wall insulation and whole building energy performance

100
Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance John Swink, PE, LEED-AP Acme Brick Company [email protected] 817-714-9523

Upload: april

Post on 25-Feb-2016

50 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

DESCRIPTION

Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance. John Swink, PE, LEED-AP Acme Brick Company [email protected] 817-714-9523. Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance. Avoid disinformation about saving energy in buildings. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

John Swink, PE, LEED-APAcme Brick [email protected]

Page 2: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

• Avoid disinformation about saving energy in buildings.

• Understand real thermal performance of wall systems

• Demystify whole building energy analysis.

Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

Page 3: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

Learning Objectives

1. Learn the TRUE U and R values of many common wall systems.

2. Learn how to calculate true U and R values for complex building envelope components.

3. Learn how eQuest and Simergy can help you design high performance buildings to meet sustainable goals.

4. Learn to integrate economical building envelopes with high performance mechanical systems for the most cost-effective energy performance.

Page 4: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

1. True U and R Values in Building WallsIntroduction – The LEED® Mandate

Rising energy costs and concern for the environment have led many groups, including AIA, ASHRAE, USGBC and ICC to support much higher expectations for building energy performance. There have been many predictions and endeavors to build zero-energy and near-zero energy buildings.

But there are practical limits on building performance. Today we will look at the entire building envelope to optimize the wall systems, including opaque and glazed areas, to see what those limits are, and how best to design buildings for optimum performance and value.

Page 5: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

Introduction – The LEED® MandateTraditionally, heating and cooling of buildings has been the

purview of mechanical engineers on the design team. But choices made by architects and structural engineers have a significant impact on the energy performance of our buildings. So we need to understand as fully as possible how those choices can help or hurt the building’s overall energy performance.

Today we will investigate the impact of various types of building envelope construction on the performance of those buildings.

1. True U and R Values in Building Walls

Page 6: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

1. True U and R Values in Building WallsIntroduction – The LEED® Mandate – ever-decreasing energy

demand for buildings.1. We examine popular wall systems for ACTUAL heat flow

a. All include air and moisture barriers b. Alternates for glazing area considered.c. Mass not included in calculations, but will benefit

2. eQUEST or Simergy lets you quickly study the effects of different wall systems on whole building energy performance. Occupancy types are critical for effective evaluation of building performance. Energy demands vary widely:

Page 7: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

Session Outline

1. Dispel some popular myths about R values2. Compare popular wall systems3. Detailed look at wall system heat flow4. ORNL study of mass walls in a model house5. Proposed mass house for optimum energy

performance6. School energy performance study at

University of Louisville

Page 8: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

Those “R” Lies“Oh, what a tangle web we weave when first we practice to deceive!”

Sir Walter Scott

Let’s look and some misinformation– or is it disinformation? – that is commonly reported.

• Misinformation – erroneous information that is passed on through ignorance.

• Disinformation – deliberate lies or distortions used to promote one’s cause or agenda.

Page 9: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

OXYMORON – “TRUE” R VALUE

• Fiberglass industry only reports R value of batt insulation that is:

– Perfectly placed– No studs, fasteners, wiring, etc.– No stapled facings– Batts must be in contact with all surfaces– Never happens in the field– FALSE R values reported– True R values MUCH lower

Page 10: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

OXYMORON – “TRUE” R VALUE

• Wood industry reports R value of batts, not the wall assembly.

– Does not include heat flow through studs– Ignores air gaps from imperfect placement.• Stapled facings leave gaps• Wiring leaves gaps

– False R values reported– True R values MUCH lower

Page 11: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

MASONRY – TRUE R VALUE

• NCMA– Calculates or tests true R value of wall assembly– Only reports True R values– Notes the effects of mass in reducing heat flow, but

only as recognized by ASHRAE and supported by analysis.

Page 12: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

Those “R” Lies

Lie #1 – ICF walls have an R value of 50– Some say “Equivalent R Value of 50.”– Equivalent to what?

