buildings

Article
Modeling of an Aerogel-Based “Thermal Break” for
Super-Insulated Window Frames
Alessandro Cannavale 1,2, * , Francesco Martellotta 1 , Umberto Berardi 3 , Chiara Rubino 1 ,
Stefania Liuzzi 1 , Vincenzo De Carlo 4 and Ubaldo Ayr 1
1 Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture (DICAR), Technical University of Bari, via Orabona 4,
70125 Bari, Italy; francesco.martellotta@poliba.it (F.M.); chiara.rubino@poliba.it (C.R.);
stefania.liuzzi@poliba.it (S.L.); Ubaldo.Ayr@poliba.it (U.A.)
2 Istituto di Nanotecnologia, CNR Nanotec, Via Arnesano 16, 73100 Lecce, Italy
3 Department of Architectural Science, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria St., Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada;
uberardi@ryerson.ca
4 Dcs Group S.R.L., Via per Castellaneta Z. Ind. S. Basilio, 74017 Mottola (Ta), Italy;
vincenzo.decarlo@decarlo.it
* Correspondence: alessandro.cannavale@poliba.it; Tel.: +39-080-5963718




Received: 7 February 2020; Accepted: 12 March 2020; Published: 18 March 2020


Abstract: Research activities in the field of innovative fixtures are continuously aiming at increasing
their thermal and optical performances to offer optimal exploitation of daylight and solar gains,
providing effective climate screen, according to increasing standards for indoor comfort and energy
saving. Within this work, we designed an innovative aerogel-based “thermal break” for window
frames, so as to consistently reduce the frame conductance. Then, we compared the performance of
this new frame both with currently used and obsolete frames, present in most of the existing building
stock. Energy savings for heating and cooling were assessed for different locations and confirmed the
potential role played by super-insulating materials in fixtures for extremely rigid climates.

Keywords: window frame; granular aerogel; energy saving

1. Introduction
Awareness of the anthropogenic effects on the environment dramatically has increased in recent
years, especially in terms of global warming and uncontrolled greenhouse gas production. For this
reason, the control of energy consumption of buildings is a pivotal challenge. The latest European
Directive 2018/844 reports that the building stock contributes to 36% of greenhouse gas emissions,
considering that almost 50% of the Union’s final energy consumption is used for heating and cooling,
and 80% of this amount is employed in buildings [1]. The 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change,
following the United Nations Conference on Climate Change (COP21), required the subscribing States
to reduce carbon emissions in the building stock. To do this, in the EU and worldwide, the priority is
to enhance energy efficiency by deploying low-cost renewable energies and innovative technologies,
especially deriving from recent achievements in the field of nanomaterials research, with reference
to building integration of novel technologies, spanning from chromogenics [2] to semi-transparent
photovoltaics [3,4], super-insulating materials [5,6], and phase change materials [7,8]. One of the
possible approaches, especially in countries with a more rigid climate, is to find new devices to increase
the standards of insulation of buildings. This challenge can be taken up by some materials, defined
as super-insulators [5], characterized by a relatively lower thermal conductivity compared with the
typical insulating materials used in building envelopes. The main evaluation parameters in the choice
of an innovative insulating material are undoubtedly the thermal conductivity, but also volume and

Buildings 2020, 10, 60; doi:10.3390/buildings10030060 www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings

Buildings 2020, 10, 60 2 of 15

cost [9–11]. For these reasons, interest in a nanostructured porous material called aerogel has been
growing in recent years [12,13]. The name itself, aerogel, indicates a precise property of the material,
namely, the substitution of the liquid component of the gel with a gas. The gel is generally made by
means of low temperature sol–gel technique.

1.1. Aerogel for Super-Insulation

The synthesis of the aerogel involves the hydrolysis and condensation at room temperature of
a solution, starting from an alkoxide precursor (tetraethyl-orthosilicate, tetramethyl orthosilicate, or
poly-ethoxydisiloxane are the most used), in the presence of a convenient catalyst [5]. A continuous
three-dimensional lattice forms inside the liquid. After the aging phase of the gel and the subsequent
removal of water from the inside of the pores with solvent washes, the material is ready for the drying
process. Although there are different ways to proceed with the drying of the silica gel, the most
widespread is still the so-called supercritical drying method. The substitution gives rise to a structure
made of silica gel containing pores with a diameter of variable size (between 5 and 70 nm) and a
density between 70 and 150 kg/m3 [14]. For this reason, aerogel can be considered an open-celled,
mesoporous solid foam containing a network of nanostructures.
The resulting material is characterized by a thermal conductivity that can be very low (0.013
W/m·K) [15], in which the nanopores occupy more than 85% of the volume; the high porosity allows the
obtaining of interesting properties from the optical, thermal, and physical point of view [16]. The very
low thermal conductivity of the aerogel is due to the very small fraction of solid silica: the structure
skeleton contains a large number of free ends that “complicate” the path of the thermal flow. The
size of pores (~20 nm) hinders thermal conduction, which is inversely proportional to the diameter
of the pores themselves. Moreover, the dimension of the pores prevents the Brownian motion of the
air molecules and therefore prevents convective heat exchange [17]. As stated by Baetens [11], if one
would be able to find a cheaper manufacturing process, aerogel might become a real alternative to
existing building insulating materials.

1.2. Aerogel Products for Constructions

Currently, aerogel products are available for construction as monolithic panels with high
transparency [18], small size granules [19,20], or thermal insulation blankets [21,22]. Each of these
products can be employed to improve the thermal performance of mortars and concretes; plasters for
opaque systems [16,23]; or translucent/transparent systems, such as insulating glazed units, suitably
filled with monolithic or granular aerogels [10,24,25]. In terms of potential aerogel applications,
windows represent the best candidates because they are a thermal “weak point” in the building
envelope, due to their relatively higher global heat exchange coefficient compared to opaque surfaces.

1.3. Aerogel Insulation for Windows

Aerogel can be used in windows in various ways, as reported in the literature [26]. If aerogel were
used to fill air gaps between glass panes, the consequent benefits would be represented by lower solar
heat gain coefficient, as glazing containing aerogel is translucent and lower values of glazing thermal
transmittance (Ug ) would be obtained. Double- or triple-glazed units filled with aerogel—as granules
or in a monolithic form—will output a diffuse light, which is sometimes desirable to achieve comfort
in large commercial or office spaces, airports, museums, etc. However, it is in terms of reduction in
energy consumption that aerogel may make a difference compared to conventional materials. It has
been proven that granular aerogel may reduce the heat loss in office buildings [27] by 80% or cooling
load in humid subtropical climates by 4% [28]. A study by Gao et al. also reported a yearly saving
as high as 21% in a building’s energy consumption [29]. Moretti and Buratti compared monolithic
aerogel glass panes to conventional glazing systems, reporting a 55% reduction in heat losses, whereas
granular aerogel windows showed a 25% reduction in heat losses. In the latter case, a 66% reduction in
visible transmittance was observed [30,31]. A recent work investigated the effect of inserting an aerogel
 Buildings 2020, 10, 60 3 of 15

blanket in the air chambers of a PVC window frame, leading to a reduction in the frame U-value from
1.06 to 0.92
Buildings 10, x 2FOR
2020,W/m ·K [32].
PEERIn the present work, the energy benefits achievable by using granular aerogel
REVIEW 3 of 15
inside the fixed and mobile frames of a high thermal performance window were studied. The window
92 were studied.
frame was made The of window
wood andframe was made
aluminium and anof interposed
wood and aerogel
aluminium andbreak
thermal an interposed aerogel
was also used. A
93 thermal
finite break was
element method also analysis
used. A finite element frame
of a window method analysis ofaerogel
containing a window
wasframe containing
carried aerogel
out, obtaining a
94 was carried out, obtaining a high performance level. This innovative window
high performance level. This innovative window was compared with others, embodying different was compared with
95 others, as
frames, embodying
explained different frames, as section,
in the Methodology explained in theofMethodology
by means simulations insection,
test roomsby within
means theof
96 simulations software
Energyplus in test rooms within
platform [33].the Energyplus
Energy software
consumption for platform [33].
heating and Energy
cooling wasconsumption
tested withinfora
97 typical office on all possible exposures, in two locations with very different climates: thelocations
heating and cooling was tested within a typical office on all possible exposures, in two Canadianwith
city
98 very
of different
Toronto andclimates: the Canadian
Bari, in Southern Italy. city of Toronto and Bari, in Southern Italy.

