Personalized Ventilation Systems

Yang, Bin; Liu, Yihang; Zhu, Xin; Li, Xiaojing

doi:10.1007/978-981-99-0718-2_7

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They found that the use of PV in conjunction with MV greatly decreased the concentration of pollutants and the temperature of the inhaled air with respect to the case when no PV was used. In addition, the PV device is effective for mitigating cross-contamination risks as follows: it creates a confined microenvironment around the occupants and protects them from the contaminants present in the macroclimate [14]. Pantelic et al [15] conducted experiments on a healthy occupant utilizing a PV device in a space conditioned with a MV system.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Resilience of Personalized Ventilation in Maintaining Acceptable Breathable Air Quality When Combined with Mixing Ventilation Subject to External Shocks

Karam,

Ghali,

Ghaddar

2024

Buildings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This work evaluates the ventilation resilience of the combined personalized ventilation (PV)-mixing ventilation (MV) system when implemented in a typical office space. This resilience is first evaluated by monitoring the ability of the PV devices when designed at different supply flow rates to maintain acceptable levels of CO2 at the occupant’s breathing zone when the MV system is subjected to a shock. The shock considers a malfunction of the MV system for periods of 3 h and 6 h, and at shutoff percentages of MV fan flow of 100% and 50%. This is followed by evaluating the resilience of the MV system when the PV air handling unit is shutoff for short periods. The following three aspects of resilience were calculated: the absorptivity, the recovery, and the resilience effectiveness. To monitor the CO2 temporal variation at the breathing zone, a computational fluid dynamic model was developed and validated experimentally. It was found that the resilience effectiveness varied between 0.61 (100% MV shutoff for 6 h and PV at 4 L/s) and 1 (50% MV shutoff for 3 h and PV at 13 L/s). Additionally, CO2 build-up and recovery took minutes during MV malfunctions and seconds during PV malfunctions.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%