## 3 Results and Discussion
### Use of Primary Energy Results by Window Frame and Glass Characteristics  
Table 6 shows the results of the primary energy consumption of cooling for the particular case of the SFH-1 dwelling, according to the characteristics of the materials used in the window frames and glass and differentiated for the eight studied orientations. For all configurations, it can be seen that the consumption is the maximum for the 'East' orientation. Table 7 shows the results for the variations in this energy consumption, for all design configurations and orientations, compared to the base case (WFR1/GL1). For all orientations, the WFR2/GL3 design configuration presents the greatest relative reduction in demand with respect to the base case design. It also follows that, irrespective of orientation, combinations of any of the window frames with a GL4 type of glass do not practically improve the energy consumption of the base case design. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Configuration** & **North** & **Northeast** & **East** & **Southeast** & **South** & **Southwest** & **West** & **Northwest** \\ \hline WFR1/GL1 & 14.21 & 23.67 & 30.31 & 23.16 & 14.38 & 23.76 & 30.30 & 23.03 \\ WFR2/GL2 & 13.30 & 22.33 & 29.01 & 21.85 & 13.47 & 22.42 & 29.00 & 21.73 \\ WFR2/GL3 & 12.04 & 19.96 & 26.49 & 19.64 & 12.20 & 20.07 & 26.48 & 19.54 \\ WFR2/GL4 & 13.89 & 23.37 & 30.31 & 22.87 & 14.07 & 23.46 & 30.30 & 22.74 \\ WFR3/GL2 & 13.45 & 22.54 & 29.26 & 22.06 & 13.61 & 22.63 & 29.26 & 21.95 \\ WFR3/GL3 & 12.18 & 20.15 & 26.73 & 19.83 & 12.33 & 20.26 & 26.72 & 19.74 \\ WFR3/GL4 & 14.05 & 23.59 & 30.40 & 23.09 & 14.22 & 23.68 & 30.57 & 22.97 \\ WFR4/GL2 & 13.54 & 22.66 & 29.38 & 22.16 & 13.69 & 22.75 & 29.40 & 22.07 \\ WFR4/GL3 & 12.27 & 20.26 & 26.84 & 19.92 & 12.41 & 20.37 & 26.86 & 19.84 \\ WFR4/GL4 & 13.99 & 23.54 & 30.51 & 23.03 & 14.16 & 23.64 & 30.51 & 22.91 \\ WFR5/GL2 & 13.67 & 22.88 & 29.71 & 22.40 & 13.84 & 22.98 & 29.70 & 22.28 \\ WFR5/GL3 & 12.41 & 20.50 & 27.20 & 20.18 & 12.57 & 20.61 & 27.20 & 20.07 \\ WFR5/GL4 & 13.92 & 23.36 & 30.31 & 22.86 & 14.09 & 23.45 & 30.31 & 22.73 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: The results of primary energy consumption of cooling (in kWh/(m\({}^{2}\)-year)) for the different window frame and glass design configurations, differentiated according to the orientation of the main facade of the dwelling. Results for dwelling type SFH-1. Figure 4: Primary energy consumption of cooling by front facade orientation and dwelling type. Figure 5 shows the results of cooling's primary energy consumption, differentiated by single-family dwelling type, according to the characteristics of the materials used in the window frames and glass. As an example, the results for the 'East' orientation are presented. From these results, it can be deduced that, in absolute terms, the reduction that can be achieved by modifying this type of design factor can vary, in the case of SFH-1, from a consumption of 30.31 kWh/(m\({}^{2}\cdot\)year), corresponding to the case of the base design, to 26.49 kWh/(m\({}^{2}\cdot\)year). For the SFH-2 dwelling type, the value of the base design (27.81 kWh/(m\({}^{2}\cdot\)year)) can be reduced to 24.27 kWh/(m\({}^{2}\cdot\)year), and in the case of the SFH-3 dwelling type, the 32.22 kWh/(m\({}^{2}\cdot\)year) of the base design can be reduced to 28.19 kWh/(m\({}^{2}\cdot\)year). It is also observed that there are some design combinations, among those studied, that can worsen the base case consumption value or result in practically no improvement. This is of interest to consider in the initial design of the building envelope, as more expensive frame and glass configurations may not necessarily result in a reduced primary energy consumption. Table 8 shows the relative results of the comparative analysis of the different designs with respect to the base case (WFR1/GL1).