FENS

BEST Conference, Minneapolis, June 12, 2008
Fenestration Solutions
for Zero Energy Buildings
Stephen Selkowitz, Head
Building Technologies Department
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
Window Performance Perspectives
Technical Potential ---> Economic Potential --> Reality
1. Energy Performance
Optics, heat transfer, Physics, Engineering,..
Materials, Devices, Systems
2. Achievable/Achieved National Energy Impacts/Savings

Design process, skills
Policy, codes and standards,.
Economics, business practice, investment
Risk - real and perceived
Comfort, health, safety, productivity
Amenity, preference, value
Challenge: understand and reinforce the positive coupling

between #1 and #2

Defining a Pathway to the Future
If I had asked people what they

wanted, they would have said
faster horses.
Henry Ford
page 3
Fenestration Impacts on
Building End Use Energy Consumption 4
Buildings consume 39% of total U.S. energy

71% of electricity and 54% of natural gas

Annual Energy Costs in Perspective
Cost / Sq. M. Floor -Year
Energy Cost: $20.00

Maintenance: $30.00
Taxes: $30.00
Rent: $300.00
Productivity $3000.00

US Window Energy Consumption
W indow-Related Energy Consumption
(Quads)
Residential Com m ercial
Heating 1.65 0.96
Cooling 1.02 0.52
Total 2.67 1.48
Daylight: +1 Q
Total
Building Energy Use: ~ 40 Quads
Window-Related: 4.1 Q + 1Q Lighting
includes infiltration losses
Quad: 1 quadrillion BTU 1 EJ 1% of annual US Energy Consumption
Andr Anders & Windows Group (EETD), 2007

Advanced Window
Energy Savings in Homes
Scenario EnergySavingsover CurrentStock
Heat, quads Cool, quads Total, quads
Sales(Businessasusual) 0.49 0.37 0.86
EnergyStar (Low-e) 0.69 0.43 1.12
DynamicLow-e 0.74 0.75 1.49
Triple Pane Low-e 1.20 0.44 1.64
MixedTriple,Dynamic 1.22 0.55 1.77
High-R Superwindow 1.41 0.44 1.85
High-R Dynamic 1.50 0.75 2.25
Windows account for 1.65Q heating; 1.02Q Cooling = 2.67Q
Conclusion: ideal windows save 80% of total current window energy use

Commercial Building Window Energy Use
What if all windows in commercial buildings were replaced Cost
with...?
$20B
Current Stock
Today's
Today's Typical Product

Tech.
Low-e
Dynamic
Technologies
Saves
Future
Highly Insulating Dynamic Heat

$15B Cool
" " with Integrated Faades Lighting Potential
-1.3 -1.0 -0.7 -0.3 0.0 0.3 0.7 1.0 1.3

Annual Primary Energy Consumption, Quads

Two Contrasting Views of
Energy Efficiency
1976 Perspective: 2007 Perspective:
Code Officials View of the Ideal Architect s View of the
Windows Ideal Windows

Vision: Energy Losers --> Neutral -->
Net Energy Suppliers
Heating climates
Reduce heat losses (U) so that ambient solar energy
balances and exceeds loss
Need very low U but moderate solar gain
Cooling climates
Reduce cooling loads: very low SHGF
Static control -> dynamic control
Mixed climates
Requires dynamic solar control
All climates
Replace electric lighting with daylight
Electricity supply options
Integrate Photovoltaics with Glazing

Glazing/Window Technology:
Changing Scale and Function: Kit of Parts
1m
1 1mm Envelope,
coating glass shading
+ Numerous options + Numerous options + Numerous options
+ Minimal mass + Low Maintenance + Versatile
+ Versatile + Cost + Operable
+ Low Maintenance + Durability - Maintenance
+/- Cost - Cost
+/- Durability +/- Durability
+/- Operable
Intelligent Control of Dynamic Conditions, Properties:

Thermal flows: U value
Daylight/Solar Gain: SHGC, G, Tv
Intensity
Spectral content, color
Directional
Future Evolution of Advanced Windows
Highly insulating systems

Reduces winter heating loads
Multiple technologies for glass
Aerogel
Vacuum glazing
Multipane, low-E gas fill
Better Frames
Climate dependence
Cost
Dynamic windows for solar control
Dynamic optical switch from high transmission to low transmission
Reduces summer cooling load; reduces glare
Multiple technologies
Electrochromic, thermochromic, photochromic, LCD,
Integration with window, building
Cost
page 12
Successes in U.S. Window Markets
(Example: Residential market)
1973: Typical Window:

clear, single glazed,
double or storm window in north,
Uaverage = .85 BTU/hr-F-sq.ft.
2003: Typical Window:
95% double glazed
50% have a low-E coating
30-65% energy savings vs. 1973
2030: Future Window:

Zero net energy use (typical)
- Net winter gain; 80% cooling savings
Dynamic solar control
Savings from Better Windows
Annual Heating Cost simulated for a heating climate
Single Glazed w/Storm, $1310
Double Glazed, $1218
Double w/Low-E, $1120
House with no windows, $1000
SuperWindow, $960
Conclusion: Good windows
outperform insulated walls in winter!
Annual Energy Consumption of Simulated Current and Next - Generation Windows
90.00
Baseline
Loads
80.00
Double Clear
70.00
(#1)
MBtuAnnualHVAC
Static Low -e
60.00
50.00
Static Super
40.00 Dynamic
Super (#6)
30.00
Static Ultra
20.00
Boston DC Phoenix Dynamic
Heating Climates Mixed Climates Cooling Climates
Ultra (#9)
City and Climate Type
Static windows have constant U and SHGC W indo w U-factor S HG C

Dynamic windows have constant U-factors but (B tu / ft2 hr
F)
have seasonally variable SHGCs 1 D ouble clear 0.49 0.56
2 D ouble (low -e) high solar 0.36 0.53
Static windows are selected to minimize annual 3 D ouble (low -e) lo w sola r 0.34 0.30
energy consumption: 4 Triple (super) high solar 0.18 0.40
5 Triple (super) low solar 0.18 0.26
In heating and mixed climates, static windows 6 D ynam ic super 0.18 0.26 or 0.40
are high solar gain 7 U ltra high solar 0.10 0.35
In cooling climates, static windows are low 8 U ltra - low solar 0.10 0.10
solar gain. 9 D ynam ic U ltra 0.10 0.10 or 0.35
U.S. Refrigerator Energy Use vs. Time
U n ite d S ta te s R e frig e ra to r U s e v . T im e
2 ,0 0 0 25
1 ,8 0 0
Average Eerngy Use per Unit Sold (kWh per year)
1 ,6 0 0 20
1 ,4 0 0
Refrigerator volume (cubic feet)

$ 1 ,2 7 0
R e frig e ra to r S iz e
1 ,2 0 0 (c u b ic fe e t) 15
1 ,0 0 0
800 10
600 E n e rg y U s e p e r U n it
400 R e frig e ra to r P ric e in 1 9 8 3 D o lla rs $ 462 5
200
0 0
9 47 949 95 1 9 53 95 5 9 57 959 96 1 9 63 96 5 96 7 9 69 97 1 9 73 9 75 97 7 9 79 98 1 9 83 9 85 98 7 9 89 991 99 3 9 95 997 99 9 0 01

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
Advanced Windows Can Become Energy
Producers
Annual
Heating Single Glaze: U = 1
Energy
Balance
Double Glaze: U = 0.5
Low e U = .35 (Energy Star)
R6 Window U = 0.17
- Loss R10 Window U = 0.10
+ Gain
1973 1980 1990 2000

Lawrence Berkeley2010
National Laboratory 2020
Technology: Low-E Windows
Challenge: Double glazed windows cost U.S. consumers
$20+Billion per year in unneeded energy costs
Triple glazed windows, too heavy, costly
Solution: Low-Emissivity Coating and gas fill
Single most significant technology change in window industry in
last 20 years
R&D and Market Issues:
Coating design
Window Thermal Performance optimization
Manufacturing technology
Durability
Cost
Integration into a complete window
Rating and labeling performance
Field test to verify performance vs Climate, application

Zero-Energy Window Objectives
Nearer Term Objective: U-value < 0.8 W/m2-K

Long Term Target: U-value < 0.5 W/m2-K
Approaches:
Low-Emissivity Coatings
Low Conductance Gas Fills
Warm edge low
conductance spacers
Insulated Frame Systems

Potential Solutions for U < .5 W/m2-K
Glazing Options
3 low-E coatings, 2 low-E coatings, Evacuated, 1 low-E Aerogel,

e<.1; gas fill e<.06; gas fill coating e< .1 evacuated
Integral low-
conductance
spacer-sash
design Slim, insulating
composite frame
New Technology Options
low-e
Current technologies for highly insulating

products use multiple layers of low-e and gas 2 sealed gas gaps at different
temperatures and pressures
fill
All glass is heavy
with standard glass, unit is
Thin film products expensive thicker and heavier
Multiple spacers can lead to gas leakage

Market share is low (<1%)
This research aims to develop lower-cost,
non-structural center layers
low-e
Utilize available low-e and gas-fill
technologies
thin glass or plastic held by
Research novel center layer designs and spacer
materials
spacer
only 2 paths for gas loss

High R-value Window Performance
Surface temperatures from infrared thermography; Test conditions: cold side -18C, warm side 21C)
Warmer surfaces indicate higher insulating values; Energy Star Window (left) vs LBNL HiR technology
Triple Glazed Low-e, Krypton

Double Glazed Low-e (plastic insert center layer)
21 C
18 C
15 C
12 C
9 C
6 C
3 C
0 C
Zero-Energy Prototype
Zero-Energy prototype utilizes

Electrochromic glazing
Triple glazing layer design for highly
insulating window
Next research steps

Glass or plastic center layer
Gas fills and coatings
Research on highly insulating frame
materials and design (50% heat loss
through frame with hiR units)
page 23
Next Generation Prototype Zero Energy
Window
Current Prototype
Dynamic Glazing; SHGC (0.04 0.34)
- Electrochromic glazing
Highly Insulating; U Value 0.18, R 5.6
Ongoing R&D
Increased dynamic range
Cost-effective production
Frame heat transfer R&D (50% of heat lost
through 20% of area)
Systems benefits:
- Better comfort
- No perimeter ducts
- No central heating system??

