A 11 ID 3 D732AD

NATL INST OF STANDARDS & TECH R.I.C.

A1 11 03073280

NBS/NCSBCS Joint Con/Research and Innova QC100 .U57 NO.608, 1981 C.1 NBS-PUB-C 19

l/l Q* NBS SPECIAL PUBLICATION 608

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE / National Bureau of Standards

Research and Innovation

in the

Building Regulatory Process
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

The National Bureau of Standards' was established by an act of Congress on March 3, 1901. The Bureau's overall goal is to strengthen and advance the Nation's science and technology

and facilitate their effective application for public benefit. To this end, the Bureau conducts

research and provides: (1) a basis for the Nation's physical measurement system, (2) scientific and technological services for industry and government, (3) a technical basis for equity in trade, and (4) technical services to promote public safety. The Bureau's technical work is per- formed by the National Measurement Laboratory, the National Engineering Laboratory, and

the Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology.

THE NATIONAL MEASUREMENT LABORATORY provides the national system of

physical and chemical and materials measurement; coordinates the system with measurement

systems of other nations and furnishes essential services leading to accurate and uniform

physical and chemical measurement throughout the Nation's scientific community, industry,

and commerce; conducts materials research leading to improved methods of measurement,

standards, and data on the properties of materials needed by industry, commerce, educational

institutions, and Government; provides advisory and research services to other Government

agencies; develops, produces, and distributes Standard Reference Materials; and provides

calibration services. The Laboratory consists of the following centers:

Absolute Physical Quantities2 — Radiation Research — Thermodynamics and

Molecular Science — Analytical Chemistry — Materials Science. THE NATIONAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY provides technology and technical ser- vices to the public and private sectors to address national needs and to solve national problems; conducts research in engineering and applied science in support of these efforts; builds and maintains competence in the necessary disciplines required to carry out this research and technical service; develops engineering data and measurement capabilities;

provides engineering measurement traceability services; develops test methods and proposes

engineering standards and code changes; develops and proposes new engineering practices;

and develops and improves mechanisms to transfer results of its research to the ultimate user. The Laboratory consists of the following centers:

Applied Mathematics — Electronics and Electrical Engineering2 — Mechanical

Engineering and Process Technology2 — Building Technology — Fire Research —

Consumer Product Technology — Field Methods.

THE INSTITUTE FOR COMPUTER SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGY conducts

research and provides scientific and technical services to aid Federal agencies in the selection, acquisition, application, and use of computer technology to improve effectiveness and

economy in Government operations in accordance with Public Law 89-306 (40 U.S.C. 759), relevant Executive Orders, and other directives; carries out this mission by managing the Federal Information Processing Standards Program, developing Federal ADP standards

guidelines, and managing Federal participation in ADP voluntary standardization activities; provides scientific and technological advisory services and assistance to Federal agencies; and

provides the technical foundation for computer-related policies of the Federal Government.

The Institute consists of the following centers:

Programming Science and Technology — Computer Systems Engineering.

'Headquarters and Laboratories at Gaithersburg, MD, unless otherwise noted; mailing address Washington, DC 20234.

2 Some divisions within the center are located at Boulder, CO 80303.
NATIONAL BDBEAf.

OW RANBABD8

LIBRARY

JUN 1 5 1981

Research and Innovation in the 2aoo

" "

Building Regulatory Process ^?

Proceedings of the Fifth Annual

NBS/NCSBCS Joint Conference

Technical Seminar on Solar Energy and

Energy Conservation

Held in Denver, Colorado

on August 6, 1980

Sandra A. Berry, Editor

Building Economics and Regulatory

Technology Division

Center for Building Technology

National Engineering Laboratory

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, DC 20234

Sponsored by: U.S. Department of Commerce

National Bureau of Standards and

National Conference of States on

Building Codes and Standards (NCSBCS), Inc.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director

Issued May 1981
Ml

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 81-600044

National Bureau of Standards Special Publication 608

Nat. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Publ. 608, 201 pages (May 1981) CODEN: XNBSAV

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1981

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402

Price $6.00

(Add 25 percent for other than U.S. mailing)
Preface

This document contains the Proceedings of the Fifth Annual NBS/NCSBCS

Joint Conference on Research and Innovation in the Building Regulatory

Process / held on August 6, 1980, in Denver, CO. This conference addressed the various aspects of energy conservation and solar energy.

These Proceedings contain all of the 13 papers selected for

presentation at the conference as well as 4 additional papers

selected for publication only. These additional papers are denoted by an asterisk (*) in the Table of Contents.

Acknowledgement s

The editor expresses appreciation to the authors for their input to

this publication. In addition, although their remarks are not

published herein, appreciation is expressed to the Keynote Speaker

and Session Moderators for their participation in the conference.

Keynote Address: Ed Shackleford

President, Solaron Corporation

Englewood , CO

Session on Energy Conservation; Buie Seawell

Director, Colorado State Energy

Conservation Office

Denver , CO

Session on Solar Energy: Bruce Baccei

Solar Energy Research Institute

Golden, CO

''Proceedings of the First through Fourth Annual Joint Conference on Research and Innovation in the Building Regulatory Process are available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government

Printing Office, Washington, D C 20402, as follows:

1. NBS Special Publication 473, $6.00

2. NBS Special Publication 518, $6.00

3. NBS Special Publication 552, $7.50

4. NBS Special Publication 586, $7.00

iii
SI CONVERSION

The following list of conversion factors for the most frequently used

quantities in building design and construction may be used.

QUANTITY INTERNATIONAL (SI) UNIT U.S. CUSTOMARY UNIT APPROXIMATE CONVERSION

LENGTH meter (m) millimeter (mm) foot (ft)

l ncn v "

/

1 m

1 mm

= 3.2808 ft

- 4 in

ADC A cnnai"o square mflfov meter t \ \in }

square millimeter (mm2

)

square foot (ft2

) square Inch (in*)

1 m

2

1 m

2

1 mm

2

= 1 1960 vd 2 = 10.764 ft2 = 1.55 x 10" 3 in2

cud i c meter nn )

cubic millimeter (mrn') cubic foot (ft 3

) cubic inch (in 1

)

1 m

3

1 m

3

1 mm3

= 1 3080 vd 3 = 35.315 ft 3 = 61.024 x 10"6 inJ

CAPACITY liter (L) milliliter (mL) gallon (gal) fluid ounce (fl oz)

1 L

1 mL

= 0.2642 gal

= 0.0338 fl oz

VELOCITY, SPEED meter per second (m/s) kilometer per hour (km/h) foot per second (ft/s or f.p.s.) mile per hour (mile/h or m.p.h.)

1 m/s

1 km/h

= 3.2808 ft/s

= 0.6214 mile/h

ACCELERATION meter per second squared (m/s*) foot per second squared (ft/s 2

) 1 m/s 2 = 3.2808 ft/s 2

MASS metric ton (t) [1000 kg]

kiloqram (kq) gram (g)

short ton [2000 lb] pound (lb) ounce (oz)

1 t

1 kg

1 g

= 1.1023 ton

= 2.2046 lb

= 0.0353 oz

DENSITY metric ton per cubic meter (t/m3

) kilogram per cubic meter (kg/m5

) ton per cubic yard (ton/yd 2

) pound per cubic foot (1b/ft J

)

1 t/m3

1 kg/m3 = 0.8428 ton/yd 3 = 0.0624 lb/ft 3

FORCE kilonewton (kN)

newton (N)

ton -force (tonf) kip [1000 lbf] pound-force (lbf)

1 kN

1 kN

1 N

= 0.1124 tonf

= 0.2248 kip

= 0.2248 lbf

MOMENT OF FORCE, TORQUE kilonewton meter (kN«m) newton meter (N-m) ton-force foot (tonf'ft) pound-force inch (lbf*1n)

1 kN«m

1 N«m

= 0.3688 tonf- ft

= 8.8508 lbf'in

PRESSURE, STRESS megapascal (MPa)

kilopascal (kPa)

ton-force per square inch (tonf/1n !

) ton-force per square foot (tonf/ft2

) pound-force per square inch (lbf/in 2

) pound-force per square foot (lbf/ft2

)

1 MPa

1 MPa

1 kPa

1 kPa

= 0.0725 tonf/in2 = 10.443 tonf/ft2 = 0.1450 lbf/in 2 = 20.885 lbf/ft2

WORK, ENERGY,

QUANTITY OF HEAT megajoule (MJ) kilojoule (kJ) joule (J)

kilowatthour (kWh) British thermal unit (Btu) foot pound-force (ft* lbf)

1 MJ

1 kJ

1 J

= 0.2778 kWh

= 0.9478 Btu

= 0.7376 ft-lbf

POWER, HEAT FLOW RATE kilowatt (kW) watt (W) horsepower (hp) British thermal unit per hour (Btu/h) foot pound-force per second (ft«lbf/s)

1 kW

1 W

1 W

= 1.3410 hp

= 3.4121 Btu/h

= 0.7376 ft* lbf/s

COEFFICIENT OF HEAT- watt per square meter kelvin Btu per square foot hour degree Fahrenheit (Btu/ft2 «h«°F)

1 W/m2 «K = 0.1761 Btu/ft2 «h TRANSFER [U-value] (W/m'-K) [=(W/m! -

ft C))

THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY [k-value] watt per meter kelvin (W/m«K)

t=(w/m- aC)] Btu per square foot degree Fahrenheit

(Btu/ft2 «°F)

1 W/m'K = 0.5778 Btu/ft2 «°

NOTES: (1) The above conversion factors are shown to three or four places of decimals.

(2) Unprefixed SI units are underlined. (The kilogram, although prefixed, is an SI base unit.)

REFERENCES: NBS Guidelines for the Use of the Metric System, LC1056, Revised August 1977; The Metric System of Measurement, Federal Register Notice of October 26, 1977, IX 1078, Revised November 1977; NBS Special Publication 330, "The International System of Units (SI)," 1977 Edition; NBS Technical Note 938, "Recommended Practice for the Use of Metric (SI) Units in Building Design and Construction," Revised edition June 1977; ASTM Standard E621-78, "Standard Practice for the Use of Metric (SI) Units in Building Design and Construction," (based on NBS TN 938), March 1978; ANSI Z210. 1-1976, "American National Standard for Metric Practice." ASTM E380-79E

, "Standard for Metric Practice."

IEEE Std. 268-1979, "Standard for Metric Practice."

iv
ABSTRACT

The Proceedings of the Fifth Annual NBS/NCSBCS Joint Conference

on Research and Innovation in the Building Regulatory Process

contain 17 technical papers. This year's joint conference addressed

solar energy and energy conservation.

These proceedings include papers on:

• Energy programs in the State of Colorado

• Building energy performance standards concepts

• State energy audits

• Energy and building systems services

• Solar energy and building codes

Key words: ASHRAE 90-75; Class K code; computer modeling;

electrical design; energy audit; energy conservation;

HVAC systems; performance standards; solar collector;

solar energy; space heating and cooling; thermal storage.

DISCLAIMER

Papers in this volume, except those by National Bureau of

Standards authors, have not been edited or altered by the National

Bureau of Standards. Opinions expressed in non-NBS papers are those of the authors, and not necessarily those of the National

Bureau of Standards. Non-NBS authors are solely responsible for

the content and quality of their submissions.

The mention of trade names in the volume is in no sense an endorsement or recommendation by the National Bureau of Standards.

v
CONTENTS

Page

Preface iii

Acknowledgements ixi

SI Conversion iv

Abstract v

SESSION ON ENERGY CONSERVATION

Buie Seawell, Moderator

Evaluation of the Nonresidential Energy Conservation Building

Standards of the State of Colorado

by Ronald W. Cattany, Donald E. Croy, and Lorraine Rup 1

Alternate Optimal Control Strategies for Residential HVAC

Systems

by A. F. Emery, B. Dorri, C. J. Kippenhan, D. R. Heerwagen

and G. Banken 21

Energy Conscious Electrical Design

by Harry B. Zackrison, Jr 37

Potential Energy Savings in Buildings Resulting from the NCSBCS

Code Compared with BEPS

by Eino 0. Kainlauri 57

Solar and Geothermal Housing Innovations via Inverted Cave

Construction System

by Thomas E. Loxley 69

Basic Human Values and Energy Conserving Lifestyles or the

Implications of California's Innovative New Class K Code

by Anon Forest 83

*Setting Standards for Building Energy Performance in Hawaii

by David Lord 105

*A Simplified Low Cost Technique for Evaluating Building

Energy Performance Standards Submittals

by John Mark Anderson, Paul Mark Evans, and Robert L. Smith.... 113

*Energy Audits of Public Buildings in Illinois

by Donald S. Glickman and Donald L. Terry 123

*A Professional Approach to Class A and School and Hospital

Energy Audits, with Case Studies

by Eino 0. Kainlauri 133

*These papers were not presented at the Seminar.

vi
Page

SESSION ON SOLAR ENERGY

Bruce Baccei, Moderator

A Simplified Procedure for the Use of Solar Energy in

Complying with the Colorado Energy Conservation Standards

for Residential Buildings

by Steve McCarney 139

Solar Systems Facilitated by the Proper Application of

Existing Building Codes

by Richard S. Gaines and Patrick S. McLafferty 159

Development of Recommended Requirements to Code Officials

for Solar Heating, Cooling and Hot Water Systems

by B. S. Trant 167

A Method for Retaining an Experimental Attitude in Solar Codes

by Stache Williams 173

State Government Roles in National Solar Collector

Labeling, Certification, and Rating

by Peggy Wrenn 179

Residential Conservation Service Program Solar Model Audit

by William Phillip Key and Thomas Potter I83

Building Codes vs. the Design of Passive Solar Heat Storage

by Richard R. Heinemeyer 195

vii

EVALUATION OF THE NONRESIDENTIAL ENERGY CONSERVATION BUILDING

STANDARDS OF THE STATE OF COLORADO

by

Ronald W. Cattany, Director of Policy and Planning

Office of Energy Conservation

State of Colorado

Donald E. Croy, Manager, Computer Services Department

Energy Management Consultants, Inc.

Denver , Colorado

Lorraine Rup, Director of Building Standards Program

Office of Energy Conservation

State of Colorado

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of and the

energy savings due to implementation of the Colorado Model Energy Efficiency Construction and Renovation Standards for Nonresidential Buildings. This report is based on information derived from case studies of

30 selected buildings in three geographic regions of Colorado. Half the

sample was constructed before local enforcement of energy standards

(1974-1977) and half after local enforcement (77-78). Estimated energy

savings were obtained by computer modeling 15 pre-code buildings on nationally recognized energy simulation programs, then modifying results

to reflect design requirements of State Standards. Thorough plan and

specification checks of design documents were made on 15 post-code buildings to determine degree of compliance with energy standards.

The standards were found to be effective in reducing annual energy

consumption in all building types and locations studied. The average

annual reduction was estimated to be 39.5 percent for office buildings

three stories and under, 40.9 percent for office buildings over three

stories, 6.1 percent for schools, 31.2 percent for retail stores, and

27.7 percent for warehouses. Cost avoidance due to the standards for

all buildings which have or will be constructed from 1979 through 1984

is projected to be $102,266,571. No significant increase in nonresidential construction costs has been incurred due to the standards, including inflationary effects. Very few post-code buildings were in full

compliance with the State Standards, and were especially deficient in

the areas of ventilation air, lighting switching, service water heating

recovery, and slab on grade insulation. But it is doubtful that additional efforts to enforce these minor provisions would produce significant

additional energy savings. Finally, the percent deviation of Colorado

code buildings from BEPS varied widely among building types and locations.

The study recommends that the State statute mandating local enforcement

of nonresidential standards be continued beyond January 1, 1980. Additional training in code requirements is essential, with new emphasis on

cost impacts and benefits. A more simplified approach to lighting is

needed, and more written forms and procedures are urged.

Key words: ASHRAE 90-75; BEPS; building standards; code enforcement;

energy conservation; energy costs.

1
INTRODUCTION

This report presents the study of Colorado's experience with nonresidential energy conservation building standards. This study was conducted

by Energy Management Consultants, Inc., for the Colorado Office of State

Planning and Budgeting, the Colorado Office of Energy Conservation, and

the Colorado Energy Research Institute, and pursuant to 29-12-103 (4),

Colorado Revised Statute (CRS) 1973, as amended:

"The Office of State Planning and Budgeting shall evaluate

the effectiveness of and calculate the energy savings due

to the Standards promulgated by the Board and report the

results of their evaluation to the General Assembly on or before December 1, 1979."

The information on which this report is based was derived from case studies of selected buildings in three geographic regions of Colorado,

and a survey of local officials and building industry representatives

throughout the State.

It is intended that this study will provide the State with suggestions

for amendments to the technical provisions of the Colorado Model Energy

Efficiency Construction and Renovation Standards for Nonresidential

Buildings, the State enabling legislation, and State and local administrative procedures which might ease local implementation of energy

standards, lessen their fiscal impact, and increase their energy and

cost efficiency.

BACKGROUND OF THE COLORADO STANDARDS

In 1977 the Colorado General Assembly foresaw a critical energy situation

and enacted Senate Bill 432, which required local adoption of non- residential energy conservation building standards. Its action was

timely; construction activity in the State was increasing and fuel

prices would soon rise sharply. The legislature also had to consider

Colorado's unique environment—climatic diversity, local building code

enforcement, and the urban/rural dichotomy of the State.

Senate Bill 432 of 1977, "Concerning the Establishment of Energy Efficient

Construction and Renovation Standards for Nonresidential Buildings," con- tained the following important provisions:

° It affected most new nonresidential construction and substantial

renovations, but exempted buildings such as hotels, apartments,

and historic structures from energy standards.

o It established a Nonresidential Board under the Office of State

Planning and Budgeting (OSPB) and required it to adopt model

standards for nonresidential buildings by November 1, 1977.

2
° It required local governments with building codes to adopt and

enforce equal or more stringent nonresidential standards beginning July 1, 1978. There were no sanctions for non-compliance.

° It mandated that OSPB establish a continuing program of training

and technical assistance.

o It appropriated Federal funds to OSPB for implementation of a State program.

o It sunset on January 1, 1980.

Following its appointment, the Board of Energy Efficient Nonresidential

Building Standards reviewed energy programs on the Federal, State and

local levels, finally choosing to follow the direction of the American

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)

Standard 90-75. After public hearings around the State, the board

adopted the Colorado Model Energy Efficiency Construction and Renovation

Standards for Nonresidential Buildings on November 1, 1977.

In October of 1978, the Colorado Division of Housing reported that 73

percent of local jurisdictions with building codes had adopted nonresidential standards and 16 percent were in process. These 175 complying

jurisdictions represented 95 percent of the State's total population.

TECHNICAL CONTENT OF THE COLORADO STANDARDS

The Colorado Model Energy Efficiency Construction and Renovation Standards for Nonresidential Buildings are based on the American Society of

Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE)

Standard 90-75, with minor revisions to make the standards Coloradospecific.

The standards establish specific, well-defined performance criteria for

each of the elements involved in building design and construction which

are related to the energy usage of the building. These elements or com- ponents include walls, ceilings, windows, heating, ventilating and airconditioning (HVAC) systems, lights, etc. It allows the criteria of any

one or more of these elements to be substantially relaxed, if it is offset by a corresponding energy reduction in other elements.

The standards consider local climate conditions, and most building types

and materials. Credit for the use of non-depletable energy sources,

such as solar, are allowed and it provides three different methods of

compliance—including a procedure for small commercial buildings which

requires no thermal analysis.

METHODOLOGY OF THIS STUDY

In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the Colorado Nonresidential

Building Standards and determine any energy savings due to the standards

promulgated by the board, the following methodology was used.

3
Selection of Geographic Regions

Three geographic regions in Colorado were selected. These regions

represent a cross section of the economic, population and climatological

factors in the State. They are also areas of considerable nonresidential

construction activity.

° City of Denver and Surrounding Metropolitan Area. Represents

the Front Range, East Slope and primary population areas.

° Grand Junction/Rifle Area. Represents the rural and urban West

Slope and energy development areas.

° Eagle/Vail Area. Represents the mountain recreation and rural

areas

Selection of Building Sample

Five building categories were studied in each geographic region:

° Office buildings, three stories and under;

° Office buildings, greater than three stories;

° Schools (elementary, middle and high schools);

° Retail stores (discount drug, furniture, and lumber supply);

° Warehouses.

Two buildings from each region were investigated, 15 were constructed

before local enforcement of energy standards, and 15 were designed and

constructed after local enforcement of energy standards. In most cases,

the pre-code buildings studied were constructed between 1974 and 1977,

while the post-code buildings were designed and constructed after July 2,

1978.

In all cases, each building studied was considered "representative" of

most buildings in that particular category, for the particular region,

and for the time period when it was constructed. In order to determine

the characteristics of representative buildings and to select the building sample, a building design criteria questionnaire was mailed to

selected architects, engineers, and contractors. On-site building investigations were conducted and actual energy usage and energy cost

experiences of buildings were considered in determining representative

structures.

Thus, the study results are predicated on the assumption that these 30

buildings are, in fact, representative of most buildings constructed or designed in the specific region, building category, and time period

under investigation.

4
Energy Analysis of Pre-Code Buildings

On-site surveys were conducted on 15 pre-code buildings to obtain

physical data, which was then duplicated on computer models using

nationally recognized energy simulation computer programs. The complex

heated and air-conditioned buildings were modeled on the Energy Simulaation Program #1 (ESP-1) and the more simplistic buildings that were

heated only were modeled using the Quick Energy Simulation Program

(QUICKE) . The model was validated by comparing the computer estimated

energy usage of the pre-code buildings to the actual utility records of

that building. In all cases, the accuracy of the computer simulation

was within 10 percent of the actual metered data for the last year's

historical energy consumption.

The computer model was then modified to reflect the design changes which

would have had to be made to the building to make it comply with the

Colorado Energy Conservation Standards for Nonresidential Buildings. The

difference in energy usage between the two models thus represented the

average energy savings which could be attributed to compliance with the

State standards for each category of building in each region.

Computer modeling was used to estimate and compare the energy usage of

a pre-code and post-code buildings because computer modeling cancels out

variables not regulated by the State standard, such as daily operating

schedules, quality of maintenance, etc. Through computer modeling a comparison was obtained based solely on the design factors which are influenced by the Colorado standards, such as changes to the building

envelope, lighting, type and method of controlling mechanical equipment.

Investigation of Post-Code Buildings

The plans of 15 post-code buildings designed after local implementation

of energy standards were examined to determine if they complied with the

State standards. This investigation included a thorough plan and specification check of the design documents, and the completion of a Standards

Compliance Check list. All 15 post-code buildings were certified by an architect or engineer as complying with local Energy Conservation Building Standards.

Survey of the Building Industry

Concurrently with the building analysis and investigation, questionnaires

were mailed and personal interviews were conducted with representatives

of the building industry across the State, including:

° Local building code officials

Mechanical and electrical engineers

0 Architects

° Contractors

5
o Materials and equipment suppliers

o Building owners and managers

The interviews and questionnaires were evaluated to:

Help determine the extent of local enforcement and compliance of

non-residential energy conservation building standards.

Identify barriers to enforcement, compliance, and administration

of energy standards, including conflicts with existing codes.

Help evaluate the cost impact of energy standards.

Help determine the energy savings as a result of the standards.

Determine the effectiveness of the State program of training and

technical assistance.

STUDY RESULTS

Energy Savings

Under strict interpretation of the Code, the Colorado Energy Conservation

Standards for Nonresidential Buildings are, effective in reducing annual

energy consumption in all building types and locations studied. The

energy savings resulting from the redesign of the pre-code buildings

studied are shown in figures 1, 2 and 3.

The average (for all geographic areas) reduction in annual energy

consumption for buildings constructed in compliance with the State Standards, as compared with buildings constructed immediately prior to

Standards enforcement, was as follows:

AVERAGE REDUCTION IN ANNUAL ENERGY USAGE

(ALL GEOGRAPHIC AREAS)

BUILDING TYPE PERCENT REDUCTION

Office buildings,

three stories and under 39.5

Office buildings,

over three stories 40.9

Schools 6.1

Retail stores 31.2

Warehouses 27.7

6
Figure 1: Pre-Code/Post-Code Energy Comparison-Denver

Figure 2: Pre-Code/Post-Code Energy Comparison-Grand Junction/Rifle

<4H

*Due to higher energy range of buildings studied in this area, a different scale was used then in figures 1 and 3.

7
Figure 3: Pre-Code/Post-Code Energy Comparison-Eagle/Vail

For the most part, this energy reduction was accomplished primarily by

applying the following provisions of the State standards.

o Night set back on permanent (24 hour) temperature set down

o Control sequencing of the heating and cooling devices

° Reduction in outside air provided to the building to meet

other code requirements (i.e., reduced ventilation)

0 Upgrading of the building envelope primarily in the roof and

window area and the addition of exterior slab insulation

0 Reduction in lighting capacity

Assuming that the pre-code buildings investigated are representative

of the majority of pre-code buildings throughout the State, and assuming

that the State standards are strictly enforced, the resulting energy

savings can be projected through the erid of 1984, by using construction

projections developed by the Office of State Planning and Budgeting:

8
PROJECTED ENERGY SAVINGS

1979-1984

Building

IZE^

Office

buildings*

Schools

Retail

stores

Warehouses

TOTAL

Total Estimated Sq. Ft.

of Construction (Thousands

of Square Feet)

54,927

13,091

44,247

46,749

159,014

Total Estimated

Energy Savings

(Billions of Btu's)

2,076

76

2,024

764

4,940

Construction projections were not available for each office building

category studied. The percent energy reduction determined in the study was averaged and applied to the total office building construction projection.

Energy Cost Impact

The projected energy savings were converted to energy cost savings or,

more correctly, energy cost avoidance. The conversion to cost was based

on the average energy costs during 1979 for nonresidential buildings in

Colorado: $0,035 per kWh for electricity and $2.50 per MCF for natural

gas.

These costs were then escalated at 15 percent per year through 1984.

This rate of energy cost escalation is considered to be conservative

for this period of time.*

The projected cost avoidance for all buildings in the categories studied

which have or will be constructed from 1979 through 1984 which can be

attributed to energy reduction from the State standards is as follows:

o Actual Total Dollar

Cost Avoidance: 1979 - 1984 $102,266,571

o In terms of January 1979

dollars (using 10 percent cost

of capital), the cost avoidance is: $ 57,726,810

Since the study was completed in November 1979, electrical costs

have risen 30 percent during the first 6 months of 1980.

9
ECONOMIC IMPACT

Initial Construction Costs

Analysis of actual cost data for the State of Colorado, compiled by the

F.W. Dodge Division of McGraw-Hill, indicates no significant increase in

nonresidential construction costs since the passage of energy conservation legislation in July of 1977. The trends for each building type

from January 1977 through December 1979 are illustrated in figures 4 and

5. Actual contracts for new construction, additions, and major alteration projects are represented on the graphs by solid lines, and the

average construction cost trends are represented by dotted lines.

Retail store and office building costs increased approximately $4.00/sq.

ft. and $3.00/sq. ft. respectively, while school and warehouse costs decreased approximately $3.00/sq. ft. and $0.50/sq. ft., respectively.

Since the overall changes in costs were less than the average annual

inflation rate, in real terms the nonresidential construction costs

have actually declined over the period. (Figures 4 and 5 illustrate

the nominal price change.)

This data and interviews with representatives of the Associated General

Contractors seems to indicate that construction costs are more dependent

upon the competitive market at the time than any other factor. Other

factors contributing to building cost changes include:

° Material shortages and allocations;

° Increased amount of construction in the area;

° Life/safety code modifications;

° Fuel cost and availability;

° Environmental standards and regulations;

° Contractor profit margin;

° Cost trade-offs in selection of building components.

The questionnaire results indicate a dual effect. Compliance with the

State standards can cause an increase in the cost of certain building

components. However, these costs are often offset by reduced costs in

related building components. For example, the State standards require

a minimum insulating value for the building envelope, which in most

cases costs more. This increase is offset through a substantial reduction in the number and/or size of heating, ventilating, and airconditioning systems.

The study concludes that the net cost effect directly attributable to

the State standards for nonresidential buildings may vary among

10
Figure 5: Nonresidential Building Construction Costs, COLORADO

January 1977 - December 1979

4-1

coco 4J

COoo

elo

•H

4JO

du

jj

CO

eso

c_>OOa

•rl T3

i—

I

•H

J fMAMJ*JASONDJ r M A M I

* V A ( O N D j IMA J j A I O N D

Average Construction Cost Trend

Actual Construction Costs

*July 1, 1977 Energy Legislation passed

**July 1, 1978 Local enforcement of energy

codes required

11
different buildings, but it is minimal when viewed as a percent of the total

building dollars. If additional costs are incurred as a result of the

standards, owners of new nonresidential buildings can expect a substantial reduction in utility costs, and enjoy continued utility cost savings as a net annual benefit thereafter.

Local and State Administrative Costs

Local code officials reported an average increase of 5 percent in administrative costs as a result of implementation of nonresidential energy

conservation building standards. Half of those responding, however, indicated little or no increase. All stated that they enforce energy con- servation standards to the extent their existing budgets allow. Most

relied heavily on an architect's or engineer's (A/E) certification as proof

of compliance, and they perform spot checks as their time permits.

The Legislature's decision to allow a building official to accept A/E

certification as proof of compliance appears to have significantly lessened the potential impact of nonresidential energy conservation standards

on local government budgets.

Since July 1977, approximately $200,000 in Federal funds have been

allocated by the U.S. Department of Energy to the State for the administration of this program. These monies have been used to provide training

and technical assistance to local governments and members of the building

industry; to coordinate activities with national organizations and codewriting groups; to develop, adopt, publish, and distribute the State Model

Standards, related forms and procedures; and to support administrative

staff.

Compliance With Standards, Post-Code Buildings

The plans and specifications of 15 buildings designed or constructed

after local adoption of energy standards were reviewed to determine com- pliance with the State Energy Standards. Very few, if any, of the buildings were in full compliance with the State standards. Most of the difficulty was in meeting the requirements for mechanical service water

heating, lighting, and below grade perimeter insulation. All of the

building envelopes checked met the State standards with the exception of one warehouse in the Denver area.

The following deficiencies were found in more than one of the building

plans investigated:

o Ventilation air too high;

o Window/door air leakage not specified;

o Light switching unspecified}

o Service water heater recovery efficiency inadequate;

o Slab on grade insulation missing.

12
While it appears that a majority of new buildings do not comply completely with the Colorado Energy Conservation Standards for Nonresidential

Buildings, it is doubtful that additional efforts to enforce these minor

provisions would produce significant additional energy savings.

BUILDING INDUSTRY FEEDBACK

Comments from representatives of the building industry were extensive.

Some of the more significant statements from questionnaires and personal

interviews are presented below.

Local Enforcement and Compliance

o Eighty-seven percent of the building officials responding stated

they are enforcing Energy Conservation Standards for Nonresidential

Buildings

.

o Seventy percent of the building officials responding felt the

standards are understood by the applicant; however, only

55 percent of the architects, engineers, and contractors believed the Standards are understood by local building officials.

o Building officials responding estimated that 15 to 20 percent of

the plans submitted to them either failed to meet the standards

or failed to provide sufficient information in the form of calculations, etc.

Administration

o Building officials felt they needed more support from local

elected officials on nonresidential energy conservation building

standards. They suggested increased communication with the local

community and greater consideration of budgetary impacts.

o Almost no building officials allowed formal variances to the

Nonresidential Standards Calthough enabling legislation permits

variance proceedings) . Building officials appear to be handling

such problems informally and within the scope of the standards.

o Architects, engineers, and contractors expressed concern about

the delays caused by the compliance review process. Delays

should decrease, however, as industry becomes more familiar with

nonresidential standards through usage and technical assistance.

Technical Provisions

There was general agreement among building officials and private industry

regarding the following technical problems:

o Information on energy efficiency of new materials and methods is

difficult to obtain. Manufacturers often do not provide it, and

independent laboratory data is not readily available;

13
o The lighting portion of the State Standards demands complicated

calculations, and is difficult to meet and enforce. The Nonresidential Board should consider amending this portion of the

standards;

o Self-closing faucets and service water heaters that meet the

requirements of the Standards are not readily available on the

Colorado market. The Nonresidential Board should consider

amending these portions of the standards until distribution of

these materials is more widespread;

o A few portions of the State standards appear to be in conflict

with ventilation and electrical codes. Note, however, that the

State standards do not take precedence over existing health and

safety codes. It should also be mentioned that the code-change

cycles of many organizations are not in sequence, and this may

cause short delays in uniformity;

o Although 85 percent of the building officials responding said

they perferred a performance-based standard, they requested that

simple language and methods be developed to ease enforcement.

Cost Impact

Most representatives in all categories agreed that it is very difficult,

if not impossible, to estimate the actual cost-impact of the State

standards because of the concurrent effect of inflation during the last

few years.

o Local building officials estimated that administrative costs

have increased an average of five percent due to implementation of

the standards. The ability to accept architect/engineer certification appears to have lessened potential impact;

o Architects, engineers, and contractors estimated that their

administrative and design costs have increased approximately

nine percent as a result of additional review and calculations

required by the standards. This impact should decrease as professionals become more familiar with the standards through

usage and technical assistance;

o Architects, engineers, and contractors estimate that overall

nonresidential building costs have increased an average of 2.6

percent as a result of implementation of the standards.

14
Energy Impact

The following estimates of average energy savings were reported:

Respondent Electrical Fuel

Building officials 9.4% 13.4%

Architects, engineers,

and contractors 14.8% 18.4%

State Program of Training and Technical Assistance

o All but one building official responding had attended a State

sponsored program. They suggested that training be more basic,

more extensive, and for longer periods of time. They requested

more easy-to-follow graphs, charts, and manuals. Many indicated

they have problems getting time off for training;

o Seventy percent of the architects, engineers, and contractors

responding, had attended a State sponsored training program and

most felt it was adequate. They requested smaller training

groups and better notification of sessions;

o A majority of the material and equipment suppliers responding

had not attended State training.

Other Significant Comments

o Architects and engineers believed that most owners of buildings

in the private sector are not willing to spend more money than

is necessary to meet the minimum standards because they perceive

an additional cost impact. Owners also desire more glass than

the standards consider energy efficient;

o Architects and engineers believed few speculative buildings would

comply with the State standards if they were not mandatory;

o Building officials requested that State and local lawmakers

consider the whole issue of code enforcement, including local

budget and manpower impacts;

o Almost all building officials, architects and engineers

responding believe the Board of Energy Efficient Nonresidential

Building Standards has been representative, fair and effective

in carrying out its duties;

o A majority of respondants wanted only guidelines from the Federal

Government. They felt that State and local governments should

be responsible for specific code language and code enforcement.

15
COMPARISON OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION PREDICTIONS AND STANDARDS

Tables 1, 2, and 3 present four energy consumption indices for each of

the pre-code buildings at the three site locations. These four indices

were computed on the following basis:

o Present Annual Building Boundary Energy Consumption (Btu/ft 2 ).

These values of energy consumption index were obtained from

computer simulations of the buildings as they presently exist.

They represent an operational rather than a design condition^

o Redesign Annual Building Boundary Energy Consumption (Btu/ft 2 ).

These values were obtained from computer simulation of

operational consumption based on computer simulations of the

buildings, incorporating design modifications necessary to bring

the buildings within compliance of the State Code;

o "BEPS" Design Building Energy (Btu/ft 2 ). These are design values

obtained from the Federal Building Energy Performance Standards

(BEPS) . They represent limiting consumption budgets for hypothetical buildings in each of the various categories under

design rather than actual operating conditions;

o Redesign Operational Energy Consumption (Btu/ft 2 ). These values

were obtained by adjusting the second group of values, according

to BEPS guidelines, to reflect total operational consumption

(i.e., including losses by electric power companies in providing

energy to the building boundary)

.

The percent deviation from BEPS budget indicates the percent differences

between the Operational Energy Consumption and the "BEPS" Design Energy

Budget. This comparison is considered to be of limited value, because

the Operational Energy Consumption reflects actual operating conditions,

whereas the Design Energy Budget reflects assumed operating conditions.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Colorado Energy Conservation Standards for Nonresidential Buildings

are unquestionably effective in saving substantial amounts of energy,

which results in equally substantial energy cost avoidance. There is no significant overall cost impact to achieve those savings ir the non- residential sector, other than the administrative cost to State and local

governments.

Where additional costs are incurred by some building owners, they can expect a substantial reduction in utility costs and enjoy continued

utility cost avoidance as a net annual benefit thereafter. A program of

efficient operation and maintenance of the resulting energy efficient

building could provide owners even more opportunities to save energy.

The standards appear to be enforced to some degree in most locations in

the State of Colorado. While most new buildings do not comply completely

16
Table 1: Comparison of Redesign Energy Consumption With Building

Energy Performance Standards (BEPS) Budget

DENVER

PRESENT REDESIGN ANNUAL BLDG. ANNUAL BLDG. "BEPS" REDESIGN

BOUNDARY BOUNDARY DESIGN OPERATIONAL PERCENT

ENERGY CON- ENERGY CON- ENERGY CON- ENERGY ENERGY CON- DEVIATION GROSS AREA SUMPTION SUMPTION BUDGET SUMPTION FROM BEPS

BLOG. NO. BUILDING CATEGORY FT2 BTU/FT2 BTU/FT2 BTU/FT2 BTU/FT2

(1) BUDGET

1. Office Building

Over 3 Stories 484,523 91,995 66,110 109,000 171,961 + 58

2. Office Building A

Under 3 Stories 65,610 107,000 71,000 109,000 186,466 + 71

11. Office Building B Under 3 Stories 20,760 90,500 45,600 100,000 120,282 + 20

3. School 42,845 110,907 97,540 97,000 159,222 + 64

4. Retail Store 30,000 105,000 86,500 137,000 266,420 + 94

5. Warehouse 84,256 54,800 37,300 71,000 73,983 + 4

(1) Boundary consumption converted for BEPS comparison, using proposed BEPS weighting factors.

Table 2: Comparison of Redesign Energy Consumption With Building

Energy Performance Standards (BEPS) Budget

GRAND JUNCTION/RIFLE

GROSS AREA

BLDG. NO . BUILDING CATEGORY FT2

6. Office Building

PRESENT ANNUAL BLDG. BOUNDARY

ENERGY CON- SUMPTION

BTU/FT2

REDESIGN ANNUAL BLDG. BOUNDARY ENERGY CON- SUMPTION

BTU/FT2

"BEPS" REDESIGN DESIGN OPERATIONAL PERCENT ENERGY ENERGY CON- DEVIATION

BUDGET SUMPTION FROM BEPS BTU/FT2 BTU/FT2 (1) BUDGET

Over 3 Stories 104,688 213 ,396 113,672 109,000 304,944 + 280

7. Office Building Under 3 Stories 52,600 121,,000 48,600 109,000 120,518 + 11

8. School 43,492 115,,000 102,000 118,000 140,078 + 19

9. Retail Store 27,100 162,,000 102,000 137,000 272,611 + 99

10. Warehouse 181,000 60,,900 47,300 71,000 79,469 + 12

(1) Boundary consumption converted for BEPS comparison, using proposed BEPS weighting factors.

17
Table 3: Comparison of Redesign Energy Consumption With Building

Energy Performance Standards (BEPS) Budget

EAGLE /VAIL

BLDG . NO. BUILDING CATEGORY

GROSS AREA

FT2

PRESENT

ANNUAL BLDG. BOUNDARY ENERGY CON- SUMPTION

BTU/FT

REDESIGN ANNUAL BLDG. "BEPS" BOUNDARY ENERGY CON- SUMPTION

BTU/FT2

DESIGN

ENERGY BUDGET

BTU/FT2

REDESIGN OPERATIONAL PERCENT

ENERGY CON- DEVIATION

SUMPTION FROM BEPS BTU/FT2 (1) BUDGET

12. Office Building Under 3 Stories 22,063 62,,872 60,307 100,000 185,746 + 86

13. School 53,789 84,,200 70,200 118,000 103,792 + 12

14. Retail Store 5,580 77,,900 47,900 137,000 94,964 + 31

15. Warehouse 17,600 49,,200 34,700 71,000 106,876 + 51

(1) Boundary consumption converted for BEPS comparison, using proposed BEPS weighting factors.

with the standards, it is doubtful that additional efforts to enforce

those minor areas of noncompliance would produce significant additional

energy savings.

Problems with the State standards certainly do exist and continued

efforts for improvement are in order. But these problems do not appear

to be inordinate for the implementation of such a bold new concept.

There is a need for more training of the building industry, particularly

at the local enforcement level. A special effort should also be made to

include contractors and materials suppliers in the State Program. Additional training and information on cost impacts and benefits would also

be worthwhile, especially in the private sector.

The following recommendations are offered:

o TJie State standards should be continued and improved as problem

area feedback is received and as the state-of-the-art advances;

o The lighting portion of the standards should be completely

revised to permit a more simplified approach;

o Standard forms should be developed by the State and made

available to local building code officials for checking compliance.

18
o The State program of training and technical assistance should be

continued and improved, particularly for local enforcement

officials

;

o The State and the building industry should pursue additional

energy and cost savings through a program of efficient operation

and maintenance of existing nonresidential buildings.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arthur D. Little, Inc., "Energy Conservation in New Building Design, An

Impact Assessment of ASHRAE Standard 90-75, FEA conservation paper number

43B, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1977.

Energy Management Consultants Inc., "Methodology for Energy Conservation

Study for State Owned Buildings in the State of Colorado," Denver, CO, 1978.

McGraw Hill Information Systems Company, "Dodge Local Construction Potentials, State of Colorado," (January 1, 1977 monthly through December 1979),

New York, NY.

Moore, Ernest W. , Willis, Giles W. , Jr., "Model Energy Conservation Code

Impact on Building Costs in Texas," The Texas Engineering Extension

Service, 1979.

Public Technology, Inc. , "Colorado Energy Conservation Standards Case

Study," Washington, DC, 1978.

Research Planning Associates, "Evaluating Colorado Energy Conservation

Options, Performance Standards," Colorado Energy Research Institute,

Golden, CO, 1979.

Rice, Marek, Holtz, and Patterson, "Fiscal Impact Statement, Senate Bill

432 (1977, Colorado Model Energy Efficiency Construction and Renovation

Standards for Nonresidential Buildings"), Denver, CO, 1978.

Salter, Richard G., Petruschell, Robert L., Wolf, Kathleen, "Energy Conservation in Nonresidential Buildings," The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica,

CA, 1975.

State of Colorado, "Model Energy Efficiency Construction and Renovation

Standards for Nonresidential Buildings," Denver, CO, 1977.

Stobaugh, Robert and Yergin, Daniel, "Energy Future, A report of the energy

project at Harvard Business School," Random House, New York, NY, 1979.

U.S. Department of Energy, "Notice of Proposed Rule Making, Energy Performance Standards for New Buildings," DoE/CS/0112, Washington, DC, November

1979.

U.S. Department of Energy, "Economic Analysis, Energy Performance of New

Buildings," Office of Conservation and Solar Energy, Office of Buildings and

Community Systems, Washington, DC, 1979.

