Science and Technology for the Built Environment

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uhvc21

Experimental assessment and modelling of radiant

cooling technology using constant and variable
water flow rate

Omar M. Zaki, Mostafa Sadek, Habiba Aly & Omar Abdelaziz

To cite this article: Omar M. Zaki, Mostafa Sadek, Habiba Aly & Omar Abdelaziz (2023):
Experimental assessment and modelling of radiant cooling technology using constant
and variable water flow rate, Science and Technology for the Built Environment, DOI:
10.1080/23744731.2023.2182116

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23744731.2023.2182116

Accepted author version posted online: 27

Feb 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 36

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uhvc21
Experimental assessment and modelling of radiant cooling technology using
constant and variable water flow rate

Omar M. Zaki BSc1, Mostafa Sadek2, Habiba Aly2, Omar Abdelaziz3,*

t
ip
1
Cairo University Faculty of Engineering, Mechanical Power Department, 1, Cairo University

cr
Rd, Giza, 12411 Egypt

us
2
The American University in Cairo, Mechanical Engineering, New Cairo, 11835 Egypt
3
The American University in Cairo, Mechanical Engineering, Villa 136 Gardenia Park 2, Giza,
an
12589 Egypt
M
*Corresponding Author: Omar Abdelaziz, Email: omar.abdel.aziz@gmail.com, The American
d

University in Cairo, Mechanical Engineering, Villa 136 Gardenia Park 2, Giza, 12589 Egypt
e
pt
ce
Ac
 The goal of this study is to perform an analysis of the performance of radiant cooling panels
using experimental testing and transient system simulation software. The effect of design
parameters such as water supply temperature and water flow rate on thermal comfort and
energy efficiency is studied. Two control schemes are used in the study in which either the
water flow rate or the water temperature difference between the inlet and outlet of radiant
panels is held constant. This paper demonstrates the modelling and validation of a radiant
cooling system in TRNSYS and uses this model to study the performance of the system
during the cooling season in Egypt. It was found that the lower water temperature of 16°C
was found to be suitable for achieving thermal comfort. The constant water flow rate

t
ip
control scheme showed a 5% less unmet hours percentage than the constant water
temperature difference, but the latter used 38% less electrical energy. A constant water

cr
temperature difference control scheme can achieve better thermal comfort with an unmet
hours percentage down to 12.5% by coupling the system with a dehumidification device.

us
Keywords: Radiant cooling; SSLC; Energy efficiency; Experimental.

1. Introduction
an
Buildings’ energy consumption was reported to account for 30% of the global energy
M
demand and about one-third of energy-related CO2 emissions in 2020 (UNEP 2021). Out of the
d

total electricity consumption of the building sector, 16% is attributed to space cooling.
e

Additionally, cooling is responsible for 10% of the global greenhouse gas emissions worldwide
pt

(Dong, Coleman, and Miller 2021). Global demand for space cooling is increasing steadily to
ce

accommodate indoor comfort conditions in the face of global warming (IEA 2021). (Clarke et al.
Ac

2018) estimated the increase in building energy use to consume 0.1% of the total global expenses

for every 2°C rise in global mean surface temperature, equivalent to 84.2 billion USD (The

World Bank 2020). The rise in space cooling demand since 2000 was reported by the

International Energy Agency (IEA) to be 4% per year on average, which significantly impacts

power grids, especially during power peak demand (IEA 2021). Therefore, continuous

improvement in the efficiency of cooling technologies is essential to cope with the rising demand

for space cooling.

 One of the rising efficient cooling technologies in recent years is Separate Sensible and

Latent Cooling Systems (SSLC), which are cooling systems that control temperature and

humidity independently by including two or more cooling processes (Zaki, Mohammed, and

Abdelaziz 2022). Unlike conventional air-conditioning systems that cool the refrigerant below

the dew point temperature of the air, and in doing so manage both sensible and latent loads

simultaneously, SSLC systems operate above the dew point temperature. This results in two

t
characteristic features of SSLC systems: the first is better energy efficiency compared with

ip
conventional air-conditioning systems and the second is achieving thermal comfort conditions

cr
without the need to reheat the supply air, especially for low Sensible Heat Ratio (SHR)

us
applications (Zaki, Mohammed, and Abdelaziz 2022). Using simulations, SSLC was found to be
an
able to offer up to 30% energy savings compared with conventional cooling systems (Ling,

Hwang, and Radermacher 2010). Furthermore, SSLC systems were tested experimentally and
M
found to be 15.6% more energy efficient compared with conventional systems that control the

temperature only and 47.8 % more energy efficient compared with conventional systems that
e d

control temperature and humidity (Han and Zhang 2011).

pt

Radiant Cooling is one of the cooling technologies designed to address the sensible load
ce

of a space. Radiant panels achieve thermal comfort by reducing indoor mean radiant temperature

through convection and radiation (Zaki, Mohammed, and Abdelaziz 2022). The thermal
Ac

performance of radiant cooling systems was evaluated using Computational Fluid Dynamics

(CFD) simulations and were shown to provide a more uniform indoor temperature than

conventional air systems and thus perform better in terms of thermal comfort (Khan et al. 2015).

