Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 168 (2022) 112748

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

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

Uncertainty in model prediction of energy savings in building retrofits: Case

of thermal transmittance of windows
K.E. Anders Ohlsson *, Gireesh Nair, Thomas Olofsson
Department of Applied Physics and Electronics, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Energy saving in buildings is an important measure for mitigation of climate change. There exists a large po­
Model validation tential for energy saving in buildings by improving the thermal performance of windows. For decisions on energy
Uncertainty analysis saving window retrofits, accurate estimation of the energy saved and its uncertainty is of importance. The ISO
Window thermal transmittance
15099 standard, which is normative for thermal modelling of windows within the building sector, does not give
Energy saving measure
Mitigation of climate change
uncertainty estimates. The main novelty of this study was to provide uncertainty analysis for model prediction of
Benchmarking energy models the thermal transmittance of windows, in the perspective of decisions on window retrofits. For this purpose, we
proposed a new simplified model, which facilitated uncertainty analysis, and still was similar to the ISO 15099
window model. The model was validated by application of a benchmark validation procedure to a set of pre­
viously performed validation experiments. Main conclusions were: (i) The model was accurate within a pre­
diction uncertainty equal to 0.20 Wm− 2K− 1; (ii) The domain where the model is valid was described using
existing well-documented validation experiments. This domain was restricted to windows with glazing thermal
transmittance corresponding to 2-layer glazing, and to windows where the frame area is a minor part of the total
window area. (iii) The prediction uncertainty was mainly determined by the measurement uncertainty in the
validation experiments; (iv) If a window retrofit is based on reduction of window thermal transmittance, then
this reduction has to be larger than 0.56 Wm− 2K− 1 in order to yield energy savings above the uncertainty limit.

uncertainty (uΨ ) are required [10–13]. With large uncertainty in the

1. Introduction
As per the IPCC working group III on Mitigation of Climate Change
(MCC) carbon dioxide emissions from buildings worldwide will increase
from 9 to 13–17 GtCO2/yr from 2010 to 2050 in the baseline scenarios
[1]. These scenarios also project an increase of the use of final energy
from 120 to about 270 EJ/yr in the same time period. Due to the
interlinkage between CO2 emissions and final energy used in buildings,
implementation of energy saving measures (ESM) is an important
strategy for MCC. Since buildings are expected to have a long life-time,
ESM need to focus on retrofits in the existing building stock to achieve
large energy savings in the short-term [1]. Several recent studies on the
energy and cost performance of various ESMs, both for individual
buildings [2–5], and for building stocks at the nation level [6–8], sup­
port this strategy.
Efficient and rapid implementation of ESMs for building retrofits
depends on allocation of financial resources. Rational investment de­
cisions are often based on cost-benefit analysis (CBA) [9]. For CBA
applied to ESM, reliable estimates of the energy saved (Ψ) and its
estimate of Ψ , there is a large risk that the predicted energy saving is not
fully realized, or that financial resources are partially wasted. A mini­
mum requirement for allocation of resources to a particular ESM is that
the energy saving is significantly above the uncertainty limit. The uΨ
also has to be taken in account in defining class limits for energy clas­
sification schemes for buildings.
In cold climate countries, such as UK, Germany, Sweden, or Canada,
the heating energy intensity (Φ; energy used for space heating per unit of
floor area) was in the range 200–600 kWh⋅m− 2yr− 1 for buildings built in
the first half of the 20th century, while recently, due to regulations and
other policy instruments, it has been reduced down to 50–100
kWh⋅m− 2yr− 1 for new buildings [2]. Technology already exists to ach­
ieve nearly-Zero (or net-Zero) Energy Buildings (nZEB) for most building
types, both new and retrofitted buildings, in different climates [2,5,
14–17]. For nZEB, the ESMs consist mainly of highly insulating envelope
components, including windows, and the use of mechanical ventilation
with efficient heat recovery techniques.
The international Passive House standard for residential nZEB in cold
climates requires Φ for a building to be no more than 15 kWh m− 2yr− 1

* Corresponding author. Department of Applied Physics and Electronics, Umeå University, S-90187, Umeå, Sweden.
E-mail address: anders.ohlsson@umu.se (K.E.A. Ohlsson).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112748
Received 8 March 2022; Received in revised form 10 June 2022; Accepted 29 June 2022
Available online 12 July 2022
1364-0321/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
K.E.A. Ohlsson et al.
Nomenclature
Abbreviations
BEM Building Energy Model
CBA Cost-Benefit Analysis
CHTC Convective heat transfer coefficient
CS Coleman and Stern
GUM Guide to the expression of Uncertainty in Measurement
ESM Energy Saving Measure
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
MC Moisture Content
MCC Mitigation of Climate Change
Nu Nusselt number
nZEB Nearly Zero Energy Building
Ra Rayleigh number
TSM Taylor Series Method
UA Uncertainty Analysis
VD Validation Domain
VE Validation Experiment
Quantities
a Uncertainty interval (±a) of variable x (same unit as x)
A Area (m2)
(in Germany) [18]. For a typical Passive House during the heating
period, the total heat loss is about 40 kWh m− 2yr− 1, where 25 kWh
m− 2yr− 1 is lost through the windows, 8 kWh m− 2 yr− 1 with the venti­
lation air, and the remainder through roof, walls, and ground [18]. The
heating budget is balanced by 10 kWh m− 2 yr− 1 due to internal heat
gains from appliances and metabolic heat from occupants, and by 15
kWh m− 2 yr− 1 solar heat gain through windows. From these figures we
conclude that ESM focused on reducing heat transfer through windows
is of major importance for the energy performance of nZEB. Further
examples of the importance of windows in the design of ESM is given in
the following: Changing from 2-layer to 3-layer glazing windows of a
residential building (Afloor = 143 m2 and Aw = 20 m2) in the cold climate
of Madison, WI, USA, resulted in an energy saving of 29 kWh m− 2 yr− 1
[19]. Similar window replacement in a building (Afloor = 108 m2 and Aw
= 18 m2) in Madagan, Russia, yielded a reduction in Φ equal to 77 kWh
⋅m-2yr− 1 [20]. Variation of the thermal transmittance of the window
frame, and its width, could change the space heating demand by as much
as 4–7 kWh m− 2 yr− 1, as was calculated for a single-family nZEB with
Afloor = 148 m2 located in Estonia [21].
The aforementioned studies [18–21] indicate that ESMs designed to
decrease the window thermal transmittance Uw, including heat transfer
in both glazing and frame, have the potential to reduce the need for
supply of space heating energy. The Uw, is often in the range 1–3 WK− 1
m− 2, while for energy efficient walls, the corresponding value is nor­
mally below unity, approaching 0.2 WK− 1 m− 2. The thermal trans­
mittance of the glazing Ug could be reduced to below 1 WK− 1 m− 2 by
using multiple glass panes, low-emissivity coatings, low conductivity gas
fills, or even vacuum, in between glass panes [22]. The thermal trans­
mittance of the frame Uf is determined to a large extent by the thermal
conductivity of the solid material used for its construction: For wood and
plastic frames, Uf is approximatively between 2 and 3 WK− 1 m− 2, while
for aluminum frames the corresponding interval is between 5 and 8
WK− 1 m− 2, where the latter value is determined mainly by the intro­
duction of low conductivity thermal break materials.
For an ESM focused on reducing Ug and Uf, and optimizing the
relative sizes of glazing and frame, the Ψ and uΨ need to be calculated.
The link between Uw and Ψ is given below in section 6, and the models
for calculation of Uw are introduced in section 2. Design of ESMs for
buildings, building components (e.g. windows), or building stocks, is
2
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 168 (2022) 112748
bsys Standard deviation of systematic error (Wm-2 K-1)
b, d Geometry variables (m)
D Measured value of U (Wm-2 K-1)
E Model error (E = S – D) (Wm-2 K-1)
h Heat transfer coefficient11 (Wm-2 K-1)
hin Interior CHTC (Wm-2 K-1)
hex Exterior CHTC (Wm-2 K-1)
Q Heat flux (W)
q Heat flux density (Wm-2)
s Standard deviation of random error (Wm-2 K-1)
S Simulated value of U (Wm-2 K-1)
ux Uncertainty of variable x (same unit as x)
U Thermal transmittance (Wm-2 K-1)
w Thickness of air layer (m)
β Systematic error in variable x (same unit as x)
ε Emissivity
λ Thermal conductivity (Wm-1 K-1)
χ Fractional contribution to uncertainty
Ψ Energy saved (J or kWh)
θ Temperature (K)
Φ Heating energy intensity (kWh m− 2 yr− 1)
often based on calculations using a building energy model (BEM). BEMs
are often categorized by the number of parameters included in the model
equations, i.e. the model order, and also to what extent measurement
data are used for parameter estimation. For physics (white-box) models,
the model equations are obtained solely from physics theory, while the
parameters of empirical (black-box) models are estimated from mea­
surement data only [23,24]. BEM physics models often include high
resolution building geometry which leads to a model order in the range
102-104. There are also the so called grey-box models, which are reduced
order physics models, where parameter estimation is performed on a
series of measurements [25].
To support decisions on ESM based on BEM, the uncertainty analysis
(UA) is useful for several reasons: (i) It provides an estimate of uΨ . (ii)
The UA quantifies the fractional contribution χ of various sources of
uncertainty to uΨ (See Eq. (A5)), and thereby indicates how to reduce
the uncertainty. (iii) UA is an integral part of the process of physics
model validation, where the agreement between model simulation re­
sults (S) and physical reality, represented by measurement data (D), is
quantified. For physics models, which are based only on theory, the
validation requires that the D values are obtained from a series of vali­
dation experiments (VE). UA for BEM has been performed for individual
buildings [9,26–30], while [31] reviewed UA for BEM applied at the
level of building stock.
For physics models in general, Coleman and Stern (CS) [32,33], with
contributions by Oberkampf et al. [34,35], provided a framework for UA
and model validation, which is considered as the best practice for
models of high-risk safety-critical processes in e.g. the aerospace in­
dustry [30]. This framework also includes the concept of validation
domain (VD), which is defined in the model parameter space as the
volume spanned by existing VEs [35]. It was recently proposed that the
current procedures for UA and validation of BEM should be bench­
marked using the CS framework as comparison reference practice [30].
The CS framework includes estimation of the component un­
certainties caused by: (i) uncertainty in the input variables used in the
model calculation (uinput), (ii) uncertainty in the numerical solution of
model equations (unum), and (iii) measurement uncertainty (uD) origi­
nating in the VE. The combination of these uncertainties yields the
validation uncertainty (uval), which is compared to the model error E (=
S – D). If E is significantly larger than uval, then the model is in error, and
K.E.A. Ohlsson et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 168 (2022) 112748