19

ALTERNATE OPTIMAL CONTROL STRATEGIES

FOR RESIDENTIAL HVAC SYSTEMS

by

A. F. Emery, B. Dorri, C. J. Kippenhan,

D. R. Heerwagen and G. Banken

Departments of Mechanical Engineering and Architecture

University of Washington

Seattle, Washington

The optimal control of HVAC systems on an hourly basis is determined

bcth by the thermal inputs which precede the hour under question and by

future thermal effects. Most simulation programs treat only the past

history. This paper describes results obtained with a special program

which optimizes the use of the HVAC system in conjunction with natural

and artificial lighting and with other thermal load schedules by

considering such future effects.

The results indicate that substantial savings can occur through such a look-ahead optimization and that the extent of the needed future knowledge for most residential structures is in the neighborhood of a few

hours. It is also shown that such an optimization is more valuable for

the gradual changes associated with the usual weather than with rapid

changes of internal thermal loads.

Key words: Cost savings; energy conservation; HVAC systems; innovation;

mathematical model; optimization.

21
INTRODUCTION

During recent years, changes in the availability, cost, and strategic

value of energy have caused the conservation of energy to be both an eco- nomic and a social goal of all nations, but particularly of the highly

industrialized countries. It is no accident that these countries also

lie in climatic zones where substantial amounts of energy (approximately 20

percent) are used for space conditioning. Although it would appear that

sizable reductions in overall energy usage could be achieved by modest

reductions in the space conditioning requirements, such reductions are not easily realized since they often involve substantial modifications to

the habitat, of the occupants' lifestyle, and particularly since they

involve the sensory perceptions of human comfort. Furthermore, the

indiscriminate alteration of the internal micro-climate may lead to

unexpected side effects which are difficult for the technically inexperienced user to correct. For example, in the temperate zones of the United

States it is possible to achieve a five-fold reduction in heating requirements by improved insulation, reduced infiltration and night set-back,

and a general reduction of the space temperature. Unfortunately, such a strategy may result in inadequate fresh air supply and in unacceptable

levels of moisture condensation. Alleviation of these effects can be

achieved by installing air-to-air heat exchangers [2]* and insulated

glazing. The owner of the structure may very well feel that the practice

of conserving energy has gotten out of hand. For this and for other reasons, we find that really significant reductions in energy usage are often

confined to the energy activist (e.g., solar enthusiast), to the technically trained (engineers) who practice on their own houses, or to the

commercial building owners who can afford the detailed engineering analysis and the cost of such major improvements.

Another approach is possible, and it is associated with the availability

of micro-processors by which the HVAC system may be controlled. Such

micro-processors can be programmed to take into account the external

weather conditions, the dynamic response characteristics of the structure

and of the HVAC system and the internal loads of the space, and to operate

the HVAC system in an optimal manner. In a forthcoming paper [3],

Emery et al. discuss the use of a modern control theory to develop an optimal strategy for a residential HVAC system. They show that such a theory could be used effectively to reduce the total operating costs of

residential space conditioning by controlling the operation of lights,

shades, ventilation, and the HVAC system in conjunction with prescribed

internal loads of people, equipment, moisture generation, and with the

external weather conditions. They also demonstrate that the method can be used as a teaching tool to acquaint the building designer with the

different thermal behavior of various building components and how the

several components interact with each other and with external and internal conditions. This theory is based upon controlling the deviation of

*Number in brackets refer to references at end of text.

22
several pertinent quantities from prescribed values (e.g., set points)

in such a way as to minimize the cost of operation. In this approach,

cost is interpreted in the most general sense, that is, as the value

associated with the allocation of resources and with a specific penalty

defined for not achieving a desired state. For example, an occupant can specify that the economic value of fuel is greater or lesser than the

value associated with the discomfort which results from not maintaining

a desired temperature or with an inadequate amount of daylight ing. The

results reported in Reference 3 are examples of the initial use of

optimization theory to space conditioning. In this paper we wish to

extend these previous results to show how further gains may be achieved.

Although the optimization techniques presented here are capable of

considering very complex situations and user requirements, the example

presented is a very simple one. This simple example was used to show

the basic usefulness of the method without confusing the reader by

introducing too many refined details.

MATHEMATICAL MODEL

Consider the simple control schematic shown below:

Figure 1: Schematic of Control System

Reference

settings

transfer _ matrices

control

£oTT

controlled variable ' weighting

System Disturbances

(Weather, etc.)

^Jlcontrol

~*OinpuTt

BUILDING

STATES System states

Here the definitions are: x the system state variable (e.g., room temperature)

u the control variable (e.g., heating from HVAC system)

e the external variables (e.g., ambient weather)

A the function which relates the values of x at the next

time to the values at the current time

B the function which relates the values of x at the next time

to the values of the external variables, e

C the function which relates the values of x at the next

time to control variables, u at the current time

23
These quantities are related through an equation of the form

x(i+l)=A(i) • x(i)+B(i) ' e(i)+C(i) • u(i) Eq. (1)

where the coefficients A, B, and C are determined through an energy balance on the structure. By using a network approach in which different

masses of the structure are represented by nodes [4,5], one can write an equation like Eq. (1) for each node. Since the optimal control of the

building requires many state and control variables, x and u are vectors,

not point functions, and A, B, and C are matrices of influence functions

(sometimes called gain, transfer, or transition functions). The control inputs, u, are determined through the feedback loop by

u(i) = -F(i) • x(i) Eq. (2)

Because conditions change with time (e.g., surface heat transfer coefficients depend upon the wind velocity and direction) , the matrices A and B

also change with time. C usually changes only when the user wishes to

change the manner or the degree to which a control variable affects the

system. For example, if the HVAC system is turned off at a given hour,

then the appropriate matrix elements in C must be set to zero. Since

there are usually more system defining variables, x, than one wishes to

consider as variables to be controlled, we introduce the subset of con- trolled state variables, z, and define the deviation of the system from

the set points by

d(i)=z(i)-Z*(i) Eq. (3)

where z*(i) is the set point value. Finally, we define a penalty function J, whose value is a minimum whenever the system operating strategy

is optimal. J may be expressed as N-l

J = P(N)d2

(N) + Y (R

1

(i+l)d

2 (i+l)+R

2 (C)u

2 (C)) Eq. (4)

i=l *

or in the verbal form as

J = terminal cost + enroute cost + control cost

The terminal cost is that associated with not meeting the target values

at the final hour; the enroute costs, with not meeting the intermediate

target values; and the control costs, with the price of performing the

control functions. The use of the sum in Eq. (4) is necessary since

one frequently wishes the optimal strategy to be calculated over a given

period of time, N hours, such that the system can anticipate changes in

the set points or in the control functions (e.g., night set-back) or in the weather. In all of the results reported in Reference 3, no anticipation was considered, N=l, and there were no enroute costs.

R

2u

24
Since the simulations were based upon a discrete sequence of events

rather than a continuous system, Eq. (1), (2), (3), and (4) were

applied on an hourly basis because: (a) weather data is usually available only on an hourly basis; (b) previous simulations have shown that

the building response is adequately predicted using an hourly increment because of the thermal inertia of the structure; and (c) the

expense of solving the matrix equations was much lower [4,5].

The solution to the optimal strategy problem outlined above is called

the discrete-time deterministic linear optimal regulator problem, and

is based upon dynamic programming [1].

In determining the optimal strategy, one must recognize that the system

is subject to a number of constraints. These constraints are associated

with the HVAC system, physical limitations on the system or the structural response, and with the demands of the occupants. Some of these

constraints relate to those system variables which incur no penalty for

a small degree of deviation from the set point, but a very high penalty

for any deviation above a defined amount. Such a situation arises in

the fresh air requirement. As long as there is a minimum amount of

fresh air, no penalty exists. Whenever the fresh air changes fall below

the health or occupational standards, then the penalty is set to such a high value that the required amount will always be made available.

Others refer to variables which are assigned a penalty for any deviation,

for example the room air temperature set point. Others refer to physical

limitations on the control variable; e.g., a damper has a limited movement;

or to user defined limits, e.g., the user may specify that the cost of a given control function cannot exceed a given amount.

To use Eq. (4) to determine the optimal strategy when one wishes to

take future schedules or anticipated weather patterns into account, one must recognize that the coefficients of the equation change discontinuously. These discontinuous changes prevent the analytic determination

of the optimal strategy and force the optimization to use an iterative

procedure. These discontinuities are caused by constraints such as the

shade position which is limited to range from fully open (1.0) to fully

closed (0.0) rather than the open range from 0 to infinity. They are

also caused by the nature of the HVAC system whose operation follows one

of the following actions in an effort to provide supply air at a prescribed temperature:

1) Return air is mixed with the outside air to yield the required

supply air temperature without any heating or cooling of the

air - this is the economy cycle.

2) The system uses all outside air and tempers it accordingly.

3) The system uses the minimum amount of outside air which will

satisfy the fresh air requirement and the maximum amount of re- turn air.

25
In addition to following one of the above actions, the HVAC system is

also constrained by the following:

4) The system can supply sufficient air to maintain the space at

the thermostat setting. _

5) The system has inadequate capacity to provide the desired supply

air temperature.

6) The system has adequate capacity, but the supply air rate is

inadequate to convey enough heating or cooling energy into the

space to satisfy the thermostat.

Of the above possibilities, only 4) is acceptable, while 5) and 6)

lead to spaces which are too cold or too warm. Furthermore, the form

of Eq. (4) which results from each of the possibilities (1-6) is substantially and significantly different with the consequence that one cannot define a continuous solution over the range of possible actions.

The resulting iterative solution, using the dynamic programming technique

of Reference 3 is time consuming, requires large amounts of computer

core, and is computationally expensive.

Accordingly, we tested and adopted an optimization technique based upon

a variant of the transportation algorithm. The process consists of

starting from hour 1 with a given set of initial conditions, at room

temperature T^ and determining the minimum and maximum temperatures

which could exist at hour 2 when the system was off and when operating

at its maximum capacity, respectively. Only those temperatures falling

within physically acceptable limits will be considered. This temperature range is then divided into i specific temperature values T2± which

are usually separated by a constant increment. Normally one uses a 1°F

increment, but smaller or larger values can be used. A linear optimization approach which minimizes the cost function subject to constraints

imposed is then used to evaluate the optimal cost of proceeding from

T^ to each of the temperatures, thus i linear optimization problems

must be solved to go from hour 1 to hour 2. Another very important

feature of this approach is that Eq. (1) need not be solved as a set of

simultaneous equations as was done in the Reference 3. Because T21

is specified, an explicit solution is used with a substantial reduction

in solution time.

The j possible temperatures for hour 3, T3j , are then determined for the

physically acceptable values between minimum and maximum and the j

optimization solutions are determined by assuming that each temperature

T3j is reached from each of the temperatures. Thus, i*j problems

are solved. At this point, we can determine the optimal path from T-^ to each of T3. using dynamic programming methods. This path optimizes

the cost for the entire look-ahead period. In figure 2 the schematic

arrangement of T^, T2± t and T3j are shown. Of the i«j possible paths

only the j optimum ones are retained. This process is repeated for

hour 4, T^, hour 5, T^i, et seq. At the completion of each hour's

26
calculation, we know the optimal cost and the associated path for each

temperature. Thus, we need to maintain only information for the current

hour plus the control variables for the optimal path and information for

the next hour in the computer memory. If the number of temperatures

considered at each hour is a constant i, then oyer H hours, we must solve

a maximum of (i**2)*(H-l)+i linear optimization problems.

Figure 2: Program Flow of Optimization Algorithm

Hour 1 Hour 2 Hour 3

If future information, i.e., the look-ahead problem, is utilized, then

we must solve the move from hour h to hH in a way that incorporates this

information. This can be done in two different ways. We can go from

hour h to h+H and then from h+H to h+2H et seq. without changing any

intermediate results. Alternatively, we can go from h to h+H, then from

h+1 to h+l+H et seq., changing the information used in the optimization

whenever knowledge of such changes becomes available. Using this latter

way for the simplest case of a two period look-ahead model (stages 1,2,3),

the third hour's information will be changed when the next (2,3,4) optimization is performed. For the purpose of this paper, we have chosen the

simple (no change) procedure and have implemented this for the two lookahead cases. The other method is to be preferred if our future knowledge

is limited to activity levels or schedules which are not precisely known

but which change significantly hour by hour. For example, at 10 p.m. we

may know that the occupants will retire at 11 p.m., but this information

was not available earlier. For both ways the promptness of the thermal

response of the building to any changes is the main determinant of which

length, H, of the look-ahead to use. Because one rarely knows how a structure responds to different stimuli, we performed simulations based

upon 0, 3, and 24-hour look-ahead periods. Of the three cases, we found

27
that looking ahead 3 hours gave the same result as looking ahead 24

hours. This implies that the structure used in the example damped out

changes within 3 hours and a greater anticipation period was not justified. These two look-ahead period computations are compared to the

period by period (no look-ahead case) in the following example:

A CASE EXAMPLE: BASIC STRUCTURE, COSTS, AND WEIGHTS

The ambient weather conditions illustrated in figures 3 and 4 are contrived, but chosen to exercise all aspects of the program. The temperature was chosen such that both heating and cooling would be required

during the period of computation. The solar radiation was modeled as an almost sinusoidal distribution, but with a heavy cloud cover from

1 to 3 p.m.

Figure 3: Outside Air Temperature - Input

The house is modeled as a six-sided box (20 x 10 x 10) composed of an insulated slab floor, four vertical walls (each with a single glazed

10 sq.ft. window and an insulated flat roof). All of the windows are equipped with shades, whose position is continuously variable. As many

as three occupants reside in the space as shown in figure 5. An HVAC

system provides forced air at a maximum rate of 10 air changes an hour.

The fresh air requirement is met by a continuously variable damper which

mixes outside air with the HVAC system return air. The lighting schedule

imposed requires illumination (either artificial or natural, or a com- bination) to the level of 0 kW for hours 1 through 8, 0.1 kW for hours

9 through 23 and 0 kW for hour 24. The set point temperature is 70°F

and a physically acceptable range is 65° to 74°F.

28
The control inputs are the following: the four independently operated

window shades; the level of artificial lighting; the HVAC system operating duration; and the damper control for a total of seven control inputs.

Figure 4: Solar Radiation - Input

The environmental factors which were to be controlled include: the room

air temperature; illumination level; external view from four windows;

for a total of six. It should be noted that some of the variables

which are listed as control variables may sometimes appear as environmental variables to be controlled. This interrelationship will often

produce unexpected system strategies.

The complexity of even this one room structure can be appreciated by ex- amining the cross coupling inherent in the control inputs. The window

shades not only affect the view, but by virtue of blocking the solar input, influence the room lighting and the thermal input. The damper controls the fraction of outside air mixed with the supply air and this

modifies the fresh air ventilation and the room temperature. Operation

of the electric lights affects both the lighting level and the room

thermal load. For this modeling we have forced the lighting requirement

to always be satisfied (equality constraint), between artificial and

natural. The occupant view is relaxed to accommodate the thermal and the

lighting requirement, but it could have been included as additional con- straints with an appropriate penalty cost.

The base and penalty costs used in defining the control system are listed

in the following table.

29
BASE AND PENALTY COSTS

CONTROL INPUTS COSTS

Damper position

HVAC system

Electricity

Shades

No cost

$0.018/KBTU for cooling

$0.014/KBTU for heating

$0.1/kW-hr

No cost

PENALTY COSTS

Room Temperature $0.02/Deg F Deviation

from set point

Figure 5: Occupants in the Room - Input

t—i—i—

r

t—I—

r

-

10 10 TIME - HR

t—i—

r

80 es

The computations were done for three different look-ahead periods, 0,

3 and 24 hours. The first to represent the usual simulation approach,

the 3-hour look-ahead to represent about the maximum anticipation that an occupant can be expected to have, and the 24-hour case to represent

the usual weather prediction. Two types of forcing inputs based upon

weather and internal schedule changes were used - the first having very

rapid and strong changes while the second had more gentle changes which

are representative of the natural variations expected in the weather.

Both of these forcing inputs had changes of the same magnitude, only the

frequency changes, since the magnitude of any change is constrained by

30
physical conditions. For example, the solar radiation can change only

from 0 to that for a clear sky, regardless of the rate of the change.

The results of the simulations were quite surprising at first glance,

but after considerable examination were what one would expect. We must

remember that the conditions at any hour are the sum of all of the past

effects, but that the damping nature of the structure's thermal response

tends to erase any effects after a time which depends upon the natural

period of the structure.

For the rapid changes, there were no significant differences between any

of the calculations. In fact, this type of weather and schedule changes

is nearly stochastic and the response of the building tends to reflect

the average conditions since a knowledge of the future tends to be

overpowered by the severity of the hourly changes. That is a knowledge

that 3 hours hence the number of occupants will change or that they will

retire is of little importance when compared to a substantial hourly

change in the outside air temperature.

Figure 6: Room Temperature - Output

PERIOD BY PERIOD—. LOOK RHERO —

60

80

1

I—

«r Y\

— 1 1 1 1

1—

1

pi—i i i

| pi—iii|| l I i—r—

)

i r i I

| 0 8 10 15 BO BB TIME - HR

The scenario with the gentle changes gave markedly different results.

Here, as shown on figures 6 to 10, a knowledge of the future can lead

to significant changes in the operating schedule of the HVAC system,

of the lights and shades, and in the constancy of the room air temperature. The figure compares the 0- and 3-hour results only since the 24-

hour results did not differ from the 3-hour case results because the

natural damping of the structure reduced the effects to zero after an elapsed time of several hours. Obviously, the effect of the look-ahead

31
depends very strongly upon the promptness of the structure's thermal

response when compared to the frequency of the changes in the external

and internal effects. A convenient way of looking at the problem is

by analogy with waves in dissipative media. High frequency waves have

very short penetration depths while the low frequency waves have long

penetration depths, but the definition of high and low frequency must

be made in relation to the natural frequency of the media.

Figure 7: HVAC System Operating Time - Output

PERIOD BY PERIOD-—. LOOK RHERD

I .0-

0.3-

0.0-

-0.3-

-l .0-

\

\ \1 \ \ \ \

77 10 15 eo E3 TIME - HR

From hours 0 to 9, the two models (p_eriod by p_eriod (PP) and look-ahead

(LA)) give exactly the same strategy and costs (figures 6,7,8,9,10). The

heater is turned on until 8 o'clock and then it is off at 9 o'clock when

the outside temperature has reached 82°F (figure 3). The shade 1 is

going to be opened (partially) in hours 8 and 9 (figure 9) when there are lighting requirements and also heating load. The room temperature stays

at the set point of 70°F (figure 6) until 9 o'clock. At 10 o'clock

the outside temperature reaches 90°F with an expected rise up to 100°F

for the next 2 hours (figure 3). The PP model finds it more costly to

cool the space rather than paying the penalty cost for the temperature

deviation, and a room temperature of 70.44°F and a cost of $0.01881

results. At this point, the LA model, which anticipates the increase

in the outset temperature attempts to minimize the operating costs by

closing the shades to reduce the solar gain, satisfying the lighting

requirement by using artificial lighting, and cooling the room to 70°F

with a resulting cost of $0.01894 (figures 6,7,8,10). In the next

period, the PP model keeps the HVAC off (figure 7) with a room temperature of 71.77°F (figure 6) and a cost of $0.04533. The LA model again

keeps the space cool at 70°F with a cost of $0.04537. In the next period

the PP model room temperature reaches 73.39°F with a cost of $0; 07572.

32
Comparing the total cost of these three periods, we see that there is a total of $0.14186 for the PP and $0.14003 for the LA. For the next two

periods the PP model keeps the room temperature at the highest allowable

temperature of 74°F, whereas the LA model keeps it at 70°F by performing

more cooling.

Figure 8: Lighting Power Requirements - Output

PERIOD BY PERIOD —. LOOK RHERD—

O. 10-

0.08-

3

*o. oeio. 04-

o.oeo.oo- i l I iiif i i i i 10 I! TIME - HR

i—

r

4- I—i—T—

I

so es

Figure 10 shows the hourly costs, computed from the optimal 3-hour costs

for the look-ahead model. The total costs for 24 hours which is the

integral under the curves have shown a 7.3 percent reduction in looking

ahead rather than period by period optimization.

In the hours 16, 17, 18 there is a sharp decrease in the outside temperature, the LA model decides not to cool the space at a very high rate

in hour 17, in order to use to the advantage of low outside temperature

later on, but the PP model does not recognize this and keeps cooling at

maximum level. However, because of the building mass it cannot cool the

space to 70°F. The shades 2, 3, 4 are closed at all times except shade

2 which will be fully opened in period 20 for both models . This is

because of a decrease in insolation at that time.

It is interesting to note that because the system response is determined

through an optimization process which minimizes the total cost of the

process, including the costs assigned by the occupant to deviations of

arbitrary variables from arbitrarily defined set points, the use of a process which includes anticipation does not always guarantee improved

performance, even though it may yield reduced costs. In figure 6, the

room air temperature shows that although the air is maintained at the

thermostat setting for most of the day, the deviation of 4°F at the

33
Figure 9: Shade Position - Output

I .0-

0.8-

o.e-

• 0.4-

o.eo.oPERIOO BY PERIOD—. LOOK RHERD —

T I I I 10 IS TIME - mTT

es

Figure 10: Hourly Total Cost - Output

PERIOD BY PERIOD —. LOOK RHERD

0.B0

34
17th hour is as much as the maximum deviation calculated for the 0-hour

look-ahead. Figure 7, the duty schedule of the HVAC system, shows a strong cooling at times when the 0-hour calculation would turn the

system off.

CONCLUSIONS

The limited results reported herein show that substantial savings in

total operating costs can be achieved when the operation of an HVAC

system is based upon an optimization process which includes the effect

of anticipated changes in weather or other load producing schedules.

How long one must anticipate these future changes depends strongly upon

the frequency of the changes, the natural time constant of the structure,

and the costs assigned by the occupants for deviation from the set

points. For a typical building, a look-ahead period of about 3 hours

appears to suffice. However, a more definitive value will require a series of parametric calculations involving different building masses,

HVAC system capabilities, and cost values.

REFERENCES

1. Kwakernaak, J. and R. Swan, Linear Optimal Control Systems , John

Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, London, Sydney, Toronto (1972).

2. Besant, R. W. , R. S. Dumont, D. Van Ee, "An Air to Air Heat

Exchange for Residences," Department of Mechanical Engineering,

published by Extension Division, University of Saskatchewan,

Saskatoon.

3. Emery, A. F., Banken, G. , Kippenhan, C. J., Heerwagen, D. R. and

Dorri, B. , "Optimal Control Strategies for Residential HVAC Systems," to be presented at the Third Miami International Conference

on Alternative Energy Sources, Miami Beach, Florida, December 1980.

4. Emery, A. F., Heerwagen, D. R. , Kippenhan, C. J., Stoltz, S. V.

and Varey, G. B. , "The Optimal Energy Design of Structures by

Using the Numerical Simulation of the Thermal Response - With

Emphasis on the Passive Collection of Solar Energy," Energy and

Buildings, 1 (1977/78), pp. 367-382.

5. Emery, A. F., Kippenhan, C. J., Heerwagen, D. R. , and Varey, G. B.

,

"The Simulation of Building Heat Transfer for Passive Solar

Systems," American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Paper

No. 79-WA/SOL-38.

35

ENERGY CONSCIOUS ELECTRICAL DESIGN

by

Harry B. Zackrison, Jr., P.E.

Vice President and Electrical Section Head

E/A Design Group, Chartered

Washington, D. C.

Concern over the adequacy of future energy resources has led the Federal

Government to require States to adopt energy conservation techniques for

all new construction'. Different approaches have been tried, such as Resource Utilization Factors, which consider how efficiently one source

of energy can be converted into another (i.e., 3.04 Btus of heat energy

are required to produce and transmit 1 Btu of electrical energy to the

point of use); and Resource Impact Factors, which consider the relative

availability and renewability of a fuel.

The Department of Energy's current approach centers around the formulation of Building Energy Performance Standards, which prescribe energy

consumption goals for various types of structures in different climates

while allowing designers to achieve these goals in their own ways.

Thus, this paper will consider a number of electrical design techniques

that contribute to minimizing energy consumption and maximizing the

efficiency of electrical installations. Some of the techniques discussed also involve the source concept, as opposed to the boundary concept, of energy conservation: reducing the total energy expenditure

required to construct buildings by minimizing the quantities of raw

materials and finished products required.

Key words: Electrical design; energy distribution; National

Electrical Code; power factor correction; source

energy; transformers.

37
Distribution Utilization Voltage

As much as possible, a service voltage of 277/480 volts, three phase,

four wire, should be utilized for all balanced three phase loads such

as motors and electric resistive heating and for all overhead lighting

systems, instead of using what is sometimes considered the more conven- tional 120/208 volt,. three phase, four wire system. This will achieve

a reduction of 57 percent in current. Due to its higher load carrying

capacity, 277/480 volt wiring can carry 231 percent as much energy as 120/208 volt conductors. Also, because of the non-linearity of the

current carrying capacity of copper conductors, larger conductors do

not carry proportionally higher current capacities. (See figure 1.)

Therefore, the size and number of current carrying conductors and

raceways are increased.

Figure 1: Ratio of Conductor Size and Ampacity

g 7.5b s

500

250 -

CODE CURVE

FOR 60 C

INSULATION

110 C INSULATION

60 C INSULATION

J L

200

_l_

200 400

400 500 600 700 800 Tfcr 1.000

600 800 1,000 1.200 1,400 AMPERE CURRENT-CARRYING CAPACITY

CONDUCTOR MCM

CURRENT CAPACITY TYPE 60 C TYPE 110 C

250 215 A 315 A

500 320 470

750 400 580

1,000 455 680

By using a higher voltage, the (I

2 R) heat losses will be lower,

drop is also less of a problem in a higher voltage system.

Voltage

These advantages of a 277/480 volt distribution can, of course, be

negated by serving lighting or other major loads at 120/208 volts via

local step-down transformers. When a large portion of the building

load is served at this lower voltage, the local step-down transformers

become larger as do their core and coil losses, introducing further

energy wastage. To serve a given load, the transformer loss is now

incurred twice, once at about 1.85 percent at the main primary to

277/480 volt transformer, and again at almost 5 percent in the 480 to

120/208 volt step-down transformers.

38
It is also possible to minimize the extent and cost of electrical services

by deviating from the current trend of using lower voltage distribution

design. In an office building or school facility, 120/208 volt, three

phase, four wire service for receptacles and miscellaneous power should

normally account for no more than 5 to 8 percent of the total load. If

the proportion of the 120/208 volt load can be held down to this percentage (many designers routinely serve 40 to 50 percent of the load at

120/208 volts), then it is possible to eliminate the provision for one of two unit substations commonly used to produce two different voltages

(by elimination of the 120/208 volt unit substation entirely and installing only a 277/408 volt substation). The small receptacle and

miscellaneous power load can then be fed from small local step-down

transformers located at the centers of load throughout the building.

Primary Transformers

Primary transformers should be a liquid type as opposed to a dry type

due to their longer life expectancy: 60 to 80 years rather than the

12 to 15 years common with dry type primary transformers. This represents an additional mining and refining energy savings above and beyond

building energy savings by extending the useful life of existing and

finished goods. Although the pentachlorobiphenyl or PCB compounds

formerly used to cool indoor liquid type medium voltage (601 to 15,000

volts) primary transformers are now obsolete and increasingly unavailable, they are being replaced with new biodegradable compounds.

Inert compounds that meet Toxic Substances Control Act minimum requirements and are approved by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) must be biodegradable, flame resistant, and have the

following chemical characteristics:

1. A highly saturated paraffinic oil whose base fluids are refined

by solvent extraction with hydrogenation and processed from high

molecular weight paraffinic crudes, and

2. Silicone (POLYDIMENTHYLSILOXANES) , long chained, high molecular

weight polymers consisting of stable SI-O-SI MERS.

Hence, liquid type transformers are still a viable choice for primary

to secondary step-down voltage applications. As a rule, liquid filled

primary medium voltage step-down transformers have a full load core

and coil loss of less than 3 percent of their kilovoltampere (kVA)

rating at 0.9 power factor (P.F.).

In addition, incoming primary service transformers should not be wired

wye-wye because their third harmonic currents (generated by fluorescent

and high intensity discharge—HID—ballasts) can cause balanced three

phase circuit neutrals to carry as much as 90 to 95 percent of the phase

currents. If the primary is wired in wye, then this reflected neutral

load loss will flow in the primary feeder neutral. Electrical load

losses through the primary neutral are an unnecessary waste of energy,

leading to higher energy costs and greater maintenance costs.

39
Secondary Transformers

Secondary dry type transformers rated 480 volts delta primary, 208 wye/

120 V, 3^ - four wire secondary (such as those often installed in

electrical closets) commonly come furnished with Class H insulation

rated at 150°C. However, if operated continuously at peak load, these

transformers could theoretically fail in as little as 2.3 years. Class

H 150°C insulated 3<f> transformers have full load losses of nearly 5

percent at 30 kVA, 3.5 percent at 45 kVA and 2.27 percent for a 300

kVA unit.

Instead, dry type transformers should be supplied with Class H insulation rated for only an 80 °C temperature rise. This change could extend

expected life to as much as 25 years at an additional cost of only 10

percent per transformer, which, in addition to reducing life-cycle operating costs, is true "source concept" material and energy resource

conservation. Moreover, Class H 80°C transformers are more efficient

than the 150°C type due to the larger conductors used to maintain low

operating temperatures; the energy cost savings over 25 years will more

than repay the small additional first cost. Class H 80°C insulated

transformers can reduce load losses by as much as 22.5 percent; thus,

a 30 kVA transformer would lose only 3.69 percent (of its total kVA

rating) and a 45 kVA transformer only 2.74 percent.

Power Factor Correcting

All electrical equipment and devices used should be specified with the

highest power (P.F.) available. In particular, all fluorescent and HID

lighting fixture ballasts should have a rated P.F. greater than 90

percent

.

Where individual pieces of equipment consuming 1500 watts (W) of energy

or more have a rated P.F. below 90 percent, capacitors should be installed to correct the P.F. to 95 percent or better. All motors of

2 horsepower (hp) (approximately 2715 VA) and above should come supplied

with P.F. corrective devices.

Power factor correction should be employed to conserve energy and reduce

life-cycle costs. It increases building distribution capacity (more

kW from the same transformers) , improves voltage regulation and reduces

power losses (see figure 2).

Motors and other inductive equipment require two types of electrical

energy. One type is working on power producing current, measured in

kilowatts (kW) . The second type is magnetizing current, measured in

kilovoltampere reactive (kvar), which produces no useful work but is

nonetheless necessary to the functioning of the equipment. Capacitors

can be installed at motors and other inductive equipment to supply the

necessary kilovars (kvar) of magnetizing current directly at the loads

rather than throughout the distribution system. Thus, P.F. correction

can be easily retrofitted to existing buildings.

40
Figure 2: Effect of Lagging Power Factor on AC Equipment

440 V 3 PH SOURCE

400 FT

AT LOAD

3 NO. 00 £

6 IN. S

SPACING •

^U0A£^

POWER FACTOR

EFFECT ON DISTRIBUTION LOSSES ENERGY LOSS IN TRANSPORTING CURRENT INCREASES PER KILOWATT AS THE POWER FACTOR GOES DOWN

BECAUSE THE CURRENT PER KILOWATT INCREASES. UNE LOSS VARIES AS THE SQUARE OF THE LINE CURRENT.

POWER FACTOR

EFFECT ON VOLTAGE REGULATION E2^iJ^l ££?NDUCTOR8 inci*ases with low P^R^ORMCAUgE of LARGER CURRENT FOR A

Low power factor equipment consumes more kvar than that rated at high

power factors (0.8 or greater). Low power factor is also detrimental

to the building electrical system in the following ways:

1. It cuts down system loadability; that is, it reduces the capacity

of the power system to carry kilowatts (kW = kVA x P.F.). The

capacity of all apparatus is determined by the kVA it can carry;

hence, larger transformers, feeders, and switches must be provided

for each kilowatt of load when the power factor is low.

2. Low power factor means more current per kilowatt, so each kilowatt

of power carries a higher burden of line losses in the form of heat.

Figure 3: Capacitors and Motors

capacitor

kilovar component

MOTOR MOTOR

BY SUPPLYING THESE KVAR WITH

CAPACITORS,

THESE KVA ARE

-ELIMINATED FROM THE

KVA DEMAND CHARGE.

41
3. Low power factor may depress the voltage, with a detrimental reduction

in the output of practically all electrical apparatus and more energy

waste.

Although capacitors can be used at the service entrance to correct P.F.,

this has no effect on poor system power factor. Thus, capacitors are most effective when installed directly at points of load, as previously

described. A simple illustration of the effect of capacitors is a motor

drawing 10 amps of current. At 80 percent power factor, only 8 amperes

produce working horsepower, while 2 amperes serve as magnetizing current

only (see figure 3A)

.

In figure 3B, a capacitor has been added to the feeder to supply the

kilovar directly at the motor. Now the feeder must deliver only 8

amperes for exactly the same horsepower output. In this way, capacitors reduce the line current and make possible the addition of more

electrical equipment to fully-loaded feeders. If this same circuit

fed four motors at 80 percent power factor, then the use of capacitors

would permit another motor to be added to the line with no increase

in the total current demand.

Capacitors release system capacity so that more motors, lighting, and

other loads may be added to the system without overloading transformers

and other distribution equipment. This system release continues as capacitors are added up to the point at which 100 percent power factor

is reached. However, more kvar of capacitors are required per kW of

released capacity as the power factor increases. Capacitors should,

therefore, be added until the cost of capacitors to release a kW of

capacity equals the cost per kW of new transformers and distribution

equipment. Raising the power factor to at least 95 to 98 percent is

usually economical. Capacitors to correct P.F. cost approximately $10

per kvar for a 277/480 volt system and $20 per kvar at 120/208 volts.

This is another sound reason for the use of higher voltage distribution

systems

.

By improving the power factor of a squirrel cage induction motor from

0.8 to 0. 95, substantial energy savings can be realized, as the following analysis indicates:

Voltage equals current times resistance (E = IR) and by algebraic manipulation, I = E and R = JE. Real Power (P) is the time rate of energy conR I sumption and equals voltage times current when both quantities are in

phase or have unity power factor (P.F. = 1). Thus, Power (P) in watts

equals volts times amps times cos 9:

P = E(I)(P.F. = 1)

power = EI = (IR)I = I

Z R

current (I) = volt-amps , or, I = V. A.

voltage E

42
volt amps (V.A.) = watts , or V.A. = W

P.F. P.F.

and, I = V.A. = w = watts

E P.F. E(P.F.)

E

Thus, I (.8 P.F.) = W = 1.25w , or, I (.8 P.F.) = 1.251 @ unity power

E(.8) E

factor.

The current at .8 P.F. has been increased by 1.25 times the current

at unity power factor (P.F. = 1).

Thus, the power (@ .8 P.F.) =/ l\Z = (1.25I)

2

R = 1.5625I2

.8 P.F.) =^I^ R

R

= (l.:

and, power @ .95 P.F. =/l V\

2

R = (1. 05261)

2

R = 1.108I2

R

The difference in power consumed at .95 P.F. versus .8 P.F. equals

(1.5625 - 1.108) x 100 = 29.088%, or 29.1%

1.5625

or, mathematically stated, the algebraic letters "I" and

stant in value. Thus, the difference in percentage is are conW.J

x 100 = 29.1%.

By reducing the current utilized by electric motors (inductive devices)

by improving their power factor, that current that is in phase with

the voltage (P = EI cos ©) represents the real power (time rate of energy

consumed) that can be reduced and conserved. Capacitors reduce system

losses by reducing total current and power flowing through that system.

For example, a 20 percent reduction of the total current will cut the power

(energy) losses 36 percent. Savings from power loss recovery alone can give

you an annual return on a capacitor investment of as much as 20 percent or more. In some facilities it can be paid back in a matter of months.

Receptacle Circuitry

In many conventional design applications such as office buildings and

schools, little attention is paid to the receptacle device box (outlet

box) either on the project drawings or in the electrical specifications.

Frequently, in fact, they contradict one another: the project drawings

will indicate groups of receptacles wired in unbroken circuits (often

grouping three phases together with a common neutral) , while the specifications call for receptacles to be installed in 4" x 2-1/8" x 1-1/2"

device boxes. If the contractor attempts to follow both drawings and

specifications - as frequently happens - the resulting installation

will violate the National Electrical Code (NEC)

.

43
Figure 4: Circuitry Using Outlet Boxes with Plaster Rings

* #

SUPPLEMENTAL

JUNCTION BOX

required per duplex

. DUPLEX RECEPTACLE

IN DEVICE BOX 4 IN. BY2V* IN. BY IV* IN.

CIRCUITRY USINQ SHALLOW DEVICE BOXES

CIRCUITRY USINQ DEEP DEVICE BOXES

SUPPLEMENTAL J.B. REQUIRED FOR 3 CIRCUIT HOMERUN

DUPLEX RECEPTACLE IN DEVICE BOX 4 IN. BY 2V* IN. BY 2V4 IN. or 3M IN,. BY 2 IN. BY 2V4 IN.

DUPLEX RECEPTACLE IN OUTLET BOX 4 IN. BY IV* IN. WITH PLASTER RING ACTUAL INSTALLATION PRACTICf

(WIRING RUN WITHIN WALL AND FLOOR)

HOMERUN TO

PANELBOARD - The reason for this is the small capacity of these device boxes. According to "Table 370-6 (a) Boxes" from the 1978 NEC, the maximum

number of #12 conductors permitted in a 4" x 2-1/8" x 1-1/2" box is

four. However, the NEC requires that this maximum be reduced by

two conductors to permit installation of a receptacle and the branch

circuit grounding conductor, reducing to two the number of phase and

neutral conductors permitted in the box. Therefore, a 4" x 2-1/8" x

1-1/2" box can be used only as a termination, and not for feed-through

to a downstream receptacle.

44
To permit feed-through and sharing of one neutral by two phase wires,

a box rated for the equivalent of six #12 conductors (receptacle, ground

conductor, phase conductor connection, neutral and two phases) must be

used. Suitable boxes would be 4" x 2-1/2" x 2-1/8", or 3-3/4" x 2" x 2-1/2". Their use allows through-wiring of the device boxes for up to

two circuits, but still requires a supplemental junction box to connect

the third circuit prior to homerunning to the panelboard (see figure 4).

In lieu of either of these approaches, specifying a standard 4" x 4" x 1-1/2" box with a plaster ring for all devices is the most practical

solution for commercial and institutional work. The large capacity of

the 4" x 4" x 1-1/2" box accommodates large numbers of wires and splices,

while the plaster ring permits device mounting. Thus, three phase wires

(3 circuits) sharing a neutral can be fed through the box while still

accommodating a receptacle. Specification of the standard box for all

wiring purposes also reduces the electrical contractor's inventory. This

also reduces the total energy expenditure for finished goods processed

from raw materials. It also reduces the amount of tool and equipment

energy needed to make the initial installation as well as reduces life

cycle energy use due to the reduction of materials and equipment used and

less I

2 R energy lost on branch circuit conductors.

Comparison: (Single CKTS) 3-2 Wire Circuits

(3 CKT Grouping) 1-4 Wire Circuit

Wire Saved

Homerun Wiring Savings

6 wires

4 wires

2 wires

33-1/3 percent

Comparison: (Single CKTS) 3-3/4" Conduits

(3 CKT Grouping) 1-3/4" Conduits

Homerun Conduit Savings

3-3/4"C

l-3/4"C

66.7 percent

Electrically, grouping homeruns into threes through the use of 4" x 4" x

1-1/2" outlet boxes reduces I

2 R energy losses by minimizing imbalanced

neutral current.

Panelboard Branch Feeds

Some electrical contractors routinely run all branch circuit conductors

from a panelboard through one or two large common raceways to a wiring

trough above a hung ceiling, where the individual branch circuit conduits

then diverge (see figure 5). This practice is usually justified on aes- thetic or practical grounds, as making a neater or more compact installation.

The 1978 National Electric Code, Article 384-15 limits the number of

overcurrent devices in one panel to 42 poles excluding the main overcurrent device. Assuming 42 single phase branch circuits, and grouping

circuits in threes with a common neutral, there may be as many as 56

branch circuit conductors - 42 phase conductors plus 14 neutrals. If

for some reason 42 separate branch feeds are made, then there could be

84 branch conductors - 42 phase wires and 42 neutrals.

45
If a fault occurs to a phase wire in a single group of three phase wires

and a neutral (4 #12, 3/4"C), then only 3/42 (7.1%) of the panel circuits

are affected at one time. However, if a fault occurs in the subrfeeld

of a panel having two conduit sub-feeds, half of the panel circuits are

affected. With a single sub- feed conduit, a fault in a single phase

wire could cause the burnout of the remaining 41 branch circuits. The

second problem, non-compliance with the NEC, arises because most engineers

and electrical contractors do not follow derating requirements. Note

8 to Tables 310-16 through 310-19: "more than three conductors in a raceway or cable" specifies the following:

Percent of Values in

No. of Conductors Either 310-16 & 310-18

4-6 80

7-24 70

25 - 42 60

43 - and above 50

The neutral of a three phase, four wire circuit supplying electric discharge lighting is also considered a current carrying conductor, by note

10 (c) . The neutral of a 3^, four wire circuit supplying receptacles or other non-inductive or non-capacitive miscellaneous power is not con- sidered a current carrying conductor.

As a result, an overhead fluorescent lighting system supplied by four

#12 conductors in 3/4" conduit should be derated to 80 percent. The

twin sub-feed panel's conductors should be derated to 60 percent, and

the single sub-feed panel's conductors to 50 percent. The alternative

is to oversize the conductors, which is also a poor utilization of resources and energy.

Figure 5: Branch Circuits

EACH 4 NO.

12 in V« IN. CONDUIT

(3 PHASE NEUTRAL)

EACH 28 NO. 12 IN =

1V»IN. CONDUIT

-56 NO. 12 IN 2 IN. CONDUIT

Assuming a 42 pole panel, the minimum

number of conductors to the wire trough would be 56 (for circuits grouped in threes

with a common neutral: 42 phase wires plus 14 neutrals). The maximum number would be

84 (42 separate circuits: 42 phase wires plus

42 neutrals).

PANEL WITH TWO

SUBFEEDS Q

PANEL WITH

SINGLE SUBFEED Q

46
Interior Lighting Circuitry

As an alternate to hard wiring (conductors in conduit) , a flexible, coor- dinated and integrated plug-in electrical wiring system should be considered that meets all fixture wiring and switching requirements. Although

the material cost of the flexible wiring systems may be higher, the cost

of labor for installation is lower, resulting in a substantially lower

installed first cost. The system is more flexible than hard wiring and

allows changes to be readily made without the services of an electrician, while allowing for complete reuse of all system components. This

last fact alone reduces the life cycle cost due to tenant changes, space

reallocation and relocation, and represents "source" energy and resource

conservation, since existing wiring and conduit need not be scrapped

and replaced.

Heat of Light Concept

The energy conservative heat of light concept should be used with all

fluorescent and HID fixtures. This technique incorporates return air

through the lighting fixtures, in lieu of using static non-air handling

fixtures. By so doing, the efficacy of the fluorescent lamps will be

increased by about 25 percent, delivering more lumens per watt; and

although HID lamp efficacy is not affected at all, both types of fixtures will realize increases in lamp and ballast life, and the heat

load injected into the working space will be reduced to the minimum

possible. This reduction of heat will in turn reduce the building

air conditioning load, since, in general 1 watt of air conditioning

load is required to remove every 2 watts of heat load:

1000 watts heat load . 10 AAA . , , , IT Tr^rxz —

rzrr f 12,000 Btu/ton x 1 hp/ ton x 1 kW

.2931 watts/Btu

= .284 kW chiller input

.284 x 1.7 = .483 kW total air conditioning load required to remove

1 kW heat load

This calculation is based upon the approximate equivalence of hp to

kW for large equipment by taking into account motor efficiency.

The value of 1.7 is an empirical constant developed and found reliable

in over 17 year's experience with large building designs, which takes

into account peripheral mechanical equipment, such as pumps, fans, and

air handler unit motors.

This brief, but intense, energy analysis of lighting design as part of

a total building and mechanical system attempts to address the problem

of design fragmentation, showing the important interdisciplinary relationships that should not be ignored for optimum functioning and greatest

energy conservation possible.

47
Where fluorescent fixtures are specified, pattern control dampers should

be used to control the air return through the side slots, which are used

to supplement the air return through the heat removal slots in the same

fixture. This will avoid excessive return air movement through the side

slots, which would reduce the beneficial effects listed above. The heat

removal return air slots that channel air through the lamp compartment

will thus not be shunted or bypassed.

The lighting contractor should be directed to do the following:

• Work in conjunction with the heating, ventilating, air-conditioning

(HVAC) balancing and controls specialist in adjusting the fluorescent

fixtures' side slot dampers for the exact ft 3 /min required.

• Utilize, as much as possible, all air return through the lighting

fixtures' lamp compartment.

• Return any additional air as required through the side slot return

that vents directly to the dropped ceiling cavity space.

• In no case should return air be allowed to shunt or bypass the lamp

compartment when that air return capacity has not been exceeded.

• The HVAC contractor and HVAC balancing and controls specialist should

adjust the air return grill dampers so that a minimum to maximum

range of 25 to 45 ft 3 /min of air will return through the lighting

fixture compartment.

Internal Lamp Pressure

Fluorescent lamps operate most efficiently at a certain internal mercury

vapor pressure. If this pressure either increases due to lamp over- heating (as in static, non-air handling enclosed fixtures) or decreases

due to cooling (as in outdoor fixtures or dynamic fixtures that supply

air through the lamp compartment) , light output as measured in lumens/

watt decreases. Supplying cooled conditioned air through the lamp com- partment of a louvered fixture causes a decreased temperature on the

center portion of the lamp; and that portion of the lamp has a marked

decrease in light output as compared to the non-cooled ends. The

mercury vapor (MV) pressure throughout the lamp is decreased; thus,

the light output from the entire lamp is less; but it is markedly

less in the center, where chilling occurs. However, returning air

through properly designed dynamic air handling fixtures maintains

optimum lamp MV pressure and maximizes light output (and, as previously noted, also serves to extend lamp and ballast life). The optimal

ambient air temperature for rated lumen output and fluorescent lamp

operation is 77 °F with the coolest spot on the bulb at about 100°F.

Internal lamp MV pressure varies in direct proportion to internal

lamp temperature, according to the formula:

P = P V T

2 112

V T

2 1

P^,V^,T^ = initial pressure, volume, temperature

P2' V

2

,T2 = neW Pressure ' volume, temperature

48
High Pressure Sodium (HPS) and Super Metal Halide (SMH) Lamps

High pressure sodium (HPS) lamps offer the highest efficacy of any source

used for general lighting up to 140 lumens/watt. (Low pressure sodium

has considerably higher efficacies (183), but due to its objectionable

monochromatic yellow color is seldom used in interior applications.)

The HPS has, in the past, generally been relegated to street lighting

applications due to the golden color of its light, which rendered colors

and complexions poorly. In some commercial applications, though, con- ventional HPS has been successfully used for interior lighting. By

illuminating to 100 footcandles (fc) or more and carefully coordinating

furnishings to use colors that are enhanced by HPS lighting, the psychological impression of white light can be closely approximated.

Also, over the last 3 years, HPS lamps with increased vapor pressures

have been developed that produce a nearly white light comparable with „ warm white fluorescent and phosphor coated metal halide lamps at an efficacy of 100 lumens per watt, far greater than that of fluorescent

lamps. These improved, or "High CRI" (for high color rendering index)

HPS lamps are now available from all major lamp manufacturers, so that,

for the first time, HPS is a viable selection for interior lighting; in

fact, HPS and super metal halide (SMH) promise to be the pre-eminent

lighting sources of the next 50 years. Interior lighting with 150 or 250 watt HPS fixtures permits an ideal mounting height-to-fixture spacing

ratio of 1:1.4. A variety of lenses can be used with HPS fixtures if

a glass optical interface is used to disperse the heat that could otherwise damage standard acrylic lenses.

An alternate approach is to light general areas with 400 watt SMH fixtures equipped with HID acrylic refractors that offer a mounting heightto-fixture spacing ratio of 1:1.9, far exceeding spacing ratios normal

with fluorescent fixtures. The SMH lamps provide excellent color ren- dition at an efficacy of 100 lumens/watt, and the latest model HID

acrylic refractor produces a flattened or "softened" batwing distribution of light, permitting a wide, even pattern of illumination without

the problem of fixture brightness often noted with conventional linear

or spherical batwing lenses used on fluorescent fixtures. The refractor

also obviates the problem of hotspotting that would otherwise be caused

by using high-wattage lamps. Fewer fixtures are required using 400

watt SMH in place of 150 or 250 watt HPS, but light distribution and

illumination in most low mounting height applications would be marginally

less even, especially if bank-style open office architecture space

planning partitions are used. These will tend to cause unacceptable

shadowing with widely-spaced fixtures.

Fluorescent Lamps

Of course, in many applications, such as the situation just noted,

fluorescent lighting is still the obvious choice. Yet, even when

using this conventional and familiar lighting source, lamps should

be selected and fixtures specified in ways that will tend to reduce

49
life cycle costs due to maintenance and energy use. Consider first

the 40-watt Rapid Start (R.S.) lamp:

• Straight 40-watt Rapid Start (R.S.) fluorescent lamps in the cool

white series have 3150 lumens (78.75 lumens per watt efficacy). These

lamps are normally rated for about 20,000 hours of life at 3 hours

per start; 28,860 hours of life at 12 hours per start, and 37,700

hours of life on continuous burning at a cost of $2.37 each (fluorescent lamp prices are identical for the three major manufacturers).

They are the least expensive and longest-lived lamps in general use,

and are the most common interior lighting lamps. A four-lamp 2x4

fixture using 40-watt lamps consumes 184 watts, including ballast

losses.

• The ballast and fluorescent tube, together, consume 54 watts in a single tube installation. A two-tube, 40-watt fluorescent ballast

consumes 92 watts of power, or a 17.4 percent energy savings over

two single 40-watt R.S. fluorescent ballast fixtures. Therefore,

whenever possible, two-tube fixtures should be used.

The newer low-wattage (34- or 35-watt depending upon manufacturer) energy

saving 4 foot long rapid start lamps (see figure 6) have efficacies between 81.4 and 89.7 lumens/watt (again varying according to manufacturer),

and related lives similar to the 40-watt lamp. The higher efficiency

lamps reduce energy use while maintaining nearly the same illumination

level and cost $1.03 more than a standard 40-watt rapid start lamp.

Over a 30,000 hour life, each low-wattage lamp represents savings of

$6.00 to $7.20 based upon an energy cost of $.04/kWh. At a normal 60

hours use per week, energy saving lamps justify their increased cost

within 14 to 17 months, which is dependent upon manufacturers. Where

Cost

Increase Compared

to Cool

White

Rapid

Price Start Cool White

Rapid Start 40 3150 $2.37

Sylvania Super Saver 34 2850 2.95 $0.58

Super Saver II 34 3050 3.40 1.03 Thriftmate 33 5.35 2.98 U-Shaped 40 2950 8.00 5.63 Cool White

Rapid Start 40 3150 $2.37

Westinghouse Econ-O-Watt 34 2850 2.95 $0.58

Econ-O-White 34 3050 3.40 1.03 U-Shaped 40 2950 8.00 5.63 Cool White

Rapid Start 40 3150 2770 $2.37

General Watt Miser 35 2850 2510 2.95 $0.58

Electric Watt Miser II 35 3050 2685 3.40 1.03 U-Shaped 40 2900 2525 8.00 5.63

50

Figure 6: Lamps Comparison

Manufacturer Lamp Watts

Rated

Initial Lumens

Rated

Lumens

at 40

Percent

of Average

Life
reduction in illumination levels of 9.69 percent can be tolerated, another

high efficacy energy saving lamp can be used that costs only $0.58 more

than a standard 40-watt lamp. Its energy savings are identical to the

more expensive lamp, but because of its lower first cost, this lamp justifies its extra cost within 7 to 9 months at 60 hours per week use.

The low cost, lower efficacy energy saving lamp is particularly appropriate for retrofitting existing lighting installations. Since many

lighting systems of the past 5 to 10 years were designed to deliver

70 to 150 fc, relamping with inexpensive low-wattage lamps offers a simple, effective way to cut operating costs while still meeting or ex- ceeding today's lower illumination standards (currently, for example,

NASA, the Navy and GSA require only 50 fc for office lighting). (See

figure 6 for comparative lamp data.) Substantial annual energy savings

can be realized by the use of these lamps as well as the spin-off air

conditioning energy savings.

Fluorescent Ballasts

Conventional fluorescent ballasts should be specified as the Very Low

Heat Rise type. The Very Low Heat ballast represents an additional

initial dollar cost over a more conventional ballast (or $2.00 per fourlamp, two-ballast fixture). However, ballast manufacturers' figures

indicate that even slight reductions in the continuous ambient operating

temperature of a ballast will result in extension of ballast life by

a substantial factor, thus, increasing the maintenance-free life of the

lighting installation and substantially reducing the overall cost of

ownership of the system by reducing energy consumption.

Low-wattage ballasts might also be considered for conventional fluorescent lighting. Depending upon the manufacturer, each low-wattage

ballast can save 3 to 5 watts, which is a substantial saving for a large

installation and they are compatible with 34-, 35-, and 40-watt fluorescent lamps. However, low-wattage ballasts cost up to $3.00 a piece more

than conventional ballasts (or $6.00 more for a four-lamp, two-ballast

2x4 fixture), and the additional investment is not amortized for at

least 6 years based on 60 hours use per week and 52 weeks per year (the

payback period does not take into account the interest that must be

paid on the additional principal used to buy the more expensive ballasts)

.

One major manufacturer claims for its low-wattage ballasts a life

expectancy 2 to 2-1/2 times that for normal fluorescent ballasts.

Alternate Ballast Switching

As an alternate approach to conventional switching, a two-level Hi-Lo

switching system should be considered. One switch can control the ballast of the inboard tubes of 2x4 foot fluorescent fixtures, while the

second switch controls the ballast of the outboard tubes. This provides

the option of having all of the lamps on to give a high, even illumination of up to 70 fc. Alternate ballast switching is a poor man's

dimming system, but it is very effective, as it permits local control of

lighting levels at minimal costs. Since each switch controls two lamps

51
in each group of fixtures, lighting and power consumption can be cut 50

percent in any given area while still leaving adequate illumination for

most tasks. A minor, but no-cost refinement to this technique is to

specify that the switch closest to the door lock jamb (that is, the

switch nearest at hand) control the ballast of the inboard lamps, while

the further switch controls the outboard lamps. Since lighting from the

inner lamps is distributed with slightly higher efficiency than that from

the outer lamps, the actual percentage of total fixture illumination

available by operating only the most convenient switch is approximately

53 percent. Since power consumption for each pair of lamps (i.e. , each

ballast) is identical, there is no reason not to take advantage of this

incremental increase in illumination available by the simplest of means,

when only half the lamps are required for a given task.

And, as previously noted, reducing lighting loads also reduces airconditioning loads, which further increases energy savings.

Site Lighting Circuitry

Two factors are usually taken for granted in wiring outdoor lighting

fixtures, without being considered in proper depth: one, the utilization voltage and two, the methodology of wiring as it affects voltage

drop. Site lighting is frequently served at 120 volts and wired in

discrete circuits (three phase wires sharing a neutral with up to 1920

watts of lighting load per 120 volt circuit). However, this requires

that the feeder be sized for the voltage drop incurred by a two-way

run—the phase conductor out and the neutral conductor back. And, due

to the long wiring runs common in outdoor lighting, this method results

in voltage drop problems of greater magnitude than usually seen in

interior lighting.

Consideration should be given instead to using three phase, 277 volt

circuits to serve outdoor lighting (by using HID lamp fixtures, all can be placed on the 277/480 volt service). Figure 7 shows the advantages:

there are two wires to the last lighting fixture in the group (phase

and neutral) , three wires to the next fixtures (two phase wires and a neutral), and four wires to the remaining lighting fixtures (three phase

wires and a neutral). This permits the first fixture on the three phase

circuit to be on phase A, the second on phase B, the third on phase C,

the fourth fixture on phase A, etc. Thus, the only imbalanced neutral

current is that contributed by one fixture when there is either one extra fixture on a given phase or one extra fixture on each of two phases.

Any condition of even numbers of lighting fixtures on all phases provides

zero vector neutral current aside from any third harmonic distortion.

52
Figure 7 : Outdoor Lighting Wiring Systems

-FULL NEUTRAL CURRENT

~Jf DIMINSHING if- NONE

CONVENTIONAL: PHASES Or\ A BCABCABC jii /~\ tin f~S nit S

~\ mi S~\ tin /~N tin f\ mi /"N \J W \J IW kJ nil KJ iiii \J m> \J KJ nn w

NEUTRAL CURRENT

IMPROVED:

This permits the use of fewer and smaller branch circuit conductors and

thus fewer and smaller conduits as well, representing a significant

"source" energy and resource saving. Further, serving fixtures on alternate phases of a three phase circuit reduces I

2 R losses and voltage

drop.

Even in large site lighting and street lighting installations such as industrial parks, and medical and college campuses, lighting should be

served at 277 volts, if the overall system can be fed in sectors from

different buildings. However, in the case of a large centrally-fed

lighting system, voltage drop at 277 volts may be a serious problem,

requiring excessive over-sizing of direct burial conductors and oversized raceways for those conductors where they pass under road beds or paved areas.

At this point it becomes practical to consider use of a higher distribution voltage for site lighting. Invariably, a large campus or industrial

facility will employ the use of central chillers, fed by a 4160 wyeV

2400 volts, 3 ^, four wire distribution system. Thus, site lighting can be wired for series-multiple 2400 volt distribution.

If incandescent or quartz luminaires are used (which have low efficacies

and short lives, thus high first and life-cycle costs and larger energy

expenditures) each lighting fixture should be provided with a fused

disconnecting pothead in the pole base. Otherwise, since a 2400 volt

lighting system is normally wired in series-multiple, an entire circuit

53
of lights would go out when a single luminaire failed (much like oldfashioned Christmas tree lights). However, with a fused disconnecting

pothead, a transient surge voltage is created when a lamp burns out

that melts the fused link, bypassing the burned-out lamp and preserving

the circuit so that the remaining lamps continue to operate.

If, instead, HID luminaires are used, the 2400 volt primary—277 volt

secondary ballasts can be used that act like transformers. Thus, if a single HID lamp is burned out it does not open-circuit the remaining

fixtures.

Nowadays, the most commonly used intermediate range distribution voltages

are either 13.2 kV or 34.5 kV. The preferred distribution voltage for

industrial parks and colleges is 13.2 kV (or, for some utilities, 13.8

kV) in order to reduce first cost of distribution equipment, such as electrical feeders and primary switch gear and primary transformers.

Thus, if a 2400/4160 volt chiller and a series-multiple street lighting

system is used, a step-down transformer would be required, increasing

first and life-cycle costs while causing additional energy waste in the

form of transformer core and coil loss. If, for any reason, the stepdown transformers serving the chillers are shut down at any time during

the season, then the 2400 volts is unavailable for outdoor lighting.

Furthermore, if during the period the lighting is on and the chillers

come on the line, a large surge of current through the transformer could

create a large voltage drop in the transformer windings, causing a temporary lamp lumen depreciation or light flicker from the street lights.

If this voltage dip is over 35 percent during windless warm weather or over 25 percent when the outside ambient temperature is 20°F, or the

outside temperature is 35°F and there is a stiff wind blowing, (which can cause a lower chill factor equivalent temperature) the HID luminaire

lamp arc plasma may extinguish. This condition would leave an installation in the dark for at least 10 minutes until at least some of the

lamp arcs restrike; however, they will not reach full intensity for

another 3 to 5 minutes. If, however, a lamp strikes and then extinguishes,

another 5 to 10 minutes cooling period is required before the arc plasmas are cool enough to attempt a restrike.

Central Chiller Utilization Voltage

At this technological state-of-the-art in equipment and design, the use

of 4160 volts for the service utilization voltage for large chillers

is somewhat questionable. Present day techniques would indicate that

13.8 kV should be used, thus requiring no motor starter, although a switchgear is required in lieu thereof. Further, no 13.8 kV delta

primary 4160 volt secondary transformer would have to be furnished and

sized as follows for, say, a 200 ton chiller: six times full load kVA

(for start-up kVA) times 200 tons times 1 kW/ton equals 1.2 megavoltampere

(MVA) whereby an industry standard transformer unit of 1500 kVA size

would be required. By using reduced voltage closed transition stardelta starting you could get by with a 750 kVA transformer per each 200

54
ton chiller. One disadvantage to using medium voltage (601 to 15,000

volts) starting is that for smaller motor sizes the initial dollar investment is larger. The smallest horsepower (hp) motor frame in this

voltage range is 3500 hp. An additional consideration is that when

using 4160 volts, there will be continuous transformer hysteresis core

and coil losses even when the chillers are off the line or idling on

the line.

Minimizing Voltage Drop

Branch circuit wiring should always be designed to minimize the length

of wire and conduit runs. This not only saves material and labor but

reduces voltage drop by reducing the total impedance (resistance) to

current flow. Further, current-consuming equipment such as lighting

fixtures should not be wired in a series loop where this will increase

the distance that current must flow to each fixture. Rather, branch

or tap-off connections should be made at the point of power supply to

each group of fixtures. Reducing the physical distance that current

must flow to each individual fixture in turn reduces the accumulated

ampere-feet. The greater the ampere-feet, the greater the voltage drop

and (I 2 R) heat losses due to increased energy consumption.

This increased heat loss will increase energy consumption, shorten the

life of electrical equipment and marginally increase the air conditioning load. These factors will tend to increase life-cycle operating

costs for the electrical installation (see figures 8A and 8B)

.

Figure 8A: Series Loop Wiring

Q6 4^

O

O

o

o

FLUORESCENT FIXTURES ON 6 ' - 0" CENTERS.

92 WATTS/FIXTURE 4 277 VOLTS = 0.33 AMP/FIXT.

AMP/FIXTURE X LENGTH OF RUN = AMPERE - FEET

A .33 X 6 = 1. 98

B .33 X 12 = 3. 96 C .33 X 18 = 5. 94 D .33 X 24 = 7. 29 E . 33 X 36 = 11. 88 TOTAL 31 05 AMPERE-FEET

55
Figure 8B: Recommended Wiring

o

o 42

o

o

FLUORESCENT FIXTURES ON 6'

3- O

TO -eoufice3

o

0" CENTERS.

A .33 X 6 = 1.98

B .33 X 12 = 3.96

C .33 X 6 = 1.98

D .33 X 12 = 3.96 E .33 X 18 = 5.94

TOTAL 17.82

Conclusion

The incorporation of these techniques into a carefully engineered overall

design will result in efficient, energy conservative buildings and distribution systems. The quantities of finished electrical hardware used

in a given project will be reduced (hence, also the total energy expended

to provide the building's electrical components) without any sacrifice

in performance and reliability.

During the life-cycle use of a building, less energy will be used since

less material will have to be replaced and maintained. Most importantly,

less energy will be required in the support of building systems since

they will be less wasteful and more energy efficient. Each subsystem

will be more energy efficient and will impart energy efficiency to

other disciplines by reducing impact loads on these other systems, such

as air conditioning.

56
POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS IN BUILDINGS RESULTING FROM

THE NCSBCS CODE COMPARED WITH BEPS

by

Eino 0. Kainlauri, Ph.D., AIA

Professor of Architecture

Iowa State University

Ames , Iowa

In the State of Iowa, under the present State Energy Conservation

Building Code (National Conference of States on Building Codes and

Standards [NCSBCS] Code), all buildings that are larger than 100,000

cubic feet must be submitted for State approval, with a statement from

a registered architect or engineer verifying that the plans and specifications meet the code requirements. During the past 2 years, more

than 100 design professionals and about as many building inspectors have

completed a training course organized by the Architecture Extension of

the Iowa State University (ISU) , and more than 400 building plans have

been submitted to the Iowa Building Code Commission for approval. The

required "Statement of Review" includes design conditions and overall

U-values for exterior walls, roof /ceilings , floors, and the gross wall

cooling thermal transfer value (OTTV)

.

During the 2 years since the code was introduced, some 412 buildings

have been analyzed by the ISU Architecture Extension as to what degree

the results compare with the corresponding code requirements. It was

found that the results are encouraging. By an average, the U 0 wall

figures are about 40 percent better than the allowable American Society

of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 90-75

standards (or the revised ASHRAE 90.1-75R), the roof /ceiling values

about 15 percent, and the OTTV values more than 50 percent better.

For the purpose of comparison with the Building Energy Performance Standards (BEPS), the results have been classified in 17 categories in

anticipation of BEPS categories (splitting office buildings into large

and small categories). The results illustrate characteristically how

buildings of various types may approach or even exceed BEPS values. Of

course, the U 0 -values by themselves cannot be compared directly with

BEPS performance standards and energy budgets, but a close implication

can be seen from values produced by approximation.

As a second phase of the research, the Architecture Extension has been

checking sample building plans in various parts of the State, in order

to verify the accuracy of statements submitted. So far, the statements

have been proven accurate, with only minor computation errors. Later

on, another check is planned by inspecting those buildings for actual

installations. Finally, energy audits are planned for verification of

performance criteria. The ISU Building Energy Utilization Laboratory is

also involved in studies of Iowa buildings.

Key words: Building code; building envelope; comparison; compliance;

energy budget; energy conservation; performance standards;

Statement of Review; verification.

57
/

In the State of Iowa, the energy crisis has been taken seriously. The

State government has taken a number of steps to improve the energy situation and to reduce waste. One of the most attention getting programs

has been the production of gasohol from our plentiful supply of corn; one of the least noticed has been our enforcement of the State Energy

Conservation Building Code. However, from the point of view of energy

conservation, the latter deserves a considerable amount of credit for

its results.

Already in the summer of 1977, the Iowa Legislature called for an energy

conservation building code. This was at the time when the American

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)

90-75 standards were still in the process of codification. As soon as the National Conference of States on Building Codes and Standards (NCSBCS)

code became available, it was adopted by Iowa - with just a few modifications. Since some 80 percent of Iowa's more than 900 localities do not

have a building inspector (although the other localities account for some

85 percent of building activity) , it was decided that for any building

that has more than 100,000 cubic feet of heated or cooled space a Statement of Review (see Appendix 1) had to be signed (and sealed) by a registered architect or engineer that the plans and specifications com- plied with the code, regardless of the location. These statements are

to be sent to the Iowa Building Code Commission for approval. A fee

of $10 is charged for the processing.

While this enactment took place, the Architecture Extension of Iowa State

University (ISU) organized training courses for architects, engineers,

designers, contractors, building inspectors and municipal officials. The

first series of four simultaneous workshops was conducted in November 1977,

with a team of national experts as pilot instructors. These workshops

consisted of a four-day course for systems designers, two separate

three-day courses for professionals and building inspectors, respectively,

and a one-day introductory course for municipal officials. A series of

15 additional workshops around the State followed in 1978-79, and ten

more workshops were held in 1980, to up-date the code requirements and

to introduce the revised ASHRAE 90.1-75R, ASHRAE 100-series, and the

Building Energy Performance Standards (BEPS) . To date, some 150 professionals in Iowa have been trained by these courses and a similar number

of building inspectors have taken the course.

As we attempt to evaluate the effects of the energy conservation building

code in the State of Iowa, it is necessary to consider several different

approaches. We have in hand the evidence produced by the statements of

review. We can quantify the results of this portion of our program to a certain degree by comparing the presented U-values of building components

with those allowable by the code, and we can make certain assumptions

in order to convert these values into actual energy budgets. We do not

have enough information to make a simulated energy analysis as is made

in BEPS, but we can get close. At the same time, we need to know how

accurate the statements are, whether the buildings actually are constructed

58
in accordance with the documents, and we would like to know if the

buildings are actually performing in the intended manner. And, as both

ASHRAE 90 and BEPS are based on square foot values, we still do not know

how efficient the buildings are per number of occupants. Also, we

cannot legislate the quality of operations and maintenance.

Our first step towards evaluation was to compute the results of the first

year and a half of Statements of Review received by the Iowa Building

Code Commission and to compare the actual values with those allowable.

(See figure 1.)

To our satisfaction, we found that the professionals had done more than

the code dictated. The overall U-values for walls were generally more

than 40 percent tighter than ASHRAE 90-75 standards, the roof values by

more than 15 percent, and the OTTV-values by 50 to 60 percent. Only in

a few cases, the values for building components failed to comply, while

the buildings themselves did comply.

These results are important from several different points of view. When

the NCSBCS code was adopted, the Iowa Energy Policy Council recommended

that the component U-values be made about 20 percent tighter than the

ASHRAE 90-75 values involved. In opposition, building contractors and

materials and equipment manufacturers requested lower than the proposed set of values. As a compromise, the national code was adopted.

But now we can see that the designers have been able to produce even more energy-efficient buildings than the Iowa Energy Policy Council

recommended

.

The proposed U.S. Department of Energy Building Energy Performance

Standards—BEPS—are supposedly 20 to 25 percent stricter than ASHRAE

90.1-75R, the revised consensus standards. As the revised standards

are primarily the same as the earlier ones, with the exception of

residential buildings, we have available an approximate "yard stick"

with which to compare our results in Iowa with BEPS, and by the first

glance such comparison is favorable.

In order to compare the results with BEPS, the Architecture Extension

that is providing this service to the Iowa Energy Policy Council classified the buildings in approximately the same categories as are anticipated by BEPS, with a few exceptions. As the annual design energy

budgets are computed, certain assumptions have been made. While the

heat losses and gains through the building envelope can be determined

fairly accurately under normal design conditions, we do not have enough

information about infiltration and ventilation. Consequently, we have

assumed that from one to three air changes per hour are taking place,

depending on the type of building, within modifications allowed by

ASHRAE 90-75 standards.

By observing the results presented to us by Statements of Review, we did

interpret the better U-values and OTTV-values to mean that the buildings

generally had less windows and consequently less "crack" at perimeters

59
Figure 1: Potential Energy Savings in Buildings Larger than 100,000

Cubic Feet in Iowa as a Result of Implementing the State

Energy Conservation Building Code

The following percentages represent reductions in U-values of building

components, as being stricter than ASHRAE 90-75 standards. This group of

Statements of Review were submitted between January 1, 1978, and July 1,

1979. Computations are by the Architecture Extension, Iowa State

University.

Building Type

U

o Wall ^o Roof OTTV Bldgs. Cooled TotJ

Public and Assembly 43 % 11 % 60 % 13 14

University Buildings 12 32 54 2 2

Secondary Schools 48 6 53 12 16

Elementary Schools 41 (0)* 69 3 9

Hospitals 39 8 61 5 5

Clinics 34 37 66 2 3

Commercial Buildings 37 (7) 62 47 52

Office Buildings (large) 31 15 51 7 8

Office Buildings (small) 45 15 58 36 41

Hotels and Motels 31 26 48 6 8

Restaurants 46 (46) 85 2 2

Warehouses 54 (1) 57 14 37

Industrial Buildings 42 (9) 65 13 29

Multi-family high rise 39 28 44 5 5

Multi-family low rise 41 49 48 11 28

Nursing Homes and

Homes for the Aging 48 47 49 4 8

Buildings for Recreation 48 5 77 7 10

Inadequate data

189

15

292

*) Equal or negative ()

60
Figure 2: Approximate Actual Annual Design Energy Budgets for Buildings

Larger than 100,000 Cubic Feet in Iowa, for Buildings Submitted Before July 1, 1979.

These are not computer simulations, but are based on energy losses

through the building envelope, infiltration and ventilation, in Btu/

sq.ft. /year. Computations are by the Architecture Extension, Iowa

State University.

Building Type

Public and Assembly

University Buildings

Secondary Schools

Elementary Schools

Hospitals

Clinics

Commercial Buildings

Office Bldgs. (large)

Office Bldgs. (small)

Hotels and Motels

Restaurants

Warehouses

Industrial Buildings

Multi-family high rise

Multi-family low rise

Nursing Homes and

Homes for the Aging

Bldgs. for Recreation

o

MBtu

o

o

o o

o

CN o o

oon o om o

_*

* indicates average

Dotted line indicates the range of figures as computed for all buildings

61
of openings. This factor was considered by taking 25 percent of the

OTTV "improvement percentage" and reducing infiltration by that ratio

(for instance, if the actual OTTV was 40 percent better, the resulting

reduction in infiltration was 10 percent, while the ventilation factor

remained the same). For the cooling cycle, an average of 2400 hours of

infiltration, with a 10°F temperature difference was used. No attempt

was made to estimate the effects of a fuel mix, and no resource impact

factors (RIFs) and resource utilization factors (RUFs) or fuel equilization factors were considered.

In charting out the results of computations (see figure 2), we show the

range of design energy budgets (MBtu=1000 Btu) in each category. The

average values are shown by an asterisk, but we did not attempt to establish 20 percent or 80 percent ranges.

By numerical comparison (see figure 3), we find that in almost all cases

the lowest annual design energy budgets obtained are well within BEPS

requirements. Regarding the average values, about one-half of them meet

BEPS, several are close, and in only a few categories is there a failure

to comply. At the same time we need to note that in Iowa the sample is

really random and reflects the "current practice" without any attempt

to select certain buildings for further improvements.

As we continue to study Statements of Review submitted between July 1,

1979, and July 1, 1980, we find that the results are similar. We have

not yet converted these values to annual design energy budgets, but

will not expect significant differences. (See figure 4.)

We should emphasize that these results are not scientifically accurate,

and cannot withstand serious criticism. However, they serve as an indicator that Iowa professionals have met the test and are conscientiously

producing energy-efficient designs for buildings. And, the comparisons

with ASHRAE 90-75 (and ASHRAE 90.1-75R) are relatively realistic, while

those with BEPS give hope that such performance standards can be met.

We shall make no comment on the desirability of BEPS, nor on methods of

computation and accuracies of BEPS standards. Personally, I am in favor

of performance standards, as long as they do not set an unnecessary burden on professionals and on the building industry, and can be reasonably

enforced by average building inspectors.

The next step in Iowa is to review a number of sample building plans and

specifications to establish the accuracy of documents. Some of this work

has been done, and we find the results satisfactory, with only a few com- putation errors and misinterpretations of the code. Some of these sample

buildings will be inspected on-site. Later on, should we have adequate

funds available, actual energy audits will be performed, to establish

actual performances. As even in BEPS, the design energy budgets cannot

be maintained without meaningful operation and maintenance standards;

differences are bound to occur.

62
Figure 3: Approximate Actual Annual Design Energy Budget for Buildings

Larger than 100,000 Cubic Feet in Iowa, Figures Compared with

BEPS (see figure 2)

These figures show the lowest annual energy budgets, and averages, com- pared with BEPS, as computed by the Architecture Extension, Iowa State

University. Figures are based on U-values of the building envelope, infiltration, and ventilation. BEPS values range: Omaha to Minneapolis. *)

Building Type

Public and Assembly (MBTU)

University Buildings

Secondary Schools

Elementary Schools

Hospitals

Clinics

Commercial Buildings

(Stores and Shopping Centers)

Office Buildings (large)

Office Buildings (small)

Hotels and Motels

Restaurants

Warehouses

Industrial Buildings

Multi-family high rise

Multi-family low rise

Nursing Homes and

Homes for the Aging

Buildings for Recreation

Lowest Design Budget Average

110

240

38

98

130

148

70

70

30

118

280

52

68

78

40

45

152

182

245

140

105

170

155

152

120

145

150

285

135

235

130

72

82

222

BEPS range

145-157

126-138

105- 122

338-335

130-142

(145-155)

(186-198)

115-123

107-117

170-180

76-93

126-140

106- 110

164-175

*) BEPS does not show a Metropolitan Data Base for Iowa.

63
Figure 4: Potential Energy Saving in Buildings Larger than 100,000

Cubic Feet in Iowa as a Result of Implementing the State

Energy Conservation Building Code

The following percentages represent reductions in U-values of building

components, as being stricter than ASHRAE 90-75 standards. This group of

Statements of Review were submitted between July 1, 1979, and July 1,

1980. Computations are by the Architecture Extension, Iowa State

University.

Building Type

Public and Assembly

University Buildings

Secondary Schools

Elementary Schools

Hospitals

Clinics

Commercial Buildings

Office Buildings (large) 39

Office Buildings (small) 33

Hotels and Motels

Restaurants

Warehouses

Industrial Buildings

Multi-family high rise

Multi-family low rise

Nursing Homes and

Homes for the Aging

U

o Wall U

o Roof OTTV Bldgs. Cooled Total

53 %

33

48

17

42

(2)

50

37

28

42

44

30 %

16

(10) *)

Buildings for Recreation 58

Inadequate data

4

1

23

23

1

2

30

59

42

7

59 %

47

64

45

58

46

46

29

63

65

31

26

23

70

15

9

14

5

12

4

9

1

4

21

6

20

9

19

2

23

23

4

13

86 139

*) Equal or negative ()

64
To conclude, the State of Iowa has done and is doing what can be done

with a relatively low enforcement budget, with good results. When BEPS

is implemented, we will be prepared to educate our professionals, builders, and building officials in the manner required. Energy conservation

is one way by which we can reduce waste significantly, and the building

code has proven to be an effective way of implementation.

65
Figure 5 : Approximate Actual Annual Design Energy Budgets for Buildings

Larger than 100,000 Cubic Feet in Iowa, for Buildings Submitted Since July 1, 1979

These are not computer simulations, but are based on energy losses

through the building envelope, infiltration and ventilation, in Btu/

sq.ft. /year. Computations are by the Architecture Extension, Iowa

State University.

Building Type MBtu

Public and Assembly

University Buildings

Secondary Schools

Elementary Schools

Hospitals

Clinics

Commercial Buildings

Office Bldgs. (large)

Office Bldgs. (small)

Hotels and Motels

Restaurants

Warehouses

Industrial Buildings

Multi-family high rise

Multi-family low rise

Nursing Homes and

Homes for the Aging

Bldgs. for Recreation

o

o

o

o o

o

CM o

m

O

oCO o om o co <r

_*_.

L*

kk

* indicates average

Dotted line indicates the range of figures as computed for all buildings,

66
STATEMENT OF REVIEW

FOR

COMPLIANCE WITH THE

IOWA STATE BUILDING CODE

ENERGY EFFICIENCY STANDARDS

BUILDING NAMELOCATION

OWNER

ADDRESS

BUILDING CODE COMMISSIONER

BUILDING NUMBER

BRIEF DESCRIPTION

BUILDING TYPE: RESIDENTIAL A1Q A2D

OTHER (TYPE B): UNDER 3 STORIES

OVER 3 STORIES

OCCUPANCY TYPE(s)

(AS DEFINED BY THE UNIFORM BUILDING ADOFTED BY THE STATE BUILDING CODE)

THIS BUILDING IS INTENDED TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION

REFERENCED CODE ADOPTED BY RULE 5.800(3) OF DIVISION 8 OF THE

IOWA STATE BUILDING CODE.

DESIGN PARAMETERS

OUTDOOR DESIGN TEMPERATURE

WINTER DESIGN

DRY-BULB F

SUMMER

DESIGN

DRY-BULB F DESIGN

WET-BULB F

DEGREE DAYS HEATING

COOLING HOURS

DEGREES NORTH LATITUDE

GROSS FLOOR AREA

(HEATED On COOLED SPACE) GROSS VOLUME . (HEATED OR COOLED SPACE) COMBINED GROSS

EXPOSED WALL AREA

% OPEN I NGS (windows, ooons, etc.) COMBINED GROSS EXPOSED

WALL TRANSMITTANCE (Uo WALL)

COMBINED GROSS

ROOF/CEILING AREA

. BIU./SO FT.IHRJF

% OPENINGS

COMBINED GROSS ROOF/CELING TRANSMITTANCE

(Uo ROOF/CEILING) BluJSO. FT./HRJF AREA OF FLOOR OVER UNHEATED SPACES

(HEATING or COOLING) SO. FT. MAXIMUM GROSS WALL COOLING THERMAL TRANSFER

VALUE (OTTV) . biujso ft/hrjf

(TYPE B BUILDINGS ONLY) MAXIMUM GROSS DESIGN H EAT LOSS (biu/m MAXIMUM GROSS DESIGN COOLING LOADiBtu/hr>____

MAXIMUM GROSS LIGHTING POWER BUDGET(KWHo,w/5q w

A REVIEW HAS BEEN COMPLETED FOR THE ABOVE BUILDING AND THE PROPOSED DESIGN IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ENERGY AND LIGHTING EFFICIENCY STANDARD OF THE IOWA STATE BUILDING CODE.

SIGNED,

DATE

ADDRESSREVIEWER'S COPY

Appendix 1

67

SOLAR AND GEOTHERMAL HOUSING INNOVATIONS

via

INVERTED CAVE CONSTRUCTION SYSTEM

by

Thomas E . Loxley

Consultant Engineer/Builder

Shepherds town, West Virginia

The cave offers many energy saving advantages, but the problems of underground construction severely limit its application. The author shows

that modern materials can be used to build a house on grade as though it

were a cave turned inside out. The result is a house of generally con- ventional appearance that functions like a cave.

The system consists of a highly insulated exterior wall and roof surrounding a central core of high thermal mass. Insulation extending to the

base of the foundation isolates the house from outside temperature fluctuations. A concrete floor and central masonry wall then thermally

couple the home interior to the underlying subsoil.

Reduced heating and cooling loads and the nature of the design introduce

climate control options not possible with conventional construction. A

piping loop placed directly beneath the slab floor permits the storage

and circulation of water for use with a highly efficient water source

heat pump. A modestly sized solar array is used in a simple, attractive

arrangement to heat the loop water. This provides a radiant floor heating effect and boosts system efficiency.

Readily compatible with today's quality builders, this versatile system

concept costs little more than current energy wasting construction.

Key words: Buildings; construction; energy conservation; ground

coupled; hybrid solar energy system; inverted cave;

low grade geothermal; radiant floor heating; space

heating and cooling; thermal mass; walls; water source

heat pump.

69
A heating engineer normally sees insulation and air infiltration control

as the primary means to cut home heat losses. Increase insulation

levels, eliminate unnecessary framing members, restrict window areas and

plug leaks, and heating requirements can be cut in half. Historically,

he has considered the temperature differential used in the heat loss

calculation as a fixed term, governed by local outside air temperatures.

This is where a cave differs from a conventional house. The base temperature inside a cave depends on the subsoil temperature. Across much of

the Northern United States, this temperature is a stable 45 to 60°F year

round (see figure 1). A typical family often expends much of its yearly

heating budget just to raise the temperature inside a house to that of

the subsoil underneath. This typically represents 38 percent of the an- nual heating bill in Buffalo, 50 percent in Seattle, and 54 percent in

Washington, DC. Needless to say, the cost of summer air conditioning

could be eliminated entirely if we all move underground.

This phenomenon has inspired many to tackle the problems of building

earth covered or underground homes. Complicated and expensive, such

construction does not lend itself to widespread use. For many, the very

idea conjures up images of damp and musty cellars; hardly the impression architects seek.

Geothermal power means using the earth as an active energy source. Too

often visualized strictly as hot geysers and erupting volcanoes, geologists also talk of low grade heat flowing constantly through the earth's

surface at about 20 Btu per square foot per hour [1]*. Our planet acts

much like an enormous nuclear reactor, with the heat from its molten

core dissipating in the atmosphere as it reaches the surface.

This paper describes a simple, comprehensive construction system which

creates a house of generally conventional appearance that captures the

benefits offered by the earth (see figure 2). Literally a cave turned

inside out, the inverted cave construction system erects a highly insulated shell around a central masonry wall and concrete floor which

thermally couple the home interior to the subsoil. Certain minimum house

size considerations exist and the floor plan should be rather squarish in

order to restrict perimeter effects. The nature of the system and the

major reductions in the resulting heating and cooling loads introduce

attractive climate control options not possible with conventional housing. A serpentine loop of 3- or 4-inch pipe placed directly beneath the

slab floor permits the storage and circulation of water for use with a water- to-air heat pump. This offers more than double the best overall

performance available from local use of the standard air-to-air heat

pump. In addition, a modestly sized (solar array can be used in a simple

arrangement to heat the loop water. This provides a radiant floor heating effect and further boosts heat pump efficiency. Since all water

stays within the home foundation, the system eliminates concerns over deleterious effluent or external energy effects.

^Numbers in brackets refer to references at end of text.

70
Figure 1 - Average Temperature of Shallow Ground Water (Source;

U.S. Geological Survey, Water Atlas, Plate 30)

Figure 2 - Inverted Cave Construction System Split Foyer

Demonstration Home

71
To prove the concept, a 2400 square foot split foyer version was con- structed outside Shepherds town in the eastern panhandle of West

Virginia. This reeion's climate is characterized by a heatine season of

approximately 5500 heating degree-days (°F) and a cooling season of about

750 hours. The 99 percent assurance temperature limits are 6°F in winter

and 93 °F in summer.

The cross-sectional construction of this home is illustrated in figure 3.

The conditioned space measures 30 feet wide by 40 feet long. Eight foot

ceilings exist throughout, except for the upstairs hall where ductwork is

contained in the dropped ceiling.

As shown, the insulation system starts at the very base of the foundation

footing with the concrete actually being poured against the R-16 foam

insulation. Lightweight 2-core block were then used to finish the

foundation with the block cores being filled with perlite insulation.

The R-16 foam insulation extends to the top of the slab floor to give an overall perimeter R-value of about 21. Above the floor, R-8 foam

insulation is applied in a continuous fashion to the inside of the block

knee wall. It is important that this wall be properly prepared and sealed

before the foil faced foam slabs are glued in place.