Truth – Typical ICF walls are R16 to R20

Page 13: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

Those “R” Lies

Lie #2 – 6” Steel stud walls are R 19– Steel stud conducts much heat through the wall– R19 batts are only R19 if perfectly placed with no

gapsTruth – 6” steel stud walls have typical R 7.03

according to AHSRAE 90.1

Page 14: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

Those “R” Lies

Lie #3 – 6” Wood stud walls are R19– Wood studs conduct less heat than metal studs– Wood studs conduct more heat than insulation– R19 batts are only R19 if perfectly placed with no

gapsTruth – typical 5.25” wood stud walls are R11.4

or less

Page 15: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

Those “R” Lies

Lie #4 – 4” Wood stud walls are R13– Wood studs conduct more heat through the wall

than insulation– R13 batts are only R13 if perfectly placed with no

gapsTruth – perfectly built 3.5” wood stud walls

actually R 8.4. Truth – many 3.5” wood stud walls

R5 or less

Page 16: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

Detailed Look at Wall Systems• Now let’s look at these wall systems in more detail and

calculate their actual R value using the ASHRAE series-parallel method:

• When DIFFERENT wall components are in the SAME LAYER, we add the heat flows (U values) for each component in that layer. (PARALLEL) – Accounts for thermal bridging that bypasses insulation.– R for that layer = 1/(Sum of U values)

• When wall components are in SEPARATE LAYERS, simply ADD the R values. (SERIES)

• Here are examples of walls designed for true R19

Page 17: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

A. True U and R Values in Building WallsIn this session we will compare each of the following wall systems. Each has peculiar advantages that can make them appropriate choices, but it is important to understand their limitations.

1. Wood Stud Walls2. Steel Stud Walls3. Insulated Concrete Form Walls4. Tilt-up Concrete Walls5. Single-Wythe Masonry Walls6. Masonry Cavity Walls

Page 18: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

1. Wall Systems – Wood StudAdvantages Disadvantages

• Moderate cost• Ease of routing wiring and

other utilities

• Fire destroys it• Water damage – mold and rot• Air and moisture barriers

REQUIRED to prevent damage• Air leaks cause poor energy

performance• Thermal bridging cause poor

thermal performance

Page 19: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

1. Wall Model – 4” Wood Studs Calculate actual R valueSeries/parallel method

R 3.5 – wood stud U 0.286 x 15% = 0.043

R 13.0 – battR 9.1 reduced 30% for imperfect fill

U 0.109 x 85% = 0.093

U Total = 0.043 + 0.093 = 0.136R = 7.33 average stud cavityR = 1.11 2x 0.625” gyp boardR = 8.4 average opaque wall

Page 20: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

1. Wall Model – 4” Wood Studs Calculate actual R valueSeries/parallel method

R 3.5 – wood stud U 0.286 x 15% = 0.043

R 12.6 – spray foam, sprayed cellulose, or aminoplast foam filledU 0.079 x 85% = 0.0675

U Total = 0.043 + 0.0675 = 0.111R = 9.05 studs and insulation layerR = 1.11 2x 0.625” gyp boardR = 10.2 total when stud cavities are filled with insulation, no gaps

Page 21: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

1. Wall Model – 4” Wood Studs Calculate actual R valueSeries/parallel method

R 3.5 – wood stud U 0.286 x 15% = 0.043

R 16 –aminoplast foam filledU 0.063 x 85% = 0.053

U Total = 0.043 + 0.053 = 0.96R = 10.4 studs and insulation layerR = 1.11 2x 0.625” gyp board layerR = 11.5 total when stud cavities are filled with insulation, no gaps

Page 22: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

1. Wall– 6” Wood StudsCalculate actual R valueSeries/parallel method

R 5.5 – wood stud U 0.286 x 15% = 0.027

R 17.4 – compressed R 19 battR 12.2 reduced 30% for imperfect fillU 0.085 x 85% = 0.070

U Total = 0.027 + 0.070 = 0.097R = 10.3 average stud cavityR = 1.11 2x 0.625” gyp boardR = 11.4 average opaque wall

Page 23: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

1. R19 Wall – 4” Wood Studs

R 0.33 – Masonry veneer

R 1.0 – Air space

R 10.0 – 2” XPS insulation

R 8.4 – Wood Studs with R 13 batts*

R 0.17 – outside air boundary layer

R 0.68 – inside air boundary layerR 20.6 – Total

10.4 inches total wall thickness

Page 24: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

1. R19 Wall – 6” Wood Studs

R 0.3 – Masonry veneer

R 1.0 – Air space

R 5.0 – 1” XPS insulation

R 10.3 – Wood Studs with R 19 batts*

R 0.17 – outside air boundary layer

R 0.68 – inside air boundary layerR 19.5 – Total

11.9 inches total wall thickness

Page 25: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

2. Wall Systems – Steel StudsAdvantages Disadvantages

• Moderate cost• Ease of routing wiring and

other utilities• Noncombustible

• Subject to water damage – rust and mold• Air and moisture barriers

required to prevent damage• Air leaks cause poor energy

performance• Batt insulation less effective,

cannot be well placed

Page 26: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

2. R19 Wall– 6” Steel Studs

R 0.3 – Masonry veneer

R 1.0 – Air space

R 10.0 – Continuous insulation

R 7.03 – Steel studs with R 19 batt(ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals)

R 0.17 – outside air boundary layer

R 0.68 – inside air boundary layerR 19.1 – Total

12.9 inches total wall thickness

Page 27: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

3. Wall Systems – Insulated Concrete FormAdvantages Disadvantages

• R15 to R19 insulation built in• Strong reinforced concrete

core• Low air infiltration• STC50+ sound barrier

• Combustible forms must be protected by fire barriers both sides• Mass of concrete is isolated

from building interior• Thicker walls reduce floor

space• Toxic gases in fires• Blowouts and other

construction issues

Page 28: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

3. R19 Wall– Insulated Concrete Form

a

R 0.3 – 3” Masonry veneer

R 1.0 – 1” Air space

R 9.5 – 2.5” EPS insulation form

R 0.48 – Concrete pourR 7.5 – 2.5” EPS insulation form reduced by electrical cut-outsR 0.4 – ½” gyp boardR 0.68 – inside air boundary layerR 19.4 – Total

R 0.17 – outside air boundary layer

15.3 inches total wall thickness

Page 29: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

4. Wall Systems – Tilt-up ConcreteAdvantages Disadvantages

• Some general contractors have carpenters as permanent employees to build forms• 24’ tall 6” walls• Hard concrete surfaces require

low maintenance• Very durable• Not damaged by water• Low air infiltration• Very high strength• Non-combustible and very fire

resistant• STC 50 sound barrier• 100 Year Life

• Limited insulation • Continuous insulation it cavity

wall is only way to reach prescriptive R values in energy code• Limited finishes and profiles• Higher cost• Utilities must be in place and

slab poured before walls can be cast• Heavy cranes required• More space required onsite• Level site required

Page 30: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

4. R19 Wall – 6” Tilt-up Concrete

R 0.5 – 6” Tilt-up Concrete

Negative side dampproof coating

R 10.0 – Continuous insulation(Seldom used – R10.3 without ci)

R 9.0 – 6”x25ga Steel studs, R 19 batts(ASHRAE Handbook of Fundamentals)

R 0.17 – outside air boundary layer

R 0.68 – inside air boundary layerR 20.3 – Total

15.6 inches total wall thickness

Page 31: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

4. R19 Tilt-up Concrete Sandwich Panel

R 0.2 – 2” Concrete

R 14.0 – Continuous insulation 2” polyisocyanurate

R 0.17 – outside air boundary layer

R 0.68 – inside air boundary layerR 15.6 – Total

10.0 inches total wall thickness

R 0.5 – 6” Concrete

Page 32: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

5. Wall Systems – Single-Wythe CMUAdvantages Disadvantages

• Very Low cost• 24’ tall 8” walls• Hard masonry surfaces

require low maintenance• Very durable• Not damaged by water• Low air infiltration• Very high strength• Non-combustible and very

fire resistant• STC 50 sound barrier• 100 Year Life

• Limited insulation capacity limits use in some climate zones• More difficult to run wiring

