Re: FLW Imperial Hotel

>The success of radiant floor . . . .


I would have to disagree with Mark on this matter. While there are
situations where radiant panel heating is reasonable, in many, if not most
locations where heating is required, radiant panel systems cannot input the
heat at the point where it should be placed - that is at the place where it
is being lost. The intention of an environmental control system is to
establish and maintain comfort conditions, not to balance the heat loss
with an input of heat. It is more than a BTU balancing game.

Unfortunatelty, since the surface temperature of a floor should not exceed
85 F, it is difficult to input the heat in the location where it is
needed. Also, while the intention of radiant heating is to utilize radiant
transfer as the means of control, if the radiant panel is the floor, the
warmer surface results in convective transfer within the room air - so the
air is heated. If the ceiling is the radiant panel, the transfer of energy
into the room air is somewhat reduced, although, as Mark noted, the
resulting conditions are not usually desireable in terms of temperature
distributions.

The radiant panel heating in the ancient Roman buildings was used primarily
in the baths. Also, this hypocaust system was used at a time when there we
no effective means of controlling the openings - that is there was not
glass. In this situation, as we can observe with the radiant panels used
on loading docks, etc., radiant panel heating makes a great deal of sense
since there is no real possiblility of controlling the air temperatures.

Like so many good things, misapplication does not necessarily retain the
intended benefits.


David Lee Smith, Professor of Architecture
School of Architecture and Interior Design
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0016
(513) 556 5291
DAVID.SMITH@xxxxxx
Partial thread listing: