Building and Environment 141 (2018) 71–79

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

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

Experimental comparison of thermal comfort during cooling with a fan coil T

system and radiant floor system at varying space heights
Chao Cena,b, Yihong Jiaa,c, Kuixing Liua,c,∗, Ruoxi Gengd
a
School of Architecture, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300072, China
b
Department of Building, School of Design and Environment, National University of Singapore, Architecture Drive, Singapore, 117566, Singapore
c
School of Architecture, Tianjin University, Tianjin Key Laboratory of Architectural Physics and Environmental Technology, Tianjin, 300072, China
d
School of International Engineering, Tianjin University, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: With the development of the economy, architectural space forms and air conditioning systems have become
Thermal comfort more and more diverse. This paper presents a comparative study on thermal comfort in spaces of varying heights
Fan coil system using a fan coil system and a radiant floor system for cooling in the “Comprehensive Experiment Platform of
Radiant floor system Variable Building Space” located in Tianjin, China. A total of 30 subjects participated the questionnaire survey
Space height
under 8 different experimental conditions, and the indoor thermal environmental parameters were collected for
these two systems at varying space height by instrument monitoring. Results indicated that space height had a
significant effect on thermal comfort for both the fan coil system and the radiant floor system. The neutral
temperature at space height of 3, 5, 7, and 9 m were 24.8 °C, 24.2 °C, 23.8 °C, and 23.5 °C, respectively. The
neutral temperature gradually decreased with height of the ceiling when using a fan coil system, which means
that participants had greater requirements for cooling at greater heights. In contrast, the neutral temperature at
heights of 3, 5, 7, and 9 m were 23.5 °C, 23.8 °C, 24.1 °C, and 24.5 °C, respectively. The neutral temperature
gradually increased when using the floor radiant system with increasing height, indicating that participants had
lower requirements for cooling at greater heights. Furthermore, the results of this study demonstrate that the
floor radiant system had an advantage over the fan coil system for thermal comfort in a space of greater height.

1. Introduction
Since the introduction of air conditioning technology intended to
satisfy the thermal comfort requirements of inhabitants in office
buildings, commercial buildings, cinemas, and residential buildings,
new types of air conditioning systems have been developed.
Researchers have carried out thermal comfort studies on different types
of air conditioning systems [1–10]. Air conditioning systems that are
widely used at present can be divided into two categories based on their
heat transfer mechanism: convective air conditioning systems and ra-
diant air conditioning systems. The pros and cons of these two types of
systems for thermal comfort have long been of concern to heating,
ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) researchers.
1.1. Literature review
Radiant systems have long been used for indoor heating [11]. F.A.
Chrenko [12] conducted experimental studies in 1957 on thermal
comfort with a radiant floor system in a laboratory measuring
17 × 24 × 14 ft (5.18 × 7.32 × 4.27 m), and determined that the ra-
diant floor system had significant advantage of providing considerable
space in the room and having a heating apparatus that is invisible.
However, tests of subject foot temperature revealed that radiant floor
systems could cause local discomfort. Subsequent research on radiant
systems suggested that these systems had many advantages for thermal
comfort compared to convective systems. L.Z. Zhang [13] and C. Stetiu
[14] suggested that radiant systems could reduce air movement and
draft. Furthermore, Zhang concluded that radiant systems provided
more homogeneous conditioning in a space by measuring the mean
temperature, mean humidity, and maximum relative humidity (RH)
with a chilled ceiling system. The same conclusion was obtained by O.
Bozkır with field measurements [15]. Results of experiments carried out
in an indoor environmental chamber by F. Causone [16] showed that
thermal comfort was better with a radiant floor system owing to the
highest view factor of the occupants.
Although radiant systems have advantages in terms of thermal
comfort, researchers have also discovered their disadvantages. P. O.
Fanger and B. W. Olessen [17–19] suggested that a typical feature of the

∗
Corresponding author. School of Architecture, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300072, China.
E-mail address: liukuixing1@sina.com (K. Liu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.05.057
Received 19 February 2018; Received in revised form 25 May 2018; Accepted 27 May 2018
Available online 28 May 2018
0360-1323/ © 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
C. Cen et al. Building and Environment 141 (2018) 71–79

Nomenclature TABS Thermally activated building systems

VAV Variable air volume
HVAC Heating, ventilating and air conditioning PMV Predicted mean vote
CB Chilled beam TSV Thermal sensation vote
CBR Chilled beam with radiant panel MTSV Mean thermal sensation vote
CCMV Chilled ceiling with ceiling installed mixing ventilation ASHP Air source heat pump
MTVV Mixing total volume ventilation DV Displacement ventilation
ACB Active chilled beam

