2。 Methodology

2。1。 Experimental  validation

This study uses an experimental chamber (the CUBE in Fig。 1) of 2。44 m × 2。44 m × 1。30 m (L × W × H) with a double swing door of 0。61 m × 0。71 m (W × H), which is the same size as that used by Yuill in his study [5] representing a 1/3 sub-scale of a real build- ing。 The chamber is equipped with a duct fan [28] to pressurize or depressurize the enclosure。 The pressure difference across the door, 6P, is recorded based on the average pressure measurements at four points in the chamber’s mid-depth plane (between the door and the fan) in comparison to a reference pressure outside of the enclosure。 The air volumetric flow rates through the fan, which are equivalent to those through the door due to mass balance, were measured using the DG-700 model pressure transducer that was furnished with the fan [29]。 The flow rates were recorded at differ- ent pressure difference conditions with the doors open at 90◦。 All the experimental data were recorded based on 10 s time averaged readings。 In order to ensure the repeatability, all measurements were repeated at least once and averaged for the final readings。 The experimental data measured are then  directly  compared to the theoretical curve obtained based on the findings of Yuill [5] for the same case。 Based on the instrument error, the averaged pres- sure measurements had a random error range of ±1。3% or ±0。21 Pa (whichever is larger)。 The volumetric flow rate had both random instrumental error as well as systematic errors due to the chamber leakages which, in total, were about ±9% or ±0。02 m3/s (whichever is larger)。

The experimental setup used was able to achieve a maximum pressure difference across the door of 1。3 Pa (with 0。38 m3/s of flow

Fig。 1。 The CUBE experimental chamber – picture of the laboratory setup (left, courtesy of MËKANIC) and location of the pressure reading points/nodes within the chamber (right)。

through the door) and a minimum of −0。85 Pa (with −0。24 m3/s of flow)。 A final total of 10 averaged data points for the air flow and pressure differences were reported by using 20 measurements acquired with two data points for each pressure condition。 The paper focuses on validating the discharge coefficient suggested   by

Table 1

Strip mall and outpatient healthcare reference buildings models details [15,22,27]。

Strip Mall Building Outpatient Healthcare

Building

Height  (m) 零售店 9。15 门诊医疗楼

Yuill [5]。

Gross floor 高are度a (m2 )

2070 3767。4

2。2。 Building models parameters

Footpr总int面are积a (m2 ) 2070 1255。8

Entrance zone (m2 ) 345 (LG); 172 (SM) 1008。3

Number of zones 10 118

For this study, the ASHRAE 90。1-2013 strip mall and outpa- tient healthcare reference building models [15], [27] are used to investigate the impact of air infiltration calculation on energy con- sumption in three climate zone (CZ) locations。 In order to have an array of different weather conditions, the study uses CZ 3A − Memphis, CZ 5A – Chicago and CZ 7 –   Duluth。

The commercial reference building models, weather files and simulation software that are used in this study are as   follows: