summer study on energy efficiency in buildings

Report
Field Study and Energy-Plus
Benchmarks for Energy Saver Homes
SUMMER STUDY ON ENERGY
EFFICIENCY IN BUILDINGS
August 16, 2012
William (Bill) Miller, Ph.D
Authors
Dr. William Miller, Dr. Som Shrestha and Ken Childs of ORNL
Eric Stannard of Univ. of Tennessee
Project consists of four houses with different
equipment and envelope systems
“Structural Insulated Panel”
“Advanced Framing”
“Dynamic Insulation - Phase Change Material”
“Exterior Insulation Finishing
SIP Strategy
OVF Strategy
PCM Strategy
EIFS Strategy
Pair of Homes
• Two-story on Crawlspace
N
Pair of Homes
• Two-story with Basement
Wolf Creek Subdivision, Oak Ridge, TN
ZEBRAlliance established to promote Cost-Effective
Energy Efficiency in Buildings
Functions as a public-private research project to promote an
energy-efficiency education campaign
SIP House
OVF House
PCM House
EIFS House
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, TN
SIP and OVF Pair of Homes
 Blower Door Tests
 Tracer Gas Experiments
 IR Thermography Diagnostics
Construction Verified Using IR Thermography
OVF House
FLIR
Systems
S65
IR Camera
Min -4.4HS
Max -1.5
Min -7.2 Max
1.2
SIP
ASTM Standard C1060
• ΔT >10°C for 4 hrs
• No Irradiance for 3 hrs
Min -7.8 Max -5.9
• Wind Speed < 15 mph
Min -7.4 Max 1.8
Min -7.9 Max 1.,3
Min -5.9 Max -2.8
SIP House
SIP House
Min -11.1 Max 4.6
Min -3.7 Max -0.7
Min -11.5 Max 2.0
Min -5.7 Max 2.0
Min -6.1 Max -3.4
OVF House
Kaushik Biswas, Kosny and Miller. “Thermal Integrity Assessment of
Building Envelopes of Experimental Houses Using Infrared Thermography,”
InfraMotion 2010, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Revenue Meter Readings Verify all Homes used
50% less energy than Home Built to IECC 2006
SIP
Strategy
Optimal Value
Framing Strategy
PCM Envelope
EIFS
Envelope
Builders
House1
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
0.05/0.09
0.05/0.13
0.11/0.14
0.08/0.07
NA
Description
HERS
Tracer Gas3ACH
1
International Energy Conservation Code (2006).
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.
2
SIP House Equipment
Characteristics
WAHP: 2-ton (7kW) capacity
– Cooling COP 4.0 highstage
– Heating COP 5.4 highstage
– 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)
High Stage: 5% of total run time
M. Ally, J. Munk,
V. Baxter, A. Gehl
ASHRAE Summer Meeting San Antonio, TX,
June 23-27, 2012
Cooling Capacity versus EWT
High Stage: 3% of total run time
M. Ally, J. Munk,
V. Baxter, A. Gehl
ASHRAE Summer Meeting San Antonio, TX,
June 23-27, 2012
OVF Home Salient Features
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 Performance
After a full year of exposure to the elements both WRB systems
are adequately protecting the sheathing on the south-facing wall
Phase Change Material
(PCM) Home
E+ Model of PCM Home
Exterior Double Wall Assembly
PCM applied in the insulation will provide thermal buffering in wall
PCM - Cellulose
24” OC
2 by 4 studs
ZIP Panel




Cellulose
Fabric Mesh
Gypsum
board
24” OC
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 Flux
SIP and OVF Homes have cathedral ceilings
PCM 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 Flux
Winter data shows continual heat loss to the cold outdoors
E+ predicted SIP and OVF wall flux better than EIFS (low-e foil)
Rising Sun
Heating Wall
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
South Wall
Conclusions
East Wall
 HERS scores and revenue meter data prove all
Fully
Partially
Fully
Partially
homes consume
only
about
half
the
energy
2
Active1
Active
Active1compliant
Active2
consumed by conventional
IECC
(2006)
house
out of Year
0
130 the WRB
31 which140
Days
Driving
rains do not
penetrate
provide good protection from moisture intrusion
Percent
of Days predicted
out
E+ (v7.0)
heat flux
through 8%
the roofs38%
and
0%
36%
of Year
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
Actual and Standard costs for the Four
ZEBRA Houses
House 1
SIP House
Costs Items
Labor~
Supervision/
Administration~
Architectural*
Engineering°
Total Costs
House 2
OVF House
House 3
PCM House
House 4
EIFS House
Actual Standard Actual Standard Actual Standard
Costs
Costs
Costs
Costs
Costs
Costs
$
$
$
$
$
$
11,659 6,750
8,222
6,750
7,376 6,750
74,115 27,000
36,326 27,000
46,639 27,000
Actual Standard
Costs
Costs
$
$
5,455 6,750
39,181 27,000
14,880 26,566
2,455
4,735
596,000 557,900
158
20,094
2,894 3,052
412,800 422,000
Total Costs ($)
Total Square Footage
Total Cost Per Square Foot ($)
1,502
25,795
2,035
3,537
526,700 541,700
260
21,227
2,686 2,945
444,800 445,800
House 1
SIP House
House 2
OVF House
House 3
PCM House
House 4
EIFS House
$557,900
3,713
150
$541,700
3,713
$145
$445,800
2,721
$163
$422,000
2,721
$155

similar documents