Accepted Manuscript

Comparison study on air flow and particle dispersion in a typical room with floor, skirt
boarding, and radiator heating systems

Mohammad Hadi Dehghan, Morteza Abdolzadeh

PII: S0360-1323(18)30084-2
DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.02.018
Reference: BAE 5302

To appear in: Building and Environment

Received Date: 8 December 2017

Revised Date: 23 January 2018
Accepted Date: 11 February 2018

Please cite this article as: Dehghan MH, Abdolzadeh M, Comparison study on air flow and particle
dispersion in a typical room with floor, skirt boarding, and radiator heating systems, Building and
Environment (2018), doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.02.018.

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Comparison study on air flow and particle dispersion in a typical room with floor, skirt
boarding, and radiator heating systems

Mohammad Hadi Dehghan and Morteza Abdolzadeh*,

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Graduate University of Advanced Technology, Kerman,
Iran

PT
*
Corresponding author address: Department of Mechanical Engineering, Graduate University of
Advanced Technology, End of Haft Bagh Highway, Kerman, Iran, Email:
m.abdolzadeh@kgut.ac.ir, mo.abdolzadeh@gmail.com

RI
Abstract
In the present study, air flow and particle dispersion were simulated in a room using a three

SC
dimensional model when a thermal manikin was present in the room. The room was tested with

three heating systems: floor heating, skirt boarding heating, and radiator heating systems.

U
Airflow velocity and temperature distributions were obtained in terms of room’s height in
AN
different places of the room. Three particle sizes as well as two locations of particle injection
M

were studied. An Eulerian-Lagrangian model was used to predict the characteristics of air and

particle phases. In the Lagrangian particle model, the effects of drag, lift, thermophoretic, and
D

Brownian forces were considered. Results showed that the skirt boarding heating system due to
TE

uniform heat distribution and lower heat losses as well as providing a better thermal comfort

condition, has the best performance among all the studied heating systems. The results of
EP

particle phase showed that the skirt boarding heating system has the lowest particle concentration

in the breathing zone of the manikin. Furthermore, it was shown that due to the presence of
C

thermal sources in the room, the particles have a small tendency to leave the room and they
AC

mostly settled on walls and ceiling or stayed at lower heights of the room.

Keywords: Floor heating, Skirt boarding, Radiator, Breathing zone, Particle dispersion

1
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Introduction
Provision of standard thermal comfort conditions is very vital in places in which people spend

most of their daily time. Heat sources and heating systems undoubtedly create thermal plumes

that can affect the pattern of air ventilation and thermal comfort level. The flow and thermal

PT
distributions of air in indoor spaces are of great importance in term of indoor air quality

satisfaction. The numerical methods are very useful and inexpensive methods for checking

RI
whether the air quality is good or not. These methods provide a very valuable information in the

SC
shortest time which can help the designers select the best efficient HVAC system. So far,in this

regard many studies have been carried out. Spolink et al. studied the effect of different types of

U
heating systems (i.e. Electrically heated pews, hot air blow heating, and provisory electrical
AN
(infrared) heaters) on particulate air pollutant deposition: Their results showed that all the

heating systems re-suspend the particulate matter entered from outside [1] Ploski and Holemberg
M

studied heat emission from three hydronic skirting heating systems. They showed that the
D

thermal performance of the thermal skirting board with low temperature water supply must be

improved [2]. Zhong et al studied the effects of ventilation strategies and source locations on
TE

indoor particle deposition. They study two different ventilation strategies, including mixing
EP

ventilation (MV) and underfloor air distribution (UFAD) systems. They showed that in under

floor air distribution system, the location of the particle source highly effects on the particle
C

dispersion and particle removal efficiency [3]. Ploski and Holemberg numerically studied low-
AC

temperature baseboard heaters with integrated air supply. They indicated that the low

temperature baseboard heating system combined with air supply in the room can lead to a better

thermal comfort level as well as more energy saving [4]. HwaKang et al. studied numerical

simulation of VOC emission and sorption behaviors of adhesive-bonded materials under floor

heating condition. They mainly focused on the adhesive-bonded materials covering a large

2
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

surface area, such as plywood flooring/epoxy adhesive assembly as an emission-dominated

material. They showed that under the floor heating condition, the VOC emission becomes

significant [5]. Karabay et al. carried out a comparative study between floor heating system and

wall heating system. They investigated the air flow and heat transfer inside a room which is

PT
heated by floor heating and wall heating systems. They showed that the wall heating system is

RI
better than floor heating system as the wall heating system has a better comfort level [6].

Golkarfard and Talebizadeh studied the comparison of airborne particles deposition and

SC
dispersion in radiator and floor heating systems. They revealed that the floor and radiator heating

systems deposit the suspended particles on the ceiling and on the floor, respectively [7]. Maivel

U
et al. studied energy performance of radiators with parallel and serial connected panels. Their
AN
results showed that serial radiators have 0.3 to 0.7% less heat emission compared to the parallel

ones in a residential building [8]. Wang et al. retrofitted some houses with low temperature
M

heating (LTH) systems to achieve energy demand saving and thermal comfort. Their results
D

showed that combining LTH with external wall retrofitting has the highest effect on the
TE

operating temperature and the energy saving of the building [9]. Shin et al studied design of

radiant floor heating panel in view of floor surface temperatures. They designed the floor heating
EP

panel to keep the comfort level in the best condition. They showed that their design charts help

the designers to compare design alternative and this enhanced the flexibility of panel design [10].
C

Abdolzadeh et al. studied thermal skirting and floor heating systems from energy and energy
AC

point of views. They showed that the thermal skirting board heating system has less heat loss and

higher energy quality compared to floor heating system. They also showed that floor heating

system has 9% more energy consumption compared to the thermal skirt heating system [11].

