ZEMCH 2019 International Conference Proceedings April.2020 | Page 148
in the standard, which appears to be a significant issue in the performance of shutters and other similar
products.
Table 3. Heat‐loss values for shutter with adiabatic walls and no trickle vents
Cavity width (mm)
Bare window‐base case
50
100
150
200
Heat loss through the window (W)
26.65
4.23
4.18
4.28
4.31
Table 4 and Table 5 show the heat losses through the window for the normal and adiabatic walls
when a 500mm trickle vent was introduced to the window. As stated above, in the methodology section,
a permanent inlet/outlet ventilation of 0.32 L.s –1 was considered to simulate the effects of trickle
ventilation on the performance of the shutters. According to the results, the losses through the windows
were reduced for all simulated scenarios. This appears to be due to the losses through ventilation,
meaning that although the overall heat losses increased, these were reduced through the windows.
Table 4. Heat‐loss values for the shutter with insulated cavity wall and trickle vent (500mm)
Cavity width (mm)
Bare window‐base case
50
100
150
200
Heat loss through the window (W)
26.65
5.83
7.78
9.83
11.31
Table 5. Heat‐loss values for shutter with adiabatic walls and trickle vent (500mm)
Cavity width (mm)
Bare window‐base case
50
100
150
200
Heat loss through the window (W)
26.65
3.67
3.60
3.68
3.70
Figure 3 and Figure 4 illustrate the losses through the shutters and windows with a ventilated air
cavity. The heat‐losses have been reduced significantly through the window when the shutter is
deployed. Similar to the above figures (1 &2), the losses are significantly lower for smaller air cavities
indicating the negative effects of thermal bridging.
137
ZEMCH 2019 International Conference l Seoul, Korea