Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Building America Systems Evaluation
Simple, Non‐Distributed Heating Systems
in Cold‐Climate Homes
PREPARED FOR:
NATIONAL ENERGY TECHNOLOGY LABORATORY
3610 COLLINS FERRY ROAD
MORGANTOWN, WV
26507‐0880
&
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE,
NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LABORATORY DIVISION,
1617 COLE BOULEVARD,
GOLDEN, CO
80401‐3393
PREPARED BY STEVEN WINTER ASSOCIATES, INC.
FOR THE
CONSORTIUM FOR ADVANCED RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS (CARB)
STEVEN WINTER ASSOCIATES, INC.
50 WASHINGTON STREET
NORWALK, CT 06854
TEL: (203)857‐0200 / FAX: (203)852‐0741
CONTACT: ROBB ALDRICH
DATE: DECEMBER 2009
Table of Contents
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... 3
1.1. Overview ........................................................................................................................ 3
1.2. Key Results ................................................................................................................... 3
1.1. Gate Status .................................................................................................................... 3
2. PROJECT OVERVIEW – RDI WISDOM WAY SOLAR VILLAGE ..................................... 4
2.1. Plans .............................................................................................................................. 4
2.2. Basement ...................................................................................................................... 4
2.3. Above-Grade Walls ....................................................................................................... 4
2.4. Attic ................................................................................................................................ 5
2.5. Windows ........................................................................................................................ 5
2.6. Heating Systems ........................................................................................................... 6
2.7. Ventilation Systems ..................................................................................................... 6
2.8. Water Heating ............................................................................................................... 7
2.9. Solar Electric Systems ................................................................................................. 7
3. SHORT-TERM TESTING .................................................................................................... 7
3.1. Research Questions ..................................................................................................... 7
3.2. Blower Door, Airflow, and Power Measurements ...................................................... 8
3.3. Tracer Gas and Temperature Distribution Testing Procedure ................................. 9
3.4. Air Distribution Results ............................................................................................... 9
3.5. Thermal Comfort Analysis and Results ................................................................... 11
3.5.1. Thermal Design Considerations ............................................................................................................. 11
3.5.2. Thermal Comfort Test Results ............................................................................................................... 12
2
3
Table 1. Stage 1B Gate Criteria for Non‐Distributed Heating System Evaluation.
"Must Meet" Gate Criteria No Go Recycle Go
1. Source Energy Savings and Whole Building Benefits
New whole house system solutions must provide demonstrated source energy and
whole building performance benefits, including labor and material cost tradeoffs, X
comfort, durability, reliability, health, ..., relative to current system solutions based on
BA test and analysis results.
2. Performance-Based Code Approval
Must meet performance-based safety, health, and building code requirements for use in X
new homes.
"Should Meet" Gate Criteria
1. Prescriptive-Based Code Approval
Should meet prescriptive safety, health, and building code requirements for use in new X
homes.
2. Cost Advantage
Should provide strong potential for cost benefits relative to current systems within a X
whole building context.
3. Reliability Advantage
Should meet reliability, durability, ease of operation, and net added value requirements X
for use in new homes.
3. Manufacturer/Supplier/Builder Commitment
Should have sufficient logistical support (warranty, supply, installation, maintenance X
support) to be used in prototype homes.
5. Gaps Analysis
Should include system's gaps analysis, lessons learned, and evaluation of major X
technical and market barriers to achieving the targeted performance level.
2. Project Overview – RDI Wisdom Way Solar Village
RDI’s Wisdom Way Solar Village is described in more detail in the case study “Building America 40+%
Cold Initial Community Scale: RDI’s Wisdom Way Solar Village” updated in December 2010. The key
features of the home energy systems are also listed here.
2.1. Plans
The community consists of twenty homes in ten duplexes as outlined below:
Four 2‐bedroom, one‐story homes (1,137 gross ft2; two of these are fully accessible)
Four 2‐bedroom, two‐story homes (1,140 gross ft2)
Nine 3‐bedroom, two‐story homes (1,390 gross ft2)
Three 4‐bedroom, two‐story homes (1,773 gross ft2)
The community was designed so that all homes have excellent solar access for both passive and
active collection. Plans for the three‐bedroom home used for short‐term testing are included in
the Appendix.
2.2. Basement
All homes have full, unconditioned basements. The first‐floor joist bays are insulated with
dense‐blown cellulose (11.5” for approximately R‐39 ft2hr°F/Btu).
2.3. Above-Grade Walls
Each exterior wall begins with a load‐bearing, 2x4 framed wall (framing at 16” on center).
Carpenters then enclose the entire envelope (wall sheathing, roofing, windows, doors, etc.).
Once the home is enclosed, carpenters begin interior framing and construct an additional 2x4
4
wall five inches inside of the load‐bearing, exterior wall. Fiber‐reinforced polyethylene (in the
first two homes) or insulation netting (in the later homes) is stapled to the inner studs, and the
entire 12” wall cavity is filled with dry‐blown cellulose insulation at densities of approximately
3.4 lbm/ft3. Whole‐wall R‐value is approximately 42 ft2hr°F/Btu.
Figure 1. Typical wall section from Austin Design, Inc.
2.4. Attic
Roofs of the home are constructed with manufactured, raised‐heel trusses. Vented attics
incorporate full soffit and ridge vents and full insulation baffles at every truss bay. Homes are
insulated with 14” of loose‐blown cellulose for an R‐value of approximately 50 ft2hr°F/Btu.
2.5. Windows
On north, east, and west facades, RDI installed triple‐pane windows. On the southern facades,
higher solar gain double‐pane windows were used. Window properties are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Window properties at the Wisdom Way Village.
U-value
Orientation Manufacturer Description [Btu/ft2hr°F] SHGC VT
Double-pane, low-e
South Paradigm 0.26 0.37 0.53
on surface 3
Triple-pane, low-e
North, East, West Paradigm 0.18 0.23 0.37
on surfaces 2 and 5
5
Figure 2. Gas room heater in the living room of the 3‐bedroom home tested.
To alleviate concerns about temperature differentials – and to improve ventilation performance
– CARB worked with RDI to design a very simple air distribution system. This is described more
in the “Ventilation Systems” section below. To assure comfort in bathrooms, each upstairs
bathroom contains a small, 500‐Watt electric resistance heater. The electric heaters are wired
to a crank timer so they cannot be left ON for long periods of time.
2.7. Ventilation Systems
As with most of RDI’s homes, the Wisdom Way dwellings will use an exhaust‐only ventilation
strategy. In the primary bathroom of each home, a Panasonic Whisper Green exhaust fan
(model no. FV‐08VKSL1) is installed and programmed to run continuously to meet the whole‐
building ventilation requirements of ASHRAE standard 62.2‐2007 (30‐60 CFM, depending on the
unit). The fan is also equipped to boost to high speed (80 CFM) for an adjustable amount of
time when the bathroom is in use.
CARB worked with RDI to incorporate a simple, air distribution system to minimize variations in
interior room in air changes. As an added benefit, the system also helps equalize air
temperatures between spaces in the home. Each home contains an additional Panasonic
WhisperGreen fan which “exhausts” air from the ceiling of the first floor and distributes a small
amount of air (20‐25 CFM) to each bedroom. Mechanical plans showing equipment and duct
layouts are included in the Appendix.
6
Figure 3. The exhaust fan and simple duct distribution system installed between the first and
second floors.
2.8. Water Heating
Most of the energy needs for domestic water heating in the homes will be provided by solar
thermal systems. Flat‐plate solar collectors are mounted on the southern roof of each home,
and a propylene glycol antifreeze solution is circulated between the collectors and a heat
exchanger located in a storage tank in the basement. A direct‐current pump circulates the
glycol; the pump is powered by a dedicated PV module. Auxiliary water heating in each home is
provided by a sealed‐combustion, natural gas‐fired, tankless water heater installed in the
basement near the solar tank.
2.9. Solar Electric Systems
Three‐ and four‐bedroom homes have 3,420‐Watt PV systems, and 2‐bedroom homes have
2,850‐Watt systems. Over the course of a year, the larger systems will generate approximately
3,750 kWh; the smaller systems will generate 3,125 kWh. Benchmark analyses show that in a 3‐
bedroom unit, the 3.4‐kW PV system will provide 77% of the homes electrical needs.
3. Short-Term Testing
CARB worked with researchers from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to assess the
performance of a typical three‐bedroom home – one of the first the homes completed. Testing was
performed during one week in February 2009 before the home was occupied.
3.1. Research Questions
The following research questions and goals were identified by CARB and NREL before the testing
was performed.
1. What is the effective leakage area of the unit as measured with a blower door? How
does the leakage area change when the adjacent unit is also pressurized (guarded)? Do
the effective leakage areas meet the design targets (20 in2 or less in each unit)? Is the
fraction of leakage area in the attached wall small enough (<10% of total leakage area)
that the reciprocal age‐of‐air (RAOA) methodology can provide accurate results when
testing only one of the units? Approximately how much error is introduced into the
RAOA calculations?
