Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000

ScienceDirect www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Procedia Engineering 205 (2017) 3146–3153

10th International Symposium on Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning, ISHVAC2017, 19-
22 October 2017, Jinan, China

Simulation study on the thermal environment in an office with

radiant cooling and displacement ventilation system
Yujia Yanga,b,* Yu Wanga, Xiaolei Yuana, Yutong Zhua, Dandan Zhanga
a
College of Urban Construction, Nanjing Tech University, Jiangsu, Nanjing 210009, China
b
National Engineering Technology Research Center for Prefabrication Construction in Civil Engineering, Shanghai, 200092, China

Abstract

The combined system of Radiant Chilled Ceilings and Displacement Ventilation (RC/DV) system represent a promising
integrated technology that can meet the requirements for both energy efficiency and thermal comfort. As a result, RC/DV
systems have gained much more attention and used widely in advanced buildings in recent years. However, the radiant cooling
surfaces influence the heat exchange within a room, the characteristics of the indoor thermal environment still need to be studied.
In this paper, an office room with combined system was established and the flow and temperature fields were simulated by
Computational Fluid Dynamitic (CFD) method. During the simulation process, 7 cases were compared to investigate the impacts
of radiant cooling surface layout on thermal environment. The displacement ventilation system and its operating conditions of
each case is identical. All the radiant cooling surfaces have the same surface temperature and the total cooling surface area of
case is 17.8m2. The results show lower room temperature and better thermal comfort were achieved on cases with radiant cooling
surface configured to the upper part of the room.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 10th International Symposium on Heating, Ventilation and Air
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 10th International Symposium on Heating, Ventilation and
Conditioning.
Air Conditioning.
Keywords: Radiant cooling; Displacement ventilation; Layout of cooling surface; Thermal environment

1. Introduction

The radiant cooling (RC) system has been gaining much popularity due to its high thermal com-fort, reduced
energy consumption, quiet operation and space saving, while the displacement ventilation (DV) system are quieter

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +86-187-5197-1616.

E-mail address: yang.yujia@163.com

1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 10th International Symposium on Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning.

1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 10th International Symposium on Heating, Ventilation and
Air Conditioning.
10.1016/j.proeng.2017.10.142
2 Yujia Yang et al./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000
Yujia Yang et al. / Procedia Engineering 205 (2017) 3146–3153 3147

and has better ventilation efficiency than conventional over-head ventilation system. A combined system can utilize
their advantages to enhance indoor air quality and provide a comfortable and healthy indoor environment [1, 2].
Schiavon et al. [3, 4] have discussed the temperature stratification and air change effectiveness in a combined chilled
ceiling and displacement ventilation system by experimental investigation. Luis Pérez-Lombard and other scholars
have synthetically summarized the HVAC systems requirements in building energy regulations and indicated that
DV systems can improve the indoor air quality [5]. When two systems are combined to operate together, thermal
plumes in a room may have influence on the indoor air flow and temperature distribution [6]. In this paper the
impacts of radiant cooling surfaces’ layout were investigated and a simulation model was established to evaluate the
results of different cases.

2. Method

To investigate the impacts of the cooling surface layout on indoor thermal environment, the following
methodology was adopted:

• A 2-person office room was conditioned by a compound system composed of radiant cooling terminals and
displacement ventilation system.
• This room model was developed in Airpak3.0. Three different distribution method for cooling surfaces were
designed for comparison.

Fig. 1 showed the office room model (4.22m×4.22m×2.5m) equipped with radiant cooling surfaces and a
displacement ventilation system. The inlet air was supplied to the room from a 0.6m tall corner-mounted
displacement diffuser (radius = 0.3m). The room had no windows. The ceiling and floor were set as adiabatic and
the overall outside heat flux through vertical walls were 1.9W/m2.
The heat load in the room was kept constant. The heat sources of this office include 2 people, 2 overhead lights
and 2 sets of computers. The screens were placed on a 0.8m-high desk and the CPUs of computers were placed on
floor. Heat sources and boundary conditions were summarized in Table 1 and Table 2, separately. The boundary
conditions of Case 1 were set based on an existing experiment published on HVAC&R Research by Schiavon et al.
[3, 4] for verification. In total, 7 simulation cases were configured, the different configurations were listed in Table 3,
as shown in Fig. 2. Table 4 summarized the parameters set in all simulations.
Numerical simulation was proposed to calculate the steady-state flow fields, in order to determine the
temperature distribution in the office. Indoor zero-equation turbulence model [7] was chosen for the simulation of
three-dimensional indoor air flow. The comparison of two turbulent models’ simulation results and the grid
independent test results were presented in Fig. 3 and Fig 4, respectively. During the grid independent test process, 4
positions were chosen to acquire the temperature simulating results: P1 (2.11, 0.5, 2.11), P2 (2.8, 1, 0.8), P3 (2.11, 1,
2.11), P4 (1.42, 0.76, 1.42). P1 and P3 were two positions at room center with 2 different heights, P2 and P4 are two
positions at right side of two occupants. The air flow of the combined system equipped office was the
incompressible fluid stationary flow. Governing equations [8] for incompressible fluid were as follows:
Continuity equation:
For an incompressible fluid, the continuity equation is reduced to:

