Science and Technology for the Built Environment

ISSN: 2374-4731 (Print) 2374-474X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhvc21

Assessment and improvement of the 2019 ASHRAE

handbook model for exhaust-to-intake dilution
calculations for rooftop exhaust systems (ASHRAE
1823-RP)

Saba Zakeri Shahvari & Jordan D. Clark

To cite this article: Saba Zakeri Shahvari & Jordan D. Clark (2020): Assessment and improvement
of the 2019 ASHRAE handbook model for exhaust-to-intake dilution calculations for rooftop
exhaust systems (ASHRAE 1823-RP), Science and Technology for the Built Environment, DOI:
10.1080/23744731.2020.1715252

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23744731.2020.1715252

Accepted author version posted online: 13

Jan 2020.
Published online: 05 Feb 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 17

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uhvc21
Science and Technology for the Built Environment, (2020) 0, 1–15
Copyright # 2020 ASHRAE.
ISSN: 2374-4731 print / 2374-474X online
DOI: 10.1080/23744731.2020.1715252

Assessment and improvement of the 2019 ASHRAE handbook

model for exhaust-to-intake dilution calculations for rooftop
exhaust systems (ASHRAE 1823-RP)
SABA ZAKERI SHAHVARI and JORDAN D. CLARK

College of Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA

The HVAC Applications volume of the 2019 ASHRAE Handbook: Chapter 46 gives multiple procedures for sizing building exhaust
stacks and fans. The most complex of these procedures directly calculates dilution at a receptor of interest using plume theory and
several empirical constants. There is suggestion in the literature that this model leads to overly conservative dilution predictions in
some cases. The purpose of this work is to determine whether the ASHRAE model can be improved to give more accurate dilution
predictions. First, the predictions of the existing equation are evaluated against several existing wind tunnel and full-scale studies and
their shortcomings noted. The results show that the 2019 model under-predicts observed dilution mainly in two cases: near the stack
and when the plume is within the assumed recirculation region. The assumptions for initial plume spread, height of recirculation zone
region, plume spread and plume trajectory were varied parametrically to identify a better model. This optimized model can increase
dilution predictions by factors between 2 and 500, while bounding measured data in all cases analyzed. This can reduce the required
momentum ratio by 20–70%, leading to much more efficient fan sizing and operation.

Introduction and problem statement
The 2019 ASHRAE Handbook: HVAC Applications volume
provides a model in Chapter 46 that predicts dilution from
rooftop exhaust stacks at receptors on building roofs and
elsewhere, referred to here forward as simply “the model”.
This model is explained in detail in Appendix A of the cur-
rent work, and briefly outlined presently, with variables
called out in Figure 1. The model works by first calculating
plume height (hplume) at each distance from the exhaust,
which is the plume rise from the stack (hr) added to the
stack height (hs) minus the plume downwash (hd). This
plume height is then modified to account for the presence of
rooftop structures and the building recirculation zone (the
vertical height of which is referred to as hc), via the htop par-
ameter which is described in detail below. This modified
height is used in conjunction with a prediction of plume
spread in the vertical and lateral directions to predict a dilu-
tion between the exhaust and any receptor of interest.
Receive September 27, 2019; accepted January 8, 2020
Saba Zakeri Shahvari, Student Member ASHRAE, is a
Master’s student in Mechanical Engineering, and Jordan
Clark, PhD, Member ASHRAE, is an Assistant Professor and
a Core Faculty of the Sustainability Institute.

Corresponding author e-mail: clark.1217@osu.edu
Several shortcomings in this model have been identified in
the literature. Hajra, Stathopoulos, and Bahloul (2011) shows
that the ASHRAE model is overly conservative in many cases.
Gupta, Stathopoulos, and Saathoff (2012) also claim that the
model predicts dilution conservatively, especially when an obs-
tacle exists on the roof. Gupta, Stathopoulos, and Saathoff
(2012) mention that the ASHRAE model is more accurate as
the distance from the stack is increased.
The plume trajectory may be one source of error.
Virtually all validation of the model was done by measure-
ments or photographs of the plume far from the stack
(Briggs 1973). The region of interest in building design is
often the very-near field and to the authors’ knowledge the
plume trajectory has not been validated in this region. This
is investigated further in the current work.
Other variables that play an important role in predicting
plume dilution include the initial source size, ro, and the
vertical and lateral plume spreads, ry and rz. ASHRAE RP
897 (Wilson et al. 1998) suggested the following equation
be used for calculating the initial source size.

2 0:5
b2eff
r0 ¼ M
8 þ 2
Dh
d þ 0:5 2
d (1)
1 þ 0:015M 2
beff ¼ (2)
1 þ 0:04M 2
2 Science and Technology for the Built Environment

Fig. 1. Flow recirculation zones and other geometrical exhaust parameters (ASHRAE 2019-Modified).

where M is the exhaust momentum ratio [-], Dh is the final obstacles”. This variable is introduced via another variable, f,
momentum rise height ¼ 3Md [m,ft], and d is the stack which is the difference between the exhaust plume height and
diameter [m, ft]. htop. The relationship between f and htop leads to one of the
In the 2019 Handbook, ro is set to 35% of the exhaust diam- following scenarios, depicted in Figure A1 in Appendix A:
eter, de, which is based on the conservative assumption of a
1. The predicted plume height, hplume, is less than htop at all
momentum ratio equal to 1 and a simplified version of Equation
distances from the stack. In this case, f becomes zero at
2 (Wilson 2019). In the experiments of ASHRAE RP 897,
all distances and the minimum dilution is predicted using
Equation 1 predicts ro between 1de and 2.5de for momentum
only the non-exponential term in the model. This leads
ratio of 1. For the studies analyzed in this work, Equation 1 pre-
to a counterintuitive situation in which increasing
dicts between 1de and 3de for momentum ratios less than 1,
exhaust velocity decreases prediction of dilution.
between 3de and 5de for momentum ratios between 1 and 2,
2. Predicted hplume is less than htop near the stack, and
and between 6de and 15de for momentum ratios up to 5.
greater far from the stack. In this case since the
Anecdotal conversations between the authors and practitioners
difference between hplume and htop is small, the
confirmed that it is often necessary to set this value near one in
exponential term is around one and near-constant
order to predict dilution values that match wind tunnel results.
dilution is predicted at all distances from the stack.
Plume spread is calculated by first calculating the lateral
3. hplume is greater than htop at all distances from the stack.
and vertical components of turbulence intensity, iy and iz, by
In this case f is always non-zero and the exponential
multiplying the longitudinal component ix by empirical con-
term is effective. In this case the exponential term may
stants. Early in the literature turbulence was assumed to be
approach infinity near the stack, and as a result the
equal in x, y and z directions. Scrase (1930) measured the
model predicts a very high dilution near the stack.
three components at two different heights (1.5 and 19
Since many have measured a recirculation zone above
meters; [4.9 and 62 ft]). He found the ratio of y and z com-
building roofs, the inclusion of htop was an intuitive and
ponents to x were 1.16 and 0.75, respectively, at a height of
understandable one. However, to the authors’ knowledge
1.5 meters [4.9 ft], and 0.73 and 0.56 at 19 meters [2.4, 1.8,
data-driven optimization of the effective height of this region
62 ft]. The 2019 ASHRAE Handbook procedure agrees with
or rigorous justification of its inclusion for exhaust plume
the measurements made at a height of 19 meters [62 ft].
modeling has not been performed, and a few shortcomings
Scrase (1930) also mentioned that at heights greater than 60
that motivate the current work are mentioned above.
meters [200 ft] the velocity components can be assumed to
In light of these possible shortcomings in the current
be equal. Teunissen (1970) measured turbulence intensity
model, this investigation pursues three objectives:
variation with height over a flat terrain. His experiments
show that although the turbulence intensities decrease with 1. Assess the existing model and compare it with published data
height, the ratio of lateral and vertical to horizontal turbu- to identify situations in which the model can be improved.
lence intensities are constant with height. 2. Identify model parameters that can be improved and
Another source of error is likely in the concept of htop, which lack physical or empirical justification.
which is the highest of either the receptor of interest, the top 3. Optimize the values of these parameters and make any
of the building recirculation zone, or the tallest of the “active other modifications necessary to improve model
Volume 0, Number 0, Month 2020
predictions while ensuring the model does not
overpredict dilution in any published cases.
Methodology
In order to evaluate the existing model, published wind tun-
nel and full-scale dilution data were first assembled in a
database and reviewed. The database included data from the
following sources:
1) Hajra, Stathopoulos, and Bahloul (2011)
General details of this dataset are as follows:
 Two building heights of 15 and 30 m [49 and 98 ft],
referred to as low rise and high rise building, respectively.
 4 different building configurations with 3 different stack
heights [1, 3, 5 m (3.28 ft, 9.84 ft, 16.4 ft)] and 3
momentum ratios: 1, 2, 3.
For this evaluation only data from the configurations
where no neighboring buildings existed were used.
Experimental data from the case with 5 m [16 ft] stack height
and momentum ratio of 2 was not reported in the article.
2) Gupta, Stathopoulos, and Saathoff (2012)
General details of this dataset are as follows:
 5 different exhaust momentum ratios, and 4 different
stack heights were tested:
 Stack heights hs (m): 1, 3, 5, 7 [3.3, 10, 16, 23 ft]
 Exhaust momentum ratios (M ¼ Ve/UH): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
 Two building heights of 15 [49ft] and 60 m [197 ft],
called low rise and high rise building respectively.
In this evaluation only experimental data from the tests
where no rooftop structure existed on the roof were used.
Dilution values from the experiments with stack heights of
3 m [10 ft] were reported in the article.
3) ASHRAE Research Project 805: Petersen, Carter, and
Ratcliff (1997)
General details of this dataset are as follows:
 3 different volumetric flow rates and 6 different stack
heights were tested.
 Stack heights (hs): 0, 1, 3, 5, 7, 12 ft (0, 0.3, 0.9, 1.5,
2.1, 3.7 m)
 Wind azimuths: 0, 45 and 90 degrees
This dataset included tests with screens on the roof. In
this evaluation only data from the experiments without any
screens on the roof were used.
4) Schulman and Scire (1991)
General details of this dataset are as follows:
 4 different exhaust momentum ratios, 4 different stack
heights, and 2 different angles were tested.
 Stack heights (hs): 0, 1.5, 4.5, 7.5 m [0, 5, 15, 25 ft]
 Exhaust momentum ratios (M ¼ Ve/UH): 0.75, 1.5, 3, 5
 Wind azimuths: 0 and 45 degrees
In this dataset, some data points were from the receptors
located on a sidewall. In this evaluation, those data points
have been excluded and the focus was on the data points
3
from receptors located on the rooftop only, but at the end the
sidewall data points were also checked with our findings.
5) Wilson and Chui (1994)
General details of this dataset are as follows:
 11 building configurations with 6 different exhaust
momentum ratios were tested.
 Stack heights (hs): 0, 2.44, 3.66 (m) [0, 8, 12 ft]
 Exhaust momentum ratios (M ¼ Ve/UH(avg)): ranged
from 0.19 to 2.86
In this dataset all models had round, vertically directed
exhaust jets of zero stack height.
6) Wilson and Lamb (1994)
General details of this dataset are as follows:
 Tests were full scale.
 11 different exhaust momentum ratios and 11 model
building configurations were tested.
 Stack heights (hs): 0, 2.44, 3.66 m [0, 8, 12 ft]
 Exhaust momentum ratios (M ¼ Ve/UH(avg)): ranged
from 1.23 to 8.48
This dataset includes data from a field study done on a
group of building located on a university campus, using 44
receptors located both on the roof and on the ground.
For each data point the dilution values were calculated
with the 2019 ASHRAE procedure and the predicted and
observed values of dilution were plotted to compare. In
order to facilitate comparison, R is defined as the ratio of
observed to predicted dilution:
DObserved
R¼ (3)
DPredicted
Using this definition:
if R < 1 ! ASHRAE model is failing
if R > 1 ! ASHRAE model is bounding the data
if R  1 ! ASHRAE model is too conservative
The ultimate purpose of this work is to define a model
that bounds the data without being overly conservative, or
result in R that approaches 1.
Several methods for improving the current model were
attempted, guided by previous literature and assessment of
the shortcomings of the current model. One of these
involved modification of the assumption for htop, which was
suggested in previous literature and justified in this work.
The other three involved modifying assumptions for plume
geometry near the stack, which was suggested by the con-
sistently overly conservative predictions near the stack calcu-
lated in this work. They are as follows:
1. Identification of an optimal height for htop by
introducing parameter a in the current model and
identifying its optimal value:
f ¼ hplume  ahtop (4)
2. Identification of optimal value for initial source size by
introducing parameter c
4 Science and Technology for the Built Environment
r0
c¼ (5)
de
This convention allows for a simple formulation for
initial source size, but one that is optimized to give the
least conservative value.
3. Identification of an optimal model of plume spread in the
near field, by including a term, iself , that acts as
turbulence within the plume immediately leaving the stack
and a gradual transition a few stack diameters away to the
current model, enabled by the parameter p in Equations 6
and 7.
p ASHRAE model to avoid the exponential term approaching
iy ¼ 0:75 ix þ ðiself 0:75 ix Þ  x  (6)
de þ p
p Data from Gupta, Stathopoulos, and Saathoff (2012),
iz ¼ 0:5 ix þ ðiself 0:5 ix Þ  x  (7)
de þ p
Because the assumptions in the current model for
vertical and lateral plume spread in the far field are
based on measured values of turbulence intensity in
these directions, these variables are not modified in the
course of this work. The effect of the term iself is likely
the summation of several mechanisms including
expansion of the jet immediately upon leaving the
exhaust.
4. Identification of optimal assumption for plume trajectory
in the near-field through the introduction of the
parameter d in Equation 8 in which hs is the stack height
and hf is the final plume rise from the stack
(Formulation to calculate the final plume rise is from the
ASHRAE handbook). This allows for an increase in
plume height near the stack, which seemed to be
justified after a review of the performance of the current
model in this region.
hplumemodified ¼ hplume þ d  ðhf þ hs hplume Þ (8)
In order to identify values for these parameters that
resulted in a model that bounded measured data as
conservatively as possible the objective function F was
defined as
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
P the stack.
F ða, c, iself , p, dÞ ¼ ðR1Þ2 (9)
A MATLab program was developed to minimize this F
by changing the variables a, c, iself , p, and d: (0 < a
1,
0 < c
5, 0
iself <1, 0<p < 5, 0 < d < 20). For each dataset, all
data points (observed dilutions) were added into MATLab as
a table. For each observed dilution all parameters needed to
calculate the minimum dilution were also added, including
the distance from the stack at which that dilution was
observed (x), the plume rise (hplume), and etc. The program
then systematically changes the variables and checks the
resulting value of R. If the value of R is less than 1, the
code discards that set of parameters and continues to check
the rest of the parameters systematically. Finally, it reports
the set of parameters at which F is a minimum.
When optimizing the parameters, the number of failings
(points in which Dpredicted>Dobserved) were limited to the
number of failings observed before optimization. In other
words, the parameters were optimized in such a manner that
the number of failing points with the optimized parameters
was less than or equal to the number of failing points in the
existing model.
In performing the optimization, it became clear that a cut-
off value for the exponential term of the model needed to be
added to prevent it from approaching infinity close to the
stack. This cutoff value is 1096 (exponential of 7). This cut-
off value was implemented in the older versions of the
infinity close to the stack. The authors are unaware of why
it was discarded in the latest version.
Hajra, Stathopoulos, and Bahloul (2011), Schulman and
Scire (1991), and Petersen, Carter, and Ratcliff (1997) were
used to identify optimal values of the parameters in question.
Once these values were identified, the new model was vali-
dated against the large data sets of Wilson and Lamb (1994)
and Wilson and Chui (1994), and tested for its performance
on the data in Petersen, Carter, and Ratcliff (1997) which
was taken in setups that contained screens and from
Schulman and Scire (1991) taken on sidewalls.
Results
Existing model evaluation
In the following section a comparison of the dilution pre-
dicted by the ASHRAE model and that measured in the
wind tunnel experiments is presented. For each configur-
ation, the predicted dilution curve is calculated using that
configuration’s stack height, building height and momentum
ratio and plotted as a solid line. Measured data is plotted as
points and color-coded according to input conditions.
1) Hajra, Stathopoulos, and Bahloul (2011)
There are two recognizable trends shown in this figure:
1. The difference between the predicted and observed
dilution is more significant near the stack (approaching
two orders of magnitude) and decreases farther from
2. The difference between the predicted and observed
dilution is greater for higher stacks and greater
momentum ratios (higher plume rise).
In other words, Figure 2 shows that the model under-pre-
dicts the dilution (predicts more conservatively) near the
stack and for higher plume rises.
2) Gupta, Stathopoulos, and Saathoff (2012)
In this dataset, the effect of building height on dilution
predictions is recognizable. The yellow curve in Figure 3
shows predicted dilution for the low-rise building with a
stack height of 3 m [10 ft] and momentum ratio of 5. At the
other extreme, the black curve shows predicted dilution for
the same stack height and momentum ratio, but for the high-
Volume 0, Number 0, Month 2020 5

Fig. 2. Observed and predicted dilutions for Hajra, Stathopoulos, and Bahloul (2011) (Points are measured observations and curves are
model predictions).

Fig. 3. Observed and predicted dilutions from Gupta, Stathopoulos, and Saathoff (2012) (Points are measured observations and curves
are model predictions).

rise building. The momentum ratio of 5 is the highest for the high-rise building while over-predicting it in the low-
momentum ratio in these experiments so these tests have the rise building.
highest plume rise (from the roof level) compared to others. There are two ways to explain the reason for this phe-
As shown in the figure, the model under-predicts dilution nomenon. From a mathematical point of view, the height of
6 Science and Technology for the Built Environment
Fig. 4. Observed and predicted dilutions from Petersen, Carter, and Ratcliff (1997) (Points are measured observations and curves are
model predictions).
the building recirculation zone (htop) is higher in the high-
rise building compared to the low-rise building, since it is a
function of building dimensions. Also, for a high momentum
ratio, the plume rise (hplume) is high. Minimum dilution,
according to ASHRAE 2015, is a function of the vertical
separation (f), which is the difference between hplume and
htop. For the same stack height and momentum ratio, hplume
has the same value, so in the low-rise building where htop is
small, f becomes high and the ASHRAE model predicts
high values of dilution, while in the high-rise building it
does the opposite.
Another factor that may come into play is the vertical
atmospheric turbulence intensity gradient. Since turbulence
intensities decrease as the height of the building increases,
turbulence intensities are less for the high-rise building. As a
result, for the same plume rise lower dilutions are achieved
compared to the low-rise building. In other words, in the
low-rise building the plume is more diluted compared to the
high-rise building due to higher atmospheric turbulence near
the ground.
3) ASHRAE Research Project 805, Petersen, Carter, and
Ratcliff (1997)
Figure 4 shows two extreme cases from this article1, one
with the least momentum ratio (M ¼ 0.3) and the other with
the greatest momentum ratio (M ¼ 3.5), both from the tests
with zero-degree wind direction.
1 the stack are far beyond the values that can be measured
These two cases are two extreme samples of all cases extracted that are
shown here for easier comparison. For the next steps of this project all
cases where considered.
Figure 4 shows that for the least momentum ratio
(M ¼ 0.3), no matter what the stack height is, the model is
predicting the same values (prediction curves collapse into
one). This is because in these cases the plume rise (hplume) is
below the height of the recirculation zone (htop); thus, the
vertical separation (f) equals zero and the minimum dilution
is calculated by the non-exponential term of the ASHRAE
model, which is a function of the momentum ratio and not
the stack height, a shortcoming of the current model referred
to previously.
For the greater momentum ratio (M ¼ 3.5), it is shown that
for stack heights of 1 and 3 ft, the model is under-predicting
the dilution. In these two cases the value of hplume is less than
or very close to the value of htop, so that the exponential term
of the ASHRAE model is approximately 1, and the minimum
dilution is mainly predicted by the non-exponential term of
the model. As the stack height increases (hs¼7 ft [2 m]) the
exponential term of the model becomes more effective, chang-
ing the shape of the curve. For this stack height (hs¼7 ft) the
shape of the curve (predicted dilution) exactly follows the pat-
tern of experimental data points, but as the stack height
increases from 7 to 12 ft [2 to 3.6 m], the model suddenly
approaches infinity near the stack. As shown in Figure 4, the
model is over predicting the dilution near the stack, which is
mathematically due to the large difference between the value
of hplume and htop which leads to a high value of f and thus a
large exponential term. It is also worth mentioning that in this
case (hs¼12 ft [3.6 m]), the predicted values for dilution near
(greater than 107). One modification this suggests is enforcing
an upper bound on the dilution predictions; one possible value
Volume 0, Number 0, Month 2020
Fig. 5. Observed and predicted dilutions from Schulman and Scire (1991) (Points are measured observations and curves are model
predictions).
is 107 which to our knowledge is the greatest value measured
in the literature. Another option would be adding a cutoff
