Radiant Heating and Cooling

ASHRAE Research Project Report
RP-394
A Study to Determine Methods for Designing Radiant
Heating and Cooling Systems
Approval: May 1987
Contractor:
University of Missouri-Rolla
Rolla, MO 65401
Principal Investigator:
Authors:
Ronald Howell
N/A
Author Affiliations,
Sponsoring Committee: TC 6.5, Radiant Space Heating and Cooling

Co-Sponsoring Committee:
Co-Sponsoring Organizations:
N/A
N/A
2012 ASHRAE www.ashrae.org. This material may not be copied nor distributed in either paper or digital form without
ASHRAEs permission. Requests for this report should be directed to the ASHRAE Manager of Research and Technical
Services.
FINAL REPORT
ASHRAE RP - 394
A STUDY TO DETERMINE METHODS FOR

DESIGNING RADIANT HEATING AND COOLING
SYSTEMS
Ronald H. Howell
Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering

University of Missouri-Rolla
Rolla, MO 65401
May 1987
I
^SWC>WS0CETV < S^" GH T
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
1.0 - OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
2.0 - INTRODUCTION
3.0 - DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGY

3.1 - Radiation, Convection and Conduction
3.2 - Infrared Ranges
3.3 - Low, Medium, and High Temperature Radiant Sources
3.4 - Mean Radiant Temperature, MRT
3.5 - Radiant Temperature Asymmetry
3.6 - Operative Temperature
3.7 - Effective Radiant Flux
3.8 - Average Unheated Surface Temperature
3.9 - Comfort Conditions
3.10 - Design Heat Loss Values
3.10.1 3.10.2 3.10.3 3.10.4 -
ASHRAE Standard Heat Loss (HLD)

Actual Design Heat Loss (HLA)
Conduction Design Heat Loss (HLC)
Conduction Design Heat Loss with Room Air
Temperature Gradient (HLCG)
4.0 - BACKGROUND
16
16
17
19
20
20
21
22
22
22
23
23
24
24
24
25
4.1 - Relationship Between Radiant Heating/Cooling and Comfort

Conditions.
25
4.1.1 - Fanger's Comfort Equation

25
4.1.2 - Changes in Air Temperature with Changes in MRT for Equal 31
Comfort
4.1.3 - Asymmetric Radiation and Comfort
32
4.2.
Descriptions of Common Types of Radiant Systems
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.2.5
4.2.6
4.2.7
4.2.8
4.2.9
4.2.10
4.2.11
Hydronic Floor Panels

Electric Floor Panels
Air Floors
Hydronic Wall Panels
Electric Wall Panels
Hydronic Ceiling Panels (Metals or Plaster)
Electric Ceiling Panels
Miscellaneous Electric Systems
Gas-Fired Radiant Ceramic Surface Infrared Units
Gas-Fired Radiant Tube Infrared Units
Electric Infrared Units
5.0 - CALCULATION OF DESIGN HEATING LOADS

5.1 - Standard ASHRAE Design Procedure
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
39
39
40
40
43
43
5.1.1 - Design Inside Air Temperature

5.1.2 - Room Temperature Gradients
5.1.3 - Wall, Ceiling, Floor Convection Coefficients
5.2 - Development of a Design Heat Loss Procedure for Radiant Systems
5.2.1 - Heat Balance on Room Surfaces
5.2.1.1 - q r - Radiant Exchange Rate
5.2.1.2 - q cv - Convective Heat Transfer
5.2.1.3 - qCQ< - Conductive Heat Transfer
5.2.2 - Heat Balance on Complete Room
5.2.3 - Comfort Equations
5.2.4 - Other Parameters Evaluated
5.3 - Comparison of Calculated Design Radiant Loads With the Standard
45
45
46
47
50
51
51
53
54
55
56
59
ASHRAE Design Load Calculation

5.4 - Test Case Calculation
60
5.5 - Radiant Panel Heating Systems Calculations
69
5.5.1 - Single Panel Radiant Heating Cases

5.5.2 - Effect Due to Infiltration for Radiant Panels
5.5.3 - Effect of Glass Distribution
5.5.4 - Changes in Wall, Floor, and Ceiling U-Factors
5.5.5 - Effect of Changes in Room Length and Width
5.5.6 - Changes in Room Height
5.5.7 - Changes in Outside Design Temperature
5.5.8 - Changes in Number of Panels
5.5.9 - Perimeter Panel System
5.6 - Comparison of Forced Air and Radiant Ceiling Panels
5.7 - Heated Floor Cases
5.8 - Infrared Heating Cases
5.9- U-Tube Infrared Cases
5.10 - Summary of Design Heating Calculations
6.0- DESIGN PROCEDURES
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
Radiant Ceiling Panel Heating Systems

Radiant Ceiling Panel Cooling Systems
Heated Floor Systems
High and Medium Temperature (Infrared Systems)
Other Design Procedures
69
79
79
86
91
91
91
96
96
99
99
109
121
127
133
135
136
139
141
143
7.0 - SUMMARY OF MANUFACTURER SURVEY
145
8.0 - SYSTEM DYNAMICS
146
9.0 - RESEARCH NEEDS
147
9.1 - Convection Coefficients

9.2 - Air Temperature Stratification
147
147
'9.3
9.4
9.5
9.6
Surface Emissivities
Comfort During Radiant Temperature Asymmetry
Radiant System Dynamics
Heated Floor Systems
147
147
148
148
10.0 - REFERENCES
149
APPENDIX A - BIBLIOGRAPHY
A-l
APPENDIX B - ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
B-l
A;
B;
c:
D:
E:1
F;1
G;1
H)
i]
J]
K:)
L;
M;>
N:I
Load Analysis and Modeling

Convection Coefficients
General
Comfort Conditions
Thermal Comfort-Radiant
Floor Panels
Panel Heating and Cooling
Infrared Heating
Design Procedures
Energy Consumption
Transient Effects
Instruments
Controls
Spot Heating and Cooling
PENDIX C - LIS5TING OF COMPUTER PROGRAM
C-l
Program Listing
Data Input File Listing
APPENDIX D
REPRODUCTION OF CHAPTER 8 FROM 1984 ASHRAE

SYSTEMS HANDBOOK
C-2
D-l
SUMMARY
The goal of this study was to obtain design data and relevant manufacturers data concerning the design procedures for radiant heating and cooling systems. A comprehensive literature search was conducted which resulted in an
annotated bibliography with over 250 entries. This bibliography was subdivided into the following sections: load analysis and modeling, convection
coefficients, comfort conditions, radiant thermal comfort, floor panels, panel
heating and cooling, infrared heating, design procedures, energy consumption,
transient effects, controls, and spot heating and cooling.
The manufacturers survey resulted in identifying three commonly used categories of radiant heating/cooling surface temperature ranges. The low surface
temperature range is 8O0F to 200oF for heating and 50oF to 70oF for cooling.
The medium surface temperature range is from 700 to HOOoF and the high
surface temperature range is from 1200oF to 2000oF. These surface temperature
ranges identify the four commonly used systems for radiant heating and cooling: ceiling panel heating and cooling and floor heated panels operate in the
low temperature range, U-tube infrared units operate in the medium temperature
range, and modular gas-fired or electric infrared units operator in the high
temperature range.
Analysis of the above information indicated that the only reliable or
appropriate design consideration would involve looking at the surface-to-air
design process and not the means which is used to obtain the heated surface
temperature.
There are many variations or schemes used to obtain appropriate
surface temperatures and it was not the object of this study to evaluate all
of these schemes.
Each manufacturer or designer has their unique method for
obtaining a specific surface temperature.
Descriptions and applications are
provided for eleven of the most common configurations. These are: hydronic
floor panels, electric floor panels, air floors, hydronic wall panels, elec-
-1-
trie wall panels, hydronic ceiling panels, electric ceiling panels, gas-fired
radiant ceramic tube surface infrared units, gas-fired radiant ceramic tube
surface infrared units, gas-fired radiant tube infrared units, electric
infrared units, and miscellaneous electric systems.
A computerized technique was developed to relate heater surface temperature to the space heating requirements while maintaining the Fanger comfort
constraints.
For each variation, the required area of heater surface was
calculated and the actual design heat loss for the radiant heating system was
calculated and compared to the ASHRAE standard design procedure.
Calculations
were made for the four types of radiant systems (ceiling panel heating and
cooling, heated floor panels, U-tube infrared, and modular infrared) for
typical ranges of many of the variables. The variables considered were:
U-factors, quantity of glass, heater surface temperature, surface emissivities, convection coefficients, outside air design temperature, room size,
ceiling height, infiltration rate, number of heating surfaces, heater placement, and use of reflectors or deflectors on infrared units.
The only variable which was found to have a significant effect on the
difference between the actual design heat loss and the ASHRAE standard heat
loss was the infiltration rate. The percent difference in these two design
heating loads varied from -4% at 0.5 ACH to -16% at 4 ACH,
The actual design
heat loss is less than the ASHRAE standard design heat loss.
Design methods considering techniques for calculating loads, sizing
equipment and positioning equipment are presented for each of the common types
of radiant heating systems. The design procedure for radiant cooling which is
presented in the ASHRAE Systems Handbook was found to be adequate and is
recommended for use.
-2-
1.0 - OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
The goal of this project was to obtain a body of accurate and relevant
data on methods of designing radiant heating and cooling systems. The data
includes methods of calculating loads, sizing equipment, and positioning
equipment.
The study has focused on identifying all significant types of radiant
heating and cooling systems by means of a literature search and analysis of
appropriate available data and technical material. From this material, a
procedure for designing radiant heating and cooling systems has been
developed.
This procedure includes methods of calculating loads, sizing
equipment, and positioning equipment.

A major effort of the project has been the preparation of an annotated
bibliography of published sources of information for radiant heating/cooling
systems.
As a result of the preparation of this annotated bibliography,
additional research needed in order to improve the recommended methods for

calculating loads, sizing equipment, positioning equipment, and system
dynamics has been provided.
-3-
2.0 - INTRODUCTION
Convective and radiant heating and cooling systems have been used for many
years in providing comfort systems in rooms occupied by people and/or materials.
These two types of systems produce different comfort environments due to
their nature of heat delivery or removal, and thus there is no fundamental

reason to expect them to be sized by the same technique or to require the same
energy to produce identical levels of comfort. Proponents of radiant heating
systems assert that these types of systems offer the potential for reduced
heating unit sizes and reduced energy consumption. They claim that the room
may be operated at a lower air temperature than if it is heated by a convective system because the radiant heat from the heater falls directly on the
occupants, producing comfort conditions. However, there is also the opposite
factor, that radiant heating systems produce higher floor, wall and glass temperatures due to the radiant heaters heating these surfaces and not the air,
and thus producing greater heat losses to the surroundings.
The thermal environment within a room and its rate of heat loss are determined by the configuration and structural materials used in the walls, floor
and ceiling; the amount of infiltration air forced through the room; and the
nature of the heat suppliers. A convective type of system such as shown in
Figure 1 produces an environment where the air temperature is greater than the
mean radiant temperature in the space. A radiant heating system such as
shown in Figure 2, on the other hand, produces an environment in which the
mean radiant temperature (or "average" room surface temperature) is higher
than the air temperature.
For this reason, the infiltration air losses will
be greater in convective than radiant heating systems. Convective types of

systems using fans for delivering heated air which cause slight air pressure
differences will tend to increase the air infiltration loss. On the other
hand, radiant heating systems increase the room surface temperature causing
-4-
FIGURE 1. CONVECTIVE TYPE OF HEATING SYSTEM
J n
<
Heating And/Or
Cooling Panel
EflH]
I3LT15.
FIGURE 2. RADIANT CEILING PANEL HEATING/COOLING SYSTEM
-5-
increased heat loss to the surroundings. Radiant heating systems also have the
advantage of increasing the mean radiant temperature to which occupants are
exposed and thereby allowing comfort at lower air temperatures.
There are two fundamentally different characteristics to be considered.
First is the concept of sizing of radiant heating systems and second is estimating the energy required by radiant systems for providing comfort conditions
over a heating season.
For sizing, design calculations are made to indicate
what is the expected maximum rate of total heat delivery which is to be

expected from the heater.
Along with the total size of the heating system is
the positioning of the individual heating units so that they provide uniform
comfort conditions throughout the space.. In Chapter 25 of the ASHRAE Handbook
of Fundamentals (1) a procedure is presented for determining the design heating
load for a structure.
The fundamental objective of this project has been to
determine if this ASHRAE Design Heating Load Procedure is applicable to

radiant heating systems.
The estimation of the energy used by a radiant heating system over a heating season is a separate and more complicated problem.
System dynamics and
thermal storage characteristics of the structure are important factors in answering this question.
It is questionable whether some of the simpler proce-
dures presented in Chapter 28 of the ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals (HBF) (1)

such as degree day method, full load hours, or BIN method are applicable to
radiant heating systems. This project does not address the energy requirement
calculation.
There are three general categories of radiant heating/cooling systems, and
these can be identified by the temperature range in which they operate. One
category is that of panel heating and cooling systems where the surface temperature can be called low and is in the range of 80 F to 200 F for heating
and 50 F to 70 F for cooling.
In these systems, the surface temperature is
-6-
controlled in order to vary the quantity of heat being delivered or absorbed.

The controlled temperature surfaces may be in the floor, walls or ceiling, and
the temperature is maintained by circulating water, air, or electric current.
Chapter 8 in Reference 2 presents a good description of these types of radiant
heating or cooling systems as well as some design procedures for installing
the systems.
Figure 2 illustrates a ceiling panel system and Figure 3 depicts
a heated floor type of system.

The second type of radiant system comprises the medium temperature range
units which operate from about 700 F. to 1100 F and consist of radiant tubes
through which the products of combustion from a gas burner are circulated and
then exhausted to the outside.
Descriptions of these types of units are given
in Chapter 30 in Reference 3. The use of these types of radiant heaters is

presented in Chapter 18 in Ref. 2. These units come in integral lengths which
can be placed in specific patterns or in U-tube shaped units of different
lengths.
They have the advantage of exhausting the exhaust products to the
outdoors rather than inside the structure.
These are illustrated in Figure 4.
The third type of radiant unit is the modular high temperature infrared
unit operating in the range of 1200 F to 2000 F surface temperature. They
consist of gas or electric operated units placed at various locations
throughout the space and are generally used for spot heating applications, or
in many cases, for full area comfort heating.
in Figure 5.
Use of these units is depicted
The gas fired units have the disadvantage of discharging the
products of combustion inside the conditioned space. Descriptions of these

units are given in Chapter 30 in Reference 3, and the application of the units
is discussed in Chapter 18 in Reference 2.
One of the advantages, and in some cases a disadvantage, is the
maintenance of comfort conditions when using radiant heating. The advantage
occurs when the units are properly sized and located, providing a higher mean
-7-
I
I
00
FIGURE 3 HEATED FLOOR TYPE OF RADIANT HEATING SYSTEM FOR BEDROOM AND BATH
Tube Heaters
Medium Temperature
U - Tube Heaters
Medium Temperature
feaJ
FIGURE 4
MEDIUM TEMPERATURE RANGE RADIANT TUBE TYPE OF HEATERS
-9-
CO
CD
4-1
Cfl
CD
a
CU
U
K)
U
<
o
IT)
UJ
a:
cs
-10-
radiant temperature for the occupants, which then permits a lower air
temperature for equal comfort conditions. The disadvantage can occur if the
radiant heat is concentrated to such a condition that the asymmetric
temperature felt by the occupant is such that discomfort occurs in the space.
Any design procedure that is specified must account for maintaining comfort
and not creating severe asymmetric temperature conditions. Typically, by
satisfying the Fanger comfort equations [4] and limiting the asymmetric
temperature to 9 F, no discomfort should be experienced by the occupants.
Another advantage claimed for radiant heating systems is the negligible
air temperature gradient experienced by spaces using radiant sources rather
than convective sources for heating.
This occurs due to the fact that radiant
systems provide higher surface temperatures than experienced in convective

systems with very little air motion resulting in a more uniform air temperature
distribution.
Convective heating systems will generally have air temperature
gradients due to the higher temperature of the air brought into the space for
heating purposes with a resultant higher air temperature at the ceiling than
at the floor.
In Figure 6, a schematic is given of room air temperature gradients for
forced air heating, heated ceiling panels, and heat floors. These schematics
were prepared from data such as that shown in Figure 7 which are some results
from 1953 data at the ASHVE Laboratory in Cleveland, Ohio. Articles containing this type of data are listed under G-Panel Heating and Cooling in the
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY.
For convection or forced air heating systems room,
air temperature gradients from 1/2 to 2F per foot could be experienced

depending on room size, insulation levels, and the air distribution system
design and operation.
For radiant heated and cooled rooms, the room air tem-
perature gradient is negligible.
It should be kept in mind, however, that
application of the available room air temperature gradient requires careful
-11-
61
68 75 82
61
68 75 82
61 68 75 82c
FIGURE 6. SCHEMATIC OF AIR TEMPERATURE GRADIENTS FOR FORCED AIR

HEATING, RADIANT CEILING HEATING, AND RADIANT FLOOR
HEATING
-12-
Tr
Ceiling
Ceiling Panel Cooling,Ceiling

at 65F,
AUST = 85 F
\
cu
fa
UJ
4-1
.C
60
H
ID
Heated Floor
Floor a t 85FJ
AUST = 65 F
Floor
65
70
75
80
85
ROOM AIR TEMPERATURE, F
FIGURE 7 MEASURED ROOM AIR TEMPERATURES FOR RADIANT HEATING AND COOLING SITUATIONS.
ASHVE LABORATO RY DATA, JULY 1953
consideration of all of the parameters under which the data was measured and
collected.
All data cannot arbitrarily be applied to any situation.
With a temperature gradient in the room, the infiltration heat loss is

greater than when a gradient does not exist. Because of this, it is expected
that convection types of heating systems will have larger design infiltration
losses than radiant systems. During the heating mode, infiltration air will
enter at the bottom of the space and exfiltration will occur at the top of the
space.
This exfiltrated air will be at a higher temperature in the convection
type systems thereby creating a larger heat loss than experienced in radiant
types of systems. This is another expected benefit of radiant heating types
of systems.
Radiant heating systems are used in many types of applications such as
offices, hospitals, homes, warehouses, and manufacturing or industrial situations . For hospitals and offices ceiling panel radiant systems are typically
used.
For homes, offices, and warehouses, very often radiant floor panels are
used.
The medium and high temperature infrared systems are generally found in
warehouses, manufacturing, and industrial situations. These general types of

applications are not meant to be restrictive since each application should be
addressed individually by weighing the advantages and disadvantages of each
type of system.
Additional details on applicability are given later on in
this report in Section 4.2.

What has been investigated in this project is a system design procedure
for radiant heating and cooling.
The evaluation of the energy requirements
for radiant heating systems has not been considered.
The system design proce-
dure involves the estimation of the design heating or cooling load, the selection of the type of radiant system to be used (ceiling panels, floor panels,
U-tube modular units or infrared modular units) which is partially based on
the allowable heater surface temperatures for the application considered, and
-14-
the positioning of the heaters in the space.
In addition, a literature survey
has been conducted and is included as Appendix A and an Annotated Bibliography

is presented as Appendix B.
&-.:
-15-
3.0 - DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGY

This section of the report presents some definitions and terminology that
are used throughout the remainder of the report. Some of the terminology
concepts are important because names have been commonly associated with
various phenomena or items which are restrictive when they need not be.
3.1 - Radiation. Convection and Conduction
3.1.1 - Radiation.
The radiation energy transfer process is the consequence of
energy carrying electromagnetic waves emitted by atoms and
molecules resulting from changes in their energy content.
Amount and characteristics of radiant energy emitted by a
quantity of material depends on the nature of the material, its
microscopic arrangement and its absolute temperature. Although
rate of energy emission is independent of the surroundings, net
energy transfer rate depends on the temperatures and spatial
relationships of the surface and its surroundings and can be
expressed for two black surfaces as:
qi_2
orAF (T4 - T 4 )
(1)
where:
a = Stefan-Boltzman Constant, 0.1713x10"8 Btuh/ft2 R 4
A = area of one surface
F = geometrical factor relating shape and orientation of the
surfaces
^1-2 ^
net
exchange of radiant heat between the two surfaces
3.1.2 - Convection.
Convection involves the transfer of heat by mixing one portion
of fluid with another. The motion of the fluid may be entirely
the result of differences of density resulting from the
-16-
temperature difference, as in natural convection, or the motion

may be produced by mechanical means such in forced
convection.[5] The general equation for convection heat transfer
is
q = h A (T-L - T 2 )
(2)
where:
q = exchange of convective heat between two surfaces
h = convection heat transfer coefficient
A = surface area
3.1.3 - Conduction.
Conduction in a homogeneous opaque solid is the transfer of heat
from one part to another under the influence of a temperature
gradient without appreciable displacement of the particles.
Conduction involves the transfer of kinetic energy from one
molecule to an adjacent molecule.
For steady state
one-dimensional conduction heat transfer, the following equation

applies.
K A (TX - T 2 )
T]_ - T 2
= C (T]_ - T 2 )
X
(3)
where:
q = exchange of heat by conduction from one surface to another
K = thermal conductivity of the material
X = thickness of the material
A = area perpendicular to the flow of heat
R = thermal resistance of the material
C = thermal conductance of the material
3.2 - Infrared Ranses
The thermal radiation emitted by a surface encompasses a range
-17-
of wavelengths. An example of this is shown in Figure 8

where the magnitude of the radiation varies with wavelength.
c
o
Spectral
distribution
2c
o o
~ w>
ro vt
Wavelength
Figure 8
Spectral Distribution of Thermal Radiation [6].
Emitted radiation consists of a continuous, nonuniform

distribution of monochromatic (single-wavelength) components.
The magnitude of the radiation at any wavelength and the
spectral distribution vary with the nature and temperature of
the emitting surface.
It is also important to understand that a
surface may emit preferentially in certain directions creating a

directional distribution of emitted radiation as illustrated
in Figure 9 [6].
Directional
distribution
Figure 9 Directional Distribution of Emitted Radiation [6],
The relationship between temperature and wavelength for the peak

radiated energy is illustrated in Figure 10. Also
delineated there are the various wavelength regions of thermal
radiation.
-18-
WAVE LENGTH
(IN MICRONS)
30
20
IS
FAR
INFRA-
10
-O'F
RED
8
6
SOO'F
5
4
MIDDLE
INFRA-
-|0O0oF
RED
a
-3OO0F
i.s
i
.8
NEAR INFRARED
6000F
VISIBLE
LIGHT
ULTRA
VIOLET
Figure 10
Temperature - Wavelength Relationship
Radiant heaters used in comfort heating applications operate in

what is generally classified as the far-and middle-infrared
region:
2 to 8 microns wavelength and 85 F to 2000 F surface
temperature.
3.3
Low. Medium and High Temperature Radiant Sources

Commonly available radiant heating systems for HVAC applications
exist in three general temperature ranges. The low ranpe is
from 80 F to 200 F and consists of hydronically or electrically
-19-
heated panels or surfaces usually placed in the ceiling or walls

or as part of the floor: The medium range units operate between
700 F and 1100 F and usually consist of vented gas-fired tubes
placed near the ceiling or roof in a structure. The hiph
temperature radiant units operate in the range of 1200 F to 2000
F and usually are nonvented gas-fired units or electrically
heated units.
3.4 - Mean Radiant Temperature (MRT)
The temperature of a theoretically conceived isothermal black
enclosure in which an occupant would exchange the same amount
of heat by radiation as in an actual nonuniform surface
temperature environment.
The MRT can be determined from the
following equation.
MRT 4 = T^Fp..! + T 4 F p _ 2 + --- + T 4 F p . n
(4)
where:
T^, T2, -- T n = surface temperatures surrounding the occupant
in a room
*p-l *p-2 "" F p-n
geometrical factor relating shape and

orientation between a person and
the surrounding surfaces.
3.5 - Radiant Temperature Asymmetry

The difference between the plane radiant temperature of the two
opposite sides of a small plane element. This is a new term
used to describe the asymmetry of a radiant environment. For
vertical heating or cooling panels it refers to a small vertical
element 3.6 feet above the floor at the person's position. For
-20-
horizontal heating or cooling surfaces it refers to a small

horizontal element at the same position.
The plane radiant
temperature (T_r) can be calculated [7] from

T
pr
= F e-lT 4 + F e . 2 T 4 + --- + F e . n T 4
(5)
where:
T^, T2, -- T n = temperatures of surfaces surrounding the
element
Fe_^, F e _2, -- F e _ n = geometrical factors from the plane
element to the specified surface.
Radiant temperature asymmetry is then defined as
T
prl " Tpr2
<6>
where the subscript 1 refers to one side of the plane element

and the subscript 2 refers to the opposite side.
3.6 - Operative Temperature (tQ)
The uniform temperature of a theoretically conceived enclosure
in which an occupant would exchange the same amount of heat
by radiation and convection as in the actual nonuniform
surface temperature environment.
It is given
by the following equation.
(hc x t a ) + (hr x MRT)

tG =
(7)
hc + hr
where: h c <= the convective heat transfer coefficient for the occupant [1]
h r = the radiant heat transfer coefficient for the occupant [1]
t a = ambient air temperature
-21-
3.7 - Effective Radiant Flux (ERF)

This is the net radiant >heat exchanged per unit area
at the ambient temperature t a between an occupant represented
by a hypothetical surface and all enclosing surfaces and
directional heat sources and sinks. ERF is the net radiant
energy per unit area received by the occupant from all surfaces
and sources whose temperatures differ from the ambient air ta.
It is given by the following equation [1].
ERF - h r (MRT-ta) - h c (tQ - t a )
(8)
3.8 - Average Unheated Surface Temperature (AUST)

The area-weighted temperature of the surfaces in a room which
are not acting as suppliers of external heat to the room.
It is
given by
AlTi + A 2 T 2 + -- + A N T N
AUST
(9)
A
where:
A
l> A2> "" ^n =
areas
f surfaces not supplying external heat
to a room
T^, T 2 , -- T n = temperature of surfaces not supplying external
heat to a room
3.9 - Comfort Conditions
Several parameters are used to identify when a human occupant is
exposed to what are commonly called comfort conditions. The
frequently used parameters are:
RH = relative humidity
-22-
V relative air velocity

MRT = mean radiant temperature
There are two other items which affect the values of these
parameters when comfort is concerned.
MET = the metabolic rate for the occupant which is a

function of their activity level
CLO = the thermal resistance of the clothing being
worn by the occupant
The above variables have been combined into a set of equations

[4] which can be solved yielding values for the comfort range.
In addition, sets of charts have been developed [1] which are
applicable for the most common range of conditions. These are
discussed later in Section 5.2.3.
3.10 - Design Heat Loss Values
There are four design heat loss values which will be calculated
during this analysis. Three of these are different from what is
taken as the "standard ASHRAE design heat loss".
These are
defined as follows.
3.10.1 - ASHRAE Standard Heat Loss (HLD)
HLD -
SiUjAi (75 - t oa ) +1.1 CFMI (75 - t oa )
where:
V-i '= design U value for each component of the room (walls,
glass, ceiling, floor)
AJL = area of each of these individual components
-23-
(10)
t o a = outside design air temperature

CFMI = estimated design value of infiltration air
3.10.2 - Actual Design Heat Loss (HLA)

HLA - S U t k
(ta - t oa ) +1.1 CFMI <ta - t oa )
(11)
where:
t a = design room air temperature based on comfort conditions
being met at the center of the room
3.10.3 - Conduction Design Heat Loss (HLC)

HLC ~ S C t A (t si - t oa ) + 1.1 CFMI <ta - t oa )
(12)
where:
C^ = The conductance for the room component (wall, glass,
ceiling, floor) from the inside surface to the outside
air.
t
si
It excludes the inside convection coefficient.
*-he surface temperature of the room component
3.10.4 - Conduction Design Heat Loss with Room Air Temperature

Gradient (HLCG)
HLCG - S Ci Ai (t si - t oa ) + 1 . 1 CFMI (t ag - t oa )
(13)
where:
ta
= The room air temperature at the ceiling level where

exfiltration occurs.
It is evaluated using a specified
air temperature gradient based on a reference height of

5 ft.
-24-
4.0 - BACKGROUND
4.1 - Relationship Between Radiant Heating/Cooling and Comfort Conditions

When studying the use and performance of radiant heating and cooling systems it is important to understand the inter-relation between the various parameters of comfort and their influence on the sizing and location of radiant
units.
Many comfort studies have been done over the years and many of these
are presented in the ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY in Appendix B.
The one which is
most suited for this investigation and which has been widely accepted as providing meaningful results is the work by Fanger [4].
4.1.1 - Fanger's Comfort Equations
Fanger's study generalizes the physio-
logical basis of comfort and allows comfort for most activity levels to be predicted analytically in terms of the environmental parameters presented in
3.0 - DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGY.
The Fanger Comfort Equations are based on
a logically derived heat balance equation for the occupants thermal equilibrium and on observations that during a state of comfort defined by neutral
temperature sensation, a unique relation exists between level of activity,
skin temperature, and evaporative loss from the body [1]. The comfort equation
contains the following grouped variables:
Ic]_t fcl " A function of the type of clothing

M
-,-IJ', v - A function of the type of activity
A
Du
v, t a , Pa, t m r t - Environment variables
Fanger's Comfort Equation is represented by the following two equations.
-25-
M
(l-n)
- 0.35 [43.0 - 0.61
(l-i;) - Pa] A
Du
Du
0.42 [
(l-7) - 50.0 ] - 0.0023

A
(44 - Pa) A
Du
Du
M
0.0014
(34.0 - t a ) A
Du
3.4 x 10- 8 f cl [t cl + 273) 4 - (tnrt + 273)4]

+ f cl h c (fccl - ta)
M
tcl
= 35.7
M
(1-IJ) - 0.18
- 0.32
A
Icl
[
A
Du
(l-q)
M
(1-r;) - P J - 0.42 [
Du
(1-r;) - 50]
Du
- 0.0023
(44.0 - P a ) -0.0014
A
Du
M
0.35 [43.0 - 0.61
(14)
(34.0 - ta)]
A
Du
Du
(15>
where:
M = metabolic rate
A
Du
DuBois body surface area
rj = external mechanical efficiency

P a = water vapor pressure of ambient air
fc1
= the ratio of the surface of the clothed body to the surface

area of the nude body
t c ^ = clothing surface temperature

tj^-j- = mean radiant temperature
-26-
h c = convective heat transfer coefficient, generally a function

of air velocity
IC;L = thermal resistance of clothing
The ASHRAE [1] comfort envelope is shown in Figure 11 but
applies only for sedentary (1 Met =58.2 W/m2) and slightly active (<1.2 MET),
normally clothed persons at low relative air velocities when the MRT equals
the air temperature.
Figures 12, 13 and 14 depict comfort lines or curves
20
/
/
/
15
7
|
i^
1 /'
f?
-
0
-5
-10
20
25
OPERATIVE TEMPERATURE. "C
30
Figure 11. Acceptable Ranges of Operative Temperature and Humidity

for Persons Clothed in Typical Summer and Winter Clothing
at Light to Sedentary Activity [1].
through various combinations of variables in order to create comfort for
constant values of some of the other variables. The quantitative influence of
clothing, activity and environmental parameters given by Fanger's Comfort
Equation and shown in these figures or comfort charts has been confirmed by
studies of the individual parameters [8-13].
-27-
SEDENTAHY
I mel
AIR TEMPERATURE = MEAN RADIANT TEMPERATURE. ' C
AIR TEMPERATURE = MEAN RADIANT TEMPERATURE. "C
MEDIUM ACTIVITY
2 mel
MEDIUM ACTIVITY
2 mel
LIGHT CLOTHING
I c | = 0.5clo
MEDIUM CLOTHING
Iei=I.Oclo
10
AIR TEMPERATURE = MEAN RADIANT TEMPERATURE. *C
30-
"
-
20
1I|Ip
25
AIR TEMPERATURE = MEAN RADIANT TEMPERATURE, "C
HIGH ACTIVITY
3 met
HIGH ACTIVITY
3 met
MEDIUM CLOTHING
Ic|S|0ClO
LIGHT CLOTHING
IcI=0.5clo
r&S
25-
JS
tir S^
jr$^\y^
S
rA'S'
'
uf
Ul
a.
I
3
\f
^S*
^
Ysk s>
Si
g is-
CO
fe
Jta
10-
TO
lu
J^T
5-
.;
Âo y*
-g^^
- - ^
o2i^--^'
13_
* " * ^
X>^
J^>^
i -T
10
^^
[ i
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I
IS
20
25
30
AIR TEMPERATURE = MEAN RADIANT TEMPERATURE. *C
FIGURE 12
-IPI|P
21
AIR TEMPERATURE - MEAN RADIANT TEMPERATURE. "C
COMBINED INFLUENCE OF HUMIDITY AND AMBIENT TEMPERATURE [ 1 ]

-28-
/
\
vl
^
SEDENTARY
1 met
o AVI*
IING
c l ' 0.5 d o
ft/
\
.
10
.... IS
....
20
25
30
AIR TEMPERATURE. "C
35
....
10
15
20
25
AIR TEMPERATURE. *C
30
35
\
^
< V& V
/
/ *
/
MEDIUM ACTIVITY
2 mel
- AV
MEDIUM CLOTHING
Id'IOdo
1
i!\
.... 5
. . I I
IO
10
FIGURE 13
. . .
.... 3 0 .... 35
IS
20
25
AIR TEMPERATURE. - C
I I I II I I I
IS
20
25
30
35
AIR TEMPERATURE, *C
COMBINED INFLUENCE OF MEAN RADIANT TEMPERATURE AND AIR TEMPERATURE [ 1 ]
-29-
LIGHT CLOTHING
IcfOSeto IC|*I.I
I i i i
1.41.2-
*u
*"/
0B-
>
|
06-
? 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1I
(J
i i i i
*/
of
'^
/J i
/ 1 \1
>. IO-
hi/
7 y
/
/
,i i/ i,
J
i
i i i i
10
13
20
23
AIR TEMPERATURE o MEAN RADIANT TEMPERATURE.'C
I I 1 I | I I I I | I
IO
13
20
23
AIR TEMPERATURE " MEAHRADIANTTEMPERATURE, *C
90
Figure 14. Combined Influence of Air Velocity and Ambient Temperature [1].
In Figure 12 the comfort lines are curves through different combinations of

ambient temperature and humidity that provide thermal comfort. The six charts
apply to six different combinations of activity and clothing, where the air
temperature equals mean radiant temperature.
In Figure 13, the comfort lines
are curves through different combinations of mean radiant temperature and air
temperature that provide thermal comfort.
-30-
The six charts apply to six
different combinations of activity and clothing at 50 percent relative

humidity.
In Figure 14, the comfort lines corresponding to five different
activity levels are curves through different combinations of relative air

velocity and ambient temperature which provide optimal thermal comfort. The
two charts apply for persons wearing 0.5 and 1.0 clo with the relative
humidity at 50 percent.
For practical application of these charts, first estimate the activity
level and clothing quantity, taking room use into account. The combination of
the four environmental parameters (ta, MRT, RH and velocity) that provide
thermal comfort can then be found from Figs. 12-14.
4.1.2 - Changes in Air Temperature with Changes in MRT for Equal Comfort
Some
comfort condition examples for radiant heating applications have been worked
out in order to illustrate how the ambient air temperature should be changed
for different mean radiant temperatures at various activity and clothing levels.
These are illustrated in Table 1.
In this table, the marked values are
when the mean radiant temperature is equal to the air temperature.
The strong
effect of activity and clothing level can be illustrated by looking at the

temperatures when they are equal. This value ranges from 80.6 F for sedentary
activity and light clothing to 61.2 F for medium activity and clothing. For
sedentary activity and medium clothing these temperatures are 76.5 F which is
a common situation in convective heating systems. Notice that the air temperature should be lowered to 72 F for comfort if the MRT = 80.6 F.
For the other situation with medium activity and light clothing the temperatures
are equal at 69.8 F.
In this situation, if the MRT = 77 F the room air tem-
perature needs to be at 63.5 F for comfort.
This illustrates the large
changes in room air temperature which are needed in order to provide comfort
for changes in MRT, activity level and clothing level.
-31-
TABLE 1
Comparison of Room Air Temperature and MRT for Comfort Conditions at

Different Activity and Clothing Levels with 30% Relative Humidity and
0.2 m/s Relative Velocity
Sedentary Activity
Sedentary Activity
Medium Activity
Medium Activity
Light Clothing
Medium Clothing
Light Clothing
Medium Clothing
MRT, F
ta F
MRT, F
MRT, F
ta.
68
87.8
60.8
82.4
60.8
71.6
85.1
62.6
81.5
75.2
83.3
64.4
78.8
81.5
MRT, F
ta.
75
50
67.6
62.6
74.5
51.8
66.2
80.6
64.4
72.3
53.6
65.5
66.2
79.9
66.2
71.4
55.4
63.9
70.2
57.7
63.0
59.0
ta. F
80.6
80.6
68
79
68
82.4
79.7
69.8
78.1
69.8
69.8
86.0
75.6
71.6
77
71.6
67.8
61.2
62.6
61.2
89.6
72.9
73.4
75.2
73.4
66.0
62.6
59.9
93.2
71.6
76.5
76.5
75.2
64.4
64.4
57.6
96.8
68.4
77
74.7
77
63.5
68.0
56.3
80.6
72
78.8
62.8
71.6
53.1
84.2
69.3
75.2
50.7
86
68.4
4.1.3.
Asymmetric Radiation and Comfort. Radiant temperature asymmetry
was defined in 3.0-DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGY and recent work has suggested
some values for acceptable radiation asymmetry for comfort. A figure presented by Fanger [14] is shown as Figure 15 delineating radiant temperature
asymmetry for heated ceilings and walls and for cooled walls and ceilings. If
10 percent dissatisfaction is acceptable, then the lowest acceptable radiant
-32-
temperature asymmetry is approximately 12
to 13 F.
The ISO standard [15]
suggests 9 F.
100
60
40
a
ai
H
>H
20
to
rl
4-1
CO
as
10
CO
H
n
(U
o
<u
5
4
3
Warm Wall
10
15
20
25
30
35
Radiant Temperature Asymmetry, C
Figure 15
Percentage of People Expressing Discomfort Due to Asymmetric

Radiation [14]
Additional work done by Olesen and Nielsen [7] resulted in the values
shown in Figure 16 for vertical radiation cooling.
(15K)
-33-
This allows about a 25 F
60
40
CD
20
nf
CO
CO
10
cu
bO
ca
c
CU
cu
P4
0 2
10 12
14 16
18 20 22 24
Radiant Temperature Asymmetry, K

Figure 16
Percent Dissatisfied in Spot Cooling Due to Vertical Radiation [7]
radiation asymmetry for 10 percent of the occupants being dissatisfied.

Generally, about a 9 to 15 F radiant temperature asymmetry appears to be
acceptable.
The true value of this quantity in actual applications is diffi-
cult to establish since it depends on the type of radiant unit, its location
relative to the occupant, the location of furnishings in the room, the amount
of reradiation and the angle factor between the occupant and the radiant unit.
For these reasons, it has not been calculated in this study. Additional
research is required in this area.
4.2 - Description of Common Types of Radiant Systems
A survey of manufacturers and designers was conducted in order to identify
the commonly used types of radiant systems.
the following descriptions were prepared.
From the results of this survey
In Table 2, an applications matrix
was developed from the manufacturers information and the previously given
descriptions of the various types of radiant heating and cooling systems. Ten
-34-
types of radiant systems are compared and some of their general characteristics and typical applications are indicated.
It should be kept in mind how-
ever that there are other applications and characteristics which are not
identified here.
It is not possible to list all conceivable applications and
operating traits for all radiant systems.
4.2.1 - Hydronic Floor Panels

This type of radiant heating system (see Figure 3) consists of pipes
imbedded in concrete floors with heated water being circulated through the
pipes.
For comfort applications, the floor surface temperature is generally
limited to a maximum value of 85F. Typically, plastic pipe is used, although

metal pipes or copper tubing can also be used.
Hydronic floor systems provide
a uniform source of heating and require no mechanical air circulation unless

forced ventilation is required.
They can be zoned for various types of load
situations and create a minimal amount of noise during operation.

Hydronic floor panel systems are well suited for applications where a
large change in load does not occur in a short time span.
They are commonly
applied in residences, factories, warehouses, garages, and light commercial

structures.
Their transient responses are slow due to the high thermal mass
of the concrete floor, although new lower mass floors have helped to alleviate
this problem.
4.2.2 - Electric Floor Panels

This type of radiant heating system (see Figure 3) consists of electrical
heating elements imbedded in concrete floors.
For comfort applications, the
floor surface temperature is limited to a maximum value of 85F.
Electrically
heated floor systems provide a uniform source of heating and require no auxiliary systems unless forced ventilation is required for the space. They can be
-35-
zoned for various types of load situations and create no noise during operation.
They are easily controlled with shielded thermostats, and portions can
be sequenced for more efficient energy usage.

Electric floor panel systems are well suited for applications where a
large change in load does not occur in a short time period.
They are commonly
applied in residences, factories, warehouses, garages, and light commercial

structures.
Their transient response is slow due to the high thermal mass of
the concrete floor, although new lower mass floors have helped to alleviate
this problem.
4.2.3 - Air floors

In air floor types of radiant heating systems, the heated air from a
furnace is circulated through passageways in the floor (wood construction or
concrete with imbedded tile) . For comfort applications where people are
present, the floor surface temperature is limited to a maximum value of 85F.
Air heated floor systems provide a uniform source of heating and do require
mechanical circulation of heated air.
providing ventilation if required.
This source of air can also be used for
These systems can be zoned for various
types of load situations and normally create only a minimal amount of noise
during operation.
Air heated floor systems are well suited for applications where a large
change in load does not occur during a short time span.
They are normally
controlled with shielded thermostats. They are commonly applied in

residences, warehouses, and light commercial structures.
4.2.4 - Hydronic Wall Panels

Hydronic wall panels can be modular metal panels with tubing connected to
the backside, or tubing connected to the wall surface and covered with
-36-
plaster.
Hydronic wall panels are used in place of ceiling panels when the
panel location in the ceiling would interfere with lighting fixtures or some
type of required suspensions from the ceiling.
These units have the same
characteristics and features as the hydronic ceiling panels. Generally more

heated panel area would be required than with ceiling panels. The surface
temperature would have to be limited if it can be contacted by people.
These units are applied in hospitals, office buildings, industrial plants
and sports facilities.
4.2.5 - Electric Wall Panels

Electric wall panels are available in various sizes for different types of
applications and are composed of heaters located between a wall surface
material and insulation on the back of the panel. Electric cable can also be
attached to the wall and covered with plaster to accomplish the same type of
heating.
Electric wall panels would be used in lieu of ceiling panels when
the panel location in the ceiling would interfere with lighting fixtures or
required suspensions from the ceiling, or if the ceiling is too high for
practical application.
These units have the same characteristics and features
as the electric ceiling panels. Generally more heated panel area will be
required than with ceiling panels due the wall location.
The surface
temperature would also have to be limited if it can be contacted by people.

These units are applied in hospitals, office building, industrial plants
and sports facilities.
4.2.6 - Hydronic Ceiling Panels (Metal or Plaster1)

Hydronic ceiling panels (see Figure 2) can be made up of modular metal
panels laid in the ceiling, where tubes on the backside of the ceiling panels,
carry circulated water for heating or cooling or tubing attached to the ceil-37-
ing substructure covered with architectural plaster. These systems can provide both heating and cooling and can use any source of energy since water is
the circulated heat transfer fluid.
For heating, the panel surface tempera-
ture is generally in the range of 120F to 180F depending on ceiling height.

Hydronic ceiling panels provide a uniform source of heating or cooling and do
radiate to the floor and walls to maintain them at a comfortable temperature.
When cooling is done, the entering water temperature can be no lower than the
room air dew point, and the latent load in the space must be removed with a
separate system.
These units can be zoned for various types of load situations arid can be
used in conjunction with other types of heating/cooling systems. The metal
panel systems will respond quickly to load changes in the space.
These types of systems are generally applied in hospitals, office
buildings, schools, air terminals, industrial plants, and sports facilities.
4.2.7 - Electric Ceiling Panels

Electric ceiling panels (see Figure 2) are available in various sizes for
different applications and are made up of various types of heaters located
between a ceiling surface material and insulation on the back of the panel.
These are used for heating only applications and generally operate with surface temperatures between 120F and 180F.
Electric ceiling panels provide a
uniform source of heating or cooling and radiate to the floor and walls maintaining them at comfortable temperatures. These units can be zoned and controlled sequentially in order to accommodate various load situations. They
can also be used in conjunction with other types of heating systems within a
building.
Their transient response is generally good due to their low thermal
mass.
Electric radiant celing panels are applied in hospitals, office
-38-
buildings, schools, air terminals, industrial plants and sports facilities.
4.2.8 - Miscellaneous Electric Systems

There are several forms of unusual types of radiant heating systems
available.
One form is an electric carpet that is composed of electrical
heating wires.
There are also cloth wall hangings or drapes of similar
construction involving electrical heating wires.

These devices are generally used for retrofit types of applications or
where some additional heating is necessary.
They are easily installed and do
not require construction changes within the building.
4.2.9 - Gas Fired Radiant Porous Refractory Surface Infrared Units

These radiant heating units (see Figure 5) supply a mixture of air and gas
through a porous refractory material, and combustion occurs at the surface of
the refractory burner.
In some instances, a metallic grid is placed at the
surface to enhance performance of the unit. These units are unvented and
place the products of combustion (mainly carbon dioxide and water vapor) into
the space being heated.
Units are available with different types of
reflectors or lens, which concentrate and direct the radiant energy into
suitable patterns. Units used for total building heating typically operate
with a surface temperature in the range of 1500 F (815C) to 2000 F (1094C)
and are self-contained and use shielded air-source thermostats for control.
They are most commonly used in occupancies where a large room volume is
present with high ceilings.
Common applications include factories,
warehouses, assembly areas, aircraft hangars, arenas, and auditoriums. They

are well suited where people or materials are to be heated and it is not
necessary to heat the surrounding air. They are not suited for applications,
where combustible or explosive fumes are present, and where the additional
-39-
moisture due to the combustion products will be detrimental.
4.2.10 - Gas-Fired Radiant Tube Infrared Units

In this type of gas-fired infrared system, (see Figure 4 ) , gas and air are
burned in a combustion chamber and the products of combustion are forced
through a tube providing a radiant energy source. The products of combustion
are then exhausted to the outside and not into the space being heated. Various types of reflectors located above the tube are used to concentrate and
direct the radiant energy to the lower levels of the structure where it is
needed.
designs.
They are available as U-shaped or linear tubes for versatility in

The radiant heating tubes are generally about 4 inches in diameter,
and during operation, the tubes generally vary in temperature from 900F to
500^ alng the length of the tube between the combustion chamber and the
exhaust vent.
These units provide a uniform source of radiant energy at a low intensity
level and are generally used in factories, warehouses, garages, aircraft
hangars, arenas, auditoriums, and other total heating applications in high
volume spaces. The major advantage of these units over other types of gasfired infrared units is their larger radiating surface and the fact that the
combustion products are vented from the space.
4.2.11 - Electric Infrared Units

Electric infrared units (see Figure 5) use metal rods, quartz tubes, lamps
or panels for delivering infrared heating to large volume spaces. Some units
use reflectors to concentrate and direct the radiant energy to areas where it
is needed. They do not require combustion air for operation and therefore do
not have to dispose of combustion products.
Panel type units have a surface
temperature between 200F and 1100F while the metal and quartz tube units
-40-
operate at a surface temperature between 1500F and 1800F. Quartz lamps

generally operate at about 4000F surface temperature.
These units are designed to be used for spot heating applications and
large volume spaces where people, objects, or surfaces are to be heated rather
than air. These include factories, warehouses, assembly areas, aircraft hangars, arenas, swimming pools, and auditoriums. They are normally controlled
from shielded thermostats in the space.
-41-
m E 2 /miavncNS WORK
Type
of
Radiant
System
Integral
Exhaust
Total Cooling
With
Response
Surface
Capacity Venting
or
Spot
System
Tenp. Construction
Tire
or
Required
Keating
F
Add-On
Possibility .
Condensation
to
be
Considered
Applications
Residential Industrial Warehouse Garage Comrerclal Sports School Hospital
Office
Facility
Hydremic
Floor
85
Integral
slow
total
No
No
No
Electric
Floor
85
Integral
slow
total
No
No
No
A1r
Floor
85
integral
medium
total
No
No
No
Hydremic
Wall
100
iiitegral
msdlum
total
Yes
No
If
Cooling
Electric
Wall
100
Integral
(redium
total
No-
No
No
Hydremic
Celling
55-230
Add-on
good
total
Yes
No
If
Cooling
Electric
Celling
120-200
Add-on
good
total
or
spot
No
No
No
Ceramic
Infrared
1500-1700
Add-on
good
total
or
spot
No
Yes
I f not
vented
Tube
Infrared
700-1200
Add-on
good
total
or
spot
No
Yes
I f not
vented
Electric
Infrared
1100-4000
Add-on
good
total
or
spot
No
No
No
'
5.0 - CALCULATION OF DESIGN HEATING LOAD

This investigation is directed at providing a design procedure for
radiant heating and cooling systems. The major concern is whether or
not the ASHRAE standard heating load design procedure can be used for radiant
systems.
The procedure developed for this project is based on the best avail-
able information for radiant and convective exchange, but has not been validated with experimental data.
This procedure will be presented first, fol-
lowed by a procedure developed specifically for this project, and a discussion

on the differences between these techniques and some other techniques found in
the literature.
5.1 - Standard ASHRAE Design Heat Loss Procedure
In Chapter 25 of Reference 1, what is commonly referred to as the ASHRAE
standard procedure is presented.
From that source, the following general
procedure has been reproduced.

GENERAL PROCEDURE
To calculate a design heating load, prepare the following information about building design and weather data at design
conditions.
1. Select outdoor design weather conditions: temperature, wind
direction and wind speed. Winter climatic data can be found in
Chapter 24.
2. Select the indoor air temperature to be maintained in each space
during coldest weather.
3. Estimate temperatures in adjacent unheated spaces.
4. Select or compute heat transfer coefficients for outside walls and
glass; for inside walls, nonbasement floors and ceilings, if these are
next to unheated spaces; and the roof if it is next to heated spaces.
5. Determine net area of outside wall, glass and roof next to heated
spaces, as well as any cold walls, floors or ceilings next to unheated
spaces. These determinations can be made from building plans or
from the actual building, using inside dimensions.
6. Compute heat transmission losses for each kind of wall, glass,
floor, ceiling and roof in the building by multiplying the heat transfer
coefficient in each case by the area of the surface and the temperature
difference between indoor and outdoor air or adjacent unheated
space.
7. Compute heat losses from basement or grade-level slab floors using the methods in this chapter.
8. Select unit values and compute the energy associated with infiltration of cold air around outside doors, windows and other openings. These unit values depend on the kind or width of crack, wind
speed and the temperature difference between indoor and outdoor air.
An alternative method is to use air changes. (See Chapter 22.)
9.' When positive ventilation using outdoor air is provided by an
air-heating or air-conditioning unit, the energy required to warm the
outdoor air to the space temperature must be provided by the unit.
The principle for calculation of this load component is identical to
that for infiltration. If mechanical exhaust from the space is provided
in an amount equal to the outdoor air drawn in by the unit, the unit
must also provide for natural infiltration losses. If no mechanical exhaust is used and the outdoor air supply equals or exceeds the amount
of natural infiltration that can occur without ventilation, some reduction in infiltration may occur.
-43-
10. The sum of the transmission losses or heat transmitted through

the confining walk, floor, ceiling, glass and other surfaces, plus the
energy associated with cold air entering by infiltration or required to
replace mechanical exhaust, represents the total heating load.
11. In buildings with a sizeable and reasonably steady internal heat
release from sources other than the heating system, compute and
deduct this heat release under design conditions from the total heat
losses computed above.
12. Consider using pick-up loads that may be required in intermittently heated buildings or in buildings using night thermostat setback.
Pick-up loads frequently require an increase in heating equipment
capacity to bring the temperature of structure, air and material
contents to the specified temperature.
In addition, a table which is given in [1] that summarizes the typical load
calculations is reproduced below.
TABLE 3 - Summary of ASHRAE Standard Design Heat Loss Calculations rX)
Healing Load
Roofs, ceilings,
walls, glass
Walls below
grade
Reference, Table, Description
Equation
--Chapter 23, Tables 3 and 4
q = U - A- TD
~[~
^ ITemperature difference between inside and outside design dry bulbs. Chapter 24. For tem*1peratures in unhealed spaces, see Eq. (1); for attic temperatures,, ssee Eq. (2)
-Area calculated from plans
-See Table 3
q = U' A TD
-*- Use Fig. 4 to assist in determining TD
Floors
Above grade
On grade
Below grade
- For crawl space temperatures, see Eq. (4)

q=
U-A-TD
q = F2 P .
-See Table 5
TD
Perimeter of Slab
q = {/ A TD
-Use Fig. 4 to assist in determining TD
--See Table 4
Infiltration and
ventilation air
Sensible
Latent
J-
_JVolume of outdoor air entering building. See Chapter 22 for estimating methods for inIfiltration
qs = 1200K* Af
-Humidity ratio difference
q, =2808K. LW
-44-
The components of the ASHRAE standard design heat loss (HLD) are transmission
losses and infiltration losses.
The transmission losses are:
S UjAi (75 - t oa )
(16)
and the infiltration loss is
1.1 CFMI (75-toa)
(17)
or
ACHxV
1.1 x (
) x (75 - t oa )
(18)
60
where ACH is the number of infiltration air changes per hour and V is the volume
of the space.
5.1.1 - Design Inside Air Temperature.
It is common practice to select the
inside design dry bulb temperature at 75 F in most localities in the United

States.
Generally, this is done without accounting for the comfort con-
straints previously described.
This temperature is used in both the transmis-
sion loss and infiltration loss calculations and a choice of this value will
affect the design loads for the space in proportion to the temperature difference between the inside and outside at design conditions. As indicated in the
section 3.0 -DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGY, the value used for the inside design
temperature in this analysis has been set at 75 F.
5.1.2 - Room Air Temperature Gradients. For rooms which are eight to ten
feet high, a small temperature gradient in room air may exist as discussed,
but is usually not incorporated into the design heat loss calculation. For
higher ceiling/roof rooms or spaces, this gradient can affect the design heat
-45-
loss due to higher air temperatures at the ceiling which can cause higher
transmission and infiltration losses. For the ASHRAE standard design heat
loss calculations (HLD) made later, it is assumed that there is no air temperature gradient. However, this gradient is incorporated into another design
heat loss (HLGG) to illustrate what effect it has on the results. Typical
values of this air temperature gradient are 0.5 to 2.0 F per foot.
5.1.3 - Wall. Ceiling. Floor Convection Coefficients. The U-factors indicated
in the transmission loss component include convection on the inside walls,
floors, and ceiling that contain a contribution from radiation as well as convection.
These values have been standardized over the years and are commonly
used in all design heating and cooling load calculations. When radiant systems are considered, it is important to realize that these standard coefficients may no longer apply due to higher surface temperatures.
For the stan-
dard ASHRAE design heat loss procedure (HLD) the convection coefficients in
Reference [1] were used and these are given in Table 4. Also shown as Table 5
are common emissivity values for building materials.
Table 4.
Surface Conductances (Btu/hr ft^ F) and

Resistances for Air [1].
Surface Emittanee
Position of
Surface
Direction
of Heat
Flow
Non- Reflective Reflective

reflective t = 0.20 t = 0.05
= 0.90
h,
STILL AIR
Horizontal . . . . . Upward
Sloping45 deg Upward
Vertical
Horizontal
Sloping45 deg Downward
Horizontal . . . . . . Downward
MOVING AIR
(Any Position)
15-mphWind
(for winter)
7.5-mphWmd
(for summer)
h|
1.63
1.60
1.46
1.32
1.08
0.61
0.62
0.68
0.76
0.92
0.91
0.88
0.74
0.60
0.37
1.10
1.14
1.35
1.67
2.70
h0
h0
Any
6.00 0.17
Any
4.00 0.25
h,
0.76 1.32
0.73 1.37
0.59 1.70
0.45 2.22
0.224.55
h0
~R
.__
N o surface has both an air space resistance value and a surface resistance
value. No air space value exists for any surface facing an air space of less than
0.5 in.
For ventilated attics or spaces above ceilings under summer conditions (heat
flow down) see Table 4.
Conductances are for surfaces of the stated emittanee facing virtual
blaciibody surroundings at the same temperature as the ambient air. Values are
based on a surface-air temperature difference of 10 deg F and for surface
temperature of 70 F.
d
See Fig. 2 for additional data.
-46-
Table 5. Reflectivity and Emittance Values of Various Surfaces [1].
Effective Emittance E
of Air Space
Surface
Reflectivity. Average
in Percent Emittance t
Aluminum foil, bright

Aluminum sheet
Aluminum coated paper,
polished
Steel,galvanized,bright...
Aluminum paint
Building materials: wood,
paper, masonry,
nonmetallic paints
Regular glass
One
surface
emittance v,
the other
<U|0
Both
surfaces
emitiancest
92 to 97
80to95
0.05
0.12
0.05
0.12
0.03
0.06
75to84
70to80
30 to 70
0.20
6.25
0.50
0.20
0.24
0.47
0.11
0.15
0.35
5 to 15
5 to 15
0.90
0.84
0.82
0.77
0.82
0.72
'.
The U-factors for the transmission losses also contain outside convection
coefficients for the walls and floors "and ceilings if appropriate.
5.2 - Development of Design Heat Loss Procedure for Radiant Systems
It is necessary with radiant types of systems to be able to estimate the
design heat loss value so that units can be sized and located.
It is also
important for this study, to be able to compare this design load with the ASHRAE standard procedure (HID) described above, and to investigate the effect of
changing specific parameters in the design process for radiant units. These
include effect of higher room surface temperatures, consequences of higher
mean radiant temperatures and lower air temperatures, and changes in the
infiltration heat loss term.
In Figure 17, a schematic of the room configuration used for the calcula-;
tion of the radiant design heat loss values is shown. There are six surfaces
specified, four walls, a floor, and a ceiling.
For the floor, an emissisivity
(e), convection coefficient (hc) and a U-factor (U) are specified.
The ceil-
ing is composed of several portions: heating or cooling panels and ceiling.

-47-
PANEL
Heat Input
Wall 2
Loss-w3
GLASS
I
Loss-w2
p-
oo
l
,h ,U
c
Wall 1
e, h ,U
c
Loss-wl
'infiltration
Floor
e,h ,U
c
Loss - F
FIGURE 17. SCHEMATIC OF ROOM CONFIGURATION USED FOR THE CALCULATION OF RADIANT DESIGN HEAT LOSS VALUES
For all of the equally sized panels an emissivity (e) and convection coefficient (hc) must be specified.
There is no U-factor specified for the heat-
ing/cooling panels since this would vary considerably from unit to unit and it
can be taken into account in the design process. The remainder of ceiling
(See Figure 17) has an emissivity (e). convection coefficient (h c ), and a
U-factor (U) specified.
The four walls can be individually described by giving an emissivity (e),
convection coefficient (hc) and a U-factor (U) for each wall.
This allows the
walls to be outside or inside walls by using the actual U or a small U (0.001

Btu/hr ft^ F) value. Also, the contribution of glass in the outside walls can
be varied by specifying appropriate values of the wall U-factor.
By specifying the size of the room (length and width), the room height,
the number of ceiling panels and their coordinate locations the geometry of
room is defined.
From this information the angle factors between all of the
room surfaces can then be calculated.

As indicated in Figure 17 there is a contribution to the total design heat
loss by the infiltration term.
For this analysis an air change per hour (ACH)
was specified as input information and then with the room volume known an air
volume could be calculated.
It is important to understand that all of the surfaces shown in Figure 17
are coupled thermally through their radiant exchange and their convective
exchange with the room air.
In addition, the outside walls will transfer heat
to the surroundings as will the floor and the ceiling.
The heating panels
will be supplying heat by radiation and convection to the other surfaces and
the room air. At the same time, the infiltration air will be affecting the
overall heat balance of the room air.
The following sections contain a description of the system of equations
solved using a computer program and how these equations were formulated. To
-49-
achieve this aim, it was found that the following system of equations needed
to be solved:
i) Heat balance on the room surfaces (six surfaces).
ii) Heat balance on the complete room,
iii) The comfort equations (two equations).
iv) The definition of mean radiant temperature.
This results in ten equations to be solved, where nine of the equations are
coupled and eight of the nine are non-linear.
of nine non-linear equations simultaneously.
algorithm based on Newton's Method.
This required solving a system

The solution was done using an
Once this system of equations was solved
and all of the temperatures known, the design heat losses and other parameters
were evaluated.
5.2.1 - Heat Balance on Room Surfaces TA1. Each room surface area A^ as
illustrated in Figure 18 is in radiant exchange with all the other surfaces
and is
Surface i
Figure 18. Surface Heat Exchange Model

in convective exchange with the air in the room.
The sum of these two heat
flows, q r and q c v will, under steady state conditions, be equal to the

conductive heat flow through the surface as shown below.
1r + <Icv + qcd =
-50-
(19>
wherej
q r = net radiant heat transfer from Aj
q cv convection between air and surface A^
qC(j = conduction through surface A^
5.2.1.1 - qr. Radiant Exchange Rate. For emittances of surfaces at or
above 0.9, surface reflections can be ignored from surfaces and the radiant
exchange can be expressed as:
r i
4
= i<7 Ti - S
4
ei a Ti F A
_A
(20)
where,
qr j_ = net radiant heat transferred from surface i per unit area, A^ and
per unit time.
T^ = absolute temperature of surface A^
e^ = emittance of surface i.
a = Stefan-Boltzman Constant
FA^-Aj = angle factor from surface i to surface j.
The angle factors were calculated from algorithms available in References
5, 6, and 16.
5.2.1.2 - q cv Convective Heat Transfer.
This term is evaluated from the
following equation,
qcv.i = h c > i
(T
i " Ta>
<21>
where,
q cv <= convective heat transfer from surface i to air per unit area Aj
h c ^ = the appropriate convection heat transfer coefficient
T a = air temperature
T^ = surface A^ temperature
The h c ^ heat transfer coefficients selected were different for the nonradiant heating and radiant heating cases. The reason for this is that
-51-
in the non-radiant heating systems, higher air velocities and lower surface
temperatures are expected.
For the non-radiant heating calculation the fol-
lowing coefficients were used.

Ceiling/floor, upward heat flow [1, 16]
h c =0.712 Btu/hr ft2
Ceiling/floor, downward heat flow [1, 16]

h c = 0.162 Btu/hr ft2
Walls [17]
At
h c = 2.03 () 0 - 2 2 , w/m2 C
H
where,
At = average surface to average air temperature difference, C
H = height of room, m
(5.68 w/m2 C = 1 Btu/hr ft 2 F)
For the radiant heating systems the following convection coefficients were
used.
a) Heated Ceiling
Heated Ceiling Panels [16,18],
(At)0-25
, Btu/hr ft 2 F
h = 0.041
De0-25
where,
D e = equivalent diameter (4 times the area divided by perimeter)

Unheated Ceiling Portion [16, 18],
h c - 0.162 Btu/hr ft 2 F
Walls [16, 18],
(At) 0 - 3 2
h c t= 0.29
H0.05
Floor [16, 18],
-52-
h c - 0.712 Btu/hr ft 2 F
b)
Heated Floor
Heated Floor Portion [16,18]

AtO-31
h c - 0.39
D, 0.08
where,
equivalent diameter (4 times the area divided by perimeter)
Unheated Floor/Ceiling Area [16,18],
h c = 0.712 Btu/hr ft 2 oF, upward heat flow
h c = 0.162 Btu/hr ft2oF, downward heat flow
Walls [16,18]
0.29(At)0-32
hc H0.05
5.2.1.3 - qCc[. Conductive Heat Transfer. Under steady state conditions,
the heat conduction per unit area Aj_ is given by
qcd.i - ^ (Ti - T Q )
(22)
where,
C^ = overall wall conductance from inside surface to outside air
*1
+
Kl
... +
where,
x^ = thickness of each homogeneous section of the wall
k^ = thermal conductivity of the material
a^ = conductance of each air space in the wall
h Q = coefficient of heat transfer by convection and radiation at
the outside surface of the wall
Tj_ = inside surface temperature of surface i.
T Q = outside ambient design temperature
For calculation in the program the following was used to calculate Cj.
-53-
l
(23)
Ci
Ui
ht
where,
Uj = The overall heat transfer coefficient from the inside air
to the outside air using standard or typical ASHRAE
values [1]
h^ = Convective heat transfer coefficient from inside air to
inside surface i. This was the typical design value for
this coefficient as given in Table 2. These are standard
or typical values used by designers and includes
convection and radiation heat transfer.
Eq. 23 was used in order to eliminate the standard dual convection coefficient which includes both radiation and convection terms. It was necessary to
use only the true convection coefficient since the procedure in the calculation method accounted for the radiation.
5.2.2 - Heat Balance on the Complete Room.
It is necessary from the first law
of thermodynamics to maintain a heat balance on the air within the room (see
Figure 17).
This is given by the following equation.
Total Heat Gain - Total Heat Loss -= 0
(24)
where,
Total Heat Gain - Q i n p u t + Qpeople + Qlights
Total Heat Loss - QTransmission Loss + Înfiltration Loss
and.
Qinput "* Heat input by supply air in the convective heating case
or by panels in the panel heating case.
Qpeople = Internal sensible heat gain from people in space (this
was set equal to zero for the design heating case).
-54-
Qliehts = Internal heat gain due to lights (this was set equal
to zero for the design heating case),
^transmission loss = ^ u m ^ t n e conduction losses through each
of the six surfaces,
înfiltration loss = Heat loss due to infiltration air.
5.2.3 - Comfort Equations. The objective of the heating or cooling system is
to provide thermal comfort for people in the room illustrated in Figure 17.
In order to do this a set of comfort criteria needed to be selected.
For this
study, the Fanger Comfort Criteria [4] were chosen and were previously discussed in Section 4.1.1.
Fanger considers the simultaneous influence of six
operating variables for comfort. These are,
Activity level (internal heat production in units of MET)
Thermal Resistance of Clothing (in units of clo)
Air Temperature ( F)
Mean Radiant Temperature ( F)
Humidity Level (in terms of relative humidity)
Relative Air Velocity (m/s)
The comfort equations can be expressed as

M
, t,, Pa, T a )
t c l - f(
A
(25)
Du
t^.,- = f ( F p i for i = 1,6, t t for i= 1 to 6)
(26)
Mi
, r,)
0 = f(Ta, t cl , tnrt, Pa,

A
Du
where,
Ap u = Dubois surface area of a person, m^
M = metabolic rate of person, MET
P a = partial pressure of water vapor in the room air (a
function of air temperature and relative humidity)
-55-
(27)
T a room air temperature, C

F p i = angle factor from the center of a seated person at center
of room to surface i
tj_ = surface i temperature
r\ = mechanical efficiency of person
tc2 = temperature of clothing surface
t m r t = mean radiant temperature at center of room
The functional relationship indicated by Eq. 25 is that given as Eq. 15.
The functional relationship indicated by Eq. 26 is that given as Eq. 4. And
finally, the functional relationship indicated by Eq. 27 is that given by Eq.
14.
For details of the development of these equations one should see Fanger
5.2.4 - Other Parameters Evaluated.
The following other significant par-
ameters were evaluated from the computer results.

ASHRAE Standard Heat Loss (HID) - Eqn. 10
Actual Design Heat Loss (HLA) - Eqn. 11
Conduction Design Heat Loss (HLC) - Eqn. 12
Conduction Design Heat Loss with Room Air Temperature Gradient
(HLCG) - Eqn. 13
Actual Heat Input
In the case of convective heating systems, the actual
heat input is the same as the conduction design heat
loss with room air temperature gradient, HLCG.
But, in
the case of panel heating, the actual heat input term

assumes there is no heat loss from the reverse sides of
the panels. HLCG assumes the same conductive resistance
at the back of the heated panels as in the rest of the
-56-
surface and Is therefore a greater value than the actual

heat input term.
The design procedure for each type
of system will then take into account the losses from

the backs of the heating panels. This is necessary since
each manufacturer will have different types of insulating
schemes.
Percentage Difference 1 - The difference in percent between
HLA and HLD.
HLC and HLD.
HLCG and HLD.
Actual Heat Input and HLD.
Operative Temperature - Eqn. 7
Effective Radiant Flux - Eqn. 8
Average Unheated Surface Temperature (AUST) - Eqn. 9
Parameter 1 -
Qinput
, Btu/hr ft2 F
Panel Area (T - T a )
P
where,
Qinput = Actual Heat Input
Tp = panel surface temperature
T a = room air temperature
Parameter 3 - Dimensionless
-57-
(28)
Qinput
(29)
Panel Area [T4 - (AUST)4] a
P
where,
a = Stefan Boltzman Constant
Percentage Radiation -
QRP
(30)
QRP
QCVP
-58-
where,
QRP ~* radiant heat output by panels
Q CV p = convective heat output by panels
5.3 - Comparison of Calculated Design Radiant Loads With the Standard ASHRAE
Design Load Calculation
Many cases have been run for both forced air and radiant systems in order
to determine the effect of various parameters and variables on the design heat
loss.
A base configuration was selected and this was used to make initial
calculations and then changes in the parameters were made in order to test
their effect on the value of the design heat loss.
The configuration was the
following.
Outside Design Temperature = 3 F
Room Dimensions:
Length = 30 ft.
Width = 30 ft.
Height = 9 ft.
U-Factors (Btu/hr ft 2 F):

Wall 1 - half wall with U = 0.1 and half glass with
U = 0.58.
Glass distributed uniformly

over the wall,
Walls 2,3,4 - U - 0.1

Floor - U = 0.07
Ceiling - U - 0.07
Emissivities:
Panels:
0.9
Walls:
0.9
Floor:
0.9
Ceiling:
0.9
Convection Coefficients (Btu/hr ft2 F):
-59-
See Section 5.2.1.2

Comfort Variables:
Metabolic Rate: - 75 k cal/hr m 2
Clothing Resistance =0.75 clo (fci 1.1)
Relative Air Velocity =0.15 m/s
Relative Humidity = 30%
Infiltration Rate =0.5 air changes per hour
For convection heating, the supply air flow rate was set at 0.75
CFM per sq. ft. of floor area.
For convection heating, the air temperature gradient was set at
0.75 F per foot with a reference height of 5 feet from the
floor.
For radiant heating, there was no supply air, and the room air
temperature gradient was set at 0
F per foot.
For these design calculations, the number of people was set

at zero, and no lighting load was considered.
For
cooling cases, this would not be the case.

5.4 -Test Case Calculations.
In order to be able to evaluate the performance
of the computational scheme, the forced air heating case was taken as a test
case.
This allowed the design heat loss values to be calculated and compared
with the standard ASHRAE procedure.
In these calculations the convection
coefficient on the walls, floors, and ceiling were not changed during the
operation of the system.
The values given in Section 5.2.1.2 were used and
remained constant (except for the walls where they were a function of the At).
The standard forced air heating cases are given in table 6 for various
heights of the room.
As the room height increases, the ASHRAE Design Heat
Loss (HLD) increases and correspondingly so does the supply air temperature.
This is due to increased infiltration as well as the increase in wall and
-60-
TABLE 6.
FORCED AIR HEATING - STANDARD CASE CALCULATIONS
8.0
9.0
10.0
12.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
ASHRAE DESIGN HEAT LOSS, BTU/HR
24796.8
26762.4
28728.0
32659.2
38556.0
48384.0
58212.0
ACTUAL DESIGN HEAT LOSS, BTU/HR
25642.2
27792.8
29895.6
34124.6
40482.8
51256.8
62055.1
3.4
3.9
4.1
4.5
5.0
5.9
6.6
22796.8
24645.9
26443.6
30039.1
35399.4
44389.9
53297.4
-8.1
-7.9
-8.0
-8.0
-8.2
-8.3
-8.4
22942.6
24864.6
26747.4
30549.4
36310.7
46212.4
56334.9
-7.5
-7.1
-6.9
-6.5
-5.8
-4.5
-3.2
22942.6
24864.6
26747.4
30549.4
36310.7
46212.4
56334.9
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 4
-7.5
-7.1
-6.9
-6.5
-5.8
-4.5
-3.2
FLOOR TEMPERATURE, DEG. F
61.5
61.4
61.2
60.9
60.3
59.7
59.1
ROOM AIR TEMPERATURE, DEG. F
77.5
77.8
77.9
78.2
78.6
79.3
79.8
MEAN RADIANT TEMPERATURE, DEG. F
62.6
62.2
61.9
61.5
61.0
60.0
59.3
OPERATIVE TEMPERATURE, DEG. F
69.2
69.1
69.1
69.0
68.8
68.6
68.4
-10.7
-11.3
-11.5
-12.1
-12.7
-13.9
-14.7
62.4
62.3
62.1
61.7
61.1
60.4
59.8
101.1
103.4
105.4
109.7
116.0
126.8
137.7
ROOM HEIGHT, FT
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
ACTUAL HEAT INPUT, BTU/HR
EFFECTIVE RADIANT FIELD, BTU/HR. SQ FT

A.U.S.T, DEG. F
SUPPLY AIR TEMPERATURE, DEG. F
glass areas as the wall height is raised causing larger heat losses. This
shows up also in a reduced value of AUST with increasing height. As the room
height increases, the infiltration air leaving the room at the ceiling level
is at a higher temperature due to an air temperature gradient. The ASHRAE
design heat loss, HLD, overestimates the calculated heat loss HLC or HLCG by
about 7% for an 8 feet high room and by about 3% for a 25 feet high room even
with a temperature gradient. It is also important to notice that the room air
temperature for comfort is about 77 F for the 8 feet high and almost 80 F for
the 25 feet high room.
This is due to the mean radiant temperature dropping
because of more glass surface in the higher room and therefore a higher air
temperature being required to satisfy the comfort equations. These higher air
temperatures are consistent with the results presented in Table 1 for comfort
conditions.
Tables 7, 8 and 9 show similar results as Table 6 except that the air
temperature gradient was changed to 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 F per foot respectively.
Similar results are exhibited except that the ASHRAE design heat loss, HLD,
underestimates the heat loss by about 2% for the 25 feet high room with a
temperature gradient of 1.5 F per foot.
Tables 10 and 11 give the results for the forced air heating system standard case with different infiltration rates and for a 15 ft. and 25 ft. high
room respectively.
The results in Table 12 are for the same conditions as in
Table 11 except that the tJ-factors were increased to what might be expected in
industrial situations.
Comparison of these results show that the ASHRAE
design heat loss calculation can underestimate the size of the heating load
for high (greater than 2) infiltration air changes. This underestimation can
be up to 16% at 4 air changes per hour.
It should be noted in Tables 10, 11,
and 12 that the supply air temperatures are not appropriate. The air flow
rate was set at 0.75 CFM/ft , and for higher heat losses as found here, this
-62-
TABLE 7.
FORCED AIR HEATING - WITH GRADIENT = 0 . 5 F / F T .
8.0
9.0
10.0
12.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
24796.8
26762.4
28728.0
32659.2
38556.0
48384.0
58212.0
25642.2
27792.8
29895.6
34124.6
40482.8
51256.8
62055.1
3.4
3.9
4.1
4.5
5.0
5.9
6.6
22796.8
24645.9
26443.6
30039.1
35399.4
44389.9
53297.4
-8.1
-7.9
-8.0
-8.0
-8.2
-8.3
-8.4
30379.3
36006.9
45604.9
55322.4
-7.0
-6.6
-5.7
-5.0
30379.3
36006.9
45604.9
55322.4
-7.0
-6.6
-5.7
-5.0
ROOM HEIGHT, FT
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1 , BTU/HR
22894.0
24791.7
-7.7
-7.4
22894.0
24791.7
-7.7
-7.4
-7.2
61.5
61.4
61.2
60.9
60.3
59.7
59.1
77.5
77.8
77.9
78.2
78.6
79.3
79.8
62.6
62.2
61.9
61.5
61.0
60.0
59.3
69.2
69.1
69.1
69.0
68.8
68.6
68.4
-10.7
-11.3
-11.5
-12.1
-12.7
-13.9
-14.7
62.4
62.3
62.1
61.7
61.1
60.4
59,8
101.0
103.3
105.3
109.5
115.6
126.2
136.7

A . U . S . T , DEG. F
26646.1
-7.2
26646.1
TABLE 8.
FORCED AIR HEATING - WITH GRADIENT = 1.0F/FT.
ROOM HEIGHT, FT
8.0
9.0
10.0
12.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
24796.8
26762.4
28728.0
32659.2
38556.0
48384.0
58212.0
25642.2
27792.8
29895.6
34124.6
40482.8
51256.8
62055-1
3.4
3.9
4.1
4.5
5.0
5.9
6.6
22796.8
24645.9
26443.6
30039.1
35399.4
44389.9
53297.4
-8.1
-7.9
-8.0
-8.0
-8.2
-8.3
-8.4
22991.2
24937.5
26848.6
30719.5
36614.4
46819.9
57347.4
-7.3
-6.8
-6.5
-5.9
-5.0
-3.2
-1.5
22991.2
24937.5
26848.6
30719.5
36614.4
46819.9
57347.4
-7.3
-6.8
-6.5
-5.9
-5.0
-3.2
-1.5
61.5
61.4
61.2
60.9
60.3
59.7
59.1
77.5
77.8
77.9
78.2
78.6
79.3
79.8
62.6
62.2
61.9
61.5
61.0
60.0
59.3
69.2
69.1
69.1
69.0
68.8
68.6
68.4
-10.7
-11.3
-11.5
-12.1
-12.7
-13.9
-14.7
62.4
62.3
62.1
61.7
61.1
60.4
59.8
101.1
103.4
105.5
109.8
116.3
127.4
138.8

A.U.S.T, DEG. F
TABLE 9. FORCED AIR HEATING - WITH GRADIENT = 1.5F/FT.
8.0
9.0
10.0
12.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
24796.8
26762.4
28728.0
32659.2
38556.0
48384.0
58212.0
25642.2
27792.8
29895.6
34124.6
40482.8
51256.8
62055.1
3.4
3.9
4.1
4.5
5.0
5.9
6.6
22796.8
24645.9
26443.6
30039.1
35399.4
44389.9
53297.4
-8.1
-7.9
-8.0
-8.0
-8.2
-8.3
-8.4
23088.4
25083.3
27051.1
3!1059.7
37221.9
48034.9
59372.4
-6.9
-6.3
-5.8
-4.9
-3.5
-0.7
2.0
23088.4
25083.3
27051.1
31059.7
37221.9
48034.9
59372.4
-6.9
-6.3
-5.8
-4.9
-3.5
-0.7
2.0
61.5
61.4
6-1.2
60.9
60.3
59.7
59.1
77.5
77.8
77.9
78.2
78.6
79.3
79.8
62.6
62.2
61.9
61.5
61.0
60.0
59.3
69.2
69.1
69.1
69.0
68.8
68.6
68.4
-10.7
-11.3
-11.5
-12.1
-12.7
-13.9
-14.7
62.4
62.3
62.1
61.7
61.1
60.4
59.8
101.2
103.6
105.8
110.2
116.9
128.7
140.8
ROOM HEIGHT, FT

A.U.S.T, DEG. F
TABLE 10. FORCED AIR HEATING.- STANDARD CASE-15 FT
AIR CHANGES PER HOUR, AC/H
HEIGHT AND VARIABLE INFILTRATION RATES
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
. ASHRAE DESIGN HEAT LOSS, BTU/HR
47304.0
64800.0
82296.0
99792.0
49667.9
68038.3
86408.6 104778.9
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
44584.6
62954.9
81325.2
99695.6
-5.7
-2.8
-1.2
-0.1
46407.1
66599.9
-1.9
2.8
46407.1
66599.9
86792.7 106985.6
5.5
7.2
86792.7 106985.6
-1.9
*'2.8
5.5
7.2
60.3
60.3
60.3
60.3
78.6
78.6
78.6
78.6
61.0
61.0
61.0
61.0
68.8
68.8
68.8
68.8
-12.7
-12.7
-12.7
-12.7
61.1
61.1
61.1
61.1
126.3
147.1
167.9
188.7

A.U.S.T, DEG. F
#e
gXrv-^gj
TABLE 1 1 .
&*'::~?
FB-Hras
p;-S:;<
FORCED AIR HEATING - STANDARD CASE WITH 25 FT.
INFILTRATION, AC/H
2.0
3.0
4.0
72792.0 101952.0 131112.0 160272.0
77597.6 108682.7 139767.8 170852.9

I
1.0
ON
HEIGHT AND VARIABLE INFILTRATION RATES
6.6
68840.0
-5.4
6.6
6.6
6.6
99925.1 131010.2 162095.3

-2.0
-0.1
1.1
74915.0 112075.1 149235.2 186395.3

2.9
9.9
13.8
16.3
74915.0 112075.1 149235.2 186395.3

2.9
9.9
13.8
16.3
59.1
59.1
59.1
59.1
79.8
79.8
79.8
79.8
59.3
59.3
59.3
59.3
68.4
68.4
68.4
68.4
-14.7
-14.7
-14.7
-14.7
59.8
59.8
59.8
59.8
156.8
195.1
233.3
271.5

A.U.S.T, DEG. F
TABLE 12. FORCED AIR HEATING - STANDARD CASE WITH U ,lc .. ,,, = 0.25 Btu/hr ft 2 F,
walls,floors, ceiling
?
U
= 1 , Btu hr ft
F 25 ft
glass
/
-
- HEIGHT AND VARIABLE INFILTRATION
INFILTRATION, AC/H
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
135810.0 164970.0 194130.0 223290.0
161338.2 195979.4 230620.7 265261.9
18.8
18.8
18,8
18.8
119554.6 154195.8 188837.0 223478.2

-12.0
-6.5.
-2.7
0.1
125629.6 166345.8 207062.0 247778.2

-7.5
0.8
6.7
11.0
125629.6 166345.8 207062.0 247778.2
-7.5
0.8
6.7
11.0
42.5
42.5
42.5
42.5
88.5
88.5
88.5
88.5
45.9
45.9
45.9
45.9
65.1
65.1
65.1
65.1
-30.3
-30.3
-30.3
-30.3
47.7
47.7
47.7
47.7
217.8
259.7
301.6
343.4

A.U.S.T, DEG. F
would have to be raised to approximately 3 CFM/ftr to yield reasonable supply

air temperatures.
This calculation does not affect the design load calcula-
tions .
The convective calculations appear to be reasonable and correct and do not
show any unusual results. They indicate that the program is calculating
values that are expected and show that the ASHRAE standard design procedure
tends to slightly overestimate design losses even with an air temperature
gradient present except for high (above 2) air changes per hour of infiltration.
5.5 - Radiant Panel Heating Systems Calculations
5.5.1 - Single Panel Radiant Heating Cases. The same base case was taken
as in the forced air system except a single radiant heating panel was used to
supply heat to the room and there was no heated supply air.
In this proce-
dure the panel temperature was assumed as input information and a trial and
error procedure was used to determine the required area for the heat loss from
the space.
In this calculation, the emissivity of the panel heater was set
at 0.9 and its convection coefficient was as previously specified.

In Table 13, the results for panel surface temperatures from 120 to 180 F
are shown for the base case room. As expected, the area required for heating
with panels reduced as the panel temperature increased.
For 120 F,
approximately 49% of the ceiling area was covered with radiant panels while
for a 180 F panel temperature approximately 20% of the ceiling was covered
with radiant panels. The areas calculated here were compared with the
required area from two manufacturers of hydronic panels and showed quite close
agreement. At 120 F one manufacturer's procedure indicated 453 sq. ft. and
the other manufacturer's procedure indicated 415 sq. ft. The calculation here
indicated 439 sq. ft. At 180 F the two numbers were 216 and 185 sq. ft. and
the calculated area was 176 sq. ft. This information appears to verify the
-69-
TABLE 13. BASE CASE FOR RADIANT PANEL HEATING:
PANEL HEATING - CEILING HEIGHT = 9 FT.
PANEL TEMPERATURE, D E C F
120.0
130.0
140.0
150.0
160.0
170.0
180.0
PANEL AREA REQUIRED , SQ FT
438.8
359.7
302.2
258.7
224.7
197.9
175.6
26762.4
26762.4
26762.4
26762.4
26762.4
26762.4
26762.4
23664.8
23667.7
23671.1
23674.1
23676.3
23678.0
23679.1
-11.6
-11.6
-11.6
-11.5
-11.5
-11.5
-11.5
25662.7
25654.4
25650.1
25647.6
25646.1
25645.2
25644.4
-4.1
-4.1
-4.2
. -4.2
-4.2
-4.2
-4.2
25662.7
25654.4
25650.1
25647.6
25646.1
25645.2
25644.4
-4.1
-4.1
-4.2
-4.2
-4.2
-4.2
-4.2
23655.1
24005.8
24263.4
24459.6
24613.7
24735.2
24836.8
-11.6
-10.3
-9.3
-8.6
-8.0
-7.6
-7.2
PERCENTAGE RADIATION
95.3
95.3
95.3
95.3
95.4
95.4
95.4
PERCENT CEILING COVERED BY PANELS
48.8
40.0
33.6
28.7
25.0
22.0
19.5
HEAT OUTPUT PER UNIT PANEL AREA, BTU/HR.SQ FT
53.9
66.7
80.3
94.6
109.6
125.0
141.5
74.4
74.7
74.8
74.8
74.9
74.9
74.9
66.7
66.7
66.7
66.7
66.7
66.7
66.7
77.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
72.4
72.4
72.4
72.4
72.4
72.4
72.4
7.6
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
68.7
68.6
68.5
68.. 5
68.4
68.4
68.4
PARAMETER 1, BTU/HR.SQ FT.F
1.0091
1.0523
1.0937
1.1338
1.1730
1.2111
1.2497
PARAMETER 3, DIMENSIONLESS
0.0168
0.0142
0.0124
0.0109
0.0098
0.0089
0.0081

A.U.S.T, DEG. F
calculation procedure since reasonable agreement is found with rated heating

panels.
The design heat loss calculated here (HLC) is about 4% below the ASHRAE
standard design heat loss calculation (HLD).
This is attributed to the higher
wall, floor, and ceiling temperatures experienced in the radiant system than
in the forced air systems.
For the radiant case the AUST remained at about 68
to 69 F and in the forced air system it ranged between 60 to 62 F, causing

additional heat loss through the surfaces. The room air temperature for comfort conditions in the radiant cases (about 67 F) is 10 F less than in the
forced air case which reduces infiltration loss. However, this reduction in
infiltration loss does not overcome the increased loss due to higher surface
temperatures.
Comparison with the forced air case shows about 3% more loss in
the radiant situation. This result is not significant in light of the many
assumptions made in both cases.
It should be noted in Table 13 that higher floor temperatures are present
in the radiant case than in the forced air case. This is significant since it
illustrates that the radiant systems heat surfaces which in turn heat the
occupants and the air while forced air systems heat the air which then heats
the occupants and the surfaces. Also, keep in mind that comfort conditions
were satisfied at the center location for a seated person and that due to
radiant temperature asymmetry discomfort could be experienced at the higher
panel temperatures. Normally, the higher panel temperatures would be used in
rooms with higher ceilings.
The values for floor temperature, room air temperature, mean radiant temperature, operative temperature, effective radient field and AUST remain relatively constant as the panel temperature increases.
Parameter 1 and Parameter
3 were calculated just to observe their behavior in the radiant types of systems.
Parameter 1 is a "pseudo" overall heat transfer coefficient (defined by
-71-
475
i
I
175
120
130
140
panel
FIGURE 19.
150
temperature
160
Cdeg.
170
f)
REQUIRED HEATING PANEL AREA AS A FUNCTION OF PANEL TEMPERATURE
180
p^ m^ w^ m
r-^
TABLE 14. EFFECTS OF PANEL EMISSIVITY WITH PANEL
PANEL EMISSIVITY
= 140F
0.88
0.90
0.92
0.94
316.8
301.9
288.3
275.8
26762.4
26762.4
26762.4
26762.4
23628.0
23684.5
23735.9
23782.9
-11.7
-11.5
-11.3
-11.1
25654.1
25728.6
25796.5
25858.4
-4.1
-3.9
-3.6
, -3.4
25654.1
25728.6
25796.5
25858.4
-4.1
-3.9
-3.6
-3.4
24203.7
24342.1
24468.7
24585.0
-9.6
-9.0
-8.6
-8.1
95.1
95.3
95.6
95.8
35.2
33.5
32.0
30.6
76.4
80.6
84.9
89.1
74.3
74.5
74.7
74.9
66.6
66.7
66.9
67.0
77.1
77.0
76.8
76.6
72.5
72.4
72.4
72.4
7.7
7.5
7.?
7.0
68.3
68.5
68.7
68.8
1.0392
1.0990
1.1590
1.2194
0.0117
0.0124
0.0131
0.0138
PANEL AREA REQUIRED ,' SQ FT
PERCENTAGE D1FFERENCE 2

A.U.S.T, DEG. F
Eqn. 28) and Parameter 3 is a dimensionless factor related to the radiant

exchange process (defined by Eqn. 29). There does not appear to be any significant trends to either of these parameters.
Figure 19, shows the expected nonlinearity of the required panel area as a
function of panel temperature for the radiant base case given in Table 13.
Table 14 shows a comparison for the different assumptions concerning the
radiant panel emissivity.
The emissivity was varied between 0.88 and 0.94 for
a panel temperature of 140 F.
This resulted in significant changes in
required radiant panel area (a 13% drop in area as emissivity changed from
0.88 to 0.94).
This variation in emissivity also affected the heat output per
unit area and parameters 1 and 3.
Some of the other quantities showed only
slight changes as the emissivity was varied. Manufacturers indicate that a

panel emissivity of 0.9 is typical over the life of the radiant panel.
In Table 15, the emissivities of the walls, floor and ceiling were varied
between 0.8 and 0.95 for a situation when the panel temperature was at 140 F.
This caused the required panel area to increase by only 3%. The only other
variable to change significantly with this change in surface emissivity was
the floor temperature which went from 72 to 76 F as emissivity went from 0.8
to 0.95.
For the remainder of the calculations, a value of 0.9 for the sur-
face emissivities has been used and the calculations do not appear to be sensitive to changes in the surface emissivity.
Tables 16, 17 and 18 show the effects obtained when the convection
coefficient for the radiant panel is changed by a factor of 2, 5 and 10
respectively.
This calculation was carried out since there is a great deal of
uncertainty concerning the value of the convection coefficient from surfaces

when there is a large delta T such as exists in the radiant panel case. Min
(18) has made this point in his work and indicated that it is a difficult
parameter to evaluate because of geometrical considerations.
-74-
15.
EFFECTS OF WALL, FLOOR AND CEILING
VITY WITH PANEL TEMPERATURE = 140F
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
295.8
299.3
302.2
304.8
26762.4
26762.4
26762.4
26762.4
23700.0
23671.8
23671.1
23678.1
-11.4
-11.5
-11.6
-11.5
26303.1
25984.5
25650.1
25317.7
-1.7
-2.9
-4.2
-5.4
26303.1
25984.5
25650.1
25317.7
-1.7
-2.9
-4.2
-5.4
25015.2
24645.2
24263.4
23882.0
-6.5
-7.9
-9.3
-10.8
95.6
95.4
95.3
95.2
32.9
33.3
33.6
33.9
84.6
82.3
80.3
78.4
71.9
73.4
74.8
76.0
66.8
66.7
66.7
66.7
76.9
77.0
77.0
77.0
72.4
72.4
72.4
72.4
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.5
69.2
68.9
68.5
68.1
1.1531
1.1218
1.0937
1.0677
0.0131
0.0127
0.0124
0.0120
WALL EMISSIVITY

A.U.S.T, DEG. F
TABLE 16. EFFECTS OF CHANGING PANEL CONVECTION
CIENT BY A FACTOR OF TWO
PANEL TEMPERATURE, D E C F
120.0
130.0
140.0
150.0
160.0
170.0
180.0
418.7
343.1
288.2
246.8
214.4
188.9
167.7
26762.4
26762.4
26762.4
26762.4
26762.4
26762.4
26762.4
23827.2
23833.8
23839.8
23841.5
23841.7
23841.0
23839.6
-11.0
-10.9
-10.9
-10.9
-10.9
-10.9
-10.9
25637.2
25626.9
25620.5
25618.8
25618.5
25618.9
25619.5
4.3
-4.3
-4.3
-4.3
fc
-4.2
-4.2
-4.3
25637.2
25626.9
25620.5
25618.8
25618.5
25618.9
25619.5
-4.2
-4.2
-4.3
-4.3
-4.3
-4.3
-4.3
23719.9
24053.3
24297.1
24484.9
24632.8
24749.8
24847.8
-11.4
-10.1
-9.2
-8.5
-8.0
-7.5
-7.2
91.2
91.1
91.1
91.2
91.2
91.2
91.3
46.5
38.1
32.0
27.4
23.8
21.0
18.6
HEAT OUTPUT PER UNI.T PANEL AREA, BTU/HR.SQ FT
56.7
70.1
84.3
99.2
114.9
131.0
148.2
74.1
74.3
74.4
74.4
74.5
74.5
74.5
67.1
67.1
67.1
67.1
67.1
67.1
67.1
76.5
76.4
76.4
76.4
76.4
76.4
76.4
72.3
72.3
72.3
72.3
72.3
72.3
72.3
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
68.5
68.4
68.3
68.2
68.2
68.2
68.2
1.0691
1.1133
1.1554
1.1961
1.2360
1.2747
1.3140
0.0177
0.0150
0.0130
0.0115
0.0103
0.0093
0.0085


A.U.S.T, DEG. F
TABLE 17. EFFECTS OF CHANGING PANEL
PANEL TEMPERATURE, DEC F

COEFFICIENTS BY A FACTOR OF FIVE
120.0
130.0
10.0
150.0
160.0
170.0
180.0
166.9
148.2
369.9
302.9
254.4
217.8
189.8
26762.4
26762.4
26762.4
26762.4
26762.4
26762.4 26762.4
24233.1
24236.0 24237.1
24236.6
24235.0
24232.3
24228.7
-9.5
-9.4
-9.4
-9.4
-9.4
-9.5
-9.5
25563.7
25561.6
25561.6
25562.5
25563.5
25564.7
25565.9
-4.5
-4.5
-4.5
-4.5
-4.5
-4.5
-4.5
25563.7
25561.6
25561.6
25562.5
25563.5
25564.7
25565.9
-4.5
-4.5
-4.5
-4.5
-4.5
-4.5
-4.5
23866.9
24170.0
24391.8
24560.1
24689.6
24795.9
24882.9
-10.8
-9.7
-8.9
-8.2
-7.7
-7.3
-7.0
81.1
80.9
80.9
80.9
80.9
81.0
81.0
41.1
33.7
28.3
24.2
21.1
18.5
16.5
64.5
79.8
95.9
112.7
130.1
148.6
167.9
73.3
73.4
73.5
73.5
73.6
73.6
73.6
68.2
68.2
68.2
68.2
68.2
68.2
68.2
75.1
75.1
75.1
75.1
75.1
75.1
75.1
72.0
72.0
72.0
72.0
72.0
72.0
72.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
67.8
67.8
67.7
67.7
67.7
67.7
67.7
1.2433
1.2893
1.3337
1.3768
1.4185
1.4606
1.5024
0.0204
0.0172
0.0149
0.0132
0.0118
0.0107
0.0097


A.U.S.T, DEG. F
TABLE 18. EFFECTS OF CHANGING PANEL CONVECTION
CIENTS BY A FACTOR OF TEN
PANEL TEMPERATURE, DEC F
120.0
130.0
140.0
150.0
160.0
170.0
180.0
313.6
256.0
214.7
184.1
159.9
140.6
124.9
26762.4 26762.4
26762.4 26762.4
26762.4
26762.4
26762.4
24671.3
24678.6
24682.8
24684.4
24683.9
24681.6
24677.9
-7.8
-7.8
-7.8
-7.8
-7.8
-7.8
-7.8
25513.7
25514.2
25515.2
25516.3
25517.4
25518.5
25519.6
-4.7
-4.7
-4.7
' -4.7
-4.7
-4.6
-4.6
25513.7
25514.2
25515.2
25516.3
25517.4
25518.5
25519,6
-4.7
-4.7
-4.7
-4.7
-4.7
-4.6
-4.6
24071.3
24335.3
24525.9
24667.2
24779.7
24869.6
24943.0
-10.1
-9.1
-8.4
-7.8
-7.4
-7.1
-6.8
69.1
68.8
68.6
68.5
68.4
68.5
68.6
34.8
28.4
23.9
20,5
17.8
15.6
13.9
76.8
95.0
114.2
134.0
154.9
176.8
199.6
FLOOR TEMPERATURE, DEC F
72.4
72.4
72.5
72.5
72.5
72.5
72.5
ROOM AIR TEMPERATURE, DEC F
69.4
69.4
69.4
69.4
69.4
69.4
69.4
MEAN RADIANT TEMPERATURE, DEC F
73.5
73.5
73.5
73.5
73.5
73.5
73.5
OPERATIVE TEMPERATURE, DEC F
71.7
71.7
71.7
71.7
71.7
71.7
71.7
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
67.3
67.2
67.2
67.2
67.2
67.2
67.2
1.5134
1.5657
1.6161
1.6642
1.7122
1.7596
1.8065
0.0246
0.0208
0.0180
0.0159
0.0142
0.0128
0.0117

A.U.S.T, DEC F
By increasing the panel convection coefficient by 100% (Table 16), the

area required for heating the space is reduced by 4.5% for a 150 F panel temperature.
By increasing the convection coefficient by 500% (Table 17) the
area is reduced by 15.8%.
Therefore, it is not a significant variation if the
convection coefficient is known within a factor of two. It is interesting to

note that the percent difference in design heat losses remains about the same
(-4%) for all of these cases.
Some of the other parameters change slightly
with significant changes in panel convection coefficient.
The percent radia-
tion delivered by the panels does change as the convection coefficient is

increased and this variation is illustrated in Figure 20.
5.5.2 - Effect Due to Infiltration for Radiant Panel Systems. Different
values of infiltration rates (0.5 to 4.0 air changes per hour) were assumed
for the base case configuration and these results are given in Tables 19, 20
and 21 for 130, 150, and 170 F panel surface temperatures respectively.
As seen in these tables the ASHRAE standard design heat loss (HID)
overpredicts the calculated design heat loss (HLC) by up to 16% for an
infiltration rate of 4 air changes per hour.
If this were compared to a
forced air system with an air temperature gradient, approximately one percent
more loss would be added to this number (See Section 5.4) so that there might
be a difference of approximately 17%. The percent difference in the design
loads as a function of infiltration is shown in Figure 21.
As the infiltration rate increases, the floor temperature, mean radiant
temperature, operative temperature, effective radiant flux and AUST increase
significantly, while the room air temperature and parameters 1 and 3 decrease
significantly.
These changes need to be considered in the design process for
radiant panel systems.
5.5.3 - Effect of Glass Distribution.
Different combinations and quantities
-79-
100
C
0
90 -
+>
.o
-I
n
a
ex.
I
00
o
i
QI
80
70
o
c
+J
QI
U
L
a
a.
60
Convection multiplier
FIGURE 20. EFFECTS ON PERCENT RADIATION DELIVERED BY THE PANEL AS THE CONVECTION MULTIPLIER IS CHANGED
TABLE 19. EFFECTS DUE TO CHANGING AIR INFILTRATION RATES FOR A PANEL TEMPERATURE OF 130F
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.50
2.00
3.00
4.00
358.7
394.4
429.6
498.1
564.0
687.6
799.6
26762.1
29386.8
32011.2
37260.0
42508.8
53006.4
63504.0
23696.6
25636.3
27497.4
31060.9
34419.8
40625.3
46304.3
-11.5
-12.8
-14.1
-16.6
-19.0
-23.4
-27.1
25815.7
28174.2
30481.1
34889.7
39056.3
46706.8
53552.2
-3.5
-4.1
-6.4
-8.1
-11.9
-15.7
25815.7
28174.2
30481.1 34889.7
39056.3
46706.8
53552.2
-3.5
-4.1
-4.8
-6.4
-8.1
-11.9
-15,7
24167.9
26364.7
28501.6
32575.4
36417.1
43453.4
49742.5
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 4.
-9.7
-10.3
-11.0
-12.6
-14.3
-18.0
-21.7
95.4
95.2
95.1
94.9
94.6
94.2
93.8
39.9
43.8
47.7
55.3
62.7
76.4
88.8
67.4
66.9
66.3
65.4
64.6
63.2
62.2
74.1
74.9
75.6
76.9
78.1
80.1
81.5
66.8
65.8
64.8
63.0
61.3
58.2
55.5
76.9
78.1
79.3
81.6
83.7
87.4
90.5
72.4
72.7
72.9
73.4
73.8
74.5
75.0
7.4
9.0
10.6
13.6
16.4
21.4
25.7
68.6
69.1
69.7
70.8
71.8
73.7
75.4
1.0638
1.0400
1.0167
0.9751
0.9385
0.8788
0.8340
0.0144
0.0142
0.0139
0.0136
0.0133
0.0128
0.0125
INFILTRATION AIR, AC/H


A.U.S.T, DEG. F
-4.8 t
TABLE 20. EFFECTS DUE TO CHANGING AIR INFILTRATION RATES FOR A PANEL TEMPERATURE OF 150F
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.50
2.00
3.00
4.00
259.2
284.4
308.4
356.5
402.7
489.1
567.7
26762.4
29386.8
32011.2
37260.0
42508.8
53006.4
63504.0
23697.8
25644.9
27505.0
31072.9
34435.0
40640.1
46297.4
-11.5
-12.7
-14.1
-16.6
-19.0
-23.3
-27.1
25813.3
28172.3
30483.2
34894.7
39064.9
46715.0
53550.0
-3.5
-4.1
-4.8
-6.3
-8.1
-11.9
-15.7
25813.3
28172.3
30483.2
34894.7
39064.9
46715.0
53550.0
-3.5
-4.1
-4.8
-6.3
-8.1
-11.9
-15.7
24621.4
26865.6
29058.7
33233.2
37173.2
44388.4
50826.4
-8.0
-8.6
-9.2
-10.8
-12.6
-16.3
-20.0
95.4
95.3
95.2
95.0
94.8
94.5
94.2
28.8
31.6
34.3
39.6
44.7
54.3
63.1
95.0
94.5
94.2
93.2
92.3
90.8
89.5
74.2
74.9
75.7
77.1
78.4
80.7
82.6
66.8
65.8
64.9
63.0
61.3
58.2
55.5
76.9
78.1
79.3
81.5
83.6
87.4
90.5
72.4
72.7
72.9
73.4
73.8
74.5
75.1
7.4
8.9
10.5
13.5
16.3
21.4
25.7
68.5
69.0
69.5
70.5
71.5
73.2
74.6
PARAMETER 1, BTU/HR. SQ FT..F
1.1425
1.1236
1.1053
1.0708
1.0398
0.9875
0.9464
PARAMETER 3; DIMENSIONLESS
0.0110
0.0109
0.0108
0.0105
0.0103
0.0100
0.0097

A.U.S.T, DEG. F
TABLE 21. EFFECTS DUE TO CHANGING AIR INFILTRATION RATES FOR A PANEL TEMPERATURE AT 170F
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.50
2.00
3.00
4.00
198.0
217.0
235.8
272.0
305.9
370.5
429.0
26762.4
29386.8
32011.2
37260.0
42508.8
53006.4
63504.0
23696.5
25647.3
27507.8
31079.0
34445.2
40658.5
46319.8
-11.5
-12.7
-14.1
-16.6
-19.0
-23.3
-27.1
25813.7
28173.3
30485.6
34899.1
39072.5
46729.8
53570.1
-3.5
-4.1
-6.3
-8.1
-11.8
-15.6
25813.7
28173.3
30485.6 34899.1
39072.5
46729.8
53570.1
-3.5
-4.1
-4.8
-6.3
-8.1
-11.8
-15.6
24902.2
27175.0
29395.0
33629.3
37632.1
44961.2
51501.8
-7.0
-7.5
-8.2
-9.7
-11.5
-15.2
-18.9
95.4
95.3
95.3
95.1
95.0
94.7
94.5
22.0
24.1
26.2
30.2
34.0
41.2
47.7
125.7
125.2
124.6
123.7
123.0
121.4
120.1
74.2
75.0
75.7
77.2
78.5
80.9
82.9
66.8
65.8
64.9
63.1
61.3
58.2
55.5
76.9
78.1
79.3
81.5
83.6
87.3
,90.5
72.4
72.7
72.9
73.4
73.8
74.5
75.0
7.4
8.9
10.5
13.5
16.3
21.4
25.7
68.5
68.9
69.4
70.4
71.4
73.0
74.3
1.2189
1.2031
1.1868
1.1572
1.1312
1.0850
1.0478
0.0090
0.0089
0.0088
0.0086
0.0085
0.0082
0.0080


A.U.S.T, DEG. F
-4t8 ,
0}
01
U
c.
0)
L
at
I
00
07
a
+
ai
-12
-IS
L
<J
Q.
-18
infiltration
FIGURE 2 1 .
Cach)
EFFECT OF A I R I N F I L T R A T I O N I N PANEL HEATING ON PERCENT DIFFERENCE I N DESIGN LOAD CALCULATIONS
wm
r x -3 r5
TABLE 2 2 .
' -*
r^
EFFECTS OF CHANGES IN GLASS DISTRIBUTION - PANEL TEMPERATURE = 140F
249.0
302.2
359.3
410.9
466.5
22096.8
26762.4
31428.0
36093.6
40759.2
19744.9
23671.1
27407.1
31189.3
34757.8
-10.6
-11.6
-12.8
-13.6
-14.7
21110.2
25650.1
30469.1
34945.1
39796.1
-4.5
-4.2
-3.1
-3.2
-2.4
21110.2
25650.1
30469.1
34945.1
39796.1
-4.5
-4.2
-3.T
. -3.2
-2.4
19954.8
24263.4
28839.3
33107.3
37737.7
-9.7
-9.3
-8.2
-8.3
-7.4
95.4
95.3
95.2
95.2
95.2
27.7
33.6
39.9
45.7
51.8
80.1
80.3
80.3
80.6
80.9
73.8
74.8
75.8
76.6
77.4
67.3
66.7
65.8
65.2
64.4
76.2
77.0
78.1
78.8
79.9
72.3
72.4
72.7
72.8
73.0
6.4
7.5
9.0
10.0
11.3
69.4
68.5
67.8
66.8
66.0
1.1013
1.0937
1.0803
1.0761
1.0687
PARAMETER
0.0126
0.0124
0.0121
0.0119
0.0117
GLASS DISTRIBUTION CASE NUMBER


A.U.S.T, DEG. F
Case
Case
Case
Case
Case
3,.DIMENSIONLESS
number
number
number
number
number
T:
2:
3:
4:
5:
No glass In any wall

One w a l l , h a l f glass
One w a l l , a l l glass
One w a l l , a l l glass-second w a l l , h a l f glass
Two w a l l s , a l l glass
of glass have been considered in the radiant base case which was previously
described.
The results from these calculations are given in Table 22 for a
panel temperature of 140 F.
The radiant base case is shown as Case 2 in Table
22 and a room with no glass is given as Case 1.
Case 3 is one wall which is
all glass, Case 4 is one wall with all glass and half of another wall with
glass, and Case 5 is the room with two walls all glass. As anticipated, as
the quantity of glass increases the panel area increases. Also, as can be
seen in Table 22, the difference between HID and HLC becomes smaller as the
quantity of glass in the room increases with only a -2% difference showing up
in Case 5.
Since the panel area increases in order to make up for increased
heat losses as the quantity of glass is increased, the floor temperature also
rises.
This in turn causes the room air temperature for comfort to be reduced
from 67 to 64 F.
In Figure 22, the required panel area is plotted for each
case shown in Table 22.

plotted.
Likewise, in Figure 23 the floor temperature is
It is interesting to note that an 87% increase in panel area in the
room results in a only a 3.6 F increase in floor temperature.

5.5.4 - Changes in Wall. Floor and Ceiling U-Factors.
The U-Factors in the
radiant base case were changed and various calculations were made to determine
this effect on the design heat loss.
The wall U-factors were changed from 0.1
to 0.2 Btu/hr ft 2 F and the floor and ceiling values from 0.07 to 0.1 Btu/hr
ft2 F.
The U-factor for the glass was changed from 0.58 to 1.0 Btu/hr ft2 F.
All of these were changed at one time so that an initial and a new case were
compared at three panel temperatures of 130, 150 and 170 F.
These results are
given in Table 23. The variation is very much as expected in that with
increased U-factors there is an increased heat loss and greater panel area
required.
This results in an increased floor temperature and MRT and a
decreased air temperature and AUST.
In each case, the difference between HID
and HLC has been reduced by about one-half so that the ASHRAE standard design
-86-
mî r*
e^^
ss-s-.i-'a
ey
a
en
I
oo
UJ
4
CASE NUMBER
FIGURE 22. PANEL AREA REQUIRED AS A FUNCTION OF THE QUANTITY OF GLASS
80.0 -r
79.0 78.0 O
77.0 -
UJ
76.0 -
111
Q
a:
75.0 I
00
oo
I
UJ
Q.
74.0 -.
cc
o
o
73.0 72.0 71.0 70.0 -

1
T"
T"
CASE NUMBER
FIGURE 23. FLOOR TEMPERATURE AS A FUNCTION OF THE QUANTITY OF GLASS
- . - - *
''
>:: s
t<
'.V!
TABLE 23. EFFECTS OF INCREASED U-FACTORS ON RADIANT HEATING PANEL PERFORMANCE

U-FACTOR CASE
OLD
NEW
OLD
NEW
OLD
NEW
590.0
590.0
610.0
610.0
630.0
630.0
359.7
546.3
258.7
397.3
197.9
305.3
26762.4
41536.8
26762.4
41536.8
26762.4
41536.8
23667.7
35605.8
23674.1
35622.0
23678.0
35611.4
-11.6
-14.3
-11.5
-14.2
-11.5
-14.3
25654.4
40542.8
25647.6
40403.9
25645.2
40374.7
-4.1
-2.4
-4.2
-2.7
-4.2
-2.8
25654.4
40542.8
25647.6
40403.9
25645.2
40374.7
-4.1
-2.4
-4.2
" -2.7
-4.2
-2.8
24005.8
37107.6
24459.6
37890.3
24735.2
38435.0
-10.3
-10.7
-8.6
-8.8
-7.6
-7.5
95.3
95.2
95.3
95.2
95.4
95.3
40.0
60.7
28.7
44.1
22.0
33.9
66.7
67.9
94.6
95.4
125.0
125.9
74.7
75.6
74.8
76.4
74.9
76.7
66.7
64.7
66.7
64.7
66.7
64.7
77.0
79.5
77.0
79.4
77.0
79.5
72.4
72.9
72.4
72.9
72.4
72.9
7.5
10.8
7.5
10.7
7.5
10.8
68.6
66.3
68.5
65.9
68.4
65.7
1.0523
1.0390
1.1338
1.1176
1.2111
1.1947
0.0142
0.0136
0.0109
0.0105
0.0089
0.0086
PANEL TEMPERATURE, D E C
i
00
I

EFFECTIVE RADIANT FIELD, BTU/HR. S Q F T

A.U.S.T, DEG. F
SURFACE
INITIAL U
NEW
U
WALL 1
0.34
0.60
WALL 2
0.1
0.2
WALL 3
0.1
0.2
WALL 4
0.1
0.2
FLOOR
0.07
0.10
CEILING
0.07
0.10
TABLE 24. EFFECTS OF CHANGES IN ROOM LENGTH AND WIDTH WITH A 140F PANEL TEMPERATURE
ROOM LENGTH*WIDTH, FT*FT
20*20
30*30
40*40
40*20
30*15
162.6
302.2
468.9
300.9
197.2
14659.2
26762.4
42048.0
26726.4
17658.0
12901.9
23671..1
36820.0
23579.7
15571.1
-12.0
-11.6
-12.4
-11.8
-11.8
14121.6
25650.1
39711.4
25826.0
17178.8
-3.7
-4.2
-5.6
' -3.4
-2.7
14121.6
25650.1
39711.4
25826.0
17178.8
-3.7
-4.2
-5.6
-3.4
-2.7
13384.0
24263.4
37571.6
24454.1
16284.6
-8.7
-9.3
-10.6
-8.5
-7.8
94.9
95.3
95.6
95.2
94.9
40.7
33.6
29.3
37.6
43.8
HEAT OUTPUT PER UNIT PANEL AREA, BTU/HR.SQ
82.3
80.3
80.1
81.3
82.6
73.7
74.8
74.0
74.6
74.3
66.4
66.7
66.0
66.5
66.5
77.4
77.0
77.8
77.2
77.2
72.5
72.4
72.6
72.5
72.5
8.1
7.5
8.6
7.8
7.9
67.9
68.5
68.0
68.0
67.8
1.1191
1.0937
1.0822
1.1047
1.1217
PARAMETER 3, DI MENS I ONLESS
0.0126
0.0124
0.0122
0.0124
0.0126

A.U.S.T, DEG. F
procedure more closely predicts the required heat input.

5.5.5 - Effect of Changes in Room Length and Width.
In Table 24, are the
results for five different size rooms: 20 ft. x 20 ft., 30 ft. x 30 ft., 40
ft. x 40 ft., 40 ft. x 20 ft., and 30 ft. x 15 ft. all 9 ft. high. The important thing to notice about these results is that as the room size increases
the ASHRAE standard design load procedure tends to increasingly over predict
the required heater size. This tendency is not great (3.7% for 20 x 20 and
5.6% for 40 x 40), but it is an important trend.
Also illustrated here is the fact that a square room or building will tend
to be over sized if the ASHRAE standard design load is used.
results for four square buildings are tabulated.
In Table 25,
Again, as the building
becomes larger the ASHRAE standard design procedure (HLD) tends to oversize
(6% for a 10,000 sq. ft. building ) the radiant heating system.
5.5.6 - Changes in Room Height. The radiant base case room was modified to
have a ceiling height between eight and twenty five feet. The results from
these calculations are presented in Table 26. There are two important trends
to observe from these results.
First, as the height is increased, more panel
area is required to counteract the increased room heat loss and because of
changing room geometry, more of the walls intercept the radiant energy thus
increasing the AUST.
This in turn causes the second trend to occur in that
the difference between HLD and HLC decreases because of more heat conduction
through the walls. This decrease in the difference between HLD and HLC as
room height is increased is illustrated by the plot shown in Figure 24.
5.5.7 - Changes in Outside Design Temperature.
In order to see what effect
outside design temperature had on the design load calculation; five other
outside design temperatures were used and these results are given in Table 27.
There is a slight tendency for the percent difference between HLD and HLC to
increase with milder climates (-3.6% at -5 F to -5.3% at 15 F) . This does not
-91-
TABLE 25. EFFECTS OF CHANGING ROOM SIZE WITH A 140F PANEL TEMPERATURE
ROOM LENGTH*WIDTH, FT*FT
20*20
30*30
40*40
100*100
162.6
302.2
468.9
2285.8
14659.2 26762.4 42048.0 200952.0
12901.9
23671.1
-12.0
-11.6
14121.6
25650.1
-3.7
-4.2
14121.6 25650.1
-3.7
-4.2
13384.0 24263.4
36820.0 176195.8
-12.4
-12.2
39711.4 188495.6
-5.6
-6.0
39711.4 188495.6
-5.6
" -6.0
37571.6 177908.1
-8.7
-9.3
-10.6
-11.3
94.9
95.3
95.6
96.4
40.7
33.6
29.3
22.9
HEAT OUTPUT PER UNIT PANEL AREA, BTU/HR
82.3
80.3
80.1
77.8
73.7
74.8
74.0
73.7
66.4
66.7
66.0
66.2
77.4
77.0
77.8
77.6
72.5
72.4
72.6
72.5
8.1
7.5
8.6
8.3
67.9
68.5
68.0
69.0
1.1191
1.0937
1.0822
1.0566
0.0126
0.0124
0.0122
0.0120

A.U.S.T, DEG. F
TABLE 26. EFFECTS OF CHANGING ROOM HEIGHT WITH A
ROOM HEIGHT, FT
F PANEL TEMPERATURE
8.0
9.0
10.0
12.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
274.2
301.9
323.6
367.8
432.0
556.1
677.8
24796.8
26762.4
28728.0
32659.2
38556.0
48384.0
58212.0
21765.7
23684.5
25332.6
28675.0
33584.5
42498.0
51235.5
-12.2
-11.5
-11.8
-12.2
-12.9
-12.2
-12.0
23528.2
25728.6
27642.7
31529.6
37271.5
47707.2
57951.5
-5.1
-3.9
-3.8
, -3.5
-3.3
-1.4
-0.4
23528.2
25728.6
27642.7
31529.6
37271.5
47707.2
57951.5
-5.1
-3.9
-3.8
-3.5
-3.3
-1.4
-0.4
22280.8
24342.1
26159.7
29847.7
35307.3
45149.8
54824.8
-10.1
-9.0
-8.9
-8.6
-8.4
-6.7
-5.8
95.3
95.3
95.3
95.3
95.3
95.3
95.3
30.5
33.5
36.0
40.9
48.0
61.8
75.3
81.2
80.6
80.8
81.1
81.7
81.2
80.9
FLOOR TEMPERATURE, DEC. F
73.5
74.5
74.6
74.7
74.4
74.8
74.6
66.2
66.7
66.5
66.2
65.7
66.2
66.4
77.6
77.0
77.2
77.6
78.2
77.6
77.4
72.6
72.4
72.5
72.6
72.7
72.5
72.5
8.3
7.5
7.9
8.3
9.1
8.3
8.1
67.7
68.5
68.6
68.7
68.8
70.1
70.8
1.0995
1.0990
1.0983
1.0983
1.0989
1.0994
1.0971
0.0123
0.0124
0.0124
0.0124
0.0124
0.0126
0.0127

A.U.S.T, DEG. F
63000
58000 A = HLD - ASHRAE Design Heat Loss
53000
L
H
0 = HLC - Conduction Design Heat Loss

48000 -
+J
CD
43000 -
HJ
o
a
x
38000
33000 h
28000
23000
10
Room height
FIGURE 24.
20
15
(ft)
EFFECT OF ROOM HEIGHT CHANGE ON DESIGN HEAT LOSS FOR RADIANT PANELS
25
TABLE 27. EFFECTS DUE TO OUTSIDE DESIGN TEMPERATURE CHANGES WITH A 130F PANEL TEMPERATURE
OUTSIDE DESIGN TEMPERATURE, D E C F
-5.0
0.0
3.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
399.0
374.5
359.7
349.7
324.8
299.5
29736.0
27877.5
26762.4 26019.0 24160.5
22302.0
26437.8
24706.4 23667.7 22975.2
^
-11.1
-11.4
28675.7 26787.3
-3.6
-3.9
28675.7 26787.3
-3.6
26634.3
21243.8
19512.3
-12.1
-12.5
25654.4 24899.4 23012.1
21125.4
-11.6
-11.7
-4.8
-5.3
25654.4 24899.4 23012.1
21125.4
-4.1
-4.3
-4.1
-4.3
-4.8
-5.3
24996.0 24005.8
23343.1
21675.5
19992.8
-3.9
-10.4
-10.3
-10.3
-10.3
-10.3
-10.4
95.3
95.3
95.3
95.3
95.3
95.4
44.3
41.6
40.0
38.9
36.1
33.3
66.8
66.7
66.7
66.7
66.7
66.7
75.0
74.8
74.7
74.6
74.4
74.1
66.1
66.5
66.7
66.8
67.2
67.5
77.7
77.3
77.0
76.8
76.4
76.0
72.6
72.5
72.4
72.4
72.3
72.2
8.5
7.9
7.5
7.3
6.8
6.2
68.4
68.5
68.6
68.7
68.8
69.0
1.0437
1.0491
1.0523
1.054.6
1.0604
1.0663
0.0141
0.0142
0.0142
0.0143
0.0144
0.0145

A.U.S.T, DEG. F
appear to be a significant trend, and is apparently due to reduced

infiltration and conduction losses at the higher outside temperatures.
5.5.8 - Changes in Number of Panels. All of the calculations presented to
this point have been for a single panel located in the center of the space or
room at ceiling height.
The radiant base case was used again except that 2,4,
and 6 equal area panels were used for supplying the radiant heat to the room.
This was done to determine what effect panel distribution has on the design
heating load.
The results from these calculations are given in Table 28. The
panel area required and difference in design heating loads did not change significantly. It is interesting to note that the floor temperature did drop by 1
F in going from one to six panels and the AUST increased by a slight (less
than 1 F) amount. This is due to the walls intercepting more of the radiant
energy in the 6 panel case than in the single panel case due to changing angle
factors.
5.5.9 - Perimeter Panel System.
Several cases were run with a perimeter (nar-
row panel running parallel to the outside wall) radiant panel system and these
results are given in Table 29. These cases are for a 15' x 15' x 8' room with
three inside walls and one outside wall with half glass. The U-factor for the
floor and ceiling were the same as the radiant base case. The radiant panel
was 36"wide and ran parallel to the outside wall with the window.
There is no
apparent difference between HID and HLC as far as the design loads are concerned.
This is apparently due to the proximity of the radiant heating sur-
face to the cold surface or wall resulting in higher convective losses. This
is only about 4% different than the results shown in Table 13 for the single
panel radiant base case. This is not a significant trend considering all of
the unknown variables that can enter into consideration in the actual case.
The other variables in Tables 13 and 29 are quite similar so that this special
type of application of panels does not alter the conclusions from the single
-96-
sg
gp:"^ p
' ^ p.-"-v>a
f-
CHANGES AS A RESULT OF THE NUMBER OF RADIANT HE
NUMBER OF PANELS
NG PANELS FOR A 1 4 0 F PANEL TEMPERATURE
302.2
301.7
301.8
301.8
26762.4
26762.4
26762.4
26762.4
23671.1
23665.6
23681.8
23682.3
-11.6
-11.6
-11.5
-11.5
25650.1
25649.0
25840.6
25850.1
-4.2
-4.2
-3.4
-3.4
25650.1
25649.0
25840.6
25850.1
-4.2
-4.2
-3.4
-3.4
24263.4
24263.6
24450.4
24460.0
-9.3
-9.3
-8.6
-8.6
95.3
95.3
95.4
95.4
33.6
33.5
33.5
33.5
80.3
80.4
81.0
81.1
74.8
74.2
73.6
73.4
66.7
66.7
66.7
66.7
77.0
77.0
77.0
77.0
72.4
72.4
72.4
72.4
7.5
7.6
7.5
7.5
68.5
68.7
68.8
68.8
1.0937
1.0954
1.1068
1.1075
0.0124
0.0124
0.0126
0.0126
. HEAT OUTPUT PER UNIT PANEL AREA, BtU/HR.SQ FT

A.U.S.T, DEG. F
TABLE 29. RESULTS FOR A PERIMETER RADIANT PANEL HEATING SYSTEM - 15' x 15' x 8' ROOM WITH THREE
INSIDE WALLS AND ONE OUTSIDE WALL WITH HALF GLASS - 36" WIDE PANEL - FLOOR AND CEILING
AT RADIANT BASE CASE CONDITIONS
175.0
180.0
185.0
45.0
42.5
40.2
6397.9
6397.9
6397.9
5770.2
5769.3
5768.5
-9.8
-9.8
-9.8
6381.1
6390.0
6397.3
r0.3
-0.1
0.0
6381.1
6390.0
6397.3
-0.3
-0.1
0.0
6171.7
6192.3
6210.1
-3.5
-3.2
-2.9
94.8
94.8
94.8
20.0
18.9
17.9
137.2
145.7
' 154.4
71.2
71.3
71.4
67.9
67.9
67.9
75.4
75.4
75.4
72.1
72.1
72.1
5.4
5.5
5.5
69.5
69.5
69.5
1.2808
t.2993
1.3176
0.0089
0.0085
0.0081
PERIMETER HEATER TEMPERATURE, D E C F


A.U.S.T, DEG. F
panel calculations.
5.6
Comparison of Forced Air and Radiant Ceiling Panels.

Several of the situations from forced air and radiant ceiling panel sys-
tems were compared and these are shown in Figures 25 and 26. Figure 25 shows
radiant ceiling panels at 120 F (rad-120) and at 180 F (rad-180) compared with
forced air heating systems with an air temperature gradient of 0.75 F/ft
(con-0.75) and a gradient of 1.5 F/ft (con-1.50).
From this figure it appears
that the increased infiltration heat loss, including an air temperature gradient in the forced air cases, is not enough to overcome the effect of an
increased AUST in the radiant case (Bar-Conduction 2 in Figure 25).
Keep in
mind that these results are fo'r a nine feet high room and one-half air change
per hour.
In Figure 26, two different room heights are compared for forced air and
radiant heating systems. The con-8 case is for an 8 feet high ceiling
forced air system and rad-8 is for an 8 feet high ceiling radiant system. The
con-25 and rad-25 are for the same variables except that the ceiling is 25 feet
high.
These results show the same trends as discussed above except that panel
heating system design loads become equivalent to the forced air design loads
and the ASHRAE standard design heating loads as long as room air temperature
gradients are considered.
This is due to more of the radiant energy falling
on the walls as the height of the building is increased.

5.7
Heated Floor Cases.

The radiant heated floor type of system has also been simulated.
The base
case which was used for this was the same as that previously described except
that it has a room height of 8 feet and the outside design temperature was
selected to be 10 F.
The room height of 8 feet was chosen for this case since
the radiant floor type system is commonly applied to residential structures.

The 10 F outside temperature was selected since the floor temperature is lini-
C=CONVECTIVE , R=RADIANT
OH
I
\
fc
O
O
o
o
o
I
en
V)
3
X
R(120
1771 ASHRAE
R(180 F)
fVÎ
CONDUCTION 1
C(0.75)
&?Z\
C(1.50)
CONDUCTION 2
FIGURE 25. COMPARISON OF THE FORCED AIR AND RADIANT SYSTEMS AT SELECTED SETS OF CONDITIONS
fK^Vi
s*.-v;-.a
F*
v.q
C=CONVECTIVE , R=RADIANT
80.0
70.0 *
60.0 4
X
\
m
o
o
2
o
I
(A
50.0 40.0 4
30.0 -
20.0 10.0 0.0

C(8 f t )
1771 ASHRAE
R(8 f t )
IVÎ
CONDUCTION 1
C(25 f t )
R(25 f t )
U77X CONDUCTION 2
FIGURE 26. COMPARISON OF THE FORCED AIR AND RADIANT SYSTEMS FOR TWO ROOM HEIGHTS
pv
i^
ited to 85 F for comfort requirements (See Annotated Bibliograpy-Appendix B)

and with a 3 F outside temperature not.many floor temperature variations were
available. For this case, the floor temperature was varied between 81 F and
85 F and the required floor area for heating was calculated assuming a uniform
and constant floor temperature.
These results are presented in Table 30.
From the data in Table 30 it can be seen that the percent difference
between HID and HLC is constant at about -7%.
The actual heat input is lower
than HLD because most of the floor is covered with radiant heating surface and
no loss from the floor to the surroundings is considered for the heated
area.
In the desipn process, this heat loss would be taken into account. The
room air temperature remains constant at about 70 F and the MRT was approximately 73 F.
Next, the outside design temperature was varied between 5 F and 20 F to
indicate its effect on the design heat loss and these results for an 84 F
floor temperature are given in Table 31. The trend from these calculations is
that as the climate becomes milder HLD and HLC begin to diverge. However,
this is only 1.5% for an outside temperature change from 5 F to 20 F.
In Table 32, the U-factor for the floor was changed between 0.07 and 0.15
Btu/hr ft^ F while the floor temperature was maintained at 84 F.
It is seen
that there is a slight increase (-6.9 to -7.9) in the deviation from the ASHRAE standard design procedure. The other variables in the calculation (except
actual heat input and floor area) are affected very little by this change.
In Table 33, the infiltration rate was varied from 0.5 to 1.25 air changes
per hour for the base configuration room with an 84 F floor temperature. The
percent change in design load only increased an insignificant amount (1/2%).
At 1.25 ACH the floor is 100% active with heating surface. There are reductions in room temperature and an increase in MRT and a resulting increase in
the AUST.
This results also in the percent radiation from the heated floor
-102-
TABLE 30. RESULTS FOR HEATED FLOORS - BASE CASE
HEATED FLOOR TEMPERATURE, D E C F
81.0
82.0
83.0
84.0
85.0
875.7
815.8
762.8
724.4
681.0
22386.0
22386.0
22386.0
22386.0
22386.0
20536.8
20564.8
20591.8
20612.8
20638.0
-8.3
-8.1
-8.0
-7.9
-7.8
20842.5 20835.3
20830.5
20825.4
-6.9
-7.0
20816.5
-6.9
-6.9
-6.9
20846.5 20842.5 20835.3
20830.5 20825.4
-6.9
-6.9
-6.9
-6.9
-7.0
17326.8
17561.1
17767.9
17917.9
18087.3
-22.6
-21.6
-20.6
-20.0
-19.2
63.3
62.7
62.1
61.7
61.2
PERCENT FLOOR
97.3
90.6
84.8
80.5
75.7
19.8
21.5
23.3
24.7
26.6
CEILING TEMPERATURE, DEG, F
69.9
69.9
70.0
70.0
70.0
69.6
69.7
69.8
69.9
69.9
73.2
73.1
73.0
72.9
72.8
71.6
71.6
71.6
71.6
71.5
2.6
2.5
2.3
2.2
2.1
COVERED BY PANELS

A.U.S.T, DEG. F
67.0
66.8
66.7
66.6
66.5
1.7252
1.7378
1.7504
1.7606
1.7734
0.1170
0.1086
0.1016
0.0967
0.0913
TABLE 31. EFFECTS OF OUTSIDE AIR TEMPERATURE CHANGE FOR A HEATED FLOOR AT 84F
OUTSIDE DESIGN TEMPERATURE DEG. F
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
755.8
724.4
681.6
636.5
24108.0 22386.0
20664.0
18942.0
22286.9
20612.8
18943.4
17273.4
-7.6
-7.9
-8.3
-8.8
22545.9
20830.5
19115.1
17400.9
-6.5
-6.9
-7.5
-8.1
22545.9
20830.5
19115.1
17400.9
-6.5
-6.9
-7.5
-8.1
19258.4
17917.9
16598.5
15260.1
-20.1
-20.0
-19.7
-19.4
61.7
61.7
61.7
61.6
PERCENT FLOOR
84.0
80.5
75.7
70.7
HEAT OUTPUT PER UNIT PANEL AREA, BTU/HR
25.5
24.7
24.4
24.0
CEILING TEMPERATURE, DEG. F

69.9
70.0
70.1
70.2
69.7
69.9
70.0
70.2
73.1
72.9
72.7
72.5
71.6
71.6
71.5
71.5
2.5
2.2
2.0
1.7
66.3
66.6
66.9
67.2
1.7713
1.7606
1.7523
1.7441
0.0947
0.0967
0.0977
0.0989
COVERED BY PANELS

A.U.S.T, DEG. F
TABLE 32. EFFECTS OF FLOOR U-FACTORS ON A HEATED
AT 84F
0.07
o.io
0.15
724.4
734.2
747.5
ASHRAE DESIGN HEAT. LOSS, BTU/HR
22386.0
24141.0
27066.0
20612.8
22239.9
24952.9
-7.9
-7.9
-7.8
20830.5
22372.0
24928.2
-6.9
-7.3
-7.9
20830.5
22372.0
24928.2
-6.9
-7.3
-7.9
17917.9
18160.7
18515.5
-20.0
-24.8
-31.6
61.7
61.8
61.9
PERCENT FLOOR COVERED BY PANELS
80.5
81.6
83.1
24.7
24.7
24.8
CEILING TEMPERATURE, D E C
70.0
70.0
69.9
69.9
69.9
69.9
72.9
72.9
72.8
71.6
71.6
71.5
2.2
2.2
2.1
66.6
66.4
66.2
1.7606
1.7640
1.7692
PARAMETER 3, DIMENSIQNLESS
0.0967
0.0961
0.0952
FLOOR U-FACTOR, BTU/HR.SQ FT.F


A.U.S.T, DEG. F
TABLE 33. EFFECTS DUE TO INFILTRATION FOR A HEATED FLOOR AT 84F FOR A 30' x 30" x 8' ROOM
INFILTRATION RATE, AC/H

0.75
1.00
1.25
724.4
777.6
837.5
896.0
22386.0 24492.0
20612.8
o
ON
0.50
22302.4 23955.1
-7.9
-8.9
20830.5
22800.8
-6.9
-6.9
20830.5
22800.8
-6.9
-6.9
17917.9
26598.0 28704.0
-9.9
25570.9
-10.9
24734.4 26574.8
-7.0
-7.4
24734.4 26574.8
-7.0
-7.4
19661.0 21337.7 22984.8
-20.0
-19.7
-19.8
-19.9
61.7
59.5
57.5
55.5
80.5
86.4
93.1
99.6
24.7
25.3
25.5
25.7
CEILING TEMPERATURE, D E C F
70.0
70.6
71.1
71.6
69.9
69.2
68.5
67.9
72.9
73.8
74.6
75.4
71.6
71.7
71.9
72.1
2.2
3.4
4.4
5.5
66.6
67.1
67.7
68.3
1.7606
1.6959
1.6378
1.5842
0.0967
0.0947
0.0944
0.0946

A.U.S.T, DEG. F
pw-jsaj
TABLE 3 4 .
P:'-''
HEATED FLOOR CASES

ROOM
3 INSIDE WALLS AND 1 OUTSIDE WALL WITH HALF GLASS FOR A 1 5 ' x 1 5 ' x 8 '
83.0
84.0
85.0
197.7
184.9
173.5
5775.9
5775.9
5775.9
5318.6
5324.3
5329.7
-7.9
-7.8
-7.7
5U33.U
5434.2
5434.8
FLOOR TEMPERATURE, D E C F
-5.9
-5.9
5433.4
5434.2
5434.8
-5.9
-5.9
-5.9
4617.2
4672.0
4720.1
-20.1
-19.1
-18.3
60.3
59.9
59.5
87.9
82.2
77.1
23.4
25.3
27.2
CEILING TEMPERATURE, DEC F

69.2
69.2
69.2
69.9
69.9
70.0
72.9
72.8
72.8
71.6
71,5
71.5
2.2
2.1
2.0
68.0
68.0.
67.9
1.7634
1.7819
1.7988
0.1112
0.1045
0.0986
o
i

A.U.S.T, DEG. F
-5.9 '
TABLE 35.
HEATED FLOOR CASES - 2 INSIDE WALLS AND 2 OUTSIDE WALLS, ONE WITH HALF GLASS FOR A
15' x 15' x 8' ROOM
83.0
84.0
85.0
217.2
203.7
191.7
6548.1
6548.1
6548.1
6031.3
6038.3
6045.0
-7.9
-7.8
-7.7
6091.4
6090.2
6089.3
-7.0
'-7.0
-7.0
6091.4
6090.2
6089.3
-7.0
-7.0
-7.0
5216.5
5269.9
5317.6
-20.3
-19.5
-18.8
61.5
60.9
60.4
96.5
90.5
85.2
24.0
25.9
27.7
CEILING TEMPERATURE, D E C
69.0
69.0
69.1
69.9
69.9
70.0
72.9
72.8
72.7
71.6
71.5
71.5
2.2
2.1
2.0
67.2
67.1
67.1
1.8152
1.8269
1.8385
0.1088
0.1022
0.0964
FLOOR TEMPERATURE, DEC F

PERCENTAGE:DIFFERENCE 4

A.U.S.T, DEG. F
portion going from 61.7% to 55.5%.

In Tables 34 and 35, cases for 3 inside walls and 2 inside walls are
presented.
In these two situations the room is 15' x 15' x 8' and in each
case one outside wall contains half glass. The other variables are as given
in the base case.
There is little effect in either situation on the differ-
ence between HLD and HLC.

5.8 - Infrared Heating Cases.
Analysis has also been carried out for infrared modular (square or rectangular) heating types of units. For this infrared base case and the base case
for the U-tube types of infrared units discussed in Section 5.9, the follow.ing items were changed from the initial base case description.
The ceiling
height was set at nine feet and the outside design temperature at 3 F.
The
U-factors were changed as follows:

Walls
- U = 0.25
Btu/hr ft2 F
Floors
- U = 0.25
Btu/hr ft 2 F
Ceiling - U - 0.25
Btu/hr ft 2 F
Glass
Btu/hr ft2 F
- U - 1.0
This change in wall and floor construction was made since these types of
radiant units are most commonly applied to industrial buildings where the
U-factors are commonly higher than what was specified in the original base
case.
Two situations were calculated for the modular and U-tube infrared cases.
The first situation was when there were no reflectors or deflectors on the
units (which is not the normal operating condition) and the second is when
there were reflectors or deflectors on the units and these reflectors are perfect and that the placement of the units is such that none of the direct
radiation from the infrared units falls on the walls of the structure. This
second situation would be the ideal design and placement case for infrared
-109-
modular and U-tube infrared heaters. Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the first
situation and Figure 27 illustrates the ideal situation with no direct radiation falling on the walls. This appeared to be the most reasonable approach
to this type of heater since each manufacturer has a series of different
reflector designs and suggestions or directions for placement of the units.
By looking at these two extremes --no reflectors or deflectors and perfect
reflectors or deflectors the range of performance of generic units can be
identified.
Table 36 summarizes results for three infrared surface temperatures when
there are no reflectors or deflectors. The areas of the heaters which are .
shown in Table 36 are the total of 4 infrared heaters located at the ceiling
(without reflectors) and were compared with several manufacturers and found to
be in good agreement with their published ratings.
The percent difference
betwen HLD and HLC was constant at approximately +3%. This increase in design
heating load is apparently due to a lower AUST because of increased U-factors
and also more of the radiant energy being intercepted by the walls.
In Table 37, results are presented for four 1700 F infrared units located
at the ceiling (without reflectors or deflectors) for the base case as the
ceiling height is extended to 25 feet. This indicates that as the heaters are
raised in the room more of the radiant energy is absorbed by the larger wall
area resulting in greater conduction losses. This results in a greater design
heat loss (up to 10% at 25 feet) than what is found from the ASHRAE standard
design heat loss calculation. This shows up as an increased AUST (from 63 F at
9 feet to 66 F at 25 feet). It should be kept in mind however that high temperature radiant units are normally mounted at the 12 to 15 feet level in an
industrial building and use reflectors to direct the radiant energy away from
the walls and toward the floor or occupants. This lowering of the units and
use of directive reflectors would nullify this 3 to 10% difference in design
-110-
&:>:'.'/
pw-'S?
p:---..^
rw:-'
Vent System
FIGURE 27. PLACEMENT OF INFRARED MODULAR UNITS WITH DEFLECTORS AND REFLECTORS TO PREVENT DIRECT
WALL RADIATION
TABLE 36. INFRARED MODULAR UNITS - BASE CASE WITH NO REFLECTORS OR DEFLECTORS AND VARIABLE SURFACE
TEMPERATURE
INFRA RED HEATER TEMPERATURE, D E C F
1600.0
1700.0
1800.0
2.4
2.0
1.6
64378.8
64378.8
64378.8
51343.2
51328.3
51315.4
-20.2
-20.3
-20.3
66224.4
66228.8
66232.6
,'9
2.9
2.9
66224.4
66228.8
66232.6
2.9
2.9
2.9
66188.0
66198.6
66207.4
2.8
2.8
2.8
99.4
99.5
99.5
0.3
0.2
0.2
27832.4
33635.6
40312.8
73.7
73.7
73.7
60.4
60.4
60.4
84.7
84.7
84.8
74.0
74.0
74.0
17.8
17.8
17.9
A.U.S.T, DEG. F
62.6
62.6
62.6
18.0769 .20.5157
23.1746

>
0.0006
0.0006
0.0005
TABLE 37. INFRARED MODULAR UNITS WITH NO

1700 F - EFFECT OF ROOM HEIGHT
OR DEFLECTORS AND SURFACE TEMPERATURE AT
ROOM HEIGHT, FT
9.0
10.0
12.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
2.0
2.1
2.3
2.6
3.3
4.0
64378.8
67932.0
75038.4
85698.0 103464.0 121230.0
51328.3
53973.1
59514.3
67341.4
83916.3
99536.9
-20.3
-20.5
-20.7
-21.4
-18.9
-17.9
66228.8
69934.7
77682.6
2.9
2.9
66228.8
69934.7
2.9
2.9
3.5
66198.6
69903.0
77647.5
2.8
2.9
3.5
3.4
8.0
10.2
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
33635.6
33646.9
33646.8
33648.2
33646.8
33646.2
73.7
73.5
73.4
72.4
73.7
73.3
60. 4
60.2
60.1
59.6
61.4
62.1
84.7
85.0
85.1
85.7
83.5
82.7
74.0
74.0
74.1
74.2
73.8
73.6
17.8
18.2
18.3
19.2
16.2
15.1
A.U.S.T, DEG. F
62.6
62.6
62.8
62.7
65.1
66.3
20.5157
20.5179
20.5167
20.5109
20.5327
20.5414
0.0006
0.0006
0.0006
0.0006
0.0006
0.0006

3.5,
88684.3 111769.5 133661.2
3.5
8.0
10.3
77682.6- 88684.3 111769.5 133661.2
3.5
8.0
10.3
88644.7 111718.1 133599.0
TABLE 38. INFRARED MODULAR UNITS WITH NO REFLECTORS OR DEFLECTORS AND SURFACE TEMPERATURE AT 1700 F
AND HEIGHT = 15' - EFFECT OF INFILTRATION RATE
AIR CHANGES PER HOUR, AC/H

1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
2.9
3.2
3.6
4.0
94446.0 111942.0 129438.0 146934.0
71677.8
79646.7
86809.3
93065.8
-24.1
-28.9
-32.9
-36.7
95968.8 1092p2.3 121735.1 133075.9
1.6
-2.4
-6.0
-9.4
95968.8 109202.3 121735.1 133075.9
1.6
-2.4
-6.0
-9.4
95926.2 109154.3 121680.9 133015.7
1.6
-2.5
-6.0
-9.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
0.3
0.4
33647.4
0.4
0.4
33646.5
33644.7
33644.1
73.7
76.0
78.5
80.9
57.6
54.2
51.3
48.6
88.0
92.1
96.2
100.0
74.6
75.4
76.4
77.4
22.3
27.8
33.2
38.0
A.U.S.T, DEG. F
63.3
64.3
. 65.8
67.3
20.4863
20.4432
20.4057
20.3721
0.0006
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005


heat loss as illustrated In the following calculations.

In Table 38, the room was 15' highland the modular infrared units were at
1700 F and they did not have reflectors or deflectors.
In this case (Table
38), the infiltration rate was changed between 1 and 4 ACH. As can be seen in
Tables 38 and 37, the percent difference in HLD and HLC goes from +3.5% at 0.5
ACH to -9.4% at 4 ACH.
This illustrates how much the infiltration rate
affects the design load calculation.
This is due to the exchange of lower
temperature air for radiant systems when compared to forced air systems. With
this increase in the infiltration rate, the floor temperature has an increase
to 80.9 F, the room air temperature for comfort has decreased to 49 F and the
mean radiant temperature has increased to 100 F.
In this situation, the 4 ACH
would most likely be beyond any normal situation (except for something such as
spot heating) and does not represent a realistic situation. However, the
importance of the change in the design heat loss load compared to the standard
ASHRAE design load as infiltration is changed is strongly supported.
In Table 39, the convection coefficient at the modular infrared units was
changed by up to a factor of 5 for a 15' high room with 3 ACH and a modular
infrared heater surface at 1700 F without reflectors or deflectors. As seen
in this table, the assumption concerning the convection coefficient off of the
heater surface has negligible effect on the calculations made here.
If reflec-
tors are used, there might be more of an effect due to more area available for
convection heat transfer, however, it is expected to be negligible also.
In Tables 40, 41, and 42 cases were run where the modular infrared units
had perfect reflectors or deflectors and were positioned such that none of
their
direct radiation fell on the walls. This situation is illustrated in
Figure 27 for an individual application.

The situation in Table 40 is identical to the situation reported in Table
36 -- infrared base case -- except that Table 40 uses perfect reflectors and
-115-
TABLE 39. INFRARED MODULAR UNITS WITH NO REFLECTORS OR DEFLECTORS AND SURFACE TEMPERATURE AT 1700 F,
15' HIGH, 3 ACH - EFFECT OF CONVECTION COEFFICIENT MULTIPLIER
CONVECTION MULTIPLIER
1.0
2.0
5.0
3.6
3.6
3.5

129438.0 129438.0 129438.0

86809.3
87104.7
87964.9
-32.9
-32.7
-32.0
121735.1 121714.3 121664.4

-6.0 '
-6.0
-6.0
121735.1 121714.3 121664.4

-6.0
-6.0
-6.0
121680.9 121660.5 121611.7
-6.0
-6.0
-6.0
99.5
98.9
97.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
33644.7
33830.2
34381.6
78.5
78.4
78.0
51.3
51.5
51.9
96.2
96.0
95.3
76.4
76.4
76.2
33.2
32.9
32.0
A.U.S.T, DEG. F
65.8
65.7
65.5
20.4057
20.5200
20.8606
0.0005
0.0006
0.0006


PARAMETER 3,.DIMENSIONLESS
KSfiiJKSS
<P-i-*;<s
f^vi.-ja,
INFRARED MODULAR UNITS WITH PERFECT REFLECTORS I N A 9 ' HIGH BASE CASE ROOM - EFFECT OF
SURFACE TEMPERATURE
1600.0
1700.0
1800. 0
2.3
1.9
1. 6
64378.8
64378.8
64378. 8
ACTUAL DESIGN HEAT LOSS,
51189.5
51177.4
51166. 8
-20.5
-20.5
-20. 5
63752.4
63755.6
63758. 2
-1.0
-1.0
-1. 0
63752.. 4
63755.6
63758. 2
-1.0
-1.0
-1. 0
63716.9
63726.2
63733. 7
-1.0
-1.0
-1. 0
99.4
99.5
99. 5
0.3
0.2
0. 2
27819.0
33621.7
40298. 0
83.3
83.3
83. 3
60.2
60.2
60. 2
84.9
84.9
85. 0
74.0
74.0
74. 0
18.1
18.1
18. 1
A.U.S.T,
61.4
61.4
61. 4
18.0661
20.5051
23.164 1
0.0006
0.0006
0.00015
INFRA RED HEATER TEMPERATURE, D E C F

BTU/HR
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2 ,
BTU/HR
DEG. F
TABLE 41. INFRARED MODULAR UNITS WITH PERFECT

OF ROOM HEIGHT
WITH 0.5 ACH AND 1700 F HEATERS - EFFECT
ROOM HEIGHT, FT
8.0
9.0
10.0
12.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
PANEL AREA REQUIRED , SQ FT"
1.7
1.9
2.0
2.2
2.4
3.0
3.4
60825.6
64378.8 67932.0 75038.4 85698.0 103464.0 121230.0
47042.2
51177.4 53685.4 58866.2 65878.9
ACTUAL HEAT INPUT, BTU/HR .
-22.7
58558.7
-20.5
-21.6
63755.6 66870.4 73314.1
-3.7
-1.0
58558.7
63755.6
-3.7
-1.0
58532.4
-21.0
-1.6
-2.3
66870.4 73314.1
-1.6
-2.3
-23.1
80311.5
92743.0
-22.4
-23.5
82005.6 100056.2 115527.7

-4.3
-3.3
-4.7
82005.6 100056.2 115527.7

-4.3
-3.3
-4.7
63726.2 66839.8 73280.7 81969.2 100011.7 115477.5
-3.8
-1.0
-1.6
-2.3
-4.4
-3.3
-4.7
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
33626.8
33621.7
33621.2
79.4
83.3
84.7
87.8
91.5
101.2
108.5
58.7
60.2
59.9
59.5
58.3
58.9
58.1
86.8
84.9
85.3
85.8
87.2
86.5
87.5
74.4
74.0
74.1
74.2
74.4
74.3
74.5
20.6
18.1
18.7
19.3
21.2
20.3
21.6
A.U.S.T, DEG. F
59.7
61.4
61.1
60.8
59.8
60.5
59.8
20.4886
20.5051
20.5005
0.0006
0.0006
0.0006


33628.2 33624.5
20.4975 20.4811
0.0006
0.0006
33614.7 33606.8
20.4818 20.4668
0.0006
0.0006
psa r~"?
r-^
TABLE 42, INFRARED MODULAR UNITS WITH PERFECT REFLE(

EFFECT OF INFILTRATION
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
PANEL AREA REQUIRED , SO. FT
2.6
3.0
3.3
3.6
94446.0 111942.0 129438.0 146934.0
69909.4 77235.9
82915.1
88056.9
-31.0
-35.9
-40.1
so
I
IN 15' HIGH ROOM WITH HEATERS AT 1700 F -
-26.0
88556.3 100781.1 112335.0 122314.8

-6.2
-10.0
-13.2
-16.8
88556.3 100781.1 112335.0 122314.8

-6.2
-10.0
-13.2
-16.8
88517.1 100736.7 112283.9 122257.9
-6.3
-10.0
-13.3
-16.8
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
33622.2 33617.8
33612.4
33607.2
94.1
99.2
104.4
108.8
56.3
52.7
49.1
46.1
89.6
94.3
99.3
103.4
74.9
75.9
77.2
78.3
24.5
30.6
37.1
42.5
A.U.S.T, DEG. F
60.2
61.2
63.1
64.6
20.4064 20.3592
20.3196

20.4541
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0,0005
unit placement.
It is now seen that the percent difference between HLD and
HLC has gone from +3% to -1% indicating that proper placement of the infrared
heaters can account for 4% in design load at these conditions. Also note in
Tables 36 and 40 that the floor temperature has risen 10 F, the room air temperature for comfort and MRT have not changed, and the AUST has dropped about
1 F.
The situation in Table 41 is identical to the situation reported in Table
37 except that Table 41 uses perfect reflectors and placement of the heating
units.
In these two tables, the effect of room height is considered.
It is
seen that the percent difference between HLD and HLC has changed from +10%
with no reflectors to -5% with ideal reflectors and placement indicating that
proper placement of the infrared heaters can account for 15% reduction in the
design heat loss value. Also note in Tables 37 and 41 that the floor temperature can get to too high of a value in the ideal situation (108 F)' but in the
actual situation this will not be realized since equipment, furniture and
people will absorb this radiant energy and intercept it before it reaches the
floor. Also observe that in Table 41 the air temperature for comfort is
lower by up to 40 F, the MRT is increased by up to 5 F, and the AUST is
reduced by up to 7 F.
The configuration and conditions in Table 42 are identical to those considered in Table 38 except that Table 42 considers ideal reflectors and unit
heater placement.
considered.
In these two tables the effect due to air infiltration is
It is seen that the percent difference between HLD and HLC has
changed from up to -9.4% with no reflectors to up to -16.8% with ideal

reflectors.
This indicates that with proper reflector design and unit place-
ment of infrared heaters that up to 7% of the design heating load can be saved
when considering height of the room. Again, the floor temperature has
increased theoretically by up to 25 F by use of reflectors and proper unit
-120-
placement.
The room air temperature for comfort has been reduced by 2 F, the
MRT increased by 3 F and the AUST reduced by 2 F.

,
5.9 - U-Tube Infrared Cases.
The U-tube or straight tube type of configuration for vented gas-fired

infrared units were also analyzed.
These units have different orifice sizes
for the same size and length of tube so that the units will operate at different average surface temperatures. The same base case parameters were used as
described in Section 5.8 for the infrared modular units except for this case
two U-tubes were used in the space instead of the four modular units. Again,
two situations were considered; no reflectors and then with ideal reflectors
and placement. The results from these calculations are shown in Tables 43
thru 47. Tables 43 and 44 give results for the U-tube heaters that do not have
reflectors or deflectors.
In Table 43, the average surface temperature was
varied between 700 and 900 F.
The area calculated for the average surface
temperature of 700 and 750 F agreed reasonably well with those presented by a
manufacturer of these types units. The same conclusions can be drawn from
these results as from the infrared modular results discussed in Section 5.8.
In fact, there is very little change in the results and the trends are similar.
The results given in Table 44 are for a 750 F average surface temperature,
however, the ceiling was extended in steps up to 20 feet. It is interesting
to note here that the line source of radiation causes the opposite trend in
the difference between HLD and HLC than was observed for the modular infrared
units.
The behavior of the U-tube units appears to be similar to that of the
ceiling panel heating types of units.

Tables 45-47 present the results for the U-tube infrared units which have
ideal reflectors and unit placement.
Table 45 is the same configuration and
conditions as in Table 43 except that ideal reflectors and unit placement is
-121-
U-TUBE INFRARED UNITS - BASE CASE WITH NO

TEMPERATURE
OR DEFLECTORS - CHANGE IN TUBE SURFACE
900.0
850.0
800.0
750.0
700.0
12.7
14.8
17.3
20.4
24.3
64378.8
64378.8
64378.8
64378.8
64378.8
51692.1
51721.6
51754.5
51791.1
51831.9
-19.7
-19.7
-19.6
-19.6
-19.5
66658.9
66649.9
66640.3
66630.0
66619.3
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
66658.9
66649.9
66640.3
3.5
3.5
3.5
U-TUBE IR-HEATER TEMPERATURE, D E C F

PANEL AREA REQUIRED , SO. FT
66464.7 66423.9
66630.0 66619.3
3.5
3.5
66375.5 66317.6
66247.8
3.2
3.2
3.1
3.0
2.9
98.5
98.4
98.2
98.1
97.9
1.4
1.6
1.9
2.3
2.7
5234.8
4494.6
3834.3
3247.3
2728.5
73.3
73.3
73.2
73.2
73.1
60.8
60.8
60.9
60.9
61.0
84.2
84.2
84.2
84.1
84.1
73.9
73.9
73.9
73.9
73.9 ,
17.2
17.1
17.1
17.0
16.9
A.U.S.T, DEG. F
62.1
62.1
62.1
62.1
62.1
5.1883
4.7132
4.2702
0.0012
0.0013
0.0014
6.2386
5.6962
0.0011
0.0012
W~m
f S ; p'"i W~m Wr-'-'i r*3
f-'-* f
TABLE 44. U-TUBE INFRARED UNITS - 750 F SURFACE

OF CHANGE IN ROOM HEIGHT
ROOM HEIGHT, FT
AND NO REFLECTORS OR DEFLECTORS - EFFECT
9.0
10.0
12.0
15.0
20.0
20.4
21.4
23.4
26.3
30.9
64378.8
67932.0
75038.4
85698.0 103464.0
51791.1
54135.7
58689.3
65300.3
75864.0
-19.6
-20.3
-21.8
-23.8
-26.7
66630.0
69924.7
76463.0
PANEL AREA REQUIRED , SQ FT .
3.5
66630.0
2.9!
1.9
69924.7" 76463.0
86012.3 101112.3
0.4
-2.3
86012.3 101112.3
0.4
-2.3
3.5
2.9
1.9
66317.6
69600.3
76115.4
3.0
2.5
1.4
-0.1
-2.7
98.1
98.1
98.1
98.1
98.1
2.3
2.4
2.6
2.9
3.4
3247.3
3248.2
3249.7
3251.5
3254.3
73.2
72.6
71.5
69.7
66.5
60.9
60.4
59.3
57.9
55.8
84.1
84.8
86.0
87.7
90.2
73.9
74.0
74.2
74.6
75.0
17.0
17.9
19.6
21.9
25.2
A.U.S.T, DEG. F
62.1
61.7
61.1
60.1
58.6
4.7132
4.7107
4.7056
4.6984
4.6884
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013

85632.0 100683.5
TABLE 45. U-TUBE INFRARED UNITS - BASE CASE WITH IDEAL REFLECTORS AND PLACEMENT - CHANGE IN TUBE
SURFACE TEMPERATURE
700.0
750.0
800.0
850.0
900.0
23.3
19.6
16.6
14.2
12.2
64378.8
64378.8
64378.8
64378.8
64378.8
51414.1
51396.1
51377.9
51360.1
51343.0
-20.1
-20.2
-20.2
-20.2
-20.2
63618.7
63639.0
63655.9
63670.0
63682.0
-1.2
-1..1
-1.1
-1.1
-1.1
63618.7
63639.0
63655.9
63670.0
63682.0
-1.2
-1.1
-1.1
-1.1
-1.1
63256.8
63334.9
63398.2
63450.2
63493.2
-1.7
-1.6
-1.5
-1.4
-1.4
97.9
98.1
98.2
98.4
98.5
2.6
2.2
1.8
1.6
1.4
2714.1
3233.3
3820.1
4480.8
5220.7
83.3
83.3
83.3
83.3
83.3
60.5
60.5
60.5
60.4
60.4
84.6
84.6
84.7
84.7
84.7
74.0
74.0
74.0
74.0
74.0
17.7
17.7
17.7
17.8
17.8
A.U.S.T, DEG. F
61.4
61.4
61.4
61.4
61.4
4.2447
4.6898
5.1662
5.6757
6.2189
PARAMETER 3, DIMENS'I'ONLESS
0.0014
0.0013
0.0012
0.0012
0.0011
U- TUBE HEATER TEMPERATURE, DEG. F


U-TUBE INFRARED UNITS - 750 F SURFACE

EFFECT OF CHANGE IN ROOM HEIGHT
AND WITH IDEAL REFLECTORS AND PLACEMENT -
9.0
10.0
12.0
15.0
20.0
19.6
20.6
22.6
25.2
30.9
64378.8
67932.0
75038.4
85698.0 103464.0
51396.1
53903.5
59074.6
66060.5
80365.5
-20.2
-20.7
-21.3
-22.9
-22.3
63639.0
66742.1
73156.1
81802.6
99714.2
-1.1
-1.8
-2.5
-4.5
-3.6
66742.1 ' 73156.1
81802.6
99714.2
ROOM HEIGHT, FT
63639.0
-1.1
-1.8
-2.5
-4.5
-3.6
63334.9
66424.8
72810.8
81425.3
99252.0
-1.6
-2.2
-3.0
-5.0
-4.1
98.1
98.1
98.1
98.1
98.1
2.2
2.3
2.5
2.8
3.4
3233.3
3231.7
3228.7
3225.0
3214.3
83.3
84.7
87.9
91.7
101.7
60.5
60.1
59.7
58.5
58.9
84.6
85.1
85.6
87.0
86.5
74.0
74.0
74.1
74.4
74.3
17.7
18.3
19.0
20.9
20.2
A.U.S.T, DEG. F
61.4
61.1
60.8
59.7
60.4

4'. 6898
4.6852
4.6777
4.6643
4.6517
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
TABLE 47. U-TUBE INFRARED UNITS AT 750F WITH IDEAL

EFFECT OF CHANGES IN AIR INFILTRATION

AND PLACEMENT IN A 15' HIGH ROOM -
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
27.3
31.1
34.7
37.8
94446.0 111942.0 129438.0 146934.0
70097.6
77439.9
83180.1
88205.4
-25.8
-30.8
-35.7
-40.0
88345.6 100498.5 111983.4 121984.8

-6.5
-10.2
-13.5
-17.0
88345.6 100498.5 111983.4 121984.8

-6.5
-10.2
-13.5
-17.0
87940.0 100038.2 111454.4 121393.1
-6.9
-10.6
-13.9
-17.4
98.1
98.0
98.0
98.0
3.0
3.5
3.9
4.2
3222.2
3217.3
3211.9
3207.3
94.4
99.6
104.8
109.4
56.4
52.8
49.3
46.2
89.4
94.1
99.1
103.3
74.9
75.9
77.2
78.3
24.2
30.4
36.8
42.4
A.U.S.T, DEG. F
60.1
61.1
62.9
64.5
4.6466
4.6152
4.5842
4.5577
PARAMETER 3, DIMENSItONLESS
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013

used in Table 45. This change results in a decrease in the percent difference
between HLD and HLC of up to 5% for this set of conditions. Therefore, the
use of ideal reflectors and unit placement can result in the savings of up to
5% in the design heat loss. Also showing up in this calculation is an
increase of about 10 F in the floor temperature when all of the infrared
radiant energy from the heater is reflected directly to the floors with none
impinging on the walls.
In Table 46, the same configuration and conditions as in Table 44 are
considered except that in Table 46 ideal reflectors and unit placement are
considered.
This change results in a decrease in the percent difference bet-
ween HLD and HLC of up to 4 1/2%' for 9' high ceilings. Again, ideal reflectors and unit placement can reduce the installed heating capacity up to 5%.
The trend in the floor temperature has been changed in Table 46 because more
area of heating surface has been installed and none of this heat is intercepted by the walls. This causes the floor temperature to approach 100 F for
the 20' high room.
In Table 47, the results for U-tube infrared units "at-750 F with ideal
reflectors and placement in a 15' high room are given for infiltration rates
changing from 1 to 4 ACH.
This shows that the percent difference between HLD
and HLC can be up to 17% by use of ideal reflectors. However, at the same
time the floor temperature becomes very high (up to 109 F in the theoretical
undisturbed case) and the air temperature for comfort has been reduced to 46
F.
These are rather extreme situations and most likely would not be encoun-
tered in a total heat situation for infrared heaters.

5.10 - Summary of Design Heating Calculations
The results in the changes in percent difference between HLD and HLCG
given in Tables 6 thru 47 have been summarized in Table 48. HLD is the ASHRAE
standard heat loss calculation procedure and HLC is the design heat loss for a
-127-
TABLE
48
Fixed Conditions
SUMMARY OF CALCULATED RESULTS
Variable being
changed and
its range
Range of the difference

in percent between
HLCG and HLD
Percentage Difference 3
(%)
Forced Air Heating

Cl
Base case with

0.5oF temp, gradient
per foot
8 to 25 ft.
7.7 to -5.0
C2
Base case with

per foot
8 to 25 ft.
-7.5 to -3.2
C3
Base case with

loF temp, gradient
per foot
8 to 25 ft.
-7.3 to -1.5
C4
Base case with

per foot
8 to 25 ft.
-6.2 to +1.2
C5
15' High base

case with 0.75oF/ft
temp. gradient
1.0 to 4.0 ACH
1.9 to +7.2
C6
25' High base

case with 0.75oF/ft
temp. gradient
1.0 to 4.0 ACH
+2.9 to +16.3
1.0 to 4.0 ACH
-7.5 to +11.0
Panels from
120 to 180oF
-4.1 to -4.2
-panel from
0.88 to 0.94
-4.1 to 3.4
C7
25' High base

case with 0.75oF/ft.
temp. gradient
and U-factors
used in infrared
cases
PANEL HEATING
PI
P2
Base case
Base case with
panels at 140oF
-128-
TABLE 48
(CONTINUED)
P3
Base case with

panels at 140oF
e
walls f r o m
0.8 to 0.95
1.7 to -5.4
P4
Base case with

panel h c doubled
Panels from
120 to 180oF
-4.2 to -4.3
P5
Base case with

panel h c multiplied
by five
Panels from
120 to I8O0F
-4.5 to -4.5
P6
Base case with

panel h c multiplied
by ten
Panels from
120 to I8O0F
-4.7 to -4.6
P7
Base case w i t h
p a n e l s a t 130<>F
0.5 to 4.0 ACH
-3.5 to -15.7
P8
Base case with

panels at 150oF
0.5 to 4.0 ACH
-3.5 to -15.7
P9
Base case with

panels at 170oF
0.5 to 4.0 ACH
-3.5 to -15.6
Base case with

panels at 140oF
Glass quantity from

0 to 50% of
total outside wall area
-4.5 to -2.4
Pll
Base case
Panels from 130 to 170oF

U increase from 30 to 100%
-2.4 to -4.2
P12
Base case with

panels at 140oF
Room size change from

15' x 30' to 100' x 100'
-2.7 to -6.0
P13
Base case with

panels at 140oF
Room height changed

from 8' to 25'
-5.1 to -0.4
P14
Base case with

panels at 130oF
Outside design temperature

changed from -5 to 15oF
-3.6 to -5.3
P15
Base case with

panels at 140oF
Number of panels changed

from 1 to 6
-4.2 to -3.4
Panel from 175 to 185oF
-0.3 to 0.0
P10
P16
Perimeter panel,
15' x 15' x 8'
room, 36" panel,
3 inside walls,
1 outside wall with
glass
-129-
TABLE 48
(CONTINUED)
HEATED FLOOR
Fl
Base case-30'x30'x8'
Floor temperature
from 81 to 85oF
F2
Base case with

floor at 84oF
Outside design
temperature from 5
to 20oF
-6.5 to -8.1
Base case with

floor at 84oF
Floor U-factor
changed from 0.07
to 0.15
-6.9 to -7.9
Base case with

floor at 84oF
0.5 to 1.25 ACH
6.9 to -7.4
Base case with 15' x

15' x 8', 3 inside
walls and one
outside wall with
half glass
Floor temperature
from 83 to 85oF
-5.9 to -5.9
Base case with 15' x

15' x 8', 2 inside
walls and 2 outside
walls with halfglass
Floor temperature
from 83 to 85oF
-7.0 to -7.0
Base case - Infrared,

No reflectors/
deflectors
Surface temperature
from 1600 to 1800oF
+2.9 to +2.9

1700oF surface
temperature, No
reflectors/
deflectors
Room height
changed from
9' to 25'
F3
F4
F5
F6
-6.9 to -7.0
INFRARED MODULAR UNITS

II
12
13
14

1700oF surface
temperature, 15'
height, No reflectors
/deflectors
1700oF surface
temperature, 15'
height, 3 ACH, No
reflectors/deflectors
1.0 to 4.0 ACH
h c from heater
changed up to a
factor of 5
-130-
+2.9 to +10.3
1.6 to - 9.4
-6.0
TABLE 48
15

9' height, with
reflectors/deflectors

15' height, 1700oF,
with reflectors/
deflectors
17 Base case - Infrared,
1700oF, 1/2 ACH
with reflectors/
deflectors
(CONTINUED)
Surface temperature
from 1600 to I8OO0F
-1.0 to -1.0
1.0 to 4.0 ACH
6.2 to -16.8
Room height
8' to 25'
3.7 to -4.7
16
INFRARED - U-TUBES
tLi
Ul
Base case - Infrared

No reflectors/
deflectors
Tube surface changed

from 900oF to 700oF
+3.5 to +3.5
U2

750oF tube temp.,
No reflectors/
deflectors
Room height changed

from 9' to 20'
+3.5 to -2.3
U3

with reflectors/
Tube surface changed

from 700oF to 900oF
1.2 to -1.1
U4

750F tube temp,
with reflectors/
deflectors
Room height changed

from 9' to 20'
1.1 to -3.3
U5

750oF tube surface,
15' height
with reflectors/
deflectors
1.0 to 4.0 ACH
-6.5 to -17.0
ik:
m
-131-
space considering the actual conduction through the -walls and the infiltration
load based on the air change method. Table 48 describes the basic cases from
the previous tables, gives the variable being changed and its range of change,
and the percent difference in the two design heat loss calculations.
Each of
the types of heating systems are identified such as: Forced Air Heating - CI
- C7, Panel Heating - PI - P16, Heated Floor - Fl - F6, Infrared Modular Units
- 1 1 - 1 7 , and Infrared U-Tubes - Ul - U5.
This summary in Table 48 shows that the ASHRAE design heat loss calculation can oversize a system up to about 17% but the most common value is 4 to
7% oversizing for all of the variables and conditions considered here. For
some situations (C6 and C7) the ASHRAE standard procedure can undersize the
system by up to 15%.
A listing of the computer program which was used to perform all of these
calculations is given in APPENDIX-C. A list of the input variables is also
given there.
-132-
6.0 - DESIGN PROCEDURES

In the previous section, 5.0 - CALCULATION OF DESIGN HEATING LOADS, it was
shown in Table 48 that the use of the ASHRAE Design Heating Load Procedure
(HLD) [1] would result typically in a slightly oversized heating system.
Examination of Table 48 shows for panel heating systems (P-l - P16) that for
variations in panel temperature, room size, and room height that this oversizing is about 3-6% for 0.5 ACH.
However, for larger infiltration rates this
oversizing can be up to 15% for 4.0 ACH.
In a similar way for the heated
floor situation the oversizing is about 7% at 0.5 ACH. Likewise, for modular
and U-tube infrared (high and medium temperature respectively) units with good
reflectors and proper location such that no direct infrared radiation impinges
on the walls, this oversizing is up to 5% at 0.5 ACH.
If the infiltration
rate is at 4 ACH, the oversizing can be up to 17%.

The conclusion of this investigation is that the air infiltration rate is
the only variable in the design heat loss calculation which affects in a
meaningful way the results for the sizing of radiant heating units. In
Figure 28, the percent reduction of standard design load is plotted against
the air infiltration rate for panel heating, heated floor and infrared modular
and U-tube units-. A single line has been drawn through the data to represent
all four types of radiant heating systems such that at 0.5 ACH the reduction
in heating unit size is 4%, at 1.0 ACH it is 5 1/2%, at 1.5 ACH it is 7 1/2%,
at 2.0 ACH it is 9 1/2%, at
3.0 ACH it is 13% and at 4.0 ACH it is 16%. The
variation shown in Figure 28 is recommended as the only reduction factor to

use for sizing radiant heating systems.
It should be pointed out that the ASHRAE Standard Design Heating Load
procedure (HLD) also does some overestimating (up to 7%) for forced air heating systems. However, as the infiltration rate increases and a temperature
gradient is present the HLD procedure can underestimate the required heater
-133-
20
18
Panels at 130, 150, 170 F

Infrared, High Temperature Unit, 1700F
' 16
o
g
Infrared, Medium Temperature Tubes, 750F
14
W
Q
12
H
CO
10
b
O
O
M
H
O
&
P
W
H
25
W
u
w
AIR CHANGES PER HOUR
FIGURE 28. PERCENT REDUCTION OF STANDARD DESIGN LOAD AS A FUNCTION OF AIR INFILTRATION RATE
size by up to 16% for a 25' high room.

From these results, it is recommended for radiant heating systems that the
ASHRAE design heat loss calculation procedure presented in Chapter 25 of the
Handbook of Fundamentals [1] be used with a reduction in the final value made
according to the estimated infiltration rate as presented in Figure 28. There
is not any overwhelming evidence to reduce the design heat loss values for any
of the other parameters in the radiant heating situation. The following
procedures are suggested for designing radiant heating and cooling systems.
6.1 - Radiant Ceiling Panel Heating Systems
In Chapter 8 of the 1984 ASHRAE Systems Handbook [2], there is a section
on "Panel Heating System Design" and this includes data and examples for metal
ceiling panels, warm water panels with embedded pipe (plaster ceiling and
concrete ceiling), and electric ceiling panels. APPENDIX D contains a reproduction of Chapter 8 from the 1984 ASHRAE Systems Handbook.
The current design steps and procedures given in Chapter 8 of 1984 Systems
have been reviewed and compared with the original work in the literature which
is presented in APPENDIX B - ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY.
There were no serious
problems or difficulties with the assumptions made in compiling the curves and
tables used in the procedures.
In addition, various manufacturers have used
these procedures for many years and have not reported any deficiencies in- the
design procedures.
The following are the recommended design steps for panel heating systems.
The only change from what appears in Chapter 8 of the 1984 Systems Handboook
is that the design heat loss is reduced as a function of infiltration rate as
given in Figure 28. Some additional recommendations are also added.
Panel HeatingrSystem Design Steps
1.
Calculate the hourly rate of heat loss for each room using the
procedures given in Chapter 25 of the 1985 ASHRAE Handbook of
-135-
Fundamentals fll. Reduce this heat loss by the amount given in

Figure 28 for the specific estimated air infiltration rates.
2.
Determine the available area for panels in each room.
3.
Calculate the required unit panel output.
4.
Determine the required panel surface temperature.
5.
Select the means of heating the panel and the size and location
of the heating elements.
6.
Select insulation for the reverse side and edge of panel
7.
Determine panel heat loss and required input to the panel.
8.
Determine any other temperatures that are required.
9.
Design the system for heating the panels according to

conventional practice.
In the design steps, the effect of each assumption or choice on

comfort should be considered carefully.
Always consider the manufacturers
recommendations for pre-engineered heating panel systems. The following

general rules should be followed:
1)
Place panels near cold areas where the heat losses occur.
2) Do not use high temperature ceiling panels in very low ceilings.

3) Keep floor temperatures at or below 85 F (29 C).
Specific design examples are given in Chapter 8 of the 1984 ASHRAE Systems
Handbook which appears in APPENDIX D.
6.2 - Radiant Ceiling Panel Cooling Systems
The computer procedure which was developed and discussed in SECTION - 5.0
and presented inAPPENDIX-C has been applied to several cases of radiant panel
cooling.
The calculation procedure was not able to calculate the actual out-
side wall or glass temperature for summer conditions since it did not consider
solar effects on the wall or glass. The procedure was developed basically for
heating design load calculations where solar effects would not be considered
-136-
at the design time. The analysis for the procedure for sizing radiant panel
cooling systems involved examination of the original ASHRAE research work and
the procedure for panel cooling given in Chapter 8 of the 1984 ASHRAE Systems
Handbook.
This appears to be sufficient for the cooling situation since in
that case the portion of sensible heat removed by radiation is significantly

less since surface temperature differences are less in the cooling mode than
in the heating mode.
In addition, the infiltration load for summer design is
expected to be significantly less since the inside - outside air temperature

difference (stack effect) is much smaller and the summer design wind velocity
(typically 7 1/2 mph) is typically half of the winter design wind velocity (15
mph) . Also, the radiant cooling system is not able to absorb the latent load
so that the ventilation air brought to the cooling space absorbs this latent
load and at the same time absorbs some of the sensible load.
For these rea-
sons, the correction to the design load given in Figure 28 does not apply for
the design cooling load.
It is recommended that the ASHRAE design cooling
load procedures (for commercial buildings and residential buildings) presented

in Chapter 26 of the 1985 ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals" [1] be used
directly. There are no engineering and/or comfort reasons to expect a reduction in the design cooling load calculations.
In addition, there has not been
any research located since the ASHRAE work in the 1950's that would invalidate
the current design procedures.
The procedures given in Chapter 8 of the 1984 ASHRAE Systems Handbook [2]
were checked and verified with the references and original work done by
ASHRAE.
Also, several manufacturers have been using this procedure for
many years and have not reported any deficiencies in the procedure. The
procedure is as follows.
-137-
PANEL COOLING SYSTEM DESIGN

1.
Determine the room design dry-bulb temperature, relative humidity

and dewpoint.
2.
Calculate room sensible and latent heat gains using the ASHRAE
procedure given in Chapter 26 in the 1985 ASHRAE Handbook of
Fundamentals.
3.
Select mean water temperature for cooling.
4.
Establish minimum supply air quatity.
5.
Calculate the latent cooling available from the air.
6.
Calculate the sensible cooling available from the air.
7.
Determine panel cooling load.
8.
Determine required panel area.

Now, design for the heating situation.
9.
Calculate room heat loss using the procedures given in Chapter 25

of the 1985 Handbook of Fundamentals f 11 . Reduce this heat loss
by the amount given in Figure 28 for the specific estimated air
infiltration rate.
10.
Select mean water temperature for heating.
11.
Determine panel area for heating.
12.
Determine water flow rate and pressure drop.
13.
Design the panel arrangement.
14.
Always consider the manufacturers recommendations for placement,

sizing and insulation of pre-engineered panel heating and cooling
systems.
Specific design examples are given in Chapter 8 of the 1984 ASHRAE Systems
Handbook which is reproduced in APPENDIX D.
In the evaluation of this design procedure, it is seen that the location
of the air diffusers relative to the panel sections does not enter into the
-138-
design procedure.
It would be expected that if the air is diffused in close
proximity to the ceiling panels that the cooling and heating performance would
be altered slightly.
design procedure.
For typical design situations, this should not alter the
It should also be pointed out that the lighting load for
the cooling case should be carefully evaluated since it will be a major contributor to the cooling load.
The design procedure does not account for dif-
ferent types of lighting fixtures and these loads should be incorporated into
the design heat gain calculation. Also, it should be emphasized that the
latent heat gain must be absorbed by an independent source. The source specified in the design procedure is the ventilation air which is dehumidified
separately.
It would also be possible to operate various types of dehumidi-
fiers within the space to absorb this latent load or to use chemical dehumidification.
6.3 - Heated Floor Systems
A design procedure for heated floors (concrete floor panels for slab-ongrade, concrete floor panels for intermediate slabs, and electric floor slab
heating) is presented in Chapter 8 of the 1984 ASHRAE Systems Handbook T21.
The only modification to be made to that procedure is the reduction in the
design heat loss calculation shown in Figure 28 for high infiltration air
changes per hour, as indicated in SECTION 6.1.
There are several design -
examples given in Chapter 8 of the 1984 ASHRAE Systems Handbook f21 which is
included in APPENDIX - D.
There were some papers obtained in the literature search which discussed
the physical parameters (slab thickness, tube spacing and lower insulation) in
the design process and their effect on the upward heat delivered by the system.
The actual design process for radiant systems was not part of this pro-
ject.
Here, we are only interested in the design heat loss calculation and
the placement of the heating surfaces.
-139-
Grammling [19] in a 1985 ASHRAE paper pointed out that in the German
standard DIN 4725, methods were developed for testing the thermal performance
of hydronic floor-heating systems. In addition, numerous measurements have
been made for these types of heating systems. Most of the systems have been
tested with the so-called plate apparatus. The results of the tests show that
measured values of performance differ significantly from figures published in
the literature or company catalogs.
It is clear from these results that exact
performance measurements under controlled thermal conditions are necessary for

designing and laying out unique floor-heating systems.
Hogan [20] in a MS thesis reviewed and evaluated the ASHRAE design recommendations given in Chapter 8 of the 1984 ASHRAE Systems Handbook f21. This
was done using a steady state and a transient numerical model of the heated
floor slab. The ASHRAE panel heating model does not represent the panel heat
loss mechanisms correctly but the design recommendations are adequate and
slightly conservative for designing both bare and covered radiant floorheating panels with no infiltration and an AUST equal to the room air temperature.
These design recommendations are conservative because both the downward
and edgewise heat loss and panel thermal resistance are over estimated.
These
conclusions were also presented in an ASHRAE paper by Hogan and Blackwell

[21].
Some similar conclusions were presented by Shamsundar, Lienhard and Tezduyar [22] in an UNPUBLISHED private report in 1985. They have shown that the
ASHRAE procedure is erroneous (using numerical simulation) and that it can be
modified to make it more correct.
Some of the error that they note is on the
conservative side and some of it is underestimating the requirements so
that
the errors appear to cancel each other for most conditions. This is most
likely why it has not been detected in existing designs. However, since this
is an unpublished report it is not a valid source of information for changing
-140-
the current design procedure.
They indicate that the ASHRAE procedure can
also be used for systems with plastic pipe by using simple multipliers for
various pipe diameters.
6.4 - Hiph and Medium Temperature Infrared Systems
The design guidelines provided by manufacturers of infrared heating systems (14 were made available) have been reviewed.
They cover both gas and
electric as well as various intensity levels (porous refractory, radiant tube,

quartz tube, and metal sheath electric).
The design guidelines for all of
these units are very similar, with minor variations between manufacturers.
These begin with a heating survey taking note of building materials, design
temperatures, usage schedules, combustible or potentially toxic vapors in the
building and restrictions for moisture level requirements. A standard ASHRAE
heat loss calculation is suggested along with a reduction recommendation ranging from 0 to 25% with the usual value being about 15%. Various reasons are
given for this reduction in design heat load:
unvented gas fired units are
more efficient, less heat loss due to a reduction in air temperature stratification in the building, and a lower air temperature required for comfort
when radiant energy is used for heating.
The size of the heaters are then selected from the manufacturers published
data.
These units are usually mounted along the perimeter where the high heat
losses occur.
They have specific types of reflectors and are mounted at var-
ious angles so as to prevent radiating the wall.
Specific details are given
concerning mounting height, lateral spacing of heaters, and distance from

combustible materials.
At some point in the design of the unvented gas units, consideration of
minimum dilution air to control the CO2 and condensation possibilities must be
taken into account.
Providing the necessary make-up air and exhaust for these
systems is an extremely important consideration.
-141-
A design procedure is presented below for gas and electric infrared heaters.
It must be stated, however, that the designer or engineer must follow
the manufacturers design and layout suggestions in order to be protected by

their guarantee. The following basic steps are suggested as a design procedure.
1. Determine if the building and/or operations are suitable for
infrared heaters. Do not install units where combustible vapors
are present.
2.
Calculate building transmission losses using ASHRAE design procedures

in Chapter 25 of the 1985 ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals [1].
3. Compute the air infiltration and any forced ventilation loads using
procedures given in Chapter 22 of Ref. 1.
4.
Calculate total heat

loss by adding together the transmission losses and infiltration and
ventilation losses. Reduce this number based on the information
given in Figure 28 and the estimated infiltration air changes
per hour.
5.
Select heater size or sizes and type of control. This should take
into account the mounting height, reflector style, clearance to
Combustible materials and general layout of the building.
Take
into account the manufacturer's recommendations and requirements.

Select type of control suitable for the heaters and the specific
application.
6.
Determine the number of heaters by dividing the total load from

(4) by the heater size selected in (5).
7.
Determine heater placement using the manufacturers suggestions

regarding mounting height, distance from combustibles, reflector
design (they should be designed and placed so that no direct
-142-
infrared radiation falls on the walls and that the floor is covered
with direct infrared radiant energy in proportion to the building
heat loss), and building dimensions.
Perimeter mounted heaters are
usually angled toward the interior of the building (at about 30 deg.)
and heaters in the interior of the building are usually mounted
horizontal with appropriate reflectors. They should avoid interior
obstructions such as cranes sprinkler systems, storage racks, fork
truck travel, and light fixtures.
8.
Determine the method of mounting heaters using manufacturers

recommendations. Use manufacturers recommendations concerning
mounting devices, brackets, flexible gas lines and flexible electrical
conduit.
Avoid having heaters too close to structural members.
Always conform to local codes.

9.
Select and locate thermostats to control zone loads and provide uniform heating.
They should be mounted according to the manufacturers
recommendations.
Generally, they should be about 5 feet from the
floor, out of direct view of the heaters, and not in direct contact
with cold outside walls.
10.
Determine minimum air needed to dilute CO2 in unvented units to a safe

level.
In unvented gas fired systems check for condensation
possibilities.
Check design values of inside surfaces and roof with
the deWpoint temperature of the inside air.

11.
Comply with all of the manufacturers installation and operation

instructions.
6.5 - Other Design Procedures

A few other suggestions were found in the literature for modification of
the design heat load for a radiant heating system when the design heat load is
calculated for a forced air system.
Mclntyre [23 and 24] used a theoretical
-143-
computer program and a simplified method in the CIBS Guide to compare the
difference in design heating load for radiant and warm.air systems. In addition, he also looked at estimated energy requirements for the various types of
systems.
He came to the following conclusions:
(1) the simplified CIBS Guide
method and the computer model show very good agreement, (2) theoretical
studies showed little difference (5%) in the power required to maintain comfortable conditions in residential size and types of rooms with either radiant
or warm air heating, (3) radiant heating was more economical (5-20%) than
forced air heating systems in large spaces with high infiltration rates.
In another paper by Harrison [25], the differences between design heating
loads for convective and radiant systems in discussed. These contain multiplying factors to be applied to transmission losses and air change losses.
These are all based on theoretical calculations and show the same trend of a
decrease in the design heat loss as infiltration increases and an increase in
the design heat loss as more radiant energy falls on the walls, floors or
ceiling.
For about the greatest change illustrated, a combined modifier of
0.82 was given.
This is comparable with the value of a 17% reduction given in"
Figure 28.
In another unpublished discussion of this problem, the author calculates a
percent reduction in the design heat loss of about 12% at one air change per
hour.
This is somewhat higher than what others have calculated, however, this
model is considerably different than what others propose.
-144-
7.0 - SUMMARY OF MANUFACTURERS SURVEY

Over 320 letters have been sent to the following groups: members and
corresponding members of TC 6.5; equipment and instrument manufacturers or
suppliers as well as installers of radiant heating/cooling equipment; laboratories, consultants, and trade associations. Approximately 75 positive responses have been received from these inquiries. The majority of the information has been specific details about products and some information on design
procedures.
Approximately 15 to 20 responses were for medium and high tem-
perature electric and infrared units. About 10-15 responses concerned radiant
ceiling/floor panels. The remainder of these responses discussed various
aspects of the radiant heating field such as controls, materials of construction, measurement instrumentation and miscellaneous items. This information
has been reviewed and has been incorporated into this report.
-145-
8.0 - SYSTEM DYNAMICS

System dynamics for heating and cooling enter into the calculations only
when actual operation is considered and not when design heating loads are
being calculated.
The dynamics of the system are important during transient
load situations in order to estimate comfort conditions and energy requirements.
This is discussed in several references [19,21,26,27,28].
The heated
concrete floor and embedded heaters in plaster ceilings were found to present
the slowest response times and require more sophisticated control systems to
account for temperature lag.
The hydronic metal ceiling panels and high tem-
perature ( infrared) systems do not appear to present any dynamic problems if

properly designed and controlled.
-146-
9.0 - RESEARCH NEEDS

There have been six areas which were identified as requiring additional
research information.
Four of these areas enter directly into the
calculations which have been made in this investigation.

9.1 - Convection Coefficients.
There is insufficient information available on the effect of geometrical
considerations for convection coefficients from surfaces at temperatures different than the air temperature. When surfaces (panel heating units or glass
surfaces) at different temperatures than a surrounding surface in the same
plane are present, reliable data does not seem to be available.
It is esti-
mated that this unknown effect could influence the results by 5 to 10%. There
is also a lack of reliable data for the size effect of surfaces exchanging
heat by convection with the air (tall walls, long thin heating surfaces).
Further research needs to be done in these areas.
9.2 - Air Temperature Stratification.
There appears to be a lack of information on what effect heating and cooling surfaces have on air temperature stratification.
Some measurements have
been made [18] for specific situations , but no general calculation criteria
appear to be available.
9.3 - Surface Emissivities.
There do not appear to be reliable data for surface emissivities of
radiant heating and cooling surfaces. Most manufacturers do not present this
data and some estimate it at between 0.87 and 0.95.
This value has a strong
effect on the area of heaters required for radiant systems.

9.4 - Comfort During Radiant Temperature Asymmetry.
There is some data available [7,14] on the effects on comfort due to
radiant temperature asymmetry , but additional information is needed.
It
would be useful to have design charts giving values of radiant temperature

-147-
asymmetry for specific geometries or giving limiting values of heat flux

(Btu/hr ft^) for comfort conditions. Some additional work is needed in this
area.
9.5 - Radiant System Dynamics.
Very little information is available on radiant heating system dynamics
and how this affects the energy requirements for radiant heating and cooling
systems.
Some applied types of heat transfer analyses involving the interac-
tions between convection and radiant exchanges at surfaces with the material
having a heat capacity are needed.
9.6 - Heated Floor System
With the reported discrepancies in the ASHRAE design procedure [20,21,22]
additional work should be done to correct the estimations of upward heat floWj
downward heat flow, and edge heat losses for different geometries and tube
spacings.
-148-
10.0 - REFERENCES
ASHRAE, Handbook of Fundamentals. American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA, 1985.
ASHRAE, 1984 Systems Handbook. American Society- of Heating,
ASHRAE, 1983 Equipment Handbook. American Society of Heating,
Fanger, P. 0., Theraml Comfort - Analysis and Applications in
Environmental Engineering. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY, 1972.
McAdams, W. H. , Heat Transmission. McGraw Hill Book, Co., 1954.
Incropera, F. P. and DeWitt, D. P., Fundamentals of Heat and Mass
Transfer. Second Edition, John Wiley and Sons, NY, 1985.
Olesen, B. W. and Nielsen, R. , "Radiant Spot Cooling of Hot Working
Places", ASHRAE Trans., V. 87, Pt. 1, 1981.
McNall, P. E. , Jaax, J. Rohles, F. H. , Jr., and Springer, W. E.,
"Thermal Comfort Condition for Three Levels of Activity", ASHRAE
Trans.. Vol. 73, Pt. 1, 1967.
Olesen, S., Bassing, J. J. and Fanger, P. 0., "Physiological Comfort
Conditions at Sixteen Combinations of Activity, Clothing, Air Velocity
and Ambient Temperature", ASHRAE Trans.. Vol. 78, Pt. II, 1972.
McNall, P. E. , Jr. and Schlegel, J. C , "The Relative Effects of
Convection and Radiation Heat Transfer on Thermal Comfort for
Sedentary and Active Human Subjects", ASHRAE Trans.. Vol. 74,
Pt. II, 1968.
Rohles, F. H., Jr., Woods, J. E., and Nevins, R. G. , "The
Influence of Clothing and Temperature on Sedentary Comfort",
ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 79, Pt. II, 1973.
149-
12.
Rohles, F. H. , Jr., Woods, J. E. , and Nevins, R. G., "The Effects

of Air Movement and Temperature on the Thermal Sensations of
Sedentary Man, ASHRAE Trans.. Vol. 80, Pt. I, 1974.
13.
Griffiths, I. D. and Mclntyre, D. A., "Radiant Heating and Comfort",

Building Services Engineer, Vol. 40, June, 1972.
14.
Fanger, P. 0., "Radiation and Discomfort", ASHRAE Journal. February,

1986.
15.
Iso, 7730, "Moderate Thermal Environments - Determination of the

PMV and PPD Indices and Specification of the Conditions for Thermal
Comfort", International Standards Organization, Geneva, 1984.
16.
ASHRAE, Procedure for Determining Heating and Cooling Loads

for Computerized Energy Calculations - Algorithms for Building
Heat Transfer Subroutines. American Society of Heating,
17.
Altmayer, E. F. , Gadgil, A. J., Baumann, F. S. and Kammerud, R. S.,

"Correlations for Convective Heat Transfer from Room Surfaces", ASHRAE
Trans.. Vol. 89, Pt. 2A, 1983.
18.
Min, T. C. , Schutrum, L. F. , Parmelee, G. V. andVouris, J. D., "Natural

Convection and Radiation in a Panel Heated Room", Heating. Piping and Air
Conditioning. May, 1956.
19.
Grammling, F. J., "Methods for Testing Hydronic Floor Heating Systems",

ASHRAE Trans., V. 91, Pt. 2, 1985.
20.
Hogan, R. E., Jr., "Heat Transfer Analysis of Radiant Heating Panels Hot Water Pipes in Concrete Slab Floor", M.S. Thesis, Louisiana Tech.
University, August, 1979.
21.
Hogan, R. E. , Jr., and Blackwell, B. , "Comparison of Numerical Model with

ASHRAE Design Procedure for Warm Water Concrete Floor Heating Panels",
ASHRAE, Trans., Vol. 92, Pt. 1, 1986.
-150-
22.
Shamsundar, N. , Lienhard, J. H. and Tezduyar, T. E., "Performance of

Polybutylene Pipe in Concrete Heating Panels", Report No. 2, Department
of Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, TX, 1985
(UNPUBLISHED).
23.
Mclntyre, D.A., "Warm Air and Radiant Heating:
Steady State Power
Requirements", Electricity Council Research Centre, Capenhurst,

England, D e c , 1980, (NTJS - PB83 - 231506)
24.
Mclntyre, D.A., "Warm Air or Radiant Heating?", Building Research and

Practice. Vol. 17, No. 1, Pg. 48-57, Jan-Feb., 1984.
25.
Harrison, E., "The Calculation of the Heat Requirements of Rooms",

The Building Services Engineer. Vol. 43, pg. 19-23, May, 1975.
26.
Algren, A. B. and Ciscel, B., "Heating Panel Time Response Study",

Heating. Piping and Air Conditioning. March, 1949.
27.
Berglund, L. , Rascati, R. , and Markel, M. , "Radiant Assisted Comfort

Heating For Energy Conservation in Intermittently Occupied Spaces",
Proceedings of the CIB W67 Third International Symposium. Dublin,
Ireland, 1982.
28.
Boyar, R. E., "Room Temperature Dynamics of Radiant Ceiling and Air

Conditioning Comfort Systems", Trans. ASHRAE, V. 69, 1963.
-151-
APPENDIX A
BIBLIOGRAPHY
II
A-l
Adlam, T. N. , Radiant Heating. The Industrial Press, New York, NY, 1949.
Aiulfi, D., Fort K., Ottin, T., "Modelization of Floor Heating and Oil
Furnaces for the Unilization of Microprocessors in DDC," Clima 2000 Heating. Ventilating and Air-Conditioning Systems. Vol. 6, W S Kongres
- W S Messe, 1985.
Albert!, M. and Rugger, R. , "A Method to Check Thermal Comfort Conditions in
High Industrial Buildings Provided with Radiant Panels Heating Plant",
Clima 2000 - Indoor Climate. Vol. 4, W S Kongres - W S Messe, 1985.
Alexander, J. C , "Calculations of Direct Energy Losses from Ceiling Mounted
Radiant Heating Panels to Fenestrated Areas," Energy Engineering: Journal
of Association of Energy Engineers, Vol. 78, No. 5, pg. 35-48,
August-September 1981.
Algren, A. B., and Ciscel, Ben, "Heating Panel Time Response Study," Heating
Piping & Air Conditioning. March 1949.
Algren, A. B. , Snyder, E. F., Jr., Head, R. R., "Field Studies of Floor Panel
Control Systems - Part II,", Heating. Piping and Air Conditioning. April
1954.
Algren, A. B., Snyder, E. F., Jr., Locke, J. S., "Field Studies of Floor Panel
Control Systems," Heating. Piping and Air Conditioning. February 1953.
Altmayer, E. F. , Gadgil, A. J., Bauman, F. S., and Kammerud, R. C ,
"Correlations for Convective Heat Transfer from Room Surfaces," ASHRAE
Trans., Vol. 89, pt. 2A, 1983.
Ashley, J. L. , Correa, E. and Canfield, K., "Energy Conservation: Heating
Navy Hangars", Technical Report R-910, Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, July 1984.
ASHRAE, "High Intensity Infrared Radiant Heating - Chap. 18", 1984 Systems
Handbook. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning
Engineers, Atlanta, GA, 1984.
ASHRAE, "High Intensity Infrared Heaters - Chap. 30", 1983 Equipment Handbook.
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning
ASHRAE, "Panel Heating and Cooling Systems - Chap. 8", 1984 Systems Handbook.
ASHRAE, Procedure for Determining Heating and Cooling Loads for Computerizing
Energy Calculations - Algorithms for Building Heat Transfer Subroutines.
Engineers, Atlanta, GA., 1975.
ASHRAE Task Group, "High-Intensity Infrared Heaters," ASHRAE Journal, December
1963.
A-2
Bahnfleth, Donald R. , "Building Heat with Natural Gas Infrared," ASHRAE

Journal, June 1968.
Bahnfleth, D.R., "Physiological Effects of High Intensity Radiant Beam
Heating", ASHRAE Jnl.. Nov., 1964.
Bahnfleth, Donald R., "Symposium: Field Performance of Infrared Heating
Systems," ASHRAE Journal, June 1968.
Bailey, H. R., "An Experimental Comparison of Energy Requirements for Space
Heating with Radiant and Convective Systems", ASHRAE Trans.. V. 86, Pt.
1, 1980.
Bak, Richard, "Hydronic Radiant Floor Heating Staging a Comback", Air
Conditioning. Heating and Refrigeration News. March 1985.
Baker, Merl," Effectiveness and Temperature Requirements for Cooling Panels
Removing Internal Radiation," Heating. Piping and Air Conditioning. June
1952.
Baker, Merl, "Improved Comfort Through Radiant Heating and Cooling," ASHRAE
Journal, February 1960.
Baker, Merl, "Removal of Internal Radiation by Cooling Panels," Heating.
Piping. & Air Conditioning. November 1949.
Ball, H. D. and Green, D., "The Impact of Lighting Fixtures on Heating and
Cooling Loads - Mathematical Mode", ASHRAE Trans.. V. 89, pt. 2A, 1983.
Banhidi, L. , "Ther Thermotechnical Dimensioning of Radiant Strips and Borders
for the Heating of Communal Buildings", Building Science. Vol. 9, 1974.
Banhidi, L., Dr., Somogyi, A., Kintses, G., Besnyo, J., "About Local
Discomfort Effects Caused by Asymmetric Radiation Occurring During Winter
in Dwelling Houses", Cliraa 2000 - Indoor Climate. Vol. 4, W S Kongres W S Messe, 1985.
Bauman, F., Gadgil, A., Kammarud, R., Altmayer, E. , Nansteel, M., "Convective
Heat Transfer in Buildings: Recent Research Results" ASHRAE Trans, Vol.
89, pt. 1A, 1983.
Baumanns, H., "Gas IR Heaters for Heating Large Spaces," Warme Gas
International. Vol. 27, No. 4, Gewea GmbH and Co. Monchengladbach, April,
1978.
Becker, Sidney, "Surface Temperatures of Plaster Ceiling Panels," Heating.
Piping. & Air Conditioning April, 1950.
Beier, Richard A. and Gorton, Robert L., "Thermal Stratification in Factories
- Cooling Loads and Temperature Profiles," ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 84, Pt. 1,
1978.
Belsey, D. C. and Benseman, R. F., "Spatial Radiation Patterns for Infra-Red
Heaters", Building Science. Vol. 3, 1969.
A-3
Benzinger, Theodore H. , Manglum, B. W., and Hill James, "The Design

Construction and Operation of a Scanning Radiometer for Measurement of
Plane Radiant Temperature in Buildings," ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 82, Pt. 2,
1976.
Berglund, Larry, "Mathematical Models for Predicting the Thermal Comfort
Response of Building Occupants," ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 84, Pt. 1, 1978.
Berglund, L. G. and Fobelets, A. P. R., "Subjective Human Response to Low-Level
Air Currents and Asymmetric Radiation", ASHRAE Trans.. V. 93, Pt. 1,
1987.
Berglund, L. G. and Gagge, A. P., "Human Response to Thermal Conditions
Maintained in an Office by Radiant Ceiling, Baseboard, Forced Air and
Floor Heating Systems", ASHRAE Trans., V. 91, Pt. 2, 1985.
Berglund, L. G. and Gagge, A. P., "Thermal Comfort and Radiant Heat",
Proceedings of the Third National Passive Solar Conference. American
Section of the International Solar Energy Society, Univ. of Deleware,
1979.
Berglund, L. G. , Gagge, A. P. annd Banhidi, L. J., Performance of Radiant
Ceiling and Other Heating Systems Controlled for Equal Comfort with an
Operative Temperature Sensor", ProceedinEs of the Third International
Conference on Indoor Air Quality and Climate. Stockholm, August, 1984
Berglund, L. , Rascati, R. and Markel, M. L. , "Radiant Heating and Control for
Comfort during Transient Conditions", ASHRAE Trans.. V. 88, Pt. 2, 1982.
Berglund, L., Rascati, R., Markel, M., "Radiant Assisted Comfort Heating for
Energy Conservation in Intermittently Occupied Spaces," Energy
Conservation in the Built Environment: Proceedings of the CIB W67 Third
International Symposium, Dublin, Ireland, 1982, pg. 98
Best, W. H. "Spot Heating and Condensation Control Using Gas Infrared
Systems," ASHRAE Journal, June 1968.
Billington, N. S., "Floor Panel Heating - Some Design Data", Journal of the
Institution of Heating and Ventilating Engineers. London, Oct., 1953.
Blossom, J. S., "High Temperature Water Heats New School", Heating Piping and
Air Conditioning. March, 1959.
Blossom, J. S., "Pipe HTW Through Classrooms", Heating. Piping and Air
Conditioning. July, 1964.
Bohgaki, K., "Effect of Floor Heating on Man's Comfort and Thermal
Sensations," Clima 2000 - Indoor Climate. Vol. 4, W S Kongres - W S
Messe, 1985.
Borresen, B. A., "Thermal Room Models for Control Analysis", ASHRAE Trans.. V.
87, Pt. 2, 1981.
Boyar, R. E., "The Influence of Radiant Energy Transfer on Human Comfort",
Heating. Piping and Air Conditioning. June 1966.
A-4
Boyar, R. E. , "Room Temperature Dynamics of Radiant Ceiling and Air

Conditioning Comfort Systems", Trans. ASHRAE, V. 69, 1963
Boyd, R. L., "Control of Electric Infrared Energy Distribution", Electrical
Engineering. Feb. 1963, p. 103.
Boyd, R. L. , "What Do We Know About Infrared Comfort Heating?", Heating.
Piping and Air-Conditioning. Nov., 1960, p. 133.
Boyd, Robert, "Application and Selection of Electric Infrared Comfort
Heaters," ASHRAE Journal, October 1962.
Boyer, L. L. , "Radiant Panel Effects of Floor - Ceiling Assemblies
Incorporating Static, Return, and Supply Penums," ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 74,
Pt. 2, 1968.
Braun, D. L. and McNall, P. E., Jr., "A Radiometer for Environmental
Applications", ASHRAE Trans.. V. 75, Pt. 1, 1969.
Bruce, H. H. , "Off-Peak Floor Heating-Research, Design and Development: Some
Controversial Factors", Electricity and Space Heating. Proceedings of
Symposium of the Institution of Electrical Engineers in London, March,
1964.
Bryan, W. L., "Comparative Energy Requirements of Radiant Space Heating",
ASHRAE Trans.. V. 87, Pt. 1, 1981.
Bryan, W. L. , "Gas-Fired Radiant Heat", Mech. Engr.. Vol. 87, March, 1965.
Buckley, N. A. , "Engineering Principles Support an Adjustment Factor When
Sizing Gas-Fired Low-Intensity Infrared Equipment", ASHRAE Trans.. V. 93,
Pt. 1, 1987.
Buckley, N. A., and Seel T., "Gas-Fired Medium - Intensity Radiant
Heating Provides a Cost-Effective, Efficient Space Conditioning
Alternative," ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 92, pt. 1, No. 4, 1986.
Bull, L. C. , "The Practical Approach to Heat Loss Calculation", Building
Services Engineer. Vol. 41, March, 1974.
Cambel, A. B., "Model Study of Radiant Heating", Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Iowa, 1950.
Carroll, J. R., "Radiant Systems for Heating", New Methods of Heating
Buildings. BRI-760, National Academy of Sciences - National Research
Council, Washington, D. C , 1960.
Carroll, Joseph A., An "MRT Method" of Computing Radiant Energy Exchange in
Rooms. Systems Simulation and Economic Analysis Conference Proceedings,
January 1980, San Diego, CA.
Chapot, Jean Robert, Manuel Techniques "Avadis". Utilization Chauffage Par Le
Sol, Pont-A-Mousson, S. A.
A-5
Chrenko, F. A., "Heated Ceilings and Comfort", Journal of the Institution of

Heating and Ventilating Engineers. London, April, 1952.
Chrenko, F. A., "Heated Floors and Comfort". Journal of the Institution of
Heating and Ventilating Engineers. London, April, 1955.
Chrenko, F. A., "Radiant Heat and Thermal Comfort", Electricity and Space
Heating. March, 1964.
Cohn, Lisa, "Radiant Heating Units Net Big Savings in Special Cases," Energy
User News, Vol. 7, No. 47, November 1982.
Collicott, H. E., Fontaine, W. E., and Grosh, R. J., "Free Convection and
Radiation Heat Transfer from Cylindrical Fins," ASHRAE Journal, Dec.
1965.
Collicott, H. E. , Fontaine, W. E. , and Witzell, 0. W. "Radiation and Free
Convection Heat Transfer from Wire and Tube Heat Exchanges," ASHRAE
Journal, Dec. 1963.
, "Concrete Code Restricts Panel Heating," Heating. Piping. & Air
Conditioning. October 1951.
, "Conserving Energy with Infrared Heating," Plant Engineering. Vol.
31, No. 8, pg. 155 +, Technical Pub. Co., April, 1977.
Correa, Edward L., Design Guidelines for Heating Aircraft Hangars with Radiant
Heaters. Naval Civil Engineering Lab, December, 1983.
Danter, E. , "Heat Exchanges in a Room and the Definition of Room Temperature",
The Building Services Engineer. Vol. 41, Feb., 1974.
DeHeer, T. and Erkerlens, H. J., "Heat Transmission by Radiation", Journal of
the Institution of Heating and Ventilationg Engineers. London, Jan.,
1963.
DeWerth, D. W. , "A Study of Infra-Red Energy Generated by Radiant Gas
Burners", Research Bulletin No. 92. American Gas Association, Nov. 1962.
DeWerth, Douglas W., "Gas-Fired Radiant Heat", Mechanical Engineering. Vol.
86, Nov., 1964.
DeWerth, D. W. , "Literature Review of Infrared Energy Produced with Gas Burners", Research Bulletin 83, American Gas Association Laboratories,
Cleveland, Ohio, 1960.
Diamant, R. M. E., "Radiant Heating" The Heating and Air-Conditioning Journal
ASHRAE Journal, Vol. 50, No. 577, pg. 26-28, Troop Publ., February, 1980.
Dunkle, R.V., "Configuration Factors for Radiant Heat Transfer Calculations
Involving People", ASME Trans.. Jnl. of Heat Transfer, Feb., 1963.
Endreb, B. Von H., and Mommertz W., "Untersuchung von Flachenheiz - Systemen
Mit Der Thermoelektrischen Analogie," Elektrowaerme. Vol. 39, No. 4, pg.
203-210, August, 1981.
A-6
Eno, Burton E., "Combined Convection and Radiation from Rectilinear Fins,"
ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 73, pt. 1, 1967.
Faithfull, E. W., "Electric Floor Warmings in Commercial Buildings",
Electricity and Space Heating Proceedings of Symposium of the Institution
of Electrical Engineers in London. March, 1964.
Fanger, P. 0., "Calculation of Thermal Comfort: Introduction to a Basic
Comfort Equation", ASHRAE Trans.. Vol. 73, Pt. II, 1967.
Fanger, P. 0., "Radiation and Discomfort" ASHRAE Journal, February 1986.
Fanger, P. 0., Thermal Comfort - Analysis and Applications in Environmental
Engineering. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1972.
Fanger, P. 0., Angelius, 0., and Kjerulf - Jensen, P., "Radiation Data for the
Human Body," ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 76, Pt. 2, 1970.
Fanger, P. 0., Banhidi, L., Olesen, B. W. and Langkilde, G., "Comfort Limits
for Heated Ceilings" ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 86, pt. 2, 1980.
Faucett, J. W. , "Field Evaluation of High Intensity Infrared Space Heating
Systems - Research Project RP-98", Final Report, ASHRAE, 1972.
Faust, Frank H., "New Electric Heating Systems", New Methods of Heating
Buildings. BRI-760, National Academy of Sciences - National Research
Council, Washington, DC, 1960.
Field, A. A. - "Direct Fired Radiant Heating Systems", Heating and Ventilating
Engineer, " Vol. 49, No. 571, pg. 6-9, Technitrade Journals Ltd.,
February 1975.
Ford, J. K., "Deriving Radiation View Factors within a Triangular
Cross-Section Residential Attic", ASHRAE, Trans., Vol. 89, pt. 1A, 1983.
, "Fuel Bills Halved After Switch to Infrared Heating System," Energy
Management Technology. Vol. 7, No. 8, pg. 44-45, Walker-Davis
Publications, November 1983.
, Gas Engineers Handbook. Industrial Press, NY, 1977.
Gagge, A. P., Fobelets, A. P. and Berglund, L. G., "A Standard Predictive
Index of Human Response to the Thermal Environment", ASHRAE Trans.. V.
92, Pt. 2, 1986.
Gagge, A. P., Hardy, J. D., and Rapp, G. M., "Exploratory Study on Comfort for
High Temperature Sources of Radiant Heat," ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 71, Pt. 2,
1965.
Gagge, A. P., Rapp.G. M., and Hardy, J. D., "The Effective Radiant Field and
Operative Temperature Necessary for Comfort with Radiant Heating," ASHRAE
Journal, 1967.
A-7
Gagge, A. P., Rapp, G. M. , and Hardy, J. D., "Mean Radiant and Operative
Temperature for High-Temperature Sources of Radiant Heat," ASHRAE
Journal, October 1964.
Gagge, A.P., "Final Progress Report: RP-41-Physiological Effects of High
Intensity Radiant Beam Heating", ASHRAE Jnl.. April, 1968.
, "Gas Radiant Heating Installation Achieves 90% Overall Efficiency"
The Heating and Air Conditioning Journal ASHRAE Journal, Vol. 48, No.
S60, pg. 60-61, Troup Publ., September 1978.
Gebhart, Benjamin, "A New Method for Calculating Radiant Exchanges," Heating.
Piping. & Air Conditioning. Ithaca, New York, July 1958.
Gluck, B., Strahlungsheizung Theorie und Praxis. Verlag C. F. Muller,
Karlsruhe, Germany, 1982.
Gorton, R. L. and Leard, A. T. , "A Computer Program for Air Temperature and
Cooling Load Determination for Stratitifed-Cooled Industrial Buildings",
ASHRAE Trans.. V. 90, Pt. IB, 1984.
Gorton, R. L. and Sassi, M. M., "Determination of Temperature Profiles and
Loads in a Thermally Stratified, Air-Conditioned System: Part 1-Model
Studies", ASHRAE Trans.. V. 88, Pt., Pt. 2, 1982.
Gorton, R. L. and Sassi, M. M., "Determination of Temperature Profiles and
Loads in a Thermally Stratified, Air Conditioned System: Part 2 Program Description and Comparison of Computed and Measured Results",
Grammling, F. J., "Methods for Testing Hydronic Floor-Heating Systems," ASHRAE
Trans., V. 91, Pt. 2, 1985.
Griffiths, I.D. and Mclntyre, D.A., "The Balance of Radiant and Air
Temperature for Warmth in Older Women", Environmental Research. 6, 1973.
Griffiths, I. D. and Mclntyre, D. A., "Radiant Heating and Comfort", The
Building Services Engineer. V. 40, June, 1972.
Griffiths, I. and Mclntyre, D., "Subjective Response to Overhead Thermal
Radiation", Human Factors. 16 (4), 1974.
Guillaume, M., "Integration of Different Energy Saving Possibilities in.
Dwellings," Energy Savings in Buildings. Commission of the European
Communities, Edited by Ehringer H. and Zito V., November 1983, D. Reidel
Publ. Co.
Hannay, J., Liebecq, G., Nusgens, P., "Convective Heat Transfers within a
Large Open Plan Office Area: Experimental Results for Dynamic Buildings
Simulations," Clima 2000 - Building Design and Performance. Vol. 2, W S
Kongres - W S Messe, 1985.
Hardy, James D., "Physiological Effects of High Intensity Infrared Heating,"
ASHRAE Journal, November 1962.
A-8
Harrington, Keith and Lydon, R. T., Comparison of Building Thermal Analysis

Methods. Systems Simulation and Economic. Analysis Conference Proceedings,
January 1980, San Diego, CA.
Harris, Robert L., Jr., "Computer Simulation of Radiant Heat Load and Control
Alternatives", Journal of American Industrial Hygiene Assoc.. V. 35,
Feb., 1974.
Harrison, E., "Calculation of the Heat Requirements of Rooms," The Building
Services Engineer. Vol. 43, pg. 19-23, Batiste Publications Ltd., May
1975.
Harrison, E., "Environmental Temperature and the Calculation of Heat Loss",
Building Services Engineer. Vol. 41, March, 1974.
Hart, Gordon H., "Heating the Perimeter Zone of an Office Building: An
Analytical Study using the Proposed ASHRAE Comfort Standard (SS-74R),"
ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 87., pt. 2, 1981.
Hazard, W. G., "Radiant Heat Control in Industrial Plants," ASHRAE Journal,
November 1959.
Heath, George, "Basic Infrared Heating Applications," ASHRAE Journal, Dec.
1967.
Hedgepeth, Lloyd M., and Sepsy, Charles, "A Thermodynamic Simulation of a
Building Environmental Control System," ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 78, Pt. 2,
1972.
Heerwagen, D. R. , Kippenhan, C. J., Emery, A. F. , and Varey, G. B, "Developing
Office Building Design and Operation Strategies Using VWENSOL and the
Comfort Routine", ASHRAE Trans.. V. 86, Pt. 1, 1980.
Herrington, L. P., and Lorenzi, R. J., "Effect of Panel Location on Skin and
Clothing Surface Temperature, "Heating. Piping. & Air Conditioning.
October 1949.
Hogan, Roy Edward, Jr., Heat Transfer Analysis of Radiant Heating Panels
- Hot Water Pipes in Concrete Slab Floor. MS Thesis, Louisiana
Tech. University, August 1979.
Hogan, R. E., Jr. and Blackwell, B., Ph.D., "Comparison of Numerical
Model with ASHRAE Design Procedure for Warm Water Concrete Floor Heating
Panels," ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 92, No. 2, Pt. 1, 1986.
Holden, T.S., "Calculation of Incident Low Temperature Radiation," ASHRAE
Journal, April 1961.
Houghten, F. C , et. al., "Heat Loss Through Basement Floors and Walls", ASHVE
Trans.. Vol. 48, 1942.
Houghten, F. C , Gunst, S. B. and Suciu, J., "Radiation as Factor in the
Sensation of Warmth", ASHVE Trans.. Jan., 1941.
A-9
Howarth, E.S., Huddleston, S.C., and Koch, R.M., "Aluminum Ceiling Panels
for Heating and Cooling," Heating. Piping. & Air Conditioning. September
1951.
HPAC Engineering Data File, "Design and Control of High Temperature Hot Water
Heat Consumers", Heating Piping and Air Conditioning. June, 1960.
Hulbert, L.E., Nottage, H.B., and Franks, C.V., "Heat Flow Analysis in Panel
Heating or Cooling Sections," Heating. Piping & Air Conditioning. April
1950.
Humphreys, C. M., Franks, C.V., Schutrum, L.F., "Field Studies of Heat Losses
from Concrete Floor Panels," Heating. Piping and Air Conditioning.
January 1951.
Humphreys, C. M., Franks, C. V., Schutrum, L. F., "Laboratory Studies of the
Thermal Characteristics of Plaster Panels," Heating, Piping and Air
Conditioning, July 1951.
Humphreys, C M . , Nottage, H.E., Franks, C.V., Huebscher, R.G., Schutrum, L.F.,
and Locklin, D.W. "Laboratory Studies on Heat Flow Within a Concrete
Panel," Heating. Piping & Air Conditioning. April, 1950.
Hunter, Robert K., "Controllable and Efficient Infrared Radiant Heating",
Automation. October 1972.
Hutchinson, F. W. , A Graphical Design Procedure for Radiant Panel Heating.
Revere Copper & Brass, Inc., New York, NY, 1948.
Hutchinson, F. W., Design of Heating and Ventilating Systems. The Industrial
Press, New York, 1955.
Hutchinson, F. W., "Influence of Gaseous Radiation in Panel Heating", ASHRAE
Trans.. Vol. 53, 1947.
Hutchinson, F. W. , "Influence of Gaseous Radiation in Panel Heating", Trans.
ASHVE. 1947.
Hutchinson, F.W. and Baker, Merl, "Optimum Panel Surface Distribution
Determined from Human Shape Factors," Heating, Piping and Air
Conditioning, June 1951.
Hutchinson, F.W., Mills, D. L., and La Tart, L. J., "Losses from a Floor-Type
Panel Heating System," Heating. Piping & Air Conditioning. December 1950.
, "In Old Building - New Infrared Heating System Solves Old Problems",
Air Conditioning Heating and Refrigeration News. April, 1985.
IHVE, Estimation of Plant Capacity. A9, IHVE Guide, 1975.
IHVE, "Thermal and Other Properties of Building Structures", A3, IHVE Guide,
1977.
Irwin, R.R., "Panel Cooling for a Residence," Heating. Piping & Air
Conditioning. May 1955.
A-10
Janssen, John E., "Field Evaluation of High Temperature Infrared Space Heating
Systems," ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 82, Pt. 1, 1976.
Johnson, T. E., "Radiation Cooling of Structures with Infrared Transparent
Wind Screens", Proceedings of the Second Workshop on the Use of Solar
Energy for the Cooling of Buildings, UCLA, August, 1975.
Khudenko, A.A., "Radiation Characteristics of Gas Infrared" Journal of
Engineering Physics. Vol. 29, No. 5, Pg. 1395-1400, Consultants Bureau.
Korsgaard, V., "Necessity of Using a Directional Mean Radiant Temperature to
Describe the Thermal Conditions in Rooms", Heating. Piping and Air
Conditioning, June, 1949.
Korsgaard, V., "A New Radiometer Measuring Directional Mean Radiant
Temperatures", Heating Pining and Air Conditioning. July, 1949.
Kweller Esher, "Criteria for Mechanical Energy Saving Retrofit Options for
Single Family Residences," New and Existing Single Family Residences.
ACEEE 1984 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings.
Langkilde, G., Gunnarsen, L.,.Mortensen, N., "Comfort Limits During Infrared
Radiant Heating of Industrial Spaces," Clima 2000 - Indoor Climate. Vol.
4, W S Kongres - W S Messe, 1985.
Lebrun, Jean J., and Marret, Dominique J., "Thermal Comfort and Energy
Consumption in Winter Conditions -- Continuation of the Experimental
Study" ASHRAE Trans., Vol 85, Pt. 2, 1979.
Leopold, C. S., "The Mechanism of Heat Transfer Panel Cooling Heat Storage",
Refrigerating Engineering. July 1947.
Leopold, C. S., "The Mechanism of Heat Transfer Panel Cooling Heat Storage Part II, Solar Radiation, Refrigerating Engineering. June, 1948.
Leopold, Charles S., "Design Factors in Panel and Air Cooling Systems,"
Heating. Piping and Air Conditioning. May, 1951.
de chauffage par rayonnement a' basse
> "Le Procede Calendal:
temperature", Reuve de 1'aluminium. Vol. -- No. 438, pg. 141-1565, Sebal,
March 1975.
Lorenzi, R. J., and Schreiber, J. F., "Performance of an Electrical System of
Panel Heating with Four Stages of Insulation," Heating. Piping. & Air
Conditioning. January, 1949.
Macey, H. H., "Heat Loss Through a Solid Floor", Institute of Fuel Journal.
22-128, p. 369.
MacLeod, G. S., and Eves, C.E., "Baseboard Radiation Performance in Occupied
Dwellings," Heating. Piping. & Air Conditioning. February 1950.
Madsen, T. L., "Definition and Measurement of Local Thermal Discomfort
Parameters", ASHRAE Trans. V. 86, Pt. 1, 1980.
A-ll
Madsen, T. L. , "Thermal Comfort Measurements", ASHRAE Trans.. Vol. 82, Part I,

1976, pp. 67-70.
Madsen, T. L. , Olesen, B. W. , Kristensen, N. K., "Comparison Between Operative
and Equivalent Temperature Under Typical Indoor Conditions", ASHRAE
Trans.. V. 91, Pt. IB, 1985.
Mclntyre, D. A., "Eight Hour Floor Warming: A Feasibility Study", Electricity
Council Research Centre, Capenhurst, England, March, 1977 (NTIS-PB 277
115).
Mclntyre, D. A., "Evaluation of Thermal Discomfort", Electricity Council
Research Centre, Capenhurst, England, October, 1984, (NTIS-PB 85-189975).
Mclntyre, D. A., "Overhead Radiation and Comfort", Electricity Council
Research Centre, Capenhurst, England, May, 1976, (NTIS-PB 277-428).
Mclntrye, D.A., "Overhead Radiation and Comfort", The Building Services
Engineer. Vol. 44, Pg. 226-34, Batiste Publ. Ltd., January 1977.
Mclntyre, D. A., "Radiant Heat from Lights and Its Effect on Thermal Comfort",
Illuminating Engineering Society. London. V. 8. No. 3. 1976.
Mclntyre, D. A., "Sensitivity and Discomfort Associated with Overhead Thermal
Radiation", Ergonomics. V. 20, No. 3, pp. 287-296, 1977.
Mclntyre, D.A. , "The Thermal Radiation Field", Building Science. Vol. 9, 1974.
Mclntyre, D. A., "Thermal Radiation from Lighting Installations", The Building
Services Engineer. V. 41, April, 1973.
Mclntyre, D. A., "Warm Air and Radiant Heating: Steady State Power
Requirements", Electricity Council Research Centre, Capenhurst, England,
D e c , 1980, (NTIS-PB83-231506).
Mclntrye, D. A. , "Warm Air Or Radiant Heating?" Building Research and Practice
Vol. 17, No. 1, Pg. 48-51, Centre Scientifique et technique du bAatiment,
January-February 1984.
Mclntyre, D. A. and Brailsford, J. R. , "The Efficiency of Radiant Heat
Sources", The Building Services Engineer. Vol. 40, Feb., 1973.
McNall, Preston E., Jr., "A Manufacturer's View of Radiant Heater Control,"
ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 81, Pt. 1, 1973.
McNall, P. E., Jr. and Biddison, R. E., "Thermal and Comfort Sensations of
Sedentary Persons Exposed to Asymmetric Radiant Fields", ASHRAE Trans..
V. 76, Pt. 1, 1970.
McNall, P. E. and Schlegel, J. C , "The Relative Effects of Convection and
Radiation Heat Transfer on Thermal Comfort (Thermal Neutrality) for
Sedentary and Active Human Subjects", ASHRAE Trans.. V. 74, Pt. 2, 1968.
A-12
Michaels, K. B. , Nevins, R. G. and Feyerherm, A. M. , "The Effect of Floor

Surface Temperature on Comfort Part III, College Age Females", ASHRAE
Trans.. V. 70, 1964.
Mills, Clarence A., "Residential Cooling by Reflective Radiation,"
Refrigerating Engineering. Vol. 58, No. 11, November, 1950.
Mills, C.A., "Reflective Radiant Conditioning Can Provide More Comfort at Less
Cost", Refrigerating Engineering. Jan., 1955.
Mills, C.A. , "Sensible vs Latent Heat Removal in Radiant Cooling,"
Refrigerating Engineering. March 1958.
Mills, Clarence A., "Year-Round Residential Conditioning By Reflective
Radiation," Refrigerating Engineering. November 1950.
Min, T.C., Schutrum, L.F., Parmelee, G.V., and Vouris, J.D., "Natural
Convection and Radiation in a Panel-Heated Room," Heating. Piping & Air
Conditioning. Cleveland, Ohio, May 1956.
Moisan, A. and Lebrun, J., "Comfort in Damp Cold Air with Radiant Spot
Heating", Proceedings of, the Second Int. CIB/RILEM Symposium on Moisture
Problems in Buildings. Rotterdam, 1974.
Morant, M.A. and Strengnart, M., "Simulation of a Hydronic Heating System;
Radiator Modelling," Clima 200 - Heating. Ventilating and
Air-Conditioning System. Vol. 6, W S Kongres - W S Meese, 1985.
Morelli, A.J., "An Economic Study of an Electric Infrared Space Heating
Installation," ASHRAE Journal, June 1968.
Nakanishi, E. , Pereira, N. C , Fan, L. T. and Hwang, C. L. , "Simultaneous
Control of Temperature and Humidity in a Confined Space - Part I,
Building Science. Vol. 8, 1973, p. 39-49.
Naumov, A. L., Solovyov, A. J., Shilkrot, E.O., "Heating of Industrial
Buildings with the Help of Suspended Radiating Panels," Clima 2000 Heating. Ventilating and Air-Conditionign Systems. Vol. 6, W S . Kongres W S Messe, 1985.
, National Fuel Gas Code. ANSI Z 223.1, 1984, American Gas Association,
1984.
NEMA, Infrared Application Manual. Stardard Publication No. HE 3-1983,
National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Washington, DC, 1983.
Nevins, R. G., "Criteria for Thermal Comfort", Building Research. July-August,
1966.
Nevins, R. G. and Feyerherm, A. M. , "Effect of Floor Surface Temperature on
Comfort Part IV: Cold Floors", ASHRAE Trans.. V. 73, Pt. 2, 1966.
Nevins, R. G. and Flinner, A. 0., "Effect of Heated-Floor Temperatures on
Comfort", Heating Piping and Air Conditioning. Oct., 1957, p. 149-153.
A-13
Nevins, R. G. , Michaels, K. B. and Feyerherm, A. M. , "The Effect of Floor

Surface Temperature on Comfort Part 1, College Age Males", ASHRAE Trans..
V. 70, 1964.
Nottage, H.B., Franks, C. V., Hulbert, L.E., Schutrum, L.F., "Heat Flow
Analysis in Panel Heating or Cooling Sections," Heating, Piping and Air
Conditioning, May 1953.
Olesen, B. W. , "A Simplified Calculation Method for Checking the Indoor
Thermal Climate", ASHRAE Trans.. V. 89, Pt. 2B, 1983.
Olesen, B. W. , Mortensen, E. , Thorshauge, J. and Berg-Munch, B. , "Thermal
Comfort in a Room Heated by Different Methods", ASHRAE Trans.. V. 86, Pt.
1, 1980.
Olesen, B. W. and Nielsen, R., "Radiant Spot Cooling of Hot Working Places",
Olivieri, J. B., How to Design Heating-Cooling Comfort Ceilings. Business News
Publishing Company, Birmingham, MI, 1971.
Olivieri, J. B. and Singh, T., "A Computer Program for Radiant Cooling of High
Bay Buildings", ASHRAE Trans.. V. 93, Pt. 1, 1987.
Pam, R. L. and Kesselring, J. P., Burner Survey for a High Efficiency
Gas-Fired Heating Unit. Alzeta Report No. 84-706-104, Teledyne Laars,
January 1984.
Parmelee, G. V. and Huebscher, R. G., "Forced Convection Heat Transfer from
Flat Surfaces", ASHRAE Trans.. Vol. 53, 1947.
Peach, J., "Radiators and other Convectors", J.I.H.V.E., Vol. 39, Feb., 1972.
Pedersen, C. D., Spitler, J.D., Bunkofske, R.J., Leverenz, D.J., "Experimental
Study of Radiation and Convection Heat Exchange in Rooms for Energy
Analysis Program Models," Clima 2000 - Building Design and Performance.
Vol. 2, W S Kongres - W S Messe, 1985.
Perry, E. H., Cunningham, G. T. , and Scesa, S., "An Analysis of Heat Losses
through Residential Floor Slabs," ASHRAE Trans., V. 91, Pt. 2, 1985.
Pfafflin, J.R., "Space Heating Dynamics", IEEE Trans, on Indust. Appls.. Vol.
IA-19, No. 5, Sept/Oct, 1983.
Pierce, J.D., "Application of Fin Tube Radiation, "ASHRAE Journal, Feb. 1963.
Plattls, R. E., "Where Polyethylene Pipe Challenges Metal for slab Radiant
Heating", Canadian Builder, April, 1963, Pg. 55.
Prince, Fred, J., "Causes and Prevention of Air Temperature Stratification",
Plant Engineering. May 1982.
Prince, F. J., "Selection and Application of Overhead Gas-Fired Infrared Heating Devices," ASHRAE Journal, October 1962.
A-14
Prince, Fred J., "Infrared Heating for Overall Comfort," ASHRAE Journal, Dec.
1968.
Raber, B. F. and Hutchinson, F. W. , "Optimum Surface Distribution in Panel
Heating and Cooling Systems", ASHVE Trans.. 1944.
Raber, B. F. and Hutchinson, F. W. , Panel Heating and Cooling Analysis. John
Wiley & Sons, NY, 1947.
, "Radiant Cooling Panel will get Tryout in U.S.", Air Conditioning.
Heating and Refrigeration News. October 21, 1985.
t Radiant Floor Heating. Plasco Manufacturing Ltd., Janca Enterprises
Ltd., March 1985.
Rapp, George, "Analysis of Free convection and Radiation Heat Transfer in

Valance Heat Exchangers," ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 72, Pt. 1, 1966.
Rapp, George and Gagge, A. P., "Configuration Factors and Comfort Design in
Radiant Beam Heating of Man by High Temperature Infrared Sources," ASHRAE
Trans., Vol. 73, Pt. 2, 1967.
Rickman, James D., "Selected Segment Hydronic Heating System," Energy
Conversion Mgmt., Vol. 25, No. 1, Pg. 73-83, 1985.
Rohles, F. H., Jr., "Temperature or Temperament: A Psychologist Looks at
Thermal Comfort", ASHRAE Trans.. V. 86, Pt. 1, 1980.
Ronge, Hans, E., and Lofstedt, Borje E., "Radiant Drafts from Cold Ceilings,"
Heating, Piping, & Air Conditioning, Uppsala, Sweden, September, 1957.
Roots, W.K., "Electric Space Heating with Active Boundary Members",
Institution of Electrical Engineering Proc.. Vol. 114, No. 7, July, 1967.
Sanford, Len, "No Problem with Radiation" The Heating and Air Conditioning
Journal. Vol. 54, No. 630, Pg. 14-18, 18, 21, Troup Publ., July-August
1984.
Sartain, E. L., and Harris, W. S., "Heat Flow Characteristics of Hot Water
Floor Panels," Heating. Piping. & Air Conditioning. January 1954.
Sartain, E. L. and Harris, W. S., "Performance of Covered Hot Water Floor
Panels - Part I - Thermal Characteristics", Heating. Piping. & Air
Conditioning. October, 1955.
Sartain, E. L. , and Harris, W. S.f "Performance of Covered Hot Water Floor
Panels - Part II - Room Conditions," Heating. Piping. & Air Conditioning.
November, 1956.
Sauer, Harry J., "Configuration Factors for Radiant Energy Interchange with
Triangular Areas," ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 80, Pt. 2, 1974.
Saunders, J. H. and Andrews, J. W., "The Effect of Wall Reflectivity on the
Thermal Performance of Radiant Heating Panels", ASHRAE Trans.. V. 93, Pt.
1, 1987.
A-15
Schlegel, J. C and McNall, P. E., "The Effect of Asymmetric Radiation on the

Thermal and Comfort Sensations of Sedentary Subjects", ASHRAE Trans.. V.
74, Pt. II, 1968.
Schlegel, J. C. and McNall, P.E., Jr., "The Effect of Asymmetric Radiation on
the Thermal and Comfort Sensations of Sedentary Subjects", ASHRAE Trans..
Vol. 74, 1968.
Schutrum, L. F. and Humphreys, C. M., "Effects of Non-Uniformity and
Furnishings on Panel Heating Performance," Heating. Piping and Air
Conditioning. February, 1954.
Schutrum, L.F. and Humphreys, C M . , "Further Studies of the Thermal
Characteristics of Plaster Panels," Heating. Piping and Air Conditioning.
June 1953.
Schutrum, L. F. and Min, T. C , "Cold Wall Effects in a Ceiling - Panel-Heated
Room," Heating. Piping. & Air Conditioning. Cleveland, Ohio, August,
1956.
Schutrum, L.F., and Min, T. C , "Lighting and Cooled Air Effects on Panel
Cooling," Heating. Piping. & Air Conditioning. Cleveland, Ohio, November,
1957.
Schutrum, L.F., Parmelee, G. V., Humphreys, C M . , "Heat Exchanges in a
Ceiling Panel Heated Room," Heating. Piping and Air Conditioning.
December, 1952.
Schutrum, L.F., Parmelee, .G. V., Humphreys, CM., "Heat Exchanges in a Floor
Panel Heated Room," Heating. Piping and Air Conditioning. July 1953.
Schutrum. L.F. and Vouris, J. D. , "Effects of Room Size and Non-Uniformity of
Panel Temperature on Panel Performance," Heating. Piping and Air
Conditioning. September, 1954.
Schutrum, L. F. , Vouris, John, and Min, T C , "Preliminary Studies of Heat
Removal,By a Cooled Ceiling Panel," Heating. Piping & Air Conditioning.
Cleveland, Ohio, January, 1955.
Shamsundar, N. , Lienhard, J. H. and Tezduyar, T. E., "Performance of
Polybutylene Pipe in Concrete Heating Panels", Report No. 2, Department
of Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, 77004,
1985. (UNPUBLISHED)
Simmons, R. C , "Five Years Operation of an Industrial Infrared Heating
System," ASHRAE Journal, June 1968.
Singh, T. , and Olivieri, J. B., "Effect of Radiant Cooling Panels on
Temperature Stratification under RP-260", Final Report, ASHRAE, August,
1981.
Singh, T. and Olivieri, J. B., "Effect of Radiant Cooling Panels on
Temperature Stratification" ASHRAE Trans.. V. 88, Pt. 2, 1982.
A-16
Smith, R. M. and Rae, A., "Patient Comfort and Radiant Ceiling Heating in a
Hospital Ward", Building and Environment. V. 12, pp. 143-146, 1977.
Sofrata, H. M. and Al-Hukail, Y., "Spot Cooling System Design", ASHRAE Jnl..
Jan., 1987.
Sowell, E. F. and Walton, G. N. , Efficient Computation of Zone Loads," ASHRAE
Trans., Vol. 86, Pt. 1, 1980.
Spangler, A. T., "Industrial Climate Control Versus Radiant Heat", Air
Conditioning. Heating and Ventilating. Jan., 1965.
Sparrow, E. M. and Lin, S.L. , "Radiation Heat Transfer at a Surface Having
Both Spacular and Diffuse Reflectance Components", Int. Jnl. of Heat &
Mass Trans.. Vol. 8, 1965.
Spolek, G. A., Herriot, D. W. and Low, D. M., "Airflow in Rooms with Baseboard
Heat: Flow Visualization Studies", ASHRAE Trans.. V. 92, Pt. 2, 1986.
Springer, W. E., Nevins, R. G.,, Feyerherm, A. M. and Michaels, K. B. , "The
Effect of Floor Surface Temperature on Comfort: Part III, The Elderly",
Stevens, J. C., Marks, L. E. and Gagge, A. P., "The Quantitative Assessment of
Thermal Comfort", Environmental Research. Vol. 2, 1969, pp. 149-165.
Stevens, Joseph C , and Marks, Lawrence, "Subjective Warmth in Relation to the
Density, Duration, and Areal Extent of Infrared Irradiation," ASHRAE
Trans., Vol. 76, Pt. 1, 1970.
Subcommittee of TAC, "Thermal Design of Warm Water Concrete Floor Panels"
ASHRAE Research Laboratory, Trans., ASHRAE, V. 63, 1957.
Subcommittee of TAC, Staff members of the ASHRAE Research Laboratory, "Thermal
Design of Warm Water Ceiling Panels," Heating. Piping. & Air
Conditioning. December, 1955.
t Thermo Lutz. Planungsunterlage Fur Ingenieure, ThermoLutz GMBH and
Co. Heizungstechnik Kg.
Tasker, C., Humphreys, C. M., and Parmelee, G. V., "The ASHVE Environmental
Laboratory", Heating. Piping and Air Conditioning. Vol. 24, March, 1952.
Taylor, F. M. H., "Radiant Space Heating", Building Materials. May/June, 1973.
Tenney, A. S., Ill, "Red Hot and Hotter - Industrial Radiation Thermometry",
Mechanical Engineering. Oct. 1986.
Tredre, B. E., "Assessment of Mean Radiant Temperature in Indoor
Environments", Brit., J. Industr. Med., V. 22, 58, 1965.
Trewin, R. R., Langdon, F. M., Nelson, R. M. and Pate, M. B. , "An Experimental
Study of a Multipurpose Commercial Building with Three Different Heating
Systems", ASHRAE Trans.. V. 93, Pt. 1, 1980.
A-17
Trewin, R., Pate M., and Nelson, R., "An Experimental Study of an Installed
High Temperature Radiant Heater and Enclosure," ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 92,
Pt. 1, No. 1, 1986.
, "Underfloor Radiant System Uses 86H Supply Water", Air Conditioning.
Heating and Refrigeration News. Oct. 21, 1985.
VanGerpen, J. H. and Shapiro, H. N., "Analysis of Slab-Heated Buildings,"
ASHRAE Trans., V. 91, Pt. 2, 1985.
Walker, C.A., "Control of High Intensity Infrared Heating," ASHRAE Journal
November, 1962.
Walton, George N., "A New Algorithm for Radiant Interchange in Room Loads
Calculations", ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 86, Pt. 2, 1980.
Weida, D.E., P.E., "Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of Hydronic Radiant Panel,"
ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 92, Pt. 1, 1986.
Weigel, R. H. and Harris, W. S., "Heating a Basementless House with Radiant
Baseboard," Trans. ASHRAE, V. 55, 1949.
Wilkes, G. B. and Peterson, C.M.F., "Radiation and Convection from Surfaces in

Various Positions", ASHRAE Trans.. Vol. 44, 1938.
Zawacki, T. S., Huang, V., and Macriss, R. A., "Development of a Standard Test
Method for Measurement of the Radiant Heat Output of Gas-Fired Infrared
Heaters", ASHRAE Trans.. V. 93, Pt. 1,, 1987.
Zhang, Z. and Pate, M. B. , "An Experimental Study of the Transient Response of
a Radiant Panel Ceiling and Enclosure", ASHRAE Trans.. V. 92, Pt. 2,
1986.
Zhang, Z. and Pate, M. B., "A Numerical Study of Heat Transfer in a Hydronic
Radiant Ceiling Panel", Numerical Methods in Heat Transfer. HTD-Vol. 62,
ASME, New York, 1986.
Zhang, Z., Liu, T., Pate, M. B., "An Experimental Study of a Residential Solar
System Coupled to a Radiant Panel Ceiling", Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow
in Solar Thermal Systems. SED-Vol. 1, ASME, New York, 1985.
Zhang, Z., Pate, M. B., and Nelson, R., "A Performance Evaluation of a Residental Solar Hydronic Radiant Heating System", Proceeding of the 1986
ASME Solar Energy Conference. Anaheim, California, April 14-17, 1986.
A-18
APPENDIX B
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
" < ! '
la
B-l
For all of the entries given in the BIBLIOGRAPHY, a short discussion
concerning each article has been prepared.
In many instances, this is a
reproduction of the abstract or conclusions of the article. The categories

in this Annotated Bibliography are as follows.
A)
B)
C) General
D)
Comfort Conditions
E) Thermal Comfort - Radiant

F) Floor Panels
G) Panel Heating and Cooling
H)
Infrared Heating
I) Design Procedures
J)
Energy Consumption
K) Transient Effects
L)
Instruments
M)
Controls
N)
Spot Heating and Cooling
It should also be noted that there are some secondary references available
from most of the entries in the Bibliography by examining the references for
that specific entry. All of these secondary references are not listed, but
are obtainable by locating the article given in the Bibliography and then
locating the references in that specific article.
B-2
A)

1. ASHRAE, Procedure for Determining Heating and Cooling Loads for
Computerizing Energy Calculations - Algorithms for Building Heat
Transfer Subroutines. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating
and Air Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA., 1975.
This ASHRAE publication presents algorithms for calculating the heating

and cooling loads for structures. It contains algorithms for calculating the
following items: solar load on walls, roofs and glass, external shadow
calculations, radiation shape factors, convection heat transfer coefficients,
psychrometric property calculations, and other miscellaneous algorithms.
*
2.
Ball, H. D. and Green; D., "The Impact of Lighting Fixtures on

Heating and Cooling Loads - Mathematical Mode", ASHRAE Trans..
V. 89, pt. 2A, 1983.
A mathematical model describing the spatial and time distribution of

energy produced by lighting has been constructed. The model is based on
well-known heat-exchange computation procedures and contains no empirical
coefficients from lighting energy-transfer experiments. A computer program
based on this model was used to generate predictions of cooling loads created
by lighting for a variety of building-lighting arrangements, airflow paths and
rates, and lighting duration. Comparisons of model predictions are made with
published experimental steady-state and transient results. The modeling
procedures and the transient comparisons are described in detail. This model
was used to generate values of room and total loads and to present these in a
form or forms suitable for use in design.
*
3.
Beier, Richard A. and Gorton, Robert L. , "Thermal Stratification in

Factories - Cooling Loads and Temperature Profiles," ASHRAE
Trans., Vol. 84, Pt. 1, 1978.
This study has produced a numerical solution to the process of transient

thermal stratification occurring in factories. The analysis was restricted by
considering the light fixtures as defining the interface between the
conditioned area and the stratified area. The solution was based on a
simplified, physical model with thermal plumes rising from the light fixtures
in a stratified layer between the lights and the ceiling.
The results indicate that when varied over a reasonable range, ceiling
height is of no importance in the system in that it has no influence on
cooling load magnitude. This indicates that the technique of load reduction
by stratification can work whenever an undisturbed strata can be formed.
Also, exhausting needed ventilation for the cooled space through the roof can
B-3
reduce the cooling load.

Comparison of results from the computer model to measured values from one
factory show acceptably close agreement. More extensive field comparisons
need to be made and detailed laboratory investigations of some of the basic
assumptions used in model development are required before the model can be
applied with full confidence.
Example temperature profiles are given in the article.
*
4.
Carroll, Joseph A., An "MRT Method" of Computing Radiant Energy

Exchange in Rooms. Systems Simulation and Economic Analysis
Conference Proceedings, January 1980, San Diego, CA.
The "MRT View Factor" method presented in this paper couples each surface
in a room to an MRT node, which acts as a clearinghouse for all radiative
exchanges. An upward adjustment in the coupling between each surface and the
MRT exactly cancels that surface's self-weight in the MRT. The adjustments
also happen to improve the accuracy of the conventional view factors
implicitly assigned by MRT methods. The effects of surface emittance and air
emittance (typically .05-.15 in residences) are modelled without difficulty.
For greatest accuracy, radiation coefficients can be varied with temperature.
This method is inherently free from heat balance errors and errors in the
overall radiative coupling of each surface to its environment. Errors do
occur in the "implicit view factors", but errors such as this are inherent in
any method which overlooks the gory details of the enclosure geometry.
Coplanar surfaces cause the largest errors, and these errors can be
compensated for if necessary.
*
5.
Dunkle, R. V.,' "Configuration Factors for Radiant Heat Transfer

Calculations Involving People", ASME Trans.. Jnl. of Heat
Trans fer, Feb., 19 6 3.
It is thought that the point and area configuration factors for people
reported in this paper will prove very useful in heat transfer problems
involving people. While people of unusually stout or slim build may deviate
somewhat from the empirical equations, they are thought adequate for nearly
all engineering work. If more precise information is needed for a specific
individual, recourse can be had to experimental measurements. Six
configuration figures are presented for a "standard person".
*
6.
Endreb, B. Von H., and Mommertz, W., "Untersuchung von Flachenheiz Systemen Mit Der Thermoelektrischen Analogie", Elektrowaerme.
Vol. 39, No. 4, pg. 203-210, August, 1981.
This is a German article describing the radiant energy balance in a room

which is receiving solar radiation through the glass and on its exterior
surface. It uses the electrical analogy for surface radiant exchanges.
B-4
7.
Ford, J. K., "Deriving Radiation View Factors within a Triangular

Cross-Section Residential Attic", ASHRAE, Trans., Vol. 89, pt.
1A, 1983.
A complete set of radiation view factors within a triangular, symmetric,

cross-section attic space is derived. These view factors allow nodal radiant
energy-transfer equations to be solved for radiant heat exchanges between the
attic floor, roof sections, endwalls, and soffits. A simplified analysis of
radiant and convective heat transfers within an idealized attic space shows
radiative heat transfers to be on the same order of magnitude as convective
heat transfers. A computer program is available to solve radiation view
factor equations for some representative attic configurations. A simple set
of nodal radiation heat transfer equations is also included to demonstrate the
application of view factors to an attic floor and two attic roof sections
radiating to one another.
*
8.
Gebhart, Benjamin, "A New Method for Calculating Radiant Exchanges",

Heating Piping. .& Air ConditioninE. Ithaca, New York, July 1958.
A new method of thermal radiation analysis for non-black surfaces is

demonstrated by calculating various radiant energy transfer rates in a room.
The analysis is direct and consistent because of the way in which basic
quantities are defined and is similar to the approach used for black surfaces.
The same basic technique is used in all calculations with only minor
alterations.
In the calculations, as in any calculations which account for many
processes simultaneously, the numerical operations are lengthy. The involved
calculations arise in the solution of the equations for the absorption
factors. For a many surface enclosure, this is necessarily a machine
calculation.
Since the major inconvenience in the use of the method is in connection
with the calculation of absorption factors, the question arises as to whether
or not the values of the absorption factors could be presented graphically.
This is the standard practice for the similar quantity, angle factor.
*
9.
Gorton, R. L. and Leard, A. T., "A Computer Program for Air

Temperature and Cooling Load Determination for Stratified-Cooled
Industrial Buildings", ASHRAE Trans.. V. 90, Pt. IB, 1984.
A description of a computer program capable of computing time-varying

cooling loads for a stratified-cooled space has been presented. The program
is structured to accept hourly changes in internal loads and environmental
conditions, to account for storage effects in the structure and in the space
air, and to determine the resulting space air temperature profiles and
space-cooling loads. Results from a number of situations of interest were
presented.
B-5
10.
Gorton, R. L. and Sassi, M. M., "Determination of Temperature

Profiles and Loads in a Thermally Stratified, Air-Conditioned
System: Part 1-Model Studies", ASHRAE Trans. . V. 88r Pt., Pt. 2,
1982.
Experiments have been run in a model chamber to provide information on

temperature patterns that develop in stratified-cooled systems as a function
of various combinations of geometric, flow, and thermal variables. The
results are limited to conditions of uniform floor-level loads (no thermal
plumes) with "perfect" air distribution (uniform diffusion of air in the
cooled space and no interaction with the upper-zone stratification pattern).
The major conclusions reached from a qualitative evaluation of the test
results are:
1.
Loads originating at the lights reach the cooled space by radiation

and by means of air circulation caused by free convection currents
around the lights.
2.
Loads originating at the roof reach the cooled space by radiation to

the lower zone. Convection from the roof is effectively blocked by
the stagnant, high-temperature air layer adjacent to the roof.
3.
The space temperature profiles and cooling loads are relatively

insensitive to the height of the lights and to their position relative
to the cool zone and the roof.
4.
The space temperature profiles and cooling loads are relatively

insensitive to the height of the roof and to its height relative to
tKe cool zone.
5.
Exhaust of air from high in the structure in the stratified zone

provides a temperature reduction there proportional to the exhaust
flow rate. There is an accompanying reduction in lower-zone cooling
load; however, the reduction is small and high-level exhaust cannot be
considered as a significant means of load control.
6.
The supply air temperature and flow rate do not influence the
temperature patterns in the space. The level of temperature is
changed, for a given load, by changes in temperature and flow rate but
not the general shape of the temperature profile.
11.
Gorton, R. L. and
Profiles and
System: Part
and Measured
Sassi, M. M. , "Determination of Temperature

Loads in a Thermally Stratified, Air Conditioned
2 - Program Description and Comparison of Computed
Results", ASHRAE Trans.. V. 88, Pt. 2, 1982.
A computer program for use in determining space air temperatures in a

stratified-cooled scale model space is described. Program logic, equation
formulation, and calculational models of the various heat transfer and flow
processes are presented. Program results are compared to experimental results
B-6
obtained in the model chamber. These comparisons are presented for a range of
geometric and load variables. The program is shown to be capable of producing
acceptably accurate estimates of the measured temperatures, comparisons within
1HC being obtained in most cases. Many estimated air temperature profiles are
given. These would be useful in load analysis calculations.
*
12.
Harrington, Keith and Lydon, R. T., Comparison of Building Thermal

Analysis "Methods. Systems Simulation and Economic Analysis
Conference Proceedings, January 1980, San Diego, CA.
This paper has endeavored to explore the published state-of-the-art of

passive solar load models. To that end it has discerned eight basic
algorithmic types. Two of these are meant for calculators. The other six are
implemented on large computers. All were considered in light of their
completeness, efficiency, inputs and appropriateness of output to the various
stages of building design. It has been found that all considered models make
a trade-off between cost and model completeness, each to serve different ends.
*
13.
Harris, Robert L., Jr., "Computer Simulation of Radiant Heat Load and
Control Alternatives", Journal of American Industrial Hygiene
Assoc. V. 35, Feb., 1974.
A digital computer program calculating the exchange of radiant heat

between an absorber and a multiplicity of radiators in its surroundings is
described. A matrix of absorber locations within a workspace having radiators
in its surroundings may be specified, permitting the construction of isopleths
of heat load in the workspace for any elevation of interest. The contribution
of each individual radiator to the heat load on the absorber is obtained.
Repeated computer runs with simple changes in input data may be used to
simulate various control alternatives. The program permits mathematical
assessment of radiant heat exchange problems for which manual calculations
would be prohibitively time-consuming and costly.
*
14.
Harrison, E., "Calculation of the Heat Requirements of Rooms", The

Building Services Engineer. Vol. 43, pg. 19-23, Batiste
Publications Ltd., May 1975.
This article describes two factors which can be used to modify the
standard design heating load when radiant heating systems are used. One
factor relates to the additional heat transfer through the wall due to radiant
panels, and the other factor is related to the infiltration difference between
air convection systems and radiant systems.
B-7
15.
Hedgepeth, Lloyd M., and Sepsy, Charles, "A Thermodynamic Simulation

of a Building Environmental Control System", ASHRAE Trans., Vol.
78, Ft. 2, 1972.
This is a discussion on how to simulate a building HVAC System. Very few

details or algorithms are given, only discussions on what must be done. The
building did have a radiant ceiling heating system, but no information is
presented.
*
16.
Hutchinson, F. W. , "Influence of Gaseous Radiation in Panel Heating",

ASHRAE Trans.. Vol. 53, 1947.
A graphical solution is presented from which the equivalent coefficient

for gaseous radiant exchange can be evaluated as a function of separating
distance, vapor pressure (expressed in terms of room air temperature and of
relative humidity) and surface temperatures. Equations are developed to
permit evaluation of radiant exchange between certain systems of surfaces when
they are reflective and are separated by an absorbing medium.
Gaseous radiation does not appreciably affect either the panel size or
panel rating for an ordinary panel heating system, but it does reduce the
effectiveness of local (direct transfer) panels by about 10 percent. Because
of cumulative absorption as associated with multiple reflections, gaseous
radiation is. responsible for reducing the effectiveness of reflective surfaces
(when used as room surfacing in an attempt to reduce radiant body heat loss)
to a negligible value.
*
17.
Khudenko, A. A., "Radiation C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Gas Infrared" Journal

of Engineering Physics. Vol. 29, No. 5, Pg. 1395-1400,
Consultants Bureau.
Results of an experimental study of the r a d i a t i o n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of

commercial models of gas infrared heaters are presented. An a n a l y t i c
expression i s obtained for the d i s t r i b u t i o n of irradiance over a f l a t object
a t v a r i o u s d i s t a n c e s from the h e a t e r . This expression i s :
E(w/m2) - [E 0 (w/m 2 )/h 2 ] exp[-b x c ]
and values for EQf b and c are given in the paper.
*
18.
Korsgaard, V., "Necessity of Using a Directional Mean Radiant

Temperature to Describe the Thermal Conditions in Rooms",
Heating. Piping and Air ConditioninE. June, 1949.
The conclusions reached by this author are:
B-8
1.
The directional mean radiant temperature (DMRT) of a room with respect

to a surface element, as explained and shown in the equations given,
is not a single physical constant for a given room under given thermal
conditions, but is a physical quantity that usually varies both with
the place and the direction within a room.
2.
When running comparative tests on different heating systems -especially when they include such types of heating systems where the
thermal conditions in the room are regulated mainly by varying the
temperature of larger or smaller parts of the inside surfaces of the
room -- it is important to pay proper attention to the DMRT as a
design factor.
3.
In comfort analyses it is important to consider the directional mean

radiant temperature as a variable, for at any single point on a
person's body the heat transfer conditions represent the combined
influences of radiation exchange with those surroundings exposed to
that part of the body, of convection, and of evaporation.
*
19.
Mclntyre, D. A., "Warm Air and Radiant Heating: Steady State Power
Requirements", Electricity Council Research Centre, Capenhurst,
England, D e c , 1980, (NTIS - PB83 - 231506).
The effectiveness of radiant and warm air heating systems were studied
theoretically. Power requirements and heat loss estimates were determined
using a simplified procedure together with a more detailed computer program,
both of which showed good agreement. It was found that in a well insulated
domestic room there was little to choose between the two types of heating
systems. Radiant heating was advantageous when only local warming of part of
the room was required; however, the possibility of savings would have to be
set against high radiant asymmetries and an uneven temperature distribution
over the room. Radiant heating was shown to be more economical than warm air
heating in large spaces with high ventilation rates, such as in factories.
The efficiency of the warm air system was reduced by temperature
stratification if the inlet temperature was high and the warm air was
inadequately mixed, causing an increased convective transfer coefficient.
*
20.
Mclntyre, D. A., "Warm Air or Radiant Heating?" Building Research and

Practice, Vol. 17, No. 1, Pg. 48-50, Centre Scientifique et
technique du bAatiment, January-February 1984.
In comparing warm air and radiant heating systems, the author comes to the
following conclusions:
(1) The simplified calculation method in the CIBS Guide and a more
detailed computer program show very good agreement.
(2) Theoretical studies show little difference in the power required to
maintain comfortable conditions in a domestic size room with either
B-9
radiant or warm air heating.

(3) Radiant heating can show advantages when only local warming of part
of the room is required; the possibility of substantial savings must
be set against the increased discomfort due to high levels of radiant
asymmetry.
(4) Radiant heating is more economical than warm air heating in large
spaces with high ventilation rates.
(5) The performance of the warm air system is reduced by temperature
stratification if the inlet air temperature is high and the warm air
is inadequately mixed. The increased transfer coefficient found with
forced warm air systems will depress their heating performance.
*
21.
Mclntyre, D. A. and Brailsford, J. R., "The Efficiency of Radiant

Heat Sources", The Building Services Engineer. Vol. 40, Feb.,
1973.
The radiant efficiency of horizontal cylinders, vertical and horizontal

plates is presented graphically as a function of temperature and dimensions.
Measured radiant efficiencies of a selection of commercial heaters are given.
Efficiencies of several types of heaters, described as a radiant, fall below
50 percent. Higher efficiencies are achieved by conventional electric bar
fires (78 percent) and by downward facing panel heaters (up to 80 percent).
*
22.
Prince,-Fred, J., "Causes and Prevention of Air Temperature

Stratification", Plant Engineering. May 1982.
The author performs an analysis of the effect of air infiltration on

temperature stratification. He concludes the following:
If present conditions or an analysis of a new heating system design
indicates stratification, the following, actions can be taken to reduce
substantially or eliminate the problem:
i)
ii)
Heating system delivery to the floor should be at least 45 percent

of the input.
Heaters must be kept as far as possible from the ceiling.
iii)
Air must be introduced in the upper portion of the plant or be

tempered; in both cases, air pressure should be sufficient to
counteract the forces of infiltration.
iv)
Systems with high infrared output to the floor, combined with a

pressurized air supply (tempered if necessary), offer an
economical and practical approach to the elimination of
stratification. Warm-air systems that approach elimination of
B-10
s t r a t i f i c a t i o n require substantial expenditure of energy to keep

the a i r continually circulated and homogenized.
*
23.
Raber, B. F. and Hutchinson, F. W., "Optimum Surface Distribution in

Panel Heating and Cooling Systems", ASHVE Trans.. 1944.
Basic experimental data has been presented to permit direct determination

of fraction of energy received by a seated or standing subject from a wall or
ceiling panel of elementary area. From those data information is also
obtainable as to the fraction of energy received by a prone subject from an
elementary ceiling panel. All experimental determinations are in groups of
three based on the position of the subject with respect to the source both as
to vertical and horizontal components and for full face, semi-profile and
profile attitudes.
Use of the basic data to compute the absolute shape factor of a subject in
any position with respect to a panel of any shape and size is described and
illustrated; for panels of usual size in rooms having a ceiling height between
8 ft. and 12 ft. the order of magnitude of the shape factor is 1-2 percent;
that is, less than two percent of the energy radiated from a conventional
panel passes directly to the occupant.
Generalized patterns for the center lines of ceiling panels have been
determined for the standing subject in semi-profile position. The recommended
patterns are:
1.
For 8
at 10
range
block
ft. ceiling height use a square pattern with center lines spaced
ft. for best results; wherever possible spacings outside of the
from 9 ft. to 14 ft. should be avoided; the use of a single
panel in the center of the room is not recommended.
2.
For 10 ft. ceiling height a square pattern similar to that described

above is recommended, but with 14 ft. spacing as the optimum and 10
ft. to 15 ft. as the limiting range.
3.
For 12 ft. ceiling a square pattern with 20 ft. optimum spacing is

recommended (range 17 ft. to 21 ft.). For rooms smaller than 14 ft. x
14 ft. a pattern consisting of centrally located crossing panels
running along both axes of the room is satisfactory. Unlike rooms
having 8 ft. or 10 ft. ceilings, a 12 ft. ceiling room does have
satisfactory uniformity of direct radiant exchange when the entire
ceiling is used as a panel.
Limitations of the generalized patterns are discussed and the suggestion

offered that the proposed standard panel distributions be used as an initial
design arrangement from which to depart in seeking greater simplification,
adjustment for localized exposure, or corrections for such diverse effects as
inter-reflections, non-diffuse emission and the many other factors which
include use of any completely generalized solution for optimum design of all
installation.
B-ll
24.
Rapp, George and Gagge, A. P., "Configuration Factors and Comfort

Design in Radiant Beam Heating of Man by High Temperature
Infrared Sources", ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 73, Pt. 2, 1967.
The conclusions of these authors are as follows:

1) The theory of diffuse gray body radiation exchange, when modified to
include a new parameter called the Beam Utilization Vector, or ratio
of mean directional to mean diffuse radiant intensity in the solid
angle connecting a high intensity plane-point radiating source with an
absorptive surface, provides a rational basis for calculating the
incident radiant flux density and energy absorbed from a directional
source by a man standing or sitting in any source-man geometry.
2.
Mean body absorptance values for man irradiated by I-R sources having
color temperatures of 2500 K (T-3 quartz lamps) and 1200 K(atmospheric
gas-fired burners), as determined by reported reflectance measurements
on white skin and clothing, may be taken, for purposes of design, at
a m = 0.8 and a m - 0.9, respectively, when clothed, and at 0.65 and
0.95, respectively, when wearing bathing attire.
3.
A method for calculating the effect of heater energy re-radiated from

the floor is presented, and, in the specific case cited, is found to
amount to 25% of the direct irradiation of the occupants.
*
25.
Sauer, Harry J., "Configuration Factors for Radiant Energy

Interchange with Triangular Areas", ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 80, Pt.
2, 1974.
Graphs of configuration factors for triangular areas have been developed

and are presented. These can be used in certain spaces where it is convenient
to partition room surfaces into triangular patterns. Various types of checks
were applied to the calculation in order to verify their validity.
*
26.
Saunders, J. H. and Andrews, J. W. , "The Effect of Wall Reflectivity

on the Thermal Performance of Radiant Heating Panels", ASHRAE
Trans.. V. 93, Pt. 1, 1987.
The abstract for this work is as follows:

"Numerical results are presented for the heat loss from a room, heated by
radiant panels, as a function of wall reflectivity. For these calculations, a
computer model was developed for the transient heat transfer within an arbitrary closed room with radiant and convective heat exchange between the panel
and room surfaces, and conductive heat transfer through the walls. In the
model, the room air temperature was initially set back, while the mean radiant
temperature was adjusted with the radiant panels to keep the operative temperature, or comfort level, constant. The results suggest that walls reflective in the infrared can reduce the steady state heat loss to the ambient by
B-12
reducing the wall temperatures, yet the walls radiate at higher equivalent
blackbody temperatures since radiant heat from the panels is reflected by the
walls. Future work may be needed to develop inexpensive wall paints or papers
that are reflective in the IR, but appear normal in the visible spectrum."
They also stated that:
"Preliminary calculations showed that IR-reflective walls have the potential
for significant reductions of steady-state heat loss. Experiments should be
undertaken to determine the actual savings in a test room and an occupied
home. The success of this scheme, however, will likely depend upon user
acceptance, both in terms of cost, comfort and aesthetic appeal of the wallpaper or paints used. These wall coverings should be selective surfaces,
having a low emissivity in the infrared and high emissivity in the visible
spectrum (0.35 to 0.75 microns) to give a normal appearance. Some paints and
wall papers are available with these properties, and more might be developed
using information gained from research on solar selective surfaces, since
requirements are similar to the requirements for selective surfaces needed for
solar collectors (Agnihotri and Gupat 1981."
-- *
27.
Sowell, E. F. and Walton, G. N., "Efficient computation of Zone

Loads", ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 86, Pt. 1, 1980.
This paper .addresses the problem of calculation of building space sensible

cooling or heating load from sensible cooling or heating load from sensible
heat gain or loss in an efficient manner on a digital computer. Two widely
used methods are considered, referred to as the heat balance method and the
ASHRAE weighting factor method. It is shown that by careful selection of a
solution algorithm for the heat balance equations, the former method can be
made much more efficient than suggested by early computer codes which used it.
Moreover, it is shown that over-all computation times for this method thereby
achieved are, for many important cases, no more than 10-15% greater than using
the weighting factor approach. Since there is a loss of flexibility and
accuracy with weighting factors, the heat balance may be the preferred
approach in the future energy analysis computer programs.
*
28.
Sparrow, E. M. and Lin, S. L., "Radiation Heat Transfer at a Surface

Having Both Specular and Diffuse Reflectance Components", Int.
Jnl. of Heat & Mass Trans.. Vol. 8, 1965.
A method of analysis has been devised for determining the radiant

interchange among surfaces, each of which may have both specular and diffuse
reflectance components. The formulation uses and generalizes the exchange
factor concept (which was initially devised for specularly-reflecting
surfaces) and the radiosity concept (which was initially devised for
diffusely-reflecting surfaces). Various forms of the analytical method are
presented that are suitable either for overall engineering-type computations
or for more detailed local investigations. Specific analytical and numerical
consideration is given to radiant interchange in cylindrical and conical
B-13
cavities and to radiant transport through a circular tube. Results are

presented for various subdivisions of the surface reflectance into specular
and diffuse components. In general, it is found that the radiant efflux from
a cavity increases as the specular component becomes a larger fraction of the
surface reflectance. A similar statement applies for the transmission of
radiant energy through a tube.
*
29.
Spolek, G. A., Herriot, D. W. and Low, D. M., "Airflow in Rooms with

Baseboard Heat: Flow Visualization Studies", ASHRAE Trans.. V.
92, Pt. 2, 1986.
A model study has been performed to visualize the airflow that occurs in a
room with baseboard heat. The full field flow pattern, the typical
velocities, and temperature distributions in the room are reported for three
different test cases. From the results of those tests, the following
conclusions were drawn:
1) The overall flow circulation in a room reverses direction between
heater "on" and heater "off" cycles. In both cases, a single
circulation loop forms.
2.
The basic flow pattern demonstrates relatively high air velocities

near the walls, ceiling, and floor with stagnant air in the room's
center. Temperature stratification can be significant.
3.
During extremely cold outdoor conditions or during intermittent heater

operation, the airflow pattern changes and includes two circulation
loops. The warmest air passes from the heater directly to the center
of the room to enhance mixing and reduce temperature stratification.
*
30.
Walton, George N., "A New Algorithm for Radiant Interchange in Room
Loads Calculations", ASHRAE Trans., vol. 86, Pt. 2, 1980.
In this paper, it is shown that the radiation interchange algorithms of

the NBSLD and BLAST loads programs can be significantly improved. It is
proposed that the radiant interchange in a room can be adequately modeled by
assuming that each surface radiated to a fictitious surface which has an area,
emissivity, and temperature giving about the same heat transfer from the
surface as in the real multi-surface case. This approximation leads to a more
accurate heat balance and can be used for large numbers of surfaces without
greatly increasing computation time. The algorithm will make it
computationally practical to account for previously neglected effects such as
nonlinear, nonconstant interior convection coefficients and heat conduction
between simultaneously simulated rooms. It would also be possible to do
calculations of room loads and temperatures as they are affected by the
operation of the air distribution system.
B-14
B.
1. Altmayer, E. F., Gadgll, A. J., Bauman, F. S., and Kammerud, R. C ,
"Correlations for Convective Heat Transfer from Room Surfaces",
ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 89, pt. 2A, 1983.
Correlation of the rate of heat transfer from room surfaces to the

enclosed air, based on empirical and analytical examinations of convection in
two-dimensional enclosures, have been developed. The heat transfer data base
from which the correlations were derived was generated by a validated
numerical-analysis computer program. The correlations extracted from this
data base express the heat transfer rate in terms of boundary conditions
relating to room geometry and surface temperatures. The correlations are
applicable to a class of room configurations with cold and warm surfaces on
opposite vertical walls. The authors compare their correlations for
convection coefficients with the ASHRAE coefficients for vertical and
horizontal surfaces. There are substantial differences in the heat flows from
the various methods. A complicated correlation description is given, which is
a possible method for general calculations. The ASHRAE coefficients can give
significant errors.
*
2.
-k
Bauman, F. , Gadgil, A., Kammarud, R., Altmayer, E., Nansteel, M. ,

"Convective Heat Transfer in Buildings: Recent Research
Results" ASHRAE Trans, Vol. 89, pt. 1A, 1983.
Recent experimental and numerical studies of convective heat transfer in

buildings are described, and important results are presented. The
experimental work has been performed on small-scale water-filled enclosures;
the numerical analysis results have been produced by a computer program based
on a finite-difference scheme. The convective processes investigated in this
research are (1) natural convective heat transfer between room surfaces and
the adjacent air, (2) natural convective heat transfer between adjacent rooms
through a doorway or other openings, and (3) forced convection between the
building and its external environment (such as wind-driven ventilation through
windows, doors, and other openings).
Results obtained at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL) for surface
convection coefficients are compared with existing ASHRAE correlations, and
differences of as much as 50% are observed. It is shown that such differences
can have a significant impact on the accuracy of building energy analysis
computer simulations. Interzone coupling correlations obtained from
experimental work reported in this paper are in reasonable agreement with
recently published experimental results and with earlier published work.
Numerical simulations of wind-driven natural ventilation are presented. They
exhibit good qualitative agreement with published wind-tunnel data. Finally,
future research needs are suggested.
The convection coefficients presently recommended by ASHRAE are internally
inconsistent and in disagreement with recent research results. In particular,
the transition to turbulence for convection in enclosures occurs at a Rayleigh
number about one order of magnitude larger than is generally accepted. This
means that a laminar flow correlation is applicable to a much wider range of
Rayleigh numbers than previously recognized. More accurate correlations for
B-15
convection coefficients are needed because they have a significant impact on

predictions of building energy consumption.
*
3.
C o l l i c o t t , H. E., Fontaine, W. E., and Grosh, R. J . , "Free

Convection and Radiation Heat Transfer from Cylindrical Fins",
ASHRAE Journal, Dec. 1965,
This i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s concerned with a cylindrical fin protruding from a

constant temperature source into a constant temperature environment. Some
equations are given.
*
4.
Collicott, H. E., Fontaine, W. E., and Witzell, 0. W., "Radiation and

Free Convection Heat Transfer from Wire and Tube Heat
Exchangers", ASHRAE Journal, Dec. 1963.
Effective radiation configuration factors and free convection heat

transfer characteristics were determined for wire and tube heat exchangers,
and presented graphically as a function of the diameter to spacing ratios of
the wires and the tube and GrPr. Values of the configuration factor or heat
transfer coefficient may be determined for parameter values not shown by the
construction of a simple cross-plot or interpolation.
*
5.
*.
Danter, E. , "Heat Exchanges in a Room and the Definition of Room

Temperature", The Building Services Engineer. Vol. 41, Feb.,
1974.
The main purpose of this paper is to give an account of the considerations

underlying the 'environmental temperature' introduced in the 1970 edition of
the IHVE Guide. It originates in a re-examination of the problem of
approximating to the effect on the thermal response of a room of the radiation
heat exchanges within the room. Conventionally these are dealt with interns
of a combined radiation-convection transfer between room air and surfaces but
the underlying assumption is an over-simplification. A systematic analysis of
the problem shows that the most consistent approximations are obtained in a
revised representation of the convective and radiation exchanges in which the
heat transfer within the room is related to an index temperature defined as a
weighted average of air and room surface temperature. Appropriate weights are
one-third and two-thirds respectively. The index temperature so defined is
the 'environmental temperature' of the Guide. The analysis is used to examine
the effect of re-interpreting the room temperature in the conventional
approach as the arithmetic mean of air and mean surface temperature. This
approach shows a less consistent performance and although it can in many cases
provide a good approximation it cannot be generally relied upon to do so. The
final section considers the overall steady-state heat balance on a room and
presents the heat balance equation in a form which provides the framework for
developing the analysis of non-steady conditions.
B-16
6.
Eno, Burton E., "Combined Convection and Radiation from Rectilinear

Fins", ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 73, Pt. 1, 1967.
The author presents an analysis of the combined effect of convection and

radiation from rectilinear fins on tubes. It does not consider some of the
practical problems of finned tubes, such as fin-tube bond and variability of
the convection coefficient on the fin and tube. It could be used as a first
approximation for finned radiation tubes.
*
7.
Hannay, J., Liebecq, G., Nusgens, P., "Convective Heat Transfers

within a Large Open Plan Office Area: Experimental Results for
Dynamic Buildings Simulations", Clima 2000 - Building Design and
Performance. Vol. 2, W S Kongres - W S Messe, 1985.
Air movements and indoor temperature measurements in a large open-plan

office area have shown quite definite convective couplings between a warm
central core and cooler peripheral zones in both natural and HVAC conditions.
Heat exchanges were estimated and parametric studies performed by computer
simulations. The main conclusion drawn from the present work emphasizes the
need of a multizone approach of such types of dwellings by computational
means.
*
8.
IHVE, "Thermal and other Properties of Building Structures", A3, IHVE

Guide, 1977.
This section of this guide presents various values for convection

coefficients for inside surfaces for heat loss/gain calculations. They are
numbers which are very close to the values given in the ASHRAE Handbook of
Fundamentals. Some of those given are listed below.
Rc, walls --- 1.43 hr ft2oF/Btu
Rc, upward flow to ceilings -- 1.0 hrôF/Btu
R c , downward flow to floors -- 2.9 hr ftôF/Btu
The following table is presented for inside surface resistances.
Surface Resistance, hr ftôF/Btu
Building Element
Walls
Heat Flow
High Emissivity
Surface (E=0.9)
Low Emissivity
Surface (E<=0.05)
Horizontal
0.7
1.72
Ceilings or roofs,
flat or pitched
roofs, floors
Upward
0.60
1.24
Ceilings and floors
Downward
0.85
3.16
B-17
9.
Min, T. C , Schutrum, L. F., Parmelee, G. V., and Vouris, J. D.,

"Natural Convection and Radiation in a Panel-Heated Room",
Heating. Piping & Air Conditioning. Cleveland, Ohio, May 1956.
The data reported in this paper were obtained with the entire floor area
or ceiling area used as a heated panel, a uniform environment wherein all
surfaces other than the heated panel were at a uniform temperature, relatively
still air conditions (no infiltration), and an empty, unlighted room. Under
these conditions the following conclusions may be drawn:
1.
On the basis of research done at the ASHRAE Laboratory, the following

equations apply in calculating natural convection heat transfer at
room surfaces.
A.
In a floor-heated space
B.
1.
Convection from floor: qc = O ^ ^ t ) 1 - 3 1 / ! ^ 0 * 0 8
2.
Convection to walls: q e = 0.29 (At) 1 - 32 /** 0 - 05
3.
Convection to ceiling:
Same as convection from floor.
In a ceiling-heated space
qe - 0.041 (At)^.25/De
1.
Convection from ceiling:
2.
Convection to walls: Same as for floor-heated space.
3.
Convection to floor:
Same as convection from ceiling.
2.
Natural convection data given by other investigators for small heated

plane surfaces were found to be in good agreement with all of the
equations listed in the first conclusion except the equation for
natural convection from a heated ceiling. The convection coefficient
for small free-edge plates may be 6 to 10 times as great as that for a
heated ceiling.
3.
Room size in a ceiling-panel-heated room has a significant effect on

the unit convection from the ceiling and the floor. However, the
convection heat transfer from a heated ceiling is small in comparison
with radiation exchange, and therefore, the effect of room size on the
total heat transfer isriotimportant. In a floor-heated room, the
effect of room size is not significant.
4.
In a completely enclosed space with high emissivity room surfaces, the

interchange factor between the heated panel and its enclosure may be
approximated by the hemispherical emissivity of the panel surface.
5.
The approximate combined film conductances (natural convection and

radiation) for the heated panels based on the difference between panel
temperature and the room air temperature for a normal size room with
high emissivity surfaces are as follows:
hrc = 2
for heat floor panel at about 85 F.

B-18
h r c 1.1 for heated ceiling panel at about 120 F.
10.
Parmelee, G. V. and Huebscher, R. G.f "Forced Convection Heat

Transfer from Flat Surfaces", ASHRAE Trans.. Vol. 53, 1947.
Conclusions:
1.
The effects of surface length and air velocity on forced convection

heat transfer between a smooth flat plate and a parallel stream of air
have been measured for Reynolds numbers between 19,000 and 1,200,000.
2.
The data for the completely turbulent boundary layer flow were in
substantial agreement with a formula based on skin friction
measurements of flat plates and were in reasonably close agreement
with similar data to be found in the literature.
3.
The data for the laminar boundary layer were also placed in agreement
with the analogous skin friction formula, after corrections were made
for the observed effects of natural convection.
4.
Most satisfactory agreement with the friction curves was obtained by

defining the length as the length of the heat transfer surface.
However, it has been pointed out in the literature that the effect of
unheated surface preceeding the heat transfer surface can be
significant.
5.
The air stream turbulence in the wind tunnel was measured and found to
be 1.5 percent. Since turbulence is an important factor in heat
transfer, it is suggested that future tests include a measurement of
the general turbulence by an accepted method.
6.
Examples of the application of the results to problems in the field of

heating and air conditioning have been given, based on the assumption
that the turbulent boundary layer flow is a fair approximation of
conditions to be found in practice.
7.
Further study is indicated in such matters as air stream turbulence,

unheated surface preceding the heat transfer area, and natural
convection effects at low velocities.
11. Pedersen, C. D., Spitler, J. D., Bunkofske, R. J., Leverenz, D. J.

"Experimental Study of Radiation and Convection Heat Exchange in
Rooms for Energy Analysis Program Models", Clima 2000 - Building
Design and Performance. Vol. 2, W S Kongres - W S Messe, 1985.
The experiments performed so far have produced several interesting
results.
A geometric dependence of the local film coefficient has been identified.
The dependence is very strong in the vertical direction, and, while not as
B-19
strong, there does seem to be a dependence in the horizontal direction.

The range of convective film coefficients produced by the various
experiments includes the standard ASHRAE coefficient (after subtracting the
radiation component) . While it is unlikely that the standard ASHRAE
coefficient is correct for all building heat transfer conditions, its use in
combination with a well-mixed model seems to be reasonable for the conditions
covered in these experiments.
An alternative model fo room heat transfer has been considered. Although
the question of how an effectiveness model would be implemented remains
unresolved, it was shown that, for a given geometry, the effectiveness
parameter was highly correlated to mass flow and temperature difference.
*
12.
Wilkes, G. B. and Peterson, G. M. F., "Radiation and Convection from

Surfaces in Various Positions", ASHRAE Trans.. Vol. 44, 1938.
Results are given for radiation and convection coefficients for practical
configurations found in HVAC. Horizontal and vertical orientation is
considered, as is the surface emissivity. This appears to be the source of
convection and radiation coefficients, which are published in the ASHRAE
Handbook of Fundamentals.
B-20
C.
General
1.
Bahnfleth, Donald R., "Symposium: Field Performance of Infrared

Heating Systems", ASHRAE Journal, June 1968.
This is a short article describing the activities of the ASHRAE Task Group
on Radiant Space Heating and an ASHRAE Symposium that was held in 1968.
*
2.
Bak, Richard, "Hydronic Radiant Floor Heating Staging a Comeback",

Air Conditioning. Heating and Refrigeration News, March 1985.
Discussion of hydronic radiant floor heating systems. Presents the idea

of using plastic piping in place of metal pipes. A general discussion of the
installation, application and disadvantages is given.
*
3.
Banhidi, L. , "The Thermotechnical Dimensioning of Radiant Strips and

Borders for the Heating of Communal Buildings", Building
Science. Vol. 9, 1974.
This paper describes a special form of radiant strip heating which offers
a suitable solution for the supply of housing and communal buildings with hot
water and radiant heating, taking into consideration also the comfort
criteria. The thermotechnical calculations are based on Kollmar's method, the
design parameters were determined by measurements.
*
4.
Blossom, J. S., "High Temperature Water Heats New School", Heating

Piping and Air Conditioning. March, 1959.
Discussion of a specific application of a split system in a school. It

delivers radiant heat from the pipes that transport high temperature water to
fan ventilator units. It looks at the details of the specific design for a
school.
*
5.
Blossom, J. S., "Pipe HTW through Classrooms", Heating. Piping and

Air Conditioning. July, 1964.
This article discusses the use of high temperature water pipes through
rooms in order to improve comfort. It is the radiant portion of split type of
system. It is the discussion of an application for a specific building.
B-21
6.
Cambel, A. B. , "Model Study of Radiant Heating", Ph.D. Dissertation,

University of Iowa, 1950.
This is a thesis done in 1950 and a copy is not available from

Dissertation Abstracts. Apparently a copy could be obtained from the library
at the University of Iowa at a rather high cost.
*
7.
Carroll, J. R. , "Radiant Systems for Heating", New Methods of Heating

Buildings. BRI-760, National Academy of Sciences - National
Research Council, Washington, D. C , 1960.
This is a discussion of the general characteristics of radiant heating

systems. A table of emissivity values for building surfaces is given.
General descriptions of radiant exchange; low, medium, and high temperature
systems; thermal comfort aspects, and spot heating are presented.
*
8.
, "Concrete Code Restricts Panel Heating", Heating. Piping,

& Air Conditioning. October 1951.
A discussion concerning the possibility of the American Concrete Institute

changing their code for structural concrete." such that it would be possible to
have embedded pipes for radiant heating systems.
*
9.
Faust, Frank H., "New Electric Heating Systems", New Methods of

Heating Buildings. BRI-760, National Academy of Sciences- National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1960.
This article discusses electric heating with the greatest emphasis being
on the elctric heat pump. It discusses ceiling panels and other electric
panels used for radiant heating. The author presents a short discussion on
specific benefits, limitations, applications, costs, and construction
requirements.
*
10.
Holden, T. S., "Calculation of Incident Low Temperature Radiation",

ASHRAE Journal, April 1961.
The author discusses methods for calculating low temperature radiation to

building surfaces from the sky, the ground and from neighboring buildings.
Emphasis is placed on a method developed for the case of a building surface at
any angle to the horizontal with the ground at any slope.
B-22
11.
Hough ten, F. C , et. al., "Heat Loss through Basement Floors and
Walls", ASHVE Trans.. Vol. 48, 1942.
Experimental results for basement heat losses are presented. Heat flows,
as a function of the time of year, are given as are the ground temperatures at
various levels. They observed heat loss reduction as the ground temperature
increased, and reduced heat loss from the center of the basement floor.
*
12.
HPAC Engineering Data File, "Design and Control of High Temperature

Hot Water Heat Consumers", Heating. Piping and Air Conditioning:.
June, 1960.
This article presents design guidelines for the use of high temperature
hot water systems. Part of the use can be by direct radiation to spaces.
General design guidelines are given for heat exchanger selection, boiler
selection and operation, and control systems.
*
13.
Johnson, T. E. , "Radiation Cooling of Structures with Infrared

Transparent Wind Screens", Proceedings of the Second Workshop on
the Use of Solar Energy for the Cooling of Buildings, UCLA,
August, 1975.
Energy conserving radiation cooling schemes for dwellings in high humidity

climates have usually failed due to the deleterious effect of the wind. In
this paper, the cooling mechanisms at work in wind conditions are examined. A
radiator system using an infra-red transparent wind screen that doubles as the
structural envelope is proposed and supporting experimental results are
presented. A one family dwelling built with these radiation panels can carry
50 percent of the 24 hour cooling load. Worst case conditions give radiator
coefficients of performance twice that of exisiting appliances.
*
14.
Kweller Esher, "Criteria for Mechanical Energy Saving Retrofit

Options for Single Family Residences", New and Existing Single
Family Residences. ACEEE 1984 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency
in Buildings.
This paper estimates energy savings, and provides performance and

selection criteria, for mechanical equipment options for single-family homes;
all from prior studies reported in the literature. Performance and selection
criteria are presented as advantages, disadvantages and limitations for each
option.
Four broad categories of energy-saving mechanical options were
investigated: space heating, water heating retrofit options, heat pump water
heaters, and recovery of central air conditioner waste heat by desuperheaters.
Gas- and oil-fueled forced-air furnaces and hydronic (hot water) space-heating
B-23
equipment were treated in this report.

*
15.
Morant, M. A. and Strengnart, M., "Simulation of a Hydronic Heating

System; Radiator Modelling", Clima 200 - Heating. Ventilating
and Air-Conditioning System. Vol. 6, W S Kongres - W S Meese,
1985.
The number of elements taken into account for the modelization of the
radiator is chosen depending on the interest of the heating system simulation.
If we are interested in calculating the integration of the energy delivered by
the radiators over a period longer than one hour, a model with only one
capacitance is quite good. One should keep in mind that the temperature
evolution obtained with a logarithmic At is better than that observed with an
arithmetic At, particularly if the emission is calculated for small water flow
rates. Moreover, an optimization of the control system is better performed if
the radiator is divided in several elements.
0
16.
MacLeod, G. S., and Eves, C. E. , "Baseboard Radiation Performance in

Occupied Dwellings", Heating. Piping. & Air Conditioning.
February 1950.
In order to determine the performance of baseboard radiation in field

installations, tests were conducted in several houses of diversified
construction. Winter comfort conditions obtained were evaluated by the
observation of the interdependent factors of air temperature distribution,
room air velocity, mean radiant temperature, and relative humidity, as well as
from the comments of the occupants of the houses studied. An outline of field
test procedure and a description of test equipment are given as a basis for
future work. Their conclusions were as follows:
1.
Size, shape or construction materials of the structures had little

effect on the overall performance of the baseboard radiation.
2.
Air temperature differentials from floor to ceiling and from room to

room were less than in houses heated by more conventional systems."
3.
Baseboard radiation systems were free from inherent drafts.
4.
Indoor relative humidity was observed to be satisfactory without the

use of humidification devices.
5.
Highly satisfactory results were obtained from the use of simple

control systems.
B-24
17.
Olivieri, J. B., How to Design Heating-Cooling Comfort Ceilings.

Business News Publishing Company, Birmingham, Ml, 1971.
A textbook on the design of HVAC systems. It contains a very short

section on the description of radiant heating systems.
*
18.
Peach, J., "Radiators and Other Convectors", J.I.H.V.E., Vol. 39,

Feb., 1972.
This paper is concerned with equipment which emits heat by the combined
processes of radiation and convection. If the heat exchanger surface is
exposed for all to see it is termed a radiator; if enclosed, a convector.
Reference is also made to heat emitters in which air is forced over the heat
exchanger surfaces by a fan incorporated into the unit. Heat can be
discharged into a room from a unit point, along a line or over an area. In
common parlance unitary equipment includes radiators, convectors, fan-coil
units, etc. Linear equipment embraces skirting heaters and undersill heaters,
whilst area equipment would include underfloor heating, electrically
conducting paint, heated wallpaper, etc.
These three categories can exist in either of two forms: where the heat
is either transferred to the air by free (natural) convection or by forced
convection.
This paper is limited to unitary types under free and forced convection
and linear types under free convection. Operation of the equipment on low
temperature hot water systems only has been considered.
*
19.
Pierce, J. D.f "Application of Fin Tube Radiation to Modern Hot Water

Heating Systems", ASHRAE Journal, Feb. 1963.
Discussion of radiant baseboard systems and how they perform. Only

general information is presented.
*
20.
Rapp, George, "Analysis of Free convection and Radiant Heat Transfer

in Valance Heat Exchangers", ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 72, Pt. 1,
1966.
The specific fluid flow and heat transfer mechanisms present in valance
and baseboard heat exchangers have been identified and quantified by
application of modern convection and radiation theory. It was found that
conditions strongly favorable to stable laminar free convection exist for
temperature differences 50 < At < 300F; and that radiation transfer,
apparently neglected heretofore, plays an important role at source
temperatures of 200 F and higher.
Mathematical general equations giving the net radiant flux within and heat
balance on any valance exchanger enclosure have been derived and their
application illustrated numerically by prediction of the radiation-convection
B-25
outputs of a specific design at the source temperature of 200 and 300 F. The
predicted results agree quite well with full size room rating tests on a
similar valance when both are compared at the 200 F source temperature level,
the analysis showed that 100 F increase in source temperature (from 200 to 300
F) approximately doubled the output.
The importance of the valance vs the ceiling on occupant irradiation and
body heat loss was evaluated. It has shown that neither the valance (at
temperatures up to 300 F) nor the lower temperature ceiling is of much
importance in control of body heat loss, as compared with the larger area
unheated room surfaces; and that valance temperatures much higher than 300 F
would be required for any worthwhile effect in this regard.
*
21.
Rickman, James D., "Selected Segment Hydronic Heating System", Energy

Conversion Mgmt., Vol. 25, No. 1, Pg. 73-83, 1985.
A new type of hydronic forced hot-water heating system is described that

provides room-by-room temperature control in a series pipe loop system. It
operates by alternately pumping segments of hot boiler water and cool return
water in a timed heating cycle. Experiments show that the system delivers at
least 49% more BTU's per foot of pipe length to rooms selected for heating
than to unheated rooms. Calculations show that temperature setbacks of 3-9^
in selected rooms reduce the yearly heat loss by 5.5-20% depending on the
setback schedule.
*
22.
Roots, W. K., "Electric Space Heating with Active Boundary Members",

Institution of Electrical Engineering Proc. Vol. 114, No. 7,
July, 1967.
The results of earlier papers permit the building of computer models of

electric space-heating processes. In common residential processes, the
boundary members (walls, ceiling, floor) have hitherto been passive, and so
were representable by available mathematical models. A recent development in
North America is the wall panel constructed of glass fibre into which is woven
a fine mesh of electric-heating wire, thus combining the functions of thermal
insulation and low-density electric heating. These panels are mounted over
large areas of the walls and ceiling, and so now many of the boundary members
can become active. New mathematical models are required to represent such
active members, and these are described.
*
23.
Weigel, R. H. and Harris, W. S., "Heating a Basementless House with

Radiant Baseboard", Trans. ASHRAE, V. 55, 1949.
A summary of the test results of this investiagtion and the conclusions

that may be drawn are as follows:
1.
The radiant baseboard is particulary adapted to maintaining

B-26
comfortable floor slab temperatures in a basementless structure, since

long, low units of this type cover a large percentage of outside
exposure.
2.
Average air temperatures, as measured three inches above the floor,

were approximately 70 to 71 F for all indoor-outdoor temperature
differences encountered when the temperature at the 30-rin. level was
72 F.
3. Temperature differences between the occupancy zone, as measured 3 in.

and 30 in. above the floor, were only of the magnitude of a degree and
a half to two degrees.
4.
The hot-water heating system using radiant baseboard responded quickly

to sudden changes in load, thus maintaining constant room air
temperature even while the outdoor temperature was changing rapidly.
5.
The problem of maintaining adequate indoor humidities for comfort in

winter cannot be separated from consideration of good building
construction. At 10 F outdoor temperature, 22 percent relative
humidity was obtained in the basementless home.
6.
Fuel consumption was*not affected by setting of the adjustable

differential on the thermostat. However, water temperatures in the
radiant baseboards, and consequent fluctuations in room air
temperatures, were affected. The longer lengths of the on and off
periods of the burner and circulator resulted in greater fluctuations
of room air temperatures.
7.
Faint dirt patterns were observed on some of the walls above the
radiant baseboard after nine months of operation. Dirt patterns of
this type can be eliminated by limiting the water temperature to a
maximum of 200 F.
B-27
D.
Comfort Conditions
1.
Berglund, Larry, "Mathematical Models for Predicting the Thermal

Comfort Response of Building Occupants", ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 84,
Pt. 1, 1978.
Three comfort models are reviewed and equations are presented. They all
use the heat balance equation together with some physiological parameters to
predict the thermal sensation of a person in an environment. These models are
the Pierce, KSU, and Fanger. These models are used when simulating a
building's thermal behavior and coupling it to comfort conditions.
*
2.
Bull, L. C , "The Practical Approach to Heat Loss Calculation",

Building Services Engineer. Vol. 41, March, 1974.
In this paper, the author tries to show, through simple numerical

examples, that the environmental temperature method
T e - (2/3) MRT + (1/3) T a i r
of calculating heat transmission in buildings gives identical answers to those
arrived at through use of tedious heat balance equations. He suggests,
however, that the proper determination of room heat requirements involves the
use of resultant temperature as a comfort index and environmental temperature
for heat flow. A step by step procedure is presented.
*
3.
de Heer, T. and Erkerlens, H. J., "Heat Transmission by Radiation",

Journal of the Institution of Heating and Ventilating Engineers.
London, Jan., 1963.
The authors have developed a new method for calculating radiant exchange
by subdividing the surfaces into small equal squares. The size of the squares
is dictated by the accuracy one wants in the results. This technique allows
local intensities to be more accurately predicted. This is applicable in
evaluating the exchange of energy between a person and his surroundings,
where local radiation intensities are important.
*
4.
Fanger, P. 0., "Calculation of Thermal Comfort: Introduction of a

Basic Comfort Equation", ASHRAE Trans.. Vol. 73, Pt. ii, 1967.
This paper presents the development of the Fanger Comfort Equation and the
Fanger Comfort Equation and the Fanger Comfort Charts, which are given in the
ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals. It provides much of the data and figures
which exist in the current comfort literature of ASHRAE. Many references are
also provided for the development of the comfort equation.
3-28
5.
Fanger, P. 0., Thermal Comfort - Analysis and Applications in

Environmental Engineering. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, 1972.
This is a classic textbook discussing all of the parameters of human

comfort and how they are evaluated and interrelated. It contains the
following chapters: Introduction, Conditions for Thermal Comfort, The
Influence of Certain Special Factors on the Application of the Comfort
Equation, Practical Assessment of Thermal Environments, Calculation of Mean
Radiant Temperature, Radiation Data for the Human Body, Thermal Environmental
Analysis and References. It is very useful for making calculations and
finding references.
B-29
6.
Gagge, A. P., Fobelets, A. P. and Berglund, L. G., "A Standard

Predictive Index of Human Response to the Thermal Environment",
Temperature and sensory indices of human response to the thermal

environment are often expressed in terms of the known in a controlled
laboratory environment, as a standard. The three rational indices of this
type to be considered are (1) ASHRAE's Standard Effective Temperature (SET*)
Index, defined as the equivalent dry bulb temperature of an isothermal
environment at 50% RH in which a subject, while wearing clothing standardized
for activity concerned would have the same heat stress (skin temperature Tg^)
and thermo-regulatory strain (skin wettedness, w) as in the actual test
environment; (2) Fanger's Predicted Mean Vote (PMV) Index, defined in terms of
the heat load that would be required to restore a state of "Comfort" and
evaluated by his Comfort Equation; and (3) Winslow's Skin wettedness Index of
"Thermal Discomfort" (DISC) defined in terms of the fraction of the body
surface, wet with perspiration, required to regulate body temperature by
evaporative cooling. The classic difference between PMV and DISC as
predictors of warm discomfort occurs at very high and very low humidity but
both lead to essentially the" same judgment at average humidities (40-60% RH or
1-2 kPa) . A new index PMV* is proposed for any dry or humid environment by
simply replacing operative temperature T Q in Fanger's Comfort Equation with
SET*. The use of PMV* as a sensor of heat stress and strain, is illustrated
for typical HVAC situations and with a new Comfort-Humidity psychometric chart
for indoor environments.
7.
Harrison, E. , "Environmental Temperature and the Calculation of Heat

Loss", Building Services Engineer. Vol. 41, March, 1974.
The nature, nomenclature and relative numerical values of the various

temperatures involved in load calculation for rooms have been variously
described and discussed and there is confusion in some of the IHVE Guide
calculations. The author points out that much of the confusion arises from a
failure to distinguish clearly between the temperature used in calculating the
heat requirements and the actual, measureable temperatures produced in the
room when the rate of heat supply suggested by the calculation has been used.
The discussion centers around the definition of the environmental
temperature, T e and its definition. The IHVE Guide defines this as
T e - (2/3) MRT + (1/3) T a i r
Corrections are proposed to the definition of T e based on comfort conditions
and calculations. The author presented these for convective heating systems
and in a later paper for radiant heating systems.
B-30
8.
Heerwagen, D. R., KIppenhan, C. J., Emery, A. F., and Varey, G. B.,

"Developing Office Building Design and Operation Strategies
Using VWENSOL and the Comfort Routine", ASHRAE Trans.. V. 86,
Pt. 1, 1980.
This article discusses the development of a "comfort condition computer

program" for use with an energy analysis computer program. They have applied
this to several situations in buildings. They consider the effect of cold or
warm surfaces radiating to the occupant (strong influence), as well as window
size and number of glazing panes (strong influence). Similar calculations
were carried out for the effect of exterior envelope on comfort effects and
alternate temperatures, and clothing conductances on comfort and energy
requirements.
*
9.
Madsen, T. L. , Olesen, B. W., Kristensen, N. K., "Comparison Between

Operative and Equivalent Temperature Under Typical Indoor
Conditions", ASHRAE Trans.. V. 91, Pt. IB, 1985.
In some of the new standards for thermal environments, a certain operative

temperature range is given as a requirement for the thermal environment. In
other standards the requirement is given as an interval for the PMV-index.
This index takes the activity level, clothing, air humidity and the equivalent
temperature into account. In this paper it is discussed whether the operative
temperature is satisfactory or the equivalent temperature should be used as a
better expression because it also takes the air velocity into account. It is
shown that the use of the equivalent temperature can save energy during summer
conditions but also that it can be necessary to increase the temperature
during winter conditions in order to keep the thermal comfort at an acceptable
level.
Their conclusions were as follows:
The operative temperature is a good one to use when evaluating the heating
and cooling loads of a room or building, but it is only useful for describing
the general thermal comfort at air velocities < 0.1 m/s.
The equivalent temperature is more correct, even at higher air velocities,
because it takes into account the total dry heat loss from a person, i.e., it
measures the integrated influence of air temperature, mean radiant
temperature, and air velocity. A sensor for measuring the equivalent
temperature directly has been described.
The general thermal comfort may be described more correctly and accurately
by using an index like PMV or by using the equivalent temperature than by
using the operative temperature alone. Only then is it possible to minimize
the expenses for heating and air-conditioning buildings without sacrificing an
acceptable thermal environment.
B-31
10.
Mclntyre, D. A., "Evaluation of Thermal Discomfort", Electricity

Council Research Centre, Capenhurst, England, October 1984 (NTIS
- PB 85-189975).
This paper examines the techniques which have been employed to assess the
degree of thermal discomfort, and the criteria which have been used in setting
acceptable limits to environmental variables, by both researchers and official
bodies. It is shown that there are many inconsistencies. Some are internal,
where subjects' assessments on different scales during the same experiment
apparently disagree. Other inconsistencies exist between different
experimenters, where apparently similar comfort recommendations have been
arrived at by very different reasoning. The paper considers the problems
involved in transferring subjective judgements made in the laboratory to the
real world, and discusses to what extend field studies of comfort and behavior
can contribute.
*
11.
Michaels, K. B. , Nevins, R. jG. and Feyerherm, A. M., "The Effects of

Floor Surface-Temperature on Comfort Part III, College Age
Females", ASHRAE Trans.. V. 70, 1964.
The author's conclusions were as follows:

1.
For college-age females undergoing 3-hr test periods at rest with air
temperature at 75 F and floor temperatures ranging from 75 to 100 F,
the data show that there exists a statistically significant effect of
floor temperature on foot comfort vote. With increasing floor
temperatures means for foot comfort scores, ranging from 2.03 to 2.63,
moved away from an ideal "2" for comfortable toward "3" for hot. At
the same time, the means for thermal sensation, ranging from 3.38 to
3.76, moved from slightly cool "3" roward an ideal "4" for
comfortable.
2.
Results for tests with college-age females standing while performing

light work also showed significant effects of floor temperature on
foot comfort but not on thermal sensation. Sample means for thermal
sensation scores ranged from 3.07 to 3.24 for floor temperatures from
75 to 100 F. The mean for foot comfort scores ranged from 1.87 to
2.59.
3.
Based on foot comfort, floor surface temperatures as high as 85 F do

not cause serious discomfort when the air temperature is 75oF.
*
12.
Moisan, A. and Lebrun, J., "Comfort in Damp Cold Air with Radiant
Spot Heating", Proceedings of the Second Int. CIB/RILEM
Symposium on Moisture Problems in Buildings. Rotterdam, 1974.
This study found a positive effect of air humidity on thermal sensation:

for same operative temperature, a higher air moisture causes a warmer
B-32
sensation.
This effect is much higher than that predicted by the comfort equation in
the thermal neutrality region and with RH > 67% . But it appears that there
is some discomfort directly related to humidity itself.
Perhaps other effects would appear if the time of permanency was increased
by some hours in high humidity conditions. On the other hand, no other
criteria concerning physiological or hygienic aspects have been considered.
*
13.
Nevins, R. G., "Criteria for Thermal Comfort", Building Research.

July-August, 1966.
A general review of thermal comfort conditions.

some of the early references in this area.
*
14.
Presents a history and
Olesen, B. W., Mortensen, E., Thorshauge, J. and Berg-Munch, B.,

"Thermal Comfort: in a Room Heated by Different Methods", ASHRAE
Trans.. V. 86, Pt. 1, 1980.
The present experiments have shown that all nine heating methods
investigated are able to create an acceptable thermal environment in a well
insulated room with one frontage including a double-glazed window exposed to
steady-state winter conditions (outside temperature down to -5oC, and air
infiltration rates up to 0.8 air-changes/h).
When the temperature level in a room provides thermal neutrality (PMV=0)
for sedentary person near the frontage, there will be only a small likelihood
of local discomfort and the thermal conditions will be acceptable in the
entire occupied zone.
Only with a radiator at the back wall did the predicted percentage of
dissatisfied (PPD-value) at a position near the radiator increase
significantly from the optimal value (from 5 to 12%) .
In all tests, vertical air temperature differences, radiant temperature
asymmetry and floor temperatures were inside established comfort limits.
There was a risk of mean air velocities higher than 10 cm/s along the
floor in the occupied zone nearest to the frontage when the down-draft along
the window and from the air infiltration was not counteracted by an upward
convection from the heating system. In general, the highest measured air
velocities were in the test with the two floor heating systems (approx. 15
cm/s).
*
15.
Ronge, Hans. E., and Lofstedt, Borje E., "Radiant Drafts from
Cold Ceilings", Heating, Piping, & Air Conditioning,
Uppsala, Sweden, September, 1957.
Contains a statement of methods of study and results of 20 tests made on 5

persons who, after spending from 1/2 to 1 hr. beneath a warm ceiling, moved to
beneath a cold ceiling in an experimental room and remained there until
B-33
temperature measurements on various body surfaces indicated equilibrium with

surroundings. Tests included condition of (1) upper body naked and subject at
rest, (2) one layer clothers and subject at rest and (3) 2 to 3 layers of
clothes on upper body and subject doing light work. Air temperature covered
range from 60.8 to 68 F. Good correlation is shown between skin temperature
equilibrium values and mean of air and ceiling temperature. A comfort chart
based on the results is included. Experimental results were checked against
measurements made in an underground factory room with cool celing.
*
16.
Rohles, F. H., Jr., "Temperature or Temperament: A Psychologist

Looks at Thermal Comfort", ASHRAE Trans. . V. 86, Pt. 1,
1980.
Five studies are reviewed which address the psychology of thermal comfort.
They are summarized as follows: (1) under identical temperature, adding wood
panels to the walls, carpet, and comfortable furniture made people feel warmer
than when they were in the stark, sterile setting of the room before it was
modified; (2) at 65oF (18.3oC),. secretaries who were informed that a radiant
heater was operating in the modesty panel of their desks, felt warmer than
those who were not informed that it was operating; (3) when people were told
that the temperature of a room was 74<>F (23.3<>C) when it actually was 72oF
(22.2oC), 70oF (21.1oC), or 68oF (20oC), they were just as comfortable as when
the room temperature was 74oF (23.3oC); (4) in a study to determine if comfort
was related to the season of the year, it was found that cool temperatures are
preferred over warm temperatures in the summer and the opposite is true in the
winter; (5) based on a questionnaire in which temperatures were ranked as
cooler-than-comfortable, comfortable, and warmer-than-comfortable, a Preferred
Comfort Envelope was proposed that ranges from 70oF (21.1oC) to 76oF (24.4<>C).
*
17.
Springer, W. E. , Nevins, R. G., Feyerherm, A. M. and Michaels, K. B.,

"The Effect of Floor Surface Temperature on Comfort: Part III,
The Elderly", ASHRAE Trans.. V. 72, Pt. 1, 1966.
Conclusions reached in this investigation were the following.

1.
For elderly females and males undergoing 3-hr test periods at rest
with the air temperature at 80 F and floor temperatures ranging from
75 to 100 F, the data show that there exists a statistically
significant effect of floor temperature on foot comfort vote. A
statistically significant effect of floor temperature on thermal
sensation did not exist for elderly males but did for elderly females.
With increasing floor temperatures, the means for foot comfort ranged
from 2.12 to 2.57 for the elderly males and from 2.25 to 2.64 for the
elderly females.
At the same, the thermal sensation votes ranged from 4.28 for the elderly
males and from 4.04 to 4.60 for the elderly females.
2.
With an air temperature of 80 F, the data show that floor surface

B-34
temperatures as high as 85 F did not cause serious discomfort for

elderly females or males.
3.
With a floor surface temperature of 90 F the individuals are

apparently experiencing a discomfort due to the inability to reject
heat readily via conduction and radiation, but at a floor temperature
of 95 F the greater stress has induced the body to dissipate a greater
portion of the heat via moisture evaporation thus providing lower
thermal sensation and foot comfort votes. Increasing the floor
temperature to 100 F overcomes the advantage of increased evaporative
losses and once more higher thermal sensation and foot comfort votes
result.
18.
Stevens, J. C. , Marks, L. E. and Gagge, A. P., "The Quantitative

Assessment of Thermal Comfort", Environmental Research. Vol. 2,
1969, pp. 149-165.
Discomfort aroused by lowering or raising the operative temperature of a

subject's environment was found to follow the "power law" that governs many
dimensions in the domain of"sensory psychophysics. To a first approximation,
discomfort caused by cooling grows as the 1.7 power of shifts downward in
temperature from the level that feels comfortable; discomfort caused by
heating grows as the 0.7 power shifts upward from the level that feels
comfortable. One group of 8 subjects matched numbers to the degree of
discomfort (magnitude estimation); another group of 12 subjects adjusted the
loudness of a white noise to match the discomfort (cross-modality matching).
These verbal and nonverbal methods gave approximately the same result with
regard to the quantification of thermal discomfort.
B-35
E.
Thermal Comfort-Radiant
1.
Albert!, M. and Rugger, R. , "A Method to Check Thermal Comfort

Conditions in High Industrial Buildings Provided with Radiant
Panels Heating Plants", Clima 2000 - Indoor Climate. Vol. 4, W S
Kongres - W S Messe, 1985.
A procedure was developed using the Fanger Comfort equations for

determining the PMV and PPD indices in radiant heated, high ceiling industrial
buildings. The method uses computerized procedures to evaluate the thermal
environment at any position in an industrial building. This technique and
calculation is applied to the Italian heating energy savings regulations.
Very few details are given on how the equations are solved, what convection
coefficients were used or what emissivities were used. Sample results of PMV
are given as are some of the resultant surface temperatures.
*
2.
Bahnfleth, D. R. , "Physiological Effects of High Intensity Radiant

Beam Heating", ASHRAE Jnl.. Nov., 1964.
This is a description of ASHRAE activity in radiant heating during the

early 1960's. It also discusses ASHRAE Research Project-41-Physiological
Effects of Radiant Beam Heating.
*
3.
Baker, Merl, "Improved Comfort Through Radiant Heating and Cooling",

ASHRAE Journal, February 1960.
A description of the advantages of panel heating and cooling are presented

along with how this affects the sensation of comfort. The article is not very
in-depth.
*
4.
Barihidi, L. , Dr., Somogyi, A., Kintses, G. , Besnyo, J., "About Local

Discomfort Effects Caused by Asymmetric Radiation Occurring
During Winter in Dwelling Houses", Clima 2000 - Indoor Climate.
This article deals with the laboratory analysis of a special case of a

symmetric radiation that commonly occurs in everyday life. Namely, in winter
what are the acceptable surface temperature boundaries for the inner side of a
main front wall, in relation to the local discomfort feeling of a person
sitting next to the wall? Sitting face to face with a cooled panel brought
about in both cases of gradual and random temperature change more unfavorable
reactions (20% discontent) of thermosensitivity than when the participant sat
with back to the cooling wall (temperature limits were 22oC, 20oC and 16oC for
facing with continuous temperature, facing with shorter random temperature
B-36
periods, and back to wall respectively).

*
5.
Berglund, L. G. and Fobelets, A. P. R., "Subjective Human Response to

Low Level Air Currents and Asymmetric Radiation", ASHRAE Trans.
V. 93, Pt. 1, 1987.
"The responses of 50 subjects wearing winter clothing (0.86 clo) to twohour-long exposures of various kinds of winter indoor conditions were studied.
The conditions included air speeds between 0.05 and 0.5 m/s (10 and 100 fpm)
and asymmetric radiation to a cold wall that produced radiant temperature
asymmetries ranging from 0. to 20 K (0 to 36 F). The study was done at neutral or preferred temperatures and at conditions 3C (5.A F) lower. Some of
the conclusions are:
The operative temperature concept for combining air and mean radiant
temperatures into a single temperature scale is an effective means of characterizing and controlling complex environments, although the coefficient A in
the operative temperature equation of ASHRAE Standard 55-81 may be too low at
high air speeds.
-
The neutral operative temperature, calculated according to ASHRAE Standard 55-81 from the experimentally determined neutral conditions, for velocities of 0.25 m/s (50 fpm) or less were unaffected by radiant temperature
asymmetries of 10 K (18 F) or less.
Thermal acceptability at neutral conditions was unaffected by air speeds
of 0.25 m/s (50 fpm) or less and RTAs of 10 K (18 F) or less.
Thermal acceptability decreased when radiant temperature asymmetry
increased beyond 10 K (18 F) .
Thermal acceptability decreased when air speed increased from above 0.25
m/s (50 fpm) even at neutral conditions.
An operative temperature 3C less than neutral is probably too low for
human sedentary occupancy as thermal acceptance of such conditions was only
63% in this study.
There were differences in the subjective responses between the men and
woemen of this study.
The perception of draft was a linear function of air speed and temperature and independent of radiant temperature asymmetry.
The sensation of local cooling was related to RTA and independent of air
speed.
There was no interaction between velocity and RTA on the subjective responses of this study. That is, effects from velocity and radiant asymmetry
are independent and additive.
Relationships were found relating thermal sensation with thermal preference, comfort, and thermal acceptability."
*
6.
Berglund, L. G., Gagge, A. P., and Banhidi, L. J., "Performance of

Radiant Ceiling and other Heating Systems Controlled for Equal
Comfort with an Operative Temperature Sensor", Proceedings of
the Third International Conference on Indoor Air Quality and
Climate. Stockholm, August, 1984.
B-37
A typical office space was heated separately by (1) radiant ceiling

panels, (2) forced air, (3) baseboard and (4) floor heating systems. Each
system was controlled with the same "operative temperature" sensor, whose set
point was held constant at 23<>c. Twenty subjects experienced each environment
for 3 hours. The comfort and whole body thermal sensations were not
statistically different for all four systems, although air and radiant
temperatures and other thermal characteristics differed widely. The present
experiments demonstrate that operative temperature, as a single control input,
is an effective way to regulate heat for comfort in complex environments.
*
7.
Berglund, L. G.
Conditions
Baseboard,
V. 91, Pt.
and Gagge, A. P., "Human Response to Thermal

Maintained in an Office by Radiant Ceiling,
Forced Air and Floor Heating Systems", ASHRAE Trans.,
2, 1985.
A typical office space was heated separately by (1) radiant ceiling

panels, (2) forced-air, (3) baseboard, and (4) carpet heating systems. Each
system was controlled for equal comfort with the same "operative temperature"
thermostat whose set point was unchanged throughout the test series. The
office was contained within an environmental chamber. The steady-state power
consumption per unit floor area for all systems averaged 9.1 Btu/hft^ (98
W/m^). The radiant system used the least power. Air temperatures in the
occupied space were most uniform with the floor heating system. Twenty
subjects experienced each environment for three hours. Periodically, subjects
indicated their thermal sensations for whole body, head, and feet, local
discomfort, comfort, and whether the environment was thermally acceptable or
not. Comfort and whole body thermal sensations were not statistically
different for all four systems and thermal acceptability averaged 94%. Though
subjects indicated their feet were slightly warm with the carpet heating, they
preferred this system to the others tested.
The experiments demonstrate the usefulness of operative temperature as a
control parameter for complex environments, such as those produced by radiant
ceilings. The thermal environmental characteristics of the four heating
systems made it difficult to test each system at exactly the same comfort
level. However, the wall-mounted operative temperature sensor-controller,
whose set point was unchanged, maintained the comfort, thermal acceptability,
and thermal sensation responses of the occupants in the test space at similar,
if not identical, levels.
The air temperature in the occupied zone was most uniform with the floor
heating and the least so with the baseboard system. It was also very uniform
with the forced-air system. The difference between air and globe temperatures
was the largest, with the radiant ceiling system using the least power. The
floor system used the most power.
In these tests, the forced-air system caused the most local discomfort,
followed closely by the radiant ceiling system. The occupants reported the
least local discomfort with the floor system, even though the mean thermal
sensation for their feet was slightly warm.
The occupants' preference ranking of the four systems from preferred on
down was: floor,, baseboard, forced-air, and radiant. From the thermal
sensation, comfort, acceptability, and local discomfort responses, one would
have expected the radiant to be preferred over the forced-air system.
The radiant panel system used 89% of power per unit floor area as the
B-38
forced air-system.
system used 116%.
The baseboard system used 109%, and the carpet heating
Berglund, L. G. and Gagge, A. P., "Thermal Comfort and Radiant Heat",

Proceedings of the Third National Passive Solar Conferencer
American Section of the International Solar Energy Society,
Univ. of Delaware, 1979.
The conclusions of the authors follow.

In passive solar buildings, the air and mean radiant temperatures are
seldom equal. Comfort conditions in such buildings can be conveniently
described in terms of the operative temperature of the environment. Operative
temperature is approximately the average of the air and mean radiant
temperatures present. Techniques for predicting the mean radiant temperature
from the expected surface temperatures of the space are clearly described by
Fanger. Fortunately for the passive building, humidity control is rather
unimportant for comfort as is air movement below 30 fpm. An environment
expected to be thermally acceptable to 80% or more of its sedentary occupants
would have operative temperatures between 68 and 80oF. Of course over this
large temperature range appropriate clothing adjustments (from 1 to .3 clo)
would be necessary.
9.
Bohgaki, K., "Effect of Floor Heating on Man's Comfort and Thermal

Sensations", Clima 2000 - Indoor Climate. Vol. 4, W S Kongres W S Messe, 1985.
The purpose of this study was to show the thermal effect of the posture in
a room during sitting on the floor or sitting in a chair. From the
experimental results, it was found that the case of sitting on the heated
floor was more comfortable than sitting in a chair. Comparing the results of
this experiment with other experiments indicated that the thermal environment
was slightly warm. The comfort conditions for floor heating found in this
study are as follow: air temperature, 18-20oC, floor surface temperature,
26-28oC, air velocity, under 0.1 m/s.
10.
Boyar, R. E., "The Influence of Radiant Energy Transfer on Human

Comfort", Heating. Piping and Air Conditioning. June 1966.
The author shows the variations in MRT that can be expected from different
methods of providing heat (forced air or radiant) to a space. The radiant
ceiling panels provided higher MRT near the glass surfaces than did the forced
convection system. There was also a surprisingly low floor temperature with
the forced air system. Some temperatures are presented from some experimental
results for a forced air system and a radiant ceiling panel system.
B-39
11.
Chrenko, F. A., "Heated Ceilings and Comfort", Journal of the

Institution of Heating and Ventllatine Engineers. London, April,
1952.
The paper describes a series of experiments on five subjects, and further

experiments on a group of 150 subjects, designed to obtain quantitative
assessments of the risks of producing unpleasant conditions in rooms with
heated ceilings and includes tables, based on the results of these
experiments, which give maximum desirable surface temperatures of panels of
various dimensions embedded in ceilings of different heights. The results of
a separate series of experiments investigating the effects of a cold wall on
persons exposed to radiation from a heated ceiling, did not modify the
conclusions' as to the maximum desirable ceiling temperatures reached in the
earlier tests. Ancillary observations made in the field are included in a
discussion of the relation between the experimental results and existing
British practice, and it is concluded that the recommended temperatures are,
on the whole, in accord with current practice. The risk of discomfort, the
causes of which are discussed, was most closely related to the elevation of
mean radiant temperature at head-level due to the heated ceiling. A method of
computing the mean radiant temperature at a point is given.
*
12.
Chrenko, F. A., "Heated Floors and Comfort", Journal of the

Institution of Heating and Ventilating Engineers. London, April,
1955.
The paper describes experiments designed to obtain quantitative

assessments of the risk of producing discomfort in rooms with heated floors.
The experiments were carried out in the laboratory on five men and three women
who were (a) sitting and (b) walking about. The subjects wore their usual
clothing and footwear. Measurements of the skin temperatures of the subjects'
feet were made and the results showed that subjective reactions of the men and
women to thermal stimuli were very similar, and such differences as were found
between the responses of the two groups of subjects at various floor
temperatures were due to differences in footwear. Discomfort was closely
associated with the floor-surface temperature and with the temperature of the
skin of the sole of the foot. It was concluded that the floor temperatures
recommended here were undertaken in accordance with those accepted in current
practice.
*
13.
Chrenko, F. A., "Radiant Heat and Thermal Comfort", Electricity and

Space Heating. Proceedings of Symposium of the Institution of
Electrical Engineers in London. March, 1964.
The authors conclusions were stated as follows.

(1) Existing psychophysical scales of warmth are of no use in designing
new systems of radiant heating or the assessment of old systems.
(2) Studies of localized sensations of warmth have enabled design criteria
B-40
to be given in ordinary physical terms.

(3) Studies of the sensitivity of the skin to radiant heat have yielded
results which have practical application in design.
*
14.
Fanger, P. 0., Angelius, 0., and Kjerulf - Jensen, P., "Radiation

Data for the Human Body", ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 76, Pt. 2, 1970.
The purpose of this study was to determine experimentally geometrical

radiation data necessary for calculation of the radiant heat exchange between
humans and their environment. This data is necessary when analyzing panel
heating or cooling systems, infrared heating systems, and effects due to cold
surfaces. Many figures are given for specific geometries.
*
15.
Fanger, P. 0., Barihidi, L. , Olesen, B. W. and Langkilde, G. , "Comfort

Limits for Heated Ceilings" ASHRAE Trans. , Vol. 86, pt. 2, 1980.
A curve has been established, showing the percentage of people feeling

discomfort due to overhead radiation, as a function of the radiant temperature
asymmetry. The curve applies for sedentary people who feel thermally neutral
for the body as a whole. It is recommended that a heated ceiling should not
provide a radiant temperature asymmetry exceeding 4<>C in spaces with high
standards for the indoor climate. Less than 5% of the population are then
predicted to feel uncomfortable due to overhead radiation. The corresponding
limit for the ceiling temperature can be found from a figure for different
sizes and heights of the heated ceiling. Increasing discomfort due to
increasing overhead radiation with lowered air temperature, can be attributed
to warmer head and colder feet.
*
16.
Fanger, P. 0., "Radiation and Discomfort" ASHRAE Journal, February

1986.
This study presents results that indicate that people are not particularly
sensitive to asymmetric radiation from surfaces. It shows that in practice
the limits will rarely be exceeded. Clothed subjects were exposed to radiant
asymmetry from walls and floors for 3 1/2 hours. In order to have 10%
dissatisfied occupants it requires from 7 to 25oC radiant temperature
asymmetry. A useful diagram relating percent dissatisfied to the angle factor
yields the allowable temperature difference between the air and wall.
B-41
17.
Gagge, A. P., "Final Progress Report: RP-41-Physiological Effects of

High Intensity Radiant Beam Heating", ASHRAE Jnl.. April, 1968.
The general aim of the project has been the development of a comfort
standard for high temperature sources of thermal radiation in the spectral
range 0.7 to 20 microns. Briefly stated the conclusions of RP-41 are as
follows:
1.
For environmental conditions with varying ambient temperatures and

radiant heat, comfort may be described by the operative temperature.
2.
Comfort is not described by any single temperature level, but usually

falls in a wide range of operative or ambient temperatures.
3.
Physiological factors, such as metabolic rate, evaporative loss and

the vascular regulation of peripheral blood flow, can each affect the
level of thermal equilibrium and perhaps comfort by 2 to 4 degrees
fahrenheit.
4.
A normal physiological state is not necessarily the most comfortable

to an individual.
5.
A method has been presented showing how much radiant heat may be
required to balance out the discomfort of low ambient air
temperatures. A practical level of operative temperature for comfort
useful for this method is 80oF (unclothed) and 72<>F (clothed).
*
18.
Gagge, A. P., Hardy, J. D. , and Rapp, G. M. , "Exploratory Study on

Comfort for High Temperature Sources of Radiant Heat", ASHRAE
Trans., Vol. 71, Pt. 2, 1965.
For environmental conditions with varying ambient temperatures and radiant

heat, comfort may be described by the operative temperature. A constant level
of comfortable operative temperature implies either that there is thermal
equilibrium with the environment or that there is a constant but small rate of
body heating or body cooling.
A method has been presented, showing how much radiant heat may be required
to balance out the discomfort of low ambient air temperatures. A practical
level of operative temperature for comfort useful for this method is 80 F
(unclothed) and 72 F (clothed).
*
19.
Gagge, A. P., Rapp, G. M., and Hardy, J. D., "Mean Radiant and
Operative Temperature for High-Temperature Sources of Radiant
Heat", ASHRAE Journal, October 1964.
The objective of this paper was to outline a method of standardizing

measurements of high intensity radiation by any radiometer in order to derive
a mean radiant temperature (MRT) and an operative temperature (T Q ), which can
B-42
describe with greater accuracy man's thermal response to his environment. In

the study, the radiant energy received by the unclothed subject from a
high-temperature source has been evaluated without specifying its quality by
the increase in his sweat rate. The experimental conditions have been so
chosen that the increase in the subject's radiation load was balanced by an
equal increase in his evaporation loss. The MRT and T 0 , used here to describe
any radiant environment, have been defined in terms of the radiation (hr) and
convection (hc) coefficients that would have applied under corresponding
conditions of equal wall and air temperature. Thus, it has been possible to
describe a complex radiant environment in terms of a temperature scale well
associated with everyday experience.
*
20.
Gagge, A. P., Rapp, G. M. , and Hardy, J. D., "The Effective Radiant

Field and Operative Temperature Necessary for Comfort with
Radiant Heating", ASHRAE Journal, 1967.
A new hypothetical variable, effective radiant field (ERF) has been

introduced that has useful application to radiant heating (and cooling). The
effective radiant field is defined as the radiant heat exchanged by an
occupant with his surrounding environment when his black body skin (or
clothing) temperature is hypothetically equal to the ambient air temperature.
The ratio of the ERF to the environmental constant represents the
environmental temperature change caused by the radiant field. The sum of this
change and the ambient air temperature describes the operative temperature by
which comfort and discomfort may be judged in accordance with known
physiological and comfort standards. For high temperature radiant heat, the
ERF is equal to the actual heat absorbed by the occupant from the radiating
source. ERF is a summative term and may include the radiant heating from a
high temperature source, the re-radiation from warmed floors or ceiling, and
the cold radiation from window surfaces. For constant ambient air
temperature, comfort and physiological response are directly proportional to
ERF and to the difference between mean radiant temperature and ambient air
temperature.
*
21.
Griffiths, I. and Mclntyre, D. , "Subjective Response to Overhead

Thermal Radiation", Human Factors. 16 (4), 1974.
Forty subjects in two experiments experienced conditions in which ceiling

temperatures varied between 26.5oC and 45C. Air temperature, mean readiant
temperature, air velocity, and humidity were held constant. Experimental
variables consisted of two levels of seat height, subject baldness, and
environmental temperature. The subjects appraised the environmental
conditions by use of a 34-item semantic differential questionnaire. Baldness
and seat height were unimportant factors, but ceiling temperature
significantly affected warmth assessment. Conditions of higher ceiling
temperature were perceived as cooler than those with the same mean radiant
temperature and lower ceiling temperatures. Raising the air temperature did
not increase sensitivity to overhead radiation, and raising the ceiling
temperature did not cause discomfort. The results indicate greater
B-43
snesitivity to radiant exchange with walls than with the ceiling, and that
European upper limits for ceiling temperature are unduly restrictive.
*
22.
Griffiths, I. D. and Mclntyre, D. A., "Radiant Heating and Comfort",

The Building Services Engineer. V. 40, June, 1972.
What the authors have

exists concerning radiant
recommendations are based
fact, exists and that the
something like
sought to do is to evaluate the evidence which

temperature and comfort. It seems that the standard
on poor evidence where satisfactory evidence, in
environmental temperature formula should be
T e = 0.56Ta + 0.44Tr
if the air velocity is equal to or less than 0alm/s. It also seems that there
is no evidence of a preference for a radiant rather than a convective
environment and that those designing installations should decide between
radiant and convective systems on their individual merits.
*
23.
Griffiths, I. D. and Mclntyre, D. A., "The Balance of Radiant and Air

Temperature for Warmth in Older Women", Environment Research. 6,
1973.
Fifty-six women over 55 years of age (mean age 67.5 yr. standard deviation
6.4 yr) experienced three environmental conditions of equal predicted
subjective warmth, but different mean radiant and air temperatures (air
temperature 26.9 C, mean radiant temperature 17.3C; air temperature 23.0oC,
mean radiant temperature 23.7C; air temperature 19.2oC, mean radiant
temperature 26.8 C). After 40 minutes, exposure subjects rated the
environment on a number of subjective scales, there were no significant
differences between conditions. This supports a previous finding with young
men as subjects, that radiant and warm-air environments are not perceived
differentially and also suggests that the relative importance of air and mean
radiant temperature for warmth is not affected by age.
*
24.
Hardy, James D., "Physiological Effects of High Infrared Heating",

ASHRAE Journal, November 1962.
Discussions concerning the physiological properties of skin, as related to

radiant energy, are given. Caution should be used when infra-red radiant
energy is used for concentrated heating.
B-44
25.
Hart, Gordon H., "Heating the Perimeter Zone of an Office Building:

An Analytical Study using the Proposed ASHRAE Comfort Standard
(55 -74R)", ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 87, pt. 2, 1981.
Using ASHRAE Standard 55-74R along with fundamentals of radiant and

convection heat transfer, an analytical study was performed to demonstrate the
dependence of operative temperature on outdoor temperature. Three different
types of heating systems were analyzed: baseboard convection, all-air, and
radiant panel. One particular building wall construction, which conforms to
the ASHRAE Standard on Energy Conservation in New Building Design (90-75R),
was evaluated. The results suggest that it would be necessary to raise the
air temperature in the space to a slightly higher value to maintain a constant
operative temperature. An alternative solution would be the use of a wall
section with less glazing area. The results of this study should be useful in
designing and operating office buildings with uniform comfort in the perimeter
zones.
*
26.
Herrington, L. P., and Lorenzi, R. J., "Effect of Panel Location on

Skin and Clothing surface Temperature", Heating. Piping. & Air
Conditioning. October 1949.
Since room comfort is closely related to the surface temperature of an

occupant's skin and clothing, the authors conducted experiments recording
these variables under comparable conditions. The purpose was to find what
effect the location of the radiant heating panel had on the human body. The
authors conducted tests for five days each on the effect of floor heating
conditions and ceiling heating conditions. Measurements were made of the
effect of various temperatures of floor surface, room center and ceiling
surface on subjects, as indicated by head temperatures (an average of cheek,
upper hair surface, and dorsal neck area) and mean exposed skin temperatures
and clothing surface temperatures. Then, mean comfort votes and mean
temperature votes were taken.
One of the primary conditions of thermal comfort is a skin temperature
ranging from approximately 80 F on the toes and sole of the foot to
approximately 95 F on the trunk and certain facial areas, with an overall
average for the skin surface of 90-92 F.
Their conclusions were as follow:
1. At a room center black body temperature of 75 F, radiant
floor panels operating at 79 F produce a detectable increase in the
temperature of the clothing surface of the lower extremities. Under
these conditions the gradient between extremities and environment is
increased about 28 percent over comparable heating with ceiling panels
operating at 95 F.
2.
Foot temperatures under comfortable conditions requiring no house

heating are about 10 deg above shoe surface temperatures which are
near 74 F when floors are at 71 F, other surfaces and air temperatures
being within 3 deg of this value.
3.
Physiological considerations are reported which support the view that

floor temperatures above 75 F are not desirable.
B-45
4.
Since c e i l i n g location of the radiant panel does not produce a

significant effect on head temperature, this location for a radiant
panel i s preferred to the floor location.
*
27.
Houghten, F. C., Gunst, S. B. and Sue in, J., "Radiation as a Factor

in the Sensation of Warmth", ASHVE Trans. . Jan. 1941.
This is a discussion about a set of experiments relating radiation to

comfort conditions. It considers such factors as wet and dry bulb
temperature, air velocity and mean radiant temperature. The authors develop a
relationship between MRT and effective temperature. Changes in MRT dictate
changes in effective temperature resulting in no change in feeling of warmth.
*
28.
Langkilde, G. , Gunnarsen, L., Mortensen, N. , "Comfort Limits During

Infrared Radiant Heating of Industrial Spaces", Clima 2000 Indoor Climate, Vol. 4, W S Kongres - W S Messe, 1985.
Thirty-two subjects were exposed to overhead radiant heating from gas

fired infrared heaters. The duration of exposure was 3 1/2 hours and subjects
had different qualities of clothing, and some were standing and some seated.
Relationships between percentage of dissatisfied and radiant temperature
asymmetry were established for people exposed to infrared heaters. Accepting
5% feeling uncomfortable, a radiant temperature asymmetry of 10 to 14HC was
found permissible. These limits are less restricitve than existing
recommendations and standards. No effect of wearing a helmet was found.
*
29.
Lebrun, Jean J., and Marret, Dominique J., "Thermal Comfort and
Energy Consumption in Winter Conditions -- Continuation of the
Experimental Study" ASHRAE Trans., vol. 85, Pt. 2, 1979.
Radiant heating systems by floor and/or ceiling panels are examined by the
detailed measuring of the inside microclimate in an experimental room in
relation with heat transmission through an exposed wall and with ventilation
enthalpy flow. The efficiency of the system relates to thermal comfort
conditions as well as to energy consumption. The Predicted Percentage of
Dissatisfied is computed from every distribution of internal temperatures.
What is presented is a rational interpretation of differences observed between
experimental and theoretical values of the overall heat transfer coefficient
of the exposed wall as of the volumetric heat loss coefficient. The results
are compared with those previously obtained with a warm air system. Some
information is given about comfort experiments with subjects, performed to
confirm the physical diagnostic of the inside micro-climates realized by all
the heating systems previously studied.
For a "badly" insulated building (with large, single-glazing areas), a
satisfactory comfort is only achieved by radiators located below the windows
or by warm air. heating; but this second solution is much more energy consuming
B-46
(due to the increase of i n t e r n a l h e a t exchange coefficient) .

For a "well" i n s u l a t e d b u i l d i n g , radiant heating i s as comfortable as the
other systems; n e v e r t h e l e s s there i s no miracle: radiant heating does not
allow a s i g n i f i c a n t lowering of a i r temperature and corresponding v e n t i l a t i o n
loss.
For a "very well" i n s u l a t e d building, warm a i r heating would probably
become the most energy saving one, because of the i n t e r n a l isothermy i t could
produce. V e r t i c a l a i r temperature p r o f i l e s are a l s o given.
*
30.
Mclntyre, D. A., "Overhead Radiation and Comfort", The Building

Services Engineer. Vol. 44, Pg. 226-34, Batiste Publ. Ltd.,
January 1977.
This series of experiments has investigated the reactions of people to

overhead heating, generally from a heating panel extending over the ceiling.
A measure of asymmetry has been developed, termed the v.r.t.
A vector radiant temperature of 20K does not increase the mean discomfort
vote. However, this level of radiation is noticeable, and may be blamed for
causing discomfort. It is recommended that for normal indoor situations a
v.r.t. of 10K be regarded as the upper limit. There is no difficulty in
meeting this criterion in well insulated buildings, but buildings with poor
insulation and large windows may require further insulation to reduce the
power loading.
There is evidence to suggest that the direction of the radiation is
important. Cold radiation on the back and warm radiation on the face are
apparently disliked.
*
31.
Mclntyre, D. A., "Overhead Radiation and Comfort", Electricity

Council Reasearch Centre, Capenhurst, England, May 1976,
(NTIS-PB 277 428).
The Environmental Section at ECRC has conducted a series of experiments

aimed at an understanding of the effects of thermal radiation on comfort.
This report summarizes the work on overhead radiation, and makes
recommendations on the maximum loading of ceiling heating systems which can be
used without risking complaints of discomfort. Five experiments are
summarized. From this evidence, and the published results of other workers,
it is shown that asymmetric thermal radiation characterized by a vector
radiant temperature of greater than 10K produces noticeably non-uniform
conditions, and is likely to lead to complaints by occupants. The vector
radiant temperature (v.r.t.) is a measure of asymmetry, and may be thought of
as the average surface temperature of one half of the room minus that of the
other. This result is applied to the design of ceiling heating systems. The
v.r.t. is related to both the size and temperature of the heated area, and
hence to the heat output. In practice this sets an upper limit to the heat
emission that may be provided without increasing the v.r.t. above the
recommended limit of 10K. For rooms of normal height, the maximum installed
load Pmax(W) is related to the heated area A(m squared) by Pmax - 700 + 95A.
This simple relation should be used at the design stage to check the
B-47
acceptability of a system.
*
32.
Mclntyre, D. A., "Radiant Heat from Lights and Its Effect on Thermal
Comfort", Illuminating Engineering Society, London, V. 8, No. 3,
1976.
The thermal radiation received from a lighting system may be estimated

from a knowledge of the lamp type and the illuminance. Fluorescent lighting
produces an irradiance of about 8 W/mz per 1000 lux. This is unlikely to
produce any adverse effect on comfort at conventional levels of illuminance
below 4000 lux. Tungsten filament sources produce considerably more
radiation, at 70 W/m^ per 1000 lux. Any installation using 1000 lux or more
is liable to produce uncomfortable conditions.
33.
Mclntyre, D. A., "Sensitivity and Discomfort Associated with Overhead

Thermal Radiation", Ergonomics, V. 20, No. 3, pp. 287-296, 1977.
One hundred and forty-eight subjects each experienced one of four levels
of overhead radiation, up to a maximum ceiling temperature of 45oC. The
degree of asymmetry is characterized by the vector radiant temperature
(v.r.t.); the four levels were 0, 5, 9 and 14 K. Air and wall temperatures
were held equal to each other, and reduced to compensate for the raised
ceiling temperatures, so that perceived warmth was constant across the
conditions. After 15 min. exposure, the subjects rated the environment on
seven scales. Scales of general evaluation showed a slight improvement with
increasing asymmetry. However, a scale which asked whether the hot ceiling
caused discomfort showed a steady increase in discomfort with increasing
asymmetry. It appears that people are ready to attribute discomfort to
unusual aspects of the environment. A maximum asymmetry of v.r.t. = 10K is
therefore suggested as a design criterion; this level did not actually
increase discomfort, but was noticeable and in practice levels greater than
this are likely to produce complaints.
*
34.
Mclntyre, D. A., "The Thermal Radiation Field", Building Science.

Vol. 9, 1974.
This paper has presented a comprehensive view of the thermal radiation

field. The concept of the field is probably unfamiliar to most workers in the
field of comfort or thermal physiology, where it is more usual to deal in
terms of energy exchanges. However, the field concept provides a simpler and
more powerful way of describing the thermal radiation environment, and it is
to be hoped that some of the measures, particularly the radiation vector and
its equivalent, the vector radiant temperature, will be used when specifying
the thermal environment. Fortunately, several differential radiometers are
already on the market, and the measurement of the radiation vector presents no
B-48
problem.
It is still not possible to obtain a reliable instrument for measuring the
mean radiant temperature and this fact more than any other has delayed the
understanding and acceptance of the importance of the radiation field in
determining comfort and warmth.
*
35.
Mclntyre, D. A., "Thermal Radiation from Lighting Installations", The

Building Services Engineer. V. 41, April, 1973.
The thermal radiation from a number of different light sources was

measured as a function of the illuminance. A linear relation was obtained
between total thermal radiation and illuminance, which implies that the
thermal irradiance may be predicted from illuminance. The constant of
proportionality varied from 0*07 W/m2 per lux for tungsten filament lamps to
0.006 w/m2 per lux for low pressure sodium lamps. The figure is 0.008 w/m2
per lux for fluorescent lamps, which implies that the increase in mean radiant
temperature due to radiation from a fluorescent lighting installation is up to
0.7oC per 1000 lux. This may be compensated by reducing the air temperature
0.3oC per 1000 lux. Radiant" asymmetry per se will not cause discomfort at
illuminances up to 15000 lux for fluorescent or 1700 lux for filament
installations; the level at which discomfort occurs has not been established.
The typical modern fluorescent lighting installation of 1000 lux will produce
no comfort problems from thermal radiation.
*
36.
McNall, P. E. and Schlegel, J. C , "The Relative Effects of

Convection and Radiation Heat Transfer on Thermal Comfort
(Thermal Neutrality) for Sedentary and Active Human Subjects",
The following shows the relative influence of convection and radiation

heat transfer, determined by the ratio of the convection heat transfer
coefficient (hc) to the radiation heat transfer coefficient (h^), for people
wearing clothes with an insulation value of 0.59 clo in equilibrium with
environments that have a partial pressure of water vapor of 0.435 in. Hg:
1.
Sedentary (relative air velocity = 2 5 - 3 0 fpm):

a. Males (metabolic rate = 389 Btuh),
b.
=> 1.51
Females (metabolic rate = 301 Btuh) , he/ti = 1.37
c. Males and Females combined (metabolic rate = 345 Btuh),

= 1.43, recommended value 1.4
2.
Active (relative air velocity = 45 fpm):

a. Males and females combined (metabolic rate = 741),
= 1.2, recommended value 1.4
B-49
The results show generally good agreement with Fanger's comfort equation
In the environments investigated, including the validity of Fanger's equation
for predicting thermally neutral environments.
The same ratio for sedentary and active subjects is felt useful for
engineering purposes.
37.
McNall, P. E., Jr^ and Biddison, R. E. , "Thermal and Comfort

Sensations of Sedentary persons Exposed to Asymmetric Radiant
Fields", ASHRAE Trans.. V. 76, Pt. 1, 1970.
The results of the statistical analyses performed on the votes of thermal

comfort of sedentary male and female subjects wearing clothing with an
insulation value of 0.59 clo in equilibrium with environments with a partial
pressure of water vapor of 0.435 inches Hg and air velocity of 20-30 fpm
indicate that:
1.
The thermal sensations of subjects exposed with radiation shape

factors of 0.20 to a wall 20 F cooler than the balance of enclosure
surfaces and thermal sensations of subjects exposed to uniform
enclosure surface temperatures belong to the same regression plane.
Therefore the "Thermally Neutral Zone" developed in an earlier study
for enclosure surfaces of uniform temperature is applicable for
environments of the former type.
2.
The regression planes, relating thermal sensation with air temperature

and mean radiant temperature, developed for subjects exposed with
radiation shape factors of 0.20 to a wall at 130 F and for subjects
exposed to uniform enclosure surface temperatures were found to be
significantly different, producing thermal sensation votes about 0.5
higher than expected in the case of the 130 F wall. Although the
previously mentioned "Thermally Neutral Zone is not applicable for
thermal environments of the former type, it is felt it applies for
less severe exposure to heated panels.
3.
Thermally "neutral" subjects exposed with radiation shape factors of

0.12 to ceiling panels at 50 and 130 F and radiation shape factors of
0.20 to wall panels at 50 F experienced no significan discomfort which
could be attributed to the symmetry of the radiant field.
4.
Thermally "neutral" subjects exposed with radiation.shape factors of

0.20 to wall panels at 130 F experienced significant discomfort which
was found to be caused by the asymmetry of the mean radiant
temperature.
B-50
38.
Nevins, R. G. and Feyerherm, A. M., "Effect of Floor Surface

Temperature on Comfort Part IV: Cold Floors", ASHRAE Trans.. V.
73, Pt. 2, 1966.
Limited tests involving cold floors, indicate that thermal sensations of

both male and female college-age subjects are not seriously affected by floor
surface temperatures as low as 60 F, air temperature 75 F. Subjects were
clothed, seated at rest and exposed to the test conditions for 3 hr. Foot
comfort votes indicated that both male and female subjects objected to a floor
temperature of 60 F. In addition, a floor temperature of 65 F may be too cool
for female subjects. Foot skin temperatures, measured on the bottom and top
of the foot inside the shoe, roughly correlated with foot comfort vote.
Based on theoretical calculations, floor surface temperatures of 100 F may
reduce the radiant heat transfer to 20% of that occurring in a uniform
environment. For a 60 F floor temperature, the heat transfer may increase to
150 %. The radiation heat transfer in a uniform environment (air temperature
equal to MRT) is approximately 25 to 30% of the total. The influence of the
floor temperature varies with the size of the floor, the temperature and the
location of the man.
*
39.
Nevins, R. G. and Flinner, A. 0., "Effect of Heated-Floor

Temperatures on Comfort", Heating Piping and Air Conditioning.
Oct., 1957, p. 149-153.
For the first phase of a study to determine the effect of floor

temperatures on comfort, comfort data were obtained by subjecting college age
students, male and female, seated at rest, to various floor-panel-heated
environments for periods of 60 min. A total of 108 male and 21 female
students were used. Correlation coefficients were calculated for the
correlation of comfort vote with air temperature, operative temperature,
effective temperature, air temperature plus mean radiant temperature, floor
temperature and relative humidity. The coefficients show that the comfort
vote correlates with those parameters in which air temperature is a
predominant factor. The comfort vote did not show a significant correlation
with floor temperature or relative humidity.
Floor surface temperature over a range of 65 to 95 F were found to have a
negligible effect on the comfort vote when the air temperature was 75 F.
During the 1957 tests, using male subjects, it was found that floor
temperature of 100 F significantly affected the comfort vote whereas floor
temperatures of 80 to 95 F did not. It was concluded that 95 F is the maximum
floor temperature for comfort under the conditions of these tests. Foot
temperatures recorded at the end of the 60-min exposure indicate that 88 to 91
F is the maximum foot temperature for comfort under the conditions of these
texts.
B-51
40.
Nevins, R. G., Michaels, K. B. and Feyerherm, A. M., "The Effect of

Floor Surface Temperature on Comfort-Part 1, College Age Males",
ASHRAE Trans.. V. 70, 1964.
1. A statistically significant effect of floor temperatures on thermal

sensation and foot comfort does exist for college-age males undergoing
3-hr test periods at rest with air temperature at 75 F and floor
temperatures ranging from 75 to 100 F. With increasing floor
temperatures, means for foot comfort scores, ranging from 2.08 to
2.36, moved away from an ideal "2" for comfortable toward "3" for
hot. At the same time the means for thermal sensation, ranging from
3.64 to 3.95, moved from slightly cool "3" toward an ideal "4" for
comfortable.
2.
Results for tests with

light work also showed
comfort. Sample means
the 4.0 mark for floor
was 4.43. The mean for
college-age males standing while performing

significant effects of floor temperature on
for thermal sensation scores stayed close to
temperatures up to 95 F. The mean for 100 F
foot comfort scores ranged from 2.09 to 2.55.
3.
Based on foot comfort, floor surface temperatures as high as 85 F do

not cause serious discomfort when the air temperature is 75 F.
*
41.
Olesen, B. W. , "A Simplified Calculation Method for Checking the

Indoor Thermal Climate", ASHRAE Trans.. V. 89, Pt. 2B, 1983.
At the design stage, it is desirable to be able to predict the indoor

thermal climate that will result from a given combination of building
construction, heating system, and outdoor climate. Several large computer
programs can be used to predict heating and cooling loads, indoor air
temperatures, surface temperatures, and humidity, but these programs are often
difficult and expensive and are used mainly for large buildings. A simplified
method of calculation for evaluating the thermal indoor environment of the
design stage has been presented. It uses the operative temperature, floor
surface temperature and radiant temperature asymmetry.
*
42.
Schlegel, J. C. and McNall, P. E., "The Effect of Asymmetric

Radiation on the Thermal and Comfort Sensations of Sedentary
Subjects", ASHRAE Trans.. V. 74, Pt. II, 1968.
Experiments were conducted by exposing sedentary subjects for 3 hrs to

environments of symmetric and asymmetric MRT that were in and around the
thermally neutral zone. The air velocity was held constant at 25-30 fpm and
the vapor pressure of moisture in the air was maintained at 0.435 in. Hg (45%
relative humidify at 78 F, for example).
For the symmetric MRT tests reported previously, the MRT was separated up
to 12 F from air temperature. In the asymmetric MRT tests, one entire wall of
the test chamber was cooled or heated approximately 12 F different from the
B-52
balance of the walls, ceiling, and floor, and the subjects were seated
relative to that wall such that a sphere in the position of each subject would
have a shape factor of 0.2 with respect to that wall. The surface
temperatures were adjusted so that MRT was equal to air temperature for a
sphere in the position of each subject. A two-sphere radiometer developed by
Honeywell was used to measure the mean radiant temperatures.
The conclusions are:
1. No significant discomfort was noticed by the subjects due to the
asymmetric MRT of the magnitudes tested. However, since the subjects
used in the present tests were not allowed to participate in repeated
exposures, it cannot be concluded that sensations of comfort or
neutrality are sufficient to rule out harmful effects that may exist
for unilateral cooling, even for the relatively mild temperature
differences employed in these tests.
2.
The seated subjects could be approximated as spheres for mean radiant

temperature calculations, as evidenced by the radiometer readings of
mean radiant temperatures which accurately predicted the subjects'
thermal sensations.
3.
The experiments employed only low temperature radiation near room

temperature levels. They do not apply to infrared sources.
43.
Spangler, A. T. , "Industrial Climate Control Versus Radiant Heat",

Air Conditioning. Heating and Ventilating. Jan., 1965.
This article considers the effects of radiant heat on the heat dissipation
from the human body. A chart and basic equations are presented for
calculating these effects along with the necessary adjustments in ambient air
temperature required to maintain the same relative degree of human comfort.
Various methods are also presented for reducing radiation effects and mean
radiation temperature. Use of these methods has made climate control
practical in applications that would have otherwise been impossible.
44.
Smith, R. M. and Rae, A., "Patient Comfort and Radiant Ceiling

Heating in a Hospital Ward", BuildinE and Environment. V. 12,
pp. 143-146, 1977.
An experimental survey of the limitations placed by patient comfort

considerations on the size and surface temperature of infra-red ceiling
heating panels in a hospital ward is described.
It was found that at ceiling surface temperatures of up to 50oC patients
suffered no additional discomfort with angle factors, based on a parallel
planes measure, of up to 0.31 to the heated surface, and that at ceiling
surface temperatures of up to 60oC angle factors of up to 0.12, where the air
temperature was limited to 23C, and of up to 0.31, where the air temperature
was limited to 21oC, were permissible.
B-53
45.
Stevens, Joseph C., and Marks, Lawrence, "Subjective Warmth in

Relation to the Density, Duration, and Areal Extent of Infrared
Irradiation", ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 76. Pt. 1, 1970.
The conclusions from this experimental investigation were as follows.

1. Subjective warmth aroused by infra-red irradiation of the skin grows
in magnitude as a power function of the flux density of the
irradiation. The exact size of the exponent of the power function
depends on the duration of the exposure and its areal extent.
2.
Subjective warmth correlates well with flux density but poorly with
flux duration. Since skin temperature depends on both density and
duration, the proximal stimulus for subjective warmth cannot be skin
temperature per se. A number of other common hypotheses concerning
the nature of the proximal stimulus are also at odds with the data on
apparent warmth. Two theories, one involving a two-layer receptor
system, the other a single receptor system possessing properties of
adaptation, are reasonably consistent with the data on warmth.
3.
Flux density and areal extent can be traded for each other to preserve
the same sensation of apparent warmth. At very low sensation levels,
the rule of trading is virtually complete reciprocity. With
increasing sensation level, area becomes a progressively less
effective determinant of warmth than flux density, and as a result, at
higher sensation levels it takes a much larger percentage change in
area to offset a given percentage change in density.
*
46.
Tredre, B. E., "Assessment of Mean Radiant Temperature in Indoor

Environments", Brit, J. Industr. Med, V. 22, 58, 1965.
The conclusions of the aughor are quoted below.

Attention has been drawn to the fact that in non-uniform environments (1)
the mean radiant temperature varies throughout the occupied space, (2) the
average surface temperature is a dubious index of mean radiant temperature,
(3) errors will arise in assuming that the mean radiant temperature at a point
is equivalent to the mean radiant temperature as its affects a man, and (4)
the heat load on a man is dependent on his orientation towards the various
radiating surfaces.
While the mean of the estimates of m.r.t.s from two or three globe
thermometers gave good agreement with the results obtained from sitting or
standing metal models of men respectively, the error in the use of one globe
at 45 in. above the floor was only small. Differences between m.r.t.s
obtained with the thermopile at 45 in. above the floor were slightly greater
but still did not exceed 0.62 C and 1.17 C for the standing and sitting models
respectively. The results suggest that the 45 in. reference point should be
placed in the region of the knees rather than the trunk when a man is seated
with his legs near a heated panel.
Hence it seems that in indoor environments warmed by any of the more usual
forms of heating installation but with no intense radiation from sharply
localized sources, the simple estimation of mean radiant temperatures with a
globe thermometer at 45 in. above the floor will generally give a very
B-54
satisfactory indication of the heat load on a standing or sitting man.
I
1
B-55
F.
FLOOR PANELS
1.
Billington, N. S., "Floor Panel Heating - Some Design Data", Journal

of the Institution of Heating and Ventilating Engineers. London,
Oct., 1953.
The use of the network analyser to study some probleems of floor heating
is described. Data are presented relating to:
a)
Surface temperature for different tube spacings and depth of the tube
in the concrete floor.
b)
Downward losses for different tube spacings and depths.
c)
Emission of panel - from 1.2 to 0.5 Btu/ft* hr HF. This was extremely
sensitive to tube spacing and depth.
2.
Bruce, H. H., "Off-Peak Floor Heating - Research, Design and

Development: Some Controversial Factors", Electricity and Space
Heating. Proceedings of Symposium of the Institution of
Electrical Engineers in London, March, 1964.
Discussion of floor warming in order to take care of loads occurring at a

later time. Suggests that the recommended value of 22.5 w/ft^ for an
intermediate floor is too high for comfort conditions. It will produce floor
surface temperatures in excess of 85 F. He suggests that in some cases, 14
w/ft^ with a charge time of 12 hours in 24 will produce floor surfaces up to
85 F.
3.
Faithfull, E. W., "Electric Floor Warmings in Commercial Buildings",

Electricity and Space Heating. Proceedings of Symposium of the
Institution of Electrical Engineers in London. March, 1964.
The author discusses several systems that can be used for warming floors.
These are; hollow-pot floor, pre-stressed plank floor, hollow concrete beam
floor, and cast in situ floor. He discussed the advantages of warmed floors
for comfort and heating.
4.
Grammling, F. J., "Methods for Testing Hydronic Floor-Heating

Systems", ASHRAE Trans., V. 91, Pt. 2, 1985.
For the German standard DIN 4725, methods have been developed for testing
the thermal performance of hydronic floor-heating systems, and numerous
measurements have been made. Most of the systems have been tested with the
B-56
so-called place apparatus. The results of the t e s t s show that measured values
of performance differ significantly from figures published in the literature
or company catalogs. I t i s therefore clear that exact performance
measurements under controlled thermal conditions are necessary for the
planning and optimal operation of floor-heating systems.
*
5.
Hogan, Roy Edward, Jr., Heat Transfer Analysis of Radiant Heating

Panels - Hot Water Pipes in Concrete Slab Floor. August 1979.
The ASHRAE design recommendations for radiant floor heating panels are
reviewed and evaluated using the results of a numerical model. The numerical
model is described in detail the results are compared to prior experimental
data. Both bare and covered panels are considered. Particular areas of
interest are the downward and edgewise heat loss, the panel thermal
resistance, and the required mean water temperature. A transient simulation
of the panel performance over a typical winter day is presented and a control
system is discussed. Isotherms are plotted for the temperature field in both
the panel and the earth. The ASHRAE panel model is acceptable for the
geometry considered even though it does not represent the panel heat loss
mechanisms correctly. Further studies could be made for other panel
geometries, different infiltration rates, and an AUST not equal to the room
air temperature. The numerical results agree in trend with the prior
experimental results. The ASHRAE design recommendations are adequate and
slightly conservative for designing both bare and covered radiant floor
heating panels with no infiltration and an AUST equal to the room air
temperature. These design recommendations are conservative because both the
downward and edgewise heat loss and the panel thermal resistance are over
estimated. The steady state design water temperature appears to be more than
adequate for transient operation.
*
6.
Hogan, R. E. , Jr. and Blackwell, B., Ph.D., "Comparison of Numerical

Model with ASHRAE Design Procedure for Warm Water Concrete Floor
Heating Panels", ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 92, No. 2, Pt. 1, 1986.
The ASHRAE design recommendations for radiant heating panels are reviewed
and evaluated using the results computed from a numerical model. The panel
configuration that was considered consists of hot water pipes buried in either
a bare or a covered concrete slab floor with a concrete footing and a
perimeter insulation. The numerical model is described in detail and uses a
finite control volume based solution method. Particular parameters of
interest are the downward and edgewise heat loss, the panel thermal
resistance, and the required mean water temperature. Results of the numerical
model were compared with prior experimental results and agree qualitatively.
The ASHRAE design recommendations are shown to be adequate and are slightly
conservative for designing both bare and covered floor heating panels with no
infiltration and,with an area-weighted average unheated surface temperature,
AUST, equal to the room air temperature. The ASHRAE design recommendations
are conservative because both the downward and edgewise heat loss and the
panel thermal resistance are overestimated. .
B-57
7.
Hulbert, L. E., Nottage, H. B., and Franks, C. V., "Heat Flow

Analysis in Panel Heating or Cooling Sections", Heating. Piping
& Air Conditioning. April 1950.
A set of curves applicable to the case of uniformly spaced pipes buried

within a solid slab having isothermal surfaces has been developed for the
purpose of relating the following quantities: (1) rate of heat release (or
pick-up) per linear foot of pipe, (2) thermal conductivity of the slab, (3)
difference between the pipe and mean slab surface temperatures, (4) spacing
between adjacent pipes, (5) slab thickness, (6) tube outer diameter, and (7)
position of the pipe grid between the slab surfaces. Simple equations are
given for establishing the division of heat flow between the two surfaces.
Data derived from analysis have received experimental confirmation.
*
8.
Humphreys, C. M. , Franks, C. V., Schutrum, L. F., "Field Studies of

Heat Losses from Concrete Floor Panels", Heating. Piping and Air
Conditioning. January 1951.
During the summer of 1915, thermocouples and heat flow meters were
installed under four houses to study the heat losses from floor panels to the
earth. Different kinds and amounts of insulation were placed under the floor
slabs. The results of the tests in these four houses during the 1949-50
heating season are reported, and some details of instrumentation are given.
Their conclusions were:
1.
The greatest part of the heat loss from a floor panel occurs around
the perimeter of the panel. It is in this area that insulation will
prove most effective.
2.
It is particularly important that the panel be separated from the

foundation by suitable insulation.
3.
Four in. hollow clay tile does not appear to be any more effective as
an insulation under a floor panel than an equivalent thickness of
gravel. Its use as an edge insulation was not studied.
*
9.
Humphreys, C. M., Nottage, H. B. , Franks, C. V., Huebscher, R. G.,

Schutrum, L. F., and Locklin, D. W., "Laboratory Studies on Heat
Flow Within a Concrete Panel", Heating. Pining & Air
Conditioning. April, 1950.
Equipment for studying heat flow within concrete panels is described and
results of tests on three panels are reported.
An electrical analogue, developed to verify and extend the range of
thermal test results, is described. Heat flow rates and temperature
distribution, as determined by thermal tests and electrical analogue methods,
are compared with values predicted from theory. The experimental studies
confirm the fundamental theory given in another paper.
B-58
10.
Hutchinson, F. W., Mills, D. L., and La Tart, L. J., "Losses from a

Floor-Type Panel Heating System", Heating. Piping & Air
Conditioning. December 1950.
This paper presents the results of an investigation on heat losses from

two floor-type panel heating systems during the 1948-49 and 1949-50 heating
seasons. Edge and rear losses were of the order of 30 percent of the total
energy supplied so it may be concluded that insulation is necessary with
floor-type systems if economical operation is desired. In addition to the
loss data, experimental results are also presented giving the actual rating of
a unit area of floor panel and the combined film coefficient of heat transfer
for such a panel as evaluated from tests on the actual system; the latter
results are of particular interest in that they permit conclusive decision as
to the applicability of the laboratory tests of other investigators to actual
field installations.
*
11.
, Le Procede Calendal: de chauffage par rayonnement a' basse

temperature", Reuve de 1'aluminium. Vol. -- No. 438, pg.
141-1565, Sebal, March 1975.
A French article discussing the specific details for installing floor

panel heating systems. Numerical data is given and many photographs of
installation procedures are given.
*
12.
Macey, H. H. , "Heat Loss Through a Solid Floor", Institute of Fuel

Journal. 22-128, p. 369.
A formula is derived for the estimation of the heat loss through a floor
standing solid on the ground and surrounded by a wall, as in kilns, furnaces
and driers. It involves two constants, one depending on the wall thickness
and the other on the shape of the floor.
*
13.
Perry, E. H. , Cunningham, G. T. , and Scesa, S., "An Analysis of Heat

Losses through Residential Floor Slabs", ASHRAE Trans., V. 91,
Pt. 2, 1985.
Based on the steady-state two-dimensional finite element analysis carried

out in the present study, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1.
For an unisulated slab about 60% of the total heat loss occurs through
the region lying within three feet of the slab edge.
2.
The heat loss coefficient is virtually independent of outdoor air

temperature and varies only slightly with the deep soil temperature.
B-59
3.
Soil thermal conductivity should definitely be taken into account in

any estimate of the slab heat losses since the losses are directly
proportional to the soil conductivity and since the latter parameter
varies considerably from one soil type to another.
The study confirmed that the losses occur primarily near the edge of the
slab and are proportional to the product of slab perimeter and the
indoor/outdoor temperature difference, a relationship familiar to the HVAC
community. However, the constant of proportionality was found to be strongly
dependent on both the insulation configuration and the soil thermal
conductivity. The latter dependency has seemingly been ignored in past
studies. Thus, accurate predictions of slab heat losses must include
considerations of the soil underlying the slab.
*
14.
Plattis, R. E. , "Where Polyethylene Pipe Challenges Metal for Slab

Radiant Heating", Canadian Builder, April, 1963, Pg. 55.
The author states, "Both laboratory and field experience show that low
density polyethylene pipe should be fully suitable for concrete slab radiant
heating systems if proper control is exercised."
He adds: "Pipe must meet recognized standards. Maximum temperature
should be positively limited to 130oF and preferably 120oF by means of
aquas tat cut-off valves on the feed line from the 'blender' to the slab.
Pressures should not exceed 15 psi for sustained used at these temperatures."
*
15.
, Radiant Floor Heating. Plasco Manufacturing Ltd., Janca

Enterprises Ltd., March 1985.
An instruction manual produced by a Canadian (German) manufacturer for

hydronic floor radiant heating systems. Gives some design procedure details
as well as installation details.
*
16.
Sartain, E. L. and Harris, W. S., "Performance of Covered Hot Water

Floor Panels - Part I - Thermal Characteristics", Heating.
Piping & air Conditioning. October, 1955.
The following is a summary of the results obtained for the test

conditions investigated:
1. Apparent thermal resistance of the bare concrete panel was about 1.05
(F deg) per Btuh (sq ft).
2.
Thermal resistance of the combinations of carpeting and pad ranged

from 0.40 (F deg) per Btuh (sq ft) for the rubber pad alone to 1.87 (F
deg) per Btuh (sq ft) for the heavy carpet and 40 oz jute pad.
3.
The thermal resistance of both the asphalt time and the rubber tile
B-60
was about 0.05 ( deg) per fituh (sq. ft).

4.
Floor coverings, such as asphalt tile or rubber tile, which have a

thermal resistance of 0.2 (f deg) per Btuh (sq ft) or less had a
neglibible effect on the performance of floor panel systems.
5. At design conditions, covering the floor panels with any type of

carpeting had pronounced effects on the water temperatures, reverse
loss from the panel, and the required boiler size (see Table 4 ) .
6.
Covering a floor panel with carpeting did not appreciably increase the
seasonal fuel consumption.
7.
Because of the large increase in water temperature required when a

carpet is applied to floor panels it may be impossible to balance
floor panel systems in which carpeting is used in some rooms only,
unless the piping is arranged to permit zoning with the use of more
than one water temperature.
8. Major effects of carpeting over a bare floor panel on the design and
performance of a floor panel system are shown in Table 4.
*
17.
Sartain, E. L., and Harris, W. S., "Performance of Covered Hot Water

Floor Panels - Part II - Room Conditions", Heating. Piping & Air
Conditioning. November, 1956.
1. At design conditions of 80 F indoor-outdoor temperature difference the

maximum difference in room-air temperature between the levels 3 in.
above the floor and 3 in. below the ceiling was 3.5 F. At a location
2 ft from the north wall, the room-air temperature was 3 F lower than
at the center of the room. Cooled air dropped to the floor at the
north wall and window and moved in the direction of the south wall
with a somewhat high velocity.
2.
Addition of floor coverings to bare floor panels reduced the ability

of the system to maintain a constant room-air temperature. The
greater the thermal resistance of the floor covering, the greater the
resulting room-air temperature variation. Carpets and pads retarded
the flow of heat from the water to the room-air, resulting in poor
response.
3.
Glass surface' temperatures measured with floor panel heating were the
same as those obtained in the Research Home with conventional
radiation.
4.
The exposed wall surface temperature was about 8 F lower and the AUST
was about 4 F lower than the room-air temperature measured at the
center of the room 30 in. above the floor.
5. The AST in Rooms A and B was about 1 F below the room-air temperature
while in Rooms C and D the AST was essentially the same as the
room-air temperature.
B-61
The MRT as obtained in the center of Room A with a thermo-integrator

was the same as the AST for all outdoor conditions encountered.
The effects of the carpeting were to cause an increase in the floor
surface temperature along a line toward the center of the room and to
smooth out the heat flow profile from the panel to the carpet.
At design conditions of 80 F indoor-outdoor temperature difference the
measured panel output was from 7 to 18 percent greater than the
calculated panel output. For a given panel minus room-air temperature
difference the panel heat output to Rooms C and D, which had more
severe exposures, were 15 to 20 percent greater than outputs in Rooms
A and B.
The relative humidity in Room D which had a carpet and pad was
consistently greater than that in Room B, indicating that there was
probably an increase in the rate of transfer of water vapor through
the concrete floor slab in room.
*
Sartain, E. L. , and Harris, W. S., "Heat Flow Characteristics of Hot

Water Floor Panels", Heating. Piping & Air Conditioning. January
1954.
The following is a summary of the results obtained for the test conditions
investigated.
1.
The air temperatures at the center of the rooms were very uniform,
with a variation between the floor and 60-in. level of 0.5 deg. The
temperatures of the air 3 in. below the ceiling and 3 in. above the
floor were practically the same.
2.
The measured heat flow from panel to room ranged from 87 percent of
the calculated above floor heat loss in Room A to 101 percent of the
calculated above floor loss in Room C.
3.
It was found that the fuel savings resulting from the use of
insulation under the entire floor slab as compared to the use of edge
insulation only was too small to warrant the additional cost.
4.
Vertical insulation along the inside edge of the foundation wall was
as effective as the L type edge insulation. The savings in material
and the ease of installation made the vertical insulation the more
desirable of the two types.
5.
At design conditions, the reverse loss from panels with edge

insulation amounted to 20 to 23 percent of the total panel output.
The reverse loss was roughly twice as great as the estimated heat loss
through unheated floor slabs using the heat transmission values given
in THE GUIDE 1953.
6.
Comparisons of the reverse loss from the heated slabs, with figures
presented in Chapter 12 of THE GUIDE 1953 for heat losses from
B-62
unheated floor slabs, indicate that at an indoor-outdoor temperature

difference of 80 F, the fuel consumption when using floor panels,
would exceed the fuel consumption when using radiators or convectors
by about 10 percent.
7.
It was found that while the mean floor surface temperature was uniform
across the panel, the heat emission rate was much higher near the
exposed wall and window than at the center of the room. Thus, the
floor panel system had the desirable characteristic of automatically
increasing the heat output rate in areas adjacent to points of high
heat loss from the room. For a given floor surface temperature and
room-air temperature, one could expect a somewhat higher output per
square foot of panel area in an unisulated room or one with large
glass area than in a fully insulated room with limited glass area.
*
19.
Schutrum, L. F. , Parmelee, G. V., Humphreys, C. M. , "Heat Exchanges

in a Floor Panel Heated Room", Heating. Piping and Air
Conditioning. July 1953.
The authors qualified their conclusions to the fact that these were
laboratory tests. Their observations were as follows:
1.
Pending the establishment of data on the radiative and convective

components of the total heat output from floor panels, studies of
which are currently under way, the values for total panel output
obtained in these tests indicate that the values given in THE GUIDE
1952 (Fig. 11, p. 548) are of the right order of magnitude for
unheated mean radiant temperature (UMRT) values of around 65 F.
2.
Room air temperatures were found to be higher for a floor panel heated
room than for a ceiling panel heated room for the same room surface
temperatures. For example, with an 85 F panel temperature and a 70 F
AUST, with no infiltration, the room air temperature at the 60 in.
level would be 74.8 F with a floor panel, and 71.2 F with a ceiling
panel.
3.
The effect on the room air temperature

the amount of infiltration air and its
the same in the floor panel tests (see
shown to be in the ceiling panel tests
4.
In none of the tests reported on here did the air temperature gradient
in the room between the 2-in. and the 90-in. level exceed 3.5 F deg.
B-63
at the 60-in. level of varying

entering temperature was about
Fig. 10 this paper) as it was
(see Fig. 9, Reference 1).
20.
Shamsundar, N., Lienhard, J. H. and Tezduyar, T. E., "Performance of

Polybutylene Pipe in Concrete Heating Panels", Report No. 2,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston,
Houston, Texas, 77004, 1985. (unpublished)
The summary and conclusions from this UNPUBLISHED article are the
following.
They have shown that the ASHRAE procedure is not only erroneous, but
results in inadequate designs. They have shown how this procedure can be
corrected to increase its accuracy considerably, and how the modified
procedure can be used to design the amount of insulation needed. They have
developed computer programs to obtain accurate results and recommend that they
be used in critical cases to check the adequacy of the design.
One aspect they did not check was the effect of the spatial oscillation in
the surface temperature. The earlier research performed by ASHAVE showed that
this needs to be considered only when the tube pitch was larger than twice the
slab thickness.
*
21.
, "Underfloor Radiant System Uses 86*i Supply Water", Air

Conditioning. Heating and Refrigeration News. Oct. 21, 1985.
A description of a panel water distribution system for use in floors.

This would replace the commonly used plastic or metal tubes. Provides a
description of floor panel heating systems and their advantages and
disadvantages.
*
22.
VanGerpen, J. H. and Shapiro, H. N. , "Analysis of Slab-Heated

Buildings", ASHRAE Trans., V. 91, Pt. 2, 1985.
Analyses of the performance of slab-heated buildings have been presented.

On the basis of the simulations studies, some general conclusions can be
stated regarding the feasibility of slab heating in comparison with other
direct heating systems.
1.
Slab systems share the advantage of other radiant heating methods in

that the air temperature can be lower than for convective-type
systems.
2.
Slab heating actually requires more input energy than conventional

heating systems to maintain the same air temperature, due to edge and
bottom heat losses.
3.
An important design trade-off exists in selecting the depth of the

mats. Placing the mats close to the surface allows for quick response
to changing loads, but it has the disadvantage of allowing the inside
air temperature to drop rapidly when the mats are turned off.
Alternatively, deeper mats cannot respond quickly but are needed to
provide enough energy storage in order to use off-peak electric power
B-64
exclusively.
4.
The control of a slab-heating system is difficult because of the phase

shift between when the energy is put into the mats and when it is
recovered at the slab surface. This can lead to chronic under - and
overheating.
5. The main advantage of slab heating is in its ability to use lower cost
off-peak power. However, in a given case, a complete life-cycle cost
analysis would be required to assess the feasibility of slab heating.
B-65
G.
PANEL HEATING & COOLING

1.
Alexander, J. C., "Calculations of Direct Energy Losses from Ceiling

Mounted Radiant Heating Panels to Fenestrated Areas", Energy
Engineering: Journal of Association of Energy Engineers, Vol.
78, No. 5, pg. 35-48, August-September 1981.
The proportion of energy radiated from a ceiling mounted radiant heating

panel directly to a window is calculated, so that the resulting energy losses
can be estimated in the design of a radiant space heating system. Both first
(geometric) and second (taking into account the optics of glass) order
numerical radiometric calculations are done. Results are given for 2 x 8 ft
and 4 x 8 ft radiant ceiling panels at 175oF located centrally to the window
or off-set from the center for various (5 x 6 ft to 8 x 20 ft) window sizes
with the panel located horizontally from the window from 0 to 10 ft. Up to 30
percent of the panel energy can be lost through the glass.
2.
Baker, Merl, "Removal of Internal Radiation by Cooling Panels",

Heating. Piping & Air Conditioning. November 1949.
Internal radiation emitted from electrical lighting filaments may be

efficiently removed from a conditioned space by cooling panels. Because of
the high temperature of incandescent filaments, the receiving panel or sink
may be operated at a relatively high temperature which may be obtained by use
of unchilled water. Fortunately, for most light colored painted surfaces, the
visible portion of the radiation spectrum is highly reflected while the
infrared, constituting the bulk of filament radiation, is extensively
absorbed.
The results of research conducted by the author show that a maximum of
approximately 65 percent of the electrical input to a large incandescent
filament may be removed directly from the conditioned space. Specially
designed reflectors may be used to concentrate the radiation on particular
surfaces for removal.
*
3.
Baker, Merl, "Effectiveness and Temperature Requirements for Cooling

Panels Removing Internal Radiation", Heating. Piping and Air
Conditioning. June 1952.
This paper presents a simplified theoretical analysis of the removal of

internal radiation by use of cooling panels. Equations are developed enabling
the determination of the effectiveness of enclosed radiant energy sources in
heating the room air, together with expressions for the cooling load
requirements. From the established relationships, both the panel cooling and
the convective load components may be calculated for any given panel
temperature, or the required panel temperature may be computed in accordance
with the comfort equation. The theoretical analysis is supplemented by
examples and design charts.
B-66
Internal radiation emitted from electric lighting filaments may constitute

a major portion of the total cooling load. For structures not equipped with
cooling panels, the effectiveness of this energy in heating the room air
varies with the equivalent overall conductance of the enclosure and ranges
approximately from 96 to 68 percent for good and poor insulation,
respectively. By use of cooling panels possessing a conventional finish,
these values decrease appreciably ranging from approximately 62 to 48 percent.
A further decrease to approximately 52 to 45 percent is accomplished by use of
a heat-absorbing panel surface.
*
4.
Becker, Sidney, "Surface Temperatures of Plaster Ceiling Panels",

Heating. Piping & Air Conditioning. April 1950.
The surface temperatures of a plaster panel containing 3/4 in. pipes on

7-in. centers, with water circulating at 119 F, were obtained at equilibrium
conditions for four arrangements of insulation at the back of a panel.
Imbedding of the pipes in plaster as compared with exposure of pipes on the
back of a panel reduced temperature variation at the surface by 10 deg.
Temperature differences between various points on the panel surface varied
from 26-12 deg, depending on the insulation used behind the panel, the heat
lag in the coolest part of the panel surface does not exceed 20 to 25 minutes.
*
*
*
5.
Boyer, L. L. , "Radiant Panel Effects of Floor - Ceiling Assemblies

Incorporating Static, Return, and Supply Penums", ASHRAE Trans.,
Vol. 74, Pt. 2, 1968.
Vertical heat transfer factors for heat removal light troffers acting
within a full scale floor-ceiling sandwich system have been determined. At a
flow rate of 70 cfm per unit, approximately 65% of the heat from the lighting
system is extracted, regardless of conditioning cycle or plenum function. On
the cooling cycle about 15% is directed downward while on the heating cycle
about 25% flows into the room. The balance in each case flows into the plenum
to be distributed by the remaining elements of the floor-ceiling sandwich.
The overall radiant panel effects of the floor-ceiling sandwich have been
evaluated. All radiant panel aspects have been combined and compared to the
air distribution component of the total conditioning effect. Only with the
supply plenum configuration is the net radiant panel aspect compatible with
the conditioning system on both cooling and heating cycles. On the heating
cycle, about 90% of the conditioning with a supply plenum is due to the
radiant environment.
The supply plenum condition provides the most favorable radiant
environment for occupant comfort, as indicated by mean radiant temperature,
since on the cooling cycle the coolest MRT is obtained and on the heating
cycle the warmest MRT is obtained. In neither of these two cases, does the
MRT differ from room air temperature by more than 1.5 F at the room center.
B-67
6.
Howarth, E. S., Huddleston, S. C , and Koch, R. M., "Aluminum Ceiling

Panels for Heating and Cooling", Heating. Piping & Air
Conditioning. September 1951.
Results of heating and cooling tests conducted on a variety of brazed

aluminum ceiling panels are presented fora number of panel and room operating
conditions. An analytical solution concerning the thermal performance of
metal heating and cooling panels is developed and this is reduced to a design
chart for easy applications to panels differing markedly from those tested.
Comparisons drawn between the actual test results and those predicted by the
analytical solution indicate good agreement. It can be concluded that
reasonably accurate predictions of the thermal performance of a wide variety
of aluminum ceiling-type heating and cooling panels (including types in which
aluminum panels are fastened to tubes by mechanical means such as clips) can
be made through the use of the design chart or equations and properly selected
values of all contribution factors.
*
7. Humphreys, C. M. franks, C. V., Schutrum, L.-F., "Laboratory Studies

of the Thermal Characteristics of Plaster Panels", Heating.
Piping and Air Conditioning. July 1951.
This paper presents the results of laboratory studies on four plaster
panels, using both non-ferrous tube ferrous pipe, located both above and below
the lath. The panels represented conventional types of ceiling panels.
It is shown that the difference between the average tube temperature and
the average panel surface temperature can be related to the heat output from
the panel by a simple empirical equation. Effective conductance values are
given for the different types of panels for tube spacings of 4 to 12 in.
Relationships between total panel output, tube spacing and the amplitude
of the temperature wave on the panel surface are shown in a series of curves.
Data and curves show the effect of back insulation on panel performance and
some information is given on the effect of back plastering.
*
8. Hutchinson, F. W. and Baker, Merl, "Optimum Panel Surface

Distribution Determined from Human Shape Factors", Heating.
Piping and Air Conditioning. June 1951.
This paper presents the results of an experimental investigation of the
shape factor of the clothed human body with respect to energy emitted by floor
areas. The results complement those of an earlier paper in which similar
shape factors were reported for the human body (in standing and in sitting
position) with respect to energy emitted by wall and ceiling areas; the
present study was limited to the standing position. Human shape factors for
approximately 95 percent of the population will agree within plus or minus 7
percent with the data obtained from the dummy which represented an average
man; for the majority of people agreement between actual and dummy shape
factors will be found to be extremely close. Design charts are presented.
B-68
9.
Irwin, R. R., "Panel Cooling for a Residence", Heating. Piping & Air
Conditioning. May 1955.
Data obtained and presented in part in this paper seem to indicate that
panel cooling can be used successfully to provide summer comfort in the
residence tested. The study was carried out in a college apartment unit under
actual living conditions. One of the unexpected results was the importance of
the radiant cooling effect of the wall and ceiling panels which gave the
occupants a comfortable feeling when discomfort might have been expected
because of high humidity readings. The system was designed and operated as a
year round unit, but this paper deals only with the cooling phase. The
cooling of the water was done with an evaporative cooler.
*
10.
Leopold, Charles S., "Design Factors in Panel and Air Cooling

Systems", Heating. Piping and Air Conditioning. May, 1951.
The author has attempted to present the theory of panel and conventional
air cooling systems and to indicate possible courses of panel cooling design.
In comparing air conditioning methods, it is essential that the methods
under comparison shall not produce an end result which will unduly compromise
with the production of optimum conditions.
Assuming that the air conditioning methods to be compared are capable of
attaining the same end result, the selection of a particular form of air
conditioning is a matter of economics. The air conditioning design should be
related to all elements of building construction and use, and the economics be
determined not solely on the owning and operating cost of the air conditioning
but on the owning and operating cost of the entire building.
*
11.
Leopold, C. S., "The Mechanism of Heat Transfer Panel Cooling Heat

Storage", Refrigeration Engineering. July 1947.
The author points out that designing for panel cooling is not the simple
reverse of panel heating. Neither the concept of combined surface
conductance, nor the grey body are adequate for the cooling analysis.
Phenomena of heat storage and panel cooling are discussed in terms of the
mechanism of energy transfer source to atmosphere and enclosure. Test data
are presented for a continuous cooled ceiling for various types and sizes of
luminaires, with and without supplemental air supply, and for two types of
ceiling finish.
*
12.
Leopold, C. S. , "The Mechanism of Heat Transfer Panel Cooling Heat

Storage Part II, Solar Radiation, Refrigerating Engineering.
June, 1948.
In this paper, the author's analyses is extended to the solar load. Test
B-69
data are presented for the performance of panels and the overall heat balance
for an enclosure with a continuous cooled celling, one window, and various
combinations of glass and shading devices. Several basic solar load
properties which are now incorporated into the ASHRAE design procedure are
brought out here.
*
13.
Lorenzi, R. J., and Schreiber, J. F., "Performance of an Electrical

System of Panel Heating with Four Stages of Insulation",
Heating. Piping & Air Conditioning. January, 1949.
A four-room one-floor, occupied residence, completely heated by panels of

electrically conductive rubber, was operated through the 1947-48 heating
season. Operating results and cost data are reported for the original
construction and for three conditions in which the heat loss was progressively
reduced by the following steps: (1) change to double glazing of windows, (2)
adding 2 in. of mineral wool insulation to ceiling, and (3) addition of 2 in.
mineral wool insulation to floor. Comments are made on comfort reaction of
occupants and on economic justification of expenditure for reduction of heat
loss of the structure.
*
14.
Mills, C. A, "Reflective Radiant Conditioning Can Provide More

Comfort at Less Cost", Refrigerating Engineering. Jan., 1955.
A discussion of the benefits of radiant heating and cooling panels for

residential applications. Points out the benefits of reducing air motion and
the bringing in of outside air.
*
15.
Mills, Clarence A., "Residential Cooling by Reflective Radiation",

Refrigerating Engineering. Vol. 58, No. 11, November, 1950.
This article reports on the design and first test results of cooling and
heating by radiant cooling and heating panels on the ceiling. It presents a
description of a single residence set up for radiant cooling and heating.
*
16. Mills, C. A., "Sensible vs Latent Heat Removal in Radiant Cooling",

Refrigerating Engineering. March 1958.
t
A discussion of radiant cooling in industrial and commercial applications

where high latent loads are present. Mostly descriptive in nature.
B-70
17.
Mills, Clarence A., "Year-round Residential Conditioning By

Reflective Radiation", Refrigeration Engineering. November 1950.
This article is a discussion of radiant cooling and heating for

residential applications. Many claims are made but not a great deal of data
is given.
*
18.
Naumov, A. L., Solovyov, A. J., Shilkrot, E. 0., "Heating of

Industrial Buildings with the Help of Suspended Radiating
Panels", Clima 2000 - Heating. Ventilating and Air Conditioning
Systems. Vol. 6, W S Kongres - W S Messe, 1985.
Radiant heating ensures a high level of comfort and low heat consumption.
Theoretical and experimental research works being conducted in the Soviet
Union gave opportunities to elaborate an effective structure of radiating
panels (convective heat transfer from 1 kg of metal equal to 65 watts; a
share of radiant heat transfer is about 0.63). A method is suggested for the
design of radiant heating systems which make possible the determination of the
necessary amount of radiating panels, and a scheme of their location in the
premises. Effective field of application of radiant heating systems with
suspended radiating panels taking account of the shape of the premises, value
of infiltration heat exchange, moisture content of the premises, has been
presented in the paper.
*
19'. Nottage, H. B. , Franks, C. V., Hulbert, L. E., Schutrum, L. F., "Heat

Flow Analysis in Panel Heating or Cooling Sections", Heating.
Piping and Air Conditioning. May 1953.
The heat flow has been studied for the case of a row of pipes or tubes
imbedded in a slab and tangent to one surface, with a solid conducting medium
adjacent to this surface, and under conditions such that the opposite slab
surface may be taken as isothermal. Results are presented in the form of the
thermal resistance between the pipes and the opposite isothermal slab surface.
A general mathematical solution was obtained and electrolytic analogue was
employed for establishing application data because of the complexity of the
mathematical treatment. A floor slab on the earth is the intended panel
heating application.
*
20.
Olivieri, J. B. and Singh, T., "A Computer Program for Radiant Cooling of High Bay Buildings", ASHRAE Trans.. V. 93, Pt. 1, 1987.
In 1982, the authors reported results of research on the effect radiant

cooling panels had on stratification in high bay buildings. That study showed
that energy use could be reduced by as much as 40% using radiant cooling panels.
B-71
In this latest study, a computerized calculation method suitable for use

on a personal computer is presented. The calculation method used finite differences to predict the amount of heat transferred through the roof and into
the floor slab.
21.
, "Radiant Cooling Panel will Get Tryout in U.S.", Air

Conditioning. Heating and Refrigeration News. October 21, 1985.
A description of a radiant panel cooling system that will be marketed in

the U.S. Contains only descriptive information.
22.
Schutrum, L. F. , Parmelee, G. V., Humphreys, C. M., "Heat Exchanges

in a Ceiling Panel Heated Room", Heating. Piping and Air
Conditioning. December, 1952.
For this room and the specific test conditions reported here the following
observations can be made:
1.
The total heat output of the ceiling panel was much lower than is
given in some presently used design methods. This seems to be due
principally to the fact that the convection conductances obtained for
the. ceiling panel appear to be much lower than presently published
data would indicate.
2.
The heat flow due to radiant exchange between a given surface and the
rest of the room may be opposite in direction to the heat flow due to
the convective exchange between the surface and the ambient air.
3.
The surface temperatures of neutral walls were not necessarily the

same as the temperature of the ambient air but were dependent upon the
heat balance between the radiative and convective heat exchanges.
4.
For this room, a definite relationship was established between room

surface temperatures, infiltration air rate and temperature, and the
temperature of the room air at the 60 in. level.
5. With no infiltration the AST minus the room air temperature was
directly proportional to the ceiling temperature minus the AUST. For
constant values of ceiling temperature and AUST, the difference
between the AST and the room air temperature increased as the rate of
infiltration increased and as the temperature of the infiltration air
decreased. As defined before, the AST is the area-weighted average
temperature of all the room surfaces, and the AUST is the
area-weighted average temperature of the unheated surfaces of the
room.
B-72
23.
Schutrum, L. F. and Humphreys, C M . , "Further Studies of the Thermal

Characteristics of Plaster Panels", Heating. Piping and Air
Conditioning. June 1953.
The authors' conclusions are as follows:

1.
The heat transfer within a plaster panel is related to the heat output
from the lower and upper surfaces of the panel and can be expressed in
terms of an effective conductance. This is defined as the downward
heat flow in Btu per (hour) (square foot) divided by the difference
between the average tube temperature and the average panel surface
temperature in Fahrenheit degrees.
2.
For all practical purposes, panel surface temperatures may be used for
calculation of the upward heat flow.
3.
Insulation on the back of plaster panels serves the following

purposes: (a) reduces upward heat flow: (b) increases the average
panel surface temperature for a given tube temperature or conversely:
(c) for a given downward heat flow, permits operation with a lower
tube temperature than would be required if the panel were not
insulated.
4.
The addition of back-plastering to panels constructed with tubes above

metal lath increases the heat transfer to the panel surface. In
general, the heat transfer of a panel with tubes on 6-in. centers
without back-plastering is equivalent to that of a panel with tubes on
8-in. centers with back-plastering.
5.
It has been demonstrated that for panels having tubes above metal
lath, good tube embedment and good contact between tubes and lath are
prerequisite to good heat transfer.
24.
Schutrum, L. F. and Humphreys, C. M. , "Effects of Non-Uniformity and

Furnishings on Panel Heating Performance", Heating. Piping and
Air Conditioning. February, 1954.
Tests from which the following conclusions are drawn were madein the
Environment Laboratory. However, these tests were made under such a variety
of conditions that it seems reasonable to assume that they may be applied with
satisfactory accuracy to any ordinary structure.
1. The performance of a panel heating system in a space having a
non-uniform surface temperature environment can be predicted with
satisfactory accuracy on the basis of the area weighted average
unheated surface temperature (AUST) of the space.
2.
Furnishings in a panel heated space tend to reduce the heat output of

the panel, and increase the room air temperature. However, the net
effect of these trends may be considered negligible for design
purposes.
B-73
3. When a floor covering is laid over a heated floor panel, the surface
temperature of that panel and the surface temperature of the heating
medium must be considerably increased to maintain the same heat output
to the space that would be obtained from the bare panel. For a heat
output of 25 Btu per (hr) (.sq ft), the amount of this temperature
increase was found to vary from 27 deg to 60 deg for the various
combinations of carpets and pads tested.
4.
Coverings for heated floor panels should be selected to provide a

minimum of resistance to heat flow from the panel to the space.
*
25.
Schutrum, L. F. and Vouris, J. D. , "Effects of Room Size and NonUniformity

Non-Uniformity of Panel Temperature on Panel Performance",
Heating. Pining and Air Conditioning. September, 1954.
From laboratory tests, the authors arrived at the following conclusions:

1. The effects of room" size on the performance of floor and ceiling
panels are relatively small so that the heat transfer relationships
developed in the standard room and reported in References 2, 3 and 4,
may safely be used without correction for the design of panel heating
systems for any space of normal size and proportion.
2.
Within the range of conditions tested, ceiling or floor panels

comprised of heated and unheated sections have the same total heat
output and produce the same room air temperature as if the entire area
were heated to a uniform temperature equal to the area weighted
average of the heated and unheated surfaces. The maximum test
temperatures of the heated portions of floor and ceiling panels were
95 F and 140 F respectively.
*
26.
Schutrum, L. F., Vouris, John, and Min, T. C , "Preliminary Studies

of Heat Removal By a Cooled Ceiling Panel", Heating. Piping &
Air Conditioning. Cleveland, Ohio, January, 1955.
The preliminary conclusions from this study were:

1.
Ceiling panel cooling is an inversion of floor-panel heating, and the

performance of a cool ceiling panel can be predicted from the
performance of a warm floor panel.
2. An appreciable amount of sensible heat can be removed from a room by a

cooled ceiling panel, surface temperature of which is above normal
inside dew-point temperatures. In a typical test, a ceiling at 10 deg
F below room temperature absorbed 20 Btu per (hr) (sq ft) of ceiling
area.
3.
Infiltration of warm air and internal, convective, heat sources must

be considered for design purposes.
B-74
4.
Non-uniform wall and floor temperatures can be represented by

area-weighted average temperatures (AUST) in calculating heat pickup
by a cooled ceiling.
5. Room furnishings can be neglected as they affect the heat pickup by

only approximately 5 percent.
27.
Schutrum, L. F. and Min, T. C , "Cold Wall Effects in a Ceiling Panel Heated Room", Heating. Piping & Air Conditioning.
Cleveland, Ohio, August, 1956.
#
The room-side temperature of a wall or all-glass wall exposed to winter

outdoor conditions affects the air temperature, the air movement, and the
radiant conditions within the room. In a test room heated by a ceiling panel,
one whole wall was cooled to simulate the inside temperature of an exposed
wall. The ceiling was heated in panels 4, 8, and 12 ft. wide and the panel
temperatures selected to maintain a constant 70 F room-air temperature.
Room-air temperatures, air velocities, and mean radiant temperatures were
measured under steady-state conditions and are reported.
In the living space, variations in room-air temperatures were found to be
small; and room air velocities were neglibible except near the floor. Mean
radiant temperatures were in general higher than the room-air temperature.
28.
Schutrum, L. F. , and Min, T. C , "Lighting and Cooled Air'Effects and

Panel Cooling", Heating. Piping & Air Conditioning. Cleveland,
Ohio, November, 1957.
The authors reached the following conclusions.

1.
The heat pickup by a cooled ceiling-panel and conditioned air may be

summarized as follows: (a) The sum of normal heat gain through the
room surfaces plus the radiation from lights which falls on the walls
and floor is removed in part by the panel and, in part, by the
conditioned air, and the division may be determined by Fig. 3, or by
Equation 3 of the paper; (b) The convection heat gain from the lights
is removed almost entirely by the conditioned air system and may be
added to the convected load as determined in (a); (c) the radiation
from the lights to the panel can be added to the panel pickup as
determined (a).
2.
For the particular fixtures used in this study, approximately 10

percent of the energy supplied to the direct lighting system was
radiated in the visible wavelengths, 32 percent was emitted as
long-wave radiation, and 58 percent was transferred to the room air by
convection. For indirect lighting, these values were 10 percent
visible radiation, 21 percent long-wave radiation, and 69 percent
convection.
B-75
3. Approximately 16 percent of the energy input to the direct fluorescent

lighting fixtures was radiated to the cooled ceiling panel, and 24
percent to the walls and floor, for indirect lighting, these changed
to 18 and 12 percent respectively.
4.
More than 20 percent of the energy supplied to the lighting system can
be removed by a cooled ceiling panel. This includes the heat radiated
directly to the ceiling, and that which is reradiated from the other
room surfaces.
*
29.
Singh, T. and Olivieri, J. B. , "Effect of Radiant Cooling Panels

on Temperature Stratification", ASHRAE Trans. . V. 88, Pt. 2,
1982.
The conclusions from this study were the following:

1.
The use of radiant cooling panels produces a slightly greater degree

of temperature stratification when compared to those produced by air
systems at all loads.
2.
The energy consumption for radiant cooling system is 8 percent less,

compared to that for the most efficient air system (using combined
supply and return air system).
3.
The position of. the panel has no significant effect, either on the
temperature stratification or the energy consumption.
4.
The cooling load factor Fc decreases as the lighting load increases.

*
30.
Singh, T. , and Olivieri, J. B., "Effect of Radiant Cooling Panels on

Temperature Stratification under RP-260", Final Report, ASHRAE,
August, 1981.
The conclusions of this ASHRAE project were listed as follows.

1.
The use of radiant cooling panels produces a slightly greater degree

of temperature stratification as compared to those produced by air
systems at all loads.
2.
The energy consumption for radiant cooling system is 8% less as

compared to that for the most efficient air system (using combined
supply and return air system).
3.
The position of the panel has no significant effect either on the

temperature stratification or the energy consumption.
4.
The cooling load factor Fc decreases as the lighting load increases.
B-76
31.
Subcommittee of TAC, Staff Members of the ASHRAE Research Laboratory,

"Thermal Design of Warm Water Ceiling Panels", Heating. Piping &
Air Conditioning. December, 1955.
The design procedure here presented is based on research and provides a

reliable means for the thermal design of ceiling-type heating panels using
warm water as the heating medium. With its simplicity, it retains engineering
accuracy appropriate to the usual applications of panel heating in residential
and commercial buildings.
B-77
The basis of this procedure is a body of experimental data obtained at the

ASHRAE Research Laboratory in a comprehensive program planned and guided-by
Technical Advisory Committee on Panel Heating and Cooling. This work has been
reported in the 8 research papers listed in the Bibliography at the end of
this paper.
Findings from these studies have been weighed as to importance, and then
trimmed to meet the needs of a simple but accurate design procedure.
The simplified procedure provides a panel design to maintain the desired
room air temperature for the selected outdoor conditions. Room air
temperature is the selected criterion of comfort, and the design procedure is
restricted to situations in which the area weighted average temperature of the
walls, the floors, and glass does not differ greatly from room air
temperature. The room-scale tests, which simulated various conditions of
construction and outdoor temperature, showed that this near-equality of the
two temperatures normally prevails.
*
32.
Tasker, C. , Humphreys, CM., and Parmelee, G. V., "The ASHVE

Environmental Laboratory", Heating. Piping and Air Conditioning.
Vol. 24, March 1952.
The new Environment Laboratory, located in the ASHVE Research Laboratory,

provides facilities for the study of panel heating performance and also for
further study of human reactions to environment involving various combinations
of temperatures of air and interior wall surfaces. Temperatures of all
surfaces or portions of them may be varied at will to simulate field operating
conditions. The ceiling height was also adjustable and ventilation was
variable. The room could also be divided into smaller segments.
*
33.
Weida, D. E. , P. E. , "Life-Cycle Cost Analysis of Hydronic Radiant

Panel", ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 92, Pt. 1, 1986.
A convective heat transfer computer model was utilized to predict energy

consumption of a radiant panel heating and cooling system. The panel system
responded faster than convective systems and maintained a more uniform mean
radiant temperature in the room. Therefore, a system load adjustment should
be considered for the radiant panel model. Finally, the radiant panel heating
and cooling system can be justifiable on a life cycle cost basis.
*
34.
Zhang, Z. and Pate, M. B., "A Numerical Study of Heat Transfer in a

Hydronic Radiant Ceiling Panel", Numberical Methods in Heat
Heat Transfer. HTD-Vol. 62, ASME, New York, 1986.
The heat diffusion equation was used to model numerically a radiantceiling panel for both steady-state and transient heat transfer. Three different types of boundary conditions were required: isothermal, adiabatic, and
a combination of radiation and convection heat transfer. Several different
numberical solution schemes were investigated, and significant insights into
B-78
the advantages and disadvantages of each scheme were obtained by comparing the
results. The explicit method was found to be the most effective method for
solving both the unsteady-state heat diffusion equation and the steady-state
Laplace equation. Specifically, the computation time was less for the explicit method as compared to the implicit method because of the radiation boundary conditions. The output of the transient model was the temperature history
of the radiant panel ceiling including the final steady-state temperature distribution and the heat flux from the panel. The heat transfer characteristics
of the heating panel as predicted by the transient numerical model are also
discussed herein. Several design considerations are investigated using the
numerical model, including tube spacing, plaster thickness, and convection
heat transfer rate.
B-79
H.
INFRARED HEATING
1.
ASHRAE, "High I n t e n s i t y Infrared Heaters - Chap. 30", 1983 Equipment

Handbook. American Society o f Heating, Refrigerating and Air
Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA, 1983.
The current chapter i n the ASHRAE Handbook describing infrared h e a t e r s .

*
2.
ASHRAE, "High Intensity Infrared Radiant Heating - Chap. 18", 1984

Systems Handbook. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and
Air Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA, 1984.
The current chapter in the ASHRAE Handbook describing high intensity

infrared radiant heating.
"
3. ASHRAE Task Group, "High-Intensity Infrared Heaters", ASHRAE Journal,

December 1963.
This information was prepared by the ASHRAE Task Group on Radiant Space
Heating, and is the basis of the information presented in the ASHRAE Chapters
on Infrared Heaters (Chap. 30 in the 1983 Equipment Handbook) and Infrared
Radiant Heating (Chap. 18 - 1984 Systems Handbook). It considers such items
as applications, gas infrared energy generators, electric infrared energy
generators, system efficiency, complete building heating, spot heating, wind
or draft effects, system design principles, controls, and system precautions.
*
4.
Baumanns, H., "Gas IR Heaters for Heating Large Spaces", Warme Gas
International. Vol. 27, No. 4, Gewea GmbH and Co.
Monchengladbach, April, 1978.
High temperature radiant heating in large spaces offers physiological

advantages. Cool air and comfortable radiation reduce fatigue and the amount
of particulates in the air. Because of the low temperature of the air,
avoidance of temperature stratification and air motion there is a considerable
saving (20%) in energy. (In German). Figures are given for determining the
heat requirements for industrial buildings. Tables are given for gas infrared
unit efficiencies.
B-80
5.
Belsey, D. G. and Benseman, R. F., "Spatial Radiation Patterns for

Infra-Red Heaters". Building Science. Vol. 3, 1969.
A emthod for evaluating the radiation intensity distribution is presented.

An example case is given. When evaluating high intensity infra-red heaters,
the data from a limited number of radiation measurements can be used to
compute spatial radiation patterns for a range of mounting heights and tilts.
The assumptions used to simplify the computation do not introduce significant
errors and the method produces data of adequate accuracy for all practical
purposes. Information such as this will assist designers of high intensity
infra-red heating installations.
*
6.
Boyd, Robert, "Application and Selection of Electric Infrared Comfort

Heters", ASHRAE Journal, October 1962.
This article points out that any space can be heated by infrared to
improve comfort. Other means should be investigated thoroughly before
deciding to use infrared. Where any other means is practical, infrared will
not be the preferred method in most cases. Many places impractical to heat
any other way can be heated effectively and economically by infrared. Many
places where no practical means can provide real comfort can be made tolerable
by infrared.
Authoritative definitions, nomenclature, recommended design procedures,
and engineering data and standards are needed sorely in this field. Where
infrared is indicated for comfort heating* electric infrared is advantageous
because: (1) elements approach point or line sources, allowing excellent
control of pattern (keeping radiation where it is wanted) . (2) Reliable
controls permit balancing output with the heating requirements of the moment.
(3) There are no air contaminants produced by the heating system.
*
7.
Boyd, R. L., "What Do We Know About Infrared Comfort Heating?",

Heating. Piping and Air Conditioning. Nov., 1960, p. 133.
This article presents a comprehensive review of what is known about

infrared comfort heating by quartz lamps and tubes and metal sheathed heaters,
and perhaps more importantly what is thought to be known i.e. those
circumstances of position, movement, dress, wind conditions, and others, which
cannot be so accurately measured but which can seriously affect the adequate
operation of an infrared installation. A method of determining "watts input
density" based on the amount of radiation delivered to a surface is also
suggested.
B-81
8.
Boyd, R. L. , "Control of Electric Infrared Energy Distribution",

Electrical Engineering. Feb. 1963, p. 103.
The growth in popularity of infrared heating systems for personnel has

been accompanied by overemphasis of some details and characteristics of
specific elements. At the same time, other details and characteristics of
elements, fixtures and systems, and their application have been neglected or
overlooked.
Control of patterns of electric infrared radiation offers opportunity for
material improvement in effectiveness for many applications. Although there
is a shortage of available data, references given indicate that the nature and
efficiency of the elements producing the infrared are not nearly as important
in effectiveness of the system as is control of the pattern of the radiation
produced. Some technical discussion of control of radiation patterns is
given.
*
9.
Bryan, W. L. , "Comparative Energy Requirements of Radiant Space

Heating", ASHRAE Trans.. V. 87, Pt. 1, 1981.
This was primarily an analytical study to determine the fundamental heat

transfer characteristics of a radiant heating system. Intrinsic to the
analytical model, the heat loss from the building could be supplied by
convection heat input directly to the space air or by radiation transfer
directly to the internal surfaces of the building. Thus results could be
obtained for the model for the extreme conditions of 100% radiant to 100%
convection heat input. In these unrealistic extremes the MRT for 100% radiant
heat input was 8 deg C greater than 100% convection heat input with the result
that the space air temperature required for equal comfort is reduced 8 deg C.
This one-to-one reduction results from an increase in radiant coefficient for
the clothing surface of 4%. The inside surface temperatures of the space with
the exception of the floor remained below space air temperature for both
radiant and convection heat input. For radiant input, these surface
temperature increases result in a heat loss greater than had been expected.
Several assumptions (high surface emissivity, no room air temperature
gradient, no radiant energy to occupants) make the results questionable.
*
10.
Bryan, W. L., "Gas-Fired Radiant Heat", Mech. Engr. . Vol. 87, March
1965.
A comment on the validity of data in an article in Mechanical Engineering

and AGA - Bulletin - 92. He objects to the use of GIR factor for rating
radiant gas burners.
B-82
11.
Buckley, N. A., P.E. and Seel T., "Gas-Fired Medium - Intensity

Radiant Heating Provides a Cost-Effective, Efficient Space
Conditioning Alternative", ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 92, pt. 1, No. 4,
1986.
Tube-type infrared medium-intensity radiant heating systems installed in

four diverse applications demonstrated substantial energy savings. (40-70%).
Converting energy savings to cost savings demonstrates the cost advantage that
is-available with radiant heating. Medium-intensity radiant heating provides
a cost-effective, energy-efficient alternative for space heating. All of the
comparisons were made with steam radiators which can be "energy inefficient"
if not properly maintained.
*
12.
, "Conserving Energy with Infrared Heating", Plant

Engineering. Vol. 31, No. 8, Pg. 155 +, Technical Pub. Co.,
April, 1977.
A general discussion of infrared heating* systems and how they affect

comfort.
*
13.
Cohn, Lisa, "Radiant Heating Units Net Big Savings in Special Cases",
Energy User News, Vol. 7, No. 47, November 1982.
A news article concerning the advantages and disadvantages of gas infrared

heaters. Focuses most on the economics of the systems and where they are most
suited.
*
14.
DeWerth, D. W. , "A Study of Infra-Red Energy Generated by Radiant Gas

Burners", Research Bulletin No. 92. American Gas Association,
Nov. 1962.
Radiation characteristics of atmospheric, powered and catalytic gas-fired

infra-red generators, and those of different types of electric generators are
developed and tabulated. These data show how much total normal energy is
emitted by the different types of radiant heat sources at different
temperatures and the spectral distribution of this energy in the infra-red
spectrum from 1.4 to 16.0 microns. A Gas Infra-Red Radiation (GIR) factor was
developed for gas burners, which is essentially a burner emissivity factor.
This GIR factor takes flue gas radiation into account since it adds
considerably to incandescent gas burner surface radiation.
Gas-fired burner total normal radiation values as high as 62,800 Btu per
hour, square foot of burner surface were measured. The only electric
infra-red generator which had a value this high was the quartz lamp. However,
most of this lamp's energy was short wavelength energy (about '65 percent
below 2 microns).
B-83
The only electric infra-red generator which emitted energy qualitatively

equal to that of the gas-fired generators was the quartz tube, but its total
normal radiation was somewhat lower than that measured for comparable gas
equipment.
Brief data are presented to show the effect of special burner coatings on
the burner total normal radiation and red brightness temperature.
*
15.
DeWerth, D. W., "Gas-Fired Radiant Heat", Mechanical Engineering.

Vol. 86, Nov., 1964.
Tha author describes the various types of gas infrared heaters, which have
been developed since 1950. These include the radiant tube, the porous
refractory burner, the direct fired refractory burner and the catalytic
burner. The burner characteristics are presented including the spectral
radiation curves and their typical applications.
*
16.
DeWerth, D. W. , "Literature Review of Infrared Energy Produced with

Gas Burners", Research Bulletin 83, American Gas Association
Laboratories, Cleveland, Ohio, 1960.
The abstract of this work done in 1960 is reproduced here.

"An evaluation of the available literature pertaining to I-R energy production by both gas and competitive means is presented. Gas-fired I-R burners
are described and evaluated, and compared to I-R energy generated by competitive means.
The literature search has indicated that the use of gas-fired I-R burners
should become a field of ever increasing gas usage. Many current applications
of I-R are described and an extensive list of possible future applications
is presented.
The necessity for future research is indicated. Four subjects for future
work are recommended. They are: (1) measure the emittance spectra of gasfired I-R burners, (2) measure the absorption spectra of possible loads not
covered by the literature, (3) work on problems of current applications and
develop recommended new applications of gas-fired I-R burners, and (4)
develop information on low temperature (below 750 F) and high temperature
(above 2,900 F) I-R burners".
*
17.
Diamant, R. M. E., "Radiant Heating", The Heating and Air

Conditioning Journal. ASHRAE Journal, Vol. 50, No. 577, pg.
26-28, Troop Publ., February, 1980.
This article compares the radiant and convective heat output of various
English infrared radiant heaters. They indicate that the ratio of radiant to
convective heat output varied from 0.63 to 1.76 as the tube or surface
temperature varied from 150oC to 500oC. Additional details on the performance
B-84
of these heaters is also given.

*
18.
Faucett, J. W. , "Field Evaluation of High Intensity Infrared Space

Heating Systems - Research Project RP-98", Final Report, ASHRAE,
1972.
This study program was designed to validate the conclusions of RP-41 by

measuring in the field the performance of high intensity, electric and
gas-fired infrared space heating systems in order to determine thermal
comfort level, energy consumption, and installation and operating details.
Data for the study came largely from actual field study and analysis. Data is
presented but in the form in which it exists; it is difficult to evaluate.
There were no general summaries presented.
*
19.
Field, A. A. - "Direct Fired Radiant Heating Systems", Heating and

Ventilating Engineer. Vol. 49, No. 571, pg. 6-9, Technitrade
Journals Ltd., February 1975.
The author discusses three types of direct-fired radiant heating systems:

(1) gas-fired infra-red panels, (2) gas-fired radiant pipes, and (3)
air-heated radiant tube. Factors such as efficiency, energy consumption and
cost are presented.
*
20.
Heath, George, "Basic Infrared Heating Applications", ASHRAE Journal,

Dec. 1967.
A general discussion on the use of gas-fired infrared heater is given.

The author discusses heat loss (reduced by 80-85%) energy requirements
(reduced by 80-85%), operation, controls, applications, ventilation
requirements, unit placement, and the need for evaluating condensation. A
good discussion of the placement of radiant heaters is given.
*
21.
Hunter, Robert K., "Controllable and Efficient Infrared Radiant

Heating", Automation. October 1972.
The author presents descriptions of electric infra-red heating systems and

their applications. The information is just general in nature.
B-85
22.
Janssen, John E., "Field Evaluation High Temperature Infrared Space

Heating Systems", ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 82, Pt. 1, 1976.
This paper is an analysis of the data collected in RP-98 by J. W. Faucett

of York Research. The data were widely scattered due to conditions beyond the
control of this test. With exception of the swimming pool, buildings were
poorly insulated and subject to drafty conditions when there was a wind. Even
so, people tended to indicate general comfort.
The operative temperature was an average of 5.2 deg F (2.9 deg C) higher
than the dry-bulb temperature. It is estimated that this resulted in at least
20% reduction in fuel over convective heating systems.
It appeared that the estimates of physical activity were too high.
Although certain tasks may have required 3.5 to 4.5 met, this probably was not
sustained for any length of time. It is doubtful that the steady state
activity exceeded about 2.5 met.
Radiant heat appears to offer distinct advantages, especially in
industrial installations. However, care must be exercised in designing the
system to assure uniform distribution of radiation to the occupied areas.
These areas should be protected from excessive drafts caused by large open
access doors if possible. Comfort is compromised when systems are manually
operated or operated on an -intermittent basis. Intermittent operation tends
to lead to complaints of dampness and cold floors. This result would not be
peculiar to radiant systems but could be expected with convective systems
also.
23.
Morelli, A. J., "An Economic Study of an Electric Infrared Space

Heating Installation", ASHRAE Journal, June 1968.
This form of heating for commercial and industrial type buildings with
high ceilings has these advantages:
1. The installed heating capacity for electric infrared can be as much as
15% less than calculated heat loss for other types of heating systems.
The data obtained actually showed up to one-third less than the
calculated heat loss would indicate. However, it seems that an
installed capacity less than 80 to 85% of calculated heat loss at the
design outdoor temperature is risky at this time.
2.
Infrared heating involves not only the air temperature in the space but
gains due to the direct heating effect of the radiation as well.
Therefore, in the same area there can be in effect two or more comfort
temperatures called operative temperatures by installing different
densities at different locations in the space.
3.
Infrared heating has a lower roof heat loss because there is less
stratification. In fact, tests showed temperatures at the ceiling
several degrees lower than at waist level. In a conventional system
the reverse would have been true. With infrared heating, the energy is
used more effectively and efficiently because the heat is more confined
to the lower level where it is needed.
B-86
24.
, National Fuel Gas Code. ANSI Z 223.1, 1984, American Gas

Association, 1984.
This code listed a short section concerning infrared heaters which is

given below.
6.18
Infrared Heaters.
6.18.1 Support:
Suspended type infrared heaters shall be safely and

adequately fixed in position independent of gas and
electric supply lines. Hangers and brackets shall be
of noncombustible material.
Heaters subject to vibration shall be provided with
vibration isolating hangers.
6.18.2 Clearance:
a.
b.
c.
6.18.3
Listed heaters shall be installed with clearances from combustible material in accordance with their listing and the manufacturer's instructions.
Unlisted heaters shall be installed in accordance with clearances from combustible material acceptable to the authority
having jurisdiction.
In locations used for the storage of combustible materials,
signs shall be posted to specify the maximum permissible stacking height to maintain required clearances from the heater to
the combustibles.
Combustion and Ventilation Air:
a. Where unvented infrared heaters are used, natural or mechanical

means shall be provided to supply and exhaust at least 4 cfm per
1,000 Btu per hour input of installed heaters.
b. Exhaust openings for removing flue products shall be above the
level of the heaters.
6.18.4 Installation in Commercial Garages and Aircraft Hangers: Overhead heaters installed in garages for more than 3 motor vehicles
or in aircraft hangars shall be of a listed type and shall be
installed in accordance with 5.1.10 and 5.1.11.
25.
NEMA, Infrared Application Manual. Standard Publication No. HE 3-1983,

National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Washington, DC,
1983.
This manual is the third edition of NEMA Standards Publication HE 3, first

issued in 1971 and updated in 1976. It reflects much of the current technology
involved in infrared heating for improvement of comfort level, and its purpose
is to help potential users determine how infrared electric heating can be a
viable method of meeting their space conditioning needs. As NEMA Authorized
Engineering Information, HE 3-1983 addresses the infrared heater both as a unit
and as part of an overall system involving other factors affecting comfort
B-87
level such as draft and humidity.

are described as well.
The various applications of infrared heaters

*
26.
Pam, R. L. and Kesselring, J. P., Burner Survey for a High Efficiency

Gas-Fired Heating Unit. Alzeta Report No. 84-706-104, Teledyne
Laars,. January 1984.
A survey was undertaken to evaluate the suitability of a variety of burner

types for use in a new concept, high efficiency residential hydronic heating
unit. Emphasis was placed on radiant systems that are currently commercially
available. Nine different burner types were reviewed and evaluated against
criteria established by the hydronic heating unit manufacturer. Results of the
survey show that a porous fiber matrix burner can most easily be incorporated
into the heating unit design and meet the operational criteria.
*
27.
Sanford, Len, "No Problem with Radiation", The Heating and Air
Conditioning Journal. Vol. 54, No. 630, Pg. 14-18, 18, 21, Troup
Publ., July-August 1984.
A discussion about the types of radiant heating systems, which are

currently available, and how they compare with each other. A good discussion
of radiant vs warm air as well as good points brought out about various types
of radiant systems.
*
28.
Simmons, R. C., "Five Years Operation of an Industrial Infrared

Heating System", ASHRAE Journal, June 1968.
Five years of operating experience with this installation has demonstrated

the adequacy of the infrared system design for maintaining the design
operational temperature at 50 F. Comparison of the electric infrared energy
consumption with the calculated consumption of a conventional system,
compensating for both the ambient air and radiant temperature effect upon
occupant comfort, demonstrates substantial operating economies for the infrared
system, particularly when the structure U value is high.
*
29.
Taylor, F. M. H., "Radiant Space Heating", Building Materials.

May/June, 1973.
The authors' conclusions were stated as follows.

1. There is a large potential field of expansion in the use of gas for
commercial and industrial space heating.
B-88
2.
By the use of radiant heating and localised burners, gas for heating at
a premium price can compete effectively with oil.
Overhead radiant systems must have effective insulation or reflectors
such that the radiant heat component is paramount, since convected heat
rises to the roof space where a substantial proportion is wasted.
4.
The concept of environmental temperature is accepted as a satisfactory

measure of comfort temperature taking due regard to both air
temperature and mean radiant temperature.
5. The utilisation of gas in the most efficient types of equipment will

play a significant part in the reduction of atmospheric pollution as
well as making a contribution to the conservation of national energy
supplies.
*
Trewin, R. , Pate, M. , and Nelson, R. , "An Experimental Study of an

Installed High Temperature Radiant Heater and Enclosure", ASHRAE
Trans., Vol. 92, Pt. 1, No. 1, 1986.
The first conclusion to be drawn from this study is that steady state for
the tube is reached in approximately 12 minutes. This can be important for
comfort after a large decrease in the temperature of the inside air and inside
surfaces. Second, the reflector assembly causes most of the energy to radiate
in a downward direction and, therefore, the variation in wall and floor
temperatures depends on the orientation to the tube. For example, during the
on-off cycle, the wall temperatures vary at levels below 3 m (10 ft) and the
floor temperatures are highest directly below the radiant tube. Significant
changes in the floor and wall temperatures may affect comfort. Third, the air
is heated by the radiant tube, the reflector, and the floor beneath the radiant
tube and not by the walls since they are cooler. Fourth, the temperature of
the air is lower in the garage area heated with the radiant heater than in the
warehouse area heated with a forced-air heating system. This difference is
largest in the lower 4.5 m (15 ft). Finally, savings come from reduced
infiltration losses, less air movement on the inside walls, and lower inside
wall temperatures. Heat loss through the ceiling was not reduced
significantly.
*
31.
>v
Zawacki, T. S., Huang, V. and Macriss, R. A., "Development of a

Standard Test Method for Measurement of the Radiant Heat Output
of Gas-Fired Infrared Heaters", ASHRAE Trans.. V. 93, Pt. 1,
1987.
"The current American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard (Z83.6-1982)

method for determining total infrared heat output from commercial gas-fired
infrared-tube space heaters is not sufficiently broad to encompass all of the
equipment currently in the marketplace. For example, long straight or
U-shaped tubular heaters cannot be evaluated under the spherical grid approach
specified in the standard. The grid size would be simply too large for practical use.
B-89
An approach to extending the procedure to other heaters has been developed through a literature survey and a laboratory evaluation. Current test
procedures were evaluated along with instrumentation used to measure infrared
heat rates. A procedure was developed for measuring total radiant output
based on the use of a 180 view angle radiometer and a cylindrical grid surrounding the heater. The procedure was tested in the laboratory and found to
perform satisfactorily. A total radiant output of 40,500 Btu/h was measured
emanating from a straight tube heater of 104,000 Btu/h gross input. The
measuring procedure developed includes several parameters that were carefully
assessed and defined, specifically, radiometer window material, the need for
radiometer water cooling, calibration techniques, and measurement of background radiation."
B-90
I.
DESIGN PROCEDURES
1.
Adlam, T. N. , Radiant Heating. The Industial Press, New York, NY,

1947.
One of the original design texts for radiant heating systems. Discusses
types of systems (ceiling, floor, wall, baseboard, and electrical) panels.
Presents layout details for heating and cooling as well as snow melting. Much
of the information is based on practical experience and some measurements that
are given are limited to specific cases. Specific design steps are given but
need to be updated with data accumulated over the last forty years.
*
2.
ASHRAE, "Panel Heating and Cooling Systems - Chap. 8", 1984 Systems
Handbook. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air
Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA, 1984.
The current chapter in the ASHRAE Handbook describes panel heating and
cooling systems.
*
3.
Buckley, N. A., "Engineering Principles Support an Adjustment Factor

When Sizing Gas-Fired Low-Intensity Infrared Equipment", ASHRAE
Trans. . V. 93, Pt. 1, 1987.
The conclusions from this study as given by the author are as follow.
"The demonstrated performance characteristics of low-intensity radia,nt heating
equipment support an overall reduction in the input energy requirement for
radiant heating system installations. Factors that contribute to this conclusion are:
+ Floor temperatures are elevated above ambient by low-intensity gasfired radiant heating systems without heating the air.
+ The floor heat reservoir reradiates and convects heat into the space,
increasing comfort and improving temperature recovery capability.
+ Improved mean radiant temperature is evidenced by the positive
responses of a globe thermometer to the radiant field and, therefore,
equal comfort conditions are maintained by radiant systems with lowered thermostat settings.
+ Reduced air temperature stratification with low-intensity gas-fired
radiant heating systems reduced structural heat loss significantly.
+ Demonstrated operational efficiencies of low-intensity radiant systems
established that space comfort control can be maintained with a lower
energy input.
B-91
These factors support the application of an adjustment factor to standard

heat loss calculations. Manufacturers of radiant equipment use adjustment
factors of .80 to .85 in design calculations. These values are based on 20
years' experience and have been applied successfully in thousand of installations ."
*
4.
Chapot, Jean Robert, Manual Techniques "Avadis". Utilization

Chauffage Par Le Sol, Pont-A-Mousson, S. A.
This is a design manual for selecting and installing radiant floor heating
systems using using plastic pipe. It is in French and appears to be published
by technical society in France. It would be useful to have translated if one
is going to be interested In installing embedded pipe floor radiant systems.
*
5. Correa, Edward L., Design Guidelines for Heating Aircraft Hangars

with Radiant Heaters. Naval Civil Engineering Lab, December,
1983.
The results of this investigation indicate that radiant heaters are
practical heaters for use in large open bay buildings. Generally, radiant
heaters surpass convective forced-air counterparts in heating large open bays
in the following ways: (1) by providing increased thermal comfort at the
floor level while substantially reducing heating costs and heat stagnation,
(2) by being able to heat objects to just above the dew point temperature to
prevent condensation and corrosion, (3) by allowing heating flexibility with
zone or whole building heating.
Gas fired, high-intensity, porous, refractory, IR radiant heaters are
recommended for use in aircraft hangars if natural gas is available because of
the following: (1) the porous, refractory, IR burners emit heat energy
primarily in the longer wavelengths (2 to 6 microns) which is within the
optimum absorptance range for personnel and concrete floors and has no adverse
physiological effects, (2) porous, refractory heaters are safe for use in
aircraft hangars, (3) when the burners glow a dull red, a malfunctioning
burner would be visually apparent by intermittent burner incandescence.
The following disadvantages should be noted:
1.
Due to the inherent nature of suspending these heaters near the

ceiling of an aircraft hangar, access to these heating units is
restricted for inspections and maintenance.
2.
Natural gas may not be available at the hangar location.
3.
The gas-fired heaters require ventilation for elimination of the flue

gases. ,
B-92
6.
, Gas Engineers Handbook. Industrial Press, NY, 1977.
This handbook of fuel gas engineering practices discusses the application

of gas fired infrared radiant heaters. They make several recommendations
concerning the application and installation of these types of heaters. They
recommend a minimum roof vent opening of 50 sq. in. per 100,000 Btuh for
unvented overhead heaters. They also discuss total plant heating, area heating and spot heating. This source indicates that the design heat loss can be
reduced by 15 percent if the perimeter heating method is used. If this is not
done or if the products of combustion are immediately exhausted this percentage reduction does not hold true. The reasons given for this 15 percent
reduction are: (1) very little temperature stratification, (2) no air movement required for heat distribution, (3) the gas unit efficiency with unvented
combustion is about 90% rather than 80% as with vented convection heaters, and
(4) lower air temperatures for comfort conditions can be maintained with
radiant heaters.
*
7.
Gluck, B., Strahlungsheizung Theorie und Praxis. Verlag C. F. Muller,

Karlsruhe, Germany, 1982.
Radiant Heating - Theory and Practice is a German design book on radiant

heating systems. It contains the following chapters: 1) Fundamentals of Heat
Transfer, 2) Emission of Heat from Large Panels with Imbedded Tubes, 3) Heat
Emission from Segments of Surfaces and Radiant Panels, 4) Heat Emission from
Infrared Rays, 5) Multiple Irradiation, 6) Mechanisms of physical Heating in
Radiant Heated Rooms, 7) Heating Requirements and Location of Heated Surfaces,
8) Design and Construction of Heating Elements, 9) Control Procedures, 10)
System Design, 11) Special Radiant Heaters, and 12) Comprehensive Examples.
It is not available in English.
*
8.
Hutchinson, F. W., A Graphical Design Procedure for Radiant Panel

Heating. Revere Copper & Brass, Inc., New York, NY, 1948.
This work is based on the rational heat balance concept and procedure
developed in a series of technical papers written by Hutchinson. The method
is simple and is stated to give results with accuracy equal to the analytical
procedure. The method can be applied to ceiling, floor or wall panels. It
also allows calculation of design load for the building.
*
9.
Hutchinson, F. W., Design of Heating and Ventilating Systems. The

Industrial Press, New York, 1955.
This is a textbook for HVAC System design. It does have a chapter on

panel heating design procedure. The method presented here is similar to that
given in a book published by Revere Copper and Brass Co.
B-93
10.
IHVE, Estimation of Plant Capacity. A9, IHVE Guide, 1975.
This British guide for designing heating ventilating and air conditioning
systems contains some design information for radiant types of heating systems.
An environmental temperature is defined, which is based on a combination of
the mean radiant temperature and the air temperature. This combination is
based on the resultant temperature being in the range for human comfort.
Therefore, as adjustments are made in the air temperature, this will also
affect the design heat loss calculations. This is particularly true with
factories, where air and mean radiant temperature may differ appreciably.
Factors which cause this adjustment are: improved insulation, radiant
heating, reduction in the infiltration rate, and acceptance of a lower
temperature for comfort.
In this heat loss calculation, a uniform temperature throughout the height
of the heated space is assumed. Certain modes of heating cause vertical
temperature gradients which lead to larger losses, particularly through the
roof.
Percentages to be added to the calculated heat loss to allow for these
temperature gradients are given below.
Method and type of heating "
Percent to be added for the following

heights of heated space
16 to 32 ft.
16 ft
Radiant, warm floor
Radiant, warm ceiling
Medium and high temperature
radiant units from high levels
0
0-5
Forced warm air convective

system with cross flow at
low level
15-30
5-15
0-5
Forced warm air convective

system with downward flow
from high level
10-20
5-10
0-5
Medium and high temperature

cross radiant from
intermediate level
5-10
0-5
0
*
11.
0
0-5
0
0
>32ft.
Prince, Fred J., "Infrared Heating for Overall Comfort", ASHRAE

Journal, Dec. 1968.
A design procedure is presented and some useful information is given for

infrared heaters. Useful design charts are presented for heat delivery from
heaters at specific locations, building heat loss correction factors, CO2
dilution air requirements, surface temperature charts, etc.
B-94
12.
Prince, F. J., "Selection and Application of Overhead Gas-Fired

Infrared Heating Devices", ASHRAE Journal, October, 1962.
A general description of the selection and application procedures for

infrared heaters. His conclusions are as follow: "With the growing
popularity of gas infrared heat, engineers, architects and the heating
industry need standards for evaluating units and for system design.
In the interim, it is suggested the heating engineer evaluate carefully
and demand proof of all performance claims regarding infrared units before he
makes his selection. Having assured himself of the validity of such claims,
he should apply sound engineering principles in the design of any infrared
system.
Since applications have become so varied, a paper of this length cannot
cover all or even a small part of present practices. Reputable manufacturers
will have engineering and application manuals which should be studied. With
the many thousands of successful installations, previous history on almost any
type of application is available and the experience gained should be
utilized".
*
13.
Raber, B. F. and Hutchinson, F. W., Panel Heating and Cooling

Analyses. John Wiley & Sons, NY, 1947.
A textbook describing the analysis and design of panel heating systems.

It gives descriptions, advantages and disadvantages of panel systems.
Chapters included are: radiation equations, comfort relationship, mean
radiant temperature, evaluation of shape factors and heat balance equations.
*
14.
Subcommittee of TAC, "Thermal Design of Warm Water Concrete Floor

Panels", ASHRAE Research Laboratory, Trans., ASHRAE, V. 63,
1957.
This paper presents a simplified procedure for the thermal design of water
heated floor panels for use in residences and commercial buildings. It
complements the previously published paper.
The procedures in both papers are based primarily on the experimental data
obtained at the ASHRAE Research Laboratory under the guidance of the ASHRAE
Technical Advisory Committee on Panel Heating and Cooling. This work has been
reported in a series of research papers which are listed in the references,
together with other papers which contain supplementary data.
A panel designed by this procedure will maintain the desired room air
temperature for the selected outdoor conditions. Room air temperature is the
selected criterion of comfort, and the design procedure is restricted to
situations in which the area-weighted average temperature of the walls, the
ceiling, and glass does not differ greatly from room air temperature. The
room-scale tests, which simulated various conditions of construction and
outdoor temperature, showed that this near-equality of the 2 temperatures
normally prevails.
B-95
15.
, Thermo Lutz. Planungsunterlage Fur Ingenieure, Thermolutz

GMBH and Co. Heizungstechnik Kg.
This is a design procedure presented by a German manufacturer for hydronic

floor heating systems. The pamphlet is in German and presents design and
installation details.
B-96
J.
ENERGY CONSUMPTION
1. Ashley, J. L., Correa, E. and Canfield, K., "Energy Conservation:
Heating Navy Hangars", Technical Report R-910, Naval Civil
Engineering Laboratory, July 1984.
How energy is used for hangar heating and what methods are used to reduce
hangar thermal energy consumption were investigated. The results of measurements of hangar air infiltration and stratification, two major causes of
heating related energy consumption, are reported. Methods to reduce this type
of energy consumption (reduction of air infiltration and installation of
destratifiers, vehicle access doors, door seals, vinyl strip doors, and
radiant heating) were evaluated and are discussed. Design criteria providing
hangar air infiltration rates versus hangar size and climatic conditions and
design criteria for hangar destratifiers were developed and are presented.
*
2.
Bailey, H. R., "An Experimental Comparison of Energy Requirements for

Space Heating with Radiant and Convective Systems", ASHRAE
Trans.. V. 86, Pt. 1, 1980.
The purpose of this project was to compare energy consumption for radiant
and convective heating units. Two buildings on the Rose-Hulman campus were
selected -- one is heated with gas and the other with electricity. They were
originally both heated convective systems. In the fall of 1976 radiant
systems were installed in both buildings. Energy consumption and temperature
data were recorded daily for two heating seasons with each building heated
about a 1/2 yr. with a radiant heat and 1/2 yr. with convective heat. One
reason for a 2-yr. test was to be able to have each system operate for both
halfs of the heating season. For example, with the electric system radiant
heat was used during the first part of the first year and the last part of the
second year.
A measure of heating effectiveness is obtained by comparing daily energy
consumption with AT where At is the inside temperature minus the average
outside temperature for the day. An overall comparison for the 2-yr period
was made by dividing the total energy consumption by the sum of all the AT's.
The convective systems for both gas and electricity used about 15% more
energy/AT than the corresponding radiant system.
*
3.
, "Fuel Bills Halfed After Switch to Infrared Heating System",

Energy Management Technology. Vol. 7, No. 8, pg. 44-45,
Walker-Davis Publications, November 1983.
Discusses the conversion from a forced-air oil-fired heating system to an

infrared heating system in an auto dealership. They indicate about a 40%
savings in fuel costs and a payback of 1 1/2 to 2 years.
B-97
4.
__, "Gas Radiant Heating Installation Achieves 90% Overall

Efficiency", The Heating and Air Conditioning Journal. Vol. 48,
No. S60, pg. 60-61, Troup Publ., September 1978.
Discusses the installation and operation of a gas radiant heating unit

which achieved 90% operating efficiency and saved approximately 50% on energy
requirements for the structure.
*
5.
Grum, R. E., "Building Heat with Natural Gas Infrared", ASHRAE

Journal, June 1968.
This article presents some heating cost data for particular industrial
buildings for various years of operation. This authors analysis shows that
15% reduction in unit size as well as energy consumption were present.
Another building experienced an 10% reduction in fuel usage. It was also
claimed that the heating systems provided greater comfort for the workers.
*
6.
Guillaume, M. , "Integration of Different Energy Saving Possibilities

in Dwellings", Energy Savings in Buildings. Commission of the
European Communities, Edited by Ehringer H. and Zito V.,
November 1983, D. Reidel Publ. Co.
The overall efficiency of two heating plants was measured in two well
insulated and identical houses. The differences of these heating
installations are: for the first one radiant floor heating using a high
efficiency and low water temperature boiler was used; and for the second one
direct electrical heating with convectors was used.
In the first house (heated with a radiant floor) a reduction of 9% of the
energy consumption of the boiler was made by using a closed circuit instead of
an open one, and a reduction of 11% of the energy consumption was obtained
with a night set back from 10 pm to 6 am. The results also show that the
values obtained for the electrical heating system are higher than those for
the classical system even when this one used low water temperatures.
*
7.
, "In Old Building - New Infrared Heating System Solves Old

Problems", Air Conditioning Heating and Refrigeration News.
April, 1985.
Discussion of a specific building which went through a retrofit and used a

gas infra-red heating system to replace a hot water heating system. They
reported a payback of one year and are expecting up to 80% savings in energy
costs.
B-98
8. Trewin, R. R., Langdon, F. M., Nelson, R. M. and Pate, M. B., "An

Experimental Study of a Multipurpose Commercial Building with
Three Different Heating Systems", ASHRAE Trans.. V. 93, Pt. 1,
1987.
"A commercial building with three distinct zones, each having different heating equipment, was monitored for two heating seasons using a computerized data
acquisition system. An analysis of the thermal performance of both the building envelope and the heating equipment was performed. The office area was
heated by a heat pump with an auxiliary backup furnace; the warehouse area
used off-peak thermal-electric storage units; the garage area heating load was
met by a gas-fired radiant system. The microcomputer-based data acquisition
system obtained and stored hourly temperatures, humidities, and energy flows.
The zone loads and equipment energy consumption and performance were calculated. Variable-base degree-days were computed for each zone, and it was
observed that standard-based (65 F) degree-days could be in error by a factor
of two."
"It was observed that each of the three spaces had a different base temperature to be used in the calculation of degree-days and that the use of standard
degree-days based on 65 F could lead to erros in heating load estimates. The
results for the office space were in good agreement with the65 F based
degree-days as expected. The warehouse had few internal gains, resulting in
the degree-day base temperature being close to the thermostat setting. The
base temperature in the garage was significantly lower than the thermostat
setting because a radiant-type heating system was used.
A data base has been established that will be used in future studies to
verify the loads obtained from computer programs. The verified programs will
then be used to assess the economic impact of various energy conservation
measurements".
B-99
K.
TRANSIENT EFFECTS
1.
Aiulfi, D., Fort K., Ottin, T., "Modelization of Floor Heating and
Oil Furnaces for the Unilization of Microprocessors in DDC",
Clima 2000 - Heating. Ventilating and Air-Conditioning Systems.
Transient Models of floor heating, oil furnaces and rooms are developed
for the application of microprocessors for online control strategies. The
discussed models of floor heating and oil furnace as well as the overall model
of a heated space have proven to be sufficiently accurate and simple. The
importance of the radiation heat transfer for the accuracy of transient models
is recognized. Finite differences are used for solving the conduction
equation. Only a small quantity of results are given and no equations are
presented.
*
2.
Algren, A. B., and Ciscel, Ben, "Heating Panel Time Response Study",
Heating. Piping & Air Conditioning. March, 1949.
A floor panel heating system was tested for transient response. A

continuous record was made of water, ground, panel, air and surface
temperatures resulting from a sudden and large change in the heat input to the
panel system. Use a 4" concrete slab laid on 9 in. of crushed rock. Room had
well insulated walls, no windows and a single door. The floor had 1" OD pipe,
4" in below the surface laid on 12" centers. The air temperature reached 50%
of its change in 4 hours and 90% in 9 hours. The MRT was approximately 3oF
higher than the air temperature for the majority of the time. Four hours were
required for the panel to reach 63% of its change. There was an hour and a
quarter lag between the air temperature and the panel surface temperature at
the 63 percent value. The maximum air temperature rise was 8oF per hour and
occurred about an hour after the heat input. Floor coverings would delay the
air change rate. The heat input rates were high (5 to 6 times steady state
loss) in order to account for thermal storage.
*
3.
Berglund, L. , Rascati, R., Markel, M., "Radiant Assisted Comfort

Heating for Energy Conservation in Intermittently Occupied
Spaces", Energy conservation in the Built Environment:
Proceedings of the CIB W67 Third International Symposium,
Dublin, Ireland, 1982, pg. 98.
In winter, energy consumption can be reduced if intermittently occupied

spaces are kept at a low, energy conserving temperature when unoccupied and
raised to a comfortable level when occupied. The occupant's response and
acceptance of such a plan were investigated. Subjects from a comfortable area
at 22oC entered a space at 15oC and occupied it for 2 hours. Fast acting
radiant heaters were activated when the subjects entered the cold space
bringing the mean radiant temperature to a high level and the operative
B-100
temperature or the temperature that the environment feels like to 22oC. The
air temperature increased at 3oC/h during the exposure to simulate the
response of a conventional convective heating system. The radiant heaters
were regulated by operative and air temperature controllers. Subjective
responses of thermal sensation, degree of comfort and thermal acceptability
were gathered periodically during the tests. The 16 subjects judged the
environment of the radiantly heated system for intermittent occupancy to be
thermally acceptable. The radiant system controlled by operative temperature
was more acceptable and more energy efficient than the air temperature
controlled radiant system because it produced less overheating. Spot and
heated ceiling type radiant systems were tested.
*
4.
Berglund, L., Rascati, R. and Markel, M. L., "Radiant Heating and

Control for Comfort during Transient Conditions", ASHRAE Trans..
V. 88, Pt. 2, 1982.
Comparison tests are described that show people will accept spaces being
cool upon entry if the spaces can be brought quickly to a comfortable level
with radiant heat. Subjects from a comfortable area at 22oC (72oF) entered a
space at 15oF) and occupied it for two hours. After the subjects' entry, spot
radiant or fast-acting radiant ceiling panels rapidly raised the operative
temperature of the space to 22oC. A sensor that averaged air and mean radiant
temperatures was found to be superior to an air temperature sensor as input to
the radiant heat controller. It produced less operative temperature overshoot
and greater occupant thermal acceptability and reduced power consumption.
There are numerous applications for energy savings with fast radiant systems,
particularly where there is intermittent occupancy. The technique and control
are also applicable to steady state situations. The savings depend on the
application and can be predicted by calculation from the response
characteristics of these tests.
*
5.
Borresen, B. A., "Thermal Room Models for Control Analysis", ASHRAE

Trans.. V. 87, Pt. 2, 1981.
The analysis of a dynamic control loop often requires the use of a room
model. This paper discusses four simplified dynamic room models which in
different ways take into account the thermal interaction between room air and
surrounding walls. The room air is assumed to be fully mixed.
It is shown that the choice of the simplification level employed depends
on how closely the long-term responses and steady-state values are to fit the
actual room response. For modeling short-term dynamic responses, a simple
time constant corresponding to the air change rate of the room is usually
adequate and will lead to choosing conservative control parameters.
An experimental procedure for determining typical parameter values is
discussed.
B-1GL
6.
Boyar, R. E., "Room Temperature Dynamics of Radiant Ceiling and Air

Conditioning Comfort Systems", Trans. ASHRAE, V. 69, 1963.
This article disusses the response time for water carrying radiant panel
systems. The author compared the response time (time to reach 90% of its
terminal value) of this system to that of a forced air system, and found that
they were comparable. The dynamic response is more than adequate for
perimeter areas of buildings, which have a relatively high percentage of
glass.
*
7.
Mclntyre, D. A., "Eight Hour Floor Warming: A Feasibility Study",

Electricity Council Research Centre, Capenhurst, England, March,
1977 (NTIS-PB 277 115).
This brief note looks at the effect of improved building insulation on the
temperature variation of a building heated by off peak underfloor heating. It
seems that with good insulation an eight hour charge period can produce an
acceptable temperature variation throughout the day. Increasing the thickness
of screed over the heating cable is very beneficial. A carpet increases the
downward loss substantially and its use reduces the effectiveness of floor
warming. Eight-hour floor warming appears to merit further study. The
practical problems of increasing speed thickness, cost effectiveness of
underfloor insulation and the specification of control systems need attention,
as well as extending the design rpocedures to cover eight hour operation.
*
8.
Pfafflin, J. R., "Space Heating Dynamics", IEEE Trans, on Indust.

Appls.. Vol. IA-19, No. 5, Sept/Oct, 1983.
Verification of models previously advanced for description of the active

and passive modes of baseboard heating and forced air convection is given.
Results of tests conducted under rigidly controlled conditions at the former
Electric Space conditioning Institute are shown to support the proposed
models. Sequences of heating and cooling reponses for the two means of energy
input are evaluated by means of incremental forms of the fundamental
equations. It is found that the dynamic responses are functions of the means
of energy input.
*
9.
Zhang, Z. and Pate, M. B. , "An Experimental Study of the Transient

Response of a Radiant Panel Ceiling and Enclosure", ASHRAE
Trans.. V. 92, Pt. 2, 1986.
The transient response of a radiant heating system and enclosure was

investigated for a range of hot-water supply temperatures and flow rates. The
radiant heating system consisted of copper tubes embedded in a standard
plaster ceiling at 6-in (152-mm) intervals. Transient experiments were
B-102
performed by heating the radiant ceiling and enclosure from a cooled-down

condition by using a step change in the hot-water supply temperature.
Temperature transients in the water supply and return lines on the ceiling and
wall surfaces and in the room air were then monitored for a period of several
hours. Results were as follows: the ceiling temperature was uniform; the
thermal response of the ceiling and enclosure was slow because of the large
thermal mass in the ceiling; the air temperature did not lag the wall and
floor temperature; and the room walls were heated by a combination of radiant
heat transfer from the ceiling and convection heat transfer from the air. In
addition, the transient response of the radiant system was found to be a
function of water supply temperatures but not of water flow rate.
B-103
L.
INSTRUMENTS
1.
Benzinger, Theodore H., Maglum, B. W., and Hill, James, "The Design
Construction and Operation of a Scanning Radiometer for
Measurement of Plane Radiant Temperature in Buildings", ASHRAE
Trans., Vol. 82, Pt. 2, 1976.
A description of an instrument is given along with its design details and

its initial performance evaluation.
*
2.
Braun, D. L. and McNall, P. E., Jr., "A Radiometer for Environmental

Applications", ASHRAE Trans.. V. 75, Pt. 1, 1969.
A convection-nulling radiometer which involves the use of a thermoelectric

module is described. It appears to have some advantages over other known
instruments in convenience, ease of use, and ability to record the results.
Its accuracy is felt to be "at least as good as other devices in use. It is
hoped that others will further develop the device and that its use will
further the research on the effects of radiation on the occupants of
controlled space.
The radiometer also has advantages in the determination of the Effective
Radiant Field (ERF) proposed by Gagge.
*
3.
Korsgaard, V., "A New Radiometer Measuring Directional Mean Radiant

Temperatures", Heating. Piping and Air Conditioning, -July, 1949.
A special radiometer described was developed to measure directional mean

radiant temperatures. The instrument has been successfully vised in a test
room with highly reflective walls. The basic principles of the radiometer and
its construction are very simple, and by further investigations it should be
possible to develop a complete theory for the thermal sensitivity of the
radiometer and hence make its construction still more sensitive. The
calibration of the radiometer is simple. Experience up to this time has shown
that the radiometer is very handy and durable and further requires only a few
minutes to reach equilibrium.
*
4.
Madsen, T. L., "Thermal Comfort Measurements", ASHRAE Trans.. Vol.

82, Part I, 1976, pp. 67-70.
The author describes a comfort meter which he has developed. His

conclusions were as follows:
1.
The new comfort meter provides a quick, direct measurement of the

predicted mean vote in a given space.
B-104
2.
3.
Comparison with calculated PMV values based on separate measurements

of the thermal parameters in typical environments shows good
agreement.
In cases where man is exposed to asymmetric radiation, the comfort
meter gives a better approximation to the PMV value than can be
calculated from traditional measurements of the thermal parameters.
4.
Inaccuracy of a certain PMV value is due mainly to the fact that in

practice it is difficult to state activity level and clothing with
great accuracy. In order to compare different thermal environments,
to measure the thermal effect produced by changes in the heating and
ventilating system, as well as for the reproducibility of thermal
environmental measurements in common, it is still important that the
thermal parameters are measured accurately.
5.
The comfort meter measures the thermal effect of ta, MRT, and v,
simultaneously and at the same position; this gives a good
reproduction especially under non-steady-state conditions.
*
5. Madsen, T. L. , "Definition and Measurement of Local Thermal Discomfort

Parameters", ASHRAE Trans.. V. 86, Pt. 1, 1980.
The author indicates that there are no standard measuring methods for
determination of the degree of thermal asymmetry or draft. Neither are there
any measuring instruments on the market which are particularly adapted for
these measurements. The measuring instrument described here is developed as
an aid to fulfilling this need. Just as in the case of the comfort meter, the
instrument has been constructed with the aim of simulating a person's heat
exchange with the surroundings. While the comfort meter takes into
consideration the heat loss of a person as a whole, and hence of the central
temperature perception, the discomfort analyzer aims at simulating a person's
peripheral temperature perception.
*
6.
Tenney, A. S., Ill, "Red Hot and Hotter - Industrial Radiation Thermometry", Mechanical Engineering. Oct., 1986.
A discussion of the types of radiation thermometers which are available

and their range or field of applications is given. Various industrial applications are discussed. A useful table is given for choosing the correct
thermometer.
B-105
M.
CONTROLS
1. Algren, A. B., Snyder, E. F. , Jr., Locke, J. S., "Field Studies of
Floor Panel Control Systems", Heating. Piping and Air
Conditioning. February, 1953.
The significant results of this two-year study on floor panels in two

factory buildings and a residence indicate the importance of proper design and
installation of the basic heating system and the importance of the selection
and location of various control elements. It was pointed out that returns
should not be combined prior to the three-way mixing valves used for
recirculation. Proper demand heat rates for the boiler were also illustrated.
The outdoor thermostat used for resetting the water temperature should be
located such that it is exposed to the same climate conditions (wind and solar
effects) as the structure. It was also determined that continuous circulation
of the water was important in order to avoid surges in panel temperature.
Best performance was obtained from systems with outdoor thermostats used for
circulating water temperature reset. On-off and modulating valve action
controls provided system stability, when large masses in the panel were
available.
*
2.
Algren, A. B. , Snyder, E. F., Jr., Head, R. R., "Field Studies of

Floor Panel Control Systems - Part II", Heating. Piping and Air
Conditioning. April, 1954.
This paper discusses results of field tests covering various control

systems in three different types of construction. It recommends specific
practices in both the operation and type of control system. The temperature
difference across carpeting was lloF and floor tile was 2oF. The field
studies indicate that the water temperature should be reset with the outside
temperature. Large glass areas and solar loads increase the transient
response and control problems. More of the heating load should be delivered
to the perimeter of the system below windows. The vertical thermostat
location did not appear to affect the results. These are field studies and it
is difficult to extrapolate design data from these results.
*
3.
Hazard, W. G. , "Radiant Heat Control in Industrial Plants", ASHRAE

Journal, November, 1959.
Discusses the use of spot cooling, radiation shields and ventilation for
controlling radiant loads in industrial applications. The main objective was
to maintain comfort condition, for the workers. Discussions are also
presented on instruments to be used for measuring radiant heat.
B-106
4.
McNall, Preston E., Jr., "A Manufacturer's View of Radiant Heater

Control", ASHRAE Trans., Vol. 81, Pt. 1, 1973.
The author's conclusions are as follows:

1. An ideal thermostat, which responds thermally in a manner similar to
people, does not exist, not withstanding considerably R&D effort by
the control industry.
2.
Even if an ideal thermostat did exist, most spaces are subject to

variations of comfort conditions with position in the spaces and load
conditions, etc., so that no single ideal location can be found.
3. Most commonly used thermostats are sensitive enough to db and MRT to

be suitable for use with comfort radiant heat systems, provided that
the cycling rate is adequate and the droop is not too great.
4.
For radiant heating sources with time constants greater than 5

minutes, a thermostat cycling rate of 6-10 cycles per hour is
satisfactory to meet" the proposed ASHRAE unsteady-state comfort
criteria. This includes all of the systems described here.
5.
The electric ceiling cable system has a time constant of 40-50 minutes
so that a cycling rate of 2-3 cycles per hour is adequate.
6.
True proportional control (modulating thermostats) can be

advantageous in reducing the effects of cycling and may have
advantages in reducing demand charges, increasing efficiency, etc.
However, the comfort standard can be met properly designed to
position control.
7. When radiant sources are used in factories, loading docks, waiting

platforms, etc., ordinary thermostats are not usually recommended.
Here comfort is not as important as the alleviation of severe cold.
Special techniques, such as "% - on" cyclers and large-droop
thermostats or temperature transmitters are often warranted, but they
are not within the scope of this paper.
*
5. Nakanishi, E. , Pereira, N. C , Fan, L. T. and Hwang, C. L. ,

"Simultaneous Control of Temperature and Humidity in a Confined
Space - Part I, Building Science. Vol. 8, 1973, p. 39-49.
A pair of nonlinear differential equations which describe the transient
behavior of temperature and humditiy in a confined space have been derived
from simultaneous material balances of dry air and water along with the
enthalpy balance of moist air. The equations are sufficiently general to take
into account external heat loads, and internal heat and moisture loads within
the confined space. Since temperature-humidity control systems allow usually
only small deviations of temperature and humidity from a desired operating
point, a linearization of the above equations within the bounds of small
deviations is justified. Hence, the nonlinear equations are linearized around
B-107
a desired steady state operating point. On using available relations for the
specific volume and enthalpy of moist air, the linearized equations further
result in a pair of linear uncoupled differential equations. The response
from the linear equations is found to compare very favorably with that from
the original nonlinear equations.
*
6.
Walker, C. A., "Control of High Intensity Infrared Heating", ASHRAE

Journal, November, 1962.
This article presents a short description of various means of controlling

infrared heating systems. He discusses the use of automatic controls vs
manual and the use of electronic, and the thermostat control systems.
B-108
N.
SPOT HEATING & COOLING

1.
Best, W. H., "Spot Heating and Condensation Control Using Gas

Infrared Systems", ASHRAE Journal, June, 1968.
This article describes the design procedure that might be used for spot
radiant heters for comfort control and condensation control. It uses gas
infra-red heaters for the specific units. It contains a useful design figure
for the energy per hour per ft^ to be applied and a few other general rules of
thumb.
*
2.
Olesen, B. W. and Nielsen, R. , "Radiant Spot Cooling of Hot Working

Places", ASHRAE Trans.. V. 87, Pt. 1, 1981.
Radiant spot cooling can improve the thermal conditions in warm working
environments.
Radiant spot cooling decreases discomfort caused by warmth, but may create
discomfort caused by radiant asymmetry. It is important to optimize panel
positions according to the angle factor between worker and panels. Water
condensation on the cooling panels and positioning of the panels may in
practice limit the use of radiant spot cooling. The efficiency of radiant
spot cooling is rather poor (10-15%). A good section on definitions is
presented.
*
3.
Sofrata, H. M., and Al-Hukail, Y., "Spot Cooling System Design",

ASHRAE Jnl.. Jan., 1987.
An interactive computer program for spot cooling system design is discussed. Input includes ambient conditions for the industrial environment, the
metabollic heat production and clothing value of workers in the target area,
the jet and target area geometry, and the maximum and minimum of the conditioned air at the target area. Their results have been compared with available data in the literature and a good agreement has been achieved.
B-109
APPENDIX C
LISTING OF COMPUTER PROGRAM
C-l
LIST OF INPUT VARIABLES

CP
HF
COOL
- Presence (True) or absence (False) of ceiling panels

- Presence (True) or absence (False) of a heated floor
- Presence (True) or absence (False) of cooling panels
HIUP
HIDOWN
EPSI
FP
Outside ambient temperature

Length,
breadth and
height of the room
U-factors for each room surface
Standard convection coefficients (incl. radiation effect)
for each room surface
ASHRAE standard coefficient for upward and
downward convection
Emissivity of each room surface
Person-to-room surface shape factors
P
CFM
ACH
HREF
SLOPE
Q2L
Number of persons
Supply air cfm/sq. ft of floor area
Infiltration air changes per hour
Reference height and
gradient for the air temperature gradient
Sensible heating load due to lights
RATIO
AMI
EFF
CLO
FCL
V
RH
Ratio of radiative to Dubois area for a person

Metabolic rate and
mechanical efficiency
Clothing level and
clothing factor
Relative air velocity
Relative humidity
XPREF NCP
NPAL
XCP,YCPALCP
BCP
EPSIP XMULT -
Required temperature of panels

Number of panels
Number of panels in a lengthwise row
Coordinates of the center of the panel
Length and
width of the panel
Emissivity of panel surface
Multiplier for convection off the panels
TOUT
ALTH
BTH
HT
U
HI
XIN
PTOL
MAXIT
- Initial temperature for calculation

- Tolerance and
- maximum number of iterations for panel temperature convergence
Note: A sample input data file is shown at the end of the computer
program listing.
C-2
C******** FORTRAN CODE
irk*************
C TRIAL'3 , DEC 4
C
C
C
C
IMPLICIT REAL*8(A-H,0-Z)
DIMENSION WK(5000),X(10),PAR(10),F(10),X0(10),VAR(25)
DIMENSION HIIN(6),OUT(25,25), OUTl(25,25)
DIMENSION XCPIN(25),YCPIN(25),ALCPIN(25),BCPIN(25)
C CAN GO UPTO 15 PANELS WITH THIS
EXTERNAL FCN
C
C
LOGICAL CP,COOL,HF
C
CHARACTER*21 TEMP(6)
CHARACTER*50 TITLE
CHARACTER*45 POUT(50), POUT1(50)
C
COMMON /OUT/ TOUT
COMMON /CEL/ XCEL(ll)
COMMON /COMF/ AM1,EFF,AICL,FCL,HC,V,PA,RH
COMMON /AIR1/ P,CFM,AICFM,ACH,UQ2P,Q2P,UQ2L,Q2L
COMMON /Q/ Q1,Q2,QSTD3,QACT3,Q3,Q4,QP5,Q5,Q6,Q7,Q8
COMMON /QNET/ QNET1,QNETP2,QNET2,QNET3,OUA
COMMON /QP/ QCVP,QRP
COMMON /QI/ QR(6),QCV(6),QCD(6)
COMMON /U/ U(6) ,HI(6),CI(6),EPSI(6)
COMMON /UP/ UP,HIP,CIP,EPSIP,XMULT
COMMON /CONV/ HIUP,HIDOWN
COMMON /FSURF/ FS(6,6)
COMMON /FPEOP/ FP(6)
COMMON /GRAD/ HREF,SLOPE
COMMON /TERM/ TERM6,TERM7,ALHS
COMMON /DIMEN/ ALTH,BTH,HT
COMMON /AREAS/ RAREA(6)
C /AREAS/ APPEARS IN MAIN,FCN AND SHAPE PROGRAMS.
COMMON /PAN1/ CP,COOL,HF
COMMON /PAN2/ PRAREA,PAREA
COMMON /PAN3/ NCP
COMMON /PAN4/ FSCP(25,25)
COMMON /DIMP/ XCP(25),YCP(25),ALCP(25),BCP(25)
C
C
DATA PAR/10*0.DO/
C
C
C
TEMP(1)='TEMP OF FLOOR
'
TEMP(2)='TEMP OF CEILING
*
TEMP(3)='CLOTHING SURFACE TEMP1
TEMP(4)='ROOM AIR
TEMP*
TEMP(5)='MEAN RADIANT
TEMP*
TEMP(6)='SUPPLY AIR
TEMP'
C TEMP(6) IS SUBSTITUTED BY PANEL TEMPERATURE FOR (CP)
C
C
C
READ (5,*) XIN
READ (5,*) TOUT
C-3
c
c
READ
READ
READ
READ
READ
READ
READ
READ
READ
READ
READ
READ
READ
READ
READ
(5,*)
(5,*)
(5,*)
(5,*)
(5,*)
(5,*)
(5,*)
(5,*)
(5,*)
(5,*)
(5,*)
(5,*)
(5,*)
(5,*)
(5,*)
RATIO
AM1.EFF
AICL.FCL
V
RH
P
CFM,ACH
HREF, SLOPE
Q2L
(U(K3),K3=1,6)
(HIIN(K3),K3=1,6)
HIUP.HIDOWN
(EPSI(K3),K3=1,6)
ALTH,BTH,HT
(FP(K3),K3=1,6)
READ
READ
READ
READ
(5,*)
(5,*)
(5,*)
(5,*)
N.NSIG, ITMAX
TITLE
NVAR
(VAR(I),I=1,NVAR)
C CP IS TRUE MEANS THAT CEILING PANELS ARE BEING USED

C IF CP IS FALSE, THE PROGRAM ASSUMES CONVECTIVE HEATING/ COOLING
READ (5,*) CP
READ (5,*) HF
IF (CP) THEN
READ(5,*) COOL
C COOL IS TRUE MEANS THAT COOLING AND NOT HEATING IS BEING PERFORMED.
C THESE
1002
C
READ(5,*) XPREF
READ(5,*) XMULT
READ(5,*) PTOL ,MAXITP
READ (5,*) HREF, SLOPE
WILL OVERRIDE THE VALUES READ-IN
PREVIOUSLY .
READ(5,*) NCP
READ(5,*) NPAL
READ(5,*) EPSIP
DO 1002 J = 11,NCP+10
READ(5,*)XCPIN(J),YCPIN(J),ALCPIN(J),BCPIN(J)
CONTINUE
ENDIF
ASDF
C
C
C
CCCCCCCCCCCC
CCCCCCCCCCCCC
3525
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
DO 1550 IVAR = 1,NVAR

ACH
= VAR(IVAR)
READ (5,*) ALTH,BTH,HT
READ (5,*) (FP(K3),K3=1,6)
DO 3525 J = 11,NCP+10
READ(5,*)XCPIN(J) ,YCPIN(J) ,ALCPIN(J) ,BCPIN(J)
CONTINUE
READ(5,*) XPREF
READ (5,*) (U(K3),K3=1,6)
READ(5,*) NCP
READ(5,*) NPAL
C-4
C
C
C WRITING THE INPUT DATA...
C
WRITE (6,123)
C
WRITE (6,123)
C
WRITE (6,123)
C
WRITE (6,123)
C
WRITE (6,234)
123 FORMAT( //)
234
FORMAT(1X,T15,100('*'))
C
WRITE (6,77)
77
FORMAT (1X/,T5,'INPUT DATA',///)
C
WRITE(6,78)ALTH,BTH,HT
78
F0RMAT(1X/,T5,'R00M DIMENSIONS:',T25,'LENGTH = '.F6.2,
& T45,'BREADTH = *,F6.2,T65,'HEIGHT = *,F6.2)
C
WRITE (6,66)TOUT - 460.DO
66
FORMAT (1X/,T5,'OUTSIDE TEMPERATURE = ',F6.2,' DEG. F 1 )
C
WRITE (6,1)AM1,EFF
1
FORMAT (IX,/,T5,'METABOLIC RATE PER UNIT DUBOIS AREA = ',
&F5.1,' KCAL/HR.(SQ.M)*,10X,'EFFICIENCY= ',F4.2)
C
WRITE (6,2)AICL,FCL
2
FORMAT (IX,/,T5,'AICL = ',F4.1,' CLO',12X,'FCL = ',F5.2)
C
WRITE (6,3)V
3
FORMAT (1X,/,T5,'V
= ',F6.2,' M/S')
C
WRITE (6,41)RH
41
FORMAT (1X,/,T5,'R.H. = \F4.2)
C
C
WRITE (6,5)P
5
FORMAT (IX,/,T5,'NUMBER OF PERSONS =',F4.1)
C
WRITE(6,921) RATIO
921 FORMAT(1X/,T5,'RATIO, OF RADIATION AREA TO DUBOIS AREA = ',E15.8)
C
WRITE (6,8)UQ2L
8
FORMAT (IX,/,T5,'SENSIBLE HEAT (LIGHTS) BTU/HR
=',E15.8)
C
WRITE (6,6)CFM,ACH
6
FORMAT (IX,/,T5,'SUPPLY AIR CFM PER SQ.FT = ',E15.8,10X,
&'TOTAL INFILTRATION AIR CHANGES PER HOUR = *,E15.8)
C
WRITE (6,1003)HREF,SL0PE
1003
FORMAT(IX,/,T5,'USING A GRADIENT FOR THE TEMPERATURE OF AIR',
&' AT DIFFERENT HEIGHTS :*,/,T5,'REFERENCE HEIGHT IN FT = ',F6.2,
& 5X,'SLOPE (DEG. F PER FT) = ',F6.2 )
C
WRITE(6,211)(K3,K3=1,6)
C
WRITE(6,21) (U(K3),K3=1,6)
C
WRITE(6,22) (HIIN(K3),K3=1,6)
C
WRITE(6,235) (EPSI(K3),K3=1,6)
C
WRITE(6,609) (FP(K3),K3=1,6)
211 FORMAT(IX,//,T5,'SURFACE (I) ',2X,6(I2,14X) )
21
F0RMAT(1X,//,T5,'U(I)
',2X,6(E15.8,2X) )
22
F0RMAT(1X,//,T5,'HI(I) ',2X,6(E15.8,2X) )
23
F0RMAT(1X,//,T5,'CI(I). ' ,2X,6(E15.8,2X) )
235 F0RMAT(1X,//,T5,'EPSI(I)',2X,6(E15.8,2X) )
609 F0RMAT(1X,//,T5,'FP(I) *,2X,6(E15.8,2X) )
C
C
C
C
C
C
WRITE (6,31)N,NSIG,ITMAX
C
C
C
WRITE(6,123)
C
WRITE(6,123)
C-5
C
WRITE(6,1022)
1022 F0RMAT(1H1,/)
WRITE(6,*) TITLE
WRITE(6,123)
WRITE (6,*)*
CEILING PANELS
WRITE(6,123)
WRITE (6,*)'
HEATED FLOOR
WRITE(6,123)
WRITE (6,*)'
COOLING
WRITE(6,123)
C CALCULATING CI FROM GIVEN U AND STANDARD HI
C
DO 51 Kl=l,6
CI(K1)= l/( 1/U(K1) -1/HIIN(K1) )
51
CONTINUE
C
C
C
C
INITIALISING THE UNKNOWNS ..
DO 11 Jl=l,10
11
X(J1)=0.0
X(l)= XIN
C TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION INITIALLY GIVEN TO THE IMSL
DO 20 11=2,10
X(I1)=X(I1-1)+1.D0
20
CONTINUE
C
C
C
C
C FOR THE PANELS
C
WRITE(6,123)
? =
', CP
? =
*, HF
? =
', COOL
SUBROUTINE IS:
C
TEMP(6)='CEILING PANEL
TEMP'
TEMP(2)='REST OF CEILING TEMP '
C TEMP(6) IS SUBSTITUTED BY SUPPLY AIR TEMP. FOR .NOT.(CP)
IF(HF) THEN
TEMP(1)='CEILING
TEMP '
TEMP(2)='REST OF FLOOR
TEMP '
TEMP(6)='HEATED FLOOR
TEMP '
ENDIF
C
ITERP = 1
C
IF (CP) THEN
X(10) = XPREF
ENDIF
C
C THIS IS NOT USED RIGHT NOW, PANEL CONDUCTION BEING EXCLUDED FROM THE
C ANALYSIS .
C
IF(CP) THEN,
C
CIP = l/( 1/UP -1/HIP )
C
ENDIF
C
WRITE(6,781) XPREF,XPREF-460.DO
C-6
781
FORMAT( 1X/.T5,'PANEL TEMPERATURE DESIRED = ', F7.2,

&' BEG. R
OR
',F7.2,* DEC F*)
WRITE(6,782)PTOL,MAXITP
782
FORMAT(1X/.T5,'PARAMETERS FOR PANEL TEMPERATURE',
&' ITERATION :',/,T45,'TOLERANCE = ',E15.8,
&//,T45,'MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ITERATIONS = ',15 )
G
WRITE(6,174) NCP
174 FORMAT(1X/,T5,'TOTAL NUMBER OF CEILING PANELS = ',13 )
WRITE(6,1023) NPAL
1023 FORMAT(1X/,T5,'NUMBER OF PANELS IN A LENGTHWISE ROW = ',13 )
WRITE(6,811)EPSIP
C605 FORMAT(1X/,T5,'OVERALL U FACTOR (UP)
= *,E15.8,//,
C
& T5,
'STD. CONVECTION COEFF.(HIP) = ',E15.8,//,
C
& T5,
'EMISSIVITY
(EPSIP) = ',F6.3,/)
811
FORMAT (//,T5,'EMISSIVITY OF PANELS (EPSIP) = ',F6.3,/)
WRITE(6,1511)XMULT
1511
FORMAT (//,T5,'MULTIPLIER FOR CONVECTION ,XMULT = ',F6.3,/)
C
C
WRITE(6,175)
175 FORMAT(1X/,T5,'PANEL CONFIGURATION :',//,T15,'PANEL NUMBER'
&T30,'COORDINATES OF CENTER',T75,'PANEL DIMENSIONS (INITIAL)f,
&/.T30 'X (ALONG LENGTH) ',
& T50, Y (ALONG BREADTH) ',T75,'LENGTH',T90,'BREADTH')
C
C
C
INITIALISING THE PANEL GEOMETRY AND DIMENSIONS
C
DO 3501 IPAN = 11, NCP+10
XCP(IPAN) = XCPIN(IPAN)
YCP(IPAN) = YCPIN(IPAN)
ALCP(IPAN) = ALCPIN(IPAN)
BCP(IPAN) = BCPIN(IPAN)
3501
CONTINUE
C
C
C
C
DO 165 J =11,NCP+10
WRITE(6,176)J,XCP(J),YCP(J),ALCP(J),BCP(J)
176
FORMAT(1X/,T20,I3,T30,F6.2,T50,F6.2,T75,F6.2,T90,F6.2,//)
165
CONTINUE
C
CALL SHAPE(ALTH,BTH,HT,FS)
C
C
C THE GOTO STATEMENT LEADS TO THE FOLLOWING 777
777
CONTINUE
TALCP = 0.D0
DO 1019 J = 11, NPAL + 10
1019
TALCP = TALCP + ALCP(J)
UALTH = ALTH/ NPAL
C
CALL SHCP(ALTH,BTH,HT,FS,NCP,XCP,YCP,ALCP,BCP,FSCP)
C
C RESULTS ARE PRINTED AFTER THE XREF TEMP IS CONVERGED TO.L
C
ELSE
C-7
I
CALL SHAPE(ALTH,BTH,HT.FS)
C SHOULD LATER TRY TO PASS FS THROU1 THE SUBROUTINE..RATHER THAN
C THROU* THE COMMON
WRITE (6,403) (K ,K=1,6)
403
FORMAT (1H1,/,T35,'WALL-TO-WALL SHAPE FACTORS',5X,
& 'WITHOUT CEILING PANELS ',//,T15,6(I3,9X) )
C
DO 404 1=1,6
WRITE (6,405)1,(FS(I,K) ,K=1,6)
405
FORMAT (1X/,T5,I3,T15,6(E10.4,2X) )
404
CONTINUE
C
ENDIF
,__1_^^__1_^1_I_1__J_1_1^^
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
606
CONTINUE
-
C INITIALISING THE UNKNOWNS ..
C
DO 11 Jl=l,10
Cll
X(J1)=0.0
C
X(l)= XIN
C ABOVE IS NEEDED BECAUSE THIS LOOP IS EXECUTED MANY TIMES.
C TEMPERATURE DISTRIBUTION INITIALLY GIVEN TO THE IMSL SUBROUTINE IS:
C
DO 20 11=2,10
C
X(I1)=X(I1-1)+1.D0
C20
CONTINUE
C
IF (CP) THEN
C
X(10) = XPREF
C
ENDIF
C
C
C
C
C
C
WRITE(6,123)
C
C***A*****A*S0LOTI0N OF THE NON- LINEAR EQUATIONS*********^^^
C
CALL ZSPOW (FCN,NSIG,N,ITMAX,PAR,X,FNORM,WK,IER)
C TO WRITE OUT THE F AT CONVERGENCE OF EACH EQUATION

CALL FCN(X,F,N,PAR)
C IER IS WRITTEN LATER ON
C
C
WRITE(6,123)
C
WRITE(6,123)
C
IF(ITERP.EQ.l) WRITE(6,*) 'TEMP. DISN- AFTER FIRST ITERATION',
C
& (X(JK),JK=1,10)
C
C
WRITE(6,123)
C
WRITE(6,123)
C-8
/
/
C
C
C
WRITE(6,123)
IF(IER.EQ.130 .OR. IER.EQ. 131) THEN
WRITE(6,*)'IER = 129 : NUMBER OF CALLS TO FCN HAS EXCEEDED*,
& ' ITMAX*(N+1);MAY TRY NEW GUESS*
WRITE(6,*)'IER = 130 : CANNOT GET ACCURACY (NSIG) REQUIRED *
WRITE(6,*)*IER = 131 : MAY TRY NEW GUESS,ITERATION IS NOT',
& ' MAKING GOOD PROGRESS'
c #mmmmm#
mmmmmmm
AN ABRUPT STOP
GO TO 999
ENDIF
C
IF (CP) THEN
IF ( DABS(X(10)-XPREF) .GT. PTOL .AND. ITERP.LE. MAXITP) THEN
C
WRITE(6,*)* X(10) AT ',ITERP,' = *,X(10)
DO 778 J = ll.NCP +10
IF(COOL) THEN
C THIS IS FOR PANEL COOLING .INCREASE AREA IF COOLER
THAN REFERENCE
ALCP(J) = ALCP(J)* XPREF/X(10)
C
WRITE(6,*),ALCP(',J,' ) AT ',ITERP,' = \ALCP(J)
ELSE
C THIS IS FOR PANEL HEATING, INCREASE AREA IF HOTTER
THAN REFERENCE
ALCP(J) = ALCP(J)* X(10)/XPREF .
C
WRITE(6,*)'ALCP(,,J,' ) AT ',ITERP,' = ',ALCP(J)
ENDIF
778
CONTINUE
ITERP = ITERP + 1
GO TO 777
ELSE
C
IF(ITERP.GT.MAXITP) THEN
WRITE(6,*)' NO CONVERGENCE IN',MAXITP,' ITERATIONS'
ELSE
C
WRITE(6,*)' CONVERGENCE IS OBTAINED AFTER ',ITERP,
C
&' ITERATIONS'
ENDIF
C
ENDIF
C
C
C =========================^^
c
C
C
WRITE(6,123)
WRITE (6,234)
WRITE (6,88)
88
FORMAT (1H1,T35,'OUTPUT DATA ',/)
WRITE (6,234)
WRITE(6,123)
OF PANEL CASE,
C***** PRINTING OUT RESULTS
WRITE(6,*) ' ERROR PARAMETER OF IMSL ROUTINE,IER = ',IER
WRITE(6,123)
WRITE(6,1021)
1021 FORMAT(1X/,T5,'PANEL CONFIGURATION :',//,T15,'PANEL NUMBER',
&T30,'COORDINATES OF CENTER',T75,'PANEL DIMENSIONS (FINAL) ',
&/.T30 'X (ALONG LENGTH) *,
& T50,fY (ALONG BREADTH) ',T75,'LENGTH',T90,'BREADTH')
DO 786 J =11,NCP+10
786
CONTINUE
C-9
WRITE (6,785) PAREA

F0RMAT(1X///,T5,'TOTAL PANEL AREA =*,F10.2)
IF (ALCP(ll) .GE. UALTH .OR. TALCP.GE.ALTH) THEN
WRITE(6,234)
WRITE(6,1018)
1018 F0RMAT(1X///,T5,' COMPUTED LENGTH OF PANELS EXCEEDS ',
&'THE LENGTH OF THE ROOM*,/,T5,'CHOOSE A GREATER VALUE OF',
&' PANEL WIDTH ,(BCP), INITIALLY')
WRITE(6,234)
C$$$$$$$$$$$
AN ABRUPT STOP $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
C
GO TO 999
785
C?$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
ENDIF
WRITE(6,811)EPSIP
WRITE(6,1511)XMULT
WRITE(6.812)HIP
FORMAT (T5,'CONVECTION COEFF. USED FOR PANELS = ',E15.8)
812
C
C
C
C PRAREA IS NOW AVAILABLE THROUGH THE CALL SUB.
WRITE(6,207) PRAREA
207 FORMAT(1X/,T5,'REMAINING CEILING AREA.PRAREA, SQFT
192
194
193
195
199
198
413
412
201
C
411
WRITE (6,192) (K ,K=1,6)

FORMAT (1H1,/,T35,'WALL-TO-WALL SHAPE FACTORS (FSCP) ',
&//,T15,6(I3,9X) )
DO 193 1=1,6
WRITE (6,194)I,(FSCP(I,K) ,K=1,6)
FORMAT (1X/,T5,I3,T15,6(E10.4,2X) )
CONTINUE
WRITE(6,195)
FORMAT (1X//,T5,'PANEL-TO-WALL SHAPE FACTORS (FSCP) ',/)
DO 198 J = 11,NCP+10
WRITE(6,199) (J,K,FSCP(J,K), K=l,6)
F0RMAT(1X/,(T5,'FSCP(P,,I3,I3,') = ',E10.4,/) )
CONTINUE
WRITE(6,413)
FORMAT (1X//,T5,'WALL-TO-PANEL SHAPE FACTORS (FSCP) ',/)
DO 201 K = 1,6
WRITE(6,412) (K,J,FSCP(K,J), J=11,NCP+10 )
FORMAT(1X/,(T5,*FSCP(',13,' ,P',I3,') = \E10.4,/) )
CONTINUE
WRITE (6,411) (K ,K=1,6)
FORMAT (1X/,T35,'WALL-TO-WALL SHAPE FACTORS *,5X,
& 'WITHOUT CEILING PANELS ',//,T15,6(I3,9X) )
C
213
212
C
C
=',F10.2)
DO 212 1=1,6
WRITE (6,213)1,(FS(I,K) ,K=1,6)
FORMAT (1X/,T5,I3,T15,6(E10.4,2X) )
CONTINUE
ENDIF
C THIS IS THE END OF THE IF(CP)
C
C
CALCULATING OPERATIVE TEMPERATURE AND ERF
C
C-10
C
C
RATIO IS READ IN.

REFER ASHRAE(F)1985 , P8.4 (THE FOLLOWING ARE IN SI UNITS.
SIGSI = 5.67D-8
XCOMF
=
( XCEL(8) + XCEL(9) )/2.D0
HRSI
= 4.DO* SIGSI*RATIO*(273.D0 + XC0MF)**3.D0
HCSI
= 8.5D0* (V**0.5D0)
TOCEL = (HRSI*XCEL(9) + HCSI*XCEL(8) )/(HRSI+HCSI)
TOF
= TOCEL*1.8D0 + 32.DO
ERFSI
= HRSI*( XGEL(9) - XCEL(8) )
3.15 W/SQ.M
= 1 BTU/HR.SQ.FT
ERFFPS
= ERFSI/3.15D0
C
C
C CALCULATING AVERAGE UNHEATED SURFACE TEMPERATURE, AUST
TOTAT = O.DO
TRAREA = O.DO
DO 1004 I = 1,5
TOTAT = TOTAT + RAREA(I)* X(I)
TRAREA= TRAREA + RAREA(I)
1004
CONTINUE
C
IF(CP) THEN
TRAREA = TRAREA +.PRAREA
TOTAT = TOTAT + PRAREA*X(6)
ELSE
TRAREA = TRAREA + RAREA(6)
TOTAT = TOTAT + RAREA(6)*X(6)
ENDIF
C THIS WILL GIVE AUST IN RANKINE , AUSTC IN DEG. CELSIUS.
AUST = TOTAT / TRAREA
AUSTC = (AUST-492.D0)/1.8D0
C
C
C
C
WRITE (6,234)
C
WRITE(6,123)
C
WRITE(6,123)
C
WRITE(6,123)
C
WRITE(6,123)
C
WRITE (6,234)
C
C
C
C
WRITE(6,123)
C
C WRITING THE INITIAL TEMPERATURE CHOICE
WRITE(6,101)XIN -460.D0,FN0RM
101 F0RMAT(1H1,///,T5,'X(1) INITIALLY =',F6.2,T75,'FNORM = \E15.8)
WRITE(6,123)
WRITE(6,*)' (NOTE: TEMPERATURES ARE CALCULATED IN THE PROGRAM IN
&DEG. RANKINE ) '
WRITE(6,123)
C THE TEMPERATURES ON OUTPUT
C
TEMPS. 1 TO 4
DO 10 J=l,4
WRITE(6,100)J,J, X(J)-460.D0,XCEL(J),J,F(J)
100
FORMAT (IX,T5,'X(',12. ')=*,T15,'TEMP OF WALL1,I2,T40,'=',
& E15.8,3X,',(,,F6.2,1X, C ) * ,5X, 'F(' ,12, *) =',
& T88,E15.8,/)
10 CONTINUE
C
AND TEMPS. 5 TO 10
C-ll
DO 13 J5=5,10
WRITE(6,206)J5.TEMP(J5-4), X(J5)-460.D0,XCEL(J5),J5,F(J5)
206
FORMAT (1X,T5, X(',12. ') =',T15,A21,T40,'=',
&
E15.8,3X,*(',F6.2,1X, C )',5X,'F(*,12,') =',
&
T88,E15.8,/)
13
CONTINUE
C
WRITE(6,123)
WRITE(6,922) TOCEL.TOF
WRITE(6,923) ERFSI3ERFFPS
922
FORMAT(1X/,T5,'OPERATIVE TEMPERATURE : TOCEL = ',E15.8,
& ' DEG. C',15X,'T0F= ',15.8,' DEG. F')
923
FORMATQX/,T5,'EFFECTIVE RADIANT FIELD .ERFSI = ',E15.8,
& * W/SQ.M *,15X,*ERFFPS = ',E15.8,' BTU/HR.SQFT.*)
C
WRITE(6,1005) AUSTC,AUST-460.D0
1005
FORMAT(1X//,T5,'AVERAGE UNHEATED SURFACE TEMPERATURE, AUST :
& * = \E15.8,' DEG. C.'.ISX.EIS.S,' DEGF.')
C
C
C
C
C
C
WRITE(6,902) QNET1
902
FORMAT(1H1,/,T5,'QNET1 = Ql +Q2 -Q3 +Q4
= ',E15.8)
WRITE(6,903) QNETP2
903
FORMAT(1X//.T5,'QNETP2 = Ql +Q2 -Q3 -QP5
= \E15.8)
WRITE(6,904) QNET3
904
FORMAT(1X//,T5,'QNET3 = Ql +Q2 -Q3 -Q6
=
',E15.8)
WRITE(6,907) Q7 + QSTD3
907
F0RMAT(1X//,T5,'STD.Q-DESIGN = Q7 +QSTD3
=
'.E15.8)
WRITE(6,905) Q6 +QACT3
905
F0RMAT(1X//,T5,*Q-DESIGN-0VERALL = Q6 +QACT3
=
\E15.8)
PDIFF1 = -((Q7 + QSTD3) - (Q6 + QACT3))*10O.D0/(Q7+QSTD3)
WRITE(6,1006) PDIFF1
1006
FORMAT(1X//,T5,*PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STD.Q-DESIGN*,
& ' AND Q-DESIGN-OVERALL =
',/,T5,
& * PDIFF1 = -((Q7 + QSTD3) - (Q6 + QACT3) )*100.D0/(Q7+QSTD3)',
& '=
',F7.2,' %',/)
WRITE(6,1513) Q5 + QACT3
1513
F0RMAT(1X//,T5,'Q-DESIGN-C0ND
= Q5 + QACT3
=
*,E15.8)
C CALCULATING % LOAD OF DESIGN
PDIFF2 = -((Q7 + QSTD3) - (Q5 + QACT3) )*100.D0/(Q7+QSTD3)
1514
FORMAT(1X//,T5,*PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STD.Q-DESIGN',
& ' AND Q-DESIGN-COND1
=
',/,T5,
& ' PDIFF2 = -((Q7 + QSTD3) - (Q5 +QACT3) )*100.D0/(Q7+QSTD3)',
& '=
',F7.2,' %',/)
WRITE(6,906) Q5 + Q3
906
F0RMAT(1X//,T5,'Q-DESIGN-C0ND
= Q5 + Q3
=
',E15.8)
C CALCULATING % LOAD OF DESIGN
PDIFF3 = -((Q7 + QSTD3) - (Q5 + Q3) )*100.D0/(Q7+QSTD3)
1031
F0RMAT(1X//,T5,'PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STD.Q-DESIGN',
& ' AND Q-DESIGN-C0ND2
=
\/,T5,
& ' PDIFF3 =, -((Q7 + QSTD3) - (Q5 + Q3) )*100.D0/(Q7+QSTD3)',
& '=
',F7.2,' %',/)
WRITE(6,908) Ql + Q2
908
FORMAT(1X//,T5,'QINPUT = Ql +Q2
=
'.E1S.8)
PDIFF4 = -((Q7 + QSTD3) - (Q1+Q2 ) )*100.D0/(Q7+QSTD3)
C-12
1032
FORMAT(1X//,T5,'PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STD.Q-BESIGN *,
& ' AND Q-INPUT= Q1+ Q2 =
',/,T5,
& ' PDIFF4 = -((Q7 + QSTD3) - (Ql + Q2) )*100.D0/(Q7+QSTD3)',
& '=
'.F7.2,' %',/)
IF(CP) THEN
WRITE(6,806)QCVP,QRP
806
FORMAT(1X//.T5,'CONVECTION FROM PANELS TO ROOM ,QCVP = ',
& E15.8,//,T5,'RADIATION FROM PANELS TO ROOM.QRP = ',E15.8)
WRITE(6,1512)100.DO*QRP/(Q1+Q2)
1512
F0RMAT(1X//,T5,'PERCENTAGE RADIATION = 100* QRP/(Q1+Q2) = ',
&
F7.2,' % ' )
WRITE(6,1033) PAREA*100.D0/(RAREA(6))
1033
FORMAT(1X//.T5,'PERCENTAGE OF CEILING COVERED WITH PANELS*,
&
809
&
&
1034
&
1035
&
1036
&
1037
&
&
1038
&
&
' =
' T**7 0 ' *Y ' ^
WRITE(6,809)Q1/PAREA , X(10)-460.D0
F0RMAT(1X//,T5,'HEAT OUTPUT BY PANELS DOWNWARDS, PER UNIT',
' AREA OF PANELS,Ql/PAREA
= ',F10.2,'
BTU/HR.SQFT.' ,/,T5,
'
FOR PANELS AT ',F7.2,' DEG.F ')
WRITE(6,1034)Q1/RAREA(6)
FORMAT(1X//.T5,'HEAT OUTPUT BY PANELS DOWNWARDS, PER UNIT',
' AREA OF WALL.6,Q1/RAREA(6) = '.F10.2,'
BTU/HR.SQFT.')
PARM1 = Q1/(PAREA*(X(10)-X(8) ))
WRITE(6,1035) PARM1
FORMAT(lX//.T5,'QPANEL/( PAREA*(X(10)-X(8) ))
= ',
T55,'PARM1 = *,E15.8)
PARM2 = Q1/(RAREA(6)*(X(10)-X(8) ))
WRITE(6,1036) PARM2
FORMAT(1X//.T5,'QPANEL/(RAREA(6)*(X(10)-X(8) )) = *,
T55,'PARM2 = f,E15.8)
SIGMAR = 0.1714D-8
PARM3 = Ql/( PAREA*(X(10)-X(8) )*(XC10)**4-AUST**4)*SIGMAR)
WRITE(6,1037) PARM3
FORMAT(1X//.T5,
' QPANEL/( PAREA*(X(10)-X(8) )*(X(10)**4-AUST**4)*SIGMAR ) ' ,
T65,'PARM3 = ',E15.8)
PARM4 = Q1/(RAREA(6)*(X(10)-X(8) )*(X(10)**4-AUST**4)*SIGMAR)
WRITE(6,1038) PARM4
FORMAT(1X//,T5,
' QPANEL/(RAREA(6)*(X(10)-X(8) )*(X(10)**4-AUST**4)*SIGMAR ) ' ,
T65,'PARM4 = ',E15.8)
C
C
C-
ENDIF
C
WRITE (6,202) Q1,Q2,Q3
FORMAT (IX ,/,T5,
&'Q1= NET HEAT INPUT TO THE ROOM BY SUPPLY AIR OR PANELS',
& T65,'=',E15.8,//,
&T5,'Q2= HEAT INPUT BY PEOPLE AND LIGHTS',T65,'=',E15.8,//,T5,
&'Q3= ACTUAL INFILTRATION LOSS = 1.08*CFM*(XINF-TOUT)',
&T75,'=',E15.8)
WRITE (6,1515) QACT3
1515
FORMAT (1X,/,T5,
&'QACT3 = INFILTRATION LOSS (NO GRAD)= 1.08*CFM*(TA-TOUT)',
& T75,'=',E15.8)
WRITE (6,911) QSTD3
911
FORMAT (1X,/,T5,
&'QSTD3 = STANDARD INFILTRATION LOSS = 1.08*CFM*(75-TOUT)',
202
C-13
801
912
913
914
915
& T75,'=\E15.8)
WRITE (6,801) Q4
FORMAT(1X//.T5,'BASED ON TOTAL AREAS,',/,T5,
&'Q4= TOTAL HEAT LOST FROM SURFACES TO AIR BY CONVECTION1,
&T65,'=',E15.8)
WRITE (6,912) Q5
F0RMAT(//,T5,'Q5 = ',
&'HEAT LOST THROUGH SURFACES TO THE OUTSIDE BY CONDUCTION',
& T65,'=',E15.8)
WRITE (6,913) Q6
F0RMAT(//,T5,'Q6 = ',
&'OVERALL ROOM HEAT LOSS = SUM OF U*A*(X(8)-T0UT)',
& T65,'=',E15.8)
WRITE (6,914) Q7
FORMAT(//,T5,'Q7 = ',
&*STD.OVERALL ROOM HEAT LOSS = SUM OF U*A*(75-T0UT)',
& T65,'=',E15.8)
WRITE (6,915) Q8
FORMAT(//,T5,'Q8 = ',
&'SUM OF NET OUTWARD RADIATION FROM THE SURFACES',
& T65,'=*,E15.8)
C
WRITE(6,123)
"'
WRITE(6,123)
WRITE(6,25) (K4,QR(K4),QCV(K4),QCD(K4),K4=1,6)
25
FORMAT(1H1,/,T20,'PER UNIT AREA HEAT FLOW ',
& //,T18 'A POSITIVE VALUE DENOTES A LOSS FROM THE SURFACE',
&//,T15,fQR(I)',T35,*QCV(I)',T55,,QCD(I)',/,(/,T2,Il,T8,E15.8,
& T28,E15.8,T48,E15.8) )
WRITE(6,802)
802 FORMAT(IX,//,T20,'HEAT FLOW THROUGH THE ROOM SURFACES(BTU/HR)',
& //,T18.'A POSITIVE VALUE DENOTES A LOSS FROM THE SURFACE',
&//.T15,fQRT',T35,'QCVT*,T55,'QCDT')
DO 804 IR = 1,6
QRT = QR(IR)*RAREA(IR)
QCVT = QCV(IR)*RAREA(IR)
QCDT = QCD(IR)*RAREA(IR)
IF(CP .AND. IR.EQ.6) THEN
QRT = QR(IR)*PRAREA
QCVT = QCV(IR)*PRAREA
QCDT = QCD(IR)*PRAREA
ENDIF
C
WRITE(6,803) IR,QRT,QCVT,QCDT
803 F0RMAT(1X//,T2,I1,T8,3(E15.8,5X) )
804 CONTINUE
WRITE(6,125) TERM6,TERM7,ALHS
125 F0RMAT(1X///,T5,'RADIATION EXCHANGE BY PERSON,TERM6',T45,
&'=*,E19.12,//,T5,,CONVECTIVE EXCHANGE,TERM7',T45,'=',E19.12,//,T5,
&'ALHS (SHOULD BE = TERM6+TERM7)',T45,'=',E19.12,T70,
&'= CONDUCTION THROUGH THE CLOTHING')
C NEW PAGE
WRITE (6,123)
C PRINTING THE INPUT DATA AS A CHECK AT THE END OF THE PROGRAM
WRITE (6,123)
C
WRITE (6,234)
WRITE(6,100?)
1007 FORMAT(1H1.T35,'ECHO OF INPUT DATA (AS A CHECK)',/)
WRITE (6,234)
C-14
WRITE(6,123)
C
C
31
24
WRITE (6,31)N,NSIG,ITMAX
FORMAT(IX,//,T5,'NUMBER OF EQUATIONS* , T35 ,'N = ', 12,
&//T5,'NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT DIGITS' T35,'NSIG = ',12,
&//T5,'MAX. NO. OF ITERATIONS', T35, ITMAX = ',14)
WRITE(6,78)ALTH,BTH,HT
WRITE (6,66)T0UT - 460.DO
WRITE (6,1)AM1,EFF
WRITE (6,24)AICL.FCL,HC
FORMAT (1X,/,T5 'AICL =',F5.2,' CLO',12X,'FCL =',F5.2,10X,
&'HC =',E15.8, <KCAL/HR.(SQ.M).C')
WRITE (6,3)V
WRITE (6,4)RH,PA
FORMAT(1X/,T5,'RELATIVE HUMIDITY, RH = ',F5.3,10X,
&'PA (MM HG) = ',E15.8)
WRITE (6,5)P
WRITE(6,921) RATIO
IF( P.EQ.O.DO) THEN
WRITE(6,7)Q2P
ELSE
WRITE (6,7)Q2P/P
ENDIF
FORMAT (IX,/,T5,'SENSIBLE HEAT (PEOPLE) BTU/HR/PERSON =',E15.8)
WRITE (6,8)Q2L
WRITE (6,6)CFM,ACH
WRITE (6,1003)HREF,SLOPE
WRITE(6,211)(K3,K3=1,6)
WRITE(6,21) (U(K3),K3=1,6)
WRITE(6,22) (HI(K3),K3=1,6)
THE CI.S HAVE BEEN CALCULATED BY THE PROGRAM..
WRITE(6,23) (CI(K3),K3=1,6)
WRITE(6,235) (EPSI(K3),K3=1,6)
WRITE(6,609) (FP(K3),K3=1,6)
C
C
C
1520
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
FOR THIS 1 CASE

WRITE(6,1520)
FORMAT( 1H1,/)
IF(CP) THEN
C
C
2501
C
1521
C
WRITE(6,2501)XPREF-460.D0
FORMAT(T25,*PANEL TEMPERATURE',T50 ,'= ',F6.1)
WRITE (6,1521) PAREA
F0RMAT(1X//,T5,'T0TAL PANEL AREA ',T50,'= ', F10.1,'
SQ.FT ')
ENDIF
C
C
C
1522
C
1523
WRITE(6,1522) Q7 + QSTD3
FORMAT(1X//,T5,'ASHRAE DESIGN HEAT LOSS',T50,'= ',F10.1)
F0RMAT(1X//,T5,'ACTUAL DESIGN HEAT LOSS',T50,'= '.F10.1)
C-15
C
1524
C
1525
C
1526
C
1527
C
1528
C
1529
C
1530
C
FORMAT(lX//,T5,'PDIFFl',T60,,= *,F7.2,' %'J)
FORMAT(1X//,T5,'C0NDUC.DESIGN HEAT LOSS l',T50,'= ',F10.1)
FORMAT(1X//,T5,'PDIFF2',T60,,= ',F7.2,' %*,/)
WRITE(6,1527) Q5 +Q3
FORMAT(1X//,T5,'C0NDUC.DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2',T50,'= *,F10.1)
FORMAT(1X//.T5,'PDIFF3',T60, * = *,F7.2,' %',/)
WRITE(6,1529) Ql +Q2
F0RMAT(1X//,T5,'ACTUAL HEAT INPUT
',T50,*= ',F10.1)
FORMAT(1X//,T5,'PDIFF4',T60,'= ',F7.2,' %',/)
IF(CP) THEN
C
C
1531
C
1532
WRITE(6,1531)100.D0*QRP/(Q1+Q2)
FORMAT(1X//,T5,*PERCENTAGE RADIATION ',T50,'= \F7.2,' %')
WRITE(6,1532) PAREA*100.D0/(RAREA(6))
FORMAT(1X//.T5,'PERCENT CEILING COVERED BY PANELS',
& T60,'= ',F7.2,' % ')
C
WRITE(6,1533)Q1/PAREA
1533
FORMAT(1X//,T5,'HEAT OUTPUT PER UNIT AREA',T50,'= ',F10.2 )
C
WRITE(6,1534) PARM1
1534
FORMAT(1X//,T5,'PARAMETER l',T50,'= ',F9.5)
C
WRITE(6,1535) PARM3
1535
FORMAT(1X//,T5,*PARAMETER 3',T50,'= ',F10.6)
C
ENDIF
C
IF(HF) THEN
CONTINUE
ELSE
C
WRITE(6,1536) X(5)-460.D0
1536
FORMATQX//,T5,'FLOOR TEMPERATURE',T50,' = ',F5.1 )
ENDIF
C
C
WRITE(6,1537) X(8)-460.D0
1537
F0RMAT(1X//,T5,'ROOM AIR TEMPERATURE',T50,*= ',F5.1 )
C
WRITE(6,1538) X(9)-460.D0
1538
FORMAT(1X//,T5,*MEAN RADIANT TEMPERATURE',T50,'= ',F5.1 )
C
WRITE(6,1539) TOF
1539
FORMATQX//,T5,'OPERATIVE TEMPERATURE' ,T50, '= ' ,F5.1 )
C
WRITE(6,1540) ERFFPS
1540
FORMAT(1X//,T5, EFF. RADIANT FIELD',T50,'= \F5.1 )
C
WRITE(6,1541) AUST-460.D0
1541
F0RMAT(1X//,T5,'A.U.S.T.',T50,'= *,F5.1 )
C
C
IF(CP) THEN
CONTINUE
ELSE
C
WRITE(6,1542) X(10)-460.D0
1542
F0RMATC1X//,T5,* SUPPLY AIR TEMPERATURE',T50,'= ',F5.1 )
ENDIF
C
C TRYING TO WRITE IN THE DESIRED FORMAT
C 0UT(25,25)
C ASDF
0UT(IVAR,1) = ACH
C-16
0UT(IVAR,2)
PAREA
0UT(IVAR,3)
Q7 + QSTD3
0UT(IVAR,4)
Q6 +QACT3
0UT(IVAR,5) PDIFF1
0UT(IVAR,6) Q5 +QACT3
0UTCIVAR,7)
PDIFF2
OUT(IVAR,8) Q5 +Q3
OUT(IVAR,9)
PDIFF3
OUT(IVAR,10) = Ql +Q2
OUT(IVAR,ll)= PDIFF4
OUT(IVAR,12)= 100.DO*QRP/(Q1+Q2)
OUT(IVAR113)= PAREA*100.DO/(RAREA(6))
IF(CP) THEN
0UT(IVAR,14)= Ql/PAREA
ENDIF
OUT(IVAR,15)= X(5)-460.D0
OUT(IVAR,16)= X(8)-460.D0
OUTCIVAR,17)= X(9)-460.D0
OUT(IVAR,18)= TOF
OUT(IVAR,19)= ERFFPS
OUT(IVAR,20)= AUST-460.D0
C
C
0UT(IVAR,21)= X(10)-460.D0
C
C
C
OUTl(IVAR,l)=
OUTl(IVAR,2)=
OUTl(IVAR,3)=
0UT1(IVAR,4)=
PARM1
PARM3
ALTH
BTH
C
C
C THIS IS THE END OF THE IVAR=1,NVAR LOOP
C
1550
CONTINUE
C
C
OUT(l,23) ,0UT(2,23) ETC HAVE CONSECUTIVE VALUES OF X(10)-460.
C
C ASDF FIRST LINE
POUT(
'INFILTRATION AC/H
POUTC
'PANEL AREA REQUIRED , SQ FT
POUT(
'ASHRAE DESIGN HEAT LOSS, BTU/HR
POUT(
'ACTUAL DESIGN HEAT LOSS, BTU/HR
POUT(
'PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
POUTC
'CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
POUTC
POUTC
'CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
POUTC
POUTCIO
'ACTUAL HEAT INPUT, BTU/HR
POUTC11
POUTC12
'PERCENTAGE RADIATION
POUTC13
'PERCENT CEILING COVERED BY PANELS
POUTC14
'HEAT OUTPUT PER UNIT PANEL AREA, BTU/HR.SQ FT
POUTC15
'FLOOR TEMPERATURE, DEG. F
POUTC16
'ROOM AIR TEMPERATURE, DEG. F
POUTC17
'MEAN RADIANT TEMPERATURE, DEG. F
POUTC18
'OPERATIVE TEMPERATURE, DEG. F
POUTC19
'EFFECTIVE RADIANT FIELD, BTU/HR. SQ FT
POUTC20
'A.U.S.T, DEG. F
C-17
P0UT(21) =
'SUPPLY AIR TEMPERATURE, DEG. F
POUTl(l)
P0UT1(2)
P0UT1(3)
P0UT1(4)
POUTl(5)
POUTl(6)
POUTl(7)
POUTl(8)
POUTl(9)
'PARAMETER 1, BTU/HR.SQ FT.F

'PARAMETER 3, DIMENSIONLESS
'NO GLASS IN ANY WALL
'ONE WALL, HALF GLASS
'ONE WALL, ALL GLASS
'ONE WALL, ALL GLASS-SECOND WALL, HALF GLASS
'TWO WALLS, ALL GLASS
'PANEL TEMPERATURE, DEG. F
"U-FACTOR CASE
c
c
c
C
C
C
C
C
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
REWRITING ONLY THE REQUIRED OUTPUT

WRITE(6,1520)
ABOVE GIVES NEW PAGE
2500
C
C
3523
C
WRITE(6,2500) TITLE
FORMAT(T1,'.CE *,A50,/)
WRITE (6,3523) P0UT1(9), (J,J=1,NVAR)
FORMAT(/,T2,A45,T50,7(I8,1X) )
c
c
WRITE (6,3511) POUT(l), (0UT(J,1),J=1,NVAR)
3511
FORMAT(/,T2,A45,T50,7(F8.1,1X) )
C
C THE FOLLOWING IS FOR PANEL HEATING
C
IF (CP) THEN
DO 3111 I = 2,20
WRITE (6,3120) POUT(I),(OUT(J,I),J=1,NVAR)
3120
FORMAT(/,T2,A45,T50,7(F8.1,1X) )
3111 CONTINUE
C
DO 3503 I = 1,2
WRITE(6,3502) POUTl(I), (0UT1(J,I),J=1,NVAR)
3502
F0RMAT(/,T2,A45,T50,7(F8.4,1X) )
3503
CONTINUE
ELSE
C
C
C THE FOLLOWING IS TO BE USED FOR CONVECTIVE HEATING
C
DO 5000 I = 3,11
WRITE (6,5001) POUT(I),(OUT(J,I),J=l,NVAR)
5001
F0RMAT(/,T2,A45,T50,7(F8.1,1X) )
5000 CONTINUE
DO 3550 I = 15,21
3551
FORMAT(/,T2,A45,T50,7(F8.1,1X) )
C
3550 CONTINUE
ENDIF
C
C THE FOLLOWING IS FOR THE GLASS
CASE
C
DO 3521 I = 1,5
C
WRITE(6,3522) I, POUTl(I+2)
C-18
3522
F0RMAT(/,T2,'CASE NUMBER ',12,': *, A45)
3521
CONTINUE
C
C
C
WRITING WITH DEVICE TYPE 8 SO AS TO GET AN OUTPUT IN A DIFFERENT FIL
C
C
WRITE(8,4014)
WRITE(8,4010)
WRITE(8,4011)
WRITE(8,4012)
WRITE(8,4013)
4014 FORMAT(T1,'.RF CANCEL')
4010 FORMAT(T1,'.LL 120')
4011 FORMAT(Tl.'.PN OFF')
4012 FORMAT(Tl.'.FO OFF')
4013 FORMAT(Tl,'.US l')
WRITE(8,2500) TITLE
C
C
C
WRITE (8,3511) POUT(l), (OUT(J.l),J=1,NVAR)
C
C
IF(CP) THEN
C
C THE FOLLOWING IS FOR PANEL HEATING
DO 4000 I = 2,20
4000 CONTINUE
C
C THE FOLLOWING IS FOR CONVECTIVE HEATING
DO 4002 I = 1,2
WRITE(8,3502) POUTl(I), (0UT1(J,I),J=1,NVAR)
4002
CONTINUE
C
ELSE
C
C
DO 5002 I = 3,11
WRITE (8,5001) POUT(I),(OUT(J,I),J=l,NVAR)
5002 CONTINUE
DO 5003 I = 15,21
WRITE (8,3551) POUT(I),(0UT(J,I),J=1,NVAR)
5003 CONTINUE
ENDIF
C
C
999 STOP
END
C
C
C
C
C*******
SUBROUTINE STARTS
*****fr&****ftifo^^^
C
SUBROUTINE FCN(X,F,N,PAR)
IMPLICIT REAL*8 (A-H,0-Z)
LOGICAL CP,COOL,HF
DIMENSION X(10),F(10),PAR(10)
COMMON /OUT/ TOUT
C-19
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
COMMON /CEL/ XCEL(ll)

COMMON /COMF/ AM1,EFF,AICL,FCL,HC,V,?A,RH
COMMON /AIR1/ P,CFM,AICFM,ACH,UQ2P,Q2P,UQ2L,Q2L
COMMON /Q/ Q1,Q2,QSTD3,QACT3,Q3,Q4,QP5,Q5,Q6,Q7,Q8
COMMON /QNET/ QNETl,QNETP2,QNET2,QNET3,OUA
COMMON /QP/ QCVP.QRP
COMMON /QI/ QR(6),QCV(6),QCD(6)
COMMON /U/ U(6),HI(6),CI(6),EPSI(6)
COMMON /UP/ UP,HIP,CIP,EPSIP,XMULT
COMMON /CONV/ HIUP.HIDOWN
COMMON /FSURF/ FS(6,6)
COMMON /FPEOP/ FP(6)
COMMON /GRAD/ HREF,SLOPE
COMMON /TERM/ TERM6,TERM7,ALHS
COMMON /DIMEN/ ALTH,BTH,HT
COMMON /PAN1/ CP,COOL,HF
COMMON /PAN2/ PRAREA,PAREA
COMMON /PAN3/ NCP
COMMON /PAN4/ FSCP(25,25)
COMMON /DIMP/ XCP(25),YCP(25),ALCP(25),BCP(25)
FSURF APPEARS IN MPROG. AND FCN
PAN1 APPEARS IN MPROG. AND FCN'
PAN2 APPEARS IN MPROG. AND FCN
CONVERTING RANKINE TEMP.S TO CELSIUS VALUES

DO 114 11= 1,N
114
XCEL(Il) = (X(I1) -492D0 )/1.8D0
I II I IIIIIIl II I11 II III
IF(CP) THEN
XPANEL = X(10)
ENDIF
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
IM IIII I IIIH IIIH I
TOTAL AREA OF PANELS,PAREA

AND REST OF CEILING AREA ,PRAREA ARE OBTAINED FROM
THE MAIN PROGRAM THROUGH THE COMMON STATEMENT.
CALCULATING THE RADIATIVE HEAT TRANSFER NET-GOING-OUT ...

FOR EG.
FS(1,5) IS USED AND NOT FS(5,1) BECAUSE
FS(1,5)* AREA(l) = FS(5,1)* AREA(5) AND EVERYTHING HERE IS PRORATED
TO THE AREA OF THE SURFACE EG. AREA(l)
SIGMA = 0.1714D-8
C
C
IF(CP) THEN
C FOR SURFACES 1 TO 6 (CEILING IS NOW OF AREA PRAREA) ,FSCP MATRIX
C IS USED INSTEAD OF FS.
DO 111 J6 = 1,6
QROUT = EPSI(J6) *SIGMA* (X(J6)**4)
QRIN =O.DO
C FROM OTHER WALLS,
DO 113 J7 = 1,6
QRIN = QRIN + EPSI(J7)* SIGMA* FSCP(J6,J7)* ( X(J7)**4)
C-20
I
113
CONTINUE
C FROM THE PANELS,
C FOR A SPECIAL CASE , TO MAKE THE PANELS RADIATE ONLY TO THE

C FLOOR, RADIATION TO THE WALLS IS MADE EQUAL TO ZERO
C
C IF THIS IS NOT DESIRED, MAKE STATEMENTS FROM "INFRARED STARTS" TO
C "INFRARED ENDS" AS COMMENT LINES.
C
C
C
DO 808 K = 11,NCP+10
C******** INFRARED STARTS*********
DO 6002 JJ = 1 , 4
FSCP(JJ,K)= O.DO
6002 CONTINUE
FSCP(5,K) = ( ALCP(K)*BCP(K) )/(ALTH*BTH)
C******** INFRARED ENDS **********
QRIN = QRIN + EPSIP*SIGMA* FSCP(J6,K)* (XPANEL**4)
808
CONTINUE
QR(J6) = QROUT -QRIN.
Ill
CONTINUE
C
C NOTE: THE HEAT BALANCE OF THE PORTION COVERED BY PANELS IS NOT
C CONSIDERED HERE . IT SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN THE ULTIMATE
C SOURCE OF HEAT IS EXAMINED.
C
C
ELSE
C I.E, IF NO PANELS
DO 603 J6 = 1,6
QROUT = EPSI(J6) *SIGMA* (X(J6)**4)
QRIN =0.D0
DO 604 31 = 1,6
QRIN = QRIN + EPSI(J7)* SIGMA* FS(J6,J7)* ( X(J7)**4 )
604
CONTINUE
QR(J6) = QROUT -QRIN
603
CONTINUE
C
ENDIF
C
C NOW COMPUTING THE CONVECTIVE AND CONDUCTIVE PARTS OF HEAT TRANSFER
C NET-GOING-OUT AND HENCE MAKING A HEAT BALANCE ..'
C
C
CONVECTION COEFFICIENTS
C
C FOR USE INSIDE THE PROGRAM, HI(5) & HI(6) MUST BE CHANGED TO
C VALUES NOT INCLUDING RADIATION
C
HIDOWN = 0.162D0 , STANDARD ASHRAE VALUE
C HIDOWN IS THE CONVECTION COEFF. WHEN THE HEAT FLOW IS VERTICALLY
C DOWNWARD .
C
HIUP = 0.712D0 .STANDARD ASHRAE VALUE
C HIUP IS FOR HEAT FLOW VERTICALLY UPWARD.
C
C
FOR THE CONVECTIVE CASE
C
C FOR THE FLOOR

IF( X(5).LT.X(8) ) THEN
HI(5) = HIDOWN
C-21
ELSE
HI(5) = HIUP
ENDIF
C FOR THE CEILING...
HI(6) = HIUP
ELSE
HI(6) = HIDOWN
ENDIF
C
C FOR THE WALLS
C
C HI BASED ON DELTA T ,BAUMAN*S CORRELATION
1 FT = 0.3048 M (EXACT)
C FOR WALLS 1,2,3 AND 4.
C NOTE : THIS CORRELATION NEEDS TEMP. DIFF. IN CELSIUS, H IN METRES,
CAND THE RESULTING HI IS IN W/M**2,C ( DIV BY 5.68 TO GET BTU/HR.SQ FT.F
C
DO 52 K2=l,4
HEI = HT*0.3048DO
HIBAU= 2.03D0*( DABS((XCEL(8)- XCEL(K2))/HEI) **0.22D0 )
HI(K2) = HIBAU/5.68D0
52
CONTINUE
C
C NOW TRYING THE CORRELATIONS GIVEN BY MIN AND SCHUTRUM ...
C FOR HEATED CEILING PANEL OR HEATED FLOOR HIP IS GIVEN JUST BEFORE USE.
C
C THE EQUIVALENT DIAMETER DE FOR THE CEILING OR THE FLOOR IS,
DE = 4.DO* RAREA(5)/ (2.D0*(ALTH+BTH) )
C
C
HEATED CEILING CASE
C
IF(CP) THEN
C
C THAT IS, IF THE PANELS ARE IN THE CEILING..
C X(5)= FLOOR
AND
X(6) = CEILING TEMPS.
C
C
UNHEATED CEILING PORTION ...
HI(6) = HIUP
ELSE
HI(6) = HIDOWN
ENDIF
C FLOOR
C
HI(5) = 0.041D0*( DABS( X(8)-X(5) )**0.25D0)/(DE**0.25D0)
C
C
TRYING ASH STD FOR THE FLOOR
C
HI(5) = HIDOWN
ELSE
HI(5) = HIUP
ENDIF
C
C
C WALLS
DO 950 IW = 1,4
CI I IMIIHI(IW) = 0.26D0* (DABS(X(IW)-X(8) )**0.32D0 )
HI(IW) = 0.29D0*( DABS(X(IW)-X(8) )**0.32D0 )/(HT**0.05D0)
950
CONTINUE
C
C THE ENDIF FOR THE IF (CP) FOLLOWS.
C-22
ENDIF
C
C
HEATED FLOOR
C
C
THAT IS, IF A HEATED FLOOR IS USED , ABOVE ARE TO BE CHANGED
C X(5) IS NOW THE CEILING TEMP & X(6) IS THAT OF THE FLOOR..
C
IF(HF) THEN
C
C CEILING
C***********HI(5) = 0.39* (DABS(X(8)-X(5) )**0.31DO )/(DE**0.08)
HI(5) = HIUP
ELSE
HI(5) = HIDOWN
ENDIF
C UNHEATED FLOOR PORTION
HI(6) = HIDOWN
ELSE
HI(6) = HIUP
ENDIF
C
C WALLS
"
DO 1200 IW = 1,4
CI I I I I IIHI(IW) = 0.26D0* (DABS(X(IW)-X(8) )**0.32D0 )
HI(IW) = 0.29D0*( DABS(X(IW)-X(8) )**0.32D0 )/(HT**0.05D0)
1200
CONTINUE
C
C THE ENDIF FOR THE IF (HF) FOLLOWS.
ENDIF
C
C
QCV(1)= HI(1)*( X(l)-X(8) )
QCD(1)= CI(1)*(X(1)-T0UT)
F(l)= QR(1) + QCV(l) +QCD(1)
C
QCV(2)= HI(2)*(X(2)-X(8))
QCD(2)= CI(2)*(X(2)-T0UT)
F(2)= QR(2) + QCV(2) +QCD(2)
C
QCV(3)= HI(3)* (X(3)-X(8))
QCD(3)= CI(3)*(X(3)-T0UT)
F(3)= QR(3) + QCV(3) +QCD(3)
C
QCV(4)= HI(4)* (X(4)-X(8))
QCD(4)= CI(4)*(X(4)-T0UT)
F(4)= QR(4) + QCV(4) +QCD(4)
C
C
QCV(5)= HI(5)* ( X(5) -X(8))
C
QCV(5)= HI(5)* ( X(5) - (X(8)-H*G) )

QCD(5)= CI(5)*(X(5)-T0UT)
F(5)= QR(5) + QCV(5) +QCD(5)
C
IF(CP) THEN
C I.E, WITH CEILING PANELS,
C QCV(6) IS NOW PER UNIT PRAREA
C-23
C**
C
C**
C
QCV(6) = HI(6)* ( X(6)-X(8) )

.
=+
QCV(6)= HI(6)*( X(6) -( X(8)+(8.D0-H)*G )
+
QCD6 = CI(6)*(X(6)-TOUT)
IF ( PRAREA .LT. 1.0D-4) THEN
QCD(6) = O.DO
X(6) = XPANEL
F(6) = O.DO
ELSE
QCD(6) = QCD6
F(6)= QR(6) + QCV(6) +QCD(6)
C NOTE:THIS HEAT BALANCE IS PER UNIT OF REDUCED CEILING, PRAREA
END IF
ELSE
C I.E, WITHOUT ANY CEILING PANELS,
QCV(6)= HI(6)*( X(6) -X(8) )
C QCV(6)= HI(6)*( X(6) -( X(8)+(8.D0-H)*G )
QCD(6)= CI(6)*(X(6)-TOUT)
F(6)= QR(6) + QCV(6) +QCD(6)
ENDIF
C
C
C
C
C
C THE COMFORT EQUATION ( TEMPS. ARE CONVERTED TO CELSIUS)
C THE FOLLOWING IS TO EVALUATE PA AT THE CURRENT AIR TEMP(R): X(8)
C 51.715 CONVERTS PSI TO MM HG
C8=-10440.4
C9=-ll.29466692
C10=-0.02700133
Cll=0.1289706D-4
C12=-0.2478068D-8
C13=6.5459673
C TO TAKE CARE OF NEGATIVE X(8)!M (DURING ITERATIONS),
IF(X(8).LT.1.E-50)THEN
ALNPWS = O.DO
ELSE
ALNPWS=C8/X(8) +C9 +C10*X(8) +C11*(X(8)**2) +C12*(X(8)**3)+
&
C13*DL0G(X(8))
ENDIF
PA=DEXP(ALNPWS) * 51.715D0* RH
C
C
TERM1= AM1*(1.D0-EFF)
TERM2= 0.35D0* ( 43.D0-0.061D0*AMl*(l.DO-EFF)-PA )
TERM3= 0.42D0*( AM1*(1.D0-EFF) -50.DO)
TERM4= 0.0023* AMI*(44.DO-PA)
TERM5= 0.0014DO*AM1*(34.DO- XCEL(8) )
C ALHS REPRESENTS THE NET CONDUCTION THROUGH THE CLOTHING
ALHS = TERM1 - TERM2 -TERM3 -TERM4 -TERM5
TERM6= 3.4D-8*FCL*( (XCEL(7) +273.D0)**4 - (XCEL(9)+273.D0)**4 )
C
C HCV IS THE CONV. COEFF. OF CLOTHING BASED ON VELOCITY, (FORCED CONV)
C HCTD, BASED ON TEMP. DIFF. FOR FREE -CONV.
C OBSERVE THE IF LOOP.., THE GREATER OF THE TWO VALUES IS USED
HCV = 10.4D0* DSQRT(V)
C-24
HCTD= 2.05*( (DABS(XCEL(7)-XCEL(8)) )**0.25D0 )

HC= HCTD
IF (HCV.GT.HC) THEN
HC= HCV
ENDIF
CC
CC
CC
CC
TERM7= FCL*HC*( XCEL(7)-XCEL(8) )
RHS = TERM6 +TERM7
TERM8= 0.032DO*AM1*(1.DO-EFF)
C
F(7)= 35.7D0- TERM8 -0.18*AICL*ALHS
F(8)= RHS- ALHS
C
- XCEL(7)
CALCULATION OF MEAN RADIANT TEMPERATURE (NEGLECTING REFLECTIONS),

IF (CP) THEN
C THIS DIVISION OF FP(6) IS QUITE APPROXIMATE.
FP6 = FP(6)*PRAREA/ (ALTH*BTH)
FPP = FP(6)*PAREA / (ALTH*BTH)
FPTOT = O.DO
DO 607 IP = 1,5
FPTOT = FPTOT + FP(IP)* (X(IP)**4)
607
CONTINUE
FPTOT = FPTOT + FP6*(X(6)**4) + FPP*(XPANEL**4)
F(9) = FPTOT - ( X(9)**4 )
ELSE
FPTOT = O.DO
DO 608 IP = 1,6
608
CONTINUE
F(9) = FPTOT - ( X(9)**4 )
ENDIF
C
C
C TO GET THE HEAT INPUT TO THE ROOM BY THE PANELS BY
C CONVECTION AND RADIATION, TO INCLUDE IN THE HEAT BALANCE OF THE ROOM
IF(CP) THEN
C FOR THE PANELS.IN THE CEILING
C
HIP = O.041D0*(DABS(X(8)-XPANEL)**0.25D0 )/(DE**0.25D0)
C
ENDIF
C
IF(HF) THEN
C FOR THE PANELS.IN THE FLOOR
C
HIP = 0.39* (DABS(X(8)-XPANEL)**0.31D0 )/(DE**0.08D0)
C
C*****HIP
= 0.31D0* ( DABS(X(8)-X(6) )**0.31D0 )
C :
HIP = HIUP
ENDIF
C
IF(CP) THEN
UQPOUT = EPSIP *SIGMA * (XPANEL**4)
QPOUT = UQPOUT*PAREA
C RADIATION OUTWARDS FROM ALL THE PANELS
QPIN =0.D0
C-25
HCTD= 2.05*( (DABS(XCEL(7)-XCEL(8)) )**0.25D0 )

HC= HCTD
IF (HCV.GT.HC) THEN
HC= HCV
ENDIF
CC
CC
CC
CC
TERM7= FCL*HC*( XCEL(7)-XCEL(8) )
RHS = TERM6 +TERM7
TERM8= 0.032D0*AM1*(1.D0-EFF)
C
F(7)= 35.7D0- TERM8 -0.18*AICL*ALHS
- XCEL(7)
F(8)= RHS- ALHS
___tJ_1_^_1_tJ_^J_1_1_UJ_^
C
CALCULATION OF MEAN RADIANT TEMPERATURE (NEGLECTING REFLECTIONS),

IF (CP) THEN
C THIS DIVISION OF FP(6) IS QUITE APPROXIMATE.
FP6 = FP(6)*PRAREA/ (ALTH*BTH)
FPP = FP(6)*PAREA / (ALTH*BTH)
FPTOT = 0.D0
DO 607 IP = 1,5
607
CONTINUE
FPTOT = FPTOT + FP6*(X(6)**4) + FPP*(XPANEL**4)
F(9) = FPTOT - ( X(9)**4 )
ELSE
FPTOT = 0.D0
DO 608 IP = 1,6
608
CONTINUE
F(9) = FPTOT - ( X(9)**4 )
ENDIF
C
C
C TO GET THE HEAT INPUT TO THE ROOM BY THE PANELS BY
C CONVECTION AND RADIATION, TO INCLUDE IN THE HEAT BALANCE OF THE ROOM
IF(CP) THEN
C FOR THE PANELS.IN THE CEILING
C
HIP = 0.041D0*(DABS(X(8)-XPANEL)**0.25D0 )/(DE**0.25D0)
C
ENDIF
C
IF(HF) THEN
C FOR THE PANELS.IN THE FLOOR
C
HIP = 0.39* (DABS(X(8)-XPANEL)**0.31D0 )/(DE**0.08D0)
C
C*****HIP
= 0.31D0* ( DABS(X(8)-X(6) )**0.31D0 )
C = =
HIP = HIUP
ENDIF
C
IF(CP) THEN
UQPOUT = EPSIP *SIGMA * (XPANEL**4)
QPOUT = UQPOUT*PAREA
C RADIATION OUTWARDS FROM ALL THE PANELS
QPIN =0.D0
C-25
6001
DO 602 JP = ll.NCP+10
UQPIN =0.D0
DO 601 J7 = 1,6
INFRARED STARTS*********
DO 6001 JI = 1,4
FSCP(JP,JI) = O.DO
CONTINUE
FSCP(JP,5) = l.DO
C******** INFRARED ENDS ************
601
UQPIN = UQPIN + EPSI(J7)* SIGMA* FSCP(JP,J7)* ( X(J7)**4 )
C ABOVE : RADIATION INWARDS FOR THIS ONE PANEL
QPIN
= QPIN + UQPIN* ALCP(JP)*BCP(JP)
602
CONTINUE
QRP = QPOUT - QPIN
C ABOVE : NET OUTWARD RADIATION FROM ALL PANELS (BTU/HR)
QCVP = ( XMULT*HIP*(XPANEL -X(8)) ) * PAREA
C ABOVE : CONVECTION FROM TOTAL PANEL AREA TO AIR
Ql = QCVP + QRP
C Q1=NET HEAT INPUT BY PANELS (CONDUCTION NOT CONSIDERED)
ELSE
Ql= 1.08D0*CFM*ALTH*BTH*( X(10)-X(8) )
C Q1=NET HEAT INPUT BY AIR
ENDIF
.
C
C
c
C*****
Q2p = p*UQ2P
,USING A READ-IN VALUE
C TO USE THE CONDUCTION THROUGH THE CLOTHING FOR UQ2P
C BTU/HR = (#)* KCAL/HR.SQM * (DUBOIS AREA = 1.8)SQM* 3.973D0 BTU/KCAL
C FOR AM1= 50,I.E. MET =1, THIS IS 252.8 BTU/HR/PERSON (STD.=250)
Q2P = P*ALHS*1.8D0*3.973D0
C
CCCCC Q2L= P*UQ2L
Q2= Q2P + Q2L
C Q2=HEAT INPUT BY PEOPLE AND LIGHTS
C ACH= NO. OF AIR CHANGES PER HOUR, AICFM = INF. CFM
AICFM = ACH* (ALTH*BTH*HT)/60.D0
QSTD3= 1.08D0*AICFM *( 460.D0+75.D0 -TOUT )
QACT3= 1.08D0*AICFM *( X(8) -TOUT )
XINF = X(8) + (HT-HREF)*SLOPE
Q3= 1.08D0* AICFM* (XINF-TOUT )
C Q3=HEAT LOSS DUE TO INFILTRATION AIR
C
C
QP4=
ALTH*HT*(QCV(1) +QCV(3)) + BTH*HT*(QCV(2) +QCV(4))
& + ALTH*BTH*QCV(5) + PRAREA*QCV(6)
QP5= ALTH*HT*( QCD(l) +QCD(3) ) + BTH*HT*( QCD(2) +QCD(4) )
&
+ ALTH*BTH*( QCD(5) ) + PRAREA*QCD(6)
QP8= ALTH*HT*( QR(1) +QR(3") ) + BTH*HT*( QR(2) +QR(4) )
&
+ ALTH*BTH* QR(5) +PRAREA*QR(6)
POUA = ALTH*HT*( U(l)+U(3) ) +BTH*HT*( U(2)+U(4) )
& + ALTH*BTH* U(5)+ PRAREA*U(6)
C
C
C AND WHEN THERE ARE NO CEILING PANELS,
Q4=
ALTH*HT*(QCV(1) +QCV(3)) + BTH*HT*(QCV(2) +QCV(4))
& + ALTH*BTH*(QCV(5) +QCV(6))
Q5= ALTH*HT*( QCD(l) +QCD(3) ) + BTH*HT*( QCD(2) +QCD(4) )
&
+ ALTH*BTH*( QCD(5) +QCD(6) )
Q8= ALTH*HT*( QR(1) +QR(3) ) + BTH*HT*( QR(2) +QR(4) )
C-26
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
&
+ ALTH*BTH*( QR(5) +QR(6) )
OUA = ALTH*HT*( U(l)+U(3j ) +BTH*HT*( U(2)+U(4) )
& + ALTH*BTH*( U(5)+U(6) )
NEGATIVE OF Q4 = HEAT LOST FROM AIR TO THE SURFACES BY CONVECTION
NOTE: QCVS ARE SET UP AS POSITIVE,WHEN FLOW IS FROM SURFACE TO AIR.
QNET1= Ql +Q2 -Q3 +Q4
NOTE: QNET1 = 0 = F(10) IS USED FOR CONVECTIVE HEATING
Q5= HEAT LOST THROUGH THE SURFACES BY CONDUCTION TO THE OUTSIDE
QNET2= Ql +Q2 -Q3 -Q5
QNETP2= Ql +Q2 -Q3 -QP5
NOTE: QNETP2 = 0 = F(10) IS USED FOR PANEL HEATING.
Q6= (X(8)-TOUT)* OUA
Q6=OVERALL ROOM HEAT LOSS
Q7= (460.D0+75.D0-TOUT)* OUA
Q7=STD.OVERALL ROOM HEAT LOSS
QNET3 = Ql +Q2 -Q3 -Q6
C
IF(CP) THEN
F(10)= QNETP2
ELSE
F(10)= QNET1
ENDIF
C
RETURN
END
C
C
C***************************
C*
IF(CP) THEN
C*
ELSE
C*
ENDIF
SUBROUTINE SHAPE(ALTH,BTH,HT,FS)
C INPUT NEEDED : ALTH, BTH, HT
C
IMPLICIT REAL*8 (A-H.O-Z)
DIMENSION A(4),B(4),FS(6,6)
DATA A/4*0.D0/ , B/4*0.D0/
C THIS IS TO CALCULATE THE SHAPE FACTORS OF THE SIX SURFACES,
C CEILING, 4 VERTICAL WALLS,PERPENDICULAR TO EACH OTHER & FLOOR.
C ******** SEE HANDOUT FOR BELOW CODING EXPLANATION
C
CALL ERRSET(263,256,1,1,1)
C
CALL ERRSET(209,256,1,1,1)
C ***
263 ERR NO. (209 ALSO)
C ***
256 UNLIMITED NO. OF ERROR OCCURRENCES
C ***
1, NO OF MESSAGES TO BE PRINTED
C ***
1, NO TRACEBACK IS TO BE PRINTED
C ***
i, STANDARD CORRECTIVE ACTION TO BE APPLIED
C ***
RANGE OF ERROR NUMBERS UPTO THIS NUMBER<OMITTED HERE)
C502 FORMAT(1X/,T5,?ROOM DIMENSIONS : ',3X,'LENGTH = ',F6.2,
C
& SX.'BREADTH = ',F6.2,5X, 'HEIGHT = ',F6.2)
C
=====
RAREA(l) = ALTH * HT
RAREA(3) = RAREA(l)
RAREA(2) = BTH * HT
RAREA(4) = RAREA(2)
RAREA(5) = ALTH * BTH
C-27
RAREA(6) = RAREA(5)
C INITIALISING.TO ZERO
DO 503 IJ = 1,6
FS(IJ,IJ) = O.DO
503 CONTINUE
C FOR FS(1,2)...
DO 504 1=1,4
A(I) = O.DO
504 B(I) = O.DO
C
A(2) = HT
B(2) = HT
A(4) = ALTH
B(4) = BTH
CALL SHPRP(A,B,F12)
FS(1,2) = F12
C
C
C
C
C FOR FS (1,5)
DO 505 1=1,4
A(I) = O.DO
505 B(I) = O.DO
A(2) = ALTH
B(2) = ALTH
A(4) = HT
B(4) = BTH
CALL SHPRP(A,B,F12)
FS(1,5) = F12
C
C
C FOR FS(1,3)...
DO 506 1=1,4
A(I) = O.DO
506 B(I) = O.DO
A(2) = ALTH
B(2) = ALTH
A(4) = HT
B(4) = HT
G
= BTH
C
CALL SHPRL (A,B,G,F12)
FS(1,3) = F12
C
C
C SINCE 2 AND 4 ARE BOTH OF THE SAME AREA AND ORIENTATION TO 1.
FS(1,4) = FS(1,2)
FS(1,6) = FS(1,5)
C
C USING THE PRINCIPLE OF RECIPROCITY
DO 507 IJ2 = 2,6
507
FS (IJ2,1) = FS(1,IJ2)* RAREA(1)/RAREA(IJ2)
C FOR (SURFACE.3)
FS(2,3) = FS(2,1)
DO 508 IJ4 = 4,6
508
FS(IJ4,3) = FS(IJ4,1)
C FOR FS (2,5)....
DO 509 1=1,4
A(I) = O.DO
509 B(I) = O.DO
C-28
A(2) = BTH
B(2j = BTH
A(4) = HT
B(4) = ALTH
CALL SHPRP(A,B,F12)
FS(2,5) = F12
c
c
FS(2,4)...
DO 510 1=1,4
A(I) = O.DO
510 B(I) = O.DO
A(2) = BTH
B(2) = BTH
A(4) = HT
B(4) = HT
G
= ALTH
C FOR
C
FS(2,4) = F12
FS(2,6) = FS(2,5)
USING THE PRINCIPLE OF RECIPROCITY
DO 511 IJ2 = 3,6
511
C FOR (SURFACE,4)
FS(3,4) = FS(3,2)
DO 512 IJ4 =5,6
512
FS(IJ4,4) = FS(IJ4,2)
C
FS(3,5) = FS(1,5)
FS(3,6) = FS(1,6)
FS(4,5) = FS(2,5)
FS(4S6) = FS(2,6)
C
C FOR FS(5,6)...
DO 513 1=1,4
A(I) = O.DO
513 B(I) = O.DO
A(2) = BTH
B(2) = BTH
A(4) = ALTH
B(4) = ALTH
G
= HT
C
FS(5,6) = F12
C
FS(6,5) = FS(5,6)
C
C
C THESE ARE WRITTEN OUT AT THE END
C ******** FOR PANELS IN THE CEILING,
NCP IN NUMBER,
C
TO COMPARE WITH THE EARLIER CASE
C
WRITE (6,514) (K ,K=1,6)
C514
FORMAT (1X/.T35,'WALL-TO-WALL SHAPE FACTORS',5X,
C
& 'WITHOUT THE CEILING PANELS', //,T15,6(I3,9X) )
C
C
DO 516 1=1,6
C
WRITE (6,515)1,(FS(I,K) ,K=1,6)
C
C-29
A(2) = BTH
B(2) = BTH
A(4) = HT
B(4) = ALTH
CALL SHPRP(A,B,F12)
FS(2,5) = F12
C
C
C FOR FS(2,4)...
DO 510 1=1,4
A(I) = 0.D0
510 B(I) = O.DO
A(2) = BTH
B(2) = BTH
A(4) = HT
B(4) = HT
G
= ALTH
C
FS(2,4) = F12
C
FS(2,6) = FS(2,5)
C USING THE PRINCIPLE OF RECIPROCITY
DO 511 IJ2 = 3,6
511
C FOR (SURFACE,4)
FS(3,4) = FS(3,2)
DO 512 IJ4 =5,6
512
FS(IJ4,4) = FS(IJ4,2)
C
FS(3,5) = FS(1,5)
FS(3,6) = FS(1,6)
FS(4,5) = FS(2,5)
FS(4,6) = FS(2,6)
C
C FOR FS(5,6)...
DO 513 1=1,4
A(I) = O.DO
513 B(I) = O.DO
A(2) = BTH
B(2) = BTH
A(4) = ALTH
B(4) = ALTH
G
= HT
C
FS(5,6) = F12
C
FS(6,5) = FS(5,6)
C
C
C THESE ARE WRITTEN OUT AT THE END
C ******** FOR PANELS IN THE CEILING,
NCP IN NUMBER,
C
C
WRITE (6,514) (K ,K=1,6)
C514
FORMAT (1X/.T35,'WALL-TO-WALL SHAPE FACTORS',5X,
C
C
C
DO 516 1=1,6
C
WRITE (6,515)1,(FS(I,K) ,K=1,6)
C-29
C515
C516
C
C
C
C
C
C
FORMAT (1X/,T5,I3,T15,6(E10.4,2X) )
CONTINUE
RETURN
END
INPUT NEEDED: DIMENSIONS OF ROOM :ALTH,BTH,HT & FS(6,6,)
NO. OF PANELS,
THEIR LOCATION : XCP,YCP OF CENTRE &
ALCP,BCP (LENGTH AND BREADTH)
C
DIMENSION A(4),B(4),FS(6,6)
DIMENSION XCP(25),YCP(25),ALCP(25),BCP(25) ,FSCP(25,25)
COMMON /PAN2/ PRAREA.PAREA
/PAN2/ IS COMMON TO M/PROG.,FCN AND SHCP
C
C
C
C ALL MATRICES FOR PANELS MUST BE DIMENSIONED FOR NCP+ 10 AT THE
C LEAST FS = FSCP FOR THE FIRST 6,6 PART.
C PANELS ARE NAMED FROM 11 ONWARDS
DATA A/4*0.D0/ , B/4*0.D0/
C ******** SEE HANDOUT FOR BELOW CODING EXPLANATION
C
CALL ERRSET(263,256,1,1,1)
C
CALL ERRSET(209,256,1,1,1)
C ***
263 ERR NO. (209 ALSO)
C ***
256 UNLIMITED NO. OF ERROR OCCURRENCES
C ***
1, NO OF MESSAGES TO BE PRINTED
C ***
1, NO TRACEBACK IS TO BE PRINTED
C ***
1, STANDARD CORRECTIVE ACTION TO BE APPLIED
C ***
RANGE OF ERROR NUMBERS UPTO THIS NUMBER(OMITTED HERE)
C
C
C
C
WRITE(6,173) ALTHjBTH.HT
C173 FORMAT(1X/,T5,'ROOM DIMENSIONS : ',3X,'LENGTH = ',F6.2,
C
& 5X,'BREADTH = ',F6.2,5X, 'HEIGHT = ',F6.2)
C
READ(5,*) NCP
C
WRITE(6,174) NCP
C174 FORMAT(1X/,T5,'TOTAL NUMBER OF CEILING PANELS = ',13)
C
WRITE(6,175)
C175 F0RMAT(1X/,T5,'PANEL CENTER LOCATION :',T30 'X (ALONG LENGTH) ',
C
& T50,*Y (ALONG BREADTH) ',T70,'LENGTH*,T85,'BREADTH')
C
C
C
DO 165 J =11,NCP+10
C
READ(5,*)XCP(J),YCP(J),ALCP(J),BCP(J)
C
C176
F0RMAT(1X/,T20,I3,T30,F6.2,T50,F6.2,T70,F6.2,T85,F6.2,//)
C165
CONTINUE
C
=====
C
===================
C
c
c
RAREA(l) = ALTH * HT
RAREA(3) = RAREA(l)
C-30
RAREA(2) = BTH * HT
RAREA(4) = RAREA(2)
RAREA(5) = ALTH * BTH
WITHOUT CEILING PANELS
RAREA(6) = RAREA(5)
WITH CEILING PANELS IS GIVEN JUST BEFORE THE LOOP DO 171
******** FOR PANELS IN THE CEILING,
NCP IN NUMBER,
** EACH PANEL HAS ITS CENTER LOCATED AT XCP(J),YCP(J) AND
HAS DIMENSIONS ALCP (LENGTH) AND BCP (BREADTH)
THE ORIGIN OF XCP AND YCP IS AT THE INTERSECTION OF WALL1,
WALL2 AND THE CEILING.
205
208
DO 205 11= 1,25

DO 205 12= 1,25
FSCP(I1,I2) = O.DO
DO 208 11= 1,6
DO 208 12= 1,6
FSCP(I1,I2) = FS(I1,I2)
C WITH CEILING PANELS THE REST OF THE CEILING AREA PRAREA, BECOMES
PAREA = O.DO
DO 178 K = 11,NCP+10
178 PAREA = PAREA + ALCP(K)"* BCP(K)
C NOW PRAREA IS THE AREA OF THE PORTION (OF THE CEILING )
WITHOUT PANELS
PRAREA = (ALTH* BTH) - PAREA
C
WRITE(6,207) PRAREA
C207 FORMAT(1X/,T5,'REMAINING CEILING AREA,PRAREA, SQFT = \F10.2)
C
DO 171 J = 11,NCP+10
FOR PANEL NUMBER J,
FOR FSCP(5,J)
DO 166 1 = 1 ,
A(I) = O.DO
166
B(I) = O.DO
B(l)
B(2)
B(3)
B(4)
XCP(J)
XCP(J)
YCP(J)
YCP(J)
A(2)
A(4)
ALTH
BTH
ALCP(J)/2.DO
ALCP(J)/2.D0
BCP(J)/2.DO
BCP(J)/2.D0
= HT

FSCP(5,J) = F12
C
C
C FOR FSCP(1,J)
DO 167 1 = 1 ,
A(I) = O.DO
167 B(I) = O.DO
B(l) = XCP(J) - ALCP(J)/2.D0
B(2) = XCP(J) + ALCP(J)/2.D0
B(3) = YCP(J) - BCP(J)/2.DO
C-31
B(4) = YCP(J) + BCP(J)/2.D0

C
A(2) = ALTH
A(4) = HT
C
CALL SHPRP (A,B,F12)
FSCP(1,J) = F12
C
C FOR FSCP(3,J)
DO 168 I = 1,4
A(I) = 0.D0
168
B(I) = O.DO
C
B(l) = XCP(J) - ALCP(J)/2.D0
B(2) = XCP(J) + ALCP(J)/2.D0
B(3) = BTH - ( YCP(J) + BCP(J)/2.D0 )
B(4) = BTH - ( YCP(J) - BCP(J)/2.D0 )
C
A(2) = ALTH
A(4) = HT
C
FSCP(3,J) = F12
C
C
C FOR FSCP(2,J)
DO 169 I = 1,4
A(I) = O.DO
169
B(I) = O.DO
C
B(l) = YCP(J) - BCP(J)/2.D0
B(2) = YCP(J) + BCP(J)/2.D0
B(3) = XCP(J) - ALCP(J)/2.D0
B(4) = XCP(J) + ALCP(J)/2.D0
C
A(2) = BTH
A(4) = HT
C
FSCP(2,J) = F12
C
C FOR FSCP(4,J)
DO 170 I = 1,4
. A(I) = O.DO
170
B(I) = O.DO
C
B(l) = YCP(J) - BCP(J)/2.D0
B(2) = YCP(J) + BCP(J)/2.D0
B(3) = ALTH - ( XCP(J) + ALCP(J)/2.D0)
B(4) = ALTH - ( XCP(J) - ALCP(J)/2.D0)
C
A(2) = BTH
A(4) = HT
C
FSCP(4,J) = F12
C
C
FOR FSCP(6,J)
FSCP(6,J) = O.DO
C
C AT THIS STAGE (ALL SURFACES,J) ARE CALCULATED
C-32
C
C
TO CALCULATE, (J,SURFACES)
179
DO 179 K = 1,6
FSCP(J.K) = FSCP(K,J)* RAREA(K)/( ALCP(J)*BCP(J) )
CONTINUE
C
C
171
C
C
C
CONTINUE
WITH THIS ALL PANEL-SHAPE FACTORS ARE CALCULATED.
IF REMAINING CEILING AREA IS GREATER THAN ZERO

IF ( PRAREA.GT. O.DO ) THEN
C
TOTAL OF FSCP(WALL OR FLOOR,PANELS IN CEILING) = TFSCP
C
TO CHANGE THE SHAPE FACTORS(SURFACES,REST OF CEILING)..
DO 181 Kl = 1,5
TFSCP = O.DO
DO 180 LI = ll.NCP+10
180
TFSCP = TFSCP + FSCP(K1,L1)
FSCP(K1,6) = FSCP(K1,6) - TFSCP
C ANGLE OR SHAPE FACTOR ALGEBRA ..SEE ALGO.FOR BHT.SUBROUTINES
FSCP(6,K1) = FSCP(K1,6)* RAREA(K1)/PRAREA
181
CONTINUE
C
C
ELSE
DO 182 Kl = 1,5
FSCP(6,K1) = O.DO
182
FSCP(K1,6) = O.DO
ENDIF
C
WRITE (6,192) (K ,K=1,6)
C192
FORMAT (1X/,T35,'WALL-TO-WALL SHAPE FACTORS',
C
&//,T15,6(I3,9X) )
C
C
DO 193 1=1,6
C
WRITE (6,194)I,(FSCP(I,K) ,K=1,6)
C194
FORMAT (1X/,T5,I3,T15,6(E10.4,2X) )
C193
CONTINUE
C
C
WRITE(6,195)
C195
FORMAT (1X//.T5,'PANEL-TO-WALL SHAPE FACTORS',/)
C
DO 198 J = ll.NCP+10
C
WRITE(6,199) (J,K,FSCP(J,K), K=l,6)
C199
F0RMAT(1X/,(T5,'FSCP(P*,I3,I3,') = ',E10.4,/) )
C198
CONTINUE
C
WRITE(6,413)
C413
FORMAT (1X//,T5,'WALL-TO-PANEL SHAPE FACTORS',/)
C
DO 201 K = 1,6
C
WRITE(6,412) (K,J,FSCP(K,J), J=11,NCP+10 )
C412
F0RMAT(1X/,(T5,'FSCP(',I3,' ,P',I3,') = \E10.4,/) )
C201
CONTINUE
C
C
C
WRITE (6,211) (K ,K=1,6)
C211
FORMAT (1X/,T35,* WALL-TO-WALL SHAPE FACTORS',5X,
C
C
C
DO 212 1=1,6
C
WRITE (6,213)1,(FS(I,K) ,K=1,6)
C-33
C213
C212
C
C
C
FORMAT (1X/,T5,I3,T15,6(E10.4,2X) )
CONTINUE
RETURN
END
C
C
C
C ** RADIATION SHAPE FACTOR F12 BETWEEN TWO PARALLEL SURFACES
C **** INPUT : A(4),B(4)
AND G (DISTANCE IN-BETWEEN )
C **** OUTPUT: F12 (SHAPE FACTOR FROM 1 TO 2)
SUBROUTINE SHPRL (A,B,G,F12)
IMPLICIT REAL*8 (A-H.O-Z)
DIMENSION A(4),B(4)
COMMON /COORDS/ Al,Bl,Cl,DltA2,B2,C2,D2
C
Al = A(l)
Bl = A(2)
CI = A(3)
Dl = A(4)
A2 = B(l)
B2 = B(2)
C2 = B(3)
D2 = B(4)
C
G IS OBTAINED AS AN INPUT TO THE SUBROUTINE
CALL PARA(G,F12)
RETURN
END
C
C
C
SUBROUTINE PARA(G,F12)
COMMON /COORDS/ A1,B1,C1,D1,A2,B2,C2,D2
COMMON PDIST
PDIST = G
RHS1 = PQ(B2-B1,C2-C1) + PQ(B2-B1,D2-D1)
&
- PQ(B2-B1,C2-D1) - PQ(B2-B1,D2-C1)
RHS2 = PQ(A2-A1,C2-C1) + PQ(A2-A1,D2-D1)
&
- PQ(A2-A1,C2-D1) - PQ(A2-A1,D2-C1)
RHS3 = PQ(B2-A1,C2-D1) + PQ(B2-A1,D2-C1)
&
- PQ(B2-A1,C2-C1) - PQ(B2-A1,D2-D1)
RHS4 = PQ(A2-B1,C2-D1) + PQ(A2-B1,D2-C1)
&
- PQ(A2-B1,C2-C1) - PQ(A2-B1,D2-D1)
RTOTAL = RHS1 + RHS2 + RHS3 + RHS4
C
PI = DATAN(l.DO) * 4.DO
ATOTAL = 2.DO * PI *(B1-A1)* (Dl-Cl)
C
WRITE(6,*)'A1= \A1
C
WRITE(6,*)'B1= \B1
C
WRITE(6,*)'C1= \C1
C
WRITE(6,*)'D1= ',D1
C
WRITE(6,*)'A2= ',A2
C
WRITE(6,*)*B2= ',B2
C
WRITE(6,*)'C2= *,C2
C
WRITE(6,*)'D2= ' D2
C
WRITE(6,*) 'G = {,G
C
WRITE(6,*)'RTOTAL = ' ,RTOTAL, '
ATOTAL = ',ATOTAL
C-34
F12
= RTOTAL/ ATOTAL
RETURN
END
C
C
FUNCTION PQ( Z1,Z2)
COMMON PDIST
C
V = DSQRT( PDIST**2 + Zl**2 )
W = DSQRT( PDIST**2 + Z2**2 )
C
PQ1= Z1*W* DATAN(Z1/W)
C
PQ2= Z2*V* DATANCZ2/V)
C
PQ3= (PDIST**2)/2 * DLOG( (W**2 +Z1**2)/(W**2) )
C
C
C
C
C
WRITE(6,*)'PQ1 = ',PQ1
PQ = PQ1 +PQ2 - PQ3 WRITE(6,*)'PQ = ',PQ

RETURN
END
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
RADIATION SHAPE FACTOR F12 , BETWEEN TWO PERPENDICULAR SURFACES

INPUT:A(4),B(4)
OUTPUT : F12 (SHAPE FACTOR FROM 1 TO 2 )
SUBROUTINE SHPRP(A,B,F12)
DIMENSION A(4),B(4)
COMMON /COORDS/ Al,B1,C1,D1,A2,B2,C2,D2
C
C
Al
Bl
CI
Dl
A2
B2
C2
D2
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
A(l)
A(2)
A(3)
A(4)
B(l)
B(2)
B(3)
B(4)
C
C
CALL PERP(F12)
RETURN
END
C
C
C
SUBROUTINE PERP(F12)
COMMON /COORDS/ A1,B1,C1,D1,A2,B2,C2,D2
RHS1 = RS(B2-B1,C2,-C1) + RS(B2-B1,D2,-D1)
C-35
&
&
&
&
- RS(B2-B1,C2,-D1) - RS(B2-B1,D2,-C1)
RHS2 = RS(A2-A1,C2,-C1) -i- RS(A2-A1,D2,-D1)
- RS(A2-A1,C2,-D1) - RS(A2-A1,D2,-C1)
RHS3 = RS(B2-A1,C2,-D1) + RS(B2-A1,D2,-C1)
- RS(B2-A1,C2,-C1) - RS(B2-A1,D2,-D1)
RHS4 = RS(A2-B1,C2,-D1) + RS(A2-B1,D2,-C1)
- RS(A2-B1,C2,-C1) - RS(A2-B1,D2,-D1)
RTOTAL = RHS1 + RHS2 + RHS3 + RHS4
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
PI = DATAN(l.DO) * 4.DO
ATOTAL = 2.DO * PI *(B1-A1)* (Dl-Cl)
WRITE(6,*)'A1= ' ,A1
WRITE(6,*)'B1= ',B1
WRITE(6,*)'C1= ',C1
WRITE(6,*)'D1= ',D1
WRITE(6,*)'A2= ',A2
WRITE(6,*)'B2= ',B2
WRITE(6;*)'C2= ',C2
WRITE(6,*)'D2= ',D2
WRITE(6,*)'RTOTAL = *,RTOTAL, *
ATOTAL = *,ATOTAL
F12
= RTOTAL/ ATOTAL
END
C
C
FUNCTION RS( Z1,Y2,Y1)
COMMON /HT/ G
C
T'= DSQRT( Y2**2 + Yl**2 )
C SPECIAL CASE: WHEN EITHER T OR Zl IS EQUAL TO ZERO,
IF (T .EQ. O.DO
.OR. Zl .EQ. O.DO ) THEN
RSI = O.DO
ELSE
RS1= T*Z1* DATAN(Z1/T)
ENDIF
C SPECIAL CASE : WHEN BOTH Zl AND T ARE EQUAL TO ZERO,
IF (Zl .EQ. O.DO
.AND. T .EQ. O.DO ) THEN
RS2 = O.DO
ELSE
RS2= 0.25D0*( Zl**2 -T**2) * DLOG (T**2 + Zl**2 )
ENDIF
C
C
C
C
C
RS = RSI +RS2
C
WRITE(6,*)'RS = \RS
RETURN
END
C-36
APPENDIX D
REPRODUCTION OF CHAPTER 8
FROM 1984 ASHRAE SYSTEMS
HANDBOOK
[
D-l
tea
CHAPTER 8
PANEL HEATING AND COOLING SYSTEMS

System Types; System Concepts; System Applications; Heat Transfer by Panel Surfaces;
Panel Heating and Cooling Systems; General Design Considerations;
Panel Heating System Design; Panel Cooling System Design
ADIANT panel systems combine controlled temperature

R
room surfaces with central station air conditioning. The
controlled temperature surfaces may be in the floor, walls or
growth of the perforated metal, suspended, acoustical ceiling.

These radiant ceiling systems are usually designed into buildings where the features of the suspended acoustical ceiling can
be combined with panel heating and cooling. The panels can
be designed as small units to fit the building module and provide extensive flexibility for zoning and control; or the panels
can be arranged as large continuous areas for maximum economy.
Three types of metal ceiling systems are available. One consists of lightweight aluminum panels, usually 12 x 24 in.
(300 x 600 mm), attached in thefieldto 0.5-in. (12.7-mm) galvanized pipe coils. The second consists of a copper coil
metallurgically bonded to the aluminum face sheet to form a
modular panel. Modular panels are available in sizes up to
about 36 x 60 in.(900 x 1525 mm) and are held in position by
various types of ceiling suspension systems. The third type is
an aluminum extrusion face sheet with a copper tube pressed
into an oval channel on the back of the face sheet. Extruded
panels can be manufactured in almost any shape and size.
Practical limitations dictate a maximum size of about 16x4
ft (4.88 x 1.22 m).
Radiant panel systems are similar to other air-water systems
in the arrangement of the system components (see Fig. 1).
Room thermal conditions are maintained primarily by direct
transfer of radiant energy, rather than by convection heating
and cooling. The room heating and cooling loads are calculated in the conventional manner. Manufacturers' ratings gen-
ceiling, and the temperature is maintained by circulating water, air or electric resistance. The central station air system can
be a basic, one-zone, constant temperature, constant volume
system; or it can include some or all of the features of dualduct, reheat, multizone or variable volume systems. A controlled temperature surface is referred to as a radiant panel if
50% or more of the heat transfer is by radiation to other surfaces seen by the panel. This chapter is concerned with surfaces whose temperatures are controlled and are the'primary
source of heating and cooling within the conditioned space.
High temperature surface radiant panels [over about 250 F
(121C)] energized by gas, electricity or high temperature
water are discussed in Chapter 18.
SYSTEM TYPES
Residential heating applications usually consist of pipe coils
embedded in masonry floors or plaster ceilings. This construe^
tion is suitable where loads are stable and solar effects are
minimized by building design. However, in buildings where
glass areas are large and load changes occur faster, the slow
response, lag and override effect of masonry panels are unsatisfactory. Lightweight metal panel ceiling systems respond
quickly to load changes and can be used for cooling and heating.
Warm air and electric heating elements are two design concepts used in systems influenced by local factors. The warm
air system has a special cavity construction where air is supplied to a cavity behind or under the panel surface. The air
leaves the cavity through a normal diffuser arrangement and
is supplied to the room. Generally, these systems are used as
floor radiant panels in schools and in floors subject to extreme cold, such as in an overhang. Cold outdoor and heating
medium temperatures must be analyzed with regard to potential damage to the building construction. Electric heating elements embedded in the floor or ceiling construction and unitized electric ceiling panels are used in various applications for
local spot heating as well as for providing full heating requirements for the space.
Radiant panels are usually located in the ceiling because it is
exposed to all other surfaces and objects in the room. Because
it is not likely to be covered, as are the floors, higher surface
temperatures can be used. Also, its smaller mass enables it to
respond more quickly to load changes. Radiant cooling can be
incorporated, and, in metal ceiling systems, the piping is accessible for servicing.
The ceiling panel systems commonly used today are an out-
Fig. 1 Primary/Secondary Water Distribution

System with Mixing Control
The preparation of this chapter is assigned to TC 9.1, Radiant Space Healing

& Cooling.
8.1
D-2
8.2
CHAPTER 8
erally are for total performance and can be applied directly to

the calculated room load.
Principal advantages of panel systems are:
1. Comfort levels are better than those of other conditioning systems-because radiant loads are treated directly and air motion in the
space is at normal ventilation levels.
2. Mechanical equipment is not needed at the outside walls, simplifying the wall, floor and structural systems.
3. AH pumps, fans, filters and so forth are centrally located, simplifying maintenance and operation.
4. Cooling and healing can be simultaneous, without central zoning or seasonal changeover, when three- and four-pipe systems are
used.
5. Supply air quantities usually do not exceed those required for
ventilation and dehumidification.
6. The occupied space has no mechanical equipment requiring
maintenance or repair.
7. Draperies and curtains can be installed at the outside wall without interfering with the heating and cooling system.
8. The modular panel concept provides flexibility to meet changes
in partitioning.
9. A 100% outdoor air system may be installed with less severe
penalties in terms of refrigeration load because of reduced air quantities.
10. No space is required within the air-conditioned room for the
mechanical equipment. This feature is especially valuable when compared to other conditioning methods in existing buildings, hospital patient rooms and other applications where space is at a premium, where
maximum cleanliness is essential or where dictated by legal requirements.
11. A common central air system can serve both the interior and
perimeter zones.
12. Wet surface cooling coils are eliminated from the occupied
space, reducing the potential for septic contamination.
13. The panel system can use the automatic sprinkler system piping. (See NFPA 13-1982, Chapter 5, Sections 5-6). The maximum water treatment must not fuse the heads.
Other factors to consider when using panel systems are:
1. Early evaluation is necessary to use the panel system to full advantage in optimizing the physical building design.
2. Recessed lighting fixtures, air diffusers, hung ceilings and other
ceiling devices must be selected on the basis of providing the maximum ceiling area possible for use as radiant panels.
3. The air-side design mast be able to maintain humidity levels at or
below design conditions at all times to eliminate any possibility of condensation on the panels. This becomes more critical if space dry- and
wet-bulb temperatures are allowed to drift as an energy conservation
measure.
4. Cooling, panels should not be used in or adjacent to high humidity areas.
5. As with any hydronic system, the piping system should be designed to avoid noises from entrained air, high velocity or high pressure drop devices or from pump and pipe vibrations.
6. Thermal expansion of the ceiling and other devices in or adjacent
to the ceiling should be anticipated.
7. Operable sash should be designed to discourage unauthorized
operation.
SYSTEM CONCEPTS
All bodies with a surface temperature above absolute zero
emit rays with wavelengths depending on the body surface
temperature. Every facet of the surface emits rays in straight
lines at right angles to the facet. When examined under a microscope, the surface of concrete or rough plaster is covered
with numerous facets, each giving off radiant energy. Polished steel or similar polished surfaces show no such facets.
Thus, a rough surface emits heat rays more efficiently than a
polished surface.
The invigorating effect of radiant heat is experienced when
the body is exposed to the sun's rays on a cool but sunny day
in spring. Some of these rays impinging on the body come
directly from the sun and include the whole range of ether
D-3
1984 Systems Handbook
waves. Other rays coming from the sun impinge on surrounding objects, where they are increased in wavelength and reflected to the body as low temperature radiation, producing a
comfortable feeling of warmth. Should a cloud pass over the
sun, instantly there is a sensation of cold; although in such a
short interval, the air temperature does not vary at all.
In searching for the correct conditions compatible with the
physiological demands of the human body, no system can be
rated as completely satisfactory unless it satisfies the three
main factors controlling heat loss from the human body: radiation, convection and evaporation. It is sometimes thought
that a radiant heat system is desirable only for certain buildings and only in some climates. However, wherever people
live, these three factors of heat loss must be considered. It is
as important to provide the correct conditions in very cold
climates as it is in moderate climates. Maintaining the correct
comfort conditions by low temperature radiation is possible
for even the most severe weather conditions.
Panel heating and cooling systems function to provide a
comfortable environment by controlling surface temperatures
and minimizing excessive air motion within the space. Thermal comfort, as defined by ASHRAE Standard 55-198/,' is
"that condition of mind which expresses satisfaction with the
thermal environment." A person is not aware that his environment is being heated or cooled. Recent study has given
us better insight on the human body and its response to the
surrounding environment. The mean radiant temperature
(MRT) strongly influences the feeling of comfort. When the
surface temperature of the outside walls, particularly those
with large amounts of glass, begins to deviate excessively
from the ambient air temperature of the space, it is increasingly difficult for convective systems to counteract the discomfort resulting from cold or hot walls. Heating and cooling
panels neutralize these deficiencies and minimize excessive
radiation losses from the body.
Unlike most heat transfer equipment where performance
can be measured in specific terms, the performance of the radiant panel is related directly to the structure in which it is located, and an evaluation of this interrelationship is desirable.
Research and testing of panel performance have been conducted by various independent researchers and manufacturers.
Heat transfer between the radiant panel and the other room
surfaces is well established in a boxlike room where the primary heat gains and losses are from the wall, floor or ceiling
surfaces. The performance ratings presented in this chapter
for radiation and convection can be applied directly to the calculated room heating and cooling loads. Various investigators
and manufacturers report increased cooling performance because of solar effects and ceiling-mounted lighting fixtures.
This empirical information, which has been developed as a result of field testing, should only be used in consultation with
manufacturers experienced in this field.
Fortunately, most building surfaces have high emissivity
factors and therefore absorb and reradiate energy from the
active panels. This is significant because all surfaces within
the room tend to assume an equilibrium temperature resulting
in an even thermal comfort condition within the space. In
much the same way that light energy from a lighting fixture illuminates the room so that all surfaces can be seen, a warm
radiant panel emits energy that is absorbed and reradiated,
and all surfaces become warm. Warm ceiling panels are effective for winter heating because they warm the floor and glass
surfaces by direct transfer of radiant energy. The surface
temperature of well constructed and properly insulated floors
will be 2 to 3 deg F (1 to 2Q above the ambient air
temperature, and the inside surface temperature of glass is increased significantly. [Inside single-glass surface temperatures
Panel Heating and Cooling Systems
8.3
10 to IS deg F (5 to 8C) above those indicated in Fig. 7 are

commonly observed.] As a result, downdrafts are minimized
to the point where no discomfort is felt. Installation with ceiling heights of SO ft (IS m) and single glass from floor to ceiling provide satisfactory results.
peratures are restricted so as not to cause foot discomfort.

Ceiling panels are generally located around the perimeter of;
the pool, not directly over the water. Panel surface temperatures are higher to compensate for the increased ceiling height
and to produce a greater radiant effect on the partially clothed
body.
SYSTEM APPLICATIONS
Apartment Buildings
For heating, pipe coils are embedded in the masonry slab.
The coils must be carefully positioned so as not to overheat
one apartment when maintaining desired temperatures in another. The slow response of embedded pipe coils in buildings
with large glass areas may prove to be unsatisfactory. Installations for heating and cooling have been made with pipes embedded in a hung plaster ceiling. A separate minimum volume
dehumidified air system provides the necessary dehumidification and ventilation for each apartment. In recent years, there
has been an increased application of electric resistance elements embedded in the floor or behind a skimcoat of plaster
at the ceiling. The electric panels are easy to install and have
the advantage of simplified individual room control.
Office Buildings
The panel system is usually applied as a perimeter system
providing heating and cooling. A single-zone central air supply system provides ventilation air, dehumidification and
usually some sensible cooling. Often, tempered air is supplied
at a constant volume, and the room thermostat modulates the
panel output. In some applications, the panels are arranged
for zone control, and the air system is designed to provide individual room control. Water distribution systems using the
two- or four-pipe concept may be used. Panel systems are
readily adaptable to accommodate most changes in partitioning. Installations can be made where complete flexibility is on
a modular basis. Electric panels in lay-in ceilings have been
used for full perimeter heating.
Schools
Panels are usually selected for heating and cooling, or for
heating only, in all areas except gymnasiums and auditoriums. For heating only applications, the system may be used
with any type of approved ventilation system. The panel-system is usually sized to offset the transmission loads plus any
reheating of the air required. Room control is accomplished
by modulating the water flow through the panel. If the school
is air conditioned by a central air system and has perimeter
heating panels, a single-zone piping system might be used to
control panel heating output, and the room thermostat would
modulate the supply temperature or supply volume of air delivered to the room. Heating and cooling panel applications
are similar to office buildings. Another advantage of panel
heating and cooling for classroom areas is that mechanical
equipment noise does not interfere with instructional activities.
Hospitals
The principal application of radiant panel systems over the
past 30 years has been for hospital patient rooms. This system
is well suited because it: (1) provides a draft-free, thermally
stable environment, (2) requires no mechanical equipment or
bacteria and virus collectors in the space requiring maintenance and (3) does not take up space within the room. Individual room control is usually by throttling the water flow
through the panel. The air supply system is often a 100% outdoor air system, and minimum air quantities delivered to the
room are those required for ventilation and exhaust of the
toilet room and soiled linen closet. The piping system may
have a two- or four-pipe design. Water control valves should
be in the corridor outside the patient room so that they can be'
adjusted or serviced without entering the room. All piping
connections above the ceiling should be soldered or welded
and thoroughly tested. If cubicle tracks are applied to the ceiling surface, track installation should be coordinated with the
radiant ceiling. Panel ceilings are often used in areas of the
hospital occupied by mentally disturbed patients since no
equipment is accessible to the occupant for destruction or selfinflicted injury.
Swimming Pools
Panel heating systems are well suited to swimming pools because the partially clothed body emerging from the water is
very sensitive to the thermal environment. Floor panel tem-
D-4
Residences
Embedded pipe coil systems, electric resistance panels and
forced warm air panel systems have all been used. The embedded pipe coil system is the most common, using grid coils in
the floor slab or copper tubing systems in older plaster ceilings. These systems are well suited to normally constructed
residences with normal glass areas. Lightweight metal panel
ceiling systems have been applied to residences. Prefabricated
electric panels have also proved advantageous, particularly in
add-on rooms.
Industrial Applications
Panel systems have found wide application in general space
heating for industrial buildings in Europe. However, there has
been only a limited application of this type in the Western
Hemisphere. With the increasing demand for worker comfort, panel systems should be considered. For example, one
special application is an internal combustion engine test cell,
where the walls and ceilings are cooled with chilled water. Although the ambient air temperature in the space ranges up to
95 F (35C), the occupants work in relative comfort when 55 F
(13C) water is circulated through the ceiling and wall panels.
Other Building Types
Metal panel ceiling systems can be operated as heating systems at elevated water temperatures, and have been used in
airport terminals, convention halls, lobbies, museums and
especially where large glass areas are involved. Cooling may
also be applied. Because radiant energy travels through the air
without wanning it, ceilings can be installed at any height and
remain effective. The highest ceiling installed for a comfort
application is SO ft (IS m) above the floor with a panel surface
temperature of approximately 285 F (141C) for heating. The
ceiling panels offset the heat loss from a single-glazed all-glass
wall.
The high lighting levels in television studios make them well
suited to panel systems. The panels are installed for cooling
only and are placed above the lighting system to absorb the
radiation and convection heat from the lights and normal heat
gains from the space. Besides absorbing heat from the space,
the panel ceiling also improves the acoustical properties of the
studio.
Metal panel ceiling systems are also installed in minimum
and medium security jail cells and other areas where disturbed
occupants are housed. The ceiling construction is made more
rugged by increasing the gauge of the ceiling panels and using
8.4
CHAPTER 8
security dips so that the ceiling panels cannot be removed.

Part of the perforated metal ceiling can be used for air distribution.
HEAT TRANSFER BY PANEL SURFACES

A heated or cooled panel transfers heat to or from a room
by convection and radiation. In the following paragraphs, the
two transfer mechanisms are first considered separately and
then combined to facilitate design calculations.
Radiation Transfer
The basic equation for radiation exchange is the StefanBoltzmann equation (see Chapter 2 of the 1981 FUNDAMENTALS VOLUME). This equation may also be written as:
q, =0.ni3FaFe [(7V/100)4 -{T/\00)A]
(1)
where
qr = heat transferred by radiation, Btu/hft2 (W/m2).
Tr = mean radiant temperature of unheated surface, F (C) abs.
Tp = average surface temperature of heated panel, F (C) abs.
Fa = the configuration factor (dimensionless).
Fe = the emissivity factor (dimensionless).
0.1713 = Stefan-Boltzmann
radiation constant, Btu/hft2F
(5.6697 x in -8 W/m2 - Q absolute temperature to the
fourth power.
Where several surfaces exposed to the panel have widely
differing temperatures, it may be necessary to-compute the
area-weighted Average Unheated (or Uncooled) Surface Temperature (AUST) exposed to the panels. In confined situations
or special applications, such as shipboard berthing spaces
with an adjacent hot gas stack, or in situations where the
emissivity of the surfaces is significantly different, it is necessary to evaluate each surface using the geometrical factors
from the charts in Chapter 2 of the 1981 FUNDAMENTALS
VOLUME. Room related angle and shape factors can also be
found in Fanger's book on thermal comfort2 or from the algorithms in ASHRAE Energy Calculations 1,1976.
Similarly, when considering spot cooling it may be necessary to consider the influence of gaseous radiation.3 For
normal application, these refinements are generally insignificant. The Hohel equation [Eq. (2)] is used frequently. This
equation assumes a simple, boxlike room in which there is a
uniformly heated ceiling, floor or wall; all other surfaces are
at another temperature; and all surfaces are perfectly diffusing.
F =F F =
(2)
c
' r ' l/F 1 . 2 + [(l/e I )-l)+yi l />l 2 [(l/e 2 )-l]
where
Fc = combined configuration and emissivity factor.
F|.2 == view factor = 1.0.
et ande2 emissivities of the surfaces.
A i and .42 = areas of the surfaces.
In practice, the emissivity of nonmetallic or painted metal
nonreflecting surfaces is about 0.9. When this emissivity is
used in Eq. (2), the combined factor is about 0.87 for most
rooms. Substituting this value in Eq. (1), the constant becomes about 0.1S, and the equation for heating can be rewritten:
or for cooling:
D-5
20
JO
40
SO
60 TO 60 90 100 MO
HEM OUTPUT. BTUHPERSO'T
120
ISO
WO ISO
Fig. 2 Heat Transferred by Radiation from

a Heated Ceiling, Floor or Wall Panel
where
qr =heat transferred by2the panel
to or from the room surfaces by
radiation, Btu/hft (W/m2).
tp =the average panel surface temperature, F (C).
AUST =area-weighted average temperature of the unheated surfaces
in the room, F(C).
0=460(273).
The actual radiation transfer in a room may be somewhat
different from that given by Eq. (3) or (3a) because of nonuniform temperatures, irregular room surfaces, variations in
emissivity of materials and so forth. It is generally agreed,
however, that the equation is accurate to within 10% when
used in conventional heating and cooling calculations. Tests4
show that the value of the constant of Eq. (3) and (3a) was
0.1S2 in the test room. The design information in this chapter
is based on that constant value.
Radiation exchange calculated from Eq. (3) is given in Fig.
2. The values apply to ceiling, floor or wall panel output.
Radiation removed by a cooling panel for a range of normally encountered temperatures and as calculated from Eq.
(3a), which is a variation of Eq. (3), is given in Fig. 3. In many
specific instances where normal multistory commercial construction and fluorescent lighting are used, the room temperature at the 5-ft (1.5-m) level will closely approach the AUST
(Average Uncooled Surface Temperatures). In structures
where the main heat gain is through the walls or where incandescent lighting is used, the wall surface temperatures tend to
rise considerably above the room air temperature.
Convection Transfer
The convection coefficient qe is defined as the heat transferred by convection in Btu/hft2-F (W/m2-C) difference
between air and panel temperatures. Heat transfer convection
values are not easily established. Convection in panel systems
is usually considered to be natural; that is, air motion is
generated by the warming or cooling of the boundary layer of
air which starts moving as soon as its temperature rises above
or drops below the surrounding air temperature. In practice,
however, there are many factors that interfere with or affect
natural convection. The configuration of the room and the
spaces determines the natural convection. Infiltration, the
movement of persons and mechanical ventilating systems can
8.5
eo
1
i
7S
1
1
CONVf RSION FACTORS:
6S
i
1
COMVIRSIOKI FACIIM3.
c.*,F/i.a
Wta 1 > BWft I r X l B
s50
=III 4 -
N>.
3
1-
fc
X'
1
f /
in
..... ._. ...
XV. X
IS
60
70
PANEL SURFACE TEMPERATURE , F
iy /
90
/
_.
... ..... ...
^ --- _~ .-.*- - '
* - * &
rTLT
iao"oj
criiMiB WMtia-V
Fig. 3 Heat Removed by Radiation to

a Cooled Ceiling or Wall Panel
introduce some forced convection that will disturb the natural
process.
The effect of forced convection on heat transfer from
panels has been reported3 as an increment to be added to the
natural convection coefficient. However, increased heat
transfer from forced convection should not be used, because the increments are unpredictable in pattern and performance
and do not significantly increase the total capacity of the
panel system.
The convection in a panel system is a function of the panel
surface temperature and the temperature of the airstream
layer directly below the panel. The most consistent results are
obtained when the air layer temperature is measured close to
the region where the fully developed stream begins, usually 2
to 2.5 in. (SI to 64 mm) below the panels. Very little heat
transfer literature describes experiences pertinent to this application, although some of the pioneer work has been done.6
Research4 has determined natural convection coefficients
referred to the center of the space 5 ft (1.5 m) above the floor
in a 12 x 24 ft (300 x 600 mm) room. Equations (4) to (9), derived from this research, can be used to calculate heat transfer
from panels by natural convection.
Natural convection from a heated ceiling
qc = 0.041 (f-/,)'"/>,"*
(4)
Natural convection from a heated floor or cooled ceiling
,:
008
(5)
9 c =0.39(/ p -/ f l ) "/>,
Natural convection from a heated or cooled wall panel
qc = 0.29{tp - tayM/H00i
(6)
"where
qe = heat transfer by natural convection, Btu/h ft2 (W/m2).
tp = temperature of panel surface, F (C).
ta = temperature of the air, F (Q.
De = equivalent diameter of panel (area X4T perimeter), ft(m).
H * height of wall panel, ft (m)..
Measurements of panel performance in furnished test
rooms that did not have uniform temperature surfaces
showed variations that are not large enough to be significant
in heating practice.7 Other tests8 established that the effect of
room size was also usually insignificant. The convection equations can therefore be simplified to:
/.
/
>
/
/
/ /1
.,r. i * a
60
f*
V'EW FAC ' O R . I 0

SUM O F At L SURFACE S-090
SO
/
/
... -
b"
\/.
10
IS 20
25
30 31 401 4 5i
SO
1 SS 60
65
TEMP. OF PANEL SURFACE MINUS TEMP. OF AIR (Ip - lo) -
70
Fig. 4 Heat Output by Natural Convection

from Floor and Ceiling Heating Panels
Natural convection from a heated ceiling
qc = 0.021 (tp - ta)125
(7)
Natural convection from a heated floor or cooled ceiling
qe = 0 . 3 2 ( / p - / J , : "
(8)
Natural convection from a heated or cooled wall panel
qr = 0.26
(t-tay
(9)
Figure 4 shows heat output by natural convection from
floor and ceiling heating panels as calculated from Eq. (7) and
(8).
Figure 5 shows heat removed by natural convection by
TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE TO PANEL SURFACE-F DES
Fig. 5 Heat Removed by Natural Convection

to Ceiling Cooling Panels .
D-6
CHAPTER 8
8.6
40
SO
20
OUTDOOR AIR
IO
O
-10
TCMPCRATURC -OCCRCC FAHR.
-20
[Indoor air Hmptraturo 70 f\
Fig. 6 Relation of Inside Surface Temperature

to Overall Coefficient of Heat Transfer
cooled ceiling panels as calculated by Eq. (8) and data6 for
specific panel sizes. An additional curve is shown to illustrate
the effect of forced convection on the latter data. Similar adjustment of the ASHRAE data is not exactly appropriate, but
the effects would be of the same order of magnitude. As a preliminary basis for design in Fig. 5, use 1 Btu/hft2F (5.68
W/m2C) of temperature difference between room design
and panel temperature.
Combined Heat Transfer (Radiation and Convection)
The combined heat transfer from a panel to a room can be
determined by adding the radiant heat transfer from Fig. 2 or
3 to the convective heat transfer from Fig. 4 or 5, respectively.
Use of Fig. 2 and 3 requires calculating the AUST in the
room. In calculating the AUST, the surface temperature of
the inside walls is assumed to be the same as the room air temperature. The surface temperatures of outside walls and exposed floors or ceilings for heating panel calculations can be
obtained from Fig. 6 for a 70 F (21C) room air temperature.
Corrections for other temperatures may be obtained from
Rg.7.
The combined heat transfer for ceiling and floor panels
when used for heating in rooms in which the air temperature is
70 to 76 F (21 to 24Q can be read directly from Fig. 8 and 9,
respectively. These two diagrams apply to rooms in which the
AUST does not differ greatly from room air temperatures.
Tests9,10 show that the temperatures are almost equal.
The combined radiation and convection transfer for cooling, as given in Fig. 3 and 5, is shown in Fig. 10. The data in
Fig. 10 do not include heat gains from sun, lights, people or
equipment. Refer to the manufacturer's data to include these
heat gains.
In suspended ceiling panel systems, heat can be transferred
from the ceiling panel to the floor slab above (heating) and
vice versa (cooling). The ceiling panel surface temperature is
affected because of heat transfer to or from the panel and the
slab by radiation and, to a much smaller extent, by convection. The radiation component can be approximated using
Fig. 1. The convection component can be approximated using
Fig. 2 or 3. In this case, the temperature difference used is that
between the top of the ceiling panel and the midspace of the
ceiling. Theoretically, the temperature of the ceiling space
should be determined by testing, since it varies with different
types of panel systems. However, much of this heat transfer is
nullified with the application of insulation over the ceiling
panel, which, for perforated metal panels, also provides
acoustical control.
If lighting fixtures are recessed into the suspended ceiling
space, radiation from the top of the fixtures will raise the
overhead slab temperature and will transfer heat to the ceiling
space by convection. This energy will be absorbed at the top
of the cooled ceiling panels by radiation, as in Fig. 3, and by
convection, generally in accordance with Eq. (4). The amount
the top of the panel absorbs depends on the system type. Most
system manufacturers have empirical information available.
Similarly, panels'installed under a roof will absorb additional
heat, again depending on configuration and insulation.
Panel Thermal Resistance
The thermal resistance to heat flow may vary considerably
among panel systems, depending on the type of bond between
the water tube and the panel material. This bond may change
with time, corrosion between lightly touching surfaces,
method of maintaining contact and other factors. The actual
thermal resistance of any proposed system should be verified
by testing whenever practicable. Tables 1 through 4 show
some typical values for thermal resistance factors for various
types of floor and ceiling panels.
0.1
0.2 0.3 O * 0.5 0.6 0.7 OB Ofl

1.0
IJ
O V E K A U . COEFFICIENT OF HEAT TRANSFER
U - B T U PER ( H ) ( S Q F f X f DEC)
1.2
Fig. 7 Inside Wall Surface Temperature Correction

for Air Temperatures Other Than 70 F
Effect of Floor Coverings

Floor coverings can have a pronounced effect on the performance of a floor heating panel system. The added thermal resistance of the floor covering reduces upward heat flow and
increases the heat flow to the underside of the slab. To maintain a given upward heat flow after a floor covering has been
added, the temperature of the heating medium must be increased. Data on the thermal resistance of common floor coverings are given in Table 5.
Where covered and bare floor panels exist in the same system, it may be possible to maintain a high enough water temperature to satisfy the covered panels and balance the system
by throttling the flow to the bare slabs. In,some instances,
however, the increased water temperature required when car-
D-7
8.7
'X
,,/
X
S00^
. / ' .
^
>sf^
1.
I
* * ^j i
1 OUIH
.?
iS
^
I
^
^
Cm I
^
%-^
^ ^
-^
P^
^
^s*
***^.
^-^
^~
--^1,J
ro
r^
I3>
jf-
"
*/
CONV ERStON FACTORS

*C * ( F - 3 W - B
o/.-C iW
/
/
tt'-F-tVBtu *
(t value)
ttiffi
/
/
_*zL*iUA L ^ LftdL*JL4LsA .#/ -*A-?A-#A-$A-&L$A-&L?A-*A. M.M. *l L^.^Z
SURFACE OR MEAN WATERTEMPERATURE F
Fig. 8 Ceiling Panel Design Graph Showing Panel Surface Temperature and
Mean Water Temperature vs. Output Downward
^^VV^VVVVv^^^VV^VVsVV^^^Jî^'
SURFACE OR MEAN WATER TEMPERATURE F
Fig. 9 Floor Panel Design Graph Showing Pane) Surface Temperature and
Mean Water Temperature vs. Output Upward
peting is applied over floor panels makes it impossible to balancefloorpanel systems in which only some rooms have car-
D-8
peting, unless the pipe is arranged to permit zoning using

more than one water temperature.
8.8
CHAPTER 8
Table 2 Thermal Resistance of Concrete

Ceiling Panels (Heating)
1 I
CONVERSION FACTORS:
ft'xais
W/m'-BtuA
,s
_r
l\
V
THICKNESS
PANEL
.SURFACE ,
SA.
\ ^
COVER"
75
Fig. 10 Performance of a Cooled Ceiling Panel

(Uniform Environment, No Infiltration, No Internal Heat
Sources)
Panel Heat Losses
Heat transferred from the upper surface of ceiling panels,
the back surface of wall panels, the underside of floor panels
or the edges of any panel is considered a panel heat loss. Panel
Table 1 Thermal Resistance of Bare
Concrete Floor Panels (Heating)*
Spacing,
hi.
(nun)
up
dowa up
down np
down up
dowo
'ds
'us
'ds 'us
'ds 'us
'ds
0.5-in(l2.7mm)
(nom.)
ponferrous
tube
9
(228.6)
12
(304.8)
0.57
0.52 0.46
0.84 0.43
1.17 0.42
1.97
(0.10) (0.09) (0.08) (0.15) (0.08) (0.21) (0.07) (0.34)
0.73
0.68 0.58
1.16 0.54
1.65 0.51
2.86
(0.13) (0.12) (0.10) (0.20) (0.10) (0.29) (0.09) (0.50)
<L5-ln. (12.7 ram)

(nom.)
ferrous pipe
or0.7$-in.
(19.1 mm)
(nom.) nonferrous tube
9
(228.6)
12
(304.8)
0.49
0.42 0.41
0.66 0.39
0.90 0.38
1.80
(0.09) (0.07) (0.07) (0.12) (0.07) (0.16) (0.07) (0.32)
0.63
0.55 0.50
0.93 0.48
1.30 0.46
2.35
(0.11) (0.10) (0.09) (0.16) (0.08) (0.23) (0.08) (0.41)
6-tn. (152.4 mm)

Concrete Slab
M a . (SO.8 mm)
Oner
0.5-ta.(12.7mm)
(nom.)
nonferrous
tube
9
(228.6)
12
(304.8)
0.59
0.70 0.47
1.39 0.43
2.25
1.05 0.45
(0.10) (0.12) (0.08) (0.18) (0.08) (0.24) (0.08) (0.40)
0.78
0.90 0.60
1.97 0.54
3.21
1.40 0.56
(0,14) (0.16) (0.11) (0.25) (0.10) (0.35) (0.10 (0.56)
0.754n(l9.lmm)
(nom.)
nonferrous
tube
9
(228.6)
12
(304.8)
0.51
0.61 0.43
1.78
0.87 0.41
1.13 0.40
(0.09) (0.11) (0.08) (0.15) (0.07) (0.20) (0.07) (0.31)
0.68
0.78 0.54
1.23 0.51
1.63 0.49
2.61
(0.12) (.14) (0.10) (0.22) (0.09) (0.29) (0.09) (0.46)
0.7S4n.(l9.1mm)
(nom.)
ferrous pipe
9
(228.6)
12
(304.8)
0.47
0.55 0.40
0.77 0.39
0.98 0.38
1.50
(0.08) (0.10) (0.07) (0.14) (0.07) (0.17) (0.07) (0.26)
0.71 0.50
1.44 0.46
0.63
1.07 0.48
2.36
(0.11) (0.12) (0.09) (0.19) (0.08) (0.20) (0.08) (0.42)
1-to. (25.4 mm)

(nam.)
nonferrous
tubcorl-in.
(nom.) ferrous pipe
12
(304.8)
15
(381)
0.59
0.66 0.48
0.98 0.46
I JO 0.45
2.11
(0.10) (Q.12) (0.08) (0.17) (0.08) (0.23) (0.08) (0.37)
0.73
0.83 0.57
1.21 0.54
1.73 0.SI
2.74
(0.13) (0.15) (0.10) (0.21) (0.10) (0.J0) (0.09) (0.48)
D-9
down
np
down
'us
'd
'us
'd
'us
'd
0.5-in. (12.7 mm) (nom.)

ferrous pipe or 0.75-in.
(nom.) non-ferrous tube
9
(228.6)
12
(304.8)
2.6
0.25
(0.46) (0.04)
4.0
0.30
(0.70) (0.05)
0.7
0.30
(0.12) (0.05)
0.9
0.40
(0.16) (0.07)
0.6
0.35
((0.ll)(0.06>
0.8
0.50
(0.14) (0.08)
0.75-in.(l9.l mm)(nom.) ferrous

pipe or Inn. (25.4 mm)
9
(228.6)
12
(304.8)
IS
(381)
2.1
(0.37)
3J
(0.58)
4J
(0.79)
0.20
(0.04)
0.30
(0.05)
0.35
(0.06)
0.6
(0.11)
0.8
(0.14)
1.0
(0.18)
0.25
(0.04)
0.35
(0.06)
0.45
(0.08)
0.6
0.30
(0.11) (0.05)
0.7
0.40
(0.12) (0.07)
0.8
0.55
(0.14) (0.10)
1-in. (25.4 mm) (nom.)

ferrous pipe
9
(228.6)
12
(304.8)
1.6
(0.28)
2.6
(0.46)
0.20
(0.04)
0.25
(0.04)
0.5
(0.09)
0.7
(0.12)
15
3.6
0.30 0.9
(381) (0.63) (0.05) (0.16)
0.25
(0.04)
0.30
(0.05)
0.40
(0.07)
0.5
0.25
(0.09) (0.04)
0.9
0.40
(0.16) (0.07)
0.7
0.45
(0.12) (0.08)
S-ln. (203 J mm) Concrete Slab

Wo. (15.4 mm) Cover
0.5-in. (12.7 mm) (nom.)
nonferrous tube
3.6
0.30
1.0
0.35
0.8
0.40
(228.6) (0.63) (0.05) (0.18) (0.06) (0.14) (0.07)

12 5J
0.35 1.2
0.45 1.0
0.55
(304.8) (0.92) (0.06) (0.21) (0.08) (0.18) (0.10)
9
2.9
0.25 0.9
(228.6) (0JI) (0.04)
0J0 0.8
(0.16) (0.05)
0.35
(0.14) (0.06)
12 4.0
0.30 I.I
0.40 0.9
0.45
(304.8) (0.70) (0.05) (0.19) (0.07) (0.16) (0.08)
9
(228.6)
12
(304.8)
2.2
(0.39)
3.3
(0.58)
4.3
0.20
(0.04)
0.30
(0.05)
0JS
0.8
(0.14)
1.0
(0.18)
1.1
0.30
(0.05)
0J5
(0.06)
0.40
0.7
0.30
(0.12) (0.05)
0.8
0.40
(0.14) (0.07)
0.9
0J0
(381) (0.76) (0.06) (0.19) (0.07) (0.16) (0.09)

I-in. (25.4 mm) (nom.) ferrous pipe
'us
up
0.7
0.45
(0.12) (0.08)
0.9
0J5
(0.16) (0.10)
0.75-in. (19.1 mm) (nom.) ferrous

pipe or I-in. (25.4 mm)
10
down
3.6
0.30 0.9
0.35
(0.63) (0.05) (0.16) (0.06)
0.45
5.1
0.35 1.1
(0.90) (0.06) (0.19) (0.08)
15
44a. (101.6 mm)

Concrete Slab
24n. ($0.8 mm)
Cover
TO
03
up
9
(228.6)
12
(304.8)
0.5-in. (12.7 mm) (nom.) ferrous

pipe or 0.75-in. (19.1 mm)
Thermal Resistance, 11* F h/Btu

(m2 .C/W)
Heal Flow Hallo. qu/arf
org,,/qa,~
Kent Flow Ratio. 1 qulqd
0.5-in.(l2.7mm)(nom.)
ROnfcrroustube
CEILING PANEL TEMPERATURE,F
Panel Coustracuon
Spacing.
In.
-ta. (152.4 mm) Coacnrie Slab

14a. (25.4 m a ) Cover
70
Thermal Resistance,
f|2.F.b/Bto
(m*."C/W
Panel Construction
x\
1.7
0.20 0.7
0.25 0.7
0.25
(228.6) (0.30) (0.04)
(0.12) (0.04)
(0.12) (0.04)
12
(304.8)
15
(381)
0.9
(0.16)
1.0
(0.18)
0.8
(0.14)
0.9
(0.16)
2.7
(0.48)
3.7
(0.63)
0.25
(0.04)
0.30
(0.05)
0.30
(0.05)
0.40
(0.07)
0.35
(0.06)
0.45
(0.08)
a
Any ceiling panel also acts as afloorpanel to the extent of its upward heat flow. If the
upward heatflowis high and the space above is occupied, check floor surface temperature for
possible foot discomfort (see Ref 8). Also check effect on heating requirements of the space
above, it is not good practice to have the major portion of the upper room's heating
requirements supplied by the upward heatflowof a ceiling panel below.
heat losses are part of the building heat loss if the heat is
transferred outside of the building. If the heat is transferred
to another heated space, the panel loss is a source of heat for
the space and is not a part of the building heat loss. In either
case, the magnitude of panel loss should be determined.
Panel heat loss to space outside the room should be kept to
a reasonable amount by insulation. Panel heat loss to heated
spaces may require reduction by insulation if the amount of
heat transferred is excessive or if objectionable temperatures
develop. For example, a floor panel may overheat the basement below and a ceiling panel may cause the temperature of
a floor surface above it to be too high for comfort unless it is
properly insulated.
The heat loss from most panels can be calculated by using
the coefficients given in Chapter 20 of the 1981 FUNDAMENTALS VOLUME. These coefficients should not be used to determine the downward heat loss from panels-built on grade be-
8.9
ySLAB
rOUNDATK
Table 3 Thermal Resistance of Piaster Celling Panels (Heating or Cooling)
GRADE
Thermal Resistance to Downward Heat Flow, rd,

ft 2 .F>h/Bra
(m 2 ."C/W)
Gypsum Plaster. Three Coats
SPACING
:-. EITHER WAV
Spacing,
In.
Plaster Pancb b Standard
0.30
(0.05)
qu/qj
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.34
(0.06)
0.38
(0.07)
0.42
(0.07)
0.46
(0.08)
0.50
(0.09)
(mm)
4.5
(114)
TUBES OR PIPES
Heat Flow Ratio,*
-r
1.3
J*-H
I N S U L A T I O N AT SLAfc/
EDGE ONLY d - 0
METAL LATH
ii
METAL OR
1.2
(NO INSULATION C 3 =I.B)
I.I
/ G Y P S U M LATH
m Mmm>m^<&i
1.0
^CoOj.
^TUBES
< o
0.9
0.45
(0.08)
0.75
(0.13)
1.15
(0.20)
0.51
(0.09)
0.85
(0.15)
1.29
(0.23)
0.57
(0.10)
0.95
(0.17)
1.43
(0.25)
0.63
(0.11)
1.05
(0.18)
1.57
(0.28)
0.69
(0.12)
1.15
(0.20)
1.71
(0.30)
0.75
(0-13)
1.25
(0.22)
1.85
(0.33)
Any ceiling panel also acts as a floor panel to the extent of its upward heat now. If the upward heat flow Is high and the
space above is occupied, check floor surface tempciature for possible foot discomfort (see Ref 10). Also check effect on
heating requirements of the space above. It is not good practice to have the major portion of the upper room's heating requirements supplied by the upward heal flow of a ceiling panel below.
bRecommendcd maximum inlet water temperature ('max) - 140F(60Q.
cause the heat flow from them is not uniform.""13 The heat
loss from panels built on grade can be estimated from Fig. 11.
P A N E L HEATING A N D COOLING SYSTEMS
The most common forms of panels applied in panel heating
and cooling systems are:
1. Metal ceiling panels.
2. Embedded piping in ceilings, walls or floors.
3. Air-heated floors.
4. Electrically heated ceilings or floors.
5. Electric ceiling panels.
Table 4 Thermal Resistance of Metal Ceiling Panels

Thermal Resistance to Heat Flow
fti'F'h/Btu
(m0C/W)
Type of Panel
SpacingInches (mm)
PAN E 0 6 E
HELD AGAINST
PIPE BY
SPRING CUP
3
(76.2)
6
(132)
0.61"
(0.11)
COPPER TUBE SOLOEREO

TO 0 . 0 4 0 IN. THICK
ALUMINUM SHEET
Manufacturer's data.
(102)
8
(203)
0.071"
(0.01)
0.15"
(0.03)
FACTOAfl
XO3048
W/m 1 - C - B t W I i r i * fXSJBB
(C,
0.7
1
O.I
0.2
0.3
INSULATION CONDUCTANCE
BTU PER (HR) ISO FT) (F DEC)
0.4
Fig. 11 Downward and Edgewise

Heat Loss Coefficient for
Concrete Floor Slabs on Grade
Metal Ceiling Panels

Metal ceiling panels are usually integrated into a system
that heats and cools. In such a system, a source of dehumidified ventilation air is required in summer, and the system is
classed as one of the combination air-water systems. Also,
various amounts of forced air are supplied year-round. When
metal panels are applied for heating purposes only, a ventilation system may or may not be required, depending on local
codes.
Figure 12 illustrates a metal ceiling panel system that uses
0.5-in. (13-mm) pipe laterals, on either 6-, 12- or 24-in. (150-,
300- or 600-mm) centers, hydraulically connected in a sinuous
or parallel flow welded system. Aluminum ceiling panels are
clipped to these pipe laterals, acting as a heating panel when
warm water is flowing, or as a cooling panel when chilled
water is flowing. Figure 14 illustrates a metal panel ceiling system using copper tubing, metallurgicaliy bonded to an aluminum panel that can be mounted into various types of ceiling
12
(305)
-ALUMINUM PAN
0 . 0 3 2 IN. THICK
comfERStON
Table 5 Thermal Resistance of Floor Coverings

Description
0.31"
(0.05)
TUBE SPACING
i
a
Resistance fruef
ft*Fh/Bto
<m2C/W)
Bare concrete, no covering

Asphalt tile
Rubber tile
0.00
O.OS
0.05
light carpet
Light carpet with rubber pad
Light carpet with light pad
Light carpet with heavy pad
0.6
1.0
1.4
1.7
(0.11)
(0.18)
(0.25)
(0.30)
Heavy carpet
Heavy carpet with rubber pad
Heavy carpet with light pad
Heavy carpet with heavy pad
0.8
1.2
1.6
1.9
III!
STEEL PIPE
0.8
D-10
!!!
3/8-in. (9.5 mm) (nom.) nonferrous

tube or '/S-in. (12.7 mm) (nom.)
6
ferrous pipe above metal lath tied at (192)
8-in. (203.2 mm) intervals
9
with good tube embedment,
(229)
or 3/8-in. (9.5 mm) (nom.) nonferrousl6
tube below m clal or gypsum lath
(406)
8.10
CHAPTER 8
, THERMAL L*N*CT

SUPFOIIT BRACKET
COPPER TUBE PRESSED INTO
AND CUPS
OVAL CHANNEL .
l SQUARE HEADER
Fig. 14 Extruded Aluminum Panel with

Integral Copper Tube
COftVf NSKMI ACTOR
V , PIPE LATERAL
PANEL CLIP
Fig. 12 Metal Ceiling Panels Attached lo Pipe Laterals

suspension systems. Figure IS illustrates a metal panel using a
copper tube pressed into an aluminum extrusion.
Metal ceiling panels can be perforated so that the ceiling becomes sound absorbent when acoustical material is installed,
either on the back side of the panels or on the underside of the
overhead floor system. The acoustical blanket is also required
for thermal reasons, so that the reverse loss or upward flow of
heat from the metal ceiling panels is minimized.
The metal panel system shown in Fig. 12 and 13 is designed
so that the grid system can expand relative to the suspension
system, but the suspension system should not move in relation
to the building. The suspension system holding the ceiling
grids in place must be braced by cross-furring against the
walls of the building in both horizontal directions. The expansion and contraction of the ceiling grids are compensated for
by allowing the metal panels to move or adjust in the wall
molding. The maximum design value of movement is 0.56 in.
(14 mm). Many large grids have been constructed in the field
by butt welding the pipe laterals together to produce 100 ft.
(30 m) lengths. A steel pipe grid will expand 0.8 in. per 100 ft
per 100 deg F (0.67 mm/m per 56C). Such large grids should
have metal panel ceiling expansion joints that line up with the
expansion joints of the building.
Metal ceiling panels can be used with two- and four-pipe
distribution systems. It is common to design for a 20 deg F
(11C) temperature drop for heating across a given grid and a
5 deg F (2.8C) rise for cooling, but higher temperatures drops
can be used if applicable.
Some ceiling installations require active grids to cover only

a portion of the room, while compatible matching acoustical
panels are selected for the remaining ceiling area. Extruded
aluminum-type panels are often used as long-narrow panels at
the outside wall and are independent of the ceiling system.
Embedded Piping in Ceilings, Walls and Floors
When piping is embedded in ceilings, one of the following
constructions is generally used:
1. Pipe or tube is embedded in the lower portion of a concrete slab,
generally within an inch (25 mm) of its lower surface. If plaster is to be
applied to the concrete, the piping may be placed directly on the wood
forms. If the slab is to be used without plaster finish, the piping
should be installed not less than 0.75 in. (19 mm) above the undersurface of the slab. Figure IS shows this method of construction. The
minimum coverage must comply with local building code requirements.
2. Pipe or tube is embedded in a metal lath and plaster ceiling. If
the lath is suspended to form a hung ceiling, the lath and heating coils
are securely wired to the supporting members so that the lath is below,
but in good contact with, the coils. Plaster is then applied to the metal
lath, carefully embedding the coil as shown in Fig. 16.
3. Smaller diameter copper tube is attached to the underside of wire
lath or gypsum lath. Plaster is then applied to the lath to embed the
tube, as shown in Fig. 17.
4. Other forms of ceiling construction are composition board,
':o:o\?: i \%-.?io;.;o:: o - : -.oy i -. :o ; ; ..i.v-.o :
' -". o : 'CONCRETE SLAB,".? \ ".-. 0 -'. V." : ?". '"
. H E A T I N G C O I L S " .<>-
o . o;
' o ' . ' o ' : [: o.-.o.'.
-o'. o.v
Fig. 15 Coils in Structural Concrete Slab

WIRE TIE T O
SUPPORTS
SCRATCH COAT
HEATING
/
EMBEDDING
PIPING
/
PIPES
3 COAT PLASTER
FINISH
SUPPORTING MEMBERS
ON 3 OR 4 FT CENTERS.
USE PIPE OR STEEL
STRUCTURAL MEMBERS
M E T A L LATH
FINISHED PLASTER C E I L I N G
SUSPENDED
PLASTER
CEILING
SCRATCH COAT
EMBEDDING P I P E S
COPPER TUBE, ALUMINUM

SHEET, MODULAR RADIANT
AC0UST4CAL PANEL
3 COAT PLASTER
FINISH
P L A S T E R C E I L I N G BELOW
Fig. 13 Metal Ceiling Panels Metallurgical^

BondedtoCopper Tubing
^METAL L A T H
FINISHEO PLASTER C E I L I N G
JOISTS
Fig. 16 Coils in Piaster Above Lath
D-ll
8.11

LATH APPLIED'
BELOW J O I S T S
COILS W I R E T I E D TO L A T H
OUTSIDE WALL
ASPHALT IMPREGNATED
INSULATION BOARD
POURED SLAB
CONCRETE EDGE
CURBING
PRECAST SLAB
CONCRETE FLOOR SUPPORTS
/
AND DIRECTIONAL VANES
-AIR
PLENUM
-CONCRETE
-INSULATION
3 COAT
FINISH
HEATING COILS
BELOW L A T H
PLASTER
-GRAVEL OR ROCK F I L L
FINISHED PLASTER CEILING

-EARTH
Fig. 17 Coils in Plaster Below Lath
FOOTING WALL
Fig. 19 Warm Air Floor Panel Construction
ms-m
FOUNDATION
Fig. 18
Coils in Floor Slab on Grade
wood paneling and so forth, with warm water piping, tube or channels
built into the panel sections.
Coils are usually the sinuous type, although some header or
grid-type coils have been used in ceilings. Coils may be plastic,
ferrous or nonferrous pipe or tube, with coil pipes spaced
from 4.5 to 9 in. (1 IS to 230 mm) on centers, depending on the
required output, pipe or tube size and other factors.
Where plastering is applied to pipe coils, a standard threecoat gypsum plastering specification14 is followed, with a
minimum of 0.38 in. (9.6 mm) of cover below the tubes when
they are installed below the lath. Generally, the surface temperature of plaster panels should not exceed 120 F (49C).
This can be accomplished by limiting the water temperature in
the pipes or tubes in contact with the plaster to a maximum
temperature of 140 F (60C). Insulation should be placed
above the coils to reduce reverse loss, the difference between
heat supplied to the coil and net useful output to the heated
room.
To protect the plaster installation and to assure proper air
drying, heat must not be applied to the panels for two weeks
after all plastering work has been completed. When the
system is started for the first time, the water supplied to the
panels should not be Higher than 20 deg F (11C) above the
prevailing room temperature at that time and not in excess of
90 F (32C). Water should be circulated at this temperature
for about two days, then increased at a rate of about 5 deg F
(2.8Q per day to 140 F (60C).
During the air-drying and preliminary warm-up periods,
there should be adequate ventilation to carry moisture from
the panels. No paint or paper should be applied to the panels
before these periods have been completed or while the panels
are being operated. After paint and paper have been applied,
an additional shorter warm-up period, similar to first-time
starting, is also recommended.
Although not as universally used as ceiling panels, wall
panels can be constructed by any of the methods outlined for
ceilings. The construction for piping embedded in floors depends on whether the floor is laid on grade or above grade.
1. Plastic, ferrous and nonferrous pipe and tube are used in floor
slabs that rest on grade. The coils are constructed as sinuous-continuous pipe coils or arranged as header coils with the pipes spaced from
6 to 18 in. (ISO to 450 mm) on centers. The coils are generally installed
with 1.5 to 4 in. (40 to 100 mm) of cover above the coils. Insulation is
recommended to reduce the perimeter and reverse losses. Figure 18
shows the application of pipe coils in slabs resting on grade. Coils
should be embedded completely and should not rest on an interface.
Any supports used for positioning the heating coils should be nonabsorbent and inorganic. It is suggested that reinforcing steel, angle
iron, pieces of pipe or stone or concrete mounds be used. No wood,
brick, concrete block or similar materials should be used for support
of coils. A waterproofing layer is desirable to protect insulation and
piping.
2. Where the coils are embedded in structural load-supporting slabs
above grade, construction codes may affect their position. Otherwise,
the coil piping is installed as described for slabs resting on grade.
3. A warm-up and start-up period for concrete panels should be
similar to that outlined for plaster panels.
Air-Heated Floors
Several methods have been devised to warm interior room
surfaces by circulating heated air through passages in the
floor. In some cases the heated air is recirculated in a closed
system. In others, all or a part of the air is passed through the
room on its way back to the furnace to provide supplementary
heating and ventilation. Figure 19 indicates one common type
of construction. Compliance with applicable building codes is
important.
Electrically Heated Ceilings
Several different forms of electric resistance units are available for heating interior room surfaces. These include: (1)
electric heating cables that may be embedded in concrete or
plaster or laminated in drywall ceiling construction, (2) prefabricated electric heating panels to be attached to room surfaces and (3) electrically heated fabrics or other materials for
application to, or incorporation into, finished room surfaces.
Electric heating cables for embedded or laminated, ceiling
panels are factory-assembled units furnished in standard
lengths of about 75 to 1800 ft (25 to 550 m). These cable
lengths cannot be altered in the field. The cable assemblies are
normally rated at 2.75 W per linear ft (9 W/m) and are supplied in capacities from 200 to 5000 W in roughly 200-W increments. Standard cable assemblies are available for 120,208
and 240 V. Each cable unit is supplied with 7-ft (2.1-m) nonheating leads for connection at the thermostat or junction
box.
Electric cables for panel heating have electrically insulated
coverings resistant to medium temperature, water absorption,
aging effects and chemical action with plaster, cement or ceiling lath material. This insulation is normally a polyvinylchloride (PVC) covering which may have a nylon jacket. The outside diameter of the insulation covering is usually about 0.12
in. (3 mm).
For plastered ceiling panels, the heating cable may be sta-
D-12
CHAPTER 8
8.12
pled to gypsum board, plaster lath or similar fire-resistant

materials with rust-resistant staples. With metal lath or other
conducting surfaces, a coat of plaster (brown or scratch coat)
is applied to completely cover the metal lath or conducting
surface before the cable is attached. After fastening on the
lath and applying the first plaster coat, each cable is tested for
continuity of circuit and for insulation resistance of at least
100,000 ohms measured to ground.
The entire ceiling surface is finished with a covering of thermally noninsulating sand plaster about 0.S0 to 0.7S in. (13 to
19 mm) thick or other approved noninsulating material applied according to manufacturer's specifications. The plaster
is applied parallel to the heating cable, rather than across the
runs. While new plaster is drying, the system should not be energized and the range and rate of temperature change should
be kept low by other heat sources or by ventilation until the
plaster is thoroughly cured. Vermiculite or other insulating
plaster causes cables to overheat and is contrary to code provisions.
For laminated drywall ceiling panels, the heating cable is
placed between two layers of gypsum board, plasterboard or
other thermally noninsulating fire-resistant ceiling lath. The
cable is stapled directly to the first (or upper) lath, and the two
layers are held apart by the thickness of the heating cable. It is
essential that the space between the two layers of lath be completely filled with a noninsulating plaster or similar material.
The purpose of this fill is to hold the cable firmly in place and
to improve heat transfer between the cable and the finished
ceiling. Failure to fill the space completely between the two
layers of plasterboard may allow the cable to overheat in the
resulting voids and may cause cable failure. The plaster fill
should be applied according to manufacturer's specifications.
Electric heating cables are ordinarily installed with a 6-in.

