## 4 Results
### Air Temperature Distribution
#### 4.2.1 Air Temperature Field  
Figure 7, in the case of S1 and S2, reports the trend of the air temperature monitored at different heights when the baseboards were used. In both cases, the distribution at different heights was comparable, since the temperature peaks generally correspond to the hottest hours of the day when there is also the positive contribution of solar thermal radiation. Furthermore, the greater temperature variation in both sectors was measured by the sensor at 0.1 m; the recorded values had the greater deviation from those detected by the other sensors, while the trends of the temperature for the other heights were more uniform and regular. Compared to the first sector, the second one was characterized by lower thermal stratification; indeed, the values at the different heights were convergent with each other. Both figures show the temperature detected in the center of the room (height 1.1 m); it can be seen that the values recorded by the sensors placed at 1.1 m in each sector were comparable with those measured in the central position. More in general, in the first sector, the temperatures were higher than the corresponding temperatures of the second sector. For instance, considering the heights of 1.1 m, 2.1 m, and 3.1 m, the maximum temperatures were, respectively, 22.2 \({}^{\circ}\)C, 22.5 \({}^{\circ}\)C, and 23.5 \({}^{\circ}\)C, whereas in the second sector, these values were, respectively, 21.7 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 22.2 \({}^{\circ}\)C (both at 2.1 m and 3.1 m). In term of minimum values, for S1, the temperatures were 16.3 \({}^{\circ}\)C, 17.6 \({}^{\circ}\)C, and 18.1 \({}^{\circ}\)C, respectively, for the heights of 1.1 m, 2,1 m, and 3.1 m; analogously, for S2, these were 16.6 \({}^{\circ}\)C, 17.3 \({}^{\circ}\)C, and 17.5 \({}^{\circ}\)C. This comparison indicates that S2 was characterized by more uniform distribution, since the maximum and minimum values were almost comparable, while S1 had a more significant temperature difference, mainly between the temperature at 3.1 m and at 1.1 m.  
The sensor at 0.1 m was characterized by 12.9 \({}^{\circ}\)C as the minimum value in both sectors, and this value was significantly lower than that monitored by the other sensors, a sign of unevenness in the distribution of the temperature at the level of occupants' ankles. Figure 8a,b refers to 3 rd and 4 th sectors. Additionally, in this case the trends were comparable to the great variation for T\({}_{a.0.1}\), for which the minimum value, recorded in the early morning of 31 December, was around 12 \({}^{\circ}\)C in both sectors. The temperature monitored by the central sensor (T\({}_{a,c}\)) had a comparable trend with the monitored values at 1.1 m and 2.1 m. The S3 was characterized by a more uniform distribution compared with S4, but the values monitored at 1.1 m were comparable; indeed, Ta_1.0 varied between 15.8 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 22.5 \({}^{\circ}\)C for S3 and between 15.9 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 22 \({}^{\circ}\)C for S4. When T\({}_{a\_3.1}\) was considered, the higher values were recorded for S4, since it varied between 18.1 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 22.8 \({}^{\circ}\)C.  
The comparison between all sectors indicates that the higher temperatures were recorded in the first sector, probably due to the positive contribute of the solar gains during the late morning and late afternoon. Figure 9, in the case of S1 and S2, reports the trend of the air temperature monitored at different heights when fan coil units were switched on. Data showed that, in most cases, the second sector was characterized by higher temperatures, which was due to the combined effect of solar radiation, more incident in the sector facing the window, and of the emitter position. The sensor at 3.0 m showed a more irregular trend, and indeed the temperature  
Figure 7: Air temperature at different heights with baseboards: (**a**) 1 st sector, (**b**) 2 nd sectors.