Low Energy Home Design Process

Low Energy Home
Final Report/Master Plan
Prepared By:
Nazrul Mat Ahker
Eric Ribbeck
Tommy Shott
Denzel Washington
Nurul Zaidi
Joe Zehentbauer
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
EECE 4951 Spring 2017
April 28, 2017

Low Energy Home Design April 2017
Project Summary
Technical Abstract
Our project aims to use energy modeling software to develop and propose building alternatives
with an emphasis on energy efficiency as well as providing a repeatable process that anyone
could use to develop their own models and simulations. We are working with Lennar and the
Vanderbilt School of Engineering on designing a home that balances energy efficiency and
cost effectiveness. The ideal goal is to propose multiple alternatives that have different
balances of cost and efficiency, isolate different home are for potential improvement, and
provide tools to duplicate the process in the future.
Potential Commercial Applications
As the need for renewable energy and sustainability increase the demand and potential for
energy efficient homes with grow quickly. The obvious initial commercial application is within
Sterling Ranch. Sterling Ranch’s focus is to produce a sustainable, environmentally involved
community. Its success would lead to increase interest in these sustainable measures.
Through increased production of low energy or net zeros homes the materials cost and
availability will decrease leading to easier implementation around the world.
While environments and technological advancements vary from place to place the concept of
producing energy on site and using efficient materials can be applied anywhere. While it is
unlikely that the proposal could be exactly reproduced in different locations the process can be
duplicated in order to obtain results that are specialized to different homes and areas. Lennar
could begin to use this information and some of the proposed design measures on houses and
communities they build across the nation.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank our sponsors Dr. Ralph Bruce and Jay Steinberg of Lennar Corporation
for their assistance and guidance throughout the course of our project. We also want to extend
our gratitude to Sterling Ranch Development Company, Lori Troxel, and Leslie Gillespie for the
help they provided and their willingness to support the process. Additionally, BEopt is a tool
provided by the National Research Energy Lab and without this tool we would have been
unable to perform our analysis and design.
ii
Part 1- Table of Contents

PAGE
Cover i
Project Summary ii
Table of Contents iii
Part 1 Project Execution
A. Scope/SOW 1
B. Work Breakdown 1
C. Project Schedule 2
D. Summary Budget 6
E. Sponsor Interaction 7
Part 2 Technical
A. Summary 9
B. Design Changes 10
C. Discussion 10
Part 3 Summary/Conclusions
Part 4 Appendices
A. Master Plan – Revised 16
B. Detailed Budget 29
C. Short Bios 36
D. Supporting Information 38
E. ABET Criteria 39
iii
Low Energy Home Design
April 2017
Part 1: Project Execution

A. Scope/SOW
The Low energy home trend gives homeowners comfort and savings while maintaining
sustainability. Initially the goal of this project was to analyze existing floor plans and
improve upon the design to make it energy efficient and ideally Net Zero. A Net Zero
home is a single-family home that produces an equal or greater amount of energy than
it uses. Energy analysis and modeling for the house was performed using a program
called BEopt. This program was specifically designed for modeling residential buildings
and quickly estimating energy consumption and savings from energy efficiency
upgrades. These homes are located in Sterling Ranch, a development outside of
Denver, CO with an emphasis on nature preservation and sustainability. The
implementation of low energy homes would support their mission and provide a more
sustainable environment for future residents. These goals were maintained but once we
gained an understanding and proficiency with the BEopt software the act of picking
more energy efficient options became trivial and designing a Net Zero home was a
matter of selecting the best energy options. To improve upon these goals we expanded
our scope in order to incorporate simulations with increased granularity such that they
only focused on a few changing parameters. This smaller simulations yield the same
outputs as the all-encompassing simulations but allow for ease of observation when
reviewing the data and allow the use to focus in on any aspect of the home they desire.
To expand upon this idea we wanted to expand our scope even more to include a
repeatable process for analyzing home floor plans that someone with little knowledge or
expertise in energy modeling could follow. This process would be created through a
combination of BEopt, a scoring algorithm tool, and manuals.
While our focus shifted away from providing specific design guidelines we still provided
a few layouts to showcase the capability of BEopt and our algorithm. BEopt already
picks out points it deems as “optimal” which are generally the best points in terms of
energy savings and annual cost within ranges of options. The scoring tool scores all of
the points from a BEopt simulation and helps to pick out points that are ideal but may
not be considered “optimal.” The tool is also designed to serve as a template that can
be easily changed to include more functionality and control. Manuals we’re created to
explain the process we created and we’re tested to ensure their simplicity to follow. This
process is much more powerful that simple recommendation because it can now be
taken and applied to future projects, different floor plans, and enable users to find a
design that truly meets their needs.
1
April 2017
B. Work Breakdown
Figure B.1 Original Work Breakdown Structure
A number of small changes were made to the original Work Breakdown Structure
throughout the process as work packages were removed, created, and replaced. The
original ‘Parametric Optimization’ was replaced ‘Separating Home Systems.’ Parametric
is a simulation mode in BEopt that was originally going to be used to isolate individual
home components but it was determined to be more efficient to isolate home
components through small-scale optimizations. These simulations were able to handle
more data and provide clearer output.
A new main package ‘Manual Creation’ was created to include all of our documents that
will be created and handed over to the sponsors at the conclusion of the project. These
manuals are important because due to the complexity of BEopt there is a steep learning
curve. These manuals are meant to serve as set of guidelines and examples so that
anyone could run a useful simulation with minimal effort. ‘Algorithm Creation’ was also
added to include the creation and testing of a scoring tool that can accept BEopt data
and score each iteration on weighted parameters. The final WBS can be seen in Figure
B.2.
2
April 2017
Figure B.2 Final Work Breakdown Structure
All of the new work packages were incorporated into the AON diagram. The original
AON diagram has a Critical Path of 21 weeks with the majority of the path consisting of
the data organization and analysis. These steps occurred later in the project and
consumed most of the time during the final weeks. The updated AON diagram has a
Critical Path of 22 weeks due to the addition of the ‘Manual Creation’ packages. While
these packages did not require many hours to complete they were dependent on other
portions of the project to be completed. Their need for numerous review and testing also
extended the number of weeks over which they were worked on.
3
Figure B.3 Original AON Diagr
4
Figure B.4 Final AON Diagram
5
April 2017
C. Project Schedule – Gantt – Both original and revised showing final effort
Figure C.1 Original Gantt Chart
Some small updates have been made to the schedule for the second term of the
project. After multiple team member met with our sponsor at Sterling Ranch we learned
about the standard current solar capabilities that will be installed on all Lennar homes in
Sterling Ranch, the subsidiary company used to supply the solar panels, and the cost
benefits for the user. Additional research into this field will help yield more accurate
simulations to the user experience and will outline if there is potential room for
improvement in that aspect of the house. Additional weeks were added for simulation in
order to reach increased depth and granularity to our simulations. These simulations
have a lower run time but there will be more that need to be run. A new ‘Future
Technology Research’ task was added as an additional activity for the group to take on.
There are new technologies emerging yearly and we think it will be useful to include
information on technology that will be available to homes in five years, ten years, and
beyond and include potential benefits of those technologies. Sterling Ranch will be
under development for a number of years so being able to predict some of these future
technologies would permit their potential implementation of the late stages of the
project. The Manual Creation tasks were budgeted into the schedule towards the end of
the term in so that they other work could be completed first and then all the appropriate
documents and manuals can be created. Reports were also added in the the Project
Management section.
6
April 2017
Figure C.2 Final Gantt Chart
D. Summary Budget – should include a discussion/comparison with original budget
Below are the proposed budget values from the master plan and the final budget
values.
Proposed Budget:
Term 1 Term 2
Hours Direct Labor Costs+Profit Hours Direct Labor Costs+Profit
Project
Management 54 $1,246.90 $3,298.82 49 $1,645.99 $2,852.27
Research 38.75 $897.84 $1,555.82 20 $633.62 $1,097.97
Simulation 58 $1,684.30 $2,918.65 45 $1,411.46 $2,445.86
Compilation 24 $587.28 $1,356.90 90 $2,993.14 $5,186.68
Total 174.75 $4,416.32 $9,130.19 204 $6,684.21 $11,582.78
Table D.1 Original Budget
7
April 2017
Final Budget:
Term 1 Term 2
Project
Management 54 $1,903.69 $3,298.82 55 $2,125.45 $3,683.10
Research 38.75 $851.50 $1,475.52 15.75 $591.89 $1,025.66
Simulation 58 $1,413.83 $2,449.97 13 $471.43 $816.92
Compilation 24 $708.33 $1,227.43 21 $855.38 $1,482.25
Manual Creation 0 0 0 9 $378.75 $656.32
Total 174.75 $4,877.35 $8,451.75 113.75 $4,422.90 $7,664.25
Table D.2 Final Budget
Proposed Actual
Total Hours: 378.75 288.50
Total Labor: $11,100.53 $9,300.25
Total Cost+Profit: $20,712.97 $16,116.00

