Building and Environment 46 (2011) 2238e2246

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

Experimental determination of thermal performance of glazed façades

with water film, under direct solar radiation in the tropics
Abdultawab Qahtan a, *, Nila Keumala a,1, S.P. Rao a,1, Zulkiflee Abdul-Samad b, 2
a
Department of Architecture, Faculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
b
Department of Quantity Surveying, Faculty of Built Environment, University of Malaya, Malaysia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: An experimental investigation of a glazed façade oriented west has been conducted utilizing the
Received 17 February 2011 Sustainable Glazed Water Film (SGWF). The experiments involved the following three parameters
Received in revised form namely: the water flow rate, the type of glazing, and the solar radiation intensity. Two full-scale rooms
4 May 2011
were used, one as a reference room, with a fixed configuration, and the other as a test room, which could
Accepted 5 May 2011
be configured in different ways. The ability of the SGWF to reduce the passage of the solar energy during
the sunny hours and hence to limit the heat passage through glazing was analyzed. The aim of this paper
Keywords:
is to examine the improvement in thermal performance obtained by the flowing water film over glazed
Glazed façade
Water film
façades. It has been found that the flowing water film on the glazed façade lowers the glazing surface
Heat transfer temperature by 7.2e14
C (average) and absorbs a portion of the solar energy resulting in decreasing
Sustainability indoor temperature by 2.2e4.1
C (average). However, with increased solar radiation intensity, the SGWF
provides a better level of efficiency in reducing the heat transfer indoors.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
For the past few decades, the architectural language has given
more emphasis to the lightness and the transparency of buildings,
heading towards fully glazed building envelopes [1]. However
glazing is the easiest way for solar radiation to penetrate buildings
and become trapped inside. Direct sunlight passes through glazed
façades as short-wave (radiation), is absorbed by the internal
surfaces of buildings and subsequently emitted as long-wave
radiation (heat), which cannot pass through the glass to the
outside. This produces what is called the greenhouse effect [2],
which typically accounts for 15e30% of overheating in indoor
spaces [3].
To address this problem many studies have been conducted
worldwide and have suggested the solutions. The traditional
solution which allows users to control solar gain, involves both the
Abbreviations: CG, Clear glass; TG, Tinted glass; IR, Infrared; f, Flow rate; SGWF,
Sustainable Glazed Water Film; SCGWF, Sustainable Clear Glazed Water Film;
STGWF, Sustainable Tinted Glazed Water Film; GBI, Green building index.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ6 0108901542; fax: þ6 3 7967 5713.
E-mail addresses: tawab444@gmail.com (A. Qahtan), nimk@um.edu.my
(N. Keumala), raosp@um.edu.my (S.P. Rao), zulkiflee1969@um.edu.my (Z. Abdul-
Samad).
1
Tel.: þ6 03 79675320.
2
Tel.: þ6 03 79674474.
proper orientation of the glazing [4] and the installation of devices.
In relation to the glazed buildings, the shading as an alternative that
prevents heat gain and allows light and a view to the outdoor,
involved: (a) fixed or movable sun-shading devices, either external
or internal that depend mainly on the slat tilt angle, reflective
material and its colour [5e7]; (b) compound the shading devices
with double glazing system to achieve high reflectance values
inside the double glass pane resulting in minimizing heat gain [8,9]
and; (c) building shape towards the self-shading, where it has been
found by Capeluto [10] that self-shading results in similar perfor-
mance of using high-performance low-emissivity glazing on
vertical façades.
However, this solution does not distinguish between daylight
(visible range) and heat (infrared range). Particularly on the east
and west orientations in the tropics where the solar altitude is low
and horizontal shading can only be achieved by blocking the whole
façade. East and West façades are generally avoided in the design of
tropical buildings for thermal considerations [11], but this is not
always affordable and acceptable due to the limitation of the land-
form and view aspects.
Although, air-conditioning makes sense for maintaining the
indoor temperature, it has the disadvantage of increasing the
demand for cooling energy. In Malaysia, for example, about 57% of
energy consumption in the office-building sector is used for cooling
[12]. Hence, as energy costs rise and more glazing is used
in buildings, there will be increasing demand for alternative