thermal environment with radiant systems was temperature asym-
metry, which could cause discomfort for the human body. Both ISO
7730 [20] and ASHRAE 55 [21] indicated that there were limitations of
radiant asymmetry with the use of radiant walls, floors, and ceilings. In
addition, ISO 7730 and ASHRAE 55 described other features that are
unfavorable for human thermal comfort in a radiant-system thermal
environment such as floor temperatures that were too low or too high,
and a large difference in the air temperature between the head and
ankles. In addition, Fanger [22] suggested that drafts caused by air
movement could also cause local discomfort.
In addition to analyzing the characteristics of the thermal environ-
ment with convective and radiant systems, many researchers have
performed comparative studies of thermal comfort with two types of air
conditioning systems [23–36].
Q. Jin carried out a human test in a climate chamber during the
winter season to study human's thermal sensation. Three low-tem-
perature heating systems were used: a conventional radiator, a venti-
lation radiator, and floor heating with exhaust ventilation. The results
showed that there were no significant differences in thermal sensation
or thermal comfort among the three heating systems [23]. However, it
could be seen that in the evaluation of thermal comfort of convective
and radiant terminals, the results of previous research were inconsistent
and sometimes conflicted with each other [24]. P. Mustakallio [25]
measured the indoor thermal environment in summer conditions with
four different cooling systems: chilled beam (CB), chilled beam with
radiant panel (CBR), chilled ceiling with ceiling installed mixed venti-
lation (CCMV), and overhead mixing total volume ventilation (MTVV).
The results indicated that there was little variation in the thermal en-
vironment parameters for the four air conditioning systems. To study
thermal uniformity with an active chilled beam (ACB) system and
conventional air distribution systems, thermal comfort experiments
under heating with an air source heat pump, radiator and floor heating
were designed by B. Lin [26] at Tsinghua University. The results of
occupant thermal comfort questionnaires showed that radiant heating
did not provide significantly higher overall thermal satisfaction. K. N.
Rheea [27] conducted experiments on a test bed measuring
8.5 m (W) × 11.8 m (L) × 2.7 m (H) and concluded that ACB systems
could achieve acceptable thermal uniformity with a lower air flow rate
from the air handling unit than with conventional air distribution sys-
tems.
In addition to the experimental methods, some researchers have
studied thermal comfort for the two types of systems by simulating the
parameters of the building environment. G. Salvalai [33] used En-
ergyplus software to simulate an indoor thermal environment with
ceiling panels, thermally activated building systems (TABS) and fan
coils under cooling conditions, and concluded that the radiation system
provided a better thermal environment than the air system. Using De-
sign Builder software, A.A. Chowdhury [35] compared the predicted
mean vote (PMV) for a variable air volume (VAV) system and radiant
ceiling panels with the same meteorological parameters, and concluded
that the radiant system provided a more comfortable thermal en-
vironment.
Table 1 summarizes the working conditions, research methods, and
results of comparative studies on thermal comfort with convective and
radiant systems. In comparing the thermal comfort achieved with
convective air conditioning systems and radiant air conditioning sys-
tems, the conclusions of these studies are not consistent. It is worth
noting that researchers, whether using field research, laboratory stu-
dies, or numerical simulations, have largely ignored the impact of the
size of the space on the thermal comfort achieved with various types of
air conditioning systems. For instance [12], and [25] provide the size of
the laboratory and test beds used, respectively, and draw conclusions
about thermal comfort for convection and radiant systems for those
spatial dimensions. However, it is worth questioning how these con-
clusions might change if the sizes of the laboratory or test beds were
different.
1.2. Objectives
This study aims to investigate the influence of the size of space on
thermal comfort with different types of air conditioning systems, and
provides a reference for choosing suitable air conditioning systems for
buildings of various sizes. To achieve this goal, a comparative experi-
ment was designed using the “Comprehensive Experiment Platform of
Variable Building Space” at Tianjin University. Based on existing con-
ditions, a comparative experiment was conducted in cooling conditions
with a fan coil system and a radiant floor system in spaces of varying
height.
2. Data collection
2.1. Experimental conditions
The Comprehensive Experiment Platform of Variable Building Space

Table 1
Summary of comparative studies with convective and radiant systems.
Author Condition Research method Convective systems Radiant systems

P. Mustakallio [23] Cooling Lab experiment CB, CBR MTVV, CCMV

B. Lin [26] Heating Field study ASHP Floor Heating
K.N. Rheea [27] Cooling Lab experiment Conventional air distribution systems ACB
S. Schiavon [28] Cooling Lab experiment DV Chilled ceiling
G. Sastry [29] Cooling Field study VAV Mixing ventilation
B.W. Olesen [31] Heating Lab experiment Radiant ceiling, radiant floor Mixing ventilation
R.W. Kulpmann [32] Cooling Lab experiment Radiant ceiling panels with DV DV
G. Salvalai [33] Cooling Building performance simulation ceiling panels Fan coil
A.A. Chowdhury [35] Cooling Building performance simulation Radiant ceiling panels VAV

72
C. Cen et al. Building and Environment 141 (2018) 71–79

in Tianjin University is a laboratory in which the space available (in-
cluding the floor size and height) can be changed with an automatic
control system, as shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. The laboratory is
equipped with two sets of air conditioning systems: a fan coil system
and a radiant floor system, as shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4.
Experiments on thermal comfort conditions with these two systems
in cooling conditions in space of varying heights were conducted in
August and September 2017. This study focused on the effects of space
height on thermal comfort for two types of system. The floor area was
fixed at 9 × 9 m, and the space heights were 3, 5, 7, and 9 m. Table 2
summarizes the numbers, conditions, and dates of the experiments.
avoid environmental interaction, as shown in Table 2. For example,
after turning off the radiant floor system, the floor temperature would
remain low for a long time. If the next experiment used the fan coil
system immediately, this would interfere with the results of the ex-
periments. In this case, the next experiment could only be started once
the floor temperature had returned to a normal level after switching
between systems.
3. Results
3.1. Thermal environment parameters