∇⋅v = 0 (1)

Momentum equation:

∂ 
∂t

() 
( ρ v ) + ∇ ⋅ ( ρ vv ) = −∇p + ∇ ⋅ T + ρ g (2)

Where ‫ ݌‬is the static pressure, ܶധ is the stress tensor and ߩ݃Ԧ is the gravitational body force.
 Yujia Yang et al./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 3
3148 Yujia Yang et al. / Procedia Engineering 205 (2017) 3146–3153

The stress tensor �� is given by:

   2  
T = μ ( ∇v + ∇v T ) − ∇ ⋅ vI  (3)
 3 

Where � is the molecular viscosity, � is the unit tensor, and the second term on the right-hand side is the effect of
volume dilation.
Energy conservation equation:
�
The energy equation for a fluid region can be written in terms of sensible enthalpy � (� �� �� ��, where ���� is
���
298.15K) as:

∂ 
( ρ h ) + ∇ ⋅ ( ρ hv ) = ∇ ⋅ ( k + kt ∇T ) + Sh (4)
∂t

Where � is the molecular conductivity, �� is the conductivity due to turbulent transport (�� � �� �� /Pr� ), and the
source term �� includes any volumetric heat source you have defined.
Species transport equation:

∂ 
( ρYi ) + ∇ ⋅ ( ρ hYi ) = −∇ ⋅ J i + Si (5)
∂t

Where �� is the local mass fraction of each species, �� is the generation rate by addition from user-defined sources.
The term ��� in turbulent flows is given by:

  μ 
J i = −  ρ Di , m + t  ∇Yi (6)
 Sct 

Where Sc� is the turbulent Schmidt number, Sc� � �� ⁄���� � ,��� is the turbulent viscosity, �� � ����������,
where � is the local velocity magnitude, � is the fluid density, � is defined as the distance from the nearest wall, and
0.03874 is an empirical constant.

Fig. 1 Diagram of office room

Screen 1 73
Table 1 Heat load summary
Occupant 1 95
Heat Source Power[W]
Workstation 2 CPU 2 82
Workstation 1 CPU 1 67
 4 Yujia Yang et al./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000
Yujia Yang et al. / Procedia Engineering 205 (2017) 3146–3153 3149

Screen 2 74 Walls Wall

Occupant 2 95 Human bodies Block

Overhead light 145 CPUs and Screens Block

Total 631 Overhead lights Block

Desk Partition
Table 2 Boundary conditions Air inlet Velocity inlet
Geometry model Boundary conditions Air outlet Pressure outlet
Door Wall

Table 3 Different cooling surface layouts

Category Case Description Height of the surfaces

Case 1 Radiant cooling surface is configured on the floor. 0m

Horizontal surfaces
Case 2 Radiant cooling surface is configured on the ceiling. 2.5m
Two face-to-face vertical walls (located in the upper part of the wall) are
Case 3 0.9～2.5m
configured with radiant cooling surfaces
2 Vertical walls
Two face-to-face vertical walls (located in the lower part of the wall) are
Case 4 0～1.6m
configured with radiant cooling surfaces
Four vertical walls (located in the bottom part of the wall) are configured
Case 5 0～0.8m
with radiant cooling surfaces.
Four vertical walls (located in the mid part of the wall) are configured with
4 Vertical walls Case 6 0.8～1.6m
radiant cooling surfaces.
Four vertical walls (located in the top part of the wall) are configured with
Case 7 1.7～2.5m
radiant cooling surfaces.

