Solar Decathlon 2002:

The Event in Review

Mark Eastment

Sheila Hayter

Ruby Nahan

Byron Stafford

Cécile Warner

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Ed Hancock

Mountain Energy Partnership

René Howard

WordProse, Inc.

U.S. Department of Energy

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

T OF ENERGY

DEPARTMEN

U

E

NITED STAT S OFA

ERICA

M
Solar Decathlon 2002:

The Event in Review

Mark Eastment

Sheila Hayter

Ruby Nahan

Byron Stafford

Cécile Warner

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Ed Hancock

Mountain Energy Partnership

René Howard

WordProse, Inc.

U.S. Department of Energy

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

T OF ENERGY

DEPARTMEN

U

E

NITED STAT S OFA

ERICA

M
ii

Acknowledgments

The 2002 Solar Decathlon was made possible under the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s Solar Technologies Program. DOE partnered with the National Renewable

Energy Laboratory (NREL—a DOE laboratory), BP Solar, The Home Depot, EDS (Electronic Data Systems), 

and the American Institute of Architects to sponsor the event. The dedication and hard work of the 

14 pioneering teams from colleges and universities across the United States made the event a success. The

authors appreciate the support and guidance of Richard King, the Solar Decathlon Competition Director 

and Photovoltaics Team Leader in the Solar Program, who also provided critical review for this document.

The authors also thank Greg Barker (Mountain Energy Partnership), George Douglas (NREL), Dan Eberle

(Formula Sun), Robi Robichaud (NREL), and Norm Weaver (InterWeaver) for their contributions and reviews.

Henry Hollander/PIX13297

As the sun sets on the last day of Solar Decathlon 2002, Competition Director Richard King and Solar Decathlon Project

Manager Cécile Warner pause for a photo with representatives from the teams that worked so hard to make the inaugural

event and competition an enormous success.
iii

Table of Contents

List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................................iv

List of Tables...............................................................................................................................................................iv

List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................................v

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................................vi

Message from the Competition Director.............................................................................................................ix

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................1

The Big Event ..............................................................................................................................................................4

Why a Solar Decathlon? .........................................................................................................................................15

From Concept to Reality.........................................................................................................................................18

Getting to Washington, D.C., and Away ............................................................................................................28

The Ten Contests.......................................................................................................................................................40

Scoring...........................................................................................................................................................................40

Monitoring ....................................................................................................................................................................41

Officials, Judges, and Observers....................................................................................................................................42

The Competition Schedule ...........................................................................................................................................44

Design and Livability ....................................................................................................................................................44

Design Presentation and Simulation ............................................................................................................................48

Graphics and Communications....................................................................................................................................53

The Comfort Zone.........................................................................................................................................................58

Refrigeration ..................................................................................................................................................................62

Hot Water ......................................................................................................................................................................64

Energy Balance ..............................................................................................................................................................69

Lighting .........................................................................................................................................................................72

Home Business ..............................................................................................................................................................76

Getting Around .............................................................................................................................................................79

Appendices..................................................................................................................................................................83

A. Details by Team.........................................................................................................................................................84

Auburn University ....................................................................................................................................................84 

Carnegie Mellon........................................................................................................................................................86 

Crowder College........................................................................................................................................................88

Texas A&M University ............................................................................................................................................. 90

Tuskegee University ................................................................................................................................................. 92

University of Colorado at Boulder .......................................................................................................................... 94

University of Delaware ............................................................................................................................................ 96

University of Maryland.............................................................................................................................................98 

University of Missouri–Rolla and The Rolla Technical Institute ...........................................................................100 

University of North Carolina at Charlotte.............................................................................................................102 

University of Puerto Rico........................................................................................................................................104 

University of Texas at Austin..................................................................................................................................106 

University of Virginia .............................................................................................................................................108

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University...............................................................................................110

B. Example Review of Design Report..........................................................................................................................113

C. List of Monitoring Instruments..............................................................................................................................119

D. The Competition Schedule.....................................................................................................................................120

E. Relevant Sections of the Solar Decathlon 2002 Regulations .................................................................................122

F. Sample Contest Diary and Newsletter.....................................................................................................................127
iv

List of Figures

Figure 1. Solar Decathlon Schedule...............................................................................................................................3

Figure 2. Solar Village Map............................................................................................................................................5

List of Tables

Table 1. Scoring Example

Hot Water Contest, Innovation, Consumer Appeal, and Integration of System .......................................40

Table 2. Scoring Example

Measurement-Based Contest Component...................................................................................................41

Table 3. Possible Penalties for Design and Livability................................................................................................47

Table 4. Penalties Assessed in Design and Livability ................................................................................................47

Table 5. Final Results for Design and Livability........................................................................................................48

Table 6. Points Available for the Simulation Part of Design Presentation and Simulation.....................................50

Table 7. Final Results for Design Presentation and Simulation................................................................................51

Table 8. Final Results for Graphics and Communications .......................................................................................56

Table 9. Performance Measures and Points Available for The Comfort Zone..........................................................59

Table 10. Final Results for The Comfort Zone ............................................................................................................60

Table 11. Performance Measures and Points Available for Refrigeration...................................................................62

Table 12. Possible Penalties for Refrigeration .............................................................................................................63

Table 13. Final Results for Refrigeration .....................................................................................................................64

Table 14. Performance Measure and Points Available for Hot Water.........................................................................66

Table 15. Possible Penalties for Hot Water..................................................................................................................67

Table 16. Penalties Applied to Hot Water ...................................................................................................................68

Table 17. Final Results for Hot Water..........................................................................................................................69

Table 18. Possible Penalties for Energy Balance...................................................................................................................71

Table 19. Penalties Applied to Energy Balance ...........................................................................................................71

Table 20. Final Results for Energy Balance..................................................................................................................72

Table 21. Lighting Levels by Location ........................................................................................................................73

Table 22. Performance Measures and Points Available for Lighting: Light-Level Requirements by Location ..........73

Table 23. Performance Measures and Points Available for Lighting: Continuous Light-Level Requirements ..........73

Table 24. Points Available for Subjective Component of Lighting ............................................................................74

Table 25. Final Results for Lighting.............................................................................................................................75

Table 26. Scoring and Points Available for Home Business....................................................................................................77

Table 27. Possible Penalties for Home Business..................................................................................................................77

Table 28. Penalties Applied to Home Business ...........................................................................................................78

Table 29. Final Results for Home Business..................................................................................................................78

Table 30. Predetermined Routes and Mileage Credits Available for Getting Around................................................80

Table 31. Final Results for Getting Around.................................................................................................................81
v

List of Abbreviations

AC alternating current

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

AGM absorbed glass mat

AH ampere-hour

AIA American Institute of Architects

ASES American Solar Energy Society

BET Black Entertainment Television

C Celsius

cm centimeter

CMU concrete masonry unit

DC direct current

DHW domestic hot water

DIY Do-It-Yourself Network

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

EDS Electronic Data Systems

EERE DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy

ERV energy recovery ventilator

F Fahrenheit

FEMP Federal Energy Management Program

ft foot, feet

ft2 square foot, square feet

ft3 cubic foot, cubic feet

FTP file transfer protocol

g gram

gal gallon

HVAC heating, ventilation, and air conditioning

IALD International Association of Lighting 

Designers

IBC International Building Code

IFC International Fire Code

IMC International Mechanical Code

in. inch

IRC International Residential Code

ISES International Solar Energy Society

kg kilogram, kilograms

kW kilowatt

kWh kilowatt-hour

L liter

lb pound, pounds

lx Lux

m meter

m2 square meter, square meters

m3 cubic meter, cubic meters

mL milliliter

mph miles per hour

MSDS Material Safety and Data Sheet

MRI Midwest Research Institute

MW megawatt

NCPV National Center for Photovoltaics

NEC National Electric Code

NFPA National Fire Protection Association

Nm Newton meter

NPR National Public Radio

NPS National Park Service

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

P.E. Professional Engineer

PV photovoltaics (solar electricity)

RFP request for proposals

RH relative humidity

RV recreational vehicle

SIP structurally integrated panel

STC standard test condition

UFC Uniform Fire Code

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

V Volt

VMS Video Monitoring Service

W Watt

WAAC Washington-Alexandria Architecture Center
vi

I

n the fall of 2002, 14 teams from colleges and universities across the United States, including Puerto

Rico, came together to demonstrate sophisticated

technological solutions to the energy demands of the

new century. These teams competed in the first-ever

Solar Decathlon, a competition designed to serve as a

living demonstration of new, environmentally sound,

and cost-effective technologies that meet modern

energy demands. The United States Department of

Energy (DOE), its National Renewable Energy

Laboratory (NREL), and private-sector partners BP

Solar, The Home Depot, EDS (Electronic Data Systems),

and the American Institute of Architects developed

and sponsored this challenging new competition. 

The Solar Decathlon required teams to design and build

small, energy-efficient, completely solar-powered houses

and to compete side-by-side in 10 contests. The energy

source for each house was limited to the solar energy

incident on the house during the competition. The

2002 event took place from September 26 to October

6, 2002, on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.

The Mall is a national stage, ideal for a demonstration

as important as the Solar Decathlon, but necessitates

the transport of each solar home to Washington, D.C.,

from its home campus and back again after the event,

at considerable expense. A host of regulations designed

to protect this national treasure forbade excavation,

limited building size and height, mandated handicapped accessibility, and limited the entire event

(arrival, assembly, competition, disassembly, and

departure) to 21 days.

Entries for the Solar Decathlon were selected through

proposals, which were solicited in October 2000. Evaluations were based on the following criteria: technical

innovation and content, organization and project

planning, curriculum integration, and fund raising.

The 14 teams selected in 2001 to participate in the

2002 competition were:

• Auburn University 

• Carnegie Mellon 

• Crowder College 

• Texas A&M University 

• Tuskegee University 

• University of Colorado at Boulder 

• University of Delaware 

• University of Maryland 

• University of Missouri–Rolla and The Rolla 

Technical Institute 

• University of North Carolina at Charlotte 

• University of Puerto Rico 

• University of Texas at Austin 

• University of Virginia 

• Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. 

Experts in building energy use and solar energy technologies at NREL comprised the group of official

organizers. To develop the rules for the competition,

the organizers established a set of priorities to help

determine what the 10 contests should encompass. 

As a critical part of the competition, the organizers

placed emphasis on dwelling livability, aesthetics of

structure and components, and integration of dwelling

with energy systems. The Design and Livability contest judged integration and synthesis of design and

technology into a livable and delightful domestic

environment. Competition homes were also required

to be well designed from an engineering point of view,

to be structurally sound, and to comply with all applicable codes and standards. The Design Presentation

and Simulation contest evaluated the production of 

an imaginative and thorough set of documents that

illustrated the construction of the building and the

simulation of its annual energy performance. 

In addition to aesthetics and good engineering, each

house was required to supply all the energy needed 

for its occupants to survive and prosper in today’s

society—including energy for a household and a home

business and the transportation needs of the household and business. Most of the Solar Decathlon contests were designed to quantify energy production 

and productive output and to encourage both energy

efficiency and the abundance of energy a modern

lifestyle requires. The competition houses were

required to provide hot water (Hot Water contest) 

for domestic needs and all the electricity for lighting

(Lighting contest), heating and cooling (The Comfort

Zone contest), household appliances (Refrigeration

contest) and electronic appliances (Home Business

contest)—in short, life with all the modern conveniences. The Energy Balance contest required that the

teams use only the amount of energy their systems

could produce during the event. 

Executive Summary
vii

The organizers could not ignore the role of domestic

transportation in this competition. Although there are

public transportation options, the use of a car is an

integral part of our society; therefore, the organizers

included the Getting Around contest to demonstrate 

a solar-powered vehicle option. 

The organizers also believed that the story of these

solar homes should be told by the competitors.

Delivering a compelling message about delightful

design, energy efficiency, and solar energy to the 

public audience was a critical consideration in 

designing the regulations, and resulted in the 

Graphics and Communications contest. 

Each contest was worth a maximum of 100 points,

except Design and Livability, which was worth 200

points. Penalties were assessed for non-performance 

of a required activity and for rules violations. The 

Ten Contests chapter provides greater detail about 

the contests, including final results for each.

From the moment of arrival on the National Mall at

midnight on September 19, 2002, to the final departure on October 9, more than 100,000 people visited

the Solar Decathlon event. The event received extensive coverage by the national media—well-deserved

coverage, because there was a great deal to see. Each

team’s home included a kitchen, living room, bedroom, bathroom, and home office, with a minimum

of 450 ft2 (41.8 m2) of conditioned space within a

maximum building footprint of 800 ft2 (74.3 m2).

Though they shared these common requirements, 

the home designs for this first-ever Solar Decathlon

varied widely, from traditional to contemporary.

Beyond sophisticated energy systems, many homes

were beautifully finished and furnished inside and

out, with thoughtful integration of design aesthetics,

consumer appeal, and creature comfort. For details

about each team’s house and individual team competition results, see Appendix A. 

Each participating team invested a tremendous amount

of time, money, passion, and creativity into this competition to be present in Washington. Teams were

composed of architects, engineers, designers, communicators, fundraisers, and builders. Each team was a

winner in some significant way. Many overcame

daunting obstacles, such as having to ship the entry

from Puerto Rico by boat, or having a section of the

home fall off the truck en route. The overall winner 

of the competition, the University of Colorado, used 

a strategy of dependable technologies. Whereas the

competition encouraged innovation, the limited duration of the event left little room for equipment failures or system malfunctions. The Colorado team 

performed well in many of the 10 contests. They used

a large (7.5 kW) photovoltaic (PV) array. Furthermore,

the team understood the energy flows in the house well,

having performed a very comprehensive modeling of the

home. The University of Virginia placed second, and

Auburn University placed third overall in the competition. For more information about the awards received

by each of the teams, see The Big Event chapter.

Most teams used crystalline silicon PV modules to provide electricity from the sun. Installed peak capacity

ranged from 4 kW to 8 kW. The only limitation on PV

system size imposed by the regulations was the maximum footprint limitation of 800 ft2 (74.3 m2) on all

solar and shading components. Two teams used thinfilm PV, and one of those (Crowder College) integrated

its solar hot water system with the PV to absorb the

sun’s heat and collect waste heat from the PV modules

for heating hot water. 

NREL staff and contractors instrumented each home

and measured and recorded various energy flows,

lighting levels, and other data during the event. The

Solar Decathlon “solar village” on the Mall was connected via a wireless network for data acquisition and

Internet connectivity, allowing the organizers, the

teams, and the public to monitor the results of the

competition in near real-time. Measurements confirmed the organizers’ expectations; the major electrical energy-using contests were The Comfort Zone,

Refrigeration, and Getting Around. Only electrical

energy was factored into the measurement of energy

to perform a specific task during the competition. 

To encourage teams to use thermal energy rather than

electricity wherever applicable, thermal solar energy

was not measured. The week of September 29–

October 6, the week of intense contest activities, was

hotter and more humid than typical for early October,

challenging air-conditioning systems, but not heating

systems. Throughout the competition, all teams

responded to the meteorological conditions, developing strategies and making trade-offs to improve their

chances of winning. 

Each team had a plan for its Solar Decathlon home

after the event. Many of the homes will reside permanently on their respective campuses. Some will serve

as research laboratories, others will be visiting faculty

residences. A few have been or will be sold to recover

costs.

The Solar Decathlon 2002 was a hands-on project for

students and professors of architecture, engineering,

and other disciplines that has created hundreds of

solar practitioners and informed renewable energy

advocates in the United States. The competition 
viii

provided stimulus to the next generation of researchers,

architects, engineers, communicators, and builders as

they prepare for their careers. For many schools, it 

was the first time students of architecture and engineering had ever collaborated. And even though 

several of the participating schools house both disciplines, the schools of architecture and engineering 

are at opposite ends of the campuses, and had rarely

communicated. The organizers believe that these early

collaboration efforts will foster improved interactions

between the two disciplines and will result in better

building designs that integrate solar energy with 

energy efficiency.

The Solar Decathlon not only proved an important

research endeavor in energy efficiency and solar 

energy technologies for future architects, engineers,

and other professionals, it also served as a living

demonstration laboratory for thousands of consumers.

The event had an immediate impact on consumers 

by educating them about the solar energy and energyefficient products that can improve our lives. It may

also drive their future energy and housing decisions. 

The first Solar Decathlon homes certainly will be the

standard against which future Solar Decathlon homes

are judged. They may even be a standard against

which new, sustainable residential buildings should 

be judged. The teams’ homes proved that there are

multiple aesthetic and functional solutions to the

challenge of creating homes powered entirely by the

sun. The students and faculty who participated in the

2002 Solar Decathlon made history, and the organizers

and sponsors are grateful for their passion and their

vision for a robust energy future that runs on clean,

renewable energy. 

Based on the success of this first event, there will be

subsequent Solar Decathlons. The next Solar 

Decathlon will be held in 2005, and another in 

2007. More information is available at the Solar

Decathlon Web site: http://www.solardecathlon.org/.
ix

Message from the Competition Director

If you could design the house of the future, what would it look like? Where would its energy come from?

When would you start such an ambitious endeavor? Clearly, there is a worldwide need for better housing

and cleaner energy. How then, does one find the opportunity to get started, because we need solutions

sooner rather than later.

Competitions accelerate research and development and increase public awareness—the two key ingredients

necessary to accelerate progress. We not only need technical advancements, but we need people to

accept and use them. The two work hand in hand to push designs forward and assimilate them into

society. In the end, everyone benefits.

In 2000 a new competition was created to challenge the best and brightest students to design and build

completely self-sufficient houses that will redefine how people can energize their lives. The process of

creating the houses was a 2-year effort. The Solar Decathlon competition, held in front of the Capitol

on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., was designed to demonstrate the results of that effort. The

first event was hugely successful in motivating students and faculty to compete, and it provided a 

historical event that captured the attention of the nation. 

This publication records the accomplishments of 

the 14 pioneering teams that participated in the 

first Solar Decathlon. It will be used to pass on 

the results and achievements of the first set of 

competitors to the next, who will design houses 

for the 2005 Solar Decathlon. Each successive 

competition will improve on the original set of 

designs, thus ensuring that progress continues.

From all the participants and authors who helped

make this publication possible, we hope it helps 

you start building a better future.

Sincerely,

Richard King

Richard King

Warren Gretz/PIX12514

DOE PV Team Leader Richard King (right), who conceived

and directed the Solar Decathlon, and DOE Solar Program

Manager Ray Sutula (center) accept the 5th Paul Rappaport

Award for the Solar Decathlon and the organizer team 

that made it possible from National Center for

Photovoltaics (NCPV) Director Larry Kazmerski (left).

Kazmerski lauded the Solar Decathlon as “an event that

was key to elevating PV and solar technology to a bigger

audience.” 
T he National Mall in Washington, D.C., was home

to a first-of-its-kind event when 14 teams of

college students competed to design, build, 

and operate the most effective and energy-efficient,

completely solar-powered house in the fall of 2002. 

The solar decathletes were challenged to capture, 

convert, store, and use enough solar energy to power

our modern lifestyle, designing and building their

homes to supply all the energy needs of an entire

household (including a home-based business and 

the transportation needs of the household and the

business). During the event, which ran from 

September 26 to October 6, 2002, only the solar energy

available within the perimeter of each house could be

used to generate the power needed to compete in the

10 Solar Decathlon contests. The Solar Decathlon is an

international competition open to students enrolled

in all postsecondary levels of education. The next

competition will be held in the fall of 2005 on the

National Mall.

More than 100,000 visitors came to see the first-ever Solar

Decathlon on the National Mall.

The caliber of students and faculty who comprised the

14 teams was outstanding. The teams’ efforts got under

way during the fall of 2000, when they began to prepare proposals for participation in the competition—

a competition such as none of the teams (or organizers

or sponsors for that matter) had experienced before.

During the 2 years that passed between proposals and

the competition, teams designed and constructed their

houses, then transported them to the Mall, where the

houses were assembled for the competition, then 

disassembled and transported back “home” for

reassembly in a permanent installation. Team members

came and went throughout those 2 years, and a few

teams saw changes in faculty leadership as well. Teams

had different levels of community support and had

different levels of expertise and experience. But every

team had at least two things in common: First, the

teams were made up of incredible students and faculty

who dedicated seemingly endless hours of work to 

the project. Second, and most importantly, the teams

gained experience with design strategies and technologies that will ensure a future in which energy is

cleaner and more reliable. And the teams shared that

experience with their communities, however large or

small. No matter what a team’s final standing in the

competition, there can be no doubt that all the students and faculty involved made a difference in the

future of humankind and the planet we all share.

The Teams

Fourteen teams participated in the 2002 competition:

• Auburn University 

• Carnegie Mellon 

• Crowder College 

• Texas A&M University 

• Tuskegee University 

• University of Colorado at Boulder 

• University of Delaware 

• University of Maryland 

• University of Missouri–Rolla and The Rolla 

Technical Institute 

• University of North Carolina at Charlotte 

• University of Puerto Rico 

• University of Texas at Austin 

• University of Virginia 

• Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. 

The Sponsors

The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Energy

Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) is the primary

sponsor of the Solar Decathlon. EERE’s 11 programs

perform research in and partner with the private sector

to develop solar and other renewable energy and energy

efficiency technologies. DOE’s National Renewable

Energy Laboratory (NREL), which is dedicated to

renewable energy and energy efficiency research, was

also a sponsor. Researchers from NREL’s National

Center for Photovoltaics (NCPV), Center for Buildings

and Thermal Systems, and Office of Communications 

Introduction — 1

Introduction

Warren Gretz/PIX11823
2 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

A young visitor to the Solar Decathlon is curious about BP

Solar’s solar-electric-powered fountain.

were the primary organizers of the competition. BP

Solar, The Home Depot, EDS (Electronic Data Systems),

and The American Institute of Architects (AIA) provided

private-sector sponsorship of the event. BP Solar is at

the forefront of the international solar electric industry, producing more than 50 MW of solar products

each year. The Home Depot is a leading retailer of

energy-efficient consumer products. EDS is a leading

provider of information technology services. AIA is a

professional organization for architects that empowers

its members and inspires creation of a better built

environment.

The Ten Contests

Just as in an athletic decathlon, the teams competed

in 10 contests, outlined in the following list. Each

team could earn as many as 1,100 points. The Design

and Livability contest was worth 200 points; each of 

Solar Decathlon visitors learned about renewable energy

and energy efficiency and the Solar Decathlon wireless

local area network from exhibits provided by The Home

Depot and EDS.

the others was worth 100 points. (For detailed information about each contest, see The Ten Contests

chapter.)

Design and Livability: Have design, innovation, 

aesthetics, and renewable energy technologies been 

successfully integrated into a pleasing domestic 

environment?

Design Presentation and Simulation: Did the 

pre-design drawings, scale models, and computergenerated models effectively illustrate the construction of the house and the simulation of its energy 

performance?

Graphics and Communication: How effective 

were the Web site and newsletters designed by the 

teams, and how effective were the teams’ public 

outreach efforts?

The Comfort Zone: Was the house designed to maintain interior comfort through natural ventilation, 

heating, cooling, and humidity controls while using 

a minimum amount of energy?

Refrigeration: During the contest week, how consistently did the refrigerator and freezer maintain 

interior temperatures while minimizing energy use?

Hot Water: Did the house demonstrate that it could

supply all the energy necessary to heat water for

bathing, laundry, and dishwashing?

Energy Balance: Has the team used only the sun’s 

energy to perform all the tasks of the competition?

Lighting: Was the lighting of the house elegant, of 

high quality, and energy efficient, both day and night?

Home Business: Did the house produce enough 

power to satisfy the energy needs of a small home 

business?

Getting Around: Did the house generate enough 

“extra” energy to transport solar decathletes around 

town in a street legal, commercially available electric 

vehicle?

The Contest Schedule

Just as the athletic decathlon is renowned for its rigor,

the Solar Decathlon required the teams to adhere to 

a rigorous schedule for assembly, competition, and 

disassembly (Figure 1). Teams arrived in Washington,

D.C., on September 18, 2002, and assembly began at

12:01 a.m. on September 19. The Solar Decathlon

Warren Gretz/PIX11771 Warren Gretz/PIX11804
“solar village” was officially opened to the public on

September 26 and remained open from 9:00 a.m. to 

5:00 p.m., daily through October 6. Visitors were able

to tour village exhibits and learn about energy efficiency and solar energy from the Solar Decathlon

teams. As part of the Graphics and Communications

contest, teams guided tours of their houses for the 

visiting public, September 28–29 and October 5–6,

from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. During the 11 days the

village was open to the public, the teams also performed tasks related to the other nine contests. They

hosted tours for the architectural jury (see page 42)

that evaluated the Design and Livability contest. They

cooked meals, washed dishes and laundry, ran errands

in their electric vehicles (charged by their solar electric

systems), answered e-mail, watched movies, and simulated hot showers. In other words, they did the things

we all do in our lives that require energy, only they did

it very efficiently and with only the power of the sun.

Now that you have a basic understanding of the Solar

Decathlon, let’s take a look at how the 2002 competition unfolded.

Introduction — 3

September

19 Thursday–25 Wednesday Construction of Solar Village

Special Events Contests

23 Monday Begin: Graphics and Communications

25 Wednesday 5:00 p.m., Sponsor tours and reception 

(by invitation only)

26 Thursday

9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., 10:00 a.m., Opening Ceremony

Solar Village open

27 Friday

9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Begin: Design Presentation and Simulation

Solar Village open

28 Saturday

9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Begin: Design and Livability

Solar Village open Solar decathlete guided tours

29 Sunday

9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Begin: Getting Around

Solar Village open Solar decathlete guided tours End: Design and Livability

30 Monday Begin: The Comfort Zone, Hot Water, Refrigeration,

9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Energy Balance, Lighting, and Home Business

Solar Village open End: Design Presentation and Simulation

October

Special Events Contests

1 Tuesday–3 Thursday All contests active except Design and Livability and

9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Design Presentation and Simulation

Solar Village open

4 Friday

9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Technology Day; End: 5:00 p.m., All contests except Getting Around 

Solar Village open Area schools tour Solar Village

5 Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Solar decathlete guided tours End: Noon, Getting Around 

9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Noon, Closing Ceremony—winner announced

Solar Village open 6:00 p.m., Victory Reception (by invitation only)

6 Sunday

9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., 

Solar Village open Solar decathlete guided tours

7 Monday–9 Wednesday Disassembly of Solar Village

Figure 1. Solar Decathlon Schedule
4 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

Now that you have a basic introduction to the

Solar Decathlon, let’s skip to the best part—

the competition’s special events, crowds of

spectators and media to rival the Oscars, and, of

course, the competition winners. 

The Opening Reception

Wednesday, September 25, 2002

The Smithsonian Castle, Washington, D.C.

Imagine a world where energy is abundant and available

whenever and wherever you need it. Energy so simple you

hardly know it’s there. Energy that is clean, safe, and

secure. That world is solar, and it’s here today.

Join us as we step into this new world of energy and congratulate our Solar Decathlon participants from 14 universities and colleges for their hard work and enthusiasm in

developing effective solar solutions for homes and home

businesses.

With these inspiring words inscribed in an eye-catching

invitation, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution

Lawrence Small and Secretary of Energy Spencer

Abraham invited the team members, organizers, 

sponsors, judges, and distinguished guests from

around the world to an opening reception sponsored

by BP Solar. Held at the Smithsonian Castle, from 

6:30 to 8:30 p.m. on Wednesday, September 25, 2002,

the reception was within walking distance of the Solar

Decathlon’s solar village on the Mall and served as a

rousing kickoff for the week of competition. Attendees

remarked on the beautiful setting, as well as the outstanding food and drink and the excitement and eager

anticipation that were palpable in the crowd.

In addition to Small, who acted as the hosting federal

dignitary, BP Solar’s CEO, Harry Shimp, attended the

reception, along with the company’s group vice president for Alternative Energy and Renewables, John

Mogford. By sponsoring the Solar Decathlon and the

opening reception, BP Solar hoped “not only to invest

in America’s future by celebrating educational excellence, but also to help promote consumer awareness

of the potential benefits of solar energy.” The company’s representatives believed that allowing the public

to watch the competition and tour the contest homes

would allow them to make more informed decisions

about energy use and today’s energy-saving products.

Leading to the event, BP Solar’s Web page reflected

these values: “Through the Internet and other media,

the decathletes will further extend their newfound

knowledge to communities around the nation and the

world. This exciting demonstration of solar technologies and products will show that we can have both

the modern comforts and the healthy environment

we value.”

The Opening Ceremony

Thursday, September 26, 2002

The Solar Decathlon Solar Village, The National Mall,

Washington, D.C.

Assistant Secretary David Garman welcomes the teams

and distinguished guests to the 2002 Solar Decathlon

Opening Ceremony.

The morning after the opening reception, on Thursday,

September 26, 2002, the Solar Decathlon was officially

opened to the public at a 10:00 a.m. Opening

Ceremony. Despite a light rain, the show went on.

With the more than 200-year-old, classic revival-style

United States Capitol forming a picturesque backdrop,

a crowd of approximately 300 guests, family and

friends, media representatives, and curious spectators

gathered at the solar village. David Garman, DOE’s

Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy, acted as the master of ceremonies. 

Following Assistant Secretary Garman’s opening

remarks, the colors of the United States of America

were presented, and the national anthem was movingly performed by “The President’s Own” United

States Marine Band. Established by an Act of Congress 

The Big Event

Warren Gretz/PIX11732
in 1798, the Marine Band is America’s oldest professional musical organization, with the primary mission

of playing for the President of the United States and

the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Marine Band

musicians appear at the White House more than 200

times each year and participate in more than 500 public

and official performances annually, including concerts

and ceremonies throughout the Washington, D.C.,

metropolitan area. Attendees remarked on what an

honor it was to have the band perform our national

anthem to kick off the Solar Decathlon, and many

reported “goosebumps” during the performance.

Next came welcoming remarks by Energy Secretary

Abraham and brief statements from these dignitaries: 

• Harry Shimp, CEO, BP Solar

• Jonathan Roseman, Director of External Affairs, 

The Home Depot

• Kevin Durkin, Senior Vice President, EDS

• Norman Koonce, CEO, American Institute of 

Architects (AIA)

• Richard Truly, Director, NREL.

The 14 individual teams were then presented, each

introduced by Secretary Abraham. Just in time for the

ribbon cutting on the solar village, the rain stopped,

and all the students ran exuberantly toward their

homes, eager to show them off in the public tours

that followed.

Solar Village Life

Thursday, September 26–Sunday, October 6, 2002

The Solar Decathlon Solar Village, The National Mall,

Washington, D.C.

The solar village didn’t have red carpets or velvetcovered ropes, but it certainly saw crowds to rival 

any glamorous Hollywood event. The response from

the public was overwhelming—more than 100,000 

visitors in 11 days. The solar village was open to 

the public from 9:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. every day

from September 26 through October 6. 

The stretch of grassy land (Figure 2) on which the solar

village was assembled on the National Mall is part of

one of the nation’s great treasures. To the east is the

United States Capitol, to the west, the Washington

Monument. The National Gallery of Art is to the

north and the National Air and Space Museum to the

south. Millions of people walk, jog, bicycle, and drive

by each week. The sight of 14 houses and two large

exhibit tents assembled on the Mall caused a great

deal of curiosity. Visitors had the opportunity to stroll

down the village’s main street, “Decathlete Way,” for 

a good look at the houses, perhaps noting the numbers of the houses they wanted to tour or read more

about in the Competition Program. The village had

outdoor seating areas on the village cross streets—

Solar Street, Technology Street, Energy Street, and

Future Street. Visitors could also get out of the sun

and view exhibits in The Competition Pavilion (115 

on the map) and The Sun Spot (100 on the map), two

exhibit tents on the west and east ends of the village,

respectively. Staff and volunteers from DOE, NREL, 

BP Solar, The Home Depot, and EDS greeted visitors,

handed out competition literature, answered questions, and sometimes led impromptu tours of the village. The Decathletes led guided tours of their houses

for the visiting public, September 28–29 and October

5–6, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

The Crowds

Visitors came into the village for a variety of reasons. 

They may have been wandering by and wanted to see

what was going on. They may have heard about it

through an impressive array of media coverage—local

and national newspapers and radio, or billboards

around town. The great thing about the first Solar

Decathlon was that it was so much more than a 

competition. Comparisons were made to World’s 

Fair events, consumer expos, and the opening of 

The Big Event — 5

109

Crowder

107

Auburn

110

TexasAustin

108

UNCCharlotte

105

Virginia

Tech

103

Delaware

101

Puerto Rico

106

Virginia

104

U.MORolla/RTI

102

Texas A&M

100

113

Tuskegee

111

Colorado

114

Maryland

112

Carnegie

Mellon

Energy Street

Future Street

Technology Street

Solar Street

7th Street

4th Street

To National Gallery of Art West Building

To National Air and Space Museum

115 Decathlete Way

To U.S. Capitol

To Washington Monument

Figure 2. Solar Village Map
6 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

Solar Camelot

Perfect weather should only be the stuff of legends, but this 

legendary event couldn’t have asked for better weather. (Well, 

for the students out there “swinging hammers,” maybe slightly

cooler temperatures.) Of the 21 days that teams and organizers were on the Mall—from assembly through the competition and disassembly—only one day saw any significant

rain, and 16 of those days saw temperatures well above 

average for autumn in the D.C. area. The rain fell during the 

Opening Ceremony, but stopped just in time for Energy 

Secretary Spencer Abraham to cut the ribbon and officially 

open the solar village to visitors. The rain may have dampened

the ground but not anyone’s spirit because the sun kept

shining all the other days of the event. The hottest and 

sunniest week was the busiest week of the competition, 

September 30–October 6, with the high on October 3 

hovering close to 90°F (32.2°C). Even so, thousands of 

visitors donned hats, sunglasses, and sunscreen, braving 

the heat while waiting in line to tour the teams’ houses.

communities. Visitors were curious about the competition, but they were also hungry to go inside and find

out more about the solar-powered houses. Many visitors weren’t aware of all the advancements in solar

energy and energy efficiency technologies that had

taken place since the 1970s. Many were surprised 

to see how much an energy-efficient, solar-powered

house looks pretty much like other houses. They 

wanted to see the houses, inside and out. They wanted

to learn about the products the teams used. Lines of

people waiting to see the teams’ houses stretched out

front doors and around “the blocks” of the village.

The teams developed impressive strategies for interacting with the public outside, explaining their entries’

designs and highlighting special features, to make 

the wait pass more quickly.

Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham (pictured here with

Assistant Secretary David Garman and Competition Director

Richard King) was a frequent visitor to the solar village.

Despite appearances, the Solar Decathlon was not a

consumer expo. As agencies of the U.S. Government,

DOE and the National Park Service (NPS), which manages the National Mall, cannot promote specific commercial products. Even though advertising on federal

property is not allowed, the teams and the privatesector sponsors found acceptable and effective ways 

of bringing a consumer message to visitors. Some

teams brought materials samples—the same samples

they had been provided to make product decisions—

and posted product lists on their Web sites. BP Solar

staffed the event with a cadre of volunteers who were

on hand to answer questions about solar electricity,

otherwise known as photovoltaics (PV). The Home

Depot provided an educational exhibit about energyefficient consumer products. And EDS hosted 

“Technology Day” with the Federal Energy

Management Program (FEMP). EDS invited its customers in the federal sector to tours and activities in

the solar village.

Whereas the event may have looked like many different

things to passers-by, the teams, their visiting friends,

families, and school alumni were definitely interested 

in the competition. The teams had been working on

their houses for more than 2 years. They were there 

to compete as well as to educate the public. So all the

while the teams hosted visitors, they also competed in

10 contests that required the same tasks in which we

all engage—keeping the house comfortable, shopping

and running errands, cooking, doing laundry, watching television, and surfing the Internet. (For details

about the contests, required activities, and results, 

see The Ten Contests chapter.) Visitors were very

impressed by the students and the students’ work. The

atmosphere of the village was infused with enthusiasm

and optimism. It was impossible not to feel good!

Comments from the People’s Choice Award ballots 

tell the true story about the visiting public’s positive

response to the Solar Decathlon. (See the sidebar on

page 7 for more information about the People’s

Choice comments.)

People’s Choice Award

On Sunday, October 6, the Solar Decathlon organizers

and sponsors provided each team that arrived by 

9:00 a.m. that morning an equal number of People’s

Choice Award ballots to distribute to their visitors.

Ballots were also available at staffed information tables

in both tents at either end of the solar village. Ballot

boxes were also located at these tables. All ballots 

had been distributed by the early afternoon. At the

end of the day, 3,230 finished ballots were counted. 

In addition to surveying visitors’ overall opinions of

the houses, the People’s Choice ballot had space for 

Warren Gretz/PIX11899
comments. Those comments (see sidebar) provide a

real flavor for the impact the Solar Decathlon had 

on visitors. The People’s top choices were:

• 1st: Crowder College

• 2nd: University of Puerto Rico

• 3rd: University of Virginia.

Reaching Out beyond the Mall

Spectators eagerly followed the competition and visited

the solar village in both reality and virtual reality. The

Solar Decathlon Web site received an impressive average of 400,000 hits and 20,000 unique visitors during

each day of the event. The Web site featured electronic

scores and standings that were updated every 15 minutes, photos documenting the events of each day from

assembly of the village through the competition, daily

contest diaries written by the teams during the week

of heavy contest activity (September 30–October 4),

and a “Gallery of Homes,” which featured photos of

each completed house. The Web site was also a gateway to a great deal of additional information. By 

visiting www.solardecathlon.org, virtual spectators 

could visit each team’s Web site (the teams were

required to produce Web sites for the Graphics and

Communications contest), the sponsors’ Web sites,

and a slew of other Web sites containing helpful 

consumer information about energy efficiency and

renewable energy. One user’s message to the Webmaster characterizes the many messages received 

during the event, “How long will this wonderful Web

site stay up?” So just as many of us attend events by 

reading about them in 

magazines and online, 

the Solar Decathlon 

attracted many virtual 

spectators to be a part 

of the daily excitement 

on the Mall, even if 

they couldn’t be there 

in person, and to 

extend their learning 

after the event was over.

What the Visitors 

Learned 

The people who visited 

the Mall during the 

competition clearly 

enjoyed touring the 

homes and talking 

with the enthusiastic 

students. But the visitors also had their eyes

opened about how

renewable energy 

People’s Choice Award Comments

2002 Solar Decathlon

• Outstanding. The homes of the future are here today.

• Congratulations! This has been an extremely unique, important step toward educating the public regarding solar energy.

Hope you do this every year.

• Absolutely terrific display—very inspiring! Loved talking to 

the students—so knowledgeable and enthusiastic. Great to 

know that many houses will be permanent displays back in 

their communities. BRAVO!

• What a wonderful exhibit! I hope you do this again. There 

are some wonderful ideas here. And it is always great to 

see the talents of these young college students displayed. 

Thanks!

• Excellent exhibit and student work—glad to see the raised 

awareness to the general public—finally!

• Please continue this competition periodically. Great way to 

demonstrate the practicality of this technology to the public.

• Great way to make the public aware of solar/renewable 

energy.

• This was an amazing demonstration of energy conservation 

in real life! Why aren’t more of us building homes like this? 

Congratulations to all the Decathletes—they have so much 

to be proud of. I applaud everyone’s efforts to make all of 

this handicap-accessible.

• A great eye-opener for the average ‘Joe’ to see the potential 

of alternative energy sources.

• This is an excellent opportunity to bring architecture and 

solar/energy conservation to the public and a way to encourage this kind of thinking among the architects who will be 

building our future homes.

• Happy to see this happening in my lifetime.

• This should spur some progress in developing energy alternatives. Thanks!

• Wonderful way for a government agency to sponsor/seed 

innovation and learning.

• Please make a documentary for PBS—showing work on 

campus, hauling to Washington, D.C., construction on the 

Mall, choosing materials and all the homemade fixtures. 

A wonderful exhibit!

• The Decathlon was excellent! Hats off to all involved. We 

are so impressed with the ingenuity, talent, hard work, and 

enthusiasm of the students. We are thrilled and grateful that

the Department of Energy is taking an active and thoughtful 

approach to solar power (the time has more than come). 

We are obviously a country with the talent and resources 

to become a leader in solar technology. Let’s do it!

• We drove from Pennsylvania to see this and it was well 

worth the trip.

The Big Event — 7

Visitors were able to learn

more about energy efficiency

and the competition, and

the teams were able to follow the competition via

public Internet terminals

available in the Competition

Pavilion tent.

Warren Gretz/PIX11808
8 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

and energy efficiency technologies work. Many visitors

arrived remembering the solar technologies of the

1970s, when many new solar products were introduced into the market. Some of these systems failed 

or simply didn’t supply enough energy, creating the

lingering and false impression that solar technologies

just did not work. But as the visitors saw for themselves, that is an old stereotype—times truly have

changed. And following the competition and learning to think like a solar decathlete taught consumers

strategies for reducing their consumption of fossil

fuels, lowering their utility bills, and enhancing the

peace of mind that comes with greater domestic 

energy security. 

Our modern lifestyle, in which we work hard, move

fast, and have the luxury of doing what we want

when we want, uses a great deal of energy. We mostly

take this level of energy consumption for granted.

Although this intensive energy use can make “going

solar” a challenge, there are solutions that work right

now. During the competition, the decathletes used

some competitive strategies, such as timing laundry

based on the availability of solar energy, that would

not be used in a typical household. But even though

everyday life is not a Solar Decathlon, no matter what

people thought about energy when they arrived—or

even if they had never thought about it at all—they

learned that solar energy really works, and energy 

efficiency pays off.

The Media Coverage 

The Solar Decathlon attracted not only an enthusiastic

public crowd, but it also captured the imagination of

the media, with news media coverage being distinguished as much by its quality as its quantity.

The event was covered 

by many of the nation’s 

most distinguished, 

credible, and wellknown media organizations—chronicled 

in publications and 

programs that reach 

wide audiences and 

rank highest in terms 

of impact among the 

nation’s opinion and 

policy leaders. Significantly, a number of 

writers suggested that 

the Solar Decathlon 

heralded the arrival of 

solar power into the 

mainstream. A headline

above one story that appeared in 240,000-circulation

Charlotte (NC) Observer succinctly asked: “Dawning of

the Solar Age?”

Early Efforts Paid Off . . .

The organizers’ efforts to stimulate early news coverage

successfully planted seeds that bloomed into continuing

media attention throughout. In addition to media

work, the organizers and sponsors helped to build

crowds through bus signs, fliers in hotels, and notices

in visitor publications.

Parade Magazine, distributed in 344 Sunday newspapers

nationwide, and with a circulation of more than 

37 million, spawned early interest by previewing the

contest with a story and photo in August 2002.

Similarly, a story by the science editor of the quartermillion circulation Pittsburgh Press Gazette earlier in

August was cited by the Carnegie Mellon team as

helping to win needed support. 

. . . and Brought the Solar Power Story to a Wider Audience

The Solar Decathlon successfully captured the imaginations of the media and the public alike. The event

managed to put a national spotlight on alternative

and environmentally beneficial technologies and 

concepts in a way rarely—if ever—seen before.

In general, members of the media understood and

communicated the messages that the organizers

sought to convey through contest design and through

the communication materials developed to support

the event.

