Cold climate façade

In essentially every climate, good façade design begins with good glazing design. For the cold winters of the upper
Midwest, it is particularly important to keep the overall façade insulating value (U-value) as low as possible to slow
the transfer of heat through it. This starts with selecting the right amount of glazing. Limiting the amount of glazing
is important because even the highest performing glazing has a much higher U-value (U = 0.2–0.3) than a typical
wall assembly (U < 0.064). In addition to not insulating as well as a wall assembly, glazing adds solar heat to the
space, contributing to the cooling load.

However, keeping building occupants happy and productive is crucial, so ample daylight and access to good outdoor
views is important. Optimal glazing design, therefore, is a balancing act that provides adequate daylight, minimizes direct
sun exposure and reduces energy use. Fully daylighting a space does not require a 75 percent glazed façade. Careful
attention to glazing placement can provide plenty of daylight while minimizing the amount of glazing needed. Selecting
the appropriate glazing product will minimize solar heat gain, keep the building well insulated, and allow natural daylight
into the space. Then well-designed wall assemblies round out the façade for a well-insulated daylit building.

FAÇADE FOR 749 UNIVERSITY ROW

The building at 749 University Row is a highly energy
efficient, multi-tenant office building constructed in
Madison, Wisconsin in 2013. One of the main design
considerations for this building was to give tenants access
to natural daylight. To successfully daylight the building and
ensure that the overall façade had an acceptable U-value
meant paying attention to several design details. These
included the window-to-wall ratio and building envelope
properties (wall assembly, window frames and glazing).

The window-to-wall ratio (WWR) is important for both

thermal and lighting reasons. Energy engineers modeled

0% 60%

the energy ramifications of different WWRs and conducted

.65 a separate daylight analysis to determine the ideal window
=0
VT
and skylight size and placement for the building. As shown
Annual energy cost savings (%)

in Figure 1, a WWR of about 30 to 40 percent is the sweet

Daylight autonomy

.35
spot where energy cost remains low while keeping daylight
0
V T= autonomy high. Note how steeply energy cost rises as the
WWR increases above 50 percent!

The original design of the building had a WWR of more

than 45 percent. The building architects were able to lower
it to 38 percent through effective window placement and
V T= 0
.35
by reducing the amount of glazing in transitional areas
V T = 0.65
14% 40% 0% such as stairwells. While daylight is important in transitional
0% Window-to-wall ratio (%) 80% areas, people do not spend much time in them so full
glazing is not justified.
Figure 1: Relationship between window to wall ratio, energy consumption, and daylight
autonomy (continued on page 2)

COLD CLIMATE FAÇADE SPONSORED BY MADISON GAS AND ELECTRIC SEVENTHWAVE.ORG

 penetrating the glazing). Figure 4 shows this relationship.
A good window will have a high visible transmittance and
a low solar heat gain coefficient. The windows selected
for 749 University Row are near the theoretical limit for
maximum light and minimum heat (see Figure 3 and 4).

Baseline Proposed Annual energy

U assembly: 0.45 U assembly: 0.32 savings
WINDOW
SHGC: 0.4 SHGC: 0.28 $5,300
Visible transmittance: 54% 59,000 kWh

Figure 3: Window properties and energy savings

Baseline Proposed Annual savings

Energy energy
Windows
WALL
with good
U: 0.64 insulating properties
U: 0.55 require savings
$890
thoughtful selection of both frames and glass. Early in kWh
$890
10,000
10,000 kWh
the design process, the energy consultants included
the recommendation to use thermally broken, insulated
frames. However, the window design process focused
mainly on the center of glass U-value. The window
vendor did not report an NFRC rating for the assembly: a
U-value that would include both the glass and the frame.
Although glass and frames typically come from different
manufacturers, it is important for the vendor to conduct
Figure 2: Target façade design
an analysis to see how they perform together as an
assembly. Figure 3 shows the selected window properties
as well as the annual energy savings achieved by going
The height to the top of the window is the primary driver
above energy code requirements. The importance of the
of the depth that daylight will penetrate into the building,
assembly U-value is highlighted in energy codes as well,
so windowsill height and total height were kept as high
which only establish requirements for assembly U-value
as possible while not obstructing occupants’ view out
and not center of glass U-values.
the windows. Placing wall assembly near the floor (as
shown in Figure 2) instead of increasing window size
reduces heating and cooling loads while providing ample 1.0
daylighting. Once furniture is placed near the windows, ht
Lig
um
occupants cannot tell that the façade is not fully glazed. 0.9
M ini
m

0.8
WINDOW TO WALL RATIO ENERGY AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Material cost Percent 0.7
Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC)

WWR Energy Cost of Cost of savings from façade cost Payback e

reduction savings glazing wall WWR reduction savings period tiv
ec
0.6 S el
lly iv e
7% $2,800 $38/sf $25/sf $27,000 2.9% Immediate tra lect
ec e
Sp lly S
0.5 n a
No ectr
Budget is always a consideration in building design, Sp
0.4 mit
especially in a multi-tenant building like 749 University tica
l Li
ore
Row where costs needed to be low enough to keep rents 0.3
The
eat
competitive. Because window assemblies tends to cost u mH
inim
t, M
more than do wall assemblies, this façade design actually 0.2
mL
igh
mu
reduced construction and energy cost. Maxi
0.1

With window size and placement determined, the designers

0
turned their attention to selecting envelope properties. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
There is a balancing act in selecting glazing properties Visible Light Transmittance (VT)
because solar heat gain coefficient—the amount of the
sun’s heat penetrating the glazing—is linearly proportional Figure 4: Relationship between visible transmittance and solar heat gain coefficient

to visible transmittance (the amount of the sun’s light

(continued on page 3)

Page 2—COLD CLIMATE FAÇADE SPONSORED BY MADISON GAS AND ELECTRIC SEVENTHWAVE.ORG

Seventhwave, one of the tenants at 749 University Row,
included skylights in its space to bring daylight into interior
rooms. Skylights alone will always result in increased energy
consumption because they have a much higher U-value
than the roof, but in conjunction with advanced daylighting,
SKYLIGHT ENERGY ANALYSIS RESULTS
Cooling energy from Heating energy from Decreased lighting
skylights skylights cost from skylights
+140 kWh +2,200 kWh 4,000 kWh
they can be energy neutral or even save energy if designed
correctly. Engineers from Seventhwave conducted multiple
iterations of both daylight and energy analyses to ensure
that the skylight design would result in net energy savings.
With the amount of glazing incorporated in the façade
at 749 University Row, it was also important to control
glare. The daylight analysis showed that glare would be
A B
Figure 5: Daylight analysis of southwest façade A) without and B) with window overhang.
Daylighting analysis done in AGI-32.
MAKING OPTIMAL GLAZING WORK
• Conduct conceptual energy and daylight modeling
as early as possible, even before schematic design, to
optimize orientation, window-to-wall ratio, and façade
properties.
• Analyze window assembly U-value not just glazing
U-value because frames can vastly reduce the
effectiveness of high performance glazing.
• Apply continuous insulation to minimize thermal
bridging. Mineral wool is easier to install than fiberglass
because it has more form, does not need to be stapled in
place and leaves no air gaps.
• Pay attention to infiltration reduction in façade
design. The building at 749 University Row used a liquid
Page 3—COLD CLIMATE FAÇADE SPONSORED BY MADISON GAS AND ELECTRIC
WINDOW
SHGC: 0.4 SHGC: 0.28 $5,300
Visible transmittance: 54% 59,000 kWh
Baseline Proposed Annual savings
Energy energy
U: 0.64 U: 0.55 savings
WALL $890
$890
10,000 kWh
10,000 kWh
Figure 6: Wall properties and energy savings
a problem on the southeast and southwest façade the
majority of mid-afternoons in summer and mid-mornings in
winter. Window overhangs on the exterior of the building
Net energy savings
from skylights between the transom window and vision window (see
1,700 kWh
Figure 5) helped alleviate this problem.
The exterior walls for 749 University Row are steel framing
at 16 inches on center with three inches of continuous
mineral wool insulation. Mineral wool has a lower insulating
property than typical fiberglass insulation (R-4.6/inch vs.
R-5/inch), but is made from 75 percent postindustrial
recycled content and is fire resistant. Continuous insulation
is effective because it interferes with thermal bridging
(when a more conductive material, such as steel framing,
allows an easy pathway for heat flow across a thermal
barrier). Insulation only in wall cavities compared to
continuous insulation reduces the effective R-value of the
wall (by more than 50 percent in steel framed walls). Rigid
insulation was also used to avoid thermal bridging where
the window and the wall section meet. Figure 6 shows
the design wall assembly U-value as well as the annual
energy savings achieved by going above energy code
requirements.
applied air barrier instead of the more standard adhered
membrane. Liquid applied air barriers are easier to use in
detailed areas, and generally will have fewer failures.
• Review all architectural details with an eye on places
where thermal bridging would occur.
OTHER RESOURCES
Impact of WWR on comfort: Payette, www.payette.com/
post/2335422-thermal-comfort-and-glazing-design
COMFEN tool: windows.lbl.gov/software/comfen/
comfen.html
Window property ratings: National Fenestration Rating
Council, www.nfrc.org
SEVENTHWAVE.ORG