Radiant Heating and Cooling
Radiant Heating and Cooling
Radiant Heating and Cooling
RP-394
A Study to Determine Methods for Designing Radiant
Heating and Cooling Systems
Contractor:
University of Missouri-Rolla
Rolla, MO 65401
Principal Investigator:
Authors:
Ronald Howell
N/A
Author Affiliations,
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
Ronald H. Howell
May 1987
I
^SWC>WS0CETV < S^" GH T
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
2.0 - INTRODUCTION
4.0 - BACKGROUND
16
16
17
19
20
20
21
22
22
22
23
23
24
24
24
25
25
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
34
35
35
36
36
37
37
38
39
39
40
40
43
43
45
45
46
47
50
51
51
53
54
55
56
59
60
69
69
79
79
86
91
91
91
96
96
99
99
109
121
127
133
135
136
139
141
143
145
146
147
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
B-l
A;
B;
c:
D:
E:1
F;1
G;1
H)
i]
J]
K:)
L;
M;>
N:I
C-l
Program Listing
Data Input File Listing
APPENDIX D
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.
surface temperatures and it was not the object of this study to evaluate all
of these schemes.
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.
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,
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-
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.
-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.
-4-
J n
<
Heating And/Or
Cooling Panel
EflH]
I3LT15.
-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.
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.
thermal storage characteristics of the structure are important factors in answering this question.
-6-
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.
-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
-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.
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 radiant heated and cooled rooms, the room air tem-
-11-
61
68 75 82
61
68 75 82
61 68 75 82c
-12-
Tr
Ceiling
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
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.
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
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-
&-.:
-15-
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
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-
(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.
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-
c
o
Spectral
distribution
2c
o o
~ w>
ro vt
Wavelength
Figure 8
-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.
3.3
-19-
following equation.
(4)
where:
T^, T2, -- T n = surface temperatures surrounding the occupant
in a room
*p-l *p-2 "" F p-n
-20-
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
<6>
It is given
(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-
(8)
It is
given by
AlTi + A 2 T 2 + -- + A N T N
AUST
(9)
A
where:
A
areas
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:
t a = ambient air temperature
RH = relative humidity
-22-
There are two other items which affect the values of these
parameters when comfort is concerned.
These are
defined as follows.
3.10.1 - ASHRAE Standard Heat Loss (HLD)
HLD -
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)
(11)
where:
t a = design room air temperature based on comfort conditions
being met at the center of the room
(12)
where:
C^ = The conductance for the room component (wall, glass,
ceiling, floor) from the inside surface to the outside
air.
t
si
(13)
where:
ta
-24-
4.0 - BACKGROUND
Many comfort studies have been done over the years and many of these
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
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.
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:
-25-
M
(l-n)
(l-i;) - Pa] A
Du
Du
0.42 [
(44 - Pa) A
Du
Du
M
0.0014
(34.0 - t a ) A
Du
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
-26-
20
/
/
/
15
7
|
i^
1 /'
f?
-
0
-5
-10
20
25
OPERATIVE TEMPERATURE. "C
30
-27-
SEDENTAHY
I mel
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
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-
.;
^Ao 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
/
\
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
-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].
are curves through different combinations of mean radiant temperature and air
temperature that provide thermal comfort.
-30-
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.
The strong
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
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.
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-
to 13 F.
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
Figure 15
Additional work done by Olesen and Nielsen [7] resulted in the values
shown in Figure 16 for vertical radiation cooling.
(15K)
-33-
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
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.
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.
ever that there are other applications and characteristics which are not
identified here.
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.
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
the concrete floor, although new lower mass floors have helped to alleviate
this problem.
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.
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.
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.
as the electric ceiling panels. Generally more heated panel area will be
required than with ceiling panels due the wall location.
The surface
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.
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.
mass.
Electric radiant celing panels are applied in hospitals, office
-38-
heating wires.
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.
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.
-39-
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.
temperature between 200F and 1100F while the metal and quartz tube units
-40-
-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
'
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.
-43-
In addition, a table which is given in [1] that summarizes the typical load
calculations is reproduced below.
Healing Load
Roofs, ceilings,
walls, glass
Walls below
grade
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
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.
S UjAi (75 - t oa )
(16)
(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.
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.
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.
Direction
of Heat
Flow
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-
Effective Emittance E
of Air Space
Surface
Reflectivity. Average
in Percent Emittance t
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.
The ceil-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
-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.
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.
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,
H0.05
-52-
h c - 0.712 Btu/hr ft 2 F
b)
Heated Floor
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.
of thermodynamics to maintain a heat balance on the air within the room (see
Figure 17).
(24)
where,
Total Heat Gain - Q i n p u t + Qpeople + Qlights
Total Heat Loss - QTransmission Loss + ^Infiltration 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,
^infiltration 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.
Air Temperature ( F)
t c l - f(
A
(25)
Du
(26)
Mi
, r,)
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)
For details of the development of these equations one should see Fanger
But, in
-56-
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.
following.
Outside Design Temperature = 3 F
Room Dimensions:
Length = 30 ft.
Width = 30 ft.
Height = 9 ft.
0.9
Walls:
0.9
Floor:
0.9
Ceiling:
0.9
-59-
F per foot.
For
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
coefficient on the walls, floors, and ceiling were not changed during the
operation of the system.
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.
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.
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
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
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
105.4
109.7
116.0
126.8
137.7
ROOM HEIGHT, FT
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
ACTUAL HEAT INPUT, BTU/HR
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.
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.
Table 11 except that the tJ-factors were increased to what might be expected in
industrial situations.
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.
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.
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
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1 , BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
22894.0
24791.7
-7.7
-7.4
22894.0
24791.7
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 4
-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
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
ACTUAL HEAT INPUT, BTU/HR
26646.1
-7.2
26646.1
TABLE 8.
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
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 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
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
ACTUAL HEAT INPUT, BTU/HR
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
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 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
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
ACTUAL HEAT INPUT, BTU/HR
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
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
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
86792.7 106985.6
5.5
7.2
86792.7 106985.6
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 4
-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
#e
gXrv-^gj
TABLE 1 1 .
&*'::~?
FB-Hras
p;-S:;<
INFILTRATION, AC/H
2.0
3.0
4.0
1.0
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
ON
6.6
68840.0
-5.4
6.6
6.6
6.6
-0.1
1.1
9.9
13.8
16.3
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
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 4
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
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
ACTUAL HEAT INPUT, BTU/HR
18.8
18.8
18,8
18.8
-6.5.
-2.7
0.1
0.8
6.7
11.0
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 4
-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
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.
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-
PANEL TEMPERATURE, D E C F
120.0
130.0
140.0
150.0
160.0
170.0
180.0
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
48.8
40.0
33.6
28.7
25.0
22.0
19.5
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
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
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
ACTUAL HEAT INPUT, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 4
wall, floor, and ceiling temperatures experienced in the radiant system than
in the forced air systems.
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.
3 were calculated just to observe their behavior in the radiant types of systems.
-71-
475
i
I
175
120
130
140
panel
FIGURE 19.
150
temperature
160
Cdeg.
170
f)
180
p^ m^ w^ m
r-^
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
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 4
-9.6
-9.0
-8.6
-8.1
PERCENTAGE RADIATION
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
PARAMETER 3, DIMENSIONLESS
0.0117
0.0124
0.0131
0.0138
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE D1FFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
ACTUAL HEAT INPUT, BTU/HR
required radiant panel area (a 13% drop in area as emissivity changed from
0.88 to 0.94).
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.
-74-
15.
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
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 4
-6.5
-7.9
-9.3
-10.8
PERCENTAGE RADIATION
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
PARAMETER 3, DIMENSIONLESS
0.0131
0.0127
0.0124
0.0120
WALL EMISSIVITY
PANEL AREA REQUIRED , SQ FT
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
ACTUAL HEAT INPUT, BTU/HR
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
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
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
PERCENTAGE RADIATION
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
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
PARAMETER 3, DIMENSIONLESS
0.0177
0.0150
0.0130
0.0115
0.0103
0.0093
0.0085
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
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
-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
PERCENTAGE RADIATION
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
PARAMETER 3, DIMENSIONLESS
0.0204
0.0172
0.0149
0.0132
0.0118
0.0107
0.0097
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
PERCENTAGE RADIATION
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
72.4
72.4
72.5
72.5
72.5
72.5
72.5
69.4
69.4
69.4
69.4
69.4
69.4
69.4
73.5
73.5
73.5
73.5
73.5
73.5
73.5
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
PARAMETER 3, DIMENSIONLESS
0.0246
0.0208
0.0180
0.0159
0.0142
0.0128
0.0117
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
ACTUAL HEAT INPUT, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 4
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.
-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
PERCENTAGE RADIATION
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
PARAMETER 3, DIMENSIONLESS
0.0144
0.0142
0.0139
0.0136
0.0133
0.0128
0.0125
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
ACTUAL HEAT INPUT, BTU/HR
-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
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 4
-8.0
-8.6
-9.2
-10.8
-12.6
-16.3
-20.0
PERCENTAGE RADIATION
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
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
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
ACTUAL HEAT INPUT, BTU/HR
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
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 4
-7.0
-7.5
-8.2
-9.7
-11.5
-15.2
-18.9
PERCENTAGE RADIATION
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
PARAMETER 3, DIMENSIONLESS
0.0090
0.0089
0.0088
0.0086
0.0085
0.0082
0.0080
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
ACTUAL HEAT INPUT, BTU/HR
-4t8 ,
0}
01
U
c.
