Building and Environment 148 (2019) 417–432

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

Enhancement of cooling capacity through open-type installation of cooling T

radiant ceiling panel systems
Mi Su Shina, Kyu Nam Rheeb,∗, Sang Hoon Parkc, Myoung Souk Yeoa, Kwang Woo Kima
a
Department of Architecture, College of Engineering, Seoul National University, Dept. of Architecture, 1 Kwanak-ro, Gwanak-gu, Seoul, 08826, South Korea
b
Department of Architectural Engineering, College of Engineering, Pukyong National University, Dept. of Architectural Engineering, 45 Yongso-ro, Nam-gu, Busan, 48513,
South Korea
c
House and Building Division, LG Hausys, LG Sciencepark, 30 Magokjungang 10-ro, Gangseo-gu, Seoul, 07796, South Korea

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Cooling radiant ceiling panel (CRCP) systems have been increasingly applied to modern buildings, owing to high
Cooling radiant ceiling panel thermal comfort, energy-saving potential, and integration with building design. Currently, the cooling capacity
Open-type installation of CRCP is generally evaluated for the closed-type CRCP, wherein the overall ceiling surface is covered with
Opening ceiling panels. However, there have been few previous studies on the evaluation of the cooling capacity for open-
Cooling capacity
type CRCP, which are installed with openings (void areas) between adjacent ceiling panels. This study was
conducted to verify the hypothesis that the open-type CRCP can enhance cooling capacity by utilizing the cooled
plenum air moving through the opening. If the plenum air is cooled by the upper surface of ceiling panels and
descends to the conditioned space, it can contribute to increasing the convective heat transfer and cooling
capacity. A simulation model for open-type CRCP was developed and validated against the mock-up experiment.
Using the simulation model, the cooling capacity of the open-type CRCP was evaluated with respect to the
opening area and panel layout. The results showed that the open-type CRCP could provide 54–80% (average
64%) higher nominal cooling capacity than conventional closed-type CRCP. The enhanced cooling capacity may
lead to reduction in construction costs and energy consumption, because panel installation area could be reduced
and the water temperature can be increased to provide the required cooling capacity. The results of this study
would be able to offer fundamental data about cooling capacity of open-type CRCP.

1. Introduction
Cooling radiant ceiling panel (CRCP) systems reduce the surface
temperature of ceiling panels for the purpose of space cooling. For the
implementation of a CRCP system, it is usual to install ceiling panels
without open joints in order to conceal the HVAC components in the
plenum (e.g., the duct, pipe, electrical equipment) from occupants’
view. For this reason, it is a general practice to assume the space below
ceiling panels as conditioned space, whereas the plenum space is as-
sumed as non-conditioned space [1]. As a result, many studies have
been conducted to investigate radiant and convective heat transfer in
the conditioned space below ceiling panels [2–10]. In the design pro-
cess of a CRCP system, much attention has been paid to heat absorption
at the lower surface of ceiling panels that faces the conditioned space
[11,12].
Meanwhile, it is common to assume the heat absorption at the upper
surface of ceiling panels (heat transfer between ceiling panels and
plenum surface) as a kind of additional heat gain (capacity loss) that
should be minimized. In this context, CRCP systems are installed with
the upper-side thermally insulated in order to maximize heat absorption
at the lower surface of the ceiling panels [13,14]. However, non-in-
sulated ceiling panels are also applied to many commercial buildings
due to simple installation and low capital cost [15,16].
Recently, exposed ceiling designs have been increasingly applied to
various building types, owing to modern design trends and the devel-
opment of finishing techniques for HVAC components. As a result,
open-type CRCP, which are composed of openings (void space between
adjacent ceiling panels) as well as ceiling panels, as shown in Fig. 1, are
often installed in various buildings such as offices, schools, museums,
and so on.
Air can move from the plenum to the conditioned space, and vice
versa, through the openings between ceiling panels. Plenum air cooled
by the upper surface of ceiling panels moves down to the occupied
space, whereas room air warmed by internal heat gains can rise to the

∗
Corresponding author. Dept. of Architectural Engineering, 45 Yongso-ro, Nam-gu, Busan, 48513, South Korea.
E-mail address: knrhee@pknu.ac.kr (K.N. Rhee).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.11.005
Received 29 August 2018; Received in revised form 4 November 2018; Accepted 10 November 2018
Available online 14 November 2018
0360-1323/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.S. Shin et al.
Fig. 1. Open-type CRCP in TELUS Spark, Calgary, Canada.
plenum space through the openings. If the density change with air
temperature is taken into account, air movement through the opening
would be able to enhance the heat transfer at the panel surface, and the
consequent cooling capacity of the CRCP. However, few studies have
been performed to quantitatively evaluate the increase in cooling ca-
pacity due to the open-type installation. Hence, cooling capacity data
for the conventional closed-type CRCP system is also used to design the
open-type CRCP system. Although the number of ceiling panels can be
reduced or the chilled water temperature can be increased owing to the
enhanced cooling capacity of ceiling panels, it is difficult to select this
design alternative because there is not enough reference or design data
about the cooling capacity with the open-type installation.
Therefore, this study was conducted to establish fundamental data
on the cooling capacity of open-type CRCP systems. The objectives of
this study are i) to verify the hypothesis that the open-type installation
can contribute to the enhancement of the cooling capacity and ii) to
find factors affecting the cooling capacity of an open-type installation
and to analyze the variation in the cooling capacity depending on the
factors.
2. Hypothesis: is the cooling capacity of CRCP enhanced by open-
type installation?
2.1. Literature reviews on the cooling capacity of CRCP
The evaluation method of the cooling capacity is specified in tech-
nical standards of the CRCP (e.g., EN 14240 [17], DIN 4715 [18], NT
VVS 078 [19]), wherein the capacity is determined by the chilled water
temperature, globe temperature, and panel heat absorption measured
from the closed-type CRCP under specific test conditions. The resultant
cooling capacity is presented as a cooling capacity curve or table, and
nominal/standard cooling capacity. According to the ASHRAE Hand-
book [12], the cooling capacity of radiant panels can be determined
using thermal resistances with the panel types and convective/radiant
heat transfer at panel surfaces.
When evaluating the cooling capacity of ceiling panels based on
abovementioned standards and technical documents, some limited
conditions are assumed: First, the cooling capacity is determined as-
suming natural convection conditions without mechanical ventilation.
Evaluated ceiling panels are installed in a test chamber without a me-
chanical ventilation system. The heat transfer rate is calculated using
natural convection heat transfer coefficients, based on the assumption
that forced convection due to infiltration, occupants’ movement, and
418
Building and Environment 148 (2019) 417–432
机械通风对冷却能力的影响可以忽略不计
mechanical ventilation has negligible impacts on the cooling capacity
[20].
Second, the test method in the standards requires that the inner
surface temperatures of a test chamber should be equally maintained
during the experiment. This requirement cannot reflect the real
building situation where the internal surface temperature of perimeter
walls or windows is usually higher than that of interior walls. This
assumes that the cooling capacity determined under the test condition
is sufficient to satisfy the required heat absorption rate of ceiling panels
in real buildings.
Third, the heat absorption at the upper surface of ceiling panels is
generally assumed as capacity loss, just as downward heat loss in ra-
diant floor heating. This assumption would be reasonable in case of
closed-type CRCP because heat absorption above the ceiling panels can
hardly contribute to the cooling of the conditioned space below the
ceiling panels.
At the moment, CRCP systems are designed with a cooling capacity
that is evaluated under the aforementioned conditions, regardless of the
CRCP type. Some studies, meanwhile, have been conducted to show
that the limited conditions need to be corrected depending on the 据称，更大
physical characteristics of the CRCP. Kochendorfer [21] proved that the 的冷却能力
是由于更高
cooling capacity in a real building is greater than the experimental 的表面温度
result by more than 25%. It was claimed that the greater cooling ca- （例如，围
墙或窗户的
pacity results from higher surface temperatures (e.g., internal surfaces 内表面）和
of perimeter wall or window) and elevated air velocity due to me- 机械通风系
统导致的空
chanical ventilation system, which are not considered in the test stan- 气速度升高
dards for cooling capacity evaluation. Therefore, it was put forward ，而在冷却
能力评估的
that the experimental cooling capacity should be corrected using per- 测试标准中
formance data collected from real buildings. In the same context, Jeong 没有考虑这
些因素。
and Mumma [22,23] suggested a regression equation to predict the
cooling capacity of a CRCP system in parallel with mechanical venti-
lation. It was claimed that the suspended ceiling panel combined with
mechanical ventilation, or mixed convection, can enhance the cooling
capacity by 16%–71% depending on chilled water temperature and air
velocity, compared with the capacity under the natural convection
condition [16]. Tian et al. developed a modified method to estimate the
cooling capacity of CRCPs installed in a building with relatively higher
internal surface temperatures due to external conditions. It was con-
cluded that the actual cooling capacity should be modified by applying
correction coefficients to the manufacturer's data, which are de-
termined under specific test conditions [24]. Park [25] proposed a test
method to evaluate the cooling capacity of CRCPs in a room with high-
temperature surfaces exposed to outdoor air. Karadağ investigated the
M.S. Shin et al. Building and Environment 148 (2019) 417–432

