IHBE Faculty Research

Permanent URI for this collection

https://hdl.handle.net/1794/10456

Browse

Browsing IHBE Faculty Research by Author "Briscoe, John"

Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Design and Evaluation of Energy Efficient Modular Classroom Structures
    (Center for Housing Innovation, University of Oregon, 1996) Bernhard, Sarah; Brown, G. Z.; Briscoe, John; Kline, Jeff; Kumar, Pawan; Wang, Zhunqin; Rasmussen, Donald; Rasmussen, Kenneth; Stanard, James
    The objective of our investigations was to develop innovations that would enable modular builders to improve the energy performance of their classrooms without increasing their first cost. The Modem Building Systems' classroom building conforms to the stringent Oregon and Washington energy codes, and at $18/S.F. (FOB the factory) it is at the low end of the cost range for modular classrooms. Therefore the objective we set for ourselves was challenging. We proposed to investigate daylighting, crossventilation, solar preheat of ventilation air, and thermal storage as ways to reduce energy use. Simple paybacks range from 1.3 years in Honolulu to 23.8 years in Astoria, OR. Therefore in the five climates we investigated in Phase I we came closest to achieving our objective of increasing energy performance without increasing the first cost of the unit in the Honolulu climate. We were able to do this in Honolulu because a preheater was not required, and we were able to save money by eliminating the economizer unit, using cross-ventilation, and reducing insulation in the envelope. Our second best performing climate was Fairbanks with a simple payback of 7.7 years. In this case we were able to eliminate the heat pump and economizer by using crossventilation, thereby reducing cost. Our third best performing climate was Bakersfield, California, which had a simple payback of 10.3 years. Spokane had a simple payback period of 17.2 years. The major cost increases in Spokane are in the preheater and lights, with a modest increase in windows. Astoria had the worst payback period of almost 24 years with most of the increased cost being in the preheater, windows, and lighting. The savings from the preheater are modest. In Phase II of this project, by combining the strategies of improved electrical light-switching, perimeter insulation, shading, window sizing, preheater configuration and location and HV AC locations, we expect to reduce simple payback periods to 0 years in Honolulu, Hawaii; less than 2 years in Bakersfield, California; 3 years in Astoria, Oregon; 4 years in Fairbanks, Alaska; and 8 years in Spokane, Washington.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Design and Evaluation of Energy-Efficient Modular Classroom Structures, Phase II
    (Center for Housing Innovation, University of Oregon, 1997) Brown, G. Z.; Bjornson, Dana; Briscoe, John; Fremouw, Sean; Kline, Jeff; Kumar, Pawan; Larocque, Paul; Northcutt, Dale; Wang, Zhunqin
    We are developing innovations to enable modular builders to improve the energy performance of their classrooms with a minimum increase in first cost. The Modern Building Systems' (MBS) classroom building conforms to the stringent Oregon and Washington energy codes, and at $18/S.F. (FOB the factory) it is at the low end of the cost range for modular classrooms. We are investigating daylighting, cross-ventilation, solar preheat of ventilation air, electric lighting controls, and down-sizing HV AC systems. The work described in this paper is from the second phase of the project. In the first phase we redesigned the basic modular classroom to include energy efficiency features tailored to five distinct climates. Energy savings ranged from 6% to 49% with an average of 23%. Paybacks ranged from 1.3 yrs to 23.8 yrs, an average of 12.1. The initial work in Phase II (which added two more climates) has been to refine the designs for each of the seven climates and reduce payback periods. In Phase II the number of baseline buildings was expanded by simulating buildings that would be typical of those produced by MBS for each of the seven locations/climates. A number of parametric simulations were performed for each energy strategy. Additionally we refined our previous algorithm for a solar ventilation air wall preheater and developed an algorithm for a roof preheater configuration. These algorithms were coded as functions in DOE 2. lE. We were aiming for occupant comfort as well as energy savings. We performed computer analyses to verify adequate illumination on vertical surfaces and acceptable glare levels when using daylighting. We also used computational fluid dynamics software to determine air distribution from crossventilation and used the resulting interior wind speeds to calculate occupant comfort and allowable outside air temperatures for cross-ventilation. To choose the final mix of energy strategies, we developed a method to compare incremental costs versus energy savings for all strategies at once. The results of parametric energy simulations were graphed against detailed cost information. This allowed us not only to easily see which broad strategies were most cost effective but also to choose the best configurations of the strategy. Final results were obtained by simulating the strategies chosen from the cost/energy graphs. In some cases adjustments were made in the chosen strategies since the final performance is not readily predictable from parametrics of many systems.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    On-Grade Insulated Panel Floor System Preliminary Report
    (Center for Housing Innovation, University of Oregon, 1995-07) Aires, Kevin; Berg, Rudy; Briscoe, John; Brown, G. Z.; Kline, Jeffrey; Larocque, Paul; Wang, Zhunqin
    During 1993-94 the Energy Studies in Buildings Laboratory designed and subsequently performed energy testing and monitoring on a stressed skin insulated core (SSIC) panel Demonstration House built in Springfield, Oregon. One outcome of that project was an idea for an on-grade insulated panel floor system. This report describes a preliminary examination of that idea, and a proposal for its evaluation.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    On-Grade Panel Floor System Report #2
    (Center for Housing Innovation, University of Oregon, 1997-09) Bjornson, Dana; Briscoe, John; Brown, G. Z.; Dorsett, Eric; Kline, Jeff; Powell, Josh; Schneider, Marshall; Sloot, Marc; Wang, Zhunqin
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    SSIC Panel Demonstration House: Phase I - First Design & Phase II - Second Design
    (Center for Housing Innovation, University of Oregon, 1994-12) Berg, Rudy; Briscoe, John; Brown, G. Z.; Elliot, Mike; Gay, Patrick; Kellett, Ronald; Mitchell, Bret; Pierce, Sam; Rapp, Richard; Wilson, Richa
    The Demonstration House project seeks to show that a house built of Stressed Skin Insulating Core (SSIC) panel construction can provide equal energy performance, yet cost $2000 less than an "architecturally equivalent" conventionally framed Reference House which meets stringent Long Term Super Good Cents energy standards (a glossary of terms and phrases is given in Section 8.0; details of the Bonneville Power Administration Super Good Cents Program are given in Appendix 9.1). This report summarizes the first two phases of design work toward the construction of an SSIC panel Demonstration House, as part of the Energy Efficient Industrialized Housing research project funded by the U.S. Department of Energy. Phase I includes the research work through May, 1992 to design and evaluate a prototype house to meet project goals; Phase II continues that work (another cycle of design and evaluation) through April, 1993. The final stage of design and evaluation prior to construction -Phase III -is described in a subsequent report.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Stressed Skin Insulating Core Panel Demonstration House Phase III - Design Development and Construction
    (Center for Housing Innovation, University of Oregon, 1995-11) Berg, Rudy; Briscoe, John; Brown, G. Z.; Elliot, Mike; Gay, Patrick; Mitchell, Bret; Pearse, Richard; Pierce, Sam; Skilton, David; Wilson, Richa
    The Stressed Skin Insulating Core Panel Demonstration House project seeks to show that a house built of Stressed Skin Insulated Core (SSIC) panel construction can provide equal energy performance, yet cost $2000 less than an "architecturally equivalent" conventionally framed Reference House which meets stringent Long Term Super Good Cents energy standards ( a glossary of terms and phrases is given in Section 7.0; details of the Bonneville Power Administration Super Good Cents Program are given in Appendix 8.1). This report describes the completion of the design phase, and the entirety of the construction phase, of the Stressed Skin Insulating Core Panel Demonstration House project. Design work prior to May 1993 is described in another ESBL report, SSIC Panel Demonstration House, Phase I - First Design; Phase II - Second Design. Energy and structural tests of the completed house are described in subsequent reports.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Stressed Skin Insulating Core Panel House - Design, Construction and Evaluation
    (Center for Housing Innovation, University of Oregon, 1994-06) Baxley, Christian; Berg, Rudy; Briscoe, John; Brown, G. Z.; Kellett, Ronald; Kline, Jeff; Kumar, Pawan; Lei, T. K.; Sekiguchi, Tomoko
    This paper describes three projects related to stressed skin insulating core (SSIC) panel construction: the energy and cost estimating software - SIP Scheming, the Stressed Skin Insulating Core Panel Demonstration House design and construction, and the Experimental University Housing testing.