0360-1323/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.05.001
 A. Qahtan et al. / Building and Environment 46 (2011) 2238e2246
inexpensive cooling systems for coping with these seemingly
conflicting requirements. The study will contribute to the reduction
of heat by means of sustainable glazing design by exploiting the
potential of Sustainable Glazed Water Film (SGWF) for reducing
heat gain on east/west glazed façades in tropics.
2. Solar heat gain through glazing
Total heat gain through glazing derives from two sources: direct
solar radiation and heat transfer due to the difference in temper-
ature between ambient and indoor spaces and between glass
surfaces.
When solar energy meets the glass it is transmitted, absorbed or
reflected away from the glass [13]. This depends upon the spectral
properties of the glass. Different glazing has unique characteristics
in terms of solar heat gain [14]. On sunny days part of the solar
spectrum is absorbed causing the glass to warm up to as high as
40
C [1]. And due to the good conductivity of glass, the heat
eventually passes through a glass surface and is dissipated in the
indoor spaces.
However, each type of glass has a characteristic transmittance of
direct solar radiation. For example, most of the incident radiant
energy is transmitted through the surface of clear glass. Its short-
wave-infrared transmittance is about 75% and 89% of the visible
light [15]. Therefore, an ideal glass for tropical regions should be
one with a high transmission to visible light and a low transmission
to near-infrared (heat radiation) [16,17].
3. Tropical solar control glazing
Although the glazing allows heat to flow through the skin of the
building, glass in recent years has become popular as a building
material in tropics. This is because of advances in glazing tech-
nology. The high performing glass for the solar aspects can be
obtained from the basic clear float glass grouped into: body tinted
glass, insulated glass, solar reflective glass and low-emissivity
glass [18].
3.1. Solar control by tinted glazing
Tinted single glass of various colours (e.g. green, grey, and
bronze) is popularly used in building products in the tropics, since
it is manufactured there and the particular colour tint can absorb
solar radiation and reduce heat. However, it is not sufficient to
prevent the inside from gaining solar heat and, in addition, it
reduces light transmittance [19]. Buildings perform better with low
emissivity coating applied on clear glass [20]. This thin film of low-e
has high transmittance in the visible range and very high reflec-
tance in the long-wave infrared range [21]. This advantage makes it
possible to control solar heat where the variation of temperature
between outdoor and indoor is high. In Malaysia, for example, the
average difference between indoor and outdoor temperature
“peak” was found to be 5
C, according to the field analysis of
energy efficient buildings conducted by the author [22].
The disadvantage of this choice is that the short-wave radiation
is still able to penetrate through the glass. It hits the indoor objects,
and reemitting as long-wave IR radiation that cannot pass through
the glass. The low-e coat is effectively “trapping” large portions of
the solar energy within the space [14]. This low-e glass in the
tropics can only be resolved if it is used in conjunction with extra
solutions for maximizing heat loss. In the tropics, the direct solar
transmittance is the key factor which needs to be controlled to
satisfy cooling demands. The approach to satisfying these needs is
to use the spectrally selective glazing that is fitting in the tropics.
This high-performance glazing has a high visible transmittance but
2239
rejects a great proportion of the short-wave radiation contained in
the ultra-violet and near-infrared (heat) emitted by the sun [20,23].
Spectral selectivity is obtained by a microscopically thin coat of
silver-based, multilayer, low-e on glass or film. Because spectrally
selective glazing reflect solar radiation, this makes the surface
temperature significantly cooler if compared to the conventional
low-e coating and tinted glazing; less absorbed energy by glazing
means less heat is transferred indoors [24].
However, none of these glazing systems provide a complete
solution to the problem mentioned above. They either involve
conflicts between visual and thermal comfort, or are not acceptable
to the clients for economic reasons. Most common low-e and
spectrally selective coat need to be compounded with double
glazing for protective purposes and is relatively costly to produce
[15]. Yet, from a review of the market and through direct contact
with manufacturers it has been found that tinted glazing is still
a popular choice for buildings in Malaysia. In contrast, no large
market exists for a higher performing glazing that has only a few
practical applications and depends on imported units.
3.2. Solar control by Sustainable Glazed Water Film (SGWF)
For solar heat control through passive strategy, the most
common alternatives are air and water. The preference for water
comes from the fact that water has a much higher density and
much more specific heat than air. A volume of air about 3000 times
greater than water is required to transfer an equal amount of heat
[25]. Besides, water is one of the continuously renewable natural
resources of the world [26], particularly in Malaysia, which receives
a high rainfall throughout the year but has not fully benefited from
this [27]. However, reducing the wastage of rainwater, with the
benefit of the low cost of its harvesting system [28], has led the
Malaysian Green Building Index (GBI) to encourage buildings’
designers to implement a rainwater harvesting system as alterna-
tive building elements for cooling [29]. Therefore, the novelty of the
approach explored in this paper lies in the try to heighten the
benefits of recycled elements in such tropical countries combined
with low cost glazing that is commercially available in markets.
The concept of SGWF cooling is to run a thin clear water film
over the outer surface of the glazed building in the presence of solar
radiation (in this paper East and West orientation). So that the flow
of water film takes away heat and lowers the surface temperature.
This making the glazing to act as a means of heat transmission (heat
sink) from inside the building to the ambient air without increasing
the humidity of the indoor spaces. In addition the water is able to
absorb some solar energy, further limiting the passage of thermal
energy [30].
Applying a water flow film as a means of thermal transfer in
applied science has been extensively reported [31e33], in contrast
with solar control in buildings which has been reported only briefly
[15,34]. More detailed experimental study was carried out by
Naganuma et al. [35], examining the cooling effect by water film
formation on an alumina-finished wall with a TiO2 coating.
However these previous studies have not experimentally examined
the thermal improvement effect of SGWF on the glazed buildings in
the tropics. Therefore, this study focuses primarily on measuring
the drop value “degree Celsius” in indoor air temperature and
glazing surface temperature as well as the heat flux in the presence
of a thin water film flowing down over glazed West façades, which
exposed to direct solar radiation.
4. Experimental set up
In this study, the configurations of two full-scale rooms, test
room and reference room, are designed with respect to the site
2240 A. Qahtan et al. / Building and Environment 46 (2011) 2238e2246
Fig. 1. View of the experiments site: test room (right) and reference room (left).
selected for conducting the experiment. They correspond to the
typical dimensions of façade modules used in experiments. They
are identical and detached one-storey rooms (Fig. 1). In order to be
exposed to solar radiation without any shade, they are located on
the roof of a seven-storey building. They have a steel structure;
their walls consist of a steel frame, externally covered with a white
sheet metal and internally covered with a white painted plywood
board. A layer of 100 mm Rockwool insulation for the wall and
internal roof (ceiling) is located in the wood frame between the
metal sheet and the plywood. The internal dimensions are
2.0  2.0 m with an area of 4.0 m2 and ceiling height of 2.60 m. Both
cells are placed so that each of the four walls faces east, west, north
and south, respectively. They have one opening, 1.8 m
height  1.4 m width (Window Wall Ratio “WWR” more than 50% is
considered as glazed façade in this research) oriented to the west,
to be closed with different glazed systems. A plywood door
0.8  2.0 m was insulated with aluminium fixed sheet on both sides
in addition to the aluminium foil located on the exterior face. The
glass types were selected based on their performance against solar
radiation and their relative low production cost. The float bronze
tinted glass is selected to represent the lower glass SHGC (trans-
mitting less solar heat), while the clear glass represents the poor
solar heat control. The glass installed on the façade was divided into
two parts of 10 mm float glass. The thickness of the glass was
selected to correspond to the thickness applied to actual glazed
buildings to get accurate results in respect of the current research
problem. Table 1 summarizes the performance of the glasses used
in the experiment.
4.1. Forming even flow of water film on the glass surface
The supplying water film to the exterior surfaces of the glazed
wall comes from a submersible pump (used pump: 400 w,
230 V/50 Hz, 7300 l/h) placed in a reservoir connected to the main
Table 1
The characteristics of glasses used in experiments [35].
Product Thickness (mm) Visible light
Transmittance Reflectance
Outside Inside
Pilkington clear 10 86 8 8
Pilkington bronze 10 30 5 5
water tank. During experiments, the water reservoir was shaded by
an aluminium foil and the PVC pipelines are used to reduce heat
transfer from the sun. To collect water for recirculation from the
glass surfaces, a gutter was connected to the bottom of the glazing
which in turn re-circulates water back to the reservoir.
Drilling 5/32" holes, every 1/2" in the pipe will be sufficient to
produce an even flow when water hits the glazed façade. Feeding
the water to the system comes through a t-junction with a pipe
going right and left with both ends capped off. The water flow is
generated by means of pumping the water through the valve
connected to the water meter, and connected to the room façade by
PVC pipes (external diameter 2.0 cm). The desired water film
thickness can be adjusted accordingly to the experimental needs,
where the thickness of the water film is related to the water supply
[36]. To produce a desired film of water on the glazed façade of the
test room requires approximately 800e1200 L h1 m1 width
according the two flow rates that were tested. The operation of the
SGWF system starts at 12:00 (the results have been reported, on
each run, for the time 13:00e19:00, so that the test system is
steady) during test days and shut down by 19:00 at sunset.
4.2. The instrumentation and sensors
The measurement equipment consists of 13 sensors connected
to data loggers designed to collect data related to thermal and solar
radiations. The “Babuc/A” data logger, was utilized for indoor
measuring and both “Skye” and a Weather Station for measuring
the outdoor solar radiation and the climate condition of the
experimental site. The measurement of surface temperatures and
heat fluxes were conducted with the presence of the incident solar
radiation without a shield in the case of both the treated and the
reference façade, since the shelter will affect the gentle flow of the
water film.
The following sensors were adopted for both the test room and
reference room (Fig. 2):
- Thermocouples to measure the temperature of the indoor dry-
bulb temperature.
- Two Thermocouples to measure the inner surface tempera-
tures of the glass.
- Heat flux meters to measure the thermal flux through the
façade on the glass surface facing the indoor environment.
- Two Pyranometers to measure the incident solar energy.
- Two Lux meters to measure the illumination indoor.
- Probe to measure the global solar radiation.
- Outdoor air velocity.
- Rain gauge.
- Thermocouples to measure the outdoor air temperature.
- Infrared thermometer for monitoring the water temperature.
5. Results and discussion
The test was started without any treatments in both the test
room and reference room to reduce data error when comparing the
results. The findings of this stage are presented in Figs. 3, 6 and 7
Solar radiation SHGC SC U-value W/m2k
Transmittance Reflectance Absorption
Outside Inside
72 7 7 21 0.77 0.89 5.6
26 5 5 69 0.44 0.51 5.6
 A. Qahtan et al. / Building and Environment 46 (2011) 2238e2246 2241

