Residential commissioning: a review of related literature

Wray, Craig P.; Piette,; Sherman, Max H.; Levinson, Ronnen; Matson, Nance E.; Driscoll, Don A.; McWilliams, Jennifer A.; Xu, Tong; Delp, William W.

doi:10.2172/764357

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This review builds upon a prior review, which focused on literature relevant to residential mechanical system commissioning [55].…”

Section: Minnesota Mechanical Systems Field Guidementioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Literature Related to Combustion Appliance Venting Systems

Rapp¹,

Less²,

Singer³

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many residential building retrofit programs, air tightening to increase energy efficiency is constrained by concerns about related impacts on the safety of naturally vented combustion appliances. Tighter housing units more readily depressurize when exhaust equipment is operated, making combustion appliances more prone to backdraft or spillage. Several test methods purportedly assess the potential for depressurization-induced backdrafting and spillage, but these tests are not robustly reliable and repeatable predictors of venting performance, in part because they do not fully capture weather effects on venting performance. The purpose of this literature review is to investigate combustion safety diagnostics in existing codes, standards, and guidelines related to combustion appliances. This review summarizes existing combustion safety test methods, evaluations of these test methods, and also discusses research related to wind effects and the simulation of vent system performance. Current codes and standards related to combustion appliance installation provide little information on assessing backdrafting or spillage potential. A substantial amount of research has been conducted to assess combustion appliance backdrafting and spillage test methods, but primarily focuses on comparing short-term (stress) induced tests and monitoring results. Monitoring, typically performed over one week, indicated that combinations of environmental and house operation characteristics most conducive to combustion spillage were rare. Research, to an extent, has assessed existing combustion safety diagnostics for house depressurization, but the objectives of the diagnostics, both stress and monitoring, are not clearly defined. More research is also needed to quantify the frequency of test "failure" occurrence throughout the building stock and assess the statistical effects of weather (especially wind) on house depressurization and in turn on combustion appliance venting. Incorporating weather variations and house ventilation system characteristics in existing simulation software may assist such analyses and with developing a more reliable diagnostic for use on-site.

show abstract

“…This review builds upon a prior review, which focused on literature relevant to residential mechanical system commissioning [55].…”

Section: Minnesota Mechanical Systems Field Guidementioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Literature Related to Combustion Appliance Venting Systems

Rapp¹,

Less²,

Singer³

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A summary of the research assessing codes, standards, and guidelines for combustion safety is provided below. This review builds upon a prior review, which focused on literature relevant to residential mechanical system commissioning [55].…”

Section: Chapter 4: Prior Research Assessing Codes Standards and Guidelinesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Literature Related to Combustion Appliance Venting Systems

Rapp

Singer

Stratton

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the California Energy Commission and the United States Government. It does not necessarily represent the views of the Energy Commission, its employees or the State of California. The Energy Commission, the State of California, its employees, contractors and subcontractors make no warrant, express or implied, and assume no legal liability for the information in this report; nor does any party represent that the uses of this information will not infringe upon privately owned rights. This report has not been approved or disapproved by the California Energy Commission nor has the California Energy Commission passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of the information in this report.The following additional disclaimer is specified in the contract between the California Energy Commission and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL): The government and the facility operator make no express or implied warranty as to the conditions of the research or any intellectual property, generated information, or product made or developed under this agreement, or the ownership, merchantability, or fitness for a particular purpose of the research or resulting product: that the goods, services, materials, products, processes, information, or date to be furnished hereunder will accomplish intended results or are safe for any purpose including the intended purpose; or that any of the above will not interfere with privately owned rights of others. Neither the government nor the facility operator shall be liable for special, consequential, or incidental damages attributed to such research or resulting product, intellectual property, generated information, or product made or delivered under this agreement.

show abstract

“…We determined benefits relating to commissioning California's houses using 128 hourby-hour simulations with data derived from our field and laboratory studies to evaluate commissioning diagnostics (Wray et al 2001) and from other sources referenced in the commissioning literature study (Wray et al 2000). In particular, we determined building performance (e.g., ventilation rates, energy consumption and operating costs) using simulation programs (DOE-2, RESVENT [Sherman andMatson 1993, 1997]) and the requirements of codes and standards (Title 24, ASHRAE Standards 62.2P and 152P [ASHRAE 1999]).…”

Section: Analysis Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This report describes our assessment of the potential quantitative and qualitative benefits one can realistically expect from commissioning prototypical new and existing California houses. Our assessment expands upon our recent literature review and annotated bibliography (Wray et al 2000), which facilitates access to 469 documents related to residential commissioning published over the past 20 years. It also expands upon our assessment of 117 diagnostic tools for evaluating residential commissioning metrics (Wray et al 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential Benefits of Commissioning California Homes

Matson¹,

Wray²,

Walker³

et al. 2002

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The electricity savings in the commissioning phase range from 7 to 11% (typical) and 55 to 71% (poor). In the opportunity phase, adding equipment with a TXV and an ECM increases savings only slightly (one to seven percentage points more). Natural Gas. Natural gas savings in the commissioning phase are about 25% for the typical cases and from 18 to 35% for the poor cases. In the opportunity phase, installing a higher efficiency furnace (90% instead of 80%) increases natural gas savings slightly to about 30% for the typical cases and from 22 to 41% for the poor cases. Operating Costs. Operating cost savings in the commissioning phase range from 12 to 17% (typical) and from 50 to 62% (poor). In the opportunity phase, installing the HVAC equipment with a TXV, an ECM, and higher furnace efficiency increases the operating cost savings to 17 to 22% (typical) and from 51 to 63% (poor). Advanced Houses Because the advanced houses are already engineered and designed to be energy efficient, relative savings for the typical cases are lower than those for the typical existing and new houses. For the advanced houses, the primary difference between the typical and the poor cases is the incorrect installation of clear glazing in place of low-e glazing. Correcting LBNL-48258 vii this problem in the poor cases drives the energy consumption and savings closer to the levels seen with the new houses. Electricity. The commissioning phase electricity saving range from 7 to 10% (typical) and from 52 to 73% (poor). Natural Gas. Natural gas savings range from 2 to 3% for the typical cases. Due to a reduction in solar gains when the incorrect clear double-pane windows are replaced with low-e double-pane windows, the poor advanced commissioning cases have higher gas consumption, resulting in negative gas savings, from-19 to-10%.

show abstract

Residential commissioning: a review of related literature

Cited by 8 publications

References 4 publications

Assessment of Literature Related to Combustion Appliance Venting Systems

Assessment of Literature Related to Combustion Appliance Venting Systems

Assessment of Literature Related to Combustion Appliance Venting Systems

Potential Benefits of Commissioning California Homes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About