Building and Environment, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp.

303-310, 1994
Copyright © 1994 Elsevier Science Ltd
~ ) Pergamon Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0360-1323/94 $7.00+ 0.00

0360-1323(94)E0012-G

Evaluation of a Vertical Displacement

Ventilation System
BJARNE W. OLESEN*
MAKOTO KOGANEI*t
G. T H O M A S HOLBROOK*
JAMES E. WOODS*

The effectiveness of a vertical displacement ventilation system was evaluated when contaminants
including tobacco smoke were present. Air supply was through a perforatedfloor and carpet. System
performance was evaluated using AD PI (Air Diffusion Performance Index), percentage dissatisfied
due to draft, vertical temperature difference, and air change, and contaminant removal indices.
Gaseous contaminants were simulated with tracer gas. Cigarettes and occupants also generated
particulates, C02, CO, and TVOC (total volatile organic compounds). Several combinations of
supply airflow rate and thermal loads were evaluated. The risk of draft was found to be negligible.
The air change effectiveness for the room varied from 126 to 145% and the contaminant removal
effectiveness for the occupied zone variedfrom 80 to 700%.

INTRODUCTION to take into account how efficiently the air is distributed

THE cause for many cases of Sick Building Syndrome is
poor ventilation due to either inadequate flow of outdoor
air or poor distribution of the air in the system to the
occupied space. The distribution of the air influences both
the thermal conditions and the indoor air quality in the
space. The quality of the thermal environment is affected
by the air temperature uniformity in the occupied space,
i.e. vertical air temperature differences, and risk for draft.
Draft sensation is the combined effect of air temperature,
mean air velocity, and turbulence intensity. Indoor air
quality is influenced by the quality of the air supplied to
the occupied zone, the emission rates of sources within
the occupied and unoccupied zones, the degree of con-
taminant dilution in the occupied zone, and the degree
of contaminant removal from the occupied zone.
The objective of this study is to evaluate the per-
formance of a vertical displacement ventilation system
with air supplied through a perforated floor. Initial
results of this evaluation and a discussion of air change
effectiveness and contaminant removal effectiveness
measurements are presented. Data were obtained for sev-
eral contaminants, two different supply air flow rates,
and two thermal load conditions.
BACKGROUND
Outdoor air ventilation rates or outdoor air change
rates listed in existing standards and guidelines [1, 2]
assume complete mixing of the air in the ventilated space.
As complete mixing does not always occur, it is necessary
*Indoor Environment Program, Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061, U.S.A.
1"Research and Development Center, Asahi Kogyosha Co.,
Ltd., 6-17-16 Higashi-Narashino, Narashino, Chiba 275, Japan.
within the occupied zone. In cases where stagnant air
exists within occupied zones or short circuiting occurs
between supply and return air streams, it may be necess-
ary to increase the amount of outdoor air and the total
supply air flow rate to values that exceed those based on
assumptions of complete mixing [1, 2]. The standards
and guidelines introduce the concept of ventilation effec-
tiveness, but without any detailed explanations on how
to measure it. To properly assess the ventilation in the
breathing zone, one must determine :
• the air renewal/air distribution process: how quickly
"old" air is replaced with "new" air in the occupied
zone [3];
• the contaminant removal process : how effectively con-
taminants generated within the occupied and unoc-
cupied zones are removed and prevented from spread-
ing in the occupied zone [4].
These two processes are related but not identical and
therefore need to be considered separately. For both air
renewal and contaminant removal it is important to dis-
tinguish between results based on room average, occu-
pied zone average or local conditions. For example, the
air renewal/air distribution process is commonly evalu-
ated by ratioing the exhaust age-of-air to the age-of-air
at a point or within a zone of interest. In the following
background discussion, this ratio is denoted as the air
change effectiveness and is meant to be applied to the
room as a whole unless otherwise indicated. Similar
remarks apply in the following background discussion in
which the contaminant removal process is evaluated
using the term contaminant removal effectiveness. Com-
plete mixing is referred to here as having an air change
effectiveness of 100% as compared to an air change
efficiency of 50% as used in [4].
With displacement flow ventilation, the vertical tem-

eAE 29:3-e 303

304 B.W. O l e s e n et al.
perature difference between feet and head may cause ther-
mal discomfort. Thus a critical system performance cri-
terion is the maximum cooling load that can be removed
from the occupied zone without causing thermal dis-
comfort. Based on laboratory studies [5] and rec-
ommendations in internationally recognized standards
[6,7], the air temperature differences between head and
feet of sedentary or standing occupants should not exceed
3 C , to achieve a dissatisfaction criterion of not more
than 5%. If the supply air is too cold, the vertical tem-
perature gradient in the space may cause discomfort. The
gradient may be reduced by increasing the supply air flow
but too much air flow can cause discomfort due to draft.
Discomfort due to draft results from the combined influ-
ences of local air temperature, air velocity and turbulence
[6-8]. Full scale experiments [9,10] suggested a maximum
cooling load of 20-30 W/m 2 for displacement ventilation.
More recent experiments [11] show that well designed
displacement diffusers can handle loads up to 40 W/m 2.
Svensson [12] suggests that with well selected supply ter-
minal devices, 30 W/m 2 can be removed from occupied
zones with room ceiling heights of 2.7-2.8 m, and 40
W/m 2 can be removed from occupied zones with ceilings
at about 3.4 m. Sandberg [13] recommends a maximum
cooling load of 25 W/m 2 based on a vertical air tem-
perature gradient of less than Y'C/m. Similar limits for
maximum cooling loads are recommended in references
[14] and [15]. The reported studies do not distinguish
between loads in the occupied zone and above, i.e. lights.
This may influence the heat load which can be removed
with displacement systems without causing comfort prob-
lems.
Several field measurements [16-23] of air change effec-
tiveness have been performed using the age-of-air
concept. All of these studies dealt with ceiling supply and
return systems operated during summer conditions, i.e.
cooling mode. Air change effectiveness for the occupied
zone was found to be around 100%, implying perfect
mixing conditions. Bauman et al. [24] studied the air
change effectiveness in a simulated, partitioned office
space having a ceiling supply and return ventilation
system. They also concluded that under cooling con-
ditions (supply temperature lower than room tem-
perature), the air change effectiveness indicated complete
mixing. Their [24] tests with heating (supply temperature
higher than room temperature) showed air change effec-
tiveness values lower than 100% indicating some short
circuiting. Offermann [25] reported measurement of air
change effectiveness values less than 100% on a forced
air heating system with ceiling supply. Seppanen [26]
reported on simultaneous measurements of air change
effectiveness and contaminant removal effectiveness in a
test room. In these measurements the contaminant
removal effectiveness was measured by simulating CO2
emissions from a seated person. The highest values (air
change effectiveness of 92-144% and contaminant
removal effectiveness of 110-190%) were obtained for
the displacement system. The difference between supply
and room temperature varied between - 3 and +3°C.
No general relationships between air change effectiveness
and contaminant removal effectiveness were found. In
the same study, the air change effectiveness was measured
in several offices with typical air distribution systems
(ceiling supply and return) at various air change rates. In
most of the tests, the effectiveness varied between 80 and
116%.
Olufsen [27, 28] reported extensive age-of-air measure-
ments in both test and real rooms. The tested ventilation
systems included both conventional systems (ceiling sup-
ply and return) and displacement type systems (floor/
lower wall supply and ceiling return). The global air
change effectiveness, defined as the ratio of the exhaust
age-of-air to the room average age-of-air, varied between
58 and 104% for the conventional systems and between
102 and 116% for the displacement type systems. The
local air change effectiveness, defined as the ratio of the
exhaust age-of-air to the local age-of-air, varied sig-
nificantly more. Near the floor, values of up to 500%
were obtained for the displacement systems. Near breath-
ing level (1.1 m height), values of up to 200% were
obtained. For the conventional systems the local air
change effectiveness at breathing level varied between 50
and 110%. Several internal load densities, air flow rates,
and supply temperatures were studied. No clear influence
of these parameters was reported. Cox et al. [29] reported
on a study of a displacement ventilation system in an
office. Contaminant removal effectiveness was measured
using tracer gas dosed in the office to simulate a con-
taminant source. At breathing level (1.1 m height), the
effectiveness was close to 100%--not significantly better
than for a conventional system. For lower heights the
effectiveness had much higher values. A higher flow rate
increased the contaminant removal effectiveness but
people moving around in the room decreased the effec-
tiveness. Qingyan et al. [30] studied the air flow patterns
in a room with four different configurations of supply
and return devices, including displacement type systems.
All experiments were performed in a cooling mode. The
contaminant removal effectiveness for the displacement
type systems reached values up to 170% while the con-
ventional, i.e. non-vertical displacement, system had an
effectiveness of 60%. Higher flow rates increased both the
contaminant removal effectiveness and the temperature
effectiveness (the ratio of the temperature difference
between the exhaust and supply to the temperature
difference between the sample location and the supply),
but a higher heat load (from a simulated warm window)
reduced the effectiveness values.
Nickel [31] studied the influence of different types of