Residential Building Integration
Highly Insulating
Windows provide ZEH
Systems benefits
Downsized HVAC and
distribution
Increased comfort
Demonstrations in
progress
Demonstration and Test Houses
Massachusetts Zero Energy Indianapolis Test House

Demonstration House
Minneapolis: Heating Climates:
static high solar, hi-R (U=0.1 Btu/h-ft2-F) can meet ZEH goals
Annual energy use vs. window properties
Minneapolis, MN - Combined Annual Heating and Cooling Energy (MBtu)
1
single clear
0.9
Combined Annual Heating and Cooling Energy (MBtu)

0.8 145
140
135
0.7
130
125
0.6 120
U 115
U-factor
double clear
110
0.5
105
100
0.4 high gain low-e Ar double 95
low gain low-e Ar double,
90
typical Energy Star
85
0.3
low gain low-e Ar triple 80
moderate gain low-e Kr triple (acrylic center layer)
75
0.2
en ergy 70
s u se
wind ow en ergy
o ws p r ovid e
win d
0.1 target performance region
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

SHGC
SHGC
Riverside CA - Mixed Climates:
static medium solar, hi-R (U=0.1 Btu/h-ft2-F) can meet ZEH goals
Annual energy use vs. window properties
Riverside, CA - Combined Annual Heating and Cooling Energy (MBtu)
1
single clear
0.9
Combined Annual Heating and Cooling Energy (MBtu)

43
0.8
42
41
40
U 0.7
0.6
39
38
37
36
35
U-factor
double clear 34
0.5 33
32
31
high gain low-e Ar double 30
0.4
29
low gain low-e Ar double,
28
typical energy star
27
0.3 26
low gain low-e Ar triple
25
24
0.2 23
moderate gain low-e Kr triple (acrylic center layer)
0.1 target performance region
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

SHGC
SHGC
What are the Best Solar Optical Properties for
a Window Anywhere in the U.S.? 29
Varies with Location and Orientation.
Varies with Season and Weather.
Varies with Occupant Use Patterns
So the best solution is a window whose

properties are variable.
Glass for Sun Control
Easy to reduce solar gain: tinted or reflective glass
But most market values view and transparency
(Very low solar gain may increase winter heating costs)
Challenge: reduce solar gain but transmit daylight
Spectrally Selective
Cool Glazings
Spectral control- transmit
light, reject near-IR heat
Equal daylight with only 50%
of solar gain
IG to minimize SHGC
Technology:
Selective Absorbers
blue-green tints
Selective reflectors
modified low-E coatings
coated glass and plastic
Multilayer dielectric
Transmittance -vs- Wavelength

Spectrally Selective Cool Glazings
Spectral transmittance
curves for common tinted
and spectrally selective
glazings
Luminous Efficacy
Incandescent: 17 l/w
Fluorescent: 100 l/w
LSG: Light to Solar Gain
Daylight: 70-140 l/w Ratio = Tvis / SHGC
Daylight via glass: 40-200 l/w
Light to Solar Gain Ratio
LSG = 2.0 LSG = 1.0 33
Light to Tvis
Solar Gain LSG: Light to Solar Gain
Ratio for Ratio = Tvis / SHGC
insulating
glass units
for all
glasses in
LBNL IGDB
SHGC

More Glazing Options:
Laminated Glass =Coatings + Glazing
Easy to combine coatings, substrates, adhesives, etc to

produce new functional laminated glazings
Limited to functionality of existing coatings, substrates,..
Software to predict performance, e.g. Optics
Applications
Solar control
Glare control
Light Diffusion
Safety
Applied Films Laminated Glass

Daylighting vs. Cooling/Glare Challenge
Daylight Source: glazings

Key human factors, technology and systems
design issues are control
Separate heat and light
Separate light and view
Dynamically control light/solar transmission
Integrate daylight, glare control, and electric light
Manage peak electric load as well as energy
Important aesthetic and human side of daylight

but must control glare and thermal comfort
Debate: manual vs automatic controls
If Glare and Solar Control is so Important,
Why not integrate this function into the Glazing?
Clear state Dark state
Emerging Option: Electrochromic Glazing

Photochromic Sunglasses
Glass or plastic darkens or clears automatically in

response to incident sunlight intensity

Smart Coatings for Dynamic Control of Windows
Balancing Cooling and Daylighting
Flexible, optimized control of solar gain

and daylight
Passive control OFF
Photochromic - light sensitive
Thermochromic - heat sensitive
Active control
Liquid Crystal
Suspended particle display (SPD)
Electrochromic
Active control preferred; but requires
wiring windows for power and control
ON

Conventional Electrochromic Windows
Metal oxide active layer and

ion storage layer
Multiple coatings, thick layers

Ar
Wide switching range, 3% - gas
60%, via absorption fill
Good durability
Reasonable switching speed

outer inner
Now Commercially available; IGU IGU
1.2m x 1.8m pane pane
ITO ITO
Expensive to manufacture; ion storage layer
future potential cost reductions
active layer electrolyte

Switchable Mirrors
Switchable Mirrors were discovered based on Rare Earth Hydrides in 1995

Since then, other classes of materials have been discovered, including transition
metal hydrides
R&D and commercial development ongoing
Tv Switching range: <.1% -- 30%

Smart Windows: Portfolio of R&D Projects
Invent
Integrated
Window
Characterize
Coating
Performance
Mg2Ni
Invent New Assess

Materials Human
Factors
Assess
Savings
Invent
Innovative Invent/Test
Manufacturing Integrated
Process Systems
Electrochromic Field Tests 1999
GSA Building
Performance
assessment -
Understand EC
operation in a real
building:
color
glare
privacy
switching speed
peak load
energy savings
occupant impacts

Smart Window Switching on a
Partly Cloudy Day
Time EC Fluor
10:30 0.38 80% 10:40 0.36 30%
10:50 0.18 40% 11:00 0.11 42%

Daylight and Solar Control in High
Performance, Building Facades

Facade Performance Needs
Energy
Comfort Daylight
View/Privacy
Aesthetics
Security
Weatherproof
Acoustics
Cleaning
Structure
Recycled Materials Maintenance

3 Pathways for Use of Glass in
Commercial Buildings
Just meet the code
Small Windows, prescriptive properties, e.g. double
No special shading or daylighting
Conventional good solutions: (prescriptive packages)
Modest sized windows, skylights
Double glazing
Spectrally selective glass
Manually operated Interior shading
On-off lighting controls
Architectural Solution with Transparent Intelligent Faade
Highly glazed faade; extended daylighted zone
Reliable tools reduce risk
High Performance technology with Systems Integration
Dynamic, smart control- automated shading, dimmable lights
Economic from Life cycle perspective
Optimized for people and for energy, electric demand

Daylight Systems:
High Tech, High Cost Solutions
Market View:
Daylight
makes a
building
green (?)
=
Market
Advantage?
Metrics?
Importance of
Lighting Controls
Office Building, Sydney
NorthWest faade, 2pm

Most Shades Open
Most Lights On

Daylighting
Architectural definition: the interplay of natural light and building form to
provide a visually stimulating, healthful, and productive interior
environment.
Lighting Energy Savings definition: the replacement of indoor electric
illumination needs by daylight, resulting in reduced annual energy
consumption for lighting.
Building Energy Consumption definition: the use of fenestration systems
and responsive electric lighting controls to reduce overall building
energy requirements (heating, cooling, lighting).
Load Management definition: dynamic control of fenestration and
lighting to manage and control building peak electric demand and load
shape.
Cost definition: the use of daylighting strategies to minimize operating
costs and maximize output, sales, or productivity.
LEED definition: achieve 2% daylight factor, view, optimize annual
energy performance, commission, M&V to verify performance

Characteristics of Successful
Daylighting Systems
Designed as Integrated Building System

Envelope <-> Lighting <-> HVAC
Provide Daylight Control
Spectral control to reduce cooling loads
Dynamic control of intensity and direction
Support changing Occupant Needs:
performance, comfort, satisfaction
Decision support tools for Architects, Engineers,...
design/analysis across life cycle
Link Design --> Operations and Maintenance

Optical Technology for Control:
Goal: Extend Perimeter Zone from 15 to 30
Redirect sunlight/daylight to ceiling
Reflective systems
Mirror blinds, light shelves
Commercially available, limited use
Refractive systems
prismatic glazings, laser-cut panels, ...
Commercially available, limited use
Diffractive systems
holographic materials
R&D prototypes
Directional Light Control
Conventional control of direction of light

Glass block
Fritted glass
Shading systems
Light shelves
New Options
Prismatic glazings
Holographic materials
Laser cut panels
Light pipes
Fiber optics

Lightshelves
Intent vs Reality:
Glare control
Sun control
Light distribution
Deeper penetration
Orientation
Latitude
Climate
Season/Hour
Cost
BRE Building, UK Maintenance
SMUD Building, CA
(Day)Lighting Control Elements
ballast controller
ballast
lamp
sensor
Fluorescent View
Light
Selec +
Sdaylt Task Daylight
Ambient Illum
Illum

