Renewable Energy 143 (2019) 142e148

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

Influence of slat angle and low-emissive partitioning radiant energy

veils on the thermal performance of multilayered windows for
dynamic facades
Parham Sadooghi a, Nazir P. Kherani a, b, *
a
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3G4, Canada
b
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3E4, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Conventional window technologies tend to have poor thermal transmittance coefficients (U-values)
Received 30 April 2018 which cause significant heat loss during the winter season and undesired heat gain in the summer. This
Received in revised form study reports a new procedure to calculate center glass U-values of triple and quadruple windows which
1 April 2019
include low-emissive radiant energy veils e shades and blinds with spectrally selective coatings e be-
Accepted 22 April 2019
Available online 28 April 2019
tween the outermost glass panes. A numerical zonal model is developed to simulate a net radiation
system coupled with finite difference and ray tracing methods using validated derived experimental
equations. A parametric investigation is carried out wherein the influence of different parameters such as
Keywords:
Window
optical properties, inter-pane distances and slat angles of the blinds on the thermal performance of the
Radiation glazing system are analyzed. Three different gas fill types are examined under realistic boundary con-
Partitioning radiant energy veil™ ditions. It is shown that this window system has a compelling U-value compared to ordinary multilayer
Modeling glazing products.
Thermal transmittance © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Thermal resistance

1. Introduction aesthetics [5e9]. These vital functions of windows necessitate that

High and rising energy prices, the need to develop sustainable
energy conversion technologies, and the implications of the
changing climate system are some of the major global challenges
today. The buildings sector which consumes enormous amounts of
energy e at a level that comprises approximately 30% of the total
global energy consumption e is driven by the need to maintain
indoor in comfortable conditions while aspiring toward near- or
net-zero energy buildings. Energy consumption of residential and
commercial buildings is increasing rapidly, particularly in devel-
oping countries, and a large part of the energy usage is directly
related to heating and cooling demands for buildings [1e4]. Win-
dows are useful multifunctional devices for buildings which pro-
vide passive solar gain, ventilation and the ability to view the
outside environment. In addition, there is an increasing trend in
their usage as building facades or curtain walls considering the
appeal for that natural open feel, ample daylighting and associated
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: parham.sadooghi@utoronto.ca (P. Sadooghi), kherani@ecf.
utoronto.ca (N.P. Kherani).
their design and selection are apropos for a given application while
minimizing the energy demand on buildings. This is even more
important given the considerable difference between the heat
transfer coefficient of windows in relation to other building fabrics,
whereby up to approximately 60% of the energy transmission in
buildings can be attributed to windows [10,11].
Conventional window technologies tend to have poor U-values
which cause significant energy loss during the year. A considerable
amount of this energy loss may be eliminated by employing
enhanced glazing technologies [12e15]. In areas with hot climate, a
reduction in the radiative heat transfer decreases the cooling de-
mand and hence energy usage. In cold climatic regions, keeping the
heat from radiating to the outside serves to decrease heating needs
in the winter. Therefore, unique glazing technologies are required
to improve thermal comfort of the occupants, whilst mitigating the
energy consumption of buildings [16,17]. By essentially increasing
the number of glass panes and using appropriate fill gas and in-
sulators there between, multiple-layer glazing units can be man-
ufactured. A lot of research has been done to investigate thermal
behavior of multi-glazing systems. Thermal optimization of double
pane windows in Turkey has been carried out by Arıcı and Karabay

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.04.121
0960-1481/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 P. Sadooghi, N.P. Kherani / Renewable Energy 143 (2019) 142e148
Nomenclature
d cavity thickness ðmÞ


E emissive power m W
2 W


h heat convective coefficient W
m2 :K


W

J radiosity m 2


k heat conductive coefficient W
m:K
L distance between second layer and second pane ðmÞ
Qnet net heat transfer into the room ðWÞ