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4

Case 5 Case 6 Case 7

Fig. 2 Diagrams of conditions with different cooling surface layouts

Table 4 Summary of parameters set in simulation

Model Indoor zero equation
Mesh 266,699
Specified convergence criteria 10-3 for Flow
 Yujia Yang et al./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 5
3150 Yujia Yang et al. / Procedia Engineering 205 (2017) 3146–3153

10-6 for Energy

Boundary conditions Ceiling and floor: adiabatic
Walls: outdoor heat flux: 1.9W/m2
Inlet and outlet Inlet: Velocity = 0.138m/s
Temperature of supply air = 18Ԩ
Outlet: temperature of air = 24Ԩ
under-relaxation factors Momentum: 0.7
Pressure: 0.3

2.5 25.5

Temperature /℃
25
Room height/m

1.5 24.5
24
0.5 23.5
23 Position 1 Position 2
22.5 Position 3 Position 4
-0.5 22.5 23.5 24.5 25.5 26.5
Room temperture /℃ 112 219 267 364 535 947 1925
Test data Grid number（in thousand）
Turbulent Mixing Length Model
Indoor Zero Turbulent Model Fig. 4 Temperature profiles for 7 different grid numbers
Fig. 3 Turbulent model selection

3. Results and Discussion

Fig. 5~Fig. 11 illustrated the room air temperature distribution contours of 7 cases. Cross sections of Z=3m and
X=1.18m indicated the position of occupant 2.

Fig. 5 The temperature distribution at cross section Z=3m and X=1.18m of Case 1

Fig. 6 The temperature distribution at cross section Z=3m and X=1.18m of Case 2

Case 1 and Case 2 were the conditions with one horizontal-set radiant cooling surface. In vertical direction, the
room air stratification in case 1 was more clear than in Case 2. The mean air temperature in Case 1 was 23.8℃,
6 Yujia Yang et al./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000
Yujia Yang et al. / Procedia Engineering 205 (2017) 3146–3153 3151

which was 0.6℃ lower than Case 2. Temperature gradient within the height of 0~0.6m was significant in Case 2,
resulted in the temperature rise from 20℃ to 25℃.

Fig. 7 The temperature distribution at cross section Z=3m and X=1.18m of Case 3

Fig. 8 The temperature distribution at cross section Z=3m and X=1.18m of Case 4

The radiant cooling surfaces in Case 3 and Case 4 were configured on two face-to-face vertical walls. Higher
position of the cooling surfaces made the thermal plume rise and move upward more rapidly with smaller affected
zone. The turbulent mixing zone of Case 3 appeared higher and smaller than Case 2, within which the temperature
was higher than the main part of the room and the air stratification disappeared. The temperature gradient within the
height of 0~0.6m in Case 4 was larger than that in Case 3, which resulted in an obvious temperature difference
between upper and lower parts of the room. Meanwhile, the mean air temperature in Case 4 was 24℃, which was
0.7℃ higher than Case 3.

Fig. 9 The temperature distribution at cross section Z=3m and X=1.18m of Case 5

Fig. 10 The temperature distribution at cross section Z=3m and X=1.18m of Case 6
 Yujia Yang et al./ Procedia Engineering 00 (2017) 000–000 7
3152 Yujia Yang et al. / Procedia Engineering 205 (2017) 3146–3153

Fig. 11 The temperature distribution at cross section Z=3m and X=1.18m of Case 7

Case 5~7 represented 3 conditions with radiant cooling surfaces placed on 4 vertical walls but different heights.
The mean air temperature of these 3 cases were 23.5℃, 24℃ and 24.3℃. The higher the radiant cooling surfaces
were, the clearer the air stratification was. The affected zone of thermal plume also appeared in higher part of the
room with lower temperature when the radiant cooling surfaces were configured higher.
Table 5 reported the air temperatures of 4 cross sections from 0.1m to 1.7m between ceiling and floor. Vertical
temperature difference between head and ankle for seated occupancy (1.1m and 0.1) and standing occupancy (1.7m
and 0.1m) affects the thermal comfort, the acceptable stratification specified by ASHRAE Standard 55[9] is not
exceed 3℃. In three cases (Case 1, Case 3 and Case 5) with radiant cooling surfaces set to upper part of the room,
the head-ankle temperature difference was 2.8℃, 2.2℃, 2.5℃, respectively in seated position and 2.8℃, 2.6℃, 2.6℃
respectively in standing position.

Table 5 Simulation Results in office at heights 0.1, 0.6, 1.1 and 1.7m
Temperature[℃] Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7
1.7m 24.3 25.0 23.8 24.7 23.9 24.7 25.0
Height of cross sections 1.1m 24.3 25.0 23.5 24.3 23.8 24.1 24.8
0.1m 21.5 22.0 21.3 21.5 21.3 21.5 21.9

temperature difference between head and 1.1-0.1m 2.8 3.0 2.2 2.8 2.5 2.6 2.9
ankle 1.7-0.1m 2.8 3.0 2.5 3.2 2.6 3.1 3.1

Table 6 reported the radiant temperature asymmetry in Y direction of 7 cases. The radiant temperature
asymmetry is defined by the plane radiant temperature difference two opposite surfaces. In Case 1 and Case 2, only
one radiant cooling surface was distributed, another horizontal surface was adiabatic. And the horizontal surfaces of
other 5 cases were all adiabatic. The vertical radiant temperature asymmetry was not negligible in all cases, Case 1
has a slight higher value of this parameter than Case 2, Case 3 and Case 5 performed better than other cases, of
which the values were 0.2℃ and 0.5℃ respectively.

Table 6 Asymmetric thermal radiation of adiabatic surfaces and radiant cooling surfaces
Temperature parameters Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6 Case 7
Ceiling 23.2 24.7 23.5 24.4 23.4 23.7 24.9
Plane radiant temperature/℃
Floor 24.1 23.9 23.7 23.9 23.9 22.2 24.2
Radiant temperature
Y direction 0.9 0.8 0.2 0.5 0.5 1.5 0.7
asymmetry/℃

Fig. 12 was the PMV results for each case. The observation point was at the center of the room with the height of
0.1m, 0.25m, 0.6m, 1.1m, 1.7m, 1.9m and 2.4m. Results showed that the PMV value raised with the room height.
The reason was that for all cases the room temperature stratification was formed and the temperature of upper part
of the room was higher than the room bottom, generally. Case 1, Case 3 and Case 5 were closer to “comfortable
(PMV=0)” than other cases, while Case 5 was the only case with negative value at around -0.4. Positive values
represent the warm side of neutral sensation or comfort, and negative values represent the cool side. Therefore, in
Case 5, the air-conditioning system had greater energy-saving potential.
8 YujiaYujia
YangYang
et al./etProcedia Engineering
al. / Procedia 00 (2017)
Engineering 000–000
205 (2017) 3146–3153 3153

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

-0.2

PMV
Case 1
-0.4 Case 2
Case 3
-0.6
Case 4
-0.8 Case 5
Case 6
-1.0 Case 7
-1.2
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Room height (m)
Fig. 12 PMV of each case

4. Conclusions

A simulation model was conducted to investigate the impacts of radiant cooling surfaces layout on office indoor
thermal environment. The model was verified with an existing experiment conducted by Schiavon et al. [2]. The
main conclusions were as follows:
(1) The position of radiant cooling surfaces had significant impacts on indoor temperature stratification. Cases
with radiant cooling surfaces configured to the upper part of the room had better thermal performance than other
cases. The air temperature of the office in Case 1, Case 3 and Case 5 was 1℃ lower than in other cases.
(2) Cases with radiant cooling surfaces configured to the upper part of the room (Case 1, Case 3 and Case 5)
had a smaller temperature difference of 0.2~0.8℃ between head and ankle in both seated and standing positions.
(3) The parameters of asymmetric thermal radiation and PMV reflect the thermal comfort of in-door
environment. Symmetrically configured surfaces can reduce the asymmetric thermal radiation, therefore the radiant
temperature asymmetry of cases with radiant cooling surfaces set on vertical walls (Case 3 and Case 5) was smaller
than Case 1. Configuring radiant cooling surfaces on the upper part of the vertical walls maximized the cooling
capacity. Case 5 was the only case with a negative value of PMV and Case 3 was the case closest to the idea
condition (PMV=0).

Acknowledgement

The present work was a simulation study based on a verified office model. The information of the mentioned
experiment published on the journal of HVAC&R Research. Vol. 18(1). The authors would like to thank for the help
of Professor Schiavon Stefano in the process of model establishment.

References

[1] Z. Tian, J. A. Love. Energy performance optimization of radiant slab cooling using building simulation and field measurements, Energy and
Buildings. 2009. 41(3): p. 320-330.
[2] G.P. Henze, et al. Primary energy and comfort performance of ventilation assisted thermo-active building systems in continental climates.
Energy and Buildings, 2008. 40(2): p. 99-111
[3] S. Schiavon, et al. Room air stratification in combined chilled ceiling and displacement ventilation systems. Science and Technology for the
Built Environment, 2012. 18(1-2): p. 147-159.
[4] S. Schiavon, et al. Chilled ceiling and displacement ventilation system: Laboratory study with high cooling load. Science and Technology
for the Built Environment, 2015. 21(7): p. 944-956.
[5] Pérez-Lombard Luis, F. Coronel, R Maestre. A review of HVAC systems requirements in building energy regulations. Energy and Buildings,
2011. 43(2): p. 255~268.
[6] J. Simon. P.H. Rees. An experimental study of air flow and temperature distribution in a room with displacement ventilation and a chilled
ceiling. Building and Environment, 2013. 59: p. 358~368.
[7] Q. Chen. A zero-equation turbulence model for indoor airflow simulation. Energy & Buildings, 1998. 28(2): p. 137~144
[8] B.F. Inc. Fluent User’s Guide. in Fluent Incorporated, Lebanon NH. 2010.
[9] ASHRAE. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-2010: Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy. Ashrae, 2010.