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
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