relation between a total heat transfer coefficient at the chilled ceiling,

room dimension and wall surface temperatures [26,27]. The suggested
heat transfer coefficients could be used to estimate the cooling capacity
of CRCPs under conditions not specified in the testing standard.
Although these studies provide a method to compensate for the
limitation of the test conditions, the heat absorption at the upper sur-
face of ceiling panels is not considered. It is supposed that the heat
absorption does not affect the cooling of conditioned space, as assumed
in international standards and technical documents. However, if the
heat absorption, or plenum air cooled by ceiling panels, can be utilized
for the cooling of the conditioned space, the existing evaluation
methods of cooling capacity need to be modified so that the impact of
the upper-side heat absorption can be reflected in the design of CRCP
systems.
Apart from the studies of the evaluation method of cooling capacity,
some studies have been performed to enhance the cooling capacity of
CRCP systems. Okamoto et al. demonstrated that the spiral pipe layout
in the ceiling panel could enhance the heat flux of CRCP by 23–37%,
compared with the meandering pipe layout [5]. Noveselac et al. pro-
Fig. 2. Vertical air temperature profile depending on surface temperature of
posed cooled ceiling panels combined with a high-aspiration diffuser to
CRCPs and installation types.
provide a narrow air jet parallel to the ceiling panel, in order to increase
convective heat transfer coefficient at the ceiling surface. The mea-
surement results showed that the cooling capacity of the suggested
system could be raised from 4% to 17% depending on the air flow rate
[28]. Karmann et al. conducted an experimental study to investigate the
impact of air movement on the cooling capacity of chilled ceiling
(thermally activated building system) with acoustical clouds. It was
shown that the fan-induced air movement could increase cooling ca-
pacity by 12–26%, depending on the configuration of ceiling fans [29].
Although the results are valid for the chilled ceiling, not CRCPs, it can
be inferred that the air movement can also affect the cooling capacity of
CRCPs. Ning et al. suggested a CRCP system with a thin air layer inside,
which was found to be effective in offering uniform surface temperature
distribution. It was demonstrated that the cooling capacity of the sug-
gested CRCP could be increased by 43–46% compared to the original
CRCP, while maintaining minimum surface temperature for preventing
surface condensation [30].
It is also important to quantify and minimize the heat transfer in the Fig. 3. Comparison results of open- and close-type installation of CRCPs [34].
unconditioned space, or plenum space, in order to enhance the cooling
capacity of CRCP systems. In a field study conducted in an office the plenum air temperature was less than the room air temperature by
building equipped with a radiant ceiling heating/cooling system, Li 1.1–2.3 °C [32], which implies that the upper surface of ceiling panels
et al. showed that the closed-type CRCP could produce an upward heat can reduce the plenum air temperature. In the numerical study per-
flux as large as 30–40% of the downward heat flux, or heating/cooling formed by Shin et al. [33], it was demonstrated that plenum air tem-
capacity. It was claimed that the upward heat flux would cause heat loss perature is at most 3 °C less than the room air temperature in the case of
in certain operating modes and the insulation above the ceiling panels a closed-type CRCP, as shown in Fig. 2. In case of an open-type CRCP,
should be improved to reduce the upward heat flux [31]. however, the room air temperature decreased by approximately 1.5 °C,
Although the upper side of ceiling panels is finished with thermal compared with a closed-type CRCP. Furthermore, the difference be-
insulation, the upper surface temperature is relatively low compared tween the plenum air and occupied zone air temperature decreased,
with the plenum air temperature, because the upper surface is affected which means the cooled plenum air descends to the occupied zone and
by chilled water circulating in the ceiling panels. The upper surface the warmed room air rises to the plenum, promoting air mixture in the
removes heat from the plenum air via convective heat transfer and evaluated room.
reduces plenum surface temperatures through radiant heat transfer. In a follow-up study on the cooling capacity of CRCP [34], the ex-
The plenum surfaces will, in turn, remove heat of plenum air by means perimental results also showed that the open-type installation can re-
of convective heat transfer. This heat transfer mechanism result in the duce the air temperature in the occupied zone, even though the chilled
cooling of the plenum air, which might be utilized to cool the condi- water temperature and flow rate were maintained at the same level as
tioned space if there are some openings to transport the plenum air to the closed-type CRCP. It was reported that the open-type CRCP reduces
the occupied zone. the occupied zone air temperature by 2 °C compared with the closed-
Park et al. conducted an experimental study to evaluate the cooling type CRCP, as shown in Fig. 3. The measured temperature and cooling
capacity of closed-type CRCP depending on the panel composition (e.g., capacity extracted from Ref. [34] is summarized in Table 1. It is shown
panel material, heat diffusion device, insulation). It was reported that that CASE 2 (open-type) and 3 (closed-type) removed a similar amount

419
 M.S. Shin et al. Building and Environment 148 (2019) 417–432

Table 1
Experimental data of Fig. 3 (extracted from Ref. [34]).
Parameter CASE 2 (Open type) CASE 3 (Closed type)

Operative temperature at height 1.1 m op (°C) 24.33 25.93

Average Panel surface temperature s, l (°C) 17.87 18.07
Supply water temperature w, s (°C) 15 17
Return water temperature w, r (°C) 16.93 17.96
Average cooling water temperature w a (°C) 17.03 17.06
Cooling water temperature rise b
w (K) 2.49 2.61
Cooling water flow rate mw (lpm) 4.95 4.8
Cooling water flow rate mw (g/s) 82.5 80
OT-avg. Cooling water temperature op w (K) 7.31 8.87
Cooling capacity QP c(W) 858 873

a
w = ( w, r + w, s )/2
b
= w, r
w w, s
c
QP = c w m w w where c w = 4.18 J/(gK).

