A COMPARISON OF FUME CUPBOARD EXHAUST PLUMES USING … · building design process using tools such...

AIRAH and IBPSA’s Australasian Building Simulation 2017 Conference, Melbourne, November 15-16.

1

A COMPARISON OF FUME CUPBOARD EXHAUST PLUMES USING CFD

MICHAEL BONSHEK

AECOM

[email protected]

NICKI PARKER, M.AIRAH Norman, Disney & Young

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

This paper investigates the plume height and dispersion effectiveness of mixed flow impeller

exhaust systems alongside traditional individual and manifolded high-level stacks for fume

cupboards. This investigation was triggered following updates to AS2243.8:2014 which now permit

the use of manifolded fume cupboard exhaust systems that are not hazardous when combined. This

simplifies laboratory design and reduces construction costs by minimising the number of individual

fume cupboard exhaust ducts reticulated to building roofs. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD)

analysis is compared with empirical methods such as the ASHRAE graphical method and Briggs

equation for varying wind speeds on a simple building. Several typical installation location

scenarios are analysed along with the effects of wind velocity on plume height and dispersion. The

simulations are performed using ANSYS CFX based on a k-epsilon turbulence model. Findings

include presenting evidence on the importance of designers needing to account for co-locating

discharges and consider the effects of high velocities on plume dispersion during the design

process.

INTRODUCTION

The fundamental purpose for using fume cupboards within laboratory environments is to provide

safe working conditions for users and other laboratory personnel (Standards Association of

Australia, 2014). Fumes contained in a cupboard under negative pressure are transported to an

outdoor discharge where contaminants can be safely dispersed away from occupied spaces and

outside air inlets to acceptable concentrations. There are a number of options for discharging

contaminants that are discussed under AS2243.8:2014, with corresponding recommendations

provided for roof mounted stack heights and discharge velocities. Alternative solutions can be used

which typically have a considerably higher discharge velocity with lower stack heights which mix

and/or entrain air at the discharge point to provide further dilution. These systems, in theory, result

in similar plume heights to traditional fume cupboard systems without the large stack heights that

are required on taller buildings. The effectiveness of such systems can be demonstrated during the

building design process using tools such as computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and industry

accepted empirical models, with resulting contaminant concentrations compared against more

traditional fume cupboard exhaust systems.

1. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

This study is a result of a currently proposed design for a new building where mixed flow impeller

fans are proposed for a circa 10-storey building in an urban environment to minimise stack heights

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


2

and simplify fume cupboard ductwork. The inputs have been generalised for this study to allow

high level conclusions to be drawn. Limitations of this are discussed in the relevant sections.

Best practice design guides for laboratory exhaust systems discuss a number of benefits in

manifolding fume cupboards, with substantial energy and capital cost savings as well as increased

fume dilution, enhanced personnel safety, augmented redundancy, improved design flexibility and

potential energy recovery listed (Bell, 2007). With almost a 50% reduction in energy consumption

possible when compared to individual stacks running at constant volume, manifolded systems

should be considered wherever possible during design phases.

Figure 1. Mixed Flow Impeller Fan System Flow Distribution

Mixed flow impeller fan systems operate in a similar manor to manifolded systems, however

discharge velocities are higher and additional air is entrained at the stack exit, increasing the total

mass flow rate exiting the stack. The typical proportion of entrained air to fume cupboard exhaust

air is shown in Figure 1. The implied benefit of this is that shorter stack heights can be used to

achieve the same effective plume height, which is particularly advantageous for taller buildings.

1.1 Stack design

For this comparative study, three different fume cupboard stack arrangements are simulated, as

shown in Figure 2 and dimensions detailed in Appendix A.

1. A traditional system with a single stack and fan per fume cupboard;

2. A manifolded system with one lead stack and one backup stack1;

3. A mixed flow impeller fan system with one backup stack1.

1 Backup stacks are a requirement under AS2243.8:2014 to ensure fume cupboards still operate during maintenance or a

fan failure. Backup stacks are represented as geometry only. The traditional system have no backup stacks and all are

modelled as outlets.


