BSC720 ASSIGNMENT 1B
REPORT
December 4, 2019
Abstract
This is the follow up of the first report on energy performance analysis of the house in
Lewis M Kim
Mingu.kim@ryerson.ca
Lewis M Kim1
Table of Contents
Introduction
-
Project Background………………………………………...….…...………..……..3
House Specification………………………………………...….……………..…….3
Objective of Study…………………………………………...….………….……….6
Base Building Information……………………………….……………….…...……6
Methodology
-
Software/Simulation……………………………………………...…………...…….6
Retrofit
1. Option 1 ……………………………………………………………...………8
2. Option 2………………………………………………………………..……14
Research
-
Programming……………………………………………………………………….18
Energy Target………………………………………………………..….…………19
Wall Assembly……………………………………………..…….…..….…………19
Roof Assembly……………………………………………………….…..………..22
Basement……………………………………………………………..….…………24
Window……………………………………………………………….….…………24
HVAC……………………………………………………………………..……...…26
HRV……………………………………………………..…………….….…………27
Plumbing Fixtures……………………………………………...….………………28
Photovoltaic/Solar Panels……………………………………………….……….29
Post-Retrofit Energy Performance Analysis…………………………………….…….……32
Discussion……………………………………………………………………………………..33
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………..………...34
Reference………………………………………………………………………..…………….36
Appendix
-
Pre-Retrofit Ground Plan…………………………………………………………38
Pre-Retrofit Second Floor Plan………………………………………….……….39
Pre-Retrofit Basement plan……………………...……………………….………40
Pre-Retrofit Elevation……………………………………………………………...41
Post-Retrofit South-North Elevation……………………………………………..42
Post-Retrofit East-West Elevation………………………...……………………..43
Post-Retrofit Sections……………………………………………………………..44
Post-Retrofit Basement……………………………………………………………45
Post-Retrofit Ground Floor………………………………………………………..46
Post-Retrofit Second Floor……………………………..…………………………47
1|Page
Lewis M Kim2
-
Post-Retrofit Foundation Detail…………………………………………………..48
Post-Retrofit Roof & Wall Detail……………………………………………….…49
HOT2000 Simulation………………………………………………………………50
o Building Pre-Retrofit (2017-2018)
o Building Pre-Retrofit (2018-2019)
o Building Post-Retrofit Option 1
 SB-12
 Improvement
o Building Post-Retrofit Option 2
 SB-12
 Improvement
o Building Post-Retrofit Option 3
 Simulation 1
 Simulation 2
 Final Report
2|Page
Lewis M Kim3
Lewis M Kim
BSC 720 Building Science Studio II
Prof. Hitesh Doshi
December 4, 2019
Assignment 1B Report
Introduction
Project Background
This is the second half of the assignment of BSC 720 Building Science Studio. This
course focused on how one could improve energy performance of a building.
Previously, the observer was required to analyse an existing single-family house. After
the analysis, the observer was given three choices to improve the energy performance
of the building. The first option was to only change the exterior wall assemblies and was
allowed to change the layout of program of the house. The second option was to keep
the foundation of the building, and change the whole building. For this project, it was
required the house to satisfy the SB-12 for minimum. The last option was to wrack the
house and start from the beginning. For this report, observer will explore how and why
he has chosen option 3, and how he managed to set and reach his energy consumption
target.
House Specification
Before any changes were made, the building was two-storey building with a floor area of
270 m2 and a basement of 113 m2. The domestic hot water heater of the house was
broken back in the spring of 2019, and had to be replaced. When the tank was to be
replaced, the home owner replaced other mechanical systems instead. This resulted in
decrease in energy consumption compared to the previous year. The plumbing fixtures
of the house is believed to be a standard-flow fixture with a flow rate of 2.5gpm/3.8Lpm.
From simulation of HOT2000 software, it was calculated that daily water consumption
was 192L/person/day. This was before the replacements of mechanical system as the
reading on water consumption at the time of failure of the water tank was miscalculated,
thus making it not reliable source. When the house was compared to various
benchmarks, such as SB-12, R-2000, and EnergyStar, the house was underperforming
in building envelope, mechanical system, and energy and water consumption.
3|Page
Lewis M Kim4
Figure 1: 2016 SB-12 AFUE greater than 92%
4|Page
Lewis M Kim5
Figure 2: Energy Star Standards for New Homes Ontario Requirements
The house after the replacement of the mechanical system at the spring of 2019, the
house did manage to meet some requirements of the benchmarks, but it was still using
too much energy for a single-family house.
5|Page
Lewis M Kim6
Objective of Study
The objective of this report is for the observer document the process of research and
planning to renovate the building to improve the overall energy performance. The
researcher was required not only to set the energy target and R-values of building
envelopes, but also examine different materials for the envelope and find nominal and
effective R-values for the building. After researching about materials, then the observer
was required to design a wall assembly that would meet the targets Observer has set.
Through this project, the observer was expected to be an expert in wall assemblies and
R-values to meet specific targets. In this case, the observer set the target to Passive
House. Through this study, the observer was to become an expert at Passive House
and know how to build building envelope with specific materials in specific wall
assemblies. He was also required to research on various mechanical systems and
plumbing fixtures to improve the energy performance.
Post-retrofit Building Description
After choosing option 3, the observer arranged the building shape and program in a way
he saw fit for the site. The house will be serving as multigenerational cohousing. The
house is two storeys tall with a basement. The ground floor would serve as the housing
unit for the owner. It would include one master bedroom, living room, dining room,
washroom, and garage. The second floor would be housing the younger family
members, but could also house another family if the floor is free of the occupants.
Finally, the basement would be the cohousing unit with one master bedroom and two
small rooms, washrooms, kitchen, dining room, and living space.
Methodology
Software/Simulation
In order to choose the right choice of improving the house, the observer used the
HOT2000 modeling software to examine the impacts on energy consumption by all
three choices of improvements on the house. In order to calculate the Total Energy Use
Intensity of the building, the total use of natural gas was converted to kWh from cubic
meter by multiplying by 10.28. It was then added with the total use of electricity in kWh.
It was then divided by the floor area to convert the unit to kWh/m2/yr.
The evaluation of the existing house is as follows; TEUI of 140 kWh/m2/yr, 100.77
kWh/m2/yr as TEDI, and an estimated Green House Gas emission of 10.972 kWh. This
was after the replacements of mechanical systems after failure of domestic hot water
heater tank. The previous house was evaluated as following; TEUI OF 189.515
kWh/m2/yr, TEDI of 127.327 kWh/m2/yr.
6|Page
Lewis M Kim7
Figure 3: Pre-Retrofit (2017-2018)
TEUI
3852.98m3/yr X 10.28 = 39608.634 kWh/yr
39608.634 kWh/yr + 11560.50 kWh = 51169.134 kWh/yr
51169.1344 kWh/yr/270m2 = 189.515 kWh/m2/yr
TEDI
34378.25 kWh/yr/250m2 = 127.327 kWh
Figure 4: Pre-Retrofit (2018-2019)
TEUI
7|Page
Lewis M Kim8
2588.90m3/yr X 10.28 = 26613.892 kWh/yr
26613.892 kWh/yr + 11280.67 kWh/yr = 37894.562 kWh/yr
37894.562 kWh/yr/270m2 = 140.350 kWh/m2/yr
TEDI
22281.62 kWh/yr/270m2 = 82.525 kWh/m2/yr
After realizing that the house was not performing satisfyingly, the building envelope was
analysed. Through the instructor, the observer was able to find the R-values of the
building envelope. After the analysis, the building envelope was compared to various
benchmarks; SB-12, R-2000, and EnergyStar.
After the comparison, it was concluded that the building did not meet any requirements
from the benchmarks. It was obvious by this point the house had to be renovated in
some way to improve the overall energy performance.
Option 1
The first option that only changes the wall assemblies and the program layout seemed
to have little impact on energy consumption. In this case, all the building envelope
components would be upgraded so that they would satisfy SB-12 at least.
As the building only housed two adult occupants, the observer found the house too big
for just two people. Thus, he has rearranged the programs of the house where the
ground floor had a master bedroom, and the extra room on the second floor was
changed to co-housing unit.
8|Page
Lewis M Kim9
Figure 5: Building Retrofit Option 1 Plan
After improving the building envelope to SB-12 level, the observer ran the HOT2000
simulation to see how it has improved the energy performance. The house after the
renovation did indeed have the performance improved to TEUI of 141.39 kWh/m2/yr
and TEDI of 100 kWh/m2/yr. The change was minimal compared to the reduction in
energy consumption through the replacements of mechanical systems.
9|Page
Lewis M Kim10
Figure 6: Building Retrofit Option 1 HOT2000 Simulation
TEUI
2592.44 m3/yr X 10.28 = 26650.283 kWh
26650.283 kWh/yr + 11525.22 kWh = 38175.503 kWh
38175.503 kWh/270m2 = 141.39 kWh/m2/yr
TEDI
21314.90 kWh/270m2 = 78.94 kWh/m2
10 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim11
Energy Performance Comparision
200
180
160
140
kWh
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
TEUI
TEDI
TEUI & TEDI
2017-2018
2018-2019
Option 1
Figure 7: Option 1 Energy Performance Comparison
As shown in the chart above, the Option 1 did not have any sufficient change compared
to the energy consumption between 2018 and 2019. Thus, this meant that the improving
the house to SB-12 level was just a waste of resources.
After realizing that just meeting the SB-12 requirements would not improve as much as
the mechanical system replacements, the observer improved the building envelope
surpassing the requirements. The R-value of the wall was improved to R-57, while the
R-value of the basement was improved to R-50. The ceiling and the exposed floor
insulation did not change for this simulating.
For this simulation, the wall assembly was based on the example from the guest lecture.
11 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim12
Figure 8: Wall Assembly Detail for Building Retrofit Option 1
Figure 9: Building Retrofit Option 1 Improved HOT2000 Simulation
12 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim13
TEUI
1842.72 m3 X 10.28 = 18942.956 kWh
18942.956 kWh + 11703.72 kWh = 30646.676 kWh
30646.676 kWh/270 m2 = 113.506 kWh
TEDI
13419.04 kWh/270 m2 = 49.70 kWh/m2
Energy Performance Comparison
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
TEUI
2017-2018
TEDI
2018-2019
Option 1 Improved
Figure 10: Improved Option 1Energy Performance Comparison
It did improve more compared to the first retrofit, but the improvement was bare
minimum compared to the energy performance improvement through the mechanical
system replacements.
Just by improving the mechanical systems, the TEUI and TEDI dropped by 49.165
kWh/m2/yr and 44.802 respectively. But, the improved Option 1 only decreased TEUI
and TEDI by 26.844 kWh/m2/yr and 32.825 kWh/m2/yr.
By this point, it was obvious that Option 1 would not be enough to improve energy
performance, and the observer proceeded with the Option 2.
13 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim14
Figure 11: Building Retrofit Option 2 Plan
Option 2
For the second option where the foundation of the building is to be kept, it had even less
impact on energy consumption than the Option 1 did. For the programming of the
house, the family room of the ground floor was removed as it was too big for a family of
two. On the second floor, the additional room which had separate entrance from the rest
of the second floor, was removed as the room seemed to be useless space. Again, just
like the Option 1, the building envelope was improved so that it would only satisfy the
SB-12. Through the simulation, it was proven that SB-12 was not enough to improve the
energy performance of a building dramatically.
14 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim15
Figure 12: Building Retrofit Option 2 HOT2000 Simulation
TEUI
2059.36 m3 X 10.28 = 21170.221 kWh
21170.221 kWh + 11475.14 = 32645.361 kWh
32645.361 kWh/225 m2 = 145.090 kWh/m2/yr
TEDI
15692.59 kWh/225 m2 = 69.745 kWh/m2/yr
15 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim16
Energy Performance Comparison
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
TEUI
TEDI
2017-2018
2018-2019
Option 2
Figure 13: Option 2 Energy Performance Comparison
Again, as shown in the chart, the reduced amount of energy consumption through
Option 2 with SB-12 level was relatively small compared to the energy consumption
reduction through the mechanical system improvement.
The Option 2 actually saw an increase in TEUI by 4.74 kWh/m2/yr compared to the
energy consumption between 2018 and 2019. TEDI dropped by 12.78 kWh/m2/yr
through the Option 2, which was small compared to the mechanical system
improvement where it reduced TEDI by 44.802 kWh/m2/yr.
As building envelope that only satisfies SB-12 did not improve the energy performance
greatly, the envelope was again improved with higher R-value. Then the observer ran
the HOT2000 simulation to see the impact on energy consumption.
16 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim17
Figure 14: Building Retrofit Option 2 Improved HOT2000 Simulation
TEUI
1720.96 m3 X 10.28 = 17691.674 kWh
17691.674 kWh + 11574.77 kWh = 29266.444 kWh
29266.444 kWh/225m2 = 130.073 kWh/m2/yr
TEDI
12111.43 kWh/225 m2 = 53.829 kWh/m2/yr
17 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim18
Energy Performance Comparison
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
TEUI
2017-2018
TEDI
2018-2019
Option 2 Improved
Figure 15: Improved Option 2 Energy Performance Comparison
Even with improved Option 2 retrofit plan, the energy performance improvement was
relatively small compared to the mechanical system improvement in the spring of 2019.
Through the improved Option 2 retrofit plan, the TEUI and TEDI dropped by 10.277
kWh/m2/yr and 28.696 kWh/m2/yr respectively. These reduction, again, was small
compared to the previous energy performance improvement through the mechanical
system improvement.
After all these simulations, the observer concluded to pursue Option 3, which was to
demolish the building and build a complete new building. At this stage, the observer
decided to make the Passive House as the target of the retrofit project.
After the energy performance analysis, the observer than used Autodesk Revit to model
the house and draw construction detail. The exterior walls had to be manually modelled
as the wall assembly that the observer has chosen was a customary assembly
produced by LaneFab design firm.
Research
Programming of the House
For this project, the observer explored through many possible uses for the new house.
He has explored intergenerational housing, and cohousing.
Intergenerational housing is a type of residential unit where different generations of
people can live. It was meant to house people of old and young generation without any
difficulty. The house needs accessibility for the old generation as they would have
difficulty in living in a house. For this kind of housing, the ground floor is served as an
accessible area with a master bedroom on it so that the elderly people does not need to
use stairs to go to their bedrooms. In order to give a privacy to various generations of
18 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim19
people a concept of “in-law suite” is applied in multigenerational housing. This kind of
room would act as an independent suite for young and old generation in the house.
Another programming was the cohousing. As the price of residential units are rising as
population increases, the cohousing may be a solution to the overpopulation. The
cohousing program is to house multiple family in a home acting like a condo. This way,
the owner would act like a landlord collecting rental fees from the occupant. This way,
the owner would be able to pay the construction fee of the retrofit in the future.
For this project, the ground floor had its own master bedroom for its owners to serve as
an accessible area, and the second floor was meant to be housing the younger
generations, or also used as cohousing if the young leave the house. The basement
would be used for cohousing where it has two bedrooms, one master bedrooms, two
washrooms, dining hall, and kitchen.
Another appliance to the building was the smart technologies. The function of smart
technology is to gather data and change the condition of the house automatically. One
example would be the Wiser Energy system from Schneider Electric. This system would
be tracking the use of any devices consuming energy and monitors the energy use in
the house. Another similar program would be the Sense system. It also does exactly the
same thing as the previous system, but it will also monitor any energy wasted and will
instruct the users how to reduce the waste. These systems would help the owner to
reduce the energy consumption in the house in the future.
Energy Target
As the observer realized that there would be no significant energy performance
improvement if he only designed the building that would only satisfy the SB-12, he
decided to set his energy performance target to Passive House level.
In order to improve the house to Passive House level, it was necessary to improve the
overall building envelope. For the walls, the R-value was determined to be between
R40-60. The roof must have an R-value between R-50-90.
For the heating and cooling load, the energy consumption should be 15 kWh/m2/yr or
less. In other words, the TEDI should be less than 15 kWh/m2/yr. In order to achieve
this energy target, not only was it necessary to improve the overall building envelope,
but also the mechanical system. Another factor that has been taken account of was the
energy generator. For the TEUI, Passive House required the building to have a TEUI
less than 42 kWh/m2/yr.
For this project, photovoltaic panels, or solar panels, were researched and installed on
the roof of the house as the main fuel used in the project is to be electricity. By reducing
the amount of electricity transferred from the city, it would be able to reduce electricity
bill.
Wall Assembly
In order to find a right wall assembly for the house, the observer searched some design
firms to see how they designed wall assemblies for Passive House. During the
19 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim20
research, the observer also researched on various insulation materials and their Rvalues and thickness.
Figure 16: Insulation Nominal R-value
It is important to point out that these values are nominal values, meaning that the actual
R-value, which is referred as effective R-value, would not be as high as these given
values.
During the research, the observer came across with a design firm, LaneFab. The firm
showcased how they assembled their walls to satisfy Passive House requirements. The
researcher also tried to contact them via email to gather any additional information
about the wall assemblies and any manufactures they would recommend for walls and
mechanical systems. Unfortunately, the firm did not respond back to the observer. The
firm preferred using SIP (Structural Insulated Panel) to design and build Passive House.
In order to calculate effective R-value of a wall, a suggested method by one of the
graduate student of the Building Science in Ryerson University Department of
Architectural Science. In this method, it is presumed there is 400mm long wall
measured from the center 38mm wood joist to another. If the R-value of the wood is R-2
and the insulation is R-38, then the effective R-value of the wall would be calculated as
the following.
R-2 X 0.1 + R-38 X 0.9 = R-34.2
R-0.2 + R-34.2 = R-34.4
So, a wall with insulation of R-38 supported 38mm wood joist would have an effective
R-value of 34.4. If there are multiple layer of insulations, then the effective R-value of
each layer would be calculated using the previous method and added together to get
the effective R-value of the whole wall assembly.
