Chilled Beam and

Radiant Cooling Basics

Salt Lake City, UT ASHRAE Chapter

December 2013
Nick Searle
nsearle@dadanco.com
Contents
• Radiant Ceilings & Chilled Beam Basics
• Energy & Space Savings
• First and Lifecycle Costs
• Maintenance
• Application Suitability
• Design Considerations
• Application Example # Laboratories
• Case Study – 250 S. Wacker, Chicago
Fan Energy Use in Buildings
4.5 7
Chiller/Compressor
Supply & Return Fans
4 Chilled Water Pump 6
Condenser Water Pump
3.5 Cooling Tower Fan
Condenser Fan 5

Energy Use KWh/SF

Design Load KW/SF

2.5 4

2 3

1.5
2
1
1
0.5

0 0
Central VAV Central CAV Packaged CAV Central VAV Central CAV Packaged CAV

“Energy Consumption Characteristics of Commercial Building HVAC

Systems” publication prepared for U.S. Department of Energy
Water = Efficient Transport

10”

1 Ton of Cooling

requires 550 CFM of air

or ¾” diameter
water pipe

4 GPM of water
Chilled Ceilings
1980 1990 2000 2010

Chilled Ceilings

Many buildings heated only

PC’s appearing on desks

Restricted ceiling cavity

Chilled Ceilings Radiant Effect
CW Supply CW Return
59 62°F 62 66°F

55%
Convective

45%
Radiant

76°F Dry Bulb

74°F radiant
temperature
(black bulb)
 Chilled Ceilings
Advantages
• Excellent thermal comfort
• Reduced space requirements
‒ Will fit into 6#8” cavity
• Self regulating
‒ Simple controls
• Low noise
• Low maintenance
Design Issues
• Low cooling output
‒ 20 to 25 BTUH/ft2 100%
coverage
‒ 14 to 18 BTUH/ft2 70% coverage
• High cost
• Separate air system required
Chilled Sails
Chilled Sails
Chilled Sails
Advantages Design Issues
• Good thermal comfort • Cooling output
• Reduced space requirements ‒ 40 to 50 BTUH/ft2

• Freely suspended • Separate air system required

• Self regulating • High cost
• Simple controls • Cannot heat
• Low noise • Need good acoustic treatment
to avoid hard spaces
• Low maintenance
• Many connections
• Aesthetics ?
Passive Chilled Beams
1980 1990 2000 2010

Chilled Ceilings

Passive Chilled Beams

• Increased cooling loads

‒ Equipment
‒ Occupancy
‒ Day#lighting
• Inadequate perimeter
cooling
Passive Chilled Beams 1 Operation Principle

Soffit

Suspension rod

Water coil

Fabric skirt Perforated tile

Passive Chilled Beams 1 System Highlights
• Good thermal comfort
• Cooling capacity up to 40 BTUH/FT2 floor space
‒ Up to 500 BTUH per LF of beam

• Reduced ductwork, riser and plant sizes

‒ Water transports most of sensible cooling

• Self regulating
‒ simple two position controls

• Low noise
• Low maintenance
Design Considerations
• Sensible cooling only
‒ Latent gains must be controlled by air system

• High free area perforated metal ceiling required

‒ 28% free area minimum
‒ Exposed beams (no ceiling) are an option

• Beams cannot be installed tight against slab

‒ Typically 40% of beam width required above beam

• Separate heating system must be installed

• Separate air system must be installed
Passive Chilled Beams 1 Airflow Pattern
Passive Chilled Beams 1 Recessed Type
Passive Chilled Beams 1 Exposed Type
Active Chilled Beams
1980 1990 2000 2010

Chilled Ceilings

Passive Chilled Beams

Active Chilled Beams

• Higher space loads

• Higher occupant densities
• Combined ventilation/cooling
preferred
• Integration into fiber tile
ceilings required
Active Chilled Beam 1 Operation Principle
Primary air nozzles
Primary air plenum

1 Part Primary Air

Suspended ceiling

Heat exchanger

4 Parts Room Air

Heat Removal Ratio

Airflow
requirement
reduced by 70%

70% of sensible heat

removed by chilled beam
water coil
Active Chilled Beam 1 Airflow Pattern
Active Chilled Beams 1 System Highlights
• Very high cooling capacity
‒ Up to 100 BTUH/FT2 floor space
‒ Up to 1500 BTUH per LF

• Integrated cooling, ventilation and heating

‒ All services in the ceiling cavity

• Suitable for integration into all ceiling types

‒ Reduces ceiling costs compared to Passive Beams
Active Chilled Beams 1 System Highlights
• Significant space savings
‒ Smaller ductwork saves space in shafts, plant rooms and ceiling

• Can be installed tight up against the slab

‒ Reduced floor to floor heights
‒ Reduced construction costs on new buildings

• Low noise levels

• Low maintenance
‒ No moving or consumable parts
Energy Savings 1 Compared to VAV

Source Technology Application % Saving*

US Dept. of Energy Report (4/2001) Beams/Radiant Ceilings General 25#30

ASHRAE 2010 Technology Awards Passive Chilled Beams Call Center 41

ACEE Emerging Technologies Report (2009) Active Chilled Beams General 20

ASHRAE Journal 2007 Active Chilled Beams Laboratory 57

SmithGroup Active Chilled Beams Offices 24

*Compared to VAV

“Energy Consumption Characteristics of Commercial Building HVAC

Systems” publication prepared for U.S. Department of Energy
Active Chilled Beams 1 First Costs
• Office Building, Palo Alto, CA

• 80,000 ft2

• Thermostat in each office for beam design

“costs were in line with VAV”*

*HPAC Engineering Article “European Technology Taking Hold in the U.S.: Chilled
Beams, Peter Rumsey, PE, CEM, FASHRAE, FRMI
Active Chilled Beams 1 First Costs
• Office Building, Denver, CO

• 600,000 ft2 design/build renovation

• Elimination of two air handlers per floor due to beams

“the chilled beam system was equal

to the VAV system”*
*HPAC Engineering Article “European Technology Taking Hold in the U.S.: Chilled
Beams, Peter Rumsey, PE, CEM, FASHRAE, FRMI, January 1st 2010
Active Chilled Beams 1 Lifecycle Costs
• 100,000 ft2 Office Building, Cincinnati, OH
• 15 year lifecycle study
• 15% Energy Savings Compared to VAV
‒ $0.79 versus $0.93 ft2

• 22% reduction in mechanical installation costs

‒ $19.50 versus $25.00 per ft2

• Lifecycle costs analysis over 15 years

‒ Favored chilled beam system by 20%
‒ $32 ft2 versus $40 ft2

HIXSON ARCHITECTURAL INTERIORS Spring 2009

LEED Certification 1 LEED NC V3.0
• Optimize Energy Performance
# up to 48% (new) or 44% (existing)
more efficient than ASHRAE 90.1
(EA Credit 1) # up to 19 points
• Increased Ventilation
# 30% more outdoor air than
ASHRAE 62
(IEQ Credit 2) # 1 point
• Controllability of Systems
# individual temperature control
(IEQ Credit 6.2) # 1 point
• Thermal Comfort (Minimum 40 points needed
# meet ASHRAE 55 for certification
(IEQ Credit 7.1) # 1 point out of 100 maximum)
Maintenance

• No moving parts

• No filter

• No condensate pumps

• No consumable parts

• Up to 4 year inspection & clean

• Easy maintenance access

Cleaning Access
Active Chilled Beams 1 Typical Installation
Active Chilled Beams 1 Typical Installation
Active Chilled Beams 1 Typical Installation
Concealed Active Beams
Bulkhead Active Chilled Beams
ACTIVE CHILLED BEAM DESIGN
CONSIDERATIONS
Building Suitability
Building Characteristics that favor Active Chilled Beams
• Zones with moderate#high sensible load densities
‒ Where primary airflows would be significantly higher than needed for
ventilation
‒ Sensible Heat Ratio’s (SHR) of 0.8 and above

• Buildings most affected by space constraints

‒ Hi – rises, existing buildings with induction systems

• Zones where the acoustical environment is a key design

criterion
• Laboratories where sensible loads are driving airflows as
opposed to air change rates
• Buildings seeking LEED or Green Globes certification
Building Suitability
Characteristics that less favor Active Chilled Beams
• Buildings with operable windows or “leaky”
construction
‒ Beams with drain pans could be considered
‒ Building pressurization control should be used

• Zones with relatively low sensible load densities

• Zones with relatively low sensible heat ratios and low
ventilation air requirements
• Zones with high filtration requirements for the re#
circulated room air
• Zone with high latent loads
APPLICATION EXAMPLE:
LABORATORIES
Laboratory Design Issues
• Sensible heat gains of up to 70 BTUH/ft2
• Space ventilation requirements of 6 to 8 ACH
• Laboratories where chemicals and gases are present
require 100% outdoor air
• Air systems require 15 to 20 ACH of outside air to
satisfy sensible load
Cooling Load and ACH
Benefits of Active Beams in Labs
• Eliminated or reduced reheat
‒ Reheat can account for 20% or more HVAC energy costs

• Water more efficient transport medium

‒ Reduces fan energy costs

• Smaller space requirements

‒ System sized for 6 ACH instead of 15 ACH
Active Chilled Beam Design
Cooling Load = 65 BTU/H ft2 VAV Solution = 15 Air Changes
Ventilation Rate = 6 Air Changes Chilled Beam Solution = 6 Air Changes

Active Chilled Beam Solution = 6 x 6’ Long, 130 CFM each

Reheat Reduction
VAV System ACB System
• Minimum Airflow • Minimum Airflow
‒ 6 ACH = 760 CFM ‒ 6 ACH = 760 CFM
• Cooling Load • Cooling Load
‒ 65 BTU/H ft2 ‒ 65 BTU/H ft2
‒ 41,000 BTU/H Peak ‒ 41,000 BTU/H Peak
• Maximum Airflow • Maximum Airflow
‒ 1,860 CFM (15 ACH) ‒ 760 CFM
• Minimum Cooling without reheat • Minimum Cooling without reheat
‒ 6 ACH @ 55°F ‒ 6 ACH @ 65°F
‒ 16,600 BTU/H ‒ 8,300 BTU/H
• Turndown without reheat • Turndown without reheat
‒ 16,600/41,000 ‒ 8,300/41,000
‒ 59% ‒ 80%
CASE STUDIES
250 South Wacker

Chicago, IL
 250 S. Wacker, Chicago 1 Case Study
• 16#story tower –
215,000 sq. ft.
1st floor retail
2 – 16th floor offices

• Separate HVAC systems

for 1st and 16th floors

• Perimeter induction system

with floor#mounted units
serving 2 # 15th floors

• Interior constant volume/

variable temperature
system serving
2 – 15th floors
250 S. Wacker, Chicago – Case Study
Building Renovated with 1
• 100% glazing with E#glass (190 Btuh/Ln.ft.
heat loss)

• Single duct cooling only VAV interior

system

• Evaluated fan#powered VAV or

active chilled beam
perimeter system

• Seeking LEED
certification
250 S. Wacker, Chicago – Case Study
Perimeter Existing Proposed Proposed
System Induction Fan#powered Active Chilled
Type System VAV System ** Beam System **

Design Cooling 262 tons 156 tons 156 tons

Load (382 sq.ft./ton) (641 sq.ft./ton) (641 sq.ft./ton)

Primary Airflow 25,600 cfm 86,270 cfm 15,880 cfm

(0.5 cfm/sq.ft.) (1.7 cfm/sq.ft.) (0.3 cfm/sq.ft.)

Fan Energy at 64 kW 182 kW 22 kW

Design
Fan Energy at 64 kW 116 kW 22 kW
70% of Design
Pump Energy 28 kW 8 kW 12 kW

Combined Fan 92 kW 190 kW @ 34 kW

& Pump Energy Design
124 kW @ 70%
** Required larger ductwork/risers ** Used existing ductwork/risers
250 S. Wacker, Chicago – Case Study
25 250 S. Wacker, Chicago – Case Study
QUESTIONS?