BUILD SIMUL

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12273-021-0814-7

Comparison study of thermal comfort and energy saving under eight

different ventilation modes for space heating

Research Article
Xiangfei Kong1, Yufan Chang1, Nana Li1, Han Li1 (), Wei Li2

1. School of Energy and Environmental Engineering, Hebei University of Technology, Tianjin 300401, China
2. North China Municipal Engineering Design & Research Institute Co., Ltd., Tianjin 300110, China

Abstract Keywords
The relative location of inlets and outlets plays an important role in thermal comfort and energy non-uniform ventilation;
conservation under ventilation modes for the building non-uniform indoor environment. Hence, a air terminal positions;
comparison study of thermal comfort and energy efficiency of eight widely-used ventilation thermal comfort;
modes for space heating was conducted in this study. Both subjective experiments and verified energy saving;
subjective experiment
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models were carried out. In the subjective experiments, the
vote of local thermal sensation (LTS), overall thermal sensation (OTS) and draft sensation were
Article History
collected. In the CFD simulations, RNG k-ε model was applied to compare and analyze the air
Received: 24 December 2020
temperature field, turbulence intensity, ventilation effectiveness and air diffusion performance
Revised: 21 April 2021
index (ADPI). The thermal comfort results showed that the air inlets are better located at the
Accepted: 30 May 2021
mid-height level of a wall, and the outlets are located at the same or higher height. While the
results of the energy efficiency suggested that the inlets are better installed at the lower level of a © Tsinghua University Press and
wall, and the outlets should be placed far from the inlets. Since the results were conflict, the Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany,
economic–comfort ratio was introduced to calculate and compare the thermal comfort and part of Springer Nature 2021
energy efficiency simultaneously. The final results concluded that it can achieve excellent thermal
comfort performance without sacrificing energy efficiency when the inlets are at the height of
1.2 m of the front wall, and the outlets are at 1.2 m height of the back wall. Hence it is the best
choice for the winter air distribution in northern China. This study can offer a guideline for the air
terminal arrangements in non-uniform ventilation under heating mode.

1 Introduction sumption (Tsinghua University Building Energy Research

Building Thermal, Lighting,

Center 2014). Moreover, according to the China building

and Acoustics Modeling

Over the last decades, the rapid development of society
results in severe deterioration of the environment. The U.S.
government reported that compared with 2015, the world
energy consumption will be produced 28% more by 2040
(EIA 2019). China now has become the world’s second
largest country in building energy consumption (Eom et al.
2012), with building sector accounting for approximately
41% of the total energy (Huang 2014). As China’s
urbanization process accelerates, the volumes of buildings
continue growing rapidly (Qiao and Liu 2020). The energy
consumption caused by buildings is doomed to increase.
Among them, the air conditioning cost of buildings
approximately accounts for 47% of the total energy con-
energy research report, heating alone in northern China
has cost 25% of the total energy in 2019. In addition, since
people spend approximately 90% of their time indoor
(Kamaruzzaman and Sabrani 2011; Dong et al. 2018), the
uncomfortable indoor environment would not only affect
their working efficiency but also develop building related
illness, such as tight related-syndrome (TRS) and sick
building syndrome (SBS) (Norbäck 2009; Fan and Ito 2014).
Northern China, a region where district heating is
implemented in winter, the radiant floor heating and radiators
are popular used as heating devices currently (Zhang et al.
2017; Tahersima and Tikalsky 2018). However, the mentioned
heating methods cannot ameliorate the indoor air quality