99 2. Materials and Methods

100 2.1. Frame and window

Window description
Description

101 This innovative window (Figure 1), specifically designed to meet the highest thermal insulation
102 standards,
standards, includes
includesaathree-pane
three-paneglazing.
glazing.The internal
The glazing
internal embodied
glazing embodied a low emittance
a low coating
emittance (ε =
coating
103 0.21) deposited
(ε=0.21) depositedon on
faceface
5, i.e., thethe
5, i.e., outer faceface
outer of the internal
of the pane.
internal The
pane. aerogel
The aerogel section
section(the redred
(the part in
part
104 Figure 2) 2)
in Figure was conveniently
was conveniently surrounded
surroundedbybya athin
thinacrylonitrile–butadienestyrene
acrylonitrile–butadienestyrene(ABS) (ABS)skin
skin (2
(2 mm
105 thick), and embodied granular aerogel aerogel within
within the frame section, thus behaving like a super-insulating
106 “thermal
“thermal break”,
break”, between
between the the external
external aluminium
aluminium frame frame and
and the
the internal
internal wooden
wooden frame.frame. The same
107 ABS skin is generally adopted in existing commercial frames using the same technology, to embody
108 expanded polystyrene (Isover EPS 035) 035) insulating
insulating material.
material. Cabot Enova IC3100 granular aerogel
109 was used, with granule size spanning between 2 and 40 µm, μm, a thermal conductivity of 0.012 W/m∙K W/m·K
at ambient temperature, and very low density, ranging from 120 to 150 kg/m 33 according to technical
110 density, ranging from 120 to 150 kg/m
111 specifications of
of the
the material.
material.The The coupling
coupling between
between thethe aerogel
aerogel section
section andand the wooden
the wooden frame frame
was
112 was
mademade by using
by using a stripe
a stripe of of aerogelblanket,
aerogel blanket,Pyrogel-XTE
Pyrogel-XTEby byAspen,
Aspen, with
with comparable
comparable thermal
thermal
113 conductivity (less than 0,02 W/m·K)
W/m∙K) suitably
suitably glued
glued and
and mechanically
mechanically fixed
fixed to
to the
theframe.
frame.

114
Figure 1. Cross section of the frame reporting dimensional data of the reference window frame,
115 Figure 1. Crosstosection
corresponding a window of the frameinreporting
designed dimensional
compliance data of Above,
with regulations. the reference window
the external frame,
aluminum
116 corresponding
section tovisible;
is clearly a window designed
in the in compliance
intermediate part, thewith
arearegulations. Above, the
devoted to thermal external(in
insulation aluminum
yellow);
117 sectionthe
below, is clearly
wooden visible; infacing
profile, the intermediate part, the area devoted to thermal insulation (in yellow);
the indoor space.
118 below, the wooden profile, facing the indoor space.

119 2.2. Finite element method

120 The thermal heat loss due to the transmission through windows is strongly affected by the
121 technical features of their transparent (glazing) and opaque (frames and spacers) components. Such
122 figure of merit can be determined according to the standard ISO 10077-2:2017, “Thermal performance
123 of windows, doors and shutters—Part 2: Numerical method of frames” [34]. To calculate the thermal
124 transmittance for the two-dimensional window section, including the frame and the glazing,
125 according to the standard, the thermal transmittance of the frame section (U f) in W/m2∙K must be
143 joint (W/m∙K); and lg is its length (m), calculated according to ISO 10077-2.
144 To highlight the effect of the aerogel material, further FEM simulations were made to compare
145 the thermal performance of the aerogel-based frame with those observed in a similar frame,
146 embodying expanded polystyrene, instead of granular aerogel. Other materials used in this FEM
147 analysis (Figure 2) were aluminium (λ= 160 W/m⋅K), ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM,
Buildings 2020, 10, 60 4 of 15
148 with λ= 0.25 W/m⋅K), soft wood (λ= 0.12 W/m⋅K), Cabot 3120 granular aerogel (λ= 0.012 W/m⋅K), and
149 expanded polystyrene (λ= 0.035 W/m⋅K).

150
151 Figure2.
Figure 2. Cross
Cross section
section ofof the
the frame,
frame, asas designed
designed inin the
the finite
finite element
element method
method software
softwareFlixo,
Flixo,used
usedfor
for
152 thesimulation.
the simulation.InInthisthis case,
case, eacheach
color color represents
represents a material,
a material, modeledmodeled withthermal
with different different thermal
properties.
153 The yellow section
properties. on the
The yellow left represents
section on the leftsoft wood; the
represents light
soft yellow
wood; the area
lightrepresents therepresents
yellow area replacement
the
154 panel with given
replacement panelthermal resistance,
with given thermalreplacing the triple
resistance, glassthe
replacing in the numerical
triple analysis;
glass in the the aerogel
numerical is
analysis;
155 colored in red; and the aluminium is in light green. A different shade of green was used for
the aerogel is colored in red; and the aluminium is in light green. A different shade of green was used EPDM and
156 light blue for
for EPDM airlight
and within
bluetheforframe.
air within the frame.

2.2. Finite Element Method

157 The innovative window has been fabricated, and some images of the designed prototype are
158 shownTheinthermal
Figure 3. Experimental
heat loss due tocampaigns will subsequently
the transmission be carried
through windows is out in order
strongly to assess
affected the
by the
159 energy saving
technical benefits
features obtainable
of their with(glazing)
transparent this typeand
of window frame, inand
opaque (frames thespacers)
context of a real building.
components. Such
figure of merit can be determined according to the standard ISO 10077-2:2017, “Thermal performance
of windows, doors and shutters—Part 2: Numerical method of frames” [34]. To calculate the thermal
transmittance for the two-dimensional window section, including the frame and the glazing, according
to the standard, the thermal transmittance of the frame section (Uf ) in W/m2 ·K must be calculated
according to the following formula, remembering that in the computational model, glazing must be
replaced with a panel with given thermal insulating properties,

