Comparison of Numerical Simulation of NOx with Modeling of IAQX in Indoor Environments

Background and Objectives: This study presents an evaluation between IAQX 1.0f and Fluent 6.3.26 in modeling of NOx dispersion in an indoor residential environment. Modeling predictions are compared with sampling results.Materials and Methods: Aresidential building with about 84 m2 area is modeled....

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Khalil Arya F., Shafiepour Motlagh M., Kalhor M.
Format: Article
Language:fas
Published: Tehran University of Medical Sciences 2011-06-01
Series:سلامت و محیط
Subjects:
Online Access:http://journals.tums.ac.ir/upload_files/pdf/19324.pdf
id doaj-beea6a2251cf44d8be14d8f0fd1b3508
record_format Article
spelling doaj-beea6a2251cf44d8be14d8f0fd1b35082021-09-02T04:23:12ZfasTehran University of Medical Sciencesسلامت و محیط2008-20292008-37182011-06-0142125136Comparison of Numerical Simulation of NOx with Modeling of IAQX in Indoor EnvironmentsKhalil Arya F.Shafiepour Motlagh M.Kalhor M.Background and Objectives: This study presents an evaluation between IAQX 1.0f and Fluent 6.3.26 in modeling of NOx dispersion in an indoor residential environment. Modeling predictions are compared with sampling results.Materials and Methods: Aresidential building with about 84 m2 area is modeled. In IAQX 1.0f the building is divided into five zones. Emission factors and absorption rate of sinks is estimated with US.EPA suggested factors. On the other hand, In the Fluent 6.3.26 model, the building was divided into 1777 cells, and the openings are defined by the boundary conditions of the inflow. In this model, pollution sources were simulated by boundary conditions of the mass inflow.Results:Compared to IAQX 1.0f, Fluent 6.3.26 showed higher estimation of the concentrations in the zones of 1, 2 and 3. In comparison with the measurements, both models had underestimated results.Conclusion: The results of Fluent 6.3.26 were closer to the sampling results in the zones.http://journals.tums.ac.ir/upload_files/pdf/19324.pdfModelingIndoor EnvironmentsFluent 6.3.26IAQX 1.0f
collection DOAJ
language fas
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Khalil Arya F.
Shafiepour Motlagh M.
Kalhor M.
spellingShingle Khalil Arya F.
Shafiepour Motlagh M.
Kalhor M.
Comparison of Numerical Simulation of NOx with Modeling of IAQX in Indoor Environments
سلامت و محیط
Modeling
Indoor Environments
Fluent 6.3.26
IAQX 1.0f
author_facet Khalil Arya F.
Shafiepour Motlagh M.
Kalhor M.
author_sort Khalil Arya F.
title Comparison of Numerical Simulation of NOx with Modeling of IAQX in Indoor Environments
title_short Comparison of Numerical Simulation of NOx with Modeling of IAQX in Indoor Environments
title_full Comparison of Numerical Simulation of NOx with Modeling of IAQX in Indoor Environments
title_fullStr Comparison of Numerical Simulation of NOx with Modeling of IAQX in Indoor Environments
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Numerical Simulation of NOx with Modeling of IAQX in Indoor Environments
title_sort comparison of numerical simulation of nox with modeling of iaqx in indoor environments
publisher Tehran University of Medical Sciences
series سلامت و محیط
issn 2008-2029
2008-3718
publishDate 2011-06-01
description Background and Objectives: This study presents an evaluation between IAQX 1.0f and Fluent 6.3.26 in modeling of NOx dispersion in an indoor residential environment. Modeling predictions are compared with sampling results.Materials and Methods: Aresidential building with about 84 m2 area is modeled. In IAQX 1.0f the building is divided into five zones. Emission factors and absorption rate of sinks is estimated with US.EPA suggested factors. On the other hand, In the Fluent 6.3.26 model, the building was divided into 1777 cells, and the openings are defined by the boundary conditions of the inflow. In this model, pollution sources were simulated by boundary conditions of the mass inflow.Results:Compared to IAQX 1.0f, Fluent 6.3.26 showed higher estimation of the concentrations in the zones of 1, 2 and 3. In comparison with the measurements, both models had underestimated results.Conclusion: The results of Fluent 6.3.26 were closer to the sampling results in the zones.
topic Modeling
Indoor Environments
Fluent 6.3.26
IAQX 1.0f
url http://journals.tums.ac.ir/upload_files/pdf/19324.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT khalilaryaf comparisonofnumericalsimulationofnoxwithmodelingofiaqxinindoorenvironments
AT shafiepourmotlaghm comparisonofnumericalsimulationofnoxwithmodelingofiaqxinindoorenvironments
AT kalhorm comparisonofnumericalsimulationofnoxwithmodelingofiaqxinindoorenvironments
_version_ 1721180251904540672