The present study has examined two kinds of window films that aim to improve windows regarding energy and comfort aspects. The films consist of thin self-adhesive plastic with high-tech radiation-reflective coating. Main focus has been on a new kind of heat insulating film ("Energy Film"), which primarily intends to reduce heat loss through the window towards a colder outdoor climate. In this project, the energy film has been tested in the field with the so-called hotbox method, with which the heat loss through a 2-pane window could be measured on site in a real historical building: the Town Hall in Gävle, Sweden. The hotbox method is normally used in a laboratory environments, and an important purpose of the project was to evaluate the method in the field. In addition to the energy film, solar reflective film ("Solar Film") was also tested, which mainly aims to reduce the transmission of radiant heat from direct sunlight. The study also includes subjective assessments by building anti-quarians regarding aesthetic and antiquarian aspects of the application of the window films.
The results indicate that the hotbox method is useful in the field, although rather laborious to get in place practically. The measurement results indicate that mounting Energy Film reduces the heat transfer (U-value) through the glazed part of the window by about 31% if the film is placed on one of the pane surfaces in the gap between the panes, while the reduction becomes about 19% when placed on the inside of the inner pane. Placement in the gap thus seems most effective, if practicable; it also reduces the risk of condensation and convective down draught along the inside of the window. However, from an economical point of view, it seems difficult to reckon any profit by investing in either Energy Film or Solar Film. On the contrary, mounting Solar Film tends to increase energy costs. Thermal buffering in the heavy city hall building helps reduce the heat increase that occur from much solar radiation; Solar Film is likely to be more effective in lighter buildings. The town hall building was also equipped with mechanical demand controlled ventilation, with the possibility of quite high ventilation rates for cooling; in buildings without such a system, Solar Film will benefit more. However, both Energy and Solar Films improve thermal comfort, both in terms of chilliness and warmth, especially for people being close to the windows. So, rather than reduced costs, it seems to be comfort and/or environmental reasons that can motivate investment in the window films.
The window films resulted in reduced light transmittance (-16% for Energy Film; -22% for Solar Film) and some (moderate) color change at certain lighting conditions and viewing angles. Overall, however, the studied window films received fairly high acceptance by the building antiquarians, but it was noted that professional care is needed during installation. The installation of the films was however demonstrated to be done relatively quickly and cause little disruption to the activities in the premises. The films can also be cut to fit e.g. curved frames, and they do not add any extra load (weight) to the window, as compared to other methods that involve addition of an extra pane on the frame. Tests of removal of a 3-year-old Energy Film showed that this could be done without damaging the window glass, but it seems doubtful to mount the films on really thin, fragile glass, since those may break if removing the film, which nonetheless was noted to stick fairly hard to the glass surface.