20 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim21
During the research on SIP panels, the observer realized that there were different
materials that can be used in the panels. The materials were expanded polystyrene
(EPS, extruded polystyrene (XPS), and polyurethane foam (PUR).
Figure 17: Nominal R-value of SIP
Expanded polystyrene is the least expansive and easiest to manufacture among the
three materials. But the drawback from this material is that it produces HBCD during
manufacture. HBCD stands for hexabromocyclododecane, where it is classified as a
toxic material in Europe.
Another material was the extruded polystyrene. This is the strongest material among
three materials due to its density, and is waterproof. It also has higher R-value than
EPS. The drawback of this material is that it is not as available as the other EPS. Also, it
produces HBCD during manufacture just like EPS.
The last material is the PUR. This material has the highest R-value among the three,
and is also retardant to water. But it has the same drawback as the XPS; it is not as
available as the EPS. It is more difficult to modify the panel thickness, and uses
chlorinated phosphate flame retardants, which is a hazardous material.
In order to find the effective R-value of the SIP panels, the following table was used.
For this project, extruded polystyrene was used due to its higher R-value. As it was
strong, and is more available than PUR.
Figure 18: Effective R-value of SIP
Through this table, it was known that the effective R-value of 10.25” thick SIP panel was
45.0. During the research for the manufacture of XPS SIP panels, it was discovered that
not many manufactures use XPS in their SIP panels. Some of the manufacturers that
21 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim22
were suppose to be producing XPS SIP panels were producing graphite-enhanced EPS
instead as it was more efficient than XPS. Due to this, the effective R-value of the XPS
SIP panel was based on research done by the Whole Building Design Guide. For the
cellulose insulation layer, the effective R-value was to be R-3.7/inch. The cellulose was
to be from Igloo Isolation & Insulation. Using the previous calculation method, the
effective R-value of the wall assembly was calculated as following.
10.25” SIP Effective R-value = 45
4” Cellulose Effective R-value = R-3.7/inch X 4 inch = 14.8
4” Thick Cellulose Effective R-value = R-2 X 0.1 + R-14.8 X 0.9 = R-13.32
Wall Assembly Effective R-value = R-45 + R-13.32 = R-58.32
The proposed wall assembly had an effective R-value of 58.32 according to the
calculation. The wall had higher R-value than the required from the PassiveHaus
Institute, which was minimum between R-40 to R-60.
Roof Assembly
After researching about possible wall assemblies for this building, the roof assembly of
various Passive House projects were studied to find a right roof assembly for the new
home. During the research, the observer came across with SIP construction detail
which included roof detail. Another source he has encountered was Prescott Passive
House by University of Kansas School of Architecture. The roof of the house had two
layers of insulation where the additional insulation was added on the structure of the
roof.
Figure 19: Building Envelope Detail of Prescott Passive House
22 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim23
The structure of the roof for this building was to be SIP, just like the wall, while the
additional insulation was 12-inch cellulose. At first, the cellulose insulation was to be
applied to the roof just like the Prescott Passive House as shown above, but as the
building will have a flat ceiling unlike the given example, the insulation was to be
installed on the attic slab of the building in order to simplify the construction. Then
again, the observer soon realized that the did not need to insulate the roof if he were to
insulate the attic. If he used SIP for the roof and insulate the attic slab, then he would
have an empty space in the attic where it is insulated. This would not be ideal as he is
trying to insulate the house, not the roof. In order to minimize the heat loss from the
indoor area to the outside, the building envelope that is exposed to the outside has to
be insulated. Even though it is the roof that is exposed to the outside, the observer
decided to insulate the attic slab by using SIP for the structure and applying 12”
cellulose insulation above it, just like Saskatchewan Conservation House.
Figure 20: Saskatchewan Conservation House Section Detail
In order to calculate the effective R-value of the roof, the same calculating method was
used.
12” Cellulose Effective R-value = R-3.7/inch X 12 inch = 44.4
12” Cellulose Roof Membrane Effective R-value = R-2 X 0.1 + R-44.4 X 0.9 =
R-0.2 + R-39.96 = R-41.16
10.25” SIP Effective R-value = R-45
23 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim24
Roof Assembly Effective R-value = R=41.16+ R-45 = R-86.16
Through the calculation, the effective R-value of the roof was determined to be R-82.46,
meeting the Passive House requirement where the Roof must have an insulation
between R-50 and R-90.
Basement
For the Passive House, there was no given requirement for basement construction.
Because of this absence, the R-value of the basement was chosen accordingly to other
building envelope. The basement wall construction would consist of 4-inch rigid
insulation on the exterior, 10-inch concrete foundation wall, and 300mm cellulose
insulation. The rigid insulation is to be made of extruded polystyrene. The calculation of
the effective R-value is as follows.
4” Rigid Insulation Effective R-value = R-4.7/inch x 4 inch = R-18.8
8” Cellulose (Wall) = R-3.85/inch X 8 inch = R-30.8
8” Cellulose Insulation Wall Effective R-value = R-2 X 0.1 + R-30.8x 0.9 =
R-0.2 + R-27.72 = R27.92
Basement Wall Effective R-value = R-18.8 + R27.92 = 46.52
The slab of the basement was insulated as well with 12-inch rigid insulation. Thus, the
effective R-value of the slab would be as follows.
12” Rigid Insulation Effective R-value = R-4.7/inch X 12 inch = R-56.4
Basement Slab Effective R-value = R-56.4
From all these calculations, it was concluded that the basement has insulation of R60.58 and R-56.4 on wall and slab respectively.
Windows
In order to meet the Passive House requirements, the observer searched about window
manufacturers that would produce any Passive House certified windows, which would
be triple-glazed. During the research, the observer came across with PHIUS (Passive
House Institute U.S). On their website, they had a list of window manufacturers that they
have personally certified. As the observer explored the list of manufacturers, he could
not but only reach a conclusion that the PHIUS-certified windows were not fit to be
installed in Canada. All the windows listed in the organization was windows
manufactured specifically for the American climate. Due to this, all except one window
were not recommended to be installed in the cold climate of Canada.
