Impact of mechanical ventilation control strategies based on non-steady-state and steady-state Wells-Riley models on airborne transmission and building energy consumption

• Published in: Journal of Central South University Vol. 29; no. 7; pp. 2415 - 2430
• Main Authors: Sha, Hao-han, Zhang, Xin, Qi, Da-hai
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Changsha Central South University 2022; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Air quality; Airborne infection; Building Thermal Environment and Energy Conservation; Energy consumption; Engineering; Indoor air pollution; Indoor air quality; Metallic Materials; Parameter modification; Risk management; Steady state models; Ventilation; building energy consumption; 建筑通风; airborne transmission; Wells-Riley 模型; 建筑能耗; 空气传播; Wells-Riley model; building ventilation
• ISSN: 2095-2899; 2227-5223; 2227-5223
• DOI: 10.1007/s11771-022-5072-z

Ventilation is an effective solution for improving indoor air quality and reducing airborne transmission. Buildings need sufficient ventilation to maintain a low infection risk but also need to avoid an excessive ventilation rate, which may lead to high energy consumption. The Wells-Riley (WR) model is widely used to predict infection risk and control the ventilation rate. However, few studies compared the non-steady-state (NSS) and steady-state (SS) WR models that are used for ventilation control. To fill in this research gap, this study investigates the effects of the mechanical ventilation control strategies based on NSS/SS WR models on the required ventilation rates to prevent airborne transmission and related energy consumption. The modified NSS/SS WR models were proposed by considering many parameters that were ignored before, such as the initial quantum concentration. Based on the NSS/SS WR models, two new ventilation control strategies were proposed. A real building in Canada is used as the case study. The results indicate that under a high initial quantum concentration (e.g., 0.3 q/m 3 ) and no protective measures, SS WR control underestimates the required ventilation rate. The ventilation energy consumption of NSS control is up to 2.5 times as high as that of the SS control.