Reports produced before January 1, 1996, may be purchased by members of the public from the following source. Reports are available to DOE employees, DOE contractors, Energy Technology Data Exchange (ETDE) representatives, and International Nuclear Information System (INIS) representatives from the following source. Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. Figure 1. Comparison of energy impacts of 4% leaky ducts in an attic with a sealed floor versus 10%, and 20% leaky ducts in attic space without a sealed floor,. ABSTRACT Typically, the cheapest way to install a central air conditioning system in residential buildings is to place the ductwork in the attic. Energy losses due to duct-attic interactions can be great, but current whole-house models are unable to capture the dynamic multi-mode physics of the interactions. The building industry is notoriously fragmented and unable to devote adequate research resources to solve this problem. Builders are going to continue to put ducts in the attic because floor space is too expensive to closet them within living space, and there are both construction and aesthetic issues with other approaches such as dropped ceilings. Thus, there is a substantial need to publicly document duct losses and the cost of energy used by ducts in attics so that practitioners, builders, homeowners and state and federal code officials can make informed decisions leading to changes in new construction and additional retrofit actions. Thus, the goal of this study is to conduct a comparison of AtticSim and EnergyPlus simulation algorithms to identify specific features for potential inclusion in EnergyPlus that would allow higher-fidelity modeling of HVAC operation and duct transport of conditioned air. It is anticipated that the resulting analysis from these simulation tools will inform energy decisions relating to the role of ducts in future building energy codes and standards.
[1]
Russell Graves,et al.
A Prototype Roof Deck Designed to Self-Regulate Deck Temperature and Reduce Heat Transfer
,
2011
.
[2]
Iain S. Walker,et al.
Technical Background for Default Values used for Forced Air Systems in Proposed ASHRAE Standard 152P
,
1998
.
[3]
William A. Miller,et al.
The Trade-off between Solar Reflectance and Above-Sheathing Ventilation for Metal Roofs on Residential and Commercial Buildings
,
2013
.
[4]
K. E. Wilkes.
Thermal model of attic systems with radiant barriers
,
1991
.
[5]
Lixing Gu,et al.
AIRFLOW NETWORK MODELING IN ENERGYPLUS
,
2007
.
[6]
Jeffrey E. Christian,et al.
Effect of radiant barriers and attic ventilation on residential attics and attic duct systems: New tools for measuring and modeling
,
1998
.
[7]
W. Dols,et al.
CONTAMW 2.0 User Manual
,
2002
.
[8]
George Walton,et al.
CONTAM 2.1 supplemental user guide and program documentation
,
2003
.
[9]
J. B. Cummings,et al.
Duct Leakage Impacts on Airtightness, Infiltration, and Peak Electrical Demand in Florida Homes
,
1990
.
[10]
George N Walton,et al.
AIRNET - a computer program for building airflow network modeling
,
1989
.
[11]
Philip Fairey,et al.
Simulation of the effects of duct leakage and heat transfer on residential space-cooling energy use
,
1993
.