See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323222651

A parametric study of the combined effects of window property and air vent
placement

Article  in  Indoor and Built Environment · February 2018

DOI: 10.1177/1420326X18757835

CITATIONS READS

2 1,088

2 authors:

Qiuhua Duan Julian Jialiang Wang

Pennsylvania State University Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
33 PUBLICATIONS   33 CITATIONS    32 PUBLICATIONS   115 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

The Photothermal Effects of Iron Oxide Nanoparticles on Energy Efficient Windows View project

Damage and Instability Detection of Civil Large-scale Space Structures under Operational and Multi-hazard Environments based on Change in Macro-geometrical
Patterns/Shapes View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Qiuhua Duan on 31 July 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Original Paper
Indoor and Built
Environment
Indoor and Built Environment
0(0) 1–17

A parametric study of the combined ! The Author(s) 2018

Reprints and permissions:

effects of window property and air sagepub.co.uk/

journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1420326X18757835
vent placement journals.sagepub.com/home/ibe

Qiuhua Duan1 and Julian (Jialiang) Wang1,2

Abstract
The creation of energy-efficient buildings that maintain thermal comfort is a major goal of architectural
design. The study on the interrelation of vent location and window properties on indoor thermal
conditions and energy performance is still needed. With the rapid development of building window
technologies, such combined effects have become more complex. This work using computational
fluid dynamics examines airflow patterns, temperature distributions, thermal comfort indices and
corresponding heat transfers through exterior windows in an office unit during summer and winter
seasons. Our results indicate that, buildings with low-insulated windows, above-the-window air register
and under-the-window air register, have obvious advantages in forming comfortable conditions in
summer and winter, respectively. Building with highly insulated windows, the central-ceiling placement
of air supply vents is capable of merging airflows for the entire room, providing appropriate indoor
thermal conditions and significant savings in energy use. The percentage of occupants dissatisfied with
the thermal conditions achieved is slightly higher than best performances achieved in other reference
models but still within recommended limits. The findings from this research provide an improved
understanding of how thermal comfort and energy issues could change in response to different vent
locations and types of building windows.

Keywords
Building windows, Building performance, Energy use, Thermal comfort, Air vent placement, Simulation
Accepted 15 January 2018

Introduction
of air vent placement, is a necessity for indoor comfort.
An average individual spends up to 95% of their time An appropriate supply diffuser and return grille can
indoors; thus, the indoor environment is an important ensure good air circulation in enclosed individual offices,
concern in architectural design.1 Studies have demon- which in turn will result in a more comfortable indoor
strated strong correlations between indoor environmental environment.6,7 In such design considerations, in addition
conditions and user well-being, productivity and to features of the HVAC system, engineers must also
health.2,3 Air-conditioned office buildings yield improved
work productivity and less thermal dissatisfaction by pro-
1
viding a thermally acceptable environment for human Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering and
Construction Management, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati,
comfort.4 However, a poor distribution of airflow, irreg- OH, USA
ular temperatures leading to indoor contaminant concen- 2
School of Architecture and Interior Design, University of
tration issues, could directly result not only in reduced Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA
productivity and economic loss but also in thermal com-
Corresponding author:
fort problems (drafts) and ‘sick-building’ syndrome.5 Julian (Jialiang) Wang, University of Cincinnati, 765, Baldwin
Therefore, a proper HVAC (Heating, Ventilating, Hall, Cincinnati, 45221 OH, USA.
Air-conditioning) design, including careful consideration Email: [email protected]
2 Indoor and Built Environment 0(0)

study building envelope elements such as insulation how to balance the needs of indoor comfort and
levels, wall-to-window ratios, surface materials, etc.8–11 energy savings.3,14 Ideally, the success of a building’s
In particular, exterior windows often comprise a design accounts for whether a comfortable indoor envi-
relatively large portion of the building envelope and ronment can be achieved without an increase in energy
have relatively lower thermal insulating properties use.15 Many researchers have investigated the effect of
than the opaque components. This means that windows or air vent placement on energy use and
windows not only provide architectural mechanism to comfort.
outdoor views and natural light, but they are also one With regard to the building exterior windows, the
of the most significant building components that could window performance is broadly recognised to have a
affect overall thermal comfort and heat transfer.12 significant impact on human thermal comfort. Arasteh
Of all building envelope components, a window’s et al.10 introduced numerous types of windows proper-
inner surface is normally the coldest in winter and ties, studying how different windows could affect occu-
hottest in summer. Cold or hot air from the window pants’ satisfaction, health and productivity. Sengupta
makes airflow travel across the floor, often causing et al.16 developed a methodology for quantifying
occupant discomfort. For example, air cools and performance of a window regarding human thermal
sinks when warmer room air hits exterior windows comfort. The results showed that thermal comfort dis-
during the winter season. The movement of cool air tribution could be significantly affected by the presence
may create cold drafts on the floor, leading to thermal of a window. A joint study17 conducted by changing a
discomfort. window’s surface temperature and view factor used an
According to the Air Conditioning Contractors of analytical method to study windows and evaluated
America (ACCA) Manual T,11 the process for properly their effect on indoor comfort. Hassan et al.18 carried
locating air vents has four steps: (1) scan the perfor- out an investigation on effects of various window
mance data for a size that is capable of delivering the combinations on ventilation and thermal comfort in
desired airflow to achieve the required air exchange buildings. These researchers considered effects of
rate (ACH), (2) make sure that the noise level is accept- window location and size (‘window-to-wall’ ratios)
able, (3) check the flow and (4) check the pressure drop. and building orientation relative to prevailing wind
Although the ACCA Manual T does not recommend speed and direction on the natural ventilation criteria
particular air vent placement, air supply vents are nor- for thermal comfort in a building. The results showed
mally located close to exterior windows, owing to their that two adjacent openings for single-side ventilation
conventional thermal properties.12 On the other side, were not related to window location. Also, two non-
energy use in office buildings is strongly influenced by adjacent openings (corner and centre-located) were
these exterior window properties. Especially in regard shown to be better than two adjacent openings for
to the air vent placement circumstances, the large con- single-side ventilation, especially two non-adjacent
tact area and relatively ‘high-speed’ airflow from vents openings (one far left and one far right).18
may accelerate heat transfer between the interior and There have been other studies that attempted to
exterior of the building through windows. We believe, determine how air vents affect air distribution strate-
theoretically, traditional vent placement may enhance gies and, in turn, indoor thermal comfort. Chiang
occupants’ thermal comfort conditions, but could et al.19 analysed diffuser positioning in mechanical
undesirably increase heat transfer between the interior ventilation systems and provided guidance for improv-
and windows, due to high-level thermal convection ing the design of radiant cooling ceiling panels.
gained from the airflow. Consequently, the thermal These researchers compared two alternative diffuser
comfort maintained by having the traditional place- positions to the original configuration in order to
ment of air supply registers close to exterior windows study how air and temperature distributions could be
could have a potential to conflict with the energy loss, influenced. Wargocki et al.20 examined how the air
at least in terms of heat transfer through the windows. supply rate and condition of the air supply filters
Therefore, some literature points out that using high could influence environmental perceptions, the intensi-
sidewall or ceiling registers without washing the exteri- ty of ‘sick building’ symptoms and operator perfor-
or windows could save energy use.13 However, such mance in a call centre. Mijakowski and Sowa21
vent placement may potentially affect users’ thermal proposed humidity-sensitive air inlets in a kindergarten
comfort due to the high speed and low or high temper- building to improve the performance of passive stack
atures of conditioned air directly emanating from ventilation, but the effect was not sufficient to meet
these vents. This is especially likely in the central current recommendations of Polish and European
zone occupied by users in offices. standards for indoor environments in newly designed
This conflict is actually belonging to a popular kindergarten buildings. Ghassem et al.22 found that the
research question, inspiring a number of studies on height of return air vent from ceiling to floor could
Duan and Wang 3