q heat flux m W
2 c


S absorbed energy m W g
2
T temperature ðKÞ
[18] to determine the optimum air layer thickness considering
various energy sources and different climate zones. Similar studies
have been performed for several cities in USA to show the benefit of
multiple pane windows [19,20]. The influence of window size on
energy balance in energy efficient houses in Sweden has been
carried out by Perrson et al. [21], that it is possible to enlarge the
window area and improve lighting conditions provided triple
glazed windows coated with low emissivity material are used.
Hassouneh et al. [22] have reported that the use of energy efficient
windows increases flexibility in the choice of glazing area and
orientation. Manz and Menti [23] presented the energy perfor-
mance of glazing systems in eight different European climates and
concluded that modern triple glazing provides the best thermal
performance. Xama
n et al. [24] carried out a numerical study
related to heat transfer through double pane windows. A general
correlation was developed for Nusselt numbers versus the modified
Rayleigh numbers using aspect ratio as a parameter to determine
heat transfer coefficients. Carlos et al. [25] evaluated thermal per-
formance indices of a ventilated double window using experi-
mental and analytical techniques. Additionally, several reviews
discuss thermal and visual performance of multi-glazing systems
[26,27] in relation to specific requirements. With regard to gas fill,
typical choices are air, argon or krypton, with krypton producing
the lowest U-values. Moreover, a variety of other technologies are
employed in order to reduce heat loss through windows and thus
improve the thermal performance of glazing systems; these include
external blinds [28,29], single and double curtains [30,31], roller
shades [32], window shutters [33], angular selective shading sys-
tems [34,35], different coatings [36,37], films [38], and multiple
pane windows [39,40] are employed to improve thermal perfor-
mance of glazing systems.
Herein we consider partitioning radiant energy veils,
comprising of metallo-dielectric materials, (are produced and
tested in laboratory) positioned between the outer and inner panes
of a two-pane window thereby transforming the window into an
effectively multilayered glazing system. The radiant energy veils or
partitioning layers are made of thin light-weight material with
specific spectrally selective optical properties on their front and
back surfaces. The first outermost window pane is also coated with
low emissivity material to further enhance the thermal perfor-
mance of the glazing system. Further, inclusion of the partitioning
layers is often accompanied with a larger gas cavity while the
143
t layer thickness ðmÞ
H window height ðmÞ
 
wind speed ms
ws
slat length ðmÞ
ε surface emissivity
G surface transmissivity
r surface reflectivity

s Stephan Boltzmann constant W:m
K 4
a slat degree coefficient
Subscripts
b back surface/black body
convection
f front surface
glass
i number of layers
weight of the window is essentially unchanged in view of the light-
weight of the energy veils compared to additional glass panes.
Moreover, depending on desired level of thermal and optical
comfort, the additional layer(s) between the glass panes can
function as a shade or/and blind with the latter permitting
daylighting control via changes in the slat angle, (movable slats).
The principal performance metric examined in the present study is
the U-value in relation to various combinations of partitioning
layers, a range of slat angles, low-emissivity coating on the outer
pane, three different cavity thicknesses (distance between the in-
ner surfaces of the outer and inner glass panes), and three different
cavity fill gases. It is shown that these multilayer glazing systems
yield very attractive U-values compared to ordinary glazing
systems.
2. Mathematical modeling
In the present study, we establish a solar radiation model on the
basis of the radiosity-irradiation method (RIM) [41]. Fig. 1(a) illus-
trates a glazing system which consists of two glass panes and two
partitioning radiant energy veils or partitioning layers with
appropriate spectral selectivity and low emissivity; in sum, the
system consists of four layers (which are numbered from 1 to 4
from the left/outside). In the case where the third layer comprises
of blinds and that the slat angle is greater than zero, as illustrated in
Fig. 1(b), the third layer becomes a permeable layer within the
glazing system. Each glazing layer is flat, and the corresponding
surface is a diffuse emitter and reflector in the longwave (mid-
infrared) wavelength range and a specular emitter in the shortwave
(solar/infrared and visible) wavelength range. The system is sub-
jected to the usual set of standard boundary conditions and each
glazing layer is described with front and back side emissivities,
reflectivities and transmissivities.
3. Energy balance equation
In order to investigate the thermal behavior of the system,
surface temperature on either side of each layer is specified and the
heat fluxes are calculated across each internal gap in order to
determine the temperature distribution across the glazing. The
general energy balance equation is used wherein the radiant en-
ergy exchange is modeled in terms of the flux of radiant energy at
144 P. Sadooghi, N.P. Kherani / Renewable Energy 143 (2019) 142e148

Fig. 1. (a) Cross-sectional schematic diagram illustrating the boundary conditions and energy balance of an equivalent 4-layer glazing system. Layers 1 and 4 represent window
glass panes while layers 2 and 3 represent partitioning layers. (b) Schematic diagram of an equivalent 4-layer window system where layer 3 comprises of pivoting blind slats. In the
case where the blind slat angle 0 < a  90 from vertical, the glazing system comprises of two cavities or gaps; however, when a ¼ 0 we have three cavities. The red line on layers 2
and 3 indicate the side on which the metallo-dielectric coating is placed (partitioning radiant energy veils). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the
reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)

each surface, that is, the irradiance (the flux of radiant energy
incident on a surface) and the radiosity (the flux of radiant energy b ¼h Tf;i Tb;i1
h i c;i (4.1)
leaving a surface). The heat flux across the gap between layer i  1 Ebf;i  Ebb;i1
and i is written as [42]:

  b ¼ kg;i : Tb;i Tf;i

h (4.2)
g;i
qi ¼ hc;i Tf ;i  Tb;i1 þ Jf ;i  Jb;i1 (1) tg;i Ebb;i  Ebf;i

Inserting equations (4.1) and (4.2) into equations (1) and (2),
Similarly, the heat flux across (iþ1)th gap is expressed as:
heat transfer across the layers is then expressed as:
  h i
b E
qi ¼ h
qiþ1 ¼ hc;iþ1 Tf ;iþ1  Tb;i þ Jf ;iþ1  Jb;i (2) i bf;i  Ebb;i1 þ Jf;i  Jb;i1 (5.1)

In the above equations, heat flux is a function of the temperature h i

b
qiþ1 ¼ h
of the outdoor and indoor facing surfaces (f and b denote the front- iþ1 Ebf;iþ1  Ebb;i þ Jf;iþ1  Jf;i (5.2)
side and back-side of a given layer) and the radiosities (heat fluxes
leaving front and back surfaces). Radiosities and front and back side Using the heat transfer coefficient based on emissive power
temperatures at each layer are calculated by applying the following transforms the energy balance equations (3.1)e(3.4) into the
four equations at each layer: following equations [42]:

qi ¼ Si þ qiþ1 (6.1)
qi ¼ Si þ qiþ1 (3.1)
Jf ;i ¼ εf;i Ebf ;i þ ti Jf;iþ1 þ rf ;i Jb;i1 (6.2)

Jf;i ¼ εf;i sT 4f ;i þ ti Jf;iþ1 þ rf ;i Jb;i1 (3.2)

Jb;i ¼ εb;i sEbb;i þ ti Jb;i1 þ rb;i Jf ;iþ1 (6.3)

h i  
Jb;i ¼ εb;i sT 4b;i þ ti Jb;i1 þ rb;i Jb;iþ1 (3.3) b E
h g;i
b
bb;i  Ebf;i ¼ 0:5Si þ h iþ1 Ebf;iþ1  Ebb;i þ Jf ;iþ1  Jb;i

(6.4)
tg;i Matlab Simulink software along with iterative solution pro-
Tb;1  Tf;1 ¼ ðq þ 0:5Si Þ (3.4)
kg;i iþ1 cessing are used to start solving the above non-linear system of
equations, specifically by calculating the initial temperature dis-



tribution within the glazing system. Realistic boundary conditions
where s is the Stephan-Boltzmann constant 5:67*108 W:m
K 4
include setting outside and inside temperatures to standard values.
Each layer acts as a passive element characterized by its trans- The initially defined temperatures across the glazing are used to
mission, reflection and absorption coefficients. The above equa- calculate heat transfer coefficients which are in turn used in the
tions are nonlinear in terms of temperature. In order to make them next step to obtain new temperature distribution at each surface of
linear and solve them in terms of black emissive power, convective the given layers. If each temperature in the new set is not equal to
and conductive heat transfer coefficients are written as a function the corresponding temperature in the old set within a defined
of emissive power as follows: tolerance (i.e., 106 K), the new sets are used to replace the old sets
 P. Sadooghi, N.P. Kherani / Renewable Energy 143 (2019) 142e148 145

and the calculation proceeds once again. The converged solution
leads to accurate temperature distribution across the glazing sys-
tem and hence at each surface within the glazing.
4. Convective heat transfer coefficient
The following equation is used to determine the convective heat
transfer coefficient in the gaps between the layers:
ki
hc;i ¼ Nu;i
di
where Nu;i , ki and di are Nusselt number, fill gas thermal conduc-
tivity and thickness of the ith cavity, respectively.
Nu;i , the Nusselt number, for any gas will be a function of the
product of the Grashoff and Prandtl numbers (which is sometimes
called the Rayleigh number):
gbr2 d3   and fully open (horizontal orientation), which are represented by
Gri ¼ T ;i  T
m2 Tm f b;i1
Cp m
Pri ¼
k degree a ¼ 0 ). Here we have two partitioning radiant energy veils
where g is gravitational acceleration, b is the coefficient of thermal
expansion, r is the density, m is the viscosity, Cp is the specific heat
at constant pressure and Tm is the mean temperature of the fill gas
between two layers. Nusselt number is calculated as follows [43]:
5. Convective heat transfer coefficient with the pivoting blind
When considering one shade and one pivoting blind in the
cavity between the two glass panes, the convective heat transfer
coefficients in the gaps are calculated by taking into account the
blind slat angles. In this model, the pivoting blind segregates the
glazing cavity into effectively two cavities. In order to calculate the
convective heat transfer in the two cavities, the width of each cavity
is taken to be the distance from the tip of the blind slats to the
adjacent glass surface or film layer while assuming no thermal
resistance associated with the blind layer:
(7)
di ¼ ðL  W*sinðaÞÞ=2 (10.3)
where di is the distance between the shade layer (2nd layer) and
the blind which is also equal to the distance between the blind and
the glass pane (4th layer), (see Fig. 1(b)).
In this method the convective heat transfer coefficient around
the blind system is calculated as an intermediate case between two
extreme cases, that is, between fully closed (vertical orientation)
(8.1)
the ‘blind slat degree coefficient’ of 1 and 0, respectively.
Considering that the blind is the 3rd layer in the 4-layer glazing
system (see Fig. 1(b)), we first examine the case where the blind
slats are fully closed (blind slat degree coefficient of 1, that is, slat
(8.2)
or layers between the two glass panes. As a result, three cavities are
formed and the convective heat transfer coefficient for each cavity
is calculated as follows:
ki
h1c;i ¼ Nu;i (11.1)
di

Nu;i ¼ 1 (9) where h1 c;i is the convection heat transfer coefficient in each cavity
i.
In the second case that we examine, the blind slats are fully open
Table 1 lists some of the physical properties of air, argon and (a ¼ 90 ) and the slat degree coefficient is equal to 0. Here we only
krypton which are used as candidate fill gases in this study. These have one partitioning layer between the two glass panes. In this
properties are temperature dependent and their variation with case both cavities around the blind create one gap (i.e., the second
temperature should also be considered. cavity) and have the same convective heat transfer coefficient. The
The indoor heat transfer coefficient is a function of the Nusselt total gap thickness in this case is the sum of the second and third
number assuming natural convection inside the room: gaps as well as the blind thickness. The convective heat transfer
coefficient is:
k
hc;in ¼ Nu (10.1)
H k2
h0c;2 ¼ Nu;i (11.2)
d2
where k is the inside air conductivity and H is the height of the
window. where d2 is the distance between the second layer and the right-
The outdoor heat transfer coefficient is a function of the outdoor most glass pane (the fourth layer).
wind speed: By linear interpolation of these two cases, it is possible to
calculate the convective heat transfer coefficient in between the
hc;out ¼ 4 þ 4*wS (10.2) cavities considering different slat degree angles of the blind:
 
m hac;2 ¼ w* h1c;2  h0c;2 þ h0c;2 (12.1)
where wS is the wind speed which is nominally set to 5 s in the
winter and 2.75 ms in the summer.
 
hac;3 ¼ w* h1c;3  h0c;3 þ h0c;3 (12.2)
Table 1
Physical properties of the fill gases at 0  C and 1 atm. where the sub-indices refer to gap numbers and w ¼ cos a is the
 g 




 slat degree coefficient while a is the blind slat degree angle. The
kg W kg J 1
Gas M
mol ⍴ K m Cp b obtained results are in good agreement with Garnet's [44] experi-
m3 mK ms kgK K
mental results.
Air 28.96 1.29 0.00250 0.0000186 1005 0.00367
Argon 39.95 1.70 0.00178 0.0000121 2160 0.00368
As mentioned in the previous sections, energy balance equa-
Krypton 83.70 3.74 0.0091 0.0000241 380 0.00368 tions are solved to obtain the temperature distribution and heat
fluxes across the glazing system at each layer surface. Hence, the
146 P. Sadooghi, N.P. Kherani / Renewable Energy 143 (2019) 142e148

overall thermal conductance or U-value of the system is defined as:

Qnet
U¼ (13)
Tout  Tin

Q net is the net heat flux into the room and Tout and Tin are outside
temperature and inside temperatures and are equal to 255 K and
294 K in winter, respectively, and 305 K and 297 K in summer,
respectively.

6. Results and discussions

The glass panes are of 6 mm thickness while the layers in be-

tween (shade and pivoting blind) are 0.5 mm in thickness. The
shade and pivoting blinds when uncoated have the optical prop-
erties of glass and when coated have the properties corresponding
to the low emissive metallo-dielectric spectrally selective film lis-
ted in Table 2. The configurations of the cases studied are illustrated
in schematic diagrams shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 3 (a,b, and c) show the thermal behavior of the shade and
blind system corresponding to the various layer configurations (A, B
and C correspond to uncoated layers (high emissivity), and D, E and
F correspond to layers with metallo-dielectric coatings (low emis-
sivity)). As illustrated in Fig. 2, the blind slats are set half-open
(a ¼ 45 ) for B and E cases, while the interpane distance for all
cases is set to three different values (35 mm, 45 mm and 55 mm).
Also, the thermal performance is examined for three different fill
gases (air, argon and krypton). For cases A, B and C, corresponding
to high emissivity glazing layers, the thermal resistance of the
system is generally low and accordingly the U-values are generally
high. With increasing interpane distance, the U-values decrease
reflecting a corresponding increase in the thermal resistance of the
glazing systems. A significant difference between the three layer
(A) and four layer (B and C) uncoated systems is observed, showing
a marked increase in thermal resistance for cases B and C in
contrast to A for all interpane distances and fill gases. Further, (for
the four layer system) increasing the interpane distance to 55 mm,
it is observed that the U-value remains essentially unchanged for
argon and krypton fill gases but decreases in the case of air.
Considering krypton is an expensive gas, increasing the interpane
distance to 55 mm makes it possible to achieve with air U-values
close to those with argon and krypton at an interpane distance of
35 mm. Finally, with regard to the highest level of thermal resis-
tance (lowest U-value), it is observed that this is obtained for
configuration F where the first glass pane and the second and third
layers all have low emissivity metallo-dielectric coatings, wherein
the middle layers partition the window into three cavities (that is,
both of the middle layers are down). Further, it is seen that in the
case where the cavities are filled with air it is possible to decrease
the U-value to compelling low value of 0.6 at an inter-pane distance
of 55 mm.
Fig. 4(a and b) show the U-value for the glazing system when the
blind slats are open at different angles of inclination (0 , 22.5 , 45 ,
67.5 and 90 ) with an inter-pane distance of 35 mm; further, these
results are compared with the four panes system (that is, slat angle
of 0 ). By increasing the blind slat angle, the overall U-value in-
creases (window thermal resistance decreases), and in the case of
Fig. 2. Schematic diagrams illustrating layer configurations of the studied cases. Red
lines indicate the presence of metallo-dielectric coatings with emissivity of 0.1. Cases A,
B and C comprise of layer configurations without any low-emissive metallo-dielectric
coating, while cases D, E and F comprise of various layer configurations wherein the
first glass pane and the layer(s) between the glass panes are coated with metallo-
dielectric films. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend,
the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
an opaque blind the increasing slat angle corresponds to increasing
natural day lighting. The lowest U-value is attained when the slat
angle is zero and the glazing system reduces to a quadruple layer/
pane window. When the layer emissivities are 0.85, conduction
heat transfer is more important than radiant energy flow between
the cavities/gaps. Given that the conductivity of air is greater than
krypton, the thermal resistance performance of air filled glazing
systems are affected more significantly even with a slat opening of
22.5 . When emissivities are set to 0.1, radiant energy exchange
between the layers becomes more important. Opening blind slats
up to 22.5 does not significantly affect the U-value in case of the air
filled glazing but does have a significant effect on the krypton filled
glazing due to its lower thermal conductivity.
7. Conclusion
The U-values were determined for a glazing system consisting of
partitioning shade and blind layers positioned between the two
outer glass panes for various configurations with and without low-
emissivity metallo-dielectric coatings e specifically, for three
different inter-pane spacings. The light-weight partitioning layers
reduce the overall window weight while allowing an increase in
the inter-pane distance of the glazing system. The heat transfer
analysis is based on the radiosity-irradiation method, and in
particular, radiative properties are integrated for pivoting blinds
and appropriately utilizing an approximation for convective heat
transfer within the cavities. Different glazing configurations are
studied, principally divided into glazing systems without and with