value on the exponential term, as explained before.
4) Schulman and Scire (1991)
Figure 4 shows two extreme cases of this article2, one
with the lowest stack (hs¼0) and the other with the highest
stack (hs¼7.5 m [25 ft]), both from the tests with zero-degree
wind direction. Figure 4, shows that for a stack height of
zero, both the predicted and observed dilution increase as the
distance from the stack is increased for lower momentum
ratios (M ¼ 0.75, 1.5), while for the greater momentum ratios
(M ¼ 3, 5) the predictions increase with x, while the observa-
tions decrease. Also, for a stack height of zero, the model
predicts lower dilutions for greater momentum ratios (M ¼ 3,
5 compared to M ¼ 0.75, 1.5), while the experiments show
greater dilutions for greater momentum ratios. The reason is
that in these cases the plume rise is so small that the differ-
ence between htop and hplume becomes small and the expo-
nential term is around 1. Thus, the minimum dilution is
mainly calculated by the non-exponential term, which is
inversely related to the momentum ratio, so for lesser
momentum ratios the model predicts greater dilution.
In reality, greater momentum ratios produce greater dilu-
tions. In fact, fan speed is one of only a few design variables
a designer might change in order to improve the perform-
ance of the exhaust, and in this case increasing fan speed
decreases predicted dilution. This is a major shortcoming of
the model and shows that the exponential term of the model
2 equation and experimental data. Our investigation showed that
These two cases are two extreme samples of all cases extracted that are
shown here for easier comparison. For the next steps of this project all
cases were considered.
7
should be effective to make the prediction closer to reality
and this only happens when the vertical separation (f)
increases which requires htop to be lower (Figure 5).
For the stack height of 7.5 m [25 ft], when the momentum
ratios are small (M ¼ 0.75, 1.5), the prediction curves are con-
servatively bounding the data points. While, for greater momen-
tum ratios (M ¼ 3, 5), the model predicts unrealistically large
values near the stack. As shown in Figure 4, the model over-
predicts dilution near the stack, which is mathematically due to
the large difference between the value of hplume and htop which
leads to a high value of f and large exponential term. Again it is
also worth mentioning that in these cases (M ¼ 3, 5), the pre-
dicted values for dilution near the stack are far beyond those
that can be measured (greater than 107).
5) Wilson and Chui (1994)
As shown in Figure 6, in this dataset all experimental
data points are bounded by the prediction curves. This is
due to the fact that since the stack height was zero (plume
always within recirculation zone or less than htop), the expo-
nential term of the ASHRAE model was approximately 1 for
all cases, and the minimum dilution was mainly calculated
by the non-exponential term of the model. Based on our
investigation and Gupta, Stathopoulos, and Saathoff (2012),
it is clear that when only the non-exponential term is active,
the ASHRAE model tends to predict conservatively.
6) Wilson and Lamb (1994)
This dataset was not directly used to develop the existing
ASHRAE model according to ASHRAE RP 1635, in which
an average of all tests was used to compare the new suggested
when all experimental points are plotted separately, the hand-
book model fails to bound some data points (Figure 7).
8 Science and Technology for the Built Environment

Fig. 6. Observed and predicted dilutions from Wilson and Chui (1994) (Points are measured observations and curves are model
predictions).

Fig. 7. Observed and predicted dilutions from Wilson and Lamb (1994) (Points are measured observations and curves are model
predictions).

In summary, the important takeaways from our investiga-
tion into the wind tunnel data are as follows:
 The 2019 ASHRAE model under-predicts dilution (conser-
vative) closer to the stack. This may be due to inaccurate
prediction of the plume trajectory, inaccurate prediction of
the plume spread in the near field, or a combination of
the two.
 The predictions near the stack approach infinity (>107)
in some cases.
Volume 0, Number 0, Month 2020 9

Table 1 Progressive improvement of model through addition of variables and effect on objective function.
Case a c iself P d Number of Failings F

Original 1 0.35 0 0 0 10 439,477

Optimized c 1 1.7 0 0 0 10 90,750 (21%)
Optimized a & c 0.6 1 0 0 0 10 21,062 (4.8%)
Optimized a, c, iself , p, and d 0.6 1 0.9 0.5 0.6 9 7,987 (1.8%)

Table 2 Physical meaning of defined parameters.