Furthermore, experimental investigation of heat transfer and cooling characteristics of the

concrete ceiling radiant cooling panel shows that small fluctuations in chilled water supply

temperature have no significant impact on indoor conditions due to the high thermal inertia of
concrete. However, the capacity of the cooling panels was found to be positively affected by

lower supply water temperature and higher water flow rates (Su et al. 2015).

(Cen et al. 2018) conducted a comparison between fan coil unit and radiant cooling

system in terms of thermal comfort, and found that fan coil unit is more suitable in terms of

thermal comfort for a low ceiling height while radiant cooling system is more thermally

comfortable for high ceiling height. (Chung et al. 2017) analyzed the performance of radiant

t
cooling system implemented in the roof of multiple zones inside a building in Chicago, USA

ip
using EnergyPlus (Crawley et al. 2001). A water supply temperature of 22°C was used with a

cr
constant flow rate of 3600 kg/hr first through all zones of the building, then different water

us
supply temperatures were used depending on the typical load of each zone. The thermal comfort
an
of the radiant cooling system was 5% higher than the air-system, with total energy savings of

13%. A numerical and experimental study of radiant heating system was carried by (Romaní,
M
Cabeza, and de Gracia 2018) in Spain. In the results, it was shown that the radiant heating system

was able to decrease the inner surface temperature below the outer surface temperature by up to
e d

20°K. With a numerical and experimental analysis, (Leo Samuel, Nagendra, and Maiya 2018)
pt

studied the performance of the radiant cooling system in Chennai, India. Parameters such as
ce

spacing, arrangement and vertical position of pipes impeded in the roof and floor were

investigated for their effect on the thermal comfort of the space. They concluded that reducing
Ac

the spacing between pipes and moving the pipes closer to the inner surface reduced the indoor air

temperature by 1.6 to 2.7°K, and reaching an indoor temperature of 29°C.

(Khan, Bhandari, and Mathur 2018) investigated the energy savings of radiant cooling

systems in different climate zones in India using a calibrated building energy model developed in

EnergyPlus (Crawley et al. 2001). In their study, they compared the performance of a radiant

cooling system to a variable air volume system in an office building. The results indicated 11% to
27% savings in energy consumption depending on the climate zone. Another study conducted by

(Kim, Tzempelikos, and Braun 2019) analyzed the energy savings of combining passive chilled

beams with a variable air volume system (VAV) over a standalone VAV system. The study used

a TRNSYS (Klein and others 2017) model, that was validated using experimental data, to inspect

the performance of different experiments of passive chilled beams. The analysis revealed a small

reduction of up to 4% in energy consumption resulting from decoupling sensible and latent loads

t
in humid zones and a higher reduction of up to 8% in energy consumption in dry zones due to

ip
higher SHR. (Dharmasastha et al. 2020) integrated radiant panels inside a glass fiber reinforced

cr
gypsum roof, and experimentally tested it in Chennai, India. The water supply temperature was

us
kept at 19°C with water supply flow rate of 600 lit/hr. It was found that the radiant cooling panel
an
was able to reduce the indoor air temperature by 6.7°K. The same group later investigated

experimentally the effect of changing water supply temperature from 26 to 18°C on surfaces
M
temperatures, indoor air temperature and thermal comfort. They found that reduction of water

temperature from 26 to 18°C resulted in the reduction of indoor air temperature by 2.1°K
e d

(Dharmasastha et al. 2022). Recently, (Sharifi et al. 2022) conducted a simulation study using
pt

white box models to assess the radiant cooling technology, where they found that it can maintain
ce

the indoor air temperature of the space between 21 to 26°C. Additionally, (Zhu et al. 2022)

experimentally tested a combined radiant floor and fan coil cooling system Jinan, China. In their
Ac

experiment, the supply water and air temperatures were changed according to the outdoor

temperature to achieve thermal comfort in the room. The cooling system was able to maintain the

indoor temperature between 25.4 to 26.6°C during the study.

In this paper, an analysis is performed on the performance of radiant cooling panels using

experimental investigation and transient system simulation software. The effect of chilled water

supply temperature and water flow rate on thermal comfort and energy efficiency is studied and
compared with a conventional cooling system. A comparison between constant water flow rate

and constant water temperature difference control schemes is performed. This paper also

demonstrates the modelling and validation of a radiant cooling system in TRNSYS. The validated

model was used to further study the system’s performance beyond the physical experiment’s

limits during the cooling season in Egypt.

t
2. Methods

ip
2.1 Experimental Setup

cr
The experimental setup consisted of two side-by-side rooms with identical outdoor

us
conditions and construction. Each room had 10.5 m2 of floor area with a height of 2.66 m. Each

room was equipped with a 2.16 m2 double-glazed window facing south and a small 0.7 m2
an
double-glazed window facing east. One of the rooms (Room A) was equipped with a typical
M
conventional mini-split air conditioning system (baseline system) with a capacity of 1 TR, while

the other room (Room B) was equipped with radiant cooling technology by circulating cold water
d

through the ceiling. The cold water was supplied from a buffer tank connected to a custom-made
e
pt

chiller system. Table 1 shows the label data for the baseline system and Figure 1 shows a 3D

rendering of the experimental test setup. The experiment was held during the month of September
ce

in Cairo, Egypt. The Typical ambient conditions over the course of the year are shown in Figure
Ac

3 (Lawrie and Crawley 2019).

