TEMPERATURE STRATIFICATION AND

AIR CHANGE EFFECTIVENESS IN A HIGH

COOLING LOAD OFFICE WITH TWO HEAT
SOURCE HEIGHTS IN A COMBINED CHILLED
CEILING AND DISPLACEMENT VENTILATION SYSTEM
Stefano Schiavon, Ph.D., P.E. Fred Bauman, P.E. Brad Tully, P.Eng. Julian Rimmer, P.Eng.
Center for the Built Environment, Center for the Built Environment, Price Industries Price Industries
University of California at Berkeley University of California at Berkeley General Manager, Senior Product Manager,
Price Mechanical West Sustainable Technologies

ABSTRACT
Radiant chilled ceilings (CC) with displacement ventilation (DV) represent a promising integrated system design that combines the
energy efficiency of both sub-systems with the opportunity for improved ventilation performance resulting from the thermally stratified
environment of DV systems. Their combined cooling capacity is thought to be limited. The purpose of this study is to conduct laboratory
experiments for a U.S. interior zone office with a very high cooling load (91.0 W/m2) and with two different heat source heights
represented by computer CPUs (at floor level and at 1.52 m) to investigate their influence on room air stratification and air change
effectiveness. The experiments were carried out in a climatic chamber equipped with 12 radiant panels, covering 73.5% of the ceiling,
installed in the suspended ceiling. The cooling load removed by the panels varied between 0 and 92 W/m2 (based on radiant panel area)
or between 0 and 68 W/m2 (based on room area). The average mean water temperature of the panels varied between 14.1- 26.2°C.
The displacement ventilation airflow rate varied between 4.0 and 9.9 l/(s m2), and the supply air temperature was kept constant at 18°C.
The results showed that displacement ventilation and chilled ceiling are able to provide a stable thermal stratification and improved
ventilation effectiveness compared to mixing ventilation for a wide range of configurations and system design even for extremely high
cooling load (91 W/m2). Stratification and air change effectiveness decreases when a larger portion of the cooling load is removed by
the chilled ceiling (surface temperature of the panel decreases). For every degree decrement of the panel the stratification decreases
by 0.13°C and the ACE by 0.13. Moving the CPUs (representing 51% of the total room heat gain) from the floor level to 1.5 m height
markedly increased the room median stratification (0.8°C) and the median air change effectiveness measured at 0.6 m (1.75). Therefore,
increasing the height of heat sources reduced energy use and improved indoor air quality. When the CPUs were located in the higher
location, the median stratification in the occupied zone was 2.95°C and the ACE at 0.6 m was 2.9. Moreover, it was found that the higher
the stratification the better the air change effectiveness.

KEYWORDS
Displacement ventilation; Chilled ceiling; Air vertical temperature stratification; Radiant panel; thermally activated building system (TABS);
contaminant stratification; high loads; office space design

INTRODUCTION
Displacement ventilation (DV) is a method of room air distribution that can provide improved indoor air quality for contaminants emitted
by heat sources (ventilation performance) compared to the dilution ventilation provided by overhead mixing systems. In a DV system,
which is applied mainly for cooling purposes, air is supplied at very low velocity through supply devices located near floor level (the most
common are low side wall diffusers), and is returned near ceiling level. A displacement flow pattern can also be obtained with horizontal
discharge (low throw) floor diffusers in underfloor air distribution (UFAD) systems. The ASHRAE [1] and the REHVA [2] methods are the
most commonly used references for the design and operation of DV systems. Supplying cool air at floor level in a stratified environment
may cause local thermal discomfort due to draft and excessive temperature stratification [3]. Hydronic-based radiant systems are
associated with energy savings [4-6] even if sometimes problems could arise [7], therefore there is strong interest in combining hydronic
systems with the indoor air quality benefits of DV.
A review of the literature about displacement ventilation and radiant chilled ceiling until 2010 is reported in [8] . A short summary of
the literature review and updates based on recently published papers are reported hereafter. The combination of chilled floor and DV
was described in Causone et al. [9] . They concluded that the combination of DV with floor cooling, under a typical European office

Published 2012 Page 1 of 14

room layout, may cause the air temperature difference between head and ankles to exceed the comfort range specified by ASHRAE
Standard 55 [3]. They also noticed that, by increasing the air flow rate and thus raising the floor temperature, the vertical air temperature
differences decreased. They also showed that the draft risk did not increase significantly. From the indoor air quality point of view
they showed that the presence of the chilled radiant floor does not affect the contaminant removal effectiveness (a.k.a. ventilation
effectiveness in Europe) of the DV system.
The combination of chilled ceiling (CC) and DV is more attractive for U.S. markets. There are two types of chilled ceiling designs: (a)
radiant ceiling panels; and (b) thermally activated building systems (TABS) also known as hydronic slab. Radiant ceiling panels have
several advantages: they have a fast response time, thus they are easy to control and are able to adapt to rapidly changing loads, they
are relatively easy to design and the technology is well known. They can also be used in retrofit applications, and are compatible with
conventional suspended ceiling systems. The main drawbacks are related to the cost, the inability to store heat (peak-shave) and their
low operating mean water temperature requiring thoughtful space dew point control to avoid condensation. TABS, usually fabricated as
hydronic tubing embedded in slabs, are less expensive than radiant panels, have the ability of peak shaving and shifting, and usually
operate at higher cooling temperatures, reducing the condensation risk. The main drawbacks are related to the complexity of the design
and control, and the slow response of the thermally massive slab to the changing cooling loads [10] .
Alamdari et al. [11] described how adding CC to a DV system influences the air distribution characteristics of DV. Rees and Haves [12]
developed a nodal model to represent room heat transfer in DV and CC systems that is suitable for implementation in an annual energy
simulation program, but it cannot be applied as a stand-alone design tool. Novoselac and Srebic [13] did an extensive critical literature
review of the performance and design of a combined chilled ceiling and displacement ventilation system and concluded that one of
the key parameters of the design is the cooling load split between the CC and DV system. Tan et al. [14] defined η as the ratio of the
zone cooling load removed by the chilled ceiling to the total room cooling load. η may vary between 0 and 1. If η equals 1, it means
that a pure CC system is used. On the other hand, if η equals 0, a pure DV system is used. Tan et al. [14] suggested that, to maintain a
temperature gradient of at least 2°C/m, the DV system should remove a minimum of 33% of the cooling load (i.e., η = 0.67). Behne [15]
stated that good thermal comfort and air quality could be maintained when the DV system removes at least 20-25% of the total cooling
load.
Gheddar et al. [16] developed general design charts for sizing the CC/DV systems using a simplified plume-multi-layer thermal model of
the conditioned space developed by Ayoub et al. (2006). The model developed by Ayoub et al. [17] was compared to CFD simulations.
The main limitation of the method is related to the fact that the design charts were developed for a 100% ceiling coverage factor. A
sensitivity analysis has been performed for 80% ceiling coverage factor. There are no data for lower ceiling coverage factors. Keblawi
et al. [18] expanded Gheddar et al. [16] to operating sensible load ranges from 40 W/m2 to 100 W/m2. The model relates system load
and operational parameters with comfort measured by vertical temperature gradient and indoor air quality measured by the stratification
height.
Kanaan et al. [19] developed and experimentally tested a simplified model to predict carbon dioxide transport and distribution in rooms
conditioned by CC and DV. Chakroun et al. [20] extended the model to transient conditions and applied it to study the energy savings
potential during the cooling season for a simplified room (25 m2) located in the Kuwait climate. To perform the energy simulation they
used an algorithm developed internally to their research group.
Schiavon et al. [8] experimentally investigated the influence of percentage of ceiling active area and of the split of cooling load between
displacement and chilled ceiling on stratification. It was found that the average radiant ceiling surface temperature is a better predictor
of the temperature difference between the head (1.1 m) and ankle (0.1 m) of a seated person in the occupied zone compared to other
parameters related to the fraction of the total cooling load removed by the radiant chilled ceiling. This result accounts for the fact that
when smaller active radiant ceiling areas are used (e.g., for a typical radiant ceiling panel layout), colder radiant surface temperatures are
required to remove the same amount of cooling load (as a larger area), which cause more disruption to the room air stratification. We also
found that the room air stratification in the occupied zone (1) decreases as a larger portion of the cooling load is removed by the chilled
ceiling, (2) increases with higher radiant ceiling surface temperatures, and (3) decreases with an increase in the ratio between the total
cooling load and the displacement airflow rate. These results confirmed the ones summarized in [13] . We concluded that despite the
impact that the chilled ceiling has on stratification, the results indicate that a minimum head-ankle temperature difference of 1.5°C in the
occupied zone (seated or standing) will be maintained for all radiant ceiling surface temperatures of 18°C or higher.
Ventilation effectiveness is an indicator of the efficiency with which fresh air is delivered to the breathing zone in ventilated rooms and it
is related to indoor air quality. It is a representation of how well a considered space is ventilated compared to a uniform wellmixed room

Published 2012 Page 2 of 14

[21] . In the U.S. ventilation effectiveness is measured with the index named Air Change Effectiveness (ACE) according to the ASHRAE
Standard 129 [22]. However, Rim and Novoselac [21] questioned the overall ability of ACE as an indicator of air quality and human
exposure. With climatic chamber experiments and a calibrated CFD model they showed that for fine particles (1 μm), an increase in ACE
reduces occupant exposure, while for coarser particles (7 μm), source location and airflow around the pollutant source are the major
variables that affect human exposure. It is important to keep these findings in mind with the application of displacement ventilation,
where pollutant sources located at floor level near an occupant could be drawn up to the breathing level by the rising thermal plume. In
our previous work [23] we reported three ACE tests and we concluded that ACE higher than one is maintained in the occupied zone even
when more than half (54%) of the heat load is removed by a CC and the radiant surface temperature is 18.7°C.
The purpose of this study is to conduct laboratory experiments for a U.S. interior zone office with high cooling load (91.0 W/m2) and with
two different heat source heights, represented by computer CPUs (at floor level and at 1.52 m), to investigate their influence on room air
stratification and air change effectiveness.

