Downloaded from orbit.dtu.

dk on: Nov 13, 2024

Resiliency comparison of radiant cooling systems and all- air systems

Shindo, Kan; Shinoda, Jun; Kazanci, Ongun B.; Bogatu, Dragos-Ioan; Tanabe, Shin-Ichi; Olesen, Bjarne
W.

Published in:
Proceedings of 11th International Conference on Indoor Air Quality, Ventilation & Energy Conservation in
Buildings

Link to article, DOI:

10.1051/e3sconf/202339601089

Publication date:
2023

Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Link back to DTU Orbit

Citation (APA):
Shindo, K., Shinoda, J., Kazanci, O. B., Bogatu, D.-I., Tanabe, S.-I., & Olesen, B. W. (2023). Resiliency
comparison of radiant cooling systems and all- air systems. In Proceedings of 11th International Conference on
Indoor Air Quality, Ventilation & Energy Conservation in Buildings (Vol. 396). Article 01089 EDP Sciences.
https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202339601089

General rights
Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright
owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.

 Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research.
 You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain
 You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately
and investigate your claim.
E3S Web of Conferences 396, 01089 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202339601089
IAQVEC2023

Resiliency comparison of radiant cooling systems and all- air

systems
Kan Shindo1,2*, Jun Shinoda2, Ongun B. Kazanci2, Dragos-Ioan Bogatu2, Shin-ichi Tanabe1, and Bjarne W. Olesen2
1Department of Architecture, Waseda University, 3-4-1 Okubo, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 169-8555, Japan
2International Centre for Indoor Environment and Energy – ICIEE, Department of Environmental and Resource Engineering,
Technical University of Denmark, Nils Koppels Allé, Building 402, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark

Abstract. Radiant systems have been proven to be an energy-efficient and resource-effective heating and
cooling solution for buildings. A key feature of a thermally active building system (TABS), one type of a
radiant cooling system, is its ability to activate and control the thermal mass of the building structure. The
advantage of this feature is the peak load shifting effect by the thermal mass, which leads to energy saving
compared to a conventional system, e.g., an all-air system. This feature of the radiant cooling system could
be particularly beneficial under a heat wave and power outage event. Dynamic building simulations were
carried out to quantify the resilience of TABS to heat waves and power outages. An all-air system (i.e., air-
conditioning) was used as the reference cooling system. The simulations were carried out using EnergyPlus.
Future weather files (typical meteorological years and years with heat waves) developed in IEA EBC Annex
80 were used for the simulations. In both HVAC systems. Simulation results for future weather data resulted
in a decrease in heating demand and an increase in cooling demand.

1 Introduction
Climate change has become a severe problem globally,
with natural disasters causing extensive damages [1]. In
response to climate change, resilience of the built
environment has been increasingly significant. There
are a variety of shocks to buildings, such as floods, heat
and cold waves, associated power outages, and
earthquakes. This study focuses on heat waves and
power outages. Previous studies have shown that
frequent heat waves and power outages caused by
climate change are significant disruptors that make it
challenging to maintain Heating, ventilation, and air-
conditioning (HVAC) systems [2-3]. If HVAC systems
cannot maintain comfort conditions during events such
as power outages, it could result in declining occupant
productivity and health and having serious and long-
term adverse economic consequences. Therefore, there
is a need to identify effective resilient cooling solutions
to deal with climate change.
International Energy Agency (IEA), Energy in
Buildings and Communities Programme (EBC) Annex
80 – Resilient Cooling of Buildings [4] is working on
defining resiliency and its key concepts in terms of
building cooling [5-7], developing qualitative and
quantitative key performance indicators [8] and
evaluating different cooling systems based on these
indicators.
Radiant cooling systems have been proven to be an
energy-efficient and resource-effective heating and
cooling solution for buildings [9]. A key feature of a Fig. 1. Framework for evaluating the building resilience
Thermally Active Building System (TABS), one type of of different weather locations and cooling technologies

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
E3S Web of Conferences 396, 01089 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202339601089
IAQVEC2023

