VALIDATION OF NATURAL AIR FLOW SIMULATION

USING HAMBASE
S IMULATION OF MULTIPLE BENCHMARKS

Location: Eindhoven
Date: January 2014
Institute: Eindhoven University of Technology

Supervisors: dr. ir. A.W.M. van Schijndel

Authors: ing. J.G. Spruijt
J.M.A. Bischoff BSc.
SUMMARY
Natural airflow has a great influence on the indoor climate of buildings. The greatest uncertainty in
modeling of the indoor climate is the infiltration rate. In most cases the interzonal airflow also
influences the indoor climate. When there is a better insight in these natural airflows that occur in a
building, it will be easier to control the indoor climate. The program HAMBase contains tools for
including natural airflow in building performance simulations. These tools are not validated, and due
to difficulties in the usage they are not used often.

Therefore the main objectives in this research are:

- Verification/validation of air flow modelling with HAMBase
- Development of m-files to be used in benchmarks

A simulation study about different types of airflow simulation is carried out, to make clear how
HAMBase simulates airflow. To create better understanding of HAMBase, a benchmark about air
flow simulation is used to provide more information about the airflow simulations in HAMBase. The
next step is the simulation of different types of airflow with HAMBase, and the validation of these
simulations with calculations. After the numerical validation of the airflow modelling function of
HAMBase two benchmarks (OPTIBAT and COMIS) are simulated to validate the interzonal airflow
modelling function on the area of wind and stack effect.

This research proofs that it is possible to simulate interzonal airflow with HAMBase. Different types
of interzonal airflow have been tested, and three benchmarks have been used to validate the
program. The first benchmark takes all types of air flow simulation into account, and validates the
different parts with numerical calculations. The second is about wind driven interzonal airflows, in
both summer and winter situation. The results out of the HAMBase model correspond to the results
of three other programs. The third benchmark is about stack driven interzonal airflows. The results
out of this model are also corresponding to the results given in the benchmark.

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary ................................................................................................................................................. 2
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1 Objective.................................................................................................................................. 5
1.2 Research Plan .......................................................................................................................... 5
2. Airflow Modelling in HAMBase ....................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Forced (mechanic) ventilation ................................................................................................. 8
2.2 Wind driven airflow ................................................................................................................. 9
2.3 Stack driven flow ................................................................................................................... 10
3. Benchmark 1: Literature (CEX) ...................................................................................................... 12
3.1 Model .................................................................................................................................... 12
3.2 Input data .............................................................................................................................. 12
3.3 Results ................................................................................................................................... 12
3.4 Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 13
4. Benchmark 2: Verification airflow simulation ............................................................................... 14
4.1 Forced (mechanic) ventilation ............................................................................................... 14
4.2 Wind infiltration verification ................................................................................................. 16
4.3 Stack effect validation ........................................................................................................... 17
4.4 Mixed airflow......................................................................................................................... 18
4.5 Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 19
5. Benchmark 3: Validation wind effect (OPTIBAT) ........................................................................... 20
5.1 Model .................................................................................................................................... 20
5.2 Input data .............................................................................................................................. 21
5.3 Results ................................................................................................................................... 24
5.4 Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 26
6. Benchmark 4: validation stack effect (COMIS) .............................................................................. 27
6.1 The model .............................................................................................................................. 27
6.2 Input data .............................................................................................................................. 27
6.3 Results ................................................................................................................................... 28
6.4 Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 29
7 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 30
References ............................................................................................................................................. 31
Appendix................................................................................................................................................ 33
Benchmark CEX......................................................................................................................................

3
Benchmark Optibat ...............................................................................................................................
Benchmark Comis ..................................................................................................................................

4
 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 OBJECTIVE
The goal of this research is to validate the interzonal airflow functions of HAMBase, and to create m-
files which can be used to perform benchmarks. The first part of this research gives guidelines on
how to simulate airflow in HAMBase and has the goal to make it easier to implement interzonal
airflows in future simulations and research.

1.2 RESEARCH PLAN

This research is a simulation study, it contains simulations with HAMBase which are supported by
and based on theoretical research. The used program is MATLAB version 2013b in combination with
the basic HAMBase file; HAMBase11AprJVS which can be downloaded from the BPS wiki [1].

Different types of airflow will be modelled and tested in the HAMBase environment. Testing if and
how the airflow can be modelled in HAMBase will be used to create guidelines for simulations with
interzonal airflow modelling in HAMBase. The tests will be validated with numerical calculations.

After the validation of different small set ups in HAMBase, two benchmarks [2] [3] will be simulated
to validate the interzonal airflow function of HAMBase. These benchmarks will be on different areas
of airflow, namely airflow as a result of wind and airflow as a result of stack effects.

1.3 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT

In chapter 2 is given how HAMBase works with airflows. In chapter 3 a validation study of HAMBase
called ‘CEX’ [4] is treated. The next chapter (4) treats examples for interzonal airflow modelling and
can be used as a guide on how to simulate interzonal airflow in HAMBase. Chapter 5 treats a
benchmark about the influence of wind [2]. And a benchmark about the stack effect [3] is done in
Chapter 6.

Last the conclusions and some recommendations are made, placed in the Conclusion and discussion
chapter.

5
 2. AIRFLOW MODELLING IN HAMBASE
There are several methods which can be used for predicting airflow. The relatively easiest method is
predicting the airflow by simplified expressions. Numerical calculations predict the airflow in simple
stationary cases. An example of this is a numerical ventilation balance calculation, where the amount
of ventilation (L/s) is used to make shore every room is ventilated. More advanced is the air flow
modeling by approaching a building as a network of zones. The airflows through walls are
represented by resistances, both for zones with infiltration from the exterior climate and interzonal
airflows. Over every node the mass flow balance is calculated. In this method every zone is assumed
to be ‘fully mixed’, this is incorrect but it creates a simpler model [5]. The same is often done with
zones that have a strong connection due to a large opening [6] [7] [8]. The last method is
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). CFD uses numerical methods and algorithms to solve problems.
It requires strong computers and is mainly used for complex cases.

In this report natural airflow is simulated using HAMBase, this program is based on the mass flow
balance network method. The HAMBase calculations are built and run in MATLAB code.

NOTE 1: In the used example files, the climate is changed to a stationary climate. The climate can
easily be changed by overwriting the climate data at the end of the m-file, just before the output
data.

A climate file exists out of 9 columns with data, each of these columns can easily be overwritten with
a stationary number by adding the line: Meteo.kli(:,1)=”value”.

Figure 1: Weather file columns

Example: Changing the temperature of the climate file to a stationary 10°C.

Meteo.kli(:,2)=100;

When it is desired to change all values of the climate data, the next option can be used.

6
Figure 2: Possible option to create a stationary climate

Here the 365 can be changed to the number of simulation days.