influence temperature gradient at the vertical direction, studies of natural or engineered fluid dynamics sys-
and thermal discomfort could be increased by reducing tems.25 CFD is derived from disciplines of fluid
the height of the return air vent location. Kuo and mechanics and heat transfer.26 Recently, CFD has
Chung23 investigated the effects of air vent location become an important design tool in engineering, and
on occupants’ thermal comfort in the occupied zone also an indispensable research tool in architecture.27
and suggested that the inlet diffuser should be located Due to the rapid development of computing capabili-
at the half-upper wall, if a wall-mounted diffuser is ties and CFD technology, one can use this technique to
necessary. Lam and Chan24 reported that the outlet visualize and analyse spatial variations in an indoor
vent position could have a great impact on the thermal thermal environment that are attributable to flow and
stratification and annual cooling load in a gymnasium heat transfer from various vent locations and window
which accordingly would pose an effect on human ther- properties, as well as correlations among these indoor
mal comfort. thermal control elements.
Nevertheless, most studies in the existing literature A complete CFD analysis consists of three main
have separately focused on either a building’s exterior elements: pre-processor, solver and post-processor.
windows or air vent placement. The motivation for this Figure 1 presents the workflow of our research, which
research’s examination of the correlational impacts of also includes the relationships among these three ele-
exterior windows and air vent placement on indoor ther- ments in the CFD analysis. First, an office geometry
mal conditions and energy use stemmed from the rapid model was built-in AutodeskVR CAD based on real geo-
development of glass materials and fenestration technol- metric information and settings for an office at the
ogies seen in the last decade. Therefore, the key research University of Cincinnati campus. This information
questions in this research are whether the conventional was then imported into AutodeskVR CFD 2016. Next,
air vent placement (close to exterior windows) is still we assigned different materials to every part of the
necessary to maintain indoor thermal comfort and how office model (see Table 1). We defined ‘Window-low’
energy savings from newly developed and highly insulat- and ‘Window-high’ to simulate low and high-insulation
ed windows might offset the possible negative effect on windows in the AutodeskVR CFD software because
comfort from the central placement of air supply regis- these materials were not included in its materials data-
ters (i.e. in the centre of the ceiling) in an office unit. base. In addition, three different air vent placement
Even though considerable work has been done on the layouts were assigned to the model to formulate six
fundamental issues related to windows such as diffuser different combination cases for two different window
position, thermal comfort and energy savings, there is types. During the simulation and calculation process,
still a lack of research that specifically addresses the role we assumed that the airflow inside the office was a
of air vent placement and exterior window properties in stable and incompressible Newtonian fluid that met
indoor thermal environment conditions and the associ- the Boussinesq approximation. The ceiling, floor and
ated energy use. In this research, we performed an exten- three inner walls were perfectly adiabatic and did not
sive computational fluid dynamics (CFD) study of six transfer heat. The only way to transfer heat was
different combinations of air vent locations and exterior through the windows to the outside. Thermal radiation
window insulation properties in a typical office unit was neglected in this study. Based on the governing
during the summer and winter seasons. We analysed time-averaged fluid flow and heat transfer calculations,
and compared the indoor thermal conditions and trans- we obtained three types of output: airflow pattern, tem-
fer through windows generated by CFD simulations in perature variation/distribution, predicted mean vote
the 12 design scenarios (six combinations). The conclu- (PMV) and heat transfer through windows. Lastly,
sions from this work could provide an improved under- we compared these four generated results among the
standing of how thermal comfort and energy issues six combinations of windows and air vent layouts in
could change in response to different vent locations order to understand relationships among window
and types of building windows. In addition, this research properties and air vent layouts and their impact on
would also shed light on how best to optimize air vent heat transfer and indoor thermal comfort.
placement and window selection for both energy savings
and indoor comfort at the design stage. Room model and boundary conditions
In this study, we simulated a typical office with a
Analytical procedure and method dimension of 4.57 m
3.05 m
3.05 m (clear length-

width
height), following the Cartier coordinate
Methodology overview system as shown in Figure 2. The human model,
CFD is a method for developing computer programs which was the size of an adult man with a seating
that can be used to create simulations and perform height of 1.1 m and a shoulder width of 0.5 m, was
4 Indoor and Built Environment 0(0)

