Design and Evaluation of Energy Efficient Modular Classroom Structures
| dc.contributor.author | Bernhard, Sarah | |
| dc.contributor.author | Brown, G. Z. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Briscoe, John | |
| dc.contributor.author | Kline, Jeff | |
| dc.contributor.author | Kumar, Pawan | |
| dc.contributor.author | Wang, Zhunqin | |
| dc.contributor.author | Rasmussen, Donald | |
| dc.contributor.author | Rasmussen, Kenneth | |
| dc.contributor.author | Stanard, James | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2011-09-21T00:15:12Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2011-09-21T00:15:12Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 1996 | |
| dc.description | 6 pages | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract | 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. | en_US |
| dc.format | Article | |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/1794/11563 | |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Center for Housing Innovation, University of Oregon | en_US |
| dc.subject | Modular construction | |
| dc.subject | Classrooms | |
| dc.title | Design and Evaluation of Energy Efficient Modular Classroom Structures | en_US |
| dc.type | Article | en_US |