Talk:Underfloor heating

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Energy (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Architecture (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neutral tone[edit]

"Underfloor heating is invisible from above and does not use valuable wall space with unsightly heating equipment." The bias in this sentence is a bit extreme, but reflective upon the whole article. It needs to be cleaned up, but I'm not the one to do it (I know nothing of underfloor heating, hence my reading the article) - Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This Article is about information but many people delete things that they believe to be spam when it is not. Link should lead to infomation not commercialism. Experts on Radiant Heat should only edit sections not random people who know nothing about it.


This article still needs work to reduce commercialism ... 20:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of neutral tone...

The whole section titled "Environmental issues of electric heating systems" says more to me about someone's prejudice against electric power than anything about underfloor heating. That "most electric underfloor heating is not considered environmentally friendly" is someone's opinion stated in passive voice. Not to mention that "environmentally friendly" is itself a vague quality to be judged. The overall efficiency of electric versus hot water systems will depend on too many factors of the given circumstance for an encyclopedia article to have a judgment. Even for a particular installation, reasonable arguments could be given favoring either one. I suggest the section be scrapped. SandyFace (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and took it out. It was POV vs. POV with little else, and that's not what this article is about.SandyFace (talk) 06:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Describing it as "prejudice against electric power" misses the point. Electric power is very useful for many things, but using it for heating is inherently wasteful, something that is not true of using it for other applications. This is probably not the place to explain that distinction, and apparently the deleted section didn't explain it well either. But since it's not an issue specific to underfloor heating, it doesn't really belong in this article. I think what we need is a brief mention of the issue with a link to the page that properly describes it. I'll see if I can find that page somewhere.Ccrrccrr (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge Ondol article to UFH article[edit]

There seems to be more info re: ondol in the UFH article than in the ondol article, so maybe it should just be a section of the article and not an article of its own. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 10:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

oppose Replayamong23 11:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC) I removed edits by known banned sockpuppet. See here. --Nightshadow28 18:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Stack Effect[edit]

I don't buy the bit about reduced stack effect due to cooler walls. The stack effect is due to the cumulative weight of the air, and the pressure that weight produces at the bottom of the stack. Outside, with cold air, that pressure is more than inside, with warmer air. It's the total weight of air in the building that matters, not particularly the air against the wall. Ccrrccrr 02:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Architectural Drawing[edit]


The architectural drawing of the HVAC system is very difficult to read, is there any chance that this could be replaced by something that is easire to undestand? The JPEG format makes it quite difficult to discern the text. (edit: Also there appears to be a mouse cursor in the image!) User A1 11:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[illustrations addded RBean (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)]

efficiency of electric--paragraph removed from article[edit]

I just deleted this paragraph from the environmental considerations of electric section.

"However, there are a number of systems available in the United States and worldwide that are considered energy efficient, due to the ability to significantly lower thermostat settings, ability to control heating operation through zone heating (only heating occupied rooms), thermostatic control, and low electricity usage. Average energy saved can be up to 40% on these systems, dependent upon proper use."

"that are considered energy efficient" is not meaningful or helpful. Lowering thermostat settings is valid and has been addressed elsewhere in the article. The zone heating advantage is not specific to underfloor--other electric heat options have the same advantage. Same for thermostatic control. "low energy usage" is just a meaningless assertion.

Finally, the 40% savings needs a citation, and a reference point (40% savings compared to what? Compared to heating the room by opening the electric oven door?) Ccrrccrr 01:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Infiltration and stack effect[edit]

I just removed this confused section of the paragraph on infiltration.

Infiltration may also be slightly reduced relative to other types of hydronic or electric heating systems because with underfloor heating, the air is only warmed slightly above the temperature of the thermostat setting, so the temperature differential at the outside wall is less, thereby reducing air infiltration due to the stack effect. This is because air infiltration and exfiltration increase as the difference between inside and outside temperature [AT] becomes larger, and so when heated air from a furnace or baseboard heater flows against relatively cold exterior walls, the increased temperature differential results in a stack effect that draws cold air into the house through any cracks [citation needed].

Ccrrccrr (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Move detailed content on ondol to ondol article[edit]

The Underfloor_heating#Korean_ondol_technology section is under history; I would expect this more detailed info to be in the ondol article directly. Please consider moving detailed information to that article instead. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 12:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

HIstory section deleted and replaced with timeline format with citations RBean (talk) 14:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

POV problems[edit]

Editors here, especially those with a commercial interest in radiant floor heating, must be vigilant in maintaining a balanced perspective or refrain from contributing here (see WP:NPOV and WP:COI). The use of studies commissioned by UFH industry to support claims, the unsupported claims, and the general tone (as discussed above) all reflect a bias in favor of this technology. Jojalozzo 18:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Major edits[edit]

Greetings all,

This topic has been significantly modified and edited to address outstanding issues primariliy commercialism, NPOV issues and citations.

