All,
This is a question that I am also unclear on. I took a look through the archive and was unable to find anything helpful. Hopefully someone is able to provide an answer.
Thanks,
Alex
From: trnsys-users-bounces@cae.wisc.edu [mailto:trnsys-users-bounces@cae.wisc.edu] On Behalf Of Pauline GELIN
Sent: 06 September 2013 1529
To: trnsys-users
Subject: [TRNSYS-users] Persistent questioning about window definition in WINDOW6
Hi,
When I use a glass that I had created from WINDOW6 software, it turned out that the Uwindow value, deduced from the B4_QT output doesn’t correspond to what I expected, when I calculated it with the Ug value shown in the database TRNBUILD, the percentage frame and Uframe filled in TRNBUILD.
After many tests, it appears that the Uwindow calculated differs if I take a glazing created in WINDOW6 (for which I didn’t give any information of spacer in order to change this in the TRNBUILD project) or a glazing initially given in the TRNBUILD database.
While Uframe percentage and spacer values indicated in my database windows are the same.
Does anyone know where does this difference come from?
What values of Uframe, and percentage frame and spacer, does TRNBUILD consider : those entries in the database glazings or those filled in the database window that is created for each project?
Then, also with a test of 100% glazing window, if I use a glass type I created with WINDOW 6 without frame and spacer (because I want to choose after the spacer and the frame in TRNBUILD), which is shown in WINID with a indicative Ug of 1.07 W/m²K, correct value for this type, when I look the outputs Uwin and B4_QT, these ones give me a Uglass of only 0.57 W/m²K !
Could you explain to me what I did wrong? And more especially, how TRNSYS could calculate this value?
Thanks a lot in advance for all your answers.
Best regards,
Pauline GELIN
Ingénieur Conception environnementale
10 avenue des canuts
69120 VAULX EN VELIN
T : 04.37.45.33.33
Ligne directe : 04.37.45.33.47