2. What is the air leakage of the distribution system? What are the installed flow rates of
both the ventilation and air distribution fans? What are the supply and exhaust flow
7
rates of the distribution system? What are the power draws of the ventilation and air
distribution fans in each operating state? Do all of these quantities meet the design
targets?
3. What are the temperatures in various rooms throughout the duplex over consecutive
24‐hour periods with each of the conditions shown in Table 3? Does a central point in
each room meet the ASHRAE Standard 55 comfort recommendations at various times
during each test? Do temperature differentials between rooms meet ACCA Manual RS
guidelines (4°F maximum)? Are there any noticeable hot or cold spots on interior
surfaces as measured using an IR camera?
Table 3. Test matrix for measuring uniformity of heating and outside air distribution.
Test Ventilation Distribution
Case Doors Fan Fan Notes
0 Closed Off Off Base case; no ventilation
1 Closed On On
2 Closed On Off
2
3 Closed On Off 1 in opening in each bedroom
4 Open On On
60‐W lamp in each bedroom. No tracer
5 Closed On On
gas tests; temp measurements only.
4. Using one unit of the duplex as the test space, what are the differences in outside air
distribution (i.e. RAoA) throughout the duplex, using the operating conditions shown in
Table 3?
3.2. Blower Door, Airflow, and Power Measurements
To test envelope air leakage, CARB performed blower door testing on each half of the duplex
separately and coincidentally to assess leakage through the party wall. The three‐bedroom unit
where the short‐term testing was performed had total envelope leakage of 273 CFM when the
home was depressurized to 50 Pa. A five‐point blower door regression showed total effective
leakage area (ELA) of 11.2 in2. When the neighboring unit was depressurized coincidentally,
leakage dropped by 40 CFM50 and 0.2 in2. With such low party wall leakage, researchers
concluded that tracer gas testing and RAoA calculations could be done effectively in only one
half of the duplex. Significant testing in the other half was not possible as it was already
occupied.
The HVAC layout for the home tested is included in the appendix. CARB measured airflow and
power consumption for both fans. Using an Alnor low‐flow balometer, CARB measured
continuous exhaust flow from the fan in the second‐floor bathroom at 47 CFM; when boosted to
high‐speed, exhaust flow was 72 CFM. Power consumption was measured at 6 Watts and 11
Watts, respectively. Intake airflow measured at the ceiling distribution fan was 90 CFM, while
the total supply flow measured at the three bedroom registers was 81 CFM. While there
appears to be 9 CFM of duct leakage, this is actually within the measurement uncertainty of the
instrument (±3% of reading + 5 CFM for each measurement). Power draw of the distribution fan
was measured at 11 Watts.
8
Figure 4. Sensor stand in one bedroom containing tracer gas sampling point and shielded
thermocouple. Photo from NREL.
3.4. Air Distribution Results
Tracer gas tests performed with all doors closed and the distribution fan turned off (test case 2)
showed that there were indeed discrepancies in air change rates in different parts of the home
(see Case 2 in Figure 5). The chart shows that reciprocal age of air (RAoA) in the northeast
bedroom is almost half that of the central living spaces. (With units of hr‐1, reciprocal age of air,
or RAoA, can sometimes be considered similar to air changes per hour.)
CARB has found similar results in other homes: with exhaust‐only ventilation systems, different
areas of the home experience very different air change rates when doors in the home are
9
closed. When doors are open, there is virtually no difference in air change rates. In this tested
RDI home, when the distribution fan was turned ON (Case 1), the variations in air change rates
are dramatically reduced. The lowest RAoA is again in the northeast bedroom at 0.27 hr‐1, but
the highest values – in the kitchen and living room – is only 0.32 hr‐1.
Based on these results, CARB has concluded that this simple distribution system – moving 25‐30
CFM from the central space to each bedroom – does indeed address concerns about unequal air
change rates in different parts of these homes.
What remains unclear is what real implications that such variations in air change rates have.
Builders like RDI have used exhaust‐only ventilation in hundreds of relatively small, efficient
homes with no apparent performance, health, or durability problems. On the other hand, when
bedrooms are occupied doors are often closed; receiving half the air changes under these
circumstances does not seem ideal. It seems that the simple distribution system in these homes
seems to address this “problem” quite effectively. CARB hopes this research will lead to greater
understanding of these systems, but CARB believes more investigation is needed of
performance issues and IEQ implications of various ventilation systems. CARB also hopes that
these investigations will drive development of more small, simple, low‐cost mechanical systems
for high‐performance homes.
Air Change Comparisons
0.40
0.35
0.30
Living Room
0.25
RAOA, hr‐1
Kitchen
0.20
SW BR
0.15 SE BR
NE BR
0.10
Bath
0.05
0.00
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4
Figure 5. Summary of tracer gas reciprocal age of air (RAoA) results. Bars show approximate air
changes under different scenarios. Case 1: doors CLOSED, distribution fan ON. Case 2: doors
CLOSED, distribution fan OFF. Case 3: doors CLOSED, distribution fan OFF, 1 in2 opening in
window in each bedroom. Case 4: doors OPEN, distribution fan ON.
10
11
Natural convection – i.e. warm air rising from downstairs to upstairs – will provide
significant heat to bedrooms, especially when bedroom doors are left open. This was
not quantified during design stages;
When used for sleeping, bedroom temperatures of less than 68‐70°F are often desired
or considered acceptable;
If not used for sleeping, e.g. if a bedroom is used as an office or study, internal gains
substantially higher than the 125 Watts used in the example above are likely. Also,
design temperatures occur in the night or very early morning – not when activity in such
rooms is highest;
Finally, some sparing use of portable electric heaters may be used under extreme
conditions.
3.5.2. Thermal Comfort Test Results
The week of testing in February 2009 had consistent winter weather: a mix of clouds and sun,
high temperatures in the 30’s or 40’s, low temperatures in the teens or twenties (°F). When
CARB and NREL arrived at the home, the heater thermostat was set to approximately 50°F;
researchers set the temperature up to 68°F, but it required almost 10‐12 hours before upstairs
bedrooms were within 4°F of downstairs temperatures.
Plots showing the results of the four relevant test cases pertaining to temperature distribution
are shown below in Figure 6 through Figure 9. Table 4 shows a summary of the “final”
temperature measurements. The table shows air temperatures measured at 4:00 AM during
each test. As tests began at approximately 8:00 AM each day, at 4:00 AM tests had run
approximately 20 hours, and outdoor temperatures were usually near the coldest of each 24‐
hour period; CARB believes these values are as close to “steady state” conditions as possible
during these tests.
Table 4. Summary of temperature distribution test results. “Final” temperatures were recorded
at 4:00 AM of the day of the test, when the test had been running approximately 20 hours and
outdoor temperatures were near their coldest.
"Final" Temperatures
Test Dist. Out‐ Living &
Case Doors Fan Notes doors Kitchen SE BR NE BR SW BR Bath
1 Closed On 17.3 68.9 65.4 63.1 66.4 64.1
2 Closed Off 34.8 70.6 61.8 60.6 62.7 63.7
4 Open On 23.7 69.1 65.9 65.9 66.6 65.7
60‐W lamp in
5 Closed On 26.6 68.1 66.3 65.0 67.4 64.6
each bedroom.
12
Outdoor Temperature, °F
71
Room Temperature, °F
40 Living
69
35 Kitchen
67
SE BR
65 30
NE BR
63 25
Bath
61
20 SW BR
59
Outside
57 15
55 10
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
200
400
600
Hour
Figure 6. Plot showing temperatures during test case 1. All doors in the home were closed, the
distribution fan was running, and the set point of the heater in the living room was 70°F.
RDI Room Temperatures
Case 2: Doors Closed, Distribution Fan Off
75 50
73 45
71
Room Temperature, °F
Outdoor Temperature, °F
40 Living
69
Kitchen
67 35
SW BR
65 30
SE BR
63 25
NE BR
61
20 Bath
59
15 Outside
57
55 10
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
800
200
400
600
Hour
Figure 7. Plot showing temperatures during test case 2. All doors in the home were closed, the
distribution fan was turned off, and the set point of the heater in the living room was 70°F.
13
Outdoor Temperature, °F
40 Living
69
Kitchen
67 35
SW BR
65 30
SE BR
63 25
NE BR
61
20 Bath
59
15 Outside
57
55 10
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
800
200
400
600
Hour
Figure 8. Plot showing temperatures during test case 4. All doors in the home were open, the
distribution fan was running, and the set point of the heater in the living room was 70°F.
71
40 Outdoor Temperature, °F Living
69
Kitchen
67 35
SW BR
65 30
SE BR
63 25
NE BR
61
20 Bath
59
15 Outside
57
55 10
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
200
400
600
800
Hour
Figure 9. Plot showing temperatures during test case 5. All doors in the home were closed, the
distribution fan was running, a 60‐Watt lamp was turned on in each bedroom, and the set point
of the heater in the living room was 70°F.
14
While the charts of temperature results are informative in themselves, CARB used the test
results to create a simple, steady‐state heat transfer model to predict temperatures in
bedrooms under varying conditions. The variable inputs to this model are outdoor temperature,
living room temperature, internal gains in each bedroom, and condition of the bedroom doors
(open or closed). This model was based on calculations similar to those described in “Thermal
Design Considerations” above, but the assumptions were refined based on measurements and
test results. The tests also allowed approximations for natural convective heat transfer from
downstairs to upstairs bedrooms (which varied tremendously when doors were open or closed).
While the model is very simple, it has helped CARB predict thermal comfort under various
conditions and develop recommendations for RDI and home residents.
Several example results of the steady‐state model are shown below. The first, in Table 5, shows
conditions similar to test conditions 1 and 4 (see Table 4). In this scenario, the unoccupied
northeast and southeast bedrooms – with doors closed – would be more than 4°F cooler than
the downstairs space (this 4°F tolerance is used in comfort standards such as ACCA Manual RS).
Table 5. Output of CARB’s steady‐state heat transfer model predicting bedroom temperatures.
Downstairs Temp: 70 °F
Outdoor Temp: 20 °F
Internal Gains: 0 Watts
SW BR SE BR NE BR
Doors Closed 67°F 65°F 63°F
Doors Open 68°F 67°F 66°F
The example shown in Table 6 parallels test case 5, where a 60‐Watt lamp was lit in each
bedroom to simulate a single, sleeping person. The effects of such a small load are noticeable
(see Figure 9 as well), but the temperature in the northeast bedroom (with doors closed) is still
more than 4°F lower than the central space downstairs.
Table 6. Output of CARB’s steady‐state heat transfer model predicting bedroom temperatures.
Downstairs Temp: 70 °F
Outdoor Temp: 20 °F
Internal Gains: 60 Watts
SW BR SE BR NE BR
Doors Closed 69°F 68°F 65°F
Doors Open 70°F 69°F 68°F
If, instead of sleeping, the person in each bedroom were awake (generating approximately 80
Watts) and using loads such as efficient lighting (20 Watts) and a laptop computer (20 Watts),
the model predicts that all rooms would be within 2°F of the downstairs temperature, whether
or not the doors are open or closed. This scenario is shown in Table 7.
15
Table 7. Output of CARB’s steady‐state heat transfer model predicting bedroom temperatures.
Downstairs Temp: 70 °F
Outdoor Temp: 20 °F
Internal Gains: 120 Watts
SW BR SE BR NE BR
Doors Closed 72°F 70°F 68°F
Doors Open 72°F 70°F 70°F
Of course, 20°F is not the design temperature in Greenfield, MA; the 99% design temperature is
2°F. Under the interior load conditions with 2°F outdoor temperature, Table 8 shows that air
temperature in the northeast bedroom– with doors closed – is again predicted to be more than
4°F below the air temperature downstairs.
Table 8. Output of CARB’s steady‐state heat transfer model predicting bedroom temperatures.
Downstairs Temp: 70 °F
Outdoor Temp: 2 °F
Internal Gains: 120 Watts
SW BR SE BR NE BR
Doors Closed 69°F 67°F 64°F
Doors Open 70°F 68°F 67°F
Under design conditions, the model shows that with internal gains of only 200 Watts the
bedroom temperatures are not more than 2°F below the downstairs air temperature (see Table
9). Such gains are not at all uncommon in occupied rooms where computer equipment, audio
equipment, or televisions are being used. In some cases – when outdoor temperatures are very
low and internal gains are modest, residents may use small electric resistance heaters for short
periods of time to make up this difference.
Table 9. Output of CARB’s steady‐state heat transfer model predicting bedroom temperatures.
Downstairs Temp: 70 °F
Outdoor Temp: 2 °F
Internal Gains: 200 Watts
SW BR SE BR NE BR
Doors Closed 73°F 70°F 68°F
Doors Open 72°F 70°F 69°F
16
17
equipment. Condensing gas room heaters are available in Europe; they may become more
available in the US soon.
5.1.2. Performance-Based Code Approval
There were no code issues – either performance or prescriptive – encountered related to the
mechanical systems in these homes.
5.2. “Should Meet” Criteria
5.2.1. Prescriptive Code Approval
There were no code issues – either performance or prescriptive – encountered related to the
mechanical systems in the homes.
5.2.2. Cost Advantage
The cost savings is the primary benefit of this type of simple mechanical system. In these
homes, the simple heating system saved RDI approximately $4,500 (when compared to their
standard system of a boiler with baseboard convectors). This substantial savings went a long
way to offset the additional $6,050 spent in thermal envelope improvements in each home.
5.2.3. Reliability Advantage
The operation and maintenance of sealed‐combustion, gas‐fired room heaters is generally
simpler than maintenance required on central furnaces. These devices have been available and
in‐use for decades; they simply have not often been the primary heat source for an entire home.
CARB feels that this reliability criterion has not yet been fully addressed because of the lack of
documentation of comfort conditions in occupied homes. After the winter of 2009‐2010, CARB
hopes to have data to more fully address this criterion.
5.2.4. Manufacturer/Supplier/Builder Commitment
There are no manufacturer or supplier issues related to this technology. These room heaters
are readily available from several different manufacturers. CARB has also heard reports of more
models – and more efficient models –becoming available.
Regarding builder commitment, as long as comfort and reliability is addressed, RDI is certainly
open to using similar systems in future projects. With the significant publicity that this project
has achieved, there have been several other builders and developers who have expressed
interest in such simple mechanical systems.
5.2.5. Gaps Analysis
5.2.5.1 Comfort
As described above, comfort in bedrooms (without direct heat) is one of the largest concerns
with this system. Based on modeling and short‐term testing, CARB believes that comfort will be
acceptable. CARB hopes that monitoring of occupied homes over the winter of 2009‐2010 will
satisfactorily address these comfort questions.
5.2.5.2 Larger Homes
RDI’s homes are very small; it’s largely because of this that CARB and RDI considered using a
single room heater for the entire space. In larger or more complex homes, single point‐source
heating is likely not viable. However, there still may be tremendous savings from using two or
18
three small, point‐source heaters (gas room heaters, mini‐split heat pumps, etc.) rather than a
conventional distributed HVAC system. Implications for larger homes need to be investigated
further.
5.2.5.3 Ventilation Air Distribution
The small, simple distribution system installed in these homes – combined with the exhaust‐only
ventilation system – appeared to address variations in air change rates in all spaces when doors
are closed. However, there is still a question about performance of exhaust‐only ventilation
without such a distribution system.
In addition, the distribution system uses an exhaust fan. CARB has talked to several HVAC
equipment manufacturers about a distribution fan of similar size and power consumption but
with potential for air filtration and possibly even auxiliary resistance heat. For larger homes,
slightly larger fans may be appropriate. As this is relatively new territory, CARB believes a great
deal more investigation is needed into appropriate applications and equipment for such small,
simple air systems.
6. Discussion and Conclusions to Date
Homes like these – that are really approaching zero energy – are forcing a paradigm shift in HVAC
systems. There are simply no conventional heating systems sized to meet these small loads. Also, as
shown above, typical internal gains in bedrooms are on the same order of magnitude as heat lost
through the envelope. Not only would any conventional furnace or boiler capacity be three times the
size of the design load of these homes, unless each bedroom was a separate zone, a conventional
system would also not account for varying internal gains in bedrooms; this could frequently result in
overheating of spaces without a thermostat.
With the investigations done to date, SWA believes this simple, efficient, low‐cost, low‐maintenance
HVAC system will provide comfort as good – if not better – than a conventional system (such as a central
gas furnace). The one homeowner who occupied a home during the winter of 2008‐2009 said there was
no need for auxiliary heat in bedrooms; they stayed comfortable. Monitoring and interviews from the
winter of 2009‐2010 will shed more light on comfort and performance issues in the homes.
If performance results continue to be positive, CARB believes that small, simple HVAC systems can offer
tremendous cost‐savings in high‐performance homes – at least partially offsetting the cost of super‐
insulated envelopes. In these RDI homes, the added thermal envelope features cost RDI approximately
$6,050 (when compared to their standard construction: 2x6 walls with blown cellulose, double‐pane
windows, R‐38 attics). With the simple mechanical systems, RDI saved approximately $4,500 when
compared to their conventional heating system (boiler with hydronic baseboard convectors). Such
savings can be tremendously helpful in achieving Building America performance goals cost‐effectively.
7. Appendix: Mechanical Layout for Tested Home
19