0)
L
at
I
00
07
a
+
ai
-12
-IS
L
<J
Q.
-18
infiltration
FIGURE 2 1 .
Cach)
wm
r x -3 r5
TABLE 2 2 .
' -*
r^
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
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 4
-9.7
-9.3
-8.2
-8.3
-7.4
PERCENTAGE RADIATION
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
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
ACTUAL HEAT INPUT, BTU/HR
Case
Case
Case
Case
Case
3,.DIMENSIONLESS
number
number
number
number
number
T:
2:
3:
4:
5:
of glass have been considered in the radiant base case which was previously
described.
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.
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.
radiant base case were changed and various calculations were made to determine
this effect on the design heat loss.
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.
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.
and HLC has been reduced by about one-half so that the ASHRAE standard design
-86-
m^i r*
e^^
ss-s-.i-'a
ey
a
en
I
oo
UJ
4
CASE NUMBER
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
T"
T"
CASE NUMBER
- . - - *
''
>:: s
t<
'.V!
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
PERCENTAGE RADIATION
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
PARAMETER 3, DIMENSIONLESS
0.0142
0.0136
0.0109
0.0105
0.0089
0.0086
PANEL TEMPERATURE, D E C
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
i
00
I
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
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
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 4
-8.7
-9.3
-10.6
-8.5
-7.8
PERCENTAGE RADIATION
94.9
95.3
95.6
95.2
94.9
40.7
33.6
29.3
37.6
43.8
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
0.0126
0.0124
0.0122
0.0124
0.0126
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
ACTUAL HEAT INPUT, BTU/HR
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,
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.
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.
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.
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
20*20
30*30
40*40
100*100
162.6
302.2
468.9
2285.8
12901.9
23671.1
-12.0
-11.6
14121.6
25650.1
-3.7
-4.2
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
ACTUAL HEAT INPUT, BTU/HR
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
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 4
-8.7
-9.3
-10.6
-11.3
PERCENTAGE RADIATION
94.9
95.3
95.6
96.4
40.7
33.6
29.3
22.9
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
PARAMETER 3, DIMENSIONLESS
0.0126
0.0124
0.0122
0.0120
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
PERCENTAGE RADIATION
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
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
PARAMETER 3, DIMENSIONLESS
0.0123
0.0124
0.0124
0.0124
0.0124
0.0126
0.0127
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
ACTUAL HEAT INPUT, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 4
63000
58000 A = HLD - ASHRAE Design Heat Loss
53000
L
H
+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
-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
22302.0
26437.8
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
^
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 4
-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
21125.4
-11.6
-11.7
-4.8
-5.3
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
PERCENTAGE RADIATION
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
PARAMETER 3, DIMENSIONLESS
0.0141
0.0142
0.0142
0.0143
0.0144
0.0145
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.
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.
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-
NUMBER OF PANELS
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
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 4
-9.3
-9.3
-8.6
-8.6
PERCENTAGE RADIATION
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
PARAMETER 3, DIMENSIONLESS
0.0124
0.0124
0.0126
0.0126
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
ACTUAL HEAT INPUT, BTU/HR
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
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 4
-3.5
-3.2
-2.9
PERCENTAGE RADIATION
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
PARAMETER 3, DIMENSIONLESS
0.0089
0.0085
0.0081
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
ACTUAL HEAT INPUT, BTU/HR
panel calculations.
5.6
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).
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.
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
C=CONVECTIVE , R=RADIANT
OH
I
\
fc
O
O
o
o
o
I
en
V)
3
X
R(120
1771 ASHRAE
R(180 F)
fV^I
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 -
R(8 f t )
IV^I
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^
From the data in Table 30 it can be seen that the percent difference
between HID and HLC is constant at about -7%.
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-
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
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
ACTUAL HEAT INPUT, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 4
20816.5
-6.9
-6.9
-6.9
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
PERCENTAGE RADIATION
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
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
67.0
66.8
66.7
66.6
66.5
1.7252
1.7378
1.7504
1.7606
1.7734
PARAMETER 3, DIMENSIONLESS
0.1170
0.1086
0.1016
0.0967
0.0913
TABLE 31. EFFECTS OF OUTSIDE AIR TEMPERATURE CHANGE FOR A HEATED FLOOR AT 84F
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
PERCENTAGE RADIATION
61.7
61.7
61.7
61.6
PERCENT FLOOR
84.0
80.5
75.7
70.7
25.5
24.7
24.4
24.0
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
PARAMETER 3, DIMENSIONLESS
0.0947
0.0967
0.0977
0.0989
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
ACTUAL HEAT INPUT, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 4
COVERED BY PANELS
AT 84F
0.07
o.io
0.15
724.4
734.2
747.5
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
PERCENTAGE RADIATION
61.7
61.8
61.9
80.5
81.6
83.1
24.7
24.7
24.8
CEILING TEMPERATURE, D E C
ROOM AIR TEMPERATURE, DEG. F
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
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
ACTUAL HEAT INPUT, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 4
TABLE 33. EFFECTS DUE TO INFILTRATION FOR A HEATED FLOOR AT 84F FOR A 30' x 30" x 8' ROOM
0.75
1.00
1.25
724.4
777.6
837.5
896.0
22386.0 24492.0
20612.8
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
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
-20.0
-19.7
-19.8
-19.9
PERCENTAGE RADIATION
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
ROOM AIR TEMPERATURE, DEG. 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
PARAMETER 3, DIMENSIONLESS
0.0967
0.0947
0.0944
0.0946
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 4
pw-jsaj
TABLE 3 4 .
P:'-''
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
PANEL AREA REQUIRED , SQ FT
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
-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
PERCENTAGE RADIATION
60.3
59.9
59.5
87.9
82.2
77.1
23.4
25.3
27.2
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
PARAMETER 3, DIMENSIONLESS
0.1112
0.1045
0.0986
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
o
i
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
ACTUAL HEAT INPUT, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 4
-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
PERCENTAGE RADIATION
61.5
60.9
60.4
96.5
90.5
85.2
24.0
25.9
27.7
CEILING TEMPERATURE, D E C
ROOM AIR TEMPERATURE, DEG. F
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
PARAMETER 3, DIMENSIONLESS
0.1088
0.1022
0.0964
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
ACTUAL HEAT INPUT, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE:DIFFERENCE 4
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.
The ceiling
height was set at nine feet and the outside design temperature at 3 F.
The
- 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.
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
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
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
ACTUAL HEAT INPUT, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 4
PERCENTAGE RADIATION
PERCENT CEILING COVERED BY PANELS
HEAT OUTPUT PER UNIT PANEL AREA, BTU/HR.SQ FT
>
0.0006
0.0006
0.0005
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
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
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
ACTUAL HEAT INPUT, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 4
PERCENTAGE RADIATION
PERCENT CEILING COVERED BY PANELS
HEAT OUTPUT PER UNIT PANEL AREA, BTU/HR.SQ FT
3.5,
3.5
8.0
10.3
3.5
8.0
10.3
TABLE 38. INFRARED MODULAR UNITS WITH NO REFLECTORS OR DEFLECTORS AND SURFACE TEMPERATURE AT 1700 F
AND HEIGHT = 15' - EFFECT OF INFILTRATION RATE
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
2.9
3.2
3.6
4.0
71677.8
79646.7
86809.3
93065.8
-24.1
-28.9
-32.9
-36.7
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
ACTUAL HEAT INPUT, BTU/HR
1.6
-2.4
-6.0
-9.4
1.6
-2.4
-6.0
-9.4
1.6
-2.5
-6.0
-9.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
99.5
0.3
0.4
33647.4
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 4
PERCENTAGE RADIATION
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
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.
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.
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
-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
87104.7
87964.9
-32.9
-32.7
-32.0
-6.0
-6.0
-6.0
-6.0
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 4
-6.0
-6.0
-6.0
PERCENTAGE RADIATION
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
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
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
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 4
-1.0
-1.0
-1. 0
PERCENTAGE RADIATION
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
PARAMETER 3, DIMENSIONLESS
0.0006
0.0006
0.00015
BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1 , BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2 ,
BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
ACTUAL HEAT INPUT, BTU/HR
DEG. F
ROOM HEIGHT, FT
8.0
9.0
10.0
12.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
1.7
1.9
2.0
2.2
2.4
3.0
3.4
60825.6
47042.2
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
ACTUAL HEAT INPUT, BTU/HR .
-22.7
58558.7
-20.5
-21.6
-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
-3.3
-4.7
-3.3
-4.7
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 4
-3.8
-1.0
-1.6
-2.3
-4.4
-3.3
-4.7
PERCENTAGE RADIATION
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-^
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
2.6
3.0
3.3
3.6
69909.4 77235.9
82915.1
88056.9
-31.0
-35.9
-40.1
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
so
I
-26.0
-10.0
-13.2
-16.8
-10.0
-13.2
-16.8
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 4
-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
PERCENTAGE RADIATION
PERCENT CEILING COVERED BY PANELS
HEAT OUTPUT PER UNIT PANEL AREA, BTU/HR.SQ FT
FLOOR TEMPERATURE, DEG. F
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.
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.
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.
It is seen that the percent difference between HLD and HLC has
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
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.
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.
-121-
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
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
ACTUAL HEAT INPUT, BTU/HR
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
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 4
PERCENTAGE RADIATION
PERCENT CEILING COVERED BY PANELS
HEAT OUTPUT PER UNIT PANEL AREA, BTU/HR.SQ FT
6.2386
5.6962
PARAMETER 3, DIMENSIONLESS
0.0011
0.0012
W~m
f-'-* f
ROOM HEIGHT, FT
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
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
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
PARAMETER 3, DIMENSIONLESS
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
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 4
-1.7
-1.6
-1.5
-1.4
-1.4
PERCENTAGE RADIATION
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
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
ACTUAL HEAT INPUT, BTU/HR
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
81802.6
99714.2
ROOM HEIGHT, FT
PANEL AREA REQUIRED , SQ FT
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
63639.0
-1.1
-1.8
-2.5
-4.5
-3.6
63334.9
66424.8
72810.8
81425.3
99252.0
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 4
-1.6
-2.2
-3.0
-5.0
-4.1
PERCENTAGE RADIATION
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
PARAMETER 3, DIMENSIONLESS
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
0.0013
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
27.3
31.1
34.7
37.8
70097.6
77439.9
83180.1
88205.4
-25.8
-30.8
-35.7
-40.0
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 1
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 1, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
ACTUAL HEAT INPUT, BTU/HR
-10.2
-13.5
-17.0
-10.2
-13.5
-17.0
PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 4
-6.9
-10.6
-13.9
-17.4
PERCENTAGE RADIATION
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.
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.
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-
TABLE
48
Fixed Conditions
Variable being
changed and
its range
8 to 25 ft.
7.7 to -5.0
C2
8 to 25 ft.
-7.5 to -3.2
C3
8 to 25 ft.
-7.3 to -1.5
C4
8 to 25 ft.
-6.2 to +1.2
C5
1.9 to +7.2
C6
+2.9 to +16.3
-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
PANEL HEATING
PI
P2
Base case
Base case with
panels at 140oF
-128-
TABLE 48
(CONTINUED)
P3
e
walls f r o m
0.8 to 0.95
1.7 to -5.4
P4
Panels from
120 to 180oF
-4.2 to -4.3
P5
Panels from
120 to I8O0F
-4.5 to -4.5
P6
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
-3.5 to -15.7
P8
-3.5 to -15.7
P9
-3.5 to -15.6
-4.5 to -2.4
Pll
Base case
-2.4 to -4.2
P12
-2.7 to -6.0
P13
-5.1 to -0.4
P14
-3.6 to -5.3
P15
-4.2 to -3.4
-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
Outside design
temperature from 5
to 20oF
-6.5 to -8.1
Floor U-factor
changed from 0.07
to 0.15
-6.9 to -7.9
6.9 to -7.4
Floor temperature
from 83 to 85oF
-5.9 to -5.9
Floor temperature
from 83 to 85oF
-7.0 to -7.0
Surface temperature
from 1600 to 1800oF
+2.9 to +2.9
Room height
changed from
9' to 25'
F3
F4
F5
F6
-6.9 to -7.0
12
13
14
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
(CONTINUED)
Surface temperature
from 1600 to I8OO0F
-1.0 to -1.0
6.2 to -16.8
Room height
8' to 25'
3.7 to -4.7
16
INFRARED - U-TUBES
tLi
Ul
+3.5 to +3.5
U2
+3.5 to -2.3
U3
1.2 to -1.1
U4
1.1 to -3.3
U5
-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-
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
-133-
20
18
' 16
o
g
14
W
Q
12
H
CO
10
b
O
O
M
H
O
&
P
W
H
25
W
u
w
FIGURE 28. PERCENT REDUCTION OF STANDARD DESIGN LOAD AS A FUNCTION OF AIR INFILTRATION RATE
problems or difficulties with the assumptions made in compiling the curves and
tables used in the procedures.
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-
3.
4.
5.
Select the means of heating the panel and the size and location
of the heating elements.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Place panels near cold areas where the heat losses occur.
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.
sons, the correction to the design load given in Figure 28 does not apply for
the design cooling load.
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.
many years and have not reported any deficiencies in the procedure. The
procedure is as follows.
-137-
2.
Calculate room sensible and latent heat gains using the ASHRAE
procedure given in Chapter 26 in the 1985 ASHRAE Handbook of
Fundamentals.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
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.
proximity to the ceiling panels that the cooling and heating performance would
be altered slightly.
design procedure.
the cooling case should be carefully evaluated since it will be a major contributor to the cooling load.
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.
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.
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
-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.
and edgewise heat loss and panel thermal resistance are over estimated.
These
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-
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.
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:
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.
-141-
A design procedure is presented below for gas and electric infrared heaters.
3. Compute the air infiltration and any forced ventilation loads using
procedures given in Chapter 22 of Ref. 1.
4.
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
7.
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.
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.
Select and locate thermostats to control zone loads and provide uniform heating.
recommendations.
floor, out of direct view of the heaters, and not in direct contact
with cold outside walls.
10.
possibilities.
-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.
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.
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
-144-
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-
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.
-146-
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.
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.
It
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,
Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA, 1984.
ASHRAE, 1983 Equipment Handbook. American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA, 1983.