ventilation systems on the air quality in a room with
simulated tobacco smoking. Conventional systems using
ceiling supply and return were compared with a dis-
placement system using low wall supply and ceiling
return. The tests were clone in a conference test room
with a thermal load simulation of 10 people and lights.
Smoking was simulated with 12 burning cigarettes and
the emitted CO was used as representative of the cigarette
pollution. Local contaminant removal effectiveness
values were obtained by comparing concentrations at
different locations and heights in the room with the con-
centration in the extract. For the conventional systems,
values between 84 and 90% were obtained at a breathing
level of 1.2 m. For the displacement system, values in the
range of 500 1400% were measured. By changing the
location of the exhaust in the ceiling, conventional system
effectiveness values increased at some locations to greater
 Vertical Displacement Ventilation System
4.4 m
Chair Lights Chair
©'
Measurement
02 location
D~,r [--']T~
Chair Chair
4.2 m
Chair Chair
(a) Room plan with tobacco smoke dosing
at "T" and tracer gas dosing at "S".
Fig. 1. Schematic of test room.
than 100%. Also, the location of the exhaust in the ceiling
had some influence on the measured local contaminant
removal effectiveness values for the displacement system.
The author also noted that persons moving around in the
room helped to mix the air and reduced the effectiveness
of the displacement flow.
This literature review indicates that a limiting factor
for the use of displacement ventilation is that a heat load
of only 30-40 W/m 2 can be removed from an occupied
zone without violating existing comfort criteria for ver-
tical air temperature difference between feet and head
and for draft at the floor, near supply terminal devices.
In most of the reported experiments with displacement
type systems as well as in most existing displacement
systems, the air has been supplied through relatively large
air diffusers positioned at a wall and close to the floor.
The present study investigates a displacement system
using a perforated carpet/floor as the supply diffuser. The
assumption is that with this type of system, higher flow
rates are possible since the velocity is lowered by spread-
ing the flow over a larger outlet area and thus a higher
heat load can be removed without causing comfort prob-
lems.
The literature also shows that both contaminant
removal effectiveness and air change effectiveness are use-
ful parameters in evaluating the performance of a system.
Previously reported data show air change effectiveness
values up to 140% and local contaminant removal effec-
tiveness values much higher (1400%). These values are
influenced not only by the location and type of supply
and return terminal devices but also by flow rates,
internal heat loads, the difference between supply and
room temperature, and the type of contaminant. No clear
relation between these factors and the effectiveness has
been found in existing literature.
METHOD
Tests were performed in a test room with a floor size
of 4.2 m by 4.4 m and a ceiling height of 3.2 m. The walls
and ceiling were approximately adiabatic. The test room
was served by a vertical displacement ventilation system
supplying air through a perforated floor/carpet and
returning air through l0 grilles in the ceiling (Fig. l).
305
~Return air grilles 7 [
2.5 m Lights
1.7 m
jL
Supply Supply
I.Im
IL O.l'~m 0.6 m
x__ Perforated floor/carpel
(b) Room section with measurement heights
annotated (ceiling height is 3.2 m from floor)
All tests used 100% outside air, i.e. no return air was
recirculated. Before the start of the tests the supply and
exhaust air flows were balanced. Sensible thermal loads
consisted of fluorescent lights (total of 240 W, wall-
mounted near the ceiling) and a simulated occupant load
of five persons. Electric blankets were folded so the sur-
face area was similar to that of a standard person and
the output wattage for each blanket was set at 120 W
(determined from its electrical resistance at operating
conditions) to approximate the heat load of a person and
desk lamp. Latent loads were not included in this study.
Supply air flow rates were 142 and 472 l/s and thermal
load levels were 13 W/m 2 (fluorescent lights only) and 44
W/m 2 (fluorescent lights and all blankets on). Gaseous
contaminants were simulated with tracer gas (SF6) dosed
in the center of the room at a height of 0.9 m. Particulates,
CO2, CO, and total volatile organic compounds (TVOC)
were generated from the sidestream smoke of six ciga-
rettes, continuously burning and mounted at a height of
0.9 m. An occupant, seated in the center of the room
(breathing level at 1.1 m), kept the cigarettes burning
continuously. The occupant was also assumed to have
generated particulates, CO2, CO, and TVOC. When the
occupant was in the room, the thermal load output of
the blanket in the center of the room was reduced to 50
W, i.e. simulating a desk lamp only.
The thermal environment was evaluated from measures
of temperature and air velocity mean and standard devi-
ation at five heights (0.1, 0.6, 1.1, 1.7, and 2.5 m) and at
four locations (Fig. 1). From these measurements vertical
air temperature differences, and percentage dissatisfied
due to draft (PD) were calculated [6, 7, 32] for the occu-
pied zone (height ~< 1.7 m) while the Air Diffusion Per-
formance Index (ADPI) was evaluated for both the occu-
pied zone and the room (all points). ADPI [32] was
calculated as the percentage of points meeting the criteria
- 1.7°C ~< 0 ~< 1.1°C;
where 0 = ta--t~,a--8(Va--O.15), (1)
where 0 = effective draft temperature (°C); ta = cor-
rected time averaged air temperature at each measuring
point (°C) ; ta,a = average test zone air temperature (°C)
(average of all ta values) ; v. = mean air velocity at each
measuring point (m/s).
306 B . W . Olesen et al.
