4.7 Article

Optimal window designs for Australian houses

Journal

ENERGY AND BUILDINGS
Volume 250, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2021.111300

Keywords

Windows; Glazing; U-value; Solar heat gain; Housing; Australia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The uptake of energy-efficient window designs in the Australian residential sector has been slow due to inadequate policies and a scarcity of research. Different window designs and materials show significant variations in performance across different climate zones.
While energy-efficient window designs have been available for decades, their uptake in the Australian residential sector has been slow. This is partially due to inadequate policies and a scarcity of research about the optimal designs across different climate zones around Australia. This study addresses this gap by investigating the impact of different window designs on the annual energy loads of a house for all eight Australian capital cities covering diverse climate zones. The analysis focussed on two types of double glazing: uncoated; and coated with low-emittance films for improved thermal insulation (U-value) or lower solar heat gain. The results show that while low-emittance double glazing provides supe-rior performance, the low solar gain option should only be installed in sunnier climate zones. The thermal performance of different frames (timber, aluminium, thermally broken aluminium and uPVC) was also analysed. The best performance is provided by timber and uPVC frames - especially for the sunnier cli-mate zones, where uPVC frames provide the most energy savings for cost. This paper highlights the need for a more nuanced understanding of windows and their performance in delivering improved perfor-mance of housing. It also demonstrates limitations of current policies and modelling software that must be addressed to improve outcomes. (c) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available