Table D.3 Budget Comparison
The final budget turned out to be less than the originally proposed budget. Since our
budget entirely consisted of labor costs efficiencies in our process helped to decrease
the number of hours necessary to complete the work. Even with additional components
added to the scope all of the work was able to completed in less time than expected.
Proportion wise each work category remained consistent with the projected budget.
Simulations required less work due to the efficiency and the shift in project focus.
Project Management required additional hours due to the constant need for organization
and coordination among team members. Having six team members greatly increased
the amount of hours that were spent on Project Management due to the regular number
of meetings that were held and the coordination work that had to be done to get
everyone on the same page. Compilation also took less work than expected due to the
complexity of BEopt. BEopt provides most of the data necessary and points the user in
the right direction with its “optimal points” removing the time intensive act of searching
through all the different iterations. The Manual Creation category was not in the initial
proposed budget but due to its low number of hours it had minimal impact on the overall
budget.
8
April 2017
Figure D.4 Proposed Vs. Actual Budget.
E. Sponsor Interaction
The Low Energy Home Design two had two different sponsors for the project and
multiple other associated people and organizations with whom we interacted. The main
sponsor was Lennar homes and our contact Jay Steinberg. Jay provided us with floor
plans of a Lennar home to be built at Sterling Ranch as well as guidance for developing
our project. Jay requested that some simulations be done at increased granularity in
order to isolate individual home components and then analyze cost effectiveness of
those options instead of just looking for large energy savings. This inspired our changes
in our simulations and initialized the thought of how to analyze cost effectiveness.
Our other main sponsor is Dr. Ralph Bruce through the Vanderbilt School of
Engineering. As a professor with a focus on sustainability Bruce was interested in more
research and work being done with the BEopt software in order to determine the
capability and future applications of using BEopt as a development tool. Bruce provided
constant feedback on our progress and direction. Conversations with Bruce combined
with the idea of cost effectiveness led us to develop the scoring algorithm and focus our
efforts on provide tools and process for effectively using BEopt in the future for any
development project with any needs.
Additionally, the Sterling Ranch Development Company is at the root of the project with
their focus and goal of developing a sustainable, nature focused community. The
ultimate goal of the process is so that it can be applied to developing energy efficient
solutions that are also cost effective for the user. Sterling Ranch also welcomed three of
the team members for multiple tours and seminars over a four-day conference in
Denver, CO.
9
April 2017
Part 2: Technical
A. Summary
We have been tasked by Lennar Homes and Vanderbilt University School of

Engineering to determine a method or system to build more energy efficient and cost
saving homes, specifically in the Sterling Ranch development. We were instructed to
utilize BEopt, a software tool developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
in order to guide our recommendations. Ultimately, through the use of BEopt, we were
able to come up with three core suggestions of material inputs changes for Lennar
homes: Minimum Cost Option, Maximum Energy Savings Option, Low Upfront Cost
Option. These options each have their positives and drawbacks, and the specific
materials in each option can be seen in Appendix D.
In addition to providing the details for those three options, we developed a tool to allow
the builder and/or customer to develop their own option scenarios. The input to the tool
is the weighted importance of minimum yearly costs, low upfront costs, and energy
savings. The user weights the importance of those three factors by form of percentages
totaling 100%, and the tool outputs options that are best suited for those needs.
In order to ensure that our results are repeatable, and that this method can be applied
to more home layouts, we also created a BEopt manual to step-by-step walk through
how we went about setting up our model and analyzing our data.
Theoretically, with the combination of all three of these, the process we underwent
should be very repeatable for any future design team, Lennar employee, or other
person with access.
B. Design Changes
Our game plan from the start was pretty straightforward; provide a few tangible
suggestions to Lennar that would improve the cost effectiveness and energy efficiency
of their homes. This goal never changed. The “changes” that were made to our design
primarily came from figuring out how to use the software and how to apply the results.
We did not anticipate using this much time on initial simulations before finding a final
simulation to settle on that was not part of the original design plan.
The biggest change to our design was the addition of the priorities weighting tool. This
tool was not part of our original idea, and was a significant addition. This did not require
much changing of any other parts of the project, but rather just an addition of a new tool.
All in all, changes to the design were minimal, and all additions were deemed to help
accomplish the same goal.
10
April 2017
C. Discussion
In developing our BEopt simulations and recommendations, several steps had to be

taken to ensure the accuracy of the model. We took a few approaches at ensuring the
accuracy of our model. First, we looked at the stated HVAC load in BEopt, then did
hand calculations to determine what the theoretical load should be, using theories from
Environmental Control. Comparing these two values, there was only a difference on
1.2%, so we deemed the HVAC loads in BEopt to be accurate. The next step was to
compare energy usage and cost data to known Colorado averages as reported by the
Energy Information Agency of the United States government. Once again, annual kWh
consumption matched up very well with known Colorado averages, as well as the
expected energy bills associated with that consumption. As a final measure, we then
compared the usage breakdown for the average Colorado home to the data for our
model, and once again found little-to-no difference. After all that testing, it was
determined that BEopt and our model inputs were accurate enough to draw conclusions
from.
Figure C.1
Through running our optimization simulations, we wanted to ensure that we were

choosing the right options that were both feasible and helpful towards our end goal of
reducing costs and saving energy. BEopt produces many different graphics and sets of
data after a simulation is complete. The most useful graph produced is seen above.
Each grey dot is a different iteration of the home design or a different combination of
parameters. The black line and the black dots indicate the Optimal Curve and Optimal
Points, which are selected by BEopt and considered to be the best options. As the
11
April 2017
graph moves right the iterations get more energy efficient and as the move down they
have lower annualized energy costs. Annualized energy costs tend to go down as the
home gets more efficient because less energy is being used. This is true except for
when there are high initial costs that get annualized over thirty years. After about 85%
energy savings the optimal curve has a sharp increase due to a large jump in initial
cost. This jump is prohibitively expensive and is one of the main reasons why designing
a Net Zero home would not be beneficial to our users. At that point the increase in
energy savings no longer become justifiable financially. If money were not any issue
someone could implement this design but this increase in cost is why we include the
Minimum Cost option. This option, which finds the lowest annual cost, has a greater
balance for energy savings and costs with the changes being shown as a true
investment where over thirty years it will be financially viable.
Smaller simulations were run first that focused on finding out which types of options
were viable for smaller subsections of the house. For example, a simulation was run
strictly to determine the optimal insulation and building frame combinations. Similar
small simulations were ran for the appliances, and other home systems. Using the
smaller simulations is mostly for visual simplicity as the resulting data set is much
smaller but all of the relevant data can be extracted from large simulations for individual
parameters or groups of parameters. This simplicity is at the cost of running additional
simulations, which can take hours to run. As seen in the chart below using these small
simulations can isolate a group of components. Only having a group of components
allows for comparisons that can be used to help determine which area of the home
might be the most cost effective area to save energy. The Max Energy Savings and
Minimum Cost options both have an energy savings of 10% in this simulation. This is
10% of savings and a reduced Annualized Cost for an additional $300-$400 dollars
upfront. On the envelope simulation that isolated wall material and insulation the Max
Savings were up to 12% but cost almost $20,000 more upfront and had a higher
annualized cost. This granularity is helpful to point out these differences and determine
where money can be most effective. They are also easier to understand and could be
used to convince a buyer or user instead of overwhelming them with a large simulation.
Figure C.2 Sample Appliance Simulation Results *Not Final Original Design
In taking the methods discussed above, we trust in the accuracy of our BEopt model
and the subsequent results. It is also worth noting that in essence we have provided 2
12
April 2017
solutions for materials selection for Lennar: our three recommended cases as well as a
tool for selected their own cases. However, we chose to stick with three core
suggestions because in reality, the builder will not build a completely different home
dozens and dozens of times. Small changes will be made to customize each, but the
core of the homes will remain vastly unchanged. Since we are primarily dealing with this
“core” of the home, we wanted to provide a realistic solution. We feel that the three
options are similar enough in that they can be easily rotated into the normal construction
process. This explains why we still stuck to the three main suggestions. However, we
did want to offer a “fully-customizable” solution like the priorities weighting tool provides.
This allows for tweaking of the cases we’ve recommended, as well as future application
beyond just the floor plan we explored.
BEopt is a very powerful tool and on its own can be effectively used to make energy and
cost conscience decisions. The down side of BEopt is that its complexity can be
confusing and it is ideal for finding the absolute best decisions it falls short when it
comes to finding a solution that meets the user's needs. To solve this issue, the
priorities weighting tool algorithm was developed. This tool is very rough but has the
potential to be much more. The tool is in the form of an excel template. Data
downloaded from BEopt can be pasted into the excel document and then custom
weights can be input in order to customize the solution. The tool provides a score for
every iteration and pulls out the top ten scores.
The only three categories the tool currently accounts for are Energy Savings,
Annualized Energy Costs, and Initial Costs but is simple enough that additional
parameters and weights could be added. The document extracts these values from the
sets of data pasted in the document for each iteration. The full process for using the tool
is found in the Scoring Template Manual. The tool finds the difference between the
iteration value and the base value for each parameter, standardizes it, and normalizes it
on a scale of 0-1. These three scores are multiplied by their respective weights, added
up, and multiplied by 100 to give a score of 0-100. Since the algorithm is based on the
differences between the user defined case and the other iterations all of the scores are
in comparison to the user defined case. The user-interface is seen below.
13
April 2017
Figure C.3/4 Scoring Tool Interface
The interface shows the average score, the top ten scores and the individual weights.
These weights can be changed to meet the needs of the user. They must add up 1 for
proper functionality. The two different figures above show how the values change based
on different inputs. The weights seen in figure C.3 are the same weights that were used
to develop the low upfront cost selection seen in Appendix D.
14
April 2017
Part 3: Summary
Our project provided a variety of research analysis and future tools. Using BEopt and
our scoring tool three-output designs were produced. BEopt, Max Savings and Minimum
Cost provided two, and our scoring tool provided the third, Low Upfront Cost. For a
given simulation BEopt provides a number of Optimal Points that are the best source of
ideal designs to start with. The scoring tool is meant to be an augmenter to BEopt so
that additional designs can be found that may be more specific to the user needs. Any
number of iterations could have been pulled from BEopt or the tool but for the sake of
presentation only three were used in this report. Using these tools in combination
provides an ability to analyze floor plans and balance the cost effectiveness in different
options. While we only analyzed one floor plan the same process could be applied to
other floor plans in different locations. To ease this process we produced two manuals,
a BEopt manual and a Scoring Template manual, to help expedite the steep learning
curve from using BEopt. There is additional work that could be done to improve our
results and capability in the future.
Lennar is a large company that works on building developments so they are not just
building a single home; they are building multiple homes with different sizes and
structures. They try to produce as much efficiency as possible by using the same
materials throughout their houses and in order to save on cost and time. To truly
provide sweeping suggestions BEopt simulations would need to be run on multiple
different floor plans in order to determine the overall effect upgrading a home
component may have. A certain change may have a large impact on one floor plan but
a relatively small impact on a smaller house. This change could increase the cost for the
smaller house without much benefit. These are questions that must be considered and
the only true way to determine the answer is to run numerous simulations of different
layouts. This would be time intensive as BEopt takes a number of hours to run a single
simulation.
The scoring tool has the most room for future improvement. As it was a late addition to
our project we were only able to implement it as a simple excel template that uses three
parameters. The excel template uses many references and is prone to errors. Ideally an
application could be developed that allows the BEopt data to be entered via a text file.
This data could then be parsed and stored. From there the user could analyze the home
on any different number of parameters. The program could also include functionality to
allow the user to restrict outputs to a range of upfront costs and perform comparison
between two iterations instantaneously. This program would take awhile to build and
test due to the complexity and breadth of BEopt but would be exponentially more
powerful than the simply excel template currently being used.
15
April 2017
Part 4: Appendices
A. Master Plan
Section 1: Identification and Significance of Work
The Low energy home trend gives homeowners comfort and savings while maintaining
sustainability. The goal of this project is to analyze existing floor plans and improve
upon the design to make it energy efficient and ideally Net Zero. A Net Zero home is a
single-family home that produces an equal or greater amount of energy than it uses.
Energy analysis and modeling for the house was performed using a program called
BEopt. This program was specifically designed for modeling residential buildings and
quickly estimating energy consumption and savings from energy efficiency upgrades.
These homes are located in Sterling Ranch, a development outside of Denver, CO with
an emphasis on nature preservation and sustainability. The implementation of low
energy homes would support their mission and provide a more sustainable environment
for future residents.
Section 2: Management and Organization
A. Project Management and Organization
The low energy home team includes six members from four different disciplines and two
different sponsors. The members are Nazrul Mat Akher and Eric Ribbeck (Mechanical
Engineering), Tommy Shott and Denzel Washington (Civil Engineering), Nurul Zaidi
(Computer Engineering), and Joe Zehentbauer (Electrical Engineering). Zehentbauer is
the project leader and responsible for communication with the sponsors. The two
sponsors are Lennar, a homebuilding company based in Miami, Florida, and Dr. Ralph
Bruce of the Vanderbilt School of Engineering. Lennar was contracted by sterling ranch
to design and construct a number of homes within the Sterling Ranch community. They
will provide the floor plans in addition to design guidelines, standards, and motivations.
Our other sponsor, Dr. Bruce, has a focus in intellectual neighborhoods and specifically
energy and natural resources. His interest in the project revolves around designing the
lowest energy home possible and ideally net zero home. With our combined
backgrounds and experiences we will work to balance the needs of both of a sponsors
and produce an output that meets all expectations. Additional personal roles can be
found in Section 3.C.
B. Manpower: Workforce requirements estimates, etc.
To complete this project we will require a variety of information and expertise. The
diversity of our team and discipline gives us an advantage to meet many of these
needs. Knowledge into home construction, renewable energy, energy efficiency
materials and envelopes, and Sterling Ranch will all be necessary for success. Our
sponsors will be a key source of information. Jay Steinberg, our contact at Lennar, is a
very knowledgeable home designer and very familiar with all the conditions at Sterling
Ranch. As mentioned before, Dr. Bruce has a specialty in energy and resources that will
16
April 2017
help us gain information into potential design aspects and accurate simulation. All the
Sterling Ranch projects are housed within the Vanderbilt Trans Interdisciplinary
Partnership, which includes a number of professors, and graduate students who have
worked on Sterling Ranch and similar projects for years who will prove to be an
invaluable resource to us throughout the year. Similar projects have been done in the
past and their familiarity with those will help guide us to better alternatives and further
our breadth of knowledge. Lastly, proficiency with the BEopt software will be integral to
our project. This level of knowledge will be acquired through practice and frequent use
of the software to develop the appropriate skills and expertise to run successful and
accurate simulations.
C. Training and Development
Training and Development is a continual process for the members of this team. We will
keep gaining more knowledge and skill through repetition and class. Zurul and
Zehentbauer both took a Project Management class to improve team to sponsor
interaction and team synergy. Additionally, Members of the class have enrolled in
classes for the upcoming semester that they feel will aide them within the project such
as a Power Systems Analysis class taught by Professor Bruce. Ribbeck and Ahker are
the designated beopt users to allow them to continue developing their skills through
cyclical rounds of simulation. Other members are encourage and have run simulations
as well so that they entire team has a familiarity and understanding with the software.
Ultimately, the best form of development is through a constant stream of dialogue
between the team and our sponsors. The breadth of knowledge must be obtained
through regular meetings and questions to ensure that we have a proper understand
and continue to improve our outputs.
Section 3: Technical Section
A. User and System Requirements
1. Shall use the Beopt software for modeling and simulation

2. Shall design a low energy alternative to a Lennar floor plan
3. Shall meet all Lennar, Sterling Ranch, safety, and local area standards
4. Shall develop a design that is feasible and practical
5. Should propose multiple alternatives with different balances of cost and efficiency
6. Should design with the homeowner in mind
7. Should consider cost effectiveness and overall building costs in design
B. Work Breakdown Structure
17
April 2017
Figure B.1 Original Work Breakdown Structure
The project consists of sixteen work packages divided into the four categories of Project
Management, Research, Simulation, and Data Compilation as seen above. Project
Management includes all activities that are not direct work on the project but are very
important for the progress and success of the project. These tasks include all meetings
both internal and with sponsors along with all initial brainstorming and regular reports.
Research includes all the research aspects of the project, which include materials, local
conditions, materials, and appliance and systems research. Research will be conducted
before and after rounds of simulation to generate starting points at the beginning of
simulations and to confirm results and feasibility afterwards. Simulation includes
multiple different types of simulations that will be run throughout the project along with
the construction of a physical home model. The three types of simulation are
optimization, parameterization, and case based. Optimization is done to observe wide
variety of points and create a general efficiency curve to use as a starting point for
future simulations. Parametric simulations are best for comparing changes within a
single category in Beopt. These will be used at the request of Lennar to closely examine
the effects of changing one aspect of the house and to determine how money could
best be spent. Cased based simulations bring it all together with user defined and Beopt
generated cases to compare a limited number of final results for both efficiency and
cost. Data Compilation entails processing and making assessments based on the
18
April 2017
simulation. Once we receive our results we must pick them apart to determine their
meaning, develop a plan for what simulations should be run next, and organize all the
results into easy to understand graphics that can later be used for our proposals. This
was later updated with the addition of the main manual creation category and task
algorithm creation. The changes are seen in Figure B.2
C. Responsibility Assignments
Due to the interdisciplinary aspect of the project, it is important to define roles based on
individuals’ areas of expertise. Zehentbauer is an Electrical Engineer, Zaidi is a
Computer Engineer, Ribbeck and Akher are Mechanical Engineers, and Washington
and Shott are Civil Engineers. Zehentbauer is the team leader and responsible for
organizing team meetings and facilitating sponsor contact.
Zehentbauer and Zaidi are responsible for all the electrical systems within the home,
such as power and lighting, and for the on-site power production. In order to propose a
net zero homes, they must determine how much power can be produced on site and the
potential for storing energy on site.
The Mechanical Engineer’s, Ribbeck and Akher, chief responsibility is BEopt and
performing the simulations based on the input from other team members. Every team
member needs to have a basic understanding of the software but these two will
understand the fine details needed to produce the most accurate simulations and
results. In addition to BEopt they will work on the mechanical systems, specifically
heating and cooling.
The Civil Engineers, Washington and Shott, are responsible for the building envelope.
The key components of the envelope are the walls, doors, windows, foundation, ceiling,
and how all those pieces fit together. They will work choose materials and construction
practices based on the location of the house that will yield efficient results and meet the
needs of potential home owners. An efficient envelope creates flexibility for the electrical
and mechanical engineers when choosing applicable systems. Every person needs to
consider cost and practicality of when making decisions. Initial costs and potential
savings are both important for the potential value of a house. In addition, anything
proposed needs to be feasible within the applicable construction environment without
additional strain on the builder.
D. Project Schedules
19
April 2017
Figure D.1 Gantt Chart
Figure D.1 shows the Gantt chart for the entire project. The chart is divided up into the
four main work categories and each work package is shown as an individual task. The
block in the middle of the chart is for Christmas break and the other grey columns are
for partial weeks and breaks where work may be done but it will not be tracked for that
week. All hours worked from a unreported week will go in the following week. The first
semester of the project includes a wide variety of tasks from organizing the group, to
doing initial research, and running final simulations. The second semester tasks are
much more focused on running final simulations and most importantly, processing and
compiling all the information into the final proposals and reports. The AON diagram for
the project can be seen on the page below.
20
April 2017
Figure B.2 Original AON Diagram
Figure B.2 shows the AON diagram for the project with the critical path bolded. There
are technically a few critical paths but this is due to two parallel tasks being completed
at the same time and then returning back to the linear portion of the critical path. Each
box includes the start week, end week, and duration as indicated on the Gantt chart.
The critical path is 21 weeks long but the final task should be completed by week 26.
This leaves five weeks of slack that is dispersed throughout the project in order to
create a buffer in the case that a task takes longer than expected or a new task needs
to be created. Some tasks are done more than once. This is due to the nature of the
project in that we are running simulations and analyzing them so there will be cycles of
doing that with each round becoming more specific and focused.
E. Budget
Our project has no direct costs. The project is completely design based and the
software is free so there is nothing we must purchase in order to complete our project.
Our time however, is a valuable asset that we must account for. The following chart
shows the accrued labor costs and costs + profit for the first semester and the estimates
for the second semester.
Term 1 Term 2
Project Management 54 $1,246.90 $3,298.82 49 $1,645.99 $2,852.27
Research 38.75 $897.84 $1,555.82 20 $633.62 $1,097.97
Simulation 58 $1,684.30 $2,918.65 45 $1,411.46 $2,445.86
Compilation 24 $587.28 $1,356.90 90 $2,993.14 $5,186.68
21
April 2017
Total 174.75 $4,416.32 $9,130.19 204 $6,684.21 $11,582.78
Figure E.1 Budget Breakdown
The budget breakdown above shows the labor costs and costs + profit for each term
divided into the four main categories. Most of the labor for the first term went to
simulation and project management as we needed to organize our team and process
before proceeding and using BEopt is a time extensive effort. The second term similar
amounts of effort for simulation and project management but includes significantly more
compilation and less research. Starting term 2 we will be familiar with the software and
are goals and will be able to start piecing together all the different results and needs to
create our final proposals.
Figure E.2 Graphic Budget Breakdown
Figure E.2 shows a visual breakdown of the budget. This visual confirms the points
mentioned above. The total labor cost for the project is estimated at $11,100.53 and the
total cost + profit for the project is $20,712.97. The extensive budget can be found in
Appendix B.
Standards
In order to provide a viable and adequately compliant recommendation, we considered

a number of standards to ensure compliance throughout the project. The following
standards were considered:
• ICC 2015 Residential Code
• IEEE 929-1989
• National Electric Code
• Lennar/Sterling Ranch Standards
The state of Colorado has adopted the ICC 2015 Residential code as their official
standards on residential projects. The International Code Council standards covered a
wide range of aspects for the home design and building. Some of the features of the
22
April 2017
home covered within the ICC standards are efficiency standards as well as those
related to electrical/HVAC standards. Lennar will have already incorporated these
standards into all of their designs so as long as we do not make any changes that
violate the code the proposal will be in compliance.
The Institute Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE 929-1989) standards provide
recommendations for photovoltaic systems. This code from the IEEE contains
recommendations for integration between a PV system that is connected in parallel with
a utility service. As with the ICC these recommendations will have already been
considered by solar installers and utility companies but it is useful to keep in mind.
The National Electric Code standards cover anything in regards to the electric system in
the house. The NEC is a nationally adopted set of codes that lays out all the minimum
requirements for electrical wiring and grounding in all applications. Anything we propose
should not interfere with the home’s ability to comply with the NEC.
Lastly, the most specific of standards we’ve followed is the standards provided by
Lennar and Sterling Ranch. With the aim to build a strong sense of community within
the sterling ranch development, the developers on the project follow a specific range of
standards to maintain a sense of cohesion and simplified construction for a large
majority of the homes. Lennar specifically has incorporated Sterling Ranch standards
within their existing standards in order to have a set of standards for all of the homes.
Documentation
Internally, the two main pieces of documentation are the BEopt Tracking Document, and
the Weekly Reports. The BEopt Tracking Document includes a record of all the
simulations that have been run, who ran them, the general parameters they were
testing, and whether they are still relevant or not. With many different simulations they
need to be tracked appropriately to determine what has and hasn't been simulated so
we don’t waste time trying to figure out what to run or running duplicate tests. This
document also allows people to address questions to the appropriate person and
indicates if a new updated simulation has been run and where to find them to ensure
everyone is viewing the most updated model. The weekly report simply includes each
individual’s work for every week so progress can be tracked and tasks can be
distributed appropriately so no one person is doing all the work.
The external documents that will be delivered to Lennar are the Proposal Package, the
Simulation Specifications, and a BEopt manual. The Proposal Package will include all of
the proposed design changes with appropriate cost analysis and benefits represented.
This package will include a variety of changes and their respective energy and cost
benefits. The Simulation Specifications will contain all of the parameters for the
prospective simulations found in the proposal graph. Placing this information in a
separate document will prevent the Proposal Package from becoming cluttered and
overwhelming. The Proposal Package will have only the pertinent information while the
Simulation Specifications will show all the data and parameters used to produce that
relevant information. Lastly, the BEopt Man will be a simple guide the Lennar could use
23
April 2017
to generate their own simulations and models on their house. BEopt has a general
operation manual but learning the software can be challenging and time consuming so
this personalized manual will be focus on just the basics needed to allow a first time
user produce a simulations. This will allow Lennar to run future simulations and
potentially verify certain proposals before investing into and implementing changes.
Risk Assessment
Significant risks depend on the risk likelihood, the risk impact and the risk consequence.
The Low Energy Home project involves the development of hardware and software with
characteristics as follows. The hardware, the floor plan, is feasible to major change
because as the floor plan changes or even rotates the simulation results will change. It
only has a moderate complexity though due to the similarity of all the floor plans,
familiarity with the building process, and the commonality of home building practices.
This project is using BEopt (Building Energy Optimization) software to analyze the
energy consumption of the home. The software exists and has a minor complexity. The
performance of the overall system depends on the existing system of the home. Thus,
from the table 10.3 in appendix, M = 0.1, C = 0.3, M = 0.5, C = 0.3, and D = 0.5.
H H S S
Assuming all sources are rated equally at 0.2, then
Composite Likelihood factor, CLF = 0.2 * (0.5 + 0.1 + 0.5 + 0.3 + 0.5) = 0.38
The risk impact for projects can be specified in terms of cost, technical, time and so on.
It can be expressed as qualitative rating, such as high, medium, or low based upon the
team judgment about the impact. The impacts from multiple risk sources can be
combined using composite impact factor (CIF) formula (2) below:
CIF = (W1)T1 + (W2)CI + (W3)SI (2)
Where W1 = 0.5, W2 = 0.3 and W3 = 0.2. Therefore, the CIF for our project is:
CIF = (0.5)0.1 + (0.3)0.1 + (0.2)0.1 = 0.1
The risk impacts are assumed to be independent. We chose the technical impact to be
minimal since we already familiar with BEopt software functionality to perform the
simulations. Additionally, if a simulation fails or has an error it is easy to run another
simulation once the model is already created. Since we have no external budget the
financial risk of an error would only impact time spent on fixing the error. As mentioned
before after the model is set up the time impact is minimal from an error as a new
simulation can be run easily.
The combined consideration of both risk likelihood and risk impact is referred to as the
risk consequence or risk exposure. Risk consequence-rating formula (3) below:
` RCR = CLF + CIF – (CLF x CIF) (3)
The risk consequence derived from this equation measures the seriousness of the risk.
The RCR for our project is 0.442.
24
April 2017
Work Review
Upon review of our ‘Work Breakdown Structure’ and work packages it became clear that
it was necessary to update certain aspects. The only work package removed was the
‘Parametric Optimization’. Using parametric optimization was determined to be
inadequate and instead we opted to run smaller scale optimization simulations. The
optimization simulations were able to handle more data and included the creation of an
optimization curve on the graph to clearly represent the potential costs and savings of
different options. To replace the parametric simulation work package we added a
‘Separating Home Systems’ work package in order to break the BeOpt parameters into
appropriate categories such as building envelope and appliances and then run the
optimization simulations with only those parameters varying.
We recently increased our scope to include the creation of multiple documents that will
be presented with our final report. These documents are a ‘BeOpt Tutorial’ document
that will briefly explain how to use BeOpt for additional applications within Sterling
Ranch, a ‘Base Case Description’ which will explain our base model that all the
simulations are based on, and a ‘Recommendations’ document which will contain any
additional ideas and recommendations that are outside of the scope of BeOpt and may
not be available until a number of years down the road.
Testing Plan
The testing for our project takes shape in two main forms. First, there is ensuring that
our base model, which we compare, all alternatives to is accurate. The second part is
ensuring that our suggestions we make are feasible suggestions.
For the first part, we compared our simulation results for our base case to known
Colorado averages. Since these homes have not been built and monitored for these
statistics, we do not have the actual data for our homes. The first figure below is a graph
of average consumption and expenditures in energy and electricity for homes in the US,
the Mountain Region, and Colorado.
Figure 5: Average Energy and Electricity Consumption and Expenditures
For comparison, our base case model yielded the following results:
25
April 2017
Site Energy Consumption 111.5 mmBtu/yr
Energy Expenditures $1563
Electricity Consumption 7406 kWh/yr
Electricity Expenditures $909
Table 1: Base Case Simulation Results
The results are very close to Colorado averages given, giving us confidence in
the accuracy of our model. The next metric of testing involves comparing the energy
usage breakdown to known Colorado averages, again from the Department of Energy.
The first figure below shows the usage breakdown for the US, Mountain Region, and
Colorado, and the second shows the results from our base model.
Figure 6: Usage Breakdown from Department of Energy
Figure 7: Usage Breakdown of Base Model
As seen in the figures, the usages match up very well, further verifying the accuracy of
our base case model. The second part of the testing, which involves ensuring our
suggestions are feasible, will be done through discussions with our sponsor and other
industry professionals if necessary.
26
April 2017
Change Control Plan
Our project has constantly evolved and it has been necessary to make scope and
procedural changes on multiple occasions. These changes are handled in team
meetings and the important aspects considered are who suggested the change, the
time and budget impact of the change, and the feasibility of the change. Ultimately Joe,
as the project manager, has the final say but a major change is not made without team
agreement.
The initial understanding of the project was that we we’re to design a low energy and
ideally net zero home. That is still one of our major goals but conversations with Lennar
brought to light that looking at the impact of smaller changes and how savings could be
achieved in the most cost effective and least obtrusive way would be much more useful
to them and to Sterling Ranch. With this information we shifted our approach and
started focusing on the optimization of key home aspects in order to provide a
granularity that is easily understandable and changes that have a high benefit without
changing the entire design. In this case, the change demanded additional resources but
it was still feasible within our time constraints so it was implemented immediately.
Procurement Plan
Due to data analysis nature of our project, there are not many items that require
procurement. The main internal procurement item is the BEopt software and externally
we had to procure plans and standards for Sterling Ranch and Lennar. BEopt is
software developed by the National Research Energy Labs for internal purposes that
was later released to the public. This software was procured simply by creating a
account on their website, beopt.nrel.gov and downloading the software for free.
The floor plan and standards for Lennar and Sterling Ranch came from Leslie Gillespie
and Jay Steinberg. Leslie, a graduate civil engineering student at Vanderbilt, oversees
the Sterling Ranch project and granted us access to the online folder containing all of
the Lennar Floor Plans. We were then able to pick one that met our needs and
download it. Jay supplied us with Lennar and Sterling Ranch standards and additional
base case parameters for our simulation via emailed documents.
Quality Planning:
While our project provides recommendation the true potential of our output is in the
ability for the process to be easily replicated by future users. Due to this, it is essential
that we create a system that can function at a high quality without the in depth
knowledge of the actual tools themself. To ensure this quality we have created a in
depth manual that lays out the exact steps needed in order for a user to create their
own BEopt simulation and understand the results. The manual also lays out how to use
our own personal algorithm and how it can modify to become an algorithm for any user
needs.
Having someone with no BEopt experience build and run a simulation and point out any
27
April 2017
places in the manual where it was unclear or where further guidance is needed tested
these manuals. This helped to tighten up the manual and turn it into a document that
anyone could use. The template excel algorithm was also tested in a similar manner
and additionally was tested with a variety of different data sets to ensure consistency
across different sizes of BEopt data sets. A troubleshooting portion was also included to
help the user fix common errors that may occur within the template. Our goal was to
provide simplicity and flexibility in our process so that it can apply to a variety of different
homes and needs.
28
B. Detailed Budget
Term One Budget:
Project Management 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total
Hrs Cost

Charge
Sr. Engineer $51.54 2 2 1 2 4 0 1 5 5 1 23 1185.42
Engineer $23.17 2 1 1 2 4 0 1 5 10 5 31 718.27

Direct Labor Cost 149.42 126.25 74.71 149.42 298.84 0.00 74.71 373.55 489.40 167.39 1903.69
Labor Overhead 34.12% 50.98 43.08 25.49 50.98 101.96 0.00 25.49 127.46 166.98 57.11 649.54
Other Direct Cost 0.00

Total Direct Cost 200.40 169.33 100.20 200.40 400.80 0.00 100.20 501.01 656.38 224.50 2553.23

G & A 20.78% 41.64 35.19 20.82 41.64 83.29 0.00 20.82 104.11 136.40 46.65 530.56

Total Costs 242.05 204.51 121.02 242.05 484.09 0.00 121.02 605.11 792.78 271.16 3083.79

Profit 6.973% 16.88 14.26 8.44 16.88 33.76 0.00 8.44 42.19 55.28 18.91 215.03

Costs + Profit 258.92 218.77 129.46 258.92 517.85 0.00 129.46 647.31 848.06 290.06 3298.82

Research 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Total
Hrs Cost

Charge
Sr. Engineer $51.54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00
Engineer $23.17 1.65 7.3 5.3 4 4 4 9 1.5 0 0 36.75 851.50

Labor Overhead 34.12% 13.04 57.71 41.90 31.62 31.62 31.62 71.15 11.86 0.00 0.00 290.53


29

G & A 20.78% 10.65 47.14 34.22 25.83 25.83 25.83 58.12 9.69 0.00 0.00 237.31

Total Costs 61.93 273.99 198.93 150.13 150.13 150.13 337.80 56.30 0.00 0.00 1379.34

Profit 6.973% 4.32 19.11 13.87 10.47 10.47 10.47 23.55 3.93 0.00 0.00 96.18

Costs + Profit 66.25 293.10 212.80 160.60 160.60 160.60 361.35 60.23 0.00 0.00 1475.52

Simulation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Total
Hrs Cost

Charge
Sr. Engineer $51.54 2 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 9 463.86
Engineer $23.17 10 15 1 8 2 5 0 0 41 949.97

Labor Overhead 34.12% 0.00 0.00 114.23 171.34 25.49 98.42 33.40 39.53 0.00 0.00 482.40


G & A 20.78% 0.00 0.00 93.30 139.96 20.82 80.39 27.28 32.29 0.00 0.00 394.04

Total Costs 0.00 0.00 542.31 813.47 121.02 467.24 158.56 187.67 0.00 0.00 2290.27

Profit 6.973% 0.00 0.00 37.82 56.72 8.44 32.58 11.06 13.09 0.00 0.00 159.70

Costs + Profit 0.00 0.00 580.13 870.19 129.46 499.83 169.61 200.75 0.00 0.00 2449.97

Compilation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Total
Hrs Cost

Charge
Sr. Engineer $51.54 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 2 0 7 360.78
30
Engineer $23.17 0 0 0 0 3 3 5 0 4 0 15 347.55

Labor Overhead 34.12% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.30 58.89 74.70 0.00 66.79 0.00 241.68


G & A 20.78% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.74 48.10 61.02 0.00 54.56 0.00 197.41

Total Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 196.09 279.58 354.65 0.00 317.11 0.00 1147.42

Profit 6.973% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.67 19.50 24.73 0.00 22.11 0.00 80.01

Costs + Profit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 209.76 299.07 379.37 0.00 339.22 0.00 1227.43

31
Term Two:
Project
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Total
Management
Hrs Cost

Charge
$51.
Sr. Engineer 54 6 2 1 3 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 1 1 4 30 1546.20
$23.
Engineer 17 0 1 2 8 0 0 0 7 1 1 1 1 1 2 25 579.25

Direct Labor Cost 309.24 126.25 97.88 339.98 51.54 51.54 51.54 316.81 126.25 126.25 126.25 74.71 74.71 252.50 2125.45
Labor 34.1
Overhead 2% 105.51 43.08 33.40 116.00 17.59 17.59 17.59 108.10 43.08 43.08 43.08 25.49 25.49 86.15 725.20

Total Direct Cost 414.75 169.33 131.28 455.98 69.13 69.13 69.13 424.91 169.33 169.33 169.33 100.20 100.20 338.65 2850.65

20.7
G & A 8% 86.19 35.19 27.28 94.75 14.36 14.36 14.36 88.30 35.19 35.19 35.19 20.82 20.82 70.37 592.37

Total Costs 500.94 204.51 158.56 550.73 83.49 83.49 83.49 513.20 204.51 204.51 204.51 121.02 121.02 409.03 3443.02

6.97
Profit 3% 34.93 14.26 11.06 38.40 5.82 5.82 5.82 35.79 14.26 14.26 14.26 8.44 8.44 28.52 240.08

Costs + Profit 535.87 218.77 169.61 589.14 89.31 89.31 89.31 548.99 218.77 218.77 218.77 129.46 129.46 437.55 3683.10

Research 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Total
Hrs Cost

Charge
$51.
Sr. Engineer 54 0 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 8 412.32
$23. 7.7
Engineer 17 0 0 0.75 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 5 179.57
32

Labor 34.1
Overhead 2% 0.00 35.17 5.93 0.00 33.40 17.59 33.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.98 25.49 0.00 201.95


20.7
G & A 8% 0.00 28.73 4.84 0.00 27.28 14.36 27.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.64 20.82 0.00 164.96

Total Costs 0.00 166.98 28.15 0.00 158.56 83.49 158.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 242.05 121.02 0.00 958.80

6.97
Profit 3% 0.00 11.64 1.96 0.00 11.06 5.82 11.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.88 8.44 0.00 66.86

Costs + Profit 0.00 178.62 30.11 0.00 169.61 89.31 169.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 258.92 129.46 0.00 1025.66

Simulation 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Total
Hrs Cost
Charge
$51.
Sr. Engineer 54 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 309.24
$23.
Engineer 17 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 7 162.19

Labor 34.1
Overhead 2% 0.00 15.81 17.59 33.40 17.59 0.00 33.40 17.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.49 0.00 0.00 160.85


33
20.7
G & A 8% 0.00 12.92 14.36 27.28 14.36 0.00 27.28 14.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.82 0.00 0.00 131.39

Total Costs 0.00 75.07 83.49 158.56 83.49 0.00 158.56 83.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 121.02 0.00 0.00 763.67

6.97
Profit 3% 0.00 5.23 5.82 11.06 5.82 0.00 11.06 5.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.44 0.00 0.00 53.25

Costs + Profit 0.00 80.30 89.31 169.61 89.31 0.00 169.61 89.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 129.46 0.00 0.00 816.92

Compilation 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Total
Hrs Cost

Charge
$51.
Sr. Engineer 54 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2 2 2 1 13 670.02
$23.
Engineer 17 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 8 185.36

Labor 34.1
Overhead 2% 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.40 17.59 17.59 25.49 17.59 0.00 25.49 43.08 43.08 43.08 25.49 291.86


20.7
G & A 8% 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.28 14.36 14.36 20.82 14.36 0.00 20.82 35.19 35.19 35.19 20.82 238.40

Total Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 158.56 83.49 83.49 121.02 83.49 0.00 121.02 204.51 204.51 204.51 121.02 1385.63

6.97
Profit 3% 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.06 5.82 5.82 8.44 5.82 0.00 8.44 14.26 14.26 14.26 8.44 96.62

Costs + Profit 0.00 0.00 0.00 169.61 89.31 89.31 129.46 89.31 0.00 129.46 218.77 218.77 218.77 129.46 1482.25

34
Manual
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Total
Creation
Hrs Cost

Charge
$51.
Sr. Engineer 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 6 309.24
$23.
Engineer 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 3 69.51

Labor 34.1
Overhead 2% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.49 17.59 17.59 25.49 43.08 129.23


20.7
G & A 8% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.82 14.36 14.36 20.82 35.19 105.56

Total Costs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 121.02 83.49 83.49 121.02 204.51 613.54

6.97
Profit 3% 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.44 5.82 5.82 8.44 14.26 42.78

Costs + Profit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 129.46 89.31 89.31 129.46 218.77 656.32

35
April 2017
C. Short Bios
Nazrul Mat Akher
Nazrul is one of the top students sponsored by Malaysian government to continue his
studies in the United States. He is currently a senior majoring in Mechanical
Engineering at Vanderbilt University. His passion for energy conservation led him to
choose the Low Energy Home Project as his senior design project. In his free time,
Nazrul loves to travel around the cities in United States. He also joined Vanderbilt
Rugby Team and is always out of town during weekends for rugby matches.
Eric Ribbeck
Eric is a Mechanical Engineering major from Houston, TX with minors in Engineering

Management and Financial Economics. On campus Eric is involved with The
Engineering Council, Honor Council, and Sigma Nu Fraternity, where he served as
president.
Eric has completed internships as Atwood Oceanics, General Electric and Stantec. At
Atwood, Eric worked in the engineering departed to aide in the design and modification
of offshore drilling vessels. Projects include a range of aspects from civil to electrical
aspects. At General Electric, Eric worked on a commercial technical sales team to
assemble equipment packages for contractors. At Stantec, Eric was part of the MEP
(Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing) design group, specifically in the mechanical design
realm. I helped in the design of HVAC systems for buildings ranging in size from 4,000
to 400,000 square feet.
Tommy Shott
Tommy is studying Civil Engineering with a minor in Engineering Management. He is

passionate about his pursuit of knowledge in the engineering field and is eager to
further this passion in my career after Vanderbilt. Outside of the classroom, Tommy is
the former Treasurer and Vice President of Sigma Nu Fraternity Sigma Chapter at
Vanderbilt. In addition, one of his other major passions is athletics. He enjoys
attending Vanderbilt athletic events, as well as participating in intramural sports.
Tommy’s previous work experiences include an internship with AtSite, Inc., a company
in Washington, D.C., focused on energy efficiency and building performance, and an
internship with Clark Construction Group, LLC, working as a project manager on a
construction site. After graduation in May, he will begin working for Clark Construction
in Washington, D.C. I am eager to begin my career in the construction industry and
continue my pursuit of education in design and LEED construction.
Denzel Washington
Denzel is senior from New Orleans, LA majoring in Civil Engineering with a minor in
Engineering Management. Denzel has maintained an interest in sustainable design
36
April 2017
throughout his time in undergrad and is passionate about learning and developing
innovative solutions to create a more sustainable future for our world. On and off
campus, Denzel is involved in various leadership roles including former president of the
Nu Rho Chapter of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, current grand lt. strategist for the
national board of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, former NSBE Torch Chair, and an avid
volunteer. Denzel hopes to use integrate his knowledge of engineering and technology
with his passion for business and entrepreneurship to create viable solutions to day-to-
day problems in our local communities. Denzel has completed two internships during
his undergraduate career, with Skanska USA Building as a project engineer and
Stantec Consulting as a land development engineer and project manager.
Nurul Zaidi
Nurul was born on 2nd December 1995. She is an international student from Malaysia,
majoring in Computer Engineering. Went to Vanderbilt University in 2013. She currently
enjoys working part time with the technical support team at Vanderbilt Owen School of
Management. With encouragement from friends and family, she started her own small
online business. She is hoping to be a successful entrepreneur in the future. Her
interests also include software development, customer service and ceramic arts.
Participated in the Code Ignite volunteer program to inspire young students to pursue
higher education in computer science. She is an enthusiast traveler who loves to
explore and learn about unique cultures.
Joe Zehentbauer
Joe is an Electrical Engineering major from San Diego, CA with minors in Computer
Science and Engineering Management. On campus Joe volunteers with the Vanderbilt
Student Volunteers for Science to teach science lessons to middle scholars across the
Nashville community and has served in various leadership positions within Delta Tau
Delta Fraternity. Joe has spent two summers interning with MEP firms, AMA consulting
engineers in Los Angeles and Stantec in Dallas. Through regular exposure, Joe
developed a deep interest in energy systems and low energy designs. He will return to
Stantec after graduation to begin his career in electric building design. In his spare time,
Joe is an avid home brewer and music enthusiast who seeks to apply engineering
methodologies and ideals to other hobbies.
37
April 2017
D. Supporting Information:
38
April 2017
E. ABET Criteria –
Design Constraints:
In the process of determining the best home design for this project, the team faced
some design constraints that had to be taken into account. In the initial meeting with
project sponsor, Ralph Bruce expressed that the main goal for this project is to improve
upon the floor plans design to make it energy efficient and ideally net zero. However, at
a later point the team realized that as the design approached net zero there was a
sharp increase in the upfront cost. Therefore, the team had to discuss with the project
sponsor to redefine the project goals so that the team can produce a more meaningful
outcome. Jay Steinberg, our other sponsor, expressed that he was more interested in
seeing results that isolated individual home areas to focus on the cost effectiveness of
changes. This different set of goals shifted our project approach and required us to run
additional simulations and also provide resources that the process can be replicated in
the future since we could not possibly simulate everything. As a large company, Lennar,
has already thought of many of the energy questions and found solutions that meet their
needs and that they think meet their potential users needs. They are an energy forward
company and a number of their homes already come with solar standard. This made it
challenging to find additional areas to improve upon. There are always more energy
39
April 2017
efficient options but they are often restricted by their cost, availability, and feasibility.
Denver has high standards for certain components due to the extreme winds and winter
weather conditions that can occur limiting our ability to implement certain options. On
BEopt, energy efficiency can greatly be improved by adding more solar panels to the
plan. This however is not always a feasible option because there is a limit to how many
panels can be placed on a roof and where they can be placed. This limited the size of
the system and restricted our ability to produce a true Net Zero home. For this reason
we shifted our focus to the reusability of our process.
Multidisciplinary Teams:
The Low Energy Home team was comprised of two mechanical engineers, two civil
engineers, one computer engineer, and one electrical engineer. Each team member
brought a unique set of skills and perspectives that assisted in the completion of the
project. With such a multi-disciplinary teams, it is crucial to understand what other
teammates are working on and discuss any issues on regular meeting. The civil
engineers had a deeper understanding in building envelopes than the other engineers
while the mechanical engineers had an expertise in heat transfer and HVAC systems.
Computer and Electrical Engineering went into working with the software and
understanding the current PV system Lennar uses and the limitations the PV system
creates. A home truly an interdisciplinary project because it includes aspects that relate
to so many different types of engineering. Because of the interaction of many different
disciplines individual members were often completely unaware of certain concepts and
ideas that other disciplines were proficient in. This required each discipline to be able to
clearly articulate their point and also explain aspects that involved their expertise in a
manner that was understandable. The project helped prepare the members for
professional practice through enhanced managerial skills, improved communication
skills, complex project experience, and further developed technical skills.
40

Low Energy Home Design Process

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Low Energy Home Design Process

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Low Energy Home

Final Report/Master Plan

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

EECE 4951 Spring 2017

April 28, 2017

Potential Commercial Applications

Part 1- Table of Contents

Part 1: Project Execution

Figure B.1 Original Work Breakdown Structure

Figure B.2 Final Work Breakdown Structure

Figure B.3 Original AON Diagr

Figure B.4 Final AON Diagram

Figure C.1 Original Gantt Chart

Figure C.2 Final Gantt Chart

D. Summary Budget – should include a discussion/comparison with original budget

Total Hours: 378.75 288.50

Total Labor: $11,100.53 $9,300.25

Total Cost+Profit: $20,712.97 $16,116.00

Figure D.4 Proposed Vs. Actual Budget.

We have been tasked by Lennar Homes and Vanderbilt University School of

In developing our BEopt simulations and recommendations, several steps had to be

Through running our optimization simulations, we wanted to ensure that we were

Figure C.3/4 Scoring Tool Interface

Section 1: Identification and Significance of Work

Section 2: Management and Organization

A. Project Management and Organization

B. Manpower: Workforce requirements estimates, etc.

C. Training and Development

Section 3: Technical Section

A. User and System Requirements

1. Shall use the Beopt software for modeling and simulation

B. Work Breakdown Structure

Figure B.1 Original Work Breakdown Structure

Figure D.1 Gantt Chart

Figure B.2 Original AON Diagram

Total 174.75 $4,416.32 $9,130.19 204 $6,684.21 $11,582.78

Figure E.1 Budget Breakdown

Figure E.2 Graphic Budget Breakdown

In order to provide a viable and adequately compliant recommendation, we considered

Assuming all sources are rated equally at 0.2, then

CIF = (W1)T1 + (W2)CI + (W3)SI (2)

CIF = (0.5)0.1 + (0.3)0.1 + (0.2)0.1 = 0.1

` RCR = CLF + CIF – (CLF x CIF) (3)

Figure 5: Average Energy and Electricity Consumption and Expenditures

Site Energy Consumption 111.5 mmBtu/yr

Energy Expenditures $1563

Electricity Consumption 7406 kWh/yr

Electricity Expenditures $909

Table 1: Base Case Simulation Results

Figure 6: Usage Breakdown from Department of Energy

Figure 7: Usage Breakdown of Base Model

Change Control Plan

Engineer $23.17 0 0 0 0 3 3 5 0 4 0 15 347.55

Nazrul Mat Akher

Eric is a Mechanical Engineering major from Houston, TX with minors in Engineering

Tommy is studying Civil Engineering with a minor in Engineering Management. He is

You might also like