of heat (QP ) from the indoor space; however, the operative temperature
(OT) with CASE 2 was 1.6 °C less than that with CASE 3. In addition,
CASE 2 also resulted in smaller op w , (temperature difference op-
erative temperature and water temperature). This implies that the
cooling capacity of the open-type CRCPs can increase if the same
temperature difference ( op w ) is applied to each CRCP type. The
aforementioned results imply that heat absorption at the upper surface
of ceiling panels could contribute to the cooling of the conditioned
space, if the CRCP is implemented with the open-type installation. In
view of the occupied zone, it can be said that the heat removal rate in
the occupied zone increases through the open-type installation of
CRCPs.
Recent studies [33,34] showed that it would be possible to enhance
the cooling capacity of CRCPs through the open-type installation;
however, as far as the authors know, no study has been conducted to
prove the capacity enhancement under real installation conditions. In
addition, quantitative results have not yet been provided to expect how
much the cooling capacity is enhanced by the open-type installation.
Therefore, it is necessary to investigate whether the cooling capacity
can be enhanced or not and which factors affect the enhancement of
cooling capacity with the open-type installation. To do this, the relation
between the cooling capacity and design parameters (e.g., opening
area, panel layout) was analyzed using a numerical simulation, which
was also validated using measured data from mock-up experiments.

Fig. 4. Room modeling by STAR-CCM+.

3. Evaluation method of cooling capacity

Although simple calculation methods [1,12,20] can be applied to
the estimation of cooling capacity, they are not applicable to open-type
CRCP because the opening (void) area or layout of ceiling panels is not
considered. Furthermore, as the upper surface temperature of ceiling
panels cannot be analyzed with the simple calculation methods, they
are not suitable for the method of this study, which aims at in-
目的是研究上 vestigating the impact of heat absorption at the upper surface on the
表面吸热对制
冷量的影响 cooling capacity. However, the test methods would be appropriate for
the evaluation of open-type CRCP, because the cooling capacity and
panel surface temperatures can be directly measured from the eval-
uated CRCP, even though the ceiling panels are installed with opening
areas. It is also possible to install ceiling panels with the open-type and
to change the panel layout flexibly in the laboratory environment.
As the cooling capacity of open-type CRCP can be affected by design
factors such as panel/void area, it needs to be analyzed with various
configurations of ceiling panels. For the evaluation of various open-type
CRCPs, a simulation method would be effective in saving time and cost
for the evaluation. Therefore, this study adopted a simulation method
in order to evaluate the cooling capacity of various open-type CRCPs.
The boundary conditions defined by the test methods and several panel
layouts were represented with the numerical simulation.
Considering that the cooling capacity can be enhanced by the in-
creased airflow through the opening, the simulation method should be
able to analyze the air movement between the plenum and conditioned
space. In addition, the simulation should be capable of analyzing ra-
diation heat transfer, because the radiation between the ceiling panels
and surrounding surfaces is one of influential factors to determine the
cooling capacity. For this reason, computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
simulations were conducted using the STAR-CCM + program, which
can analyze conduction heat transfer in ceiling panels, radiant heat
transfer between ceiling panels and surrounding surfaces, and air
movement induced by temperature differences.
3.1. Simulation model development and validation
3.1.1. Geometry
According to the test method of the relevant standard [17], it is
recommended that the dimensions of test chamber should be
4 m (W) × 4 m (D) × 3 m (H) and the ceiling panels should be installed
at 2.5 m ± 0.02 m above the floor surface or at 0.25–0.3 m below the
ceiling surface. In accordance with the standard, a simulation model
was developed using STAR-CCM+, as schematized in Fig. 4. In order to

420
M.S. Shin et al. Building and Environment 148 (2019) 417–432

Fig. 5. Simplification of a panel shape and assumption of surface temperatures.

假定为绝热的，因此冷却负荷只能通过天花板来消除。

simulate the cooling load, 12 cylindrical dummies [17] were uniformly
deployed in the space, which result in the heat dissipation equivalent to
135 W/m2. As the arrangement of the room space, dummies, and CRCPs
are symmetrical along the center-line of the model space, half of the
space was modeled with the symmetry boundary condition in order to
simplify the simulation model.
Regarding the geometry of CRCPs, its detailed structure needed to
be simplified in order to reduce the calculation load of the CFD analysis.
The lower surface of the ceiling panels does not need the simplification
owing to its flat and plain surface; however, the upper surface has re-
latively complicated details including the chilled water pipe, heat
conduction device, and folded section of ceiling panel. As the size of
these detailed elements is so small compared to the analyzed space, it is
not practically reasonable to make a fully detailed model for the upper
surface of the CRCPs. Despite with the increased modeling labor and
calculation time, a fully detailed model can lead to the reduced accu-
racy unless the input values (e.g., material properties, contact re-
sistance) are properly provided.
Because the heat transfer at the panel surface is mainly determined
by panel surface area and temperature, it would be reasonable to as-
sume the appropriate surface temperatures and area of the ceiling pa-
nels, even though the detailed structure is not modeled as it is.
Therefore, the panel geometry was simplified as a rectangular paralle-
lepiped whose base is the projected area of the ceiling panel and height
is the thickness of the ceiling panel, as described in Fig. 5. The lower
and upper surface temperatures of the simplified panel were assumed to
be the same as those of the real CRCPs.
3.1.2. Boundary conditions
In test methods of the CRCP cooling capacity, it is assumed that the
heat transfers through the building envelope are ignored and the
cooling load is removed by the ceiling panels only. Similarly, in the
developed simulation model, the boundary condition of the six surfaces
was assumed as adiabatic, such that the cooling load could be removed
by the ceiling panels only.
As for the boundary condition of the ceiling panel surfaces, it is
important to assume an appropriate panel surface temperature that is
low enough to remove the space cooling load while preventing surface
condensation. Based on previous studies [13,24,30,35] and design
guidelines [11,12], the lower surface temperature of the CRCP was
assumed as 15–20 °C at intervals of 1 °C. 上表面温度su
The upper surface temperature s, u would be slightly less than the 会略低于下表
面温度sl，因
lower surface temperature s, l because the chilled water pipe and heat 为冷冻水管和
导热 板附着
conduction plate are attached to the upper surface without any fin- 在上表面，没
有任何整理材
ishing material. Nonetheless, it was assumed that s, u is equal to s, l in 料。然而，在
this study, because this condition can be regarded as a safety factor for 本研究中，假
设su = sl，
the cooling capacity. As the cooling capacity is evaluated on the as- 因为此条件可
视为制冷量的
sumption that the upper and lower panel surface temperatures are 安全系数。
equal, it would be slightly less than the actual cooling capacity eval-
uated under real conditions, wherein the upper surface temperature is
less than the lower surface temperature. However, this underestimated
cooling capacity could be beneficial to the secure design that requires
somewhat conservative values for determining the equipment size.
It needs to be noted that there is a temperature difference at the pipe
surface of the outlet and inlet section, resulting in the slightly non-
uniform upper surface temperature. This non-uniformity is dependent
on the temperature rise of cooling water, which can be estimated to be
about 2 °C from the experimental result, which is also found in previous
studies [12,14,30]. If the temperature difference in upper panel surface
is considered in the CFD simulation model, the heat transfer rate at the
upper surface of the panel can be analyzed more accurately. None-
theless, the objective of the present study is to find out whether the
cooling capacity increases through open-type installation, rather than
to provide the exact amount of heat removal by CRCPs. Thus, this study
assumes the uniform distribution at the panel surface temperature in
order to compare the cooling capacity of various CRCP types.

Table 2
Calculation method used in CFD analysis.
Category Calculation method Basis for determining calculation method

Material Gas – Air Fluid in the conditioned space is air (gas).

Time Steady state The simulation needs to be performed in accordance with the testing method [17], wherein the cooling
capacity should be evaluated under steady-state conditions.
Space Three-dimensional The geometry of investigated room, CRCPs and load simulators is three-dimensional.
Flow Incompressible, segregated flow The air flow in the conditioned space is incompressible. The segregated solution is known as suitable for
incompressible flows.
Equation of state Ideal gas The state of air can be explained by the ideal gas equation, wherein the air density varies with air
temperature and pressure.
Viscous Regime Turbulent The air flow in the conditioned space is turbulent.
Turbulence Realizable two-layer k-ɛ This turbulence model combines realizable k- ɛ and two-layer model. The model is suitable for the analysis
of open-type CRCPs because it can improve the capability of resolving through the boundary layer and can
accurately predict forced, natural, and mixed convection for indoor air flow [38].
Radiation Surface-to-surface/Viewfactor calculate/Gray The radiation model was used to calculate the radiative heat exchange between the gray surfaces (wall,
thermal radiation ceiling, and panel surface)

421
M.S. Shin et al. Building and Environment 148 (2019) 417–432

Table 4
Results of verification experiments.
Result of measurements Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

Heating capacity of dummy Qs (W) 1409.76 939.84 469.92

Cooling water flow rate mw (g/s) 123 117 114
Temperature Water inlet w, s (°C) 13.25 15.10 17.13
Water outlet w, r (°C) 15.98 17.10 18.13
CRCPs surface s, l (°C) 15.83 16.97 18.38
temp.
Surface floor F (°C) 25.64 24.83 24.22
Surface C (°C) 24.71 24.35 24.37
ceiling
Globe g (°C) 25.28 24.19 23.39
Air – 0.1 m a,0.1 (°C) 25.82 24.65 23.76
Air – 0.4 m a,0.4 (°C) 25.83 24.65 23.66
Air – 0.8 m a,0.8 (°C) 24.83 24.20 23.82
Air – 1.1 m a,1.1 (°C) 25.73 24.52 23.63
Air – 1.7 m a,1.7 (°C) 25.62 24.39 23.46
Air – Plenum a, plenum (°C) 24.50 23.99 23.58

Calculation from measurements

Fig. 6. Mock-up test facility for cooling capacity evaluation; (a) exterior view, Heat removal by CRCPs a QP (W) 1398.49 972.26 476.52
(b) interior view, (c) installation of CRCPs in the test cell. Water temperature rise w (K) 2.73 1.99 1.00
Average water temperature w (°C) 14.61 16.10 17.63
Temp. difference between a,1.1 (K) 10.68 8.04 5.75
As for the boundary condition of the cooling load simulators, the and θw
surface of the cylindrical dummies was assigned with heat fluxes de-
rived from the results of cooling load calculations. First, the heat re- ⦿ Limits of error: T-type thermocouple: ± 0.5 K or 0.4%, flowmeter: ± 0.1 lpm
moval rate at the lower panel surface can be calculated with Eq (1) or 1.0%.
a
QP = c w m w w where c w = 4.18 J/(gK).
[36,37].

simulators.
1.1
qs, l = 8.92 × ( op s, l ) (1)
Second, qP s, l was defined as the cooling load that should be re-
3.1.3. Calculation models
moved to maintain the operative temperature of the conditioned space
For the evaluation of the cooling capacity of open-type CRCPs, it is
at 26 °C when lower panel surface temperature s, l is 16, 18, and 20 °C.
necessary to analyze the radiant heat transfer between the panel sur-
The cooling load with panel surface temperature is as follows:
faces and surrounding room surfaces, convective heat transfer at the
qP 16 = 8.92 × (26 16)1.1 = 112.3 (W / m2) (2) panel surfaces, air movement induced by air density change, and so on.
Considering these requirements, CFD simulations using STAR-CCM+
qP 18 = 8.92 × (26 18)1.1 = 87.9(W / m2) (3) were conducted with the calculation model as summarized in Table 2.
qP 20 = 8.92 × (26 20)1.1 = 64.0(W / m2) (4)
3.1.4. Simulation model validation
Third, the heat quantity Qs , which should be assigned to the load To validate the developed simulation model, mock-up tests were
simulators, can be calculated with the following equation: conducted in a test chamber equipped with open-type CRCPs, which are
Qs = qP × Ap composed of 36 ceiling panels (0.6 m × 0.6 m × 0.03 m for each panel)
(5)
and opening area (width = 0.2 m) between the ceiling panels and walls,
s, l

2
For example, if the panel surface area is 8.0 m and the panel sur- as shown in Fig. 6. Validation tests were performed for three different
face temperature is 16 °C, Qs = qP 16 × Ap = 112.3 × 8.00 = 898.4 W . cases, wherein the cooling load was adjusted from 469.9 W to
This heat output was divided by a dummy surface area and the resultant 1409.8 W, in order to verify the simulation model under various load
heat flux was assigned as the boundary condition of the cooling load conditions. The test conditions are summarized in Table 3.
Table 4 shows the measured temperatures and water flow rate with
Table 3 three verification cases in Table 3. The measured inlet/outlet water
Case design of experiments for the verification of a simulation model. temperature and flow rate were used to calculate temperature rise w ,
No. Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 average temperature w and heat removal by CRCPs, as shown in the
lower part of Table 4. The measured cooling water flow rate and supply
water temperature were slightly different from the predicted values
a
Cooling load Qs (W) 1409.8 939.8 469.9
Cooling water flow rate mw (lpm) 7 7 7
shown in Table 3. However, this difference is acceptable when con-
Cooling water flow rate mw (g/s) 117 117 117
13 15 17
sidering the error of the measurement devices. The cooling water
Supply water Temperature w, s (°C)
Predicted cooling water temp. rise b
(K) 2.89 1.93 0.96 temperature rise and return water temperature were also similar to the
w
Predicted return water temperature w, r
c
(°C) 15.89 16.93 17.96 predicted values by a difference of ±0.2 °C. The simulated cooling load
and heat removal by the cooling water showed marginal differences
a
Qs = Qbulb× the number of activated bulbs, where a power of a bulb Qbulb is (Case 1: 0.8%, Case 2: −3.3%, Case 3: −1.4%), which could be enough
58.78 W. to validate the accuracy of the results.
b
w = Qs /(c w m w ) where c w = 4.18 J/(gK). Fig. 7 shows the temperature distribution of each validation case
c
w, r = w, s + w

422
M.S. Shin et al. Building and Environment 148 (2019) 417–432

Fig. 7. Air temperature distribution at y = 0.4 m section (1.6 m from the room wall).

