Applied Energy 266 (2020) 114776

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Optimizing the thermal performance of window frames through aerogel- T

enhancements
Jason Paulos1, Umberto Berardi1
Ryerson University, 350 Victoria street, Toronto, M5B 2K3, ON, Canada

HIGHLIGHTS

• The thermal transmittance of 48 commercially-available high-performance frames is investigated.

• Aluminium, fibreglass, PVC, and wood-composite window frames are compared and contrasted.
• Improvements of the frames by inserting aerogel granules in their cavities are investigated numerically.
• Filling the cavities with the aerogel would reduce the thermal transmittance by up to 29%.
• Window frames with a thermal transmittance lower than 0.5 W/m K are proposed.
2

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Windows are often considered the weakest point in building envelopes, especially in buildings with high
Aerogel window-to-wall ratios, where the windows exhibit much higher thermal transmittance than the opaque portion
Aerogel-enhanced material of the walls. The poor thermal performance of windows can largely be attributed to their frames which have
Window frames higher thermal transmittance than the glazing portions. This study investigates the thermal transmittance of 48
Finite element method
commercially-available high-performance aluminium, fibreglass, polyvinylchloride (PVC) and wood-composite
Thermal transmittance
window frames. Then, it focuses on the possible improvements of each frame by inserting aerogel in the frame
cavities. Several modifications of the frame cavities are assessed through two-dimensional numerical modelling
done according to the ISO 10077-2 standard. This research concludes that filling existing empty cavities of
window frames with aerogel granules could reduce the frame thermal transmittance by 4–29% depending on the
frame type. Moreover, the complete filling of the cavities with aerogel can further reduce the thermal trans-
mittance by 35%. Finally, for each investigated material, window frames with a thermal transmittance as low as
0.5 W/m2 K are proposed.

1. Introduction
Buildings globally account for 32% of total global final energy use,
51% of global electricity consumption, and 33% of black carbon
emissions [1]. Moreover, in many developed countries, buildings are
responsible for consuming more than 40% of the total energy [1].
Consequently, in the context of energy saving, the building sector has
attracted increasing attention globally.
The increasing demand for energy-saving within the building sector
requires to find new solutions for improving the thermal properties of
the building envelope. Not surprisingly, recent policies and codes often
prescribe highly insulated envelope, which depending on the climate,
should have a thermal transmittance of walls and roofs ranging from
0.15 W/m2 K to 0.30 W/m2 K [2]. In this scenario, fenestration often
represents the weak element of the building envelope, as typical win-
dows have a thermal transmittance (U-value) ranging from 2 W/m2 K to
4.5 W/m2 K; even in high-performance windows, the U-value typically
ranges from 0.8 W/m2 K to 1.5 W/m2 K [3], a value much higher than
the U-value of the opaque portion of the wall.
It is estimated that windows alone contribute from 25% to 40% of
the heat loss through a typical building assembly [4,5]. With modern
buildings having higher window-to-wall ratios, the high U-values of
windows exacerbate heat losses and poor building energy perfor-
mances. Accordingly implementing highly insulated windows is critical
for reducing building energy consumption [6], while guaranteeing
lighting and visual comfort [7], balancing the several requirements of
window systems [8].
One of the most critical elements in windows is its frame. Over the

E-mail address: uberardi@ryerson.ca (U. Berardi).

1
Address: Ryerson University, 350 Victoria street, Toronto, ON, Canada.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114776
Received 18 November 2019; Received in revised form 3 February 2020; Accepted 27 February 2020
Available online 19 March 2020
0306-2619/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Paulos and U. Berardi
Nomenclature
λ thermal conductivity
CEN European Committee for Standardization
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
EPDM Ethylene Propylene Diene Terpolymer
EPS Expanded Polystyrene Insulation
FEM Finite Element Method
last few decades, the design of window frames has been subject to
significant innovations, ranging from new materials to new designs.
Nowadays, wood frames are typically used in residential constructions
and are known to have high strength and reasonably good thermal
performance. However, wood frames are vulnerable to cracking,
warping and moisture ingress, so modern frames have often looked at
other materials. Aluminium frames have become common thanks to the
low cost of the row material, its lightness and strength. Aluminium
window frames dominate the window market in high-rise buildings
where stronger frames are required. However, the aluminium is highly
conductive, and it has the poorest thermal performance among com-
monly used framing materials.
Another alternative is represented by polymer frames, generally
made from extruded vinyl, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), un-plasticized
polyvinyl chloride (uPVC) or glass fibre reinforced polyester (GFRP).
PVC frames are hollow and contain several subdivided air-filled cav-
ities. However, they have limitations when it comes to size and weights
as they are not inherently strong and require steel reinforcement within
the frame cavity. GFRP has been shown to be eight times stronger than
PVC [5], to be less prominent to absorb moisture, to corrode or to suffer
UV degradation. However, the thermal conductivity of GFRP is almost
double that of wood and PVC. Consequently, a perfect material for
frames does not exist and often the most high-performance frames have
explored the option of combined materials, such as vinyl-clad alumi-
nium or aluminium-clad wood.
The thermal transmittance of window frames depends on many
factors that influence their performance, including the geometries,
cavity spacing, and surface emissivity [9,10]. Numerous studies have
focused on determining the impact of individual modifications on
window frames, but limited studies have combined several modifica-
tions together [11,12]. In this study, the thermal transmittance of 48
commercially-available high-performance aluminium, fibreglass, PVC
and wood-composite window frames are investigated, together with the
possibilities for their improvement by inserting aerogel-enhanced pro-
ducts.
The next section presents a literature review of the topic of this
paper. Then, section 3 presents the selected frames together with the
methodology adopted for the two-dimensional simulations according to
the ISO 10077-2 standard. Section 4 reports the results, which are then
discussed in Section 5. Final remarks are reported in Section 6.
2. Literature review
2.1. Frame performance measures
One of the first comprehensive studies about window frames dates
back to 1992 when Beck and Arasteh explored various commercially-
available vinyl frames. Using an infrared imaging radiometer and 2D
FEM simulations, they found that frames with the lowest U-value (U
frame-value or Uf-value) increase the conductive heat transfer path
length by minimizing the cross-sectional area in the direction of heat
transfer [13]. This result was achieved by increasing the height of the
frame profiles, although high frames usually result in large hollow
cavities, and enhance more convective heat transfer within the frame
cavities. The study by Beck and Arasteh found that this problem could
2
Applied Energy 266 (2020) 114776
IGU Insulated Glazing Unit
NFRC National Fenestration Rating Council
PHI Passive House Institute
PUR Rigid Polyurethane Foam
PVC Polyvinyl chloride
Uf-value Frame U-value
XPS Extruded Polystyrene Insulation
be significantly mitigated by implementing some features within the
cavity itself, such as inserting either thin vinyl webbings perpendicular
to the direction of the heat flow or polyurethane (PU) spray foam in-
sulation [13]. The authors noted that although adding PU foam in-
sulation within the cavity was an effective measure to improve the
frame performance, it prevented frames from being recyclable and af-
fected the weep hole punching operation during the frame fabrication
[13].
Fang et al. also examined several thermal performance measures on
a window frame through Finite Element Modelling (FEM) simulations.
The authors investigated six frames with different variables: rebate
height, frame width, thickness and material, insulation in the frame
cavities, and increasing frame design complexity, as shown in Fig. 1.
The study found that increasing the rebate height, from 10 mm to
24 mm of a wood frame, which measured 50 × 40 mm with poly-
urethane foam insulation within the cavities, decreased the Uf-value
from 1.50 W/m2 K to 1.14 W/m2 K. With a similar wood frame, in-
creasing the width from 40 mm to 60 mm, with a rebate height of
16 mm, the Uf-value decreased from 1.80 W/m2 K to 1.15 W/m2 K.
Decreasing the thickness of an aluminium frame without a thermal
break from 3 mm to 0.5 mm reduced the Uf-value from 2.70 W/m2 K to
0.49 W/m2 K. The study also explored the addition of polyurethane,
urethane, glass wool, and vermiculite flake insulation within the six
cavities of a polypropylene frame. Polyurethane foam (λ = 0.024 W/
m K) filled cavities had the lowest Uf-value of 1.45 W/m2 K, while
cavity with vermiculite flakes (λ = 0.068 W/m K) had the highest Uf-
value of 2.0 W/m2 K [14].
A study led by Asdrubali et al. focused on the effect of the geometric
and surface emissivity of frame cavities on the overall frame thermal
performance [15]. CFD simulations using the ISO 10077-2 standard
procedures were conducted on a thermally broken aluminium frame.
The frame was also simulated with five additional EPDM gaskets, four
placed between the glazing and the frame and one placed within the
central cavity. The study found that the additional gaskets reduced the
thermal conductivities of the air gaps which in turn decreased the Uf-
value from 2.54 W/m2 K to 2.26 W/m2 K [15]. This model was then
validated with a guarded hot box experiment, finding that the gaskets
reduced the Uf-value from 2.36 W/m2 K to 2.195 W/m2 K. Additional
simulations were also conducted modelling the frame cavities with a
0.06 emissivity coating: in this last case, the Uf-value to decrease from
2.54 W/m2 K to 2.27 W/m2 K. Combining the five additional gaskets
y
H
x
W
Fig. 1. Cross-section of a frame illustrating definitions.
J. Paulos and U. Berardi
with the low emissivity coating further decreased the Uf-value to
2.07 W/m2 K [15].
Bossche et al. studied several strategies for improving window
frames [16]. Numerical analyses were carried out on Belgian double-
glazed aluminium, vinyl, and wood frames using FEM simulations. The
study found that the most effective measures for the aluminium frame
were the addition of insulation between the glazing and frame, the
division of the thermal break forming cavities of 6 mm deep, and the
addition of insulation (λ = 0.035 W/m K) as a the thermal break,
which reduced the Uf-value by 11%, 13% and 16% respectively [16].
The least effective measures were dividing the central gasket into
smaller cavities, extending the thermal break from 34 mm to 55 mm
and changing the polyamide thermal break conductivity from 0.30 W/
m K to 0.17 W/m K, which reduced the Uf-value by less than 5%. The
combination of all previous measures decreased the Uf-value from
2.78 W/m2 K to 1.47 W/m2 K, a 56% reduction in the thermal trans-
mittance of the frame [16]. The study also analysed a steel-reinforced
vinyl frame and found that deepening the frame from 90 mm to
120 mm and adding insulation in the central cavities reduced the Uf-
value from 1.503 W/m2 K to 1.067 W/m2 K. For wood frames, in-
creasing the width of the frame from 68 mm to 108 mm and replacing
the solid hardwood profile with a composite, layered profile with
polyurethane insulation reduced the Uf-value from 1.640 W/m2 K to
0.584 W/m2 K [16].
Lechowska et al. explored different approaches to improve the
thermal performance of a window frame without changing the frame
material and shape [17]. Using a triple-glazed operable PVC frame,
their study focused on placing polyurethane foam insulation and low-
emissivity coatings within the internal cavities. Five numerical models
were simulated according to the ISO 10077-2 [18], and three models
were tested in a guarded hot box according to the ISO 8990 standard
[19]. Initial simulations concluded that filling the frame with two and
four insulation insertions reduced the Uf-value of the baseline model
without insulation (1.098 W/m2 K) up to 1.034 W/m2 K (5% reduction)
and 0.998 W/m2 K (9% reduction) respectively [17]. These simulations
were then validated through a guarded hot box experiment with a
maximum difference in test results no greater than 3.3%. A fourth
model was simulated with polyurethane foam insulation placed in
every cavity with the result of lowering the Uf-value to 0.804 W/m2 K
(i.e. 27% reduction). A final model simulated the PVC frame with a low
emissivity coating of 0.06 applied to the surfaces within the cavities;
this improvement reduced the Uf-value to 0.792 W/m2 K [17].
Gustavsen et al. conducted a market review of the best-performing
window frames commonly found in Europe [20]. Overall, 56 frames
with different geometries, materials, and styles were presented. The Uf-
value ranged from 0.63 W/m2 K to 1.14 to W/m2 K. Materials used for
the high-performing window frames included wood, wood composites
with aluminium, PVC and aluminium thermally broken frames. The
most common features inserted within the frame cavity were highly
thermal insulating materials, including rigid polyurethane (PUR),
polyethylene (PE) and extruded polystyrene (XPS).
2.2. Heat transfer modelling
Several standards define the calculation, experimental and numer-
ical simulation procedures to determine the U-value of windows and
their components. These include the ISO 15099 Thermal performance of
windows, doors and shading devices – Detailed calculations [21] and the
ISO 10077‐2 Thermal performance of windows, doors and shutters – Cal-
culation of thermal transmittance – Part 2: Numerical method for frames
[18]. In North America, other standards include the NFRC 100 Proce-
dure for Determining Fenestration Product U‐factors [22] and the CSA-
A440 North American Fenestration Standard / Specification for windows,
doors, and skylights [23]. All these standards are intended for being used
within computer software but they use different assumption in the
modelling. For example, the interior film coefficient greatly varies
3
Applied Energy 266 (2020) 114776
between the NFRC and the ISO standards. Beyond different boundary
conditions (exterior temperature equals to −18 °C in the NFRC versus
0 °C in the ISO 10077), the standards also differ on how the insulated
glazing units (IGUs) are modelled: the NFRC 100 simulates the actual
IGU and the real spacer within the frame, whereas the ISO 10077-2
simulates a calibration panel with thermal conductivity of 0.035 W/m K
in lieu of the IGU and the spacer.
There are several uncertainties surrounding the accuracy of dif-
ferent methodologies with respect to determining the thermal trans-
mittance of window frames. A study conducted by Gustavsen et al. [24]
compared Uf-value results between FEM and CFD simulations on a
simple square-shaped PVC, and a thermally broken aluminium extru-
sion with one air cavity. Simulations were modelled on the individual
vertical and horizontal sections of the extrusion with a separated si-
mulation conducted on a four-sided extrusion. The study found that the
FEM results for the vertical sections of the extrusion compared well to
the CFD results, with a difference ranging between 2% and 5% [24].
However, a larger discrepancy was found with horizontal sections, as
FEM models suggested 8% to 11% higher results than CFD models.
Finally, the authors concluded that FEM simulations can be used with
good accuracy when calculating Uf-value [24].
A subsequent study by Gustavsen et al. compared the simulation
outputs between FEM and CFD on two PVC and aluminium horizontal
frames [25]. The frames were modelled with six configurations each;
two configurations involving CFD and four configurations involving
FEM. The ISO 15099 procedures were used to model the boundary
conditions, and for the radiation and natural convention in the air
cavities for the FEM simulations. The study found that the FEM results
compared reasonably well with the CFD simulations with a maximum
difference of 13% between the four frames and six configurations [25].
Using a standard modelling configuration of CFD with fluid flow and a
FEM with a cavity separation yielded a maximum difference of 8.5%.
The accuracy was found to decrease with high-performing frames with
complex geometries [25].
Gustavsen et al. also compared FEM and CFD thermal transmittance
results on five high-performing and complex frames: three wood
frames, one aluminium frame, and one PVC frame. Numerical simula-
tions were conducted on the head, sill, and jamb of each frame in ac-
cordance with the ISO 10077-2. The study found that all head and sill
FEM results had slightly higher Uf-value compared to CFD, having a
difference ranging from 0.1% to 10.4% [26]. However, FEM results for
jambs were significantly higher than that of CFD, with a variance be-
tween 7.9% and 23.6%. This discrepancy between the FEM and CFD
results was lower for the frames with higher Uf value values. The au-
thors noted that the large discrepancy for jambs was due to the sim-
plified 2D equations for radiation and convection heat transfer in the
FEM modelling [26]. A guarded hot box apparatus was then used to
determine the total window thermal transmittance for all the frames.
The study found that CFD simulations best aligned with hot box mea-
surements, but FEM had conservative values, differing from 5% to 11%
to hot-box measurements [26].
Gustaven et al. also reviewed the calculation procedures between
the ISO 15099 and 10077-2 for determining the frame thermal trans-
mittance: this review found that these standards are really similar and
they differ only in the heat transfer calculations through air cavities
[27]. The authors concluded that while the ISO 15099 is considered to
take into account be 3D conduction and radiation, the ISO 10077-2
method underestimates radiation and convection and overestimates
conduction.
Baldinelli and Bianchi analysed the total window thermal trans-
mittance measurement differences between FEMs, CFDs and guarded
hot box experiments on a double-glazed solid wood and thermally-
broken aluminium frame [10]. The study found that the simple solid
wood frame had the lowest discrepancy between the FEMs, CFDs, and
hot box measurements. Aluminium had the highest discrepancy be-
tween all three testing methods, with FEM and CFD calculations
J. Paulos and U. Berardi
differing by 10% and CFD and hot box measurements differing by 14%
[10]. A study conducted by RDH Building Engineering compared the
thermal transmittance of several double- and triple-glazed vinyl and
fibreglass frames using both the NFRC 100 and ISO 10077-2 calculation
methods [28]. This study found some differences between the two
standards, with NFRC Uf-values being from 5% lower to 24% higher
compared to ISO values [28]. This study concluded that each standard
has strengths and weaknesses, however, the FEM numerical approach is
generally reliable.
2.3. Aerogel
Aerogel is known to be one of the lightest materials available in the
market as a result of its open-pore microstructure. Pores can occupy
between 85% and 99.9% of total aerogel volume with a resulting bulk
density between 70 kg/m3 and 150 kg/m3. This microstructure gives
aerogel a high compression strength of 300 kPa and a tensile strength as
low as 16 kPa, making it a very brittle material. This highly porous
microstructure has a low solid skeleton conductivity and small pore
sizes, less than the mean free path of air that reduces heat transfer
through gaseous convection and conductivity. Aerogels achieve a low
thermal conductivity as a result of its microstructure, often described as
“beads on a string” or “pearls on a necklace” [29]. Aerogels are con-
sidered to be non-flammable and non-reactive [30]. The thermal con-
ductivity around 0.01–0.02 W/m K has suggested the use of aerogels
within glazing cavities, with a reduction in the heat loss as high as 60%
compared to conventional IGUs [31,32].
Currently, commercially-available aerogel products have a mean
thermal conductivity around 0.015 W/m K [33], although several stu-
dies have tried to enhance further the performance of aerogel products.