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.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
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.
22.
23.
25.
26.
27.
28.
-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
Engineers, Atlanta, GA, 1983.
ASHRAE, "Panel Heating and Cooling Systems - Chap. 8", 1984 Systems Handbook.
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning
Engineers, Atlanta, GA, 1984.
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.
ASHRAE Task Group, "High-Intensity Infrared Heaters," ASHRAE Journal, December
1963.
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
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",
ASHRAE Trans.. V. 88, Pt. 2, 1982.
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
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
A-12
A-13
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.
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",
ASHRAE Trans.. V. 72, Pt. 1, 1966.
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.
A-18
APPENDIX B
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
la
B-l
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
For all of the entries given in the BIBLIOGRAPHY, a short discussion
concerning each article has been prepared.
B)
Convection Coefficients
C) General
D)
Comfort Conditions
Infrared Heating
I) Design Procedures
J)
Energy Consumption
K) Transient Effects
L)
Instruments
M)
Controls
N)
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
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
A)
2.
B-3
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.
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.
B-4
7.
8.
B-5
10.
2.
3.
4.
5.
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
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.
Harris, Robert L., Jr., "Computer Simulation of Radiant Heat Load and
Control Alternatives", Journal of American Industrial Hygiene
Assoc. V. 35, Feb., 1974.
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.
17.
B-8
1.
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.
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.
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
21.
iii)
iv)
23.
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.
3.
B-ll
24.
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.
25.
26.
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.
B-13
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.
3.
30.
Walton, George N., "A New Algorithm for Radiant Interchange in Room
Loads Calculations", ASHRAE Trans., vol. 86, Pt. 2, 1980.
B-14
B.
Convection Coefficients
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.
2.
-k
3.
4.
*.
6.
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
Downward
0.85
3.16
B-17
9.
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.
A.
In a floor-heated space
B.
1.
2.
3.
Convection to ceiling:
In a ceiling-heated space
qe - 0.041 (At)^.25/De
1.
2.
3.
Convection to floor:
2.
3.
4.
5.
10.
Conclusions:
1.
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.
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.
7.
B-19
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
15.
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
B-24
17.
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.
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.
5.
6.
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.
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.
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.
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.
B-29
6.
7.
B-30
8.
9.
B-31
10.
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.
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.
3.
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.
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.
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.
B-33
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.
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.
18.
B-35
E.
Thermal Comfort-Radiant
1.
3.
B-36
5.
"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.
B-37
Berglund, L. G.
Conditions
Baseboard,
V. 91, Pt.
forced air-system.
system used 116%.
9.
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.
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.
12.
13.
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.
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.
2.
3.
4.
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.
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.
snesitivity to radiant exchange with walls than with the ceiling, and that
European upper limits for ceiling temperature are unduly restrictive.
*
22.
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.
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.
B-44
25.
3.
4.
27.
28.
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
30.
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.
33.
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.
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.
=> 1.51
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.
2.
3.
4.
B-50
38.
B-51
40.
3.
41.
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.
3.
43.
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.
B-53
45.
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.
I
1
B-55
F.
FLOOR PANELS
1.
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)
c)
Emission of panel - from 1.2 to 0.5 Btu/ft* hr HF. This was extremely
sensitive to tube spacing and depth.
2.
3.
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.
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.
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.
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.
8.
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.
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.
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.
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.
For an unisulated slab about 60% of the total heat loss occurs through
the region lying within three feet of the slab edge.
2.
B-59
3.
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.
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.
3.
The thermal resistance of both the asphalt time and the rubber tile
B-60
Covering a floor panel with carpeting did not appreciably increase the
seasonal fuel consumption.
7.
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.
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 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.
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
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.
The authors qualified their conclusions to the fact that these were
laboratory tests. Their observations were as follows:
1.
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.
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
20.
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.
2.
3.
B-64
exclusively.
4.
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.
2.
*
*
5.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
*
B-70
17.
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.
*
Olivieri, J. B. and Singh, T., "A Computer Program for Radiant Cooling of High Bay Buildings", ASHRAE Trans.. V. 93, Pt. 1, 1987.
B-71
21.
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.
4.
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.
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.
4.
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.
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.
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.
25.
26.
4.
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.
#
28.
2.
B-75
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.
2.
3.
The position of. the panel has no significant effect, either on the
temperature stratification or the energy consumption.
4.
30.
2.
3.
4.
B-76
31.
B-77
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.
4.
Baumanns, H., "Gas IR Heaters for Heating Large Spaces", Warme Gas
International. Vol. 27, No. 4, Gewea GmbH and Co.
Monchengladbach, April, 1978.
B-80
5.
6.
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.
B-81
8.
Bryan, W. L., "Gas-Fired Radiant Heat", Mech. Engr. . Vol. 87, March
1965.
B-82
11.
12.
Cohn, Lisa, "Radiant Heating Units Net Big Savings in Special Cases",
Energy User News, Vol. 7, No. 47, November 1982.
15.
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.
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
19.
20.
21.
B-85
22.
23.
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.
Infrared Heaters.
6.18.1 Support:
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:
25.
26.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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
4.
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.
*
2.
3.
B-92
6.
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.
10.
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 "
16 ft
Radiant, warm floor
Radiant, warm ceiling
Medium and high temperature
radiant units from high levels
0
0-5
15-30
5-15
0-5
10-20
5-10
0-5
5-10
0-5
0
*
11.
0
0-5
0
0
>32ft.
B-94
12.
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.
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.
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.
B-97
4.
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.
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.
B-98
"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.
Vol. 6, W S Kongres - W S Messe, 1985.
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.
3.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
9.
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.
2.
2.
3.
4.
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.
*
Tenney, A. S., Ill, "Red Hot and Hotter - Industrial Radiation Thermometry", Mechanical Engineering. Oct., 1986.
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.
2.
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.
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.
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.
B-108
N.
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.
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.
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
C-l
HIUP
HIDOWN
EPSI
FP
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
XPREF NCP
NPAL
XCP,YCPALCP
BCP
EPSIP XMULT -
TOUT
ALTH
BTH
HT
U
HI
XIN
PTOL
MAXIT
Note: A sample input data file is shown at the end of the computer
program listing.
C-2
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 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
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
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-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
WRITE(6,176)J,XCP(J),YCP(J),ALCP(J),BCP(J)
786
CONTINUE
C-9
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
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
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)
WRITE(6,1514) PDIFF2
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)
WRITE(6,1031) PDIFF3
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
WRITE(6,1032) PDIFF4
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
&
&
' =
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
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)
WRITE(6,1523) Q6 +QACT3
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
WRITE(6,1524) PDIFF1
FORMAT(lX//,T5,'PDIFFl',T60,,= *,F7.2,' %'J)
WRITE(6,1525) Q5 +QACT3
FORMAT(1X//,T5,'C0NDUC.DESIGN HEAT LOSS l',T50,'= ',F10.1)
WRITE(6,1526) PDIFF2
FORMAT(1X//,T5,'PDIFF2',T60,,= ',F7.2,' %*,/)
WRITE(6,1527) Q5 +Q3
FORMAT(1X//,T5,'C0NDUC.DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2',T50,'= *,F10.1)
WRITE(6,1528) PDIFF3
FORMAT(1X//.T5,'PDIFF3',T60, * = *,F7.2,' %',/)
WRITE(6,1529) Ql +Q2
F0RMAT(1X//,T5,'ACTUAL HEAT INPUT
',T50,*= ',F10.1)
WRITE(6,1530) PDIFF4
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
'PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 2
POUTC
'CONDUCTION DESIGN HEAT LOSS 2, BTU/HR
POUTC
'PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 3
POUTCIO
'ACTUAL HEAT INPUT, BTU/HR
POUTC11
'PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE 4
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) =
POUTl(l)
P0UT1(2)
P0UT1(3)
P0UT1(4)
POUTl(5)
POUTl(6)
POUTl(7)
POUTl(8)
POUTl(9)
c
c
c
C
C
C
C
C
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
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
WRITE (6,3551) POUT(I),(OUT(J,I),J=1,NVAR)
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
WRITE (8,3120) POUT(I),(OUT(J,I),J=1,NVAR)
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
IF(CP) THEN
XPANEL = X(10)
ENDIF
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
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,
ELSE
HI(5) = HIUP
ENDIF
C FOR THE CEILING...
IF( X(6).LT.X(8) ) THEN
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 ...
IF( X(6).LT.X(8) ) THEN
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
IF( X(5).LT.X(8) ) THEN
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)
IF( X(5).LT.X(8) ) THEN
HI(5) = HIUP
ELSE
HI(5) = HIDOWN
ENDIF
C UNHEATED FLOOR PORTION
IF( X(6).LT.X(8) ) THEN
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
C
IF(CP) THEN
C I.E, WITH CEILING PANELS,
C QCV(6) IS NOW PER UNIT PRAREA
C-23
C**
C
C**
C
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
- XCEL(7)
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
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)
COMMON /AREAS/ RAREA(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
CALL SHPRL (A,B,G,F12)
FS(2,4) = F12
FS(2,6) = FS(2,5)
USING THE PRINCIPLE OF RECIPROCITY
DO 511 IJ2 = 3,6
511
FS (IJ2,2) = FS(2,IJ2)* RAREA(2)/RAREA(IJ2)
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
CALL SHPRL (A,B,G,F12)
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***** PRINTING OUT RESULTS
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
CALL SHPRL (A,B,G,F12)
FS(2,4) = F12
C
FS(2,6) = FS(2,5)
C USING THE PRINCIPLE OF RECIPROCITY
DO 511 IJ2 = 3,6
511
FS (IJ2,2) = FS(2,IJ2)* RAREA(2)/RAREA(IJ2)
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
CALL SHPRL (A,B,G,F12)
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***** PRINTING OUT RESULTS
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-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
IMPLICIT REAL*8 (A-H,0-Z)
DIMENSION A(4),B(4),FS(6,6)
DIMENSION XCP(25),YCP(25),ALCP(25),BCP(25) ,FSCP(25,25)
COMMON /AREAS/ RAREA(6)
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
WRITE(6,176)J,XCP(J),YCP(J),ALCP(J),BCP(J)
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
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
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.