METHOD
Experimental facilities and room description
The experiments were carried out in a climatic chamber (4.27 m x 4.27 m x 3.0 m) equipped with radiant panels located in a suspended
ceiling placed at a height of 2.5 m above the floor. The climatic chamber is located within a large conditioned laboratory space. The area
of the climatic chamber is 18.2 m2 and the volume is 54.7 m3. The room has no windows. The walls, the ceiling and the floor have similar
construction and thermal properties. Starting from the exterior, the chamber wall is comprised of 3.522 m2K/W insulation, a stagnant
0.102 m air gap (0.352 m2K/W), aluminum extruded walls, and another layer of 0.102 m of polyurethane board (3.522 m2K/W). By
adding up this assembly, the overall transmittance is 0.135 W/m2K.
The aluminum radiant panels installed in the suspended ceiling are 1.83 m long and 0.61 m wide (area equal to 1.11 m2). Copper pipes
are thermally connected to aluminum
Experimental channels
facilities and room in description
panels with a spacing of 0.15 m. The suspended ceiling is composed of radiant ceiling
panels connected in series. Cotton fiber
The experiments wereinsulation
carried out was presentchamber
in a climatic over the(4.27panels
m x 4.27 (2.288
m x 3.0 mm)2
K/W). Twelve
equipped with panels were located
radiant panels used (13.4in a m2 of the
suspended ceiling placed at a height of 2.5 m above the floor. The climatic chamber is located within a large conditioned laboratory
ceiling equals 73.5space.
% of The thearea
ceiling
of thearea).
climaticFigure
chamber 1 shows
is 18.2 mthe2
andlocations
the volumeofis the
54.7four simulated
m3. The room has workstations,
no windows. Theoffice heatceiling
walls, the loads,andmeasuring
2
the floor have similar construction and thermal properties. Starting from the exterior, the chamber
station for recording the vertical temperature profile, CO22measuring tree and location of the globe thermometer. The inlet air was wall is comprised of 3.522 m K/W
insulation, a stagnant 0.102 m air gap (0.352 m K/W), aluminum extruded walls, and another layer of 0.102 m of polyurethane board
supplied to the room(3.522
fromm2aK/W).1.2 By
m adding
tall semi-circular
up this assembly, wall-mounted displacement
the overall transmittance is 0.135diffuser
W/m2K. (radius = 0.6m). Heat sources are summarized
The aluminum radiant panels installed in the suspended ceiling are 1.83 m long and 0.61 m wide (area equal to 1.11 m2). Copper
in Table 2. Office heat
pipessources wereconnected
are thermally modeled using tower
to aluminum CPUs
channels (computer
in panels processing
with a spacing units;
of 0.15 m. sometimes
The suspended referred
ceiling to asofPCs,
is composed radiantor personal
computers), representing 51%
ceiling panels of the
connected total heat
in series. gain,
Cotton flat
fiber screens
insulation and
was desk
present lamps
over on
the panelsthe(2.288 m2K/W).
desks, and overhead
Twelve panels lighting.
were usedA portion
(13.4 (36%) of
m2 of the ceiling equals 73.5 % of the ceiling area). Figure 1 shows the locations of the four simulated workstations, office heat loads,
the heat gains generated
measuring bystation
the tower CPUs the
for recording were generated
vertical temperaturewithprofile,
electrically heatedtree0.35
CO2 measuring m by 0.35
and location of them galvanized
globe thermometer. steelTheplates.
inlet The plates
air was supplied to the room from a 1.2 m tall semi-circular wall-mounted displacement diffuser (radius = 0.6m). Heat sources are
(2 mm thick) are heated by two silicon rubber strip heaters mounted with high temperature room temperature
summarized in Table 2. Office heat sources were modeled using tower CPUs (computer processing units; sometimes referred to as
vulcanizing adhesive. The
convective/radiativePCs,
splitor and surface
personal temperature
computers), representingof 51%
these plates
of the total are similar
heat gain, flat to those
screens andofdesk
tower
lampscomputers.
on the desks,Occupants
and overhead were simulated
lighting.
A portion (36%) of the heat gains generated by the tower CPUs were generated with electrically heated 0.35 m by 0.35 m galvanized
with heated thermalsteel
manikins according to EN 14240 [24]. These simulators represent a load on the space
plates. The plates (2 mm thick) are heated by two silicon rubber strip heaters mounted with high temperature room temperature by using light bulbs enclosed
vulcanizing
in a sheet metal cylinder. adhesive. The convective/radiative split and surface temperature of these plates are similar
They try to match the radiant convective split of a person by using high emissivity paint and holes to allow air to those of tower computers.
Occupants were simulated with heated thermal manikins according to EN 14240 [24]. These simulators represent a load on the space
to pass through. When fullylight
by using installed, the testin chamber
bulbs enclosed a sheet metal represented
cylinder. They a 4-person
try to matchoffice with convective
the radiant multiple computers (high
split of a person by heat
using gain)
high at each
emissivity paint and holes to allow air to pass through. When fully installed, the test chamber represented a 4-person office with
workstation. multiple computers (high heat gain) at each workstation.

Screen Screen Screen Screen

Table Table

Desk lamp Desk lamp

Tower PC Tower PC
DV
diffuser Manikin Manikin
CO2 tree

Overhead Overhead
light light

Measuring
station Globe
tempera
ture
Manikin Manikin

Tower PC Tower PC
Desk lamp Desk lamp

Table Table

Screen Screen Screen Screen

Figure 1. Layout of test chamber. All dimensions are in meters.

Figure 1. Layout of test chamber. All dimensions are in meters.

Measuring instruments and uncertainty

The air temperatures were monitored continuously with resistive thermal devices PT 100. The sensors were calibrated prior to the
measurements. The obtained accuracy was ±0.15°C or better. The supply and return water temperatures, tw,s andPublished
tw,r, were2012
monitored Page 3 of 14
continuously with resistive thermal devices PT 100. The sensors were calibrated prior to the measurements. The obtained accuracy
was ±(0.03+0.0005·tw), for the range of measured values the accuracy was ±0.045°C or better. The electrical power was measured
with a power harmonic analyzer. The DV supply air temperature, tair,s, was measured inside the diffuser. The exhaust air was leaving
 Measuring instruments and uncertainty
The air temperatures were monitored continuously with resistive thermal devices PT 100. The sensors were calibrated prior to the
measurements. The obtained accuracy was ±0.15°C or better. The supply and return water temperatures, tw,s and tw,r, were monitored
continuously with resistive thermal devices PT 100. The sensors were calibrated prior to the measurements. The obtained accuracy
was ±(0.03+0.0005·tw), for the range of measured values the accuracy was ±0.045°C or better. The electrical power was measured
with a power harmonic analyzer. The DV supply air temperature, tair,s, was measured inside the diffuser. The exhaust air was leaving the
room through a slot in the suspended ceiling and finally leaving the return plenum through a duct going out into the surrounding hall.
The exhaust air, tair,r, was measured in that duct. A vertical tree was used to measure air temperatures at seven heights (0.1, 0.25, 0.6,
1.1, 1.7, 1.9, 2.4 m) at the instrument station in the room (see Figure 1). All air temperature sensors were shielded against radiant heat
transfer using a fabricated mylar cylinder. The globe temperature was measured at 0.6 m height with a black-globe thermometer. The
black-globe thermometer fulfills the requirements of ISO 7726 [25], and the same standard was used to calculate the mean radiant
temperature from the globe temperature. The displacement ventilation airflow rate, Vair, was measured with a calibrated plate orifice
having an accuracy of better than ±3% of the reading. The cooled water mass flow rate, mw, was measured with a high quality Coriolis
temperature from theflow
mass globe
temperature
metertemperature.
withfrom theThe
an accuracy displacement
globe temperature.
of ±0.02% ventilation
of the reading. airflow
The displacement
The data are rate, Vair, was
ventilation
analyzed measured
airflow
in accordance rate, with
with V aira,ISO
the calibrated
was measured
guideline plate
[26] withorifice
for thea calibrated plate ori
having an accuracy of having
better than ±3% of the
an accuracy reading.
of better thanThe±3% cooled
of thewater massThe
reading. flow rate, m
cooled ,
water
w wasmassmeasured
flow with
rate, m a
w ,high
was quality
measured Coriolis
with a high quality Cori
expression of uncertainty. The sample uncertainty of the derived quantities (air and water temperature differences, cooling load removed
mass flow meter with mass an accuracy
flow meter of ±0.02%
with anofaccuracy
the reading. The data
of ±0.02% of are
the analyzed
reading. The in accordance with theinISO
data are analyzed guidelinewith
accordance [26]the forISO
the guideline [26] for
by the panels,
expression of uncertainty.expression electrical
The sample and η - see
load,uncertainty
of uncertainty. Thedefinition
ofsample below)
the derived has
uncertainty beenofevaluated.
quantities the Thewater
(airderived
and derived uncertainty
temperature
quantities (air and ofdifferences,
thewater
air temperature cooling
temperature difference
load
differences, cooling l
removed by the is ±0.41°C,
panels, removed the water
electrical byload,temperature
the and η (see
panels, difference
definition
electrical is ±0.125°C,
load, below))
and η (see the definition
has cooling loadbelow))
been evaluated. removedThe byderived
has the
beenchilled ceiling isThe
uncertainty
evaluated. ±25.5 theW,
of derived airthetemperature
electrical total
uncertainty of the air tempera
difference is ±0.41°C, the
±14.7water
power isdifference temperature
is
W, and η is ±0.04.
±0.41°C, difference
the water
When is ±0.125°C,
temperature
presented, the cooling
difference
the uncertainty is is load removed
±0.125°C,
indicated byerror
the cooling
by means of the bars.
chilled
loadThe ceiling
level of is
removed by ±25.5
the chilled
confidence W, theceiling is ±25.5 W,
is 95%
electrical total power is ±14.72).W,
electrical
(coverage factor totaland η is is
power ±0.04.
±14.7 When
W, and presented,
η is ±0.04. the uncertainty
When presented, is indicated by means isofindicated
the uncertainty error bars. byThe means level of oferror bars. The leve
confidence is 95% (coverage factor 2).
confidence is 95% (coverage factor 2).
Carbon(CO
Carbon dioxide dioxide (CO2used
2)Carbon
was ) was used
as
dioxide theas tracer
(CO the tracer
2) was
gas
forforACE
gasused asACE themeasurements.
measurements.
tracer gas for All All
CO2 CO
ACE probes were calibrated
2 probes were All
measurements. using
CO2aprobes
calibrated two pointwere
using acalibration
twocalibrated
point using a two p
calibration method. The
method. first
The
calibration point
first point was
was measured
method. measured
The firstat atpoint
00ppm
ppm ofof
was CO
COmeasured
2
and
2 and
the the
second
at 0 second
ppmpointof point
was
CO was
measured
2 and measured
the at 5050
second atppm 5050
point of ppm
CO
was 2
. of
The CO
new
measured 2 . The new
calibration
at 5050 ppm of CO2. The n
calibration data data
was was
uploaded
calibration
uploaded to to
each
data individual
eachwas uploaded
individual probe
probe anda spot
toand
each aindividual
spot check
check was was
probe done
doneand usinga using
spot 2460CO
2460check
ppm ppm
was
2
. CO CO
done
2
.
sensors
2 CO
using sensor
were
2 2460 were
ppm
located inCO located
the2. CO
supply 2insensor were locate
the supply diffuser, in the
diffuser,the exhaust
supply
in the exhaust andandatatthree
diffuser, in theheights
three exhaust
heights inand
in theroom
the room
at three (0.6;
(0.6; 1.11.1
heightsandand
in 1.7
1.7the m)the
m)room
at at(0.6;
the sensor
CO CO sensor
1.12 andtree1.7(seetree (see
m)Figure
at Figure
the1). COThe 1). The
2 sensor
stepup step-
tree
method (see Figure 1). The s
2
up method according to
upthe
according to ASHRAE
method
the ASHRAE Standard
according
Standard to the129
129 [22]was
ASHRAE
[22] was used
Standard
used andand the
the129 measurements
[22]
measurementswas used comply
and
comply with
the its
with its requirements.
measurements
requirements. comply with its requirements.

Experimental conditions and procedure

Experimental conditions and procedure
Experimental conditions and procedure
η (eta) is the
η (eta) is the ratio ofηtheratio of the
cooling
(eta) cooling
is theload ratioload of removed
removed bybychilled
the cooling chilled ceiling,
loadceiling,
removed CLCL , over the total
CC, chilled
CC by over the cooling load and
total cooling
ceiling, CL is expressed
load
CC, over is by
andtotal
the the following
expressed
cooling by the
load and is expressed by
equation:
following equation: following equation:
𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟
𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
η= η= = = (1)
𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 + 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 + 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 (1)

The totalload
The total cooling cooling
The load
totaliscooling
is equal equal
to the toelectrical
the electrical
load power
is equal powertooftheofthe
the heat sources
heat
electricalsources
power because
of thethe
because themeasurements
heat measurements
sources becausewerewere
done in
thedone steady state state
in steady
measurements were done in steady s
conditions, thusconditions,
the heat gains
conditions,
thus thearethus
heat equal
gains to
heatthe
the are equalcooling
gains arecooling
to the loads.
equal loads.The
to the cooling
The coolingload
cooling loads.
load removed bybythethe
The cooling
removed radiant
load
radiant panels,
removed
panels, CLCCby CLthe
, has , has
CC radiant
been been
panels, CLCC, has b
calculated
calculated with the following
calculated formula:
with the following formula:with the following formula:
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 = 𝑚𝑚𝑤𝑤 𝑐𝑐𝑝𝑝,𝑤𝑤 �𝑡𝑡𝑤𝑤,𝑟𝑟 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
− 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
𝑡𝑡𝑤𝑤,𝑠𝑠=� 𝑚𝑚𝑤𝑤 𝑐𝑐𝑝𝑝,𝑤𝑤 �𝑡𝑡𝑤𝑤,𝑟𝑟 − 𝑡𝑡𝑤𝑤,𝑠𝑠 � (2) (2)
where the cp,w is the specific heat capacity of water. The cooling
where the cp,w is the specific heat capacity of water. The cooling loadDVload removed by DV, CL removed by DV, CLDV, was as
, was calculated indirectly the
calculated indirectly as
difference between
wherethethe
total
difference
c p,w
cooling
is the load
specific and
heat the cooling
capacity of load
water. removed
The coolingby the
load radiant
removed byceiling
DV, CL panels.
, was The cooling
between the total cooling load and the cooling load removed DVby the radiant ceiling panels. The cooling load removed by
calculated load
indirectly removed
as the by DV
difference
could also be calculated
between directly
could
the total by
alsocooling measuring
be calculated
load and thethecooling
airflow
directly byload rateremoved
measuring and thethebysupply
airflow
the andrate
radiant return air
thetemperature.
andpanels.
ceiling supply This
and return
The cooling procedure
air temperature.
load removed was
by DV not used
This
could also procedure
be was not u
because the accuracy of the
because water
the flow sensor
accuracy of was
the much
water higher
flow than
sensor that
was of
muchthe airflow
higher rate
than sensor.
that of the
calculated directly by measuring the airflow rate and the supply and return air temperature. This procedure was not used because theairflow rate sensor.
accuracy of the water flow sensor was much higher than that of the airflow rate sensor.
Table 1. ExperimentalTable tests summary.
1. Experimental tests summary.
The experiments Airfloware summarized in Table rate
Airflow1. The experiments are rateidentified Operative
based on atemperature
first order estimation PCs
Operative location
temperature
of the PCs location
airflow rate measured
Test Test η1 η1 [°C]
[L/s]
in L/s, the temperature setpoint (where[L/s]“F” stand for “Free to change”) and the [°C] (“F” for floor and “H” for
location of the heat sources
180-24-F “at 1.52180-24-F 181.4above the floor). The181.4
m Height heat load0.20 in the room was kept constant0.20 24 and equal to 1657 W (91.0 24 Floor
W/m2). The heat loads are Floor
160-24-F described160-24-F 163.22. The operative temperature,
in Table 163.2 0.24 top, was kept constant and 0.24 24 equal to 24°C, except
almost 24inFloor
tests 140-FH and 75-F-H. Floor
140-24-F 138.2 0.47 24
The operative temperature was calculated as the average of the mean radiant temperature (0.6 m height) and the average seated airFloor
140-24-F 138.2 0.47 24 Floor
120-24-F 120-24-F
temperature 117
according to ISO 7726 annex 117G [25]. 0.57 The average seated air0.57 24
temperature was the mean value 24 Floor
of the air temperatures Floor
95-24-F 95-24-F 94.5 94.5 0.64 0.64 24
measured at 0.1, 0.6 and 1.1 m. In a stratified environment there is no single height where the air temperature can be measured that 24 Floor Floor
75-24-F 75-24-F 72.4 72.4 0.73 0.73 24 24 Floor Floor
represents the “perceived” air temperature. For this reason, the average of the air temperatures measured at the ASHRAE Standard
35-24-F2 35-24-F 36.62 36.6 0.89 0.89 24 24 Floor Floor
55 [3] heights was used. The DV supply air temperature, tair,s, was kept constant and equal to 18°C. In order to keep the operative
130-24-H 130-24-H 131.6 131.6 0 0 24 24 At 1.52 m At 1.52 m
temperature setpoint equal to 24°C, the water mass flow rate and the cold water supply temperature were manually adjusted. In the
100-24-H 100-24-H 102.3 102.3 0.34 0.34 24 24 At 1.52 m At 1.52 m
75-24-H experiments 140-F-H
75-24-H 74.4 and 75-F-H the air74.4 and water 0.57flow rates and the supply 0.57 24air and water temperatures 24 were keptmconstant and equal
At 1.52 At 1.52 m
140-F-H 142.2
140-F-H 142.2 0.49 Free to change
0.49 Free toAtchange
1.52 m At 1.52 m
75-F-H 75-F-H75.3 75.3 0.75 Free to change
0.75 toAtchange
1.52 m2012
Free Published Page 4At
of 1.52
14 m
1 This parameter has been calculated after performing
1 This parameter the calculated
experimentafter performing the experiment
has been
2 The total power was 1803 W 2and Thenot 1657
total powerW, as
wasin1803
the other
W andexperiments,
not 1657 W,because
as in theweother
needed to add an because
experiments, extra pump
we in the room,
needed above
to add the radiant
an extra pump inpanels, to increase
the room, theirradiant
above the water panels,
flow to increase their wate
rate. In the calculation of η werate.
included
In thethecalculation
power of of
theηpump. If the pump
we included was not
the power included,
of the pump. then wouldwas
If theηpump have
notbeen equalthen
included, to 0.97. For this
η would havetest it was
been nottopossible
equal to perform
0.97. For this test the ACE
it was not possible to perform the
to the case 140-24-H and 75-F-H to study the influence on the air change effectiveness and thermal stratification of just moving the
computer heat sources up to a higher part of the room. The air, water and mean radiant temperatures, the cooled water mass flow rate,
and air flow rate were recorded for at least 30 min after steady-state conditions were obtained. The electrical power consumption was
manually recorded before starting the experiments.

Table 1. Experimental tests summary.

Operative temperature
Test Airflow rate [L/s] η1 [°C]
PCs location

180-24-F 181.4 0.20 24 Floor

160-24-F 163.2 0.24 24 Floor
140-24-F 138.2 0.47 24 Floor
120-24-F 117 0.57 24 Floor
95-24-F 94.5 0.64 24 Floor
75-24-F 72.4 0.73 24 Floor
35-24-F 2
36.6 0.89 24 Floor
130-24-H 131.6 0 24 At 1.52 m
100-24-H 102.3 0.34 24 At 1.52 m
75-24-H 74.4 0.57 24 At 1.52 m
140-F-H 142.2 0.49 Free to change At 1.52 m
75-F-H 75.3 0.75 Free to change At 1.52 m
1
This parameter has been calculated after performing the experiment.
2
The total power was 1803 W and not 1657 W, as in the other experiments, because we needed to add an extra pump in the room, above the radiant panels, to increase their water flow rate. In the calculation of η we
included the power of the pump. If the pump was not included, then η would have been equal to 0.97. For this test it was not possible to perform the ACE test due to time constraints.

The CPUs are equal to 51% of the total heat gains and 71% of the heat gains coming from the office equipment (screen and CPUs).
Screens cannot be moved from the desk, but the location of the CPUs is flexible. They are often located on the floor under the desk.
We tested two locations, the first one (named “floor” or “F”) in which the tower CPUs were located at floor level under the desk, and the
second one in which they were placed on open shelves above the desks at 1.52 m (5 feet) above the floor.

Table 2. Heat load summary.

Power per floor area
Heat source Number Power per unit [W] Total power [W]
[W/m2]
CPUs 4 212 848 46.6
Screens and lamps 8 44.25 354 19.5
People 4 75 300 16.5
Instrument tree and datalogger 1 20 20 1.1
Overhead Lighting 2 67.5 135 7.4
Total 1657 91.0

The tests summarized in Table 1 were performed in June 2012. In the results and discussion sections results from previous CC/DV
testing in the same lab will also be reported [8] . To verify consistency between separate lab tests, the experiment without radiant panels
(only displacement ventilation) was repeated and compared for all the visits. The temperature profiles were found to be very similar. The
average of air temperature differences between the cases calculated at each height was 0.30°C.

RESULTS
The main performance parameters of the displacement ventilation and chilled ceiling systems obtained in the experiments are
summarized in Table 3. The operative temperature for the first ten experiments was controlled within the range of 24.0-24.2°C, therefore
we may conclude that the comparison was done with almost thermally equal comfort conditions (air velocity and relative humidity were
constant as well). The DV supply air temperature was precisely controlled at 18°C. The airflow rate varied between 36.6 to 181.4 L/s [2.4
– 11.8 air changes per hour].

Published 2012 Page 5 of 14

Temperature stratification
The vertical air temperature profiles are shown in Figure 2. Figure 2a shows the temperature stratification when the PCs are located at
the floor level below the desks. From part “a” of the figure it can be deduced that the temperature stratification in the occupied zone for
a seated person (up to 1.1 m height) is not strongly affected by the change in the cooling load split between displacement ventilation
and chilled ceiling. The stratification is reduced from 2.1°C to 0.8°C when the airflow is reduced from 181.4 L/s (η=0.20) to 36.6 L/s
(η=0.89). At higher heights in the room, it can be seen that temperature stratification is reduced as the amount of load removed by the
chilled ceiling increases. The suspended ceiling is located at 2.5 m from the floor. Figure 2 reports the air temperatures from floor to
the suspended ceiling; between the suspended ceiling and the exhaust there is a void space. When the panels are activated, i.e. cooled,
the exhaust air, tair,r, is cooler than the temperature measured at 2.4 m by the panels. Figure 2a shows that most of the temperature
stratification is occurring in the occupied zone. The relatively well mixed conditions (small temperature differences) at higher heights in
the room is a good indication that these points fall above the stratification height that separates the two characteristic lower and upper
zones of a stratified displacement ventilation system. Experiment 35-24-F was not fully successful. The aim of this experiment was to
test the combination of DV and CC in extreme conditions, with the CC taking almost 90% of the load and providing only 36.6 L/s (that
is a bit more than double of the minimum outdoor air flow rate (15.5 L/s) according to ASHRAE 62.1[27] for an office space). In order
to obtain the operative temperature equal to 20°C the water supply temperature was reduced to 9.7°C (mean water temperature was
10.9°C), which is too low for almost any real application. Even at 9.7°C we were not able to obtain the desired operative temperature and
we increased the mass flow rate from 419 kg/h to 575 kg/h. In order to do this we added an extra pump in the room, above the radiant
panels. The obtained temperature profile was correct, but we were not able to perform an ACE test due to time constraints.
Figure 2b shows the temperature stratification when the PCs are located at 1.52 m above the floor. The effect is dramatic. After a lower
layer from 0 to 0.6 m, where the air is relatively well-mixed, there is a strong stratification between 0.6 and 1.7 m. There are two groups
of profiles. The ones on the left (dotted lines) when the temperature in the room was allowed to fluctuate, and the group with solid lines
where the average operative temperature in the occupied zone was maintained at 24°C.
In only two cases (100-24-H and 75-24-H) was the vertical temperature difference between head (1.1 m) and ankle (0.1 m) for seated
occupancy observed to exceed 3°C, the maximum acceptable stratification specified by ASHRAE Standard 55 [3]. In both these cases the
CPUs were in the higher part of the room. CC/DV systems even with high cooling loads are able to maintain stratification lower than 3°C, if
more than 50% of the heat gains are in the lower part of the room. In applications of CC/DV to spaces with stratification approaching 3°C,
it is advisable to remove a high enough percentage of the total load by the chilled ceiling to maintain stratification at acceptable levels.
The lower stratification (0.8°C) was obtained for the experiment 35-24-F when η was equal to 0.89 and tp was equal to 10.9°C.
Table 3. Experimental performance parameters.
Displacement Radiant panels

η
top Vair tair,r mw tw,r- tw,s tw,m CLCC CLCC1 CLCC2
Test
[°C] [L/s] [°C] [kg/h] [°C] [°C] [W] [W/m2] [W/m2]
180-24-F 0.20 24.0 181.4 23.9 200 1.4 22.8 324 24 18
160-24-F 0.24 24.0 163.2 23.7 150 2.3 21.8 397 30 22
140-24-F 0.47 24.1 138.2 23.3 283 2.4 18.3 779 58 43
120-24-F 0.57 24.0 117.0 23.1 400 2.0 16.8 937 70 51
95-24-F 0.64 24.0 94.5 23.3 419 2.2 15.4 1069 80 59
75-24-F 0.73 24.0 72.4 23.1 400 2.6 14.1 1206 90 66
35-24-F 2
0.89 24.0 36.6 23.5 575 2.4 10.9 1605 120 88
130-24-H 0.00 24.1 131.6 27.8 0 2.0 26.2 0 0 0
100-24-H 0.34 24.0 102.3 26.2 283 1.7 24.7 564 42 31
75-24-H 0.57 24.2 74.4 25.1 400 2.0 20.7 937 70 51
140-F-H 0.49 21.2 142.2 22.8 283 2.5 18.3 813 61 45
75-F-H 0.75 21.4 75.3 22.0 400 2.7 14.1 1237 92 68
1
Panel capacity expressed per unit of panel area 2
Panel capacity expressed per unit of floor area

Published 2012 Page 6 of 14

75-24-H 0.57 24.2 74.4 25.1 400 2.0 20.7 937 70 51
140-F-H 0.49 21.2 142.2 22.8 283 2.5 18.3 813 61 45
75-F-H 0.75 21.4 75.3 22.0 400 2.7 14.1 1237 92 68
1 Panel capacity expressed per unit of panel area
2 Panel capacity expressed per unit of floor area

(a) (b)
Figureprofiles
Figure 2. Air temperature 2. Air temperature profilestests
for twelve for twelve tests described
described in Table 3:
in Table 3: (a)(a)
tests with the
tests withCPUs located
the CPUs located at floor level;
at floor level; and (b) tests with CPUs located at 1.52 m height above floor.
and (b) tests with CPUs located at 1.52 m height above floor.

Figure
Figure 3 compares
3 compares thethe
temperature
temperature profiles of three
profiles tests:tests:
of three 75-24-F, 75-F-H
75-24-F, and 75-24-H.
75-F-H In all these
and 75-24-H. In alltests
thesethetests
heatthe
gains
heat(91.0
gainsW/m 2
), W/m2),
(91.0
the
theairflow
airflowraterate
(~74 (~74L/s),L/s),
and and
the air
thesupply temperature
air supply have been
temperature haveheldbeenconstant. From testFrom
held constant. 75-24-Ftest to75-24-F
75-F-H tothe75-F-H
only thingthethat
only thing that
changedwas
changed wasthethelocation
location of the
of the CPUs.
CPUs. FromFrom
underunder the at
the desk desk
flooratlevel,
floorthe
level, therepresenting
CPUs, CPUs, representing
51% of total 51%heat
of total
gainsheat gainsofand 71% of
and 71%
heatgains
heat gainsfrom
from thethe office
office equipment,
equipment, werewere
movedmoved
aboveabove the to
the desk desk
1.52tom1.52 m above
above theThe
the floor. floor. The
effect oneffect ontemperature
average average temperature
in the in the
occupied zone and the amount of stratification is significant. The temperature at ankle level is reduced from 23 to 20.7°C and at 1.1 m
occupied zone and the amount of stratification is significant. The temperature at ankle level is reduced from 23 to 20.7°C and at 1.1 m
from 26.6 to 23.2°C. This air temperature reduction produces a decrease in operative temperature equal to 2.6°C (from 24 to 21.4°C).
from 26.6 to 23.2°C.atThis
The temperatures theair temperature
ceiling height reduction
are quite produces
similar fora decrease
these twointests.
operative temperature
To compare the equal
effecttoof2.6°C
moving(fromthe24CPUs
to 21.4°C).
from the floor
The temperatures
to 1.52 m heightaton theenergy
ceiling use,
heighta are
thirdquite
testsimilar
(75-4-H)for these two tests. Toatcompare
was performed the effectcomfort
similar thermal of moving the CPUs to
conditions fromthethe floor tofloor-level
original
loadmtest
1.52 (75-24-F).
height on energy Touse,
accomplish this,
a third test the supply
(75-4-H) water temperature
was performed at similarto the radiant
thermal comfortpanels was progressively
conditions to the original increased
floor-level from 12.8°C to
load test
(75-24-F). To accomplish this, the supply water temperature to the radiant panels was progressively increased from 12.8°C to 19.7°C.
Schiavon
This impliedS,that
Bauman F, Tully
the average waterB, and Rimmerincreased
temperature J. 2013. Temperature stratification
from 14.1 to 20.6°C. and an
We obtained air operative
change temperature
effectiveness in a high cooling
of 24.2°C,
load office with two heat source heights in a combined chilled ceiling and displacement ventilation system. Submitted to
almost
Energy equal
andtoBuildings.
the case 75-24-F.
We can conclude that implied
19.7°C. This increasing
thatthethe height
averageofwater
the heat sourcesincreased
temperature from thefrom
floor14.1
to about head-height,
to 20.6°C. for the
We obtained an same thermal
operative comfortof
temperature
conditions,24.2°C,
allowsalmost
a significant
equal to increase in radiant panel surface temperature, thereby saving cooling energy. This simple strategy has
the case 75-24-F.
We can conclude that increasing the height of the heat sources from the floor to about head-height, for the same thermal comfort
strong potential for reducing energy consumption in stratified systems (DV and UFAD), as well as implementation of passive or renewable
conditions, allows a significant increase in radiant panel surface temperature, thereby saving cooling energy. This simple strategy has
energy sources, such as for
strong potential cooling tower,
reducing ground
energy source heat
consumption pumps, etc.
in stratified systems (DV and UFAD), as well as implementation of passive or
renewable energy sources, such as cooling tower, ground source heat pumps, etc.

