Heat loss to air change
In May and June 2019 four short articles on this blog discussed heat loss from buildings through air changes, air quality in buildings, and methods of measuring rates of air change. “A Change of Air” noted that an appreciable proportion of the total energy supplied to a building may be lost through excessive air change rates and outlined methods of measuring the rates through pressure testing, energy balance calculation, and CO2 decay. “Indoor air quality” described the main groups of pollutants which affect indoor air quality, and “CO2 in the Home” discussed indoor CO2 levels, how they might affect the health of occupants, and their measurement. CO2 decay methods and their limitations were discussed in more detail in “Measuring Air Change Rates by CO2 Decay”. More recent work will be outlined below, referencing papers published from 2021 to 2024.
Nazaroff (2021)
presented a review of field studies that measured residential air-change rates.
These were mainly in north America, northern Europe, and China, and covered more
than 10,000 dwellings. Ventilation simultaneously introduces pollutants into
buildings from outside and removes them from inside. It also affects the energy
use of buildings. The rate of air change needed to control indoor pollution may
conflict with that which would minimise energy use. Nazaroff distinguishes
between infiltration, the uncontrolled leakage of air through unintended gaps
in the building fabric; natural ventilation through windows and vents; and
mechanical ventilation by fans. The first two are substantially influenced by
wind and by differences between inside and outside temperature. The air change
rate, which is based on the volume flow rate out of the building, can also be
influenced by the operation of heating and cooling systems, and the use of
flued combustion.
Nazaroff
reviewed existing literature with a view to identifying its limitations, such
as over-simplification, variations in the use of terminology, and lack of
critical assessment. Two main methods of determining the air change rates of
residences are described: one uses tracer gasses such as deliberately released
perfluorocarbons or metabolically released carbon dioxide, the other uses fan
pressurisation of the building.
The
numerical values of air change rates measured in the studies follow a
distribution pattern described as lognormal. A normal distribution is fully described
by its mean and its standard deviation, and a lognormal distribution by its geometric
mean and its geometric standard deviation. The logarithms of the values in a
lognormal distribution form a normal distribution. The rates of air change in
the studies tended to a geometric mean of 0.5 per hour, with a geometric
standard deviation of 2.0. In a normal distribution 68% of samples fall within
one standard deviation of the mean, and in the lognormal distribution with the
values shown above, 68% of the results fell within the range 0.25 to 1 per
hour. The 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th
and 90th percentiles of the distribution are 0.21, 0.31, 0.5, 0.8
and 1.2 per hour respectively. The extreme values of air change rate found in
the studies were 0.05 and 4 per hour.
Measuring
methods present two main challenges. The first is the treatment of time-varying
air change rates, for example in methods using passive release of a
perfluorocarbon tracer and time-averaged sampling. The second ‘concerns the
multizone character of residences’ where there may be varying airflows between
different zones and intermittent operation of heating and cooling systems.
Frattolillo,
Stabile, and Dell’Isola (2021) compared the pressurization test which measures the airtightness of a building,
and the tracer gas decay test which measures the actual air exchange rate,
which depends on the site and climate. Finding a relationship between the
results from these two tests would be very useful but remains challenging. The
authors conducted an experimental campaign in a multi-room dwelling performing
both air permeability and air exchange rate measurements. Their results showed
great variability (from below 0.2 to almost 1 air change per hour) due to the
weather conditions. It followed that the conversion factor between air exchange
rates measured at 50 Pa, by blower door tests, and the actual air exchange
rates obtained by the tracer gas decay tests, ranged from less than 20 to more
than 100.
Berquist et
al. (2023) investigated the accuracy of CO2 sensors
used in measuring air leakage rates in commercial buildings as part of a building automation system (BAS). These
sensors can provide a low-cost and environmentally friendly method of
continuous monitoring. The authors assessed the accuracy of the sensors
compared with SF6 tracer gas and photoacoustic gas monitors. They conclude that
with correction for sensor drift, the CO2 method can provide acceptable
accuracy. This is significant since the release of SF6 gas into the atmosphere
has an environmental impact far greater than that of CO2.
Seddon and
Zhong (2023) investigated the accuracy of the pulse method of measuring
airtightness which was approved in 2022 under UK building regulations as an
alternative to the fan pressurisation method. The pulse method is more
convenient in many ways than the fan method, but there was some lack of
confidence concerning its use, ‘particularly with very airtight properties’. The
authors describe tests on new build dwellings, including two built to
Passsivhaus standards, and conclude (with some caveats) that the pulse method
is appropriate for testing such buildings.
Fu et al., (2024)
investigated the reliability of measurements made using airborne particles to
estimate the air exchange rate (AER) in a building. An accurate knowledge of
the AER could help in controlling indoor air quality and in estimating the
building’s heat loss. The authors note the disadvantages of two other
well-known ways of measuring AER, the fan pressurization test, and the tracer gas
method (TGM). The pressurization test uses fans in doors to pressurize a
building and so test its airtightness, but the measured AER ignores the effect of
climate variation, and the method is effective only in simple buildings. TGM
estimates the AER of a building by the decay of a tracer gas’s concentration
indoors over time and allows AER to be estimated under actual climatic conditions.
Gasses used include CO, O3, NO,
NO2, SO2, SF6, and occupant generated CO2. Recent work has shown the
possibility of using measurements of indoor and outdoor particle levels to
estimate the air exchange rate between a building and its environment. Studies
on the accuracy of AER estimates achieved through measuring airborne particle
concentration indicate that it could provide a useful alternative to the tracer
gas method especially in high-rise buildings.
References
Berquist,
J., et al., 2023, Investigation of the accuracy of BAS-grade CO2 sensors for
measuring infiltration rates, Journal of Building Engineering, online,
accessed 26 March 2024
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352710223022441
Frattolillo,
A., Stabile, L., Dell’Isola, M., 2021, Natural ventilation measurements in a
multi-room dwelling, Journal of Building Engineering, online, accessed 26 March 2024
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352710221003351
Fu, N., et
al., 2024, Reliability of estimating Real-Time Air Exchange Rates in a Building
by Using Airborne Particles, Atmospheric Pollution Research, online, accessed 26 March 2024
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1309104223003094
Nazaroff,
W., 2021, Residential air-change rates: A critical review, UC Berkeley, online, accessed 26 March 2024
https://escholarship.org/content/qt2cz8v3nv/qt2cz8v3nv.pdf
Seddon, H.,
and Zhong, H., 2023, An investigation into the efficacy of the pulse method of
airtightness testing in new build and Passivhaus properties, Energy and
Buildings, online, accessed 28 March 2024
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378778823005005
Comments
Post a Comment