Zheng at al. investigated the effect of non heating surface temperature on the heat output of a

3
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

radiant floor heating system. They proposed a mathematical model to compute surface

temperature and heat output of a radiant floor heating system. They showed that the non-heating

surface temperature has a high impact on the heat output of the radiant floor [12]. Chu et al.

investigated air distribution and comfort of atrium with radiant floor heating. They studied the air

PT
flow behavior as well as thermal comfort level. They showed that the comfort condition in

RI
middle air supply is better than two side air supply [13]. Atienza et al. carried out comparison of

three heating systems: fan-coil, radiant floor, and combined fan-coil and radiant floor. They

SC
investigated the performance of the combined systems in terms of energy consumption and

comfort condition. Their results showed that in term of comfort, the combined system has the

U
best performance. The fan coils with fixed air velocity and inlet water temperature has the worst
AN
energy performance [14]. Rim and Novoselca studied ventilation effectiveness as an indicator of

occupant exposure to particles from indoor sources. Their results showed that the increase of
M

ventilation effectiveness decreases the occupant exposure for fine particles. They also showed
D

that airflow close to the pollutant sources as well as the location of sources are the major
TE

parameters which impact the human exposure [15]. Zhou et al. studied the effect of ventilation

and floor heating systems on the dispersion and deposition of fine particles in a room. They
EP

showed that the number of particles settled on the floor decreases with air velocity increase and

the floor temperature. They also showed that the higher inlet velocity leads to a faster reduction
C

of particle concentration [16].

AC

The researches which used a manikin in their study are reviewed in the following. Wang and

Chow studied the influence of human walking on dispersion of expiratory droplets in an airborne

infection isolated room. They revealed that the human walking creates disturbance in the local

velocity field with wake formation and this reduces the number of suspended droplets in the

4
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

room air [17]. Salmanzadeh et al. studied the buoyancy driven thermal plume near a sitting

heated manikin in a cubicle in turbulent flow using k-ε turbulent model. They showed that due to

the created thermal plume flow by the temperature gradient adjacent to the body high air velocity

and particle concentration are seen in the breathing zone of the manikin [18]. Hang et al. studied

PT
the influence of human walking on the flow and airborne transmission in a six-bed isolation

RI
room. They showed that the human walking effect is less important than ventilation design. They

also found that the surface heating of the human body produces a stronger thermal body plume

SC
and increases the turbulence near the human body [19]. Ansaripour et al. studied air flow

distribution and particle concentration emitted from a Laserjet printer in a ventilated room. They

U
used v2-f turbulent model to predict the turbulent characteristics. Their results showed that the
AN
particle concentration due to particle emission of the printer is significant in the breathing zone

of the manikin [20]. Bivolarova et al. studied the effect of airflow interaction in the breathing
M

zone on exposure to bio-effluents. They investigated three airflows-breathing flows, the

D

convective flow created around the manikin, and the ventilation flow directed toward the
TE

manikin’s face. They showed that in case of exhalation through the nose, the exposure was

higher than the exhalation through the mouth. They also showed that air flows directed against
EP

the manikin face highly increases the exposure, [21]. Jian et al. studied an experimental study on

flow behavior of breathing activity produced by a thermal manikin. They obtained the temporal
C

and spatial distributions of breathing airflows with and without consideration of the convective
AC

boundary layer. They showed that the breathing flow has different behaviors during the breathing

process. They showed that the boundary layer has an important rule in developing the upward

spread and movement of exhaled contaminants of the manikin [22]. Zhuang et al. numerically

carried out a comparison of removal and deposition for fully-distributed particles in central and

5
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

split-type air-conditioning rooms. They showed that the central-type air conditioner has a higher

particle removal efficiency compared to the split-type one. They also showed that high indoor air

supply velocity can improve the indoor air quality faster for a particle size range of 0.5 to 10 µm

[23]. Aliahmadi et al. studied air flow simulation of HVAC system in the compartment of a

PT
passenger coach. They showed that due to the inappropriate design of the compartment, the

RI
thermal comfort conditions do not evenly distribute in the compartment and this issue makes the

passengers uncomfortable, [24]. Tao et al. studied dynamic meshing modeling for particle

SC
resuspension caused by swinging manikin motion. The manikin has a swinging arm and leg

motions. Their results showed that the flow behavior is highly dependent to the manikin motion.

U
They provided a basis for particle re-suspension from the floor to the air using the flow
AN
streamlines. They showed that when the wake momentum dissipation gets higher the thermal

plume created around the manikins becomes significant, [25].

M

Based on the reviewed literature in above (with and without consideration of manikin), a
D

comprehensive comparison of low temperature heating systems, including skirt boarding and
TE

floor heating with high temperature heating system (radiator heating system) in terms of air flow

and particle dispersion has not been carried out yet. It seems these systems are still needed to
EP

study further in order to check out their thermal comfort conditions as well as indoor air quality

in enclosed spaces. This study investigated air flow and particle dispersion in three heating
C

systems, including floor heating, skirt boarding heating, and radiator heating systems in a typical
AC

room. The selected room was modeled when a heated manikin seated in the room’s middle. The

air flow was considered turbulent and the particle movement was modeled using the Langrngain

particle tracking method. Velocity and temperature of air were obtained in all the heating

systems and compared with each other. The particle dispersion for three particle sizes including

6
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

0.1, 1, and 10 µm were calculated across the room in all the heating systems. The best system

form comfort level and particle dispersion point of views was determined. The particle

concentrations in the breathing zone of the manikin in all the studied systems were obtained and

compared with each other and the system with the lowest particle concentration in the breathing

PT
zone was introduced.

RI
2. System description

SC
Fig. 1 shows the schematic of the study room used in this research. A room with dimensions

of 4.8×2.4×2.7m was considered. The room has a door and window with dimensions of 2×1.2m

U
and 2.3×1.2m, respectively. Three heating systems, including floor heating, thermal skirting
AN
board, and radiator heating systems were studied in this room. Two registers on two walls of the

room were also considered in order to take into account the effect of air change on the air flow
M

and particle patterns. Dimensions of the registers are 0.24×0.14m and one of them is located at

2.28m height on the door’s wall and the other is located at 0.38m height on the window’s wall.
D

The radiator is located on the door’s wall and its dimensions are 1.2×0.55m and its distances
TE

from the ground and the wall are 0.1m and 0.055m, respectively. The thermal skirting board is
EP

placed in the periphery of the room. Its dimensions are 17.1×0.2m and it is located at 0.02m from

the ground. The area of floor heating system is 11.52m2.A seated female manikin faced to the
C

window was placed at the middle of the room. The door material is wood and its thickness is
AC

5cm. The window glass thickness is 3cm. The thickness of the side walls is 30cm and made

from gypsum.