Result: WP has removed the article tags - thank you to all for your help.

I have also deleted any concerns of mine however; etiquette prevents deletion of other people’s comments here in the discussion page.

Please take the time to clear out any old stuff (some from 2006 and 07) below that no longer apply.

Thanks Jojalozzo for your tweaks…it’s looking much better.

RBean (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an old-hand WPedian but from what I have seen we usually keep old comments for the archives. If the talk page gets very long it will be cleaned and old discussions moved to archive pages. One of the reasons we add signatures with dates to every entry is to make it easy to see which are current topics and which are old. The history of these discussions is useful for future editors who might encounter similar issues and can save some mental effort by looking at what has been traversed by previous generations.
Another convention is to add new topics at the end - I'm moving this one down here now... Jojalozzo 14:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines has some pertinent suggestions, especially Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Own comments and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#When to condense pages. Jojalozzo 14:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Thanks again. RBean (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[edit]

I've never seen a more poorly-written article in my life. I'd help, but I have other places to be, so I have taken the liberty of putting the rewrite template on the article. Lockesdonkey (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

  There is the option of rolling back to the old article...Jojalozzo? RBean (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I suggest we leave the tag and see if it attracts some help. Jojalozzo 19:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  Help would be nice. RBean (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I will try to make some time to do some more here. The info and NPOV is a good start. I'm sure you also can make improvements in readability and clarity. Take it in small chunks, a paragraph or two at a time. Have a look at Making technical articles understandable. Jojalozzo 02:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 I'll do what I can as well...and will have a look at the link. RBean (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 Well done Jojalozzo...those last edits you did made a big difference. RBean (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Lockesdonkey, we've performed substantial edits and will continue to polish to WP stds. If you have further editing contributions - we would welcome your help. RBean (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

RBean: I am fine with more content but you can help by doing additional filtering. Some of the technical details and names of the sources of the information probably should not be part of the main text, e.g. we don't have to say where the info came from when the reference note does that for us. Critical technical details are ok in the main text but as much as possible should be left in the refs themselves and only a summary needs to be in the main text. We should try to balance the need to present sufficient info in the main text with the need to make the article as accessible as possible. Jojalozzo 15:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Thanks.RBean (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Improve image?[edit]

The image in Description for "Modern factory assembled hydronic control appliance..." is not very clear or informative. It would be better if we could get one with better contrast and with the covers off so we can see a bit of the insides. Jojalozzo 16:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

  Stand by...I'll see what I can find.RBean (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 Have uploaded two images, one with cover on, another with cover off. If these don't work let me know.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RBean (talkcontribs) 01:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC) 

Nice! (By the way, if you want to indent your responses here use ":" rather than spaces since it looks like the spaces cause your entries to end up in a box. If you like the box, that's fine with me but it's unusual.) :-) Jojalozzo 02:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Will do. The topic is looking considerably better thanks to your editing. I'll keep doing what I can with content and editing and hopefully you'll stick around to make it look good! As an alternative plan, if you want to let the article content stand as is for the time being so we can continue on with polishing I can hold off uploading additional content. Let me know your thoughts. RBean (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


"Warm water UFH is 30% more efficient than low temperature radiators with a ground source heat pump, 20% more efficient with an air source heat pump, and 5-15% more efficient than low temp radiators with a condensing boiler, according to a study[citation needed] 2010}} produced by EU-RAY, the European Radiant Heating & Cooling Association. The study, carried out by Prof. Bjarne Olesen and Dr Michele di Carli of the International Centre for Environment and Energy, used a methodology developed to determine energy use in buildings for the European Directive EPBD.[citation needed] 2010}} I can't find a reference to this study. Without a citation we should not include these figures. -->"

This section appears to have been inserted unsigned and without citations - as such I have temporarily removed it. I am familiar with the study and will search my archives for the citation. Note however efficiency is already addressed under == System efficiency and compatibility with flooring materials ==. Stand by for the citation and further comments.RBean (talk) 03:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
"Olesen, B.W., deCarli, M., Embedded Radiant Heating and Cooling Systems: Impact of New European Directive for Energy Performance of Buildings and Related CEN Standardization, Part 3 Calculated Energy Performance of Buildings with Embedded Systems (Draft), 2005." This citation comes from Prof. Olesen's 2005 .ppt presentation in preparation for the 2007 EU-Ray meetings. I've inserted the reference and link under the existing efficiency section.RBean (talk) 05:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
In regards to stating efficiencies or emission of one system over another: this is a slippery slope as these comparisons have to be considered in context - it might be true in the conditions evaluated but will be untrue in every other case. For example one could compare underfloor heating to fan/coils using propane boilers or electric boilers or heat pumps where the electricity is generated with coal but any statement about efficiencies and emissions in the context of propane vs. coal is untrue if the power is generated with hydro. I personally don’t believe comparing efficiencies using specific values serves the article unless specific details are provided for the comparison – and even then – the text could easily become bogged down with case studies and that from my limited understanding is outside the purpose of a WP article....thoughts on this anyone? RBean (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Items for discussion[edit]