E-mail: lihan18113@hebut.edu.cn
2 Kong et al. / Building Simulation
due to the lack of fresh air and air movement. The residents
need to open the windows every now and then to obtain
enough fresh air, thus resulting in large amount of high-
concentration air pollutants entering the room, which
seriously threatens the residents’ health (Wilkinson 1999;
Wang et al. 2018). Meanwhile, to improve the outdoor
environment during the heating season, coal-to-electricity
clean heating project is also vigorously promoted in northern
China. Mechanical ventilation, which uses electricity and can
provide enough fresh air and air movement simultaneously,
is gaining more and more attention (Chen and Chen 2019).
Therefore, it is imperative to find a proper mechanical
ventilation mode that possesses the characteristics of
better indoor air quality as well as energy-saving for space
heating.
At present, mechanical ventilation systems are normally
divided into two categories, namely fully mixing system
and non-uniform system (i.e., displacement ventilation,
stratum ventilation, and personalized ventilation) (Cao et
al. 2014). Nowadays, fully mixing ventilation is the most
popular ventilation mode, which is committed to creating a
uniform environment for the entire room (Ahn et al. 2018).
However, in practical application, only limited space with
good thermal comfort requirement is occupied (Yang et al.
2019). Hence, mixing ventilation is inevitable to cause
unnecessarily energy waste. Thence, non-uniform ventilation
is triggered more and more focus due to its energy-saving
and high-efficiency (Sekhar and Zheng 2018; Ai et al. 2019).
Studies show that the displacement ventilation and stratum
ventilation can realize energy-saving of 41.72% and 74.71%
respectively relative to the mixing ventilation (Lin et al.
2011). Under the background of low-carbon economy, it
is a trend of transforming the traditional fully mixing
ventilation system into non-uniform ventilation systems
(Shao et al. 2020). Because the non-uniform ventilation only
focuses on organizing airflow into target area, the airflow
pattern under non-uniform ventilation modes has different
design methods compared with mixing ventilation (Melikov
et al. 2002). With the development of the non-uniform
ventilation, it is found that better thermal comfort can be
achieved with proper design (Kong et al. 2019).
For non-uniform ventilation methods, airflow charac-
teristics and thermal comfort are not only affected by the
supply air temperature and supply air velocity, but also
influenced by the positions of inlets and outlets (Lau and
Chen 2007). Awad et al. (2008) studied the outlet positions
on the influence of indoor airflow patterns and velocity.
The research results showed that the thermal stratification
layers were significantly affected by the outlet positions.
Lin et al. (2005) investigated the air inlet positions on
design and performance of the displacement ventilation via
CFD simulation, and the numerical results indicated that
the air inlet is better located close to the center of the room.
Kuo and Chung (1999) pointed out that better indoor
thermal comfort can be achieved with longer supply air
throw in the occupied zone by simulating different relative
positions of supply and exhaust air terminals. Fong et al.
(2015) compared mixing ventilation, displacement ventilation,
and stratum ventilation with a total of six exhaust positions
in a typical classroom. The research results concluded that
the thermal comfort performance presents better when
exhausts are located on the same level of the opposite wall.
The researches so far are more focused on multiple
outlets positions under one non-uniform ventilation mode
(Yao and Lin 2014; Qin and Lu 2021). The existing non-
uniform ventilation modes have not been comprehensively
compared, and the effect of the relative positions of inlet
and outlet is not considered. Moreover, above studies mainly
pay attention to summer cooling applications, there is a lack
of research on the location of the air inlets and outlets
positions for non-uniform ventilation for winter heating.
With the expansion of coal-to-electricity projects in northern
China, mechanical ventilation for space heating has become
a trend. Non-uniform ventilations show outstanding
energy-saving performance (Lee et al. 2013) and better
indoor thermal comfort (Li et al. 2020), thus promising
winter applications (Kong et al. 2020) by overcoming the
shortcomings of conventional ventilations. Therefore, it is of
great significance to investigate the non-uniform ventilation
performance for winter heating.
In addition, most studies focus on the effect on thermal
comfort with less considering the effect on the energy
efficiency (Cheng et al. 2015). Moreover, most of the previous
research conclusions are obtained by CFD simulation
(Almesri and Awbi 2011), the research using the more
realistic method of subjective experiments are relatively
lacking. Therefore, in this study, both the indoor thermal
comfort and energy-saving performance under non-uniform
ventilation with different relative positions of inlets and
outlets were discussed. Both verified CFD simulations
and subjective experiments are conducted. The conclusions
obtained in this study can help to realize reasonable
non-uniform ventilation for space heating by considering
thermal comfort and energy saving simultaneously.
2 Methodology
2.1 Study cases
To explore the reasonable air distribution method that can
efficiently build a thermal comfort indoor environment,
subjective experiments and verified CFD models were
introduced. Eight non-uniform ventilation methods were
selected as the research cases, which included 2 inlet positions
Kong et al. / Building Simulation
and 5 outlet positions. The inlets were located mid-height
of 1.2 m (abbreviated as S-1.2) and lower level of 0.5 m
(abbreviated as S-0.5) on the front wall. Due to the positive
thermal buoyancy, ceiling level of the inlet is not suitable
applied in the winter, for warm air hardly falls down to the
occupied zone (0.1–1.4 m); thus it is not discussed in this
study. As for the outlet positions, 2 outlets were located on
the same wall with the inlets. One was at the level of 1.2 m
(abbreviated as SA-1.2), and the other was at the level of
0.5 m (abbreviated as SA-0.5). 2 outlets were located on
the opposite wall compared with the inlets. One was at
1.2 m (abbreviated as OP-1.2), and the other was at 0.5 m
(abbreviated as OP-0.5). The last one was on the ceiling
(abbreviated as CE). The corresponding locations of outlets
and inlets under eight study cases are presented in Figure 1.
2.2 Subjective experiment
Subjective experiments are carried out in an experimental
room which is located in Tianjin, a city in the cold area
of China, and has the dimensions of 6 m (length) × 4 m
(width) × 3.5 m (height). This experimental room equipped
with multiple positions of air terminals. Every air terminal
can be used as inlet or outlet. Different air distribution
methods can be achieved via switching on or off of valves.
48 young students (24 males and 24 females) with an
average age of 21 participated in the experiments. They
were all non-smokers, and had no chronic and allergic
skin diseases. They had lived in Tianjin for at least 3 years.
The average height and weight values of the students were
Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of eight study cases
3
170.3 cm and 68.2 kg, respectively. Their body mass indexes
(BMI) were all within the recommended range of 18.5 to
24.9. They were required not drinking alcohol or staying
up a day before the experiment. During the subjective
experiments, the supply air temperature was maintained at
27 °C, and the air change rate was kept at 7 ACH. The
indoor air temperature and velocity were monitored
throughout the whole procedure.
In the experiment, occupants were exposed to these
eight thermal environments in sequence. As shown in
Figure 2, 48 occupants were divided into four groups and
each group contains 6 males and 6 females. Every research
thermal environment required four trials with all four
groups of occupants. During the experiments, subjects were
asked to wear typical winter clothes with a thermal resistance
of 1.2 clo, and required to sit in the room with reading or
writing. The activity level was around 1.0 met.
To collect the data of occupants’ response, a questionnaire
containing overall thermal sensation (OTS), local thermal
sensation (LTS) and draft sensation was distributed to
the occupants. ASHRAE 7-point scale (−3 cold, −2 cool, −1
slightly cool, 0 neutral, +1 slightly warm, +2 warm and +3
hot) was used to evaluate the occupants’ OTS and LTS
(forehead, check, neck, chest, arms, hands, legs and feet).
A 4-point scale index (no draft, slightly draft, clearly draft
and strongly draft) was used to evaluate the draft sensation.
After experiencing 30 min of trial, they were required to
finish the questionnaire.
2.3 CFD simulation
2.3.1 Model and boundary conditions
To access the air temperature field and air velocity field of
the research ventilation modes, CFD simulation is introduced
in this study. Although experimental measurements could
Fig. 2 Layout of the indoor occupants for subjective experiment
4 Kong et al. / Building Simulation

provide the most realistic data, it is rather time-consuming. by cuboid of this dimension has been widely used in CFD
Meanwhile, due to the limitation of the number of simulations (Tian et al. 2011; Cheng and Lin 2015). Lamps
measuring points, it is impossible to know the velocity and are simplified as cuboid as well with dimensions of 0.9 m
temperature field at any random point of the room. After (length) × 0.2 m (width) × 0.1 m (thickness). The CFD
years of development of CFD technology, CFD simulations model is shown in Figure 3. As for the boundary conditions,
can detailed predict indoor airflows with high reliability the velocity–inlet and outflow boundary conditions are
(Haghshenaskashani et al. 2018; Yin et al. 2020). In addition, applied for the air inlets and air outlets, respectively. The
it is proven to be used in non-uniform thermal environment walls are defined to have constant temperature. As for the
assessment (Taghinia et al. 2015; Yan and Li 2020). Hence, heat sources, both of the occupants and lights are defined
CFD simulations are implemented in the same geometry as to have constant heat flux. The specific boundary conditions
the experimental room where subjective experiments are are listed in Table 1.
performed. According to the relative research, RNG k-ε In aims to guarantee the accuracy of the model, the grid
model is better fitting turbulent airflows (Chen et al. 2013; independent test is carried out. Case S-0.5, SA-1.2 is used
Yang et al. 2021). Gebremedhin and Wu (2003) found the to conduct the test. In the test, three density levels of
RNG k-ε model is the most appropriate model to simulate hexahedral grids namely coarse, normal and fine are con-
the flow field of the ventilated space compared with the structed. The maximum sizes of X axis for coarse, normal
standard k-ε model, low-Reynolds number k-ε model and and fine are 0.5, 0.04, 0.03, respectively. The corresponding
Reynolds stress model. Hence, RNG k-ε model is applied grid numbers of coarse, normal and fine are 462076,
in this study. General governing equations for the RNG k-ε 2213693 and 4853184, respectively. The results show the
model are as follows: temperature and velocity field predicted by normal grid are
very close to those predicted by fine grid, whose difference
¶ ( ρk ) ¶ ( ρkui ) ¶ é ¶k ù
+ = ê αk μeff ú + Gk + ρε (1) is within 5%, while the difference between the coarse and
¶t ¶xi ¶x j êë ¶x j úû
fine grids is above 20%. Hence, the normal grid is good
¶ ( ρε ) ¶ ( ρεu ) ¶ é ¶ε ù εC1ε
*
ε2
+ = ê αε μeff ú+ Gk - ρC2ε
¶t ¶x i ¶x j êë ¶x j úû K k (2)

