Original Paper

Indoor and Built

Environment
Indoor and Built Environment
0(0) 1–16

An investigation of the cooling ! The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

performance of air-conditioning sagepub.com/journals-

permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1420326X19891645
systems in seven Chinese hub journals.sagepub.com/home/ibe

airport terminals

Xiaochen Liu1, Xiaohua Liu1,2, Tao Zhang1 and

Lingshan Li1

Abstract
Airport terminals are key infrastructures with rapid development currently, where the air-conditioning
(AC) systems aim to guarantee the normal operation. This research investigated the AC systems in
seven Chinese hub airport terminals by a large-scale on-site measurement. The average annual
electricity consumption was 177 kWh/(m2
year), in which 30–60% was consumed by AC systems.
The terminal device of AC systems is one of the key components restricting the cooling performance.
The commonly used terminal devices (i.e. air handling units) accounted for 40–74% of the AC electricity
consumption. As an alternative, the AC system combining radiant floor and displacement ventilation
could save 34% of the AC electricity consumption in one investigated airport terminal. Furthermore, the
designed cooling capacities were 132–176 W/m2, while the measured values were only 43–90 W/m2.
Thus, the AC systems, especially the terminal devices, should have the ability to adjust cooling capacity
over a wide range to cope with this prevailing situation of low load rates. This study is beneficial for the
design and operation of AC systems in airport terminals.

Keywords
Airport terminal, Air-conditioning system, Cooling performance, Energy consumption, On-site measurement
Accepted: 9 November 2019

Introduction
The civil aviation industry has maintained a rapid
development throughout the world in recent years.
More than 4 billion passengers chose to travel by air
in 2017, in which China had the highest growth rate of
14% in top-ten countries or groups.1 As critical infra-
structures for civil aviation, airport terminals are
experiencing rapid development in China. More than
70 new airport terminals are to be built and more than
100 airport terminals are to be retrofitted in the 13th
five-year plan period (2016–2020).2 Previous research
indicates that the energy consumption of airport termi-
nals is usually higher than that of common civil build-
ings,3,4 and 40–80% of the energy is consumed
by heating, ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC)
systems.5–7 Even though with such a high level of
energy consumption, the indoor environment in airport
terminals is always less than satisfactory.8,9 Therefore,
how to improve both indoor environment and energy
efficiency is an urgent topic in the design and operation
of the air-conditioning systems in airport terminals.
Airport terminals are public buildings with special
functions to meet the requirements for civil aviation;3
1
Department of Building Science, Tsinghua University, Beijing,
China
2
Beijing Key Laboratory of Indoor Air Quality Evaluation and
Control, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Corresponding author:
Tao Zhang, Department of Building Science, Tsinghua
University, Beijing 100084, China.
Email: zt2015@mail.tsinghua.edu.cn
2 Indoor and Built Environment 0(0)
besides, they are generally designed to be large space
buildings with high ceilings and large areas of glazing
envelopes.6 These characteristics differentiate them
from common types of buildings (such as offices and
residences), especially for the indoor environment.
Researchers have investigated the indoor environment
in airport terminals over the world and analysed the
main reasons leading to thermal discomfort in summer,
including high globe temperature caused by high-
temperature envelopes, overheating/overcooling caused
by air-conditioning systems, and high humidity caused
by air infiltration.6,8–11 To create a satisfactory indoor
environment, terminal devices of an air-conditioning
system are significant in large spaces of airport termi-
nals, which determine the airflow distribution and influ-
ence the cooling load. Jet ventilation with nozzle outlets
is commonly used in airport terminals6 and other large
space buildings, such as a stadium12 and a railway sta-
tion.13 Moreover, various types of new terminal devices
were proposed and used in large spaces of airport ter-
minals to improve the cooling performance, such as the
displacement ventilation in the new terminal of Madrid
Airport14 and the radiant floor supplemented by dis-
placement ventilation in New Bangkok Airport15 and
Xi’an Xianyang International Airport.16 Previous
research mainly focused on the indoor environment in
the occupant zones of airport terminals; however, the
indoor environment of the entire large spaces with var-
ious types of terminal devices has not been investigated
and compared in detail, which is closely related to the
cooling load of air-conditioning systems.
Furthermore, energy efficiency is the other significant
aspect to evaluate the cooling performance of air-
conditioning systems in airport terminals. The energy
efficiency of devices in air-conditioning systems or a
cooling plant as a whole is usually defined as an
output–input ratio which refers to the ratio of cooling
capacity and electric power consumption, such as coeffi-
cient of performance (COP) of a chiller and energy effi-
ciency ratio of a cooling plant (EER).17,18 These indexes
have been widely used to evaluate the energy perfor-
mance of air-conditioning systems, such as benchmark-
ing energy performance for cooling in large commercial
buildings.19 Based on these indexes, new forms of air-
conditioning systems have been designed to improve
the energy performance of airport terminals. Sun
et al.20 proposed to integrate the chilled water system
of Hong Kong International Airport into neighbouring
buildings, which improved the energy efficiency of the
cooling plant in partial load conditions. Zhang et al.21
utilised thermal energy storage (TES) equipment in the
building cooling heating and power (BCHP) system of
Qingdao International Airport, and then optimised the
strategy to operate electrical chillers, TES equipment
and absorption chillers in various load conditions.
Moreover, the control method of air-conditioning sys-
tems is also important in actual operation. Fan et al.22
presented an exergy analysis method to evaluate the
operation performance of the HVAC system in an air-
port of Haikou, China, which could give directions for
optimal control. Huang et al.23 proposed a hybrid
model predictive control (HMPC) scheme for energy
and cost savings in Adelaide Airport T1, Australia,
by which a considerable amount of energy has been
saved without violating thermal comfort. Although
many researchers have studied novel technologies and
forms of air-conditioning systems in airport terminals
over the world, there is still a lack of long-time and
large-scale on-site measurements to reveal the actual
operation situations of air-conditioning systems in cur-
rent airport terminals and analyse common problems,
especially in China with such a rapid development of
airport terminals.
In this study, comprehensive on-site measurements
from 2013 to 2018 were summarised to investigate the
performance of air-conditioning systems in seven
Chinese hub airport terminals. The results were ana-
lysed in detail to determine the key issues restricting the
performance and possible solutions were also pro-
posed. The present analysis would be beneficial to the
construction and operation of air-conditioning systems
in airport terminals.
Basic information of measurements
The cooling performance in airport terminals was
determined by the indoor environment in terminal
buildings and the energy performance of key devices
in air-conditioning systems. On-site measurements
were performed in seven Chinese hub airport terminals
to give a comprehensive view of the cooling perfor-
mance. Besides, the design parameters and measure-
ment results of some other Chinese airport terminals
in literature were also collected for comparison.
Air-conditioning systems in the measured
airports
Table 1 shows the seven terminals of three Chinese hub
airports (A, B and C) for the on-site measurements.
For example, A1, A2 and A3 are three different termi-
nals in the same airport, but they were constructed in
different years, resulting in various forms of architec-
tural spaces and air-conditioning systems. Figure 1
illustrates the outdoor temperatures for HVAC designs
in the top 20 Chinese airports.24 Although these air-
ports are located in various climate zones of China,
their design/extreme outdoor temperatures in summer
are quite similar compared with those in winter.
Thus, the on-site measurements in the selected airport
 Liu et al.