Table 2
Optical properties of glass (uncoated) and metallo-dielectric coated-substrate (nominally a thin partitioning layer coated with the metallo-dielectric film or coated-glass).

Material Infrared emissivity Infrared transmissivity Solar reflectivity Solar transmissivity Visible reflectivity Visible transmissivity

Glass 0.85 0 0.09 0.85 0.08 0.90

Metallo-Dielectric Coated Substrate 0.10 0 0.40 0.30 0.05 0.70
 P. Sadooghi, N.P. Kherani / Renewable Energy 143 (2019) 142e148
Fig. 3. Thermal transmittance of differently configured glazing systems, illustrated in
Fig. 2, for three different fill gases (air, argon and krypton), blind angle a ¼ 45 (where
applicable), and interpane separation of (a) 35 mm, (b) 45 mm, and (c) 55 mm. In a
three layer glazing system the partitioning layer is placed centrally between the glass
panes to create two equally sized cavities or gaps, while in a four layer glazing system
two partitioning layers are positioned symmetrically to create three equally sized
cavities. The glass panes and partitioning layers when uncoated have an emissivity of
0.85 and spectral properties of glass, and when coated have an emissivity of 0.1 and
spectral properties of the metallo-dielectric film (given in Table 2). Note: thermal
resistance is the inverse of thermal transmittance. Specifically, in SI units, RSI ¼ 1/U
where [RSI]¼(m2 K)/W. In I-P (inch-pound) units, R-value ¼ RSI  5.68 where [R-val-
ue]¼(ft2  F h)/BTU. Further, for R-values the same I-P units are valid in imperial units
and US customary units.
147
Fig. 4. Thermal transmittance for glazing system B (a) and E (b) (configurations shown
in Fig. 2), without and with low-emissive metallo-dielectric coatings, respectively, as a
function of the blind slat angle for different fill gases (air, argon and krypton) and inter-
pane separation of 35 mm (i.e., distance between the internal surfaces of the glass
sheets). The two internal layers are positioned symmetrically to create three equally
partitioned cavities. In all cases the uncoated layers (including the glass panes) have an
emissivity of 0.85, and when coated an emissivity of 0.1. Note: thermal resistance is the
inverse of thermal transmittance. Specifically, in SI units, RSI ¼ 1/U where [RSI]¼(m2
K)/W. In I-P (inch-pound) units, R-value ¼ RSI  5.68 where [R-value]¼(ft2  F h)/BTU.
Further, for R-values the same I-P units are valid in imperial units and US customary
units.
low-emissivity metallo-dielectric coatings. The effect of different
optical properties and fill gas types are investigated in relation to
thermal performance of the glazing and hence the desired thermal
comfort. It is observed that krypton yields the best thermal per-
formance in a glazing system albeit krypton is considerably costlier
than argon and air. The use of partitioning layers placed between
the outer glass panes makes it possible to increase cavity spacing
and correspondingly produce lower U-values e interestingly for air
fill gas. It is shown that convective heat transfer coefficient on both
sides of the blind is directly affected by the slat angle. U-value is
maximum when the slat angles are fully open, while the U-value
decreases as the blind is closed from either direction. When the
slats are fully closed, more infrared radiation is blocked, and the U-
value is at a minimum (highest thermal resistance). It is shown that
the addition of low emissivity metallo-dielectric coatings in the
glazing system reduces the U-value and improves the overall
thermal performance of the window.
148 P. Sadooghi, N.P. Kherani / Renewable Energy 143 (2019) 142e148
Acknowledgements
The project delineation by 3E Nano Inc. and the support of 3E
Nano and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada, under the Discovery Grant program, is gratefully
acknowledged. Partitioning radiant energy veil, radiant energy veil,
P-REV and REV technology, and P-REV and REV are trademarks of
3E Nano.
References
[1] P. Sadooghi, N.P. Kherani, Thermal analysis of triple and quadruple windows
using partitioning radiant energy veils™ with different physical and optical
