TECHNICAL FEATURE

©ASHRAE www.ashrae.org. Used with permission from ASHRAE Journal at www.fishnick.com. This article may not be copied nor distributed in either paper or digital
form without ASHRAE’s permission. For more information about ASHRAE, visit www.ashrae.org.

Capture and Containment

Commercial Kitchen
Ventilation Exhaust Hoods
BY DON FISHER, P.ENG., MEMBER ASHRAE; RICH SWIERCZYNA, ASSOCIATE MEMBER ASHRAE; ANGELO KARAS

The science of commercial kitchen ventilation (CKV) continues to evolve at a rapid

pace, driven by ASHRAE research projects,1–4 an expanding line of high-performance
and innovative products, and ongoing testing by various organizations and research
facilities.5 All of this information, along with the results of a California Energy
Commission-funded makeup air research project,6 is leading to updates of the
national codes (ASHRAE Standard 154, NFPA 96, UMC, ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 and
California Title 24)7–11 and fundamentally changing the way CKV systems are designed
and operated (e.g., application of demand-controlled kitchen ventilation).12
ASHRAE’s comprehensive 39-page Handbook—HVAC “Hot air rises!” This introductory sentence to a design
Applications chapter on kitchen ventilation13 is a dramatic guide series14 coordinated by the authors states the
improvement over the two paragraphs in the Handbook obvious. So why then does the thermal plume off cook-
that existed when the authors began their careers ing equipment sometimes rise and stay within the
in kitchen ventilation. However, there are still many hood reservoir, while at other times it fills the kitchen
details associated with the installation of exhaust hoods, with smoke, grease, and heat? Research sponsored
makeup air systems, and appliance layout that are over- by ASHRAE has provided intriguing insights into this
looked (or not recognized for their importance) within question.
the design and specifications for CKV systems.14 This In addition to the more obvious “it depends on the
article focuses on CKV system attributes and installation amount of exhaust air” factor, research has demon-
best practices that have been identified and/or quanti- strated that hood style, construction features and instal-
fied through public-domain research (as referenced lation configurations, makeup air introduction, as well
above). as the positioning of appliances beneath the hood had a

Don Fisher, P.Eng., is principal of Fisher Consultants, LLC, Danville, Calif., which provides technical and management consulting services to the PG&E Food Service Technology Center
(FSTC) in San Ramon, Calif. Rich Swierczyna, senior engineer at Fisher-Nickel, Inc., San Ramon, Calif., manages testing at the Commercial Kitchen Ventilation Laboratory and Angelo
Karas is a senior lab technician at the PG&E Food Service Technology Center in San Ramon, Calif.

26 A S H R A E J O U R N A L   ashrae.org  N OVEM BER 2015

 TECHNICAL FEATURE 

dramatic influence on the ability of

the hood to capture and contain.
By making what might appear to
the design engineer, installing con-
tractor or kitchen manager to be
subtle changes, a surprisingly wide
range in the exhaust rates required Wall-Mounted Canopy Back Shelf Pass-Over
for complete capture and contain-
ment (C&C) of cooking effluent can
result due to appliance position
and/or hood installation details and
configuration. Within the real world
of commercial food service, this
Single-Island Canopy Double-Island Canopy Eyebrow
explains why an identical exhaust
hood installed over virtually the same FIGURE 1 Styles of exhaust hoods. Source: 2015 ASHRAE Handbook—Applications, Chapter 33, Kitchen Ventilation.
appliance line performs successfully
in one kitchen and fails in another.
However, as stated, such attributes (often outside the Single-island canopy hoods present the “ultimate” cap-
direct responsibility of the hood manufacturer) are ture and containment challenge in hood applications
often neglected within the CKV design specifications and are often the foundation of C&C problems in display
(e.g., end panels, appliance placement, overhang, space cooking kitchens.
behind appliances, size of hood, etc.). The key to opti-
mizing CKV performance is in the design details. ASTM Standard F1704
Threshold exhaust rates for a specific hood and appli-
Hood Factor: Capture and Containment ance configuration may be determined by laboratory
First, the design exhaust rate that is the foundation for testing under the specifications of ASTM F1704-12,
capture and containment (C&C) depends on the hood Standard Test Method for Capture and Containment Performance
style and construction features. Driven in part by stan- of Commercial Kitchen Exhaust Ventilation Systems.15 This
dardized test methods and their application by third- standard test method was developed to provide a reli-
party laboratories, many aerodynamic features have able measure of a hood’s ability to capture and contain
been integrated into the design of leading brands of listed the effluent produced by a defined cooking challenge.
hoods (e.g., flanges or lips along the hood’s lower edge, The phrase “hood capture and containment” is defined
air jets, filter position and size, elimination of filter shelf, in ASTM F1704-12 as “the ability of the hood to capture and
etc.). Wall-mounted canopy hoods, island (single or dou- contain grease-laden cooking vapors, convective heat and
ble) canopy hoods, and proximity (backshelf, pass-over, other products of cooking processes.” Hood capture refers
or eyebrow) hoods all have different capture areas and to the products getting into the hood reservoir, while con-
are mounted at different heights and horizontal positions tainment refers to these products staying in the hood reser-
relative to the cooking equipment (Figure 1). voir and not spilling out into the adjacent space.
Generally, for the identical cooking appliance (thermal The phrase “minimum capture and containment” is
plume) challenge, a single-island canopy hood requires defined as “the conditions of hood operation at which
more exhaust than a wall-mounted canopy hood, and the exhaust flow rate is just sufficient to capture and
a wall-mounted canopy hood requires more exhaust contain the products generated by the appliance in idle
than a proximity (backshelf) hood. The performance of a or heavy-load cooking conditions, or at any intermediate
double-island canopy tends to emulate the performance prescribed load condition.” During a C&C test with the
of two back-to-back wall-canopy hoods, although the cooking appliances in a full production, part loading or
lack of a physical barrier between the two hood sections idle condition, the exhaust rate is reduced until spillage
makes the configuration susceptible to cross drafts. of the plume is observed.

N OVEM BER 2015  ashrae.org  A S H R A E J O U R N A L 27

TECHNICAL FEATURE 

350
300 290

Exhaust Rate (cfm/ft)

250
200
200
150
100
50
0
No Panels Partial Panels
FIGURE 3  Reduction in C&C exhaust rates with and without side panels (Ninety tests of different hood and appli-
ance setups.)

FIGURE 2  Illustration of a full and partial side panel Ducts 6 ft on Center Maximum Plenum
on a wall-canopy hood.
Filters
20 in. Minimum
Face or Ends Can
The exhaust rate is then increased be Opened for
Later Removal
in fine increments until a condi- 1 ft Maximum Set-Back
tion of C&C is established. Similar
Filter Mounting Height
in concept to the listed “cfm”
3 ft
derived from UL 710, Exhaust Hoods Maximum
for Commercial Cooking Equipment,16
the threshold of C&C for an ASTM L
Closed Ends
F1704-12 test is established under Cooking Equipment Desirable
ideal laboratory conditions and is
only a reference point for selecting Low Side Wall Hood
the exhaust airflow for a real-world Q = 200 cfm/lineal ft of cooking surface (200 L)
project. Minimum duct velocity = 1,000 to 4,000 fpm, to suit conditions
he = (filter resistance + 0.1 in.) + 0.50 VP4 (straight take off)
he = (filter resistance + 0.1 in.) + 0.25 VP4 (tapered take off)
Side Panels, End Panels and End Walls
FIGURE 4  Recommended hood design from Industrial Ventilation Manual in 1980.17
Side (or end) panels or skirts
(both partial or full as represented
in Figure 2) permit a reduced
exhaust rate, as more of the Laboratory testing1,2,3,5 has dem- attending a class on industrial
replacement air is drawn across the onstrated reductions in capture ventilation in the early 1980s. What
front of the equipment, improv- and containment airflow rates up became apparent was the dramatic
ing capture of the effluent plume to 100 cfm/ft (155 L/s·m) of hood by difference between the design of a
generated by the hot equipment. the application of partial side panels fume hood and a kitchen exhaust
Although defying its definition on 10 ft (3 m) wall-canopy hoods. hood.17 Of specific interest was
as an “island” canopy, end pan- On average, a reduction of 30% was the fact that the design drawing
els can dramatically improve the determined for more than 90 tests illustrating best practices for a low
performance of a double-island or of different hoods and appliance side-wall kitchen hood recom-
single-island canopy hood. Another loading (heavy, medium, light-duty) mended closed ends (Figure 4). This
benefit of end panels is to mitigate with and without some configura- recommendation was replicated in
the negative effect that cross drafts tion of a side panel (Figure 3). other design guides published by
or airflow from diffusers can have The lead author’s first profes- leading kitchen hood manufacturers
on hood performance. sional-development exercise was at that time. However, no suggested