L2D
f
− Up bp
Uf = (1)
bf

where Up is the thermal transmittance of the replacement panel, in W/m2 ·K, which is assumed to have
a thermal conductivity of 0.035 W/m·K, according to EN ISO 10077-2; bf is the width of the frame
section in m; and bp is the visible width of the panel, in m. Lf 2D is the thermal conductance of the
section in W/m·K, calculated from the total heat flow rate per unit length through the section divided
by the temperature difference between both adjacent environments. The value of Uf , according to
current standards, was obtained by using the commercial software Flixo, allowing CAD-based input of
constructions and to import DXF-files and materials databases, to make a detailed two-dimensional
finite elements analysis of the frame, in steady-state conditions (Figure 2).
Afterwards, the global thermal exchange coefficient of the whole window (Uw ) was calculated
according to the equation reported in the standard ISO 10077-1:2017, “Thermal performance of
windows, doors, and shutters—Calculation of thermal transmittance—Part 1: General” [34]:

Ag Ug + A f U f + Ψ g lg
Uw = (2)
Ag + A f

where Ug is the thermal transmittance of the glass section (W/m2 ·K); Ag and Af are the surface areas
of glazing and frame, respectively (m2 ); Ψg is the linear thermal transmittance of the glazing joint
(W/m·K); and lg is its length (m), calculated according to ISO 10077-2.
To highlight the effect of the aerogel material, further FEM simulations were made to compare the
thermal performance of the aerogel-based frame with those observed in a similar frame, embodying
expanded polystyrene, instead of granular aerogel. Other materials used in this FEM analysis (Figure 2)
were aluminium (λ = 160 W/m·K), ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM, with λ = 0.25 W/m·K),
 Buildings 2020, 10, 60 5 of 15

soft wood (λ = 0.12 W/m·K), Cabot 3120 granular aerogel (λ = 0.012 W/m·K), and expanded polystyrene
(λ = 0.035 W/m·K).
The innovative window has been fabricated, and some images of the designed prototype are
shown in Figure 3. Experimental campaigns will subsequently be carried out in order to assess the
Buildings saving
energy 2020, 10,benefits
x FOR PEER REVIEW with this type of window frame, in the context of a real building.
obtainable 5 of 15

(b)

a) (a) (c)
160
Figure 3. Aerogel-enhanced window (Aeroshield) embodying a triple-glazed unit, with external
161 Figure 3. Aerogel-enhanced window (Aeroshield) embodying a triple-glazed unit, with external
aluminium frame and internal wooden frame (a); Reference frame with expanded polystyrene
162 aluminium frame and internal wooden frame (a); Reference frame with expanded polystyrene
insulation, in black (b); Aerogel-insulated frame with polymer skin (c).
163 insulation, in black (b); Aerogel-insulated frame with polymer skin (c).
2.3. EnergyPlus Model
164 2.3. EnergyPlus model
To analyze the energy performance implications, the aerogel-based window was compared to
165 To analyze
different window the energy performance
configurations. implications,
The first the aerogel-based
one, identified as “Standard window
compliant was compared
scenario”, to
was
166 different window configurations. The first one, identified as “Standard compliant
made of an aluminium frame with the so-called “thermal break”, i.e., a continuous polymer barrier scenario”, was
167 made of an
between aluminium
internal frame with
and external partsthe so-called frames,
of window “thermal break”, i.e.,
preventing a continuous
conductive polymer
thermal energybarrier
loss
168 between internal and external parts of window frames, preventing conductive
and a triple-glazed unit with the same properties of the newly designed window, so as to assess thermal energy loss
169 and a triple-glazed unit with the same properties of the newly designed window,
performance benefits strictly deriving from the use of aerogel in frames. The second kind of window so as to assess
170 performancewas
considered benefits
madestrictly deriving double-glazed
of an obsolete from the use of unitaerogel
andinaframes.
simple The second kind
aluminium frame,of window
with no
171 considered was made of an obsolete double-glazed unit and a simple aluminium
thermal break inside. The latter window was considered to envisage results in a “Refurbishment frame, with no
172 thermal break inside. The latter window was considered to envisage results
scenario”, a useful comparison with typical window performance in the existing building stock. in a “Refurbishment
173 scenario”, a useful comparison
A 3D geometrical model ofwith typical
the case studywindow
was firstperformance
designed ininSketchUp,
the existing building
using stock.
the OpenStudio
174 A 3D geometrical model of the case study was first designed in SketchUp, using the
plugin. Afterwards, it was imported in EnergyPlus v. 8.9, a free simulation tool by the U.S. Department OpenStudio
175 plugin.
of Afterwards,
Energy’s it was imported
Building Technology in EnergyPlus
Office, capable of performingv. 8.9, a freesimulations,
dynamic simulation providing
tool by the U.S.
detailed
176 Department
energy of Energy’s Building Technology Office, capable of performing dynamic simulations,
analysis.
177 providing detailed energy
An office test room, to analysis.
be considered part of a multi-storey building, was consequently modeled.
178 An office
The floor test
surface room,
was 20 mto2 be
andconsidered
the internal part of a was
height multi-storey
3.5 m. The building, was consequently
gross surface of the glazed modeled.
envelope
179 The floor 2surface was 20 m 2 and the internal height was 3.5 m. The gross surface of the glazed
was 7.5 m and it was located on one of the vertical walls, which was assumed as the only thermally
180 envelope was 7.5 m2 and it was located on one of the vertical walls, which was assumed as the only
181 thermally exchanging surface (made of wood cladding/thermal insulation/gypsum plaster with U-
182 Factor = 0.35 W/m2∙K).
183 Glazing and frame properties for all the windows considered in this study were reported in
184 Table 1. The window-to-wall ratio (WWR) was 60%, whereas the surface ratio between frame and
Buildings 2020, 10, 60 6 of 15

exchanging surface (made of wood cladding/thermal insulation/gypsum plaster with U-Factor = 0.35
W/m2 ·K).
Glazing and frame properties for all the windows considered in this study were reported in
Table 1. The window-to-wall ratio (WWR) was 60%, whereas the surface ratio between frame and
glazed area of the window was 41%. Lateral walls (20 cm thick walls) and horizontal surfaces (floor
and ceiling, 30 cm thick, U-Factor = 0.819 W/m2 ·K) were shared with other offices, and thus considered
adiabatic in their external surface. All possible exposures were considered for the windowed wall.

Table 1. Glazing, frame, and dividers properties. All the cavities between glass panes were considered
filled with argon gas. Conductance was calculated excluding surface convection resistance.

Frame and
Glazing Glass U-Factor Divider Frame
Window Type Low-e Coating
Structure (W/m2 ·K) Conductance Materials
(W/m2 ·K)
Refurbishment 4/16/4 2.60 7.57 - Aluminium
scenario without
thermal break
Standard 4/16/4/16/4 1.08 3.5 Face 5 Aluminium
Compliant with thermal
scenario break

To better point out the role of the window (and its frame), the envelope properties were considered
the same in Bari and Toronto, although their respective climates are significantly different. For
“Refurbishment scenario” and “Standard compliant scenario”, typical values of window frame
conductance were considered, as specified in Table 1. A window with a triple glass pane and a low
performing frame was not taken into account, in this work, for two main reasons: first of all, we aimed
at excluding the effect of glazing when considering the comparison between the standard compliant
window and the one equipped with the innovative aerogel. In fact, glazing might have affected
simulations much more than frames, due to the larger surface area involved in heat transfer, compared
to frames; second, a window with three panes would be technically incompatible with a thin frame for
structural and dimensional reasons.
Two locations were taken into account: Bari (Southern Italy) and Toronto (Canada). Their climate
specifications are provided in Table 2, showing the significant differences in terms of “extreme” winter
conditions. Figure 4 reports yearly solar radiation available on a vertical plane, in Bari and Toronto.
Graphs also show that total radiation is similar in the two locations, due to the similar latitude. This
confirms that the radiative contribution does not represent an element of inhomogeneity for the
analyses reported hereafter. Consequently, main differences in terms of heat transfer are due to frame
conductance, rather than sun irradiance.

Table 2. Climate characteristics of the two locations considered in this work.

Winter Winter
Winter Average Average
Average
Latitude Koppen-Geiger Average Daily Daily
City Temperature
[◦ ] Climate Class Temperature Minimum Maximum
[◦ C]
[◦ C] Temperature Temperature
[◦ C] [◦ C]
Toronto 43.70 Dfb 9.85 −3.00 −6.53 2.60
Bari 41.11 Csa 16.10 9.87 6.27 13.57
201 Two locations were taken into account: Bari (Southern Italy) and Toronto (Canada). Their
202 climate specifications are provided in Table 2, showing the significant differences in terms of
203 “extreme” winter conditions. Figure 4 reports yearly solar radiation available on a vertical plane, in
204 Bari and Toronto. Graphs also show that total radiation is similar in the two locations, due to the
205 similar latitude. This confirms that the radiative contribution does not represent an element of
Buildings 2020, 10, 60 7 of 15
206 inhomogeneity for the analyses reported hereafter. Consequently, main differences in terms of heat
207 transfer are due to frame conductance, rather than sun irradiance.

208
209 Solarradiation
Figure4.4.Solar
Figure radiationavailable
availableon
onvertical
verticalplanes,
planes,ininBari
Bariand
andToronto.
Toronto.

210 The heating period

Table was considered
2. Climate according
characteristics of the twotolocations
regulations in force.
considered According
in this work. to the Italian
regulations, Bari falls in a climatic zone in which heating systems work from November 15th to
March 31st, whereas in Toronto, heating works from October 1st to May 15th. The cooling period
was considered to extend from July 1st to September 30rd both in Bari and Toronto, with average
temperatures of 23.1 ◦ C and 19.5 ◦ C, respectively. In the proposed model, EnergyPlus provides heating
and cooling energy required to meet the temperature at a set point of 20.5 ◦ C in heating mode and
26 ◦ C in cooling mode. To calculate energy use for heating and cooling with a simplified method an
“IdealLoadAirSystem” was used, which gives the thermal energy strictly necessary to achieve the
given set-point temperature. Zone ventilation was assumed to be 0.0025 m3 /s, according to ASHRAE
62.1/2013, Table 6.2.2.1. Infiltrations were considered 0.0003 m3 /s·m2 of exterior surface area, and an
“always on” schedule was applied. Internal gains due to equipment were taken into account to the
extent of 5 W/m2 , whereas artificial lighting was considered as 10.66 W/m2 .

3. Results

3.1. FEM Model

Numerical analysis, by means of FEM modeling, was made to investigate the thermal figures of
merit of a frame containing granular aerogel, acting as a “thermal break” within an aluminium/wood
frame. To obtain intelligible information, in this case, we compared a highly performing frame,
containing expanded polystyrene insulator with the new aerogel-insulated window. In this way, ceteris
paribus, the only difference in thermal performance were due to the materials properties, rather than
surface area, thickness, or distribution. Due to the low thermal conductivity of the aerogel granules,
a significant reduction of the Uf was achieved (1.23 W/m2 ·K, using EPS). The value found after the
simulation process was 0.66 W/m2 ·K for the frame and divider conductance. This further comparison
demonstrates that one of the most interesting advantages of using aerogel for thermal insulation
consists in reducing the thickness of the materials adopted, in the face of significant increases in
thermal resistance.
The temperature field of the frame embodying granular aerogel shows the effectiveness of the
aerogel “thermal break”. In fact, the large number of isothermal lines concentrated within the aerogel
“thermal break”, in which a thermal variation of about 10 ◦ C is detected in a few centimeters of
thickness, demonstrates that the thermal performance of the insulating material used is very good
(Figure 5a). This confirms that aerogel can act as an effective thermal barrier at the interface between
the two materials that constitute the cross-section of the designed frame (wood and aluminium). As a
 Buildings 2020, 10, 60 8 of 15

comparison, thex use

Buildings 2020, 10, FORof theREVIEW
PEER polystyrene insulation (Figure 5b) clearly shows that the thermal variation
8 of 15
between the faces and the distribution of the isothermal lines are much less effective.

250 a)

251 b)

252 Figure5.5.Isothermal
Figure Isothermallines
lineswithin
withinthe
thecross
crosssection
section
ofof
thethe newly
newly designed
designed frame
frame with with aerogel
aerogel insulation
insulation (a)
253 (a) with
and and expanded
with expanded polystyrene
polystyrene insulation
insulation (b). Numbers(b). Numbers
reported inreported
the figureinrepresent
the figure represent
temperatures
254 corresponding to isothermal lines,
temperatures corresponding in ◦ C.
expressedlines,
to isothermal expressed in °C.

255 3.2.
3.2. Energy
Energy Consumption
consumption
256 In
Inthethesubsequent
subsequent analysis,
analysis, thethe energy
energy consumption
consumption for for heating
heating and
and cooling
cooling was was presented
presented in in
257 terms of the normalized value per unit floor surface and per year, in order
terms of the normalized value per unit floor surface and per year, in order to provide easily to provide easily comparable
258 results.
comparable Withresults.
reference Withto reference
heating (Figure
to heating 6), in both 6),
(Figure theincities,
both maximum heating energy
the cities, maximum heatinguse was
energy
259 observed for the North-facing façade, as expected. The minimum results
use was observed for the North-facing façade, as expected. The minimum results were found to occur were found to occur on the
260 Southern façade. On
on the Southern the other
façade. On the hand,
otherintermediate consumptions
hand, intermediate were observed
consumptions for the East
were observed forand
theWest
East
261 orientations. Predictably, the energy required for heating in winter was higher
and West orientations. Predictably, the energy required for heating in winter was higher in the city in the city of Toronto
262 than in Bari.than
of Toronto In Toronto,
in Bari. Induring
Toronto,theduring
heating theseason,
heating the innovative
season, window, window,
the innovative embodying aerogel,
embodying
2
263 allowed
aerogel, an energy an
allowed saving
energyof 6.9 kWh/m
saving of ·yr6.9 on the South
kWh/m exposure,
2∙yr on the Southcompared to the
exposure, Refurbishment
compared to the
scenario. This figure reached ~8 kWh/m 2 ·yr on the East and West exposures. The maximum amount
264 Refurbishment scenario. This figure reached ~8 kWh/m2∙yr on the East and West exposures. The
2 ·yr on the Northern facade. Nevertheless, the difference in
265 of energy saving
maximum amountreached
of energy 12 saving
kWh/mreached 12 kWh/m2∙yr on the Northern facade. Nevertheless, the
266 energy saving between the innovative
difference in energy saving between the innovative window and thewindow
one compliant
and thetooneregulations
compliant wastomuch lower.
regulations
267 In fact, the comparison between the newly designed window and
was much lower. In fact, the comparison between the newly designed window and the Standard the Standard scenario gave the
268 observation
scenario gave thatthetheobservation
amount of energy
that thesaving
amount strictly due tosaving
of energy the superior
strictlyaerogel
due tothermal performance
the superior aerogel
was ~2 kWh/m 2 ·yr on the Northern orientation. The relevant change in thermal conductance, among
269 thermal performance was ~2 kWh/m2∙yr on the Northern orientation. The relevant change in thermal
270 the frame technologies
conductance, among the adopted
frameintechnologies
this study, affects the output
adopted in this of dynamic
study, simulations,
affects the output generating
of dynamic an
271 offset in energy
simulations, consumption
generating that in
an offset may be explained
energy in terms
consumption thatofmay
thermal performance
be explained of theofwindow
in terms thermal
272 frame,
performance of the window frame, when all the other parameters are kept constant. Such anrather
when all the other parameters are kept constant. Such an effect was amplified in Toronto, effect
273 than in Bari, as thermal power is proportional to the temperature difference
was amplified in Toronto, rather than in Bari, as thermal power is proportional to the temperature between the external
274 environment and indoor
difference between air.
the external environment and indoor air.
275 For this reason, energy saving was lower in Bari, mainly due to its climate conditions, though
276 showing similar tends compared to Toronto: the highest saving during the heating season in Bari was
277 observed assuming the North orientation with reference to the Refurbishment case (3.2 kWh/m2∙yr)
278 and ~2 kWh/m2∙yr for the East and West facades. In Bari, the saving achieved by switching from the
279 compliant window to the aerogel-insulated one was lower than in Toronto (below 1 kWh/m2∙yr);
280 these results are consistent with the considerations exposed above.
 Buildings 2020, 10, 60 9 of 15
Buildings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 15

50 45.6

Specific heating energy [kWh/m2.yr]

45
40 35.6 35.5 35.2
33.4
35
30 27.7 27.6
24.9 26.0 25.9
25
19.7
20 18.0

15
10
5
0
South East West North
Exposure
Refurbishment case Window Compliant with standards Aerogel-based Window
275 a)

12.0
Specific heating energy [kWh/m2.yr]

10.3
10.0

8.0 7.6
7.1

5.6
6.0
4.5
4.1
3.7 3.3
4.0 2.9

2.0 1.2 0.9

0.7

0.0
South East West North
Exposure
Refurbishment case Window Compliant with standards Aerogel-based Window
276 b)

Energy 2 ·yr) in Toronto (a) and in Bari (b), according to exposures and
277 Figure 6. 6.
Figure Energyuse (kWh/m
use (kWh/m 2∙yr) in Toronto (a) and in Bari (b), according to exposures and window
278 window
type.type.

279 For this

The reason,
situationenergy saving was
was completely lowerbetween
reversed in Bari,the
mainly due to its
two locations climate
when conditions,for
the consumption though
280showing
summer cooling
similar wascompared
tends taken intoto consideration
Toronto: the (Figure 7). saving
highest In this case, the consumptions
during of energy
the heating season for was
in Bari
281observed
cooling prevailedthe
assuming in North
Bari, where they were
orientation withapproximately
reference todouble compared to those
the Refurbishment observed
case (3.2 kWh/m in 2 ·yr)
282and ~2
Toronto. The
2 façade orientations with higher consumptions were South, East, and
kWh/m ·yr for the East and West facades. In Bari, the saving achieved by switching from the West, both in
283compliant
Toronto and Bari. In all cases, the saving achievable by adopting the innovative frame was negligible,
window to the aerogel-insulated one was lower than in Toronto (below 1 kWh/m2 ·yr); these
284 whereas the differences observed with respect to the reference window (Refurbishment scenario)
results are consistent with the considerations exposed above.
285 were mainly due to the reduction in the incoming radiation through the triple glass with low
286 The situation was completely reversed between the two locations when the consumption for
transmittance. The maximum savings were 4 kWh/m2∙yr in Toronto on the South façade and ~6
287summer
kWh/mcooling
2∙yr forwas takenorientation
the same into consideration (Figure
in Bari. In both 7). Incooling
locations, this case, the was
energy consumptions
slightly higherof in
energy
288for cooling prevailed in Bari, where they were approximately double compared
the aerogel-base window, compared to the one compliant with standards. As the method used in to those observed in
Toronto.
289 The façade orientations with higher consumptions were South, East,
dynamic simulations using the Energyplus platform is deterministic in nature, the observed and West, both in Toronto
290and Bari.
differences
In all can only
cases, thebesaving
explained in terms by
achievable of differences
adopting the in the thermal conductance
innovative of the window
frame was negligible, whereas
291the differences
frame. Consequently,
observed with it may be deduced
respect that the lower
to the reference window thermal transmittance
(Refurbishment of the window
scenario) were mainly
292due to
containing aerogel,induring
the reduction the summer
the incoming season,through
radiation reduces heat exchanges
the triple glassduring the night
with low time, thus The
transmittance.
293maximum
limiting the beneficial removal2 of cooling loads associated with sensible thermal power
savings were 4 kWh/m ·yr in Toronto on the South façade and ~6 kWh/m ·yr for the same 2 due to

orientation in Bari. In both locations, cooling energy was slightly higher in the aerogel-base window,
compared to the one compliant with standards. As the method used in dynamic simulations using the
Energyplus platform is deterministic in nature, the observed differences can only be explained in terms
 Buildings 2020, 10, 60 10 of 15

of differences in the thermal conductance of the window frame. Consequently, it may be deduced
that the lower thermal transmittance of the window containing aerogel, during the summer season,
reduces heat2020,
Buildings exchanges during
10, x FOR PEER the night time, thus limiting the beneficial removal of cooling
REVIEW 10 of 15loads
associated with sensible thermal power due to equipment, lighting density, persons, and heat transfer
294 equipment,
through the opaque lighting
and density, persons,
transparent and heat transfer through the opaque and transparent
envelopes.
295 envelopes.

30
Specific cooling energy [kWh/m2.yr]

25.4
25
21.2 21.5 21.6
19.4
20 18.5 18.8
16.7 16.9
15

10 8.8 8.0 8.1

0
South East West North
Exposure
Refurbishment case Window Compliant with standards Aerogel-based Window
296 a)

45
Specific cooling energy [kWh/m2.yr]

38.9
40
33.2 34.2
35 32.5 32.6
28.3 28.4 29.0 29.1
30
25
18.7
20 16.6 16.6
15
10
5
0
South East West North
Exposure
Cooling Energy
Refurbishment case Window Compliant with standards Aerogel-based Window
297 b)

7. Cooling energy consumptions 2 ·yr) in Toronto (a) and in Bari (b), according to
298 Figure
Figure 7. Cooling energy consumptions (kWh/m
(kWh/m2∙yr) in Toronto (a) and in Bari (b), according to
299 exposures and and
exposures window
windowtype.
type.