NOTE 2: Inputextra is an extra option in the basic m-file, it is a separate m-file which is able to
perform extra calculations on the programmed model. It can be used by removing the % sign in front
of inputextra, or by entering inputextra just before the output in your m-file. Each extra function in
inputextra can be turned on or off by changing the 0 in a 1 and vice versa. When inputextra is added
multiple airflow options become available. These options are: Interzonal airflow and Airflow
infiltration.
When inputextra is used, its name can be changed as long as it has the same name as the used
inputextra file. For example, in JT_MechVentInterzonal.m the inputextra file is named:
JT_InputextraInterzonal.m.

Figure 3: Activation of inputextra

If inputextra is used, some data needs to be changed in the inputextra file. First the desired airflow
has to be turned on by changing for example BAS.Interzonal=0 into BAS.Interzonal=1, the interzonal
airflow calculation is now added to the building simulation. The data can be entered in the second
part of the inputextra file.

Figuur 4: Activation of Interzonal airflow

7
 2.1 FORCED (MECHANIC) VENTILATION
Different types of ventilation are available for buildings [9] [10], and different guidelines and rules
have been created [10] [11]. Mechanic ventilation is a type of interzonal airflow that is often used in
buildings where a certain amount of control is demanded. The air is provided to specific places in the
building using ventilators and air ducts. The air can be filtered, heat recovery can be applied and the
amount of ventilated air can be adjusted. There are different types of mechanic ventilation [9];
mechanic supply, mechanic removal and mechanically balanced ventilation. For mechanic supply and
removal the air must be able to enter one zone coming from another, so openings are created
underneath doors to be able to create a balance in the ventilation system. Balanced ventilation can
be applied in different ways, each zone can be balanced, or multiple zones can be combined to
create a balanced ventilation system. Zones that are strongly connected are often combined to
create one zone in simulations due to the difficulty to simulate large openings [6] [7] [8]. The size of
openings underneath doors, or the amount of ventilation is dependent on the function of the space
and the size of the room.

2.1.1 FORCED (MECHANIC) VENTILATION IN HAMBASE

In HAMBase a zone is a space with approximately the same climate conditions in every point. This
simplifies the calculations and reduces the calculation time but specific airflows within a zone [5] are
not taken into account due to this simplification. The air temperature change of a zone is in
HAMBase calculated using formula 1:

∅௔௕ = ௔ ௔ − ௘  +
௔௕ (௔ − ௕ )
௕

Formula 1: Heat flow caused by air entering a zone and

interzonal air flow between zones
Where:

Φab = Heat flow caused by air entering a zone with an air temperature Tb
Tb = Air temperature of zone, in case of ventilation Tb is exterior air temperature Te
Lab = Heat loss coefficient for airflow from zone b to a
La = Ventilation heat loss coefficient (= Caach/3600)
Ach = Air change rate (h-1)
Te = Outdoor air temperature

NOTE: The forced ventilation of HAMBase has not been validated with numerical calculations in this
research.

There are two ways to simulate mechanic ventilation in HAMBase. The first one is mechanical
ventilation via the profile input in the basic m-file. By changing the minimum and maximum air
change rate [12] [13], the zone is ventilated with air from the external climate. For each zone another
air change rate can be programmed. The second option is mechanic ventilation through the
inputextra file where a full flow pattern can be entered.

The downside to the way mechanic ventilation is entered in HAMBase is that the volume flow should
always be in balance. This means that air cannot be coming from the exterior climate, send trough
multiple zones and then be exhausted to the exterior climate again, because the same amount of air
has to be flowing back.
HAMBase uses the properties of the volume, the influences of the climate and data of the cracks to
calculate the airflow, but with mechanic ventilation the airflow through the openings is entered
exactly, and the effect on the indoor temperature or relative humidity is simulated. This has as a
result that all flows should be known, while it would be interesting when HAMBase calculates them.

8
 2.2 WIND DRIVEN AIRFLOW
The most common shape of airflow is wind, caused by a pressure difference [14] in the atmosphere.
This pressure difference creates airflow from the high pressure zone to the low pressure zone trying
to create an equal pressure over the whole atmosphere.

Wind driven ventilation [9] [10] is the interaction between the building envelope and its openings.
Knowledge of the urban climatology around the building is a crucial subject in evaluating the indoor
climate. The air exchange depends on the wind
speed, the wind direction and the crack or
opening properties.

Airflow caused by wind can be desired (natural

ventilation) or occur unintentionally (infiltration).
The airflow occurs typically through cracks in the
building envelope and through the use of doors
for passage. The leakage of inside air out of a
building is called exfiltration. Figure 5: schematic view natural infiltration [15]
When wind hits a building on one side a positive
pressure zone (luff side) is created in front of the building and a negative pressure zone (leeward
side) is created behind the building. If there is a shortcut through cracks or ventilation openings, this
can create an interzonal airflow through the building.

2.2.1 WIND DRIVEN AIRFLOW IN HAMBASE

The simulation of wind driven airflows is very inaccurate. Firstly because of wind pressures cannot be
predicted accurately for all wind directions and velocities for a complex geometry as a building with
its environmental surroundings. This is not even possible with a complex CFD model. The pressure at
the building surface created by the wind can be calculated with formula 2.

∆௘ = ௣ ∗ 0.5 ௔ ∗
ଶ ௪௜௡ௗ

Formula 2: Pressure at building surface as a

result of wind pressure.

Where:
ΔPe = dynamic pressure of the wind
Cp = wind pressure coefficient
vwind = reference wind velocity
ρa = density of air (1.2 kg/m3)

The reference wind velocity is the estimated velocity at the height of the roof ridge [13] [12]. This
estimation is very rough because of the complexity of the upwind terrains in a city.

9
The pressure coefficient is independent to the wind speed,
but varies with the wind direction and is strongly affected by
surrounding obstructions. This coefficient can also be negative
(suction), for instance at the leeward side of the building. To
find reliable values for the pressure coefficient is a problem.
Figure 6 shows an example of Cp values at the facades of a
certain building and certain wind direction. A positive Cp value
causes infiltration, a negative Cp value exfiltration.
Figure 6: Example of Cp values [13]
Turbulent fluctuations affect the infiltration, especially when there is a low wind speed that creates
an uncertainty in wind driven infiltration.
If the pressure difference over a leakage path is known, the mass flow rate is described by formula 3:

Q ୫ = ௔ ∗  ∗ ()௡

Formula 3: Mass flow caused by pressure difference.

Where:
Qm = air leakage (mass flow) rate [kg/s]
C = flow coefficient
n = flow exponent
Δp = pressure difference

C and n are leakage characteristics. The leakage characteristics of cracks are hard to calculate,
because the geometry is seldom well known. Data for pressure coefficients and leakage
characteristics can be found at the AIVC [16].

2.3 STACK DRIVEN FLOW

The stack effect is also known as buoyancy. Buoyancy is the movement of air due to air density
differences between zones, or between the indoor and outdoor climate mainly due to temperature
but also due to moisture differences [14].