where ρ stands for the air density, μt is the turbulent

viscosity, k is the turbulent kinetic energy, ε is the turbulent
dissipation, Gk represent the generation term of k due to the
average velocity gradient. As for the coefficient and constant
of RNG k-ε model, μeff = μ + μt, μt = ρk2Cμ/ε, Cμ = 0.0845,
* η( 1 - η / η0 )
αk = αε =1.39, C1ε =1.42, C1ε º C1ε - , C2ε =1.68,
1 + βη3
k 1 ¶u ¶u j
η = (2Eij ⋅ Eij )1/2 , Eij = ( i + ) , η0 = 4.377, β =
ε 2 ¶x j ¶ x i
0.012, where αk and αε are the corresponding Prandtl values
for k and ε, respectively.
To describe the turbulent flow properties with accuracy
and simplicity, the air in the experimental room is assumed Fig. 3 CFD model
to be steady-state, incompressible, turbulent, and conform
to Boussinesq hypothesis. In the near wall region, a standard Table 1 Boundary conditions
wall function is applied. In order to fix the pressure and Variable Boundary condition Parameter
velocity field, the SIMPLE algorithm is introduced. The Air inlet Uniform velocity inlet 27 °C , 3 m/s
second order upwind discretization scheme is applied to Air outlet Outflow
enhance the accuracy of the model. The air inlets and outlets
Outer wall Constant wall temperature 5.2 °C
are simplified as rectangles. The sided wall-mounted air
Interior wall (next
terminals have the effective area of 0.3 m × 0.3 m, and to corridor)
Constant wall temperature 12.5 °C
the outlet in the ceiling has the effective area of 1.05 m ×
Interior wall Constant wall temperature 16.4 °C
0.55 m. Sedentary occupants are also simplified as cuboid
Lamp Constant heat flux 75 W
with the dimensions of 0.4 m (length) × 0.25 m (width) ×
Occupant Constant heat flux 90 W
1.2 m (height). The method of representing the occupant
Kong et al. / Building Simulation
enough to obtain accurate results, thus is used in this study.
The grid is shown in Figure 4.
2.3.2 Model validation
In this study, the CFD model is validated by objective
experiments, and the validated experiments are carried out
in the room where the subjective experiments implemented.
The layout of the room is shown in Figure 5. Indoor
heat resources are composed of six occupants and two
incandescent lamps. Each occupant is simplified as cuboid
with the dimensions of 0.4 m (length) × 0.25 m (width) ×
1.2 m (height), with a constant heat flux of 90 W. Two
incandescent lamps are both located on the ceiling, and
each lamp has the constant heat flux of 75 W. The primary
return air-conditioning system and variable air volume
(VAV) air-handling unit are installed in the experimental
room. The air temperature and air velocity can be adjusted
through the control panel. To monitor the supply air
temperature and air velocity, the dry-bulb temperature
sensor and air velocity sensor are installed.
During the experiments, the supply air temperature
was maintained at 27 °C, and the air change rate was kept
Fig. 4 Normal grid
Fig. 5 Layout of the experimental room
5
at 7 ACH. Both the parameters were measured and collected
throughout the experiment. As shown in Figure 5, a total
of 9 (L1–L9) measurement plumb lines were distributed
in the room, and each plumb lines had six measuring
points with different altitude (0.1 m, 0.6 m, 1.1 m, 1.4 m,
2.1 m and 2.8 m). The air temperature was measured by
T-thermocouples, whose accuracy is ±0.1 °C in the range
of −200 to 260 °C. The air velocity was measured by Testo
480 hot-line anemomter with an accuracy of ±0.05 m/s in
the range of 0–20 m/s. The error analysis was implemented in
aims of identifying the uncertainty of the measurement.
Since the measurements of the air temperature and air
velocity are all directly measured variables, the error analysis
method proposed by Kline and McClintock (1953) was
adopted. Assuming a variant R, which is a function of multiple
independent variants X1, X2, ..., Xn, R can be expressed as R =
R (X1, X2, ..., Xn), the relative uncertainty can be calculated
by the following formula:
ΔR é n
= ê å i =1(ΔXi / Xi )2 ùú
1/2
(3)
R ë û
The calculating results show the measurement accuracies
of the air temperature and air velocity are 0.08% and 0.25%,
respectively.
Case S-1.2, CE is used to do the validated experiments,
the overall average temperature data and velocity data are
compared to get access the accuracy of the local region.
The data of measurement line L4 is also compared, and
the results are shown in Figure 6. There is an acceptable
agreement between the experiment and simulation data. But
due to the fluctuation of the outdoor parameters, a certain
difference occurred between the simulation and experiment
results. The mean deviations between the simulation and
experiment results for the total average temperature and
average air velocity are 8.8%, 11.3%, respectively. As for
line L4, the corresponding values are 6.8% and 6.6%,
respectively. The simulation results are in good agreement
with the experimental results. Therefore, the model is verified
to be used in the following discussion.
2.4 Assessment criteria
In this study, the following criteria are employed to evaluate
the thermal comfort and energy efficiency of the eight non-
uniform ventilation modes:
(1) turbulence intensity;
(2) ventilation effectiveness (Et);
(3) air diffusion performance index (ADPI);
(4) local and overall thermal sensation (LTS and OTS);
(5) draft sensation;
(6) economic–comfort ratio.
6 Kong et al. / Building Simulation

Fig. 6 (a) Temperature and velocity deviation between simulation and experiment on (a) the total average temperature and (b) the
measurement line L4

The turbulence intensity indicates the intensity of airflow
fluctuations. It reveals the fluctuations of the air speed. The
higher fluctuation and higher air speed can cause the
sensation of draught (Koskela et al. 2001). Thus the turbulence
intensity is one of the main factors that affect the human
thermal comfort (Cao et al. 2021). It is calculated as:
Vsd
Tu = ´100% (4)
V
where Tu is the turbulence intensity, Vsd is the standard
deviation, V is the average velocity. The turbulence intensity
increases as the velocity decreases or the velocity fluctuation
increases.
The ventilation effectiveness is applied to evaluating the
energy efficiency, which is defined as the below:
EDT = (Tx - Tc ) - (v x - 1.1) (7)
where Tx means the local air-stream dry-bulb temperature
(°C), Tc is the average room dry-bulb temperature (°C); vx
is the local air-stream centerline speed (m/s). A thermal
comfort point has to satisfy the EDT within the range of
−1.2 K to 1.2 K, and with the air velocity below 0.8 m/s.
Normally, the better thermal comfort the ventilation
mode provides, the higher economic expenses it costs.
In order to investigate thermal comfort and energy con-
sumption of each ventilation method simultaneously, the
economic–comfort ratio proposed by Kong et al. (2020) is
applied in this study. It is defined as the energy consumption
to make one occupant reach thermal comfort. The formula
is as below:

Et = ( Ts - Te ) / ( Ts - To ) (5) Q
η= (8)
Nc
where Et is the ventilation effectiveness, Ts is the supply air
temperature (°C), Te stands for the exhaust air temperature where η is the economic–comfort ratio, Q stands for the
(°C), To is the air temperature of the occupied zone (°C). total energy consumption, Nc is the number of the thermal
The energy efficiency increases with the increase of Et. comfort occupants.
The air diffusion performance index (ADPI) is applied The total energy consumption of the ventilation method
to evaluating the thermal comfort. It is defined as the ratio can be calculated as below:
of thermal comfort points to the total measured points in a
E t = Qe / Q (9)
space. The calculation formula is shown as follows (ASHRAE
2013):
where Et is the ventilation effectiveness, Qe stands for the
ADPI = N c / N ´ 100% (6) energy delivered in the ventilation (kWh), Q stands for the
total energy consumption (kWh).
where Nc stands for the thermal comfort points, N means While Nc can be expressed by ADPI, hence combining
the total measured points. Eqs. (5) and (8), the equation can be transferred to the
While the thermal comfort points are dominated by the following form:
effective draft temperature (EDT) and the air velocity of
the space. Lin (2011) proposed the following equation to Qe
evaluate the EDT for stratum ventilation, which is applied Q Et Q 1
η= = = e´ (10)
for all experimental cases: Nc ADPI ´ N N Et ´ ADPI
Kong et al. / Building Simulation
where, Qe/N is a constant number which is predominant by
the characteristics of the building. While 1/(Et × ADPI) is
variable, use β stands for 1/(Et × ADPI), which is defined
as the ventilation correction factor. With the application
of β, the combined effect of thermal comfort and energy
consumption can be evaluated in different ventilation modes.
The room achieved thermal comfort with lower energy
efficiency with the decrease of β.
3 Results and discussions
3.1 Simulation results
3.1.1 Indoor air temperature field
The indoor temperature field created by eight non-uniform
Fig. 7 Temperature distribution of eight cases at plane Z = 2 m
7
ventilation methods has a huge impact on indoor thermal
comfort and thus needs to be analyzed. With the same supply
air temperature and velocity, the overall average temperature
provided by S-1.2 and S-0.5 is 20.3 °C and 20.2 °C, respectively,
which indicates that similar indoor thermal environment
can be achieved by both S-1.2 and S-0.5.
Figure 7 shows the temperature distribution of the
eight cases at Z = 2, and plane Z = 2 is marked in Figure 5.
It can be seen that the temperature fields of all cases
show significant space asymmetry, which is caused by the
temperature difference of the interior wall and outer wall,
resulting in lower indoor temperature and higher temperature
gradient near the outer wall region. For S-1.2 cases, high
temperature appears in the upper zone, which indicates the
warm air would flow to the upper zone with the increase
of supply distance due to the thermal buoyancy. Similar
8 Kong et al. / Building Simulation