2.2. Thermal environmental data measurement
Physical parameters including air temperature, air humidity, mean
radiant temperature, and air velocity in the laboratory were measured
in accordance with ISO 7730 [20] and ASHRAE 55–1992 [21] for each
set of experimental conditions. Table 3 summarizes the instruments
used for each measured parameter as well as their range and accuracy.
Instruments were placed at the center of the testing space at a height of
0.6 m, as the participants were sitting on chairs during the experiments.
2.3. Questionnaire survey
In addition to the indoor thermal environment monitoring, this
study also obtained thermal sensation data and an evaluation of the
thermal environment directly through a questionnaire-based survey.
The questionnaire was designed according to the guidelines for the
Thermal Environment Survey in Standard 55, and included questions
about participant clothing, thermal sensation, and thermal preference.
A total of 30 people participated in these experiments, all of whom were
graduate students in the School of International Engineering at Tianjin
University. The participants are 21–26 years of age, and the male to
female ratio was approximately 1:1.
Table 4 lists the thermal parameters in the laboratory under dif-
ferent conditions. As the results show, the lowest temperature in the
laboratory during the experiments was 19.20 °C, and the highest tem-
perature was 27.20 °C, indicating a moderate thermal environment
during the experiments. Experiments 1, 2, 5, and 6 gave the thermal
environment parameters for the fan coil system with space heights of 3,
5, 9, and 7 m, respectively, while Experiments 3, 4, 7, and 8 gave the
thermal environment parameters for the radiant floor system at space
heights of 7, 9, 5, and 3 m, respectively. The average temperatures
during Experiments 1, 2, 5, and 6 were 24.01 °C, 20.84 °C, 25.48 °C and
23.55 °C, respectively, and the average wind speeds were 0.09 m/s,
0.09 m/s, 0.1 m/s, and 0.12 m/s, respectively. The average tempera-
tures during Experiments 3, 4, 7, and 8 were 23.11 °C, 25.3 °C, 20.36 °C,
and 22.89 °C, respectively, and the average wind speeds were 0.03 m/s,
0.03 m/s, 0.03 m/s, and 0.04 m/s, respectively. These results indicated
that the temperatures with the two types of air conditioning systems are
the same for the same space height, while the wind speeds show sig-
nificant differences. The wind speed with the fan coil system at each
space height was always higher than that with the radiant floor system.
3.2. Questionnaire responses

3.2.1. Participant demography information

2.4. Experimental protocol
Background information about the participants was collected as part
of the thermal comfort questionnaire, including the gender and age. Of
To investigate the thermal comfort of a fan coil system and radiant
the 30 participants in the experiment, 17 were male and 13 were fe-
floor system at different temperature levels, the thermal environment
male, as shown in Fig. 5. The age distribution of as the participants is
was designed to provide three conditions: warm condition, moderate
also shown, and the ages fall largely within the range of 22–24 years.
condition and cool condition. According to the pre-test data of the
thermal environment in the experimental space, the difference between
the actual air temperature and the set point fluctuated within the range 3.2.2. Thermal sensation vote
of ± 1.5 °C in both systems. Based on this, the air temperature setting of Table 5 lists the specific values of the thermal sensation vote (TSV)
cool, moderate, and warm conditions were 20 °C, 23 °C and 26 °C, re- for each experimental condition. The results show that the thermal
spectively. Therefore, the experiment time in an experimental day was sensation votes for each experimental condition are between −3 (cold)
divided into three parts: morning (9 a.m.–12 a.m.), afternoon (2 p.m.–5 and 2 (warm). Thermal sensation votes in the range (−1, 1) are defined
p.m.), and night (7 p.m.–9 p.m.). To shorten the time for cooling the
experimental space to set temperature range for each condition and to
reduce energy consumption, experiments in the moderate condition
were conducted in the morning, warm condition in the afternoon and
cool condition at night.
On the day of the experiment, preparatory work like adjusting the
space height and controlling the thermal environment would be com-
pleted earlier before the experiment started. For uniformity in clothing
level, the participants were required to wear short sleeves and pants,
which is common summer attire. After the experiment started, parti-
cipants were requested to sit on the chair and do as they like. The first
vote was collected after the participants were in the experimental space
for 30 min, and the next vote was 30 min later. The total number of
votes for each participant for moderate condition, warm condition and
cool condition in every experimental day were 6, 6 and 4, respectively.
During the experiment, participants were not informed what had
been changed between experiments, but most of them still realized
obvious changes like the height of the space. It is noteworthy that there Fig. 1. Comprehensive experiment platform of variable building space at
was a time break between the two air conditioning systems in order to Tianjin University.