24 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim25
Figure 21: PHIUS rated Window
After the encounter with PHIUS, the observer started to search about Canadian and
European window manufactures as they were the only one who produced windows fit
for the Canadian climate. The following list is composed of the window manufacturers
for the Canadian climate.
Europe
-
Aluprof Windows
Bieber Windows
Deceunick Windows
Energate Windows
Frako Skylights
Josko Windows
Vetta Windows
etc
North America
-
Accurate Dorwin (Canada)
Alpen Windows (USA)
25 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim26
-
Cascadia Windows (Canada)
Duxton Windows (Canada)
Dynamic Windows Canada (Canada)
Euroline Windows (Canada)
Etc
Even though it is said North America, most of the manufacturers are Canada-based
firms. Most of the American manufacturers do not make windows for Canadian climate
just as seen in the list of manufacturers provided by PHIUS.
For this retrofit project, Fibertec Windows were chosen to provide necessary windows to
the newly designed building. The manufacturer was chosen due to its flexibility with
window sizing. The chosen product was 300 Series Awning Window.
The window was triple glazed with two soft coating. The spacer was insulated metal
with 13mm Argon gas fill between each glass. The frame of the window was fiberglass.
HVAC System
At first, the observer was planning to use gas furnace with an efficiency of 96.1% The
domestic hot water heater was also running through natural gas.
The chosen gas furnace manufacturer was Rheem. It was the best known manufactures
of gas furnace with an efficiency of 96.1. This was the same heating system used in the
house prior to the retrofit. As the observer examined various products, he soon realized
that they had different efficiency value for the American customers. After running a few
test on the energy performance of the building, the observer soon realized that gas
furnace was using too much energy that not only is there more Green House Gas
emission, but also larger cooling and heating load in the house. In order to decrease
these to improve the energy performance, the gas furnace was replaced with electrical
furnace. The following is the list of electric furnace manufactuers.
-
Goodman/Amana/Daikin
Heil/Arcoaire/Tempstar/Comfrtmaker
King
Nordyne/Nortek/Frigidaire/Broan/Tappan/Westinghouse/Maytag
Stelpro
York/Luxaire/Coleman
Winchester
Suburban
The resources were later converted into electricity. This enabled the building to produce
less Green House Gas emission. After a careful research, Suburban 2438ABK Nt16Seq Furnace was chosen as it was considered the best electric furnace in the market.
Domestic Hot Water Heater
At first, the domestic hot water heater was also to be consuming natural gas. But after
running few tests with the system, the observer soon realized it was consuming too
much energy to satisfy the cooling and heating load of 15 kWh/m2/yr. After all those
trials, the observer changed the fuel to electricity from natural gas.
26 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim27
For the electric hot water heater, there were two options the observer considering; the
tank and tank-less. For this building, the tank-less electric water heater was chosen for
various advantages. It was shown that tank-less water heater tends to use less energy
as it only heat water only when it is flowing. In other words, the water heater would only
heat water when the water is used. Another advantage was that it does not have limit
using hot water. This was a great advantage as the house would be used as cohousing
where there would be more than one family in the building. The last advantage of tankless water heater was that it would be rare for flooding due to a breakdown compared to
the tank water heater. The owner’s home used more water between 2018 and 2019 due
to the breakdown of the tank. In order to avoid this problem in the future, it would be
wise to use tank-less water heater as it would not break as much as the tank water
heater. The following is the list of tank-less water heater manufacturers.
-
Ecosmart
Rheem
Rinnai
Takagi
Nortiz
Navien
Bosch
Siogreen
Stiebel Eltron
Mary Heater Corp
etc
As the observer was researching for electric tankless water heater, he has chosen
Stiebel Eltron 36 Plus Tempra tank-less water heater was chosen as it was considered
as one of the best electric tank-less water heater in the market.
HRV/ERV
As the building would be tight with an air flow rate of ACH 0.6, it was necessary to install
HRV in the building for ventilation. The observer at first tried to apply natural ventilation
to the building, but realized that the house was too long as the wind came from the East
to West. Since the observer could not change the orientation of the building, the natural
ventilation was left out of the options for ventilation in the housing.
Through as research, it was shown that HRV was more beneficial for this building as it
would be housing multiple family instead of one. For this project, it was decided to install
HRV instead of ERV. The following is the list of well-known HRV manufacturers.
-
Systemair Inc (Greentek)
Venmar
Lennox
Lifebreath
For this project, Lennox was chosen as it has been known for its credibility in Canada
for over 100 years. The chosen product was Healthy Climate HRV5- 150 Heat Recovery
Ventilator.
27 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim28
Plumbing Fixtures
As the house before the retrofit was using roughly 200L/person/day, the observer
wanted to reduce it. At first, he was looking at the rainwater harvesting equipment to
reduce the water use of the house. Then, he soon remembered that the house was
using low-quality plumbing fixtures before the retrofit. The observer came up with a
hypothesis that he could reduce the water use by using more efficient fixtures. During
the previous project, the observer was planning to use low-flow fixtures to meet with the
energy performance of the given benchmarks. Theoretically, the more efficient fixtures
should be reducing the water use by
By replacing existing fixtures with ultra-low fixtures, the observer was able to reduce
daily hot water consumption to 75.0L from 155 L. If the unit was converted to
L/person/day, it would be as follows.
155.0L/day/2 person = 77.5 L/person/day
75.0L/day/2 person = 37.5 L/person/day
Just by replacing the fixtures with more efficient fixtures, it was able to reduce the daily
hot water consumption by roughly 50%.
The HOT2000 unfortunately does not give the actual amount of water consumption in
the simulation. It mainly calculated the hot water consumption. It includes dish washer,
shower, bathroom faucet, and clothes washer. It does include number of low-flush toilet
for cold water but it does not show in the report. But, a study showed that low-flow
fixtures tend to save 20000 gallons/75708.236 L of yearly water consumption for a
family of four.
75708.236L/4 person/365 days = 51.855 L/person/day
If this is true, then the family of four would be saving 51.855L/person/day through the
low-flow fixtures. The standard plumbing fixtures have a flow rate was 2.2 and 2.5gpm
for faucet and showerhead respectively, while the low-flow fixtures have a flow rate of
1.5gpm to 2.0gpm for faucet and showerhead respectively. The ultra-low flow rate was
between 1.0gpm and 1.5 gpm for faucet and showerhead respectively. As it is possible
to reduce the daily water consumption to 51.855L/day just by reducing flow rate by 0.5,
it was hypothesized that fixtures with ultra-low flow fixtures would reduce even more
water consumption. If the reduction of flow rate by 0.5 gpm could reduce 51.855
L/person/day, it was hypothesized that flow rate reduction by 1.0 gpm would
theoretically reduce 103.71L/person/day.
1.0gpm/0.5gpm X 51.855L/person/day = 77.825L/person/day
According water bill analysis, the owner used 189L/person/day between September
2017 to September 2018.
192.47L/person/day – 103.71L/person/day = 88.76L/person/day
So theoretically, the owner would be using 88.76L/person/day. From this analysis and
hypothesis, it can be learned that the water consumption does not only depend on
person, but also the plumbing equipment.
28 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim29
For the plumbing fixtures, various manufacutuers of showerhead, faucets, and toilets
were researched separately as no manufacturer made all these products with 1.5 gpm
flow rate together.
For the faucet, there are two options to improve the flow rate. The first option is to
replace the whole faucet wit lower flow rate. The second option is to install a device that
will reduce the flow rate of the existing faucet.
For the first option, there were various manufactures that produces bathroom faucets
with a flow rate of 1.0 gpm.
For the second option, Neoperl 1.0 gpm Water-Saving Faucet Aerator Insert was
chosen to be installed on existing faucet to reduce the flow rate to 1.0gpm.
For the showerhead, flow rate of 5.7Lpm/1.5gpm was the desired flow rate for this
building. The chosen showerhead was Niagraga Sava Showerhead N2515CH.
For the dishwasher, the lowest water consumption per cycle was 14L in HOT2000.
Even though there are more efficient dishwashers that use less than 14L of hot water,
the observer had no choice but to use a dishwasher with water consumption of 14L per
cycle.
For the clothes washer, the lowest water consumption per cycle in HOT2000 was 40L.
During the research on the cloth-washers, the observer realized that the water
consumption in the market was calculated as gallon per year, instead of litre per person
per day. Due to this, it was difficult to find the right product with 40L water consumption
per cycle. Another thing he realized was that there was a washer with even less water
consumption per cycle; 5 gallons/18.9L per cycle.
From these research on the two machines, the observer saw some limitation with
HOT2000, and the values for these machines in HOT2000 water baseload was left
untouched set on high efficiency.
Photovoltaic Cells/Solar Panels
In order to reach cooling load and heating load of 15 kWh/squared meter/yr, it was
decided to apply the use of solar panels on the building. For this case, SunPower solar
panels series A was chosen due to its high efficiency of 22.8%. There were other wellknown manufactures such as LG, REC Group, Panasoic, Solartech Universal. They all
had an efficiency of 20% or more. But, SunPower had the most efficient solar panel
compared to other manufacturers.
29 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim30
Solar Panel Effficiency Comparison
25
Efficiency (%)
20
15
10
5
0
Category 1
Solar Panel Manufacturer
SunPower
LG
REC Group
Panasonic
Sikartech Universal
Figure 22: Solar Panel Manufacturers Comparison
After the selection of a solar panel, it was necessary to figure out the slope of the panel
for a maximum energy generation. In order to find the right angle for the solar panel, the
first thing that had to be researched on was the latitude of Mississauga. The latitude of
Mississauga was to be 43.565310. As the latitude was between 25 and 50, the optimum
angle was calculated using the method below.
43.565310 X 0.76 + 3.1 = 36.2096356 degrees
After getting the optimum angle of solar panels, it was necessary to find how much
electricity could be generated in Mississauga to see if enough electricity can be
generated for the house.
30 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim31
Figure 23: Energyhub Solar Energy Map
During the research on solar panels, the observer came across with Energyhub. This
organization gave a map where it showed how much electricity a solar panel can
produce in specific provinces and areas. According to this organization, it was
calculated that 1166 kWh/Kw/yr in Southern Ontario. What this means is that if the solar
panel has a power of 1 Kw, then it would be producing 1166 kWh of electricity per year.
In order to calculate to see how much electricity SunPower A series panels can produce
in Southern Ontario, the power of the solar panel was researched. From the
specification from the company, the panel was believed to have a power of 400 watts.
1Kw = 1000 watts
1166 kWh/Kw/yr X 400 watts/1000 watts =
1166 kWh/yr X 0.4 = 466.4 kWh/yr
From the calculation, it was known that the solar panel would be producing 466.4 kWh
per year in Southern Ontario. With this value, it was calculated to see how many solar
panels were needed to power the house. As the house was using electricity for all
space heating and hot water heating, and other appliances, the TEUI was used to see
how much panels would be necessary on the roof. The TEUI was roughly 19000
kWh/yr.
19000kWh 466.4𝑘𝑊ℎ
÷
= 40.736 𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑝𝑎𝑛𝑒𝑙𝑠
yr
𝑦𝑟
31 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim32
Since the area of each solar panel was 1.5m2, the area of required solar panel would
be 61.106m2. For this project, 60m2 of solar panel was applied to the building.
Post-Retrofit Energy Performance Analysis
Through the improvement of building envelope, mechanical system, and plumbing
fixtures, the overall energy performance was improved.
Figure 24: Post-Retrofit Building Energy Performance
After changing the fuel from natural gas to electricity, the observer was able to reduce
the Green House Gas emission by significant amount. It has dropped to 0.201 kg.
But the biggest achievement of these two building components is the cooling and
heating load. For the Passive House, the cooling and heating load had to be maximum
15 kWh/m2/yr. When the building was using natural gas for heating space and water, he
could not achieve the energy target and kept getting over 15 kWh/m2/yr for cooling and
heating load. But after changing the fuel to electricity, the building now had cooling and
heating load of 8.126 kWh/m2/yr. The TEDI was calculation using the method below.
TEDI
4022.5kWh/ur/495m2 = 8.126kWh/m2/yr
The TEUI of the building after the retrofit was 37.488 kWh, satisfying the Passive House
requirement where the TEUI has to be lower than 42 kWh/m2/yr. It was calculating
through the method below
TEUI
32 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim33
18556.5 kWh/yr/495m2 = 37.488 kWh/m2/yr
Even though necessary amount of solar panels was installed at the optimum angle of
36.21 degrees, the building still had to use 3245.2 kWh of electricity per year from the
city. The reason behind this could be that the calculations were merely estimation. The
values from the Energyhub could be a rough estimate or average of electricity
generated in that specific area. Also, the calculation of the optimum angle of solar
panels could also be a rough estimate. But the more reasonable explanation is the fact
that the solar panel is in fixed position. As the angle of the sun changes over time, the
panels would not be able get as much sunlight at certain season. For example, as the
solar angle would be reduced to 26.5 degrees in winter, the sunlight hitting the panel
would be decreased.
In conclusion, despite not generating enough electricity for the house the retrofit project
of the building was a success where the energy performance was dramatically
improved. It also managed to achieve the energy target; the Passive House level.
Discussion
One of the interesting aspect from this report was the smart technology where it would
gather data through internet. The current technology only allows home owners to
monitor the energy consumption of the house and let them know how to reduce the
energy consumption. In the future, with an introduction of Artificial Intelligence, it might
be able to produce a software where the house could gather data on its own and control
the energy consumption by itself without owner’s command.
The most frequently used software in this project was HOT2000. This software was
indeed useful when analyzing the energy performance of a chosen building. But, one of
the aspect it is missing is the water consumption. The program does summarize on the
daily hot water consumption, but this is to calculate the overall energy used on heating
space and water in the house. Because of this, it was difficult to analyze on the impact
of ultra-low plumbing fixtures on water consumptions. Another limitation of the software
was seen for the dish-washer. During the research, it was known that some dishwashers used less water then 14L for each cycle. But, in the HOT2000 software, the
lowest water consumption per cycle was 14L. The reason behind this limitation is that
the least water consumption per cycle when HOT2000 was introduced was 14L/cycle.
The same thing happened with cloth-washer where the lowest water consumption in
HOT2000 was 40L, but there were some cloth-washers that only use 18.9L of water per
cycle. As the technology of machines advances in the future, it is essential to improve
energy performance analysis programs to improve so that the program would consider
other more efficient machines.
Another thing that has to be discussed in this report is the benchmarks; SB-12, R-2000,
and EnergyStar. The last two benchmarks are voluntary standards that is not enforced
upon anyone. Thus, the house did not meet all the requirements of the two benchmarks.
The SB-12, on the other hand, is a part of building code that has to be followed by every
builders and architects in Ontario. From the analysis of the existing house, it was
concluded that the house did not satisfy the SB-12. The reason that it could not satisfy
the SB-12 was because it was introduced in 2012. The house did meet the
33 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim34
requirements of the building code of 1992. Another reason that the house did not meet
any other energy performance targets is the rapidly-advancing technologies. The lowflow fixtures were not introduced until 1994. From this, it can be seen how crucial the
technology impacts on various benchmarks, including building codes. In the future, the
building code could be stricter than the ones of present day due to the technologies. It
would be beneficial to do more than the standards require so that it could satisfy the
benchmarks even in the future.
Conclusion
After the analysis on energy performance of an existing house, it was concluded that
the house was under-performing compared to SB-12, R-2000, and EnergyStar. It was
obvious that the house had to be retrofitted to improve the energy performance. When
the observer only changed the building envelope assemblies so that it would satisfy the
SB-12, he soon learned it would not be enough to give a huge impact on energy
consumption. Another option he pursued was to keep the foundation of the building
while changing everything else of the building while satisfying the SB-12. Again, the
improvement of the energy performance was so small compared to the energy
performance improvement just by replacing all the mechanical systems. After these two
options were not enough to contribute a huge impact on energy performance, the
observer proceeded with Option 3, which was to demolish the building and design a
whole new building with a huge energy performance improvement.
The observer decided to improve the building envelope to Passive House level so that
he could improve the energy performance significantly.
From this project, the observer researched various manufactures and design firms to
design a building that will surpass the energy performance of SB-12. During the
research, the observer concluded that some benchmarks, PHIUS as an example,
should be avoided for research on manufacturers for Passive House as they had
different standards on Passive House as the American climate was different than
Canadian climate.
During the research, he also learned the importance of the source of fuel for mechanical
systems. Just by changing the fuel to electricity from natural gas, he was able to reduce
the Green House Gas emission dramatically and also the cooling and heating load of
the building.
Through the project, the observer learned that the R-values of materials differ from each
manufacturer. This made the research difficult for him to find a right manufacturer with
wanted insulation. The most difficult research was the research on manufacturers of
SIP. It was difficult to find any companies that use XPS for their SIP panels. Some
companies started to use a new material, graphite-enhanced EPS, which had similar
insulation as the XPS.
During the detailing of the section, he realized that he had to consider carefully where to
apply insulation as one place may be better than another. This situation can be seen
when the observer was detailing the roof/attic. As he realized that the purpose of the
insulation was to prevent heat loss from the heated indoor area to the outside, he
34 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim35
decided to insulate the attic by using SIP as the ceiling and applying a layer of cellulose
insulation above it.
Even though he calculated the optimum angle of the solar panels and number of panels
needed to generate electricity to support the house, he realized that he could not get all
the sunlight to generate enough electricity for the house as the angle of the sun
changes as season passes; He still needed additional 3245.2 kWh of electricity to
generate all the electricity needed in the house.
After all those hardships in the research, the observer was able to gather all the
necessary specifications for various building materials and mechanical systems to
achieve the Passive House energy target. He managed to achieve all the insulations
needed for all the building envelope components. At the end of the retrofit, the observer
was able to improve the energy performance to the Passive House level.