Lighting Controls Need Improvement
1. Improved photocell sensors

2. Controls capable of exploiting multiple control
strategies
3. Modular integration of occupant and photo-
sensing controls
4. Lighting control integrated with variable
transmittance windows (automated blinds,
electrochromic glazing)
5. Distributed building control networks

Good Lighting Controls Work
(but too much light can be a problem)
Daily Energy Use (6 A.M to 6 P.M.)
kWh/12 hr/zone
40
G South Daylit J North Daylit H Reference Data from
35
advanced
H HH H H H HH
HHH
HHHHH
HHHH
HHHHH HH
HHHHHH
HH HHH
HH H HHHHHH
HHH HHH
HH HHH
HHH HH
30 HHH HH
HHH HH H
HH
H
HH HH
H
HHHH
HHH
HHH H
HHH
HHHHHHH
HHH
HHHH
HH
HHH
H
HHHHH H H HHH HH H HH
H
HHH H
H
HHH H H
HHH
H lighting controls
H
H H
HH H HHH
HHHH
H
25
demonstration
G G G G GGG
G
J
in Emeryville, CA
20 J G G G
G JG
GGG G GG
G G G G
GG G G G GGJ GG G GG
G GGG
(1990)
J G G
G G GGGG GG G
G GJ G G GG G
G
G
G G G GGG G G G GGG GG G
GJGJJ JJJJG
G G
JJJG
JJJJG JJGJJG
J JG JJ
JGJG GG GGGGGGGG GG G GGGG GG G G G G G G G G G G G G GG J J J
J JJ
G J J G G GG GG
G
15 J G
JJ J JJJJJJJJJJJ JJ H G
JG JGGG G GG G G G
JG G
GGGGGGG
GG
GG GG GGG GG GG GGGG G
GG G GG G
GGG
GG G
G GG G
GG
GG
G
GG G GG J
JJ
J
J JJ JJJJ J
J
J
JJJJ J JJ G
GG G GG
G G GGG G G JJJ JJJ G
G J J JJJJ J J
JJJJJ J J J J
10 J J JJ
JJJ JJ JJJ J J
J JJ JJ JJJ JJ J JJJJJ
G
J JJ JJJ
J JJJJ JJJJJ JJJG
J JJJ J
J JJ JJJJJJJ JJJ JJJ J J
J JJJ JJ JJ JJ JJ JJG JJ
J J J JJ
G JG JG Lessons:
J J
5 J J
Its not just the
0 JG
H H H JG
H H H
lighting controls
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Need smart shades
Day of Year 1990

All glass building?

ll. rol
Integrated Window- ba
lla
st
baont
c
59
Lighting Systems ba
l la
st
o lig
ht
s
ot
p he ll
c
h ts
Industry: EC window controller lig
Owner: Integrated control of EC window + r

owlle
i ndt ro t
wcon an
lighting system via single ceiling-mounted, ht up
/
w ligr o cc
closed-loop photosensor o lle
nd ro
wiont
c
se
n so
r
Slopes vary depending on efficiency
of lighting and HVAC systems
Energy Use
Increased lighting energy Increased solar

use and heat gains heat gains
Minimize energy use:
Maintain daylight illuminance
at xxx lux in real time
Intelligent Control of Dynamic Systems
Task
Dynamic
Requirements
Window
(active control of daylight,
User glare, solar gain)
Preferences
Smart Lighting
Interior Conditions System
Controller (with dimming
ballasts, sensors)
Weather
Conditions
Building
Load Shedding/ Performance
Demand Limiting (cost, comfort,
Signal operations)

Energy/Demand Management with
Active Faades+ Daylighting Controls
30000
30000 30000
30000
Typical commercial Peak demand reductions

building load profile during curtailments
25000
25000 25000
25000
Electric
Demand Lighting: 75%
20000
Air conditioning: 25% Reduced
20000 20000
20000
A/C Other: 10% Solar Gain
15000
15000 15000
15000
A/C
Dimmed
Lighting
Lighting
10000
10000 10000
10000
Other
5000
5000 5000
5000
Other
00
00
11 33 55 77 99 11
11 13
13 15
15 17
17 19
19 21
21 23
23 11 33 55 77 99 11
11 13
13 15
15 17
17 19
19 21
21 23
23
Tim
Timee of
of Day
Day Tim
Timeeof
ofDay
Day

System integration tradeoffs
Heating
Peak Chiller
Cooling
Load Size $
Cooling
Peak
Lighting Electric Power
Lighting Design Demand
Strategy Load Generation
Shape
$ $ $ $
Initial Cost Annual Cost
$
Energy Performance Issues for
Intelligent Facade Concepts
Lighting HVAC
Daylight Photosensor Utility
Glazing Real Time
T'stat Pricing, DR
Smart Signal
Glazing
and/or
Automated Comfort Building
Blinds Sensor Smart Meter
PV Panel
Monitor and
Control System
Metrics for Energy Performance

1. Energy/Electric Demand
2. Carbon
3. Cost - $$ Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
LBNL Faade Test Facility 64
EC windows EC windows Spectrally selective low-E

Blinds*, no blinds Blinds*, no blinds Blinds*, no blinds
Daylight or glare Daylight or glare
Control mode Tv=0.56-0.02 Tv=0.41
SHGC=0.42-0.09 SHGC=0.23
*Venetian blinds fully down, 45 deg angle
Glare control: When direct sun, Tv of EC=0.05.
Engineering and Occupant Response Studies
with Switchable Electrochromic Windows
LBNL Faade Field Test Facility

Electrochromic Windows:
Appearance from the interior 66
60% Light Transmittance 5% Light Transmittance
http://windows.lbl.gov/comm_perf/electrochromic
Optimization Tool for Room Illuminance and Glare
Using Inverse Lighting Solutions 67
Overhang / Summer solstice
47%
120 nits
84 nits
3%
680 lx 480 lx
L. Fernandes
1. Set illuminance goals
2. Set luminance constraints
3. Finds optimal glass transmittance
Pilot study on manual control 68
of individual EC panes
Informal test
with team
members
Control of
panes based
on:
View
Privacy
Daylight
Glare

Intelligent Facade Challenges:
Cooling load control, Daylight without Glare
Admit adequate daylight
To meet illuminance requirements, save energy
To provide pleasant work environment
Control Window Brightness to enhance comfort and performance

Task Visibility - glare on computer screens from bright window
Disability Glare - area surrounding computer screen is much brighter than
Discomfort glare - absolute brightness of window view causes visual
discomfort
Source Issues: Daylight vs. sunlight

Direct sunlight
Sky Brightness
Adjacent buildings - shadow or reflected sunlight

Diffusing upper glass
Diffuser above,
blind
Lawrence Berkeley National below
Laboratory
Low-e split blind (fixed relationship
between upper & lower slats
Upper: -45 / Lower: 0 Upper: horiz/ Lower: +30 Upper: +60 / Lower: +closed

The New York Times
HQ Building
Owners program:
Highly glazed faade gives workers views
and allows the city to see news at work
But glare, cooling, visibility etc
Need/Goal:
Develop integrated , automated shading and
dimmable lighting system
Affordable, reliable and robust
Transform the market- push these solutions
toward widespread use
Challenge:
How to develop a workable, affordable
integrated hardware/software solution
How to guarantee that such a solution will Renzo Piano/ Fox & Fowle/ Gensler/
work in practice Flack+Kurtz/ Susan Brady Lighting
page 72
Faade Layers
External layer: Fixed
-- Shading, light diffusion
Glazing layer: Fixed
-- Low-E, spectrally selective
- thermal control
- solar gain control
-- Frit - solar, glare control
Internal layer: Dynamic
-- Motorized Shade system
-- Solar control
-- Glare control
Faade Layers: Floor to Floor
floor to desk
desk to head
head to ceiling
plenum
Approach: Test Performance in a Full-
North
Scale Mockup
A
Shading, daylighting, B
employee feedback
and constructability:
~4500 sf mockup
Concerns with glass
facade:
Window glare (Tv=0.75)
Control of solar gain/cooling
Daylight harvesting potential
Real sun and sky

conditions near
construction site,
12-month monitored
period
page 74
Daily lighting energy savings
Corner window zone x
100%
Daily lighting energy February 17-May 30
savings 90%
Avg+sd
47 19% avg savings 80%
in zone 11 ft from west 70%
window
60% Avg
76 16% avg savings
in zone 10 ft from south 50%
window West
40%
42 18% and 37 20% South
in zones 15 to 25 ft 30% Avg-sd
from the south and 20%
west windows
10%
Compared to base case
with no daylighting 0%
controls 0 10 20 30
Distance from window (ft)
Daily = sun up to sun down
New Assessment Tools:
Sky Glare can be a Problem as well as direct sun
(cd/m2)
East view Lawrence Berkeley NationalSouth
12/15, 10:00AM view
Laboratory
Shadow studies
77

Reflected glare off buildings 78
Opposing
building is a
source of
potential
reflected
glare
NYT
site

Unique challenges in an urban context: 79
Reflected glare off buildings
Radiance simulation of view from north-facing window showing

glare from south-facing reflective
Lawrence glass
Berkeley on adjacent
National building
Laboratory
Explored Shade Control Strategies for
Motorized Shades using Simulation
Each shade system has its own sensor and motors

Performance will vary with floor elevation, view
out, and neighboring buildings. 2
How to address this variance?
Build a virtual model of the building in its urban
context using hourly weather data simulate
performance
17
18
17
Simulated Views from 3 of
18 22 view positions
page 80
South faade: shade operations
Lw>2000 cd/m2 for <30 min/year

Field commissioning tools:
Goal meet specs before occupancy
Shading systems Daylighting

controls

The New York Times Headquarters:
Shade Commissioning Tool being Tested

Roller Shade Controls
Luminance Sensor ->
User override touch screens

Intelligent Lighting and Shade Control
Automated Shaded Dimmable lighting
(Multifunctional)
Addressable
(Affordable)
(1/3 original cost estimate)
(Multifunctional)
Occupied 2007 New York Times office with dimmable

lights and automated shading
Challenges Ahead: Cost Effective
Dimming Electronic Ballast

SF Federal Building, California
GSA/ Morphosis, Arup
Operable Facades as Cooling Systems
Goals:
Class A office building without mechanical cooling in
perimeter tower offices;
Comfortable work environment
First cost savings, Operating savings
Smart Design and Reliable Controls are key
Innovative concept;
Extensive Energy design assessment
Extensive climate, energy modeling
Comfort analysis under peak conditions
CFD modeling for air flow details
Commitment with constraints
Control system development, testing
Commissioning process developed
Post Occupancy Evaluations planned
Automated operable windows and
night vent cooling -> no mechanical
cooling for most tower floors
Intelligent Faades must be designed
by Intelligent Architects & Engineers
Do architects and engineers have the expertise
and/or tools to optimize designs of intelligent
facades?
Other impacts:
Specification
Construction
Commissioning and Acceptance
Occupant training
Facility manager training

Glazing and Faade Simulation Tools
Glazing and Faade Tools

Essential for design of new products
Supplement, replace testing - virtual product development
Building Design Tools

Allow integration strategies to be explored
Allows faade performance to be optimized
HVAC Faade - Lighting tradeoffs
Explore commissioning and operational issues

WINDOW6 Software Suite
Optics THERM
IGDB (Window (Window
(Specular Glass) Frame)
Glass Data
Source)
calculation
CGDB
(Complex WINDOW
(Whole Window)
Glazing Data
Base)
Design / COMFEN RESFEN

Simulation Tools (Whole Building (Whole Building
DOE-2, EnergyPlus Commercial) Residential)
Radiance
Validated Software Tools
IR Thermography Lab
Window Field Test Facility

WINDOW6: Complex Glazing Systems
Manufacturers, engineers,
architects, builders want to
know their performance
characteristics
Venetial Blinds /
Integral shades
Cloth Shades /
Bug Screens
Fritted/Patterned Glass Light Redirecting Products

WINDOW+ Software Supports NFRC Rating and
Labeling
National Fenestration Rating Council

Calculate properties on NFRC labels
(100,000+ products rated)
---- but also used to:
Integrate energy efficiency into new
product development
Meet performance specs from
architects & consulting engineers
NEW CHALLENGE: NFRC Non-

residential Component-Based
Analysis method; mandated by T24-
2008
Intelligent Lighting Design with Radiance
What you see is what you experience
Photometrically accurate evaluation

of quantitative and qualitative
daylighting and electric lighting
performance
Make design decisions based on
lighting quality
New developments:
Until recently, Radiance lacked
efficient facilities for annual
simulation: rtcontrib
Developing the capability to
accept BSDF data from
Window6

Commercial Windows Website
COMFEN Design Tool
Faade Design-Analysis Tool for Commercial Building to

identify the most promising strategies, product options
Calculates the heating, cooling, lighting energy use, demand in a
building:
for a specific building
in a specific location
Using EnergyPlus, Radiance engines
Links to Window+ suite of tools
Addresses dynamic interaction with other building systems
Addresses performance tradeoffs:
Size and orientation
Glazing and shading
Thermal, visual comfort
Cost benefit
HVAC sizing
Limited release of COMFEN V1.0 October 2007
windows.lbl.gov/software/comfen/1
A Path Toward Future High 98
Performance Windows
Materials science, coating, device innovation
Integrated, dynamic, intelligent systems
Envelope, lighting, HVAC
Greater functionality (energy, comfort) with equal or lower
net system cost and better reliability
Displace more energy consuming HVAC and lighting system
Smarter life-cycle integration
Essential elements of Zero Energy/Carbon Neutral future

Defining the Energy/Climate Change Problem:
5 Supply Perspectives and 1 Demand
Carbon Storage Solar power
Biofuels
Energy Efficiency in Buildings
Wind power
Nuclear
page 99
Recent Energy Efficiency Activity
Greening the Capitol Project
Make the House buildings Carbon
Neutral in 10 years
Plan published; Action launched
Architecture 2030 - Zero Energy

Buildings
AIA and 500 cities have signed on
California PUC: Launches Big Bold

initiatives
~$1B/yr on Efficiency; shift to longer
term focus
New Commercial Buildings are Zero
Vision: Zero Energy Building
Creating a New Generation of Net-Zero Energy, Carbon-Neutral Buildings
Automation Functional Building Tunable Windows

Energy sensors & actuators Materials
Wireless communication Thermal
Feedback control systems Structural
Cool Stuff
Getting to Zero Net Energy or Carbon
Neutral Buildings
Deployment: (5 - 30% savings)

Identify what works and deploy it widely
Applies to all buildings: new and existing
Mandatory programs: codes and standards
Voluntary programs: incentives
e.g. Clinton Climate Initiative
Demonstrate Emerging Solutions (20 - 60% savings)

Find Underutilized, unproven technologies and systems
R&D to improve, optimize; Make them mainstream
e.g. New York Times
Breakthrough Innovations (50-80% savings plus on-site

renewable power)
New, more effective, high performance options
Lower costs, Lower risk
page 103
What Will it Take to Achieve 2030 Targets?
9
BAU
Total Energy Consumption
8 These levels of
(Quads = 10^15 Btu)
7 efficiency are unlikely to

6 be achieved by market
5 forces alone;
4
3 Major new public/private
2 initiatives to drive
1 toward goals
0
2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Business opportunities
for firms with
Year solutions
Existing Buildings Retrofit Buildings New Buildings
New Commercial Buildings Save 90% by 2030

plus 50% Retrofit Savings by 2030
Think Big, Start Small, Act Now
Challenge of launching and sustaining a large scale,
long term, national program, blending policy, economics
and technology
Public - Private partnership
New and Existing Commercial Buildings
Long Term effort - 10-20 years
You cant manage what you dont measure
Making Performance Visible - display energy use
IT network and smart controls enable real time, high
resolution, performance monitoring from devices to
buildings to grid
Zero Energy Commercial Building Initiative
www.zeroenergycbi.org
page 105
Benefits of High Performance Window Systems
Reduce
Add Value, Greenhouse Gas
Reduce Operating Emissions
Costs
Improve
Occupant Comfort,
Satisfaction and
Performance
Planet
Building Owner
Occupant
Information Resources
Stephen Selkowitz
Building Technologies Department
Building 90-3111
Berkeley, CA 94720 USA
E-mail: SESelkowitz@lbl.gov
More Info:
http://windows.lbl.gov
New York Times project
http://windows.lbl.gov/comm_perf/newyorktimes.htm
Electrochromics project
http://windows.lbl.gov/comm_perf/electrochromic
Facades Study
http://gaia.lbl.gov/hpbf
Commercial Web Site
http://www.commercialwindows.umn.edu

FENS

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

FENS

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

BEST Conference, Minneapolis, June 12, 2008

Technical Potential ---> Economic Potential --> Reality

2. Achievable/Achieved National Energy Impacts/Savings

Challenge: understand and reinforce the positive coupling

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

If I had asked people what they

Buildings consume 39% of total U.S. energy

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Cost / Sq. M. Floor -Year

Energy Cost: $20.00

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Quad: 1 quadrillion BTU 1 EJ 1% of annual US Energy Consumption

Andr Anders & Windows Group (EETD), 2007

Windows account for 1.65Q heating; 1.02Q Cooling = 2.67Q

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Today's Typical Product

Highly Insulating Dynamic Heat

-1.3 -1.0 -0.7 -0.3 0.0 0.3 0.7 1.0 1.3

Andr Anders & Windows Group (EETD), 2007

Andr Anders & Windows Group (EETD), 2007

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Intelligent Control of Dynamic Conditions, Properties:

Highly insulating systems

1973: Typical Window:

2030: Future Window:

Single Glazed w/Storm, $1310

Double Glazed, $1218

Double w/Low-E, $1120

House with no windows, $1000

Static windows have constant U and SHGC W indo w U-factor S HG C

Refrigerator volume (cubic feet)

400 R e frig e ra to r P ric e in 1 9 8 3 D o lla rs $ 462 5

9 47 949 95 1 9 53 95 5 9 57 959 96 1 9 63 96 5 96 7 9 69 97 1 9 73 9 75 97 7 9 79 98 1 9 83 9 85 98 7 9 89 991 99 3 9 95 997 99 9 0 01

Low e U = .35 (Energy Star)

- Loss R10 Window U = 0.10

1973 1980 1990 2000

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Nearer Term Objective: U-value < 0.8 W/m2-K

Andr Anders & Windows Group (EETD), 2007

3 low-E coatings, 2 low-E coatings, Evacuated, 1 low-E Aerogel,

Current technologies for highly insulating

Multiple spacers can lead to gas leakage

Research novel center layer designs and spacer

only 2 paths for gas loss

Triple Glazed Low-e, Krypton

Zero-Energy prototype utilizes

Next research steps

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Massachusetts Zero Energy Indianapolis Test House

Combined Annual Heating and Cooling Energy (MBtu)

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Combined Annual Heating and Cooling Energy (MBtu)

0.1 target performance region

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Varies with Location and Orientation.

Varies with Season and Weather.

Varies with Occupant Use Patterns

So the best solution is a window whose

Transmittance -vs- Wavelength

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Easy to combine coatings, substrates, adhesives, etc to

Applied Films Laminated Glass

Daylight Source: glazings