Fig. 2. (a) Schematic view of the present problem at single glazed façade, and (b) the experiment schematic with the SGWF.

and Tables 2 & 3; they show that the differences between the two
rooms are negligible. All the experimental data have been collected
at two different water flow rates to form two different thicknesses
of the water film. Case 1 has a flow rate 1.2 m3/h, the lowest flow
rate that created a uniform water film on the glazing surface, while
the flow rate 1.7 m3/h was the maximum water flow obtained
through the water meter in the experiment system. The experiment
was conducted on west glazed façades, in the period of the highest
solar radiation intensity in Malaysia; February and March, where
the sun is overhead the experiment location. So that the high
indoor temperature displayed in this study is due to the direct solar
beams passing through the large glazing and being trapped inside
the insulated test rooms.
5.1. Temperature difference inside the rooms
Measuring the SCGWF has been carried out at a flow rate 1.2 m3/
h and 1.7 m3/h. The analysis of the lower flow rate 1.2 m3/h at this
stage of the experiment was excluded. It did not have a significant
effect on indoor temperature because of the lower absorption of the
6 CG vs. CGWF, cloudy day
CG CGWF, sunny day
CG vs CG, control days
5 on the control days without the water film the temperature vari-
Temperature difference °C
clear glass to the solar radiation and the thinner thickness of the
water film. The analysis focuses on the indoor and outdoor air
temperature, and the inner glass surface temperature, to get a clear
image of the thermal performance of the sustainable glazing
system.
The analysis of the SCGWF vs. CG (average five days to each
sunny and cloudy days for the time 1pme7pm) is summarized in
Table 2. The total reduction in heat load during the sunny days was
2.2
C indoor air and 7.2
C to the glazing surface. Whereas on
cloudy days the total reduction in heat load was 1.5
C indoor air
and 4.3
C to the glazing surface. The results indicate the signifi-
cance of the water film during the sunny time compared to cloudy
time.
Fig. 3 shows that the peak heat gain through the SCGWF-f
1.7 m3/h, and CG at 16:40, created a difference in the indoor air
temperature of 5.6
C, lower with SCGWF-f 1.7 m3/h (when the
outdoor air temperature was 33.9
C and total solar radiation
was1215 W/m2 at that time). Whereas during a cloudy day, the
peak difference in indoor air temperature between the test room
with SCGWF-f 1.7 m3/h and reference room with CG was about 3
C
at 14:40 (when the outdoor temperature was 33.6
C and total solar
radiation was 802 W/m2 at that time).
Fig. 3 also shows that the thermal performance of the SCGWF-f
1.7 m3/h is always better than the reference one with CG and that
ation of the two rooms were approximately the same. With

