A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
A platform for research: civil engineering, architecture and urbanism
Low pressure air-handling system leakage in large commercial buildings: Diagnosis, prevalence, and energy impacts
Air-handling system leakage reduces the amount of air delivered to conditioned spaces and in most cases wastes energy and money. Standards exist for where and how to measure system airtightness, but they tend to focus on new construction, and only on the high-pressure (1500–2500 Pa [6–10 in. w.c.])/ medium-pressure [500–1500 Pa (2–6 in. w.c.]) portions of the system. This article investigates air leakage in the low-pressure (≤500 Pa [≤2 in. w.c.]) portions of large commercial-building air-handling systems (i.e., downstream of variable-air-volume box inlet dampers). A simplified diagnostic protocol for measuring low-pressure leakage that can be used during normal system operation in an existing building is presented and utilized for this investigation. A validation of the protocol using a calibrated leak in a field installation is also presented, as are the results of applying this protocol in nine other buildings around the United States. The validation results indicate that normalized leakage can be measured to within 10 L/s at 25 Pa (20 cfm at 0.1 in w.c.), with and without the existence of significant flow through the minimum opening of the box inlet damper. The field test results indicate that low-pressure leakage varied considerably from system to system (standard deviation of 50% of the mean value), and that the average value was approximately 10% of the flow entering the low-pressure system sections. The variability of the measured results, combined with a simplified analysis of the impacts of this leakage, suggest that testing of low-pressure system leakage in commercial buildings should be economically justifiable.
Low pressure air-handling system leakage in large commercial buildings: Diagnosis, prevalence, and energy impacts
Air-handling system leakage reduces the amount of air delivered to conditioned spaces and in most cases wastes energy and money. Standards exist for where and how to measure system airtightness, but they tend to focus on new construction, and only on the high-pressure (1500–2500 Pa [6–10 in. w.c.])/ medium-pressure [500–1500 Pa (2–6 in. w.c.]) portions of the system. This article investigates air leakage in the low-pressure (≤500 Pa [≤2 in. w.c.]) portions of large commercial-building air-handling systems (i.e., downstream of variable-air-volume box inlet dampers). A simplified diagnostic protocol for measuring low-pressure leakage that can be used during normal system operation in an existing building is presented and utilized for this investigation. A validation of the protocol using a calibrated leak in a field installation is also presented, as are the results of applying this protocol in nine other buildings around the United States. The validation results indicate that normalized leakage can be measured to within 10 L/s at 25 Pa (20 cfm at 0.1 in w.c.), with and without the existence of significant flow through the minimum opening of the box inlet damper. The field test results indicate that low-pressure leakage varied considerably from system to system (standard deviation of 50% of the mean value), and that the average value was approximately 10% of the flow entering the low-pressure system sections. The variability of the measured results, combined with a simplified analysis of the impacts of this leakage, suggest that testing of low-pressure system leakage in commercial buildings should be economically justifiable.
Low pressure air-handling system leakage in large commercial buildings: Diagnosis, prevalence, and energy impacts
Modera, Mark (author) / Wray, Craig P. (author) / Dickerhoff, Darryl (author)
HVAC&R Research ; 20 ; 559-569
2014-07-04
11 pages
Article (Journal)
Electronic Resource
English
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 1998
| British Library Online Contents | 1998
Commercial Buildings Air Leakage Testing and Comparison of Results
| British Library Conference Proceedings | 2019