The percentage of dissatisfied due to draft (PD) was
calculated as [8]:
e o = (34-t,,~,) (Va-0.05) T M (0.37SD,:+3.14), (2)
where SD,, = standard deviation of the local mean air
velocity.
Air temperature differences between feet and head lev-
els for seated (0.1 and 1.1 m) and for standing (0.1 and 1.7
m) were calculated as the average of simple temperature
differences between these measurement heights at each of
the four measurement locations (Fig. 1).
The local air change effectiveness was determined [3]
as the ratio of the local age-of-air calculated from con-
centrations measured at the return air grilles to the local
age-of-air calculated from location 1 concentrations mea-
sured at a height of either 1.1 or 1.7 m. The age-of-air at
a point in the room is a measure of the time it takes the
supply air to reach that location in the room [3, 33]. The
age-of-air, r, at each measuring point was determined by
using the step-up method in which tracer gas is dosed
into the supply duct, as described by Sutcliffe [3].
Z=f: [1-~f)ldt, (3)
where C~ (t) is the time dependent concentration at the
measuring point, C~ is the concentration in the supply
air, and t is time.
The local age-of-air was determined at heights of 1.l
and 1.7 m since these are the breathing levels of a sed-
entary and a standing person. The local air change effec-
tiveness was computed at each point and the effectiveness
values for repeated measurements at the same point were
averaged together. The average of all effectiveness values
obtained at 1.1 m height is reported here as ACEIim and
at 1.7 m height as ACE:re. The room average age-of-
air, (z), was determined [33] from calculations using
concentrations measured at the return air grilles.
c~ J /jo
where Ce(t) is the time dependent concentration at the
return air grilles. Room average air change effectiveness
values were determined as the ratio of the local age-of-
air calculated from concentrations measured at the return
air grilles to the room average age-of-air. Effectiveness
values for repeated measurements of the same room con-
dition were averaged together and are reported here as
simply ACE.
Contaminant removal effectiveness, CRE e, is a measure
of how effectively contaminants generated in the room
are removed from the room and prevented from spread-
ing into the measurement location p, calculated as in [4] :
CRE, = ( C ~ - C s ) / ( G - C O " 100%, (5)
where Ce = contaminant concentration at return air
grilles; Cs = contaminant concentration in the supply
air; and Cp = contaminant concentration at the sample
point p.
Contaminant concentrations were measured at four
locations (Fig. 1) and five heights (0.1, 0.6, 1.1, 1.7, and
2.5 m) for each location and CRE r was computed for
each point. In this way room average, occupied zone
average, and breathing level (1.1 m height, sedentary)
average contaminant removal effectiveness values could
be calculated. Only the occupied zone average, C R E , ,
(average of all CRE r values measured at heights ~< 1.7
m), and 1.1 m breathing level average, CREj~,, (average
of all CREp values measured at a height of 1.1 m), values
are reported here. Gaseous contaminants were measured
with the photo-acoustic detection method, and par-
ticulates with the piezo-balance method.
RESULTS
Measured thermal comfort indices and air change
effectiveness data are presented in Table 1. Each par-
ameter was evaluated for two or more heights or zones.
Similarly, contaminant removal effectiveness data are
shown in Table 2 for the same air flow rate and thermal
load conditions.
DISCUSSION
The thermal environment (air temperatures and vel-
ocities) was relatively uniform except for the test with
low supply air flow and high load (Table 1). Vertical
temperature differences were no more than 1.2°C between
ankle (0.1 m) and head (1.1 m) for a sedentary person
and no more than 1.5°C for a standing person (0.1 m and
1.7 m), again except for the low supply air flow and high
load where the corresponding values were 2.2 and 3.3°C.
These values are within the recommended values in ISO
7730 [6], but the 3.3°C temperature difference for a stand-
ing person measured in the low flow/high load condition
is just above the recommended level in A S H R A E 55-92
[7]. Note, however, that the floor supply provides a very
low inlet velocity (typically 0.05 m/s or less), and thus
the supply flow rate can be increased (increased recir-
culation) as required by the heat load without sig-
nificantly altering the discomfort due to draft. Therefore,
the low supply rate condition [7.6 1/(s" m2)] was at an air
flow rate much lower than could be used in practice, e.g.
as required by A S H R A E 62-89 [1] for a smoking lounge.
Even with a load of 44 W/m 2 there were no comfort
problems due to vertical air temperature differences.
Mean air velocities were always lower than 0.10 m/s in
the occupied zone and, for most locations, about 0.05
m/s. A S H R A E 113-90 [32] recommends that ADPI
should be more than 80%. In several of the tests the index
dropped below 80%. Since the measured air velocity in
most cases was about 0.05 m/s, the corrected air tem-
perature due to air velocity, calculated as - 8 (v,-0.15
m/s), was +0.8°C. Since the limiting effective draft tem-
perature (0) is 1.1 °C, the maximum acceptable difference
between the test point temperature and the average zone
temperature would then only be 0.3°C. Thus, the ADPI
calculation implies that the optimal air velocity is 0.15
m/s ; but it has been demonstrated that at 0.15 m/s people
may experience draft [7, 8]. Data for the percentage dis-
satisfied due to draft show that all points in the occupied
zone were lower than the 15% recommended in ISO/DIS
7730 [6] and A S H R A E 55-92 [7]. In this case, then, the
criteria used for ADPI do not give a correct evaluation of
the impact that air velocity distribution has on comfort.
 V e r t i c a l D i s p l a c e m e n t Ventilation S y s t e m 307

