Field Test Evaluation of Conservation Retrofits of Low-Income Single Family Buildings in Wisconsin: Summary Report

Ternes, M.P.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

关键词: Houses;    Weatherization;    Wisconsin;    Retrofitting;    Furnaces;   

DOI  :  10.2172/788353
RP-ID  :  ORNL/CON-228/P1
RP-ID  :  AC05-00OR22725
RP-ID  :  788353

美国|英语

来源: UNT Digital Library

【 摘 要 】

During the winter of 1985-86, a retrofit field test was performed in 66 occupied, low-income, single-family homes in Madison, Wisconsin. The primary objectives of the field test were to (1) determine the measured energy savings and the relative benefits of a combination of envelope and mechanical equipment retrofits that were selected following a new audit-directed retrofit procedure, (2) determine the energy savings and benefits due to performing infiltration reduction work following a recently developed infiltration reduction procedure, and (3) study general occupant behavior and house thermal characteristics and their possible change following retrofit installation. This report provides an overview of the project and summarizes the findings which will be presented in detail in separate reports. Major findings from the field test include: (1) The audit-directed retrofit procedure produced an average savings of 207 therms/year/house. The procedure also more than doubled the overall cost-effectiveness of the low-income weatherization assistance program as compared with the priority system formerly used in Wisconsin. Wall insulation and condensing furnaces were the major retrofits (predicted annual energy savings greater than 100 therms/year) most often selected under the procedure. The respective average energy savings of the houses receiving wall insulation and condensing furnace. s was 14.6 and 14.3 therms/year for each $100 spent on them under the program. (2) The blower-door-guided infiltration reduction procedure reduced expenditures for infiltration reduction to about one-fourth of previous program costs (from $570/house to $106/house). The procedure also reduced the average air leakage rate in the treated houses by 16%, whereas, in a previous study, no significant reduction was found following the installation of typical infiltration reduction measures. (3) Twenty to 60% of the deviation between predicted and measured savings can be attributed to incorrect assumptions regarding the indoor temperature before and after retrofit used in making the predictions. Incorrect assumptions regarding the value of the indoor temperature before retrofit may be more prevalent than incorrect assumptions regarding a constant indoor temperature following retrofit, as the occupants did not generally increase their indoor temperature after retrofit installation (the occupants did not generally display ''take back'' behavior).