Double Pane Window Study

Comparison of Double Pane, Double Pane Low-E, and Double Pane Heat Mirror Windows
in 10 Major Cities in the United States

Benjamin T. Chorpening
Richard J. Liesen Ph. D.

BLAST Support Office

University of Illinois
1206 West Green St.
Urbana, IL 61801

Prepared for:
Larry Lister
U. S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratories
Champaign, IL 61820

August 1995
Double Pane Window Comparison August 1995 Page 2

1. Introduction

The purpose of this study was to compare the economic performance of double pane (DP),
double pane low-e (LE), and double pane single film Heat MirrorTM (HM) windows for 3 skin
dominated buildings in ten weather locations across the continental United States. A chart of the
weather locations including their Architectural and Engineering Instructions (AEI) defined
weather regions and other prominent weather characteristics has been produced. Building
models of a barracks, a regimental headquarters building, and a single family housing unit were
simulated. The windows in each model were changed to each of the three options for
comparison purposes. The energy analysis was performed using BLAST (Building Loads
Analysis & System Thermodynamics) combined with glazing system results from
WINDOW 4.1 [1]. The results of the energy analysis were combined with economic data from
LCCID [2] to produce life cycle cost data on each of the options. All of the data used in the
study is shown below, with conclusions drawn in the last section (section 6).

2. Weather Information and Statistics

Below is the table of the selected weather sites. The sites are organized by AEI weather region
(U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 1995, Table 31). The average daily irradiation of June and
December are included in the statistics, as well as the cooling and heating degree days and the
2.5% summer and winter design day temperatures from the BLAST weather files.

Locations and Weather Summary

City, State Weather File Weather Heating Cooling Summer Winter June Avg. Dec. Avg.
Region Degree Degree 2.5% DD 2.5% DD Daily Irrad. Daily Irrad.
AEI Days Days 2
(BTU/ft ) (BTU/ft2)
Minneapolis- MINTMY 5 8099 759 91 °F -17 °F 1910 338
St. Paul, MN
Denver, CO DENTMY 6 6102 566 92 °F -5 °F 2346 745
New York, NY NYCTMY 7 5035 830 86 °F 13 °F 1721 379
St. Louis, MO STLO 7 5174 1421 94 °F -1 °F 2173 407
Seattle- SEATMY 7 5291 106 83 °F 24 °F 1767 201
Tacoma, WA
Washington WASHTMY 7 4857 1064 92 °F 6 °F 1892 489
DC / Sterling,
VA
Atlanta, GA ATLTMY 8 3099 1557 91 °F 22 °F 1891 690
Los Angeles, LOSTMY 9 1498 471 81 °F 42 °F 2128 853
CA
Miami, FL MIAMTMY 10 189 4033 90 °F 43 °F 1674 1030
Phoenix, AZ PHOTMY 10 1391 3641 108 °F 31 °F 2697 921

Note: The base temperature for heating and cooling degree days is 65°F.
Double Pane Window Comparison August 1995 Page 3

3. BLAST Building Models

Three basic buildings were chosen for this study. They were selected to be representative of
army construction, while giving a variation in size.

Table of building types modeled

Building name or purpose File name Floor area (ft2) Percent glazing of exposed wall area
Barracks with mess hall barracks 16362 32.1 %
Regimental HQ Building reghq 6029 29.3 %
Detached single family housing singfam 1150 14.9%

3.1 Insulation Requirements

Each building type was modeled as new construction, with insulation which follows AEI
guidelines; and as a retrofit project, which has the actual construction of an existing army
building.

For selecting the insulation of the new construction single family housing models, the following
table of R-value guidelines was taken from the Architectural and Engineering Instructions for
Family Housing (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 1995, Table 32). Walls refers to opaque
exterior walls. Floor requirements are for exposed floors and floors over unconditioned areas.

AEI Suggested R-values for New Construction Army Family Housing

Weather Walls Ceiling/Roof Floor
Region (ft2*°F*h/BTU) (ft2*°F*h/BTU) (ft2*°F*h/BTU)
5 19 38 30
6 19 30 30
7 19 30 19
8 19 30 19
10 To Be Determined To Be Determined To Be Determined

For selecting the insulation of the new construction barracks and regimental headquarters, the
following table of R-value and U-value guidelines was taken from AEI Design Criteria for
commercial type structures (U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 1994, Table 11-4A). Below grade
R-value does not include air-film coefficients or thermal performance of the adjacent ground. U-
values are maximums, in BTU/(ft2*°F*h). R-values are minimums (R=1/U).

AEI Suggested Thermal Property Values for New Construction Commercial Type Structures
Weather Opaque Wall Gross Wall U- Below Grade R Roof/Ceiling Exposed Floor U-
Region U-value value U-value value
5 0.064 0.181 12 0.041 0.040
6 0.092 0.210 10 0.052 0.049
7 0.088 0.212 9 0.055 0.048
8 0.120 0.217 8 0.066 0.074
10 0.150 0.270 0 0.057 0.100
Double Pane Window Comparison August 1995 Page 4

3.2 Barracks with mess hall

The barracks is based upon building 7013 at Ft. Riley, Kansas, with adjustments to the insulation
to meet the AEI commercial recommendations for weather region 7 or weather region 10. It is a
three zone model, with a barracks, basement, and kitchen/mess hall.

- 16,362 ft2 total

9718 ft2 in barracks
3044 ft2 in basement
3601 ft2 in kitchen/mess hall
- One story with basement
- Barracks and kitchen/mess hall exterior walls
4 in heavy weight concrete block
insulation
4 in heavy weight concrete block
Original U = 0.315 BTU/(ft2*°F*h)
Regions 5-7 U = 0.089 BTU/(ft2*°F*h)
Regions 8-10 U = 0.145 BTU/(ft2*°F*h)
- Basement exterior walls
8 in heavy weight concrete
insulation
2 in heavy weight concrete
Original U = 0.594 BTU/(ft2*°F*h)
Regions 5-7 U = 0.080 BTU/(ft2*°F*h)
Regions 8-10 U = 0.173 BTU/(ft2*°F*h)
- Exposed floor under barracks
2 in heavy weight concrete
insulation
floor tile
Original U = 0.937 BTU/(ft2*°F*h)
Regions 5-7 U = 0.048 BTU/(ft2*°F*h)
Regions 8-10 U = 0.099 BTU/(ft2*°F*h)
- Roof
1/2 in slag or stone
3/8 in felt and membrane
insulation
2 in heavy weight concrete
Original U = 0.125 BTU/(ft2*°F*h)
Regions 5-7 U = 0.049 BTU/(ft2*°F*h)
Regions 8, 10 U = 0.056 BTU/(ft2*°F*h)
- Basement floor (all) U = 0.091 BTU/(ft2*°F*h)
slab on grade floor
- People
160 people in barracks on a dormitory occupancy schedule
25 people in basement on an office occupancy schedule
50 people in kitchen/mess hall on intermittent schedule
- Lights
199 kBTU in barracks with a dormitory lighting schedule
21 kBTU in basement on an office lighting schedule
32 kBTU in kitchen/mess hall on an office lighting schedule
Double Pane Window Comparison August 1995 Page 5

- Electric equipment
50 kBTU in barracks with a dormitory lighting schedule
5.2 kBTU in basement on an office lighting schedule
7.9 kBTU in kitchen/mess hall on an office lighting schedule
- Infiltration: follows the equation
CFM=Peak*(0.212 + 0.00719*(Tzone-TODB) + 0.000213*Windspeed)
1500 CFM is the barracks peak infiltration
116 CFM is the basement peak infiltration
447 CFM is the kitchen/mess hall peak infiltration
The effective result for each zone is (in air changes per hour)
0.1-0.2 ACH for the barracks
0.0-0.1 ACH for the basement
0.1-0.3 ACH for the kitchen/mess hall
- Controls are "Comfort Dead Band"
full heating at 70 °F, full cooling at 76 °F
- Direct throttled ventilation has been disabled
- Fan systems
Barracks: Single zone draw through sized to ASHRAE 2.5% design day,
oversize factor of 1.2
Fixed percent outside air: 15% weekdays (5% weekends)
Basement: Single zone draw through sized to ASHRAE 2.5% design day,
oversize factor of 1.2
Fixed percent outside air: 15% weekdays (5% weekends)
Kitchen/mess : Single zone draw through sized to ASHRAE 2.5% design day,
oversize factor of 1.2
Fixed percent outside air: 15% weekdays (5% weekends)
- Cooling system:
Air cooled chiller sized to ASHRAE 2.5% design day,
oversize factor of 1.2
- Heating system:
Natural gas fired boiler sized to ASHRAE 2.5% design day,
oversize factor of 1.2

Scheduled Loads Summary for Barracks

Zone Peak People Peak Lights Peak Electric Equipment
2
(people/ft ) (W/ft2) (W/ft2)
Barracks 0.01647 6.00 1.51
Basement 0.00821 2.02 0.50
Kitchen/mess 0.01389 2.60 0.70

3.3 Regimental HQ Building

The regimental headquarters building is based on building 7036 at Ft. Riley, Kansas. The
insulation had to be adjusted to meet AEI commercial recommendations weather region 7 or
weather region 10. It consists of two zones: an office and a basement.

- 6,029 ft2
3015 ft2 in barracks
3015 ft2 in basement
- One story with basement
- Office exterior walls
Double Pane Window Comparison August 1995 Page 6

4 in face brick
insulation
6 in light weight concrete
finish
Original U = 0.136 BTU/(ft2*°F*h)
Regions 5-7 U = 0.084 BTU/(ft2*°F*h)
Regions 8-10 U = 0.136 BTU/(ft2*°F*h)
- Basement exterior walls
12 in heavy weight concrete
Original U = 0.595 BTU/(ft2*°F*h)
Regions 8, 10 U = 0.595 BTU/(ft2*°F*h)
12 in heavy weight concrete
insulation
Regions 5-7 U = 0.098 BTU/(ft2*°F*h)
- Roof
Original U = 0.120 BTU/(ft2*°F*h)
Regions 5-7 U = 0.056 BTU/(ft2*°F*h)
Regions 8-10 U = 0.056 BTU/(ft2*°F*h)
1/2 in slag or stone
3/8 in felt and membrane
insulation
2 in light weight concrete
4 in heavy weight concrete
- Basement floor (all) U = 0.566 BTU/(ft2*°F*h)
5 in stone
2 in heavy weight concrete
5 in heavy weight concrete
- People
53 people in office on an office lighting schedule
25 people in basement on an office lighting schedule
- Lights
41.2 kBTU in office on an office lighting schedule
20.6 kBTU in basement on an office lighting schedule
- Electric equipment
10.3 kBTU in office on an office lighting schedule
5.1 kBTU in basement on an office lighting schedule
- Infiltration: follows the equation
CFM=Peak*(0.212 + 0.00719*(Tzone-TODB) + 0.000213*Windspeed)
1000 CFM is the office peak infiltration
100 CFM is the basement peak infiltration
The effective result for each zone is (in air changes per hour)
0.2-0.5 ACH for the office
0.0-0.1 ACH for the basement
- Controls are "Comfort Dead Band"
full heating at 70 °F, full cooling at 76 °F
- Fan systems
Office: DX packaged unit with 80% efficient natural gas burner.
Temperature economy cycle with minimum outside air of 278 CFM or
15% of supply air (5% weekends), for average of 18.5 people during
occupied hours.
Basement: DX packaged unit with 80% efficient natural gas burner.
Double Pane Window Comparison August 1995 Page 7

Temperature economy cycle with minimum outside air of 132 CFM or

15% of supply air (5% weekends), for average of 8.8 people during
occupied hours.

Scheduled Loads Summary for Regimental Headquarters

Zone Peak People Peak Lights Peak Electric Equipment
2
(people/ft ) 2
(W/ft ) (W/ft2)
Office 0.01758 4.00 1.00
Basement 0.00829 2.00 0.50

3.4 Detached Single Family Housing

The detached family housing unit is loosely based on a four-plex at Fort Irwin, California.
Similar constructions and loads have been used to produce a one zone model. Insulation was
adjusted to AEI residential construction recommendations for weather region 7 or weather region
10 (since region 10 has yet to be determined, the commercial recommendations were used).

- 1,150 ft2
- One story
- Exterior walls
Original U = 0.143 BTU/(ft2*°F*h)
Regions 5-7 U = 0.050 BTU/(ft2*°F*h)
Regions 8-10 U = 0.143 BTU/(ft2*°F*h)
7/8 in stucco
1/4 in laminated paperboard
insulation
1/2 in gypsum plaster
flat paint
- Roof
Original U = 0.041 BTU/(ft2*°F*h)
Regions 5-7 U = 0.034 BTU/(ft2*°F*h)
Regions 8-10 U = 0.057 BTU/(ft2*°F*h)
fiberglass shingles
mopped felt building membrane
1/2 in plywood
roof trusses - airspace
insulation
5/16 in wood furring
5/8 in gypsum plaster
- Slab floor (all) U = 0.085 BTU/(ft2*°F*h)
12 in dirt
4 in heavy weight concrete block
5/16 in wood furring
- Electric equipment
5.13 kBTU on a "utility" schedule
Same schedule all week
00 TO 06 - 0.09
06 TO 07 - 0.25
07 TO 08 - 1.00
08 TO 09 - 0.70
Double Pane Window Comparison August 1995 Page 8

09 TO 10 - 0.80
10 TO 12 - 0.60
12 TO 14 - 0.50
14 TO 18 - 0.40
18 TO 19 - 0.50
19 TO 20 - 0.70
20 TO 22 - 0.60
22 TO 24 - 0.50
- Gas equipment
4.86 kBTU on a "utility" schedule
- Infiltration is constant at 162 CFM
The effective result is 1.0 ACH (air changes per hour)
- Controls are "House Controls"
full heating at 70 °F, full cooling at 72 °F
- Fan system: DX packaged unit with 80% efficient natural gas burner.
No outside air brought in through system.

Scheduled Loads Summary for Single Family Housing

Zone Peak Gas Peak Electric Equipment
Equipment (W/ft2)
2
(W/ft )
House 1.24 1.31

3.5 Description of Glazing Systems

The three main glazing options to be examined in this study were double pane, double pane with
a low-e coating, and double pane with a suspended Heat Mirror film. Slight variations of the
low-e and Heat Mirror windows were used as indicated below, depending on weather region and
building type. No variation in frames was considered, so only center of glass properties were
used. All the glazing systems were assembled and analyzed using WINDOW 4.1 (Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory 1992).

Glazing Options Modeled

General Name of Window Type
Clear double pane
Double pane low-e coating
Double pane single film heat
mirror
Specific Brand / Item Used Modeling Comments
(WINDOW4.1 data file)
DBLE.W4 Baseline alternative.
DBLELOWE.W4 Used in barracks and regimental HQ.
DBLELEAR.W4 Used in single family housing.
DBLEHM66.W4 Used for weather regions 8-10.
DBLEHM88.W4 Used for weather regions 5-7.

Most of the following details come from the WINDOW 4.1 program.

DBLE.W4 is two panes of clear 3.2mm (1/8 in) Libbey-Owens-Ford glass with a 0.5 inch
airspace.