When a temperature difference between

two adjoining volumes occurs, the air of
the warmer volume will have a lower
density, and thus will rise above the cold
air, creating an upward air stream. This
stream leaves the zone or building through
a high located crack, and fresh air is
extracted from outside or adjacent zone
through a lower placed crack or opening. In
case there is no lower opening present, Figure 7: Schematic view airflow caused by stack effect [15]
both in- and out- flow of air occurs
through the high level opening. During winter time the incoming air is always of a higher density than
the bulk interior air and hence will fall to the floor. Stack driven air flow increases with greater
temperature difference, and increased height difference between the higher and lower openings or
cracks. In a building with both high en low level openings, a neutral plane is present. The neutral
plane occurs between the high and low level openings, and represents the line at which the internal

10
pressure will be the same as the external pressure (in case of no wind). Above this neutral plane, the
air pressure is positive and air will flow out. Below this neutral plane the air pressure is negative and
external air will flow into the building.

2.3.1 STACK DRIVEN FLOW IN HAMBASE

The stack effect is another cause of inaccuracy in the airflow modelling. Temperature differences
between zones or between the inside and outside climate can cause airflows. The inside pressure at
floor height is the unknown zone pressure and the static pressure at an opening is equal to this
pressure minus the pressure caused by a vertical column of air with a length equal to the distance to
the floor. The zone pressure is defined as the pressure at the reference height of the building that
would be there if the column of air with a length of the vertical distance to a reference height had
completely the zone temperature. With the ideal gas law the pressure in zone I at a distance h from
the reference height (top of the roof) is:

 ℎ =  + 1.2 ∗ 9.81 ∗ 288ℎ/(273 +  )

Formula 4: Internal zone pressure
Where:
Pi = internal zone pressure;
Ti = room air temperature;
h = distance to top of the roof.

If the outside pressure at the roof height (without the wind contribution) is defined as 0 the outside
pressure at distance h from the reference is:

ℎ = 1.2 ∗ 9.81 ∗ 288ℎ/(273 + )

Formula 5: External zone pressure

Where:
Pe = external zone pressure;
h = distance to top of the roof;
Te = external temperature.

The biggest problem of modeling the stack effect is the temperature stratification. The temperature
in a room is never perfectly mixed. In particular openings with a large vertical dimension as open
doors and windows staircases are a real problem. These large vertical openings have to be divided
into more small openings with a better defined h. If a door between two rooms is always open, the
alternative is to consider the two rooms as one zone of equal temperature. The stack effect is often
more important than the wind effect. When the stack pressures are more accurate, the accuracy of
the results increases.

11
 3. BENCHMARK 1: LITERATURE (CEX)
-C ORRESPONDING M - FILES : [JT_ VENTCEX ][JT_ INPUTEXTRACEX ]
Common Exercise X is part of Annex 41 of the IEA (International Energy Agency) [17]. The goal of this
annex is to acquire better knowledge of whole-building heat, air and moisture balance, and its effects
on energy demand.

Different benchmarks are available [18] [19]. M.H. de Wit used these benchmarks to validate
HAMBase. The associated simulations of CEX are shown in the report CEX 1 [6], including infiltration
and exfiltration of air.

3.1 MODEL
The model is based on a practice-related case, it
concerns a three floor twin-house building. The goal of
de Wit’s research is to calculate the amount of
condensation in the roof. Infiltration and exfiltration
influences the condensation amount, and is therefore
an important part in de calculations and simulations.
This benchmark is based on a common type twin-
house, and is considered to behave as a three-node air
flow system.
Figure 8: Twin-house building CEX [18]
3.2 INPUT DATA
The climate data is given in the benchmarks, the
reference wind velocity at the ridge (7.4m) is 2.38
[m/s]. The wind pressure cannot be entered
directly, so pressure differences are calculated
using the wind pressure and the geometry
properties of Hens [18].
The inside temperature is constant at 18°C, while
the outside temperature is -2.5°C. The relative
humidity is 98% and the wind velocity at 10m is
3.8m/s in the open field. The outside radiant flow
is -30W/m2. The n-value varies between 6 and 14h-
1
with 10h-1 as the reference value.
Figure 9: Schematic view of HAMBase model [4]
3.3 RESULTS
De Wit targets in the results of the CEX simulations on condensation and energy use. But since
infiltration is a critical factor in this calculation, the flow of air is also included in the results, as shown
in table 1:
Table 1: Comparison airflows CEX [19] and HAMBase [4]

node 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3
CEX [19] [m /h] 71 60.5 1.9 -51.7 -44.5 -37.3 [-] [-] [-] [-]
HAMBase [4] [m3/h] 90 47 13 -63 -48 39 -65 -19 100 121

Data of the internal airflows of the CEX benchmark is not given, however it is still calculated with
HAMBase.

12
 3.4 DISCUSSION
The results of the CEX Benchmark [19] and the results of HAMBase [4] by Martin de Wit are quite
similar. The CEX Benchmark doesn’t provide data for the internal airflows, which is has a big
influence on the amounts of external airflows. This data has been estimated by Martin de Wit [4]
which could be the cause of the difference in airflows.

The infiltration and exfiltration amounts are a result of the mixed effect of both wind and buoyancy
and are a good validation of HAMBase.

13
 4. BENCHMARK 2: VERIFICATION AIRFLOW SIMULATION
This benchmark is about the verification of forced airflow and the two types of natural ventilation in
HAMBase; Wind driven and stack driven. The results of the HAMBase simulations are compared to
the results of analytical calculations.

4.1 FORCED (MECHANIC) VENTILATION

HAMBase has two options to insert controlled ventilation in the model, the standard input, and input
extra:

4.1.1 STANDARD INPUT (VENTILATION WITH EXTERIOR AIR)

In the m-file (startexample1.m) an option is available to add an Air Change rate per Hour (ACH) into
the profile data, via BAS.vvmin and BAS.vvmax. The ACH is the amount of times that the complete
volume of a zone is refreshed, so a zone of 10m3 with an ACH of 2 is per hour ventilated with 20m3.
This ventilation simulates that the zone is ventilated with air from the exterior climate. Each zone can
get its own ventilation rate by creating more profile ID’s for different zones, and each zone will have
balanced ventilation with air from the exterior climate. An important issue here is that the volume is
ventilated with air from the exterior climate, but it also exhausts air from the internal climate. There
is no option to just use the supply or exhaust function.

Figure 10: Profile input startexample1.m

BAS.dayper{1} = daily profile

BAS.vvmin{1} = the minimum air change rate for zone one.
BAS.vvmax{1} = the maximum air change rate, which can be maximum 3 times higher than
the minimum. If free cooling is used (BAS.Tfc), it can be entered here.
BAS.Tfc{1} = Temperature above which free cooling should be applied

4.1.2 INPUTEXTRA (INTERZONAL AIRFLOW)

When the interzonal airflow has been turned on (see chapter 2), the data for the flows can be
entered in the second part of the m-file (figure 11). Note that if a zone in the basic m-file is provided
with ventilation through the profile, the interzonal flow will have less to no effect. So it is advised to
provide only one zone with ventilation through the profile, and the rest through interzonal airflow.

14
Figure 11: Interzonal Airflow modeling [JT_InputextraInterzonal.m]

Here every flow between the zones can be added in a BAS.Linkv, there has to be a balance between
the zones. A BAS.Linkv is created out of three values per air flow:

- The zone where the air is entering

- The zone where the air is coming from
- The amount of air which is transported [dm3/s]

An air flow of 7.5dm3/s from zone 1 to zone 2 can be entered as follows:

BAS.Linkv{1}=[2,1,7.5];

NOTE: A balance in the airflow is needed for the simulation to work, so for each flow, an equal flow
in the other direction is needed as well:
BAS.Linkv{1}=[2,1,7.5;1,2,7.5];

If a third zone is entered the string changes to:

BAS.Linkv{1}=[2,1,7.5;3,2,7.5;2,3,7.5;1,2,7.5];

Then this Linkv has to be connected to a weekly profile, this way different airflow schemes can be
created for every day of the week. This profile is created with weekfunlinkv:
BAS.weekfunlinkv = [1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1];

15
 4.2 WIND INFILTRATION VERIFICATION
C ORRESPONDING M - FILE : [JT_W IND I NFILTRATION ]
A first indication of the correctness of the wind
infiltration simulated with HAMBase is found by
the input of a very simple single zone model. The
wind infiltration at two cracks is simulated in the
m-file [JT_WindInfiltration], and compared to
numerical calculations.

This single zone model is 3 meters wide, 3 meters

long and 3 meters in height. The in- and outside
temperatures are both 10°C and the reference
height of both cracks is 1 meter, so there’s no
influence of the stack effect. Figure 12 Verification model wind infiltration

The input in HAMBase, with respect to the modelling of the air flow due to wind is shown in figure
13:

Figure 13: code specifically for airflow modeling wind effect

Numerical calculation:
The airflow is calculated with formula 1 and 2:
Crack 1: ΔPe =Cp * 0.5 * ρa * v2
ΔPe = 0.2 * 0.5 * 1.2 * 62
ΔPe = 4.32 [Pa]

Qv = C (Δp)n
Qv = 1 * (4.32)0.66
Qv = 2.6268 [l/s]

16
Crack 2: The calculation of crack 2 is the same, but with switching the – sign, because of a
negative wind pressure coefficient.

Table 2 shows a comparison of the simulated airflows with HAMBase and the numerical calculation:
Table 2: Comparison wind infiltration

HAMBase model Numerical

Crack 1 2.6268 [l/s] 2.6268 [l/s]
Crack 2 -2.6268 [l/s] -2.6268 [l/s]

4.3 STACK EFFECT VALIDATION

C ORRESPONDING M - FILE : [JT_S TACK E FFECT ]
The simulation of the stack effect by HAMBase is verified
by comparing the results of the simulation of a simple
model with HAMBase to the results of a numerical
calculation. The model used for this verification is shown in
figure 14. The model is simulated in the m-file
[JT_StackEffect].

Two identical cracks are located above each other. The

vertical distance between the cracks is 6 meter. In order to
give a clear view of the pressure in the building, the
neutral plane is sketched between the cracks. This is the
Figure 14: Verification model stack effect
line at which the inside pressure is the same as the outside
pressure. Above this plane the pressure is higher as the
pressure outside; through crack 1 air will flow out of the building. Below the line the pressure is
lower than the outside pressure and air will be sucked into the building through crack 2. To be sure
that only the stack effect is taken into account the wind speed is set on 0 [m/s].

The input in HAMBase, with respect to the modelling of the air flow due to stack effect is shown in
figure 15:

Figure 135: HAMBase code specifically for airflow modeling

The output of HAMBase is compared to a numerical calculation, which made use of the following
simplified formula for determination of the pressure difference due to stack effect:

17
 ୘୧ି୘ୣ
∆ = ρ ∗ g ∗ z ∗
୘ୣ

Formula 4: [Liddament, M.W. 1996. A Guide to Energy

Efficient Ventilation. AIVC]

293 − 273
∆ = 1.2 ∗ 9.81 ∗ 2 ∗ = 1.72 []
273
Now the pressure difference due to stack effect is known, the airflow can be calculated using formula
4: Qv = C (Δp)n
Qv = 1* (1.72)0.66 = 1.43 [l/s]

Table 3: Comparison stack effect

HAMBase model Numerical

Crack 1 -1.44 [l/s] -1.43 [l/s]
Crack 2 1.44 [l/s] 1.43 [l/s]

Also two checks are executed: creating a temperature difference of 0°C and a displacement of both
cracks to a same height. Both changes caused an airflow of 0 [l/s] through the cracks.

4.4 MIXED AIRFLOW

In practice, both wind and stack effect occur and influence each other. Therefore HAMBase uses a
combined formula 5 for both driving forces:

  =  + 3390ℎ ( − ) − 
1 1
273 +  273 + 

  =  + 3390ℎ  −  −  ∗ 0.5 ∗ ∗

ଶ
1 1
273 +  273 + 

Formula 5: Combined formula

This formula’s, together with formula [2] of the airflow mass give the equations which are solved by
HAMBase to calculate the airflow:

∆௜௝ ௜௝௞ (∆௜௝ )൫௡೔ೕೖ ିଵ൯ +
∆௜௘ ௜௘௟ (∆௜௘ )ሺ௡೔೐೗ ିଵሻ +
(௠௜→௝ − ௠௝→௜ )/ ௔ = 0
௝,௞ ௟ ௝

Formula 6: Combined formula

With: ijk: the number of an opening between zones: j and i

iel: the number of an opening between zone (i) and outdoors (e)
Qm: mass flow rates by mechanical ventilation from zone I to zone j

18
The method is based on solving the linearized equations: the term in formula 6 with the flow
exponent is estimated with the value of a previous solution of the pressures. With an iteration
scheme the solution can be made sufficient accurate. Care is taken that the mass balance is obeyed
correctly to avoid a diverging solution. In HAMBase the solution doesn’t depend on the order of
zones.

A mixed numerical calculation of wind infiltration and stack effect is very complicated. In order to
validate the simulations of HAMBase in such a case, two benchmarks are used, described in section 5
and 6.

4.5 DISCUSSION
The results of the numerical calculations made a perfect match with the results of the HAMBase
simulations for both the wind effect as the stack effect. Therefore HAMBase is verified. A numerical
calculation of a mixture of the wind and stack effect is very complicated and will be validated on the
basis of a benchmark in section 5.

In chapter 4.2.2 the cracks were placed at the same height. This resulted in an airflow of 0 [l/s]
through the cracks, while in case of an equal height of two cracks, should result in an in- and
outgoing airflow through both cracks [14]. HAMBase can’t simulate both in and out going air flow
through one crack or opening, thus this is definitely a shortcoming of HAMBase.

19
 5. BENCHMARK 3: VALIDATION WIND EFFECT (OPTIBAT)
C ORRESPONDING M - FILES : [JT_O PTIBAT V ALIDATION _W INTER ] &
[JT_O PTIBAT V ALIDATION _S UMMER ] WITH TWO M - FILES FOR INPUTEXTRA :
[JT_I NPUTEXTRA _V ALIDATION _W INTER ] & [JT_I NPUTEXTRA _V ALIDATION _S UMMER ]
This chapter is about the validation of (interzonal) air flow modeling (due to wind pressures) with
HAMBase. The benchmark is part of an article written by Hongmin Li, titled; Validation of Three
Multi-zone Airflow Models [2], this benchmark is also mentioned in other researches [20] [21]. This
article describes the validation of three multi-zone airflow models, namely; COMIS, CONTAM and
ESP-r. The article is separated in three parts; fundamental comparisons of three models, validation
with experimental data collected in a controlled environment test in a laboratory and validation with
field measurements.

The second part (validation with experimental data collected in a controlled environment test in a
laboratory) is used as a benchmark for the inter model comparison of HAMBase.

5.1 MODEL
OPTIBAT is a real scale experimental facility consisting of a 108m2 four-room apartment built in the
laboratory hall at the INSA in Lyon (Furbringer et al. 1996).

The apartment is an exact replica of an existing apartment in a residential building near Lyon. To be
able to do air flow modeling measurements the apartment is placed in a controlled environment in
the INSA1 laboratory. Climatic chambers are used to create a controlled outdoor climate at the
facades and in the staircase. The other faces of the test facility are covered with climatic chambers as
well to control the boundary conditions.

The floor plan of the apartment [figure 15] exists out of 9 volumes and a staircase, the size of the
apartment can be found in Annex 23 [20].

Figure 14: OPTIBAT facility, floor plan. [2]

1
Institut National des Sciences Appliquées

20
 5.2 INPUT DATA
5.2.1 ZONES
A lot of data is provided in the benchmark [2], some data however is incomplete and has to be
estimated. When entering the data in HAMBase [JT_Optibat_Validation_Summer.m] the first
property to enter is the volume of the different zones. In the article it is mentioned that some
volumes (4, 7, 8 and 9) are combined to form one zone (4), this way a simpler model is created. To be
able to enter the volumes of the zones, some data is needed; width, length and height. Some
dimensions where already found in the article of the IEA [20], other dimensions had to be estimated
using the floor plan and the standard measures for the height of a ceiling [table 4].
Table 4: Estimated zone properties

Zone: 1 2 3 4 5 6
3
Volume [m ]: 35 26.8 26.8 53.6 47.4 26.8
Width [m]: 3.30 3.30 3.30 (6.60) + (3.30) 3.30 3.30
Length [m]: 4.25 3.25 3.25 (2) + (3) 5.75 3.25

5.2.2 CONSTRUCTION
The next step to enter is the construction data. Because this model is a simplified simulation model,
no data for walls is given. HAMBase however is a mass flow balance network model, so volumes
without walls can be simulated. The only thing is that small external walls have to be entered for the
HAMBase model to work. To keep influences as small as possible, an external wall of 1e-4m2 is applied
for every zone.

Internal walls can be entered, but will not affect the airflow model because the climate data is the
same in the whole model interior, so there is no physical transport through the walls occurring.

5.2.3 PROFILE
After the construction data, the weekly profile is entered. A stationary profile is used in this
simulation, no ventilation and internal gains are entered. The temperature is set to 20 °C and the
relative humidity is set to 50% [see file Optibat_Validation_Summer].

5.2.4 CLIMATE
The last thing that is entered in this m-file is the climate data which is changed by a simple overwrite;
the relative humidity is set on 50% and the wind velocity is changed to a constant 20m/s which is
around 70km/h [20].

5.2.5 INPUTEXTRA DATA

In the inputextra file the real crack data can be entered, the input data is given in the benchmark [2].
The mass flow for each crack or opening that needs to be entered into HAMBase is given in [table 5].
Comparison with other benchmarks [20] [21] of the same model showed that the input data is not in
m3/(h*Pan) but in m3/(s*Pan) instead. The locations of the cracks are given in figure 16.

21
 Figure 15: OPTIBAT facility cracks/openings. [2]

The figure [fig. 16] shows that there are 3 pressure points, and 6 zones. Different cracks are applied
per room, and almost all air flows through zone 4. All the input data can be found in table 5.

22
Table 5: Input data cracks/openings

Flow coefficient Exponent

3 n
Crack number K(dm /(s*Pa )) n
CRW 14 3.73 0.58
CRW23 3.28 0.60
CRW33 3.19 0.58
CRW53 3.10 0.54
CRW63 1.52 0.56
CRW83 1.09 0.59
CRW11 0.0389 0.90
CRW21 5.62 0.78
CRW24 0.0472 0.87
CRW31 4.15 0.59
CRW42 0.825 0.65
CRW44 1.57 0.51
CRW51 4.18 0.76
CRW54 1.75 0.64
CRW61 0.344 0.81
CRW64 0.553 0.69
CRP1 8.25 0.5
CRP2 16.60 0.5
CRP3 24.90 0.5
CRP4 20.75 0.5
CRP5 24.90 0.5

The crack and opening data can be entered in HAMBase in the interzonal airflow section of the
inputextra file, after a conversion from m3/s to dm3/s (times 1000), these are the Cd values that
need to be entered at the Lek ID, the n-values can be copied straight forward because it is a unit less
number.

Each “lek” (leakage) has to be entered in Inputextra.m, a difference is made between leaks in
external and leaks in internal constructions. For entering the external leak not only the LekID with its
Cd and n value must be known, also the orientation, distance cp value and zone number must be
known. In this model the distance was set on 2.5 for doors (2.5m from ceiling), and 1.25 for gaps in
walls. Make sure that there are no cracks with the same data, because this will give an error.

For entering internal cracks only the LekID, the distance and the zones which are separated by the
internal construction must be entered.

The Cp value for wind can’t be entered yet, the only given thing in the benchmark is the wind
pressure on each outside surface [table 6].
Table 6: Climate data

∆P1(Pa) ∆P2(Pa) ∆P3(Pa) Tin(°C) Tout(°C)

Façade 1 Façade 2 Staircase
Summer 16 -81 -2.8 20 +/- 0.5 20 +/- 0.5
Winter 52 -121 -12.6 20 +/- 0.5 -1.1 +/- 0.5

23
The Cp value can be calculated with the following formula:

   = 1.2 ∗ 0.5 ∗  ∗

 ଶ
Formula 7: Wind pressure formula used in HAMBase

When the wind velocity is stationary, the Cp value can be calculated. When the Cp value is set on 1
for each direction the wind pressure can be read from the results in HAMBase using Output.pwind,
after this, the Cp value can be adjusted to the correct value to create the wind pressure that is
needed.

