Field Test Evaluation of Conservation Retrofits of Low-Income, Single-Family Buildings in Wisconsin: Audit Field Test Implementation and Results Page: 21 of 84
This report is part of the collection entitled: Office of Scientific & Technical Information Technical Reports and was provided to Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
This audit, as field tested, takes into consideration six possible heating
system retrofits and seven possible building shell retrofits. The heating
system retrofits are (1) intermittent ignition devices (IIDs), (2) electro-
mechanical full-closure vent dampers (requiring use of an IID), (3) thermally
activated vent dampers, (4) secondary condensing heat exchangers, (5) gas power
burners, and (6) furnace replacements.
The building shell retrofits are (1) ceiling insulation, (2) wall insula-
tion (blow-in), (3) storm windows, (4) storm doors, (5) sill box insulation,
(6) exterior basement wall insulation (R-10), and (7) floor insulation. An
eighth shell retrofit, blower-door-guided infiltration reduction, was included
for the field test. Reference 1 and another report in this series
(ORNL/CON-228/P5) give additional details on the blower door procedure.
As Fig. 2.1 shows, the costs of materials and labor involved in each
retrofit need to be estimated. A benefit-to-cost ratio (B/C) is calculated for
each retrofit from estimated costs and from savings estimated usingaudit
calculations. A B/C enables retrofits to be ranked according to their cost
effectiveness. A B/C greater than 1.0 indicates that the retrofit saves more
money (through energy savings) than it costs during its useful life.
Conversely, a B/C less than 1.0 will not save as much money as the retrofit
After retrofits have been ranked by B/C, the interactions among retrofits
are considered. Retrofit interactions become important when both heating-
system and building-shell retrofits are used, as in this audit. Interactions
occur when two retrofits work to save the same energy. For instance, ceiling
insulation saves energy by reducing the amount of heat needed to keep a house
warm, while improving the efficiency of a furnace reduces the amount of fuel
needed to deliver the required heat. The interaction between the retrofits
causes the energy saved by the combination of retrofits to be less than the sum
of the savings each would achieve alone. The method used to account for
retrofit interactions is described in Ref. 2. The audit, as field tested,
accounted for retrofit interactions.
Here’s what’s next.
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
McCold, L.N. Field Test Evaluation of Conservation Retrofits of Low-Income, Single-Family Buildings in Wisconsin: Audit Field Test Implementation and Results, report, January 1, 1988; United States. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc740901/m1/21/: accessed February 20, 2019), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.