Table 1. Information of airport terminals investigated in this research.

Airport terminal A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 C2 C3

Passengers in 2017 (million) 95.8 49.8 41.9

Climate zone Cold Hot Summer-Cold Winter Cold
Constructed year 1980/2004 1999 2008 2001 2012 2003 2012
On-site measurement year 2018 2018 2014 & 2018 2017 2017 2013 & 2017 2013 & 2017
Floor area (thousand m2) 60 336 986 130 330 84 244
Indoor height (m)
Check-in hall 5–8 16–26 9–27 10–25 14–26 8–19 1827
Departure hall 5–6 6–16 10–18 6–14 6–15 8–15 711
Terminal devices in large spaces AHU þ AHU þ AHU þ AHU þ AHU þ AHU þ HLDP þ DV;
of airport terminala jet nozzle jet nozzle jet nozzle jet nozzle jet nozzle jet nozzle RF þ dry FCU
Distance between energy centre 1.0–1.2 0.6–1.0 0.5–2.5 0.9–1.1 0.3–0.5 0.2–0.4 0.81.0
and airport terminal (km)
Cold source in energy centre CC CC CC SACþCC CCþDFAC CCþice storage CCþice storage
Photo of terminal building

AHU: Air handling unit; CC:centrifugal chiller; DFAC: direct fired absorption chiller; SAC: steam absorption chiller; HLDP: heat pump-driven liquid desiccant processor; DV: displacement
ventilation; RF: radiant floor; FCU: fan coil unit.
a
Air-conditioning systems in other areas of the airport (i.e. offices, air bridges, data centres) were not included.
3
4 Indoor and Built Environment 0(0)

Figure 1. Design and extreme outdoor temperatures for the HVAC systems at the top 20 airports in China.24

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of air-conditioning systems in airports.

terminals can reveal the typical cooling condition in
Chinese hub airport terminals. A district cooling/heat-
ing system is commonly adopted in an airport area, as
illustrated in Figure 2, which consists of terminal devi-
ces in an airport terminal, a distribution system and an
energy centre.
In airport terminals, occupants’ activities almost
occur in the space within about 2 m above the floor,
while airport terminals are usually designed to be large
space buildings. The maximal indoor height of the
check-in halls in these measured airport terminals can
reach 27 m, and that of the departure halls is 18 m (A3
in Table 1). There are three commonly used forms of
terminal devices in large spaces of these airport termi-
nals, as shown in Figure 3. The airport terminals,
which were constructed in the early years, usually
adopted the entire space air-conditioning systems, as
shown in Figure 3(a), which means the entire indoor
space is cooled. To reduce the air-conditioning con-
trolled space for energy saving, the stratified air-
conditioning systems, as shown in Figure 3(b), are
most widely used nowadays in airport terminals. The
jet nozzles are installed in the side walls (such as check-
in counters), and the air-conditioning controlled space
is 4–6 m high. Moreover, the occupant zone
air-conditioning systems with the radiant floor (RF)
and displacement ventilation (DV), as shown in
Figure 3(c), have been introduced into large spaces of
airport terminals, which can further decrease the air-
conditioning controlled space to be about 2 m high.
The cold sources of air-conditioning systems are
usually located in the energy centre (i.e. cooling
plant), as shown in Figure 2. Centrifugal chillers are
often utilised as cold sources, which are supplemented
by absorption chillers in some airports, such as B2.
Besides, the ice storage technology is also applied in
some airport terminals like C2 and C3, which aims to
optimise the installed cooling capacity of district cool-
ing systems. The energy centres are typically located
0.3–2.0 km away from their respective airport termi-
nals. Therefore, multistage pumps are generally
designed in the distribution system to supply chilled
water from the energy centre to the airport terminal.
Figure 4 illustrates the design parameters of typical
cooling plants in the measured airport terminals and
some other Chinese airport (i.e. D to J).27–33 The
chilled water with a temperature difference of 5 K
(i.e. 7  C supply and 12  C return) is commonly
adopted, especially in those airport terminals built in
early years. However, to reduce the energy
Liu et al. 5

Figure 3. Typical terminal devices of HVAC systems in large spaces of airport terminals: (a) entire space air-conditioning (jet
ventilation), (b) stratified air-conditioning (jet ventilation) and (c) occupant zone air-conditioning (RF þ DV).

Figure 4. Design parameters of typical cooling plants in Chinese airport terminals: (a) chilled water temperature and
(b) cooling capacity.

consumption of chilled water distribution systems, the On-site measurement method

design temperature difference of supply and return
chilled water increases to be 6–13 K in some airports,
such as C2 and C3. Furthermore, the design cooling
capacity per air-conditioning controlled area in these
airports ranges from 122 W/m2 to 231 W/m2 with an
average value of 169 W/m2, as shown in Figure 4(b),
which indicates a high level of cooling demand in air-
port terminals.
The time of on-site measurements in the seven airport
terminals (shown in Table 1) was June, July and
August of 2013, 2014, 2017 and 2018, which can rep-
resent the typical situation in summer. The on-site
measurements were carried out simultaneously in the
cooling plant and the terminal building of each airport
terminal to investigate the indoor environment in these
6 Indoor and Built Environment 0(0)

terminal buildings and the energy performance of key Qc

devices in their air-conditioning systems.
The indoor environmental parameters, including air
temperature, relative humidity, air velocity and CO2
concentration, were measured in each of the airport ter-
minals. For occupant zones, the indoor environmental
sensors were located 1.5 m above the floor in typical
areas of each airport terminal, including check-in hall,
departure hall, arrival hall, security check area, baggage
claim area, restaurant and shop. Besides, a series of
sensors was hung in the centre of each check-in hall to
measure the air temperature and relative humidity at
different heights of large airport hall spaces. The previ-
ous research in airport terminal B26 has described the
measurement method and locations of all sensors in
detail, which is also applied to other airport terminals
in the current research.
The key devices in air-conditioning systems include
chillers, air-conditioning water pumps, cooling towers
and air handling units (AHUs). The measurement
methods of these devices are described in the online
Appendix in detail. The energy performance of these
devices can all be equally compared using the output–
input ratio, which refers to the ratio of the cooling
capacity to the electric power consumption. To be spe-
cific, the energy performance of chillers can be evalu-
ated by the coefficient of performance (COP), which is
defined as equation (1).
Qe
COP ¼ (1)
Pch
where Qe is the cooling capacity of evaporators of chillers
(W) and Pch is the power consumption of chillers (W).
Similarly, the transport factors of other key devices
can be defined as dimensionless ratios according to
COP of chillers to indicate their energy performance.
The water transport factors (WTF)18,19 of air-
conditioning water pumps and cooling towers are
defined as equations (2) to (4).
Qe
WTFchw ¼ (2)
Pchw þ Pgl
WTFcwp ¼ (3)
Pcwp
Qc
WTFct ¼ (4)
Pct
where P is the power consumption; the subscripts chw,
cwp, ct and gl refer to chilled water pumps, cooling
waters pump, cooling towers and glycol pumps, respec-
tively (W); Qe and Qc is the cooling capacity in evapo-
rators and condensers of chillers (W).
The energy performance of AHU was evaluated by
air transport factor (ATF),18 as shown in equation (5)
QAHU
ATF ¼ (5)
PAHU
where QAHU is the cooling capacity of AHUs (W) and
PAHU is the power consumption of AHUs (W).
Moreover, the energy performance of the cooling
plant as a whole was evaluated by energy efficiency
ratio (EER),18,19 which is defined to be the ratio of
the cooling capacity to the power consumption in a
cooling plant, as equation (6).
Qe
EER ¼ (6)
Pch þ Pchw þ Pcwp þ Pct þ Pgl
All the parameters mentioned above were measured
continuously at 10-min intervals during each period of
the on-site measurement. The measurement devices and
their accuracies are shown in Table 2. The air tempera-
ture and relative humidity were measured using a com-
bined resistance temperature detector (Pt RTD) and a
lithium chloride relative humidity sensor (LiCl RHS), by
which the humidity ratio of air was also determined (rel-
ative accuracy within 10%). Besides, the energy con-
sumption data and the electric power of the devices in
the air-conditioning systems (such as chillers, pumps,
cooling towers, and AHUs) were all obtained from the
building automation system of each airport terminal.
The outdoor meteorological parameters were collected
from the weather stations in these airports.

Table 2. Specifications of the measurement devices.

Parameter Device Accuracy Operational range


Air/water temperature Pt PTD 0.2 C 20 to 80 C
Air relative humidity LiCl RHS 3% 10–90%
Air velocity Hot wire anemometer 0.03 m/s 0–10 m/s
CO2 concentration CO2 concentration data logger 50 ppm 0–5000 ppm
Water flow rate Ultrasonic flow meter 1% 0–3  106 m3/h
Liu et al. 7

Indoor environment in large spaces
Thermal environment and indoor air quality are two
essential factors of the indoor environment in airport
terminals; thus, in this section, the on-site measurement
results of indoor temperature, humidity and CO2 con-
centration are presented.
Temperature and humidity
The indoor thermal environment in the airport
terminals indicates the controlling performance of
air-conditioning systems. Figure 5 illustrates the
indoor temperature and humidity in the typical occu-
pant zones of the measured airport terminals. The atmo-
spheric pressures at airport B (95.75 kPa) and C
(95.71 kPa) were very close; thus, the data of airport
terminals B2, C2 and C3 were plotted in the same
psychrometric chart. The measured data were compared
with the Chinese thermal comfort standard,24 which
requires the indoor environment to be controlled
within 24–27  C and 40–70%. As shown in Figure 5,
the requirement of temperature could be basically met
except for over-heating sometimes in the restaurants and
shops, and over-cooling sometimes in the departure halls
and the arrival halls in these airports. Besides, the
indoor humidity was not strictly controlled in these air-
port terminals. Airport terminal A1, A2, A3 and B2
were too humid while some parts of airport terminals
C2 and C3 were over-dehumidified. The performance of
dehumidification in airport terminals in summer is relat-
ed to the temperature of chilled water, which were ana-
lysed and discussed in the ‘Discussion’ section.
Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the vertical distribution of
air temperature and humidity ratio in large spaces of the
check-in halls, respectively. The air temperature and

Figure 5. Air temperature and humidity in occupant zones of airport terminals: (a) A1, A2 and A3 (atmospheric pressure:
99.99 kPa), and (b) B2, C2 and C3 (atmospheric pressure: 95.73 kPa).