(y = 0.4 m section). It is shown that the simulation model can analyze
the air movement through the opening between CRCP and room walls,
resulting in the reduced temperature difference between the plenum
and conditioned space. Table 5 and Figs. 8 and 9 shows the comparison
between the simulation and verification experiment results. The “Ex-
pected range” column in Table 5 indicates the real values considering
the measurement errors of temperature and flow rate. The expected
ranges for air temperature and cooling capacity are expressed with
error bars in Figs. 8 and 9. The simulation model can be considered as
validated if the simulated air temperature and cooling capacity fall
within the expected ranges. Figs. 8 and 9 show the simulated values are
in the range of expected values for air temperature and cooling capacity
under different load conditions. Therefore, the developed simulation
model can be successfully used to represent the thermal behaviors of
open-type CRCPs. Based on the validation results, the cooling capacities
of various CRCP configurations were analyzed using the developed si-
mulation model and the results are discussed in Section 4.
3.2. Simulation cases
In open-type CRCPs, air movement through the opening can en-
hance heat transfers at the panel surfaces, which will lead to the in-
crease in the cooling capacity of CRCPs. Therefore, the air movement is
a significant factor to be considered for the evaluation of open-type

Table 5
Comparison between experimental and simulation results.
Case 1 Measured value Expected range1) Simulation result

Temperature Globe g (°C) 25.28 24.78–25.78 24.88

Air – 0.1 m a,0.1 (°C) 25.82 25.32–26.32 25.55
Air – 0.4 m a,0.4 (°C) 25.83 25.33–26.33 25.75
Air – 0.8 m a,0.8 (°C) 25.42 24.92–25.92 25.91
Air – 1.1 m a,1.1 (°C) 25.73 25.23–26.23 25.76
Air – 1.7 m a,1.7 (°C) 25.62 25.12–26.12 25.94
Air – Plenum a, plenum (°C) 24.50 24.00–25.00 24.83
a
Cooling capacity QP (W) 1398.49 1379.46–1417.52 1409.08

Case 2 Measured value Expected range Simulation result

Temperature Globe g (°C) 24.19 23.69–24.69 23.96

Air – 0.1 m a,0.1 (°C) 24.65 24.15–25.15 24.42
Air – 0.4 m a,0.4 (°C) 24.65 24.15–25.15 24.43
Air – 0.8 m a,0.8 (°C) 24.20 23.70–24.70 24.41
Air – 1.1 m a,1.1 (°C) 24.52 24.02–25.02 24.73
Air – 1.7 m a,1.7 (°C) 24.39 23.89–24.89 24.37
Air – Plenum a, plenum (°C) 23.99 23.49–24.49 24.06
a
Cooling capacity QP (W) 972.26 958.37–986.15 961.02

Case 3 Measured value Expected range Simulation result

Temperature Globe g (°C) 23.39 22.89–23.89 23.58

Air – 0.1 m a,0.1 (°C) 23.76 23.26–24.26 23.79
Air – 0.4 m a,0.4 (°C) 23.66 23.16–24.16 23.77
Air – 0.8 m a,0.8 (°C) 23.82 23.32–24.32 23.74
Air – 1.1 m a,1.1 (°C) 23.63 23.13–24.13 23.77
Air – 1.7 m a,1.7 (°C) 23.46 22.96–23.96 23.61
Air – Plenum a, plenum (°C) 23.58 23.08–24.08 23.55
a
Cooling capacity QP (W) 476.52 469.55–483.49 470.18

a
Measurement error for temperature and volumetric flow rate - T-type thermocouple: ± 0.5 K or 0.4%, Flowmeter: ± 0.1 lpm or 1.0%.

423
M.S. Shin et al. Building and Environment 148 (2019) 417–432

Fig. 8. Measured and simulated air temperatures with different load conditions.

CRCPs. The air movement can be assumed as a flow through a rec-

tangular duct whose outer perimeter is the wall of the conditioned
space and inner perimeter is the side of panel, as schematized in Fig. 10.
The length of the virtual duct can be defined as the thickness of the
CRCPs.
The characteristics of internal flow are dependent on the hydraulic
resistance that disturbs the fluid flow in the duct. In general, it is ex-
pected that the larger sectional area (opening area) reduces the hy-
draulic resistance, resulting in the increased air flow (Fig. 10(a)). If a
large single CRCP is divided into small multiple panels with the opening
between each panel, perimeter length will increase, even though the
sectional area is the same as for the large single CRCP (Fig. 10(b)). In
this case, the distance of air movement from each panel to the opening
can decrease, resulting in the reduced hydraulic resistance. In other
words, the distributed panel layout would have less hydraulic resistance
than centralized panel layout with the same opening area.
Considering these characteristics of air flow, simulation cases were
classified depending on the opening area and panel layout, as sum-
Fig. 9. Measured and simulated cooling capacities with different load condi-
marized in Table 6. The panel layout was classified into two categories:
tions.
a centralized layout with a single panel surface and a distributed layout

Fig. 10. Airflow through the opening in CRCPs.

424
M.S. Shin et al. Building and Environment 148 (2019) 417–432

Table 6
Simulation case for the evaluation of cooling capacity.
Panel area ( AP ) Panel layout (characterized by Pp and PT)

Centralized Distributed

2 2
AP = 4 m ( AO = 12.0 m ) < Case A-c > < Case A-d >
PP = 8.0 m (PT = 22.0 m) PP = 16.0 m (PT = 32.0 m)

AP = 6.48 m2 ( AO = 9.52 m2) < Case B-c > < Case B-d >
PP = 10.2 m (PT = 26.2 m) PP = 16.0 m (PT = 32.0 m)

AP = 8.0 m2 ( AO = 8.0 m2) < Case C-c > < Case C-d >
PP = 11.4 m (PT = 27.4 m) PP = 22.8 m (PT = 38.8 m)

AP = 12.96 m2 ( AO = 3.04 m2) < Case D-c > < Case D-d >
PP = 14.4 m (PT = 30.4 m) PP = 28.8 m (PT = 44.8 m)

AP : Panel area, AO : Opening area, PP : Panel perimeter length, PT : Total perimeter length (=panel + wall perimeter).

with multiple panel surfaces. Even though the centralized and dis-
tributed layouts are designed with the same panel area (Ap) and
opening area (Ao), the perimeter length (Pp) can be different because in
the distributed layout, each panel is in contact with adjacent air. The
impact of the opening area and perimeter length on the cooling capa-
city can be evaluated by analyzing cases of panel area and layout, re-
spectively.
4. Results
As the cooling capacity of open-type CRCPs can be affected by in-
creased natural convection and air movement at the upper side of
CRCPs, it is necessary to analyze the airflow and temperature dis-
tribution in a space with open-type CRCPs. Fig. 11 shows the airflow
and temperature distribution in the indoor space when the panel
surface temperature is 16 °C with the Case A-d. It shows the results of
the section at 1.6 m from the room wall. It can be found that air rises
along the wall and descends to the occupied zone once it is cooled by
CRCPs. Some air moves to the plenum through the opening, and then is
cooled and descends through the opening in the center of the room.
Regarding room air temperature, it shows the relatively uniform dis-
tribution at approximately 24 °C, except the location close to the ceiling
panels and dummies. In Fig. 11 (b), it can also be found that the cooled
air descends to the occupied zone because the central region, where the
downward flow is generated, shows somewhat lower temperature than
other regions.
This result indicates that the open-type CRCP could benefit from the
cooling effect of the plenum air that descends to the occupied space.
Other cases also resulted in the similar air movement and temperature
distribution (Refer to Appendix for the results of other cases).

