Building and Environment 96 (2016) 283e292

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

Experimental and simulated energy performance of a personalized

ventilation system with individual airflow control in a hot and humid
climate
Yixing Chen a, *, Benny Raphael b, S.C. Sekhar c
a
Building Technology and Urban Systems Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
b
Civil Engineering Department, IIT Madras, Chennai, 600 036, India
c
Department of Building, National University of Singapore, 4 Architecture Drive, SDE2, #03-10, 117566 Singapore

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents the energy performance of a personalized ventilation (PV) system with individual
Received 2 November 2015 control of airflow rate in a hot and humid climate. A set of experiments with 46 tropically acclimatized
Received in revised form subjects were conducted with ambient temperatures of 23 and 26
C and PV air temperatures of 20, 23
26 November 2015
and 26
C. It has been found that as the ambient temperature is increased, subjects prefer higher PV
Accepted 27 November 2015
Available online 2 December 2015
airflow rates. While the higher ambient temperature reduces the cooling load, this is partly offset by the
increased ventilation load. Therefore, it is not straightforward to quantify the energy savings accurately.
In this work, an EnergyPlus simulation model was developed and validated by measurement data. The
Keywords:
Personalized ventilation
model was normalized to take into account the effects of the variations of outdoor conditions and the
Energy performance number of occupants. It was then applied to evaluate the energy performance of the PV system. The
Individual control results show that when the PV air temperature is kept at 20
C, the energy consumption at an ambient
Hot and humid climate temperature of 23
C is 10.8% higher than that at 26
C. The best results are obtained when the PV air
temperature is 20
C and the ambient temperature is 26
C. It is therefore concluded that increasing the
ambient temperature has good potential to reduce energy consumption, whereas increasing the PV
temperature does not bring appreciable benefits.
Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction
A personalized ventilation (PV) system supplies outdoor air
close to the breathing zone of each occupant and has several ad-
vantages over conventional ventilation systems. Compared with
mixing ventilation (MV) and displacement ventilation (DV), PV
system has the potential to maintain a healthier environment at
each workstation [1,2]. PV can improve the inhaled air quality and
occupants' thermal comfort, and decrease sick building syndrome
(SBS) symptoms [3e10]. PV in conjunction with MV or DV de-
creases the risk of airborne transmission of infectious agents and is
superior to MV or DV alone [11,12]. With individually controlled
microenvironment, PV has the potential to satisfy more occupants
[13,14].
Limited studies have been performed on the energy perfor-
mance of PV system. Yang et al. [15] indicated that ceiling mounted
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: yixingchen@lbl.gov (Y. Chen).
PV with MV system can realize better cooling effect and also
decrease the total energy consumption when compared with MV
alone and MV plus desk fan system. Cruceanu et al. [16] showed
through simulation that PV could reduce the energy consumption
by about 60% when compared with MV alone. Schiavon et al. [17,18]
showed by means of energy simulation that PV has the potential for
energy savings in both cold and tropical climates compared to MV
alone when proper control strategies are applied. Through simu-
lations with EnergyPlus, Schiavon et al. [19] studied the potential
saving of cooling energy by increasing air speed. Seem and Braun
[20] used simulations to compare the energy use characteristics of
systems incorporating personal environmental control with con-
ventional designs. Pan et al. [21] evaluated the performance of a
personalized air-conditioning system, namely a partition-type fan-
coil unit, in comparison with a central air-conditioning system, in
terms of thermal comfort and cooling energy. Computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) simulations were performed in many studies
[22e27] to analyze the airflow, thermal, and/or CO2 concentration
fields around occupants as well as the energy saving potential

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2015.11.036
0360-1323/Published by Elsevier Ltd.
284 Y. Chen et al. / Building and Environment 96 (2016) 283e292

when PV systems were used. However, these studies are done

either by simulations alone or using experiments without subjects.
The impact of large differences in behavior and preferences among
occupants [3] on energy performance of PV system has not been
studied.
Even though the energy saving potential of personalized
ventilation (PV) is well recognized [28], adequate attention has not
been paid to accurate energy modeling of PV systems taking into
account the differences in personal preferences and behavioral
characteristics of occupants. In this study, a set of experiments was
conducted in a hot and humid climate to evaluate the energy per-
formance of an individually controlled PV system. The system was
equipped with individual control of airflow rate and hence referred Fig. 2. Air distribution system in the FEC.
to as PV-ICA (PV with Individual Control of Airflow) in this paper.
Most of the subjects could achieve acceptable thermal comfort by
adjusting the airflow rates [29,30]. The focus of this paper is on the the location of the sensors. The PV AHU includes a heat pipe for
energy saving potential of the PV-ICA system. sensible heat recovery, and an electrical heater to control the PV
supply air temperature. All the parameters required for computing
2. Methods energy consumption on the air side were recorded through the BAS
at 1 min intervals, including supply air flow rates, fan speed, air
2.1. Experimental facilities pressures, supply and return air temperatures and RH, outdoor air
temperature and RH, and chilled water supply and return tem-
This study was conducted in the Field Environmental Chamber peratures. Users were able to control the airflow rate through PV
(FEC) of the National University of Singapore (NUS). The floor plan ATDs at individual workstations using a software interface [31]. The
of the FEC is shown in Fig. 1. There are 13 workstations equipped flow was regulated by operating a motorized damper installed in
with a computer and a desk-mounted PV air terminal device (ATD), the supply duct. In addition, users could change the direction of
and three openings which supply PV air to the room contributing to flow by turning the diffusers horizontally and vertically. All the
the ambient outdoor air supply. Fig. 2 shows the schematic diagram changes were automatically recorded in the control system.
of the air distribution system. The FEC is served by two dedicated
systems: an ambient air handling unit (AHU) with 100% recircu- 2.2. Experimental conditions
lated air that is supplied through ceiling outlets and a PV AHU with
100% outdoor air that is supplied through the PV ATDs. Both sys- The subjective study consisted of 15 sessions of 2-h duration in
tems are linked to a common Building Automation System (BAS). the FEC. About 13 subjects participated in each session. During each
Fig. 3 shows the system diagram of the PV AHU in the BAS including session, environmental parameters such as ambient air

Fig. 1. Schematic of the Field Environmental Chamber.

 Y. Chen et al. / Building and Environment 96 (2016) 283e292 285

Fig. 3. System diagram of the PV AHU.

temperature and the PV supply air temperature were maintained
constant. The ambient air RH was controlled between 30 and 70%.
When the ambient air RH was within the controlled range, the
ambient AHU was controlled based on the ambient air temperature.
When the ambient air RH was close to 70%, the ambient AHU
overcooled the supply air for humidity control and ambient air
temperature was sometimes slightly below the set point. The
measured ambient air RH ranged from 43.7% to 58.3%. The designed
and measured experimental conditions are shown in Table 1. The
ambient air temperatures were set to 23 or 26
C, while the PV
supply air temperatures were set to 20, 23 or 26
C. Each case
involved three sessions with a total of about 39 subjects. A total
number of 46 tropically acclimatized healthy college-age students
without chronic disease or allergy participated in the experiments.
29 students participated in all the 5 cases, while the others
participated only in part of the experiments.
2.3. Experimental procedure
Fig. 4 shows the schematic of the 120-min duration of each
experimental session. Subjects were asked to perform routine tasks
in a standard office environment and two sets of feedback were
collected in each session, the first after 30 min and the second one
at the end of the session. The feedback questionnaire was meant to
collect information related to user comfort as well as their
impression of the personalized ventilation concept [29]. Subjects
were allowed to change the airflow rate and the direction of flow
throughout the experiment.
energy consumption of the lights, computers, and heaters were
directly used. The energy consumption of fans and the chiller plant
were calculated based on some measured parameters as described
below.
2.4.1. Energy consumption of the fans
There were three variable speed fans in the system: the ambient
AHU supply-air and return-air fans, and the PV AHU supply-air fan.
The power frequencies of the fans were recorded. The power curves
of the fans obtained by experimental measurement were used to
calculate the energy consumption of the fans.
2.4.2. Equivalent energy consumption of the chiller plant
The measured energy consumption of the chiller plant is not
directly used because the chiller also supplied chilled water to
another AHU which was in use during the experimental period.
Equations (1)e(3) are used to calculate the cooling energy con-
sumption of the ambient and PV AHUs. The cooling loads of the
ambient and PV AHUs are individually calculated using Equation
(1). The COP of the chiller plant is calculated using Equation (2);
the net power consumption of the chiller for providing required
chilled water to the ambient and PV AHUs is calculated using
Equation (3).
Q ¼ Cp  r  G  Trw  Tsw (1)
COP ¼ Qchiller =Pchiller (2)

2.4. Computing energy consumption based on measured data ðQambient þ QPV Þ

P¼ (3)
COP
The energy consumption of the PV-ICA system was calculated
based on the recorded data in the BAS system. The measured where:

Table 1
Experimental conditions.

Case Ref. Session number Designed Measured

Ambient temperature PV temperature Ambient temperature PV temperature

D-A23-PV20 1e3 23 C 20 C 23.0 C 20.1 C





D-A23-PV23 4e6 23 C 23 C 23.3 C 22.8 C





D-A26-PV20 7e9 26 C 20 C 26.2 C 19.9 C





D-A26-PV23 10e12 26 C 23 C 26.1 C 22.5 C





D-A26-PV26 13e15 26 C 26 C 26.0 C 25.8 C
286 Y. Chen et al. / Building and Environment 96 (2016) 283e292

Fig. 4. Schematic diagram of the 2 h.

Q (W) is the cooling load of the AHU; Tsw (oC) is the measured without electrical heaters is to enhance the capacity of the heat
chiller water supply temperature for the AHU; Trw (oC) is the pipe, which will also reduce the cooling load due to heat recovery.
measured chiller water return temperature for the AHU; G (L/s) is In second and third stages, the cases of increasing the capacity of
the measured chiller water flow rate for the AHU; Cp (J/kg/K) is the the heat pipe to replace the electrical heater are discussed.
specific heat of water at constant pressure; r (kg/m3) is the density
of water; COP is the coefficient of performance of the chiller plant; 2.5.1. Building location and weather data
Qchiller (W) is the measured cooling load of the chiller plant; Pchiller In the first stage, the outdoor air dry bulb temperature and RH
(W) is the measured energy consumption of the chillers and measured by the BAS (Fig. 5) are used as input data for simulation.
pumps; P (W) is the power consumption of the chiller to provide In the second and third stages, the ASHRAE IWEC Weather File for
required chilled water to the ambient and PV AHUs; Qambient (W) is Singapore is used to simulate the annual energy consumption.
the cooling load of the ambient AHU; QPV (W) is the cooling load of
the PV AHU.
2.5.2. Envelope system
Fig. 6 shows the plan view and three-dimensional view of the
2.5. EnergyPlus simulation model FEC. The external window faces east with a vertical shade. Tables 2
and 3 show the thermal properties of the opaque constructions and
Chen et al. [32] presented the energy performance of the PV-ICA windows. The external and internal convective heat transfer co-
system using the measurement data without normalization. efficients of 20 and 8.7 W/K/m2 are used to calculate the U-factors.
However, the outdoor air temperature and RH varied from session
to session. Outdoor air temperature varied from 26.9 to 31.2
C
2.5.3. HVAC system
while the RH varied from 71.7 to 99.7%. The number of subjects in
The FEC is served by two dedicated systems: an ambient AHU for
each group varied from 10 to 13. Due to these variations, external
100% recirculated air that is supplied through ceiling outlets and a
and internal heat gains were different for the same controlled
PV AHU for 100% outdoor air that is supplied through the PV ATDs.
temperature settings. To obtain a fair comparison under stan-
There is no mechanical exhaust; thus excess supply of air is
dardized conditions of temperature and RH, energy simulation
exhausted through leaks and holes on the external walls and the
using EnergyPlus V8.4 was adopted to simulate the cooling loads.
suspended ceiling. There is no heater in the ambient AHU. In the PV
EnergyPlus [33] is a powerful simulation tool to model the heating,
AHU, a heat pipe is included for sensible heat recovery, and an
cooling, lighting, and ventilation systems. Virtual Design Studio
electric heater is used to heat up the personalized air to the target
[34e36] and SketchUp with OpenStudio Plugins are used to create
supply-air temperature. The chiller plant is not modeled in Ener-
the EnergyPlus model.
gyPlus. In the first stage, the measured chiller COP was used. In
In order to compare the energy consumption under standard-
second and third stages, an average chiller COP value of 4.0 is used
ized conditions, a three-stage process is adopted in the analysis. In
for the simulation cases, based on experimental data. Equation (3)
the first stage, an energy model is developed based on the exper-
is used to calculate the energy consumption of chillers and pumps
imental conditions. The simulation results are compared with the
based on the simulated/measured cooling loads.
measurements to examine the accuracy of the model. In the second
stage, some parameters are normalized based on the experimental
conditions in order to achieve standardized conditions for a fair
comparison. The simulation results are used to compare the energy
performance of the PV-ICA system with different temperature
settings under standardized conditions. In the third stage, the
validated energy model is applied to analyze the impact of venti-
lation rate on the energy consumption of the PV-ICA system.
An added complexity in the data analysis is the use of an electric
heater in the PV AHU, which adds to the total energy consumption.
The electrical heater was used in the PV AHU to control the supply
air temperature when the heat pipe is not able to bring the supply
air to its set point temperature, because the temperature is initially
brought down below the dew point for dehumidification. However,
in practice, it is not typical to have electrical heaters in hot and
humid climate. Another way to increase the supply air temperature Fig. 5. Outdoor air temperature and RH during the experimental period.
 Y. Chen et al. / Building and Environment 96 (2016) 283e292 287

Fig. 6. Description of the FEC.

Table 2
Thermal properties of opaque constructions.

U-factor (W/K/m2) Materials l (W/K/m) r (kg/m3) R-value (m2.K/W)

External walls 2.8 5 mm plaster 0.814 1600

150 mm medium-weight concrete 0.667 1500
5 mm plaster 0.814 1600
Internal walls 1.7 20 mm gypsum board 0.198 760
60 mm air 0.15
20 mm gypsum board 0.198 760
Ceiling and floor 200 mm heavy-weight concrete 1.95 2240
Suspended ceiling and floor 25 mm hard wood 0.167 680

Table 3
Thermal properties of windows.