Parameter Previous value Optimal value Physical meaning

a 1
c 0.35
iself 0 0.9
p 0
d 0
0.6 Active portion of recirculation zone can be assumed to 40% below height
of recirculation zone, avoiding difficulties cited above
1 Initial source size can be assumed to be equal to the width of the
exhaust stack
Plume spread immediately leaving stack behaves as if there were initial
turbulence intensity of 90% in lateral and vertical directions. This is
likely due to several mechanisms.
0.5 Parameter defining the distance from the stack at which plume spread is
dominated by atmospheric turbulence rather than self-induced turbulence
in the plume.
0.6 Plume trajectory in near-field is assumed to be 60% between previously
assumed plume trajectory and final plume rise.

 Building dimensions affect the predictions significantly, 0:5

since htop is calculated based on the building dimensions.
 There are cases in which, since the exponential term is
zero (hplume<htop), and the non-exponential term of the
model is inversely related to the momentum ratio, for
greater momentum ratios the existing model predicts
less dilution, which is physically unjustifiable.
Optimization
Using data from Gupta, Stathopoulos, and Saathoff (2012),
Hajra, Stathopoulos, and Bahloul (2011), Schulman and
Scire (1991), and Petersen, Carter, and Ratcliff (1997), opti-
mal values of the parameters in question were identified.
Table 1 shows the progressive improvement of the model
through addition and optimization of each variable. Table 2
shows the final optimization, the values of the parameters
identified, and the physical meaning of each variable.
According to Table 1 and Table 2, by simply reducing htop
by 40% and increasing the initial source size to the stack diam-
eter, a decrease from 439,477 to 21,062 in the objective func-
tion F results. Or to put it another way, the average dilution
prediction analyzed became less conservative by approxi-
mately half an order of magnitude. If more accuracy in predic-
tions is desired, the following modified equations for
calculating turbulence intensities and plume height can
be included:
0:5
iy ¼ 0:75 ix þ ð0:90:75 ix Þ   (10)
0:5 þ dxe
iz ¼ 0:5 ix þ ð0:90:5 ix Þ   (11)
0:5 þ dxe
hplumemodified ¼ hplume þ 0:6  ðhf þ hs hplume Þ (12)
Equations 10 and 11 assume that the exhaust plume immedi-
ately leaving the stack spreads rapidly, due to turbulence
within the plume, expansion upon leaving the stack, or some
other mechanism. Equation 12 modifies the assumption for
plume trajectory in the near-stack region upward by 60% of
the distance between the previously assumed trajectory and
the final plume rise. These additions result in a decrease in
the objective function F from 439,477 to 7,840. This can
reduce the required momentum ratio by 20-70%, leading to
much more efficient fan sizing and operation. This improve-
ment in the model also alleviated several of the issues iden-
tified in the evaluation of the previous model, including
reducing the influence of htop and removing the poor per-
formance near the stack, as shown in Figure B5 in
Appendix B.
Once these values were identified, the new model was
validated against the large data sets of Wilson and Lamb
(1994) and Wilson and Chui (1994), and tested for its per-
formance on the data in Petersen, Carter, and Ratcliff (1997)
which was taken in setups that contained screens and from
Schulman and Scire (1991) taken on sidewalls.
The results showed that the improvement of the new
model with Wilson and Chui (1994) and Wilson and Lamb
(1994) data sets is significant although not as profound as
the improvement on the other data sets. The new model did
10 Science and Technology for the Built Environment

Table 3 Optimized values checked on other data sets results.

Number of Number of
F F failings failings
Case a c iself p d (original) (optimized) (original) (optimized)

Wilson and 0.6 1 0 0 0 155794 122313 9 14

Lamb
1994
Wilson and 0.6 1 0 0 0 301049 181162 0 0
Chui
1994
RP 805 0.6 1 0 0 0 1486477 647931 60 60
(tests
with
screens)
Schulman 0.6 1 0 0 0 119 76 11 21
and
Scire
1991
(Hidden
intakes)
Wilson and 0.6 1 0.9 0.5 0.6 155794 45902 9 4
Lamb
1994
Wilson and 0.6 1 0.9 0.5 0.6 301049 122378 0 0
Chui
1994
RP 805 0.6 1 0.9 0.5 0.6 1486477 460478 60 60
(tests
with
screens)
Schulman 0.6 1 0.9 0.5 0.6 119 16 11 3
and
Scire
1991
(Hidden
intakes)

