ASHRAE Research Project 1480 Report - Food Service Technology ...

ASHRAE Research Project 1480 

Island Hood Energy Consumption and 

Energy Consumption Strategies 

Final Report – March 5, 2010 

Submitted to: 

Mr. Michael Vaughn 

Manager of Research and Technical Services 

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and 

Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), Inc. 

1791 Tullie Circle, NE 

Atlanta, GA 30329 

Submitted by: 

Richard Swierczyna 

Paul Sobiski 

Architectural Energy Corporation (AEC) 

2540 Frontier Avenue, Suite 201 

Boulder, CO 80301 

and 

Donald Fisher 

Fisher-Nickel, inc. (FNi) 

1930 S. Forest Hill Place 

Danville, CA 94526 

In collaboration with 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) 

Food Service Technology Center 

PO Box 770000 

San Francisco, CA 94177

Acknowledgments 

The authors acknowledge the many people who helped with the planning and completion of this 

research project. The enthusiasm of our industry colleagues toward this commercial kitchen 

HVAC study was remarkable, while the contribution of appliances and hoods for testing were 

vital to its outcome. We found ongoing support from the kitchen ventilation industry as we 

updated interested parties at professional meetings and forums, participated in ASHRAE 

seminars, provided tours of the CKV laboratory, and performed demonstrations of our findings. 

We would like to recognize the co-funding from the Pacific Gas and Electric Company and the 

company’s commitment to the food service industry. Through the efforts of Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company’s Food Service Technology Center (FSTC), California utility customers and 

the food service industry are provided with information to help them improve the performance 

and energy efficiency of CKV systems. Furthermore, the Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

openly shares this information with the global community to improve energy efficiency well 

beyond the California borders. 

We recognize Greenheck Corporation for supplying the exhaust hoods, roof top unit, and fans for 

this project, Captive Air Systems for providing the makeup air unit, the Halton Corporation for 

the displacement ventilation and perforated ceiling diffusers, Burger King and Duke 

Manufacturing for the electric oven stands, and Gaylord for an additional Vulcan gas charbroiler. 

We also acknowledge the manufacturers who supplied appliances either directly to the CKV 

Laboratory or indirectly through the Food Service Technology Center, without which the project 

could not have been completed. 

i

Table of Contents 

Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................ i 

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ ii 

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ iv 

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii 

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ vii 

Preface .......................................................................................................................................... viii 

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... ix 

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... xii 

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1-1 

Background .............................................................................................................................. 1-1 

Objective .................................................................................................................................. 1-3 

Scope of Investigation.............................................................................................................. 1-3 

Equipment Solicitation......................................................................................................... 1-6 

Experimental Design .................................................................................................................... 2-1 

Laboratory Layout ................................................................................................................... 2-1 

Hood Specifications ................................................................................................................. 2-2 

Island Hood Specifications .................................................................................................. 2-2 

Single Island 10-Foot by 4-Foot Rear Filter Canopy Hood ................................................. 2-2 

Single Island 10-Foot by 6-Foot V-Bank Canopy Hood ..................................................... 2-4 

Double Island 10-Foot by 8-Foot Canopy Hood ................................................................. 2-6 

Double Island 10-Foot by 10-Foot Canopy Hood ............................................................... 2-7 

Appliance Specifications ......................................................................................................... 2-9 

Hood/Appliance Relationships ............................................................................................ 2-9 

Side Panel and Appliance Extension Specifications .............................................................. 2-10 

Makeup Air Specifications .................................................................................................... 2-15 

Displacement Diffusers ...................................................................................................... 2-15 

Ceiling Diffusers ................................................................................................................ 2-16 

Perforated Perimeter Supply .............................................................................................. 2-19 

Capture and Containment Testing ......................................................................................... 2-21 

Airflow Visualization......................................................................................................... 2-22 

Exhaust Air Flow to Supply Air Flow Comparison........................................................... 2-24 

Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................ 3-1 

Single Island Rear Filter Canopy Hood, 4-Foot Depth............................................................ 3-1 

Evaluation of Hood Overhang Dimension ........................................................................... 3-3 

Evaluation of Appliance Duty with respect to Makeup Air Configuration ......................... 3-5 

Evaluation of Side Panels .................................................................................................... 3-7 

Evaluation of Makeup Air Configuration and Airflow Rate ............................................. 3-12 

Evaluation of Hood Edge Geometry .................................................................................. 3-17 

Evaluation of Dynamic Room Conditions ......................................................................... 3-18 

Single Island V-Bank Canopy Hood, 6-Foot Depth .............................................................. 3-20 

Evaluation of Hood Overhang ........................................................................................... 3-22 

Evaluation of Appliance Duty ........................................................................................... 3-26 

Evaluation of Side Panels .................................................................................................. 3-28 

Evaluation of Makeup Air Configuration, Airflow Rate, and Supply Temperature ......... 3-32 


ii

Evaluation of Negative Pressure Areas within the Kitchen Space .................................... 3-42 

Comparison of Single Island Hood Performance .................................................................. 3-44 

Evaluation of Hood Size Relative to Hood Overhang ....................................................... 3-46 

Evaluation of Hood Size Relative to Appliance Duty ....................................................... 3-48 

Evaluation of Hood Size Relative to Side Panel Configuration ........................................ 3-50 

Evaluation of Hood Size Relative to Makeup Air Configuration and Airflow Rate ......... 3-52 

Double Island Canopy Hood, 8-Foot Depth .......................................................................... 3-54 

Evaluation of Hood Overhang Dimension ......................................................................... 3-56 


Evaluation of Side Panels and Hood Partition ................................................................... 3-59 



Evaluation of Biased Exhaust Airflow .............................................................................. 3-70 

Evaluation of Hood Edge Geometry .................................................................................. 3-71 

Double Island Canopy Hood, 10-Foot Depth ........................................................................ 3-72 

Evaluation of Hood Overhang Dimension ......................................................................... 3-74 


Evaluation of Side Panels .................................................................................................. 3-76 



Evaluation of Biased Exhaust Airflow .............................................................................. 3-83 


Comparison of Double Island Hood Performance ................................................................. 3-86 

Evaluation of Hood Size Relative to Hood Overhang ....................................................... 3-87 

Evaluation of Hood Size Relative to Appliance Duty ....................................................... 3-88 

Evaluation of Hood Size Relative to Side Panel and Partition Configuration ................... 3-89 

Evaluation of Hood Size Relative to Makeup Air Configuration, Airflow Rate, and 

Temperature ....................................................................................................................... 3-91 

Evaluation of Hood Size Relative to Bias of Exhaust Flow Rate ...................................... 3-92 

Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 4-1 

Findings.................................................................................................................................... 4-1 

CKV System Design Implications ........................................................................................... 4-4 

Focus of Future Research ......................................................................................................... 4-6 

References .................................................................................................................................... 5-1 

Appendix A: Summary of Data ................................................................................................. A-1 

Appendix B: Laboratory Facilities .............................................................................................. B-1 

Commercial Kitchen Ventilation Laboratory (CKVL) ........................................................... B-1 

Airflow Visualization.......................................................................................................... B-3 

Food Service Technology Center (FSTC) .............................................................................. B-6 

iii

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Layout of Supply Air Systems for Single Island Hood ................................................ 2-1 

Figure 2. Layout of Supply Air Systems for Double Island Hood .............................................. 2-1 

Figure 3. Set-Up of Single Island 4-Foot Deep Rear Filter Canopy Hood .................................. 2-2 

Figure 4. Single Island Rear Filter Canopy Hood Filter Velocities ............................................. 2-3 

Figure 5. Set-Up of Single Island 6-Foot Deep V-Bank Canopy Hood ...................................... 2-4 

Figure 6. Filter Velocity Profiles for the 6-Foot Deep Single Island V-Bank Hood ................... 2-5 

Figure 7. Set-Up of Double Island 8-Foot Deep Canopy Hood .................................................. 2-6 

Figure 8. Set-Up of Double Island 10-Foot Deep Canopy Hood ................................................ 2-7 

Figure 9. Double Island 8-Foot Filter Velocities ......................................................................... 2-8 

Figure 10. Side Panel #1 ............................................................................................................ 2-10 



Figure 13. Side Panel #4 - Appliance Extension ....................................................................... 2-13 

Figure 14. Side Panel (84.0-inch top by 57.0 inch bottom by 43.0-inch high) with Double Island 

V-Bank Hood ............................................................................................................................. 2-14 

Figure 15. Partition (119.0-inch wide by 43.0 inch high) with Double Island V-Bank Hood .. 2-14 

Figure 16. Floor Mounted Displacement Diffusers as Used to Supply Makeup Air ................. 2-15 

Figure 17. Layout of 4-Way and Perforated Ceiling Diffusers ................................................. 2-16 

Figure 18. Velocity Profile of 4-Way Ceiling Diffusers ............................................................ 2-17 

Figure 19. Velocity Profile of Perforated Ceiling Diffusers ...................................................... 2-18 

Figure 20. Velocity Profile for PPS's at 160 cfm/ft or 5760 cfm ............................................... 2-19 

Figure 21. Layout of Visualization Systems for Hood Capture and Containment Performance 

Evaluations ................................................................................................................................. 2-21 

Figure 22. Schlieren Images at Exhaust Rates for Spill and Capture and Containment ............ 2-22 

Figure 23. Smoke Manifold for Three Charbroilers and Combination Appliance Line ............ 2-23 

Figure 24. Smoke Manifold for Three Charbroilers during Test Conditions – Front and Rear 

Edge ........................................................................................................................................... 2-23 

Figure 25. Single Island Rear Filter 4-Foot Deep Canopy Hood ................................................ 3-1 

Figure 26. Capture and Containment Exhaust Rates for 4-Foot Deep Single Island Rear Filter 

Canopy Hood ............................................................................................................................... 3-2 

Figure 27. Evaluation of Hood Front Overhang .......................................................................... 3-3 

Figure 28. Evaluation of Hood Side Overhang ............................................................................ 3-4 

Figure 29. Evaluation of Appliance Line Duty and Makeup Air Configuration ......................... 3-5 

Figure 30. Evaluation of Side Panels with Heavy-Duty Three Broiler Appliance Line .............. 3-8 

Figure 31. Evaluation of Side Panels with Combination-Duty (Fryer, Broiler, Oven) Appliance 

Line ............................................................................................................................................ 3-10 

Figure 32. Evaluation of Makeup Air with Heavy-Duty (Three Broiler) Appliance Line ........ 3-12 

Figure 33. Evaluation of Makeup Air with Heavy-Duty (One Broiler) Appliance Line ........... 3-14 

Figure 34. Evaluation of Makeup Air with Combination-Duty (Fryer, Broiler, Oven) Appliance 

Line ............................................................................................................................................ 3-16 

Figure 35. Evaluation of Hood Edge Geometry with Heavy-Duty (Three Broiler) Rear Appliance 

Line ............................................................................................................................................ 3-17 

Figure 36. Evaluation of Dynamic Room Conditions on Combination-Duty (Fryer, Broiler, 

Oven) Line ................................................................................................................................. 3-18 

Figure 37. Single Island V-Bank 6-Foot Deep Canopy Hood ................................................... 3-20 

iv

Figure 38. Summary of Tests for 6-Foot Deep V-Bank Island Canopy Hood with C&C Airflow 

Rates Less Than 7000 CFM. ...................................................................................................... 3-21 

Figure 39. Summary of Tests for 6-Foot Deep V-Bank Island Canopy Hood with C&C Airflow 

Rates Greater Than 7000 CFM. ................................................................................................. 3-22 

Figure 40. Evaluation of Hood Front Overhang ........................................................................ 3-23 

Figure 41. Evaluation of Hood Side Overhang .......................................................................... 3-24 

Figure 42. Evaluation of Appliance Duty with respect to Makeup Air Configuration .............. 3-26 

Figure 43. Evaluation of Side Panels Relative to Capture and Containment Performance for a 

Heavy-Duty Cook Line .............................................................................................................. 3-28 


Combination-Duty Cook Line ................................................................................................... 3-30 

Figure 45. Evaluation of Makeup Air with Heavy-Duty (Three Broiler) Appliance Line ........ 3-32 

Figure 46. Evaluation of Makeup Air with Heavy-Duty (Two Broiler) Appliance Line .......... 3-36 

Figure 47. Evaluation of Makeup Air with Combination-Duty (Fryer, Broiler, Oven) Appliance 

Line ............................................................................................................................................ 3-38 


Oven) Line ................................................................................................................................. 3-40 

Figure 49. Evaluation of Negative Pressure with Three Heavy-Duty Broilers ......................... 3-43 

Figure 50. Comparison of Overall Single Island Hood Performance ........................................ 3-44 

Figure 51: Comparison of Hood Performance Relative to Front or Side Overhang ................. 3-46 

Figure 52: Comparison of Hood Performance Relative to Appliance Line Duty ...................... 3-48 

Figure 53: Comparison of Hood Performance Relative to Side Panel Configuration ............... 3-50 

Figure 54 Comparison of Hood Performance Relative to Makeup Air Configuration and Airflow 

Rate ............................................................................................................................................ 3-52 

Figure 55. Double Island 8-Foot Deep Canopy Hood ............................................................... 3-54 

Figure 56. Capture and Containment Exhaust Rates for 8-Foot Deep Double Island Canopy 

Hood .......................................................................................................................................... 3-55 

Figure 57. Evaluation of Hood Front Overhang ........................................................................ 3-56 


Figure 59. Evaluation of Appliance Duty .................................................................................. 3-58 

Figure 60. Evaluation of Side Panels and Hood Partition ......................................................... 3-59 

Figure 61. Evaluation of Makeup Air with Combination-Duty (Fryer, Broiler, Oven) Front and 

Combination-Duty (Fryer, Broiler, Oven) Rear Appliance Line ............................................... 3-62 

Figure 62. Evaluation of Makeup Air with Heavy-Duty (Three Broiler) Front and Light-Duty 

(Three Oven) Rear Appliance Line ............................................................................................ 3-64 

Figure 63. Evaluation of Makeup Air with Heavy-Duty (Two Broiler) Front and Light-Duty 

(2 Oven) Rear Appliance Line .................................................................................................. 3-66 

Figure 64. Evaluation of Negative Pressure with Heavy-Duty (Three Broiler) Front and Light- 

Duty (Three Oven) Rear Appliance Line ................................................................................... 3-68 

Figure 65. Evaluation of Biased Exhaust Flow with Heavy-Duty (Three Broiler) Front and Light- 


Figure 66. Evaluation of Hood Edge Geometry with Heavy-Duty (Three Broiler) Front and 

Light-Duty (Three Oven) Rear Appliance Line ......................................................................... 3-71 

Figure 67. Double Island 10-Foot Deep Canopy Hood ............................................................. 3-72 

Figure 68. Capture and Containment Exhaust Rates for 10-Foot Deep Double Island Canopy 

Hood ........................................................................................................................................... 3-73 

v


Figure 70. Evaluation of Appliance Line Duty and Makeup Air Configuration ....................... 3-75 

Figure 71. Evaluation of Side Panels ......................................................................................... 3-76 

Figure 72. Evaluation of Makeup Air with Heavy-Duty (Three Broiler) Front and Light-Duty 

(Three Oven) Rear Appliance Line ............................................................................................ 3-77 

Figure 73. Evaluation of Makeup Air with Heavy-Duty (Two Broiler) Front and Light-Duty 

(Two Oven) Rear Appliance Line .............................................................................................. 3-79 

Figure 74. Evaluation of Negative Pressure with Heavy-Duty (Three Broiler) Front and Light- 


Figure 75. Evaluation of Biased Exhaust Flow with Heavy-Duty (Three Broiler) Front / Light- 

Duty (Three Oven) Rear Appliance Line and Combination-Duty (Fryer, Broiler, Oven) / 

Combination-Duty (Fryer, Broiler, Oven) Line ......................................................................... 3-83 


Oven) Front and Light-Duty Rear Appliance Line .................................................................... 3-85 

Figure 77: Comparison of Overall Double Island Hood Performance ...................................... 3-86 

Figure 78: Comparison of Hood Performance Relative to Side Overhang ............................... 3-87 

Figure 79: Comparison of Hood Performance Relative to Appliance Duty .............................. 3-88 

Figure 80: Comparison of Hood Performance Relative to Side Panel and Partition 

Configuration ............................................................................................................................. 3-89 

Figure 81 Comparison of Hood Performance Relative to Makeup Air Configuration, Rate, and 

Temperature ............................................................................................................................... 3-91 

Figure 82 Comparison of Hood Performance Relative to Bias of Exhaust Flow Rate .............. 3-92 

vi

List of Tables 

Table 1. Overhang Sensitivity Test Matrix .................................................................................. 1-3 

Table 2. Makeup Air Sensitivity Test Matrix .............................................................................. 1-4 

Table 3. Side Panel Sensitivity Test Matrix ................................................................................. 1-5 

Table 4. Walk-By Sensitivity Test Matrix ................................................................................... 1-5 

Table 5. Negative Pressure Zone Test Matrix ............................................................................. 1-6 

Table 6. Lower Edge Design Test Matrix .................................................................................... 1-6 

Table 7. Exhaust Damper Test Matrix ......................................................................................... 1-6 

Table 8. Compare Single Island to Double Island Test Matrix ................................................... 1-6 

Table 9. Testing and Balancing Perforated Perimeter Supply ................................................... 2-20 

vii

Preface 

It has been shown that the HVAC consumption by foodservice establishments account for 

approximately 30% of that sector’s energy use. The Department of Energy estimates that food 

service establishments in the United States used approximately 427 trillion Btu’s of energy in 

2003. By quantifying the true performance of island hoods, determining how to best optimize 

their energy efficiency, and providing the tools needed to apply these findings, an enormous 

energy and cost savings can be realized, with a direct positive impact on the global environment. 

If we assume an average market impact of 1% of the hood market over the next decade and that 

10% of the hoods sold in the United States are of the island variety, the result of this project 

would be an energy reduction of 1.3 trillion Btu’s in the United States over the next decade. 

One of the most significant tools available today is the current set of ASHRAE Handbooks. The 

results from this research project will be used to improve and expand the information currently 

available to the engineers and consultants. The Kitchen Ventilation chapter of the HVAC 

Applications Handbook has new data available to enhance hood design and ventilation 

requirements. The ventilation requirements also apply to revising the ASHRAE Standard 154 

Ventilation for Commercial Cooking Operations. While the existing body of research with 

respect to capture and containment was significant, many hood and appliance line configurations 

can now be documented and the data can be greatly expanded because of this project. This study 

also included evaluation of makeup air temperature on island hood capture and containment 

performance, which was not available in the public domain until now. With the makeup air 

systems operating today at a wide temperature range, this new information is significant to the 

industry and will have a positive impact on energy conservation efforts. Compiling this new data 

supports the efforts of ASHRAE in providing engineers with better design guidelines for 

commercial kitchen. 

viii

Executive Summary 

The objective of this research project was to expand the exhaust ventilation rate database for the 

capture and containment of standardized cook lines under four island canopy hood 

configurations, the rear filter single island, v-bank single island, 8-foot deep double island, and 

10-foot deep double island hoods. Hood capture and containment performance was evaluated at 

216 conditions for this research project. The tests were performed in accordance with the 

procedures defined by ASTM F 1704-05 Standard Test Method for Capture and Containment 

Performance of Commercial Kitchen Exhaust Ventilation Systems. During these tests, various 

overhang dimensions, four side panel designs, four supply air strategies, and two makeup air 

temperature set points were evaluated to quantify the sensitivity of these features on island hood 

performance. 

The appliance lines used for the investigation primarily included heavy-duty and combinationduty 

configurations, with a light-duty configuration used to fill the rear of the double island 

canopy hoods. The appliances used for the thermal plume challenge included the gas charbroiler 

from the heavy-duty class, the gas fryer from the medium-duty class, and the full-size electric 

convection oven from the light-duty class. The appliances were calibrated to simulate a heavy 

load cooking condition as developed and specified in ASHRAE RP-1202. 

The results of this research project confirmed that single-island canopy hoods need significantly 

higher exhaust airflow rates than their wall-mounted counterparts to effectively ventilate cooking 

equipment for a given duty class. For example, while an exhaust rate of 300 to 400 cfm/ft (460 to 

620 L/s/m) can be adequate for complete capture and containment with a wall-mounted canopy 

hood over a heavy-duty appliance line [Ref 6] [Ref 11], a single-island canopy hood may require 

an exhaust rate in excess of 500 cfm/ft (770 L/s/m) in many situations (measured along one side 

of the canopy hood). In fact, there were several test scenarios for single-island hoods where an 

exhaust rate in excess of 700 cfm/ft (1080 L/s/m) was required to achieve capture and 

containment. This contradicts common design practice where the specified ventilation rates are 

often much closer to those for wall-canopy hoods. 

Improved single island hood performance was found with the larger hood’s v-bank filter 

configuration over the smaller hood’s rear filter configuration for most test configurations. The 

plume was better aligned with the filters and was drawn towards the center, relative to the front 

and rear of the hood. A lower sensitivity to local replacement air was demonstrated for the larger 

v-bank hood. However, aggressive appliance plumes that were focused at the flat bottom the v- 

bank or replacement air strategies that were focused at the side of the v-bank proved challenging 

and indicated that a change of filter bank profile may improve hood performance. 

The performance of a double-island canopy hood, with balanced replacement air, can be 

comparable to back-to-back wall-mounted canopy hoods for a given duty class of appliances. For 

example, a heavy-duty front line and a light-duty back line under the double-island hood 

required an exhaust airflow rate approximately 300 cfm/ft (470 L/s/m) (measured along both 

sides of the hood). This rate is comparable to the ventilation rate for similar appliance duty 

classes under wall-mounted canopy hoods (Swierczyna et al. 2005). The double-island hood 

configuration performed as if a wall existed between them. Furthermore, the back-to-back 

appliance lines created a converging thermal plume that aided in directing the plume towards the 

ix

filter bank. That said, without a wall between them, the double-island hood system was more 

susceptible to cross drafts than a wall-mounted hood configuration 

The configuration, volume and temperature of makeup air introduced into the space was critical 

to the performance of the double-island canopy hood. Consistent with previous research [Ref 1] 

[Ref 10], reducing local makeup airflow rates and velocities corresponded to reduced capture and 

containment exhaust rates, in most cases. When the air volume and associated velocity and 

turbulence in the vicinity of the hood was minimized, the appliance plumes were more stable and 

the hood was able to capture and contain at a lower exhaust rate. However, when local makeup 

air was introduced aggressively through 4-way diffusers, perforated diffusers, or a high-flow 

perforated perimeter supply system, hood performance degraded severely. For the double-island 

configurations, when the perforated perimeter supply system was operated at a low-flow, lowvelocity 

condition, it was the best of the local makeup air configurations tested. The perforated 

perimeter supply system delivering low-flow, low-velocity air adjacent to the hood (i.e., less than 

60% of the replacement air requirement), hood performance improved significantly over the 

high-flow, high-velocity introduction, (i.e., greater than 60% of the replacement air requirement), 

and in some cases, better than the exhaust only configuration with displacement supply. Higher 

replacement air temperatures from ceiling diffusers also degraded the performance of island 

hoods. Unbalanced replacement air distribution was extremely detrimental to the performance of 

the double-island hoods. 

Recent research highlighted the advantages of using side panels for wall-mounted canopy hoods 

and a variety of makeup air conditions [Ref 1] [Ref 2]. However, the results from the doubleisland 

canopy hood testing regarding side panels were inconclusive. A more extensive side panel 

(and center partition) investigation would need a larger laboratory where the replacement air was 

introduced more uniformly around the hood to eliminate the effect of relatively high, directional 

local velocities. 

A partition placed between the two appliances lines improved the performance of a double-island 

hood when coupled with a balanced supply on both sides of the hood. However, if as little as 

1,000 cfm (470 L/s) was exhausted from the side opposite of the hood from where the supply air 

was delivered, the performance of the double-island hood degraded. This was contrary to the 

expectation that the partition would be more of a benefit with unbalanced replacement air and 

it’s ability to mitigate the effect of cross drafts. 

Increased hood overhang was shown to be one of the most effective performance enhancements 

for island canopy hoods. With a heavy-duty three-broiler appliance line centered front-to-rear 

under the single island hoods rather than at a minimum prescriptive front overhang dimension, a 

14% exhaust reduction was possible for the smaller rear filter hood, and a 40% exhaust reduction 

was possible for the larger v-bank hood. Likewise, when side overhang was increased to 24.0 

inches (610 mm) from the minimum of 6.0 inches (150 mm), a 41% exhaust rate reduction was 

found for both single-island hoods. However, the results did not show a significant performance 

difference between the 8-foot (2.44 m) and the 10-foot (3.05 m) deep double-island hood. 

Increased side overhang turned out to be one of the most effective performance enhancements 

for the double-island canopy hoods. Increasing the side overhang to 24 inches resulted in a 160 

cfm/ft (250 L/s/m) reduction in exhaust flow rate. 

x

Tailored exhaust bias for double island hoods may improve hood performance. With more 

exhaust volume focused over the more challenging appliances, the exhaust rate can be reduced 

for a given configuration. However, application of a specific bias for other applications or hood 

dimensions may yield different performance results and should be verified. 

Specification of enhanced hood edge geometry should be considered by manufacturers and endusers. 

While each design would need to be properly evaluated for the impact on hood 

performance, the design tested in this project was effective and was typical of edge design 

currently found in the industry. 

Verification of performance in the field should be performed to ensure proper hood capture and 

containment operation. As was shown during this project, many factors interact in the kitchen 

and affect hood performance. These interactions cannot be perfectly predicted for each 

installation. Therefore, a field test would be best to verify proper kitchen ventilation and hood 

performance. 

The recommendations for future research focus on ideas to augment the data found in RP-1480, 

which will further support direct comparisons in the ASHRAE Handbook and provide 

information needed to develop design guides. With this project being the first to examine the 

performance of island canopy hoods in detail, many questions were answered while other 

questions were discovered. 

The recommendations include: 1) Investigate the performance of single island canopy hoods in 

more detail, with a focus on the v-bank design. This study could quantify hood performance for 

the v-bank island with a smaller 4-foot depth. 2) Study the impact of the filter bank design on 

capture and containment performance. This project could evaluate the height relative to the 

distance between the bottom of the filter bank and the lower edge of the hood, as well as filter 

size and filter bank geometry. While this study would focus on the island hood configuration, the 

discoveries from the project could be applied to wall-mount and proximity hoods as well. 3) 

Study the displacement ventilation layout and hood capture and containment performance in 

greater detail. This project could address questions that arose during ASHRAE RP-1480 

regarding the performance of side panels and potential issues with supply air distribution 

locations and currents. 

Two additional studies could take place, one of which was shown during this project as critical to 

kitchen hood performance. These are: 1) Investigate the performance of single hood and multihood 

ventilation systems. Since ASHRAE RP-1480 has shown the profound performance impact 

of positive/negative pressure areas within a commercial kitchen, this proposed study may 

provide a foundation to improve the energy and environmental profile of complex commercial 

kitchens, while taking into account the needs of the kitchen ventilation system to provide 

optimized performance for each hood. 2) Study the whole-building approach to supply and 

makeup air impact on indoor air quality in commercial kitchens. This project could look at the 

effects of supply air distribution and makeup air introduction on capture and containment 

performance at different outside air conditions (e.g., extreme or design days), with a focus on 

how air movement, heat and humidity affect the thermal comfort in the kitchen. 

xi

Abstract 

The objective of this research project was to expand the database for the exhaust ventilation rates 

required for capture and containment of standardized cook lines under four island canopy hood 

configurations, the rear filter single island, v-bank single island, 8-foot deep double island, and 

10-foot deep double island hoods. Four side panel designs, four supply air strategies, and two 

makeup air temperature set points were also evaluated to quantify the sensitivity of these features 

on island hood performance. A total of 216 conditions were tested during this research project. 

xii

Introduction 

Background 

In commercial kitchens, exhaust hoods are used to remove the smoke, grease, moisture, heat, and 

combustion products generated by the appliances and foods during idle and cooking operations. 

These items are what are referred to as effluent. By removing air from the kitchen, the exhaust 

hood also drives the need for replacement air to enter the kitchen to maintain a balanced room 

pressure and an acceptable climate for the kitchen staff. 

Optimal energy efficiency of the kitchen ventilation is achieved by minimizing the exhaust flow 

while maintaining sufficient capture and containment of the effluents from the cooking process. 

This airflow reduction usually leads to reduced HVAC loads for supplying and conditioning the 

replacement air to the kitchen for either new construction or optimization of current kitchens. If 

the minimized exhaust rate is applied at the design stage with an appropriate safety margin for 

field adjustment, oftentimes the size of the fans, ductwork, and heating and cooling systems can 

be reduced for additional energy and cost savings. 

To drive improved commercial kitchen ventilation efficiency, more baseline data has been 

needed to establish valid guidelines. In the past ten years, the Commercial Kitchen Ventilation 

Laboratory in Wood Dale, Illinois completed three projects focused on the investigation of wallmounted 

canopy hoods. These projects have focused on exhaust rates and heat gain to space 

energy rates for wall-mounted canopy hoods. Sensitivity testing during one of the projects and 

field experience by the industry has provided insight for the necessity of island hood research. 

A study was conducted for the California Energy Commission [Ref 1], which evaluated different 

methods of introducing makeup air for an 8-foot by 4-foot wall canopy hood. Sensitivity testing 

was performed using the wall canopy as a rear-filter island hood by removing a portable back 

wall. A significant difference between the wall-mounted and island hood performance was 

found. However, the island hood data was limited due to the laboratory capacity and layout at the 

time. The data from this project has been made publicly available as a report and design guides, 

and has contributed to ASHRAE papers and the ASHRAE Handbook. 

A recent ASHRAE study, RP-1202 [Ref 2], analyzed how appliance position and/or a mix of 

appliances with different duty ratings affected the minimum exhaust rate needed to provide 

capture and containment of all effluents under a 10-foot by 4-foot wall mounted canopy hood. To 

compliment the data, a co-funded supplemental study was conducted to evaluate hood end 

panels, operational diversity of a common heavy-duty appliance, two types of shelving under the 

hood, appliance accessories, hood height, and the distance from the appliance to the hood. 

Another recent ASHRAE study, RP-1362 [Ref 3], determined the capture and containment 

exhaust rates and heat gain to space for over 80 commercial foodservice appliances. Most tests 

were conducted underneath a 10-foot by 4-foot wall mounted canopy hood to complement data 

from previous studies. Furthermore, determination of the exhaust rates required for capture and 

containment of hooded appliances was augmented with the funding assistance from Pacific Gas 

and Electric’s Food Service Technology Center. The expanded research project not only 

provided accurate heat gain information for load calculations, but also the ventilation rates 

1-1 

RP-1480

equired to achieve the reported heat gain values without spilling the convective plume into the 

space. This combined data drove corrections to the duty classes that some appliances were 

categorized in, as well as information needed not only for cooling loads but also for ventilation 

rates. However, where appliances required hoods, the study was conducted entirely under wallmounted 

canopy hoods. Although the database for ventilation rates under wall-mounted hoods 

has been greatly expanded to aid in the proper HVAC sizing and ventilating of kitchen 

appliances, the research on island hoods has been stagnant. 

Island canopy hoods, particularly single island style, have become popular in the open cafeteria 

operations such as those found in university food service. In many cases, the foodservice 

consultant is specifying underfired gas broilers and other heavy-duty cooking equipment as part 

of the design. For a given line of appliances, a single-island canopy hood will require 

significantly more exhaust than a wall-mounted canopy hood. It is generally accepted that the 

performance of a double-island canopy hood tends to emulate the performance of two back-toback 

wall-canopy hoods, although the lack of a physical barrier between the two hood sections 

makes this configuration more susceptible to cross drafts. The challenge associated with island 

hood applications was discussed in detail within a white paper developed for the Foodservice 

Consultants Society International (FCSI) [Ref 4]. Single-island canopy hoods present the 

“supreme” capture and containment challenge in hood applications and are often the source of 

the “hood” problem in a kitchen with display cooking. The lack of reliable performance data on 

canopy hoods was identified and research was recommended. 

One of the most significant tools available today is the current set of ASHRAE Handbooks. The 

results from this research project will be used to improve and expand the information currently 

available to the engineers and consultants that use it. The Kitchen Ventilation chapter of the 

HVAC Applications Handbook [Ref 5] has new data available to enhance hood design and 

ventilation requirements. The ventilation requirements also apply to revising the ASHRAE 

Standard 154 Ventilation for Commercial Cooking Operations [Ref 6]. 

1-2 


Objective 

The objectives of this research project included three primary test goals. First, quantify the 

capture and containment performance of single island rear-filter canopy, single island v-bank 

filter canopy, and double island (back to back) canopy hoods using the ASTM F1704-05 

Standard Test Method [Ref 7]. Second, quantify the impact of hood design measures, such as 

hood lower edge design or end panels. Third, quantify the impact of various make up air 

scenarios. 

Scope of Investigation 

The scope of this research was to investigate the effect of island hood design variations over 

single and double equipment lines, measure capture and containment air flow rates at each of 

these variations, and relate the new information to previous studies centered on generic wall 

mounted canopy designs. Equipment diversity and positioning were also studied with particular 

emphasis on optimal placements, introduction of make up air, and the overall reduction of 

required air volumes. 

The scope of the project was aligned to specific types of sensitivity testing to evaluate the 

particular conditions within hoods and between hoods. The testing matrices are outlined below in 

Tables 1 - 8. 

SIR4 

(Single Island Rear 

Filter 

4-Ft Deep) 

SIV6 

(Single Island V-Bank 

6-Ft Deep) 

Table 1. Overhang Sensitivity Test Matrix 

DI8 

(Double Island 

8-Ft Deep) 

DI10 

(Double Island 

10-Ft Deep) 

Front Line Rear Line Appliance Front and/or Side Overhang 

X X - - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Centered f-r cook surface, 6 in. side overhang 

X X - - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens 10 in. rear overhang to cook surface 

X X - - 1 Broiler @ end n/a 6 in. side overhang, centered f-r cook surface 



- X - - 2 Broilers n/a 6 in. side overhang, centered f-r cook surface 



X X X - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens 6 in. front overhang to cook surface 

- - X - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens 6 in. front overhang to cook surface w/rear seal 

- - X X 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Maximum front overhang to cook surface 

- - X X 2 Broilers 2 Ovens 6 in. side overhang, maximum front overhang 

- - X X 2 Broilers 2 Ovens Maximum side and front overhang 

1-3 


Table 2. Makeup Air Sensitivity Test Matrix 

SIR4 SIV6 DI8 DI10 Front Rear MUA Strategy MUA Source MUA Airflow Rate Temp Front and/or Side Overhang 

Line Line 

X X X X 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Displacement Front & Rear Without LMUA 

70-75ºF 

Walls 

- X X - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Displacement Front & Rear Without LMUA 

85-90ºF 

Walls 

- X - - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Displacement Front Wall Without LMUA 70-75ºF 

- X - - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Displacement Front Wall Without LMUA 85-90ºF 

- X - - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Displacement Rear Wall Without LMUA 70-75ºF 

- X - - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Displacement Rear Wall Without LMUA 85-90ºF 

- X - - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens 4-way diffuser Side at 2 ft 500 cfm 70-75ºF 

- X - - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens 4-way diffuser Side at 2 ft 1000 cfm 70-75ºF 

- X X X 3 Broilers 3 Ovens 4-way diffuser Front at 2 ft 500 cfm 70-75ºF 

- X X - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens 4-way diffuser Front at 2 ft 1000 cfm 70-75ºF 

- X - - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens 4-way diffuser Front and Side 1000 cfm (500 cfm ea) 70-75ºF 


- X X X 3 Broilers 3 Ovens 4-way diffuser Front at 2 ft 500 cfm 85-90ºF 

- X X - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens 4-way diffuser Front at 2 ft 1000 cfm 85-90ºF 


- X - - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens 4-way diffuser Front at 4 ft 500 cfm 70-75ºF 

- X - - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens 4-way diffuser Front at 4 ft 1000 cfm 70-75ºF 

- X - - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Perf diffuser Side at 2 ft 500 cfm 70-75ºF 

- X - - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Perf diffuser Side at 2 ft 1000 cfm 70-75ºF 

- X X X 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Perf diffuser Front at 2 ft 500 cfm 70-75ºF 

- X X - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Perf diffuser Front at 2 ft 1000 cfm 70-75ºF 

- X - - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Perf diffuser Front and Side 1000 cfm (500 cfm ea) 70-75ºF 


- X X X 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Perf diffuser Front at 2 ft 500 cfm 85-90ºF 

- X X - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Perf diffuser Front at 2 ft 1000 cfm 85-90ºF 


- X - - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Perf diffuser Front at 4 ft 500 cfm 70-75ºF 

- X - - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Perf diffuser Front at 4 ft 1000 cfm 70-75ºF 

- X - - 2 Broilers 2 Ovens 4-way diffuser Side at 2 ft 500 cfm 70-75ºF 24 inch side overhang 

- X - - 2 Broilers 2 Ovens 4-way diffuser Side at 2 ft 1000 cfm 70-75ºF 24 inch side overhang 

- X X X 2 Broilers 2 Ovens 4-way diffuser Front at 2 ft 500 cfm 70-75ºF Max front & side overhang 

- X - - 2 Broilers 2 Ovens 4-way diffuser Front at 2 ft 1000 cfm 70-75ºF 24 inch side overhang 

- X - - 2 Broilers 2 Ovens 4-way diffuser Front and Side 2000 cfm (1000 cfm ea) 70-75ºF 24 inch side overhang 

- X - - 2 Broilers 2 Ovens Perf diffuser Side at 2 ft 500 cfm 70-75ºF 24 inch side overhang 

- X - - 2 Broilers 2 Ovens Perf diffuser Side at 2 ft 1000 cfm 70-75ºF 24 inch side overhang 

- X X X 2 Broilers 2 Ovens Perf diffuser Front at 2 ft 500 cfm 70-75ºF Max front & side overhang 

- X - - 2 Broilers 2 Ovens Perf diffuser Front at 2 ft 1000 cfm 70-75ºF 24 inch side overhang 

- X - - 2 Broilers 2 Ovens Perf diffuser Front and Side 2000 cfm (1000 cfm ea) 70-75ºF 24 inch side overhang 

- X - - Combo 3 Ovens 4-way diffuser Front and Side 1000 cfm (500 cfm ea) 70-75ºF 

X X - - Combo 3 Ovens 4-way diffuser Front and Side 2000 cfm (1000 cfm ea) 70-75ºF 

- X - - Combo 3 Ovens Perf diffuser Front and Side 1000 cfm (500 cfm ea) 70-75ºF 

- X - - Combo 3 Ovens Perf diffuser Front and Side 2000 cfm (1000 cfm ea) 70-75ºF 

- - X - Combo 3 Ovens 4-way diffuser Front at 2 ft 500 cfm 70-75ºF 

- - X - Combo 3 Ovens 4-way diffuser Front at 2 ft 1000 cfm 70-75ºF 

- - X - Combo 3 Ovens Perf diffuser Front at 2 ft 500 cfm 70-75ºF 

- - X - Combo 3 Ovens Perf diffuser Front at 2 ft 1000 cfm 70-75ºF 

X X X X 3 Broilers 3 Ovens PPS All sides 160 cfm/ft of PPS 70-75ºF 

X X X X 3 Broilers 3 Ovens PPS All sides 80 cfm/ft of PPS 70-75ºF 

- X X - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens PPS All sides 160 cfm/ft of PPS 85-90ºF 

- X - - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens PPS Front & Sides 160 cfm/ft of PPS 70-75ºF 

- X - - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens PPS Front & Sides 160 cfm/ft of PPS 85-90ºF 

- X - - 2 Broilers 2 Ovens PPS All sides 160 cfm/ft of PPS 70-75ºF 24 inch side overhang 

- X X - 2 Broilers 2 Ovens PPS All sides 80 cfm/ft of PPS 70-75ºF Max front & side overhang 

- X - - 2 Broilers 2 Ovens PPS Front & Sides 160 cfm/ft of PPS 70-75ºF 24 inch side overhang 

- X - - 2 Broilers 2 Ovens PPS Front & Sides 80 cfm/ft of PPS 70-75ºF 24 inch side overhang 

X X X - Combo 3 Ovens PPS All sides 160 cfm/ft of PPS 70-75ºF 

X X X - Combo 3 Ovens PPS All sides 80 cfm/ft of PPS 70-75ºF 

1-4 


Table 3. Side Panel Sensitivity Test Matrix 

SIR4 SIV6 DI8 DI10 Front Line Rear Line MUA Strategy MUA Source MUA Airflow Rate Temp Side Panel 

Configuration 

X X X X 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Displacement Front & Rear Walls 70-75ºF 

X X - - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens 4-way diffuser Front and Side 2000 cfm (1000 cfm ea) 70-75ºF 


X X X - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens PPS All Sides 160 cfm/ft of PPS 70-75ºF 

X X X X 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Displacement Front & Rear Walls Without LMUA 70-75ºF Side panel #1 

- X - - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Displacement Front & Rear Walls Without LMUA 70-75ºF Side panel #2 

- X - - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Displacement Front & Rear Walls Without LMUA 70-75ºF Side panel #3 

- - X - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Displacement Front & Rear Walls Without LMUA 70-75ºF Partition 

- - - - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Displacement Front & Rear Walls 70-75ºF Appliance extension #4 

- - - - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Displacement Front & Rear Walls 70-75ºF Side panel #1 & ext #4 



- - X - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens 4-way diffuser Front and Side 1000 cfm (500 cfm ea) 70-75ºF Partition 

- - X - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens 4-way diffuser Front and Side 2000 cfm (1000 cfm ea) 70-75ºF Partition 

- - X - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Perf diffuser Front and Side 1000 cfm (500 cfm ea) 70-75ºF Partition 

- - X - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Perf diffuser Front and Side 2000 cfm (1000 cfm ea) 70-75ºF Partition 

- - X - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens PPS All Sides 80 cfm/ft of PPS 70-75ºF Partition 

- - X - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens PPS All Sides 160 cfm/ft of PPS 70-75ºF Partition 

X X - - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens 4-way diffuser Front and Side 2000 cfm (1000 cfm ea) 70-75ºF Side panel #1 

X - - - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens 4-way diffuser Front and Side 2000 cfm (1000 cfm ea) 70-75ºF Appliance extension #4 

- X - - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Perf diffuser Front and Side 2000 cfm (1000 cfm ea) 70-75ºF Side panel #1 

- - - - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Perf diffuser Front and Side 2000 cfm (1000 cfm ea) 70-75ºF Appliance extension #4 

X X - - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens PPS All Sides 160 cfm/ft of PPS 70-75ºF Side panel #1 

X X - - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens 4-way diffuser Front and Side 2000 cfm (1000 cfm ea) 70-75ºF Side panel #1 

X - - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens 4-way diffuser Front and Side 2000 cfm (1000 cfm ea) 70-75ºF Appliance extension #4 

- X - - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Perf diffuser Front and Side 2000 cfm (1000 cfm ea) 70-75ºF Side panel #1 

- - - - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Perf diffuser Front and Side 2000 cfm (1000 cfm ea) 70-75ºF Appliance extension #4 

X X - - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens PPS All Sides 160 cfm/ft of PPS 70-75ºF Side panel #1 

X X - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens PPS All Sides 160 cfm/ft of PPS 70-75ºF Appliance extension #4 

X X X - Combo 3 Ovens Displacement Front & Rear Walls Without LMUA 70-75ºF 

X X X - Combo 3 Ovens Displacement Front & Rear Walls Without LMUA 70-75ºF Side panel #1 

X - - - Combo 3 Ovens Displacement Front & Rear Walls 70-75ºF Appliance extension #4 

X X - - Combo 3 Ovens 4-way diffuser Front and Side 1000 cfm (500 cfm ea) 70-75ºF Side panel #1 

X - - Combo 3 Ovens 4-way diffuser Front and Side 2000 cfm (1000 cfm ea) 70-75ºF Appliance extension #4 

X X - - Combo 3 Ovens 4-way diffuser Front and Side 2000 cfm (1000 cfm ea) 70-75ºF Side panel #1 

- X - - Combo 3 Ovens Perf diffuser All Sides 1000 cfm (500 cfm ea) 70-75ºF Side panel #1 

- X - - Combo 3 Ovens Perf diffuser All Sides 2000 cfm (1000 cfm ea) 70-75ºF Side panel #1 

- - - - Combo 3 Ovens Perf diffuser All Sides 2000 cfm (1000 cfm ea) 70-75ºF Appliance extension #4 

X X - - Combo 3 Ovens PPS All Sides 160 cfm/ft of PPS 70-75ºF Side panel #1 

X - - - Combo 3 Ovens PPS All Sides 160 cfm/ft of PPS 70-75ºF Appliance extension #4 

Table 4. Walk-By Sensitivity Test Matrix 


Configuration 

X X - X Combo 3 Ovens Displacement Front & Rear Walls Without LMUA 70-75ºF 

X X - - Combo 3 Ovens Displacement Front & Rear Walls Without LMUA 70-75ºF Side panel #1 

X X - - Combo 3 Ovens Displacement Front & Rear Walls Without LMUA 70-75ºF 

- - - Combo 3 Ovens Displacement Front Wall Without LMUA 70-75ºF 

- X - - Combo 3 Ovens Displacement Front Wall Without LMUA 70-75ºF 

- X - - Combo 3 Ovens 4-way diffuser Front & Side 1000 cfm (500 cfm ea) 70-75ºF 

- X - - Combo 3 Ovens 4-way diffuser Front & Side 2000 cfm (1000 cfm ea) 70-75ºF 

- X - - Combo 3 Ovens Perf diffuser Front & Side 1000 cfm (500 cfm ea) 70-75ºF 

- X - - Combo 3 Ovens Perf diffuser Front & Side 2000 cfm (1000 cfm ea) 70-75ºF 

- X - - Combo 3 Ovens PPS All Sides 160 cfm/ft of PPS 70-75ºF 

X - - - Combo 3 Ovens 4-way diffuser Front & Side 2000 cfm (1000 cfm ea) 70-75ºF Appliance Ext #4 

X - - - Combo 3 Ovens PPS All Sides 160 cfm/ft of PPS 70-75ºF Appliance Ext #4 

- X - - Combo 3 Ovens 4-way diffuser Front & Side 1000 cfm (500 cfm ea) 70-75ºF Side panel #1 

X X - - Combo 3 Ovens 4-way diffuser Front & Side 2000 cfm (1000 cfm ea) 70-75ºF Side panel #1 

- X - - Combo 3 Ovens Perf diffuser Front & Side 1000 cfm (500 cfm ea) 70-75ºF Side panel #1 

- X - - Combo 3 Ovens Perf diffuser Front & Side 2000 cfm (1000 cfm ea) 70-75ºF Side panel #1 

X X - - Combo 3 Ovens PPS All Sides 160 cfm/ft of PPS 70-75ºF Side panel #1 

1-5 


Table 5. Negative Pressure Zone Test Matrix 

SIR4 SIV6 DI8 DI10 Front Line Rear Line MUA Strategy MUA Source Temp MUA Airflow Rate Side Panel 

Configuration 

- X X X 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Displacement Front Wall 70-75ºF Backwall EA=2000 cfm 

- X X X 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Displacement Front Wall 70-75ºF Backwall EA=4000 cfm 

- - X X 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Displacement Front Wall 70-75ºF Backwall EA=2000 cfm Partition 

- - X X 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Displacement Front Wall 70-75ºF Backwall EA=4000 cfm Partition 

- - X - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Displacement Front Wall 70-75ºF Backwall EA=1000 cfm 

- - X - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Displacement Front Wall 70-75ºF Backwall EA=1000 cfm Partition 

Table 6. Lower Edge Design Test Matrix 

SIR4 SIV6 DI8 DI10 Front Line Rear Line MUA Strategy 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Temperature 

MUA 

Airflow Rate 

X X X - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Displacement Front & Rear Walls 70-75ºF Without LMUA 

X - X - 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Displacement Front & Rear Walls 70-75ºF Without LMUA 

Table 7. Exhaust Damper Test Matrix 

SIR4 SIV6 DI8 DI10 Front Line Rear Line MUA Strategy MUA Source Temp Configuration 

- - X X 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Displacement Front & Rear Walls 70-75ºF Collars 100 % Open-Front & Rear 

- - X X 3 Broilers 3 Ovens Displacement Front & Rear Walls 70-75ºF Airflow Throttled to 1/3 Exhaust for Front 2/3 for Rear 

Table 8. Compare Single Island to Double Island Test Matrix 


Configuration 

X X X X Combo Combo Displacement Front & Rear Walls Without LMUA 70-75ºF 

Walk-By 

Equipment Solicitation 

The project was undertaken with matched co-funding secured through the Pacific Gas & Electric 

Company Food Service Technology Center (FSTC) and in-kind contributions from hood and 

equipment manufacturers. With this team effort, ASHRAE was provided with a research project 

with a value exceeding twice the original ASHRAE funding. 

Specifically, the appliance and equipment contribution was estimated using a very conservative 

value. The cost estimate had been developed assuming that manufacturer members of TC 5.10 

would provide much of the equipment (e.g., hoods, fans, diffusers, 100% outdoor air unit, 

makeup air unit) required for this high-airflow test setup. The PG&E contribution has been 

broken into two components, direct co-funding and in-kind contribution of its investment in the 

testing facilities and instrumentation. Historical research projects and equipment investments by 

EPRI, GRI, CEC and PG&E has resulted in a testing facility for commercial kitchen ventilation 

systems with a conservatively estimated value of $500,000. 

1-6 


Experimental Design 

Laboratory Layout 

The layout of the laboratory was extensively modified to accommodate the large island type 

hoods. Floor mounted displacement diffusers were added to supply up to 9,000 cfm of 

conditioned air. The conditioned air was supplied by a floor mounted roof top unit and makeup 

air unit. The local makeup air devices were supplied by two air handling units on the laboratory 

deck. All hoods were connected to an exhaust fan with a maximum capacity of 9,600 cfm. 

Individual airflow measurement stations were installed before each branch of the displacement 

walls, perforated perimeter supplies, and ceiling diffusers. Plan views of the mechanical layouts 

for the single island and double island hood set-ups are shown in Figures 1 and 2. 

Displacement MUA 

O 

A 

Perforated 

Ceiling Diffuser 

MUA Set-Up 

PTA 

5'-0" 

HTR 

24ft x 10ft 

CC 

RTU 

SA 

mix 

box 

Single Island Wall 

C anopy Hood 

10ft by 4ft by 2ft 

PTA 

PTA 

electrical 

HTR 

mua 

AHU2 

AHU1 

h 

t 

r 

h 

t 

r 

c 

c 

PTA 

4-Way MUA 

Set-Up 

8'-0" 


Figure 1. Layout of Supply Air Systems for Single Island Hood 


PTA 

3'-0" 

O 

A 

HTR 

24ft x 10ft 

CC 

RTU 

SA 

mix 

box 

Double Island 

Canopy Hood 

10ft by 8ft by 2ft 

electric al 

PTA 

PTA 

HTR 

mua 

h 

AHU2 t 

r 

h 

c 

AHU1 t 

r 

c 

PTA 

6'-0" 


Figure 2. Layout of Supply Air Systems for Double Island Hood 

2-1 


Hood 

Specifications 

Island Hood Specifications 

The four tested hoods were 10 feet wide by 2 feet high and were installed with the lower 

edge of 

the hood at 78 inches above the finished floor. The depth of each 

hood varied 

from 4 to 10 feet. 

The sides of the hoods were transparent in order to view the thermal plume flow patterns 

in the 

hood reservoir. To represent a generic application, the island hoods had no performance- 

enhancing features such as flanges or interior geometric features. 

Each hood was equipped with 

open hems on the 

left and right sides to accommodate the mounting of side panels. 

Single Island 10-Foot by 4-Foot Rear Filter Canopy Hood 

The heavy duty and combination duty single appliance lines weree evaluated under a rear filter 

island 

canopy hood that could 

be also used for a wall-mounted configuration. The hood 

measured 10.0 feet wide by 4.0 feet deep 

by 2.0 feet high. It was equipped with six 19.6-inch by 

19.6-inch by 1.8 inch baffle-type grease filters, and exhausted through a 36.0-inch by 14.0-inch 

exhaust collar. This collar transitioned to 

the laboratory’s 24.0-inch round exhaust ductwork 

through a 17.0-inch by 28.0-inch duct. The set-up is shown in Figure 3. 

Figure 3. Set-Up 

of Single Island 4-Foot 

Deep Rear Filter Canopy 

Hood 

2-2 


Single Island Wall Hood Filter Velocity Profiles 

Filter velocity measurements were taken on the single island rear filter canopy hood at 2000 and 

4000 cfm. Readings were recorded for each of the six filters with a 4-inch rotating vane 

anemometer traversing flush to the filter face. The profiles are shown in Figure 4. 

2000 cfm 

Filter Velocity [fpm] 

500 

450 

400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

198 

200 

225 

244 

218 

208 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

4000 cfm 


500 

450 

400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

50 

0 

376 

388 

446 

478 

410 

389 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

Figure 4. Single Island Rear Filter Canopy Hood Filter Velocities 

The velocity trends were similar at both airflow rates. At 2000 cfm, the overall average filter 

velocity was 215 fpm towards the center of the filter bank. The maximum velocity was 244 fpm 

and the minimum filter velocity was 198 fpm at the end of the filter bank. At 4000 cfm, the 

overall average filter velocity was 314 fpm. The maximum velocity was 478 fpm towards the 

center of the filter bank and the minimum filter velocity was 376 fpm at the end of the filter 

bank. 

2-3 


Single Island 10-Foot by 6-Foot V-Bank Canopy Hood 

The heavy duty and combination duty single appliance lines were evaluated under a v-bank 

canopy hood in an island configuration that measured 10.0 feet wide by 6.0 feet deep by 2.0 feet 

high. It was equipped with twelve 19.6-inch by 19.6-inch by 1.8-inch baffle-type grease filters. 

The 8.0-inch flat bottom of the filter bank was located 4.0 inches above the lower edge of the 

hood. The exhaust collar measured 36.0 inches by 14.0 inches. This collar transitioned to the 

laboratory’s 24.0-inch round exhaust ductwork through a 17.0-inch by 28.0-inch duct. The set-up 

is shown in Figure 5. 

Figure 5. Set-Up of Single Island 6-Foot Deep V-Bank Canopy Hood 

2-4 


Single Island V-Bank Filter Velocities 

Filter velocity measurements were taken on the single island v-bank hood at 3000 and 6000 cfm 

(300 and 600 cfm/ft). Readings were recorded for each of the 12 filters with a 4-inch rotating 

vane anemometer traversing flush to the filter face. The profiles are shown in Figure 6. 

400 

3000 cfm 

350 


300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

156 

142 

164 

131 

185 

186 

172 

183 

154 

161 

127 

146 

Rear 

Front 

50 

0 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

6000 cfm 


400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

100 

302 

282 

311 

292 

353 

350 

342 

346 

305 

310 

271 

276 

Rear 

Front 

50 

0 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

Figure 6. Filter Velocity Profiles for the 6-Foot Deep Single Island V-Bank Hood 

The velocity trends were similar at both airflow rates. At 3000 cfm (300 cfm/ft), the overall 

average filter velocity was 159 fpm, with 158 fpm for the average velocity for the front filters 

and 160 fpm for the rear filers. The maximum velocity was 186 fpm and the minimum filter 

velocity was 127 fpm. At 6000 cfm (600 cfm/ft), the overall average filter velocity was 312 fpm, 

with 309 fpm for the average velocity for the front filters and 314 fpm for the rear filers. The 

maximum velocity was 353 fpm and the minimum filter velocity was 271 fpm. 

2-5 


Double Island 10-Foot by 8-Foot Canopy Hood 

The 8-foot deep double island canopy hood used two 4-foot deep rear filter canopy hoods placed 

back-to-back. Heavy duty, light duty and combination duty double appliance lines were 

evaluated under an island configuration that measured 10.0 feet wide by 8.0 feet deep by 2.0 feet 

high. The hood was equipped with twelve 19.6-inch by 19.6-inch by 1.8 inch baffle-type grease 

filters, and exhausted through two 36.0-inch by 14.0-inch exhaust openings. This collar 

transitioned to the laboratory’s 24.0-inch round exhaust ductwork through a 17.0-inch by 28.0- 

inch duct. The set-up is shown in Figure 7. 

Figure 7. Set-Up of Double Island 8-Foot Deep Canopy Hood 

2-6 


Double Island 10-Foot by 10-Foot Canopy Hood 

The 10-foot deep 

double island canopy hood was created by extending each of the front panels 

on the 8-foot island canopy hood by one foot. Heavy 

duty, light duty and combination duty 

double appliance lines were evaluated under this island configuration that measured 10.00 feet 

wide by 10.0 feet 

deep by 2.0 

feet high. The hood was equipped with twelve 19.6-inch by 

19.6- 

inch by 1.8 inch baffle-type grease filters, and exhausted throughh two 36.0-inch by 14.0-inch 

exhaust openings. This collar 

transitioned 

to the laboratory’s 24.0-inch round 

exhaust ductwork 

through a 17.0-inch by 28.0-inch duct. The set-up is shown in Figure 8. 

Figure 8. Set-Up of Double Island 10-Foot Deep 

Canopy Hood 

Double Island Filter Velocities 

Filter 

velocity measurementss were taken on the double island canopy hood at 3000, 4000, 6000 

and 8000 cfm (150, 200, 300, and 400 cfm/ft). Readings were recorded for each of the 12 

filters 

with a 4-inch rotating vane anemometer traversing flush to the filter face. In order to apply 

current best practice design, the airflow rate was biased from the rear light duty appliance line to 

the front heavy-duty appliance line. The ratio chosen 

was 2 to 1. By closing down the rear 

exhaust collar from a 36.0-inch by 14.0- inch opening 

to a 36.0-inch by 4.0-inch opening, the 

airflow in the hood was redistributed from 

49% front 

51% rear to 

65% front 35% rear. Figure 9 

illustrates the change in velocity profiles. 

2-7 


Without Exhaust Collar Damper 

With Exhaust Collar Damper 

700 

600 

700 

600 


500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

158 

140 

170 

152 

187 

178 

178 

164 

151 

149 

135 

153 

Rear 

Front 


500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

105 

204 

110 

219 

124 

245 

127 

227 

110 

198 

97 

213 

Rear 

Front 

0 

0 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

Flow Rate [cfm] 3000 

Average Filter Velocity [fpm] 159 

Avg. Filter Velocity at Front [fpm] / at Rear 156/163 

Airflow at Front [%] / Airflow at Rear [%] 49/51 

700 

600 





700 

600 


500 

400 

300 

200 

214 

202 

222 

214 

246 

243 

231 

220 

205 

195 

188 

207 

Rear 

Front 


500 

400 

300 

200 

142 

261 

147 

289 

165 

330 

172 

292 

149 

266 

134 

280 

Rear 

Front 

100 

100 

0 

0 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

1 2 3 4 5 6 





700 

600 





700 

600 


500 

400 

300 

200 

308 

290 

326 

314 

362 

348 

337 

324 

309 

286 

281 

285 

Rear 

Front 


500 

400 

300 

200 

213 

371 

219 

421 

242 

481 

242 

425 

215 

363 

197 

381 

Rear 

Front 

100 

100 

0 

0 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

1 2 3 4 5 6 









700 

700 

629 


600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

403 

376 

420 

400 

480 

476 

459 

434 

414 

363 

374 

378 

Rear 

Front 


600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

278 

474 

290 

538 

329 

314 

565 

282 

471 

254 

497 

Rear 

Front 

100 

100 

0 

0 

1 2 3 4 5 6 

1 2 3 4 5 6 









Figure 9. Double Island 8-Foot Filter 

Velocities 

2-8 


Appliance Specifications 

The appliances used for the investigation represent typical appliance lines and include 

combinations of appliances from three duty classes. The appliances used for the thermal plume 

challenge included the gas charbroiler from the heavy-duty class, the gas fryer from the mediumduty 

class, and the full-size electric convection oven from the light-duty class. 

Appliance Calibration 

The appliances were calibrated to simulate a heavy load cooking condition as developed and 

specified in ASHRAE RP-1202. These calibrations were established by heavy-load cooking 

according to the appropriate ASTM Standard Test Methods [Ref 8]. Then, simulations were 

established using the laboratory’s visualization systems to ensure a consistent effluent plume 

between actual and simulated cooking conditions. 

Hood/Appliance Relationships 

The horizontal distance from the edge of the hood to the edge of the appliance is typically 

referred to as hood overhang. While this may seem to be a straightforward measurement, 

variations are possible. At the appliance, the overhang can be measured to the cooking surface or 

to the vertical surface of the appliance. At the hood, the overhang can be measured to the outside 

edge of the hood, or the inside edge if there are performance-enhancing features. For this study, 

the appliance was usually positioned with the cooking surface centered front-to-rear under the 

hood and a 6.0-inch side overhang. Overhang dimensions were measured from the edge of the 

hood to the nearest vertical skin of the appliance. 

2-9 


Side Panel and Appliance Extension Specifications 

The effect of side panels was investigated with all four hoods, including three partial side panel 

designs, along with an appliance extension. With the double island hood configuration, a 

partition between the front and rear appliance lines was also investigated. Photos and dimensions 

of these accessories are shown in Figures 10 through 15. 

4'-0" 

3'-0" 

3'-6" 

Figure 10. Side Panel #1 

2-10 


4'-0" 

8" 

2'-10" 


2-11 


4'-0" 

3'-0" 

3'-6" 


2-12 


4'-0" 

1'-6" 

2'-0" 

Figure 13. Side Panel #4 - Appliance Extension 

2-13 


Figure 14. Side Panel (84.0-inch top by 57.0 inch bottom by 43.0-inch high) with Double Island V- 

Bank Hood 

Figure 15. Partition (119.0-inch wide 

by 43.0 inch 

high) with Double Island V-Bank Hood 

2-14 


Makeup Air Specifications 

Displacement Diffusers 

To maintain a neutral pressure of zero between the inside and outside of the laboratory, 

replacement air was supplied through fourteen floor-mounted displacement diffusers to either 

supplement the difference between the local makeup air and exhaust rate or entirely supply the 

laboratory when local makeup air was not in operation. These diffusers were located as far away 

as possible from the hood, with seven in the front system and seven in the rear system. The 

diffusers were balanced left-to-right across each system and each system was then balanced to 

ensure similar airflow from each side of the laboratory. The intention was to emulate transfer air 

from adjoining spaces and provide a low-velocity air supply, which has been proven to minimize 

the influence of replacement air on hood performance. The front system is shown in Figure 16. 

Figure 16. Floor Mounted Displacement Diffusers as Used to Supply Makeup Air 

2-15 


Ceiling Diffusers 

Both 4-way ceiling diffusers and perforated ceiling diffusers were used as part of the local 

makeup air investigation. Each diffuser was 2.0 feet by 2.0 feet, was fed with a 12.0-inch 

diameter duct, and was mounted 8.0 feet above the floor. One diffuser was located on the right 

side of the hood, with the center of the diffuser centered front-to-rear with the hood and 18.8 

inches from the side of the hood. Another diffuser was located at the front of the hood, with the 

center of the diffuser located 2.0 feet from the right side of the hood and either 2.0 feet or 4.0 

feet from the front of the hood. Any gap between the hood and diffusers was filled in with either 

a suspended ceiling or a disabled perforated perimeter supply. The diffuser layouts are shown in 

Figure 17. 

Figure 17. Layout of 4-Way and Perforated Ceiling Diffusers 

2-16 


The discharge velocities were measured from the two 4-way ceiling diffusers with the airflow 

rate of 1000 cfm through each diffuser. The appliances were off and the makeup air was 

exhausted by the hood. The velocity readings were taken with a 4-inch rotating vane anemometer 

against the ceiling at a distance of 12.0 inches from the center of each diffuser. The velocity 

readings are shown in Figure 18. 

485 

Side 4-Way 

MUA 

2024 

821 

1662 

1309 

Front 4-Way 

MUA 

663 

1578 

1493 

Figure 18. Velocity Profile of 4-Way Ceiling Diffusers 

The velocity profile of the 4-way diffuser is dependent on the orientation of the supply duct. The 

greater vertical approach to the neck of the diffuser, the more uniform the velocity distribution 

from the diffuser. It was also found that the proximity of the diffuser to the filter bank had an 

effect on the diffuser velocity towards the filter hood. As the exhaust rate increased, the diffuser 

velocity towards the hood increased more dramatically for the diffuser closer to the filter bank, 

even though the diffusers were the same distance from the edge of the hood. As a result, a fourway 

diffuser closer to the filter bank (i.e., at the side of a double island hood) would have a 

greater impact on the velocity at the lower edge of the hood due to its proximity to the filter 

bank. Therefore, for a given air flow rate from a diffuser, the diffuser closer to the filter bank 

(not necessarily the hood) would have a more dramatic impact on capture and containment of the 

cooking effluent at the lower edge of the hood. 

2-17 


The discharge velocities were measured from the two perforated ceiling diffusers with the 

airflow rate of 1000 cfm through each diffuser. The appliances were off and the makeup air was 

exhausted through the hood. The velocity readings were taken with a 4-inch rotating vane 

anemometer. The anemometer was centered with the diffuser and located 12.0 inches away from 

and 12.0 inches below the diffuser. The velocity readings are shown in Figure 19. 

305 

Side Perf Diffuser 

MUA 

183 

0 

272 

Front Perf Diffuser 

MUA 

188 

0 

265 

65 

Figure 19. Velocity Profile of Perforated Ceiling Diffusers 

As with the 4-way diffuser, the velocity profile of the perforated diffuser is dependent on the 

orientation of the supply duct. The greater vertical the approach to the neck of the diffuser, the 

more uniform the velocity distribution from the diffuser. 

2-18 


Perforated Perimeter Supply 

Four perforated perimeter supply (PPS) plenums were used as part of the local makeup air 

investigation. Each was 1.0 foot deep by 0.5 feet tall. Two of the plenums measured 10.0 feet 

wide and two measured 8.0 feet wide. The four PPS’s were balanced with the factory louvers and 

additional dampers at the two 28.0-inch by 10.0 inch inlets to each PPS. 

The velocity from the face of each PPS was measured with a 4-inch rotating vane anemometer at 

three airflow rates. Each reading was an average of two single point measurements located at the 

center of 1 square foot areas along the PPS, with the anemometer held at a distance of 2.0 inches 

from the face of the PPS. Figure 20 shows an example of the velocity readings in feet per minute 

with the PPS supply rate at 160 cfm per foot of PPS, or 5760 cfm. 

306 264 215 180 363 340 300 258 227 286 

301 202 236 293 261 162 146 192 

208 181 166 267 187 175 185 291 

PPS MUA 

187 248 296 269 372 364 211 219 278 330 


Figure 20. Velocity Profile for PPS's at 160 cfm/ft or 5760 cfm 

To ensure the reported airflow rates were accurate, the measured airflow rates to the PPS’s were 

verified. Since the laboratory is airtight, it was known that air into the laboratory must equal air 

out of the laboratory. Exhaust fan speeds were established for the three PPS airflow rates while 

all other supply air sources were disabled and sealed. The PPS ductwork was then disconnected 

and sealed, and the front displacement ventilation system was enabled, with its own independent 

airflow measurement stations. The exhaust fan speed was then reestablished and the airflow was 

2-19 


measured again. When the two systems were compared, the average difference in total measured 

airflow was 99 cfm with the minimum being 32 cfm and the maximum being 275 cfm. 

The airflow rates from the PPS’s were also calculated by using the average velocity multiplied 

by the gross area of the PPS’s. The comparison of the airflow rate by using the velocity 

multiplied by area method to the airflow rate at the PPS measurement station yielded a k factor 

of 0.64 ± 0.00, which had been independently verified. The results are summarized in Table 9. 

Table 9. Testing and Balancing Perforated Perimeter Supply 

Airflow Rate 

Target 

[cfm/ft] 

Airflow Rate 

Measured at PPS 

[cfm] 

Airflow Rate 

Measured at Displacement 

Front Wall 

[cfm] 

Velocity times 

Area Calculation 

[cfm] 

k 

80 2880 2912 4492 0.64 

120 4320 4265 6784 0.64 

160 5762 5487 8964 0.64 

2-20 


Capture and Containment Testing 

The capture and containment determinations were made in accordance with ASTM F 1704-05 

Standard Test Method for Capture and Containment Performance of Commercial Kitchen 

Exhaust Ventilation Systems. The standard clarifies the performance expectations by defining 

some key terms. The phrase "hood capture and containment" is defined as “the ability of the 

hood to capture and contain grease-laden cooking vapors, convective heat, and other products of 

cooking processes”. Hood capture refers to the products getting into the hood reservoir from the 

area under the hood, while containment refers to these products staying in the hood reservoir and 

not spilling out into the space adjacent to the hood. The phrase "minimum capture and 

containment " is defined as "the conditions of hood operation in which minimum exhaust flow 

rates are just sufficient to capture and contain the products generated by the appliance in idle and 

heavy-load cooking conditions, or at any intermediate prescribed load condition." 

During the capture and containment tests, the exhaust flow rate was reduced until spillage of the 

thermal plume was observed. The exhaust flow rate was then increased in fine increments until 

full capture and containment was achieved for the given condition. The airflow rate at this 

condition is referred to as the threshold exhaust airflow rate for complete capture and 

containment, or threshold capture and containment rate. This airflow value is the lowest and 

most repeatable airflow rate for making direct comparisons across various scenarios. The layout 

of visualization systems for the capture and containment evaluation is shown in Figure 21. 


schlieren 

mix 

box 

schlieren 

shadowg raph 

shadowg raph 


Figure 21. Layout of Visualization Systems for Hood Capture and Containment Performance 

Evaluations 

2-21 


To challenge the capture performance of 

the exhaust hood under the dynamic 

conditions of a real 

kitchen a walk-by 

test was used for some 

configurations. The walk-by test consisted of a person 

walking by either 

the front, rear, or both front and rear of the appliance line. The person’ s speed 

was held constant at 100 steps per minute, using a metronome to achieve a walking speed 

of 

approximately 250 ft/min (1. 27 m/s). The 

walking distance was held constant at a distance of 6.0 

inches (150 mm) in front of the hood with a marked path on the floor of the laboratory. 

Airflow Visualization 

Focusing schlieren and shadowgraph systems are the 

primary tools used for airflow 

visualization. Schlieren systems visualize 

the refraction of light due to air density changes. Using 

sophisticated optical technology, the laboratory schlieren flow visualization system amplifies this 

effect 

for lower temperature differences, providing higher sensitivity and contrast than what is 

seen by the naked 

eye [Ref 9]. Shadowgraph systemss also make use of the schlieren effect, 

providing similar 

sensitivity but with lesss contrast than schlieren flow visualization systems. A 

sample of schlieren imaging is shown in Figure 22. 

Figure 22. Schlieren Images at Exhaust Rates for Spill and Capture and 

Containment 

In addition to the 

focusing schlieren and shadowgraph systems, theatrical fog 

distributedd from 

tubular manifolds 

was used to 

better visualize the appliance thermal plume near the cooking 

surface. This method was especially beneficial in evaluation of the effect of local makeup 

air 

devices on the thermal plume, as the seeded fog could easily trace the plume as it was forced 

horizontally and/ /or downward. Examples 

of the smoke manifold in use are shown in Figures 23 

and 24. 

2-22 


Figure 23. Smoke Manifold for Three Charbroilers and Combination Appliance Line 

Figure 24. Smoke Manifold for Three Charbroilers during Test Conditions – Front and Rear Edge 

2-23 


The repeatability of capture and containment measurements at the CKV laboratory was 

investigated and the error was found to be below 14% with a typical error of about 7%. 

Repeatability of the visualization systems was adversely affected as the ambient air and thermal 

plumes approached similar temperatures. This occurred with the presence of dilution air, when 

thermal plume was relatively weak, or when the ambient conditions were above the normal 

operating range of 75 to 78 degrees Fahrenheit. 

Exhaust Air Flow to Supply Air Flow Comparison 

The CKV laboratory was designed to be airtight and was equipped with airflow metrology on the 

supply system. This configuration provided precise airflow rates to supply a kitchen system and 

provided the data necessary to calculate airflow rates. With airflow rates calculated to standard 

conditions, the airtight room provided measurable airflow for not only the supply system, but 

also for the exhaust system. 

To indirectly measure the exhaust airflow rate for each hood installation, the supply and exhaust 

systems were operated without cooking appliances turned on. The primary air supply system for 

the laboratory was set manually and the exhaust system automatically adjusted to maintain a 0 ± 

0.002 inches of water pressure differential with respect to the air outside of the laboratory. The 

fan speeds and airflow data were recorded for up to ten airflow rates and then the motor speed of 

the exhaust fan was correlated with supply airflow rates. This relationship was incorporated into 

the laboratory control program, and allowed the operator to set an exhaust airflow rate by 

referencing the motor speed of the exhaust fan. 

While airflow rates are simple to correlate with appliances off, the actual supply and exhaust 

flow rates must change when appliances are turned on because the relatively cool air supplied to 

the room was heated while passing over the hot appliance. Since the room is airtight, one of the 

air systems must adjust to compensate for the change in air density and additional volume of air 

in the laboratory. For C&C testing, the laboratory operator always controlled the exhaust airflow 

rate and allowed the supply systems of the laboratory to modulate according to room pressure. 

This strategy provided a stable airflow at the hood and helped to prevent variations in hood 

performance that would not be present in the field. 

2-24 


Results and Discussion 

Single Island Rear Filter Canopy Hood, 4-Foot Depth 

The single island 

rear filter canopy hood was evaluated at a 4-foot depth in twenty-two tests. 

Thesee tests included evaluation of hood overhang, appliance duty, side panels, makeup air, hood 

edge geometry, and dynamic room conditions. During these evaluations, the capture and 

containment exhaust rate ranged from 4,400 cfm (440 

cfm/ft) to in excess of 

the 9,000 cfm (900 

cfm/ft) available. 

An image of a typical test is shown 

in Figure 25. The test results are 

summarized in Figure 26 and 

reviewed in 

detail throughout this section. 

Figure 25. Single Island 

Rear Filter 4-Foot Deep 

Canopy Hood 

3-1 


Combo (F,B,O) w/Panel #1 Front & Rear Displacement 124 

Heavy (1 Broiler) 24 in. Side Overhang Front & Rear Displacement 108 

Combo (F,B,O) Front & Rear Displacement 102 

4400 

4800 

4900 

Combo (F,B,O) 4 Side PPS 80 cfm/ft of PPS 119 


5600 

5800 


6400 

Combo (F,B,O) Front Walk-By Front & Rear Displacement 148 

Heavy (3 Broilers) Front & Rear Displacement 101 

Heavy (3 Broilers) w/Panel #1 Front & Rear Displacement 136 

Heavy (3 Broilers) 4 Side PPS 80 cfm/ft of PPS 123 

Heavy (3 Broilers) w/Panel #2 Front & Side 4-Way 2000 cfm(Total) 141 

Heavy (3 Broilers) w/Panel #4 4 Side PPS 160 cfm/ft of PPS 147 

7200 

7400 

7400 

7600 

7600 

7800 

Heavy (3 Broilers) w/Panel #1 4 Side PPS 160 cfm/ft of PPS 144 

Heavy (3 Broilers) 4 Side PPS 160 cfm/ft of PPS 122 

Heavy (3 Broilers) 6 in. Front Overhang Front & Rear Displacement 104 

Combo (F,B,O) w/Panel #1 Front & Side 4-Way 2000 cfm(Total) 128 

Combo (F,B,O) Front & Side 4-Way 2000 cfm(Total) 110 

Combo (F,B,O) 4 Side PPS 160 cfm/ft of PPS 118 

Combo (F,B,O) w/Panel #1 4 Side PPS 160 cfm/ft of PPS 132 

Combo (F,B,O) w/Panel #1 Front Walk-By 4 Side PPS 160 cfm/ft of PPS 151 

Combo (F,B,O) Front & Back Walk-By Front & Rear Displacement 154 

Combo (F,B,O) w/Panel #1 Front Walk Frt&Side 4-Way 2000 cfm(Total) 149 

8400 

8600 

8600 

8800 

> 9000 

> 9000 

> 9000 

> 9000 

> 9000 

> 9000 

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 

Exhaust Airflow Rate [cfm] 

Figure 26. Capture and Containment Exhaust Rates for 4-Foot Deep Single Island Rear Filter 

Canopy Hood 

3-2 


Evaluation of Hood Overhang Dimension 

Hood capture and containment performance relative to the front and side overhang of the 

appliance line was investigated using heavy-duty gas broilers at simulated cooking conditions. In 

all cases, increased hood overhang resulted in decreased exhaust airflow required for capture and 

containment of the effluent plume. 

Front Overhang 

For front overhang evaluation, three broilers were used, with the left and right overhang 

dimension maintained at 6.0 inches to the appliance cabinet. The results are shown in Figure 27 

and discussed below. 

10000 


8000 

6000 

7400 

8600 

8000 

4000 

2000 

0 

Front Overhang: 12.5" 

Rear Overhang: 12.5" 

Centered Front-to-Rear 

101 



Min Front Overhang 

104 



Min Rear Overhang 

105 

Figure 27. Evaluation of Hood Front Overhang 

When front overhang was evaluated with the three broilers at simulated cooking conditions, 

operation with the appliance cook surfaces centered under the hood was optimal. At this position, 

which provided a front and rear overhang of 12.5 inches, relative to the cooking surface, the 

required exhaust rate was 7,400 cfm (740 cfm/ft). Note that relative to the appliance cabinet, the 

front overhang was 4.5 inches and the rear overhang was 10.1 inches. With the appliance pulled 

forward to a 6.0-inch front overhang and 20.3-inch rear overhang relative to the cook surface, 

8,600 cfm (860 cfm/ft) was required. With the appliance pushed back to a 6.0-inch rear overhang 

and 20.3-inch front overhang relative to the cook surface, 8,000 cfm (800 cfm/ft) was required. 

3-3 


Side Overhang 

For side overhang evaluation, one broiler was operated at the end position with the other two 

broilers turned off. The front overhang was maintained at 4.5 inches relative to the cabinet, 

which centered the appliance cook surfaces front-to-rear under the hood. The results are shown 

in Figure 28 and discussed below. 

10000 


8000 

6000 

4800 

5600 

5800 

6400 

4000 

2000 

0 

Side Overhang: 24.0" 

108 


107 


106 


103 

Figure 28. Evaluation of Hood Side Overhang 

When side overhang was evaluated with one broiler at simulated cooking conditions and the 

other two broilers turned off, the required exhaust rate decreased as side overhang increased. 

When side overhang was set to the baseline of 6.0 inches relative to the cabinet, 6,400 cfm (640 

cfm/ft) was required. As side overhang increased to 12.0, 18.0, and 24.0 inches, the exhaust rate 

was reduced to 5,800 cfm, 5,600 cfm, and 4,800 cfm (580, 560, and 480 cfm/ft), respectively. 

This reflected a 25% reduction, from 6,400 to 4,800 cfm (640 to 480 cfm/ft). 

3-4 


Evaluation of Appliance Duty with respect to Makeup Air Configuration 

Sensitivity of appliance duty was evaluated with one of two appliance line configurations: the 

heavy-duty (three broiler) line, or the combination-duty (fryer, broiler, oven) line. These 

comparisons were made with three makeup air strategies available, displacement, 4-way ceiling 

diffuser, and 4-sided perforated plenum supply. The results are shown graphically in Figure 29. 

10000 

> 9000 > 9000 

8600 


8000 

6000 

4000 

4900 

5600 

7400 

7600 

7800 

2000 

0 

Combo(F,B,O) 

Displacement 

Front & Back 

102 

Combo(F,B,O) 

PPS 

4 Side 

80 cfm/ft 

of PPS 

119 

Heavy(3Broilers) 

Displacement 

Front & Back 

101 


PPS 

4 Side 

80 cfm/ft 

of PPS 

123 


4-Way Diffuser 

Front & Side 

2000 cfm 

(1000 cfm each) 

114 


PPS 

4 Side 

160 cfm/ft 

of PPS 

122 

Combo(F,B,O) 

PPS 

4 Side 

160 cfm/ft 

of PPS 

118 

Combo(F,B,O) 


Front & Side 

2000 cfm 


110 

Figure 29. Evaluation of Appliance Line Duty and Makeup Air Configuration 

With displacement ventilation, the combination-duty appliance line required 4,900 cfm (490 

cfm/ft) and the heavy-duty appliance line required 7,400 cfm (740 cfm/ft). With displacement 

ventilation, the heavy-duty line required a 2,500 cfm (250 cfm/ft) increase from the combinationduty 

appliance line’s exhaust rate. 

With the front and right side 4-way ceiling diffusers each supplying 1,000 cfm for a total of 

2,000 cfm of locally supplied makeup air, the combination-duty appliance line required over 

9,000 cfm (900 cfm/ft) and the heavy-duty appliance line required 7,800 cfm (780 cfm/ft). With 

this local makeup air configuration, the heavy-duty line required at least 1,200 cfm (120 cfm/ft) 

less than the combination-duty appliance line’s exhaust rate. The 4-way diffusers created 

turbulence around the hood, which had a great impact on the combination-duty line’s required 

3-5 


exhaust rate. However, this disadvantage was not found with the heavy-duty line, due to either 

the direction or velocity of the makeup air, or the characteristics of the appliance plume. 

With the perforated perimeter supply at 80 cfm/ft of PPS (2,560 cfm), the combination-duty 

appliance line required 5,600 cfm and the heavy-duty appliance line required 7,600 cfm (760 

cfm/ft). With the PPS at this setpoint, the heavy-duty line required a 2,000 cfm (200 cfm/ft) 

increase from the combination-duty appliance line’s exhaust rate. 

With the perforated perimeter supply at 160 cfm/ft of PPS (5,120 cfm), the combination-duty 

appliance line required over 9,000 cfm (900 cfm/ft) and the heavy-duty appliance line required 

8,600 cfm (860 cfm/ft). Therefore, the heavy-duty line required at least 400 cfm (40 cfm/ft) less 

than the combination-duty appliance line’s exhaust rate. With the PPS supply rate at 160 cfm/ft 

of PPS, the turbulence around the hood was significant and spillage occurred. 

3-6 


Evaluation of Side Panels 

The effect of installing side panels on hood capture and containment performance was evaluated 

using the heavy-duty (three broiler) and combination-duty (fryer, broiler, oven) appliance lines. 

Various makeup air strategies were also used to quantify the effect of makeup air with the hood 

partition installed, including displacement, 4-way ceiling diffuser, and perforated perimeter 

supply systems. 

While every effort was made to evaluate each supply air strategy in a fair manner, a feature of 

the laboratory layout may have caused understated performance for side panel installation. Since 

displacement air was supplied in line with the front and rear of the hood and air was not supplied 

from either the left or right of the hood, the displacement ventilation system saw the edge of the 

side panels rather than the surface. Due to this layout, the results may understate the performance 

improvement found in the field for side panels with air supplied from other directions. 

3-7 


Heavy-Duty (Three Broiler) Appliance Line 

For the heavy-duty (three broiler) appliance line, the installation of side panels had mixed 

performance results. They are presented in Figure 30 and explained below. 

10000 


8000 

6000 

4000 

7400 7400 7300 7400 7400 

7800 

9000 

7600 

8400 

7400 

8600 

8400 

8200 

8400 

7800 

2000 

0 

Disp. 

F&B 

W/O 

101 

Disp. 

F&B 

#1 

136 

Disp. 

F&B 

#2 

137 

Disp. 

F&B 

#3 

138 

Disp. 

F&B 

#4 

139 

4-W 

F&S 

2000cfm 

Total 

W/O 

114 

4-W 

F&S 

2000cfm 

Total 

#1 

140 

4-W 

F&S 

2000cfm 

Total 

#2 

141 

4-W 

F&S 

2000cfm 

Total 

#3 

142 

4-W 

F&S 

2000cfm 

Total 

#4 

143 

PPS 

4 S 

160cfm/ft 

of PPS 

W/O 

122 

PPS 

4 S 

160cfm/ft 

of PPS 

#1 

144 

PPS 

4 S 

160cfm/ft 

of PPS 

#2 

145 

PPS 

4 S 

160cfm/ft 

of PPS 

#3 

146 

PPS 

4 S 

160cfm/ft 

of PPS 

#4 

147 

Figure 30. Evaluation of Side Panels with Heavy-Duty Three Broiler Appliance Line 

Displacement Ventilation 

With displacement ventilation, 7,400 cfm (740 cfm/ft) was required for capture and containment 

without side panels, as well as with side panel #1, #3, or appliance extension #4 installed. With 

side panel #2 installed, the required exhaust rate decreased to 7,300 cfm (730 cfm/ft). Although 

side panel #2 provided the lowest exhaust rate with a 100 cfm reduction from the baseline case, it 

was not considered significantly different from the other cases. 

4-Way Ceiling Diffuser 

When the front and side 4-way ceiling diffuser each operated at 1,000 cfm each (2,000 cfm 

total), the required exhaust rate was 7,800 cfm (780 cfm/ft). With side panel #1 installed, the 

required exhaust rate increased to 9,000 cfm (900 cfm/ft) because the plume from the broiler was 

drawn to the side panel and the air supplied from the 4-way ceiling diffusers created turbulence 

in the plume. With side panel #2 installed, the required exhaust rate was 7,600 cfm (760 cfm/ft). 

The distance between the edge of the side panel and the 4-way diffusers was adequate to provide 

some shielding from the side 4-way diffuser. The smaller size of side panel #3 was unable to 

3-8 


shield the plume from air supplied from the 4-way diffusers installed and required an exhaust 

rate of 8,400 cfm (840 cfm/ft). With appliance extension #4 installed, the required exhaust rate 

was 7,400 cfm (740 cfm/ft). With this extension, the majority of the plume was shielded from the 

local makeup air and the plume was better directed towards the rear filter bank. Appliance 

extension #4 provided the lowest exhaust requirement with a 400 cfm (40 cfm/ft) reduction, 

compared to operation without side panels installed. 


With the perforated perimeter supply operating at 160 cfm/ft of PPS (5,760 cfm total), 8,600 cfm 

(860 cfm/ft) was the exhaust rate without side panels installed. The installation of side panels 

generally reduced the required exhaust rate by shielding the appliance plume from the locally 

supplied makeup air. With the installation of side panels #1, #2, #3, or extension #4, the required 

exhaust rate was 8,400 cfm, 8,200 cfm, 8,400 cfm, or 7,800 cfm (840 cfm/ft, 820 cfm/ft, or 780 

cfm/ft), respectively. For this makeup air configuration, appliance extension #4 provided the 

lowest exhaust requirement with an 800 cfm (80 cfm/ft) exhaust rate reduction. 

3-9 


Combination-Duty Appliance Line 

For the combination-duty appliance line, the installation of side panels generally showed very 

little impact. They are presented in Figure 31 and explained below. 

10000 

> 9000 

> 9000 9000 

8800 

8900 

> 9000 > 9000 > 9000 > 9000 


8000 

6000 

4000 

4900 

4400 

4700 

4900 4800 

7600 

2000 

0 

Disp. 

F&B 

W/O 

102 

Disp. 

F&B 

#1 

124 

Disp. 

F&B 

#2 

125 

Disp. 

F&B 

#3 

126 

Disp. 

F&B 

#4 

127 

4-W 

F&S 

2000cfm 

Total 

W/O 

110 

4-W 

F&S 

2000cfm 

Total 

#1 

128 

4-W 

F&S 

2000cfm 

Total 

#2 

129 

4-W 

F&S 

2000cfm 

Total 

#3 

130 

4-W 

F&S 

2000cfm 

Total 

#4 

131 

PPS 

4 S 

160cfm/ft 

of PPS 

W/O 

118 

PPS 

4 S 

160cfm/ft 

of PPS 

#1 

132 

PPS 

4 S 

160cfm/ft 

of PPS 

#2 

133 

PPS 

4 S 

160cfm/ft 

of PPS 

#3 

134 

PPS 

4 S 

160cfm/ft 

of PPS 

#4 

135 

Figure 31. Evaluation of Side Panels with Combination-Duty (Fryer, Broiler, Oven) Appliance Line 



without side panels. With side panels #1, #2, #3, or extension #4 installed, the required exhaust 

rates were 4,400 cfm, 4,700 cfm, 4,900 cfm, and 4,800 cfm (440 cfm/ft, 470 cfm/ft, 490 cfm/ft, 

480 cfm/ft) , respectively. For displacement ventilation, the installation of panels or extensions 

on the combination-duty line resulted in an exhaust rate reduction of up to 500 cfm (50 cfm/ft) 

with the use of side panel #1. 



total), the required exhaust rate for operation without side panels exceeded the 9,000 cfm (900 

cfm/ft) limitation of the exhaust fan. With side panels #1, #2, #3, or extension #4 installed, the 

required exhaust rates were 8,800 cfm, over 9,000 cfm, 9,000 cfm, and 8,900 cfm, (880 cfm/ft, 

3-10 


900 cfm/ft, 900 cfm/ft, 890 cfm/ft) respectively. The air supplied from the two 4-way diffusers 

proved to be a challenge for capture and containment of the combination-duty line. Side panels 

#1, #3, and extension #4 did allow for capture and containment to occur, with the performance 

improvement of at least 200 cfm (20 cfm/ft) with the use of side panel #1. 


With the perforated perimeter supply in operation at 160 cfm/ft of PPS (5,120 cfm total), the 

required exhaust rate for capture and containment without side panels exceeded the 9,000 cfm 

(900 cfm/ft) available. This result was the case for all but one condition. When the appliance 

extension #4 was installed, capture and containment was achieved at 7,600 cfm (760 cfm/ft), 

which was an improvement of at least 1,400 cfm (140 cfm/ft). The airflow rate from the PPS 

caused turbulence in the capture area of the hood, which could not be compensated for with the 

available airflow rates in the laboratory. By shielding the left, rear, and right of the appliance line 

with appliance extension #4, a portion of the PPS supply air was blocked from the appliance 

plume and the hood was able to successfully capture and contain the plume. 

3-11 


Evaluation of Makeup Air Configuration and Airflow Rate 

Capture and containment performance was evaluated relative to makeup air configuration and 

supplied airflow rate, while each makeup air system operated at the “medium” temperature of 

70-75°F. These tests were performed using one of three appliance lines: heavy-duty (three 

broiler), heavy-duty (one broiler), and combination-duty (fryer, broiler, and oven). The makeup 

air configurations included displacement, perforated ceiling diffuser, 4-way ceiling diffuser, and 

perforated perimeter supply. 


For the local makeup air configurations tested, the performance trends indicated that reduced 

local makeup airflow rates and/or velocities resulted in lower exhaust requirements. These 

findings were generally consistent with results found for wall canopy hoods in previous research 

projects. The results are shown in Figure 32 and discussed below in detail. 

10000 

8600 


8000 

6000 

4000 

7400 

7600 

7800 

2000 

0 

Displacement 

Front & Back 

101 

PPS 

4 Side 

80 cfm/ft 

of PPS 

123 


Front & Side 

2000 cfm 


114 

PPS 

4 Side 

160 cfm/ft 

of PPS 

122 

Figure 32. Evaluation of Makeup Air with Heavy-Duty (Three Broiler) Appliance Line 

3-12 



The displacement ventilation system required an exhaust rate of 7,400 cfm (740 cfm/ft) and was 

the best performing strategy tested with the heavy-duty (three broiler) appliance line. 


The 4-way ceiling diffuser was evaluated with 1,000 cfm flowing through the front and right side 

diffuser, for a total of 2,000 cfm of local makeup air. In this configuration, the required exhaust 

rate was 7,800 cfm (780 cfm/ft). 


The 4-sided perforated perimeter supply was evaluated at 160 cfm/ft (5,120 cfm) and 80 cfm/ft 

(2,560 cfm). With the PPS supplying air at 160 cfm/ft (5,120 cfm), the required exhaust rate was 

8,600 cfm (860 cfm/ft). When the airflow rate from the PPS was decreased to 80 cfm/ft (2,560 

cfm), the required exhaust rate decreased to 7,600 cfm (760 cfm/ft). 

3-13 


Heavy-Duty (One Broiler) Appliance Line 

For the local makeup air configurations tested with one heavy-duty broiler, it was shown that 

local makeup air could have a noteworthy effect on capture and containment performance. The 

results are shown in Figure 33 and discussed below in detail. 

10000 

> 9000 > 9000 

8200 


8000 

6000 

4000 

6400 

7400 7400 

7800 

2000 

0 

Displacement 

Front & Back 

103 


Front 

1000 cfm 

112 

Perf. Diffuser 

Side 

500 cfm 

115 


Side 

500 cfm 

111 


Front & Side 

2000 cfm 


113 


Front 

1000 cfm 

116 


Front & Side 

2000 cfm 


117 

Figure 33. Evaluation of Makeup Air with Heavy-Duty (One Broiler) Appliance Line 


The displacement ventilation system required an exhaust rate of 6,400 cfm (640 cfm/ft). The 

displacement system was the best performing strategy tested with the heavy-duty (one broiler) 

appliance line. 


The 4-way ceiling diffuser was evaluated in three configurations: with 1,000 cfm flowing 

through the front and right side diffuser, for a total of 2,000 cfm, with 1,000 cfm flowing through 

the front diffuser only, and with 500 cfm flowing through the right side diffuser only. 

With 1,000 cfm supplied from the front 4-way diffuser, the required exhaust rate was 7,400 cfm 

(740 cfm/ft). With 500 cfm supplied from the side 4-way diffuser, the required exhaust rate was 

3-14 


7,800 cfm (780 cfm/ft). With a total of 2,000 cfm supplied from the front and side 4-way 

diffuser, the required exhaust rate was 8,200 cfm (820 cfm/ft). 

Perforated Ceiling Diffuser 

The perforated ceiling diffuser was evaluated in three configurations: with a total of 2,000 cfm 

through the front and right side diffusers, with 1,000 cfm flowing through the front diffuser only, 

and with 500 cfm flowing through the right side diffuser only. 

With 1,000 cfm supplied from the front perforated diffuser, the required exhaust rate exceeded 

the 9,000 cfm (900 cfm/ft) available. With 500 cfm supplied from the side perforated diffuser, 

the required exhaust rate was 7,400 cfm (740 cfm/ft). With a total of 2,000 cfm supplied from the 

front and side perforated diffusers, the required exhaust rate exceeded the 9,000 cfm (900 cfm/ft) 

available. 

3-15 


Combination-Duty Appliance Line 

For the local makeup air configurations tested, performance trends indicated that reduced local 

makeup airflow rates and/or velocities resulted in lower exhaust requirements. These findings 

were generally consistent with results found for wall canopy hoods in previous research projects. 

The results are shown in Figure 34 and discussed below in detail. 

10000 

> 9000 > 9000 


8000 

6000 

4000 

4900 

5600 

2000 

0 

Displacement 

Front & Back 

102 

PPS 

4 Side 

80 cfm/ft 

of PPS 

119 


Front & Side 

2000 cfm 


110 

PPS 

4 Side 

160 cfm/ft 

of PPS 

118 

Figure 34. Evaluation of Makeup Air with Combination-Duty (Fryer, Broiler, Oven) Appliance Line 


The displacement ventilation system required an exhaust rate of 4,900 cfm (490 cfm/ft), which 

was the lowest exhaust rate for the combination-duty (fryer, broiler, oven) appliance line. 




rate exceeded the 9,000 cfm (900 cfm/ft) capacity of the exhaust fan. 


The 4-sided perforated perimeter supply was evaluated at 160 cfm/ft of PPS (5,120 cfm) and 80 

cfm/ft of PPS (2,560 cfm). With the PPS supplying air at 160 cfm/ft (5,120 cfm), the required 

exhaust rate was over the 9,000 cfm (900 cfm/ft) available. When the airflow rate from the PPS 

was decreased to 80 cfm/ft (2,560 cfm), the required exhaust rate decreased to 5,600 cfm (560 

cfm/ft). 

3-16 


Evaluation of Hood Edge Geometry 

Hood capture and containment performance with improved and unimproved hood edge geometry 

was investigated using three heavy-duty broilers while displacement ventilation was used as the 

sole supply air strategy. For the unimproved configuration, the raw vertical edge of the hood was 

used, which was the standard configuration for this project. For the improved configuration, the 

edge of the hood was modified with a 1.5-inch 90-degree lip or flange, which is typically 

installed by the manufacturer of these test hoods to improve capture and containment 

performance. The results are shown in Figure 35. 

10000 


8000 

6000 

7400 

6400 

4000 

2000 

0 

W/O Improved Edge Installed 

101 

W/ Improved Edge Installed 

109 

Figure 35. Evaluation of Hood Edge Geometry with Heavy-Duty (Three Broiler) Rear Appliance 

Line 

With the raw vertical edge of the hood, the required exhaust rate was 7,400 cfm (740 cfm/ft). 

With the 1.5-inch 90-degree edge installed on the left, front, and right edges of the hood, the 

exhaust rate was 6,400 cfm (640 cfm/ft). For this case, the exhaust rate was reduced by 1,000 

cfm (100 cfm/ft) with the installation of improved hood edge geometry. 

3-17 


Evaluation of Dynamic Room Conditions 

Hood capture and containment performance with dynamic room conditions was investigated 

using the combination-duty appliance line. Three different makeup air configurations were used, 

with all configurations in operation at the “medium” temperature setting of 70-75°F. The makeup 

air configurations included: displacement, 4-way diffuser, perforated perimeter supply. The 

results are shown in Figure 36 and discussed below. 

10000 

> 9000 > 9000 > 9000 > 9000 > 9000 > 9000 


8000 

6000 

4000 

4900 

7200 

7800 

2000 

0 

Displacement 

Static 

w/o Panels 

102 

Displacement 

Walk-By F 

w/o Panels 

148 

Displacement 

Walk-By F&B 

w/o Panels 

154 


Front & Side 

2000 cfm 


Static 

w/o Panels 

110 


Front & Side 

2000 cfm 


Walk-By F 

w/o Panels 

150 


Front & Side 

2000 cfm 


Walk-By F 

w/Panel #1 

149 

PPS 

4 Sides 

160 cfm/ft 

of PPS 

Static 

w/o Panels 

118 

PPS 

4 Side 

160 cfm/ft 

of PPS 

Walk-By F 

w/Panel #1 

151 

PPS 

4 Sides 

160 cfm/ft 

of PPS 

Walk-By F 

w/Extension #4 

153 

Figure 36. Evaluation of Dynamic Room Conditions on Combination-Duty (Fryer, Broiler, Oven) 

Line 


The displacement ventilation system required an exhaust rate of 4,900 cfm (490 cfm/ft) with 

static room conditions. With a front walk-by condition, the required exhaust rate was 7,200 cfm 

(720 cfm/ft). With a front and back walk-by condition, the required exhaust rate exceeded the 

9,000 cfm (900 cfm/ft) available. 




3-18 


ate exceeded the 9,000 cfm (900 cfm/ft) available, regardless of static, walk-by front, or walkby 

front with side panel #1 installed. 


The 4-side perforated perimeter supply was evaluated at 160 cfm/ft of PPS (5,120 cfm). In this 

configuration, the required exhaust rate exceeded the 9,000 cfm (900 cfm/ft) available, for static 

conditions and for walk-by front with side panel #1 installed. When appliance extension #4 was 

installed, capture and containment was achieved with a walk-by front condition at 7,800 cfm 

(780 cfm/ft). 

3-19 


Single Island V-Bank Canopy Hood, 6-Foot Depth 

The single island v-bank canopy hood was evaluated at a 6-foot depth in ninety-two tests. These 

tests included evaluation of hood overhang, appliance duty, side panels, makeup air, and 

dynamic room conditions. During these evaluations, the capture and containment exhaust rate 

ranged from 2,600 cfm to in excess of the 9,600 cfm available (260 cfm/ft to over 960 cfm/ft). 

An image of a typical test is shown in Figure 37. The test results are summarized in Figures 38 

and 39 and reviewed in detail throughout this section. 

Figure 37. Single Island V-Bank 6-Foot Deep Canopy Hood 

3-20 


Heavy(1Broiler) 24" SOhang, Centered F-R Displacement F&B 206 


Combo(F,B,O) PPS 4 Side 80 cfm/ft of PPS 244 

Heavy(2Broiler) Max. S&FOhang PPS 4 Side 80 cfm/ft of PPS 246 


Heavy(2Broiler) 24" SOhang L&R PPS F,L,R 80 cfm/ft of PPS 248 


Combo(F,B,O) Panel #1 Perf. Diffuser F&S 1000 cfm Total 257 

Heavy(3Broiler) Displacement F&B 85-90ºF 226 

Combo(F,B,O) Perf. Diffuser F&S 1000 cfm Total 227 

Heavy(2Broiler) Max. S&FOhang Perf. Diffuser Front 500 cfm 231 

Heavy(2Broiler) 24" SOhang L&R 4-Way Diffuser Side 500 cfm 212 

Heavy(2Broiler) 24" SOhang L&R 4-Way Diffuser Front 500 cfm 214 

Heavy(2Broiler) 24" SOhang L&R Perf. Diffuser Side 500 cfm 229 


Heavy(1Broiler) Displacement F&B 203 

Combo(F,B,O) Panel #1 Displacement F&B 254 

Combo(F,B,O) Displacement F&B 202 

Heavy(3Broiler) PPS 4 Side 80 cfm/ft of PPS 249 

Heavy(3Broiler) Displacement Front Exh.Backwall@4000 cfm 275 

Heavy(3Broiler) Displacement F&B 201 

Heavy(3Broiler) Panel #1 Displacement F&B 262 



Heavy(3Broiler) Panel #1 & Ext #4 Displacement F&B 266 



Combo(F,B,O) 4-Way Diffuser F&S 1000 cfm Total 210 

Heavy(3Broiler) 4-Way Diffuser Front 500 cfm 219 

Heavy(2Broiler) 24" SOhang L&R 4-Way Diffuser Front 1000 cfm 215 

Heavy(2Broiler) 24" SOhang L&R Perf. Diffuser Side 1000 cfm 230 

Combo(F,B,O) Panel #1 4-Way Diffuser F&S 1000 cfm Total 255 

Combo(F,B,O) Perf. Diffuser F&S 1000 cfm Total Walk-By F 284 

Combo(F,B,O) Panel #1 Perf. Diffuser F&S 1000 cfm Total Walk-By F 289 

Heavy(3Broiler) Perf. Diffuser Front 500 cfm 236 

Heavy(3Broiler) 4-Way Diffuser Front@4' 500 cfm 224 

Heavy(3Broiler) Perf. Diffuser Front@4' 500 cfm 241 

Heavy(3Broiler) 4-Way Diffuser Front 85-90ºF 500 cfm 221 

Combo(F,B,O) Panel #1 Displacement F&B Walk-By F 280 

Heavy(3Broiler) Perf. Diffuser Front 85-90ºF 500 cfm 238 

Combo(F,B,O) Displacement F&B Walk-By F 279 

Combo(F,B,O) 4-Way Diffuser F&S 1000 cfm Total Walk-By F 282 


Combo(F,B,O) Panel #1 Perf. Diffuser 4 Side 2000 cfm Total 258 

2600 

2800 

3200 

3200 

3300 

3300 

3400 

3700 

3800 

3800 

3800 

3900 

3900 

4000 

4100 

4200 

4200 

4500 

4500 

> 4700 

4800 

4800 

4800 

4800 

4800 

4800 

4800 

5000 

5000 

5200 

5300 

5300 

5300 

5300 

5400 

5600 

5600 

5700 

5700 

5800 

6400 

6500 

> 6600 

6800 

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 


Figure 38. Summary of Tests for 6-Foot Deep V-Bank Island Canopy Hood with C&C Airflow Rates 

Less Than 7000 CFM. 

3-21 


Heavy(2Broiler) 24" SOhang L&R Perf. Diffuser Front 1000 cfm 232 

Heavy(2Broiler) 24" SOhang L&R 4-Way Diffuser F&S 2000 cfm Total 216 

Heavy(3Broiler) Perf. Diffuser Front@4' 1000 cfm 242 

Heavy(3Broiler) Displacement Back Exh.Backwall@0 cfm 277 

Heavy(3Broiler) Displacement Back 85-90ºF Exh.Backwall@0 cfm 278 

Heavy(3Broiler) 4-Way Diffuser Side 500 cfm 217 

Combo(F,B,O) 4-Way Diffuser F&S 2000 cfm Total 211 

Heavy(3Broiler) Perf. Diffuser Side 500 cfm 234 

Heavy(2Broiler) 24" SOhang L&R PPS 4 Side 160 cfm/ft of PPS 245 

Heavy(3Broiler) Displacement Front 85-90ºF Exh.Backwall@ 0 cfm 276 


Heavy(3Broiler) 4-Way Diffuser Front 85-90ºF 1000 cfm 222 

Combo(F,B,O) Perf. Diffuser F&S 2000 cfm Total 228 

Heavy(3Broiler) PPS 4 Side 160 cfm/ft of PPS 253 

Heavy(3Broiler) Ext. #4 PPS 4 Side 160 cfm/ft of PPS 272 

Heavy(3Broiler) 6" FOhang Displacement F&B 204 

Heavy(3Broiler) Panel #1 PPS 4 Side 160 cfm/ft of PPS 271 

Combo(F,B,O) Perf. Diffuser F&S 2000 cfm Total Walk-By F 285 

Combo(F,B,O) PPS 4 Side 160 cfm/ft of PPS 243 

Heavy(3Broiler) PPS 4 Side 85-90ºF 160 cfm/ft of PPS 250 

Heavy(3Broiler) PPS F,L,R 160 cfm/ft of PPS 251 

Combo(F,B,O) Panel #1 PPS 4 Side 160 cfm/ft of PPS 259 

Heavy(3Broiler) Ext. #4 Displacement F&B 265 

Combo(F,B,O) Panel #1 PPS 4 Side 160 cfm/ft of PPS Walk-By F 291 

Heavy(3Broiler) Perf. Diffuser Front 1000 cfm 237 

Combo(F,B,O) Displacement Front Walk-By F 281 

Heavy(2Broiler) 24" SOhang L&R 4-Way Diffuser Side 1000 cfm 213 

Heavy(3Broiler) PPS F,L,R 85-90ºF 160 cfm/ft of PPS 252 

Combo(F,B,O) 4-Way Diffuser F&S 2000 cfm Total Walk-By F 283 

Combo(F,B,O) PPS 4 Side 160 cfm/ft of PPS Walk-By F 286 

Heavy(3Broiler) 4-Way Diffuser Front@4' 1000 cfm 225 

Heavy(2Broiler) 24" SOhang L&R PPS F,L,R 160 cfm/ft of PPS 247 

Heavy(2Broiler) 24" SOhang L&R Perf. Diffuser F&S 2000 cfm Total 233 

Heavy(3Broiler) Perf. Diffuser Front 85-90ºF 1000 cfm 239 

Combo(F,B,O) Displacement F&B Walk-By F&B 292 

Heavy(3Broiler) Panel #1 Perf. Diffuser F&S 2000 cfm Total 270 

Heavy(3Broiler) 4-Way Diffuser Front 1000 cfm 220 

Heavy(3Broiler) 4-Way Diffuser Side 1000 cfm 218 

Heavy(3Broiler) 4-Way Diffuser F&S 2000 cfm Total 223 

Heavy(3Broiler) Perf. Diffuser Side 1000 cfm 235 

Heavy(3Broiler) Perf. Diffuser F&S 2000 cfm Total 240 

Combo(F,B,O) Panel #1 4-Way Diffuser F&S 2000 cfm Total 256 

Heavy(3Broiler) 4-Way Diffuser F&S 2000 cfm Total 260 

Heavy(3Broiler) Perf. Diffuser F&S 2000 cfm Total 261 

Heavy(3Broiler) Panel #1 4-Way Diffuser F&S 2000 cfm Total 269 

Combo(F,B,O) Panel #1 4-Way Diffuser F&S 1000 cfm Total Walk-By F 287 

Combo(F,B,O) Panel #1 4-Way Diffuser F&S 2000 cfm Total Walk-By F 288 

Combo(F,B,O) Panel #1 Perf. Diffuser F&S 2000 cfm Total Walk-By F 290 

7100 

7200 

7200 

> 7200 

> 7200 

7300 

7400 

7400 

7400 

7400 

> 7500 

7700 

7800 

7800 

7900 

8000 

8000 

8000 

8200 

8200 

8200 

8200 

8200 

8200 

8300 

> 8300 

8400 

8500 

8500 

8500 

8600 

8700 

8800 

9200 

9400 

9500 

9600 

> 9600 

> 9600 

> 9600 

> 9600 

> 9600 

> 9600 

> 9600 

> 9600 

> 9600 

> 9600 

> 9600 

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 


Figure 39. Summary of Tests for 6-Foot Deep V-Bank Island Canopy Hood with C&C Airflow Rates 

Greater Than 7000 CFM. 

3-22 


Evaluation of Hood Overhang 


appliance line was investigated using heavy-duty gas broilers at simulated cooking conditions. In 

all cases, increased hood overhang resulted in decreased exhaust airflow required for capture and 

containment of the effluent plume. 


For front overhang evaluation, three broilers were used, with the left and right overhang 

dimension maintained at 6.0 inches to the appliance cabinet. The results are shown in Figure 40 

and discussed below. 

10000 


8000 

6000 

8000 

4800 

4000 

2000 

0 



Min Front Overhang 

204 




201 


When front overhang was evaluated with the three broilers at simulated cooking conditions, 

operation with the appliance cook surfaces centered under the hood was optimal. At this position, 

which provided a front and rear overhang of 24.5 inches, relative to the cooking surface, the 

required exhaust rate was 4,800 cfm (480 cfm/ft). Note that relative to the appliance cabinet, the 

front overhang was 16.5 inches and the rear overhang was 22.1 inches. With the appliance pulled 

forward to a 6.0-inch front overhang and 44.3-inch rear overhang relative to the cook surface, 

8,000 cfm (800 cfm/ft) was required. 

3-23 


Side Overhang 

For side overhang evaluation, one or two broilers were operated with the other broilers in 

position but turned off. Additionally, with two broilers centered under the hood, the third broiler 

was removed for the 24-inch side overhang evaluation to evaluate a smaller than typical 

appliance line under this hood. The front overhang was maintained at 16.5 inches relative to the 

cabinet, which centered the appliance cook surfaces front-to-rear under the hood. The results are 

shown in Figure 41 and discussed below. 

10000 


8000 

6000 

4000 

4200 

4100 

1Broiler 

2 Broilers 

3300 

3400 

2600 

2800 

2000 

0 


203 & 207 


205 & 208 


206 & 209 


When side overhang was evaluated with one broiler at simulated cooking conditions and the 

other two broilers were turned off, the required exhaust rate decreased as side overhang 

increased. When side overhang was set to the baseline of 6.0 inches relative to the cabinet, 4,200 

cfm (420 cfm/ft) was required. As side overhang increased to 12.0 and 24.0 inches, the exhaust 

rate was reduced to 3,300 and 2,600 cfm (330 and 260 cfm/ft), respectively. 

When side overhang was evaluated with two broilers at simulated cooking conditions and the 

other broiler was turned off, the required exhaust rate again decreased as side overhang 

increased. When side overhang was set to the baseline of 6.0 inches relative to the cabinet, 4,100 

cfm (410 cfm/ft) was required. As side overhang increased to 12.0 and 24.0 inches, the exhaust 

rate was reduced to 3,400 and 2,800 cfm (340 and 280 cfm/ft), respectively. 

3-24 


Since the 24.0-inch right overhang also resulted in two of the broilers being centered under the 

canopy hood, the third broiler was removed to evaluate two and three broiler cook lines with 

comparable centering. The two-broiler line required 2,800 cfm (280 cfm/ft) and the three-broiler 

line required 4,800 cfm (480 cfm/ft). With 400 cfm per foot of hood being the typically 

prescribed value for a heavy-duty cook line, the 2,800 cfm, or 280 cfm/ft of hood represents a 

significant exhaust rate reduction if a larger than typical hood is used over a given cook line to 

maximize overhang. 

3-25 


Evaluation of Appliance Duty 

Evaluation of appliance duty for each supply air strategy was evaluated with the heavy-duty and 

combination-duty appliance lines. These comparisons were made with displacement ventilation, 

two 4-way diffusers at a total of 2,000 cfm, two perforated ceiling diffusers at a total of 2,000 

cfm, and the four-sided perforated perimeter supply 80 cfm/ft of PPS (2,880 cfm) and 160 cfm/ft 

of PPS (5,760 cfm). The results are shown in Figure 42 and discussed below. 

10000 

Heavy (3 Broiler) 

Combo(F,B,O,) 

> 9600 > 9600 


8000 

6000 

4000 

4800 

4500 

4500 

7800 

8200 

7400 

7800 

3200 

2000 

0 

Displacement 

F&B 

201 & 202 

PPS 

4 Side 80 cfm/ft of PPS 

249 & 243 

PPS 

4 Side 160 cfm/ft of PPS 

253 & 243 


F&S 2000 cfm Total 

223 & 211 


F&S 2000 cfm Total 

240 & 211 

Figure 42. Evaluation of Appliance Duty with respect to Makeup Air Configuration 


With displacement ventilation, the heavy-duty appliance line required 4,800 cfm (480 cfm/ft) 

and the combination-duty line required 4,500 cfm (450 cfm/ft). 


Operation with the front and side 4-way ceiling diffusers at 1,000 cfm from each diffuser 

required over 9,600 cfm (960 cfm/ft) for the heavy-duty line and 7,400 cfm (740 cfm/ft) for the 

combination-duty line. The relatively high-velocity air supplied close to the hood caused a large 

increase in the required exhaust rate for both duty lines. The heavy-duty line was more sensitive 

to the disturbance and this sensitivity was reflected by an increase of 2,200 cfm (220 cfm/ft) for 

the heavy-duty line above the requirement for the combination-duty line. 

3-26 



Operation with the front and side perforated ceiling diffusers at 1,000 cfm from each diffuser 

required over 9,600 cfm (960 cfm/ft) for the heavy-duty line and 7,800 cfm (780 cfm/ft) for the 

combination-duty line. The concentrated supply air located close to the hood drove the exhaust 

rates higher for both lines. The heavy-duty line proved to be more sensitive and this was 

reflected in the difference between the heavy-duty and combination-duty lines of at least 1,800 

cfm (180 cfm/ft). 


Operation with the four-sided perforated perimeter supply at 160 cfm/ft of PPS (5,760 cfm) 

required 7,800 cfm (780 cfm/ft) for the heavy-duty line and 8,200 cfm (820 cfm/ft) for the 

combination-duty line. Operation with the four-sided perforated perimeter supply at 80 cfm/ft of 

PPS (2,880 cfm) required 4,500 cfm (450 cfm/ft) for the heavy-duty line and 3,200 cfm (320 

cfm/ft) for the combination-duty line. With the PPS at 160 cfm/ft, the required exhaust rates 

were relatively high. However, with the PPS in operation at the more conservative airflow rate of 

80 cfm/ft, the hood achieved capture and containment at exhaust rates that were much lower. 

3-27 



The effect of side panel design on hood capture and containment performance was evaluated 

using the heavy-duty and combination-duty appliance lines. Various makeup air strategies were 

also used to quantify the effect of makeup air while side panel #1 was installed. 






improvement found in the field for side panels with air supplied from other directions. 

Heavy-Duty Cook Line 

For the heavy-duty broiler cook line, side panels were ineffective for improving hood capture 

and containment across the makeup air configurations tested, while one case resulted in severe 

degradation of hood performance. The results are presented in Figure 43 and explained below. 

10000 

> 9600 > 9600 > 9600 9500 


8000 

6000 

4000 

4800 4800 4800 4800 

8200 

4800 4800 4800 

7800 

8000 7900 

2000 

0 

Disp. 

F&B 

W/O 

201 

Disp. 

F&B 

#1 

262 

Disp. 

F&B 

#2 

263 

Disp. 

F&B 

#3 

264 

Disp. 

F&B 

#4 

265 

Disp. 

F&B 

#1&#4 

266 

Disp. 

F&B 

#2&#4 

267 

Disp. 

F&B 

#3&#4 

268 

4-Way 

F&S 

2000cfm 

Total 

W/O 

223 

4-Way 

F&S 

2000cfm 

Total 

#1 

269 

Perf. 

F&S 

2000cfm 

Total 

W/O 

240 

Perf. 

F&S 

2000cfm 

Total 

#1 

270 

PPS 

4 Side 

160cfm/ft 

ofPPS 

W/O 

253 

PPS 

4 Side 

160cfm/ft 

ofPPS 

#1 

271 

PPS 

4 Side 

160cfm/ft 

ofPPS 

#4 

272 


Heavy-Duty Cook Line 

3-28 




without side panels. With side panels #1, #2, or #3 installed, the required exhaust rate was a 

constant 4,800 cfm (480 cfm/ft). When using appliance extension #4, the required exhaust rate 

significantly increased to 8,200 cfm (820 cfm/ft), due to the appliance plume being directed to 

the solid horizontal surface of the filter bank and spilling at the side of the hood. 


When the front and side 4-way ceiling diffuser operated at 1,000 cfm each (2,000 cfm total), the 

required exhaust rate exceeded the 9,600 cfm (960 cfm/ft) capacity of the laboratory, regardless 

of operation with side panel #1 or without side panels. The aggressive plume from the broilers 

combined with the aggressive supply air from the 4-way diffuser overwhelmed the hood’s ability 

to capture and contain the plume. 


Operation of the perforated ceiling diffusers at 1,000 cfm from the front and side diffusers (2,000 

cfm total) with side panel #1 installed resulted in a 9,500 cfm (950 cfm/ft) required exhaust rate, 

which was an improvement compared to operating without side panels and failing to capture at 

the 9,600 cfm (960 cfm/ft) capacity of the laboratory. In this case, the side panel was able to 

shield the plume from the air supplied by the right perforated ceiling diffuser and allowed for 

slightly improved hood performance. 


With the perforated perimeter supply operating at 160 cfm/ft of PPS (5,760 cfm), the installation 

of side panel #1 resulted in an increase of the exhaust rate to 8,000 cfm (800 cfm/ft) from the 

7,800 cfm (780 cfm/ft) exhaust rate found for this configuration without side panels installed. 

When visualizing the plume with smoke, it was found that the plume was being drawn toward 

the side panels. Once the plume reached the edge of the side panels, the plume was blown down 

and out of the capture and containment area by the air supplied from the perforated perimeter 

supply. When using appliance extension #4, the required exhaust rate was 7,900 cfm (790 

cfm/ft). The extension shielded the plume from the PSP air supply. However, the plume was 

directed to the solid bottom of the v-bank and required a slight exhaust increase to maintain 

capture and containment. 

3-29 


Combination-Duty Cook Line 

For the combination cook line, the installation of side panels maintained or improved hood 

capture and containment performance, except with the front and side 4-way diffusers in 

operation. The results are presented in Figure 44 and discussed below in detail. 

10000 

W/O Side Panels 

W/ Panel #1 > 

9600 


8000 

6000 

4000 

4500 

4200 

5000 

5300 

7400 

3800 

3700 

7800 

6800 

8200 

8200 

2000 

0 

Displacement 

F&B 

202 

4-Way 

F&S 

1000 cfm 

Total 

210 

4-Way 

F&S 

2000 cfm 

Total 

211 

Perf. 

F&S 

1000 cfm 

Total 

227 

Perf. 

F&S 

2000 cfm 

Total 

228 

PPS 

4 Side 

160 cfm/ft 

of PPS 

243 


Combination-Duty Cook Line 


While supplying with displacement ventilation, the installation of side panel #1 resulted in a 

decrease of the required exhaust rate. Operation with side panel #1 required 4,200 cfm (420 

cfm/ft). Operation without side panels required 4,500 cfm (450 cfm/ft). 


While operating two 4-way diffusers, the installation of side panel #1 resulted in an increase of 

the required exhaust rate. With the front and side 4-way ceiling diffusers in operation at a total of 

1,000 cfm (500 cfm each), the exhaust rate increased to 5,300 cfm (530 cfm/ft) with side panel 

#1 installed from 5,000 cfm (500 cfm/ft) without side panels installed. With the front and side 4- 

way ceiling diffusers operating at a total of 2,000 cfm (1,000 cfm each) and side panel #1 

installed, the exhaust rate requirement increased to in excess of the 9,600 cfm (960 cfm/ft) 

capacity of the laboratory from 7,400 cfm (740 cfm/ft). When visualizing the plume with smoke, 

3-30 


it was found that the plume was being drawn toward the side panel. Once the plume reached the 

edge of the side panel, the plume was aggressively pushed out by the air from the 4-way 

diffusers. So, in this case, side panels could not improve and actually worsened performance 

with the 4-way ceiling diffusers in operation. 


While operating two perforated ceiling diffusers, the installation of side panel #1 resulted in a 

decrease of the required exhaust rate. With the front and side perforated ceiling diffusers 

operating at a total of 1,000 cfm (500 cfm each), installation of side panels caused an exhaust 

rate decrease to 3,700 cfm (370 cfm/ft) from 3,800 cfm (380 cfm/ft). With the front and side 

perforated ceiling diffusers in operation at a total of 2,000 cfm (1,000 cfm each), the exhaust rate 

decreased to 6,800 cfm (680 cfm/ft) with the installation of side panels, from 7,800 cfm (780 

cfm/ft) when operated without side panels. At the higher perforated diffuser airflow rates, the 

side panel was able to shield the plume from the air supplied by the right diffuser and allowed for 

improved hood performance. 


With the perforated perimeter supply in operation at 160 cfm/ft of PPS (5,760 cfm), the required 

exhaust rate was 8,200 cfm (820 cfm/ft), regardless of operation with or without side panel #1. 

3-31 


Evaluation of Makeup Air Configuration, Airflow Rate, and Supply Temperature 

Capture and containment performance was evaluated relative to makeup air configuration, 

supplied airflow rate, and supplied air temperature. For these tests, the heavy-duty (three broiler), 

heavy-duty (two broiler), and combination-duty (fryer, broiler, oven) appliance lines were used. 

The makeup air configurations included displacement, perforated ceiling diffuser, 4-way ceiling 

diffuser, and perforated perimeter supply. Each makeup air system operated at either the 

“medium” temperature of 70-75°F, or the “high” temperature of 85-90°F for selected tests. 


For all local makeup air configurations, a reduced local makeup airflow rate resulted in a lower 

exhaust requirement and when tested, increased distance from the local makeup air supply to the 

hood improved performance. These findings were consistent with results found for wall canopy 

hoods. With displacement ventilation, a well-balanced layout optimized the exhaust requirement, 

while an unbalanced displacement system resulted in a significantly higher exhaust rate. The 


Displace. F&B 85-90ºF 226 

PPS 4Side 80 cfm/ft of PPS 249 

Displace. Front Exh Back: 4000 cfm 275 

Displace. F&B 201 

4-Way Front 500 cfm 219 

Perf. Front 500 cfm 236 

4-Way Front at 4' 500 cfm 224 

Perf. Front at 4' 500 cfm 241 

4-Way Front 500 cfm 85-90ºF 221 

Perf. Front 500 cfm 85-90ºF 238 


Displace. Back Exh Back: 0 cfm 277 

Displace. Back Exh Back: 0 cfm 85-90ºF 278 

Perf. Front at 4' 1000 cfm 242 

4-Way Side 500 cfm 217 

Displace. Front Exh Back: 0 cfm 85-90ºF 276 

Perf. Side 500 cfm 234 


4-Way Front 1000 cfm 85-90ºF 222 

PPS 4Side 160 cfm/ft of PPS 253 

PPS 4Side 160 cfm/ft of PPS 85-90ºF 250 

PPS F,L,R 160 cfm/ft of PPS 251 

Perf. Front 1000 cfm 237 

PPS F,L,R 160 cfm/ft of PPS 85-90ºF 252 

4-Way Front at 4' 1000 cfm 225 

Perf. Front 1000 cfm 85-90ºF 239 

4-Way Side 1000 cfm 218 

4-Way Front 1000 cfm 220 

4-Way F&S 2000 cfm Total 223 

4-Way F&S 2000 cfm Total 260 

Perf. Side 1000 cfm 235 

Perf. F&S 2000 cfm Total 240 

Perf. F&S 2000 cfm Total 261 

3800 

4500 

> 4700 

4800 

5000 

5400 

5600 

5600 

5700 

5800 

> 6600 

> 7200 

> 7200 

7200 

7300 

7400 

7400 

> 7500 

7700 

7800 

8200 

8200 

8300 

8500 

8600 

9200 

> 9600 

9600 

> 9600 

> 9600 

> 9600 

> 9600 

> 9600 

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 


Figure 45. Evaluation of Makeup Air with Heavy-Duty (Three Broiler) Appliance Line 

3-32 



The displacement ventilation system was evaluated for performance relative to the location of 

the diffusers used to supply the laboratory, as well as the temperature of the supplied air. This 

best-case performance for any tested makeup air strategy supports the general concept of 

introducing makeup or transfer air as far away from the hood and at as low of a velocity as 

possible. Hood performance with displacement ventilation favored a higher supply air 

temperature, even though performance was very good at medium temperature, as well. 

The identical front and rear walls were operated together, as well as independently. Operation of 

both walls required an exhaust rate of 4,800 cfm (480 cfm/ft). Operation of only the front wall 

required more than the 7,500 cfm (750 cfm/ft) available. Operation of only the rear wall required 

an exhaust rate that exceeded the 7,200 cfm (720 cfm/ft) available. When either wall was 

operated independently, the plume was pushed out the opposite side of the hood by the 

approaching supply air. Therefore, a balanced supply air distribution was important for proper 

hood performance. 

Hood capture and containment performance was either improved or maintained when the 

temperature of air from the displacement ventilation system was increased. While supplying the 

laboratory with high temperature air using the front and rear walls, the exhaust rate was 3,800 

cfm (380 cfm/ft) compared to 4,800 cfm (480 cfm/ft) for low temperature operation. While 

supplying the laboratory with high temperature air using only the front wall, the exhaust rate was 

7,400 cfm (740 cfm/ft), which was a slight improvement, compared to not capturing at the 7,500 

cfm (750 cfm/ft) maximum of the laboratory. While supplying the laboratory using only the back 

wall, the exhaust rate was greater than the 7,200 cfm (720 cfm/ft) capacity of the laboratory, 

regardless of supply air temperature. 


The 4-way ceiling diffuser was operated at either 1,000 or 500 cfm, and with both diffusers in 

operation at 1,000 cfm per diffuser. A brief location sensitivity test was performed by changing 

the distance of the front diffuser from two to four feet from the hood while the right diffuser was 

off. Reduction of the local makeup airflow rate and increased distance between the local makeup 

air discharge and the hood resulted in lower required exhaust airflow rates. However, when 

tested at the high makeup air temperature, hood capture and containment performance did not 

consistently follow this trend. 

For operation of the front diffuser at 1,000 cfm and 500 cfm, a 9,600 cfm (960 cfm/ft) and 5,000 

cfm (500 cfm/ft) exhaust rate was required, respectively. Operation of the side diffuser at 1,000 

cfm and 500 cfm, required exhaust rates of over 9,600 cfm (960 cfm/ft) and 7,300 cfm (730 

cfm/ft), respectively. For the operation of both diffusers at 1,000 cfm per diffuser, an exhaust 

rate exceeding the 9,600 cfm (960 cfm/ft) capacity of the laboratory was required. The right 

diffuser was then turned off and location sensitivity was evaluated using the front diffuser. When 

operated at a distance of four feet, the exhaust rate was 8,600 and 5,600 cfm (860 and 560 

cfm/ft) for 1,000 and 500 supplied to the front diffuser, respectively. When compared to 

operation at a distance of two feet, an exhaust rate reduction of 400 cfm (40 cfm/ft) was achieved 

with 1,000 from the diffuser. However, a 600 cfm increase (60 cfm/ft) was found with 500 cfm 

from the diffuser at the four-foot distance. With the increased distance between the diffuser and 

3-33 


the hood, the air discharged from the diffuser at the lower supply rate was able to fall to the 

height of the hood and disrupt performance. 

The 4-way supply air temperature was increased to the high temperature setpoint of 85-90°F and 

testing continued with the distance between the hood and diffuser at two feet. When operating at 

an airflow rate of 500 cfm, the exhaust rate increased to 5,700 cfm (570 cfm/ft), compared to 

5,000 cfm (500 cfm/ft) for low temperature air. When the 4-way ceiling diffuser was operated at 

1,000 cfm, the exhaust rate decreased to 7,700 cfm (770 cfm/ft) from the 9,600 cfm (960 cfm/ft) 

exhaust rate found at the low temperature. 

The combination of temperature and velocity from the 4-way determined the affect on hood 

performance. At the lower 4-way diffuser airflow rate, the moderate velocity and direction of the 

air discharged from the 4-way diffuser caused the more buoyant high temperature air to reach the 

lip of the hood and turn up into the capture area, which worsened capture and containment 

performance by disrupting and displacing the appliance plumes. At the higher airflow rate, the 

higher temperature and discharge direction of these particular 4-way ceiling diffusers caused 

more of the makeup air to stay near the ceiling, rather than approach the capture area of the hood. 

So, in this instance, while not the optimal strategy overall, the high-temperature 4-way diffuser 

preferred a higher supply airflow rate. To minimize any performance issues, increased distance 

between the 4-way ceiling diffuser and the hood should be considered. 


The perforated ceiling diffuser was evaluated with the front or right diffuser in operation at either 

500 or 1,000 cfm, and with both diffusers in operation at 1,000 cfm per diffuser. A brief location 

sensitivity test was performed by changing the distance of the front diffuser from two to four feet 

from the hood while the right diffuser was off. A reduction of the local makeup airflow rate and 

an increase in the distance between the local makeup air discharge and the hood resulted in lower 

required exhaust airflow rates. 

Initial evaluation of the perforated ceiling diffuser was performed with a three broiler cook line. 

For operation of the front diffuser at 1,000 cfm and 500 cfm, an 8,300 cfm (830 cfm/ft) and 

5,400 cfm (540 cfm/ft) exhaust rate was required, respectively. Operation of the side diffuser at 

1,000 cfm and 500 cfm, required exhaust rates of over 9,600 cfm (960 cfm/ft) and 7,400 cfm 

(740 cfm/ft), respectively. For operation of both diffusers at 1,000 cfm per diffuser, an exhaust 

rate exceeding the 9,600 cfm (960 cfm/ft) capacity of the laboratory was required. The right 

diffuser was then turned off and location sensitivity was evaluated using the front diffuser. When 

operated at a distance of four feet, the exhaust rate was 7,200 cfm (720 cfm/ft) and 5,600 cfm 

(560 cfm/ft) for 1,000 cfm and 500 supplied to the front diffuser, respectively. When compared 

to operation at a distance of two feet, an exhaust rate reduction of 1,100 cfm (110 cfm/ft) was 

achieved with 1,000 cfm from the diffuser. A 200 cfm increase (20 cfm/ft) was found with 500 

cfm from the diffuser. 

The supply air temperature to the perforated diffusers was increased to the high temperature 

setpoint of 85-90°F and testing continued with the distance between the hood and diffuser 

returned to two feet. Hood capture and containment performance was detrimentally affected 

when air temperature to the perforated ceiling diffuser was increased. When the perforated 

ceiling diffuser was operated at 500 cfm, the required exhaust rate was 5,800 cfm (580 cfm/ft), 

3-34 


compared to 5,400 cfm (540 cfm/ft) at low temperature. Similarly, when the perforated ceiling 

diffuser was operated at 1,000 cfm, the exhaust rate was 9,200 cfm (920 cfm/ft), compared to 

8,300 cfm (830 cfm/ft) at low temperature. 

Since the air from the perforated ceiling diffuser discharged down towards the floor and 

expanded outward as it traveled away from the diffuser, the cooking surfaces were adversely 

affected by this makeup air strategy more than the lip of the hood and this performance 

characteristic was amplified with the high supply airflow rate. With the increased supply air 

temperature at either airflow rate, the air from the perforated ceiling diffuser was more buoyant 

and entered the capture and containment area, rather than falling below the cooking surface and 

into the room. With the turbulence caused by the local makeup air and the makeup air taking up 

volume that would have otherwise been available for the appliance plumes, the result was 

degraded hood performance. 


Better hood capture and containment performance was achieved with less air supplied to the 

perforated perimeter supply, regardless of configuration, supply airflow rate, or appliance line. 

With higher airflow rates, air supplied from the perforated perimeter supply created significant 

turbulence in the capture and containment area, making it difficult for the appliance plume to 

reach the exhaust system. 

The four-sided perforated perimeter supply was tested as the baseline configuration. When tested 

with three broilers, the required exhaust rate was 7,800 cfm (780 cfm/ft) with 160 cfm/ft of PPS 

(5,760 cfm) supplied to the four-sided perforated perimeter supply. The required exhaust rate 

decreased to 4,500 cfm (450 cfm/ft) when the perforated perimeter supply was decreased to 80 

cfm/ft of PPS (2,880 cfm). The three-sided perforated perimeter supply was then tested. When 

tested with three broilers, the required exhaust rate was 8,200 cfm (820 cfm/ft) with 160 cfm/ft 

of PPS (4,160 cfm) supplied to the three-sided perforated perimeter supply. 

Hood capture and containment performance was detrimentally affected when air temperature to 

the perforated perimeter supply was increased. When the PPS was operated at 160 cfm/ft of PPS 

(5,760 cfm) with all four sides in operation, the exhaust rate was 8,200 cfm (820 cfm/ft) at the 

high temperature, which was an increase from 7,800 cfm (780 cfm/ft) at low temperature. 

Similarly, when the perforated perimeter supply was operated at 160 cfm/ft of PPS (4,160 cfm) 

with three sides in operation (rear plenum was turned off), the exhaust rate was 8,500 cfm (850 

cfm/ft) at the high temperature, compared to 8,200 cfm (820 cfm/ft) at low temperature. As was 

seen with the perforated ceiling diffuser, hood performance improved with lower temperature air 

from perforated perimeter supply. With higher temperature, the air was more buoyant and 

entered the capture and containment area, rather than falling below the cooking surface and into 

the room. However, due to the increased discharge area of the perforated perimeter supply, the 

detrimental impact on hood performance was less than that of the more concentrated air supply 

from the perforated ceiling diffuser. 

3-35 


Heavy-Duty (Two Broiler) Appliance Line 

The heavy-duty (two broiler) appliance line was tested with the makeup air supply temperatures 

held at the medium setting of 70-75°F to simplify testing. For all local makeup air 

configurations, a reduced local makeup airflow rate resulted in a lower exhaust requirement and 

when tested, increased distance from the local makeup air supply to the hood improved 

performance. The results are shown in Figure 46 and discussed below. 

10000 

8400 

8700 

8800 


8000 

6000 

4000 

2800 

3200 

3300 

3800 

3900 3900 

4000 

5200 

5300 

7100 

7200 

7400 

2000 

0 

Displace. 

F&B 

209 

PPS 

4 Side 

80cfm/ft 

of PPS 

246 

PPS 

F,L,R 

80cfm/ft 

of PPS 

248 

Perf. 

Front 

500cfm 

231 

4-Way 

Side 

500cfm 

212 

4-Way 

Front 

500cfm 

214 

Perf. 

Side 

500cfm 

229 

4-Way 

Front 

1000cfm 

215 

Perf. 

Side 

1000cfm 

230 

Perf. 

Front 

1000cfm 

232 

4-Way 

F&S 

2000cfm 

Total 

216 

PPS 

4 Side 

160cfm/ft 

of PPS 

245 

4-Way 

Side 

1000cfm 

213 

PPS 

F,L,R 

160cfm/ft 

of PPS 

247 

Perf. 

F&S 

2000cfm 

Total 

233 

Figure 46. Evaluation of Makeup Air with Heavy-Duty (Two Broiler) Appliance Line 


The displacement ventilation system was evaluated with both the front and rear walls in 

operation. With this supply air configuration, the hood required an exhaust rate of 2,800 cfm 

(280 cfm/ft). This best-case performance for any tested makeup air strategy supports the general 

concept of introducing makeup or transfer air as far away from the hood and at as low of a 

velocity as possible. 


The 4-way ceiling diffuser was operated at either 1,000 cfm or 500 cfm from the front or side 

diffuser, and with both diffusers in operation at 1,000 cfm per diffuser. For operation of the front 

diffuser at 1,000 cfm and 500 cfm, a 5,200 cfm (520 cfm/ft) and 3,900 cfm (390 cfm/ft) exhaust 

rate was required, respectively. Operation of the side diffuser at 1,000 cfm and 500 cfm, required 

3-36 


exhaust rates of 8,400 cfm (840 cfm/ft) and 3,900 cfm (390 cfm/ft), respectively. For the 

operation of both diffusers at 1,000 cfm per diffuser, an exhaust rate of 7,200 cfm (720 cfm/ft) 

was required. In this case, a reduction of the airflow rate from the 4-way diffusers resulted in a 

lower required exhaust airflow rate. 


The perforated ceiling diffuser was evaluated with the front or right diffuser in operation at either 

500 cfm or 1,000 cfm, and with both diffusers in operation at 1,000 cfm per diffuser. For 

operation of the front diffuser at 1,000 cfm and 500 cfm, a 7,100 cfm (710 cfm/ft) and 3,800 cfm 

(380 cfm/ft) exhaust rate was required, respectively. Operation of the side diffuser at 1,000 cfm 

and 500 cfm required exhaust rates of 5,300 cfm (530 cfm/ft) and 4,000 cfm (400 cfm/ft), 

respectively. For the operation of both diffusers at 1,000 cfm per diffuser, an exhaust rate of 

8,800 cfm (880 cfm/ft) was required. For the perforated ceiling diffuser, a reduction of the local 

makeup air supply rate resulted in a lower required exhaust airflow rate. 


The perforated perimeter supply was evaluated with four sides in operation at 160 cfm/ft of PPS 

(5,760 cfm) or 80 cfm/ft of PPS (2,880 cfm). The PPS was then modified for three-sided 

operation at 160 cfm/ft of PPS (4,160 cfm) or 80 cfm/ft of PPS (2,080 cfm). With the four-sided 

perforated perimeter supply in operation at 160 cfm/ft or 80 cfm/ft, the hood required an exhaust 

rate of 7,400 cfm (740 cfm/ft) or 3,200 cfm (320 cfm/ft), respectively. With the three-sided 

perforated perimeter supply in operation at 160 cfm/ft or 80 cfm/ft, the hood required an exhaust 

rate of 8,700 cfm (870 cfm/ft) or 3,300 cfm (330 cfm/ft), respectively. Better hood capture and 

containment performance was achieved with less air supplied to the perforated perimeter supply, 

with a performance advantage found with the four-sided PPS over the three-sided PPS. With 

higher airflow rates, air supplied from the perforated perimeter supply created significant 

turbulence in the capture and containment area, making it difficult for the appliance plume to 

reach the exhaust system. 

3-37 


Combination-Duty (Fryer, Broiler, Oven) Appliance Line 

The combination-duty (fryer, broiler, oven) appliance line was tested with the makeup air supply 

temperature held at the medium setting of 70-75°F to simplify testing. For all local makeup air 

configurations, a reduced local makeup airflow rate resulted in a lower exhaust requirement. The 


10000 

8200 


8000 

6000 

4000 

3200 

3800 

4500 

5000 

7400 

7800 

2000 

0 

PPS 

4 Side 

80 cfm/ft 

of PPS 

244 

Perf. 

Front & Side 

1000 cfm 

Total 

227 

Displacement 

Front & Back 

202 

4-Way 

Front & Side 

1000 cfm 

Total 

210 

4-Way 

Front & Side 

2000 cfm 

Total 

211 

Perf. 

Front & Side 

2000 cfm 

Total 

228 

PPS 

4 Side 

160 cfm/ft 

of PPS 

243 

Figure 47. Evaluation of Makeup Air with Combination-Duty (Fryer, Broiler, Oven) Appliance Line 


The displacement ventilation system was evaluated with both the front and rear walls in 

operation. With this supply air configuration, the hood required an exhaust rate of 4,500 cfm 

(450 cfm/ft). 


The 4-way ceiling diffuser was evaluated with the front and side diffusers in operation. Two 

airflow rates were evaluated, 1,000 cfm (500 cfm per diffuser) and 2,000 cfm (1,000 cfm per 

diffuser). With a total local makeup air rate of 1,000 cfm, the hood required an exhaust rate of 

5,000 cfm (500 cfm/ft). With a total local makeup air rate of 2,000 cfm, the hood required an 

exhaust rate of 7,400 cfm (740 cfm/ft). The increase from 1,000 cfm to 2,000 cfm of total 

makeup air from the 4-way diffusers caused a 2,400 cfm (240 cfm/ft) increase in the required 

exhaust rate. 

3-38 



The perforated ceiling diffuser was evaluated with the front and side diffusers in operation. Two 

airflow rates were evaluated, 1,000 cfm (500 cfm per diffuser) and 2,000 cfm (1,000 cfm per 

diffuser). With a total local makeup air rate of 1,000 cfm, the hood required an exhaust rate of 

3,800 cfm (380 cfm/ft). With a total local makeup air rate of 2,000 cfm, the hood required an 

exhaust rate of 7,800 cfm (780 cfm/ft). While the lower supply airflow rate was possible with 

good hood performance, the increase from 1,000 cfm to 2,000 cfm of total makeup air from the 

perforated diffusers caused a 4,000 cfm (400 cfm/ft) increase in the required exhaust rate. 


The perforated perimeter supply was evaluated with four sides in operation at 160 cfm/ft of PPS 

(5,760 cfm) or 80 cfm/ft of PPS (2,880 cfm). With the four-sided perforated perimeter supply in 

operation at 160 cfm/ft, the hood required an exhaust rate of 8,200 cfm (820 cfm/ft). With the 

four-sided perforated perimeter supply in operation at 80 cfm/ft (2,880 cfm), the hood required 

an exhaust rate of 3,200 cfm (320 cfm/ft). Better hood capture and containment performance was 

achieved with less air supplied to the perforated perimeter supply. With a reduction in the PPS 

airflow rate from 160 cfm/ft (5,760 cfm) to 80 cfm/ft (2,880 cfm), the required exhaust rate was 

reduced by 5,000 cfm (500 cfm/ft). 

3-39 




using the combination-duty appliance line. Four different makeup air configurations were used at 

the “medium” temperature setting of 70-75°F. The makeup air configurations included 

displacement, 4-way ceiling diffuser, perforated ceiling diffuser, and perforated perimeter 

supply. The results are shown in Figure 48 and discussed below. 

10000 

Static W/O Sides 

Walk-By W/O Sides 

Walk-By W/Panel #1 

> 9600 > 9600 

> 9600 


8000 

6000 

4000 

4500 

6400 

5700 

5000 

6500 

7400 

8500 

3800 

5300 

5300 

7800 

8000 

8200 

8500 

8200 

2000 

0 

Displacement 


1000 cfm Total 







PPS 

160 cfm/ft of PPS 


Line 


The displacement ventilation system required an exhaust rate of 4,500 cfm (450 cfm/ft) with 

static room conditions. With a front walk-by condition, the required exhaust rate was 6,400 cfm 

(640 cfm/ft). With a front walk-by condition and side panel #1 installed, the required exhaust 

rate was 5,700 cfm (570 cfm/ft). 


The 4-way ceiling diffuser was evaluated at two supply rates, with 500 cfm flowing through the 

front and right side diffuser, for a total of 1,000 cfm of local makeup air, and with 1,000 cfm 

flowing through the front and right side diffuser, for a total of 2,000 cfm of local makeup air. 

3-40 


With a total of 1,000 cfm supplied from the two diffusers, a 5,000 cfm (500 cfm/ft) exhaust rate 

was required during static room conditions. For a front walk-by condition, 6,500 cfm (650 

cfm/ft) was required. When side panel #1 was added to the hood during a walk-by condition, the 

required exhaust rate exceeded the 9,600 cfm (960 cfm/ft) available. When traced with smoke, 

the plume was found to be pulled to the side panel and then blown out of the capture area by the 

local makeup air. 








The perforated ceiling diffuser was evaluated at two supply rates, with 500 cfm flowing through 

the front and right side diffuser, for a total of 1,000 cfm of local makeup air, and with 1,000 cfm 

flowing through the front and right side diffuser, for a total of 2,000 cfm of local makeup air. 




required exhaust rate was maintained at 5,300 cfm (530 cfm/ft). 








The 4-side perforated perimeter supply was evaluated at 160 cfm/ft of PPS (5,760 cfm). In this 

configuration, an 8,200 cfm (820 cfm/ft) exhaust rate was required during static room conditions. 

For a front walk-by condition, 8,500 cfm (850 cfm/ft) was required. When side panel #1 was 

added to the hood during a walk-by condition, the required exhaust rate was 8,200 cfm (820 

cfm/ft). 

3-41 


Evaluation of Negative Pressure Areas within the Kitchen Space 

Oftentimes, a commercial kitchen has more than one hood and as each hood exhausts its cooking 

operation, it requires makeup air to replenish the surrounding area. This ventilation creates 

negative pressure areas in the kitchen at the location of each hood. To maintain the desired 

pressure differential with respect to outside the kitchen space, air is introduced in the kitchen to 

“make up” the difference. 

To replicate this situation, the rear displacement system was modified to exhaust air from the 

laboratory, rather than supply it. This modification created a negative pressure area that was 

approximately twenty feet wide and five feet tall. While the rear displacement system operated in 

this manner, the front displacement system provided the supply air to maintain a neutral room 

pressure. This supply air proved to be the limitation of the laboratory, as two exhaust systems in 

operation required much more air than could be supplied by the single displacement system. 

The tested configurations used three heavy-duty broilers and included front and back 

displacement ventilation, front-only displacement ventilation, front supply with 2,000 cfm rear 

exhaust, and front supply with 4,000 cfm rear exhaust. The results are shown in Figure 49 and 

discussed below. 

3-42 


10000 


8000 

6000 

4000 

4800 

> 7500 

> 

6600 

> 

4700 

2000 

0 

Displace. F&B 

201 

Displace. Front 

Exh Back: 0 cfm 

273 



274 



275 

Figure 49. Evaluation of Negative Pressure with Three Heavy-Duty Broilers 

Having a negative pressure area near a commercial kitchen hood is detrimental to capture and 

containment performance. While capture and containment was possible at an exhaust rate of 

4,800 cfm (480 cfm/ft), with displacement ventilation from the front and back, the hood failed to 

perform for all of the other tested scenarios with either front-only supply or higher exhaust rates 

through the back wall. These test results illustrate the value of a well-distributed makeup air 

strategy, perhaps using many discharge locations to provide supply air where needed. 

3-43 


Comparison of Single Island Hood Performance 

In 18 of 22 cases, the 6-foot deep v-bank hood had better performance than the 4-foot deep rear 

filter hood. The v-bank design had an advantage by drawing the appliance plume toward the 

center relative to the front and rear of the hood. It also had an advantage by being better aligned 

with the plume, which allowed the natural path of the plume to aid in its capture and 

containment. However, disadvantages were found with the flat bottom surface of the v-bank and 

its relatively low positioning in the hood. If an aggressive plume, such as from the flue of the gas 

fryer, was located directly beneath the v-bank, the plume would hit the bottom surface of the v- 

bank and spread horizontally. Since the bottom of the v-bank was close to the bottom edge of the 

hood, the plume would spill out the side of the hood. Likewise, if an aggressive local makeup air 

strategy was present at the side of the hood, such as a 4-way ceiling diffuser at a high airflow 

rate, the makeup air disrupted the appliance plume at the bottom of the v-bank and caused 

spillage. A comparison of the results is shown graphically in Figure 50. 

Combo (F,B,O) 4 Side PPS 80 cfm/ft of PPS 244&119 

Combo (F,B,O) w/Panel #1 Front & Rear Displacement 254&124 

Combo (F,B,O) Front & Rear Displacement 202&102 

Combo (F,B,O) Front Walk-By Front & Rear Displacement 279&148 

Combo (F,B,O) Front & Side 4-Way 2000 cfm(Total) 211&110 

Combo (F,B,O) 4 Side PPS 160 cfm/ft of PPS 243&118 

Combo (F,B,O) w/Panel #1 4 Side PPS 160 cfm/ft of PPS 259&132 

3200 

5600 

4200 

4400 

4500 

4900 

6400 

7200 

7400 

8200 

8200 

SIV6 

SIR4 

> 9000 

> 9000 

> 9000 

Combo (F,B,O) w/Panel #1 Front Walk-By 4 Side PPS 160 cfm/ft of PPS 291&151 

Combo (F,B,O) Front & Back Walk-By Front & Rear Displacement 292&154 

Combo (F,B,O) w/Panel #1 Front & Side 4-Way 2000 cfm(Total) 256&128 

Combo (F,B,O) w/Panel #1 Front Walk Frt&Side 4-Way 2000 cfm(Total) 288&149 

Heavy (1 Broiler) 24 in. Side Overhang Front & Rear Displacement 206&108 



Heavy (3 Broilers) 4 Side PPS 80 cfm/ft of PPS 249&123 

Heavy (3 Broilers) Front & Rear Displacement 201&101 

Heavy (3 Broilers) w/Panel #1 Front & Rear Displacement 262&136 

Heavy (3 Broilers) 4 Side PPS 160 cfm/ft of PPS 253&122 

Heavy (3 Broilers) w/Panel #4 4 Side PPS 160 cfm/ft of PPS 272&147 

Heavy (3 Broilers) 6 in. Front Overhang Front & Rear Displacement 204&104 

Heavy (3 Broilers) w/Panel #1 4 Side PPS 160 cfm/ft of PPS 271&144 

Heavy (3 Broilers) w/Panel #2 Front & Side 4-Way 2000 cfm(Total) 269&141 

2600 

3300 

4800 

4200 

4500 

4800 

4800 

5800 

6400 

8200 

> 9000 

> 9400 

9000 

> 9600 

8800 

> 9600 

> 9000 

7600 

7400 

7400 

7800 

8600 

7900 

7800 

8000 

8600 

8000 

8400 

> 9600 

7600 

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 


Figure 50. Comparison of Overall Single Island Hood Performance 

3-44 


The average exhaust rate reduction found using the 6-foot v-bank hood rather than the 4-foot rear 

filter hood was 1,600 cfm (160 cfm/ft), with a minimum of 200 cfm (20 cfm/ft) and a maximum 

of 3,100 cfm (310 cfm/ft). A 3,100 cfm (310 cfm/ft) improvement (4,500 cfm vs. 7,600 cfm) was 

found for the heavy-duty line with the PPS at 80 cfm/ft of PPS (2,880 or 2,560 cfm) by using the 

larger hood. A notable performance improvement of 2,600 cfm (260 cfm/ft) (4,800 cfm vs. 7,400 

cfm) was found when ventilating the heavy-duty appliance line with the larger hood and 

displacement ventilation, whether with side panel #1 or without side panels installed. The 

exhaust rate required to ventilate the combination-duty line improved by 2,400 cfm (240 cfm/ft) 

(3,200 cfm vs. 5,600 cfm) when the PPS was operated at 80 cfm/ft of PPS and side panels were 

not installed on the larger hood. The exhaust rate needed to ventilate one broiler at various 

overhangs also changed for the better with the 6-foot v-bank hood, resulting in a 2,200-2,500 

cfm (220 – 250 cfm/ft) decrease at the various overhangs, compared to the smaller hood. 

Four cases were found where there was a performance disadvantage using the 6-foot v-bank 

hood. In three of the four cases, the exact performance difference was not measurable, since the 

exhaust rate required by the 6-foot v-bank hood exceeded the airflow capabilities of the 

laboratory. For these three cases, it can be stated that the performance difference was at least 

400-2,000 cfm (40 - 200 cfm/ft). Two of these cases were with a total of 2,000 cfm of air from 

the front and side 4-way ceiling diffusers, with either the heavy-duty appliance line and side 

panel #2 (over 9,600 cfm vs. 7,600 cfm), or combination-duty appliance line and side panel #1 

(over 9,600 cfm vs. 8,800 cfm). The third case was with the combination-duty appliance line 

ventilated with the displacement strategy and without side panels installed (over 9,400 cfm vs. 

9,000 cfm) while walking by the front and back of the hood. For the one case with a 

disadvantage that could be measured, a performance disadvantage of 100 cfm (10 cfm/ft) was 

found for the larger hood while ventilating the heavy-duty appliance line using the 4-sided PPS 

at 160 cfm/ft of PPS (5,760 or 5,120 cfm) and with appliance extension #4 installed (7,900 cfm 

vs. 7,800 cfm). 

3-45 


Evaluation of Hood Size Relative to Hood Overhang 

Hood capture and containment performance relative to the overhang of the appliance line was 

evaluated and compared between the 6-foot v-bank hood and the 4-foot rear filter hood. For front 

overhang evaluation, three broilers were used. For side overhang evaluation, one broiler was 

operated at the end of the cook line with the other two broilers turned off. In all cases, increased 

hood overhang resulted in a decrease of the exhaust airflow required for capture and containment 

of the effluent plume. The results are shown graphically in Figure 51. 

10000 

SIV6 

SIR4 

8600 


8000 

6000 

4800 

7400 

8000 

4800 

5800 

4200 

6400 

4000 

3300 

2600 

2000 

0 

Heavy (3 Broilers) 


6 in. Side Overhang 

201 & 101 


6 in. Front Overhang 


204 & 104 




206 & 108 




205 & 106 




203 & 103 

Figure 51: Comparison of Hood Performance Relative to Front or Side Overhang 


The 6-foot v-bank hood had a advantage over the 4-foot rear filter hood when performance was 

compared relative to front overhang. When the appliances were held at a 6-inch front overhang 

for both hoods, the required exhaust rate was 8,000 cfm (800 cfm/ft) for the 6-foot v-bank hood, 

and 8,600 cfm (860 cfm/ft) for the 4-foot rear filter hood. By maximizing the overhang available 

with each hood, the capture and containment exhaust rates were reduced to 4,800 cfm (480 

cfm/ft) for the 6-foot v-bank hood and 7,400 cfm (740 cfm/ft) for the 4-foot rear filter hood. 

Therefore, the 6-foot v-bank hood had a 600 cfm advantage when the appliance lines were held 

at a 6-inch front overhang and a 2,600 cfm (260 cfm/ft) advantage when the location of the 

appliance lines was optimized by centering the appliance lines. These results demonstrate how 

increased hood depth can improve hood performance when combined with maximum overhang. 

3-46 


However, if the appliances are not repositioned to take advantage of the larger hood, 

performance will not be optimized. 

Side Overhang 

The 6-foot v-bank hood had a performance advantage over the 4-foot rear filter hood when 

performance was compared relative to side overhang. When one broiler operated with a 6-inch 

side overhang, the 6-foot v-bank hood required 4,200 cfm (420 cfm/ft) and the rear filter 4-foot 

hood required 6,400 cfm (640 cfm/ft). When the broiler operated at a 12-inch side overhang, the 

6-foot v-bank hood required 3,300 cfm (330 cfm/ft) and the rear filter 4-foot hood required 5,800 

cfm (580 cfm/ft). When the broiler operated at a 24-inch side overhang, the 6-foot v-bank hood 

required 2,600 cfm (260 cfm/ft) and the rear filter 4-foot hood required 4,800 cfm (480 cfm/ft). 

When comparing the change in required exhaust rate for both hoods from the minimum 6-inch 

overhang to the maximum tested overhang of 24 inches, it was found that both hoods improved 

by 1,600 cfm (160 cfm/ft). Therefore, both the 6-foot v-bank hood and the 4-foot rear filter hood 

responded the same as overhang increased. However, the 6-foot v-bank hood required a less 

exhaust air at every overhang dimension that was tested. Therefore, the 6-foot v-bank hood had a 

2,200-2,500 cfm (220 - 250 cfm/ft) advantage when a single broiler was in operation at the end 

of the three-broiler appliance line. 

3-47 


Evaluation of Hood Size Relative to Appliance Duty 

Hood capture and containment performance relative to the duty of the appliance line was 

evaluated and compared between the 6-foot v-bank hood and the 4-foot rear filter hood. These 

comparisons were made with either displacement ventilation or with the four-sided perforated 

perimeter supply at 80 cfm/ft of PPS (2,880 or 2,560 cfm) or 160 cfm/ft of PPS (5,760 or 5,120 

cfm), for a total of six cases. The results are shown in Figure 52. 

SIV6 

SIR4 

10000 

> 9000 

8600 


8000 

6000 

4000 

4500 

4900 

4800 

7400 

5600 

4500 

7600 

8200 

7800 

3200 

2000 

0 

Combo (F,B,O) 

Front & Back 

Displacement 

202 & 102 


Front & Back 

Displacement 

201 & 101 

Combo (F,B,O) 

4 Side PPS 


(2880 or 2560 cfm) 

244 & 119 


4 Side PPS 


(2880 or 2560 cfm) 

249 & 123 

Combo (F,B,O) 

4 Side PPS 


(5760 or 5120 cfm) 

243 & 118 


4 Side PPS 


(5760 or 5120 cfm) 

253 & 122 

Figure 52: Comparison of Hood Performance Relative to Appliance Line Duty 

The 6-foot deep v-bank hood was shown to be less sensitive to the duty of the appliance line than 

the 4-foor rear filter hood in all tested cases. While one configuration must be reported as at least 

an 800 cfm (80 cfm/ft) improvement due to capacity limitations, the remaining conditions 

established an average improvement of 1,450 cfm (145 cfm/ft), with a minimum of 400 cfm (40 

cfm/ft), and a maximum of 3,100 cfm (310 cfm/ft). 

While operating with displacement ventilation, changing from the combination to heavy-duty 

cook line required a 300 cfm (30 cfm/ft) increase for the 6-foot v-bank hood and a 2,500 cfm 

(250 cfm/ft) increase for the 4-foot rear filter hood. Repeating this cook line comparison while 

supplying the PPS at 80 cfm/ft of PPS (2,880 cfm or 2,560 cfm), a 2,400 cfm (240 cfm/ft) 

exhaust increase was required for the 6-foot v-bank hood and a 2,700 cfm (270 cfm/ft) increase 

3-48 


was required for the 4-foot rear filter hood. While supplying the PPS at 160 cfm/ft of PPS (5,760 

cfm or 5,120 cfm), a 400 cfm (40 cfm/ft) exhaust decrease was recorded for the 6-foot v-bank 

hood and a decrease of at least 400 cfm (40 cfm/ft) was required for the 4-foot rear filter hood. 

3-49 


Evaluation of Hood Size Relative to Side Panel Configuration 

The effect of side panel design on hood capture and containment performance was evaluated and 

compared between the 6-foot v-bank hood and the 4-foot rear filter hood using the heavy-duty 

and combination-duty appliance lines. Various makeup air strategies were also used to quantify 

the effect of makeup air while the side panels were installed. Nine comparable tests were 

performed. The results are shown in Figure 53. 

SIV6 

SIR4 

10000 

> 9600 

> 9600 > 9600 


8000 

6000 

4000 

7400 

4800 

8400 

7900 8000 

7800 

7600 

4400 

4200 

> 9000 > 9000 

8200 8200 

8800 

> 9000 

2000 

0 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Panel #1 

Front & Back 

Displacement 

262 & 136 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Extension #4 

4 Side 

PPS 

160 cfm/ft 

of PPS 

272 & 147 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Panel #1 

4 Side 

PPS 

160 cfm/ft 

of PPS 

271 & 144 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Panel #2 

Front & Side 


2000 cfm 

Total 

269 & 141 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Panel #1 

Front & Back 

Displacement 

254 & 124 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Panel #1 

4 Side 

PPS 

160 cfm/ft 

of PPS 

259 & 132 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Panel #1 

4 Side 

PPS 

160 cfm/ft 

of PPS 

Front Walk-By 

291 & 151 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Panel #1 

Front & Side 


2000 cfm 

Total 

256 & 128 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Panel #1 

Front & Side 


2000 cfm 

Total 

Front Walk-By 

288 & 149 

Figure 53: Comparison of Hood Performance Relative to Side Panel Configuration 

For five of the configurations, the required exhaust rate for the 6-foot deep v-bank hood was 

lower than for the 4-foot rear filter hood for a given appliance and side panel #1 installed. A 

2,600 cfm (260 cfm/ft) advantage was found with the heavy-duty three-broiler line and 

displacement ventilation, with the 6-foot v-bank hood requiring 4,800 cfm (480 cfm/ft) 

compared to the 7,400 cfm (740 cfm/ft) for the 4-foot rear filter hood. The 6-foot v-bank hood 

had an advantage of at least 800 cfm (80 cfm/ft) for the combination duty line and the PPS at 160 

cfm/ft of PPS (5,760 or 5,120 cfm), requiring 8,200 cfm (820 cfm/ft) compared to at least 9,000 

cfm (900cfm/ft) needed for the 4-foot rear filter hood, during both static and front walk-by 

conditions. When the heavy-duty three-broiler line operated with the PPS at 160 cfm/ft of PPS 

(5,760 or 5,120 cfm), the 6-foot v-bank hood required 8,000 cfm (800 cfm/ft) and the 4-foot rear 

filter hood required 8,400 cfm (840 cfm/ft), a 400 cfm (40 cfm/ft)advantage for the larger hood. 

The 6-foot v-bank hood had a 200 cfm (20 cfm/ft) advantage with the combination duty line and 

3-50 


displacement ventilation, requiring 4,200 cfm (420 cfm/ft) compared to the 4,400 cfm (440 

cfm/ft) needed for the 4-foot rear filter hood. 

For three of the configurations, the required exhaust rate for the 6-foot deep v-bank hood was 

higher than for the 4-foot rear filter hood for a given appliance line with side panels installed. 

With side panel #2 installed, the 6-foot v-bank hood had a disadvantage of at least 2,000 cfm 

(200 cfm/ft) with the heavy-duty three broiler line and two 4-way diffusers at a total rate of 2,000 

cfm, requiring over 9,600 cfm (960 cfm/ft) compared to the 7,600 cfm (760 cfm/ft) needed for 

the 4-foot rear filter hood. With side panel #1 installed, the 6-foot v-bank hood had a 

disadvantage of at least 800 cfm (80 cfm/ft) for the combination duty line and two 4-way 

diffusers at a total of 2,000 cfm, requiring over 9,600 cfm (960 cfm/ft) compared to the 8,800 

cfm (880 cfm/ft) needed for the 4-foot rear filter hood. With appliance extension #4 installed, the 

6-foot v-bank hood had a 100 cfm (10 cfm/ft) disadvantage for the heavy-duty three broiler line 

with the PPS at 160 cfm/ft of PPS (5,760 or 5,120 cfm), requiring 7,900 cfm (790 cfm/ft) 

compared to the 7,800 cfm (780 cfm/ft) needed for the 4-foot rear filter hood. 

One test could not define the performance difference between the two hoods. In this case, neither 

hood could capture and contain with side panel #1 installed for the combination duty line and 

two 4-way diffusers supplying a total of 2,000 cfm during a walk-by condition. 

3-51 


Evaluation of Hood Size Relative to Makeup Air Configuration and Airflow Rate 

Capture and containment performance was evaluated and compared between the 6-foot v-bank 

hood and the 4-foot rear filter hood relative to makeup air configuration and supplied airflow 

rate, while the makeup air temperature was maintained at 70-75°F, or the “medium” temperature 

condition. The makeup air configurations included displacement, 4-way ceiling diffuser, and 

perforated perimeter supply. Two cook line configurations were used for these evaluations, the 

heavy-duty three-broiler line, and the combination duty line. Eighteen comparable tests were 

performed and the results are shown graphically in Figure 54. 

Combo (F,B,O) w/ Panel #1 

Front & Rear Displacement 254 & 124 

Combo (F,B,O) w/o Panels 


Combo (F,B,O) w/o Panels Front Walk-By 


Combo (F,B,O) w/o Panels Front & Back Walk-By 


Heavy (3 Broilers) w/o Panels 


Heavy (3 Broilers) w/ Panel #1 



4 Side PPS 80 cfm/ft of PPS (2880 or 2560 cfm) 244 & 119 





Combo (F,B,O) w/ Panel #1 Front Walk-By 






Heavy (3 Broilers) Appliance Extension #4 





Front & Side 4-Way Diffuser 2000 cfm (1000 cfm each) 211 & 110 



Combo (F,B,O) w/ Panel #1 Front Walk-By 




3200 

4200 

4400 

4500 

4900 

4800 

4800 

5600 

4500 

6400 

SIV6 

SIR4 

7200 

9400 

> 9000 

7400 

7400 

8200 

> 9000 

8200 

> 9000 

8200 

> 9000 

7600 

7800 

8600 

7900 

7800 

8000 

8400 

7400 

> 9000 

> 9600 

8800 

> 9600 

> 9000 

> 9600 

7600 

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 


Figure 54 Comparison of Hood Performance Relative to Makeup Air Configuration and Airflow 

Rate 

For fourteen of the configurations, the required exhaust rate for the 6-foot deep v-bank hood was 

lower than the 4-foot rear filter hood for a given appliance and makeup air configuration. The 6- 

foot v-bank hood had a 3,100 cfm (310 cfm/ft) advantage with the PPS at 80 cfm/ft of PPS 

(2,880 or 2,560 cfm) and the heavy-duty three broiler line in operation, requiring 4,500 cfm (450 

cfm/ft) compared to the 7,600 cfm (760 cfm/ft) needed for the 4-foot rear filter hood. When 

displacement ventilation supplied the heavy-duty three-broiler line, regardless of operating with 

or without side panel #1, the 6-foot deep v-bank hood required 4,800 cfm (480 cfm/ft) and the 4- 

foot deep rear filter hood required 7,400 cfm (740 cfm/ft), a performance advantage of 2,600 cfm 

(260 cfm/ft) for the larger hood. With the PPS at 80 cfm/ft of PPS (2,880 or 2,560 cfm) and the 

3-52 


combination-duty line in operation, the 6-foot v-bank hood required 3,200 cfm (320 cfm/ft) and 

the 4-foot v-bank hood required 5,600 cfm (560 cfm/ft), a performance advantage of 2,400 cfm 

(240 cfm/ft) for the larger hood. The 6-foot v-bank hood had an advantage of at least 1,600 cfm 

(160 cfm/ft) with the front and side 4-way ceiling diffusers supplying a total of 2,000 cfm (1,000 

cfm each) for the combination duty line, requiring 7,400 cfm (740 cfm/ft) compared to over 

9,000 cfm (900 cfm/ft) needed for the 4-foot rear filter hood. The 6-foot v-bank hood had an 800 

cfm (80 cfm/ft) advantage with displacement ventilation and a front walk-by condition for the 

combination-duty line in operation, requiring 6,400 cfm (640 cfm/ft) compared to the 7,200 cfm 

(720 cfm/ft) needed for the 4-foot rear filter hood. The 6-foot v-bank hood had an advantage of 

at least 800 cfm (80 cfm/ft) with the PPS at 160 cfm/ft (5,760 or 5,120 cfm) and the combination 

duty line for three configurations: without side panel #1, with side panel #1, or during a front 

walk-by with side panel #1. While the 6-foot v-bank hood consistently required 8,200 cfm (820 

cfm/ft) for capture and containment, the 4-foot rear filter hood consistently failed at its maximum 

of 9,000 cfm (900 cfm/ft). The remaining three configurations where the 6-foot v-bank hood had 

a performance advantage compared to the 4-foot rear filter hood had a nominal average 

advantage of 300 cfm (30 cfm/ft), with a minimum of 200 cfm (20 cfm/ft) and maximum of 400 

cfm (40 cfm/ft). 

For three of the configurations, the required exhaust rate for the 6-foot deep v-bank hood was 

higher than for the 4-foot rear filter hood for a given appliance line with side panels installed. 

The 6-foot v-bank hood had a disadvantage of at least 2,000 cfm (200 cfm/ft) while the front and 

side 4-way ceiling diffusers supplied a total of 2,000 cfm (1,000 cfm each) with the heavy-duty 

three-broiler line and side panel #1 installed, failing to capture at 9,600 cfm (960 cfm/ft) 

compared to the 7,600 cfm (760 cfm/ft) needed for the 4-foot rear filter hood. With the front and 

side 4-way ceiling diffusers supplying a total of 2,000 cfm (1,000 cfm each), the 6-foot v-bank 

hood had a disadvantage of at least 800 cfm (80 cfm/ft) for the combination duty line with side 

panel #1 installed, failing at the 9,600 cfm (960 cfm/ft) maximum compared to the 8,800 cfm 

(880 cfm/ft) for the 4-foot rear filter hood. The 6-foot v-bank hood had a disadvantage of 100 

cfm (10 cfm/ft) while the 4-sided PPS operated at 160 cfm/ft (5,760 or 5,120 cfm) with the 

heavy-duty three-broiler line and appliance extension #4 installed, requiring 7,900 cfm (790 

cfm/ft) compared to the 7,800 cfm (780 cfm/ft) needed for the 4-foot rear filter hood. 

One test could not define the performance difference between the two hoods. In this case, neither 

hood could capture and contain the plume while two 4-way diffusers supplied a total of 2,000 

cfm locally during a walk-by condition with the combination duty line and side panel #1 

installed. 

3-53 


Double Island Canopy Hood, 8-Foot Depth 

The double island canopy hood was evaluated at an 8-foot depth in forty-three tests. These tests 

included evaluation of hood overhang, appliance duty, side panels, makeup air, negative pressure 

in the kitchen space, biased exhaust airflow, and hood edge geometry. During these evaluations, 

the capture and containment exhaust rate ranged from 4,100 cfm (205 cfm/ft) to in excess of the 

9,400 cfm available (470 cfm/ft). An image of a typical test is shown in Figure 55. The test 

results are summarized in Figure 56 and reviewed throughout this section. 

Figure 55. Double Island 8-Foot Deep Canopy Hood 

3-54 


Heavy(3Broiler)/Light(3Oven) 4Side PPS 80 cfm/ft of PPS 70-75ºF 332 

Heavy(2Broiler)/Light(2Oven) 24" SideOhang Front & Rear Displace. 306 

Heavy(2Broiler)/Light(2Oven) 24" SideOhang 4Side PPS 80 cfm/ft of PPS 325 

Heavy(2Broiler)/Light(2Oven) 24" SideOhang Front 4-Way 500 cfm 310 

Heavy(3Broiler)/Light(3Oven) 4Side PPS 80 cfm/ft of PPS 327 

Heavy(3Broiler)/Light(3Oven) Front & Rear Displace. 70-75ºF 334 

Heavy(3Broiler)/Light(3Oven) Front & Back Displace. w/Hood Edge 307 

Heavy(3Broiler)/Light(3Oven) Front & Rear Displace. 85-90ºF 315 

Combo(F,B,O)/Light(3Oven) Front & Rear Displace. 302 

Combo(F,B,O)/Light(3Oven) Front & Rear Displace. 70-75ºF 329 

Combo(F,B,O)/Light(3Oven) Front 4-Way 70-75ºF 500 cfm 308 

Heavy(3Broiler)/Light(3Oven) Front & Rear Displace. w/ Panel #1 330 

Heavy(3Broiler)/Light(3Oven) Front & Rear Displace. 301 

Heavy(2Broiler)/Light(2Oven) 24" SideOhang Front Perf. Diffuser 500 cfm 318 

Combo(F,B,O)/Light(3Oven) Front Perf. Diffuser 500 cfm 70-75ºF 316 

Combo(F,B,O)/Combo(F,B,O) Front & Rear Displace. 344 

Heavy(3Broiler)/Light(3Oven) Front Perf. Diffuser 500 cfm 70-75ºF 319 

Heavy(3Broiler)/Light(3Oven) 6" FrontOhang Front & Rear Displace. 70-75ºF 304 

Heavy(3Broiler)/Light(3Oven) Front 4-Way 500 cfm 311 



Combo(F,B,O)/Light(3Oven) 4Side PPS 80 cfm/ft of PPS 70-75ºF 324 

Heavy(3Broiler)/Light(3Oven) Front & Rear Displace. 345 

Heavy(2Broiler)/Light(2Oven) 6" SideOhang Front & Rear Displace. 305 

Heavy(3Broiler)/Light(3Oven) Front 4-Way 500 cfm 85-90ºF 313 

Heavy(3Broiler)/Light(3Oven) Front & Side 4-Way 70-75ºF 1000 cfm Total 335 

Heavy(3Broiler)/Light(3Oven) 4Side PPS 160 cfm/ft of PPS 326 


Heavy(3Broiler)/Light(3Oven) Front Displace. Rear Exh:1000 cfm 342 

Combo(F,B,O)/Light(3Oven) Front 4-Way 70-75ºF 1000 cfm 309 



Heavy(3Broiler)/Light(3Oven) Front 4-Way 70-75ºF 1000 cfm 312 

Heavy(3Broiler)/Light(3Oven) 6" FrontOhang Front & Rear Displace. 70-75ºF 303 

Heavy(3Broiler)/Light(3Oven) Front Displace. Rear Exh:1000 cfm w/ Partition 343 

Combo(F,B,O)/Light(3Oven) Front Perf. Diffuser 1000 cfm 70-75ºF 317 

Combo(F,B,O)/Light(3Oven) 4Side PPS 160 cfm/ft of PPS 70-75ºF 323 

Heavy(3Broiler)/Light(3Oven) Front 4-Way 85-90ºF 1000 cfm 314 

Heavy(3Broiler)/Light(3Oven) Front & Side 4-Way 70-75ºF 2000 cfm Total 336 





4100 

4300 

4400 

4700 

4800 

5000 

5600 

5600 

5800 

5900 

6000 

6100 

6100 

6200 

6200 

6400 

6600 

6700 

6800 

6900 

7100 

7200 

7500 

7500 

7600 

7900 

8000 

8100 

8200 

8400 

8900 

9000 

9100 

9200 

9400 

> 9400 

> 9400 

> 9400 

> 9400 

> 9400 

> 9400 

> 9400 

> 

9400 

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 


Figure 56. Capture and Containment Exhaust Rates for 8-Foot Deep Double Island Canopy Hood 

3-55 




appliance line was investigated for both front and side overhang dimensions. In all cases, 

increased hood overhang resulted in decreased exhaust required for capture and containment of 

the effluent plume. 


For front overhang evaluation, the front line consisted of three broilers and the back line 

consisted of three ovens. A rear seal was also evaluated at the 6-inch front overhang dimension 

to reduce the required exhaust rate while maintaining the specified front overhang. The results 

are shown in Figure 57. 

10000 

9200 


8000 

6000 

6700 

6100 

4000 

2000 

0 

6" Front Overhang 

303 

6" Front Overhang & Rear Seal 

304 

Centered Appliance Line 

301 


When front overhang was evaluated with the three broilers and three ovens at simulated cooking 

conditions, operation at the maximum overhang was optimal. This configuration provided a 

12.0-inch front overhang for the broiler line and 6.0-inch-inch front overhang for the oven line, 

relative to the appliance cabinet, and resulted in a required exhaust rate of 6,100 cfm (305 

cfm/ft). With the broilers pulled forward to a 6.0-inch front overhang and the ovens held at the 

6.0-inch overhang dimension, the required exhaust rate was 9,200 cfm (460 cfm/ft). While the 

broilers and ovens were at the 6.0-inch front overhang dimensions, a rear seal was installed 

3-56 


etween the back of the broiler line and the back of the oven line. With this seal in place, the 

required exhaust rate was 6,700 cfm (335 cfm/ft). These results demonstrate increased hood 

depth can improve hood performance when combined with optimizing appliance location for 

maximum overhang. If a gap exists between the front and rear lines, which can occur when the 

front of the cook lines are lined up or when clearance is needed behind the cook lines, a rear seal 

can improve capture and containment performance. 

Side Overhang 

For side overhang evaluation, the appliance line was reduced to two broilers and two ovens, to 

accommodate the additional space needed to obtain greater overhang dimensions for this hood. 

The results are shown in Figure 58. 

10000 


8000 

6000 

7500 

4300 

4000 

2000 

0 

6" Side Overhang 

305 


306 


When side overhang was evaluated with two broilers and two ovens, the required exhaust rate 

decreased as side overhang increased. When side overhang was set to the baseline of 6.0 inches, 

a 7,500 cfm (375 cfm/ft) exhaust rate was required. With side overhang increased to 24.0 inches, 

the exhaust rate was reduced to 4,300 cfm (215 cfm/ft). 

3-57 



Sensitivity of appliance duty was evaluated with the three appliance line configurations: heavyduty 

front / light-duty rear, combination-duty front / combination-duty rear, and combinationduty 

front / light-duty rear. These comparisons were made with displacement ventilation as the 

sole air supply system to simplify testing. The results are shown graphically in Figure 59. 

10000 


8000 

6000 

4000 

5800 

6100 

6400 

2000 

0 

Combo (F,B,O)/Light (3 Ovens) 

302 

Heavy (3 Broilers)/Light (3 Ovens) 

301 

Combo (F,B,O)/Combo (F,B,O) 

344 

Figure 59. Evaluation of Appliance Duty 

The combination-duty front / light-duty rear appliance line required 5,800 cfm (290 cfm/ft), 

which was the lowest required exhaust rate for the three appliance configurations. The heavyduty 

front / light-duty rear appliance line required 6,100 cfm (305 cfm/ft), a 300 cfm (15 cfm/ft) 

increase above the lowest exhaust requirement due to the more aggressive plume from the heavyduty 

broilers. The combination-duty front / combination-duty rear appliance line required 6,400 

cfm (320 cfm/ft), the highest required exhaust rate of the three configurations tested. This 

configuration did not have the benefit of the tall oven cabinets, which acted similar to a back 

wall and improved hood performance for the other two appliance configurations. 

3-58 


Evaluation of Side Panels and Hood Partition 

The effect of installing side panels or a hood partition on hood capture and containment 

performance was evaluated using the heavy-duty front/light-duty rear and combination-duty 

front/light-duty rear appliance lines. Various makeup air strategies were also used to quantify the 

effect of makeup air with the hood partition installed, including displacement, 4-way ceiling 

diffuser, and perforated perimeter supply systems. 






improvement found in the field for side panels with air supplied from other directions. The 

results are presented in Figure 60 and explained below. 

10000 

8900 

> 9400 


8000 

6000 

4000 

4100 

4800 

5000 

5800 5900 

6100 6100 

7900 8000 

2000 

0 

Heavy(3Broiler) 

Light(3Oven) 

w/Partition 

4 Side 

PPS 

80 cfm/ft 

of PPS 

332 


Light(3Oven) 

w/oPanels 

4 Side 

PPS 

80 cfm/ft 

of PPS 

327 


Light(3Oven) 

w/Partition 

Front&Back 

Displace. 

334 

Combo(F,B,O) 

Light(3Oven) 

w/oPanels 

Front&Back 

Displace. 

302 

Combo(F,B,O) 

Light(3Oven) 

w/ Panel #1 

Front&Back 

Displace. 

329 


Light(3Oven) 

w/Panel #1 

Front&Back 

Displace. 

330 


Light(3Oven) 

w/oPanels 

Front&Back 

Displace. 

301 


Light(3Oven) 

w/Partition 

Front&Side 

4-Way 

1000 cfm 

Total 

335 


Light(3Oven) 

w/oPanels 

4 Side 

PPS 

160 cfm/ft 

of PPS 

326 


Light(3Oven) 

w/Partition 

4 Side 

PPS 

160 cfm/ft 

of PPS 

333 


Light(3Oven) 

w/Partition 

Front&Side 

4-Way 

2000 cfm 

Total 

336 

Figure 60. Evaluation of Side Panels and Hood Partition 

3-59 


Heavy-Duty Front / Light-Duty Rear Appliance Line 

For the heavy-duty front / light-duty rear appliance line, the installation of side panels did not 

provide a performance improvement. However, the installation of a hood partition did improve 

performance. 



without side panels, as well as with side panel #1 installed. With the hood partition installed, the 

required exhaust rate decreased to 5,000 cfm (250 cfm/ft), due to the appliance plume being 

drawn to the partition and away from the front edges of the hood. 



total), the required exhaust rate exceeded the 9,400 cfm (470 cfm/ft) capacity of the laboratory 

with the hood partition installed. However, when the air from the front and side 4-way diffusers 

was reduced by 50%, to 500 cfm each (1,000 cfm total), capture and containment was achieved 

at 7,900 cfm (395 cfm/ft) with the hood partition installed. 


With the perforated perimeter supply operating at 160 cfm/ft of PPS (5,760 cfm total), 8,200 cfm 

(410 cfm/ft) was the exhaust rate for this configuration without a partition installed. The 

installation of the hood partition while the PPS configuration was maintained resulted in an 

increase of the exhaust rate to 8,900 cfm (445 cfm/ft). When the air from the PPS was reduced 

by 50%, to 80 cfm/ft of PPS (2,880 cfm total), the required exhaust rates for both configurations 

dropped significantly. Without the partition installed 4,800 cfm (240 cfm/ft) was the required 

exhaust rate and 4,100 cfm (205 cfm/ft) was required with the hood partition installed. 

Combination-Duty Front / Light-Duty Rear Appliance Line 

For the combination-duty front / light-duty rear appliance line, the installation of side panel #1 

slightly degraded hood capture and containment performance with displacement ventilation. 

Operation with side panel #1 required 5,900 cfm (295 cfm/ft). Operation without side panels 

required 5,800 cfm (290 cfm/ft). For this configuration, the installation of side panel #1 required 

an exhaust rate increase of 100 cfm (5 cfm/ft). 

3-60 




supplied airflow rate, and supplied air temperature. These tests were performed using one of 

three appliance lines: heavy-duty (three broiler) front / light-duty (three oven) rear, heavy-duty 

(two broiler) front / light-duty (two oven) rear, combination-duty (fryer, broiler, and oven) line 

front / combination-duty (fryer, broiler, and oven) line rear. The makeup air configurations 

included displacement, perforated ceiling diffuser, 4-way ceiling diffuser, and perforated 

perimeter supply. Each makeup air system operated at either the “medium” temperature of 70- 

75°F, or the “high” temperature of 85-90°F for selected tests. 

Combination-Duty Front / Combination-Duty Rear Appliance Line 

The combination front / rear appliance line operated under the eight-foot deep island canopy 

hood while makeup air strategies were evaluated, including the displacement ventilation system, 

the front 4-way diffuser, the front perforated diffuser, the 4-sided perforated perimeter supply. 

Two airflow rates were evaluated for each local makeup air configuration, while the supply air 

temperature for all tests was maintained at the “medium” setting. For all local makeup air 

configurations, a reduced local makeup airflow rate resulted in a lower exhaust requirement. The 


3-61 


10000 

> 9400 

> 9400 

8400 


8000 

6000 

4000 

5800 

6000 

6200 

7200 

2000 

0 

Front & Back 

Displacement 

302 

Front 

4-Way 

500 cfm 

308 

Front 

4-Way 

1000 cfm 

309 

Front 

Perf. 

500 cfm 

316 

Front 

Perf. 

1000 cfm 

317 

4 Side 

PPS 

80 cfm/ft 

of PPS 

324 

4 Side 

PPS 

160 cfm/ft 

of PPS 

323 

Figure 61. Evaluation of Makeup Air with Combination-Duty (Fryer, Broiler, Oven) Front and 

Combination-Duty (Fryer, Broiler, Oven) Rear Appliance Line 


While the displacement ventilation system supplied 100% of the room air at the medium 

temperature, the hood required an exhaust rate of 5,800 cfm (290 cfm/ft). The gentle and welldistributed 

supply air was a benefit to hood capture and containment performance. 


While the front 4-way diffuser supplied 500 cfm of local makeup air at the medium temperature, 

the hood required an exhaust rate of 6,000 cfm (300 cfm/ft). With the front 4-way diffuser 

supplying 1,000 cfm of local makeup air at the medium temperature, the hood required an 

exhaust rate of 8,400 cfm (420 cfm/ft). 


While the front perforated diffuser supplied 500 cfm of local makeup air at the medium 

temperature, the hood required an exhaust rate of 6,200 cfm (310 cfm/ft). With the front 

perforated diffuser supplying 1,000 cfm of local makeup air at the medium temperature, the hood 

required an exhaust rate that exceeded the 9,400 cfm (470 cfm/ft) available. 

3-62 



While the perforated perimeter supply system supplied 80 cfm/ft of PPS (2,880 cfm) of local 

makeup air at the medium temperature, the hood required an exhaust rate of 7,200 cfm (360 

cfm/ft). With the perforated perimeter supply system supplying 160 cfm/ft of PPS (5,760 cfm) of 

local makeup air at the medium temperature, the hood required an exhaust rate that exceeded the 

9,400 cfm (470 cfm/ft) available. 

3-63 


Heavy-Duty Three Broiler Front / Light-Duty Three Oven Rear Appliance Line 

For all local makeup air configurations, a reduced local makeup airflow rate resulted in a lower 

exhaust requirement. It was also found that the required exhaust rate was lower with the lower 

supply air temperature, with the exception of displacement ventilation. These findings were 

generally consistent with results found for wall canopy hoods in previous research projects. The 

results are shown in Figure 62 and discussed below in detail. 

10000 

9100 

> 9400 

9000 


8000 

6000 

4000 

6100 

5600 

6800 

7600 

6600 

6900 

7100 

4800 

8000 

8100 

2000 

0 

Displace. 

F & B 

70-75ºF 

301 

Displace. 

F & B 

85-90ºF 

315 

4-Way 

Front 

500 cfm 

70-75ºF 

311 

4-Way 

Front 

500 cfm 

85-90ºF 

313 

Front 

4-Way 

1000 cfm 

70-75ºF 

312 

Front 

4-Way 

1000 cfm 

85-90ºF 

314 

Perf. 

Front 

500 cfm 

70-75ºF 

319 

Perf. 

Front 

500 cfm 

85-90ºF 

321 

Perf. 

Front 

1000 cfm 

70-75ºF 

320 

Perf. 

Front 

1000 cfm 

85-90ºF 

322 

PPS 

4 Side 

80cfm/ft 

of PPS 

70-75ºF 

327 

PPS 

4 Side 

160cfm/ft 

of PPS 

70-75ºF 

326 

PPS 

4Side 

160cfm/ft 

of PPS 

85-90ºF 

328 

Figure 62. Evaluation of Makeup Air with Heavy-Duty (Three Broiler) Front and Light-Duty (Three 

Oven) Rear Appliance Line 


The displacement ventilation system was evaluated at the medium and high supply temperatures. 

At the medium temperature, the required exhaust rate was 6,100 cfm (305 cfm/ft). When the 

supply air temperature was increased, the required exhaust rate decreased to 5,600 cfm (280 

cfm/ft). 


The 4-way ceiling diffuser was evaluated at the medium and high supply temperatures, with 

either 500 cfm or 1,000 cfm flowing through the front diffuser. In general, a reduction of the 

local makeup airflow rate and a reduction of the local makeup air temperature resulted in lower 

required exhaust airflow rates. 

3-64 


With a 1,000 cfm supply rate to the 4-way ceiling diffuser, the high temperature supply air 

required over 9,400 cfm (470 cfm/ft) and the medium temperature supply air required an exhaust 

rate of 9,100 cfm (455 cfm/ft). When the locally supplied airflow rate was decreased from 1,000 

cfm to 500 cfm, the required exhaust rates for high and medium temperature supply air also 

decreased. By reducing the locally supplied airflow rate from 1,000 cfm to 500 cfm, the high 

temperature supply air required an exhaust rate of 7,600 cfm (380 cfm/ft) and the medium 

temperature supply air required an exhaust rate of 6,800 cfm (340 cfm/ft). 


The perforated ceiling diffuser was evaluated at the medium and high supply temperatures, with 

either 500 cfm or 1,000 cfm flowing through the front diffuser. In general, a reduction of the 

local makeup airflow rate and a reduction of the local makeup air temperature resulted in lower 

required exhaust airflow rates, with a major performance degradation recorded for operation at 

the extreme of 1,000 cfm at the high temperature. With a 1,000 cfm supply rate to the perforated 

ceiling diffuser, the high temperature supply air required an exhaust rate of 9,000 cfm (450 

cfm/ft) and the medium temperature supply air required an exhaust rate of 7,100 cfm (355 

cfm/ft). When the locally supplied airflow rate was decreased, the required exhaust rates for high 

and medium temperature supply air also decreased. By reducing the locally supplied airflow rate 

from 1,000 cfm to 500 cfm, the high temperature supply air required an exhaust rate of 6,900 

cfm (345 cfm/ft) and the medium temperature supply air required an exhaust rate of 6,600 cfm 

(330 cfm/ft). 


The 4-sided perforated perimeter supply was evaluated at 160 cfm/ft of PPS (5,760 cfm) and 80 

cfm/ft of PPS (2,880 cfm) with medium temperature supply air. High temperature operation was 

evaluated only at the 160 cfm/ft (5,760 cfm) supply airflow rate. With the PPS supplying 

medium temperature air at 160 cfm/ft (5,760 cfm), the required exhaust rate was 8,100 cfm (405 

cfm/ft). When the airflow rate from the PPS was decreased to 80 cfm/ft (2,880 cfm), the required 

exhaust rate for medium temperature supply air decreased to 4,800 cfm (240 cfm/ft), a 

significant reduction. With high temperature supply air at the 160 cfm/ft (5,760 cfm) PPS airflow 

rate, the exhaust rate increased from 8,000 cfm (400 cfm/ft) to 8,100 cfm (405 cfm/ft). 

3-65 


Heavy-Duty Two Broiler Front / Light-Duty Two Oven Rear Appliance Line 

The two broiler front / two oven rear appliance line operated under the eight-foot deep island 

canopy hood using what was believed to be “best practice” configurations for each supply air 

strategy, while also evaluating how using a smaller than average appliance line under a given 

hood size could benefit hood performance. This included the displacement ventilation system, 

the front 4-way diffuser at 500 cfm, the front perforated diffuser at 500 cfm, and the 4-sided PPS 

at 80 cfm/ft of PPS (2,880 cfm), while the supply air temperature was maintained at the 

“medium” setting for all tests. 

While this “best practice” does apply to supply the minimized airflow rates and temperatures 

used in these specific test scenarios, it should not be considered as an endorsement to use these 

exact configurations in the field, such as one ceiling diffuser in the front of an island hood as the 

sole local makeup air supply source. The results are shown graphically in Figure 63 and 


10000 


8000 

6000 

4000 

4300 

4400 

4700 

6200 

2000 

0 

Front & Rear 

Displacement 

306 

4 Side 

PPS 

80 cfm/ft (2880 cfm) 

325 

Front 


500 cfm 

310 

Front 

Perforated Diffuser 

500 cfm 

318 

Figure 63. Evaluation of Makeup Air with Heavy-Duty (Two Broiler) Front and Light-Duty (2 Oven) 

Rear Appliance Line 

3-66 




temperature, the hood required an exhaust rate of 4,300 cfm (215 cfm/ft). The gentle and welldistributed 

supply air was a benefit to hood capture and containment performance. 



the hood required an exhaust rate of 4,700 cfm (235 cfm/ft).The local makeup air rate of 500 cfm 

minimized the necessary increase, compared to the exhaust rate required for a higher airflow rate 

from the 4-way diffuser. 



temperature, the hood required an exhaust rate of 6,200 cfm (310 cfm/ft). The perforated ceiling 

diffuser presented a challenge to capture and containment by discharging the local makeup air 

downward and outward at the heavy-duty two-broiler line, which disrupted the plume from the 





cfm/ft). At this moderate PPS airflow rate, plume disruption was minimized. 

3-67 














The rear exhaust system was set to three airflow rates: 1,000 cfm, 2,000 cfm, and 4,000 cfm, in 

addition to the baseline case of displacement ventilation supplied from both the front and back 

systems. The tests were conducted with the heavy-duty front / light-duty rear appliance line. The 

measurements are shown in Figure 64 and discussed below. 

10000 

9400 > 9400 > 9400 > 9400 > 9400 

8200 


8000 

6000 

4000 

6100 

2000 

0 

Front & Back 

Displacement 

301 

Front Displacement 

Exhaust Backwall 

at 1000 cfm 

342 



at 1000 cfm 

w/ Partition 

343 



at 2000 cfm 

338 



at 2000 cfm 

w/ Partition 

340 



at 4000 cfm 

339 



at 4000 cfm 

w/ Partition 

341 

Figure 64. Evaluation of Negative Pressure with Heavy-Duty (Three Broiler) Front and Light-Duty 

(Three Oven) Rear Appliance Line 

3-68 


Having a negative pressure area near a commercial kitchen hood is detrimental to capture and 

containment performance. While capture and containment performance could be maintained at 

the back wall exhaust rate of 1,000 cfm by significantly increasing the exhaust rate of the hood, 

the hood failed to perform for all of the other tested scenarios with higher exhaust rates through 

the back wall. These test results illustrate the value of a well-distributed makeup air strategy, 

perhaps using many discharge locations to provide supply air where needed. 

While the displacement ventilation system provided air from the front and back locations, the 

required exhaust rate for proper capture and containment was 6,100 cfm (305 cfm/ft). With this 

configuration, the appliance plumes were not adversely influenced by air currents outside the 

capture area of the hood. Therefore, the stability of the plumes allowed for proper capture at a 

lower exhaust rate and containment was maintained. 

When the rear displacement system was modified to exhaust 1,000 cfm and the entire supply air 

volume was from the front displacement system, the required exhaust rate was 8,200 cfm (410 

cfm/ft), a 2,100 cfm (105 cfm/ft) increase. With the front displacement system used to supply air 

and the rear displacement system in operation as an exhaust system, the appliance plumes were 

pushed back as some of the room air traveled to the rear exhaust system. Capture of the plume 

was more of a challenge, compared to displacement ventilation from both the front and rear of 

the hood, and was compensated for by an increase the exhaust rate. While this configuration did 

capture and contain the plume from all appliances within the double island hood, the plume from 

the front hood, which was over the heavy duty line, spilled into the rear hood, which was over 

the light-duty line. The rear hood was able to capture and contain both the plume from the lightduty 

line and the spillage from the heavy-duty line, which resulted in full capture and 

containment for the entire double island canopy hood. 

When the hood partition was installed for this 1,000 cfm rear exhaust configuration, the required 

exhaust rate increased to 9,400 cfm (470 cfm/ft). With the hood partition installed, the plume 

from the front broiler line was pushed back by the front-only supply air, and was pushed out 

from the sides of the hood partition as the room air traveled to the rear exhaust wall, causing the 

plume to spill into the space. Proper hood performance was regained by an increase of the 

exhaust rate. 

3-69 


Evaluation of Biased Exhaust Airflow 

Hood capture and containment performance with unadjusted and adjusted exhaust collars was 

investigated using a three heavy-duty broiler / three light-duty oven appliance line. For the 

unadjusted configuration, both the front and rear hoods operated with the exhaust collar fully 

open at the 36.0 inch by 14.0 inch dimension. For the biased condition, the collar of the rear 

hood was adjusted to 36.0 inches by 4.0 inches to achieve filter velocities indicative of 2/3 

exhaust flow in the front hood and 1/3 exhaust flow in the rear hood. This bias provided more 

exhaust air for the heavy-duty line, and less exhaust air for the light-duty line. The results are 

shown in Figure 65. 

10000 


8000 

6000 

7500 

6100 

4000 

2000 

0 

Exhaust Collar Not Adjusted 

Front:Full Open, Heavy-Duty Line 

Rear:Full Open, Light-Duty Line 

345 

Exhaust Collar Adjusted 

Front:2/3 Flow, Heavy-Duty Line 

Rear:1/3 Flow, Light-Duty Line 

301 

Figure 65. Evaluation of Biased Exhaust Flow with Heavy-Duty (Three Broiler) Front and Light- 

Duty (Three Oven) Rear Appliance Line 

With the exhaust collars completely open for both the front and rear island canopy hoods, the 

required exhaust rate was 7,500 cfm (375 cfm/ft). With the rear exhaust collar throttled down to 

provide two-thirds of the exhaust airflow to the front hood and one-third of the exhaust airflow to 

the rear hood, the exhaust rate was 6,100 cfm (305 cfm/ft). For this case, the exhaust rate was 

reduced by 1,400 cfm (70 cfm/ft) with exhaust airflow biased for more airflow over the heavier 

duty appliance line. 

3-70 


Evaluation of Hood Edge Geometry 

Hood capture and containment performance with improved and unimproved hood edge geometry 

was investigated using a front line of three heavy-duty broilers and a back line of three light-duty 

ovens while displacement ventilation was used as the sole supply air strategy. For the 

unimproved configuration, the raw vertical edge of the hood was used, which was the standard 

configuration for this project. For the improved configuration, the edge was modified with a 1.5- 

inch 90-degree lip or flange, which is typically installed by the manufacturer of these test hoods 

to improve capture and containment performance. The results are shown in Figure 66. 

10000 


8000 

6000 

6100 

5600 

4000 

2000 

0 

W/O Improved Edge Installed 

301 

W/ Improved Edge Installed 

307 

Figure 66. Evaluation of Hood Edge Geometry with Heavy-Duty (Three Broiler) Front and Light- 

Duty (Three Oven) Rear Appliance Line 

With the raw vertical edge of the hood, the required exhaust rate was 6,100 cfm (305 cfm/ft). 

With the 1.5-inch 90-degree edge installed on all four open sides of the island hood, the exhaust 

rate was 5,600 cfm (280 cfm/ft). For this case, the exhaust rate was reduced by 500 cfm (25 

cfm/ft) with the installation of improved hood edge geometry. 

3-71 


Double Island Canopy Hood, 10-Foot Depth 

The double island canopy hood was evaluated at a 10-foot depth in twenty-one tests. These tests 

included evaluation of hood overhang, appliance duty, side panels, makeup air, negative pressure 

within the kitchen space, biased exhaust airflow, and hood edge geometry. During these 

evaluations, the capture and containment exhaust rate ranged from 4,300 cfm (215 cfm/ft) to in 

excess of the 9,400 cfm (470 cfm/ft) available. An image of a typical test is shown in Figure 67. 

The test results are summarized in Figure 68 and reviewed throughout this section. 

Figure 67. Double Island 10-Foot Deep Canopy Hood 

3-72 


Heavy(2 Broiler)/Light(2 Oven) 24" SideOhang 4Side PPS 80 cfm/ft of PPS 411 

Heavy (2 Broiler)/Light (2 Oven) 24" SideOhang Front & Rear Displace. 404 

Combo (F,B,O)/Light (3 Oven) Front & Rear Displacement 402 

Heavy (2 Broiler)/Light (2 Oven) 24" SideOhang Front 4-Way 500 cfm 405 

Heavy (3 Broiler)/Light (3 Oven) Front & Rear Displacement 425 

Heavy (3 Broiler)/Light (3 Oven) 4Side PPS 80 cfm/ft of PPS 413 

Heavy (3 Broiler)/Light (3 Oven) w/ Panel #1 Front & Rear Displacement 414 

Combo (F,B,O)/Combo (F,B,O) Front & Back Displace. 424 

Heavy(2 Broiler)/Light(2 Oven) 24" SideOhang Front Perf. Diffuser 500 cfm 408 

Heavy (3 Broiler)/Light (3 Oven) Front & Rear Displacement 401 

Combo (F,B,O)/Combo (F,B,O) Front & Rear Displacement 423 

Combo (F,B,O)/Light (3 Ovens) Front & Back Displace. Walk-By F&B 426 

Heavy (2 Broiler)/Light (2 Oven) 6" SideOhang Front & Rear Displace. 403 

Heavy (3 Broilers)/Light (3 Ovens) Front & Side Perf. Diffuser 1000 cfm Total 409 

Heavy (3 Broiler)/Light (3 Oven) Front 4-Way Diffuser 500 cfm 406 

Heavy (3 Broiler)/Light (3 Oven) Front Perforated Diffuser 500 cfm 85-90ºF 410 

Heavy (3 Broilers)/Light (3 Ovens) Front Displace. Rear Exh:0 cfm 421 

Heavy (3 Broiler)/Light (3 Oven) Front 4-Way Diffuser 500 cfm 85-90ºF 407 

Heavy (3 Broiler)/Light (3 Oven) Front Displace. Rear Exh:1000 cfm 419 

Heavy (3 Broiler)/Light (3 Oven) 4Side PPS 160 cfm/ft of PPS 412 

3800 

4400 

4900 

5100 

5100 

5200 

5700 

5800 

5900 

6200 

6600 

7000 

7400 

7400 

7500 

7600 

7900 

8000 

8000 

8100 

Heavy (3 Broilers)/Light (3 Ovens) w/ Partition Front Displace. Rear Exh:0 cfm 422 

Heavy (3 Broiler)/Light (3 Oven) w/ Partition Front Displace. Rear Exh:1000 cfm 420 





9000 

9200 

> 9400 

> 9400 

> 9400 

> 9400 

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 


Figure 68. Capture and Containment Exhaust Rates for 10-Foot Deep Double Island Canopy Hood 

3-73 



Hood capture and containment performance relative to the side overhang of the appliance line 

was investigated at 6.0 and 24.0 inches, as measured to the side of the appliance cabinet. The 

appliance line consisted of two heavy-duty broilers and two light-duty ovens, rather than the 

usual three of each appliance to accommodate the greater overhang dimensions with this hood. 

The results are shown in Figures 69. 

10000 


8000 

6000 

7400 

4400 

4000 

2000 

0 


403 


404 


When side overhang was evaluated with two broilers and two ovens, the required exhaust rate 

decreased as side overhang increased. When side overhang was set to the baseline of 6.0 inches, 

a 7,400 cfm (370 cfm/ft) exhaust rate was required. With side overhang increased to 24.0 inches, 

the exhaust rate was reduced to 4,400 cfm (220 cfm/ft). 

3-74 



Sensitivity of appliance duty was evaluated with the three appliance line configurations: 

combination-duty front / light-duty rear, heavy-duty front / light-duty rear, and combination-duty 

front / combination-duty rear. These comparisons were made with displacement ventilation as 

the sole air supply system to simplify testing. The results are shown graphically in Figure 70. 

10000 


8000 

6000 

4000 

4900 

6200 

6600 

2000 

0 


402 


401 


423 

Figure 70. Evaluation of Appliance Line Duty and Makeup Air Configuration 

The combination-duty front / light-duty rear appliance line required 4,900 cfm (245 cfm/ft), 

which was the lowest required exhaust rate for the three appliance configurations. The heavyduty 

front / light-duty rear appliance line required 6,200 cfm (310 cfm/ft), a 1,300 cfm (65 

cfm/ft) increase above the lowest exhaust requirement due to the more aggressive plume from 

the heavy-duty broilers. The combination-duty front / combination-duty rear appliance line 

required the highest exhaust rate of 6,600 cfm (330 cfm/ft), since it did not have the benefit of 

the ovens, which acted like a back wall and improved hood performance for the other two 

configurations. 

3-75 



The effect of installing side panels on hood capture and containment performance was evaluated 

using the heavy-duty front/light-duty rear appliance line. These comparisons were made with 

displacement ventilation as the sole air supply system to simplify testing. 






improvement found in the field for side panels with air supplied from other directions. The 

results are presented in Figure 71 and explained below. 

10000 


8000 

6000 

4000 

6200 

5700 

2000 

0 

w/o Panels 

401 

w/ Panel #1 

414 

Figure 71. Evaluation of Side Panels 

For the heavy-duty front / light-duty rear appliance line and displacement ventilation, the 

installation of side panels provided a performance improvement. Without side panels, 6,100 cfm 

(305 cfm/ft) was required for capture and containment. With side panel #1 installed, the required 

exhaust rate was reduced to 5,700 cfm (285 cfm/ft). 

3-76 




supplied airflow rate, and supplied air temperature. These tests were performed using one of two 

appliance lines: the heavy-duty (three broiler) front / light-duty (three oven) rear appliance line 

or the heavy-duty (two broiler) front / light-duty (two oven) rear appliance line. The makeup air 

configurations included displacement, perforated ceiling diffuser, 4-way ceiling diffuser, and 

perforated perimeter supply. Each makeup air system typically operated at the “medium” 

temperature of 70-75°F, with the “high” temperature of 85-90°F investigated in selected tests. 


The general idea of operation at lower local makeup airflow rates and temperatures to improve 

hood performance was supported. However, the 10-foot deep double island hood was found to be 

less sensitive than other hoods tested in this study for most of the tested makeup air 

configurations. The results are shown in Figure 72 and discussed below in detail. 

10000 


8000 

6000 

4000 

5200 

6200 

7400 

7500 

7600 

8000 8100 

2000 

0 

PPS 

4 Side 


(2880 cfm) 

70-75ºF 

413 

Displacement 

Front & Rear 

70-75ºF 

401 


Front 

500 cfm 

70-75ºF 

409 


Front 

500 cfm 

70-75ºF 

406 


Front 

500 cfm 

85-90ºF 

410 


Front 

500 cfm 

85-90ºF 

407 

PPS 

4 Side 


(5760 cfm) 

70-75ºF 

412 

Figure 72. Evaluation of Makeup Air with Heavy-Duty (Three Broiler) Front and Light-Duty (Three 


3-77 



The displacement ventilation system was evaluated at the medium supply temperature. For this 

configuration, the required exhaust rate was 6,200 cfm (310 cfm/ft). 


The 4-way ceiling diffuser was evaluated at the medium and high supply temperatures, with 500 

cfm flowing through the front diffuser. At the high temperature setpoint, the required exhaust 

rate was 8,000 cfm (400 cfm/ft). By reducing the temperature of the air supplied from the 4-way 

diffuser from the high to the medium temperature setpoint, the required exhaust rate was reduced 

from 8,000 to 7,500 cfm (400 to 375 cfm/ft). 


The perforated ceiling diffuser was evaluated at the medium and high supply temperatures, with 

500 cfm flowing through the front diffuser. At the high temperature setpoint, the required 

exhaust rate was 7,600 cfm (380 cfm/ft). By reducing the temperature of the air supplied from 

the perforated diffuser from the high to the medium temperature setpoint, the required exhaust 

rate was reduced from 7,600 to 7,400 cfm (380 to 370 cfm/ft). 


The 4-sided perforated perimeter supply was evaluated at 160 cfm/ft (5,760 cfm) and 80 cfm/ft 

(2,880 cfm) with medium temperature supply air. With the PPS supplying medium temperature 

air at 160 cfm/ft (5,760 cfm), the required exhaust rate was 8,100 cfm (405 cfm/ft). When the 

airflow rate from the PPS was decreased to 80 cfm/ft (2,880 cfm), the required exhaust rate for 

medium temperature supply air decreased to 5,200 cfm (260 cfm/ft). 

3-78 


Heavy-Duty Two Broiler Front / Light-Duty Two Oven Rear Appliance Line 

The two broiler front / two oven rear appliance line operated under the 10-foot deep island 

canopy hood using what was believed to be “best practice” configurations for each supply air 

strategy, while also evaluating how using a smaller than average appliance line under a given 

hood size could benefit hood performance. The makeup air strategies included the displacement 

ventilation system, the front 4-way diffuser at 500 cfm, the front perforated diffuser at 500 cfm, 

and the 4-sided PPS at 80 cfm/ft of PPS (2,880 cfm), while the supply air temperature was 

maintained at the “medium” setting for all tests. 

The “best practice” settings focused on moderating the airflow rates and temperatures for each 

makeup air configuration used in this study and did not address optimal quantity, placement, or 

diversity of makeup air. Therefore, while this “best practice” does apply to supply these specific 

test scenarios, it should not be considered as an endorsement to use these exact configurations in 

the field, such as one ceiling diffuser in the front of an island hood as the sole local makeup air 

supply source. The results are shown graphically in Figure 73 and discussed below. 

10000 


8000 

6000 

4000 

3800 

4400 

5100 

5900 

2000 

0 

PPS 

4 Side 


(2880 cfm) 

411 

Displacement 

Front & Rear 

404 


Front 

500 cfm 

405 


Front 

500 cfm 

408 

Figure 73. Evaluation of Makeup Air with Heavy-Duty (Two Broiler) Front and Light-Duty (Two 


3-79 




temperature, the hood required an exhaust rate of 4,400 cfm (220 cfm/ft), which was 600 cfm (30 

cfm/ft) above the best-case strategy. The gentle and well-distributed supply air was a benefit to 

hood capture and containment performance. 



the hood required an exhaust rate of 5,100 cfm (255 cfm/ft). 



temperature, the hood required an exhaust rate of 5,900 cfm (295 cfm/ft). The perforated ceiling 

diffuser presented a challenge to capture and containment by discharging the local makeup air 

downward and outward at the heavy-duty two broiler line, which disrupted the plume from the 





cfm/ft). At this relatively low PPS airflow rate, the disturbance from the PPS was minimized. 

3-80 














The rear exhaust system was set to three airflow rates: 1,000, 2,000, and 4,000 cfm, in addition 

to the baseline case of displacement ventilation supplied from both the front and back systems. 

The configurations were tested with the heavy-duty front / light-duty rear appliance line. The 

measurements are shown graphically in Figure 74 and discussed below. 

10000 

9000 

9200 

> 9400 > 9400 

> 

9400 > 9400 


8000 

6000 

4000 

6200 

7900 

8000 

2000 

0 

Front & Back 

Displace. 

401 

Front 

Displace. 

Exh. Backwall 

at 0 cfm 

421 

Front 

Displace. 

Exh. Backwall 

at 0 cfm 

w/ Partition 

422 

Front 

Displace. 

Exh. Backwall 

at 1000 cfm 

419 

Front 

Displace. 

Exh. Backwall 

at 1000 cfm 

w/ Partition 

420 

Front 

Displace. 

Exh. Backwall 

at 2000 cfm 

415 

Front 

Displace. 

Exh. Backwall 

at 2000 cfm 

w/ Partition 

417 

Front 

Displace. 

Exh. Backwall 

at 4000 cfm 

416 

Front 

Displace. 

Exh. Backwall 

at 4000 cfm 

w/ Partition 

418 

Figure 74. Evaluation of Negative Pressure with Heavy-Duty (Three Broiler) Front and Light-Duty 

(Three Oven) Rear Appliance Line 

3-81 


Having a negative pressure area near the exhaust hood was detrimental to capture and 

containment performance. While capture and containment performance could be maintained at 

the back wall exhaust rate of 1,000 cfm by significantly increasing the exhaust rate of the hood, 

the hood failed to perform for all of the other tested scenarios with higher rates through the back 

wall exhaust. These test results illustrate the value of a well-distributed makeup air strategy, 

perhaps using many discharge locations to provide supply air where needed. 

While the displacement ventilation system provided air from the front and back locations, the 

required exhaust rate was 6,200 cfm (305 cfm/ft). With this configuration, the appliance plumes 

were not adversely influenced by air currents outside the capture area of the hood. Therefore, the 

stability of the plumes allowed for proper capture at a lower exhaust rate and containment was 

maintained. 

While the rear displacement system was turned off and the entire supply air volume was from the 

front displacement system, the required exhaust rate was 7,900 cfm (395 cfm/ft), a 1,700 cfm (85 

cfm/ft) increase. With the entire volume of supply air from the front displacement system and the 

rear displacement system disabled, the appliance plumes were pushed back as some of the room 

air traveled to the rear exhaust system. Capture of the plume was more of a challenge, compared 

to displacement ventilation from both the front and rear of the hood and was compensated for by 

increasing the exhaust rate. While this configuration did capture and contain the plume from all 

appliances within the double island hood, the plume from the heavy-duty front line, spilled into 

the rear hood, which was over the light-duty line. The rear hood was able to capture and contain 

both the plume from the light-duty line and the spillage from the heavy-duty line, which resulted 

in full capture and containment for the entire double island canopy hood. When the hood 

partition was installed for this front-only displacement ventilation configuration, the required 

exhaust rate increased to 9,000 cfm (450 cfm/ft). With the hood partition installed, the plume 

from the front broiler line was pushed back by the front-only supply air, and was pushed to the 

sides of the hood partition, creating a more challenging plume to capture and contain. 

When the rear displacement system was modified to exhaust 1,000 cfm and the hood partition 

was not installed, the required exhaust rate was 8,000 cfm (400 cfm/ft), which was an 1,800 cfm 

increase (90 cfm/ft) compared to operation with two-sided displacement ventilation. The addition 

of the hood partition for this 1,000 cfm rear exhaust configuration required an exhaust rate of 

9,200 cfm (460 cfm/ft). 

3-82 


Evaluation of Biased Exhaust Airflow 

Hood capture and containment performance with unadjusted and adjusted exhaust collars was 

investigated using two appliance lines: the three heavy-duty broiler / three light-duty oven 

appliance line and the combination-duty front / combination-duty rear appliance line. For the 

unadjusted configuration, both the front and rear hoods operated with the exhaust collar fully 

open at the 36.0 by 14.0 inch dimension. For the biased condition, the collar of the rear hood was 

adjusted to 36.0 by 4.0 inches to achieve filter velocities indicative of 2/3 exhaust flow in the 

front hood and 1/3 exhaust flow in the rear hood. To maintain comparable test configurations for 

this research project, the exhaust collars of the 10-foot deep hood were maintained at the optimal 

settings for the 8-foot deep hood, except for this sensitivity testing. The results are shown in 

Figure 75. 

10000 


8000 

6000 

5100 

6200 

5800 

6600 

4000 

2000 

0 


Front:Full Open, Heavy-Duty Line 

Rear:Full Open, Light-Duty Line 

425 


Front:2/3 Flow, Heavy-Duty Line 

Rear:1/3 Flow, Light-Duty Line 

401 


Front:Full Open, Combo-Duty Line 

Rear: Full Open, Combo-Duty Line 

424 


Front: 2/3 Open, Combo-Duty Line 

Rear: Full Open, Combo-Duty Line 

423 

Figure 75. Evaluation of Biased Exhaust Flow with Heavy-Duty (Three Broiler) Front / Light-Duty 

(Three Oven) Rear Appliance Line and Combination-Duty (Fryer, Broiler, Oven) / Combination- 

Duty (Fryer, Broiler, Oven) Line 

3-83 


With the exhaust collars completely open for both the front and rear hoods, the required exhaust 

rate was better than with the biased exhaust collars. With the larger reservoir size, the 10-foot 

deep hood was able to maintain capture and containment performance while the appliance 

plumes drifted between the front and rear hoods as plume surges and air current variations 

occurred. This configuration proved to be best for this particular hood and appliance 

combination. 



required exhaust rate for the three heavy-duty broiler / three light-duty oven appliance line was 

5,100 cfm (255 cfm/ft). With the rear exhaust collar throttled down to provide two-thirds of the 

exhaust airflow to the front hood and one-third of the exhaust airflow to the rear hood, the 

exhaust rate was 6,200 cfm (310 cfm/ft). For this case, the unbiased exhaust airflow had a 1,100 

cfm (55 cfm/ft) advantage. With the unrestricted rear hood, more of the challenging broiler 

plume was pulled away from the front lip of the hood and into the rear hood. 

Combination-Duty Front / Combination-Duty Rear Appliance Line 


required exhaust rate for the combination duty front / combination duty rear appliance line was 

5,800 cfm (290 cfm/ft). With the rear exhaust collar throttled down to provide two-thirds of the 

exhaust airflow to the front hood and one-third of the exhaust airflow to the rear hood, the 

exhaust rate was 6,600 cfm (330 cfm/ft). For this case, the unbiased exhaust airflow had an 800 

cfm (40 cfm/ft) advantage. Since the front and rear appliance lines were matched combinationduty 

lines, the performance was optimized when the exhaust collars were matched as well. 

3-84 




using the combination-duty front and light-duty rear appliance line with displacement ventilation 

at the “medium” temperature setting of 70-75°F. The results are shown in Figure 76 and 


10000 

8000 


6000 

4000 

4900 

7000 

2000 

0 

Static 

402 

Walk-By F&B 

154 


Front and Light-Duty Rear Appliance Line 

An exhaust rate of 4,900 cfm (245 cfm/ft) was required with static room conditions. With a front 

and back walk-by condition, the required exhaust rate was 7,000 cfm (350 cfm/ft). 

3-85 


Comparison of Double Island Hood Performance 

Performance of the double island canopy hood was compared at an 8-foot and 10-foot depth with 

twenty-one tests. An obvious advantage of one hood depth over the other was not established, as 

the 8-foot depth had a performance advantage in nine tests, the 10-foot depth had a performance 

advantage in eight tests, and both hoods failed to perform in four tests. With a few exceptions, 

the additional reservoir available with the larger hood did not provide a noteworthy advantage in 

hood performance. A comparison of the results is shown in Figure 77. 

Heavy (2 Broiler)/Light (2 Oven) 24" SideOhang Front & Rear Displace. 306&404 

Heavy(2 Broiler)/Light(2 Oven) 24" SideOhang 4Side PPS 80 cfm/ft of PPS 325&411 

Heavy (2 Broiler)/Light (2 Oven) 24" SideOhang Front 4-Way 500 cfm 310&405 

Heavy (3 Broiler)/Light (3 Oven) 4Side PPS 80 cfm/ft of PPS 327&413 

Combo (F,B,O)/Light (3 Oven) Front & Rear Displacement 302&402 

Heavy (3 Broiler)/Light (3 Oven) Front & Rear Displacement w/ Panel #1 330&414 

Heavy (3 Broiler)/Light (3 Oven) Front & Rear Displacement 301&401 

Heavy(2 Broiler)/Light(2 Oven) 24" SideOhang Front Perf. Diffuser 500 cfm 318&408 

Combo (F,B,O)/Combo (F,B,O) Front & Rear Displacement 344&423 

Heavy (3 Broiler)/Light (3 Oven) Front 4-Way Diffuser 500 cfm 311&406 

Heavy (3 Broiler)/Light (3 Oven) Front Perforated Diffuser 500 cfm 85-90ºF 321&410 

Heavy (3 Broiler)/Light (3 Oven) Front & Rear Displacement 345&425 

Heavy (2 Broiler)/Light (2 Oven) 6" SideOhang Front & Rear Displace. 305&403 

Heavy (3 Broiler)/Light (3 Oven) Front 4-Way Diffuser 500 cfm 85-90ºF 313&407 

Heavy (3 Broiler)/Light (3 Oven) 4Side PPS 160 cfm/ft of PPS 326&412 

Heavy (3 Broiler)/Light (3 Oven) Front Displace. RearExh:1000cfm 342&419 

Heavy(3 Broiler)/Light(3 Oven) Front Displace. RearExh:1000cfm w/Part. 343&420 





4300 

4400 

4400 

3800 

4700 

5100 

4800 

5200 

5800 

4900 

6100 

5700 

6100 

6200 

6200 

5900 

6400 

6600 

6800 

7500 

6900 

7600 

7500 

5100 

7500 

7400 

7600 

8000 

8000 

8100 

8200 

8000 

DI8 

DI10 

9400 

9200 

> 9400 

> 9400 

> 9400 

> 9400 

> 9400 

> 9400 

9400 

> 9400 

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 


Figure 77: Comparison of Overall Double Island Hood Performance 

For the nine cases where the 8-foot deep hood had a performance advantage over the 10-foot 

deep hood, the exhaust reduction averaged 340 cfm (17 cfm/ft), with a minimum of 100 cfm (50 

cfm/ft) and a maximum of 700 cfm (35 cfm/ft). For the eight cases where the 10-foot deep hood 

had a performance advantage over the 8-foot deep hood, the exhaust reduction averaged 640 cfm 

(320 cfm/ft), with a minimum of 100 cfm (50 cfm/ft) and a maximum of 2,400 cfm (120 cfm/ft). 

Four cases resulted in the 8-foot and 10-foot deep hoods failure to capture and contain the plume 

from the appliance line. For all of these failed cases, a negative pressure zone existed behind the 

hood by reversing the airflow in the rear displacement ventilation system at either 2,000 or 4,000 

cfm, while the heavy-duty three-broiler front line and light-duty three-oven back line operated 

under the hood at the maximum available exhaust rate of 9,400 cfm (470 cfm/ft). 

3-86 


Evaluation of Hood Size Relative to Hood Overhang 

Hood capture and containment performance relative to the side overhang of the appliance line 

was evaluated for the 8-foot and 10-foot double island hoods. For this overhang evaluation, the 

heavy-duty three-broiler front/light-duty three oven rear appliance line was used. At six inches of 

side overhang, the two broilers and two ovens operated at the end and center of the cook line 

with the broiler in the left-most position and the oven behind it turned off. At twenty-four inches 

of side overhang, the two appliances that were off were removed to provide additional space. 

The results are shown graphically in Figure 78. 

10000 

DI8 

DI10 


8000 

6000 

7500 

7400 

4300 

4400 

4000 

2000 

0 


Light (2 Ovens) 


Front & Rear Displacement 

305 & 403 




Front & Rear Displacement 

306 & 404 

Figure 78: Comparison of Hood Performance Relative to Side Overhang 

In both cases, increased hood overhang resulted in a decrease of the required exhaust rate. The 

10-foot deep double island hood was slightly less sensitive to side overhang than the 8-foot deep 

hood, although the exhaust rates were very similar for both hoods. When tested with a 6-inch 

side overhang, the 8-foot deep hood required 7,500 cfm (375 cfm/ft) and the 10-foot deep hood 

required 7,400 cfm (370 cfm/ft). When the test was repeated with a 24-inch side overhang, the 8- 

foot deep hood required 4,300 cfm (215 cfm/ft) and the 10-foot deep hood required 4,400 cfm 

(220 cfm/ft). When the change in exhaust rates for both hoods was compared at 6-inches and 24 

inches, it was found that the 8-foot deep hood improved by 3,200 cfm (160 cfm/ft) and the 10- 

foot deep hood improved by 3,000 cfm (150 cfm/ft). 

3-87 


Evaluation of Hood Size Relative to Appliance Duty 

Hood capture and containment performance relative to the duty of the appliance line was 

evaluated with three tests for the 8-foot and 10-foot double island hoods using the combo 

front/light-duty rear, combo front/combo rear, and heavy-duty front/light-duty rear appliance 

lines. The space was supplied with displacement ventilation from the front and rear locations 

during all tests. The results are shown graphically in Figure 79. 

10000 

DI8 

DI10 


8000 

6000 

5800 

4900 

6100 

6200 

6400 

6600 

4000 

2000 

0 


302 & 402 


301 & 401 


344 & 423 

Figure 79: Comparison of Hood Performance Relative to Appliance Duty 

The 8-foot deep double island hood was shown to be less sensitive to the duty of the appliance 

line than the 10-foot deep hood in all tested cases, although the 10-foot deep hood was able to 

exhaust the combo front/light duty rear appliance line at a lower exhaust rate. Changing from the 

combo front/light-duty rear to the heavy-duty front/light-duty rear cook line required an increase 

of 300 cfm (15 cfm/ft) for the 8-foot deep hood and a 1,300 cfm (65 cfm/ft) increase for the 10- 

foot deep hood. Changing from the combo front/light-duty rear to the combo front/combo rear 

cook line required an increase of 600 cfm (30 cfm/ft) for the 8-foot deep hood and a 1,700 cfm 

(850 cfm/ft) increase for the 10-foot deep hood. 

3-88 


Evaluation of Hood Size Relative to Side Panel and Partition Configuration 

The effect of side panel or hood partition design on hood capture and containment performance 

was evaluated with the double island 8-foot and 10-foot deep canopy hoods using the heavy-duty 

front / light-duty rear appliance line and displacement ventilation as the supply strategy. The 

eight comparable tests are summarized graphically in Figure 80. 

10000 

DI8 

DI10 

> > > > > > > > 

9400 9400 9400 9400 9400 9400 9400 9400 9400 

9200 


8000 

6000 

4000 

6100 6200 6100 

5700 

8200 

8000 

2000 

0 



w/o Panels 

Front & Rear 

Displacement 

330 & 414 



w/ Panel #1 

Front & Rear 

Displacement 

342 & 419 



w/o Partition 

Front 

Displacement 


at 1000 cfm 

342 & 419 



w/ Partition 

Front 

Displacement 


at 1000 cfm 

343 & 420 



w/o Partition 

Front 

Displacement 


at 2000 cfm 

338 & 415 



w/ Partition 

Front 

Displacement 


at 2000 cfm 

340 & 417 



w/o Partition 

Front 

Displacement 


at 4000 cfm 

339 & 416 



w/ Partition 

Front 

Displacement 


at 4000 cfm 

341 & 418 

Figure 80: Comparison of Hood Performance Relative to Side Panel and Partition Configuration 

For all but one test, the 8-foot and 10-foot deep double island canopy hoods performed with the 

same sensitivity to side panel or partition installation. The exception was found when operation 

without side panels was compared to operation with side panel #1. For this case, the exhaust rate 

for the 10-foot deep hood was reduced from 6,200 cfm (310 cfm/ft) to 5,700 cfm (285 cfm/ft), an 

improvement of 500 cfm (25 cfm/ft), while the exhaust rate for the 8-foot deep hood could not be 

reduced from 6,100 cfm (305 cfm/ft). 

When 1,000 cfm was exhausted from the rear displacement ventilators and operation with a 

partition was evaluated, both hoods required a 1,200 cfm (60 cfm/ft) increase, compared to 

operation without the partition. The exhaust rate for the 8-foot deep hood increased from 8,200 

cfm (410 cfm/ft) to 9,400 cfm (470 cfm/ft) and the exhaust rate for the 10-foot deep hood 

increased from 8,000 cfm (400 cfm/ft) to 9,200 cfm (460 cfm/ft). The 1,200 cfm (60 cfm/ft) 

increase found for each hood was a result of the plume from the heavy-duty front line not being 

able to drift into the rear hood and be captured. Instead, the plume traveled along the hood 

partition and spilled from the sides of the hood. 

3-89 


When exhaust rates were compared for operation with panels or partitions installed, the 10-foot 

deep hood had a 200-400 cfm (10-20 cfm/ft) lower exhaust rate for three conditions, while the 8- 

foot deep hood had a 100 cfm (5 cfm/ft) lower exhaust rate for one condition. It was also found 

that while 2,000 cfm or 4,000 cfm was exhausted from the rear displacement system, both hoods 

failed to capture and contain the plume at the maximum available exhaust rate of 9,400 cfm (470 

cfm/ft), regardless of operation with or without the partition. 

3-90 


Evaluation of Hood Size Relative to Makeup Air Configuration, Airflow Rate, and Temperature 

Capture and containment performance was evaluated with the 8-foot and 10-foot deep double 

island hood relative to makeup air configuration, makeup airflow rate, and makeup air 

temperature. The makeup air configurations included displacement, 4-way ceiling diffuser, 

perforated ceiling diffuser, and perforated perimeter supply. Two cook line configurations were 

used for these evaluations, the heavy-duty three-broiler front line / light duty three-oven rear line, 

and the heavy-duty two-broiler front line / light-duty two-oven rear line. Sixteen comparable 

tests were performed and the results are shown graphically in Figure 81. 

Heavy (2 Broilers)/Light (2 Ovens) 24 in. Side Overhang 



4 Side PPS 80 cfm/ft (2880 cfm) 325 & 411 


Front 4-Way Diffuser 500 cfm 310 & 405 


Front Perforated Diffuser 500 cfm 318 & 408 






Front 4-Way Diffuser 500 cfm 311 & 406 


Front Perforated Diffuser 500 cfm 85-90ºF 321 & 410 


Front 4-Way Diffuser 500 cfm 85-90ºF 313 & 407 




Front Displacement Exhaust Backwall at 1000 cfm 342 & 419 

Heavy (3 Broilers)/Light (3 Ovens) w/ Partition 










4300 

4400 

4400 

3800 

4700 

5100 

6200 

5900 

4800 

5200 

6100 

6200 

6800 

7500 

6900 

7600 

7600 

8000 

8000 

8100 

8200 

8000 

DI8 

DI10 

9400 

9200 

> 9400 

> 9400 

> 9400 

> 9400 

> 9400 

> 9400 

> 9400 

> 9400 

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 


Figure 81 Comparison of Hood Performance Relative to Makeup Air Configuration, Rate, and 

Temperature 

For eight of the configurations, the required exhaust rate for the 8-foot deep hood was lower than 

the 10-foot deep hood. The 10-foot hood had a lower exhaust rate for four conditions. Failure of 

both hoods at the maximum available airflow rate was recorded for four tests, all of which 

included either 2,000 cfm or 4,000 cfm being exhausted from the rear displacement system. 

Although the 10-foot hood had a slight performance advantage when 1,000 cfm was exhausted 

from the rear displacement system, the 8-foot double island hood required lower exhaust rates 

for most tests. 

3-91 


Evaluation of Hood Size Relative to Bias of Exhaust Flow Rate 

Capture and containment performance was evaluated with the 8-foot and 10-foot deep double 

island hoods relative to bias of exhaust flow rate for the front and rear hoods. The exhaust collars 

were tested at a full open position for both the front and rear hoods and then biased to achieve 

2/3 flow to the front hood and 1/3 flow to the rear hood. One cook line configuration was used 

for these evaluations, the heavy-duty three-broiler front line / light duty three-oven rear line. Two 

comparable tests were performed and the results are shown graphically in Figure 82. 

10000 

DI8 

DI10 


8000 

6000 

7500 

5100 

6100 

6200 

4000 

2000 

0 


Full Open Over Heavy-Duty (3 Broiler) Line 

Full Open Over Light-Duty (3 Oven) Line 

345 & 425 


2/3 Flow Over Heavy-Duty (3 Broiler) Line 

1/3 Flow Over Light-Duty (3 Oven) Line 

301 & 401 

Figure 82 Comparison of Hood Performance Relative to Bias of Exhaust Flow Rate 

The double island canopy hood testing commenced with the 8-foot deep hood and the exhaust 

collars wide open. In this configuration, the hood required 7,500 cfm (375 cfm/ft) to capture and 

contain the plume from the heavy-duty front and light-duty rear appliance lines. A sheet metal 

blank was then installed in the exhaust collar of rear hood, which maintained its dimension along 

the 10-foot filter bank, but reduced its dimension front-to-rear. The blank was sized to achieve 

2/3 flow in the front hood, which was over the heavy-duty appliance line, and 1/3 flow in the rear 

hood, which was over the light-duty line. The capture and containment test was repeated and 

proper hood performance was achieved at 6,100 cfm (305 cfm/ft), a reduction of 1,400 cfm (70 

cfm/ft) from the baseline configuration. For this configuration, the exhaust bias aided 

performance by better suiting the exhaust rates required for each appliance line independently. 

The double island canopy was modified to a 10-foot depth and the research test matrix was 

performed with the rear exhaust baffle installed to maintain a comparable configuration. The 

3-92 


final test evaluated performance with the baffle removed and both collars wide open. For the 10- 

foot deep double island canopy hood, it was found that operation without the baffle resulted in 

the lower exhaust rate of 5,100 cfm (255 cfm/ft), compared to the 6,200 cfm (310 cfm/ft) found 

during operation with the baffle. For this larger hood depth, the removal of the exhaust bias aided 

performance by drawing the aggressive broiler plume further back in the island, with it crossing 

into the rear of the island canopy hood. The rear hood was able to maintain capture and 

containment performance for the light-duty appliance line while also ventilating a portion of the 

heavy-duty appliance plume. This configuration drew the plume away from the edges of the 

hood and caused a reduction in the required exhaust rate for capture and containment. 

3-93 


Conclusions 

Findings 

Exhaust rates for given appliance configurations were higher with a single-island hood, 

compared to data published in ASHRAE 1202-RP for an identical wall-mounted hood. The 

general performance trends for island canopy hoods were similar to wall canopy hoods. For the 

heavy-duty three broiler line under a 4-foot deep rear filter hood, a 7,400 cfm (740 cfm/ft) 

exhaust rate was required for the island hood and 4,400 cfm (440 cfm/ft) was required for the 

wall-mounted hood. For the combination-duty line, a 4,900 cfm (490 cfm/ft) exhaust rate was 

required for the island hood and 2,800 cfm (280 cfm/ft) was required for the wall-mounted hood. 

For both comparisons, the required exhaust rate increased by approximately 41% if the island 

canopy hood was used rather than the wall canopy hood. 

Increased hood overhang decreased the required exhaust rate for a given hood and appliance line. 

With a heavy-duty three charbroiler appliance line centered front-to-rear under the single island 

hoods rather than at a 6.0-inch front overhang dimension, a 14% exhaust reduction was possible 

for the 4-foot deep rear filter hood, and a 40% exhaust reduction was possible for the 6-foot deep 

v-bank hood. Likewise, when side overhang was evaluated with either one or two broilers in 

operation, a 41% exhaust rate reduction was found with side overhang increased from 6.0 inches 

to 24.0 inches. Increased hood overhang was found to be one of the most effective performance 

enhancements for island canopy hoods. 

Improved hood performance was found when a rear seal was installed to close gaps found 

between the rear of the cook lines under the double island hoods. When tested with the 8-foot 

deep double island hood and the front overhang at 6.0 inches, a 27% exhaust rate reduction was 

achieved with the addition of a rear seal. 

Reducing the size of the appliance line to increase the overhang under a given hood reduced the 

required exhaust rate. With two heavy-duty broilers under the 6-foot deep hood, the required 

exhaust rate was 30% less than the prescribed rate of 400 cfm/ft [Ref 6]. 

Increased hood depth can improve hood performance if the appliances are positioned to 

maximize overhang. When the 4-foot deep rear filter hood was replaced with the 6-foot deep v- 

bank hood, the exhaust rates for the heavy-duty and combination-duty lines decreased by 35% 

and 8%, respectively. It must be recognized that some of the exhaust rate improvement may also 

be due to the hood filter configuration. When the 8-foot deep double island hood was replaced 

with the 10-foot deep double island hood the exhaust rate for heavy-duty front and light-duty 

rear line increased by 2% and the exhaust rate for combination-duty front and light-duty rear line 

decreased by 16%. Therefore, this strategy of increased hood depth appears to reach a point of 

diminishing return, as shown by the similar performance characteristics of the 8-foot and 10-foot 

deep double island hoods with the heavy-duty front and light-duty rear appliance line. 

The idea of treating a double island canopy hood as two back-to-back wall canopy hoods was 

generally supported. However, the double island configuration performed better on a per linear 

foot of hood basis. A single combination-duty appliance line under a wall-mounted hood 

required 4900 cfm (490 cfm/ft), whereas two combination-duty appliance lines under a double– 

island 10-foot deep hood required 5800 cfm (290 cfm/ft), and two combination-duty appliance 

4-1 


lines under a double–island 8-foot deep hood required 6,400 cfm (320 cfm/ft). These rates reflect 

2 back-to-back island configurations acting like a wall configuration with an exhaust rate 35% 

lower for the double island configuration. 

Installation of side panels was not as beneficial to capture and containment performance of island 

hoods as anticipated. While the exhaust rate was reduced in some cases, other cases had higher 

exhaust rates with side panels installed, as the panels interacted with the local makeup air, hood 

features, or appliance plume in a detrimental manner. However, when the optimal laboratory 

environment and the layout of the displacement ventilation system are considered, the test results 

may understate the performance improvement found in the field for side panels when air could 

be supplied by displacement ventilation or a similar method, such as transfer air. 

Enhanced hood edge geometry improved capture and containment performance. For the cases 

tested, the exhaust rate was reduced by 8 to 14% with the installation of a 1.5-inch lip on the 

hood, compared to operation with a raw edge on the hood. 

Improved hood performance was found with the 6-foot hood’s v-bank filter configuration, rather 

than the 4-foot hood’s rear filter configuration. The v-bank design had an advantage by drawing 

the appliance plume toward the center relative to the front and rear of the hood. It also had an 

advantage by being better aligned with the plume, which allowed the natural path of the plume to 

aid in its capture and containment. However, disadvantages were found with the flat bottom 

surface of this particular v-bank and its relatively low positioning in the hood. If an aggressive 

plume, such as from the flue of the gas fryer, was located directly beneath the v-bank, the plume 

would hit the bottom surface of the v-bank and spread horizontally. Since the bottom of the v- 

bank was close to the bottom edge of the hood, the plume would spill out the side of the hood. 

Likewise, if an aggressive local makeup air strategy was present at the side of the hood, such as a 

4-way ceiling diffuser at a high airflow rate, the makeup air disrupted the appliance plume at the 

bottom of the v-bank and caused spillage. Higher positioning of the v-bank filter rack in the hood 

could improve hood performance. 

Tailored exhaust bias can improve hood performance. With more exhaust volume focused over 

the more challenging appliances, the exhaust rate was reduced for the 8-foot deep double island 

hood by 19%. When the optimized bias found for this 8-foot hood was applied to the 10-foot 

deep double island hood, the required exhaust rate was essentially the same. However, with the 

exhaust bias removed from the 10-foot hood, the exhaust rate decreased by 18%, compared to 

operation with a biased exhaust system. Therefore, if a tailored exhaust bias is applied, it is 

recommended that the performance be verified for the specific application. 

The method and volume of makeup air introduced in the space was found to be critical for an 

island canopy hood. Consistent with previous research [Ref 10] [Ref 11], reduced local makeup 

airflow rates corresponded to reduced exhaust rates, for most cases. With minimized air volume, 

velocities, and turbulence near the vicinity of the appliance and hood system, the appliance 

plumes were found to be more stable and the hood was able to exhaust more appliance plume 

with less air. When moderation was used with the local makeup airflow rates, hood performance 

was usually maintained or improved, compared to operation without local makeup air. However, 

when local makeup air was aggressively introduced, hood performance degraded and either 

required an increased exhaust rate or resulted in a failure to capture and contain the appliance 

4-2 


plumes. Likewise, with up to 10,000 cfm of air supplied to a laboratory of this size, any of the 

supply air strategies may have created airflow patterns that could be very different in a larger 

space. Consideration should be given to evaluate the performance impact of makeup air in both 

small and large kitchen spaces. 

Increased local makeup air temperatures (averaged 15°F) increased the required exhaust rate by 

an average of 9%. However, increased local makeup air temperature resulted in a lower exhaust 

rate for three tested cases, two with displacement ventilation and one with a 4-way diffuser. 

Sensitivity to makeup air temperature varied among the makeup air strategies, with an exhaust 

increase of 1-27% due to increased makeup air temperature. 

Uneven supply air distribution or positive/negative pressure zones within the kitchen created a 

challenge for capture and containment that required significantly higher exhaust rates and, in 

many cases, could not be compensated for within the range of the laboratory. With a constant 

appliance line, capture and containment went from successful with a balanced supply system, to 

very difficult with a one-sided supply system, to impossible with a positive pressure at the front 

of the laboratory and a negative pressure at the rear of the laboratory. 

4-3 


CKV System Design Implications 

Preference should be given to the wall-mounted canopy hood over the island canopy hood, if 

possible. In general, a significant increase in the exhaust rate was required for the island canopy 

hood configurations, compared to data available in the ASHRAE Handbook from previous 

research such as ASHRAE 1202-RP. 

Of the two single island hoods tested, the best configuration was found to be the v-bank with 

increased hood depth to maximize front and rear overhang, rather than the rear filter hood with a 

smaller hood depth. For optimal hood performance, attention should be given to the location of 

the filter bank relative to the lower edge of the hood, as performance was compromised with the 

bottom of the tested v-bank located near the bottom edge of the hood. 

Of the two double island hoods tested, a clear-cut winner was not found, with a virtually equal 

number of favorable test results for each of the double island hoods. Of these tests, the difference 

in hood performance was less than 5% in nine cases, between 5 and 10% in 5 cases, and greater 

than 10% in 3 cases. With some exceptions, the performance advantage expected by use of a 

larger hood diminished as the hood was increased from the 8-foot to the 10-foot depth. 

Tailored exhaust bias for double island hoods may improve hood performance. With more 

exhaust volume focused over the more challenging appliances, the exhaust rate can be reduced 

for a given configuration. However, application of a specific bias for other applications or hood 

dimensions may yield different performance results and should be verified. 

Moderation should be practiced with local makeup airflow rates. When the airflow rates were 

kept relatively low, the capture and containment performance of the hood was maintained or 

improved. However, when local makeup air was aggressively introduced, hood performance 

degraded and either required an increased exhaust rate or resulted in a failure to capture and 

contain the appliance plumes. 

Avoid uneven supply air distribution or relative positive/negative pressure zones within the 

kitchen. Even though the laboratory environment was usually maintained with a near-zero 

pressure difference relative to outside the laboratory, these characteristics were found to be 

among the most detrimental to hood performance. The use of many diverse air supply strategies 

and locations that do not interfere with the operation of the hood could improve hood capture and 

containment performance. 

Consideration should be given to side panels as tools to improve hood performance. While the 

general trend found during this project did not always support the installation of side panels, they 

were effective for specific applications. Furthermore, the results found during this project may 

understate the performance improvement found in the field for side panels when air is supplied 

by displacement ventilation or a similar method, such as transfer air. 

Maximized hood overhang should be strived for through appliance positioning and/or hood 

selection. Side overhang should be maximized by condensing the appliance line and removing 

gaps from between the appliances. Front (and rear) overhang should be maximized with a single 

island hood by centering the appliance line, relative to the cook surface. For a double island 

hood, the front and rear appliance lines should be as far back in each hood as possible. 

4-4 


Installation of a rear seal behind the appliance lines should be considered to improve hood 

performance for double island hoods. By closing the gaps found behind the appliances, the 

airflow was redirected to the perimeter of the hood and hood performance was improved. 

Specification of enhanced hood edge geometry should be considered by manufacturers and endusers. 

While each design would need to be properly evaluated for the impact on hood 

performance, the design tested in this project was effective and was typical of edge design 

currently in the field. 

Verification of performance in the field should be performed to ensure proper hood capture and 

containment performance. As was shown during this project, many factors interact in the kitchen 

and affect hood performance, and this interaction cannot be quantified for each specific 

installation. Therefore, a field performance test would be best to verify proper kitchen ventilation 

and hood performance. 

4-5 


Focus of Future Research 

Study the single island canopy hood in greater detail. This project could further quantify hood 

performance for the v-bank island with a smaller 4-foot depth, as well as quantify the rear-filter 

hood at a larger 6-foot depth. Efforts should be focused on the v-bank hood design, as this study 

has shown it to be best practice. However, a better understanding of each hood would be very 

complimentary to the data found during ASHRAE RP-1480 and provide more direct 

performance comparisons for use in the ASHRAE Handbook and design guides. 

Study the impact of hood filter bank design on capture and containment performance. The 

location found directly under the v-bank of the single island hood was determined to have weak 

capture and containment performance during ASHRAE 1480-RP. This project could evaluate the 

height relative to the distance between the bottom of the filter bank and the lower edge of the 

hood, as well as filter size and filter bank geometry. While this study is intended to focus on 

island hood design, the discoveries from the project could be applied to wall-mount and 

proximity hoods as well. 

Study the displacement ventilation layout and hood capture and containment performance in 

greater detail. Questions arose during ASHRAE RP-1480 regarding the performance of side 

panels and potential issues with supply air distribution locations and currents. One single island 

hood could be used to simplify testing, such as the v-bank island canopy. The displacement 

ventilation system could then be upgraded or modified to provide air from all four sides of the 

laboratory, with provisions installed to enable and disable supply air locations. Hood capture and 

containment performance could then be evaluated with respect to the supply distribution. This 

strategy may help clarify the performance impact of side panels, as well as expand our 

knowledge of hood performance with side drafts present in the kitchen. 

Study single hood and multi-hood ventilation systems for a given group of appliances. This 

investigation would quantify the potential energy savings using customized multiple hoods rather 

than a single canopy hood. The total airflow rate required to ventilate the entire cook line would 

be reported. By tailoring the hoods to the appliances, capture and containment challenges could 

be better addressed and the total airflow rate reduced. Since ASHRAE RP-1480 has shown the 

profound performance impact of positive/negative pressure areas within a commercial kitchen, 

this proposed study may provide a foundation to improve the energy and environmental profile 

of complex commercial kitchens, while taking into account the needs of the kitchen ventilation 

system to provide optimized performance of each hood. With first costs being a genuine concern 

in the kitchen industry as well as operating costs, a simple cost analysis could also be considered 

to show the financial advantages and disadvantages of each strategy. 

Study makeup air impact on indoor air quality. This project could look at the effects of makeup 

air introduction on capture and containment performance at different supply conditions (e.g., 

extreme or design days), with a focus on how heat and humidity affect the thermal comfort in the 

kitchen. If the appropriate metrology is available, this project could be incorporated into many 

other projects with a lower level of effort, compared to studying the indoor air quality on its own. 

Study the energy savings in fan energy, tempering, materials, construction costs, etc. within the 

whole-building HVAC system and kitchen distribution system from recommendations to apply 

minimum exhaust airflow rate designs. 

4-6 


References 

1. Brohard, G., D.R. Fisher PE, V.A. Smith PE, R.T. Swierczyna, P.A. Sobiski. 2003. Makeup Air 

Effects on Kitchen Exhaust Hood Performance. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA. 

2. Swierczyna, R., D. Fisher, P. Sobiski, T. Cole, M. Bramfitt. Effect on commercial kitchen hood 

performance of appliance diversity and position 1202-RP. ASHRAE 2005. 

3. Swierczyna, R., P. Sobiski, D. Fisher. ASHRAE Research Project 1362 Revised Heat Gain and 

Capture and Containment Exhaust Rates from Typical Commercial Cooking Appliances. 1362-RP. 

ASHRAE 2008. 

4. Commercial Kitchen Ventilation “Best Practice” Design & Specification Guidelines 

FCSI White Paper. Foodservice Consultants Society International 2006. 

5. ASHRAE 2003. 2003 ASHRAE Handbook-HVAC Applications, Chapter 31. Atlanta: American 

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 

6. ASHRAE 2003. ASHRAE Standard 154 Ventilation for Commercial Cooking Operations. Atlanta: 

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. 

7. ASTM 2005. ASTM F 1704-05 Standard test method for capture and containment performance of 

commercial kitchen exhaust ventilation systems. American Society of Testing and Materials 

International. West Conshohocken, PA. 

8. American Society for Testing and Materials. 1995 - 2004. Standard test method for the performance 

of [commercial food service equipment], West Conshohocken, PA. 

F1361-99 Standard Test Method for Performance of Open Deep Fat Fryers 

F1496-99 Standard Test Method for Performance of Convection Ovens 

F1695-96 Standard Test Method for Performance of Underfired Broilers 

9. Schmid, F.P., V.A. Smith, R.T. Swierczyna. 1997. Schlieren flow visualization in commercial kitchen 

ventilation research. ASHRAE Transactions 103 (2). 

10. Swierczyna, R.T., P.A. Sobiski, The effects of makeup air on kitchen hood performance. ASHRAE 

Journal, June 2003. 

11. PG&E Food Service Technology Center. 2010. Wall-Mounted Canopy Exhaust Hood Performance 

Reports. Application of ASTM 1704, Standard test method for capture and containment performance 

of commercial kitchen exhaust ventilation system. San Ramon, CA. 

5-1 


Appendix A: Summary of Data 

A-1 


101 


7'-8" 

5'-8" 


Figure 83. Test Condition 101 

Test 

# 

101 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7400 cfm 

740 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

n/a Typical Without Panels 

MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

Baseline 

102 


7'-8" 

5'-8" 



Test 

# 

102 

Exhaust 

C&C 

4900 cfm 

490 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F, B, O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

Baseline 

A-2 


103 


7'-8" 

5'-8" 



Test 

# 

103 

Exhaust 

C&C 

6400 cfm 

640 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(1 Broiler) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

Baseline 

104 


7'-8" 

5'-8" 



Test 

# 

104 

Exhaust 

C&C 

8600 cfm 

860 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

n/a 

Appliance 

Overhang 

6 inch Front 

Overhang to 

Cook Surface 

Panel 

Configuration 

Without Panels 

MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

A-3 


105 


7'-8" 

5'-8" 



Test 

# 

105 

Exhaust 

C&C 

8000 cfm 

800 cfm/ft 

Front 


Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

n/a 

Appliance 

Overhang 

6 inch Rear 

Overhang to 

Cook Surface 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

106 


7'-8" 

5'-8" 



Test 

# 

106 

Exhaust 

C&C 

5800 cfm 

580 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(1 Broiler) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

n/a 

Appliance 

Overhang 

12 inch Side, 

Centered F-R 

Cook Surface 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

A-4 


107 


7'-8" 

5'-8" 



Test 

# 

107 

Exhaust 

C&C 

5600 cfm 

560 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy (1 

Broiler) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

n/a 

Appliance 

Overhang 

18 inch Side, 

Centered F-R 

Cook Surface 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow 

Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

108 


7'-8" 

5'-8" 



Test 

# 

108 

Exhaust 

C&C 

4800 

480 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(1 Broiler) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

n/a 

Appliance 

Overhang 

24 inch Side, 

Centered F-R 

Cook Surface 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow 

Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

A-5 


109 


7'-8" 

5'-8" 



Test 

# 

109 

Exhaust 

C&C 

6400 cfm 

640 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

1.5 inch 

hood lip on 

3 sides 

110 


5'-8" 

2'-0" 

Side 4-Way 

MUA 

2'-0" 

7'-8" 

Front 4-Way 

MUA 

2'-0" 



Test 

# 

110 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9000 cfm 

>900 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

2000 cfm 

(1000 cfm ea) 

Comments 

Baseline 

A-6 


111 


2'-0" 

Side 4-Way 

MUA 

7'-8" 

5'-8" 



Test 

# 

111 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7800 cfm 

780 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(1 Broiler) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

n/a 

Appliance 

Overhang 

6 inch Side, 

Centered F-R 

Cook Surface 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow 

Rate 

500 cfm 

Comments 

112 


2'-0" 

5'-8" 

7'-8" 

Front 4-Way 

MUA 

2'-0" 



Test 

# 

112 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7400 cfm 

740 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(1 Broiler) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

n/a 

Appliance 

Overhang 

6 inch Side, 

Centered F-R 

Cook Surface 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

1000 cfm 

Comments 

A-7 


113 


5'-8" 

2'-0" 

Side 4-Way 

MUA 

7'-8" 

2'-0" 

Front 4-Way 

MUA 

2'-0" 



Test 

# 

113 

Exhaust 

C&C 

8200 cfm 

820 cfm/ft 

Front 


Heavy 

(1 Broiler) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

n/a 

Appliance 

Overhang 

6 inch Side, 

Centered F- 

R Cook 

Surface 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

2000 cfm 

(1000 cfm ea) 

Comments 

114 


5'-8" 

2'-0" 

Side 4-Way 

MUA 

2'-0" 

7'-8" 

Front 4-Way 

MUA 

2'-0" 



Test 

# 

114 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7800 cfm 

780 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

2000 cfm 

(1000 cfm ea) 

Comments 

Baseline 

A-8 


115 


5'-8" 

2'-0" 

Side 

Perforated 

Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

7'-8" 



Test 

# 

115 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7400 cfm 

740 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(1 Broiler) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

n/a 

Appliance 

Overhang 

6 inch Side, 

Centered F-R 

Cook Surface 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

500 cfm 

Comments 

116 


7'-8" 

5'-8" 

Front 

Perforated 

Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

2'-0" 

2'-0" 



Test 

# 

116 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9000 cfm 

>900 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(1 Broiler) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

n/a 

Appliance 

Overhang 

6 inch Side, 

Centered F-R 

Cook Surface 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front 

MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

1000 cfm 

Comments 

A-9 


117 


5'-8" 

2'-0" 

Side 

Perforated 

Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

7'-8" 

Front 

Perforated 

Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

2'-0" 

2'-0" 



Test 

# 

117 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9000 cfm 

>900 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(1 Broiler) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

n/a 

Appliance 

Overhang 

6 inch Side, 

Centered F-R 

Cook Surface 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

2000 cfm 

(1000 cfm ea) 

Comments 

118 


5'-8" 

Perforated 

Plenum 

Supply 

MUA 

7'-8" 



Test 

# 

118 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9000 cfm 

>900 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 

n/a Typical Without Panels 4 Sides PPS 70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 


(5120 cfm) 

Comments 

Baseline 

A-10 


119 

5'-8" 


Perforated 

Plenum 

Supply 

MUA 

7'-8" 



Test 

# 

119 

Exhaust 

C&C 

5600 cfm 

560 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 


(2560 cfm) 

Comments 

120 


5'-8" 

Perforated 

Plenum 

Supply 

MUA 

7'-8" 



Test 

# 

120 

Exhaust 

C&C 

8200 cfm 

820 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 

n/a Typical Without Panels Front PPS 70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

160 cfm/ft of 

PPS (1600 cfm) 

Comments 

A-11 


121 


5'-8" 

Perforated 

Plenum 

Supply 

MUA 

7'-8" 



Test 

# 

121 

Exhaust 

C&C 

5000 cfm 

500 cfm/ft 

Front 


Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 

n/a Typical Without Panels Front PPS 70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

80 cfm/ft of 

PPS (800 cfm) 

Comments 

122 

5'-8" 


Perforated 

Plenum 

Supply 

MUA 

7'-8" 



Test 

# 

122 

Exhaust 

C&C 

8600 cfm 

800 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 


(5120 cfm) 

Comments 

Baseline 

A-12 


123 

5'-8" 


Perforated 

Plenum 

Supply 

MUA 

7'-8" 



Test 

# 

123 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7600 cfm 

760 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 


(2560 cfm) 

Comments 

Baseline 

124 

6" 6" 

3'-6" 


Test 

# 

124 

Exhaust 

C&C 

4400 cfm 

440 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

n/a Typical Panel #1 

MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow 

Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

A-13 


125 

8" 

2'-10" 


Test 

# 

125 

Exhaust 

C&C 

4700 cfm 

470 cfm/ft 

Front 


Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow 

Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

126 

6" 6" 

3'-6" 


Test 

# 

126 

Exhaust 

C&C 

4900 cfm 

490 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow 

Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

A-14 


127 

1'-6" 

2'-0" 


Test 

# 

127 

Exhaust 

C&C 

4800 cfm 

480 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

n/a Typical Extension #4 

MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow 

Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

128 

6" 6" 

3'-6" 


Test 

# 

128 

Exhaust 

C&C 

8800 cfm 

880 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

2000 cfm 

(1000 cfm ea) 

Comments 

A-15 


129 

8" 

2'-10" 


Test 

# 

129 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9000 cfm 

>900 cfm/ft 

Front 


Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

2000 cfm 

(1000 cfm ea) 

Comments 

130 

6" 6" 

3'-6" 


Test 

# 

130 

Exhaust 

C&C 

9000 cfm 

900 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

2000 cfm 

(1000 cfm ea) 

Comments 

A-16 


131 

1'-6" 

2'-0" 


Test 

# 

131 

Exhaust 

C&C 

8900 cfm 

890 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

2000 cfm 

(1000 cfm ea) 

Comments 

132 

6" 6" 

3'-6" 


Test 

# 

132 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9000 cfm 

>900 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 

n/a Typical Panel #1 4 Sides PPS 70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 


(5120 cfm) 

Comments 

A-17 


133 

8" 

2'-10" 


Test 

# 

133 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9000 cfm 

900 cfm/ft 

Front 


Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 


(5120 cfm) 

Comments 

134 

6" 6" 

3'-6" 


Test 

# 

134 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9000 cfm 

>900 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 


(5120 cfm) 

Comments 

A-18 


135 

1'-6" 

2'-0" 


Test 

# 

135 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7600 cfm 

760 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 

n/a Typical Extension #4 4 Sides PPS 70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 


(5120 cfm) 

Comments 

136 

6" 6" 

3'-6" 


Test 

# 

136 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7400 cfm 

740 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

A-19 


137 

8" 

2'-10" 


Test 

# 

137 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7300 cfm 

730 cfm/ft 

Front 


Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

138 

6" 6" 

3'-6" 


Test 

# 

138 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7400 cfm 

740 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

A-20 


139 

1'-6" 

2'-0" 


Test 

# 

139 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7400 cfm 

740 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

140 

6" 6" 

3'-6" 


Test 

# 

140 

Exhaust 

C&C 

9000 cfm 

900 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy (3 

Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

2000 cfm 

(1000 cfm ea) 

Comments 

A-21 


141 

8" 

2'-10" 


Test 

# 

141 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7600 cfm 

760 cfm/ft 

Front 


Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

2000 cfm 

(1000 cfm ea) 

Comments 

142 

6" 6" 

3'-6" 


Test 

# 

142 

Exhaust 

C&C 

8400 cfm 

840 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

2000 cfm 

(1000 cfm ea) 

Comments 

A-22 


143 

1'-6" 

2'-0" 


Test 

# 

143 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7400 cfm 

740 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

2000 cfm 

(1000 cfm ea) 

Comments 

144 

6" 6 " 

3'-6" 


Test 

# 

144 

Exhaust 

C&C 

8400 cfm 

840 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 


(5120 cfm) 

Comments 

A-23 


145 

2'-10" 


Test 

# 

145 

Exhaust 

C&C 

8200 cfm 

820 cfm/ft 

Front 


Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 


(5120 cfm) 

Comments 

146 

6" 6" 

3'-6" 


Test 

# 

146 

Exhaust 

C&C 

8400 cfm 

840 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 


(5120 cfm) 

Comments 

A-24 


147 

1'-6" 

2'-0" 


Test 

# 

147 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7800 cfm 

780 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 


(5120 cfm) 

Comments 

148 


5'-8" 

6" 

Walk-by Path 

Rate at 250 +/- 25 fpm 

7'-8" 



Test 

# 

148 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7200 cfm 

720 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

Walk-by 

Front 

A-25 


149 


5'-8" 

2'-0" 

Side 4-Way 

MUA 

2'-0" 

Walk-by Path 

7'-8" 

Front 4-Way 

MUA 

2'-0" 



Test 

# 

149 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9000 cfm 

>900 cfm/ft 

Front 


Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

2000 cfm 

(1000 cfm ea) 

Comments 

Walk-by 

Front 

150 


5'-8" 

2'-0" 

Side 4-Way 

MUA 

2'-0" 

Walk-by Path 

7'-8" 

Front 4-Way 

MUA 

2'-0" 



Test 

# 

150 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9000 cfm 

>900 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

2000 cfm 

(1000 cfm ea) 

Comments 

Walk-by 

Front 

A-26 


151 

6" 6" 

3'-6" 

Walk-by Path 


Test 

# 

151 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9000 cfm 

>900 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 


(5120 cfm) 

Comments 

Walk-by 

Front 

152 

7'-8" 

5'-8" 



Test 

# 

152 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>8300 cfm 

>830 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 

n/a Typical Without Panels Front Displacement 70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

Walk-by 

Front 

A-27 


153 

1'-6" 

2'-0" 

Walk-by Path 


Test 

# 

153 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7800 cfm 

780 cfm/ft 

Front 


Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 


(5120 cfm) 

Comments 

Walk-by 

Front 

154 


5'-8" 

Walk-by Path 

Rate at 250 +/- 25 fpm 

6" 

7'-8" 

6" 

Walk-by Path 

Rate at 250 +/- 25 fpm 



Test 

# 

154 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9000 cfm 

>900 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

Walk-by 

Front & Rear 

A-28 


201 


6'-8" 

4'-8" 



Test 

# 

201 

Exhaust 

C&C 

4800 cfm 

480 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

Baseline 

202 


6'-8" 

4'-8" 



Test 

# 

202 

Exhaust 

C&C 

4500 cfm 

450 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

Baseline 

A-29 


203 


6'-8" 

4'-8" 



Test 

# 

203 

Exhaust 

C&C 

4200 cfm 

420 cfm/ft 

Front 


Heavy 

(1 Broiler) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

Baseline 

204 


6'-8" 

4'-8" 



Test 

# 

204 

Exhaust 

C&C 

8000 cfm 

800 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

n/a 

Appliance Overhang 

6 inch Front 

Overhang to Cook 

Surface 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

A-30 


205 


4'- 

8" 

6'- 

8" 



Test 

# 

205 

Exhaust 

C&C 

3300 cfm 

330 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(1 Broiler) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

n/a 


12 inch Side 

Overhang, Centered 

F-R Cook Surface 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

206 


6'-8" 

4'-8" 



Test 

# 

206 

Exhaust 

C&C 

2600 cfm 

260 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(1 Broiler) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

n/a 


24 inch Side 



Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

A-31 


207 


6'-8" 

4'-8" 



Test 

# 

207 

Exhaust 

C&C 

4100 cfm 

410 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(2 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

n/a 


6 inch Side, 

Centered F-R Cook 

Surface 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow 

Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

208 


6'-8" 

4'-8" 



Test 

# 

208 

Exhaust 

C&C 

3400 cfm 

340 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(2 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

n/a 


12 inch Side 



Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

A-32 


209 


6'-8" 

4'-8" 



Test 

# 

209 

Exhaust 

C&C 

2800 cfm 

240 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(2 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

n/a 


24 inch Side 



Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

210 


4'-8" 

2'-0" 

Side 4-Way 

MUA 

6'-8" 

Front 4-Way 

MUA 

2'-0" 

2'-0" 



Test 

# 

210 

Exhaust 

C&C 

5000cfm 

500 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

1000 cfm 

(500 cfm ea) 

Comments 

210 

A-33 


211 


4'-8" 

2'-0" 

Side 4-Way 

MUA 

6'-8" 

Front 4-Way 

MUA 

2'-0" 

2'-0" 



Test 

# 

211 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7400 cfm 

740 cfm/ft 

Front 


Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

2000 cfm 

(1000 cfm ea) 

Comments 

Baseline 

212 


4'-8" 

Side 4-Way 

MUA 

2'-0" 

6'-8" 



Test 

# 

212 

Exhaust 

C&C 

3900 cfm 

390 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(2 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

n/a 


24 inch Side 

Overhang on Left 

and Right 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

500 cfm 

Comments 

A-34 


213 


4'-8" 

Side 4-Way 

MUA 

2'-0" 

6'-8" 



Test 

# 

213 

Exhaust 

C&C 

8400 cfm 

840 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(2 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

n/a 

Appliance 

Overhang 

24 inch Side 


and Right 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

1000 cfm 

Comments 

214 


6'-8" 

4'-8" 

Front 4-Way 

MUA 

2'-0" 

2'-0" 



Test 

# 

214 

Exhaust 

C&C 

3900 cfm 

390 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(2 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

n/a 


24 inch Side 


and Right 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

500 cfm 

Comments 

A-35 


215 


6'-8" 

4'-8" 

Front 4-Way 

MUA 

2'-0" 

2'-0" 



Test 

# 

215 

Exhaust 

C&C 

5200 cfm 

520 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(2 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

n/a 


24 inch Side 


and Right 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

1000 cfm 

Comments 

216 


4'-8" 

Side 4-Way 

MUA 

2'-0" 

6'-8" 

Front 4-Way 

MUA 

2'-0" 

2'-0" 



Test 

# 

216 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7200 cfm 

720 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(2 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

n/a 

Appliance 

Overhang 

24 inch Side 


and Right 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

2000 cfm 

(1000 cfm ea) 

Comments 

A-36 


217 


4' - 8" 

Side 4-Way 

MUA 

6' - 8" 



Test 

# 

217 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7300 cfm 

730 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

n/a Typical Without Panels Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow 

Rate 

500 cfm 

Comments 

218 


4' - 8" 

Side 4-Way 

MUA 

6' - 8" 



Test 

# 

218 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9600 cfm 

960 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 


MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

1000 cfm 

Comments 

A-37 


219 


4' - 8" 

Front 4-Way 

MUA 

6' - 8" 



Test 

# 

219 

Exhaust 

C&C 

5000 cfm 

500 cfm/ft 

Front 


Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

n/a Typical Without Panels Front 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

500 cfm 

Comments 

220 


4' - 8" 

Front 4-Way 

MUA 

6' - 8" 



Test 

# 

220 

Exhaust 

C&C 

9600 cfm 

960 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 


MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

1000 cfm 

Comments 

A-38 


221 


4' - 8" 

Front 4-Way 

MUA 

6' - 8" 



Test 

# 

221 

Exhaust 

C&C 

5700 cfm 

570 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 


MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

85-90ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

500 cfm 

Comments 

222 


4' - 8" 

Front 4-Way 

MUA 

6' - 8" 



Test 

# 

222 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7700 cfm 

770 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 


MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

85-90ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

1000 cfm 

Comments 

A-39 


223 


4'-8" 

2'-0" 

Side 4-Way 

MUA 

6'-8" 

Front 4-Way 

MUA 

2'-0" 

2'-0" 



Test 

# 

223 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9600 cfm 

>960 cfm/ft 

Front 


Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

2000 cfm 

(1000 cfm ea) 

Comments 

224 


4' - 8" 

Front 4-Way 

MUA 

6' - 8" 



Test 

# 

224 

Exhaust 

C&C 

5600 cfm 

560 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front at 

4 feet 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

500 cfm 

Comments 

A-40 


225 


4' - 8" 

Front 4-Way 

MUA 

6' - 8" 



Test 

# 

225 

Exhaust 

C&C 

8600 cfm 

860 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front at 

4 feet 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

1000 cfm 

Comments 

226 


6'-8" 

4'-8" 



Test 

# 

226 

Exhaust 

C&C 

3800 cfm 

380 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

85-90ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

A-41 


227 


4'-8" 

2'-0" 

Side Perf 

Diffuser 

MUA 

6'-8" 

Front Perf 

Diffuser 

MUA 

2'-0" 

2'-0" 



Test 

# 

227 

Exhaust 

C&C 

3800 cfm 

380 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

1000 cfm 

(500 cfm ea) 

Comments 

228 


4'-8" 

2'-0" 

Side Perf 

Diffuser 

MUA 

6'-8" 

Front Perf 

Diffuser 

MUA 

2'-0" 

2'-0" 



Test 

# 

228 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7800 cfm 

780 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

2000 cfm 

(1000 cfm ea) 

Comments 

A-42 


229 


4'-8" 

Side Perf 

MUA 

6'-8" 



Test 

# 

229 

Exhaust 

C&C 

4000 cfm 

400 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(2 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

n/a 

Appliance 

Overhang 

24 inch Side 

Overhang on 

Left and Right 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

500 cfm 

Comments 

230 


4'-8" 

Side Perf 

MUA 

6'-8" 



Test 

# 

230 

Exhaust 

C&C 

5300 cfm 

530 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(2 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

n/a 

Appliance 

Overhang 

24 inch Side 


and Right 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

1000 cfm 

Comments 

A-43 


231 


4'-8" 

Front Perf 

MUA 

6'-8" 



Test 

# 

231 

Exhaust 

C&C 

3800 cfm 

380 cfm/ft 

Front 


Heavy 

(2 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

n/a 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Maximum Side 

and Front 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front 

MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

500 cfm 

Comments 

232 


4'-8" 

Front Perf 

MUA 

6'-8" 



Test 

# 

232 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7100 cfm 

710 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(2 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

n/a 

Appliance 

Overhang 

24 inch Side 


and Right 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front 

MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

1000 cfm 

Comments 

A-44 


233 


4'-8" 

Side Perf 

MUA 

Front Perf 

MUA 

6'-8" 



Test 

# 

233 

Exhaust 

C&C 

8800 cfm 

880 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(2 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

n/a 

Appliance 

Overhang 

24 inch Side 


and Right 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

2000 cfm 

(1000 cfm ea) 

Comments 

234 


4'-8" 

Side Perf 

MUA 

6'-8" 



Test 

# 

234 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7400 cfm 

740 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 


MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

500 cfm 

Comments 

A-45 


235 


4'-8" 

Side Perf 

MUA 

6'-8" 



Test 

# 

235 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9600 cfm 

>960 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 


MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

1000 cfm 

Comments 

236 


4'-8" 

Front Perf 

MUA 

6'-8" 



Test 

# 

236 

Exhaust 

C&C 

5400 cfm 

540 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 


MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

500 cfm 

Comments 

A-46 


237 


4'-8" 

Front Perf 

MUA 

6'-8" 



Test 

# 

237 

Exhaust 

C&C 

8300 cfm 

830 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 


MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

1000 cfm 

Comments 

238 


4'-8" 

Front Perf 

MUA 

6'-8" 



Test 

# 

238 

Exhaust 

C&C 

5800 cfm 

580 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 


MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

85-90ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

500 cfm 

Comments 

A-47 


239 


4'-8" 

Front Perf 

MUA 

6'-8" 



Test 

# 

239 

Exhaust 

C&C 

9200 cfm 

920 cfm/ft 

Front 


Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 


MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

85-90ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

1000 cfm 

Comments 

240 


4'-8" 

2'-0" 

Side Perf 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Front Perf 

Diffuser MUA 

2'-0" 

6'-8" 

2'-0" 



Test 

# 

240 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9600 cfm 

960 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

2000 cfm 

(1000 cfm ea) 

Comments 

A-48 


241 


4'-8" 

Front Perf 

MUA 

6'-8" 



Test 

# 

241 

Exhaust 

C&C 

5600 cfm 

560 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front at 

4 feet 

MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

500 cfm 

Comments 

242 


4'-8" 

Front Perf 

MUA 

6'-8" 



Test 

# 

242 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7200 cfm 

720 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front at 

4 feet 

MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

1000 cfm 

Comments 

A-49 


243 

4'-8" 


Perforated 

Plenum 

Supply 

MUA 

6'-8" 



Test 

# 

243 

Exhaust 

C&C 

8200 cfm 

820 cfm/ft 

Front 


Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 

160 cfm/ft of 


Comments 

Baseline 

244 

4'-8" 


Perforated 

Plenum 

Supply 

MUA 

6'-8" 



Test 

# 

244 

Exhaust 

C&C 

3200 cfm 

320 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 


(2880 cfm) 

Comments 

A-50 


245 

4'-8" 


Perforated 

Plenum 

Supply 

MUA 

6'-8" 



Test 

# 

245 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7400 cfm 

740 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(2 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

n/a 


24 inch Side Overhang 

on Left and Right 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 

Without Panels 4 Sides PPS 70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 


(5760 cfm) 

Comments 

246 

4'-8" 


Perforated 

Plenum 

Supply 

MUA 

6'-8" 



Test 

# 

246 

Exhaust 

C&C 

3200 cfm 

320 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(2 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

n/a 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Maximum Side 

and Front 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 


(2880 cfm) 

Comments 

A-51 


247 

4'-8" 


Perforated 

Plenum 

Supply 

MUA 

6'-8" 



Test 

# 

247 

Exhaust 

C&C 

8700 cfm 

870 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(2 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

n/a 

Appliance 

Overhang 

24 inch Side 

Overhang on 


Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Sides 

MUA 

Strategy 

PPS 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 


(4160 cfm) 

Comments 

248 


4'-8" 

Perforated 

Plenum 

Supply 

MUA 

6'-8" 



Test 

# 

248 

Exhaust 

C&C 

3300 cfm 

330 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(2 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

n/a 

Appliance 

Overhang 

24 inch Side 


and Right 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Sides 

MUA 

Strategy 

PPS 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 


(2080 cfm) 

Comments 

A-52 


249 

4'-8" 


Perforated 

Plenum 

Supply 

MUA 

6'-8" 



Test 

# 

249 

Exhaust 

C&C 

4500 cfm 

450 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 


(2880 cfm) 

Comments 

Baseline 

250 

4'-8" 


Perforated 

Plenum 

Supply 

MUA 

6'-8" 



Test 

# 

250 

Exhaust 

C&C 

8200 cfm 

820 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 


(5760 cfm) 

Comments 

A-53 


251 

4'-8" 


Perforated 

Plenum 

Supply 

MUA 

6'-8" 



Test 

# 

251 

Exhaust 

C&C 

8200 cfm 

820 cfm/ft 

Front 


Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Sides 

MUA 

Strategy 

PPS 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 


(4160 cfm) 

Comments 

252 


4'-8" 

Perforated 

Plenum 

Supply 

MUA 

6'-8" 



Test 

# 

252 

Exhaust 

C&C 

8500 cfm 

850 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Sides 

MUA 

Strategy 

PPS 

MUA 

Temperature 

85-90ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 


(4160 cfm) 

Comments 

A-54 


253 

4'-8" 


Perforated 

Plenum 

Supply 

MUA 

6'-8" 



Test 

# 

253 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7800 cfm 

780 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 

160 cfm/ft of 


Comments 

Baseline 

254 

1'-6" 

1'-6" 

3'-6" 


Test 

# 

254 

Exhaust 

C&C 

4200 cfm 

420 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

A-55 


255 

1'-6" 

1'-6" 

3'-6" 


Test 

# 

255 

Exhaust 

C&C 

5300 cfm 

530 cfm/ft 

Front 


Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

1000 cfm 

(500 cfm ea) 

Comments 

256 

1'-6" 

1'-6" 

3'-6" 


Test 

# 

256 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9600 cfm 

>960 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

2000 cfm 

(1000 cfm ea) 

Comments 

A-56 


257 

1'-6" 

1'-6" 

3'-6" 


Test 

# 

257 

Exhaust 

C&C 

3700 cfm 

370 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

1000 cfm 

(500 cfm ea) 

Comments 

258 

1'-6" 

1'-6" 

3'-6" 


Test 

# 

258 

Exhaust 

C&C 

6800 cfm 

680 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

2000 cfm 

(1000 cfm ea) 

Comments 

A-57 


259 

1'-6" 

1'-6" 

3'-6" 


Test 

# 

259 

Exhaust 

C&C 

8200 cfm 

820 cfm/ft 

Front 


Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 


(5760 cfm) 

Comments 

260 


Test 

# 

260 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9600 cfm 

>960 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

2000 cfm 

(1000 cfm ea) 

Comments 

A-58 


261 


4'-8" 

2'-0" 

Side Perf 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Front Perf 

Diffuser MUA 

2'-0" 

6'-8" 

2'-0" 



Test 

# 

261 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9600 cfm 

>960 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

2000 cfm 

(1000 cfm ea) 

Comments 

262 

1'-6" 

1'-6" 

3'-6" 


Test 

# 

262 

Exhaust 

C&C 

4800 cfm 

480 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Displacement 70-75ºF Without LMUA 

Comments 

A-59 


263 

8" 

2'-10" 


Test 

# 

263 

Exhaust 

C&C 

4800 cfm 

480 cfm/ft 

Front 


Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Displacement 70-75ºF Without LMUA 

Comments 

264 

1'-6" 

1'-6" 

3'-6" 


Test 

# 

264 

Exhaust 

C&C 

4800 cfm 

480 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

A-60 


265 

1'-6" 

2'-0" 


Test 

# 

265 

Exhaust 

C&C 

8200 cfm 

820 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

266 


Test 

# 

266 

Exhaust 

C&C 

4800 cfm 

480 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

n/a 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Panel 

Configuration 

Panel #1 

& Ext #4 

MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

A-61 


267 


Test 

# 

267 

Exhaust 

C&C 

4800 cfm 

480 cfm/ft 

Front 


Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

n/a 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Panel 

Configuration 

Panel #2 

& Ext #4 

MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

268 


Test 

# 

268 

Exhaust 

C&C 

4800 cfm 

480 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

n/a 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Panel 

Configuration 

Panel #3 

& Ext #4 

MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

A-62 


269 

8" 

2'-10" 


Test 

# 

269 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9600 cfm 

>960 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

2000 cfm 

(1000 cfm ea) 

Comments 

270 

1'-6" 

1'-6" 

3'-6" 


Test 

# 

270 

Exhaust 

C&C 

9500 cfm 

950 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

2000 cfm 

(1000 cfm ea) 

Comments 

A-63 


271 

1'-6" 

1'-6" 

3'-6" 


Test 

# 

271 

Exhaust 

C&C 

8000 cfm 

800 cfm/ft 

Front 


Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 


(5760 cfm) 

Comments 

272 

1'-6" 

1'-6" 

1'-6" 

3'-6" 

2'-0" 


Test 

# 

272 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7900 cfm 

790 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 


(5760 cfm) 

Comments 

A-64 


273 

Exhaust Air 

6'-8" 

4'-8" 



Test 

# 

273 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>7500 cfm 

>750 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

n/a 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Panel 

Configuration 

Without 

Partition 

MUA 

Source 

Front 

Only 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Exhaust 

Backwall at 0 

Comments 

274 

Exhaust Air 

6'-8" 

4'-8" 



Test 

# 

274 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>6600 cfm 

>660 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

n/a 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Panel 

Configuration 

Without 

Partition 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 

Front Displacement 70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 


at 2000 cfm 

Comments 

A-65 


275 

Exhaust Air 

6'-8" 

4'-8" 



Test 

# 

275 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>4700 cfm 

>470 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 

n/a Typical None Front Displacement 70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Exhaust 

Backwall at 

4000 cfm 

Comments 

276 

Exhaust Air 

6'-8" 

4'-8" 



Test 

# 

276 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7400 

740 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 

n/a Typical None Front Displacement 85-90ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Exhaust 

Backwall at 0 

Comments 

A-66 


277 

4'-8" 


6'-8" 


Test 

# 

277 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>7200 cfm 

>720 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

n/a Typical None 

MUA 

Source 

Back 

Only 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

278 


6'-8" 

4'-8" 


Test 

# 

278 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>7200 cfm 

>720 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

n/a Typical None 

MUA 

Source 

Back 

Only 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

85-90ºF 

MUA 

Flow 

Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

A-67 


279 


4'-8" 

Walk-by Path 

6'-8" 



Test 

# 

279 

Exhaust 

C&C 

6400 cfm 

640 cfm/ft 

Front 


Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

Walk-by 

Front 

280 


4'-8" 

Walk-by Path 

6'-8" 



Test 

# 

280 

Exhaust 

C&C 

5700 cfm 

570 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

Walk-by 

Front 

A-68 


281 



Test 

# 

281 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>8300 cfm 

>830 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 

n/a Typical Without Panels Front Displacement 70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

Walk-by 

Front 

282 


4'-8" 

4'-8" 

Walk-by Path 

6'-8" 


2'-0" 

Side 4-Way 

MUA 

2'-0" 

Walk-by Path 

6'-8" 

Front 4-Way 

MUA 

2'-0" 



Test 

# 

282 

Exhaust 

C&C 

6500 cfm 

650 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

1000 cfm 

(500 cfm ea) 

Comments 

Walk-by 

Front 

A-69 


283 


4'-8" 

2'-0" 

Side 4-Way 

MUA 

2'-0" 

Walk-by Path 

6'-8" 

Front 4-Way 

MUA 

2'-0" 



Test 

# 

283 

Exhaust 

C&C 

8500 cfm 

850 cfm/ft 

Front 


Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

2000 cfm 

(1000 cfm ea) 

Comments 

Walk-by 

Front 

284 


4'-8" 

2'-0" 

Side Perf 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Walk-by Path 

6'-8" 

Front Perf 

Diffuser MUA 

2'-0" 

2'-0" 



Test 

# 

284 

Exhaust 

C&C 

5300 cfm 

530 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

1000 cfm 

(500 cfm ea) 

Comments 

Walk-by 

Front 

A-70 


285 


4'-8" 

2'-0" 

Side Perf 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Walk-by Path 

6'-8" 

Front Perf 

Diffuser MUA 

2'-0" 

2'-0" 



Test 

# 

Exhaust 

C&C 

285 8000 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

2000 cfm (1000 

cfm ea) 

Comments 

Walk-by 

Front 

286 

4'-8" 


Perforated 

Plenum 

Supply 

MUA 

Walk-by Path 

6'-8" 



Test 

# 

Exhaust 

C&C 

286 8500 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 


(5760 cfm) 

Comments 

Walk-by 

Front 

A-71 


287 


4'-8" 

2'-0" 

Side 4-Way 

MUA 

2'-0" 

Walk-by Path 

6'-8" 

Front 4-Way 

MUA 

2'-0" 



Test 

# 

287 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9600 cfm 

>960 cfm/ft 

Front 


Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

1000 cfm 

(500 cfm ea) 

Comments 

Walk-by 

Front 

288 


4'-8" 

2'-0" 

Side 4-Way 

MUA 

2'-0" 

Walk-by Path 

6'-8" 

Front 4-Way 

MUA 

2'-0" 



Test 

# 

288 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9600 cfm 

>960 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

2000 cfm 

(1000 cfm ea) 

Comments 

Walk-by 

Front 

A-72 


289 


4'-8" 

2'-0" 

Side Perf 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Walk-by Path 

6'-8" 

Front Perf 

Diffuser MUA 

2'-0" 

2'-0" 



Test 

# 

289 

Exhaust 

C&C 

5300 cfm 

530 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

1000 cfm 

(500 cfm ea) 

Comments 

Walk-by 

Front 

290 


4'-8" 

2'-0" 

Side Perf 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Walk-by Path 

6'-8" 

Front Perf 

Diffuser MUA 

2'-0" 

2'-0" 



Test 

# 

290 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9600 cfm 

>960 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

2000 cfm 

(1000 cfm ea) 

Comments 

Walk-by 

Front 

A-73 


291 

4'-8" 


Perforated 

Plenum 

Supply 

MUA 

Walk-by Path 

6'-8" 



Test 

# 

291 

Exhaust 

C&C 

8200 cfm 

820 cfm/ft 

Front 


Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 


(5760 cfm) 

Comments 

Walk-by 

Front 

292 


4'-8" 

Walk-by Path 

Walk-by Path 

6'-8" 



Test 

# 

292 

Exhaust 

C&C 

9400 cfm 

940 cfm/ft 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

Walk-by 

Front & Rear 

A-74 


301 


3' - 8" 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

301 

Exhaust 

C&C 

6100 cfm 

305 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

Baseline 

302 


3' - 8" 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

302 

Exhaust 

C&C 

5800 cfm 

290 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

Baseline 

A-75 


303 

3'-8" 


5'-8" 



Test 

# 

303 

Exhaust 

C&C 

9200 cfm 

460 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

6 inch Front 

Overhang to 

Cook Surface 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

304 

3'-8" 


5'-8" 



Test 

# 

304 

Exhaust 

C&C 

6700 cfm 

335 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 


6 inch Front 

Overhang to Cook 

Surface 

Panel 

Configuration 

Rear Seal 

MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

A-76 


305 


3' - 8" 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

305 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7500 cfm 

375 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(2 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(2 Ovens) 


6 inch Side Overhang, 


Surface 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

306 


3' - 8" 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

306 

Exhaust 

C&C 

4300 cfm 

215 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(2 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(2 Ovens) 




Surface 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

A-77 


307 

3'-8" 


5'-8" 



Test 

# 

307 

Exhaust 

C&C 

5600 cfm 

560 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

Without 

Panels 

MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

With 1.5 inch 

Horizontal Hood 

Edge 

308 


3' - 8" 

Front 4-Way 

MUA 

2'-0" 

2'-0" 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

308 

Exhaust 

C&C 

6000 cfm 

300 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

500 cfm 

Comments 

A-78 


309 


3' - 8" 

Front 4-Way 

MUA 

2'-0" 

2'-0" 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

309 

Exhaust 

C&C 

8400 cfm 

420 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

1000 cfm 

Comments 

310 


3' - 8" 

Front 4-Way 

MUA 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

310 

Exhaust 

C&C 

4700 cfm 

235 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(2 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(2 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

24 inch Side 

Overhang on 


Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

500 cfm 

Comments 

A-79 


311 


3' - 8" 

Front 4-Way 

MUA 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

311 

Exhaust 

C&C 

6800 cfm 

340 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

500 cfm 

Comments 

312 


3' - 8" 

Front 4-Way 

MUA 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

312 

Exhaust 

C&C 

9100 cfm 

455 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

1000 cfm 

Comments 

A-80 


313 


3' - 8" 

Front 4-Way 

MUA 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

313 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7600 cfm 

380 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

85-90ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

500 cfm 

Comments 

314 


3' - 8" 

Front 4-Way 

MUA 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

314 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9400 cfm 

>470 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

85-90ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

1000 cfm 

Comments 

A-81 


315 


3' - 8" 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

315 

Exhaust 

C&C 

5600 cfm 

280 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

85-90ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

316 


3' - 8" 

Front Perf 

Diffuser MUA 

2'-0" 

2'-0" 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

316 

Exhaust 

C&C 

6200 cfm 

310 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front 

MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

500 cfm 

Comments 

A-82 


317 


3' - 8" 

Front Perf 

Diffuser MUA 

2'-0" 

2'-0" 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

317 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9400 cfm 

>470 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front 

MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

1000 cfm 

Comments 

318 


3' - 8" 

Front Perf 

Diffuser MUA 

2'-0" 

2'-0" 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

318 

Exhaust 

C&C 

6200 cfm 

310 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(2 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(2 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Maximum Side 

and Front 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front 

MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

500 cfm 

Comments 

A-83 


319 


3' - 8" 

Front Perf 

Diffuser MUA 

2'-0" 

2'-0" 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

319 

Exhaust 

C&C 

6600 cfm 

330 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front 

MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

500 cfm 

Comments 

320 


3' - 8" 

Front Perf 

Diffuser MUA 

2'-0" 

2'-0" 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

320 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7100 cfm 

355 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front 

MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

1000 cfm 

Comments 

A-84 


321 


3' - 8" 

Front Perf 

Diffuser MUA 

2'-0" 

2'-0" 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

321 

Exhaust 

C&C 

6900 cfm 

345 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front 

MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

85-90ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

500 cfm 

Comments 

322 


3' - 8" 

Front Perf 

Diffuser MUA 

2'-0" 

2'-0" 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

322 

Exhaust 

C&C 

9000 cfm 

450 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy (3 

Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light (3 

Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front 

MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

85-90ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

1000 cfm 

Comments 

A-85 


323 


3' - 8" 

Perforated 

Plenum 

Supply 

MUA 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

323 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9400 cfm 

>470 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 


(5760 cfm) 

Comments 

Baseline 

324 


3' - 8" 

Perforated 

Plenum 

Supply 

MUA 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

324 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7200 cfm 

360 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 


(2880 cfm) 

Comments 

A-86 


325 


3' - 8" 

Perforated 

Plenum 

Supply 

MUA 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

325 

Exhaust 

C&C 

4400 cfm 

220 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(2 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(2 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Maximum Side 

and Front 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 


(2880 cfm) 

Comments 

326 


3' - 8" 

Perforated 

Plenum 

Supply 

MUA 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

326 

Exhaust 

C&C 

8000 cfm 

400 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 


(5760 cfm) 

Comments 

Baseline 

A-87 


327 


3' - 8" 

Perforated 

Plenum 

Supply 

MUA 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

327 

Exhaust 

C&C 

4800 cfm 

240 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 


(2880 cfm) 

Comments 

Baseline 

328 


3' - 8" 

Perforated 

Plenum 

Supply 

MUA 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

328 

Exhaust 

C&C 

8100 cfm 

405 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 


(5760 cfm) 

Comments 

A-88 


329 

6" 6" 

4'-0" 


Test 

# 

329 

Exhaust 

C&C 

5900 cfm 

295 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

Panel #1 

MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

330 

6" 6" 

4'-0" 


Test 

# 

330 

Exhaust 

C&C 

6100 cfm 

305 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

Panel #1 

MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

A-89 


331 


3' - 8" 

Partition 

Side Perf 

Diffuser MUA 

2'-0" 

Front Perf 

Diffuser MUA 

2'-0" 

2'-0" 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

331 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9400 cfm 

>470 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

Partition 

MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

2000 cfm 

(1000 cfm ea) 

Comments 

332 


3' - 8" 

Partition 

Perforated 

Plenum 

Supply 

MUA 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

332 

Exhaust 

C&C 

4100 cfm 

205 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 

Partition 4 Sides PPS 70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 


(2880 cfm) 

Comments 

A-90 


333 


3' - 8" 

Partition 

Perforated 

Plenum 

Supply 

MUA 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

333 

Exhaust 

C&C 

8900 cfm 

445 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 

Partition 4 Sides PPS 70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 


(5760 cfm) 

Comments 

334 

3'-8" 


Partition 

5'-8" 



Test 

# 

334 

Exhaust 

C&C 

5000 cfm 

250 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

Partition 

MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

A-91 


335 


3' - 8" 

2'-0" 

Side 4-Way 

MUA 

Partition 

Front 4-Way 

MUA 

2'-0" 

2'-0" 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

335 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7900 cfm 

395 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

Partition 

MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

1000 cfm 

(500 cfm ea) 

Comments 

336 


3' - 8" 

2'-0" 

Side 4-Way 

MUA 

Partition 

Front 4-Way 

MUA 

2'-0" 

2'-0" 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

336 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9400 cfm 

>470 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

Partition 

MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

2000 cfm 

(1000 cfm ea) 

Comments 

A-92 


337 


3' - 8" 

2'-0" 

Side 4-Way 

MUA 

Partition 

Front 4-Way 

MUA 

2'-0" 

2'-0" 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

337 

Exhaust 

C&C 

8700 cfm 

435 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

Partition 

MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Side 

MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

1000 cfm 

(500 cfm ea) 

Comments 

338 

Exhaust Air 

3' - 8" 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

338 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9400 cfm 

>470 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

Without 

Partition 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 

Exhaust 

Backwall at 

2000 cfm 

Comments 

A-93 


339 

Exhaust Air 

3' - 8" 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

339 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9400 cfm 

>470 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

Without 

Partition 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 


at 4000 cfm 

Comments 

340 

Exhaust Air 

3' - 8" 

Partition 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

340 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9400 cfm 

>470 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 

Partition Front Displacement 70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 


at 2000 cfm 

Comments 

A-94 


341 

Exhaust Air 

3' - 8" 

Partition 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

341 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9400 cfm 

>470 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 


at 4000 cfm 

Comments 

342 

Exhaust Air 

3' - 8" 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

Exhaust 

C&C 

342 8200 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

Without 

Partition 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 


at 1000 cfm 

Comments 

A-95 


343 

Exhaust Air 

3' - 8" 

Partition 

5' - 8" 



Test 

# 

343 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9400 cfm 

>470 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 


at 1000 cfm 

Comments 

344 

3'-8" 


5'-8" 



Test 

# 

344 

Exhaust 

C&C 

6400 cfm 

320 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

Exhaust Damper 

Sensitivity - Throttle 

1/3 Airflow to Rear, 

2/3 for Front 

A-96 


345 

3'-8" 


5'-8" 



Test 

# 

345 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7500 cfm 

375 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 


Sensitivity – Front & 

Rear 100% Open 

A-97 


401 

Displacement MUA 2' - 8" 

4' - 8" 



Test 

# 

401 

Exhaust 

C&C 

6200 cfm 

310 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

Baseline 

Airflow 

Biased 2:1 

402 


2' - 8" 

4' - 8" 



Test 

# 

402 

Exhaust 

C&C 

4900 cfm 

245 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

Baseline 

A-98 


403 


4' - 8" 



Test 

# 

403 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7400 cfm 

370 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(2 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(2 Ovens) 




Surface 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

404 


4' - 8" 



Test 

# 

404 

Exhaust 

C&C 

4400 cfm 

220 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(2 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(2 Ovens) 




Surface 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

A-99 


405 


2' - 8" 

Front 4-Way 

MUA 

4' - 8" 



Test 

# 

405 

Exhaust 

C&C 

5100 cfm 

255 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(2 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(2 Ovens) 


24 inch Side 

Overhang on 


Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

500 cfm 

Comments 

406 


2' - 8" 

Front 4-Way 

MUA 

4' - 8" 



Test 

# 

406 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7500 cfm 

375 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

Typical Without Panels Front 

MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

500 cfm 

Comments 

A-100 


407 


2' - 8" 

Front 4-Way 

MUA 

4' - 8" 



Test 

# 

407 

Exhaust 

C&C 

8000 cfm 

400 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 


MUA 

Strategy 

4-Way Ceiling 

Diffuser 

MUA 

Temperature 

85-90ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

500 cfm 

Comments 

408 


2' - 8" 

Front Perf 

MUA 

4' - 8" 



Test 

# 

408 

Exhaust 

C&C 

5900 cfm 

295 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(2 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(2 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Maximum 

Side and Front 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front 

MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

500 cfm 

Comments 

A-101 


409 


2' - 8" 

Front Perf 

MUA 

4' - 8" 



Test 

# 

409 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7400 cfm 

370 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 


MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

500 cfm 

Comments 

410 


2' - 8" 

Front Perf 

MUA 

4' - 8" 



Test 

# 

410 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7600 cfm 

380 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 


MUA 

Strategy 

Perforated 


MUA 

Temperature 

85-90ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

500 cfm 

Comments 

A-102 


411 


2' - 8" 

PPS MUA 

4' - 8" 



Test 

# 

411 

Exhaust 

C&C 

3800 cfm 

190 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(2 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(2 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Maximum 

Side and Front 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 


(2880 cfm) 

Comments 

412 


2' - 8" 

PPS MUA 

4' - 8" 



Test 

# 

412 

Exhaust 

C&C 

8100 cfm 

405 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 

Typical Without Panels 4 Sides PPS 70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 


(5760 cfm) 

Comments 

Baseline 

A-103 


413 


2' - 8" 

PPS MUA 

4' - 8" 



Test 

# 

413 

Exhaust 

C&C 

5200 cfm 

260 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 

Typical Without Panels 4 Sides PPS 70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 


(2880 cfm) 

Comments 

Baseline 

414 

1'-6" 


Test 

# 

414 

Exhaust 

C&C 

5700 cfm 

285 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

Typical Panel #1 

MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

A-104 


415 

Exhaust Air 

2' - 8" 

4' - 8" 



Test 

# 

415 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9400 

>470 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Panel 

Configuration 

Without 

Partition 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 

Exhaust 

Backwall at 

2000 cfm 

Comments 

416 

Exhaust Air 

2' - 8" 

4' - 8" 



Test 

# 

416 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9400 

>470 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Panel 

Configuration 

Without 

Partition 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 

Exhaust 

Backwall at 

4000 cfm 

Comments 

A-105 


417 

Exhaust Air 

2' - 8" 

Partition 

4' - 8" 



Test 

# 

417 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9400 

>470 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 

Typical Partition Front Displacement 70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Exhaust 

Backwall at 

2000 cfm 

Comments 

418 

Exhaust Air 

2' - 8" 

Partition 

4' - 8" 



Test 

# 

418 

Exhaust 

C&C 

>9400 

>470 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 

Exhaust 

Backwall at 

4000 cfm 

Comments 

A-106 


419 

Exhaust Air 

2' - 8" 

4' - 8" 



Test 

# 

419 

Exhaust 

C&C 

8000 cfm 

400 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Panel 

Configuration 

Without 

Partition 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 

Exhaust 

Backwall at 

1000 cfm 

Comments 

420 

Exhaust Air 

2' - 8" 

Partition 

4' - 8" 



Test 

# 

420 

Exhaust 

C&C 

9200 cfm 

460 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 

Exhaust 

Backwall at 

1000 cfm 

Comments 

A-107 


421 

2' - 8" 

4' - 8" 



Test 

# 

421 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7900 cfm 

395 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Panel 

Configuration 

Without 

Partition 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 

Exhaust 

Backwall at 0 

Comments 

422 

2' - 8" 

Partition 

4' - 8" 



Test 

# 

422 

Exhaust 

C&C 

9000 cfm 

450 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Panel 

Configuration 

MUA 

Source 

MUA 

Strategy 

MUA 

Temperature 


MUA 

Flow Rate 

Exhaust 

Backwall at 0 

Comments 

A-108 


423 


2' - 8" 

4' - 8" 



Test 

# 

423 

Exhaust 

C&C 

6600 cfm 

330 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 


Sensitivity - Throttle Airflow 

1/3 to Rear, 2/3 to Front 

424 


2' - 8" 

4' - 8" 



Test 

# 

424 

Exhaust 

C&C 

5800 cfm 

290 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 


Sensitivity - Collars 

Open 100% 

A-109 


425 


2' - 8" 

4' - 8" 



Test 

# 

425 

Exhaust 

C&C 

5100 cfm 

255 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Heavy 

(3 Broilers) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 


Sensitivity - Collars 

Open 100% 

426 


2' - 8" 

Walk-by Path 

Walk-by Path 

4' - 8" 



Test 

# 

426 

Exhaust 

C&C 

7000 cfm 

350 cfm/ft 

per side 

Front 

Appliance 

Line 

Combo 

(F,B,O) 

Rear 

Appliance 

Line 

Light 

(3 Ovens) 

Appliance 

Overhang 

Typical 

Panel 

Configuration 


MUA 

Source 

Front & 

Back 

MUA 

Strategy 

Displacement 

MUA 

Temperature 

70-75ºF 

MUA 

Flow Rate 

Without 

LMUA 

Comments 

Walk-by 

Front & Rear 

A-110 


Appendix B: Laboratory Facilities 

Commercial Kitchen Ventilation Laboratory (CKVL) 

Website: http://www.archenergy.com/services/food 

The CKV laboratory located in Wood Dale, Illinois is constructed to the size and shape of a 

typical commercial kitchen. The structure consists of layered airtight walls and multiple airtight 

roof penetrations or “curbs” to which hoods and fans could be installed in various locations 

throughout the facility. The laboratory doors are custom fabricated and sealed to provide access to 

the room without allowing air leakage to occur. An outside view is shown in Figure B-1. 

Figure B-1. CKV Laboratory - Outside View 

To ensure accurate and repeatable test results, the laboratory is equipped with state of the art 

metrology. All airflow supplied to the laboratory is measured at actual conditions and calculated 

to standard conditions. Precise control of the air volume entering and leaving the test laboratory 

was achieved using variable speed drives on the hood’s exhaust fan, as well as the laboratory’s 

single supply fan. The laboratory control system is programmed to automatically maintain a nearzero 

differential pressure between inside and outside of the test laboratory. With the laboratory 

being airtight and the differential pressure at zero, it is known that the air volume entering the 

laboratory equaled the air volume leaving the laboratory. Therefore, airflow measurement can be 

done on the clean supply air stream to protect the sensors. 

B-1 


The laboratory uses floor-standing displacement ventilators along the walls facing the front and 

rear of the tested equipment as its main supply air system. This displacement ventilation strategy 

has proven to minimize the impact of the supply airflow on the hood's capability to capture 

effluent from the appliances. A secondary air supply system is available to study various 

independent MUA strategies. With this system, other hood-local air supplies can be readily 

evaluated. Figure B-2 shows the roof of the laboratory with the two supply and exhaust systems. 

Each system turns downward 90 degrees to enter the airtight test area through a sealed penetration 

curb. 

. 

Brick outside wall 

Curb 

Exhaust curb 

Exhaust 

ahu 

24 in dia. 

Curb 

Curb 

Lab door 

supply 

curb 

AMCA flow 

measurement station 

3 ft x 3 ft duct 

H 

T 

R 

C 

C 

Main 

supply 

ahu 

Leak 

testing 

station 

Utility 

curb 

Water 

seal 

supply 

curb 

Flow 

measurement 

station 

16 in dia. curb 

curb 

Second 

supply 

ahu 

Outside 

air mix box 

Electric 

heater 

18 in 

dia. 

Front Lab doors 

Figure B-2. Plan View of the Laboratory Roof with HVAC Equipment 

. 

B-2 


Airflow Visualization 

Focusing schlieren systems and shadowgraph systems are the primary tools used for airflow 

visualization. Schlieren systems visualize the refraction of light due to air density changes. The 

visual effect can be directly observed when looking over a hot road during the summer or at the 

exhaust of a jet engine. Using sophisticated optical technology, the laboratory schlieren flow 

visualization system amplifies this effect for lower temperature differences, providing higher 

sensitivity and contrast than what is seen by the naked eye. Shadowgraph systems also make use 

of the schlieren effect, providing similar sensitivity but with less contrast than schlieren 

visualization systems. Figure B-3 is an example of what is seen with the naked eye compared to 

what can be seen from the same vantage point through a schlieren optical system. 

Figure B-3. Naked Eye and Schlieren Optical System Views of Two Idling Charbroilers under a 

Canopy Hood 

One schlieren system is typically aligned to the front edge of the hood and another schlieren 

system monitors the rear edge of the hood. Both schlieren systems are located at a height that is 

half the distance between a typical 36-inch appliance height and a canopy hood mounted 78 

inches above the floor. The left and right edges of the hood can be viewed using shadowgraph 

systems on portable stands. Generally, the shadowgraph systems were located at the same height 

as the hood edges being monitored. Figure B-4 shows a plan view of the test setup and the flow 

visualization systems. 

B-3 


. 

Brick outside wall 

Lab door 

Optics Box 

Optics Box 

Line of Sight 

Line of Sight 

Line of Sight 

8' x 4' Canopy Hood 

Line of Sight 

S 

o 

u 

r 

c 

e 

G 

r 

i 

d 

Shadowgraph 

Shadowgraph 

Supply Diffuser Wall 

Front Lab doors 

. 

Figure B-4. Plan View of Flow Visualization Equipment Setup 

Instrumentation and Control 

The data acquisition system consists of various components communicating with a custom 

developed control program. The sensors interface with a modular data acquisition rack, capable of 

reading a wide range of input signals and providing control signals out to the equipment. 

Temperatures are monitored with an IEEE-bus controlled high precision multi-meter and scanner 

designed for high-accuracy 4-wire 100-ohm platinum resistance thermal devices (RTD’s). The 

system uses industry standard inputs including 4-20mA, 0-5VDC, various pulse inputs, and more 

to communicate with a variety of signal transducers. All measured values during tests can be 

recorded to a single data file in designated time intervals. 

Airflow into the laboratory is measured with a pitot array station or with an AMCA flow 

measurement station. The dew point and dry bulb temperatures of the supply air are also 

measured to allow calculation of the airflow to standard conditions. Airflow is measured and 

modulated by the data acquisition system to maintain setpoint and to ensure the room differential 

pressure is maintained at zero with respect to the pressure outside of the test cell. 

Temperatures are measured every few seconds and recorded. Measured points include; natural 

gas temperature, cooking process, appliance surface, and hood surface temperatures. An equalarea 

concentric array of 12 RTD’s is located in the exhaust duct to record the exhaust air 

temperature. For calculating heat gain to the space, the temperature of the air approaching the 

appliance/hood combination is monitored by twelve aspirated RTD’s mounted to four vertical 

posts in a semi-circle around the appliance. 

B-4 


Pressure transducers are used to monitor airflow station pressures, room differential pressure, 

exhaust hood static pressure, and natural gas pressure with an accuracy of 0.25% of full scale. 

The barometric pressure is measured with a transducer having an error of less than 0.1% of full 

scale. 

Gas volume is measured with laboratory-grade, positive displacement gas meters, which are 

modified to provide a pulse output to the data acquisition system. The calorific value of the 

natural gas is continuously measured to within 0.1% and monitors the amount of energy 

contained in each cubic foot of natural gas. The energy input from natural gas is then calculated 

from volume, calorific value, and temperature of the natural gas. 

Standard utility watt-hour meters measure regulated 208V three-phase electrical energy with 

pulse outputs to the data acquisition system. Energy input from 120VAC single phase is 

monitored by a watt-hour transducer. 

All measuring devices and instrumentation are periodically calibrated against standards of known 

accuracy. Using NIST traceable calibration standards, their respective manufacturers certify the 

calibration instruments according to a documented calibration schedule. 

Precision and Bias 

The statement of Precision and Bias in the ASTM 2474-05 Standard Test Method for the 

Performance of Commercial Kitchen Ventilation Systems states that the error in the capture and 

containment and heat gain to space values shall not exceed 20%. The airflow measurements in the 

laboratory comply with the referenced AMCA 210/ASHRAE 51 Standard. The error on the 

measurement of the makeup airflow rate is less than 2% and the error on the measurement of the 

supply airflow rate is less than 1%. The repeatability of capture and containment measurements at 

the CKV laboratory was investigated and the error was found to be below 14% with a typical 

error of about 7%. Circumstances that affect the capture and containment repeatability include 

situations that render the visualization system less effective such as dilution air that reduces the 

temperature difference between exhaust air and room air, and thermal plume temperatures near 

ambient conditions. 

B-5 


Food Service Technology Center (FSTC) 

Website: www.fishnick.com 

The FSTC laboratory features generous floor space and lengthy exhaust hoods to accommodate 

appliances of all shapes and sizes. The ventilation rate and ambient temperature are tightly 

controlled, allowing test conditions to be tailored to specific conditions. Built in utility 

distribution systems handle both gas and electric equipment, and computerized data acquisition 

systems enable researchers to collect huge amounts of data. From small countertop steamers to 

large walk-in rack ovens, the FSTC is capable of testing virtually any commercial food service 

appliance. Figure B-5 shows the testing of a fryer at the FSTC, as an example. 

Figure B-5. Application of ASTM Standard Performance Test on a Deep-Fat Fryer 

The FSTC is equipped with an airtight and well-insulated calorimeter room. Tight measurement 

and control over the temperature, humidity, and airflow rates in this room allows for tests where 

ambient air criteria must be maintained, such as refrigerator, freezer, vending machine, ice maker 

and prep table testing protocols. Furthermore, since the room is airtight, the capture and 

containment threshold of exhaust hood/appliance combinations can be determined reliably and 

consistently. Combined with the room's heavy insulation, an appliance's heat gain (heat radiated 

to the surrounding space) can also be calculated. Therefore, capture and containment, as well as 

heat gain testing can be also be conducted in this smaller version of the CKV laboratory. An 

image of the calorimeter room configured for heat gain testing is shown in Figure B-6. 

B-6 


Figure B-6. Application of ASTM F 2474-05 to Determine Heat Gain from a Broiler 

B-7 


B-8

ASHRAE Research Project 1480 Report - Food Service Technology ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?