AIVC

#13,671
ASHRAE Journal '

Ventilation for Enclosed

Parking Garages
By Moncef Krartt, Ph.D., P.E., and Arselene Ayarl, Ph.D.
indication of risks from exposure to CO
Member ASHRAE
in parkin g garages. A I imit of 25 ppm
for
hmg-tcm1 CO cxposure would meet al­
utomobile I arkin!!garage· an be partially open or fully enclosed. most every co<le and standard� li�ted in
foh!c I.
Partial I pen l:!arng s ar typically above-grade \Vith open sides Thi.: ventilation rate re4uireml.'nts rec­
A and g ncra l l d n t n · d mechanical ventilation. However, folly ommended by ASH RAE and other codes
;ire in<lq1endenr of the characteristics of
enclosed parking garages arc usually underground and require mechanical
the parking g arag e and do not cnnsider
ventilation. Indeed. in the absence ofventilation. cndoscJ parking facilities the \ arinus paramckrs that may affect
indoor air gualit.y. sw:h as the ernis�ion
present several indoor air qua I ity problems. The most serious is the emis­
generation rate and the acceptable pol­
sion of high levels ofcarbon monoxide ((0) by cars within the parking l utan t level. A new design method is
needed to dctcm1inc the ventilation rate
garages. Other concerns related to endoscd gar..iges arc the presence ofoil
n.·quired for a wide nmgc ofcndoscd park­
and 1.rnsolinc
-
fumes. and other contaminant-; such as oxides ofnitrogen
-
(NO\ ) ing garages. Thi s design md h od slwuld
be llexiblc to accommodate rlllt on!;. the
and smoke haze from diesel engines.
various CO cxpo�ure lnnih defined by the
To d t·t crm i ne
the adequate ventilation is. a monituring of CO con­
continuous star11forJs but also the d1<.Jnging. emission
rate for garages, two factors arL' typically centrations is the moni­
conducrcJ. with inventory from motor vehicle.�.
.:unsidereJ: the number of car� in opera­ toring system being interlm:ked with the
tion and the emission quantities. The num­ mechanical exhaust equipment. The ac­ Field Testing Results
ber of cars in operation depends on the ccptahle kvel ufcontaminant rnnccntra­ As part of an ASllRAE-sp1insorcd
type of thl! facility served by the parking tions varies signi tirnntly from code lu project (945-RP}, ticld mea�urcmcnts for
garage and may vary from 3'�;, (in shop­ code. A consensus on acceptahlc con­ the seven tested parking facilities w.:rc
ping an.:as) up to 20'�'o (in sports stadi­ taminant levels for enclosed parking ga­ pcrfonned. The air change rates are mea­
ums) of the total vchick capacity. The rages is needed. sured using the tracer gas technique. First.
emission of carbon monox idc depends on Un fortunately. Standard 62- l 9X9 does t hc tr;1cer gas (SF,,l was injected in the
individual cars including factors such as not address the issue of \entilation con­ bu ildi n g directly or through the supply
the age of the car. the engine power. and trol through contaminant monitoring for fans, Then. the concentration of the tracer
the level of car maintenance. enclosed garages. Thus. ASHRAE com­ gas was monitored using a ficld-portabk
For enclosed parking facilities. ANSI! missioned a rescard1 projeu (945-RP) to eb:tron capture gas chromatograph. For
ASllRAE Standard 62-1989. 1;:111ilutio11 evaluate c ur r ent ventilation standards a more detailed description of the fidd
/i1r Acceptahle Indoor Air ()uafi�i· speci­ and recommend rates appropri:1te to cur­ measurements. sec Rd�rcncc 4.
fics a fixed vcntih1tion rate of below 7.62 rent vehicle cmissions/usagt:.
L/s·m' ( 1.5 ct'rn/fl') of gr oss floor area.: About the Authors
Therefore, a ventilation flow of about Ventilation Regulation Moncef Krartl, Ph.D., P.E., is an
11.25 air changes per hour is required for Tab/<! I pro\ i<lcs a summary of exist­ associate professor in the Civil, Envi­
garages with 2 5 m (8 ft) c eil i ng height. ing codes and standard:-. for ventilating ronmental and Architectural Engineer­
However. some of the model code au­ enclosed parking garages in the Unites ing (CEAE) Department at the Univer­
thorities speei ty an air change rate of four States. and other selected w un t r ie s. As sity of Colorado at Boulder. He is a
to six air changes per hour. In addit ion . shown in Tahli! I. the recommendations member of TC 6.9, Thermal Storage,
some of the modi:! code au1horities allow for the CO exposure limits arc not consis­ and and TC 4.7, Energy Calculation.
the ventilation rat.: to \ary and be re­ tent bi.:twccn various regulations within Arselene Ayarl, Ph.D., is a consuJt­
duced to sa vc fan energy if CO-demand the United Stares and o t h er countries. ant engineer in indoor air quality and
c on1 ro l l cd ventilation is pertl11mcd. that Hm,\evcr. the recommendations offer an control systems.

52 ASHAAE Journal www.ashraej o urn al. org February 2001

 THE BEST 111EAS HAE SIMPLE.
flJIJK flHlllJNIJr
R·OMNI .s lhe First r.e tti1ng to happen 10 round a1ffu� decadei Deugneo for rctute<nlill ce111ngs anri
wuh oo}e(j auawoo. the R-OMNI pr� a dean /and comp efy !tl'!-OOtnl profile for any builefillg style

The �-OMNI is con�gured rOf use with or •Mth ceilings. and 11 dd.JUSr.able for horizontal or
vertical projection. Thai means 1ldeal111 VAV applicanons. <ind equally as ellecnve for
Ilea ng and coo�ng

A few well-rounded points:

I flow aver I 000 cfm-<juietty
I un 360 aegree air pauem offers excellen air d11tnbull00 performance
I Rem<Neabe race for easy u 1r.allan damper adJU51mem ana cleaning.
t Opuonal low-smudge outer cone.

Put a fresh new face on your air di.stribution design-the R-OMNI.

Find your local Titus representative at www.tltus-hvac.com.
ASHRAE Journal
tion of thi.: supply fans. nme (hrs) PPM Ventllatlon
foh!e ] summarizes somi:: of th e results
obtained during the field testing for sewn From the licld study. the
8 9 7.6 Us· m'
following results were ob­ ASHRAE
garages described in Ayari. ct al. (2000). 1 35 (1.5 cim!W)
The ACH Yalues present the range of the tained:
I. All the tcskd enclo se d 8 50 7.6 Us· m'
air changes per hnur mi::asurcd at va riou s ICBO
, 200 (1.5 cfm/ft')
locations of the facility using the t racer parking garages had Clln·
gas technique, whik the L s·m' (ctinilF) taminan t kvds that are sig­ NIOSH/ 8 35 -
values provide the total ventilation rate. niticantly IO\ver than those OSHA Ceiling 200

TI1e maximum and the avernge ('()con­ n:quiri.:d by even the most
stringent regulations (i.e. 25 BOCA - - 6ACH
centrntions measured d uri ng the day of
testing arc listed in Tl.Ihle] to character­ ppm of8-hour weighted a\· ·
ize the indoor quality within the tested eragi:: of CO concen1rntion). - -
SBCCI 6-7 ACH
par k i ng facility. As indicated in fohlc ], 2. The a�tual ventilation
the CO fcvd w ithin all the parking garngcs rates supplied lo the tested
NFPA - - 6ACH
ne\ i.:r exc ee ded 35 ppm even though the garagi::s were gencrJlly well

wntilation rates in all c;iscs is well below below lhosi.: rccorrnm:nded

S t an dard 62 - I 9�Q ( i .e_, ACGIH -
the 7.62 L 's·m: ( 1.5 clin:tl') rewrrnrn:ndcd by 8 25

�y Standard 62- I 9H9. The only garage bi.:low 7.62 Us·m' [1.5
that has a \ rnti lation rate ckit;e to 7 .62 ctin- n: n. 8 , 1 /13
-
Canada
3. When it is us.:d. d.:­ 1 25/30
l. s·m: ( I . 5 c fm tF) is Garage E. which
serv ..·� a large :,hopping mall with hca\ y
mand .:ontrnlli.:d vi.:ntilation
8 30 2.7 Us m:
was ahk Ill ma intain ac­ Finland
usage throughout t he day. It should be 15 minutes 75 (0.53 ctmift')
noted t h a t all the garages ari.: wntilati.:d u:ptable indoo r air qual ity

continuously except G a ra ge B. whcri.: CO within the IL' s ted enclosed France

Ceiling 200 165 Us· car
20 minutes 100 (350 cfm/car)
sensors were used to control the opera- parking facilities.
�.The location of sup ply
- - 3.3 Us· m'
Germany
and exhaust \'Cills. traffic (0.66 cfm!lt')
flow pattern, thi.: number of
Japan/Soutt
- - 6 35-7.62 Lis· m1
m o v i ng cars. and travel
Korea (1 25-1.5 cfmfft")
time ,�·ere important factors
that affect thi.: effectiveness -
Netherlandl! 0.5 200
of the ventilation system in
maintaining acceptable CO 0.91 Us· m2
Sweden - -
(or NO ) levels with in en­ (0.18 cfm/ft'-")
closed ' p ar k ing garages.
8 50
Any des ign guiddines U.K. 6-10 ACH
15 minutes 300
should account for thi.:sc
l�u:tors to determine the Table 1: Summary of U.S. and international stan­
ventilation requirements for dards tor ventilation requirements of enclosed park­
enclosed parking facilities. ing garages.
It is clear from the results
cwM:-ITY 1n STU/IH of th.: fi eld study that the current ventila­ metric analyses,' a simple design mi.:thod
oo·o816rwe tion rate specified i n Standard 62-1989 is was dev eloped lo detcnni n e the �entila­
500/o RH
outdated for endosed parking garages. t io n flow rate required 10 mainta in aeccpt­
75•0�2 5•W8 New design guidelines are needed to pro­ able CO level within endosed parking fa­
9J'l!,RH
vidc th e minimum ventilation mle required cilities . Ventilation rates fi.ir cndoscd park­
to maintain contaminant concentrations ing garages can be i.:xprcsscd in terms of
within parking facilities at the acceptable eithe r flow rate per unit floor area (L/s·m:
levels set by the relevant health authori­ or cfmlff) or air volume changes per unit
ties without large penalties in fan energy time (ACH). The design ventilation rati.:
use. Guidelines should ac co unt for vari­ required for an enclosed parking facility
ability in the parking garage traffic flow. depends on four factors:
car emissions. tra v el time, and number of I. Contaminant kvcl acccptahk within
mov ing cars. the parking facility:
2. Number of cars in operation du r ing
Design Approach peak conditions:
Based on the results of scveral para- 3. Le ngt h oftnwe! and operation time
(Circle No. 53 on Reader S.rvlce Card)

54 ASHRAE Journal www.as h raejo u rna I. o rg February 2001

 c ® us c @ . c@us us
LISTED LISTED
LISTED

a step ahead of t'1e rest

The Chimes Shopping Center ocated Jn bridge. UK is a leisur
' e center with
c
oreo ot 1 oo.ooom . The main contracfo the world reno\'meo o gross floor
o t
overseeing consultants are Ove Arup Partners. The requir ed 0 s a n -Skanska .N and the
ose levels ot the
boundary were partlculorly stringent and could not be ochiev site
available products In the ndustry. Toki Into consideration the ' llh commerclalfy

net low noise requirements

of this and other UK proj ec ts . Petro pe oped their new range
0 suPer silent chillers and
packaged rooftop air conditioning .

Petro manufactures a wide range of oducts u i ng world tarno

u
components and equipment. Petra's oducls range from mini . s s PPllets of materials,
d
Jti on lng Units, an d rn Piii units to large Water
�Petro
Chillers, Air Handlets, Packaged Air C
range of high quality standard products, as well as off ering h' provides a "Y(de
mode products. Petra's superior product quality, competlti Pile engineered custom
have enabled I to meet specific market dem ds and se e en::_and short delivery 1imes.
-.,,., �ntty growing overseas
markets easily. Petra has gained the trust and c d
n VCOfporattons.w omfiiillde:
which hove adopted 11s units as standard In t elr
d lndustrfol
p(

PE
•

Petro Engineering Industries Co.

PO.Box 141351
Amman 11 81 4 - JORDA1'j
Tel [9626) 55.31508 Fox 5531513

E-moil:petrcsho@go.com.jo
Website:w..vw.pelra-eng.corn
ASHRAE Journal
of c;:irs in the pa rki ng garage: and. 2. Nomiali/..: th e value llf generation rut..: using a rcforencc
.t. EmissiLln rate of a typical car under varitius conditions. 'alue GR =26.8 l.!Fhr·m: (CiR =2 . .+.'< gr'hr·
� tf). TI1is rctcrencc value
Data for these factors shoulJ be a v ai la bk to deten11i111.: a�'Cu­ \Va� ubta'i'ncd u;ing thc wor�t c111is �ion conditions (cold ..:mis­
ratdy the design \ entilation rate tl>r enclosed p arking gamges. sio ns in win ti.:r season) for an actual i.:ncloscd parking facility:"
A s imple Jesi gn approach is pn: scnteJ in thi.: fol l O \v i ng section • ,\ IR
(,R =---
to detcnni ne the requireJ ventilation ra t e tllr existing and nt.•wly (2)
.1,
constrncted enclosed pa rking garages.
Srcp 3. fktcnnine chc required \entilation rate pi.:r unit floor
area ( t:s·nr· or cfm · ti·') chc correlation presented by Equation 3
General Procedure for the Design Method
depending on the maximum level of acceptable CO concentra­
To dctcrminc the required design flow r ate to ventilate
tion COfl\,I\
an e n closed parking gar.1ge, the following prucc<lurc can be
followed: (3)
St�p I. Col!l.'.ct the folllming data:
I. Number of cars operating during the hour of pcak use . .\' ( ::
\Vhi.:rc. th..: corrclation Clletlicicnt. C is gi\'en hclov.:
of cars ) . The ITE Trip Generation 1 landhook' i s a good soun:..:
to cstimatc the\ ::due or .v. 1.204x Io 'L:m:-s: (2J70x 1 O "cfnvtF·s) for CO'""=15 ppm
2. A\ cragc CO cmission r.1tc for a typical car p.:r hr. ER. (gr'lir).
The CO emission rat.: for a c•ir depends on sc \ cra l foc1ors such C= 0.692xl0 'L'rn:·s: (I J63xlO • cfin,tf·s) for CO""" =25 ppm
as vehicle diarncll!ristics. fud typl.'.s. 'chicle oper..1tion condi­
O -ll'\2x I0 'L '111:.s: (0.9.+Xx I 0 "cli11 f(·s) f(.ir co ,., =35 ppm ..

tions. and environment conditions.' D:i ta prov i ded in th..:

AS II RAE I land hook' and rcproduccJ in ,7;1/>/e 3 i.:;in bi.: uscJ to
and Tis the average tra\ cl timi.: of c:irs within thc garage in
.:stimat..: ('()emission ratcs for a typii.:al car. Ty pii.:;illy. hot �tarts
second�.
arc common in facilities when: cars arc rarked for shl)rt rcrinds
such as shupping mal l s. \kanwhilc. cold starts eharactc1izc
Example
facilitic:s where cars park during long periods such as otlice
Consider a two-le\'cl cnc l nsed parking gari
. gc with a total
buildings.
capacity of450 cars, a total tlt'l\)r :irea of K9.300 ff ( �300 rn'). and
J. Avcragc lengt h of opcrntion anJ travd time for a typil·JI
an a\erage height of9 n !2.75 ml. The total length of time for a
car, T (seconds). Thi.: ASHRAF Handbook gives aver.igl· en­
typic1l car opcration is two minutes ( 120 s). Dct.:rrnine the re­
tr.111cc·exit times for vehicles. flighcr valw:� may he used for
quired\ cnti lation rat..: for th.: enclosed parking garage in L's·m:
Wl)r:;t case st:en a ri os such JS during rush hours l>r spcci;il
and in ACH so that the CO lcvds never exceeds 25 ppm. As­
cv..:nts.
sume t hat the numhcr of cars in operation is .+O';'n of the Cota I
�- The l c \' cl of CO concentration acceptable within the ga­
vd1iclc capacity (a shopping mall fat:ility).
rage, co,,,_,, (ppm).
Step I. Garage data: .V=450 x 0.4 180 cars, ER=11.66 gnnin =
5. Total tloor area llfthe parking area. A, (rn:).
(averag1: emi ssion rate for a winter day u s ing the data from
fohle 3). T = 120 s, CO..,.,= 25 ppm.
Step2.
I. Dctcrn1inc the peak gener.itiLm rate. GR (gr hr m : [gd1r·tF ]), -

Step 2. C alcu l ati.: CO generation rate:

for the parking garage per unit lloor area using
Equation I: (.,1, �. 180 11.66 gr min ()( ) n in h
(a) ·- 15.1 i gr/h,111
/'=�xlOO
, ------='----..,..----- =
lOOO 111
R.. (I)
. 15.17
(b) J = -- x 100 =0 56.6
26.8
NEW ... Automated Commercial HVAC Design
Drawing: Right-CommDraw Step 3. Di.:tennin..: the ventilation re­
Df � & drop s.rNrt HVAC \h.ape1 fot tan de1>1gn �e.id.Mlnte
AutoCADtm DWG .:ind OXF hh.'1 tor eouy 1ntir:rf�e
quirement:
Using the corrcbtion of Equation 3
loads: Rlght-Commload
for CO..,,, =25 ppm. the design ven tila ­
ASHRAE 14 hour method, H;ant:lbook of F\md.am""ntJJ\
tion r..1h: in Us·m2 can be calculated:
Ducts: Right-CommDuct
ASHRAf Duct F1nin9 Oat.>B�e 'lllo1th �tal1C Regam, Equ.ti Friction
L:s·m:=0.692x 10 'x56.6x l :!Os=4.7

wnghtsoft""
Proposal: Right-CommProposal
Ma:i1m1zt prof1t,,bil1ry b� 9ent-t'1t1n9 1tli�t .tnd d<tu-ratt !O-b C:O\U Or in tenns uf air changi.: per hour:
Also f,..m Wrightsoft! Rlght·Suit• Resldent1..1
dl.ryout.£ � L Ill'': <to I. Ill I , ,, ) h
l� I It DIKI I Ml Rold Id �h lillo
.·\!'II � ti.!
1-800·225·8697 www.wrlghtsoft.com �. 75 Ill

JO·Day Money Back Guarantee on all soltw•1e Unlimited Technical Suppa rt.

(Circle No. 54 on Reader Service Cilrd)

56 ASHRAE Journal www.ashraejournaI.org February 2001
 Ventilation

Garage Location
CapAJclty
(# CllrS)
ACH s • m� j cfmlft21Mulmu
(Tracer] (Trncor] [TrocerJ !CO (ppm
�� 4
0
go
1......,,\
Hot Emissions
(SI blll2c0d), gramsJmln
Cold Emlulons,
gramsJm n

Garage 1996 1991 1996

1,700 1 76 035 7 Season 1991
A
Denver 2.2-4 2 16

Garage Summer
Denver 250 5.0-7.0 457 0.90 20 4 2.54 1.89 4.27 366
B (32'C- (90'FJ)
G nJQO West Plains,
0 22 40 15 Winter
c N_¥_ 20.74
1,000 00 2.6 111
3.61 3.38 1896
(O'C (32'1'])
GaraQe West Plains.
D
19
NY
138 3.6--4.5 300 0.59 l2
Table 3: Typical CO emissions within parking ga­
G� IJO West Plains.
68 14
E N.Y. rages.1
258 5-B-8-8 5 1.12 25

G� Aodlesier,
448 1n 5-28 1 04 10 9
F Minn. Project 945-RP. The authors thank ASllRA F for its sup­
Garage Mahtomedi.
81 111uci<s) 12 1
G Minn
0.90-1.02 2 43 048
I port.

Table 2: Summary of field testing results for seven U.S. parking

References
garages.
I. I 9lJlJ. ISllR IF lla111lh11uA /(ir 111 AC ..tppli.-atio11,·. Clu11>-
laT /:}

Notes .: ..·I VS/ . IS/ IR I {Stum/ard f>:}-f'J89, I °i'11ttl.11i1111 /i1r. lcn:p1aN1· In­
door .·1ir Q11a!itl'.
• I femission rate was based on ER= 6.6 gr:min (which corre­
3. 1\yari. :\ . IL\ Grot. \1. Kr;ini. 2000. "Field cvaluatit'n llf h'll­
sponds tu 80°;, hot emissions and 20°" clild emissions
ulation -,ystcm rx·rformancc· in cncl11>cd rari...ing garngcs,"' :ISf/R If
bascd on Jata prn' idcd in 'Tahle 3), thc r..:4uired minimum
Tums1w1io111·. I 06( I)
•entilatil)n rJte will bt: 3.5 ACI I (i.e. . 2.fii L s·m'.), .
.+. Krarti. M . :\ Ayari. <.llld R.A. (inll. J 999 •·[�aluation llf 1l'(l'd
'he a::um ·d travel time is higher rhan any' ah1c prm idcd md vari<1bk rmc \cntil:i1ioi1 y:;t.·m n:q111rcmi:nls for cm;loscd park in!,!
b . H \ E 1 and is used to represent a '' orst case ..
f ·ilitics:· Fino! rc1 rt for \ llRAE l'roj1.-'Cl t)45-RP.
scenario (Christmas evening or an unusual e ve nt) . ) IT!:. 199�. Trip Gi:n1.:ra1ion I landhook. /11stit111e o( Tra11.11wrlil-
If a longer travel time of 3 minutes is used. the design 1w11 /:'11g1m·ers, Washington, D.C.e

vcntibtion rate will be 7.05 L!s·mc or9.2 ACll (dose to the

cu1Ten1 ventilation rJte rernmmend..:d by Standurd 62-1989).

Summary and Conclusions

In this anide, u new Jesign mdh o d is presentcd to d..:1ern1inc
Vibration & Noise -:- _c;".
SllhC
- -
--Lu3
WT]['
_•,t l!�i
the m in i m um ventilation 1:it..: for ..:ncloseJ parking garages. The C on t ro I P rod ucts ·"·:�:·�
new design procedure is tlexibh: Jlld can account for se\.eral for lmJustridl HVAC clnd Ac,)u�11c Appl1cat1ons -.
factors including the maximum acccptable CO level. the number
• Anti-Vibration Pads
of moving cars, the average vehicular CO emission rate. and the
average trnvel time within the parking garagc. • • -t.

A
that
field testing study in
the actual ventilation
various U.S. location:\
ra tes used in enclosed parking ga­
has showed

• Elastomer Isolators
0
rages an: significantly lower than the rJt s n:commendcJ by
Standard 62-1989 (i.e., 7.62 L's m' 1.5
din tt:)_ A m 1 rc dct il cd l
description of the results for this field stud y is provided in the
article in Refon:ncc 3. With the continual decrease in average
chicullir C()ntaminant �mi:si n rate. it i · c pected that th1.: vcn­
·Floating Floors. Air Mounts. Inertia Bases . . .. .
lilation rtllc requirement r r ncl :cd parking g,:iragc' � ill be
reduced. Thcl''forc. the initial co ·1 ror the m ·cha11ical v ·ntilu­ ln•trument31 on
tion system can be reduced. Moreover. the use of contamin<mt­ ThQITTiiOn'IOlflf"S
Prassure Gauges
ba i;:c.J venlilation contn ls will achieve signili ·ant sa\'ings in
Misc
operating co�t of the ventilation · tern in parking g.urages.1 Tnlplllvl Aull>milflClUN-

However. further research i s nccdcd to detennine the maxi­ Access Coot Lod<s Syph<wll UQO codts
mum ace >pt bk ontaminant le els it h i n parking gar.1gc ·du..:
to b ih car cmis�i nS. l!a· lint' fume , and oil vap( �-In. ddi­
ti n, more !kid te ting and ·imulntion a nal -is ar..: required t • .
VIBRATION MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
evaluate th e effocts of poor mixing conditions (due for instance 3532-A East TC Jester
to poor ·y ·1 ·m design ) in determining the minimum required VIMCO Houston· Texas 77018, USA
vent ii al ion r::llcs. ;,.,_,.,.,.,. '-"·'1 ,-.!,: _-, · ,:-1· . .; ,i '\o"!VIVJ_, v in1_�0 . or!J
T •1 (713)263-8181 F: •1 (7131263 -1133
Acknowledgments
This article is part of the work perfom1ed for thc t\SHRAE
(Circle No. 48 on Reodor S..niice Card)

February 2001 ASHRAE Journal 57