35 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim36
References
Curtis, J. (2019, November 25). Freshome. Retrieved from 8 Ways to Design Multigenerational Homes:
https://freshome.com/multigenerational-homes/
Electric, S. (2019, November 20). Wiser Energy. Retrieved from Schneider Electric:
https://www.se.com/ca/en/home/smarthome/wiser/?utm_source=google&utm_purpose=marketo&utm_campaign=CA__Wiser_Energy_Consumer_Campaign__Brand&utm_term=wiser_energy_schneider_electric&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI7IWh2JCb5gIV4oNaB
R02bw1eEAAYASAAEgIxzfD_BwE&gclsrc=aw
EnergyHub. (2019, November 21). Solar Power Canada 2019. Retrieved from EnergyHub:
https://energyhub.org/solar/
Green, P. (2018, February 20). UPDATE: A LIST OF PASSIVE HOUSE SUITABLE WINDOWS AVAILABLE IN
CANADA & USA – BY MARKEN DESIGN + CONSULTING. Retrieved from Passive Green:
https://passivegreen.wordpress.com/2018/02/20/a-list-of-passive-house-suitable-windowsavailable-in-canada-usa-by-marken-designconsulting/?fbclid=IwAR1Q45wBbZZcI9IdhrAkRmX36g_OkYN634eWn3HsnlMEu-JqhihwAyJcaBY
Improvement, G. D. (2019, November 25). Insulation R-value Chart. Retrieved from Great Day
Improvement: https://www.greatdayimprovements.com/insulation-r-valuechart.aspx?fbclid=IwAR2FrtdiKSIsBZ2ITQSrQ004Im9DJgi_nBXuABxB5ZILGAWVSEl6USC-zX8
Landau, C. R. (2019, December 1). Optimum Tilt of Solar Panels. Retrieved from Solar Panel Tilt:
https://www.solarpaneltilt.com/
Mays, V. (2010, September 13). SUPERINSULATED HOUSE. Retrieved from Architect Magazine:
https://www.architectmagazine.com/technology/detail/superinsulated-house_o
Network, C. C. (2019, November 12). What is Cohousing? Retrieved from Canadian Cohousing Network:
https://cohousing.ca/
Orr, H. (2013, October 27). THE PRINCIPAL DESIGNER OF THE HOUSE THAT INSPIRED THE GLOBAL
PASSIVHAUS MOVEMENT REFLECTS ON THE PROJECT THAT STARTED IT ALL. Retrieved from
EcoHome: https://www.ecohome.net/guides/1418/the-principal-designer-of-the-house-thatinspired-the-global-passivhaus-movement-reflects-on-the-project-that-started-it-all/
PHIUS. (2019, November 10). Find & Compare Windows. Retrieved from PHIUS:
https://www.phius.org/phius-certification-for-buildings-products/phius-verified-windowperformance-data-program/find-compare-windows
Plumbing, K. (2019, December 1). Hot Water Tank vs Tankless Water Heater - How to Decide. Retrieved
from Knight Plumbing: https://www.knightplumbing.ca/plumbing-calgary/hot-water-tank-vstankless-water-heater-decide/
ProgressvieFoam. (2019, November 30). EPS vs. XPS vs. GPS: The Definitive Comparison Guide. Retrieved
from ProgressiveFoam: https://progressivefoam.com/eps-vs-xps-vs-gps/
36 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim37
Reviews, T. (201, November 27). Best Electric Water Heater Reviews (2020) for Regular and Inline Hot
Water. Retrieved from Tankless Reviews: https://tankless.reviews/best-electric-water-heaters/
Sense. (2019, November 20). Sense. Retrieved from Sense:
https://sense.com/product?utm_source=google&utm_medium=&utm_campaign=CAN%7CSmar
tShopping&utm_term=&utm_content=&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIt5425Gb5gIVCoeGCh27BgPpEAYYASABEgK90fD_BwE
Siman, K. (2017, March 14). Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) . Retrieved from WBDG:
https://www.wbdg.org/resources/structural-insulated-panels-sips
SIPA. (2019, November 28). SIP Connection Details. Retrieved from SIPA:
https://www.sips.org/technical-information/sips-construction-details#prettyPhoto
THE10PRO. (2019, November 9). Top 7 Best Electric Furnaces Reviews In 2019. Retrieved from
THE10PRO: https://the10pro.com/best-electric-furnaces-reviews/
Ministry of Muncipal Affairs Buiding and Development Branch. 2016. MMA Supplementary Standard SB12 Energy Efficiency for Housing. Queen's Printer for Ontario 2016.
Natural Resources Canada. 2012. 2012 R-2000 Standard. Ottawa: Natural Resources Canada.
Natural Resources Canada. 2017. Energy Star for New Homes Standard Version 12.8 and 17. Ottawa:
Natural Resources Canada.
37 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim38
Appendix
38 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim39
39 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim40
40 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim41
41 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim42
South Elevation (1:150)
North Elevation (1:150)
42 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim43
East Elevation (1:150)
West Elevation (1:150)
43 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim44
East Section (1:150)
South Section (1:150)
44 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim45
Basement (1:150)
45 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim46
Ground Floor (1:150)
46 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim47
Second Floor (1:150)
47 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim48
Foundation Detail (1:20)
48 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim49
Roof Detail (1:150)
Roof Detail (1:150)
Wall Detail (1:150)
49 | P a g e
Lewis M Kim50
Appendix
HOT2000 Simulations
Building Pre-Retrofit (2017-2018)……………………………………………………………1
Building Pre-Retrofit (2018-2019)………………………………………………………….16
Building Post-Retrofit Option 1
SB-12…………………………………………………………………………………..31
Improvement…………………………………………………………………………..46
Building Post-Retrofit Option 2
SB-12………………………………………………………………………………….61
Improvement………………………………………………………………………….76
Building Post-Retrofit Option 3.
Simulation 1………………………………………………………………….………..91
Simulation 2………………………………………………………………….……….113
Final Report……………………………………………………….…………………..135
50 | P a g e