properties, Solar Energy 174 (2018) 1163e1168.
[2] C. Koulamas, A.P. Kalogeras, R. Pacheco-Torres, J. Casillas, L. Ferrarini, Suit-
ability analysis of modeling and assessment approaches in energy efficiency in
buildings, A review, Energy Build. 158 (2018) 1662e1682.
[3] C. Misiopecki, M. Bouquin, A. Gustavsen, B.P. Jelle, Thermal modeling and
investigation of the most energy-efficient window position, Energy Build. 158
(2018) 1079e1086.
[4] A. Dutta, A. Samanta, Reducing cooling load of buildings in the tropical climate
through window glazing: a model to model comparison, J. Build. Eng. 15
(2018) 318e327.
[5] A.B. Besir, E. Cuce, Green roofs and facades: a comprehensive review, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 82 (Part 1) (2018) 915e939.
[6] M.P. de Jesus, J.M. Lourenço, R.M. Arce, M.I. Macias, Green façades and in situ
measurements of outdoor building thermal behaviour, Build. Environ. 119
(2017) 11e19.
[7] Marco Casini, Active dynamic windows for buildings: a review, Renew. Energy
119 (2018) 923e934.
[8] L.G. Valladares-Rendo
n, G. Schmid, S. Lo, Review on energy savings by solar
control techniques and optimal building orientation for the strategic place-
ment of façade shading systems, Energy Build. 140 (2017) 458e479.
[9] J. Wang, D. Shi, Spectral selective and photothermal Nano-structured thin
films for energy efficient windows, Appl. Energy 208 (2017) 83e96.
[10] A. Pierucci, A. Cannavale, F. Martellotta, F. Fiorito, Smart windows for carbon
neutral buildings: a life cycle approach, Energy Build. 165 (2018) 160e171.
[11] C. Du, B. Li, H. Liu, Y. Wei, M. Tan, Quantifying the cooling efficiency of air
velocity by heat loss from skin surface in warm and hot environments, Build.
Environ. 136 (2018) 146e155.
[12] E. Cuce, S.B. Riffat, A state-of-the-art review on innovative glazing technolo-
gies, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 41 (2015) 695e714.
[13] Y. Fan, X. Xia, Energy-efficiency building retrofit planning for green building
compliance, Build. Environ. 136 (2018) 312e321.
[14] N. Aste, M. Buzzetti, C. Pero, F. Leonforte, Glazing's techno-economic perfor-
mance: a comparison of window features in office buildings in different cli-
mates, Energy Build. 159 (2018) 123e135.
[15] A. Ghosh, B. Norton, Advances in switchable and highly insulating autono-
mous (self-powered) glazing systems for adaptive low energy buildings,
Renew. Energy 126 (2018) 1003e1031.
[16] R. Gagnon, L. Gosselin, S. Decker, Sensitivity analysis of energy performance
and thermal comfort throughout building design process, Energy Build. 164
(2018) 278e294.
[17] F. Goia, V. Serra, Analysis of a non-calorimetric method for assessment of in-
situ thermal transmittance and solar factor of glazed systems, Sol. Energy 166
(2018) 458e471.
[18] M. Arıcı, H. Karabay, Determination of optimum thickness of double-glazed
windows for the climatic regions of Turkey, Energy Build. 42 (2010)
1773e1778.
[19] M.S. So €ylemez, Thermo-economical optimization of number of panes for
windows, J. Energy Eng. ASCE 135 (2009) 21e24.
[20] H. Karabay, M. Arıcı, Multiple pane window applications in various climatic
regions of Turkey, Energy Build. 45 (2012) 67e71.
[21] M.-L. Perrson, A. Roos, M. Wall, Influence of window size on the energy bal-
ance of low energy houses, Energy Build. 38 (2006) 181e188.
[22] K. Hassouneh, A. Alshboul, A. Al-Salaymeh, Influence of windows on the en-
ergy balance of apartment buildings in Amman, Energy Convers. Manag. 51
(2010) 1583e1591.
[23] H. Manz, U. Menti, Energy performance of glazings in European climates,
Renew. Energy 37 (2012) 226e232.
[24] J. Xam
an, Y. Olazo-Go
mez, Y. Ch

n, Compu-
avez, J.F. Hinojosa, I. Zavala-Guille
tational fluid dynamics for thermal evaluation of a room with a double glazing
window with a solar control film, Renew. Energy 94 (2016) 237e250.
[25] J.S. Carlos, H. Corvacho, Evaluation of the thermal performance indices of a
ventilated double window through experimental and analytical procedures:
Uw-values, Renew. Energy 63 (2014) 747e754.


[26] J.O. Aguilar, J. Xaman, G. Alvarez, I. Herna
ndez-Pe
rez, C. Lo

pez-Mata, Thermal
performance of a double pane window using glazing available on the Mexican
market, Renew. Energy 81 (2015) 785e794.
[27] A. Ghosh, B. Norton, Advances in switchable and highly insulating autono-
mous (self-powered) glazing systems for adaptive low energy buildings,
Renew. Energy 126 (2018) 1003e1031.
[28] M.V. Bavaresco, E. Ghisi, Influence of user interaction with internal blinds on
the energy efficiency of office buildings, Energy Build. 166 (2018) 538e549.
[29] S. Jain, V. Garg, A review of open loop control strategies for shades, blinds and
integrated lighting by use of real-time daylight prediction methods, Build.
Environ. 135 (2018) 352e364.
[30] A.D. Lee, P. Shepherd, M.C. Evernden, D. Metcalfe, Optimizing the architectural
layouts and technical specifications of curtain walls to minimize use of
aluminium, Structures 13 (2018) 8e25.
[31] C. Bedon, X. Zhang, F. Santos, D. Honfi, D. Lange, Performance of structural
glass facades under extreme loads e design methods, existing research, cur-
rent issues and trends, Constr. Build. Mater. 163 (2018) 921e937.
[32] A. Ghosh, S. Neogi, Effect of fenestration geometrical factors on building en-
ergy consumption and performance evaluation of a new external solar
shading device in warm and humid climatic condition, Sol. Energy 169 (2018)
94e104.
[33] K. Lai, W. Wang, H. Giles, Solar shading performance of window with constant
and dynamic shading function in different climates zones, Sol. Energy 147
(2017) 113e125.
[34] T. Silva, R. Vicente, C. Amaral, A. Figueiredo, Thermal performance of a win-
dow shutter containing PCM: numerical validation and experimental analysis,
Appl. Energy 179 (2016) 64e84.
[35] Y. Sun, Y. Wu, R. Wilson, A review of thermal and optical characterisation of
complex window systems and their building performance prediction, Appl.
Energy 222 (2018) 729e747.
[36] Y.K. Yi, J. Yin, Y. Tang, Developing an advanced daylight model for building
energy tool to simulate dynamic shading device, Sol. Energy 163 (2018)
140e149.
[37] C. Granqvist, I. _ Bayrak Pehlivan, G.A. Niklasson, Electrochromics on a roll:
web-coating and lamination for smart windows, Surf. Coating. Technol. 336
(2018) 133e138.
[38] Y. Wu, P. Krishnan, M.H. Zhang, L.E. Yu, Using photocatalytic coating to
maintain solar reflectance and lower cooling energy consumption of build-
ings, Energy Build. 164 (2018) 176e186.
[39] C. Ji, Z. Wu, X. Wu, J. Wang, Y. Jiang, Al-doped VO2 films as smart window
coatings: reduced phase transition temperature and improved thermochro-
mic performance, Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cell. 176 (2018) 174e180.
[40] L. Donaldson, Solar energy harnessed by new ‘double-glazing’ approach,
Mater. Today 21 (Issue 3) (2018) 200e208.
[41] J.R. Howell, M.P. Menguc, R. Siegel, Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer, sixth ed.,
CREC press, 2015.
[42] J.L. Wright, Calculating centre-glass performance indices of windows, ASHRAE
Transact. 104 (1) (1998) 1230e1241.
[43] J.G. A De Graff, E.F.M. Van der Held, Appl. Sci. Res. A3 (1952) 393e409.
[44] J.M. Garnet, R.A. Fraser, H.F. Sullivan, J.L. Wright, Effect of internal Venetian
blinds on windows centre glass U-values, in: Proceedings of the Window
Innovations Conference, 1995 (Toronto, Canada).