7
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
U SC
AN
Fig. 1: Sketch of the study room with the heated manikin in its middle
M

3. Mathematical equations and numerical method

D

3.1 Fluid flow and walls

The airflow in the room as well as the room’s walls was simulated. The fluid flow phase was
TE

solved using the Reynolds Averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) equations as well as the energy

equation. To analyze the flow, the v2-f turbulence model was used [26, 27]. The model
EP

formulation of fluid flow has the following general form:

C

_ _  _ 
∂φ _
∂φ ∂  ∂φ 
ρ +ρuj − Γφ , eff = Sφ (1)
∂x j ∂ x j  ∂x j 
AC

∂t
 

Where φ represents the independent flow variables, Γ φ , eff the effective diffusion coefficient,

Sφ the source term, ρ the flow density and the bars denote the Reynolds averaging. In Table 1

the mathematical form of each transport equation of the v2-f model are summarized. p is the air

8
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

_
pressure, µ t the turbulent viscosity, S the rate of strain, f a part of the v '2 source term and T the

turbulent time scale.

Table 1: Coefficients and source terms in Eq. (1)

Name of conservation Independe Effective Source term

PT
equation nt flow diffusion Sφ
variable coefficient
_ Γφ ,eff
φ

RI
Continuity 1 0 0
X-Component of u υt + υ −
1 ∂p
+
∂
(υ t
∂u
)+
∂
(υ t
∂v
)+
∂
(υ t
∂w
)
momentum ρ ∂x ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂x ∂z ∂z

Y-Component of v υt + υ 1 ∂p ∂ ∂u ∂ ∂v ∂ ∂w
+ (υt )+ (υt ) + (υt

SC
− )
momentum ρ ∂y ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂y ∂z ∂z

Z- Component of w υt + υ −
1 ∂p
momentum ρ ∂z

U
∂ ∂v ∂ ∂u ∂ ∂w
− β g (T − T∞ ) + (υt ) + (υt ) + (υt )
∂y ∂y ∂x ∂y ∂z ∂z
AN
T λ f + υ t /σT 0
Energy

Turbulent kinetic k υt / σ k ,t + υ Gk − ε
M

energy(k)
Turbulent kinetic energy ε υt / σ ε ,t + υ ( C ε' 1 G k − C ε 2 ε ) / T l
dissipation rate(ε)
Wall normal turbulence υt /σ ϕ + υ ∂k ∂ϕ
D

_ 2 p
fluctuation of kinetic energy ( v '2 / k ) (α υ + υt / σ k,t ) + Sϕ
k ∂x j ∂x j
( ϕ)
TE

L2 ∆α − α = −1 , Gk = υt S , S = Sij Sij
2
, Sϕ = (1 − α p ) f w + α p f h − G k ϕ / k

k ν 
ϕε
fh = −
1 G Tl = max , CT
( C 1 − 1 + k )( ϕ − 2 / 3 ) , fw = −
Tl ε ε ε 
k

EP

 k3/ 2 υ3 / 4 
_
L = CL max , Cη 1/ 4  , Pk = 2Cµ v '2 TSij2
 
 ε ε 
p 1
C

υ t = C µ , k ϕ Tl , , Cε1 = 1.44(1 + 0.04(1 − α )

'
)
ϕ
C ε 2 = 1 . 83 , C1 = 1 .7 , C 2 = 1 .2 , C µ = 0 .22 , C L = 0 .161 , Cη = 90 , C T = 6 , σ k , t = 1, σ ε , t = 1 .22 , σ ϕ , t = 1, p = 3
AC

The appropriate boundary conditions of turbulence variables near the walls are as follows:
k
k = v '2 = 0, ε = 2υ (2)
y 2p
yp is the distance from the cell center to the wall.
The equation used to solve the solid wall temperature is as follows:

9
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

∂ 2 Tw ∂ 2Tw ∂ 2 Tw
+ 2 + =0 (3)
∂x 2 ∂y ∂z 2
Tw is the walls’ temperature. It should be mentioned that it was assumed that the heat transfer

in the walls is happening under the steady state condition and there is no heat generation inside

PT
the room’s wall.

The utilized boundary conditions for solving the governing equations are given in Table 2.

RI
The wall boundary condition on the outside of the walls which are in contact with the

SC
surrounding air is as follows:

Q = hA(Tw.o − Tamb ) (4)

U
h is convection heat transfer coefficient on the exterior walls, Two is the exterior wall
AN
temperature, and Tamb is ambient temperature. It should be pointed out that the heat transfer due

to radiation heat transfer to the sky is ignored and the simulation was performed at night times
M

thus solar energy on the walls was not considered. It also should be mentioned the heat transfer
D

coefficients on the walls were obtained based on the equation given in the appendix. The
TE

boundary condition on the inner side of the walls is as follows:

 ∂Tair ∂T  (5)
 k air = kw w 
∂n ∂n inner side of wall
EP

kair is the air conductivity coefficient, Tair is room temperature, Tw is the wall temperature.
C

Turbulent intensity, temperature, and velocity were considered 30%, 20°C, and 0.2 m/s,
AC

respectively, at the air inlet register. The temperature of the manikin’s body was taken 32.2°C and

the buoyancy movement due to the generated thermal plume was taken into account in the

particle distribution calculation. It should be mentioned this temperature is the manikin’s body

temperature with clothes [18, 20]. The pressure outlet boundary condition was given at the outlet

registers of the room. An unstructured grid (tetrahedral cell topology) was applied for

10
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

surrounding air of the manikin as well as the solid walls (See Fig. 2). To resolve the boundary

layer around the manikin, fine meshes were created at the surface of the manikin with an initial

height of 0:2 mm, and an increase mesh size of 1.13. The unstructured mesh and the finite

volume method as well as the SIMPLE algorithm were used to solve the governing equations.

PT
Grid dependency analysis of the computational domain was carried out and a computational

RI
mesh containing about 2 ×106 cells showed a sufficient accuracy for continuing the analysis. In

this study, a program with user-defined scalar (UDS) is compiled by commercial CFD software,

SC
FLUENT (version 6.2) to predict the airflow turbulence features.

U
AN
M
D
TE
EP

Fig.2. Generated mesh around the manikin body

Table 2: Boundary conditions used in this study

Inlet air Inlet air Outlet Ambient Manikin Internal wall Supplied heat to the
C

velocity temperatur register temperature Body room (W)

(m/s) e (°C) pressure (Pa) (°C) temperature
AC

(°C) With Without

Manikin Manikin
0.25 20 0 -5 32.2 Numan Boundary 1470 1610
condition
Turbulent
intensity in
inlet register
Convection heat transfer coefficient (W/m2.K) (%) Air change per hour
Door Window Side walls Roof
4 1
wall wall
7.095 5.925 6.25 9.987

11
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The verification of air flow phase simulation was performed in two cases: with and without

the presence of the manikin. The first case of the verification is an experimental study which has

been carried out by Olsen et al. [28]. The studied geometry of this research is shown in Fig. 3.