Pre-processor
Office Space Modelling

Vent Assign materials

Create Define boundary Define
geometry
placement (windows with two
(three conditions (summer initial
in CAD different levels of conditions
layouts) and winter)
insulation)

Solver
Governing Equations
Solved on a Mesh

Transport Equations
Solver Settings
Physical • Mass
Model
• Momentum • Initialization
• Energy (heat transfer through • Solution
• Flow
windows) control
• Turbulence
• Other transport variables • Monitoring
• Equation of state solution
• PMV and PPD model30, 38

Post-processor
Comparative Analysis of Six
Combinations

Spatial Heat transfer

Airflow PMV
variations in through
patterns /PPD
temperature windows

Figure 1. Workflow of this research.

Table 1. Material properties for the private office CFD model.

Parts Materials Conductivity (W/m.K) Density (kg/m3) Specific heat (J/kg.K) Emissivity

Window Window-low 0.14224 2,700 840 0.8

Window-high 0.01651 2,700 840 0.01
Human Human 50 998 4182 0.98
Chair Wood (soft) 0.12 510 1380 0.8
Desk Wood (soft) 0.12 510 1380 0.8
Laptop ABS (polycarbonate) 0.181 1150 1810 0.9
Lamp ABS (polycarbonate) 0.181 1150 1810 0.9
Room Air 0.02563 Equation of state 1004 1
Duan and Wang 5

Figure 2. The office model. (a) Details of the office room (the air register placement was different in each of the
three representative layouts) and (b) details of the human model, desk, chair and laptop.

Figure 3. Three typical layouts of air supply registers and return air grilles.

seated near a desk 1.15 m
0.6 m
0.6 m (length- Table 2. Boundary conditions of the CFD model.

width
height), as shown in Figure 3. The door’s
Boundary Conditions
dimension was 2.18 m
0.91 m (height
width).
The window’s dimension was 2.13 m
2.99 m Supply inlet Air supply flow rate of 0.047 m3/s;
(height
width). The thickness of both the door and the air supply temperature was
window was 0.0254 m. The radius of the duct was adjusted to keep the office’s aver-
0.15 m, and the terminal dimension was age air temperature at approxi-
mately 25 C
0.30 m
0.30 m. Two lamps (1.22 m
1.22 m, each)
Return inlet Pressure outlet, gradient zero
were installed in the ceiling. Regarding the thermal Wall Adiabatic wall
properties, the only thermal transfer boundary was Window Film coefficient of 5 W/m2K, refer-
set to the side with the exterior window. ence temperature of 32 C
The other surfaces were set as adiabatic materials. (in summer) and 11 C
The boundary conditions were set in AutodeskVR (in winter)
CFD 2016. In the library of materials, the fluid mate- Human Generated heat load of 60 W
rial was set as a standard default air material with a Laptop Generated heat load of 60 W
variable environment. We considered the buoyancy- Lamps Generated heat load of 120 W
(60 W each)
driven airflow. The k-e turbulence model was used to
solve governing equations. We adopted the coldest and
hottest weather in Cincinnati, Ohio, United States for
the external boundary conditions for the model. In the Governing equations in the simulation
summer, the exterior environment temperature was set Fluid flow and heat transfer. The governing equa-
at 32 C and at 11 C for the winter season. Table 2 tions used in simulation are the conservation of mass,
shows the relevant thermal boundary conditions. or continuity equation, the conservation of
6 Indoor and Built Environment 0(0)

momentum, or Navier-Stokes equations, the conserva- where Q is the amount of heat transfer energy from the
tion of energy, and thermal energy equations. These indoors to the outdoors through a window; u is the
equations are shown in equations (1) to (4). overall heat transfer coefficient; A is the window area;
The mass conservation equation Tindoor is the indoor temperature; and Toutdoor is the out-
door temperature.
@q
¼0
þ r  ðqVÞ (1)
@t
Thermal comfort model and settings. Various ther-
* * mal comfort models have been proposed and devel-
where q is the density, V is the velocity, r  V is the
oped, such as the Fanger model, the one-node model,
divergence of the velocity.
the two-node model, the multi-node model, the UC
Navier-Stokes equations
(The University of California) Berkeley comfort
@ðquÞ ! @p @sxx @syx @szx model, the local thermal sensation model, the adaptive
þ rðquV Þ ¼  þ þ þ þ qfx model, and so forth.28,29 Each model has its own fea-
@t @x @x @y @z
tures and applicability. For example, the Fanger model
(2a)
is based on the body heat balance in the steady-state
condition, and the local thermal sensation model con-
@ðqvÞ * @p @sxy @syy @szy
þ r  ðqvV Þ ¼  þ þ þ þ qfy siders individual body parts.29 The Fanger model has
@t @y @x @y @z
been widely used in existing studies and standards and
(2b) already embedded in the Autodesk CFD software.
Based on the assumption of homogenous thermal con-
@ðqwÞ * @p @sxz @syz @szz ditions in this study, we adopted the Fanger model to
þ r  ðqwV Þ ¼  þ þ þ þ qfz
@t @z @x @y @z calculate PMV in this study, as seen in equation (5)
(2c)
PMV ¼ ð0:303e0:036M þ 0:028ÞfðM  WÞ
where u, v, w is the velocity in x, y, z direction, p is the  3:96
108 fcl ½ðtd þ 273Þ4  ðtr þ 273Þ4 
pressure force per unit area, sij denotes a stress in  fcl hc ðtcl  ta Þ  3:05
the jdirection exerted on a plane perpendicular to

½5:73  0:007ðM  WÞ  pa  (5)
the iaxis; qfi denotes the body force on the fluid
element acting in the idirection, respectively.  0:42½ðM  WÞ  58:15
The energy conservation equation  0:0173Mð5:87  pa Þ
   
 0:0014Mð34  ta Þg
@ V2 V2 *
qðe þ Þ þ r  qðe þ VÞ
@t 2 2 where fcl is the clothing factor fcl ¼ 1:0 þ 0:2Icl or
     
@ @T @ @T @ @T 1:05 þ 0:1Icl ;
¼ qq_ þ k þ k þ k Icl is the clothing insulation [clo];
@x @x @y @y @z @z
@ðupÞ @ðvpÞ @ðwpÞ @ðusxx Þ
   þ tcl ¼ 35:7  0:0275ðM  WÞ  Rcl fðM  WÞ
@x @y @z @x
(3)  3:05½5:73  0:007ðM  WÞ  pa 
@ðusyx Þ @ðuszx Þ @ðvsxy Þ  0:42½ðM  WÞ  58:15
þ þ þ
@y @z @x
 0:0173Mð5:87  pa Þ  0:0014Mð34  ta Þg
@ðvsyy Þ @ðvszy Þ @ðwsxz Þ
þ þ þ
@y @z @x
Rcl is the thermal insulation from clothing,
@ðwsyz Þ @ðwszz Þ * *
þ þ þ qf  V Rcl ¼ 0:155Icl ;
@y @z
M is the metabolic rate [W/m2];
2
pa is the vapour pressure of the air [kPa];
where ðe þ V2 Þ is the total energy; k is the thermal con- ta is the air temperature [ C];
ductivity; T is the local temperature; q_ is the rate of tcl is the surface temperature of the clothing [ C];
volumetric heat addition per unit mass. tr is the mean radiant temperature [ C];
Heat transfer through an exterior window can be W is the external work;
calculated by using equation (4) hc is the convective heat transfer coefficient,
hc ¼ 1:2ðVÞ1=2 ;
Q ¼ UAðTindoor  Toutdoor Þ (4) V is the air velocity [m/s].
Duan and Wang 7

Thermal comfort depends on the air temperature, triple-pane windows with a U-factor 0.65 W/m2-K,
humidity, radiant temperature, air velocity, and occu- respectively. There were a total of six combinations of
pant’s metabolic rate and amount of clothing. Each air vent placement and window type and 12 simulation
individual would experience these sensations differently tasks for the summer and winter seasons. Table 4 shows
based on their physiology and state.30 Three personal the basic information for these six combinations and 12
factors – metabolic rate, clothing level and humidity – simulation tasks.
were set in the CFD model. They are summarized in
Table 3. Comparative analysis

Six combinations of vent placement Analysis of airflow patterns

and window type We used the steady simulation approach in AutodeskVR
This study investigated an office space with three differ- CFD 2016 to observe the overall average room temper-
ent configurations of supply inlet and return outlet loca- ature of 25 C. Figures 4 and 5 show the basic vertical
airflow patterns under these three different layouts in
tions. In Layout A, the air supply register was placed on
summer and winter, respectively.
the floor underneath the exterior window (namely under-
Figures 4 and 5 show airflow patterns for three dif-
the-window), and the air return grille was on the top part
ferent layouts in two seasons. From Layout A, we can
of the office, in the centre of the wall near the door. In
see that in summer, at the floor level, the airflow ema-
Layout B, the air supply register was above-the-window;
nated uniformly from the supply. The air velocity was
the vent was on the ceiling just above the exterior window
almost constant in the room and was generally below
and the air return grille was located in the same position
0.14 m/s. The velocity was higher and more uneven in
as in Layout A. In Layout C, the air supply register was
the vicinity of the air supply terminal. This under-the-
located at the centre of the office ceiling, namely central-
window type of air register placement did not allow the
ceiling type, and the air return grille was placed in the
hot air around the window to fully merge with the cool
same position as in Layout A. The locations of the supply
air coming from the air register. The airflow patterns
and return air vents for these three layouts are shown in indicated that in winter the cool air around the window
Figure 3. We also considered two different window fully and quickly merged with the hot air from the reg-
types, those with high and low levels of insulation, ister. There was almost no airflow from the cold side of
which represented traditional single-pane windows the window. In contrast, Layout B appeared more
with a U-factor of 5.6 W/m2-K and contemporary effective and complete in regard with the summer air-
flow mixture. The air velocity around the exterior of
Table 3. Personal factors in human comfort. the window was, overall, above 0.5 m/s. However, in
Summer Winter winter, in the occupant zone, the airflow was clearly
unstable and uneven due to incomplete mixing result-
Metabolic rate (W/m2) 58 58 ing from the above-the-window placement. In particu-
Clothing (clo) 0.57 1.01
lar, with low-insulated windows, the cold air flowed
Relative humidity (%) 50 50
from the window side and was driven to floor level in

Table 4. Simulation tasks for all combinations of vent placement and window type.

Case Vent placement Window type (U-factor) Season

A-SL Layout A Low insulation (5.6 W/m2-K) Summer

B-SL Layout B Low insulation (5.6 W/m2-K) Summer
C-SL Layout C Low insulation (5.6 W/m2-K) Summer
A-SH Layout A High insulation (0.65 W/m2-K) Summer
B-SH Layout B High insulation (0.65 W/m2-K) Summer
C-SH Layout C High insulation (0.65 W/m2-K) Summer
A-WL Layout A Low insulation (5.6 W/m2-K) Winter
B-WL Layout B Low insulation (5.6 W/m2-K) Winter
C-WL Layout C Low insulation (5.6 W/m2-K) Winter
A-WH Layout A High insulation (0.65 W/m2-K) Winter
B-WH Layout B High insulation (0.65 W/m2-K) Winter
C-WH Layout C High insulation (0.65 W/m2-K) Winter
8 Indoor and Built Environment 0(0)

Figure 4. Vertical winter airflow patterns in different layouts.

the user zone. Layout C, the central-ceiling placement, resulted. This would prevent the adverse effect resulting
also presented a complete air mixture from the ceiling from hot airflow in summer and cold airflow in winter
to the floor, except in the C-WL case. This revealed that would come from the exterior window side of the
that some cold airstreams may be moved from the exte- room. These results also show that Layout C might be
rior window side of the room to the central user zone. effective for the airflow mixture in summer, but appar-
In addition, the air speeds varied from 0.1 m/s to 1 m/s ently not in winter. However, when it came to the three
in the user zone, which could lead to some potential highly insulated window models, the advantages seen in
discomfort. Layout A in winter and Layout B in summer were not
To this end, with low-insulated windows, the airflow distinct from those seen in other layouts. The central-
patterns revealed apparent advantages to using Layout ceiling placement, Layout C, seemed capable of merg-
A in winter and Layout B in summer, due to the ing airflows for the entire room in cases where the
quicker and more complete airflow mixtures that windows were highly insulated.
Duan and Wang 9

Figure 5. Vertical winter airflow patterns in different layouts.

Analysis of temperature variations that when the vertical temperature difference was
above 2 K/m, more subjects reported discomfort relat-
Local thermal discomfort due to vertical air tempera-
ed to dry eyes.34
ture differences has been reported in a number of stud-
To avoid local discomfort, ANSI/ASHRAE
ies.30–35 A comprehensive experiments was conducted
Standard 55–2013 recommends that the air tempera-
by Olesen et al.,35 who reported that 3 K/m should be ture difference between the 0.1 and 1.7 m height
the limit on the vertical air temperature gradient if ther- levels should be less than 4 degrees.37 Figures 6 and 7
mal discomfort is to be avoided. Another characteris- present vertical temperature distribution patterns in the
tically experimental study was conducted by Wyon and vertical central plane of an office in summer and
Sandberg.34,36 They found that the vertical temperature winter, respectively. The average indoor temperature
difference should not be more than 4 K/m for there to for all cases was approximately 25 C. In order to com-
be an acceptable thermal environment. They also found pare the temperature distributions, we also extracted
10 Indoor and Built Environment 0(0)

Figure 6. Different cases of vertical summer temperature distributions.

air temperatures at two height levels (1.7 m and 0.1 m) windows, the vertical temperature differences in all
to calculate the vertical temperature difference in the three cases were reduced, and Layout C presented a
user occupied zone. These results are generalized in similar vertical temperature gradient (0.9 C) to that
Table 5. The acronym ‘A-SL’ in the table represents of Layout B (0.7 C). Layout A’s vertical temperature
Layout A, summer season and low-insulated windows. difference was still over the recommended level.
In summer (Figure 6), the air temperature distribu- In winter (Figure 7), when the window had low insu-
tion showed that Layout B, with the above-the-window lation, the air temperature distribution showed that
type vent placement, provided a uniform vertical tem- Layout A, with its under-the-window type of vent
perature gradient (0.7 C) when the window insulation placement, provided more uniform thermal conditions
was low. The vertical temperature difference (4.1 C) in (a 1.8 C vertical temperature difference) than the other
Layout A was over the level recommended by two layouts. Layout C had the highest temperature
ASHRAE 55–2013, so it could have resulted in local gradient (4.19 C), and both Layouts B and C generated
thermal discomfort. When it comes to highly insulated high vertical temperature differences that were over the
Duan and Wang 11

Figure 7. Different cases of vertical winter temperature distributions.

Table 5. Vertical temperature difference and average temperature in the occupant zone.

A-SL B-SL C-SL A-SH B-SH C-SH A-WL B-WL C-WL A-WH B-WH C-WH

Vertical temperature 4.1 0.8 1.3 3.4 0.8 0.9 1.8 4.0 4.2 1.1 2.6 1.6
difference 1.7/0.1 m

ASHRAE 55 recommended level. Conversely, compar- well in this situation. These comparisons reveal the
ing the models with highly insulated windows indicated consistent effects on vertical temperature differences
that all three layouts provided more even local thermal and airflow patterns that result from combining
conditions. Also, the distinction and advantages of window properties and air vent layouts. With highly
Layout A were attenuated. Layout C also performed insulated windows, although Layouts A and B
12 Indoor and Built Environment 0(0)

performed slightly better in winter and summer, respec- low-insulated windows. As the window insulation
tively, the central-ceiling type of air vent placement increased, the differences among the Layouts decreased
would serve as an acceptable alternative solution in in terms of percentiles of occupants who were thermally
terms of vertical temperature variations. dissatisfied. The PPD values from Layout C were only
about 0.5% and 2% higher in summer and winter,
Analysis of PMV-PPD values respectively, than the best thermal comfort indicators
but still within the recommended range 10%.
PMV was divided into a seven-point thermal sensation
scale, according to the thermal perception of human Analysis of heat transfer through
bodies (þ3 hot, þ2 warm, þ1 slightly warm, 0 neutral,
windows
1 slightly cool, 2 cool, 3 cold).30 From the simu-
lation scenes, we extracted the PMV indices for two Except for exterior windows, all other model bound-
points at height levels of 0.1 m and 1.7 m. We then aries in this study were set as adiabatic, so that the
obtained the average PMV values. To predict the per- output of heat transfer by the CFD simulation was
centile of occupants who would be thermally dissatis- only through windows. Using this method, we summa-
fied in a given thermal environment, the predicted rized the heat transfer through the exterior window at
percentage of dissatisfied (PPD) index38 was calculated eventuate state (about 25 C as the average room tem-
using equation (6) and thoroughly analysed. The rec- perature) in summer and winter in Tables 7 and 8,
ommended acceptable PPD range from ANSI/ respectively. In these Tables, we also documented the
ASHRAE Standard 55–2013 is less than 10% of per- window’s average inner and outer surface tempera-
tures, which could also reveal the thermal insulation
sons dissatisfied with the interior space.37 Table 6 sum-
abilities of different windows.
marizes these two key thermal comfort indicators
With regard to the impact of window insulation in
obtained from this simulation study.
the summer season, compared to low-insulated win-
dows (Cases A-SL, B-SL, and C-SL), highly insulated
PPD ¼ 100  95
eð0:03353PMV þ0:2179PMV2 Þ
4
(6) windows (Cases A-SH, B-SH, and C-SH) significantly
reduced heat gain to a rate of 67.1%, 67.2% and
The PMV and PPD values in Table 6 demonstrate 66.8% (an average of 67%), respectively. This was as
the advantages of using Layout A in winter and Layout expected. Similarly, in the winter season, Cases A-WH,
B in summer. They offer the most appropriate B-WH and C-WH achieved significant heat loss reduc-
PMV indices and the lowest PPD values in cases of tions with highly insulated windows, approximately

