Assessing energy and thermal comfort of different low-energy cooling concepts for non-residential buildings

• Impact of five cooling technologies are simulated in six European climate zones with Trnsys 17.
• The ventilation strategies reduce the cooling energy need even in South Europe climate.
• Constant ventilation controller can lead to a poor cooling performance.
• Comparing radiant strategies with air conditioning scenario, the energy saving is predicted to within 5–35%.

Energy consumption for cooling is growing dramatically. In the last years, electricity peak consumption grew significantly, switching from winter to summer in many EU countries. This is endangering the stability of electricity grids. This article outlines a comprehensive analysis of an office building performances in terms of energy consumption and thermal comfort (in accordance with static – ISO 7730:2005 – and adaptive thermal comfort criteria – EN 15251:2007 –) related to different cooling concepts in six different European climate zones. The work is based on a series of dynamic simulations carried out in the Trnsys 17 environment for a typical office building. The simulation study was accomplished for five cooling technologies: natural ventilation (NV), mechanical night ventilation (MV), fan-coils (FC), suspended ceiling panels (SCP), and concrete core conditioning (CCC) applied in Stockholm, Hamburg, Stuttgart, Milan, Rome, and Palermo. Under this premise, the authors propose a methodology for the evaluation of the cooling concepts taking into account both, thermal comfort and energy consumption.