28 A S H R A E J O U R N A L   ashrae.org  N OVEM BER 2015

Advertisement formerly in this space.
TECHNICAL FEATURE 

reduction in exhaust rates associ-

ated with addition of the side panels
was provided.
In general, the attributes incorpo-
rated within the fume hood design to
ensure 100% capture efficiency were
lacking in the commercial kitchens
Different Sizes of
that the authors surveyed. It’s been a Partial Side Panels
long, slow battle to gain market adop-
PHOTO 1  Demonstrating the performance benefit
tion of something so simple. of side panels retrofit to a proximity FIGURE 5  Illustration of full and partial end panels
At the beginning of a “kitchen hood—35 years ago.18 used for testing in Figure 6.
ventilation-centric” career, the
lead author headed up a Canadian government- for the engineers and designers of CKV systems to under-
sponsored restaurant energy-efficiency program. 18 stand the benefit and defend the inclusion of side panels
Testing kitchen ventilation with a smoke generator at within the CKV system specification.
a university cafeteria revealed, both quickly and dra- Of particular importance to this best practice rec-
matically, the value of adding side walls to an exhaust ommendation is the fact that partial side panels can
hood (Photo 1). provide much of the benefit offered by full side panels
Thirty-five years later, we are still trying to encourage, (Figure 5). Even very small side panels (e.g., 1 ft × 1 ft × 45
as standard practice rather than best practice, the speci- degrees [0.3 m × 0.3 m × 45 degrees]) can improve C&C
fication of side panels on kitchen exhaust hoods. It’s time performance.

Advertisement formerly in this space.

30 A S H R A E J O U R N A L   ashrae.org  N OVEM BER 2015

 TECHNICAL FEATURE 

The impact on C&C airflow for dif- 4,000 400

6 in. Front Overhang 12 in. Front Overhang 18 in. Front Overhang
ferent side panel configurations on
3,500 3,300 350
six fryers cooking under a 10 ft (3 m) 3,100
wall-canopy hood for three over- 3,000 300

C&C Exhaust Flow Rate (cfm/ft)

2,800 2,800 2,700 2,700

C&C Exhaust Flow Rate (cfm)

hangs (6, 12 and 18 in. [152, 305 and 2,600 2,550
2,500 2,400 250
457 mm]) is shown in Figure 6. The 2,300
2,000 2,100 2,000 2,000
range in airflow is dramatic, from 2,000 200
1,700
3,300 cfm (1557 L/s) for no side panel 1,600 1,600 1,600
1,500 150
with a 6 in. (152 mm) overhang down
to 1,600 cfm (755 L/s) for a 4 ft (1.2 m) 1,000 100
partial panel and an 18 in. (457 mm)
500 50
overhang. The data speaks for itself.
The authors recognize that side 0 0
Without 1 × 1 2 × 2 3 × 3 4 × 4 Full
panels or skirts may not always be Side Panel
appropriate or physically practi- FIGURE 6  C&C airflow rates for six fryers cooking under a 10 ft × 4 ft wall-canopy hood.
cal. Under these situations (albeit
limited in our opinion), the
specification of a “listed” hood that has its own design performance data derived from the ASTM F1704-12 Test
features (flanges, lips, air jets, elimination of filter shelf) Method, illustrating differences in C&C airflow for the
to minimize spill from the end of the hood is important. leading hood brands.5 However, we are not conceding to
Third party laboratories have published hood the sales pitch that “our hoods work so well that side panels

Advertisement formerly in this space.

N OVEM BER 2015  ashrae.org  A S H R A E J O U R N A L 31

TECHNICAL FEATURE 

PHOTO 2  Retrofitted end panels pass the test in a PHOTO 3 (LEFT) AND PHOTO 4 (RIGHT)  Real-world illustrations of excessive gap behind cooking equipment and wall.
real-world kitchen.

are not necessary.” They are! In our experience, the C&C

performance along the end of the hood is always improved
by adding a panel or skirt. Alternatively stated, a high-per-
formance hood with end panels becomes an even higher
performing hood than it is in its naked configuration.
Think about the design of a fume hood or fireplace. No
engineer would ever consider using a canopy hood with-
out back, sides and partial front. The fact that the efflu-
ent from cooking processes is not considered dangerous PHOTO 5  C&C performance with different overhangs.
to one’s health (at least on the short term) may explain
why the design community bends to the desire of the cli- hood to capture and contain cooking effluent. This may
ent for a wide-open kitchen. be accomplished by pushing the appliances as far back
For those who know the authors professionally, we to the wall as practical and/or by specifying a deeper
sound like a broken record. But, bar none, the most sig- hood. This also decreases the gap between the rear of the
nificant and cost-effective technique for improving hood appliance and the back wall, further improving the cap-
performance is the addition of a side panel, side skirt, or ture performance of the hood.
end wall. We have never tested an exhaust hood in the labo- Sometimes, more space than necessary exists between
ratory that didn’t benefit from the addition of a side panel the rear of cooking equipment and the back wall (Photos
of some configuration, regardless of how well the hood 3 and 4), often to accommodate sloppy piping. This can
performed without this attribute. And, with 30 years of also occur when appliances such as a range, fryer or
troubleshooting in the field, we have retrofit side panels griddle are positioned to line up with the front of deeper
onto dozens of CKV systems as a fix to hood performance appliances such as combination ovens.
issues (Photo 2). But, the resistance to specifying even par- A large overhang also is beneficial for appliances that
tial end panels remains ingrained in the industry as the create plume surges when doors or lids are opened, such
perception of “reduced” view within the kitchen endures. as convection and combination ovens, steam kettles,
Ironically, the end panels that are used to fix hood “cap- compartment steamers and pressure fryers. Specifying
ture” problems in the field elicit no disdain for loss of vision a deeper hood (e.g., 5 ft vs. 4 ft [1.5 m vs. 1.2 m]) will
or communication in the kitchen, as making the “problem” directly increase overhang, provided appliances are
go away trumps any imposition by the panels. In hindsight, situated as far back as possible in the hood. This is an
this article could have simply been titled “The Benefit of effective solution for the oven or combination oven and
Specifying Side Panels on Kitchen Exhaust Hoods.” its “door-opening” challenge.
Be aware that code-required overhangs are mini-
Overhang and Rear Gap mums, not best practice. The cost to punch out the
Somewhat less controversial, but still not embraced hood an extra foot is minimal in context with the total
to the extent warranted, is that an increase in overhang cost of the CKV system. Photo 5 illustrates the impact
will significantly improve the ability of a wall-canopy of overhang on six fryers cooking under a 10 ft (3 m)

32 A S H R A E J O U R N A L   ashrae.org  N OVEM BER 2015

Advertisement formerly in this space.
TECHNICAL FEATURE 

wall-canopy hood. At 2,400 cfm

(1133 L/s) or 240 cfm/ft (372 L/s·m)
exhaust rate, effluent was spilled 24 in.
with a 6 in. (152 mm) overhang, or
30 in.
while it was fully captured and
contained with an 18 in. (457 mm)
overhang.
Finally, something that works in
78 in.
concert: increased overhang and AFF
reduced rear gap (Figure 7). And, if
one inserts a rear seal (solid shelf) Rear
Front Gap
behind the appliance to fill in the Overhang
rear gap (Photo 6), the hood perfor-
mance gets even better. This per-
formance advantage is quantified
in Figure 8, where the C&C exhaust
rate ranged from a high of 5,100
cfm (2407 L/s) with 6 in. (152 mm)
FIGURE 7  Front overhang relationship to rear gap.  PHOTO 6  Sealed gap behind appliances.
overhang and no rear seal to a low
of 2,800 cfm (1321 L/s) with an 18
in. (457 mm) overhang and a 4.5 Without Rear Seal Between Appliance and Wall With Rear Seal Between Appliance and Wall
in. rear seal. Even with a 6 in. (152 6,000
600
mm) overhang, a 16.5 in. (419 mm)
5,000 5,100
rear seal reduced the exhaust flow 500
to 3,400 cfm (1605 L/s). And, that 4,000 4,400

C&C Exhaust Flow Rate (cfm/ft)

400
C&C Exhaust Flow Rate (cfm)

does not include the added benefit 4,000

of side panels that brought the 3,000
3,400 300
lowest C&C value down to 2,500 2,000 2,900 2,800
200
cfm (1180 L/s). Amazing! 250 cfm/ft
(387 L/s·m) for charbroilers cook- 1,000
100
ing a full load of burgers at a 600°F 0
0
(316°C) surface temperature.

Internal Height of Hood (Volume of

Hood Reservoir) 0 in. Front Overhang 6 in. Front Overhang 12 in. Front Overhang
The volume of hood reservoir (or Front Overhang to Front Overhang to Distance Between the Rear of
capture tank in front of the filter Appliance (in.) Cooking Surface (in.) The Appliance and Backwall (in.)
bank) is determined by the hood 0 6.0 16.5
depth and height. As discussed, a 6.0 12.0 10.5
deeper hood facilitates a larger over- 12.0 18.0 4.5
hang and associated reduction in
FIGURE 8  C&C exhaust rates for broiler operation under a 10 ft wall-mounted canopy hood at different overhangs
exhaust airflow for C&C. This reduc- with and without rear seal.
tion in exhaust rate is also attributed
to the increased hood reservoir. But, another way to kitchens that can accommodate increasing the hood
increase capture tank volume is to increase the internal height (Figure 9). Again, the cost of the additional stain-
hood height. While this is not always practical given less steel could be considered minor compared to the
the ceiling height of kitchens, there are high-ceiling total cost of the hood or CKV system.

34 A S H R A E J O U R N A L   ashrae.org  N OVEM BER 2015

 TECHNICAL FEATURE 

5,000 Broilers Cook/Off/Off Broilers Off/Cook/Off

4,500 4,300
4,100
2 ft vs. 3 ft 4,000

C&C Exhaust Flow Rate (cfm)

3,500
3,100
3,000
2,500
FIGURE 9  Illustration of 2 ft high hood vs. 3 ft high hood. 2,000
2,000
1,500
1,000
The first question asked: How much difference does it
500
make? And the answer: It depends. The graph in Figure 10
0
shows threshold C&C exhaust rates for three 3 ft (0.9 m) 2 ft 3 ft
Hood Height
under-fired broilers placed under a 10 ft (3 m) wall-canopy
hood without side panels. During the C&C testing, only one FIGURE 10  Three underfired broilers installed under 10 ft long × 4 ft deep wall-
mounted canopy hood.
of the three broilers was used for full-load cooking.
The blue column shows the exhaust rate when the
broiler on the left end of the hood was in operation, while Broilers Cook/Off/Off Broilers Off/Cook/Off
the gray column shows when the broiler in the middle 4,900
5,000 4,600
was in operation. Both broiler-use conditions were tested 4,300
C&C Exhaust Flow Rate (cfm)

with the 2 ft (0.6 m) high and 3 ft (0.9 m) high hood. 4,000

For the broiler-on-the-end condition, the extra hood 2,900 2,900 3,100 3,100
3,000
height made little difference. But, when the broiler 2,200
in the middle was operated, a dramatic reduction in 2,000
exhaust air needed for C&C was demonstrated. In fact,
1,000
the threshold 2,000 cfm (944 L/s) for C&C with the 400 250
broiler in the middle of the higher hood was more than 0
7.5 ft/4.5 ft 7 ft/4 ft 6.5 ft/ 3.5 ft 5.5 ft/2.5 ft 3.5 ft/0.5 ft
a 50% reduction over the 4,300 cfm (2029 L/s) for the
Effective Hood Height-to-Floor/Appliance-to-Hood Distance
broiler on the end of the shallower hood. And, if an end
FIGURE 11 Effect of hood mounting height on C&C exhaust airflow for a 10 ft wall-
wall was installed on the hood with the broiler cooking mounted canopy hood operating over three 3 ft underfired broilers.
on the end, the C&C exhaust rates approach the values
measured for the broiler in the middle of the hood. Who C&C performance when only the left end broiler is cook-
would have guessed such a dramatic difference? ing, while the gray bars are C&C values with the middle
broiler cooking. Overall, increasing hood-mounting
Hood Mounting Height height to 7.5 ft (2.3 m) has a minimal impact. Remember,
The effect that mounting height of a wall-canopy hood the negative impact for the broiler on the end of the hood
has on hood performance is often debated within the could be eliminated with a side panel.
design community. While building codes universally While the hood height of 5.5 ft (1.7 m) is not realistic
require a minimum 6.5 ft (2 m) distance between the for a wall-mounted canopy hood, it illustrated why a
lower edge of the hood and the finished floor, it is often proximity hood can outperform a canopy hood. And,
desirable to increase the hood height spec to ensure that while a mounting height of 3.5 ft (1.1 m) is ridiculous
this minimum is always attained. It is not unheard of for for a canopy hood, the low exhaust rate shows how little
the hood to be hung at 6.5 ft (2 m) before the floor tiles exhaust is really needed to contain the cooking effluent,
are installed. Red tag! So the question is often: What is illustrating the potential benefit of a totally integrated
the impact of hood height on C&C? hood/appliance system.
In response, the authors set out to obtain data for a
10 ft (3 m) hood operating over three 3 ft (0.9 m) under- Appliance Position Under the Hood
fired broilers installed at different floor-to-front-edge- An important (albeit intuitive) concept confirmed by
of-hood heights. In Figure 11, the blue columns reflect the testing was that heavy-duty equipment should be

N OVEM BER 2015  ashrae.org  A S H R A E J O U R N A L 35

TECHNICAL FEATURE 

positioned in the middle of the cook

line. If a heavy-duty appliance is on
the end, incorporating a side panel
or end wall is imperative. In particu-
lar, broilers should not be placed at
the end of a cook line. Fryers, which
are classified as medium duty, also
have an adverse effect on C&C when
located at the end the cook line. PHOTO 7 (LEFT) AND PHOTO 8 (RIGHT)  Illustration of heavy-duty appliance position under a wall-canopy hood.
Gas-fired ranges (typically six
burner) can be located at the end of
a cook line because under typical operating 5,000 500
4,700
conditions the plume strength is not as high
4,500 450
as that of broilers. Locating double-stacked
ovens or steamers at the end of the hood is 4,000 400
3,700

C&C Exhaust Flow Rate (cfm/ft)

C&C Exhaust Flow Rate (cfm)

beneficial due to a plume-control effect that 3,500 350

tends to assist capture and containment 3,000
3,000 300
that is similar to but not as effective as a side 2,500 2,500
2,500 250
panel. Again, both are desired. 2,000 200
Appliance location from side-to-side and
1,500 150
from front-to-back can increase or decrease
the threshold of capture and containment by 1,000 100
as much as 30%. Multiple, different appliances 500 50
tend not to be used at the same time due to the 0 0
sequences of menu preparation. Consequently 6 Burners 3 Front Burners 2 Left Burners 3 Rear Burners 2 Right Burners
total plume strength is less than a group of FIGURE 12  Threshold C&C flow rates for different range burner usage configurations.
like appliances that may be used at the same
time for batch preparation (Photos 7 and 8). The
variation in exhaust rate for a six-burner range located at grilles. And, as a side note, do not specify four-way diffusers
the left side of the hood with different burners operating anywhere near exhaust hoods (or, for that matter, any-
is illustrated in Figure 12. The variation is significant, con- where in the kitchen). CKV research6 demonstrated that
firming that the design flow rate becomes a judgment call supplying more than 60% of the replacement air require-
(through experience) by the CKV designer. ment within the vicinity of the hood could challenge the
hood’s ability to capture and contain, requiring the exhaust
Minimize Dedicated Makeup Air Volume and Velocity airflow to be increased to attain C&C.
Historically, this concept has been counter to general
practice, as locally supplied makeup air is often the easi- Bottom Line
est design solution where the makeup airflow is 80% This article has focused on the subtle aspects of hood
(or more) of the exhaust flow. Often, locally supplied installation and appliance placement that can significantly
makeup introduces air quantities and velocities that impact hood performance but are often neglected within
interfere with the ability of the exhaust hood to capture the design. It is the authors’ hope that by presenting para-
and contain cooking effluent. Once the transfer airflow metric comparisons of various configurations for a given
has been established, the quantity of dedicated makeup hood installation and appliance layout, the benefits of
air is determined by subtracting the amount of transfer what often appear to be minor attributes will encourage
air from the total exhaust air volume. engineers to embrace a more detailed specification. And,
Introduce this reduced amount of makeup air at the low- while the introduction of makeup air is a major factor that
est velocity possible by maximizing the area of the supply affects hood performance and is discussed briefly, it could

36 A S H R A E J O U R N A L   ashrae.org  N OVEM BER 2015

be the subject of a dedicated article. In ASHRAE and CEC research projects
summary, tools for the Design Toolbox focused on CKV.
include:
•• Bigger hoods (including deeper References
or taller hoods); 1. Swierczyna, R., D. Fisher, P. Sobiski, T.
Cole, M. Bramfitt. 2005. “Effect of appli-
•• Lower hoods (or proximity style ance diversity and position on commercial
where practical); hood performance.” ASHRAE Research
•• Side panels, end panels, end Project 1202-RP, Final Report.
2. Swierczyna, R., P. Sobiski, D. Fisher,
walls; 2008. “Revised heat gain and capture and
•• Push back equipment (mini- containment exhaust rates from typical
mize rear gap)—consider rear seal or commercial cooking appliances.” ASHRAE
Research Project 1362-RP, Final Report.
shelf; 3. Swierczyna, R., P. Sobiski, D. Fisher,
•• Heavy-duty equipment (e.g., 2010. “Island hood energy consumption and
broiler) in middle; energy consumption strategies.” ASHRAE
Research Project 1480-RP, Final Report.
•• Light-duty equipment (e.g., 4. Stoops, J., et al. 2012. “Thermal comfort
ovens) on the end; in commercial kitchens.” ASHRAE Research
•• Don’t waste hood space over Project 1469-RP, Final Report. Advertisement formerly in this space.
5. Food Service Technology Center.
non-cooking equipment; Kitchen Hood Performance Reports. http://
•• Introduce makeup air at low tinyurl.com/o5kl7gc.
velocity; and 6. Brohard, G., D.R. Fisher, V.A. Smith,
R.T. Swierczyna, P.A. Sobiski. 2003.
•• Ensure an air balance of the “Makeup air effects on kitchen exhaust
kitchen CKV-HVAC system. hood performance.” California Energy
Who would believe that 35 years Commission.
7. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 154-2011, Venti-
from the authors’ introduction to lation for Commercial Cooking Operations.
kitchen ventilation that the industry 8. NFPA-96-2014, Standard for Ventilation
is still innovating at a rapid pace? Control and Fire Protection of Commercial Cook-
ing Operations.
And thanks to ASHRAE research, 9. IAPMO Uniform Mechanical Code-
standards and Handbook — HVAC 2015.
Applications, we can confidently 10. DOE. 2012. “ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Stan-
dard 90.1-2010: Kitchen Exhaust.” http://
say that North America now leads
tinyurl.com/qx6p5du.
the world with respect to design 11. California Energy Commission. 2013.
practices and high-performance “Building Energy Efficiency Standards, Title 24.”
12. Fisher, D., R. Swierczyna, A. Karas.
products for CKV systems—a para-
2013. “Future of demand-controlled ven-
digm shift from when we started our tilation for commercial kitchens.” ASHRAE
careers in the commercial kitchen. Journal 55(2).
13.   2015 ASHRAE Handbook—HVAC Applica-
tions, Chapter 33.
Acknowledgments 14. Food Service Technology Center. The
In addition to recognizing ASHRAE, Commercial Kitchen Ventilation Design
California Energy Commission Guide series. http://tinyurl.com/qz45nja.
15. ANSI/ASTM Standard F1704-12, Test
(CEC), Energy Utilities and the Method for the Performance of Commercial
CKV industry, the authors specifi- Kitchen Ventilation Systems.
cally acknowledge the support from 16. UL Standard 710-2010, Exhaust Hoods for
Commercial Cooking Equipment. Northbrook: UL.
the PG&E Food Service Technology 17. American Conference of Governmental
Center and its ongoing commitment Industrial Hygienists. 1980. Industrial Ventila-
to energy efficiency in the commer- tion: A Manual of Recommended Practice.
18. Energy Mines and Resources Canada.
cial food service market. PG&E has 1984. Profit by Conserving Energy in Your Res-
supported and/or co-funded all of the taurant.

N OVEM BER 2015  ashrae.org  A S H R A E J O U R N A L 37