ARTICLE IN PRESS

Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 119–128

www.elsevier.com/locate/renene

On minimizing heat transport in architectural glazing

Heinrich Manz
Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research (Empa), Laboratory for Building Technologies,
Ueberlandstrasse 129, CH-8600 Duebendorf, Switzerland
Received 15 August 2006; accepted 21 January 2007
Available online 21 March 2007

Abstract

Significant reductions in the heating energy demand of buildings are achievable through minimization of the thermal transmittance of
glazing. This paper reviews all the heat transport processes occurring in gas-filled and evacuated insulating glazing. The heat transfer
mechanisms in gas-filled glazing cavities include radiative exchange between the glass sheet surfaces, convection and gaseous conduction.
The application of two low-emissivity coatings (0.04) lowers the thermal conductance due to radiation between the glass pane surfaces to
roughly 0.1 W m2 K1. At the same time, even where fill gases such as krypton and xenon are used, thermal conductance due to
convection and conduction cannot be reduced to much below 1 W m2 K1. Heat transfer by convection and gaseous conduction only
becomes negligible where the cavity is evacuated to approximately 102 Pa. Heat transfer is then determined by radiation and, even more
importantly, conduction in support pillars required to bear the atmospheric load on the external glass sheet surfaces. The fact that the
average centre-of-glazing heat transfer rates achievable by evacuation of the cavity are some two to five times lower than those of gas-
filled cavities increases the significance of heat transfer in the glazing edge regions. Consequently, in addition to the heat transfer in the
cavity, the impact on glazing thermal transmittance of the edge seal and different frame constructions was also quantified. The
possibilities and limitations of reducing total heat transfer in evacuated glazing are discussed on the basis of analytical and numerical
methods. The results suggest that this concept offers significant advantages over current glazing technology in terms of overall thermal
transmittance.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Insulating glazing; Fill gas; Vacuum; Heat transfer processes; Edge effects; Total thermal transmittance

1. Introduction thermal transmittance of glazing is also significant for

In terms of building energy losses in cold climates,
windows constitute weak spots in the envelope that exercise
a major impact on heating energy demand. Their
significance is enhanced by the high proportion of glazing
typical of many modern buildings. The thermal transmit-
tance of windows tends to be much higher than that of the
neighboring opaque elements. For instance, the thermal
transmittance targets specified by the Swiss energy
standard for buildings [1] for walls and roofs incorporating
state-of-the-art technology are six times lower than that for
windows (0.2 and 1.2 W m2 K1, respectively). In addition
to being an important parameter with respect to energy,
Tel.: +41 44 823 4790; fax: +41 44 823 4009.
E-mail address: heinrich.manz@empa.ch
thermal comfort.
Current window technology increasingly makes use of
low-emissivity coatings that significantly decrease the
radiative heat transfer between the glass sheet surfaces in
the cavity. Braeuer [2] provides an overview of large-area
glass coatings. Low-emissivity coatings exhibit a thickness
of roughly 100 nm and typically feature a silver layer.
Additional anti-reflection and protective layers are incor-
porated to maintain the high transparency of float glass in
the range of the visible spectrum while protecting the silver
film from corrosion. A great deal of work has been done in
this field in recent years aimed at achieving more advanced
thermal and optical properties as well as higher resilience
and durability [3–8].
To reduce heat transfer by gaseous conduction and
convection, the cavities of insulating glazing units are now

0960-1481/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2007.01.007
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
120 H. Manz / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 119–128
often filled with inert gas—mainly argon or krypton, but
sometimes xenon—instead of air.
However, negligible gaseous conduction (and convec-
tion) is only achievable by evacuation of the glazing cavity.
Zoller [9] first described this concept in the patent
literature. Numerous patent applications were then filed
in the following decades. A laser welding technique for
producing evacuated glazing was investigated at the US
Solar Energy Research Institute [10–12]. The deflection of
the glazing due to atmospheric pressure was reduced by
spherical glass spacers with radii of roughly 0.25–1.5 mm,
periodically arrayed between the glass sheets. Problems
with the sealing technique prevented the manufacture of
complete glazing units. Collins and his group at the
University of Sydney [13–20] were the first to successfully
fabricate a double vacuum glazing unit. A 0.1–0.2 mm high
cavity was evacuated to a pressure below 101 Pa.
Radiative transfer was lowered by means of a low-
emissivity coating on the glass surfaces. Metal support
pillars with radii of 0.1–0.2 mm were used—hardly visible
to the naked eye—and the glazing edges were sealed with
solder glass. During the edge sealing process, the whole
assembly was heated up to temperatures of around 500 1C,
imposing limitations on the use of low-emissivity coatings.
In collaboration with the University of Sydney, a Japanese
company developed a commercial double vacuum glazing
unit with a thermal transmittance of roughly
1.5 W m2 K1 [21].
In order to overcome the restrictions imposed by a high-
temperature manufacturing process, mainly with regard to
coating techniques, a low-temperature method for sealing
the edges of vacuum glazing units was investigated at the
Universities of Ulster and Patras [22]. An edge seal
employing indium wires and epoxy resin was developed
that enabled fabrication at temperatures below 200 1C. A
highly insulating frame for vacuum glazing was developed
at the University of Ulster [23].
Working in collaboration with Baechli [25–27], the
Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems [24]
developed a hermetic glazing edge seal for vacuum glazing
based on metallized glass surfaces and a soldering
technique. Unlike the previously described approaches,
Baechli’s method is based on a flexible edge seal using steel
foil. A key advantage of this system is that it accommo-
dates the temperature-induced expansion of the glass
panes, i.e. temperature differences between the glazing
surfaces do not cause any deflection of the structure. In this
type of construction, the glass sheet must slide over the
support pillars. The author is unaware of any complete
glazing prototypes successfully manufactured using this
approach.
Several other patent applications have been filed in
recent years related to vacuum glazing. These cover, for
example, various manufacturing or processing methods
[28–32] and a support pillar design featuring a hard core
with high compressive strength and a soft metallic or
carbon contact layer that serves to reduce cracking or
scratching of the glass [33]. A patent was also granted for a
triple vacuum glazing unit incorporating thin wires in the
cavities to support the glass sheets [34]. Using a numerical
method, Manz et al. [35] discuss the impact of geometrical
and thermophysical parameters on the thermal transmit-
tance of evacuated triple glazing.
Weinlaeder et al. [36] analyze heat transfer in evacuated
glazing including edge effects and conclude that thermal
transmittances of 0.4 W m2 K1 are possible for double
vacuum glazing of 1 m2 area. The edge sealing solutions
investigated in this study are glass–glass joints, soldering
metal foils and high barrier adhesives. The preliminary
conclusions drawn by the authors point to high barrier
adhesives as the most promising option.
In order to remove gases from the internal surfaces,
Collins and Simko [14] suggested baking the glazing at
temperatures between 100 and 250 1C during the evacua-
tion process. More recent work [37–40] has shown that
photodesorption can occur when the glazing is exposed to
sunlight. It was found by means of mass spectroscopic
analysis that the gases evolved are mainly carbon
monoxide and carbon dioxide, rather than water vapor,
which was observed to outgas at elevated temperatures. It
was concluded that temperatures of 350–400 1C are needed
during manufacturing to prevent a pressure increase in the
glazing cavity during service life. Benson et al. proposed
the use of getters to maintain the vacuum inside the sealed
space [10]. Collins filed a patent for an evacuated panel
incorporating a getter [41].
This study sets out to review the heat transfer mechan-
isms in gas-filled and evacuated architectural glazing and to
quantify heat transfer rates as a function of thermophysi-
cal, mechanical and geometrical parameters. Given the
increased significance of heat conduction through the
glazing edges due to the higher thermal resistance of
evacuated cavities, edge effects will also be discussed.
2. Radiative heat transfer between glass pane surfaces
As the distance between the glass panes in an insulating
glazing unit is very small compared with the height and
width of the glazing, flat and parallel plates with infinite
extension, each being isothermal though at different
temperatures, may be assumed for modelling the radiative
heat transfer in a glazing cavity. Application of the laws of
Kirchhoff and Stefan–Boltzmann and using a lineariza-
tion—valid only if temperature differences are not too
great—produces the following commonly used thermal
conductance for radiative transfer in glazing cavities:
 
1
Lrad ¼ 4sT 3 . (1)
1=1 þ 1=2  1
In Eq. (1), s is the Stefan–Boltzmann constant,
T denotes the mean surface temperature in the cavity,
and e1 and e2 are the emissivities of the glass pane surfaces.
Fig. 1 illustrates Eq. (1) and shows, by way of example,
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Manz / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 119–128 121

0.5 these applications, the Nusselt number is given by [44]

Thermal conductance rad (Wm-2K-1) One pane coated
0.4 (ε1 = ε ; ε2 = 0.84) Nu ¼ Maxð0:035Ra0:38 ; 1Þ. (4)

Fig. 2 shows Eq. (4) compared with two experimentally

0.3 [43,45] and one numerically [46] determined correlations.
Thermal conductance by convection and conduction is
0.2 written as

Nulgas
0.1 Lgas ¼ , (5)
Both panes coated L
(ε1 = ε2 = ε)
0
where lgas denotes the thermal conductivity of gas. The
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 thermophysical properties of air, argon, krypton and
Emissivity (-) xenon are given in the appendix (Table A1). Fig. 3 shows
that at a certain distance between the panes heat flow is
Fig. 1. Radiative heat transport between glass surfaces as a function of
minimum. The location of this minimum position depends
emissivity at a mean surface temperature of 10 1C ( ¼ 283.15 K).
Emissivity of non-coated glass surface was assumed to be 0.84 [44]. on the thermophysical properties of the gas. At the
minimum positions, when xenon is employed as a fill gas,

that thermal conductance due to radiation can be reduced 10

to 0.1 W m2 K1 if both glass pane surfaces are coated and 8 ElSherbiny et al. (1982)
have emissivities of roughly 0.04. Wright (1996)
6
Nusselt number Nu (-) EN 673 (1997)
Manz (2003)
3. Gas-filled cavity 4

3.1. Convection and gaseous conduction

2
Convective heat transfer in a gas layer within a
rectangular cavity with isothermal sidewalls at different
temperatures which drive the flow has been widely
investigated. Merker [42] gives an overview of the physical 1
background and Wright [43] compiles and discusses the 1000 104 105 106
available experimental data and correlations. The non- Rayleigh number Ra (-)
radiative heat flux, q, which includes both convective and
conductive heat transfer, is often quantified in a non- Fig. 2. Comparisons of Nu ¼ f(Ra) correlations taken from the literature.
A ¼ 80 was assumed by ElSherbiny et al. [45] and Manz [46].
dimensional format. The average Nusselt number for non-
radiative heat transfer across the gas layer, Nu, is defined as
qm L
Nu ¼ , (2) 3
lgas DT Air
Thermal conductance gas (Wm-2K-1)

2.5 Ar
where lgas stands for the thermal conductivity of the fill
Kr
gas, L the width of the gas layer, qm the average non- Xe
radiative heat flow across the gas layer and DT the 2

temperature difference between the warm and cold cavity

1.5
walls. According to theory, Nu is a function of the Rayleigh
number, Ra, Prandtl number, Pr, and aspect ratio, A ¼ H/
1
L, where H denotes the cavity height. The functional
dependence of the correlations is consequently of the form 0.5
T = 15 K
Nu ¼ f ðRaL ; Pr; AÞ. (3)
0
Given the minor variations in the Prandtl numbers of 0 0.01 0.02 0.03
air, argon, krypton and xenon and the high aspect ratios of Distance between panes L (m)
typical glazing cavities, the impact of Pr and A may be Fig. 3. Conductive and convective heat transport in a glazing cavity as a
considered negligible. The Nusselt number may therefore function of distance between panes applying Eq. (4) and thermophysical
be written as a function of the Rayleigh number only. For properties of Table A1.

122
heat transfer by gaseous conduction and convection is
nearly half that recorded for an air-filled cavity.
3.2. Total heat transfer in a cavity
Superposition of heat flows due to gaseous conduc-
tion, convection and radiation in the glazing cavity
results in [44]
Ltot ¼ Lgas þ Lrad .
If advanced low-emissivity coatings are employed, heat
transfer in gas-filled glazing cavities is dominated by
gaseous conduction and convection (Figs. 1 and 3).
4. Evacuated cavity
Heat transfer by convection and gaseous conduction
may be eliminated through evacuation of the cavity.
Support pillars are then needed to prevent the glazing
from collapsing due to the atmospheric load on either pane
and to avoid contact between the glass pane surfaces.
Additional thermal losses result from conduction in these
support pillars. Radiative heat transfer between the glazing
surfaces is basically not affected by evacuation of the
cavity. (Note: Support pillars used in evacuated glazing
have an impact on surface temperature distribution. It was
found that Eq. (1), assuming isothermal surface tempera-
tures, still provides accurate results.)
4.1. Gaseous conduction
The fundamentals of highly insulating materials were
reviewed by Reiss [47]. The mean free path of molecules in
a given gas at a given temperature rises as the pressure
decreases (Sutherland 1893, as cited in Ref. [47]). Fig. 4
shows this dependence for numerous gases. The mean free
path for air at standard atmospheric pressure and room
100
10-1
Mean free path (m)
10-2
10-3
10-4
10-2 10-1 100
Pressure p (Pa)
Fig. 4. Mean free path at 10 1C for different gases as a function of
pressure (Sutherland 1893, as cited in Ref. [47]).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Manz / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 119–128
temperature is roughly 0.06 mm. The ratio between the
mean free path, lgas, and a representative physical length,
here given by the cavity width, L, is known as the Knudsen
number, Kn ¼ lgas/L. The thermal conductivity of a gas,
lgas, falls with increasing Knudsen number (Kaganer, 1969,
as cited in Ref. [47]). In other words, if the mean free path
is much longer than the distance between the warm and the
cold pane, molecular heat conduction is virtually impos-
sible. Fig. 5 shows the gaseous conductivity as a function of
(6) pressure and cavity width L. Assuming a cavity width of
0.1 mm and a pressure below 101 Pa, thermal conductivity
is reduced by a factor of roughly 103 compared with its
original value at standard atmospheric pressure. The mean
free path at 101 Pa is roughly 6 cm. To allow comparison
of the heat transfer in a glazing cavity by gaseous
conduction with other heat transport mechanisms, the
thermal conductance, L ¼ lgas/L, was calculated (Fig. 6).
Given the dependencies described above, thermal conduc-
tance ceases to be a function of cavity width. Assuming
again a pressure less than 101 Pa, thermal conductance is
below 0.1 W m2 K1.
Fig. 5. Thermal conductivity of air as a function of pressure (Kaganer
1969, as cited in Ref. [47]).
N2
H2
O2
He

Ar
Kr
Xe
H2O
CO
CO2
101 102
Fig. 6. Thermal conductance due to gaseous conduction as a function of
pressure and distance between panes.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Manz / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 119–128
4.2. Pillar conduction
The pillar thermal resistance was modelled using the
analytical solution proposed by Holm [48] in which a small
circular contact between two otherwise isolated semi-infinite
slabs of material is assumed. This model further assumes that
the thermal conductivity of the pillar material far exceeds that
of the glass panes, which is true if metallic support pillars are
used. In this case, the thermal resistance associated with the
heat conduction in the glass may be written as
1 in a quarter of a unit cell with edge lengths of s/2. Thermal
Rpil ¼ , (7)
2lg r
where r denotes the pillar radius and lg the thermal
conductivity of glass, i.e. the thermal resistance is determined
by the pillar radius and the thermal conductivity of the glass
only. It was shown by numerical simulation that Eq. (7)
provides accurate results for this application [35]. The thermal
conductance of a pillar array between two glass sheets is given
by
2lg r
Lpil ¼ 2 , (8)
s Consequently, the following superposition of conductances
where s stands for the pillar separation in the rectangular
array.
In order to minimize heat transfer, pillar radii must be
small. On the other hand, given the atmospheric load on the
glass panes, patm ¼ 105 Pa, and the limited compressive yield
strength of the pillar material, the pillar radius has to be
larger than a critical radius, rcrit, given by the compressive
yield strength of the pillar material, sy, and the pillar
separation, s. If uniform stress distribution in the pillar is
assumed as a simplification, the following is obtained:
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
patm
rcrit ¼ s . (9)
psy
Fig. 7 shows the impact of pillar separation and pillar
radius on the thermal conductance and the average
Pillar separation s:

Fig. 7. Thermal conductance due to heat conduction through pillars, for
cylindrical pillars with a thermal conductivity much higher than that of
glass (lpilb1 W m1 K1). Dashed curves indicate lines of constant
compressive stress in pillars.
123
compressive stress in a pillar cross-section. The results
displayed in this figure are only valid if the thermal
conductivity of the pillar material is much higher than that
of glass (i.e. lpilb1 W m1 K1).
Given the unavailability of an analytical solution for
heat transport through pillars of low-conducting material
(lpilE1 W m1 K1 or lower), a steady-state three-dimen-
sional numerical thermal model was employed. A com-
mercial finite difference code for computing conductive and
radiative heat transfer [49] was used to model conduction
conductances were computed as a function of pillar radius
and pillar separation (Fig. 8). A pillar height of 0.2 mm and
glass pane thicknesses of 4 mm were assumed in this model.
Additional mechanical design criteria have been devel-
oped for vacuum glazing and are discussed elsewhere [14,35].
4.3. Total heat transfer in a cavity
Unlike the thermal conductances L discussed in Sections
3 and 4.1, Eq. (8) refers to the external sheet surfaces.
due to gaseous conduction, radiation between glass
surfaces and conduction through support pillars has to
be considered as an approximation only:
Ltot  Lgas þ Lrad þ Lpil . (10)
In order to test the validity of this approximation
(Eq. (10)), the same commercial code [49] was used to
define two models. Conjugated heat transfer, i.e. simulta-
neous radiation exchange between glass surfaces and
conduction in glass and support pillars, was simulated.
Gaseous conduction in the cavity was assumed to be
negligible. Tables A2 and A3 in the appendix show the
results of these tests. The error using Eq. (10) was found to
be 0.7% and 3.3%, respectively, which appears to be
acceptable for the purpose described here.
Fig. 8. Thermal conductance due to heat conduction through pillars, for
cylindrical pillars with thermal conductivity equal to that of glass
(lpil ¼ 1 W m1 K1). Dashed curves indicate lines of constant compres-
sive stress in pillars.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
124 H. Manz / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 119–128
Table 1
Contribution of different heat transport processes to total thermal
conductance in glazing cavity
Thermal conductance
(W m2 K1)
Radiation, where e ¼ 0.02–0.05 0.05–0.13
Pillar conduction, where syo1 GPa, s ¼ 50 mm, 0.16–0.23
lpil ¼ 1 W m1 K1 or lpilb1 W m1 K1
Gaseous conduction, where p ¼ 0.01–0.1 Pa 0.01–0.10
Total thermal conductance, Ltot 0.22–0.46
Cold surface
Pillar
Warm surface
Fig. 9. Isotherms in a representative cross-section visualize thermal bridge
effect of support pillars (temperature increment 5  104 K, temperature
difference between external surfaces 1 K, s ¼ 50 mm, r ¼ 0.2 mm,
lpil ¼ 1 W m1 K1, e1 ¼ e2 ¼ 0.05, no gaseous conduction assumed).
The relative importance of the different heat transfer
mechanisms varies according to geometry, the physical
properties of the coatings and support pillars, and the
pressure in the cavity. Table 1 provides an overview of the
contributions from radiation, pillar conduction and gas-
eous conduction to the total thermal conductance. The
selected parameter ranges reflect the materials and coatings
commercially available today. A total thermal conductance
of roughly 0.22–0.46 W m2 K1 for an evacuated cavity
can be achieved based on the parameters given in Table 1.
Heat conduction through the support pillars represents the
main heat loss mechanism in these cases.
Fig. 9 shows a temperature distribution in a representa-
tive cross-section of the glazing, computed using the same
code [49]. The importance of the pillars as a major source
of heat loss is clearly visualized by the isotherms.
5. Edge effects in evacuated glazing
The fact that the average center-of-glazing heat transfer
rates achievable by evacuation of the cavity are two to five
times lower than those of gas-filled cavities increases the
significance of heat transfer in the glazing edge regions.
Hence, the impact of the edge seal on glazing thermal
transmittance was also quantified.
5.1. Edge seal
The linear thermal transmittances of various edge seals
were investigated using the same commercial code [49].
Fig. 10. Linear thermal transmittance of edge seal for two different
thermal conductances of cavity and as a function of edge seal width (no
frame; thermal conductivity of seal material 100 W m1 K1).
Steady-state two-dimensional models were employed. The
applied heat transfer coefficients on the internal and the
external glass sheet surfaces, chosen in accordance with
[50], were 7.7 and 25 W m2 K1, respectively. The glass
pane thicknesses were assumed to be 4 mm and the seal
height 0.2 mm. Section widths of 0.3 and 0.5 m were chosen
but no change in results was found. Heat transfer in the
cavity was modelled using an equivalent thermal conduc-
tivity. The thermal conductivities of the seal material were
assumed to be 1 and 100 W m1 K1, respectively, repre-
senting a glass and a metal seal. The impact of this
parameter was found to be very low. Fig. 10 shows the
impact of the edge seal width on the linear thermal
transmittance. As expected, the heat transfer is lower where
a smaller seal width is chosen. However, for practical
glazing applications, mechanical and tightness-related
factors also play a role in determining the edge seal width.
5.2. Insulating frame
A second step in the investigation of thermal edge effects
involved analysis of the impact of an insulating frame
covering the glazing near the edge seal. For this purpose,
the numerical model described in Section 5.1 was modified
by adding two rectangular, 10 mm thick pieces of material.
The thermal property of this frame material was either
conducting—assuming a thermal conductivity of
0.04 W m1 K1—or non-conducting. The edge seal width
was 10 mm and the thermal conductivity of the seal
material was 100 W m1 K1. Fig. 11 shows the impact
on linear thermal transmittance of the frame width
overlapping the glazing in the edge region. Fig. 12 displays
the heat flow lines in a glazing cross-section and visualizes
the very pronounced thermal impact of the glazing edge on
total heat transfer.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Manz / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 119–128
Fig. 11. Linear thermal transmittance of glazing edge as a function of
frame width for adiabatic and conducting—thermal conductivity
0.04 W m1 K1, thickness 1 cm—frame material.
Fig. 12. Heat flow lines in glazing edge region (heat flow increment
102 W m1, temperature difference 1 K, ws ¼ 10 mm, wf ¼ 30 mm, frame
thickness 10 mm, thermal conductivity of frame material 0.04 W m1 K1,
L ¼ 0.25 W m2 K1).
6. Overall thermal transmittance of evacuated glazing
The center-of-glazing thermal transmittance is obtained
as follows:
1 1 d 1 d 1
¼ þ þ þ þ , (11)
U c hi lg L lg he
where hi and he denote the heat transfer coefficients on the
internal and external glass sheet surfaces and d the glass
pane thicknesses. Given that the surface and glass pane
thermal resistances are small compared with the thermal
resistance of the glazing cavity for the type of glazing
discussed here, the center-of-glazing thermal transmittance