73
C. Cen et al.
Fig. 2. Layout of the experiment rooms (interior space is adjustable).
Fig. 3. Image of the radiant system.
Fig. 4. Image of the fan coil system.
Table 2
Experiment conditions and dates.
Experiment number Date
1 08/26/2017
2 08/27/2017
3 08/29/2017
4 08/30/2017
5 09/01/2017
6 09/02/2017
7 09/04/2017
8 09/05/2017
Building and Environment 141 (2018) 71–79
by the ISO 7330 as the thermal comfort zone, and the proportion of
thermal sensation votes in Experiments 1 to 8 that were within the
comfort zone were 80%, 54%, 93%, 94%, 96%, 95%, 73%, and 84%,
respectively.
4. Data analysis
4.1. Comparison of thermal comfort with fan coil and radiant floor systems
To compare the advantages and disadvantages for thermal comfort
with the fan coil and radiant floor systems in cooling conditions, the
data for experiments conducted at the same space height were com-
pared. The operative temperature was calculated based on the air
temperature and the average radiant temperature in the laboratory. The
mean operative temperature was calculated at 0.5 °C intervals, and the
mean thermal sensation vote (MTSV) was also obtained (by calculating
the average TSV for every 0.5 °C operative temperature interval using
weights based on the number of votes in each temperature bin.). The
results are presented in Tables 6–9.
The results shown in the Figs. 6–9 indicate that the average thermal
sensation votes for the same height and operative temperature differs
significantly for the two types of air conditioning systems. At a height of
3 m, the discomfort of participants was greater with the fan coil system
at low temperatures than with the radiant floor system (−3 vs. −1.5,
−2 vs. −1.28, −0.67 vs. −0.04, etc.). However, at operative tem-
peratures greater than 24 °C, participants were more susceptible to the
heat with the radiant floor system (−0.67 vs. 0.48, 0.13 vs. 0.65).
These results were also obtained at a space height of 5 m. According to
Table 7, the thermal sensation vote was closer to 0 (neutral) with the
radiant floor system than with the fan coil system over the entire
temperature range for a space height of 7 m. However, when the space
height was increased to 9 m, the results are the opposite of those ob-
tained for space heights of 3 m and 5 m. In this case, the thermal
comfort of the radiant floor system at low temperatures is lower than
that of the fan coil system (−0.20 vs. −0.27, −0.1 vs. −0.13), while
the radiant floor system has a thermal comfort advantage at higher
temperatures (0.55 vs. 0.17, 0.40 vs. 0.34, 0.29 vs. 0.18, etc.).
Based on this analysis of the data, the following conclusions can be
made:
1) The fan coil and radiant floor systems have thermal comfort ad-
vantages at different temperature ranges for the same space height.
2) When the space height is lower, thermal comfort is better with the
radiant floor system than the fan coil system at lower temperature
ranges, while the fan coil system has an advantage at higher tem-
peratures.
3) For higher space heights, the fan coil system provides better thermal
comfort conditions at lower temperature environment, while the
radiant floor system has an advantage at higher temperature en-
vironment.
4.2. Influence of space height with the fan coil system
Using the average TSV for the fan coil system at each operative
temperature and space height from Tables 6–9, a linear regression
analysis was carried out on the average TSV and operating temperature,
Space size (m) Air conditioning system and the results are shown in Fig. 10. From the established linear
equations and the definition of the neutral temperature, the operative
9×9×3 fan coil system
9×9×5 fan coil system temperature is the neutral temperature when MTSV = 0. The neutral
9×9×7 radiant floor system temperatures for the fan coil system at each space height are listed in
9×9×9 radiant floor system Table 10.
9×9×9 fan coil system
Fig. 10 shows that the thermal neutral temperatures at space heights
9×9×7 fan coil system
9×9×5 radiant floor system of 3, 5, 7 and 9 m are 24.8 °C, 24.2 °C, 23.8 °C, and 23.5 °C, respectively.
9×9×3 radiant floor system As the height of the space increases, the neutral temperature with the
fan coil system gradually decreases. In cooling conditions in the
summer, this means that the participant requirements for the thermal
74
C. Cen et al. Building and Environment 141 (2018) 71–79

Table 3

Standard deviation
Instrumentation used for measurement of indoor physical parameters.
Parameter Instrument Range Accuracy

Air temperature Testo 425 −20 to 70 °C ± 0.5 °C

2.35
3.16
2.59
2.63
2.84
2.76
3.08
2.50
Air velocity Testo 425 0–20 m/s ± 0.03 m/s
Air relative humidity HOBO UX100-003 15 %–95% ± 3.5%
Global temperature KIMO TM 200 50–250 °C ± 0.2 °C

(47.09–54.93)
(50.32–65.28)
(48.33–55.62)
(47.58–55.03)
(49.32–56.18)
(48.15–55.28)
(49.58–64.85)
(47.56–55.20)
environment increase as the space height increases.

Air RH, %
4.3. Influence of space height with the radiant floor system

52.05
61.18
53.46
52.65
53.62
52.56
60.39
53.66
Using the same data analysis method, the average TSV and opera-
tive temperatures for the radiant floor system are linearly regressed,

Standard deviation
and the results are shown in Fig. 11 and summarized in Table 11. The
thermal neutral temperatures at space heights of 3, 5, 7, and 9 m are
23.5 °C, 23.8 °C, 24.1 °C, and 24.5 °C, respectively. As the height of the
space increases, it is clear that the thermal neutral temperature with the

0.01
0.06
0.03
0.03
0.08
0.07
0.03
0.03
radiant floor system exhibits an opposite trend to the fan coil system.
The thermal neutral temperature gradually increases with increasing
space height. In the summer cooling condition, the increase of the
neutral temperature means that participants have lower requirements

Air velocity, m/s

0.09 (0.01–0.20)
0.09 (0.03–0.19)
0.03 (0.01–0.15)
0.03 (0.01–0.20)

0.12 (0.03–0.27)
0.03 (0.01–0.10)
0.04 (0.01–0.14)
0.1 (0.1–0.26)
for the thermal environment.
As can be seen, in cooling conditions in summer, lower thermal
neutral temperatures correspond to higher thermal environment re-
quirements of the participants. Based on the trends of thermal neutral
temperature for the two types of air conditioning systems at different
space heights, it can be concluded that fan coil systems are more sui-
table for low-altitude environments while floor radiant systems provide
Standard deviation

better thermal comfort in high-altitude environments.

5. Discussion
1.29
2.61
1.08
1.50
1.39
1.17
0.16
0.29
Previous studies have investigated the causes of the difference in
thermal comfort for convective and radiant systems. Factors such as
Globe temperature, °C

radiant asymmetry, local discomfort, vertical air temperature gradients,

23.99 (20.80–25.51)
22.76 (19.08–25.79)

25.25 (22.36–27.21)
25.33 (22.47–27.48)
23.69 (22.16–25.56)
22.82 (19.65–25.38)
23.33 (21.39–25.26)
23.3 (21.36–25.35)

and drafts caused by air movement are thought to be the causes of the
difference in thermal comfort between radiant and convection systems.
This study analyzed the causes of the difference in thermal comfort
between a fan coil and radiant floor system at varying spatial heights.

5.1. Air movement

Standard deviation

The experimental thermal environment data in Table 4 indicate that

there is a significant difference in air velocity between the fan coil
system and the radiant floor system. At low temperatures, air flow ex-
acerbates cold sensations, while at high temperatures, air flow relieves
1.25
2.73
1.12
1.36
1.33
1.03
0.21
0.33

hot sensations. This also explains why the participant thermal sensation
votes were closer to neutral with the fan coil system than the floor
radiant system when the temperature is low.
24.01 (20.91–25.50)
22.84 (19.20–25.82)
23.41 (21.60–25.30)

25.48 (22.60–27.20)
23.55 (22.00–25.20)
22.96 (19.80–25.34)
23.46 (21.70–25.20)
Air temperature, °C

25.3 (22.50–26.90)

5.2. Influence of the acoustic environment on thermal comfort

Thermal parameters (Mean (Min-Max)).

Another disadvantage of fan coil systems is the noise they produce

during operation. In this study, participant satisfaction with the
acoustic environment was surveyed, and the results state that for space
heights of 3, 5, 7, and 9 m, 16%, 23%, 28%, and 35% of the voters,
respectively, were not satisfied with the acoustic environment of the fan
Experiment number

coil system, while 3%, 6%, 3%, and 5%, respectively, were not satisfied
with the radiant floor system. The evaluation of human thermal comfort
is a comprehensive process, the acoustic environment is also a factor
that affects the thermal sensation [36]. The sound pressure level and
Table 4

reverberation time are two important factors for the indoor acoustic
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

environment [37]. However, for different space heights, the indoor

75
C. Cen et al. Building and Environment 141 (2018) 71–79

Fig. 5. Information about study participants.

Table 5
Thermal sensation vote.
Experiment number Thermal sensation vote distribution (%)

−3 (cold) −2 (cool) −1 (slightly cool) 0 (neutral) 1 (slightly warm) 2 (warm)

1 146 24 32 24 –
2 20 26 22 23 9 –
3 1 3 8 78 7 3
4 1 5 76 17 1 –
5 – – 4 69 23 4
6 – 3 19 61 14 2
7 9 28 52 20 1 –

Table 6
MTSV for a space of height 3 m at varying operative temperatures.
Space height: 3 m Operative temperature

Experiment 1 20.86 21.43 21.95 22.36 22.80 23.00 23.63 24.21 24.72 25.21 25.50
MTSV −3 −3 −2 −0.67 −1.375 −1 −0.75 −0.67 0.43 0.13 0
Experiment 8 – 21.25 21.89 22.25 22.73 23.02 23.76 24.15 24.63 25.15 –
MTSV – −1.5 −1.28 −1.04 −0.38 −0.31 0.20 0.42 0.86 1.21 –

Table 7
MTSV for a space of height 5 m at varying operative temperatures.
Space height: 5 m Operative temperature

Experiment 2 19.23 19.78 20.12 20.68 21.86 22.37 22.80 23.16 23.82 24.23 24.94
MTSV −2.04 −1.61 −1.38 −1.25 −0.75 −0.60 −0.46 −0.28 −0.15 0.28 0.3
Experiment 7 – 19.87 20.21 20.8 21.69 22.35 22.82 23.18 23.91 24.18 24.94
MTSV – −1.5 −1.35 −1.36 −0.48 −0.88 −0.38 −0.25 0.22 0.16 0.38

Table 8
MTSV for a space of height 7 m at varying operative temperatures.
Space height: 7 m Operative temperature

Experiment 3 20.85 21.45 21.69 22.27 22.73 23.21 23.87 24.31 24.66 25.27
MTSV −0.85 −0.65 −0.45 −0.38 −0.38 −0.43 −0.08 0 0.40 0.52
Experiment 6 20.81 21.42 21.72 22.26 22.81 23.25 23.79 24.32 24.74 25.36
MTSV −0.36 −0.26 −0.26 −0.2 −0.21 −0.11 −0.05 0.05 0.08 0.15

Table 9
MTSV for a space of height 9 m at varying operative temperatures.
Space height: 9 m Operative temperature

Experiment 4 – 22.71 23.23 23.62 24.11 24.31 24.57 25.77 26.27 26.75
MTSV – −0.20 −0.10 0.08 0.15 0.21 0.28 0.35 0.4 0.46
Experiment 5 22.49 22.9 23.17 23.73 24.27 24.32 24.59 25.75 26.30 –
MTSV −0.13 −0.27 −0.13 −0.07 −0.21 0.05 0.06 0.12 0.20 –

76
C. Cen et al. Building and Environment 141 (2018) 71–79

Fig. 6. Thermal sensation votes at varying operative temperatures for the two Fig. 9. Thermal sensation votes at varying operative temperatures for the two
systems at a height of 3 m. systems at a height of 9 m.

Fig. 7. Thermal sensation votes at varying operative temperatures for the two Fig. 10. Thermal sensation votes at varying operative temperature for the fan
systems at a height of 5 m. coil system at different heights.

Table 10
Neutral temperature for the fan coil system at each space height.
Space Linear equations of MTSV Significance Neutral temperature
height (m) and operative temperature (°C)

3 y = 0.693x - 17.192 0.00* 24.8

R2 = 0.840
5 y = 0.380x – 9.14 0.00* 24.0
R2 = 0.9554
7 y = 0.297x – 7.051 0.00* 23.7
R2 = 0.878
9 y = 0.153x - 3.578 0.00* 23.4
R2 = 0.905

and excessive reverberation time will reduce the intelligibility of the

indoor language and affect the indoor acoustic environment. Dis-
satisfaction with the acoustic environment also increases gradually.
Fig. 8. Thermal sensation votes at varying operative temperature for the two Research has shown that dissatisfaction with the acoustic environment
systems at a height of 7 m. can cause irritability, which can affect the judgment of thermal sensa-
tions.
sound pressure level changes very little, meanwhile, the reverberation
time changes greatly. Therefore, the indoor reverberation time was
5.3. Cooling system in large space building
tested for the fan coil system at varying space heights, and the results
are summarized in Table 12. The results indicate that in the presence of
Previous studies on cooling systems in large space found that ra-
a fixed indoor noise source (fan coil), as the volume of the space in-
diant floor cooling can improve both indoor thermal comfort and
creases, the indoor reverberation time also increases, for a normal office
system energy efficiency compared with convective cooling system
environment, the normal reverberation time should be 1.0 s (500 Hz),
[38]. By absorbing the shortwave radiation, the radiant floor reduces

77
C. Cen et al. Building and Environment 141 (2018) 71–79

will further explore the relationship between thermal comfort and

spatial dimensions.

6. Conclusion

In this study, the effect of spatial height on thermal comfort with a

Fig. 11. Thermal sensation votes at varying operative temperature for the
Radiant Floor System at different height.
fan coil system and a radiant floor system was studied experimentally
by measuring the thermal environment parameters in a laboratory
while obtaining responses to a thermal comfort questionnaire. By
comparing the average thermal sensation vote for these two types of air
conditioning systems at the same operative temperature and space
height, the advantages and disadvantages of the two types of systems
with regard to thermal comfort in each temperature range were ob-
tained. The effect of the space height on thermal comfort for the two
types of systems was determined by comparing the thermal neutral
temperatures of the fan coil system and the floor radiant system at
varying space heights, and analyzing the causes for the differences in
thermal comfort between the two types of systems at different ceiling
heights. The conclusions drawn from this study are as follows:

1) In cooling conditions in summer, it was found that the thermal

Table 11 comfort and operative temperature for spaces of the same height
Neutral temperature for the radiant floor system at each space height.
differs significantly for fan coil system and the radiant floor system.
Space height Linear equations of MTSV Significance Neutral temperature 2) The neutral temperature decreased gradually with increasing space
(m) and operative temperature (°C) height for the fan coil system, whereas the neutral temperature in-
3 y = 0.722x – 16.97 0.00* 23.5
creased with increasing space height for the radiant floor system.
R2 = 0.981
5 y = 0.389x – 9.267 0.00* 23.8 Therefore, fan coil systems are more suitable for low space height
R2 = 0.984 environments, while radiant floor systems provide better thermal
7 y = 0.111x - 2.665 0.00* 24.1
comfort in high space height environments.
R2 = 0.972
9 y = 0.103x - 2.542 0.004* 24.6
R2 = 0.718 Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Zhang Jiarong, Li Dongyao, Chen

Table 12 Yuqi, Wang Qingchen and all the volunteers from the School of
Reverberation time with the fan coil system at each space height. International Engineering at Tianjin University for assisting with the
Space height (m) Reverberation time (s) experiment. This research is financially supported by the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51708400) and the National
125 Hz 250 Hz 500 Hz 1000 Hz 2000 Hz 4000 Hz Natural Science Foundation of Tianjin (No. 17JCQNJC07400).
3 1.15 1.64 2.27 2.54 1.80 0.92
5 1.18 1.79 2.35 2.63 1.86 0.98 References
7 1.21 1.85 2.56 2.76 1.97 1.05
9 1.28 1.93 2.68 2.98 2.04 1.09 [1] J. Maier, C. Marggraf-Micheel, T. Dehne, J. Bosbach, Thermal comfort of different
displacement ventilation systems in an aircraft passenger cabin, Build. Environ. 111
(2) (2017) 256–264.
[2] A. Awwad, M.H. Mohamed, M. Fatouh, Optimal design of a louver face ceiling
the mean radiant temperature of the space, thus improving the thermal
diffuser using CFD to improve occupant's thermal comfort, J. Build. Eng. 11 (2017)
comfort level will be improved [39]. In this paper, the conclusion is 134–157.
drawn that radiant floor systems provide better thermal comfort in [3] P. Bragança, K. Sodjavi, A. Meslem, L. Serres, Airflow characteristics and thermal
higher space environments compared to fan coil systems. The reason comfort generated by a multi-cone ceiling diffuser with and without inserted lobe,
Build. Environ. 108 (2016) 143–158.
could be that with the increase in height of space, the advantages of the [4] H. Maula, V. Hongisto, H. Koskela, A. Haapakangas, The effect of cooling jet on
radiant floor system in large space are gradually reflected. work performance and comfort in warm office environment, Build. Environ. Times
104 (2016) 13–20.
[5] A. Kabanshi, H. Wigö, M. Sandberg, Experimental evaluation of an intermittent air
5.4. Limitations supply system e Part 1: thermal comfort and ventilation efficiency measurements,
Build. Environ. 95 (2016) 240–250.
[6] A.F. Alajmi, F.A. Baddar, R.I. Bourisli, Thermal comfort assessment of an office
In this paper, thermal comfort conditions for two air-conditioning building served by under-floor air distribution (UFAD) system - a case study, Build.
systems at varying space heights were studied experimentally. Because Environ. 85 (2015) 153–159.
of the inability to accurately and stably control all of the thermal en- [7] Y. Cheng, J. Niu, Z. Du, Y. Lei, Investigation on the thermal comfort and energy
efficiency of stratified air distribution systems, Energy Sustain. Dev. 28 (2015) 1–9.
vironment parameters in the laboratory during the experiments, it was [8] I. Sarbu, M. Adam, Experimental and numerical investigations of the energy effi-
not possible to accurately compare the two systems at the same tem- ciency of conventional air conditioning systems in cooling mode and comfort as-
perature. Instead, comparisons were made at the same temperature surance in office buildings, Energy Build. 85 (5) (2014) 45–58.
[9] P. Wang, M. Shan, D. Xiong, X. Yang, A new Chinese Kang with forced convection:
intervals. In addition, this study qualitatively analyzed the causes of the system design and thermal performance measurements, Energy Build. 85 (2014)
difference in thermal comfort between the two systems at different 410–415.
space heights. The specific reason for the effect of space height on [10] M.S. Oh, J.H. Ahn, D.W. Kim, D.S. Jang, Y. Kim, Thermal comfort and energy saving
in a vehicle compartment using a localized air-conditioning system, Appl. Energy
thermal comfort with the two systems has not yet been accurately de- 133 (6) (2014) 14–21.
termined. The next step for this research will study the influence of [11] Q. Guo, Chinese Architecture and Planning: Ideas, Methods and Techniques, Axel
plane dimensions on thermal comfort with two types of systems and Menges, Stuttgart, Germany, 2005.

