Response from Wasco Windows
Thank you for your feedback and looking at our products. I would like to use this opportunity to explain heat transfer through window frames from an engineering background. Heat is transfered through window framing by conduction though solid materials, and natural convection through any air-filled cavities, such as frame hollows or rebates (are between the fixed and moving parts of the framing, or between the framing and the glass). If a frame profile has a single, large cavity, natural convection heat transfer will be large, as there is nothing to stop natural air currents from occurring due to temperature differences on the inside and outside of the framing. One way of stopping this natural convection is to fill the cavities with insulation. Another is to break these cavities into smaller cavities. This way, there will be less temperature difference in any one cavity to drive heat transfer. Moreover, the smaller cavities resist these natural currents by providing the air with less room to move around. As natural convection is reduced, the air serves more and more as an insulator. (Argon is used in insulated glass for the same purpose -- to reduce natural convection. Making the insulated glass three-pane instead of two pane works like braking a frame into smaller cavities.) Foam-filling and multi-chambering are just two alternative ways to get good heat transfer performance, and these must be balanced with good structural performance. My personal philosophy is that we meet structural and longevity goals first, then ensure that the window has good thermal performance. In my opinion, it is generally easier to reinforce multi-chambered profiles, and it is easier to avoid weld contamination by not using foam. We certify all of our windows through third-party laboratories, who do two-dimensional thermal simulations on all of our frames. This is in addition to the simulations I personally do during product development. The simulations are validated through physical testing by accredited laboratories. Through these simulations, we get an accurate picture of heat transfer through our window frames, as well as surface temperatures of those frames. This is why we currently insulate the frames of our DH-100 double hung window, as is this is only a two-chamber profile. Heat transfer was too high through this frame for 2010 EnergyStar, and the most cost-effective way to reduce this heat transfer was to insulate the frame. However, even with insulation, it does not perform as well as the multi-chambered frames of our 700/DH, 1400/CA or 4500/DK windows! Our 700/DH double-hung window, with galvanized steel reinforcement and no insulation, but highly a multi-chambered frame and sash, has a U-Factor lower than our insulated, composite reinforced double hung when both units have the same glass. As the glass area is the same, all the reduction in heat transfer is through the better frame -- the one with steel and no insulation. However, this is a costlier frame to produce, and the price reflects this. (This window will be the double-hung we further develop for the tougher 2013 EnergyStar standards.) The casement and the Tilt & Turn both offer even better performance, again with no insulation. (As an aside, this year we are introducing a window that will meet the German Passivhaus standard -- much tougher than EnergyStar. We will be using special insulation modules in the largest frame cavities. However, even without this insulation, this window significantly outperforms every other window we make.) In the end, the presence of or lack of insulation cannot tell you how a window frame will perform. The best way to judge the thermal performance of frames is to compare U-Factors when both windows have identical glass packages. Then, any difference must be due to the frame. Best regards, David Paulus, P.E., PhD. Director of Engineering WASCO Windows