is mainly determined by the thermal conductance of the
glazing cavity, L. Applying the same numerical values for
these parameters as mentioned above (Section 5.1), the
total thermal transmittance of the glazing, including edge
effects, was computed as follows:
L
U tot ¼ U c þ C; (12)
A gas.
where C denotes the linear thermal transmittance of the
glazing edge, L the total length of the edge and A the area
of the glazing. Fig. 13 shows the total thermal transmit-
tance as a function of the linear thermal transmittance for
125
Fig. 13. Total thermal transmittance of square glazing as a function of
edge lengths and linear thermal transmittance of edge region.
different edge lengths of square glazing. The significance of
edge effects for small glazing assemblies is evident. For
example, if a linear thermal transmittance of
0.07 W m1 K1 is assumed for the glazing edge, in
conjunction with a cavity thermal transmittance of
L ¼ 0.25 W m2 K1, the total thermal transmittance of a
0.5 m  0.5 m glazing sample is more than three times
higher than the center-of-glazing thermal transmittance! By
contrast, where the same edge and a cavity thermal
transmittance of L ¼ 0.5 W m2 K1 are assumed for a
3 m  3 m glazing unit, edge effects push up the total
transmittance by only 20%. Edge effects are, of course,
even more significant for rectangular non-square glazing.
7. Discussion
A review and analysis of heat transfer in the cavities of
architectural glazing has shown that—while radiative
surface-to-surface heat transfer can be reduced to below
0.1 W m2 K1 by the low-emissivity coatings commer-
cially available today—heat transfer by conduction and
convection in the fill gas remains at roughly 1 W m2 K1,
even for fill gases such as argon, krypton and xenon. This
means that where advanced low-emissivity coatings are
applied, heat transfer in the glazing cavity is dominated by
gaseous conduction and convection in the fill gas. Hence,
to improve the insulating properties of glazing without
increasing the number of cavities and thereby reducing
transmission of solar radiation including visible light, the
focus has to be on decreasing the heat transfer in the fill
By evacuation of the glazing cavity to approximately
102 Pa, gaseous conduction in the cavity becomes
negligible compared with other heat transfer processes.
This is because the mean free path length at this pressure
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
126 H. Manz / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 119–128
(roughly 101 m) is much higher than the cavity width
(roughly 104 m), and conductive heat transfer in the fill
gas is virtually impossible. If advanced low-emissivity
coatings are employed in such glazing, heat conduction
through support pillars becomes a key heat transfer
mechanism in the cavity. This necessitates a very careful
design of the support pillars, including selection of
material(s) and optimization of geometry, with due
consideration for mechanical as well as thermal aspects
discussed by Collins and Simko [14] and Manz et al. [35].
As the total cavity thermal resistance for evacuated
glazing is much higher than for gas-filled glazing, heat
conduction through the glazing edges has an even greater
impact on total thermal transmittance. The much smaller
cavity width (e.g. 0.2 mm) in evacuated glazing is, of
course, not advantageous in terms of reducing heat
conduction through the edge seal. Given these very low
seal thicknesses, the thermal conductivity of the seal
material has almost no impact over a wide range of
numerical values. For instance, a glass seal offers only
marginal thermal advantages over a highly conducting
metal seal. More crucial to thermal transmittance is the
width of the edge seal, with small widths naturally being
preferable. Baechli [26] suggests a flexible edge seal based
on metallic foil soldered to the glass sheet surfaces. Such a
construction might therefore be advantageous from a
thermal point of view. However, if insulating frames are
applied, the thermal advantage of this approach is
significantly reduced and mechanical and tightness-related
factors also require consideration in the development of a
suitable edge seal design.
The results of the described thermal modelling underline
the importance of developing advanced highly insulating
frames for evacuated glazing, as already undertaken by
Fang et al. [23]. Even if advanced frames are applied, the
edge region is still likely to exhibit a lower thermal
resistance than the central region of the glazing and
account therefore needs to be taken of the impact of the
glazing geometry on thermal performance. Hence, in terms
of thermal performance, roughly square, large-area glazing
units are particularly advantageous.
8. Conclusions and outlook
This study examined the possibilities and limitations of
reducing heat transfer in architectural glazing. The
analytical and numerical results suggest that the evacuated
Table A1
Thermophysical properties of fill gases at 10 1C [44,50]
Air
Thermal conductivity (W m1 K1) 2.496  102
Thermal diffusivity (m2 s1) 2.010  105
Kinematic viscosity (m2 s1) 1.429  105
cavity concept offers significant thermal advantages over
current glazing technology based on fill gases such as air,
argon, krypton and xenon. The thermal superiority of
evacuated glazing remains significant even where edge
effects—more pronounced for evacuated glazing—are
taken into account. Evacuated double glazing can
achieve similar or even lower thermal transmittances than
current advanced triple glazing, while at the same time
offering higher solar energy transmittance and lower
overall thickness and weight. Higher solar energy trans-
mittance is advantageous in terms of passive solar energy
use for the reduction of the building heating demand and
transmission of visible solar radiation for daylighting
purposes.
However, much more work is needed to overcome the
remaining technological challenges, which are mainly (i) to
develop a glazing concept suitable for cost-effective large-
scale manufacturing, taking into account aspects such as
low-emissivity coatings, low-conducting support pillars
with high compressive yield strength, suitable outgassing
and evacuation procedures, and hermetic edge sealing, (ii)
to enable long-term thermal stability, i.e. a service life of
more than 20 years, particularly to prevent a pressure
increase in glazing exposed to sunlight and temperature
fluctuations due to photodesorption and/or temperature-
induced outgassing [37–40], by means of an appropriate
manufacturing process and possibly also the use of getters
[10,41], and (iii) to show that the mechanical strength of the
glass panes, support pillars and edge seal is sufficient to
withstand loads due to atmospheric pressure, temperature
differences and wind occurring during the service life of the
glazing.
Acknowledgments
The author gratefully acknowledges valuable discussions
with Nikolai Artmann, Vinzenz Bissig, Nick Bosco,
Samuel Brunner, Paolo Chiggiato, Hans Josef Hug,
Jolanta Janczak, Peter Loutzenhiser, Venkatesh Sivasu-
bramaniam and Dirk Thomschke.
Appendix
See (Tables A1–A3) for details.
Argon Krypton Xenon
1.684  102 0.900  102 0.533  102
1.910  105 1.032  105 0.575  105
1.274  105 0.674  105 0.377  105
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
H. Manz / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 119–128 127