Page 33: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

5. Wall Model – Single-wythe CMU

R 5.7 – Core insulated CMU with grouted cells at 32” minimum and bond beams at 48” min spacing(per IECC prescriptive tables)

R 0.68 – inside air boundary layerR 6.55 – Total

R 0.17 – outside air boundary layer

7.63 inches total wall thickness

Page 34: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

6. Wall Systems – Masonry Cavity WallAdvantages Disadvantages

• Moderate cost• Unlimited insulation• Hard masonry surfaces

require low maintenance• Very durable• Not damaged by water• Low air infiltration• Very high strength• Non-combustible and very

fire resistant• STC60+sound barrier• 100+ Year Life

• Slightly higher cost

Page 35: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

6. R19 Masonry Cavity Walls

a

R 0.3 – 3” Masonry veneer

R 2.5 – Foil-faced 1” air space

R 14 – 2” foil-faced polyiso board

R 2 – 6” CMU uninsulated

R 0.68 – inside air boundary layerR 19.5 – Total

R 0.17 – outside air boundary layer

11.3” inches total wall thickness

Page 36: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

6. Wall Model – Masonry Cavity Walls

a

R 0.30 – Masonry veneer

R 2.5 – Foil-faced 1” air space

R 10.5 – 1.5” foil-faced polyiso board

R 5.7 – 8” CMU grouted 48” c/c

R 0.68 – inside air boundary layerR 19.9 – Total

R 0.17 – outside air boundary layer

12.8 inches total wall thickness

Page 37: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

Summary: R values, Thickness and Cost R Value Thickness $ / sq ft

1a. 4” Wood Studs with Brick Veneer R 20.6 10.4”

1b. 6” Wood Studs with Brick Veneer R 19.5 11.9”

2. 6” Steel Studs with Brick Veneer R 19.1 12.9”

3. Insulated Concrete Form with Brick Veneer R 19.4 15.3”

4. Tilt-up Concrete with Insulated Studs R 20.3 15.6”

5. 8” Single-wythe CMU Wall R 7.6 7.62”

6a. 6” CMU Masonry Cavity Wall with Brick Veneer R 19.5 13.3”

6b. 8” CMU Masonry Cavity Wall with Brick Veneer R 19.9 12.8”

Notes:1. Every wall system in this list requires continuous insulation to achieve R19.2. Consider aesthetics. Most of the above do not have finished masonry inside and out.3. Consider durability. Masonry and concrete will last indefinitely.4. Consider maintenance. Masonry and concrete surfaces require very little maintenance.5. Consider Life Cycle Cost, not just first cost.6. Consider fire resistance. Wood buildings burn to the ground in 20 minutes or less.7. Finally consider overall value. Masonry cavity walls give most for your money.

Page 38: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

True Mass Effect

• Many wall systems, including masonry, tilt-up, and ICF’s claim a benefit from mass in the wall system to improve energy performance.

• Computer simulations at ORNL show where mass should be placed for maximum benefit.

• This debunks claims of some wall systems to benefit from mass.

Page 39: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Study

• This recent study at ORNL found significant improvement in energy performance of a 1500 sf house with properly placed mass elements in the walls.