may need further modification to fulfill accuracy requirements.

For physics models, there are two reasons why UA may be simplified
by reducing the model order: First, a decrease in model order means less
complex model equations and therefore their numerical solution should
lead to a reduction of unum. Second, the estimation of uinput is simplified
in the case where uncorrelated input variables could be assumed.
Theoretical insights into the physics model often allow for this
assumption to be made. For example, based on physics theory we know
that the errors in the thermal conductivity values of two different frame
materials do not covary, and could therefore be treated as uncorrelated
input variables.
For regulation and energy engineering design within the building
sector, ISO standards provide normative procedures for BEM. To ensure
the accuracy of such procedures it is important that the energy model
used has been validated and that its VD has been defined and includes
the application cases [35]. Physics models for calculation of the Ug and
Uf are described in the standards ISO 10077 [36,37] and ISO 15099 Fig. 1. Schematic of window model zone geometry: The frame area (Af) is
[38]. The ISO 15099 standard gives a few scientific references to the shown in grey color. The glazing area (Ag) in white color is divided by the
origin of its energy models, while in the ISO 10077 such references are dashed line into the edge-of-glass area (Aed) and the center-of-glass area (Acog).
missing. Information on validation, VD and UA, is missing in both these
ISO standards and also, to large extent, in the scientific literature. The
q
novelty of the present case study on window modelling was to provide U= (1)
θin − θex
this needed information.
The objectives of present study were as follows: (1) To quantitatively where q (Wm− 2) is the steady-state heat flux intensity, and θin and θex (K)
estimate model error and uncertainty of the window model for predic­ are the interior and exterior environmental temperatures, respectively.
tion of Uw. (2) To define the VD of the window model. (3) To provide For windows, including glazing and frame, in the area-based three-zone
guidance on how to reduce the prediction uncertainty based on UA. (4) model (§4.1.4) of ISO 15099, the Uw is modelled as:
To give the relationship between uΨ and prediction uncertainty of Uw. To
achieve these objectives, a new window model for prediction of Uw was 1 ( )
Uw = Acog Ug + Af Uf + Aed Ued (2)
developed, which is a modification of the area-based glazing and frame Aw
models of ISO 15099 (see §4.1.4 in Ref. [38]), but simplified to facilitate
where Aw is the total window area (=Acog + Af + Aed; cf. Fig. 1). In the
UA (See also Appendix B). The proposed window model was based solely
presently proposed model, heat transfer through the window is
on physics theory and could therefore by applied at the design stage,
modelled using 1D-models for only two zones, the frame and glazing,
where measurement data are not available.
and where Uw is obtained by:
The paper is organized as follows: Section 2: Development of new
window model. Section 3: Review of the literature in search for previ­ 1 (( ) )
Uw = Aw − Af U g + Af U f (3)
ously performed and documented VEs, which are suited for validation of Aw
the proposed window model. Sections 4-5: Validation of the window
model using the benchmarking reference CS-procedure [30,32,33],
2.1. Glazing model
which include UA (See also Appendix A). Sections 6-7: Discussion on the
use of the window model to support decisions on ESM.
In the early1980s, two 1D models of heat transfer through the win­
dow glazing by convection and radiation were developed: (1) by Rubin
2. Physics model for calculation of window thermal at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (LBL, U.S.) [39], and (2) by Hollands
transmittance and Wright (HW) at University of Waterloo (UW; Canada) [40]. These
two models have been implemented in computer software, the WIN­
One of the window models of ISO 15099 for prediction of Uw (cf. DOW software by LBL, and the VISION software by UW [41]. The Rubin
§4.1.4, in Ref. [38]) includes only area-based thermal transmittances, glazing model allows for variable gap width in between glass panes,
where heat transfer occur through three projected areas (zones): (1) the multiple panes, varying types of gaseous gap fills, and low-emissivity
center-of-glass area (Acog), (2) the frame area (Af), and (3) the coatings at selected glass surfaces. The model consists of a system of
edge-of-glass area (Aed) (see Fig. 1). The heat transfer through Acog is non-linear equations, which is solved using an iterative procedure. The
modelled as geometrically one-dimensional (1D), i.e. the heat flux is HW model includes features very similar to those of the Rubin model,
perpendicular to the glazing surface. For Af and Aed areas, although the former was initially developed for modelling of heat
two-dimensional (2D) models are used to allow heat to flow also in di­ transfer in multi-layered horizontal flat-plate covers for solar collectors.
rection parallel to the glazing surface. In the present work, Ug was calculated by applying the Rubin model,
For simplification of UA, the model order of the proposed new model after correction of an error in the algorithm (see Eq. (B6) in Appendix B).
was reduced by assuming that heat transfer occurs only through two The assumptions were the absence of solar radiation and glass panes
areas, Ag and Af (see Fig. 1), and is 1D also through the frame, with less with zero transmittance of infrared radiation.
geometric detail compared to the highly detailed 2D frame models of
[36,38].
In general, assuming 1D heat transfer, the thermal transmittance U 2.2. Frame model
(Wm− 2 K− 1) of the window, or of a part thereof, is defined as:
Heat transfer through window frames is 2D or 3D (e.g. at window
corners), and occurs mainly by conduction through the solid frame
1
For the glazing internal air layer, heat transfer is by gaseous conduction/ material. In gas filled frame cavities, heat transfer is by natural con­
convection, while in the frame model, heat transfer is by conduction in the solid vection and thermal radiation [42]. The frame models developed in the
frame material. 1980s were simplified by considering only 2D heat transfer and by

3
K.E.A. Ohlsson et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 168 (2022) 112748

modelling heat transfer through frame cavities using an effective con­ by Eq. (8), which express the internal heat flux of the frame as:
ductivity. Two such frame models were implemented in the ANSYS (LBL ∑( )
[43]) and FRAME (Enermodal Eng. Ltd., Canada [44]) software, but the Af ,j hj (θ1 − θ2 ) = Af h(θ1 − θ2 ) (8)
j
experimental evidence for their accuracy was incompletely docu­
mented. More recently, Uf has been specifically measured, and where θ1 and θ2 are the frame surface temperatures. Rearrangement of
compared to simulated values obtained from the frame models given in Eq. (8) yields:
ISO 10077-2 and ISO 15099 [45–48]. ∑
In the present work, we changed the Rubin two-solid-layer (glass h= ∑
bj hj
(9)
panes) glazing model (Section 2.2 and Appendix B) to model instead the bj
1D conductive heat flux through the frame. This allowed reuse of the
Finally, this h-value is used as input variable in the frame model for
program code for the glazing model, with the following modifications:
calculation of Uf.
(i) The air between the two solid layers was replaced by the frame
material. (ii) The frame surface emissivity was substituted for glazing
3. Review of validation experiments
emissivity. Heat transfer through the frame material is by conduction,
while radiative and convective heat transfer occurs between the outer
Table 1 lists the VE which are relevant for validation of the present
frame surfaces and the environments, as in the glazing model. The
window model. We believe that some of the VEs have been used for
models for wood and metal (Al) frames differ slightly due the large
development of the area-based window model of §4.1.4. In ISO 15099
difference in their thermal conductivities (λ). Below, the wood frame
[38] since model Eq. (2) occurs in most of them. Note that the VEs in
and metal frame models are described (see also Fig. 2).
Table 1 mainly include windows which have 2-layers glazing and Aw
around 1 m2. Therefore, the area-based ISO 15099 model may have been
2.2.1. Wood frame
insufficiently validated for smaller windows, where relatively more heat
The frame width b is divided into sections, where λ of each section is
is transmitted through the frame, and for windows with 3-layer glazing.
either homogeneous (cf. section 1 in Fig. 2a), or piecewise homogeneous
For model validation, we needed a set of well-documented VE, which
(Fig. 2a, section 2). The heat transfer coefficients h1 and h2 (Wm− 2 K− 1)
allows the assignment of values for the input variables of the window
of the solid frame sections 1 and 2, respectively, are then given as:
model. For examples, there has to be sufficient information on window
λ geometry, radiative and convective boundary conditions (e.g. the
h1 = (4)
d convective heat transfer coefficients (CHTC) hex and hin), and material
properties (e.g. ε and λ). Table 1 gives an overview of such information
1
h 2 = ∑ di (5) which was provided by the VE documentation. However, it was found
λi that some important information was missing: For example, even in the
most well-documented set of VE, that given by Elmahdy in 1990 [49],
where d is the thickness of homogeneous frame material. In the next frame material properties were missing, and the convective boundary
step, Uf,j is calculated for section j, using the frame model. The sum of conditions were given only implicitly from the results for the 1-layer
heat fluxes Q (W) through all frame sections could be expressed in two glazing window. Moreover, complementary information on frame
ways (cf. Eq. (1)): areas (Af) had to be obtained from another paper [50].
∑( )
Q= Af ,j Uf ,j (θin − θex ) = Af Uf (θin − θex ) (6)
j
4. Uncertainty estimation

where the frame section area Af,j is defined as Af,j = L.bj , and Af = 4.1. Measurement uncertainty
∑
L bj , where L is the frame length measured along its width center.
Rearrangement of Eq. (6) yields: The measurement uncertainty of the single laboratory hotbox mea­
∑ surement in Ref. [51] was estimated to be ±6.5%, with Uw around 3
Uf = ∑
bj Uf ,j
(7) WK− 1 m− 2 (we derived Uw from the given surface-to-surface resistance),
bj using a Type B procedure (see Appendix A). Assuming a 95% confidence
interval and Gaussian distribution of errors, we then calculated:
2.2.2. Metal frame
0.065Uw
For the metal frame illustrated in Fig. 2b, the interior and exterior uD1 = = 0.10 Wm− 2 K− 1
(10)
2
frame surfaces each consist of one continuous piece of metal. Due to high
thermal conductivity of metal, each of these frame surfaces are at In another study, the uD for hotbox measurements was estimated
approximately isothermal conditions. For this reason, Eq. (6) is replaced using Type A evaluation (see Appendix A) where 4 different test samples

Fig. 2. Schematic model geometry of wood (a) and

metal (b) frame windows, both with double glazing.
Materials: Spacer material (black), wood (pattern),
aluminum (dark grey), and thermal break (light grey).
Frame width (b) and thickness (d), with subscripts for
subdivisions. (a) Wood frame: Width sections 1 (ho­
mogeneous) and 2 (heterogeneous) include interior
and exterior boundary layers, with heat fluxes Q1 and
Q2, respectively. (b) Metal frame, with air filled cavity
(white), and heat flux Q: Width sections reach be­
tween interior and exterior frame surfaces.

4
K.E.A. Ohlsson et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 168 (2022) 112748

Table 1
Validation experiments used for development of window models.
Reference Year Tech Aw Geometry CHTC FMP Layers N Model validation Comment

Klems [52] 1979 HBox 1 Yes No – 2–4 Glazing VE for Rubin glazing model [39,56]
Hollands and Wright [40] 1983 GHP 0.017 – * – (3)* Glazing VE for HW glazing model [40]
Elmahdy and Bowen [57] 1988 HBox 0.8/1.6 Yes No – 2, 3 Glazing VE for glazing model of HW (Vision)
Dubrous and Harrison [58] 1989 HBox, SC 1.1 No No Type** 2, 2, 3 3 Frame/Glazing VE for frame models; Dark and sunlit
Elmahdy [49] 1990 HBox 1.1 Yes (YES)◦ Type** 1, 2, 3 7 Frame/Glazing JCUS#
Klems and Reilly [50] 1990 MoWiTT 1.1 Yes variable Type** 1, 2, 3 7 Frame/Glazing JCUS
Elmahdy [59] 1992 HBox, SC 1.1 No No Type** 2, 3, 4 9 Frame/Glazing JCUS
Arasteh et al. [53] 1994 HBox 1.1–2.2 No No Type** 1, 2 16 Frame/Glazing##

Measurement technique (Tech): HBox = Hotbox apparatus under nighttime conditions; GHP = Guarded hot plate method; MoWiTT (Mobile Window Thermal Test) =
Outdoor facility for twin test cell measurements at LBL, Nevada, USA; SC = Solar calorimeter. Aw (m2) is the window area including glazing and frame. Geometry:
Documentation on frame/glazing geometry published? CHTC is the convective heat transfer coefficients: (*) Hot plate method was used where boundary conditions are
set by metal plates, which also correspond to layers 1 and 3. (◦ ) In the present work, CHTC was derived from the 1-layer window VE. FMP is the frame material
properties (**) Material type (e.g. wood): only was given, without any property values. Layers: Number of glazing pane (glass or plastic) layers. N: Number of window
test samples. (##) Air and argon fill gas tested, with and without low-value emissivity coating. (#) JCUS is the Joint Canadian/US project on window performance.

were measured [52]. They estimated the systematic error β = 0.079 W

Table 2
K− 1m− 2 and s = 0.032 W K− 1m− 2, at Uw = 1.2 W K− 1m− 2. Using Eq.
Review of model input variables xi, their values and estimated uncertainties ui
(A1), we estimated:
(expressed as standard deviation)#.
uD2 = 0.085 WK− 1 m− 2
(11) xi Value Reference ui Comment