Most stories underscored the environmentally friendly

nature of the homes and the competition. And in

many portrayals, reporters specifically noted that the

event showcased the many actions we can already

take to save energy or to employ alternative energy

resources. Many publications and broadcast outlets

used the phrase “solar village” to describe the assemblage of homes on the National Mall.

National Caliber Coverage

In all, 507 stories about the Solar Decathlon appeared

in newspapers and magazines, as well as on Internet

news sites around the nation.

A New York Times Home Section story, with a photograph, brought significant attention to the event. The

Washington Times printed an article with multiple 

photos that focused on D.C.-area teams—a wellillustrated story that dominated the front page 

of the paper’s weekday local news section. The

Television crews filmed the

activities on the Mall.

Warren Gretz/PIX11864
Washington Post Weekend Section cover story on the

Solar Decathlon also stimulated considerable interest

among potential attendees from Washington and

beyond.

In several instances, a Solar Decathlon story in a prominent publication gained even wider exposure when it

was picked up by a national wire service; for example,

versions of another story in the Washington Post, by

the paper’s Architecture Writer Ben Forgey, ran in such

publications as the (million-plus circulation) Los Angeles

Times, the Juneau (Alaska) Empire, and the Modesto

(California) Bee.

An Associated Press story that spotlighted the Auburn

University team and home received extensive play in

papers across the South and around the nation.

The Solar Decathlon also spawned additional independent coverage of trends in solar energy, energy

conservation, and related subjects.

Many stories dealt directly with energy issues; others

used the event as a jumping-off point to discuss what

homebuilders and homeowners can do to make houses

more efficient and self-sustaining.

Television and Radio

Video Monitoring Service (VMS) reported 45 television

and radio stories about the Decathlon in major markets.

The actual number of broadcast stories about the Solar

Decathlon is higher because VMS reviews only select

stations in most markets. 

Broadcast coverage included a story on the nation’s

top-ranked network morning news show, NBC’s 

Today Show. The story ran an impressive 4 minutes

and 28 seconds, with taped segments and a live shot

of the solar village.

The Do-It-Yourself Network filmed a documentary about

the competition.

In addition, the organizers and sponsors worked with

broadcast news departments for the Associated Press

and National Public Radio (NPR), which aired a

lengthy piece recorded at the event by Scott Simon 

on NPR’s Weekend Edition show.

The competition clearly captured the imaginations of

the producers of cable’s Do-It-Yourself (DIY) network,

which promotes two full-length shows, numerous

projects, and several episodes relating to the event 

on its Web page in this way: 

Get caught up in youthful enthusiasm as you check out the

innovations unveiled at the first-ever Solar Decathlon. The

decathlon, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy,

challenged 14 teams of college students to design, build,

and operate solar-powered homes that can accommodate 

a contemporary lifestyle—using only the power of the sun!

Solar Solutions shows viewers how to adapt technologies

and products used in the first Solar Decathlon to ultimately

cut their energy bills. This five-part workshop features the

latest in practical solar devices and energy-saving ideas,

including information and demonstrations on installing

and operating a variety of solar-energy devices. Among 

the projects are solar-power generation, solar water heaters,

solar heating and cooling units, and many other solarpowered advances.

DIY aired several shows and episodes about the 2002

Solar Decathlon periodically throughout 2003.

Finally, organizer efforts to videotape selected aspects

of the event and make those scenes available to stations nationwide via “B-roll” footage sent by satellite

successfully led to expanded television news coverage

in a number of markets around the nation, including

KHOU-TV in Houston, KMGH-TV in Denver, and

KFMB-TV in San Diego.

Industry and Trade Publications Reached Key Audiences

Targeting relevant industry publications was a major

goal of the outreach efforts. And the extensive trade

publication coverage that resulted effectively boosted

one of the broader goals of the event—that of raising

awareness of energy efficiency and renewable energy

technologies among key industries and professions,

such as builders, architects, and designers.

Roll Call, the newspaper that covers Capitol Hill, ran 

a story aimed at the interests of congressional staffers

and others who might use a lunch hour to visit the

homes arrayed on the National Mall.

Home magazines, including Natural Home, Metropolis,

Fine Homebuilding, and This Old House, featured Solar

Decathlon pieces.

The Big Event — 9

Warren Gretz/PIX11867
10 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

Coverage Included Minority Audiences 

In part because a team from Puerto Rico participated

in the competition, there was significant ongoing 

coverage from Spanish-language media. El Nuevo Dia,

the largest paper in Puerto Rico, covered the local

team and the event extensively; the Latino International

newspaper (based in Orlando, Florida) also reported

on the competition.

A historically black school, Tuskegee University, drew

extensive publicity from African-American news organizations and the media at large. This coverage included

a segment by the cable network Black Entertainment

Television (BET).

Columnists and Editorials Offered Perspective

The Solar Decathlon particularly lent itself to favorable

treatment by newspaper and magazine columnists.

Energy writers, home writers, and others used the

more personal platform of a column to offer generally

unqualified praise and endorsement for the event, as

well as for the energy and environmental concepts it

embodied.

The Home Sense column of the Washington Post dedicated one week’s submission to the event, with special

focus on the benefits of solar energy for homeowners

and homebuilders.

A Missouri congresswoman, Rep. Jo Ann Emerson,

used a visit to the solar home of a university team

from her home state as fodder for a column that ran

in several newspapers in her district. She praised the

team’s efforts, and lauded the event for its promotion

of energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Congressional visits to entry homes by Rep. Roy Blunt,

also of Missouri, and Rep. Mark Udall of Colorado,

received press coverage. 

One columnist, Lee Bidgood, who writes the Natural

Connections Column for Florida newspapers, said 

that for him the event was inspirational. “I had

become discouraged that our nation was lagging far

behind Europe in solar development,” Bidgood wrote,

“when along came news of the Solar Decathlon to

give me a lift.”

Several editorials also endorsed the event. Typical was

that of the Denver Post, which congratulated the winning team from Colorado, and found favor with the

broader purpose of the Solar Decathlon event.

International Coverage

Voice of America sent several crewmembers on assignments to cover the Solar Decathlon, and its television

and radio stories were disseminated to numerous

countries in several languages.

In addition, the organizers worked with the U.S. Department of State to host two tours by foreign journalists,

including one session undertaken specifically to highlight sustainable development in the United States.

Teams Drew Local and Regional Coverage

A number of newspapers in communities with Solar

Decathlon teams embraced the event as their own,

publishing stories, photographs, and graphics throughout the competition. One paper, the Neosho (Missouri)

Daily News, ran numerous stories, and at the conclusion devoted a full-page at the front of a section to

results of the event, with photos of each of the 

14 teams’ homes. Similarly, a major metropolitan

daily, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, covered the event 

as a state story, emphasizing the involvement of the

students from Missouri.

Many papers and broadcast stations that featured a

story before or during the event came back to run 

a brief story to present final contest results at its 

conclusion.

The Boulder (Colorado) Daily Camera ran a feature it

dubbed “Postcard from the Solar Decathlon,” in which

students offered first-person accounts of home construction and other adventures in Washington.

The Sponsors 

All the media coverage garnered by the event was made

possible not only by the compelling interest of the

Solar Decathlon, but also by the efforts of the teams

and the event’s sponsors. DOE’s Golden Field Office

and NREL’s Outreach and Public Affairs Office provided

the primary media relations support for the event.

BP Solar provided an exhibit tent on site, which prominently

displayed its thin-film PV products.

Warren Gretz/PIX11825
BP Solar, The Home Depot, EDS, and AIA also contributed to publicity efforts. BP Solar bought time on a

Washington, D.C., TV station that helped draw a

crowd to the event and worked directly with the

Washington Post on advertisements and a feature story

before the event. The Home Depot publicized the

Solar Decathlon through its D.C.-area stores and in

direct mailings. EDS assigned two marketing people 

to the event and pitched its wireless computer network to the technical press, resulting in several stories

in trade magazines. And AIA contacted the architectural press and spread the word through its members.

The sponsors also made other essential contributions

to the Solar Decathlon’s resounding success. As the

primary sponsor, DOE provided each team with

$5,000 in “seed money” for the project, sponsored 

a kickoff educational workshop in 2001, and gave

each team the Ford Th!nk electric vehicle for use in

the Getting Around contest. Through NREL, DOE also

provided the technical and organizational expertise

required for the competition. NREL is the only national

laboratory devoted entirely to energy efficiency and

renewable energy research, and as such houses an

impressive number of experts in building energy use,

solar energy technologies, alternative fuel vehicles,

and technical communications. NREL staff and contractors comprised the bulk of the organizing and 

official staff for the competition. 

The event also received tremendous support from BP

Solar and The Home Depot, in addition to their mediarelated efforts. BP had a small staff of PV experts on

hand every day the Solar Village was open to the 

public. BP also set up educational exhibits such as a 

PV-powered fountain 

and brought along a 

960-watt (W), trailermounted PV system 

for the organizers 

to use to power the 

village. One exhibit 

tent (provided by BP) 

in the solar village 

featured thin-film PV 

on its skylight. Most 

of the competition 

homes featured BP 

Solar PV panels as 

BP offered systems at 

cost (and with a great 

deal of free expertise) 

to the teams.

The Home Depot made 

contributions to each 

team as well. The teams

received cards to purchase products available at The

Home Depot stores. The event organizers received a

similar account at the store closest to the Mall for

“things that might be needed.” And when you’re

assembling a small, completely independent village

complete with all the infrastructure modern life

requires, you make a lot of runs to The Home Depot!

The Home Depot also donated the portable flooring

that paved the “streets” of the solar village and tiled

the floors of the exhibit tents as well as an educational

exhibit about energy-efficient products for the visiting

public. 

AIA was also an important sponsor of the event,

because it gave credibility to the competition to 

make it more attractive to architectural students 

and faculty. AIA also offered connections with the 

architectural community that enabled the organizers to assemble an impressive architectural jury 

(see page 42) for the competition.

A competition and public event of this scale could not

succeed with only the efforts of the sponsors’ and

organizers’ regular staff; volunteers played an essential

role. A large number of volunteers from DOE and BP

Solar (as well as a devoted local Girl Scout Troop)

greeted and provided information to visitors and

offered impromptu tours. Volunteers from DOE also

acted as observers in the competition homes. Observers were stationed in each home during contest activities and operated as an objective, third party that

recorded team activities in and around the house. 

Each Solar Decathlon sponsor brought something critical to the enormous success of this event. And each

was delighted to bring a hopeful message with obvious mass appeal to the forefront and the front page!

The Closing Ceremony

Saturday, October 5, 2002

The Solar Decathlon Solar Village, The National Mall,

Washington, D.C. 

After more than a week of intense activity and public

interest, the Solar Decathlon competition came to an

end. Saturday was a beautiful day. The closing ceremony

was scheduled to begin at noon, but first the decathletes had to cross “the finish line.” The houses couldn’t

be moved, so the teams did a few “victory laps”

around the village in their Th!nk electric vehicles. The

crowd cheered as each team drove across a finish line

in the center of the village and officially ended the

competition. The University of Puerto Rico provided

entertainment with rousing songs and chants accompanied by a percussion and whistle ensemble. Results

The Big Event — 11

Volunteers from DOE hand

out competition information

and answer questions for

visitors.

Warren Gretz/PIX11840
12 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

First-place University of Colorado at Boulder team members

stand on their front porch with their newly-won trophy.

from several contests had come in throughout the week,

but as each team crossed the finish line, a group of

engineers from NREL were sequestered in a trailer on

site busily checking and rechecking final scores so the

final, overall winner of the competition could be

announced. 

The crowd had extra time to build excitement, because

the results were still being calculated at noon! Shortly

after noon, the organizers started setting up a lectern

on the front lawn of the University of Colorado at

Boulder’s house, and the crowd quickly figured out

where the action was. And then Assistant Secretary

David Garman came to the lectern to announce that

the University of Colorado at Boulder had taken first

place in the competition, the University of Virginia

had captured second place, and Auburn University

came in third. A number of media organizations covered the announcements, and excitement was high.

The houses remained open to steady foot traffic for

the rest of the afternoon. 

The sidebar contains information about all of the

competition awards. The Ten Contests chapter contains the final scoring and standing details by contest,

and Appendix A contains the final scores and standings by team. The following section discusses the 

special awards presented at an evening Victory

Reception for the decathletes.

The Awards Ceremony

Saturday, October 5, 2002

The Forrestal Building, Washington, D.C.

Assistant Secretary David Garman served as master of

ceremonies at a Victory Reception, held at 6:00 p.m. 

at DOE’s Headquarters. Although unable to attend in

person, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham sent

Competition Awards 

1st Overall

University of Colorado at Boulder 

2nd Overall

University of Virginia 

3rd Overall

Auburn University 

Design and Livability

Awarded with a Special Citation from AIA

University of Virginia 

Design Presentation and Simulation

Awarded with a Special Citation from AIA 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 

Graphics and Communications

University of Colorado at Boulder 

The Comfort Zone

University of Colorado at Boulder 

Refrigeration

University of Missouri–Rolla and The Rolla Technical Institute

Hot Water

University of Maryland 

Energy Balance

Five teams completed the contests with as much energy in 

their batteries as they had when they started the competition, 

resulting in a 5-way tie:

Auburn University

Crowder College

University of Colorado at Boulder

University of Maryland

University of Virginia

Lighting

Crowder College 

Home Business

Crowder College 

Getting Around

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

remarks to the reception, saying, “The University of

Colorado at Boulder has earned their place in the sun,

with their win in the first-ever Solar Decathlon. After 

a year-and-a-half of intense work, designing, building,

and competing, the students should be very pleased

with their accomplishment. The competition was a

real test of their abilities and their willingness to pit

their talents against some of the best schools in the

nation, and they proved themselves worthy of this

honor.” He also stated, “The Solar Decathlon proves

Warren Gretz/PIX11907
that solar energy is practical today. It is affordable, and

solar-powered homes can be livable and attractive.

Our investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies can contribute to the nation’s

energy security.” 

Generous donations from BP Solar and the Midwest

Research Institute (MRI), which is one of the managing partners of NREL, made the evening quite festive,

with striking decorations, delicious food and beverages, and pleasant background music. Several attendees remarked that Assistant Secretary Garman made

an ideal master of ceremonies, saying that he was

“entertaining, charming, and funny.” Also on hand 

to present the various awards were:

• DOE’s Solar Decathlon Director, Richard King

• NREL’s Solar Decathlon Project Manager, Cécile Warner

• MRI’s Corporate Vice President and Chief Science 

Officer, Robert San Martin

• NREL’s Director, Richard Truly

• AIA’s Chair of the Committee on the Environment, 

Lance Davis

• BP Solar’s Vice President for Global Marketing, 

Andy Dutschmann

• The Home Depot’s Manager of External Relations, 

Doug Zacker, and Store Associate Mike Kohn 

(Olympic bronze medalist)

• EDS’s Director of Telecommunications Engineering, 

Jim Biskaduros, and On-Site Network Engineers, 

Mike Steen and Matt Toney

• NREL’s Solar Decathlon Logistics Managers, 

John Thornton and Byron Stafford

• The University of Maryland’s Assistant Project 

Manager and student of mechanical engineering, 

Catherine Buxton.

All the members of the student teams, the judges, the

observers, the organizers, and other sponsor representatives made up the rest of the enthusiastic crowd.

The Special Awards 

From the organizers, to the sponsors, to the students,

everyone involved worked extremely hard to make

this event enjoyable, educational, and enlightening.

No matter how well a team did or didn’t do in the

competition, each team stood out in some way. And

because event organizers and sponsors felt strongly

that ALL the students’ efforts should be recognized, 

a number of special awards were given out to mark 

a particular accomplishment of each team.

Awards from the Organizers

Herculean Effort—For overcoming the greatest 

physical obstacles, including shipping the house 

on a boat from its island home to the mainland:

University of Puerto Rico

Solo Solar Fliers—For a valiant effort by a small team:

University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Open Door—For so consistently opening its home to

the public—especially to school children: Tuskegee

University

Perseverance—For persevering through a number 

of unpleasant events, including watching the floor 

of the house fall from the truck as it was pulling 

away from the building site in Delaware on its way 

to the Mall: University of Delaware

Best Logistics Plan—For providing an excellent, 

detailed, and realistic plan for installation and disassembly of the house on the Mall: University of 

Texas at Austin

Best Construction Safety Award—For always 

following safety regulations during assembly—team

members never had to be reminded to put on safety

glasses, hard hats, or safety harness: Auburn

University

Engineering Excellence—Some points for several

contests were awarded for innovation and consumer

appeal. A panel of distinguished engineers (see The

Ten Contests chapter) awarded these points, and the

Engineering Excellence award went to the team that

scored the most points: University of Colorado 

at Boulder 

Awards from the Sponsors

The BP Solar and The Home Depot Brand Value Awards

were managed independently of the organizers—these

sponsors had representatives on the Mall every day

and had contact with the teams long before anyone

arrived at the Mall. These sponsors knew the teams

and chose to reward those that exemplified the values

of BP Solar and The Home Depot. 

BP Brand Value Awards

BP Solar presented awards for teams that best emulated

BP’s core values:

Performance—Setting Global Standards: Auburn 

University

Progressive—Looking for New and Better Approaches

to Meeting Challenges: University of Virginia

Innovative—Creating Breakthrough Solutions:

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State

University

The Big Event — 13
14 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

Green—Demonstrating Environmental Leadership:

Crowder College

The Home Depot Brand Value Awards

The Home Depot presented awards to teams that best

emulated The Home Depot’s core values:

Best Use of Home Depot Resources—This team 

negotiated use of the Louisville, Colorado, Home 

Depot for its construction site: University of 

Colorado at Boulder

One of this team’s members is a Home Depot associate

who gave the team an edge when it came to making

good use of products supplied by the company:

Crowder College

Best Customer Service—For always offering a 

friendly face and easy-to-comprehend explanations 

of its house to the public: University of Missouri–

Rolla and the Rolla Technical Institute

Good Neighbor—For donating its home to a community organization in Pittsburgh: Carnegie 

Mellon 

EDS Awards

EDS recognized teams that overcame specific challenges

to ensure connection to the Solar Decathlon network:

Best Connections Under the Sun—For making the

best use of available resources, including an older

operating system, with great results, including use 

of a “Smart Board” in its house tours: 

Crowder College

Connectivity Challenge—For overcoming with 

patience and good humor the frustration of working 

in a copper-clad house, which blocked wireless signals:

University of Virginia.

So now you know how the story ends—who won what—

and all about the special events, crowds of spectators,

and media. But for the teams and organizers, the Solar

Decathlon began long before anyone arrived at the

Mall or thought about a victory reception. So let’s

begin at the beginning. The following chapters and

appendices provide information about the rationale

for the Solar Decathlon, the process for team selection,

all the work the teams did to go to Washington, and

details about the 10 contests and the teams’ houses.
T he Solar Decathlon was clearly a success. The

public response was tremendous, and the students had the learning experience of a lifetime,

but you still may be wondering about the thought

behind the competition. Why was it important for

DOE, the Solar Decathlon organizers, teams, and 

sponsors to invest in the Solar Decathlon?

Background

Recent events—the rising cost of natural gas, war and

turmoil in the oil-exporting Middle East, and the electricity crisis in California—have our entire nation

thinking a lot about energy (see page 17 for facts and

figures about energy). The Solar Decathlon organizers,

teams, and sponsors dedicated their own energies to

securing a brighter energy future by creating and participating in a competition and public event designed

with the following objectives: 

• To illustrate how solar energy can improve mankind’s

quality of life. Solar energy is clean; it significantly 

reduces pollutant emissions. And solar energy is 

renewable, so it increases our nation’s energy security.

• To teach the decathletes and the public about how 

energy is used in their lives and to illustrate how 

energy intensive various activities are. 

• To demonstrate market-ready technologies that can 

meet the energy requirements of our activities by 

tapping into the sun’s power. 

• To meet these needs while providing a beautiful 

structure in which to live, work, and play.

Learning from History 

During the energy crisis of the 1970s, fuel prices

increased and the country pulled together to invent

new methods for reducing energy consumption. With

rising energy costs, consumers demanded more energyefficient products. Local, state, and federal governments enacted programs such as financial incentives

for increasing energy efficiency and mandating minimum efficiency standards for some equipment and

appliances. Industry and government responded with

research and development of more energy-efficient

products. Greater fuel efficiency in the transportation

sector and better energy efficiency in the housing and

industrial sectors are the results we see today of efforts

begun in the 1970s and continued into the 21st century. 

How the Solar Decathlon Fits In Today 

Building on the great strides that renewable energy

and energy efficiency technologies have made since

the 1970s, the competition was designed to achieve

several key goals:

• To bring advances to light: Gone are the days of 

combining solar energy with deprivation. The Solar 

Decathlon was designed to reward both abundance 

of production and efficiency of use—a combination 

that perfectly demonstrates the tremendous gains 

that have been made in solar energy and energy 

efficiency technologies over the years. 

• To showcase renewable energy: Although consumers 

may know little about renewable energy, studies 

have shown that utility customers are interested in 

renewable sources of energy. The more customers 

learn about renewable energy, the more interested 

they become, especially in solar and wind power. 

Many residential customers are even willing to pay 

more per month on their electrical bills for power 

from renewable sources. 

• To educate consumers: Informing the public about 

renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies 

is an ongoing effort, so communication is a key part

of the competition. Each team maintained a Web 

site, conducted house tours, and created print materials to explain the design, engineering, and operation of its house as well as the products and technologies featured in the house. As visitors saw for 

themselves during the competition, there are highly

efficient alternatives for almost any equipment or 

appliance used in the home. And although these 

options may cost more up front, they generally pay 

for themselves over time through lower utility bills. 

• To bring it all together in one place at one time: 

Making choices about renewable energy and energy 

efficiency can seem overwhelming. The decathletes 

helped bridge the gap by bringing energy-efficient 

appliances and lighting, water heating, and space 

heating and cooling systems together with renewable energy technologies. The Solar Decathlon served

as a living demonstration laboratory where concept 

met reality.

• To give the students an invaluable real-world, handson learning experience that they cannot find in the 

regular classroom.

Why a Solar Decathlon? — 15

Why a Solar Decathlon?
16 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

A Real-World Experience for the Students

There is no better way to put cutting-edge technology

into the minds and hands of tomorrow’s engineers,

architects, scientists, and entrepreneurs than to give

them experience with that technology today. Positive

academic experiences affect the decisions students

make about career paths, and student competitions 

are an excellent way to engage young minds in problem solving beyond the classroom and the laboratory. 

In addition, real-world experience is typically lacking

in the academic curriculum in engineering and architecture schools. Even though commercial and residential buildings use a hefty amount of all energy (about

39%) consumed in the United States, energy use—the

fundamental concept that powers this competition—

is not usually a part of the lesson plan. And before

they graduate, engineering and architecture students

rarely work together, yet when they enter the workplace, they must collaborate on building design. This

competition takes a multidisciplinary approach that

integrates design and modeling; materials selection

and construction; and the operation, testing, and

monitoring of the houses. In this way, the Solar

Decathlon fosters early collaboration among diverse

disciplines and ultimately supports curriculum development along these lines of thinking. 

The Solar Decathlon was designed to attract students

from a variety of academic disciplines—architecture,

engineering, the sciences, communications, and 

others—and to encourage them to work together 

to gain real-world, hands-on experience with the 

cradle-to-grave process of creating an energyefficient, completely solar-powered house. 

The competition also drew attention to the career

opportunities in the ever-growing field of energy 

efficiency and renewable energy. In addition to 

challenging the students to think and move in 

new directions, the experience gave the participants

the opportunity to develop relationships with and

be energized by the professionals already involved 

in the field. 

The Solar Decathlon reached beyond the individual

students to their future academic and work communities, whether in the United States or elsewhere. We

know that the non-industrialized world is riding a 

massive trend toward industrialization, and that when

industrialization depends on fossil fuel consumption,

two problems arise—pollution and increased consumption of finite energy supplies. By stimulating

industrialization supported by energy efficiency and

renewable energy, the United States can play a crucial

role in the world’s growth. Encouraging new technologies means creating new markets around the globe,

and new markets translate to economic growth, both

at home and abroad. As we move to stimulate this

growth, our nation faces many competitors in the

areas of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. Our excellent educational system gives us a

unique opportunity to encourage and motivate students to think about their futures in terms of the 

sustainable future of the planet. This, in turn, positions America to continue a global leadership role 

in the energy arena.

To the organizers of the Solar Decathlon, there are

clearly solutions to problems related to the nation’s

energy use. We have made great strides in the development of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. To bring these technologies into the mainstream, all aspects of the building industry—from the

designer to the builder to the buyer—must become

more aware of and educated about these technologies.

The public event aspect of the Solar Decathlon was

designed to appeal to consumers, and the competition

aspect was designed to reach students. Without the

competition, of course, there would have been no

event, so, in the next chapters, let’s look at how the

teams became involved in the competition and how

their projects developed in the almost 2 years from

project proposal to the competition on the Mall.
Why a Solar Decathlon? — 17

Energy Facts and Figures 

The following information comes from two sources: DOE’s Energy Information Administration on-line at http://www.eia.doe.gov, and

the 2003 Buildings Energy Databook, which is published by EERE and is available on-line at http://buildingsdatabook.eere.energy.gov/. 

How Much Energy We Use Now

• The United States uses approximately 97 quadrillion British Thermal Units (quads) of energy annually.

• Buildings (commercial and residential combined) use nearly 39% (38 quads) of that total.

• The residential building sector accounts for about 21% (20.1 quads) of U.S. annual energy consumption.

• Of those 20.1 quads used in the residential sector, the end-use breakdown is: 

❑ 8.1 quads (41%) for heating and cooling

❑ 3.4 quads (17%) for water heating

❑ 2.5 quads (12%) for lighting

❑ 1.7 quads (9%) for refrigeration

❑ 1.2 quads (6%) for appliances and computers.

• The transportation sector accounts for about 28% of the U.S. total, annual energy use.

• Approximately 86% of total annual energy use in the United States comes from burning fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas.

• Less than 4% of that energy comes from non-hydropower renewable sources—biomass, geothermal, wind, and solar.

Energy Projections to 2025

• U.S. annual energy use at approximately 130–149 quads of energy annually by 2025, depending on economic growth.

• Slow growth in use of renewable energy: Only about 4% of total energy to come from non-hydropower renewable sources.

• From 2001 to 2025, residential energy consumption grows at an average rate of 1% per year, with the most rapid growth 

expected for computers, electronic equipment, and appliances. By 2025, projected annual residential energy use is 24.5 quads.

• Energy use per person increases by 0.7% annually, with growing demand only partially offset by efficiency improvements.

• Coal remains the primary fuel source for electricity generation. Technologies for significantly reducing pollution from coal are

still being explored, and those technologies will likely only affect the emissions from new plants, not existing plants.

• Use of natural gas for electricity generation grows.

• Most existing nuclear power plants will not be retired.

• Our dependence on energy imports increases.

Why We’ll Use More and More Energy

• Population growth.

• New housing trends: Greatest growth in the South, where air-conditioning needs are significant, and new homes, on average, 

are 18% larger than existing homes so require more energy for heating, cooling, and lighting.

• More consumer electronics and other energy using appliances: Increased energy use by these devices will be only partially 

offset by efficiency improvements.

• Transportation: Fuel efficiency is not expected to make significant gains in the next 20 years, and likely we will drive more miles.
18 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

From fall 2000 through the competition in fall

2002, somebody on each team, whether faculty

or students, was involved in the Solar Decathlon.

This chapter covers information about the Request 

for Proposals (RFP) to compete, the teams’ proposals

and acceptance to compete, the preliminary and final

design reports required by the organizers, and the 

construction phase of the project.

Proposal and Acceptance to Compete

NREL released the RFP for the 2002 Solar Decathlon

on October 19, 2000. The RFP was posted on NREL’s

Web site, and NREL did a postcard mailing to notify 

all engineering and architecture schools in the United

States of the RFP. Proposals were due February 16,

2001, but on request by some schools that intended 

to submit proposals, the deadline was extended to

February 20, 2001.

Originally, the organizers received 12 proposals:

• Carnegie Mellon, School of Architecture

• Crowder College, a two-year college in Neosho, 

Missouri

• Ozarks Technical Community College, a two-year 

college in Springfield, Missouri

• Texas A&M University, Department of Construction 

Science in the College of Architecture

• Tuskegee University, College of Engineering, Architecture and Physical Sciences

• University of Colorado, Boulder; Civil, Environmental,

and Architectural Engineering

• University of Maryland, Department of Mechanical 

Engineering

• University of Missouri–Rolla, School of Engineering 

and the Rolla Technical Institute, a vocational and 

technical school

• University of Puerto Rico–Mayagüez, School of 

Engineering and the University of Puerto Rico–

Rio Piedras, School of Architecture

• University of Texas at Austin, School of Architecture

• University of Virginia, Schools of Engineering and

Applied Science and School of Architecture

• Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 

College of Architecture and Urban Studies and 

College of Engineering.

All 12 proposals were of sufficient quality for acceptance into the competition, but before the organizers 

at NREL announced acceptance, word came from

Ozarks Technical Community College that it wished to

withdraw its proposal. So the remaining 11 schools

were notified of acceptance. In the summer of 2001,

the organizers received word from several institutions

that wished to submit late proposals. The organizers

agreed to review these late proposals from:

• Auburn University, College of Engineering, College 

of Architecture, and the Space Power Institute

• The University of Delaware, Department of Mechanical Engineering

• The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 

College of Architecture.

All three proposals were of sufficient quality for

acceptance into the competition. So by the end of

summer 2001, the first Solar Decathlon had its final

14 teams.

Quality of Proposals

All 14 proposals submitted to the Solar Decathlon

organizers were of sufficient quality for acceptance

into the competition. As expected, however, some

teams submitted stronger proposals than others. In

fact, six of the top seven finishers in the competition

were also in the top six rankings of the original proposals. (One of the top seven finishers was a late proposal and therefore not included in the original ranking of proposals.) Coincidence? The Solar Decathlon

organizers don’t think so. Strong proposals included:

• Technical innovation and content (this section 

accounted for 50% of the scoring weight)

❑ Articulation of a strong design concept from both 

architecture and engineering perspectives

❑ Consideration of transportability

❑ Discussion of reduced energy use through passive 

solar strategies and energy-efficient equipment

❑ Realistic load calculations (including the requirements of an electric vehicle)

❑ Use of available information and data to size and 

orient PV and solar thermal systems

❑ Environmental, health, and safety considerations 

in materials selection and construction.

From Concept to Reality
From Concept to Reality — 19

• Organization and project planning (20%)

❑ Sizable teams with well-defined areas of responsibility related to aspects of project planning (e.g., 

a team made up of four subteams responsible for 

design, construction, administration, and fund 

raising, with a student and faculty lead for each 

subteam)

❑ The project was broken down into reasonable 

phases that encompassed all aspects of the project, 

and each phase had specific objectives and strategies for completion

❑ Teams represented multiple academic disciplines.

• Curriculum integration (15%)

❑ Schools adapted coursework or created new 

courses specifically for the Solar Decathlon

❑ This coursework represented multiple offerings 

over several semesters and in multiple disciplines.

• Fund raising and team support (15%)

❑ Realistic budget based on realistically projected 

costs of the project

❑ Well-considered and researched funding options 

or inventive fund raising ideas (or both)

❑ Access to facilities and equipment either on campus or elsewhere (e.g., an offer from the school or 

private sector for construction space).

This was the first competition of its kind. In some ways,

the easiest part of the proposal was the technical innovation and content. After all, energy-efficient, solarpowered homes had been built by many before the

Solar Decathlon. Although many schools had experience with student competitions, there was no history

for this competition. Teams had to largely invent their

own organizations, plans, schedules, and curriculum.

Budgets were especially difficult to determine. 

With the 2002 Solar Decathlon now behind us, we can

safely say that no one fully comprehended the enormous challenge of the competition. Most (if not all)

teams needed more time and resources to finish their

projects. Very few teams had a chance to test their

entries before they arrived in Washington, D.C. Most

teams competed in most or all of the contests, but

many entries were not fully finished. Even so, the 

correlation between highly ranked proposals and top

finishers indicates the importance of developing a

well-informed design concept, backed by a committed

team, with a well-considered project plan and schedule

that include supportive course work and a creative

“find money early and often” fund-raising scheme.

The Kickoff

After the original 11 teams were selected for participation in the Solar Decathlon, DOE (with NREL and BP

Solar) hosted a series of events for team representatives on April 21–22, 2001, in Washington, D.C. The

weekend was designed to inspire the teams and to 

provide them with more information about the 

competition and the work ahead. BP Solar hosted 

an evening reception, during which a lottery was held

for the teams to select their building lots for the fall

2002 competition. Teams received their $5,000 seed

money from DOE. And on the following day, the

teams attended a full day of presentations. 

Solar Decathlon Competition Director Richard King

(Solar Energy Technologies Program, DOE) began the

day with an inspirational presentation about the history, philosophy, and goals of the competition. Solar

Decathlon Project Manager Cécile Warner (NCPV,

NREL) gave the students a status report on the organizers’ activities to date, and painted a picture of things

to come in the 18 months leading to the competition.

Experts in architecture, solar buildings, and communications also provided presentations:

• What’s New Under the Sun? The Solar Decathlon Design

Challenge, Susan Piedmont-Palladino, Virginia Tech 

Washington-Alexandria Architecture Center (WAAC)

• Solar Domestic Hot Water, Craig Christensen, Center 

for Buildings and Thermal Systems, NREL

• EnergyPlus, A New-Generation Simulation Program, 

Dru Crawley, Building Technologies Program, DOE

• An Overview of PV Technology, Jamie Braman, 

Schott Applied Power

• Energy Storage: Options, System Designs, Safety, 

Charles Newcomb, National Wind Technology 

Center, NREL

• Whole Building Design, Paul Torcellini, Center for 

Buildings and Thermal Systems, NREL

• Communication and Fund Raising, Ruby Nahan, 

Office of Communications, NREL.

The American Solar Energy Society (ASES) held its

Forum 2001 conference in Washington at the same

time. After the workshop, students and faculty were

invited to view the exhibit hall of Forum 2001, and

had the option to register for and attend the conference sessions, where there were more opportunities 

to attend educational seminars. So, as of April 2001,

the original 11 teams were well on their way to making history.

Solar Decathlon Rules and Regulations

The organizers had to start from scratch to develop

the rules and regulations for the competition. Initial

discussions began between DOE and NREL in late

1999. A handful of guiding principles shaped the

development of competition rules. Most importantly,

the desired outcome was to demonstrate that solar
20 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

energy could provide America’s household energy

needs. The organizers worked to develop rules that

also encouraged energy efficiency, aesthetics, and 

reliability. 

Work began on the official Solar Decathlon Rules and

Regulations in summer 2000. That there would be 10

contests was a given (i.e., the “dec” in decathlon), but

precisely which 10 contests was a subject of many discussions. As a starting place, the organizers looked at

the typical electric and thermal energy requirements

of a household. The energy-related contests for the

competition were suggested by the amount of energy

required to accomplish specific household tasks,

which in rank order are: heating and cooling, water

heating, lighting, refrigeration, and electronic appliances and computers. Personal transportation also 

had to be considered because it accounts for such a

significant fraction of America’s energy consumption.

But design approach, aesthetics, and communicating

to the public were also viewed as important. Furthermore, each contest required that there be a reasonable

way to judge or measure a team’s performance. The

resulting 10 contests and the rules and regulations 

for the competition represent the best compromise 

of these sometimes competing criteria on which the

organizers could agree. 

There were four separate versions of the rules and 

regulations: November 2000, January 2001, October

2001, and September 2002. Most did not change, but

some contests evolved, many details emerged, and

some regulations were clarified as the organizers

worked with the teams, NPS, and the sponsors. No

rules and regulations, except those resulting from 

NPS requirements, changed without consultation 

with and ample time for comment from the teams.

The organizers had to comply with NPS regulations,

and understanding of those regulations evolved over

time as the organizers held regular meetings with NPS.

A large group of professionals from many fields

worked to develop the rules and regulations:

• Engineers and engineering consultants from DOE 

and NREL with expertise in whole-building design, 

energy-efficient buildings, PV, solar water heating, 

building energy-use monitoring, education, and 

computer-based building energy analysis tools

• Architects from AIA and the WAAC

• Communications, media relations, and public relations specialists from DOE and NREL

• Consultants from FormulaSun, which manages the 

American Solar Challenge solar-powered car race

• Lighting Designers from the International Association

of Lighting Designers.

Whereas the rules and regulations did change, very 

little changed that would affect the teams’ house

designs. By the time the teams started to design their

houses (after the kickoff in April 2001), the rules and

regulations were already in their second iteration.

Several regulations that affected house designs are

worth mentioning:

• Each team had to construct its house on a predetermined “lot” on the Mall of approximately 5500 ft2

(511 m2), the location of which they chose during 

the kickoff.

• Each participating team was required to contain its 

house and all items associated with the house within 

the “solar envelope” as defined in the rules and regulations. This regulation imposed a height limitation

of 18 ft (5.5 m). The solar envelope rule was created 

to protect a neighbor’s access to the sun. By 

complying with this regulation, a structure would 

not cast a shadow on or decrease the available solar 

access of neighboring structures.

• The total building footprint of the house was restricted

to 800 ft2 (74.3 m2). The total building footprint was

defined as the perimeter of the projection of the 

house onto a horizontal plane from plan view. At 

least 450 ft2 (41.8 m2) of the 800 ft2 (74.3 m2) was 

to be conditioned space with temperature and 

humidity maintained for occupant comfort. 

• The homes’ PV and solar hot water systems, as well 

as any other feature of the house (e.g., shading) that 

worked with solar energy were restricted in size by a

“solar array” regulation that limited such features to 

within the 800-ft2 (74.3-m2) footprint.

• To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act 

(ADA), teams were required to provide an accessible 

route through their home for public tours. (The 

entire house did not have to be ADA compliant.)

• Structures not part of the enclosed space (e.g., ADA 

ramps, decks, or porches) or not part of the solar 

array or energy storage system were excluded from 

the 800-ft2 (74.3-m2) footprint limitation, but were 

required to be inside the solar envelope. 

• To prevent damage to the Mall, insertion of tie-down

stakes or screws, or any foundation system was limited

to a vertical depth of 18 in. (45.7 cm). This restriction

also virtually eliminates the possibility of damage to 

any part of the irrigation system on the Mall. 

• Teams were to construct houses that met or exceeded

applicable sections of the International Residential 

Code (IRC) 2000 for a single-family residential 

dwelling and applicable electrical requirements stated
From Concept to Reality — 21

in the National Electric Code (NEC) 1999. In particular, houses were required to:

❑ Have tie-downs sufficient to withstand 90-mph 

winds (IRC2000 Sec. 301.2.1 and Fig. R301.2(4))

❑ Meet requirements stated in NEC1999 Articles 690, 

480, 445, 250, 400, and 240, which reference proper

PV system design, storage batteries, generators, 

grounding, conductors and conductor ampacity 

ratings, overcurrent protection devices and warning labels, respectively. Additional code requirements from Uniform Fire Code (UFC) 1997, 

International Fire Code (IFC) 2000, International 

Mechanical Code (IMC) 2000, and International 

Building Code (IBC) 2000 superseded NEC1999 

requirements.

❑ Meet all applicable mechanical requirements 

stated in IRC2000.

Qualification and Final Approval of Solar

Decathlon Entries

In December 2001 the Solar Decathlon organizers began

to work with the teams to ensure that each team would

arrive at the competition with a complete entry that

complied with all competition requirements—the

Solar Decathlon rules and regulations, IRC 2000, NEC

1999, and ADA. The process began on December 4,

2001, when teams were required to begin submitting

qualification documents, which included solar cell

and battery approval data, construction documents

and assembly plans, simulation results, and “Getting

Around” analysis (for the contest using electric vehicles). The organizers provided feedback to the teams

identifying deficiencies and requirements for final

approval. The feedback process continued until June

2002, when teams had to have a final approval rating

for participation in the competition. Through this

process, all teams gained final approval and were 

permitted to bring their entries to the National Mall

in September 2002. (For an example of the details 

contained in the organizers’ review of the teams’

design reports, see Appendix B.)

Solar Cell and Battery Approval Data

All solar cells, modules, and batteries had to be

approved by the Solar Decathlon organizers. Teams

provided information about the solar cells and batteries such as the manufacturer, the product, the 

product’s rated and expected performance, and 

material safety and data sheets (MSDS).

Building and Assembly Plans

To receive final approval, the Solar Decathlon organizers

required information about: 

• Architectural design of the entry in sufficient detail 

to identify the building size, function, appearance, 

and form, including material selections with colors, 

textures, finishes, and to express the relationships 

to the adjacent environment; the architectural design

also had to provide for the coordination of the 

related engineering and passive solar features.

• Structural design calculations and analysis to support the preliminary design

• Civil structural design in sufficient detail to type, 

size and locate major structural systems and components, including foundations, walls, roofs, floors, and

equipment supports; particular attention had to be 

given to how the design would comply with NPS 

rules for the National Mall. This information was 

submitted to NPS for review.

• Electrical design in sufficient detail to size and locate

major components with the associated routing of 

conduit and duct systems for electrical power service

and distribution, PV systems, lighting, data communication, lightning protection, ground fault protection, and data acquisition and control systems

• Mechanical design in sufficient detail to size and 

locate major components with the associated routing of piping, ducts, and plenums for plumbing, 

heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) 

and solar thermal collection and storage systems

• Interior design in sufficient detail to identify the 

layout of spaces, systems, furniture, and equipment 

including materials selections with colors, textures, 

finishes, etc.

• Availability, maintainability, and economic evaluations of specified materials and equipment

• An outline of construction specifications developed 

to sufficient detail to determine budgets, materials 

lists, construction constraints or phasing requirements

• A critical path schedule of events for the final 

design, equipment procurement, and construction 

procurement and implementation

• Construction and operational safety of specified 

materials and equipment including substitution of 

environmentally friendly substances when possible

• Compliance with all applicable codes, regulations, 

and construction industry standards.

Building Size Requirements

To comply with the Solar Decathlon rules and regulations, houses were limited to a height of 18 ft (5.5 m)

and a total building footprint of 800 ft2 (74.3 m2)

(which included the entire solar array as defined by 
22 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

the competition regulations). At the time of the initial

review of qualification documents, five entries were

non-compliant with height and footprint restrictions,

and the organizers were unable to determine compliance for two of the entries because of lack of information. The rules required a minimum of 450 ft2 (41.8 m2)

of enclosed conditioned space, which included a minimum of 100 ft2 (9.3 m2) of usable home office space.

At the time of the initial review of qualification documents, four entries were non-compliant with minimum conditioned space requirements, and the organizers were unable to determine compliance for eight of

the entries.

Refrigerator/Freezer Requirements

A minimum 15 ft3 (0.42 m3) was required for interior

combined capacity in the refrigerator and freezer, with

a minimum of 3 ft3 (0.085 m3) interior capacity for

the freezer. At the time of the initial review of qualification documents, six entries were non-compliant

with refrigerator and freezer capacity requirements,

and the organizers were unable to determine compliance for seven of the entries.