DBLELOWE.W4 is an outer pane of 3.0mm Energy Advantage Low-E TM clear glass from
Libbey-Owens-Ford (long wave emissivity of 0.197 on inside surface), 0.5 inch airspace, and an
inner pane of clear 3.2mm (1/8 in) Libbey-Owens-Ford glass.

DBLELEAR.W4 is an outer pane of 3.0mm Energy Advantage Low-ETM clear glass from
Libbey-Owens-Ford (long wave emissivity of 0.197 on inside surface), 0.5 inch gap with argon
fill, and an inner pane of clear 3.2mm (1/8 in) Libbey-Owens-Ford glass.
Double Pane Window Comparison August 1995 Page 9

DBLEHM66.W4 is an outer pane of clear 3.2mm (1/8 in) Libbey-Owens-Ford glass , 0.5 inch
airspace, Heat Mirror TM 66 film, 0.5 inch airspace, and an inner pane of clear 3.2mm (1/8 in)
Libbey-Owens-Ford glass.

DBLEHM77.W4 is an outer pane of clear 3.2mm (1/8 in) Libbey-Owens-Ford glass , 0.5 inch
airspace, Heat Mirror TM 77 film, 0.5 inch airspace, and an inner pane of clear 3.2mm (1/8 in)
Libbey-Owens-Ford glass.

DBLEHM88.W4 is an outer pane of clear 3.2mm (1/8 in) Libbey-Owens-Ford glass , 0.5 inch
airspace, Heat Mirror TM 88 film, 0.5 inch airspace, and an inner pane of clear 3.2mm (1/8 in)
Libbey-Owens-Ford glass.

The Heat MirrorTM products are all named for their transmissivity in the visible spectrum (i.e.
for Heat Mirror TM 66 film, the visible transmissivity is 0.66). They are all oriented such that
their more reflective surface is toward the inside of the window system (Southwall Technologies,
1988).

The Energy Advantage Low-E TM clear glass has been oriented with the low-e coating on the
inside surface of the outside pane to properly take advantage of the coating to reduce the U-value
of the glazing system.

4. Window Energy Comparisons

Several items were of interest in this study. Primarily, a comparison between the standard
specified double pane window, double pane low-e window, and double pane Heat Mirror
window for a location was desired.

The barracks was simulated in two orientations, with the primary axis north-south and with the
primary axis east-west, because of its long and narrow shape. The office building and the house
were both simulated with their longer dimension in the east-west direction, to put more glazing
on the north and south sides.

Table of Glazing Areas

Building and North Facing South Facing East Facing West Facing Total Area
Orientation Area (ft2) Area (ft2) Area (ft2) Area (ft2) (ft2)
Barracks, N-S 540 329 2989 3347 7205
Barracks, E-W 3347 2989 540 329 7205
Office, E-W 501 549 144 180 1374
House, E-W 58 58 32 32 180

Each building and orientation was modeled as both new construction and retrofit, with 3 window
options. Each model was then simulated, using the Building Loads Analysis and System
Thermodynamics (BLAST) program, for each of the ten locations described in section 2. The
resulting total annual energy use and annual electric use is shown for each location in graphical
format in the following section, where DP designates the ordinary double pane, LE designates
the double pane low-e, and HM designates the double pane Heat Mirror windows.
Double Pane Window Comparison August 1995 Page 10

4.1 New Construction Energy Results

Total Annual Energy Use for New East-West Barracks

4000
3500
3000
DP total
2500
MBTU

2000 LE total

1500 HM total
1000
500
0
New York
Los Angeles

Washington

Minneapolis
St. Louis
City
Phoenix

Atlanta

Seattle

Denver
DC
Miami

Annual Electric Use for New East-West Barracks

2500

2000
DP electric
1500
MBTU

LE electric
1000
HM electric

500

0
New York
Los Angeles

Washington

Minneapolis
St. Louis
City
Phoenix

Atlanta

Seattle

Denver
DC
Miami
Double Pane Window Comparison August 1995 Page 11

Total Annual Energy Use for New North-South Barracks

4500
4000
3500
3000 DP total

2500
MBTU

LE total
2000
1500 HM total

1000
500
0
New York
Los Angeles

Washington

Minneapolis
St. Louis
City
Phoenix

Atlanta

Seattle

Denver
DC
Miami

Annual Electric Use for New North-South Barracks

3000

2500

2000 DP electric
MBTU

1500 LE electric

1000 HM electric

500

0
New York
Los Angeles

Washington

Minneapolis
St. Louis
City
Phoenix

Atlanta

Seattle

Denver
DC
Miami
Double Pane Window Comparison August 1995 Page 12

Total Annual Energy Use for New Regimental HQ

1000
900
800
700 DP total
600
MBTU

500 LE total
400
HM total
300
200
100
0
New York
Los Angeles

Washington

Minneapolis
St. Louis
City
Phoenix

Atlanta

Seattle

Denver
DC
Miami

Annual Electric Use for New Regimental HQ

600

500

400 DP electric
MBTU

300 LE electric

200 HM electric

100

0
New York
Los Angeles

Washington

Minneapolis
St. Louis
City
Phoenix

Atlanta

Seattle

Denver
DC
Miami
Double Pane Window Comparison August 1995 Page 13

Total Annual Energy Use for New Single Family Housing

120

100

80 DP total
MBTU

60 LE total

40 HM total

20

0
New York
Los Angeles

Washington

Minneapolis
St. Louis
City
Phoenix

Atlanta

Seattle

Denver
DC
Miami

Annual Electric Use for New Single Family Housing

70

60

50 DP electric
40
MBTU

LE electric
30
HM electric
20

10

0
New York
Los Angeles

Washington

Minneapolis
St. Louis
City
Phoenix

Atlanta

Seattle

Denver
DC
Miami
Double Pane Window Comparison August 1995 Page 14

4.2 Retrofit Buildings Energy Use Results

Total Annual Energy Use for Retrofit East-West Barracks

7000

6000

5000
DP total
4000
MBTU

LE total
3000
HM total
2000

1000

0
New York
Los Angeles

Washington

Minneapolis
St. Louis
City
Phoenix

Atlanta

Seattle

Denver
DC
Miami

Annual Electric Use for Retrofit East-West Barracks

3000

2500

2000 DP electric
MBTU

1500 LE electric

1000 HM electric

500

0
New York
Los Angeles

Washington

Minneapolis
St. Louis
City
Phoenix

Atlanta

Seattle

Denver
DC
Miami
Double Pane Window Comparison August 1995 Page 15

Total Annual Energy Use for Retrofit North-South Barracks

8000
7000
6000
DP total
5000
MBTU

4000 LE total

3000 HM total
2000
1000
0
New York
Los Angeles

Washington

Minneapolis
St. Louis
City
Phoenix

Atlanta

Seattle

Denver
DC
Miami

Annual Electric Use for Retrofit North-South Barracks

3000

2500

2000 DP electric
MBTU

1500 LE electric

1000 HM electric

500

0
New York
Los Angeles

Washington

Minneapolis
St. Louis
City
Phoenix

Atlanta

Seattle

Denver
DC
Miami
Double Pane Window Comparison August 1995 Page 16

Total Annual Energy Use for Retrofit Regimental HQ

1200

1000

800 DP total
MBTU

600 LE total

400 HM total

200

0
New York
Los Angeles

Washington

Minneapolis
St. Louis
City
Phoenix

Atlanta

Seattle

Denver
DC
Miami

Annual Electric Use for Retrofit Regimental HQ

600

500

400 DP electric
MBTU

300 LE electric

200 HM electric

100

0
New York
Los Angeles

Washington

Minneapolis
St. Louis
City
Phoenix

Atlanta

Seattle

Denver
DC
Miami
Double Pane Window Comparison August 1995 Page 17

Total Annual Energy Use for Retrofit Single Family Housing

140

120

100 DP total
80
MBTU

LE total
60
HM total
40

20

0
New York
Los Angeles

Washington

Minneapolis
St. Louis
City
Phoenix

Atlanta

Seattle

Denver
DC
Miami

Annual Electric Use for Retrofit Single Family Housing

70

60

50 DP electric
40
MBTU

LE electric
30
HM electric
20

10

0
New York
Los Angeles

Washington

Minneapolis
St. Louis
City
Phoenix

Atlanta

Seattle

Denver
DC
Miami
Double Pane Window Comparison August 1995 Page 18

5. Window Economic Comparisons

The life cycle savings from reduced energy use was determined for the low-e and Heat Mirror
windows in comparison to plain double pane windows. The amounts were calculated assuming a
constant annual energy savings and life periods of 5, 10, 15, and 20 years. Economic analysis
information was obtained from LCCID L92 (FY95). The 3.0% discount rate for energy studies
as determined by the Department of Energy (DOE) for fiscal year 1995 was used. The energy
prices used were the Department of Energy list prices for the industrial sector by census region
for fiscal year 1995. They were used to determine the annual savings (in 1994 dollars) according
to the equation

(Annual reduction in energy use)*(Price) = Annual Savings

The modified uniform present worth (UPW*) factors from October 1994 incorporate the constant
discount rate and the differential fuel escalation rates for the life of the item studied (Lawrie
1994), and also vary with census region. The total present worth of the energy savings provided
by each alternative was calculated by the equation

(Annual Savings)*(UPW*) = Present Worth of Savings

Recurring maintenance and repair, and operation and maintenance were assumed the same for all
options and were not considered. Replacement cost is not considered since the windows are
expected to last for the economic life of the building. Demand charges were not taken into
consideration.

Fuel Prices Used in Study (DOE FY 1995 Industrial Prices)

Census Region Locations Electricity Price Natural Gas Price
($/MBTU) ($/MBTU)
1 New York City, NY 19.25 4.83
2 Minneapolis, MN 13.41 3.98
St. Louis, MO
3 Atlanta, GA 15.09 3.93
Miami, FL
Washington, DC
4 Denver, CO 15.09 3.93
Los Angeles, CA
Phoenix, AZ
Seattle, WA

UPW* Factors Used in Study

Census Fuel Type UPW* for UPW* for UPW* for UPW* for
Region 5 years 10 years 15 years 20 years
1 Electricity 4.52 8.47 11.93 14.99
Natural Gas 4.88 9.49 13.96 18.27
2 Electricity 4.65 8.78 12.47 15.88
Natural Gas 4.90 9.53 14.02 18.30
3 Electricity 4.58 8.58 12.02 15.08
Natural Gas 4.92 9.60 14.17 18.58
4 Electricity 4.58 8.58 12.02 15.08
Natural Gas 4.92 9.60 14.17 18.58
Double Pane Window Comparison August 1995 Page 19