U-factor (W/K/m2) Materials l (W/K/m) Transmittance Reflectance

External window 5.8 6 mm clear glass with black solar block film 0.9 0.01 0.01
Internal window 4.2 6 mm clear glass 0.9 0.775 0.071

2.5.4. Room temperature and RH set-points, ventilation and
infiltration rate
In the first stage of analysis, the room temperature and RH
measured by BAS are used. In the second and third stages, the room
temperatures are normalized to the design room temperature
(either 23 or 26
C), and the room RH is normalized to 50% for all
experimental conditions.
The ambient AHU uses 100% recirculated air while the PV AHU
uses 100% outdoor air. So the ventilation rate is equal to the airflow
rate of PV AHU, which was measured by the BAS. In the first stage,
the ventilation rates are set to the recorded PV AHU supply airflow
rates, which include the personalized air for three openings and
thirteen PV ATDs, even for some workstations that were not
occupied.
In the second stage, the three openings are assumed to be closed
and all the thirteen workstations are considered to be occupied.
Even after closing the three openings, the total outdoor air supply
to the room is more than the minimum needed from ventilation
requirements. In each experimental condition, the air flow rate of
each ATD is set equal to the average value of subjects' preferred
airflow rate between 45th and 120th minute (Table 4). Two situa-
tions are analyzed here: a) the original experimental condition with
an electrical heater; b) the more practical situation in which larger
heat pipes are used to replace the electrical heater. In the third
stage, the impacts of ventilation rate on energy consumption of the
PV-ICA system is analyzed. These cases are also analyzed under the
two situations (a) and (b) described above.
As there is no mechanical exhaust, the pressure of FEC is
expected to be higher than outside. Therefore, the infiltration rate is
assumed to be zero in all the simulations.
2.5.5. Internal heat gains and occupancy
There are twenty-one 54 W and two 36 W fluorescent lighting
fixtures with a total power of 1206 W. All the lights were turned on
during the experimental sessions. There are 14 desktop computers
and 1 laptop in the FEC. The power consumption of each desktop
computer is 145 W and the laptop 60 W. The total power of
equipment is 2090 W. All the computers and the laptop were
switched on during the experiment.
In the first stage, the number of occupants is set to the actual
number of subjects in each session, which ranged from 10 to 13. In
the second and third stages, the number of occupants is normalized
to 13 for all the experimental conditions.
2.5.6. Simulation period
The subjects had made frequent changes during the first 15 min
and the subjects were asked to leave the room in two groups be-
tween the 45th minute and the 75th minute. In the first stage, two
periods are simulated for each experimental session, the first
period from 15th to 45th minute; and the second from 75th to
105th minute. The simulation results are then compared with the
measurement data in order to verify the accuracy of the energy
model.
In the second and third stages, whole year simulations are
performed. During the subjective experiments, there were two
sessions per working day. The first one was from 10 am to 12 pm
288 Y. Chen et al. / Building and Environment 96 (2016) 283e292

Table 4
Subjects' preferred airflow rates [29].

Case Ref. Ambient temperature PV temperature Average air flow rate l/s/person (cfm/person)



D-A23-PV20 23 C 20 C 8.25 (17.48)



D-A23-PV23 23 C 23 C 7.11 (15.07)



D-A26-PV20 26 C 20 C 9.50 (20.13)



D-A26-PV23 26 C 23 C 9.06 (19.20)



D-A26-PV26 26 C 26 C 10.21 (21.63)

while the second one was from 4 pm to 6 pm. Therefore, in the

second and third stages of simulation, the occupants' presence in
the room is set to 4 h per working day, which includes 10 am to
12 pm and 4 pm to 6 pm.

3. Results

3.1. Comparison of energy simulation results with measurement

data

There are two main components of the cooling load: FEC room
cooling load and ventilation cooling load. The fan power and heater
power also contributes to the cooling load. These loads are simu-
lated and the results are compared with the measured cooling load
from the PV AHU and the ambient AHU. The objective of this ex-
ercise is to identify the accuracy of the model and to make sure that Fig. 8. Ventilation cooling load components.
the energy simulation results represent the actual energy con-
sumption of the HVAC systems in FEC, so that the energy model
could be used for further analysis.
calculated by measured data, which varies from 171.3 to 224.6 W/
m2 with an average value of 197.5 W/m2.
3.1.1. FEC cooling load simulation results
Fig. 7 shows the components of the FEC room cooling loads for
all the experimental conditions simulated by EnergyPlus. The re-
3.1.3. Comparison of simulation results with measurement results
sults indicate that the internal heat gain (lighting and equipment)
Fig. 10 shows the cooling load comparison results. The difference
and the occupancy load are almost the same for all the experi-
between simulations and measurements is calculated by Equation
mental conditions. The surface convection, which includes the
(4). The difference varies from 8.6% to 4.3% with an average value
convection load of the walls and windows, varies from session to
of 4.0%. The comparison shows a good match between the
session because room and outdoor air conditions are different. The
simulated and measured cooling loads. This energy model is
total room cooling loads of FEC range from 60.6 to 83.0 W/m2 with
therefore used to evaluate the energy performance of the PV-ICA
an average of 71.0 W/m2. Fig. 8 shows the ventilation cooling load
system.
and the load from fans and heater. The ventilation cooling load
depends on the airflow rates, and the outdoor and indoor air con- ðQSimulation  QMeasurement Þ
ditions. The ventilation cooling load and loads from fans and heater Difference ¼  100% (4)
QMeasurement
vary from 96.6 to 139.1 W/m2 with an average value of 118.4 W/m2.
The total cooling load of the FEC varies from 162.8 to 216.9 W/m2
and has an average value of 189.4 W/m2.

3.1.2. Cooling loads of PV AHU and ambient AHU
Fig. 9 shows the cooling loads of PV AHU and ambient AHU
Fig. 7. Cooling load components of FEC.
3.2. Energy performance of the PV system
3.2.1. Analysis stage 2: total cooling load
Fig. 11 shows the total cooling load. The cases with electrical
heater are indicated as (a), while the cases with larger heat pipe are
indicated as (b). The FEC room cooling load at room ambient
temperature of 26
C is 66.4 W/m2, which is 14% lower than that at
room ambient temperature of 23
C which is 76.8 W/m2. The oc-
cupancy (16.2 W/m2), lighting (14.0 W/m2) and equipment
(24.2 W/m2) load are the same for all the conditions. The total
cooling load of D-A23-PV20 is 13.5% higher than that of D-A26-
PV20 for both (a) and (b) situations. The total cooling load of D-
A23-PV23 (a) is 8.3% higher than that of D-A26-23 (a). The total
cooling load of D-A23-PV23 (b) is 9.3% higher than D-A26-23 (b).
The worst case is D-A26-PV26 (a) with huge amount of load from
reheat. The cooling load of D-A26-PV26 (b) is still higher than those
of D-A26-PV20 and D-A26-PV23 due to higher ventilation rate
(Table 4).
 Y. Chen et al. / Building and Environment 96 (2016) 283e292
Fig. 9. Cooling capacity of AHUs.
Fig. 10. Cooling load comparison.
3.2.2. Analysis stage 2: energy performance
Fig. 12 shows the total energy consumptions of the HVAC sys-
tem, including the energy consumption of the PV AHU fan, PV AHU
heater, ambient AHU fans, and chiller plant. For original cases with
the electrical heater, the energy consumption of the heater in-
creases when the PV supply air temperature increased in the PV-
ICA system. This is because the temperature of the PV air has to
be reduced below the dew point for humidity control and it is
unable to reach the set point temperature after heat exchange with
the heat pipe; it therefore has to be reheated by the electrical heater
in order to achieve the set point temperature. When the PV supply
air temperature is 20
C, the energy consumption at room
Fig. 11. Total cooling load simulation results.
289
temperature of 23
C is 10.8% higher than that at room temperature
of 26
C for both (a) and (b) cases. This is mainly due to the
reduction in ambient cooling load at 26
C. When the ambient air
temperature is 26, the energy consumption of D-A26-PV23 (a) is
11.9% higher than that of D-A26-PV20 (a), and it is 45.9% higher for
D-A26-PV26 (a) when compared with D-A26-PV20 (a). The energy
consumption of D-A26-PV20 (b), D-A26-PV23 (b), and D-A26-PV26
(b) are almost the same.
3.3. Analysis stage 3: air flow rates and energy saving potential
There are several possible reasons for subjects increasing the air
flow rate when the room ambient temperature is increased. One
possibility is that subjects need increased air movement to offset
the effect of increased room air temperature in order to maintain
thermal comfort levels. It may therefore not be necessary to supply
100% outdoor air, since the occupant preferences are related to air
velocity and not necessarily to airflow rate. As shown in Table 5, the
recorded PV airflow rate preferences depend on the combination of
PV air temperature and ambient temperature. The minimum PV
airflow rate is 7.11 L/s/person (D-A23-PV23). In order to study the
implications of the use of re-circulated air (instead of 100% outdoor
PV air) on the energy consumption, the following scenario is
analyzed: The personalized air flow rates are amended such that
the outdoor air flow rate is set to 7.11 L/s/person for all the tem-
perature combinations and additional re-circulated air is supplied
such that the final airflow rates are nearly the same as those ob-
tained in the experiments. The re-circulated air for the PV-ATD is
assumed to have the same condition as the room air, thus there is
no cooling load from the re-circulated air. It is acknowledged that
this has implications on air quality and this strategy helps only to
maintain the users' preference on air movement.
As the ventilation rates are amended to the same level, both the
ventilation load and the total cooling load do not vary with the PV
supply air temperature. The ventilation load of the amended cases
is 44.7 W/m2 when room ambient temperature is 23
C and 34.5 W/
m2 when room ambient temperature is 26
C. The FEC room cooling
loads are 76.8 W/m2 when room ambient temperature is 23
C and
66.4 W/m2 when room ambient temperature is 26
C. The energy
consumption of the PV-ICA system of the amended cases is shown
in Fig. 13. When the PV supply air temperature is 20
C, the energy
consumption of the PV-ICA system at room air temperature of 23
C
is 15.0% higher than that at room air temperature of 26
C for both
(a) and (b) cases. The energy consumption of D-A26-PV20 (b), D-
A26-PV23 (b), and D-A26-PV26 (b) are almost the same after
removing the energy consumption of the electrical heater.
290 Y. Chen et al. / Building and Environment 96 (2016) 283e292

Fig. 12. Total HVAC energy consumptions.