In an inter-laboratory comparison study, Uw for several different − 18 C Elmahdy [49] 0.3 C Uniform distribution
◦ ◦
θex
±0.5 ◦ C
windows were measured in up to 5 different laboratories (see Table 4 in
θin 21 C◦
Elmahdy [49] 0.3 C◦
Uniform distribution
Ref. [53]). We selected 19 measurement results for 5 windows tested ±0.5 ◦ C
(windows 3, 5, 7, 8, and 12, in Ref. [53], where each had been measured λwood 0.141 Kol [60] 0.020 Uniform distribution
in ≥3 laboratories), and with Uw ranging from 2.7 to 3.2 W K− 1m− 2. Wm− 1K− 1 Wm− 1 K− 1
±0.034 W m− 1K− 1
Assuming equal distribution of measurement errors for the selected λAl 215 Wm− 1K− 1
Clarke et al. 9W Uniform distribution
[61] m− 1K− 1 ±15 W m− 1K− 1
windows, we pooled their standard deviations according to the pro­ λspacer 0.24 Baker et al. 0.07 Uniform distribution
cedure in Ref. [54] to obtain the estimate: Wm− 1K− 1 [62] Wm− 1 K− 1
±50%
λTB 0.14 Baker et al. 0.04 Uniform distribution
uD3 = spooled = 0.19 W− 1Km− 2
(12) Wm− 1K− 1 [62] Wm− 1 K− 1
±50%
λglass 0.9 Wm− 1K− 1
Rubin [39] 0.03 Uniform distribution
With measurements performed in one single laboratory, a measure­ Wm− 1 K− 1
±0.05 W m− 1K− 1
ment error may be classified as being systematic because some variables εglass 0.84* Rubin [63] 0.01 Mean and s of 5
which influence the result are constant during the measurement period, reported values
0.90 Chen et al. 0.023 Not painted; Uniform
e.g. the same instrument or calibration were used throughout. When εwood
[64] distribution ±0.04
results were obtained from multiple laboratories, the former systematic εAl 0.05/0.2/0.9 Gustavsen 0.02 New polished/Aged,
measurement error may now show to be random for reasons such as use et al. [65] oxidized/Anodized
of different instruments and frequent recalibration. One possibility for εpaint 0.88 Fantucci et al. 0.02 See text.
reduction of uD is to perform difference measurements, where systematic [66]
0 Maiorov [67] For wavelengths >4
errors may cancel when two windows are measured simultaneously and
τ
μm
side-by-side [52,55]. b, d Various [49,50] 0.3 mm Uniform distribution
±0.5 mm
Af 0.124–0.296 Klems and 0.006 m2 Values given in their
4.2. Uncertainties of input variables
m2 Reilly [50] Table 4.
hex 26.7 Wm− 2 Present 1.3 Wm− 2 See note (***)
For validation of the present model, we selected a series of VE where K− 1 work** K− 1
Uw of six different windows had been measured in one single laboratory hin 4.2 Wm− 2 K− 1
Present 0.21 See note (***)
using the hotbox technique [49]. Table 2 shows the values of the input work** Wm− 2 K− 1
2
h 2.10 Wm− ElSherbiny 0.11 Values for window
variables xi, and their uncertainties ui, in this series of VE. K− 1 et al. [68] Wm− 2 K− 1 #F020 in [49]
The temperatures θex and θin were given in Ref. [49] as integer
values. Therefore, it was assumed that the errors in these values were (#) Selected from validation experiments in Ref. [49]. (*) Total hemispherical
emissivity of soda lime window glass. (**) See derivation below, using values for
represented by a uniform distribution ±a centered around the given
1-layer glazing window. (***) Gaussian distribution ±10% (95% confidence
values. In this case, a = 0.5 ◦ C (digital resolution in case of integer
level).
values), and the uncertainty could be evaluated as (cf. [69], §4.3.7):
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
uθ = a2 /3 = 0.29 ◦ C (13) the λwood –value estimated at the interval center, where MC = 11%.
Again using Eq. (13), we obtained uλwood = 0.020 Wm− 1 K− 1.
The thermal conductivity of wood (λwood), used in window frames,
Data on λAl were obtained from a review on thermal properties of
depends primarily on the wood species, the direction of heat flux rela­
building materials, where doubt is expressed on the reliability and
tive to the axis of tree stem, and on the moisture content (MC). This
independency of reported values from different sources [61]. Eq. (13)
information was not documented for the frame wood material used in
was used for estimation of the uncertainty in λAl. The thermal conduc­
Ref. [49]. For Pine wood (Pinus Silvestris) as frame material, and with
tivities of the foam spacer and the thermal break materials, λspacer and λTB
heat flux in the radial direction, Kol [60] measured λwood. It was found to
respectively, were unknown, and therefore estimated as in Ref. [62],
increase approximatively linear in the interval 0.141 ± 0.034 W m− 1K− 1
with the ±50% uncertainty interval. For the thermal conductivity of
for MC between 0 and 22%. Since in the present case MC was unknown,
glass, the uncertainty given in Table 2 derives from the digital resolution
we assumed a uniform distribution for MC over the interval 0–22%, with

5
K.E.A. Ohlsson et al.
of the value, using Eq. (13).
For Al window frames, its emissivity εAl depends strongly on the state
of oxidation of the Al surface, which is not documented in Ref. [49]. For
recently polished surfaces, εAl = 0.05. With age, oxidation in air leads to
an εAl-value around 0.2, and electrochemical oxidation (anodization)
yields εAl = ca 0.9 (cf [65]). The main uncertainty source is here the lack
of knowledge on the degree of oxidation of the Al surface, while the
uncertainty in each of three values is of negligible importance, and
therefore was set arbitrary to equal 0.02 (cf. Table 2).
The existence of coating on the frame surfaces is unknown, since
documentation was missing, although it seems a reasonable assumption
that at least the wooden frames were painted. The emissivity of uncoated
wood, unspecified species, was around 0.90, as given from five different
sources [64]. The emissivity of paint coatings can vary across a wide
range, as e.g. in Ref. [66] where the emissivity decreased linearly from
0.88 to 0.41, with addition of increasing amounts of low-emissivity Al
flake pigments in the coating.
Values of the frame area Af were obtained for four windows (#F020,
#F022, #F024, and #F062) from Ref. [50] (their Table 4). For window
#F015 [49], Af was assumed to equal that of window #F062. The un­
certainty estimate for Af was initially set to 0.006 m2, which corresponds
to ±10% uncertainty interval at 95% confidence level for the smallest
frames, with Af = 0.120 m2. Values of the geometry variables (b-, d-type,
as shown in Fig. 2) were obtained from drawings of frame cross sections
given in Refs. [49,50]. The errors of these variables were assumed to be
uniformly distributed within ±0.5 mm, which yields an uncertainty
equal to 0.3 mm. The uncertainty in b-type variables was included in the
uncertainty of Af. The contribution from the uncertainty in d-type var­
iables was negligible in comparison to the uncertainty in λ-type vari­
ables for the corresponding piece of solid material (cf. Table 2 and Eq.
(4)).
The glazing model of Rubin [39], and the present window model,
require input values for the convective heat transfer coefficients (CHTC;
hex, hin). In Ref. [49], the CHTCs are not given explicitly, but in the form
of “film coefficients” (i.e. heat transfer coefficients) for the exterior and
interior glazing sides, fex and fin, respectively. For the external side, the
steady-state heat flux qs through a 1-layer glass pane is obtained as [51]:
qs = (hex + hrex )(θ1 − θex ) = fex (θ1 − θex ) (14)
where hrex is the infrared radiative component of fex, and θ1 is the
temperature of the exterior glass surface. With a similar definition of fin,
we obtain from Ref. [51]:
1 1 d 1
= + + (15)
Ug fin λ fex
where d is thickness of the glass layer, and λ is its thermal conductivity.
Assuming d = 3 mm and λ = 0.9 Wm− 1 K− 1 (value for glass given in
Ref. [39]), and with fin = 8.3 Wm− 2 K− 1 and fex = 30 Wm− 2 K− 1, as given
in Ref. [49], we calculated Ug = 6.363 Wm− 2 K− 1, using Eq. (15).
We derived the values of hex and hin by the following procedure: First,
with the initial settings hex = fex and hin = fin, the glass surface temper­
atures θ1 and θ2, and also a preliminary Ug-value, Ug0, were calculated
using the present frame model (section 2.2). Then the radiative
component hrex (and similarly hrin) could be estimated as:
hrex = 4εeff σ θ3av (16)
where εeff is the effective emissivity between two planar surfaces with
emissivity εa and εb, defined in Eq. (17), and θav is the average tem­
perature of a window surface and its environment [70]. As an approx­
imation, εeff for the radiative heat transfer between the exterior
environment (εa = εex = 1) and exterior glass surface (εb = εglass) is
estimated by Ref. [70]:
6
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 168 (2022) 112748
1
εeff = 1 = εglass (17)
+ ε1b − 1
εa
In the next step, the values of hrex and hrin were subtracted from the
initial hex and hin, respectively, to yield updated values for these latter
parameters. This calculation procedure was iterated until convergence
of hr-values at hrex = 3.3 Wm− 2 K− 1 and hrin = 4.1 Wm− 2 K− 1. At this final
point, we obtained hex = 26.7 Wm− 2 K− 1 and hin = 4.2 Wm− 2 K− 1, and
Ug = 0.370 Wm− 2 K− 1 (close to the value obtained above with Eq. (15)).
Only for fex, the uncertainty level is given as ±10% [51], while it is
unknown for the fin. Assuming that fin has the same uncertainty, and that
the ±10% uncertainty interval gives 95% confidence with a Gaussian
error distribution (±2s), we obtained the uncertainty estimates as in
Table 2.
The CHTC of the air layer between vertical plane glasses (h-value)
were derived from the Nusselt (Nu) number as:
h=
Nu λair
(18)
w
where w is the air layer thickness, and λair is the air thermal conductivity.
For vertical gas layers, the Nu number as a function of the aspect ratio A
(= [Layer Height]/w) and the Rayleigh (Ra) number is given by Eq. (5)
in Ref. [68]. The uncertainty in Nu was expressed as a standard deviation
equal to 3.6% [68]. For the 2-glass layer window #F020, with wooden
frame, in Ref. [49], we estimated w = 12.7 mm, A = 79.7 and Ra = 6570,
using property data of air at +5 ◦ C (approximate air layer temperature)
from Ref. [71]; An iterative solution was required since Ra depend on
the temperature difference across the air layer. This yields the value Nu
= 1.13 (from Ref. [68]), and finally, using Eq. (18), h = 2.10 Wm− 2 K− 1.
This result holds also for window #F015 since its glazing is similar.
The uncertainty of h (= uh) was then obtained by propagation of
uncertainties of input variables of Eq. (18), as shown in Eq. (A3). For λair,
the relative uncertainty was estimated to 4%, based on its temperature
dependency, while the uncertainty of w was probably around 0.8%.
Eventually, for window #F020 (and similarly for #F015), we calculated:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
uh = h (3.6%2 + 4%2 + 0.8%2 ) = 5.4%h = 0.11 Wm− 2 K− 1 (19)
5. Application of the benchmark validation procedure
In this section, the present window model was validated using the
benchmark CS-procedure for validation described in Ref. [30], which is
based on the works by Coleman et al. [32,33] and by Oberkampf et al.
[34,35]. The VEs were selected from Ref. [49]. In the following we
describe and discuss the results for each procedural step as shown in
Fig. 3.
In step 1, the uncertainties uD, unum, and uinput were estimated. For uD,
we calculated three estimates, one based on the TSM method (see Ap­
pendix A), and two based on repeated measurements, performed either
in one single or in multiple laboratories (section 4.1). The estimate of
unum is considered to be of negligible magnitude because the model
equations were solved using highly accurate matrix algebra algorithms
(MATLAB software). The uinput was estimated for two windows (#F015
and #F020 in Ref. [49]) using the TSM, with input data given in Table 2.
These two windows have the same 2-layer glass pane glazing, but
different frames; Window #F015 has an Al frame with thermal break
material built in, while the frame of window #F020 was made of wood.
The UA results for glazing and frames were presented in Tables 3–5, and
the UA for the complete windows #F015 and #F020 was given in
Table 6.
In step 2 of the validation procedure, the validation uncertainty uval
was calculated for windows #F015 and #F020 (see Table 7) as:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
uval = u2D + u2num + u2input (20)
K.E.A. Ohlsson et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 168 (2022) 112748