Page 40: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 41: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 42: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

HDD / CDD4”

EPS

3” C

onc

3” C

onc

4” E

PS2”

Con

c

4” C

onc

4” E

PS

6” C

onc

6” C

onc

6” C

onc

6” C

onc

4” E

PS

3” E

PS

2” E

PS

2” E

PS

1” E

PS

WALL 1 WALL 2 WALL 3 WALL 4 WALL 5 WALL 6

MASS INSIDEINSULATION OUTSIDE

MASS OUTSIDEINSULATION INSIDE

(TILT-UP WITH INSIDE INSULATION)

MASS NOT EFFECTIVE

MASS BURIED ININSULATION (ICF)

MASS NOT EFFECTIVE

Page 43: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

ORNL Study – Energy Use in Houseshttp://www.ornl.org/sci/roofs+walls/staff/papers/Effect%20of%20Insulation%20and%20Mass%20Distribution.pdf

Page 44: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

Cavity Wall Savings

Table 4 - Annual Cooling Energy Demand (Mbtu /Yr)CDD=> 2300 1000 4600 1000 5000 1800Wall ATL DNVR MIA MINN PHX WADC

2 5.68 0.74 32.80 1.32 27.27 3.006 7.05 1.70 33.87 1.93 28.76 4.08

-19.4% -56.5% -3.2% -31.6% -5.2% -26.5%

Table 5 - Annual Heating Energy Demand (Mbtu /Yr)HDD=> 3100 6300 270 7100 1200 3900Wall ATL DNVR MIA MINN PHX WADC

2 18.88 37.76 0.35 66.75 3.37 33.266 19.50 38.91 0.42 67.26 4.73 34.01

-3.2% -3.0% -16.7% -0.8% -28.8% -2.2%

Table 5 - Annual Heating and Cooling Energy Demand (Mbtu /Yr)Wall ATL DNVR MIA MINN PHX WADC

2 24.56 38.50 33.15 68.07 30.64 36.266 26.55 40.61 34.29 69.19 33.49 38.09

-7.5% -5.2% -3.3% -1.6% -8.5% -4.8%-30% -21% -13% -6% -34% -19%

Similar to Masonry Cavity Wall

ICF Wall

Cavity Wall Savings

Cavity Wall Savings

Savings on heat flow through wall only (estimated)

Page 45: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

What does this mean?

1. This study shows significant savings for walls with mass exposed to inside air compared with mass isolated within insulation.

2. Walls account for only 25% of the heat loss for these houses.

3. If we divide total savings in heat load by 25%, we can see that walls with mass exposed to inside air reduce heat loss through walls by up to 34% in Phoenix and 30% in Atlanta.

4. DFW savings would be in this 30% range as well.

Page 46: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

Limitations on the ORNL study.

1. Significant wall types were not studied:a. Masonry veneer over steel studsb. Masonry veneer over wood studs

2. Whole building energy modeling does not show heat losses in walls directly

Page 47: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

NBS 45 Study July 1973• Computer models • Full scale testing• Showed mass benefits

– Stabilized indoor temperatures

– Reduced heating and cooling loads

• +/- 0.8° F indoors• +- 27.5° F outdoors

Page 48: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

Proposed Mass House in DFWUsing the adobe effect in DFW, a mass house could greatly reduce energy consumption by storing several days’ heat flow to take advantage of outside temperature variations and eliminate mechanical heating and cooling.• Walls would be solid masonry or concrete to maximize mass.• Ground floor would be slab-on-grade with perimeter

insulation to maximize heat storage in the slab and the soil under it with ground temperature at 68ᵒF.

• Attic floor would be 8” solid concrete.• Total mass for 1500 sf house would be 600,000 lbm • At 0.22 sp heat it takes 132,000 btu to raise the temperature

one degree F.• In 18 hours of 90 deg weather, temperature will rise 3 deg F

Page 49: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

2011 Daily High and Low Temperatures, DFW Airport

Daily HighsDaily Lows

Thermostat Set-points 68ᵒF to 75ᵒF

Efficient Air Conditioning

Ventilation Only No Heat or AC

Ventilation Only No Heat or AC

Solar Heating

Solar Heating

Page 50: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

• Daily high and low temperatures in the DFW area shows approximately 6 months when outside temperatures fall within the comfort zone as defined by thermostat set points. During these times, outside air could be brought in to either heat or cool indoor air at appropriate times of the day.

• Light-framed houses will require supplemental heating and cooling during these times, because they can only store sufficient heat to maintain temperatures for several hours.

Proposed Mass House in DFW

Page 51: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

• Mass houses can store enough heat to maintain comfortable temperatures for several days. With proper ventilation programming, mechanical heating will be required for only 2.5 months in winter. This can be easily provided by solar collectors, which can also supply domestic hot water. So far we have net zero energy, except for fans, lighting, and plug loads.

• Cooling will be required for about 3.5 months in summer. But mass storage allows running cooling system when outside temperatures are at their lowest.

• This decreases total energy use for cooling by 25% and shifts energy loads to off-peak hours to allow better use of alternative energy sources, such as wind power.

Proposed Mass House in DFW

Page 52: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

• Mass houses can store enough heat to maintain comfortable temperatures for several days.

• Heating and cooling minimized in spring and fall weather• Long cooling cycles maximize cooling efficiency• Off-peak heating and cooling – Better use of alternative energy sources– Much lower energy costs with electric discounts

Mass House in Any Climate

Page 53: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

Comparing Wall SystemsSummary and Conclusions

• True R values differ widely among wall systems• Masonry cavity walls can match any level of insulation• Tilt-up has limited insulation capacity, unless an

insulated cavity and masonry veneer is added.• ICF has limited insulation capacity that is adequate,

but not better than masonry cavity walls.• ICF walls are 4”thicker than masonry cavity walls for

the same insulation value.• Masonry cavity walls cost less than either ICF or tilt-up

walls.

Page 54: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

Comparing Wall SystemsSummary and Conclusions

• Steel and wood framed walls have very limited insulation capacity without added cavity insulation.

• Steel and wood framed walls often have moisture damage from corrosion and mold.

• Tilt-up panels with inside insulation have very limited insulation capacity and also can have moisture damage from corrosion and mold.

Page 55: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

Comparing Wall SystemsSummary and Conclusions

• Masonry cavity walls are by far the most versatile wall systems:– Widest range of insulation capacities– Strong aesthetic qualities– Moderate cost– 8” modules work at a human scale– Speed of construction– No cranes or heavy equipment required– Few site limitations– Disaster resistant – fire, flood, wind, seismic– Carries structural loads with ease

Page 56: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

eQUEST & Simergy Energy Modeling• User-friendly shell for whole building energy

analysis, especially Simergy.• Complies with IECC energy codes• ASHRAE 90.1 or IECC compliance paths• User selects building size, shape, and envelope

and mechanical elements with few limits.• Change walls, windows, and other envelope

components to compare performance.• Free! Developed by Lawrence Berkley Labs –

Download at DOE website.

Page 57: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

eQUEST & Simergy Energy Modeling• Demonstrates compliance with IECC where

prescriptive methods fail.• Single wythe CMU walls comply in Climate

zones 1 – 6.• Much lower cost buildings to meet or exceed

energy codes.

Page 58: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

Enjoy your eQUEST !And may your life

overflow with Simegy!

John E. Swink, PE, LEED-APAcme Brick Company801 Airport FreewayEuless, TX [email protected] 817-714-9523

http://doe2.com/download/equest/

Page 59: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance

Kentucky School Energy Study

• The following slides are used by permission from a PCMA presentation by Dr. W Mark McGinley, from a recent study directed by him at University of Louisville.

• Complete report can be obtained from the author by request.

Page 60: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 61: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 62: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 63: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 64: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 65: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 66: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 67: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 68: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 69: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 70: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 71: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 72: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 73: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 74: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 75: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 76: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 77: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 78: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 79: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 80: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 81: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 82: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 83: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 84: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 85: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 86: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 87: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 88: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 89: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 90: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 91: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 92: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 93: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 94: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 95: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 96: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 97: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 98: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 99: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance
Page 100: Wall Insulation and Whole Building Energy Performance