Experimental investigation of air distribution in an airliner cabin mockup with displacement ventilation

Evaluation of different air distribution systems in a commercial airliner cabin in terms of comfort and COVID-19 infection risk

“…The results of an error analysis between simulated and experimental values at the measurement points are shown in Table 3 . In comparison with the findings of a previous study [ 31 ], the simulated values in the present study were closer to the experimental values, probably because of the fine calibration of the air supply boundary [ 46 ]. Although the relative deviation of velocity in the DV system exceeded 50%, the reference value of velocity under the DV system was low (<0.1 m/s), and the absolute deviation of velocity was only 0.021 m/s.…”

“…A previous study determined that passengers in this section would be at high risk of infection [ 26 ]. The specific experimental methods and instrument selection in the present study were identical to those of Liu et al [ 46 ].…”

“…The airflow rate in the cabin was 9.5 L/s per passenger in both DV and MV systems. The surface temperature of the dummies was 30 °C ± 1 °C, dummies with a uniform temperature were set according to the study from Liu et al [ 46 ].

Fig.

…”

“…2 is a schematic diagram of the cabin mockup. The structural dimensions of the cabin mockup are detailed in Liu et al [ 46 ]. The cabin mockup was ventilated by either of two ventilation systems, MV or DV, with identical airflow rates.…”

Experimental evaluation of particle exposure at different seats in a single-aisle aircraft cabin

“…Meanwhile, the air temperature was measured by T-type thermocouples. The resolution of the air temperature measurement was 0.02 °C with an accuracy of ±0.5 °C [ 26 ]. The anemometer probes and thermocouples were mounted on a three-dimensional guide rail, as shown in Fig.…”