5.3 RESULTS
In this research the results are compared to the results in the benchmark. The benchmark tested 3
computer programs namely; COMIS, CONTAM and ESP-r. The mean value is taken out of the results
of these programs to compare with the HAMBase results.
Table 7
Zone 1 2 3 4 5 6 The diagonal blocks (darkgrey) represent the total flow rate in each
1 zone including outdoor air. The other blocks represent inter-zone
2 flow rates. Empty blocks correspond to nonexistent air flows.
3
4
5
6

5.3.1 ACTUAL OUTPUT

The output is given per opening, while the results table is showing the flows per zone. The actual
output of the m-file is:
Tabel 8: Output Optibat validation in HAMBase
Summer Winter
3 3
Opening m Opening m
CRW14 71.80 CRW14 142.28
CRW23 64.93 CRW23 132.69
CRW33 61.99 CRW33 123.14
CRW53 -116.83 CRW53 -141.60
CRW63 -62.53 CRW63 -76.32
CRW83 -0.68 CRW83 -8.26
CRW11 -0.12 CRW11 -0.28
CRW21 28.02 CRW21 67.57
CRW24 0.20 CRW24 0.49
CRW31 7.99 CRW31 17.52
CRW42 1.49 CRW42 3.54
CRW44 5.52 CRW44 6.80
CRW51 14.54 CRW51 19.83
CRW54 -1..5 CRW54 -1.47
CRW61 1.10 CRW61 1.57
CRW64 1.73 CRW64 -3.43
CRP1 36.59 CRP1 64.34
CRP2 71.93 CRP2 142.56
CRP3_1 52.71 CRP3_1 102.58
CRP3_2 83.43 CRP3_2 103.58
CRP4_1 73.04 CRP4_1 89.57
CRP4_2 -22.38 CRP4_2 -23.93
CRP5 -20.40 CRP5 -168.49

24
 5.3.2 SUMMER SITUATION

Table 9: 6 zone model Annex 23 OPTIBAT (summer situation).

Zone: Out 1 2 3 4 5 6
198.56 70 64.8 61.97 0 0 1.7 Mean value programs
Out
200.69 71.91 64.92 62.13 0 0 1.73 HAMBase
0 70.1 0 0 70.03 0 0 Mean value programs
1
0 71.91 0 0 71.98 0 0 HAMBase
0 0 64.83 0.2 64.63 0 0 Mean value programs
2
0 0.12 64.92 0.2 64.6 0 0 HAMBase
0 0 0 62.13 62.13 0 0 Mean value programs
3
0.04 0 0 62.2 62.16 0 0 HAMBase
19.76 0 0 0 196.8 92.8 84.23 Mean value programs
4
21.15 0 0 0 198.65 93 84.5 HAMBase
116.6 0 0 0 0 116.6 0 Mean value programs
5
116.75 0 0 0 0 116.75 0 HAMBase
62.23 0 0 0 0 23.7 85.96 Mean value programs
6
62.48 0 0 0 0 23.75 86.23 HAMBase

5.3.3 WINTER SITUATION

Table 10: 6 zone model Annex 23 OPTIBAT (winter situation).

Zone: Out 1 2 3 4 5 6
403.67 141.37 135.9 126.4 0 0 0 Mean value programs
Out
398.1 142.27 132.69 123.14 0 0 0 HAMBase
0 141.37 0.067 0 141.3 0 0 Mean value programs
1
0 142.55 0 0 142.56 0 0 HAMBase
0 0 135.967 0.5 135.467 0 0 Mean value programs
2
0 0.28 132.69 0.49 131.91 0 0 HAMBase
0 0 0 126.9 126.9 0 0 Mean value programs
3
0 0 0 123.63 123.63 0 0 HAMBase
178.03 0 0 0 403.4 118.3 107.03 Mean value programs
4
176.75 398.1 116.2 105.145 HAMBase
143.867 0 0 0 0 143.867 0 Mean value programs
5
141.6 0 0 0 0 140.13 0 HAMBase
81.83 0 0 0 0 25.3 107.13 Mean value programs
6
79.75 0 0 0 0 23.93 105.145 HAMBase

25
 5.4 DISCUSSION
As can be seen in the results [table9 and 10], the results of HAMBase and the mean value of the
other programs are a good match. There are some small differences which might be attributed to a
difference in the volumes due to the estimated dimensions, or the wind pressure which is calculated
using the wind velocity because wind pressures can’t be entered in HAMBase.

The results of the other programs are however averaged and when the results are taken per
program, HAMBase fits well within the range of outcomes.

26
 6. BENCHMARK 4: VALIDATION STACK EFFECT (COMIS)
CORRESPONDING M - FILES : [JT_C OMIS V ALIDATION M ULTIZONE ],
[JT_C OMIS V ALIDATION S INGLEZONE 18], [JT_C OMIS V ALIDATION S INGLEZONE 20]
The Comis validation [3] contains the validation of airflow simulations which are caused by a mixture
of both wind- and stack effect in a multi-zone building. The corresponding m-file of this validation is
[JT_ComisValidationMultizone].

6.1 THE MODEL

This validation is based on an office building with 3 stories and a connecting enclosing stairwell. All
four zones have their own temperature set point, and the cracks between the zones and outside and
inside are specified with airflow characteristics, the wind pressure coefficient and the height with
respect to the ground level.

6.2 INPUT DATA

Figure 16: General information about the building

A section is shown in figure 17. Each floor has a volume of 150m3 ( zone A, B and C ) and the stairwell
has a volume of 135m3 ( zone D ). The total building volume therefore is 585m3. Only the height and
volume of the zones are given, so the length and width are being estimated.

The flow characteristics of the leakage paths have been given with the flow exponent n and flow
coefficients C. The external leakages are also provided with the wind pressure coefficient C.

Atmospheric pressure is taken to equal 101.325 kPa, with an outdoor air temperature of 10°C.The
wind speed at the roof height of the building (9m) is 2 m/s.

The indoor and outdoor humidity ratios were assumed to be equal to 0,0 g/kg. The reason for this
was in order to use identical air density profiles in all of the models, although such a situation would
be very unlikely to occur in reality.

27
 6.3 RESULTS
In order to make an inter model comparison, the results of four simulation programs are used;
COMIS, CONTAM93, MZAP and BREEZE. The results of the mass flow in kg per hour through each
crack are given in figure 18, in the order COMIS, CONTAM 93, MZAP and BREEZE.

Figure 17: comparison results infiltration and exfiltration

The mean value of these results is calculated, and together with the results from HAMBase shown in
table [11]:
Table 11: Comparison results Comis validation and HAMBase.

Leakage path HAMBase [kg/h] Mean value Comis validation [kg/h]

1 79.3 79.6
2 46.3 46.0
3 21.5 21.7
4 133.4 132.9
5 28.8 28.9
6 78.9 78.7
7 37.2 36.9
8 11.5 11.7
9 0.95 0.89
10 10 10
Total outgoing 154.9 154.6

In addition to these results, the total flow rate of air leaving the building in case of removing of all
internal walls and a uniform internal temperature of 18°C is 158.0 kg/h. similarly a uniform internal
temperature of 20°C gave an outgoing flow of 188.6 kg/h.

The flow rate of air leaving the building with the internal portioning present was 154.2 kg/h ( leakage
3 + 4 ).The results of the single zone model are shown in table [12]:

28
Table 12: Comparison results Comis validation and HAMBase for single zone model

Internal temperature9 [°C] HAMBase [kg/h] Mean value Comis validation [kg/h]
18 158.8 158.0
20 189.6 188.6

6.4 DISCUSSION
As shown in table 11 and 12, the results of HAMBase form a good match with the results out of the
COMIS validation, thus we can consider the tools for wind infiltration and stack effect as validated.
The small differences could be caused by the estimation of the zone dimensions.