(150-mm) nonhealing border around the periphery of the ceiling. An 8-in. (200-mm) clearance must be provided between
heating cables and the edges of the outlet or junction boxes
used for surface-mounted lighting fixtures. A 2-in. (SI mm)
clearance must be provided from recessed lighting fixtures,
trim and ventilating or other openings in the ceiling.
Heating cables or panels must be installed only in ceiling
areas which are not covered by partitions, cabinets or other
obstructions. However, it is permissible for a single run of
isolated embedded cable to pass over a partition.
The National Electric Code requires that all general power
and light wiring be run above the thermal insulation or at least
2 in. (51 mm) above the heated ceiling surface, or that the wiring be derated.
In drywall ceiling construction, the heating cable is always
installed with the cable runs parallel to the joist. A 2.5-in. (64mm) clearance between adjacent cable runs must be left centered under each joist for nailing. Cable runs that cross over
the joist must be kept to a minimum. Where possible, these
crossings should be in a straight line at one end of the room.
Figure 20 shows details of ceiling cable installation practice
for plastered construction.
The spacing between adjacent runs of heating cable can be
determined using Eq. (10):
(10)
s=UA/C
where
s = cable spacing, in. (mm).
A = net panel heated area, ft2 (m2).
C = length of cable, ft (m).
For cable having a watt density of 2.75 W/ft (9 W/m), the
LEAVE 8 IN. (203.2 MM> CLEARANCE

BETWEEN BOX AND
HEATING WIRE
6IN.(152.4 MM) INSULATION MINIMUM
1
.:rJ
IN. (152 4 MMI CLEAR SPACE

FROM WALL
FULL THICK INSULATION
- -irv
STAPLE 6 IN. (152.4 MM) FROM TURN
3 IN. (76.2 MM) FROM TURN AND
ON RADIUS OF BEND
(MAX. STAPLE SPACING 16 IN
Fig. 20
Electric Heating Panel for Wet Plastered Celling
D-13
EXTERIOR
FINISH
8.13
minimum permissible spacing is 1.5 in. (38 mm) between adjacent runs. Some manufacturers recommend a minimum spacing of 2 in. (51 mm) for drywall construction.
Net panel area, A, in Eq. (10) is the net ceiling area available after deducting the area covered by the nonheating border, lighting fixtures, cabinets and other ceiling obstructions.
Since, for simplicity, Eq. (10) contains a slight safety factor,
small lighting fixtures are usually ignored in determining net
ceiling area.
The 2.5-in. (64-mm) clearance required under each joist for
nailing in drywall applications occupies one-fourth of the ceiling area, if the joists are 16 in. (400 mm) o.c. Therefore, for
drywall construction, the net area, A, must be multiplied by
0.75. Many installations have a spaaing of 1.5 in. (38 mm) for
the first 2 ft (600 mm) from the cold wall. Remaining cable is
then spread over the balance of the ceiling.
Prefabricated Electric Ceiling Panels
A variety of prefabricated electric heating panels are available for either supplemental or full room heating. These panels are available in sizes from 2 x 4 ft (0.6 x i .2 m) to 6 x 12 ft
(1.8 x 3.6 m). They are constructed from a variety of materials
such as gypsum board, glass, steel and vinyl. Different panels
have rated inputs varying from 10 to 95 W/ft 2 (108 to 1023
W/m 2 ) for 120, 208, 240 and 277 V service. Maximum
operating temperatures vary from about 100 to about 300 F
(38 to 149 C), depending on watt density. Consult the national and local codes for restrictions on the location of partitions, lights and air grilles adjacent to or near electric panels.
Panel heating elements may be embedded conductors, laminated conductive coatings or printed circuits. Nonheating
leads are connected and furnished as part of the panel. Some
panels can be cut to fit available space; others must be installed as received. Panels may be either flush or surface mounted
and, in some cases, are finished as part of the ceiling. Rigid
panels that are about 1-in. (25-mm) thick and weigh about 25
lb (11kg) each are available to fit standard 2 x 4 ft (0.6 x 1.2
m) modular tee-bar ceilings. Always follow the installation instructions furnished by the manufacturer.
Fig. 21 Electric Heating Cable in Concrete Slab

variety of standard voltages, watt densities and lengths. A
cable assembly consists of the specified length of heating
cable, waterproof hot-cold junctions, 7-ft (2.1-m) cold sections, UL-approved end fittings and connection leads. Several
standard Ml cable constructions are available, such as single
conductor, twin,conductor and double cable. Custom-designed MI heating cable assemblies can be ordered for specific
installations.
Other outer-covering materials that are sometimes specified
for electric floor heating cable include: (1) silicone rubber, (2)
lead and (3) tetrafiuoroethylene (Teflon).
Electrically Heated Wall Panels

Cable embedded in walls similar to ceiling construction is
occasionally found in Europe. Because of possible damage
from nails driven for hanging pictures or from building alteration, most codes in the United States prohibit such panels.
Some of the prefabricated panels described in the preceding
section are also used for wall panel heating.
Floor Heating Cable Installation

When PVC-jacketed electric heating cable is used for floor
heating, the concrete slab is laid in two pourings. The first
pour should be at least 3-in. (75-mm) thick and, where practical, should be insulating concrete to reduce downward heat
loss. For a proper bond between the layers, the finish slab
should be poured within 24 hours of the first pour, with a
bonding grout applied. The finish layer should be at least 1.5
in. (38 mm) and not more than 2-in. (Sl-mm) thick. This top
layer must not be insulating concrete (see Fig. 21). At least 1
in. (25 mm) of perimeter insulation should be installed as
shown in Fig. 12 and 21.
The cable is installed on top of the first pour of concrete not
closer than 2 in. (51 mm) from adjoining walls and partitions.
Methods of fastening the cable to the concrete include:
Electrically Heated Floors

Electric heating cable assemblies, such as those used for
ceiling panels, are sometimes used for concrete floor heating
systems. Since the possibility of cable damage during installation is greater for concrete floor slabs than for ceiling panels,
these assemblies must be carefully installed. After the cable
has been placed, all unnecessary traffic should be eliminated
until the concrete covering has been poured and hardened.
Preformed mats are sometimes used for electric floor slab
heating systems. These mats usually consist of PVC-insulated
heating cable woven in, or attached to, metallic or glass fiber
mesh. Such mats are available as prefabricated assemblies in
many sizes from 2 to 100 ft2 (6.18 to 9.3 m 2 ) and with various
watt densities.
Mineral-insulated (MI) heating cable is another effective
method of slab heating. MI cable is a small-diameter, highly
durable, flexible heating cable composed of solid electric-resistance heating wire or wires surrounded by tightly compressed magnesium oxide electrical insulation and enclosed by
a metal sheath. MI cable is available in stock assemblies in a
1. The cable is stapled to wood nailing strips fixed in the surface of

the rough slab. The predetermined cable spacing is maintained by
daubs of cement, plaster of paris or tape.
2. In lightweight or uncured concrete, the cable can usually be
stapled directly to the slab using hand-operated or powered stapling
machines.
3. Special anchor devices are available that are nailed to the first
slab to hold the cable in position while the top layer is being poured.
Preformed mats can be embedded in the concrete in a continuous pour. The mats are positioned in the area between expansion and/or construction joints and electrically connected
to a junction box. The slab is poured to within 1.5 to 2 in. (38
to 51 mm) of the finished level. The surface is rough screeded,
and the mats placed in position. The final cap is applied immediately. Since the first pour has not set, there is no adhesion problem between the first and second pour, and a monolithic slab results. A variety of contours can be developed by
using heater wire attached to glass fiber mats. Allow for circumvention of obstructions in the slab.
MI electric heating cable can be installed* in concrete slab
using either one or two pours. For single-pour applications
D-14
8.14
CHAPTER 8
the cable is fastened to the top of the reinforcing steel before

the pour is started. For two-layer applications the cable is laid
on top of the bottom structural slab and embedded in the
finish layer. Proper spacing between adjacent cable runs is
maintained by using prepunched copper spacer strips nailed to
the lower slab.
For a given floor heating cable assembly, the required cable
spacing is determined from Eq. (10). In general, cable watt
density and spacing should be such that floor panel watt density is not greater than 15 W/ft 2 (161 W/m 2 ). Higher watt
densities [up to 25 W/ft 2 (269 W/m 2 )) are often specified for
the 2-ft (0.6-m) border next to cold walls. It is important to
check with the latest issue of the National Electric Code and
other applicable codes to obtain information on maximum
panel watt density and other required criteria and parameters.

i /\
/
40
1
|
!
1. As wilh any hydronic system, close attention should be paid to

the piping system design. Piping should be designed to assure that water of the proper temperature and in sufficient quantity will be available to every grid or coil at all times. Reverse-return systems should be
considered to minimize balancing problems.
2. The apparatus dew point of the cooling coils in the air distributing system should be designed for full capacity plus a 10 to 15% safety
factor, because most problems occur when the supply air is short on
dehumidification capacity.
SHR =
RSH - PC
RTH
where
SHR = sensible heat ratio
RSH = room sensible heat
PC = panel cooling
RTH = room total heat
3. Individual ceiling panels can be connected for parallel flow using headers, or for sinuous or serpentine flow. To avoid flow irregularities within a header-type grid, the water channel or lateral
length should be greater than the header length. If the laterals in a
header grid are forced to run in a short direction, this problem can be
solved by using a combination series-parallel arrangement.
4. Noises from entrained air, high velocity or high pressure drop
devices or from pump and pipe vibrations must be avoided. Water
velocities should be high enough [usually 1.S fps (0.46 m/s) or higher]
to prevent separated air from accumulating and causing air binding.
Where possible, avoid automatic air venting devices over ceilings of
occupied spaces.
5. Design piping systems to accept thermal expansion adequately.
Do not allow forces from piping expansion to be transmitted to ceiling
panels. Thermal expansion of the ceiling panels must be considered.
6. In circulating water systems, both steel and copper pipe or tube
are used widely in ceiling, wall or floor panel construction. Some types
of plastic pipe also may be suitable where codes permit. Where coils
are embedded in concrete or plaster, no threaded joints should be used
for either pipe coils or mains. Steel pipe should be the all-welded type.
Copper tubing should be soft-drawn coils. Fittings and connections
should be minimized. Changes in direction should be made by bending. Solder-joint fittings for copper tube should be used with a
medium temperature solder of 95% tin, 5% antimony or capillary
brazing alloys. All piping should be subjected to a hydrostatic test of
at least three limes the working pressure, but not less than ISO psig
(1033 kPa). Maintain adequate pressure in piping while pouring concrete.
7. Locate ceiling panels adjacent to the outside wall and as close as
possible to the areas of maximum load. The panel area within 3 ft (1.0
m) of the outside wall should have a heating capacity equal to or
greater than 50% of the wall transmission load.
8. Ceiling system designs based on passing return air through the
D-15
1
i
20
1
CO NVERSIOR1 f ACTORS
- IF - 32l'l 8
h X 0.3MB
to
ISO
Fig. 22
The application, design and installation of panel systems

have certain requirements and techniques that should be recognized:
\y
' y / l
IOO
G E N E R A L DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
1 j
30
700
PANEL SURFACE TEMP, F
750
i I
1! 1
300
Suggested Design Ceiling Surface Temperatures

at Various Ceiling Heights
panels into the plenum space above the ceiling are not recommended,
because much of the panel heat transfer is lost to the return air system.
9. Allow sufficient space above the ceiling for installation and
connection of the piping that forms the radiant panel ceiling.
10. Placing the thermostat on a side wall where it can see the outside wall and the warm ceiling should be considered. The normal thermostat cover reacts to the warm ceiling panel, and the radiant effect of
the ceiling on the cover tends to alter the control point so that the thermostat controls 2 to 3 deg F (1 to 2C) lower when the outdoor
temperature is a minimum and the ceiling temperature is a maximum.
Experience indicates that radiantly heated rooms are more comfortable under these conditions than when the thermostat is located on
a back wall.
11. When selecting a ceiling panel surface temperature, mean water
temperature or watt density of an electric panel, the design parameters
are:
a. Excessively high temperatures over the occupied zone will cause
' the occupant to experience a "hot head effect."
b. Temperatures that are too low can result in an oversized, uneconomical panel and a feeling of coolness at the outside wall.
c. The technique in item 7 above should be given priority.
d. With normal ceiling heights of 8 to 9 ft (2.4 to 2.7 m), panels less
than 2 ft (0.6 m) wide at the outside wall can be designed for 235 F
(113Q surface temperature. If panels extend beyond 2 or 3 ft (0.6 or
0.9 m) into the room, the panel surface temperature should be approximately as given in Fig. 22. The surface temperature of concrete or
plaster panels is limited by construction.
12. If throttling valve control is used, either the end of the main
should have a fixed bypass, or the last one or two rooms on the mains
should have a bypass valve to maintain water flow in the main. Thus,
when a throttling valve modulates, there will be a rapid response.
13. When the panel chilled water system is started, the circulating
water temperature should be maintained at room temperature until
the air system is completely balanced, the dehumidification equipment
is operating properly and building humidity is at design value.
14. When the panel area for cooling is greater than the area required for heating, a two-panel arrangement (Fig. 23) can be used.
SUPPLY
HC
-*-
i
CO
Vbvi
R E T U II N -
> *
0V2
Ti
(el TWO-PIPE SYSTEM
IM FOUR-PIPE SYSTEM
Fig. 23 Split Panel Piping Arrangement

for Two-Pipe and Four-Pipe Systems
8.15
Panel HC (heating and cooling) is supplied with hot or chilled water

year-round. When chilled water is used, the controls function to activate panel CO (cooling only), and both panels are used for cooling.
15. To prevent condensation on the room side of cooling panels,
the panel water supply temperature should be maintained at least 1
deg F (0.6C) above the room design dewpoint temperature. This
minimum difference is recommended to allow for the normal drift of
temperature controls for the water and air systems, and also to provide a factor of safety for temporary increase in space humidity.
16. Selection of summer design room dewpoint below 50 F (10Q
generally is not economical.
17. The most frequently applied method of dehumidification utilizes cooling coils. If the main cooling coil is six rows or more, the
dewpoint of the air leaving will approach the temperature of the water
leaving. The cooling water leaving the dehumidifier can then be used
for the panel water circuit without danger of condensation during normal operation.
18. Several chemical dehumidification methods are available to
control latent and sensible loads separately. In one application, cooling tower water is used to remove heat from the chemical drying process, and additional sensible cooling is necessary to cool the dehumidified air to the required system supply air temperature.
19. When chemical dehumidification is used, hygroscopic chemical-type dewpoint controllers are required at the central apparatus and
at various zones to monitor dehumidification.
20. When cooled ceiling panels are used with a variable air volume
(VAV) system, the air supply rate should be near maximum volume to
assure adequate dehumidification before the cooling ceiling panels are
activated.
21. Controls (Heating). Automatic controls for panel heating differ
from those for convective heating because of the thermal inertia characteristics of the panel heating surface and the increase in the mean radiant temperature within the space under increasing loads for panel
heating. However, many of the control principles for hot water heating systems described in Chapters IS and 16 also apply to panel heating. See Chapter 31 for further information on automatic controls.
Panels such as concrete slabs have large heat storage capacity and
continue to emit heat long after the room thermostat has shut off the
heating medium supply. In addition, there is a considerable time lag
between thermostat demand and heat delivery to the space, since a
large part of the heat must first be stored in the thermally heavy radiant surface. This inertia will cause uncomfortable variations in
space conditions unless controls are provided to detect load changes
early.
In general, the temperature of the heating medium supplied to the
panel surface should be varied in accordance with outdoor temperature. However, for embedded pipe panels precautions must be taken
to prevent the introduction of excessively hot water, which might
damage the panels if controls failed. A manual boiler bypass or other
means of reducing the water temperature may be necessary to prevent
new panels from drying out too rapidly (see Embedded Piping for
Ceiling Panels).
Because the mean radiant temperature (MRT) within a panel heated
space must increase as the heating load increases, the air temperature
during this increase should be lowered I or 2 deg F (0.5 to lC)to
maintain comfort. In ordinary structures with normal infiltration
loads, the required reduction in air temperature is small, enabling a
conventional room thermostat to be used.
In panel heating systems, lowered night temperatures will produce
unsatisfactory results with heavy panels such as concrete floors. These
panels cannot respond to a quick increase or decrease in heating demand within the relatively short time required, resulting in a very slow
reduction of the space temperature at night and a correspondingly
slow pickup in the morning. Lightweight panels, such as plaster or
metal ceilings and walls, may respond to changes in demand quickly
enough for moderately satisfactory results from lowered night temperatures. Tests on a metal ceiling panel demonstrated the speed of
response to be comparable to that of conventional environmental systems.15 However, very little fuel savings can be expected even with
light panels unless the lowered temperature is maintained for long
periods. If reduced nonoccupancy temperatures are employed, some
means of providing a higher-than-normal rate of heat input for rapid
warm-up is necessary, or a long warm-up period should be provided,
as explained in Chapter 16.
Electric Heating Slab Controls. For comfort heating applications.
the surface of a floor slab {!,) is held to a maximum of 80 to 85 F (26

to 29Q. Therefore, when used as a primary heating system, thermostatic control devices sensing air temperature should not be used to
control the slab temperature, but should be wired in series with a slabsensing thermostat. The remote sensing thermostat in the slab acts as a
limit switch to control maximum surface temperatures allowed on the
slab. The ambient sensing thermostat controls the comfort level. For
supplementary slab heating, as in kindergarten floors, a remote sensing thermostat in the slab is commonly used to tune in the desired
comfort level. Indoor-outdoor thermostats are used to vary the floor
temperature inversely with the outdoor temperature. If the heat loss of
the building is calculated for 70 to 0 F (21 to -18C), and the floor
temperature range is held from 70 to 85 F (21 to 29C) with a remote
sensing thermostat, the ratio of outdoor temperature to slab temperature is 70:15 (39:8), or approximately 5:1. This means that a 5 deg F
(2.8C) drop in outdoor temperature requires a 1 deg F (0.56C) increase in the slab temperature. An ambient sensing thermostat is used
to vary the ratio between outdoor and slab temperatures. A time clock
is used to control each heating zone if off-peak slab heating is desirable.
22. Controls (Cooling). Controlling the panel water circuit temperature by mixing, heat exchange or using the water leaving the dehumidifier is the major consideration in preventing condensation. Other
considerations are listed in items 12 and 14. It is imperative to dry out
the building space before starting the panel water system, particularly
after extended down periods, such as weekends. Such delayed starting
action can be controlled manually or by device.
Panel cooling systems require the following basic areas of temperature control: (1) exterior zones, (2) areas under exposed roofs to compensate for transmission and solar loads and (3) control of each
typical interior zone to compensate for internal loads. For optimum
results, each exterior corner zone and similarly-loaded face zone
should be treated as a separate subzone.
Panels are suitable for control systems which are scheduled by elements that sense solar and weather changes before these changes affect the space temperature. Window pane thermocouples have been
used to schedule water temperatures in panels under a window sill.
Photoelectric cells can be used to divert cold water into a peripheral
ceiling panel; e.g., picking up the winter solar load on a south zone.
Panel cooling systems have also been zoned to provide individual temperature control in exterior offices, particularly in applications where
there is a high lighting load, or for corner rooms with large glass areas
on both walls.
The temperature control of the interior air and panel water supply
should not be functions of the outdoor weather. The normal thermostat drift is usually adequate compensation for the slightly lower
temperatures desirable during winter weather. This drift should be
limited to result in a room temperature change of not more than 1.5
deg F (0.8C). Control of the interior zones is best accomplished by
devices that reflect the actual presence of the internal load elements.
Frequently, time clocks and current sensing devices are used on lighting feeders.
Because air quantities are generally small, it is not advisable to use
volume control in any part of the system. With the apparatus arranged
to supply air of appropriate apparatus dewpoint at all times, it is possible to avoid compromising indoor conditions with a panel cooling
system throughout the year. As with all systems, to prevent condensation on window surfaces, the supply air dew point should be reduced
during extremely cold weather according to the type of glazing installed.
For eeneral information on automatic controls, refer to Chapter 31.
PANEL HEATING SYSTEM DESIGN
Design Steps
Panel design requires specifying the following: (1) panel
area, (2) size and location of the heating elements in the panel,
(3) insulation on the reverse side and edge of the panel, (4) required input to panel and (5) temperature of the heating elements. The procedure is summarized as follows:
1. Calculate the hourly rate of heat loss for each room.
2. Determine the available area for panels in each room.
3. Calculate the required unit panel output.
4. Determine the required panel surface temperature.
D-16
8.16
CHAPTER 8
5. Select the means of heating the panel and the size and location of
the healing elements.
6. Select insulation for the reverse side and edge of panel.
7. Determine panel heat loss and required input to the panel.
8. Determine the other temperatures that are required or developed.
9. Design the system for heating the panels according to conventional practice.
In the design steps, the effect of each assumption or choice
on comfort should be considered carefully. The following
general rules should be followed:
1. Place panels near the cold areas where the heat losses occur.
2. Do not use high temperature ceiling panels in very low ceilings.
3. Keep floor temperatures at or below 85 F(29C).
Letter Symbols for Examples of Design Methods
The following design examples use the letter symbols shown
below.
panel area, ft2 (m 2 ).
coefficient of heat transfer from the upper surface of the
concrete slab which forms the ceiling panel to air above
panel at point tbi Btu/h-ft 2 -F (W/m 2 -C); deg F (Q
represents temperature difference between panel surface
and air.
c,= coefficient of heat transfer from lower surface of concrete
slab to air below the panel at point tb, Btu/hft2-F
(W/m2C); deg F (C) represents temperature difference
between panel surface and air.
c, = coefficient of downward and edgewise heat loss of exposed
slab, (Btu/hffF (W/mC); ft (m) represents linear ft
(m) of exposed slab perimeter and deg F (Q represents
temperature difference between concrete surface and
outdoor air.
/> = length of exposed edge of slab, ft (m).
2
2
Qd~ downward heat flow from panel, Btu/h* ft (W/m ).
apportioned
downward
and
edgewise
heat
flow
from
Ide =
panel, Btu/h-ft2 (W/m 2 ).
upward heat flow from panel, Btu/hft2 (W/m 2 ).
thermal resistance of panel to downward heat flow,
'</ = total
ft 2 -F'h/Btu(m 2 .C/W).
'dc = thermal resistance of material between the underside of the
concrete slab and the ceiling surface below, ft2Fh/Btu
(m 2 'C/W).
thermal resistance of bare concrete panel to downward
heat flow, ft2F-h/Btu (m2C/W).
total thermal resistance of panel to upward heat flow,
ft 2 F-h/Btu(m 2 .' , C/W).
thermal resistance of floor covering, ft2Fh/Btu
(m2*C/W).
thermal resistance of bare concrete slab to upward heat
flow, ft 2 Fh/Btu(m 2 - 0 C/W).
design room air temperature, F(C).
outdoor design air temperature, F (Q.
'* = air temperature above or below panel at point to which U,
C|, or C 2 is taken, F (Q.
inlet water temperature, F (C).
outlet water temperature, F (Q.
mean water temperature, F (Q.
maximum water temperature permissible for a given
construction, F(C).
design mean water temperature (selected for each zone), F
'dmw
(Q.
'/> = panel surface temperature (exposed surface), F ("Qsurface temperature of top of concrete slab, F (Q.
overall coefficient of heat transfer for the given construction between room air and the point tb, Btu/hft2F
(W/m2C).
r.
Procedure for Metal Ceiling Panels

Design procedures for metal ceiling panels in a heating application are included in the example given in the section Design Procedure for Panel Cooling Systems.
Warm Water PanelsEmbedded Pipe

This section presents a simplified procedure for the thermal
design of embedded pipe, water-heated panels. The procedures are based primarily on data obtained at the former
ASHRAE Research Laboratory.
A panel designed by this procedure will maintain the
desired room air temperature for the selected outdoor conditions. Room air temperature is the selected criterion of comfort. The design procedure is restricted to situations in which
the area-weighted average temperature of unheated surfaces
of walls, glass and floor or ceiling does not differ greatly from
room air temperature. Room-scale tests, which simulate
various conditions of construction and outdoor temperature,
have shown that this near-equality of the two temperatures
normally prevails.
The procedure is applicable within the following range:
Outdoor design conditions: Temperatures as low as -30 F
(-34.4"C).
Room air temperature: 70 to 76 F (21.1 to 24.4C).
Air changes: No more than two air changes per hour.
Room dimensions: Rooms having normal proportions; ceiling
height between 7 and 12 ft (2.1 and 3.7 m).
Room construction: Any type of wall construction and any amount of glass area. (Both, however, have an effect on comfort.) Conventional interior finishes and furnishings.
Plaster Ceiling Panels." The procedure for designing a
plaster ceiling panel is illustrated by Example 1.
Example 1: Three rooms, A,B and C, have a common water supply
temperature; that is, they represent a single zone. They are maintained
at 72 F (22.2Q air temperature when the outdoor air temperature is 0
F (-17.8C). The ceilings of rooms A and B have floors above them
with the space heated to 72 F (22.2Q and an air- to-air U value of
0.25 Btu/h ft2 F (1.42 W/m2 C). The ceiling of room C has insulation in the joist spaces and an uninsulated attic space with a combined
(/value of 0.05 (0.28) from room C to outdoor air.
Step I. Heat Loss
Calculate the heat loss of each room by methods outlined in
Chapter 25 of the 1981 FUNDAMENTALS VOLUME, but do not include
any heat loss through the area covered by the panel.

Room dimensions and calculated heat losses are as follows:
Room
Room A
RoomB
RoomC
Dimensions
ft(m)
11x12x8(3.3x3.6x2.4)
11x12x8(3.3x3.6x2.4)
15x21x8(4.5x6.3x2.4)
Heat Loss
Btu/h(W)
6300(1850)
2500(730)
8000(2300)
Step 2. Required Panel Output

Divide the heat loss of each room by the maximum ceiling area in
the room that can be used as a heating panel. The result is the
minimum heat output per square foot (square metre) of panel that will
satisfy the requirements of the room. The panel that requires the
highest output per square foot (square metre) will generally control
the design, because the temperature of the fluid in the system must be
high enough to produce the required output from that panel. The required panel output is given in the following table.
Available Panel Area
ft2(m2)
Room A
132(12.3)
RoomB
127(11.8)
RoomC
306(28.4)
Required Panel Output, qd

Btu/h-ft2(Wm2)
6300/132 = 47.7(1850/12.3 = 150)
2500/127 = 19.7 ( 730/11.8 = 62)
8000/306 = 26.1 (2300/28.4 = 82)
Step 3. Panel Surface Temperature

From Fig. 8, find the panel surface temperature needed to yield the
required heat output to each room, using the output determined in
Step 2 and the design room air temperature. This use of Fig. 8 for
Room A is illustrated in Fig. 8A.
The values of tp determined for Rooms A, Band C are as follows:
D-17
8.17
I CONVERSION FACTORS:
C - I F - 321/1.8
t W/m"> Btu/h It-' X3.15
Fig. 8A Determination of Panel Surface

Temperature for Room A from Fig. 8
CANU. SUWAt.l
lOO
'20
140
HMP MINUS AIR 7IMP ABOVt TANT I. VP Ub. f DEC
Fig. 24 Upward Heat Flow from Plaster Ceiling Panel

Room A
/,, = 114F(45.6C)
RoomB
t = 92F(33.3C)
RoomC
t = 97F(36.IQ
Step 4. Upward Heat Flow
Determine the upward heai flow from each panel using Fig. 24. The
upward heat flow must be determined to obtain the downward panel
resistance and to select the proper size of boiler. The use of Fig. 24 is
illustrated for Room A in Fig. 24A. Note that the U values shown on
Fig. 24 are those for the entire structure of which the panel is a part
and are taken from room air (temperature, ta) to air above the panel
(temperature, / ft ). For that reason, qu U(tp-1/,). U values may be
obtained from Chapter 23 in the 1981 FUNDAMENTALS VOLUME.
The values of qu for Rooms A, B and C as determined* from Fig. 24
are as follows:
Room
A
B
C
0.25(1.42)
0.25(1.42)
0.05 (0.28)
tp-'b
degFfQ
42(23)
20(11)
97 (54)
Btu/h'ft 2 (W.m 2 )
12.5(39.4)
6.0(18.9)
5.0(15.8)
Step S. Downward Panel Resistance

Assume tentative pipe or tube spacings for the panel construction to
be used from those listed in Table 3, choosing the closer spacings when
higher outputs are required. Also in Table 3, find the resistance of
each panel (rd) using heat flow ratios calculated from the flow rates
determined in Steps 2 and 4, interpolating as required..
ROOM
A
B
C
SPACING
in. (mm)
4.5(114)
9 (229)
9 (229)
HEAT FLOW RATIO RESISTANCE, rd
ft2Fh/Btu(m*<'C/W)
12.5/47.7 (39.4/150) = 0.26
0.35(0.06)
6/19.7 (18.9/62) = 0.30
0.90(0.16)
5/26.1 (15.8/82) = 0.19
0.85 (0.15)
I'll.
CONVERSION FACTORS:
C - deg F/1.8
W / m ! Btu/h I t ' X 3 . 1 S
W/nv C Btu/h ft-" F X 5 . 6 8 ^
(U factor)
ct
i
i
Fig. 24A Determination of Upward Heat
Flow for Room A from Fig. 24
1. Reduce the heat loss of the room.
2. Provide supplementary heating.
In Example I, assume t; - ; = 15 deg F (8.3C) and tmax = 140 F
(60C). Then since tmvl = 131 F (55C), tm + 0.5 (/, - t0) = 138.5 F
(59.1C) and is less than /. Thus, 131 F (55C) can be used as the
design mean water temperature tjmK.
Step 8. Design Panel Output
From Fig. 8, find the panel output (qd) for design mean water
temperature Crfm), room air temperature (/),. and panel resistance
(rd)- Fig. 8C shows how Fig. 8 is used to find qd for Room B in this
step.
The mean water temperature (tmw) found for Room A in Step 6 was
used as the design mean water temperature Udmw)- The panel output
determined in Step 2 for Room A is therefore the design panel output
Step 6. Mean Water Temperature

For the required panel output (qd) found in Step 2, the panel
resistance (rd) found in Step 5, and the room air temperature (/), find
the mean water temperature (tmw) from Fig. 8. This use of Fig. 8 is illustrated in Fig. 8B. Values of tmw for Rooms A, B and C as determined from Fig. 8 are as follows:
Room A tmw = 131 F (55C), Room B tmw = 110.5 F (43.6Q and
Room C fmw = 119 F (48.3Q.
Step 7. Design Mean Water Temperature
Select a single design mean water temperature (jtjmw) f r each group
of rooms comprising a zone, choosing the highest mean water
temperature (rm) of the group subject to:
a. If tmw + l(f(- - / 0 )/2] is equal to or less than /,, this mean water
temperature (tmw) is an acceptable design mean water temperature
ltdmw)- Proceed to Step 8.
b. If fm + ((/, - r)/2] is greater than !,, go back to Step 5 and
select a panel construction having a lower panel resistance (r d ). This
can be accomplished by either or both:
1. Reducing the tube spacing.
2. Decreasing the upward heat flow (qa) by increasing the insulation above the panel.
If the required mean water temperature is still too high, apply either
or both of the following:
D-18
__477_
l=Oj/
"*Z?
^^"t>4
CONVERSION FACTORS:
- C . |F-321/1.8
WAtr - Btu/h ft-" X 3.15
m'-'C/W-- f t ! - F h/Btu X 0.176
Ir value)
1
1-
Fig. 8B Determination of Mean Water

Temperature for Room A from Fig. 8
I ,_
32.5
2S.-T
*^r-zZ,
-C.o
i
CONVERSION FACTORS:
"C=|F-32)/1.8
W/m : -Btu/h-ft- - X3.1S
tn!-'C/W- ftJ F h/Btu X 0.176
(rvalue)
7072>
4'
Fig. 8C Determination of Design Panel
Output for Room B from Fig. 8
8.18
CHAPTER 8
for this room. Design panel outputs for Rooms B and C can be found
from Fig. 8 using the design mean water temperature (tdmw).
Room
A
B
C
Design Panel Output, qj

Btu/hft2 (Wm2)
47.7(150)
32.5(102)
33.0(104)
Step 9. Design Panel Area

Divide the room heat loss found in Step 1 by the design panel output
found in Step 8.
Room
A
B
C
Design Panel Area, A.

ft2 (m*)
132 (12.3) (unchanged from Step 2)
77 ( 7.2)
242(22.5)
Step 10. Total Panel Output

Add the heal flow upward (?) to the design panel output (qd) and
multiply by the design panel area to obtain the total panel output. If
the design panel output is different from the panel output (qd) used in
Steps 3 and 4, the heat flow upward (qu) should be redetermined.
Room
Qu
Qd
Ap
Total Panel
Output
Ap (.Qu + Qd)
A
B
C
12.5 (39.4)
9.5f(29.9)
5.5f(17.3)
47.7(150.3)
32.5 (102.4)
33.0(104.0)
132(12.3)
77 ( 7.2)
242(22.5)
Btu/h(W)
7946(2328)
3234 ( 948)
9317(2730)
t Redetermined.
Step II. Fluid Circuit

Design the fluid circuit (panel piping and mains) for a temperature
drop of 10 to 20 deg F (5.6 to 11.1C) between the water inlet and
outlet of the panel (see applicable chapters on hot water systems).
Step 12. Boiler Size
Size the boiler according to the method in Chapter 24 of the 1983
EQUIPMENT VOLUME. The net Btu (kj) rating of the boiler should
equal or exceed the total output of all panels plus any other loads
on the boiler.
Concrete Ceiling Panels. Concrete ceiling panels are distinguished from concrete floor panels in intermediate floors by
the position of the tubes in the concrete slabs (see Tables 1 and
2). Both types of panels have heat outputs in two directions in
amounts determined by the thermal resistance and the temperature difference in each direction. The effect of these outputs
on space heating requirements and the occupants' comfort
should always be considered. (See the section on Concrete
Floor Panels Intermediate Slab.)
The procedure for hot water plaster ceiling panels cannot be
wholly applied to concrete ceiling panels because some of the
simplifying assumptions regarding the upward heat flow from
plaster panels are not valid for concrete panels. The plaster
ceiling panel procedure must be modified as follows:
Steps 1,2 and 3.
These steps are identical to the corresponding steps: for plaster ceiling panels.
Step 4. Upward Heat Flow Estimate
a. If the upper surface of the slab is exposed to form a floor. And
the heat flow upward from Fig. 9, using the panel surface temperature
(tp) found in Step 3, and the air temperature of the space above.
b. I f the upper surface of the slab is not exposed, use:
<7=C, (t-tb)
(11)
Step 5. Upward and Downward Panel Resistance
Follow the procedure for Plaster Panels, Step S, using Table 2 to

find both resistances (r, and rd).
Step 6. Mean Water Temperature and Upward Heat Flow
a. Follow the procedure for Plaster Panels, Step 6.
b. Find the heat flow upward from the panel (qu) from Fig. 9. Add
to the thermal resistance of the slab to upward heat flow (r u ), the
resistance to heat flow (/.) of any material between the upper surface
of the slab and the space above to obtain the resistance (r) to be used
in Fig. 9. The mean water temperature (tmw) found and the air temperature of the space above the panel are the other two factors to be
used.
Select the highest mean water temperature (imw) as the design mean
water temperature (/,/,).
Steps 8,9,10. II and 12.
These steps are identical to the corresponding steps for plaster ceiling panels.
Plaster Wall Panels. A design graph has not been prepared
for wall panels, but a design can be approximated using the
equations of heat transfer from walls together with the thermal resistance properties of plaster ceilings from Table 3. The
procedure for plaster ceiling panels is used as a guide.
Steps I and 2.
Assume a trial panel surface temperature and determine the
resulting heat output from Fig. 2 and 4 as explained in the accompanying section of the text. Assume successive trial panel surface temperatures until finding the temperature at which the combined heat transfer from the panel equals the output determined in Step 2.
Steps 4 and 5.
For the required panel output found in Step 2, the panel resistance
found in Step 5, and the room air temperature, calculate the required
mean water temperature as follows:
tmw='p+rdlQd)
(12)
Follow the procedure for plaster ceiling panels. Step 7.
Step 8. Design Panel Output
From Eq. (12), and Fig. 2 and 4, find the panel output for design
mean water temperature tdmw by successive trials.
Steps 9,10,11 and 12.
These steps are identical to the steps for plaster ceiling panels.
Concrete Floor Panels (Slab-On-Grade)
Step I. Heat Loss
Calculate the heat loss of each room, but do not include any heat
loss through the area covered by the panel. If very large rooms are involved, the rooms should be subdivided into areas having somewhat
similar heat requirements, i.e., separate the interior areas requiring little or no heat input from the exterior areas directly influenced by outdoor weather conditions. Treat each area as a separate room for design purposes.
Step 2. Required Panel Output
Divide the heal loss of each room by the maximum floor area in the
room that can be used as a heating panel. The result is the minimum
heat output per sq ft (square meter) of panel that will satisfy the room
requirements. The panel that requires the highest output per ft2(mJ)
will generally control the design, because the temperature of the water
in the system must be high enough to produce the required output
from that panel.
From Rg. 9, find the panel surface temperature needed to yield the
required heat output to each room by using the output determined in
Step 2 and the design room air temperature.
Floor panel surface temperatures exceeding about 85 F (29Q are
D-19
8.19
not recommended since they wilt probably cause foot discomfort. If

the required heat output cannot be obtained from an 85 F (29Q floor
panel, heat losses should be reduced or supplementary heating should
be provided.
Step 4. Downward and Edgewise Heat Flow
a. Determine the temperature of the surface of the concrete slab (/,)
by adding to the panel surface temperature the temperature difference
caused by the thermal resistance of the floor covering, if any:
's = 'p + (lu * rM)
(13)
The value of rue for various floor coverings is given in Table 5.
b. Determine the downward and edgewise heat loss coefficient C3
from Fig. 11 for the insulation to be used. Insulation with a conductance of 0.4 Btu/hft2F (2.3 W/m 2 -Q extending 2 ft (0.6 m)
below the slab results in a slab downward and edgewise heat loss coefficient of 0.97 Btu/h-ft 2 -F(5.5 w7m2-C).
c. Apportion the downward and edgewise heat loss uniformly
across the panel as follows:
Ode=PxCi{ts
-toaVA,,
(14)
Step 5. Upward Panel Resistance
Assume a tentative pipe or tube size and a spacing for each panel,
choosing closer spacings and larger pipe or tube when higher heat outputs are required. From Table 1, find the thermal resistance (rm) of
the slab of each panel, using heat flow ratios (qu/Qde) calculated from
the flow rates determined in Steps 2 and 4, interpolating as required.
To the slab resistance (r^). add the resistance of the floor covering
(r^.. Step 4) to obtain the panel resistance to upward heat flow (/).
For the required panel output (qu) found in Step 2, the panel
resistance (/) found in Step 5, and the room air temperature (ta), find
the mean water temperature Umw) from Fig. 9.
Select a single design mean water temperature (tdmw) for each group
of rooms comprising a zone, choosing the highest mean water temperature (/,.) of the group. In the example, 116.5 F (46.9Q is used.
StepS. Design Panel Output
From Fig. 9, find the panel output (qu) for design mean water temperature (tdmw), room air temperature (r a ), and panel resistance (r u ).
Also from Fig. 9, find the design panel surface temperature. If it exceeds 85 F (29.4C) (see Step 3) in a room, go back to Step 5 and
choose a wider spacing or smaller pipe or tube for that room.
Step 9. Design Panel Area
Divide the room heat loss found in Step I by the design panel output
found in Step 8.
Add the apportioned downward and edgewise heat flow (<7rfc) to the
design panel output (qu) and multiply by the design panel area to obtain the total panel output. If the design panel output is appreciably
different from the panel output (qu) used in Steps 3 and 4, the apportioned downward and edgewise heat flow (q^ should be redetermined.
Step 11. Fluid Circuit
Design the fluid circuit (panel piping and mains) for a temperature
drop of 10 to 20 deg F (5.6 to 11.1Q between the water inlet (/,) and
outlet (t0) of the panel (see Chapters 15 and 16).
Step 12. Boiler Size
Select the boiler size according to the method in Chapter 24 of the
1983 EQUIPMENT VOLUME. The net Btu (kJ) rating of the boiler should
equal or exceed the total output of all panels plus any other loads on
the boiler.
Concrete Floor Panels (Intermediate Slab). The procedure
for designing a hot water concrete floor panel of intermediate
slab type is given in the following steps.
Steps 1,2 and 3.
These steps are identical to the corresponding steps for slab-ongrade construction.
Step 4. Down ward Heat Flow Estimate
a. Follow procedure for slab-on-grade construction, Step 4, part a.
b. Estimate the heat flow downward as follows:

1. If the underside of the concrete slab is exposed to form a ceiling, find the heat output downward (qd) from Fig. 8, using the slab
surface temperature (ts) found in Step 3 as the panel surface
temperature (tp) and the air temperature of the space below.
2. If the underside of the concrete slab is not exposed, use the
equation:
Qd = C2 Us ~ lb)
C5)
Step 5. Upward and Downward Panel Resistance
Follow the procedure for slab-on-grade construction. Step 5, using
Table 1 tofindboth resistances (rm and r^).
Step 6. Mean Water Temperature and Downward Heat Flow
a. Follow the procedure for slab-on-grade construction. Step 6.
b. Use Fig. 8 to find the downward heat flow (qd). Add to the slab
resistance to downward heat flow (r^) the resistance to heat flow (r^)
of any material between the underside of the slab and the ceiling surface, tofindthe total resistance to downward heat flow (rd) to be used
in Fig. 8. The water temperature (tmw) found above and the air
temperature (/6) of the space below the ceiling are the other two factors to be used.
If the heat flow downward (qd) differs appreciably from the
estimate made in Step 4, repeat Steps 5 and 6 using the calculated
value.
Steps 7,8 and 9.
These steps are identical to the corresponding steps for slab-ongrade construction.
Follow the procedure for slab-on-grade construction, Step 10,
substituting heat flow downward (qd) for the apportioned downward
and edgewise heat flow {q^).
Steps 11 and 12.
These steps are identical to the corresponding steps, for slab-ongrade construction.
Insulated Electric Ceiling Panels
Electrically heated ceiling panels can be designed using the
equations and curves previously presented in this chapter.
However, for ceiling panels which have the thermal insulation
recommended for electric heating, U = 0.05 Btu/hft 2 F
(0.28 W/m 2 'C), the reverse heat loss is considered negligible.
Therefore, the design heat loss is most commonly calculated
in the normal manner, using the design heat transfer coefficients as given in the 1981 FUNDAMENTALS VOLUME.
The design heat loss is then converted to watts in the ratio

of 3.413 Btu/h per watt [watt output/watt input (W 0 /Wj)]
and the nearest standard cable assembly is selected. Cable
length is ordinarily published as part of the manufacturers*
rating data. Cable spacing is calculated from Eq. (10). Safety
factors are usually omitted in the design of electric heating
systems.
Electric Ceiling Panels on Masonry Slab
(Intermediate Floors)
The following steps give the design procedure for ceiling
heating panels that consist of electric heating cable embedded
in plaster applied to the lower surface of intermediate floor,
masonry slab construction:
Step 1. Calculate the heat loss of each room, but do not include any
heat loss through the area covered by the panel.
Step 2. Divide the heat loss of each room by the net ceiling area that
can be used as heating panel.
Step 3. Determine the combined thermal resistance, Ru, of the slab
material or materials above the heating cable. Do not include the surface film resistance.
Step 4. Determine the required watts input per ft2 (m2) of panel
area. Use the heat loss per ft2 (m2) of panel area from Step 2 and the
upward thermal resistance from Step 3. Use either Fig. 25 or Eq. (16)
and (17) as follows:
a. If Fig. 25 is used:
D-20
CHAPTER 8
8.20
/
'
80 f/
5*
4 1
"J
ezr
/
,
85
/. / ..../
/
'
CO
f /
CON\/ERSION FACTORS:
C f - 3211.8
nr B ( I X 0.0929
:
m:
ty w - h
F h/BuiX 0.176
Ir value)
IS
20
HEAT INPUT, WATTS PER SQ F*. * .
* 75 F ambient and 75 AUST above and below slab.

5
10
IS
Fig. 26
20
HEAT INPUT, WATTS PER SO FT.W;,
75 F ambient and 75 AUST above and below slab.
Fig. 25 Ceiling Panel Output for Intermediate Floor,

Masonry Slab Construction*
Enter the chart on the vertical scale at the required ceiling panel
heating output (from Step 2). At the intersection of the required heat
output and the curve of thermal resistance for the particular construction, drop to the horizontal scale and find the necessary Wj/ft2
(Wj/m 2 ).
b. If Eq. (16) and (17) are used:

Determine the value of m from Eq. (17). With m and the room heat
loss per ft2 (m2) of panel area from Step 2, calculate watts input from
Eq. (16). Note: Eq. (17) can only be used for values of Ru between 0.5
and 6.0 (0.09 to 1.06).
Step 5. Determine the approximate floor surface temperature from
Fig. 26. If the resulting floor temperature exceeds 85 F (29.4C), one
of the following steps should be taken:
a. Reduce the room heat loss by increasing the building insulation.
b. Increase the insulating value of the slab above the insulation.
This may be done by using insulating concrete, floor coverings or
other means.
c. Supplement the panel heat output with another form of electric
heat.
Step 6. Multiply the required watts input per ft2 (m2) by the
net panel area available to obtain the total watts required for the
room.
Step 7. Select from manufacturers' ratings the standard cable
assembly that most closely matches the required total watts.
Step 8. Determine the proper spacing between adjacent cable runs
using Eq. (10).
Watt input can be determined from Eq. (16) and (17).
W, =
qc/m
m = 1.344 + 0.854 Ru - 0.175 Rul + 0.013 Ru3
(16)
(17)
[0.5 (0.09) S * 6.0 (1.06)]

where
W, = watts input per ft2 (m2) of panel area.
qc => design heat loss per ft2 (m2) of panel area; also ceiling panel
output, Btu/h-ft 2 (W/m 2 ).
m = ceiling panel output factor, Blu/h per W, (Wa/Wi).
Upper Surface Temperature of Intermediate Floor,

Masonry Slab Structure with Embedded
Cable Ceiling Panel*
Ru = the combined or equivalent thermal resistance of the slab

material above the heating cable, ft2-Fh/Btu (m2-CAV).
Ru does not include the surface film resistance.
The heat output to the space above the slab equals the difference between the heat energy input and the ceiling panel
output.
Figures 25 and 26 and Eq. (15) and (16) were derived using
Eq. (3), (7) and (8). This procedure is based on the following
conditions:
1. Steady-state heat flow.
2. A slab of infinite length and width.
3. Ambient temperature of 75 F (23.9C) both above and below the
slab.
4. AUST of 75 F (23.9C) both above and below the slab.
5. Electric heating cable embedded in a material having a thermal
resistance below the cable of 0.12 (0.02). This resistance does not include the surface film resistance.
The procedure can be used for small deviations from these
conditions. For other conditions, the basic panel heat output
equations should be used.
Electric Floor Slab Heating
In electric floor slab heating, it is important to thermally
isolate the heated slab from the adjacent floor, exposed edge
and earth. A large amount of the heat is lost through the exposed edge of a floor. A portion of this loss is directly through
the concrete to the air, and the remainder is lost through the
slab for a distance of approximately 3 ft (0.9m) from the exposed edge. This edge loss is proportional to: (1) the difference between indoor and outdoor temperatures, (2) the
length of the floor perimeter adjacent to the exposed edge and
(3) a heat loss factor (K), based on the amount of heat loss
through the floor area included within a 3-ft (0.9-m) border
along the exposed edge, in Btu/h (W) per ft (m) of exposed
edge, deg F (C) difference between indoor and outdoor
temperatures.'
H^KUti-O
where
D-21
(18)
8.21
H = heat loss through the exposed edge, W.

tf = W/ft.F<\V/m-C).
L = exposed edge, ft (m).
/,- = indoor design temperature, F (Q.
t = outdoor design temperature, F(Q.
formance curves can be used. The balance of the design can be

determined from the data in Chapter 11.
PANEL COOLING SYSTEM DESIGN
The heat loss through the inner slab at a distance beyond 3

ft (0.9 m) of the exposed edge is independent of outdoor temperature. Previous work on the subject,17,18 indicates that
heat losses through the inner floor [area beyond 3 ft (0.9 m) of
the edge] remain nearly constant at approximately 0.6 W/ft 2
(6.5 W/m 2 ) or (conservatively) 1 W/ft 2 (11 W/m 2 ). Thus, the
total heat loss through a slab on grade can be divided into two
segments: (1) the heat loss through the exposed edge including
the floor area within 3 ft (0.9 m) of the edge and (2) the heat
loss through the remaining (inner) floor area, 1 W/ft 2 (11
W/m 2 ).
(19)
H,=KL(t,-t0)+\A
where
H, = total slab loss, W.
A - inner floor area = total floor area minus floor area included
within 3-ft (0.9-m) border along exposed edge, ft2 (m2).
The remainder of the heat generated in the inner floor will
be stored and, under certain conditions of temperature difference, will dissipate into the area to be heated by radiation
and convection heat transfer. The rate of heat loss from the
surface of the inner slab is proportional to the temperature
difference between the floor surface temperature and air temperature. The rate of heat loss is also affected by the floor material (concrete, asphalt or tile). Assuming a steady-state condition, the heat output of the inner floor equals the heat input
minus the downward heat loss.
K = h, -h = U(ts - ta)
(20)
where
h0 = heat output, W/ft2 (W/m2).
h, = heal input. W/ft2 (W/m2).
hd = downward heat loss, W/ft2 (W/m2).
U = heat transmission coefficient, W/ft>F(W/m2C).
ts = floor temperature, F (C).
ta = air temperature, F(C).
The heat transmission coefficient U has been determined17
to be 0.5 W/ft 2 (5.4 W/m 2 ). Assuming the heat loss for the
inner floor to be 1 W/ft 2 (11 W/m 2 ):
h,-,= h0 + 1 = 0.5 (/, - /.) + 1
In SI,
^f = h0 + 11 = 2.84 (/s - t.) + 11
Design Steps for Metal Ceiling Panels

Panel design requires specifications of panel area, panel
type, supply water temperature, water flow rate and panel arrangement. Panel performance is directly related to room
conditions. Air-side design also must be established. The procedure is:
1. Determine room design dry-bulb temperature, relative humidity and dewpoint.
2. Calculate room sensible and latent heat gains.
3. Select mean water temperature for cooling.
4. Establish minimum supply air quantity.
5. Calculate latent cooling available from the air.
6. Calculate sensible cooling available from the air.
7. Determine panel cooling load.
8. Determine panel area for cooling.
9. Calculate room heat loss.
10. Select mean water temperature for heating.
11. Determine panel area for heating.
12. Determine water flow rate and pressure drop.
13. Design the panel arrangement.
Step I: Design Conditions
Referring to Example 1 for design procedures for a plaster ceiling
heating panel system, the three rooms. A, B and C, are each to be
maintained at 78 db and 45% rh, resulting in a- dewpoint of 55 F
(12.8C). If room db and rh are allowed to drift for energy conservation purposes, the highest expected dewpoint should be used. Step 2: Heat Gains
Calculate the room heat gains by the methods outlined in the 1981
FUNDAMENTALS VOLUME. The room heat gains are:
A
B
C
Dimensions,
ft (ro)
Sensible Gain.
Blu/h(W)
Latent Cain,
Btu/h (W)
Ilx|2x8(3.4x].7x2.4>
11x12x8(3.4x3.7x2.4)
15x21x8(4.6x6.4x2.4)
3.500(1026)
4400(1319)
14.000(4 102)
400(117)
500(147)
1.000(293)
(21)
vV
(21a)
Electric slab heating systems can also be designed by using

part of the procedure for hot water panels as a guide.
Steps 1,2 and 3.
Follow the procedure for hot water panels.
Step 4 Slab Heat Loss
Determine the heat loss from the slab, using the slab surface temperature found in Step 3 and the factors in Chapter 23 of the 1981
*$r
j.
9 30
\X
^
FUNDAMENTALS VOLUME.
Using electric slab heating as a primary system, a design

range of 10 to 15 W/ft 2 (108 to 161 W/m 2 ) of slab area is the
maximum input recommended. For slab tempering in kindergartens, bathroom floors, basements and family rooms, a
range of 1 to 5 W/ft 2 (11 to 54 W/m 2 ) is recommended. For
spot heating in unheated, poorly insulated buildings (farrowing, brooding and milking parlors) an input of 30 to 40 W/ft 2
(323 to 431 W/m 2 ) is a normal design range.
Warm Air Panels
The first three steps in the design of warm air panels are the
same as those outlined for hot water panels and the same per-
-yd?
s*
' & -
>
&^- jfc>
CONVERSION FACTORS:
-C-degF/1.8
War - BtttA) H* X 3.tS
m-'-C/W-lf f M B t X 0 . i ; 6
bate)
25
S
10
15
20
MEAN WATER TEMPERATURE DIFFERENCE. F 0EG.
Derived from Fig. 10.

Fig. 27 Metal Ceiling Panel Design Graph Showing Panel
Surface Temperature and Mean Water Temperature
Difference vs. Panel Cooling Performance*
D-22
8.22
CHAPTER 8
Step 3: Select Mean Water Temperature

F(Q
= 55(12.8)
1 ( 0.5)
/ , = 56(13.3)
Room dewpoint temperature.
Inlet water temperature.

Assume a 5 deg F (2.8Q temperature rise
, = 58.5 (14.7)
giving a mean water temperature.
Step 4: Minimum Supply A ir Quantity
Minimum supply air quantities should be based on the recommended practices as given in the ASHRAE HANDBOOK and as dictated by
local codes. Minimum supply air quantities are:
Room
0.61 (0.107)
0.11 (0.055)
0.071 (0.012)
Available
Pand
AreaL
2
f t '(m
' 2>
18.0 ( 56.7)
24.0 ( 75.6)
14.0(107.1)
Pand
Coating
Available.
Btu/h (W)
112(12.1)
112(12.1)
112(12.1)
2.176 ( 697)
1.168 ( 910)
4.488(1 117)
ROOM A
Pand
Resistance,
2
fl -F.h/Btu
(m 2 -'C/W)
0.61 (0.107)
0.61 (0.055)
0.071 (0.012)
Panel
Cooling
Load.
Btu/fc(W)
Pand
Cooling
Performance.
Bm/h-ft2(W.m2)
1.740(510)
1.740(510)
1.740(510)
Pand
Area.
ft 2 (m 2 )
I8.0( 56.7)
24.0( 75.6)
14.0(107.1)
97(9.0)
71(6.8)
5114.8)
80(38)
Similarly for Room B:
190(90)
Step 5: Latent Cooling

Assume a central station air system supplying conditioned air to the
rooms at 58 F (14.4Q db and 53.5 F (U.9C) wb, resulting in a
moisture content of 54.0 gr/lb (7.72 g/kg) of dry air, and thereby a
moisture difference between room and supply air conditions of 10.0
gr/lb (1.43 g/kg) of dry air. The latent load capacity ofthe'air is:
Air
Flow
Rale.
cfro(LA)
gr/lb (g/kg) air
Supply
Air
Latent
Cooling,
Biu/h(W)
(64.0 - 54.0)0.68
(64.0 - 54.0)0.68
(64.0-54.0)0.68
544.0(159.4)
544.0(159.4)
1.292.0(178.6)
' Room \ _
Humidity I
80(18)
80(18)
190(90)
/" Supply Air \

I Humidity I
In all three rooms, the moisture pickup of the air is sufficient to offset the room latent gain. If this were not the case, adjustments in supply air quantity or design temperatures would have to be made accordingly.
Step 6: Sensible Coolingfrom Air
Air
Flow
Rate
cfm (L/s)
80(18)
80(18)
190(90)
FfO
Supply
Air
Sensible
Cooling,
Blu/h(W)
(78.0 - 58.0) I.I

(78.0-58.0)1.1
(78.0-58.0)1.1
1.760(516)
1.760(516)
4.180(1225)
Room \
Temp I
/ Supply Air
I
Temp
\
I
ROOMB
Panel
Resistance.
2
f! .F.h/Btu
(m 2 -"C/W)
0.61 (0.107)
0.11 (0.055)
0.071 (0.012)
Sensible
1 _
3.500(1
026) I Heat Gain,
4,500(1
119)
Blu/hfW) /
14,000(4 102)
-
XsupplyAir\
I
Sensible
1
1,760(
516)
I
Cooling.
I
1,760
V B (i u 516)
/hfW)/
4,180(1 225)
18.0 ( 56.7)
24.0 ( 75.6)
34.0(107.1)
Available
Panel
Area,
ft 2 (in 2 1
"
Pand
Cooling
Available.
Btu/h (W)
2.2861 670)
1.048| 891)
4.118(1 265)
127(11.8)
127(11.8)
127(11.8)
ROOMC
Panel
Resistance,
2
ft .h-F/Btu
(m 2 .'C/W)
0.61 (0.107)
0.11 (0.055)
0.071 (0.012)
Panel
Performance.
Btu/h-ft 2
(W-m2)
18.0 ( 56.71
24.0 ( 75.6)
14.0(107.1)
Panel
Area
Available.
ft2(m2)
X X X
Room
Panel
Performance.
Blu/h.fc 2
(W/m 2 )
Panel type [r = 0.61(0.107)] is deficient in capacity and panel type

lr - 0.31 (0.055)1 exceeds the cooling required. Since these panels have
the same appearance and construction, a combination panel may be
used. The calculations are:
Panel Cooling Load
= 2,740 Btu/h (803 W)
Panel Cooling Available,
from typer = 0.61 (0.107)
= -2,286 Btu/h (670 W)
Panel Cooling Required from
typer = 0.31 (0.055)
=
454 Btu/h (133 W)
=
4S4
Area of Panel
^ ^
76 ft2 (7.1m2)
Typer = 0.31 (0.055)
(24-18)
Thus, the panel area for Room B consists of 81 ft2 (7.5 m2) of panel
type r = 0.31 (0.055) plus 127 - 81 = 46 ft2 (4.3 m2) of panel type r =
0.61 (0.107). K panel type r = 0.071 (0.012) is used, the cooling
available exceeds the panel cooling load, and the panel area is reduced
to:
2,772/34.0 = 82 ft2 (7.6 m2)
The data for Room C are:
Step 7: Panel Load

The panel load is the room sensible load minus the cooling done by
the air.
Pand
Performance.
Btu/h.ft 2
(W/m 2 )
All three types of panels exceed the panel cooling load, reducing the
design panel area as follows:
Minimum Supply Air Quantity,

cfm (L/s)
80(38)
A
B
C
Room
Pand
Resistance
2
rt >F-h/Btu
(m 3 -*C/W)
106(28.4)
106(28.4)
106(28.4)
Panel
Cooling
Available.
Btu-hlW)
5.508(1 612)
7.344(2 148)
10.404(1 045)
The panel cooling available from either panel type, r = 0.61 (0.107)
or r = 0.31 (0.055) does not satisfy the panel cooling load for Room C
in Step 7. If either of these two ceiling types is still desired for architectural reasons, additional cooling must be provided by increasing the
supply air quantity. Assuming panel type r = 0.31 (0.055), the calculation is:
Pand
Cooling
Load,
Btu/h(W)
1,740 ( 510)
2,740 ( 801)
9.820(2 877)
Step 8: Panel Area

The panel area is a function of the mean water temperature and the
type of panel used. Fig. 27 shows design panel performance for three
types of ceiling panel systems. The room temperature minus the mean
water temperature is 78 - S8.5 = 19.5 deg F(I0.8Q. The panel cooling performance at 19.5 deg F (10.8Q temperature difference for the
three types of panels is 18.0, 24.0 and 34.0 Btu/h-ft2 (56.7, 75^6 and
107.1 W/m2), respectively.
Based on the available ceiling area, the panel cooling available for
Room A is:
Room sensible load

Panel cooling
Air cooling required
Revised airflowrate
= 14,000 Btu/h (4102 W)

= - 7,344
= 6,656 Btu/h (1950 W)
= 6 ' 6 5 6 = 308 cfm (145 L/s)
(20xl.i)
If panel type r = 0.071 (0.012) is used, the cooling available satisfies

the panel load and no increase in air flow rate is necessary.
Step 9: Room Heat Loss
See Step I for plaster ceilings. Heat losses are the same.
D-23
8.24
CHAPTER 8
C.S. Leopold: The mechanism of heat transfer panel cooling heat

storage (Refrigerating Engineering, July 1947, p. 33).
C.S. Leopold: The mechanism of heat transfer panel cooling heat
storagePart II. Solar radiation (Refrigerating Engineering, June
1948, p. 571).
C.S. Leopold: Design factors in panel and air cooling systems
(ASHAE Transactions, Vol. 57.1951. p. 61).
L.F. Schutrum, John Vouris, and T.C. Min: Preliminary studies of
heat removal by a cooled ceiling panel (ASHAE Transactions, Vol.
61,1955. p. 95).
L.F. Schutrum and T.C. Min:. Lighting and cooled air effects on
panel cooling (ASHAE Transactions, Vol. 64,1958, p. 189).
R.E. Boyar: The influence of radiant energy transfer on human
comfort (Heating, Piping & Air.Conditioning, June 1966, p. 109).
T.C. Min, L.F. Schutrum, G.V. Parmelee and J.D. Vouris: Natural
convection and radiation in a panel-heated room (ASHAE Transactions, Vol. 62,1956, p. 337).
W.F. Spiegel: A water-cooled luminaire in a panel-air system
(ASHAE Transactions, Vol. 64,1958, p. 351).
L.F. Schutrum and T.C. Min: Cold wall effects in a ceiling-panelheated room (ASHVE Transactions, Vol. 63,1957, p. 187).
Cyril Taster, C M . Humphreys, G.V. Parmelee, and L.F.
Schutrum: The ASHVE environment laboratory (ASHVE Research
Report No. 1444, ASHVE Transactions, Vol. 58.1952, p. 139).
P.O. Fanger: Calculation of thermal comfort: Introduction of a
basic comfort equation (ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 73, Part 11,
1967, p. 111.4.1).
P.E. McNall, Jr., and R.E. Biddison: Thermal and comfort sensations of sedentary persons exposed to asymmetric radiant fields
(ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 76,1970, p. 123).
J .C. Schlegel and P.E. McNall, Jr.: The effect of asymmetric radiation on the thermal and comfort sensations of sedentary subjects
(ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 74,1968, p. 144).
A.P. Gagge, G.H. Rapp, and J.D. Hardy: The effective radiant
field and operative temperature necessary for comfort with radiant
heating (ASHRAE Journal, May 1967, p. 63).
D-25
8.23
8 and 11, the panel area for heating may or may not be the same for
cooling.
Room
A
B
C
Cooling
Panel
Area,
ft 2 (m J )
Healing
Panel
Area,
ft 2 (m 2 >
98(9.1)
46(4.3)
81 (7 J )
291 (27.0)
89(8.3)
27(2.5)
67(6.2)
Ceiling
Type
r
0.61 (0.107)
0.61(0.107)
0.31 (0.055)
0.071 (0.012)
For Room A, the areas are close enough so that the larger area is
used as a common panel for heating and cooling. For Room B, two
panels are designed; one panel for heating and cooling = 27 ft2 (2.5
m 2 ), and one panel for cooling only = (81 - 27) + 46 = 100 ft2 (9.2
m 2 ). See Fig. 23 for typical split-panel arrangements. Room C is
similar to Room B.
REFERENCES
t'wrtoe)
"I
100
120
140
T
160
0R
1
180
1
200
MT
* Derived from Figs. 2 and 4, based on 70 F and 70 AUST.
Fig. 28 Metal Ceiling Panel Design Graph Showing Panel

Surface Temperature and Mean Water Temperature
vs. Panel Heating Performance*
Step 10: Mean Water Temperature
Typical design panel performance at various mean water temperatures is given in Fig. 28, which is similar to Fig. 8 except the performance is based on the convection output from Fig. 4 for the Design
curve.
The suggested basis for selecting the mean water temperature is that
the area of panel adjacent to and within approximately 2 to 3 ft (0.6 to
0.9 m) of the outside wall should have an output of not less than 50%
of the wall transmission heat loss. For example. Room A transmission
loss equals the heat loss of 6,300 Btu/h (1846 W); and the panel area
within 4 ft (1.2 m) of the outside wall is 4 x n = 44 ft2 (1.2 x 3.3 = 4
m 2 ). A water temperature is selected to give a panel output of approximately (6300 x 0.5/44) = 71.6 Btu/h-ft2 [(1846 x 0.5/4) = 2300
W/m 2 ).
From Fig. 28, a mean water temperature of 164 F (73.3Q for ceiling type r = 0.61 (0.11) will satisfy the requirement. This represents a
suggested minimum mean water temperature for comfort. The temperature may be increased using experience and judgment if desired.
By inspecting the data for rooms B and C and Fig. 28, a mean water
temperature of 164 F (73.3C) is selected.
Step 11: Heating Panel Area
The heating panel area for each room is given below. For purposes
of simplification, assume Room A ceiling to be aluminum panels with
pipes 12 in. (305 mm) on center. Room B ceiling to be aluminum
panels with pipes 6 in. (152 mm) on center, and Room C ceiling to be
aluminum sheet with copper tubes4 in. (102 mm) on center.
Room
A
B
C
Panel
Performance.
. , - 1 6 4 F(73.fC)
Btu/n.fl2(W/m2)
Heai
Loss,
Btu/h <W)
6.300(1850)
2.500 ( 730)
8.00012300)
*
*
v
71 (224)
90(284)
119(375)
Panel
Area.
ft2(ra2)
89(8.3)
27 (2 J )
67(6.2)
Step 12: Hydraulic Data
The water flow rate may be based on a 20 deg F (1 l.lC) temperature difference between inlet and outlet temperatures or any temperature difference suitable to the design of the piping distribution system.
The panel pressure drop must be obtained from manufacturer's data.
Step 13: Panel Arrangement
The panel and piping arrangement must be designed to accommodate the various elements in the ceiling such as lights, air outlets,
speakers, sprinkler and smoke devices. This should be done in cooperation with the architect and manufacturer. As can be seen from Steps
1
Standard
2
55-74, Thermal Comfort Conditions (ASH RAE, 1974).

P.O. Fanger: Thermal Comfort Analysis and Applications in Environmental
Engineering (McGraw Hill, Inc., New York, NY, 1972).
3
F. W. Hutchinson: Influence of gaseous radiation in panel heating
(ASHVE
Transactions, Vol. 53,1947, p. 285).
4
T.C. Min et al: ASHAE Research Report No. 1576-Natural convection and radiation in a panel heated room (ASHAE Transactions,
Vol.
62,1956, p. 337).
5
G.V. Parmelee and R.G. Huebscher: Forced convection heal
transfer from flat surfaces (ASHVE Transactions, Vol. 53, 1947, p.
245).
6
G.B. Wilkes and C.M.F. Peterson: Radiation and convection
from surfaces in various post ions (ASHVE Transactions, Vol. 44,
1938,
p. 513).
7
L.F. Schutrum and CM. Humphreys: ASHVE Research Report
No. 1499Effects of non-uniformity and furnishings on panel heating performance (ASHVE Transactions, Vol. 60,1954, p. 121).
L.F. Schutrum and J.D. Vouris: ASHVE Research Report No.
1516Effects of room size and non-uniformity of panel temperature
on9panel performance (ASHVE Transactions, Vol. 60,1954, p. 455).
L.F. Schutrum, G.V. Parmelee, and C M . Humphreys: ASHVE
Research Report No. 1473Heat exchanges in a ceiling panel heated
room
(ASHVE Transactions, Vol. 59,1953, p. 197).
10
L.F. Schutrum, G.V. Parmelee, and C M . Humphreys: ASHVE
Research Report No. 1490Heat exchanges in a floor panel heated
room (ASHVE Transactions, Vol. 59,1953. p. 495).
"H.H. Macey: Heat loss through a solid floor (Institute of Fuel
Journal,
22-128, p. 369).
12
E.L. Sartain and W.S. Harris: Performance of covered hot water
floor panels. Part 1-Thermal characteristics (ASHAE Transactions,
Vol.62,1956,
p.55).
13
A Subcommittee of the TAC on Panel Heating and Cooling, R.L.
Maher, Chairman; W.P. Chapman; H.T. Gilkey; P.B. Gordon; E.F.
Snyder; and J.M. Van Nieukerken; and by ASHAE Laboratory Staff
Members, L.F. Schutrum and CM. Humphreys: ASHAE Research
Report No. 1600Thermal design of warm water concrete floor
panels (ASHAE Transactions, Vol. 63,1957, p. 239).
14
Standard Specifications for Gypsum Plastering, Including Requirements for Lathing and Plastering (American Standards Association,
A 42.1,1946).
13
R.E. Boyar: Room temperature dynamics of radiant ceilings and
air conditioning comfort systems (ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 69,
1963, p. 37).
'*A Subcommittee of the TAC on Panel Heating and Cooling, R.L.
Maher, Chairman; W.P. Chapman; H.T. Gilkey; P.B. Gordon; E.F.
Snyder; and J.M. Van Nieukerken; and by ASHAE Laboratory Staff
Members, L.F. Schutrum, G.V. Parmelee, and CM. Humphreys:
ASHAE Research Report No. 1559Thermal design of warm water
ceiling panels (ASHAE Transactions, Vol. 62,1956, p. 71).
"H.D. Bareither, A.N. Fleming, and B.E. Alberty: Temperature
and Heat-Loss Characteristics of Concrete Floors Laid on the Ground
(Research
Report'48-1, Small Homes Council, University of Illinois).
I8
F.C Houghten et al: Heat loss through basement floors and walls
(ASHVE Transactions, Vol. 48,1942, p. 369).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
C.S. Leopold: Hydraulic analogue for the solution of problems of
thermal storage, radiation, convection and conduction (ASHVE
Transactions, Vol. 54,1948, p. 389).
D-24

Radiant Heating and Cooling

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Radiant Heating and Cooling

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASHRAE Research Project Report

Approval: May 1987

Sponsoring Committee: TC 6.5, Radiant Space Heating and Cooling

A STUDY TO DETERMINE METHODS FOR

Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering

1.0 - OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE

3.0 - DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGY

ASHRAE Standard Heat Loss (HLD)

4.1 - Relationship Between Radiant Heating/Cooling and Comfort

4.1.1 - Fanger's Comfort Equation

Descriptions of Common Types of Radiant Systems

Hydronic Floor Panels

5.0 - CALCULATION OF DESIGN HEATING LOADS

5.1.1 - Design Inside Air Temperature

ASHRAE Design Load Calculation

5.5 - Radiant Panel Heating Systems Calculations

5.5.1 - Single Panel Radiant Heating Cases

Radiant Ceiling Panel Heating Systems

7.0 - SUMMARY OF MANUFACTURER SURVEY

8.0 - SYSTEM DYNAMICS

9.0 - RESEARCH NEEDS

9.1 - Convection Coefficients

APPENDIX B - ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Load Analysis and Modeling

PENDIX C - LIS5TING OF COMPUTER PROGRAM

REPRODUCTION OF CHAPTER 8 FROM 1984 ASHRAE

There are many variations or schemes used to obtain appropriate

Each manufacturer or designer has their unique method for

obtaining a specific surface temperature.

Descriptions and applications are

For each variation, the required area of heater surface was

The actual design

1.0 - OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE

This procedure includes methods of calculating loads, sizing

equipment, and positioning equipment.

As a result of the preparation of this annotated bibliography,

additional research needed in order to improve the recommended methods for

These two types of systems produce different comfort environments due to

their nature of heat delivery or removal, and thus there is no fundamental

For this reason, the infiltration air losses will

be greater in convective than radiant heating systems. Convective types of

FIGURE 1. CONVECTIVE TYPE OF HEATING SYSTEM

FIGURE 2. RADIANT CEILING PANEL HEATING/COOLING SYSTEM

For sizing, design calculations are made to indicate

what is the expected maximum rate of total heat delivery which is to be

Along with the total size of the heating system is

The fundamental objective of this project has been to

determine if this ASHRAE Design Heating Load Procedure is applicable to

System dynamics and

It is questionable whether some of the simpler proce-

dures presented in Chapter 28 of the ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals (HBF) (1)

In these systems, the surface temperature is

controlled in order to vary the quantity of heat being delivered or absorbed.

Figure 2 illustrates a ceiling panel system and Figure 3 depicts

a heated floor type of system.

Descriptions of these types of units are given

in Chapter 30 in Reference 3. The use of these types of radiant heaters is

They have the advantage of exhausting the exhaust products to the

outdoors rather than inside the structure.

These are illustrated in Figure 4.

Use of these units is depicted

The gas fired units have the disadvantage of discharging the

products of combustion inside the conditioned space. Descriptions of these