2516 Energy Performance Townhouses

A DVANCED H OUSING T ECHNOLOGY P ROGRAM
M ONITORING AND E VALUATION OF THE E NERGY P ERFORMANCE OF THE

ST
21 C ENTURY T OWNHOUSE U NITS
Subcontract No. 86X-SC895C and 62X-SC895C
Prepared for:
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6501
by:
NAHB Research Center, Inc.

400 Prince George’s Boulevard
Upper Marlboro, MD 20774-8731
June 1997
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF TOWNHOUSE UNITS ................................ 3

TOWNHOUSE UNIT 7—STRUCTURAL INSULATED PANELS ......................................... 3
Foundation ....................................................................................................... 3
First and Second Levels .................................................................................. 3
Exterior Finish ................................................................................................. 4
Attic/Roof ......................................................................................................... 4
Mechanical/Plumbing ..................................................................................... 4
TOWNHOUSE UNIT 8—INSULATING CONCRETE FORMS ............................................. 5
Foundation ....................................................................................................... 5
Exterior Finish ................................................................................................. 5
Roof/Attic ......................................................................................................... 5
TOWNHOUSE UNIT 9—STEEL FRAME.......................................................................... 6
Foundation ....................................................................................................... 6
Exterior Finish ................................................................................................. 6
Attic/Roof ......................................................................................................... 6
Mechanical\Plumbing ..................................................................................... 6
TOWNHOUSE UNIT 10—AUTOCLAVED AERATED CONCRETE .................................... 7
Foundation ....................................................................................................... 7
First And Second Levels ................................................................................. 7
Exterior Finish ................................................................................................. 8
Attic/Roof ......................................................................................................... 8
MODEL CODE ENERGY ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 8

DATA AND METHOD FOR THE ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL TOWNHOUSE UNITS .......... 9
Townhouse Unit 7 .......................................................................................... 12
MEC Analysis Results ......................................................................... 14
Energy Consumption Estimates .......................................................... 15
Townhouse Unit 8 .......................................................................................... 17
Townhouse Unit 9 .......................................................................................... 22
Townhouse Unit 10 ........................................................................................ 27
ENERGY SIMULATION ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 32
TOWNHOUSE ENERGY PERFORMANCE MONITORING–COOLING SEASON ............... 35

Air Conditioning Energy Consumption ...................................................... 35
Performance of Individual Townhouse Units ............................................. 36
Townhouse Unit 7— Structural Insulated Panels ............................... 36
Townhouse Unit 8— Insulating Concrete Forms ................................ 41
Townhouse Unit 9— Steel Frame with Spray Foam Insulation .......... 45
Townhouse Unit 10— Light Weight Autoclaved Aerated
Concrete .................................................................................. 50
Building Temperature Profile ...................................................................... 55
Temperature Response ................................................................................. 57
TOWNHOUSE ENERGY PERFORMANCE MONITORING–HEATING SEASON ............... 62
Performance of Individual Townhouse Units ............................................. 63
Townhouse unit 7— Structural Insulated Panels ................................ 63
Townhouse Unit .................................................................................. 65
8— Insulating Concrete Foam Forms ................................................. 65
Townhouse Unit 9— Steel Frame with Spray Foam Insulation .......... 69
Townhouse Unit 10— Lightweight Aerated Autoclaved
Concrete .................................................................................. 73
Summary ........................................................................................................ 76
VISITOR SURVEYS ....................................................................................................... 77
Likelihood of Adoption ................................................................................. 78
Attributes Influencing Adoption of Innovations ........................................ 81
INTRODUCTION
st
The NAHB Research Center (Research Center) built four 21 Century Townhouses in its
Research Home Park as part of the Research Center’s research home program. The principal
objective of the program is to:
Test, demonstrate, and gain experience with innovative home building

products, systems, and technologies to aid the movement of innovative
products and systems into the mainstream of home construction.
st
Products incorporated in the 21 Century Townhouses feature two themes:
• innovative structural systems in home building and

• approaches to achieving advanced residential energy efficiency.
The objective of Task 2 of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Advanced Housing
Technology Program (AHTP); is to “initiate the monitoring and evaluation of the
performance of selected energy-related technologies included in the townhouses.” This task
begins with the selection of technologies or attributes of units to be studied. It then proceeds
with the development and initiation of an overall analytical approach to the technical analysis
and monitoring protocols. In this report, the Research Center evaluates the results to date and
synthesizes the findings.
This report focuses on the second theme, the analysis and evaluation of energy-related
technologies as they affect residential energy efficiency. A comprehensive survey of visitors’
reactions to the Photovoltaic (PV) solar system in one of the townhouses was initiated in
October 1997 and completed in March 1997. Subsequently, another more general survey
pertaining to the other energy-related technologies was implemented in March 1997. The
initial results of the survey of PV technology will be included in a separate report devoted to
building integrated photovoltaics (BIPV). The initial results of the general survey to-date is
included as part of this report.
st
The NAHB Research Center’s 21 Century Townhouse project consists of four townhouses.
In keeping with the objective of demonstrating innovative products, a minimal amount of
dimensional lumber framing was used in the construction of the townhouses. The
construction materials include high and low density foams, oriented strand board (OSB),
structural insulated panels with insulating foam, high and low density concrete, and steel
framing.
According to Prince George’s County’s original lot number designations, individual

townhouse units in this report are referenced as units 7, 8, 9, and 10. Their significant
features are as follows:
• Townhouse unit 7 walls and roof are constructed of Structural Insulated

Panels (SIPs) consisting of two panels of OSB sheathing enclosing an
NAHB Research Center, Inc. 1 June 1997

expanded polystyrene (EPS) core. This unit uses a gas fueled heat pump
for both heating and cooling.
• The foundation walls of units 7, 8, and 9 are constructed using insulating
concrete forms (ICFs) provided by ICE, which uses forms made of EPS
that are stacked, reinforced with metal rebars, and filled with concrete.
• The main feature of unit 8 is its construction using ICFs, from foundation
to gable. This townhouse uses an integrated hot water/furnace unit for
heating and an electric outdoor unit for cooling.
• Unit 9 is characterized by its steel frame construction with Icynene spray
foam insulation in the wall and ceiling. This townhouse unit uses a ground
source heat pump for both heating and cooling and includes a hot water
desuperheater.
• Unit 10 features walls that are constructed using Hebel’s lightweight
autoclaved aerated concrete (AAC) blocks. The roof is wood truss
framing insulated with spray foam and blown fiberglass. The foundation
walls are constructed using Superior Wall’s pre-formed concrete panels.
A PV solar system, with inverter and battery storage, supplements the
utility electric supply. The home uses an integrated hot/water furnace unit
for heating and an electric outdoor unit for cooling, similar to townhouse
unit 8.
In summary, units can be identified either by their numbers or their most significant structural
feature:
• unit number 7—SIP construction

• unit number 8—ICF construction
• unit number 9—Steel Frame construction
• unit number 10—AAC construction
Townhouse units are designed with common walls between the units. Units 8 and 9, have an
ICF common interior wall with each other; units 7 and 10, share a common wall with an
unconditioned garage as an adjoining unit. In this respect, units 7 and 10 have more in
common with detached housing units than attached units typical in townhouse construction.
Unit 7 was occupied during the period of performance. Unit 8 was occupied for a portion of
the period of performance, and units 9 and 10 were unoccupied during the entire period of
performance. Each of the units were available for numerous tours and each contains
appliances and lighting which may have been operational throughout the period of
performance.

STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF TOWNHOUSE UNITS
This section contains the detailed structural characteristics of each of the townhouse units
which is useful in interpreting the results of the energy analyses.
TOWNHOUSE UNIT 7—STRUCTURAL INSULATED PANELS
Foundation
The foundation wall consists of the ICE Block stay-in-place concrete wall forming system to
form an 8' basement. The ICE Block walls have a stated R-value of 26. The forms consist of
expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam with a light-gauge steel web connecting interior and exterior
form walls. The total wall thickness measures 11-1/8" with the concrete core a structural
equivalent of an 8" conventional reinforced concrete wall. Window and door block-outs consist
of 2 x 12 pressure-treated lumber left in place after concrete placement to serve as a means for
attaching doors and windows. A 2 x 12 pressure-treated sill plate was fastened to the top of the
foundation wall with anchor bolts.
The floor of the walk-out basement is an uninsulated concrete slab reinforced with wire mesh.
The slab is stepped 6" to divide the one-car garage and family room. A double 18 gauge steel
frame wall separates the garage and living areas. Inner and outer walls consist of 3.5" 18 gauge
steel studs with a 5/8" type-X fire-rated gypsum wallboard between the inner and outer steel
stud wall. A 1" void separates the wallboard surface from the outer wall. The outer wall stud
bays and space between walls are insulated with the Icynene Insulation System, a modified
urethane spray-on foam.
Windows and a single patio door in the basement are low-E glazed, argon-filled Andersen units
with a U-value of 0.32 (R-3). The door between the garage and living area is a steel Therma-
Tru unit with an R-9 foam filled core and steel frame, carrying a 90 minute fire rating. The 8' x
7' garage door is supplied by Masonite.
The below-grade exterior walls are treated with EPRO water-based foundation waterproofing
system in lieu of a petroleum based coat that would cause the foam to melt. Both sides of the
interior wall separating garage and living area were clad with 5/8" type-X gypsum wallboard,
completing the fire-rating required by code. All other interior walls were 1/2" gypsum
wallboard attached by screwing directly into a light gauge steel flange embedded in the ICE
Block form.
First and Second Levels
The floor decks consists of 16" 125 series TrusJoist I-beams (TJIs) set on the foundation sill
plate, running front to back. Joists are spaced 24" on-center with a 3/4" plywood rim joists.
The flooring consists of 3/4" Weyerhaeuser Structurboard oriented strand board (OSB) with
tongue and groove edges. Floor sheathing is fastened to joists with construction adhesive and
nails. To decrease air infiltration, the rim joist area is sealed with Amoco's Infi Seal, a gasketed
air barrier that is set under the sill plate and wraps over the joist onto the floor deck. The

interior overlap is then attached to the wall surface under the wallboard. The rim joist area is
insulated with the Icynene Insulation System spray-in foam to an R-19 value. The joist bays
above the unconditioned garage are also insulated with the Icynene Insulation System.
The exterior wall is constructed of stress skin insulated panels. Wall panels consists of a 3-5/8"
(EPS) foam core sandwiched by layers of 7/16" OSB. Typically, stress-skin panels have no
interior wall studs or headers. Some do recess the foam between OSB faces at the top, bottom,
and sides, and window and door openings sufficient to place a nominal 2 x 4 stud that facilitates
attachment. However, the local fire code required the panels to be manufactured with 2 x 4
studs at least every 8 feet vertically and horizontally as draft/fire stops. Wall height for both
floors is 8'.
Interior partition walls are framed with 25 gauge metal studs. Windows and patio door are
Andersen low-E, argon-filled units with a U-value ranging from 0.33 to 0.35 (R-3). The front
door is an R-9 Therma-Tru fiberglass insulated door. The single patio door opens onto a
potential deck/balcony at the rear of the unit. Interior walls and ceilings are clad with 1/2"
gypsum wallboard except the party wall separating interior living area with the garage of
another unit, which is two layers of 5/8" type-X fire-rated gypsum wallboard.
Intermediate load bearing capacity for the second level floor is provided by a pair of beams. A
flush Micro=lam laminated veneer lumber (LVL) 1-3/4" x 16" beam supports half the floor.
The other half is supported by a dropped beam consisting of a single of 3-1/2" x 12" Parallam
which has been incorporated into the kitchen bulkhead.
Exterior Finish
A United States Gypsum (USG) exterior insulation and finish system (EIFS) was used on the
exterior walls. A 1" layer of expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam was attached with mastic and
Windlock fasteners to all wall surfaces. The foam serves as a base for the USG base coat and
mesh. A pre-colored finish was trowel-applied over all base coat areas.
Attic/Roof
The roof is constructed with 8" sandwich insulated panels with an R-value of 30, making the
unfinished attic conditioned space. It is covered with 30 pound asphalt roofing felt and an
ATAS standing seam metal roof system. The gable ends are constructed of the same sandwich
panels as the walls.
Mechanical/Plumbing
Heating and air conditioning will be provided by York Triathlon gas-engine heat pump. The
water heater will also be a gas unit. Basement and second level supply registers are located in
the ceiling and the first level supply registers are in the floors.
A combined sprinkler system with all ceiling heads was also installed.

TOWNHOUSE UNIT 8—INSULATING CONCRETE FORMS
Foundation
The foundation of unit 8 uses the same ICE Block system described for townhouse unit 7 to
form a walk out basement. The floor consists of a concrete slab and the finished ceiling
height is 9' 4". EPRO waterproofing is applied on below grade exterior walls. The interior is
clad with 1/2" gypsum drywall. Windows and the patio door are Andersen argon-filled with
low-E glazing. The majority of the basement is devoted to a single recreation room with a
closet and a utility room completing the balance. All but 12' of the east-facing basement wall
is shared with unit 9. The 12 foot segment has an exterior exposure.

All exterior walls are constructed of 9 1/4" ICE Block (6" equivalent core). The east-facing
wall of the first and second level is shared with unit 9. Interior partitions are framed with 25
gauge steel studs. Interior walls and ceilings are covered with 1/2" gypsum wallboard. The
first floor deck is framed side to side with 135 Series 16" deep TJIs spanning the 22' 6" width
of the unit spaced 24" on center. The joists are hung on Micro=lam ledges that are attached
to the exterior walls with two 1/2" x 8" j-bolts every two feet. The floor sheathing is 3/4"
Weyerhaeuser Structurboard OSB. The front door is an R-9 Therma-Tru fiberglass door.
Windows and rear patio door is are Andersen argon-filled, low-E glazed units.
Exterior Finish
The same USG EIFS system used on unit 7 was applied on exterior walls.
Roof/Attic
The roof is framed using wood trusses with raised heels, often referred to as an energy truss.
This design allows an even distribution of insulation to its full height to the edge of the attic
space. The insulation will be 15" of blown-in Certainteed InsulSafe Fiberglass providing an
R-value of 38. The roof is sheathed with 7/16" Weyerhaeuser OSB and covered with 30
pound roofing felt and a ATAS standing seam metal roofing.
Mechanical/Plumbing
The heating plant is a Lennox Complete Heat gas furnace system which also provides
domestic hot water. Air conditioning is a Lennox high-efficiency 12 SEER electric unit.
Basement registers are in the ceiling, first level registers are in the floor, and second level
registers are located in the floor and ceiling and are selectable so that either system or both
are being used.
A GFX drainwater heat recovery system was installed in the drains of the two upstairs
showers. The warm shower drain water tempers the incoming cold water, which feeds the
cold side of the shower diverter valve.
Also, a combined sprinkler system using blazemaster orange and copper pipes with central
supply heads was installed in this townhouse.

TOWNHOUSE UNIT 9—STEEL FRAME
Foundation
The foundation of unit 9 is identical to unit 8, sharing the west-facing wall except for a 12'
section, which has a below-grade exposure.

The first floor is supported by Mitek Posi-Strut steel floor trusses. The trusses span 22' 6" and
are top chord bearing on one end and supported by hangers on the other. Floor sheathing
consisted of 3/4" Weyerhaeuser Structurboard OSB.
Exterior walls are constructed with 2 x 6 light-gauge steel framing members with an actual wall
depth of 5-1/2". Walls are sheathed with Durock cement board except for the west-facing wall
shared with unit 8. Exterior frame walls are insulated with the Icynene Insulation System
described in the section on unit 7, with wall stud bays filled with a 5-1/2" (R-19) layer of
sprayed-in foam.
Interior walls consist of 25 gauge steel framing covered with 1/2" gypsum wallboard. Exterior
window and door openings were lined with pressure-treated 2 x 6 lumber to facilitate
attachment. Windows and patio doors are Andersen argon-filled, low-E glazed units with a U-
value of 0.32 to 0.35, or about R-3. The front door is a Therma-Tru fiberglass unit, and the
door leading to the garage is a Therma-Tru steel door, both with R-9 foam cores.
Exterior Finish
The exterior walls feature the USG EIFS textured finish identical to the system used on unit 7
except for its use of USG Durock sheathing on first and second level steel frame walls. The 1"
EPS foam layer served as the EIFS base and provided the 1" thermal break recommended for
steel stud walls.
Attic/Roof
The roof trusses are Mitek Ultra-Span light gauge steel with a raised-heel design. The roof is
sheathed with 7/16" Weyerhaeuser OSB and attached with Enrico pins, which are
pneumatically driven nails. The ATAS standing seam metal roof is placed on a base of 30
pound roofing felt. The attic is insulated with a 3-1/2" layer of Icynene foam with an additional
layer of Certainteed InsulSafe blown-in fiberglass insulation.
Mechanical\Plumbing
The forced air heating and cooling system features a Waterfurnace ground-source heat pump
with three 180' vertical wells. Domestic hot water is also provided by this unit. The basement
and second floor registers are located in the ceiling, and the first floor registers are located in the
floor. Individual air returns are located on the second level.
A GFX drainwater heat recovery system pre-heats water to the cold water side of the showers
and the water heater intake. A combined fire sprinkler system was installed with side wall
heads.

TOWNHOUSE UNIT 10—AUTOCLAVED AERATED CONCRETE
Foundation
Unit 10 has a Superior Wall pre-cast concrete foundation wall set on a gravel footing. The
design of the Superior Wall foundation is based on the principles of optimum value
engineering, conserving concrete, and steel reinforcement by strategically placing it in load-
bearing vertical studs, reinforced top and bottom plate, and a 1-1/2" concrete exterior surface.
A 1" layer of extruded polystyrene is cast between the exterior wall surface and vertical "studs"
and serves as a thermal break between exterior and interior walls. The resultant wall has
cavities that can be insulated additionally with fiberglass batt insulation. Window and door
block-outs consist of 2 x 8 lumber and serve as a nailing surface for easy attachment.
The foundation forms a walk-out basement. The concrete slab floor is stepped between garage
and living areas identical to unit 7. The doubled steel frame wall between interior living and
garage areas is configured, insulated, and finished identically to unit 7 steel basement wall.
Interior walls are framed with 25 gauge steel studs and interior walls are finished with 1/2"
gypsum wallboard. Windows and the patio door were Andersen argon-filled, low-E glazed
units. The garage has an 8' x 7' Masonite door and the door separating the living area from the
garage is a Therma-Tru R-9 steel unit with steel frame.
First And Second Levels
The entire first and second level exterior walls were built with the Hebel Wall System,
consisting of a lightweight AAC block that contains a load bearing structure, insulation, and
interior and exterior wall substrates in a single material. A reinforced concrete bond beam was
cast between the first and second level and at the top of the Hebel wall using a hollowed Hebel
AAC unit form that corresponds to a U-block in conventional masonry construction. Load-
bearing lintels were constructed over all openings from the same materials. The width of the
Hebel wall is 8". Wall openings were lined with 2 x 8 pressure-treated lumber, a traditional
mechanism for attaching doors and windows.
The first and second level floor systems used TrusJoist International engineered wooden I-
beams for floor support. Each joist has a 3" fire cut at the end bearing on the exterior walls. A
layer of roofing felt was placed between joist and concrete beam to protect the joist against
water absorption. The Hebel material extended to the top of the foundation, so cut-outs were
made in the Hebel material 24" on center to accommodate the joist. The floor sheathing is
Weyerhaeuser 3/4" OSB. The joist bays over the unconditioned garage were filled with the
Icynene Insulation system (R-19). As with unit 7, Micro=lam and Parallam LVL beams were
used as intermediate load-bearing support for the second level floor.
Windows and patio doors are identical to unit 7. The front door is an R-9 Therma-Tru insulated
fiberglass model. Interior walls are framed with 25 gauge steel studs and doors are lined with 2
x 4 lumber to facilitate attachment.
The interior Hebel wall surface was finished with the Litewall interior plaster supplied by Elite
Cement Products, Inc. Interior walls were clad with 1/2" gypsum wallboard.

Exterior Finish
The exterior finish system consists of the Litewall one-coat stucco system supplied by Elite
Cement Products, Inc. The Portland cement-based stucco contains fibrous reinforcement and
polymers to inhibit cracking and to ensure proper adhesion. The mix, designed for use on
AAC, also contains lightweight aggregates to insure the same thermal expansion coefficient as
AAC. The stucco mix was spray-applied as a 3/8" base coat troweled to a smooth surface. The
same mix, which contains texturing aggregates, was hand applied and floated to a textured 1/8"
finish.
Attic/Roof
The roof was framed with raised heel lumber trusses, sheathed with 7/16" OSB, and covered
with 30 pound roofing felt and an ATAS standing seam metal roof. The attic was also insulated
with Certainteed InsulSafe blown-in fiberglass insulation. The east-facing gable is composed of
Hebel building material and finished with the same exterior finish system. The east-facing
gables are clad with OSB, a 1" foam substrate, and USG fiberglass mesh and base coat. The
finish coat was supplied by Elite Cement Products, Inc.
Mechanical/Plumbing
The mechanical system features the Lennox Complete Heat gas furnace and domestic hot water
system. Air conditioning is a Lennox high-efficiency electric unit. Basement and second level
registers are located in the ceiling, and first level registers are located in the floor.
This townhouse is fitted with the electronics for supplying the home with solar-generated
electricity pending the delivery and installation of a roof-mounted photovoltaic module array.
MODEL CODE ENERGY ANALYSIS

In the construction of the townhouse units, a major focus on increased energy efficiency is
realized. The increased efficiency is attributed primarily to the building envelope and space
conditioning equipment. One evaluation which seeks to quantify the increased energy
efficiency is a comparison of the townhouse construction with the minimum requirements of
the Model Energy Code (MEC)1. This particular analysis highlights the benefits of specific
building materials. A short-coming of the basic MEC analysis is that certain aspects of energy
efficiency such as HVAC efficiency, infiltration, and duct losses are not specifically accounted
for in the analysis.
Each of the four units is considered individually. A set of basic thermal transmittance (U) or
2
thermal resistance (R) requirements are established for each unit . These basic requirements
are derived directly from the 1993 MEC. An analysis of each townhouse unit has been
performed to develop specific U-and R-values for the wall, floor, and ceiling/roof
subsystems. The results of this analysis are then used to compare to the requirements on a
subsystem by subsystem basis. The results of the comparison are shown in tabular and
graphical form.
1
The analysis uses the 1993 MEC with the notable exception that each planar basement wall is considered separately. This approach is
consistent with recent changes in the MEC.
2
The higher the U value, the greater the heat transfer across the particular subsystem.

Compliance with the MEC is established when each of the subsystems meet the requirements
3
established for a standard MEC compliant building. The primary influence on the basic UA
requirements is the location of the building and the associated heating degree days (HDD) for
the locality. In a MEC analysis, compliance of individual subsystems helps assure
compliance of the building as a whole. In the event that one subsystem is not in compliance,
a method is available for "trading off" a better performing subsystem for a lesser performing
subsystem, but it is limited.
4
A computer software package, MECcheck , developed at the Pacific Northwest Laboratory,
establishes a base UA requirement for the building according to the wall areas; other features
are included in the design. A whole building performance UA is thus established for the
townhouse unit and compared to the required UA. When the townhouse unit UA is less than
the minimum required UA, the building is in compliance with the 1993 MEC. The software
also includes an option to derive the benefits for a more efficient HVAC plant, a feature not
part of the 1993 MEC.
DATA AND METHOD FOR THE ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL TOWNHOUSE UNITS

5
• Using the BOCA terminology, the four townhouse units are analyzed as Group R
(residential), Type A-1 (detached), and Type A-2 (attached). As noted above, the two end
units are separated from the attached two center units by an unconditioned garage. The
energy analysis is most accurately reflected by considering the units as two detached
single-family homes and one two-family home. However, according to building officials
with Prince George’s County (the local jurisdiction), the units are technically considered
townhouses.
• Weather data used in the analysis is based on ASHRAE 1989 (except for the Heating
Degree Days [HDD] ), for Andrews Air Force Base and includes the following data:
winter dry-bulb temperature = 14°F
summer dry-bulb temperature = 90°F
design wet-bulb temperature = 76°F
Heating Degree Days (ASHRAE 1981, 65°F base) = 4224
6
Heating Degree Days used in analysis = 4459
• The geographic coordinates are 38° 5' Latitude and 76° 5' Longitude.
• The type A-1 Maximum Wall Uo7 = .2188-(4459*.00001555) = .149
• The type A-2 Maximum Wall Uo = .215
• The type A-1 and A-2 Maximum Roof/Ceiling Uo = .036-[(4459-3900)*.00000476] =

.033
3
the thermal transmittance (U) times the area (A)
4
Version 2.0
5
The regional model building code.
6
the heating degree day value is consistent with that used in the MECcheck program
7
based on the 1993 MEC chapter 8 requirements

• The type A-1 and A-2 Maximum Floor Over Unheated Space Uo = .050
• The type A-1 and A-2 Maximum Basement U = .205-(4459*.0000233) = .101
• The type A-1 and A-2 Minimum Unheated Slab On Grade R = 4.0
The MEC permits an increase in the Wall thermal transmittance (Uo) requirement if the wall
system exhibits as thermal mass characteristics. The basis of the qualification is a calculation
2
of the heat capacity (HC) of the wall exceeding 6 Btu/ft -°F. The heat capacity is found by
the following formula from the MEC:
Heat Capacity = Weight * Specific Heat
Two of the townhouse units are constructed using wall materials which may qualify as
thermal mass. Unit 10 is constructed using lightweight AAC by Hebel Southeast, and unit 8
is constructed using the ICE foam concrete forms filled with high density concrete. Both
systems are analyzed below for qualification as thermal mass:
8
• Hebel Light Weight AAC 8" block characteristics are as follows:
3
Density 32.0 lb/ft
2
Conductivity 0.9 Btu-in/h-ft -F
9
R-value 9.0 (static)
2
Weight 26.0 lb/ft
Specific Heat 0.250 Btu/lb-°F
2
MEC HC value 6.5 Btu/ft -F
Since the AAC HC value is greater than 6.0, it satisfies the criterion for
10
thermal mass using MEC Table 502.1.2c :
Uo for non-mass wall 0.149

11
Uw non-mass wall 0.127
Uw from table (interpolated) 0.167
Maximum Uo for ICE Block Mass Wall 0.177
12
• ICE Foam Form Concrete Block characteristics are as follows:
Density of concrete 150 lb/ft3

Specific Heat of concrete 0.200 Btu/lb-°F
Weight of 6" form 56.4 lb/ft2
MEC HC value (6" form) 11.28 Btu/ft2-°F
Weight of 8" form 76.1 lb/ft2
MEC HC value (8" form) 15.22 Btu/ft2-°F
8
Hebel Block
9
From Hebel literature, an “effective” R-value of 30 is also included in the literature
10
the lightweight AAC is considered a mass wall with mixed insulation and mass
11
using formula in note 6, table 12)
12
manufactured by ICE Block

Since the ICE Block foam form HC value is greater than 6.0, it satisfies the
thermal mass criterion in regard to thermal mass for both the 6” and 8" forms.
MEC Tables 502.1.2a and b were used in the calculation since the insulation is
on both sides of the mass:
Uo for non-mass wall 0.149

13
Uw non-mass wall 0.122
14
Uw from table (interpolated) 0.152
Maximum Uo for ICE Block Mass Wall 0.174
• The level of duct insulation required for ducts on the inside of the building
envelope (not necessarily in conditioned spaces), with a temperature difference
15
(TD) greater than 40 is an R 5.0 ft2-°F-hr/Btu. The ducts in the townhouses are
insulated with a minimum R 6.0.
• The HVAC equipment for each townhouse unit must meet the minimum
equipment efficiencies specified. A comparison of the heating and AC equipment
with the basic requirements are shown in Table 1:
Table 1
HVAC Equipment Installed
HVAC Equipment Unit Heating Cooling

1 2
Water Furnace Ground Source Heat 9 COP = 3.50 EER = 14.7
Pump
3 4
York Triathlon Natural Gas Heat Pump 7 COP = 1.26 SEER = 15.6
3 3
Lennox Complete Heat 8,10 AFUE = 90% SEER = 12.0
1
estimate based on 50 kBtu/hr load and 60F temperature difference
2
estimate based on 27 kBtu/hr load and 20F temperature difference
3
manufacturer's data
4
based on proposed method to calculate SEER using fuel cost for gas & electricity
• Gas water heaters installed must comply with MEC section 504.
The following analyses for each townhouse unit are based on:
• Calculation of the Uo- and R-values necessary for compliance with MEC
requirements given the unique material characteristics and local climatic data.
• Performance of a MEC analysis of each townhouse using MECCheck software.
• Completion of a MEC analysis of the house as built, using REM Design’s
estimation software to derive annual heating and cooling energy use estimates and
costs.
13
using formula in note 6, table 6)
14
average of MEC Table 502.1.2a, Uw = 0.162 and MEC Table 502.1.2b, Uw = 0.142
15
refer to chapter 5 of the MEC

As noted earlier, the units are technically considered townhouses from a building code
standpoint and must comply with MEC requirements for multifamily townhouses, but
actually the two end units, separated from the rest of the units by an unconditioned
garage, can be considered one-family detached units and the two middle units that
share a common wall can be considered two-family units or duplexes. Consequently,
in computing compliance with MEC requirements in the tables that follow, the more
strict MEC requirements for one- and two-family houses were also derived for
comparison purposes.
Townhouse Unit 7
The MEC minimum requirements for each subsystem in unit 7 are shown in Table 2.
16
Table 2
Subsystem U and R Requirements
Space Conditioning
Building Subsystem One- and Two- Multifamily/
Mode Family Townhouses
Uo Uo
Walls Heating or cooling 0.149 0.215
Roof/Ceiling Heating or cooling 0.033 0.033
Floors over unheated Heating or cooling 0.050 0.050
space
R-value R-value
Heated slab on grade Heating NA NA
R-value R-value
Unheated slab on Heating 4.0 4.0
grade
U-value U-value
Basement wall Heating or cooling 0.101 0.101
Crawl wall Heating or cooling NA NA
2
U-values in BTU/hr×ft ×°F; R-values = 1/U
Unit 7 is constructed with ICE Block foundation system enclosing the basement. The SIPs,
manufactured by Insulspan Co., enclose the first and second floors. One-inch expanded
polystyrene (EPS) board is added as insulation to the outside of the SIPs for application of the
wall finishing system. Also, SIPs eight inches thick are used for the roof system.
16
Adapted from Table 502.2.1 1993 MEC

Table 3 describes the physical dimensions of unit 7. Wall sections representing different
construction materials are included separately.
Table 3
Construction Features of Unit 7
Wall/Ceiling Surface Area U-value UA-Value Subscript
1
ICE Block 182.85 0.068 12.39 w1
2
Top Plate 17.54 0.081 1.42 w2
SIP Wall 1703.03 0.046 77.84 w3
3
Wood wall framing members 245.04 0.112 27.40 w4
Framed Gable Sections 331.62 0.055 18.38 w5
4
Garage/Basement Wall (Steel) 217.09 0.069 14.87 w6
Windows (U=0.32) 197.97 0.320 63.35 g1
Windows (U=0.35) 144.00 0.350 50.40 g2
Windows (U=0.31) 24.00 0.310 7.44 g3
5
Fireplace Opening 14.33 0.855 12.25 fp
Door (U=0.16) 21.07 0.160 3.37 d1
Door (U=0.14) 21.64 0.140 3.03 d2
Sliding Door (U=0.32) 20.00 0.320 6.40 d3
Total Gross Wall Area (Ao) 3375.30 o

6
Overall U-value (Uo) 0.092 o
Roof (8" SIP) 1049.00 0.029
Floor Over Unheated Space 356.83 0.046
7
Basement Walls 349.50 0.068
R-value
8
Slab Edge (24" insulation depth) 14.76
2
Note: All U-values in Btu/hr-ft -°F
1
basement wall sections less than 50 percent below grade
2
pressure treated wood (nominal 2" x 10.75")
3
nominal 2x4 typical
4
double 3 1/2" steel wall with Icynene thermal break
5
use steel insert, fully enclosed flue box (U-value = steel + air space)
6
[(UA)w 1+(UA)w 2+(UA)w 3+(UA)w 4 +(UA)w 5+(UA)w 6)+(UA)g1+(UA)g 2+(UA)g 3+(UA)fp +(UA)d 1+ (UA)d 2 + (UA)d 3]
Uo =
Ao
7
basement wall sections more than 50 percent below grade
8
slab edge of basement walls considered in Gross Wall Area

The data on unit 7 in Table 2, are compared with the MEC requirements for multifamily
townhouses and single- and two-family units in Table 4, showing the difference in the Uo-
and R-values of various components of the building as built and as required by MEC.
Table 4
Townhouse unit 7 MEC Compliance Record
Multifamily /
Building Element As Built One- and Two-Family
Townhouses
% %
Uo Uo Uo
difference difference
Walls 0.092 0.149 39 0.215 57
Roof/Ceiling 0.029 .033 12 .033 12
Floors over unheated 0.046 .05 8 .05 8
space
R-value R-value R-value
Heated slab on grade NA NA NA
Unheated slab on grade 14.76 4.0 73 4.0 73
U-value U-value U-value
Basement wall 0.068 0.101 33 0.101 33
Crawl wall NA NA NA
2
U-values in BTU/hr*ft *°F
*Percent reduction in Uo from MEC requirement
MEC Analysis Results
The MEC analyses results in Table 4 indicate that each component of unit 7, not only fully
comply with the 1993 MEC, but has substantially lower U-values than required by MEC,
which could contribute to significant increases in energy performance. The exact contribution
to the whole house energy usage depends on the relative importance of each building element
in the total structure. See Appendix A for results of the analysis performed using MECCheck
software.

Energy Consumption Estimates
Energy simulation analysis software was used to evaluate the thermal and energy
17
performance of the whole townhouse. The software package, REM/Design , provides
energy consumption data and an estimate of the annual energy cost for the unit. The energy
analysis calculates the energy performance attributable to the efficiency of the building
envelope components, the HVAC plant, and includes infiltration losses, and duct
performance. A comparison of the estimated energy consumption is also made based on the
1993 MEC. The software analysis for unit 7 shows:
• A MEC minimum required overall Uo of 0.113 compared to an overall Uo

of 0.072 as built.
• The 1993 MEC maximum energy consumption requirements for heating
and cooling of 46.1 million Btu. As compares to an estimated 36.2 million
Btu consumed by the unit as built, a 22 percent reduction.
Figures 1 and 2 graphically summarize the annual component energy consumption estimates
resulting from the software analysis. Figure 3 shows the MEC comparison of heating and
cooling energy consumption and estimated annual cost between the townhouse as constructed
and a similar house constructed to code minimums as analyzed by the software.
Figure 1
Structural insulated Panels
Subsystem Heating Consumption Estimate
Other
Doors
Ceilings/Roofs
Subsystem
Slab Floors
Foundation Walls
Glazing
Above Grade Walls
Infiltration
-6.00 -4.00 -2.00 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
Annual Consumption (Millon Btu)
17
Version 6.05 by Architectural Energy Corporation

Figure 2
Structural Insulated Panels
Subsystem Cooling Consumption Estimate
Other
Infiltration
Above Grade Walls

subsystem
Ceilings/Roofs
Ducts
Internal Gains
Glazing
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
Annual Consumption (Million Btu)
Figure 3
40.0 $500
$450
35.0
$400
30.0
Annual Fuel Consumption (MMBtu/yr)
$350
25.0
$300
20.0 $250
$200
15.0
$150
10.0
$100
5.0
$50
0.0 $0
Heating, Heating, Cooling, Cooling, Cost, Cost,
MEC MEC As MEC MEC As MEC MEC As
Base Designed Base Designed Base Designed
Case Case Case

Townhouse Unit 8
The MEC requirements for each subsystem, included in Table 5, include any benefits as a
result of the use of thermal mass in the above grade wall systems.
18
Table 5
Space Conditioning One- and Two- Multifamily /

Building Subsystem
Uo Uo
Walls Heating or cooling 0.174* 0.215**
space
R-value R-value
R-value R-value
Unheated slab on grade Heating 4.0 4.0
U-value U-value
2
U-values in BTU/hr*ft *°F, R-values = 1/U
* Increase in Uo requirement from 0.149 due to thermal mass credit
** No increase in Uo-value for A-2 residential construction
Unit 8 is constructed with ICE Block foundation system enclosing the basement, first and
second floors. A nominal 8" block is used for the basement and a nominal 6" block is used
for the first and second floors. Raised heel roof trusses are used for the roof system.
18

Table 6
Construction Features of Townhouse Unit 8
1
ICE Block 319.33 0.068 42.73 w1
2
ICE Block 1377.93 0.071 98.46 w2
3
Wood Window/Door Jambs Rough 40.65 0.120 7.87 w3
Framing
Windows (U=0.32) 8.83 0.320 2.83 g1
Windows (U=0.35) 105.00 0.350 36.75 g2
Windows (U=0.31) 72.00 0.310 22.32 g3
Windows (U=0.30) 25.00 0.300 7.50 g4
Door (U=0.16) 21.07 0.160 3.37 d1
Door (U=0.14) 21.64 0.140 3.03 d2
Sliding Door (U=0.32) 53.89 0.320 17.25 d3

4
Ceiling Area 807.20 0.026
Floor Over Unheated Space NA NA
5
R-value
6
Note: All U-values in Btu/hr-ft2-°F
1
basement wall sections less than 50 percent below grade, 8" ICE Block
2
6" ICE Block
3
2 x 8 wood typical
4
[(UA )w 1+(UA )w 2+(UA )w 3)+(UA )g 1+(UA )g 2+(UA )g 3+(UA )g 4+(UA ) fp +(UA )d 1+(UA )d 2+(UA )d 3] 5base
Uo =
Ao
ment wall sections more than 50 percent below grade
6

townhouses and single- and two-family units in Table 7, showing the difference in Uo and R-
Values of various components of the building as built and as required by MEC.
Table 7
Townhouse Unit 8 MEC Compliance Record
Building Subsystem Space One- and Two- Multifamily /

Conditioning Family Townhouses
Mode
% %
Uo Uo Difference Uo Difference
Walls 0.117 0.174 33 0.215* 46
Roof/Ceiling 0.026 .033 21 .033 21
Floors over unheated NA .05 .05
space
Basement wall 0.068 0.101 33 0.101 33
Crawl wall NA NA NA
U-values in BTU/hr*ft2*°F
* No increase in Uo-value for A-2 residential construction due to thermal mass
** Percent reduction from MEC requirement
The MEC analysis results in Table 7 indicate that each component of unit 8 fully comply with
the 1993 MEC, but has substantially lower Uo-values than required by MEC, which could
contribute to significant increases in energy performance. The exact contribution to whole
house energy performance depends on the relative importance of each building element in the
total structure. See Appendix A for results of the analysis performed using MECCheck
software.