Figure 6. Vertical distribution of air temperature in the check-in halls of airport terminals: (a) A2, (b) B2, (c) C2 and (d) C3.
8 Indoor and Built Environment 0(0)

Figure 7. Vertical distribution of humidity ratio in the check-in halls of airport terminals: (a) A2, (b) B2, (c) C2 and (d) C3.

Figure 8. CO2 concentrations in the occupant zones of the airport terminals.

humidity were measured and recorded when the outdoor
temperature was close to their respective design values
during the on-site measurement. The light blue areas in
these figures indicate air-conditioning controlled spaces
in each check-in hall, which have been illustrated previ-
ously in Figure 3. Each of the large space has a non-
uniform indoor environment in the vertical direction,
which shows obvious thermal and humidity stratifica-
tions. The air temperature and humidity were relatively
uniform in the air-conditioning controlled spaces in the
airport terminals A2, B2 and C2, where the jet ventila-
tion with nozzle outlets were applied in all these places.
As for airport terminal C3 in Figures 6(d) and 7(d), the
radiant floor and displacement ventilation, which direct-
ly produced cooling of the bottom of the indoor space,
had created obvious thermal and humidity stratifica-
tions even in the occupant zones. Furthermore, the air
temperature and the humidity at the upper space were
all higher than those in the occupant zones and close to
their respective outdoor values. These distributions had
been explained in our previous research, that was due to
the dominant buoyancy-driven flow of air infiltration in
the large space of an airport terminal.6 The research had
confirmed that the outdoor air infiltrates through the
walkway doors and skylights at the top and flows out
through the opening gates on different floors in the
space cooling condition. Besides, the air temperature
at the upper space would be even higher than the out-
door air temperature, which had resulted from the solar
irradiation on the roofs in the daytime and some heat
sources (such as lights) in the upper spaces.
CO2 concentration
Figure 8 illustrates the CO2 concentrations in the typ-
ical occupant zones of the measured airport terminals
during the operation time, which indicates the freshness
of indoor air. The average values of CO2 concentration
in the measured airport terminals were 563–688 ppm.
During the majority of the time, CO2 concentrations
Liu et al.
were below the upper limit (1000 ppm) stipulated by the
Chinese standard, GB50736–2012.24 Those data
exceeding the standard were measured in the security
check areas which have high occupant densities. The
common situation of low CO2 concentrations reflects
the introduction of excessive outdoor air in these air-
port terminals. These on-site investigations showed
that the opening of the mechanical fresh air valves in
the AHUs almost maintained at a low level (0–15%).
Thus, there was a considerable amount of unorganised
outdoor air infiltrating into the airport terminals,
which was also confirmed in the case study.6
Energy performance of
air-conditioning systems
Figure 9 illustrates the electricity consumption in the
measured airport terminals. The average annual elec-
tricity consumption per floor area was 177 kWh/
(m2
year), which was 2.2 times the value of commercial
office buildings in China.34 About 30–60% of the total
electricity was consumed by air-conditioning systems in
these airports (i.e. the equipment in cooling plants and
the terminal devices in airport terminals). Thus, the
energy performances of cooling plants (i.e. chillers,
air-conditioning water pumps and cooling towers)
and terminal devices in large spaces of airport terminals
were determined and evaluated during a typical week in
the cooling season (Figure 10).
Key devices in cooling plants
The task of a cooling plant is to supply chilled water to
its corresponding airport terminal; therefore, the chill-
ers, as the cold source of air-conditioning systems, have
an essential influence on the energy performance of
cooling plants.
Figure 9. Annual electricity consumption in typical airports: (a) total electricity consumption and (b) electricity consumption
of air-conditioning systems.
9
As shown in Table 1, centrifugal chillers are the
most widely used type of chillers in the measured air-
port terminals. The COPs of the centrifugal chillers in
the measured airport terminals are all listed in Table 3.
The COP in the chilled water condition ranges from 3
to 7. Furthermore, the COP is closely related to the
operating condition of chillers, especially the tempera-
ture of chilled water in evaporators and the tempera-
ture of cooling water in condensers. Figure 11
illustrates the influence of the chilled water temperature
and cooling water temperature on centrifugal chillers’
COP in airport terminals A1, A2, B2, C2 and C3.
The outlet temperature of chilled water was about
6–14  C and the inlet temperature of cooling water
was about 25–34  C. An operating condition with
higher chilled water temperature and lower cooling
water temperature could increase the COP of centrifu-
gal chillers. However, the designed temperature of
supply chilled water was about 3–7  C, as shown in
Table 1, which determined the cooling and dehumidi-
fication ability of terminal devices in airport terminal
buildings. Therefore, although a higher chilled water
temperature has the potential to improve the perfor-
mance of centrifugal chillers, it may burden the termi-
nal devices in airport terminal buildings and influence
the indoor thermal environment, which were further
analysed and discussed in the ‘Discussion’ section.
As for the ice storage systems (such as in C2 and
C3), the COP of the chillers is only about 2–4 in the ice
storage condition, as shown in Table 3. The outlet tem-
perature of glycol (as the refrigerating medium) ranges
from 4.9  C to 0.1  C in the chillers of C2 and C3.
Thus, there is a lower evaporation temperature of chill-
ers in the ice storage condition than that in the chilled
water condition, which leads to a lower COP.
However, the ice storage system has advantages in
10 Indoor and Built Environment 0(0)

Figure 10. The outdoor temperature and total cooling capacity per air-conditioning controlled area in the measured air-
ports: (a) A1, (b) A2, (c) A3, (d) B2, (e) C2 and (f) C3.

Table 3. Energy efficiency performance of main devices in air-conditioning systems of studied airports.

A1þA2 A3 B2 C2 C3 D27 E28 F29

Tout( C) 20–34 25–36 23–36 24–40 24–37 28–33 28–37 28–36

COPa 5.5–6.4 5.4–5.6 4.8–5.3 ice: 2.7–3.8 ice: 2.9–4.0 4.3–4.9 4.7–5.9 4.2–5.5
water: 3.0–4.9 water: 4.0–5.5
WTFchw 44–56 53–55 45 36–42 63 19–57 / /
WTFcwp 53–64 54–57 43 26–27 32 34–50 / 53–73
WTFct 119–131 120–140 150–250 61–71 119 191–240 / 52–110
EER 4.6–4.9 4.2–4.4 3.9–4.2 1.7–2.9 2.0–2.7 3.0–3.5 / /
ATF 2.3–6.3 6.7–14.9 4.9–20.8 3.8–16.6 10.6–22.0 / / /
a
It refers to COP of centrifugal chillers and the performance of absorption chillers is not included here.

Figure 11. COP of centrifugal chillers in the chilled water condition in the measured airports: (a) A1 and A2, (b) B2, (c) C2
and (d) C3.
Liu et al.
shifting power consumption at peak hours during the
daytime to the nighttime and reducing the total
installed capacity of chillers.
Since there is always a long distance between the
cooling plant to the airport terminal building, the dis-
tribution system of the air-conditioning system also
needs to be investigated in detail. The WTF of key
devices in the measured airport terminals are also
listed in Table 3. The WTF of chilled water pumps
(chw) and cooling water pumps (cwp) were all about
20–70, which means the energy consumption propor-
tions of these two parts are similar. Besides, according
to the recommended standard,18,19 the minimum limit
values of WTFchw and WTFcwp are 35 and 30 respec-
tively, which means the air-conditioning water pumps
in the measured airport terminals almost worked in
good conditions. The WTF of cooling towers (ct)
ranged from 50 to 250, which was obviously higher
than those of the air-conditioning water pumps.
Furthermore, all the WTF of key devices in the distri-
bution systems were higher than the COP of chillers.
Thus, the distribution system would have less influence
on the total energy consumption of the cooling plant
than the chillers.
Furthermore, the EERs of the cooling plants in the
measured airport terminals are also listed in Table 3.
The EER of these cooling plants ranges from 1.7 to 4.9.
Concerning the recommended cooling plant efficiency
in the literature,35 the EER higher than 4.25 is at a
good level, while those lower than 3.5 need to be
improved. Airport terminals A1 and A2 shared a cool-
ing plant, and their cooling plant efficiency was at a
good level, because they supplied high-temperature
chilled water (10.3–15.6  C). Besides, airport terminals
C2 and C3 were all installed with ice storage systems
and had low COP of chillers, which led to an obvious
lower EER of cooling plants than other measured
Figure 12. Performance parameters of AHUs in airport terminals: (a) A1, A2 & A3, and (b) B2.
11
airport terminals. Since chillers account for about
70–90% of the total electricity consumption in cooling
plants of measured airport terminals, the improvement
of the cooling efficiency of chillers is significant for
energy saving in the cooling plants of airports.
Terminal devices in large spaces
As shown in Table 1, AHUs with jet nozzles are the
most commonly adopted terminal devices in large
spaces of the measured airport terminals. The perfor-
mance parameters of AHUs in airport terminals A1,
A2, A3 and B2 are illustrated in Figure 12, which takes
the volume flow rate of air as the X-axis. The design
overpressure of supply air (Dp) was about 400–900 Pa,
which had resulted in the high electricity consumption
of fans in AHUs. The designed ATF almost ranged
from 5 to 30 while the measured ATF was lower
(2–20); and the ATF in the recommended standard
given by GB/T 17981–200718 is 8. The physical mean-
ings of chillers’ COP and AHUs’ ATF are quite similar,
but the ATF was close to or even lower than the COP
in our on-site measurements, as shown in Table 3.
Therefore, the energy efficiencies of chillers and
AHUs are equally important for the energy conserva-
tion of air-conditioning systems in airports.
Furthermore, the temperature of chilled water from
the cooling plant can influence the performance of
AHUs. Figure 13 illustrates the temperature of chilled
water or glycol in various locations of the HVAC dis-
tribution systems. First of all, large temperature differ-
ences between outlet chilled water of chillers and inlet
chilled water of AHUs generally existed in the mea-
sured airport terminals. The chilled water mixing
(such as bypass water from non-working chillers and
the balance pipe of the distribution system) raised the
chilled water temperature from chiller and decreased
12
Figure 13. The temperature of chilled water (glycol) in various locations of air-conditioning distribution systems.
the cooling and dehumidification ability of AHUs. The
inlet chilled water temperature of AHUs in airport ter-
minals A1 and A2 were 11.6–16.4  C and 12.9–16.5  C,
respectively, while the design values were all 7  C, as
shown in Figure 4, which can explain the high humidity
level of the indoor environment in these airport termi-
nals, as previously shown in Figure 5. Besides,
although the high temperature chilled water could ben-
efit the COP of chillers, it reduced the cooling and
dehumidification ability of AHUs, which resulted in
extremely low ATF of 2.3–6.3. Therefore, there is a
trade-off between the COP of chillers and ATF of
AHUs, which is determined by the chilled water
temperature.
Discussion
Based on the on-site measurement of the indoor envi-
ronment and the energy performance of air-
conditioning systems, the typical operation situation
of air-conditioning systems in airport terminals can
be concluded, and some key issues need to be discussed
further in order to improve the energy efficiency.
High energy consumption of terminal
devices in airport terminals
Chillers are commonly believed to consume the largest
proportion of electricity in air-conditioning systems.
However, the terminal devices in airport terminals
sometimes have higher electricity consumption than
those of chillers. Figure 9(b) illustrates the composition
of electricity consumed by air-conditioning systems in
measured airport terminals and the airport terminals
D,27 G30 and K7 from the literature. Except for airport
terminal B1 which was predominantly cooled by
absorption chillers, chillers accounted for 21–47% of