Building Energy Simulation

To encourage the use of annual building energy simulation tools as part of the whole building design

process, the Design Presentation and Simulation contest contained a 50-point “Building Energy Analysis”

component. The teams were required to simulate the

annual performance characteristics of their homes

using one (or more) of a variety of approved tools

including DOE2.1E-107, DOE2.2, Energy-10, Energy

Plus, or TRNSYS. Additional simulation tools were

employed to model specific systems such as lighting,

solar water heating, PV, and solar shading, which are

beyond the capabilities of most suggested approved

tools. Each team was required to submit a simulation

report as part of its final design report that discussed

all the assumptions, simplifications, parametric studies, graphical results, and other interesting findings

that resulted from its simulation experiences. Judges

evaluated the teams based on how thoroughly and

accurately they modeled their respective houses and

how well they described their simulation strategies

and results.

To impose some consistency on the simulation judging

process, all the teams were required to use the same

weather file and load profiles, regardless of which 

simulation tool they chose. The strategies employed 

to comply with the simulation requirements varied

significantly. For example, several teams chose to 

comply with the requirements by performing a simple

simulation in Energy-10 after they had completed the

design phase. Other teams used as many as seven 

different computer tools to thoroughly simulate all

the systems in their houses and to gain an understanding of how certain design decisions would 

affect total energy consumption or the performance 

of a particular system. 

There are two problems with the first approach. First,

simulation tools should be employed during the initial

design phase so the energy implications of certain

architectural and engineering design decisions can 

be evaluated in light of their energy impacts. Second,

Energy-10 cannot simulate solar thermal, PV, or lighting systems, nor can it model a variety of more innovative HVAC systems, including energy recovery ventilators. For designs as complex as those in the Solar

Decathlon competition, research tools with significant

flexibility and modularity were required to successfully

simulate the interaction between all the systems of the

buildings. 

Installation of Instrumentation and Monitoring Equipment

For the competition, the organizers used the qualification documents to identify the following for each entry:

• Appropriate location for installation by organizers of

the data acquisition system

• Alternating current (AC) electric panel location

• Direct current (DC) electric panel location

• Battery location, voltage, and current

• Domestic hot water system electric devices (if any), 

voltage, and current

• Domestic hot water temperature measurement and 

flow meter location

• The Comfort Zone contest electric devices (e.g., heat 

pump, resistance heater, air conditioner), voltage 

and current of each device

• Inside temperature and relative humidity sensor 

location and sensor wiring access

• Refrigerator, location, voltage, and current for 

temperature sensor wiring

• Office electric loads, voltage, and current for each 

device

• Photometer location and wiring routing for measurement of lighting levels.

Code Requirements

The Solar Decathlon organizers required the competition houses to comply with relevant sections of IRC

2000, including requirements for minimum floor area,

height, and dimensions of habitable spaces, minimum

glazing area for specific spaces, and specific requirements for roofed porches and carports. At the time 

of the initial review of qualification documents, the

organizers determined that 13 of the entries were

either non-compliant with some (or all) relevant
From Concept to Reality — 23

aspects of IRC 2000, or the organizers were unable to

determine compliance (or a combination of the two).

Entries were required to comply with relevant sections

of NEC 1999, including requirements concerning space

free from electrical equipment, accessibility to switches,

circuit breakers, and information about the locations 

of and accessibility to electric vehicle charging equipment, batteries, and chargers. At the time of the initial

review of qualification documents, the organizers

determined that all 14 entries were either noncompliant with some (or all) relevant aspects of NEC

1999, or the organizers were unable to determine 

compliance (or a combination of the two). Only after

extensive revisions did all 14 teams eventually achieve

approval for their designs.

Additional Requirements

The Solar Decathlon organizers also required information regarding transportation, delivery, unloading,

assembly, and disassembly of the entry. The teams

were required to specify capacities and locations 

within the 800-ft2 (74.3-m2) footprint of their water

supply, hot water, and wastewater storage. 

All teams constructed their houses on predetermined

lots of approximately 5500 ft2 (511 m2). The lots were

not to be damaged in any way except for placing

anchors needed to meet wind-loading requirements.

The allowed tie-downs were large stakes or screws,

similar to those used for circus tents. Insertion of tiedown stakes or screws was limited to a vertical depth

of 18 in. (45.7 cm).

Professional Engineer Stamp of Approval

To comply with NPS requirements, each team was

required to submit a final set of drawings approved 

by a Professional Engineer (P.E.). As a courtesy to the

teams, NREL offered to facilitate the evaluation of

structural designs toward the eventual acquisition 

of a P.E. stamp of approval by engaging the services 

of a structural engineering firm. Ten teams availed

themselves of this service. Preliminary feedback on 

the structural drawings and analyses submitted by

each team that used this service was that nearly every

team needed to address some areas before it could

qualify for a P.E. approval stamp. These areas are

described here:

Railings and Railing Details

IRC 2000 requires that railings be capable of a 200 lbf

(890 N) concentrated load applied to its top (Table

R301.4, and refer to section R315.1 and R315.2). This

concentrated load generates a 600 ft-lb (813.5 N-m)

moment at the railing support base connection. Calculations that demonstrate this capability, along with

drawings of the connections and connection hardware

details being used, had to be included. 

Floors and Decking

Floors and decking are required to support 40 lb/ft2

(1915 N/m2) live load and all applicable dead loads. 

This capability had to be demonstrated with 

calculations.

Soils

In the absence of other soil information from NPS, the

organizers assumed that 1000 lb/ft2 (47,880 N/m2)

maximum bearing pressure is a reasonable limit for

the National Mall topsoil and provided this guidance

to the teams. Designs were required to provide sufficient supports to reduce the bearing pressures below

the maximum.

Tie-Downs

Tie-downs were used to prevent the wind from overturning the structures. Tie-downs had to provide appropriate uplift capacity per anchor without penetrating

greater than 18 in. (45.7 cm) into the National Mall

topsoil. Calculations were required to demonstrate this

capability. Designs not using tie-downs were required

to show, with calculations using a safety factor of 2,

that there was no overturning or uplift.

Wind-Loading Requirement

Houses had to be able to withstand a minimum requirement of sustained 80-mph (36-m/s) wind speed with

exposure category “B.” This capability had to be

demonstrated with calculations. (The organizers

reminded teams that the final locations of their 

homes might require the ability to withstand greater

wind speeds and exposure categories than specified for

Washington, D.C.) Structural designs also had to show

that the fastening of any braced wall panel would

withstand the wind loading. Designs also had to show

details of truss clips and other fasteners. Teams were

referred to the IRC 2000 nailing requirement Table

R602.3(1) for examples with oriented strand board 

on wood studs. Braced wall panels were required to 

be provided at ends and at 25-ft (7.6-m) maximum

spacing in accordance with IRC 2000 602.10.3. Also,

teams that used structurally integrated panels (SIPs),

had to provide evidence of shear load capacity for

those panels.

Minimum Structural Plan Requirements

Most of the structural plans the organizers received

were incomplete. Structural plans were required to

include a foundation plan, main floor framing plan,
24 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

ceiling framing plan (if applicable), roof framing plan,

and upper floor framing plan (if applicable). Live load

capacities were required by IRC 2000. All dead loads

(with an individual load breakdown) also had to be

shown and accounted for in the load analysis. Many

teams planned to support water bladders, or other

heavy tanks, batteries, or mechanical equipment in

the crawl or attic spaces. These loads also had to be

accounted for in calculations for the applicable roof,

ceiling, or foundation plans. Plans had to show details

such as truss clips or other fasteners.

Snow Loading

Snow loading was not a consideration for the Solar

Decathlon. However, the organizers recommended

that if snow was a factor for the final locale of a 

team’s house, the team should consider snow loading in its design to ensure the long-term structural

integrity of the project.

Procurement and Use of Materials

Solar Decathlon teams relied extensively on materials

donations. Title sponsor donations from The Home

Depot and BP Solar were accepted by most of the

teams. In a few cases, sponsors offered materials to 

all 14 teams, as in the case of ASKO, a manufacturer

that produces energy-efficient appliances. Several

teams availed themselves of the offer—a package deal

that included a dishwasher, clothes washer, and dryer.

In general, though, the teams depended on locally

donated funds, products, materials, and services. 

Some teams found more than 40 corporate sponsors 

to contribute support and materials to their homes.

SIPs were used for the wall sections on more than half

of the Solar Decathlon homes. SIPs combine structural

integrity and insulating qualities in a factory-built

panel that speeds the wall assembly process on the

building site and minimizes waste. A small crane or

forklift is used to place the SIPs into the building.

Most teams used at least some materials that were

environmentally friendly, although this was not a

competition requirement. These “green” products

included recycled materials, bamboo flooring,

reclaimed lumber, composite materials made from

crop residues, and low volatile organic compound

materials. At least one team showcased locally produced materials such as granite from its home state. 

Construction Schedules and Results

In spite of good intentions and state-of-the-art timeline software, many teams began construction later

than they had planned. For some, it was due to a lack

of funds. For others, the design of the home wasn’t

finalized until much later than anticipated. Most of

the teams began construction between mid-May and

late July of 2002. One team started its home in August!

These start dates left little or no time for contingencies

and very little time after completion to check out systems or perform any shakedown or rehearsal for the

competition before preparing their homes for transportation to the Mall in September. The University of

Puerto Rico team began its project somewhat earlier

than most teams, owing to the need to containerize

and ship the home by sea. Crowder College subcontracted the construction of its building shell to a modular home manufacturer, and completed the house 

on campus after the delivery of the building shell sections. The Rolla team prided itself on a structure that

was completely “team built.” Many teams used professional builders for some part of the construction. At

least two teams used PV power to operate power tools.

Pages 25–27 contain construction case studies of a

couple of the homes, each with a series of photographs that document some phase or sequence in the

construction of the building. These case studies illustrate the variety of construction techniques used.

Although the teams used different construction techniques and followed different construction schedules,

they all had one looming deadline—fall 2002! Trucks

carrying the materials for and sections of their houses

had to arrive on September 18 or 19 to allow enough

time for assembly. The process of getting the houses 

to the Mall, taking them off the trucks, and assembling

them within 7 days is worthy of considerable discussion. The next chapter discusses transport and assembly of the houses.
From Concept to Reality — 25

University of Maryland

The University of Maryland began construction of its house 

in late summer. The house, like many in the Solar Decathlon

competition, employed SIPs that were fabricated in a factory

setting, transported to the building site, and assembled in

place into the building shell with the help of a crane. Photo 1

shows the main building shell section, supported on concrete

piers, with the individual SIPs sections and their consecutive

numbers. Building paper was then applied as an air barrier, 

as shown in Photo 1. Next, windows were installed and the

building section that housed the mechanical systems was

added. This section, and the roof trusses, are visible in Photo

2, along with fiberglass batts to be installed in the non-SIP

flooring. The final steps in the building exterior of the Maryland house were the application of lap siding and the installation of the PV modules on the roof, Photo 3.

Mark Eastment/PIX12828

Mark Eastment/PIX12829 Mark Eastment/PIX12830

Photo 3. Lap siding applied and PV modules installed on

the roof of the Maryland House.

Photo 2. Roof trusses, window installation, and fiberglass

flooring insulation in the Maryland house.

Photo 1. University of Maryland’s SIPs construction.
26 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

University of Texas at Austin

The University of Texas team chose to fabricate its house so it could be disassembled and reassembled entirely without a crane.

This ambitious goal was set to allow the house to be easily transported to multiple locations over its useful life, and to comply 

with NPS’s original ruling, which prohibited the use of cranes of any type during the Solar Decathlon (a ruling on which the NPS

later softened its stance). The series of photographs (4–10) illustrates the start of the assembly process. The process of house

assembly begins with the placement of foundation pads (Photo 4). Columns are secured by means of a metal collar onto the pads

(Photo 5). Photo 6 shows several columns and some of the floor framing. Next, trusses are assembled and carried into position

(Photo 7), then raised into place and secured (Photo 8 on page 27). A roof panel, clad with an interior finish ceiling material on

one side, standing seam metal roofing on the other, and insulation sandwiched between, is next positioned onto a truss (Photo

9), and winched into place with hand-powered cranks (Photo 10). 

Although somewhat time-consuming, the house was completely assembled in the allotted time during the event, in part because

the team had practiced the process on its campus with a subteam dedicated to the assembly and disassembly of the building. A

different group of students operated the house during the competition week. Diana Osterfeld/PIX12979 Diana Osterfeld/PIX12981

Diana Osterfeld/PIX12980

Diana Osterfeld/PIX12982

Photo 5. Columns that form the house framing system

are placed inside collars and secured.

Photo 4. Foundation pads, each with leveling bolts, are laid 

out for the University of Texas house.

6. Floor- and column-framing nears completion. Photo 7. Trusses are carried into position in preparation for

being raised to ceiling height and installed.
From Concept to Reality — 27

Diana Osterfeld/PIX12983

Diana Osterfeld/PIX12984

Diana Osterfeld/PIX12978

Photo 8. Trusses in place, and an unclad wall panel is 

tested for fit.

Photo 9. A roof panel, clad with standing seam metal roofing,

is positioned atop a truss.

Photo 10. Members of the Texas team use winches and

hand-controlled cranks to raise the truss and roof panel 

to full height.
28 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

I

magine constructing a village where there is no

infrastructure—no power, no water, no sewer—

and all the buildings for that village will arrive 

by truck to be assembled in just one week. This was

the logistical challenge faced by the teams and organizers of the 2002 Solar Decathlon. The teams had to

consider the transport of their houses in the earliest

design phases of their projects. The organizers worked

with NPS, which owns and manages the National

Mall. The organizers also worked with the teams to

ensure that it was physically possible to drive the

trucks carrying the various sections of all 14 houses,

plus the teams’ construction equipment, onto the

Mall so the houses could be assembled.

The National Mall before the Solar Decathlon arrived—from

7th Street, looking east toward the U.S. Capitol. Gravel

paths are visible on the north and south boundaries of the

grass panels on which the solar village was assembled. 

The National Mall before the Solar Decathlon arrived—

from 4th Street, looking west toward the Washington

Monument. Gravel paths are visible on the north and

south boundaries of the grass panels on which the solar

village was assembled.

Holding a Competition on the National Mall

The National Mall could be considered one of the

nation’s most valuable pieces of land. And as such, 

it is in nearly constant danger of being loved to death.

NPS does a truly remarkable job of balancing care of

the Mall with ensuring that the Mall is available for

public events and for public use. When the Solar

Decathlon organizers first visited NPS to discuss the

Solar Decathlon, the idea was received with some 

concern and skepticism. How could 14 houses be 

constructed without any Mall visitors being hurt?

(Millions of people walk, run, and play along the Mall

every week.) How could the teams safely drive electric

cars on and off the Mall—a pedestrian walkway? How

could 14 houses be assembled without damaging the

Mall’s turf? All this concern was perfectly reasonable.

So, although the Solar Decathlon organizers received

the official permit to hold the event on the Mall in

September 2001 (one year before the event), they had

been consulting with NPS approximately one year

before that to ensure that plans for the competition

did not conflict with any NPS concerns or regulations.

In the year and a half before the event, some regulation

interpretations from NPS changed. Most notably, there

were changes in regulations regarding driving vehicles

on the grass and the use of cranes for assembly. The

final determination from NPS was that trucks could

drive on the grass as long as plywood was placed

under the tires. This was good news for the teams, 

but it did result in the rental or purchase of a great

deal of 3/4 in. (1.9 cm) plywood and considerable

labor moving the sheets of plywood around to act 

as a road on which the vehicles could travel. Initially, 

the organizers had also been told that cranes were 

not allowed. Eventually, truck-mounted cranes were

approved for use, but the vehicles had to stay on the

gravel paths that run along the north and south

boundaries of the Mall. This resulted in the presence

of several large, truck-mounted cranes, which had 

sufficient reach and load capacity, to assist the teams

with assembly. Teams were also not allowed to place

their houses directly on the grass—some kind of support element was required to keep the floor section 

off the turf. In addition to NPS regulations that had 

an effect on the event, there are also several physical

realities about the Mall that create some logistical

challenges to holding an event there. A discussion of

those challenges follows.

Getting to Washington, D.C., and Away Richard King/PIX12974 Richard King/PIX12986
Getting to Washington, D.C., and Away — 29

Water and Sanitation

All water for use during the event had to be delivered

to the Mall beforehand and removed from the Mall at

the end of the event. In addition, there are no sanitation services on the Mall. The organizers contracted

with Washington, D.C.-area companies for trash

dumpsters, recycling containers, and portable toilets

with hand sanitizers. The organizers and teams purchased bottled water for drinking. 

The 10 portable toilets were adequate for the event;

even when crowds were large there were not lines.

During museum hours, many people opted for the

restrooms in the museums in the area (e.g., Air and

Space, The National Gallery, The Smithsonian). A

security check was required before entering the 

museum. An added benefit of the museum restrooms was air conditioning. When the village was

fully assembled, there were places to get out of the

heat, but during the week of assembly, visiting the 

air-conditioned buildings was like a very brief vacation to paradise.

Trash management was an interesting challenge. There

were two kinds of trash issues—trash and debris from

transport, assembly and disassembly, and trash from

everyday village life, especially while the village was

open to the public. The teams generated significant

debris during transport, assembly, and disassembly of

the homes. Attempts before and upon arrival in D.C.

to secure recyclable venues for those waste materials

proved fruitless. During assembly and disassembly, 

the organizers had a 30-yd3 (23-m3) dumpster on 

site, and had it replaced every day. Unfortunately,

some very reusable and recyclable materials did end

up as landfill. 

During the competition and event—the 11 days the

village was open to the public—recycling was encouraged. Recycling containers were placed next to trashcans throughout the site. Trashcans were emptied into 

a 10-yd3 (7.6-m3) dumpster each day. Whereas the

organizers had discussed recycling while planning the

event, responsibility for arranging the service was not

assigned until the organizers were in D.C., so arrangements for recycling were made rather hastily. The

recycling contractor was inconsistent in his pickups,

which occasionally resulted in overfull containers.

And despite the organizers’ efforts and the excellent

example set by the teams, visitors still mixed trash 

or didn’t watch what they threw away. In addition to

emptying trashcans daily, the organizers had to separate recyclables from the trash and trash from the

recyclables. A greater effort will be made for the next

event to couple educational displays with recycling

containers in an effort to encourage recycling. And a

firm arrangement will be made with a reliable recycling contractor before the event. 

During assembly, the Rolla team’s water and wastewater

tanks are visible.

Water was a more complicated issue. Teams had to

provide two tanks—one for fresh water and one for

wastewater. (Discharge of any water onto the Mall is

prohibited.) Water delivery and wastewater removal

were scheduled over two, two-day periods (one at 

the beginning of the event and one at the end). The

necessity for easy access to the teams’ supply and

wastewater tanks was not fully delineated in the competition rules and regulations. Consequently, some

teams’ water tank arrangements provided additional

challenges to the water delivery process. The access

point for some tanks was 10–12 ft (3–3.7 m) overhead,

which made a gravity-feed supply truck (the type of

truck the organizers wanted to use) of questionable

feasibility. Other tanks were located under the house

with the access point being the furthest possible distance from the gravel paths on which the water truck

had to remain to comply with NPS regulations. Because,

in some cases, water had to be pumped to a 10–12 ft

(3–3.7 m) height, the water supply vendor could not

guarantee effective delivery with a residential “pool

supply” truck (a gravity-feed truck used only for water

supply). The water vendor chose to use an “industrial”

truck that is equipped with a pump instead. These

trucks are used to haul any liquids and are steamcleaned before switching from one liquid to another.

In the case of either type of delivery truck, the vendor

would not and could not deliver “drinking water.” He

delivered “non-potable water.” This non-potable water

is, in fact, city tap water, but because of health and

safety concerns, when it goes into the truck tank it is

considered non-potable. (Teams provided all their own

drinking water. They also used bottled water for any

cooking, and they did not eat from the same dishes

they washed for the Hot Water contest.) When the

Warren Gretz/PIX11676
30 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

contractor delivered water to the Solar Decathlon, he

not only cleaned the tank beforehand, but he also

used new water hoses. The color and odor of the water

he delivered were acceptable at the first two houses to

which he delivered. However, the third house required

additional hoses and multiple nozzle connectors to

reach the front of the house, where the access point

was located. The water vendor had not adequately

cleaned all the connectors and the result was water

that did not appear to be clean enough, although 

no odor was discernible. There was concern that this

water might damage the water lines and equipment 

in the houses, so all the delivered water was removed.

The water vendor then arranged for a residential pool

supply truck to deliver water. This proved satisfactory

for all. The organizers did send a sample of the water

that had been removed from the houses to a laboratory

for analysis. The analysis determined that although it

was non-potable (as expected), it contained nothing

hazardous, and there would be no cause for concern

when the houses were hooked up to any city water

system and the plumbing flushed. In an effort to 

prevent such complications during future Solar

Decathlons, greater clarification of rules and regulations related to water delivery, storage, and removal

will be needed.

Electricity

There is no electrical power on the Mall. This didn’t

pose a significant problem, because the competition

and event are about sustainability and solar energy.

However, the teams and organizers did need power

during assembly and disassembly (periods during

which the teams’ PV systems were not functioning),

and the organizers needed power for general administration of the event. 

USDA provided a 100% biodiesel (made from soybeans)

generator for the event.

The teams were allowed 

to use gas or diesel generators during the assembly

and disassembly periods.

Of course, caution was 

required for fueling 

generators. NPS imposed

additional requirements 

regarding fueling generators. The generators 

could not be placed 

directly on the Mall turf 

or paths—something was

required underneath to 

catch fuel spills or oil 

leaks. Fueling could 

only be done after public 

hours, which generally 

meant after dark. And 

extra fuel could not be 

stored on the Mall. 

Most of the teams used generators for some assembly

and disassembly. The Crowder College team was the

notable exception. It used only renewable energy 

during the construction of its home on campus and

during assembly and disassembly on the Mall. The

team did this with a portable, trailer-mounted, 640-W

PV system. Eventually, Crowder, like all the teams,

could also use its rooftop PV system for power.

In keeping with the sustainability theme of the event,

the organizers used only electricity generated by the

sun or by using renewable biofuels. Four PV systems

ranging in size from 640 W to 4 kW and a 75-kW 

generator run on 100% biodiesel were used to supply

electricity to the following: 

• The recreational vehicle (RV) used by sponsor EDS to

house the wireless local area network for the event

• The RV that housed the equipment for monitoring 

the houses for the competition

• The organizers’ headquarters RV

• The Competition Pavilion tent, which had compact 

fluorescent lights for nighttime use; public Internet 

terminals (laptop computers) for public use; audiovisual, sound, and lighting equipment for opening 

and closing ceremonies, presentations, and meetings

• Flashlight, two-way radio, cell phone, and laptop 

recharging.

The PV systems all had battery banks, so they could

supply power at night and on cloudy days. The four

systems were: 

• 640-W trailer-mounted system loaned by Crowder 

College during the competition 

Solar Decathlon sponsor BP

Solar provided this 960-W,

trailer-mounted PV system

for the event.

Warren Gretz/PIX11831

Warren Gretz/PIX11900
Getting to Washington, D.C., and Away — 31

• 960-W trailer-mounted system provided by BP Solar 

• 1800-W trailer-mounted system and 4 kW PV Flag 

supplied by NREL’s NCPV.

USDA provided the 75-kW generator that ran entirely

on 100% biodiesel (made from soybeans) for use during

the entire event. USDA made arrangements for the biodiesel to be donated by World Energy, a biodiesel supplier based in Massachusetts. The organizers did generally take extra steps to make the event as energy efficient as possible (e.g. replacing the incandescent lights

provided by the tent vendor with compact fluorescent

lights). Some equipment, such as sound and lighting

equipment and equipment for the local area network,

however, was not particularly energy efficient. More

importantly, it was available. To handle the loads for

this equipment, the organizers used the generator at

night or in the early morning to recharge the batteries

for the PV systems. The generator was also used during the opening ceremony, which occurred during a

rainstorm, and to occasionally power other large daytime loads as needed. In hindsight, a 20-kW–30-kW

generator would probably have been sufficient. But 

it was terrific to have an extra power supply to ensure

all critical loads were met “24/7” and that, although 

a bit noisy, smelled a lot like French fries! 

Lights

Because there are only a few light fixtures on the Mall

that illuminate only the gravel pathways, the Solar

Decathlon required more illumination on the teams’

“building lots” during assembly and disassembly. The

organizers provided safe levels of illumination using

generator-based light towers—each with four 1000-W

high intensity discharge lights. Eight light towers were

spaced along the outside of the solar village. These

light towers used diesel fuel. The organizers rented 

the lights and contracted with an energy service,

which provided nighttime fueling. The same requirements that applied to fueling generators also applied

to these generator-based construction light towers.

After the original fuel supply for these lights was

exhausted, the lights were powered by biodiesel. This

use of biodiesel was unintentional but fortunate.

When the original fuel ran out, the organizers could

not get conventional diesel delivered to the Mall

because the request was made too late on a Friday

afternoon, and because district traffic was being

restricted in expectation of World Bank protests. 

But the organizers were able to receive deliveries 

of 100% biodiesel from USDA.

Whereas the organizers provided general nighttime

and safety lighting, teams were required to provide

their own task-specific lighting during assembly and

disassembly. Different lighting levels are recommended

by the Illuminating Engineering Society for different

areas—from 10 footcandles (107.6 lx) for general construction to higher levels for more specific tasks. Some

teams rented or borrowed generator-based light towers

similar to those used by the organizers. Light towers

with 110-Volt (V) outlets were more useful, because a

single generator could provide both light and electricity

for other tasks. Other teams used electrical generators

to power separate 1000-W work lights. For small tasks,

flashlights or head-mounted lights worked well.

Installation of Monitoring Instruments

The Solar Decathlon organizers installed sensors and

monitoring equipment in each house during assembly

and removed the equipment during disassembly.

(Some of the equipment was installed on prior visits

to the teams’ sites on their campuses during construction.) The locations of sensors and monitoring equipment were planned in advance through negotiations

between the organizers and each team. Installation

had to be completed on the Mall at least two days

before the official start of the contests (September 30).

Most of the teams, despite their very best intentions,

were finishing construction of their houses during

assembly on the Mall, which made installation of

instrumentation a bit tricky. The monitoring group

from NREL, fortunately, is accustomed to working

with the normal last-minute nature of construction, 

so they worked with the teams to install equipment 

as soon as the houses were ready. Before active scoring

began, the organizers had to allow time to verify 

correct functioning of the monitoring systems and to

correct any problems with the systems. The organizers

attempted to accommodate the aesthetic and technical requirements of the teams when installing equipment. The needs of the competition required that the

organizers located sensors and wires in architecturally

Solar Decathlon Organizers install monitoring instrumentation in the University of Virginia’s house.

Paul Norton/PIX12985
32 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

pristine spaces, but the same sensors were placed in

similar locations in every house. Refer to Appendix C

for the complete list of monitoring instruments. 

Site Layout, Installation, and Assembly Planning

and Scheduling

As soon as NPS issued the official permit to hold the

Solar Decathlon on the Mall, the organizers began to

work with the teams on site layout and installation

and assembly planning and scheduling. The organizers

faced an enormous challenge in not knowing until

several weeks before assembly began the exact location

of the houses on the teams’ lots, and how the teams

planned to transport their houses to the Mall. The

teams had chosen lots of approximately 5500 ft2

(511 m2) in early 2001, but the organizers did not

know exactly where within that area the teams would

locate their houses (footprint no larger than 800 ft2

[74.3 m2]). 

Village Layout and Furnishings

WAAC in Alexandria, Virginia, designed the homogeneous solar village layout and helped implement the

design. WAAC provides 4th and 5th year architecture

students, from a consortium of schools, educational

opportunities in a unique urban environment. For the

Solar Decathlon, WAAC’s overall goal was to produce 

a design that would attract the public and provide the

media with photo opportunities. WAAC created color

concept renderings, which were used in advance publicity and publications. The students at WAAC also

engaged in design development and turned out in

force to implement the design on the Mall.

Integrating design elements included white “traffic

cones” with a Solar Decathlon logo and a solarpowered walkway light connected by white chain

links, grey plastic flooring (Portafloor) for pedestrian

walkways, shade canopies, street signs, and flowerfilled planters. The plastic flooring was the dominant

visual element, because it formed Decathlete Way—

the main street of the solar village and the other side

streets. In addition to acting as a unifying visual element, the plastic flooring also protected the grass 

from excessive wear and tear, and directed the public 

to stroll down the main street. 

Two tents, one at each end of Decathlete Way, enclosed

the village from east to west. The Sun Spot, a tent 

pavilion built by Taiyo, which featured BP Solar thinfilm PV module skylights in the roof, sat to the east.

To the west, there was a 10,000-ft2 (929-m2) tent,

called the Competition Pavilion, with Internet terminals for public use, educational exhibits sponsored by

by The Home Depot and EDS, and a seating area for

team presentations and meetings. 

Street signs, informational signs, portable flooring for walkways, flags, planters, decorative cones, and shading structures were all essential components of the Solar Village

designed by WAAC.

Site Preparation

The NPS permit to occupy the Mall began at 12:01 a.m.

on Thursday, September 19, 2002. Just before assembly

began, during the afternoon of September 18, NPS 

graciously allowed the organizers to mark the turf to

indicate layout of the teams’ lots and location of tents

and other structures provided by the organizers. The

organizers were also allowed to move some equipment

onto the Mall, and construction lights were placed

along the perimeter of the site for general lighting.

House Transportation and Assembly Logistics

House Transportation and Assembly Plans

Information about transportation, assembly, and disassembly was required in the Final Design report (see

previous chapter). The plans the organizers received

varied in detail. 

The Universities of Texas at Austin and Maryland submitted the most detailed and complete plans. Those

plans listed individually all the vehicles the teams

planned to use, each vehicle’s purpose, when each

vehicle was required on site, and when each vehicle

would leave. Texas even provided diagrams that indicated where its cargo was placed in its trucks. The

Solar Decathlon organizers responsible for logistics

reviewed the teams’ plans and, by early July 2002, sent

additional questions to the teams for more clarification

as needed. The organizers used the information provided by the teams to determine the teams’ unloading 

Paul Norton/PIX12996
Getting to Washington, D.C., and Away — 33

and loading schedules—particularly during the first 

24 hours of assembly. A draft unloading and loading,

15-minute-increment schedule was developed in July.

It continued to be refined up to the last few hours

before unloading began, despite advanced planning.

Overall unloading and loading proceeded remarkably

well. Flexibility was a key component in the planning

and execution by the organizers and the teams. All 

the team members and professional drivers exhibited

patience and complied with the NPS regulations.

House Transportation, Assembly, and Disassembly

All the 2002 Solar Decathlon teams had to transport

their houses by truck. The University of Puerto Rico’s

house had to be containerized and shipped by boat

from the island and then moved by truck from the

port of entry in New Jersey to the Mall. All but two 

of the teams (the University of Virginia and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte) transported

their houses in multiple, pre-assembled sections (e.g.,

a kitchen or living room section with walls, floor, and 

a roof) or in section panels (e.g., a north wall). Most 

of the teams’ house sections and at least one team’s

(Delaware) panel sections were oversized loads—either

in terms of dimension or weight. In total there were

75 trucks of which 23 were oversized. 

Several teams, notably the University of Texas at Austin,

used conventionally-sized tractor trailers. Conventional 

size is typically 8.5 ft (2.6 m) wide, less than 13.5 ft

(4.1 m) tall, less than 80 ft (24.3 m) in length, and 

less than 80,000 lb (36,287 kg) total weight. Anything

outside those dimensions or above that weight would

likely be considered oversized. What is or isn’t oversized or overweight, and how, where, and when oversized loads can travel vary from state to state. And the

District of Columbia, which protects a great number

and density of government facilities and national

treasures, is another case altogether. The District

allows oversized trucks only between the hours of

10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. when city traffic is reduced.

The earliest teams could move onto the Mall was 

midnight on September 19, so their trucks arrived on

the Mall either before 6:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. In

addition, trucks entering the District could have been

randomly stopped and searched by bomb-sniffing

dogs. No teams’ trucks were stopped, but teams had 

to consider the possibility of delays. Whereas almost

anything can be transported over the highways, cost,

paperwork, and hassle factors increase the more a

truck is oversized or overweight. Teams that worked

early in their projects’ development with professional

trucking companies and pilot car services had better

experiences with transporting their houses—even 

better if the companies were team sponsors!

The teams used four major methods to unload their

houses onto the Mall. Methods 2 and 3 required the

use of truck-mounted cranes and the ability to drive

on the grass with plywood under the wheels of the

vehicles.

Method 1, Stick-Build and Panelized Assembly

on the Lot

Four of the teams, University of Texas at Austin, Carnegie Mellon, University of Delaware, and Texas A&M

University, arrived with all their building materials—

some in the form of panel sections—unassembled.

Materials and equipment were unloaded from the

trucks onto the teams’ lots on the Mall, or were used

straight out of the trucks. 

SIPs panels, PV panels, and other components of the 

University of Texas at Austin team’s house—evidence of

the “high part count.”

The University of Texas at Austin team made custom

dollies and rigs to move precut panels of its house by

hand. It also integrated lifting mechanisms into the

house’s structure so assembly did not require overhead

cranes or forklifts to raise any roof sections. Although

the “part count” was high, the University of Texas

team successfully built its house within the allocated

number of days and without use of a crane (except 

to move the AirStream trailer “Mobile Utility Unit,”

which housed the mechanical equipment and plumbing, from a flatbed).

Carnegie Mellon generally used a panelized assembly

method, but the “tech pod” section of its house,

which houses all the mechanical systems, required a

forklift to place it onto the lot. The team also used a

forklift to assemble the sections high off the ground

and the roof. (Carnegie Mellon’s house is two stories,

and was the tallest house on the Mall.)

Zeke Yewdall/PIX12994
34 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

Carnegie Mellon’s panels—some coming together into a

house, and some stacked up and ready to go.

The Delaware team assembling the panel sections of its

house.

The University of Delaware used a truck-mounted

crane on the gravel path to lift panel sections (walls

and floor) of its house onto their lot. Delaware’s construction schedule was delayed at least a day when its

preassembled floor section fell off the flatbed trailer as

the truck left the campus in Newark. Because the team

had to reload the trailer, it missed the 6:00 a.m. deadline to enter the District with an oversized load and

had to wait until the next night to bring the truck

onto the Mall.

Texas A&M University arrived with the building materials on a truck, and most of its lumber was cut on site

according to construction drawings. The construction

method was typical of residential homes that are built

on site. The team (sometimes as few as two people)

assembled the house within the required time limit.

These panels will eventually come together to form Texas

A&M’s house.

Method 2, Drive-On, Drive-Off the Lot

This main section of Virginia’s house came as one 

oversized load. Many details are yet to be added.

One section of Virginia Tech’s house being unloaded onto

the Mall. The team is carefully placing plywood sections

under the truck’s wheels.

Zeke Yewdall/PIX12975 Richard King/PIX12990

Zeke Yewdall/PIX12988 Zeke Yewdall/PIX12995 Zeke Yewdall/PIX12997
Getting to Washington, D.C., and Away — 35

The main section of the UNC Charlotte house came in one

load. Here several details have been added, but the team is

still waiting for its back porch to arrive.

Two sections of the Tuskegee house on trucks on the Mall

waiting to be unloaded.

The three sections of the Rolla house are ready to come

together.

The two main sections of the Auburn house are ready to go

together.

The University of Virginia, Virginia Tech, University of

North Carolina at Charlotte, University of Missouri–

Rolla, Tuskegee, and Auburn University teams all used

a method of assembly that is similar to that used in

modular home construction to place a house on a

concrete slab. The house can arrive in one section or

in multiple sections that can be assembled into one

unit. The sections are mounted on axles and wheels,

which can be left in place, or from which the sections

can be removed. If left in place, the axles and wheels

are disguised with decorative skirting. In the cases of

Virginia and UNC Charlotte, the houses arrived in one

section. In the cases of Tuskegee, Auburn, and Virginia

Tech, two sections. In the case of Rolla, the house

arrived in three sections. For all the teams using this

method, most of the house sections were long in the

east-west direction and were driven onto the Mall in

that same direction. Rolla was unique in that the three

sections of its house were placed on the Mall by driving

in a north-south direction. Rolla transported all three

sections on a single trailer to the D.C. area, offloaded

those sections at a remote parking lot, and then used a

pickup truck to tow the sections onto the Mall. It was

easy for Rolla to assemble its house without any impact

on the neighbors, because it used a pickup rather than 

a semi, and the house was assembled from smaller 

sections. Rolla’s was the first house to be completed.

Although UNC Charlotte’s house came in one section,

the team did have an additional porch section designed

to be put into place using a forklift. The porch section

should have arrived with the main house section, but

the trailer carrying both sections broke down en route 

to D.C., and the porch section had to be removed and

trucked separately. By the time the porch arrived, the

team had to use a crane for the porch section on the

north side instead of a forklift because the neighbors’

houses were already on the Mall and access was blocked.

Zeke Yewdall/PIX12992 Zeke Yewdall/PIX12989

Zeke Yewdall/PIX12972

Zeke Yewdall/PIX12987
36 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

Method 3, Preassembled House Sections Lifted

onto the Lot

The first of seven sections of Colorado’s house is lifted into

place on its temporary foundation.

The Universities of Colorado and Puerto Rico teams

used trucks to haul their house sections onto the 

gravel pathways on the Mall. The teams then used

truck-mounted cranes to lift the sections onto their

lots. Puerto Rico had four sections—two main sections

and two roof sections. Colorado had seven sections—

three main sections, three roof sections, and a “tech

pod,” which housed all the house’s mechanical systems. 

The final main section of Puerto Rico’s house is put into

place on the Mall. 

Method 4, Preassembled House Sections Slide

Sideways onto the Lot

The Crowder college team uses hand cranks to slide its

house into place.

Crowder College used a standard delivery method for

modular homes that must be placed onto a basement

or crawl space, in which case a delivery truck cannot

drive over the site. The Crowder team was very successful in sliding its two house sections onto the lot.

Both house sections arrived on the same trailer. Crowder was on the north row, so the team slid its southern section into place first. The trailer then made a 

u-turn so the northern section could be slid into place. 

A Combination of Methods 2 and 3

A crane lifts one of Maryland’s roof sections into place.

The University of Maryland team used a combination

of methods. The truck carrying the main section of

the house drove onto the lot, where the team assembled

a custom overhead gantry using a truck-mounted crane.

Zeke Yewdall/PIX12977

Zeke Yewdall/PIX12976

Zeke Yewdall/PIX12993

Zeke Yewdall/PIX12991
Getting to Washington, D.C., and Away — 37

A gantry is a frame structure with a center steel beam

raised on side supports. It spanned over and around

the truck, trailer, and house section. The gantry picked

up the main house section, the truck and trailer drove

forward, and the gantry lowered the house section to 

the ground. The team then disassembled the gantry

using the truck-mounted crane, which also lifted the

roof sections into place.

Weather could have had a significant impact on assembly of the houses. If the grass had been too wet, NPS

would have prohibited driving on the grass until the

ground was less wet. This could have caused significant delays. As it was, all the teams worked around

the clock during most of the assembly phase. If they

had been delayed because of weather, many would not

have finished assembling their houses. The organizers

did have backup plans in case of bad weather or late

arrivals. These plans would have reallocated the teams’

lots based on assembly methods. Houses would have

remained in the same row (on the north or south side

of the Mall) but not necessarily in their chosen location (east to west). Fortunately, the weather during 

the assembly and disassembly periods was favorable,

the ground was hard, and the teams had 24 hours 

per day to work. 

Team Personnel Logistics during the Event

Of the 14 teams, 13 were located more than 150 miles

from Washington, D.C. Other than the University of

Maryland, all had to make travel and lodging arrangements. Additionally, very few of the teams were familiar

with the D.C.-metro area. Needless to say, transporting

their houses to the Mall wasn’t the only logistical

challenge they faced.

Travel and Lodging

Team sizes varied considerably. Some teams were so

small that only one group of students and faculty 

did everything on the Mall—from arrival and assembly

through the competition to disassembly and departure. Other teams were large enough that they could

form groups of students and faculty assigned to be 

in D.C. for shorter periods during the 3 weeks of the

event. Teams traveled by air and by car or van to

Washington—budgets, availability of school vehicles,

and travel distance seemed to be the determining 

factors. Lodging options included hotels, extendedstay apartments, hostels, and the homes of school

alumni. Most of the teams made travel and lodging

arrangements at the last minute. Costs and stress could

have been reduced for many by advanced planning.

Food

Food for the teams was also varied. Some teams had

dedicated people responsible for food, others organized food when it was needed. Pizza delivery was 

available on the Mall, and there are several fast food

restaurants and gourmet coffee shops close by. When

the houses were assembled and operational, the teams

could do some cooking when they weren’t busy hosting public visitors (teams were not allowed to serve

food to the public), performing contest tasks, or trying

to keep the interior temperatures of their houses 

under control. Teams were required to cook a set number of meals during the week of contests and deliver

food to a food pantry for the Getting Around contest.

Each team received a small stipend for contest-related

expenses, but additional advanced food planning outside that was required to reduce total food costs.

Parking

During assembly and disassembly, a limited number 

of service vehicles were permitted to park on the Mall.

However, the Mall was still open to the public, and

vehicle management was an ongoing challenge for 

the teams and the organizers. Passenger vehicles were

not permitted to park on the Mall at any time. Some

teams managed their vehicles better than others. Some

team lots were overcrowded with trucks and trailers,

whereas other lots had only one truck. Several “job

sites” looked organized and clear of clutter.

Local transportation options included the Metro, 

personal cars, bicycles, electric scooters, and walking.

Parking anywhere in Washington, D.C., can be difficult

and expensive. Parking around the Mall is limited also.

Each team received a single parking pass for one vehicle

for parking on Madison Street just north of the Mall.

Whereas the pass allowed all-day parking, instead of

the normal 2-hour limit, the spaces were still available

on a first-come, first-served basis. Many team members received parking tickets during the event. To

ensure compliance with NPS regulations and to prevent teams’ vehicles being towed, the organizers had

to monitor the situation almost constantly, making 

frequent requests that the teams not park on the Mall

or to move cars off the Mall that were already parked

there. 

Communication

Communication was required within and among the

organizers and the teams. Many people relied on cellular phones for off-site communications and family

radio service type two-way radios for on-site communications. The organizers used complimentary Nextel

phones with the two-way feature. All phones—whether 
38 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

Competition Director, Richard King leads a daily morning

meeting at the Solar Decathlon.

cellular or two-way—are only useful when they are

charged, turned on, and nearby. The organizers also

worked with the teams to develop a list of e-mail 

contacts for each team so important information

could be distributed electronically. The idea was that

one person on each team would distribute information to the rest of the team. That didn’t always work,

and team members came and went without providing

a new e-mail contact. The organizers held daily meetings, at which at least two people from each team were

to be present, and those two people were to communicate with the rest of their team. The meetings worked

fairly well. Despite the wonders of the communication

age—cell phones, radios, and e-mail—the organizers

and the teams spent a great deal of time walking

around the village and communicating in the oldfashioned “in-person” way. It was sometimes frustrating and time-consuming, but it certainly provided an

opportunity for people to get to know each other.

Medical and Safety

With any public event of this scale, especially one that

requires significant construction, serious attention must

be given to safety and medical issues at all times—

during construction on campus, assembly and disassembly on the Mall, and operation of the homes during the competition. The organizers had a written

safety and medical plan, of which all Solar Decathlon

staff were knowledgeable. The teams were responsible

for their own safety and medical plans and may have

had written, or unwritten but generally agreed-upon

guidelines.

