ASHRAE Standards. However, we must bear in mind that these were developed for an indoor environ ment at atmospheric pressure. More research is needed to study the validity of these standards for sub-atmo spheric conditions.

This paper reports the results of thermal comfort and indoor air quality measurements aboard aircraft from 43 flights on commercial airlines with a duration of more than 1 h. The measurements were performed continuously during the whole flight (from the departure gate to the arrival gate), and the parameters monitored were temperature, relative humidity and carbon dioxide concentration. The results were then compared with the ASHRAE Standards for the thermal comfort (ASHRAE Standard 55-92) and indoor air quality (ASHRAE Standard 62-89). The evaluation of the indoor air quality was based mainly upon comparison of the carbon dioxide concentrations measured with standards and recommendations for the indoor environment. Overall, the levels of relative humidity were far lower than the limit set by the ASHRAE Standard 55-92. The levels of carbon dioxide on most flights were higher than that recommended by the ASHRAE Standard 62-89. The results of this study, mainly the low level of humidity and high concentrations of carbon dioxide, led us to expect that the crew and the passengers would have been dissatisfied with their degree of thermal comfort and the quality of the air in the cabin. This conclusion is based simply on a comparison of our measurements with the values stated in the ASHRAE Standards. However, we must bear in mind that these were developed for an indoor environment at atmospheric pressure. More research is needed to study the validity of these standards for sub-atmospheric conditions.