the electricity consumption while terminal devices
accounted for 20–74%. The most widely adopted
type of air-conditioning system is the cooling plant
Indoor and Built Environment 0(0)
with centrifugal chillers plus the jet ventilation with
nozzles outlets in large spaces of the airport terminal
building (A1, A2, B2, D and K), in which the terminal
devices contributed 40–74% of the total electricity con-
sumed by air-conditioning systems. Therefore, there is
a need for a further consideration on the energy per-
formance of terminal devices.
First of all, as was mentioned before, there is a
trade-off between the energy performance of cold sour-
ces (chillers) and terminal devices (AHUs). For exam-
ple, the cooling plant of airport terminal A1 and A2
supplied high temperature chilled water, and the elec-
tricity consumption of terminal devices is 57 kWh/
(m2
yr), which is much higher than that of the cooling
plant (20 kWh/(m2
yr)). As for B1, B2, C2, D, G and K,
the electricity consumption of terminal devices is
only 22–44 kWh/(m2
year). Therefore, the chilled
water temperature in conventional air-conditioning
systems of airport terminals should not be set too
high. This would probably improve the performance
of chillers, but at the expense of the energy perfor-
mance of terminal devices (Figure 12) and even the
indoor thermal environment (Figure 5).
Furthermore, new types of terminal devices, such as
radiant floor and displacement ventilation, have
lower energy consumption than the conventional
type (jet ventilation with nozzle outlets). As shown in
Figure 9(b), the electricity consumption of terminal
devices in airport terminal C3 was only 9 kWh/
(m2
year), which saved 34% of the air-conditioning
electricity consumption compared with the average
value. There are several reasons for this energy-saving
potential. First, the radiant floor and displacement ven-
tilation system only controlled the occupant zones,
which could significantly reduce the air-conditioning
controlled space in airport terminals, as shown in
Figures 3 and 6. Besides, previous research36 also
pointed out that radiant floors could achieve outstand-
ing performance, especially in operating cooling loads
caused by solar irradiation and high-temperature
Liu et al.
envelopes, which are intensive in large spaces with glaz-
ing envelopes in airport terminals. Moreover, the essen-
tial difference between these two terminal devices is the
flow medium to transport cooling capacity. Radiant
floors use high-temperature chilled water to transport
cooling capacity directly to the indoor space. On the
other hand, the air in AHUs is cooled and dehumidified
by the chilled water first and then supplied to the
indoor space. Therefore, a similar definition of water
transport factor of radiant floors (WTFRF), as shown in
equation (7), can be used to perform a comparison of
energy performance with the ATF of AHUs.
QRF qw Gw cp;w
DTw qw cp;w
DTw
gw
WTFRF ¼ ¼ Gw
Dpw
¼ conditioning controlled area ranged from 132 W/m2 to
PRF Dpw
g w
(7)
where QRF is the cooling capacity of radiant floors;
PRF is the power consumption of cycling pumps in
radiant floor systems; qw is the water density; Gw is
the water flow rate; cp,w is the specific heat capacity
of water; DTw is the temperature difference of supply
and return water; Dpw is the pressure difference of
the cycling pump in radiant floor systems; gw is the
efficiency of water pumps.
Because radiant floors only operate the sensible heat
in airport terminals (avoiding condensation on their
surfaces), the ATF in equation (6) is transformed into
equation (8) under the dry condition for a fair compar-
ison with WTFRF.
QAHU qa Ga cp;a
DTa qa cp;a
DTa
ga
ATF ¼ ¼ Ga
Dpa
¼ (8)
PAHU g
Dpa
a AHUs vary over a wide range instead of always being
where the subscripts a refer to air; Dpa is the pressure
difference of the fan in AHUs and ga is the efficiency
of the fan.
The parameters in equations (7) and (8) are listed
in Table 4, which were based on the design parame-
ters of airport terminal C3.16 WTFRF is about 3–15
times of ATF, which means water has a higher trans-
port capacity than air. Therefore, radiant floors have
a high potential to reduce the energy consumption of
terminal devices to operate the sensible heat in airport
terminals.
Table 4. Performance comparison of sensible heat handling devices transported by air (AHU) and water (radiant floor).
Supply/ Return DT ( C) q (kg/m3)
Aira 20 C/26 C 6 1.187
Water 16 C/19 C 3 998.7
a
xa ¼ 12.6 g/kg.
13
Discrepancy of capacities between cold
sources and terminal devices
In the design process of air-conditioning systems, the
cooling loads of terminal devices in each area of an air-
port terminal were calculated respectively with the con-
sideration of the worst condition (i.e. the most crowed,
hottest, the most intense solar radiation). Then, these
designed cooling capacities were directly summed up
to obtain the designed cooling capacity of the cold
source in the cooling plant. Figure 10 illustrates the mea-
sured and designed cooling capacity of a typical week in
the cooling plants of airport terminals A1, A2, A3, B2,
C2 and C3. The designed cooling capacity per air-
176 W/m2, while the average values in the operation time
were only 43–90 W/m2. When the outdoor temperature
reached the design value, the actual cooling capacities
were only 56–69% of their respective design capacity;
even when outdoor temperature exceeded the design,
the maximal cooling capacity values were only
61–75% of their respective design capacity. These results
demonstrate that the measured cooling plants all oper-
ated in the partial load condition. Thus, the current
design method mentioned above could have exaggerated
the designed cooling capacity of the cold source.
From the perspective of terminal devices in the air-
port terminal, Figure 14 compares the measured and
designed cooling capacity of AHUs in typical areas of
the airport terminal B2. The data were collected when
the outdoor air temperature was 35.5  C, which
exceeded the design value of 33.1  C. The ratios of mea-
sured and designed cooling capacities of AHUs ranged
from 46% to 91%. Thus, the actual cooling capacities of
the design capacities of the worst condition. The varia-
tion of AHUs’ cooling capacities mainly had resulted
from the occupancy rates in an airport terminal, as
was analysed in the previous research.37 An airport ter-
minal is not always fully occupied as it is in the design
condition. Therefore, the uneven occupant distribution
both in time and space would cause dramatic variation
in the actual demand for cooling load.
The on-site measurement results indicate a signifi-
cant discrepancy of capacities between cold sources
and terminal devices. The terminal devices operate
according to their respective cooling demands in
cp (kJ/kg
K) Dp (kPa) g (–) Performance
1.028 0.4–1.0 60% ATF ¼ 5–11
4.194 100–200 60% WTFRF ¼ 38–75
14
Figure 14. Comparison between the measured and designed cooling capacity of AHUs in airport terminal B2. (when
measured cooling capacity from the cooling plant was 120 W/m2 with outdoor air of 35.5  C).
various areas of the airport terminal and achieve their
design capacities at different time. However, the output
capacity from the cooling plant is relatively constant
and lower than each maximal capacity of terminal devi-
ces in the airport terminal. Therefore, the cooling
capacity of each terminal device should have the ability
to be adjusted over a wide range in order to match the
varying cooling demand. Furthermore, the designed
cooling capacity of the cooling plant is supposed to
be reconsidered to cope with the prevailing situation
of a low load rate. A partial load coefficient could be
applied to reduce the designed cooling capacity of the
cooling plant appropriately. Otherwise, chillers and
distribution systems should also have the ability to be
adjusted and should be operated with high energy effi-
ciency even at a low load rate. Thus, the research into
feasible strategies to cope with this discrepancy of
capacities is still needed in the further.
Conclusion
Airport terminals have a higher level of energy
consumption than common buildings, in which the
air-conditioning systems account for the largest propor-
tion. Large-scale on-site measurements were performed
to investigate energy consumption and indoor environ-
ment in typical Chinese hub airports. This paper aims to
analyse and compare air-conditioning systems in these
airport terminals, with an emphasis on the cooling
performance and their key restrictions. The conclusions
are summarised as follow:
1. The average annual electricity consumption in the
measured airport terminals was 177 kWh/(m2
year),
in which the air-conditioning systems consumed
30–60%. The measured COP of centrifugal chillers
was 2.7–6.4 in chilled water condition, while the
ATF of AHUs was 2.3–22.0. The electricity
Indoor and Built Environment 0(0)
consumed by AHUs accounted for 40–74% of the
total electricity consumption of air-conditioning
systems. Therefore, energy-saving technologies
should be considered for terminal devices of air-
conditioning systems in airport terminals.
2. Temperatures in occupant zones were basically con-
trolled within 24–26 C. The relative humidities in
some airport terminals were consistently higher than
70% due to high-temperature chilled water supplied
by chillers and chilled water mixed in the distribution
system. The average CO2 concentrations were 563–
688 ppm, which indicated a considerable amount of
unorganised air infiltration. The thermal stratification
commonly existed in large spaces in airport terminals;
these are closely related to the terminal devices of air-
conditioning systems.
3. The energy performance of air-conditioning systems
in airport terminals can be improved by reducing the
total cooling demand and increasing the energy effi-
ciency. The occupant zone air-conditioning system
(i.e. radiant floor þ displacement ventilation) is
adopted in airport terminal C3. The air-
conditioning controlled height could be reduced
from 4 – 6 m to about 2 m, and the radiant floor
has a higher transport efficiency that the common-
ly-used air handling unit. Thus, this system could
save 34% of the air-conditioning electricity
consumption.
4. There was a significant discrepancy in the capacities
between cold sources and terminal devices. In the
cooling plants, the designed cooling capacities were
132–176 W/m2, while the average measured values
were only 43–90 W/m2, and this was because each
terminal device in the airport terminal could
achieve its design capacity at different time.
Therefore, the cooling capacity of each terminal
device should have the ability to be adjusted over
a wide range to match the varying cooling demand.
Liu et al.
Besides, the designed cooling capacity of the cool-
ing plant is supposed to cope with the common
situation of a low load rate.
Authors’ contribution
XL conducted the on-site measurements, analysed the data and
drafted the article. XL and TZ supervised the measurements,
reviewed the manuscript and provided comments for revision of
the article. LL participated in the on-site measurements and
analysed the data of the airport terminals A1 and A2.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Lin Lin for participating in the
on-site measurements. The airport staff are gratefully acknowl-
edged for their kind help during the on-site measurement.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: The research described in this paper was supported
by the National Key Research Program of China (Grant No.
2018YFC0705001) and National Natural Science Foundation
of China (Grant Nos 51878369, 51638010 and 51521005).
ORCID iD
Tao Zhang https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5367-9537
Supplementary material
The method for the measurement of the key devices in the air-
conditioning system is given in the online supplementary
material.
References
1. International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
Annual Report 2017: air transport statistics,
https://www.icao.int/annual-report-2017/Pages/the-worl
d-of-air-transport-in-2017-statistical-results.aspx
(accessed 5 September 2019).
2. Civil Aviation Administration of China, National
Development and Reform Commission, Ministry of
Transport. 13th Five-year Plan of Civil Aviation,
http://www.caac.gov.cn (accessed 5 September 2019).