72
The below grade insulation is integrated to form a continuous, tight

skirt. All plumbing or electrical penetrations are restricted to locations either above grade or below the footing. Footing depth is governed

by the local climate conditions. As usual, the base of the footer is

kept below the frost line, the deeper the better. Extruded, closed cell

polyurethane or polyisocyanurate slab insulation is preferred for low

moisture absorption and high R-value per inch. Of course, the foundation

must be properly waterproofed outside and effective drainage provided.

The framing system used has been popularized as the well proven,

"Arkansas Story" approach [2], Two-by-six studs spaced on 24-inch centers are combined with nailed and glued plywood headers and corners and

steel drywall backup clips so as to form an exterior wall where 90 percent of the wall area contains fiberglass insulation. This compares to

a 70 percent ratio for conventional 2x4 construction. Roof trusses

and wall studs are stacked in-line to maximize structural integrity.

Fiberglass blanket and batt insulation of R- 19 is used in the walls and

R-38 in the roof. Considerable effort was made to ensure its proper

installation and provide a sound foil or polyethelene vapor barrier.

Standard black wall sheathing was preferred for its high permeability.

Continuous ridge and eave vents were used to ventilate the roof area. Electrical wiring was constrained to avoid interference with the insulation. Likewise, all plumbing was restricted to interior walls and

all ductwork contained within the insulated envelope.

Window design, size, and placement reflect an effort to maximize the

distribution of natural light, fresh air vent ilation5 and emergency egress

while minimizing the overall heat loss represented. Wood framed,

horizontal sliding, double glazed units of 4-foot width were employed.

Their size allowed ready incorporation into the framing with the minimal

amount of carpentry. The windows selected also lend themselves to the

possible incorporation of fixed storm glazing or sliding interior

shutters. Total window area was restricted to 131 square feet.

All exterior doors are windowless, pressed steel construction with

polyurethane cores and magnetic weather stripping. Storm doors are also

used to boost entry insulation and air infiltration control.

Overall air infiltration control measures focus on provision of a tight

vapor barrier and the massive use of butyl and polyurethane caulking.

One side of all windows is caulked in place. Additionally, window and

door units are caulked where they penetrate the frame wall and again

where they penetrate the brick veneer. Sole plates are caulked and

fiberglass sill sealer is applied on top of the block foundation wall.

Band joists are wrapped with felt.

Every effort is made to seek out and seal any potential air leak. The

remaining level of infiltration around the movable parts of doors and

windows is considered to provide a beneficial and well distributed

source of fresh air.

73
The physical heart of the system is the concrete and masonry which

thermally couple the home interior to the underlying subsoil (see figure

4) . Fine gravel or sand is used as fill under the concrete slab to

provide drainage with good heat transfer. The central wall is a typical

8-inch brick garden wall which is 32 feet long and extends to the ceiling

of the ground floor. This wall could be made of stone or concrete, the

denser the better. A small chimney is provided for use of a combination

wood or coal stove as an emergency heat source.

Figure 4 - Foundation and Central Wall in Split Foyer Home

Interestingly enough, this wall tends to cost less to construct than the

standard fireplace installed in most homes this size. It also provides

solid support for the upper floor, helps block noise transmission and

is erected at the same time as the block foundation.

Some 400 feet of standard 4-inch polyvinylchloride (PVC) sewer pipe

(ASTM D-3034, SDR 35) was used to form the serpentine water storage loop

(see figure 5). This was terminated into upright 12-inch T-fittings to

act as sump areas for the circulation pumps and a mixing chamber to temper the hot water leaving the solar array. This insures that the water

temperature stays within the temperature restrictions of the PCV material.

The loop assembly contains about 300 gallons of water. Special care was

taken to fill the loop with the cleanest and softest water available.

The Phis adjusted to be slightly basic. Two small centrifugal pumps

for use with the heat pump and solar array are mounted on the floor next

to the loop outlet terminal and draw water using plastic foot valves

submerged in the sump.

74
BggjHgHHttHHj

Figure 5 - Serpentine Storage and Distribution Loop Installation

The water-to-air heat pump used is a 2-ton unit made by the Carrier

Corporation. Actual operation has been adjusted via the water and air

circulation rate to tune the capacity to the 1.5 ton output required by

the house. This also allows the cooling rate to be adjusted slightly

for maximum humidity control.

Over the range of operating conditions anticipated, this unit offers a heating coefficient of performance (COP) of 3.4 and a cooling energy

efficiency ratio (EER) of 15. Compare this to a COP of one for an electric furnace. Typical use of a good air-to-air heat pump in this

local climate results in an average annual COP of 1.3 to 1.5 and a typical EER of 7. The water source unit is over twice as efficient.

The low overall performance of the standard air-to-air heat pump re- flects its poor output at low temperatures and problems with frost

formation. This requires special defrosting provisions and the use of

supplementary electric resistance heaters which are activated in stages

as the heat pump output drops off. Such complications are unnecessary

with the water source unit which employs a simple single stage thermostat and offers a stable output over the range of operating conditions

envisioned. In addition, the water source unit is fully self-contained

75
and easy to install. There are no refrigerant lines to be installed on

the job.

In order to operate properly, any heat pump requires provision for adequate return air circulation within the home. In this particular application, return air flow is provided via the central stairwell and the use of slit registers positioned under most of the upstairs windows and

large floor register positioned in the hall over the top of the wood

stove. Wall registers are also positioned where necessary to feed air

back to the heat pump blower inlet. Thus, all dead air spaces are elim

inated and continuous air circulation assured throughout the house.

When the blower is off, the return air passages still allow cool dense

air falling down the inside of the windows to power a natural air circu

lation pattern in winter which forces warm air up through the register

the hall (see figure 6). Thus, when the solar system is adequate, this

natural air circulation quietly distributes the heat throughout the

house without any need for the blower. Likewise, in the case of an electrical blackout, the combination wood or coal stove can be used to

provide adequate, even heat to the entire home.

1

II V

'

1 1

1 A

./J

.L-.,

Figure 6 - Natural Air Circulation Pattern in Test Home Design

76
A liquid flat-plate solar array with a collection area of 200 square

feet is positioned against the south face of the house, figure 7 . The

close proximity between the collector array and the storage loop is

considered vital to system simplicity. The circulator pump is used to

force water from storage up through the collector absorber plate. A

small open drainback line on the collector side of the pump permits water

in the collector to drain back to the storage loop when the pump shuts

off. This constitutes a most reliable form of freeze protection with

little expense and no moving parts. All effort is made to provide ample

insulation (R-5) on all collector hookup lines.

Figure 7 - South Face of Split Foyer Home

A simple differential thermostat actuates the circulator pump when the

collector absorber surface reaches a temperature 15°F above that of the

pump inlet water. It then shuts off when this temperature difference

drops to 5°F. The thermostat used has lightning surge protection and a variable high storage temperature limit. The latter shuts down the

pump when the inlet temperature gets too warm, thus safeguarding the

storage plumbing and avoiding overheating the house.

Water storage temperatures which range between 55°F and 80°F allow the

collector to operate at maximum efficiency. The ground location also

boosts collector performance significantly as sunshine reflects off any

77
snow cover. Where durable winter snow cover cannot be relied on, using

a reflective surface with the collector array will be more cost effective

than any gross increases in collector area. The reflector could also

flip back against the collector in summer to protect it from damage when

the solar system is shut down.

The solar array is tilted for maximum performance in January. A 3-foot

overhang and the body of the house act to shelter the collector array

from wind and weather effects which would diminish efficiency or pose undue hazards. Likewise, the steep tilt angle and relationship to the

house help shade the solar array from excess summer sun. This helps

avoid unnecessary overheating and prolongs component life.

The close arrangement between the collector and the storage loop greatly

simplifies system plumbing and allows all moving parts to be positioned

inside the home. This greatly assists reliability and ease of maintenance. In place of an automatic vent valve, a simple air separator line

connects the high point in the collector plumbing with the storage loop

terminals. This allows easy filling of the collector, minimizes water

losses, cuts flow noise and avoids vacuum resistance which might retard

drainback.

The only moving parts in the entire solar system are the relay switch in

the differential thermostat, the circulator pump and the foot valve in

the pump inlet line. With its simplicity, this hybrid system clearly

sidesteps many of the complications which have played havoc with some active solar installations.

The performance of the house has verified expectations, yielding a home

which is naturally warm in winter and cool in summer. With outside temperatures hovering in the low teens and all heating equipment off, the

base temperatures inside stood solidly at 52°F upstairs and 54°F downstairs. With summer temperatures of 82 °F outside, the corresponding

temperatures inside were 71°F upstairs and 67°F downstairs. During an unusual prolonged heat wave with temperatures climbing daily to 98°F, the

base temperatures inside were 81°F upstairs and 76 °F downstairs. In the

latter case, the heat pump blower was used to force the cooler air upstairs during the day.

With the heat loss characteristics of the home construction known, the

winter temperature differentials observed over long periods of time

demonstrated a stable heat flux from the underlying earth of over 15,000

Btu per hour. This is well over the heat pump ground input of 12,000

Btu per hour needed to maintain a home temperature of 68 °F under worst

case conditions.

In spring and fall, the solar array provides much of the required supplemental heat. However, the local snow cover was limited last winter. A

simple ground reflector design is being explored for use next winter, to

bring the system up to peak potential. Heat pump use is seen as concentrated on sunless days and the months of December through February. Air

78
conditioning assistance is almost unnecessary. Positive humidity con- trol now appears best provided by a small central dehumidifier

.

With the assistance of the Physics Department at Virginia Polytechnic

Institute and State University, and the Virginia Center for Coal and

Energy Research, the test house has recently been instrumented for

comprehensive performance monitoring. Eight channels of temperature

data will be recorded on 5-minute intervals. A separate meter has been

installed to record power consumed by the heat pump.

Through various analyses, it will be possible to further evaluate and

refine the system. These efforts should also aid design adjustments

associated with implementing the concept in other geographical locations. Annual electric consumption for the 2400 square foot test house

is expected to average less than 500 kilowatt-hours per month.

The enormous internal thermal mass is considered responsible for the

even temperatures observed throughout the house. The system makes

valuable use of the storage capacity of the fill and soil enclosed by

the insulation skirt.

The slab floor in the split foyer test house averages less than 1 foot

below grade. Standard one and two story inverted cave home designs have

a floor level about 1 foot above grade and avoid the knee wall type

foundation of the split foyer configuration. Various internal footing

arrangements are being explored to maximize thermal coupling and simplify

construction procedures.

Many people will wish to install foam backed carpeting over the slab

floor. This is expected to have little effect on overall system performance, but will shift a greater responsibility to the heat pump.

The central masonry wall is probably unnecessary in a one-story building. However, so many people are attracted by such a brick or stone

wall that it may prove ideal for curing people's love affair with

energy-wasting fireplaces.

The inverted cave construction system lends itself to a variety of one

and two story residential, commercial and industrial applications with

a comfortable degree of architectural freedom. A natural for townhouses, it also lends itself to nursing homes, recreation facilities,

and schools. Urban or rural locations make no difference. A minimal

width of about 30 feet and a squarish floor plan are required.

With only slight modifications, the system appears suited to geographical sites ranging across the Northern U.S. and Southern Canada. Of

course, increases in climate severity will require corresponding in- creases in insulation levels and minimal size considerations. Natural

increases in foundation depth should have a compensating effect. In

Buffalo, a minimal width of 32 feet may be required with triple glazed

windows and an 8-inch wall construction like that in the University of

Illinois "Lo-Cal" home design [3].

79
The Self -Inspecting

Home of the Future

All Heating Equipment Left OFF

Outside Air Temperature : 15°F

Figure 8

80
The inverted cave construction system is a logical extension of existing building codes and code approved materials. Experience shows it

readily compatible with today's quality home builders with little additional cost compared to current energy wasting designs.

A further feature of the inverted cave construction system is that a building inspector can evaluate such energy conserving construction

merely by checking the base temperatures inside on a cold day (see fig- ure 8). Use of adequate insulation, poor workmanship or overlooked detail

are reflected in this one simple measure. It may well represent the

self- inspecting home of the future. Indeed, such an approach may have

great merit when one explores the technical complexity and controversy

associated with some of the energy conservation standards now under

development

.

In our national search for sophisticated answers to the energy crisis,

we appear to have neglected the gold mine under our feet. The low

grade energy emanating from our planet deserves respect for the power

potential it represents. Anything that promises to provide half of a homes heating needs and most of the cooling is a clear source of climate

control power. Call it earth power if you will. Dollar for dollar invested, the competition between earth power and solar power often

suggests the legendary race between the tortoise and the hare. Day and

night, rain and shine, winter and spring, the earth does its thing.

The development of this system began with the author's work at Virginia

Tech to produce energy conservation programs for small builders. The

experience with this conservative audience made it clear that the only

way to lead builders was to be one. Thus, this project was undertaken

entirely with limited personal funding in an effort to forge practical

answers to any question a builder or subcontractor might ask. The

author looks forward to pooling experience with other builders willing

to try the inverted cave construction system.

REFERENCES

1. Lee, William H.K. Terrestrial Heat Flow , Geophysical Monograph

Series, No. 8, 1965. American Geophysical Union, National Academy

of Sciences-National Research Council. Pub. No. 1288.

2. Energy Saving Homes - The Arkansas Story , Report No. 1, June 1976.

Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation, Insulation Operating Division,

Fiberglas Tower, Toledo, Ohio 43659.

3. Illinois Lo-Cal House, C2.3, Vol. 1, No. 4, Spring 1976, $0.25,

Small Homes Council-Building Research Council, University of

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, One East Saint Mary's Road, Champaign,

Illinois 61820.

81

BASIC HUMAN VALUES AND ENERGY CONSERVING LIFESTYLES

OR

THE IMPLICATIONS OF CALIFORNIA'S INNOVATIVE NEW CLASS K CODE

by

Anon Forest

Member of the California State Building Standards Commission,

United Stand, and Former Member of the California State

Commission on Housing and Community Development

Presented by Rhett Wenzinger

Facilitated by David McElroy

With Special Thanks to

Stache Williams

Saul Krimsley

United Stand

Mendocino Grapevine

Ukiah, California

This report stresses the energy conserving implications of California's

innovative new "Class K" code provision for primitive architecture and

alternative technologies. The philosophy of United Stand, proponent of

the "Class K" code, is here highlighted in the interest of energy conservation, and owner-builders across America who wish to maintain basic

human values and energy conserving lifestyles.

We now propose a similarly conceived national code that will specifically

mandate the right of owner-builders to employ alternative technologies in

their own homes—a new code which will spell out functional performance

rather than prescribe specific technology; a code written briefly, and

simply, to provide a rule of thumb, rather than repression; a code which

will legalize and facilitate low-cost, low- techno logy, energy-efficient

housing, rather than discriminate against it. We ask for a code

specifying the right of homeowner-builders to turn "OFF" a portion of our Nation's energy—their own.

Key words: Alternative; California; Class K Code; conservation;

discrimination; energy; United Stand.

83
We are here to discuss energy issues, alternative technology, and the

codes, in order to meet the needs of American people. Clearly, the need

must be met. I am here to tell you that building codes now foster discrimination against those people who most want to conserve energy. I am

talking about the kind of people who know that all energy-using devices

have a conservation feature built-in. We have all seen it—it is called

"OFF." The people I am speaking for are not afraid to turn "OFF" to conserve.

What we ask, responsibly, is that it be made the lawful right of owner- builders to choose that energy-conserving option called "OFF." I speak

for owner-builders of the past, present, and future, that we may be

specified the right to erect and reside within architecture befitting

our needs as individuals. We need low-cost, low-technology, energyefficient housing. Often, this happens to be "primitive" architecture.

How can this nebulous term be defined?

According to engineers Leckie, Masters, Whitehouse, and Young in their

book, Other Homes and Garbage , "There are four general traits which

characterize primitive architecture: unsupplemented use of natural

locally available building materials and local construction skills;

planning and massing as a result of specific functional requirements and

site conditions, regardless of symmetry and general accepted taste; an absence of ornamentation which is not a part of the structure; and the

identity of an enclosing form and enclosed space. This architecture is a simple and original response, the most economic shaping of space and

form for the maximum benefit of body and soul."

Primitive or not, codes must allow owner-builders of existing and future

homes and structures to choose alternate technologies. Alternative

technologies must be integrated within, rather than discriminated by,

codes for health and safety. They must allow individuals the right to

turn "OFF" urban-oriented central systems which mass-produce energyexpensive utility services and goods, even though these services are standardized and uniform.

The State of California has responded to this need.

The California State Commission on Housing and Community Development

adopted the "Class K" code in 1979 to provide owner-builders in rural

areas with a code conducive to implementation of alternative technology

and primitive architecture. This came about only after five years of

work, numerous drafts, and public hearings. (See Appendix.)

The application of "Class K" is locally determined.

As approved by the California State Building Standards Commission,

November 16, 1979, "Class K" is only mandatory upon a county if that

county deems that there are rural areas within its jurisdiction appropriate for "Class K."

84
"Class K" has been accepted on the county level in concept.

The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors did accept "Class K" code as part of the housing element of the Sonoma County General Plan. However, the effect of this action was to adopt, at that time, "Class K"

in concept only.

What does the "Class K" code say?

The "General Requirements" of the "Class K" code states that "Each

structure shall be constructed and maintained in a sound structural condition to be safe, sanitary, and to shelter the occupants from the

elements

.

"It shall be the purpose and intent of this article to permit the use of

ingenuity and preferences of the builder, and to allow and facilitate the use of alternatives to the specifications prescribed by the uniform

technical codes to the extent that a reasonable degree of health and

safety is provided by such alternatives, and that the materials, methods

of construction, and the structural integrity of the structure shall

perform in application for the purpose intended. To provide for the

application of this article, it shall be necessary for the enforcement

agency to exercise reasonable judgment in determining the compliance of

appropriate structures with the general and specific requirements of

this article."

"Class K" specifies that "a 'substandard building 1 is a structure or portion thereof in which there exists any condition to- an extent that

endangers the life, limb, health, or safety of the occupants."

But "Class K" considers that some "conditions which would not render a structure unsound are the minor deflections or elasticity of structural

members, ceiling heights, size or arrangement of rooms, heating, plumbing, and electrification requirements; alternative materials; appliances

or facilities, or methods of construction." Wood stoves are accepted

and neither electrification nor plumbing is required.

Codes should be conducive to voluntary simplicity.

United Stand, behind the adoption of the "Class K" code, believes that

"the voluntary simplicity movement is an extremely viable concept in a world that is just beginning to face the realities of finite resources. One just needs to look at the mushrooming popularity of such notions as organic farming, recycling wastes, alternative energy sources, and

small simple housing, to understand this notion of consuming little and

living simply, in harmony with our environment."

"Class K" facilitates energy conservation in broad concept.

"Class K" housing provisions promote such energy-saving concepts by

allowing recycled and owner-produced building materials, alternative

85
energy sources, and simplified solid and greywater systems, along with

other cost-saving, ecologically sound ideas. It allows rural owner- builders to get away from energy-expensive mass-produced goods and ser- vices specified in uniform codes. 1

But the discriminatory approach of some health departments is something

like this: "Of course we'll let you put in a composting toilet, but

you'll also have to install a full-size septic system to handle the

greywater." And as soon as the homebuilder figures out what he will have

to pay for the septic system in addition to his intended $1500 expense

for the composting toilet, he forgets the composting toilet.

The time for "Class K" is forever.

With all the implications for energy conservation embodied in "Class K,

we would urge your attention. The option to turn "OFF" centralized

utility systems, the right to resort to low-technology alternatives, must

be legalized if you are serious about conserving energy in America.

United Stand recognizes the meaningful police power of the State of

California and the County of Mendocino, as well as other such agencies,

to see that people's homes are safe, structurally sound, and have sanitary sewage and waste disposal systems. United Stand does not advocate

the wanton building of homes that are unsafe or structurally unsound.

However, United Stand believes the right to shape one's individual family life, in this case the construction of the home wherein that

family life centers, is a fundamental one. We believe there is no com- pelling State interest to enforce the uniform building codes as the

exclusive standards for rural home construction without regard to individual lifestyles which harm no one.

People are going to provide for themselves as best they can.

Regardless of any code, people have needs they are going to meet. Cabindwellers are willing to settle for less in the luxuries and amenities

of their homes. Often, it is the only way they can ever hope to own a home.

There is a need for regulation, however.

Many cabin-builders are now building homes and dealing with their wastes.

But they are often doing so without any type of governmental regulation

whatsoever. Not even the most basic health and safety considerations are being safeguarded by any government agency. This is because many of our

current laws which have been set up to provide this protection are quite

inappropriately conceived or enforced when applied to cabin construction

and/or the needs of owner-builders. But the Government has a rightful

interest in regulating the building of homes and the disposal of wastes.

The health and safety of our communities must be protected.

1 Editors Note: The use of the words uniform codes is taken to mean

codes promulgated by the International Conference of Building Officials.

86
Owner-builders have been overlooked by the uniform codes.

The goal of reducing housing costs through the standardization of building materials and construction techniques in the best interests of homebuyers, was, and is, an admirable one. But not all homes are built by

the construction industry for resale. The do-it-yourselfer has been

grossly overlooked by code writers.

As a result, those persons who have taken it upon themselves to produce

their own housing in accordance with their needs and within their

economic limitations are forced to comply with industrial standards. The

energy-saving owner-builders have been discouraged.

"Our experience," say members of United Stand, "has shown us that in many

instances, even when scientific and technical evidence exists to substantiate claims, building officials demand that alternative designs be

engineered or otherwise professionally 'accounted for' at great expense

to the owner. This action effectively prohibits people from utilizing

energy-conserving alternatives, and may even make it quite impossible for

the disadvantaged to own their housing."

Our needs are not met within the uniform codes.

The application of existing model codes in rural areas does not guarantee

rural people safe, healthful housing. Because of the urban orientation

of the codes, their application may in fact deprive low-income rural

people of housing opportunities they might otherwise have.

This is due to a lack of public input.

There is a lack of public participation in the code-writing and enforcement process; a tendency for Government to offer only regulation, and

not education; enforcement rather than assistance; and the emphasis of

existing law and social attitudes as to what may be ideal, rather than

what may be realistically obtainable. United Stand concludes that our "diversity has no place in current uniform laws, although the public's

economic, cultural, and environmental conditions are in no way uniform."

And we note that the public is kept very poorly informed upon the deliberations of the code-writing bodies.

Something must be done.

In June of 1980, a suit was filed against the County of Mendocino,

California, by a county group, the Committee For Sane And Equal

Enforcement of Our Land Use Laws. This was reportedly a contractorsponsored group recently formed.

This suit was directed at the county's estimated 3,000 to 5,000 "outlaw"

homebuilders who have sought alternatives outside the uniform codes.

These people have not been given the benefit of the "Class K" concept.

87
The suit resulted in a building code infraction ordinance, with heavy

daily fines which could rapidly accrue unpaid, leading to county con- fiscation of "outlaw" properties.

This measure immediately stirred bitter opposition, and it even found

owners of standardized, legal structures liable for even ridiculous

"infractions." The infraction ordinance appeared blatantly as a tool

for discrimination.

But there is hope.

In July, the directors of the Mendocino County Contractors' Association

voted to favor "the general concept of a separate building code for

limited density rural dwellings, providing the proper land usage is met

according to the approved general plan, and that these structures can be built by anyone." This was a publicly-stated change of opinion.

This followed a Mendocino County Grand Jury statement which had been

developing for some months. The Grand Jury suggests that the county

adopt "Class K" to serve local needs. This was an unusual statement

of recommendation, but the Board of Supervisors has failed to act upon it.

The public in Mendocino County is "hot."

Immediately following the announcement of the infraction ordinance, a petition was circulated. It quickly gathered the signatures of enough

voters to place the issue on the November ballot, although some administrative forces are continuing to thwart this effort. And although the

people who have signed this petition represent the broad spectrum of

citizens, the Supervisors refuse to allow a vote.

Why can't government represent us?

United Stand would like to see the infraction ordinance repealed—flat

out. "But if they put it on the ballot for all United Stand people to

vote on, we still win, but at the expense of seeing our tax money wasted

because our representative government cannot bear to represent us." And

if they do nothing? United Stand says, "First we sue—then we win."

Local compromise is not good enough.

The County Supervisors have proposed a "Clean Slate" program to the

"outlaw" builders, in light of the public furor. This is said to be a way to "get legal" with the county, a way to certify alternative homes

hidden in the mountain forests. But United Stand fears that they are being handed a rope, because "it would legalize a few homes without

legalizing the principles which built them."

United Stand asserts that "without the sanction of future freedoms to

build, 'Clean Slate' will be a hollow victory at best. What we have had

to be criminals to do, our children should be able to do with pride and

legitimacy—build their homes."

88
An attitude of reason and cooperation is needed.

Self-reliant owner-builders are fearful in that "it simply does not make

sense to avail oneself of the guidance and expertise of the health department, for example, if one must eventually 'destroy' one's home anyway

because of 'insufficient floorspace, 1 'failure to obtain permits,' or 'improper windows' and the like. Why submit your pride and joy, your own hand-built house, to an authority who will destroy it on the mere basis

of non-uniformity?" Presently, there is only a chance of being properly,

inexpensively, painlessly certified with authorities.

The right to utilize non-uniform alternatives must be legally specified

in the interest of energy conservation.

This issue has been raging for years. It will continue to boil. It has

been boiling in many communities across America.

Perhaps a national code based upon the concept of "Class K" and United

Stand can be facilitated. A code which will assert the rights of ownerbuilders who wish to move closer to that "OFF" position on the nation's

energy dial. A code that will permit individual lifestyles and common

sense to dominate its language and intents. A code that gives the needed

legitimacy and opportunity to those who wish to conserve the most,

whether it be due to poverty or a quite conservative decision to live

simply with less.

This seminar is concerned with energy conservation and the alternatives.

United Stand has been fighting in this regard for years. It is concerned

with energy conservation and the alternatives—our own.

We no longer will be "overlooked."

We call for a national building code which will facilitate the legal

construction of low-cost, low-technology, energy-efficient housing, to

be embodied with rules of thumb that are simply stated.

Of course, contractors, various governmental agencies, and special

interest groups will attempt to limit owner-builders in attempting to

preserve and foster powers of their own. Sometimes these interests

seek code language which can be used to discriminate upon a class basis, or against individuals—sometimes against those who would conserve

energy the most, those who would turn it "OFF."

You are going to hear about this subject again, and again. America

needs low-cost, low- technology, energy-efficient housing—Now. Must

archaic notions of "modern" codes of urban orientation forbid us to turn

"OFF" energy to meet this need?

We demand that owner-builders be specifically mandated the right to turn

"OFF" energy—their own. We require your attention.

89
APPENDIX

(NOTE: THIS IS A RETYPED VERSION OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER)

ORDER REPEALING AND ADOPTING REGULATIONS OF THE

COMMISSION OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

After proceedings held in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act (Government Code, Title 2, Division 3, Part 1,

Chapter 4.5) and pursuant to the authority vested by Sections 50559 and

19721 of the Health and Safety Code, and to implement, interpret or make

specific Division 13, Part 1.5 (State Housing Law) Section 17910

through 17995 of the Health and Safety Code, the Commission of Housing

and Community Development hereby repeals and adopts its regulations in

Title 25, Chapter 1, Subchapter 1, California Administrative Code.

Repeal Article 10. Special guidelines for dwellings in rural areas,

Sections 142 through 244.

Adopt Article 10. Regulations for limited density owner-built rural

dwellings

.

Sections 142 through 244 to read as follows:

REGULATIONS FOR LIMITED

DENSITY OWNER-BUILT RURAL DWELLINGS

142 Authority . This article is adopted in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act (Government Code,

Title 2, Division 3, Part 1, Chapter 4.5) and with the authority

vested specifically by Sections 50559 through 17923 and generally

by Sections 17910 through 17995 of the Health and Safety Code.

PART ONE - ADMINISTRATION

Chapter 1 - Application

144 Purpose . The purpose of this article is to provide minimum

requirements for the protection of life, limb, health, property,

safety, and welfare of the general public and the owners and

occupants of limited density owner-built rural dwellings and

appurtenant structures

.

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17921, Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17921, Health and Safety Code.

146 Intent and Application . The provisions of this article shall

apply to the construction, enlargement, conversion, alteration,

repair, use, maintenance, and occupancy of limited density ownerbuilt rural dwellings and appurtenant structures.

90
It is the intent of this article that the requirements contained

herein shall apply to seasonally or permanently occupied dwellings,

hunting shelters, guest cottages, vacation homes, recreational

shelters and detached bedrooms located in rural areas

.

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17921, Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17921, Health and Safety Code.

148 Existing Buildings. The provisions of this article regulating

the erection and construction of dwellings and appurtenant structures shall not apply to existing structures as to which con- struction is commenced or approved prior to the effective date

of this article. Reguirements relating to use3 maintenance, and

occupancy shall apply to all dwellings and appurtenant structures

approved for construction or constructed before or after the

effective date of this article. (T25-148)

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17921, Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17921, Health and Safety Code.

Chapter 2 - Administration and Enforcement

150 Local Standards. Pursuant to Sections 17958, 17958.

5

3 and

17958. 7 of the Health and Safety Code3 the governing body of

every jurisdiction in which there exist rural areas displaying

conditions appropriate for the application of this article and

designated as such by the appropriate local agency shall adopt

regulations imposing the same requirements as are contained in

this article. (T25-150)

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17922(b), Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17922(b), Health and Safety Code.

152 Regulation of Use . (a) For the purposes of this article the

sale, lease, renting or employee occupancy of owner-built structures within one year of the issuance of a Certificate of

Occupancy shall be presumptive evidence that the structure was erected for the purpose of sale, lease or renting.

(b) The restrictions of this article on the sale, lease, renting,

or employee occupancy of these dwellings may be reasonably

amended to be more restrictive if the governing body determines

that such an amendment is necessary to ensure compliance with

the intent of this article.

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17921, Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17921, Health and Safety Code.

154 Abatement of Substandard Buildings . AVI structures or portions

thereof which are determined by the enforcing agency to constitute

a substandard building shall be declared to be a public nuisance

91
and shall be abated by repair3 rehabilitation, or removal in

accordance with Health and Safety Code Sections 17980 through

17995. In oases of extreme hardship to owner-occupants of the

dwellings, the appropriate local body should provide for deferral

of the effective date of orders of abatement. (T25-154)

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17980 through 17995, Health and

Safety Code. Reference: Section 17980 through 17995,

Health and Safety Code.

156 Interpretations . The Commission of Housing and Community Development may make specific determinations as to the meaning, intent,

or application of the provisions of this article.

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17930, Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17930, Health and Safety Code.

158 Intent of Interpretations . Interpretations by the Commission are

not intended to preempt the exercising of building or housing

appeals processes established by statute, but are intended to

facilitate public understanding and the effective enforcement of

this article.

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17930, Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17930, Health and Safety Code.

160 Petitions for Interpretations . Any person or local agency may

petition the Commission for an interpretation of any provision

of this article. Petitions shall be submitted in writing, after

which the Commission, or designated member(s), may consider such

requests and the Commission may make a determination as to the

meaning or intent of any provisions of this article with respect

to the petition in question. The consideration of petitions

for interpretation shall be discretionary with the Commission.

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17930, Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17930, Health and Safety Code.

162 Notice of Findings . The Secretary of the Commission shall keep

a record of all interpretations made by the Commission which shall

be available for review by the public or any governmental agency

and shall provide notice to the petitioner (s) of the Commission's

findings

.

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17933, Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17933, Health and Safety Code.

164 Recording . No provision of this article is intended to prohibit

or limit a local governing body from establishing and enforcing

reasonable regulations for the recording of information regarding

the materials, methods of construction, alternative facilities,

92
or other factors that may be of value in the full disclosure of

the nature of the dwelling and appurtenant structures.

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17958.5, Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17958.5, Health and Safety Code.

166 Constitutional and Statutory Validity . It is the express purpose

of this article to conform the regulations regarding the construction and use of limited density rural owner-built dwellings and

appurtenant structures to the requirements of Article 1, Section 1,

of the California State Constitution, and the statutes of the

State of California which require the Commission to consider the

uniform model codes and amendments thereto; and local conditions,

among which are conditions of topography, geography and general

development; and to provide for the health, safety, and general

welfare of the public in adopting building standards. If any

section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this article

is, for any reason, held to be unconstitutional, or contrary to

California statutes, such ruling shall not affect the validity of

the remaining portions of this article.

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17921, Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17921, Health and Safety Code.

168 Violations . The critical concern in the promulgation of this

article is to provide for health and safety while maintaining

respect for the law and voluntary compliance with the provisions

of this article, and therefore, in the event that an order to

correct a substandard condition is ignored, it is the intent of

this section that civil abatement procedures should be the first

remedy pursued by the enforcement agency.

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17980, Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17980, Health and Safety Code.

Chapter 3 - Permits, Inspections and Fees

170 Permits . Permits shall be required for the construction of rural

dwellings and appurtenant structures.

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17951, Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17951, Health and Safety Code.

Exemptions Permits shall not be required for small or unimportant

work, or alterations or repairs that do not present a health or safety hazard, and which are in conformance with local zoning re- quirements or property standards. The determination, if any, of what

work is properly classified as small or unimportant or with relation to health and safety hazards is to be made by the appropriate

local agencies

.

93
NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17951 (a) (b) , Health and Safety

Code. Reference: Section 17951 (a) (b) , Health and Safety

Code.

172 Issuance . The application, plans, and other data filed by an applicant for a permit shall be reviewed by the appropriate

enforcement agency to verify compliance with the provisions of

this article. Where the enforcement agency determines that the

permit application and other data indicate that the structure(s)

will comply with the provisions of this article, the agency shall

issue a permit therefor to the applicant.

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17951 (a) (b), Health and Safety

Code. Reference: Section 17951 (a) (b) , Health and Safety

Code.

174 Application. To obtain a permit3 the applicant shall first file

an application therefor with the designated enforcement agency.

Permit applications shall contain the following information:

(1) name and mailing address of the applicant; (2) address and

location of the proposed structure (s); (3) a general description

of the structure (s) which shall include mechanical installations

with all clearances and venting procedures detailed3 electrical

installations3 foundation} structural3 and construction details;

(4) a plot plan indicating the location of the dwelling in relation to property lines3 other structures, sanitation and bathing

facilities3 water resources3 and water ways; (5) approval for

the installation of a private sewage disposal system or alternate

waste disposal means from the local health enforcement agency;

(6) a stipulation by the applicant that the building or structure

is to be owner-built; (7) the signature of the owner or authorized

agent; (8) the use or occupancy for which the work is intended;

(9) and any other data or information as may be required by statute

or regulation. (T25-174)

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17951 (a) (b) , Health and Safety

Code. Reference: Section 17951 (a) (b), Health and Safety

Code.

176 Plans. Plans shall consist of a general description of the

structure (s) 3 including all necessary information to facilitate

a reasonable judgment of conformance by the enforcing agency.

This may include a simplified diagram of the floor plan and site

elevation in order to determine the appropriate dimensions of

structural members. Architectural drawings and structural

analyses shall not be required except for structures of complex

design or unusual conditions for which the enforcement agency

cannot make a reasonable judgment of conformance to this article

based upon the general description and simplified plan(s).

(T25-176)

94
NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17951 (a) (b) , Health and

Safety Code. Reference: Section 17951 (a) (b), Health

and Safety Code.

178 Waiver of Plans . The enforcement agency may waive the submission

of any plans if the agency finds that the nature of the work

applied for is such that the reviewing of plans is not necessary

to obtain compliance with this article.

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17951 (a) (b) , Health and Safety

Code. Reference: Section 17951 (a) (b), Health and Safety

Code.

180 Modifications . Modifications to the design3 materials3 and methods

of construction are permitted3 provided that the structural integrity of the building or structure is maintained^ the building con- tinues to conform to the provisions of this article3 and the

enforcement agency is notified in writing of the intended modification. (T25-180)

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17951 (a) (b) , Health and Safety

Code. Reference: Section 17951 (a) (b) , Health and Safety

Code.

182 Permit Validity . Permits shall be valid, without renewal, for

a minimum period of three years.

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17951, Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17951, Health and Safety Code.

184 Inspections . All construction or work for which a permit is

required may be subject to inspection by the designated enforcement agency.

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17951 (a) (b) , and 17970, Health

and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17951 (a) (b) and 17970, Health and

Safety Code.

186 Issuance of Inspections. An inspection of the building or structure (s) shall be conducted after the structure (s) is com- pleted and ready for occupancy3 in order to determine compliance

with the provisions of this article. Structures of conventional

or simple construction shall be inspected at a single inspection.

(T25-186)

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17970, Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17970, Health and Safety Code.

95
188 Special Inspections. Additional inspections may be conducted

under the following circumstances: An inspection may be conducted

where there is a reasonable expectation that the footing will be

subjected to serious vertical or lateral movement due to unstable

soil conditions; or the application indicates that interior wall

coverings or construction elements will conceal underlaying construction, electrical or mechanical systems; or where an un- conventional construction method is indicated which would preclude

examination at a single inspection. (T25-188)

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17970, Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17970, Health and Safety Code.

190 Inspection Waivers . Inspections may be waived by the enforcement

agency for structures which do not contain electrical or mechanical

installations or for alterations, additions, modifications, or

repairs that do not involve electrical or mechanical installations;

or where the applicant stipulates in writing that the work has been

conducted in compliance with the permit application and the provisions of this article. (T25-190)

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17951 (b), Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17951 (b), Health and Safety Code.

192 Inspection Requests and Notice . It shall be the duty of the applicant to notify the enforcement agency that the construction is

ready for inspection and to provide access to the premises. Inspections shall be requested by the applicant at least (48) hours

in advance of the intended inspection. It shall be the duty of

the enforcement agency to notify or inform the applicant of the

day during which the inspection is to be conducted. (T25-192)

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17972, Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 11912, Health and Safety Code.

194 Certificate of Occupancy . After the structure (s) is completed

for occupancy and any inspections which have been required by the

enforcing agency have been conducted, and work approved, the

enforcement agency shall issue a Certificate of Occupancy for

such dwelling (s) and appurtenant structure (s) which comply with

the provisions of this article. (T25-194)

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17921, Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17921, Health and Safety Code.

196 Temporary Occupancy. The use and occupancy of a portion or portions of a dwelling or appurtenant structure prior to the

completion of the entire structure shall be allowed, provided

that approved sanitary facilities are available at the site and

that the work completed does not create any condition to an

extent that endangers life, health, or safety of the public or

96
occupants. The occupants of any such uncompleted structure shall assume sole responsibility for the occupancy of the structure or

portion thereof. (T25-196)

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17921, Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17921, Health and Safety Code.

198 Fees. Fees may be required and collected by the enforcement agency

to provide for the cost of administering the provisions of this

article. It is the intent of this article that permit and inspection fee schedules be established to reflect the actual inspection

and administrative costs resulting from the application of this

article. (T25-198)

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17951, Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17951, Health and Safety Code.

PART TWO - DEFINITIONS

200 Detached Bedroom . A "detached bedroom" is a separate accessory

structure without kitchen or sanitation facilities, designed for

and intended to be used as a sleeping or living facility for one

family, to be employed in conjunction with a main structure(s)

which include kitchen and sanitation facilities.

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 50559, Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 50559, Health and Safety Code.

202 Greywater . "Greywater" shall include all domestic waste water

obtained from the drainage of showers, bathtubs, kitchen sinks,

lavatories, and laundry facilities, exclusive of water utilized

for the transport and disposal of body eliminations.

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 50559, Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 50559, Health and Safety Code.

204 Limited Density Rural Dwelling . A "limited density rural

dwelling" is any structure consisting of one or more habitable

rooms intended or designed to be occupied by one family with

facilities for living and sleeping, with use restricted to rural areas that fulfills the requirements of this article.

NOTE: Autority cited: Section 50559, Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 50559, Health and Safety Code.

206 Owner-built . (a) "Owner-built" shall mean constructed by any person or family who acts as the general contractor for, or as the

provider of, part or all of the labor necessary to build housing

to be occupied as the principal residence of that person or family,

and not intended for sale, lease, rent or employee occupancy.

97
(b) For the purposes of this article, the sale, lease, renting

(see local authority Section 152(b)) or employee occupancy of

owner-built structures within one year of the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy shall be presumptive evidence that the

structure was erected for the purpose of sale, lease or renting.

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 50559, Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 50559, Health and Safety Code.

208 Rural . For the purposes of this article only, "rural" shall mean

those unincorporated areas of counties designated and zoned by

the appropriate local agency for the application of this article.

In defining "rural," the agency shall consider local geographical

or topographical conditions, conditions of general development as evidenced by population densities and the availability of utilities

or services, and such other local conditions that the agency deems

relevant to its determination.

Suitable areas may include those wherein the predominant land

usage is forestry, timber production, agriculture, grazing,

recreation, or conservation.

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 50559 & 17922, Health and Safety

Code. Reference: Section 50559 & 17922, Health and Safety

Code.

210 Sound Structural Condition. A structure shall be considered to

be in sound structural condition when it is constructed and maintained in substantial conformance with accepted construction

principles, technical codes, or performance criteria which provide

minimum standards for the stressing of structural members; footing

sizes when related to major load-bearing points; proper support

of load-bearing members; nailing schedules where essential to

general structural integrity; and provisions for adequate egress,

ventilation; sanitation, and fire safety. Conditions which

would not render a structure unsound are the minor deflections or

elasticity of struetural members; ceiling heights; size or arrangement of rooms; heatings plumbing; and electrification

requirements; alternative materials, appliances or facilities; or

methods of construction. (T25-210)

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17921, Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17921, Health and Safety Code.

212 Substandard Building. A substandard building is a structure or portion thereof in which there exists any condition to an extent

that endangers the life, limb3 health, or safety of the occupants.

Except as amended by the provisions of this article, Chapter 10

of the Uniform Housing Code, 1976 Edition, as published by ICBO,

shall be the determining criteria for compliance with the standards of this article and the defining of a substandard building.

(T25-212)

98
NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17921, Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17921, Health and Safety Code.

PART THREE - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

214 General Requirements. Each structure shall be constructed and

maintained in a sound structural condition to be safe, sanitary,

and to shelter the occupants from the elements. (T25-214)

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17921, Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17921, Health and Safety Code.

216 Intent of General Requirements. It shall be the -purpose and

intent of this article to permit the use of ingenuity and preferences of the builder3 and to allow and facilitate the use of

alternatives to the specifications prescribed by the uniform

technical codes to the extent that a reasonable degree of health

and safety is provided by such alternatives, and that the materials, methods of construction, and structural integrity of the

structure shall perform in application for the purpose intended.

To provide for the application of this article, it shall be

necessary for the enforcement agency to exercise reasonable judgment in determining the compliance of appropriate structures with

the general and specific requirements of this article. (T25-216)

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17921, Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17921, Health and Safety Code.

218 Technical Codes to be a Basis of Approval. Except as otherwise

required by this article, dwellings and appurtenant structures

constructed pursuant to this part need not conform with the con- struction requirements prescribed by the latest applicable editions of the Uniform Building, Plumbing, and Mechanical Codes,

the National Electrical Code, or other applicable technical codes;

however, it is not the intent of this section to disregard

nationally accepted technical and scientific principles relating

to design, materials, methods of construction, and structural

requirements for the erection and construction of dwellings and

appurtenant structures as are contained in the uniform technical

codes. Such codes shall be a basis for approval. (T25-218)

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17921, Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17921, Health and Safety Code.

PART FOUR - SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

Chapter 1 - Construction Requirements

220 Structural Requirements

.

Buildings or structures constructed

pursuant to this article may be of any type of construction which

99
will provide for a sound structural condition. Structural hazards

which result in an unsound condition and which may constitute a substandard building are delineated by Section 1001(c) 3 Uniform

Housing Code (1976 Edition). (T25-220)

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17951 (b) , Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17951 (b) , Health and Safety Code.

222 Foundations. Pier foundations3 stone masonry footings and foundations, pressure treated lumber, poles, or equivalent foundation

materials or design may be used, provided that the bearing is

sufficient for the purpose intended. (T25-222)

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17951 (b), Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17951 (b), Health and Safety Code.

224 Materials. Owner-produced or used materials and appliances may be

utilized unless found not to be of sufficient strength or durability

to perform the intended function; owner-produced or used lumber or

shakes and shingles may be utilized unless found to contain dry

rot, excessive splitting, or other defects obviously rendering the

material unfit in strength or durability for the intended purpose.

(T25-224)

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17951 (b), Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17951 (b), Health and Safety Code.

226 Mechanical Requirements. Fireplaces, heating and cooking appliances,

and gas piping installed in buildings constructed pursuant to this

article shall be installed and vented in accordance with the re- quirements of Chapter 27 of the Uniform Building Code (1976 Edition),

Ciiapter 9 of the Uniform Mechanical Code (1976 Edition) , and Chapter 12 of the Uniform Plumbing Code (1976 Edition). Alternate

materials and methods of venting shall be permitted if substantially

equivalent in safety and durability. (T25-226)

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17951 (b) , Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17951 (b), Health and Safety Code. *

228 Beating Capacity. A heating facility or appliance shall be installed in each dwelling subject to the provisions of this article;

however, there shall be no specified requirement for heating

capacity or temperature maintenance. The use of solid fuel or solar heating devices shall be deemed as complying with the requirements of this section. If non-renewable fuel is used in these

dwellings, rooms so heated shall meet current insulation standards

.

(T25-228)

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17951 (b), Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17951 (b), Health and Safety Code.

100
230 Electrical Requirements. No dwelling or appurtenant structure

constructed pursuant to this article shall be required to be con- nected to a source of electrical power, or wired, or otherwise

fitted for electrification, except as set forth in Section 232.

(T25-230)

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17951 (b) , Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17951 (b) , Health and Safety Code.

232 Installation Requirements. Where electrical wiring or appliances

are installed, the installation shall be in accordance with the pro

visions of the National Electrical Code adopted by the Commission

for single family dwellings.

Exceptions to Installation Requirements. In structures where

electrical usage is confined to one or more rooms of a structure,

the remainder of the structure shall not be required to be wired

or otherwise fitted for electrification unless the enforcement

agency determines that electrical demands are expected to exceed

the confinement and capacity of that room(s). In such instances,

the enforcement agency may require further electrification of the

structure.

It is the intent of this subsection to apply to buildings in which

there exists a workshop, kitchen, or other single room which may

require electrification, and where there is no expectation of

further electrical demand. The enforcement agency shall, at the

time of a permit application or other appropriate point, advise

the applicant of the potential hazards of violating this section.

(T25-232)

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17951 (b), Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17951 (b), Health and Safety Code.

234 (RESERVE)

236 Room Requirements. There shall be no requirements for room dimensions provided that there is adequate light and ventilation

and adequate means of egress. In single family dwellings not ex- ceeding two stories in height where, due to the location or to

the surrounding terrain, emergency rescue from the exterior is not

feasible, egress windows from sleeping spaces may be omitted when

an additional doorway or an approved exit escape hatch is provided for egress from such rooms. The doorways provided shall

open directly to the exterior of the building or shall open onto

corridors or passageways which lead to individual exterior exits.

The corridors or passageways provided shall not cross nor shall

they follow the same route in whole or in part to the building

exterior. Approved exit escape hatches shall be installed in

accordance with the terms of their approval.

101
Exception: Openable windows or exterior doors for emergency

egress or rescue from sleeping rooms of single family dwellings

may be omitted when such, rooms are located on a mezzanine floor

or loft area which is at least 50 percent open to the floor

below. Such mezzanine or loft area shall have at least two means of evacuation acceptable to the enforcing authority and may

include stairwayss ladders, escape hatches, or any other design

or arrangement which will allow egress in the event of an

emergency. (T 2 5 -2 36)

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17951 (b), Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17951 (b) , Health and Safety Code.

Chapter 2 - Sanitation Requirements

238 Sanitation Requirements. Sanitation facilities, including the

type3 design, and number of facilities, as required and approved

by the local health official, shall be provided to the dwelling

sites. It shall not be required that such facilities be located

within the dwelling.

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17951 (b), Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17951 (b), Health and Safety Code.

240 Plumbing Specifications. Where conventional plumbing, in all or

in part3 is installed within the structure3 it shall be installed

in accordance with the Uniform Plumbing Code (1976 Edition).

Alternative materials and methods shall be permitted provided that

the design complies with the intent of the Code3 and that such

alternatives shall perform to protect health and safety for the

intended purpose. (T25-240)

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17951 (b), Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17951 (b), Health and Safety Code.

242 Sanitation Facilities . A water closet shall not be required when

an alternate system is provided and has been approved by the local

health official. Where an alternative to the water closet is installed3 a system for the disposal or treatment of greywater shall

be provided to the dwelling. Greywater systems shall be designed

according to water availability3 use and discharge. The design3 use3 and maintenance standards of such systems shall be the prerogative of the local health official.

A bathtub or shower and a iavatory3 or alternate bathing and

washing facility approved by the local health official, shall be

provided at the dwelling site. (T25-242)

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17951 (b), Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17951 (b), Health and Safety Code.

102
244 Water Supply. Potable water shall be available to the dwelling

site, although such water need not be pressurized. Where water

is not piped from a well, spring, cistern, or other source, there

shall be a minimum reserve of 50 gallons of potable water available. Where water delivery is pressurized, piping shall be

installed in accordance with the provisions of this article.

(T25-244)

NOTE: Authority cited: Section 17951 (b), Health and Safety Code.

Reference: Section 17951 (b), Health and Safety Code.

103

SETTING STANDARDS FOR BUILDING ENERGY PERFORMANCE IN HAWAII

by

David Lord

Associate Professor

School of Architecture

University of Hawaii at Manoa

Honolulu, Hawaii

The State of Hawaii is unique in its energy supply and energy

consumption patterns. Precariously dependent on imported petroleum,

Hawaii has the potential for meeting much of its energy needs through

the development of its solar, wind, geothermalj and ocean resources. These issues will play important roles in the formulation of policy in

the statewide approach to energy conservation in buildings. The proposed Building Energy Performance Standards (BEPS) and the existing

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers

(ASHRAE) 90-75 standard have raised questions among design professionals

and at the State planning level about appropriate climatic criteria,

design energy budgets and weighting factors for fuels. The climate of

Hawaii was not represented in the Baseline Energy Study by the American

Institute of Architects (AIA) Research Corporation and does not appear

in the list of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA) in the

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for BEPS. Weighting factors developed by

the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) for the various fuels used for

lighting, cooling, and water heating seem to be inappropriate for Hawaii.

A modified BEPS approach is proposed which would probably offer advantages

over the present ASHRAE 90-75 based building code. This would encourage

the use of renewable energy and passive techniques in meeting design

energy budgets and in reducing the State's dependence on imported fossil

fuels.

Key words: Building energy performance; codes; energy conservation;

energy policy; Hawaii; performance standards.

105
In addition to its unique location and reputation as an island paradise,

Hawaii is blessed with one of the simplest governmental structures in the

Nation. For regulatory purposes, it is a State with only four counties

and no municipalities or townships. This has streamlined democratic

processes in the consideration and adoption of new building codes and

regulations. In 1978, Honolulu adopted by ordinance an ASHRAE Standard

90-75 based energy conservation addition to the Uniform Building Code

(UBC) . This ordinance, chapter 53 of the UBC, has now been adopted by

all jurisdictions in Hawaii. In chapter 53, the simpler Massachusetts

Lighting Code Standard is used in place of section 9 of ASHRAE 90-75.

It is important to consider the circumstances in Hawaii which have led

to the enactment of energy conservation regulations and which distinguish this State from all others represented at the National Conference

of States on Building Codes and Standards (NCSBCS) Conference.

Hawaii, which is entirely volcanic in origin and geologically young, has

no fossil fuel resources of its own. Dependent entirely on imported

petroleum, 90 percent of which is of foreign origin, it is the most

vulnerable of the States to dislocations and disruptions in energy supply.

The estimated Strategic Petroleum Reserve for the operation of electric

utilities is not more than 15 days. The lack of any power lines or pipelines between the islands within the State further complicates and

increases costs and vulnerability of energy delivery systems. Figure 1

shows the sources of energy for Hawaii, which derives 92 percent of its

energy from petroleum, compared to the United States as a whole, which

depends on petroleum for only 47 percent of the total.

Figure 1: Sources of Energy for Hawaii Compared with the United States

as a Whole. From Energy Use in Hawaii , Department of Planning and Economic Development, State of Hawaii, 1977, p. 4.

HAWAII U.S. 1976 1976

106
The end-use consumption of fuel, shown in figure 2, is also quite

different from that of the United States as a whole. Most significant

from the point of view of building energy use is the fact that in

Hawaii, generation of electricity is three times more dependent on petroleum than in the United States as a whole.

Figure 2: End-use of Petroleum by Fuel Type . From Energy Use in Hawaii , op. cit., p. 5.

HAWAII U.S. 1976 1975

With a permanent population hovering around one million, plus the 3.5

million tourists who visit each year, petroleum consumption in Hawaii

is about 40 million barrels per year, which is equivalent to the

Nation's consumption in 1 day. Of this oil, about 10 million barrels,

or one fourth, is used for the generation of electricity. Each resident consumes a total of about 220 million Btu's per year, compared with

the national per capita annual consumption of 340 million Btu's. The

annual per capita consumption of electricity is 6000 kWh compared to a national average of 8000 kWh. Lower per capita energy consumption in

Hawaii can be accounted for by the fact that there is virtually no need

for space heating, there is relatively little manufacturing industry,

and gasoline consumption per motorist is the lowest in the Nation.

Figure 3 shows the end use of residential electricity in Hawaii. Water

heating is the single largest residential end use of electricity, and

this is a major energy conservation opportunity.

Hawaii has the potential of producing a great deal of its own energy

needs, perhaps more than any other State, and interest in energy

production is developing in the following areas: direct use of solar

energy for water heating and the generation of electricity from wind,

107
Figure 3: End-use of Residential Electricity . From Energy Use i

Hawaii, op. cit., p. 8.

~" ~~

U.S. HAWAII

geothermal, ocean thermal and solar thermal, and biomass sources. In

July 1980, a 200 kW experimental wind turbine was dedicated on the

Island of Oahu, the fourth in the current series of medium scale wind

energy test facilities. In the same month, a 1 MW Ocean Thermal Energy

Conversion (OTEC) test facility was deployed off the coast of Oahu after

earlier, very encouraging results from a mini-OTEC generating station.

A site at Kaunakakai on the Island of Molokai has been selected by DoE

for the demonstration of solar thermal electric power for small communities. Geothermal steam in commercial quantities on the big island of

Hawaii is being developed for power generation. Bagasse, or sugar cane

waste, has been burned for many years to generate electricity for sugar

refining and processing needs and presently accounts for 9 percent of

all electric power generation in Hawaii. Residential solar water heating is widespread and is a fast-growing industry in the State.

If conservation can be considered the cheapest new source of energy,

then great potential for designers exists in the residential, commercial,

and industrial sectors. However, State policy in energy conservation lags

behind the promotion of new sources of supply. Various reasons are given

for this, such as the belief that conservation means a reduction in the

standard of living, or "giving something up." In reality, the economic

penalty we have paid for increased reliance on imported oil has already

resulted in reduced disposable income and an erosion of the standard of

living. Stories about the promise of new technologies which will allow

the continuation of high levels of energy consumption make for better

press than stories about conservation and the reduction of energy needs.

108
Nevertheless, in Hawaii the economics of energy supply and operating

costs, which can no longer be easily absorbed or passed on, are resulting

in the widespread use of engineering and architectural conservation techniques. Some of the mechanical and electrical methods being used now for

conserving energy are the following: electrical load management programs

and control systems which reduce consumption and peak demand for electricity; condenser heat recovery systems for heating domestic and service

hot water and swimming pools; air-to-water heat pumps for water heating;

and, high efficiency lighting systems.

Architectural techniques for conserving energy have recently reappeared

^ after 20 years of hibernation during the free-swinging era of high

technology and cheap energy. During this time, there was a proliferation

of climatically non-specific styles of architecture in Hawaii which were

usually poorly suited to the climate of the islands. One now sees the

rediscovery of techniques which, before 1960, were necessary for comfort

and livability in the tropics. There is a growing energy consciousness

among designers and a search for a regionally and climatically appropriate architecture. Architects now consider site planning, location,

orientation and form of buildings in order to achieve enhanced thermal

and visual comfort and reduced energy use. Strategies which avoid the

problems of overheating and which permit daylighting and natural ventilation are being accepted by designers and are in fact usually demanded by

sophisticated clients in their building programs.

Regulatory standards for building energy performance are looked upon as more than just the minimum possible performance by some designers who

are able to exceed these standards by clever design in almost every

aspect of building energy use. Recent apartment dwellings in Hawaii

have single-loaded corridors which allow through-ventilation; solar

shading and control devices such as awnings, blinds and louvers are appearing on new buildings. This is not to say that climate-conscious

design is universal; one still sees in new buildings large, unshaded,

inoperable windows and skylights with rooms which are impossible to

naturally ventilate. This, in spite of the "natural air conditioning"

which is available 10 to 11 months out of the year. Looking down on

the roofs of Honolulu, one is also struck by the large number of dark,

heat-absorbing surfaces which should be an anathema in a tropical

climate.

The proposed Building Energy Performance Standards (BEPS) have raised

questions among design professionals, and at the State planning level

about appropriate climatic criteria, design energy budgets and weighting factors for fuels. It appears that Hawaii's special circumstances

in climate, energy supply, and energy consumption patterns were not

considered in the data base mentioned in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR).

109
The climate or Hawaii was not represented in the Baseline Energy Study

performed by the American Institute of Architects (AIA) Research Corporation and does not appear in the list of Standard Metropolitan

Statistical Areas (SMSA) in the NOPR. Hawaii's climate is significantly

different from those SMSA's shown and, furthermore, in Hawaii microclimatic differences within a few miles radically affect the use of

energy in otherwise similar buildings.

Another issue is the application of the weighting factors for various

fuels, which as proposed, will encourage the consumption of natural gas

and petroleum over the use of electricity. The weighting factors are calculated from relative national average gas, oil, and electricity

prices projected for 1985. The application of weighting factors appears

to discourage the use of hydro, geothermal, OTEC, wind, biomass and

solar thermal generated electricity. The use of the weighting factors

seems to be inappropriate as they are stated for use in Hawaii because

there is no natural gas in Hawaii and there are no weighting factors

listed for the most commonly used petroleum distillate fuels used in

buildings in Hawaii (i.e., propane, no. 2 diesel oil and synthetic

natural gas). It is for these reasons that the weighting factors are

seen as delaying the development of domestic, non-fossil energy supplies.

Electric utilities in Hawaii favor basing energy budgets on building

energy use in specific ambient climatic conditions, regardless of the source of energy. Therefore, the comparatively less efficient designs

permitted in buildings designed to maximize the use of natural gas and

petroleum under the proposed standards and weighting factors would not

be allowed.

The baseline energy performance of various prototypical building types

has been shown in an unpublished study by Frederick H. Kohloss and

Associates. It is interesting to compare these figures for a prototypical office building in Hawaii to the results of a study done by

Flack and Kurtz (see reference 5), for a similar office building in

Denver. The two studies compare pre-ASHRAE 90-75 building energy use versus 1979 energy use.

Annual Energy Consumption, 1000 Btu/ft 2

Location

Lighting

and Power Cooling Heating

Honolulu

pre-ASHRAE

post ASHRAE

58

38

18

10

0

0

Denver

pre-ASHRAE

post ASHRAE

31

25

17

10

44

15

110
This comparison indicates that Hawaii has some distance to go in

matching the conservation of lighting and power which is possible in

other locations. It would be expected that a strict BEPS design

energy budget would effectively decrease lighting levels on a priority

basis in hot climates, because of the additional energy consumption

penalty associated with electric lighting. The heat of lights must

usually be carried away by the air conditioning system, so a reduction

in lighting would result in an automatic reduction in cooling load.

Electric lighting is an inherently inefficient use of electricity,

whereas air conditioning systems have a coefficient of performance

greater than 1.0 and offer the opportunity for heat recovery for ser- vice water heating. A design energy budget without weighting factors

would have the effect of beneficially discriminating against certain

specific end uses of electricity, where there are functional and operational linkages such as in the above example. To carry the example

further, efficient heat recovery from the air conditioning system would

allow the end use of more hot water and more air conditioning without

exceeding the design energy budget. The present ASHRAE 90-75 based

standards do not address or encourage such techniques of overall design

integration.

In order for techniques such as in the example above to help qualify a design for compliance either under BEPS or under existing codes as a parallel equivalent, the standard evaluation technique should countenance

innovative methods for saving building energy. This will require

periodic review, updating, and evaluation as new technologies and

methods of saving energy through design integration emerge.

The implementation of the proposed BEPS will require considerable education of building code officials and design professionals. It is felt

at State planning levels and at the municipal building department level

that Federal assistance as a part of the BEPS implementation plan would

be both desirable and necessary to ensure a smooth transition to new

codes and standards. Parallel to this desire is a feeling that instead

of sanctions (or in addition to sanctions) for non-compliance or nonimplementation, there should be a program of financial and technical

assistance incentives to stimulate successful implementation of BEPS

or parallel standards. This could be augmented by a local program

of bonuses, awards, or other public recognition for exceptionally

energy-conserving building designs which would positively promote the

goals of the program rather than having the emphasis on penalties for

non-compliance. Credit for energy conserving designs could take the

form of consideration in requests for a variance, for instance.

The State of Hawaii is eager to lessen its dependence on imported

petroleum and to equitably stimulate and encourage energy conservation

in buildings. It appears that several circumstances unique to Hawaii

have been neglected in the DoE proposed Building Energy Performance

Standards. These oversights could be addressed by further research to

111
establish baseline performance standards and to gather information about

how BEPS designed buildings would compare to those designed under current

standards in Hawaii. Evaluation techniques adapted for use in over- heated zones must allow for full and free innovation in reducing total

energy consumption in buildings. Climatic sensitivity of design energy

budgets in various building types must be evaluated so that the standards

can be equitably applied.

This may require the maintenance of ASHRAE 90-75 as a prescriptive base

for regulation with a BEPS equivalent as a parallel alternate until

these difficulties can be resolved.

REFERENCES

1. Energy Insider , U.S. Department of Energy, Volume 3, number 13,

June 23, 1980.

2. Howard Wiig, State Energy Office, Hawaii, private communication.

3. Energy Use in Hawaii , Department of Planning and Economic Development, State of Hawaii, 1977.

4. Letter of Comment from Hawaiian Electric to DoE on "Energy Performance Standards for New Buildings," May 1980.

5. "Energy Efficiency Now the Norm," Engineering News Record , February 21, 1980, p. 29.

6. Unpublished study, Frederick H. Kohloss and Associates, Consulting

Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, Honolulu, Hawaii.

7. Francis Lau, Building Department, City of Honolulu, Hawaii.

112
A SIMPLIFIED LOW COST TECHNIQUE FOR EVALUATING

BUILDING ENERGY PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SUBMITTALS

by

John Mark Anderson

Paul Mark Evans

Master of Architecture Candidates

Robert L. Smith, P.E.

Associate Professor of Architecture

Department of Architecture

University of Illinois

Urbana, Illinois

The Building Energy Performance Standards propose a "Standard Evaluation

Technique" based almost entirely on the modeling of energy performance

by computer techniques. This modeling requires elaborate data, manipulation of complex data bases, large amounts of memory, and is feasible

only with the latest in computer technology. Currently, where such

technology is available, its use is prohibitively expensive.

A study was made on the University of Illinois CYBER 175 computer using

an energy analysis program similar to the one required by BEPS. This

study found, for the test case, that lines of input could be reduced by

up to 77 percent, that the number of surfaces needed to describe the

building could be reduced by 80 percent, and that the computer cost of

running this analysis could be lowered by 75 percent. It was found that

all of these reductions could be made and still maintain a high degree

of accuracy (within six percent) as compared to the thorough base run.

The results indicate a large potential for the reduction of building

code officials' time in preparing the computer input and for the reduction in cost for running such energy evaluation programs on large

computers.

Key words: BLAST; Building Energy Performance Standards; computer

modeling; maintain accuracy; reduce cost; reduce input;

"standard evaluation technique."

113
INTRODUCTION

The initial architectural design decisions establish the energy

performance of buildings. Heat gain, cooling load, heat loss, lighting

requirements—the total energy picture—is decided by the earliest

spatial organization and orientation as well as by construction, materials, fenestration, shading and many other variables. It is imperative

that one realize that mechanical systems, which are often cited as the

primary factor in energy use, can only respond to these initial decisions.

Therefore, a quick and inexpensive method for evaluating the performance

of several alternatives at schematic levels is desirable. Such a method,

with a known tolerance, would also be a valuable tool for energy code

officials

.

In addition, the coming of the Building Energy Performance Standards (BEPS)

has brought the field of architectural energy analysis to the attention

of the building industry. The BEPS propose a "standard evaluation technique" based almost entirely on the modeling of energy performance by

computer techniques. 1 This quantitative modeling is based upon the mathematical representation of building construction and operation, weather,

climate, mechanical systems, and consumed energy as it undergoes complex

thermodynamic and luminous behaviors. Accurate modeling requires elaborate

input, manipulation of complex data bases, large amounts of memory, and is

feasible only with the latest in computer technology. Currently, where

such technology is available, its use is prohibitively expensive. Although

BEPS presumably promises simpler "alternative approval techniques," they

limit the range of design alternatives. The architectural profession at

best will value computer modeling, or at worst, will be forced to choose

it over limited creativity in design. We have undertaken a preliminary

study of what might be done in computer energy analysis to reduce the cost

and demand for detailed data to a point where it becomes a feasible tool

for design professionals and code enforcement officials.

This study was made on the University of Illinois CYBER 175 using the

BLAST 2 program. This Control Data CYBER 175 operates with 256K words of

central memory and an additional 512K words of Extended Core Storage under

control of Control Data's Network Operating System. This timeshare system is currently capable of handling up to 190 active text and graphic

terminals simultaneously as well as card batch jobs. The CYBER series

computers are considered to be approximately seven times faster than the

IBM 360/75 in execution of FORTRAN programs. During our study, all program and data files were maintained on high speed disc storage for rapid

access during execution.

1 Basic research for establishing the proposed energy budgets was based

upon the computer modeling of the energy conservative redesign of

typical buildings

.

114
The Building Loads And Systems Thermodynamics (BLAST) program was developed by the U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL)

and originally released in December of 1977. Under sponsorship of the

General Services Administration, the program was extended and improved

resulting in the release of BLAST Version 2.0 in June of 1979. The

BLAST program is a comprehensive set of subprograms designed for

predicting energy consumption, energy systems performance, and energy

cost in buildings. This set contains three major subprograms:

1. The Space Load Predicting Subprogram computes hourly space heating

and cooling loads from user input and weather data.

2. The Air Distribution System Simulation Subprogram calculates hot

water, steam, gas, chilled water, and electrical demands based upon

the hourly loads found above, weather data, and the user's description of the building air handling system.

3. The Central Plant Simulation Subprogram uses the results of the above

two subprograms, weather data, and a description of the central plant.

This subprogram simulates the performance of boilers, chillers,

onsite power generation, and solar systems and calculates monthly

and annual fuel and electrical power consumption. In addition, this

subprogram may estimate life-cycle costs for mechanical systems

.

OBJECTIVES

In our investigation of the use of energy analysis computer programs we

set certain objectives to make them economically attractive options for

initial architectural design and code enforcement. These objectives may

be outlined as follows:

1. Maintain a tolerance of 10 percent in energy analysis results as compared to the results obtained using very precise and complete

input data.

2. Reduce the quantity of input data for description of the building.

3. Simplify the input data that is required.

4. Reduce the time, storage, and cost required for each computer run.

By successfully reaching these objectives, we felt that the time spent

in preparation of the data and the cost of running the analysis could

be justified as a design or code enforcement tool.

PROCEDURE

The example used for testing our hypotheses was a thorough BLAST input

prepared for a two story small office building for the Rockford Park

District in Rockford, Illinois. The building has an exposed concrete

frame and is based on 30 foot square bays. The facility was designed

by C. Edward Ware Associates Inc., Architects.

115
BLAST uses a three dimensional coordinate system which allows the user to

input a detailed description of building geometry. Additional input

commands allow the user to describe the construction, air handling systems,

and central plant . The user normally describes the building in zones which

correspond to the mechanical system zones. BLAST then performs all

calculations for each zone.

To reduce the quantity of input data, we prepared two additional input

files in which the number of zones was reduced. In the first of these,

the building description was reduced from the original five zones to two zones —each representing one complete floor. The second input further

reduced the number of zones to one—which represented the entire building.

We felt that reducing the number of zones would greatly reduce the com- putation time with little effect on the total heating or cooling loads

generated.

At the same time, we grossly simplified the building geometry by calculating total wall, floor, and roof areas and describing them as simple

rectangular shapes. We grouped window areas and similar wall sections

without changing their orientations—all south facing wall and window

areas remained south facing. This reduces the number of surfaces described

and subsequent computations and computer time. Interior partitions were

also removed from the descriptions.

In addition, we attempted to limit the number of subroutines called by

omitting the fan systems and central plant. Again, we were interested

only in predicting the loads generated and not the performance of the

HVAC equipment

.

After preparing these three input files, we ran and benchmarked the BLAST

program for modeling of two design days, Rockford summer and Rockford

winter. Finding these results favorable, we subsequently ran and benchmarked the analysis on the three files for calculation of hourly loads over a full year.

RESULTS

The following tables indicate the results of the final six runs we made.

The quantities which were measured include:

1. CPU time - the length of time for which the job used the Central

Processor Unit.

2. Connect time - the length of real time which had elapsed during the run (in thousands of seconds)

.

3. MS activity - a measure of the use of mass storage devices by the job

(in thousands of units)

.

4. PF activity - an indication of the number of accesses to permanent

files by the job (in thousands of units).

116
5. SRU - the number of "System Resource Units" used for each computer

run. This is the total measure of computer use and the basis for

billing.

6. Cost - the cost in dollars to the user's account. (For a private

user of this system, the actual dollar cost would be slightly less

than twice this amount.)

RUN NO. RUN 1 -DD

DESCRIPTION: ORIGINAL 5 ZONE EXACT BUILDING DESCRIPTION

RUN FOR ANALYSIS OF TWO DESIGN DAYS

AMT.

START END USED

***** ***  

CPU TIME (SECS.) 10.037 18.238 8.201

CONNECT TIME (KSEC.) 0.117 0.901 0.784

MS ACTIVITY (KUNS.

)

0.286 13.117 12.831

PF ACTIVITY (KUNS.) 0.052 0.079 0.027

SRU (UNTS.) 10.732 817.001 806.269

CURRENT COSTS ($) 0.07 5.56 5.49

HEATING LOAD = 6.725 E + 06 BTU

COOLING LOAD = 1.688 E + 06 BTU

RUN NO. RUN2-DD

DESCRIPTION: 2 ZONE SIMPLIFIED DESCRIPTION

ANALYSIS FOR TWO DESIGN DAYS

AMT.

START END USED

** *** ***  

CPU TIME (SECS.) 9.461 12.908 3.447

CONNECT TIME (KSEC.) 1.421 1.900 0.479

MS ACTIVITY (KUNS.) 14.859 23.648 8.789

PF ACTIVITY (KUNS.) 0.195 0.222 0.027

SRU (UNTS.) 909.536 1341.802 432.266

CURRENT COSTS ($) 6.18 9.12 2.94

HEATING LOAD = 7.059 E + 06 TOLERANCE = 5%

COOLING LOAD = 1.535 E + 06 TOLERANCE = 9%

117
The first three runs analyzed the two design days and represent the

original five zone input, the two zone input, and the one zone input,

respectively. The next three runs calculated hourly heating and cooling

loads for an entire year, again for the original five zone input, for

two zones, and for the one zone description. The results were as follows:

RUN NO. RUN3-DD

DESCRIPTION: ONE ZONE SIMPLIFIED DESCRIPTION

ANALYSIS FOR TWO DESIGN DAYS

AMT.

START END USED

** *** •*• »»**

CPU TIME (SECS.) 1.783 4.442 2.660

CONNECT TIME (KSEC.) 1.174 1.637 0.466

MS ACTIVITY (RUNS.) 6.739 13.935 7.196

PF ACTIVITY (RUNS.) 0.104 0.131 0.027

SRU (UNTS.) 302.877 645.580 342.703

CURRENT COSTS ($) 2.06 4.39 2.33

HEATING LOAD = 6.655 E + 06 TOLERANCE = 4jS

COOLING LOAD = 1.626 E + 06 TOLERANCE = \%

RUN NO. RUN1-YR

DESCRIPTION: ORIGINAL FIVE ZONE EXACT DESCRIPTION

ANALYSIS OF A FULL YEAR

AMT.

START END USED

***** »«* *•»»

CPU TIME (SECS.) 0.821 102.022 101.201

CONNECT TIME (RSEC.) 0.405 3.377 2.972

MS ACTIVITY (RUNS.) 11.216 66.706 55.490

PF ACTIVITY (RUNS.) 0.114 0.141 0.027

SRU (UNTS.) 252.301 6786.435 6534.134

CURRENT COSTS ($) 1.72 46.15 44.43

HEATING LOAD = 4.632 E + 08 BTU

COOLING LOAD = 4.960 E + 07 BTU

118
RUN NO. RUN2-YR

DESCRIPTION: NEW TWO ZONE SIMPLIFIED DESCRIPTION

ANALYSIS OF A FULL YEAR

AMT.

START END USED

*«««» «** »**«

CPU TIME (SECS.) 0.212 32.721 32.509

CONNECT TIME (KSEC.) 0.671 2.999 2.328

MS ACTIVITY (KUNS.) 4.387 31.363 26.976

PF ACTIVITY (KUNS.) 0.066 0.093 0.027

SRU (UNTS.) 108.135 2620.183 2512.048

CURRENT COSTS ($) 0.073 17.82 17.09

HEATING LOAD = 4.924 E + 08 TOLERANCE = 6%

COOLING LOAD = 4.597 E + 07 TOLERANCE = 7%

RUN NO. RUN3-YR

DESCRIPTION: NEW ONE ZONE SIMPLIFIED INPUT

ANALYSIS FOR A FULL YEAR

AMT.

START END USED

*»«»« »ft* *«*»

CPU TIME (SECS.) 0.107 22.157 22.050

CONNECT TIME (KSEC.) 0.171 1.672 1.501

MS ACTIVITY (KUNS.) 3.963 21.138 17.175

PF ACTIVITY (KUNS.) 0.062 0.089 0.027

SRU (UNTS.) 73.946 1724.436 1650.490

CURRENT COSTS ($) 0.50 11.73 11.23

HEATING LOAD = 4.506 E + 08 TOLERANCE = 2%

COOLING LOAD = 4.498 E + 07 TOLERANCE = 6%

119
The results of the six computer runs produced results greater than

anticipated by the research team. The analysis of these results can be

compared with the original objectives of the project as follows:

1. Maintenance of a 10 percent tolerance in energy analysis results as compared to more exact data: The most important question to ask is

whether by simplifying the input data we have reduced the accuracy

of the computed heating and cooling loads. We felt that since com- puter modeling in general is only a good estimate, we could accept a tolerance of up to 10 percent in heating and cooling loads from

the original data and still have figures which would accurately estimate the building's actual loads. The results of our experiment indicated that we could stay within 10 percent of the results obtained

from much more exact data. The simplification of the input data had

little effect on the total heating and cooling loads. In fact,

according to our data, the much simplified single zone input generated

results very similar to the original exact five zone input. We feel

that demonstration of a 75 percent reduction in costs with a precision

of better than 10 percent in the results has significant implications

for the computer modeling of building energy performance in the future.

The results are as follows:

HEATING LOAD (MBTU)

INPUT TWO DESIGN DAYS ^DEVIATION

5 zones 6.725

2 zones 7.059 5%

1 zone 6.655 4jt

COOLING LOAD (MBTU)

INPUT TWO DESIGN DAYS ^DEVIATION

5 zones 1.688

2 zones 1.535 9%

1 zone 1.626 M

HEATING LOAD (MBTU)

INPUT FULL YEAR ^DEVIATION

5 zones 463.2

2 zones 492.4 6%

1 zone 450.6 2%

COOLING LOAD (MBTU)

INPUT FULL YEAR ^DEVIATION

5 zones 49.60

2 zones 45.97 1%

1 zone 44.98 6%

2. Reduction in quantity of input data: Input data was substantially

reduced by limiting the number of zones to be analyzed and by com- bining building envelope components. The actual figures are below.

120
INPUT LINES OF INPUT %REDUCTION

original 5 zone 1,026

2 zones 530 49%

1 zone 232 77%

3.

Not only does limiting the input data reduce the computer storage and

computation time required, it also allows the architect or code

official to spend less time in preparation of the input.

Simplicity of required input data: The building description was

simplified a great deal by limiting the number of wall, roof, floor,

and window surfaces to the absolute minimum. Actual results are shown below.

INPUT NUMBER OF SURFACES %REDUCTION

original 5 zone 94

2 zones 27 71%

1 zone 17 82%

It was anticipated that by reducing the number of surfaces described,

the amount of computer time and storage would be significantly

reduced

.

4. Reduction of computer time, storage, and cost needed by each run:

Computer time, storage, and most importantly cost would indicate the success or failure of our hypotheses. The figures, which support our hypotheses, are:

CPU TIME (SECS)

INPUT TWO DESIGN DAYS %REDUCTI0N

5 zones 8.201

2 zones 3.447 58%

1 zone 2.660 68%

INPUT

5 zones

2 zones

1 zone

CPU TIME (SECS)

FULL YEAR

101.201

35.209

22.050

%REDUCTION

68%

78%

MASS STORAGE (KUNS)

INPUT TWO DESIGN DAYS %REDUCTION

5 zones 12.831

2 zones 8.789 31%

1 zone 7.196 44%

MASS STORAGE (KUNS)

INPUT FULL YEAR

5 zones 55.490

2 zones 26.976

1 zone 17.175

%REDUCTION

51%

69%

121
INPUT

5 zones

2 zones

1 zone

COST ($)

TWO DESIGN DAYS %REDUCTION

5.49

2.94

2.33

46%

58%

INPUT

5 zones

2 zones

1 zone

COST ($)

FULL YEAR %REDUCTION

44.43

17.09

11.23

62%

75%

In the final analysis, the reduction of computer time and storage produced

a significant reduction in the cost of performing energy analysis using

the BLAST computer program.

Although a single example is not enough to prove our hypotheses, we feel

that with such success in the reduction of the computer time, storage,

and costs with this example, further investigation of a wider variety

of building types and conditions could substantiate our findings. If our hypothesis is proven correct, complex computer energy analysis using such

programs as BLAST 2 or DpE-2 could be used in preliminary architectural

design and code enforcement with a nominal amount of time, effort, and

money

.

122
ENERGY AUDITS OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS

IN ILLINOIS

by

Donald S. Glickman

Executive Director

and

Donald L. Terry

Supervisor, Technical Research Unit

Illinois Capital Development Board

Springfield, Illinois

The Illinois Capital Development Board is a State governmental board which

manages the construction of $200 - 400 million of public buildings and

related facilities per year.

This paper will discuss the technical experience gained in the energy audit

program wherein approximately 277 public buildings have been audited and

recommendations made to change operating and maintenance procedures and

make construction changes. When implemented, the changes, estimated to

cost $5 million will save approximately $75 million over a 15 year period.

Types of buildings audited to date include dormitories, schools, dietary

facilities, hospitals, offices, steam generation plants, and general and

mechanical stores. Approximately 10.3 million gross square feet (GSF)

have been audited. The largest building audited was 444,000 GSF, the

smallest 1500 GSF.

The cost of performing the audits is, on the average, repaid in 2 years

by the savings realized from implementation of recommended operating

and maintenance changes alone. This program was praised by Region V

U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) Headquarters, Chicago, Illinois.

Also discussed will be the Technical Research Unit, its energy functions

and goals.

Key words: Cost; construction; energy audit; energy conservation;

Illinois; maintenance; public buildings; state government.

123
HISTORY OF UNIT

The State of Illinois owns and manages the operation of approximately 3000

public buildings, plus some 5000 elementary and secondary school buildings.

A survey conducted in early 1977 by the Illinois Capital Development

Board (CDB) revealed energy usage in some buildings as high as 470,000 Btu

per square foot per year. The potential for better energy utilization was

thus determined to be substantial. In addition, the general deterioration

of many structures, some approaching 100 years of age, was well known.

The Capital Development Board's Energy Management Unit was organized in

1977 for the purpose of fulfilling CDB's obligations under Plan 16, "Energy

Management for State Buildings and Facilities," of the Illinois Energy Conservation Plan funded by the Federal Department of Energy (Public Law

94-163) via the Illinois Institute of Natural Resources. This federally

funded unit was authorized to audit State-owned buildings larger than

50,000 gross square feet (GSF) with a staff of seven persons. Plan 16 re- quires that this seven person federally funded staff conduct energy audits

of 164 code agency buildings comprising 11.8 million GSF by the end of

calendar year 1980. To date, the Federal unit has audited and prepared

reports on 157 buildings.

The early audits done under the Federal audit program confirmed CDB's sus- picions of a large energy savings potential, not only in the buildings

covered by Plan 16, but also in code agency buildings of less than 50,000

GSF and in central heating plants and utility systems. Since the faderally

funded unit was not authorized to investigate conservation opportunities

in these other locations, CDB added a State funded audit staff of nine

persons. Attachment "A" shows the number and size distribution of all

significant State buildings. This unit will also be examining central

heating and cooling plants and utility distribution systems and reporting

its findings. To date, the State unit has audited and prepared reports

on 120 buildings. The annual budget for the federally funded and State

funded audit teams is approximately $175,000 each.

Both the Federal and State teams of the Energy Management Unit follow up

the energy audit report recommendations by revisiting the audited buildings and meeting with maintenance and administrative staff to explain and

assist in implementation of operations and maintenance recommendations,

listed in the audit report. The unit also presented a review of the most

commonly recommended operations and maintenance changes reports at the

1979 Annual Chief Engineers Short Course. Copies of CDB's "Operating and

Maintenance Practices for Energy Conservation in Buildings" were distributed to the approximately 120 State building chief engineers present at

the conference.

The Energy Management Unit staff is comprised of twelve engineers, two

data technicians, and a secretary. The supervisor of the unit is a registered professional mechanical engineer, as are two of the staff.

The remainder of the engineers are mechanical engineers by degree and/or

experience with the exception of one degreed electrical engineer. All

124
engineers in the unit have extensive experience with buildings, their

construction, systems, operation, and control.

AUDIT PROCEDURES

The Federal and State teams use the same methodology in conducting energy

audits and report preparation. Initially, contact is made with the building manager or chief engineer to arrange for a mutually agreeable time

for the site visit and also to request that as-built drawings of the building and historical energy consumption data for the building be made

available to the audit team. The drawings are reviewed by the team members so as to familiarize themselves with the building design and con- struction including the mechanical and electrical systems and their

operation and control. If possible, control drawings are obtained from

the manufacturer of the building temperature control system. The

historical energy consumption data is analyzed to determine the Energy

Utilization Index (EUI) which is the British thermal units (Btu's) per

gross square foot of building area per year. A comparison of this

index with recommended levels categorized by building type is a valuable

indicator of the energy efficiency of the building.

After the preliminary analysis is completed, a site visit is performed to

determine the extent of building variances from the construction drawings;

the condition and probable efficiency of energy consuming systems; maintenance, occupancy and operational schedules; and the present programmatic

uses of the building and their effects on the energy consumption of the

building. The chief engineer or building manager is asked to accompany

the audit team on the site visit so that questions on the facility may be

answered by a person with an intimate knowledge of the building's systems

and their operation. Building personnel are also asked to contribute any

ideas of their own for energy conservation and also to respond to audit

team suggestions for possible operational changes, such as a night temperature setback. Any additional energy consumption records not already

obtained by the audit team are also requested. These might include hot

water and steam consumption at a building located in a facility with a central boiler plant. Site visits also include the taking of pictures

to document and illustrate points of inefficient energy use, and the taking of quantitative measurements such as light levels, air flow, fluid

flow and heat transmission through the building envelope.

After the site visit is completed, a mathematical model of the building

is constructed with the aid of a minicomputer which simulates the following: heating, cooling, ventilating and lighting systems and their operation and control; the building envelope, its insulating values including

glass areas, and all fenestrations and their contribution to infiltration;

operational and occupancy schedules. Once the energy analysis model has

been constructed actual historical energy consumption data is used to

verify and refine it so that it agrees with the actual energy performance

of the building. With a reliable energy analysis model of the building,

the analysis of possible energy conservation opportunities (ECO) requires

only that the input data of the model pertinent to the proposed

125
modification be altered and the model run through the minicomputer again.

The difference between the original building energy consumption and the

reduced consumption of the altered model is the energy saving potential

of the proposed modification. Typical ECO's for a building include increased roof insulation, reduced lighting levels, reduced domestic hot

water temperatures, conversion of multizone heating, ventilating and air

conditioning systems to variable air volume systems, or the installation

of a solar heating system. In the case of operational or maintenance

changes which can be implemented by the building staff for little or no

cost, a recommendation for immediate implementation is made to the building staff and these changes are also reiterated later in the published

report. In the case of retrofit recommendations requiring capital

expenditures, a complete economic analysis is performed on promising

energy saving ideas. The economic analysis performed is as follows:

Given the CDB bond interest rate, plant and operation and maintenance

savings, fuel savings for the first full year of operation, the investment cost of the retrofit project, and a 10 percent discount rate as recommended by the Federal Department of Energy, a computer program com- putes the payback period. Annual cash flows for each year throughout a

25 year period are determined by the computer program. The annual cash

flow is equal to the algebraic sum of the annual bond retirement payment

(which is equal to the investment divided by 25 year bond life plus

annual bond interest) plus fuel savings (gas, coal, electricity, oil^

propane, etc.). The program compares the present value of the cumulative

savings for each year with the present value of the cumulative outstanding debt. When the present value of the cumulative savings equals the

present value of all of the remaining outstanding debt service payments,

payment is said to have occurred.

The program takes into account the estimated escalations of the various

fuels. The source for these escalation factors is the "Federal Methodology and Procedures for Life Cycle Cost Analysis," as published in the

January 23, 1980, Federal Register. At the present time, the Federal

guidelines recommend a discount rate of ten percent and that rate is

being used. The CDB bond interest rate is currently 6.67 percent and

that rate is automatically programmed into the computer. In many cases,

there are negative fuel savings which also must be allowed for and

these are entered into the program simply as negative numbers. The program also computes the 25 year present value life cycle cost to permit

comparison of alternative schemes. The CDB is currently not recommending

funding projects of more than 7 year payback period. Projects of 7 to

10 years payback are, however, listed in audit reports for possible

future funding. The fuel escalation factors now in use are as follows:

Annual Percentage Increase

Fuel 1980- '85 1986-'90 After 1990

Natural Gas

Distillates

Coal

Electricity

10.19%

9.78%

8.56%

8.6%

9.52%

11.54%

9.74%

8.45%

10.17%

10.29%

9.9%

8.53%

126
These numbers are all based upon an overall inflation rate of eight

percent per year throughout the balance of this century.

With a favorable economic analysis indicating an investment payback of

less than 7 years, a retrofit recommendation is included in the energy

audit report. This report contains a description of the existing facility

including its configuration, envelope construction, and condition, and

the type and use of all existing energy consuming systems in the building. It also contains a complete energy use analysis after which all

operations and maintenance and retrofit recommendations are delineated.

The retrofit recommendations section includes the economic data used to

evaluate its viability. These include the estimated project cost, the

projected first year and 15 year cumulative savings, and the calculated

payback period for each recommendation.

The following are examples of recommended retrofit projects which resulted

from energy audits:

Estimated Estimated Estimated

Estimated First Fifteen Payback

Project Cost Year Savings Year Savings Period

Kankakee Community College (Kankakee, Illinois)

VAV* fan system $440,000 $76,000 $1.6 million 4.15 years

conversion

Energy Management $ 86,000 $19,000 $383,000 3.32 years

System Installation

*Variable Air Volume

Lewis and Clark Community College (Godfrey, Illinois)

Energy Management $ 48,000 $ 3,000 $ 60,000 8.71 years

System Installation

HVAC System $ 35,000 $15,000 $397,000 1.73 years

Modifications

Adlai Stevenson Hospital (Dixon, Illinois)

Recirculating $ 58,000 $41,000 $969,000 1.2 years

Air System

Installation

Electric Chiller $167,000 $13,000 $353,000 7.4 years

Installation to

Replace a Steam

Absorber

127
Lakeland Community College (Decatur, Illinois)

Energy Management $91,000 $25,000 $463,000 2.66 yrs. System Installation

Solar Assisted $306,000 $9,000 $240,000 13.78 yrs. Heating and Cooling

System Installation

Mt. Vernon Regional Office Building (Mt. Vernon, Illinois)

Ventilation Air $27,000 $12,000 $967,766 1.85 yrs. Reduction

HISTORICAL STATISTICS

In its 3 year history, the Energy Management Unit, comprised of

federally funded and State funded audit teams, has audited 277 buildings,

making up approximately 10.3 million square feet of space. The audits

have resulted in 182 measurable recommendations, such as lowering nighttime heating temperatures, that can be implemented by the maintenance

staff at almost no cost. The unit also has recommended 401 energy

saving remodeling construction projects for older buildings.

PRESENT ACTIVITIES

Currently, design or construction of retrofit projects is underway at

29 facilities. These projects will cost the State $3.4 million, but result in 15-year cumulative energy savings of $47.4 million. The unit

also has identified $1.5 million in energy-conserving remodeling projects

included in the Governor's Fiscal Year 1981 budget.

FUTURE ACTIVITIES

For the future, approximately 2,000 State buildings remain to be audited.

Data from audits already completed show an average estimated energy

savings of 55 percent of present consumption for all audited buildings,

an average 15 year estimated cumulative savings of $19 per square foot versus an estimated retrofit cost of $1.65 per square foot of retrofitted

buildings.

TECHNICAL RESEARCH UNIT

Energy savings projects are being identified by the Energy Management

Unit while another CDB Unit is researching alternate sources of energy

to power State facilities. This unit, the Technical Research Unit, serves

as the research arm of the Capital Development Board, keeping the board

staff current in building design and construction technology by

128
conducting research and intra-agency technology transfer sessions with

other board staff, primarily, but not exclusively, in the three primary

areas of energy (coal combustion, coal conversion, pollution control

regulation and technology; energy efficient building mechanical and

electrical systems; and alternate and renewable energy sources); technical research (design criteria, life cycle costing, higher education co-op

projects, and product material research); and building energy codes

(CDB and American National Standards Institute [ANSI] Accessibility Standards, code organization activities, and the proposed State Building Code).

The Technical Research Unit staff is comprised of a registered professional

mechanical engineer as supervisor, one licensed architect, two registered

professional electrical engineers, one economics technician and one secretary.

Specifically, unit staff perform the following duties:

A. Energy

1. Study informational documents, attend workshops, seminars, etc.,

and invite industry experts to CDB for lectures, prepare technical reports, and work with other CDB staff and user agencies to

include desirable new technology in future projects.

2. Develop funding proposals for desirable alternate energy and

energy conservation projects for presentation to the State Legislature for funding.

3. Boiler plant upgrading by conducting studies of existing central

heating and cooling plants for determining feasibility and cost

of new coal stoker techniques and coal and ash handling techniques, all of which will enable the State to get longer and

more efficient life from existing plants.

4. Conduct feasibility studies for conversion of existing central

heating and cooling plants from gas/oil firing to coal firing.

5. Research new and emerging air and water pollution technology to

permit the increased use of Illinois coal as an energy source

and to identify new methods and products for improvement of the

Illinois environment.

6. Identify and categorize those building mechanical and electrical

system types and energy management system types which are most

energy efficient, and keep board staff informed of same to

facilitate their incorporation into CDB projects.

7. Prepare a passive solar energy design manual for issuance to architectural/engineering (A/E) firms for their use on CDB designed project!

to promote energy conservation in State-owned buildings.

129
8. Select, for funding, three cost effective active solar projects,

three wind power or biomass projects, and three total energy

or co-generation projects for FY 82 funding. This will require

consultation with recognized authorities on the national level,

at universities, the Illinois Institute of Natural Resources, and

attendance at regional conferences and seminars.

9. Select and evaluate heat recovery equipment capable of use on CDB

projects and keep board staff informed of the desirability of its use on future projects.

B. Technical Research

1. Update and maintain CDB's design criteria contractual documents

and establish design standards for user agencies, by building

occupancy type.

2. Evaluate material and product quality, performance, user acceptance, and energy efficiency and develop a feedback mechanism to

improve the design process.

3. Conduct research to develop appropriate fuel cost escalation information for use by the Energy Management Unit and Technical

Services Section in their life-cycle costing activities.

4. Coordinate agency and the University of Illinois programs in

architecture.

C. Building and Energy Codes

1. Involve unit staff in recognized building code agency activities

(Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc.,

Uniform Building Code, National Building Code, ANSI, National Institute of Building Sciences, National Electrical Code, National Fire

Protection Association, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating

and Air-Conditioning Engineers, etc.) for purposes of monitoring

their energy related activities and extracting information useful

to the CDB.

2. Identify the need and justification for a State Building Code

and propose the enactment of one into law for the purpose of

promoting more efficient and less costly construction in

Illinois.

3. Monitor the process of revision of ASHRAE 90-75 and 100-P Series

of energy conservation standards and recommend to the board those

standards and/or revisions found to be desirable and beneficial

to CDB activities.

130
4. Study the ramifications of the implementation of the Federal

Building Energy Performance Standards (BEPS) upon CDB so as to

minimize any adverse impact in the event of BEPS being mandated

into law.

D. Miscellaneous Activities

The unit will provide technical research and engineering support to

other CDB staff in the completion of miscellaneous assignments.

Through these and many other diverse projects, the Illinois Capital

Development Board has assumed a leadership role in the State's

ongoing efforts to conserve diminishing energy resources.

131
Attachment "A"

I M O

o o o

o

o

o

O Eh ? M o

o o o

I 75 o

o o o

I 75 o

o a o

o

©O 6l>

ONKtflOrtON'JOHOOOOO

©\OcNu-i-*m©oo<N©<Noo-HOm

OnN*"J»-<«)00'*IOOOO^ eg -a- —i —

i

vo Cin h cm

oo-jncouiin^H cm -* <• ro

r» -» ro n

O v£ sO vO

CI ~« CJN N n n »

01 0

CO o >> 01 01 3 01 01 cj > u 4-t T-l o CO

>' u

o> o > CO 03 03 0 Ed CO e •w H 0 CO

1-1 a 75 w 03 u 4-1 c w 0 0 C c 4-1 cj c C > 01 JD 75 H <« -H •H c 3 C c CO j= o 03 •H -C « 18 4-1 1-1 0) 0) 01 01 c 4-1 H B £ 2 -J CU 4-1 C '4_f C8 01 > so

00 •H o i—

<

4-t cfl 1) 4-1 O 1) O u-t y •H 0 OI < u *H ra 03 u CJ -3 03 03 u •h <e 3 1—

1

O o at c 4-> CO 0 4-1 •H 1-1 eg >s 01 3 4-4 4-1 « •o C 03 w a) Cfl X •H Li 03 -5 o >> 4-1 CJ U X 4-> o co co 4-1 Ed CM •H cu 14-4 u ao 4-1 0 14-1 u 01 •H 01 .—

<

U C o 0 O O O

00 < £; u Cl c 03 -J W 4-) o 3 03 <-> CO M 4-t 3 03 u oi 01 -o Cl) 4-) c 0 u CJ 4-1 CO u .o 01 h1

73 T3 -O

01 c 4-> H 4J u r-l U i-l J) 3 J3 > U u 3

T3 § c Ui a) 03 •H 3 S CO o -O U 3 00 4J 75 00 cfl 03 75 0 0 u o u 4-f 03 -a •r-l 0) 3 Oil O 01 11 H c o O O o o s u E- M o -J S < 71 0. <: CJ oi > X 3 75 03 S3

132
A PROFESSIONAL APPROACH TO CLASS A AND SCHOOL AND HOSPITAL

ENERGY AUDITS, WITH CASE STUDIES

by

Eino 0. Kainlauri, Ph.D., AIA

Professor of Architecture

Iowa State University

Ames, Iowa

The State of Iowa has probably one of the toughest but most appropriate

programs of Class A Energy Auditor Certification. As a first requirement the applicant must be either a registered architect or engineer.

Secondly, he or she must take a 3-day training course organized by an advisory committee composed of representatives from the professions

and industry and from the Iowa State University (ISU), and finally pass

an all-day test which includes a partial energy audit with instrumentation. The training courses have been given seven times since late

1978, and additional courses are scheduled in the future. Nearly 200

Class A Energy Auditors have so far "graduated." Special courses are also given on school and hospital energy auditing. The first part of

this paper will deal with the training aspects and requirements.

The second part of the paper will concentrate on results of these

audits which are both quantitative and qualitative. Several hundred

energy audits on government buildings, schools, and hospitals have

taken place, partly financed by Federal programs. Information on Iowa

buildings is being computerized and analyzed.

At a recent case study workshop, specific aspects were highlighted, including a number of building environmental topics, decision making

criteria, computer applications, audit procedures, cost of audits and

energy conservation measures, and codes and standards. The impacts on finances, building energy consumption, personnel, and the profession

were discussed. Means to improve results of future energy audits by

sharing experiences was the main objective. The results are encouraging.

Key words: Certification; Class A Energy Audit; economic analysis;

energy analysis; energy conservation; Federal programs;

government buildings; rate of return; schools; hospitals;

technical assistance.

133
Nearly one third of the United States' energy consumption is for heating

and cooling buildings. The amount of fuel needed could be considerably

reduced by energy conservation measures based on detailed energy audits.

Consequently, professional architects and engineers need to know not only

how to design energy-efficient buildings which are safe and healthful for

the occupants, but also—if they wish to be involved in such a detailed

energy auditing process—how to measure with instruments the various en- ergy consuming functions in a building, analyze the results (often with

a computer), perform an economic analysis and make recommendations for

the owner. There are several Federal programs that support energy audit

activity for existing buildings.

The State of Iowa has taken the energy conservation challenge seriously.

The Iowa Energy Policy Council (IEPC) was established to administer all

Federal and State programs dealing with all kinds of energy problems.

The Class A Energy Auditor Certification Program is a part of a national

program of energy audits and the most thorough in scope. In Iowa, only

those registered architects and engineers who take a 3-day training course

and pass an examination based on the course contents can be certified by

an advisory board and authorized by the IEPC to perform Class A Energy

Audits. In addition, these authorized energy auditors can perform a number of other types of energy audits, such as for schools and hospitals,

and provide technical services to the owners of large buildings. The

4-day course and examination schedule is very intensive and requires

attendance from early morning to late evening on 3 days, and a full-day

examination on the fourth day. The program includes lectures and demonstrations, practice sessions with instruments, and dealing with sample

problems. It is highly technical and requires a good background of

understanding and experience in building design. During the final

examination, the participants perform an actual energy audit and thermal

and economic analyses.

Professionals who are not yet registered as architects or engineers, but

who wish to enroll in the course may do so. If they complete it satisfactorily and pass the examination, they will be recognized as "Associate

Class A Energy Auditors" until such time that they become registered

and (if they do so within 1 year) are authorized as Class A Energy

Auditors. These associate auditors often work at offices of authorized

professionals and perform various duties connected with the audits.

The workshop is organized by the Class A Energy Auditor Advisory Board

which is composed of representatives of the faculty of the Iowa State

University (ISU) , the professions, and industry. It is sponsored by

the ISU Engineering Research Institute under contract with the IEPC,

together with Architecture and Engineering Extensions in cooperation

with the Iowa Engineering Society and the Iowa Chapters of the American

Institute of Architects, the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating

and Air-Conditioning Engineers, and the Illuminating Engineering Society.

The fee for the workshop has varied from $60 (when subsidized heavily

by the IEPC) to $200 which includes the course workbook and other materials, four lunches, two dinners, daily refreshments, and bus transportation to the energy audit building.

134
Several minimum requirements have been set for the course content. It

is considered necessary that participants receive adequate information

about various energy audit programs involved; technical instruction on

thermal, ventilation and air handling, combustion, refrigeration, ser- vice water heating, electrical systems and lighting criteria. Several

hours of practical training is given in the use of instruments for

measuring energy transfers and systems performance. Considerable time

is devoted to methods of energy analysis and application of the Building

Energy Management Index (BEMI) , which is an excellent tool in charting

energy performance and following the effects of energy conservation

measures. Heavy emphasis is on economic analysis, showing the advantages and differences of the rate of return on investment over simple

payback, and ranking the various applicable, mutually inclusive energy

conservation opportunities on the basis of life cycle costing for

decision making.

The participants are instructed in practical procedures in making a complete Class A energy audit, including the use of various forms for

data collection, computations, and reporting. Evening sessions are spent in learning and getting practice in energy calculations, sample

problems, and in reviewing course work. For the final examination,

field audits by various instruments are performed at Carver Hall, a building that is continuously monitored for its energy performance by a computerized system. An energy analysis follows the field experience,

and an economic analysis occupies most of the second half of the test.

The more than 200 professionals who have so far taken the course include

both architects and engineers in approximately a one to four ratio. The

passing rate, which requires a minimum of 70 percent grade, is also

similar to that ratio. The overall passing rate has varied between 75

and 85 percent of course participants. An unsuccessful candidate is

allowed to retake the examination without having to retake the entire

course, but several have chosen to repeat the whole experience.

For an out-of-state applicant to be certified as an Iowa Class A Energy

Auditor without taking the Iowa training course it is necessary for the

applicant to qualify for professional licensing in Iowa, as well as for the applicant's State to have an equivalent training and certification

program, meeting Iowa's requirements for authorization. Until now,

out-of-state applicants have preferred to take the Iowa course, and no applicants have been qualified by other means.

It is true that for schools and hospitals and for government buildings

simpler energy audits are performed under other Federal programs. These

include a data gathering phase, a "walk-through" audit and other phases.

However, for technical assistance, the Federal rules require professional

engineers or architect/engineer teams with technical qualifications. In

Iowa this means Class A Energy Auditors as authorized by the IEPC. The

IEPC furnishes a list of authorized auditors to interested owners and

agencies when requested, and addresses requests for bids for energy

audits for State-owned buildings to this group.

135
The State of Iowa received a rather modest amount of Federal monies for

its programs. For instance, while Iowa is one of the forerunners in

gasohol research and production, only one small grant was received from

a recent appropriation. Similarly, the Iowa Energy Policy Council is

expected to receive only about $10 million per year from the proposed new Federal program of $2 billion in the next 3 years. For energy audit

programs, about $2,120,000 has been awarded for schools, hospitals, and

government buildings. These included some 120 technical assistance

grants and 77 energy conservation measure requests. New applications

have been received for 70 technical assistance cases and 120 energy con- servation measures. In addition, separately funded energy audits have

been performed for scores of other buildings, and the Building Energy

Utilization Laboratory (BEUL) of the ISU has done a large number of data

collecting audits on State-owned buildings. The BEUL maintains a com- puterized data storage system that already has information on more than

2000 Iowa buildings.

At the recent case study workshop at the ISU, some 50 energy auditors

gathered to exchange information and experiences. The director of IEPC

grants program, B. Karachiwala, gave an overview of State programs, and we heard from Howard Ross of the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) . It

appears that energy auditing does not have much appeal. One of the

problems is the extremely low fee structure that is supposed to cover

the federally funded audits. The range of audit costs experienced by

participants to the workshop varied from 2.5c to 12c/sq. ft. for technical assistance, but pilot Class A Energy Audits showed much higher

figures, up to 40c/sq. ft. or even more. While such costs are often

justified in comparison to energy conservation savings, they are un- attractive when first quoted to the clients. For schools and hospitals,

the lower range seems to prevail. Some of the most active professional

firms reported to have completed 25-70 energy audits for schools and

hospitals

.

The participants in the case study workshop included professionals from

four neighboring States. We had an opportunity to compare the Iowa

program with that of Minnesota. The Minnesota program is larger, but

does not include the kind of training provided by Iowa, nor as strict

qualifications for auditors. It appears that most States have based

their programs more on the basis of the schools and hospitals energy

audit requirements than on Class A energy audit standards. The workbook

published by the American Institute of Architects seems to follow the same less strict line, although the information on systems' calculations

is very extensive.

Another problem that the participants reported on was the "red tape" and

inconsistent interpretation of audit requirements in dealing with government officials. For instance, regarding the economic analysis, Iowa's

system of computing life cycle costing and rate of return on investment

is shunned by the DoE which likes the simple payback method. Reviews of

applications are often based more on the image than on substance, i.e.,

filing of forms and not on cost/benefit results in terms of energy

136
saved. The 12-month completion cycle from the date of the award for

technical assistance for schools may sometimes conflict with fiscal

years

.

Professional performance of case study speakers and discussion participants was as anticipated after completion of training for certification

as Class A Energy Auditors. The quality of their services also exceeded

what might have been expected on the basis of low fees. Several had

computer systems at their disposal, and many had developed their own outlines and forms for conducting energy audits. Some seemed to be very

well organized and displayed excellent management systems for energy

auditing.

The Federal energy audit programs are supposed to encourage the use of

solar energy in retrofitting buildings. On the basis of simple payback,

however, one of the participants who has a great deal of experience in

both passive and active solar design reported that an energy conservation measure for active solar would take 90 years amortization by

simple payback, while its life-cycle costing figure would be 22 years,

considering 16 percent fuel cost escalation per year. Other long term

investments are a replacement of windows or of a roof. These measures

could be cost-effective only if required as part of overall maintenance.

The cost of some energy conservation measures was found "prohibitive"

in some cases. It is also hard to prove that the actual results could

be substantial enough, by simple analyses. Because of the combination

of variables, the client may not be able to interpret the results. Some

buildings are "building envelope intensive" while others depend more

on mechanical and electrical systems. Because of the short time during

which we have had experience with energy audits, it is not yet possible

to measure the results of some actual energy conservation measures. Future audits and monitoring of systems will be necessary to establish

actual results. Observation and improvement of operations is a key

part of energy audits, checking compliance with codes is also necessary,

and building aesthetics should be maintained.

In reporting on their experiences, several participants told of improvements they had incorporated in their energy auditing procedures. They

also had conducted studies to establish reasonable crew sizes and time

schedules for audits of various sizes. For Class A energy audits, a four-person team may spend 2 days in the field collecting data and

taking measurements; then work for 3 weeks at the office analyzing energy

conservation opportunities and economics involved; and then take 3 more

days in writing a report and recommendations to the client.

137
For economic analysis, several speakers reported that the client

insisted on a simple payback method even when life cycle costing figures

were available. Some clients with in-house economists did their own analyses. It appears that life cycle costing and rate of return figures

are often confusing to a client with limited education, or an interest

in only 1 to 2 years simple payback. Uncertainty of projections on energy cost increases is one of the discouraging factors. Lack of good

computer programs is another factor, although one advanced program for

hand-held calculators is available from the ISU, prepared by

Dr. Geraldine Montag, an economics professor. Nationally, the American

Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) is currently developing a new

standard for life-cycle costing. In Iowa, life-cycle costing is required

for all State building projects, although not rigidly enforced. Regarding State buildings that are energy audited, the Office of Planning and

Budgeting may request life-cycle costing for the resulting energy con- servation measures, but seldom does so.

An interesting study was reported on the University of Iowa energy con- servation program. Operated with district heating, many buildings have

in the past had poor controls, but a turning point has resulted from

energy auditing. One important point was made: savings resulting from

energy audits should be allocated for additional energy conservation

measures. One particular incident shows that some measures can result

in an almost immediate savings. A $80,000 system installation resulted

in a timely discovery of a problem that would have cost $75,000 in

damages if allowed to continue. Four-year payback results were found

in cycling controls and condensate return line insulation installations.

Because of poor recording of energy consumption information on the part

of many building owners, they are sometimes unaware that they may be paying wrong rates. One such discovery by an energy auditor resulted in a refund of $13,000 to the owner, a school system. If it had been in reverse order, the auditor confessed that he would have followed an old

rule, "silence is sometimes golden." Reasons for client interest in

energy audits often vary, from public relations programs to personnel

awareness and actual energy savings to the owner and taxpayers. Sometimes the successful passage of a bond issue election serves as a motive.

The Building Energy Management Index (BEMI) is one of the results of a complete Class A energy audit. This index permits annual budgets of

energy consumption to be computed (sometimes with computer simulation)

and a comparison with the proposed DoE Building Energy Performance

Standards (BEPS) may be made. In response to public hearings on BEPS,

the ISU's Building Energy Utilization Laboratory recommended that instead

of certifying computer programs, qualified professionals such as Iowa's

Class A Energy Auditors should be certified. In sponsoring this program,

the State of Iowa may be leading the nation in the area of energy audits.

The dedicated application of techniques of energy and economic analyses

by those trained in Iowa as Class A Energy Auditors should make a major

contribution to energy conservation in the nation.

138
A SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE FOR THE USE OF

SOLAR ENERGY IN COMPLYING WITH THE COLORADO

ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS

FOR RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS

by

Steve McCarney

Energy Analyst

State Office of Energy Conservation

Denver, Colorado

This study reviews the history of the residential energy conservation

building standards in Colorado. Attendant educational efforts are

described. Results from performance testing of trainees are presented.

Numerous sources have requested simplified code compliance methodologies. Presented is a simplified strategy for code compliance through

the use of solar energy. Code conflicts with solar are identified.

The effects of the Building Energy Performance Standards (BEPS) on

solar use are briefly discussed.

Key words: BEPS; code compliance; code conflicts; energy conservation

standards; solar energy; trainee performance testing.

139
HISTORY

Even the legislative intent of Colorado's most recent residential energy

conservation standard (Senate Bill 292) [1]* is simplification. In

particular, the following quote (from SB 292) displays this concern.

"To provide in graphic illustrations and charts the information needed,

by a person who applies for or obtains a homeowners permit to build his own home to correlate the R-values to the U-values of the more energy

conserving performance standards."

In October 1977, Senate Bill 159 [2] went into effect. It consisted of

two basic components. The first is prescriptive and read as follows:

"6-7-105 Insulation standards and energy conservation alternatives:

1) Minimum insulation standards for residential buildings on which construction or renovation commences on or after July 1,

1977, shall be as follows:

a) Insulation having a minimum R-value of 11 shall be used in

• all exterior walls contiguous to unheated areas above grade.

b) Insulation having a minimum R-value of 19 shall be used in

all exterior ceilings of unheated areas above grade.

c) All windows above grade shall be double-glazed.

d) All exterior doors or doors leading to unheated areas above

grade shall be weather-stripped and sliding glass doors

shall be doubled-glazed.

The above verbiage was easily understood and builders readily complied

with the code according to unofficial reports from code officials.

The second portion of SB 159 is a performance based option. It read as follows

2) "Computations submitted by a licensed architect or engineer

that the total energy required in a residential building,

through design or otherwise, equals or is less than the total

energy used if the dwelling is built or renovated according

to the standards contained in subsection (1) of this section

and shall be considered an acceptable alternative for confor- mance with the prescriptive standards set forth in subsection

(1) of this section. The total energy required shall be

computed as the annual estimated Btu's necessary to heat, cool,

and light the proposed building. For purposes of this calculation, the exterior walls shall consist of no more than the

.equivalent of 20 percent doors and windows."

^Numbers in brackets refer to references at the end of text.

140
Since this section is of utmost importance to any building which deviates

ever so slightly from the prescriptive standards (in subsection 1), and

since the performance option is ill defined, the first round of Department of Energy (DoE) funded training sessions conducted by Colorado State

Government employees addressed this performance option. One prime ex- ample of a home that would not meet the prescriptive standards is the

log cabin. This is because the walls of a log home seldom have an R-ll

insulating value.

An entire half day training session in 1978 was devised by the author

around the log home example. The approach was to personally train builders and building code officials in the art of heat loss calculations. A

heat loss calculation is a method of analyzing each individual component

of the building's envelope (walls, roofs, floors) to arrive at a total

heat loss for the entire building. The author modified the American

Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)

Steady State [3] method to reflect one overall U-Value (U 0 ) for an individual building. Once this concept is applied to a building built

in accordance with the prescriptive standards, the method can then be

reapplied to the home in question (e.g., a log home). Both values are

then compared and compliance with the code is easily determined.

Though this method of teaching was never thoroughly evaluated, response

was favorable. A total of 322 people attended six statewide training

sessions. The participants consisted of building code officials (30

percent), design professionals (26 percent), contractors and business

people (19 percent), administrators and planners (14 percent), and

others (11 percent).

A nonresidential energy code was enacted simultaneously with SB 159. It

is based on the ASHRAE 90-75 [4] approach and has three distinct com- pliance options. This code was also made available as an alternate to

SB 159 for residential buildings. In this study when the nonresidential

code is to be used for residential buildings it will be referred to as the Model Code [5]

.

The second round of energy code training sessions in early 1979 addressed

the Model Code as it related to residential buildings. The author devised a 5-hour session which reviewed heat loss calculations. These

calculations were then applied to furnace sizing as a logical progression.

Some in the audience were building code officials who had attended the

first round of training sessions. The author attempted to gauge the

relative audience understanding of heat loss calculations through increased audience participation. This not only helped gauge the effectiveness of teaching methods, but allowed the author to provide additional

help to those needing it. Once again a qualitative evaluation showed

favorable response. A total of 455 people attended these training

sessions. Building code officials made up 21 percent of the audience.

The remainder consisted of contractors and design professionals. Fewer

administrators attended this round of training sessions.

141
Though the example home used during this second round of training was a passive solar design (Thrombe Wall) the author did not delve into solar

calculations. Instead, it was shown that in this case, the solar home

complied with code requirements on merits of energy conservation features

alone (i.e., insulation, furnace efficiency).

In 1979, the Colorado Legislature passed Senate Bill 292 [1], eventually

replacing SB 159, but not eliminating the Model Code as an option for

residential buildings.

SB 292 contains three compliance options. The first is prescriptive in

nature. The second allows "tradeoffs." A tradeoff is used when, for

instance, a wall with a low insulating value is compensated for by a ceiling with a high insulating value. The third option allows for the

consideration of energy derived from nonfossil fuel sources. It reads

as follows:

"Computations submitted indicating that the total fossil fuel energy

required in a residential building, through design or otherwise,

equals or is less than the total fossil fuel energy used if the

dwelling is built or renovated according to the standards contained

in subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall be considered an acceptable alternative. The total fossil fuel energy required shall

be computed as the annual estimated Btu's necessary for the proposed residential building."

This study will concentrate on SB 292. Emphasis will be placed on the

utilization of solar energy by residential buildings as it might be used

to comply with the aforementioned code.

Eight training sessions which solely addressed SB 292 were conducted in

the fall of 1979 and winter of 1980. A quantitative evaluation of some participants was conducted.

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

The educational range of the participants is quite broad. The mechanical

engineer might be a solar specialist while the homebuilder may be a car- penter specialist by trade. On the other hand, the code official must

be knowledgeable about mechanical systems as well as construction techniques. Because the code official is a code specialist, he/she will

extend into the full range of the construction industry. For this reason,

the code official can be considered as a typical representative for the

construction industry.

Building code officials, excluding administrators and senior supervisors,

tend to fall in one of two job categories. The first category is the

plan checker, who reviews and approves plans for code conformance prior

to issuance of the building permit. The second category are field inspectors who inspect the actual construction for compliance with the

approved plans and code. K. C. McKenzie of the New Mexico Energy Institute has compiled the following information in Regional Training Energy

Conservation Code Workshops for Building Officials [6]

.

142
"Of the roughly 120 building officials in New Mexico, approximately

15 percent are Plan Checkers. Plan Checkers typically have com- pleted 16 years of education and have a Bachelor's degree in Architecture, Engineering, or some similar field. Field Inspectors

constitute the remaining 85 percent of building officials. Field

Inspectors typically have completed 12 years of education and have

a high school diploma."

From the 1970 Census, it is learned that of the 19,754 employed Colorado

male construction craftsmen (excluding carpenters), 4065 have 8 years or less of completed schooling, 4789 have 1 to 3 years of high school,

8541 have 4 years of high school, 2046 have 1 to 3 years of college, and

313 have 4 years or more of college. Employed Colorado carpenters show

a similar trend. A total of 9856 carpenters were employed in 1970.

Those having 8 or less years of schooling totaled 2048, 2428 have 1 to

3 years of high school, 4034 have 4 years of high school, 1136 have 1 to

3 years of college, while 210 have 4 or more years of college.

A total of 15,782 employed male engineers displayed the greatest number

of years of schooling. Only 156 had 8 or less years of schooling, 411

have 1 to 3 years of high school, 2282 have 4 years of high school4

, 3054 have 1 to 3 years of college, while the largest number, 9879, have

4 or more years of college.

Using a base level of 12 years of education and a high school diploma,

it appears that it was not unreasonable to attempt to fit the person

to the job of calculating the annual fossil fuel difference as used in

the codes performance option.

The author has undertaken and completed a study evaluating the performance

of trainees who attended energy code seminars. The results of the study

are presented here.

Three residential code workshops were held in the winter of 1980 in

Greeley, Colorado Springs, and Grand Junction, where U-value calculations were taught. To ascertain the performance of trainees in calculating U-values after they had received a 3-hour intensive workshop, a sample problem was devised. The sample problem required an assimulation

of the information presented in the 3-hour workshop. It was not an exact repetition of previous work completed by the trainees.

The evaluation considered six separate approaches to better understand

where problems occur. The approaches are:

1. Total points [6]

2 . R-values

3. Conversion R total to a U-value

4. Mathematics

5. Proper set-up of the problem

6. Number that attained 100 percent

143
The results will be presented for six categories of trainees. The

categories are:

1. Total number of trainees

2. Builders/contractors

3. Materials suppliers

4. Building code officials

5. Architects/engineers

6. Others (planners, citizens, etc.)

The average score of the trainees was 77 percent on a whole. Nearly

half (47 percent) of the trainees answered all the questions correctly.

The important procedural process of set-up of the equation was accom- plished with proficiency of 85 percent. The greatest sources of errors were missing or incorrect R- and U-values. Though 31 of 64 erred on

the final U-value, this may be somewhat misleading. The 21 that erred on R-values, obviously erred on the subsequent U-value. Thus, ten

persons erred on the U-value with correct R-values in place. Most of

these ten simply omitted the final U-value. (See table 1.)

Table 1: Evaluation Details

Total Pts. ERRORS

Number

Tested

Scored Total Pts. PossibleNumber Scoring

100%

// Erring

on R-Values

II Erring on U-Values

II That Set Up Equation

Incorrectly

II Erring

on

Basic Math

All Trainees 64 294/384=77% 30 21 31 9 11

Material

Suppliers 6

' 30/36=83% 3 2 3 1 0

Building Code Officials 18 87/107=81% 10 4 7 3 2

Builders/ Contractors 26 116/180=64% 10 10 13 5 7

Architects,

Engineers 3 16/18=89% 2 0 1 0 1

Others 11 51/66-77% 5 5 7 0 1

A set of six true or false questions was also asked. The average score was 84 percent correct answers.

Considering that the average score on true or false questions was 84

percent and the average score on the U-value calculation was 77 percent

(with 86 percent able to properly set up the equation) , it could be

concluded that the major concepts of the code are being communicated.

More effort needs to be exerted on the importance of choosing the

correct R-values.

144
SOLAR AND CODE

The use of solar energy to comply with energy conservation codes has

been attacked recently. The author has heard the following comments:

"Oh, put a solar collector on a sieve." "Let them build the house

poorly, then use solar instead of insulation." "We should encourage

solar, but not at the price of insulation."

These are recent comments. Five years ago the American Society of

Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) began

developing an energy conservation standard. The final standard was a true industry-wide consensus standard and contained substantial encouragement for solar utilization through a performance option. When

ASHRAE Standard 90-75 [4] was codified and adopted by counties and

municipalities it took on the force of law. Colorado's nonresidential

code is derived from ASHRAE Standard 90-75. Section 403.0 is entitled

Buildings Utilizing Nondepletable Energy Sources [5] and states:

"Any proposed building utilizing solar, geothermal, wind, or other

nondepletable energy sources for all or part of its energy source

shall meet the requirements of Section 401 of this code, except

such nondepletable energy may be excluded from the total energy

consumption allowed for the building by that section."

The code gives further privileges to buildings of less than 20,000 gross

square feet that derive 30 percent of their total annual energy requirements from nondepletable energy sources.

Senate Bill 292 [1], the latest Colorado residential code, defines performance options in terms of the use of fossil fuel energy. Clearly,

lawmakers favor encouragement of solar through this code since it allows

a "credit" for the use of nondepletable energy.

Certain special cases benefit from the pure, unadulterated use of this

performance option. A case in point is the passively heated underground

house with a great amount of south facing glazing. If properly designed,

this home can be far more energy efficient than a "typical" code com- plying home. But when calculated according to ASHRAE steady state

methods [3] for use with the code, the walls may not comply. The solar

performance option could then be needed.

If a building uses a solar domestic water heater to comply with the code,

a number of factors should be considered. First, the home can use no more fossil fuel than allowed by the code. Secondly, occupant habits

such as setting thermostats back, though an energy conserving technique

in of itself, tends to decrease the energy savings directly attributable

to thermal envelope approaches such as increased insulation levels. On

the other hand, solar systems, which typically provide less than 100

percent of the load, are virtually unaffected by occupant habits such

as night set-back. The solar system consistently replaces a set quantity

of fossil fuels on the average. A third advantage to the encouragement

145
of solar energy usage through the code is an increased visibility for

the industry. The visibility reaches far beyond the new construction

market into the retrofit, renovation market. This is an intangible

benefit not to be overlooked as is the final benefit from increased solar

usage. The use of solar energy is apt to raise more issues than the

application of internal energy conservation measures. Some of these

issues are solar access, land use planning, building orientation, tax

incentives, financing opportunities, and the subsequent breakdown of

other institutional barriers. Thus, the question of encouraging "solar

at the expense of insulation" is somewhat immaterial.

The present residential standards are considered by many to be far too

lenient. Thus, at this time, the use of solar in code compliance could

result in a home with very little in the way of energy conservation. If one looks ahead to the time when the standards will be significantly

upgraded by pressure from the Federal Government (Building Energy Performance Standards—BEPS) , the use of solar for code compliance will

most likely have to be coupled with increased prices for fuel and

increased energy conservation requirements, the economics of solar will

become more attractive.

The Federal Government's (and Colorado's) policy of encouraging the use

of solar has another beneficial aspect. That is an increased research

and data base associated with investigations of both solar and energy

conservation strategies. In striving for a more efficient building we

have found that window orientation alone can be more important than the

R-value. Similar findings by George Tsongas of Portland State University,

et. al [7], have shown that a reduced insulation (R7) is the best performing configuration for a south facing frame wall in Oregon. Thus, we

must all be constantly reevaluating our thinking concerning energy

efficient buildings.

Since the traditional approach to residential energy conservation codes

in Colorado (and to code compliance) has been a prescriptive one dealing

primarily with insulation, very little has been done to encourage the use

of solar through the performance options. In fact, no guidelines have

been published for the use of Section 4 of the nonresidential/residential

Model Code. Easy to use and understand guidelines for the performance

option of SB 292 have met with positive reactions, also. One participant at a training session remarked that finally the code has put con- servation and solar on an equal basis. But this is not always true.

Regarding the Model Code, detached greenhouses are exempted by virture of

being classified a type M (agricultural) building. This exemption is

found in Section 103.0 (Scope).

An attached greenhouse could be (and has been) considered part of the

residence. If the greenhouse is heated by depletable energy sources,

its exterior envelope must be included in the U-value calculation in

such a case. This may or may not pose a code compliance problem. If

the remainder of the building envelope is well insulated, the resultant

U-values could conceivably comply.

146
Certain designs allow the greenhouse to "freeze out" in the winter.

Daytime heat in the winter is collected and distributed into the home

with no storage for nighttime use. Of course, no plants are grown during

this period. If the greenhouse is not heated to over 50°F it is then

exempt from the code by virtue of Model Code Section 103.1 (Exempt

Buildings)

.

If none of the above criteria apply, an analysis of the residence and

attached greenhouse would be required as described in Section 4 of the

Model Code.

Regarding the legislated energy conservation standards (SB 159 and

SB 292), an interesting conflict arose. Senate Bill 159 prescribed

double pane glazing among other concerns. Code officials applied this

to residential greenhouses as well. Certain manufacturers provided

only single glazed greenhouses. This same problem has plagued the

makers of single pane window units with removable insulation. Hopefully, the move to SB 292 (a performance code) will alleviate this

narrow interpretation.

In addition, many passive solar and earth sheltered designs utilize

removable night insulation schemes for use with glazings. The effects

of such insulation can be calculated with the proper data and some

effort.

It is imperative that the benefits of night insulation be brought forth

at this time. The first energy code in Colorado was of a prescriptive

nature. It stated that all windows were to be double glazed. With the

use of single pane windows virtually banned, passive solar schemes

with single glazing were given a black eye even if night insulation

was used. It can be an advantage to use only one pane of glass, since

more solar radiation will be transmitted into the home.

A number of investigators contend that window orientation is directly

related to heat loss (and heat gain) [8,9]. It is well known that certain orientations can be net heat gainers at various times of the year

[3]. Unfortunately, extenuating circumstances make the calculating of

an actual annual heat loss or heat gain factor complex, rather than

simple.

If SB 292 were to encourage window orientation simply on the merits of

a heat loss/heat gain ratio, the following partial list of factors could

go unrecognized:

1. localized overheating of the interior space

2. subsequent venting or dumping of excess heat (thereby destroying

the heat loss/heat gain ratio)

3. summer overheating potentially causing a greater cooling load

4. landscaping and shading by other buildings

5. air infiltration increases

6. variable occupant behavior regarding the use of drapes, etc.

147
Yet, the question continues to be raised. "Isn't a southfacing window

better than a northfacing window?" The BEPS will be allowing credit

for orientation [10]. The performance option of SB 292 could consider

the effects of orientation.

Swimming pools that are heated and are an integral component of the

building (on the rooftop or structurally tied to the building) are included in Section 508.3 or Section 608.3 of the Model Code [5]. The

actual code language states:

"a) Heated swimming pools shall be equipped with controls to

limit heating water temperatures to no more than 80°F. Exception:

Pools used for therapeutic purposes are exempt from this requirement when approved by the Building Official.

b) Uncovered (unenclosed) heated pools shall be controlled so that the electric or fossil-fueled pool water heating systems are inoperative whenever the outdoor air temperature is below 60°F."

The above language applies to all nonresidential buildings as well.

There are probably more heated pools (that are integral components of

the building) being built in the commercial sector than in the residential sector. The author has ' received many telephone requests for

technical assistance concerning heated pools. Between mid-July and

November 1, 1979, 12 telephone requests were received.

A large amount of resort development occurs in Colorado. Many of these

vacation retreats provide outdoor heated pools. This is an opportunity

for both pool covers and solar pool heating to be considered if an extended season and/or a water temperature beyond 80°F is desired.

An example of an enclosed pool should be presented in future training.

The difference in energy consumption between maintaining the water

temperature at 80°F and 85°F should be illustrated as well as the

effects of a pool cover.

The approach could identify three primary concerns. The first is simply

that solar is a viable option for those wishing to vary from these code

requirements. The second identifies the enormous energy consumption of

heated swimming pools. This alerts the building officials to the

importance of these provisions. Finally, pool covers should be discussed.

The author has heard a number of participants ask "How much energy can you get from a solar collector? And, is there an easy way to figure

this out?"

If there were an "easy way," many people could benefit. Persons dealing

with the energy code could quickly determine the area of solar collectors

needed to comply. Code officials, in a like manner, could quickly

determine compliance. If. . .

148
The author decided to determine the availability of simplified measures

for the previously stated purpose and then adopt the most appropriate

method to the code.

A morass of methods for calculating the performance of active solar

systems is available. The range is from very simple graphic methods

to full computer analysis.

A multitude of simplified methods are available for collector sizing.

No one method studied provides accurate information for all collectors

and systems available. Therefore, it was decided that this phase of

code compliance should be individually calculated by a capable solar

system designer.

The building official is predominantly interested in health and safety

considerations. If a solar system is installed, he/she checks the plans

for compliance with numerous codes. The energy conservation code is

only one of these. The only (residential) situation in which the actual

energy output of a heating system is required is in the sizing of a heating system "capable of maintaining 75°F at a point 3 feet above the

floor" [11]. This is a Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirement. Since

a backup system capable of providing full heating will be required with

all solar systems, the building code official has little incentive to

scrutinize the energy performance of solar systems. The emphasis by

the code official at this time will probably continue to be on health

and safety aspects, not solar system efficiency.

If solar energy is used to provide compliance with the energy conservation codes, the building official is faced with accepting calculations

stating that the solar system will provide a certain amount of energy.

A helpful service would be to provide a compilation of selected calculation methods.

SIMPLIFIED CALCULATION STRATEGY

As in all cases, a comparison must be made between the proposed design

and a dimensionally identical standard design which complies with the

code. This is not difficult to calculate under SB 292, but must be

done. The calculation result is the quantity of energy (Btu's) that

the proposed design would use in excess of that allowed by the code.

It is this quantity that must be supplied by renewable energy for code

compliance. The strategy is then a simplified method for determining

this quantity.

In the case of solar domestic hot water (DHW), this quantity could

then be divided by the estimated annual energy consumption for heating

water. The result would then be a solar fraction of DHW required for

compliance with the energy conservation code.

149
The next step is to provide the code official with calculation results

that show a given solar system will provide the aforementioned solar

fraction. These calculations would be provided by the solar designer a solar calculations are site specific and dependent on numerous variable

often very complex.

Since the code has been in effect for a relatively short period of time

there is no history of a deficiency in execution. A clear definition

is the existence of a gap in guidelines relating specifically to the

performance option. Thus, the training need is to be a tool to fill

this gap.

The tool will need to provide the information required to effectively

design the annual energy comparison equation and solve it. In addition

further guidelines to aid in calculating the actual solar energy input

would result in a tool as complete as possible for the general construe

tion industry.

Though personalized training sessions have been staged in the past,

they are not without drawbacks. Though limited data is available con- cerning energy code training sessions, most participants or potential

participants are concerned about taking time from work to attend [6,12,

13,14]. This concern is leavened with a knowledge that the training

is an aid to doing the job. Thus, a desire for more training has been

documented in Colorado [12,14]. Along with this is a desire for more

time spent on the training range far and wide. Solar topics are in

demand [14]. The author's experience with these training sessions is

that the participants, when questioned, will usually state a desire for

solar information amongst other topics.

To date, no charge other than lunch fees and $1.00 for the 85-page code

book have been charged participants of residential energy code training

programs. Numerous training books have been distributed free of charge

Essentially, all training has been free of charge. The cost of any

program is of concern to the participants [14]. With the recent programmatic budget cuts, the Office of Energy Conservation will begin

charging a cost recovery fee for all training materials.

Requests from the Colorado construction industry are quoted below [12].

"All but one building official responding had attended a Statesponsored (training) program. They suggested that training be

more basic, more extensive, and for longer periods of time. They

requested more easy-to-follow graphs, charts, and manuals. Many

indicated they have problems getting time off for training.

"Seventy percent of the architects, engineers, and contractors

responding had attended a State-sponsored training program and

felt it was adequate. They requested smaller training groups and

better notification of sessions.

150
"A majority of the material and equipment suppliers responding had

not attended State training."

The final recommendation concerning the training program as stated was:

"The State program of training and technical assistance should be

continued and improved, particularly for local enforcement

officials" [12].

Faced with the dilemma of increased requests for training and decreased

budget, the author proposed to further convey the strategy through a written training tool.

The Michigan Energy Extension Service presents evidence indicating that

written materials are most favored by small business. The following

quotes are from its Energy Conservation Needs Assessment for a Business

with Under 250 Employees [15].

"In the course of planning and initiating Michigan small business

energy conservation two needs assessments were completed on three

different business populations.

These were:

1) General Small Business - whereby a representative sample of 1400

small businesses were asked to complete a written questionnaire.

2) Small Business Energy Related Contractors - whereby a written

survey was sent to all small businesses which install or design

for use of energy conservation materials or equipment.

3) Small Industry - whereby a random sample of 500 industries with

250 employees or less were sent a questionnaire."

The most favored format for disseminating energy technology was via

written material distribution .

Of the various techniques presented including seminars, workshops, expositions, on-site consultation, efforts to organize the small business

community and all other techniques, distribution of written materials

was favored over all other dissemination techniques.

Consistent with the above results, the overwhelming majority of small

businesses indicated that they now obtain most of their energy information from newspapers and magazines and journals .

To design a training tool, one must evaluate the tasks at hand. A

topic analysis for the use of the performance option is shown below.

TOPIC: Use of performance option

DUTY: Understanding the code

151
A. Task: Concept of Code Requirements

Elements: 1. The code is a law

2. Due to climate variations, the code requirements

may vary throughout the State

3. Site specific requirements may be obtained from the

local building code official

4. The basic requirements are separate U-values for the

wall, roof, and floor (over an unheated space).

B. Task: Concept of the performance option

Elements: 1. The intent of the code is to conserve fossil fuels

2. The code is flexible in that there are 3 compliance

options

3. One of the compliance options allows the comparison

of the annual fossil fuel consumption of the design

against that of a dimensionally identical home

(standard design) that complies with the minimum

requirements of the code

4. If the design uses more fossil fuel, the difference

between it and the standard is the energy needed

from nonfossil fuel sources.

DUTY: Understanding the Calculation Procedure

A. Task: Concept of the Calculation Comparisons for use with the

performance option

Elements: 1. Calculate individual U-values for the wall, roof,

and floor (over an unheated space) for the proposed

design. It is assumed that this calculation can be

executed by the trainee

2. If the U-values are in compliance, go no further for

code purposes.

3. If not in compliance, two sets of calculations of

annual code controlled fossil fuel use will be

required

4. The equation to use is:

Btu=(UrAr + Ufaf + UwAw) (Degree Day) (24 hours)

5. First calculate the proposed design

6. Next calculate a dimensionally identical structure

which complies with the minimum code requirements

(standard design)

7. Subtract the standard design from the proposed design

to determine the number of Btu's to be supplied by

nonfossil fuel sources such as solar.

B. Task: Understanding the general areas (and percentage) of energy

use in the home

152
Elements: 1. A graphic illustration of general areas of energy use

in the home, shown in percentages

2. The additional annual energy requirements for a heated

swimming pool.

C. Task: Proving Compliance

Elements: 1. An unlimited number of combinations of solar devices

can be used to obtain the required energy. Full

design freedom is allowed

2. Calculation methods to show actual energy output of

solar devices are not specified by the code

3. Numerous calculation methods are available for this

purpose

4. Calculate the annual energy output of the solar

device (s)

5. When the energy output of the solar device is calculated, present this calculation with all previous

comparison calculations to the local building official

to prove compliance.

This strategy is an envelope approach only. The comparison of envelope

components was chosen for the following reasons.

1. The Colorado code required U-values and is predominantly an envelope

centered approach [1].

2. Research in both Colorado and Massachusetts indicated the code's

envelope requirements are the most understood and complied with

portion of the code [16].

3. Energy code training sessions have been aimed predominantly at

envelope requirements.

4. Trainees have exhibited a satisfactory level of understanding of

the envelope calculations and requirements.

5. The March/April 1980 edition of Alternative Sources of Energy

Magazine indicates that builders are not sold on solar yet [17].

"U.S. builders are not sold on solar energy. That is the general conclusion of a survey of the building industry by SRI

International conducted in 1978. The sample was based on a stratified random sampling of 1,420 builders throughout the

United States. The main determinant is the feeling that solar

systems are largely inadequate and expensive. Interestingly

enough, approximately 65 percent of solar installations are taking place among small home-builders (less than 75 units per

year) . Marketing of solar systems is concentrated mainly

where solar equipment manufacturing is the highest: the Southeast, Southwest and the North Central regions."

153
6. The target audience has been assessed at a 12th grade education.

7. A simplified envelope comparison calculation can be developed.

8. The components of the calculation are readily available and currently used in practice.

9. The simplified calculation is akin to the results of an ASHRAE steady

state heat loss analysis [3] (when converted to yearly totals using

no infiltration value) with accuracy lost only when envelope com- ponents are adjacent to unheated spaces which are typically above

ambient temperatures (e.g., crawl spaces, garages).

10. In a climate such as Colorado's, cooling considerations can be

eliminated from the comparison calculation.

All year-round homes are required to have some heating capabilities.

This is a basic building code requirement. There is no specific cooling

capability requirement, though the code requires a minimum amount of

operable window area for safety and ventilation. Of 311,200 owner occupied housing units in the Denver Standard Metropolitan Statistical

Area, 72,100 had air conditioning (cooling) capabilities [18]. This

is less than one-fourth of the housing units surveyed. Room units

totaled 38,900 while 33,200 had central systems. Central systems are probably predominantly electric powered with some evaporative cooling.

Evaporative cooling is less energy intensive when compared to electric

compression units.

In general, as elevation increases cooling degree days decrease. For

example, Denver (at 5,280 feet above sea level) has 625 cooling degree

days. Silverton, Colorado (at 9,322 feet above sea level) has no cooling degree days. Most of Colorado's growth is projected to occur along

the Front Range and the Western Slope. Cooling degree days are roughly

outnumbered nine to one by heating degree days in Denver. Cooling degree

days in Grand Junction are outnumbered five to one by heating degree

days. Thus, cooling needs are substantially less than heating.

Other States may have significant cooling considerations as well as other circumstances that would make this strategy inappropriate.

Other States which have adopted the Model Code might be able to utilize

this strategy in lieu of a Section 4 analysis when a building is in

full compliance except for the thermal envelope criteria.

To illustrate the effect of the Building Energy Performance Standards

(BEPS) on the residential home in Denver, Karpay Associates of Rockville,

MD, used the DoE-2 computer program [19]. Of 21 computer runs, only

six examples would comply with the current BEPS without the use of

solar domestic water heating.

154
The "typical" home assumes that the gross floor area is 1,550 ft. 2

, the window area is 150 ft. 2 (with a majority located on the south wall),

that there is no heat loss to the basement, and the air infiltration is

equivalent to 0.6 air changes per hour. The domestic hot water use is

set at 29,500,000 Btu/yr/unit for natural gas and 54,600,000 Btu/yr/

unit if an electric water heater is used.

The first variation is roughly equal to the first Colorado energy code.

As can be seen, if the house were built with R-ll walls, R-19 ceiling,

and double pane windows, one would need to use solar in all cases. With natural gas as the heating fuel, the solar system would need to

provide 19 percent of the domestic hot water.

It is anticipated that the Colorado code will eventually be upgraded to

meet the BEPS. Certainly the use of solar energy to meet the code will

be a reality, thus justifying the intent of this study at this time.

Further justification for the use of simplified methods is submitted

when one considers the fact that Mr. Karpay (of Karpay Associates)

reports that 8 hours are needed to prepare the input for one run of the

DoE-2 program for residential buildings [19]. This time element has

only been attained after approximately 100 runs of DoE-2. Computations

that the builders could do by themselves will help contain the costs of

solar installations and residential housing.

The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) estimates that a single

computer analysis of a conventional home per BEPS would cost $500. An

additional $500 would be needed for an analysis of a solar system [20].

The NAHB feels this is a roadblock to solar and supports the development

of simple, straightforward techniques to encourage the use of solar [20].

Table 2: Design Energy Budgets

Location: Denver, Colorado

Design Energy Budgets: Gas 33.7 MBtu/ft.2 - Yr

Electric 38.4 MBtu/ft.2 - Yr

Variation Solar DHW Fraction

(R-value ceiling, R-value wall, Required to Meet BEPS and number of glazings)

Fuel Type

Natural Electric Heat Gas* Resistance Pumps**

19/11/2 .19 1+ .35 30/11/2 .07 .91 .22 38/11/2 .03 .83 .17 30/16/2 .01 .77 .13 38/11/3 0 .48 0 38/19/2 0 .46 0 38/19/3 0 .21 0

* 70% seasonal efficiency

** Seasonal COP of 1.52

155
State of Colorado, The Residential Building Energy Conservation

Act of 1977 as amended by Senate Bill 292, July 1, 1979.

State of Colorado, The Residential Building Energy Conservation

Act of 1977 , Senate Bill 159, July 1, 1977.

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning

Engineers, Inc., ASHRAE 1977 Handbook of Fundamentals , 345 East

47th Street, New York, New York 10017.

American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning

Engineers, Inc., ASHRAE Standard 90-75 , 345 East 47th Street,

New York, New York 10017.

State of Colorado, Colorado Energy Conservation Standards , November, 1977.

K. C. McKenzie, Regional Training Energy Conservation Code

Workshops for Building Officials , New Mexico Energy Institute,

Albuquerque, New Mexico, 1977.

Tsongas, Carr and Stultz, Optimum Insulation Thickness in Southfacing Walls , paper presented at the ASHRAE/D0E Conference on the

Thermal Performance of Exterior Envelopes of Buildings, Orlando,

Florida, December, 1979.

Construction Industries Commission, Energy Conservation Standards

for New Mexico , P.O. Drawer 5155, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87503, 1977.

Donald Watson, Designing and Building a Solar House - Your Place

in the Sun , Garden Way Publishing, Charlotte, Vermont 05445, 1977.

Department of Energy, Energy Performance Standards for New

Buildings; Proposed Rule , Federal Register, Volume 44, Number 230,

November 28, 1979.

International Conference of Building Officials, Uniform Building

Code , 5360 South Workman Mill Road, Whittier, California 90601,

1979.

Energy Management Consultants, Evaluation of the Nonresidential

Energy Conservation Building Standards Program in the State of

Colorado , for the Colorado Office of Energy Conservation, Denver,

Colorado, 1979.

Public Technology Inc., Energy Conservation in Buildings - A Case

Study of the State of Colorado , for the National Institute of

Building Sciences, Washington, D.C., 1979.

156
14. Leigh Lint, Lint Research Service Final Report: ECT 000 , Boise,

Idaho, December 1977.

15. Stevens, Hietapelto and Tailleart, Energy Conservation Needs

Assessment for a Business With Under 250 Employees , Energy

Extension Service, Michigan Department of Commerce, Lansing,

Michigan, 1979.

16. David Miller, Letter to Lorraine Rup, from the Massachusetts State

Building Code Commission, February 13, 1980.

17. Alternative Sources of Energy Magazine, 107 South Central Avenue,

Milaca, Minnesota, 56353, March/April, 1980.

18. U. S. Department of Commerce and U. S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development, Annual Housing Survey: 1976 Denver, Colorado , H-170-76-46, 1976.

19. National Institute of Building Sciences meeting on the Proposed

Building Energy Performance Standards held in Denver, February 13,

1980.

20. Church Hill, Solar Age Magazine, Harrisville, New Hampshire 03450,

June 1980.

«

157

SOLAR SYSTEMS FACILITATED BY THE PROPER

APPLICATION OF EXISTING BUILDING CODES

Richard S. Gaines, Solar Project Manager

Local Government Programs

Development Division, Solar Office

California Energy Commission

Sacramento, California

President, Richard Gaines Associates

Los Gatos, California

and

Patrick S. McLafferty

Senior Consultant

Connerly & Associates, Inc.

Sacramento, California

The California Energy Commission (CEC) and the California Building

Officials, Inc. (CALBO) have jointly developed a manual designed to

assist local building officials in identifying, understanding, and

completing a code analysis of solar systems presented to building

departments for permit approval. Published by the International

Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) , the Solar Systems Code Review

Manual provides both building departments and builders a set of clear

guidelines to be followed by specifying the code sections which will

be applied in the plan check and inspection processes. The manual is

based on the rationale that the plumbing, structural, electrical, and

mechanical components of both solar and conventional space conditioning and water heating systems are largely similar and can, therefore,

be regulated by existing codes and standards. Several code items

have been identified which, if rigidly enforced, could serve to inhibit

the implementation of solar systems, and a process has been developed

for resolving such problems without sacrificing important health and

safety standards.

Key words: Building codes; building officials; codes and standards;

convective loops; greenhouses; heat exchangers; light

and ventilation; solar systems; space heating and cooling;

training programs.

159
INTRODUCTION

Space heating and cooling and domestic water heating are low temperature

applications ideally suited for the implementation of current solar

energy technology. The old expression that "there is nothing new under

the sun" is especially true when we consider how long we have known how

to derive energy from the sun. In the fifth century B.C., entire Greek

cities were laid out on an east-west axis so that the long side of each

building faced south. By the first century A.D., the Romans had built

their famous baths with large south-facing windows to warm the rooms with the sun. In 1200 A.D., the Indians of Mesa Verde, Colorado, built

their homes into the south-facing cliffs to obtain protection from the

hot summer sun and to allow the low winter sun to penetrate and warm

the thick adobe walls out of which their dwellings were constructed [1].*

The first solar water heater was patented in 1891 and by 1897 30 percent

of the homes in Pasadena, California had solar water heaters [2]. Many

of these systems, while primitive when compared to those manufactured

today, are still operative, suggesting that our concerns with durability

may be exaggerated. With the advent of cheap fossil fuels in the 1930 's and 1940' s, the need to design homes as independent "power plants"

capable of providing their own energy for space conditioning and water

heating came to an end. Following World War II, the era of mass produced, drafty, and underinsulated buildings using mechanical systems

for heating and cooling commenced.

For the past half century, our storehouse of fossil fuels has been

recklessly depleted, forcing us to reconsider our oldest and most dependable source of energy, the sun. The successful application of solar

energy systems in the construction of new buildings, or the retrofit of

existing structures, is dependent upon their acceptance by local government jurisdictions and the readiness with which these jurisdictions

facilitate and promote their use. If we are to reduce our dependency

on fossil fuels by incorporating solar systems in our buildings, then we must eliminate some of the barriers which currently exist. Local

governments exercise numerous powers affecting energy, including the

authority to set land use densities, determine the size and shape of

the building envelope, adopt building codes, require easements, attach

conditions to planned developments, and require conformity to archi-,

tectural guidelines. These powers can be used to facilitate solar, or they can be exercised in ways that create barriers.

The application of building codes and standards to protect health and

safety is, perhaps, the most frequently mentioned barrier to the

successful implementation of solar systems. Several factors account

for this perspective of the building codes: frequent conflicts between

solar installing companies and building departments, inconsistency in

the application of codes from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, lack of

effective code enforcement resulting in shoddy installations, the fact

*Number in brackets refer to references at end of text.

160
that the codes are largely prescriptive in nature thereby tending to

stifle innovation, health standards for which no sound health basis

exists, the rigid application of codes in situations in which flexibility

would not endanger health or safety, and lack of building department

personnel familiar with solar systems. This last factor, lack of knowledge about solar systems, is probably the most important, as well as the

most easily remedied. The elimination of this significant barrier has

been the cornerstone of the California Energy Commission's (CEC) program

with California's building officials.

In 1977, the CEC had proposed to develop a model solar code under a Federal grant. Recognizing that the organization of building officials

in California (California Building Officials—CALBO) would be the most

logical group to prepare such a document, the CEC entered into discussions with CALBO. There was general resistance to the concept of a special set of codes and standards for solar systems on the grounds that

it would lead to conflicts between the special solar code and the existing codes, that it is unnecessary since the existing codes are adequate

to cover solar systems, that a special solar code would tend to perpetuate the myth that solar systems are synonymous with active solar

systems, and, finally, there existed in California a deep concern that

a model solar code might lead to increased burdens on building departments in the post-Proposition 13 era of shrinking tax dollars.

The concerns of the building officials, the obvious need for training

building personnel in the application of codes to solar systems, and

the recognition that when applied to building structures solar systems

are simply alternative methods for providing energy for space conditioning and water heating, led to the conclusion that a hew model code for

solar systems was not really necessary. It was generally agreed that

the significant difference between solar and conventional systems is

that electric resistance elements, gas, or fuel oil burners are replaced by solar collectors; in every other respect, the structural,

plumbing, electrical, and mechanical systems are virtually the same

and readily regulated by the existing codes and standards.

In February 1978, the CEC awarded a contract to CALBO to prepare a manual for California's building officials which would describe the

generic solar systems, identify the codes applicable to such systems,

provide some guidelines for plan checkers, identify potential coderelated problems with citations of the appropriate code references,

and provide a simple field inspection check list. As originally conceived, this manual was to be used as the basis for a series of training seminars for building department personnel which were to be

incorporated into the CEC's Solar Applications Workshops for Local

Government Officials planned for the fall of 1978.

161
A number of delays were encountered in the development of the manual

and in the planning process for the Solar Applications Workshop Program

with the final draft of the manual completed in January 1979, about 6

months behind schedule, and the final workshop plans completed in

February 1979, also 6 months behind schedule. The manual was submitted

to the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) for comments

and suggestions for modifications. Following this review and modification of some of the code citations, ICBO expressed an interest in publishing the manual for its own distribution. In the belief that the

manual would receive wider acceptance if published as an ICBO document

rather than a CEC publication, an agreement was reached whereby the CEC

obtained a sufficient supply of the manual for free distribution to

building departments in California, with ICBO free to sell it to all

others.

In early 1978, the Department of Energy (DoE) commenced a series of

public meetings to consider the development of a Model Solar Code. The

first of these meetings was held in Washington, D.C. in May 1978 and the

CEC was represented by the co-author of this paper, Patrick McLafferty,

who described the Solar Systems Code Review Manual project and indicated

California's preference for this approach to facilitating solar systems.

The DoE contracted with the Council of American Building Officials (CABO)

for development of the Model Code Document, and drafts of it were presented at public meetings in California in May 1979 and December 1979;

both CEC and CALBO presented comments at these meetings expressing con- cern about the absence of any consideration of passive solar systems,

the Federal regulatory nature of the document, the predominantly prescriptive approach, and reiterating California's preference to apply

the existing codes.

In the spring and fall of 1979, the CEC and the League of California

Cities presented a series of Solar Applications Workshops for Local

Government Officials. The format and content consisted of a plenary

session in the morning for all participants and covered solar systems

and solar economics, a luncheon session featuring a speaker with

experience in solar at the local government level, and three separate

afternoon seminars tailored to the specific needs of the three major

target groups: decision makers, planners, and building officials. Out

of a total workshop attendance of 1044, the majority were planners and

building officials. This came as no surprise since the work of these

two groups of officials would be significantly affected by the introduction of solar systems in residential and commercial development [3].

Of particular interest to the CEC was the impact of these seminars for

building officials on the number of "complaint" phone calls received by

the CEC concerning building code problems and solar installations.

Prior to the seminars and distribution of the Solar Systems Code Review

Manual , it was normal to have from two to five complaint calls per

week. Following completion of the training project, the number of com- plaint calls had dropped to two or three per month.

162
METHODOLOGY

The Solar Systems Code Review Manual is formulated in a manner which

emphasizes a practical approach to the health and safety regulations

affecting solar systems. Based on the applicable California law, the

following model codes and regulations were utilized in the manual

preparation:

Uniform Building Code, 1979 Edition (ICBO)

Uniform Mechanical Code, 1979 (ICBO and the International

Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials [IAPMO])

Uniform Plumbing Code, 1979 (IAPMO)

Title 20, Chapter 2, Subchapter 8, Solar Energy, California

Administrative Code

Additionally, because many of California's building departments utilize

other codes, the following have also been included:

Uniform Solar Energy Code, 1979 (IAPMO)

ICBO Plumbing Code, 1970 (ICBO)

Uniform Fire Code, 1979 (ICBO and the Western Fire Chief's

Association [WFCA])

The manual format first describes the "generic" types of space conditioning and water heating systems. These systems are described in terms

of their basic functions of collection, storage, and distribution. The

descriptions are specifically designed to allow building department

personnel to identify and understand the function of. "generic" systems.

The manual then describes the component parts of each system, which are

illustrated. Code references are cited, relating to each component

identified. Plan Check/Design comments follow the code analysis of each

system. While no specific code interpretations are provided, approaches

to code problems are discussed.

TECHNICAL ISSUES

As a part of the CEC contract, CALBO identified code items which might

potentially inhibit the use of solar systems. The items so identified

included

1. Light and Ventilation in Habitable Rooms - Many passive solar

designs call for minimizing exterior glazing on the east, west, and

north sides of buildings; such designs may conflict with sections of

the Uniform Building Code (UBC) which require minimum glazing standards for light and minimum wall openings for ventilation. For the same reasons, these UBC sections may inhibit the use of solar greenhouses in both new construction and retrofit situations [4].

163
2. Heating - The UBC requires that every dwelling unit and guest room

shall be provided with heating facilities capable of maintaining

a room temperature of 70°F at a point 3 feet above the floor in all

habitable rooms [5] . This generally results in the need for ex- pensive and sometimes unnecessary backup systems.

3. Heat Exchangers - Sections of the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) address

the issue of cross-connections in potable water systems; however, the

issue of contamination which might result from the use of toxic heat

transfer fluids in the collector loops of solar systems is not addressed. At issue are double vs. single wall heat exchangers and the

differences in both efficiency and cost. The International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials (IAPMO) had, at one time,

issued approvals of single wall heat exchangers. Those approvals have

since expired and will not be renewed. The County of Los Angeles

Health Department has issued a widely known report which is the basis

of its approval of only double-walled units.

While specific guidance on this issue is not available in any of

California's State-adopted codes, it is clear that such guidance is

essential, as there is a significant lack of uniformity in this

regard.

Of particular interest to the authors have been the issues posed by

the retrofitting of solar greenhouses and the construction of con- vective loop houses. In the case of the greenhouses, several jurisdictions in California have refused to permit their construction unless

additional, and often quite expensive, alterations are made to the

structure to which the greenhouse is attached, invoking the provisions

of Section 1205 of the UBC. In the instances in which this problem has

been brought to the attention of the CEC, the local building official

was insisting on either skylights being added to the roof of the

existing structure, or at least half of the common wall being removed.

Adding skylights to a California style tile roof becomes prohibitively

expensive and requires appropriate insulating shutters to prevent

winter heat loss and summer heat gain. Removing half the common wall

between the greenhouse and existing structure affects the functioning

of the greenhouse, is costly, and may be undesirable to the use of the

existing structure.

When the Solar Systems Code Review Manual was prepared and published,

it was felt that this problem was resolved by Section 3.3 of the

manual which states that light and ventilation "must be taken through

the greenhouse and adequate windows and/or vents need to be installed

in the greenhouse walls or roof." In most cases, this interpretation

has been accepted and a permit has been issued; however, there have

been a few cases in which the building department has rigidly interpreted UBC Section 1205. Working with the CALBO Advisory Committee to

the CEC, it is hoped that a solution can be developed and Section 3.3

of the manual revised in the next ICBO edition.

164
The convective loop style of architecture is of special interest for

a number of reasons. First, convective loop houses are not necessarily

built as solar houses; energy savings are obtained theoretically

through the design of a double shell north wall which allows for a con- vective loop of warm air to circulate upward on the south side of the

structure, with the north wall serving as a plenum chamber for the

return portion of the loop, with cooler air returning through this wall

and back under the house, where it is again heated by Btu's from the

earth (if not, solar glazing is present).

Regardless of the merits of this design in terms of energy efficiency,

it is being built in a significant number of locations in California

and has caused a considerable stir among building department personnel.

While the CEC takes no position on the merits of the architecture, designers and individual home builders have turned to the CEC Solar Office

for assistance in facilitating their building permits. In addition to

the questions of light and ventilation posed by this design, the major

issue is fire protection. The design results in a plenum chamber within

a concealed space in the north wall without any fire stopping. A number

of solutions have been proposed, ranging from lining the concealed space

with 1-hour fire resistant sheet rock to providing smoke detectors and

sprinkler systems in appropriate locations.

The current status of this problem in California is that the CALBO

Advisory Committee to the CEC has asked convective loop home designers

to submit their proposed solutions to the Committee. These solutions

will be reviewed; if one or more is found to be acceptable, a memorandum describing the proposed solution will be sent by the committee

to all building departments in the State suggesting that building officials consider the proposed solutions. Obviously, the committee's

recommendations cannot be binding.

SUMMARY

A successful program of applying the existing building codes to solar

systems has been implemented in California. This program has been

based on the publication of the Solar Systems Code Review Manual by

ICBO, which was prepared by CALBO under contract to the CEC, implementation of a training program for building department personnel as a part

of a series of 17 Solar Application Workshops for Local Government

Officials, and procedures utilizing the CEC-CALBO Advisory Committee

to resolve some of the issues which remain.

Two remaining tasks are being undertaken. A supplement to the Solar

Systems Code Review Manual covering swimming pools and spas is being

prepared by CALBO under contract to CEC, and a Request for Proposals

to develop a Course of Study on the Application of the Existing Building

Codes to Solar Systems is being processed by the CEC. The proposed

Course of Study will consist of an Instructor's Guide, a series of

165
lesson plans, and a student workbook of home study exercises. The

Course of Study would become a part of the California Community College

Program for building inspectors which culminates in a Certificate of

Achievement

.

REFERENCES

1. Passive Solar Design, Here and Now, California Energy Commission,

March 1980.

2. Solar Water Heaters in California, 1891-1930, Butti, Ken and

Perlin, John; California Energy Commission, A Reprint; The CoEvolution Quarterly, Fall 1977, Sausalito, California.

3. From Broken Barriers to Creative Incentives, California Leads the

Way; Gaines, Richard; Proceedings of the 1980 Annual Meeting , American Section of the International Solar Energy Society , Newark, Delaware; June 1980.

4. Uniform Building Code; International Conference of Building

Officials, 1979 Edition; Whittier, California.

5. Ibid., Section 1211.

166
DEVELOPMENT OF RECOMMENDED REQUIREMENTS TO

CODE OFFICIALS FOR SOLAR HEATING, COOLING

AND HOT WATER SYSTEMS

by

B. S. Trant, P. E.

Executive Director

Council of American Building Officials

Washington, D.C.

Under a Department of Energy contract, the Council of American Building

Officials has developed "Recommended Requirements for Code Officials on

Solar Heating, Cooling and Hot Water Systems." The recommended requirements treat all the major code categories - building, electrical and

mechanical/plumbing

.

These requirements will serve as a guide for building code officials to

judge the health and safety aspects of solar systems and their proper

installations. Where requirements exist in a major model code they are referenced with commentaries provided for technical backup or where

further explanation is needed.

The development of the recommended requirements through the consensus

process is described.

Key words: Building codes; building officials; consensus; construction;

document; installation; recommended requirements; solar

energy; solar systems.

167
Numerous requests from local and State building code agencies to the

Department of Energy (DoE) for assistance in developing individual solar

energy regulations for their jurisdictions set in motion the events leading to the development of "Recommended Requirements to Code Officials on

Solar Heating, Cooling and Hot Water Systems." In public meetings conducted by DoE during the Domestic Policy Review of Solar Energy, there

were expressions of concern that different, conflicting code requirements

would be adopted and that they would inhibit early utilization of solar

energy on a widespread basis.

There was general agreement among the local and State agencies seeking DoE

assistance that this could be avoided through development of a guideline

document for their use. This belief was confirmed in a DoE funded study

conducted by the National Bureau of Standards with the participation of

major national organizations active in the subject area.

Subsequently, DoE executed a contract with the Council of American Building Officials (CABO) for the project. The primary objectives were:

1. Utilize existing institutional mechanisms at various levels of

government and in the private sector to develop recommended requirements in accordance with consensus procedures and due process.

2. Promote greater understanding to facilitate acceptance of solar

technologies among code enforcement personnel.

The primary role of DoE has been to provide funding assistance to facilitate and accelerate the voluntary efforts of experts —technical and nontechnical—who contributed their time and expertise in order to develop

the requirements expeditiously in response to the immediate needs of local

and State Governments.

Developing the document within the time frame of the contract required

CABO to undertake two concurrent tasks. One task consisted of assembling

appropriate committees and technical support staff to prepare a working

draft. The second task was concerned with developing procedures acceptable through the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) process.

The three methods recognized by ANSI for developing evidence of a consensus are:

1. Accredited Organization

2. American National Standards Committee

3. Canvass

CABO selected the Accredited Organization method which requires compliance

with the following criteria:

168
1. There is evidence the organization has a substantial history of

developing similar requirements that have been extensively used for

the purposes for which they were developed. (Where an organization

meets the criteria for accreditation with the exception of evidence

of a substantial history, ANSI may accredit the organization for a limited period in order to provide the organization the opportunity

to demonstrate implementation of its procedures.)

2. The organization's operating procedures shall provide:

a. The opportunity for participation by all national interests substantially concerned

b. Balanced membership on each committee among those interests having

potential concern with the specific project

c. Consideration of all objections with the aim of resolution and

response to each commentator indicating that consideration has been

given to the comments and reporting the action taken or reasons why

the comments could not be resolved

d. A supervisory body to attest that the procedures have been

followed and that the approval requirements set forth in the procedures have been met

e. An appeal mechanism to hear appeals of any action or inaction

within the organization.

3. The organization has submitted the title and scope of each committee

that is operating under ANSI approved procedures.

4. The organization agrees to periodically furnish ANSI the current

program of work of its committees and prompt announcement of the

initiation of new work.

5. The organization agrees to provide continuity for producing and updating its work, and has knowledgeable staff.

6. The organization agrees to assist in obtaining evidence of consensus.

7. The organization agrees to maintain adequate records to permit ANSI

consideration of its work, and agrees to make such records available

upon request.

CABO developed the needed criteria for approval as an Accredited Organization. CABO has subsequently been audited by ANSI verifying adherence

to the criteria.

169
A consensus committee was formed to develop the guideline document within

the approved CABO Consensus Procedures. Composed of some 50 organizations

and groups representing the diverse interests in solar energy development

and application, it includes representation from consumer and public

interest groups, standards organizations, design professionals, labor,

industry, and local, state and Federal Governments. The committee is re- sponsible for:

1. Development and approval of the document

2. Assignment of development tasks to appropriate technical committees

3. Identification and recommendation of technical committee members

4. Assuring that the consensus procedures have been met

5. Identification of specific needs and tasks and their implementation

6. Holding open meetings to provide the opportunity for participation

by all interested individuals and organizations.

The consensus committee elected, from among its membership, a ten-member

coordinating committee which administered and coordinated the work of

the consensus committee and its technical committees. The coordinating

committee membership has the same balance of interests as required for

the consensus committee membership. Responsibilities of the coordinating

committee include:

1. Advising technical committees in the preparation of documents

2. Reviewing analyses, recommendations and decisions of the technical

committees

3. Resolving conflicts and/or duplication among the work of the technical

committees

4. Holding open meetings

5. Considering and attempting to resolve all challenges submitted

6. Maintaining a continuous overview of the work of the technical com- mittees to assure an expeditiously, orderly and effective progress which

will avoid duplication of effort and conflicting requirements.

Technical committees were appointed to cover the major subjects of building, electrical, mechanical and plumbing which are found in the codes.

The membership of each technical committee has the same balance of interests as required for the consensus committee membership. The technical

committees, in open meetings, reviewed drafts prepared by the technical

support staff and assisted in the resolution of any challenges submitted.

170
In the development process, two sets of hearings, open to the public,

were conducted. There were three, 1-day meetings held throughout the

country in each set of public hearings; one set was held in Atlanta,

Kansas City and San Francisco and the other set was held in Washington,

D.C., Denver and San Diego. Announcements were made 60 days in advance

of the public meetings and of the availability of document drafts to

allow ample opportunity for individuals and organizations to review the

drafts and to plan to attend. More than 500 persons attended the public

hearings and in excess of 1500 comments and proposed changes were processed. The dedication, cooperation, and level of effort contributed by

all who participated is attested to by the volume of comments that were

processed and completion of the technical work in 18 months even though

widely diverse interests were involved. Printing of revised drafts is

always a critical element in the process and DoE was particularly helpful in processing the drafts expeditiously.

Throughout the development phase, particular attention was given to the

ever-present challenge confronting code officials considering new

technology. This entails protecting the public health without impeding

the introduction of technological innovations. Passive solar energy

designs present such a challenge. It was found that this subject was

largely covered in the model codes; thus no additional recommended requirements were necessary. Suggested design alternatives are included as a commentary to assist code enforcement personnel.

Provisions contained in the document are intended to be used in conjunction

with existing model codes. Where a solar relevant provision is adequately

covered in a model code, the section is referred to in an appendix.

Commentaries are included in the text explaining the coverage and intent

of present model code requirements and suggested alternatives that may, at

the discretion of the building official, be considered as providing rea- sonable protection to the public health and safety.

The primary purpose of the document is to provide for reasonable protection of the public health and safety and at the same time, encourage

consumers, builders, designers, manufacturers, installers and others to

utilize solar energy technologies while permitting experimentation and

innovation.

Provisions are included for electrical, building, mechanical and plumbing

installations for solar energy systems used for space or process heating

and cooling, and domestic water heating. Durability, life expectancy and

related requirements of these systems are not addressed.

The provisions in the document are multi-purpose in nature and will be of

interest to all segments of the building community:

• The code enforcement official will use them as a reliable reference

guide for reviewing and approving solar energy system installations.

171
The design professional, builder, manufacturer, supplier and installer will have a means for determining the parameters under

which components and systems will be judged.

The standard and code writing organizations will have a means for

identifying problems, setting priorities and updating documents to

provide for solar energy systems

.

The consumer, environmental organization, and consumer protection

agency will use them to foster better understanding of the ways in

which public health and safety can be protected when utilizing solar

energy systems.

172
A METHOD FOR RETAINING AN

EXPERIMENTAL ATTITUDE IN SOLAR CODES

by

Stache Williams

Co-chairperson

Mendocino Solar Energy Association

Ukiah, California

The viability of the incipient solar age will in large part be determined

by humankind's ability to learn new technologies. The basis of learning

is being able to experience the failure or success of one's ideas. For

innovative structures, the most direct and readily available means of

experiencing their workability is to live in them. Proposed solar building codes are based on our existing solar methodology, thereby leaving

little room for a person wanting to experiment with a new idea on his/her

own home.

In order to solve the problem of the code becoming a barrier to further

development of solar technology, the author proposes recording on the

property deed a notation stating that the property has a building whose

solar system is not according to code.

A 2-year field trial of the Recommended Requirements to Code Officials

on Solar Heating, Cooling, and Hot Water Systems, developed by the

Council of American Building Officials, is suggested to enable the

public and building inspectors time to acquaint themselves with it and

work out any bugs.

Key words: Deed; developers; energy wars; experimental code; field

test; guideline; low income; non-code; policymaking;

protestors; solar code; victim role.

173
I see the solar building code as a two-edged sword. It is good for those

who either want or need a set of specific directions to follow in order

to move us toward living in unison with nature. It is discouraging for

those that do not work well under dogmatic regulations. I think parts

of the Recommended Requirements are less than a fair representation of our highest level of conduct.

One aspect in which I think the Recommended Requirements may be going

astray is poorly written sections which will mislead builders, contractors,

and developers, causing them to disrespect or oppose them. For example,

section B-111.2a disallows the use of drapes and curtains to count toward

insulating windows, while demanding the insulation be installed as part

of the aperture. Yet, in the next paragraph they allow both drapes and

permanent devices to count for shading. The logic of this rule evades

me. Why cannot drapes be used to conserve energy as they have been doing

for ages? Why is this subject treated at all in these Recommended

Requirements, which claim to be concerned only with health and safety

factors?

The various sections covering controls, pressure and temperature relief,

and freeze protection would appear to either disallow the installation

of some of the least expensive homemade units or make them so costly that one may as well buy a commercial unit. It is not at all clear that a manual drain down is permissable for freeze protection. To build a bread

box water heater you will have to hire an engineer to prove it will not

freeze or get hotter than the "maximum design operating temperature" of

water? At the best, these sections are confusing. If an individual

wants to take the risk of it springing a leak from freezing or boiling,

that should be their business. The Government has a legitimate involvement to protect a consumer from getting a poorly designed commercial unit,

but it has no right making it a crime to build your own system when

would harm no one but the builder if not properly maintained.

Are the labeling and testing requirements really meant to prohibit people

from using their own homemade absorber plate?

In envelope- type passive houses, smoke activated fire dampers are the

only type allowed. I wonder if manufacturers have not assured themselves

a market for their products. A wider choice would include sprinkler

systems and heat activated fire dampers. If the Recommended Requirements

are into mentioning specific types of manufactured items with respect to

safety, I suggest they discourage use of smoke detectors using radioactive Americium which can be released to the environment by fire or improper disposal.

With natural lighting allowed in section B-111.6 being dependent on existing code requirements and electric lighting consuming some 20 percent of

all electricity sold in this country, it is suggested those requirements

be reexamined. The minimum standards for lighting have tripled in the

last 25 years and appear to be beyond what is needed, especially in the

commercial sector.

174
All of which brings me to question whether the "Recommended Requirements

to Code Officials on Solar Heating, Cooling, and Hot Water Systems" is

ready to be made law without some field testing which could serve to

expose them for input from the public who are going to have to live with

them. As most building inspectors are not trained in solar, it might be

nice for them to have a year or so to familiarize themselves with the

Recommended Requirements before having to enforce them.

I suggest calling it a "Proposed Solar Building Guideline," and asking

all jurisdictional recipients to try it out for a year or two on a pilot

program basis, letting you know of any problems or suggested changes.

As a more guideline format, I suggest removal of the Section and Item

numbers, retaining the paragraphs and headings but type the document on line-enumerated legal brief type paper so that any portion can be readily

referred to. In the preface specify this guideline is not intended to

be complete and should not be considered ready for incorporation into

existing codes. Comments on the workability of that incorporation should

be sought as that is the eventual intention of the guideline. It should

be suggested that local code officials not use the guideline as a final answer in dealing with the public, but rather encourage the public to

try alternative ways and report back with the results to the code writers.

If at the present the code writers feel they have a workable set of regulations, as indicated by the prefacing statement "These new provisions

should be considered for incorporation into existing codes," there should

be no hesitancy to let the public try it out before declaring it ready

for mandating by local governments. Some innovative policymaking changes

could result from switching to a grass roots mode of operation midway through

the code promulgation process.

By way of solving some of the aforementioned problems within the Recommended

Requirements, I can imagine some changes regarding the creative spirit and

wasted human energy.

The do-it-yourselfer has been left out with the Recommended Requirements.

The backyard builders who read Popular Science Magazine . Mother Earth

News , Popular Mechanics and Or ganic Gardening; people making ovens,

parabolic reflectors, bread box and thermosyphon water heaters in the

1960's and early 1970' s before the Energy Research and Development

Administration (ERDA) was even conceived of; these people and like-minded

ones in the future, are being told by these Recommended Requirements

they cannot build for themselves and their friends, simple, inexpensive,

sometimes recycled, homemade solar units.

The fact that these Recommended Requirements can be interpreted as being

in favor of the rich getting richer at the expense of, and while suppressing, the lower income earners, serves to reinforce the theory that our energy shortage exists only in the minds of our profit oriented corporations and power-hungry Government, that it is not less than a corporate/

Government conspiracy.

175
While I believe this paranoiac conclusion is unfounded, I do believe that

enforceing these Recommended Requirements in their present form will

remove an important sector of our population from participating fully in

the solution to our energy shortage. Such non-participation will serve to

fuel local energy wars which are creating ever widening credibility gaps

between factions of our society who we should be striving to bring together into a united front to solve our energy problems.

Professor Luther Gerlach, at the University of Minnesota, who has studied

the social and cultural factors in energy conflicts, describes the motivations and self-images of the two warring factions, the developers and

the protestors. The developers are characterized as seeing themselves

defending the country's energy independence, its commitment to economic

progress, their technological investments, and law and order. He characterizes the protestors as seeing themselves protecting local autonomy and

the rights of the individual pitted against a dictatorial government and

its exploiting corporations.

Both sides in Gerlach' s view are shown to consider themselves as victims.

They both believe somebody is encroaching on their turf and they have to

defend it. But by playing the victim, each side creates a niche for a victimizer, which then polarizes them even further. One way to stop this

catch 22 cycle and bring the two factions . together is for us to learn to

stop playing the victim role and accept the fact that we are doing it

to ourselves. We have the ability to change the rules of the game so as

to lessen the opportunity for creating real victims, thereby also lowering

the occurrence of imagined victims with their wider effect on the schism.

It is time to redirect some of our creative technological genius toward

creating new types of laws and methods of governing that will allow a larger percentage of our population to have more direct control over their own lives.

For instance, a solar building code which sticks its nose into areas where it does not really have to, will cause some real victims. Perhaps

only a few, but these few cases can spread like wildfire via the

victim/victimizer game thereby creating polarization problems which will

be a barrier to having solar happen in the building sector. What I propose is to change the rules of the solar code so as to lessen the

chance of victimized feelings occur ing.

I suggest the following addition to the Recommended Requirements be con- sidered by cities, counties, and States when contemplating adopting them.

Preferably this addition would be incorporated into them at the Federal

level, or alternatively, included in the appendix in order to offer the

adopting entities a wider variety of choices. It is an experimental

solar system clause based on deed of property or land abstract listing

not unlike a cloud to clear title.

176
EXPERIMENTAL SOLAR SYSTEM CLAUSE

"Solar energy systems shall be permitted that do not conform

to these guidelines provided their use and maintenance is

not a hazard to public health and safety. Systems permitted

under this section shall have recorded on the publicly re- corded deed to the subject property, a notation stating that

the property has a building whose solar system is not built

in accordance with the solar code."

The spirit of this clause is akin to the situation of offering each of a group of people, a large piece of drawing paper with a medium-sized

border already drawn on it and requesting they draw a picture. Most

people will place their picture inside the border. But, occasionally,

one will be drawn beyond the border and still work aesthetically. It is

that spark of creativity which we must be careful to not suppress, for

it is easily perverted into anti-social reactions. During this time of

designing the foundation of the solar age it will reward us to enlist

the aid of all interested parties.

A person with an idea for a solar system not covered in the code would

need to get it engineered. That means they are going to have to be

rather wealthy in order to try out their idea because of the need to hire

an engineer to meet the paperwork proof needed before you can get a building permit. With the deed listing clause a poor inventor could

accept the responsibility of his own system's faults, and try it out by

living in it, which is the only real way of knowing how it works anyway.

This method allows the code officials to become an expert notary service

who are requested by the builder to come verify that the structure has

been built in a particular fashion. When that expert witness's verification is recorded on the deed or property abstract, it thereby

notifies any future buyer of its status. The buyer is then able to

determine the value of the structure accordingly.

The vertif ication on the deed could be as simple as stating which structure

is built according to an existing code or not in conformance to any code, or as complex as entering a description of each part of the structure.

Both code and non-code building methods could be incorporated into a single solar system by listing in the deed which portion is experimental.

The concepts of legal and illegal need not exclude one another. We can benefit from the guiding experience of the code writers and we can have

the open-ended freedom to try out new ideas. In short, we can have our cake and eat it too.

This deed listing method could also be applied to any kind of building

code, not just solar. The governing body could offer, say half a dozen

different codes for building any one part of a structure. The builder

would choose which code he wanted to use for which portion of the structure,

build it accordingly, have the notary verify it, and list it on the

property deed. This would relieve the bureaucracy of a lot of its

responsibility and neutralize conflict.

177
With the deed listing method of code regulation the governing body does

not have to choose what it thinks is best for all the people and then try

to make everybody conform to it by expenditures of enforcement time,

money, and possible loss of credibility. Regulators have a chance to

learn to trust the public with freedom, rather than trying to retain control over every aspect of our lives. And, the people's awareness will

be raised as they learn of new aspects of their lives to care for.

Physicist Arthur Kantrovitz of nuclear fusion and artificial heart valve

fame laments the loss today of what he calls the "atmosphere of technological adventure" we had 15 years ago. What I lament and ask, is when

have we ever had an atmosphere of adventure in the realm of governmental

regulation and policymaking? Thank you for the privilege of addressing

this gathering with its recognition that there is no time more in need

of policymaking adventurers than this time.

The challenge is offered of having similar regions adopt differing solar

codes then watching to see which attains energy self-sufficiency most

easily. A game we all win at, there are no losers.

178
STATE GOVERNMENT ROLES IN NATIONAL SOLAR COLLECTOR

LABELING, CERTIFICATION, AND RATING

by

Peggy Wrenn, Director

Renewable Energy Resources Division

Office of Energy Conservation

Denver, Colorado

Dr. Ron Doctor of the California Energy Commission and Dr. David Block

of the Florida Solar Energy Center initiated a program in late 1979 to

encourage reciprocity between states in their regulations concerning

solar collector certification and labeling. Florida and California had

both instituted testing and certification programs at that time which

were required for their tax credits for solar devices and used for other

regulatory purposes. Also, the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA)

and the Air-conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) had come up

with two additional labeling and certification programs. Potential con- fusion and duplication of effort seemed to be developing so a meeting

was called of 25 States active in solar energy matters.

Several meetings have now been convened and remarkable progress has been

made toward the goal of a single national program for rating, labeling

and certifying solar collectors, and eventually, for complete solar

systems. The four programs now in existence (both State and industry)

were represented, as well as about 30 State solar offices which have been

considering implementing such programs.

At an April 1980 meeting there was a preliminary agreement that there

should be a single national system, run by a non-profit corporation with

a Board of Directors composed of individuals nominated by SEIA and ARI

and representatives of the State Government consensus effort initiated

by Dr. Block and Dr. Doctor.

This paper details progress to date and projects completion dates for

a national testing program, labeling program, and rating program for

solar collectors. An applications manual is also planned, as well as additional work on systems and eventually certification.

Key words: Certification; consumer protection; Interstate Solar

Coordination Council; labeling procedures; national testing program; regulation; solar collector; standards;

voluntary program.

179
In April 1979, a voluntary meeting was held between state and other public

agency representatives in Washington, D.C. to review issues relating to

solar collector testing and certificat ion. At that time there were four

collector certification programs in place: State of California; State

of Florida (mandatory by legislation); Solar Energy Industries Association

(SEIA) voluntary industry certification; and the Air-conditioning and

Refrigeration Institute (ARI) preliminary collector certification procedures. All used the ASHRAE standards for experimental determination of

collector efficiency and required testing by an independent laboratory.

Since two States had already instituted certification procedures primarily

to provide for consumer protection mechanisms, and several other States

were in the process of developing solar regulations for similar reasons,

it was clear that State Government involvement in solar certification was

necessary. Dr. Dave Block, Director of the Florida Solar Energy Center,

and Dr. Ronald Doctor, Commissioner of the California Energy Commission,

initiated the Interstate Solar Coordination Council (ISCC) following the

April 1979 meeting. Initial funding was provided by the U.S. Department

of Energy to bring together State energy officials, recognizing that it

would be inappropriate for all States to develop and operate solar collector testing programs.

Recognizing the need for coordination of a single national program, and

the need to minimize duplication of effort among industry and state officials, the Interstate Solar Coordination Council held a meeting in April

of 1980 with state officials from 21 States and representatives from SEIA,

ARI, and other industry groups. Draft documents of the ISCC were presented to industry representatives, programs were compared, and great

progress was made toward the goal of a single national program for labeling

and certification of solar collectors. A new non-profit corporation will

be formed to certify and label solar collectors (and eventually systems)

nationwide. ARI and SEIA will set up the corporation with members from

the ISCC serving on the Board of Directors. The ISCC role is largely to

fill the gap between the consuming public and the professionals who administer and develop solar standards, and to ensure that consumer protection concerns (such as reliability and durability of collectors) are addressed by the national program.

Drawing on the experience of California, Florida, and the Tennessee Valley

Authority, as well as solar industry groups, ISCC subcommittees have

drafted preliminary procedures for the national consensus program. SEIA

and ARI are working with these subcommittees to negotiate details . The new program should minimize certification costs by creating a single

national program.

On-going projects of the ISCC for 1980 include:

1. Development of a solar collector consumer rating procedure with a common means for rating collectors in different climatic areas operating at different temperatures in a way that is meaningful to

laypeople and consumers;

180
2. Development (with industry groups) of a solar applications manual for

installers and designers covering technical applications data and

recommended procedures;

3. Continuation of work to develop procedures for solar systems evaluation, testing, and certification;

4. Determination of procedures for laboratory accreditation for the new

national program;

5. Representation of state and local government concerns by membership on

the SEIA/ARI (non-profit) Certification Board, on the American National

Standards Institute (ANSI) Steering Committee, and on the Model Solar

Code Implementation Group appointed by the Department of Energy.

Additional funding for 1980-81 has been sought from the Department of

Energy (DoE) , and the group is exploring means of sustaining the ISCC

effort afterwards without DoE funding. A meeting is planned for September 1980 to review the work of many very active subcommittees, and

solicit the participation of all the 50 States in the national program.

The institutional challenges created by programs to utilize a decentralized

energy resource like solar energy are great. The ISCC is an early example

of the kind of coordination efforts likely to become much more common in

the 1980's as State, local and national agencies seek their proper roles

in promoting and regulating the use of solar and renewable energy.

181

RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION SERVICE PROGRAM

SOLAR MODEL AUDIT

by

William Phillip Key

Thomas Potter

Buildings Division

Solar Energy Research Institute

Golden, Colorado

The Residential Conservation Service (RCS) has been developed by the

Department of Energy (DoE) as a requirement of the National Energy

Conservation Policy Act (NECPA) . The goal of the program is to reduce

non-renewable energy use in the Nation's homes through increased

application of conservation methods and the use of solar and wind

energy systems to displace conventional energy sources.

The DoE program includes development of a model audit to assist the

States in preparation of the State plans for implementation of RCS.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory managed the model audit development

effort with the Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI) assigned

responsibility for development of the solar and wind energy systems

portions of the audit.

This paper discusses the solar model audit development and the potential

impact for homeowners, utilities, and solar suppliers/contractors . An

overview of the solar model audit reviews the regulation requirements

pertinent to solar with emphasis on standards, warranties, and installation considerations. A discussion is presented on the program impact

on utilities, especially with regard to identifying sufficient numbers

of qualified auditors and the training of these auditors. The active

and passive solar and wind energy portions of the audit are described

including data bases used, assumptions for respective solar or wind

system measures, and examples of the audit use on a field trial home.

Key words: Auditor training; energy conservation; program measure;

Residential Conservation Service; Solar Model Audit.

183
INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Department of Energy (DoE) is implementing the Residential

Conservation Service (RCS) Program as part of the National Energy

Conservation Policy Act (NECPA) , Public Law 95-619. The RCS program's

purpose is to encourage residential customers of larger gas and electric utilities as well as home heating suppliers to install energy

conservation measures in existing homes. This paper is to describe

the RCS program in general and presents in detail the solar model

audit developed by the Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI) in

support of the program.

The law requires that each State submit a plan for compliance with

the RCS provision of NECPA. The State plans require covered utilities

and participating home heating suppliers to offer to eligible customers

a comprehensive energy audit. Utilities covered are those public utilities that have sales of natural gas for purposes other than resale

exceeding 10 billion ft.3 or sales of electric energy for purposes other

than resale exceeding 750 million kWh. The RCS is a 5-year program, and

it is estimated that 65 million program announcements will be mailed to

eligible customers within a 6-month period beginning September 1980.

The energy audit to be completed by utility personnel will provide

estimates of costs and savings associated with the installation of

program or State measures. The cost and savings estimates are to be

based on an energy usage analysis of the residence. The analysis will

preferably determine the residence energy usage based on past billing

history, but if this history is not available the residence energy

usage may be estimated from building heat load analysis methodology.

The following energy conservation measures and renewable resource measures shown in table 1 are covered in the RCS regulation:

TABLE 1, RCS Regulation Measures

Energy Conservation Measures Renewable Resource Measure

Caulking Solar Domestic Hot Water

Weathers tripping Active Solar Space Heating

Furnace Efficiency Modifications Combined Active Solar Space

Heating and Domestic Hot

Replacement Furnace and Boiler Water

Furnace Replacement Burner Direct Gain Systems

Flue Opening Modification Indirect Gain Systems

184
Electrical or Mechanical

Ignition System

- Water Walls

Replacement Central Air Conditioner - Trombe Walls

Ceiling Insulation - Thermosyphon Air Panels

Wall Insulation Sunspace Systems

Floor Insulation Window Heat Gain Retardants

Duct Insulation Wind Energy Devices

Pipe Insulation Replacement Solar Swimming

Pool Heaters

Water Heater Insulation

Storm or Thermal Window

Storm or Thermal Door

Heat Reflective and Heat Absorbing

Window or Door Material

Electric Load Management Devices

Clock Thermostats

PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS

The RCS Program is structured so that activity at three levels results

in an energy audit for the residential energy consumer. At the Federal

level, DoE is responsible for regulation promulgation, development of

the Federal model audit, and review and approval of the State plans.

The States are required to prepare a plan for implementing the RCS

Program. The tates must require each covered utility and each participating home heating supplier to comply. The states are to prescribe

warranty provisions and installation requirements including mandatory

inspections of certain installed measures.

The States are to maintain a master list of suppliers, installers, and

lenders to be provided to audit recipients by the utilities. Each

State's list will contain only those individuals or companies wishing

to be included. Those listed sell, install, or finance program measures

and must meet the program's criteria for installation quality, warranties, or financing procedures.

185
The program's utility and home heating supplier activities are characterized by direct contact with energy consumers, the solar industry, and

system installers. Utilities and home heating suppliers are required

to provide a Program Announcement to each eligible customer no later

than 6 months after approval of the respective State plan. The Program Announcements must include:

• a list of the program measures;

• an estimate of the energy savings (in dollars) likely to

result from installation of the program measures; and

• a list of energy conserving practices and the energy savings

likely to result from adoption of the practices

.

The announcement should contain an unconditional offer of a program

audit within 2 years. The information provided to the homeowner is

to include the cost of the audit and a brief explanation of the benefits

of the Federal and applicable State energy tax credits.

The content of the RCS Program Audit used by any State will be far more comprehensive than the energy audits presently being offered by a number

of progressive utilities. As an example, the Residential Energy Audit

Program offered by Public Service Company of Colorado is one of the most

thorough and efficient of the existing audit packages. This program has

been in effect in Colorado since 1978 and covers the following conservation areas: insulation, caulking, weatherstripping, infiltration, com- bustion air, space and water heating, appliances, and lighting. In

contrast, the RCS program covers all the conservation measures listed

in an earlier paragraph as well as the renewable resource measures.

The requirement to provide a more comprehensive RCS Program Audit will

have a significant impact on utilities and participating home heating

suppliers. The greatest impact will be in the areas of numbers of

auditors, the increased training required for the auditors, and the

utility's cost to implement the RCS Program. The RCS will create an estimated need of 15,000 to 20,000 trained energy auditors during the

first year of the program. The existing training programs for auditors will necessarily have to be upgraded to address the increased

sophistication of the conservation measures and the new material en- compassed in the renewable resource measures.

As part of its technical assistance program to the States for RCS, DoE

has prepared a package of instructional materials for use in training

energy auditors. This set of materials is available to the States to use as their needs dictate. The Federal audit training package addresses

the measures required in the regulation by developing technical background for each measure, outlining how the measure is applied, and

presenting example audits to include system performance and cost saving

estimates

.

186
The DoE estimates a typical RCS audit requires 2 to 2.5 hours including

renewable resource measures. The additional employee cost required to

support the RCS program, the labor cost required to complete the millions of audits expected during the Program tenure, and the supporting

infrastructure overhead all add to additional costs that must be

financed in some manner by the utilities. The latest DoE requirement

on program costs allows the utility to charge a customer a maximum of

$15 for the audit. The remaining cost to the utility is financed by

treating program costs as a current operating expense of providing

utility service. This method will charge RCS Program costs to the

utility's ratepayers in the same manner as other current operating

expenses

.

A further area of utility involvement in the RCS Program is in the area

of utility supply, installation, and financing of energy conservation

and renewable resource measures. The RCS regulation essentially prohibits a utility from supplying or installing program measures unless

the utility was engaged in such activity on November 8, 1978. Waivers

to this requirement are possible if the request is supported by the

State's governor and if the utility 's activity does not have a substantial adverse effect upon competition. Utilities may offer financing for

program measures under the current regulation.

SOLAR AUDIT - ACTIVE, PASSIVE AND WIND MEASURES

The DoE developed the RCS Model Audit as an integral part of its technical

assistance to States, utilities, and participating home heating suppliers.

The Model Audit is designed to satisfy the audit requirements of Section

456.307 of the RCS Final Rule and may be used as part of an RCS State

plan or nonregulated utility plan. The Model Audit has been prepared

solely to assist States and nonregulated utilities in preparing an effective RCS audit. The use of this model can eliminate much of the

work which would be required in developing many State-specific audit

procedures. The Model Audit is not meant to restrict the use of alternative auditing procedures for homes, does not represent a DoE standard

for auditing, nor has it been subjected to the comment and debate which

such a standard would require. Rather, the Model Audit is one of many

acceptable procedures for inspecting homes as part of the RCS program.

The Model Audit contains detailed step-by-step auditing procedures for

each program measure within each climate zone. Minor changes by a State

to the Model Audit, such as format or the order in which the residence

components are inspected, would not detract from the procedure.

In developing the Model Audit, factors such as audit cost, accuracy,

nominal audit time per residence, and auditor capability and training

requirements were carefully balanced. In order to optimize the efficiency of the auditor's time on-site, the audit is fully integrated;

i.e., many of the observations and measurements made by the auditor will

be used to compute the costs and savings of several program measures

(weatherization, furnace, solar, and wind). The audit is designed for

completion in 2.5 hours on-site for most houses. This includes

187
time for computation and presentation of the results to the customer,

but not travel. The computational procedures, designed to be simple

and relatively quick, do not require the use of a computer. Whenever

feasible, the accepted engineering practices for auditing and energy

modeling were used.

An earlier draft of the Model Audit was subjected to limited field

testing in the States of Tennessee, Colorado, Massachusetts, Wyoming,

Oregon, Washington, California, and New Mexico. Some weaknesses in

the flow and timing of the procedure were discovered and corrections

were incorporated in the present procedures. However, detailed

testing and validation of the current procedures have not been completed.

In order to facilitate the planning process for States and nonregulated

utilities, the Model Audit was issued as a near-final draft while testing and validation are continuing. This draft was used in the preparation of some RCS State plans.

The Model Audit includes both conservation and renewable resource

measures. The six renewable resource measures, comprising the solar

portion of the audit include:

Solar domestic hot water systems;

Active solar space heating systems;

Combined active solar space heating and solar domestic hot

water systems;

Passive solar space heating and cooling systems (direct gain

systems, indirect gain systems, solaria/sunspaces , window

heat gain retardants)

;

Replacement solar swimming pool heaters; and

Wind energy devices.

The DoE is committed to full consideration of State-added measures, providing the measures demonstrate compliance with final RCS regulations.

Positive life-cycle cost analyses have been performed for all solar and

wind measures in each of several regions within the country. Analyses

were based on purchase price of typical solar and wind energy systems,

meteorological data reflecting the amount of available solar and wind

energy in each of the regions, current and DoE-projected costs of con- ventional energy in each region, operation and maintenance cost estimates of each renewable energy system, and type of house to be retrofitted. The table of program measures contained in the regulations

indicates which renewable resource measures are cost-effective for the

regions of each State, based on the analyses. As an example, the program measures applicable to Colorado and New York are shown in table 2.

188
TABLE 2 - PROGRAM MEASURES

CONSERVATION MEASURES RENEWABLE RESOURCE MEASURES

STATE HUD/MPS i *\J U / I II -J REGION CATEGORY OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING

Ceiling

Insulation

(R-Value)*

Wall

Insulation

Floor

Insulation

(R-Value)*

Storm

or

Thermal

Windows

Storm

or

Thermal

Doors

Solar

Domestic

Hot

Water

Systems

Active

Solar

Space

Heating

Systems

Combined

Active

Solar

Space

Heating

&

Solar

Domestic

Hot

Water

Systems

Wind

Energy

Devices

Colorado 6 Electricity

Gas

Oil

L ICl Li I L ncd L rUllip

30

30

30

30 X

X

X

X 19

11

1119

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

1

1

1

1 XX

X

X

7 Electricity

Gas

Oil Flpr^rir Hps 1* Ptimn

38

30

30

38

X

X

XX

19

11

1119

X

X

XX

X

X

X

X

1

1

1 ,2

1,2

X

XX

X

New York 6 Electricity

Gas

Oil Electric Heat Pump

30

30

30

30

X

X

X

X

19

11

1119

X

X

X

X

X

X

X X

XX

X

7 Electricity

Gas

Oil Electric Heat Pump

3830

30

38 X

X

X

X 19

111119 X

X

X

X X

X

X X

X

8 Electrici ty Gas

Oil Electric Heat Pump

3838

3838

X

X

XX

19

19

19

19 X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X XX

X

X

NOTE: 1 = Single-family 2 = Attached buildings 3 = Mobile Homes

*These R-Values are minimums. The State may propose, in a State Plan, either

(1) to substitute a higher level, subject to the Assistant Secretary's approval,

as the program measure, or (2) to offer other levels (higher or lower) as State measures in addition to the program measures.

189
Note that the above table does not present passive solar measures. In

assessing the life cycle economic feasibility of passive systems

throughout the Nation, DoE concluded that the cost-effectiveness of

passive systems depends on the particular characteristics of individual

buildings rather than on the characteristics of easily defined broad

categories. The DoE determined that auditors would be capable of evaluating the applicability of passive systems on a particular residence.

Therefore, passive solar measures are designated as program measures

in all States and applicability criteria have been added to the audit

criteria.

An energy audit will be conducted for conservation, solar, and wind

program measures that meet applicability criteria outlined in the

regulations. If it is determined, by meeting these criteria, that

the measure will function satisfactorily at a particular site, an auditor will determine the approximate costs, energy savings, and

associated maintenance costs of installing the measures.

The active solar systems portion of the model audit is based on prototypical systems and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

(NOAA) climatic data base. This climatic data base represents the most

complete and recent compilation of solar and other climatic data,

organized in a consistent geographic structure.

The United States was divided into 97 areas, each of which contained a National Weather Service Station whose measured (or, in some cases derived) solar and wind data were representative of the area. The NOAA

climatic regions follow county boundaries but not necessarily State

boundaries

.

The solar insolation value, reported at the measuring station in each

NOAA climatic region, was considered to be representative of the entire

region and, in the absence of more refined data, was applied uniformly

throughout the region.

The NOAA wind speed data were generally recorded at airport sites

which tend to be located in relatively calm locations. In addition,

these data represented monthly averages which, if used in the analysis,

would tend to underestimate the energy obtainable from a small wind

system compared to the use of the actual wind resource encountered at

a specific site. In the absence of on-site anemometer measurements,

therefore, a procedure was developed to estimate the wind resource enhancement at a well exposed site as compared to the wind resource measured at the weather station site.

The general applicability criteria for active solar systems require an audit to be completed for the measure if:

• the measure is not already present in the residence;

• installation of the measure is not a violation of Federal,

State, or local laws or regulations;

190
• a site exists on or near the residence that is free of major

obstruction to solar radiation.

For active space heating systems, the residence must not have a steam

heating, electric resistance heating, or electric resistance baseboard

heating system.

Passive solar systems parallel the first two general applicability

criteria of active systems. In addition, direct and indirect gain

systems can be applied only if the residence's living space has either

a south-facing (+ 45° of true south) roof or an integral south-facing

(+ 45° of true south) wall free of major obstructions to solar radiation. The solar greenhouse measure can be applied if a south-facing

ground-level wall is free of major obstruction to solar radiation.

A wind energy system audit is completed if there are no major wind

obstructions and minimum 10 mph annual average wind speed exists.

These criteria supplement the first two items required of active and

passive solar systems.

To illustrate this portion of the model audit, a home in Lakewood,

Colorado was selected. The home is shown in plan and elevation view

(south wall) in figure 1 and specific characteristics are defined in

table 3.

TABLE 3 - Lakewood, Colorado Home

General Description

• Home built in 1973, second owner

• 2x4 Frame construction with brick veneer

• Unfinished basement, enclosed garage

• 3-1/2" fiberglass batts in wall (R-14), 11" loose fill

fiberglass in attic (R-31)

Lifestyle

• 2 adults, 3 children (under 8 years of age)

• Dishwasher, washing machine

Energy Usage

• Heating System - Gas heat, central, forced air furnace; room

duct with operable dampers

• Heating Energy Use Rate - 756 Btu/Hr .°F

• Approximate Annual Heating Cost - $430($0 . 35/CCF)

191
/

Main Entry

Living Room

Dining Room

JZL

Enclosed 2 Car

Garage w/2

Above

Bedrooi r s

Lower Level

Family Room 1Bed

room Above

ILPatio Slab

(Not Covered)

Sun Space

25'

D.H.W. or Combined

Active & D.HW.

iBrick

[veneer

ti j i d3±n i i~i 1 1 1 rl

*12

Figure* Example Audit Home

192
This home was chosen since it illustrates very well the actual RCS

Audit process where some renewable resource measures are applicable

and others are not on a given home. The following table lists each

renewable resource measure, shows whether the audit procedure was completed for the measure, and summarizes the pertinent audit information for completed procedures:

TABLE 4 - Example Audit Procedure

Solar Domestic Hot Water

Annual Energy Requirements (10 Btu) 26

Solar Savings Fraction 0.9

2 Collector Area (ft ) 115

First Year Savings ($) 100

Resident Installed Cost ($) 2,490

Contractor Installed Cost ($) 2,920

Combined Solar Space Heating and Hot Water

Annual Space and Water Heating Costs ($) 530

Solar Savings Fraction 0.5

2 Collector Area (ft ) 284

First Year Savings ($) 265

Contractor Installed Cost ($) 8,370

Solar Pool Heating

This measure is not applicable since the home does not have a pool.

Window Heat Gain Retardants

This measure is not applicable since the home does not have air

conditioning.

Direct and Indirect Gain

The Direct Gain measure procedure was not completed since it was determined that installation of additional glazing on the south wall would

not be feasible.

The Trombe Wall and Waterwall applications of the Indirect Gain measure

were not considered since these measures require structural characteristics not present in this home.

193
Thermosyphon Air Panel

2 Panel Area (ft ) 84

Annual Energy Saved (10 Btu) 3.36

First Year Savings ($) 23

Resident Installed Cost ($) 420

Contractor Installed Cost ($) 672

Sunspace/ Greenhouse

Sunspace Length (ft) 25

2 Glazing Area (ft ) 250

Solar Savings Fraction 0.3

First Year Savings ($) 117

Resident Installed Cost ($) 1,250

Contractor Installed Cost ($) 3,750

Wind Energy Devices

This measure is not applicable since the Denver area does not have a

10 mph average annual wind speed.

Note that in the calculation estimate for measure installation cost and

first year savings, the 40 percent Federal tax credit was not included

in the calculation. The State tax incentive was not included; for

Colorado, this tax credit is 30 percent in 1980.

In conclusion, the RCS Model Audit is the first audit procedure to be

offered on a nationwide basis that incorporates standard conservation measures as well as renewable resource measures including solar and

wind. The RCS Program supported by the model audit and other Statedeveloped audit procedures promises to have a significant impact on use

of solar technologies for residential building retrofits.

194
BUILDING CODES VS.

THE DESIGN OF PASSIVE SOLAR HEAT STORAGE

by

Richard R. Heinemeyer, Architect

Crowther /Solar Group

Denver, Colorado

This paper explores the difficulties in complying with the major national

building codes when designing thermal mass storage elements into a lowmass (wood frame), direct-gain passive solar building. Experience with

one of the first pre-manufactured passive solar buildings in the United

States (the Boise Cascade solar prototype house recently erected near

Denver) is presented. Different strategies for the design of thermal mass elements and their acceptability to code administering authorities

are discussed.

Key Words: Codes; concrete; masonry; prohibitions; re-examination;

thermal storage; wood structure.

i

195
Of the several types of passive solar architecture, direct gain design

has perhaps been the most popularly accepted. This method presents the

most "normal" appearance, can most easily be accomplished with established residential construction techniques, and has the side benefits of

abundant natural light and the preservation of views through the gain

aperture. However, one of the most difficult aspects of producing a successful direct gain design is the proper placement of thermal storage

elements so that they are properly irradiated during the day and are in

a good position to give back their heat at night. They should ideally

be part of the building (hopefully lending to its esthetic qualities) and

be designed to discourage being shaded by various items of decor,

furniture, plants, etc.

To accommodate the construction method used in an overwhelming majority

of housing units in the United States (wood frame) several storage

strategies have evolved:

1. Containers of water, a fairly good heat storage medium per weight,

are placed usually in a vertical position just inside the solar

aperture, or in front of a back wall where they are charged by a high window or clerestory.

2. Encapsulated phase change material, usually eutectic salts, is

positioned similarly to water elements and can also be suspended

from ceilings (made possible by a high storage capacity to weight

ratio)

.

3. More traditional looking (but least desirable thermally) dense

building materials such as masonry, tile, concrete, or plaster are placed in all storage positions but most prevalently on walls and

floors.

At the present time strategy number 3 appears to be the most widely

accepted, probably due to its more familiar appearance and the relative

abundance of tradespeople experienced with the materials employed.

Placement of dense, solid materials in an otherwise lightweight building

presents a few construction problems. These are magnified by the fact

that most solids have a lower specific heat and thermal conductivity

than water and a much lower heat storage capacity than phase change materials. The result is a larger weight of solid material for equal heat

storage. Structurally supporting all this added weight has not presented

insurmountable difficulties, but the bearing of loads of concrete and

masonry on wood members has in some cases been made impossible by building codes.

This problem presented itself during the design and construction of the

Boise Cascade Passive Solar Prototype erected near Denver in 1979. This

single family residence was designed to be a pre-manufactured building,

eventually to be marketed to builders as a package of panels and precut

196
pieces. Because of shipping limitations, all of its thermal storage

elements were added in the field. The lightweight wood design, including

a wood foundation, presented a stereo-typical example of the problem of

adding thermal mass to a low mass structure. Figure 1 shows the location

of the thermal storage elements.

Figure 1: Location of Thermal Storage Units

197
The concrete floor is designed to be poured between the supporting joists

with tile on top and a left-in-place metal form on the bottom. This

storage location is near ideal since it is in proximity to both upper and

lower levels and can be irradiated from below (with the use of a reflective

blind) as well as from above. Occupants who prefer carpeted floors in

the bedroom would especially appreciate this arrangement. Storage for the

clerestory windows was placed on the back wall as a 4 inch brick veneer. Both of these strategies were counter to the adopted code in this locality.

During construction, the floor was installed nearly as designed. The

brick veneer was replaced with multiple layers of gypsum board and a finish of ceramic tile largely because of the interior designer's requirements rather than any pressure from building officials. This substitution,

though legal, has been judged less than satisfactory due to the insulating

effect of the paper layers and the relatively low density of the gypsum

cores. The code problem with the original design has been one of the

deterrents to the mass marketing of this solar home.

In a paper entitled, "Deadweight on Toothpicks..." [1]*, Douglas R.

Coonley addresses the structural detailing problems of added thermal

masses. Most of what he suggests, however, is likely to be in violation of the building codes.

The following is a review of the four major national building codes in

regard to the supporting of concrete or masonry on wood structures.

Uniform Building Code [2]

The 1973 through 1976 editions, in paragraph 2516, specifically prohibit

the support of masonry or concrete by wood structural members, except in

the case of non-structural flooring material no greater than 4 inches

thick. This was changed in the 1979 code to allow masonry veneers not

exceeding 25 feet in height on walls. Support of greater amounts of concrete and masonry is still prohibited.

Standard Building Code [3]

All editions since 1973 have stated in paragraph 1409.4 that support of

masonry on wood is prohibited. The only exception is prefabricated masonry partitions not exceeding 30 lbs/square foot. (One wythe of brick

would probably weight slightly more than this.) Wood support of concrete

decks for roofs or floors is allowed, but inferred is the disallowing of

the support of concrete in a vertical position.

Basic Building Code [4]

The 1975 through 1981 editions have no specific reference to the support

of masonry and concrete on wood and presumably do not prohibit the

practice. There are two obscure references in paragraphs 861.1 and

*Numbers in brackets refer to references at end of text.

198
834.4 regarding the use of combustibles and/or wood in masonry construction, but they are minor points. Also, it could be inferred from paragraph

854.4.3 that wood cannot support 4 inch masonry veneers. The paragraph

limits the height of such veneers to 25 feet "above its supports on foundation wall or on corbels of masonry or steel." Reference is made to ANSI

standards A41.1 and A41.2. These could not be located at the time of this

writing and would bear some checking if the Basic Building Code is being

used.

National Building Code [5]

In the 1976 edition (current with 1977 amendments) paragraph 913. 2d prohibits the support of masonry on any form of wood construction except for

wood piles and miscellaneous small wood lintels, blocks and decorative

wood inserts. Brick floors are exempt from this requirement. (No maximum thickness is stated.) This provision is restated in the same terms

in paragraph 929.3c for masonry veneers. No requirements for the support

of concrete walls and floors are apparent. This code indirectly contradicts itself by mentioning in paragraph 909.4a that wood foundations

designed in accordance with NFPA Technical Report No. 7 [6] are permitted. This document clearly shows brick veneers being supported

by wood construction. It is assumed this contradiction will appear

elsewhere as other code drafting bodies and agencies embrace the wood

foundation concept.

Older editions of codes are mentioned here because so many of them are still in use owing to the usually slow political process of adoption by

local governments. Also to be considered is the fact that some larger

governmental entities have written their own codes, basing them on past

editions, and do not necessarily have the machinery to update their code

when revised editions of the model code appear.

From conversations with other solar designers, it appears that for the

most part these prohibitions are not being very rigorously enforced.

This is probably due to the relative obscurity of the provisions and the

generally less thorough inspection of housing as a building type than

to any desire among building officials to encourage solar architecture.

This fact should not be used to justify the use of these techniques in

the face of contrary code provisions. There is always the chance of

damaging the progress of work, causing losses in time, money, and project

quality if the code i£ enforced, and also, increased legal liabilities

for the designer may occur if a code is violated and some defect appears

(even if the defect is caused by faulty materials or installation)

.

Investigation into the reasoning behind the code provisions not permitting

concrete or masonry to bear on wood were inconclusive. Conversations with

code administrators and personnel at the code drafting agencies produced

only a few suggestions. The increased vulnerability of wood to decay,

warping, fire, failure, etc., was most often mentioned. Its dimensional

stability and quality control failings were also suggested. Opinions

were as unharmonious as the different code provisions and most comments

were of a subjective nature.

199
It is suggested that all of these code provisions be examined carefully

in light of the need for effective solar designs and hopefully be eliminated. There are many arguments for this course:

1. Masonry bearing on wood is a time tested building technique. It

began in a large scale in the 14th century with the advent of half

timber construction. Many of these buildings have lasted hundreds

of years without the benefit of modern techniques and preservatives.

2. Structural members in any design cannot "see" the load. Why is it

less desirable for wood to be supporting concrete or masonry than

supporting a bathtub full of water, a billiard table, or a grand

piano? If wood is suitable for supporting a snow loaded roof over

our heads, should not it be acceptable for supporting a brick

veneer on an interior wall?

3. Wood is unlikely to fail spectacularly in any structural situation.

In a fire, steel, for example, would be much more vulnerable than

wood and thus more likely to fail spectacularly.

4. Most of the drawbacks to wood construction, dimensional instability,

warping, and decay can be easily handled with the proper detailing,

techniques, and preservatives.

For the present, the codes appear stacked against the one solar heat

storage strategy which is most likely to be widely accepted by the majority of home builders at least for the near term. It is hoped that this

situation can be remedied, leaving a storage option which is necessary

to the rapid growth of passive solar design.

REFERENCES

1. Coonley, Douglas R. , "Deadweight on Toothpicks...;" Proceedings of the

4th National Passive Solar Conference, Kansas City, Missouri; 1979.

2. Uniform Building Code ; International Conference of Building Officials,

5360 South Workman Mill Road, Whittier, California 90601.

3. Standard Building Code ; (formerly Southern Standard Building Code);

Southern Building Code Congress International, Inc., 900 MontclairRoad, Birmingham, Alabama 35213.

4. Basic Building Code ; Building Officials and Code Administrators

International, Inc., 17926 South Halsted Street, Homewood, Illinois

60430.

5. National Building Code ; American Insurance Association, 85 John Street,

New York, New York 10038.

6. NFPA Technical Report No. 7 ; National Forest Products Association,

1619 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036. (This

document provided the basis for the Design, Fabrication and Installation Manual for the All-Weather Wood Foundation System, also published by NFPA.)

200
NBS-M4A (rev. 2-8Q

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. 1. PUBLICATION OR 2. Performing Organ. Report No. 3. Publication Date BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

DCDHDT KtrU K 1 INvJ. MA

SHEET (See in struction s) NBS SP 608 May 1981

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Research and Innovation in the Building Regulatory Process

Proceedings of the Fifth Annual NBS/NCSBCS Joint Conference

Technical Seminar on Solar Energy and Energy Conservation

5. AUTHOR(S)

Sandra A. Berry, Editor

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS. see instructions)

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C 20234

7. Contract/Grant No.

8. Type of Report & Period Covered

Final

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street, City, State, ZIP)

and U.S. Department of Commerce

National Bureau of Standards

National Conference of States on Building

Codes and Standards (NCSBCS), Inc.

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 81-600044

Q~] Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

11. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less (actual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here)

The Proceedings of the Fifth Annual NBS/NCSBCS Joint Conference on Research

and Innovation in the Building Regulatory Process contain 17 technical papers

This year's joint conference addressed solar energy and energy conservation.

These proceedings include papers on:

• Energy programs in the State of Colorado

• Building energy performance standards concepts

• State energy audits

• Energy and building systems services

• Solar energy and building codes

12. KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words bv semicolons)

ASHRAE 90-75; Class K code; computer modeling; electrical design; energy audit;

energy conservation; HVAC systems; performance standards; solar collector; solar

energy; space heating and cooling; thermal storage.

13. AVAILABILITY

1X1 Unlimited

| | For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

[X] Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

20402.

Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

201

15. Price $6 .00

«J.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1981 346-841/8321 1-3 USCOMM-DC 6043-PBO

NBS TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

PERIODICALS

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH—The Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards reports NBS research and develop- ment in those disciplines of the physical and engineering sciences in which the Bureau is active. These include physics, chemistry,

engineering, mathematics, and computer sciences. Papers cover a broad range of subjects, with major emphasis on measurement

methodology and the basic technology underlying standardization. Also included from time to time are survey articles on topics

closely related to the Bureau's technical and scientific programs. As a special service to subscribers each issue contains complete

citations to all recent Bureau publications in both NBS and non- NBS media. Issued six times a year. Annual subscription: domestic

$13: foreign $16.25. Single copy, $3 domestic; $3.75 foreign. NOTE: The Journal was formerly published in two sections: Section A "Physics and Chemistry" and Section B "Mathematical

Sciences." DIMENSIONS/NBS—This monthly magazine is published to in- form scientists, engineers, business and industry leaders, teachers, students, and consumers of the latest advances in science and

technology, with primary emphasis on work at NBS. The magazine

highlights and reviews such issues as energy research, fire protection, building technology, metric conversion, pollution abatement,

health and safety, and consumer product performance. In addition, it reports the results of Bureau programs in measurement

standards and techniques, properties of matter and materials, engineering standards and services, instrumentation, and

automatic data processing. Annual subscription: domestic $11;

foreign $13.75. NONPERIODICALS

Monographs—Major contributions to the technical literature on

various subjects related to the Bureau's scientific and technical activities. Handbooks—Recommended codes of engineering and industrial practice (including safety codes) developed in cooperation with in- terested industries, professional organizations, and regulatory

bodies. Special Publications—Include proceedings of conferences sponsored by NBS, NBS annual reports, and other special publications

appropriate to this grouping such as wall charts, pocket cards, and

bibliographies.

Applied Mathematics Series—Mathematical tables, manuals, and

studies of special interest to physicists, engineers, chemists,

biologists, mathematicians, computer programmers, and others engaged in scientific and technical work.

National Standard Reference Data Series—Provides quantitative data on the physical and chemical properties of materials, compiled from the world's literature and critically evaluated. Developed under a worldwide program coordinated by NBS under

the authority of the National Standard Data Act (Public Law

90-396).

NOTE: The principal publication outlet for the foregoing data is the Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data (JPCRD)

published quarterly for NBS by the American Chemical Society

(ACS) and the American Institute of Physics (AIP). Subscriptions,

reprints, and supplements available from ACS, 1155 Sixteenth St., NW, Washington, DC 20056.

Building Science Series—Disseminates technical information developed at the Bureau on building materials, components,

systems, and whole structures. The series presents research results,

test methods, and performance criteria related to the structural and

environmental functions and the durability and safety characteristics of building elements and systems.

Technical Notes—Studies or reports which are complete in themselves but restrictive in their treatment of a subject. Analogous to monographs but not so comprehensive in scope or definitive in treatment of the subject area. Often serve as a vehicle for final reports of work performed at NBS under the sponsorship of other government agencies.

Voluntary Product Standards—Developed under procedures

published by the Department of Commerce in Part 10, Title 15, of

the Code of Federal Regulations. The standards establish nationally recognized requirements for products, and provide all concerned interests with a basis for common understanding of the

characteristics of the products. NBS administers this program as a supplement to the activities of the private sector standardizing

organizations. Consumer Information Series—Practical information, based on NBS research and experience, covering areas of interest to the con- sumer. Easily understandable language and illustrations provide

useful background knowledge for shopping in today's technological marketplace. Order the above NBS publications from: Superintendent of Documents. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. Order the following NBS publications—FlPS and NBSIR s—from

the National Technical Information Services, Springfield, VA 22161

Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS

PUB)—Publications in this series collectively constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register. The Register

serves as the official source of information in the Federal Govern- ment regarding standards issued by NBS pursuant to the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended,

Public Law 89-306 (79 Stat. 1127), and as implemented by Executive Order 11717 (38 FR 12315, dated May 11, 1973) and Part 6 of Title 15 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations).

NBS Interagency Reports (NBSIR)—A special series of interim or

final reports on work performed by NBS for outside sponsors

(both government and non-government). In general, initial dis- tribution is handled by the sponsor; public distribution is by the National Technical Information Services, Springfield, VA 22161,

in paper copy or microfiche form.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D C. 20234

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use. $300

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE COM-2 15

SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE BOOK

12 98 4*