Review of Energy Rating for Windows Research Project Summary Brittany Hanam MASc EIT Al Jaugelis BSc Arch March 2013 Agenda Background to the study Energy Rating Study methodology and energy findings Thermal comfort issues Conclusions Background Energy Rating (ER) originally developed in 1989 Some early ER-qualified products were associated with discomfort and dissatisfaction in some markets Concerns about validity of ER, given changes to house archetypes, technology advances, and original assumptions Oct. 2009 CSA A440.2 Task Group recommended new research to validate ER parameters, but effort stalled due to lack of funding at NRCan In 2011 RDH proposed a study to investigate ER BC Homeowner Protection Office (HPO) assembled coalition of funding partners from across Canada Funding partners Included all parties with keen interest in the subject All points of view represented Cooperative effort promoted mutual understanding, with possibilties for future collaboration Outcome of study ER is generally valid for ranking the relative energy efficiency of windows and sliding glass doors, with some exceptions ER is better at ranking energy performance of windows than U-value alone Comfort issues related to unwanted solar heat gain and high U-values are better understood Clarified limitations of ER and recommended guidelines for its use Final Report released http://www.hpo.bc.ca/whats-new Bonus: resulted in follow-on study of Passive House windows, North American vs. European simulation methods, currently underway What is the Energy Rating? What is the Energy Rating? Canadian measure of window/glass door energy performance defined in CSA A440.2, Fenestration Energy Performance Single number rating Evaluates both solar gains (SHGC) and losses due to transmittance (U-value) and air leakage For low-rise residential applications vertical applications only, no skylights The ER concept: include the sun To rate winter window performance don’t just measure heat loss through windows . . . Conduction through glass and frame (U-value) Air leakage . . . ADD heat gained from the sun The ER calculation ER equation in CSA A440.2: Simplified Equation: Solar Heat Gain Conduction Air Leakage ENERGY STAR qualification requirements Voluntary Program Two Compliance Paths: ER or U-Value Windows Zone A B C D Heating Degree-Day Range <= 3500 > 3500 to <= 5500 > 5500 to <= 8000 > 8000 Compliance Paths Energy Rating (ER) Minimum ER Max. U-Value 0.35 Btu/h-ft²-F (2.00 W/m²•K) 21 25 29 34 or or or or or U-Value Max. U-Value Btu/h-ft²-F (W/m²-K ) Minimum ER 0.32 (1.80) 0.28 (1.60) 0.25 (1.40) 0.21 (1.20) 13 17 21 25 Study methodology and energy findings Study used whole building energy simulations Hourly energy simulations performed using the program DesignBuilder (EnergyPlus engine) Several archetype houses – sizes, enclosures, etc. Cities from across Canada selected to represent various climate zones Various window types - investigate different combinations of U-values and SHGCs 23 different windows in the study, 5 representative Actual study looked at 23 different windows Will show results for 5: Representative Window U-Value [Btu/hr-ft2-F] SHGC ER ASHRAE 90.1 Compliant, Aluminum Frame 0.50 0.64 14 High U-Value / High SHGC 0.35 0.50 26 Low U-Value / High SHGC 0.16 0.50 49 High U-Value / Low SHGC 0.35 0.20 8 Low U-Value / Low SHGC 0.16 0.20 32 23 different windows in the study, 5 representative Actual study looked at 23 different windows Will show results for 5: Representative Window U-Value [Btu/hr-ft2-F] SHGC ER ASHRAE 90.1 Compliant, Aluminum Frame 0.50 0.64 14 High U-Value / High SHGC 0.35 0.50 26 Low U-Value / High SHGC 0.16 0.50 49 High U-Value / Low SHGC 0.35 0.20 8 Low U-Value / Low SHGC 0.16 0.20 32 Annual Energy Consumption, kWhe Vancouver Relation between heating, cooling, and total energy Cooling energy low relative to heating and total energy Heating Energy Cooling Energy Total Energy 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 U-0.50 SHGC-0.64 U-0.35 SHGC-0.5 U-0.16 SHGC-0.5 Window U-0.35 SHGC-0.2 U-0.16 SHGC-0.2 Annual Energy Consumption, kWhe Vancouver Relation between heating, cooling, and total energy Lower U-value & higher SHGC generally result in lower energy use Heating Energy Cooling Energy Total Energy 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 U-0.50 SHGC-0.64 U-0.35 SHGC-0.5 Third U-0.16 SHGC-0.5 Window Lowest U-0.35 SHGC-0.2 U-0.16 SHGC-0.2 Fourth Second Energy simulation findings: ranking Generally higher ER results in lower heating energy consumption, with some exceptions Increasing ER Energy simulation findings: energy consumption Good correlation between energy consumption and ER Annual Heating Energy Consumption, kWhe/year 30000 Yellowknife Toronto Winnipeg Vancouver Montreal Linear (Yellowknife) 25000 20000 R² = 0.9721 15000 R² = 0.9864 10000 R² = 0.9694 R² = 0.9854 R² = 0.9714 5000 0 0 10 50 40 30 20 Energy Rating (ER) for Simualted Windows 60 70 Energy simulation findings: window orientation Orientation affects potential solar heat gain Energy simulation findings: window shading Window shading affects solar heat gain Summary of energy simulation findings In a typical house, low U-value & high SHGC result in lowest energy consumption in houses Cooling energy use is low relative to heating and total energy High ER generally good indication of lower heating and total energy consumption Factors affecting solar heat gain Window to wall ratio Orientation Exterior shading Thermal Comfort Windows and thermal comfort How to “measure” thermal comfort? ASHRAE Standard 55: Thermal Comfort Conditions for Human Occupancy 6 primary factors affect thermal comfort: Air temperature Radiant surface temperature Humidity Air speed Metabolic rate Clothing insulation Windows and thermal comfort Main factors that affect thermal comfort: Air temperature Radiant surface temperature Study explored: Operative temperature Window surface temperature Operative temperature Operative Temperature: Balance of surface temperature and air temperature ASHRAE acceptable range of operative temperature based on research studies Thermal comfort: methodology Hourly energy simulations – extract window surface temperature, air temperature, operative temperature Defined comfort parameters: Operative temperature 19°C to 25°C Surface temperature 15°C to 30°C Count number of hours outside this range Thermal comfort: methodology Operative temperature example: Vancouver bedroom Similar trend for other locations 5 representative windows from 23 in the study Actual study looked at 23 different windows Will show results for 5: Representative Window U-Value [Btu/hr-ft2-F] SHGC ER ASHRAE 90.1 Compliant, Aluminum Frame 0.50 0.64 14 High U-Value / High SHGC 0.35 0.50 26 Low U-Value / High SHGC 0.16 0.50 49 High U-Value / Low SHGC 0.35 0.20 8 Low U-Value / Low SHGC 0.16 0.20 32 Thermal comfort: operative temperature Operative Temperature Hours < 19°C Operative Temperature Hours > 25°C 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Low SHGC Windows Yellowknife Winnipeg Montreal Toronto Kelowna High SHGC Windows Vancouver Total Hours “Warm” hours correlate with high solar gain products, across all climate zones Thermal comfort: operative temperature High U-value Windows Yellowknife Winnipeg Montreal Toronto 5000 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Kelowna Operative Temperature Hours < 19°C Operative Temperature Hours > 25°C Vancouver Total Hours “Cold” hours more significant in colder climates Cold surface temperatures related to high U-value Thermal comfort: surface temperature “Cold” hours correlate with high U-value Compare with number of operative “warm” hours Window Surface Temperature Hours <15°C Window Surface Temperature Hours >30°C 25,000 U-0.5 U-0.35 U-0.16 15,000 10,000 5,000 Yellowknife Winnipeg Montreal Toronto Kelowna 0 Vancouver Total Hours 20,000 Thermal comfort summary Overheating a function of high SHGC, not high ER Overheating discomfort related to project-specific conditions Orientation Exterior shading Window to Wall Ratio Low SHGC reduces overheating when no external summer shading present Low U-value lowers surface temperature, leading to greater comfort year round, esp. winter Study conclusions Study conclusions Higher ER generally results in lower heating energy consumption in typical Canadian houses ER is generally better at ranking energy performance of windows than U-value alone ER does not correctly rank windows: In the far north due to lower solar gain in the winter months Primarily oriented in one direction With high window-wall ratios With exterior winter shading Overheating is a function of solar heat gain, not ER, and comfort can be managed with summer shading or A/C ER is not suitable for MURBs with high window to wall ratios (>40%) due to overheating and cooling energy use ER Study Recommendations Keep both U-value and ER paths in codes and ENERGY STAR program Need to educate consumers on how to select the best windows for their particular situation, considering all factors that are important to them Atypical homes and site-optimized energy performance design should use both U-value and SHGC characteristics for selecting windows Questions? bhanam@rdhbe.com