Comfort and HVAC 

Performance for a New 

Construction Occupied Test 

House in Roseville, California

A. Burdick

IBACOS, Inc.

October 2013
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States 

government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their 

employees, subcontractors, or affiliated partners makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes 

any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, 

apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned 

rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, 

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, 

recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and 

opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States 

government or any agency thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste
iii

Comfort and HVAC Performance for a New Construction Occupied 

Test House in Roseville, California

Prepared for: 

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory

On behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Building America Program

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

15013 Denver West Parkway

Golden, CO 80401

NREL Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

Prepared by:

A. Burdick

IBACOS, Inc.

2214 Liberty Avenue

Pittsburgh, PA 15222

NREL Technical Monitor: Michael Gestwick

Prepared under Subcontract No. KNDJ-0-40341-03

October 2013
iv

[This page left blank]
v

Contents

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ vi

List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................. vi

Definitions.................................................................................................................................................. vii

Executive Summary................................................................................................................................. viii

1 Introduction and Background ............................................................................................................. 1

2 Research Questions............................................................................................................................. 5

3 Experimental Methods ......................................................................................................................... 6

4 Results and Discussion ....................................................................................................................... 8

4.1 Thermostat Set Points..........................................................................................................8

4.2 Heating Season Design Day System Effectiveness.............................................................8

4.3 Cooling Season Distribution Effectiveness .......................................................................10

4.4 Register Location Effectiveness ........................................................................................12

4.5 Inverted Insulated Bulkhead Performance.........................................................................14

4.6 Occupant Feedback............................................................................................................17

4.7 Energy Use.........................................................................................................................17

5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................ 19

References................................................................................................................................................. 20
vi

List of Figures

Figure 1. Front view of the test house ...................................................................................................... 1

Figure 2. Floor plan showing sensor locations, duct layout, and supply register locations.............. 3

Figure 3. Histograms of temperatures at the thermostat........................................................................ 8

Figure 4. Room-to-room and outdoor temperatures for a 10-day span around the heating 

design temperature day of December 30, 2012 ................................................................................. 9

Figure 5. Room-to-room and outdoor relative humidity for a 10-day span around the heating 

design day of December 30, 2012....................................................................................................... 9

Figure 6. January 13, 2013 extreme cold day temperature variation from the thermostat ............... 10

Figure 7. Room-to-room and outdoor temperatures for a 10-day span around the cooling 

design temperature day of August 21, 2012 .................................................................................... 11

Figure 8. Room-to-room and outdoor relative humidity for a 10-day span around the cooling 

design day of August 21, 2012 .......................................................................................................... 11

Figure 9. August 13, 2012 extreme hot day temperature variation from the thermostat................... 12

Figure 10. Temperature distribution from the den southeast wall to the northwest wall ................. 13

Figure 11. Temperature distribution from the Bedroom 3 northeast wall to the southeast wall...... 13

Figure 12. Temperature distribution from the master bedroom southeast wall to the 

southwest wall .................................................................................................................................... 14

Figure 13. Temperature distribution from the Bedroom 2 northeast wall to the southeast wall...... 14

Figure 14. Attic bulkhead and thermostat temperature variation around the January 13, 2013 

extreme cold day ................................................................................................................................ 15

Figure 15. Supply air temperature during the morning hours of the extreme cold day of 

January 13, 2013................................................................................................................................. 15

Figure 16. Attic bulkhead and thermostat temperature variation around the August 13, 2012 

extreme hot day .................................................................................................................................. 16

Figure 17. Supply air temperature during the morning hours of the extreme hot day of 

August 13, 2012 .................................................................................................................................. 17

Figure 18. Predicted and actual energy consumption for one year (MBtu)........................................ 18

Unless otherwise noted, all figures and photos were created by IBACOS.

List of Tables

Table 1. Test House Specifications........................................................................................................... 2

Table 2. Design Condition Temperatures ................................................................................................. 6

Table 3. Temperatures for Extreme Days and Design Days During Long-Term Monitoring............... 6

Unless otherwise noted, all tables were created by IBACOS.
vii

Definitions

ACCA Air Conditioning Contractors of America

ACH Air changes per hour

ACH50 Air Changes per Hour at 50 Pascals

AFUE Annual fuel utilization efficiency

AHU Air handler unit

BEopt Building Energy Optimization (software)

EF Energy factor

HVAC Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

PV Photovoltaic

RESNET Residential Energy Services Network

SEER Seasonal energy efficiency ratio

SHGC Solar heat gain coefficient
viii

Executive Summary

K. Hovnanian Homes constructed a 2,253-ft2 single-story slab-on-grade ranch house for an 

occupied test house (new construction) in Roseville, California. IBACOS conducted one year of

monitoring and analysis that focused on the effectiveness of the space conditioning system at 

maintaining acceptable temperature and relative humidity levels in several rooms of this home, 

as well as room-to-room differences and the actual measured energy consumption by the space 

conditioning system. More specifically, the purpose of the monitoring was to evaluate and 

demonstrate the energy and indoor environmental quality benefits for a centrally located heating, 

ventilation, and air conditioning system integrated with the bulkhead attic configuration. The 

IBACOS research team began the long-term monitoring and analysis after the home was 

occupied in February 2012 and continued through January 2013. 

This home is representative of most of the housing types this builder constructs in its Northern 

California division and has the air handler unit and ducts relocated to inside the thermal 

boundary. The unit was relocated from the attic to a mechanical closet, and the ductwork was 

located inside an insulated and air-sealed bulkhead in the attic. 

To describe the performance and comfort in the home, the research team selected representative 

design days and extreme days from the annual data for analysis. To ensure that temperature 

differences were within reasonable occupant expectations, the team followed guidance from Air 

Conditioning Contractors of America Manual RS by Rutkowski (1997).

At the end of the monitoring period, the occupant of the home reported there were no comfort 

complaints in the home. The variance between the modeled heating and cooling energy and the

actual amounts used can be attributed to the variance in temperatures at the thermostat from the 

modeled inputs. 
1 

1 Introduction and Background

Results discussed in this report follow the performance of the short-term monitoring results for 

an occupied test house (new construction) in Roseville, California, as described by Stecher et al.

(2013). Monitoring and analysis described in this long-term monitoring report focused on the 

effectiveness of the space conditioning system at maintaining acceptable temperature and 

relative humidity levels in several rooms of the home, as well as room-to-room differences and 

the actual measured energy consumption by the space conditioning system. The IBACOS 

research team began the long-term monitoring and analysis after the home was occupied in 

February 2012 and continued monitoring through January 2013. The home was occupied by one 

or two individuals at different times during the long-term monitoring period. 

The builder, K. Hovnanian Homes, constructed a ranch-style house in Roseville, California 

(Figure 1). This 2,253-ft2 single-story slab-on-grade ranch house has three bedrooms and two 

bathrooms and is representative of most of the housing types this builder constructs in its 

Northern California division. Table 1 lists the house specifications. 

Figure 1. Front view of the test house
2

Table 1. Test House Specifications

Concrete Slab R-7.5 Vertical Slab Edge Insulation

Exterior Walls 2 × 4 16-in. on center R-15 with R-3 sheathing

Roof

Attic floor R-49 with radiant barrier, with built-in 

bulkhead to accommodate ductwork below 

insulation and raised heel trusses

Exterior Doors R-4

Windows U = 0.28; SHGC = 0.26

Building Airtightness 2.45 ACH50 tested; 

1.7 ACH50 target

Mechanical Ventilation Air Cycler VS into return duct with Air Cycler 

Smart Exhaust switch in bathrooms

Heating 95% AFUE natural gas furnace located in the 

mechanical closet in the master bedroom closet

Cooling 16 SEER

Ductwork

R-6 in conditioned bulkhead, R-8 in unconditioned 

space buried under R-49 insulation; 2.4% total 

leakage compared to fan flow as measured by 

RESNET duct tightness procedure

Water Heater Tankless, gas, 0.94 EF

Appliances ENERGY STAR® refrigerator and dishwasher

Lighting 80% fluorescent

PV System 2.4 kW

% Better Than Building 

America House Simulation 

Protocols (Hendron and 

Engebrecht 2010)

31.9% without PV system;

57.5% with PV system

ACH50 is air changes per hour at 50 Pascals. AFUE is annual fuel utilization efficiency. EF is 

energy factor. PV is photovoltaic. RESNET is Residential Energy Service Network 

(www.resnet.us). SEER is seasonal energy efficiency ratio. SHGC is solar heat gain coefficient.

The heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) space conditioning system efficiency 

ratings for the furnace and cooling equipment are 95% AFUE and 16 SEER, respectively. A high 

percentage of AFUE and a high SEER rating value indicate greater efficiency of the equipment. 

In this case, the specified 95% AFUE and 16 SEER are near the upper end of efficiency for a 

natural gas furnace and electric air-conditioning equipment. 

The air handling unit (AHU) typically is located in the unconditioned area of the attic, where it is 

exposed to extreme temperatures throughout the year. In this home, the AHU was relocated from 

the unconditioned attic to a central location inside the conditioned space of the home, with 

ductwork located mostly within the thermal barrier through the construction of an insulated 

bulkhead inside the attic. The bulkhead and any ducts penetrating outside the bulkhead are 

covered with R-49 loose-fill insulation. Locating the AHU centrally within the home and the 

ductwork inside conditioned space will mitigate the impact of the attic temperature extremes and 

will allow the system to operate more efficiently.
3

IBACOS selected all registers for the design airflows and room sizes with face velocities in the

range of 400 ft per minute and noise criteria at NC20. Registers are located in the ceiling, toward

the interior of rooms, allowing for a central compact duct system.

To gather data for the study of the effectiveness of the space conditioning system at maintaining 

acceptable temperature and relative humidity levels, as well as room-to-room differences and the 

temperature distribution within a given room, the research team placed sensors throughout the 

home. Figure 2 shows the sensor locations, as well as the duct layout and supply register 

locations. 

Figure 2. Floor plan showing sensor locations, duct layout, and supply register locations
4

To ensure that temperature differences would be within reasonable occupant expectations, the 

research team followed guidance from ACCA Manual RS by Rutkowski (1997). Although air 

temperature is only one factor in measuring overall thermal comfort (ASHRAE 2010), 

Rittelmann (2008) found that, in well-insulated homes with low-e windows, air temperature and 

mean radiant temperature track fairly closely, except when the windows are experiencing direct 

solar gain. Therefore, the team did not measure mean radiant temperature in this study.
5

2 Research Questions

Improvements to the building enclosure (e.g., increased levels of insulation, efficient windows, 

and air sealing) can help reduce the heating and cooling demands in a home and therefore 

potentially reduce the size of the HVAC equipment and the number of zones needed to condition 

the home. Appropriately sizing the HVAC equipment based on the reduced loads will help the 

system run more efficiently and will provide a more comfortable indoor environment. Locating 

the furnace centrally within the home will eliminate the impact of the temperature extremes and 

will allow the system to operate more efficiently. The use of a compact duct system—a compact 

air distribution system that locates the HVAC equipment centrally within the home and uses 

similar-length, shorter duct runs to the interior of the rooms—can maximize performance and 

comfort in an energy-efficient home.

This report addresses the following research questions:

1. How effective is the HVAC system at maintaining acceptable temperature and relative 

humidity levels in several rooms of the house? 

2. How do temperature and relative humidity vary in each measured room from the 

temperature at the thermostat?

3. What is the temperature distribution in each measured room, using ceiling supply 

registers located closer to the center of the house?

4. What is the difference in temperature in the insulated bulkhead cavity compared to the 

uninsulated attic and living space of the house?

5. What are the delivered supply temperatures at each register? Are the ducts in the 

insulated bulkhead cavity performing as if they are in conditioned space?

6. What is the homeowner’s perception of the temperatures and relative humidity levels in 

the house?

7. How does the actual measured energy consumption for heating and cooling compare to 

the projected energy consumption using Building Energy Optimization (BEopt) 

modeling when actual weather and operating conditions are normalized? Is there any 

clear evidence that these differences are caused by weather, occupant behavior, modeling 

errors, or system performance issues?
6

3 Experimental Methods

The IBACOS research team conducted long-term monitoring of this occupied test house from 

February 2012 through January 2013, providing data during the summer cooling and winter 

heating seasons as well as the spring and fall shoulder seasons. For performance analysis, the 

research team chose specific extreme day conditions and design day conditions along with 

annual performance. Table 2 shows the design temperatures, and Table 3 shows the conditions 

for the days of extreme cold, days of extreme hot, design temperature during the heating season,

and design temperature during the cooling season.

Table 2. Design Condition Temperatures

Design Condition Temperature 

(°F)

Heating Design Temperatures 32

Cooling Design Temperatures 97

Table 3. Temperatures for Extreme Days and Design Days

During Long-Term Monitoring

Date Temperature 

(°F)

Cold Extreme Day January 13, 2013 22.5

Hot Extreme Day August 13, 2012 109.3

10-Day Span Design Heating December 30, 2012 33.4

10-Day Span Design Cooling August 21, 2012 96.9

As Table 3 shows, January 13, 2013 was the coldest measured day (while the home was 

occupied), with an outdoor temperature of 22.5°F. August 13, 2012 was the hottest measured 

day, with an outside temperature of 109.3°F. December 30, 2012 was within design conditions 

during the heating season; the outside low temperature was 33.4°F. August 21, 2012 was within 

design conditions during the cooling season; the outside high temperature was 96.9°F.

Rutkowski (1997) indicates dry-bulb temperature variances from the thermostat setting during 

the cooling season as measured at the thermostat to be ± 3°F. Similarly, the temperature during 

the heating season in any room should be ± 2°F of the thermostat set temperature. Room-to-room 

temperature differences or floor-to-floor temperature differences should be no greater than 4°F in 

the heating season and no greater than 6°F in the cooling season. Although air temperature is 

only one factor in measuring overall thermal comfort (ASHRAE 2010), Rittelmann (2008) found 

that, in well-insulated houses with low-e windows, air temperature and mean radiant temperature 

track fairly closely, except when the windows are experiencing direct solar gain. Therefore, the 

research team did not measure mean radiant temperature in this study.
7

Referencing Figure 2, the temperature distribution using ceiling supply registers located closer to 

the center of the home was measured by placing sensors 52 in. above the finished floor on an 

interior wall and an exterior wall to track the uniformity across the space. The thermostat set 

point is correlated by the temperature sensor placed next to the thermostat.

To study the similarity of conditions in the bulkhead to the conditioned space and ventilated attic 

space, the research team placed temperature and relative humidity sensors in the unconditioned 

attic space and at the floor of the bulkhead. They also located temperature sensors within the 

supply plenum and at both a register in the family room and a register in the dining room to 

determine the magnitude of loss or gain in the ducts located inside the insulated bulkhead.

The team monitored electricity consumption by the AHU and outdoor unit, along with the 

generated electricity from the PV system, the amount of electricity fed into the grid, and the 

amount of electricity drawn from the grid. The team also monitored natural gas consumption 

from the furnace and hot water usage. 
8

4 Results and Discussion

The IBACOS research team evaluated data from design condition days and extreme condition 

days to determine the effectiveness of the HVAC system at maintaining acceptable temperature 

and relative humidity levels during both the heating and cooling seasons. In this section, 

temperature distributions within rooms using ceiling supply registers located closer to the center 

of the home are plotted on an annual basis. The occupants’ perceptions of the comfort conditions 

in the home are described, and the actual measured energy consumption for heating and cooling 

is compared to the projected energy consumption using BEopt when actual weather and 

operating conditions are normalized.

4.1 Thermostat Set Points

The research team based the BEopt modeling and the HVAC design on the interior temperatures 

of 70°F for the heating season and 75°F for the cooling season. By examining the data from the 

sensor located next to the thermostat, the research team drew some conclusions about how the 

HVAC system was being controlled. The histograms in Figure 3 show that, during the winter 

heating season, the temperatures were mostly at or lower than the design temperature, reducing 

the impact on the HVAC system energy use; for the summer cooling season, the lower set points 

increased the impact on the system. 

Figure 3. Histograms of temperatures at the thermostat

4.2 Heating Season Design Day System Effectiveness

Figure 4 shows the outdoor and room temperatures for a 10-day span around the day chosen by 

the research team as a representative heating design temperature day—December 30, 2012. On 

that day, the outdoor low temperature reached 33.4°F. The thermostat was steady, with a daily 

average of 67.5°F.
9

Figure 4. Room-to-room and outdoor temperatures for a 10-day span around the 

heating design temperature day of December 30, 2012

Room-to-room relative humidity values for the 10-day span around the heating design day 

conditions on December 30, 2012 (Figure 5) are closely aligned and well within the comfort 

criteria, even when the outdoor conditions are high humidity. 

Figure 5. Room-to-room and outdoor relative humidity for a 10-day span around the 

heating design day of December 30, 2012

On the day the research team identified as an extreme cold day—January 13, 2013 (Figure 6)—

the outdoor low temperature dropped to 22.5°F. The thermostat was steady, with a daily average 
10

of 70.2°F and a system runtime of 60%. When the research team examined room-to-room 

variation for the extreme cold day, January 13, 2013, two rooms fell outside the ± 2°F criteria set 

recommended by Rutkowski (1997), being on the warm side. The kitchen ran above the comfort 

criteria band most of the daytime hours, with the greatest spread of 2.7°F occurring at 5:00 p.m.

Figure 6. January 13, 2013 extreme cold day temperature variation from the thermostat

4.3 Cooling Season Distribution Effectiveness

Figure 7 shows the outdoor and room temperatures for a 10-day span around the day chosen by 

the research team as a representative cooling design temperature day—August 21, 2012. On that 

day, the outdoor high temperature reached 96.9°F. The thermostat was steady, with a daily 

average of 74.8°F and a system runtime of 35%. When the team examined the room-to-room 

temperature variation for the cooling design day conditions, the temperatures of all rooms fell 

within the ± 3°F criteria set by Rutkowski (1997), with the exception of the master bedroom for a 

brief time during the morning setback time. 
11

Figure 7. Room-to-room and outdoor temperatures for a 10-day span around the 

cooling design temperature day of August 21, 2012

Room-to-room relative humidity values for the cooling design day conditions on August 21, 

2012 (Figure 8) are closely aligned, below the outdoor relative humidity and well within the 50% 

comfort criteria.

Figure 8. Room-to-room and outdoor relative humidity for a 10-day span around the 

cooling design day of August 21, 2012

On the day identified by the research team as an extreme hot day, August 13, 2012 (Figure 9),

the outdoor high temperature reached 109.3°F, with the thermostat steady at a daily average of 
12 

72.1°F and a system runtime of 37%. Even with a long setback time of 4:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., 

the temperature at the thermostat rose by only 6°F. When the research team examined the roomto-room temperature variation for the extreme hot day conditions, the temperatures of all rooms 

fell within the ± 3°F criteria set by Rutkowski (1997), after the equipment caught up from the 

long setback time of 4:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. 

Figure 9. August 13, 2012 extreme hot day temperature variation from the thermostat

4.4 Register Location Effectiveness

The temperature distributions within the four rooms with dual sensors (one interior and one 

exterior) are plotted in Figure 10 through Figure 13, showing that ceiling supply registers located 

closer to the center of the room are properly supplying and mixing the conditioned air. Stecher et 

al. (2013) reported the short-term monitoring results for this home and discussed how 

stratification is avoided by the mixing properties of the registers.
13

Figure 10. Temperature distribution from the den southeast wall to the northwest wall

Figure 11. Temperature distribution from the Bedroom 3 northeast wall to the southeast wall
14

Figure 12. Temperature distribution from the master bedroom southeast wall to the southwest wall

Figure 13. Temperature distribution from the Bedroom 2 northeast wall to the southeast wall

4.5 Inverted Insulated Bulkhead Performance

The research team measured the performance of the insulated inverted attic bulkhead by the 

temperature differences between the bulkhead, the attic, and the living space of the home, along 

with the temperature difference of the air being delivered through the ducts in the bulkhead. 

Figure 14 shows the variation between the temperatures in the bulkhead, in the attic, and at the 

thermostat for the extreme cold day of January 13, 2013. The bulkhead temperatures were 

running much closer to the living space temperatures, showing the ductwork was being isolated 

from the attic temperature extremes. 
15

Figure 14. Attic bulkhead and thermostat temperature variation around the 

January 13, 2013 extreme cold day

Figure 15 shows the temperature difference of the heated supply air being delivered through the 

ducts from the supply plenum to the family room and dining room registers in the bulkhead. The 

largest difference between the plenum and register is 1.5°F in the family room register, with 

more of the duct outside the bulkhead and exposed to the attic extremes. 

Figure 15. Supply air temperature during the morning hours of the 

extreme cold day of January 13, 2013

80

85

90

95

100

105

110

4:00 AM5:00 AM6:00 AM7:00 AM8:00 AM9:00 AM

10:00 AM

Temperature (F)

Time

Dining Register

Family Register

Supply at Plenum
16

Figure 16 shows the variations between the temperatures in the bulkhead, in the attic, and at the 

thermostat for the extreme hot day of August 13, 2012. The bulkhead temperatures were running 

much closer to the living space temperatures, showing the ductwork was being isolated from the 

attic temperature extremes.

Figure 16. Attic bulkhead and thermostat temperature variation around the

August 13, 2012 extreme hot day

Figure 17 shows the temperature difference of the cooled supply air being delivered through the 

ducts from the supply plenum to the family room and dining room registers in the bulkhead. The 

largest difference between the plenum and register is 1.5°F in both registers. 
17

Figure 17. Supply air temperature during the morning hours of the 

extreme hot day of August 13, 2012

4.6 Occupant Feedback

At the end of the monitoring period, the occupant reported there were no comfort complaints in 

the home. The programmable thermostat was used with weekend days set cooler than weekdays. 

Early design concerns regarding any noise associated with the AHU being relocated from the 

attic to a closet in the conditioned space were not an issue; the occupant reported hearing only 

the outside equipment running. The occupant also reported that the utility bills during the cooling 

season were slightly higher than anticipated but not to the level to raise a complaint.

4.7 Energy Use

The research team used BEopt Version 1.3 to model the yearly source energy usage for the 

home, using the characteristics of the home and the Building America House Simulation 

Protocols (Hendron and Engebrecht 2010). The model assumed one occupant in the bedroom and 

one occupant in the living area. The team converted the measured energy of four major 

subcategories—heating; cooling; hot water; and lighting, appliances, and miscellaneous 

electrical loads—to source energy and compared that to the model output, as shown in Figure 18.

No monitoring was in place to separate the lighting, large appliances, or vent fan from the 

miscellaneous loads; however, the combined values closely match the model.
18

Figure 18. Predicted and actual energy consumption for one year (MBtu)

The differences between the modeled energy use for heating and cooling can largely be 

attributed to the varying occupant load and the thermostat set points varying from the 

modeled inputs, as previously shown in Figure 3. The categories of lights, large appliances, and 

vent fan from the model were not monitored as part of this project and are included in the 

miscellaneous category. 

164.1 

101.3

116.2

 -

 20.0

 40.0

 60.0

 80.0

 100.0

 120.0

 140.0

 160.0

 180.0

BAB Model Consumption

Source Energy (Mbtu)

Cooling

Heating

HVAC

Fan/Pump

Hot Water

Lights

Lg. Appl.

Vent Fan

Misc.
19

5 Conclusions

In this study, the room-to-room temperatures of the test house during the design and extreme 

heating and cooling days were largely within the comfort band set forth in ACCA Manual RS by 

Rutkowski (1997). The relative humidity conditions were below 50% year round, which is an 

acceptable level for the climate zone. 

The inverted attic bulkhead, air sealed and insulated, isolated the ductwork from the attic 

extremes. According to the occupants’ feedback, relocating the AHU from the attic to a closet in 

conditioned space had no adverse noise effects. The occupants reported being generally 

comfortable and pleased with the performance of the home.

The actual energy use for heating and cooling was higher than the results modeled by BEopt and 

can be attributed to the variance in the measured temperatures shown in Figure 3 from the 75°F

heating and 70°F cooling values used in modeling. The combined water heating, lighting, vent 

fan, and miscellaneous electric loads closely matched the model. 
20 

References

ASHRAE (2010). ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55-2010, Thermal Environmental Conditions for 

Human Occupancy. Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE. 

BEopt. Building Energy Optimization with Hour-by-Hour Simulations, Version 1.3. Golden, 

CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Hendron, R.; Engebrecht, C. (2010). NREL/TP-550-49426. Building America House Simulation 

Protocols. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 

Rittelmann, W.D. (2008). Thermal Comfort Performance: Field Investigation of a Residential 

Forced-Air Heating and Cooling System with High Sidewall Supply Air Outlets. Building 

Enclosure Science and Technology Conference, June 10–12, 2008. 

http://best1.thebestconference.org/pdfs/045.pdf. Accessed December 27, 2012. 

Rutkowski, H. (1997). Manual RS—Comfort, Air Quality, and Efficiency by Design. Arlington, 

VA: Air Conditioning Contractors of America. 

Stecher, D.; Brozyna, K.; Imm, C. (2013). Short-Term Monitoring Results for Advanced New 

Construction Test House—Roseville, California. Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory. NREL/SR-5500-58086. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/58086.pdf. 
DOE/GO-102013-4021 ▪ October 2013

Printed with a renewable-source ink on paper containing at 

least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post-consumer waste.