Building Simulation

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 101–111 | Cite as

Influence of reduced VAV flow settings on indoor thermal comfort in an office space

  • Kavita Gangisetti
  • David E. Claridge
  • Jelena Srebric
  • Mitchell T. Paulus
Research Article Indoor/Outdoor Airflow and Air Quality


The air temperature distribution in a space with reduced diffuser flow rates and heat loads was studied using simulation. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) was used to analyze the room air distribution from a side wall diffuser at the design flow rate, and the results were validated with experimental data. CFD was used to predict occupant discomfort under a range of reduced diffuser flow rates. It was found for diffuser flow rates above 30% of the design flow rate that the temperature influence from the jet was minimal. At these flow rates, there was nearly a uniform temperature distribution in the occupied zone. The predicted maximum value of percentage of dissatisfied occupants within the space began to increase for diffuser flow rates below 30% of the design flow rate. The percent dissatisfaction at 1 m room height was greater than 25% for the lowest diffuser flow rate tested (15% of the design flow rate) directly under the diffuser, which was the highest of the test cases, but was 5% or less throughout more than 90% of the room. In contrast, at the higher flow rates, the percent dissatisfied index was 5% or less in only 60%–80% of the room due to increased velocity. Evidence of dumping was already found at the traditional minimum flow rate setting of 30% of design, and so there would be little harm in reducing the minimum flow rate further. Reducing the flow rate below 30% of design just moved the location of the dumping closer to the diffuser. For very low diffuser flow rates (below 30% of the design flow rate), it is recommended that desks be placed away from the supply diffuser to avoid discomfort. Overall, the simulation results indicate that uniform temperatures are maintained in the room at flow rates as low as 15% of design except immediately under the diffuser. This suggests that the VAV minimum flow rates can be set below 30% of design flow as long as the diffuser is at least 1 m from an occupant’s position.


CFD thermal comfort draught diffusers turbulence 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. ANSYS (2013). ANSYS Mechanical User’s Guide.Google Scholar
  2. Arens E, Zhang H, Hoyt T, Kaam S, Goins J, Bauman F, Zhai Y, Webster T, West B, Paliaga G, Stein J, Seidl R, Tully B, Rimmer J, Toftum J (2012). Thermal and air quality acceptability in buildings that reduce energy by reducing minimum airflow from overhead diffusers. ASHRAE RP-1515.Google Scholar
  3. Arens E, Xu T, Miura K, Hui Z, Fountain M, Bauman F (1998). A study of occupant cooling by personally controlled air movement. Energy and Buildings, 27: 45–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ASHRAE (2013). Thermal environmental conditions for human occupancy. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-2013.Google Scholar
  5. Cândido C, de Dear RJ, Lamberts R, Bittencourt L (2010). Air movement acceptability limits and thermal comfort in Brazil’s hot humid climate zone. Building and Environment, 45: 222–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlucci S, Pagliano L (2012). A review of indices for the long-term evaluation of the general thermal comfort conditions in buildings. Energy and Buildings, 53: 194–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Charles KE (2003). Fanger’s thermal comfort and draught models. National Research Council of Canada, IRC Research Report RR-162.Google Scholar
  8. Chen Q (1995). Comparison of different k–e models for indoor airflow computations. Numerical Heat Transfer, Part B: Fundamentals, 28: 353–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen Q, Moser A (1991). Simulation of a multiple-nozzle diffuser. In: Proceedings of 12th AIVC Conference, Ottawa, Canada, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
  10. Cheng Y, Niu J, Gao N (2012). Thermal comfort models: A review and numerical investigation. Building and Environment, 47: 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cheong KWD, Djunaedy E, Chua YL, Tham KW, Sekhar SC, Wong NH, Ullah MB (2003). Thermal comfort study of an air-conditioned lecture theatre in the tropics. Building and Environment, 38: 63–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Dear RJ, Akimoto T, Arens E, Brager G, Candido C, Cheong KWD, Li B, Nishihara N, Sekhar SC, Tanabe S, Toftum J, Zhang H, Zhu Y (2013). Progress in thermal comfort research over the last twenty years. Indoor Air, 23: 442–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Djongyang N, Tchinda R, Njomo D (2010). Thermal comfort: A review paper. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14: 2626–2640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ewert M, Renz U, Vogl N, Zeller M (1991). Definition of the flow parameters at the room inlet devices-measurements and calculations. In: Proceedings of 12th AIVC Conference, Ottawa, Canada, pp. 231–237.Google Scholar
  15. Fanger P, Melikov A, Hanzawa H, Ring J (1988). Air turbulence and sensation of draft. Energy and Buildings, 12: 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fanger P, Christensen N (1986). Perception of draught in ventilated spaces. Ergonomics, 29: 215–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fountain M, Bauman F, Arens E, Miura K, de Dear R (1994). Locally controlled air movement preferred in warm isothermal environments. ASHRAE Transactions, 100(2): 937–952.Google Scholar
  18. Gosman A, Nielsen P, Restivo A, Whitelaw J (1980). The flow properties of rooms with small ventilation openings. Journal of Fluids Engineering, 102: 316–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heikkinen J (1991a). Modeling of a supply air terminal for room airflow simulation. In: Proceedings of 12th AIVC Conference, Ottawa, Canada, pp. 213–230.Google Scholar
  20. Heikkinen J (1991b). Measurements of test cases B2, B3, E2, E3 (isothermal and summer cooling cases). IEA Annex 20 Research item 1.16 and 1.17.Google Scholar
  21. Huo Y, Zhang J, Shaw C, Haghighat F (1996). A new method to describe boundary conditions in CFD simulation. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Air Distribution in Rooms (ROOMVENT), Yokohama, Japan, pp. 233–240.Google Scholar
  22. Kajiya R, Hiruta K, Sakai K, Ono H, Sudo T (2011). Thermal environment prediction using CFD with a virtual mannequin model and experiment with subject in a floor heating room. In: Proceedings of 12th International IBPSA Building Simulation Conference, Sydney, Australia, pp. 1670–1677.Google Scholar
  23. Kubo H, Isoda N, Enomoto-Koshimizu H (1997). Cooling effects of preferred air velocity in muggy conditions. Building and Environment, 32: 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kwong QJ, Adam NM, Sahari BB (2014). Thermal comfort assessment and potential for energy efficiency enhancement in modern tropical buildings: A review. Energy and Buildings, 68: 547–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lemaire AD, Chen Q, Ewert M, Heikkinen J, Inard C, Moser A, Nielsen PV, Whittle G (1993). Room air and contaminant flow, evaluation of computational methods. Subtask-1 Summary Report.Google Scholar
  26. Luo S, Heikkinen J, Roux B (2004). Simulation of airflow in the IEA annex 20 test room—Validation of a simplified model for the nozzle diffuser in isothermal test cases. Building and Environment, 39: 1403–1415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mendell MJ, Mirer AG (2009). Indoor thermal factors and symptoms in office workers: Findings from the US EPA BASE study. Indoor Air, 19: 291–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nielsen PV (1992). The description of supply openings in numerical models for room air distribution. ASHRAE Transactions, 98(1): 963–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nielsen PV (1989). Representation of boundary conditions at supply openings. IEA Annex 20 Research Item No. 1.11.Google Scholar
  30. Noh K, Jang J, Oh M (2007). Thermal comfort and indoor air quality in the lecture room with 4-way cassette air-conditioner and mixing ventilation system. Building and Environment, 42: 689–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Riachi Y, Clodic D (2014). A numerical model for simulating thermal comfort prediction in public transportation buses. International Journal of Environmental Protection and Policy, 2: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rupp RF, Vásquez NG, Lamberts R (2015). A review of human thermal comfort in the built environment. Energy and Buildings, 105: 178–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Simone A, Olesen BW, Stoops JL, Watkins AW (2013). Thermal comfort in commercial kitchens (RP-1469): Procedure and physical measurements (part 1). HVAC&R Research, 19: 1001–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Skovgaard M, Nielsen P (1991). Modeling complex inlet geometries in CFD applied to airflow in ventilated rooms. In: Proceedings of 12th AIVC Conference, Ottawa, Canada, pp. 183–200.Google Scholar
  35. Srebric J, Chen Q (2002). Simplified numerical models for complex air supply diffusers. HVAC&R Research, 8: 277–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Srebric J, Chen Q (2001). A method of test to obtain diffuser data for CFD modeling of room airflow (RP-1009). ASHRAE Transactions, 107(2): 108–116.Google Scholar
  37. Srebric J (2000). Simplified methodology for indoor environment design. PhD Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA.Google Scholar
  38. Stamou AI, Katsiris I, Schaelin A (2008). Evaluation of thermal comfort in Galatsi arena of the Olympics “Athens 2004” using a CFD model. Applied Thermal Engineering, 28: 1206–1215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Svidt K (1994). Investigation of inlet boundary conditions for numerical prediction of airflow in livestock buildings. Aalborg University, Indoor Environmental Technology, No. 38. Vol. R9407.Google Scholar
  40. Taleghani M, Tenpierik M, Kurvers S, van den Dobbelsteen A (2013). A review into thermal comfort in buildings. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 26: 201–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yang L, Yan H, Lam JC (2014). Thermal comfort and building energy consumption implications—A review. Applied Energy, 115: 164–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zhang H, Arens E, Fard SA, Huizenga C, Paliaga G, Brager G, Zagreus L (2007). Air movement preferences observed in office buildings. International Journal of Biometeorology, 51: 349–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Tsinghua University Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kavita Gangisetti
    • 1
  • David E. Claridge
    • 1
  • Jelena Srebric
    • 2
  • Mitchell T. Paulus
    • 1
  1. 1.Texas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  2. 2.University of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations