ZEH2 has a dehumidifying heat pump and ZENS (on the right) is equipped with u geothermal heet pump, Ultra-Low Energy Residences By Jeff Christian, Associate Member ASHRAE T first attempt at low first-cost, near zero-energy houses (ZEH) was in June 2002 in Tennessee as part of the U.S. Department of Energy's Building Technologies Program. The goal isto create technologies for low-cost net-zero energy residences by 2020. Th itiative is to lead new homeowners and builders toward houses integrate on-site power: This article addresses affordable housing in a mixed, humid climate. ‘The features in the frst attempt a zero ‘energy houses (ZEIT) are listed in Tables and 2. The small, efficient houses were constructed for under $100,000, which includes the cost for solar photovoltaics. The ZEM| all-cleetrie house uses about 10,000 kWhiyear. The heat pump ‘and ventilation require about 30% of the total energy, and the heat pump water heater (HPWH) requires 15%. Local electric rates at the time were $0.063/ KWh. This was the first house in Ten- nessee (0 sell solar energy to the grid. ‘The solar system generates about 2,000 KWhiyear. The net energy cost to the homeowner is less than a dollar a day? House Descriptions This article focuses on the first of a series of four near net-ZEHs (ZEHI). &:iER small building applications A fall year's data during the first year of ‘occupancy is available for ZHI, ZEH2 and ZEH3. This article focuses primarily ‘on ZHI although some comparisons are made to the other houses (ZEH2, ZEH3 and ZEH4). Tuble 1 shows envelope Features, and Table 2 shows mechanical Teatures. Structural insulated panels (SIP) were ‘used in the four test houses. These panels were premanulactuted with either ex- panded polystyrene or polyisoeyanurate insulation, blown with pentane, sand- ‘wiched between two layers of orientated strand board (OSB) and shipped to the site with rough openings for windows and doors and channels for running, cleetrical wiring, Features in the first attempt at a ZEH ‘Roowe the Author Jeff Chviain ie director of the Budding Technology ‘Conor at Oak Ridgo National Laboratory, Oak Rage, Tem,(ZBH) beyond those listed in Tables J and 2 are compact thermal distribution system, controlled mechanical supply ventilation of 40 efin,* (meeting ANSVASHRAE 62.2-2003, Fentilation and Indoor Air Quality in Low-Rise Resi Buildings). compact floresvent lights, Energy Star appliances, heat recovery shower, insulated water pipes inthe crawlspace, and extended roof overhangs. ‘The ZEHI three-bedroom, 1,056 ff house sits on an un- vented crawlspace with 6 mil black polyethylene ground cove: ‘Te floor of the house is 6 in." thick SIPS as shown in Figure I. ‘The floor SIPS have 22 mil white aluminum sheets laminated tthe bottom, The umvented crawlspace remains above S0°F* throughout the winter. The coldest ambient temperature experienced in 2003 was O°F. This earth-coupled space not only minimizes ‘wintertime floor heat loss but als eliminates the risk of pipes freezing and provides 2 heat source for the HPWH during the hating seasons. ‘On July 3, the crawlspace’s relative humidity for several days was near 80%. The highest wet-bulb temperature in July was approximately 71°F The average daily interior temporature was 76°. This indicates that even ithe bottom of the floor reached an average inside air temperature, it would still be well above theaverage wot-bulb temperature experienced inthis erawlspace ‘uring the worst part ofthe year. Vented erawispaces during this ‘ime inthe mixed humid climate ofeast Tennessee are frequently saturated andl experience lengthy periods of near 100% REL. ‘igure 2 shows the hourly average humidity ratio fora warm ‘moist day in July ofthe craw space air and the ouside air. The hhumitty ratio in the erawispace remains slightly less than the outside air. Conditioning the crawlspace by providing a very small amount (~20 cf) of supply air might be considered if ential ZEHL with structural insulated panels for the walls, roof and floor. ZENA equipped with above-grade SIPS ‘and belowsgrude insulated precast con- crete wall. The US. Deparimentof Energy Bulld- Ing Technologies Program's goal is t0 create technologies for low-cost net-zero ‘energy residences by 2020, the floor did not have the metal laminate to restrict moisture uptake into the loorassembly. A socond consideration would be to place a dehumidifier in the erawispace from Tunc~August Envelope ‘The cross section is shown in Figure 3. The house walls are 45 in thick SIPS wich 1 b* density expanded polystyrene ‘between 7/16 in, OSB, The wall pancls were fastened together using well-sealed surface splines. The 4/12 piteh cathedral ceiling consists of 8 in, thick full length 4 ft wide panels, from ridge-to-eave, connected with surface splines. Phe roof system R-value is 28 h-f®-°F/Bu at ‘7S°R* The windows are wood, vinyl-clad, double-hung with National Fenestration Rating Council (NFR) labeled Usfactor of 0.34 and solar heat gain coefficient of 0.36. Prior to selection ofthe opaque walls and roofs for ZEH, two 12 ft by 12 fe by 8 ft high test rooms were constructed ina laboratory. One room was constructed using 4.5 in. thick SIP walls with 10 embedded electrical boxes and connecting ‘wires, The second! room with identical inside loor space was constructed and tested in exactly the same manner. This room had 2 by 6 at 16 in. on centr frame walls with R-19 fiberglass batt insulation, a flat insulated roof with a layer of R-19, plus a second R-II layer perpendicular to the R19, the same wi ov, door, and electrical wiring system. Airtightess tests were ccanducted on both test rooms ‘The data for the SIP test room is shown in Figure 4 asthe bottom ine with the triangles“ A” pointing upward The frame test room is displayed as the lin in Figure 4 with the tiangles “¥ pointing downward, This data is consistent with tightest and the leakest of six nearly identical stick frame houses all built bythe same contractoras allt houses described in Tables * can x 04710 = Us fe x 0.0929 =H = 09088 =m Fn x B64 = rem (F<) + 18 = PX TO HOP EFI a 77% 3800 & x 0.909 x OSEE K = 1055,en So Ez Boies 7 Floor 3 ine ican iss" aaah vk Sure undaton an ou Semiiniscateis wins mcs ett ena Li . a ae 2 in Potyisocyanurate: -2in, Polysocyanurate ‘Steady State FVakve eo nem cing ivigeergas bai Rig rng ea set rage 651.905 182% sins eee’ snes fees ea “wor (m2) Suet Spine On Bottom Side of 9 in. On Bottom Side OF 9" in. Concrote Sa Tes oro ash. s0s 14073 Abm9PS2ve8 Gk, SPS 14ers _—_andPocrasin SS vote (eo nace ne qvissfSnrard pies, (nS) Sivenagiees, eoyeo,Ponens Been we ann owetiap vin "towetay. ite Srcrpmee wip wn, 03K gins 5A" hind Un HL windoms “faduestosnce Ruossence’ = “Maere ide’ Rae aae Siero ‘casa rans ‘i'sarans Satoa Pas Tro Door esi To Door Oe Sd wooo, One old —TwoDoos One slo Two Doo Ove Sold roamiena'iahvew wees Onchitvon space Gnefal Vw tetas Gr tlvew we Da we pont —«SESIEFS AH) AicFow Bom gain Syeaters sain. sravases—_,on.SPS. Po. Swcecomne” — Poewes sel) Ga Shcu mine wR Sect pees Parra 2 — 78h. Green Standing iS Green Stoning Light Gray Metal Roofing Micen Raised Gray Asphon 24 Gauge Stool Soar, (24 Gauge Stoel Seam, ‘Senulated Tie, Metal Seam ‘Shingles: (0.17 Patioctivity, 0.23 Retiectivty. 0.092 Atuminur ‘Table 1: Envelope features for ZEH1, ZEH2, ZEH3, ZEH4 and a base house. Tower I pave ose =e ze ow es ac how sor Aros Seon were gy MoaGpout “ Site AP sutnPibanes— —sucanoies PONS ost ‘Beemer ettip Zea Ens 8 ip Te Sped omprssr sawartear ister SRmANOArTE” —2TonOretcxtange — SIODATOAL veaing SEONG, nay zone © Seen tenceess = “dememanarae SEER fAnd Coeting TwoSpeed EC Seen? ‘CFiGooing 700, art poacizon _SPRBR Mote nm Fon Reisen sta nein nan tn Bed Sina Sips rete onan Mechanical Fresh Airto Return None ‘Side of Col, CO, ee oa a Pita oun Micatee! "Sueteaoar ‘Sens Ban zoo bol on tance imeem _| uct, nade Condoned cr gpace tite candoned iit congtoned "tne Condored econ ‘Son Soe ‘Sra Soa Honma snore rH fougoteryns Deana Fo it yor Semen come umes Seaham Haan ren Craw HasMetored Damper Factor (EF) 094 renee A Table 2: Mechanical features for ZEHI, ZEH2, ZEH3, ZEHA and a base house. 1 and 2. The tightest and leakiest frame house lines are shown in Figure 4 with +" and “%" symbols. ‘This confirms that the frame test room represcnis wood-framie field conditions, At 50 Pa of pressure across the envelope the SIP test room had an air leakage of 0.078 ft" of flor area ‘The 2 by 6 test room had an air leakage value of 1.06 f/? of | floor area. The 2 by 6 frame test room was 14 times leakier than ‘the SIP structure. These airtightness measurements encouraged the selection ofa SIP envelope for ZEHI. ‘A blower door analysis was run on ZEH1 prior to installation ‘ofthe drywall, after the house was ready to be moved into and ‘sP 000882 + 0.0009 = MPM cM x OTTO = 0.0829 = sine six months after occupancy. The line with the “o” shows the ZEHI whole house leakage prior to drywall, The ZEHI leakage per unit of floor area measured out at 0.15 efim/A™ at 50 Pa, ‘This can be compared to the wood frame base house of 0.87. The ‘base wood frame house was six times leakier than ZEHI. Domestic Water Heating (DHW) ‘ZEH is equipped with a domestic HPWH. The warmer the air source, the better the HPWH's thermal performance. Also, to take advantage of the space. cooling and dehumidification available from the HPWH, the unitis connected tothe airspace ‘behind the refrigerator. When the house thermostat is set for— Bisting Structure ~ Figure Te, IPS flor construction. coating, motorized dampers allow the HPWH fans to pul air from behind the refrigerator into the evaporator coil of the HPWH. This airstream is cooled, dehumidified and direeted back into the conditioned space When the thermostat isin the “ofl” or “heating mode” the ducts connecting the HPWH to the kitchen are closed and other ducts are opened to pullin earth tempered crawlspace ait and rejeet unneeded cold air g ae aaa i lovee ou, Bee erat = } + Crawispace Humidity Ratio | soars ne : | Fame i iovlnleetaeatven Fenian ROO In ZEH2, the HPWH COP was measured closer to 2.0. This ‘would save 337 kWhiyear ($0.06/day [S0.063/kWh)), ZEH2 has a second generation hook up that consists of the reltigera- torand the HPWH located adjacent to the outside wall and has, all hard ducts, and short runs to and from the unit to minimize static pressure, The COPs in this unit from March 2004 until September 2004 averaged almost 2.0. Thermal Comfort ‘The conditioned space average hourly temperature and rela- tive humidity for one year are shown in Figure 5. The thermo- slat temperature on average is outside, Since the crawispace is unvented, it will go under a slight negative pressure when the HPWH is operat during non-cooling periods. The crawlspace access is not weather stripped and this crack allows makeup air into the erawlspace. The crawl space remains above 50°F the entire winter. The water heating usage ‘measurements show the accu- pants used 72% of the DAW kept around 75°F. No setback ‘or setup schedules wore pro- ‘grammed in this house. The ‘occasional spikes in RH are due to window openings and 24/7 mechanical ventilation, The homeowners generally were not home during the summer weekday time pe- riods, Even though the RH ‘would tend to drift above 60% fon some hot summer days the owners had no thermal comfort complaints. Because PeinatrDrsn for showers and baths. The average daily usage was 40 gallon‘day.' The measured daily HPWH energy consumption is 3.8 kWh. The average HPWH COP was 1.62. With lower, hot water usage, the standby losses are a higher percentage of ‘energy usage resulting in lower COPS. [Because the HIPWII and refrigerator were located on inside walls of the kitchen, long duct runs were required fo vent 10 the outside and into the kitchen. The installed flex duets gener ated excessive static pressure, restricting air movement away from the HPWH. The optimized coupling with refrigerator, cravlspace, space cooling and dehumidifieation was not at- tained in ZEH1 Figure 3: Cross secon of ZEHT. " palon 27854 = of the airtight envelope, well- shaded low solar heat gain ‘windows, and continuous mechanical ventilation the ther- ‘mostat would occasionally not call for sensible cooling until afier the RH rose above what would be considered acceptable {in some situations, Later designs of the ITVAC systems in ZEH2, ZEH3 and ZEH4 all tried to address this potentially ‘unacceptable high relative humidity levels during the summer cooling period. ‘Total Electric Energy Usage and Cost ‘The ZEHI all-electric house, from March 1, 2003, until Feb, 29, 2004, used 10,216 kWh, as shown by Table 3. The heat pump and ventilation fan power required 2,759 kWh ot 27% of thesages | 8 =a Table 3: Energy breakdown and cost. total energy. The HPWH used 1,549 or 15% of the total. The rest ofthe energy loads in the building required 5907 kWh or ‘58% of the total, Prior to construction, the Home Energy Rating System (TERS) rating was calculated to be 90.2, which converts {© 50% better than the International Energy Conservation Code (IEC). The elvetrie rates in this area during the monitoring period were $0.63/kWh. This house sells green power to the clvetrie utility. The utility pays the homeowner $0.15/kWh for Watts and Ceting Unit Floor Area (efit) all the solar power produced by the 2kWp PV system for 10 _years, During this one year monitoring period, the solar system, ‘generated 2006 kWh and a solar credit of $300, The net energy cost tothe homeowner is $343/ycar, or $0.94/day. In the winter 0f 2002-03, the homeowners used a bit less energy than the ‘winter of 2003. 04, during this annual period starting from November 2002 the cost would have been $0,82/day. Figure 6 shows ZEH1 used 40% less total energy than the Panel Walls and Ceiling ‘iP 28 House ‘Test Rooms In Large-Scale Climate Simulator vy Bite Hous ‘ent 3. 2000 orem wine Framed oose4 3 Forces » oat 46 2002 oorare —— Ksiucura! Boosie pe ‘Stok Bul House ++ Agniao, 2008 ——o 67 9 ee Insists Figure 4: Airtighiness of SIP structures compared to tick,i 20 Feb. 4, 2009, 12:18 sm. to Feb. 8, 2008, 2:50 a. Figure 8: Interior temperature and RH for complete year base house. The local electri utility certified the base house as a HERS 84 frame home (already 20% better than IECC). Energy Use Table 3 shows monthly measured electric energy usage for ZEHI. The columns labeled “space heat,” “space cool ‘water” and “other” equal the values shown in “total electric: ‘The annual energy cost for space heating totals about $100, space cooling $74, domestic hot water $98, the “Other” equates ‘to $372. The total cost is ealeulated by subtracting the solar credit at $0.15/kWh or $301 from the total used, $644/year, Table 3 shows the 2kWp “Whim Figure 6: Monthly energy bills from base house shove @ 40% high= ‘er annual energy cost than ZEHI, from Nov. 2003 t9 Dee. 2004 the power to help meet peak period cooling demands. The PY system on this house on average reduced summer peak loads by 40% in the three summer months. Construction Cost ‘These houses were all constructed by the Habitat for Human= ity Loudon County Afliliat. Most of the construction was done ‘with volunteer labor, Subcontractors were hired for plumbing, HIVAC, foundation installation and site work, concrete pave= ‘ment, and drywall installation. Volunteer hours were kept track of by a sign in/out book, The PY system monthly genera- BaseHowe Zeb zea ZEW} value assigned per volunteer tion in the column “solar ac | House. $59,295 $7894. 983,953, —— hour was $5.50. The Habitat generated.” The total solar [244° giasco—siaaco —siaso0 —s1aso0 | for Humanity affiliate’ indi- annual generation was 20% | Gearggue go sea signee” siggon | cated that this rate represents of the total energy used. The [Toca ——e7aves eitemes Brisess zzz] local markct value last column shows the Solar T2574: Cansration ent of ZEIT houses and Bae Bose Table 4 showsa spreadsheet power generated on-site but atthe time was not needed in the house and, therefore, sent to the grid, The estimated first cost ofthe ZEIT solar system was $22,388, as shown in Table 3. The total installed solar system cost with the same capacity installed in ZEH2 and ZEH3 was $16,000, The installed cost in ZEH was under $15,000 and hhad 10% more capacity. Solar system first cost will have to continue to drep and photovoltaic utility incentives continue to rise, The buyback incentives could be going up to $0.20 kWh, and at market costs for this size solar system in late 2004 of ‘around $13,700, the simple solar payback for this location and, current residential electrie rates is around 30 years, The total ‘cost to build these three experimental houses is shown in Table 4 along withthe base house, About 40% of the solar power generation was not coincident With the house enengy demand. This solar power for the most part is available during hot summer afternoon hours when utility electrie grids values not only the reduction in load but forconstruetion cost of 2EH1, ZEN2, ZETI3 and the base house. The good news is that these near ZEHs cost only $100,000, Because of the research aspects ‘ofthese test houses, the costs are higher than production units. Produetion units will result in lower material and installation cost reductions. Additional utility incentives are anticipated for future PV systems. It is hoped that this research will also result, in incentives for solar water heating and geothermal systems, which could be converted to green labeled energy and made a part ofthe local utility green power program, Lessons Learned Table 3 shows that more than 75% af the heating energy for ‘an ait-lo-airheat pump is consumed in the three coldest months, December, January, and February. ZEN? and ZEH3 research houses used better envelopes, and better heat purnps. ZEH3 used adirect exchange geothermal system for January and February 2004 demanded 19% less total house energy and proxluced 12%‘more solar power than ZEHI. The orientation of this house is a bitbetter and has a 6/12 pitched roof compared to ZEHI's 4/12, By the end of September 2004 and nine months of measured, performance the solar system on ZEH3 had generated the same ‘amount of AC solar as that on ZEHI. The biggest energy sav- ings in ZEH3 is believed to come from the geothermal heat exchanger, drawing heat from the surrounding earth, which stayed above 50°F in the winter and below 73°F in the summer, compared to the much colder night time winter ambient air, and higher ambient PM cooling periods. The additional features of this second generation of near ZEH are listed in Table J and 2. The local electric utility auditors rated ZEH3 with a HERS = 93.9. Of course, the DOE 2020 affordability cost goal has not, ‘been met in these frst prototypes. Conclusions ‘ZEHI had a rated HERS of 90, Itused about 40% less energy than the base house with electric utility certified performance of HERS 84, The total cost to build ZEHI including the mar- kket value forall the donated time and materials came to about $100,000. The total energy costs are under $1/day. The annual heating cost of ZEHI using the local electricity rate of $0.063/ kWh, was under $100, cooling under $75, and domestic hot water under $100. ‘The solar PV system generated about 2,000 kWh over the first full year. This amounted to 20% of total energy load and 74% of HVAC load. The lowest average total energy cost less the solar credits came to $0.82/day. This was the first local electric ‘generation utility's Green Power Switch Generation Partner. With the electric utility green power offering $0.15/kWh and the energy saving features this house experienced an annual, ‘energy cost savings of 65%. ZEHS had been occupied for only nine months and with normalized occupancy the daily average ‘energy cost is extrapolated for a full year to be $0.68%/day for ZEH3. The use of geothermal heat pump in the winter was making a substantial step closer to net-zero. However, it did ‘add first cost, Ongoing research and development is leading to lower first cost reductions in the envelope, HPWH and geo- ‘thermal heat pump. References 1. DOE Building Technologies goal for zeo energy buildings can be found at wwweere.enerpy.gov/buildings/program_areas/zeroen- ergy 2. Christan, LE.,D. Beal, P Kerrigan. 2004. “Toward simple afford- able zero energy houses, performance of exterior envelopes of whole buildings” IX international Conference Proceedings CD.@