Table 1. Thermal environment and air change effectivenessdata

Vertical PD Air change

temperature PD <~ 15% average effectiveness
mean
Supply difference (m) ADPI ( _+standard deviation)
flow Load Height Height
rate (l/s) (W/m 2) 1.1-0.1 1.7-0.1 Height ~<1.7 m All points ~<1.7 m ~<1.7 m ACE11m ACE~7m ACE

142 13 0.6°C 1.2°C 69% 56% 100% 0.7% 115% 1 1 2 % 126%

(_+7%) (lpt)* (_+13%)
472 13 0.8°C 1.5°C 75% 80% 100% 3.2% 158% 97% 145%
(_+27%) (lpt)* (+_11%)
142 44 2.2°C 3.3°C 75% 60% 100% 0.5% 106% 1 0 2 % 135%
(lpt)* (lpt)* (lpt)
472 44 1.2°C 1.3°C 94% 75% 100% 3.6% 197% 162% 137%
(_+27%) (lpt)* (_+14%)

* Only one measurement obtained for this condition.

Table 2. Contaminant removal effectiveness for different contaminants and for two different supply rates and two thermal load
conditions

Supply Contaminant removal effectiveness(%)

flow CRE, Am CREo,
rate Load
(l/s) (W/m2) CO2 CO TVOC SF 6 Particulate CO: CO TVOC SF6 Particulate

142 13 358 169 217 168 299 404 201 181 205
472 13 239 107 77 397 -- 225 103 79 701
142 44 269 291 199 236 297 518 245 385 215
472 44 214 96 81 615 594 206 105 96 640

Vertical profiles of contaminant concentrations and air velocity are shown in Fig. 2. These values were obtained by averaging data
measured at locations one through four.

