Thermal performance of a room with a double glazing window using glazing available in Mexican market

• Published in: Applied thermal engineering 2017-06, Vol.119, p.505-515
• Main Authors: Aguilar, J.O., Xamán, J., Olazo-Gómez, Y., Hernández-López, I., Becerra, G., Jaramillo, O.A.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Ambient temperature; Computer simulation; Double pane window; Energy conservation; Energy efficiency; Glass; Glazing; Heat flux; Heat transfer; Heat transmission; Home building; Lighting; Numerical analysis; Reflectance; Reversible window; Solar control; Solar radiation; Studies; Thermal analysis; Transient analysis; Walls; Windows & doors; Windows (apertures)
• ISSN: 1359-4311; 1873-5606
• DOI: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2017.03.083

•Thermal evaluation of a Room coupled with different types of Double Glazing Window (DGW) is analyzed.•Four cases were simulated: Case 1: DGW (clear); Case 2: DGW (absorbent), Case 3: DGW (Low-e) and Case 4: DGW (reflective).•Case 4 presents the better energy saving of all cases analyzed, ∼73% lower than Case 1.•Cases 2 and 3 have a similar thermal behavior, almost 34% less than Case 1.•The global balance costs indicate that Case 4 is the better option for energy saving in warm climate.•Case 4 allows us to save up to $20.29 USD per kWh in a year in comparison to Case 1. A thermal evaluation of a four configurations of double glass window (DGW) coupling to a room is presented. The DGW consists of two vertical semitransparent walls separated by a 12mm air gap. The effect of varying the ambient temperature and the incident solar radiation in the warm climate conditions in México is analyzed. Numerical simulations were conducted for four configurations; Case 1: clear glass+air gap+clear glass (Reference); Case 2: clear glass+air gap+absorbent glass; Case 3: clear glass+air gap+Low-e glass; and Case 4: clear glass+air gap+reflective glass. Optical transmittance and specular reflectance were measured individually and in one sample piece for each case. The results showed that Case 4 reduces the heat flux to the indoors by up to 73%, with respect to Case 1. Moreover, Cases 2 and 3 had a similar behavior, obtaining a reduction of indoor heat flow close to 33.5% with respect to Case 1. Case 4 is the best option for energy savings in a warm climate, where it is possible to save up to $20.29 USD per kWh per year, in comparison to Case 1. In addition, the payback period for Case 4 is 3.7years. Therefore, the use of reflective double pane window is highly recommended in Mexican warm climates.