RP623 PDF

2012 ASHRAE www.ashrae.org.
This material may not be copied nor distributed in either paper or digital form without
ASHRAEs permission. Requests for this report should be directed to the ASHRAE Manager of Research and Technical
Services.
ThisfileislicensedtoGayeKanal(gaye_kanal@hotmail.com).ASHRAEHandbookOnlinesubscriptionisforindividualuse.CopyrightASHRAE.
TESTING GREASE HOODS

ASHRAE RP-623
FINAL REPORT
PREPARED BY
ELIOTT B. GORDON AND FUOAD PARVIN
FOR
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF HEATING, REFRIGERATION,
AND AIR-CONDITIONING ENGINEERS, INC.
WILLIAM A. SEATON
MANAGER OF RESEARCH
DECEMBER 18, 1992

COPYRIGHT
AMERICAN SOCIETY OF HEATING, REFRIGERATING,
AND AIR-CONDITIONING ENGINEERS, INC.
1791 TULLIE CIRCLE/ATLANTA, GA 30329
AA L a b o r a t o r i e s
R & D
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Abstract
Background
Introduction
Velocity Profile Technique, Method #1

3
5
Pressure Differential Technique, Method #3
Hardware
Instrumentation
19
Test Facilities
20
Preliminary Tests
22
Test Procedures
29
Statistical Analysis
32
Statistical Regression Model

Results
32
37
37
50
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
52
REFERENCES
55
APPENDIX A
Measurement and Calculation Procedure
Limitations Of The Method
Sample Calculations
RVA Calibration Charts
A-l
LIST OF TABLES
Title
Baffle Filter Hood Configurations
Page
7
Velocity Profile @ 1500 scfm

No Heat Source - 4" ERVA
23
Figure Velocity Profile @ 1500 scfm

with Heat Source - 4" ERVA
23
Comparison of 4" ERVA, Flow Grid, and

Hot Wire Results for Hood #3 (Velocity
in fpm)
24
Sensitivity of Velocity Average to

Number of Samples
26
Test Matrix for Method #1
28
Horizontal Plane Velocity Profile
31
Forward Selection Stepwise Regression

Process Summary
35
Regression Analysis Models
35
Simple Regression Analysis Matrix
36
K-Factor Regression Coefficients
36
Continuous Method Comparison of Horizontal

and Vertical Sweeps
44
ii
LIST OF FIGURES
Title
Page
Hood #1 - View of Hood Reservoir
Hood #2 - View of Hood Reservoir
Hood #3 - View of Hood Face
Hood #3 - View of Filter Bank
Hood #5 - View of Hood Face
10
10
Hood #3 - Slot Exhaust/Grease Extractor

Module
11

Module #1
11

Module #2
12
Hood #1 - Side View
12
Hood #1 - Filter Bank View
13
Hood #2 - Side View
13
14
Hood #3 - Side View
14
15
Hood #4 - Side View
15
16
Hood #5 - Side View
16
17
Hood #2 - Filter
17
Hood #3 - Filter
18
iii
23
Hood #4, 5 Filter
18
24
Hood #1 Filter
19
25
CKV Laser Lab Facility
21
26
8 ft Hood Test Cell
21
27
29
28
Filter Sampling Techniques
31
29
Velocity vs. Distance from Filter

Face
38
30
K-Measured Vs. K-Predicted 0" (Discrete)
39
31
K-Measured Vs. K-Predicted 2" (Discrete)
39
32
K-Measured Vs. K-Predicted @ 4" (Discrete)
40
33
K-Measured Vs. K-Predicted @ 0" (Continuous)
40
34
K-Measured Vs. K-Predicted 2" (Continuous)
41
35
K-Measured Vs. K-Predicted @ 4" (Continuous)
41
36
K-Measured Vs. Distance
42
37
K-Measured Vs. Filter Slot Width
42
38
K-Measured Vs. Filter Slot Spacing
43
39
K-Measured Vs. Area
43
40
MRVA Discrete Reading 2"
45
41
ERVA Discrete Reading 2"
45
42
RVA Discrete Readings 2"
46
43
RVA Continuous Readings 2"
46
44
MRVA Continuous Reading 2"
47
45
ERVA Continuous Reading @ 2"
47
46
RVA Discrete Readings at 1" to 8"
48
47
RVA Continuous Readings at 1" to 8"
48
48
K-Predicted Vs. K-Measured for 1" 3" Data Set
50
iv
49
Static Pressure Differential vs. Flow

Rate for Baffle Filter Hoods
51
50
Static Pressure Differential vs. Flow

Rate for Slot Hoods
51
51
Slot Width and Spacing Measurements
A-
52
Taping Ruler to RVA
A-
53
RVA Position at Filter Face
A-
v
FINAL REPORT: RP-623

"TESTING GREASE HOODS"
E. B. Gordon
Member ASHRAE
F. A. Parvin
Member ASHRAE
ABSTRACT
A field test method for the measurement of exhaust rates
through wall canopy grease hoods equipped with baffle filters has
been developed. The method consists of measuring a velocity profile
at or near the filter face of the exhaust inlet, using a 4" head
rotating vane anemometer (RVA) and then applying a k-factor to
determine the flow rate. This technique is accurate within + 10%
with the use of a k-factor procedure. The k-factor is a function of
the distance the reading is taken from the filter face, the average
velocity computed from the velocity profile, whether velocity
readings are discrete or continuous, the filter slot spacing and
width, and the overall area of the filter bank. The technique was
verified with AMCA-210 standard nozzle.chamber flow measurements as
a reference. Attempts were made to extend this measurement and kfactor correction technique to slot inlet (damper equipped) hoods.
Unfortunately, k-factor models developed for the slot hoods
predicted exhaust rates that deviated by more than 30% from the
AMCA-210 reference flow rates. Consequently, the later technique
was ruled out.
BACKGROUND
Testing grease hoods for flow rate and balancing the exhaust
with adequate supply air is essential for the proper operation of
a commercial kitchen ventilation systems. Measuring exhaust hood
rates in the field is, however, a difficult and time consuming
task. Ventilators and grease removal hardware can vary greatly from
manufacturer to manufacturer, and any number of flow measurement
devices can be used to determine grease hood exhaust rates. For a
given hardware configuration, a manufacturer or end user may
specify a relatively accurate testing method. Unfortunately, the
majority of commercial kitchen equipment lay outs are considerably
different. While one field measurement technique might provide
adequate results for certain hardware configurations, it might
perform poorly on others.
To further complicate matters, the commercial kitchen is a
fairly harsh working environment. Cooking equipment is generally
crowded under the hood, making access to the exhaust inlet
difficult. The exhaust inlet of wall canopy grease hoods is usually
at least 7' above the kitchen floor, with access to the exhaust
1
inlet further limited by the cooking equipment underneath the hood.

Finally, adding heat at the appliance cooking surface makes any
measurement virtually impossible from a safety and comfort stand
point. The addition of heat also makes referencing velocity
readings back to standard conditions very difficult, since an
accurate temperature reading must be taken at each point the
velocity is measured.
Currently, there is no standardized method for testing grease
hoods in the field, because of the wide range of hardware and the
variance in exhaust rates that can be mandated by different codes
for the same hood. Furthermore, documentation on commonly used
techniques is either non-existent or vague. Manufacturer
instructions on the use of hand-held velocity measurement
instrumentation are often of little help because they discuss the
use of the instrument over a wide range of HVAC applications
without specifically addressing the grease hood application. Some
testing and balancing contractors use mechanical or electronic
rotating vane anemometers (MRVA and ERVA), while others use flow
grids that correlate dynamic pressure to velocity. One exhaust hood
manufacturer builds static pressure taps into his line of hoods. A
static pressure to flow chart is provided so the technician may
calculate exhaust and hood supply plenum flow rates, and thereby
partially balance the local supply air to the hood and exhaust
flows. The more traditional flow measurement methods that require
taking a velocity profile in the exhaust duct are unacceptable
because building codes usually mandate that the grease duct be
continuously welded to ensure it is liquid-tight. Even if the
contractor takes it upon himself to disregard code requirements and
make measurements in the grease duct, it is unlikely that he will
find access into the duct where the flow is fully developed. Access
panels provided for duct cleaning are usually located near elbows
or offsets where it is certain that the flow is not completely
developed.
INTRODUCTION
The objective of ASHRAE RP-623, "Grease Hood Test" project, is
to evaluate 3 candidate flow measurement techniques to determine
which one(s) would be most accurate and feasible for use in the
field. The methods are:
1.
Measure the velocity profile at or near the face of the

slot or baffle filter face, and apply a developed k-factor
to determine grease hood flow rate. Hereafter referred to
as Method #1.
2.
Measure the velocity profile in the horizontal plane of the

hood opening and integrate the velocity over the actual
area to determine grease hood flow rate. Hereafter referred
to as Method #2.
The first two methods have as candidate instrumentation: rotating

vane anemometers (mechanical 4" head; electronic 4", 2.75", 1", and
.75" head), hand held (temperature compensating) hot wire
anemometers, flow grids, and flow hoods.
3.
Measure the static pressure differential across the

filter or grease extractor bank, and again using a
procedure, correlate the corrected pressure reading
reference AMCA-210 flow rate. Hereafter referred to
Method #3.
baffle
k-factor
to the
as
The criteria are as follows:

1.
That a k-factor procedure be established that corrects the

field methods determination of flow rate to within 10% of
the reference AMCA-210 standard value.
2.
That the method be as simple and easy to use as possible.
3.
That the method be as portable as possible across the

entire range of wall canopy grease hoods.
4.
That the method take into account the physical constraints

found in the field.

If the exact velocity profile at the filter bank (i.e. 0" from
the filter bank) were known, the actual flow rate could be
calculated using Equation 1:
. Q = A x Vel
Equation (1)
where
Q ' = the actual exhaust rate through the grease hood.
A
= the effective area presenting itself to the flow at the

filter face: i.e. baffle filter slot width x slot height
x no. of slots or simply the area of the slot exhaust
inlet.
Vel = the actual velocity profile over the effective area A.

Because of the high velocity gradients found at the baffle filter
face, many finely resolved point velocity readings would have to be
taken at the filter slots and at the gaps between the filters. As
in any such integration problem, the more point velocities that are
taken and the smaller the incremental area of each reading the more
closely the summation will approximate the actual flow rate value.
The accurate measurement of the velocity profile at the baffle
filter bank would, therefore, be an extraordinarily time consuming
3
task. For this reason, reducing the number of readings and applying
a correction factor with a known deviation from reference flow rate
readings offers the most practical approach. Through the use of a
correction factor, hereafter referred to as a k-factor, a more
convenient sampling location and less time consuming technique
could be chosen without necessarily sacrificing accuracy or
repeatability.
When the filter bank exhaust velocity profile is determined
with one of the above mentioned instrumentation, an average
velocity can be calculated using Equation 2:
MV =
V, /n
Equation (2)
where
V? = measured velocity at an incremental position along the
velocity profile
n
the number of incremental velocity readings
MV = the average face velocity across the profile

The average measured velocity, MV, can now be correlated to the
actual flow, Q, as measured by the AMCA-210 standard by Equation 2:
Q = A x MV x k
Equation (3)
where k is a correction factor. If A is again taken as the

effective slot area at the filter face, then k is simply the actual
velocity (Vel), divided by the measured velocity (MV), or
k = Vel/MV
Equation (4)
The multivariable statistical approach to determining a kfactor is probably best suited to the commercial kitchen
ventilation application because of the many differences in
ventilator hardware, measurement techniques, and flow measurement
devices that can have a potentially significant impact on the kfactor value. Such parameters might be the inherent measurement
characteristics of the flow measurement device, whether the
sampling technique is discrete or continuous, how many readings are
taken per unit area if the sampling technique is discrete, slot
width size and spacing of baffle filters, the distance the reading
is taken from the exhaust inlet, the average exhaust inlet
velocity, and the overall area of the exhaust inlet.
Because of the high velocity gradients expected to be found in
a velocity profile taken right at the baffle filter face, it was
therefore considered advantageous to record the velocity profiles
at incremental distances away from the filter face, in hope of
4
obtaining a reasonably uniform profile. A uniform velocity profile

would permit fewer discrete measurement or a faster continuous
measurement of velocity, and might also permit the use of the hot
wire anemometer which takes instantaneous and finely resolved
spatial readings of velocity. The potential advantages of
investigating the velocity profile at various distances from the
filter face was also indicated by the existence of a number of
different manufacturer field test methods that recommended taking
the velocity profile at the filter bank or at a distance ranging
from 1.5" to 2.0" away from the filter face and then multiplying
the average filter face velocity by the overall exhaust inlet area
to get the exhaust rate.
With the large number of potentially significant parameters
attributable to the hardware, measurement techniques, and
instrumentation; the decision was made to run preliminary tests in
order to cut down on the number of k-factor model parameters. This
would also serve to reduce the size of the testing matrix so the
project could be finished in a finite amount of time. A discussion
of the results and conclusions of this preliminary testing period
are included in the Preliminary Tests section.
The second candidate field test method to be evaluated is the
measurement of a velocity profile in the horizontal plane of the
hood. The average profile velocity could be multiplied times the
area in that plane (generally 26 to 32 sq ft for the 8 ft hoods) to
determine a measured flow rate. The measured flow could then be
correlated to the AMCA-210 reference in order to determine a
correction factor. A multivariable k-factor model similar to the
one discussed above could also be developed.
There were, however, a number of immediate reservations about
the feasibility of this test method. A decision was made to run
preliminary tests to determine if running a method #2 test matrix
was worth while. A discussion of these tests is included in a later
section.
The third and final candidate test method is the correlation
of static pressure differential across the baffle filter or grease
extractor insert to AMCA-210 reference flows. Again, the best
approach to determine the correction factor was considered to be
the multivariable k-factor model.
For Method #3, the correction factor can be a function of
static pressure loss across the new filter, condition of the
existing filter, gap area between filters, volume of exhaust
plenum, and area of the exhaust duct collar. Additionally, the
orientation of the static tap, location of the tap behind the
5
filter, size of tap hole, tubing used to connect static tap to the
micromonometer (be sure to use type and size of tubing recommended
by the micrometer manufacturer) , and the resolution of the
micromonometer can strongly influence the correction factor. While
this technique is promising, it's accuracy is almost entirely
dependent on the static pressure loss across the filter.
Unfortunately, there is no perceptible feature that will allow the
technician to determine a characteristic pressure drop for a baffle
filter or grease extractor insert. This must be given, and would
therefore require hood and grease filter manufacturers to calibrate
each filter type and clearly mark the flow rate to static pressure
relation.
HARDWARE
Five ventilator manufacturers each provided an 8 foot wall
canopy hoods to be tested. Three hoods are of the baffle filter
type, while the other two could be either baffle filter or slot
outlet (with removable grease extractor inserts) hoods, for a total
of seven hoods. All hoods were equipped with one or more supply
plenum types, including face registers, air curtain registers, and
interior or short circuit registers. The baffle filters and grease
extractor inserts (for the slot hood) were supplied by the hood
manufacturers. '
The area of the filter bank opening in the hoods ranged from
11.5 sq ft to 6.14 sq ft. The hood with the largest opening was
fitted with 6 baffle filters, while the other 4 hoods each held 4
baffle filters. The slot spacing ranged from 1.25" to 3.175", while
the slot width ranged from .625" to 1". The overall baffle filter
size ranged from 19.5" x 19.5" to 19.5" x 13".
Among the seven hoods tested, six of them (including two slot
hoods) were designed to operate within an exhaust range of 2,000 up
to roughly 3,000 scfm. The remaining hood was designed to operate
at an exhaust rate of between 1,250 and 1,750 scfm.
Photographs and schematics of the hoods and their grease
removal devices are shown in the following figures.
6
Table 1
Baffle Filter Hood Configurations
Hood
No. of
filters
Filter
Frame
Size
#2
#3
#4
#5
19.5"
13.0"
15.5"
19.5"
19.5"
19.5"
#1
19.5"
19.5"
19.5"
19.5"
.875"
.625"
1.0"
.875"
.875"
Slot
Height
18.25"
9.5"
13.75"
17.5"
17.5"
Overall
Opening
Size
78.5"
79.0"
77.25"
93.5"
93.5"
18.0"
11.2"
11.3"
17.75"
17.5"
6.14
.7.68
11.5
9.26
Filter
Slot
Width
Hood
Opening
Area
9.86
(sq ft)
Figure 1: Hood #1
View of Hood Reservoir
Filter geometry starts on page 18 for each hood

7
Figure 4: Hood #3
View of Filter Bank
"' .Of!;"*""" "**"e95=: _
Figure 5: Hood #4
View of Filter Bank
f<sr'ir<iT
,,
*"^l^^^^!iPPWSI^
|
- * . <fc
"
jr
^ 'J J ///
^Miiii-.jwiâwwLiiiMffP^tfiyîitiiiiMiwi"
. ].M.) If. LU i l i .
i.în.yi.mpiir^j li^JillUUÎIUmH,
Figure 6: Hood #5
View of Hood Face
Figure 7: Hood #5
View of Filter Bank
10
Figure 8: Hood #3
Slot Exhaust/Grease Extractor Module
Figure 9: Hood #5
Slot Exhaust/Grease Extractor Module #1
11
Figure 10: Hood #5

Slot Exhaust/Grease Extractor Module #2
|wt$4
Figure 11: Hood #1 Side View
-12.0'
12
Figure 12: Hood #1 Filter Bank View

-95.75-
6(.0
4 - 17.0 ~\
II
I
-~|
| 8.25
13
95.75
U - 8.75
ao
Figure 1 5 : Hood #3 Side View
Santicn C-C
HQQQ No. a
14

HOOD MB, 3 - HMMT VIEW
96.000
41.000
Section B-B
HOOD Ha. 3
-58.0
- -3.0
HL0.0-1
5.0
15
96.0
58.0
-42.00
16
Figure 21: Hood #2 Filter
|-
19.5
{ j
FFFMFPM1MM
T
13.0
1
17

1.000
0.8125
0.B125
IF
15.375
FILTER No. 3
Figure 23: Hood #4, 5 Filters
A v t e c & Greenheck
Filters
>
Dm. Hood #4 Hood #1

A
19.5
19.375
19.5
19.5625
1.75
1.75
18
INSTRUMENTATION
One mechanical 4" head RVA, several digital RVA's (with 4",
2.75", 1", and .75" heads), 2 flow hoods, l flow grid, and 3 hot
wire anemometers were obtained from manufacturers. Preliminary
calibration tests were performed to determine the relative accuracy
of the instruments, the sensitivity of instrument to orientation
(angle of attack) to a flow, and the accuracy of the instrument
within the extremes of velocities that would be encountered in the
testing.
Initial tests were performed on the grease hoods using all of
the above instruments for measurement technique #1. These tests
indicated that the 4" mechanical and electronic RVA's provided the
most reliable results (see the Preliminary Tests section). They
were consequently chosen for use in the entire test matrix.
Selective tests were also made with the other instruments in order
to make comparisons of instrument performance. Calibration curves
for the 2.75" and 4.0" RVA's are included in the Appendix.
Static pressure pitot tubes were used to conduct the technique
#3 experiments. The static pressure difference between the pitot
tube reading and the ambient kitchen air was recorded by a hand
held electronic digital micromonometer.
19
TEST FACILITIES
The grease hood tests were conducted in two independent airtight cells. The large facility shown in Figure 25 is cubical in
shape and measures 30 ft long x 25 ft wide x 12 ft high and is
capable of simulating virtually any type of full scale commercial
kitchen layout.
The smaller facility shown in Figure 26 is
trapezoidal in shape and measures 14 ft long x 6 ft to 12 ft wide
x 9 ft high. Both laboratories were used extensively to conduct
the matrix of tests run for this research. Pressure indicating
instruments installed in both facilities for the measurement of
static pressure and flow rate provided an accuracy of 0.1% or
+0.0025 inches of water column which is within the required
accuracy of the AMCA 210-85 standard.
Because the facilities are airtight, the principle of
continuity dictates that the volume flow rate entering the testing
cell is equal to the volume flow rate leaving the cell. This is
extremely advantageous in the commercial kitchen ventilation
application because high temperatures and contaminated flows can
make flow measurement on the exhaust side inaccurate. This problem
was solved by measuring the flow rate on the supply side using an
AMCA-210 flow nozzle chamber. This arrangement not only facilitates
the accurate measurement of flow rate, but also permits absolute
control over the facility static pressure through the relative
balance of the exhaust and supply blowers. The underlying concepts
that make this laboratory scheme so powerful and flexible for the
measurement of flow rates are discussed in detail in Reference 4.
The AMCA nozzle chamber of the large facility is 4 ft in
diameter, 11 ft long and consists of six 5" and one 3" diameter
nozzles. The smaller facility AMCA nozzle chamber is 48" square
and 10*5" long and consists of one 5", one 6", and two 8" diameter
nozzles. Different nozzles combination were used to maintain a
pressure drop across the nozzles of no more than 4" and no less
than 0.4" of water column during the testing.
Laboratory operating conditions (i.e. temperature, flow rates,
and static pressures) were achieved by a computer program that
automatically reaches and maintains setpoints of temperature, flow
rate, and static pressure via adjustment of the supply and exhaust
blowers vane dampers. The program acquires voltage signals from
various channels and converts these signals to engineering units.
The dry and wet bulb temperatures of the exhausted air were updated
and fed into the program. All flow rates were corrected back to
standard by the same software package.
Both test cells are outfitted with universal hood hangers and
duct adapters for the hood supply outlet and exhaust inlet. The
flow of supply air can be adjusted to any proportion between the
hood supply plenum or from the test cell.
20
Figure 25:
CKV Laser Lab Facility
Figure 26:
8 ft Hood Test Cell
21
PRELIMINARY TESTS
A baffle filter hood was installed in the smaller test
facility in order to conduct preliminary tests. The hood was chosen
because it had a typical baffle filter geometry (.875" slot width
and 3.125" slot spacing) and the largest exhaust inlet area (11.5
sq ft) . The large exhaust inlet area ensured that the hood could be
operated over the widest exhaust flow rate range.
The objective of these tests was to gain a better
understanding of the characteristics of the flow measurement
instruments, potential sampling techniques, and the ventilator
hardware. As a result, a formal test matrix of only the most
significant parameters and appropriate instruments could be
developed and executed.
Flow Visualization
The first step was to determine flow streamlines into the
grease hood from 1500 to 4500 scfm under isothermal conditions,
using flow visualization techniques. The flow upstream of the
grease hood was seeded with a theater fog generator. The flow
visualization tests indicated that kitchen air is pulled under the
hood and drawn almost vertically upward toward the exhaust inlet.
At all flow rates, the flow streamline turns in a direction
perpendicular to the filter bank at about 4" to 6" from the filter
face.
The next flow visualization test consisted of running the hood
under the same conditions with the addition of a heat source
provided by the two back burners of an open top range. The thermal
plumes generated significantly altered the streamline configuration
seen in the previous isothermal tests. The slender plumes hugged
the back wall under the hood and entered the baffle filter bank at
a nearly vertical angle. Even at the higher flow rates, the
strength of the plumes overwhelmed the blower induced flow at the
filter bank. A significant portion of the thermal plume continued
to flow vertically past the filter bank, rolling up in the hood
reservoir until the seeded hot air either spilled or was entrained
by the thermal plume and exhausted through the filter bank.
Effect of Heat Sources
Tables 2 and 3 compare two velocity profiles taken at 1500
scfm. The first is isothermal flow, while the second was taken with
the two back burners of a commercial open top range on high. With
the burners on, the average exhaust inlet velocity (244 fpm) is
virtually 20% higher than the 204 fpm average face velocity with no
heat source. In order to account for all the possible disturbances
from thermal plumes, a very elaborate k-factor scheme would have to
be developed to account for the infinite number of variations in
thermal currents that could be produced underneath the hood.
22
Table 2:
Velocity Profile, FPM @ 1500 scfm
No Heat Source - 4" ERVA
Filter 1
152
Filter 2
167
187
182
235
Filter 3
201
208
207
223
228
190
Filter 4
225
201
228
220
195
192
246
228
222
Table 3:
Velocity Profile, FPM @ 1500 scfm
with Heat Source - 4" ERVA
Filter 1
183
173
179
267
261
Filter 2
Filter 3
180
245
277
310
502
258
219
Filter 4
202
288
519
229
198
330
266
254
These tests indicated that heat sources and Method #1 are

incompatible for the following reasons. First, the technician has
no way of knowing what the streamlines look like at the filter bank
when cooking appliances are on, and therefore has no way of knowing
how to orient the flow sensor in order to fully capture the
principal component of the exhausted flow. Second, the updraft
velocities generated by the heat source are sometimes higher than
the exhaust inlet velocities. In this case, the updraft currents
bypass the exhaust inlet and fill the hood reservoir. Velocity
readings taken at or near the filter face can be substantially
higher than the actual exhaust inlet velocities. The end result is
an exaggerated exhaust rate. Finally, flow measurements have
meaning only in so far as they are reported referenced to standard
conditions. It is therefore essential to know absolute temperature
and pressure of the flow in question so that corrections can be
made back to standard conditions. If cooking appliances were
generating thermal plumes underneath the hood, it would be
necessary to record the temperature at every point a velocity was
taken on the filter face profile. Clearly, this would render an
already complex and time consuming measurement technique even more
so.
Selection of Instrumentation
The next series of tests focused on selecting the most ideally
suited hand held device for measuring velocity to be employed in
technique #1. A 4" head mechanical RVA, a set of electronic RVA's
23
(1", 2.75", and 4"

heads), a flow grid, and a temperature
compensating hot wire anemometer were evaluated in a series of
tests. The test matrix covered flow rates of 2300, 2500, 2800,
3500, and 4200 scfm with velocity profile readings taken at 0", 1",
2", 3", 4", 6", and 8" from the filter bank. Sensitivity tests were
also conducted to determine the effect that reducing the number of
discrete velocity readings in the profile had on the accuracy and
repeatability of average face velocity.
Table 4 suggests that the hot wire anemometer is not well
suited for measuring the velocity profile Hnear the filter face,
especially at 0" to 2" from the bank. At 4 , 6", and 8" from the
filter face where the velocity profile becomes increasingly
uniform, the hot wire compares well with the rotating vane
velocities. The average velocities given in Table 4 are based on 20
total readings for the filter bank face. Because of the high
velocity gradients at the filter face, many closely packed
measurements would have to be taken to approach the actual average
face velocity. Similar problems were experienced with the 1" head
electronic RVA for the same reason that the velocity measurement is
highly local, thereby requiring a large number of spatial readings
to achieve repeatability in average face velocity determinations.
The readings obtained from the 2.75" head electronic RVA were
comparable with the 4" head RVA's when taken at 2" from the baffle
filter face.
Table 4:
Comparison of 4" ERVA, Flow Grid,
and Hot Wire Results for Hood #3
(Velocity in FPM)
Location
ERVA discrete
@ 2500
0"
2"
4"
6"
8"
Flow Grid
Hot Wire
scfm
384
299
293
244
226
279
264
211
191
490
354
281
225
209
@ 2800 SCFM
0"
1"
2"
3"
411
437
407
386
366
348
293
415
452
388
357
347
355
309
283
241
548
432
384
297
271
323
@ 3200 SCFM
0"
2"
4 if
6"
8"
537
464
405
321
276
24
A flow grid and a flow hood were also tested. The flow grid
results, shown in Table 4, indicate that the velocity profiles
taken at 2" and 4" from the baffle filter face are comparable to
the 4" RVA data. However, the 8" x 8" size of the flow grid makes
it impossible to use on the narrow exhaust inlet of the slot
exhaust hoods. The flow hood gave consistently low flow
measurements, as indicated in Table 4. Furthermore, available flow
hood sizes would not fit into hood #3. It is also highly unlikely
that the flow hood could be used under some actual field conditions
where fire suppression systems could make the filter face
inaccessible. Like the flow grid, the larger sampling area of the
flow hood makes it inappropriate for use on the slot exhaust inlet
type hoods.
The 4" head RVA's proved to be the most flexible and reliable
instruments. They are a convenient size, and their inherent flow
averaging capabilities over both time and space make them ideal for
this application. Existing field methods for the determination of
grease hood flow rates indicate that the 4" head RVA is the
instrument of preference, although 2" and 2.75" head RVA's are also
commonly used. Calibration of the 4" mechanical and electronic
RVA's indicated that they have comparable accuracy over the 100 fpm
to 700 fpm velocity range commonly found in this application (see
the appendix for information on equipment calibration). Literature
on flow measurement instrumentation used in the HVAC application
indicates that previous researchers have come to similar
conclusions. Sauer and Howell (1985), Foltz (1984), In-Hout (1985),
and Suppo are among a number of ASHRAE contributors who have
discussed the relative advantages of different flow sensing
instrumentation and found the RVA to be superior in their
particular applications.
*':
Sampling Techniques
Existing industry methods utilize both discrete and continuous
sweep sampling. It was therefore felt that both methods should be
evaluated. In addition, . the minimum number of sample pjoints for
the discrete sampling method needed to be determined in order'*'to
finalize the test matrix. Table 5 shows the effect of going from 12
to 9 to 5 discrete samples per filter. The readings were taken at
0" and 2" from the baffle filter face and at flow rates ranging
from 1500 to 3200 scfm, using both the mechanical and electronic 4"
head RVA's.
For most hoods with 4 baffle filters; 5, 9, 12 readings per
filter gives a total of 20, 36, and 48 readings respectively. There
is a trend to slightly lower readings when less samples are taken.
However, the 20 sample averages fell within 3% of the 48 sample
averages. This indicated that 5 samples per baffle filter should be
adequate. It was also felt that the multivariable k-factor model
would compensate for the minor variations in average velocities,
especially if there were a trend to slightly lower average
velocities with respect to 12 sample per filter technique.
25
Initial tests conducted using the discrete sampling method

provided data that indicates higher velocity gradients in the
vertical direction of the filter than in the horizontal. It was
felt that this would cause a problem because the mechanical inertia
in the RVA's rotating vane requires some time to come to
equilibrium. This would necessitate slowing down the sweep in the
vertical case to allow the vane to speed up or slow down. It was
found that when the sweep was begun at the bottom of the filter,
readings would be low, compared to the horizontal sweep. And
conversely, the readings would be high when started at the top of
the filter. For this reason, the horizontal sweep was chosen for
conducting the project tests.
Table 5:
Sensitivity of Velocity Average to Number of Samples
Instrument
No. of
Readings
Flow Rate
scfm
Per Filter
Hood
K-Factor
ERVA
ERVA
ERVA
5
9
16
2700
2700
2700
#5
#5
#5
0.947
0.924
0.909
ERVA
ERVA
MRVA
MRVA
5
12
5
9
1500
1500
1500
1500
#2
#2
#2
#2
1.053
1.020
0.967
1.000
ERVA
ERVA
MRVA
MRVA
5
12
5
12
3000
3000
3000
3000
#1
#1
#1
#1
0.959
0.982
0.982
1.003
ERVA
ERVA
MRVA
MRVA
5
12
5
12
1500
1500
1500
1500
#4
#4
#4
#4
0.997
0.998
0.950
0.997
ERVA
ERVA
ERVA
ERVA
ERVA
ERVA
MRVA
MRVA
MRVA
MRVA
MRVA
MRVA
5
12
5
12
5
12
5
12
5
12
5
12
2500
2500
2800
2800
3200
3200
2500
2500
2800
2800
3200
3200
#3
#3
#3
#3
#3
#3
#3
#3
#3
#3
#3
#3
0.847
0.833
0.795
0.824
0.776
0.810
1.090
1.154
0.931
0.963
0.898
0.914
26
The element of fatigue is a critical factor that must be taken

into account in the development of an accurate and repeatable field
test method. The difficulties experienced in the preliminary
testing convinced the researchers that time required to complete
the testing needs to be minimized, within reasonable limits of
compromising accuracy and repeatability. The discrete sampling
technique is time consuming because of the need to verify that the
RVA is up to speed. On the electronic RVAf this is a simple matter.
The technician simply takes readings at a sample point until the
maximum velocity has been read and the reading stabilizes. This
generally takes 10 to 20 seconds if the instrument is maintained at
the same orientation and distance to the filter bank. Each sample
will take roughly 30 seconds. The mechanical RVA, on the other
hand, must be maintained at least 30 seconds at a sample point to
ensure that the impeller is up to speed. The sample itself then
takes 45 to 60 seconds. More than doubling the samples to be taken
would then increase the sampling time from 10 minutes to 24 minutes
for the electronic RVA and from 30 minutes to 72 minutes. Overall
testing increased from approximately 25 to 60 minutes for the
electronic RVA and from 1 hour to almost 2.5 hours for the
mechanical RVA. Some consultants have reported that it takes them
at least 2 to 3 hours to test one hood. This was deemed
unacceptable, given that most of the 5 sample average velocities
came within 2% of the 12 sample averages.
Effect of Supply Air Location
Finally, tests were conducted to determine the effect of
supply air location on the velocity readings. A series of tests
that sent all supply air to the hood supply plenum (at scfm rates
between 2000 and 4200) were compared with tests in which all supply
air came from the kitchen. Once again, the differences were
negligible. Consequently, all supply air in the following tests was
routed through the kitchen supply air registers. This does not
apply, however, to short circuit hoods. When a supply plenum
register injects air directly into the hood and in the direction of
the filter bank, a phenomenon similar to the impingement of the
thermal plume on the baffle filter bank occurs. If the jet is
concentrated and has a higher velocity than the blower induced
velocity of the exhausted air through the baffle filter slots, some
portion of the jet will be deflected by the filter down toward the
cooking equipment.
One short circuit hood was tested to determine the effect of
a strong jet in the vicinity of the exhaust inlet. Up to 50% of the
exhaust rate was introduced through the short circuit supply before
the measured average velocity deviated from the original (no short
circuit supply) average velocity by more than 10%. As the short
supply was increased beyond 50%, the measured average velocity
increased by up to 30% while the AMCA-210 reference flow
measurement remained the same.
It should be cautioned at this point that drawing general
conclusions from the tests on this single short circuit hood would
27
not be valid. There are numerous short circuit hood designs. As an

example, one of the hoods tested diffuses the supply jet to a
relatively low velocity and does not direct the interior makeup air
directly at the baffle filter bank. Many of the short circuit
designs, however, aim a high speed jet directly at the filter banks
without increasing the exhaust rate. A short circuit hood of this
design is one of the 3 hoods in A.G.A.L.'s commercial kitchen wing
of the Research and Demonstration House.
With the short circuit
supply off, velocity readings over the baffle filter bank were
within 15% of the average measured velocity. With the short circuit
supply on (probably 60% to 75% of the exhaust rate), velocities in
the middle of the filter bank read more than 50% higher than the
other velocities measured at the top and bottom of the filter.
Effect of Secondary Currents and Wakes
The effect of secondary currents was also studied by adjusting
short circuit and air curtain diffusers such that the flow
underneath the hood was disrupted. Results indicate that unless the
flow is directed at the exhaust inlet, the average velocity
measured at the filter face will be within the error associated
with the hand-held instrumentation and it's use.
The effect of wakes coming from the technicians on the RVA
readings were studied. The RVA was fixed in position with a stand
and the readings compared with readings taken with technician in
the immediate vicinity of the sample point. No discernable effect
on the readings was seen.
On the basis of the preliminary tests, a final matrix of 480
tests was developed for technique #1 and is shown in Table 6.
Table 6:
Test Matrix for Method #1
Instruments
ERVA
MRVA
Samclina
discrete
continuous
Location
0"
2" (baffle)
4"
1"
2" (slot)
3"
Hood
Flow Rates
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#3
#4
#4
(baffle)
(baffle)
(baffle)
(baffle)
(baffle)
(slot)
(slot#l)
(slot#2)
8
Method #2 was also evaluated during the preliminary tests.
Table 7 shows the discrete sampling grid over which the velocity
profile was taken with a RVA. The profile was then averaged and
multiplied by the hood area in horizontal plane to get a flow rate.
Results, shown in tables, reveal that the exhaust rates determined
28
by this method are systematically on the high side. More

importantly, there is an unacceptably large deviation in the method
#2 and AMCA-210 flow rates. Part of the problem could well be the
inaccuracy of the RVA at velocities lower than 50 fpm. It is not
uncommon to find dead or recirculating zones at the side walls
where the flow has actually reversed. These recirculation zones
become larger
and more chaotic in structure. Consistently low
velocities, the large area over which the profile must be taken,
and the existence of recirculation zones make this method time
consuming and inaccurate. It was consequently abandoned as a
candidate field test method.
Figure 27:
78
71
69
61
69
67
58
77
63
-34
91
86
82
77
72
80
88
82
86
00
86
79
76
38
52
69
42
29
37
63
TEST PROCEDURES
Method #1
After the selected hood was installed in the test facility,
the exhaust connections were checked for leaks. The appropriate
blower pulleys and nozzles were selected for the given flow rate to
be tested. The control software is initialized, and the test cell
door was secured and the facility made air tight. The exhaust and
supply blowers were then started. The control software
automatically positioned the inlet vane dampers such that the
specified flow rate was obtained with static pressure in the
facility equal to the ambient static pressure. Flow calculations
per AMCA-210 were also written into a software routine. Wet bulb,
dry bulb temperature, and an absolute barometric reading were taken
in either the laboratory (when there were no appliances on) or at
the inlet to the supply blower in order to make the density
correction from actual to standard conditions as follows:
PD
std = PDact (densitystd/densityact)
PDact = measured pressure differential across the nozzle bank

densityact = density of air at actual conditions
density . = 0.075 lb/ft3
29
The corrected pressure differential was then fed into the AMCA-210
calculation to determine flow rate at standard conditions.
Velocity samples were taken at 0", 2", and 4" from the filter
face with an RVA, and were corrected back to standard conditions
(see step 5 in the Appendix) . The distance was maintained uniformly
by attaching a ruler or a thin metal clip with tape to keep the RVA
either 2" or 4" off the filter surface. A discrete reading was
taken in the middle and at the 4 corners of each filter. The RVA
was held in position at least 45 sec before each of the readings
was started. Once the discrete sampling technique was completed, a
continuous 40 - 50 sec sweep was performed by starting at the top
left hand corner and moving across the filter face as shown in
Figure 28. The coefficients of the model for the continuous method
are generated based on horizontal sweep direction. The sweep can
be changed to the vertical direction without a significant loss of
accuracy using the model(see Table 12 for comparison).
This
procedure was performed identically with the mechanical and the
electronic RVA. The procedure was repeated for flow rates of 1500,
2000, 2500, 3000, 3500 scfm for hoods 1, 3, 4, and 5 and at flow
rates of 1000, 1250, 1500, 1750, and 2000 scfm for hood 2. At the
highest and lowest exhaust rate tested for each hood, 9 and then 16
discrete samples were recorded for each filter for both RVA's at
the 3 locations from the filter face. This represents a matrix of
420 separate tests for Method #1.
Method #3
At each of the 5 flow rates, readings were taken from static
pressure taps located at the far end walls of the exhaust plenum
and at the back plenum wall just below the hood exhaust collar.
Minor adjustments of probe orientation were made until the pressure
reading was at a minimum, thereby eliminating the dynamic pressure
contribution. The pressure reading was then taken.
30
Figure 28: Filter
lllll
TT
Sampling Techniques
n MlII
Figure 28a Discrete Method
II 1 1 I 1
1 | | | II
>
1
1
1 1 1II II 1
1 II II II 1
||
||
1 II
1 1| |1
II
I
1
II II II
||
||
4
1 11 1 1II
II '
|
/
_L
1 1 1 11 1 1 ^
Figure 28b Horizontal Continuous Method

>
. s
T TT T 1 1 1 1
J LL_ 1
II
1
r Tt 1
1
II 1 1 II
1 II 1 1 II 1
II 1 1 II 1
-4J--4
1 T T T 1 II ll
|
J_ __LL 1 1 11 1 \
Figure 28c Vertical Continuous Method

31
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Statistical Regression Model
A multivariable regression model for predicting the k-factor
for use with grease hood exhaust rate measurement is considered.
The significant variables are the measured velocity, the
perpendicular distance from filter face, filter slot spacing,
filter slot width, and the filter bank area. The multivariable
k-factor model is expressed as:
K std = F (SMVEL, D, FSS, FSW, FBA )
E q u a t i o n (5)
where
F
: Function operator.
Kgtd
: Correction factor at standard density a i r .
SMVEL: S c a l e d a v e r a g e m e a s u r e d v e l o c i t y a t s t a n d a r d
d e n s i t y a i r , (fpm/100).
D
: Outward p e r p e n d i c u l a r d i s t a n c e from t h e
filter
face,
inches.
FSS
: Baffle f i l t e r
s l o t spacing,
FSW
: Baffle f i l t e r
s l o t width,
FBA
: F i l t e r bank a r e a ,
inches.
Inches.
ft2.
A p p l y i n g t h e g e n e r a l s e c o n d d e g r e e e q u a t i o n f o r N=5 v a r i a b l e s
e q u a t i o n (5) a n d e x p a n d i n g , we o b t a i n :
to
K std = a1*SMVEL2 + a2*SMVEL*D + a3*SMVEL*FSS

+ a4*SMVEL*FSW + a5*SMVEL*FBA
+ a 6 *D 2 + a 7 *D*FSS + a8*D*FSW + a9*D*FBA
+ a 1 0 *FSS 2 + a11*FSS*FSW + a 12 *FSS*FBA
E q u a t i o n (6)
+ a12*FSW2 + a13*FSW*FBA + a14*FBA2

+ a15*SMVEL + a16*D + a 17 *FSS + a18*FSW
+ a 19 *FBA + a 20
32
where the a,,, a2,...., a20 are the regression constant coefficients.
A statistical analysis, described below, showed that a significant
number of terms can be decoupled or eliminated from Equation (6).
The reduced and highest correlated mathematical model is given by:
K
std = a^SMVEL2 + a2*SMVEL*D + a3*D2 + a4*SMVEL + a5*D

+ a6*FSS + a7*FSW + a8*FBA + a9
Equation (7)
The constant coefficients a1,....,a9 of Equation (7) can be found

by minimizing the sum of the squares (SSE),
SSE =
( K_measstd - K_modelgtd ) 2
Equation (8)
where N is the number of K_measstd. Let

X,
Xg
X3
x4
X5
=
=
=
=
=
SMVEL
D
FSS
FSW
FBA
Upon substituting equation (7) into equation (8), at the minimum

all partial derivatives with respect to the constant coefficients
a, through a9 must vanish.
Differentiating Equation (8) with
respect to the constants and rearranging, we obtain 9 equations for
the 9 unknowns. In a matrix form:
5X
oX^Xp
o X X o
SX Â p
SA i
bXX"^5 &X^Xy
S X Xp S X 4X-2
o X X p oXXpX<z
SX32
SX 2 ,
S X ^
Sx 2 2
Sx 2 2 x 3
Sx:xz
SX^*X#
oXXpX#
Sx 2 2 x 4
S X <XP
SX
oX^XpXr
bX
9^C
o X Xp
bX
SX,X4
DXJXC
bX,
8X2X3
Sx 2 x 4
oXpXp
oX^
SX23
Sx 3 x 4
O X7X1-
O X<9
SX24
SX^Xj
SX^
Sx 2 5
Sx 5
where the leading letter S of matrix entries represents the sum.

The matrix entries below the diagonal elements have been omitted
33
because of matrix symmetry.

by:
t
S x
1 K std
Sx
1x2Kstd
S x
2 K std
3Kstd
SX
The right hand side vector is given
Sx
1Kstd
Sx K
4 std
Sx
2Kstd
SX K
5 std
SK
std^
where the superscript T represents the transpose of the row vector.

Gaussian elimination may to used to invert the above matrix and
then one would back substitute and solve for the regression
coefficients.
Regression of Equation (7) resulted in the highest
coefficient of determination among all models considered, see Table
(9) . Table (10) lists the coefficients of determination for a
simple regression model (i.e. Kstd = F(SMVEL), Kstd = F(d) ,
etc) .
Although it appears some terms are collinear, a statistical study
revealed that including some terms resulted in negligible
improvement on the coefficient of determination. Table 11 lists
the multivariable regression coefficients for the discrete and
continuous methods. Its use should be restricted to baffle filter
canopy hoods.
A forward selection stepwise regression was performed to
determine only those variables that are statistically significant
to the model. This process calls for the introduction of variables
one at a time starting with the variable that possess the highest
determination coefficient first.
Each time a new variable is
introduced into the K-factor model, the determination coefficient
is examined and the variable is tested for appropriateness from the
F test. The process is terminated when an introduction of any
remaining variables fails to induce a significant increase in the
coefficient of determination.
In implementing forward regression, a simple regression was
performed and the coefficients of determination are summarized in
Table 8. It is shown that the most significant variable with the
highest determination coefficient is the perpendicular distance
from the filter face. Therefore, distance is entered in the model
first. The F test values for the model is 166.150, while the F
test value from a statistical table with 5% confidence level is
3.15. Since the F test value of the model is greater than that
from the statistical table, the distance passed and retained in the
model. Next we proceed to the next step by introducing the next
variable which would induce the highest determination coefficient
of the model with distance in it. The results are shown in Table
8.
In Step 2 of the process, two variables passed, but the
selection must be based on the variable that induced the highest
coefficient of determination which is the slot width. As can be
seen from the table, the process is terminated at Step 3 and the
main variable of interest (velocity) has not entered the model yet.
On the other hand, backward selection stepwise regression proved
34
that one of the originally selected models (i.e. model 4 in Table 9)

was the most adequate and reliable.
Table 8:
Forward Selection Stepwise Regression
Process Summary
F_MODEL
STATUS
STEP
VARIABLES
C.O.D.
DISTANCE
0.847
3.15
166.15
PASSED
VELOCITY
SLOT SP.
SLOT WD.
AREA
0.854
0.851
0.871
0.866
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.76
2.362
1.620
11.06
8.203
FAILED
FAILED
PASSED
PASSED
VELOCITY
SLOT SP.
AREA
0.872
0.872
0.875
2.54
2.54
2.54
0.265
0.204
1.745
FAILED
FAILED
FAILED
0.05
* C.O.D. = Coefficient of Determination

Table 9:
Regression Analysis Models
MODEL
COEF. OF DETER
DISC.
CONTIN.
TERMS
VARIABLE
X 1# X 2 , X 3 , X4
6
X,j,
1'
2'
0.897
0.879
0.912
0.883
0.887
0.874
0.918
0.882
0.889
0.900
0.877
0.861
Xg
X, X / i
COEF. OF DETER
0 I n . REMOVED
Y2
3'
4'
2
A
1/ Y
i / Y 2'
X g j X^Xg/ X j ,
A
Y
0.931
x 4 , x5
0.900
0.910
0.921
35
Table 10:
Simple Regression Analysis Matrix
K
*std
std
1.0
0.655
*2
0.920
x3
0.063
0.155
0.136
0.655
1.0
0.643
0.169
0.297
0.032
0.920
0.643
1.0
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.063
0.169
0.000
1.0
0.277
0.869
0.155
0.297
0.000
0.277
1.0
0.548
0.136
0.032
0.000
0.869
0.548
1.0
Table 11:
RVA 4 Inch head
DISCRETE
CONTINUOUS
METHOD
METHOD
1
2
a
3
a
4
a
5
a
6
a
7
a
8
a
a.
N = 92
N = 108
-0.00227387
-0.03849168
-0.00607083
0.12226597
0.27586471
0.07767751
-0.37998932
-0.04270867
0.83738386
-0.00268831
-0.03918449
-0.01158696
0.12545435
0.30267142
-0.01116386
-0.92214016
-0.00507270
1.25997228
36
RESULTS
Velocity Profile Technique. Method #1
Model 4, a non-linear model with 8 variables, was chosen as
the most accurate k-factor prediction model. Experimental data sets
obtained using the discrete and continuous sampling techniques were
used to determine one set of coefficients for each technique for
inclusion in the k-factor model. Mechanical and digital RVA's can
be used interchangeably with either of the sampling techniques. The
model formula of the k-factors as was shown in the statistical
analysis section is given by:
K s t d ( x 1 # Xg/ x 3 , x 4 , x 5 )
a1x1
+ ajXjXj +
a 4 x, + a5X2 + a 6 x 3 + a 7 x 4 + a 8 x 5 + a 9
3x2
E q u a t i o n (9)
where a g a i n :
x, = scaled average measured velocity at standard density
air, (fpm/100)
filter
x2 = outward perpendicular distance of reading from

face (in)
x3 = baffle filter slot spacing (in)
x4 = baffle filter slot width (in)
x5 = overall area of the filter bank (ft2)
Experimental data indicates that neither velocity nor distance

are fully linear terms and that they should be coupled. Figure 29
shows that the velocity decay is not a linear function. K-factor
model should therefore not be expected to be linear either. Since
decay is a function of velocity and distance, the guess at nonlinearity and coupling between the terms seemed educated. These
features are reflected by the model.
From the statistical point of view, many models were
hypothesized and then evaluated using forward and backward
sequencing regression techniques. Statistical criteria ( F test)
were then applied to determine if a term was essential to the
correlation of a data set or not. There are, however, many
different potential terms, couplings, and orders that may be
combined to generate a model. In the end, however, it is incumbent
on the good sense of the researcher to suspect what is going to be
most important. This is probably why, after weeks of evaluating
scores of models statistically, the model chosen in the very
beginning proved significantly superior to the next best.
Initial efforts to fit data sets with the model centered on
the discrete measurements taken at 0", 2", and 4" from the filter
face. Figures 30, 31, and 32 show the k-measured versus k-predicted
37
plots for 0 H , 2", and 4" respectively. At 0 M there is significant

variation in the actual and predicted values. At 4" there is
reasonably good correspondence with a few points outside the + 10%
range. At 2" all predicted points fall within 10%, and almost all
within + 7%.
Figures 33, 34, and 35 show similar success was encountered
with the fitting of both ERVA and MRVA data obtained using the
continuous sweep technique. Initial assumptions that the continuous
sampling technique would provide more accurate results at 0" and
very near the filter bank failed to materialize. It was hoped that
measuring at the filter face would work out because of the
convenience of not having to fit an attachment to the RVA to keep
it at a constant distance from the filter face and because the RVA
would necessarily be perpendicular to the flow. Inadvertently
tilting the RVA to a 15 degree angle of attack to the oncoming flow
can result in velocity readings being up to 20% low.
Figure 29: Velocity vs.
Distance from Filter Face
AVERAGE VELOCITY
0.5
Series i
Series 4
1.5
2.5
DISTANCE FROM FILTER FACE

Series 2
Series 5
3.5
- * - Series 3
- - Series 6
Figures 3 6 - 3 9 illustrate the sensitivity of k-measured to

the other parameters in the model: distance, slot width, slot
spacing, and area. The k-measured values shown were obtained from
discrete velocity readings at 0", 2", and 4" and are also
representative of the 0", 2", and 4" data from the continuous
sampling technique.
38
Figure 30: K-Measured vs.

K-Predicted @ 0" (Discrete)
K-PREDICTED
0.56
0.56
0.65
0.6
0.7
0.76
K-MEASURED
HOOD # 3
HOOD # 2
HOOD # 6
HOOD # 4
0.8
0.86
0.9
HOOD # 1

1.1
K-PREDICTED
1.05
+10%
^ ^
++
x
+ > < X
xjxr
.P^x
X
X
J^*^
0.96
a
0.9
J^^
0.86
0.86
-10%
_. .
1.06
0.96
1
K-MEASURED
0.9
HOOD # 3
HOOD # 2
HOOD # 6
HOOD # 4
11
HOOD # 1
39

11
1.2
HOOD # 3
13
1.4
K-MEA8URED
+ HOOD # 2
16
16
HOOD #1
HOOD # 6
F i g u r e 33: K-Measured v s .
K-Predicted 0" (Continuous)
K-FACTOR PREDICTED
0.6
0.66
0.7
0.76
0.8
0.86
K-FACTOR MEASURED
HOOD # 1
HOOD # 2
HOOD # 4
HOOD # 6
0.9
0.96
HOOD # 3
40
Figure 34 : K-Measured v s .
K-Predicted 8 2" (Continuous)
K-FACTOR PREDICTED
0.95
0.95
1.05
1.1
1.15
1.2
K-FACTOR MEASURED
HOOD # 1
HOOD # 2
HOOD # 4
HOOD # 6
1.25
1.3
HOOD # 3
Figure 35 : K-Measured v s .
K-Predicted 8 4" (Continuous)
K-FACTOR PREDICTED
1.3
1.4
16
1.8
K-FACTOR MEA8URED
HOOD #1
HOOD #4
+
x
HOOD #2
HOOD #6
17
19
HOOD #3
41
F i g u r e 36: K-Measured v s .
Distance
K-MEASURED
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6 0.61
-1
^
0
'
1
- _ i i
2
3
4
DISTANCE FROM FILTER FACE, In

Filter Slot Width
K-MEASURED
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1 h
1r
*
0.9
0.8
0.7 0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
'
I
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
FILTER SLOT WIDTH, In
42
Figure 38: K-Measured VS

Filter Slot Spacing
1.6
K-MEASURED
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.8
0.71-
0.6
0.6
1
16
2.6
3.6
FILTER SLOT SPACING, In
F i g u r e 3 9 : K-Measured Vs Area
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.1
K-MEASURED
-
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6 h
0.6
6
' " !
a
a
""i
a
a
:
a
1
1
a
a
10
11
12
AREA, Ft~2
43
Figure 36 reconfirms that the average velocity readings and

therefore the measured k-factors show the least variation at 2".
Figures 40 and 41 show the comparability of the MRVA and ERVA for
discrete readings taken at 2" from the filter face and how close to
unity the k-factor is at this distance. Again, the same is true for
both RVA's using the continuous sweep method (Figures 44 and 45).
A comparison of Figures 42 and 43 indicate that the discrete and
continuous sweep techniques are virtually interchangeable when used
at 2". Both sampling techniques do show some systematic differences
at 0" and at 4" from the filter face, and have therefore used to
generate two different models. If the continuous sampling technique
is used, the k-factor model coefficients of the continuous
technique must be used to calculate a k-factor. Likewise, the model
coefficients of the discrete technique must be employed When using
the discrete sampling technique.
Based on these results, the 0 n test points were removed and
preliminary test data at 1", 3", 6", and 8" were included in the
data set. The coefficient of determination for the model improved
substantially over the original data set, specifically for the
continuous method.
Figures 46 (discrete) and 47 (continuous)
indicate that almost all predicted k-factors fall within + 10% of
the measured k-factors. While this model was generated from
discrete measurements taken from 1" to 8" Mfrom the baffle filter
face, all predicted k-factors from 2" to 6 fall within + 10% of
the measured k-factor. The field test method therefore recommends
that readings be taken at 2" from the filter face or farther if
there are extraneous circumstances making the measurement at 2"
impossible.
As was mentioned in the test procedures section, the model
developed for the continuous method is applicable for vertical as
well as horizontal. Tests conducted after the development of the
k-factor procedure validate this conclusion. Sample results are
shown in Table 12.
It is recommended, however, that the
horizontal sweep be used whenever possible, since the data was
collected using the horizontal sweep.
Table 12:
Continuous Method
Comparison B/W Model Application to
Horizontal and Vertical sweeps
Flowrate: 3500 scfm
D
V e r t i c a l Kstd v
'
H o r i z o n t a l Kstd h
%Error v
%Error h
Inch
Ft/Min
Ft/Min
337
0.91116
349
0.91939
0.89
5.43
2
3
306
268
1.03778
1.16547
314
295
1.04010
1.16356
4.34
2.63
7.31
12.78
Figure40 : MRVA Discrete

Reading 2"
1.3
K-FACTOR
1.15
1 k
*
*
ft
A
X
*
X
::
0.85
f 7
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
SCFM
*
MVA HOOD #1
MVA HOOD # 2
MVA HOOD #4
MVA HOOD # 6
MVA HOOD #3
F i g u r e 4 1 : ERVA D i s c r e t e
Reading @ 2"
K-FACTOR
1.3
1.16
4A
1
0.85
0.7
1000
1500
2000
3000
2600
3500
SCFM
+
DVA HOOD #1
DVA HOOD #2
DVA HOOD #4
DVA HOOD #5
DVA HOOD #3
45
Figure 42 : RVA D i s c r e t e
Readings 6 2"
K-FACTOR
1.3
1.16
* ..
o
* .
4X
ft
'
2000
2500
3000
0.85

0.7
1000
1500
3500
SCFM
MVA HOOD #1 +
DVA HOOD #1 *
MVA HOOD #2
DVA HOOD #2
MVA HOOD #3 *
DVA HOOD #3 *
MVA HOOD #4 *
DVA HOOD #4
Figure 43: RVA Continuous

Readings 6 2"
1.3
K-FACTOR
&
1.16
A
i
0.85
*
a
0.7
a"
&
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
MVA HOOD #2
DVA HOOD #2
MVA HOOD #4 *
DVA HOOD #4
3500
SCFM
*
MVA HOOD #1 +
DVA HOOD #1 *
MVA HOOD #3
DVA HOOD #3
46
Figure 44: MRVA Continuous

Reading 2"
1.3
K-FACTOR
1.15
0.85
0.7
1000
1500
2000
3000
2500
3500
SCFM
* MVA HOOD #2
z
MVA HOOD #6
MVA HOOD #1
A
MVA HOOD #4
* MVA HOOD #3
Figure 45: ERVA Continuous

Reading @ 2"
K-FACTOR
1.3
1.15
t
1 o
0.85
&
'
0.7
1000
1500
2000
3000
2500
3500
SCFM
+
A
DVA HOOD #1
DVA HOOD #2
DVA HOOD #4
DVA HOOD #6
DVA HOOD #3
47
Figure 46: RVA Discrete

Readings 1" to 8"
0.7
0.8
0.9
11
1.2
1.3
14
16
16
17
K-FACTOR MEASURED
HOOD #1
+ HOOD #3
HOOD #5
* HOOD #4
HOOD #2
Figure 4 7 : RVA Continuous

Readings at 1" to 8 M
0.8
0.9
- HOOD #1
o HOOD #4
1.1
12
1.3
1.4
16
K-FACTOR M E A S U R E D
+ HOOD #2
X HOOD #5
16
17
18
* HOOD #3
48
Extending the above multivariable k-factor model (or a subset

thereof) to the slot exhaust hoods has proven to be more difficult
than first thought. The first and most important reason for this
difficulty is the entirely different nature of the slot hood. The
velocities at the inlet are on the order of 300% higher than the
600 to 700 sfpm velocities seen at the baffle filter hoods. The
hood geometry is so different from the baffle filter hood that the
aerodynamics in the immediate vicinity of the exhaust inlet are
likewise significantly different. Moreover, the geometric
differences from one slot to the next can result in entirely
different flow streamlines. The flow into exhaust inlet of Hood #5
(slot exhaust module #1) is relatively well behaved in comparison
to Hood #3 where the flow turns from a near vertical direction
around a blunt lip and then flows downward at roughly a 20 angle
to the horizontal. Positioning the RVA to catch the maximum
velocity reading on Hood #3 proved to be difficult.
Attempts to correlate slot exhaust hood data resulted in Kmeasured vs K-predicted errors of 40% and greater when readings
from 0" to 4" were included in the data set. Better results have
been obtained with the inclusion of readings from 1" to 3" , as
shown in Figure 48. Part of the problem is undoubtedly due to the
fact that only two slot hoods have been tested. At least four to
six slot hoods should be tested in order to gain confidence in the
resulting k-factor model. And it is more than likely that even more
slot hoods would have to be tested so that the laboratory analysis
has a chance to work in the field.
49
Figure 48: K-Predicted Vs

K-Measured for 1" - 3" Data Set
K-PREDICTED
4.5
16
2.6
3.5
K-MEASURED
Pressure Differential Technique. Method #3
The static pressure differential versus flow rate data is
given in Figure 49 for the five baffle filter hoods and in Figure
50 for the two slot hoods. A number of models have been run in
attempts to correlate the pressure data to flow rates. None have
been even moderately successful because they have failed to account
for the baffle filter characteristics that correlate to pressure
drop across the filter. A model is currently being written that
adds the width of the most constricted passageway through the
filter and the number of 90 turns the flow goes through in the
filter. These two variables will be added to the exhaust collar
area and the volume of the exhaust plenum in order to generate a
more accurate model.
Successive attempts to correlate static pressure drop across
the grease removal system (baffle filters or insertable slot inlet
extractors) to a reference AMCA-210 measured flow have not been
successful. Error bands of up to 40% in calculated flows have
resulted from the use of the k-factor models. The inclusion of
filter characteristics that would indicate the level of pressure
loss.through the filter or extractor have not significantly helped
reduce the wide error band in calculated flows.
50
Figure 49: Static Pressure Differential

vs. Flow Rate for Baffle Filter Hoods
PRESSURE DROP. INCHES W.C.
1500
2000
2500
3000
VOLUME FLOW RATE, SCFM
HOOD # 1
HOOD # 4
-- HOOD # 2
-*- HOOD # 5
3500
4000
HOOD # 3
Figure 50: Static Pressure Differential

vs. Flow Rate for Slot Hoods
PRESSURE DROP, INCHES W.C.
1500
2000
2500
3000
VOLUME FLOW RATE. SCFM
- * - HOOD # 3
4000
- * " HOOD # 5
51
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Method #1
A k-factor procedure has been developed and verified to be
accurate within + 10% to facilitate the measurement of grease hood
flow rates in the field. If velocity readings are taken at 2" from
the filter face, then the deviation of predicted to reference
exhaust rate is well within + 7%. The field test method is valid
for baffle filter hoods only, and should be performed with the
cooking appliances off. A 4" head mechanical or electronic digital
rotating vane anemometer can be used interchangeably in either the
discrete or continuous sampling technique method, but different
model coefficients must be used with the selection of a particular
sampling technique. Measurements should be taken at 2" from the
filter face, but can be taken at up to 6" away from the filter bank
with comparable results. The k-factor procedure is fully detailed
in Appendix A.
Heat source tests, conducted with a gas-fired open top range
underneath an 8' hood, indicate that the RVA is susceptible to
damage when subjected to higher temperatures. Most manufacturers
indicate that 160 F is the upper limit for RVA's whose head is
made of plastic. In the tests conducted above a gas fired range
with the two back burners on, one of the electronic RVA's was
damaged due to the deformation of the plastic head in the heated
flow.
Attempts to extend the multi-variable k-factor model developed
for the baffle filter hoods to the slot exhaust hood have not
yielded satisfactory results. Different models are continuing to be
evaluated. However, two to four more slot hoods need to be tested
to gain a better understanding of the different designs and develop
a more appropriate k-factor procedure.
There are a number of important limitations on the use of the
testing method described in Method #1. These limitations are
outlined in the Appendix under Measurement and Calculation
Procedures section.
Method #3
Correlation of pressure data to flow rate through a k-factor
model has also proven to be more problematic than originally
expected. The thoroughly non-linear relationship between pressure
and flow and the many potentially significant physical parameters
require further investigation. There is also a need to test more
hoods and grease extractors or baffle filters combinations in order
to gain confidence that what ever model is developed will work
satisfactorily in the field.
A brief survey of the number of different designs of
commercially available baffle filter designs indicates that there
52
is a very large range in construction quality and pressure loss

through the filter. Coming up with an effective k-factor procedure
would mean that the dozen or more different basic design types
would have to be tested in the development of the procedure. There
is the question of fouling due to the build up of grease and the
inability to effectively clean the filter that could further
complicate the use of the field procedure. Furthermore, lighter
filter designs can be easily damaged during shipping and/or
cleaning, thereby significantly altering the pressure loss
characteristics of the filter. Pressure drop across the filter bank
is also a function of how tightly the individual filters fit
together. The larger the gaps in between the filters, the smaller
the pressure drop. This is a factor that is difficult to control in
the field, making a pressure drop to exhaust flow rate correlation
even more tenuous. Finally, the end user is often permitted to
acquire a hood without filters and specify the baffle filter
himself. Decisions are often made for financial reasons, with the
result that structurally unsound filters are chosen.
Ultimately, Method #3 should provide the greatest accuracy and
flexibility in the testing and balancing of grease hoods under the
entire range of conditions found in the normal daily operation of
the commercial kitchen. Flow measurements of grease hood exhaust
and supply flow rates can be measured instantaneously with
appliances either on or off. Because a flow reading can be taken
instantaneously, it can be correlated to a coincident reading of
kitchen static pressure relative to the outdoor ambient. This
provides the testing and balancing contractor the vital information
needed to ensure the successful operation of the kitchen
ventilation system.
Further attempts to correlate pressure loss across the filter
or grease extractor bank through a k-factor procedure have proven
unsuccessful. It is extremely difficult to specify structural or
geometric characteristics of a filter or extractor that translates
into corresponding pressure loss. Attempts were made to correlate
the smallest constriction and the number of flow turns or reversals
in the grease removal system to the pressure loss. Unfortunately,
there are filter types (the filters that came with hood #2) that
are of an entirely different design from the conventional baffle
filters. Even among the conventional baffle type filters, there is
enough difference in the baffle geometry to make it reducible to
parameters that can be easily measured in the field. Variable Model
Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 7 models were tested. These models included
various combinations of the following variable: pressure difference
across the filter or extractor, exhaust plenum volume, exhaust
collar
area,
maximum
calculated
velocity
through
the
filter/extractor, number of flow turns in the filter/extractor,
degree of the turns, smallest flow constriction in the grease
removal system. None of these models gave better than a 25%
correlation of pressure loss to reference flow rate.
The development of Method #3 or a like pressure loss to flow
correlation method will undoubtedly depend upon industry
53
involvement. First of all, a test protocol will have to be

developed for correlating pressure to exhaust flow in hoods. Then
ventilator and filter manufacturers will have to use the protocol
to rate a hood-grease removal system. This method could work for
new ventilation systems. Based on the results of this project,
there seems to be little hope that a general k-factor procedure
could be developed for existing hood-grease removal systems.
54
REFERENCES
Walpole, R. W., Probability and Statistics for Engineers and
Scientists. MacMillan Publishing CO., Inc., 1978.
Sauer, H. J., Howell, R. H., "Airflow Measurements At Coil
Faces With Vane Anemometers: Statistical Correlation and
Recommended Field Measurement Procedure", ASHRAE
TRANSACTIONS. V.96, Pt. 1, 1990.
Holman, J. P., Gajda, W. J., Experimental Methods For
Engineers. McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1984.
Soling, S. P., Knapp, J., "Laboratory Design of Energy
Efficient Exhaust Hoods", ASHRAE TRANSACTIONS. V.91, Pt. 1,
1985.
Suppo, M. J., "Airflow Measurement at Air-System Coils using
the Rotating Vane Anemometer", ASHRAE TRANSACTIONS. V.90,
Pt. 2, 1984.
55
APPENDIX
MEASUREMENT AND CALCULATION PROCEDURE:

The following are detailed steps necessary for the application of
the k-factor model to wall canopy grease hood exhaust rate
measurement. The k-factor model at standard density air is given
by:
Kstd = ai**! 2 + a 2 *x 1 *x 2 + a 3 *x 2 2 + a 4 *x x + a 5 *x 2
+ a 6 *x 3 + a7*x4 + a 8 *x 5 + a 9 ,
E q u a t i o n (A-J
where:
xx
density
= Scaled averaged measured

air, (fpm/100).
velocity
at standard
x2 = Outward perpendicular distance of reading from the

filter face, inches.
x3 = Baffle filter slot spacing, inches.
x4 = Baffle filter slot width, inches.
x5 = Overall area of filter bank opening, (ft2) .
STEP 1
a.
Measure the overall height and length of the filter

bank opening (not including the filter frame) in
units of ft, then calculate the area:
Areaact (ft2) = length (ft) x width (ft)
b.
Measure the length of the hood face (lenact) , then

normalize the Areaact to an 8 ft hood:
Areanorm = Areaact x 8/lenact ,
Equation (A2)
x5 = A r e a ^
Note that for an 8 ft hood, lenact is 8 ft and
x5 = A r e a ^ = Areaact
c. Measure the slot spacing and slot width of the baffle
filter in inches as shown in Figure 51:
x3 = Slot width, inches
x4 = Slot spacing, inches
A-l
Figure 51: Slot Width and Spacing Measurements
Spacing
STEP 2
Select the outward perpendicular distance (Xj) in inches

from the filter face at which the measurement will be
taken. The recommended distance is 2 inches:
^ = outward perpendicular distance, inches
STEP 3
Select either the discrete or continuous sampling

technique, then look up the appropriate coefficients
,a9] of the selected method for use in
[ar x 2'
equation
(A.,) afcove from the Table shown below. When
using the continuous sweep method, the sweep can be made
in either the horizontal or vertical direction.
RVA 4 Inch head
DISCRETE
CONTINUOUS
METHOD
METHOD
-0. 00268831
-0. 03918449
-0. 01158696
0. 12545435
0. 30267142
-0. 01116386
-0. 92214016
-0..00507270
1 25997228
0. 00227387
0. 03849168
0. 00607083
0. 12226597
0. 27586471
0 07767751
0 .37998932
0 .04270867
0 .83738386
STEP 4
Discrete Method: Each filter face will have a total of

five velocity measurements using a 4" head RVA, one
reading at each corner and one at the center as shown in
Figure 28-a. Each measurement shall require a 15 seconds
A-2
minimum stabilization period during which the instrument

is held in position and the vanes allowed to rotate
freely. Once a stable rotation is reached, initiate the
measurement without movement of the instrument for the
recommended minimum time of 40 seconds. The five readings
are then averaged to yield an average velocity for the
filter. This entire process is repeated for each filter
face.
Continuous Method: One velocity measurement is obtained
for each filter face which will be the average velocity
over the filter. This is done using a 4" head RVA to
sweep the filter face horizontally or vertically in a
constant motion that approximates the pattern shown in
Figure 28-b & c. Care must be taken to cover the entire
filter face without excessive overlap of the path. The
measurement is initiated by positioning the RVA at the
beginning of the sweep pattern and allowing its rotation
to stabilize.
The instrument is then activated and
placed in motion, sweeping the filter face at a constant
speed.
The recommended minimum time for any sweep
pattern is 40 seconds. Repeat this process for the
remaining filters.
General Recommendations
Methods:
Continuous
and
Discrete
Some rotating vane anemometers are supplied with a

correction factors that must be applied to the
measured velocities and are independent of the kfactor model. These factors are specific to the
instrument and should be used prior to using the kfactor model.
The minimum time required to reach a stabilized vane

rotation is 15 seconds prior to initializing the
velocity sample. Additional time may be required
under various conditions and good judgement of stable
rotation is crucial in obtaining an accurate result.
All velocity measurements must be made with the plane

of rotation of the vane perpendicular to the direction
of the flow being measured.
The recommended distance from the filter face to the

face of the instrument is 2". It is also suggested
that a fixture be added to the instrument which will
maintain this distance with minimal effort. A simple
fixture (as shown in figure 52) may be a ruler being
taped to the instrument in such a way that its end
will rest on the filter surface. It is also important
to note that any additions or modifications must not
interfere with the air passage area through the
rotating vane.
A-3
Figure 32:
Taping Ruler to RVA
Figure 53: RVA Position at Filter Face
A-4
STEP 5
Apply any manufacturer correction factors to the measured

velocities. These factors are specific to the instrument
and are independent of the k-factor model (see examples) .
Some anemometers do not require corrections-
STEP 6
Compute the specific density of the air. The calculation

procedures are as follows:
a.
Obtain the air dry and wet bulb temperatures Td &

Tw measured in degrees F, and the barometric
pressure Pb (PSI) in the kitchen area.
b.
Look up the saturation pressure Psat(PSI) at the

measured wet bulb temperature Tw from the ASHRAE
handbook, Steam Tables.
c.
Compute the humidity ratio W (lbv/lba),

Ws* = 0.62198 (Psat/(Pb - Psat))
W = ((1093 - 0.556TW)*WS* - 0.240 (Td - Tw) )
/(1093 + 0.444Td - Tw)
d.
Compute specific volume SpVol(ft3/l*>), and

specific density SpDen(lb/ft3)
SpVol = (Ra(Td+459.6)/Pb) (1 + 1.6078W)
Ra = 5 3 . 3 5 f t - l b f / l b m R
SpDen = 1/SpVol
e.
Correct the measured velocities (MVEL) to standard

density air. The correction should be made according
to the following conditions:
* If the temperatures and pressure (ie. Td, Tw, Pb)
are assumed uniform through out the test, compute
the average of the measured velocities by summing
all readings and then dividing the sum by the
number of readings. Once the average is computed,
it is then corrected to standard density air:
MVELavg =
MVEL/N
M^std.avg = M ^ a v g
(SpDen/0 . 075) 1/2
* If the temperatures and pressure are measured for

each reading, then each reading is corrected to
standard density air using it's own conditions of
Td, Tw, Pb, and SpDen:
MVELstd = MVEL (SpDen/0.075)1/2
A-5
for each reading and

MVELstd.avg =
STEP 7
MVELstd/N
S c a l e down t h e a v e r a g e v e l o c i t y w h i c h w i l l b e u s e d i n t h e
k - f a c t o r model by a f a c t o r of 100:
X
1 "
M^std.av/100
STEP 8
At this step, all necessary information should be

available for computing the k-factor. Substitute the
variables X,,,..., X5 and the constant coefficients
a1,...,a9 into Equation (A,,) , then calculate Kstd.
STEP 9
Calculate the volume flow (exhaust) rate through the

filter bank using
Qstd (scfm)
= K std x MVEL stdavg ( f t / m i n )
x Areaact
(ft2)
When computing the hood exhaust rate in Step 8, be sure

to use the actual area (Areaact) of the filter bank, not
the normalized area (Area J used in the k-factor model.
*
norm'
Now that the flow rate has been calculated using the k-factor
procedure, the average velocity in the exhaust duct can be
calculated. This is done by assuming a top hat velocity profile in
the duct and using the formula, Vduct = Qstd/Aduct.
A PC based user-friendly computer program written in FORTRAN
has been developed by the American Gas Association Laboratories for
carrying out the k-factor procedure.
LIMITATIONS OF THE METHOD:
The following items are the limitations of the method
described above. Failure to fulfill all of these limitations would
void the accuracy of the method and could damage the anemometer.
1.
All cooking appliances must be off.
2.
Short circuit hoods can be tested only if the short circuit

supply is turned off and supplied from elsewhere in the
kitchen.
3.
Method #1 applies to baffle filter type hoods only. Method #1

does not give reliable results on slot inlet exhaust hoods.
4.
Method #1 has not been validated for other than wall canopy
hoods. Backshelf and island canopy hoods can be tested, but
without any guarantee that the results will be + 10% of the kfactor calculated exhaust rate.
A-6
The research done in RP623 was conducted exclusively on 8 ft.

hoods, and the k-factor model was developed from this
database. Be sure to normalize hood exhaust inlet area to the
8 ft as specified in the Appendix.
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS:
This sub-section describes sample procedure for carrying out
the K-factor procedure for the discrete and continuous sampling
techniques. The format of the examples may be used as a templet
for gathering information and calculations. Steps 1 through 3 are
not shown in the examples because they are information gathering
steps.
EXAMPLE 1: USING CONTINUOUS METHOD
GIVEN:
Hood
Length
: wall Canopy
: 8 Ft Hood
Area of
Filter Bank X5
Slot Spacing X,
Slot Width X4
Distance from
Filter face X2
Instrument
No. of Filters
: 7.68 Ft2
: 1.25 In
: 1.0 In
: 2 Inches
: Mechanical Rotating Vane Anemometer
:4
Measured Values:
Dry Bulb Temperature: 77 F
Wet Bulb Temperature: 56 F
Barometric Pressure : 29.54 In HG (14.509 PSI)
Saturation pressure
at the wet bulb temp: 0.45175 In HG (0.22188 PSI)
STEP 4:
Measured Velocities: Ft/Min

Filter:
1 2
508
468
3
424
4
428
Calculations:
STEP 5: Corrections applied to the velocity readings provided by
the manufacturer: Ft/Min
Filter:
STEP 6:
1 2
503
465
3
423
4
427
Humidity Ratio W = 0.00487 lbyib.,

Specific Density SpDen = 0.07241 lb/Ft3
The temperatures and pressure are uniform for this test.
Therefore the average is computed and correction to
standard density air is made on the average:
MVELavg = 455 Ft/Min
A-8
M^stdavg = 447 Ft/Min

STEP 7: Scale down t h e average v e l o c i t y a t standard d e n s i t y a i r
by 100:
X, = 4.47 Ft/Min
STEP 8: Substitute the coefficients of the continuous method in
the model and X1f...,X5, then calculate the k-factor:
K
std = 1-00056
STEP 9: Compute the exhaust flow rate:

Qstd = 3431 SCFM
The AMCA 210 flow rate at standard density air is 3379 SCFM. The
error in the calculated exhaust rate is 1.53%.
EXAMPLE 2: USING CONTINUOUS METHOD
GIVEN:
Hood
Length
: wall Canopy
: 8 Ft Hood
Area of
Filter Bank X5
Slot Spacing Xj
X3
Slot Width -'\
Distance from
Filter face X2
Instrument
No. of Filters
: 11.38 Ft2
: 3.125 In
: 0.875 I n
: 2 Inches
:4
Measured Values:
Dry Bulb Temperature: 79.78 F
Wet Bulb Temperature: 66.12 F
Barometric Pressure : 29.1 In HG (14.293 PSI)
Saturation pressure
at the wet bulb temp: 0.64678 In HG (0.31767 PSI)
STEP 4:
Filter:
1 2
107
124
3
117
4
119
Calculations:
Filter:
1 2
122
139
3
132
4
134
A-9
STEP 6:
Humidity Ratio W = 0.01097 lbyiba

MVELavg = 1 3 2 Ft/Min
M^Lstd.avg =
128
Ft/Min
STEP 7: Scale down the average velocity at standard density air

by 100:
X, = 1.28 Ft/Min
the model and X1#...,X5f then calculate the k-factor:
Kstd = 0.97515
Qstd = 1415 SCFM
EXAMPLE 3: USING DISCRETE METHOD
GIVEN:
Hood
Length
Area of
Filter Bank X5
Slot Spacing X3
Slot Width X4
Distance from
Filter face Xg
Instrument
No. of Filters
: wall Canopy
: 8 Ft Hood
: 7.68 Ft2
: 1.25 In
: 1.0 In
: 2 Inches
:4
Measured Values:
Dry Bulb Temperature:
Wet Bulb Temperature:
Barometric Pressure :
Saturation pressure
at the wet bulb temp:
77 F
56 F
29.54 In HG (14.509 PSI)
0.45175 In HG (0.22188 PSI)
A-10
STEP 4:
Filter:
\ /
543
405
425
490
495
414
530
\ /
420
426
494
543
396
\ /
404
440
522
455
396
456
388
578
Calculations:
Filter:
\ /
536
405
424
486
491
414
524
Average:
STEP 6:
473
\ /
419
425
490
536
397
\ /
404
436
516
453
397
444
454
390
456
570
461
Humidity Ratio W = 0.00487 l b y i ^

MVELavg = 459 Ft/Min
M^std.avg =
4 5 1
Ft/Min
STEP 7: Scale down the average velocity at standard density air

by 100:
X, = 4.51 Ft/Min
the model and X1,...fX5, then calculate the k-factor:
Kstd = 0.91178
Qstd =3155 SCFM
A-ll
INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION CURVE

ASHRAE PROJECT #623-RP
10
cc
8
2
u.
O
6
CO
to
I4
z
UJ
S
2
3
BTTTTnTTrrrWTTTmWTW?
.W/.;.'.THT
.LU.l.Lll.'.l..'.
IL
UJ
K::M:::4:;:;::M::M;::4:::K::K:;M:::4::::::K::M::::::*:;:K::H::
x 4 A 4 t i > H 4
+:::K;:H:::4::;*-:::K;:H:: 4 t K } * 4
:K::K::H:: 4
h::;K::H:::::K::K::H::;4::::::K:;M:::;:K::K::H:::*:;;::K:;H:: t
<"
t-
::K::H:::+:;::;K:;W:;
h H 4
h X 4 t K H 4
<
RVA 4" Head

-HDRVA 4" Head
^DRVA 2.75" Head
a
i-
co
O
(0
z
o
p
>
UJ
20
40
60
80 100 120 140 160
SCFM MERIAM LAMINAR FLOW ELEMENT
5/28/91
MRVA: Mechanical Rotating Vane Anemometer
DRVA: Digital Rotating Vane Anemometer
INSTRUMENT CALIBRATION CURVE

ASHRAE PROJECT #623-RP
u.
Ill
a
s
u.
O
CO
co
KZ
UJ
S
>
H
3
OC
i-
co
z
2
UL
o
CO
o
p
<
>
UJ
a
8*
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
0
::K::M::M:;:K::K::M:::4:
::K::M:::4:::K:;K::H:::;
::u::u::u:::u::u::u::;
>
>
*t
* H 4 f r K H 4 f r h M 4 f h * 4 4 t - K M 4 1
>
<
>
>
U 4 ^ k k 4 ^ k k * j
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!:
20
40
60
80
-WIRVA4" Head
+ DRVA 4* Head
* D R V A 2.75" Head
100 120 140 160
SCFM MERIAM LAMINAR FLOW ELEMENT
5/29/91
MRVA: Mechanical Rotating Vane Anemometer
DRVA: Digital Rotating Vane Anemometer

RP623 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RP623 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2012 ASHRAE www.ashrae.org.

TESTING GREASE HOODS

DECEMBER 18, 1992

Velocity Profile Technique, Method #1

Pressure Differential Technique, Method #3

Statistical Regression Model

Velocity Profile Technique, Method #1

Pressure Differential Technique, Method #3

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Velocity Profile @ 1500 scfm

Figure Velocity Profile @ 1500 scfm

Comparison of 4" ERVA, Flow Grid, and

Sensitivity of Velocity Average to

Test Matrix for Method #1

Horizontal Plane Velocity Profile

Forward Selection Stepwise Regression

Regression Analysis Models

Simple Regression Analysis Matrix

K-Factor Regression Coefficients

Continuous Method Comparison of Horizontal

Hood #1 - View of Hood Reservoir

Hood #2 - View of Hood Reservoir

Hood #3 - View of Hood Face

Hood #3 - View of Filter Bank

Hood #4 - View of Filter Bank

Hood #5 - View of Hood Face

Hood #5 - View of Filter Bank

Hood #3 - Slot Exhaust/Grease Extractor

Hood #5 - Slot Exhaust/Grease Extractor

Hood #5 - Slot Exhaust/Grease Extractor

Hood #1 - Side View

Hood #1 - Filter Bank View

Hood #2 - Side View

Hood #2 - Filter Bank View

Hood #3 - Side View

Hood #3 - Filter Bank View

Hood #4 - Side View

Hood #4 - Filter Bank View

Hood #5 - Side View

Hood #5 - Filter Bank View

Hood #4, 5 Filter

CKV Laser Lab Facility

8 ft Hood Test Cell

Horizontal Plane Velocity Profile

Filter Sampling Techniques

Velocity vs. Distance from Filter

K-Measured Vs. K-Predicted 0" (Discrete)

K-Measured Vs. K-Predicted 2" (Discrete)

K-Measured Vs. K-Predicted @ 4" (Discrete)

K-Measured Vs. K-Predicted @ 0" (Continuous)

K-Measured Vs. K-Predicted 2" (Continuous)

K-Measured Vs. K-Predicted @ 4" (Continuous)

K-Measured Vs. Distance

K-Measured Vs. Filter Slot Width

K-Measured Vs. Filter Slot Spacing

K-Measured Vs. Area

MRVA Discrete Reading 2"

ERVA Discrete Reading 2"

RVA Discrete Readings 2"

RVA Continuous Readings 2"

MRVA Continuous Reading 2"

ERVA Continuous Reading @ 2"

RVA Discrete Readings at 1" to 8"

K std = a1SMVEL2 + a2SMVELD + a3SMVEL*FSS

+ a12FSW2 + a13FSWFBA + a14FBA2

std = a^SMVEL2 + a2SMVELD + a3D2 + a4SMVEL + a5*D