The detail characteristics of the experimental study and the present study are given in Table 4. It

PT
should be mentioned, the studied system in this research has been selected based on Olesen et al.

RI
study.

U SC
AN
M

Fig. 3: The geometry used in Olsen et al study (Fig. 1 in article [28])

Table 4: The characteristics of Olsen et al study and the present study
Characteristics Olsen et al. [22] Present Study
D

Room Dimension 4.8×2.4×2.7m 4.8×2.4×2.7m

Door dimension 2×1.2m 2×1.2m
TE

Window Dimension 1.2×2.3m 1.2×2.3m

Radiator dimension 1.2×0.55m 1.2×0.55m
Skirt boarding Dimension 0.02×0.02m 0.02×0.02m
Ambient Temperature -5°C and 4°C -5°C
22°C 22°C
EP

Comfort Temperature
Room Air change 0 and 0.8Ach 1Ach

3.2. Particle phase

C

3.2.1 Particle motion and particle concentration distribution

AC

The Langragian point of view was used to model particle transport in the air. The following

equations were used to simulate movement of spherical particles:

= (6)

12
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

. . /"
( . )
) + ( ()) +
#
( − ) + ( −
$ ( %& &% ) /'

 
 
9πµυ d p 1
*1 − - ./ − ∇Tait 



(7)
, T air kf
2+ 
 kp 

PT
Where = 10 + ′
which 10 is the mean flow velocity at the particle location, ′
is the flow

fluctuation velocity, is the velocity of particles at the center of the particles, xi is the particle

RI
position, t is time, dp is the particle diameter, S is the ratio of particle density to fluid density, and

SC
gi is the gravitational acceleration. 23 = 4 − 4 5/6 is the particle Reynolds number based

on the flow-particle slip velocity. The first term on the right-hand side of Eq. 7 stands for the

Stokes drag. Here, τp is the Stokes relaxation time and is as follows:

U
AN
" $8
7 = 9
(8)
Cc is the Stokes–Cunningham correction factor which modifies the drag force exerted to
M

ultrafine particles due to slip and is [29]:

D

< .
:; = 1 + (2.514 + .@@ ⁄A ) (9)
TE

The second term on the right right-hand side of Eq. 7 presents the contribution of the Saffman

lift force. The third term in Eq. 7, nj(t), represents the stochastic phenomenon of the Brownian
EP

diffusion. This force is modeled by a Gaussian random number with zero-mean, unit variance,

Gi, as [30]
C

E F H K
( ()) = C/ × ( IJ ) /E

AC

G @$"8 ∆
(10)
9
The fourth term in Eq. 7 is the particle gravitational force. The fifth term in Eq. 7 is the

thermophoretic force for Kn≥1 [31].

To calculate the particle concentration in the room as well as the concentration in the

breathing zone of the manikin due to the released particles, plane and volume averaged particle

13
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

number concentrations are obtained. The particle number concentration equation used in this

study is as follows, [32]:

∑O
: M = #P #
(11)
QK

PT
Where n is the number of particles that move across the measurement volume V, and ti is the

particle residence time in the measurement volume, and T is the sampling time. The plane

RI
averaged particle number concentration, Cpa, is calculated as follows:

∑O
#P ( / # )

SC
: M = (12)
RK

Where n is the number of particles that move across the plane having an area of A with a

U
normal velocity vp. It should be stated that, the average concentration at the inlet was used to
AN
normalize the calculated concentrations in the breathing zone. The normalized volume averaged

concentration is given as:

M

∑O # /Q
: ∗M = (T/R
#P
U (13)
#O #O )
D

The plane averaged concentration is as follows:

∑O
#P ( / # )/R
TE

: ∗M = U ) (14)
(T/R#O #O
Where N is number of injected particles and vP is the particle velocity at the inlet register with
EP

an area of Ain.

The particles were released from the inlet register as well as a surface located in the front of
C

the manikin in the room. The particle phase characteristics are given in Table 5. The injection
AC

type is surface injection and the particles were released with an initial velocity of 0.25m/s. The

selected particle sizes are 0.1, 1, and 10µm. Three particle numbers were tested in the room in

order to find the steady state condition of particle concentration. This study selected three

particle numbers, including 4×104, 7×104, and 9×104 to test the steady state condition. The

results of the this test showed that 7×104 particles have sufficient accuracy for reaching the

14
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

steady state condition. It should be mentioned that the particle injection was performed in 700s

and the room reached a steady state condition after 640s. This steady time was approximately the

same in all the injection numbers. The obtained results in this study all are in the steady state

time condition.

PT
Table 5: Characteristics of particle phase
Injection Type Surface Injection

RI
Vparticle (m/s) 0.25

( s)
n& p # 7×104

SC
dp (μm) 0.1-1-10
3
ρ (kg/m ) 2000
The particle equation of motion was solved using the discrete phase of FLUENT software.

U
The concentration equations listed above were solved using a home made computer code written
AN
in MATLAB. This code was later linked to the discrete phase model of FLUENT to obtain the
M

particle concentration in the breathing zone of the manikin..

D

4. Results and Discussion

4.1 Air Flow Phase
TE

Fig. 4 shows the temperature distribution of three studied systems, including floor heating

system, the radiator heating system, and skirt boarding heating system. This figure also shows
EP

the comparison between the present study and the experimental study [28]. As shown in this

figure, the present simulation predicts the experimental data with a reasonable accuracy in all the
C

cases. It should be mentioned that some differences are seen between the present simulation and
AC

Olsen et al. study in some points of the measurement. This is mainly due to the difference

between the air change of the present study and the Olesen et al. study. Fig. 5 shows the

comparison of air flow velocities above the manikin head calculated in the present study with

two computational studies [18, 20] and an experimental study [33]. As shown in this figure, the

15
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

present study predicts the air flow velocity above the manikin’s head with a good accuracy.

♦ Present study
▲ Present study
- - - - Experiment (0ach) [28]
- - - - Experiment (0ach) [28]
Experiment (0.8ach) [28]
Experiment (0.8ach) [28]

PT
RI
SC
(a) (b)

U
Present study
- - - - Experiment (0ach) [28]
AN
Experiment (0.8ach) [28]
M
D
TE

(c)
Fig. 4: Comparison of temperature distribution across the room height in the present study
with Olsen et al.[28] study for floor heating (a), skirt boarding (b), radiator heating systems (c)
C EP
AC

(a) (b)

16
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
(c) (d)
Fig.5: Comparison of the air flow velocity above the manikin’s head (a) computational study
(Fig.6 in article [18]) (b) computational study(Fig.7 in article [20]), (c) present study, and (d)

U
experimental study (Fig. 6 in article [33]) ,
AN
Now the results of the present study are described in following. Figure 6 shows the study

system (a) and some selected planes (b) in that in order to show the flow characteristics all over
M

the room. Elevens planes are shown in Fig. 6b as well as detailed information about their
D

positions. Fig. 6c also shows some selected points in the room in order to show the flow and
TE

particle characteristics across the room height.

C EP
AC

(a)

17
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
(b)

U
AN
M
D

(c)
Fig. 6: The room (a) with defined planes (b) and lines (c) to show the present study results
TE

Figure 7 shows temperature and velocity distributions in plane 10 crossed the manikin’s body in
EP

all the heating systems. This figure states that the floor heating system and the radiator heating

system have the highest and lowest air velocities, respectively, around the manikin among all the
C

heating systems. This figure also states that the air velocity in the manikin breathing zone in the
AC

floor heating is higher than that of the other two systems. The air velocity in the floor heating

system is 2.9 times larger than the radiator system. This figure further state that the air

temperature in the radiator heating system is higher than that of the two other heating systems.

The air temperatures in the floor heating system and the skirt boarding system evenly distribute

in the room while the radiator heating system does not have this advantage.

18
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
(a)

U SC
AN
(b)
M
D
TE
EP

(c)
Fig. 7: Air flow velocity, vector velocity, and air temperature distributions in Plane 10, Floor heating system(a), Skirt
C

boarding heating system (b), and radiator heating system (c)

AC

The velocity and temperature distributions in plane 3 are shown in Fig. 8. This figure also says

that the air velocity in the floor heating system is still higher than that of the two other heating

systems. The radiator heating system has the lowest air velocity in the room. The skirt boarding

heating system in plane 3 experiences a much lower air velocity than the floor heating system in

comparison with plane 10. The mean air velocity of skirt boarding and the radiator heating

19
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

systems in plane 3 is 205% and 460%, respectively, smaller than that of the floor heating system.

It should be mentioned that the mean air velocity of floor heating system is in the range of

comfort velocity. The temperature distribution in Fig. 8 shows that like plane 10, the highest air

temperature belongs to the radiator heating system and also non uniform temperature distribution

PT
is seen in this system. Fig. 9 shows the velocity and temperature distributions across the lines

RI
shown in Fig. 6c. As shown in Fig. 6c, line 1 is close to the door, line 5 is close to the window,

lines 2 and 4 are in the back and front of the manikin, respectively, and lines 6 and 7 are in the

SC
right and left sides of the manikin, respectively. It should be mentioned that the symmetry

condition in the room does not exist. Fig. 9 shows that the air velocity changes in lines 1 and 5

U
for the floor and the radiator heating systems are the same. However, the air velocities in the
AN
skirt boarding heating system on these two lines are not the same. The difference is mainly due

to the door and window which are close to these lines. The temperature distributions on these
M

two lines show that the floor and skirt boarding heating systems have evenly distributed
D

temperature across the room’s height. This figure also shows that the air temperature across the
TE

room height in the radiator heating system changes and is not constant. The velocity distributions

on lines 6 and 7 show that due to non symmetry condition of the front and back of the manikin,
EP

the velocity trend is not the same specially for the floor heating system. Fig. 9 also show that the

temperature distribution is like other lines and the skirt boarding heating system has the most
C

uniform temperature across the room’s height.

AC

20
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
(a)

U
AN
M
D
TE

(b)
C EP
AC

(c)
Fig. 8: Air flow velocity, vector velocity, and air temperature distributions in plane 3, Floor heating(a),
Skirt boarding heating system (b), and radiator heating system (c)

21
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
Line 1 Line 5

U SC
AN
M

Line 2 Line 5
D
TE
C EP

Line 6 Line 7
AC

Fig. 9: Air flow and temperature distributions across different lines in the room for all the heating systems

Table 6 shows the mean values of the air temperature and velocity for all the studied systems in

all the planes shown in Fig. 9. Fig.10 shows the mean values of air temperature as well as

velocity for all the investigated systems in the room. This figure states that the mean air velocity

in the floor heating system and the skirt boarding system is 266% and 133%, respectively, larger

22
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

than the radiator heating system. This figure also states that the air mean temperature in the

radiator heating system is higher than the floor heating and skirt boarding heating systems. This

difference is about 0.25K. It should be mentioned that the air distributions in the floor heating

and the skirt boarding heating systems are quite uniform through the room while the radiator

PT
heating system suffers from the nonuniform temperature distribution in the room.

RI
Table 5: Mean air flow properties in planes 1-11 for floor, skirt boarding, and radiator heating systems.
Floor Skirt boarding Radiator
Vm(m/s) Tm(K) Vm(m/s) Tm(K) Vm(m/s) Tm(K)

SC
Plane 1 0.11 292.8 0.109 294.51 0.0708 297.39
Plane 2 0.22 294.35 0.138 294.56 0.073 296.32
Plane 3 0.29 295.87 0.141 295.73 0.063 296.83
Plane 4 0.17 294 0.138 294.63 0.071 296.21

U
Plane 5 0.135 293.5 0.135 294.5 0.042 295.3
Plane 6 0.12 294.47 0.123 295.33 0.069 298.35 2
AN
Plane 7 0.11 293.95 0.12 295.21 `0.052 296.1
Plane 8 0.11 294.18 0.116 295.13 0.038 294.25
Plane 9 0.13 294.15 0.141 295.01 0.037 296.68
Plane 10 0.125 294.19 0.123 294.32 0.043 296.3 2
M

Plane 11 0.16 294.32 0.131 295.22 0.054 297.02

D
TE
C EP

Fig. 10: Comparison of mean air temperature and velocity in the room for all the studied heating systems
AC

4.2 Particle Phase

This section presents the obtained results for the particle phase in three studied heating systems.

It is first needed to verify the particle model performance. For checking out this, the plane

average concentration in the breathing zone of the manikin was obtained and compared with two

other numerical studies performed in the past [18,20] as well as experimental studies [34, 35].

23
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 11 shows the comparison between the present study and the other studied carried out in the

past. As shown in this figure, the present study predicts the plane concentration with a good

accuracy when it is compared with the numerical and experimental studies. It also has a better

accuracy than Salmanzadeh et al. study [18]. It should be mentioned that the differnce between

PT
the present study results and the experiment results becomes higher at distances larger than 5cm,

RI
because in the present study the manikin was simulated without breathing while in the

experimental study [35] the manikin has nose breathing (30° with respect to vertical plane)

SC
M a r r ( E x p e r im e n t a l S t u d y )
S a lm a n z a d e h ( C o m p u t a t in a l S t u d y )
1 .5 A n s a r ip o u r ( C o m p u t a t in a l S t u d y )

U
P resen t S tu d y
Plane Averaged Concentration

AN
1
M

● Present study
■ Experiment [34, 35]
0 .5
▲♦ Computation [18, 20]
D

0 5 10 15
D is t a n c e ( c m )
TE

Fig. 11: Comparison of plane concentration in the breathing zone of the manikin in the present study with
the experimental [34, 35] and numerical [18, 20] studies
EP

Fig.12 shows the dimensionless particle concentration in plane 10 in all the studied systems for

particle size of 0.1µm. The particles are released from the inlet vent. It is clear that the particle
C

concentration has the maximum value in the radiator heating system and the second maximum is
AC

happening in the floor heating system. The skirt boarding heating system has the minimum

concentration among all the studied systems. The particle concentration in plane 3 also states that

the maximum particle concentration belongs to the radiator heating system and the minimum

particle concentration is happening in the skirt boarding heating system.

Floor heating Skirt boarding Radiator

24
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
C C C
) mean = 0.06 ) mean = 0.046 ) mean = 0.074
C0 C0
C0
(a)

U SC
AN
M

C C C
) mean = 0.026 )mean = 0.007 )mean = 0.053
C0 C0 C0
(b)
D

Fig. 12: Normal particle concentration in planes 10 (a) and 3 (b) for all the studied heating systems, injection from inlet
register and do=0.1µm
TE

Fig.13 shows the particle concentration in planes 10 and 3 when particles are released from

the plane placed in front of the manikin. In this case also the maximum particle concentration is
EP

seen in plane 10 in the floor heating system and the particle concentration in the skirt boarding
C

and the radiator heating systems in this plane are the same. In plane 3, the maximum and
AC

minimum particle concentrations are again seen in the floor heating system and the skirt board

heating system, respectively.

25
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Floor heating Skirt boarding Radiator

PT
RI
C

SC
C C ) m e a n = 0 .0 1 5
) mean = 0.021 ) mean = 0.015 C0
C0 C0

U
AN
M
D

C C C
) m ean = 0 .0 0 7
) m e a n = 0 .0 1 8 C0 ) m e a n = 0 .0 1 4
C0 C0
Fig. 13: Normal particle concentration in planes 10 (a) and 3(b) for all the studied heating systems, injection from the manikin
TE

front and dp=0.1µm

Fig. 14 shows the particle deposition fraction settled on the walls of the room when the particles
EP

are released from the air inlet vent. This figure shows that the maximum particle deposition in all

the systems is happening on the walls and in this case the maximum and minimum particle
C

depositions belong to the floor heating and the skirt board heating systems. On the ceiling, the
AC

maximum and minimum particle depositions belong to the floor and the radiator heating systems.

The particle deposition on the floor has the minimum value in the floor heating system and the

maximum deposition belongs to the skirt boarding heating system.

26
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
SC
Fig. 14: Particle deposition fractions on the room components in all the studied heating systems,
injection from inlet register and dp=0.1µm
Fig. 15 shows the fraction of particle deposition in the room for all the heating systems in

U
three particle sizes (i.e. 0.1, 1, and 10µm). This figure depicts the particle fraction for the two
AN
locations in which the particles were released. As shown in this figure, the maximum and

minimum particle deposition fractions in the room for the entire particle sizes are happening in
M

the floor heating and the radiator heating systems, respectively, when the particles are injected
D

from the inlet air vent. This means that the floor heating and the skirt boarding heating systems
TE

have a good performance to remove the particle from the air in the room. It should be mentioned

that the dominant forces which controls the particle motions in smaller particle sizes (0.1 and
EP

1µm) are Brownian, thermophoretic and lift forces. For the large particle size (10µm), the

dominant force is the gravitational force.

C

Fig. 15 also shows that when the particles are released from the plane in front of the manikin, the
AC

particle removal efficiencies of all the studied systems are lower (i.e. 5-10%) than that of the

case of injection particle from the inlet air vent. This figure also states that the maximum and the

minimum particle depositions in the case of particle release from the injection plane are

happening on the floor and skirt boarding heating systems, respectively. Fig. 15 shows that in

case of different particle sizes, the removal efficiencies for particles entered from the air inlet in

27
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

all the particle sizes are quite the same. However, in the case of particle injection from the

manikin front, for smaller particle sizes the skirt boarding and radiator heating systems have

lower particle removal efficiencies compared to that for larger particle sizes.

PT
RI
U SC
Fig. 15: Particle deposition fractions in the room for three particle sizes, dp=0.1, 1, and 10 µm
AN
in all the studied heating systems, injection from the inlet register and the manikin front
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

Fig. 16: Normal Particle concentration in the breathing zone of the manikin for two
particle sizes, dp=0.1, and 10 µm in all the studied heating systems, injection from the inlet
register and the manikin front

Fig. 16 shows the particle concentration in the breathing zone of the manikin for two particle

sizes and the two locations of particle injection. This figure shows that the radiator heating

system has the maximum particle concentration in the breathing zone among all the studied

28
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

systems for particle size of 10µm with particle injection from the both locations. At this size, the

floor heating and the skirt boarding heating systems with injection form the manikin’s front have

the most particle concentration in the breathing zone. For small particle size (dp=0.1µm), the

PT
radiator heating system with particle injection from the manikin’s front has the maximum

RI
particle concentration in the breathing zone. The floor heating and the skirt boarding heating

systems with the same injection plane have the second and third most particle concentrations,

SC
respectively, in the breathing zone. At this size, when the injection is from the inlet register, the

U
maximum particle concentration belongs to the floor heating systems and the particle
AN
concentration of the breathing zone in the radiator and the skirt boarding heating systems are
M

quite the same.

Fig.17 shows the particle concentration in different lines shown in Fig. 6c for 0.1µm particle
D

size when they were released from the inlet air register. The particle concentration in the studied
TE

heating systems on line 1 shows that the radiator heating system has the lowest and highest
EP

particle concentrations close to the floor and ceiling, respectively. These changes are confirmed

by the velocity and temperature distributions shown in Fig. 9 as the lowest and the highest
C

velocities are seen close to the floor and ceiling, respectively. The particle concentration on line
AC

1 for the skirt boarding heating system also shows that this system has the highest and lowest

particle concentrations close to the floor and ceiling, respectively. The floor heating system has

the maximum particle concentration between the height of 0.5 and 1.4m, among all the studied

systems. The particle concentration close to the window (line 5) shows that the maximum

particle concentration on this line belongs to the radiator heating system with the highest value

29
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

close to the ceiling. The floor heating system has the same particle concentration as the skirt

boarding heating system close to the ceiling. The particle concentration distributions of floor

heating and the skirt boarding heating systems on line 2 are qualitatively and quantitatively the

same. It is still observed that the radiator heating system has the maximum concentration even in

PT
the lowest height of the room. On the line located in the manikin front (line 4), the particle

RI
concentration of the floor heating is different with the particle concentration of the skirt boarding

heating system at the middle heights of the room. Lines 6 and 7 have the same particle

SC
concentration distributions in all the studied heating systems. On these lines, the maximum

particle concentration belongs to the radiator heating system. The skirt boarding heating system

U
and the floor heating system has the same particle distribution.
AN
M
D
TE
EP

Line 1 Line 5
C
AC

Line 2 Line 4

30
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT
RI
Line 6 Line 7
Fig. 17: Normal particle concentrations across different lines in the room for

SC
all the heating systems, dp=0.1µm and injection from the inlet register

To check out the effect of particle size on the normal particle concentration, the results of the

U
two selected sizes are brought close each other to assess the particle size effect. Fig. 18 shows
AN
the normal particle concentration changes for two particle sizes (0.1and 10µm) across line 2. As

shown in this figure, 10µm particle size has a larger particle concentration at the heights below
M

1.2m and a lower concentration above 1.2 m in the floor and skirt boarding heating systems. This
D

figure also shows that the particle concentration in the radiator heating system is larger than the
TE

two other systems and 10µm particle size below 1.75m height has a higher particle concentration

compared to 0.1 µm. It means that the radiator heating system disperses a larger particle size in
EP

higher heights of the room compared to other studied systems.

C

Floor heating Skirt boarding heating Radiator heating

AC

31
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Fig. 18:Normal particle concentration across line 2 for two particle sizes, 0.1 and 10µm, in all the studied heating
systems, particle injection from the inlet register
5. Conclusions

In this study, air flow and particle dispersion of three heating systems, including floor heating,

skirt boarding heating, and radiator heating systems were investigated and compared with one

PT
another in a typical room with a seated heated manikin. The airflow was considered turbulent

and it was solved using v2-f turbulent model. The air flow study showed that the radiator heating

RI
system has a lower air velocity across the room height compared to other studied systems and the

SC
mean air velocity in the radiator heating system was 2 to 5 times smaller compared to that in the

floor and skirt boarding heating systems. The air temperature distributions of floor and skirt

boarding heating systems

U
were quite uniform across the room height while a stratified
AN
temperature distribution was seen in the radiator heating system. The results showed that the

highest concentration in the breathing zone of the manikin in the selected large particle size was
M

seen in the radiator heating system in the two cases of particle injection locations (i.e. Inlet
D

register and manikin’s front). It was also shown that in the case of particle injection from the
TE

manikin’s front, the particle concentration has still the maximum value in the radiator heating

system for the small particle size. This study found the skirt boarding heating system is the best
EP

heating system with the lowest particle concentration in the breathing zone and the highest

particle removal efficiency.

C
AC

References

[1]. Spolnik Z, Worobiec A, Samek L, Bencs L, Belikov K and Van Grieken R, Influence of
different types of heating systems on particulate air pollutant deposition: The case of churches
situated in a cold climate, Journal of Cultural Heritage, 2007, 8, 7-12

[2] Ploskić A and Holmberg S, Heat emission from thermal skirting boards, Building and
Environment, 2010, 45, 1123-1133.

32
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[3] Zhong K, Yang X and Kang Y, Effects of ventilation strategies and source locations on
indoor particle deposition, Building and Environment, 2010, 45, 655-662.

[4]. Ploskić A and Holmberg S, Low-temperature baseboard heaters with integrated air supply–
An analytical and numerical investigation, Building and Environment, 2011, 46, 176-186.

PT
[5]. Dong HwaKang, Dong HeeChoi, Yoon-BokSeong, Myoung SoukYeo, Kwang WooKim, A
numerical simulation of VOC emission and sorption behaviors of adhesive-bonded materials

RI
under floor heating condition. Building and Environment, 2013, 68, 193-201

1. [6] Hasan Karabay, Müslüm Arıcı, Murat Sandık, A numerical investigation of fluid flow and

SC
heat transfer inside a room for floor heating and wall heating systems, Energy and Buildings,
2013, 67, 471-478
2.
[7]. Golkarfard V and Talebizadeh P, Numerical comparison of airborne particles deposition and

U
dispersion in radiator and floor heating systems, Advanced Powder Technology, 2014, 25, 389-
397.
AN
[8] Maivel, M, Konzelmann, M., Kurnitski, J.Energy performance of radiators with parallel and
serial connected panels, Energy and Buildings, 2015, 86, 745-753
M

[9] Wang, Q. ,Ploskić, A. Holmberg, S. Retrofitting with low-temperature heating to achieve

D

energy-demand savings and thermal comfort, 2015 Energy and Buildings 109, 217-229
TE

1. [10]. Mi Su Shin, Kyu Nam Rhee, Seong Ryong Ryu, Myoung Souk Yeo, Kwang Woo Kim ,
Design of radiant floor heating panel in view of floor surface temperatures, Building and
Environment, 2015, 92, 559-577
EP

[11] Morteza Abdolzadeh, Mohammad Saleh Sargazizadeh, Mohammad Hadi Dehghan,

Quantitative and Qualitative Energy Assessments of Floor Heating and Skirting Board Heating
Systems in a Room, Journal of Energy Engineering, 143(1),
C

http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EY.1943-7897.0000385, 2016.
AC

[12]. Xuejing Zheng, Yong Han, Huan Zhang, Wandong Zheng, Dehui Kong, Numerical study
on impact of non-heating surface temperature on the heat output of radiant floor heating system,
Energy and Buildings, 2017, 155, 198-206
[13]. Guangming Chu, YanghongSun, TongJing, YanSun, YongliSun, A Study on Air
Distribution and Comfort of Atrium with Radiant Floor Heating, Procedia Engineering, 2017,
205, 3316-3322
[14]. AntonioAtienza, MárquezJosé Manuel, Cejudo LópezFrancisco,Fernández Hernández,

33
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

FernandoDomínguez, Muñoz Antonio, Carrillo Andrés, A comparison of heating terminal units:

Fan-coil versus radiant floor, and the combination of both, 2017, 138, 621-629

[15]. Rim D and Novoselac A, Ventilation effectiveness as an indicator of occupant exposure to

particles from indoor sources, Building and Environment, 2010, 45, 1214-1224.

PT
[16]. Zhou, Y., Deng, Y., Wu, P. Cao, S. The effects of ventilation and floor heating systems on
the dispersion and deposition of fine particles in an enclosed environment, Building and
Environment, 2017,125, 192-205

RI
[17]. Wang, J and Chow T. Numerical investigation of influence of human walking on dispersion and

SC
deposition of expiratory droplets in airborn infection isolation room. Building and Environment, 2011, 46,
1993-2002.

U
[18] Salmanzadeh, M.; Zahedi, G.; Ahmadi, G.; Marr, D.R.; and Glauser, M. Computational
modeling of effects of thermal plume adjacent to the body on the indoor airflow and particle
AN
transport. Journal of Aerosol Science, 53, 29–39, 2012.

[19] Hang, J. Li. Y., Jin, R. The influence of human walking on the flow and airborne
M

transmission in a six-bed isolation room: Tracer gas simulation, Building and Environment,
2014, 77, 2014, Pages 119-134
D

[20] Mehrzad Ansaripour, Morteza Abdolzadeh, Saleh Sargazizadeh, Computational modeling

of particle transport and distribution emitted from a Laserjet printer in a ventilated room with
TE

different ventilation configurations, Applied Thermal Engineering, 103, 920-933, 2016

EP

[21]. Mariya Bivolarova, Wojciech Kierat, EvaZavrl,, ZbigniewPopiolek, ArsenMelikov, effect of

airflow interaction in the breathing zone on exposure to bio-effluents, Building and Environment,
C

2017, 125,216-226
AC

2
[22]. JiangNan, Shi-yongYao, Lian-yuanFeng, He-jiangSun, Jun-jieLiu Experimental study on
flow behavior of breathing activity produced by a thermal manikin, Building and Environment
2017, 123, 200-210

[23] Zhuang, C., et al., Numerical comparison of removal and deposition for fully-distributed
particles in central- and split-type air-conditioning rooms. Building & Environment, 2017. 112:
p. 17-28.

34
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[24]. Mohammad Aliahmadipour, MortezaAbdolzadeh, Khosro Lari, Air flow simulation of

HVAC system in compartment of a passenger coach, 2017, Applied Thermal Engineering, 2017,
123, 973-990

[25] Tao Y, Inthavong , Tu , Dynamic meshing modelling for particle resuspension caused by

PT
swinging manikin motion, Building and Environment, 2017, 123, 529-54

[26]. Lien F., Kalitzin G., Computations of transonic flow with the v2-f turbulence model.

RI
International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 22, 53–61.

[27] Davidson L., Nielsen, P.V., Sveningsson A.,. Modification of the V2F model for

SC
computing the flow in a 3D wall jet. Turbulence Heat and Mass Transfer , 4, 577–584 2003.

[28] . Olesen B W, Mortensen E, Thorshauge J and Berg-Munch B, Thermal comfort in a room

heated by different methods, ASHRAE transactions, 1980, 86, 34-48.

U
[29] Hinds William , Aerosol Technology Properties, Behavior, and Measurement of Airborne
AN
Particles. Wiley, New York, 1982.

[30]. Li A., Ahmadi G., Dispersion and deposition of spherical particles from point sources in
turbulent channel flow, Aerosol Science and Technology, 16 , 209–226, (1992)
M

[31] L. Talbot, R.K. Cheng, R.W. Schefer, D.R. Willis, Thermophoresis of particles in
a heated boundary layer, J. Fluid Mech. 101 (1980) 737-758
D

[32] Zhu, J., Rudoff, R., Bachalo, E., & Bachalo, W. (1993). Number density and mass flux
TE

measurements using the phase Doppler particle analyzer in reacting and non-reacting swirling
flows. In: AIAA, Aerospace sciences meeting.
EP

[33]. Marr D, Velocity Measurements in Breathing Zone of a Moving Thermal Manikin within
the Indoor Environment Ph.D. Thesis,Syracuse University,New York, 2007,

[34]. Spitzer, I.M. (2006). Experimental Aerosol Characterization in the Indoor Environment
C

Using Phase Doppler Anemometry. Master’s Thesis. Syracuse University. Spitzer,

AC

[35] Spitzer, I.M., Marr, D.M., & Glauser, M.N. (2010). Impact of manikin motion on particle
transport in the breathing zone. Journal of Aerosol Science, 41, 373–383.

[36] Liu J, Heidarinejad M, Gracik S and Srebric J, The impact of exterior surface convective
heat transfer coefficients on the building energy consumption in urban neighborhoods with
different plan area densities, Energy and Buildings, 2015, 86, 449-463.

35
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Appendix
The following equations have been used to predict the heat transfer coefficient around the
building [36].
 ( 3.39 − 5.03λ p )U loc ( )
2 2
hCwindward = 0.94
 + 1.52 ∆ T 0.36
 ; R 2 = 0.94 (A1)
 

PT
 

 (1.15 − 0.82 λ p )U loc ( )

2 2
hCLeeward = 0.94
 + 1.52 ∆ T 0.36
 ; R 2 = 0.93 (A2)
   

RI
 ( 3.57 − 1.72 λ p ) U loc ( )
2 2
hCRoof = 0.94
 + 1.55 ∆ T 0.36
 ; R 2 = 0.91 (A3)

SC
   

Uc is the wind speed, ∆T is the temperature difference between the indoor and outdoor
temperatures of the room, and λp is the compression coefficient of the residential zone.

U
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC

36
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights

Comparison of flow simulation in three conventional heating systems

Particle dispersion distribution in the room in all the studying system

‘Effcet of particle generation source on dispersion of particles

PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC