Accurex, Model XXEW-10.0 Wall-Mounted Canopy Exhaust Hood Performance Report

Accurex, Model XXEW-10.
0
Wall-Mounted Canopy Exhaust Hood
Performance Report
Application of ASTM Standard

Test Method F 1704-05
Food Service Technology Center

(www.fishnick.com)
FSTC Report 5011.08.15b
May 2008
Prepared by:
Rich Swierczyna
Paul Sobiski
Architectural Energy Corporation
Don Fisher
Fisher-Nickel, inc.
Prepared for:
Pacific Gas & Electric Programs
P.O. Box 770000
San Francisco, California 94177
© 2008 by Pacific Gas & Electric Company. All rights reserved.
The information in this report is based on data generated by the PG&E Food Service Technology Center (FSTC)
and its affiliated Commercial Kitchen Ventilation Laboratory (CKVL)
Acknowledgements
California consumers are not obliged to purchase any full service or other service not funded by this program. This program is funded by
California utility ratepayers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission.
Policy on the Use of Food Service Technology Center and

Commercial Kitchen Ventilation Laboratory
Test Results And Other Related Information
• The Food Service Technology Center (FSTC) and the Commercial Kitchen Ventilation Laboratory (CKVL) are committed to testing
food service equipment using the best available scientific techniques and instrumentation.
• The FSTC and CKVL do not endorse any of the equipment tested.
• In the event that FSTC/CKVL data are to be reported, quoted, or referred to in any way in publications, papers, brochures,
advertising, or any other publicly available documents, the rules of copyright must be strictly followed, including written permission
from Fisher-Nickel, inc. in advance and proper attribution to the FSTC and the CKVL. In any such publication, sufficient text must be
excerpted or quoted to give full and fair representation of findings as reported in the original documentation from the FSTC and
CKVL.
Legal Notice
This report was prepared as a result of work sponsored by the California Public Utilities Commission (Commission). It does not represent
the views of the Commission, its employees, or the State of California. The Commission, the State of California, its employees,
contractors, and subcontractors, make no warranty, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this report; nor
does any party represent that the use of this information in this report will not infringe upon privately owned rights. This report has not
been approved or disapproved by the Commission nor has the Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information in
this report.
Contents
Page
Objective and Scope 1
Equipment 1
Test Protocol 6
Appliance and Hood Configuration Test Matrix 8
Results and Discussion 13
Summary and Conclusions 17
References 19
Appendix A – Accurex XXEW-10.0 Drawing 20
Objectives and Scope
This report summarizes the results of performance testing an Accurex, model XXEW-
10.0 exhaust hood at the Commercial Kitchen Ventilation Laboratory within the scope of
the PG&E Food Service Technology Center program. The objectives were to:
(1) Evaluate the capture and containment performance of this exhaust only, wall-
mounted canopy hood when challenged with light-, medium-, heavy-, and mixed-
duty appliances under the controlled conditions of the ASTM Standard Test
Method F-1704 [Ref 1].
(2) Measure and report the pressure drop across the hood as a function of airflow.
(3) Measure and report the filter velocity profile across the length of the hood.
Equipment
Hood Specifications
The Accurex, model XXEW-10.0, serial ASTMF1704, canopy hood was tested in three
configurations, either without side panels, or with 45.0-inch by 45.0-inch by 45° side
panels, or with 12.0-inch by 6.0-inch by 34° side panels. The hood measured 10 feet wide
by 4.5 feet deep by 2.0 feet high and was mounted to a transparent back wall. A 3-inch
standoff behind the back panel was incorporated within the depth of the hood, and
extended along the top 20.0 inches of its height. The hood was equipped with six 19.5-
inch by 19.5-inch stainless steel removable centrifugal-type grease filters, and exhausted
through one centered 36.0-inch by 14.0-inch exhaust collar located 3.0 inches from the
back of the hood. The front lower edge of the hood was located at 78.0 inches above the
finished floor. The hood setup over a heavy-duty broiler line is shown in Figure 1.
FSTC Performance Report - 5011.08.15b 1

May 2008
Figure 1. Accurex XXEW-10.0 Wall-Mounted Canopy Hood Test Setup (Note Transparent
Back Wall)
Filter Specification
The stainless steel centrifugal-type Grease-X-Tractor™ grease extractors measured 19.5
inches wide by 19.5 inches high by 1.8 inches deep with an inlet height of 3.5 inches. A
front and back view are shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Centrifugal-Type Grease-X-Tractor™ Filters

May 2008
Side Panel Configuration
To enhance hood capture and containment performance, side panels were used. Standard
side panels were used in seven capture and containment evaluations. Mini side panel
testing is reported for one test. The standard side panels measured 45 inches deep by 45
inches high by 45°, and were truncated below the appliance height and the front of the
hood with a 4-inch edge. The 4-inch vertical front edge incorporated a 0.8-inch 90° bend.
The mini side panel measured 12 inches deep by 6 inches high and made a 34° angle with
the horizontal. It had a 4-inch truncated lower edge. Photographs with and without the
side panels installed on the three-broiler and 6-vat fryer lines, along with a dimensioned
drawing, are shown in Figures 3.and 4.
45in.
Standard
45in. Side Panel
Figure 3. Side View of Set Up With and Without Standard 45-inch by 45-inch by 45° Side
Panel
12in.
6in.
6 x 12
Side Panel
Figure 4. Side View of Set Up With and Without Mini 12-inch by 6-inch by 34° Side Panel

May 2008
Cooking Appliances
The appliances used to challenge this wall-mounted canopy hood were full-size electric
ovens (light-duty category), 2-vat high-efficiency gas fryers, a three-foot griddle
(medium-duty) and 3-foot underfired gas broilers (heavy-duty). For each setup, the
appliances were operated under simulated heavy-load cooking conditions established by a
recent ASHRAE research project [Ref 2] based on the heavy load testing per the ASTM
Standard Test Methods for appliances [Ref 5,6,7,8]. The cooking appliance specifications
are listed in Table 1.
Table 1 Cooking Appliance Specifications

3-Ft. Gas Full-Size Electric 3-Ft. Gas
2-Vat Gas Fryer
Broiler Convection Oven Griddle
Rated Input 96,000 Btu/h 12.1 kW 160,000 Btu/h 90,000 Btu/h
Capacity 719 sq. in. 8.6 cu. ft Two 50 lb. vats 1026 sq. in.
Height 37.0 in. 57.3 in. 45.3 in. 37.0 in.
Width 34.0 in. 40.0 in. 31.3 in. 36.0 in.
Depth 31 in. 41/38/42 in. 28 in. 37 in.
Hood/Appliance Overhang Relationship

The appliance lines were positioned in a “pushed back” condition with a minimum
distance between the back wall and the rear of the appliance (i.e., minimized rear gap),
while allowing enough space for utility connections. Figure 5 illustrates the relationship
between front overhang and rear gap. Table 2 shows the actual dimensions of front
overhang and rear gap in the “pushed back” condition. Ovens remained in the 12-inch
overhang position for all tests, as this was also the position of maximum “push back” and
minimum rear gap.

May 2008
Front
12.0in.
Overhang
Rear
10.6
Gap
Figure 5. Relationship between Front Overhang and Rear Gap
Table 2. Hood/Appliance Overhang Relationships

Full-Size Electric
3-Ft. Gas Broiler Convection Oven 2-Vat Gas Fryer 3-Ft Gas Griddle
Front Overhang to Appliance [in.] 18 12 22 12
Rear of Appliance to Backwall [in.] 5 1 4 5

May 2008
Test Protocol
Capture & Containment Testing

"Hood capture and containment" is defined in ASTM F1704-05, Capture and
containment performance of commercial kitchen exhaust ventilation systems, 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, while containment refers to these products staying in the hood
reservoir and not spilling out into the space. "Minimum capture and containment" is
defined as "the conditions of hood operation at which the exhaust flow rate is 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."
For each capture and containment (C&C) evaluation, the exhaust rate was reduced until
spillage of the plume was observed (using the airflow visualization techniques described
below) at any point along the perimeter of the hood. The exhaust rate was then increased
in fine increments until capture and containment was achieved. For most cases, single-
test determinations were used to establish the reported threshold of capture and
containment. This threshold capture and containment rate was used for direct
comparisons across scenarios. In all evaluations, the replacement air was supplied from
low velocity, floor-mounted diffusers along the opposite wall (Figure 8). The
introduction of replacement air from such sources has been found to be optimum (i.e., the
least disruptive) for the laboratory test setup [Ref 3].
A walk-by protocol was introduced to simulate operator movement in the restaurant in

the vicinity of the hood during the cooking process. The procedure was used in the lab to
emulate the effect of operator disturbance on capture and containment. For this
assessment, a researcher walked a line 18 inches in front of the appliances with a 12 inch
front overhang (i.e., 6 inches forward of the front panel of the hood) at a rate of 100 steps
per minute. The exhaust rate was then increased to achieve capture and containment of
the thermal plume under this dynamic challenge.
Airflow Visualization
The primary tools used for airflow visualization were schlieren and shadowgraph
systems, which visualize the refraction of light due to air density changes. Since the heat
and effluent generated by the cooking process change the air density above the
equipment, the sensitive flow visualization systems provide a graphic image of the
thermal activity along the perimeter of the hood. The front and left lower edges of the
hood were monitored by schlieren systems located at a height that was centered between
the typical 36-inch appliance height and the 78-inch hood height. The right lower edge of
the hood was monitored using a shadowgraph system, located at the same height as the
hood edge. Other flow visualization tools available to seed the thermal plume included
smoke sticks and theater fog. Figure 6 shows a plan view of the laboratory with the
relative position of the hood and flow visualization tools.

May 2008
Hood Collar 3'-1"
Backw all
Schlieren 7'-7" 10 ft x 4.5 ft x 2.0 ft

Canopy Hood
Optics Box
Walk-by Path
Shadowgraph
Schlieren
Optics Box
15'-5"
14'-10" 21'-11"
Supply Diffuser Wall
Figure 6. Plan View of Lab During Hood Evaluation
The airflow measurements in the laboratory comply with the AMCA 210/ASHRAE 51
Standard [Ref 4]. The error on the airflow rate measurement is less than 2%. The
repeatability of capture and containment determinations is typically within 5%.
Static Pressure Differential

The static pressure drop of the hood was measured between the laboratory and the offset
transition above the hood’s collar. The pressure was taken in the 13-inch vertical section
of the 36.0 inch by 14.0 inch transition with a 4-inch by 2-inch right-angle static pressure
probe inserted 10.0 inches above the top of the hood. The pressures were measured at
five exhaust flow rates, 1500, 2000, 2500, 3000, and 3300 cfm.
Filter Velocity Profile

The grease filter velocity was measured with a 2.75-inch diameter, rotating vane
anemometer (RVA) traversed flush against the openings. An average of two sixteen
second average readings was recorded for measurement. The velocity profiles were taken
for two exhaust airflow rates, 2000 and 3000 cfm.

May 2008
Appliance and Hood Configuration Test Matrix
The performance of the Accurex model XXEW-10.0 hood was evaluated under 12 test
conditions. Generally, each appliance line configuration was evaluated in a best practice
“pushed back” condition. Hood performance was evaluated either without side panels, or
with standard side panels, or in one case, with mini side panels. In addition, one test with
the broiler challenge included a seal between the rear of the appliances and the wall.
Another supplementary test was performed on the mixed appliance line to evaluate hood
performance under a dynamic walk-by challenge. In this case, the exhaust rate was
increased to achieve capture and containment under the disruption caused by operator
movement. The following test matrices present the details of the test setups for the
respective appliance lines. Each test condition is sequentially numbered for reference to
the reported data.

May 2008
Underfired Gas Broiler (Heavy-Duty) Test Matrix
The heavy-duty challenge was comprised of three 3-foot, underfired gas broilers. The
front overhang was 18 inches in the pushed back condition and resulted in a rear gap of 5
inches. The hood performance was tested without side panels or with standard side
panels. They were tested in a static (no operator movement) condition. With the broilers
in the pushed-back configuration and the side panels installed, an additional evaluation
was done with the 5-inch rear gap sealed between the broilers and the back wall at the
height of the top of the appliance cabinet (Test 3). The test matrix for the heavy-duty
broilers is shown in Table 3 and the setup illustrated in Figure 7.
Table 3. Underfired Gas Broiler (Heavy-Duty) Test Matrix

Test LH LH LH CTR CTR CTR RH RH RH Side Side
# Appliance Appliance Appliance Appliance Appliance Appliance Appliance Appliance Appliance Panels Overhang
Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective [in.]
Front Rear Gap Front Rear Gap Front Rear Gap
Overhang1 [in.] Overhang1 [in.] Overhang1 [in.]
[in.] [in.] [in.]
1 Broiler 18 5 Broiler 18 5 Broiler 18 5 Without 6
2 Broiler 18 5 Broiler 18 5 Broiler 18 5 Standard 6
3 Broiler 18 5 Broiler 18 5 Broiler 18 5 Standard 6
Panels &
Rear Seal
1
Front overhang measured from front of hood to front of appliance
Figure 7. Heavy-Duty Underfired Gas Broiler Line

May 2008
Gas Fryer (Medium-Duty) Test Matrix
The medium-duty test matrix consisted of a 6-vat fryer line (three 2-vat gas fryers). The
front overhang was 22 inches and resulted in a rear gap of 4 inches. The hood
performance was tested either without side panels, or with standard side panels, or with
mini side panels. They were tested in a static (no operator movement) condition. The test
matrix for the medium-duty fryers is shown in Table 4 and the setup illustrated in Figure
8.
Table 4. Fryer (Medium-Duty Appliance) Test Matrix

[in.] [in.] [in.]
4 2-Vat 22 4 2-Vat 22 4 2-Vat 22 4 Without 6
Fryer Fryer Fryer
5b 2-Vat 22 4 2-Vat 22 4 2-Vat 22 4 Standard 6
Fryer Fryer Fryer
5a 2-Vat 22 4 2-Vat 22 4 2-Vat 22 4 Mini 6
Fryer Fryer Fryer
1
Figure 8. Medium-Duty Gas Fryer Line

May 2008
Full-Size Convection Oven (Light-Duty) Test Matrix
The light-duty test matrix consisted of one full-size electric convection oven and two full
size gas convection ovens. For these tests, the electric oven continuously idled. The gas
ovens were idled to maintain the same operating temperature, and then the burners were
turned off during the capture and containment evaluation [Ref 2]. The front overhang was
12.0 inches. In this configuration, the left oven had 4.0 inches between the convection
motor and the back wall, the center oven had 1.0 inch between the motor and the back
wall, and the right oven was flush against the back wall. The rear gap was measured from
the rear of the convection fan motor to the back wall, except for the center oven that had
its motor shrouded. The hood performance was tested with either without side panels or
with the standard side panels They were tested in a static (no operator movement)
condition. The test matrix for the full-size ovens is shown in Table 5 and the setup
illustrated in Figure 9.
Table 5. Full-Size Convection Oven (Light-Duty) Test Matrix

Overhang1 [in.] Overhang [in.] Overhang1 [in.]
[in.] [in.] 1 [in.]
6 Oven 12 4 Oven 12 1 Oven 12 0 Without 0
7 Oven 12 4 Oven 12 1 Oven 12 0 Standard 0
1
Figure 9. Light-Duty Full Size Convection Oven Line

May 2008
2-Vat Fryer/Broiler or Griddle/Convection Oven (Combination-Duty) Test Matrix
The combination duty test matrix consisted of the 2-vat fryer in the left position, the 3-
foot underfired broiler in the center position and the full size convection oven in the right
position. The hood performance was tested with either without side panels or with
standard side panels. They were tested in a static (no operator movement) condition,
except for Test 10. For this test, hood performance was evaluated using a walk-by
protocol. In Test 11 and 12, the broiler was replaced with a griddle. The test matrix for
the combination-duty appliance line is shown in Table 6 and the setup illustrated in
Figure 10.
Table 6. Fryer/Broiler/Convection Oven (Combination Duty) Test Matrix

[in.] [in.] [in.]
8 2-Vat 22 4 Broiler 18 5 Oven 12 1 Without 6
Fryer
9 2-Vat 22 4 Broiler 18 5 Oven 12 1 Standard 6
Fryer
103 2-Vat 22 4 Broiler 18 5 Oven 12 1 Without 6
Fryer
11 2-Vat 22 4 Griddle 12 5 Oven 12 1 Without 6
Fryer
12 2-Vat 22 4 Griddle 12 5 Oven 12 1 Standard 6
Fryer
1
3
Test condition was conducted with “walk-by” protocol.
Figure 10. Fryer/Broiler/Convection Oven Appliance Line

May 2008
Results and Discussion
The capture and containment results are presented below for the different appliance-line
configurations.
Underfired Gas Broiler (Heavy-Duty) Testing

The results of the broiler-line capture and containment testing are presented in Table 7. It
was found that the exhaust rate required to capture and contain the thermal challenge
from three broilers was 2600 cfm (260 cfm/ft) when utilizing the canopy hood without
side panels. With the standard side panels, the threshold airflow rate for capture and
containment was reduced to 2500 cfm (250 cfm/ft). When the rear gap between the
broiler cabinet and backwall was sealed, the capture and containment exhaust rate was
reduced to 2100 cfm (210 cfm/ft).
Table 7. Capture and Containment Results for Broilers

Test LH LH CTR CTR RH RH Side Panels Side C&C C&C
# Appliance Appliance Appliance Appliance Appliance Appliance Overhang Exhaust Exhaust
Effective Effective Effective [in.] Rate Rate
Front Front Front [cfm] [cfm/ft]
Overhang1 Overhang1 Overhang1
[in.] [in.] [in.]
1 Broiler 18 Broiler 18 Broiler 18 Without 6 2600 260
2 Broiler 18 Broiler 18 Broiler 18 Standard 6 2500 250
3 Broiler 18 Broiler 18 Broiler 18 Standard Panel 6 2100 210
& Rear Seal
1
Fryer (Medium-Duty) Testing

The results of the fryer capture and containment testing are presented in Table 8. It was
found that the exhaust rate required to capture and contain the 6-vat fryer line (three 2-vat
fryers) was 2900 cfm (290 cfm/ft) without side panels. The addition of mini side panels
reduced the capture and containment flow rate to 1700 cfm (170 cfm/ft). The design of
the standard and mini side panels prevented the thermal plume and the fryers’ flues from
jetting up along the rear wall and sideways out of the rear corners of the hood. When the
standard side panels were added, the capture and containment flow rate was reduced to
1500 cfm (150 cfm/ft).
Table 8. Capture and Containment Results for Fryers

Test LH LH CTR CTR RH RH Side Side C&C C&C
# Appliance Appliance Appliance Appliance Appliance Appliance Panels Overhang Exhaust Exhaust
Overhang1 Overhang1 Overhang1
[in.] [in.] [in.]
4 2-Vat 22 2-Vat 22 2-Vat Fryer 22 Without 6 2900 290
Fryer Fryer
5a 2-Vat 22 2-Vat 22 2-Vat Fryer 22 Mini 6 1700 170
Fryer Fryer
5b 2-Vat 22 2-Vat 22 2-Vat Fryer 22 Standard 6 1500 150
Fryer Fryer
1

May 2008
Full-Size Convection Oven (Light Duty) Testing
The results of the full-size convection oven testing are presented in Table 9. It was found
that the exhaust rate required to capture and contain three full-size convection ovens
without side panels was 1300 cfm (130 cfm/ft). When the hood was used with standard
side panels, the capture and containment capture and containment exhaust rate was
reduced to 1100 cfm (110 cfm/ft).
Table 9. Capture and Containment Results Full-Size Convection Ovens

Overhang1 Overhang Overhang1
[in.] [in.] [in.]
6 Oven 12 Oven 12 Oven 12 Without 0 1300 130
7 Oven 12 Oven 12 Oven 12 Standard 0 1100 110
1
Fryer/Broiler or Griddle/Convection Oven (Combination-Duty) Testing

The results for the 2-vat fryer/3-foot broiler/full-size convection oven capture and
containment tests are presented in Table 10. All evaluations were conducted at a static
condition except for test 10 that incorporated a walk-by protocol. Test 11 and 12 were
conducted with a griddle in place of the broiler.
The exhaust rate required to capture and contain a 2-vat fryer/3-foot broiler/full-size
convection oven cook line was 2000 cfm (200 cfm/ft) without side panels. When the
hood was used with standard side panels the capture and containment exhaust rate was
not reduced.
Table 10. Capture and Containment Results for 2-Vat Fryer / Broiler or Griddle/ Full-
Size Convection Oven Appliance Line
Overhang1 Overhang Overhang1
[in.] [in.] [in.]
8 2-Vat 22 Broiler 18 Oven 12 Without 6 2000 200
Fryer
9 2-Vat 22 Broiler 18 Oven 12 Standard 6 2000 200
Fryer
102 2-Vat 22 Broiler 18 Oven 12 Standard 6 2400 240
Fryer
11 2-Vat 22 Griddle 12 Oven 12 Without 6 1700 170
Fryer
12 2-Vat 22 Griddle 12 Oven 12 Standard 6 1500 150
Fryer
1
2
A walk-by evaluation was conducted for the combination duty line with standard side
panels. The increase in exhaust flow rate required to capture and contain the dynamically
disturbed thermal plume was 2400 cfm (400 cfm higher than the static condition).
The combination-duty appliance line was also evaluated with a griddle replacing the
broiler in the center position. The exhaust rate for capture and containment without side

May 2008
panels was 1700 cfm (170 cfm/ft). With standard side panels, the capture and
containment rate was reduced to 1500 cfm (150 cfm/ft).
Static Pressure Differential Measured at Hood’s Transition

The static pressure drop of the hood was measured between the laboratory and the duct
transition for five exhaust flow rates. The pressure drop ranged from 0.23 inches of water
at 1500 cfm to 0.89 inches of water at 3300 cfm. At 2500 cfm the pressure drop was 0.56
in. of water. The results are presented in Table 11.
Table 11. Hood Static Pressure Readings at Hood’s Transition

Exhaust Flow Rate Hood Static Pressure
[cfm] at Exhaust Transition
[inches of water]
1500 0.23
2000 0.40
2500 0.56
3000 0.77
3300 0.89
Figure 11 presents the static pressure versus airflow curve. The data were a very good fit,
reflecting a typical pressure versus airflow relationship.
1.00
0.90
y = 1E-07x2.0464
R2 = 0.999
0.80
0.70
Static Pressure [in. of water]
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Exhaust Flow Rate [cfm]
Figure 11. Static Pressure Differential Measured at the Hood’s Duct Transition

May 2008
Filter Velocity Testing
Filter velocity readings were taken for each of the six filters at two exhaust flow rates. For the
2000 cfm exhaust rate, the filter velocities ranged from 403 to 442 fpm. For the 3000 cfm
exhaust rate, the filter velocities ranged from 543 to 627 fpm. The data are presented in Table 12
and a velocity profile is shown in Figure 12.
Table 12. Filter Face Velocity Readings

Exhaust Left Right Avg.
Flow Filter #1 Filter #2 Filter #3 Filter #4 Filter #5 Filter #6 Filter Standard Standard
Rate Velocity Velocity Velocity Velocity Velocity Velocity Velocity Deviation Deviation
[cfm] [fpm] [fpm] [fpm] [fpm] [fpm] [fpm] [fpm] [fpm] [%]
2000 442 413 417 413 410 403 416 13 3
3000 596 589 627 601 573 543 588 28 5
700
2000 cfm Exhaust Rate
3000 cfm Exhaust Rate
600
500
Filter Face Velocity [fpm]
400
300
200
100
0
Filter #1-Left Filter #2 Filter #3 Filter #4 Filter #5 Filter #6-Right
Figure 12. Filter Velocity Profiles
For both exhaust rates, the profiles show that the slot velocity was at a maximum toward the duct
opening and left side, and a minimum towards the right side of the hood. For the 2000 cfm
exhaust rate, the average velocity was 416 fpm. The velocity profile was relatively flat, except
for the filter velocity at the left side, where it measured 442 fpm. . For the 3000 cfm rate, the
average filter velocity was 588 fpm, with a maximum velocity of 601 fpm at the center, and a
minimum velocity of 543 fpm at the right side. The average effective filter area was calculated as
5.0 sqft.

May 2008
Summary of Results and Conclusions
Table 13 and Figure 13 summarize the results for the capture and containment testing. The test
numbers in Figure 13 refer to the first column of Table 13 and associated test condition. Overall,
the capture and containment airflow rates ranged from a low of 1100 cfm (110 cfm/ft) to a high
of 2900 cfm (290 cfm/ft).
The benefit of the standard side panels was demonstrated for all appliance lines except the
combination line with the broiler. For the charbroiler line with the 45-inch x 45-inch x 45-degree
standard panels installed on both ends of the 10-foot hood, the capture and containment flow rate
was reduced from 2600 cfm (260 cfm/ft) to 2500 cfm (250 cfm/ft). When a rear shield was
installed (between the rear of the charbroilers and the back wall), the capture and containment
flow rate dropped to 2100 cfm (210 cfm/ft). Based on testing experience of the CKV research
team and data from the ASHRAE study [Ref 2], a 2100 cfm (210 cfm/ft) exhaust rate is
considered to be a very low threshold of capture and containment for a heavy-duty appliance
challenge. The 6-vat fryer line demonstrated the greatest benefit from side panels. Without side
panels, the capture and containment flow rate was 2900 cfm (290 cfm/ft). When standard side
panels were installed the capture and containment rate dropped to 1500 cfm (150 cfm/ft), and
with mini side panels (12 inches by 6 inches), the exhaust rate was 1700 cfm (cfm/ft).
The multi-duty line was incorporated within the test matrix to reflect a cooking equipment
challenge in a real-world, casual dining kitchen. In this case, the capture and containment rate
was 2000 cfm (200 cfm/ft). When the standard side panels were installed, the capture and
containment rate was not reduced. When the griddle was substituted for the broiler under static
test conditions, a capture and containment rate of 1500 cfm (150 cfm/ft) was recorded. Under the
dynamic walk-by condition for the multi-duty line with the broiler, the capture and containment
exhaust rate for the hood with side panels increased to 2400 cfm (240 cfm/ft). Based on the
experience of the CKV/FSTC research team, this exhaust rate is believed to be a representative
design value for a multi-duty appliance line.
The static pressure drop of the hood was measured at the duct transition varied from 0.23 to 0.89
in. of water between 1500 to 3000 cfm of exhaust airflow. At 2500 cfm (250 cfm/ft) the
measured static pressure difference was 0.56 in. of water taken in the duct transition joining the
hood collar and the lab exhaust duct.
The measured filter velocities across the length of the exhaust hood a maximum standard
deviation of 5% from the average measured velocity.

May 2008
Table 13. Summary of Capture and Containment Results
Test LH LH LH CTR CTR CTR RH RH RH Side Side C&C
# Appliance Appliance Appliance Appliance Appliance Appliance Appliance Appliance Appliance Panels Overhang Exhaust
Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective [in.] Rate
Front Rear Gap Front Rear Gap Front Rear Gap [cfm]
[in.] [in.] [in.]
1 Broiler 18 5 Broiler 18 5 Broiler 18 5 Without 6 2600
2 Broiler 18 5 Broiler 18 5 Broiler 18 5 Standard 6 2500
3 Broiler 18 5 Broiler 18 5 Broiler 18 5 Standard & 6 2100
Rear Seal
4 2-Vat 22 4 2-Vat 22 4 2-Vat 22 4 Without 6 2900

Fryer Fryer Fryer
5a 2-Vat 22 4 2-Vat 22 4 2-Vat 22 4 Mini-12x6 6 1700
Fryer Fryer Fryer
5b 2-Vat 22 4 2-Vat 22 4 2-Vat 22 4 Standard 6 1500
Fryer Fryer Fryer
6 Oven 12 4 Oven 12 1 Oven 12 0 Without 0 1300

7 Oven 12 4 Oven 12 1 Oven 12 0 Standard 0 1100
8 2-Vat 22 4 Broiler 18 5 Oven 12 1 Without 6 2000

Fryer
9 2-Vat 22 4 Broiler 18 5 Oven 12 1 Standard 6 2000
Fryer
102 2-Vat 22 4 Broiler 18 5 Oven 12 1 Standard 6 2400
Fryer
11 2-Vat 22 4 Griddle 12 5 Oven 12 1 Without 6 1700
Fryer
12 2-Vat 22 4 Griddle 12 5 Oven 12 1 Standard 6 1500
Fryer
1
2
3500
Capture and Containment Exhaust Flow Rate [cfm]
3000 2900
2600
2500
2500 2400
2100
2000 2000
2000
1700 1700
1500 1500
1500
1300
1100
1000
500
0
1 2 3 4 5a 5b 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Test Number
Figure 13. Summary of Capture and Containment Results

May 2008
References
1. ASTM 2005. ASTM Designation F1704-05, Capture and containment performance

of commercial kitchen exhaust ventilation systems. West Conshohocken, PA.
2. Swierczyna, R.T., P.A. Sobiski, D. Fisher. 2005. 1202-RP Effect of appliance
diversity and position on commercial kitchen hood performance. ASHRAE, Atlanta,
GA.
3. 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.
4. Air Movement and Control Association, Inc. and American Society of Heating,
Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc. Laboratory methods of testing
fans for rating. AMCA Standard 210/ASHRAE Standard 51, Arlington Heights, IL
and Atlanta, GA.
5. ASTM 2005. ASTM Designation F1496, Standard test method for performance of
convection ovens. West Conshohocken, PA.
open deep fat fryers. West Conshohocken, PA.
griddles. West Conshohocken, PA.
underfired broilers. West Conshohocken, PA.

May 2008
May 2008
EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE
TYPE 1 KITCHEN HOOD MARK: ASTM F1704
HOOD DIMENSIONS
GREASE HOOD
HOOD ACCUREX MODEL TOTAL SECTION
SECTION CUP OR TEMP.
NO. STYLE / CONFIGURATION WIDTH HEIGHT WEIGHT LOCATION
LENGTH DRAIN RATING
REAR INTEGRAL AIR SPACE XXEW-10-S

600 380
1 SINGLE WALL EXHAUST ONLY 120 IN. 54 IN. 24 IN. RIGHT SINGLE
DEG F LBS.
WALL CANOPY
ILLUMINATION DETAILS GREASE FILTRATION DETAILS
HOOD
NO. FIXTURE TYPE INTENSITY TYPE / MODEL
QTY QTY LENGTH HEIGHT
BULB / LAMP INFO FT CANDLES MATERIAL
INCANDESCENT (GLOBE) X-TRACTOR 0 16 IN.
1 3 27.2 / 40 IN. OC 20 IN.
100W A19 (BULB NOT INCL) STAINLESS STEEL 6 20 IN.
40 IN. OC EXHAUST PLENUM COLLARS

HOOD SECTION #
COLLAR # DISTANCE WIDTH LENGTH DIAMETER VOLUME S.P. VELOCITY
TO END (IN.) (IN.) (IN.) (IN.) (CFM) (IN. WC) (FT/MIN)
1/1 60 14 36 NA 2500 0.387 714
TOTAL EXHAUST CFM - SECTION 1 2500 ˜ 250 CFM / FT
FSTC Performance Report - 5011.08.15b

OPTIONS AND ACCESSORIES
430 STAINLESS STEEL WHERE EXPOSED
UL 710 LISTED W/ OUT EXHAUST FIRE DAMPER - UL #MH11726
BACK INTEGRAL AIR SPACE - 3 IN WIDE
FACTORY MOUNTED EXHAUST COLLAR(S)
INCLUDES PERFORMANCE ENHANCING LIP (PEL) TECHNOLOGY
MARK: ASTM F1704 - SECTION 1

PLAN VIEW
Appendix A: Accurex Model XXEW-10.0-As Tested
UL LISTED LIGHT FIXTURE
UL LISTED HIGH EFFICIENCY

'GREASE-X-TRACTOR' FILTERS
REMOVABLE GREASE CUP W/

CONCEALED GREASE TROUGH
INTEGRAL AIR SPACE
Fryer - Full Vat with Dripboard

Fuel Type: Gas
16" L X 24" W X 36" H
Fryer - Full Vat with Dripboard
Fuel Type: Gas
16" L X 24" W X 36" H
Gas Char-Broiler
Fuel Type: Gas
36" L X 24" W X 36" H
Oven
Fuel Type: Electric
34" L X 34" W X 60" H
MARK: ASTM F1704 - SECTION 1 MARK: ASTM F1704

ELEVATION VIEW SECTION VIEW
20

Accurex, Model XXEW-10.0 Wall-Mounted Canopy Exhaust Hood Performance Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accurex, Model XXEW-10.0 Wall-Mounted Canopy Exhaust Hood Performance Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accurex, Model XXEW-10.0 Wall-Mounted Canopy Exhaust Hood Performance Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accurex, Model XXEW-10.

Application of ASTM Standard

Food Service Technology Center

© 2008 by Pacific Gas & Electric Company. All rights reserved.

Policy on the Use of Food Service Technology Center and

FSTC Performance Report - 5011.08.15b 1

Figure 2. Centrifugal-Type Grease-X-Tractor™ Filters

FSTC Performance Report - 5011.08.15b 2

FSTC Performance Report - 5011.08.15b 3

Table 1 Cooking Appliance Specifications

Height 37.0 in. 57.3 in. 45.3 in. 37.0 in.

Width 34.0 in. 40.0 in. 31.3 in. 36.0 in.

Depth 31 in. 41/38/42 in. 28 in. 37 in.

Hood/Appliance Overhang Relationship

FSTC Performance Report - 5011.08.15b 4

Figure 5. Relationship between Front Overhang and Rear Gap

Table 2. Hood/Appliance Overhang Relationships

Rear of Appliance to Backwall [in.] 5 1 4 5

FSTC Performance Report - 5011.08.15b 5

Capture & Containment Testing

A walk-by protocol was introduced to simulate operator movement in the restaurant in

FSTC Performance Report - 5011.08.15b 6

Schlieren 7'-7" 10 ft x 4.5 ft x 2.0 ft

Supply Diffuser Wall

Figure 6. Plan View of Lab During Hood Evaluation

Static Pressure Differential

Filter Velocity Profile

FSTC Performance Report - 5011.08.15b 7

FSTC Performance Report - 5011.08.15b 8

Table 3. Underfired Gas Broiler (Heavy-Duty) Test Matrix

Figure 7. Heavy-Duty Underfired Gas Broiler Line

FSTC Performance Report - 5011.08.15b 9

Table 4. Fryer (Medium-Duty Appliance) Test Matrix

Figure 8. Medium-Duty Gas Fryer Line

FSTC Performance Report - 5011.08.15b 10

Table 5. Full-Size Convection Oven (Light-Duty) Test Matrix

Figure 9. Light-Duty Full Size Convection Oven Line

FSTC Performance Report - 5011.08.15b 11

Table 6. Fryer/Broiler/Convection Oven (Combination Duty) Test Matrix

Figure 10. Fryer/Broiler/Convection Oven Appliance Line

FSTC Performance Report - 5011.08.15b 12

Underfired Gas Broiler (Heavy-Duty) Testing

Table 7. Capture and Containment Results for Broilers

Fryer (Medium-Duty) Testing

Table 8. Capture and Containment Results for Fryers

FSTC Performance Report - 5011.08.15b 13

Table 9. Capture and Containment Results Full-Size Convection Ovens

Fryer/Broiler or Griddle/Convection Oven (Combination-Duty) Testing

FSTC Performance Report - 5011.08.15b 14

Static Pressure Differential Measured at Hood’s Transition

Table 11. Hood Static Pressure Readings at Hood’s Transition

FSTC Performance Report - 5011.08.15b 15

Table 12. Filter Face Velocity Readings

Figure 12. Filter Velocity Profiles

FSTC Performance Report - 5011.08.15b 16

FSTC Performance Report - 5011.08.15b 17

4 2-Vat 22 4 2-Vat 22 4 2-Vat 22 4 Without 6 2900

6 Oven 12 4 Oven 12 1 Oven 12 0 Without 0 1300

8 2-Vat 22 4 Broiler 18 5 Oven 12 1 Without 6 2000