2.2 Design of experiments

Two control schemes were evaluated during this experiment. The first control scheme is

Constant Water Flow Rate (CWFR) with the water flow rate held constant during the experiment

by holding the speed of the pump constant. The second control scheme is Constant Water

Temperature Difference (CWTD) where the water temperature difference between the inlet and
outlet water temperature of the rooms (∆Tw) is held constant; this was achieved by controlling

the pump speed using a proportional control approach as following:

(1)

̇ ( ( ̇ ( ) ) ) (2)

Where and are the actual and set water temperature differences between inlet

and outlet of the radiant room in °K, respectively, is the relative error, and ̇ is the pump

t
ip
water flow rate in lit/min adjusted by controlling pump speed through a variable frequency drive

cr
(VFD). A 0.85 underrelaxation factor is used in the proportional control, and minimum and

us
maximum water flowrates of 1.8 and 10 lit/min are used, respectively.

an
For CWFR, 6 experiments were evaluated with different tank temperature set points and
M
different water flow rates, each for 24 hours. For CWTD, 2 experiments were evaluated with
d

different tank temperature set points and ∆Tw for also 24 hours for each experiment. A summary
e

of the different experiments is shown in Table 2Error! Reference source not found..
pt
ce

3. Performance indices and error analysis

Ac

3.1 Performance indices

The performance of CWFR and CWTD against the baseline system is measured using two

criteria: energy efficiency and thermal comfort.

 3.1.1 Energy Efficiency
Energy efficiency calculations were performed using the TRNSYS models. The energy

efficiency is compared during the cooling season between June and September. For the baseline

system, the cooling energy is defined by equation 3.

̇ ̇ ( ) (3)

where ̇ is the air mass flow rate from the baseline system, is the enthalpy of the return air

t
to the baseline system, and is the enthalpy of the supply air from the baseline system. The

ip
COP of the baseline system is defined by equation 4.

cr
̇
(4)

us
̇

where ̇ is the electrical energy consumption by the baseline system. Both the cooling energy
an
and the electrical energy consumption were experimentally measured for the baseline system to
M
build a performance map that can be later used in the TRNSYS model.

For the radiant cooling system, the cooling energy is defined by equation 5.
d

̇ ̇ ( ) (5)
e

where ̇
pt

is the water flow rate to the radiant panels, is the water specific-heat, and and

are the outlet and inlet temperatures of the water, respectively. The COP of the radiant cooling
ce

system is defined by equation 6.

Ac

̇
̇
(6)

where ̇ is total electric power that consists of the water chiller power and the air stirring fan.

The chiller used in the experiment is custom-made and does not represent the current

efficient chiller technology; therefore, typical performance data available in TRNSYS were used

in the simulations. Also, an air stirring fan power of 50W was used during the whole year
analysis to provide adequate air speed in Room B to enhance thermal comfort, with the

assumption that the fan was switched on during the whole time of the study.

3.1.2 Thermal Comfort

The thermal comfort criteria defined by (ISO 7730:2005(E) 2005) are used for thermal

comfort evaluation. The criteria are namely Predicted Mean Vote (PMV) which shows on a scale

between -3 and +3 how suitable the environment is compared with the ideal comfortable

t
ip
condition defined in (ISO 7730:2005(E) 2005), and Predicted Percentage of Dissatisfied (PPD)

cr
which shows the percentage of the surveyed occupants dissatisfied with the indoor conditions.

us
PPD is a function of PMV as defined in (ISO 7730:2005(E) 2005). The criteria for meeting the

comfort requirements of the space were taken as PMV of ±0.5 (ISO 7730:2005(E) 2005). The
an
parameters used for calculating PMV are indicated in Table 3. For the experimental data, the air
M
velocity used for the calculation of PMV in Room B was taken as zero as the room did not have

any devices to stir the air in the room; in the TRNSYS model, a higher value of 0.2 m/s was used
d

to, which can be achieved through installation of a fan to stir the air in Room B.
e
pt
ce

3.2 Sensors and error analysis

Temperature and relative humidity sensors were used in each room to measure the indoor
Ac

conditions with an accuracy of ±0.5°C and ±5% respectively. The mean radiant temperature of

each room was measured using a 15 cm diameter globe thermometer with an accuracy of ±0.1°C.

Energy consumption of the baseline system was measured using a power meter with an accuracy

of ±0.1%. Water inlet and outlet temperature to and from the radiant cooling room were

measured using temperature sensors with an accuracy of ±0.1°C. The water flow rate to the

radiant cooling room was measured with an accuracy of ±5%.

 The accuracy of test results depends mainly on the error caused by the sensors. The

experimental results error analysis was performed using the uncertainty propagation (Kline and

Mcclintock 1953) as shown in equations 7 and 8.

[( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ] (7)

[( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ] (8)

t
ip
Based on the previous equations, the test error of ̇ , and ̇ are found as

cr
±8.66%, ±8.66% and ±8.77%, respectively.

us
4. Numerical Model

4.1 Model Description

an
TRNSYS (Klein and others 2017) was used to simulate both CWFR and CWTD systems
M
along with the baseline system in the same weather conditions to be able to have a fair
d

comparison of their performances. The simulation is performed during the cooling season
e
pt
ce
Ac
between the first of June and the end of September.

t
ip
cr
us
an
M
e d
pt
ce
Ac
 t
ip
cr
us
an
Figure 4 shows the TRNSYS model for the radiant cooling system and baseline system
M
and
e d

shows a list of the TRNSYS types used in the simulation. A TRNSYS component takes 3
pt

arguments: parameters, inputs, and outputs. Parameters are constants used to define the
ce

component and how it operates; Inputs are variables that usually take their values from the output

of other components; Outputs are calculated variables from the simulation of the component. The
Ac

weather data used in the simulations are based on the publicly available TMYx database for

Cairo, Egypt (Lawrie and Crawley 2019).

4.2 Model Validation
The model has been validated against the measured experimental data.

t
ip
cr
us
an
M
e d
pt
ce
Ac
 Figure 5, Figure 6 and

t
ip
cr
us
an
M
e d
pt
ce
Ac

Figure 7 show comparisons between simulation and experimental results for CWFR, CWTD, and

baseline systems, respectively.

For CWFR, the model was able to predict the dry bulb temperature (DBT), relative

humidity (RH), and mean radiant temperature (MRT) of the room with a root mean squared error

(RMSE) of 0.66°K, 6.0%, and 0.69°K, maximum absolute error (MAE) of 1.16°K, 11.3%, and

1.32°K, and standard deviation (STD) of 0.32°K, 5.74%, and 0.41°K, respectively. The model
was also able to predict the water temperature difference between the inlet and outlet of the room

with an RMSE of 0.21°K, MAE of 0.56°K and STD of 0.2°K.

For CWTD, the model was able to predict the DBT, RH, and MRT of the room with an

t
RMSE of 0.67°K, 7.76%, and 0.7°K, MAE of 1.21°K, 17.5%, and 2.56°K, and STD of 0.51°K,

ip
5.5%, and 0.7°K, respectively. the model was also able to predict the water flow rate and

cr
temperature difference between the inlet and outlet of the room with an RMSE of 0.77 lit/min and

us
0.14°K, MAE of 2.2 lit/min and 0.58°K, and STD of 0.69 lit/min and 0.13°K , respectively.

For the baseline system, the model was validated using all the data during all the runs.
an
The model was able to predict the DBT, RH, and MRT of the room with an RMSE of 0.28°K,
M
8.66%, and 0.30°K, MAE of 1.3°K, 21.6%, and 1.48°K, and STD of 0.28°K, 5.88% and 0.29°K,

respectively.
d

The model prediction deviation from the experimental results for the RH is due to the
e
pt

unavailability of accurate weather data for ambient RH. This would affect the latent load from

infiltration entering the room and consequently the indoor RH. However, this only affected the
ce

trend which RH is taking rather than the values itself, which would allow the predictions of the
Ac

model to be taken into consideration.

 5. Results and discussion
This section presents the performance of CWFR and CWTD against the baseline system

using the experimental data and thermal comfort analysis.

t
ip
cr
5.1 Experimental Results

us
5.1.1 CWFR Performance
CWFR was evaluated for 6 different operating conditions as shown in Table 2 and
an
described in section 2.2. As each experiment had different ambient conditions, a direct

comparison between different experiments is not possible. However, as both the baseline and
M
radiant cooling systems operated in parallel with the same ambient conditions and space load
d

characteristics, they can be compared for thermal comfort. A summary of the results of each
e
pt
ce
Ac
experiment is shown in

t
ip
cr
us
an
M
e d
pt
ce
Ac

Figure 8 and Table 5.

 For experiment 1, room B was maintained at comfort conditions all the time. The average

PMV was -0.09 with PPD of 5.2%. Similarly, room A was kept in comfortable conditions all the

time with no unmet hours. The average PMV and PPD for room A were 0.06 and 5.1,

respectively.

For experiment 2, the unmet hours of room B increased to 4.7 hours with average PMV

and PPD of 0.35 and 7.5, respectively. This was caused by the high average ambient temperature

t
of 32.5 (which is the hottest of all experiments) which did not exist in experiment 1. On the

ip
contrary, the baseline system experienced some over-cooling with an average PMV of -0.32.

cr
However, the PMV was kept within the comfort limits most of the time with only 1.0 unmet

us
hours.
an
For experiment 3, baseline system was able to maintain comfortable conditions all the

time while radiant cooling system had 2.2 unmet hours. The average PMV of room A was 0.02
M
while room B was 0.27. Similar trend was found for experiment 4 with unmet hours of 5.7 for

Room B. The average PMV was 0.03 and 0.13 for rooms A and B, respectively.
e d

For experiments 5 and 6, the unmet hours increased to 6.5 and 7.2 with an average PMV
pt

of 0.34 and 0.43 for room B, respectively. The higher water supply temperature could not meet
ce

the cooling load and caused the indoor conditions to shift outside the comfort conditions during

the afternoon hours. Room A in comparison had no unmet hours for both experiments with an
Ac

average PMV of 0.07 and -0.02, respectively. The baseline system was superior in this case.

To be able to maintain the indoor condition within comfort conditions, the water supply

temperature has to be low enough to be able to handle the cooling load. However, this might

result in over-cooling of the room, particularly at low ambient temperatures where the cooling

load decreases. Tuning the supply temperature to match the cooling load is needed to achieve

comfort conditions. Also, the addition of a fan to increase the air speed inside the room would
enhance the comfort conditions significantly, decreasing the value of PMV within the

recommended range.

5.1.2 CWTD performance

CWTD has the advantage of keeping a constant water temperature difference between the

inlet and outlet from the radiant panel; this will translate to a variable cooling capacity that

matches the room’s cooling load. Different water supply temperatures and water temperature

t
ip
differences were evaluated for 24 hours each. A summary of the results of each experiment is

cr
shown in

us
an
M
e d
pt

Figure 9 and Table 6.

ce
Ac

For both experiments, the relatively low ambient temperature caused the cooling load of

the room to decrease. For experiment 7, room B experienced 8.8 unmet hours with an average

PMV of -0.37. This was caused by the high water temperature-difference setting that caused

over-cooling of the room and caused the indoor temperature to decrease below comfortable

conditions. Room A on the other hand had 0.0 unmet hours with an average PMV of 0.04. For

experiment 8, the water temperature difference was set to a higher value to avoid the over-
cooling issue, resulting in 3.2 unmet hours and an average PMV of 0.1.

The CWTD can be tuned with further experiments to give better thermal comfort

performance by optimizing the water supply temperature and the water temperature difference

setting.

5.2 Numerical Modelling Results

During the numerical investigation of the radiant cooling system, a fan was utilized to

t
ip
enhance the PMV of the space during the cooling season analysis. An analysis of the impact of

cr
the relative velocity of the air in the space is shown in Figure 10 where it can be seen that a low

us
relative velocity of the air inside the space would result in a significant increase in the unmet

hours in the system. This justifies the additional energy consumption that would result from the
an
implementation of the fan used to stir the air inside the radiant cooling room.
M
To be able to compare the thermal comfort and energy efficiency of the three systems

during the whole cooling season, the validated TRNSYS models were performed from June to
d

September. For the CWFR, the water supply temperature was set to 18°C while the water flow
e

rate was set to 7.16 lit/min. For the CWTD, the water supply temperature was also set to 18°C
pt

while the water temperature difference setting was set to 2.0°K. The results of the simulation are
ce
Ac
shown in Table 7 and

t
ip
cr
us
an
M
e d
pt
ce
Ac

Figure 11.

Seasonal cooling energy of the radiant cooling system was about 60% higher than the

baseline system for CWFR and CWTD cases; This was caused by the losses from the radiant

panel in the ceiling to the atmosphere above it; These losses would increase to a much higher

value than the baseline system since the surface temperature of the radiant panel was much lower

than room A. A proposed solution to this problem is enhancing the insulation above the chilled
roof. It was found that increasing the insulation thickness by a factor of 3, reduced the seasonal

cooling energy by 25%.

For the baseline system, the indoor unit fan would operate all the time even when the

refrigeration system is not operating, this caused the seasonal electrical energy consumption of

the baseline system to be higher than would be anticipated from the nameplate data, and caused

the average COP of the system to hit a very low value of 0.86; This shows that turning the indoor

t
fan off or modulating it to a lower speed would be important to enhance the seasonal energy

ip
saving for the baseline system. CWFR showed 53% higher seasonal electrical energy

cr
consumption than the baseline system due to the high electrical power withdrawn by the pump,

us
which was operating at high speed all the time. CWTD system, where the pump speed is
an
modulated to change the water flow rate, showed 39% and 7.4% seasonal electrical energy saving

compared with CWFR and baseline systems, respectively. This indicates the merit of CWTD
M
compared with CWFR. Thermal comfort, however, was impacted in CWTD compared with

CWFR, increasing the unmet hours by 1.9%. A CWTD system with enhanced insulation showed
e d

even better performance with less seasonal electrical energy consumption than the baseline
pt

system by 24% with a 12.2% unmet hours percentage, which is less than both CWFR and CWTD
ce

by 1.9% and 3.8%, respectively.

Ac

The baseline system showed superior performance in thermal comfort. The unmet-hours

percentage was only 1.0% during the whole study, which gives the advantage to the baseline

system for thermal comfort. However, such a performance can be achieved by the radiant cooling

system by linking the control parameters of the radiant cooling system (water flow rate and

temperature) with the indoor conditions. It should be noted that such a control strategy will be
effective if the thermal capacity of the cooling space is large enough, as radiant cooling systems

have slow response time and would take some time to effectively change the control parameters.

5.3 Economic and Emissions Assessment

Potential energy savings will reflect cost savings over the time, which can prove to be a

more feasible cooling solution than the conventional cooling systems. Additionally, this will also

reflect operation with lower overall emissions. To be able to perform the required assessment of

t
the potential alternative to the conventional cooling system, simple payback period analysis is

ip
used along with emissions analysis. For the simple payback period, equation 9 is used:

cr
( )
(9)

us
where is the simple payback period in years, an is the capital cost of the radiant cooling

system, is the capital cost of the conventional cooling system, and x is the yearly cost
M
savings, calculated from equation 10:

(10)
e d

where z is the potential energy savings per year between the radiant cooling and the
pt

conventional system, and p is the energy cost. For the radiant cooling system to be feasible,
ce

the breakeven point should be in at most 5 years. With the parameters indicated in Table 8,

the capital cost of the radiant cooling system should be 13,600 EGP. This cost is achievable
Ac

for a central cooling system with implementation over many cooling spaces.