5.1 Energy Savings Comparisons for New Buildings

Economic Benefit of Low-E vs. Normal Double Pane Windows

in New East-West Barracks

$25,000
Present Worth of Energy Savings

$20,000
5 years

$15,000 10 years

$10,000 15 years

20 years
$5,000

$0
New York
Los Angeles

Washington

Minneapolis
St. Louis
City
Phoenix

Atlanta

Seattle

Denver
DC
Miami

Economic Benefit of Heat Mirror vs. Normal Double Pane

Windows in New East-West Barracks

$60,000
Present Worth of Energy Savings

$50,000
5 years
$40,000
10 years
$30,000
15 years
$20,000
20 years
$10,000

$0
New York
Los Angeles

Washington

Minneapolis
St. Louis
City
Phoenix

Atlanta

Seattle

Denver
DC
Miami
Double Pane Window Comparison August 1995 Page 20

Economic Benefit of Low-E vs. Normal Double Pane Windows

in New North-South Barracks

$40,000
Present Worth of Energy Savings

$35,000
$30,000 5 years

$25,000 10 years
$20,000
15 years
$15,000
$10,000 20 years

$5,000
$0
New York
Los Angeles

Washington

Minneapolis
St. Louis
City
Phoenix

Atlanta

Seattle

Denver
DC
Miami

Economic Benefit of Heat Mirror vs. Normal Double Pane

Windows in New North-South Barracks

$100,000
Present Worth of Energy Savings

$90,000
$80,000
5 years
$70,000
$60,000 10 years
$50,000
$40,000 15 years

$30,000
20 years
$20,000
$10,000
$0
New York
Los Angeles

Washington

Minneapolis
St. Louis
City
Phoenix

Atlanta

Seattle

Denver
DC
Miami
Double Pane Window Comparison August 1995 Page 21

Economic Benefit of Low-E vs. Normal Double Pane Windows

in New Regimental HQ

$4,500
Present Worth of Energy Savings

$4,000
$3,500 5 years
$3,000
10 years
$2,500
$2,000 15 years
$1,500
$1,000 20 years

$500
$0
New York
Los Angeles

Washington

Minneapolis
St. Louis
City
Phoenix

Atlanta

Seattle

Denver
DC
Miami

Economic Benefit of Heat Mirror vs. Normal Double Pane

Windows in New Regimental HQ

$12,000
Present Worth of Energy Savings

$10,000
5 years
$8,000
10 years
$6,000
15 years
$4,000
20 years
$2,000

$0
New York
Los Angeles

Washington

Minneapolis
St. Louis
City
Phoenix

Atlanta

Seattle

Denver
DC
Miami
Double Pane Window Comparison August 1995 Page 22

Economic Benefit of Low-E vs. Normal Double Pane Windows

in New Single Family Housing

$600
Present Worth of Energy Savings

$500
5 years
$400
10 years
$300
15 years
$200
20 years
$100

$0
New York
Los Angeles

Washington

Minneapolis
St. Louis
City
Phoenix

Atlanta

Seattle

Denver
DC
Miami

Economic Benefit of Heat Mirror vs. Normal Double Pane

Windows in New Single Family Housing

$1,200
Present Worth of Energy Savings

$1,000
5 years
$800
10 years
$600
15 years
$400
20 years
$200

$0
New York
Los Angeles

Washington

Minneapolis
St. Louis
City
Phoenix

Atlanta

Seattle

Denver
DC
Miami
Double Pane Window Comparison August 1995 Page 23

5.2 Comparison of Energy Savings for Retrofit Buildings

Economic Benefit of Low-E vs. Normal Double Pane Windows

in Retrofit East-West Barracks

$30,000
Present Worth of Energy Savings

$25,000
5 years
$20,000
10 years
$15,000
15 years
$10,000
20 years
$5,000

$0
New York
Los Angeles

Washington

Minneapolis
St. Louis
City
Phoenix

Atlanta

Seattle

Denver
DC
Miami

Economic Benefit of Heat Mirror vs. Normal Double Pane

Windows in Retrofit East-West Barracks

$50,000
Present Worth of Energy Savings

$45,000
$40,000
5 years
$35,000
$30,000 10 years
$25,000
$20,000 15 years

$15,000
20 years
$10,000
$5,000
$0
New York
Los Angeles

Washington

Minneapolis
St. Louis
City
Phoenix

Atlanta

Seattle

Denver
DC
Miami
Double Pane Window Comparison August 1995 Page 24

Economic Benefit of Low-E vs. Normal Double Pane Windows

in Retrofit North-South Barracks

$35,000
Present Worth of Energy Savings

$30,000
5 years
$25,000

$20,000 10 years

$15,000 15 years

$10,000 20 years
$5,000

$0
New York
Los Angeles

Washington

Minneapolis
St. Louis
City
Phoenix

Atlanta

Seattle

Denver
DC
Miami

Economic Benefit of Heat Mirror vs. Normal Double Pane

Windows in Retrofit North-South Barracks

$70,000
Present Worth of Energy Savings

$60,000
5 years
$50,000

$40,000 10 years

$30,000 15 years

$20,000 20 years
$10,000

$0
New York
Los Angeles

Washington

Minneapolis
St. Louis
City
Phoenix

Atlanta

Seattle

Denver
DC
Miami
Double Pane Window Comparison August 1995 Page 25

Economic Benefit of Low-E vs. Normal Double Pane Windows

in Retrofit Regimental HQ

$4,500
Present Worth of Energy Savings

$4,000
$3,500 5 years
$3,000
10 years
$2,500
$2,000 15 years
$1,500
$1,000 20 years

$500
$0
New York
Los Angeles

Washington

Minneapolis
St. Louis
City
Phoenix

Atlanta

Seattle

Denver
DC
Miami

Economic Benefit of Heat Mirror vs. Normal Double Pane

Windows in Retrofit Regimental HQ

$12,000
Present Worth of Energy Savings

$10,000
5 years
$8,000
10 years
$6,000
15 years
$4,000
20 years
$2,000

$0
New York
Los Angeles

Washington

Minneapolis
St. Louis
City
Phoenix

Atlanta

Seattle

Denver
DC
Miami
Double Pane Window Comparison August 1995 Page 26

Economic Benefit of Low-E vs. Normal Double Pane Windows

in Retrofit Single Family Housing

$600
Present Worth of Energy Savings

$500
5 years
$400
10 years
$300
15 years
$200
20 years
$100

$0
New York
Los Angeles

Washington

Minneapolis
St. Louis
City
Phoenix

Atlanta

Seattle

Denver
DC
Miami

Economic Benefit of Heat Mirror vs. Normal Double Pane

Windows in Retrofit Single Family Housing

$1,200
Present Worth of Energy Savings

$1,000
5 years
$800
10 years
$600
15 years
$400
20 years
$200

$0
New York
Los Angeles

Washington

Minneapolis
St. Louis
City
Phoenix

Atlanta

Seattle

Denver
DC
Miami
Double Pane Window Comparison August 1995 Page 27

5.3 Comparison of Energy Savings by Glazing Area and Weather Region

5 Year Discounted Energy Savings for Low-e vs. Normal

Double Pane Windows in New Buildings

$160.00
Present Worth of Energy Savings per

$140.00
$120.00
100 sq. ft. of Glazing

New E-W Barracks

$100.00 New N-S Barracks

$80.00
New Regimental HQ
$60.00
$40.00 New Sngl. Fam. Housing

$20.00
$0.00
5 6 7 8 9 10
Weather Region

5 Year Discounted Energy Savings for Low-E vs. Normal

Double Pane Windows in Retrofit Buildings

$120.00
Present Worth of Energy Savings per

$100.00
100 sq. ft. of Glazing

Retrofit E-W Barracks

$80.00
Retrofit N-S Barracks
$60.00
Retrofit Regimental HQ
$40.00
Retrofit Sngl. Fam. Housing
$20.00

$0.00
5 6 7 8 9 10
Weather Region
Double Pane Window Comparison August 1995 Page 28

5 Year Discounted Energy Savings for Heat Mirror vs. Normal

Double Pane Windows in New Buildings

$400.00
Present Worth of Energy Savings per

$350.00
$300.00
100 sq. ft. of Glazing

New E-W Barracks

$250.00 New N-S Barracks

$200.00
New Regimental HQ
$150.00
$100.00 New Sngl. Fam. Housing

$50.00
$0.00
5 6 7 8 9 10
Weather Region

5 Year Discounted Energy Savings for Heat Mirror vs. Normal

Double Pane Windows in Retrofit Buildings

$300.00
Present Worth of Energy Savings per

$250.00
100 sq. ft. of Glazing

Retrofit E-W Barracks

$200.00
Retrofit N-S Barracks
$150.00
Retrofit Regimental HQ
$100.00
Retrofit Sngl. Fam. Housing
$50.00

$0.00
5 6 7 8 9 10
Weather Region
Double Pane Window Comparison August 1995 Page 29

10 Year Discounted Energy Savings for Low-E vs. Normal

Double Pane Windows in New Buildings

$300.00
Present Worth of Energy Savings per 100

$250.00
New E-W Barracks
$200.00
sq. ft. of Glazing

New N-S Barracks

$150.00
New Regimental HQ
$100.00
New Sngl. Fam. Housing

$50.00

$0.00
5 6 7 8 9 10
Weather Region

10 Year Discounted Energy Savings for Low-E vs. Normal

Double Pane Windows in Retrofit Buildings

$250.00
Present Worth of Energy Savings per 100

$200.00
Retrofit E-W Barracks
sq. ft. of Glazing

$150.00 Retrofit N-S Barracks

Retrofit Regimental HQ
$100.00

Retrofit Sngl. Fam. Housing

$50.00

$0.00
5 6 7 8 9 10
Weather Region
Double Pane Window Comparison August 1995 Page 30

10 Year Discounted Energy Savings for Heat Mirror vs.

Normal Double Pane Windows in New Buildings

$800.00
Present Worth of Energy Savings per 100

$700.00

$600.00 New E-W Barracks

sq. ft. of Glazing

$500.00
New N-S Barracks
$400.00
New Regimental HQ
$300.00
New Sngl. Fam. Housing
$200.00

$100.00

$0.00
5 6 7 8 9 10
Weather Region

10 Year Discounted Energy Savings for Heat Mirror vs.

Normal Double Pane Windows in Retrofit Buildings

$600.00
Present Worth of Energy Savings per 100

$500.00
Retrofit E-W Barracks
$400.00
sq. ft. of Glazing

Retrofit N-S Barracks

$300.00
Retrofit Regimental HQ
$200.00
Retrofit Sngl. Fam. Housing

$100.00

$0.00
5 6 7 8 9 10
Weather Region
Double Pane Window Comparison August 1995 Page 31

6. Conclusions

Examination of the graphs of discounted energy savings per 100 square feet of glazing area in
section 5.3 shows some interesting trends. Apparent in all the graphs is that the north-south
oriented barracks benefits the most from more energy efficient windows. This is probably
caused by the predominance of glazing on the east and west sides of the building, which receive
the most sunlight at small polar angles of incidence.

The economic results of this study are summarized in the tables below. They show the average
discounted payback and the minimum discounted payback from fuel savings per 100 square feet
of glazing, sorted by weather region. The low-e windows seem to perform better in the colder
climates (regions 5-7) than the hotter climates (regions 8-10). In comparison, the Heat Mirror
windows seem to perform well in the hotter climates.

Present Worth of 5 Years of Energy Savings per 100 sq. ft. of Glazing
Low-E vs. Double Pane Heat Mirror vs. Double Pane
Weather Region Average Minimum Average Minimum
5 $99.52 $83.85 $172.36 $111.14
6 $72.83 $56.11 $130.35 $97.64
7 $71.55 $41.26 $128.18 $75.83
8 $55.77 $39.45 $174.96 $111.49
9 $31.66 $18.71 $155.86 $75.27
10 $58.71 $26.10 $211.25 $112.26

Present Worth of 10 Years of Energy Savings per 100 sq. ft. of Glazing
Low-E vs. Double Pane Heat Mirror vs. Double Pane
Weather Region Average Minimum Average Minimum
5 $192.13 $162.69 $331.96 $214.58
6 $139.95 $107.52 $249.40 $186.92
7 $137.47 $79.76 $245.34 $145.58
8 $106.32 $76.07 $330.01 $210.36
9 $59.73 $34.95 $291.81 $139.03
10 $110.33 $49.73 $396.05 $210.98

If the initial cost difference between double pane, double pane low-e, and double pane heat
mirror windows is known, the above tables may be used to make an educated design decision on
the engineering economy of the options, based on weather region and desired payback period.

For example, if an office building to be built in weather region 6 has a price difference of $40 per
100 square feet of glazing between ordinary double pane and low-e windows, and a price
difference of $80 between ordinary double pane and Heat Mirror windows. The form the above
table, the probable minimum life cycle savings over 5 years is calculated as follows:

Low-E $56.11 - $40.00 = $16.11 per 100 sq. ft. glazing

Heat Mirror $97.64 - $80.00 = $17.64 per 100 sq. ft. glazing

So in this example, the Heat Mirror windows would be a slightly better buy.

As a second example, the same prices apply to a building in region 9.

Double Pane Window Comparison August 1995 Page 32

Low-E $18.71 - $40.00 = -$21.29 per 100 sq. ft. glazing

Heat Mirror $75.27 - $80.00 = -$4.73 per 100 sq. ft. glazing

So the plain double pane windows would be the likely option if a near certain payback in 5 years
was desired. But if the payback period is allowed to be 10 years,

Low-E $34.95 - $40.00 = $5.05 per 100 sq. ft. glazing

Heat Mirror $139.03 - $80.00 = $59.03 per 100 sq. ft. glazing

A ten year payback period clearly favors the Heat Mirror windows in this case.

Although this study looked at many different options to try to characterize the economic
characteristics of double pane, double pane low-e, and double pane Heat Mirror windows, it is
still recommended to perform a full energy analysis on each building to obtain more accurate
results for each specific case encountered. Many variables, including building size, location,
orientation, HVAC systems and controls, internal loads, infiltration, and construction can affect
the annual energy performance of a building, and therefore the cost effectiveness of various
window systems.

7. References

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. 1992. WINDOW 4.1: program description. Berkeley, CA:
Windows and Daylighting Group, Building Technologies Program, Energy and Environment
Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory.

Lawrie, L. K. 1994. Life cycle cost in design (LCCID) economic analysis computer program
user's manual. Champaign, IL: Department of the Army Construction Engineering Research
Laboratory.

Petersen, S. R. 1993. Present worth factors for the life-cycle cost studies in the Department of
Defense (1994). Gaithersburg, MD: Computing and Applied Mathematics Laboratory, Office
of Economics, NISTIR-4942-1.

Southwall Technologies. 1988. Heat MirrorTM insulating glass brochure. Palo Alto, CA:
Southwall Technologies Inc.

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1994. Architectural and engineering instructions. Washington,

DC: Headquarters, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1995. Architectural and engineering instructions for family
housing. Washington, DC: Headquarters, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.