Safety

Safety was emphasized by the organizers from the

beginning, and safety issues had to be addressed by 

the teams in their original proposals. At a meeting on

September 18, 2002, just before assembly began, the

organizers reviewed safety practices and emergency

procedures with the teams. For the most part, all the

team members followed the spirit of guidelines from

the Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA) and other related safety codes such as the

NEC. (OSHA regulations are not straightforward or

easy to interpret, so the teams are to be commended

for their success.) NREL staff were also on duty 

24 hours per day during assembly and disassembly

and from 6:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. during the competition to monitor safety in the village. In general,

the teams arrived on the Mall ready to work safely 

and did so throughout assembly, the competition, 

and disassembly.

Medical

The Solar Decathlon organizers contracted with a

medical services group to provide on-site emergency

medical care. During the assembly and disassembly

periods, while the organizers and teams were engaged

in construction and assembly activities, an ambulance

was on site 24 hours per day. During all other phases

of the event, an emergency medical technician was 

on site during the day and early evening. During

assembly and disassembly, the organizers and teams

were active 24 hours per day, and public access was

prohibited; during all other phases, the solar village

closed to the public at 5:00 p.m. each day, and the

teams’ houses were “impounded” from 10:00 p.m.

until 7:00 a.m. each day, so the need for emergency

medical care was reduced. Fortunately, there were no

major medical incidents during the event. Only one

person was transported to a hospital for stitches. Diligence by the teams and organizers helped minimize 

the number of injuries. There were several incidents 

in which the visiting public received some minor 

first aid, including one case of heat stroke.

Disassembly and Post-Event Site Cleanup

Disassembly always proceeds more quickly than assembly. In three days all teams and organizers had packed

up their houses and equipment and left the Mall. There

was no disassembly schedule like the assembly schedule.

The order in which teams left the Mall was not the

same order in which they brought their houses onto

the Mall. A few teams had to wait for their neighbors

to leave before they could haul their houses off the

Mall. Virginia, for example, was first on the Mall at

the beginning of assembly, and their neighbors (UNC

Charlotte and Texas A&M) had to wait while Virginia

unloaded its house. However, on disassembly, Virginia

had to wait for Texas A&M to remove its house before

Virginia could load up its house. After having gone

through assembly and the competition together, 

most teams were friends with their neighbors and any

Warren Gretz/PIX11712
Getting to Washington, D.C., and Away — 39

scheduling conflicts were resolved between the teams.

During disassembly, as during assembly, oversized

trucks could travel in the District of Columbia only

between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Most of the empty

trucks (which were not oversized when empty) could

arrive during the day but had to wait until night

before leaving the Mall with a house section. House

sections were loaded during the day and the driver

waited until the proper time to leave.

As in assembly, the teams generated significant construction debris during disassembly. A local nonprofit

group took some of the plywood sheets that teams

had used under tires on the turf and planned to reuse

it for future Habitat for Humanity houses. Much of

the wood debris seemed to be in good condition, but

not worth the cost to transport back home, so most 

of the teams dumped it. Teams also swept their lots for

smaller construction debris such as nails, screws, and

metal shavings using a magnetic sweeper. Even so, a

visual inspection was required because some debris

(e.g., aluminum shavings and wood splinters) is not

magnetic. This is one area of cleanup that needs to 

be improved for the next event. 

By the morning of October 10, 2002, everything was

off the Mall except for rental equipment that would

be picked up later by the rental companies. (One forklift remained for several weeks because the team didn’t

notify the rental company when to pick it up.) The

only other remaining evidence of the event was the 

distinctive pattern of a walkway here and a building

footprint there in the color of grass. At the request 

of the NPS, the organizers contracted a landscaping

company to aerate and reseed the grass area that 

Solar Decathlon occupied. Within a month, the lawn 

was restored.

All in all, the Solar Decathlon left the National Mall 

in the same shape that it was in before the event.

Throughout the Solar Decathlon—from assembly

through the competition and disassembly—things

went smoothly because of good planning, good attitudes, conscientious behavior, and because it didn’t

rain! Teams were able to work at their pace and never

suffered delays because of the weather. (The only time

it rained was during the Opening Ceremony, when

everyone was scheduled to be in a tent anyway.)

Oddly, on the morning of October 10, the day after

everyone had left, it started to rain—what luck!
40 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

Now you know what the competition and the

event were all about and even who the winners were, but you may want more details. 

This chapter details how the contests worked, who 

won each contest, and what the organizers will 

consider changing for the 2005 competition.

Scoring

Scoring Methods

A total of 1100 points were possible in the Solar 

Decathlon. The winning team earned the greatest

number of total points. Each contest was worth a 

maximum of 100 points each, except Design and

Livability, which was worth a maximum of 200 points.

Points were awarded based on a combination of subjective and objective evaluations. The Design and

Livability, Design Presentation and Simulation, and

Graphics and Communications contests were solely

scored based on judging (subjective evaluation). The

Energy Balance and Getting Around contests were

purely measurement based (objective evaluation). 

The five other contests each had a judged component and a measurement-based component. 

In the judged contests and contest components, the

judges either assigned to each team a rank from which

points were derived, or awarded points directly to

each team. In the measured contests and contest 

components, teams were ranked according to a performance index and then assigned points based on

that rank.

Calculating Points from Rank

After ranks were assigned, points were awarded to each

team based on its rank. Several contests consisted of

more than one component, and the teams were ranked

on each. The team with rank = 1 received the maximum possible points for the contest or the contest

component, and the team ranked last received zero

points. Ranks between 1 and the total number of

unique ranks (this total could be 14 or fewer, depending on the number of ties and the ranks assigned by

the judges) were converted to points proportionately.

Points from rank were determined as follows:

Points = Pmax – [(Rank-1) x Pmax/(N-1)]

Where: Pmax is the maximum number of points possible for the contest or component

Rank is the rank the team was assigned 

(1, 2, 3, etc.,)

N is the highest rank number.

Table 1 provides an example of points earned from the

ranks assigned by the Engineering Design Panel (see

page 43) for the innovation, consumer appeal, and

integration of the hot water system for the Hot Water

contest.

Table 1. Scoring Example

Hot Water Contest, Innovation, Consumer Appeal, and

Integration of System

(Maximum points available = 30)

(All displayed points are rounded to 3 decimal places.)

Proportion of maximum

Team Rank points available Points

Crowder 1 1.0000 30.000

Maryland 2 0.9231 27.692

Delaware 3 0.8462 25.384

Puerto Rico 4 0.7692 23.076

Texas–Austin 5 0.6923 20.770

Auburn 6 0.6154 18.462

Carnegie Mellon 6 0.6154 18.462

Colorado 6 0.6154 18.462

Rolla 6 0.6154 18.462

Virginia 6 0.6154 18.462

Virginia Tech 6 0.6154 18.462

Tuskegee 12 0.1538 4.616

UNC Charlotte 13 0.0769 2.308

Texas A&M 14 0.0000 0.000

For contests with multiple components, the final score

was the total of all the points from all the components.

For example, the Hot Water contest had three components. The Engineering Design Panel judged (subjective evaluation) innovation, consumer appeal, and

integration (30 points) of the hot water system. The

The Ten Contests
The Ten Contests — 41

judges ranked these teams on the contest criteria, and

points were assigned according to rank. The hot-water

system output temperature (35 points) and the electrical energy consumed to heat the water and run appliances associated with the contest (35 points) were

measured and ranked according to the lowest performance index. Points were assigned according to those

rankings. The final score for the contest was the sum of

the points awarded for each component (to 100 points). 

Calculating Performance Index

Two types of contests or contest components were

based on measurements: 

1. Those in which the teams attempted to keep a 

measured parameter within prescribed bounds. For 

example, the refrigerator temperature was supposed 

to be 32°–40°F (0°–4°C). If the measurements 

showed deviations outside these bounds, a performance index was calculated proportional to 

the deviation from the bounds—the farther out 

of bounds, the higher the performance index. If 

a team’s measurements never went out of bounds 

for a particular contest, its performance index 

remained equal to zero for the entire contest.

2. Those for which electrical energy use was measured 

(e.g., electrical energy used to run the refrigerator). 

The performance index in this case was simply the 

amount of energy (in kilowatt-hours [kWh]) used 

since the beginning of the contest.

Calculating Rank and Points from Performance Index

Measurements and performance indices were recalculated every 15 minutes. After the performance indices

were calculated, the teams were ranked according to

their position in the performance index list. The team

with the lowest performance index ranked first, and

the team with the highest performance index ranked

last. If there were ties, the tied teams received the

same rank. Table 2 presents an example of how a 

10-point, measurement-based component of a contest

was scored. 

How Penalties Affected Scores

Penalties were applied in different ways. Some related

to individual contests, and points were subtracted

from individual contest point totals (e.g., a 16-point

penalty for exceeding height limitations deducted

from the Design and Livability score). These points

were subtracted from the points awarded as a result 

of assigned rankings. Another type of penalty was

applied directly to the measured value of a contest

(e.g., a 2.6-kWh penalty for failure to wash dishes

added to measured electrical energy use by the hot

water system). This value affected the performance 

Table 2. Scoring Example

Measurement-Based Contest Component 

(Maximum points available = 10)

Performance Index Rank Points

5.40 2 9.000

2340.00 11 0.000

420.30 9 2.000

58.00 7 4.000

29.90 4 7.000

51.40 5 6.000

0.00 1 10.000

0.00 1 10.000

0.00 1 10.000

0.00 1 10.000

57.20 6 5.000

67.30 8 3.000

1520.10 10 1.000

22.00 3 8.000

index, which determined rank assignment and points

awarded. The organizers reserved the right to establish

penalties more general in nature. These points were

subtracted from total competition points.

Monitoring

The organizers installed a single data logger and various monitoring devices in each house. Data from each

data logger were transmitted to a server on the local

area network on the Mall. All data collected by the

organizers were made available to all teams in near

real time via the local area network. The collected 

data were also used to populate the electronic scoreboards on the Solar Decathlon Web site. The organizers installed some of the monitoring equipment

before the houses arrived on the Mall, but they did

the bulk of installation during assembly. After they

completed installation and testing of the monitoring

system, and the system was officially up and running,

the teams were responsible to review the data and

alert the organizers of any questions, problems, or 

discrepancies. Details about monitoring for each 

contest are contained in the discussions that follow 

in this chapter. Appendix C contains a list of monitoring instruments.
42 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

Officials, Judges, and Observers

Having a successful Solar Decathlon competition

required a sizable staff. NREL provided a number of

technical experts, who acted as contest officials that

interpreted contest rules, confirmed compliance with

rules and regulations, and installed and tested data

acquisition systems. Many professionals from related

fields acted as judges for the competition. And many

volunteers, most from DOE, volunteered to be contest

observers.

Contest Officials

Contest officials take a break outside the “monitoring” RV,

which served as the data acquisition center for the 

competition.

Any participant in or observant visitor to the Solar

Decathlon noticed the “important people” in the

bright red shirts. These were the men and women 

designated “contest officials.” They designed the data

acquisition system for the competition. They worked

with the teams to install monitoring equipment consistently, fairly, and as unobtrusively as possible. They

kept the entire scoring process functioning. They

inspected the teams’ houses to verify compliance with

competition regulations such as footprint and solar

array restrictions, and adherence to required building

codes and ADA. Any time a contest required participation from the competition organizers (e.g., shower tests

for the Hot Water contest), they were there. They were

the only competition staff empowered to interpret

rules and regulations during the competition. The

Solar Decathlon could not have functioned without

the following individuals:

• Greg Barker, Mountain Energy Partnership

• Zahra Chaudhry, NREL

• Michael Deru, NREL

• Mark Eastment, NREL

• Ed Hancock, Mountain Energy Partnership

• Sheila Hayter, NREL

• Charles Newcomb, NREL

• Paul Norton, NREL

• Shanti Pless, NREL

• Paul Torcellini, NREL

• Norm Weaver, Interweaver.

Judges

Several groups of judges participated in the Solar

Decathlon. A jury of renowned architects judged the

Design and Livability contest. A group of buildingenergy-modeling experts judged the building energy

analysis (simulation) part of the Design Presentation

and Simulation contest. Three distinguished engineering professionals made up the Engineering Design

Panel. They judged the construction documents 

component of Design Presentation and Simulation

and subjective components of several contests: The

Comfort Zone, Refrigeration, Hot Water, Lighting, 

and Home Business. A group of communications, 

Web development, and public relations professionals

judged the Graphics and Communications contest. 

The Design and Livability Jury

The jury consisted of prominent architecture and

building design professionals who have significant

experience with sustainable building design and construction. The members brought prestige to the competition in the eyes of the students and faculty advisors. Students were eager to embrace the rare opportunity to show off their creative solutions for integrating

architecture and solar energy and energy efficiency

technologies to this select group of esteemed individuals. The Design and Livability jury members were:

• Glenn Murcutt—Recognized in 2002 with the prestigious international Pritzker Architecture Prize, the 

architectural equivalent of the Nobel Prize. His commissions, which are mostly private homes, embrace 

energy efficiency, a sense of place, and environmental

consciousness. In addition to his private practice, 

Mr. Murcutt has served as a visiting professor and 

critic at universities all over the world for more 

than 30 years.

• Edward Mazria—Has concentrated on an environmental approach to building design, research, and 

planning for more than 30 years. His architecture 

and energy research at the University of New 

Mexico and the University of Oregon established 

his leadership in the field of resource conservation 

(materials efficiency) and design techniques. He has

published widely, and his work The Passive Solar 

Energy Book (1979), is a classic.

• Steven Paul Badanes—Known for designing and constructing buildings with energy-efficient features 

and an innovative use of materials. He is a founder 

and partner in the Jersey Devil Design/Build firm 

Warren Gretz/PIX11797
The Ten Contests — 43

(1972–present), a group of architects, artists, and 

inventors committed to the “interdependence of 

design and construction.” Currently, he leads design/

build studios at the University of Washington, where

his main areas of research and scholarship are sustainable building technology and community-based 

design/build projects.

• Dr. Ed Jackson, Jr.—Has directed applied research, 

managed large projects for government agencies, 

designed health-care facilities, instructed at the 

university level, and practiced with private architectural and consulting firms over his 25-year career. 

Currently, he oversees all program activities related 

to codes and standards, energy, disaster mitigation, 

research, sustainability, and green buildings for AIA.

• Dr. J. Douglas Balcomb—Specialized in passive solar 

systems for buildings for 26 years. He developed the 

Solar Load Ratio method, and more recently, the 

ENERGY-10 design-tool computer program. He has

served on the board of directors for ASES and the

International Solar Energy Society, has twice been 

Chair of ASES, organized the ASES Passive Solar 

Division, founded both the New Mexico Solar 

Energy Association and the Colorado Renewable 

Energy Society, and received numerous recognitions,

including the 1997 Lifetime Achievement Award 

from the Passive and Low-Energy Architecture international group.

• Stephanie Vierra, Assoc. AIA—Has specialized in 

architectural education, design, research, and public

awareness for more than a decade. She developed 

and implemented programs and policies that affected

architectural education while serving as executive 

director of the Association of Collegiate Schools 

of Architecture. She also developed and managed 

research and educational activities for architectural practitioners, faculty, and students while 

serving as the director of practice research at AIA. 

Building Energy Analysis Experts

The individuals who judged the simulations (building

energy analysis) for the Design Presentation and

Simulation contest are experts at building energy

modeling. Each member represented expertise in at

least one of the simulation tools used by the teams.

The members of the panel, their professional affiliation, and their area(s) of expertise are:

• Dr. J. Douglas Balcomb, NREL—Energy-10 

• Greg Barker, Mountain Energy Partnership—TRNSYS

• Michael Deru, NREL—DOE2 

• Russ Taylor, Steven Winter Associates—EnergyPlus

and DOE2

• Norm Weaver, Interweaver—Energy-10, EnergyPlus, 

and DOE2.

The Engineering Design Panel

The Engineering Design Panel worked with the Design

and Livability jury to judge the construction documents

part of the Design Presentation and Simulation contest. They also judged a part of The Comfort Zone,

Refrigeration, Hot Water, Lighting, and Home Business

contests. To judge the subjective components of those

contests, they received a 20-minute tour of each house,

led by one or more student member of each team.

They asked questions of the students to gain additional

information needed to rank the teams. Following each

tour, the panel deliberated for approximately 10 minutes. After visiting all the houses, the panel ranked the

teams for each contest according to how well they felt

the design met the contest objectives. (For more information about the objectives for each contest, see the

information about each contest that follows in this

chapter.) Members of the Engineering Design Panel

and their affiliations are:

• Dr. Hunter Fanney

Leader: Heat Transfer and Alternative Energy Systems

Group

Building Environment Division

Building and Fire Research Laboratory

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Gaithersburg, Maryland

• Dr. Dick Hayter

Associate Dean of Engineering for External Affairs

Kansas State University

Manhattan, Kansas

• Ron Judkoff

Director

Center for Buildings and Thermal Systems

NREL

Golden, Colorado.

Graphics and Communications Contest Judges

The Graphics and Communications contest was made

up of components that represent different areas of

expertise in the fields of graphics and communications, so the judging required different judging panels.

Most of the judges came from NREL’s Office of

Communications, which produces print and Webbased technical and outreach publications and Web

sites for the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy. Writers and editors judged Web 

site and newsletter content and newsletter design.

Web developers and graphic artists judged Web site

coding and design. Public relations specialists based 

in the Washington, D.C., area judged the house tours

part of the contest. 
44 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

Writers and editors

• Jill Anderson, Susan Moon, Paula Pitchford, and 

Nancy Wells, NREL

• René Howard, WordProse, Golden, Colorado

Web developers and graphic designers

• Shauna Fjeld, Kristine McInvaille, and Jim Snyder, 

NREL

Public relations specialists

• Jill Dixon, the National Building Museum

• Ben Finzel, Fleishman-Hillard Communications

• Lani Macrae, DOE

Observers

One of the many volunteers from DOE who served as 

official Solar Decathlon observers.

Many volunteers, mostly from DOE, were official Solar

Decathlon Observers. An observer was an objective 

third party tasked with recording team activities in and

around the house. One observer was stationed in each

house each day of the competition. Observers kept

written logs and checklists of the details of significant

team activities and the times those activities occurred

throughout the competition.

The role of the observer was to observe. Their observations were critical to the success of the competition,

and their logs and checklists helped the contest officials determine whether a team was following the

rules. Observers were impartial, representing neither

the organizers and officials nor the teams. Observers

did not make decisions or judgments about whether

the teams were following the rules, nor did they interpret rules. Contest officials determined whether the

teams were following the rules and assigned appropriate penalties, but often their decisions were informed

by information provided by the observers.

The Competition Schedule

Most contests were active during “the contest week” of

Monday, September 30–Friday, October 4, 2002.

Graphics and Communications judging began on

Monday, September 23. Design Presentation and

Simulation Judging began on Friday, September 27

and concluded on Monday, September 30. Design 

and Livability judging began on Saturday, September

28 and concluded the next day. Getting Around began

on September 30, but the teams had the option to

conclude the contest on October 4 or the next day,

Saturday, October 5. All the teams participated in the

official end of the competition on October 5 by driving victory laps around the Mall and crossing a “finish

line” in the solar village. You will find detailed information about scheduled contest activities in the information about each contest that follows and in

Appendix D.

Design and Livability

The Design and Livability jury receives a tour from the

University of Texas at Austin Team.

What Was the Contest Goal?

An important objective of the Solar Decathlon is the

public acceptance of new and innovative renewable

energy and energy efficiency technologies for residential applications. In keeping with that objective, the

goal of this contest was to integrate architectural

design and those technologies into a livable and

delightful domestic environment. The teams were to

demonstrate architectural design that enhanced their

buildings’ energy performance and minimized the

buildings’ impacts on the natural environment while

maximizing the occupants’ senses of well-being. The

designs had to satisfy human needs for comfort, be

well organized, and be visually pleasing both inside

and out. 

Warren Gretz/PIX11830

Warren Gretz/PIX11765
The Ten Contests — 45

From the beginning, the Solar Decathlon organizers

recognized the importance of involving architects in

the competition. To accomplish that, the organizers

worked with professional architects to develop this

contest, organized a prestigious panel of judges, and

assigned this contest 200 points, whereas all others 

were worth 100 points. The organizers felt weighing

the Design and Livability contest more heavily than

other contests would encourage the teams to concentrate on architectural design to maximize building

energy performance and occupant satisfaction.

The Design and Livability contest was also only one 

of three contests that did not include objective points

(points given based on measured performance data).

The architectural design directly affected the energy

performance of each house, thus the objective evaluation of the architectural characteristics were incorporated into energy measurements recorded for the other

contests. Also, the art of architecture cannot be 

quantified. 

Because this event was held on NPS property, was

accessible to the public, and was, at the same time 

a competition evaluated objectively and subjectively,

the organizers developed several regulations that had 

a significant impact on this contest (see Appendix E).

Teams were required to comply with NPS regulations.

For example, the teams were allowed to use potted

vegetation to enhance the aesthetic characteristics or

energy performance of the houses, but they were not

allowed to disturb the turf on the Mall. 

The organizers imposed several regulations related to

public access. For example, the teams were permitted

to locate their front doors on any side of the house 

(so as not to restrict the architectural design opportunities), but they did have to provide a path leading

from the “street” to the front door so visitors knew

where to enter the house. The teams also had to comply with ADA requirements, providing ramps to their

houses and an accessible route through their houses. 

The organizers enforced a strict “solar envelope” regulation, which limited and enforced some uniformity

in the size of the houses. The organizers also established maximum allowable building footprint and

minimum conditioned area requirements. All these

regulations had an impact on the teams’ designs, 

and failure to comply could result in penalties.

What Did the Teams Have to Accomplish?

The teams had to design and build houses that complied with all Solar Decathlon rules and regulations.

(See Appendix E to review the regulations section of 

the 2002 rules and regulations. Also see the From

Concept to Reality chapter for information about the

process of complying with the regulations to qualify

for competition.) When the houses were constructed,

the teams had to transport them to the Mall and

assemble them on site. (See the Getting to Washington, D.C. and Away chapter.) The houses had to be

completely assembled by Thursday, September 26,

2002 in time for the Opening Ceremony, but many 

of the teams continued interior finish work until

Saturday, September 28, which is the day the Design

and Livability Jury (see page 42) toured each team’s

house to complete judging for this contest.

The Design and Livability jury was a panel of six architects and design professionals. The jury received a 

20-minute tour of each house, led by a student member

or members of each team. The jury asked questions to

gain additional information needed to rank the teams.

After visiting all the houses, the jury members ranked

the teams according to how well they felt each design

met the contest criteria. The Solar Decathlon organizer

responsible for coordinating the Design and Livability

judging activities accompanied the jury on the house

tours and observed the jury’s discussion about ranking

the teams. The organizer recorded comments that

were later passed on as feedback to the teams. This

information gave the teams a better understanding 

as to why they received the jury’s determined ranks.

Subjective Criteria

The Design and Livability jury evaluated the architectural quality of all designs and the integration of the

designs’ unique features with consideration of overall

aesthetics and design integration of the technical features of the houses. They judged each design using the

classic architectural standards of “firmness, commodity,

and delight,” described below:

• Firmness

❑ Strength, suitability, and appropriateness of materials for the building

❑ Balance between the need for solidity and strength

and the challenge of portability and ease of 

construction

❑ Integration of structure and enclosure

• Commodity

❑ Sense of comfort with the entry into the house, 

the circulation among the public and private 

zones of the house, as well as the service spaces

❑ Design strategy integrates and accommodates the 

technologies required to operate the house

❑ Generosity and efficiency of space allow all of the 

activities required during the contests to take place
46 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

• Delight

❑ Surprises, unusual use of ordinary materials or 

extraordinary materials

❑ Sufficiency of architectural attention given to the 

experiential relationship between inside and 

outside

❑ Lasting impression: Is the house memorable in 

any way? In the interior? From the exterior?

❑ Balance of attention paid to all sides of the house.

What Were the Results?

Penalties

The penalties for the Design and Livability contest

were designed to aid in the strict enforcement of 

several contest regulations—those regarding the solar

envelope, the solar array, the care of Mall grounds,

and compliance with ADA (see Appendix E). The 

solar envelope regulation, which restricted the size 

of the houses, ensured that no house would cast a

shadow on its neighbor. Shadows may have adversely

affected the energy performance of those houses.

Organizers penalized teams for exceeding the house

size limitations required by the solar envelope regulation. These penalties offset any aesthetic advantage 

a team might have gained in the subjective judging

process of the Design and Livability contest. In addition to house size measurements to ensure compliance

with size regulations (building footprint and building

height), Solar Decathlon organizers also measured the

area of conditioned space in each house and performed inspections to ensure compliance with ADA.

The teams were aware of all regulations well in advance

of the competition. The organizers also reviewed the

teams’ designs as part of the qualification and final

approval to compete process (see the From Concept 

to Reality chapter). Organizers notified teams about

possible violations when such violations were noticeable in submitted documentation, or when the violation was observed during the visits Solar Decathlon

organizers made to each team in the months leading

up to the competition. Points were not deducted if

teams altered their designs to correct these violations

before they assembled their houses on the Mall.

Penalties were assessed only if the assembled house 

on the Mall did not comply with competition regulations. Except for several houses that exceeded the

maximum footprint and height limitations, all houses

complied with regulations related to the competition.

The penalties that could be assessed in the Design and

Livability contest are listed in Table 3 on page 47.

Five teams received penalties for exceeding the solar

envelope height and three teams received penalties 

for exceeding the maximum house size. Points were

deducted from the respective team’s Design and Livability contest score. Teams that received penalties are

listed in Table 4 on page 47.

Final Scores and Rankings

Table 5 on page 48 lists the Design and Livability jury’s

rankings and the points each team received for its

respective rank. The table also shows the penalty

points that were applied, final scores after the penalty

points were deducted, and final standings in the 

contest.

Judging

Notes from the Design and Livability jury’s findings

indicate its reasons for ranking the top three teams in

this contest:

• University of Virginia—Absolutely fantastic. This 

design encourages the public to move forward with integrating architecture and technology. Good mix of natural 

and electric lighting. Most innovative and pleasant living 

space. Very efficient floor plan. The team thought carefully about how the landscaping enhanced the house 

design.

• University of Puerto Rico—Well crafted. Elegant 

in its simplicity. Quiet, the acoustics worked well. Calm, 

it felt good inside. Spatially well designed. Small gestures 

to their cultural heritage were evident.Venetian blind 

divider was superb. Nice lighting design.

• University of Texas at Austin—Incredible level of 

thought. Good daylighting. Beautifully thought out, team

thought outside of the box. Exciting conceptual design.

The University of Virginia team was ecstatic to be 

recognized by the esteemed members of the Design 

and Livability jury for having the most elegant solution for overall aesthetics and design integration of

the technical features of the house. The team’s design

featured a “smart wall” as the nerve center of the

house. This large light-emitting diode wall, which

offered a human interface with indoor space conditions, incorporated a touch screen to operate controls

for all the mechanical and electrical system functions

in the house. Diffuse light was provided throughout

with a skylight system that incorporated hidden electric lighting fixtures to maintain constant indoor

lighting levels despite changing availability of daylight. The team used, wherever possible, reclaimed 

and sustainable materials such as birch, bamboo, 

and copper exterior cladding (reclaimed from the 

roof of a torn down structure) protected by wood

reclaimed from shipping pallets. The team’s landscaping included a garden planted in reclaimed 

tires and irrigated by a rainwater harvesting system.
The Ten Contests — 47

Table 3. Possible Penalties for Design and Livability 

Violation Description Points/Penalty Applied To Responsibility to Observe Data Required

House or associated vegetation Up to 200 points or Design and Livability Organizer inspection crew Physical verification

protrudes beyond volume possible disqualification Contest point total and plan verification

(includes height restrictions for

the house) of the solar envelope

House perimeter (footprint) pro- Up to 200 points or Design and Livability Organizer inspection crew Physical verification

jected onto a horizontal plane possible disqualification Contest point total and plan verification

in plan view contains an area

greater than 800 ft2 (except 

decks, ADA access structures,

porches, and wastewater drum)

Exterior finishes that exhibit Points deducted Entire competition Organizer inspection crew Physical verification 

specular reflections and might depending on severity and plan verification

adversely affect the thermal of violation, up to

performance of other houses disqualification

Teams not meeting ADA Subject to Entire competition Organizer inspection crew Physical verification 

requirements disqualification and plan verification

Damaging the Mall site on Points deducted Entire competition Organizer inspection crew Physical verification 

which the house was depending on the 

assembled severity of damage, 

up to disqualification

Table 4. Penalties Assessed in Design and Livability 

Team Exceeded Footprint Points Deducted from Exceeded Height Points Deducted from 

Limitation Contest Score Limitation Contest Score

Carnegie Mellon 22.5% 16 5 ft 7in. (1.7 m) 32

UNC Charlotte 47% 64

Colorado 1 ft 5 in. (43.2 cm) 4

Maryland 2 in. (5.1 cm) 2

Tuskegee 1.1% 2 2 in. (5.1 cm) 2

Auburn 3 in. (7.6 cm) 2

Strategies and Observations

It seems that the easiest way to succeed in this contest

was to have a team with a strong contingent of architects. For the teams ranked in the top 7 by the Design

and Livability jury, that was the case, but a few of the

teams ranked below that also had an architectural

presence. So, although it was no guarantee, it certainly

helped to have team members who were also students

and faculty of architecture. Some teams simply didn’t

have the option, because there wasn’t an architectural

department at the school. Most of those teams worked

with professional architects in their communities to

design their entries, but it probably would have been

beneficial to also study the work of architects and

designers such as those on the Design and Livability

jury and to learn something about the concerns, practices, and vernacular of the architecture profession.

This study would probably have influenced the teams’

designs and would have helped them to present their

“architectural cases” to the jury.

What Worked Well and What Needs Improvement?

The Design and Livability contest had an inherent

conflict—what is good architectural design versus 

what is considered livable? Rather, what a jury of 

cutting-edge architects and designers will reward 

versus what the public would find livable. Some of 

the teams, especially those that ranked higher in this

contest, put their efforts into architectural design,

whereas some concerned themselves more with consumer appeal. The Design and Livability jury members

found it very difficult to separately judge the houses
48 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

for both design and livability—the jury was much

more concerned with and qualified to evaluate the

design segment. In the next Solar Decathlon competition, if both architectural design and livability are 

to be considered, they should be considered in two

distinctly different contests. An architectural jury

should evaluate the design contest, and a jury of 

residential building industry professionals should 

evaluate the livability contest.

Design Presentation and Simulation

What Was the Contest Goal?

The Solar Decathlon organizers anticipated a high

probability that many of the students participating 

in the competition would pursue careers in the buildings industry, so this contest was intended to offer 

experience in two areas of good building design practice. The two goals of the contest were to produce an

imaginative and thorough set of documents illustrating the buildings’ designs and construction and to 

use computer modeling to simulate the buildings’ 

energy performances. The construction drawings 

were to provide enough detail so an outside builder,

who was not a member of the team, could construct

the house as the team intended. The simulation part

of the contest was intended to encourage the teams 

to use computer simulations to evaluate architectural 

and engineering design strategies during the design

process to improve their houses’ energy efficiency, 

and to demonstrate 

year-round energy 

performance.

The Solar Decathlon 

competition encompassed all aspects of 

designing, constructing, 

operating, and occupying solar houses, including accurately reflecting 

the building design in a 

clearly compiled set of 

construction drawings. 

Requiring the teams to 

submit as-built drawings

of their houses:

• Gave the members of 

the judging panels 

who subjectively 

evaluated the house 

designs a detailed 

understanding of the houses they were to later visit 

and evaluate for other contests

• Provided a means for the Solar Decathlon organizers 

to ensure that the house design the team simulated 

for the building energy analysis requirement of the 

Design Presentation and Simulation contest was the 

same design the teams assembled on the Mall

Table 5. Final Results for Design and Livability (All displayed points are rounded to 3 decimal places.)

Original Jury Penalty Points Final Points Received

Team Ranking Points Awarded Deducted for Contest 1 Final Standing

Virginia 1 200.000 200.000 1

Puerto Rico 2 184.615 184.615 2

Texas–Austin 3 169.231 169.231 3

Virginia Tech 4 153.846 153.846 4

Colorado 5 138.462 4 134.462 5

Auburn 7 107.692 2 105.692 6

Tuskegee 8 92.308 4 88.308 7

Carnegie Mellon 6 123.077 48 75.077 8

Maryland 9 76.923 2 74.923 9

Rolla 10 61.538 61.538 10

Crowder 11 46.154 46.154 11

Delaware 12 30.769 30.769 12

Texas A&M 14 0.000 0.000 13

UNC Charlotte 13 15.385 64 -48.615 14

Dr. Hunter Fanney of the

National Institute of 

Standards and Technology

reviews the teams’ construction documents.

Warren Gretz/PIX11781
The Ten Contests — 49

• Provided the teams with the opportunity to experience the process of preparing a set of construction 

drawings, an activity that will help the students 

integrate more quickly into careers related to the 

buildings industry. 

Energy-efficient building design is the result of successfully assimilating architectural and engineering 

design strategies to create a building that works as 

a single, cohesive system. Accomplishing this goal 

is not an intuitive process. The optimum combination of design strategies varies depending on building size, function, location, and many other factors. 

Only through use of computer simulations can the 

designer gain a thorough understanding of how 

design strategies will affect overall building energy 

performance.

The Solar Decathlon houses were required to meet all

the energy needs to maintain occupant comfort, conduct normal household and home office activities,

and provide for typical household transportation

requirements with only the energy provided by solar

energy systems integrated into the design of the house

structure. The houses then needed to be extremely

energy efficient to be competitive in the Solar Decathlon contests related to operating and occupying the

houses. 

The Solar Decathlon organizers wanted the students 

to go through the process of analyzing strategies

before designing a building—a skill that will help 

the students create high-performance buildings 

later in their careers.

What Did the Teams Have to Accomplish?

Teams were asked to submit a complete set of “as-built”

construction documents in large format, including

architectural, mechanical, electrical, and structural

considerations as well as a plan of assembly. These 

as-built plans were to reflect design changes that

occurred during construction. 

Each team was required to simulate the annual performance characteristics of its solar house using one of the

following whole-building energy simulation computer

tools: EnergyPlus, DOE2.1E-107 (or newer), DOE2.2

(e.g., Equest or PowerDOE), Energy-10, or TRNSYS.

Additional simulation tools also could have been used

for modeling of systems, components, or features that

were part of the design. Teams were encouraged to

incorporate the data obtained from these other simulation tools into one of the required whole-building

simulation tools.

For the annual building simulation, teams were

required to use specific meteorological input data,

namely, the typical meteorological year (TMY or

TMY2) weather data for the Washington, D.C., area

(WBAN #93734 or 93738). Teams were to run simulations using the prescribed load profiles specified by

the Solar Decathlon rules and regulations.

Subjective and Objective Criteria

The teams competed for 100 points for this contest.

Points were divided evenly between the construction

drawings and building energy simulation parts of the

contest (50 points each). The Solar Decathlon organizers determined that three judging panels were

needed to score the Design Presentation and Simulation contest because three sets of expertise were

required to ensure that the teams adhered to the

intent of the contest. The Design and Livability 

jury (see page 42) and the Engineering Design Panel 

(see page 43) judged the quality and creativity of the

construction drawings. These two panels represented

the architectural and design, and engineering professions, respectively. Expertise representing both areas

made certain that evaluation of the drawings was

weighted equally between the architectural and engineering disciplines. A third simulation judging panel,

which consisted entirely of building energy modeling

experts (see page 43), accomplished a thorough and

consistent evaluation of all the teams’ simulation

activities. Each member of this panel represented

expertise in at least one of the tools used by the teams

to simulate the energy use of their house designs. 

Building Energy Simulation. The simulation judging panel judged the quality and completeness of 

the computer simulations used to develop the house

designs and evaluated and ranked the building energy

simulations using both a subjective and an objective

process. Objective points were awarded based on compliance with submittal requirements and on the estimated energy performance for the house (the team

with the lowest annual energy load received the highest

score). Subjective points were awarded for the quality 

of the simulations. (See Table 6 on page 50.)

Rather than emphasizing specific performance predictions, the judging panel considered how well the teams

followed a whole-building design approach when evaluating the simulations. This judging process recognized and rewarded effective and integrated designs

and design innovations brought about or aided by the

building energy simulation process. To compare and

rank the teams for the quality of the simulations, the

simulation judging panel considered compliance with

the requirements for submitted documentation, quality
50 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

and innovation of the simulations, and the estimated

annual performance, including analysis of the energy

use of the electric vehicle. The process followed to

complete the simulation judging was:

• Submittals were reviewed and points assigned directly

for compliance.

• “As-built” drawings were reviewed to verify that they

matched the houses assembled for the competition, 

and points were assigned directly.

• A “raw” annual performance score was provided, 

where the raw score = (simulated annual performance/reference analysis) x 10, then normalized to 

a scale of 0 to 10.

• All judges viewed all submittals to ensure fair 

comparisons.

• A judge having expertise with a specific simulation 

tool provided knowledgeable opinions on issues 

raised by other judges about use of that tool.

• Judges assigned to represent specific tools used by 

the teams reviewed submittals and provided a credibility rating factor (0%–100%) reflecting the judges’ 

estimates of the accuracy and completeness of the 

annual energy estimate. The raw annual performance score was multiplied by this factor to provide 

the final annual performance score, the points for 

which were assigned directly.

• Each judge reviewed all submittals for quality and 

innovation and the transportation analysis of all 

submittals.

• The Solar Decathlon organizers averaged the score 

for the analysis quality and innovation and transportation analysis components, and the points were 

assigned directly.

Construction Drawings. Two judging panels subjectively evaluated the construction drawings. Each panel

was responsible for 25 points and separately ranked

the teams according to how well the construction

drawings met the intent of the contest. The teams

received points corresponding to their ranks from 

each panel. The Design and Livability jury and the

Engineering Design Panel reviewed the construction

drawings submitted by each team for quality and 

creativity. The Design and Livability jury members’

intent was to recognize the teams that most clearly

depicted their architectural designs through the construction drawings. The Engineering Design Panel

members concentrated on identifying the set of 

drawings that best described the engineering design

and most clearly indicated how this design integrated

with the described architectural design. The Design

and Livability jury members were especially impressed

by drawings that included complete sets of plans and

elevations, showed attention to detail, and were well

organized. The Engineering Design Panel found isometric depictions of the architectural design to be

Table 6. Points Available for the Simulation Part of Design Presentation and Simulation 

Judging Criteria Description Points Available

Submittal compliance

Teams received 2 points for submitting each item Narrative 2

and 0 points for not submitting the item. Energy source simulation and results 2

Energy loads simulation and results 2

Analysis (check for correct weather, gains schedule, checkpoints against “shoebox,” geometry and rules-of-thumb 2

“As-built” check 5

Accuracy/quality

Teams received points according to the accuracy Estimated annual performance (objective score calculated 

of the simulations; assumptions, simplifications, as described below) 7

and improvisations made; annotations used; and Analysis quality (subjective evaluation, points on scale of 

annual results. 1 to 10, with 10 being the best) 10

Design/analysis innovation (subjective evaluation, points on 

scale of 1 to 15, with 15 being the best) 15

Transportation analysis

Teams received up to 2 points for submitting the Submittal compliance (excess energy analysis,vehicle miles

required information and up to 3 points for analysis, and house/vehicle electric use comparison) 2 

accuracy/quality of the simulation. Accuracy/quality (teams received points according to the

accuracy of the simulations; assumptions, simplifications, 

and improvisations made; annotations used; and annual 

results) 3
The Ten Contests — 51

especially helpful when visualizing how the engineering

components fit in with the overall design. The

Engineering Design Panel also appreciated the construction drawings containing mechanical and electrical systems details that plainly demonstrated how

these systems were to be assembled and operated.

What Were the Results?

Penalties

There were no penalties associated with the Design

Presentation and Simulation contest. If a team did 

not submit construction drawings or evidence that 

it completed a building energy simulation, that team 

received the 14th rank or zero points for the part of

the contest it did not complete.

Final Results

The final Design and Presentation Simulation contest

scores were calculated by summing the points received

from each of the three judging panels. Table 7 shows

the complete results of this contest, in terms of points

awarded, team ranking, and team standing, for both

subjective and objective criteria.

Reasons given by the three judging panels for ranking

the top three teams were:

• Virginia Tech’s construction drawings included nicely 

executed 3-D views of the house. It was the only 

team to show a schematic of the energy management control system. The team provided the best PV

and electrical system drawings—a contractor could 

easily build the system based on the drawings. The

team appropriately used different analysis tools to 

address the demand and supply sides of the energy 

picture and showed a good understanding of the 

capabilities and limitations of the various tools 

used. The team also used the simulation tools well 

to optimize the energy performance of their design. 

According to the simulation results, this team’s house

was designed to perform better than all the other 

houses.

• Carnegie Mellon’s construction drawings were well 

organized and contained the most complete set of 

mechanical and electrical plans and operational 

schedules. The team clearly described the design 

intent and included good 3-D imaging of the design

at the beginning of the drawings set. The team 

adhered to the standard construction drawings 

labeling system and included excellent descriptive 

text of how the house was to be erected. The team 

members used multiple tools to estimate building 

energy performance. They incorporated graphs 

nicely into the simulation report to illustrate their 

Table 7. Final Results for Design Presentation and Simulation (All displayed points are rounded to 3 decimal places.)

Construction Drawings

Design and Livability Jury Engineering Design Panel Building Energy Simulation Overall

Team Rank Points Rank Points Points Points Standing

Virginia Tech 3 21.154 3 21.154 41.350 83.658 1

Carnegie Mellon 1 25.000 1 25.000 32.886 82.886 2

Maryland 9 9.615 2 23.077 40.959 73.651 3

Puerto Rico 2 23.077 5 17.308 31.701 72.086 4

Colorado 8 11.538 9 9.615 44.751 65.905 5

Texas–Austin 4 19.231 6 15.385 30.292 64.907 6

Virginia 5 17.308 7 13.462 32.893 63.662 7

Auburn 6 15.385 4 19.231 26.625 61.240 8

Delaware 10 7.692 8 11.538 33.630 52.861 9

UNC Charlotte 7 13.462 11 5.769 20.862 40.093 10

Crowder 13 1.923 13 1.923 34.232 38.078 11

Tuskegee 11 5.769 10 7.692 18.706 32.168 12

Texas A&M 12 3.846 12 3.846 22.751 30.443 13

Rolla 14 0.000 14 0.000 7.750 7.750 14
52 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

results; however, they did not go into detail about 

conclusions that could be drawn from those results.

• Maryland’s construction drawings were clear and 

easy to read. They contained good mechanical 

system, HVAC system, and framing details. The 

3-D renderings of the house and the index of the 

drawings were helpful to the judging panels. The 

team also described the house assembly plans well. 

However, the quality of the architectural drawings 

was not as high as for some of the other teams. The

team showed solid analysis techniques when completing simulations. The team demonstrated good 

use of parametric analysis to justify design decisions,

and they provided strong justifications for the 

assumptions they made. The overall estimated 

energy performance of their design was second 

only to Virginia Tech’s.

