~ . ~,~..

~,~vllall
AND
BUII..DII IG
ELSEVIER Energy and Buildings 23 (1995) 73-81

Numerical investigation of local thermal discomfort in offices with

displacement ventilation
Guohui Gan
Institute of ,3uilding Technology, School of Architecture, Universityof Nottingham, UniversityPark, Nottingham, UK
Received 20 December 1993; revised 17 January 1995

Abstract

Local thermal discomfort in offices with displacement ventilation is investigated using computational fluid dynamics. The standard k-e
turbulence model is used for the prediction of indoor air flow patterns, temperature and moisture distributions, taking account of heat transfer
by conduction, convection and radiation. The thermal comfort level and draught risk are predicted by incorporating Fanger' s comfort equations
in the airflow model. It has been found that for sedentary occupants with summer clothing common complaints of discomfort in offices
ventilated with displacement systems result more often from an unsatisfactory thermal sensation level than from draught alone. It is shown
that thermal discomfort in the displacement-ventilated offices can be avoided by optimizing the supply air velocity and temperature. It is also
shown that optimal supply air conditions of a displacement system depend on the distance between the occupant and air diffuser.

Keywords: Numerical investigation; Thermal discomfort; Commercial buildings; Displacement ventilation

1. Introduction is that it controls the environment in the occupied zone of the

Displacement ventilatic.n has been shown to be an effective
means to remove excess heat and achieve good air quality in
comparison with the conventional mixing ventilation. The
technique of positive disrlacement has been widely used in
Scandinavia in particular for ventilation of industrial build-
ings. The market share of displacement systems for industrial
ventilation, for example, is estimated at around 50% [ 1 ]. The
system has now gradually been employed for office ventila-
tion despite some concern over draught near feet.
The principle of office ventilation by displacement is that
supply air is introduced into the room at low level and the
room air is extracted at high level. The supply air is at a lower
temperature and hence higher density than the room air so
that it remains at low level as it gently flows across the floor.
The cool air is heated by heat sources in the room and con-
vective plumes are formed above the sources. Convective air
flow may act as a carrier of contaminants released from heat
sources such as CO2 and moisture from occupants. This cool
clean air displaces warm polluted air as it flows upward due
to thermal buoyancy and the room air is ultimately exhausted
at ceiling level. For sedentary occupation, the supply air tem-
perature for displacement ventilation is usually between 18
and 20 °C [ 2] and the acceptable supply air velocity is around
0.2 m / s [ 3 ]. The main advantage of displacement ventilation
room, not the whole space and that the control of the envi-
ronment is achieved by displacing rather than diluting the
room air as in conventional systems, thus resulting in signif-
icant energy savings and good indoor air quality.
A number of investigators have conducted tests on the
indoor environment of buildings ventilated by displacement.
For example, Wyon and Sandberg [4] carried out an exper-
iment on thermal comfort in a test room with displacement
ventilation using a thermal manikin. It was found that thermal
conditions above table height were largely acceptable but
cold discomfort was observed at legs, ankles and feet. They
envisaged that displacement ventilation could be optimized
by manipulating such parameters as the supply air tempera-
ture and flow rate, the design and placement of the diffusers,
the air circulation in the room and the detailed design of the
desk and the protection of the sedentary office worker from
draught. Melikov et al. [ 5 ] found that in rooms with displace-
ment ventilation it was relatively easy to satisfy the general
thermal comfort requirements described in ISO 7730 [ 6] but
more difficult to avoid the local thermal discomfort due to
draught and the vertical temperature difference because of
relatively high velocities and low air temperatures near the
floor. Fanger and co-workers [7,8] conducted a series of
experiments on sensation of draught. They found that per-
ception of draught was affected not only by the air tempera-

0378-7788/95/$09.50 © 1995 Elsevier Science S.A. All rights reserved

SSD10378-7788 ( 95 ) 0 0 9 3 0 - V
74 G. Gan / Energy and Buildings 23 (1995) 73-81
ture and mean velocity but also by the turbulence of air flow
and that an air flow with high turbulence causes more com-
plaints of draught than that with low turbulence for the same
air temperature and mean velocity. However, in displacement
ventilation the velocity and turbulence intensity of supply air
are generally low. It may therefore be inferred that apart from
draught there are other possible sources such as unacceptable
thermal sensation levels which could contribute to the thermal
discomfort in offices ventilated with displacement systems.
Fountain et al. [ 9 ] carried out laboratory tests on air move-
ment for cooling in warm isothermal environments and devel-
oped a model for predicting the percentage of satisfied people
in an office environment when locally controlled air move-
ment is available. They found that people preferred more air
movement than the draught limit proposed by Fanger et ai.
[ 8 ], especially at operative temperatures higher than 27 °C.
Their results appear to suggest that occupants are tolerant of
higher air velocity than the draught limits even in displace-
ment-ventilated offices.
Recently numerical methods have been used to predict the
indoor environment of buildings with displacement ventila-
tion. Koschenz [10], for example, used a zonal model to
simulate the displacement ventilation and radiative cooling
of a test room. Chen and van der Kooi [ 11 ], Jiang et al. [ ! 2]
and Shankar et al. [ 13] predicted thermal comfort and air
quality in offices with displacement ventilation using com-
putational fluid dynamics. Evaluations of different room air
distribution systems based on the predicted indoor thermal
comfort and air quality [ 14,15] show that a ventilation sys-
tem resulting in displacement flow generally gives rise to
higher thermal efficiency and better air quality in the occupied
zone than traditional mixing systems. However, local discom-
fort may arise in offices with displacement ventilation
because of the inherently non-uniform distributions of air
temperature and velocity.
These experimental and numerical studies have shown the
improvement of the indoor environment of offices with dis-
placement ventilation on the one hand and the potential of
local thermal discomfort on the other hand. This study aims
to investigate the causes of local thermal discomfort in such
offices by means of computational fluid dynamics in con-
junction with comfort models.
2. Method
This section presents the method for the numerical predic-
tion of air flow patterns, thermal sensation and draught risk
in rooms.
2.1. Airflow model
Air flow in rooms is generally turbulent. The model for
turbulent air flow is based on the equations for continuity,
momentum, enthalpy and concentration together with the
equations for the k-e turbulence model. For an incompressi-
ble steady-state flow, the time-averaged equations can be
written in the following form:
-~x~(°U~4J) Ox~t Ox,]
where ~bdenotes the dependent variable which may represent
mean velocity component U~ in x~ direction, mean enthalpy
for an air mixture H, mean concentration of moisture in air
C, turbulent kinetic energy k and dissipation rate of turbulent
kinetic energy e; p is the air density; F,~ is the diffusion
coefficient for variable ~b; S~ is the source term for variable
~. Details of the equations and the method of solution are
described elsewhere [ 16,17].
2.2. Thermal sensation
Thermal sensation is evaluated in terms of the predicted
mean vote (PMV) and the predicted percentage of dissatis-
fied (PPD) proposed by Fanger [ 18]. PMVis a function of
air velocity, air temperature, mean radiant temperature, water
vapour pressure of air, clothing thermal resistance and occu-
pant's metabolic rate. PPD (%) is related to PMV by the
following equation [6]:
PPD= 100-95 e x p - (O.03353PMV*+O.2179PMV 2) (2)
Although the PMV and PPD models are derived for pre-
dicting the thermal comfort for the body as a whole based on
a uniform thermal climate in the occupied zone of a room,
these indices can be used to analyze the thermal variability
in the room for given environmental variables [ 18]. In this
investigation, the air velocity, temperature and water vapour
pressure (humidity) distributions in the room are calculated
from the air flow equations. The distribution of mean radiant
temperature is attained with the help of a radiation heat
exchange model. The procedure to calculate the mean radiant
temperature at each grid point is as follows (see Ref. [ 17]
for details):
(i) calculate room surface temperature from the heat
balance equations for conduction, convection and radiation;
(ii) calculate room surface radiosity based on the room
surface temperature and radiation shape factors;
(i ii) calculate six plane radiant temperatures for each rec-
tangular parallelepiped grid cell;
(iv) calculate the mean radiant temperature for the grid
cell; it is taken as a weighted mean of the plane radiant
temperatures.
Steps (i) and (ii) are performed within each of the iterations
for flow equations if radiation heat transfer between room
surfaces takes place.
In addition to the calculation of thermal sensation, radiant
temperature asymmetry for three orthogonal directions can
be obtained from the plane radiant temperatures. Local dis-
comfort due to an asymmetric radiation field such as cold or
hot windows can then be evaluated.
 G. Gan / Energy and Buildings 23 (1995) 73--81
2.3. Draught risk
The draught risk is assessed according to the draught model
developed by Fanger et al. [8]. In the draught model, the
sensation of draught is associated with air temperature, mean
velocity and turbulence intensity as follows:
for V> 0.05 m/s
P D = ( 3 . 1 4 3 + O . 3 6 9 6 V ~ ; ~ ) ( 3 4 - T ) ( V - O . 0 5 ) °6223
for V<0.05 m/s
PD = 0
where P D is the percentage of dissatisfied due to draught
(%); Tis the air temperature (°C); Vis the mean air velocity
(m/s); Tu is the turbulence intensity (%), defined as the
standard deviation divided by the mean air velocity and cal-
culated using
Tu = ~/2k X 100
V temperature based on the amount of fabric heat
where k is the turbulent ki,netic energy (m2/s2).
Hence, the distribution of PD in the space can be obtained
from the solution of the air flow equations.
3. Simulation
Predictions of thermal sensation and draught risk were
carded out for a standard low energy office room [ 19].
3.1. Test room
The room has dimensions of 4.7 m long, 3.65 m wide and
2.5 m ceiling height (see Fig. 1(a)). It consists of one exter-
nal wall and five internal walls including the floor and ceiling.
The external wall is insulated to a U value (overall thermal
transmission coefficient) of 0.22 W / m 2 K. The U value for
internal walls is 1.70 W / m 2 K. The external wall has a double-
glazed window of width 2.95 m and height 1.3 m with a U
value of 2.9 W / m 2 K. In winter the window is locked and
the room is heated with a recirculating mechanical heating
and ventilation system. In warm seasons, large areas of south-
facing glazing is protected from solar radiation by means of
computer controlled roller blinds fitted outside the office.
3.2. Assumptions
It is assumed that the room is located in the south facade
of the office building and surrounded by identical rooms.
Hence, heat transfer takes place through the external curtain
wall to or from the room but there is no heat gain/loss through
the internal walls. All the room surfaces are assumed to be
grey and have an emissivity of 0.9. The building is designed
to take maximum advantage of natural lighting and ventila-
tion in summer by unlocking the windows. In this study,
75
however, for the purpose of simulation, it is assumed that the
window is closed and the room is ventilated by a displacement
ventilation system in the summer season. This is achieved by
introducing cool air horizontally from a diffuser installed on
one of the walls. The effective area of the diffuser, unless
specified otherwise, is taken to be 0.12 m 2. The room air exits
through an extract duct installed on the rear wall (opposite
to the curtain wall). No air is recirculated since in normal
(3)
practice displacement ventilation is applied as a full fresh air
system [2]. As the incoming air stream for displacement
ventilation is usually characterized by low velocities and tur-
bulence levels, the supply air velocity of 0.2 m/s (air flow
rate of 24 I/s) is designated as a standard value and the
turbulence intensity of supply air is taken to be 10%. The
supply air temperature ranges from 18 to 22 °(2 and relative
humidity varies between 62% and 80% so that the supply air
is at a constant dew point. The outdoor air temperature is
assumed 30 °1:2and the wind speed 3 m/s normal to the south
(4) facade, which are required for calculating the room surface
transfer.
The office is occupied by one person, seated by a desk and
1.2 m away from the window (calculated from the mid-point
of the occupant) as a standard position for simulation. The
simulated occupant generates metabolic heat of 70 W / ( m 2
skin area) of which 30% is considered to be latent heat. The
moisture production rate by the occupant is estimated from
the amount of latent heat and this is assumed to be a source
at a grid point near the head level. The occupant wears
clothes equivalent to a clothing level of 0.5 clo ( 1.0 clo =
0.155 m2K/W).
3.3. Results
In all 14 simulations were performed for different supply
air conditions. The conditions of supply air and locations of
the air diffuser and occupant are given in Table I. Figs. 1 and
2 show the predicted air flow patterns, temperature, thermal
sensation and draught risk on a vertical plane in the office for
two of the cases, one with air supplied from the rear wall near
the floor at a velocity of 0.2 m/s and a temperature of 18 °C
(Case l) and the other for the diffuser under the window
with the same supply air velocity and temperature (Case 6).
As indicated by the velocity vectors in the figures, the supply
air spreads over the floor and after reaching the occupant air
then moves upwards due to thermal buoyancy. Room air is
nearly stagnant (air velocity <0.05 m/s) in the occupied
zone (from the floor to 1.8 m high) except for the areas in
the supply air stream and in the vicinity of thermal buoyancy
sources (occupant and window). The vertical temperature
stratification can be observed in Figs. 1 (b) and 2(b) but the
stratification is not large because the internal heat source
(only one occupant's metabolic heat) and the heat gain
through the window with external shading are small. The
mean radiant temperature is high near the window. Apart
from this area, the variation in the mean radiant temperature
76 G. Gan / Energy and Buildings 23 (1995) 73--81

Wir'~dow~," , ~ " T ~ , ~ . . . - ~

~ - ~ . ~ , ~ , .~-.~,,~ ~>-~,~,

~__/ . . . . " "~'¢.... ,"*~l~,/<~'~.'~'-,Supplyd i f f u s e r " ~ L ,,"~...,, [ ~,,"

(a) Air vMoclty on three vertlcld secUonl (b) Isothmma ('C) on • v~UCed plane (c) Melm rIdInt temper•lure (*C) on • vertJcII pllmi

,e

(d) Iso-PMVs on I vertical plane (e) Iso-PPD8 1%) on a vertical plane If) IIO-PD* (%1 on • vertical p~ane

Fig. 1. Predicted air flow pattern, temperature,thermal sensation and draughtrisk in the office with air diffuser on the rearwall.
Sc :h wOI •

E: I~ct ' u ~, a. t, ~.
',

i , J

North woll
(I) /dr vek~ty on three vertical sections (b) IIotherm~ ('C) On -, vertlc~ I~lme (c) Mean radiant temperature ('C) on * vectlc=l i~me

u ~ a,

(d) IIo-PMVI On • vertical plane (I) Iso-PPDI (%) on • vertical plane If) Iso-PDs I%1 on • v•rUcll plane

Fig. 2. Predicted air flow patterns, temperature,thermalsensation and draughtrisk in the office with air diffuser on the curtainwall.

with space is small (Figs. l (c) and 2 ( c ) ) largely due to the between the diffuser and occupant. This is discussed in detail
external shading. The room thermal environment is in general below.
acceptable. However, the area near the window is warm
whereas the area along the supply air stream is cold (seen
from the PMV contours in Figs. 1 (d) and 2(d) ); the potential
draught risk also exists along the air stream (Figs. 1 (f) and 4. Discussion
2(f)).
Between these two cases, Case 1 produces a better thermal According to the ISO comfort standard [6], P P D should
environment for the occupant since there is no thermal dis- be lower than 10% for thermal comfort. The comfort limit
comfort close to the occupant with regard to thermal sensation for draught ( P D ) is 15% [5]. In order to analyze the causes
or draught. In Case 6 some discomfort due to either cold of thermal discomfort in the room, two levels of comfort
thermal sensation or draught or both around the lower part of requirements ( 10% and 15%) for P P D and P D are adopted
the occupant is predicted because of the reduced distance for defining the following terms:
 G. Gan / Energy and Buildings 23 (1995) 73--81 77

Table I area where draught is most likely to be present. The thermal

Conditions of supply air and locations of diffuser and occupant
environment in a displacement-ventilated office is often char-
Case Supply air Location
acterized by temperature stratification such that the air tem-
perature at head level is higher than that at foot level. If
Velocity Temp. r.h. Diffuser Occupant average values of air temperature and velocity for all the grid
(m/s) (°C) (%) points around the simulated human body were used, the pre-
dicted draught risk would be negligible and the local thermal
! 0.2 18 80 rear wall 1.2 m from
window
discomfort could not be adequately assessed. For example,
2 0.2 20 71 rear wall 1.2 m from for Case 8 which has the highest predicted discomfort level
window near the feet, the predicted draught risk is only 6.9% using
3 0.2 18 80 curtain wall mid room length the average values of air temperature, mean velocity and
4 0.1 18 80 curtain wall 1.2 m from
turbulence intensity around the whole body.
window
5 0.15 18 80 curtain wall 1.2 m from
Table 2 presents the predicted thermal discomfort around
window the occupant's legs and feet. The total grid points surrounding
6 0.2 18 80 curtain 1.2 m from the legs and feet are 144. A perusal of the table reveals that
wall window local thermal discomfort often arises simultaneously as a
7 0.25 18 80 curtain wall 1.2 m from
result of cold thermal sensation and draught and that, contrary
window
8 0.3 18 80 curtain wall 1.2 m from
to the common belief, the incidence of thermal discomfort at
window low supply air temperatures is caused mostly by the cold
9• 0.3 18 80 curtain wall 1.2 m from thermal sensation rather than the draught.
window
10 0.2 19 75 curtain wall 1.2 m from
4.1. Effect of the distance between diffuser and occupant
window
1i 0.2 20 71 curtain wall 1.2 m from
window It can be seen from Table 2 that when air is supplied from
12 0.2 21 66 curtain wall 1.2 m from the rear wall at 0.2 m/s and 18 °C or above and the occupant
window is over 3 m away from the supply diffuser (Cases 1 and 2),
13 0.2 22 62 curtain wall 1.2 m from
there is no risk of local thermal discomfort around the occu-
window
14 0.1 20 71 curtain wall 1.2 m from
pant either due to cold thermal sensation or draught. This is
window the result of decreasing momentum and increasing tempera-
ture as the supply air diffuses along the floor such that the
• Reduced size of the supply opening such that the air flow rate is the same fresh air reaches a thermally acceptable level near the occu-
as that for Case 6 (standard case).
pant. As the distance between the occupant and diffuser is
reduced, the warmth and movement of fresh air experienced
N,P'm by the occupant deviate from the optimum conditions. Thus,
q,== [~(~,- a) (5) when the diffuser (installed under the window) is only 1.2
i-!
m away from the occupant (Cases 4-14), some thermal dis-
comfort arises depending on the supply air velocity and tem-
'~-- I2 ('~'- o0 perature, which is discussed separately below. For the same
i-!
location of the diffuser, the discomfort can be reduced or
with PPD> PD for qc:=PPD (6a) eliminated if the occupant moves away from the window. For
or with P D > P P D for qc--PD (6b) example, for supply air at 18 °C and 0.2 m/s, when the
occupant is assumed to sit at the mid room length, the local
where N ~ is the number of grid points around the occupant's thermal discomfort becomes much less a problem (Case 3).
legs and feet where the discomfort level q¢ ( ---PPD or PD) The discomfort grid points for thermal sensation are reduced
is predicted to exceed ~% (or-- 10 or 15); q¢. is the predicted from 59 (for Case 6) to 3 (for Case 3) and, more signifi-
cumulative discomfort level q¢ exceeding ,~%; N~. is the cantly, the values for PP--P~Ioand ff-Dtoare less than 2% above
number of grid points around the legs and feet where the the comfort limit of 10% (zero for both PPD~s and PD~s).
discomfort level if' is predicted to exceed a% and where Hence, draught will not be perceived under the normal com-
PPD > PD for 1/'= PPD or PD > PPD for ~ = PD; ~ is the fort criterion (PD= 15%).
mean of the predicted cumulative discomfort level corre-
sponding to N,k,. For example, when qI=PPD and a = 10, 4.2. Effect of supply air velocity
then ~,, = PPDm and N~,a = Nm,mo. Similarly, when ~ = PD
with P D > P P D and ce=15, then ~,,=P-'-Dls and The effect of supply air velocity on the variations of grid
N,/,,, = Nk"fits. points where discomfort occurs is shown in Fig. 3. Consider
The grid points around the occupant's legs and feet were that the same magnitude of comfort requirement applies to
chosen for assessing the discomfort level because this is the both thermal sensation and draught risk, namely PPD = PD.
78 G. Gan / Energy and Buildings 23 (1995) 73-81

For a given supply air temperature, e.g. 18 °C, the likelihood 120
of local discomfort due to either cold thermal sensation or -----o---- Nppdl0
100
draught increases with the increase of air velocity. However,
the proportion of the discomfort due to draught decreases as
the supply air velocity increases (see also Table 2 for Cases
4-8). For P P D = P D = 10%, the risk of draught is generally
much smaller than that of cold thermal sensation except for
a supply air velocity of 0.1 m/s, i.e. Np--b--~to>> Nh--Blo. For 40 ."'
PPD = P D = 15%, the draught risk is almost negligible com-
20 ~ _ . . . . . a - - "
pared to the cold thermal discomfort, i.e. N-f-B~s/N-F~15 = O.
Moreover, the mean value for the discomfort due to draught 0 I I I

exceeding the requirement is generally smaller than the cor- O. 10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
responding value for the cold thermal sensation, i.e. Air velocity 0n/s)
PPDto > PDto and PPD~5 > PD~5. In other words, when there Fig. 3. Effect of supply air velocity on the variation of discomfort grid points.
is a risk of draught, the risk of the local discomfort associated
with cold thermal sensation will be greater. Therefore, cold air velocity than is draught at such low supply air tempera-
thermal sensation is the principal cause of local thermal dis- tures. The effect of air velocity and temperature on P P D and
comfort in offices with displacement ventilation at low supply PD is illustrated in Fig. 4. This is produced using the com-
air temperatures. In order to lessen the risk of draught, empha- bination of the following predicted environmental data for
sis should be placed on securing thermal comfort for all parts the area surrounding the legs and feet:
of a human body.
The reason for the above phenomena can be explained by turbulence intensity = 2 0 % ;
the fact that thermal sensation is in theory more sensitive to vapour pressure = 1700 Pa;

Table 2
Predicted thermal discomfort around the occupant's legs and feet

Case Npvmo NpD,o Npvm5 NED,5 PPDIo PDlo PPDI5 PDt5

I 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3 3 7 0 0 4.5 8.7 0.0 0.0
4 4 12 1 0 10.3 23.8 2.5 0.0
5 36 28 16 7 212.6 92.1 94.8 14.5
6 59 41 42 17 690.9 202.6 436.5 65.9
7 83 48 60 27 1325.6 338.0 974.1 143.7
8 104 57 76 42 2007.5 492.4 1560.1 249.8
9 70 46 49 23 1043.8 302.8 745.6 119.0
10 48 37 29 14 409.6 163.7 213.9 42.2
11 34 34 17 10 188.4 128.9 75.4 27.9
12 17 27 5 7 60.8 91.2 16.0 14.3
13 4 21 1 4 9.7 61.3 0.3 4.7
14 0 5 0 0 0.0 6.6 0.0 0.0
m m

Case N'F~1o N-~lo N~"~j5 N-~15 PPDIo PDlo PPDIs PDt5

I 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
3 3 4 0 0 ! .5 1.2 0.0 0.0
4 1 11 1 0 7.5 1.7 2.5 0.0
5 28 i1 15 3 7.0 2.7 6.3 2.5
6 56 4 41 2 12.1 5.2 10.5 3.8
7 81 2 59 I 16.2 6.5 16.4 6.0
8 103 1 75 1 19.4 7. I 20.8 2.1
9 68 4 48 1 15.2 3.9 15.5 4.3
10 45 5 27 3 8.7 6.2 7.7 4.0
11 23 18 14 4 6.9 3.5 5.2 3.3
12 10 21 5 3 5.1 2.7 3.2 2.2
13 0 21 0 4 0.0 2.9 0.0 4.2
14 0 5 0 0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.0

Note: total number of grid points around the legs and feet= 144.
 G. Gan / Energy and Buildings 23 (1995) 73-81
40
-=--O'-- PPD rifT;n=22.1degC&Tnar=2_'~.Tdeg.C
--O'- PD fir Ta = 22.1 deg.C& Tmr= 23.7deg.C
30 ........ PPDftr Ta = 22.1deg.C& Tnlr= 24.3deg.C
~ PPD fi~Ta=23.1dcg.C&Tmr=243deg.C~ "*"*o':
t'~ .... PD forTa=23.1deg.C& Tmr=243&g.C"u s.,'*'~"~';
"O 20
. . . . . . . . . ~-J. J,
o q¢ , .- , • ,
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Air velocity (m/s)
Fig. 4. Effect of supply air velocity on thermal discomfort at two temperature
levels.
air temperature (To) = 22. ] °C for Case 6;
mean radiant temperature liT,,,) = 23.7 °C for Case 6;
Ta = 23.1 °C and Tr~ = 24.2; °C for Case 11;
and the same personal parameters for P P D as before, namely,
metabolic rate 1.2 met (70 W/m 2) and clothing level 0.5 clo.
As seen from Fig. 4, at air temperature 22.1 °C and mean
radiant temperature 23.7 "C (corresponding to supply air
temperature 18 °C for Cast: 6) the thermal sensation level is
much more sensitive to air velocity than the draught risk.
Thermal comfort could not be achieved at this temperature at
velocities higher than 0.1 m / s for a comfort requirement of
10%. At the air temperature of 23.1 °C and mean radiant
temperature of 24.3 °C (corresponding to supply air temper-
ature 20 °C for Case 11), the draught risk becomes more
sensitive to air velocity than does the thermal sensation.
Fig. 4 also illustrates the sensitivity of P P D and P D to
mean radiant temperature. Under the environmental condi-
tions for Case 6, the discomfort due to draught is less than
that due to cold thermal sensation for air velocities between
0.05 and 0.3 m/s. However, at the same air temperature as
that for Case 6 (22.1 °C) but at a mean radiant temperature
of 24.3 °C (the value for Case I 1), draught is more likely the
cause of thermal discomfort than is cold thermal sensation
when the air velocity is higher than 0.15 m/s. Hence, it is
vital to calculate the mean radiant temperature accurately for
predicting thermal sensation levels and for identifying the
principal cause of local thermal discomfort. The latter is
important from the viewpoint of building design and control
systems for changing designs or adjusting appropriate para-
meters in order to achieve a comfortable indoor thermal envi-
ronment.
Case 4 to Case 8 discussed above are predicted with the
same supply opening area so that the total air flow rate
increases linearly with the supply air velocity. Case 9 is pre-
dicted with a reduced supply opening area such that the air
flow rate remains the same as that for Case 6 (standard flow
rate). By comparing Case 6 with Case 9 it is seen that, for a
79
given air flow rate, supplying air at a lower velocity with a
larger opening area (Case 6) reduces the possibility of cold
thermal discomfort.
4.3. Effect o f supply air temperature
Fig. 5 shows the effect of supply air temperature on the
predicted thermal discomfort from the data for Cases 10-13
together with Case 6. It indicates that both cold thermal sen-
sation and draught risk decrease with the increase of supply
air temperature from 18 to 22 °C. However, the rate of
decrease in draught risk is smaller than that in thermal sen-
, sation because the draught risk is not very sensitive to air
0.25 0.30 temperature at low levels. This can be seen more clearly from
Fig. 4 for two air temperature levels. At air velocity 0.2 m /
s, when the supply air temperature is raised from 18 °C (cor-
responding to Ta = 22.1 °C and Tr~ = 23.7 °C) to 20 °C (cor-
responding to To=23.1 °C and Tm,=24.3 °C), P P D is
reduced by over 7% whereas the reduction in P D is less than
2%. Also, at air temperature 18 °C there are 59 grid points
where PPD is above 10% compared to 41 points for draught
(see Table 2). The number of grid points is reduced to 4 for
thermal sensation but only to 21 for draught at air temperature
22 °C. Thus, when the air temperature level is raised, draught
becomes a major cause for local thermal discomfort at 10%
level. Even so, for PPD = PD = 15%, the cold thermal sen-
sation is still the main source of thermal discomfort for supply
air temperatures not higher than 20 °C. This is because at the
supply air velocity of 0.2 m / s when draught is predicted the
risk is normally not far above 10% whereas the cold discom-
fort associated with thermal sensation is usually severe at
such low supply temperatures (18-20 °C) with summer
clothing (0.5 clo). As again seen from Table 2, the numbers
of discomfort grid points where P P D is greater than P D are
much higher than the corresponding values where
P D is greater than PPD, i.e. NFe--Bm>>N~--Bm and
Np--p-6~5>> N~--B]5. However, at supply air temperature 22 °C,
or presumably above, the cold thermal discomfort (excluding
warm discomfort) is predominantly due to draught at the
comfort level of 10% and 15%. Therefore, at supply air veloc-
60
I ~ ,---o--- NpDdi0
50 -I~ 1 ~ --o.- NixllO
'° t
,~ 30 \--._\..--,- " ~ ~
O,..,
Z
10
0
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Air lennperalure(degC')
Fig. 5. Effect of supply air temperature on the variation of discomfort grid
points.
80 G. Gan / Energy and Buildings 23 (1995) 73-81
ity 0.2 m/s thermal discomfort is largely due to cold feeling
of thermal sensation at supply air temperatures below 20 °C
whereas the cold (not warm) discomfort is predominantly
caused by draught above this temperature level.
4.4. Implications
According to the above analysis, the frequently reported
complaints of draught at low temperatures could be the result
of confusion of thermal perception in real life between ther-
mal sensation and draught. Besides, the draught risk model
is considered to overestimate the draught at foot level [8]
because the feet and legs are relatively insensitive to draught
[20]. Furthermore, the draught risk limit is too restrictive on
the air movement preference [9]. The implications are that
the draught risk would be smaller and the cold discomfort
associated with thermal sensation could even be more signif-
icant than predicted.
In the cases investigated, at supply air velocity 0.2 m/s
and forPD = 15%, out of 144 points the number of grid points
for thermal discomfort due to draught is from 17 at supply
air temperature 18 °C to 4 at 22 °C. If the cold discomfort
associated with thermal sensation can be eliminated by
increasing the local radiant temperature for example, the
draught feeling could be reduced considerably, say at the
standard supply air temperature (18 °C) and velocity (0.2
m/s), from 59 grid points (the cold thermal sensation which
would have been misinterpreted as draught) to 17 (the pre-
dicted draught risk) or even less (because of overestimation
of the draught risk at foot level). Fanger [ 18 ] considered the
sensation of draught to be a function of the general thermal
state of the human body. Therefore, if certain measures are
taken so that the thermal sensation at foot level is at or above
the thermal neutrality, the local cooling due to air movement
could be felt as a pleasant stimulus rather than the unpleasant
draught.
One of such measures is the optimization of supply air
conditions. Even at the distance between the diffuser and
occupant of 1.2 m, the cold discomfort can be avoided by
decreasing the supply air velocity and/or increasing the sup-
ply air temperature. For example, at supply air velocity 0.1
m / s and air temperature 20 °C ( Case 14), the discomfort due
to cold thermal sensation is eliminated and the draught risk
is reduced to 5 grid points. The draught level at all these five
grid points is only slightly above 10% with a maximum of
12.6%. If one takes 15% as the comfort limit for draught,
then the local thermal discomfort for cold thermal sensation
and draught can be ignored. In fact, at these supply air tem-
perature, mean velocity and turbulence, the predicted draught
risk in front of the diffuser is 7.3%. The draught near the
occupant is mainly due to buoyancy-induced air movement
which causes velocity to exceed that of supply air 0.1 m/s.
Although further increasing the supply air temperature can
reduce the draught to within the 10% limit, it may incur warm
discomfort for thermal sensation unless the supply air flow
rate is increased appropriately by using a diffuser with a larger
opening for example.
5. Conclusions
A method for predicting the thermal comfort and draught
risk in offices is described. The numerical predictions have
shown that common complaints of local thermal discomfort
in offices with low turbulent air flow such as displacement
ventilation often result from unsatisfactory thermal sensation
rather than draught itself or alone. This is in theory true
especially at the lower end of commonly quoted supply air
temperatures between 18 and 20 °C.
It is shown that decreasing supply air velocity or increasing
supply air temperature reduces the potential cold thermal
discomfort. It is also shown that optimal supply air conditions
of a displacement system vary with the distance between the
occupant and air diffuser besides cooling load and load dis-
tribution. The numerical method can be used for optimizing
the supply air conditions.
This study has highlighted the importance of accurate cal-
culation of mean radiant temperature for predicting thermal
comfort levels and for identifying the principal cause of local
thermal discomfort between cold thermal sensation and
draught so that appropriate preventative measures can be
taken.
It will be very useful to conduct laboratory or field tests in
displacement-ventilated buildings on the reduction of draught
complaints by avoiding the local discomfort due to cold ther-
mal sensation using a radiant temperature control system for
instance.
References
[ 1] P. Haddlesey, An upward trend, HAC (July) (1993) 14-17.
[2] P. Jackman, Displacement ventilation, Proc. CIBSE National Conf.,
Canterbury, UK, 7-9Apr. 1991, pp. 364-380.
[3] M.E.A. Holmgren, Displacement ventilation in a Swedish foundry, in
R.T. Hughes, H.D. Goodfellow and G.S. Rajhans (eds.), Ventilation
"91: Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. Ventilation for Contaminant Control,
Cincinnati, OH, USA, 16-20 Sept. 1991, ACGIH, Cincinnati, OH,
1993, pp. 405-412.
[4] D.P. Wyon and M. Sandberg, Thermal manikin prediction of
discomfort due to displacement ventilation, ASHRAE Trans., 96 ( 1)
(1990) 67-75.
[5] A.K. Melikov, G. Langkilde and B. Derbiszewski, Airflow
characteristics in the occupied zone of rooms with displacement
ventiinfion, ASHRAE Trans., 96 (1) (1990) 555-563.
[6] Moderate thermal environments - - determination of PMV and PPD
indices and specification of the conditions for thermal comfort, ISO
7730, International Standards Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland,
1984.
[7l P.O. Fnnger and N.K. Christenscn, Perception of draught in ventilated
spaces, Ergonomics, 29 (2) (1986) 215-235.
[8l P.O. Fanger, A.K. Melikov, H. Hanzawa and J. Ring, Air turbulence
and sensation of&aught, Energy Build, 12 (1988) 21-39.
 G. Gan / Energy and Buildings 23 (1995) 73-81
[9] M. Fountain, E. Arens, R. de Dear, F. Bauman and K. Miura, Locally
controlled air movement pnfferred in warm isothermal environemnts,
ASHRAE Trans., 100 (2) (1994).
[ 10] M. Koschenz, Simulation of displacement ventilation and radiative
cooling, Energy Impact of Ventilation and Air Infiltration: Proc. 14th
AIVC Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, 21-23 Sept. 1993, pp. 131-
139.
[ 11] Q. Chen and J. van der Kooi, A methodology for indoor airflow
computations and energy analysis for a displacement ventilation
system, Energy Build., 14 (4) (1990) 259-271.
[12] Z. Jiang, Q. Chen and A. Moser, Comparison of displacement and
mixing diffusers, indoorAi,,, 2 (1992) 168-179.
[ 13] V. Shankar, L. Davidson and E. Olsson, Ventilation by displacement:
calculation of the flow in ~ertical plumes, Roomvent '92: Proc. 3rd
Int. Conf. Air Distribution in Rooms, Aalborg, Denmark, 2-4 Sept.
1992, Vol. 1, pp. 59-73.
81
[ 14] Q. Chen, T.G. Hoornstra and J. van der Kooi, Energy analysis of
buildings with different air supply and exhaust systems, ASHRAE
Trans., 96(1) (1990) 344-356.
[15]G. Gan, Evaluation of room air distribution systems using
computational fluid dynamics, Energy and Buildings, 23 (1995) 83-
93.
[ 16] H.B. Awbi and G. Gan, Predicting air flow and thermal comfort in
offices, ASHRAEJ., 36 (2) (1994) 17-21.
[17] G. Gan, Numerical method for a full assessment of indoor thermal
comfort, lndoor Air, 4 (1994) 154-168.
[18] P.O. Fanger, Thermal C o m f o r t - Analysis and Applications in
Environmental Engineering, Robert E. Krieger, Florida, 1982.
[ 19] D.J. Leighton and A.A. Pinney, A set of standard office descriptions
for use in modelling studies, BEPAC Teclt Note 90/5, Building
Environmental Performance Analysis Club, UK, 1990.
[20] D.A. Mclntyre, Indoor Climate, Applied Science, London, 1980.