3

Figure 2. Geometry used for each stack arrangement

The building has 25 fume cupboards distributed throughout the building. The traditional fume

discharge system has individual fans and ducting for each of the 25 fume cupboards. The

manifolded and mixed flow impeller system have the 25 fume cupboards linked to one fume

exhaust fan and duct, with another fan installed as backup in the same duct system within the

building.

Physical dimensions for the mixed flow impeller fan units have been based on manufacturers’ data,

with the stack discharge height being approximately 5m above roof level. Whilst AS2243.8 – 2014

requires that the minimum discharge height is 3m above both the roof at the point of penetration, as

well as above any access walkway, it is also recommending that the point of discharge should be

above the aerodynamic wake of the building, which typically extends to at least 125% of the

building height above the ground (Standards Association of Australia, 2014). Based on this

recommendation, the comparison traditional and manifolded stack systems have stack heights of

11.25m above roof level, which essentially provides a Deemed to Satisfy approach summarises the

inputs for each of the stack arrangements simulated.

1. Traditional

fume discharge 2. Manifolded

fume discharge

3. Mixed flow

impeller fan fume

discharge


4

Parameter Single fan per

fume

cupboard

(Traditional)

Manifolded

fan system

Mixed

flow

impeller

fan

system

Comments

Stack height above

roof level

11.25m 11.25m 5m

Number of outlets 25 1 1 Manifolded and mixed flow

fans have 1 duty and 1 standby

stack

Diameter of stack

outlet

0.24m 1.20m 0.80m

Fan outlet velocity 10.4m/s 10.4m/s 23.3m/s

Total fume cupboard

discharge

11.73m³/s 11.73m³/s 11.73m³/s

Entrained air flow

(peak operation)

Nil Nil 4.1m³/s

Fume discharge

temperature

24°C Typical indoor dry bulb design

temperature

Ambient air

temperature

30°C Typical warm day 2

Table 1. Summary of inputs used for the stacks

1.2 Building geometry and stack location

The aerodynamic wake of a building is highly dependent on the geometry of the building envelope

and the surrounding buildings, as well as the wind speed and direction. For simplicity, a simple

building has been created, with footprint measuring 45m x 45m, and a height of 45m to remove any

dependency on local building features which will disrupt the plume dispersion. Figure 2 shows the

three different locations for each stack arrangement that have been simulated; stacks located close

to the leading edge of the roof, stacks place in the centre of the roof, and stacks located towards the

trailing edge of the roof. This is because the height of the building wake on the roof is different for

each location, and has the potential to impact the plume dispersion characteristics. Each stack

arrangement has an obstruction at roof level to represent associated equipment, plenums or

plantrooms required to operate the fans. This is not expected to have a significant impact on the

flow fields but is incorporated to simulate a realistic arrangement.

2 Analysis of the sensitivity of the plumes to the ambient temperature was performed for a low reference temperature of

4°C and was found to not be significant.


5

Figure 3. Stack locations used

1.3 Computational domain and mesh setup

The building was placed in the centre of a 1,530m x 720m x 450m (length x width x height) domain

as shown in Figure 5. The width and height of the domain is 16 and 10 times that of the building’s

respective dimensions to ensure the boundary does not adversely affect the flow field around the

building. The length of the domain is 34 times the building length (17 times upwind and 17 times

downwind) to allow sufficient wake regions to form depending on the simulated wind speed. These

dimensions exceed the recommendations for virtual wind tunnels as quoted in multiple best practice

guidelines used in the computational wind engineering community (Franke, et al., 2004).

Surrounding buildings have not been included in this model as depending on the building being

design, local geometrical features will differ considerably, and will therefore impact the flow field

and wind microclimate in very different ways. Site specific models therefore need to be created

when considering local plume dispersion in practice. This is a limitation of this exercise, however

indicative conclusions drawn are still valid.

A maximum cell size of 25m has been used in this simulation, with local refinement of 0.1m used

where appropriate. Appendix B provides further detail on the meshing parameters used.

Figure 4. Model domain and building model geometry with discharges (only one discharge type

used per model)

C. Trailing Edge

Wind Direction

A. Leading Edge

B Building Centre


6

1.4 Wind conditions

The wind inlet was modelled with a logarithmic profile, which creates a wind boundary layer

profile based on the assumption that wind speed increases with height from the ground. Appropriate

roughness heights were used following the recommendations made by Blocken et al. (Blocken,

Stathopoulos, & Carmeliet, 2007). The wind outlet was modelled as a zero-pressure outlet to

prevent airflow back into the domain. Three wind velocities were selected for analysis; 1m/s, 3m/s

and 7m/s, all measured at 10m above ground level as per typical weather station data. A range of

speeds were selected to assess how each stack arrangement performed with varying wind speeds. A

still condition was not analysed as in this scenario, plumes (in general, depending on stability class)

will project vertically upwards from the stack before dispersing in the atmospheric boundary layer.

Further, higher concentrations around roof level are likely to be experienced when there is the

presence of some local wind flows.

1.5 Other model inputs and assumptions

• The approximation of the discharge from the fan outlets will impact the dispersion of the

contaminant plumes. A uniform discharge velocity across the outlet of the stack has been

assumed.

• To capture the inherent turbulence in the air flows around the building, a steady state k-

epsilon turbulence model has been used with ANSYS CFX physics definitions. This allows

a reasonable level of accuracy, whilst being able to generate results within an acceptable

time frame.

• This analysis is restricted to contaminants that do not pose a risk when combined in a

manifolded fan system, nor for fumes that could result in hazards such as fire or explosion.

• Convergence criteria for these models was an RMS residual below 1e-4 as well as stable

velocities measured at various user points within the domain, namely at low level, adjacent

to the fan discharge and in the general domain.

• Contaminants from the fume discharge are represented as a traceable scalar contaminant at

100% concentration at each outlet that represents the mixture of the air with evaporated or

gaseous chemical contaminants in the fume cupboard system. No allowance for specific

dispersion characteristics has been made due to the simplified assumptions used in this

paper. The impact of a variable density mixture should however be considered during

individual building design.

2. EMPIRICAL PERFORMANCE

Empirical approaches are traditionally used to calculate the potential plume height from a building

mounted stack which allows the mechanical designer to understand the risk of contaminant

entrainment and pollution concentration in occupied areas. Two of the most popular desk based

approaches in fume cupboard and stack design use the Briggs Equation and the ASHRAE Graphical

Method. Both of these methods have been used as a comparison for the CFD analysis and the

methodologies are summarised in Appendix C. Neither method accounts for the effect of co-

locating discharges and is further discussed in this paper. Gaussian dispersion models can then be

used to calculate contaminant concentrations based on atmospheric stability class and a large

number of wind conditions, however these models can fail to capture microclimatic effects when

the built form is complex (Dharmavaram & Hanna, 2007).


7

3. RESULTS

In order to provide a robust comparison, 27 different CFD models were simulated based on the

following variables and combinations thereof:

• Stack location on building; A) leading edge, B) building centre, C) trailing edge.

• Stack arrangement; 1) traditional fan system, 2) manifolded system, 3) mixed flow system.

• Wind speed; i) 1m/s, ii) 3m/s and iii) 7m/s.

The prefix of each variable is used to easily identify and reference each case, i.e. A1 refers to a

traditional system located on the leading edge of a building, B3 refers to a mixed flow system at the

centre of a building, etc.

The CFD models (suffix X) are compared to both the Briggs equation estimates (suffix Y) and the

ASHRAE method estimate (suffix Z). The labels used in the graphs in this paper therefore

correspond to this suffix approach.

The plume height has been extracted from the CFD models based on the average plume height at a

fixed concentration as the plume stabilises and additional height increases are minimal (see Figure 5

for an example) which aligns with the approach taken in Gaussian plume modelling (Figure 6)

which have been reviewed by Stathopoulos et al (Stathopoulos, Hajra, & Bahloul, 2008). This

approach replicates the original wind tunnel measurements via tracer smoke used to develop the

empirical methods (Briggs, 1969).

Figure 5. Example plume height measurement

from CFD results. Plumes represent a scalar

trace element at a concentration of 1%, 2% and

5%. Case shown is B2 iii (i.e. Central,

Manifold, 7m/s)

Figure 6. Gaussian plume model plume height

estimates (Beychok, 2005)


8

3.1 Empirical plume heights

Both the simple Briggs equation and ASHRAE method predict the effective height based on stack

diameter, exit velocity, and wind speed, with the ASHRAE method taking in to account the position

of the stack on the roof. A comparison of these is shown in Figure 7 for the central roof location

(prefix B). Corresponding pairs of curves, e.g. B1Y and B1Z, B2Y and B2Z, and B3Y and B3Z

correlate well with each other at wind speeds of 7m/s, however there is a weaker correlation at the

lower wind speeds with the Briggs equation consistently estimating a lower plume height. This is

expected as the Briggs equation does not account for contributing factors such as entrainment,

plume rise and building geometry that are considered in the ASHRAE method which are more

prevalent at low wind speed.

Figure 8 shows the effects of discharge locations and types on plume heights based the ASHRAE

method. Several observations can be made:

• The plume heights from manifolded and mixed flow discharges located at the leading edge of a

building are lower than at the central or trailing edge location. The traditional system discharge

results indicate that location has little to no effect on the plume height when utilising the

ASHRAE calculation method.

• There is a significant difference in height between the traditional discharge case and the mixed

flow and manifolded cases at lower wind speeds, even though exit velocity between the single

fan case and the manifolded system is consistent. The manifolded system and high-speed fans

show that plume heights are likely to be twice that of those calculated for a single fan per fume

cupboard, which raises the question as to whether this method of calculation is suitable for fume

cupboard stacks that are grouped together.

Figure 7. Comparison of plume height for empirical models with central discharge location

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Plu

me h

eig

ht

ab

ove r

oo

f le

vel

(m)

Wind speed (m/s)

B1Y Traditional Briggs B2Y Manifold Briggs B3Y Mixed f low Briggs

B1Z Traditional ASHRAE Middle B2Z Manifold ASHRAE Middle B3Z Mixed f low ASHRAE Middle


9

Figure 8. Comparison of effects of discharge location and discharge type on plume heights based

on ASHRAE method.

3.2 Traditional (single fan per fume cupboard) systems

Figure 9 shows the estimated plume heights from the CFD models for the traditional fume

discharge case, with the Briggs and ASHRAE results included for comparison. At lower wind

speeds, a large disparity in plume heights is evident when compared to the ASHRAE empirical

method (of up to +8m) and the Briggs Method (+11.5m). This variation is less at 3m/s, with the

simulated plume heights varying by up to +3.8m when compared to the empirical models. At higher

wind speeds, significant variation between the methods is seen with only the plume height from the

stack located at the leading edge being higher at +2.1m.

This variation in plume heights, in comparison to the Briggs equation and ASHRAE graphical

method is attributed to the co-location of the individual plume sources in the CFD model which is

not accounted for in the empirical models. This was investigated by simulating fume cupboard

discharge from only 1 of the 25 outlets in the traditional discharge case located at the centre of the

building, which perfectly correlated with the “B1Y Traditional Briggs” results shown in Figure 9.

Further, upon comparison of the simulated plume heights for the traditional fume cupboard system

(all 25 stacks running) and the manifolded system (Figure 10), there is very little difference between

each case at all wind speeds, and for all stack locations. This demonstrates that designers must be

aware of the increased plume heights that will occur when a number of stacks are located together,

and not necessarily estimate the plume height based on flow from a single stack as this may be

overly conservative, depending on the operation of the building.

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Plu

me h

eig

ht

ab

ove r

oo

f h

eig

ht

(m)

Wind Speed (m/s)

B1Z Traditional ASHRAE Middle B2Z Manifold ASHRAE Middle B3Z Mixed f low ASHRAE Middle

A1Z Traditional ASHRAE Leading A2Z Manifold ASHRAE Leading A3Z Mixed f low ASHRAE Leading

C1Z Traditional ASHRAE Trailing C2Z Manifold ASHRAE Trailing C3Z Mixed f low ASHRAE Trailing


10

Figure 9. Comparison of plume height for a traditional fume cupboard system

Figure 10. Comparison of Traditional and Manifolded discharge plume heights

3.3 Manifolded systems

Figure 11 shows the estimated plume heights from the CFD models for the manifolded fume

cupboard case, with the Briggs and ASHRAE predictions included for comparison. The results from

the CFD simulations indicate that, at low wind speeds, plume heights vary much less with stack

location than the estimates given by empirical methods predict, however both the CFD and

empirical estimates correlate much more strongly as wind speeds increase. Interestingly at low wind

speeds, the ASHRAE estimate for the stack located on the leading edge is consistent with both the

Briggs equation and all of the CFD simulations, especially that for the leading edge. The ASHRAE

prediction of plume height as the stack moves further away from the leading edge tends to

significantly over predict plume height at low wind speed, by around 20% when you reach the

trailing edge of this building.


11

Figure 11. Comparison of plume height for a manifolded fume cupboard system

3.4 Mixed flow impeller fan systems

Figure 12 shows the estimated plume heights from the CFD models for the mixed flow impeller fan

case, with the Briggs and ASHRAE predictions included for comparison. The results from the CFD

models show that plume heights are generally not impacted by the stack location on the roof for this

type of fan arrangement but are more driven by the wind speed. Again, the ASHRAE method

estimates a much larger difference in plume height than is observed in the CFD models at low wind

speeds for various stack locations. This indicates that the ASHRAE method may overemphasise the

buildings effects on plume heights in some cases and may not be conservative, particularly at lower

wind speeds. Furthermore, this also indicates that the Briggs empirical model is generally

conservative when considering the height of plume discharges in this simplified case with no

obstructions. As wind speeds increase, the plume height is likely to be consistent across the

methods of calculation.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Plu

me H

eig

ht

ab

ove r

oo

f (m

)

Wind Speed (m/s)

A2X Manifold Leading B2X Manifold Middle C2X Manifold Trailing B2Y Manifold Briggs

A2Z Manifold ASHRAE Leading B2Z Manifold ASHRAE Middle C2Z Manifold ASHRAE Trailing


12

Figure 12. Comparison of plume height for a mixed flow impeller fan system

3.5 Plume contaminant concentrations and dilution

Figure 13 shows contaminant plumes from a mixed flow discharge type located at the centre of the

roof to visualise the effects of wind velocity on plume concentrations. Typically, the higher wind

velocity cases showed the plumes diluting much more quickly but potentially results in higher

concentrations of contaminant at roof level, whereas lower wind speeds produce a significantly

longer plume that is projected higher in to the atmosphere. This highlights that a number of wind

speeds need to be assessed to understand contaminant concentration, depending on where sensitive

locations might be.

Figure 13. Scale comparison of contamination plumes of 1% (dark blue/outer plume), 2% (light

blue/middle plume), and 5% (green/inner plume) as wind speed increases. Case shown is B3X i, ii

& iii (i.e. Central, Mixed Flow, 1, 3 & 7m/s)

The percentage concentrations shown in Figure 13 are the inverse of the dilution ratio that exits the

stack, i.e. a concentration of 1% means that the mixture at the exit is diluted by 99%. For the mixed

flow systems, the fume cupboard exhaust has already been diluted by the entrained air, and so

dilution rates are in fact even higher.


13

To provide a meaningful output, consider a 250mL container of hydrochloric acid3 that spills in one

of the fume cupboards and proceeds to evaporate within 1 hour, rather than being cleaned, therefore

removing the risk of evaporated contaminants. Assuming that no other hydrochloric acid is spilt in

the remaining 24 fume cupboards, the mixture of air and acetone that emits each of the fume

cupboard systems tested is shown in Table 2. The corresponding concentration exiting the stack is

also shown, as is the parts per million concentrations at 95% dilution, i.e. what would be contained

within the outer plume in Figure 13. Lastly, the Time Weighted Average (TWA) from the

Workplace Exposure Standards for Airborne Contaminants ( (Safe Work Australia, 18 April 2013))

is provided to demonstrate the limits that are deemed acceptable in practice. Although this estimate

shows that all stack arrangemnets result in acceptable air quality, there is a significant reduction in

concentration achieved using the manifolded and mixed flow system.

Parameter Single stack per

fume cupboard

Manifolded

fume cupboard

Mixed flow

impeller stack

Concentration at stack exit (PPM) 14.0 0.9 0.4

Concentration at 95% dilution (PPM) 0.7 0.045 0.02

TWA (PPM) 5 (Standards Association of Australia, 2014)

Table 2. Potential concentrations following a hydrogen chloride spill

What we can infer is that because of the dilution of contaminants as they are mixed within a

manifolded system and with fresh air when discharged, results in pollutant concentrations that are

typically lower than the TWA soon after exiting the discharge. This further supports the use of the

empirical methods of plume height analysis as a simple conservative design approach, but for a

more accurate understanding of the entrainment of contaminants in specific cases, CFD should to be

utilised where this detail of data can be approximated.

4. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis has been undertaken for a number of stack

arrangements for fume cupboard exhausts exiting through the roof of a simplified building. This has

been compared to widely accepted empirical methods for estimating plume heights above stack

outlets with varying success.

At wind speeds above 3m/s, the CFD results typically correlate strongly with the corresponding

Briggs equation and ASHRAE graphical method estimates of plume height, especially for

manifolded and mixed flow impeller fan type systems. This suggests that, for high wind speeds,

empirical methods can be used confidently to estimate potential plume height from fume cupboard

stacks. At lower wind speeds however, empirical methods tend to overestimate plume height in

some scenarios, and underestimate plume heights in others. Most notably is the situation when a

number of stacks are co-located with all stacks operating, and, in practice, plume heights more

closely resemble those from a manifolded system than that of a single stack.

The simulation results also indicate that, for all exhaust strategies, the location of the stacks on the

roof of the building for the stack heights tested do not significantly impact the resulting height of

3 Hydrochloric acid is used as an example as it has a relatively low threshold of acceptable concentration and is

commonly used in laboratories.


14

the plume. This is disparate from the results from the ASHRAE method which overestimated plume

heights at the middle and trailing locations.

For all wind speed conditions, the Briggs model results for the manifolded and mixed flow impeller

fans tend to underestimate the plume height from the stack, suggesting that estimates of local

contaminant concentration are conservative; however, the sensitivity of this should be explored on a

site by site basis as this is a very simplified approach.

CONCLUSION

Analysis indicates that, should the stack discharge momentum be sufficient and constant such as in

a manifolded or mixed flow impeller system, the recommendation under AS2243.8 to maintain

stack heights of 25% above the building height can be reviewed and optimised.

Whilst empirical methods of estimating plume height have their place in some situations, such as

when wind speeds are expected to be higher, they have the potential to be inaccurate at lower wind

speeds, which is often when concentrations of contaminants at roof level or near adjacent buildings

are higher. When this is the case, CFD or traditional wind tunnel methods are likely to give a much

more complete understanding of the risk around contaminant dispersion, and assist design teams in

providing a mechanical solution that reduces the likelihood of contaminant ingestion, be it by

occupants or by the mechanical system itself.


15

REFERENCES

1. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (2011).

Chapter 45 Building Air Intake and Exhaust Design. In ASHRAE Handbook - HVAC Applications.

2. Bell, G. (2007). Manifolding Laboratory Exhaust Systems. Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory.

3. Beychok, M. R. (2005). Fundamentals Of Stack Gas Dispersion (4th ed.). author published.

4. Blocken, B., Stathopoulos, T., & Carmeliet, J. (2007). CFD Simulation of the atmospheric

boundary layer: wall function problems. Atmospheric Environment 41, 238-252.

5. Briggs, G. A. (1969). Plume Rise. In USAEC Critical Review Series.

6. Briggs, G. A. (1972). Discussion: Chimney plumes in neutral and stable surroundings . In

Atmospheric Envir. 6 (pp. 507-510).

7. Dharmavaram, S., & Hanna, S. (2007). Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Modelling of

Toxic Gas Dispersion in the Vicinity of Complex Buildings, Structures and Topography. IChemE

Symposium Series No. 153.

8. Franke, J., Hirsch, C., Jensen, A., Krüs, H., Schatzmann, M., Westbury, P., et al. (2004).

Recommendations on the use of CFD in predicting pedestrian wind environment. Proceedings of

the International Conference on Urban Wind Engineering and Building Aerodynamics COST

Action C14.

9. Safe Work Australia. (18 April 2013). Workplace Exposure Standards for Airbourne

Contaminants. Canberra: Safe Work Australia.

10. Standards Association of Australia. (2014). Australian/New Zealand Standard: AS/NZS

2243.8: 2014.

11. Stathopoulos, T., Hajra, B., & Bahloul, A. (2008). Analysistical Evaluation of Dispersion of

Exhaust from Rooftop Stacks on Buildings. Montreal: Institut de recherche Robert-Sauve en sante

et en securite du travail (IRSST).


16

APPENDIX A

Figure 14 records the dimensions of each fume cupboard discharge type. They are shown as mixed

flow impeller fan system, manifolded system and traditional system from left to right.

Figure 14. Dimensions of each discharge type. 3. Mixed flow impeller, 2. Manifold and 1.

Traditional (left to right)


17

APPENDIX B

Mesh resolution

Based on the experience of the authors, a number of mesh settings have been applied to the domain:

• Maximum cell size of 25m throughout the domain

• 5m maximum cell size on the ground boundary, with inflated prism layers to capture the

resulting boundary layer

• 1m maximum cell size on the building, with inflated prism layers to capture the resulting

boundary layer

• 0.1m maximum cell size applied to stacks, with proximity and curvature control to capture

geometrical features.

Figure 15 shows the above resolution for one of the stack arrangements.

Figure 15. Example of building (top) and stack (bottom) mesh resolution of traditional stacks.


18

APPENDIX C

The Briggs Equation

Briggs developed a number of equations covering four general categories (Briggs, 1969) (Briggs,

1972):

• Cold jet plumes in calm ambient air conditions

• Cold jet plumes in windy ambient air conditions

• Hot, buoyant plumes in calm ambient air conditions

• Hot, buoyant plumes in windy ambient conditions.

It follows that colder jet plumes are dominated by discharge momentum, with hot plumes

dominated by buoyancy, and discharge velocity having minimal effect on the plume height. For

fume cupboard stack applications, where the exhaust temperature is of a similar magnitude to

ambient air conditions, Briggs’ cold plume formula are most relevant for use. Simplistically, the

following equation can be used for isothermal plume rise, and is often quoted by manufacturers for

estimating the effective plume height for their respective fan and stack arrangements:

∆ℎ = 3𝑉𝑒

𝑈ℎ𝑑𝑒

Where ∆ℎ is the effective plume height above the stack exit (m)

𝑉𝑒 is the stack discharge velocity (m/s)

𝑈ℎ is the cross wind velocity (m/s)

And 𝑑𝑒 is the effective stack diameter (m)

The ASHRAE Graphical Method

The method outlined in the 2011 ASHRAE Handbook (American Society of Heating, Refrigerating

and Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc, 2011) uses a formulation by Wilson based on flow

visualisation studies, and estimates the size of recirculation and high turbulence zones around a

building mounted stack. A more in-depth calculation methodology is used and the reader is

recommended to refer to the 2011 ASHRAE Handbook for further details.

Figure 16. Extract from the ASHRAE Graphical Method after Wilson.

Date post:	16-Apr-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

A COMPARISON OF FUME CUPBOARD EXHAUST PLUMES USING … · building design process using tools such...

Documents