For the emissions analysis, equation 11 is used:

(11)

where is the emissions savings, is the global warming potential of the

refrigerant used in the conventional cooling system, is the refrigerant charge in the
conventional cooling system, r is the emissions-energy conversion factor, and t is the typical

lifetime of the cooling system. Table 8: Parameters used for the evaluation of payback period

Parameter Unit Value

year 5
EGP 11500
kWh/year 289
EGP/kWh 1.45

t
ip
Table 9 indicated the values used for the evaluation of the emissions savings. The emissions

savings was found to be 2235 kgCO2.

cr
us
6. Conclusion
A radiant cooling system is experimentally evaluated against a baseline system using
an
side-by-side rooms in Egypt. Two different control schemes of radiant cooling are evaluated; the
M
first control scheme used a constant water flow rate (CWFR) while the second control scheme

used a constant water temperature difference between the inlet and the outlet of the cooled space
d

(CWTD). For the CWFR, three different water temperature set points were evaluated at 16, 18,
e

and 20°C for a period of 24 hours. 20°C showed unmet hours in the range of 6.5 to 7.2 hours out
pt

of the 24 hours, which is deemed unfeasible for the operation of the system. For the 18°C supply
ce

temperature, the unmet hours were 2.2 to 5.7, which is not also achieving good thermal comfort
Ac

performance. The 16°C supply temperature resulted in unmet hours of 0 to 4.7 hours, which

showed the best thermal comfort performance. The water flow rate was also studied and was

found to have an insignificant effect on thermal comfort. For the CWTD, two trials have been

performed with different water supply temperatures and different water temperature difference

settings. The first experiment with a 16°C supply temperature and a 2.0°K water temperature

setting showed high unmet hours of 8.8 caused by the over-cooling of the cooled space. The
second experiment of 18°C supply temperature and 1.0°K water temperature setting showed

fewer unmet hours of 3.2 hours.

Simulation of the proposed systems using TRNSYS has been performed during the

cooling season. It was found that the baseline system was superior in thermal comfort with a

1.1% unmet hours percentage. The radiant cooling systems showed unmet hours in the range of

12% to 16%, which is higher than the values for the baseline system. The seasonal cooling

t
energy of CWFR and CWTD systems was about 60% higher than the baseline system, due to the

ip
increased heat losses from the chilled room. Enhanced insulation of the CWTD system showed a

cr
25% reduction of seasonal cooling energy compared with the original CWTD system. Better

us
thermal comfort performance can be further achieved by utilizing the indoor condition in the
an
control of operating parameters of the radiant cooling system. For seasonal energy efficiency,

CWTD with enhanced insulation showed better performance with seasonal electrical energy
M
consumption less than original CWTD, CWFR, and baseline systems by 18%, 50%, and 24%,

respectively.
e d

Disclosure statement
pt

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ce

Funding
Ac

This work is part of project No. 3988 funded by the office of sponsored research at King

Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) under the KAUST cooling initiative.
References

Cen, Chao, Yihong Jia, Kuixing Liu, and Ruoxi Geng. 2018. “Experimental Comparison of
Thermal Comfort during Cooling with a Fan Coil System and Radiant Floor System at
Varying Space Heights.” Building and Environment 141: 71–79.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.05.057.

Chung, Woong June, Sang Hoon Park, Myoung Souk Yeo, and Kwang Woo Kim. 2017. “Control
of Thermally Activated Building System Considering Zone Load Characteristics.”

t
ip
Sustainability (Switzerland) 9 (4). https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040586.

cr
Clarke, Leon, Jiyong Eom, Elke Hodson Marten, Russell Horowitz, Page Kyle, Robert Link,
Bryan K Mignone, Anupriya Mundra, and Yuyu Zhou. 2018. “Effects of Long-Term

us
Climate Change on Global Building Energy Expenditures.” Energy Economics 72: 667–77.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2018.01.003.
an
Crawley, Drury B, Linda K Lawrie, Frederick C Winkelmann, W F Buhl, Y.Joe Huang, Curtis O
M
Pedersen, Richard K Strand, et al. 2001. “EnergyPlus: Creating a New-Generation Building
Energy Simulation Program.” Energy and Buildings 33 (4): 319–31.
d

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7788(00)00114-6.
e

Dharmasastha, K., D. G. Leo Samuel, S. M. Shiva Nagendra, and M. P. Maiya. 2022. “Thermal
pt

Comfort of a Radiant Cooling System in Glass Fiber Reinforced Gypsum Roof – An

Experimental Study.” Applied Thermal Engineering 214.
ce

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2022.118842.
Ac

Dharmasastha, K., D. G.Leo Samuel, S. M.Shiva Nagendra, and M. P. Maiya. 2020.

“Experimental Investigation of Thermally Activated Glass Fibre Reinforced Gypsum Roof.”
Energy and Buildings 228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110424.

Dong, Yabin, Marney Coleman, and Shelie A. Miller. 2021. “Greenhouse Gas Emissions from
Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Service Expansion in Developing Countries.” Annual
Review of Environment and Resources 46: 59–83. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-
012220-034103.
Han, Xing, and Xu Zhang. 2011. “Experimental Study on a Residential Temperature-Humidity
Separate Control Air-Conditioner.” Energy and Buildings 43 (12): 3584–91.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.09.029.

IEA. 2021. “Cooling.” https://www.iea.org/reports/cooling.

ISO 7730:2005(E). 2005. Ergonomics of the Thermal Environment -- Analytical Determination

and Interpretation of Thermal Comfort Using Calculation of the PMV and PPD Indices and
Local Thermal Comfort Criteria. Vernier, Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization

t
ip
for Standardization.

cr
Khan, Yasin, Mahabir Bhandari, and Jyotirmay Mathur. 2018. “Energy-Saving Potential of a
Radiant Cooling System in Different Climate Zones of India.” Science and Technology for

us
the Built Environment 24 (4): 356–70.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/23744731.2017.1348140.
an
Khan, Yasin, Vaibhav Rai Khare, Jyotirmay Mathur, and Mahabir Bhandari. 2015. “Performance
Evaluation of Radiant Cooling System Integrated with Air System under Different
M
Operational Strategies.” Energy and Buildings 97: 118–28.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.03.030.
e d

Kim, Janghyun, Athanasios Tzempelikos, and James E Braun. 2019. “Energy Savings Potential
pt

of Passive Chilled Beams vs Air Systems in Various US Climatic Zones with Different
System Configurations.” Energy and Buildings 186: 244–60.
ce

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.01.031.
Ac

Klein, S A, and others. 2017. TRNSYS 18: A Transient System Simulation Program. University of
Wisconsin, Madison, USA: Solar Energy Laboratory. http://sel.me.wisc.edu/trnsys.

Kline, S, and F Mcclintock. 1953. “Describing Uncertainties in Single-Sample Experiments.”

Mechanical Engineering 75: 3–8.

Lawrie, Linda K, and Drury B Crawley. 2019. “Development of Global Typical Meteorological
Years ({TMY}x).” http://climate.onebuilding.org.

Leo Samuel, D. G., S. M.Shiva Nagendra, and M. Prakash Maiya. 2018. “Parametric Analysis on
 the Thermal Comfort of a Cooling Tower Based Thermally Activated Building System in
Tropical Climate – An Experimental Study.” Applied Thermal Engineering 138: 325–35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2018.04.077.

Ling, Jiazhen, Yunho Hwang, and Reinhard Radermacher. 2010. “Theoretical Study on Separate
Sensible and Latent Cooling Air-Conditioning System.” International Journal of
Refrigeration 33 (3): 510–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2009.11.011.

Romaní, Joaquim, Luisa F. Cabeza, and Alvaro de Gracia. 2018. “Development and

t
ip
Experimental Validation of a Transient 2D Numeric Model for Radiant Walls.” Renewable
Energy 115: 859–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.08.019.

cr
Sharifi, Mohsen, Rana Mahmoud, Eline Himpe, and Jelle Laverge. 2022. “A Heuristic Algorithm

us
for Optimal Load Splitting in Hybrid Thermally Activated Building Systems.” Journal of
Building Engineering 50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104160.
an
Su, Lin, Nianping Li, Xuhan Zhang, Yeyao Sun, and Jiawei Qian. 2015. “Heat Transfer and
Cooling Characteristics of Concrete Ceiling Radiant Cooling Panel.” Applied Thermal
M
Engineering 84: 170–79.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2015.03.045.
e d

The World Bank. 2020. “World Bank National Accounts Data, and OECD National Accounts
pt

Data Files.” The World Bank. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NE.DAB.TOTL.CD.

ce

UNEP. 2021. “2021 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction: Towards a Zero
Emission, Efficient and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector.”
Ac

https://www.unep.org/resources/report/2021-global-status-report-buildings-and-
construction.

Zaki, Omar M, Ramy H Mohammed, and Omar Abdelaziz. 2022. “Separate Sensible and Latent
Cooling Technologies: A Comprehensive Review.” Energy Conversion and Management
256: 115380. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2022.115380.

Zhu, Xuwei, Jiying Liu, Xiangyuan Zhu, Xiaole Wang, Yanqiu Du, and Jikui Miao. 2022.
“Experimental Study on Operating Characteristic of a Combined Radiant Floor and Fan Coil
Cooling System in a High Humidity Environment.” Buildings 12 (4).
https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12040499.

t
ip
cr
us
an
M
e d
pt
ce
Ac
 t
ip
cr
Figure 1: Experimental setup 3D rendering

us
an
M
e d
pt

Figure 2: Test Rooms from Outside

ce
Ac
 t
ip
cr
Figure 3: Ambient conditions of Cairo, Egypt during the year: (a) Dry bulb temperature, (b) Relative Humidity

us
an
M
e d
pt
ce
Ac
Ac
ce
pt
ed
M
an
us
cr
ip
t
 t
ip
cr
us
an
Figure 4: TRNSYS model outline
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac

Figure 5: TRNSYS CWFR model validation

 t
ip
cr
us
an
M
e d
pt
ce
Ac

Figure 6: TRNSYS CWTD model validation

 t
ip
cr
us
an
M
e d
pt
ce

Figure 7: TRNSYS baseline system model validation

Ac
 t
ip
cr
us
an
M
e d
pt
ce
Ac

Figure 8: PMV for different experiments used with CWFR

 t
ip
Figure 9: PMV for different experiments used with CWTD

cr
us
an
M
e d
pt
ce

Figure 10: Effect of air relative velocity on the unmet hours percentage for radiant cooling system
Ac
 t
ip
cr
us
an
M
e d
pt
ce
Ac

Figure 11: PMV from TRNSYS model from the start of June to the end of September for (a)

Conventional system (b) CWFR (c) CWTD

 Table 1: Baseline system nameplate specifications

Parameter Unit Value

Cooling capacity W 3548
Electric power W 1030
COP W/W 3.44
Refrigerant - R410A
Refrigerant charge kg 0.57

t
ip
Table 2: Operating parameters of experiments

cr
Water supply
Control Water flow rate ∆Tw
Experiment temperature
scheme lit/min °K
°C

us
1 7.16 N/A
16.0
2 9.81 N/A
3
4
CWFR 18.0
an 6.35
9.25
N/A
N/A
5 7.53 N/A
M
20.0
6 10.25 N/A
7 16.0 N/A 2.0
CWTD
8 18.0 N/A 1.0
e d

Table 3: Parameters used in PMV calculations

pt

Value
Parameter unit
ce

Room A Room B
Metabolism rate 1.0 met
Clothing 0.7 -
Ac

Relative air velocity 0.2 0.0 for m/s

experimental data
0.2 for TRNSYS
Model

Table 4: TRNSYS Component Description

Type Number Type Name Description Used in

15 Weather Reads weather data from an external file All models
at each time step
77 Soil Simulates vertical temperature All models
 Temperature distribution of the ground
56 Building Models the thermal behavior of a All models
multizone building
954c Air Simulates airflow on the evaporator and Baseline
conditioner condenser sides of an air conditioner
166 Thermostat Models on/off control signals Baseline
based on room temperature
118 Chiller Simulates a vapor compression air- CWFR &
cooled chiller CWTD
534 Tank Models a vertical cylindrical storage CWFR &
tank with no heat exchanger on the CWTD
inside

t
ip
110 Pump Simulates a variable speed pump CWFR &
CWTD
113 Aquastat Models on/off control signals CWFR &

cr
based on fluid temperature CWTD
150 Control The controller that holds the control CWTD

us
Delay input value for a certain number of time-
steps
an
Table 5: Summary of experimental results for different experiments used with CWFR
M
Experiment
Parameter Unit
1 2 3 4 5 6
Minimum ambient temperature C 22.7 26.6 22.9 23.9 20.7 23.6
d

Maximum ambient temperature C 31.9 38.5 33.9 33.6 30.5 39.6

e

Average ambient temperature C 26.7 32.5 28 28.6 25.3 30.6

Average Room A temperature C 26.7 25.6 26.6 26.5 26.7 26.4
pt

Average room A RH % 56 57 57 63 53 57
Average room A MRT C 23.9 22.9 23.9 23.8 24.2 23.8
ce

Average room A PMV - 0.06 -0.32 0.02 0.03 0.07 -0.02

Average room A PPD % 5.1 7.1 5.0 5.0 5.1 5.0
Ac

room A unmet hours hr 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Average room B temperature C 24.8 26 25.8 26 26.2 26.4
Average room B RH % 59 54 57 61 51 55
Average room B MRT C 23.6 25.3 24.9 25.3 25.3 25.4
Average room B PMV - -0.09 0.35 0.27 0.4 0.34 0.43
Average room B PPD % 5.2 7.5 6.6 8.3 7.5 8.9
room B unmet hours hr 0.0 4.7 2.2 5.7 6.5 7.2
 Table 6: Summary of experimental results for different experiments used with CWTD

Parameter Unit Experiment

7 8
Room A Room B Room A Room B
Minimum ambient temperature C 19.7 20.7
Maximum ambient temperature C 28.9 31.0
Average ambient temperature C 24.1 25.7
Average room temperature C 26.7 23.9 26.6 25.3
Average room RH % 52 58 56 56
Average room MRT C 24.1 22.9 24.1 24.4

t
ip
Average room PMV - 0.04 -0.37 0.06 0.1
Average room PPD % 5.0 7.8 5.1 5.2

cr
Unmet hours hr 0.0 8.8 0.2 3.2

us
Table 7: Summary of TRNSYS model seasonal results from June to September

Parameter Unit
Conventional
anCWFR CWTD
CWTD with
Cooling enhanced Insulation
M
Cooling energy kWh 1036 1658 1622 1237
Electrical energy kWh 1205 1840 1116 916
Unmet hours % 1.1 14.1 16.0 12.2
Average PMV - -0.06 0.08 0.15 0.07
e d

Table 8: Parameters used for the evaluation of payback period

pt

Parameter Unit Value

ce

year 5
EGP 11500
Ac

kWh/year 289
EGP/kWh 1.45

Table 9: Parameters used for the evaluation of the emissions savings

Parameter Unit Value

kgR410A/kgCO2 2088
kg 0.57
kgCO2/kWh 0.5164
year 7
Ac
ce
pt
ed
M
an
us
cr
ip
t