4 SCGWF-f 1.7 m3/h, more drop of the heat gain occurs during the
sunny hours compared to cloudy hours. It was noted the peak
3 difference in the indoor air temperature in these cases increases
during the peak of the solar radiation intensity. This indicates an
2 optimal time for the water film to be applied. However, with
increased solar radiation intensity, the SGWF is more efficient in
1 reducing the heat transfer indoors. It was found the SCGWF-f
1.7 m3/h efficiently transfers the thermal energy from inside to
0 outside (increased heat sink) and thus resulting in the temperature
drop. It also provides an indication that a portion of a direct solar
radiation (short-wave infrared) is absorbed by the water film.
-1
13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00 Unfortunately, the instrument used for monitoring the indoor
temperature of the reference room was damaged during the final
Time hh:mm
study stage of SCGWF. This led to a change to the method of
Fig. 3. Indoor air temperature difference, CG vs. SCGWF-f 1.7 m3/h. monitoring the indoor air temperature during the course of
2242 A. Qahtan et al. / Building and Environment 46 (2011) 2238e2246

Table 2
Heat transfer performance of 10 mm Clear Glass (CG) with a thin film of water under the exposure to direct solar radiation.

SCGWF. Judge against control days, verifying with Indoor dry-bulb Surface Outdoor The difference Remarks
outdoor dry-bulb of each case temperature temperature temperature dry-bulb temp
indoor/outdoor
C2. flow Sunny days SCGWF 37.7 32.8 32.9 4.8 All variables were measured
rate (1.7 m3/h) CG (control) 39.9 40.0 7 in both rooms at same time.
Difference 2.2 7.2 1.7 m3/h is the maximum rate
Average heat gain reduction by SCGWF is: (2.2
C indoor air and, 7.2
C glass surface) of the water flow was obtained
Cloudy days SCGWF 34.9 31.0 30.7 4.2 through the water meter in
CG (control) 36.4 35.3 5.7 experiment system
Difference 1.5 4.3
Average heat gain reduction by SCGWF is :(1.5
C indoor air and, 4.3
C glass surface )

examining the STGWF. It was carried out in one test room as a pre-
test with TG (reference days) and then post-test with STGWF
(treated days), in judging all against the outdoor air temperature
that was recorded in the entire period.
Table 3 contains the detailed information with average 5 days
each. The pre-test five days started with TG with no treatments so
as to act as a control case in this experimental stage. Table 3 also
summarizes the results of STGWF with different configurations. The
results were monitored on an average of five days for each case for
the operation hours 13:00e19:00. With STGWF-f 1.2 m3/h, the total
reduction in the heat load during the sunny days was 4.1
C in
indoor air temperature, and 12.9
C on the glazing surface, while,
with STGWF-f 1.7 m3/h, where the reduction in indoor air
temperature was 4.0
C and 14.0
C on the glazing surface. The
unexpected likeness of the indoor air temperature of both flow
rates that appeared in Table 3 was due to the low difference
between both flow rates of the water film, and the irregular
sunshine during the test hours. In this context, it is recommended
that an experiment be conducted with much higher flow rate that
forms a greater thickness of water film.
Fig. 4 shows a temperature profile of sunny days for the two
configurations of STGWF, also the reference case TG. An indoor
temperature with TG ranges between 38.4
C at 13.00 and 37.9
C at
19:00, with a peak value of 45
C at 17:33. On the other sunny day
when using the STGWF-f 1.2 m3/h the indoor temperature variation
was ranged of between 36.1
C and 32.9
C, with a peak value of
38.8
C at 17:20. For the STGWF-f 1.7 m3/h the variation ranges from
35.6
C to 30.5
C, with a peak value of 39.3
C at 17:35.
The result peak shows a difference as illustrated in Fig. 4, where
the reduction in indoor temperature was 2.0
C more with STGWF-f
1.7 m3/h than the STGWF-f 1.2 m3/h. This indicates that STGWF-f
1.7 m3/h is more efficient in reducing heat transfer to the interior
and increasing heat sink to the outside.
On cloudy days with STGWF-f 1.2 m3/h and f1.7 m3/h, Table 3
also shows that the total reduction in solar heat gain was 2.8
C
indoor air temperature, at both flow rates. Also, on the glazing
surface with f 1.2 m3/h, the reduction was 6.0
C, while at f 1.7 m3/h
it was 7.2
C. The results verify the significance of the use of the
water film during the sunny time compared to cloudy time, and
provide an index to the capacity of the water film in absorbing
some solar radiation spectrum of direct light.
Because the examining days of the indoor air temperature at
STGWF configurations were not the same days of monitoring the
reference TG, there is a need to verify the results of the heat
reduction in this stage. The difference between outdoor/indoor air
temperatures of STGWF might be the ideal way to confirm these
results. Taking into account that, in this experiment stage, the
higher the variation between indoor and outdoor air temperatures,
the more heat gain there is. And the less the variation, the more
optimal it is.
The daily average (13:00e19:00) temperature of all experiment
configurations, does not give an accurate perception about the
water film performance because of the condition of the tropical sky
that is volatile during the day. Where the most of the time of 85.6%
is predominantly intermediate sky [11]. Therefore, the peak value
might be the closest possible to give a clear idea about the
performance of the different configurations of these experiments.
As demonstrated in Fig. 4 with TG on sunny days, the difference
in air temperature between outside and inside is 12.2
C at 17:58,
higher inside the room, when the air temperature outdoor, indoor

Table 3
Heat transfer performance of 10 mm Tinted Glass (TG) with a thin film of water under the exposure to direct solar radiation.

STGWF. Judge against control days, verifying with Indoor dry-bulb Surface Outdoor The difference Remarks
outdoor dry-bulb in both cases. temperature temperature dry-bulb temp. dry-bulb
indoor/outdoor
C2; a & b: flow Sunny days STGWF 36.1 34.5 34.3 1.8 Indoor temperature dry-b,
rate (1.2 m3/h) TG (control) 41.0 47.4 35.1 5.9 has been measured as
Difference 4.9 12.9 0.8 4.1 (pre-test) vs. (post-test)
Average heat gain reduction is: 4.1
C STGWF vs. TG. Whereas the
Cloudy days STGWF 31.8 30.0 30.0 1.8 surface temperature was
TG (control) 37.5 36.0 32.9 4.6 measured at the same time
Difference 5.7 6.0 2.9 2.8 in both treated room and
Average heat gain reduction is :2.8
C reference room.
C3; a & b: flow Sunny days STGWF 35.0 33.4 33.0 2.0
rate (1.7 m3/h) TG (control) 41.0 47.4 35.1 5.9
Difference 6.0 14.0 2.1 3.9
Average heat gain reduction is: 4.1
C
Cloudy days STGWF 32.8 30.6 30.6 2.2
TG (control) 37.5 37.8 32.9 4.6
Difference 4.7 7.2 2.3 2.4
Average heat gain reduction is :2.8
C
 A. Qahtan et al. / Building and Environment 46 (2011) 2238e2246 2243

14
TG control sunny
TG control cloudy
12
STGWF 1.2m3/h sunny
3
STGWF 1.2m /h cloudy
10

Difference in temperature
3
STGWF 1.7m /h Sunny
STGWF 1.7m3/h cloudy
8

-2
13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00
Fig. 4. Air temperature variation outdooreindoor, TG reference room vs. STGWF test
room (sunny day). Time hh:mm

Fig. 5. Air temperature variation, outdooreindoor, TG reference room vs. STGWF test
and inner surface temperature were 33.2
C, 45.0
C and 56.1
C room.

respectively, and the total solar radiation was 1167 W/m2, at that
time. Whereas, the STGWF-f 1.2 m3/h on sunny days reduced the
1.7 m3/h during a cloudy day was found to be 8
C at 15:56, when
peak difference to 4.6
C at 17:40, when the air temperature
the peak value was 41.6
C on CG and this reduced to 34.1
C with
outdoor, indoor and inner surface temperature were 34.0
C,
the application of the SCGWF-f 1.7 m3/h. On a sunny day, the
38.6
C and 37.7
C respectively, and the total solar radiation was
difference in surface temperatures of glazing reached 11.6
C at
1203 W/m2, at that time. With increasing the water film flow rate,
16:55, when the peak values ranged from 48.1
C on CG to 37.3
C
the STGWF-f 1.7 m3/h shows more effectiveness during the peak of
on SCGWF-f 1.7 m3/h.
sunny days. It was found at 17:40 that the difference was reduced to
Fig. 7 presents the differences of the glazing surface tempera-
3.7
C from an outdoor 34.0
C to an indoor 38.0
C and an inner
ture of the optimal configurations of STGWF during sunny and
glazing surface temperature of 35.0
C when the total solar radia-
cloudy days, judged against the tinted glass TG as a reference
tion was 1110 W/m2.
façade. On a sunny day it was found that the peak surface
On the cloudy days with TG the peak difference in temperature
temperature of TG reached 60.2
C at 16:36, whereas on the treated
between outdoor and indoor as plotted in Fig. 5 was 7.1
C at 18:10
room with STGWF-f 1.2 m3/h the peak surface temperature
when the air temperature indoor, outdoor and inner surface
remained at 39.7
C with a 20.5
C difference from TG. On STGWF-f
temperature were 38.5
C, 31.4
C and 46.2
C respectively, and the
1.7 m3/h, the peak surface temperature was 38.6
C at 16:20 when
total solar radiation was 799 W/m2 at that time. With the application
the TG surface temperature rose to 60.8
C at the same time, with
of STGWF-f 1.2 m3/h, the peak difference varies between 3.0
C at
a 22.2
C difference.
14:11 to 2.4
C at 17:40, where the air temperature indoor, outdoor
The peak value of the reduction on the glazing surface with
and inner surface temperature were 30.6
C; 28.2
C and 29.7
C
STGWF-f 1.7 m3/h was higher of about 2
C than STGWF-f 1.2 m3/h.
respectively, and the total solar radiation was 561e672 W/m2 at that
Fig. 7 further shows the temperature differences of the glazing
time. With increasing the flow rate of the water film, the STGWF-f 1.7
surface of STGWF during cloudy days. With STGWF-f 1.2 m3/h the
increased the ability to reduce the heat gain through the glazing on
glazing surface temperatures were reduced from 40.9
C to 32.4
C
cloudy days. The difference between the temperature inside and
with a reduction of about 8.5
C on the glazing surface. Likewise, on
outside was 1.0
C at 17:40, when the outdoor, indoor air tempera-
ture and inner surface temperature were 31.1
C, 30.4
C and 28.4
C
respectively, and the total solar radiation was 646 W/m2, at that CG vs. SCGWF cloudy
time. Compared to the other cases of cloudy days, the irregular high 14 CG vs. SCGWF sunny
CG vs.CG control days
variation between outdoor and indoor air temperature of 4.1
C that
12
appeared in Fig. 5 on the STGWF-f 1.7 at 15:10, occurred due to the
Temperature difference °C

high solar radiation intensity hitting the glazed façade at that

10
particular time where it was found of 1129 W/m2.
8
5.2. Temperature variation on glazing surfaces
6
The glazing surface temperature is the most important param-
eter in examining the heat transfer of the SGWF. Tables 2 and 3 4
include the average glazing surface temperature for two different
2
glazing types and two flow rates of the water film during 5 days,
both sunny and cloudy days. It was found that the SGWF, in all
0
cases, has lower temperature values, compared to the reference
C/TG, during the operation hours of the water film for the time 13:00 15:00 17:00 19:00
(13:00e19:00).
Time hh:mm
The differences between glazing surface temperatures are also
plotted in Figs. 6 and 7. In Fig. 6 the difference from CG to SCGWF-f Fig. 6. Surface temperature difference, CG vs. SCGWF-f 1.7 m3/h.
2244 A. Qahtan et al. / Building and Environment 46 (2011) 2238e2246