Table 6. PMV-PPD indicators.

A-SL B-SL C-SL A-SH B-SH C-SH A-WL B-WL C-WL A-WH B-WH C-WH

Average PMV 0.59 0.39 0.67 0.45 0.41 0.44 0.07 0.42 0.71 0.15 0.17 0.35
Average PPD (%) 12.3 8.2 14.4 9.2 8.5 9.0 5.1 8.7 15.6 5.5 5.6 7.6
PMV: predicted mean vote; PPD: predicted percentage of dissatisfied.

Table 7. Heat gain through exterior windows in summer.

Case A-SL B-SL C-SL A-SH B-SH C-SH

Inner/outer window surface 27.70/29.68 27.66/29.75 28.07/29.99 25.24/31.24 25.59/31.26 26.13/31.33

temperature ( C)
Heat gain (W) 73.0 70.7 63.3 24.0 23.2 21.0

Table 8. Heat loss through exterior windows in winter.

Case A-WL B-WL C-WL A-WH B-WH C-WH

Inner/outer window surface 12.1/1.2 10.79/0.42 10.2/0.04 19.87/7.46 19.09/7.56 17.85/7.70

temperature ( C)
Heat loss (W) 382.8 380.6 347.1 111.4 108.3 103.6
Duan and Wang 13

70.9%, 71.6% and 70% (an average of 70.8%) over solution for maintaining thermal comfort in both
Cases A-WL, B-WL and C-WL with their low- single and triple-pane window conditions, even
insulated windows, respectively. This can be explained though such advantages were not significant in cases
via the approximately eightfold increase (i.e. from of highly insulated windows. Meanwhile, a central-
5.6 W/m2-K to 0.65 W/m2-K) in window insulation. ceiling air vent placement might save a certain
Therefore, an increase in window insulation could amount of heat loss/gain through exterior windows.
greatly improve energy efficiency by an average of This presents a trade-off between thermal comfort
65.4% in summer and 70.8% in winter, based on a and energy savings. The goal is to achieve the lowest
change from low-insulation windows. energy use possible while still maintaining an accept-
Conversely, Figure 8 shows a comparison of the dif- able 10% PPD.
ferent air vent layouts under the same level of window Figures 9 and 10 show the average temperature dif-
insulation. This reveals that placing air supply vents ference, PPD and the sum of energy use in these two
close to the exterior window (Layouts A and B) test seasons. The green cube highlights the key recom-
resulted in more heat loss/gain compared to the mended ASHRAE levels for vertical temperature and
central-ceiling placement (Layout C). With low- PPD. The points falling within this zone indicate that
insulation windows, the heat transfer difference the situation complied with the recommended comfort
between Layouts A/B and Layout C was around levels. Therefore, in these two figures, the closer to the
13.5% in summer and 10% in winter. With high- coordinate origin (the red dot in the Figure) the points
insulation windows, the heat transfer difference are located, the more preferable the heat transfer values
between Layouts A/B and Layout C was slightly and thermal comfort levels. Figure 9 illustrates that
attenuated to 12.3% in summer and 6% in winter. Cases B-SL, A-WL and B-WL were in the recom-
Thus, regardless of the window’s insulating ability, mended zone, and Layout B was the most appropriate
air vent placement plays an important role in determin- option for both energy use and PPD objectives in cases
ing the amount of heat transferred through the of low-insulated windows.
window. In other words, this demonstrates that a Figure 10, on the other hand, demonstrates that
central-ceiling type of placement can be deemed almost all of the points fell into the recommended
energy efficient, even under highly insulated exterior zone. Compared with other layouts, the average PPD
window conditions. in Layout C showed an increase to 8.2%, over the
7.4% of Layout A or 7% of Layout B. The heat trans-
fer amount was reduced from 135.4 W in Layout A and
Discussion 131.5 W in Layout B to 124.6 W in Layout C, repre-
From a comparative analysis of four aspects – airflow senting an approximately 6% to 9% energy savings.
pattern, temperature distribution, thermal comfort Therefore, in this case study, we identified Layout C
index and heat transfer – the above-the-window air as the optimal air vent placement type caused by its
supply register in summer and under-the-window air relatively large energy savings and minor negative
supply register in winter would serve as the best effects on thermal comfort. However, this simplified

Figure 8. Heat gain/loss through an exterior window.

14 Indoor and Built Environment 0(0)

Figure 9. Performances of different air vent placements with low-insulated windows.