Table A2 [10] Benson DK, Tracy CE, Jorgensen GJ. Laser sealed evacuated
Comparison between semi-analytical and numerical [49] results for first window glazings. In: Proceedings of the 28th SPIE International
sets of physical parameters revealed a deviation of 0.7% Symposium on Optics and Electro-Optics 1984, San Diego CA.
[11] Benson DK, Tracy CE. Evacuated window glazings for energy
Thermal conductance efficient buildings. In: Proceedings of the 29th SPIE International
(W m2 K1) Symposium on Optics and Electro-Optics 1985, San Diego CA.
[12] Benson DK, Smith LK, Tracy CE, Potter T, Christiansen C, Soule
Method of analysis Non-conjugated Conjugated DE. Vacuum window glazings for energy-efficient buildings: Sum-
(semi-analytical) (numerical) mary report. Internal Report SERI/TP-212-3684, Solar Energy
Research Institute, Golden CO; 1990.
Heat transport mechanism
[13] Collins RE, Turner GM, Fischer-Cripps AC, Tang JZ, Simko TM,
Radiation, where e1 ¼ e2 ¼ 0.02 0.052 —
Dey CJ, et al. Vacuum glazing—a new component for insulating
Pillar conduction, where 0.098 —
windows. Build Env 1995;30:459–92.
lpil ¼ 1 W m1 K1, r ¼ 0.2 mm,
[14] Collins RE, Simko TM. Current status of the science and technology
s ¼ 50 mm
of vacuum glazing. Sol Energy 1998;62:189–213.
Total thermal conductance Ltot 0.150 0.151 [15] Fischer-Cripps AC, Collins RE, Turner GM, Bezzel E. Stresses and
fracture probability in evacuated glazing. Build Env 1995;30:41–59.
[16] Garrison JD, Collins RE. Manufacture and cost of vacuum glazing.
Sol Energy 1995;55:151–61.
Table A3 [17] Lenzen M, Collins RE. Long-term field tests of vacuum glazing. Sol
Comparison between semi-analytical and numerical [49] results for second Energy 1997;61:11–5.
sets of physical parameters revealed a deviation of 3.3% [18] Simko TM, Fischer-Cripps AC, Collins RE. Temperature-induced
stresses in vacuum glazing: modelling and experimental validation.
Thermal conductance Sol Energy 1998;63:1–21.
(W m2 K1) [19] Turner GM, Collins RE. Measurement of heat flow through vacuum
glazing at elevated temperature. lnt J Heat Mass Transfer
Method of analysis Non-conjugated Conjugated 1997;40:1437–46.
(analytical) (numerical) [20] Wilson CF, Simko TM, Collins RE. Heat conduction through the
support pillars in vacuum glazing. Sol Energy 1998;63:393–406.
Heat transport mechanism [21] Nippon Sheet Glass Co., http://www.nsg-spacia.co.jp, retrieved May
Radiation, where e ¼ 0.10 0.271 — 18, 2005.
Pillar conduction, where 0.463 — [22] Griffiths PW, Di Leo M, Cartwright P, Eames PC, Yianoulis P,
lpilb1 W m1 K1, r ¼ 0.3 mm, Leftheriotis G, et al. Fabrication of evacuated glazing at low
s ¼ 36 mm temperature. Sol Energy 1998;63:243–9.
Total thermal conductance Ltot 0.734 0.758 [23] Fang Y, Eames PC, Hyde TJ, Norton B. Complex multimaterial
insulating frames for windows with evacuated glazing. Sol Energy
2005;79:245–61.
[24] Wittwer V. Private communication. Fraunhofer Institute for Solar
Energy Systems, Freiburg, Germany; March 11, 2005.
[25] Baechli E. Thermally insulating construction and/or lighting element.
References European Patent No. 0247098B1; 1991.
[26] Baechli E. Gastight edge seal. European Patent No. 0434802B1; 1992.
[1] Swiss Standard SIA 380/1. Thermal energy in buildings (in German). [27] Sager-Hintermann K, Baechli E. Method and equipment for making
Zurich: Swiss Association of Engineers and Architects; 2001. heat-insulating construction and/or lighting elements. European
[2] Braeuer G. Large area glass coating. Surf Coat Technol Patent No. 1221526; 2002.
1999;112:358–65. [28] Veerasamy VS. Vacuum insulating glazing spacer pillar with
[3] Ando E, Miyazaki M. Moisture resistance of the low-emissivity diamond-like carbon coating. WO 00/66868, World Intellectual
coatings with a layer structure of Al-doped ZnO/Ag/Al-doped ZnO. Property Organization; 2000.
Thin Solid Films 2001;392:289–93. [29] Demars Y. Process for producing a vacuum in an insulating glazing.
[4] Ando E, Suzuki S, Aomine N, Miyazaki M, Tada M. Sputtered US Patent No. 5855638; 1999.
silver-based low-emissivity coatings with high moisture durability. [30] Poix R, Margerand S, Demars Y, Moltke I, Bredsdorff M, Bezzel E.
Vacuum 2000;59:792–9. Method for producing a vacuum between two glass sheets and
[5] Vergohl M, Malkomes N, Matthee T, Braeuer G, Richter U, Nickol insulating glazing. US Patent No. 6261652; 2001.
FW, et al. In situ monitoring of optical coatings on architectural glass [31] Zhao X, Zhao T. The method for manufacturing vacuum glazing and
and comparison of the accuracy of the layer thickness attainable its application mechanical system. European Patent No. 1216971 A1;
with ellipsometry and photometry. Thin Solid Films 2001;392: 2002.
258–64. [32] Futagami T, Sakamoto K, Misonou M. Vacuum double glazing. WO
[6] Hammerberg E, Roos A. Antireflection treatment of low-emitting 03035567, World Intellectual Property Organization; 2003.
glazings for energy efficient windows with high visible transmittance. [33] Collins RE, Tang J. Design improvements to vacuum glazing. US
Thin Solid Films 2003;442:222–6. Patent No. 6083578; 2000.
[7] Del Re M, Gouttebaron R, Dauchot JP, Hecq M. Study of the [34] Wuethrich W. Heat transmission reducing closure element, European
optical properties of AlN/ZrN/AlN low-e coating. Surf Coat Technol Patent No. 1529921; 2005.
2004;180–181:488–95. [35] Manz H, Brunner S, Wullschleger L. Triple vacuum glazing: Heat
[8] Chiba K, Takahashi T, Kageyama T, Oda H. Low-emissivity coating transfer and basic mechanical design constraints, Solar Energy; In
of amorphous diamond-like carbon/Ag-alloy multilayer on glass. Press, available online 2 February 2006 at www.science.direct.com.
Appl Surf Sci 2005;246:48–51. [36] Weinlaeder H, Ebert HP, Fricke J. VIG—Vacuum Insulation Glass.
[9] Zoller A. Hohle Glasscheibe. German Patent Application No. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Vacuum Insulation
387655; 1913. Symposium 2005, Duebendorf, Switzerland; 197–204.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
128 H. Manz / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 119–128
[37] Lenzen M, Turner GM, Collins RE. Thermal outgassing of vacuum
glazing. J Vac Sci Technol A 1999;17:1002–17.
[38] Ng N, Collins RE, So L. Photodesorption of gases in vacuum glazing.
J Vac Sci Technol A 2003;21:1776–83.
[39] Ng N, Collins RE, So L. Thermal and optical evolution of gas in
vacuum glazing. Mater Sci Eng B 2005;119:258–64.
[40] Minaai T, Kumagai M, Nara A, Tanemura S. Study of the outgassing
behavior of SnO2:F films on glass in vacuum under external energy
excitation. Mater Sci Eng B 2005;119:252–7.
[41] Collins RE. Evacuated glass panel having a getter. WO 0112942,
World Intellectual Property Organization; 2001.
[42] Merker GP. Convective heat transfer (in German). Berlin: Springer; 1987.
[43] Wright JL. A correlation to quantify convective heat transfer between
vertical window glazings. ASHRAE Trans 1996;106:940–6.
[44] EN 673: Glass in building—Determination of thermal transmittance
(U value)—Calculation method, European Committee for Standar-
dization, Brussels; 1997.
[45] ElSherbiny SM, Raithby GD, Hollands KGT. Heat transfer by
natural convection across vertical and inclined air layers. J Heat
Transfer Trans ASME 1982;104:96–102.
[46] Manz H. Numerical simulation of heat transfer by natural convection
in cavities of fac- ade elements. Energy Build 2003;35:305–11.
[47] Reiss H. High performance insulations. In: VDI Heat transfer
handbook (in German), 10th ed. Duesseldorf: German Engineering
Association for Process Technology and Chemical Engineering
(VDI); 2006.
[48] Holm R. Electric contacts, theory and application. 4th ed. Berlin:
Springer; 1967.
[49] TRISCO (Vers. 10.0w). A computer program to calculate 3D steady-
state heat transfer. Physibel, Maldegem, Belgium; 2005.
[50] EN ISO 10077-1. Thermal performance of windows, doors and
shutters—calculation of thermal transmittance—part 1: simplified
method. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization CEN;
2000.