Field Test Evaluation of Conservation Retrofits of Low-Income, Single-Family Buildings in Wisconsin: Audit Field Test Implementation and Results Page: 23 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:
continued safe operation. It was thought that servicing unretrofitted heating
systems was necessary in order to avoid any potential liability problems as a
result of the heating system's being inspected and manipulated during the audit.
Heating systems that were retrofitted or replaced received equivalent servicing
as a part of the retrofit.
The retrofit selection procedure was applied to the 35 houses to be
retrofitted under the ADRP in two phases. Retrofits for a first group of 25
houses were selected on January 14, 1986, and those for the remaining 10 houses
were selected on February 6, 1986.
The retrofit selection procedure was modified slightly for the field test
to account for an unexpected problem: straight use of the selection procedure
would have required use of retrofits with very low B/Cs (less than 0.7) in order
to spend an average of $1200/house. The problem can be seen either as the
result of trying to spend too much per house or auditing for too few cost-
effective retrofits. Two solutions were identified: (1) spend less per house on
the average, or (2) modify the selection procedure. It was decided to modify
the selection procedure so as to spend $1200/house on retrofits while
maintaining the highest possible B/C.
In many of the houses the heating system retrofits had approximately equal
B/Cs (e.g., 1.15, 1.20, and 1.25). Performing any one heating system retrofit
generally precludes doing another heating system retrofit. In most cases, a
relatively inexpensive retrofit, such as an IID, was the heating system retrofit
with the highest B/C. Selecting these inexpensive retrofits precluded heating
system retrofits with slightly lower B/Cs; thus, shell retrofits with much lower
B/Cs would need to be selected to spend the $1200/house.
It was found that selecting an expensive retrofit like a new condensing
furnace with an acceptable B/C (e.g., 1.0) was better than choosing an
inexpensive retrofit like an IID with a better B/C (e.g., 1.3) because shell
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/m1/23/: accessed February 18, 2019), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.