Table 1. Construction and material of the building envelope

Construction Material R value Thickness Conductivity Density Thermal capacity
  [(m2‫ڄ‬K)/W] [mm] [W/(m‫ڄ‬K)] [kg/m3] [J/(kg‫ڄ‬K)]
Floor/ceiling Carpet pad 0.22 䠉 䠉 䠉 䠉
Concrete 䠉 101.6 2.31 2,322 832
Outside wall Stucco 䠉 25.4 0.72 1,856 840
Gypsum board 䠉 15.9 0.16 800 1,090
Insulation 2.37 䠉 䠉 䠉 䠉
Gypsum board 䠉 15.9 0.16 800 1090
Interior wall Gypsum board 䠉 25.4 0.16 800 1090
0.05 10 10
Weekday Weekday Weekday
Saturday
People Saturday
Equipment Saturday
Lighting
0.04 8
Equipment Load [W/m2]

Sunday Sunday 8
People Density [ppl/m2]

Sunday

Lighting Load [W/m2]

0.03 6 6

0.02 4 4

0.01 2 2

0 0 0
0:00 3:00 6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 0:00 3:00 6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 0:00 3:00 6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00

Fig. 2. Schedule of internal heat gain

a radiant cooling system, is its ability to activate and
control the thermal mass of the building structure [10]. Zone3: North
The advantage of this feature is the peak load shifting
effect by the thermal mass, which leads to energy saving
compared to a conventional system, e.g., an all-air
Zone Zone5: Core Zone
system. This feature of TABS could be particularly 4: 2:
33
beneficial under a heat wave and power outage event by West East
m
Ceiling Height: 2.7m
natural disasters [11-12].
Fig. 1 shows the framework for evaluating the 5m
building resilience of different weather locations and
cooling technologies. The present study compared the Zone1: South 5m
resiliency performance of TABS with that of a Packaged
Terminal Air Conditioner (PTAC). Indoor temperature 2.7
and primary energy consumption of the HVAC systems m
under typical weather conditions and future heat waves
and power outages were compared. 50m

Fig. 3. Zone layout for medium office building

2 Methodology
For the boundary conditions of the building, only
2.1 Building model the exterior walls exchanged heat with the external
environment. The interior walls were set to adjacent, and
Fig. 2 shows the schedule of internal heat gain and Fig. the floor and ceiling were set to adiabatic. Air change
3 shows the zone layout of for the building model. A rate of infiltration was 0.6 h-1. 30 m3/h of outdoor air was
medium office building to represent commercial supplied per person by the ventilation system. Outdoor
buildings, one of the prototypes building models supply air for each zone was calculated based on
provided by the U.S. department of Energy, was used ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2019 [16]. The maximum
for the simulations. The prototype building models are values of density of occupants, lighting gain, and
based on ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 [13]. In equipment gain were 0.05 person/m2, 6.9 W/m2, and 8.0
this study, only the middle floor was modelled with the W/m2, respectively. As shown in Fig. 2, the internal heat
simulation software EnergyPlus version 8.9 [14]. The gain was varied according to the schedule. During
middle floor was separated in 5 zones, comprising 4 power outage periods, all internal heat gain were set to
perimeter zones and a core zone. The construction and zero.
material of the building is presented in Table. 1. [15]

2
E3S Web of Conferences 396, 01089 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202339601089
IAQVEC2023

Heat wave period

Fig. 4. Outdoor dry bulb temperature

Thermally Active Building System Packaged VAV Reheat

TABS Cooling Season Packaged VAV Reheat Cooling Season

Heating Season Heating Season
Constant flow Variable air flow
Zone SA Zone
Weekday ȴT =3Υ Weekday
18:00-6:00 (12h) 18°C 21°C 7:00-23:00 (18h)
25°C 22°C
Zone

SA Thermally Active Building System :TABS

Fan
Pump 12.8°C/40°C
Heat Exchanger(water to water) Variable Air Volume
RA
RA

OA
OA Pump
Fan Boiler Hot Water Cooling coil DX
Air cooled HP chiller
DOAS
Variable air flow
Weekday Boiler Hot Water
7:00-23:00 (18h)