Figure 3. Temperature
Figure profiles for
3. Temperature 75-24-F,
profiles for75-F-H and 75-24-H.
75-24-F, 75-F-H Heat
and gains, airflowHeat
75-24-H. rate and supply
gains, air temperature
airflow rate andwere constant.
supply From 75-H-F towere
air temperature 75-
F-H only the CPUs location was changed. From 75-F-H to 75-24-H only the water temperature supplied to the radiant
constant. From 75-H-F to 75-F-H only the CPUs location was changed. From 75-F-H to 75-24-H only the water temperature panels was increased.
supplied to the radiant panels was increased.

Published 2012 Page 7 of 14

Air change effectiveness
Air change effectiveness tests were performed for 11 of the 12 tests (35-24-F was not performed). Figure 4a presents a representative
example of the measured CO2 concentrations vs. time for test 180-24-F. Measurements are reported for supply, exhaust, and three
Air change effectiveness
Air change effectiveness tests were performed for 11 of the 12 tests (35-24-F was not performed). Figure 4a presents a representative
example of the measured CO2 concentrations vs. time for test 180-24-F. Measurements are reported for supply, exhaust, and three
heights in the room (0.6, 1.1, and 1.7 m). The reported concentrations have been adjusted with respect to intake (before injecting the
tracer gas) average concentration (continuously measured throughout the test). Figure 4b presents a representative example of the
calculated ACE for the three heights vs. time for test 180-24-F. The air change effectiveness values calculated at 0.6, 1.1 and 1.7 m and
three key performance parameters of the displacement ventilation and chilled ceiling systems are summarized for all completed tests in
Table 4.
The median ACE at 0.6 m is 2.3 (max=3.2 and min = 1), the median ACE at 1.1 m is 1.5 (max=2.1 and min = 1), and the median ACE
at 1.7 m is 1.2 (max=1.4 and min = 0.9). All the ACE median values are higher than one (mixing ventilation). Among the parameters
reported in Table 4 the height of the heat sources has the strongest effect. When the heat sources are located in the higher part of the
room ACE at 0.6 m is consistently higher than 2, ACE at 1.1 m in average equal to 1.6 and almost constantly equal to 1 at standing head
height (1.7 m). This means that if we locate the heat sources in the higher part of the room we can create two separate zones, one of
clean and fresh air in the lower part of the room (seated occupants) and one with mixed air in the higher part of the room. For the same
heat source location the ACEs at 0.6 m and 1.1 m increase with the increase of the air flow rate, the decrease of η and the increase of
the panel surface temperature (in these cases equal to the mean water temperature in the panels).

Table 4. Air change effectiveness results.

Calculated η Panel surface CC/Vair ACE at 0.6 m ACE at 1.1 m ACE at 1.7 m
Test
[-] effectiveness
Table 4. Air change temp. [°C]
results [kW/(m3/s)] [-] [-] [-]
160-24-F 24
Calculated η 21.8surface temp.CC/V
Panel 10.2air 1.8 at 0.6 m
ACE 1.5
ACE at 1.1 m 1.4ACE at 1.7 m
Test
120-24-F [-] 57 [°C]16.8 [kW/(m
14.2 /s)]
3 [-]
1.0 [-]
1.1 1.3[-]
160-24-F 24 21.8 10.2 1.8 1.5 1.4
75-24-F
120-24-F 57 73 14.1
16.8 22.9
14.2 1.2
1.0 1.3
1.1 1.41.3
75-24-F
95-24-F 73 64 14.1
15.4 22.9
17.5 1.2
1.1 1.3
1.2 1.31.4
95-24-F
140-24-F 64 47 15.4
18.3 17.5
12.0 1.1
1.1 1.2
1.2 1.31.3
140-24-F 47 18.3 12.0 1.1 1.2 1.2
180-24-F 20 22.8 9.1 2.3 1.9 1.3
180-24-F 20 22.8 9.1 2.3 1.9 1.3
100-24-H
100-24-H 34 34 24.7
24.7 16.2
16.2 2.9
2.9 1.7
1.7 0.90.9
75-24-H
75-24-H 57 57 20.7
20.7 22.3
22.3 3.2
3.2 1.5
1.5 1.01.0
130-24-H 0 26.2 12.6 2.7 2.1 0.9
130-24-H 0 26.2 12.6 2.7 2.1 0.9
140-F-H 49 18.3 11.7 2.6 1.8 0.9
140-F-H
75-F-H 75 49 18.3
14.1 11.7
22.0 2.6
2.9 1.8
1.0 0.91.2
Max
75-F-H 75 14.1 22.0 3.2
2.9 2.1
1.0 1.21.4
Max Min 3.2 1.0 2.1 1.0 1.4 0.9
Average 2.1 1.5 1.2
Min Median 1.0 2.3 1.0 1.5 0.9 1.2
Average 2.1 1.5 1.2
Median 2.3 1.5 1.2

(a) (b)

Figure
Figure 4.
4. (a)(a)
CO2CO 2 concentrations
concentrations for method
for the step-up the step-up method
at the supply, exhaustatand
the supply,
at 0.6, 1.1 andexhaust
1.7 m for and at 0.6, 1.1
test 180-24-F; (b) Airand 1.7 m
change
for test 180-24-F; (b)calculated
effectiveness Air change
at 0.6, effectiveness
1.1, and 1.7 m andcalculated at 0.6,for1.1,
CO2 concentrations and 1.7
the supply m andforCO
and exhaust concentrations for
test2 180-24-F.
the supply and exhaust for test 180-24-F.

Published 2012 Page 8 of 14

DISCUSSION
The data analyzed in this paper have been obtained from the same climatic chamber previously described by Schiavon et al.
(2012). It is therefore possible to compare and merge the two datasets. In this section the terms "mean water temperature" and "radiant
 DISCUSSION
The data analyzed in this paper have been obtained from the same climatic chamber previously described by Schiavon et al. (2012). It
is therefore possible to compare and merge the two datasets. In this section the terms “mean water temperature” and “radiant surface
temperature”, tp, are synonymous because in these tests the two values were almost the same. This would not be correct for TABS systems.
We want to develop a model that could work for radiant panels and TABS, therefore our reference is the surface temperature of the radiant
element.
Tan et al. [14] and Ghaddar el al. [16] stated that the ratio between the total cooling load, CC, and the displacement air flow rate, Vair, is
relevant for prediction of the stratification in a room with DV and CC. In this paper we named this ratio CC/Vair. Previously, we demonstrated
[8] that the ratio of the cooling load removed by chilled ceiling over the total cooling load, η, cannot be a unique parameter to predict the
stratification, because cases with equal η may have different profiles when the active ceiling area is different. Moreover we found that the
radiant surface temperature and CC/Vair are better predictors of the stratification than η. By looking at the new data we found that η is
strongly correlated to tp (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient, r = -0.83) and to CC/Vair (r = 0.88). This means that we can use these
parameters instead of η. We prefer to use tp and CC/Vair because they are the physical parameters that affect the fluid dynamics in the space.
We also found a strong correlation between tp and CC/Vair (r = -0.71); this could imply that only one of the two parameters is needed as the
independent variable in a predictive model.[8]
Figure 5 presents air temperature differences between head and ankle of a seated (1.1 - 0.1 m) occupant as function of the mean surface
radiant panel temperature for the data previously published and the tests reported in this paper. Figure 6 shows the same temperature
differences as a function of the ratio between the total cooling load and the displacement airflow rate. Figure 5 and Figure 6 show that the
previously
ow that the previously publisheddata
published data and
and the
the data
dataobtained
obtained when
whenthe the
CPUs CPUswere were
locatedlocated
under the deskthe
under have a similar
desk havebehavior.
a similar It isbehavior.
possible toItmerge
the two dataset and develop a more robust regression
ossible to merge the two dataset and develop a more robust regression model. model.
p, η,variables
Four variables (tFour CC/Vair(t and a dummy
, η, CC/V variable
and a dummy that identifies
variable if the
that identifies if theCPUs arelocated
CPUs are located in the
in the lowerlower or higher
or higher part
part of the of the
room) wereroom)
used to
p air
e used to develop a predictive model. A multivariable regression linear model was developed. Regression
develop a predictive model. A multivariable regression linear model was developed. Regression models were selected based on R-squaredmodels were selected
d on R-squared adjusted values and authors’ judgment of the maximum number of useful explanatory variables. R-squared, the
adjusted values and authors’ judgment of the maximum number of useful explanatory variables. R-squared, the coefficient of determination of the
ficient of determination of the regression line, is defined as the proportion of the total sample variability explained by the
regression
ession model. Adding line, is defined
irrelevant as the variables
predictor proportion oftothe
thetotal sample variability
regression equationexplained
oftenbyincreases
the regression model. Adding
R-squared; irrelevant predictor
to compensate variables
for this,
to thebe
quared adjusted can regression equation often
used. R-squared increases
adjusted is R-squared;
the valuetoofcompensate
R-squared foradjusted
this, R-squared
downadjusted can be used.
for a higher number R-squared adjusted in
of variables is the
thevalue of
el. The statistical analysisadjusted
R-squared was performed with R
down for a higher version
number 2.15.1.inAll
of variables thethe data
model. Thepoints have
statistical beenwas
analysis used except with
performed the ones with
R version pureAll
2.15.1. DV the data
0). The best regression
points havemodel, in SIexcept
been used and IPthe units, is reported
ones with pure DV (ηbelow.
= 0). The best regression model, in SI and IP units, is reported below.

s = 0.127𝑡𝑡𝑝𝑝 − 0.528 + 𝑘𝑘1 (SI) (3)

s = 0.127𝑡𝑡𝑝𝑝 − 4.568 + 𝑘𝑘2 (I-P) (4)

Where s is the Where

temperature difference difference
s is the temperature between between
1.1 and1.10.1 andm0.1 [43 andand
m [43 4 in.])
4 in.])(°C
(°C [°F]), is mean
[°F]),t istpthe the mean
radiantradiant paneltemperature
panel surface surface
p
(°C [°F]), k1=0.808 and k2=1.4544 if at least 50% of the heat gains are located at 1.5 m (5 feet) or higher. The model is valid model
perature (°C [°F]), k1 =0.808 and k 2 =1.4544 if the at least 50% of the heat gains are located at 1.5 m (5 feet) or higher. The within the
alid within the experimental conditions tested: 10.9°C (51.7°F)< tp <24.9°C (76.4°F).
experimental conditions tested: 10.9°C (51.7°F)< tp <24.9°C (76.4°F).
The ANOVA analysis of the regression model indicated that the model is significant (p<0.001) and the Adjusted R-squared is
al to 0.64. VisualTheevaluation
ANOVA analysisof the plotregression
of the of residuals
modelindicated thatthe
indicated that themodelhypotheses of the
is significant linearand
(p<0.001) regression model
the Adjusted were ismet,
R-squared equalandto 0.64.
, the model is valid. The model reported in equation 3 and 4 does not include
Visual evaluation of the plot of residuals indicated that the hypotheses of the linear CC/V because this parameter was strong. Thanks
air regression model were met, and thus, the model is valid.
he data reported The
in this paper
model the applicability
reported in equation 3 and of 4the model
does has been
not include CC/Vexpanded
because from
this 16.5°C was
parameter <24.9°C
< tpstrong. to 10.9°C
Thanks < treported
to the data p <24.9°C.in this
m equations 3 and 4 it can be deduced that the stratification decreases air
when the surface temperature of the panel also decreases
paper the applicability of the model has been expanded from 16.5°C < tp <24.9°C to 10.9°C < tp <24.9°C.
ger percentage of cooling load removed by chilled ceiling). For the same cooling load, ventilation and thermal comfort conditions,
possible to increase stratification
From equations 3 and 4 byit canincreasing
be deducedthe thatactive radiant decreases
the stratification surface areawhenbecause
the surfacethis would allow
temperature a higher
of the panel surface (larger
also decreases
perature to be used. In design,
percentage thisload
of cooling could be accomplished
removed byFor
by chilled ceiling). employing a larger
the same cooling area
load, (TABS)
ventilation andradiant
thermal slab with
comfort a DV system,
conditions, it is possible
ead of a typicallyto smaller-area radiantbypanel
increase stratification design.
increasing Stratification
the active increases
radiant surface by 0.13°C
area because for every
this would allow adegree increment
higher surface of the to
temperature radiant
be used.
ace temperature.InMoving at least 50% of the heat gains from the floor level to 1.5 m (5 feet) or higher produces
design, this could be accomplished by employing a larger area (TABS) radiant slab with a DV system, instead of a typically smaller-area an increment of
stratification of 0.8°C (1.44°F).
radiant panel design. Stratification increases by 0.13°C for every degree increment of the radiant surface temperature. Moving at least 50%
of the heat gains from the floor level to 1.5 m (5 feet) or higher produces an increment of the stratification of 0.8°C (1.44°F).
The developed regression model with the 95% confidence interval is shown in Figure 8 for the case with k1=0 (heat sources located at the
floor level). The clear influence of the location of the CPUs on stratification is shown in Figure 7, the difference between the two locations
of the CPUs is included in the regression model with the constant k. When the heat sources are located in the higher part of the room the
stratification increase significantly.

Published 2012 Page 9 of 14

 it is possible to increase stratification by increasing the active radiant surface area because this would allow a higher surface
temperature to be used. In design, this could be accomplished by employing a larger area (TABS) radiant slab with a DV system,
instead of a typically smaller-area radiant panel design. Stratification increases by 0.13°C for every degree increment of the radiant
surface temperature. Moving at least 50% of the heat gains from the floor level to 1.5 m (5 feet) or higher produces an increment of
the stratification of 0.8°C (1.44°F).

Figure 5. Air temperature

Figure 5. Air temperaturedifference between
difference between head andhead and ankleFigure
ankle for 6. Air temperature
Figure difference between difference
6. Air temperature head and ankle between
for seated occupant
head and ankle
seated occupant (1.1 - 0.1 m) as function of the radiant panel average (1.1 - 0.1 m) as function of ratio between the total cooling load and the displacement
for seated occupant (1.1 - 0.1 m) as function of the
surface temperature for previously published data (Schiavon, 2012)
radiant for seated occupant (1.1 - 0.1 m) as function of ratio between
air flow rate for previously published data (Schiavon, 2012) and the tests with the
panel average surface temperature for previously
and the tests with the CPUs at the floor level and at 1.52 m. published the total cooling load and the displacement
CPUs at the floor level and at 1.52 m. air flow rate for
data (Schiavon, 2012) and the tests with the CPUs at the floor previously published data (Schiavon, 2012) and the tests with
level and at 1.52 m. the CPUs at the floor level and at 1.52 m.

The developed regression model with the 95% confidence interval is shown in Figure 8 for the case with k1=0 (heat sources
located at the floor level). The clear influence of the location of the CPUs on stratification is shown in Figure 7, the difference
between the two locations of the CPUs is included in the regression model with the constant k. When the heat sources are located in
the higher part of the room the stratification increase significantly.

Schiavon S, Bauman F, Tully B, and Rimmer J. 2013. Temperature stratification and air change effectiveness in a high cooling
load office with two heat source heights in a combined chilled ceiling and displacement ventilation system. Submitted to
Energy and Buildings.
Figure 7. Boxplot of the air temperature ofdifference
Figure 7. Boxplotdifference for difference
the air temperature the CPUs located at thethefloor level and atm 1.52 m (high).
Figure 7. Boxplot of the air temperature for the CPUsforlocated
the CPUs located
at theatfloor floorlevel
level and
andat 1.52
at 1.52(high).
m (high).

Figure 8. Regression model of radiant panel surface temperature versus air temperature difference (Equation 3) with 95%
Figure 8. Regression
confidence intervals.model of radiant panel surface temperature versus air temperature difference (Equation 3) with 95%
Figure 8. Regression model of radiant panel surface temperature versus air temperature difference (Equation 3) with 95% confidence intervals.
confidence intervals.
In a similar
In a similar way toway thetoprevious
the previous
modelmodelwewe developedaaregression
developed regression equation
equationtotopredict
predictthethe
non-dimensional
non-dimensionaltemperature measured
temperature at
measured at the
In floor
a similar
level,way
the floorto the
ϕ0.1, level, previous model
ϕ0.1, expressed
expressed in equation we developed
5. In this
in equation case
5. In a regression
thisallcase data equation
all points
data points to
obtained predict
with
obtained the
withthe non-dimensional
theCPUs
CPUs located temperature
located atat1.52
1.52mmhave
havebeen measured
been removed
removed at the
from
floor
thelevel, ϕ0.1,because
database expressed theinϕ equation
was 5. In constant
almost this caseandall data
equal points
to 0.35.obtained
In with the
addition, the CPUs located
datapoint at 1.52from
obtained m have
test been removed
35-24-F was from
removed
thebecause from
database the database because
0.1 the ϕ0.1 was almostandconstant
equal toand equal Intoaddition,
0.35. In addition, the datapoint obtained
from from test 35-24-F
waswas
it because the ϕ0.1
was abecause
leverage was almost
point for the constant
regression. 0.35. the datapoint obtained test 35-24-F removed
because it removed
was a leverage it was
point a leverage
for point for the regression.
the regression. 𝑡𝑡𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎,0.1 − 𝑡𝑡𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎,𝑠𝑠
𝜙𝜙 = 𝑡𝑡𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎,0.1 − 𝑡𝑡𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎,𝑠𝑠 (5)
𝜙𝜙0.10.1
= 𝑡𝑡𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎,𝑟𝑟 − 𝑡𝑡𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎,𝑠𝑠 (5)
𝑡𝑡𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎,𝑟𝑟 − 𝑡𝑡
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎,𝑠𝑠
𝜙𝜙0.1 = 0.0137 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 + 0.4748 (6)
𝜙𝜙0.1 = 0.0137 𝑉𝑉𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 + 0.4748 Published 2012
(6) 10 of 14
Page
𝑉𝑉𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
All the variables used in the equations 5 and 6 are described in the nomenclature. . The model is valid within the experimental
All the variables used in the
3 equations 5 and 6 are described
3 in the nomenclature. . The model is valid within the experimental
 onfidence intervals.

n a similar way to the previous model we developed a regression equation to predict the non-dimensional temperature measured at the
oor level, ϕ0.1, expressed in equation 5. In this case all data points obtained with the CPUs located at 1.52 m have been removed from
he database because the ϕ0.1 was almost constant and equal to 0.35. In addition, the datapoint obtained from test 35-24-F was removed
ecause it was a leverage point for the regression.
𝑡𝑡𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎,0.1 − 𝑡𝑡𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎,𝑠𝑠
𝜙𝜙0.1 = (5)
𝑡𝑡𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎,𝑟𝑟 − 𝑡𝑡𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎,𝑠𝑠
𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶
𝜙𝜙0.1 = 0.0137 + 0.4748 (6)
𝑉𝑉𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎
All theused
All the variables variables used
in the in the equations
equations 5 and 65 areand described
6 are described
in thein the nomenclature.. .The
nomenclature. The model
model isisvalid within
valid the experimental
within conditions
the experimental
tested: 9.1 kW/(m
3 3
/sec)<CC/V
onditions tested: 9.1 kW/(m /sec)<CC/Vair <22.9 air
<22.9 kW/(m 3 3/sec).
kW/(m /sec).
he ANOVA analysis of theanalysis
The ANOVA regression
of themodel indicated
regression model that the model
indicated that theismodel
significant (p<0.001)
is significant and the
(p<0.001) and Adjusted
the AdjustedR-squared
R-squaredisisequal
equal toto
.73. Visual evaluation of the
0.73. Visual plot ofofresiduals
evaluation the plot ofindicated that the that
residuals indicated hypotheses of theoflinear
the hypotheses regression
the linear model
regression modelwere
were met, andthus,
met, and thus,thethe
model
model is valid.
is valid.

Air change effectiveness

ir change effectiveness
When ACE >When 1 the ACE > 1 the designer,
designer, according according
to ASHRAE to ASHRAE 62.1-2010
62.1-2010 [27],has
[27], hasthethe opportunity
opportunity to to reduce
reduce the the
outdoor
outdoorairflowairflow
rate or increase
rate or
ncrease the indoor theair
indoor
qualityair quality
with the withsame the same outdooroutdoor airflow.Table
airflow. Table 44 shows
showsthat thatallallthethe ACEACE median valuesvalues
median are greater than one.
are greater thanThisone.
impliesThis
mplies that displacement ventilation
that displacement with awith
ventilation chilled ceiling
a chilled is able
ceiling is abletotoprovide betterindoor
provide a better indoor airair quality
quality thanthanmixing mixing ventilation
ventilation system evensystem for
2 2
ven for extremely high cooling
extremely load (91
high cooling load W/m (91 W/m ). In). In
thisthisresearch
researchACE ACE was wasmeasured
measured at at a location
a location far from
far from thermal thermal
plumesplumesin order in to order
have ato fair
ave a fair representation of undisturbed contaminant concentration. For a seated occupant, even
representation of undisturbed contaminant concentration. For a seated occupant, even if the breathing zone is roughly at 1.1 m, he/she if the breathing zone is roughly at 1.1
m, he/she would breathe air taken
would breathe from
air taken from his/her
his/herown ownthermal
thermal plumeplumeoriginating
originating fromfroma lower a lower level0.6
level (e.g., (e.g.,
m). A0.6 m). A
moving moving
occupant occupant
would most likely
ould most likely be exposed to the air at 1.1m.
be exposed to the air at 1.1m.
We found that ACE0.6 is strongly correlated with ϕ0.1 (r = -0.74), stratification, s, (r = 0.75) and radiant panel surface
mperature, tp, (rWe = 0.43).
found thatThis means
ACE0.6 that if the
is strongly correlated with ϕ0.1or(r =
stratification panel
-0.74), surface temperature
stratification, increase,
s, (r = 0.75) or ϕ0.1panel
and radiant decreases,
surface then ACE0.6tp, (r
temperature,
chiavon S, Bauman F, Tully
= 0.43). This B, and that
means Rimmer J. 2013. Temperature
if the stratification or panel surface stratification
temperatureand increase, or ϕ0.1 decreases,
air change effectivenessthen ACE0.6in a high cooling
increases. This is an
oad office with two expected result, the higher the stratification the better the air quality, but this is the first time, to our knowledge, that these resultstohave
heat source heights in a combined chilled ceiling and displacement ventilation system. Submitted
nergy and Buildings.
been obtained
increases. This is an for expected
high cooling load.the higher the stratification the better the air quality, but this is the first time, to our knowledge,
result,
eases. This isthat
anthese
expected
results result,
have the
been higher
obtained thefor stratification
high the better the air quality, but this is the first time, to our knowledge,
these results have Figure
been 9 obtained
shows thefor boxplot
high ofcooling
the ACE0.6 load. forcooling
the two load.CPU locations (floor level and at 1.52 m). Moving the CPUs from the floor to the
Figure 9 shows the boxplot of the ACE0.6 for the two CPU locations (floor level and at 1.52 m). Moving the CPUs from the floor
Figure 9 shows higher
to thethe partpart
boxplot
higher ofofthe room
ofthe
the increased
ACE0.6
room for markedly
increased two the
the markedly CPU airthechange
locations effectiveness.
air change (floor levelMoving
effectiveness. at1.52
and atMoving leastm).50% of the
at Moving
least 50% heatofgains
the CPUs
the heatfrom
from thethe
gains floor to the
floor
from 1.52floor
m to
of caused
e higher part1.52 the room
m caused a median
increased
a median increase
markedly
increase of theofACE themeasured
the air
ACE change ateffectiveness.
measured 0.6 matof0.6 1.75 m (from
Moving
of 1.75 1.15 atto least
(from 2.90).
1.1550%Therefore, raising
of theTherefore,
to 2.90). the height
heat gains fromofthe
raising the floor
heat sources
height toof the heat
m caused asources
median increase
not only
not increases
only of the
increases ACE
stratification, measured
stratification,but alsobut atalso
0.6 improves
improves mindoor
of 1.75 (from
airindoor
qualityair1.15 to 2.90).
(p<0.001).
quality Therefore,
The spread
(p<0.001). raising
(or inter
The spread (orthe
quintile height
range)
inter of the
in Figure
quintile 9heat
range) forintheFigure 9
ces not onlyforincreases
the tests
tests stratification,
withwith the heat
the heat but
sourcessourcesalso
located improves
located indoor
in theinhigher
the partair
higher quality
ofpart
the room (p<0.001).
of the isroom The
is very
very small. This spread
small. (or
This
implies inter
it is quintile
implies
that that it range)
possible in Figure
tois summarize
possible tothe 9
summarize
data the
he tests withdata
thewith
heatthe
with sources
themedian
median located
and in
affirm the higher
that when part of
the the
CPUs roomare is very
located small.
in the This
higher implies
part
and affirm that when the CPUs are located in the higher part of the room ACE0.6 is equal to 2.9. Figure 10 shows ofthat
the it is
room possible
ACE0.6 to summarize
is equal to the
2.9. Figure 10
shows and
with the median the affirm
regression that models
when of radiant
the CPUs panel
are surface
located in temperature
the higher versus
part of air room
the changeACE0.6 effectiveness
is equal measured
to 2.9. at 0.6 m
Figure 10 with 95%
the regression
confidence intervals
models of radiant
for thepanel cases when
panel thesurface temperature
heat sources versus
versus airatchange
are located the floor
effectiveness measured
level and atmeasured
at 0.6 m The
1.52 m (high).
with 95% confidence
ws the regression models of radiant surface temperature air change effectiveness at 0.6 mregressionwith 95%equation to
predict
idence intervals intervals
forACE0.6 for
the cases the cases
as when when
a function
the heat the heat
of tpsources sources
is expressed are
are located located
in equation at
at the 7. the floor
In this
floor level
levelcase and
andonlyat 1.52
at 1.52 m (high).
six values
m (high). The
from regression
Thetheregression equation
dataset have to predict
been
equation used
to because
either ACE0.6
we didas a
not function
have
ict ACE0.6 as a function of tp is expressed theof t
ACEp
is expressed
values or in equation
they were 7. In this
obtained case
for only
the six
CPUs values
located from the
above
in equation 7. In this case only six values from the dataset have been used because dataset
the have
desks. been used because either we did
er we did not have notthe
haveACEthe ACE
values values or they
or they werewereobtained
obtainedfor for the
the CPUs
CPUslocated located above
above the thedesks.desks.
ACE0.6 = 0.13𝑡𝑡𝑝𝑝 − 0.9 (7)
ACE0.6 = 0.13𝑡𝑡𝑝𝑝 − 0.9 (7)

The model
The modelisisvalid
valid within
within the the experimental
experimental conditions
conditions valuesvalues
used forused for its development:
its development: 14.1°C (57.4°F)<
14.1°C (57.4°F)< <22.8°C
t <22.8°Ctp(73°F). The(73°F).
ANOVA The
ANOVA analysis of the regression model indicated that the model is significant (p<0.028) and the pAdjusted R-squared is equal to
The model is valid within
analysis theregression
of the experimental
modelconditions values
indicated that usedisfor
the model its development:
significant (p<0.028) and14.1°C (57.4°F)<
the Adjusted
0.67. Visual evaluation of the plot of residuals indicated that the hypotheses of the linear regression
tp <22.8°C
R-squared (73°F).
is equal The
to 0.67. Visual
model were met, and thus, the
OVA analysis of the regression
evaluation
model is valid. of the model
plot of indicated
residuals that
indicated the
that model
the is significant
hypotheses of the (p<0.028)
linear and
regression the
model Adjusted
were met, R-squared
and thus, theis equal
model is to
valid.
. Visual evaluation of the plot of residuals indicated that the hypotheses of the linear regression model were met, and thus, the
el is valid.

Figure 9. BoxplotFigure
of the air change
9. Boxplot of the air effectiveness measured
change effectiveness measured atat0.60.6 m (ACE0.6)
m (ACE0.6) forlocated
for the CPUs the CPUs located
at the floor atatthe
level and 1.52floor level and at 1.52
m (high)
m (high)
ure 9. Boxplot of the air change effectiveness measured at 0.6 m (ACE0.6) for the CPUs located at the floor level and at 1.52
Published 2012 Page 11 of 14
high)
Figure 9. Boxplot of the air change effectiveness measured at 0.6 m (ACE0.6) for the CPUs located at the floor level and at 1.52
m (high)

Figure 10. RegressionFigure

model of radiant
10. Regression modelpanel surface
of radiant temperature
panel surface versus
temperature versus air change
air change effectiveness
effectiveness measured at 0.6 measured
m with 95% at 0.6 m with 95%
confidence intervals for confidence
the cases when
intervals for the heatwhen
the cases sources
the heatare located
sources at atthe
are located the floor level
floor level (equation
(equation 7) and
7) and at 1.52 at 1.52 m (high).
m (high).

The key finding from this study demonstrates that improved air change effectiveness (compared to a well-mixed system) is maintained in
The keythefinding from this
lower occupied study
region of demonstrates that improved
the room for a stratified air change
displacement effectiveness
ventilation system, even (compared
when 73%toofathewell-mixed
heat load issystem)
removedisbymaintained
a
in the lower occupied region of the room for a stratified displacement ventilation system, even when 73% of the heat load is removed
chilled radiant ceiling and the radiant panel surface temperature is higher than 14.1°C.
by a chilled radiant ceiling and the radiant panel surface temperature is higher than 14.1°C.
Stratification
Stratification andchange
and air air change effectivenessboth
effectiveness bothincrease
increase with
withthe
theincrease
increase of of
thethe
air flow rate, rate,
air flow the decrease of η and
the decrease of the increase
η and of
the increase of the
the panel surface temperature. We can conclude that the higher the stratification the better the air change
panel surface temperature. We can conclude that the higher the stratification the better the air change effectiveness. An explicit effectiveness. An explicit
regression
Schiavon S,model
regression
Bauman between
model theB,two
F,between
Tully the variables
two
and variablesisJ.isshown
Rimmer in
in Figure
shownTemperature
2013. 11. stratification and air change effectiveness in a high cooling
Figure 11.
load office with two heat source heights in a combined chilled ceiling and displacement ventilation system. Submitted to
Energy and Buildings.

Figure 11. Regression modelFigure

of stratification (air
11. Regression model temperature
of stratification stratification)
(air temperature stratification)versus
versus airair change
change effectiveness measured at 0.6 m
effectiveness
with 95% confidence intervals for the data atreported
measured in Table
0.6 m with 95% confidence4. intervals for the data reported in Table 4.
LIMITATIONS
In these experiments we did not directly calculate the uncertainty associated with ACE. Compliance with the standard was considered
LIMITATIONS
sufficient. We did not investigate the influence of exterior windows on air distribution. The experiments were performed in a test room
In these experiments we did not directly calculate the uncertainty associated with ACE. Compliance with the standard was considered
representative of an interior zone with (almost) adiabatic walls. Under cooling conditions, it is possible that a rising thermal plume may
sufficient. We did not investigate the influence of exterior windows on air distribution. The experiments were performed in a test room
develop close to warm exterior windows. We do not have evidences of how this may affect the temperature stratification and the pollutant
representative of an interior zone with (almost) adiabatic walls. Under cooling conditions, it is possible that a rising thermal plume
concentration.
may develop Thewarm
close to proposed models
exterior are valid We
windows. only do
within
notthe boundary
have conditions
evidences reported
of how in thisaffect
this may paper.the
Caution should bestratification
temperature used if and the
applied
pollutant in perimeter The
concentration. zones. In this study,
proposed the influence
models are validofonly
variations,
withinsupply air temperature,
the boundary thermalreported
conditions comfort set points,
in this and heat
paper. sourceshould be
Caution
used ifradiant/convective
applied in perimeter zones.
ratio has In this
not been study, the influence of variations, supply air temperature, thermal comfort set points, and
investigated.
heat source radiant/convective ratio has not been investigated.
CONCLUSIONS
A laboratory experiment was conducted to investigate room air stratification in a typical office space with a radiant chilled ceiling
CONCLUSIONS
A (CC) and displacement
laboratory ventilation
experiment (DV). The to
was conducted main conclusions
investigate of this
room airstudy are:
stratification in a typical office space with a radiant chilled ceiling
(CC) and
• displacement
Displacement ventilation (DV).
ventilation and chilledThe main
ceiling areconclusions of this
able to maintain study
thermal are:
stratification and improved ventilation efficiency compared
Displacement
• to mixing ventilation and chilled ceiling are able to maintain
ventilation system for a wide range of configurations and system design even thermal stratification
for extremely andload
high cooling improved
(91 W/m2ventilation
).
efficiency compared to mixing ventilation system for a wide range of configurations and system design even for
extremely high cooling load (91 W/m2).
• Stratification and air change effectiveness both decrease when the surface temperature of the panel also decreases (larger
percentage of cooling load removed by chilled ceiling). For every degree decrement of the panel temperature,
Published 2012 Page 12 of 14
stratification decreases by 0.13°C and ACE by 0.13. Combining a larger active area (TABS) radiant slab with a DV
system (instead of a typically smaller-area radiant panel design) would allow higher radiant surface temperatures to be
used, thus increasing stratification and improving ventilation performance.
• Stratification and air change effectiveness both decrease when the surface temperature of the panel also decreases (larger
percentage of cooling load removed by chilled ceiling). For every degree decrement of the panel temperature, stratification
decreases by 0.13°C and ACE by 0.13. Combining a larger active area (TABS) radiant slab with a DV system (instead of a typically
smaller-area radiant panel design) would allow higher radiant surface temperatures to be used, thus increasing stratification and
improving ventilation performance.
• Employing a simple strategy of raising the height of the CPUs (representing 51% of total heat gain, or 71% of office equipment heat
gains) from the floor level to 1.5 m (5 feet) increased markedly stratification (0.8°C) and the air change effectiveness measured at
0.6 m (1.75). Therefore, moving the heat sources to the higher part of the room reduces energy use and increases indoor air quality.
When the CPUs where located in the higher part of the room the median stratification in the occupied zone was 2.95°C and the ACE
at 0.6 m was 2.9.
• For the same heat source location the ACEs at 0.6 m and 1.1 m increase with increasing airflow rate, decreasing η, and with
increasing panel surface temperature. Similar trends are obtained for stratification in the lower part of the room. The higher the
stratification, the better the air change effectiveness.

NOMENCLATURE
ACEX Air Change Effectiveness measured at X=0.6, 1.1. and 1.7 m.
CC Chilled ceiling
CLCC Cooling load removed by the chilled ceiling, W
CLDV Cooling load removed by the DV system, W
cp,w Specific heat capacity of the water, J/(Kg K)
DV Displacement ventilation
mw Water mass flow rate, kg/h
p Number of radiant ceiling panels
s Air temperature stratification between 0.1 and 1.1 m, °C
tair,r Return air temperature from the DV system, °C
tair,s Supply air temperature to the DV system, °C
tp Surface temperature of the panel, here supposed equal to tw,m, °C
top Operative temperature, °C
tw,m Mean water temperature, it is the average of tw,s and tw,r, °C
tw,r Water temperature returned from the chilled ceiling, °C
tw,s Water temperature supplied to the chilled ceiling, °C
Vair Air flow rate of the DV system, L/s
η Ratio of the cooling load removed by chilled ceiling, CLCC, over the total cooling load
ϕ0.1 Dimensionless air temperature measured at 0.1 m

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The present work was supported by the California Energy Commission (CEC) Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Buildings Program
and in-kind contributions of laboratory facilities by Price Industries, Winnipeg, Manitoba. The authors would like to thank Tom Epp for the
help in the laboratory work.

REFERENCES
[1] Q. Chen, L.R. Glicksman, System Performance Evaluation and Design Guidelines for Displacement Ventilation, ASHRAE, Atlanta, US, 2003.

[2] H. Skistad, E. Mundt, P.V. Nielsen, K. Hagstrom, J. Railo, Displacement ventilation in non-industrial premises, Guidebook n. 1, REHVA, 2002.

[3] ANSI/ASHRAE, ANSI/ASHRAE 55-2010: Thermal environmental conditions for human occupancy, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers, Atlanta (2010).

[4] C. Stetiu, Energy and peak power savings potential of radiant cooling systems in US commercial buildings, Energy Build. 30 (1999) 127-138.

[5] H.E. Feustel, C. Stetiu, Hydronic radiant cooling—preliminary assessment, Energy Build. 22 (1995) 193-205.

[6] Z. Tian, J.A. Love, An integrated study of radiant slab cooling systems through experiment and building simulation, Proceedings of 9th International IBPSA Conference

Published 2012 Page 13 of 14

(2005) 1229-1236.

[7] Z. Tian, J.A. Love, Energy performance optimization of radiant slab cooling using building simulation and field measurements, Energy Build. 41 (2009) 320-330.

[8] S. Schiavon, F. Bauman, B. Tully, J. Rimmer, Room air stratification in combined chilled ceiling and displacement ventilation systems, HVAC&R Research. 18 (2012) 147-159.

[9] F. Causone, F. Baldin, B.W. Olesen, S.P. Corgnati, Floor heating and cooling combined with displacement ventilation: Possibilities and limitations, Energy Build. 42 (2010)
2338-2352.

[10] B. Lehmann, V. Dorer, M. Koschenz, Application range of thermally activated building systems tabs, Energy Build. 39 (2007) 593-598.

[11] F. Alamdari, D. Butler, P. Grigg, M. Shaw, Chilled ceilings and displacement ventilation, Renewable Energy. 15 (1998) 300-305.

[12] S.J. Rees, P. Haves, A nodal model for displacement ventilation and chilled ceiling systems in office spaces, Build. Environ. 36 (2001) 753-762.

[13] A. Novoselac, J. Srebric, A critical review on the performance and design of combined cooled ceiling and displacement ventilation systems, Energy Build. 34 (2002)
497-509.

[14] H. Tan, T. Murata, K. Aoki, T. Kurabuchi, Cooled ceiling/Displacement ventilation hybrid air conditioning system—Design criteria, Proceedings of Roomvent. 1 (1998)
77-84.

[15] M. Behne, Indoor air quality in rooms with cooled ceilings.: Mixing ventilation or rather displacement ventilation?, Energy Build. 30 (1999) 155-166.

[16] N. Ghaddar, K. Ghali, R. Saadeh, A. Keblawi, Design charts for combined chilled ceiling displacement ventilation system, ASHRAE Transactions, SL-08-059 (RP-1438).
143 (2008) 574-587.

[17] M. Ayoub, N. Ghaddar, K. Ghali, Simplified Thermal Model of Spaces Cooled with Combined Positive Displacement Ventilation and Chilled Ceiling System, HVAC&R
Research. 12 (2006) 1005-1030.

[18] A. Keblawi, N. Ghaddar, K. Ghali, L. Jensen, Chilled ceiling displacement ventilation design charts correlations to employ in optimized system operation for feasible load
ranges, Energy Build. 41 (2009) 1155-1164.

[19] M. Kanaan, N. Ghaddar, K. Ghali, Simplified Model of Contaminant Dispersion in Rooms Conditioned by Chilled-Ceiling Displacement Ventilation System, HVAC&R
Research. 16 (2010) 765-783.

[20] W. Chakroun, K. Ghali, N. Ghaddar, Air quality in rooms conditioned by chilled ceiling and mixed displacement ventilation for energy saving, Energy Build. 43 (2011)
2684-2695.

[21] D. Rim, A. Novoselac, Ventilation effectiveness as an indicator of occupant exposure to particles from indoor sources, Build. Environ. 45 (2010) 1214-1224.

[22] ANSI/ASHRAE, ANSI/ASHRAE 129-2002: Measuring Air-Change Effectiveness, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta
(2002).

[23] S. Schiavon, F. Bauman, B. Tully, J. Rimmer, Ventilation effectiveness in combined chilled ceiling and displacement ventilation systems, Proceedings of International
Conference Indoor Air Quality and Climate (2011).

[24] CEN, EN 14240-2004, Ventilation for Buildings—Chilled Ceilings—Testing and Rating., European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium (2004).

[25] ISO, ISO 7726, International Standard: Ergonomics of the thermal environment - Instruments for measuring physical quantities, International Organization for
Standardization (1998).

[26] ISO, Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement, International Organization for Standardization (1993).

[27] ANSI/ASHRAE, ANSI/ASHRAE 62.1-2010: Ventilation for acceptable indoor air quality, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta
(2010).

Published 2012 Page 14 of 14