Thermography of Window Panes –

Problems, Possibilities and Troubleshooting

F. Pinno, K.-P. Möllmann and M. Vollmer,
Brandenburg University of Applied Sciences, Germany

ABSTRACT
Building-thermography measurements of window panes are not only eye catchers due to their different
properties regarding thermal reflections but they are also important for quantitatively analyzing the building
envelope. In order to do so, the emissivity needs to be determined. This can be realized using transmission
and reflection measurements. We studied different window systems (side wall windows as well as velux type
sky light windows) in real buildings as well as a number of simple model systems of single, dual and triple
pane windows. This paper will report results of these measurements and discuss observed problems of
condensation water and dew point, design faults and gas leaks in the insulating glazing systems.

INTRODUCTION
Today we face global climate change and limited supply of non renewable energy resources such as oil and
gas with record prices for oil. The associated costs for industry and the private sector inevitably lead to the
goal of reducing the energy consumption of buildings. Typically, 20% - 30% of the energy inside of buildings
is lost through the window panes. Decreasing the energy flow through window systems is therefore an
important topic today and in the future. The use of dual and triple pane windows with insulating glasses is an
improvement in comparison to single pane windows. Figure 1 gives a typical example for outdoor
thermography. Obviously, the windows are the most prominent features in the IR image. A comparison of
window A and B illustrates the difference between the thermal energy flow through single pane (A) and dual
pane (B) windows. Very often, IR images of windows seem to indicate huge energy flows through the
building envelope but, is this really the case? In order to compare the energy flow exact temperature
measurements of different window systems are necessary. In this paper we want to focus on this problem.

Figure 1. IR imaging of a single (A) and dual (B) pane window with LW camera (left) and visible image (right).

LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS: TRANSMISSION, REFLECTION AND EMISSIVITY OF WINDOWS

In order to study general properties of windows in detail, we developed models for single, as well as air filled
dual and triple pane windows. Each window can be quantitatively characterized by emissivity ε(λ), reflection
r(λ), and transmission t(λ). These are related via Eq. 1:

ε (λ ) = 1 − t (λ ) − r (λ ) (1).

Spectra of t(λ) and r(λ) were recorded with a BRUKER IFS 66 IR spectrometer at an ambient temperature of
T=20°C in the wavelength range of 2.5-18 µm. The model windows had glass thickness of 4 mm and pane
distances of 12 mm (fig. 2). Figure 3 shows spectra for reflection (3a) and transmission (3b) of the single,

InfraMation 2008 Proceedings ITC 126 A 2008-05-14

dual and triple pane window systems. Comparable spectra for reflection and transmission of sheet glass are
shown in [1]. The emissivity ε(λ) is calculated used Eq. 1. The results are shown in Figure 4. Obviously,
there are selective absorption features due to interband absorption at λ= 10µm [2] which manifest themselves
in the reflection spectra (Figure 3a). This means that glass is not grey in the LW region. In the MW region
glass is nearly grey for dual and triple pane windows, but not for the single pane. One consequence is that
we expect problems with MW cameras if the type of window is not known. Problems may also occur in the LW
region. Typically one deals with this in the camera software by introducing average ε - values.

Figure 2. Model of single, dual and triple window Figure 3a. Reflection spectra of the model windows, recorded
panes; the spaces between windows can be filled at an angle of incidence α inc=20° with an FTIR spectrometer.
with gases (or air) or evacuated.

Figure 3b. Transmission spectra of model windows, Figure 4. Emissivity spectra of the model windows
recorded at α inc =0° with an FTIR spectrometer. following from Eq. 1.

In thermography, the emitted radiation from an object, which is detected by an IR camera can be written as

S 2 = const ∫ ε (λ ) ⋅ sens(λ ) ⋅ M (λ , T ) ⋅ tobj (λ ) dλ (2).

ε(λ) is the emissivity of the observed object (Figure 4), sens(λ) is the detector sensitivity [3], M(λ,Τ) is the
specific spectral emission and tobj describes the transmission of the IR camera optics (here tobj=1). Integration
limits are the used IR spectral ranges. For black bodies (ε=1) this signal would be larger (Eq. 3).

S 1 = const ∫ sens(λ ) ⋅ M (λ , T ) ⋅ tobj (λ ) dλ (3)

InfraMation 2008 Proceedings ITC 126 A 2008-05-14

If these two signals S1 and S2 were known, one could calculate the average emissivity εm of the object for the
chosen wavelength range of the camera (Eq. 4).

εm = S 2 / S 1 (4)
This procedure was used to estimate εm values for the window panes. The results for both IR-ranges and
different numbers of panes are shown in Table 1. In the MW range the pane number has an impact on εm. In
the LW range, no influence is expected. In addition the change of εm needs to be taken into account for a
direct comparison between MW and LW results. Griffith and others found comparable values of εm = 0.86 in
the LW range by analyzing spectral data for glass [4]. Obviously, there are many different types of glass
available, hence it is possible that εm values vary from case to case.

window emissivity emissivity

T=20°C εm εm
MW: (3.5-6µm) LW: (8-18µm)
single 0.9 0.87
pane
dual 0.95 0.87
pane
triple 0.96 0.87
pane

Table 1. Average emissivity εm of single, dual and triple

window panes in the MW and the LW range.

INFLUENCE OF AMBIENT AND BACKGROUND TEMPERATURE: LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS

In the following, a number of laboratory experiments will be presented in order to find out, whether ambient
temperature changes will have an influence on temperature measurements inside. Under realistic conditions
the ambient temperature Tamb outside of the building may change during measurements. We measured the
window temperature of the model windows with a MW camera (THV 550) and a LW camera (SC 2000) for
different conditions. All panes had a temperature between 26°C and 27°C, the atmosphere ambient
temperature was Tamb=27°C. The temperature of the background Tback varied from 11°C (this was realized
with a water tank) (Figure 5a) to 26°C (Figure 5b). Using the calculated emissivity (table1) for the analysis of
the IR images, we found too low window temperatures in the MW range (table 2) for the single pane window.
This can be explained using the schematic diagram of Figure 5c. The IR camera receives three radiation
contributions, in particular a contribution from transmitted background radiation. In the LW case, t=0 and
changes of Tback cannot affect measured signals. For the MW range, however the great t-values in particular
of the single pane window, will affect the signal. The reduction of the background temperature leads to a
lower detected radiation signal.

InfraMation 2008 Proceedings ITC 126 A 2008-05-14

Figure. 5a. Single pane, MW IR image of window, Figure 5b. Single pane MW IR image of window,
Tback=11°C. Tback=26°C.
The analysis is summarized in Table 2.
window MW MW
Tback=11°C Tback=26/27°C
average
surface camera setup camera setup
temperature
Tamb=27°C Tamb=27°C
T=26°/27°C
single pane
AR01 T/°C 24.7°C 25.9°C
dual pane
AR01 T/°C 26.3°C 26.6°C

Table 2. Average temperature AR01 of single and dual Figure 5c. Simple model of transmitted, emitted and
window panes in MW range with different conditions Tback. reflected parts of the detected signal.

Figure 6a. Dual pane, MW IR image of window, Figure 6b. Dual pane, MW IR image of window,
Tback=11°C. Tback=27°C.
The analysis is summarized in table 2.

Analogous measurements for a dual pane window are shown in Figure 6 a, b and Table 2. In this case, the
measured temperature does not depend on changes of background temperature. This was expected, since
t(λ) is very small for dual pane windows (Figure 3b).

InfraMation 2008 Proceedings ITC 126 A 2008-05-14

MEASUREMENTS OF REAL SINGLE AND DUAL PANE WINDOWS WITH INDOOR THERMOGRAPHY
In the MW and LW range we measured single and dual pane windows from inside (see also Figure 1a). The
ambient temperature inside was Tamb =22°C and the atmospheric temperature outside Tair=7°C. Using the
calculated emissivity (Table1) for the analysis of the IR images of single pane windows, we found also too low
window temperatures in the MW range (Figure7a). In the LW range, an exact temperature measurement is
possible (Figure 7b), if the exact ambient temperature is known.

The calculated temperatures of dual pane windows in the MW and LW range are nearly similar, due to the
influence of transmission in MW region is distinct lower (see Figure 3b).

Figure 7a. Single pane window MW range AR01 Figure 7b. LW range AR01 T=14.9°C.
T=14.1°C (lower part of window A of fFigure. 1).
The line of the middle is a window catch. It is warmer than the wall because it is directly above a heater.

INDOOR THERMOGRAPHY: VELUX SKY LIGHT WINDOWS, PROBLEMS OF CONDENSATION WATER

In winter and after cloudless nights one observes very often condensation water inside of sky light windows.
The reason for this problem is that Twindow is below the dew point temperature Tdp, which depends on the
ambient temperature and the relative humidity inside [5]. The IR image (SC 2000 in LW range) of such a dual
pane Velux sky light window (Figure 8a, b) illustrates this problem. The conditions inside are Tamb = 20°C and
a relative humidity of 60%, corresponding to a dew point temperature Tdp= 11.7°C [5]. In the profile LI 01
(Figure 8a, b) we find a lower temperature at the edge.

Figure 8a. IR image of a Velux sky light window. The Figure 8b. Temperature profile along LI 01 in Figure 8a.
object on the upper left corner is an electric motor for The dew point was Tdp=12°C.
opening the window.

InfraMation 2008 Proceedings ITC 126 A 2008-05-14

OUTDOOR THERMOGRAPHY: PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH RADIATION TO SKY AND SURROUNDINGS
Night sky problems are analyzed in a comparison paper of K.-P. Möllmann et. al. [6]. Here we just want to
show a few examples of incorrect interpretations of temperature measurements with the LW camera (Figure
9a, b). In the IR image (Figure 9a) there are different tilt angles of the windows with respect to the zenith.
Window (A) has a large tilt angle (angle between surface normal and direction of zenith) in comparison to the
sky light window (C). Therefore, the sky light window C can be more effectively cooled (details, see [6]). In
addition we found in part B of the left window (see Figure 9a) a reflection of roof overhang. In Figure 9b
depicts reflections of a balcony (D) on a window. These examples show some difficulties of exact outside
temperature measurements, which could lead to misinterpretations of thermal images.

Figure 9a. Sky light problems (A) large tilt angle with Figure 9b. Reflection of balcony (D).
respect to the zenith; (C) less tilt angle; (B) reflection of
roof overhang.

COMPARISON OF INDOOR AND OUTDOOR THERMOGRAPHY: PROBLEMS OF SUN AND SHADOW

Other misinterpretations of IR images of windows are possible, in particular also when the temperature
measurement was inside. As an example the analysis of the IR image (LW range) of Figure 10b, without
consideration of conditions outside, could lead to the conclusion, that part of the window (B) is defect, e.g.,
due to a gas leak (Figure 10b). The conditions outside are obvious from Figure 10a. Part of the window (B)
is in the shadow of a building opposite of this window and the higher temperature of the part (A) is an effect of
direct IR irradiation by the sun.

Figure 10a. Sun (A) and shadow (B) at different parts Figure 10b. IR image of dual pane windows from inside.
of dual pane windows. Different temperatures result from different conditions
outside. They are not an effect of a gas leak.

InfraMation 2008 Proceedings ITC 126 A 2008-05-14

COMPARISON OF INDOOR AND OUTDOOR THERMOGRAPHY: GAS LEAK IN THE INSULATING GLAZING SYSTEM
In the final example we want to discuss problems of comparison of indoor and outdoor thermography. With
the LW camera we found a problem of a gas leak in a part of a dual pane window (A), (see Figure 11a, b).
The insulating glass filled with dry air or special gases (mostly argon is used) was damaged, i.e., energy loss
and therefore a lower surface temperature from inside and higher surface temperature from outside was due
to a broken window seal.

A second problem (B) is presented in Figure 11b. The broken rubber gasket between the window frame and
the window itself leads to higher energy loss. With outdoor thermography we couldn’t detect this problem (B)
(see Figure 11a), since reflected radiation from the window frame overhang was dominating and therefore
hiding this thermal leakage.

Figure 11a. Detection of problems outside, A gas leak; Figure 11b. IR image inside, A gas leak, B defect
B reflection of window frame overhang. rubber gasket.

SUMMARY
IR thermal imaging inspections of several window systems have been reported. Thermography can help to
quantitatively analyze the energy loss of buildings. Transmission and reflection measurements from model
windows allow the estimating of emissivities of single, dual and triple window panes in the MW and LW range.
Therefrom average εm values for an analysis can be derived. The influence of ambient and background
temperature were investigated with measurements using simple models of window systems and real single
and dual pane windows. In addition we discussed observed problems of sky light windows, condensation
water, the influence of night sky radiation losses, problems due to direct radiation and shadows, as well as
real gas leaks in an insulating glazing system.

REFERENCES
[1] Holst, G.C.; “Common sense approach to thermal imaging” SPIE PRESS JCD Publishing, Bellingham,
Washington USA, 2000
[2] SCHOTT; “TIE35 Transmittance of optical glass” internet source for download: http://www.us.schott.
com/advanced_optics/english/technical_articles.html
[3] Vollmer, M.; Möllmann, K.P.; F. Pinno.; “Looking through matter: quantitative IR imaging when
observing through IR windows” Inframation 2007 Proceedings, Vol. 8, ITC 121A 2007-05-24, 109-128
[4] Griffith, B. T.; Türler, D.; Arasteh, D.; “Surface temperatures of insulating glazing units: infrared
thermography laboratory measurements” ASHRAE transactions 1996, V. 102 PT. 2., internet source for
download: http://gaia.lbl.gov/btech/papers/47373.pdf
[5] internet source for download: http://mvddaq.desy.de/~mvddaq/SC/Tdew.html
[6] Möllmann, K.P.; Vollmer, M.; F. Pinno.; “Night sky radiant cooling – influence on outdoor thermal
imaging analysis” Inframation 2008 Proceedings, ITC 126A 2008-05-14

InfraMation 2008 Proceedings ITC 126 A 2008-05-14

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank T. Trull for reflection and transmission measurements and T. Dorenburg for
discussions.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Frank Pinno studied physics in Potsdam, Germany where he received his PhD (1991) in solid state physics.
Since 1994, he has been employed as a scientific assistant (physics) at the University of Applied Sciences in
Brandenburg, Germany, working in the field of infrared thermal imaging and projects in applied sciences.
Frank is a Certified Level II Thermographer.

K.-P. Möllmann studied physics in Halle and Berlin receiving his PhD in 1983 and Habilitation (1989) in solid
state physics, in particular in the development of HgCdTe infrared detectors. Since 1994 he has been a
professor of physics at the University of Applied Sciences, in Brandenburg, Germany. He has worked in
infrared thermal imaging, pyrometry, thin film and MEMS technology and is a Certified Level II
Thermographer.

Michael Vollmer studied physics in Heidelberg, Germany, receiving a PhD (1986) and Habilitation (1991) in
optical spectroscopy of metal clusters. Since 1994 he has been a professor of physics at the University of
Applied Sciences in Brandenburg/Germany, working in the fields of infrared thermal imaging, spectroscopy,
atmospheric optics, and didactics of physics. He is a certified Level II Thermographer.

InfraMation 2008 Proceedings ITC 126 A 2008-05-14