  • Change the article name to Underfloor heating and cooling.
  • Reason: Cooling is the same system as heating and follows the same design principles.
  • Change the article name to Radiant heating and cooling and include walls and ceilings
  • Reason:Same reasons as for changing the title. Walls and ceilings are the same as floors. Having the topic under one title keeps it in one place...easier for editing.
  • Introduce some basic formulas on radiant and convective transfer
  • Reason:Introduces the mathematical view of radiant systems.

Just some thoughts for discussion.RBean (talk) 18:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I like Radiant heating and cooling since it is most inclusive but first I'd like to see if that would suggest a merge with other existing articles. Basic math formulas are standard fare for energy-related articles, so I'd support that here also, especially anything that is distinctively applicable for radiant heat processes. Jojalozzo 21:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I concur. I've searched the WP site for radiant walls and radiant ceilings and found nothing yet...the HVAC and hydronic sections are well on their way albeit also in need of some TLC…personally I’d let those articles stand on their own…that would take another career to polish them up...
Have a look at the operative temperature orphan…I’ve redone it completely to get it up to modern practice. It took a bit to learn the math editing protocol – should be no problem from here on in. I guess one of the thoughts I have is to see if we can put a 'period' behind what we have accomplished to date. As you know I’m new to this WP editing thing and we’ve made some major revisions. I hate to jump up and into an expanded article without bringing some reasonable acceptance to what we have done to date…and a big part of that is your efforts Jojalozzo – for this - I thank you.RBean (talk) 22:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Operative temperature looks like a candidate for merging into Radiant heating and cooling (when/if it exists) or into HVAC. Nice work there.
I haven't seen more of a milestone marking significant changes in articles other then a lengthy comment in the history where the change occurs. I think that will suffice here. Jojalozzo 22:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Will start thinking about struture to accomadate walls and ceilings. I think I can find a logical way to merge operative temp, mean radiant temp and convection with some introductory mathematics that would cover all three surfaces (floors, walls and ceilings) in both cooling and heating modes.RBean (talk) 04:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Radiant_heating is another candidate for merging under the title of Radiant heating and cooling. I'm sure there is a protocol for merging topics and will try to locate the meantime do you know if we need to give notice?RBean (talk) 22:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes. Proposals, talk page discussions, much hilarity. :-)See Help:Merging. Jojalozzo 01:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Oy...will have to roll up the sleeves on this one. ThanksRBean (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Can I suggest some labels on the
so nicely contributed by RBean? eg slab, insulation, air, tube etc Even an explanation of why the pattern is as it is. Aniish72 (talk) 04:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Great suggestion Aniish72 - thanks. I've put it on my to do list. RBean (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Greetings all...I've been tied up on other projects and intend to re-engage on this WP topic towards the latter part of December...will contribute in-between - time permitting. Thanks to all for pitching in!RBean (talk) 04:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and moved the Underfloor Air Distribution page from my user space into the article space. AdabhaelTalk 02:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Floor or Underfloor[edit]

Are the terms "floor heating" and "underfloor heating" synonymous? Are they preferred in different parts of the world (UK, US, Australia etc.)? This article uses both - which is fine by me. (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Underfloor cooling needs to go to air-conditioning subpart or something[edit]

Underfloor heating an underfloor cooling do not belong in the same article. Though a "hydronic radiant heating" article would be even better. The nature of heat is to rise. The nature of cold is to fall. Putting underfloor cooling with underfloor heating (not talking forced air ducting here) is pandering to a certain segment of radiant heat people, those who wish to convince people that in the summertime they can use their hot water pipe heating in the floor to cool their house. It just is not an effective way to cool a hot house. The concept of underfloor heat is a very sound principle, as heat rises. As long as heavy shag carpet is not installed on top of underfloor heat, it is a very sound principle. Underfloor cooling is nonsense, except perhaps in relatively low ceiling concrete multi-story structures, where some cooling can be afforded my the cool concrete comprising the ceiling. But this is an article on underfloor heating and cooling, and if all you have is underfloor cooling and not under-ceiling cooling, it Is nonsense. No appreciable cooling of a building's interior can be accomplished by underfloor cooling unless you are extremely short in your height, or like to lay on the tile floor a lot. It is a selling point used by some unscrupulous folk. Bugatti35racer (talk) 00:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, the nature of hot air is to rise, since it's less dense than cooler air - radiant heat moves in all directions from the radiator. "Radiant" cooling isn't really radiant; it removes heat by conduction from warmer air touching it. does not need to be in the ceiling, though they are most effective there because they cool the hotter air up there, which falls when cooler. However, even underfloor cooling can remove heat from the room effectively, if not insulated by rugs and furniture, though as I said it's more effective up where the hotter air is. Indeed, a chilled beam does double duty as a radiant heater in the ceiling that's perhaps more effective than a radiant floor (except lacking the warm feet). DocRuby (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


Re: ”pandering to a certain segment of radiant heat people, those who wish to convince people that in the summertime they can use their hot water pipe heating in the floor to cool their house.”

Make note of the list of large scale projects under the heading, “Global examples of large modern buildings using radiant heating and cooling” Radiant cooling is indifferent to project type be it residential, commercial, institutional or industrial. It’s an application of one type of HVAC system and is useful in controlling the mean radiant temperature (MRT’s) in spaces particularly those with high MRT’s due to short wave solar radiation which does not discriminate against building types. This is standard knowledge held by indoor climate engineers and is described in detail in various engineering design manuals including those published by ASHRAE, REHVA and CIBSE.

Re: “It just is not an effective way to cool a hot house.”

Buildings get hot for various reasons but the number one contributor is solar gain. Solar loads are short wave radiation which is effectively handled by cooled surfaces for the purposes of absorbing the solar energy so that it does not get released back into the space as long wave energy. Incident and reflected short wave plus absorbed and reradiated long wave contribute to “hot house”. It is very effective to fight radiant loads with radiant principles rather than convective principles. See research reports by DOE, Davis Energy Group, ASHRAE, REHAV, CIBSE, Fraunhofer, CBE etc. on this topic.

Re: “As long as heavy shag carpet is not installed on top of underfloor heat, it is a very sound principle.”

With the exception of highly polished floors, all other typical floor coverings have high emissivities and absorptivities ergo they make good radiators and absorbers. The conductivity of the floor covering and assembly is a concern for the fluid temperature and tube spacing but not its effectiveness as a radiant surface. See flooring research work by Oklahoma State University on this topic. See ASHRAE Handbooks for radiant design processes.

Re:” No appreciable cooling of a building's interior can be accomplished by underfloor cooling unless you are extremely short in your height, or like to lay on the tile floor a lot.”

Empirical research shows the heat transfer coefficient for a radiant floor cooling system is a nominal 1.1 Btu/hr ft2 F (7 W/m2 K). Research also shows floors typically can be designed to absorb up to 15 Btu/hr ft2 of long wave radiation and an additional 15 to 20 Btu/hr ft2 of short wave radiation. The clothed body transfer between 50% to 60% of its energy via long wave radiation depending on several factor including met rates and air velocity. See ASHRAE, REHVA and CIBSE design guides and handbooks for details.

Re: "Radiant" cooling isn't really radiant; it removes heat by conduction from warmer air touching it.”

The cooled surface absorbs the short and long wave radiation including that radiant energy from the human body regardless of the air contact and temperature. See wiki article on radiant transfer.

Re: “…underfloor cooling can remove heat from the room effectively, if not insulated by rugs…”

See my previous comments on absorptivities, tube spacing and fluid temperatures.

Re: “…more effective up where the hotter air is.”

This is true due to the combined effects of absorptivity and convection for a ceiling heat transfer coefficient of 1.94 Btu/hr ft2 F (11 W/m2 K). Notice the difference between the ceiling and floor coefficients…this difference is due to the convective component but the radiant root of the coefficient will always be a nominal 0.97 Btu/h • ft² •°F (5.5 W/m² K) regardless of a cooled floor or cooled ceiling.

As noted above there is exhaustive quality research on this topic. Many of the noted references in the bibliography address these comments.

RBean (talk) 06:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps some facts regarding radiant installs?[edit]

I see radiant floor heating has a long history and all things being equal the US installs s/b heavily radiant but I suspect not. Why? What happened after Levittown and the California surge that changed radiant heat to blower forced ductwork heated air? I suspect that our propensity to claim technological achievement when it is actually inserting another layer of profit, and I apologize for the creator having to remove this. Not only do we utilize metal shapers and installers, in conjunction with the furnace manufacturers, but the hidden reason is that we are not educating the people who understand the principals and install. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:54, 25 December 2014 (UTC)