Energy and Buildings 57 (2013) 199–209

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Energy and Buildings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild

Performance of radiant cooling surfaces with respect to energy consumption

and thermal comfort
Simos Oxizidis a , Agis M. Papadopoulos b,∗
a
School of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland
b
Laboratory of Heat Transfer and Environmental Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Aristotle University Thessaloniki, Box 483, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The intensive use of electrically driven vapour compressor air conditioning is accompanied by an
Received 26 October 2012 analogous environmental impact and the imposition of a severe stress on the electric grid. Still, the
Accepted 31 October 2012 decarbonisation of the latter, by the increased utilisation of renewable energy sources, and the imple-
mentation of smart grids could help in overcoming those issues, if a different approach in thermal energy
Keywords: storage and thermal comfort in the cooling of buildings can be achieved. Hydronic radiant building sur-
Cooling
faces address those issues providing thermal comfort by cooling directly the building and the people,
Radiant building surfaces
utilising high temperature cooling water, that increases the efficiency of cooling systems, while they
Thermal comfort
Operative temperature
present the feature of thermal energy storage embedded in their construction. The present study com-
Building simulation pares radiant and convection systems with respect to final energy consumption and thermal comfort in a
test cell representing an office room. The results highlight the issues of proper control of radiant systems
in order to take full advantage of their specific features and of the appropriate evaluation of thermal
comfort conditions provided by those systems.
© 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction building operators to run their electricity driven cooling equipment

The quest for coolness in warm climates occupied people for
thousands of years. Several ancient architectural practices (high
thermal mass walls, high room ceilings, shading and natural cool-
ing techniques) have been employed to adjust buildings to local
climatic conditions, while several cultural practices developed to
help people adjust (e.g. clothing). The natural, or passive, cool-
ing techniques have therefore a centuries’ long record of being
used. Mechanical cooling emerged only during the 19th century,
but boosted by the electrification of cities it expanded to the cur-
rent point where today it is considered to be the standard way
of cooling. That wide availability and intense operation of elec-
tricity driven vapour compression cooling systems resulted in a
twofold effect. It led people and buildings to loose or abandon their
acclimatisation features and produced a significant environmental
impact and a huge stress on electricity grids, especially during hot
periods.
However, if electricity generation is about to be proliferated by
renewable energy sources’ (RES) contribution and transmitted and
distributed through smart grids, a big challenge emerges: to suc-
cessfully implement demand responsive schemes, that will force
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 2310 996015.
E-mail addresses: agis@auth.gr, agis@eng.auth.gr (A.M. Papadopoulos).
when RES-generated electricity is available, in order to minimise
the environmental impact and relieve the grid from peak mis-
matches between supply and demand. For this to be realised two
issues should be resolved: how to provide uninterrupted cooling,
when the availability of the respective equipment is intermittent
following the availability of RES, and how to provide thermal com-
fort in an indoor environment where occupants do not have full
control over time of their conditioning equipment.
Thus, a different approach in the perception of thermal comfort,
energy efficiency and thermal energy storage is required during
the cooling of buildings. Hydronic radiant building surfaces provide
that different approach since they achieve thermal comfort by cool-
ing directly the building and the people and not the indoor air
and, in addition, they utilise high temperature cooling water that
increases the efficiency of cooling plant equipment, while they also
present the feature of thermal energy storage embedded in their
construction. By using such systems a totally different view on the
building as a system is possible, where the building elements them-
selves act as terminal cooling units and thermal energy storage
facilities.
The present paper, following an investigation of the reasons that
cause increased cooling demand in today’s built environment and
an introduction to the main parameters of thermal comfort, com-
pares radiant and convection systems with respect to their energy
performance and the thermal comfort conditions they are estab-
lishing in a building during cooling conditions.

0378-7788/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.10.047
200 S. Oxizidis, A.M. Papadopoulos / Energy and Buildings 57 (2013) 199–209

Fig. 1. Average electricity load during July weekdays [3].

2. The increasing cooling demand
Greece was, at least until the deep recession started in 2009, a
typical example for the increasing cooling, which was reflected at
the increased electricity demand during the summer months. The
microclimatic change, with the overheating of the big cities due to
the heat island effect, the increased glazed surfaces of buildings, as
a result of “architectural globalization” and the drastic drop of the
initial cost of air conditioning systems resulted in a huge increase
in the electric peak load of the interconnected system [1,2]. Dur-
ing July weekdays the average electricity load increased from 2002
to 2007 about 1500 MW, most of it due to air conditioning loads
(Fig. 1). In 2008, the contribution of air conditioning load to the
maximum electric load was estimated at 2500 MW (about 25%).
It is indicative that between 2003 and 2009, demand shed-
ding schemes were activated during heat waves, in order to keep
peak loads below the stability safety level of the interconnected
electric system. The strong correlation of daily maximum air tem-
peratures in Athens, which accounts for more than a half of the
interconnected system’s load, and the maximum electricity peak
load during the weekdays of July 2006, is impressively depicted in
Fig. 2.
In a more systematic approach of analysis, four different cate-
gories of causes can be identified, that contribute to this increase
of cooling demand; they are depicted in Fig. 3.
2.1. Climatic causes
Urban heat island is probably the single most important fac-
tor considering the increased cooling demand. The intensity of the
urban heat island in Athens has been calculated at 5–15 ◦ C [5]
while in Thessaloniki at 8 ◦ C [6]. The elevated temperatures not only
increase the cooling load of buildings but also affect negatively the
efficiency (coefficient of performance) of cooling systems leading to
a vicious cycle. According to Papadopoulos in a typical street canyon
in Thessaloniki the air temperature can rise up to 6 ◦ C higher when
the canyon buildings are air-conditioned by split units with their
outdoor units installed on the buildings’ facades [7]. Santamouris
et al., estimated the efficiency deterioration of air conditioners up
to 25% due to urban heat island in Athens [5].
In addition, the features of urban microclimate degrade the pas-
sive cooling potential of buildings. Ventilation cooling which is the
most common form of passive cooling is restricted due to increased
air temperatures and low wind speeds met in urban street canyons

Fig. 2. Correlation between daily maximum outdoor temperature and daily maximum electricity load [3].
 S. Oxizidis, A.M. Papadopoulos / Energy and Buildings 57 (2013) 199–209
Fig. 3. Causes of increased cooling demand in the built environment [4].
even during the night [8]. And radiant cooling (long wavelength
radiation) to the night sky is limited from the building surfaces
because of the low view factors to the sky in densely built areas.
Finally, the climate change resulting in an increasing trend in tem-
perature also affects cooling loads in a manner similar to the urban
heat island.
2.2. Constructional–architectural causes
Since the 1950s, when mechanical air conditioning began to
broadly being installed in buildings, engineers and architects were
gradually adjusted to that technological reality and stopped being
concerned about the construction of buildings suited to their local
climatic conditions. Especially architects, liberated from the neces-
sity of designing for indoor comfort – since it was provided by
mechanical systems – focused on the artistic side of building design
instead [9] and that was a trend followed by most of the architec-
tural schools worldwide resulting in until recently inadequate or
no teaching at all of energy and environmental issues [10,11].
Additionally, the developments in building construction tech-
nology led to changes in modern buildings with negative effect in
cooling loads. Lightweight buildings with very low thermal mass
and extended use of glass surfaces are features of that trend.
Even the shift that followed the two oil crises and promoted
the energy conscious building design focused on design aspects
mainly scoping in reducing heating loads which in several cases
can present a collateral impact of growing cooling load (e.g. south
oriented glass facades inadequately shaded).
2.3. Social causes
Significant changes took place in the occupational patterns and
as a result in the ways of living. The elimination of the traditional
afternoon breaks in regions with warm summers, as a results of
increased working hours, but also of the expanding cities that
made rest breaks unfeasible, and the minimisation of people’s toler-
ance regarding indoor climatic conditions, after years of extensive
use of air conditioning, are two typical reasons for the increased
spreading of cooling demand even in the late evening at home. In
combination with the fact that most of the human activities are
accommodated in artificially conditioned environments, like the
big shopping malls, this lead to a steadily increasing and expanding
demand for air conditioning.
201
Furthermore, the increase in the purchasing power of people
lead to a respective increase of electronic and electric equipment
in residences, which, together with the inevitable increase of office
equipment, led to both high electrical loads and to the resulting
internal heat loads.
Finally, a significant effect on cooling load is caused by the
changes in the perception of indoor air quality throughout the
last three decades. Increased air change rates demanded by most
contemporary standards on indoor air quality augment space con-
ditioning loads as well [12,13].
2.4. Commercial-marketing causes
During the last decade the falling prices of room air condi-
tioners and their wide availability was phenomenal and led to
increased sales around the world. Moreover, as a rule the cheapest
air conditioners, which literally flooded the market, were the ones
presenting the lowest energy performance coefficients [14].
