Date post: | 28-Mar-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | iliana-down |
View: | 212 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Field Study and Energy-Plus Benchmarks for Energy Saver Homes
Authors
Dr. William Miller, Dr. Som Shrestha and Ken Childs of ORNL Eric Stannard of Univ. of Tennessee
SUMMER STUDY ON ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN BUILDINGS
August 16, 2012
William (Bill) Miller, Ph.D
N
Pair of Homes• Two-story with
Basement
Pair of Homes• Two-story on
Crawlspace
Project consists of four houses with different equipment and envelope systems
Wolf Creek Subdivision, Oak Ridge, TN
“Structural Insulated Panel” SIP Strategy “Advanced Framing” OVF Strategy “Dynamic Insulation - Phase Change Material” PCM Strategy “Exterior Insulation Finishing EIFS Strategy
Footprint in square feet1 Key Envelope Feature Basement 1st Floor 2nd Floor Total (ft2)
Structural Insulated Panels (SIP home) 1518 1518 677 3713 Optimal Value Framing (OVF home) 1518 1518 677 3713 Dynamic Envelope (PCM home) NA 1802 919 2721 Exterior Insulation Finish System (EIFS home) NA 1802 919 2721
1 Conversion: m2 = 9.290304E-02 * ft2
SIP House
OVF House
PCM House
EIFS House
ZEBRAlliance established to promote Cost-Effective Energy Efficiency in Buildings
Functions as a public-private research project to promote an energy-efficiency education campaign
Miller, et al. 2009 “Advanced Residential Envelopes for Two Pair of Energy-Saver Homes,” ACEEE Summer Study, 2009.
Objectives
· DOE Building Technologies (BT) program Residential Building Integration
Accelerate progress toward Zero-Energy-Home (ZEH) Whole-house 50% saver homes in mixed humid climate
· DOE BT: Building Envelope R&D Showcase different envelope approaches Best practices portfolio: materials and construction
· DOE BT: Analysis Tools and Designs Data acquisition for Foundation Heat Exchanger (FHXs) Benchmark FHX data against analytical tools
· DOE BT: Space Conditioning and Refrigeration Characterize HVAC, Water heating and Appliance systems Accelerate for-sale status to better penetrate market
Demonstration Homes in Oak Ridge, TNSIP and OVF Pair of Homes
Blower Door Tests Tracer Gas Experiments IR Thermography Diagnostics
Construction Verified Using IR Thermography
SIP
Kaushik Biswas, Kosny and Miller. “Thermal Integrity Assessment of Building Envelopes of Experimental Houses Using Infrared Thermography,” InfraMotion 2010, Las Vegas, Nevada.
FLIR Systems S65 HS IR CameraASTM Standard C1060
• ΔT >10°C for 4 hrs• No Irradiance for 3 hrs• Wind Speed < 15 mph
Min -7.2 Max 1.2 Min -4.4 Max -1.5
Min -7.8 Max -5.9
Min -11.1 Max 4.6Min -3.7 Max -0.7
SIP House
OVF House
SIP House
OVF House
Min -11.5 Max 2.0
Min -6.1 Max -3.4
Min -5.7 Max 2.0
Min -7.4 Max 1.8
Min -5.9 Max -2.8
Min -7.9 Max 1.,3
Revenue Meter Readings Verify all Homes used 50% less energy than Home Built to IECC 2006
DescriptionSIP
StrategyOptimal Value
Framing StrategyPCM Envelope EIFS
EnvelopeBuilders House1
HERS 46 47 47 50 101
Annual (kWh per ft2 per year) 4.66 4.50 5.43 5.70 11.14
ACH2 at 50 Pa 1.23 1.74 3.18 2.18 5.7
Tracer Gas3ACH 0.05/0.09 0.05/0.13 0.11/0.14 0.08/0.07 NA
1 International Energy Conservation Code (2006).2 Air exchanges per hour (ACH) measured by blower door testing conducted at 50 Pa.3 Tracer gas test using concentration decay method and R-134a refrigerant. Measured values in summer/winter 2011.
SIP House Equipment Characteristics
WAHP: 2-ton (7kW) capacity – Cooling COP 4.0 high-
stage– Heating COP 5.4 high-
stage– 2-Stage scroll compressor– Rated as per
ANSI/AHRI/ISO 13256-1– Brine Pump (1/6)hp (147
W)
WWHP: 1.5-ton (5.3 kW)– COP 3.1 (based on EWT
32oF (0oC)and load EWT 100oF (37.8oC)
– 1-Speed rotary compressor
– Brine Pump (1/6)hp (147W)– DHW Pump (1/25)hp (30W)
Water Tank: 80 gal (303L) – ~60 g/d (220L/d) water @
120oF (49oC)
Heating Capacity vs. Entering Water Temperature (EWT)
M. Ally, J. Munk, V. Baxter, A. Gehl
ASHRAE Summer Meeting San Antonio, TX, June 23-27, 2012
High Stage: 5% of total run time
Cooling Capacity versus EWT
M. Ally, J. Munk, V. Baxter, A. Gehl
ASHRAE Summer Meeting San Antonio, TX, June 23-27, 2012
High Stage: 3% of total run time
OVF Home Salient Features· OVF House
– 2x6 stick-built wood-framing– 24-in on center with ½” OSB– House air tight using Carlisle’s Barritech VP liquid membrane – Walls contain R-21 flash and batt fiberglass– Cathedral ceiling using SIP based phenolic foam design (R8 /
in)
Exterior Insulation Finishing System
The EIFS has 2x4 stick-built wood-framing, 16-in on center with 5-in of EPS exterior insulation on all exterior walls to reduce thermal bridging losses.
A trowel applied weather resistive barrier minimizes the infiltration and/or exfiltration heat and moisture loads.
Crawlspace of the home is insulated and sealed (not vented to the outdoor ambient).
Weather Resistive Barrier PerformanceAfter a full year of exposure to the elements both WRB systems are adequately protecting the sheathing on the south-facing wall
E+ Model of PCM HomePhase Change Material (PCM) Home
Exterior Double Wall Assembly
2 by 4 studs
ZIP Panel
Gypsum board
Fabric Mesh
PCM - Cellulose
Cellulose24” OC
24” OC
PCM applied in the insulation will provide thermal buffering in wall
Summer Temperatures Measured in the East and South Wall of the PCM Home
Temperatures Measured in Blown Fiber Insulation in the Attic of the PCM Home
Winter Field Data Summer Field Data
E+ Benchmarks of Attic Floor Heat FluxSIP and OVF Homes have cathedral ceilingsPCM and EIFS Homes have conventional ventilated attics
E+ predicted roof heat flux (W/m2) better for summer data than for winter
Avg Seasonal Differences
SIP OVF EIFS
Summer (W/m2) 0.22 0.25 0.54
Winter (W/m2) 1.73 0.28 0.85
E+ Benchmarks of East Wall Heat FluxWinter data shows continual heat loss to the cold outdoorsE+ predicted SIP and OVF wall flux better than EIFS (low-e foil)
E+ differences between measured and predicted east wall heat flux (W/m2)
Avg Seasonal Differences
SIP OVF EIFS
Summer (W/m2) 0.30 0.11 NA
Winter (W/m2) 0.24 0.36 NA
Rising SunHeating Wall
Conclusions· HERS scores and revenue meter data prove all
homes consume only about half the energy consumed by conventional IECC (2006) compliant house
· Driving rains do not penetrate the WRB which provide good protection from moisture intrusion
E+ (v7.0) predicted heat flux through the roofs and attics matched better with summer field measured data compared to that in winter
– does an acceptable job in matching the trends in summer and winter
PCM in East Tennessee’s climate showed the PCM fully active in an east oriented wall but only partially active in the south-facing wall
South Wall East Wall
Fully Active1 Partially Active2
Fully Active1
Partially Active2
Days out of Year 0 130 31 140
Percent of Days out of Year
0% 36% 8% 38%
Actual and Standard costs for the Four ZEBRA Houses
House 1 SIP House
House 2 OVF House
House 3 PCM House
House 4 EIFS House
Costs Items Actual Costs $
Standard Costs $
Actual Costs $
Standard Costs $
Actual Costs $
Standard Costs $
Actual Costs $
Standard Costs $
Labor~ 11,659 6,750 8,222 6,750 7,376 6,750 5,455 6,750 Supervision/ Administration~
74,115 27,000 36,326 27,000 46,639 27,000 39,181 27,000
Architectural* 14,880 26,566 1,502 25,795 260 21,227 158 20,094 Engineering° 2,455 4,735 2,035 3,537 2,686 2,945 2,894 3,052 Total Costs 596,000 557,900 526,700 541,700 444,800 445,800 412,800 422,000
House 1 SIP House
House 2 OVF House
House 3 PCM House
House 4 EIFS House
Total Costs ($) $557,900 $541,700 $445,800 $422,000 Total Square Footage 3,713 3,713 2,721 2,721 Total Cost Per Square Foot ($) 150 $145 $163 $155