78
C. Cen et al.
[12] F.A. Chrenko, The effects of the temperatures of the floor surface and of the air on
thermal sensations and the skin temperature of the feet, Br. J. Ind. Med. 14 (1)
(1957) 13.
[13] L.Z. Zhang, J.L. Niu, Indoor humidity behaviors associated with decoupled cooling
in hot and humid climates, Build. Environ. 38 (1) (2003) 99–107.
[14] C. Stetiu, Energy and peak power savings potential of radiant cooling systems in US
commercial buildings, Energy Build. 30 (2) (1999) 127–138.
[15] O. Bozkır, S. Canbazoğlu, Unsteady thermal performance analysis of a room with
serial and parallel duct radiant floor heating system using hot airflow, Energy Build.
36 (6) (2004) 579–586.
[16] F. Causone, F. Baldin, B.W. Olesen, S.P. Corgnati, Floor heating and cooling com-
bined with displacement ventilation: possibilities and limitations, Energy Build. 42
(12) (2010) 2338–2352.
[17] B.W. Olesen, P.O. Fanger, O.J. Nielsen, Comfort limits for Man Exposed to
Asymmetric Thermal Radiation, Building Research Establishment, 1972.
[18] P.O. Fanger, L. Banhidi, B.W. Olesen, Comfort limits for heated ceilings, Build. Eng.
86 (2) (1980) 141–156.
[19] P.O. Fanger, B.M. Ipsen, G. Langkilde, B.W. Olessen, N.K. Christensen, S. Tanabe,
Comfort limits for asymmetric thermal radiation, Energy Build. 8 (3) (1985)
225–236.
[20] ISO EN 7730, Ergonomics of the Thermal Environment-analytical Determination
and Interpretation of Thermal Comfort Using Calculation of the PMV and PPD
Indices and Local Thermal Comfort Criteria, International Standards Organization,
Geneva, Switzerland, 2005.
[21] ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55–2013, Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human
Occupancy, American National Standards Institute, American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA, USA, 2013.
[22] P.O. Fanger, A.K. Melikov, H. Hanzawa, J. Ring, Air turbulence and sensation of
draught, Energy Build. 12 (1) (1988) 21–39.
[23] Q. Jin, A. Simone, B.W. Olesen, S.K.M. Holmberg, E. Bourdakis, Laboratory study of
subjective perceptions to low temperature heating systems with exhaust ventilation
in Nordic countries, Sci. Technol. Build. Environ 23 (3) (2017) 457–468.
[24] E. Halawa, J. van Hoof, V. Soebarto, The impacts of the thermal radiation field on
thermal comfort, energy consumption and control critical overview, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 37 (2014) 907–918.
[25] P. Mustakallio, Z. Bolashikov, K. Kostov, A. Melikov, R. Kosonen, Thermal en-
vironment in simulated offices with convective and radiant cooling systems under
79
Building and Environment 141 (2018) 71–79
cooling (summer) mode of operation, Build. Environ. 100 (2016) 82–91.
[26] B. Lin, Z. Wang, H. Sun, Y. Zhu, Q. Ouyang, Evaluation and comparison of thermal
comfort of convective and radiant heating terminals in office buildings, Build.
Environ. 106 (2016) 91–102.
[27] K. Rhee, M. Shin, S. Choi, Thermal uniformity in an open plan room with an active
chilled beam system and conventional air distribution systems, Energy Build. 93
(2015) 236–248.
[28] S. Schiavon, F. Bauman, B. Tully, J. Rimmer, Chilled ceiling and displacement
ventilation system: laboratory study with high cooling load, Sci. Technol. Build.
Environ 21 (7) (2015) 944–956.
[29] G. Sastry, P. Rumsey, VAV vs. Radiant: side-by-Side comparison, ASHRAE J. 56
(2014) 16–24.
[30] S.P. Corgnati, M. Perino, G.V. Fracastoro, P.V. Nielsen, Experimental and numerical
analysis of air and radiant cooling systems in offices, Build. Environ. 44 (4) (2009)
801–806.
[31] B.W. Olesen, E. Mortensen, J. Thorshauge, B. Berg-Munch, Thermal comfort in a
room heated by different methods, Build. Eng. 86 (1) (1980) 34–48.
[32] R.W. Kulpmann, Thermal comfort and air quality in rooms with cooled ceilings-
results of scientific investigations, Build. Eng. 99 (2) (1993) 488–502.
[33] G. Salvalai, J. Pfafferott, M.M. Sesana, Assessing energy and thermal comfort of
different low-energy cooling concepts for non-residential buildings, Energy
Convers. OR Manag. 76 (2013) 332–341.
[34] B.W. Olesen, L. Mattarolo, Thermal comfort and energy performance of hydronic
radiant cooling systems compared to convective systems, Proceeding of Healthy
Buildings, 2009.
[35] A.A. Chowdhury, M.G. Rasul, M.M.K. Khan, Thermal-comfort analysis and simu-
lation for various low-energy cooling-technologies applied to an office building in a
subtropical climate, Appl. Energy 85 (6) (2008) 449–462.
[36] M. Frontczak, P. Wargocki, Literature survey on how different factors influence
human comfort in indoor environments, Build. Environ. 46 (2011) 922–937.
[37] W. Yang, J. Kang, Acoustic comfort evaluation in urban open public spaces, Appl.
Acoust. 66 (2002) 211–129.
[38] K. Zhao, X.H. Liu, Y. Jiang, Application of radiant floor cooling in large space
buildings – a review, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 55 (2016) 1083–1096.
[39] P. Simmonds, B. Mehlomakulu, T. Ebert, Radiant cooled floors: operation and
control dependant upon solar radiation, Build. Eng. 112 (1) (2006) 358–367.