Fig. 3. Schematic of validation procedure. VE is Validation Experiment, and VD is Validation Domain.

Table 3 Table 5
Uncertainty budget for 2-layer glazing of windows #F020 and #F015. Uncertainty budget for the Aluminum frame with two thermal breaks of window
Input quantity Value xi Uncertainty ui f (…, xi + ui , …) χ
#F015.
Input quantity Value xi Uncertainty ui f (…, xi + ui , …) χ
ε 0.84 0.01 3.0090 28.2%
θex − 18 ◦ C 0.3 2.9840 0.2% ε 0.90 0.02 4.9469 2.27%
θin 21 ◦ C 0.3 2.9844 0.3% θex − 18 ◦ C 0.3 4.9139 0.004%
hex 26.7 Wm− 2 K− 1 1.3 2.9928 4.7% θin 21 ◦ C 0.3 4.9158 0.02%
hin 4.2 Wm− 2 K− 1 0.21 3.0077 25.6% hex 26.7 Wm− 2 K− 1 1.3 4.9443 1.94%
h 2.10 Wm− 2 K− 1 0.11 3.0146 40.9% hin 4.2 Wm− 2 K− 1 0.21 4.9781 8.22%
λglass 0.9 Wm− 1 K− 1 0.03 4.9200 0.11%
Ug 2.9816 0.052 100% λAl 215 Wm− 1 K− 1 9 4.9124 0.000%
λspacer 0.24 Wm− 1 K− 1 0.07 5.0929 62.0%
Ug = f (…, xi , …) is the glazing thermal transmittance at original values of all xi,
λTB 0.14 Wm− 1 K− 1 0.04 5.0279 25.4%
while in f (…, xi +ui , …) the i:th input quantity xi has been increased by addition
of ui. Uf 4.9124 0.229 100%

Uf = f (…, xi , …) is the frame thermal transmittance at original values of all xi,

while in f (…, xi +ui , …) the i:th input quantity xi has been increased by addition
of ui. The emissivity value corresponds to an anodized Aluminum surface.
Table 4
Uncertainty budget for wood frame of window #F020.
Input quantity Value xi Uncertainty ui f (…, xi + ui , …) χ
ε 0.90 0.023 1.8050 0.14% Table 6
θex − 18 ◦ C 0.3 1.7989 0.00% Uncertainty budgets for windows #F020 and #F015.
θin 21 ◦ C 0.3 1.7994 0.00%
hex 26.7 Wm− 2 K− 1 1.3 1.8040 0.10% Input Value xi Uncertainty ui f (…,xi + ui ,…) χ
hin 4.2 Wm− 2 K− 1 0.21 1.8085 0.33% quantity
λglass 0.9 Wm− 1 K− 1 0.03 1.7990 0.00% Window #F020 Wood frame
λwood 0.141 Wm− 1 K− 1 0.020 1.9677 99.43% Af 0.296 m2 0.0148* 2.6483 6.9%
λAl 215 Wm− 1 K− 1 9 1.7987 0.00% Uf 1.7987 Wm− 2 K− 1
0.169 2.7098 55.2%
Ug 2.9816 Wm− 2 K− 1
0.052 2.7020 37.9%
Uf 1.7987 0.169 100% Uw 2.6644 Wm¡2 0.061 100%
K¡1
Uf = f (…, xi , …) is the frame thermal transmittance at original values of all xi,
Window #F015 Aluminum frame
while in f (…, xi +ui , …) the i:th input quantity xi has been increased by addition Af 0.124 m2 0.0062* 3.2090 3.9%
of ui. Uf 4.9124 Wm− 2 K− 1
0.229 3.2243 23.3%
Ug 2.9816 Wm− 2 K− 1
0.052 3.2441 72.8%
Uw 3.1985 Wm¡2 0.053 100%
K¡1
From comparison of uinput-values (Table 6) with uD-values (Section
4.1) (unum is negligible), we note that the uncertainty in the hotbox Uw = f (…, xi , …) is the glazing thermal transmittance at original values of all xi,
while in f (…, xi +ui , …) the i:th input quantity xi has been increased by addition
measurement is the major source of uncertainty in the estimate of uval.
of ui. (*) 5% relative uncertainty assumed.
The uD could be estimated from measurement data obtained either from
a single laboratory (e.g. uD1 or uD2) or from multiple laboratories (e.g.
uD3). Table 7 shows uval results for both cases.

7
K.E.A. Ohlsson et al.
Table 7
Model error and validation uncertainty uval for the window model.
Window Frame* Glazing S D
#F020 Wood 2L, UC 2.66 2.70
#F022 Al + TB 2L, LowE 2.96 3.12
#F062 Al + TB 2L, UC 3.36 3.51
#F015 Al + 2 TB 2L, UC 3.20 3.55
#F024 Al 2L, UC 3.40 3.75
(*) TB is thermal break. (**) Double layer (2L) glazing, either uncoated (UC) or with low emissivity (LowE) coating (ε = 0.44). Values of the window thermal
transmittance (Wm− 2 K− 1) were obtained from simulation (S) using the present window model, or from measurement results (D) reported in Ref. [49] using the hotbox
technique. The coverage factor k = 2 corresponds approximatively to the 95% confidence level.
In step 3, the model error for each VE is estimated as E ± k⋅uval,
where E = S – D, and k is the coverage factor. With k = 2 and a Gaussian
error distribution, the interval ± k⋅uval corresponds to the 95% confi­
dence level. The results in Table 7 shows that, for uD3 = 0.19 Wm− 2 K− 1,
and for the windows #F020 and #F015, the model error lies within the
uncertainty interval of the respective VE, i.e. − k.uval < E < k.uval .
However, with uD1 = 0.10 Wm− 2 K− 1, there exists a significant model
error for window #F015, i.e. |E| > k.uval .
In step 4, the model error (E ± k⋅uval) was compared with the desired
level of accuracy in the model prediction, with accuracy defined as
closeness between prediction and true value. In our case, we wanted the
accuracy to be as good as uval allows for, i.e. the requirement is that |E| <
k.uval . In cases where this requirement is not fulfilled, the model should
first be revised and then validated again starting at step 1. If |E| > k.uval ,
then it is still possible that E is within the required level of accuracy. In
such cases validation proceeds with step 5, but with E substituted for
uval.
In step 5, the validation domain (VD) is defined in the model
parameter space by the VEs which have passed step 4. In our case, we
have the two such VEs for windows #F020 and #F015, with their model
parameters values shown in Table 6 and in Eq. (3). The total window
area Aw = 1.10 m2 and the Ug = 3.0 Wm− 2 K− 1 (2-layer glazing; un­
coated glass panes) are the same for all five windows in this study,
except for window #F022 where Ug = 2.6 Wm− 2 K− 1 (due to low
emissivity coating). The VD could therefore be defined in the 2D
parameter space formed by the model parameters Uf and the ratio Af/Aw
(see Fig. 4). Since Ug and Aw are approximatively constant for all win­
dows, the present VD does not include variation in these model
parameters.
Step 6 includes modelling of the model error structure within the VD,
usually by a regression fit to model errors found in the set of VEs [35]. In
our case, the error structure was given by the variation in uval over the
VD. However, since uval was only estimated for two windows, #F015 and
Fig. 4. Validation domain (grey zone) for the present 1D window model. Uf is
the frame thermal transmittance, and Af/Aw is the frame-to-window area ratio.
Constant variables: Aw = 1.10 m2 and Ug = 3.0 Wm− 2 K− 1.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 168 (2022) 112748
2 1 2 1
E=S-D uD1 = 0.10 Wm− K− uD3 = 0.19 Wm− K−
uval,1 E/(kuval,1) uval,3 E/(kuval,3)
− 0.04 0.12 − 0.17 0.20 − 0.10
− 0.16
− 0.15
− 0.35 0.11 − 1.55 0.20 − 0.89
− 0.35
#F020, a regression fit was not possible. For both these windows, uval is
determined mainly by uD, especially when the multiple laboratory es­
timate uD3 is used. Since the uncertainty of hotbox measurement does
not depend on the window design, it seems reasonable to believe that the
estimate of uval applies to all windows in the present work. This
conclusion is supported by the results shown in Fig. 5, which shows
results from the present window model as well as from previously
published results, where the frames were modelled using a 2D model
[49].
Step 7 involves estimation of the prediction uncertainty upred by
extrapolation of the model error (here uval), using the regression equa­
tion, to the point of application of the model, where no experimental
data are available [35]. In general, upred includes both uval and the un­
certainties arising from the calculation of the regression equation pa­
rameters. In the present case, uval was constant across the VD (see step
6), and the regression fit was not needed. We therefore estimated upred =
uval, and assumed that this estimate was valid for model applications
within and in the vicinity of the VD.
The UA included in the validation procedure provides information
on the sources of uncertainty, which could be useful for future model
improvement or planning of new VEs. For example, the uncertainty in
the (simulated) Uf –value is much larger than the uncertainty in Ug (see
Table 6). If it is desired to reduce the former uncertainty in a new VE
then the main contributing input variables of uinput of the frame need to
be measured more accurately. In the present case, this means that the
uncertainties of λwood, λspacer, and λTB should be reduced (see Tables 4 and
5).
6. Comparative analysis of energy saving measures
In the introduction it was stated that any ESM considered must fulfill
Fig. 5. Thermal transmittance Uw of windows F015, F020, F022, F024, and
F062. One single laboratory provided measured values (D) [49]. Simulation
results (S) were obtained from the present study (black markers) or from three
different modelling groups (white markers [49]). Windows #F015 and #F020
are indicated by encircled markers. Uncertainty intervals (±2uval) are shown for
two cases where uD1 (dotted line) or uD3 (dashed line) was used for evaluation.
8
K.E.A. Ohlsson et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 168 (2022) 112748