3. Liu X, Li L, Liu X, Zhang T, Rong X, Yang L and Xiong
D. Field investigation on characteristics of passenger flow
in a Chinese hub airport terminal. Build Environ 2018;
133: 51–61.
4. Balaras CA, Dascalaki E, Gaglia A and Droutsa K.
Energy conservation potential, HVAC installations and
operational issues in Hellenic airports. Energy Build 2003;
35: 1105–1120.
15
5. Alba SO and Manana M. Energy research in airports: a
review. Energies 2016; 9: 349.
6. Liu X, Lin L, Liu X, Zhang T, Rong X, Yang L and
Xiong D. Evaluation of air infiltration in a hub airport
terminal: on-site measurement and numerical simulation.
Build Environ 2018; 143: 163–177.
7. Zhao H. A field study on energy consumption and indoor
environment quality of terminals in China. Master Thesis,
Tsinghua University, Beijing, 2015.
8. Wang Z, Zhao H, Lin B, Zhu Y, Ouyang Q and Yu J.
Investigation of indoor environment quality of Chinese
large-hub airport terminal buildings through longitudinal
field measurement and subjective survey. Build Environ
2015; 94: 593–605.
9. Pichatwatana K, Wang F, Roaf S and Anunnathapong
M. An integrative approach for indoor environment
quality assessment of large glazed air-conditioned airport
terminal in the tropics. Energy Build 2017; 148: 37–55.
10. Kotopouleas A and Nikolopoulou M. Evaluation of
comfort conditions in airport terminal buildings. Build
Environ 2018; 130: 162–178.
11. Kotopouleas A and Nikolopoulou M. Thermal comfort
conditions in airport terminals: indoor or transition
spaces? Build Environ 2016; 99: 184–199.
12. Huang C, Zou Z, Li M, Wang X, Li W, Huang W, Yang
J and Xiao X. Measurements of indoor thermal environ-
ment and energy analysis in a large space building in
typical seasons. Build Environ 2007; 42: 1869–1877.
13. Wang B, Yu J, Ye H, Liu Y, Guo H and Tian L. Study
on present situation and optimization strategy of infiltra-
tion air in a train station in winter. Procedia Eng 2017;
205: 2517–2523.
14. Gil-Lopez T, Galvez-Huerta MA, O’Donohoe PG,
Castejon-Navas J and Dieguez-Elizondo PM. Analysis
of the influence of the return position in the vertical tem-
perature gradient in displacement ventilation systems for
large halls. Energy Build 2017; 140: 371–379.
15. Simmonds P, Holst S, Reuss S and Gaw W. Using radi-
ant cooled floors to condition large spaces and maintain
comfort conditions. ASHRAE Trans 2000; 106: 695–701.
16. Zhang T, Liu X, Zhang L, Jiang J, Zhou M and Jiang Y.
Performance analysis of the air-conditioning system in
Xi’an Xianyang International Airport. Energy Build
2013; 59: 11–20.
17. Engineers RAC. ASHRAE handbook-HVAC systems and
equipment. Atlanta, GA: American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers Inc., 2016.
18. GB/T 17981-2007. Economic operation of air conditioning
systems. Beijing: The Standardization Administration of
China, 2007.
19. Li H and Li X. Benchmarking energy performance for
cooling in large commercial buildings. Energy Build 2018;
176: 179–193.
20. Sun Y, Wang S, Cui B and Yim M. Energy performance
enhancement of Hong Kong International Airport
through chilled water system integration and control
optimization. Appl Therm Eng 2013; 60: 303–315.
21. Zhang Y, Si P, Feng Y, Rong X, Wang X and Zhang Y.
Operation strategy optimization of BCHP system with
16
thermal energy storage: a case study for airport terminal
in Qingdao, China. Energy Build 2017; 154: 465–478.
22. Fan B, Jin X, Fang X and Du Z. The method of evalu-
ating operation performance of HVAC system based on
exergy analysis. Energy Build 2014; 77: 332–342.
23. Huang H, Chen L and Hu E. A new model predictive
control scheme for energy and cost savings in commercial
buildings: an airport terminal building case study. Build
Environ 2015; 89: 203–216.
24. GB50736–2012. Design code for ventilation and air condi-
tioning of civil buildings. Beijing: The Standardization
Administration of China, 2012.
25. Takahashi T, Murakami S, Kato S, Ooka R, Deguchi K,
Ikezawa H and Sugiyama T. Field experiment on indoor
climate of passenger terminal building of Kansai
International Airport (Part1): thermal environment
under full-cooling condition and air flow visualization.
In: Annual Meeting the Society of Heating, Air-
conditioning and Sanitary Engineers of Japan (SHASE),
Hiroshima, 2-4 October 1995, 1493–1496.
26. CPG Consultants Pte Ltd. M&E systems for Changi
Airport Terminal 3. The Singapore Engineer 2007; 239:
24–29.
27. Liang M. Field Study and simulation of indoor thermal
environment in an airport terminal in winter. Bachelor
Thesis, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 2017.
28. Liu D, Liu C and Hu Z. Performance test analysis of
water chillers in the energy center of Pudong
International Airport. J Hvac. 2002; 32: 101–103.
Indoor and Built Environment 0(0)
29. Yun Z, Mao L, Zhou Z, Wei D and Xue X. Energy-
saving retrofit of air-conditioning cooling water system
in terminal building of Guilin Liangjiang International
Airport. Build Sci 2007; 23: 104–107.
30. Shen L, LY and Ma W. Air-conditioning system and
energy design for Terminal 2 of Nanjing Lukou
International Airport. J HVAC 2017; 47: 66–72.
31. Liao H. Application of hydronic balancing technology in
the HVAC system of Chongqing Jiangbei International
Airport. Refrigerat Air-Condition 2007; 21: 76–79.
32. Yu L. Operation of the chilled water system for Terminal
2 of Hongqiao International Airport. Refrigerat Air-
Condition 2010; 10: 81–84.
33. Zheng W. Measures for energy saving of the air-
conditioning system in New Baiyun International
Airport. Refrigeration 2008; 103: 53–56.
34. Building Energy Research Center of Tsinghua University.
Annual report on China building energy efficiency. China
Building Industry Press, Beijing, China, 2018.
35. Hartman T. All-variable speed centrifugal chiller plants.
Ashrae J. 2001; 43: 43–53.
36. Zhao K, Liu X and Jiang Y. Application of radiant floor
cooling in large space buildings-A review. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2016; 55: 1083–1096.
37. Liu X, Li L, Liu X and Zhang T. Analysis of passenger
flow and its influences on HVAC systems: An agent
based simulation in a Chinese hub airport terminal.
Build Environ 2019; 154: 55–67.