300 Reduction in the

Reduction inframe U-factor
the frame mightmight
U-factor improve the thermal
improve performance
the thermal of windows
performance and influence
of windows and
301 influence
the indoor the indoor temperatures
temperatures in cold as
in cold climates, climates, as verified
verified in Toronto.
in Toronto. The analyses
The analyses carried
carried outout
clearly
302 clearly showed the extent to which the location may influence the achievable energy
showed the extent to which the location may influence the achievable energy performance, especially performance,
303 especially
in terms in terms
of energy of energy
saving. saving. The
The highest highest
saving saving
(~27%) for(~27%) forconsumption
heating heating consumption was attained
was attained in Toronto
304 in Toronto on the North-facing exposure, comparing the performance obtained using the innovative
on the North-facing exposure, comparing the performance obtained using the innovative window
305 window with those reported for the Refurbishment scenario, and 6% comparing it with a Standard
with those reported for the Refurbishment scenario, and 6% comparing it with a Standard compliant
306 compliant scenario. In Bari, the results were equally high in percentage terms, reaching 27% and 7%,
scenario.
307 In Bari, with
respectively, the results were
reference equally
to the high
winter in percentage
season and energyterms,
use forreaching 27% andthese
heating, although 7%, respectively,
results
with
308 reference to the winter season and
were not so significant in absolute terms. energy use for heating, although these results were not so
significant in absolute terms.
309 3.3. Frame temperatures
310 The hourly surface frame temperature inside the room was reported in Figure 8 on an annual
311 basis, taking into account only the facades exposed to North, as they were those in which the
 Buildings 2020, 10, 60 11 of 15

3.3. Frame Temperatures

The hourly surface frame temperature inside the room was reported in Figure 8 on an annual basis,
taking into account only the facades exposed to North, as they were those in which the innovative frame
Buildings
showed the 2020,
best10, x FOR PEER REVIEW
performance. It is clear that during the entire winter season, in Toronto, the 11 of 15
strongly
insulating properties of the frame of the innovative window might guarantee a rather sharp increase in
312 innovative frame showed the best performance. It is clear that during the entire winter season, in
temperature
313 Toronto, (up to 5 ◦ C)insulating
the strongly compared to the other
properties of thetwo frame
frame technologies.
of the innovative windowDuring the summer
might guaranteeseason,
a
the frame
314 rather temperature
sharp increasewas lower than(up
in temperature in the
to 5 frames adopted
°C) compared for other
to the the other scenarios.
two frame In Bari, the
technologies.
performance
315 During the difference
summer was barely
season, the noticeable as well, was
frame temperature because
lowerthe different
than climaticadopted
in the frames conditions
for thedid not
emphasize
316 the difference in thermal performances. Regardless, also in this
other scenarios. In Bari, the performance difference was barely noticeable as well, because the case, frame temperature
317 differentinclimatic
was higher winterconditions
and lower didinnot emphasize
summer, the difference
confirming in thermal observed
the behavior performances. Regardless,
in Toronto. In Bari,
318 also in thistemperature
the maximum case, frame temperature
differenceswas higher in
observed in winter
January and lower
were 4.1in◦ C
summer,
and 6.19 ◦ C, respectively,
confirming the
319 behavior
compared to observed
the Standardin Toronto. In Bari,
compliant the maximum
scenario frame and temperature differences observed
the Refurbishment scenario. in January
In June, the
320 were 4.1 °C and 6.19 °C, respectively, compared ◦ to the
◦ Standard compliant scenario frame and the
highest temperature differences were 3.35 C and 7.44 C, in the cooling season, taking into account the
321 Refurbishment scenario. In June, the highest temperature differences were 3.35 °C and 7.44 °C, in the
same reference scenarios as above. As shown in Table 1, the value of the frame conductance is halved
322 cooling season, taking into account the same reference scenarios as above. As shown in Table 1, the
whenvalue
323 switching
of the from
frame the Refurbishment
conductance is halvedscenario to the Standard
when switching from theCompliant
Refurbishmentscenario, buttoisthe
scenario further
reduced
324 by a factor of 5.5, by switching the latter to the innovative, aerogel-based
Standard Compliant scenario, but is further reduced by a factor of 5.5, by switching the latter to the frame. This justifies
the different
325 innovative, data of the internal
aerogel-based frame.temperature
This justifiesinthe
thedifferent
monthsdata from of December
the internal to April (Figure
temperature in the 8a), in
326
whichmonths
we take frombetter advantage
December of the
to April greater
(Figure 8a), level
in whichof thermal
we take insulation offered
better advantage of by
thethe bestlevel
greater performing
of
327
framethermal
in the insulation
cold seasons,offered by the
in the best performing
climate conditionsframe in the cold seasons, in the climate conditions
of Toronto.
328 of Toronto.
30
Refurbishment
Compliant window
25
Aeroshield
Interior frame temperatue [°C]

20

15

10

0
Mar

Dec
May

Jul
Jun
Jan

Oct
Feb

Sep

Nov
Aug
Apr

329 a) Time

35
Refurbishment

30 Compliant window
Aeroshield

25
Interior frame temperature [°C]

20

15

10

0
Dec
Mar

May

Jun

Jul
Jan

Oct
Feb

Apr

Nov
Aug

Sep

330 b) Time

331 Figure 8. Frame

Figure surface
8. Frame temperature
surface temperaturefor
forNorth
North exposure, plotted
exposure, plotted with
with reference
reference to one-year
to one-year time,time,
in in
332 Toronto (a) and Bari (b).
Toronto (a) and Bari (b).

333 3.4. North-facades in Toronto

 Buildings 2020, 10, 60 12 of 15

3.4. North-Facades in Toronto

Buildings 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 15
Starting from these remarks, further analyses were carried out to compare performances due to
334 Starting
different from
values of these remarks, further
Window-to-Wall Ratiosanalyses
(WWRs)were carried out to
of North-facing compare
walls performances
in Toronto. due to
Three different
335 different values of Window-to-Wall Ratios (WWRs) of North-facing walls in Toronto.
values of Window-to-Wall Ratio were considered to take into account the effect of window size on Three different
336 values of Window-to-Wall
the North-facing exposure as Ratio
wellwere considered
as the to take
effect of the frame into account
surface, the effect
in each case. of
Thewindow
window size
usedon
337 the North-facing
in previous exposurewas
simulations as well
thenas the effect
assumed asofthe
the“intermediate”
frame surface, case
in each case. The
window. Twowindow
more used
sizes
338 in previous
were added:simulations was athen
a “small” and assumed
“large” as theas“intermediate”
window, suitable termscase window. Two
of comparison. more
For eachsizes were
case, the
339 added: a “small” and
Frame-to-Glazing Ratioa (FGR)
“large”was
window, as suitable
also calculated, terms of the
expressing comparison. For each
ratio between case, surface
the frame the Frame-
and
340 to-Glazing
the glazingRatio (FGR)
surface, was also calculated,
in percentage expressing
terms (Figure 9). the ratio between the frame surface and the
341 glazing surface, in percentage terms (Figure 8).
60.0

50.9
50.0
45.6
Energy use [kWh/m2yr]

41.5
40.0 36.3 35.2
34.3
33.7 33.433.1

30.0

20.0

11.1 10.2 10.4

10.0 8.8 8.0 8.1
7.0 6.3 6.3

0.0
H C H C H C
Refurbishment scenario Standard Compliant window Aerogel Frame

Large Intermediate Small

342
343 9. Energy
Figure 10. Energyuse
usefor
forheating
heating and
and cooling
cooling using
using three
three different
different window
window sizes on the North-facing
344 (H= Heating,
exposure, in Toronto. (H= Heating, C=
C=Cooling).
Cooling).