3. Thermal comfort
Thermal comfort, at least from an engineer’s perspective, is
defined as the mental state of a person during which, he expresses
satisfaction with his thermal environment and does not want any
change to happen in the thermal conditions [15]. Still, from a his-
torical perspective, comfort can be described as the endpoint of a
technological request driven by advances in engineering [16]. The
historical definition of thermal comfort describes more aptly its
dynamic features, connects comfort with social development, and
views it not only as a scientific theory but as a cultural phenomenon
as well. A thorough and detailed analysis of the concept of comfort
can be found in Ref. [17].
The expectation of people regarding thermal comfort changes
continually, following the current evolutions in architecture and
building physics and the technological development of energy
systems and their thermostatic controls and the integration of
the latter two that determines the thermal characteristics of the
indoor environment and, consequently, the way in which heat is
transferred to and from people. Thus, determining comfort is a
multivalent problem depending on many parameters (biological,
psychological, environmental and external) and extending not only
to the thermal conditions of an indoor environment but also to how
these are maintained.
202 S. Oxizidis, A.M. Papadopoulos / Energy and Buildings 57 (2013) 199–209
Fig. 4. Types of embedded radiant surfaces.
However, by and large, engineers still keep determining ther-
mal conditions in buildings using simply single heating and cooling
set-points based on the indoor air temperature and ignoring all
other aspects of thermal comfort. In that way, only convective heat
transfer from the human body is directly being taken into account
ignoring the radiant component which is equally important. In gen-
eral, the climatic parameters of a space that affect the thermal
comfort sensation of its occupants are air temperature, mean radi-
ant temperature, air velocity, relative humidity and atmospheric
pressure.
There are two distinct ways of estimating comfort in a space:
(a) The deterministic route of Fanger’s PMV–PPD model [18] and all
its successors, which was derived from laboratory based research
and (b) the stochastic approach described by the adaptive com-
fort models that arose from field based research [19]. The latter
is more suited for evaluating thermal comfort conditions in free
running, naturally ventilated buildings, especially for the cooling
period where no mechanical cooling is used. Furthermore, it is of
increased significance when considering buildings in moderate but
also in hot and humid climatic regions as suggested by Sourbron
et al. [20] and by Nicol already [21].
Scientific research in the field of defining comfort led over the
previous decades to the development of international standards
the main purpose of which were to provide guidance to engineers
in designing comfortable indoor environments and selecting the
appropriate mechanical equipment to maintain these comfort con-
ditions [15,22].
In this context, the presence of a system in a space, delivering or
abstracting heat, and the heat transfer mode and features utilised
to achieve this, should be an issue clarified and properly quantified
when evaluating thermal comfort perception by the occupants.
4. Features of hydronic radiant building surfaces
Hydronic radiant systems are gaining a significant share of the
market due to the several advantages that appear to present both
from a thermal comfort point of view but mainly because of their
potential to be fuelled by renewable energy sources (e.g. solar ther-
mal collectors, air to water heat pumps) and to operate in that way
with significant lower energy consumption. These are mainly build-
ing integrated (embedded) systems in the form of radiant building
surfaces (walls, floors or ceilings).
In general, one can determine the following categories of
hydronic radiant building surfaces:
• Heating and cooling panels
• Heating and cooling building elements (Fig. 4a, b and d)
◦ Isolated by an insulated layer from the main building thermal
mass
◦ Embedded in the main building thermal mass (Thermo Active
Building Systems – TABS, Fig. 4c)
Those systems can be attached to, or be embedded, in any build-
ing element; in Fig. 4 are depicted walls (Fig. 4d), floors (Fig. 4a) and
ceilings (Fig. 4b).
In Table 1 are presented the maximum and minimum surface
temperatures of several building elements incorporating such sys-
tems along with their capacity. Those limits are imposed by thermal
comfort criteria and safety aspects.
The most important advantages of such systems are:
• Provision of better thermal comfort conditions by transferring
heat mainly by radiation and less by convection.
• Elimination of the local thermal discomfort causes (draughts,
radiant temperature asymmetry, warm or cold floors, and ver-
tical air temperature differences) mainly due to low temperature
heating and high temperature cooling. Local thermal discom-
fort causes are usually related with the non discrete operation
of heating and cooling systems in a room.
• Absence of noise and draughts due to fan operation, resulting in
discrete conditioning of spaces.
• Limited air exchange heat gains during cooling or air exchange
heat losses during heating – which is the main cause of heat losses
in contemporary highly insulated buildings – since comfort can be
achieved with higher air temperatures (by decreasing mean radi-
ant temperature) during cooling or lower air temperature during
heating (by increasing mean radiant temperature)
 S. Oxizidis, A.M. Papadopoulos / Energy and Buildings 57 (2013) 199–209
Table 1
Thermal characteristics of radiant building surfaces (Olesen, 1997; Olesen et al., 2000).