Neugebauer et al. lowered the thermal conductivity of granular aerogel
through compaction and reached a thermal conductivity of 0.013 W/
m K when the granules were compressed by 59% [34]. Granule particle
sizes also influence the thermal conductivity. Gao et al. found that
particles larger than 3 mm had a thermal conductivity of 0.021 W/m K,
whereas particles smaller than 0.5 mm had a 20% lower thermal con-
ductivity [31].
Silica aerogel is naturally hydrophilic as a result of the silanol polar
groups that has a high affinity for water. However, aerogel is typically
treated to make the pore surface hydrophobic. This reduces the risk of
aerogel being damaged by the water surface tension [35,36].
In synthesis, aerogel is considered to be one of the highest per-
forming insulating materials, as shown by comparing its property with
that of other common materials (Table 1).
The thermal properties of aerogel are known to be stable over a long
period of time. Ihara et al. focused on a study that exposed aerogel to
different moisture fluctuation cycles and found that moisture has an
overall negligible impact on aerogel granules [35].
Several recent studies have investigated the possibility of introdu-
cing aerogel within the glass cavities and have monitored real perfor-
mance over long periods of time with negligible reductions. For ex-
ample, Berardi presented the development of a monolithic aerogel
glazed window [37] and investigated the benefits of these windows in a
building energy retrofit project [38]. Similarly, researchers from the
University of Perugia (Italy) have presented multiple characterization
Table 1
Thermal conductivities of traditional and advanced insulation materials.
Material Thermal Conductivity (W/m K)
Mineral wool 0.034–0.045
Glass wool 0.031–0.043
Expanded polystyrene (EPS) 0.029–0.055
Extruded polystyrene (XPS) 0.029–0.055
Polyurethane foam (PUR) 0.020–0.029
Silica aerogel 0.012–0.020
4
Applied Energy 266 (2020) 114776
studies regarding glazing systems with silica aerogel, both involving
laboratory development [39] and in-field experimental analysis
[40,41], analyzing the thermal, energy, lighting, and acoustic perfor-
mance of these systems [42,43].
Unfortunately, no study has considered the thermal enhancement of
window frames with aerogel granules. This research aims to study the
impact of placing granular aerogel within the internal cavities of high-
performing window frames.
3. Methodology
3.1. Investigated window frames
In this research, simulations were conducted on a variety of con-
figurations and framing materials. All the selected frames are manu-
factured within North America and Europe and are designed for cold
and temperate climates. Frames with a thermal transmittance lower
than 1.60 W/m2 K were selected to ensure that the investigated frames
were already high performing, while the impact of their enhancement
with aerogel could be fully observed. All frames were tripled glazed and
contained either EPS, XPS or polyurethane foam insulation within the
central air cavities. Figs. 2 and 3 illustrate some of the selected frame
profiles.
Ten thermally broken aluminium frames were analysed. All frames
had an insulating rebate bar placed underneath the IGU and used
polyamide as a thermal break. The thermal transmittance ranges of the
aluminium frames varied from 0.64 W/m2 K to 1.15 W/m2 K.
All 18 fibreglass frames were tripled glazed and contained either
EPS or polyisocyanurate rigid foam insulation within one or multiple
cavities. Frame profiles had an average wall thickness of 2.3 mm with a
minimum glass content of 60%. The thermal transmittance of the fi-
breglass frames varied from 0.82 W/m2 K to 1.60 W/m2 K.
PVC frames have several chambers that contained different amounts
of EPS insulation within the cavities. A majority of these frames were
either PHI or PHIUS certified. The simulated thermal transmittance
range of the PVC frames varies from 0.71 W/m2 K to 0.88 W/m2 K.
Ten wood composite frames made from spruce and having an ex-
ternal aluminium cladding were selected. The frames were designed
either for triple or quadruple glazed and contained EPS, PUR or XPS
insulation within the frame. All wood frames had a low thermal
transmittance ranging from 0.60 to 0.93 W/m2 K.
3.2. Numerical methodology
Two-dimensional heat transfer analysis of the frames was performed
using the software THERM version 7.6. THERM is a common software
used to solve two-dimensional steady-state conduction, convection, and
radiation heat transfer [44]. The software THERM was developed by
the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory and adopts a 2D heat
transfer FEM approach [44]. Two-dimensional simulations are con-
sidered an efficient and accurate method to obtain results compared to
CFD simulations and hot box testing [45]. In fact, a CFD model can take
approximately 500 times longer than performing two-dimensional
conduction run in THERM. This approach allows testing several design
iterations that may not be noticeable in lengthy and expensive physical
laboratory experiments. The software generates automatically a
meshing algorithm on the modelled cross-section, using the Quadtree
method, to calculate the thermal transmittance and surface tempera-
tures in each mesh quadrant. An error estimator within the software can
determine the percentage error energy norm, related to the gradient of
heat flux, and refine the mesh based on the error level that can be
controlled by the user. THERM has several advantages as a tool to solve
complex heat transfer problems, and in fact, it is the software adopted
in several of the studies cited in Section 2.1.
J. Paulos and U. Berardi
aluminium fibreglass
AL-01 FG-04
AL-06 FG-06
AL-10 FG-09
Fig. 2. Pictures of some of the frames investigated in this paper. Codes refer to the design as reported in Tables 4–7.
3.3. Material properties and boundary conditions
The material properties used in the numerical simulations, in-
cluding the thermal conductivity and the emissivity, are listed in
Table 2. Values were obtained by manufacturer technical specifications
or according to the predetermined inputs indicated in the ISO 10077-2
standard [18].
Table 3 reports the boundary conditions and the associated surface
resistances used in the simulations as defined by the ISO 10077-2. Fa-
cing surfaces, edges and junctions have reduced radiation and con-
vection heat transfer which leads to increased surface resistance. These
surfaces have been defined as internal reduced radiation boundaries
and are determined based on segment dimensions that are less than
30 mm. The cutting plane of the bottom of the frame to the adjacent
wall assembly and the top of the calibration panel were considered
adiabatic boundaries.
3.4. Frame modification with aerogel
The frame specimens and their cross-sectional components were
modified by placing aerogel within the cavities for each frame type, as
shown for example in Fig. 4. The first simulated case modelled the
frames as per manufacturer drawings and was used to compare results
5
Applied Energy 266 (2020) 114776
PVC wood-composite
PVC-02 WD-04
PVC-06 WD-06
PVC-10 WD-10
for the other cases. The second case simulated the existing insulation
with EPS (λ = 0.035 W/m K), PUR (λ = 0.024 W/m K), and aerogel
(λ = 0.012 W/m K). Results served to compare the impact of aerogel
with other common insulation. A third case modelled the insulation
with the cavities completely filled by the aerogel. Additional cases were
modelled for the aluminium and the PVC frames as they contain several
cavities that were filled with the aerogel granules progressively.
3.5. Model implementation
Frames were modelled following the procedures outlined in the
routine “Calculating fenestration product performance” available in
WINDOW 7 and THERM 6 [46]. According to this methodology, the
glazing portion was substituted with a calibration insulation panel
material that extends 190 mm above the frame sightline. The calibra-
tion panel eliminates any thermal bridging effects caused by the spacer
and glass. Frame accessories, such as locks, setting blocks, corner keys,
non-continuous hardware and weep holes were not modelled.
Some frames were also modelled with an IGU in order to evaluate
the impact on the glazing part over the total window thermal trans-
mittance. The IGU was comprised of 4 mm thick glass with cavities
containing a gas fill of 90% argon and 10% air. The space between the
glass panes varied by 11–16 mm and was determined based on the
J. Paulos and U. Berardi Applied Energy 266 (2020) 114776

aluminium frames
PVC frames
fibreglass frames
wood-composite frames

Fig. 3. Some frame profiles of aluminium, fibreglass, PVC, and wood-composite frames.

frame dimensions. The centre of glazing U-value ranged from 0.94 to foam insert and bf is the projected length of the frame section. The
1.09 W/m2 K and was calculated using WINDOW [44]. A high-per- thermal transmittance of the overall fenestration product was calcu-
forming warm edge Swissspacer was implemented. The spacer was lated as [47]:
10 mm high and contained a stainless steel backing foil, a primary
polyurethane seal and a silicone secondary seal. The thermal trans- Ugv A gv + Uf Af + l
UT =
mittance of the simulated frames was calculated as [18]: AT (2)

L p2D U 'p b p where UT and UGV are the thermal transmittance of the total window
Uf = and projected vision glass respectively, AT, Agv and Af represent the
bf (1)
total, projected vision glass and frame area respectively, lψ and ψ are
where UF denotes the thermal transmittance of the frame, Lp2D is the the thermal linear transmittance coefficients between the glazing and
thermal coupling coefficient, U′p is the thermal transmittance of the the frame.
foam insert that replaces the glazing component, bp is the length of the

6
J. Paulos and U. Berardi Applied Energy 266 (2020) 114776

Table 2 4. Results
Thermal conductivity of materials in simulated frame sections.
Group Material Thermal Conductivity Emissivity This section discusses the simulation results for aluminum, fi-
(W/m K) breglass, PVC and wood-composite frames. While it could not be “evi-
dent” in the original submission, the first step of this study was the
Frame Aluminium (Si alloys) 160 0.3
validation of the adopted numerical approach. Tables 4 (aluminum), 5
Fibreglass (UP-resin)a 0.300 0.9
PVC, rigid 0.170 0.9
(fibreglass), 6 (PVC) and 7 (wood) report in the fifth column (case 1:
Softwood 0.110–0.130 0.9 original frame), the values of the manufacture declared data (“Mfr.
Steel 50 0.8 declared”) and those of the simulated one, as obtained in the present
Thermal break, Elastomeric foam, flexiblea 0.030 0.9 study. These columns show the validation of the adopted numerical
sealants & EPDM 0.250 0.9 approach. In fact, these columns consistently show extremely small
weather Polyamide (nylon)a 0.170–0.250 0.9 differences of the numerical simulated results always below 0.05 W/
stripping PVC, flexible (PVC-P) 40% 0.140 0.9
m K (and often as small as 0.01 W/m K). As such, there was typically
softener
Silicone, pure 0.350 0.9 only a 1% to 3% maximum difference between the manufacture results
a
and the numerical ones. The small difference between the experimental
Insulation Aerogel 0.012 0.9
Expanded Polystyrene 0.035 0.9
results as declared by the manufacture and the numerical results of the
Extruded Polystyrenea 0.029 0.9 FEM modelling done according to the ISO10077, confirms the full va-
Polyisocyanurate 0.024 0.9 lidity of the adopted methodology and the validity of the simulations.
PU (Polyurethane), rigid 0.024 0.9

Glass & Spacer Argonb 0.029 0.9

Calibration Panel 0.035 0.9 4.1. Aluminum frames
Glass 1.000 0.9
Polyurethanea 0.025 0.9 Table 4 shows the changes in thermal transmittance for the alu-
Stainless Steel Barab 0.190 0.9
minum frames with different insulation types and the several iterations
a of aerogel enhancements. Results show that replacing PUR with aerogel
Obtained by manufacturer/passive house report.
b
Equivalent thermal conductivity. can decrease the Uf-value by 4% to 22%. Aerogel is advantageous for
the frames higher than 100 mm, such as AL-04, AL-05, AL-09, and AL-
10. Those frames that showed a slight improvement in their thermal
Table 3
Simulation boundary conditions and associated surface resistance [18]. performance when the aerogel replaced the PUR (AL-01, AL-02 and AL-
07), had the slimmest cavities and contained the least amount of in-
Boundary Temperature (°C) Surface resistance (m2 C/W)
sulation. The frames with cavities completely filled with aerogel re-
Adiabatic – infinity sulted in a decrease of the Uf-value from 0.1% to 13%. The frames
External 0 0.04 larger or higher than 115 mm exhibited the greatest improvement as
Internal 20 0.13 larger heights can accommodate more additional insulation. In the case
Internal reduced radiation 20 0.20 of AL-04, the thermal breaks with hollow cavities were filled with

Case One Case Two Case Three Case Four

Fig. 4. Example of an aluminium (above) and PVC (below) frame case study with the iterations considered to improve its performance by adding aerogel in several
cavities: areas highlighted in teal represent aerogel and grey areas represent unventilated air cavities.

7
J. Paulos and U. Berardi
Table 4
Aluminium frame simulation results.
aerogel, which resulted in an additional 2–11% reduction in Uf-value
for both fixed and operable frame configurations. Overall, the alu-
minum frames decreased their original Uf-value between 5–35% for
fixed frames, and 18–34% for operable frames. The profiles with the
lowest Uf-value among all the implemented cases were AL-09 (0.46 W/
m2 K) and AL-06 (0.52 W/m2 K).
8
Applied Energy 266 (2020) 114776
4.2. Fibreglass frames
Table 5 compares the impact of different types of insulations and
aerogel iterations for the fiberglass frames. Replacing the PUR with
aerogel decreased the Uf-value from 2% to 9% for both fixed and op-
erable frames. Similarly to aluminum frames, the profiles that improved
J. Paulos and U. Berardi Applied Energy 266 (2020) 114776

Table 5
Fibreglass frame simulation results.

(continued on next page)

9
J. Paulos and U. Berardi
Table 5 (continued)
the most were those with the largest frame and cavity heights, i.e. the
frames FG-03, FG-08 and FG-15. Although adding insulation to profiles
shorter than 50 mm was advantageous, the improvement with aerogel
compared to common types of insulation was negligible for these
smaller frames. The FG-03 frame shows that completely filling the
cavity can reduce the Uf-value between 2% and 11%. The greatest
improvements were obtained in the tallest (83 mm) and slimmest
profiles (40 mm), e.g. FG-08 and FG-14 respectively. The profiles with
the lowest Uf-value for fixed frames were FG-08 (0.66 W/m2 K) and FG-
06 (0.80 W/m2 K).
4.3. PVC frames
Table 6 shows the changes in thermal transmittance for PVC frames.
In these cases, the insulation does not decrease the Uf-value compared
to aluminum and fibreglass frames, due to the cavities being separated
10
Applied Energy 266 (2020) 114776
by vinyl webbings. Replacing the PUR with aerogel reduced the U-value
by 5–8% for operable frames. Those frames having a high of 72 mm had
a comparable U-value to the frames higher than 110 mm, despite these
last frames having more insulation. When all the cavities containing
insulation were completely filled with aerogel, the Uf-value reduced by
9–20% for fixed frames and by 12–18% for operable frames. The frames
that benefitted the most from this change were those which had irre-
gular insulation geometries, such as PVC-01 and PVC-06. Completely
filling each cavity within the frame, excluding the rebate cavity, was
not as effective, as it only decreased the Uf-value by 2–6% from cases of
filling some cavities only. However, introducing the aerogel in all the
cavities can decrease the frame Uf-value between 23% and 32%. The
profiles that demonstrated the lowest Uf-value were PVC-01 (0.51 W/
m2 K) for fixed frames and PVC-04 (0.60 W/m2 K) for operable ones.
J. Paulos and U. Berardi
Table 6
PVC frame simulation results.
4.4. Wood frames
Several simulations were then conducted on distinctive wood-
composite frames that contained insulation layers as thermal breaks
between layers of solid wood. Table 7 illustrates that replacing the PUR
with aerogel can decrease the Uf-value for both fixed and operable
frame by 4–29%. The frames that exhibited the greatest benefits from
11
Applied Energy 266 (2020) 114776
PU to aerogel were WD-09 and WD-10, which had continuous insula-
tion placed on the exterior side of the frame. Contrarily to aluminum
and fibreglass frames, in wood frames, the height did not seem to affect
significantly the thermal transmittance. This can be observed with
frame WD-05, which has the slimmest profile out of all wood frames
(53 mm) and it has a comparable Uf-value to those frames as tall as
137 mm. The profiles that showed the lowest Uf-value after their
J. Paulos and U. Berardi Applied Energy 266 (2020) 114776

Table 7
Wood frame simulation results.

12
J. Paulos and U. Berardi Applied Energy 266 (2020) 114776

Table 8
Total window U-value simulation results.

13
J. Paulos and U. Berardi
enhancement with aerogel were WD-09 (0.44 W/m2 K) for fixed frames
and WD-10 (0.51 W/m2 K) for the operable frames.
4.5. Impact of the aerogel on total window thermal transmittance
Table 8 displays the results of some selected frames that were
modelled with a triple-glazed IGU in order to evaluate the effect of the
different aerogel iterations on the total window performance. All the
assessments were done assuming a window size of 1.48 m by 1.23 m.
Simulations for the aluminum frame AL-09 and AL-10 show that re-
placing the existing insulation with aerogel had the greatest benefit in
reducing the U-value by 7%. The proceeding cases marginally reduced
the U-value by 3% despite the Uf-value of the frame decreasing by over
28% and the frame area comprising 48% of the total window area. The
linear thermal transmittance between the glass and frame remained the
same for all the iterations. Fibreglass frame FG-05 exhibited marginal
improvements to the overall window performance among all the
iterations.
Replacing the existing insulation with the aerogel decreased the U-
value by 1%. Completely filling the primary cavities further reduced the
U-value by an additional 1%. These iterations were more impactful on
FG-08 when replacing the existing insulation and completely filling the
cavity reduced the U-value by 3% and 6% respectively. Despite FG-05
having a 16% higher Uf-value than FG-08, FG-05 had a 15% lower total
window thermal transmittance. Simulations with the frame PVC-03
found that replacing the existing insulation with aerogel only reduced
the U-value by 2%. Filling the primary cavities with aerogel and placing
the aerogel at the perimeter can further reduce the U-value by 1% and
2% respectively. Overall, the total window thermal transmittance could
be reduced from 0.87 W/m2 K to 0.829 W/m2 K by implementing all
iterations. Amongst all the samples, the frame WD-05 with aerogel had
the least impact on the total window performance. Simulations with the
IGU found that replacing the existing insulation with aerogel only re-
duced the U-value by 1.1%. However, replacing traditional insulation
with aerogel for WD-09 decreased the U-value by almost 6%.
5. Discussion
5.1. Aerogel modified frame performance
The first step for improving all frames consisted of replacing existing
insulation with EPS, PUR, and aerogel. For all the framing materials, a
linear relationship between the different types of insulation and their
impact on the U-value was found, despite the thermal conductivity of
EPS (0.035 W/m K) and PUR (0.024 W/m K) being significantly higher
Fixed Frames
Fig. 5. U-value difference (in percentage reduction) compared to case 1 (the existing frame) for the several aluminium frames.
14
Applied Energy 266 (2020) 114776
than that of aerogel (0.012 W/m K). On average, the aerogel resulted in
an 8% reduction in U-value, compared to the PUR. Similar observations
were reported by Fang et al. [14], where the study focused on the
impact of different insulation materials on a polypropylene frame.
Figs. 5–8 show the improvement from the existing Uf-value with
different aerogel-enhancements for aluminium, fibreglass, PVC and
wood-composite frames. For all the frames, replacing the existing in-
sulation with aerogel (case 2) was particularly beneficial for those
profiles that contained the most insulation. Similarly, completely filling
the primary cavities with aerogel (case 3) was advantageous for those
frames with large cavities. As noted previously, the frame height was
highly correlated to the highest decreases of the U-value. This is ob-
served with the frames AL-07, AL-08, and AL-09. This demonstrates the
importance of minimizing the air space between the insulation and the
frame as filling the small tolerance of 2 mm with aerogel can further
reduce their Uf-value by an average of 4%, as it was observed for fi-
breglass and PVC frames.
Despite a significant decrease in the U-value by implementing all
cases, the thermal coupling coefficient between the calibration panel
and the frame slightly changes for the different frames. Further analysis
of temperature contour diagrams illustrates a minor variance for all
iterations, as shown in Fig. 9. This figure illustrates the contours of the
heat flow superimposed on the frame profile. The figure demonstrates
that the only significant change was the location of the highest recorded
surface temperature. This suggests that as the frame lowers its U-value
through enhancements with aerogel, the rebate cavity and the glazing
stop become the weak points of the frame. Similar correlations were
found with the PVC frames simulated by Lechowska et al. [17] with
insulation in the rebate cavity.
This suggests that as the frame lowers its U-value through en-
hancements with aerogel, the rebate cavity and the glazing stop become
the weak points of the frame. Similar correlations were found with the
PVC frames simulated by Lechowska et al. [17] with insulation in the
rebate cavity.
Together with the numerical simulated approach, the authors also
conducted some experimental studies to provide insight into the feasi-
bility of integrating aerogel granules within the selected frames. The
“fluid behaviour” of the aerogel granules was beneficial for filling the
small cavities (as shown in Fig. 10), that otherwise could be difficult to
achieve with traditional insulation materials. The assembling of the
frame was done using two fabrication methods: making a hole in an
already assembled frame, already made into rectangular window shape,
or individually filling frame-bars and then joining them together. The
fabrication showed that aerogel granules can be easily recovered and
reused once the frames given the loose nature of the granules. In fact,
Operable Frames
J. Paulos and U. Berardi Applied Energy 266 (2020) 114776

Fixed Frames Operable Frames

Fig. 6. U-value difference (in percentage reduction) compared to case 1 (the existing frame) for the several fiberglass frames.

Fixed Frames Operable Frames

Fig. 7. U-value difference (in percentage reduction) compared to case 1 (the existing frame) for the several PVC frames.

Fixed Frames Operable Frames

Fig. 8. U-value difference (in percentage reduction) compared to case 1 (the existing frame) for the several wood-composite fiberglass frames.

15
J. Paulos and U. Berardi
Case One Case Two
Fig. 9. Temperature contours of aluminium frame FG-05 with all iterations of aerogel-enhancements.
Fig. 10. Preparation of aerogel-modified frames: aerogel inserted into frames already made into rectangular window shape (left), or filled individually in frame-bars
that are then joined together (right).
upon opening the frames, the aerogel was easily removed from the
frame. Very little to no aerogel was left stick on the surfaces and it was
easily removed by washing the frame, making this completely recycl-
able.
5.2. Frame effect on overall window performance
In most cases, the aerogel-enhancements provided a reduction in the
overall U-value window ranging from 1% to 7%. For aluminium, fi-
breglass and PVC frame specimens, the overall improvements of the
aerogel enhancement and its impact on the total window plateau after
replacing traditional insulation with aerogel. This could be explained as
the linear thermal transmittance between the frame and IGU slightly
changes between all iterations.
Frames without insulation near the rebate cavity had positive linear
thermal transmittance, indicating that a thermal bridge was occurring
at the edge of the glass. This value is expected to increase for the IGUs
with lower U-values. Accordingly, the full benefits of high-performing
frames with aerogel can only be realized once the spacer has a U-value
equal to or less than that of the centre of glass. Completely filling the
frame with aerogel may not be optimal as this insulation should be
placed at strategic points such as glazing stops and thermal breaks.
16
Applied Energy 266 (2020) 114776
Case Three Case Four
5.3. Frame optimization
The frames included in this study were considered to be thermally
optimized, in terms of cavity depths, low emissivity coatings, thermal
breaks, and insulated cavities, while providing sufficient structural
strength, rigidity, and serviceability. However, applying aerogel within
the frame cavities can further optimize the thermal performance of the
frame. Previous analysis showed that further optimization is required
near the edge of the glass to decrease the thermal coupling coefficient.
Gustavsen et al. recommend that aluminium frames should have a
thermal break with a conductivity of 0.02 W/m K and an emissivity for
hollow frame surfaces of 0.05 [5]. Implementing both measures with
aerogel insulated cavities could further reduce the Uf-value of AL-09 by
15% and achieve U-values as low as 0.41 W/m2 K. Other strategies
could include developing rebate insulation materials with thermal
conductivities lower than 0.038 W/m K. However, materials with such
low thermal conductivities with sufficient strength are hard to find.
Bossche et al. found that increasing the glazing thickness could also
reduce the thermal transmittance of an aluminium frame by increasing
the heat transfer path [16]. This means that frames with quadruple
glazing are effective as the aluminium has the strength to support the
additional weight.
For fibreglass frames, strategies for reducing the heat flux through
the glazing stop and rebate cavity were examined. As such, the best
J. Paulos and U. Berardi
performing modified aerogel frame (i.e. FG-08) was redesigned to
emulate the glazing stop features of FG-05 while maintaining the
original geometrical configuration. The design included glazing stops
that could accommodate aerogel insulation and different variations of
rebate depth and widths. Temperature contours of each variation
suggested that increasing the rebate depth was the most effective
strategy, achieving U-values as low as 0.55 W/m2 K. A similar ap-
proach was taken with frame PVC-03 which proved to be less effective
due to the vinyl webbings transferring heat throughout the frame.
Similar to aluminium frames, Gustavsen et al. recommend a low
emissivity for hollow frame surfaces of 0.05 [5]. By placing this
coating in the PVC-03 frame rebate cavity, the Uf-value could further
decrease by 11%, proving to be more beneficial than increasing the
frame width and height. From studying the various wood composite
frames, placing insulation on the exterior side of the frame proves to
be the most effective configuration in retarding heat flow. Frames can
be further optimized by having a hybrid system of exterior insulation
and replacing a rectangular part of the central solid wood with
aerogel, similarly to WD-07.
6. Conclusions
A comparative evaluation of different insulation materials and
several iterations of aerogel placement was conducted for 48 high-
performance commercially-available North American and European
aluminium, fibreglass, PVC and wood-composite window frames. The
study found that replacing the existing insulation with aerogel can re-
duce the Uf-value for aluminium, fibreglass, PVC and wood-composite
frames by a maximum of 22%, 17%, 12% and 29% respectively. On
average, this represented an 8% thermal transmittance improvement
compared to traditional insulation materials such as rigid polyurethane
foam. Additional iterations of aerogel were performed involving com-
pletely filling each cavity and being inserted in small, irregular voids
such as thermal breaks which may not be feasible with rigid insulation
due to tolerances required. This resulted in significant enhancements of
frames which could further reduce the Uf-value by 13%. Amongst all
cases studied, aluminium frames resulted in the greatest improvement,
with frames achieving Uf-values as low as 0.46 W/m2 K. Such measures
are typically difficult to achieve without increasing the frame width and
heights, adding more cavity divisions or changing the frame emissivity.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors are thankful for the financial support of the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) for the
financial support through the Discovery Grant) and the Ontario
Ministry of Research Innovation and Science (MRIS) for the ERA pro-
gram.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2020.114776.
References
[1] Berardi U. A cross country comparison of building energy consumption and their
trends. Resour Conserv Recycl 2017;123:230–41.
[2] Berardi U. Building energy consumption in US, EU, and BRIC countriesuilding en-
ergy consumption in US, EU, and BRIC countries. Procedia Eng 2015;118:128–36.
17
Applied Energy 266 (2020) 114776
[3] ASHRAE. Handbook – fundamentals. Atlanta: American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air- Conditioning Engineers Inc.; 2017.
[4] Apte J, Arasteh D. Window-related energy consumption in the US residential and
commercial building stock. Report LBNL-60146; 2006. p. 1–38.
[5] Gustavsen A, Grynninga S, Arasteh D, Jelle BP, Goudey H. Key elements of and
material performance targets for highly insulating window frames. Energy Build
2011;43:2583–94.
[6] Acosta I, Campano MÁ, Molina JF. Window design in architecture: Analysis of
energy savings for lighting and visual comfort in residential spaces. Appl Energy
2016;168:493–506.
[7] Mangkuto RA, Rohmah M, Asri AD. Design optimisation for window size, orienta-
tion, and wall reflectance with regard to various daylight metrics and lighting en-
ergy demand: A case study of buildings in the tropics. Appl Energy 2016;164:211–9.
[8] Sun Y, Wu Y, Wilson R. A review of thermal and optical characterisation of complex
window systems and their building performance prediction. Appl Energy
2018;222:729–47.
[9] Michaux G, Greffet R, Salagnac P, Ridoret JB. Modelling of an airflow window and
numerical investigation of its thermal performances by comparison to conventional
double and triple-glazed windows. Appl Energy 2019;242:27–45.
[10] Baldinelli G, Bianchi F. Windows thermal resistance: Infrared thermography aided
comparative analysis among finite volumes simulations and experimental methods.
Appl Energy 2014;136:250–8.
[11] Aburas M, Soebarto V, Williamson T, Liang R, Wu Y. Thermochromic smart window
technologies for building application: A review. Appl Energy 2019;255:113522.
[12] Ibrahim M, Biwole PH, Wurtz E, Achard P. Limiting windows offset thermal bridge
losses using a new insulating coating. Appl Energy 2014;123:220–31.
[13] Beck FA, Arasteh D. Improving The thermal performance of vinyl-framed windows.
Therm perform exter envel build V conf. 1992.
[14] Fang Y, Eames PC, Hyde TJ, Norton B. Complex multimaterial insulating frames for
windows with evacuated glazing. Sol Energy 2005;79:245–61.
[15] Asdrubali F, Baldinelli G, Bianchi F. Influence of cavities geometric and emissivity
properties on the overall thermal performance of aluminum frames for windows.
Energy Build 2013;60:298–309.
[16] Van Den Bossche N, Buffel L, Janssens A. Thermal optimization of window frames.
Energy Procedia 2015;78:2500–5.
[17] Lechowska AA, Schnotale JA, Baldinelli G. Window frame thermal transmittance
improvements without frame geometry variations: An experimentally validated
CFD analysis. Energy Build 2017;145:188–99.
[18] ISO 10077-2. Thermal performance of windows, doors and shutters—Calculation of
thermal transmittance—Part 2: Numerical method for frames. Geneva:
International Organization for Standardization; 2017.
[19] ISO 8990. Thermal insulation—Determination of steady-state thermal transmission
properties—Calibrated and guarded hot box. Geneva: International Organization
for Standardization; 1994.
[20] Gustavsen A, Jelle BP, Arasteh D, Kohler C. State-of-the-art highly insulating
window frames – research and market review. Oslo: State-of-the-Art; 2007.
[21] ISO 15099. Thermal performance of windows, doors and shading devices—Detailed
calculations. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; 2003.
[22] National Fenetration Rating Ccouncil (NFRC) 100. Procedure for determining fe-
nestration product U‐factors; 2014.
[23] CSA-A440. North American Fenestration Standard/Specification for windows,
doors, and skylights; 2019.
[24] Gustavsen A, Griffith BT, Arasteh D. Natural convection effects in three-dimensional
window. ASHRAE Trans 2001:1–11.
[25] Gustavsen A, Arasteh D, Kohler C, Dalehaug A. Two-dimensional CFD and con-
duction simulations of heat transfer. ASHRAE Trans 2007;113:165–75.
[26] Gustavsen A, Talev G, Arasteh D, Goudey H, Kohler C, Uvslokk S, Jelle BP.
Experimental and numerical examination of the thermal transmittance of high
performance window frames; 2010.
[27] Gustavsen A, Arasteh D, Curcija C, Kohler C. Developing low-conductance window
frames: capabilities and limitations of current window heat transfer design tools.
Build Phys 2008;32(2):131–53.
[28] RDH Building Engineering Ltd. International Window Standards; 2014; A13. http://
www.hpo.bc.ca/files/download/Report/International-Window-Standards.pdf.
[29] Baetens R, Petter B, Gustavsen A. Aerogel insulation for building applications: A
state-of-the-art review. Energy Build 2011;43:761–9.
[30] Cuce E, Cuce PM, Wood CJ, Riffat SB. Toward aerogel based thermal super-
insulation in buildings: A comprehensive review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2014;34:273–99.
[31] Gao T, Petter B, Ihara T, Gustavsen A. Insulating glazing units with silica aerogel
granules : The impact of particle size. Appl Energy 2014;128:27–34.
[32] Berardi U. Aerogel-enhanced insulation for building applications. Nanotechnol eco-
efficient constr. Woodhead Publishing; 2019. p. 396–416.
[33] Berardi U, Nosrati R. Long-term behaviour of aerogel-enhanced insulating materials
under different aging laboratory conditions. Energy 2018;147:1188–202.
[34] Neugebauer A, Chen K, Tang A, Allgeier A, Glicksman LR, Gibson LJ. Thermal
conductivity and characterization of compacted, granular silica aerogel. Energy
Build 2014;79:47–57.
[35] Ihara T, Jelle BP, Gao T, Gustavsen A. Aerogel granule aging driven by moisture and
solar radiation. Energy Build 2015;103:238–48.
[36] Dorcheh SA, Abbasi MH. Silica aerogel; synthesis, properties and characterization. J
Mater Process Technol 2008;199:10–26.
[37] Berardi U. The development of a monolithic aerogel glazed window for an energy
retrofitting project. Appl Energy 2015;154:603–15.
[38] Berardi U. Aerogel-enhanced solutions for building energy retrofits: insights from a
case study. Energy Build 2018;159:370–81.
J. Paulos and U. Berardi
[39] Zinzi M, Rossi G, Anderson AM, Carroll MK, Moretti E, Buratti C. Optical and visual
experimental characterization of a glazing system with monolithic silica aerogel.
Sol Energy 2019;183:30–9.
[40] Buratti C, Moretti E. Experimental performance evaluation of aerogel glazing sys-
tems. Appl Energy 2012;97:430–7.
[41] Buratti C, Moretti E. Glazing systems with silica aerogel for energy savings in
buildings. Appl Energy 2012;98:396–403.
[42] Cotana F, Pisello AL, Moretti E, Buratti C. Multipurpose characterization of glazing
systems with silica aerogel: In-field experimental analysis of thermal-energy,
lighting and acoustic performance. Build Environ 2014;81:92–102.
[43] Berardi U, Zaidi M. Characterization of commercial aerogel-enhanced blankets
obtained with supercritical drying and of a new ambient pressure drying blanket.
18
Applied Energy 266 (2020) 114776
Energy Build 2019;198:542–52.
[44] Mitchell R, Kohler C, Zhu L, Arasteh D, Simon V, John C, Charlie H. THERM 6.3/
WINDOW 6.3 NFRC simulation manual; 2016.
[45] Arasteh D, Berkeley L, Finlayson E. State-of-the-art software for window energy-
efficiency rating and labeling properties for evaluating window performance.
ACEEE 1998 summer study energy effic build, Pacific Grove. 1998. p. 1–5.
[46] LBNL. Calculating fenestration product performance in Window 6 And Therm 6
According to EN 673 and EN 10077; 2009. p. 1–14.
[47] ISO 10077-1. Thermal performance of windows, doors and shutters — Calculation
of thermal transmittance – Part 1: General. Geneva: International Organization for
Standardization; 2017.