345 When the

When the aerogel
aerogelwindow
windowwas wascompared
compared with
withthethe Refurbishment
Refurbishment scenario,
scenariothe (Figure
“large” window
10), the
346 (WWR = 100%) showed the highest saving (17 kWh/m 2 ·yr), passing
“large” window (WWR= 100%) showed the highest saving (17 kWh/m ∙yr), passing from 51 to 34 from 2 51 to 34 kWh/m 2 ·yr yearly
2
347 consumption
kWh/m for heating.
2∙yr yearly This figure
consumption for dropped
heating. toThis figure ·yr
12 kWh/m when the
dropped to intermediate
12 kWh/m 2∙yr window
when was the
348 considered (WWR
intermediate window = 60%)
wasand to 8.4 kWh/m
considered (WWR=
2 ·yr in the small
60%) and towindow (WWR
8.4 kWh/m 2∙yr=in43%).
the small window
349 (WWR=When 43%).the aerogel window was compared with the Standard compliant scenario, the highest
350 contribution
When the toaerogel
energy window
saving duewastocompared
the aerogel with frame only was compliant
the Standard observed in the large
scenario, thewindow
highest
2
(3 kWh/m ·yr).
351 contribution to The
energybetter performance
saving due to theof this case frame
aerogel was due to the
only wasgreater contribution
observed in the large of the frame on
window (3
352 the overall façade surface, expressed by the higher FGR (46%), compared
kWh/m ∙yr). The better performance of this case was due to the greater contribution of the frame on
2 to the “intermediate” and
353 “small” window,
the overall façadewith lower
surface, FGRs (41%
expressed by and 39%, respectively).
the higher FGR (46%), compared to the “intermediate” and
354 The effect of FGR on energy consumption,
“small” window, with lower FGRs (41% and 39%, respectively). for all the window sizes and frame technologies, was
355 takenThe
intoeffect
account by normalizing the overall yearly
of FGR on energy consumption, for all the window energy consumption
sizes and(forframe
cooling and heating)
technologies, by
was
356 the actual
taken into frame
account surface area (Tablethe
by normalizing 3). overall
The table shows
yearly that consumption
energy the increase of(for glazed
coolingareaand
hasheating)
a larger
357 impact than the frame technology adopted, implying larger consumption, in
by the actual frame surface area. The Table 3 shows that the increase of glazed area has a larger impactall the cases investigated.
358 Anyway,
than the lower
frameenergy consumption
technology adopted,occurred
implying in the aerogel-insulated
larger consumption,windows,
in all the although the standard
cases investigated.
359 compliantlower
Anyway, window and consumption
energy aerogel-insulated window
occurred in theshow almost comparable
aerogel-insulated results.although
windows, The lowest the
360 normalized consumption (about 5%), for the aerogel-insulated window,
standard compliant window and aerogel-insulated window show almost comparable results. The compared to the standard
361 compliant
lowest window, consumption
normalized was obtained when(aboutthe WWR
5%), for was set to 43%.
the aerogel-insulated window, compared to the
362 standard compliant window, was obtained when the WWR was set to 43%.

363 Table 3. Yearly energy consumption normalized to frame surface area.

Buildings 2020, 10, 60 13 of 15

Table 3. Yearly energy consumption normalized to frame surface area.

Window WWR FGR Window Surface Frame Surface Normalized Yearly Energy Consumption (kWh/m2 ·yr)
Size (%) (%) Area (m2 ) Area (m2 )
Refurbishment Standard-Compliant Aerogel-Insulated
Small 43 39 5.3 2.0 221.6 166.3 157.5
Intermediate 60 42 7.3 3.0 362.6 287.8 276.5
Large 100 46 12.2 5.6 484.7 405.7 393.8

4. Discussion
The results obtained in this study showed that even when reducing Uf from 3.5 to 0.66 W/m2 ·K,
by means of the best available technologies, the achievable benefits in terms of energy saving were
significant only on North-facing walls, and in more extreme cold climates. Clearly, the transparent
component of the window plays a major role in determining the final result, as the comparison between
the “refurbishment” and the “standard compliant” cases showed, but FGR values proved that frame
may be equally significant when smaller glass panes are used. Thus, proper economic considerations
might be useful to improve understanding of the practical advantages of such technologies. According
to Koebel et al. (2012), the price of aerogel could drop below 1500 USD/m3 by 2020. In line with
this, other studies reveal that the cost of a meter cube of aerogel will achieve 50% cost reduction in
production within the next few years and will decrease to 660 USD/m3 by 2050 [13,35]. Assuming the
latter value for the volume cost of granular aerogel, less than 20 USD would be required to fabricate the
super-insulated aerogel-based window at the basis of this study, considering that the aerogel volume
in the frame would be ~0.011 m3 . Furthermore, the real challenge for a significant cost reduction for
the aerogel does not seem to come from mass production using the supercritical drying process (the
process that is currently used by all the manufactures of aerogel products), but from the definition
of new methods for evacuating the liquid component of the gel. In particular, the ambient drying
process has already shown some preliminary advantages depicted over a decade ago by Bhagat et al.
in 2007 [36]. More recently, Koebel et al. [37] and Wu et al. [38] explored successful ways to fabricate
large quantities of aerogel using ambient-dried silica aerogel. These methods have also been applied
by Berardi and Zaidi [6], who in 2019 presented a new ambient pressure drying aerogel blanket.

5. Conclusions
The results presented in this paper constitute an interesting premise for further experimental
investigations on the here proposed innovative window. The aerogel-based window outperformed both
the obsolete window adopted for a “Refurbishment scenario”, and the highly performing “Standard
compliant” one, showing reduction of energy uses by 27% and 6%, respectively.
The overall effect on energy use due to the improvement of the frame thermal resistance is limited
superiorly by its surface, compared to that of the glazed component, generally lower than 50%. In the
present work, it has been proven that the conductance of the frame can be much lower compared with
that of a highly performing triple glass.
This work has shown the effectiveness of significantly lowering the frame conductance, opening
the way to further investigations taking into account both energy saving and the increase of cost due to
the use of super-insulating materials, inside the frame.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.C.; methodology, A.C.; writing—original draft preparation, A.C.;
writing—review and editing, U.A., U.B., A.C., V.D.C., S.L., F.M., and C.R. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was partially funded by the Action Co-founded by Cohesion and Development Fund
2007–2013 – APQ Research Puglia Region “Regional programme supporting smart specialization and social and
environmental sustainability – Future in Research”.
Acknowledgments: Antonio Ferrara and the technical team from DCS Group s.r.l. are kindly acknowledged for
their support during the fabrication of the aerogel-based window; Cabot Company is gratefully acknowledged for
providing the granular aerogel used for the fabrication of the new window frame prototype.
Buildings 2020, 10, 60 14 of 15

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Parliament, E. Directive (EU) 2018/844 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018
Amending Directive 2010/31/EU on the Energy Performance of Buildings and Directive 2012/27/EU on Energy
Efficiency. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2018/844/oj (accessed on 1 February 2020).
2. Wen, R.T.; Arvizu, M.A.; Niklasson, G.A.; Granqvist, C.G. Electrochromics for energy efficient buildings:
Towards long-term durability and materials rejuvenation. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2015, 278, 121–125. [CrossRef]
3. Eperon, G.E.; Burlakov, V.M.; Goriely, A.; Snaith, H.J. Neutral color semitransparent microstructured
perovskite solar cells. ACS Nano 2014, 8, 591–598. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Cannavale, A.; Ierardi, L.; Hörantner, M.; Eperon, G.E.; Snaith, H.J.; Ayr, U.; Martellotta, F. Improving energy
and visual performance in offices using building integrated perovskite-based solar cells: A case study in
Southern Italy. Appl. Energy 2017, 205, 834–846. [CrossRef]
5. Jelle, B.P. Traditional, state-of-the-art and future thermal building insulation materials and solutions -
Properties, requirements and possibilities. Energy Build. 2011, 43, 2549–2563. [CrossRef]
6. Berardi, U. Characterization of commercial aerogel-enhanced blankets obtained with supercritical drying
and of a new ambient pressure drying blanket. Energy Build. 2019, 198, 542–552. [CrossRef]
7. De Matteis, V.; Cannavale, A.; Martellotta, F.; Rinaldi, R.; Calcagnile, P.; Ferrari, F.; Ayr, U.; Fiorito, F.
Nano-encapsulation of phase change materials: From design to thermal performance, simulations and
toxicological assessment. Energy Build. 2019, 188, 1–11. [CrossRef]
8. Ascione, F.; Bianco, N.; De Masi, R.F.; de’ Rossi, F.; Vanoli, G.P. Energy refurbishment of existing buildings
through the use of phase change materials: Energy savings and indoor comfort in the cooling season. Appl.
Energy 2014, 113, 990–1007. [CrossRef]
9. Buratti, C.; Belloni, E.; Palladino, D. Evolutive Housing System: Refurbishment with new technologies and
unsteady simulations of energy performance. Energy Build. 2014, 74, 173–181. [CrossRef]
10. Bahaj, A.S.; James, P.A.B.; Jentsch, M.F. Potential of emerging glazing technologies for highly glazed buildings
in hot arid climates. Energy Build. 2008, 40, 720–731. [CrossRef]
11. Jelle, B.P.; Baetens, R.; Gustavsen, A. Aerogel Insulation for Building Applications. In Sol-Gel Handbook;
Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA: Weinheim, Germany, 2015; Volume 3, pp. 1385–1412.
12. Walker, R.; Pavía, S. Thermal performance of a selection of insulation materials suitable for historic buildings.
Build. Environ. 2015, 94, 155–165. [CrossRef]
13. Cuce, E.; Cuce, P.M.; Wood, C.J.; Riffat, S.B. Toward aerogel based thermal superinsulation in buildings:
A comprehensive review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 34, 273–299. [CrossRef]
14. Berardi, U. Aerogel-enhanced insulation for building applications. In Nanotechnology in Eco-efficient
Construction (Second Edition), Materials, Processes and Applications; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge,
UK, 2018; pp. 395–416.
15. Parameshwaran, R.; Kalaiselvam, S. Nano and Biotech Based Materials for Energy Building Efficiency; Pacheco
Torgal, F., Buratti, C., Kalaiselvam, S., Granqvist, C.-G., Ivanov, V., Eds.; Springer International Publishing:
Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 215–243; ISBN 978-3-319-27505-5.
16. Buratti, C.; Moretti, E.; Belloni, E. Aerogel plasters for building energy efficiency. In Nano and Biotech Based
Materials for Energy Building Efficiency; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 17–40.
17. Ebert, H.-P. Thermal Properties of Aerogels. In Aerogels Handbook; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland,
2011; pp. 537–564.
18. Berardi, U. The development of a monolithic aerogel glazed window for an energy retrofitting project.
Appl. Energy 2015, 154, 603–615. [CrossRef]
19. Neugebauer, A.; Chen, K.; Tang, A.; Allgeier, A.; Glicksman, L.R.; Gibson, L.J. Thermal conductivity and
characterization of compacted, granular silica aerogel. Energy Build. 2014, 79, 47–57. [CrossRef]
20. Ihara, T.; Jelle, B.P.; Gao, T.; Gustavsen, A. Aerogel granule aging driven by moisture and solar radiation.
Energy Build. 2015, 103, 238–248. [CrossRef]
21. Hoseini, A.; McCague, C.; Andisheh-Tadbir, M.; Bahrami, M. Aerogel blankets: From mathematical modeling
to material characterization and experimental analysis. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2016, 93, 1124–1131.
[CrossRef]
Buildings 2020, 10, 60 15 of 15

22. Cuce, E.; Cuce, P.M. The impact of internal aerogel retrofitting on the thermal bridges of residential buildings:
An experimental and statistical research. Energy Build. 2016, 116, 449–454. [CrossRef]
23. Ng, S.; Jelle, B.P.; Sandberg, L.I.C.; Gao, T.; Wallevik, Ó.H. Experimental investigations of aerogel-incorporated
ultra-high performance concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 77, 307–316. [CrossRef]
24. Gao, T.; Jelle, B.P.; Gustavsen, A.; He, J. Lightweight and thermally insulating aerogel glass materials.
Appl. Phys. A Mater. Sci. Process. 2014, 117, 799–808. [CrossRef]
25. Berardi, U. Development of glazing systems with silica aerogel. Energy Procedia 2015, 78, 394–399. [CrossRef]
26. Jelle, B.P.; Hynd, A.; Gustavsen, A.; Arasteh, D.; Goudey, H.; Hart, R. Fenestration of today and tomorrow:
A state-of-the-art review and future research opportunities. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2012, 96, 1–28.
[CrossRef]
27. Dowson, M.; Harrison, D.; Craig, S.; Gill, Z. Improving the Thermal Performance of Single Glazed Windows
using Translucent Granular Aerogel. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 2011, 4, 266–280. [CrossRef]
28. Huang, Y.; Niu, J. Application of super-insulating translucent silica aerogel glazing system on commercial
building envelope of humid subtropical climates e Impact on space cooling load. Energy 2015, 83, 316–325.
[CrossRef]
29. Gao, T.; Ihara, T.; Grynning, S.; Petter, B.; Gunnarshaug, A. Perspective of aerogel glazings in energy efficient
buildings. Build. Environ. 2016, 95, 405–413. [CrossRef]
30. Buratti, C.; Moretti, E. Experimental performance evaluation of aerogel glazing systems. Appl. Energy 2012,
97, 430–437. [CrossRef]
31. Buratti, C.; Moretti, E. Glazing systems with silica aerogel for energy savings in buildings. Appl. Energy 2012,
98, 396–403. [CrossRef]
32. Valachova, D.; Zdrazilova, N.; Panovec, V.; Skotnicova, I. Using of aerogel to improve thermal insulating
properties of windows. Civ. Environ. Eng. 2018, 14, 2–11. [CrossRef]
33. EnergyPlus 8.9, Building Technologies Program, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Available
online: https://energyplus.net/ (accessed on 1 July 2019).
34. ISO 10077-2:2017 - Thermal Performance of Windows, Doors and Shutters—Calculation of Thermal
Transmittance Numerical Method for Frames; Standards Norway. 2017. Available online: https:
//www.iso.org/standard/64995.html (accessed on 1 July 2019).
35. Koebel, M.; Rigacci, A.; Achard, P. Aerogel-based thermal superinsulation: An overview. J. Sol-Gel Sci.
Technol. 2012, 3, 315–339. [CrossRef]
36. Bhagat, S.D.; Kim, Y.-H.; Moon, M.-J.; Ahn, Y.-S.; Yeo, J.-G. A cost-effective and fast synthesis of nanoporous
SiO2 aerogel powders using water-glass via ambient pressure drying route. Solid State Sci. 2007, 9, 628–635.
[CrossRef]
37. Koebel, M.M.; Huber, L.; Zhao, S.; Malfait, W.J. Breakthroughs in cost-effective, scalable production of
superinsulating, ambient-dried silica aerogel and sili-ca-biopolymer hybrid aerogels: From laboratory to
pilot scale. J. Sol-Gel Sci. Technol. 2016, 79, 308–318. [CrossRef]
38. Wu, X.; Fan, M.; Mclaughlin, J.F.; Shen, X.; Tan, G. A novel low-cost method of silica aerogel fabrication using
fly ash and trona ore with ambient pressure drying technique. Powder Technol. 2018, 323, 310–322. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).