Total heat transfer factor (W/m2 K)
Heating Cooling
Floor 11 7 29
Wall 8 8
Ceiling 6 11
a
The capacity of radiant floor operating in cooling mode can easily exceed 100 W/m2 when accepting direct solar radiation.
• Use of low temperature heating and high temperature cooling
enables the efficient use of heat sources like solar energy or air
(air to water heat pumps) with great overall energy efficiency
• By thermally activating the building elements they can utilise
their thermal mass for both heating and cooling resulting in lower
peak loads and lower equipment capacity. In addition, when
driven by solar thermal collectors or renewable energy sources
generated electricity they can utilise the building’s thermal mass
to serve as thermal energy storage facility.
• There is no need for any type of mechanical equipment to be
installed in occupied spaces.
However, due to low temperature difference between the radi-
ant surface and the indoor air and the large thermal mass of the
radiant surface a more sophisticated control approach is required
than most conventional systems. Additionally, the traditional ther-
mostatic control schemes with a single temperature control loop
often fails to materialise the effect of radiant building surfaces on
the thermal comfort sensation causing not rational operation of the
systems.
As in other hydronic systems, the controllability refers to the
regulation of the supply cold water temperature and flow. Usually,
supply temperature is controlled based on the outdoor temperature
while supply flow is regulated based on the indoor temperature. In
general, controlling the mean temperature (average temperature of
supply and return water) of the water in a hydronic radiant system
is considered preferable than controlling the supply temperature
due to faster responsiveness that can be achieved [23].
A critical feature though is the self control of those systems.
That is their ability to vigorously maximise heat transfer from a
room when its temperature increases due to an external reason,
e.g. direct solar heat gains, because of the low temperature differ-
ence between the system temperature and the room temperature.
Actually, the higher the temperature of the cooling radiant surface,
the higher the intensity of self control [24].
For such systems individual room control is highly desirable to
achieve energy efficiency and thermal comfort. Another issue of
high importance that is highlighted in this paper is the particular
type of sensor used. More specifically, operative temperature sen-
sors are significantly more representative of thermal comfort and
more appropriate for radiant systems since they take into account
the room’s radiant temperature which is the main environmental
parameter affected by those systems. Finally, an additional control
scheme is required in order not to allow condensation to appear
on the radiant surfaces. That is achieved by shutting off the system
when the internal surface temperature turns 1 ◦ C or two 2 ◦ C higher
than the dew point temperature of the room air.
5. Methodology of evaluation
In this paper hydronic radiant building surfaces and convec-
tive forced air systems are being compared with respect to the
thermal comfort conditions and final thermal energy consump-
tion achieved during cooling. In that way any advantages of radiant
systems can be quantified. While regarding energy performance
the quantification of every system’s potential is straightforward
203
Surface temperature (◦ C) Capacity (W/m2 )
Maximum Minimum Heating Cooling
20 99 42a
∼40 17 160 72
∼27 17 42 99
(energy consumption, maximum heating and cooling load) in the
case of thermal comfort is quite ambiguous.
Two indices were used to assess the thermal comfort condi-
tions provided by the systems. The first was the PMV index, as it
is calculated from the Fanger’s Thermal Comfort Model, while the
second was the calculation of comfort ranges of operative temper-
ature and humidity, as described in ASHRAE Standard 55-2004. For
both criteria the comfort range limits were set based on the 10%
dissatisfaction limit.
The systems compared were all three basic configurations of
radiant building surfaces (walls, floor and ceiling) and forced air
systems (fan coils).
To investigate the operational characteristics of the radiant
building surfaces in a wide range of boundary conditions the sys-
tems were compared for several control options and for different
insulation levels and ventilation rates. This was done by means of
a test cell model, representative of an office space (Fig. 5), such as
it can be used either by a building simulation software, like Ener-
gyPlus [25], or by CFD and numerical analysis [26,27]. In the south
wall there is a window of 2 m2 (10% of the floor area).
The cell’s buildings elements are depicted in Fig. 6 and are con-
ventional solutions widely used in construction practice around
the Mediterranean basin [28,29]. The insulation thickness in all
elements is 100 mm while the south opening is a double glazed
window of 3 mm thick clear panes and an air gap of 13 mm. The
U-values of walls, floor, roof and window are 0.33, 0.3, 0.26 and
2.75 W/m2 K, respectively.
In the cell was assumed a constant ventilation of 0.9 ACH
(0.015 m3 /s), which is supposed to be supplied by means of natural
ventilation. It is occupied by two men who emit 126 W (1.2 met)
each (60% by radiation). The insulation of their clothing is 0.5 clo.