not add any failing points (points where R < 1), and thus the
new model can also be used to predict these data sets.
The new model was also checked to test its performance
on tests from the receptors on the side wall (hidden intakes)
from Schulman and Scire (1991). Results showed that the
original model fails to bound the data points at farther dis-
tances from the stack, while with the modifications made to
the model all experimental data-points are bounded by the
predicted values, which is an important improvement.
The new model was also checked on tests with screens
from ASHRAE RP 805 for which the original model was
overly conservative near the stack and failed to bound the
observations at farther distances. The results showed that for
this database the modified version of the model predicts the
dilution more accurately near the stack (less conservative),
but the problem of having failings at farther distances still
exists. The results are shown in Table 3, and the graphs of
original and optimized cases can be found in Appendix B.
The improvement in predictions was not as stark as with the
data sets analyzed above. This is because many of these
points are well off of the plume axis and for this reason
large dilution was measured. It was not possible to distin-
guish which receptors were along the plume axis in the
existing publications.
Conclusions and recommendations
In this project the performance of ASHRAE 2019 models
for calculating the minimum dilution of the exhaust from
rooftop exhaust stacks were evaluated and a few of the mod-
el’s parameters were optimized. The following summarizes
the main conclusions of this study:
1. The 2019 ASHRAE Handbook model for rooftop dilu-
tion under-predicts dilution generally in two cases; first, at
locations near the stack and second, in cases where the
plume does not rise beyond the assumed height of the build-
ing recirculation zone.
2. Both of these problems seem to be at least partially
attributable to the concept of htop, and the near-field discrep-
ancies are also likely due to an inaccurate description of the
plume near the stack.
Volume 0, Number 0, Month 2020
3. If the assumed height of htop is reduced by 40% and
the initial source size increased to be equal to the exhaust
stack diameter, the conservativeness of the model is reduced
by a factor of approximately 14 in the datasets ana-
lyzed herein.
5. If more complexity and more accuracy is desired,
decreasing htop by 40% from the 2019 model, increasing
source size to be equal to the exhaust diameter, and aug-
menting the description of the near-stack plume trajectory
and spread according to Equations 10, 11 and 12 will reduce
the conservativeness of the model by an additional factor of
2 for the datasets analyzed herein. These measures together
can reduce the required momentum ratio by 20-70%, leading
to much more efficient fan sizing and operation.
6. The current model predicts dilutions of >107 near the
stack because of the exponential part of the model approach-
ing infinity at small distances. To solve this problem a cutoff
value of 1096 (exponential of 7) is suggested. This cutoff
value was implemented in older versions of the ASHRAE
model to avoid the exponential term approaching infinity
close to the stack.
Acknowledgments
Funding for this project was provided by ASHRAE RP-1823
as a cooperative agreement between the ASHRAE and The
Ohio State University. The authors would like to thank
members of the Project Monitoring Subcommittee (Brian
Rock, Steve Taylor, and Iain Walker) and members of
ASHRAE TC4.3 for their input. We would also like to
thank Dr. David J. Wilson for briefly coming out of
retirement to answer questions about the history of the
ASHRAE Handbook Model, and John Carter of CPP Wind
Engineers and Air Quality Consultants for insight into
performance of the model in practice.
ORCID
Jordan D. Clark http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2023-5539
References
ASHRAE. 2019. ASHRAE handbook. Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE.
Briggs, G. A. 1973. Diffusion estimation for small emissions.
Atmospheric Turbulence and Diffusion Laboratory 83
Cimorelli, A. J., S. G. Perry, A. Venkatram, J. C. Weil, R. J. Paine,
R. B. Wilson, R. F. Lee, W. D. Peters, and R. W. Brode. 2005.
AERMOD: A dispersion model for industrial source applications.
Part I: General model formulation and boundary layer
characterization. Journal of Applied Meteorology 44 (5):682–93.
doi:10.1175/JAM2227.1
Gupta, A., T. Stathopoulos, and P. Saathoff. 2012. Evaluation of
ASHRAE dilution models to estimate dilution from rooftop
exhausts. ASHRAE Transactions 118 (1):1021–38.
Hajra, B., T. Stathopoulos, and A. Bahloul. 2011. The effect of
upstream buildings on near-field pollutant dispersion in the built
environment. Atmospheric Environment 45 (28):4930–40. doi:10.
1016/j.atmosenv.2011.06.008
11
Petersen, R. L., J. J. Carter, and M. A. Ratcliff. 1997. The influence
of architectural screens on exhaust dilution. Final Report,
ASHRAE
Schulman, L. L., and J. S. Scire. 1991. The effect of stack height,
exhaust speed, and wind direction on concentrations from a
rooftop stack. ASHRAE Transactions 97 (2):573–85.
Scrase, F. J. 1930. Some characteristics of eddy motion in the
atmosphere. London: HM Stationery off.
Teunissen, H. W. 1970. Characteristics of the mean wind and
turbulence in the planetary boundary layer. (No. UTIAS-
REVIEW-32). Toronto Univ Downsview (Ontario) Inst for
Aerospace studies.
Wilson, D. J., and B. K. Lamb. 1994. Dispersion of exhaust gases from
roof-level stacks and vents on a laboratory building. Atmospheric
Environment 28 (19):3099–111. doi:10.1016/1352-2310(94)E0067-T
Wilson, D. J., and E. H. Chui. 1994. Influence of building size on
rooftop dispersion of exhaust gas. Atmospheric Environment 28
(14):2325–34. doi:10.1016/1352-2310(94)90486-3
Wilson, D. J., I. Fabris, J. Chen, and M. Y. Ackerman. 1998. Adjacent
building effects on laboratory fume hood exhaust stack design.
Final report of ASHRAE RP-897, February.
Wilson, D.J. 2019. Phone interview with S. Shahvari and J. Clark.
Appendix A. ASHRAE minimum dilution model
According to the 2019 ASHRAE Handbook: HVAC
Applications: Chapter 46, the dilution at any receptor of
interest can be predicted using a model that assumes a
Gaussian profile for the plume issuing from an exhaust
stack. To do this, roof-level dilution, Dr, is first defined as
Ce
Dr ¼ (A1)
Cr
where Ce is the concentration of the contaminants at the
stack exit and Cr is the maximum concentration on
centerline of the plume.
The plume spread (ry and rz) is then calculated using
the following equations from Cimorelli et al. (2005).