Thus, it is recommended that these criteria be modified
for consistency with the ISO/DIS 7730 [6] and ASHRAE
55-92 [7] standards. Based on these requirements, there
were no draft problems in the present study even with
the high supply flow rate of 25 l/(s" m2).
The air change effectiveness data in Table 1 also include
the standard deviation as a measure of the repeatability.
For a few tests, a lack of supply air temperature control
resulted in non-steady state conditions. The supply flow
rates in the repeated tests were however within 6%.
During these tests the test room was positively pressur-
ized with respect to the surrounding space as indicated
by a plastic sheeting side wall which bowed outward from
the room. This was verified by the age-of-air data since
the room average age-of-air greatly exceeded the room
nominal time constant (room volume/air supply rate)
for both flow rate conditions, thus indicating room air
exfiltration. With no room exfiltration/infiltration, the
room average age-of-air should be between that of piston
flow (one half the nominal time constant) and complete
mixing (equal to the nominal time constant) [3]. Similar
results can also be found throughout the test literature
[22, 23]. Since the use of age-of-air ratios for air dis-
tribution effectiveness/efficiency evaluations is based
upon the assumption of no test room leakage [3], the
value of field measurements of air change effectiveness
parameters should be closely examined.
The air change effectiveness based on the age-of-air at
a height of 1.1 m varied between 106 and 197%, showing
higher values for higher supply flow rates (Table 1). Sig-
nificantly lower values were measured at 1.7 m height
(97-112%) except for the case with high flow rate/high
load (162%). This indicates that the clean zone height is
lower than 1.7 m with the low flow rate and that the
supply air temperature is too close to the room air tem-
perature to establish displacement flow for the high flow/
low load condition. The room average air change effec-
tiveness (Table 1) does not vary much (126-145%). This
indicates that displacement flow is obtained only in a
portion of the occupied zone, and above the "clean zone"
a mixing zone, including some stagnant area, develops.
The small region of displacement flow may have been
caused by control system forced cyclic oscillations in the
supply air temperature (up to 16°C peak-to-peak) during
all test runs, however, the room temperature typically
held to within +_1.5°C. The data do however indicate
piston flow with local air change effectiveness values up
to 200% (local effectiveness values would be about 100%
if complete mixing existed at the sample location). This
is higher than reported in many studies with displacement
systems with low wall supply diffusers. However, it is
important to use a supply flow rate which will result in a
clean zone height higher than the occupied zone.
An even higher supply flow rate, or a larger tem-
perature difference between supply and room air, would
have been possible with this type of system without caus-
ing comfort problems due to draft and vertical air tem-
perature differences. This means a significantly higher
heat load than the 44 W/m 2 used can be removed with a
system supplying the air through a perforated floor.
The contaminant removal effectiveness data show no
clear indication of the effect of thermal loads and supply
flow rate. Large variations are present, but in most cases,
the values are significantly above 100%--up to 700%.
308 B . W . Olesen et al.

Different contaminants were supplied to the space with
significantly different methods which may have influ-
enced the contaminant removal effectiveness values. CO2,
generated by the person sitting in the room, was emitted
with a lateral impulse as opposed to the other con-
taminants which had a negligible initial velocity. SF6 is a
"cold" source--its density is greater than air causing the
S F 6 to mix with the air below the dosing point. In this
study it was dosed above an electric blanket. For the low
thermal condition, the blanket was turned off, no thermal
flow was provided, and S F 6 spread in all directions,
resulting in low local concentrations. For the high ther-
mal condition, the blanket underneath the dosing point
was turned on, providing a thermal plume-flow upward,
taking the SF~ with it, and resulting in higher con-
centrations. The cigarettes are "warm" sources, and
although they do not significantly influence the heat load
in the room, they influence the local thermal conditions
because of their small heat plumes. These heat plumes
take the generated contaminants upwards, which affected
the way the produced contaminants, particles, CO and
TVOC distributed in the test room. (See contaminant
concentration profiles in Fig. 2.)
The problem with obtaining meaningful contaminant
removal data is determining the proper sampling
locations to arrive at a representative data set. The con-
taminant concentration can be measured at one height,
e.g. breathing level, or averaged over a volume, e.g. the
entire occupied zone. Also the distance from the source
to sample locations should be taken into account as well
as the source temperature and type of contaminant. The
contaminants used in a measurement of contaminant
removal effectiveness will behave very differently depend-
ing on their density and the way they are emitted into
the space, i.e. initial velocity and the proximity to heat
plumes. Contaminant removal effectiveness as presently
defined is not suitable to characterize the performance of
a ventilation system, because the value is so dependent
on type and location of the contaminants. Air change
effectiveness is better for characterizing the air dis-
tribution system. Values obtained for contaminant
removal effectiveness can only be used under the assump-
tion that all contaminants are evenly distributed in a
space. Until a standard methodology is developed, the
sample locations utilized to characterize the room or zone
of interest and the source and its contaminants should be
included when presenting contaminant removal effec-
tiveness data.
CONCLUSION
Although the data reported here are limited and the
tests did not show a high degree of repeatability, it is
clear that the performance of a displacement ventilation
system is dependent on factors such as the thermal load
condition, the total supply flow rate, and the type and
location of the contaminant generated in the room. Dis-
placement ventilation systems supplying air through a
perforated floor can remove higher heat loads than 44
W/m 2 without causing any thermal comfort problems.
No thermal comfort problems existed under the tested
conditions. Criteria used in determining the ADPI must
be reviewed to reflect results on people's perception of
draft. Air change effectiveness measurements indicated
displacement flow in the test room. Effectiveness values
seemed to increase with flow rate. Contaminant removal

(142 l/s) (472 l/s)

Contaminant Symbol (Ce-C~) (Ce'C s)
CO 2 o 38.7 ppm 20.3 ppm
co o 0.33 ppm 1.05 ppm
TVOC A 0.40 ppm 0.32 ppm
SF 6 0 4.66 ppm 1.83 ppm Open symbols for 142 I/s
Particulate + 0.68 mg/m 3 0.23 mg/m 3 Solid symbols for 472 I/s
142 I/s 472 l/s
3.2 3.2

2.4
std. dev.
i.\
Velocity

2.4

~eQ 1.6 / 1.6

0.8

0 0.5 1.0 1.5

(Cp'C.)/(Ce'C.)
2.0
I
2.5 0
I
0.5 1.0 1.5
,,
2.0
( C: C ~)l(C :C ,)
2.5 0.05
Velocity (m/s)
0.10
0.8

Fig. 2. Normalized profiles of local concentrations (Cp) and velocitiesaveraged over four locations in test
room at 44 W/m2and at two supply flow rates.
 Vertical Displacement Ventilation System 309

data showed no clear influence of heat load and supply
flow rate.
There is a need for standardized methods to measure
both ventilation effectiveness and thermal comfort. Wide
variations in contaminant removal effectiveness data
resulted from differing measurement techniques. The
definition and measurement method for contaminant
removal effectiveness needs to be further detailed. A stan-
dard method must address the measurement locations in
the test area and their proximity to the contaminant
sources as well as the type of sources.
Acknowledgements---We are pleased to acknowledge that this
study is being funded by Philip Morris U.S.A. We also gratefully
acknowledge the support from Asahi Kogyosha Co., Ltd. for
Dr. Koganei as a Visiting Scholar at the Virginia Tech Indoor
Environment Program.