19
performance of the townhouse. The software package, REM/Design, provides energy
consumption data and an estimate of the annual energy cost for the unit, and compares results
with MEC minimum requirements (see Appendix A). The software analysis calculates the
energy performance attributable to the energy efficiency of the building envelope
components, the HVAC plant, and includes infiltration and duct losses. The software
analysis for unit 8 shows:
• A MEC required minimum overall Uo of 0.110 compared to an overall Uo

of 0.083 as built.
• A 1993 MEC maximum energy consumption required for heating and
cooling of 80.6 million Btu compares to an estimated 33.9 million Btu
consumed by the unit as built, a 58 percent reduction.
Figures 4 and 5 summarize the annual energy consumption estimates resulting from the
software analysis. Figure 6 shows the MEC comparison of heating and cooling energy
consumption between the townhouse as constructed and a similar house constructed to code
minimums as analyzed by the software.
Figure 4
Insulated Concrete Forms
Other
Doors
Ceilings/Roofs
Subsystem
Slab Floors
Foundation Walls
Glazing
Above Grade Walls
Infiltration
-15.00 -10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00

19
version 6.05 by Architectural Energy Corporation

Figure 5
Insulated Concrete Form
Other
Infiltration
Above Grade Walls

subsystem
Ceilings/Roofs
Ducts
Internal Gains
Glazing
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50

Figure 6
80.0 $900
70.0 $800
$700
60.0
$600
50.0
$500
40.0
$400
30.0
$300
20.0
$200
10.0 $100
0.0 $0
Case Case Case

Townhouse Unit 9
The MEC requirements for each subsystem in unit 9 are shown in Table 8.
20
Table 8
Space One- and Two- Multifamily /
Building Subsystem Conditioning Family Townhouses
Mode
Uo Uo
Walls Heating or cooling 0.149 0.215
space
R-value R-value
R-value R-value
Unheated slab on grade Heating 4.0 4.0
U-value U-value
2
U-values in BTU/hr*ft *°F, R-values = 1/U
Unit 9 is constructed with ICE Block foundation system enclosing the basement. The first
and second floors are framed using steel construction insulated with Icynene spray insulation.
Additional insulating 1" EPS board is used for the finishing system. Raised heel roof trusses
are used for the roof system.
20

Table 9 describes the physical dimensions of 9. Wall sections representing different
Table 9

1
ICE Block 227.13 0.068 15.39 w1
2
ICE Block 210.75 0.071 15.06 w2
Exterior Steel Framed Walls 1202.20 0.087 104.03 w3
Bulk Head Area 10.66 0.022 0.24 w4
3
Wood Window/Door Jambs 50.54 0.096 4.83 w5
Windows (U=0.32) 12.00 0.320 3.84 g1
Windows (U=0.35) 135.00 0.350 47.25 g2
Windows (U=0.31) 48.00 0.310 14.88 g3
Windows (U=0.30) 25.00 0.300 7.50 g4
Windows (U=0.29) 6.00 0.290 1.74 g5
Door (U=0.16) 21.07 0.160 3.37 d1
Door (U=0.14) 21.64 0.140 3.03 d2
Sliding Door (U=0.32) 36.67 0.320 11.73 d3

4
Ceiling Area 804.00 0.026
Floor Over Unheated Space NA NA
5
R-value
6
2
1
basement wall sections less than 50 percent below grade, 8" ICE Block
2
6" ICE Block
3
2 x 6 wood typical
4
[(UA)w 1+(UA)w 2+(UA)w 3+(UA)w 4 +(UA)w 5) +(UA)g 1+(UA)g 2+(UA)g 3+(UA)g 4+(UA)g 5+(UA)fp+(UA)d 1+(UA)d 2+(UA)d 3]
Uo =
Ao
5
basement wall sections more than 50 percent below grade
6

townhouses and single- and two-family units in Table 10, showing the difference in Uo- and
R-values of various components of the building as built and as required by MEC.
Table 10
Unit 9 MEC Compliance Record
Multifamily /
Building Subsystem As Built One- and Two-Family
Townhouses
% %
Uo Uo Uo
Difference Difference
Walls 0.116 0.149 22 0.215 46
Roof/Ceiling 0.026 .033 21 .033 21
Floors over unheated NA .05 .05
space
Unheated slab on 14.76 4.0 73 4.0 73
grade
Basement wall 0.068 0.101 33 0.101 33
Crawl wall NA NA NA
U-values in BTU/hr*ft2*°F
* Percent reduction from MEC requirement
The MEC analysis results in Table 10 indicate each component of unit 9 not only fully
comply with the 1993 MEC, but has substantially lower Uo-values than required by MEC,
which could contribute to significant increases in energy performance. The exact contribution
to whole house energy performance depends on the relative performance of each building
element in the total structure. See Appendix A for results of the analysis performed using
MECCheck software.

21
performance of the townhouse unit. The software package, REM/Design , provides energy
consumption data and an estimate of the annual energy cost for the unit comparing results
with MEC requirements (see Appendix B). The energy analysis calculates the energy
performance attributable to the energy efficiency of the building envelope components, the
HVAC plant, and includes infiltration and duct losses. The software analysis for unit 9
shows:
• A MEC required minimum overall Uo of 0.111 compared to an overall Uo

of 0.084 as built.
• A 1993 MEC maximum energy consumption requirement for heating and
cooling of 24.9 million Btu compared to an estimated 11.0 million Btu
consumed by the unit as built, a 56 percent reduction.
Figures 7 and 8 summarize annual energy consumption estimates resulting from the software
analysis. Figure 9 shows the MEC comparison of heating and cooling energy consumption
between the townhouse as constructed and a similar house constructed to code minimums as
analyzed by the software.
Figure 7
Steel, Spray Foam Insulation
Other
Doors
Ceilings/Roofs
Subsystem
Slab Floors
Foundation Walls
Glazing
Above Grade Walls
Infiltration
-1.50 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50
Annual Consumption (million Btu)
21

Figure 8
Other
Infiltration
Above Grade Walls

subsystem
Ceilings/Roofs
Ducts
Internal Gains
Glazing
-0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

Figure 9
25.0 $500
$450
20.0 $400
$350
15.0 $300
$250
10.0 $200
$150
5.0 $100
$50
0.0 $0
Case Case Case

Townhouse Unit 10
The MEC requirements for each subsystem in unit 10 are shown in Table 11, taking into
account benefits from thermal mass in the above grade wall systems, calculated according to
procedures explained above.
22
Table 11
Space Conditioning One- and Two- Multifamily /

Building Subsystem
Uo Uo
Walls Heating or cooling 0.177* 0.215**
space
R-value R-value
R-value R-value
Unheated slab on Heating 4.0 4.0
grade
U-value U-value
U-values in BTU/hr*ft2*°F, R-values = 1/U
* Increase in Uo requirement from 0.149 due to thermal mass credit
** No increase in Uo-value for A-2 residential construction
Unit 10 is constructed with a Superior Wall foundation system for the basement wall. A
lightweight AAC system, manufactured by Hebel Southeast, forms the walls of the first and
second floors. Additional wall insulation is not installed. Raised heel roof trusses are used
for the roof system.
22

Table 12

1
Superior Wall Sections 170.27 0.071 12.16 w1
2
Concrete Bond Beam 45.28 0.106 4.78 w2
Hebel AAC 2073.51 0.098 203.89 w3
3
Wood Window/Door Jambs 77.17 0.115 8.90 w4
4
Garage/Basement Wall (Steel) 184.11 0.069 12.61 w5
Windows (U=0.32) 197.97 0.320 63.35 g1
Windows (U=0.35) 120.00 0.350 42.00 g2
Windows (U=0.31) 48.00 0.310 14.88 g3
5
Fireplace Opening 14.33 0.855 12.25 fp
Door (U=0.16) 18.56 0.160 2.97 d1
Door (U=0.14) 21.63 0.140 3.03 d2
Sliding Door (U=0.32) 20.00 0.320 6.40 d3

6
Ceiling (flat and cathedral) 870.60 0.026
Floor Over Unheated Space 350.14 0.046
7
R-value
8
2
1
basement wall sections less than 50 percent below grade, excluding 1 3/4" top bond beam
2
including Superior Wall top bond
3
2 x 8 pressure treated wood typical
4
double 3 1/2" steel wall with Icynene thermal break
5
use steel insert, fully enclosed flue box (U-value = steel + air space)
6
7
baseme
[(UA )w 1+ (UA )w 2 + (UA )w 3 + (UA )w 4 + (UA )w 5)+ (UA )g 1+ (UA )g 2 + (UA )g 3 + (UA ) fp + (UA )d 1+ (UA )d 2 + (UA )d 3]
U =
o
nt wall sections more than 50 percent below grade A

8

townhouses and single- and two-family units in Table 13, showing the difference in Uo- and
R-values of various components of the building as built and as required by MEC.
Table 13
Townhouse Unit 10 MEC Compliance Record
Multifamily /
Building Subsystem As Built One- and Two-Family
Townhouses
% %
Uo Uo Uo
Difference Difference
Walls 0.129 0.177 27 0.215* 40
Roof/Ceiling 0.026 .033 21 .033 21
Floors over unheated 0.046 .05 8 .05 8
space
Basement wall 0.071 0.101 29 0.101 29
Crawl wall NA NA NA
2
U-values in BTU/hr*ft *°F
* No increase in Uo-value for A-2 residential construction due to thermal mass
** Percent reduction from MEC requirement
The MEC analysis results in Table 13 indicate each component of unit 10 fully complies with
the 1993 MEC with respect to the total house, but has substantially lower Uo and R-values
than required by MEC, which could contribute to significant increases in energy
performance. The exact contribution to whole house energy performance depends on the
relative performance of each building element in the total structure. See Appendix A for
results of the analysis performed using MECCheck software.

23
performance of the townhouse unit. The software package, REM/Design , provided energy
consumption data and an estimate of the annual energy cost for the unit comparing results
with MEC requirements (see Appendix B). The energy analysis calculates the energy
performance attributable to the energy efficiency of the building envelope components, the
HVAC plant, and includes infiltration and duct losses. The software analysis for unit 10
shows:
• A MEC required overall Uo of 0.113 compared to an overall Uo of 0.091 as

built.
• A 1993 MEC maximum energy consumption requirement for heating and
cooling of 97.4 million Btu, compares to 61.0 million Btu consumed as
built, a 37 percent reduction.
Figures 10 and 11 summarize the annual energy consumption estimates resulting from the
software analysis. Figure 12 shows the MEC comparison of heating and cooling energy
consumption between the townhouse as constructed and a similar house constructed to code
minimums as analyzed by the software.
Figure 10
Lightweight Concrete
Other
Doors
Ceilings/Roofs
Subsystem
Slab Floors
Foundation Walls
Glazing
Above Grade Walls
Infiltration
-10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00

Annual Consumption (million Btu)
23

Figure 11
Other
Infiltration
Above Grade Walls

subsystem
Ceilings/Roofs
Ducts
Internal Gains
Glazing
-1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00

Figure 12
90.0 $1,000
80.0 $900
$800
70.0
$700
60.0
$600
50.0
$500
40.0
$400
30.0
$300
20.0
$200
10.0 $100
0.0 $0
Case Case Case

ENERGY SIMULATION ANALYSIS
A simulation using REM/Design Software was performed for each unit to determine R-
values for non-standard wall sections. The structural and material characteristics of each unit
were explicitly detailed, using either manufacture's data such as glazing U-values or actual
measured envelope dimensions. Blower door tests provided infiltration data and the results
for each unit are shown in Table 14.
Table 14
Infiltration Testing Results
* ** ***
Unit ACH50 ACHwinter ACHsummer
7 4.8 0.41 0.27

8 3.8 0.23 0.14
9 2.3 0.15 0.09
10 5.0 0.42 0.28
* Air Changes per Hour @ 50 pascals
** Air Changes per Hour (natural) for Winter months (Dec.-Feb.)
*** Air changes per Hour (natural) for Summer months (Jun.-Aug.)
Note: the estimated ACH (natural) for summer and winter months determined from a model developed at the Lawrence Berkeley
Laboratory.
The REM/Design software simulation estimates building annual energy consumption.

Building wall materials and R-values were used as inputs into the simulation. The existing
database of standard wall sections does not always contain information on the innovative wall
systems used in the construction of the townhouses. In such cases, the program had the
capability of estimating the wall R-value. A parallel path estimate was used to develop the
overall R-value for the wall section using the above inputs. Table 15 indicates the areas of
some of the wall and floor sections used in the analysis. Units 7 and 10 are mirror images of
each other as are units 8 and 9, but some differences still exists. For example, the slab floor
areas are larger for units 8 and 9 since they do not include an unconditioned garage as part of
the house structure. The differences in roof areas between units 7 and 10 are accounted for
by the use of additional sloped ceilings in unit 7.

Table 15
Townhouse Comparative Statistics
Feature Unit 7 Unit 8 Unit 9 Unit 10

2
Above Grade Wall Area (ft ) 2938.8 1679.7 1733.3 2713.3
2
Window/Door Opaque Area (ft ) 428.6 307.5 305.4 426.1
2
Slab Floor Area (ft ) 529 875 804 529
2
Roof Area (ft ) 1049 807 804 871
2
Rim/Band Joist Area (ft ) 252.7 0 0 45.3
Foundation Wall Length (ft) 74.6 95.6 95.6 75.0
2
Frame Floor Area (ft ) 357 0 0 350
The software estimates the annual energy consumption of the building. An estimate of the
lights and appliance use is include in the energy consumption analysis. The program makes
use of fuel rates supplied by the user to estimate the annual cost of energy. All energy
calculations are based on Btu energy use.
Table 16 shows the results of the simulation for the four townhouses. Caution is advised in
drawing conclusions from a direct comparison of the townhouses since the nature of the
orientation, connecting walls, duct location, infiltration rates, and other variables can result in
significant variations in any analysis. For example, units 7 and 10 have much larger glazing
areas than units 8 and 9 resulting in greater energy losses and higher energy consumption.

Table 16
Compiled Results of Simulation Runs
Description Unit 7 Unit 8 Unit 9 Unit 10

2
Area of Conditioned Space ft 2102 2293 2352 2193
Annual Heating Load million Btu/yr. 47.1 31.7 32.4 56.4
Annual Heating Consumption million Btu/yr. 36.3 35.2 9.8 62.6
Annual Heating Cost $/yr. 278.29 271.51 175.49 471.95
Annual Cooling Load million Btu/yr. 35.8 23.5 20.1 37.7
Annual Cooling Consumption million Btu/yr. 7.8 6.7 4.7 10.7
Annual Cooling Cost $/yr. 196.20 167.04 116.76 268.59
Annual Water Heating Load million Btu/yr. 19.7 18.7 16.8 18.7
Annual Water Heating Con. Million Btu/yr. 25.9 19.1 8.3 19.1
Annual Water Heating Cost $/yr. 205.59 152.30 172.11 150.42
Annual Lights and Appliance Consumption million Btu/yr. 25.24 25.3 25.3 25.3
Annual Lights and Appliance Cost $/yr. 406.51 408.14 410.20 406.62
Peak Heating Load thousand Btu/hr 30.2 22.7 21.1 37.0
Peak Cooling Load thousand Btu/hr 40.5 25.2 23.0 44.0
2
Area Normalized Heating Consumption thousand Btu/ft /yr. 17.3 15.4 4.2 28.5
2
Area Normalized Cooling Consumption thousand Btu/ft /yr. 3.7 2.9 2.0 4.9
2
Area Normalized Heating Cost $/ft /yr. 0.13 0.12 0.07 0.22
2
Area Normalized Cooling Cost $/ft /yr. 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.12
Annual Space Conditioning Costs $/million Btu 7.75 10.47 20.16 10.10
Figures 1 through 12 above, compare the estimated losses attributed to each component. In
the heating estimates, the above grade walls and infiltration losses make up the largest
percentage of losses. In cooling energy requirements, glazing and internal gains account for
most of the cooling energy requirements.
The comparative value of the results in Table 16 of the simulation analysis are affected by the
following utility, operation, and construction factors and result in substantial differences in
energy consumption among the units:
• The cost of electricity is slightly more than $0.08/kwh while the cost of
natural gas is about $0.82/therm.
• The HVAC set point is kept constant at 72°F.
• Units 8 and 9 have a common wall decreasing the wall area exposed to the
2
outdoors by over 1000 ft compare to the other two units.
2
• The opaque openings are over 125ft larger for units 7 and 10.
• The infiltration rates for units 8 and 9 are at least half of the other units.

Cooling fuel consumption cost estimates for townhouse unit 7 are based on an electric
compressor unit operating at an estimated SEER-value of 15.6.
TOWNHOUSE ENERGY PERFORMANCE MONITORING–COOLING SEASON
Each of the townhouse units were monitored for heating and air conditioning energy
consumption, indoor temperature, and north and south wall surface temperatures. The
outdoor ambient air temperature was also recorded. The data is gathered in ten minute
intervals, averaged, and logged.
In the three units which had gas fuel for heating and/or air conditioning, consumption was
logged by recording the number of pulses from the meter every ten minutes. Each pulse
represented one cubic foot of natural gas. This value was then converted to therms using the
gas company’s conversion factor, listed on the monthly billing. The energy used by the
geothermal heat pump is recorded by a watt meter on the unit power supply.
The amount of time the compressor was running was recorded for the two townhouses with
outdoor air conditioning compressors. Manufacturers’ data were then used to determine the
energy consumed by the air conditioning system, including the blower motor.
Operational data was logged for each unit at ten minute intervals and averaged. The analog
output of the transducer was recorded at ten minute intervals and averaged to obtain real
power measurements. For compressor operating time, the sum of all the minutes during the
ten minute period in which the compressor operated was recorded. For gas consumption, a
pulse was recorded per cubic foot rotation of the two-cubic foot dial on the gas meter.
Periodically, the utility electric meter data was recorded.
Air Conditioning Energy Consumption
The air conditioning equipment was activated in the beginning of June 1996, since prior to
this date, little, if any, air conditioning use was required; moreover, building construction was
completed at this time and operation of each unit was more stable without interference from
contractor use. Three of the four units were unoccupied; unit 7 was occupied by two people.
The energy consumption of the air conditioning equipment was derived by either directly
logging data or from calculations based on compressor "on-time" data. The air conditioning
energy consumption data was totaled for each day and plotted against the average daily
difference between the indoor and outdoor temperature readings. The plot indicates indoor
temperature range for various performance indicators such as hourly daily use.

Performance of Individual Townhouse Units
Townhouse Unit 7—Structural Insulated Panels
The space conditioning equipment consisted of a gas engine powered air-source heat pump
unit with a manufacturer's SEER rating of 15.60. The SEER rating is developed by the
manufacturer using the proposed ANSI standard Z-21 which relates an equivalent SEER for
the gas engine heat pump to a comparable electric-powered unit. The comparison is based on
fuel costs in a given geographic area. The rated capacity is 36,000 Btuh. A dedicated gas
meter was installed to record the gas supplied to the gas engine separate from other gas
appliances. The gas meter was located downstream of a pressure reducing valve.
A plot of the data provided during four months of operation is shown in Figures 13 and 14.
This data indicates the energy consumption trend based on the temperature difference
between the indoor and outdoor daily average temperatures. This townhouse was occupied
and the thermostat operation included a night setback of about four degrees Fahrenheit
(2.2C), from 74°F to 70°F. The measured indoor temperature range over the full period was
between 67.4°F and 77.0°F. For the narrow cooling period under analysis, the trend in energy
consumption indicates approximately 0.1 therms per degree temperature difference between
the outdoor and indoor average temperature. The balance point is that outdoor temperature at
which no space conditioning is required. It differs from the thermostat set-point, which is
influenced by internal gains. Note the cooling season balance point for this particular
townhouse occurs when the average outdoor temperature is 10.5°F below the average indoor
average temperature. (see Figure 13)

Figure 13
Cooling Season Performance
4.5
4.0
112 Day Period

3.5
Indoor temperature Range 67.4 - 77.0 F
therms (excluding blower fan operation)
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
-18.0 -16.0 -14.0 -12.0 -10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0
degree F Temperature Difference (Outdoor - Indoor)
Figure 14
Cooling System Performance
3.0
2.5
therms (excluding blower fan operation)
2.0
1.5
1.0
26 Day Period
0.5 Indoor temperature Range 71.8 - 75.0 F
0.0
-10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0

Figures 15 and 16 respectively show a five- and two-day period of operation. The effect of
temperature setback is evident in the indoor temperature and the cooling system operation in
that the bulk of air conditioning operation follows the daytime peak temperature. The peak
cooling load for the period was approximately 30,000 Btuh. At an interior set point of 72°F,
the estimated peak cooling load was 40,500 Btuh for the software analysis.
Figure 15
S tru c tu ra l In s u la te d P a n e ls
9 0 .0 0 .3 0
8 5 .0
0 .2 5
8 0 .0
Cooling System Operation

0 .2 0
7 5 .0
degree F
7 0 .0 0 .1 5
6 5 .0
0 .1 0
6 0 .0
0 .0 5
5 5 .0
5 0 .0 0 .0 0
234
235
236
237
238
5 D a y p e rio d b y h o u r a v e ra g e
th e rm s A m b ie n t In d o o r A ir

Figure 16
Structural Insulated Panel
days 237-238, 1996
85.0 0.0600
80.0
0.0500
air conditioner operation (therms)

75.0
0.0400
70.0
degree F
0.0300
65.0
0.0200
60.0
0.0100
55.0
50.0 0.0000
12:10 AM
1:40 AM
3:10 AM
4:40 AM
6:10 AM
7:40 AM
9:10 AM
10:40 AM
12:10 PM
1:40 PM
3:10 PM
4:40 PM
6:10 PM
7:40 PM
9:10 PM
10:40 PM
12:10 AM
1:40 AM
3:10 AM
4:40 AM
6:10 AM
7:40 AM
9:10 AM
10:40 AM
12:10 PM
1:40 PM
3:10 PM
4:40 PM
6:10 PM
7:40 PM
9:10 PM
10:40 PM
hour (by 10 minute averages)
Ambient Inside Air therms
Figure 15 shows the relationship between air conditioning demand and the outdoor and
indoor temperatures. Since the townhouse is operated with thermostat setback, a larger
demand occurs in the evening at the setback period and little demand occurs following the
setback period. The operation of the air conditioning unit coincides closely with the outdoor
temperature and solar gains. Townhouse unit 7 has the largest amount of west facing glazing
of all the units which will result in increased heat-gains penalties not evident in other units.

Figure 17 shows the hourly average temperatures for two days during the summer cooling
period. The peak south wall exterior temperature precedes the peak interior south wall
temperature by two to three hours. Since exterior air temperatures remain relatively high
during the night, the wall surface and air temperatures tend to converge during the night time.
Due to the incident solar gains at the peak period, the surface temperature of the south facing
wall rises 31.7°F above the ambient air temperature.
Figure 17
Structural Insualted Panels
Days 236-237
125.0
115.0
105.0
95.0
degree F
85.0
75.0
65.0
Inside Air S Wall Ext S Wall Int Ambient
55.0
1
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
hour averages
Actual consumption has exceeded the predicted consumption of the simulation software by
about 50 percent. To determine actual consumption, estimates of consumption were made
for missing data points. The difference in consumption is attributed to the complexity of
accurately determining a SEER rating for a gas-powered air conditioner.

Townhouse Unit 8—Insulating Concrete Forms
The HVAC equipment in unit 8 consists of a gas forced-air furnace and an air conditioning
outdoor unit with a manufacturer's rating of SEER=12.0. The rated output capacity is 30,000
Btuh. Data for the unit’s operation was logged through monitoring of the time the air
conditioning compressor was in operation. The time was then multiplied by the
manufacturer's energy consumption rating, which included the blower fan, to obtain overall
energy consumption.
A plot of the data available during four months of operation is shown in Figures 18 and 19.
These figures show energy consumption in relation to the temperature difference between the
outside and inside air temperatures. For the narrow 41-day period under analysis, the trend in
energy consumption indicates approximately .40 kWh per degree temperature difference
between the outdoor and indoor average temperatures. The significant amount of data scatter
is indicative of thermally massive walls. During the 41-day period, the indoor air
temperature was stable within a 2°F range with an average indoor temperature of about
74.3°F.
Figure 18
20
18
16 98 Day Period
Indoor Temperature Range 61.0 - 78.2 F
14
12
kilowatthours
10
0
-20.0 -15.0 -10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0

Figure 19
10
6
kilowatthours
41 Day Period
2 Indoor Temperature Range 73.3 - 75.4 F
0
-12.0 -10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0
A five- and two-day period of operation is shown in Figures 20 and 21, respectively. The
relationship between the air conditioning unit operation and the outdoor and indoor
temperatures is consistent for the period in that the air conditioning operation follows the
daytime peak temperature. The one exception is the rise in the indoor temperature on day
237. On this day, the rise in temperature is coincident with the air conditioning operation
possibly due to direct solar gains. Air conditioning operation appears to be dependent on
what is assumed to be solar gains which is inferred by an indirect correlation between air
conditioning operation and exterior temperature of the wall. (“S Wall Ext" in Figure 22) This
temperature is dependent on solar radiation falling on the wall surface.

Figure 20
90.0 1.20
85.0
1.00
80.0

0.80
75.0
degree F
70.0 0.60
65.0
0.40
60.0
0.20
55.0
50.0 0.00
234
235
236
237
238
5 Day period by hour average
kWh Ambient Indoor Air
Figure 21
days 237-238, 1997
85.0 3000
80.0
2500
75.0
2000
A/C operation (watts)
70.0
degree F
1500
65.0
1000
60.0
500
55.0
50.0 0
12:10 AM
1:40 AM
3:10 AM
4:40 AM
6:10 AM
7:40 AM
9:10 AM
10:40 AM
12:10 PM
1:40 PM
3:10 PM
4:40 PM
6:10 PM
7:40 PM
9:10 PM
10:40 PM
12:10 AM
1:40 AM
3:10 AM
4:40 AM
6:10 AM
7:40 AM
9:10 AM
10:40 AM
12:10 PM
1:40 PM
3:10 PM
4:40 PM
6:10 PM
7:40 PM
9:10 PM
10:40 PM
Ambient Inside Air watts

The air conditioning operation was less variable when the ambient temperature fell below the
indoor temperature or when the direct solar gain was minimized. The thermal massiveness of
the wall system was considered to be the primary controlling factor, mitigating the immediate
impact of the outdoor conditions. Operation of the compressor rarely approached a 50
percent duty-cycle for one hour with most of its operation about 15 percent per hour.
Significant periods of compressor off time were also common.
The air conditioning operation is estimated to have used approximately 689 kWh (2.35
24
million Btu) of energy in the four months of operation . The house was unoccupied and
minimal appliance and lighting loads were in effect. A simulation run based on 72°F
thermostat set point predicted a cooling energy consumption of 6.7 million Btu. The average
indoor temperature was measured at 73.8 °F.
Figure 22 shows the relationship between the ambient outdoor, the inside air, the south wall
exterior, and interior temperatures. The south wall interior temperature remained flat and
closely followed the inside air temperature. The large thermal mass mitigated transmission
of diurnal variations in temperature. During the night, the south wall surface temperature
remained above the ambient temperature due to heat flow from the thermal mass to the
exterior. The north wall surface temperatures in Figure 23 indicate a much closer
relationship between the ambient air conditions and the surface temperatures. During the
cooling season, the north wall received a small amount of solar radiation.
Figure 22
Days 236-237
125.0
115.0
105.0
95.0
degree F
85.0
75.0
65.0
Ambient Inside Air S Wall Ext S Wall Int
55.0
1
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
hour averages
24
451 kWh actually measured with the remaining estimated from curve fit equations

Figure 23
Days 236-237
95.0
90.0
85.0
80.0
degree F
75.0
70.0
65.0
60.0
Ambient N Wall Ext N Wall Int
55.0
1
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
Townhouse Unit 9—Steel Frame with Spray Foam Insulation
The HVAC equipment in unit 9 consists of a geothermal-source heat pump unit with a
manufacture's EER rating of 14.70. The rated capacity is 33,000 Btuh. Data on energy use is
accomplished through a power transducer monitoring the power supply feed to the HVAC
unit. All power used by the HVAC unit including the ground loop pump, the blower motor,
and associated electronics was included.
A plot of the data available during four months of operation is shown in Figures 24 and 25.
In the narrow 58-day period under analysis the trend in energy consumption, indicates
approximately a .65 kWh per degree temperature difference between the outdoor and indoor
average temperature. The significant amount of data scatter in this case was a result of the
large fluctuations in the indoor air temperature. During the 58-day period, the indoor air
temperature was stable varying in a 1.4°F range with an average indoor temperature of about
73.8°F.

Figure 24
18.000
16.000
121 Day Period
14.000
12.000
kilowatthours
10.000
8.000
6.000
4.000
2.000
0.000
-16.0 -14.0 -12.0 -10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0
Figure 25
10.000
9.000
8.000
7.000
6.000
kilowatthours
5.000
4.000
3.000
2.000
58 Day Period
1.000
0.000
-12.0 -10.0 -8.0 -6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0

temperatures is consistent for the period, in that air conditioning operation follows the
daytime peak temperature, except for small indoor air fluctuations. Similar to the previous
unit, the sharp increase in air conditioning system operation occurring on day 237 is most
likely attributed to direct solar gains. Air conditioning operation appears to be dependent on
what is assumed to be the solar gain which is inferred by an indirect correlation between air
conditioning operation and exterior temperature of the wall (“S Wall Ext" in Figure 28). This
temperature is dependent on solar radiation falling on the wall surface. Figure 26 shows a
direct relationship between the outdoor ambient air temperature and the air conditioning
system operation. Due to the low thermal mass of the light frame construction, during the
night the air conditioning system operates minimally.
Figure 26
90.0 2.50
85.0
2.00
80.0

75.0
1.50
degree F
70.0
1.00
65.0
60.0
0.50
55.0
50.0 0.00
234
235
236
237
238

Figure 27
days 237-238
90.0 2500
80.0
2000
70.0
60.0

1500
degree F
50.0
40.0
1000
30.0
20.0
500
10.0
0.0 0
12:10 AM
1:40 AM
3:10 AM
4:40 AM
6:10 AM
7:40 AM
9:10 AM
10:40 AM
12:10 PM
1:40 PM
3:10 PM
4:40 PM
6:10 PM
7:40 PM
9:10 PM
10:40 PM
12:10 AM
1:40 AM
3:10 AM
4:40 AM
6:10 AM
7:40 AM
9:10 AM
10:40 AM
12:10 PM
1:40 PM
3:10 PM
4:40 PM
6:10 PM
7:40 PM
9:10 PM
10:40 PM
The measured energy consumption is 689 kWh (2.35 million Btu) for the four month period.
This includes a four day period when the interior temperature set point was changed to below
68°F. For the period the average indoor temperature was 73.1°F within a 6.3°F range. A
simulation run based on an interior set point of 72°F estimated consumption during the
cooling period of 4.7 Million Btu. The actual energy consumption of the building was lower
because the townhouse was unoccupied, reducing the appliance and lighting loads.

Figures 28 and 29 show the relationship between the wall surface temperatures and the air
temperatures of the townhouse. During the night, the exterior wall surface temperature
approaches the interior conditions especially as the temperature difference between the
outdoor and indoor is small.
Figure 28
Days 236-237
125.0
115.0
105.0
95.0
degree F
85.0
75.0
65.0
55.0
1
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
hourly averages

Figure 29
Days 236-237
95.0
90.0
85.0
80.0
degree F
75.0
70.0
65.0
60.0
Ambient N Wall Ext N Wall Int
55.0
1
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
Townhouse Unit 10—Light Weight Autoclaved Aerated Concrete
This townhouse is constructed using a lightweight AAC wall system, incorporating thermal
mass and insulation in a homogeneous wall structural material. The HVAC equipment is
identical to that used in townhouse unit 8, except for capacity. The manufacturer's rating is
SEER=12.0 and the rated capacity is 42,000 Btuh.
A plot of the data available during four months of air conditioning operation is shown in
Figures 30 and 31. In the narrow 80-day period under analysis, the trend in energy
consumption indicated approximately a 1.91 kWh per degree temperature difference between
the outdoor and indoor overall temperatures. The scatter data was limited in this case, as a
result of an equilibrium in the wall system and equipment operation. During the 80-day
period, the indoor air temperature set point was increased by 2°F with an average interior air
temperature of 67.5°F within a range of 65.2 to 71.5°F.

Figure 30
40
35
100 Day Period

30
25
kilowatthours
20
15
10
0
-12.0 -7.0 -2.0 3.0 8.0 13.0
Figure 31
40
35
30
25
kilowatthours
20
15
10 80 Day Period
0
-6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0

temperatures was consistent for the period in that high daytime temperatures and solar gains
caused increased operation of the air conditioning system. The indoor air temperature
fluctuated considerably even with the electronic thermostat. This townhouse has a large
amount of east facing glazing compared to the other townhouses. The air conditioning
system operation was extensive throughout the day resulting in a lower indoor air
temperature. The importance of the thermal mass in the lightweight concrete appears to be
evident during the afternoon period when the solar gains were limited and the air
conditioning system operation decreased.
Figure 32
90.0 4.00
85.0 3.50
80.0 3.00

75.0 2.50
degree F
70.0 2.00
65.0 1.50
60.0 1.00
55.0 0.50
50.0 0.00
234
235
236
237
238

Figure 33
days 237-238, 1997
85.0 4000
3500
80.0
3000
75.0

2500
70.0
degree F
2000
65.0
1500
60.0
1000
55.0
500
50.0 0
1:40 AM
3:10 AM
4:40 AM
6:10 AM
7:40 AM
9:10 AM
1:40 PM
3:10 PM
4:40 PM
6:10 PM
7:40 PM
9:10 PM
1:40 AM
3:10 AM
4:40 AM
6:10 AM
7:40 AM
9:10 AM
1:40 PM
3:10 PM
4:40 PM
6:10 PM
7:40 PM
9:10 PM
12:10 AM
10:40 AM
12:10 PM
10:40 PM
12:10 AM
10:40 AM
12:10 PM
10:40 PM
The measured energy consumption based on actual indoor air temperatures was 2204 kWh
(7.52 Million Btu) including estimates for the periods when data was unavailable. A
simulation based on an interior set point of 72°F resulted in an estimated consumption of
10.7 Million Btu for the cooling period. The difference between the interior set point and the
actual recorded temperature was significant. The house was unoccupied and had minimal
appliance and lighting loads.
Figures 34 and 35 show the relationship between the interior, exterior wall, and air
temperatures. The south exterior wall temperatures, and to some extent the north exterior
wall temperatures, track the incidence of solar radiation. The south wall showed a thermal
lag of six to seven hours between the temperatures on the exterior and interior surfaces.

Figure 34
Days 236-237
125.0
115.0
105.0
95.0
degree F
85.0
75.0
65.0
Ambient S Wall Int S Wall Ext Inside Air
55.0
1
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
hourly averages
Figure 35
Days 236-237
95.0
90.0
85.0
80.0
degree F
75.0
70.0
65.0
60.0
Ambient N Wall Int N Wall Ext
55.0
1
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
11
13
15
17
19
21
23

Building Temperature Profile
The wall surface temperatures on the south and north facing exterior wall surfaces were
monitored in two or three locations. The interior north and south wall surfaces were each
monitored in one location. Five consecutive days were selected for comparison since these
days are representative for each townhouse. The south and north wall interior and exterior
temperatures and the indoor and outdoor temperatures are compared. Table 17 lists the
maximum and minimum daily average temperatures from day 234 to day 238.
Table 17
Maximum and Minimum Temperatures Days 234 to 238
South Wall South Wall North Wall North Wall

Unit Outdoor Indoor Air Exterior Interior Exterior Interior
Ambient
(SWExT) (SWInT) (NWExT) (NWInT)
Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min
Day 234
7 82.3 63.3 76.6 71.7 103.3 69.1 74.7 70.2 92.1 69.1 74.7 70.0
8 82.3 63.3 76.9 75.7 100.5 72.6 78.0 77.0 86.8 70.2 76.6 75.7
9 82.3 63.3 74.5 73.4 103.6 72.1 75.0 73.0 92.9 70.9 75.3 73.7
10 82.3 63.3 69.1 67.4 96.0 68.8 72.4 70.1 82.9 68.3 68.3 66.6
Day 235
7 86.3 64.2 77.5 71.8 113.1 70.6 75.6 70.5 95.6 70.0 75.0 70.0
8 86.3 64.2 77.3 75.8 104.4 73.3 78.6 77.1 90.7 71.0 77.0 75.7
9 86.3 64.2 74.4 73.8 109.6 73.3 75.2 73.8 95.0 72.3 74.9 73.8
10 86.3 64.2 69.0 67.7 100.7 70.2 73.1 70.5 85.9 69.8 70.5 66.6
Day 236
7 88.8 65.7 77.6 71.8 120.5 71.0 76.1 70.6 96.4 71.3 74.7 70.0
8 88.8 65.7 77.6 75.8 111.3 74.1 79.0 77.2 90.4 72.0 76.9 75.8
9 88.8 65.7 74.4 73.8 117.5 73.7 75.4 73.9 95.3 73.2 74.9 73.5
10 88.8 65.7 69.0 66.9 108.9 70.6 73.1 70.9 87.1 70.3 71.5 65.9
Day 237
7 83.2 66.7 77.1 71.7 117.5 73.2 75.8 71.7 93.1 72.7 74.6 69.7
8 83.2 66.7 79.1 75.9 109.3 76.0 78.8 77.6 89.0 73.1 77.4 76.0
9 83.2 66.7 74.4 73.5 113.5 76.1 75.2 73.2 94.3 74.8 77.8 72.1
10 83.2 66.7 68.8 66.8 105.9 73.4 73.0 70.8 84.2 72.7 69.0 65.9
Day 238
7 80.9 59.8 79.3 71.5 118.3 66.1 75.5 70.1 90.8 66.8 75.2 69.9
8 80.9 59.8 77.3 75.8 108.8 71.6 78.7 77.3 86.6 68.8 76.8 75.8
9 80.9 59.8 74.3 73.4 113.3 68.6 75.5 72.7 86.7 67.7 74.3 73.1
10 80.9 59.8 69.0 67.1 105.0 66.5 72.7 70.2 80.4 66.1 73.3 66.0

The following findings were observed based on the data contained in Table 17:
• The minimum temperature of the exterior north and south walls were
similar and only a few degrees above minimum ambient temperatures,
suggesting heat flow to the outdoors during lower night ambient
temperatures.
• The maximum south wall interior temperature was within 1.5°F of the
maximum indoor air temperature in units 8 and 9, indicating the high level
of insulation in the exterior walls. The maximum south wall interior
temperature was about 4.0°F above the indoor air temperature for unit 10,
indicating the influence of the combination of thermal mass and static R-
value in making the transmission of the outdoor temperature to indoors
more pronounced. Townhouse unit 7 interior wall temperatures were
below the interior air temperatures due to the effects of the setback regime
imposed by occupants.
• The impact of thermal mass may be seen by comparing the minimum

south wall interior temperature with the minimum interior air temperature
in units 8 and 10. The higher minimum wall temperature compared to the
minimum interior air temperature indicates the effect of heat storage in the
south facing mass walls. The same comparison for the light frame walls of
unit 9 revealed a negligible difference suggesting no thermal mass effects.
• The minimum interior wall surface temperatures for the north facing walls,
were approximately equal to the minimum interior air temperature except
for unit 10 where the interior north surface temperature appeared to have a
pronounced response to the effects of the outdoor temperature.

Temperature Response
Unit 7 air conditioning operated under a 4°F setback which influenced the inside wall surface
temperature. The temperature of the inside wall floated to a higher level influenced by the air
conditioning operation rather than by the effect of the solar gain on the exterior surface. The
time lag between the exterior surface temperature and the interior surface temperature was
five to six hours, but this was largely due to the effect of the thermostat setback. Figure 36
shows unit 7’s five-day temperature profile.
Figure 36
Days 234-238
125.0
115.0
105.0
95.0
degree F
85.0
75.0
65.0
55.0
234
235
236
237
238
Day (by hour average)

Unit 8’s temperature profile revealed barely identifiable temperature time lag between the
interior and exterior wall surfaces, due to the high level of concrete thermal mass in the
exterior walls. This mitigated the direct effects of the solar gain on the wall surface from
changes in diurnal temperature. Figure 37 shows unit 8’s temperature profile for day 234 to
day 238.
Figure 37
Days 234-238
125.0
115.0
105.0
95.0
degree F
85.0
75.0
65.0
55.0
234
235
236
237
Day (by hour average) 238

Unit 9’s temperature profile indicated that solar gains on the south surface in a short period of
time resulted in an increase in interior temperatures. This light frame wall system with little
thermal mass rapidly transmitted changes in ambient conditions indoors. Figure 38 shows
unit 9’s temperature profile for day 234 to day 238.
Figure 38
Days 234-238
125.0
115.0
105.0
95.0
degree F
85.0
75.0
65.0
55.0
234
235
236
237
238

Unit 10’s temperature data indicates a time lag of seven or eight hours for outdoor wall
surface temperatures to be transmitted to the interior due to the integration of thermal mass
with the insulation of the AAC wall. Figure 39 shows townhouse unit 10’s temperature
profile for day 234 to day 238.
Figure 39
Days 234-238
125.0
115.0
105.0
95.0
degree F
85.0
75.0
65.0
55.0
234
235
236
237
238
Ambient S Wall Int S Wall Ext Inside Air

Figure 40 compares the hourly average temperature difference between the inside and outside
north wall surface temperatures. In the diurnal cycle, high daytime temperature differences
were clearly visible. Three townhouses exhibit similar traits or peak daytime temperature
differences while the temperature levels in the townhouse constructed with ICFs has shifted
downward with a smaller range of variation. Figure 41 shows a similar diurnal peak
temperature difference for the south wall surface temperature.
Figure 40
North Wall Surface Temperature Difference
Days 234-238
SIP
ICF
20.0
SSF
AAC
16.0
12.0
degree F (Outside - Inside)
8.0
4.0
0.0
-4.0
-8.0
1
13
17
21
25
29
33
37
41
45
49
53
57
61
65
69
73
77
81
85
89
93
97
101
105
109
113
117
hour of day

Figure 41
South Wall Surface Temperature Difference
Days 234-238
SIP
ICF
42.0
SSF
AAC
32.0
degree F (Ouside - Inside)
22.0
12.0
2.0
-8.0
1
5
9
13
17
21
1
5
9
13
17
21
1
5
9
13
17
21
1
5
9
13
17
21
1
5
9
13
17
21
hour of day
TOWNHOUSE ENERGY PERFORMANCE MONITORING–HEATING SEASON
The energy consumption and wall surface temperatures of the heating system of each of the
townhouses was monitored for the period from November to April. Unit 8, built with SIPs,
was monitored for wall temperatures but not for energy consumption since the space heating
equipment did not function for much of the monitoring period. The thermostat setting for the
SIP, ICF, and SSF townhouse units was 68°F.
The heating degree days assumed for the simulation was 4459 using a base temperature of
25
65°F. Calculated degree days for the 181-day period was 4414 .
25
Calculated on the average of the daily maximum and minimum and a 65°F base temperature

Performance of Individual Townhouse Units
Townhouse unit 7—Structural Insulated Panels
The heating system for unit 7 is a gas engine heat pump unit. The engine input is rated at
45,000 Btuh and the auxiliary heat input (boiler) is rated at 75,000 Btuh. During the entire
heating season, the operation of the heating equipment was interspersed with periods of
equipment outages. The available data, shown in Figure 42, indicates the periods when the
heating system was operating.
Figure 42
90.0 Note: Operation of the heating system equipment intermittant throughout period 6.0
80.0
5.0
70.0
60.0 4.0
50.0
degree F
therms
3.0
40.0
30.0 2.0
20.0
1.0
10.0
0.0 0.0
6
306
312
318
324
330
336
342
348
354
360
366
12
18
24
30
36
42
48
54
60
66
72
78
84
90
96
102
108
114
120
day of year
Ambient Inside Air Heat Fuel Consumption

Even with the minimal operation of the central heating system, a temperature profile is
available for the townhouse. Figure 43 shows the relationship between the exterior and
interior wall and air temperatures. Changes in the north wall exterior temperature closely
followed the outdoor ambient temperature, but averaged 9.1°F above the ambient air
temperature. Both the interior north and south wall temperatures cycles appear to be
influenced by indoor air temperature. In the north wall however, the impact of heat transfer to
the outside surface was clearly evident since the wall temperature was below the indoor air
temperature. This was observed in the south wall surface, where the south interior wall
temperatures were affected by exterior wall cycles.
Figure 43
days 17 - 19, 1997
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
degree F
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
12:10 AM
2:20 AM
4:30 AM
6:40 AM
8:50 AM
11:00 AM
1:10 PM
3:20 PM
5:30 PM
7:40 PM
9:50 PM
12:00 AM
2:10 AM
4:20 AM
6:30 AM
8:40 AM
10:50 AM
1:00 PM
3:10 PM
5:20 PM
7:30 PM
9:40 PM
11:50 PM
2:00 AM
4:10 AM
6:20 AM
8:30 AM
10:40 AM
12:50 PM
3:00 PM
5:10 PM
7:20 PM
9:30 PM
11:40 PM
hour (by 10 minute average)
Ambient Inside Air S Wall out N Wall out S Wall in N Wall in

Townhouse Unit 8—Insulating Concrete Foam Forms
Unit 8 was heated using equipment which integrates domestic hot water with the furnace
operation. The hot water from the domestic hot water tank was circulated through a heat
exchanger in the blower cabinet. The rated heating output was 90,000 Btuh with a maximum
of 94,000 Btuh. Figure 44 shows the operation of the heating system for the 181-day period.
The townhouse unit was unoccupied November to December (days 306 to 366), after which
the townhouse was occupied by two people. Since the hot water use was integrated with the
heating system, an estimate of energy consumption was made to subtract the portion of the
fuel consumption attributed to water heating.
Figure 44
80.0 7.0
70.0
6.0
60.0
5.0
50.0
4.0
degree F
therms
40.0
3.0
30.0
2.0
20.0
1.0
10.0
0.0 0.0
6
306
312
318
324
330
336
342
348
354
360
366
12
18
24
30
36
42
48
54
60
66
72
78
84
90
96
102
108
114
120
day of year
Note: 0.35 therms/day subtracted for water heating Heat Fuel Consumption Ambient Inside Air

Diurnal changes in the outdoor ambient conditions were indicative of the stabilizing
influence of the thermal mass. Days 17-19 are shown in Figure 45. For example, the regular
and periodic on/off operation of the heating system is clearly observed throughout the day
and night, constantly cycling to keep the indoor temperature stable.
Figure 45

Days 17-19
70.0 0.1000
0.0900
60.0
0.0800
50.0 0.0700
furnace operation
0.0600
40.0
degree F
0.0500
30.0
0.0400
20.0 0.0300
0.0200
10.0
0.0100
0.0 0.0000
10
220
430
640
850
1100
1310
1520
1730
1940
2150
2400
210
420
630
840
1050
1300
1510
1720
1930
2140
2350
200
410
620
830
1040
1250
1500
1710
1920
2130
2340
hour-minute
therms Inside Air Ambient

A simulation performed on this unit using an indoor thermostat setpoint of the measured
average indoor temperature, estimated a peak heating load of 21,300 Btuh. Total
26
consumption for the period was measured at 308.1 therms or 30.81 Million Btu. The
consumption estimate based on the simulation was 29.1 Million Btu. The measured fuel
consumption was decreased by 0.15 therms per day to account for water heater losses and
was decreased by an additional 0.35 therms per day to account for the domestic water heater
consumption for the period when the townhouse was occupied. Figure 46 shows an
approximately linear relationship existed between fuel consumption and the difference
between the inside and outside air temperature, since the fuel consumption is directly related
to changes in ambient temperatures.
Figure 46
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
therms
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
degree F (Inside Air-Ambient)
26
Portions of the measured data are estimated during periods when actual data was missing.

A three-day period during the coldest part of the season in Figure 47 shows the relationship
between the exterior and interior wall and air temperatures. Changes in the north wall
exterior temperature followed the outdoor ambient temperature closely but averaged 12.6°F
above the ambient air temperature within a range from 6.6 to 18.6°F. Changes in the interior
north and south wall temperatures follow the inside air temperature but were less. The
temperature profiles were much different since the inside south wall temperatures were
affected by the solar gains on the exterior surface. A subtle rise in the south wall interior
temperature was observed which may be attributable to the solar gains on the exterior wall
during the day. The delay is on the order of a few hours and is greatly attenuated.
Figure 47

days 17 - 19, 1997
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
degree F
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
12:10 AM
2:20 AM
4:30 AM
6:40 AM
8:50 AM
11:00 AM
1:10 PM
3:20 PM
5:30 PM
7:40 PM
9:50 PM
12:00 AM
2:10 AM
4:20 AM
6:30 AM
8:40 AM
10:50 AM
1:00 PM
3:10 PM
5:20 PM
7:30 PM
9:40 PM
11:50 PM
2:00 AM
4:10 AM
6:20 AM
8:30 AM
10:40 AM
12:50 PM
3:00 PM
5:10 PM
7:20 PM
9:30 PM
11:40 PM

Townhouse Unit 9—Steel Frame with Spray Foam Insulation
This townhouse is heated using a closed loop geothermal heat pump with three ground loops
in a vertical well configuration. The rated heating output is 36,200 Btuh with 11.4 kW of
electric back-up heat. Figure 48 shows the operation of the heating system for the 181 day
period. The townhouse was unoccupied for the entire period except for periodic tours.
Figure 48
80.0 40
70.0 35
60.0 30
50.0 25
kilowatthours
degree F
40.0 20
30.0 15
20.0 10
10.0 5
0.0 0
6
306
312
318
324
330
336
342
348
354
360
366
12
18
24
30
36
42
48
54
60
66
72
78
84
90
96
102
108
114
120
day of year
Heating Fuel Consumption Inside Air Ambient
The walls were constructed of steel framing with spray foam insulation in the cavities and C-
channels. In addition, a one-inch foam board was attached to the exterior of the framing
members. ICF construction formed the common wall with adjacent townhouse unit 8.
Diurnal changes in the outdoor ambient conditions were reflected in the heating system
operation, suggesting little influence from a stable wall system. Days 17-19 in Figure 49
show the operation of the heating system was clearly dependent on the external conditions
throughout the day and night. Day 19 is shown expanded in Figure 50 and indicates the rapid
response of the heating system to changes in outdoor ambient conditions, a typical feature of
low-mass wall construction.

Figure 49
Days 17-19
70.0 2500
60.0
2000
50.0
Geothermal system operation

1500
40.0
degree F
30.0
1000
20.0
500
10.0
0.0 0
10
220
430
640
850
1100
1310
1520
1730
1940
2150
2400
210
420
630
840
1050
1300
1510
1720
1930
2140
2350
200
410
620
830
1040
1250
1500
1710
1920
2130
2340
hour-minute
watts Ambient Inside Air
Figure 50
Day 19
70.0 2500
60.0
2000
50.0
Geothermal System operation
1500
40.0
degree F
30.0
1000
20.0
500
10.0
0.0 0
10
100
150
240
330
420
510
600
650
740
830
920
1010
1100
1150
1240
1330
1420
1510
1600
1650
1740
1830
1920
2010
2100
2150
2240
2330
hour-minute
watts Ambient Inside Air

A simulation of the operation of this unit using an indoor thermostat setpoint of the measured
consumption for the heating period was measured at 3289 kWh or 11.22 Million Btu. The
simulation estimated energy consumption of 8.8 Million Btu. The unit was unoccupied and
internal heat gains were minimal. According to the simulation, internal gains should have
reduce the building load by about 20 percent. Figure 51 shows that linear relationships
existed between the heating system operation in kWhrs and the temperature difference
between the inside and outside air.
Figure 51
Steel. Spray Foam insulation
40.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
kilowatthours
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

A three-day period during the coldest part of the season in Figure 52 shows the relationship
between the exterior and interior wall and ambient air temperatures. Changes in the north
wall exterior temperature closely followed the outdoor diurnal cycle of ambient temperature,
but averaged 10.8°F above the ambient air temperature within a range of 7.3 to 15.2°F.
Changes in the interior north and south wall temperatures followed a diurnal cycle of high
day and low night temperatures, but the temperature levels were less. The profiles, however,
were much different since the inside south wall temperatures were affected by the solar gains
on the exterior surface. A distinct rise in the south wall interior temperature was observed
and may be attributed to the solar gains on the exterior wall during the day. The delay was
about two hours and was attenuated, but not as much as in the thermal mass wall
construction. Thermal mass changes the way the exterior temperatures are transferred
indoors, making a more even operation of equipment possible.
Figure 52
Steel Framing, Spray Foam Insulation

days 17 - 19. 1997
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
degree F
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
12:10 AM
2:20 AM
4:30 AM
6:40 AM
8:50 AM
11:00 AM
1:10 PM
3:20 PM
5:30 PM
7:40 PM
9:50 PM
12:00 AM
2:10 AM
4:20 AM
6:30 AM
8:40 AM
10:50 AM
1:00 PM
3:10 PM
5:20 PM
7:30 PM
9:40 PM
11:50 PM
2:00 AM
4:10 AM
6:20 AM
8:30 AM
10:40 AM
12:50 PM
3:00 PM
5:10 PM
7:20 PM
9:30 PM
11:40 PM

Townhouse Unit 10—Lightweight Aerated Autoclaved Concrete
Unit 10 was heated using equipment similar to townhouse unit 8 which integrated domestic
hot water with the furnace operation. The hot water from the domestic hot water tank was
circulated through a heat exchanger in the blower cabinet. The rated heating output was
90,000 Btuh with a maximum of 94,000 Btuh. Figure 53 shows the operation of the heating
system for the 181-day period. The townhouse was unoccupied for the entire period except
for periodic tours.
Figure 53
80.0 8.0
70.0 7.0
60.0 6.0
50.0 5.0
degree F
therms
40.0 4.0
30.0 3.0
20.0 2.0
10.0 1.0
0.0 0.0
6
306
312
318
324
330
336
342
348
354
360
366
12
18
24
30
36
42
48
54
60
66
72
78
84
90
96
102
108
114
120
day of year
Heat Fuel Consumption Inside Air Ambient
The walls were constructed of lightweight AAC with traditional stucco on the exterior and
plaster on the interior. Diurnal changes in the outdoor ambient conditions were reflected in
the heating system operation suggesting little influence from the relatively stable wall system.
The data for days 17-19 in Figure 54 show the operation of the heating system was dependent
on the external conditions throughout the day and night, but the operation of the system
appears to be much more constant than the other townhouses. Day 19, shown in detail in
Figure 55, indicates the constant operation of the heating system. The inside air temperature
was stable during the period, except for a brief period when the electricity was not supplied to
the house loads.

Figure 54
Days 17-19
70.0 0.12
60.0
0.10
50.0
heating system operation

0.08
40.0
degree F
0.06
30.0
0.04
20.0
0.02
10.0
0.0 0.00
10
220
430
640
850
1100
1310
1520
1730
1940
2150
2400
210
420
630
840
1050
1300
1510
1720
1930
2140
2350
200
410
620
830
1040
1250
1500
1710
1920
2130
2340
hour-minute
therms Ambient Inside Air
Figure 55
Day 19
70.0 0.12
60.0
0.1
50.0
0.08 heating system operation
40.0
degree F
0.06
30.0
0.04
20.0
0.02
10.0
0.0 0
10
100
150
240
330
420
510
600
650
740
830
920
1010
1100
1150
1240
1330
1420
1510
1600
1650
1740
1830
1920
2010
2100
2150
2240
2330
hour-minute
therms Ambient Inside Air

A simulation of the operation of this unit using an indoor thermostat setpoint of the measured
consumption for the heating period was measured at 534.1 therms or 53.41 Million Btu. The
simulation consumption estimate was 47.7 million Btu. The unit was unoccupied and
internal heat gains were minimal. The simulation indicated that internal gains would have
reduced the building load by about 22 percent. Figure 56 indicates an approximately by
linear relationship between the heating system operation in therms and the temperature
difference between the inside and outside air temperatures.
Figure 56
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
therms
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
-10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

A three-day period during the coldest part of the season is shown in Figure 57 indicating the
relationship between the exterior and interior wall and air temperatures. Changes in the north
wall exterior temperature followed the outdoor ambient temperature closely but averaged
12.1°F above the ambient air temperature within a range of 7.4 to 16.3°F. Both the interior
north and south wall temperatures followed inside air temperature but the temperature levels
were less. The profiles, however, were much different since the inside south wall
temperatures were affected by the solar gains on the exterior surface. A distinct rise in the
south wall interior temperature was observed which may be attributed to the solar gains on
the exterior wall during the day. The delay was five to six hours and was highly attenuated.
Figure 57
Lightweight Aerated Concrete
days 17 - 19, 1997
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
degree F
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
12:10 AM
2:20 AM
4:30 AM
6:40 AM
8:50 AM
11:00 AM
1:10 PM
3:20 PM
5:30 PM
7:40 PM
9:50 PM
12:00 AM
2:10 AM
4:20 AM
6:30 AM
8:40 AM
10:50 AM
1:00 PM
3:10 PM
5:20 PM
7:30 PM
9:40 PM
11:50 PM
2:00 AM
4:10 AM
6:20 AM
8:30 AM
10:40 AM
12:50 PM
3:00 PM
5:10 PM
7:20 PM
9:30 PM
11:40 PM
Summary
Observations for days 17-19 for townhouse units 8, 9, and 10 can be summarized as follows:
• North wall exterior temperatures follow the high day and low night
temperatures of the diurnal cycle.
• North wall interior temperatures follow the cycle of the interior

temperatures, but are always less due to the heat transfer to the exterior
wall surface.

• Exterior south wall temperatures match the exterior north wall
temperatures however, during the day, surface heating due to solar gains
are clearly evident.
• Interior south wall temperatures changes are relatively limited, presumably

due to the heat capacity of the wall.
• Thermal lag is observed for all of the units, including light-frame walls,
with the thermally massive concrete unit (ICFs) showing the largest
attenuation and the light-frame (steel), the least and the AAC falling in
between; however, the light weight concrete is observed to have a distinct
thermal lag much higher than the light frame steel construction or the
massive ICF construction.
VISITOR SURVEYS
st
The 21 Century Townhouses have been open to the public since June 1996 and will remain
open through August 1997 for scheduled tours. Eighty tour participants completed
comprehensive surveys of the photovoltaic (PV) array during a six month period, yielding
approximately 13 surveys per month in regularly scheduled tours. The results will be
analyzed in a separate report on the building integrated PV program.
A general townhouse survey of all key technologies was developed in March 1997 and
distributed beginning in April 1997. Surveys were typically completed during standard 1.5
hour regularly scheduled tours. Regularly scheduled tour was canceled to make way for a
special tour for members of the National Council of the Housing Industry (NCHI) and
Remodelers Council. Other such special tours were conducted for the Bowie Chamber of
Commerce and the Vinyl Siding Institute. Consequently, 22 surveys were completed on key
technologies.
Because the large special tours were abbreviated and conducted on mass, participants were
not asked to complete surveys. It is anticipated that a “Last Chance” publicity drive will be
conducted during June to increase interest and participation in July and the beginning of
August. The following key technologies were highlighted and explained during the one and
one-half hour tour, after which respondents were asked to complete a questionnaire (see
Appendix B):
• Structural Insulated Panels

• Insulating Concrete Forming System - ICE Block
• Light Gauge Structural Steel Framing - American Iron and Steel Institute
(AISI)
• Drain Water Heat Recovery System - water Film Energy, Inc.
• Natural Gas Engine Heat Pump - York International Environmental
Systems
• Ventilation and Dehumidification Equipment - Thermo-Stor Products

• Lightweight Autoclaved Aerated Concrete - Hebel USA
• Ground Source Heat Pump
• Photovoltaic System - Energy Conversion Devices, Inc.
• Home Automation - Smart House, Inc.
• Gas Refueling System
Visitors were asked about their likelihood of incorporating these technologies in their house
in terms of four categories or responses: very likely, somewhat likely, don’t know, and not
likely. The attributes of each technology that were thought to be advantageous were listed
and visitors were asked to indicate which were most important. The results of the survey are
summarized in Table 17.
The following are the key findings from the survey (see Table 17 and Appendix C)
Likelihood of Adoption
• Insulating Concrete Forms, Ventilation and Dehumidification Equipment,

Autoclaved Aerated Concrete, Structural Insulated Panels, Home
Automation, in order, were the top five ranked technologies among all
visitors surveyed.
• Insulating Concrete Forms’ (ICFs) high rating (rank 1) was due largely to
the relatively high percentage of respondents who stated they did not know
enough about the product (rank 1) to give a definitive response and the
relatively low percentage of respondents who stated they were not likely to
adopt (rank 2). ICFs ranked third in other response categories. Although
ranked high overall, some uncertainty exists about this product and there is
a need for more information.
• Ventilation and Dehumidification Equipment’s high overall ranking (rank

2) was due to the large percentage (rank 1) of respondents who stated they
would very likely adopt this innovation and the lowest percentage (rank 1)
who definitely would not adopt the innovation. It ranked low (rank 7) in
terms of the percentage of respondents who did not know whether they
would adopt. Respondents were most positive and felt more certain that
they would adopt this innovation compared to any other and seemed to be
confident that they had the information they needed.

Table 17
Survey of Visitors to Townhouse (n=22)
Total Total Positive Very Likely Somewhat Don’t Know Not Likely
Score1 Rank Score2 Rank %Total Rank %Total Rank %Total Rank %Total Rank3
ICFs 9 1 7 1 14 3 45 3 32 1 9 2
Vent & Dehumid. 3 41 1 45 3 9 7 5 1
AAC 13 3 10 2 9 5 45 2 27 3 18 3
SIPs 14 4 10 2 18 2 36 4 23 4 23 4
Home Autom. 14 4 11 3 14 3 64 1 9 7 18 3
Lt.Gg.Steel 18 5 13 4 18 2 32 5 14 6 36 5
GSHP 18 5 13 4 14 3 27 6 23 4 36 5
Drain Water Ht. 22 6 15 6 14 3 18 8 23 4 45 7
PV 23 7 14 5 10 4 36 4 14 6 45 7
Gas Eng. HP 25 8 15 6 6 6 19 7 29 2 42 6
Gas Refuel 29 9 21 7 0 7 10 9 19 5 71 8
1
Sum of Very Likely, Somewhat Likely, Don’t Know, Not Likely rankings from most positive (1) to least positive (9).
2
Sum of all rankings that were not negative- excludes “Not Likely”
3
Technology with lowest percentage reporting “Not Likely” received a positive rank of 1, etc.

• Lightweight Autoclaved Cellular Concrete’s (AAC) relatively high
ranking (rank 3) was due to the relatively large percentage of
respondents who stated they were somewhat likely to adopt (rank 2)
the innovation. This contrasts with the moderate score (rank 5) in
regard to those who would very likely adopt. It ranked relatively high
in other categories (rank 3) “don’t know” and “not likely” to adopt. In
general, respondents were open to adopt this innovation, but were
uncertain and needed more information.
• Structural Insulated Panels’ (SIPS) relatively high score (rank 4) was

due to the proportion of respondents who said they would very likely
(rank 2) adopt this innovation. It was rated relatively high (rank 4) in
all categories of response. Respondents appeared quite certain in their
positive response to this innovation, although the rankings were
generally lower than the top three rated innovations.
• Home Automation’s relatively high rating (rank 4) was largely due to

the large proportion of respondents who had a lukewarm reaction (rank
1) to this innovation, in that they were somewhat likely to adopt. At
the same time, a relatively low percentage (rank 7) did not know now
whether they would adopt this information or stated they would not
likely adopt this innovation. Respondents seemed to have definite
opinions about this innovation, but they were only moderately positive.
• Light Gauge Steel’s rating was moderate (rank 5) due largely to the
relatively high percentage of respondents (rank 2) who stated they
were very likely to adopt this innovation. A relatively moderate share
of respondents (rank 5) however, stated they were not likely to adopt
this innovation.
• The Ground Source Heat Pump’s score was moderate (rank 5) due to a
relatively high rating (rank 3) from those respondents who said they
would very likely adopt this innovation. Other ratings of this
innovation were relatively moderate to low. A very high proportion of
respondents stated they would not likely adopt this innovation.
• Ratings of the drain water heating equipment, PV, gas engine heat
pump, and gas refueling were generally low. The drain water heating
unit ranked relatively high (rank 3); however, among respondents who
said they would very likely adopt this innovation. Uncertainty about
the gas engine heat pump was relatively high (rank 2). A relatively
high percentage of respondents said that they would not likely adopt
PV, yet it ranked relatively high (rank 4) in regard to those who would
very likely or would be somewhat likely to adopt this innovation.

Attributes Influencing Adoption of Innovations
(See Figures 1–11 in Appendix C)
• Energy Efficiency was the most important attribute influencing, in

order, the use of SIPs, ICFs, Gas Engine Heat Pump, Ground Source
Heat Pump, and Drain Water Heat Reclaim unit.
• Health and Comfort, respectively, were the most important attributes

that would lead to the adoption of the Ventilation and
Dehumidification System.
• Security was the most important attribute influencing the adoption of

home automation.
• Price stability was the most important factor cited as affecting the
adoption of Light Gauge Steel.
• Back-up power during outage and operating cost respectively, were the
most important attributes influencing adoption of PV.
• Environment was the most important reason cited for the likely
adoption of gas refueling.

APPENDIX
A
APPENDIX
B
TOWNHOUSE
UNITNUMBER7
TOWNHOUSE
UNITNUMBER
8
UNITNUMBER
TOWNHOUSE 9
TOWNHOUSE
UNITNUMBER
10
APPENDIX
C
APPENDIX
D

2516 Energy Performance Townhouses

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

2516 Energy Performance Townhouses

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

A DVANCED H OUSING T ECHNOLOGY P ROGRAM

M ONITORING AND E VALUATION OF THE E NERGY P ERFORMANCE OF THE

Subcontract No. 86X-SC895C and 62X-SC895C

Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.

NAHB Research Center, Inc.

STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF TOWNHOUSE UNITS ................................ 3

MODEL CODE ENERGY ANALYSIS ................................................................................ 8

TOWNHOUSE ENERGY PERFORMANCE MONITORING–COOLING SEASON ............... 35

Test, demonstrate, and gain experience with innovative home building

• innovative structural systems in home building and

According to Prince George’s County’s original lot number designations, individual

• Townhouse unit 7 walls and roof are constructed of Structural Insulated

NAHB Research Center, Inc. 1 June 1997

• unit number 7—SIP construction

NAHB Research Center, Inc. 2 June 1997

TOWNHOUSE UNIT 7—STRUCTURAL INSULATED PANELS

First and Second Levels

NAHB Research Center, Inc. 3 June 1997

NAHB Research Center, Inc. 4 June 1997

First and Second Levels

NAHB Research Center, Inc. 5 June 1997

First and Second Levels

NAHB Research Center, Inc. 6 June 1997

First And Second Levels

NAHB Research Center, Inc. 7 June 1997

MODEL CODE ENERGY ANALYSIS

NAHB Research Center, Inc. 8 June 1997

DATA AND METHOD FOR THE ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL TOWNHOUSE UNITS

• The type A-1 Maximum Wall Uo7 = .2188-(4459*.00001555) = .149

• The type A-2 Maximum Wall Uo = .215

• The type A-1 and A-2 Maximum Roof/Ceiling Uo = .036-[(4459-3900)*.00000476] =

NAHB Research Center, Inc. 9 June 1997

• The type A-1 and A-2 Maximum Basement U = .205-(4459*.0000233) = .101

Uo for non-mass wall 0.149

Density of concrete 150 lb/ft3

NAHB Research Center, Inc. 10 June 1997

Uo for non-mass wall 0.149

HVAC Equipment Unit Heating Cooling

NAHB Research Center, Inc. 11 June 1997

NAHB Research Center, Inc. 12 June 1997

Total Gross Wall Area (Ao) 3375.30 o

Roof (8" SIP) 1049.00 0.029

Floor Over Unheated Space 356.83 0.046

NAHB Research Center, Inc. 13 June 1997

MEC Analysis Results

NAHB Research Center, Inc. 14 June 1997

• A MEC minimum required overall Uo of 0.113 compared to an overall Uo

Above Grade Walls

NAHB Research Center, Inc. 15 June 1997

Above Grade Walls

NAHB Research Center, Inc. 16 June 1997

Space Conditioning One- and Two- Multifamily /

NAHB Research Center, Inc. 17 June 1997

Total Gross Wall Area (Ao) 2045.34 o

Ceiling Area 807.20 0.026

Floor Over Unheated Space NA NA

NAHB Research Center, Inc. 18 June 1997

Building Subsystem Space One- and Two- Multifamily /

MEC Analysis Results

NAHB Research Center, Inc. 19 June 1997

• A MEC required minimum overall Uo of 0.110 compared to an overall Uo

Above Grade Walls

-15.00 -10.00 -5.00 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00

NAHB Research Center, Inc. 20 June 1997