Figure 10. Performances of different air vent placements with highly insulated windows.
Duan and Wang 15

trade-off stemmed from the strong energy efficiency of performances achieved in Layouts A and B, was
the triple-pane windows and adiabatic boundary wall slightly higher but still within the recommended
properties hypothesized in this work. If the energy sav- limits.
ings from other types of windows cannot achieve this • This simulation was limited to the selected window
level, a comparative analysis would be more complex, types and office unit features. Considering the vari-
and further assessment of energy use and indoor com- ety of window properties, it is possible to find sig-
fort would be needed. In addition, many studies have nificant complexity in trade-offs between energy
pointed out that user well-being and productivity are savings and thermal comfort. Given the substantial
significantly related to indoor thermal comfort.38–41 A connection between user productivity and indoor
PPD change from 6% to 10% might result in a 4.2% thermal comfort, additional investment in improved
increase in employees’ maximum loss of performance indoor environments will likely be regarded as
in their workspaces.42 Given the considerably high cost acceptable.
of personnel in an office environment, a 1% loss of
performance could lead to a significant loss in profit The discoveries from this research provide an
for the organization. Therefore, the extra energy used improved understanding of how thermal comfort and
to enhance indoor comfort could still be regarded as a energy issues change in response to different vent loca-
cost-effective strategy from an investment perspective. tions and types of building windows. This work may
also shed light on how best to optimize air vent place-
ment and window design. Moreover, it is becoming
Conclusions increasingly important to improve user satisfaction
This research was conducted to examine airflow pat- and associated productivity, especially in office set-
terns, temperature distributions, PMV/PPD thermal tings. The inter- and intra-relationships between air
comfort indices and the corresponding heat transfers vent layouts and building window properties present
through exterior windows in a private office during trade-off issues between energy savings by retrofitting
the summer and winter seasons. The objective was to and/or HVAC upgrades and financial advantages by
understand the effects of different air vent placements improving user satisfaction on indoor environment.
and window insulation on indoor thermal conditions At this point, this work presents a quantitatively assess-
and energy use, as well as to quantitatively assess the ment framework using simulation programs for such
trade-offs between indoor comfort and energy use trade-off issue.
saving with a central-ceiling air vent placement. To U-factor is the only window property considered
this end, extensive CFD simulations and related com- and manipulated in this study, so such parametric
parative analyses were conducted on six representative study is not able to reflect the effect on energy use
combinations of air vent layouts and window insula- and indoor environment by the other window proper-
tion levels. The results indicate that: ties, such as solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC) which
may play more important roles than conductivity in
• With low-insulated windows (single-pane type), certain scenarios (for instance south-facing windows
using above-the-window air supply registers in in daytime). In the platform of Autodesk CFD, only
summer and under-the-window registers in winter the ‘Solar Window’ was able to involve SHGC in the
were shown to have apparent advantages, providing calculation and simulation. However, the key draw-
a more complete air mixture, uniform vertical tem- back of the current version is that the heat transfer
perature distribution, and acceptable thermal com- values could not be extracted when it comes to the
fort (PMV/PPD index). Even though the heat ‘Solar Window’ type. Therefore, in this study, regular
transfer could be considerably reduced by using a window construction elements (without the SHGC
central-ceiling type of air register, the resulting ther- parameter) were used instead because heat transfer
mal comfort performance was outside of the recom- values through windows were readily accessible.
mended limits. This limitation is expected to be resolved in our
• With highly insulated (triple-pane type) windows, future work using customized plug-ins or different pro-
the advantages of Layout A in winter and Layout grams to explore comprehensive parametric controls
B in summer were not especially distinct. The on window properties including SHGC, emissivity,
central-ceiling placement in Layout C seemed to be specific heat, and so forth. In particular, our future
capable of merging airflows for the entire room, pro- study will address the effect of thermal radiation on
viding appropriate indoor thermal conditions and interior window surfaces with various emissivity levels
significant savings in energy use. However, the per- and specific heat properties of boundary materials.
centage of occupants dissatisfied with the level of In addition, this study is at the preliminary stage for
thermal comfort, as compared with the best a large research scope about the combined effect
16 Indoor and Built Environment 0(0)