25 55 60
TG vs. STGWF 1.7 m3/h- sunny SCGWF CG
TG vs. TG control days
TG vs. STGWF 1.2 m3/h- cloudy 50
40
3
20 TG vs. STGWF 1.2 m /h-sunny
Difference in temperature °C

3
TG vs. STGWF 1.7 m /h- cloudy
45
20

Temperature °C

Heat flux W/ m
2
15 40
0
35
10
-20
30

5 -40
25

20 -60
0 15:00 17:00 19:00 14:00 16:00 18:00
Time hh:mm
13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00
Fig. 8. The temperature distribution on SCGWF and heat flux through, sunny days.
Time hh:mm

Fig. 7. The temperature variation of glass surface, TG reference room vs. STGWF test
room with two flow rates during sunny and cloudy hours.
the cloudy days with a higher flow rate of the water film, STGWF-f
1.7 m3/h, the peak variation of the glazing surface temperature
between both façades was recorded at 15:24, with a variation from
49.3
C on the reference façade (TG) to 34.8
C on treated façade
(STGWF-f 1.7 m3/h): a reduction of about 14.5
C.
However, as the water flows over the glazing façade, it carries
the thermal energy from the heat sink and then transfers the
heating capacity to the ambient air, cooling itself down in the
process. In this study, the water temperature was the same as or
slightly higher than the outdoor air temperature due to the expo-
sure of the main tank to the sunshine during all periods. However,
where the surface temperature is concerned, the increase in water
flow rate leads to a greater improvement in the results during
cloudy days than those during sunny days. This is due to the heat
removal capability of the water film in removing the long-wave
infrared (heat) which is higher in diffused radiation than the
direct radiation.
This behaviour of the water film can be understood: the water
film flowing down over the glazed façade cooling down the glass
surface by convective and conductive methods, raises the water
temperature, after then the warm water cools itself down by means
of evaporation cooling. When the outer surface of the glass is cooler
than the indoor air temperature it enhances the outward heat flow,
preventing the occurrence of the “thermal bridge” of the glazed
building skin indoors, and maximizing the “heat sink” outdoors as
well.
The variation of the water flow rate played a less important role
in the direct solar radiation beam than those with the defuse
radiation. This happened because the water film is more effective in
reducing the glazing surface temperature (long-wave infrared),
eliminating the heat conductivity through glazing indoors, sepa-
rating the inside from the outside. Whereas, the direct solar radi-
ation beam needs a great thickness of the water film to block
a portion of the short-wave infrared (heat) in the solar beam.
when the readings exceed that value; in reality the heat flux is
higher than 50 W/m2 at such a time.
The heat fluxes through the CG and SCGWF during sunny days
are plotted in Fig. 8. It can be seen that the heat flux with CG keeps
entering the indoor environment, although the indoor temperature
is higher than the outdoor (inner surface 49
C, indoor air 45
C and
outdoor air 34
C), because of the direct solar radiation causing
a high temperature variation between the inner-surfaces of the
glass and outdoor temperature, thus playing the role of “heat
bridge” indoors. In contrast, with the application of water film, the
outer glazing surface temperatures (water temperature) remain
lower than the inner surface temperature almost 1
C, and nearer to
the outside environment temperature, enhancing the outward heat
flow. In contrast, increasing the water flow over the glazing leads to
a reduction in the entering heat flux. With SCGWF-f 1.7 m3/h on
average sunny hours the entering heat flux was reduced and
reversed in value from (15) W/m2 to 40 W/m2, while the peak
value of the thermal flow at the same configuration was changed
from (50) W/m2 to 50 W/m2.
For STGWF when the water film is adopted, in the presence of
solar radiation as shown in Fig. 9, the heat flux outwards is larger
than the value of the TG. The average heat flux during the sunny
hours was found to be (49.1) W/m2 with TG, and 6.1 W/m2 at
STGWF-f 1.2 m3/h. The increase in the water flow rate STGWF-f
1.7 m3/h makes a progressive reduction in the heat fluxes of

5.3. Heat flux through SGWF

The heat fluxes through the glazing are presented in Figs. 8 and
9. In all cases of CG, SCGWF, TG and STGWF a negative heat flux
means a flux entering the indoor environment, whereas the posi-
tive value means that the heat transfers outdoors. Also, note that
the heat flux probe cannot measure an energy higher than 50 W/m2 Fig. 9. The temperature distributions on different configurations of STGWF and heat
in both directions and this is why the figures show a straight line flux through, sunny days.
 A. Qahtan et al. / Building and Environment 46 (2011) 2238e2246
10 W/m2. However, the heat flux through the glazed façade is
mainly related to the temperature of the glass pane, which in turn
depends on the temperature of the water film. The water film cools
down the outer surface of the glazing, resulting in maximizing the
heat loss to the outside, and limiting the heat flux indoors.
5.4. Further discussion on SGWF application
The expected advantages of the application of SGWF on glazed
building are as follows: (a) more light and less heat transfer into
buildings; (b) reduction in air-conditioning cooling loads; (c)
reduction in urban heat island because of the limitation of the heat
emission by glazing surfaces; (d) reduction in air pollution due to
low energy usage; (e) minimize rainwater wastage in tropics; (f)
very high durability and availability of water film; (g) aesthetically
pleasing feature and; (h) an application of SGWF compound with
“Superhydrophilic” of the TiO2, self-cleaning coated glass, results in
cost savings in cleaning the glazed façade thus reducing mainte-
nance expenditure and running cost.
However, there are still practical problems might be risen with the
SGWF, which are: (a) the reduction of the transparency of the glass
that impedes the view outdoors during the operation of SGWF; (b) the
fluctuation of the indoor illumination, which might occur because of
the flow character of the water film; this could be controlled if the
water film is evenly flowing; (c) it was not found there was a signifi-
cant change in the ambient relative humidity with the SGWF over the
experiment period. The reason for this is considered to be that water
film flowing over the glazing has a convective and conductive heat
transfer instead of evaporative cooling.
The cost-effectiveness of the SGWF system in the tropics might
be analyzed as follows:
The rainwater is available freely and the use of water pump
entails zero energy as it is driven by PV. The main cost to the
system is in its construction. The cost elements of SGWF include
the rainwater harvesting system (ground and rooftop tanks), the
associated pipework, water filter and the pumping system for
recycling the water during the non-rainy period. Although the
costs associated with the installation of an SGWF may be slightly
higher, there are significant savings that should be taken into
consideration. The first is the reduction in cost savings in cleaning
the glazed façade thus reducing maintenance expenditure and
running cost. The second is the contributions in the energy cost
saving. It has been found that the SGWF reduces the glazed
building surfaces by up to 14
C, this decreases the heat reradiated
from the building surfaces to the building surroundings. Akbari
[37] reported that peak urban electric demand reduces by 2e4% for
each 1
C reduction in daily maximum temperature. Moreover
altering of air-conditioning cooling requirements by decreasing the
indoor temperature by 1
C results energy savings to about 4e6%
of cooling energy [38,39]. However, the indoor air temperature has
been decreased in the current approach of SGWF by up to 4.1
C
and this could reduce the energy consumption for the cooling load
significantly as explained above.
6. Conclusion
The present study concerns the application of Sustainable
Glazed Water Film (SGWF). Results of extensive measuring during
the two extreme sunny months in tropics, in two full-scale test
rooms, have been analyzed and conclusions drawn from them in
order to improve sustainability in the glazed buildings. The effect of
the water film flow over the glazed façades is to lower the glazing
temperature. Thus resulting in a rapid transfer of the heat from the
inside of a building to the glazing surface (the heat sink), from the
heat sink to the water film body and eventually to the outdoor
2245
environment. This leads to more effectiveness of SGWF in pre-
venting the solar heat from transferring indoors and increases the
thermal energy loss with a much greater heat capacity, resulting in
a reduction of indoor temperature without interrupting the light.
In tropical conditions, a higher effect of the SGWF has been
observed, particularly for west façades that are exposed to a direct
solar radiation.
If the rate of flow of the water film is increased, the cooling effect
of SGWF is largely increased. This is due to the increase in the water
body to carry away the heat and the enlargement in the water film
thickness, which leads to the increase in the heat exchange
between the indoor and the heat sink.
The STGWF gives better results than the SCGWF for both water
flow rates f 1.2 m3/h and f 1.7 m3/h, during both sunny and cloudy
days due to the increase in its solar absorption. Overall, in achieving
a higher reduction in heat transfer, the STGWF-f 1.7 m3/h during
a sunny day has been found to be the optimum among the cases
examined. It is suggested in this study that the water should be
cooler than the outdoor air temperature, in order to maximize
efficiency of the SGWF by preventing the solar load passing inside
buildings, and to maximize the heat loss. Moreover, it is considered
with air-conditioning that the water film may need to be cooled
down until the outer glazing surface becomes lower than its inner
surface temperature so as to prevent the heat transition.
6.1. Limitations of the study
The study was conducted using a tap water supply from the
rooftop tank of the Faculty of Built Environment at the University of
Malaya. The water temperature reached 35
C, besides the tap
water contains added specific chemical compounds, as well as
chlorine. The research suggests using rainwater with a temperature
lower than the ambient by cooling it during the night-time and
shielding the water tank from daytime radiations.
In this experiment there might be some inaccuracies in data
during the long period measuring. Although the reference room has
been built to be geometrically very similar to the test room for
comparing, they may show slight difference in data values.
However, the two rooms were calibrated before actual use during
the experimentation as illustrated in Figs. 3 and 6 at plot (CG vs.
CG). The differences were reported as 0.4
C more inside the
reference room and 0.1
C more on the reference glass surface,
therefore the error values should be deducted from result value.
Likewise, TG as illustrated in Fig. 7 at plot (TG vs. TG) the error
found of 0.3
C more on the reference glass surface temperature,
while the indoor temperature was measured in one room as pre-
test/post-test with judgement against outdoor temperature.
Moreover, attention should be paid to the data logger that was
calibrated with (0.3
C) outdoor temperature and (0.1
C)
surface and indoor temperature.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for the financial support from the
Research Grant from the University of Malaya; project no PS014/
2009 as well as FS372/2008C and FS370/2008C.
References
[1] Butera FM, 2005. Glass architecture: is it sustainable? International Confer-
ence “Passive and Low Energy Cooling for the Built Environment” Santorini,
Greece.
[2] Castro APAS, Labaki LC, Gutierrez GCR, Assis RMCD, 2005. Thermal perfor-
mance of different glazing surfaces in a hot climate. In: International
conference Passive and low energy cooling for the built environment, San-
torini, Greece.
2246 A. Qahtan et al. / Building and Environment 46 (2011) 2238e2246
[3] Kimmins TWAS. Green building, hand book, a guide to building products and
their impact on the environment. London: Spon Press; 2000.
[4] Saleh MA, Kaseb S, El-Refaie MF. Glass-azimuth modification to reform direct
solar heat gain. Build Environ 2004;39(6):653e9.
[5] Bessoudo M, Tzempelikos A, Athienitis AK, Zmeureanu R. Indoor thermal
environmental conditions near glazed facades with shading devices e part I:
experiments and building thermal model. Build Environ 2010;45:2506e16.
[6] Van Moeseke G, Bruyère I, De Herde A. Impact of control rules on the effi-
ciency of shading devices and free cooling for office buildings. Build Environ
2007;42:784e93.
[7] Simmler H, Binder B. Experimental and numerical determination of the total
solar energy transmittance of glazing with venetian blind shading. Build
Environ 2008;43:197e204.
[8] Gratia E, De Herde A. Greenhouse effect in double-skin facade. Energy Build
2007;39:199e211.
[9] Breitenbach J, Lart S, Längle I, Rosenfeld JLJ. Optical and thermal performance
of glazing with integral venetian blinds. Energy Build 2001;33:433e42.
[10] Capeluto IG. Energy performance of the self-shading building envelope.
Energy Build 2003;35:327e36.
[11] Zain-Ahmed A. Climate change, green technology and sustainable buildings.
UiTM, Kula Lumpur: University Publication Center; 2009.
[12] Saidur R. Energy consumption, energy savings, and emission analysis in
Malaysian office buildings. Energy Policy 2009;37:4104e13.
[13] Bansal NK. Combined heating and cooling. In: Narenda GH, Bansal K,
Minke Gernot, editors. Passive building design. Netherlands: Elsevier Science
B.V.; 1994.
[14] Deal BM, Nemeth RJ, DeBaille LP. Energy conservation strategies for windows
and glazed surfaces. US army Corps of Engineers, Construction Engineering
Research Laboratories; 1998.
[15] Chow T-t, Li C, Lin Z. Innovative solar windows for cooling-demand climate.
Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 2010;94(2):212e20.
[16] Muneer T. Solar radiation and daylight models for energy efficient design of
buildings. Great Britain: Oxford (Architectural Press); 1997.
[17] Bansal NK, Hauser G. Concepts and elements of natural climate. In:
Narenda GH, Bansal K, Minke Gernot, editors. Passive building design.
Netherlands: Elsevier Science B.V.; 1994.
[18] Fong FA, Chong TY. Designing with Glass, a design guide for glass architecture
in tropics. Singapore: National University of Singapore, Faculty of Architec-
ture, Building and Real Estate; 1999.
[19] Pfrommer P, Lomas KJ, Seale C, Kupke C. The radiation transfer through coated
and tinted glazing,". Sol Energy 1995;54(5):287e99.
[20] Erell E, Etzion Y, Carlstrom N, Sandberg M, Molina J, Maestre I, et al.
“SOLVENT”: development of a reversible solar-screen glazing system. Energy
Build 2004;36(5):467e80.
[21] Mohelnikova J. Materials for reflective coatings of window glass applications.
Constr Build Mater 2009;23(5):1993e8.
[22] Qahtan AM, Keumala NIM, Rao SP, 2010. Occupant satisfaction in respect to
indoor environmental quality in energy efficient certified buildings in
Malaysia, 16th international conference of the CIB W104 open building
implementation on “open and sustainable building”, CIB W104 Bilbao, Spain.
[23] Alvarez G, Flores JJ, Aguilar JO, Gómez-Daza O, Estrada CA, Nair MTS, et al.
Spectrally selective laminated glazing consisting of solar control and heat
mirror coated glass: preparation, characterization and modelling of heat
transfer. Sol Energy 2005;78(1):113e24.
[24] Energy, U. S. D. O. & Program, N. T. D. Spectrally selective glazings: a well
proven window technology to reduce energy costs while enhancing daylight
and view. Federal Energy Management Program, US Dept. of Energy; 1998.
[25] Lechner N. Heating, cooling, lighting: sustainable design methods for archi-
tects. U.S: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2009.
[26] Gleick PH. The world’s water 2000e2001: the biennial report on freshwater
resources. Island Pr; 2000.
[27] Darus,ZM, 2009. Potential development of rainwater harvesting in Malaysia.
The 3rd WSEAS international conference on energy planning, energy saving,
environmental education, Canary Islands, Spain.
[28] Amin MT, Han MY. Roof-harvested rainwater for potable purposes: applica-
tion of solar collector disinfection (SOCO-DIS). Water Res 2009;43:5225e35.
[29] Malaysia Institute of Architecture, PAM. Green building index, rating system.
Kula Lumpur, http://www.greenbuildingindex.org/; 2010.
[30] Russell MB, Surendran PN. Influence of active heat sinks on fabric thermal
storage in building mass. Appl Energy 2001;70(1):17e33.
[31] Wu C-W, Lin T-H. Full-scale evaluations on heat resistance of glass panes
incorporated with water film or sprinkler in a room fire. Build Environ 2007;
42(9):3277e84.
[32] Taufiq BN, Masjuki HH, Mahlia TMI, Amalina MA, Faizul MS, Saidur R. Exergy
analysis of evaporative cooling for reducing energy use in a Malaysian
building. Desalination 2007;209(1e3):238e43.
[33] Wendelstorf J, Spitzer KH, Wendelstorf R. Spray water cooling heat transfer at
high temperatures and liquid mass fluxes. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 2008;
51(19e20):4902e10.
[34] Abdullah AH, Meng Q, Zhao L, Wang F. Field study on indoor thermal envi-
ronment in an atrium in tropical climates. Build Environ 2009;44(2):431e6.
[35] Hiroshi N. Research on the cooling effect by the water film formation on the
surface of an outer coated with the super-hydrophilic photocatalyst. J Environ
Eng 2005;596:109e15.
[36] Zhou DW, Gambaryan-Roisman T, Stephan P. Measurment of water falling
film thickness to flat plate using confocal chromatic sensoring technique. Exp
Therm Fluid Sci 2009;33:273e83.
[37] Akbari H, Pomerantz M, Taha H. Cool surfaces and shade trees to reduce
energy use and improve air quality in urban areas. Sol Energy 2001;70:
295e310.
[38] Fong KF, Chow TT, Li C, Lin Z, Chan LS. Effect of neutral temperature on energy
saving of centralized air-conditioning systems in subtropical Hong Kong. Appl
Thermal Eng 2010;30:1659e65.
[39] Yamtraipat N, Khedari J, Hirunlabh J, Kunchornrat J. Assessment of Thailand
indoor set-point impact on energy consumption and environment. Energy
Policy 2006;34:765e70.