29
7 CONCLUSION
In this report, different types of airflow simulation with HAMBase have been performed. Simple
simulation models where verified using numerical equations. The validations of more complicated
models has been done using benchmarks.

The objectives of this research where the verification/validation of air flow modelling with HAMBase,
and the creation of guidelines for air flow modelling with HAMBase. Both objectives are achieved
during this research.

The numerical validation for natural airflows shows to be correct, mechanic ventilation is however
not yet numerically validated.

The simulation of the 2nd benchmark with HAMBase showed that it is possible to simulate interzonal
airflow as a result of wind pressure. There are however a few difficulties when simulating the airflow
due to wind pressure differences. The wind pressure cannot be entered, so the wind velocity and Cp
values should be known or calculated. The properties of the openings and cracks should be known as
well.

The simulation of the 3th benchmark has shown that HAMBase is able to simulate interzonal airflow
as a result of buoyancy, both thermal and humid.

30
 REFERENCES

1. BPS WIKI http://archbps1.campus.tue.nl/bpswiki/index.php/Hamlab

2. Li, H. (2002, January). Validation of Three Multi-zone Airflow Models.

(Master thesis, ConcordiaUniversity, Canada). Retrieved from

http://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/1631/ (2013, November).

3. International Energy Agency. (1996). Annex 23: Multizone Air Flow Modeling. Evaluation of

COMIS. Retrieved from http://www.ecbcs.org/annexes/annex23.htm

4. Wit de, M.H. (2006, October). CEX : Common Exercise X

5. Wit de, M.H. (2013). HAMBase Input and Output. Heat air and moisture model for Building

and System Evaluation. [Part 2]

6. Brown, W.G., &Solvason, K.R. (1962, September). Natural convection through rectangular

openings in partitions-1: Vertical partitions. International journal of heat and mass

transfer, 5, 859-862. Doi: 10.1016/0017-9310(62)90184-9

7. Brown, W.G. (1962, September). Natural convection through rectangular

openings in partitions-2: Horizontal partitions. International journal of heat and mass

transfer, 5, 869-881. Doi: 10.1016/0017-9310(62)90185-0

8. Allard, F., &Utsumi, Y. (1992). Airflow through large openings. Energy and Buildings, 18, 133-

145. Doi: 10.1016/0378-7788(92)90042-F

9. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut. (2009, December). NPR 1088: Ventilatie van woningen en

woongebouwen. Retrieved from: www.briswarenhuis.nl (2013, December 12).

10. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut. (2001 December). NEN 1087: Ventilatie van gebouwen

(nieuwbouw).

11. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut. (2001, December). NEN 8087: Ventilatie van gebouwen

(bestaande bouw)

12. Marting de Wit (2013). HAMBase Input and Output. Heat air and moisture model for Building

and System Evaluation. [Part 2]

13. Martin de Wit (2009). HAMBase theory. Heat air and moisture model for Building and System

Evaluation. [Part 1]

31
14. Wikipedia. Buoyancy. Retrieved from: www.wikipedia.org (2013, November 19)

15. Liddament, M.W. 1996. A Guide to Energy Efficient Ventilation. AIVC

16. Air Infiltration and Ventilation Centre: www.AIVC.org

17. International Energy Agency. (2007). Annex 41: Whole Building Heat Air and Moisture

Response.

18. Hens, H. (2006, April). Common exercise X: First step solutions (Annex 41)

19. Hens, H. (2006, April). Common exercise X: Second step solutions (Annex 41)

20. International Energy Agency. (1996). Energy conservation in buildings and community

systems programme. Annex 23 multizone air flow modeling. (Pages 25-34). Retrieved

from http://www.ecbcs.org/docs/annex_23_evaluation_of_comis.pdf(2013,

November).

21. Pazold, M.E. (2011, June). A building-airflow-model for implementation in WUFI®PLUS

32
APPENDIX
BENCHMARK CEX
CEX
M.H. de Wit
Oct 2006

CEX1

In HAMBASE a zone is a space where the climatic condition is everywhere approximate the
same, i.e. in CEX1 there is but one zone.
For pressures and the wind velocity the reference height is at the ridge, at 7.4m. The wind
velocity at reference height is Uref = 2.38m/s. The wind pressure is given by:
pwind=Cp(ρUref2/2)

The air flow through ‘openings’ is calculated with : C(Δp)n (m3/s)

In HAMBASE the static outside pressure at reference height is 0. So distances are needed
between an opening and this reference plane.

The values ( for wind direction NW) used in the calculation are listed in the table below:

Cx103 n Cp distance (m)

Front (ground floor) 13.45 0.67 0.2 6.15
Back (ground floor) 13.45 0.67 -0.25 6.15
Front (first floor) 13.45 0.67 0.2 3.4
Back (first floor) 13.45 0.67 -0.25 3.4
Front (roof) 7.16 0.66 -0.3 1.15
Back (roof) 6.04 0.66 -0.3 1.15

The geometry properties are taken from the Hens solution.

Results

Pa wind Exterior stack Interior pressure Difference

Front (ground floor) 0.68 79.27 77.22 2.72
Back (ground floor) -0.85 79.27 77.22 1.19
Front (first floor 0.68 43.82 44.28 0.23
Back (first floor) -0.85 43.82 44.28 -1.31
Front (roof) -1.02 14.82 17.32 -3.52
Back (roof) -1.02 14.82 17.32 -3.52

m3/h exfiltration 59 50
1st floor front -95
1st floor back -54 58
18
2st floor front -18
2st floor back 58
Roof front 59 54
95
Roof back 50

1
The total infiltration is 167m3/h
The heating demand is 5088 kJ
Relative humidity is: RHa =41 %
Inside vapour pressure: 845 Pa (outside 486 Pa)
The total condensation on the windows of the second floor 2.81 kg/day !
For the calculation of the condensation in the roof the way the air flows should be known.
An estimate can be made by considering two extreme cases:
a-The indoor air flows directly into the cavity below the corrugated plates. In this case the
thermal and vapour resistance at the interior side get a parallel resistance.
b- There is a homogeneous airflow all through the roof. This is not likely, especially not for
the corrugated plates. In this case the thermal and vapour resistances at the interior side and
exterior side must be corrected flow the flow (see appendix).
The result of a. is 7.45 kg/day and of b. is 7kg/day.

So the condensation in the roof >7 kg/day and < 7.46 kg/day or >49 kg/week and <52kg/week

Some remarks

In this extreme case the condensation is an important sink (interior surface temperature of the
single glazed windows is 2.2 ˚C). If this water is not removed (as happens often) it is
evaporated later. In that case the relative humidity is 44% (906 Pa) and 4.2 kg/day would
condensate. This calculation shows that replacing the windows by double glazing could result
in more condensation in the roof!

The condensation in the roof is not an extra sink as it is from the moist air leaving the house
by the roof. If dripping to the inside occurs (most likely) and this is evaporated to the inside
there would be an extra source instead ( the air flow through the roof is removing less of the
vapour produced indoors; about 42% of the moisture in this air flow is condensating).