Strategies and Observations

All teams submitted as-built construction drawings and

simulation analyses; however, the quality of these 

submittals varied widely between teams. Overall, the

construction drawings contained better architectural

drawings than mechanical, electrical, or structural

drawings. Very little information was provided on the

teams’ assembly plans. The judging panel evaluating

the engineering aspects had difficulty envisioning 

the systems the teams incorporated into their designs

based on the information in the drawings.

Construction drawing sets in many cases were incomplete. For example, the teams simply did not include

mechanical drawings or information on how the solar

electric system tied in with the house electrical system. Drawings were often not well organized or well

notated. For example, plans and details shown on one

page were not related, and plans, elevations, details,

and schedules were not labeled clearly or not labeled

at all. Incomplete drawings were extremely difficult for

both judging panels to evaluate. As a result of incomplete drawings, particularly related to the details of the

mechanical, electrical, and controls systems, it would

have been difficult (if not impossible) for a contractor

not associated with the designs of the structures to

construct these houses.

Only a few teams effectively used energy analysis and

simulation to explore design options for building

envelope and systems, as was the intent of the contest. Otherwise, computer simulations were employed

for basic performance prediction and sizing. No team

fully and correctly used the required load profiles

defined in the contest rules. 

What Worked Well and What Needs Improvement?

The Design and Livability jury and the Engineering

Design Panel members commented on the merits of

evaluating the construction drawings before visiting

the houses. They appreciated having detailed knowledge of each house before receiving a tour. However,

while reviewing the drawings, they had difficulty fully

understanding the intent of the designs (resulting

from incomplete and confusing drawings), and suggested that seeing the houses first would have helped

with the construction drawing judging process. To

address this issue, photos of the houses were available

to the judges while they reviewed the construction

drawings. All judges found these photos to be extremely

useful. Also, many of the judges had visited the solar

village before evaluating the construction drawings.

Based on this experience, Solar Decathlon organizers

will continue to have the judging panel review construction drawings before touring the houses, make

available a complete set of photos of the houses to

which the judges can refer while evaluating the construction drawings, and recommend all judges visit

the solar village before evaluating the construction

drawings.

Both the Design and Livability jury and the Engineering Design Panel members provided recommendations

for making the construction drawings easier to judge,

including requiring the teams to submit:

• A set of drawings of standard size (e.g., 24 in. x 36 in.) 

• Plan and elevation drawings in 8.5 in. x 11 in. format so that they can be easily photocopied for multiple uses by the Solar Decathlon organizers as well 

as by the teams 

• Electronic drawings (e.g., .DWG or .PDF files) as 

well as a hardcopy set.

The building energy analysis experts who reviewed the

building energy simulation component of this contest

also had several suggestions for judging simulations.

The 2002 rules required each team to estimate annual

energy performance for their design using various energy

simulation tools. Different teams used different software. Despite guidelines in the rules, varying modeling assumptions were also used. The lack of consistency in approach across the field of entrants made it

problematic for the judging panel to fairly score and

rank the final results. 

The judges felt that there are two ways to address this

problem. The organizers could provide detailed

requirements for the modeling approach such as

requiring all the teams to use the same tool and basic

modeling assumptions, which would lead to specific

final model results that could be judged more fairly. 
The Ten Contests — 53

Alternatively, the organizers could remove the emphasis on “bottom-line numbers” and focus instead on

process. Using the latter approach, teams would be

required to submit a report summarizing their evaluations of energy performance and the energy impact of

design trade-offs they made as their designs progressed.

Teams would be judged on the quality, engineering

soundness, and innovation demonstrated in the report

rather than on specific modeling results. The desired

outcome of the simulation part of this contest is that

the teams engage in whole-building design at the earliest stages of the design process. The greatest benefit

from using modeling tools, specifically energy simulation tools, comes at the stage where a broad range of

building design options is still in discussion. The simulation part of this contest should be reconsidered to

encourage the teams to use modeling tools early in

their design phases. 

Graphics and Communications

What Was the Contest Goal?

For this contest, the teams were charged with creating

materials that explained their Solar Decathlon houses, 

as well as the solar energy and energy efficiency technologies in their homes, to the public, public officials,

the media, and any other interested parties. The 

contest had three components: Web site, newsletters

and contest diaries, and house tours.

From the earliest creative thinking about the competition in 1999, the organizers were committed to

ensuring (by incorporating it into the competition) 

that the Solar Decathlon teams would provide information about energy-efficient design and solar power

to the public. 

The Graphics and Communications contest also

supported the competition’s goal of encouraging students from multiple disciplines to work 

together. Whereas the 

other contests required 

the skills of engineers 

and architects, this contest was an opportunity 

for students of technical 

communications (writing, editing, Web design),

marketing, public relations, and related disciplines. It’s difficult to say

to what extent the teams

enlisted students from

these other disciplines, but the most successful teams

certainly found students with communications expertise. The success of this contest is measurable through

the responses of visitors to the Mall, users of the Web

sites, and contest judges, all of whom enjoyed almost

everything they heard or read and eagerly awaited

their next installment of information.

With an event such as this, determining the most

effective method of communication is very difficult.

For visitors to the Mall, the house tours were critical.

For those who couldn’t visit the Mall, Web sites were

critical. And even though the organizers and NPS

wanted to minimize disposable, printed materials,

there remained a percentage of the Solar Decathlon’s

critical consumer audience who still preferred print.

Points for this contest were divided according to which

part of the contest would reach the most people—

without making point assignments too low for any

one part of the contest. The organizers predicted that

the greatest number of people would be reached first,

via the Web, second, through the house tours, and

third, through the newsletters. Therefore the Web part

of the contest was then assigned the greatest number

of points, and the house tours and newsletters followed. The house tours and newsletters were assigned

the same number of points, because if the newsletters

had been assigned fewer than 30 points, there might

not have been sufficient reason for the students to

complete them. 

What Did the Teams Have to Accomplish?

Web Site

By October 2001, all the teams had a small (at least

three-page) Web site completed and live. The organizers required that the teams’ sites explain the 

designs of their houses and the technologies used.

Sites did not have to contain information that would

compromise a team’s competitive edge. This first part

of the contest was pass/fail. The teams continued work

on their Web sites up to and throughout the competition. Teams were required to finalize their Web sites

by September 23, 2002, in preparation for judging.

The organizers made clear that the amount of information expected during the competition would be 

of significantly greater detail than that on the site

October 1, 2001. 

Newsletters and Contest Diaries

During the weeklong competition (September 30–

October 4, 2002), teams used the workstations in their

home offices (see the discussion of the Home Business

contest later in this chapter) to produce daily newsletters and contest diaries. The Solar Decathlon organizers provided teams with specific content requireA student from the 

University of Missouri–

Rolla finishes a newsletter.

Warren Gretz/PIX11837
54 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

ments in the form of daily topics, as well as format

standards and production schedules for the newsletters and the contest diaries. For the newsletters, 

the organizers provided the teams with a graphic 

template and official paper (30 hard copies for each

day). Newsletters were to be two pages (front and

back) with at least one photo and 500–1000 words

long. The contest diaries were to be no longer than

500 words and were to include one photo. Appendix F

contains examples of a newsletter and contest diary.

The organizers e-mailed daily topics to a predetermined

contact on each team. The topics were designed to

encourage the teams to discuss their planning for,

progress in, and experience with the competition.

Contest diary and newsletter daily topics were essentially the same, but the newsletter topic encouraged

teams to describe their strategies and plans before 

the competition; the contest diaries asked students 

to relate what happened during the weeklong 

competition. 

The daily topics for the newsletters and contest diaries

were:

• September 30: How did your house get to the Mall? 

For the newsletters, teams discussed their strategies 

for transporting their houses to the National Mall. 

For the contest diaries, teams described their trips 

to the Mall.

• October 1: Hot Water. For the newsletters, teams 

described their decisions related to the Hot Water 

contest—what sort of water heating systems and 

strategies did they choose, and why did they choose

them? For the contest diaries, teams discussed the 

effectiveness of their choices and strategies—what 

worked and what didn’t, and what surprised them 

the most.

• October 2: Design Strategy. For the newsletters, teams

described relevant architectural decisions and engineering considerations—how did they come to these

decisions, and what was the background and theory 

behind these decisions? For the contest diaries, teams

described how their houses were performing as a 

result of their design decisions.

• October 3: Solar Electricity. For the newsletters, teams

described their strategies related to solar electricity—

what PV systems and balance of systems did they 

choose and why did they choose them? For the 

contest diaries, the teams discussed the success of

their strategies.

• October 4: The Solar Decathlon Educational Experience. For the newsletters, teams discussed their 

overall experience with the decathlon—from early 

coursework through preparing for the competition 

on the Mall and competing. For the contest diaries, 

teams described what they learned during the competition and from working with their teammates.

Newsletters were due by 11:00 a.m. on each of the five

competition days. An official observer in each house

ensured that the teams used official paper (supplied 

by the organizers) and printed the newsletters from

the printers located in the competition houses. Each

day, a Solar Decathlon staff person visited every house

to pick up the newsletter hard copies. Electronic files of

the newsletters also were due at a file transfer protocol

(FTP) site by 11:00 a.m. The FTP server time-stamped

each file when it was received, and a Solar Decathlon

staff person retrieved the files from the server. The

organizers and the teams distributed newsletters electronically. The organizers provided the teams with

required electronic distribution lists, and the teams

also were allowed to create their own distribution lists.

Electronic files of the contest diaries were also due by

11:00 a.m. on each of the five competition days at an

FTP site. The contest diaries were reviewed, edited for

clarity by Decathlon staff, and then posted on the

Solar Decathlon Web site by the following morning. 

House Tours

Teams were required to provide guided tours of their

houses to the public on Saturday and Sunday, 

September 28 and 29, and October 5 and 6, 2002. 

The purpose of the tours was to explain house design,

and the technologies and products used in the house.

Operation of the TV/video player was mandatory during house tours. The content of any video, audio, or

electronic presentation was required to complement

the information provided in the house tour. 

The judges for this part of the contest toured the houses

on Saturday, September 28 (the same day the Design

and Livability jury toured the houses). The organizers

provided a judging schedule to the teams ahead of

time, and a Solar Decathlon staff person monitored

the judges’ progress throughout the day to keep the

teams that had not yet been judged apprised of any

changes in the schedule.

Subjective Criteria

The teams competed for a total of 100 points for this

contest—40 points for the Web site, 30 points for the

newsletters, and 30 points for the house tours.

(Although most of the rules and regulations pertaining

to the contest diaries are included in the description

of the Graphics and Communications contest, the

points for the contest diaries accrued in the Home

Business contest.) For all the components—Web site,

newsletter, and house tour—of the Graphics and
The Ten Contests — 55

Communication contest, the judges were instructed 

to subjectively evaluate the teams on the following

criteria:

• Timeliness: Teams had to adhere to production and 

delivery schedules. The organizers provided deadlines. If the teams did not meet these deadlines, 

their rankings were affected.

• Content: The teams’ communications products were 

required to support the goals of the contest—to 

explain the energy efficiency and solar energy features of their houses. And for the newsletters and 

contest diaries, the organizers provided daily topics 

for content. In addition, teams were evaluated based

on use of audience-appropriate language, consistent 

tone, originality, and correct spelling and grammar.

• Format and design: Integration of text and graphics, 

consistency of design

• Creativity and interest: Engaging content and innovative design 

• Advertising: Limited use and tasteful integration of 

team sponsor logos and other marketing materials. 

Teams were allowed to recognize their sponsors 

according to guidelines provided by the organizers. 

(NPS has rules that affect recognition of commercial 

participants in and sponsors of events on NPS

property.)

• Adherence to recommendations and guidelines provided by the organizers through the Solar Decathlon 

Web site: The organizers provided recommendations 

about best practices, on-line resources to assist the 

students with writing and editing, and graphics (e.g.,

the Solar Decathlon logo and contest icons, illustrations, and sponsor logos). The organizers also used 

the Web site to clarify requirements such as NPS 

regulations regarding sponsorship recognition and 

Web coding regulations related to ADA.

Web site judging included additional criteria:

• Estimated download times: Sites were tested with 

Bobby (a testing software)

• Navigation: Consistency and ease of usability

• Value of any multimedia or JavaScript elements

• Adherence to Web production standards and guidelines provided by the organizers through the Solar 

Decathlon Web site. 

House tour judging also included additional criteria:

• Presentation: Design and presentation of tour materials as they related to the house’s features, 

demeanor of tour guides toward the public

• Environmental impact: Use of recyclable products, 

minimization of throwaway materials. 

What Were the Results?

Penalties

There were no penalties associated with this contest.

Teams were notified in advance of the date on which

Web site judging would begin, and the Web sites were

judged, beginning on that date, “as is.” 

Teams produced newsletters every day for five days

during the competition. Two of those five newsletters

were selected randomly for judging. If a team did not

submit a newsletter on schedule (by 11:00 a.m.) any

of the days for which their newsletter was randomly

selected for judging, that newsletter was ranked last.

The organizers provided teams with a schedule for

house tour judging, and teams were allotted as much

as 30 minutes with the judges. If a team was late or

required more than 30 minutes, the judges considered

that in their subjective evaluations. A Solar Decathlon

staff person monitored the house tour judges’ progress

throughout the day and informed the teams that 

had not yet been judged of changes in the schedule.

Final Scores and Rankings

Table 8 on page 56 lists the Graphics and Communications judges’ rankings and the points each team

received for its respective rank. 

Judging

Web sites

According to the judges’ comments, all the teams did

a wonderful job of conveying their interest and enthusiasm for the competition. The judges were most

pleased by the sites written in the students’ voices 

that clearly explained the complexities of the teams’

projects in language and terminology accessible to 

an average consumer. These sites provided useful and

engaging content with a minimum of grammatical

and typographical errors. The rankings for the Web

sites could have been far more competitive had many

of the teams simply used a “spellchecker” or engaged a

copyeditor to ensure accuracy in spelling and grammar.

The judges were frustrated by sites that emphasized

graphic design and use of animation over content,

often obscuring content or making access to content 

a difficult and slow proposition. The most successful

sites were rich in content, aesthetically pleasing, and

easy to navigate. Their pages downloaded quickly, and

the images on the pages enhanced the educational

experience of the user. 
56 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

Newsletters and Contest Diaries

The bulk of the judges’ comments from this part of the

contest again reflects the wonderful job the teams did

in conveying their enthusiasm for the Solar Decathlon.

The strongest newsletters employed simple but creative

design strategies within the confines of the template

provided by the organizers. And although the organizers provided daily topics for the newsletters, the

most successful teams really “personalized” those 

topics. They invented their own effective, engaging,

and consistent heads and subheads. They wrote in an

engaging style using language appropriate to a consumer audience. The best newsletters contained minimal spelling, grammatical, and typographic errors. 

As in the case of the Web sites, the rankings for the

newsletters could have been far more competitive 

had many of the teams simply used a “spellchecker”

or engaged a copyeditor. The highest ranked newsletters used photos and graphics to enhance the reader’s experience and understanding, although, in some

cases, the images lacked captions, which would have

improved the newsletters even more. The best newsletters, in short, read well and had engaging content,

and gave the judges a very personal view of what it

was like to be a solar decathlete.

The contest diary part of the contest surprised the

contest organizers the most. The students poured their

hearts into these animated tales of life as a decathlete,

which became important fixtures on the competition

Web site. Repeat visitors to the Web site checked back

daily for the latest diary installments.

House Tours

The judges toured 13 houses, but clearly some teams

were not ready to conduct tours when the judges

arrived. The teams’ states of preparedness affected the

judges’ subjective evaluations. The judges' comments

reflect what made the highest ranking house tours

successful. When the judges arrived at the appointed

time, the team was ready for the tour. Team members

identified themselves, and clearly knew what their

roles were. The team had rehearsed the tour beforehand. The best tours began outdoors, where the team

greeted the judges, and then moved inside. These

tours included “big-picture” information about the

teams’ commitment to the competition and their

design philosophies and strategies as well as consumer-relevant details about the technologies in the

house. Students with different areas of expertise handled different parts of the tour. Support materials

(such as brochures and posters) were relevant. The

pace of the tours was reasonable and easygoing, and

the students asked the judges if they had questions

and provided accurate answers. Overall, the judges

were very impressed by the quality of tours, and they

had a difficult time determining the rank order for

this part of the contest.

Table 8. Final Results for Graphics and Communications (All displayed points are rounded to 3 decimal places.)

Web Site House Tours Newsletters Overall

Team Rank Points Rank Points Rank Points Points Standing

Colorado 1 40.000 1 30.000 4 23.077 93.077 1

Auburn 2 36.923 2 27.692 7 16.154 80.769 2

Texas–Austin 3 33.846 11 6.923 1 30.000 70.769 3

Virginia 10 12.308 4 23.077 3 25.385 60.769 4

Virginia Tech 7 21.538 9 11.538 2 27.692 60.769 4

Crowder 6 24.615 5 20.769 8 13.846 59.231 5

Maryland 4 30.769 10 9.231 6 18.462 58.462 6

Puerto Rico 9 15.385 3 25.385 9 11.538 52.308 7

Tuskegee 8 18.462 12 4.615 5 20.769 43.846 8

Delaware 11 9.231 6 18.462 11 6.923 34.615 9

Rolla 12 6.154 8 13.846 10 9.231 29.231 10

Texas A&M 5 27.692 14 0.000 14 0.000 27.692 11

Carnegie Mellon 13 3.077 7 16.154 12 4.615 23.846 12

UNC Charlotte 14 0.000 13 2.308 13 2.308 4.615 13
The Ten Contests — 57

Strategies and Observations

One obvious strategy for success in this contest would

be to involve students of technical communication,

marketing, public relations, Web design, and related

disciplines. It’s difficult to say to what extent this

occurred, but it doesn’t seem to have been extensive.

Some of the teams had students of Web design involved,

and at least a few sought assistance from professionals

in the field of communication—especially in Web site

development. And several teams made special assignments to specific team members (who may have been

either engineering or architecture students) to take

responsibility for this contest, so those individuals

learned all they could to make this contest successful.

A few of the teams were also made up of non-traditional students, some of whom had had experience

related to this contest in previous careers. All these

strategies worked, but the teams might have had an

easier time with this contest had they included more

students who planned to make a career in technical

communication or a related discipline—someone who

understood the importance of audience analysis, had

refined writing and editing skills, understood public

and media relations, and who wanted to use this contest to advance their future career. This is not to say

that the students didn’t perform well in this contest—

they did wonderful work! But students of engineering

and architecture might have preferred to focus on

their areas of expertise, while providing a student of

technical communication, marketing, public relations,

or Web design a great opportunity.

The teams most successful in this contest truly functioned as teams. Although this contest or some component of it may have been the overall responsibility 

of one student, virtually all the students on the team

participated in some way. Everyone on the team

understood the team’s mission. Everyone on the team

understood the overall design philosophy of the entry.

Everyone did not know all the details, but they knew

who on the team had the details when necessary.

Clearly the successful teams had thought about and

rehearsed for this contest. They never left the tasks 

to the last minute (e.g., newsletter printing or file

transfer), and they were well aware of and prepared 

for judging. And they delivered content and products

with a tone of confidence, congeniality (sometimes

humor), and pride. 

What Worked Well and What Needs Improvement?

Web sites

When the teams’ Web sites first went live in October

2001, they weren’t judged for content or format and

design. The organizers used this early deadline as an

opportunity to assess the teams’ levels of compliance

with the Web site coding standards they had provided

through the Solar Decathlon Web site. These standards

included recommended practices from professional

Web site developers, and requirements regarding links,

HTML syntax, graphics and images, navigation, browser

compatibility, and downloadable documents. Throughout October and November of 2001, the organizers

worked with the teams to make their sites compliant.

When a Web site met the required coding standards, 

a link to that site was put into place on the Solar

Decathlon Web site. Before and during the competition, the teams’ Web sites functioned well, and when

the sites were judged during the competition (beginning September 23, 2002), more than half were at

least 80% compliant with the coding standards. This 

is significant given that the final judging occurred

about one year after the Web sites were initially

reviewed, and the team members who worked on 

the Web sites changed throughout the year. 

When the Web sites were judged during the competition, they were evaluated based on coding standards,

content, and graphic design. The organizers intentionally provided far less guidance and assistance in the

areas of content and design. They wanted to ensure

that the sites functioned, which is why they assisted

with coding, but they wanted competition in the 

content and design areas. Perhaps as a result of this

“hands-off” approach, many of the teams seemed to

struggle with Web site design (especially navigation)

and content (especially audience-appropriate language

and correct grammar and spelling). The organizers

should consider reviewing design and content, as well

as coding, at the first deadline for Web sites for the

2005 Solar Decathlon.

Newsletters and Contest Diaries

The Contest Diaries were, from a public outreach perspective, an enormous success. Visitors to the Solar

Decathlon Web site raved about the diaries. The teams

seemed to enjoy writing the diaries as well. The newsletters didn’t generate the same enthusiasm from

either the public or the teams.

Compliance for the newsletter part of the contest

proved particularly difficult for many teams. Before

the competition, some teams objected to the idea of

the organizers imposing a template and daily topics

for content. To reduce objections, the organizers created

a template that was very minimal—it looked more like

letterhead than like a newsletter template. During the

competition, some teams used their own templates or

no template at all. The daily topics were kept quite

general so the teams had ample room to personalize

their newsletters. 
58 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

During the competition, many teams had difficulties

meeting the 11:00 a.m. deadline for hard copies and

electronic files. Some of the teams’ clocks were not set

to official Solar Decathlon time, so they submitted

things late. The paper for the hard copies slipped in

many of the printers and smudged the ink, which

meant that printing required a little extra time. The

teams were also frustrated by the FTP process, which

required time and patience. FTP was a great tool for

the organizers to determine and document who had

submitted their newsletters and contest diaries when

(to the second); however, it proved difficult for some

of the teams in the beginning and required additional

work for the organizers. The teams could not see if

their newsletters and diaries had been placed in their

respective team folders, so many of them would contact the contest organizer for delivery confirmation.

Some teams experienced connectivity problems with

the wireless network early in the competition, which

made the FTP process even more frustrating, if not

impossible. On the first day the newsletters were due,

there were enough problems with connectivity and

the FTP process that the organizers accepted electronic

files of the newsletters and contest diaries after the

11:00 a.m. deadline. After the first two days of competition, however, the teams and the organizers sufficiently resolved any issues with FTP and connectivity

such that compliance with submission of contest

diaries and newsletters went smoothly.

The Solar Decathlon overall was generally complex,

and the teams had a lot of work to do every day.

Scheduling time to write newsletters and contest

diaries, print newsletters, and submit electronic files

of the newsletters and the diaries by a given time 

each day was difficult and simply dropped in the

order of some teams’ priorities. And some teams did

not have enough team members present on the Mall

to do everything that had to be done. In hindsight,

it’s actually quite remarkable that most of the teams

found time most days to produce newsletters and 

contest diaries. The organizers should consider several

changes for the next competition. The newsletters

should be dropped, and the teams required to submit

only contest diaries. Despite some objections, the

daily topics worked quite well, but the organizers

should engage the teams more in developing these

topics. The organizers should also provide more training on the FTP process to the teams or search for an 

alternative.

House Tours

The house tours were an enormous success. The teams

were incredibly committed to providing good information and positive experiences for their visitors,

which is a good thing, because visitors waited in long

lines to meet the teams. The biggest problem with

house tours is that they weren’t offered often enough.

During the week in which The Comfort Zone contest

was active, the teams were allowed to choose when

and for how long the visiting public had entry into

their houses. Temperatures that week were unseasonably warm. Teams wanted to do well in The Comfort

Zone, so most had their houses closed during the

hours the village was open to the public. The organizers should rethink the interaction of house tours

and The Comfort Zone contest so the teams can have

their houses open to the public without sacrificing

The Comfort Zone contest.

The Comfort Zone

What Was the Contest Goal?

Because space heating and cooling are the largest users

of energy in residential buildings, this contest was

designed to evaluate each Solar Decathlon house for

its ability to ensure interior comfort through natural

ventilation, heating, cooling, and humidity controls,

using a minimum amount of electrical energy. Performance scoring in this contest required that comfortable interior conditions be maintained, as indicated 

by temperature and humidity readings, while using as 

little electricity as possible. The organizers used

American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air

Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) guidelines for occupant comfort to determine the set point limitations

for temperature and relative humidity used in the

objective scoring of this contest. The Engineering

Design Panel also evaluated and scored the teams

based on innovation and consumer appeal of the

strategies the teams employed to meet the contest

space conditioning requirements.

What Did the Teams Have to Accomplish?

Objective Criteria 

This contest was active from 8:00 a.m. Sunday,

September 30 until 5:00 p.m. Friday, October 4.

Objective measures of performance were assessed in

two parts: a weeklong evaluation and a 24-hour evaluation. Both evaluations assessed the ability to maintain relative humidity (RH) in the building at 30%–

60%. The weeklong evaluation assessed the ability to

maintain a temperature range of 69°–78°F (20°–25°C).

The 24-hour evaluation, which began at 8:00 a.m.

Wednesday, October 2, assessed a narrower temperature range of 70°–74°F (21°–23°C).

Teams were ranked according to the lowest performance index (lowest PI = 1st) for temperature and

humidity set points. Table 9 on page 59 presents 

more details on the performance measures and the 
The Ten Contests — 59

points available. E represents the error or deviation

from temperature and humidity set points. Watt-hour

meters were used to measure the energy consumed by

AC equipment. For DC equipment a shunt enabled

measurement of electrical current, a voltage divider

measured electrical voltage, and power was calculated

by multiplying measured current by voltage.

E = Error or deviation from temperature and RH set points

PI = Performance index

Temperatures during the competition were unseasonably

warm. To keep their houses within temperature and RH

ranges required by the contest, some team members were

even forced outside!

The electrical energy consumed to provide space conditioning was also measured, and the teams were

ranked on the basis of minimizing electrical energy

use (lowest electrical energy consumed = 1st).

Subjective Criteria

The Engineering Design Panel (see page 43) subjectively

evaluated the engineering quality of the teams’ comfort (HVAC) systems, and the integration of the systems’

unique features into the living space in two ways: 

• Consumer appeal—Was the comfort control system 

intuitive to use? Did the comfort system satisfactorily meet the occupant’s needs from a layperson’s 

point of view? Was the system design and control 

an elegant solution to meeting the occupant’s comfort needs?

• System integration—Were elements of the system 

visible to the house occupants? Were visible elements well integrated into the interior design of 

the house? Was the system well integrated with 

other systems of the house (e.g., the solar thermal 

or solar electric systems)? Was the method for meeting occupant comfort needs a good engineering 

solution?

What Were the Results?

Penalties 

No penalties were assessed for this contest. 

Final Results

Table 10 on page 60 provides the final results of The

Comfort Zone contest.

The Engineering Design Panel

In general, the Engineering Design Panel felt that the

University of Colorado demonstrated the best integration of architectural design and engineering technology

in the solar village. The team “engineered” the architecture to incorporate passive solar design strategies

that minimized space conditioning energy loads. The

team combined innovation and originality to create

easily controllable systems using standard, off-theshelf technologies. As a result, their engineering

design would clearly be marketable. 

The Engineering Design Panel appreciated the ingenious

design solutions the Virginia Tech team found to maintain comfort within the house. Using a sophisticated

energy management system that monitored and controlled air temperature, humidity, air movement, and

radiant temperatures, the team maintained comfort

while requiring minimal occupant interaction with the

heating, cooling, and lighting systems. The panel agreed

that the variable speed ductless cooling system was

the most appropriate solution for a small, open space.

Warren Gretz/PIX11849

Scoring by the Engineering Design Panel Points 

(Subjective) Available

Innovation of system and consumer appeal/ 30

integration of system

Scoring by Measure of Performance Points 

(Objective) Available

24-hour evaluation: 20

If temperature >74°F, E = (temperature – 74°F)

If temperature <70°F, E = (70°F – temperature)

If RH >60%, E = (RH – 60) 

If RH <30%, E = (30 – RH) 

PI = ΣE

Weeklong temperature and humidity test: 20

If temperature >78°F, E = (temperature – 78°F) 

If temperature <69°F, E = (69°F – temperature)

If RH >60%, E = (RH – 60) 

If RH <30%, E = (30 – RH) 

PI = ΣE

Electrical energy consumed to provide the 30

space conditioning 

Table 9. Performance Measures and Points Available for

The Comfort Zone
60 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

The Crowder College team impressed the Engineering

Design Panel with the adoption of solar technologies

and good engineering into a manufactured home. 

The team used off-the-shelf technology to achieve 

uniform thermal comfort throughout the house. The

Engineering Design Panel felt that Crowder College

demonstrated good engineering skills to develop a

design solution that would appeal to homebuilders

and homeowners.

Strategies and Observations

Because points were awarded for maintaining prescribed

temperature and RH set points and the energy used to

maintain those set points almost equally, the teams

faced an interesting strategic challenge. Any team

could score the maximum 20 points in the temperature or RH parts of this contest, and score 20 points 

in the energy-use part by using no electrical energy.

Two teams, Crowder College and Tuskegee University,

adopted the strategy of using no electrical power for

this contest while allowing temperature and humidity

conditions in their house to drift outside the required

range. This resulted in sacrificing the points available

for temperature and RH control, especially given the

unseasonably warm weather, but this strategy appeared

to be quite successful. These teams tied for first in the

objective part of this contest. Neither finished in the

top four overall because they did not receive scores

from the Engineering Design panel high enough to

overtake the top four finishers. Of the teams that 

finished in the top four overall, only one, the

University of Colorado, was in the top four in the

objective part. The team that maintained perfect temperature control while using a relatively large amount

of electricity, Auburn University, finished seventh in

the objective part and third overall in this contest.

The score for thermal performance is not particularly

well correlated with the score for innovation and consumer appeal. The order of finish in the performance

part was Crowder College, Tuskegee University, the

University of Colorado, and The University of

Missouri–Rolla. The order for the part evaluated by 

the Engineering Design Panel was the University of

Colorado, Virginia Tech, Crowder College, and the

University of Texas. The order of finish for the overall

event was the University of Colorado, the University

of Maryland, Auburn University, and the University 

of Delaware. (Nearly all the teams did something

well.) It is entirely possible that innovations that are

unsuccessful from a purely performance perspective

could be rewarded by the Engineering Design Panel,

and systems considered preferable to consumers may

be less energy efficient.

Innovation/

Integration/

24-hour T & RH Weeklong T & RH Energy Consumed Consumer Appeal Overall

Team Rank Points Rank Points Rank Points Rank Points Points Standing

Colorado 2 18.462 2 18.462 6 17.500 1 30.000 84.423 1

Maryland 4 15.385 3 16.923 5 20.000 7 16.154 68.462 2

Auburn 1 20.000 1 20.000 9 10.000 6 18.462 68.462 2

Delaware 3 16.923 4 15.385 8 12.500 5 20.769 65.577 3

Crowder 11 4.615 11 4.615 1 30.000 3 25.385 64.615 4

Rolla 6 12.308 5 13.846 3 25.000 10 9.231 60.385 5

Virginia Tech 5 13.846 7 10.769 12 2.500 2 27.692 54.808 6

Tuskegee 9 7.692 8 9.231 1 30.000 11 6.923 53.846 7

Virginia 7 10.769 9 7.692 2 27.500 12 4.615 50.577 8

Texas–Austin 13 1.538 13 1.538 4 22.500 4 23.077 48.654 9

Carnegie Mellon 10 6.154 12 3.077 7 15.000 9 11.538 35.769 10

UNC Charlotte 8 9.231 6 12.308 10 7.500 13 2.308 31.346 11

Puerto Rico 12 3.077 10 6.154 11 5.000 8 13.846 28.077 12

Texas A&M 14 0.000 14 0.000 13 0.000 14 0.000 0.000 13

Table 10. Final Results for The Comfort Zone (All displayed points are rounded to 3 decimal places.)
The Ten Contests — 61

What Worked Well and What Needs Improvement?

The organizers and the teams faced some challenges

related to this contest. The houses were designed for

just a few occupants, not the large numbers of visitors

who came to the event. The organizers wanted to give

the teams some way to control the numbers of visitors

entering the houses. Having more occupants in a

house than the house was designed to accommodate

can increase the amount of energy required by the

HVAC system to maintain comfort. During the week

in which the contest was active, the teams were

allowed to choose when and for how long the 

visiting public had entry into their houses.

The weather was unseasonably hot, so except for teams

that employed only natural ventilation, most of the

houses were closed to the public during this contest.

In fact, some teams wouldn’t even allow all their

teammates access. Too much body heat! This created

some friction with the visiting public, who were

intensely interested in seeing the houses. It also created

conflict for the event. The organizers and teams wanted

the public to have access. The organizers wanted to

create a fair contest in which teams had the choice 

to operate their homes competitively. At least some

teams wanted to win, but all also considered public

outreach critical to their mission in the competition.

The organizers took a hands-off approach and encouraged the teams to arrive at a solution to these conflicts.

Toward the end of the contest week, the teams agreed

to a meeting of their own. The question at hand

seemed to be: Would all the teams agree to sacrifice

this contest for the sake of public outreach by opening

their houses on Friday, October 4? Ultimately, the

answer was no. But some teams did choose to keep

their houses open, which was a wonderful thing,

because the event hosted nearly 1,000 school children

from area schools that day. The organizers and the

teams agree that The Comfort Zone competition must

be changed for the 2005 competition so visitors can be

assured of at least some access every day of the event.

Organizers and teams encountered some challenges

related to the monitoring equipment for this contest.

For the most part, the temperature and RH measurements worked well. However, because the temperature and RH sensors were mounted in a radiation

shield typically used for outdoor applications, the

organizers spent too much time negotiating with

teams about their locations. The major issue with

these sensors was their effect on the aesthetic appeal 

of the house. Installation resulted in exposed wire 

and a bulky radiation shield in a location that the

organizers felt to be representative of the space, but 

that the teams felt was too visible. In future competitions, a more detailed explanation of the location 

of sensors should be included in the rules and regulations. Organizers should also make clear to the teams

that if they do not permit installation of sensors they

will not be scored. Smaller radiation shields could also

be considered for future competitions.

In addition to aesthetic concerns, the organizers

encountered some issues with compliance to the rules

and regulations. Some teams had split spaces and were

conditioning only the space that contained the sensor.

(The rules and regulations stipulated that a minimum

of 450 ft2 [41.8 m2] of interior space had to be conditioned.) This problem could have been remedied by

installing a second sensor in the other space. A more

careful inspection of each team’s building plan to

identify locations for temperature and RH sensors

should be performed before the next competition so

feedback on their locations can be communicated to

the teams before they arrive at the competition.

The organizers and teams also encountered some challenges with the electric power measurements made for

heating and cooling equipment. These measurements

were made at the circuit breaker panel. Some teams

had equipment other than heating or cooling equipment tied into the circuit breakers that the organizers

had designated as exclusively for the heating and cooling equipment. To be scored properly, these teams

were forced to rewire the circuit breaker in question 

to supply electricity only to the heating and cooling

equipment. In a few cases installation of the current

transducers to measure this end use was incorrect

either because of incorrect labeling of breakers or 

nonprofessional wiring within the circuit breaker

panel, which added to the likelihood of a mistake in

the installation. To remedy these problems, the organizers should communicate more clearly to the teams

in the next competition how to wire circuit breakers

for proper contest monitoring. 

Additionally, despite rigorous testing of monitoring

equipment in the laboratory before the competition,

at least one of the watt-hour meters provided by the

organizers was found to be faulty on site. After the

equipment was tested in the lab, it was transported

cross-country and installed in the houses on site, 

creating some opportunity for equipment failure. The

organizers needed more time to test the equipment 

on site, which meant that the teams’ houses needed 

to have been closer to completion when they arrived

in Washington, D.C.
62 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

Refrigeration

What Was the Contest 

Goal?

Because appliances 

account for about 20% 

of a typical household’s 

energy consumption, 

with refrigerators and 

clothes dryers at the 

top of the consumption 

list, this contest was 

designed to demonstrate that adequate 

cold storage can be 

provided in refrigerator 

and freezer units with a 

minimum of electrical 

energy.

While developing the 

rules and regulations, 

the Solar Decathlon 

organizers discussed a variety of options for developing a contest around the energy use of major appliances. Ultimately they created a separate contest for

refrigeration because of its significant energy use, and

because they anticipated that the teams would engineer new devices and systems to achieve cold storage.

Most teams, however, used their refrigerators “off-theshelf” with no modifications.

What Did the Teams Have to Accomplish?

The challenge of this contest was to maintain 32°–40°F

(0°–4°C) in the fresh food (refrigerator) compartment

and -40°–0°F (-40°– -18°C) in the frozen food (freezer)

compartment for a week while minimizing energy use.

Each team was required to install a refrigerator and

freezer with a minimum of 15 ft3 (0.4 m3) combined

interior capacity. Any attached freezer compartment

was required to have a separate door from the refrigerator compartment and a minimum of 3-ft3 (0.09-m3)

interior capacity.

Objective Criteria

The temperatures in the freezer and the fresh food

compartment of the refrigerator-freezer were continuously monitored, 24 hours per day, from 12:01 a.m.

on September 30 until 5:00 p.m. on October 4, 2002.

(Table 11 gives more details about scoring and available

points.) Temperatures were measured using type-T

copper-constantan thermocouples wired to a data 

logger. The thermocouples, which were located in 

the refrigerator and freezer compartments with the

wire passing through the door seal, were immersed 

in approximately 1 oz (30 mL) of propylene glycol to

dampen the effects of normal door operation and so

that temperature readings would be more representative of food temperatures.

Electrical energy used by AC refrigerators was measured

using watt-hour meters. Electrical energy used in DC

refrigerators was measured using a shunt for electrical

current and a voltage divider for electrical voltage, and

power was calculated by multiplying measured current

by voltage. These measurements required that the

teams provide one dedicated circuit breaker to supply

electricity to the refrigerators.

Teams were ranked according to the lowest performance

index (lowest PI = 1st) for temperature set points. (See

Table 11.) E represents the error or deviation from

temperature set points. The electrical energy consumed to provide refrigeration was measured, and 

the teams were ranked on the basis of minimizing

electrical energy use (lowest electrical energy consumed = 1st).

E = Error or deviation from temperature set points

PI = Performance index

Subjective Criteria

The Engineering Design Panel (see page 43) members

subjectively evaluated the engineering quality of all

the teams’ refrigeration systems in two areas:

The University of Puerto

Rico’s attractive and very

energy-efficient appliances,

including a refrigerator, are

on view in the kitchen/

dining room.

Chris Gunn Photography/PIX12196

Scoring by the Engineering Design Panel Points 

(Subjective) Available

Innovation of system and consumer 30

appeal/integration of system

Scoring by Measure of Performance Points 

(Objective) Available

Maintain refrigeration system temperature of 32°–40°F 

(0°–4°C) and freezer system temperature of -40°–0°F 

(-40°– -18°C). 

Refrigeration system performance index: 35

If temperature >40°F, E = (temperature – 40)

If temperature <32°F, E = (32 – temperature)

Freezer system performance index: 

If temperature >0°F, E = (temperature)

If temperature <-40°F, E = (temperature + 40)

PI = ΣE

Electrical energy consumed to provide 35

refrigeration 

Table 11. Performance Measures and Points Available for

Refrigeration
The Ten Contests — 63

• Consumer appeal—Was the refrigeration system 

operation intuitive to the user? Were there features 

of the system that would seem awkward in a realhome situation? Did the system have aesthetic 

appeal? Was a unique engineering solution applied 

to meet the refrigeration requirements? Did the 

refrigeration system optimally consume energy (is 

the system as efficient as practical)?

• System integration—Were elements of the system 

visible to the house occupants? Were visible elements well integrated into the interior design of 

the house? Was the integration of the refrigeration 

system with the building’s electrical and thermal 

energy systems unique in any way?

What Were the Results?

Penalties 

Table 12 below describes the penalties that were possible for this contest, but no penalties were assessed for

the subjective or objective parts of the contest.

Final Results

Table 13 on page 64 provides the final results of the

Refrigeration contest.

The Engineering Design Panel

In general, the Engineering Design Panel members

described the University of Colorado team’s technical

solution for minimizing the energy requirements for

cold storage as “elegant.” Installing extra insulation

around the refrigerator is a simple way to improve the

performance of any refrigerator at a very low cost.

Locating a heat recovery unit behind the refrigerator 

to dissipate hot air was also a novel approach to

increasing the refrigerator efficiency.

The panel felt that the University of Maryland demonstrated the best engineering economic analysis when

comparing various options for cold storage. The team

determined that a standard, lower efficiency refrigerator had the lowest life-cycle cost. Money saved from

purchasing a less expensive refrigerator was used to

pay for other energy-saving and energy-producing 

systems in the house. The panel applauded the team

for considering economics in the decision-making

process, because good engineering includes economics

as one variable.

The panel recognized the University of Virginia’s innovation in considering solutions to handling the refrigerator’s waste heat. The solution the team adopted was

to operate a fan to dissipate the waste heat.

Strategies and Observations

The organizers envisioned that the teams would be

interested in engineering new or modifying currently

available cold storage devices. But it seems the teams,

after evaluating options, determined it was better to 

use known technologies rather than spend time and

money developing new ones. Every team used either 

a standard “off-the-shelf“ refrigerator or an identical

model SunFrost (a brand name often found in houses

located off the utility grid). Some teams modified the

installation of their refrigerators slightly in an attempt

to help the units operate more efficiently, but no

major innovations were presented. The Engineering

Design Panel found it difficult to compare and rank

the teams for the Refrigeration contest because there

was so little engineering creativity that went into the

systems, which may explain why they ranked the

University of Colorado so highly in innovation and

consumer appeal even though that system used so

much energy—Colorado did at least try some innovation. Colorado finished sixth overall in this contest

even though it was next to last in the efficiency of its

refrigerator, because it did well in the other areas—

innovation, consumer appeal, and temperature control. The team kept the temperature of the freezer very

low to avoid going out of the set limits for temperature during the automatic defrost cycle, but ranked

13th in energy consumption. Rolla used the least

amount of electricity, had the best temperature control, and finished first overall in this contest, even

though it scored next to last in innovation and consumer appeal.

Violation Description Points/Penalty Applied To Responsibility to Data Required

Observe

Undersized refrigerator 0.081kWH/ft3/day x 1.25 x Refrigeration contest Organizer Inspection Volume measurement

(15 ft3 [0.4 m3] interior (volume difference) electrical energy crew or manufacturer’s data

volume minimum)

Undersized freezer com- 0.081kWH/ft3/day x 1.25 x Refrigeration contest Organizer Inspection Volume measurement 

partment (3 ft3 [0.09 m3] (volume difference) electrical energy crew or manufacturer’s data

interior volume minimum)

Table 12. Possible Penalties for Refrigeration
64 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

What Worked Well and What Needs Improvement?

Temperature and electrical energy measurements for

this contest were straightforward. Each refrigerator

typically had its own circuit breaker; identifying and

measuring the electrical energy used to operate the

refrigerator was in most cases very simple. In one 

case there was a faulty watt-hour meter, which was 

the only noted problem with the instrumentation 

of this contest.

Because the teams chose not to develop any new or 

to significantly modify any systems for cold storage, 

the Engineering Design Panel did not have much to

work with. The organizers should consider eliminating the subjective criteria for this contest in future

competitions.

Hot Water

What Was the Contest Goal?

For this contest, the teams had to demonstrate that

solar energy can supply all the energy necessary to

heat water for common uses such as bathing, laundry,

and dishwashing. The organizers included this contest

in the competition because water heating is typically

the third-largest energy expense in a home, accounting for about 14% of the household utility bill. Heating water with the sun is one of the easiest and least

expensive solar energy technologies a homeowner can

install to save money and reduce fossil fuel consumption, so solar water heating was an excellent technology to demonstrate to the public. 

The University of Missouri–Rolla’s energy- and waterefficient dish drawer.

Innovation/

Integration/ 

Temperature Energy Consumed Consumer Appeal Overall

Team Rank Points Rank Points Rank Points Points Standing

Rolla 1 35.000 1 35.000 5 20.769 90.769 1

Crowder 2 32.308 3 29.615 5 20.769 82.692 2

Auburn 3 29.615 4 26.923 5 20.769 77.308 3

Virginia 4 26.923 5 24.231 3 25.385 76.538 4

Maryland 6 21.538 7 18.846 2 27.692 68.077 5

Colorado 5 24.231 12 5.385 1 30.000 59.615 6

UNC Charlotte 13 2.692 2 32.308 5 20.769 55.769 7

Puerto Rico 7 18.846 10 10.769 5 20.769 50.385 8

Delaware 9 13.462 8 16.154 5 20.769 50.385 8

Virginia Tech 12 5.385 6 21.538 5 20.769 47.692 9

Texas–Austin 10 10.769 9 13.462 4 23.077 47.308 10

Tuskegee 8 16.154 11 8.077 5 20.769 45.000 11

Carnegie Mellon 11 8.077 13 2.692 5 20.769 31.538 12

Texas A&M 14 0.000 14 0.000 14 0.000 0.000 13

Table 13. Final Results for Refrigeration (All displayed points are rounded to 3 decimal places.)

Chris Gunn Photography/PIX12203
The energy contests monitored the use of electrical

energy and rewarded teams for minimizing electrical

energy use while completing the required tasks. Electric energy is readily measured by metering and summing up the kWh used, whereas measuring thermal

energy is more cumbersome because it involves physical measurement of volumetric fluid flow and the 

difference in temperature between the heated and

unheated fluid. To encourage the use of thermal solar

energy for heating hot water and simultaneously 

eliminate the need to measure thermal energy use, 

the organizers scored only the electric energy use.

Hence, thermal solar energy was, in essence, free 

for the taking in the Solar Decathlon.

What Did the Teams Have to Accomplish?

Objective Criteria

The teams were required to perform several tasks that

required hot water use throughout the competition:

shower tests, laundry, and dishwashing. 

Shower Tests

• Teams had to complete two shower tests (morning and

afternoon) every day during the week of contests.

• An actual shower was not required; a tap from which

to draw the required hot water sufficed.

• A team member worked with a Solar Decathlon official to deliver at least 15 gallons (57 L) of water at a 

minimum temperature of 110°F (43°C), in at most 

10 minutes. Water was collected in an insulated 

container and temperature was measured in the 

container after the required 15 gallons (57 L) 

were drawn.

• Contest officials measured time, temperature, and 

volume using stopwatches, thermometers, and flowmeters, respectively, when evaluating compliance 

to the shower test requirements.

• If teams did not perform the hot water draws 

required for this task, or they did not meet the 

task criteria, they received a penalty.

Laundry 

• On two occasions during the contests, teams were 

asked to do laundry. 

• Washing machines had to be automatic in operation

and had to have wash and rinse cycles. 

• For each washing, the laundry consisted of 12 large 

cotton bath towels, provided by competition officials, weighing approximately 1 pound (454 g) each. 

• Teams had 6 hours to wash and dry the laundry.

• Contest officials weighed the towels with a digital 

readout bench-top scale both before and after they 

distributed the towels for this contest. The laundry 

was considered dry and finished when the weight 

of the load returned to the weight of the load 

previous to the washing cycle.

• All water ports on the washing machine had to be 

connected directly to the hot water system outlet 

so the machine drew only hot water when running.

• If teams did not wash laundry, or they did not meet 

the task criteria, they received a penalty.

A Crowder College team member receives towels for the

Hot Water contest.

Dishwashing 

• Teams were asked to run one dishwashing cycle 

using an automatic dishwasher within the 8:00 a.m.

to 9:45 p.m. contest time frame each day.

• Dishwashers had to be automatic in operation and 

had to have wash and rinse cycles. 

• The dishwasher was required to have a minimum 

capacity of six place settings according to manufacturer specifications. A single place setting was 

defined as a dinner plate, a salad plate, a bowl, a 

cup and saucer, two forks, a knife, and a spoon. 

• All water ports on the dishwasher had to be connected

directly to the hot water system outlet so the 

machine drew only hot water when running. 

• If teams did not wash dishes, or they did not meet 

the task criteria, they received a penalty.

Hot water output temperature and electric power used

by the water heating system were measured and scored

by measure of performance. (Table 14 on page 66 presents the details of scoring and the points available.) 

To monitor the hot water temperature, the organizers

installed thermocouple temperature sensors (type-T

copper-constantan) on the surface of the pipe at the

outlet of the water heater, downstream from the mixing valve. Turbine-type flow meters with pulse output

were also installed in each house to determine when

water was flowing, signaling the need to measure and

record water temperature. The organizers intended to

rank teams according to their ability to maintain

delivered water temperature at or above 120°F (49°C),

with the best performing teams achieving the lowest

performance index (lowest PI = 1st) for temperature

set points. E represents the error or deviation from

The Ten Contests — 65

Warren Gretz/PIX11812
66 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

temperature set points. The electrical energy consumed

to heat water was also measured, and teams were

ranked on the basis of minimizing electrical energy

use (lowest electrical energy consumed = 1st). watthour meters were used to measure the energy consumed by AC equipment. For DC equipment a shunt 

enabled measurement of electrical current, a voltage

divider measured electrical voltage, and power was 

calculated by multiplying measured current by voltage.

E = Error or deviation from temperature set points

PI = Performance index

Subjective Criteria

The Engineering Design Panel members (see page 43)

subjectively evaluated the engineering quality of all

the teams’ hot water systems in two areas:

• Consumer appeal—Was the hot water control system

intuitive to use? If any part of the hot water system 

was visible to the occupant (both inside and outside 

of the house), was it attractive? Did the hot water 

system satisfactorily meet the occupant’s hot water 

needs from a layperson’s point of view? Was delivery

of the hot water efficient between the points of production (e.g., the thermal collectors) and the point 

of delivery (e.g., the faucet)? Would the system fully

meet hot water needs at peak demand? How was 

energy use minimized during low- or no-demand 

periods?

• System integration—Were elements of the hot water 

system visible to the house occupants? Were visible 

elements well integrated into the interior design of 

the house? Were the visible elements well integrated 

into the exterior design of the house? Was integration

of the hot water system with other systems within 

the house logical, efficient, or unique? 

What Were the Results?

Penalties

Table 15 on page 67 shows the penalties that were

possible for the Hot Water contest.

Table 16 on page 68 shows the penalties that were

applied to the Hot Water contest.

Final Results

Table 17 on page 69 provides the final results of the

Hot Water contest.

The Engineering Design Panel

The Engineering Design Panel was very impressed by

the combined PV/thermal hybrid solar system designed

by the Crowder team. This was the only team in the

solar village that attempted such integration. 

The Engineering Design Panel appreciated the energy

savings that resulted from the Maryland team’s PVpowered solar hot water system pump. Powering this

DC pump with a dedicated PV module reduced the auxiliary electrical loads on the house. The self-regulating

system avoided pump controller and inverter inefficiencies that occur in AC pumping systems.

The Engineering Design Panel noted that Delaware’s

water-to-water ground-source heat pump was well

integrated with the house mechanical system, including the domestic hot water and space heating systems.

What Worked Well and What Needs Improvement?

This contest produced mixed results. Tasks such as dishwashing, washing towels, and shower tests worked

well; monitoring for these contest elements was simple and effective. Dishwashing, monitored by the

observer in each house, required a simple visual verification that the team in question was operating its

machine each day of the contest. Laundry, which 

consisted of washing towels provided by the organizers, was very successful as well. Weight measurements made with the scale were straightforward and

clearly indicated whether the team met the contest 

criteria. Observers also participated in this task by visually verifying that the teams were complying with the

rules to wash and dry their laundry. The hot water

draws for the shower test were effective, and the test

rigs the officials used worked well. Temperature displays on dual display thermometers, along with dial

gauge flow meters and stopwatches, clearly indicated

water temperature, flow, and time as each team

attempted to meet the minimum criteria for the 

water draws. 

Scoring by Engineering Design Panel Points Available

(Subjective)

Innovation of system and consumer 30

appeal/integration of system

Scoring by Measure of Performance Points Available

(Objective)

Hot water system output temperature 35

performance index: 

If temperature <120°F, E = (120 – 

temperature)

PI = ΣE

Electrical energy consumed to heat the 35

water and run associated appliances 

(washer and dishwasher) 

Table 14. Performance Measures and Points Available for

Hot Water
The Ten Contests — 67

Violation Description Points/Penalty Applied To Responsibility to Data Required

Observe

Failure to complete 5.93 kWh Hot Water contest Official As applicable

shower test electrical energy

Non-automatic washing Team must fix within set time Hot Water contest Organizer inspection Visual inspection 

machine frame or 50 points total score crew/document or manufacturer’s 

verification data

Washing machine not Team must fix within set time Hot Water contest Organizer inspection Visual inspection 

connected to hot water frame or 50 points total score crew

Failure to attempt washing 6.5 kWh per occurrence Hot Water contest Observer Visual Inspection

and drying of towels electrical energy

Failure to wash laundry* 4.1 kWh per occurrence Hot Water contest Observer Visual Inspection

electrical energy

Failure to return 12 5 points per towel short of 12 Hot Water contest Official Count number of 

towels at weigh-in total score towels at weigh-in

Interrupting automatic 10 points per occurrence Hot Water contest Observer Visual Inspection

cycles of dishwasher or total score

washing machine

Non-automatic dishwasher Team must fix within set time Hot Water contest Organizer inspection Visual inspection

frame or 50 points total score crew/document or manufacturer’s 

verification data

Dishwasher not connected Team must fix within set time Hot Water contest Organizer inspection Visual inspection 

to hot water frame or 50 points total score crew

Dishwasher undersized Team must fix within set time Hot Water contest Document Manufacturer’s data 

frame or 50 points total score verification

Failure to wash dishes 2.6 kWh per occurrence Hot Water contest Observer Visual inspection

electrical energy

*This penalty was applied to the Hot Water scores of teams that did not wash laundry because they didn’t have a washing machine. 

No penalties for non-automatic washing machines, washing machines not connected to hot water, or failure to attempt washing

towels were applied. 

Table 15. Possible Penalties for Hot Water 

As previously described, the contest also specified that

the hot water system outlet needed to maintain a minimum temperature of 120°F (49°C) whenever hot water

for any contest-related purpose was in use. The organizers originally identified a specific and consistent

location for installation of the thermocouple temperature sensors used to measure water temperature—

the exterior pipe surface after the mixing valve on the

mixed hot water supply line to domestic uses. Several

problems emerged with this concept as it was implemented on the Mall:

• In some cases, domestic hot water (DHW) and space 

heating systems were intermingled, making identification of the DHW system outlet difficult.

• Identifying the appropriate location for the thermocouple was difficult in some cases because the 

plumbing layout was extremely complicated. Some

teams had multiple mixing valves or no mixing 

valves at all. 

• Some mechanical systems were not finished upon 

arrival at the Mall, making it difficult or impossible 

for the organizers to locate instrumentation where 

originally planned. In addition, some systems had 

mechanical failures, and DHW supply lines that 

the organizers had originally instrumented for the 

appropriate measurements were later abandoned 

by the teams. 

• In some cases, insulation installed by the organizers 

to ensure that the thermocouple sensed only the
68 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

temperature of the hot water pipe was later found 

to be missing, making the temperature readings 

inaccurate.

For all these reasons, in some cases the thermocouple

was either not installed correctly or not at the right

location, which made any competitive comparisons

among teams nearly impossible. Furthermore, because

some teams were unaware that whenever they used

hot water, they activated the scoring for minimum

temperature, penalties were inadvertently incurred.

(Signals from flow meters installed in the DHW supply

lines were used as a flag to start and stop scoring on

the hot water system outlet temperature criteria.)

Team Cause Penalty Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri

(kWh)

Rolla Failure to complete morning shower test 5.93 •

Virginia Tech Failure to complete morning shower test 5.93 •

Virginia Tech Failure to wash dishes 2.6 •

Colorado Failure to complete morning shower test 5.93 •

Puerto Rico Failure to complete morning shower test 5.93 • •

Puerto Rico Failure to wash dishes 2.6 •

Crowder Failure to complete morning shower test 5.93 • •

Crowder Failure to complete afternoon shower test 5.93 • •

Delaware Failure to complete morning shower test 5.93 • •

Delaware Failure to complete afternoon shower test 5.93 • •

Virginia Failure to complete morning shower test 5.93 •

Virginia Failure to complete afternoon shower test 5.93 •

Virginia Failure to wash dishes 2.6 • •

Texas–Austin Failure to complete morning shower test 5.93 • • •

Texas–Austin Failure to complete afternoon shower test 5.93 •

Texas–Austin Failure to wash dishes 2.6 •

Carnegie Mellon Failure to complete morning shower test 5.93 • • •

Carnegie Mellon Failure to complete afternoon shower test 5.93 • • •

Tuskegee Failure to complete morning shower test 5.93 • •

Tuskegee Failure to complete afternoon shower test 5.93 • • • •

Tuskegee Failure to wash dishes 2.6 •

UNC Charlotte Failure to complete morning shower test 5.93 • • • • •

UNC Charlotte Failure to complete afternoon shower test 5.93 • • • • •

UNC Charlotte Failure to wash dishes 2.6 • • • • •

UNC Charlotte Failure to wash laundry 4.1 • •

Texas A&M Failure to complete morning shower test 5.93 • • • • •

Texas A&M Failure to complete afternoon shower test 5.93 • • • • •

Texas A&M Failure to wash dishes 2.6 • • • • •

Texas A&M Failure to wash laundry 4.1 • •

Table 16. Penalties Applied to Hot Water 
The Ten Contests — 69

Some teams periodically tested their DHW systems to

make sure they could pass a shower test and were

completely unaware of the negative effect they had on

their scoring. Because of this complication, all teams

were given 35 points for hot water system temperature

performance. To avoid such problems in future Solar

Decathlons, the organizers should measure the temperature achieved during operation of each appliance

at the appliance itself, using waterproof sensors that

can withstand the washing machine and dishwasher

cycles of residential appliances.

Energy Balance

What Was the Contest Goal?

For this contest, the organizers wanted the teams to

demonstrate that the sun could supply the energy 

necessary for all the daily energy demands of a small

household and a home-based business. Every time 

the teams used electrical energy for any reason, this 

contest was affected. The goal was to end the competition with an amount of energy stored in the electrical storage (battery) system greater than or equal to

the amount stored in the storage system when the

contests began. 

This contest was not a 

complete evaluation of 

the teams’ entire PV systems; it demonstrated 

the effectiveness of the 

systems within the 

competition only. No 

measurements of solar 

resource, PV output, 

inverter, or battery 

losses were taken. In 

fact, teams were not 

required to replace 

energy loss due to inefficiency in batteries. 

Many teams had to do 

at least some assembly 

before their PV systems 

were able to provide 

power. Much of that

assembly required the use of diesel generators, so the

teams had ample opportunity to charge their battery

systems using the generators. The requirements of this

contest discouraged teams from charging batteries

(possibly with generators) before the competition 

Innovation/

Integration/ 

Temperature Energy Consumed Consumer Appeal Overall

Team Rank Points Rank Points Rank Points Points Standing

Maryland 1 35.000 2 32.308 2 27.692 95.000 1

Auburn 1 35.000 1 35.000 6 18.462 88.462 2

Rolla 1 35.000 3 29.615 6 18.462 83.077 3

Virginia Tech 1 35.000 4 26.923 6 18.462 80.385 4

Colorado 1 35.000 5 24.231 6 18.462 77.692 5

Puerto Rico 1 35.000 6 21.538 4 23.077 77.015 6

Crowder 1 35.000 10 10.769 1 30.000 75.769 7

Delaware 1 35.000 9 13.462 3 25.385 73.846 8

Virginia 1 35.000 7 18.846 6 18.462 72.308 9

Texas–Austin 1 35.000 8 16.154 5 20.769 71.923 10

Carnegie Mellon 1 35.000 11 8.077 6 18.462 61.538 11

Tuskegee 1 35.000 12 5.385 12 4.615 45.000 12

UNC Charlotte 1 35.000 13 2.692 13 2.308 40.000 13

Texas A&M 1 35.000 14 0.000 14 0.000 35.000 14

Table 17. Final Results for Hot Water (All displayed points are rounded to 3 decimal places.)

A student from the Tuskegee

University team checks

power-conditioning 

equipment.

Warren Gretz/PIX11844
70 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

started and using that energy for the competition

rather than the energy collected during the competition. (Without this constraint, a team might have won

the competition without a PV system at all.) This contest also discouraged the teams from taking advantage 

of good weather during assembly to use as “insurance”

for the competition, which they might have wanted

to do had the weather forecast been different. 

What Did the Teams Have to Accomplish?

Objective Criteria

From 12:01 a.m. on September 30 until 5:00 p.m. on

October 4, 2002, Solar Decathlon organizers continuously monitored the energy supplied to the batteries

from the PV systems and the energy demanded from

the batteries by the house and electric vehicle. Electrical energy supply was compared to electrical energy

demand, and each team was scored on the basis of

how well its house met energy demands using only 

its PV system. There was no subjective component to

this contest.

The teams were required to do many tasks such as operating a TV/video player and powering home office

workstations. Most of these tasks affected the Energy

Balance contest as well as the contest for which the

tasks were assigned. The TV/video player, for example,

affected both the Home Business and Energy Balance

contests. Cooking meals, which the teams were

required to do several times throughout the week of

contests, was the only task requiring electrical energy

that affected only the Energy Balance contest.

The organizers’ measurement goal for this contest was

the net supply of kWh to the battery systems. To

quantify net supply of electrical energy, the organizers

placed a shunt between each team’s battery bank and

inverter(s) to measure electrical current. (The shunt

allows measurement of current both into and out of

the batteries.) Battery voltage was measured using a

voltage divider. The current and battery voltage measurements were multiplied to determine the amount by

which teams were charging or discharging their batteries. The summation of these data over time showed

whether the teams collected sufficient energy from

their PV systems or operated their houses efficiently

enough (or both) to ensure that their battery systems

were not drained below the initial measurement at

which they began the contest. If, at the end of the

contest, the total energy supplied met or exceeded 

the total energy demanded (including applicable

penalties) from the batteries, teams received the full

100 points for this contest. If, at the end of the contest, the energy demanded from the batteries was

greater than the energy supplied to the batteries,

teams were ranked based on the magnitude of the 

difference between the demand and supply (the 

smaller the difference, the higher the team ranked).

What Were the Results?

Penalties

No subjective penalties were assessed in this contest.

Table 18 on page 71 shows the objective penalties 

that were possible, and Table 19 on page 71 presents

the penalties that were assessed.

Final Results

Table 20 on page 72 provides the final results of the

Energy Balance contest.

Strategies and Observations

To receive maximum points, the Energy Balance contest required that teams put as much as or more energy 

into the batteries than they took out. This contest 

was intended to make teams “live off their income” of

solar energy and not benefit from using energy stored 

in the batteries before the start of the competition. All

teams with a positive energy balance received the same

score. There was no advantage in scoring to have a

larger quantity of excess power at the end of the competition. It would have been a reasonable strategy to

use the excess power in the Getting Around instead 

of retaining extra stored energy. Using excess electric

power in most other contests was discouraged, because

there was an energy efficiency component to the scoring.

During the daytime, fluctuations in power were much

more prominent than during the night, because the

competition hours limited teams to operation of their

entries between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. each day.

Only essential electric power-consuming devices

remained on during the night. 

Five of the 14 teams finished the competition with a

positive energy balance and received the same first

place score. Colorado and Auburn had a positive energy

balance for every hour of the competition. (This of

course, was not required. Teams were required only 

to finish the competition with a positive energy 

balance to receive points for first place.) Rolla and

Crowder crossed into positive territory only in the

final two hours of the competition after maintaining 

a negative balance for most for the week. 

Most teams realized that starting the competition with 

a moderately low state of charge in their battery systems was an important element of strategy. If the batteries were at a nearly full state of charge at the start

of the competition, it would have been difficult (or 

at least very inefficient) to ever get a positive energy
The Ten Contests — 71

balance. (You have to put more in than you take out,

so it is in general, not a good strategy to start with a

full battery.) Strategy could have been influenced by

uncertainty in the weather. The teams with a larger

positive energy balance could have been less vulnerable to cloudy weather. Less favorable weather during

the week of competition could have motivated teams

to use different strategies, and the results could have

been significantly different.

Some teams made interesting choices that influenced

the outcome of this contest. Crowder’s decision to use

no electrical power for heating and cooling, for example, may have influenced this contest. But they paid a

price in The Comfort Zone, because they went outside

the required temperature and RH ranges for that contest. Virginia Tech’s decision to win the Getting

Around contest influenced their ranking. Although

these are not necessarily strategies the organizers

would recommend for everyday living, they are 

certainly acceptable in this competition. 

Violation Points/Penalty Applied To Responsibility to Data Required

Description Observe

Failure to cook 0.7 kWh per occurrence Energy Balance contest Observer Visual inspection

electrical energy

Failure to dry laundry 2.4 kWh per occurrence Energy Balance contest Official Towel weigh-in

electrical energy 

Running generator (Generator Rated kWh x Energy Balance contest Official/observer Team announces use of 

runtime) x 1.25 per electrical energy generator to official/ 

occurrence observer

Table 18. Possible Penalties for Energy Balance

Team Cause Penalty Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri

(kWh)

Auburn Failure to dry laundry 2.4 •

Maryland Failure to dry laundry 2.4 •

Rolla Failure to dry laundry 2.4 • •

Delaware Failure to dry laundry 2.4 • •

Texas-Austin Failure to dry laundry 2.4 • •

Texas-Austin Failure to bring hot entrée to required temperature 0.1* •

Puerto Rico Failure to dry laundry 2.4 •

UNC Charlotte Failure to dry laundry 2.4 • •

UNC Charlotte Failure to prepare hot beverage with breakfast 0.35** •

Tuskegee Failure to dry laundry 2.4 • •

Tuskegee Failure to cook 0.7 •

Carnegie Mellon Failure to dry laundry 2.4 • •

Carnegie Mellon Failure to cook 0.7 •

Texas A&M Failure to dry laundry 2.4 • •

Texas A&M Failure to cook 0.7 • • •

*Temperature was a fraction of the requirements for the meal. **The hot beverage was only half of the requirement for breakfast. 

Table 19. Penalties Applied to Energy Balance 
72 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

What Worked Well and What Needs Improvement?

Overall this contest worked well—teams “got” the concept, and the instrumentation was simple and effective. The teams and the organizers put a great deal of

effort into safety concerns associated with the batteries

that had to be used in this stand-alone (completely off

the electricity grid) competition. Numerous codes regulate the size of battery rooms, firewall separations

between battery rooms and occupied rooms, ventilation requirements for battery rooms, battery rack construction requirements, and spill containment requirements. Some sections of code the organizers chose to

enforce were more suitable for commercial buildings.

For example, a 2-hour fire separation for a battery

room makes sense in a building with a lengthy evacuation time. Because the Solar Decathlon houses were

open to the public, the organizers decided to apply

more stringent code requirements. All the requirements

were difficult to meet and enforce during the first

competition, but the organizers and the teams pulled

together to make it happen and better protect themselves and the public.

Battery systems are also expensive; each team spent 

a significant amount of money to have 3–5 days of

stand-alone backup in case of bad weather. A grid-tied

competition, especially if a local utility were involved,

could prevent some of the expenditures and difficulties associated with this contest. A meter running

backwards would also offer a compelling public

demonstration of net metering.

Lighting

What Was the Contest Goal?

This contest was important to the Solar Decathlon as 

a competition and as a public demonstration. Electric

lighting is the third largest consumer of energy in

buildings, so it was critical that the teams design their

entries with energy-efficient lighting in mind. And

reducing energy use through energy-efficient lighting

is one of the fastest ways consumers can lower their

energy bills. Natural and electric light contribute to 

the mix of lighting in a home, so this contest judged

the amount of illumination supplied by electric lights

and daylighting (a passive solar design strategy). 

This contest underwent significant change from the

early versions of the rules and regulations to the final

version. Initially the teams were going to be required

to meet rather stringent illumination levels in five 

separate spaces in their houses, which would have

been scored pass/fail. The teams thought this contest

needed improvement, and the University of Virginia

team suggested that NREL work with the International

Association of Lighting Designers (IALD) to make

those improvements. A group of lighting designers

active in IALD volunteered to work with NREL, and

the organizers are grateful for their contributions. The

original contest required illumination levels that are

more appropriate for task lighting than for ambient

lighting, so two categories of lighting level requirements—task and ambient—were established for each

space. This, of course, required double the number of

measurements for each space, but it made more sense

in terms of evaluating good lighting design. Originally,

continuous monitoring was going to be done in the

living and office spaces. However, for many teams

these spaces were one and the same, so the office 

and kitchen spaces were monitored continuously 

with different required light levels for each.

What Did the Teams Have to Accomplish?

For this contest, the teams had to demonstrate that

their lighting systems could maintain acceptable levels

of illumination and lighting quality during both the

daytime and the nighttime. To determine compliance

with objective criteria, Solar Decathlon organizers

monitored illumination levels from October 1 to

October 4. The Engineering Design Panel (see page 43)

also subjectively evaluated each team’s lighting system.

Overall

Team Rank Points

Auburn 1 100.000

Crowder 1 100.000

Colorado 1 100.000

Maryland 1 100.000

Virginia 1 100.000

Rolla 2 88.889

Delaware 3 77.778

Texas–Austin 4 66.667

Puerto Rico 5 55.556

UNC Charlotte 6 44.444

Virginia Tech 7 33.333

Tuskegee 8 22.222

Carnegie Mellon 9 11.111

Texas A&M 10 0.000

Table 20. Final Results for Energy Balance

(All displayed points are rounded to 3 decimal places.)
The Ten Contests — 73

Objective Criteria

To satisfy occupant requirements, lighting levels in 

the house had to meet the levels listed in Table 21.

Required lighting levels varied from room to room 

and were different for task and ambient lighting.

Because task lighting provides lighting for activities

such as cooking, cleaning, and reading, for which

there are health and safety issues, the task lighting

level requirements were higher. 

E = Error or deviation from lighting level

PI = Performance index

The organizers took light-level readings at night in

each location listed in Table 21. If a team met the

nighttime light-level criteria at 95% or better, it was

given credit for daytime and nighttime lighting evaluations (30 points for each evaluation, 60 points 

Task Level Ambient Level 

Space Averages Task Measurement Location Averages Ambient Measurement Location

Living Space 30 foot- Average of readings taken 5 fc Average of four readings taken 30 in. 

candles (fc) at center of any desk or (54 lx) (76 cm) above floor at arbitrarily chosen

(323 lux [lx]) table and 2 ft above the locations as close to the center of the 

seat of any reading chair room as possible but no closer than 

3 ft (0.9 m) from a task measurement

Office Space 50 fc At office working surface 5 fc Average of four readings taken 30 in. 

(538 lx) or desk (54 lx) (76 cm) above floor at arbitrarily chosen

locations as close to the center of the 

room as possible but no closer than 

3 ft (0.9 m) from a task measurement

Kitchen Space 30 fc Average of readings taken 10 fc Average of four readings taken 30 in. 

(323 lx) at center of any countertop, (108 lx) (76 cm) above floor at arbitrarily chosen

range top and sink locations as close to the center of the 

room as possible but no closer than 

3 ft (0.9 m) from a task measurement

Bedroom Space 15 fc At pillow 5 fc Average of four readings taken 30 in. 

(161 lx) (54 lx) (76 cm) above floor at arbitrarily chosen

locations as close to the center of the 

room as possible but no closer than 

3 ft (0.9 m) from a task measurement

Bathroom Space 30 fc At sink 10 fc Average of four readings taken 30 in. 

(323 lx) (108 lx) (76 cm) above floor at arbitrarily chosen

locations as close to the center of the 

room as possible but no closer than 

3 ft (0.9 m) from a task measurement

Table 21. Lighting Levels by Location

Measured Light-Level Reading Points Available 

per Location from 

Table 21

95% of criteria from Table 21 3 

75%–94% of criteria from Table 21 2 

50%–74% of criteria from Table 21 1 

Below 50% of criteria from Table 21 0 

Table 22. Performance Measures and Points Available for

Lighting: Light-Level Requirements by Location

Scoring by Measure of Performance 

(Objective) Points Available

Office work surface: 10

If light-level reading <50 footcandles, 

E = (50 light-level reading)

PI = ΣE

Kitchen work surface: 10

If light level reading <30 footcandles, 

E = (30 light-level reading)

PI = ΣE 

Table 23. Performance Measures and Points Available for

Lighting: Continuous Light-Level Requirements
74 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

total). Teams that did not meet all the criteria during 

the nighttime evaluation were scored for the nighttime evaluation (30 points available); a daytime evaluation was then performed and scored separately 

(30 points available). Electric lights could be used as

needed to achieve required light levels. Points were

awarded according to Table 22 on page 73. 

Additional objective evaluations determined that system

capacity (appropriate, continuous lighting levels) was

achieved (see Table 23 on page 73). The organizers

continuously monitored task lighting on the working

surface of the office space from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m,

during which time teams were required to have their

home offices up and running and were producing

newsletters and contest diaries as part of the competition. The organizers also measured one task lighting

location on the kitchen work surface from 8:00 a.m. 

to 10:00 a.m. and from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m., during

which times teams were scheduled to cook meals as 

a requirement of the competition. Continuous lightlevel readings were taken at one of the same locations

as the initial daytime and nighttime evaluation locations listed in Table 21 on page 73. 

Teams were ranked according to the lowest performance index (lowest PI = 1st) for lighting levels. E represents the error or deviation from lighting level (see

Table 23).

For both the by-location (Table 21) and continuous

(Table 23) lighting level evaluations, the organizers

used recently calibrated, cosine- and color-corrected

illuminance field instruments. For the by-location

measurements, the organizers placed the photometer

on the horizontal plane at 30 in. (76 cm) above the

floor (or top of counter or surface if higher), either 

laying the meter flat or mounting and leveling it on 

a stand. Measurements were taken carefully, typically

using a meter with a remote measuring head or by 

“ducking” to prevent body shadow. Continuous lightVirginia Tech used translucent and highly insulative Aerogel

“Sky Wall” panels as a daylighting feature in its home.

level readings were taken at one of the same locations

and with the same meters as the by-location evaluations, but those meters were connected to the data

acquisition system for the competition.

Subjective Criteria

The Engineering Design Panel members subjectively

evaluated the engineering quality of the teams’ lighting systems in two areas: 

• Consumer appeal—Was the lighting control system 

intuitive to use? Were those lighting system elements visible to the occupants attractive? Did the 

lighting system satisfactorily meet the occupants’ 

lighting needs from a layperson’s point of view? 

Was an elegant solution found for controlling the 

lighting system?

• System integration—Were elements of the lighting 

system that are visible to the house occupants well 

integrated into the interior design of the house? Was

the use of daylighting elegantly integrated into the 

architectural design? Did the daylighting and electric

lighting systems provide a pleasant and attractive 

environment? With regard to daylighting, how was 

glare avoided? How were fluctuating illumination 

levels minimized, such as may result from passing 

clouds? Were the electric lighting system power 

requirements met in a creative manner? 

To determine aesthetic appeal and the subjective

achievement of the lighting design, the judges awarded

points using the point system given in Table 24.

What Were the Results?

Penalties 

No penalties were assessed for the subjective or objective parts of this contest. 

Final Results

Table 25 on page 75 provides the final results of the

Lighting contest.

Chris Gunn Photography/PIX12188

Scoring by Engineering Design Panel Points Available

(Subjective)

Innovation and integration of system 20

and consumer appeal of lighting 

environment

Table 24. Points Available for Subjective Component of

Lighting 
By-Location By-Location 

Daytime Nighttime Innovation of

Compliance Compliance Continuous: Continuous: System and

Check Check Office Light Level Kitchen Light Level Consumer Appeal Overall

Team Points Points Rank Points Rank Points Rank Points Points Standing

Crowder 30.000 30.000 1 10.000 1 10.000 3 16.923 96.923 1

Virginia Tech 30.000 30.000 4 7.000 7 5.000 1 20.000 92.000 2

Colorado 30.000 30.000 6 5.000 5 6.667 2 18.462 90.128 3

Virginia 30.000 27.000 5 6.000 1 10.000 4 15.385 88.385 4

Maryland 30.000 30.000 3 8.000 6 5.833 5 13.846 87.679 5

Puerto Rico 30.000 30.000 2 9.000 4 7.500 8 9.231 85.731 6

Auburn 30.000 30.000 1 10.000 2 9.167 10 6.154 85.321 7

Texas–Austin 27.000 23.000 1 10.000 3 8.333 9 7.692 76.026 8

Delaware 30.000 26.000 9 2.000 11 1.667 6 12.308 71.974 9

Rolla 30.000 30.000 7 4.000 10 2.500 12 3.077 69.577 10

Carnegie Mellon 30.000 22.000 8 3.000 9 3.333 7 10.769 69.103 11

Tuskegee 30.000 25.000 10 1.000 8 4.167 11 4.615 64.782 12

UNC Charlotte 27.000 17.000 1 10.000 12 0.833 13 1.538 56.372 13

Texas A&M 23.000 0.000 11 0.000 13 0.000 14 0.000 23.000 14

Table 25. Final Results for Lighting (All displayed points are rounded to 3 decimal places.)

The Ten Contests — 75

The Engineering Design Panel

The Engineering Design Panel felt that Virginia Tech

excelled above all others in maximizing daylighting

potential while also maintaining good thermal envelope integrity. The team provided diffuse daylight

through transparent envelope materials, including

daylight reflected off the backs of roof-mounted PV

modules. These modules also shaded skylights and

eliminated all direct solar gain through the skylights.

The team integrated electric lighting into the ceiling

skylight design to supply even and constant illumination from a single location.

The panel observed that there was a nice general feel

to Colorado’s house as a result of using just the right

amount of daylighting. This team incorporated good

shading schemes for its windows and used bright interior walls and ceilings to reflect the light indoors. The

Engineering Design Panel felt that the Colorado team’s

lighting design would have good consumer appeal.

The Crowder College team demonstrated the best

solution to efficiently lighting a small space that did

not have a significant amount of available daylight.

The team appropriately used occupancy sensors, photo

sensors, and automatic dimmable lighting controls.

The Engineering Design Panel recognized the good

engineering the team accomplished in designing the

right kind of lighting system for its house.

Strategies and Observations

Most teams found that meeting the lighting-level

requirements for this contest fairly easy. What seemed

to “make or break” this contest was team vigilance—

making sure lights were left on when they should be

left on and making sure none of the sensors that

measured light levels were covered. Using simulation

tools to design lighting systems helped teams that

chose to do so ensure their systems were able to meet

contest requirements without using excessive energy.

What Worked Well and What Needs Improvement?

The photometers installed to continuously evaluate

light levels worked well, but meeting the continuously

monitored task lighting requirements for this contest

proved to be a trivial exercise. All that was needed to

meet this requirement was a task light placed directly

over the light sensor. The light meter evaluations by

location were valuable, and separated the teams that

spent time designing their lighting systems from those

that did not. Although the contest was generally 

successful, the organizers should work with IALD to
76 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

improve this contest even more. Specifically, lighting

design professionals should be involved in the judging,

and the subjective evaluations should be conducted

after dark as well as during daylight hours to assess 

the quality of the nighttime lighting strategy.

Home Business

What Was the Contest Goal?

Use of electronic equipment such as personal computers,

televisions, DVD and video players, and fax machines

is on the rise. The use of these devices, which are now

in most offices and homes, is expected to contribute

significantly to increased energy use by Americans in

the next two decades. This contest was devised to

demonstrate that a solar-powered house can provide

adequate energy to meet the energy requirements of 

a modern house with all the electronics in place.

Because many American homes now have home offices,

it was important to create a contest that required architecture and engineering students to demonstrate comfortable and energy-efficient home office designs. The

organizers also wanted to give the teams and the visiting public an opportunity to think about telecommuting—could it save energy and improve our lives? And,

by requiring operation of a TV/video player during

public tours, the teams demonstrated that a solarpowered house can support the average-American’s 

TV viewing habits. It was actually fairly easy to do

well in this contest, because it was largely a matter 

of buying the latest equipment (all of which is very

energy efficient) off the shelf of a local electronics

store and completing the tasks required.

What Did the Teams Have to Accomplish?

Each house was required to include an appropriately

lit and conditioned space of at least 100 ft2 (9 m2) 

that was dedicated for home office use. The home

A student from the University of Delaware works at the

team’s home office workstation while an official observer

looks on.

office space could be set up in the living or bedroom

space. Teams provided their own workstations, which

consisted of a computer, a monitor at least 17 in. 

(43 cm) in size (the manufacturer’s stated monitor 

size was the number used to evaluate compliance), 

a high-quality color printer (either ink jet or laser that

printed four color on standard letter-sized paper at

1200 dpi), and any other hardware they chose. All

equipment had to be pre-approved by the organizers.

Each workstation functioned as a node on a local area

network provided by the Solar Decathlon sponsor

EDS. Each workstation was required to run from 9:00

a.m. through 5:00 p.m. during the weeklong contests,

and EDS regularly “ping-ed” each workstation to determine whether it was running as specified. Teams had

access to the Internet and e-mail during the competition via the Solar Decathlon local area network. They

used their workstations to produce the newsletters and

contest diaries for the Graphics and Communications

contest. They could also update (remotely) their own

Web sites using the workstation. Teams were not

allowed to provide Web servers or host their own Web

pages in their houses using the Solar Decathlon’s network or Internet connection. Teams were required to

retain their Web sites on the servers on which they

were first housed in October 2001—typically at their

universities or colleges. No Web site hits or other public access to the teams’ workstations were permitted

through the Solar Decathlon’s network or Internet

connection. 

Objective Criteria

Objectively, this contest was scored according to task

completion and the least amount of electrical energy

used to maintain essential office functions. Table 26

on page 77 gives the details of the scoring and the

points available in this contest. For task completion,

the teams were expected to run a minimum 19-in.

TV/video player for at least 6 hours (cumulative) per

day between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,

September 30 to October 5, as well as for the duration

of any public tours. The teams also had to complete

contest diaries (see discussion of Graphics and

Communications contest in this chapter) and submit

them to an FTP site by 11:00 a.m. each day during

that period. 

Solar Decathlon organizers measured the electric energy

used by the office equipment with AC watt-hour

meters or shunts and voltage dividers for DC electrical

energy. To facilitate this measurement, the teams provided a dedicated circuit breaker to supply electricity to

the home office equipment. The teams were ranked

on the basis of minimizing electrical energy use (lowest electrical energy consumed = 1st). 

Warren Gretz/PIX11847
The Ten Contests — 77

To ensure that there was electrical energy use to be

measured, teams were required to have their workstations and monitors turned on from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00

p.m., September 30 to October 5. During the required

operation time, the workstation and monitor were

permitted to “go to sleep” if not in use. Teams were

also to print the hard copies of their newsletters during the same time period, using the required printer.

The organizers supplied the paper necessary for newsletter printing and verified printing during the office

operation times. Teams also received and responded 

to regular e-mail requests via the workstation and

wireless Internet connection. Teams were to answer

the e-mails from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. E-mail 

messages included, for example, details about requirements for the Graphics and Communications contest

(e.g., content direction for the daily newsletters and

diaries) and competition-related communications.

Subjective Criteria

Thirty points were available for the subjective office

space comfort and integration component of this contest (see Table 26). The Engineering Design Panel (see

page 43) subjectively evaluated the office space comfort and integration, considering these questions:

• Office space integration—How well did the space 

dedicated to office use integrate into the interior 

design of the house?

• Office space comfort—Would the space be comfortable for long-term use? Did the space provide the 

amenities and conveniences desired for a good office

environment? Was the space well and evenly lit? 

Were other space conditions (e.g., temperature and 

sound) comfortable? Was task lighting adequate to 

meet the needs of specific tasks?

What Were the Results?

Penalties 

No penalties were assessed for the subjective part of

the contest. Table 27 shows the possible objective

penalties, and Table 28 on page 78 presents the 

penalties that were assessed.

Final Results

Table 29 on page 78 provides the final results of the

Home Business contest.

Violation Description Points/Penalty Applied To Responsibility to Data Required

Observe

Undersized office area 1 point per ft2 undersized Home Business Organizer inspection Physical verification 

contest point total crew/document and plan verification

verification

Undersized computer Team must fix during set Home Business Organizer inspection Physical verification 

monitor time frame or 20 points contest point total crew/document and manufacturer’s 

verification data

Failure to run TV/video Points deducted based on Home Business Observer Visual inspection

player for 6 hours percentage of required time contest point total

TV/video player was running

Failure to operate Energy penalty applied based Energy penalty affected Observer Visual inspection

workstation during the on percentage of required time scoring by measure of

required office hours workstation was operated performance for Home

Business

Table 27. Possible Penalties for Home Business

Scoring by Task Completion Points Available

(Objective) 

Completion of contest diaries 25 

Operation of TV/video player during 25

public tours and 6-hour (cumulative) 

operation during each competition day

Scoring by Measure of Performance Points Available

(Objective)

Electrical energy consumed by home 20

business equipment

Scoring by the Engineering Design Points Available

Panel (Subjective)

Office space comfort and integration 30

Table 26. Scoring and Points Available for Home Business
78 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

Engineering Design Panel

At the Crowder College house, the Engineering Design

Panel appreciated the variety of available audiovisual

equipment that could accommodate a number of

office and home entertainment activities. The team

nicely organized the layout of the combined living

and office space to maximize the efficiency of the

multiuse space.

The Carnegie Mellon team’s “plug-and-play” design

combined with the raised floor system for reconfiguration flexibility distinguished its home business

capabilities above the other houses in the solar village.

The Colorado team located the home business functions to integrate well with the house design. The

placement was good for even and diffuse daylight,

avoidance of glare, and a view of the house’s front

door. The location was also out of the way of the

higher activity areas of the home so one could 

work without being interrupted.

Strategies and Observations

The order of finish for this contest was determined

mainly by the electric power used by the home office

equipment. Several teams completed this contest 

using an average of less than 500 watt-hours per day.

This amounts to less than 2% of the total energy typically used in these houses. To give some perspective

Team Cause Penalty Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri

Puerto Rico Failure to operate workstation during the 0.325 kWh •

required home office hours

UNC Charlotte Failure to run TV/video player for 6 hours 2.9 points •

Texas A&M Failure to operate workstation during the 1.3 kWh • • • • •

required home office hours 

Table 28. Penalties Applied to Home Business

Office Space Operation of

Comfort and Contest TV/Video

Integration Diary Player Energy Consumed Overall

Team Rank Points Points Points Rank Points Points Standing

Crowder 1 30.000 25.000 25.000 1 20.000 100.000 1

Tuskegee 5 20.769 25.000 25.000 3 16.667 87.436 2

Colorado 3 25.385 20.000 25.000 4 15.000 85.385 3

Rolla 5 20.769 20.000 25.000 2 18.333 84.103 4

Carnegie Mellon 2 27.692 25.000 25.000 10 5.000 82.692 5

Maryland 5 20.769 25.000 25.000 6 11.667 82.436 6

Virginia 5 20.769 25.000 25.000 6 11.667 82.436 6

Auburn 5 20.769 25.000 25.000 7 10.000 80.769 7

Virginia Tech 4 23.077 15.000 25.000 8 8.333 71.410 8

Texas–Austin 5 20.769 25.000 25.000 12 1.667 72.436 9

Delaware 11 6.923 25.000 25.000 5 13.333 70.256 10

Puerto Rico 11 6.923 25.000 21.700 9 6.667 60.290 11

UNC Charlotte 13 2.308 5.000 19.600 11 3.333 30.241 12

Texas A&M 14 0.000 5.000 0.000 13 0.00 5.000 13

Table 29. Final Results for Home Business (All displayed points are rounded to 3 decimal places.)
The Ten Contests — 79

on the magnitude of this amount of power, it would

cost less than $0.05 per day to buy the electricity used

in the home office from a typical U.S. utility company.

The difference in electric power use among the first

four places in this contest was less than 50 watt-hours

per day, much less than $0.01 per day at typical utility

rates. The home office equipment most of the teams

chose for this contest simply didn’t use much electricity, and the teams thereby proved that saving energy

by choosing the right equipment is very doable.

What Worked Well and What Needs Improvement?

In the next Solar Decathlon, the home office functions

required by this competition could be performed with

even less electric power than the 2002 teams used. It

was difficult to separate the home office equipment

from other electrical end uses at the circuit breaker

panel, so measuring very small power quantities didn’t

seem worth the effort. It was also difficult to enforce

rules regarding using or charging batteries in small

computers. And the way this contest was written and

clarified limited the use of the Internet, because the

students were trying to minimize the electrical energy

used by office equipment. The organizers should consider eliminating the electrical energy use part of scoring for this contest.

Getting Around

What Was the Contest Goal?

Every year, the personal transportation needs of 

Americans—getting to and from work, school, and

play—continue to grow. The transportation contest 

of the Solar Decathlon evaluated how much “extra”

energy a competition house could generate to transport solar decathletes around town in a street-legal,

commercially available electric vehicle. The intent of

this contest was to use excess energy from the solar

house to accumulate mileage credit by driving the

electric vehicle to perform tasks similar to those 

performed by an “average” household.

This contest caused some understandable discomfort

among the teams. Some teams advocated to have it

removed from the competition, because they felt it

would be much better to model using public transportation as an energy efficiency strategy. By including this contest, the teams had to plan for a larger PV

array than what would have been necessary just to

power the house. In the end however, the organizers

decided to keep the contest because most Americans

use as much energy to power their houses as they do

their cars. The organizers felt that without addressing

transportation, this competition and public event

would be ignoring too significant a portion of the

nation’s energy use.

What Did the Teams Have to Accomplish?

Getting Around was scored based on the number of

successfully completed, predetermined trips the teams

made in their electric cars. These trips were for running errands and driving laps around Haines Point in

East Potomac Park near the National Mall. Organizers

supplied each team with a two-passenger Ford TH!NK

Neighbor, and the teams could not alter the vehicle 

in any way, except to install energy flow monitoring

devices. The vehicle features as purchased for the 

competition were:

• Family model (with trunk)

• Maintenance-free battery 

• White color scheme 

• Soft weather enclosures 

• Standard safety equipment (e.g., seat belts, lights, horn)

• Wide steel wheels

• Turf tires for grass friendly operation on the Mall 

(also operable on city streets).

After the Solar Decathlon Rules and Regulations 

Committee approved a team’s December 4, 2001, 

qualification documents (see the From Concept to

Reality chapter), that team received clearance to pick

up its vehicle at a dealership. The vehicle then became

property of the school, which was required to title and

license the vehicle in the school’s name and carry all

pertinent vehicle insurance. Teams were responsible 

to transport the vehicle from the dealership and for 

all transport thereafter. 

Solar Decathlon organizers supplied event decals, and

a team logo could be placed on each vehicle. Only

decathletes were allowed to drive the team’s electric

vehicle to satisfy competition requirements. Each driver

had to possess a valid driver’s license and be 18 years

of age or older, and proof of insurance had to be kept

with the vehicle at all times.

Teams were required to include one passenger for all

driving activities for the competition. This requirement was intended to replace the previous requirement of ballasting a single driver as well as to increase

the safety of those participating in the driving part 

of the event. (Navigating around Washington, D.C.,

requires frequent use of maps, and it is unsafe to drive

and navigate simultaneously.) Only decathletes or

contest officials were permitted to be passengers during the competition. Passengers and drivers had to

provide their own means of communicating with 

the decathletes who remained at the team’s house 

on the Mall. 

According to NPS rules, teams were permitted to drive

the electric vehicles on the National Mall turf to enable
80 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

charging or parking within a carport, garage, or in

close proximity to the team’s house. When an electric

vehicle entered or exited the gravel pathways on the

Mall, however, it had to be “walked” (accompanied 

by a student team member on foot in front of the car)

to ensure pedestrian safety on the Mall. The electric

car had to be walked from the parking area, carport, 

or garage to the street and vice versa.

Teams could start the contest with fully charged batteries in the vehicle, but any subsequent recharging

had to come from energy generated by the PV systems on their houses. Before the team was allowed to

compete with its TH!NK Neighbor, the car was checked

for compliance with manufacturer’s specifications, in

terms of the:

• Battery

• Tires

• Drive system

• Charging system

• Brakes

• 12-Volt system (lights, horn, power plug). 

At the competition, the organizers installed charge port

locks, and sealed and marked the batteries to reveal

ready evidence of tampering after the start. The organizers assigned a logbook to each vehicle that served

as written backup documentation to all vehicle activity.

In addition, the organizers supplied maps to the teams

that identified all routes for accumulating miles.

There was no subjective component to this contest,

which was measured and scored objectively as shown

in Table 30. A total of 100 points was available, and

rank was determined based on accumulating the most

mileage credits from September 29 to October 5. 

Miles for any driving route were awarded only for

completed routes or laps; partial routes or laps did not

accumulate mileage credit. The teams could use their

electric cars at their discretion, but they were credited

only for mileage on the routes described in Table 30. 

On Sunday, September 29, and Wednesday, October 2,

teams could receive mileage credit for trips to Whole

Foods Grocery Store to pick up groceries for cooking 

or for making donations to Martha’s Table Food Pantry.

The teams donated groceries such as beverages (soda,

juice); canned goods (soup, beans, vegetables, etc.);

cereal; cheese and cold cuts; jars of jam or jellies;

pasta; and peanut butter to the food pantry.

From Sunday, September 29, through Thursday,

October 3 (9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) and on Friday,

October 4 (9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.), teams could drive

the East Potomac Park route as excess energy permitted.

All contests except Getting Around ended on Friday,

October 4, at 5:00 p.m. At that time the teams had 

to decide and announce if they wished to continue

competing in the Getting Around contest. Teams 

that announced their intention to continue competing were not permitted to charge their electric cars

after 5:00 p.m. on Friday, October 4, but were allowed

to accumulate mileage credits for laps around the

National Mall Loop on Saturday, October 5, from

10:00 a.m. to noon. 

Teams that did not wish to continue competing on

Saturday, October 5, were ranked according to their

final mileage credits as of 5:00 p.m. on Friday (in 

comparison to mileage credits accumulated by other

teams as of Saturday, October 5 at noon) and had the

option to charge their electric cars Friday after 5:00 p.m.

All the teams participated in a “photo finish” with 

the cars after noon on Saturday to mark the official

end of the competition. All teams had to cross the 

finish line on Saturday, October 5, to receive mileage

credit accumulated for driving on Friday, October 4, 

or Saturday, October 5.

What Were the Results?

Penalties

Although no penalties were assessed, there were two

general categories of possible penalties for the Getting

Around contest:

• Car Batteries—Car batteries were subject to penalties 

regarding seals, charging, and replacement. In addition, teams would have been disqualified for using 

any battery in the car that was not the manufacturer’s

original equipment. Charging the house battery system from the car battery system was not permitted. 

Route Mileage Credit 

(miles)

Whole Foods Grocery Store (round trip) 3.3

Martha’s Table Food Pantry (round trip) 6.2

Whole Foods Grocery Store and Martha’s 10

Table and Food Pantry (round trip) 

East Potomac Park (round trip) 3.7

East Potomac Park (each lap around 3.2

one-way loop) 

National Mall Loop (each lap around 1.1

one-way loop) 

Table 30. Predetermined Routes and Mileage Credits

Available for Getting Around
The Ten Contests — 81

• Pushing—Teams would not have received mileage 

credit for pushing or pulling their electric cars. Use 

of regenerative brakes was not permitted while a

team was being pushed or pulled.

Final Results

Table 31 provides the final results of the Getting

Around contest.

Strategies and Observations

It took the teams a day or so to pick up on strategies

used by their competitors. Initially several teams used

the cars for tasks for which they did not receive credit,

essentially squandering the energy needed to do those

peripheral tasks. The most evident learning occurred

in driving styles. When forced to live within an energy

budget to extract the most miles, drivers became

hyper-aware of the effects of acceleration on energy

use. “Soft starts, soft stops, and easy going” were

quickly adopted by successful teams. Whether a function of the weather forecast and strategy or unfamiliarity with the nuances of scoring, teams did not 

generally use the cars early in the contest week to 

use excess energy. For example, both Colorado and

Auburn finished the competition with many times

more energy stored in their house battery systems

than either Crowder or Maryland. Yet, because of the

way the Energy Balance contest was set up, all four 

of those teams tied for first in the Energy Balance 

contest. Colorado and Auburn could have used the

early “excesses” in their house battery systems to 

better their performances in the Getting Around 

contest. On the other hand, the Virginia Tech team, 

credited with the most miles driven of any team at 

the Solar Decathlon, placed above the top three overall teams in the Getting Around contest but did not

do well in the Energy Balance contest. The team was

well behind its closest competitor in Energy Balance

(approximately 20 kWh) in the beginning of the competition week. The team saw it had a better chance of

doing well in Getting Around than in Energy Balance,

so, toward the end of the competition, Virginia Tech

made a conscious decision to win the Getting Around

contest. 

What Worked Well and What Needs Improvement?

Overall, this contest worked well. The rules governing

the electric cars were for the most part straightforward,

and the teams understood them well. The contest

brought added visibility—the cars were, in effect, 

moving billboards—to the competition and event as

teams drove around the D.C. area and interacted with

the public off the Mall. To keep staffing requirements

to a minimum, only a few options of where to go for

credit were allowed. In future competitions, use of

additional observers (volunteer staff) or an observation technology could allow the teams even greater

flexibility to travel in their vehicles and reach out to

even more people. 

The Auburn University team crosses the “Finish Line” at

the end of the competition.

Overall

Team Rank Points

Virginia Tech 1 100.000

Auburn 2 92.308

Colorado 3 84.615

Rolla 4 76.923

Maryland 5 69.231

Crowder 6 61.538

Virginia 7 53.846

Puerto Rico 8 46.154

Carnegie Mellon 9 38.462

Tuskegee 10 30.769

Texas–Austin 11 23.077

Delaware 12 15.385

UNC Charlotte 13 7.692

Texas A&M 14 0.000

Table 31. Final Results for Getting Around 

(All displayed points are rounded to 3 decimal places.)

Warren Gretz/PIX11903
82 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review
Appendices — 83

Appendices

A. Details by Team.........................................................................................................................................................84

Auburn University ....................................................................................................................................................84 

Carnegie Mellon........................................................................................................................................................86 

Crowder College........................................................................................................................................................88

Texas A&M University ............................................................................................................................................. 90

Tuskegee University ................................................................................................................................................. 92

University of Colorado at Boulder .......................................................................................................................... 94

University of Delaware ............................................................................................................................................ 96

University of Maryland.............................................................................................................................................98 

University of Missouri–Rolla and The Rolla Technical Institute ...........................................................................100 

University of North Carolina at Charlotte.............................................................................................................102 

University of Puerto Rico........................................................................................................................................104 

University of Texas at Austin..................................................................................................................................106 

University of Virginia .............................................................................................................................................108

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University...............................................................................................110

B. Example Review of Design Report..........................................................................................................................113

C. List of Monitoring Instruments..............................................................................................................................119

D. The Competition Schedule.....................................................................................................................................120

E. Relevant Sections of the Solar Decathlon 2002 Regulations .................................................................................122

F. Sample Contest Diary and Newsletter....................................................................................................................127
84 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

Auburn University

Final Overall Points: 840.330

Final Overall Standing: 3

Appendix A. Details by Team

Warren Gretz/PIX12973
Appendix A. Details by Team — 85

Home Details

The Auburn team incorporated old and new design

ideas into its house, which was an effective synthesis

of the traditional southern “dogtrot” design (separate

house sections connected by a walkway) and new

technologies such as solar electricity and passive solar

heating. A sundial in front of the house represented

one of the oldest and most visual technologies for

using sunlight. 

Inside, the team used “solar megaphones” (skylights

filled with prisms that amplify sunlight for daylighting), which are the most efficient sources of solar daylighting on the market. Large water-filled cylinders

decorate the rooms of the home and moderate the

home’s temperature, acting as a thermal mass that

helps the home stay cooler in the summer and

warmer in the winter. 

Item Specifics

PV kW (standard test

condition [STC] rating) 5.76

PV modules 36 BP Solar BP-3160

Charge controllers 5 Solar Boost 3048

Inverters 2 Trace SW5548

Battery bank 800 AH, 48 V

Battery type Concorde PVX-12100 sealed 

absorbed glass mat (AGM) 

Water heating 2 Heliodyne Gobi 4 ft x 8 ft 

(1.2 m x 2.4 m) flat plate 

collectors; 80-gal (303-L) 

tank; AC circulation pump

Construction SIPs; floors = R24 (RSI 4.2); 

outer walls, ceilings, and 

roof = R38 (RSI 6.7)

Space heating Trane air source heat pump

Space cooling Trane two-speed direct exchange 

(DX) split system

Web site http://www.ausolar.org

Manufacturers’ Web Sites

Note: Reference herein to the following Web sites, which include

specific information related to commercial products, processes,

and/or services by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the government, Midwest Research

Institute, or the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 

BP Solar: http://www.bpsolar.com/

Alternative Energy Systems Co. (Solar Boost):

http://www.poweriseverything.com/index.html

Xantrex (formerly Trace; Trace charge controllers):

http://www.xantrex.com/

Concorde: http://www.concordebattery.com/

Heliodyne: http://www.heliodyne.com/

Trane: http://www.trane.com

Source

These details have been adapted with permission from

Home Power #94, April/May 2003.

Final Competition Results

(All displayed points are rounded to 3 decimal places.)

Contest Final Points Final Standing

Design and Livability 105.692 6

Design Presentation 

and Simulation 61.240 8 

Graphics and 

Communication 80.769 2 

The Comfort Zone 68.462 3 

Refrigeration 77.308 3 

Hot Water 88.462 2 

Energy Balance 100.000 1

Lighting 85.321 7

Home Business 80.769 7

Getting Around 92.308 2

Overall 840.330 3
86 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

Carnegie Mellon

Final Overall Points: 502.023

Final Overall Standing: 12

Chris Gunn Photography/PIX12215
Appendix A. Details by Team — 87

Home Details

This house was designed to be part of an urban row

house in Pittsburgh. Because space is at a premium in

the city, the team decided that it would not be viable

to build a one-story 800-ft2 (74.3-m2) house as the

competition rules mandated. The team members felt

that two-story houses are a much more efficient use 

of space. So even though they lost 48 points for violating the competition rules, the students built the house

they considered to be the best for its final destination.

In keeping with the urban design, a large rooftop deck

contains a garden under a canopy of evacuated tube

hot water collectors.

Item Specifics

PV kW (STC rating) 7.14

PV modules 42 BP Solar BP-5170

Charge controllers 4 Trace C40

Inverters 2 Trace SW5548

Battery bank 810 AH, 48 V

Battery type 16 sealed AGM 

Water heating 2 Viessmann Vitosol H-30, evacuated tubes, 32.3 ft2 x 32.3 ft2

(3 m2 x 3 m2) each

Construction SIPs; walls = R33 (RSI 5.8), 

roof = R50 (RSI 8.8)

Space heating Water source heat pump

Space cooling Water source heat pump

Web site Unavailable

Manufacturers’ Web Sites

Note: Reference herein to the following Web sites, which include

specific information related to commercial products, processes,

and/or services by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the government, Midwest Research

Institute, or the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 

BP Solar: http://www.bpsolar.com/

Xantrex (formerly Trace; Trace charge controllers):

http://www.xantrex.com/

Viessmann: http://www.viessmann-us.com/

Source

These details have been adapted with permission from

Home Power #94, April/May 2003.

Final Competition Results

(All displayed points are rounded to 3 decimal places.)

Contest Final Points Final Standing

Design and Livability 75.077 8

Design Presentation

and Simulation 82.886 2

Graphics and 

Communication 23.846 12

The Comfort Zone 35.769 10

Refrigeration 31.538 12

Hot Water 61.538 11

Energy Balance 11.111 9

Lighting 69.103 11

Home Business 82.692 5

Getting Around 38.462 9

Overall 502.023* 12

*A 10-point penalty for tampering with sensors was subtracted from the 

final point total to get the overall point total.
88 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

Crowder College 

Final Overall Points: 725.001

Final Overall Standing: 6

Chris Gunn Photography/PIX12189
Appendix A. Details by Team — 89

Home Details

Crowder College’s team constructed its solar-powered

house using electricity from its trailer-mounted, portable solar-electric system, becoming the only school

that didn’t use a gasoline generator for construction 

or assembly on the Mall! No diesel-powered cranes 

or forklifts were used either; this was the only team

that offloaded its house completely with hand cranks

and jacks. 

The Crowder students also stood out in terms of their

use of solar energy, relying on amorphous thin-film,

BP Millenia PV modules rather than the crystalline 

silicon modules found on the other houses. The modules were integrated into a standing seam metal roof

so you could barely tell they were there. And Crowder’s

unique water heating system used the waste heat from

the PV modules, through a system of copper tubes

attached to the back of the modules and an extra layer

of glazing added above the modules. This effectively

turned each module into the absorber plate of a flat

plate solar water heating collector.

Item Specifics

PV kW (STC rating) 3.35

PV modules 78 BP Solar MST-43

Charge controllers 4 Solar Boost 3048

Inverters 2 Trace SW4048

Battery bank 800 AH, 48 V

Battery type 24 Eagle-Picher AGM

Water heating Thermal collectors integrated with 

12 BP Solar Millenia PV modules; 

250-gal (946-L) tank 

Construction 2 in. x 6 in. (5.1 cm x 15.3 cm) 

stud walls with FG batt; 

roof = R-40 (RSI 7); E2 Andersen 

windows

Space heating Radiant floor

Space cooling York 1.5 ton split system

Web site http://www.crowder.edu/solar/

Manufacturers’ Web Sites

Note: Reference herein to the following Web sites, which include

specific information related to commercial products, processes,

and/or services by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the government, Midwest Research

Institute, or the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

BP Solar: http://www.bpsolar.com/

Alternative Energy Systems Co. (Solar Boost):

http://www.poweriseverything.com/index.html

Xantrex (formerly Trace; Trace charge controllers):

http://www.xantrex.com/

Eagle-Picher: http://www.epcorp.com/EaglePicherInternet/

Andersen Windows:

http://www.andersenwindows.com/Default.asp?bhcp=1

York International: http://www.york.com/

Source

These details have been adapted with permission from

Home Power #94, April/May 2003.

Final Competition Results

(All displayed points are rounded to 3 decimal places.)

Contest Final Points Final Standing

Design and Livability 46.154 11

Design Presentation 

and Simulation 38.078 11

Graphics and 

Communication 59.231 5

The Comfort Zone 64.615 4

Refrigeration 82.692 2

Hot Water 75.769 7

Energy Balance 100.000 1

Lighting 96.923 1

Home Business 100.000 1

Getting Around 61.538 6

Overall 725.001 6
90 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

Texas A&M University 

Final Overall Points: 121.136

Final Overall Standing: 14

Chris Gunn Photography/PIX12164
Appendix A. Details by Team — 91

Home Details

Because Texas A&M is one of the top construction 

science schools in the country, this team focused 

most of its attention on cutting-edge construction

techniques related to solar energy. The team set out 

to show consumers, contractors, and builders alike

that using solar energy was both realistic and viable.

One interesting technology implemented in this house

was the interior wall of water. Based on refrigeration

technology, the team designed a system of water that

runs through pipes in the wall to moderate the temperature of the house. This team also designed its own

refrigeration system for the kitchen. Unfortunately,

Texas A&M was unable to participate in most of the

competitions because student representatives were

unable to be present during the competition week.

Item Specifics

PV kW (STC rating) 3.60

PV modules 12 ASE 300

Charge controllers 2 Trace C40

Inverters 2 Trace SW5548

Battery bank 1156 AH, 48 V

Battery type Rolls flooded lead acid

Water heating Progressive tube thermal system

Construction SIPs; walls = R30 (RSI 5.3), floor 

and roof = R55 (RSI 9.6)

Space heating Water source heat pump

Space cooling Water source heat pump

Web site http://archnt2.tamu.edu/

solardecathlon/

Manufacturers’ Web Sites

Note: Reference herein to the following Web sites, which include

specific information related to commercial products, processes,

and/or services by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the government, Midwest Research

Institute, or the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

RWE Schott Solar Systems (formerly ASE

Americas; ASE modules): http://www.asepv.com/

Xantrex (formerly Trace; Trace charge controllers):

http://www.xantrex.com/

Rolls Battery Engineering:

http://www.rollsbattery.com/

Source

These details have been adapted with permission from

Home Power #94, April/May 2003.

Final Competition Results

(All displayed points are rounded to 3 decimal places.)

Contest Final Points Final Standing

Design and Livability 0.000 13

Design Presentation and 

Simulation 30.443 13

Graphics and 

Communication 27.692 11

The Comfort Zone 0.000 13

Refrigeration 0.000 13

Hot Water 35.000 14

Energy Balance 0.000 10

Lighting 23.000 14

Home Business 5.000 13

Getting Around 0.000 14

Overall 121.136 14
92 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

Tuskegee University 

Final Overall Points: 513.377

Final Overall Standing: 11

Chris Gunn Photography/PIX12211
Appendix A. Details by Team — 93

Home Details

This house is an adaptation of the traditional southern

“dogtrot” design with an open breezeway down the

center of the house for natural ventilation. 

Tuskegee’s house is heated by passive solar energy, with

an air source heat pump backup. An air-conditioning

system is installed if needed, but the house is designed

with a north-facing balcony for maximum natural

ventilation. Education was a key element to Tuskegee’s

mission in this competition. The students designed

their house to make a beautiful addition to the campus after the Solar Decathlon, and it will form the 

core of a new renewable energy center that is being

developed on campus.

Item Specifics

PV kW (STC rating) 6.08

PV modules 39 BP Solar (1 for monitoring) 

BP-3160

Charge controllers 2 Trace C40

Inverters 2 Trace SW4048

Battery bank 3,050 AH, 48 V

Battery type 40 Concorde PVX-2580L sealed AGM

Water heating 4 ft x 10 ft (1.2 m x 3.0 m) Solar 

Direct flat plate collector; 80-gal 

(303-L) storage tank

Construction Wood stud walls; batt insulation

Space heating High-efficiency heat pump

Space cooling High-efficiency heat pump

Web site Unavailable

Manufacturers’ Web Sites

Note: Reference herein to the following Web sites, which include

specific information related to commercial products, processes,

and/or services by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the government, Midwest Research

Institute, or the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

BP Solar: http://www.bpsolar.com/

Xantrex (formerly Trace; Trace charge controllers):

http://www.xantrex.com/

Concorde: http://www.concordebattery.com/

Sunseeker Solar Energy (Solar Direct collectors):

http://www.sunseeker-solar.co.uk/solar-direct.html

Source

These details have been adapted with permission from

Home Power #94, April/May 2003.

Final Competition Results

(All displayed points are rounded to 3 decimal places.)

Contest Final Points Final Standing

Design and Livability 88.308 7

Design Presentation 

and Simulation 32.168 12

Graphics and 

Communication 43.846 8

The Comfort Zone 53.846 7

Refrigeration 45.000 11

Hot Water 45.000 12

Energy Balance 22.222 8

Lighting 64.782 12

Home Business 87.436 2

Getting Around 30.769 10

Overall 513.377 11
94 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

University of Colorado at Boulder 

Final Overall Points: 875.302

Final Overall Standing: 1

Chris Gunn Photography/PIX12166
Appendix A. Details by Team — 95

Home Details

The Colorado team set out to disprove many of the

standard notions of what is “required” for a solar

house. The roof is almost 20° flatter than what experts

consider the optimum slope, and part of it faces

southwest. The hot water collectors are flat, but have

titled absorber plates in the evacuated tubes. Another

guiding theme for this team was that everything 

in the house is commercially available and mass 

produced.

The house is well-lit and pleasant inside, and the

kitchen and living room area feels very large. The

team had trouble keeping people from plopping 

down on the couch during home tours and making themselves at home!

Item Specifics

PV kW (STC rating) 7.68

PV modules 63 Astropower AP-120

Charge controllers Outback MX-60; Solar Boost 3048; 

Trace C40

Inverters 2 Trace SW5548

Battery bank 1400 AH, 48 V

Battery type 32 Deka L-16 flooded lead-acid

Water heating 12 Sun Utility evacuated tubes; 

80-gal (303-L) storage; AC

circulator pump

Construction Polystyrene SIPs; walls = R30 

(RSI 5.3), ceiling = R40 (RSI 7); 

floor with Icynene foam insulation

Space heating Carrier air source heat pump with 

energy recovery ventilator (ERV)

Space cooling Carrier air source heat pump 

with ERV

Web site http://solar.colorado.edu/

Manufacturers’ Web Sites

Note: Reference herein to the following Web sites, which include

specific information related to commercial products, processes,

and/or services by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the government, Midwest Research

Institute, or the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Astropower: http://www.astropower.com/

Outback: http://www.outbackpower.com/

Alternative Energy Systems Co. (Solar Boost):

http://www.poweriseverything.com/index.html

Xantrex (formerly Trace); Trace charge controllers):

http://www.xantrex.com/

East Penn Manufacturing (Deka): http://www.

eastpenn-deka.com/

Sun Utility Network: http://www.sunutility.com/

Carrier Corporation: http://www.carrier.com/

Source

These details have been adapted with permission from

Home Power #94, April/May 2003.

Final Competition Results

(All displayed points are rounded to 3 decimal places.)

Contest Final Points Final Standing

Design and Livability 134.462 5

Design Presentation 

and Simulation 65.905 5

Graphics and 

Communication 93.077 1

The Comfort Zone 84.423 1

Refrigeration 59.615 6

Hot Water 77.692 5

Energy Balance 100.000 1

Lighting 90.128 3

Home Business 85.385 3

Getting Around 84.615 3

Overall 875.302 1
96 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

University of Delaware 

Final Overall Points: 543.446

Final Overall Standing: 10

Chris Gunn Photography/PIX12207
Appendix A. Details by Team — 97

Home Details

The University of Delaware’s house was the only semicircular house on the Mall. Not only was this shape

reminiscent of the school’s initial, “D,” it also allowed

the sun to enter the house at all times of the day. The

house’s inhabitants could watch the sun travel across

the sky without moving from their seats!

This house features a Warmboard panel radiant floor

heating system. This system integrates fluid piping

into a plywood underlayment, with aluminum sheeting that helps to distribute the heat. Unlike concrete,

this system can be implemented on any floor of a

house, as it is not much heavier than an average floor.

Item Specifics

PV kW (STC rating) 4.80

PV modules 40 Astropower AP-120

Charge controllers 4 Trace C40

Inverters Trace SW5548 power panel

Battery bank 1086 AH, 48 V

Battery type 20 Concorde PVX-2580 sealed AGM

Water heating 40 Thermomax evacuated tubes; 

80-gal (303-L) storage tank; AC 

circulator pump

Construction EcoThermal SIPs; walls = R30 

(RSI 5.3), ceiling = R50 (RSI 8.8), 

floor = R18 (RSI 3)

Space heating Ground source heat pump with 

radiant floor

Space cooling Ground source heat pump

Web site http://www.me.udel.edu/asme/

solar/

Manufacturers’ Web Sites

Note: Reference herein to the following Web sites, which include

specific information related to commercial products, processes,

and/or services by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the government, Midwest Research

Institute, or the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

EcoThermal Panel Systems: 

http://www.ecothermalpanel.com/

Warmboard: http://www.warmboard.com/

Astropower: http://www.astropower.com/

Xantrex (formerly Trace; Trace charge controllers):

http://www.xantrex.com/

Concorde: http://www.concordebattery.com/

Thermo Technologies: http://www.thermomax.com/

Source

These details have been adapted with permission from

Home Power #94, April/May 2003.

Final Competition Results

(All displayed points are rounded to 3 decimal places.)

Contest Final Points Final Standing

Design and Livability 30.769 12

Design Presentation 

and Simulation 52.861 9

Graphics and 

Communication 34.615 9

The Comfort Zone 65.577 3

Refrigeration 50.385 8

Hot Water 73.846 8

Energy Balance 77.778 3

Lighting 71.974 9

Home Business 70.256 10

Getting Around 15.385 12

Overall 543.446 10
98 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

University of Maryland 

Final Overall Points: 777.921

Final Overall Standing: 4

Paul Norton/PIX12000
Appendix A. Details by Team — 99

Home Details

Maryland’s key goal was to produce a house that did

not appear to be a solar house. Except for the wellintegrated PV array on the back roof, this house 

looks like it would fit right into any traditional housing

development. The team used a skylight and bay window for natural lighting, an electric daylight dimming

system, and super-efficient, off-the-shelf appliances.

The Maryland students also excelled in their hot water

system design, which supplied both domestic hot

water and hot water for the radiant floor heating 

system.

Because the team’s house had to be transported only

15 miles (24 km), the students were able to use a

poured slab concrete floor, which allowed them to

incorporate high-efficiency radiant heating. The house

also featured a large north deck that made the house

feel much larger than the actual interior size of 600 ft2

(56 m2).

Item Specifics

PV kW (STC rating) 5.76

PV modules 96 BP Solar MSX-60

Charge controllers 4 Solar Boost 50

Inverters 2 Trace SW5548 

Battery bank 800 AH, 48 V

Battery type 38 Concorde aircraft sealed AGM

Water heating 40 Thermomax evacuated tubes; 

120-gal (454-L) storage tank; 

PV direct pump

Construction Polyurethane SIPs; walls = R35 

(RSI 6.2), ceiling = R40 (RSI 7)

Space heating Radiant slab

Space cooling Trane XL 1500 split system with ERV

Web site http://www.enme.umd.edu/

solartech/

Manufacturers’ Web Sites

Note: Reference herein to the following Web sites, which include

specific information related to commercial products, processes,

and/or services by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the government, Midwest Research

Institute, or the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

BP Solar: http://www.bpsolar.com/

Alternative Energy Systems Co. (Solar Boost):

http://www.poweriseverything.com/index.html

Xantrex (formerly Trace; Trace charge controllers):

http://www.xantrex.com/

Concorde: http://www.concordebattery.com/

Thermo Technologies: http://www.thermomax.com/

Trane: http://www.trane.com

Source

These details have been adapted with permission from

Home Power #94, April/May 2003.

Final Competition Results

(All displayed points are rounded to 3 decimal places.)

Contest Final Points Final Standing

Design and Livability 74.923 9 

Design Presentation 

and Simulation 73.651 3 

Graphics and 

Communication 58.462 6 

The Comfort Zone 68.462 2 

Refrigeration 68.077 5 

Hot Water 95.000 1 

Energy Balance 100.000 1 

Lighting 87.679 5 

Home Business 82.436 6 

Getting Around 69.231 5

Overall 777.921 4 
100 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

University of Missouri–Rolla and the Rolla Technical Institute 

Final Overall Points: 652.241

Final Overall Standing: 9

Chris Gunn Photography/PIX12192
Appendix A. Details by Team — 101

Home Details

The University of Missouri–Rolla and Rolla Technical

Institute team wanted to build a house that the average consumer would accept as comfortable and familiar. These students felt that a “futuristic” house might

deter people from using solar energy. Their traditional

ranch home was transported in three sections that

were each mounted on trailer frames.

The house is cozy and comfortable, making visitors

feel right at home. Engineering students from the 

university designed the house, including the sunroom

on the south side, which contains all the controls for

the house. The sunroom’s floor is tiled with the names

of the team’s sponsors. The students from the Rolla

Technical Institute contributed their hands-on expertise, building the cabinetry, the shelving, and the deck.

Item Specifics

PV kW (STC rating) 5.12

PV modules 32 BP Solar BP-3160

Charge controllers 4 Solar Boost 3048

Inverters 2 Trace SW5548 

Battery bank 1500 AH, 48 V

Battery type 32 Trojan L-16H flooded lead acid

Water heating 20 Thermomax evacuated tubes; 

40-gal (152-L) storage tank

Construction Steel studs; 3-in. (7.6-cm) extruded

polystyrene foam insulation; walls 

and floor = R21 (RSI 4), ceiling = 

R40 (RSI 7)

Space heating Thermomax forced air heating unit

Space cooling Mitsubishi variable speed heat pump

Web site http://web.umr.edu/~sunhome/

Manufacturers’ Web Sites

Note: Reference herein to the following Web sites, which include

specific information related to commercial products, processes,

and/or services by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the government, Midwest Research

Institute, or the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

BP Solar: http://www.bpsolar.com/

Alternative Energy Systems Co. (Solar Boost):

http://www.poweriseverything.com/index.html

Xantrex (formerly Trace; Trace charge controllers):

http://www.xantrex.com/

Trojan Battery Company:

http://www.trojanbattery.com/

Thermo Technologies: http://www.thermomax.com

Mitsubishi: http://www.mrslim.com

Source

These details have been adapted with permission from

Home Power #94, April/May 2003.

Final Competition Results

(All displayed points are rounded to 3 decimal places.)

Contest Final Points Final Standing

Design and Livability 61.538 10

Design Presentation 

and Simulation 7.750 14

Graphics and 

Communication 29.231 10

The Comfort Zone 60.385 5

Refrigeration 90.769 1

Hot Water 83.077 3

Energy Balance 88.889 2

Lighting 69.577 10

Home Business 84.103 4

Getting Around 76.923 4

Overall 652.241 9
102 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

University of North Carolina at Charlotte 

Final Overall Points: 251.958

Final Overall Standing: 13

Chris Gunn Photography/PIX12162
Appendix A. Details by Team — 103

Home Details

A small, but very dedicated, team of architects built

this house. It uses only 120-Volt appliances and one 

4-kW inverter. Most of the appliances are from the

yacht industry. They are smaller than traditional appliances and use less energy than their conventional

counterparts.

These students also incorporated Kalwalls (an insulated

translucent fiberglass product that lets in 10% of the

sun’s light) for added daylighting of the interior spaces.

Skylights and creative lighting schemes make the

house’s interior more interesting.

Item Specifics

PV kW (STC rating) 4.80

PV modules 16 ASE 300

Charge controllers 2 Trace C60

Inverters Trace SW4024

Battery bank 800 AH, 24 V

Battery type 16 MK BA4D sealed AGM

Water heating 3 ft x 6 ft (0.9 m x 11.8 m) flat plate

collector; 15-ton water source heat 

pump; 140-gal (530-L) storage tank

Construction SIPs; walls = R19 (RSI 3), 

roof = R40 (RSI 7)

Space heating Passive solar

Space cooling Water source heat pump, passive 

ventilation

Web site http://www.uncc.edu/lighting/

Manufacturers’ Web Sites

Note: Reference herein to the following Web sites, which include

specific information related to commercial products, processes,

and/or services by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the government, Midwest Research

Institute, or the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Kalwall Corporation:

http://www.kalwall.com/main.htm

RWE Schott Solar Systems (formerly ASE

Americas; ASE modules): http://www.asepv.com/

Xantrex (formerly Trace; Trace charge controllers):

http://www.xantrex.com/

MK Battery: http://www.mkbattery.com/

Source

These details have been adapted with permission from

Home Power #94, April/May 2003.

Final Competition Results

(All displayed points are rounded to 3 decimal places.)

Contest Final Points Final Standing

Design and Livability –48.615 14 

Design Presentation 

and Simulation 40.093 10 

Graphics and 

Communication 4.615 13 

The Comfort Zone 31.346 11 

Refrigeration 55.769 7 

Hot Water 40.000 13 

Energy Balance 44.444 6 

Lighting 56.372 13 

Home Business 30.241 12 

Getting Around 7.692 13

Overall 251.958* 13

*A 10-point penalty for tampering with sensors was subtracted from the 

final point total to get the overall point total.
104 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

University of Puerto Rico 

Final Overall Points: 712.216

Final Overall Standing: 7

Chris Gunn Photography/PIX12192
Appendix A. Details by Team — 105

Home Details

Of all the participating teams, Puerto Rico had the

biggest transportation challenge—this team had to

pack its house in shipping crates, load it on a barge,

and send it off over the ocean to Washington! For 

that reason, the students had less time to work on

their house before shipping it off to the Mall.

This team was made up of architects from one campus

on the island and engineers from another campus. They

had never worked together before, and they had to

build a house for an unfamiliar climate. Working

together with area manufacturers, these students 

thoroughly researched the weather in Washington,

D.C., then proceeded to build an effective house 

with the available resources.

Item Specifics

PV kW (STC rating) 4.16

PV modules 26 BP Solar BP-160

Charge controllers 2 Trace C40

Inverters 2 Trace SW5548 

Battery bank 1800 AH, 48 V

Battery type 36 Clean Moura CM-200

Water heating 1 Solatron evacuated tube; 120-gal 

(454-L) storage tank

Construction Steel framing 4-in. (10.2-cm) polystyrene = R19 (RSI 3) and R21 

(RSI 4); synthetic word flooring

Space heating 4 evacuated tubes; 300-gal (1136-L)

storage tank

Space cooling Hybrid: liquid desiccant/1-ton 

carrier with Puron refrigerant

Web site Unavailable

Manufacturers’ Web Sites

Note: Reference herein to the following Web sites, which include

specific information related to commercial products, processes,

and/or services by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the government, Midwest Research

Institute, or the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

BP Solar: http://www.bpsolar.com/ 

Xantrex (formerly Trace; Trace charge controllers):

http://www.xantrex.com/

Moura Group: http://www.wayotek.com

Solatron: http://www.partsonsale.com/aboutus2.htm

Carrier Corporation (Puron refrigerant):

http://www.carrier.com/

Source

These details have been adapted with permission from

Home Power #94, April/May 2003.

Final Competition Results

(All displayed points are rounded to 3 decimal places.)

Contest Final Points Final Standing

Design and Livability 184.615 2 

Design Presentation 

and Simulation 72.086 4 

Graphics and 

Communication 52.308 7

The Comfort Zone 28.077 12 

Refrigeration 50.385 8 

Hot Water 77.015 6 

Energy Balance 55.556 5 

Lighting 85.731 6 

Home Business 60.290 11 

Getting Around 46.154 8

Overall 712.216 7
106 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

University of Texas at Austin 

Final Overall Points: 710.997

Final Overall Standing: 8

Chris Gunn Photography/PIX12197
Appendix A. Details by Team — 107

Home Details

Perhaps the most intriguing house at the competition,

this house started as an Airstream mobile home and

hundreds of parts reminiscent of a giant erector set.

Slowly, columns, the roof, and finally the walls

emerged from the seeming chaos and became a 

house. This team used the mobile home as part 

of the house, envisioning that when the owners 

go on vacation, they can take their home along!

The Airstream housed all the “wet rooms” of the house,

such as the kitchen and bathroom. The land-locked

house sections were the living room, office, and bedroom. Between the trailer and land-anchored sections

of the house runs a breezy deck area for enjoying the

great outdoors.

Item Specifics

PV kW (STC rating) 3.60

PV modules 6 ASE 300 and 25 BP Solar BP-275

Charge controllers Connect Power Center PSC500

Inverters Trace SW5548

Battery bank 1975 AH, 48 V

Battery type 20 Trojan L-16H flooded lead acid

Water heating 30 Thermomax evacuated tubes

Construction Steel prefabricated frame; SIP infill; 

built around Airstream trailer

Space heating BIO-Radiant Hydro-Air with 

domestic hot water

Space cooling BIO-Radiant Hydro-Air ice battery

Web site http://www.ar.utexas.edu/cadlab/ 

decathlon/sub/index.html

Manufacturers’ Web Sites

Note: Reference herein to the following Web sites, which include

specific information related to commercial products, processes,

and/or services by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the government, Midwest Research

Institute, or the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

RWE Schott Solar Systems (formerly ASE

Americas; ASE modules): http://www.asepv.com/

BP Solar: http://www.bpsolar.com/

Connect Energy: http://www.connectenergy.org/

Xantrex (formerly Trace; Trace charge controllers):

http://www.xantrex.com/

Trojan Battery Company:

http://www.trojanbattery.com/

Thermo Technologies: http://www.thermomax.com/

tec_index.htm

Airstream: http://www.airstream.com/

Popular Hydronics (BIO-Radiant technologies):

http://www.bio-radiant.com/

Source

These details have been adapted with permission from

Home Power #94, April/May 2003.

Final Competition Results

(All displayed points are rounded to 3 decimal places.)

Contest Final Points Final Standing

Design and Livability 169.231 3 

Design Presentation 

and Simulation 64.907 6 

Graphics and 

Communication 70.769 3 

The Comfort Zone 48.654 9 

Refrigeration 47.308 10 

Hot Water 71.923 10 

Energy Balance 66.667 4 

Lighting 76.026 8 

Home Business 72.436 9 

Getting Around 23.077 11

Overall 710.997 8
108 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

University of Virginia 

Final Overall Points: 848.521

Final Overall Standing: 2

Warren Gretz/PIX11853
Appendix A. Details by Team — 109

Home Details

This team’s goal was to create a house that appealed to

the experimental, and somewhat rebellious nature of

today’s younger generation. Although the house

(dubbed the “Trojan Goat” by the team) may look

strange to the more traditionally minded, the team

hoped that anyone could feel right at home once 

actually inside the house.

One of the house’s intriguing aspects was the

“Smart(W)all 3000.” This large, light-emitting diode

wall is art that reflects the home’s environmental 

conditions. When the house is hot, it’s one color;

when the house is cool, it’s another. The south wall 

is another climate control aspect—it is almost completely glass, shaded by wooden louvers. These louvers

can be opened parallel to the sun’s rays in winter to

reflect more light into the living room when needed.

Item Specifics

PV kW (STC rating) 5.28

PV modules 16 ASE 330

Charge controllers 4 Trace C60

Inverters 2 Trace SW4024

Battery bank 2000 AH, 24 V

Battery type 16 Concorde PVX-2120 sealed AGM

Water heating 5 AET and 1 reclaimed flat plate 

collectors; 90-gal (341-L) storage; 

heat pump backup

Construction Engineered studs, foam insulation; 

walls = R50 (RSI 9), roof = R70

(RSI 12); ground-coupled floor

Space heating Passive solar with auto-control; 

ground source heat pump; radiant 

floor

Space cooling Ground source heat pump; 

hydronic via natural convecting 

valance

Web site http://www.faculty.virginia.edu/ 

solarhome/

Manufacturers’ Web Sites

Note: Reference herein to the following Web sites, which include

specific information related to commercial products, processes,

and/or services by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the government, Midwest Research

Institute, or the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

RWE Schott Solar Systems (formerly ASE

Americas; ASE modules): http://www.asepv.com/

Concorde: http://www.concordebattery.com/

Xantrex (formerly Trace; Trace charge controllers):

http://www.xantrex.com/

Source

These details have been adapted with permission from

Home Power #94, April/May 2003.

Final Competition Results

(All displayed points are rounded to 3 decimal places.)

Contest Final Points Final Standing

Design and Livability 200.000 1

Design Presentation and 

Simulation 63.662 7

Graphics and 

Communication 60.769 4

The Comfort Zone 50.577 8

Refrigeration 76.538 4

Hot Water 72.308 9

Energy Balance 100.000 1

Lighting 88.385 4

Home Business 82.436 6

Getting Around 53.846 7

Overall 848.521 2
110 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 

Final Overall Points: 777.901

Final Overall Standing: 5

Paul Norton/PIX12001
Appendix A. Details by Team — 111

Home Details

This home is the epitome of multifunctionality. Every

aspect of the house has more than one purpose,

including the solar-electric panels. To celebrate solar

energy instead of hiding it, this team mounted the

panels conspicuously on angled racks atop the roof.

The panels act as a shading device for the house and

also collect electrical energy for use in the house.

Inside the house, the furniture, the rooms, and even

the appliances serve more than one purpose. The

appliances are grouped together on the north wall 

and serve as a thermal buffer for the rest of the 

house. The outer walls are made of a translucent 

aerogel material that insulates while allowing light 

in to daylight the interior spaces.

Item Specifics

PV kW (STC rating) 6.00

PV modules 80 BP Solar BP-275

Charge controllers 4 Solar Boost 3048

Inverters 2 Trace SW4048

Battery bank 1275 AH, 48 V

Battery type 20 Concorde PVX-6225 sealed AGM

Water heating 140 ft2 (13 m2) of SunEarth 

absorber plates in custom-built 

vertical collectors

Construction South, east, and west walls = R15

(RSI 3), north wall = R23 (RSI 4), 

roof = R31 (RSI 5)

Space heating Ground source heat pump and 

solar thermal

Space cooling Ground source heat pump

Web site http://www.caus.vt.edu/vtsolar/

Manufacturers’ Web Sites

Note: Reference herein to the following Web sites, which include

specific information related to commercial products, processes,

and/or services by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the government, Midwest Research

Institute, or the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

BP Solar: http://www.bpsolar.com/

Alternative Energy Systems Co. (Solar Boost):

http://www.poweriseverything.com/index.html

Xantrex (formerly Trace; Trace charge controllers):

http://www.xantrex.com/

Concorde: http://www.concordebattery.com/

SunEarth, Inc.: http://www.sunearthinc.com/

Source

These details have been adapted with permission from

Home Power #94, April/May 2003.

Final Competition Results

(All displayed points are rounded to 3 decimal places.)

Contest Final Points Final Standing

Design and Livability 153.846 4 

Design Presentation 

and Simulation 83.658 1 

Graphics and 

Communication 60.769 4 

The Comfort Zone 54.808 6 

Refrigeration 47.692 9 

Hot Water 80.385 4 

Energy Balance 33.333 7 

Lighting 92.000 2 

Home Business 71.410 8 

Getting Around 100.000 1

Overall 777.901 5
112 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review
Appendix B. Example Review of Design Report — 113

Appendix B. Example Review of Design

Report

Dear University Solar Decathlon Team:

Thank you for successfully submitting the Design Presentation and Simulation report for the Solar Decathlon.

The contents of your report represent significant effort on the part of your team. The Solar Decathlon Rules

and Regulations committee, which reviewed your team’s report, was particularly impressed by the progress

your team has made on the house design. 

As the committee members reviewed your team’s report, they considered the following issues: 

Physical Compliance: Your report was evaluated to determine compliance with the Solar Decathlon Rules

and Regulations, including the specific requirements for the 10 contests. Your report was also evaluated

based on an incomplete list of IRC2000 and NEC code compliance issues. Your report was reviewed with 

consideration of only the code compliance issues we are able to evaluate at this time. We reserve the right 

to and will continue to add evaluations of code compliance as you provide further details. The building code 

in your local area may be more or less stringent than the IRC and NEC codes. The Solar Decathlon organizers

encourage each team to have a building inspection from an inspector in its local area. 

Instrumentation and Monitoring: The committee reviewed your report to determine the type of monitoring equipment the organizers will have to provide as well as where to place the monitoring equipment in

your house.

Simulation Review: Your simulation was evaluated for accuracy by comparing inputs with the drawings

and narrative you supplied. In some cases, this included evaluating simulation results.

ADA: An independent architecture firm reviewed your plans for indication of an accessible route as well as

compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

As you review the attached documents, please keep in mind that this is just the beginning of a process that

will continue until June 1, 2002, when the final Design and Presentation report is due. Your current report

contains some important detail, and the committee appreciates your team’s effort. But like any difficult project

with this level of complexity, there is still work to be done. Review the attached documents as soon as possible

and provide the committee with any additional information it requires to ensure that you compete in the

Solar Decathlon. Responses should be directed via e-mail to sdrules@nrel.gov.

Sincerely,

The Solar Decathlon Rules and Regulations Committee

NREL

1617 Cole Blvd.

Golden, CO 80401
114 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

Physical Compliance Review

Team Name: University Date: Spring, 2002

Contest/Regulation/Code Description of Criteria Compliance

Solar Envelope Size limitation (see Rules and Regulations) Compliant

House Sizing 800-ft2 (74.3-m2) footprint for Solar Array, Non-compliant

Solar Array enclosed conditioned space Oversized solar array footprint. Calculated 956.1 ft2

(88.8 m2) of footprint area

House Sizing 450 ft2 (41.8 m2) minimum conditioned Non-compliant

floor area If solarium is climate controlled, there are 485 ft2

(45.0 m2) of conditioned interior floor space, if not only 

408 ft2 (38.0 m2) of conditioned floor space is available.

Home Business 100 ft2 (9.3 m2) office floor area Compliant

OK, integrated into the 252 ft2 (23.4 m2) living space.

Refrigeration Minimum 15 ft3 (0.42 m3) interior combined Unable to Determine Compliance

capacity Refrigerator/Freezer Please provide more specific details so we can assess 

compliance with the code/regulations.

Minimum 3 ft3 (0.085 m3) interior capacity Unable to Determine Compliance

Freezer Please provide more specific details so we can assess 

compliance with the code/regulations.

IRC2000 R303.1 Glazing Area >8% of Floor Area, 1/2 of this Unable to Determine Compliance

Habitable Rooms glazing operable for ventilation (Exception, Ample glazing if operable. Please provide more specific

Mechanical ventilation = 0.35 ACH per room details so we can assess compliance with the code/

or whole house ventilation = 15 CFM/person regulations.

based on 2 people).

IRC2000 R303.4 3 ft2 (0.28 m2) glazing, 1/2 area must be Unable to Determine Compliance

Bathrooms operable (exception—electric lighting and Please provide more specific details so we can assess 

mechanical vent = 50 CFM for intermittent compliance with the code/regulations. 

exhaust or 20 CFM for continuous exhaust).

IRC2000 R303.5.1 Required glazing may face into a roofed Unable to Determine Compliance

Roofed Porches porch 65% open on long axis with minimum Please provide more specific details so we can assess

roof height of 7 ft (2.1 m). compliance with the code/regulations.

IRC2000 R304.1 Each dwelling shall have at least one habitable Compliant

Minimum Area room with no less than 120 ft2 (4.6 m2) Okay, Living Space 252 ft2 (23.4 m2)

floor area.

IRC2000 R304.2 Other habitable rooms shall have a floor area Compliant

Other Rooms of no less than 70 ft2 (6.5 m2) (exception—

kitchen minimum floor area is 50 ft2 [4.6 m2]).

IRC2000 R304.3 Habitable rooms shall not be less than 7 ft Unable to Determine Compliance

Minimum Dimensions (2.1 m) in any horizontal dimension. If solarium is considered habitable, it does not meet

this requirement. Please provide more specific details 

so we can assess compliance with the code/regulations.

IRC2000 R305.1 Habitable rooms, hallways, corridors, bath- Unable to Determine Compliance

Minimum Height rooms, toilet rooms, laundry rooms, and Please provide more specific details so we can assess 

basements must have a minimum ceiling compliance with the code/regulations.

height of 7 ft (2.1 m).

IRC2000 R309.1 Openings from a private garage may not be Not applicable

Opening protection be into a room used for sleeping.

–
Appendix B. Example Review of Design Report — 115

Contest/Regulation/Code Description of Criteria Compliance

IRC2000 R309.4 Carports Carports shall be open on at least two sides. Compliant

Entrance North, South, East, or West South

NEC Article 110-26 Working Space 3 ft (0.9 m) depth (horizontal depth free space Unable to Determine Compliance

from electric equipment), Width of the equipment Please provide more specific details so we can

or 30 in. (76.2 cm) (greater of the two). 6.5 ft assess compliance with the code/regulations.

(2.0 m) of headroom.

Depth of Penetration on the National Park Service Special Event Guidelines Unable to Determine Compliance

National Mall Surface Please provide more specific details so we can 

assess compliance with the code/regulations.

NEC Article 380-8. Note that NEC Accessibility and Grouping. (a) Location. All Unable to Determine Compliance

Article 100 A Defines “readily switches and circuit breakers used as switches Please provide more specific details so we can

accessible” as – "capable of being shall be located so that they may be operated assess compliance with the code/regulations. 

reached quickly for operation, from a readily accessible place. They shall be

renewal, or inspections, without installed so that the center grip of the operrequiring those to whom ready ating handle of the switch or circuit breaker,

access is requisite to climb over when in its highest position, will not be more

or remove obstacles or to resort than 6 ft 7 in. (2.0 m) above the floor or 

to portable ladders, etc." working platform.

NEC Article 625-29 (Electric Vehicle Charging) Indoor sites shall Unable to Determine Compliance

include but are not limited to, integral, attached Please provide more specific details so we can 

and detached residential garages.... (b) Height. assess compliance with the code/regulations. 

Unless specifically listed for the purpose and 

location, the coupling means of the electric 

vehicle supply equipment shall be stored or 

located at a height of not less than 18 in. 

(457 mm) and not more than 4 ft (1.2 m) 

above the floor level.

NEC Article 625-30 (Electric Vehicle Charging) Outdoor sites shall Unable to Determine Compliance

include but not be limited to, residential car- Please provide more specific details so we can

ports and driveways, curbside, open parking assess compliance with the code/regulations.

structures, parking lots and commercial 

charging facilities (b) Height. Unless specifically 

listed for the purpose and location, the coupling 

means of the electric vehicle supply equipment 

shall be stored or located at a height of not less

than 18 in. (457 mm) and not more than 4 ft 

(1.2 m) above the parking surface.

NEC Article 240-24 Note that NEC Location in or on Premises. (a) Accessibility. Unable to Determine Compliance

Article 100 A Defines "readily Overcurrent devices shall be readily accessible Please provide more specific details so we can 

accessible" as – "capable of being unless one of the following applies. (2) For assess compliance with the code/regulations.

reached quickly for operation, supplementary overcurrent protection, as

renewal, or inspections, without described in 240-10. (3) For overcurrent 

requiring those to whom ready devices, as described in Sections 225-40 and 

access is requisite to climb over and 230-92. (4) For overcurrent devices adjaor remove obstacles or to resort cent to utilization equipment that they supply, 

to portable ladders, etc." access shall be permitted to be by portable 

means (c) Not exposed to Physical Damage. 

Overcurrent devices shall be located where 

they will not be exposed to physical damage.

FPN: See Section 110-11, Deteriorating Agents.

(d) Not in the vicinity of Easily Ignitable Material.
116 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

Contest/Regulation/Code Description of Criteria Compliance

Overcurrent devices shall not be located in

the vicinity of easily ignitable material, such 

as in clothes closets. (e) Not Located in Bathrooms. In dwelling units and guest rooms of 

hotels and motels, overcurrent devices, other 

than supplementary overcurrent protection, 

shall not be located in bathrooms as defined 

in Article 100.

NEC Article 690-17 Note that NEC Disconnecting means for ungrounded con- Unable to Determine Compliance

Article 100 A Defines "readily ductors shall consist of a manually operated Please provide more specific details so we can 

accessible" as – "capable of being switch(es) or circuit breaker(s) (1) Located assess compliance with the code/regulations. 

reached quickly for operation, where readily accessible. 

renewal, or inspections, without 

requiring those to whom ready 

access is requisite to climb over 

or remove obstacles or to resort 

to portable ladders, etc."

Construction Transportation, delivery, unloading, set-up Unable to Determine Compliance

No transport/unloading plan as of yet

19 12 in. x 18 in. (30.4 cm x 45.7 cm) support 

posts — NOT finalized.

Tie-down anchoring (for wind load) not 

discussed. Please provide more specific details

so we can assess compliance with the 

code/regulations.

Supply, Thermal Storage, and Must specify capacity for each and location Unable to Determine Compliance

Wastewater Tanks within 800-ft2 (74.3-m2) footprint Supply water tank – mentioned, not in plan yet

Wastewater tank – not mentioned. Please provide more specific details so we can assess 

compliance with the code/regulations.

Solar Cell Approval Must be approved by Solar Decathlon Approved

Headquarters BP Solar 585U

Battery Approval Must be approved by Solar Decathlon Approved

Headquarters NRG 6163

General Comments: No specifics mentioned for the “cooking” part of the competition.
Appendix B. Example Review of Design Report — 117

Instrumentation/Monitoring Review

Team Name: University Date: Spring, 2002

Contest/Regulation/Code Description of Criteria Suggested Location/Access Notes

All Contests CR10 location (DAS) Current design has no indicated space for 

electrical and mechanical equipment. 

Could be on carport?

AC electric panel location Not specified

DC electric panel location Not specified

Battery location, volts, amps Not specified, “may be 120 V”

DHW electric devices, volts, amps Not specified

DHW temperature and flowmeter location Not specified

Comfort zone electric devices, volts, amps Not specified

Inside temperature and relative humidity Near dining table, access either high or low 

location and wiring access

Refrigerator, volts, amps, temperature Not specified

sensor wiring

Office electric, volts, amps Not specified

Please dedicate one circuit to all Home 

Business equipment if possible.

Photometer location, wiring access Office desk, near south side, access either 

high or low

General Comments: Teams are asked to group electrical end uses measured in the various contests when laying out electrical panel 

boxes so as to simplify scoring instrumentation installation. Please provide a detailed electric circuit panel layout as soon as possible.

Simulation Review

Team Name: University Date: Spring, 2002

Contest/Regulation/Code Description of Criteria Review Comments

Design Presentation and Simulation Tool EnergyPlus

Simulation Analysis: EnergyPlus reviews are not complete at this time

General Comments: The team report indicated that their only progress was to create an input file using Sterling, VA, weather but had 

not yet simulated the design. We are concerned that the simulation may be used after the fact (i.e. the design is already completed) 

instead of as a tool that can be used to design the energy consumption affecting parameters (R-values, HVAC sizing, optimizing 

overhangs, glazings, etc...) before the design is set in stone. The team has not developed PV, solar thermal, or electric car operation 

estimates, models or summaries at this time.
118 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

Accessibility Compliance Checklist

Team Name: University Date: Spring, 2002

N/A – Not Applicable N/D – Not Defined enough in submittal to allow evaluation

Building Element Complies Does Not Comply Comments

Accessible Route

Access From Mall Identified • N/D – Indicate accessible route from Mall to 

building entrance

Interior Access Route Identified • N/D – Indicate accessible route in building

ADA Non-Accessible Areas Identified • N/D – Indicate non-accessible areas to be

and Method to Isolate Non-Accessible isolated from public. See Introduction, pg. 1 of 

Areas Indicated ADA Guidelines 

(http://www.eren.doe.gov/solar_decathlon/ada.html)

Width • • If public access is provided, provide 5 ft 0 in. 

(1.5 m) turning radius in Kitchen and Bathroom,

per Section 4.2.3 and provide 36 in. (91.5 cm) 

minimum clear in bedroom

• Maintain 32 in. (81.3 cm) minimum clear at all 

sliding door locations per Section 4.13.5 

Protruding Objects •

Surface Conformity • N/D

Ramps

Slope(s) and Rise • Ramp slope exceeds 1:12 slope maximum per 

Section 4.8.2. Provide dimensions to verify

Clear Width • Based on scaling of drawing

Handrails and Edge Protection • N/D – Indicate edge protection

Handrails to comply with Section 4.8.5 and 

Figures 39 a, b, and e

Stairs

Treads •

Risers • N/D – Riser configuration to comply with 

Sections 4.9.2 and 4.9.3

Handrails • N/D – Handrails to comply with Section 4.9.4 

and Figures 39 a, b, and e

Doors

Clear Width • Complies only if left open to 32 in. (81.3 cm) 

minimum per Section 4.13.5 and Figure 24 c 

Maneuvering Clearances at Doors • Per Section 4.13.6 and Figure 25a, Provide 12 in. 

(30.4 cm) clear on push side and 18 in. minimum

clear on pull side at Solarium/Entry door. Provide 

12 in. (30.4 cm) clear on push side at Living 

Room, Bedroom, and Hygiene doors 

Thresholds at Doorways • N/D

Door Hardware • N/D

Door Opening Force • N/D

Signage • N/D
Appendix C. List of Monitoring Instruments — 119

Water flow rate

Contest: Hot Water

Instrument: Turbine flow meter, with pulse output,

high temperature limit of 190°F (87.8°C)

Source: Omega Engineering, Inc., model FTB4105P

Accuracy: 1.5% of reading, from 0.2 gpm to 13 gpm

Location: Outlet pipe of water heating system.

AC electric power

Contests: Comfort Zone, Refrigeration, Hot Water, 

Home Business

Instrument: Watt-hour transducer with split core CT,

pulse output

Source: Continental Control Systems, LLC, WattNode

model WNA-1P-240-P

Accuracy: 0.5% of reading from 10% to 100% of 

full scale

Location: In Solar Decathlon meter box, mounted 

near house electric panel.

DC current

Contests: Energy Balance, and Comfort Zone, 

Refrigeration, Hot Water, Home Business, if DC 

equipment was used

Instrument: Shunt, 500A

Source: Canadian Shunt Industries Ltd., model 

LB-500-50

Accuracy: 0.25%

Locations: Single negative conductor into main 

battery for Energy Balance, DC circuit for others.

DC voltage

Contests: Energy Balance, and Comfort Zone, 

Refrigeration, Hot Water, Home Business, if DC 

equipment was used

Instrument: Voltage divider, 100:1, 0.5% resistors

Source: Constructed at NREL

Accuracy: About 0.5%

Location: Main battery positive to negative.

Lighting levels

Contest: Lighting

Instrument: Photometer, photovoltaic type with filter

Source: Licor, Inc., model LI-210 photometric

Accuracy: 5% of reading

Locations: Kitchen counter, home office workstation.

Inside temperature and RH

Contest: Comfort Zone

Instrument: RTD, variable capacitance RH, linear

DC output

Source: Vaisala, Inc, model Humitter

Accuracy: 0.7°F (0.4°C) temperature, 3% RH

Location: In radiation shield, in main living area, 

4–5 ft (1.2–1.5 m) above floor level.

Temperature

Contests: Refrigeration, Hot Water

Instrument: Type-T thermocouple, special limits 

of error

Source: Omega Engineering, Inc., part number 

TT-T-24S-TWSH

Accuracy: About 0.9°F (0.5°C)

Locations: Inside refrigerator and freezer, immersed 

in glycol solution; hot water pipe surface, inside 

insulation.

Appendix C. List of Monitoring Instruments
120 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

Appendix D. The Competition Schedule

Date Contests Team Tasks

Thursday, 

September 19 Begin: Construction 

Friday, 

September 20 Begin Evaluation: Graphics and Communication (Web sites)

Friday, Begin Evaluation:

September 27 Design Jury evaluates drawings: Design Presentation and Simulation

Saturday, Begin Evaluation: Begin:

September 28 Design Jury tours: Design and Livability Solar Power only

House tour judging: Graphics and Communication TV/Video player required

Sunday, End Evaluation: Grocery store run

September 29 Design and Livability Pantry delivery

Begin Monitored Contests: Hains Point loop in East 

Getting Around (9:00 a.m.–7:00 p.m.) Potomac Park

Daytime and nighttime lighting 

evaluations (select teams)

TV/video player required

Monday, Evaluation: Dishwashing

September 30 Engineering Design Panel evaluates drawings: Design Presentation Shower tests

and Simulation Meals—lunch or dinner

Newsletter and contest diary: Graphics and Communication (select teams) 

Engineering Design Panel tours homes to evaluate consumer appeal and

innovation in contests* Hains Point loop in East 

Begin Monitored Contests: Potomac Park

The Comfort Zone (24 hour continuous, temperature 69°–78°F [21°–26°C]) TV/video player operation 

Refrigeration (24 hour continuous) (6 hours)

Hot Water (24 hour continuous) Daytime and nighttime lighting 

Energy Balance (24 hour continuous) evaluations (select teams)

Lighting (8:00 a.m.–10:00 p.m.) Timely response to e-mail

Home Business (required operation 9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.)

Monitored Contests:

Getting Around (9:00 a.m.–7:00 p.m.)

End Evaluation:

Design Presentation and Simulation

Tuesday, Evaluation: Dishwashing

October 1 Engineering Design Panel tours: Design Presentation and Simulation Laundry

Newsletter and contest diary: Graphics and Communication Shower tests

Engineering Design Panel tours homes to evaluate consumer appeal Meals (select teams)

innovation in contests* Hains Point loop in East

Monitored Contests: Potomac Park

The Comfort Zone (24 hour continuous, temperature 69°–78°F [21°–26°C]) TV/video player operation 

Refrigeration, Hot Water, Energy Balance (all 24 hour continuous) (6 hours)

Lighting (8:00 a.m.–10:00 p.m.) Daytime and nighttime lighting

Home Business (required operation 9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.) evaluations (select teams)

Getting Around (9:00 a.m.–7:00 p.m.) Timely response to e-mail 

*The Comfort Zone, Refrigeration, Hot Water, Lighting, and Home Business
Appendix D. The Competition Schedule — 121

Date Contests Team Tasks

Wednesday, Evaluation: Dishwashing

October 2 Newsletter and contest diary: Graphics and Communication Shower tests

Monitored Contests: Meals (select teams)

The Comfort Zone (24 hour continuous, temperature 69°–78°F [21°–26°C]) Grocery store run

At 8:00 a.m. Begin: Comfort Zone 24-hr. evaluation (temperature 70°–74°F Pantry delivery

[21°–23°C]) Hains Point loop in East 

Refrigeration, Hot Water, Energy Balance (all 24 hour continuous) Potomac Park

Lighting (8:00 a.m.–10:00 p.m.) TV/video player operation 

Home Business (required operation 9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.) (6 hours)

Getting Around (9:00 a.m.–7:00 p.m.) Daytime and nighttime lighting 

evaluations (select teams)

Timely response to e-mail

Thursday, Evaluation: Dishwashing

October 3 Newsletter and contest diary: Graphics and Communication Shower tests

Monitored Contests: Meals (select teams)

The Comfort Zone (24 hour continuous, temperature 69°–78°F [21°–26°C]) Hains Point loop in East 

At 8:00 a.m. End: Comfort Zone 24-hr. evaluation (temperature 70°–74°F Potomac Park

[21°–23°C]) TV/video player operation 

Refrigeration, Hot Water, Energy Balance (all 24 hour continuous) (6 hours)

Lighting (8:00 a.m.–10:00 p.m.) Daytime and nighttime lighting 

Home Business (required operation 9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.) evaluations (select teams)

Getting Around (9:00 a.m.–7:00 p.m.) Timely response to e-mail

Friday, Evaluation: Dishwashing

October 4 Newsletter and contest diary: Graphics and Communication Laundry

Monitored Contests: Shower tests

The Comfort Zone (continuous until 5:00 p.m., temperature 69°–78°F [21°–26°C]) Meals—breakfast or lunch 

Refrigeration, Hot Water, Energy Balance (all continuous until 5:00 p.m.) (select teams)

Lighting (8:00 a.m.–10:00 p.m.) Hains Point loop in East 

Home Business (required operation 9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.) Potomac Park

Getting Around (9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.) TV/video player operation 

5:00 p.m. End: All contests except Getting Around (see Saturday) (6 hours)

Daytime and nighttime lighting 

evaluations (select teams)

Timely response to e-mail

Saturday, Monitored Contests: National Mall loop

October 5 Getting Around (10:00 a.m.–noon) 

Wednesday, Teams must be off the National Mall by 5:00 p.m.

October 9 
122 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

The Site 

Vegetation

Teams are permitted to bring potted vegetation to

enhance the aesthetic or energy characteristics of 

their houses, provided that the vegetation does not

violate the solar envelope. Vegetation will not be 

considered part of the solar array. Vegetation may 

be placed and moved around each team’s lot until 

the end of the assembly phase. After that, the vegetation will remain stationary until the conclusion 

of all the contests and tours. 

Solar House Entryways

Teams will have the freedom to place the entry to their

house on any side of the house. Teams should provide

a walkway leading to the entrance of the house. 

ADA Requirements

The public will have access to these structures at various

times during the Competition; therefore, all structures

must meet ADA accessibility requirements. Teams are

required to provide an accessible 

route through their houses for

tour purposes. This does not 

mean that the entire house 

needs to be ADA compliant. 

Construction

The NPS, the government agency

that manages the National Mall,

has criteria that must be met by

all teams building houses on the

National Mall. On the grassy 

areas, teams will be permitted 

to use a forklift or similar small

lifting equipment to aid in the

construction of their houses.

However, forklifts or other small vehicles used during

construction may be driven on the grass portion of

the National Mall only if these vehicles are driven 

on a plywood path (to protect the grass). Cranes* will 

not be permitted, according to the NPS. Trailers, semitrailer trucks, etc., are limited to the gravel paths and

may not be driven on the grass at any time. Cinder 

*NPS later changed this restriction and allowed cranes on the

gravel paths only.

block or similar pylons must support structures on the

grass portion of the National Mall. Teams will not be

permitted to build or place floors directly on the grass.

The individual teams must provide all equipment,

tools, and labor necessary to construct the house. 

Team Lots

Teams will be allowed roughly 5500 ft2 (511 m2) of

level, unobstructed land and will have 3–4 days to

assemble their house on site. Assume that some minor

leveling of the floor deck will be necessary. There are

no limits on materials or type of construction. The

house can either be transported to the site already

assembled or transported and assembled on site, as

long as it does not damage the site. No digging will 

be permitted except for tie-downs needed to meet

wind-loading requirements. Large stakes or screws,

similar to those used for circus tents may be used to

anchor the structures. Screws or stakes used with tiedowns are limited to 18 in. (45.7 cm) vertical depth.

The lot size will be 82 ft (25.0 m) east to west by 67 ft

(20.4 m) north to south. (Please refer to Figure 1 below

and Figures 2–4 on page 123.)

Figure 1. Isometric view of solar envelope

Solar Envelope

To protect a neighbor’s right to the sun, each house

and all items associated with the house must stay

within the solar envelope shown in Figures 1–4.

Appendix E. Relevant Sections of the Solar

Decathlon 2002 Regulations

18 ft

17 ft

50 ft 30 ft 67 ft Solar envelope

N

50 ft

50 ft

82 ft

18 ft

16 ft

16 ft

18 ft
Appendix E. Relevant Sections of the Solar Decathlon 2002 Regulations — 123

Figure 2. Top view of solar envelope

Figure 3. Front view (south side) of solar envelope

Figure 4. Left view (east side) of solar envelope

Event

Safety

Each team is responsible for the safety of its house, car,

and team members. Passing inspection or implementing

changes suggested in the team’s structural report does

not release the team from liability. All houses, cars,

and support vehicles must be maintained and operated

safely at all times. A team will be disqualified and

withdrawn from the Event at any time if they operate

in an unsafe manner.

Each house will be required to 

have smoke detectors per 

IRC2000 requirements and a 

fire extinguisher with a minimum Underwriters Laboratory 

(UL) rating of 2A-10BC. All 

battery system rooms or rooms 

containing a battery system 

enclosure must have a smoke 

detector that is either audible 

from outside the room or has 

a remote indicator that is monitored by the team.

Each house must be equipped 

with proper personal protective 

equipment (PPE) (a minimum 

of chemical resistant gloves, 

apron and eye protection) to 

service their battery bank and 

as protection from any other 

thermal, electrical, mechanical, 

or fluid system that presents 

any sort of hazard.

Each house must be equipped 

with the proper spill-clean-up 

kits for their battery bank or 

fluid systems. All batteries, 

regardless of placement on a 

rack or otherwise, must have 

a spill containment system 

in compliance with UFC1997 

6404.4 Spill Control and 6404.5 

Neutralization or IFC2000 608.4

Spill Control and Neutralization.

Structural 

Code Compliance

Houses will be constructed to 

meet or exceed applicable sections of IRC2000 for a single-family residential dwelling. In particular, houses must have tie-downs sufficient to withstand 90-mph (145-km/h) winds

(IRC2000 Sec. 301.2.1 and Fig R301.2 (4)). 

Engineering Drawing

NPS requires that engineering drawings be stamped by

a Professional Engineer (PE) certifying that the structures are safe for the public to enter. 

18 ft

16 ft 50 ft 16 ft

18 ft

18 ft

17 ft 50 ft

50 ft

67 ft

Solar envelope

N

50 ft

82 ft
124 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

House Sizing

Houses are restricted to a maximum of 800 ft2 (74.3 m2)

of total building footprint. The perimeter of the projection of the house onto a horizontal plane from 

plan view cannot contain an area greater than 800 ft2

(74.3 m2). Any structure (e.g., ADA ramps, decks,

porches, wastewater drum) that is not part of the

enclosed space and is not part of the solar array (see

Regulations, Energy Collection and Storage, Solar

Array) or energy storage system will be excluded from

the 800-ft2 (74.3-m2) footprint limitation but must be

within the solar envelope (see Regulations, The Site,

Solar Envelope). The house must have a minimum of

450 ft2 (41.8 m2) of conditioned interior space measured as floor area from the inside of the exterior walls.

Electrical

Code Compliance

All houses must meet all applicable electrical requirements stated in NEC1999. Particular attention should

be paid to Articles 690, 480, 445, 250, 400, and 240,

which reference proper photovoltaic system design,

storage batteries, generators, grounding, conductors

and conductor ampacity ratings, overcurrent protection devices and warning labels, respectively. Specific

alterations to the code requirements are included in

Regulations, Event, Safety; Regulations, Electrical,

Code Compliance, Battery Ventilation, Battery

Stacking; and Regulations, Energy Collection and

Storage, Storage Batteries. Additional code requirements from UFC1997, IFC2000, IMC2000, and 

IBC2000 will supercede NEC1999 requirements as

noted. Teams are also encouraged to read the following publication: Wiles, John C. (2001). Photovoltaic

Power Systems and the National Electric Code: Suggested

Practices. Sandia Report SAND2001-0674.

Battery Enclosures

Battery systems must be fully contained in enclosures

or rooms that remain within the 800-ft2 (74.3-m2)

footprint. The cover must be locked so access to 

batteries inside the enclosure is limited to the team’s

decathletes. A battery system room will be permitted

in lieu of a separate battery system enclosure if

designed in accordance to UFC1997 Article 64:

Stationary Lead-Acid Battery Systems or IFC2000

Section 608: Stationary Lead-Acid Battery Systems, 

as if the room contained corrosive liquids in excess 

of 100 gallons (379 L) regardless of battery type.

Battery Ventilation

Battery system enclosures or rooms must be equipped

with a passive or mechanical ventilation system per

IFC2000 608.5 Ventilation, UFC1997 6404.6 Ventilation,

or IMC2000 502.4 Stationary Lead-acid Battery Systems.

Teams are required to provide either calculations or

empirical evidence to demonstrate compliance. Such

ventilation systems must exhaust or vent to the outdoors. The vent must be designed so wind cannot

push hydrogen gas back down the vent. This requirement includes all battery types, because any battery

type will vent hydrogen gas under certain conditions.

Battery Stacking

Stacking the batteries is discouraged. If it is necessary

to stack the batteries, a battery system rack must be

used. The rack must meet the requirements of

IBC2000 1621.3.13 Electrical Equipment Attachments

and Supports.

The rack must also meet the requirements of NEC1999

480-7 Racks and Trays. All racks containing flooded

lead-acid batteries must provide 18 in. (45.7 cm) of

clearance from the top of the battery or top of the 

battery post (whichever is greater) to the bottom of

the next shelf for inspection and maintenance. All

racks containing sealed batteries must provide adequate space for access with tools to verify tightness 

of terminal connections.

Circuit Panel(s)

The circuit panel(s) for the house must be wired such

that lighting, appliances, refrigeration equipment, spaceconditioning equipment (including fans attached to

HVAC equipment but not ceiling fans), water pumps,

office equipment, and hot-water heat are on individual circuits for monitoring purposes. Separate circuit

panels are required for AC and DC systems. 

Solar Cell Technology Limitation

Photovoltaics must be commercially available to all

registered teams at a price not exceeding US $5 per

watt (watt peak at Standard Test Conditions [STC]) 

for bare cells (teams may pay extra for cutting, tabbing, or lamination of the cells). For encapsulated

modules, photovoltaics must be commercially available to all registered teams at a price not exceeding 

US $10 per watt (watt peak at STC). Substantial modification of the crystal structure, junction, or metallization constitutes manufacture of a new cell. 

Generators

Teams may provide an approved generator from which

they may charge their energy storage devices. Teams

may opt at any time to charge their energy storage

devices to complete contests that they would otherwise be unable to finish with power supplied by their
Appendix E. Relevant Sections of the Solar Decathlon 2002 Regulations — 125

solar array. Teams will be assessed a penalty for charging their energy storage devices. Generators will be

used only after notifying the chief inspector of the

intention to use the generator. Refueling of generators

is limited to times approved by the officials. Generators must be equipped with secondary containment

systems capable of accommodating all of the oil, fuel,

and coolant that the generator contains at maximum

capacities.

Electrical System Labels and Warnings

In addition to any NEC requirements regarding the

entire house electrical system, all battery enclosures

shall be marked with the National Fire Protection

Association’s (NFPA) Hazard Warning Diamond suited

to the battery technology contained within the 

enclosure. 

Mechanical 

Code Compliance

All houses will be expected to meet all applicable

mechanical requirements stated in IRC2000. 

Thermal Storage

All thermal storage devices (“mass”) must be made of

stable, nontoxic materials. MSDS must be submitted

for all heat transfer fluids for approval. 

Liquid Based Thermal Storage System Labels and

Warnings

All liquid based thermal storage systems shall be

marked with the NFPA’s Hazard Warning Diamond

suited to the technology. 

Desiccant Systems

If a desiccant system is used for the house, it must be

regenerative. To ensure that desiccant systems function in a steady-state fashion, the desiccant material 

or device must be easily weighable. The device or

material will be weighed before and after the contests.

Teams will be assessed a penalty at the end of the contests for having a desiccant material or device that

weighs more than its initial weight. 

Energy Collection and Storage 

Energy Storage

All energy storage devices (e.g., tanks, batteries, bladders, mass components) must be located within the

800-ft2 (74.3-m2) footprint. 

Flywheel Storage

No flywheels of any kind will be permitted for electrical or any other type of energy storage. 

Storage Batteries

Teams are allowed to use battery systems in their houses

and cars for storage of solar-generated energy. The battery system for the car must be the car manufacturer’s

original equipment. Battery data submittal shall be

based on the manufacturer’s published specifications

provided by the team. Batteries must be available in

sufficient quantities to be accessible to all participating

teams. The battery modules may not be modified in

any manner, including the addition of electrolyte

additives; case modification; or plate addition, removal,

or modification. However, teams are permitted to add

distilled water to vented (flooded) lead-acid batteries

for maintenance purposes.

• Primary Batteries: The use of primary (non-rechargeable) batteries is limited to smoke detectors only.

• Secondary Batteries: The use of secondary batteries 

(rechargeable) for items such as laptop computers is 

permitted provided that all laptops or similar devices

used for contest purposes are to be recharged from 

the house electrical system.

Energy

Global solar radiation received by the house without

artificial external augmentation is the only source of

energy with which houses, tasks, and the electric car

will be permitted to operate. Direct and diffuse radiation are considered forms of global solar radiation. All

components used to convert global solar radiation to

thermal, electrical, or mechanical energy shall be considered part of the solar array regulation. 

The following exceptions to the energy regulation

apply: 

• Energy stored in the house battery system or other 

contest-related secondary batteries (e.g., laptop 

batteries, uninterruptible power supply systems) 

and vehicle battery system at the conclusion of 

assembly

• Use of a generator or other non-solar-power source 

to charge the electrical-storage system (see 

Regulations, Electrical, Generators) 

• Additional water associated with the supply and 

consumption of energy above and beyond the 

water supplied at the beginning of the competition

(see Penalties, Energy Penalties, Receiving Additional

Water). 
126 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

Solar Array

At any given moment, the solar array comprises all

components that are involved in the conversion of

solar energy for use by the house, for tasks, and by 

the vehicle. In addition to direct energy conversion

components (such as photovoltaic cells), the solar

array includes any reflective surfaces, shading surfaces, refractive lenses, solar thermal collectors, or any

means of passive solar collection. The solar array cannot in any way be outside the 800-ft2 (74.3-m2) footprint (see Regulations, Structural, House Sizing). The

entire solar array must be integrated into the structural envelope, or skin, of the building.

Thermal and Electrical Storage System Sizing

Thermal and electrical storage systems sized for annual

loads may be very large and costly as opposed to what

would be necessary for purposes of the competition.

Therefore, teams are permitted to present a house that

has thermal and electrical storage systems downsized

from the sizing indicated by the annual simulation

results. 

Water Supply and Distribution 

Water Quantity

In their design reports, teams must indicate all of the

water that their entry requires for the contests. 

Water Supply

Water will be supplied to teams at the conclusion of

the assembly phase. A water truck will be available to

fill house-water storage systems. When the organizers

know what type of truck will provide the water, connection requirements will be provided to teams. Water

will be supplied only once without penalty. After that,

teams may request additional water, which may be

subject to a penalty. No additives of any kind may 

be added to this water. 

Water Distribution

Teams are responsible for distributing water within

their houses. This includes all necessary pumps, tanks,

lines, valves, etc. All pumping power to distribute

water must come from the house energy system.

Rainwater Collection

After assembly, teams may gather rainwater from their

building footprints (see Regulations, Structural, House

Sizing) and use this water for any purpose.

Water as Thermal Mass

Any water used for thermal mass must be contained in

a stand-alone system, which will be sealed off after the

initial filling. Teams may use water as thermal mass to

substitute for more common materials such as concrete masonry units (CMUs), concrete floor slabs, or

brick. Water used for this purpose cannot be mixed

with any other substance. 

Evaporation

Teams may use water for evaporation purposes. Teams

may request additional water for evaporation after

scoring begins, but water provided will be subject to

penalty. 

Vegetation

Water from the house water system may be used to

water any vegetation associated with the house.

Wastewater

All drains for appliances or sinks will need to be routed

back to a 300-gallon (1136-L) minimum capacity drum

to ensure that wastewater is not dispersed onto the

National Mall turf or storm drains. All wastewater and

water used in the Hot Water contest must be stored in

the wastewater drum. During the Competition, dumping of water to the lot will not be permitted according

to NPS. Any dumping of water will incur an energy

penalty. All substances used in combination with

water to clean the house, dishes, utensils, etc., must 

be nontoxic and preferably biodegradable. Teams 

may incur a penalty for any toxic substances that are

found in the wastewater drum. Teams will be required

to provide the drum and support this drum such that

it does not damage the National Mall turf. Teams are

not required to place the wastewater drum within the

800-ft2 (74.3-m2) footprint (see Regulations, Structural,

House Sizing) but the drum must be located within

the solar envelope (see Regulations, The Site, Solar

Envelope).
Appendix F. Sample Contest Diary and Newsletter — 127

Contest Diary

October 2, 2002 — Designs of the Time

Given the result of the first contest for design and livability, the

Goats are feeling like the overall design strategy is paying off.

The judges appreciated the reclaimed material usage and the

attention paid to an exterior wall system that can adjust to various climates and conditions. The rain screen—operable louvers,

window shutters, and moveable shading devices on the sunspace—has given the Trojan Goat a visual identity that is based

on the system's function. In a state like Virginia, where the seasons are distinct but some days can be extreme, having an

adjustable system can improve the efficiency of the house. The

burden on the mechanical systems is reduced by an enclosure

that tempers the exterior environment before the heating and

cooling systems ever have to respond. The rain screen has

helped our building cope with a couple of early problems with

our performance and execution of our mechanical systems. On

Monday night, our heat pump was accidentally left on all night,

fully draining our battery supply before Tuesday's competition

ever began. So we could not run the valance-cooling unit in the

house for much of the day, as that would create a large draw on

the batteries. We didn't sweat it though, as the extensive shading

of the building envelope and the glazing, provided by our trusty

rain screen, protected the house from the severe heat loads it

might have otherwise taken on. So we stayed in or near our temperature range all day long.

It's a good thing this rain screen can do so much. As the chief

identifier of our design strategy and our climatic response system, as well as being the most extensive example of our dedication to using reclaimed materials, the rain screen gave the Goats

more than a few burrs in the fur. Frequently referred to as the

"rain scream," the exterior shading system was the first phase of

construction to be tackled, requiring the most manpower, and

will be the last layer of the building to be completed. When we

arrived on the Mall, we were trying to conceal the interior workings of the house and create an element of drama. We planned

that the house would arrive with the rain screen enclosure that

would unfold and slide open and reveal the meaning of the

house and let the competition know that the Goat meant business. Well, so much for drama. We did not actually finish the

rain screen in time for travel so the Goat showed up to the Mall

naked as a jay bird with its shimmering copper skin exposed to

the elements giving our neighbors at UNC-Charlotte the idea

that we had taken a wrong turn on the way to NASA with the

first student designed lunar lander.

Appendix F. Sample Contest Diary and

Newsletter

Warren Gretz/PIX11853
128 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review

Newsletter
Appendix F. Sample Contest Diary and Newsletter — 129
130 — Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review
For More Information:

The Solar Decathlon Web site, 

www.solardecathlon.org

Toll-free number, 800-368-1311

Richard King

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Ave., SW

Washington, D.C. 20585-0121

Phone: 202-586-1693

Fax: 202-586-8148

richard.king@ee.doe.gov

Cécile Warner

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

Mail Stop 3214

1617 Cole Blvd.

Golden, CO 80401

Phone: 303-384-6516

Fax: 303-384-6490

cecile_warner@nrel.gov

Produced for the 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Office of Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy by the National

Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL),

a DOE national laboratory

DOE/GO-102004-1845

June 2004

Printed with a renewable-source ink on paper containing at least 

50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste