Selection of Windows and Energy Efficiency

Windows have to meet lots of requirements…

Aesthetics
•Does it have the right style?
•How will it look after being outside for 5 years?
Structure
•Does it leak?
•Is it easy to open?
Safety
•Is it big enough to escape thru?
•What is the best sill height?
•Does it need safety glass?
Energy
•Does it keep in the cool?
•Does it keep out the hot?
•Does it bring enough sunlight?

Break-up is sensitive to geometry and materials.

U-value depends upon:

 No. of panes
 Frame material
 Frame section design
 Use of thermal breaks
 Use of special coatings (low-e) on glass surface
 Relative area of frame and glass

Different areas in window

Both, SHGC and U-values would vary with alteration in proportions of these areas

Reduction in energy consumption with window selection

As the window area increases, reduction becomes more significant

Requirements and defaults as per ECBC Implications
 No un-rated single glazed window (U-7.1) is fit for use with prescriptive approach
 Un-rated triple glazed windows (U-2.6) fit for largest part i.e. 3 out of 5 climatic zones
 None of the defaults fit for compliance for SHGC in 3 zones
Even in Moderate zone, as per SHGC requirements, triple glazed glazed is required

What does it cause:

 Is industry geared-up for providing double glazed and triple glazed windows?
  Always ‘1-up’ or ‘2-up’ option to be adopted as compared to rated windows
 ‘1-up’ distorts costing of buildings
 Goes in contradiction of minimum LCC approach which is in basic philosophy of ECBC
 Not very expensive rating facility/mechanism is required to prevent unnecessary ‘1-up’
choice for those choosing prescriptive approach.

How can windows be rated?

Physical testing of windows

Simulation of windows

Issues with physical testing

 Windows have large design variations
 For wide range of products would be expensive
 Innovative manufacturers would get discouraged
 Setting up laboratory facilities at independent agencies requires huge costs

Issues with simulation based approach

 Rating is faster and convenient
 Friendly to design innovations
 Costs less
 Combination of simulation + testing canal so be adopted for minor variations
 Training/accreditation of professionals can be clubbed with training for ‘Energy budget
method’
 Test conditions for Window rating
 Winter test
 Summer test
 U-values for same window in both conditions are different

ISO-15099 and ECBC

•ISO-15099
•ECBC test conditions

What is the option right now?

 Use of Energy Budget Method
(Need a big team of experts, prevailing charges of simulators are quite high)
 Use of Trade-off method
(better performance for one building part compensating for inferior performance of other part)
Challenge with window industry
 to keep cost of rating lower than the additional cost of insulation on wall/roof

Interesting to note that:

 Partial compliance U3.4, SHGC 0.25, gives EPF 11714,

 This EPF is lower then EPF of prescriptive approach
 Means, if somebody does not take rating of U-value but only takes rating for SHGC,
would ECBC accept?
 If allowed, it will give freedom to reduce the performance of wall or roof, unlike previous
case.
Conclusions
 Window industry has tremendous scope and requirement for improvement
 Review of ECBC test conditions is required
 Testing/rating system would be a requirement under ECBC
 Capacity building is needed to support the changing face of this sector