between building envelopes and indoor system settings. 8. Vanhoutteghem L, Skarning GCJ, Hviid CA and
At this stage, only six combinations with three varia- Svendsen S. Impact of façade window design on energy,
bles (season, air vent location, and window insulation) daylighting and thermal comfort in nearly zero-energy
were involved. Upon this simulation framework, other houses. Energy Build 2015; 102: 149–156.
variables, such as window SHGC, indoor humidity, 9. Ahn B-L, Kim J-H, Jang C-Y, Leigh S-B and Jeong H.
Window retrofit strategy for energy saving in existing res-
outdoor temperature, system cubic feet per minute
idences with different thermal characteristics and window
(CFM), can be integrated into the research in the
sizes. Build Serv Eng Res Technol.2016; 37: 18–32.
future, and then the optimization techniques can be 10. Arasteh D, Carmody J, Lee ES, Selkowitz S and Willmert
further investigated and applied to explore the optimal T. Window systems for high performance buildings.
settings upon the needs. New York, NY: Norton & Company, 2004.
11. Hank R. Manual T: air distribution basics for residential
Author’s contribution and small commercial buildings. New York, NY: Air
All authors contributed in the preparation of this manuscript Conditioning Contractors of America, 2015.
equally. 12. Duan Q, Wang J and Zhao H. Airflow pattern and ther-
mal comfort in winter by different combinations of air
Declaration of conflicting interests distribution strategies and window types in an office unit.
In: The passive low energy architecture conference
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with (PLEA), Edinburgh, UK: NCEUB Publisher, 2017, pp.
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this 1061–1068.
article. 13. Cho J, Lim T and Kim BS. Measurements and predictions
of the air distribution systems in high compute density
Funding (Internet) data centers. Energy Build 2009; 41: 1107–1115.
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup- 14. Nicol JF and Humphreys MA. Adaptive thermal comfort
and sustainable thermal standards for buildings. Energy
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
Build 2002; 34: 563–572.
article: This work was supported by The Photothermal
15. Bessoudo M, Tzempelikos A, Athienitis AK and
Effects of Iron Oxide Nanoparticles on Energy Efficient Zmeureanu R. Indoor thermal environmental conditions
Windows (a National Science Foundation grant: CMMI- near glazed facades with shading devices – part I: experi-
1635089). ments and building thermal model. Build Environ 2010;
45: 2506–2516.
References 16. Sengupta J, Chapman KS and Keshavarz A. Window
performance for human thermal comfort. ASHRAE
1. ASHRAE 90.1. Energy standard for buildings except low-
rise residential buildings. Atlanta: American Society of Trans 2005; 111: 254–275.
Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, 17. Huizenga C, Zhang H, Mattelaer P, Yu T, Arens EA and
Inc., 2013. Lyons P. Window performance for human thermal com-
2. Wagner A, Gossauer E, Moosmann C, Gropp T and fort. Berkeley, USA: Center for the Built Environment,
Leonhart R. Thermal comfort and workplace occupant University of California, 2006.
satisfaction – results of field studies in German low 18. Hassan MA, Guirguis NM, Shaalan MR and El-Shazly
energy office buildings. Energy Build 2007; 39: 758–769. KM. Investigation of effects of window combinations on
3. Azizpour F, Moghimi S, Salleh E, Mat S, Lim CH and ventilation characteristics for thermal comfort in build-
Sopian K. Thermal comfort assessment of large-scale ings. Desalination 2007; 209(1–3 SPEC. ISS.): 251–260.
hospitals in tropical climates: a case study of University 19. Chiang W-H, Wang C-Y and Huang J-S. Evaluation of
Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre (UKMMC). cooling ceiling and mechanical ventilation systems on
Energy Build 2013; 64: 317–322. thermal comfort using CFD study in an office for sub-
4. Kosonen R and Tan F. Assessment of productivity loss tropical region. Build Environ 2012; 48: 113–127.
in air-conditioned buildings using PMV index. Energy 20. Wargocki P, Wyon DP and Fanger PO. The performance
Build 2004; 36: 987–993. and subjective responses of call-center operators with
5. Yuan X, Chen Q and Glicksman LR. A critical review of new and used supply air filters at two outdoor air
displacement ventilation. ASHRAE Trans 1998; 104: supply rates. Indoor Air 2004; 14: 7–16.
78–90. 21. Mijakowski M and Sowa J. An attempt to improve
6. Yu Z, Zhang WL and Fang TY. Impact of building ori- indoor environment by installing humidity-sensitive air
entation and window-wall ratio on the office building inlets in a naturally ventilated kindergarten building.
energy consumption. Appl Mech Mater 2013; 409–410: Build Environ 2017; 111: 180–191.
606–611. 22. Heidarinejad G, Fathollahzadeh MH and Pasdarshahri H.
7. Moon JW, Chang JD and Kim S. Determining adaptabil- Effects of return air vent height on energy consumption,
ity performance of artificial neural network-based ther- thermal comfort conditions and indoor air quality in an
mal control logics for envelope conditions in residential under floor air distribution system. Energy Build 2015; 97:
buildings. Energies 2013; 6: 3548–3570. 155–161.
 Duan and Wang 17

23. Kuo J-Y and Chung K-C. The effect of diffuser’s loca- with displacement ventilation. ASHRAE Trans 1989; 95:
tion on thermal comfort analysis with different air distri- 1–8.
bution strategies. J Build Phys 1999; 22: 208–229. 34. Wvon DP and Sandberg M. Discomfort due to vertical
24. Lam JC and Chan AL. CFD analysis and energy simu- thermal gradients. Indoor Air 1996; 6: 48–54.
lation of a gymnasium. Build Environ 2001; 36: 351–358. 35. Olesen BW, Scholer M and Fanger PO. Discomfort
25. Sharma A. Introduction to CFD: development, application, caused by vertical air temperature differences. Indoor
and analysis. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Climate 1979; 36: 561–578.
2017, pp.23–39. 36. Yu WJ. Local discomfort caused by draft perception in a
26. Tu J, Yeoh GH and Liu C. Computational fluid dynamics: space served by displacement ventilation system in the
a practical approach. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, tropics. Indoor Built Environ 2006; 15: 225–233.
2012. 37. ANSI-ASHRAE Standard 55-2013. Thermal environmen-
27. Blazek J. Computational fluid dynamics: principles and tal conditions for human occupancy. Atlanda, USA:
applications. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2015. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
28. Cheng Y, Niu J and Gao N. Thermal comfort models: a conditioning Engineers, 2013.
review and numerical investigation. Build Environ 2012; 38. ISO7730:2005. Ergonomics of the thermal environment -
47:13–22. Analytical determination and interpretation of thermal
29. Djongyang N, Tchinda R and Njomo D. Thermal com- comfort using calculation of the PMV and PPD indices
fort: a review paper. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev and local thermal comfort criteria. Geneva, Switzerland:
2010; 14: 26–40. International Organization for Standardization, 2005.
30. Olesen BW and Brager GS. A better way to predict com- 39. Clements-Croome DJ. Work performance, productivity
fort. ASHRAE J 2004; 8: 20–26. and indoor air. J Work Environ Health Suppl 2008; 4:
31. Wu X, Fang L, Olesen BW, Zhao J and Wang F. Effect 69–78.
of supply air temperature on air distribution in a room 40. Roelofsen P. The impact of office environments on
with radiant heating and mechanical ventilation. employee performance: the design of the workplace as a
ASHRAE Trans 2017; 121: 206–213. strategy for productivity enhancement. J Facilities
32. Gil-Lopez T, Galvez-Huerta MA, O’donohoe PG, Manage 2002; 1: 247–264.
Castejon-Navas J and Dieguez-Elizondo PM. Analysis 41. Wyon DP and Wargocki P. How indoor environment
of the influence of the return position in the vertical tem- affects performance. ASHRAE J 2013; 3: 46–52.
perature gradient in displacement ventilation systems for 42. Vimalanathan K and Babu TR. The effect of indoor
large halls. Energy Build 2017; 140: 371–379. office environment on the work performance, health
33. Melikov AK and Nielsen JB. Local thermal discomfort and well-being of office workers. J Environ Health Sci
due to draft and vertical temperature difference in rooms Eng 2014; 12: 113.

View publication stats