REFERENCES

1. ASHRAE Std. 62-89, Ventilation for acceptable indoor air quality, Atlanta, GA (1989).
2. EEC Report No. 11, Guidelines for ventilation requirements in buildings. European Concerted Action
(COST-613), Commission of the European Communities, Luxembourg (1992).
3. H. Sutcliffe, Technical Note No. 28, A guide to air change efficiency, AIVC, U.K. (1990).
4. C. Brouns and B. Waters, Technical Note No. 28-2, A guide to contaminant removal effectiveness,
AIVC, U.K. (1991).
5. B.W. Olesen, M. Scholer and P. O. Fanger, Discomfort caused by vertical air temperature differences
and comfort, in Conf. Proc. Indoor Climate 1979, pp. 561-579, Danish Building Research Institute
(1979).
6. ISO 7730, Moderate thermal environments~etermination of the PMV and PPD indices and speci-
fication of the conditions for thermal comfort. International Standards Organization, Geneva (1984)
(revised 1993).
7. ASHRAE Std. 55-92, Thermal environmental conditions for human occupancy, Atlanta, GA (1992).
8. P.O. Fanger, A. K. Melikow, H. Hanzawa and J. Ring, Air turbulence and sensation of draught.
Energy and Buildings 12, 1 (1988).
9. H. Mathisen and E. Skaret, Displacement ventilation in small room. Sintef Report STF 15 A84047,
Norwegian Institute of Technology, Norway (1983).
10. H. Esdorn, H. Knabl and R. Kulpmann, Air conditioning, new horizon-new opportunities, in
Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate, Volume 4, Institute
for Water, Soil, and Hygiene, Berlin (1987).
11. I. Palonen, A. Majonen and O. Seppanen, Performance of displacement air distribution system in
small office room, in Proceedings of Heahhy Buildings '88 (Edited by B. Berglund and T. Lindvall),
Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm, Sweden (1988).
12. A . G . L . Svensson, Nordic experiences of displacement ventilation systems. ASHRAE Transactions
95(2) (1989).
13. M. Sandberg and C. Blomqvist, Displacement ventilation in office rooms. ASHRAE Transactions
95(2) (1989).
14. H. Stymne, M. Sandberg and M. Mattsson, Dispersion pattern of contaminants in a displacement
ventilated room--implications for demand control. 21th AIVC Conference, Ottawa, Canada (1991).
15. D. P. Wyon and M. Sandberg, Thermal manikin prediction of discomfort due to displacement
ventilation. ASHRAE Transactions 96 (1990).
16. A.K. Persily, Ventilation effectiveness in mechanically ventilated office buildings. National Institute
of Standards and Technology, NBSIR 85-3208 (1985).
17. A.K. Persily, Ventilation effectiveness measurements in an office building. ASHRAE Proceedings of
IAQ 86, Managing Indoor Air for Health and Energy Conservation (1986).
18. A . K . Persily and W. S. Dols, Field measurements of ventilation and ventilation effectiveness in a
library building, in Proceedings of the l lth A1VC Conference, Ventilation System Performances,
Volume 2 (1990).
19. A.K. Persily and W. S. Dols, Field measurements of ventilation and ventilation effectiveness in an
office/library building. Indoor Air 1(3) (1991).
20. W.J. Fisk, R. J. Prill and O. Seppanen, Commercial building ventilation measurements using multiple
tracer gases. Proceedings of the 9th AIVC Conference, Effective Ventilation (1988).
21. W.J. Fisk, R. J. Prill and O. Seppanen, A multi-tracer technique for studying rates of ventilation, air
distribution patterns, and air exchange efficiencies. ASHRAE, Building Systems : Room Air and Air
Contaminant Distribution (1989).
22. W.J. Fisk, D. Faulkner and R. Prill, Air exchange effectiveness of conventional and task ventilation
offices. ASHRAE Proceedings of lAQ '91, Healthy Buildings (1991).
23. B.W. Olesen and J. Seelen, Field measurements of air change effectiveness using tracer gas techniques.
ASHRAE Proceedings of lAQ '92, Environmentsfor People (1992).
24. F.S. Bauman, D. Faulkner, E. A. Arens, W. J. Fisk, L. P. Johnston, P. J. McNeel, D. Pih and H.
Zhang, Air movement, ventilation, and comfort in a partitioned space. ASHRAE Transactions 98(1)
(1992).
25. F.J. Offermann, Ventilation effectiveness and ADPI measurements of a forced air heating system.
ASHRAE Transactions 94(1), 694-704 (1988).
26. O. Seppanen, Ventilation effectiveness in practice. IAQ '86, Atlanta, GA (1986).
27. P.L. Olufsen, Measurement of air distribution in mechanically ventilated rooms. SBl-report 216,
Horsholm, Denmark (1991) [in Danish].
28. P. L. Olufsen, Field studies on ventilation efficiency in mechanically ventilated rooms. ASHRAE
Transactions 97(2) (1991).
29. C . W . J . Cox, Ph. J. Ham, J. M. Koppers and L. L. M. van Schijndel, Displacement ventilation
systems in office rooms : a field study. Roomvent '90, Stockholm (1990).
310 B . W . Olesen e t al.

30. C. Qingyan, J. Van der Kovi and A. Myers, Measurements and computation of'ventilation efficiency
and temperature efficiency in a ventilated room. Enerqy and Buildings 12 (1988).
31. Nickel, Air quality in a conference room with tobacco smoking ventilated with mixed or displacement
ventilation. Roomvent '90, Oslo (1990).
32. ASHRAE Std. 113-90, Method of testing for room air diffusion, Atlanta, GA (1990).
33. M. Sandberg and M. Sjoberg, The use of moments for assessing air quality in ventilation r o o m s
Buildin# and Environment 18, 181 197 (1983).