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)
IMPLICIT REAL*8 (A-H,0-Z)
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)
IMPLICIT REAL*8 (A-H,0-Z)
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
WRITE(6,*)'PQ2 = ',PQ2
WRITE(6,*)'PQ3 = ',PQ3
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
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)
IMPLICIT REAL*8 (A-H,0-Z)
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)
IMPLICIT REAL*8 (A-H,0-Z)
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
WRITE(6,*)'PQ1 = ',PQ1
C
WRITE(6,*)'PQ2 = ',PQ2
C
WRITE(6,*)'PQ3 = ',PQ3
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
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-
8.1
D-2
8.2
CHAPTER 8
D-3
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
8.3
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
or for cooling:
D-5
20
JO
40
SO
60 TO 60 90 100 MO
HEM OUTPUT. BTUHPERSO'T
120
ISO
WO ISO
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
/.
/
>
/
/
/ /1
.,r. i * a
60
f*
SO
/
/
... -
b"
\/.
10
IS 20
25
30 31 401 4 5i
SO
1 SS 60
65
70
D-6
CHAPTER 8
8.6
40
SO
20
OUTDOOR AIR
IO
O
-10
TCMPCRATURC -OCCRCC FAHR.
-20
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
1.2
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-
"
*/
/
/
tt'-F-tVBtu *
(t value)
ttiffi
/
/
Fig. 8 Ceiling Panel Design Graph Showing Panel Surface Temperature and
Mean Water Temperature vs. Output Downward
^^VV^VVVVv^^^VV^VVsVV^^^J^i^'
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
8.8
CHAPTER 8
1 I
CONVERSION FACTORS:
ft'xais
W/m'-BtuA
,s
_r
l\
V
THICKNESS
PANEL
.SURFACE ,
SA.
\ ^
COVER"
75
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
3.6
0.30
1.0
0.35
0.8
0.40
2.9
0.25 0.9
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
'us
up
0.7
0.45
(0.12) (0.08)
0.9
0J5
(0.16) (0.10)
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
TO
03
up
9
(228.6)
12
(304.8)
0.5-in.(l2.7mm)(nom.)
ROnfcrroustube
Panel Coustracuon
Spacing.
In.
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
(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
GRADE
SPACING
Spacing,
In.
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
-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
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.
3
(76.2)
6
(132)
0.61"
(0.11)
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
12
(305)
-ALUMINUM PAN
0 . 0 3 2 IN. THICK
comfERStON
0.31"
(0.05)
TUBE SPACING
i
a
Resistance fruef
ft*Fh/Bto
<m2C/W)
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
!!!
8.10
CHAPTER 8
, THERMAL L*N*CT
AND CUPS
OVAL CHANNEL .
l SQUARE HEADER
V , PIPE LATERAL
PANEL CLIP
o . o;
-o'. o.v
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
3 COAT PLASTER
FINISH
P L A S T E R C E I L I N G BELOW
^METAL L A T H
FINISHEO PLASTER C E I L I N G
JOISTS
D-ll
8.11
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
FOOTING WALL
ms-m
FOUNDATION
Fig. 18
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
1
.:rJ
- -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
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.
D-14
8.14
CHAPTER 8
/
40
1
|
!
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
\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
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
IM FOUR-PIPE SYSTEM
8.15
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.
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)
D-17
8.17
I CONVERSION FACTORS:
C - I F - 321/1.8
t W/m"> Btu/h It-' X3.15
CANU. SUWAt.l
lOO
'20
140
HMP MINUS AIR 7IMP ABOVt TANT I. VP Ub. f DEC
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)
A
B
C
SPACING
in. (mm)
4.5(114)
9 (229)
9 (229)
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
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-
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
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.
D-19
8.19
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
10
IS
Fig. 26
20
(Wj/m 2 ).
qc/m
(16)
(17)
H^KUti-O
where
D-21
(18)
8.21
(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,
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)
*$r
j.
9 30
\X
^
FUNDAMENTALS VOLUME.
-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.
D-22
8.22
CHAPTER 8
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)
190(90)
Air
Flow
Rale.
cfro(LA)
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)
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)
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 )
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:
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)
D-23
8.24
CHAPTER 8
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
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)
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
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