3 Matching Results

Search Results

Advanced search parameters have been applied.

The Oak Ridge Heat Pump Design Model: Mark III Version Program Documentation

Description: Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is a leader in the development of analytical tools for the design of electrically driven, air-to-air heat pumps. Foremost among these tools is the ORNL Heat Pump Design Model, which can be used to predict the steady-state heating and cooling performance of an electrically driven, air-source heat pump. The ORNL Heat Pump Design Model has continued to evolve since the users' manual for the program, ORNL/CON-80/R1, was last revised in August 1983. This series of modifications to the heat pump model resulted in the Mark III Version, which is three to five times faster, easier to use, and more versatile than earlier versions and can be executed on a personal computer. The major changes made to earlier versions of the heat pump model relate to the organization of the input data, elimination of redundant calculations in the compressor and refrigerant property computations, improvement of thermostatic expansion valve and capillary tube correlations, revision of output format, and modifications to enable the model to run on a personal computer. The Mark III Version of the ORNL Heat Pump Design Model is a comprehensive, easy-to-use program for the simulation of an electrically driven, air-source heat pump.
Date: January 1, 1988
Creator: Fischer, S.K.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Field Test Evaluation of Conservation Retrofits of Low-Income, Single-Family Buildings: Combined Building Shell and Heating System Retrofit Audit

Description: Revised DOE regulations allow greater flexibility in conducting DOE-funded low-income weatherization programs. Certain retrofits to heating and cooling systems for these houses are now permitted, as well as the traditional insulation and infiltration control measures. Also, different amounts of money may be spent on different houses, as long as the average expenditure per house does not exceed $1600. The expanded list of retrofit options provides an opportunity for increased energy savings, but it also complicates the process of selecting the combination of retrofits, house-by-house, that will yield maximum savings for the weatherization program. DOE asked ORNL to devise a procedure for selecting an optimum combination of building shell and heating system retrofits for single-family dwellings. To determine the best retrofits for each house that would maximize program savings, ORNL staff members developed an approach that used information from a preretrofit energy audit of candidate houses. Audit results are used to estimate annual energy savings for various retrofits for each house. Life-cycle benefits (B) are calculated, as are the estimated installation costs (C) for given retrofits in given houses. The benefit-to-cost ratios (B/Cs) are then ranked for all possible retrofits to all candidate houses, and the top-ranking B/C retrofits are selected for installation. This process maximizes program savings, and it is adaptable to varied housing types in different climates. The Audit-Directed Retrofit Program (ADRP) was field tested in a low-income housing retrofit program in Wisconsin during the winter of 1985-86. Results of the field test are reported in a companion document. This report describes the ADRP for the benefit of potential users.
Date: January 1, 1987
Creator: McCold, L.N.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Field Test Evaluation of Conservation Retrofits of Low-Income, Single-Family Buildings in Wisconsin: Audit Field Test Implementation and Results

Description: This report describes the field test of a retrofit audit. The field test was performed during the winter of 1985-86 in four South Central Wisconsin counties. The purpose of the field test was to measure the energy savings and cost effectiveness of the audit-directed retrofit program for optimizing the programs benefit-to-cost ratio. The audit-directed retrofit program is described briefly in this report and in more detail by another report in this series (ORNL/CON-228/P3). The purpose of this report is to describe the methods and results of the field test. Average energy savings of the 20 retrofitted houses are likely (0.90 probability) to lie between 152 and 262 therms/year/house. The most likely value of the average savings is 207 therms/year/house. These savings are significantly (p < .05) smaller than the audit-predicted savings (286 therms/year/house). Measured savings of individual houses were significantly different than predicted savings for half of the houses. Each house received at least one retrofit. Thirteen of the 20 retrofitted houses received a new condensing furnace or blown-in wall insulation; all but two of the houses received one or more minor retrofits. The seven houses which received condensing furnaces saved, on average, about as much as predicted, but three of the seven houses had significantly more or less savings than predicted. The six houses which received wall insulation saved, on average, about half as much as predicted. The remaining houses which received only minor retrofits saved, on average, less than predicted, but the difference was not significant. Actual retrofit costs were close to expected costs. Overall measured energy savings averaged 15 therms/year per hundred retrofit dollars invested. Houses which received wall insulation or a condensing furnace did slightly better, and the houses which received only minor retrofits did poorly. When estimated program costs were included, average savings dropped to ...
Date: January 1, 1988
Creator: McCold, L.N.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department