12
ry ¼ i2y x2 þ r2o (A2)
 1
rz ¼ i2z x2 þ r2o 2 (A3)
where iy is turbulence intensity in y direction,iz is turbulence
intensity in z direction and x is the distance from the
stack,ro is defined as a function of stack diameter
(ro ¼0.35de).
Turbulence intensities (ix, iy and iz) are calculated from
the following equations:
iy ¼ 0:75ix ; iz ¼ 0:5ix (A4)
 
90:4
n ln
zo
ix ¼   (A5)
H
ln
zo
 2
n ¼ 0:19 þ 0:096 logz10o þ 0:016 logz10o (A6)
Finally, dilution is calculated using the following
equation
12 Science and Technology for the Built Environment
!
4UH ry rz 12
DrðxÞ ¼ exp (A7)
Ve de2 2r2z
In order to consider the effect of any rooftop structures,
intakes and wind recirculation zones, the vertical separation,
f is defined as
f ¼ hplume htop
(A8)
¼ 0 if hplume < htop
The value of htop is defined as the tallest height of all
rooftop structures and recirculation zones (Hc), which is
calculated as follows
Hc ¼ 0:22R (A9)
R ¼ Bs BL
0:67 0:33 (A10)
where BL is the larger upwind dimension of the building or
rooftop structure and BS is the smaller.
Figure A1 shows the relationship between hplume and htop
Fig. A1. Relationship between htop and hplume for three differ-
for the three different scenarios described in the ent scenarios.
introduction:
The location of plume centerline from the roof, hplume is
defined as at roof level, H is the height of the building from the
ground, andzo is length of the surface roughness.
hplume ¼ hs þ hr hd (A11) The downwash in the wake of the stack, hd, is defined as
where hs is stack height and hr is the plume rise from the hd ¼ de ð3:0bVe =UH Þ for Ve =UH >3
roof:

Ve (A18)
hr ¼ min bhx , bhf (A12) ¼ 0 for <3
UH
and the plume rise is given as a function of distance from In the final step, the Handbook requires the designer to
exhaust as: choose the surface roughness from Table 1 of Chapter 46 of

1  ASHRAE Handbook: HVAC Applications based on the site
hx ¼ 3Fm x 3
b2 U 2
(A13) conditions, calculate the minimum dilution using the
j H
equations explained above, and then repeat the calculations
Flux of the momentum, Fm is defined as for half of the value of surface roughness and 1.5 of that
  value, and finally choose the lowest value of dilution as the
2
2 de minimum dilution.
Fm ¼ Ve (A14)
4
where bj is the jet entrainment defined as Appendix B. Optimization results for all data bases
1 UH
bj ¼ þ (A15) The results of all optimization strategies are shown in the
3 Ve following Figures B1-B5.
and hf is the final plume rise defined as Finally, the optimized form of the model was checked on
1
two other data sets; Wilson and Chui (1994) and Wilson and
0:9½Fm UH =U
2 Lamb (1994) to make sure these values work for these data
hf ¼ (A16)
UH bj sets as well. These values were also checked to see how
they work on tests with screens from ASHRAE RP 805 and
UH/U
is the logarithmic wind profile calculated as tests from the receptors on the side wall (hidden intakes)
follows from Schulman & Scire. The results are shown in the
 
H following Figures B6-B19.
UH =U
¼ 2:5ln (A17) 1) Wilson and Chui (1994)
zo
2) Wilson and Lamb (1994)
where b is 1.0 for stacks without cap and 0 for stacks with 3) Petersen, Carter, and Ratcliff (1997) (Tests
cap, x is the distance from the stack, Ve is the exhaust with Screens)
velocity at the exit from the stack, UH is the wind velocity 4) Schulman and Scire (1991) (Hidden Intakes)
Volume 0, Number 0, Month 2020 13

Fig. B1. Log of dilution ratio versus distance from the stack (Original).

Fig. B2. Log of dilution ratio versus distance from the stack (With cutoff).

Fig. B3. Log of dilution ratio versus distance from the stack (Optimized with the variable c).
14 Science and Technology for the Built Environment

Fig. B4. Log of dilution ratio versus distance from the stack (Optimized with the variables a and c).

Fig. B5. Log of dilution ratio versus distance from the stack (Optimized with the variables a, c, iself, p and d).

Fig. B6. Original and optimized dilution predictions for Wilson and Chui (1994).
Volume 0, Number 0, Month 2020 15

Fig. B7. Original and optimized dilution predictions for Wilson and Lamb (1994).

Fig. B8. Original and optimized dilution predictions for ASHRAE RP 805 (Tests with Screen).

Fig. B9. Original and optimized dilution predictions for Schulman & Scire (Hidden Intakes).