Fig. 5. Heat source system diagram

Fig. 4, heat waves will be more frequent in both
Copenhagen and Singapore in the future, and the
2.2 Weather data
duration of the heat wave period will be longer.
The future typical meteorological year (TMY) weather
files and future heat wave (HWY) weather files 2.3 HVAC strategies
developed in Annex 80 [4] were used for the simulations.
Singapore and Copenhagen were selected as Fig. 5. Shows the heat source system diagram both
representative very hot–humid and cold–humid weather PTAC and TABS. Two types of HVAC systems were
locations. Heat balance simulations were run using three modelled for comparison: TABS (coupled with a
TMY files (2001-2020, 2041-2060, and 2081-2100) and dedicated outside air system, DOAS) and PTAC. Input
three HWY files for most severe conditions (Historical, values and settings presented in this section were taken
Mid-term, and Long-term), respectively. As shown in from [15-18]. Cooling setpoint was 24°C and heating

3
E3S Web of Conferences 396, 01089 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202339601089
IAQVEC2023

setpoint was 21°C. Setpoints were used air temperature. Table 2. Boundary conditions of TABS [17-18]
Annual simulations were conducted, i.e., the analysis
period was from 1st January to 31st December. Radiant surface Ceiling
Simulation interval was 1 hour. 18°C (Cooling)
The PTAC operated from 7:00 to 23:00 on Supply water temperature
30°C (Heating)
weekdays. The supply air temperature was maintained
Pipe inside diameter 0.020 m
at 12.8°C and 35°C with a variable air volume fan
during the cooling and heating season. The PTAC cools Circuit length 106.7 m
or heats the required outdoor air and return air. This
supplies by coil cooling DX and reheat coil and supplies Operative
Temperature control
temperature
it to each 5 rooms.
The TABS was operated from 18:00 to 6:00 on
HVAC systems were greatly dependent on weather data
weekdays. Cold or hot water was supplied to each room
and the selected system.
for a fixed period with variable water flow rates,
depending on the heat load. The ceiling was set as the
radiant surface, and the supply water temperature for the 3.2 Energy use and operational carbon
cooling and heating season was set to 18°C and 30°C.
Pipe inner diameter was 0.020 m, and one circuit length Fig. 6 shows annual HVAC system total primary
of TABS is 106.7 m. Operative temperature was adopted energy uses per conditioned floor area. Annual cooling
for temperature control for TABS. DOAS was used to and heating primary energy uses per conditioned floor
remove the latent heat load and the sensible heat load area are one of the Key Performance Indicators (KPI)
that could not be removed by TABS. for the IEA EBC Annex 80 – Dynamic simulation
guideline for the performance testing or resilient cooling
strategies [4]. The primary energy conversion factor are
3 Results and Discussion used to 2.5 for electricity and 1.1 for gaseous fossil fuel.
[20] In Copenhagen, the primary energy use for cooling
3.1 Indoor thermal comfort and heating of TABS was lower than that of PTAC. In
both HVAC systems. Simulation results for future
Table. 3 shows the Percentage of time in comfort range weather data resulted in a decrease in heating demand
(EN16978-2019) under future typical meteorological and an increase in cooling demand. Total primary
year weather conditions in Copenhagen. The period energy use was expected to increase with future rising
from May to September was set as the cooling season outdoor temperatures.
and the rest of the year as the heating season and Fig. 7 shows annual HVAC system operational
operative temperature during occupied hours (8:00 to carbon per conditioned floor area. The carbon emission
17:00 on weekdays) were used. In office spaces, the factor are used to 0.187 kgCO2-eq/kWh for electricity
default indoor operative temperature range and 0.105 kgCO2-eq/kWh for gaseous fossil fuel [21].
corresponding to Category II of EN16978:2019 [19] is Annual HVAC operational carbons for cooling and
20-24 °C for the heating season and 23-26 °C for the heating of TABS was also lower than that all-air system.
cooling season. Indoor operative temperature were kept The primary energy use and operational carbon for
within the comfort range for all cases for both TABS and cooling and heating in TABS were less than in the all-
all-air system. However, energy use related to the air system. Another advantage of installing TABS was

Table 3. Percentage of time in comfort range in Copenhagen (EN16978-2019)

