170 likes | 244 Views
Single Family Residential. Amanda Webb & Omar Swei Feb 04, 2011. Major Model Changes. Previous Results [Aug 2010 Model]. Chicago - 28.8% Phoenix - 5.6%. Greater savings in Phoenix than Chicago. Updated model shows this is b/c of infiltration. Infil Rates Same R-values Different.
E N D
Single Family Residential Amanda Webb & Omar Swei Feb 04, 2011 CONCRETE SUSTAINABILITY HUB
Major Model Changes CONCRETE SUSTAINABILITY HUB
Previous Results [Aug 2010 Model] Chicago - 28.8% Phoenix - 5.6% Greater savings in Phoenix than Chicago Updated model shows this is b/c of infiltration
Infil Rates Same R-values Different
Peaks reduced What if we add more concrete?
Better in PHX Could get better with more exposed surface area?
Energy Model Conclusions Infiltration, R-value, and mass benefits of ICF should be considered separately Infiltration highly climate dependent; mass somewhat climate dependent Mass makes a small difference CONCRETE SUSTAINABILITY HUB
Heating-dominated (G) in Chicago vs. Cooling-dominated in Phoenix (E)
Work Through Aug 2011 • What is the role of concrete in very low energy houses? • Trend in housing research (Bldg. America, BEOpt) • Trend in legislation (Greening the Codes, CA AB32) • Two targets: Net Zero Energy, Passivhaus • Two research questions to contextualize role of concrete… CONCRETE SUSTAINABILITY HUB
Work Through Aug 2011 Enough to prove significance, Don’t have to build • Q1: How does mass shift the ‘PV Start Point”? • Christensen, et. al., 2004 • Consider LCA (embodied energy) – CONCRETE SUSTAINABILITY HUB
Work Through Aug 2011 • Q2: Does mass make a difference in a Passivhaus? • Suggestion that thermal behavior is different • Combine Q1 & Q2: Is there a “curve” that describes the optimal use of mass? • Overall: Industry able to make intelligent decisions about how to promote use of concrete in very low energy houses. CONCRETE SUSTAINABILITY HUB