Table 5
Amended personalized airflow rates.

Case Ref. Original outdoor air flow rate (L/s/person) Amended air flow rate (L/s/person)

Outdoor air Recirculated air

D-A23-PV20 8.25 7.11 1.14

D-A23-PV23 7.11 7.11 0
D-A26-PV20 9.50 7.11 2.39
D-A26-PV23 9.06 7.11 1.95
D-A26-PV26 10.21 7.11 3.10

3.4. Summary of energy performance of the PV-ICA system
Table 6 summarizes the results of all the simulated cases in the
second and third stages.
4. Limitations
It is well known that the previous exposures of the subjects are
likely to introduce bias in their responses. To partly address this
issue, the subjects were given 15 min for preparation, and the data
analysis started from the 30th minute of each session.
In the third stage, it is assumed that subjects need increased air
movement to offset the effect of increased room air temperature in
order to maintain thermal comfort levels. This assumption was
used to explore the energy saving potential of PV systems. How-
ever, more studies with new designs of PV systems are required to
confirm that increased air flow rates demanded by occupants under
higher ambient temperature are meant to maintain thermal com-
fort and not to improve air quality.
This study showed that subjects' preferred airflow rates had
significant impacts on the energy performance of the PV system. As
this study was conducted in a climate chamber with well-
controlled indoor environment, the subjects' preferred airflow
rates might differ from those in the practical situations. Moreover,
occupants may spend different time at the workstation in practical
situations [37], which may affect the energy performance of the PV

Fig. 13. HVAC energy consumption of amended cases.

 Y. Chen et al. / Building and Environment 96 (2016) 283e292 291

Table 6
Summary of energy performance of the PV-ICA system.

Cases Case Ref. Chiller plant (kWh) PV heater (kWh) PV AHU fan (kWh) Ambient AHU fans (kWh) Total energy (kWh)

100% outdoor air D-A23-PV20 (a) 3040 5 257 309 3610

D-A23-PV20 (b) 3039 0 257 309 3604
D-A23-PV23 (a) 2943 282 227 322 3774
D-A23-PV23 (b) 2873 0 227 322 3421
D-A26-PV20 (a) 2679 5 293 282 3260
D-A26-PV20 (b) 2677 0 293 282 3253
D-A26-PV23 (a) 2718 357 280 293 3648
D-A26-PV23 (b) 2629 0 280 293 3202
D-A26-PV26 (a) 3040 1097 315 304 4755
D-A26-PV26 (b) 2765 0 315 304 3384
Amended outdoor air D-A23-PV20 (a) 2878 5 257 309 3449
D-A23-PV20 (b) 2877 0 257 309 3443
D-A23-PV23 (a) 2943 282 227 322 3774
D-A23-PV23 (b) 2873 0 227 322 3421
D-A26-PV20 (a) 2417 5 293 282 2999
D-A26-PV20 (b) 2416 0 293 282 2992
D-A26-PV23 (a) 2505 357 280 293 3435
D-A26-PV23 (b) 2416 0 280 293 2989
D-A26-PV26 (a) 2701 1097 315 304 4416
D-A26-PV26 (b) 2427 0 315 304 3045

system. More studies are required to better understand the sub-
jects' behaviors.
The energy consumption of D-A26-PV20 (b), D-A26-PV23 (b),
and D-A26-PV26 (b) are the same. However, the D-A26-PV23 (b)
and D-A26-PV26 (b) require larger heat pipe to bring the supply air
to the set point temperature without electrical heater, which in-
creases the cost of the system. The larger heat pipes have higher
pressure drop, and it will increase the energy consumption of the
PV AHU fans, which is not included in current analysis. The results
therefore indicate that with respect to energy performance, the
best case is with PV air at 20
C and room ambient temperature at
26
C.
Several studies [14,38e40] showed that improved thermal
comfort can be achieved at ambient air temperature of 28
C or
even 30
C with PV system. This study only analyzed the ambient
temperature of 23 and 26
C. Higher energy saving potential may be
obtained when the ambient temperature is further increased.
that at 26
C.
To conclude, the PV-ICA system could improve occupants'
thermal comfort in hot and humid climates (Chen et al., 2012) and
achieve significant energy savings by setting the room ambient
temperature at 26
C than at 23
C. The best settings consist of PV
air at 20
C and room ambient temperature of 26
C.
Acknowledgments
This research is funded by the Singapore Ministry of Education's
AcRF Tier 1 funding and the Office of Research, (ORE), NUS, through
the grant R-296-000-102-112. The first author wishes to thank the
National University of Singapore for a postgraduate scholarship,
which supported this study. Discussions with Dr. Li Ruixin and Dr.
Jovan Pantelic were extremely helpful for the smooth conduct of
the experiments.

5. Conclusions
It has been found that as the ambient temperature is increased,
subjects prefer higher PV airflow rates. While the higher ambient
temperature reduces the cooling load, this is partly offset by the
increased ventilation load. In this work, a three-stage simulation
process was used to evaluate the energy saving potential of the PV-
ICA system. In the first stage, a detailed energy simulation model
was developed using EnergyPlus V8.4. The difference between the
simulated and measured results varies from 8.6% to 4.3% with an
average value of 4.0%.
In the second stage, variations due to outdoor conditions during
the experiments were eliminated in order to compare energy
consumption under standardized conditions. Results show that
when room ambient temperature is 26
C, the FEC room cooling
load is 14% lower than that at room ambient temperature of 23
C.
When the PV air temperature is kept at 20
C, the energy con-
sumption at an ambient temperature of 23
C is 10.8% higher than
that at 26
C.
In the third stage, the implications of supplying re-circulated air
through the PV-ATD was investigated. In this scenario, the venti-
lation load at room temperature of 23
C (44.7 W/m2) is 30% higher
than that at room ambient temperature of 26
C (34.5 W/m2).
When the PV air temperature is kept at 20
C, the energy con-
sumption at an ambient temperature of 23
C is 15.0% higher than
References
[1] J. Yang, S.C. Sekhar, D. Cheong, B. Raphael, Performance evaluation of an in-
tegrated personalized ventilationepersonalized exhaust system in conjunc-
tion with two background ventilation systems, Build. Environ. 78 (2014)
103e110.
[2] R. Li, S.C. Sekhar, A.K. Melikov, Thermal comfort and IAQ assessment of under-
floor air distribution system integrated with personalized ventilation in hot
and humid climate, Build. Environ. 45 (9) (2010) 1906e1913.
[3] A.K. Melikov, Personalized ventilation, Indoor Air 14 (SUPPL 7) (2004)
157e167.
[4] A.K. Melikov, R. Cermak, M. Majer, Personalized ventilation: evaluation of
different air terminal devices, Energy Build. 34 (8) (2002) 829e836.
[5] S.C. Sekhar, N. Gong, K.W. Tham, K.W. Cheong, A.K. Melikov, D.P. Wyon, et al.,
Findings of personalized ventilation studies in a hot and humid climate, HVAC
R Res. 11 (4) (2005) 603e620.
[6] B. Yang, S.C. Sekhar, The influence of evenly distributed ceiling mounted
personalized ventilation devices on the indoor environment, Int. J. Vent. 7 (2)
(2008) 99e112.
[7] B. Yang, S.C. Sekhar, A.K. Melikov, Ceiling-mounted personalized ventilation
system integrated with a secondary air distribution system - a human
response study in hot and humid climate, Indoor Air 20 (4) (2010) 309e319.
[8] J. Niu, N. Gao, M. Phoebe, Z. Huigang, Experimental study on a chair-based
personalized ventilation system, Build. Environ. 42 (2) (2007) 913e925.
[9] D. Faulkner, Ventilation efficiency of desk-mounted task/ambient condition-
ing systems, Indoor Air 9 (4) (1999) 273e281.
[10] M.A. Skwarczynski, A.K. Melikov, J. Kaczmarczyk, V. Lyubenova, Impact of
individually controlled facially applied air movement on perceived air quality
at high humidity, Build. Environ. 45 (10) (2010) 2170e2176.
[11] R. Cermak, A.K. Melikov, L. Forejt, O. Kovar, Performance of personalized
ventilation in conjunction with mixing and displacement ventilation, HVAC R
Res. 12 (2) (2006) 295e311.
[12] R. Cermak, A.K. Melikov, Protection of occupants from exhaled infectious
292 Y. Chen et al. / Building and Environment 96 (2016) 283e292
agents and floor material emissions in rooms with personalized and under-
floor ventilation, HVAC R Res. 13 (1) (2007) 23e38.
[13] S. Watanabe, A.K. Melikov, L. Knudsen, Design of an individually controlled
system for an optimal thermal microenvironment, Build. Environ. 45 (3)
(2010) 549e558.
[14] H. Zhang, E. Arens, D. Kim, E. Buchberger, F. Bauman, C. Huizenga, Comfort,
perceived air quality, and work performance in a low-power task-ambient
conditioning system, Build. Environ. 45 (1) (2014) 29e39.
[15] B. Yang, S.C. Sekhar, A.K. Melikov, Ceiling mounted personalized ventilation
system in hot and humid climate e an energy analysis, Energy Build. 42 (12)
(2010) 2304e2308.
[16] I. Cruceanu, C. Maalouf, I. Colda, M. Lachi, Parametric study and energy
analysis of a personalized ventilation system, Inf. J. Math. Models Methods
Appl. Sci. 7 (2) (2013) 141e148.
[17] S. Schiavon, A.K. Melikov, Energy-saving strategies with personalized venti-
lation in cold climates, Energy Build. 41 (5) (2009) 543e550.
[18] S. Schiavon, A.K. Melikov, S.C. Sekhar, Energy analysis of the personalized
ventilation system in hot and humid climates, Energy Build. 42 (5) (2010)
699e707.
[19] S. Schiavon, A.K. Melikov, Energy saving and improved comfort by increased
air movement, Energy Build. 40 (10) (2008) 1954e1960.
[20] J.E. Seem, J.E. Braun, Impact of personal environmental control on building
energy use, ASHRAE Trans. 98 (pt 1) (1992) 903e909.
[21] C.S. Pan, H.C. Chiang, M.C. Yen, C.C. Wang, Thermal comfort and energy saving
of a personalized PFCU air-conditioning system, Energy Build. 37 (5) (2005)
443e449.
[22] A. Makhoul, K. Ghali, N. Ghaddar, Desk fans for the control of the convection
flow around occupants using ceiling mounted personalized ventilation, Build.
Environ. 59 (2013) 336e348.
[23] A. Makhoul, K. Ghali, N. Ghaddar, Thermal comfort and energy performance of
a low-mixing ceiling-mounted personalized ventilator system, Build. Environ.
60 (2013) 126e136.
[24] K.W. Tham, J. Pantelic, Performance evaluation of the coupling of a desktop
personalized ventilation air terminal device and desk mounted fans, Build.
Environ. 45 (9) (2010) 1941e1950.
[25] J.S. Russo, H.E. Khalifa, CFD assessment of intake fraction in the indoor envi-
ronment, Build. Environ. 45 (9) (2010) 1968e1975.
[26] J.S. Russo, T.Q. Dang, H.E. Khalifa, Computational analysis of reduced-mixing
personal ventilation jets, Build. Environ. 44 (8) (2009) 1559e1567.
[27] B. Yang, S.C. Sekhar, Three-dimensional numerical simulation of a hybrid fresh
air and recirculated air diffuser for decoupled ventilation strategy, Build.
Environ. 42 (5) (2007) 1975e1982.
[28] M. Veselý, W. Zeiler, Personalized conditioning and its impact on thermal
comfort and energy performance - A review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 34
(2014) 401e408.
[29] Y. Chen, B. Raphael, S.C. Sekhar, Individual control of a personalized ventila-
tion system integrated with an ambient mixing ventilation system, HVAC R
Res. 18 (6) (2012) 1136e1152.
[30] Y. Chen, B. Raphael, S.C. Sekhar, K.W. Tham, Personalized Ventilation Control:
Perception of Indoor Air Quality, in: 10th REHVA World Congr. 9 May e 12,
May 2010 (Antalya, Turkey).
[31] B. Raphael, Y. Chen, S.C. Sekhar, K.W. Tham, Towards Intelligent Building
Systems: Evaluating User Acceptance of Automatic Control. International
Conference on Computing, in: Civil and Building Engineering, 30 Jun e 2,
United Kingdom, Nottingham, Jul 2010.
[32] Y. Chen, B. Raphael, S.C. Sekhar, Tham, KW. Energy Performance of Person-
alized Ventilation, in: 10th REHVA World Congr. 9 May e 12, May 2010
(Antalya, Turkey).
[33] D.B. Crawley, C.O. Pedersen, L.K. Lawrie, F.C. Winkelmann, Energy plus: Energy
simulation program, ASHRAE J. 42 (4) (2000) 49e56.
[34] M. Pelken, J.S. Zhang, Y. Chen, D.J. Rice, Z. Meng, S. Semahegn, et al., “Virtual
Design Studio”-Part 1: Interdisciplinary design processes, Build. Simul. 6 (3)
(2013) 235e251.
[35] J.S. Zhang, M. Pelken, Y. Chen, D.J. Rice, Z. Meng, S. Semahegn, et al., “Virtual
Design Studio”-Part 2: Introduction to overall and software framework, Build.
Simul. 6 (3) (2013) 253e268.
[36] Y. Chen, L. Gu, J.S. Zhang, EnergyPlus and CHAMPS-Multizone co-simulation
for energy and indoor air quality analysis, Build. Simul. 8 (4) (2015) 371e380.
[37] A.K. Melikov, P. Pokora, Occupant Body Movement and Seat Occupancy Rate
for Design of Desk Micro-Environment, in: Proceedings of ROOMVENT 2014,
13th SCANVAC International Conference on Air Distribution in Rooms, 2014.
Paper ID 130.
[38] A.K. Melikov, M.A. Skwarczynski, J. Kaczmarczyk, J. Zabecky, Use of person-
alized ventilation for improving health, comfort, and performance at high
room temperature and humidity, Indoor Air 23 (3) (2013) 250e263.
[39] Y. Zhang, R. Zhao, Overall thermal sensation, acceptability and comfort, Build.
Environ. 43 (1) (2008) 44e50.
[40] Y. Zhai, H. Zhang, Y. Zhang, W. Pasut, E. Arens, Q. Meng, Comfort under
personally controlled air movement in warm and humid environments, Build.
Environ. 65 (2013) 109e117.