HVAC System Thermally Active Building System: TABS Packaged VAV reheat
Average EN16978 Average EN16978 Average EN16978 Average EN16978
Operative Category II Operative Category II Operative Category II Operative Category II
Temp 23-26°C Temp 20-24°C, Temp 23-26°C Temp 20-24°C,
1/1-4/30, 1/1-4/30, 1/1-4/30, 1/1-4/30,
5/1-9/30 5/1-9/30 10/1-12/31 10/1-12/31 5/1-9/30 5/1-9/30 10/1-12/31 10/1-12/31
Unit °C % °C % °C % °C %
TMY
24.1 98 22.5 94 24.4 99 22.2 90
2001-2020
TMY
24.1 97 22.6 91 24.3 99 22.1 88
2041-2060
TMY
24.0 98 22.7 90 24.4 99 22.6 83
2081-2100
Heat Wave
24.1 97 22.3 95 24.2 97 21.8 93
Historical
Heat Wave
24.3 92 22.6 93 24.3 97 22.1 89
Mid-term
Heat Wave
24.2 98 22.7 95 24.5 98 22.2 92
Long-term

4
E3S Web of Conferences 396, 01089 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202339601089
IAQVEC2023

Heating Cooling Fan Pump RH Heating Cooling Fan Pump RH

Total primary energy use [kWh/m2ōa]

50 100
Total primary energy use [kWh/m2ōa]

50 100

Average relative humidity [%RH]

Average relative humidity [%RH]
45 90 45 90
40 80 40 80
35 70 35 70
30 60 30 2.8 60
25 50 25 2.7 50
2.0 2.6
2.0 1.6 20 2.5 2.5 40
20 1.8 1.5 1.6 1.9 40 2.4 19.2
1.7 1.7 1.5 1.7 8.8 12.2
15 1.7 30 15 9.4 30
15.3 7.4 12.7
9.8 12.8 9.5 10.2 10 20
10 8.6 20
5 10.6 13.3 10.6 10
5 10 9.8 6.9 9.2
5.8 6.3 5.3 7.5 6.3 5.1
0 0 0 0
TMY TMY TMY HW HW HW TMY TMY TMY HW HW HW
2001-2020 2041-2060 2081-2100 Historical Mid-term Long-term 2001-2020 2041-2060 2081-2100 Historical Mid-term Long-term
(a) Copenhagen, TABS and DOAS (b) Copenhagen, Packaged VAV reheat

Fig. 6. Annual HVAC system total primary energy uses per conditioned floor area in Copenhagen
Heating Cooling Fan Pump Heating Cooling Fan Pump
10 10

emission per conditioned floor area

emission per conditioned floor area

Annual HVAC operational carbon

Annual HVAC operational carbon

9 9
8 8
7 7

[kgCO2-eq/m2]
[kgCO2-eq/m2]

6 6
5 5 0.5
0.4 0.4
4 0.3 4 0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 1.5 3.2
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
0.3 2.0
3 0.3
0.3 0.3 3 1.6
2.6 1.2 2.1
2 1.6 2.1 1.6 1.7 2
1.4
1 2.1 2.7 2.1
1 1.5 2.0 1.8
1.2 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.0 1.4
0 0
TMY TMY TMY HW HW HW TMY TMY TMY HW HW HW
2001-2020 2041-2060 2081-2100 Historical Mid-term Long-term 2001-2020 2041-2060 2081-2100 Historical Mid-term Long-term
(a) Copenhagen, TABS and DOAS (b) Copenhagen, Packaged VAV reheat

Fig. 7. Annual HVAC system operational carbon per conditioned floor area in Copenhagen
that the energy/carbon increase in heat wave weather energy use was expected to increase with future rising
data from mid- to long- term was smaller for TABS than outdoor temperatures.
for the all-air system. This research was a part of IEA EBC Annex 80 –
In this study, the comparison of PTAC and TABS Resilient Cooling of Buildings and was financially
should be done in terms of indoor thermal comfort, supported by Det Energiteknologiske Udviklings- og
energy use, or maybe those simulations should consider Demonstrationsprogram (EUDP) under grant no.
the sizing of the systems as well. It should be noted that 64018-0578.
the typical operation of TABS is night operation only The first author would like to thank the Japan Society
and the simulated buildings was low thermal mass. for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) for their financial
It should be noted that under the boundary support. (Grant Number JP 21J22867).
conditions of this study, the sizing of air conditioning
equipment and heat sources were calculated
automatically according to the heat load, resulting in a References
stable indoor environment and significant changes in 1. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
energy consumption related to HVAC systems. “IPCC DDC Glossary,” 2020. https://www.ipcc-
data.org/guidelines/pages/glossary/glossary_c.html
4 Conclusion (accessed Dec. 11, 2022).
2. A. Baniassadi, J. Heusinger, D. J. Sailor, Energy
Dynamic building simulations were carried out to efficiency vs resiliency to extreme heat and power
quantify the resilience of a thermally active building outages: The role of evolving building energy
system and an all-air system (i.e., air-conditioning) to codes, Building and Environment, 139, 86-94
heat waves and power outages using EnergyPlus. Future (2018)
weather files of typical meteorological years and heat
3. A. De Bono, Peduzzi, S. Kluser, G. Giuliani,
wave years were used.
Impacts of summer 2003 heat wave in Europe,
For any future typical meteorological years and future
https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/20.500.11822/409
heat wave years, both TABS and PTAC were able to
42 (accessed Dec. 14, 2022)
provide an indoor temperature within a comfortable
range. 4. IEA Annex 80- Resilient Cooling for Buildings,
In Copenhagen, the primary energy use for cooling Dynamic simulation guideline for the performance
and heating of TABS was lower than that of PTAC. In testing of resilient cooling strategies (2021)
both HVAC systems. Simulation results for future 5. S. Attia, R. Levinson, E. Ndongo, P. Holzer, O. B.
weather data resulted in a decrease in heating demand Kazanci, S. Homaei, C. Zhang, B.W. Olesen, D.
and an increase in cooling demand. Total primary Qi, M. Hamdy, P. Heiselberg, Resilient cooling of

5
E3S Web of Conferences 396, 01089 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202339601089
IAQVEC2023

buildings to protect against heat waves and power environment, lighting and acoustics, European
outages: Key concepts and definition, Energy and Committee for Standardization (2019)
Buildings, 239, 110869 (2021) 20. ISO 52000-1, Energy performance of buildings –
6. W. Miller, A. Machard, E. Bozonnet, N. Yoon, D. Overarching EPB assessment – Part 1: General
Qi, C. Zhang, A. Liu, A. Sengupta, J. Akander, A. framework and procedures, ISO (2017)
Hayati, M. Cehlin, O. B. Kazanci, R. Levinson, 21. Building regulation 2018 (BR18) (2018).
Conceptualising a resilient cooling system: A https://bygningsreglementet.dk/
socio-technical approach. City and Environment
Interactions, 11, 100065 (2021)
7. E. Elnagar, V. Lemort, Cooling Concepts for
Residential Buildings: A Comparison Under
Climate Change Scenarios, International High
Performance Buildings Conference, 406 (2022)
8. C. Zhang, O. B. Kazanci, R. Levinson, P.
Heiselberg, B. W. Olesen, G.Chiesa et al. Resilient
cooling strategies – A critical review and
qualitative assessment. Energy and Buildings, 251,
111312 (2021)
9. O. B. Kazanci, Low Temperature Heating and
High Temperature Cooling in Buildings,
PhDThesis, Kgs. Lyngby: Technical University of
Denmark. (2016)
10. ISO 11855-2, Building environment design í
Embedded radiant heating and cooling systems í
Part 2: Determination of the design heating and
cooling capacity, ISO. (2012)
11. O. B. Kazanci, J. Shinoda, B. W. Olesen,
Revisiting radiant cooling systems from a
resiliency perspective: A preliminary study,
CLIMA (2022)
12. J. Shinoda, D. Bogatu, B. W. Olesen, O. B.
Kazanci, A qualitative evaluation of the resiliency
of Personalized Environmental Control Systems
(PECS), 42nd AIVC (2022)
13. ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2019, Energy
Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise
Residential Buildings, ASHRAE. (2019)
14. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL),
EnergyPlus, https://energyplus.net/ (accessed Dec.
11, 2022).
15. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL),
Commercial Reference Buildings,
https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/commercia
l-reference-buildings (accessed Dec. 14, 2022).
16. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2022, Ventilation
and Acceptable Indoor Air Quality, ASHRAE.
(2022)
17. M. Achermann, G. Zweifel, RADTEST – Radiant
Heating and Cooling Test Cases, International
Energy Agency (2003)
18. B. W. Olesen, F. C. Dossi, Operation and control
of activated slab heating and cooling systems, in
Proceedings of CIB World Buildings Congress,
Toronto, Canada (2004)
19. EN 16798-1, Energy Performance of buildings–
Ventilation for buildings – Part 1: Indoor
environmental input parameters for design and
assessment of energy performance of buildings
addressing indoor air quality, thermal