the minimum requirement of yielding a saving of energy that is above
the uncertainty limit. This condition could be expressed as: Ψ > k.uΨ .
For the window ESM based on reduction of Uw by replacing the existing
window (Uw0) with a retrofit window (Uw1) of equal size, the energy
saved could be calculated as:
∫ was performed using an area-based model similar to the window model
Ψ = (Uw0 − Uw1 )Aw (Θin − Θex )dt (21)
where the integration is over the time period of the year where space
heating is required, i.e. when θin > θex. Note that the integral in Eq. (21)
is similar to the well-known concept of “degree days”, which is often
used for calculation of building heating/cooling energy demand. This
integral and Aw remain constant, while Uw is changed. Therefore, with
the prediction uncertainties for Uw0 and Uw1 equal to upred0 and upred1,
respectively, we could estimate the uncertainty in the energy saved as
(cf. Eq. (A3)):
∫ less than 3 W m − 2K− 1 (e.g. triple pane glazing), and small windows with
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
uΨ = u2pred0 + u2pred1 Aw (Θin − Θex )dt (22)
For all window designs of the present study, we estimated above that
upred = uval = 0.20 Wm− 2 K− 1, and insertion in Eq. (22) gives:
∫ Third, the UA provided quantification of the contribution of various
uΨ = 0.28Aw (Θin − Θex )dt (23)
Eventually, we reformulate the minimum requirement of the win­
dow ESM as follows, using Eqs. (21)–(23):
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
(Uw0 − Uw1 ) > k u2pred0 + u2pred1 (24)
In the present work, assuming the Gaussian error distribution and the
95% confidence level, we set k = 2, and obtain the requirement for the
ESM:
(Uw0 − Uw1 ) > 0.28k = 0.56 Wm− 2 K− 1
(25)
This requirement, expressed by Eq. (25), could now be applied to
pairwise comparisons of simulated Uw-values (S) for different windows
shown in Table 7. Among those windows, we could predict that there is a
significant energy saving only when the Al-frame-window #F024 is
replaced by the wood-frame window #F020 (then the difference in S-
values equals 0.74 W m− 2K− 1, which satisfies Eq. (25)). In this example,
uD3 was selected to be used in Eq. (23) for estimation of upred. This is
appropriate if the hotbox measurements in the VEs have been performed
in different laboratories or under varying conditions.
For future design of VEs for modelling of Uw, with the intention to
compare model predictions between two windows considered for ESM,
there is the possibility to measure the two windows simultaneously, and
side-by-side. In such comparative measurement of the difference in the
Uw-values for two windows, systematic errors, that are equal for both
windows, will cancel. This possibility was discussed in Ref. [55] for the
outdoor MoWiTT facility, but to our knowledge no further published
works are available.
information on validation and uncertainties, as listed in Section 1, for
window retrofit ESMs involving the reduction of Uw. Based on findings
in the present study we drew the following main and novel conclusions:
First, we provided quantitative estimates of the model error (E) and
uncertainty (upred) in the values of Uw predicted at the design stage. This
of ISO 15099, and a benchmark validation CS-procedure applied to a set
of existing VEs. The similarity between the models makes the obtained
estimates of E and upred relevant for the ISO 15099 model. Since the ISO
15099 is normative for window thermal design within the building
sector, these estimates are useful in window retrofit design for MCC.
Second, we found that the VD, defined using the five VEs selected
from Ref. [49], is described by only two model variables: the Af-to-Aw
ratio and the Uf. Since window model application should be located
inside or in the vicinity of the VD, this means that there are serious re­
strictions to the use of the model. For examples, windows with Ug much
relatively large Af, are located outside the VD, which makes model
predictions unreliable. The review of existing VEs (see Section 3)
showed that the VD could not be extended further because of lack of
well-documented VEs.
sources of uncertainty to upred. In the present case with model prediction
of Uw, it was found that uD is the major source of uncertainty in the
predicted value. The comparison between the uD2 (single laboratory)
and uD3 (multiple laboratories) estimates, showed the importance of
performing all VEs under closely similar conditions.
Fourth, for the window ESM retrofit, we derived Eq. (22) which
provided the needed relationship between uΨ and the prediction un­
certainties of the two Uw-values involved. For the window retrofit to
yield an energy saving above the uncertainty limit, it is therefore
concluded that the reduction in Uw must be larger than 0.56 Wm− 2 K− 1,
given that both upred are equal to 0.20 Wm− 2 K− 1.
Funding
This work was supported by the Kolarctic CBC project: KO1089
Green Arctic Building (GrAB).
CRediT
Anders Ohlsson: Conceptualization; Software; Investigation;
Writing – review & editing; Gireesh Nair: Writing – review & editing;
Thomas Olofsson: Writing – review & editing; Funding acquisition.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.

7. Conclusions Data availability

The objectives of present case study was to meet the needs for Data will be made available on request.

Appendix A. Methods for uncertainty estimation

The present reduced order window model based on physics theory was assumed to have uncorrelated model input variables. Therefore it was
justified to use the Taylor Series Method (TSM) for estimation of uinput. The TSM is described in the GUM standard [32,69] for estimation of uD.
GUM defines measurement uncertainty as a “parameter that characterizes the dispersion of the values that could reasonably be attributed to the
measured quantity” (see §B.2.18 in Ref. [69]). The measurement uncertainty is usually expressed as a standard deviation (uD), or a multiple thereof.
GUM describes two types of evaluation of uD: (1) In Type A evaluation, uD is estimated as the standard deviation s of a series of N measurements
repeated under the same conditions, while (2) in Type B evaluation, the estimation is based on scientific judgement of other available information on

9
K.E.A. Ohlsson et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 168 (2022) 112748

the variability of the measured quantity. Both types were used in the present study, and their applications are exemplified below.
Type A evaluation quantifies the uncertainty caused by random errors, which occur during a measurement time period, where many conditions are
constant, e.g. the instrument used, the calibration or the environmental parameters. The systematic error β in the measurement is estimated as the
difference between the mean of the N measurements and the true value of the measured quantity, the latter obtained using a reference sample [69]. If
instead conditions vary between individual measurements, then often β is reduced and the spread of the random errors increases. Therefore, the
systematic uncertainty is often expressed as the standard deviation bsys of the distribution of systematic errors [32]. If β is significant in the series of N
measurements, then
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
uD = b2sys + s2 (A1)

with the approximate estimate bsys = β [32].