In case b. the roof acts like a heat exchanger resulting in a lower apparent U value. Instead of
U=0.49 W/m2K the apparent one is 0.47*0.49 W/m2K. This effect is not taken into account in
the heat balance.

The house is not insulated. Heat loss and low surface temperatures are moreover very low by:
- Neglecting solar radiation but taken into account the atmospheric radiation loss: e.g. a
heavily clouded day has a diffuse radiation of 100W/m2 but a very low extra atmospheric
radiation loss. For 30W/m2 it is rather clear sky. In HAMBASE also vertical walls have this
extra loss and as no urban plan is given they are taken as unobstructed.
- No internal gains. A lot of vapour is released without extra gains. (No people, lighting, hot
water etc). So latent heat is not taken into account.

By the low surface temperatures the radiant temperature is very low: the comfort temperature
(combined air-radiant temperature) is 16.5˚C!

2
CEX2

In this case in fact at least 4 zones could be distinguished:

- The ground floor + staircase
- The two rooms at the front side on the first floor (same orientation and very much alike)
- The room at the back side on the first floor (different wind pressure so different ventilation)
- The bathroom (very different vapour source)
In HAMBASE it is no problem to input at wish a large number of zones. There is however no
data given for flows between rooms. E.g. if doors of sleeping rooms and bathrooms are fully
open the hot air of the first floor will rise into these rooms and cold air will run down the
staircase. How much this heat exchange by air flows will be is hard to tell. In the limiting case
a situation like CEX1 can arise. If doors are closed the C ‘s and flow exponents have to be
known. We chose rather large openings: one opening at the threshold of the door and one 2m
higher. Instead of 4 we distinguished 3 zones: the bathroom and the sleeping room at the
backside is considered as one zone. The division of the vapour production is already more or
less arbitrary.
As there is also a roof above the staircase there could be leakage in it. We took a small
leakage.

zone Cx103 n Cp distance (m)

Front (ground floor) 1-ex 12.9 0.67 0.2 6.15
Back (ground floor) 1-ex 11.6 0.67 -0.25 6.15
Front (first floor) 2-ex 12.8 0.67 0.2 3.4
Back (first floor) 3-ex 16.5 0.67 -0.25 3.4
Front (roof) 2-ex 7.16 0.66 -0.3 1.15
Back (roof) 3-ex 6.04 0.66 -0.3 1.15
doors 1-2 35 0.66 4.4
doors 1-2 35 0.66 2.4
doors 1-3 35 0.66 4.4
doors 1-3 35 0.66 2.4

The moisture capacity of the air volume cannot be made zero without changing the program.
We didn’t do it.

Results

Pa wind Exterior stack Interior pressure Difference

Front (ground floor) 0.68 79.27 77.24 2.71
Back (ground floor) -0.85 79.27 77.24 1.17
Front (first floor) 0.68 43.82 44.35 0.15
Back (first floor) -0.85 43.82 44.08 -1.11
Front (roof) -1.02 14.82 16.37 -2.57
Back (roof) -1.02 14.82 16.18 -2.38

3
m3/h exfiltration
Front (ground floor) 1 -90 48 39
Back (ground floor) 1 -47 100 121
Front (first floor) 2 -13
13
Back (first floor) 3 63 63
65 19
Front (roof) 2 48 8.3 ˚C
7.4 ˚C
Back (roof) 3 39
90 47
20 ˚C
Front

m3/h To zone1 To zone2 To zone3

From zone1 0 -100 -121
From zone2 65 0 0
From zone3 19 0 0

The total infiltration is 150 m3/h

So less than in CEX1 due to a smaller stack effect.
The heating demand is 3751 kJ
The air temperatures of the three zones are:
Ta1 = 20.0˚C, Ta2 = 7.4 ˚C, Ta3 = 8.3˚C
This is not really a comfortable situation by the low radiant temperature. The comfort
temperatures are resp:
Tcom = 17.8 , 7.0 and 7.7˚C
The total condensation on windows of zone two and 3 is: 4.4 kg/day
In zone 2 (front) the glazing temperature is -0.23˚C, and in zone 3 this is: -0.08˚C (slightly
warmer)
This explains why that compared with CEX1 there is more condensation on the glazing.

Zone 3 (back) is warmer as more air from the ground floor is entering this zone and no
outdoor air is entering.

The condensation in the roof >5.4kg/day and < 6kg/day or >37.6 kg/week and <42kg/week.
This is less than in CEX1. The effect of the lower temperature on the first floor on the
temperature of the critical layer is small so the reason is the lower mean vapour pressure and
the lower exfiltration through the roof. Heating the whole house is not likely the solution to
this problem!
In the figures below the condensation on the glazing and the RH of the different zones are
shown.

4
The condensation in the roof calculated with assumption b is shown in the next figure

5
CEX3

The results for the air flows are the same. By the moisture buffering the RH changes. Is was
assumed that all materials have a buffering capacity (was the quickest to input for
HAMBASE), so also the roof. The condensation on windows is slightly less 3.9 kg/day and
more constant by the more constant vapour pressure.

The condensation in the roof > 5.0 kg/day and <5.58 kg/day or > 35 kg/week and
<39kg/week. So also this condensation is slightly less.

The condensation in the roof is also more constant as was to be expected.

6
APPENDIX

Calculation of condensation in the roof.

The temperature Tc at the critical layer (bottom surface of corrugated plates) for a air flow
from indoors to outdoors can be calculated with:

(Ta − Tc ) (Tc − Te* )

Φ / A = g a c p Ta + = g c T
a p c +
R cv
ci R cv
ce

where: Te* = Te-30(0.5+0.5cosβ)/he

A =surface area
& / A , density of air flow rate (kg/m2s)
ga = ρa V
If Rci is the thermal resistance to the interior and Rce the one to the exterior side of the critical
layer then the convection-corrected resistances are in case a and b:

ce = R ce
a. R cv ci = R ci
R cv
exp(s e ) − 1 exp(si ) − 1
cv
b. R ce = R ce R cicv = R ci
se si
with s e = R ce g a c p si = R ci g a c p

The vapour resistances are corrected in a similar way:

ce = Zce
a. Zcv Zcicv = Zci
exp(s ve ) − 1 exp(s vi ) − 1
cv
b. Zce = Zce ci = Z ci
Zcv
s ve s vi
with s ve = 0.62 ⋅10−5 Zce g a s vi = 0.62 ⋅10−5 Zci g a

The condensation mass flow (kg/s) is:

pi − psat (Tc ) psat (Tc ) − p e

G = A( 0.62 ⋅10−5 g a (pi − psat (Tc )) + − )
Zcv
ci Zcv
ce

If the vapour resistances are very large only the first term at the r.h.s. remains.
The heat flow density through the roof is:

(Ta − Te* )
Φ / A = g a c p Ta + = g a cp Ta + U app (Ta − Te* )
R + R + R R g a cp
cv
ci
cv
ce
cv
ci
cv
ce

7
BENCHMARK OPTIBAT
BENCHMARK COMIS