425
M.S. Shin et al. Building and Environment 148 (2019) 417–432

Fig. 11. Airflow and temperature distribution of Case A-d (y = 0.4 m section).

In general, the basic performance of CRCPs can be evaluated with
the heat removal rate, which can be quantified with the heat flux de-
pending on the temperature difference between room operative tem-
perature ( op ) and the average panel surface temperature ( s, m ). The
heat flux was calculated by dividing the panel heat absorption by the
panel surface area. Fig. 12 shows the heat flux curves that were de-
veloped using simulation results of each case listed in Table 4. For
comparison, the flux curves were plotted together with the heat flux
curve of closed-type CRCPs, which was calculated in accordance with
ISO 11855-2. Table 7 shows detailed simulation results, including the
heat flux of each case when the average panel surface temperature
changes from 15 to 20 °C.
It is clearly shown that the heat flux of the open-type CRCPs is
higher than that of the closed-type CRCPs. The increased heat flux of
the open-type CRCPs implies that more heat can be removed with the
same ( s, m op ) , or an equivalent heat can be removed with a rela-
tively small ( s, m op ) , compared with the closed-type CRCPs. It can be
also observed that the heat flux of the open-type CRCPs is affected by
the opening area and layout (centralized or distributed). The detailed
analysis on the impact of the opening area and layout are discussed in
Section 5.
According to testing method in the standard [17], CRCPs are es-
sentially evaluated with the cooling capacity curve, which is expressed
with specific cooling capacity depending on the temperature difference

Fig. 12. Heat flux curves depending on the difference between room operative and panel surface temperature.

426
M.S. Shin et al. Building and Environment 148 (2019) 417–432

Table 7 (Δθ) between the room operative temperature ( op ) and the average
Simulation results on cooling capacity. water temperature ( w ). Therefore, in order to evaluate the cooling
Case Conditions Simulation results
capacity, the abovementioned heat flux curves were transformed into
cooling capacity curves. Considering that thermal resistance of ceiling
AP s, m QP q mr , oz a, oz op s, m op panels will increase the panel surface temperature by 1–2 °C compared
to the chilled water temperature [30], the average water temperature
(m2) (°C) (W) (W/m2) (°C) (°C) (°C) (K) was assumed as 2 °C lower than panel surface temperature.
A-c 4.00 15.0 557.21 139.30 23.83 24.15 23.99 8.99 Fig. 13 shows cooling capacity curves derived from simulation data
4.00 16.0 504.17 126.04 24.03 24.33 24.18 8.18 on the specific cooling capacity depending on the temperature differ-
4.00 17.0 448.45 112.11 24.14 24.40 24.27 7.27 ence Δθ. When Δθ is 8 K, the cooling capacity is designated as the
4.00 18.0 395.09 98.77 24.32 24.56 24.44 6.44 nominal cooling capacity, which is widely used to design and evaluate
4.00 19.0 342.19 85.55 24.55 24.77 24.66 5.66
CRCPs. The difference in nominal cooling capacity of open-type CRCPs
4.00 20.0 288.61 72.15 24.74 24.94 24.84 4.84
can be shown in the enlarged part in Fig. 13. It is clearly shown that
A-d 4.00 15.0 578.10 144.53 23.24 23.62 23.43 8.43 open-type CRCPs can provide higher nominal cooling capacity com-
4.00 16.0 524.54 131.13 23.62 23.95 23.79 7.79 pared to closed-type CRCPs. It is also found that the amount of capacity
4.00 17.0 466.25 116.56 23.69 24.01 23.85 6.85
increase is affected by the opening area and panel layout (centralized or
4.00 18.0 411.04 102.76 23.93 24.22 24.07 6.07
4.00 19.0 355.61 88.90 24.16 24.42 24.29 5.29 distributed). The cooling capacity of each CRCP type can be approxi-
4.00 20.0 300.26 75.06 24.38 24.60 24.49 4.49 mated as a power function of temperature difference Δθ ( op w ),
which can be formulated as follows:
B-c 6.48 15.0 881.84 136.09 23.52 24.04 23.78 8.78
q = k( n
6.48 16.0 795.45 122.75 23.73 24.21 23.97 7.97 op w)
6.48 17.0 708.88 109.39 23.94 24.37 24.15 7.15
6.48 18.0 624.38 96.35 24.15 24.54 24.35 6.35 where k is a coefficient for the panel heat flux and n is an exponent for
6.48 19.0 539.77 83.30 24.36 24.71 24.53 5.53 the temperature difference between the average panel surface tem-
6.48 20.0 454.98 70.21 24.56 24.86 24.71 4.71 perature and the room operative temperature. This equation is similar
to the characteristic curve of radiant floor heating and ceiling cooling
B-d 6.48 15.0 913.75 141.01 23.11 23.76 23.43 8.43
6.48 16.0 824.56 127.25 23.35 23.95 23.65 7.65 defined in ISO 11855-2. However, this equation offers a more con-
6.48 17.0 735.18 113.45 23.59 24.13 23.86 6.86 venient design process because it yields the cooling capacity based on
6.48 18.0 647.86 99.98 23.83 24.33 24.08 6.08 the mean water temperature, whereas ISO 11855-2 requires the average
6.48 19.0 561.06 86.58 24.17 24.54 24.35 5.35 panel surface temperature for the determination of cooling capacity.
6.48 20.0 473.13 73.01 24.39 24.70 24.54 4.54
Table 8 shows the equation of cooling capacity for each CRCP.
C-c 8.00 15.0 1079.85 134.98 23.54 24.30 23.92 8.92 Fig. 14 shows the distribution of k and n values of each CRCP type,
8.00 16.0 972.72 121.59 23.72 24.40 24.06 8.06 overlapped with the nominal cooling capacity contours that show the
8.00 17.0 867.33 108.42 23.91 24.52 24.21 7.21 cooling capacity when Δθ = 8 K. This graph can be used to compare the
8.00 18.0 761.95 95.24 24.11 24.64 24.38 6.38
cooling capacity depending on k and n of the cooling capacity power
8.00 19.0 657.97 82.25 24.33 24.79 24.56 5.56
8.00 20.0 556.82 69.60 24.57 24.96 24.77 4.77 function. It is found that the open-type CRCPs have more cooling ca-
pacity than the closed-type CRCPs. In addition, more cooling capacity
C-d 8.00 15.0 1115.25 139.41 23.22 24.04 23.63 8.63 can be expected with a larger opening area and a distributed panel
8.00 16.0 1004.26 125.53 23.41 24.14 23.78 7.78 layout.
8.00 17.0 895.34 111.92 23.61 24.25 23.93 6.93
8.00 18.0 786.26 98.28 23.79 24.30 24.04 6.04
8.00 19.0 679.94 84.99 24.04 24.50 24.27 5.27 5. Discussion
8.00 20.0 575.88 71.98 24.29 24.69 24.49 4.49
Through the numerical simulations and validation test, it was found
D-c 12.96 15.0 1676.62 129.37 23.00 24.15 23.58 8.58
that the cooling capacity of CRCPs can show a considerable increase,
12.96 16.0 1511.42 116.62 23.26 24.29 23.78 7.78
12.96 17.0 1346.33 103.88 23.53 24.46 23.99 6.99 once the CRCPs are installed with openings between adjacent panels. It
12.96 18.0 1183.16 91.29 23.80 24.63 24.21 6.21 is thought that the capacity enhancement results from the cooling effect
12.96 19.0 1023.92 79.01 24.07 24.78 24.42 5.42 of the plenum air, which is cooled by the upper surface of ceiling panels
12.96 20.0 864.50 66.71 24.34 24.97 24.66 4.66
and descends to the occupied space. The increased convective heat
D-d 12.96 15.0 1701.67 131.30 23.10 24.46 23.78 8.78 transfers between the panel surfaces and surrounding air, which could
12.96 16.0 1534.62 118.41 23.36 24.62 23.99 7.99 be caused by air movement through the opening, could also contribute
12.96 17.0 1367.27 105.50 23.61 24.75 24.18 7.18 to the capacity enhancement.
12.96 18.0 1201.79 92.73 23.86 24.91 24.39 6.39 Fig. 15 shows the potential ranges of capacity enhancement by
12.96 19.0 1040.43 80.28 24.13 25.06 24.60 5.60
open-type installation, which were evaluated with different Δθ
12.96 20.0 878.86 67.81 24.37 25.19 24.78 4.78
( op w ) . Compared with the conventional closed-type CRCPs, the
open-type CRCPs in this study can provide 54–80% (average 64%)
higher nominal cooling capacity, as shown in Fig. 16. It was also found

427
M.S. Shin et al. Building and Environment 148 (2019) 417–432

Fig. 13. Cooling capacity curves of evaluated CRCPs.

Table 8
Equations for nominal cooling capacity of each CRCPs.
Type Case Panel Opening Panel layout
area (m2) area (m2)
Centralized Distributed

Closed – 16 – q = 2.4824 1.4991 –

Open A- 4 12 q = 5.1125 1.3826 q = 5.8604 1.3674

Open B- 6.48 9.52 q = 4.9570 1.3956 q = 5.1602 1.4140

Open C- 8 8 q = 4.9998 1.3824 q = 6.0200 1.3329

Open D- 12.96 3.04 q = 4.4752 1.4296 q = 4.4651 1.4242

Fig. 15. Cooling capacity of the evaluated CRCPs depending on Δθ

Fig. 16. Capacity increase ratio of open-type CRCPs.

Fig. 14. k and n of cooling capacity equations.

428
M.S. Shin et al.
Fig. 17. Cooling capacity of open-type CRCPs depending on opening area and
panel layout.
that the increase ratio of the cooling capacity (the increase amount of
the open-type capacity divided by the closed-type capacity) shows a
definite increment as Δθ decreases. If the indoor operative temperature
is assumed as a fixed value (design temperature), a smaller Δθ means a
higher water temperature. In other words, a higher water temperature
could result in a higher increase ratio of the cooling capacity, compared
with the closed-type CRCPs. This implies that the open-type CRCPs can
improve the energy performance by providing the equivalent cooling
capacity with the relatively higher water temperature. However, as the
higher water temperature generally provides relatively smaller cooling
capacity, the CRCPs might be designed with more panel installation
area. Therefore, a further study is suggested to evaluate the overall
energy performance of open-type CRCPs, which includes the impact of
water temperature on the chiller efficiency, cooling capacity, and panel
installation area.
The impact of opening area and panel layouts on the cooling ca-
pacity is shown in Fig. 17. As the open-type CRCPs are designed with
larger opening area, or opening ratio (opening area divided by floor
area), their cooling capacity tends to slightly increase. The increased
opening area would increase the air flow rate through the opening,
which in turn enhances the cooling effect by the plenum air. It is also
shown that the larger cooling capacity can be expected with the dis-
tributed panel layout, because the distributed layout is effective in re-
ducing the distance of air movement from the plenum to the occupied
space, and promoting the heat transfer between the panel surfaces and
surrounding air. However, more quantitative analysis needs to be
conducted to provide the design alternatives considering the impact of
opening area and panel layout on the cooling capacity.
Through the evaluation of cooling capacity, it was found that the
larger opening area leads to the enhancement in cooling capacity due to
the movement of plenum air. As the open-type CRCPs can offer higher
cooling capacity per panel area, the construction cost can be saved by
reducing the installed panel area.
In addition to the CRCP types in this study, more diverse config-
urations of the CRCP need to be investigated to derive a generic method
429
Building and Environment 148 (2019) 417–432
to predict the cooling capacity of open-type CRCPs. The investigation
result could be used to establish a design process or guideline for di-
mensioning open-type CRCPs. Therefore, a further study needs to be
conducted to find correction factors for the cooling capacity of con-
ventional closed-type CRCPs or to develop design charts for de-
termining the cooling capacity of open-type CRCPs.
This study has a limitation that the cooling capacity was evaluated
only for the CRCPs without the insulation layer above the panel surface.
If there is an insulation layer in the CRCPs, the enhancement of cooling
capacity could be reduced because the upper surface temperature is not
low enough to cool down the plenum air. Therefore, a further study is
suggested to investigate the impact of the insulation layer on the
cooling capacity of open-type CRCPs. In addition, CRCP systems are
often incorporated with mechanical ventilation to handle the latent
load. In this case, the air temperature and velocity in the plenum could
be changed because the plenum is usually utilized as a return duct. This
situation could affect the heat transfer at the upper surface of CRCPs,
which leads to the variation of cooling capacity. As the effect of me-
chanical ventilation was not considered in this study, it is required to
analyze the cooling capacity enhancement of open-type CRCPs in-
tegrated with a mechanical ventilation system.
6. Conclusion
In this study, the cooling capacity of open-type CRCPs was in-
vestigated with a numerical method that was validated through mock-
up experiments. The relation between the cooling capacity and design
parameters (e.g., opening area and panel layout) of open-type CRCPs
was also analyzed. It was found that the cooling capacity of CRCPs can
show a definite enhancement, if the CRCPs are installed with openings
between adjacent panels. Compared with the conventional closed-type
CRCPs, the open-type CRCPs in this study provided 54–80% (average
64%) higher nominal cooling capacity. It was also found that more
cooling capacity can be obtained with a larger opening area and a
distributed panel layout. The capacity enhancement could result from
the utilization of the plenum air, which is cooled by the upper surface of
ceiling panels, and the increased convective heat transfers caused by air
movement through the openings.
Further investigations on the various CRCPs would be necessary to
establish design processes and guidelines for dimensioning open-type
CRCPs. In this regard, a future study needs to be conducted to find
correction factors for the cooling capacity of conventional closed-type
CRCPs or to develop design charts for determining the cooling capacity
of open-type CRCPs. The impacts of panel insulation and mechanical
ventilation on the cooling capacity also need to be investigated to ex-
tend the applicability of open-type CRCPs.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of
Korea grant funded by the Korea government(MSIP)
(No.2016R1C1B2010955).
M.S. Shin et al. Building and Environment 148 (2019) 417–432

Appendix

430
M.S. Shin et al.
References
[1] ISO, ISO DIS 18566-2, Building Environment Design–Design, Test Methods and
Control of Hydronic Radiant Heating and Cooling Systems, Part 2: Determination of
Heating and Cooling Capacity of Ceiling Mounted Radiant Panels, (2015).
[2] H.E. Feustel, C. Stetiu, Hydronic radiant cooling - preliminary assessment, Energy
Build. 22 (1995) 193–205.
[3] S.J. Rees, P. Haves, An experimental study of air flow and temperature distribution
in a room with displacement ventilation and a chilled ceiling, Build. Environ. 59
(2013) 358–368.
[4] J. Miriel, L. Serres, A. Trombe, Radiant ceiling panel heating–cooling systems: ex-
perimental and simulated study of the performances, thermal comfort and energy
consumptions, Appl. Therm. Eng. 22 (2002) 1861–1873.
[5] S. Okamoto, H. Kitora, H. Yamaguchi, T. Oka, A simplified calculation method for
estimating heat flux from ceiling radiant panels, Energy Build. 42 (2010) 29–33.
[6] L. Zhang, X. Liu, Y. Jiang, Experimental evaluation of a suspended metal ceiling
431
Building and Environment 148 (2019) 417–432
radiant panel with inclined fins, Energy Build. 62 (2013) 522–529.
[7] F. Causone, S. Corgnati, M. Filippi, B.W. Olesen, Experimental evaluation of heat
transfer coefficients between radiant ceiling and room, Energy Build. 41 (2009)
622–628.
[8] N.F. Diaz, J. Lebrun, P. André, Thermal modeling of the cooling ceiling systems as
commissioning tool, Proceedings of the 11th International Building Performance
Simulation Association Building Simulation Conference, Glasgow, Scotland, 2009,
pp. 27–30.
[9] B. Kilkis, Coolp: a computer program for the design and analysis of ceiling cooling
panels, ASHRAE Transactions Symposium. SD 95–4–4, 1995, pp. 705–710.
[10] N. Fonseca, Experimental analysis and modeling of hydronic radiant ceiling panels
using transient-state analysis, Int. J. Refrig. 34 (4) (2011) 958–967.
[11] J. Babiak, B.W. Olesen, D. Petras, Low Temperature Heating And High Temperature
Cooling: embedded Water Based Surface Heating and Cooling Systems. Rehva.
Brussels, (2009).
[12] ASHRAE, ASHRAE Handbook-hvac Systems and Equipment, American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA, 2012.
M.S. Shin et al.
[13] M. Andrés-Chicote, A. Tejero-González, E. Velasco-Gómez, F.J. Rey-Martínez,
Experimental study on the cooling capacity of a radiant cooled ceiling system,
Energy Build. 54 (2012) 207–214.
[14] G. Yu, L. Xiong, C. Du, H. Chen, Simplified model and performance analysis for top
insulated metal ceiling radiant cooling panels with serpentine tube arrangement,
Case Studies in Thermal Engineering, 11 2018, pp. 35–42.
[15] https://www.halton.com/en_IQ/health/products/-/product/AVP (last accessed on
October 2018).
[16] J. Jeong, S. Mumma, Practical cooling capacity estimation model for a suspended
metal ceiling radiant cooling panel, Build. Environ. 42 (9) (2007) 3176–3185.
[17] CEN, EN 14240:2004 Ventilation for Buildings–Chilled Ceiling–Testing and Rating,
(2004).
[18] DIN, DIN 4715–1: Cooling Surfaces for Rooms–part 1: Measuring of the
Performance with Free Flow, (1997).
[19] NORDTEST, NT VVS 078 Ceiling Cooling Systems: Cooling Capacity, (1999).
[20] ISO, ISO DIS 18566-3: Building Environment Design-Design, Test Methods and
Control of Hydronic Radiant Heating and Cooling Systems, Part 3: Design of Ceiling
Mounted Radiant Panels, (2015).
[21] C. Kochendoerfer, Standardized testing of cooling panels and their use in system
planning, Build. Eng. 102 (1) (1996) 651–658.
[22] J. Jeong, S.A. Mumma, Ceiling radiant cooling panel capacity enhanced by mixed
convection in mechanically ventilated spaces, Appl. Therm. Eng. 23 (18) (2003)
2293–2306.
[23] J. Jeong, S.A. Mumma, Impact of mixed convection on ceiling radiant cooling panel
capacity, HVAC R Res. 9 (3) (2003) 251–257.
[24] Z. Tian, X. Yin, Y. Ding, C. Zhang, Research on the actual cooling performance of
ceiling radiant panel, Energy Build. 47 (2012) 636–642.
[25] S. Park, Establishing Boundary Condition for Evaluating the Cooling Capacity of
Ceiling Radiant Cooling Panel, Ph.D Dissertation Seoul National University, 2016.
[26] R. Karadağ, New approach relevant to total heat transfer coefficient including the
effect of radiation and convection at the ceiling in a cooled ceiling room, Appl.
Therm. Eng. 29 (8–9) (2009) 1561–1565.
[27] R. Karadağ, The investigation of relation between radiative and convective heat
432
Building and Environment 148 (2019) 417–432
transfer coefficients at the ceiling in a cooled ceiling room, Energy Convers. Manag.
50 (1) (2009) 1–5.
[28] A. Novoselac, B.J. Burley, J. Srebric, New convection correlations for cooled ceiling
panels in room with mixed and stratified airflow, HVAC R Res. 12 (2) (2006)
279–294.
[29] C. Karmann, F. Bauman, P. Raftery, S. Schiavon, M. Koupriyanov, Effect of acous-
tical clouds coverage and air movement on radiant chilled ceiling cooling capacity,
Energy Build. 158 (2017) 939–949.
[30] B. Ning, Y. Chen, H. Liu, S. Zhang, Cooling capacity improvement for a radiant
ceiling panel with uniform surface temperature distribution, Build. Environ. 102
(2016) 64–72.
[31] R. Li, T. Yoshidomi, R. Ooka, B.W. Olesen, Field evaluation of performance of ra-
diant heating/cooling ceiling panel system, Energy Build. 86 (2015) 58–65.
[32] S. Park, D. Kim, M. Yeo, K. Kim, A study on the evaluation of the cooling capacity of
radiant ceiling panel according to the panel type, J. Arch. Ins. Korea 30 (12) (2014)
299–306.
[33] M. Shin, M. Yeo, W. Kim, Effects on the air temperature in the occupied zone by the
insulation, installation and arrangement of cooled radiant ceiling panels,
Proceedings of Annual Conference of AIK, Busan, 2015, pp. 473–474.
[34] M. Shin, Cooling Capacity Estimation and Design Process for the Open-type
Installation of Ceiling Radiant Cooling Panels, Ph.D Dissertation Seoul National
University, 2016.
[35] T. Cholewa, R. Anasiewicz, A. Siuta-Olcha, M.A. Skwarczynski, On the heat transfer
coefficients between heated/cooled radiant ceiling and room, Appl. Therm. Eng.
117 (2017) 76–84.
[36] ISO, ISO 11855-2:2012(E) Building Environment Design – Design, Dimensioning,
Installation and Control of Embedded Radiant Heating and Cooling Systems. Part 2:
Determination of the Design Heating and Cooling Capacity, International
Organization for Standard, Geneve, Switzerland, 2012.
[37] K. Kim, B.W. Olesen, Radiant heating and cooling systems: part 1, ASHRAE J. 57
(2015) 28–37.
[38] W. Xu, Q. Chen, A two-layer turbulence model for simulating indoor airflow: Part I.
Model development, Energy Build. 33 (6) (2001) 613–625.