In the case where the uncertainty of the measurement instrument is specified as ±1 units, the Type B evaluation could be performed as follows: We
assume that it is justified to believe that errors belong to a Gaussian distribution, and that the interval given corresponds to the 95% confidence level.
Thereby the interval could be expressed as ±2uD, and we obtain the estimate uD = 0.5 units [54].
Often the measurement result D is a function f of multiple input variables (x1, x2, …):
D = f (x1 , x2 , …) (A2)
In this case the uD is obtained by the TSM [69]:
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
̅
∑( ∂f )2
uD = u (A3)
i
∂xi i

In the present work, TSM is applied for estimation of uinput, with the function f given implicitly by the numerical algorithm for calculation of S. It
was then convenient to use the following approximation in Eq. (A3) (cf. Chap. 3–1.5 in Ref. [32]):
∂f
u ≈ f (x1 , x2 , …, xi + ui , …) − f (x1 , x2 , …, xi , …) (A4)
∂xi i
In UA, it was useful to express the fractional contribution to uinput from uncertainty in input variable xi by:
( )2 ∑( )2
∂f / ∂f
χi = ui ui (A5)
∂xi i
∂xi

The sum of all χ i equals 100%.

The window model consists of a system of non-linear equations, which was solved by iteration, using the MatLab software (MathWorks Inc.). The
convergence criteria for system temperatures was 0.001 K, while for U-values it was set to 0.1%. This ensures that the unum is negligible in comparison
to uD and uinput. For more complicated cases, the problem of estimating unum is treated e.g. in Refs. [72,73].

Appendix B. Corrected Rubin window glazing model

The Rubin model [39] was applied to the 2-layer glass pane glazing, with pane spacing w, and with the four glass surfaces indexed from 1 to 4
starting from the exterior side (see Fig. 1 in Ref. [39]). The model allows for non-zero infrared transmittance τ glazing layers, but in our case with glass
layers, τ = 0.

B.1 Infrared Radiation

2
The net infrared radiation fluxes from the i:th glass surfaces, qri (Wm− K− 1), are given by (cf. Eqs. (1) and (2) in Ref. [39]:
qr1 = S1 + ρ r
1 qex +τ r
1 q3 (B1)

qr2 = S2 + ρ2 qr3 + τ1 qrex (B2)

qr3 = S3 + ρ3 qr2 + τ2 qrin (B3)

qr4 = S4 + ρ r
4 qin +τ r
2 q2 (B4)

where Si is the emitted flux, ρi is the infrared reflectance, and τi is the infrared transmittance. The emitted energy fluxes are given by:
Si = εi σ θ4n (B5)

8
where i = 1, 2, 3, or 4, and layer n = 1 or 2. The boundary radiative fluxes are given by qrex = σθ4ex and qrin = σθ4in (σ = 5.67⋅10− Wm− 2K− 4; Stefan-
Boltzmann′ s constant). The Eqs. (B1)-(B4) could be rearranged into matrix form:

10
K.E.A. Ohlsson et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 168 (2022) 112748

⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
1 0 − τ1 0 ⎢ qr1 ⎥ ⎢ S1 + ρ1 qrex ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢0 1 − ρ2 0 ⎥ ⎢
⎢ qr2 ⎥
⎥
⎢
⎢ S2 + τ1 qrex ⎥
⎥
Mqr − r = ⎣0 ⎦ .⎢ ⎥− ⎢ ⎥=0 (B6)
− ρ3 1 0 ⎢ qr3 ⎥ ⎢ S3 + τ2 qrin ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎣ q r ⎦ ⎣ S +ρ q r ⎦
0 − τ2 0 1 4 4 4 in

Eq. (B6) is the corrected version of Eq. (7) in Ref. [39], where in the latter the terms in r containing qrex and qrin , are missing. Given the layer
[ ]
θ
temperatures θ = 1 , we solve Eq. (B6) as:
θ2

qr = M − 1 r (B7)

B.2 Air Convection-Conduction

Following [39], the heat flux due to natural convection or air conduction between layers 1 and 2 could be expressed as:
q = h(θ1 − θ2 ) = hθ1 − hθ2 = qc2 − qc3 (B8)

where h is the heat conductance, and qci is the net convective/conductive heat flux at the i:th surface (i = 2 and 3). With hex and hin defined as the
exterior and interior conductance respectively, we have
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
c
⎢ q1 ⎥ hex 0
⎢ ⎥ [ ]
⎢ qc ⎥
⎢ ⎥ h 0⎢ θ ⎥
qc = ⎢ 2c ⎥ = ⎣. 1 = Hθ ⎦ (B9)
⎢ q3 ⎥ 0 h θ2
⎢ ⎥
⎣ qc ⎦
4 0 hin

B.3 Energy balance

For each layer (glass pane), at steady-state, no net energy is absorbed, which is expressed as:
⎡ ⎤
q1
[ ] [ ] [ ]
Δ1 1 1 − 1 0 ⎢ q2 ⎥ qex
Δ= = .⎣ ⎦− = Cq − b = 0 (B10)
Δ2 0 − 1 1 1 q 3
qin

q4

where
q = qr + qc (B11)

qex = qrex + hex θex (B12)

qin = qrin + hin θin (B13)

Solving Eq. (B10) yields the layer temperature vector θ, and from these the q is calculated. The solution was obtained by the iterative procedure
described in Ref. [39], and with ∂Δi /∂Θj approximated by the first term in a Taylor series expansion.
The net heat flux from exterior to interior environments is calculated as:
qnet = q4 − qin (B14)
Eventually, the thermal transmittance of the glazing is obtained as:
qnet
Ug = (B15)
θex − θin

References [3] De Boeck L, Verbeke S, Audenaert A, De Mesmaeker L. Improving the energy

performance of residential buildings: a literature review. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2015;52:960–75.
[1] IPCC. In: Edenhofer O, et al., editors. Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate
[4] Dodoo A, Gustavsson L, Tettey UYA. Final energy savings and cost-effectiveness of
change. Working group III contribution to the fifth assessment report of the
deep energy renovation of a multi-storey residential building. Energy 2017;135:
intergovernmental Panel on climate change; 2014. Cambridge, UK and NY, USA.
563–76.
[2] Harvey LDD. Recent advances in sustainable buildings: review of the energy and
cost performance of the state-of-the-art best practices from around the world. Annu
Rev Environ Resour 2013;38:281–309.

