Comparison of building enclosures designed to the minimum requirements of the 2011 NECB

Abstract The objective of this study was to compare the life cycle costs of lightweight and thermally massive building enclosures designed to meet the prescriptive requirements of the 2011 National Energy Code of Canada for Buildings (NECB) in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Nine enclosure systems matched to three buildings (office, school, and apartment) were designed to meet the NECB requirements. Energy costs were estimated from local energy prices and hygrothermal analyses conducted using WUFI Plus. Construction and maintenance costs were estimated using “bids” from local contractors and RS Means cost data. Life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) was carried out and the enclosures were compared based on equivalent annual cost. LCCA demonstrated that the high initial cost of heavier materials is largely offset by greater durability and reduced sensitivity to moisture. Despite relatively low initial costs, EIFS on stud framing was shown to have very high life cycle costs if not properly maintained.

[1]  Li Heng,et al.  Cost-effectiveness assessment of insulated exterior walls of residential buildings in cold climate , 2007 .

[2]  Joseph P. Morrissey,et al.  Life cycle cost implications of energy efficiency measures in new residential buildings , 2011 .

[3]  T. Perrin The Business Of Urban Animals Survey: the facts and statistics on companion animals in Canada. , 2009, The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne.

[4]  L. Irving,et al.  The source of co2 expired and the site of its retention , 1930, The Journal of physiology.

[5]  Means,et al.  Building construction cost data , 1943 .

[6]  Fraunhofer-Institut für Bauphysik,et al.  Simultaneous heat and moisture transport in building components: One- and two-dimensional calculation using simple parameters , 1995 .

[7]  Elizabeth Agle,et al.  Building Air Quality: A Guide for Building Owners and Facility Managers. , 1991 .

[8]  Vu Duc Hien,et al.  Thermal performance and cost effectiveness of massive walls under thai climate , 2011 .

[9]  Joshua D. Kneifel,et al.  Life-cycle carbon and cost analysis of energy efficiency measures in new commercial buildings , 2010 .

[10]  M. Tremblay,et al.  Bias in self-reported estimates of obesity in Canadian health surveys: an update on correction equations for adults. , 2011, Health reports.

[11]  Jennifer O'Connor,et al.  Survey on actual service lives for North American buildings , 2004 .

[12]  R. S. Spain,et al.  The effect of wall mass on winter heating loads and indoor comfort: An experimental study , 1984 .

[13]  Supachart Chungpaibulpatana,et al.  Performance analysis of the building envelope: A case study of the Main Hall, Shinawatra University , 2008 .

[14]  Jan Kosny,et al.  Influence of insulation configuration on heating and cooling loads in a continuously used building , 2002 .

[15]  Refrigerating ASHRAE handbook of fundamentals , 1967 .

[16]  Li Zhu,et al.  Detailed Energy Saving Performance Analyses on Thermal Mass Walls Demonstrated in a Zero Energy House , 2009 .

[17]  Steven Blanchard,et al.  Life Cycle Analysis of a Residential Home in Michigan , 1998 .

[18]  Soteris A. Kalogirou,et al.  Energy analysis of buildings employing thermal mass in Cyprus , 2002 .

[19]  M. A. Younis,et al.  Effects of energy conversation measures the life cycle cost of Kuwaiti residential buildings , 1985 .