phenomenon is observed in S-0.5 cases, but due to the

lower level of the inlet position, higher temperature region
is primarily in the occupied zone. Hence, the average
temperature in the occupied zone of S-0.5 reaches 20.3 °C,
while that of S-1.2 is 20.0 °C. This reveals the inputting
energy can be fully utilized in S-0.5. It is worth noted that
the vertical temperature gradient in the lower zone (0–0.8 m)
of S-1.2 is relatively higher, while that of S-0.5 is small,
considering the air temperature is relatively higher in the
lower level. This finding indicates that the air in the lower
zone is well mixed in S-0.5.
In addition, the outlet positions also significantly affect Fig. 8 Turbulence intensity of different heights for eight ventilation
the temperature field. In Figure 7, it can be seen that higher modes
temperature region are larger when applying OP-0.5 and
OP-1.2, in S-1.2 cases. The overall average temperatures of height is limited, and the peak value of S-1.2 and S-0.5 is
OP-0.5 and OP-1.2 are 0.5 °C higher compared to other the minimum. That is because for other outlet positions,
outlet positions, and that of S-0.5 is 0.3 °C. This result the warm airflow can be forced to exhaust, and the air path
implies that sufficient heat exchange and better air uniformity conforms to the direction of thermal buoyancy. The hot air
are obtained in OP-0.5 and OP-1.2. In other words, these is affected by no other forces but only the action of the
terminal locations are more energy-saving if maintaining thermal buoyancy force, whereas, the indoor air cannot be
the same indoor thermal environment. well mixed with the hot air by only relying on thermal
buoyancy force.
3.1.2 Turbulence intensity
3.1.3 Ventilation effectiveness
The turbulence intensity reveals the condition of mixing
statement of the supply air and room air It increases with The ventilation effectiveness is applied to evaluating the
the decrease of the air velocity or with the increase of the energy efficiency. Higher ventilation effectiveness means
airflow fluctuation or both. A higher value means the mixing higher energy efficiency. The results are calculated by
is more adequate. In this study, the turbulence intensity of Eq. (5) and shown in Figure 9. The average ventilation
five planes (0.1 m, 0.6 m, 1.1 m, 1.4 m and 1.7 m) is calculated. effectiveness of S-0.5 is 1.12 ranging from 1.01 to 1.17,
while that of S-1.2 is 1.03 ranging from 0.92 to 1.14. The
Figure 8 provides the turbulence intensity trend of the eight
result indicates higher average energy efficiency is achieved
cases with the height increasing from0.1 m to 1.7 m. At the
in S-0.5. Among all the outlets positions, it can be seen that
height of 0.1 m, the average turbulence intensity of all the
OP-0.5 has the highest ventilation effectiveness for both
cases are all as low as 7%. For S-0.5, the turbulence intensity
rapidly increases and peaks at 0.6 m. The difference between
S-0.5 cases is quite small. The average value is around 87%,
whereas, compared with 0.1 m, the improvement of S-1.2 is
rather limited. Hence, the vertical temperature difference
of S-1.2 cases from 0.1 m to 0.6 m was obviously higher than
that of S-0.5 cases, as shown in Figure 7. At the height of
1.1 m, the average turbulence intensities of S-1.2 cases are
all approximately lift up to 90%. Similarly, slightly difference
is observed between these four cases. Therefore, it can be
concluded that the inlet position has a decisive effect on
turbulence intensity. It is noted that turbulence intensity
usually peaks at the height of their inlet, and the inlet height
has the highest air velocity compared to other heights. High
turbulence intensity and air velocity values can result in
uncomfortable draught sensation. Hence, higher local draught
sensation will be caused at corresponding levels.
It is also observed that even if the outlet type is CE,
the promotion of turbulence intensity with the increase of Fig. 9 Comparison of ventilation effectiveness
Kong et al. / Building Simulation
S-0.5 and S-1.2 with the value of 1.17 and 1.14 respectively.
It manifests that the outlet located on lower level of the
opposite wall can counteract the thermal buoyancy effect
better, therefore enhance the ventilation effectiveness. In
addition, there is another point worthy of attention. Both
the maximum and the minimum values were appeared
when applying the outlet of CE. The corresponding
values for S-1.2 and S-0.5 are 1.17 and 0.92, respectively.
The difference between these two reaches 0.25. This finding
implies that as long as the airflow path is long enough,
even with the effect of thermal buoyancy, the ventilation
efficiency is higher if the inlet is located on the lower level
of the room.
3.1.4 ADPI
To evaluate the uniformity of the air temperature and
velocity distributions for universal thermal comfort in the
room, ADPI value is applied in this study. From Figure 10,
it can be seen that the peak value of ADPI improved by
11.1% with the inlet position changes from S-0.5 to S-1.2.
The average ADPI value of S-0.5 reaches 60.3% ranging
from 57.3% to 61.8%, while that of S-1.2 is only 49.35%
ranging from 48.0% to 50.7%. The former is 10.95% higher
than the latter. It demonstrates that S-1.2 significantly
performs better than S-0.5. However, under the premise of
the same position of inlet, ADPI only fluctuates within 5%
with the changes of outlet positions, which demonstrates
that outlet positions act little impact on ADPI value. Even
so, it is still shows that higher average ADPI value is
obtained when applying OP-0.5 or CE. The corresponding
ADPI values are 56.15% and 55.75% for S-1.2 and S-0.5,
respectively.
Fig. 10 Comparison of ADPI
9
3.2 Subjective experimental results
3.2.1 Overall thermal sensation
The thermal environment is considered acceptable for the
occupants who vote the score of −1, 0 and +1. Figure 11
shows the OTS of 48 occupants. It can be seen that the
average OTS of all eight cases are within the acceptable
range. The standard deviation of S-0.5 cases and S-1.2 cases
are 0.22 and 0.58 respectively. It indicates that the indoor
thermal environment served by S-0.5 has better uniformity.
The large deviation occurs in S-1.2 cases, especially case S-1.2,
OP-0.5, where the OTS values of other cases are above 0,
while this case only reaches −0.32. It is due to that in this
ventilation mode, the air is forced to flow to the occupants
and return through the outlets, triggering an increasement
in indoor air speed, causing occupants’ uncomfortable
draught. For the cases, whose outlets are located higher
than inlets (S-1.2, OP-1.2; S-0.5, SA-1.2 and S-0.5, CE), the
OTS values are more concentrated and closer to thermal
neutrality. Among these cases, the smallest standard deviation
of 0.50 in S-1.2, OP-1.2 is achieved, so the best uniformity
can be obtained in this airflow distribution.
Since males and females have different physiological
structures, there might be different thermal sensations about
the thermal environment. It is necessary to analyze the
OTS of different genders, as shown in Figure 12. The result
shows that there is noticeable difference between males and
females. The average OTS value of males is 0.18, and the
average OTS value of females is −0.001, which is 0.181
lower than that of males, indicating the thermal neutral
indoor environment for females requires higher indoor air
temperature. In addition, the OTS distribution of S-1.2 cases
between males and females is more concentrated while that
of S-0.5 cases varies greatly among different individuals.
Hence, it is considered that S-1.2 cases can create a more
uniform indoor environment for both males and females.
Fig. 11 Comparison of OTS of eight cases
10
Considering that all the eight ventilation modes belong
to non-uniform ventilation, the OTS may differ with the
distance between the occupants and inlets due to the
unidentical local air temperature especially the air velocity.
Hence, as shown in Figure 13, it can be seen that the
average OTS value of the first row is lower than that of the
second row on the whole, but the difference is quite limited.
In most cases, the OTS of the first row is closer to thermal
neutrality, while the occupants in the second row with
smaller local wind speed feel warmer, which indicates
that the occupants tend to prefer some airflows in warm
environment. Moreover, in addition to S-0.5, SA-1.2, it can
be seen that the OTS distribution in S-0.5 cases is relatively
scattered, and in S-0.5, CE, the OTS in the second row is
lower than that of the first row conversely, indicating
thermal environment in S-0.5 cases is relatively uneven.
3.2.2 Local thermal sensation
Figure 14 provides the LTS distribution of 48 sedentary
occupants. In the body segment where the airflow directly
delivered, the upper part of the body (forehead, check, neck,
chest, arms and hands) for S-1.2 and lower part of the body
(legs and feet area) for S-0.5 have the average value of
Fig. 12 Overall thermal sensation of eight cases between males and females
Fig. 13 Overall thermal sensation of eight cases between the first and second rows
Kong et al. / Building Simulation
0.25 and 0.04 respectively. The result shows that the LTS
of S-0.5 is closer to thermal neutrality, indicating that the
thermal neutral temperature for lower part of the body is
higher than that of the upper body. It also implies that for
inlets installed on mid-height level of the room, there
should be a decrement in the supply air temperature to
maintain a thermal neutrality indoor environment. It also
can be observed that the feet area is colder in S-1.2 cases
compared to S-0.5 cases. The minimum value is as low as
−0.41 in S-1.2, CE, that is because the outlet is located
higher level leading to warm air hardly approaching to lower
part of the body due to the thermal buoyancy, but the OTS
is yet close to thermal neutrality, indicating that the OTS is
less affected by the feet area.
Figure 15 and Figure 16 show the LTS distribution of
different genders in eight cases. It can be seen that on the
whole, the LTS of females is generally lower than that of
males, and females are more sensitive to warm and cold
indoor environment, such as relatively warm of the chest
area in S-1.2, CE and S-0.5, OP-1.2, and relatively cold of
leg and feet area in S-1.2, OP-0.5 and S-0.5, CE. It also can
be observed that the LTS varies among different parts of
the body in S-1.2 cases, ranging from −0.77 to 0.67. The
Kong et al. / Building Simulation
Fig. 14 Local thermal sensation of all occupants for (a) S-1.2 cases
and (b) S-0.5 cases
Fig. 15 Local thermal sensation of (a) male occupants and
(b) female occupants in S-1.2 cases
Fig. 16 Local thermal sensation of (a) male occupants and (b)
female occupants in S-0.5 cases
largest variation in S-0.5 is only ranging from −0.38 to
0.46 in S-0.5, manifesting that S-0.5 can reach a relatively
uniform environment for the whole body. The main reason
for this situation is that the legs and feet areas of S-1.2 cases
11
are colder due to lower local air temperature caused by low
turbulent intensity. While contributing by lower level of
the inlet, the air temperature is rather warm and uniform
in S-0.5 cases. Moreover, it is noted that the LTS of S-1.2,
OP-0.5 is the lowest among these cases, indicating even
occupants prefer little warm airflows in their breathing area,
and this “force convection” ventilation can only bring them
coldness.
Figure 17 and Figure 18 provide the LTS distribution
of different rows. It can be observed that the LTS in the
second row is slightly warm than that of the first row for
most segment of the body, especially the chest area. However,
for S-1.2 cases, when the outlet types are OP-1.2 or CE, the
LTS at feet area of the second row is lower than that of the
first row, indicating that the warm air hardly reached the
feet area in the second row due to thermal buoyancy. This
phenomenon is ameliorated in most S-0.5 cases contributed
by lower level of inlet, but aggravated in S-0.5, CE. This
indicates that the feet area is more sensitive to cold feelings.
Hence, for the thermal comfort of the feet area, the outlet
position of CE is not recommended.
Fig. 17 Local thermal sensation of (a) the first row and (b) the
second row in S-1.2 cases
Fig. 18 Local thermal sensation of (a) the first row and (b) the
second row in S-0.5 cases
12 Kong et al. / Building Simulation

3.2.3 Draft sensation

Draft sensation is used to access the uncomfortable feeling

due to the unacceptable air speed. The occupant is considered
feeling uncomfortable draught when the occupant choosing
“clearly draft” or “strongly draft” for current thermal
environment. Figure 19 provides the draft sensation of all
cases. Since no one chooses the option of “strongly draft”,
it is not shown in the figure. It can be seen that all the eight
cases can satisfy the requirements of ASHRAE 7730, with
exceeding 80% of occupants feeling satisfied for the current
air speed. For the four cases of S-0.5, the percentage of
feeling “clearly draft” is relatively stable, with an average
value of 6.25%. This indicates that the influence caused by
Fig. 19 Draft sensation of occupants for eight study cases
the outlet positions for S-0.5 is rather limited. Conversely,
the percentage of draft feeling for S-1.2 cases ranges
from 0% to 15%, showing that the outlet positions had a
significant effect on draft sensation, among which, S-1.2,
CE performances the best with 100% of occupants satisfied
with the thermal environment. S-1.2, SA-0.5 and S-1.2,
OP-1.2 performed also good for the percentage of occupant
choosing clearly draft below 5%. It can be concluded that on
the whole, under the same supply air temperature and air
velocity, the inlets of S-1.2 can satisfy the occupants better.
Combining the results of LTS, it is concluded that occupants
prefer a little exploration of warm airflows on their breathing
area. While, an exception of S-1.2, OP-0.5 exhibits the
largest draft discomfort percentage. It was because under
Fig. 20 Draft sensation of eight cases between males and females
this case, the occupants felt slightly cold, while the draught
in cold conditions is unwanted.
Figure 20 provides the distribution of draft sensation for
different genders. On the whole, the draft feeling of males
and females is relatively uniform in cases of S-0.5, except
for S-0.5, CE, in which 13% of females feel “clearly draft”.
Combining with the results of LTS, this is caused by the
cold thermal sensation of the feet. As for S-1.2 cases, both
males and females show larger discrepancy in the feeling of
“clearly draft”. It is mainly due to the largest draft feeling
percentage in case S-1.2, OP-0.5. Apart from that, other
cases of S-1.2 show less draft sensation, especially S-1.2,
OP-1.2 and S-1.2, CE. This manifests that people prefer to
have a certain sense of warm airflow in the breathing area. Fig. 21 Draft sensation of eight cases between first and second
But this conclusion is accessed based on the outlet is located rows
higher than the inlet. If the outlet is located opposite and
a lower height compared to the inlet, it will aggravate feeling uncomfortable draught in both S-1.2 and S-0.5. This
occupant’s feeling of draft instead. result verifies that the colder feeling in LTS and OTS is
Figure 21 shows the draft sensation distribution between caused by strong draught. Among S-1.2 cases, the percentage
different rows. The percentage of “no draft” is significantly of “clearly draft” decreased to 0%, indicating that uniform
increased in the second row compared to the first row. As draft sensation can be obtained if the distance between
for the percentage of “clearly draft”, the difference between occupants and inlets is appropriate. However, such
S-1.2 and S-0.5 in the first row is rather small, but the improvement is rather limited in S-0.5 cases, and there are
outlet position of OP-0.5 reached the highest percentage of even no changes at the outlet of CE. Therefore, S-1.2 cases
Kong et al. / Building Simulation
perform better in draft sensation, and with the outlet position
of OP-0.5 and CE, universal draft sensation can be obtained.
4 Comprehensive analysis
4.1 Effect of relative inlet and outlet positions on thermal
comfort
In this study, ADPI, LTS, OTS and draft sensation are
applied to evaluate indoor thermal comfort, since the
performance of thermal comfort is more affected by the
inlet position. For S-1.2 cases, with the exceeding performance
on ADPI, LTS, S-1.2, OP-0.5 was the first considered as
the best case; however, the draft sensation of S-1.2, OP-0.5
reaches as high as 15%, and the OTS is the coldest. While,
S-1.2, OP-1.2 shows the best draft sensation, the OTS is
closer to thermal neutrality, and the value of ventilation
effectiveness and ADPI is only 0.04 and 0.4% lower than
those of S-1.2, OP-0.5 respectively. Therefore, S-1.2, OP-1.2
is considered as the best S-1.2 case for thermal comfort.
For S-0.5 cases, with the ADPI is the highest, draft feeling
is only 7%, and the OTS and LTS are more approach to
thermal neutrality, so CE is thus taken as the most thermal
comfort case. Therefore, from the perspective view of thermal
comfort, when the air inlet is installed in mid-height level
of the wall, the outlet better is installed on the same height
as the opposite wall to achieve thermal comfort and a lower
draft sensation. When the air inlet is located in the lower
level of the room, the air outlet is recommended to be
located on the ceiling. Due to the inconspicuous performance,
the outlet located on the same side as the inlet is not
recommended.
4.2 Effect of relative inlet and outlet positions on
economic–comfort ratio
Since the ventilation effectiveness results are conflict with
thermal comfort results, economic–comfort ratio, which
can evaluate thermal comfort and energy efficiency
simultaneously, is applied in this study. Its value is
determined by the ventilation correction factor. A lower
ventilation correction factor value means higher energy
efficiency and better thermal comfort performance. The
results are shown in Figure 22. With an average value
of 1.62, the ventilation correction factor of S-1.2 cases is
0.2 lower than that of S-0.5 cases on the whole. It indicates
that S-0.5 cases balanced thermal comfort and energy
efficiency better. It can also be seen that S-1.2, OP-0.5 has
the minimum value of economic–comfort ratio; however,
the economic–comfort ratio failed to consider the effect
of draft sensation. Hence, final result is obtained by the
economic–comfort ratio and draft sensation, while S-1.2,
13
Fig. 22 Ventilation correlation factor of eight cases
OP-0.5 has the highest percentage of draft sensation, thus is
not recommended.
Therefore, cases of S-1.2, OP-1.2 with the ventilation
correction factor of 1.48 is considered as the best com-
prehensive performances of all the cases. It can provide a
thermal comfort indoor environment without sacrificing
energy efficiency.
5 Conclusion
In this study, a comparative study is carried out on eight
non-uniform ventilation modes through verified CFD
model and subjective experiments. Thermal comfort and
energy efficiency are independently applied to evaluate the
performance. The economic–comfort ratio is used to explore
the comprehensive effect on thermal comfort and energy
efficiency. Final conclusions can be drawn in the following:
(1) Under the conditions of same supply air temperature
and velocity, the difference of temperature distribution
is mainly caused by inlets positions. Due to the lower
level of air inlets, although influenced by the thermal
buoyancy, the high temperature area is primarily within
occupied zone, and the average temperature is 0.3 °C
higher than that of S-1.2 cases. Moreover, the mid-height
level of inlet also makes it difficult for the warm air to
drop to 0.1 m–0.6 m, resulting in high vertical temperature
and low turbulence intensity. The turbulence intensity
peak values occurred in their inlet level, indicating
higher draught sensation occurred in that region.
(2) The difference of ventilation effectiveness between these
eight cases are influenced by both inlets and outlets
positions. In general, if applied S-0.5, sufficient heat
exchange can be achieved when the outlets are located
in the same or higher level as the inlets. Yet, if S-1.2 is
14
applied, outlets are better installed on the rear wall and
lower or at the same height compared to the inlets to
reduce the effect of thermal buoyancy.
(3) Inlet positions play a decisive role in ADPI values. The
ADPI values of S-0.5 cases are 10% higher than that of
S-1.2 cases. It is concluded that good uniform indoor
environment is achieved when inlets located mid-level.
(4) Subjective experiments results show that LTS and OTS
are more affected by the air inlets positions. The results
suggest that the better inlets type is S-1.2, for indoor
occupants feeling thermal neutrality. However, draft
sensation is influenced by both inlets and outlets
positions. Although the S-1.2, OP-0.5 case has a better
inlet type, it shows undesirable LTS and OTS performance
and has the highest “clearly draft” feeling percentage
of 15%. Therefore, outlets should be located higher to
reduce the uncomfortable draft.
Since the results of thermal comfort and energy-saving
are not unified, the economic–comfort ratio is thus
applied to access thermal comfort and energy efficiency
simultaneously. The result demonstrates that in winter
conditions, better thermal comfort and higher energy
efficiency can be achieved when the supply air temperature
is 27 °C and the air change per hour is 7 ACH, the inlet is
located at mid-height level of the front wall and the outlet
is located at the same height but the rear wall.
Acknowledgements
This work is supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (No. 51978231), the Natural Science
Foundation of Hebei Province (No. E2019202452) and the
Hebei Province Funding Project for Returned Overseas
Chinese Scholars (No. C20190507).
References
Ahn H, Rim D, Lo LJ (2018). Ventilation and energy performance
of partitioned indoor spaces under mixing and displacement
ventilation. Building Simulation, 11: 561–574.
Ai Z, Hashimoto K, Melikov AK (2019). Airborne transmission
between room occupants during short-term events: Measurement
and evaluation. Indoor Air, 29: 563–576:
Almesri IF, Awbi HB (2011). Predictions of thermal comfort in
stratified room environment. Building Simulation, 4: 169–180.
ASHRAE (2013). ASHRAE Handbook: Fundamentals-Chapter 18.
Nonresidantial cooling and heating load calculation. Atlanta,
GA, USA: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and
Air-Conditioning Engineers.
Awad AS, Calay RK, Badran OO, et al. (2008). An experimental study
of stratified flow in enclosures. Applied Thermal Engineering, 28:
2150–2158.
Kong et al. / Building Simulation
Cao G, Awbi H, Yao R, et al. (2014). A review of the performance of
different ventilation and airflow distribution systems in buildings.
Building and Environment, 73: 171–186.
Cao S, Ming P, Zhao X (2021). Fuzzy comprehensive evaluation of
human thermal comfort in simulating natural wind environment.
Building and Environment, 188: 107447.
Chen HJ, Moshfegh B, Cehlin M (2013). Investigation on the flow
and thermal behavior of impinging jet ventilation systems in an
office with different heat loads. Building and Environment, 59:
127–144.
Chen H, Chen W (2019). Potential impact of shifting coal to gas and
electricity for building sectors in 28 major northern cities of
China. Applied Energy, 236: 1049–1061.
Cheng Y, Lin Z (2015). Technical feasibility of a stratum-ventilated
room for multiple rows of occupants. Building and Environment,
94: 580–592.
Cheng Y, Niu J, Du Z, et al. (2015). Investigation on the thermal
comfort and energy efficiency of stratified air distribution
systems. Energy for Sustainable Development, 28: 1–9.
Dong B, Yan D, Li Z, et al. (2018). Modeling occupancy and behavior
for better building design and operation—A critical review.
Building Simulation, 11: 899–921.
EIA (2019). International Energy Outlook 2019. The U.S. Energy
Information Administration.
Eom J, Clarke LE, Kim SH, et al. (2012). China’s building energy use:
A long-term perspective based on a detailed assessment.
Richland, WA, USA: Pacific Northwest National Lab. (PNNL).
Fan Y, Ito K (2014). Optimization of indoor environmental quality
and ventilation load in office space by multilevel coupling of
building energy simulation and computational fluid dynamics.
Building Simulation, 7: 649–659.
Fong ML, Hanby V, Greenough R, et al. (2015). Acceptance of thermal
conditions and energy use of three ventilation strategies with six
exhaust configurations for the classroom. Building and Environment,
94: 606–619.
Gebremedhin KG, Wu BX (2003). Characterization of flow field in a
ventilated space and simulation of heat exchange between cows
and their environment. Journal of Thermal Biology, 28: 301–319.
Haghshenaskashani S, Sajadi B, Cehlin M (2018). Multi-objective
optimization of impinging jet ventilation systems: Taguchi-based
CFD method. Building Simulation, 11: 1207–1214.
Huang X (2014). World Energy Development Report 2014. Beijing:
Social Sciences Academic Press. (in Chinese)
Kamaruzzaman S, Sabrani N (2011). The effect of indoor air quality
(IAQ) towards occupants’ psychological performance in office
buildings. Journal of Design+ Built, 4(1): 49–61.
Kline SJ, McClintock FA (1953). Describing uncertainties in single-
sample experiments. Mechanical Engineering, 75: 3–8.
Kong X, Xi C, Li H, et al. (2019). A comparative experimental study
on the performance of mixing ventilation and stratum ventilation
for space heating. Building and Environment, 157: 34–46.
Kong X, Xi C, Li H, et al. (2020). Multi-parameter performance
optimization for whole year operation of stratum ventilation in
offices. Applied Energy, 268: 114966.
Kong et al. / Building Simulation
Koskela H, Heikkinen J, Niemelä R, et al. (2001). Turbulence correction
for thermal comfort calculation. Building and Environment, 36:
247–255.
Kuo J-Y, Chung K-C (1999). The effect of diffuser's location on
thermal comfort analysis with different air distribution strategies.
Journal of Thermal Envelope and Building Science, 22: 208–229.
Lau J, Chen Q (2007). Floor-supply displacement ventilation for
workshops. Building and Environment, 42: 1718–1730.
Lee C, Fong K, Lin Z, et al. (2013). Year-round energy saving
potential of stratum ventilated classrooms with temperature and
humidity control. HVAC&R Research, 19: 986–991.
Li H, Xi C, Kong X, et al. (2020). A comparative experimental
investigation on radiant floor heating system and stratum
ventilation. Sustainable Cities and Society, 52: 101823.
Lin Z, Chow TT, Tsang CF, et al. (2005). CFD study on effect of the
air supply location on the performance of the displacement
ventilation system. Building and Environment, 40: 1051–1067.
Lin Z (2011). Effective draft temperature for evaluating the performance
of stratum ventilation. Building and Environment, 46: 1843–1850.
Lin Z, Lee CK, Fong S, et al. (2011). Comparison of annual energy
performances with different ventilation methods for cooling.
Energy and Buildings, 43: 130–136.
Melikov AK, Cermak R, Majer M (2002). Personalized ventilation:
evaluation of different air terminal devices. Energy and Buildings,
34: 829–836.
Norbäck D (2009). An update on sick building syndrome. Current
Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 9: 55–59.
Qiao R, Liu T (2020). Impact of building greening on building energy
consumption: A quantitative computational approach. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 246: 119020.
Qin C, Lu W-Z (2021). Effects of ceiling exhaust location on thermal
comfort and age of air in room under impinging jet supply
scheme. Journal of Building Engineering, 35: 101966.
Sekhar C, Zheng L (2018). Study of an integrated personalized
ventilation and local fan-induced active chilled beam air conditioning
system in hot and humid climate. Building Simulation, 11:
787–801.
Shao X, Liang S, Li X, et al. (2020). Quantitative effects of supply air
and contaminant sources on steady contaminant distribution in
15
ventilated space with air recirculation. Building and Environment,
171: 106672.
Taghinia J, Rahman M, Siikonen T (2015). Simulation of indoor
airflow with RAST and SST-SAS models: A comparative study.
Building Simulation, 8: 297–306.
Tahersima M, Tikalsky P (2018). Experimental and numerical study
on heating performance of the mass and thin concrete radiant
floors with ground source systems. Construction and Building
Materials, 178: 360–371.
Tian L, Lin Z, Liu J, et al. (2011). The impact of temperature on mean
local air age and thermal comfort in a stratum ventilated office.
Building and Environment, 46: 501–510.
Tsinghua University Building Energy Research Center (2014). Annual
Report on China Building Energy Efficiency. Beijing: China
Architecture & Building Press. (in Chinese)
Wang D, Xu Y, Liu Y, et al. (2018). Experimental investigation of
the effect of indoor air temperature on students’ learning
performance under the summer conditions in China. Building
and Environment, 140: 140–152.
Wilkinson D (1999). Poor housing and ill health: A summary of research
evidence. Edinburgh: Scottish Office Central Research Unit.
Yan S, Li X (2021). Comparison of space cooling/heating load under
non-uniform indoor environment with convective heat gain/loss
from envelope. Building Simulation, 14: 565–578.
Yang B, Melikov AK, Kabanshi A, et al. (2019). A review of advanced
air distribution methods - theory, practice, limitations and
solutions. Energy and Buildings, 202: 109359.
Yang X, Ye X, Zuo B, et al. (2021). Analysis of the factors influencing
the airflow behavior in an impinging jet ventilation room.
Building Simulation, 14: 749–762.
Yao T, Lin Z (2014). An experimental and numerical study on the
effect of air terminal layout on the performance of stratum
ventilation. Building and Environment, 82: 75–86.
Yin H, Li L, Wu R, et al. (2021). A numerical study on the effect of
column layout on air distribution and performance of column
attachment ventilation. Building Simulation, 14: 1095–1108.
Zhang L, Xia J, Thorsen JE, et al. (2017). Method for achieving hydraulic
balance in typical Chinese building heating systems by managing
differential pressure and flow. Building Simulation, 10: 51–63.