11
K.E.A. Ohlsson et al.
[5] Ürge-Vorsatz D, Khosla R, Bernhardt R, Chan YC, Vérez D, Hu S, et al. Advances
toward a Net-Zero global building sector. Annu Rev Environ Resour 2020;45:
227–69.
[6] Mills E. Building commissioning: a golden opportunity for reducing energy costs
and greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Energy Efficiency 2011;4:
145–73.
[7] Mata É, Sasic Kalagasidis A, Johnsson F. Energy usage and technical potential for
energy saving measures in the Swedish residential building stock. Energy Pol 2013;
55:404–14.
[8] Mata É, Sasic Kalagasidis A, Johnsson F. Contributions of building retrofitting in
five member states to EU targets for energy savings. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2018;93:759–74.
[9] Burhenne S, Tsvetkova O, Jacob D, Henze GP, Wagner A. Uncertainty
quantification for combined building performance and cost-benefit analyses. Build
Environ 2013;62:143–54.
[10] Bertoldi P, Economidou M, Palermo V, Boza-Kiss B, Todeschi V. How to finance
energy renovation of residential buildings: review of current and emerging
financing instruments in the EU. WIREs Energy Environ 2021;10:1–26. e384.
[11] Grillone B, Danov S, Sumper A, Cipriano J, Mor G. A review of deterministic and
data-driven methods to quantify energy efficiency savings and to predict
retrofitting scenarios in buildings. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2020;131:110027.
[12] Touzani S, Granderson J, Jump D, Rebello D. Evaluation of methods to assess the
uncertainty in estimated energy savings. Energy Build 2019;193:216–25.
[13] Johnson KA, Hamer W, Vosloo JS. Structuring uncertainty management for energy
savings calculations. S Afr J Ind Eng 2019;30:149–62.
[14] Rabani M, Madessa HB, Nord N. A state-of-art review of retrofit interventions in
buildings towards nearly zero energy level. Energy Proc 2017;134:317–26.
[15] Wu W, Skye HM. Residential net-zero energy buildings: review and perspective.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2021;142:110859.
[16] Ruggeri AG, Gabrielli L, Scarpa M. Energy retrofit in European building portfolios:
a review of five key aspects. Sustainability 2020;12:7465.
[17] He Q, Hossain MU, Ng ST, Augenbroe G. Identifying practical sustainable retrofit
measures for existing high-rise residential buildings in various climate zones
through an integrated energy-cost model. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2021;151:
111578.
[18] Feist W, Schnieders J. Energy efficiency - a key to sustainable housing. Eur Phys J
Spec Top 2009;176:141–53.
[19] Sullivan R, Selkowitz S. Energy performance analysis of fenestration in a single-
family residence. CA, USA: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; 1984.
[20] Pásztory Z, Gorbacheva G, Czimondor D, Rébék-Nagy P, Sanaev V, Rykunin S, et al.
The effects of windows and reduced night temperature on the heating energy
demand in different regions of Russia. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng 2018;371:
012050.
[21] Kalbe K, Kalamees T. Influence of window details on the energy performance of an
nZEB. J Sustain Architect Civ Eng 2019;1:61–70.
[22] Manz H. On minimizing heat transport in architectural glazing. Renew Energy
2008;33:119–28.
[23] Foucquier A, Robert S, Suard F, Stéphan L, Jay A. State of the art in building
modelling and energy performances prediction: a review. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2013;23:272–88.
[24] Harish VSKV, Kumar A. A review on modeling and simulation of building energy
systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;56:1272–92.
[25] Déqué F, Ollivier F, Poblador A. Grey boxes used to represent buildings with a
minimum number of geometric and thermal parameters. Energy Build 2000;31:
29–35.
[26] Hopfe CJ, Hensen JLM. Uncertainty analysis in building performance simulation
for design support. Energy Build 2011;43:2798–805.
[27] Ostergård T, Jensen RL, Maagaard SE. Building simulations supporting decision
making in early design - a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;61:187–201.
[28] Tian W, Heo Y, de Wilde P, Li Z, Yan D, Park CS, et al. A review of uncertainty
analysis in building energy assessment. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;93:
285–301.
[29] Shamsi MH, Ali U, Mangina E, O′ Donnell J. A framework for uncertainty
quantification in building heat demand simulations using reduced-order grey-box
energy models. Appl Energy 2020;275:115141.
[30] Ohlsson KEA, Olofsson T. Benchmarking the practice of validation and uncertainty
analysis of building energy models. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2021;142:110842.
[31] Fennell PJ, Ruyssevelt PA, Mata É, Jakob M. In: A review of the status of
uncertainty and sensitivity analysis in building-stock energy models. Proceedings
of the16th IBPSA International Conference and Exhibition; 2019. p. 3353–60.
[32] Coleman HW, Steele WG. Experimentation, validation, and uncertainty analysis for
engineers. third ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2009.
[33] Coleman HW, Stern F. Uncertainties and CFD code validation. J Fluid Eng 1997;
119:795–803.
[34] Oberkampf WL, Trucano TG, Hirsch C. Verification, validation, and predictive
capability in computational engineering and physics. Appl Mech Rev 2004;57:
345–84.
[35] Roy CJ, Oberkampf WL. A comprehensive framework for verification, validation,
and uncertainty quantification in scientific computing. Comput Methods Appl
Mech Eng 2011;200:2131–44.
[36] ISO 10077-2. Thermal performance of windows, doors and shutters - calculation of
thermal transmittance - Part 2: numerical method for frame. Brussels: CEN; 2012.
12
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 168 (2022) 112748
[37] ISO 10077-1. Thermal performance of windows, doors and shutters - calculation of
thermal transmittance - Part 1: General. Brussels: CEN; 2006.
[38] ISO 15099. Thermal performance of windows, doors and shading devices - detailed
calculations. Geneva: Switzerland ISO; 2003.
[39] Rubin M. Calculating heat transfer through windows. Energy Res 1982;6:341–9.
[40] Hollands KGT, Wright JL. Heat loss coefficients and effective Πα products for flate-
plate collectors with diathermanous covers. Sol Energy 1983;30:211–6.
[41] Curcija D, Ambs LL, Goss WP. A comparison of European and North American
window U-value calculation procedure. ASHRAE Trans 1989;95:575–91.
[42] Gustavsen A, Arasteh D, Jelle BP, Curcija C, Kohler C. Developing low-conductance
window frames: capabilities and limitations of current window heat transfer design
tools - state-of-the-art review. J Build Phys 2008;32:131–53.
[43] Arasteh D. An analysis of edge heat transfer in residential windows. J Therm Insul
1991;14:295–310.
[44] Carpenter S, McGowan A. Effect of framing systems on the thermal performance of
windows. ASHRAE Trans 1993;99:907–14.
[45] Asdrubali F, Baldinelli G, Bianchi F. Influence of cavities geometric and emissivity
properties on the overall thermal performance of aluminum frames for windows.
Energy Build 2013;60:298–309.
[46] Lechowska AA, Schnotale JA, Baldinelli G. Window frame thermal transmittance
improvements without frame geometry variations: an experimentally validated
CFD analysis. Energy Build 2017;145:188–99.
[47] Noyé P, Laustsen S, Svendsen S. Calculating the heat transfer coefficient of frame
profiles with internal cavities. Nord J Build Phys 2004;3:1–7.
[48] Cardinale N, Rospi G, Cardinale T. Numerical and experimental thermal analysis
for the improvement of various types of window frames and rolling-shutter boxes.
Int J Energy Environ Eng 2015;6:101–10.
[49] Elmahdy AH. Joint Canadian/U.S. research project on window performance:
project outline and preliminary results. ASHRAE Trans 1990;96:896–900.
[50] Klems JH, Reilly S. Window nighttime U-values: a comparison between computer
calculations and MoWiTT measurements. ASHRAE Trans 1990;96:907–11.
[51] Elmahdy AH. Heat transmission and R-value of fenestration systems using IRC hot
box: procedure and uncertainty analysis. ASHRAE Trans 1992;98:630–7.
[52] Klems JH. In: A calibrated hotbox for testing window systems - construction,
calibration, and measurements on prototype high-performance windows.
ASHRAE/DOE-ORNL Conference on the Thermal Performance of the Exterior
Envelopes of Buildings; 1979. Orlanda, FL, USA.
[53] Arasteh D, Beck FA, Stone NI, duPont WC, Mathis RC, Koenig MJ. Phase I results of
the NFRC U-value procedure validation project. ASHRAE Trans 1994;100:
1724–31.
[54] Box GEP, Hunter WG, Hunter JS. Statistics for experimenters. New York: Wiley;
1978.
[55] Klems JH. Method of measuring nighttime U-values using the mobile window
thermal test facility. ASHRAE Trans 1992;98(pt 2):619–29.
[56] Arasteh D, Hartmann J, Rubin M. Experimental verification of a model of heat
transfer through windows. ASHRAE Trans 1987;93:1425–31.
[57] Elmahdy AH, Bowen RP. Laboratory determination of the thermal resistance of
glazing units. ASHRAE Trans 1988;2:1301–16.
[58] Dubrous FM, Harrison SJ. Comparison of experimental test results and analytical
calculations of window thermal performance. ASHRAE Trans 1989;95:747–54.
[59] Elmahdy AH. In: Testing and simulation of high-performance windows - phase II of
the Canadian/U.S. joint research project on window performance. BTECC
Conference; 1992. Clearwater, FL.
[60] Kol HS. Thermal and dielectric properties of pine wood in the transverse direction.
Bioresources 2009;4:1663–9.
[61] Clarke JA, Yaneske PP, Pinney AA. The harmonisation of thermal properties of
building materials. UK: BEPAC; 1990. Technical Note 91/6.
[62] Baker JA, Sullivan HF, Wright JL. Window (glazing and frame) heat transfer
modeling. ASHRAE Trans 1990;96:901–6.
[63] Rubin M. Optical properties of soda lime silica glasses. Sol Energy Mater 1985;12:
275–8.
[64] Chen H-Y, Chen C. Determining the emissivity and temperature of building
materials by infrared thermometer. Construct Build Mater 2016;126:130–7.
[65] Gustavsen A, Berdahl P. Spectral emissivity of anodized aluminum and the thermal
transmittance of aluminum window frames. Nord J Build Phys 2003;3:1–12.
[66] Fantucci S, Serra V. Experimental assessment of the effects of low-emissivity paints
as interior radiation control coatings. Appl Sci 2020;10:842. https://doi.org/
10.3390/app10030842.
[67] Maiorov VA. Window glasses: state and prospects. Opt Spectrosc 2018;124:
594–608.
[68] ElSherbiny SM, Raithby GD, Hollands KGT. Heat transfer by natural convection
across vertical and inclined air layers. Trans ASME, J Heat Transfer. 1982;104:
96–102.
[69] Evaluation of measurement data - guide to the expression of uncertainty in
measurement (GUM 1995 with minor correction). Geneva: JCGM; 2008.
[70] Simko TM, Elmahdy AH, Collins RE. Determination of the overall heat transmission
coefficient (U value) of vacuum glazing. ASHRAE Trans 1999;105:891–9.
[71] Cengel YA, Cimbala JM, Turner RH. Fundamentals of thermal-fluid sciences. New
York: McGraw-Hill Education; 2017.
[72] Roache PJ. Verification and validation in computational science and engineering.
Albuquerque, USA: Hermosa; 1998.
[73] Oberkampf WL, Roy CJ. Verification and validation in scientific computing.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010.