The internal heat gains by electric equipment are set to 5 W/m2 .
For the thermal comfort (PMV index) calculations the air veloc-
ity in the cell was assumed 0.15 m/s.
The calculations were carried out for the city of Thessaloniki
(WMO 166220, latitude 40◦ 31 , longitude 22◦ 58 , and altitude 4 m).
Ground reflectivity was assumed at 0.2.
Fig. 5. The simulated test cell.
204 S. Oxizidis, A.M. Papadopoulos / Energy and Buildings 57 (2013) 199–209

Fig. 6. The typical construction elements of the test cell.

Fig. 7. The different radiant surfaces examined.

The temperature of the thermostatic control was set to 25 ◦ C.
The following terminal units were compared:
• Ideal conditioned air (PA) – used as the control system
• Fan coil (FC)
• Radiant floor
◦ Heavyweight construction (RF) – Fig. 7a
◦ Lightweight construction (RFG) – Fig. 7b
• Radiant ceiling (RC) – Fig. 7c
• Radiant wall (RW) – south and north wall only (Fig. 7d)
• Heavyweight radiant floor and fan coil (RF FC)
The first system is an ideal system used for reference reasons. All
the other systems are fed by cold water with no capacity limitations.
The conditions of the ideal conditioned air (temperature and
humidity of supply air) are depicted in Table 2.
The temperature of the supply water in all systems is controlled
according to the outdoor temperature. The design exit temperature
is set to 7 ◦ C for the convective system and to 14 ◦ C for the radiant
ones. An additional control, that varies the flow of the supply water
depending on the zone temperature, is used for the radiant systems.
This control specifies the range of temperature in degrees Celsius
over which the radiant systems throttle from zero flow rate up to
the maximum varying linearly. That throttling range was set at 1 ◦ C
around the thermostat set-point room temperature.
Another control turns off the operation of radiant systems when
the difference of the internal surface temperature and the dew
point temperature of the zone air falls below 1 ◦ C. That control does
not allow condensation on the radiant building surface.
In the hybrid system the cold water temperature follows tem-
perature controls of the other radiant systems. Priority in meeting
the cooling load is given to the radiant floor which if not enough is
augmented by the operation of the fan coil.
Table 2
Conditions of the ideal conditioned air.
Parameters Value
Temperature of cooling supply air [◦ C] 13
Humidity ratio of cooling supply air [kg water/kg air] 0.009
 S. Oxizidis, A.M. Papadopoulos / Energy and Buildings 57 (2013) 199–209
Fig. 8. Operative temperatures of the different systems for the reference (DBT) scenario.
The operation of all radiant building surfaces was calibrated
with respect to their minimum surface temperatures of Table 1 for
safety and comfort reasons.
Beyond the comparison determined by the above simulation
conditions (reference scenario DBT) four other scenarios were
investigated:
• Controlling the indoor operative temperature (scenario OPT)
• Controlling the internal thermal conditions by using the PMV
(according to Fanger) index (scenario PMV). In that case it is
assumed that the occupants are turning on and off the heating
system depending on their subjective sense of comfort quantified
by the PMV index. The control value was set to PMV = 0.
• Increased ventilation rate at 1.5 ACH and controlling the opera-
tive temperature (scenario OPT VENT)
• Increased insulation, doubled thickness, and control of the oper-
ative temperature (scenario OPT INS)
205
6. Results
The maximum cooling load of the cell is about 50 W/m2 , which
is higher than the cooling capacity of the floor cooling systems (see
Table 1). Cooling load consists mainly of internal heat gains (44%)
followed by direct heat gains (31%) via the south window and heat
gains from the opaque building elements (21%). Heat gains due to
air exchange are limited (4%).
Thermal comfort conditions in the cell, with respect to ASHRAE
55 limits, are presented in Fig. 8. It is obvious that radiant systems
cannot face the latent cooling load which is partially covered by the
fan coil systems. In the exclusive floor system there are many hours
when the prevailing conditions exceed the operative temperature
limits (marks outside the right line of the diagrams). On the other
hand the hybrid system provides very good conditions.
Similar conclusions are drawn from the diagrams of the PMV
index in Fig. 9. The floor system cannot provide satisfactory cooling
during all the hours of the cooling period, while the radiant ceiling
206 S. Oxizidis, A.M. Papadopoulos / Energy and Buildings 57 (2013) 199–209
Fig. 9. PMV index for all systems in the reference (DBT) scenario.
does achieve satisfactory thermal comfort conditions. On the other
hand, the fan coil systems offer the best conditions throughout the
cooling period. An intense linear dependency is observed for the
radiant systems between comfort conditions and the ambient air
temperature.
Thermal energy consumption of each system for all scenarios is
depicted in Fig. 10. Regarding the reference scenario, for the fan coil
systems another 25 kWh should be added in the energy consump-
tion as the electricity needed to power the fan while in the hybrid
system only 21% of the total energy consumption comes from the
radiant floor.
From an energy point of view, and taking into account the
thermal comfort conditions provided, the most efficient sys-
tem is the hybrid, but wherever latent loads are limited (e.g.
dwellings) wall and ceiling cooling can be energy efficient options.
Exclusive floor systems, although they consume the least ther-
mal energy, are not able to provide satisfactory thermal comfort
conditions.
Regarding the energy consumption results for the other four
scenarios of the parametric analysis wherever operative temper-
ature or PMV is controlled the energy consumption significantly
increases for air systems and remains practically unchanged for
the radiant ones.
Of special interest is though the scenario with the increased
ventilation rates and control of the operative temperature. In that
the fan coil is consuming more than 14% more primary cool-
ing energy (and more that 60% more electricity fan energy) than
in the reference scenario (DBT) while radiant systems are con-
suming less energy offering at the same time better thermal
comfort conditions. Particularly, the radiant ceiling (RF) consumes
in that scenario more than 2% less energy while for the radi-
ant floor although the energy consumption saving is marginal
the improvement in comfort is spectacular with only 24% of the
time thermal conditions in the cell not being comfortable (PMV
higher than 0.5) compared with the 46% of the reference sce-
nario.
 S. Oxizidis, A.M. Papadopoulos / Energy and Buildings 57 (2013) 199–209
Fig. 10. Final energy consumption for the three scenarios with the different control
options.
That is because the air systems are trying to meet the
thermostatic operative temperature by lowering the indoor air
temperature causing increased heat gains by ventilation while
radiant systems are trying to meet the thermostatic operative tem-
perature by lowering the radiant temperature thus maintaining
higher indoor air temperatures allowing more time for ventilation
to act as passive cooling. Conclusively, in a building with radiant
cooling the potential of natural cooling by ventilation is higher
decreasing the energy consumption of the cooling plant equipment
(Fig. 11).
Increased thickness of insulation (scenario OPT INS) results in
lower heat gains from the opaque building elements thus lowering
even further the cooling energy consumption of radiant surfaces
(since they are operating with lower surface temperatures which
cause higher heat transfer from the outdoor air through the building
envelope).
7. Discussion
Radiant building surfaces present two disadvantages. They can-
not face the latent loads and have limited capacity. This is very
important in naturally ventilated buildings, where humidity con-
trol is per definition a problem, especially in warm and humid
climatic conditions. In those cases the possibility of condensation
on the floor or on the ceiling, if the surface’s temperature drops
below the dew point, is a very real one. In order to avoid the prob-
lem higher set temperatures have to be adopted, leading hence to
smaller cooling capabilities and a failure to meet the thermal com-
fort criteria. Thus, radiant systems cannot always offer competitive
thermal comfort conditions compared to air systems, although,
207
Fig. 11. Ventilation (free) cooling potential under operative temperature control
with radiant and convective systems.
they offer satisfactory cooling with lower thermal energy consump-
tion when humidity is not an issue.
Hybrid solutions appear, in situations like those, to be the most
suitable solution. Furthermore, the hybrid system was offering for
all scenarios considered, the best thermal comfort conditions with
lower energy consumption than the exclusive air systems.
Considering the evaluation of thermal comfort, if radiant floors
can be assumed as non mechanical (artificial) cooling systems, due
to their extremely discrete operation (absence of draughts and
noise due to fan operation, very limited radiant temperature asym-
metry and mild surface temperatures due to high temperature
cooling, absence of vertical air temperature differences and even
visual discretion), it would be interesting to be assessed by apply-
ing the adaptive comfort models. These models are based on the
psychological expectation of occupants that in their space there is
no artificial cooling offered.
In the case of radiant building surfaces the distance between
artificial and natural cooling is vague. Beyond their discrete opera-
tion, they do not offer a strictly regulated, by means of thermostatic
control, conditioned thermal environment like other systems as it
can be deduced by the results.
In the adaptive approach the comfort temperature represented
by the operative temperature can be estimated, as proposed by
Nicol and Humphreys [30]:
Tcomf = 0.33Trm + 18.8 (1)
Trm = (1 − ˛)Tod−1 + ˛Trm−1 (2)
where,
Trm , the exponentially weighted running mean temperature for a
day
˛, a constant (=0.8)
Tod-1 , the 24-h daily mean temperatures of the previous day
Trm-1 , the exponentially weighted running mean temperature for
the previous day
Tcomf , the neutral or comfort temperature (operative temperature)
at which the average person will be thermally neutral
Accepting again 10% dissatisfaction, a ±2 K limit range from
the comfort temperature estimated by Eq. (1) can be determined.
208 S. Oxizidis, A.M. Papadopoulos / Energy and Buildings 57 (2013) 199–209
Fig. 12. Radiant floor performance under the adaptive comfort model.
Fig. 12 presents the operative temperatures of the heavyweight
radiant floor (RF) results against the running outdoor temperatures
for the reference scenario (DBT) and the one of controlling the oper-
ative temperature (OPT). It is obvious that radiant floor maintains
throughout the cooling period an excellent comfort temperature
when room conditions are controlled by air temperature.
Operative temperature control increases the controllability of
the systems, and thus marks a distance from the adaptive model.
If the adaptive model can be considered to be a fair criterion to
judge the thermal comfort conditions provided by radiant build-
ings surfaces, then results declare that the latter are an excellent
alternative to the conventional air conditioning systems combining
very low energy cooling solutions with high thermal comfort, pro-
vided the designers have paid attention to the problem of humidity
control.
8. Conclusions
Radiant building surfaces are suitable for buildings which fea-
ture a very good thermal insulation of their envelope and an
adequate thermal mass. Their operation should be regulated by
controlling the operative temperature and not the air temperature
of indoor spaces. In moderate climates, or for specific types of build-
ings where cooling loads are generated mainly by solar or internal
heat loads and not so much by very high air temperatures, radi-
ant cooling can augment ventilation cooling, since it can provide
comfort with higher indoor air temperatures. Under these prereq-
uisites, radiant systems can be very effective cooling terminal units,
utilising fairly high temperature cooling media and thus increasing
the efficiency of the cooling plant’s equipment.
On the other hand, one cannot but notice that their limited
capacity, together with their inability to handle latent cooling
loads, does not allow them to ensure satisfactory thermal comfort
conditions, at least according to deterministic comfort evaluation
standards. Still, as radiant surfaces can be easily combined with
fan coils, covering both latent and sensible cooling loads is possi-
ble, whilst ensuring excellent comfort conditions and low energy
consumption. Furthermore, fan coils can also augment radiant sur-
faces during heating, since the start-up of radiant floors and roofs
is relatively slow.
Finally, and from a methodological point of view, when using
radiant surfaces exclusively, and in particular radiant floors, adap-
tive models for naturally ventilated buildings are most suitable to
evaluate the thermal comfort conditions, as the radiant systems are
hardly noticed by the occupants.
References
[1] A.M. Papadopoulos, Energy cost and its impact on regulating the build-
ings’ energy behaviour, Advances in Building Energy Research 1 (2007)
105–121.
[2] I. Theodoridou, A.M. Papadopoulos, M. Hegger, A typological classification of
the Greek building stock, Energy and Buildings 43 (10) (2011) 2779–2787.
[3] HTSO Hellenic transmission system operator. Settlement – Unit Production,
2011 available from www.desmie.gr (last accessed 26.10.11).
[4] S. Oxizidis, Coping with the cooling loads of Greek urban buildings using solar
energy. Ph.D. Thesis, Aristotle University Thessaloniki, Department of Mechan-
ical Engineers, Thessaloniki, 2008, pp. 120–123 (in Greek).
[5] M. Santamouris, N. Papanikolaou, I. Livada, I. Koronakis, C. Georgakis, A.
Argiriou, D.N. Assimakopoulos, On the impact of urban climate on the energy
consumption of buildings, Solar Energy 70 (2001) 201–216.
[6] A.M. Papadopoulos, N. Moussiopoulos, Towards a holistic approach for the
urban environment and its impact on energy utilization in buildings: the
ATREUS project, Journal of Environmental Monitoring 6 (2004) 841–848.
[7] A.M. Papadopoulos, The influence of street canyons on the cooling loads of
buildings and the performance of air conditioning systems, Energy and Build-
ings 33 (2001) 601–607.
[8] V. Geros, M. Santamouris, S. Karatasou, A. Tsangrassoulis, N. Papanikolaou, On
the cooling potential of night ventilation techniques in the urban environment,
Energy and Buildings 37 (2005) 243–257.
[9] C. Stetiu, Radiant cooling in US office buildings: towards eliminating the per-
ception of climate-imposed barriers, Ph.D. Thesis, Energy and Resources Group
and Environmental Energy Technologies Division, Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, 1998.
[10] CADDET InfoPoint, Issue 2 (2003), p. 7 (available from http://www.caddetre.
org/newsletter/back issues.php).
[11] S. Roaf, Comfort, culture and climate change, in: Proceedings of Conference:
Comfort and Energy Use in Buildings – Getting them Right, Cumberland Lodge,
Windsor, UK, 27–30th April, 2006, Network for Comfort and Energy Use in
Buildings, London http://nceub.org.uk
[12] E.L. Hatzidimoula, Contribution to natural ventilation in the interior of build-
ings with controlled operation of the ventilating openings, Ph.D. Thesis,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Department of Civil Engineers, Thessa-
loniki, 2004, pp. 67–69 (in Greek).
[13] A. Avgelis, A.M. Papadopoulos, Application of multicriteria analysis in designing
HVAC systems, Energy and Buildings 41 (2009) 774–780.
[14] S. Oxizidis, A.M. Papadopoulos, Solar air conditioning: a review of technolog-
ical and market perspectives, Advances in Building Energy Research 2 (2008)
123–158.
[15] ASHRAE Standard 55-2004: thermal environment conditions for human
occupancy, American Society of Heating Refrigeration and Air conditioning
Engineers, Atlanta, Georgia, 2004.
[16] B. Roberts, The Quest for Comfort, Chartered Institute of Building Services Engi-
neers, London, 1997.
[17] H. Chappells, E. Shove, Comfort: A review of philosophies and paradigms,
Department of Sociology, Lancaster University, 2004.
[18] P.O. Fanger, Thermal Comfort—Analysis Applications in Environmental Engi-
neering, Danish Technical Press, Copenhagen, 1970.
[19] R. De Dear, Thermal comfort in practice, Indoor Air Journal 14 (7) (2004) 32–39.
[20] M. Sourbron, L. Helsen, Evaluation of adaptive thermal comfort models in mod-
erate climates and their impact on energy use in office buildings, Energy and
Buildings 43 (2011) 423–432.
[21] J.F. Nicol, Adaptive thermal comfort standards in the hot–humid tropics, Energy
and Buildings 36 (2004) 628–637.
[22] CEN Standard EN15251, Indoor Environmental Input Parameters for Design
and Assessment of Energy Performance of Buildings – Addressing Indoor Air
 S. Oxizidis, A.M. Papadopoulos / Energy and Buildings 57 (2013) 199–209
Quality, Thermal Environment Lighting and Acoustics, Comite Europeen de
Normalisation, Brussels, 2007.
[23] B.W. Olesen, Control of floor heating and cooling systems, Clima 2000/Napoli
2001 World Congress – Napoli(I), 2001.
[24] P. Weitzmann, Modelling building integrated heating and cooling systems,
Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Denmark Technical University,
Lyngby, 2004.
[25] D.B. Crawley, L.K. Lawrie, C.O. Pedersen, R.J. Liesen, D.E. Fisher, R.K. Strand, R.D.
Taylor, R.C. Winkelmann, W.F. Buhl, Y.J. Huang, A.E. Erdem, EnergyPlus. A new-
generation building energy simulation program, in: Proceedings of Building
Simulation’99, vol. 1, 1999, pp. 81–88.
[26] G. Sevilgen, M. Kilic, Numerical analysis of air flow, heat transfer, moisture
transport and thermal comfort in a room heated by two-panel radiators, Energy
and Buildings 43 (2011) 137–146.
209
[27] J.A. Myhren, S. Holmberg, Flow patterns and thermal comfort in a room
with panel, floor and wall heating, Energy and Buildings 40 (2008)
524–536.
[28] A.M. Papadopoulos, S. Oxizidis, L. Papathanasiou, Developing a new library of
materials and structural elements for the simulative evaluation of buildings’
energy performance, Building and Environment 43 (5) (2008) 710–719.
[29] G.P. Panayiotou, S.A. Kalogirou, G.A. Florides, C.N. Maxoulis, A.M. Papadopou-
los, M. Neophytou, P. Fokaides, G. Georgiou, A. Symeou, G. Georgakis, The
characteristics and the energy behaviour of the residential buildings stock of
Cyprus in view of Directive 2002/91/EC, Energy and Buildings 42 (11) (2010)
2083–2089.
[30] J.F. Nicol, M.A. Humphreys, Derivation of the adaptive equations for thermal
comfort in free-running buildings in European Standard EN15251, Building and
Environment 45 (2010) 11–17.