windows - british columbia · upgrade an existing building's efficiency while retaining its...

Operating Energy Reduction

in Heritage Buildings -

Windows

University of Victoria Dian Ross Faculty of Engineering Winter 2007

Heritage Branch Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts

Province of British Columbia 5th Floor - 800 Johnson Street

Victoria, B.C. V8W 9W3

Table of Contents

Table of Figures 1

Table of Tables 1

Summary 2

1 EnerGuide for Houses Analysis 4

1.1 EnerGuide for Houses 4 1.2 My Hot2000 Model 6 1.3 Comparison 7 1.4 Discussion of Hot2000 Models 8

2 Alternative Compliance Solution 9

2.1 Alternative Compliance Methods of Operating Energy Reduction for Heritage Buildings 9

1 Background 9 2 Solutions 9

2.2 Alternative Compliance Methods of Operating Energy Reduction for Heritage Buildings with Regards to Windows 14 Summary of solutions. 14

1 Least Invasive Solutions 14 1.1 Heavy lined curtains (insulated curtains) and insulated and reflective internal blinds 14

2 Middling Invasive Solutions 14 3 Most Invasive Solutions 15

2.3 Storm Window Designs 16 Assumptions: 16 Baseline (Existing Window): 17 Solution 1: Heat Shrink Film Kit 18 Solution 2: Interior Operable Casement 19 Solution 3: Fixed Exterior Window Wood Grill 20 Solution 4: Operable Exterior Window Wood Grill 21 Solution 5: Fixed Exterior Window 2 Panes of Glass 22 Solution 6: Operable Exterior Window 2 Panes of Glass 23

2.4 Discussion of Storm Window Designs 24 3 Heat Shrink Film Case Study 25

4 Conclusion 27

5 Recommendations 28

6 References 28

1 Heat Shrink Film Kits 28 2 Interior Rigid Acrylic Storm Windows 29 3 Exterior Wooden Storm Windows 29 6.1 Bibliography for Structural Terminology Used in the National Resources Canada “Hot-2000” Software 30

6.2 Bibliography of Emily Carr House Site Information 32 6.3 Annotated Bibliography 35 6.4 Sustainability Terminology 44

Appendix 51

Appendix A: List of Places in Victoria that Use Storm Windows, with Photographs 51 Appendix B: Hot2000 Report, Emily Carr House, Dian Ross 55 Appendix C: Hot2000 Report, Emily Carr House, EnerGuide for Houses 72 Appendix D: Hot2000 Report, Upgraded Emily Carr House, EnerGuide for Houses 88

1

Table of Figures Figure 1 - EnerGuide for Houses Estimated Annual Heat Loss Comparison ...............................................................4 Figure 2 - Estimated Annual Heat Loss by Subassembly, EnerGuide Model................................................................5 Figure 3 - Estimated Annual Heat Loss by Subassembly, My Model ............................................................................6 Figure 4 - Annual Heat Loss Comparison by Subassembly...........................................................................................7 Figure 5: Existing Window with Cross Section View ..................................................................................................17 Figure 6: Existing Window..........................................................................................................................................17 Figure 7: Solution 1 Interior Heat Shrink Film Cross Section View...........................................................................18 Figure 8: Solution 1 Interior Heat Shrink Film Cross Section Areas..........................................................................18 Figure 9: Solution 2 Interior Casement Cross Section View.......................................................................................19 Figure 10: Solution 2 Interior Casement Cross Section Areas....................................................................................19 Figure 11: Solution 3 Fixed Exterior Wood Grill Cross Section View........................................................................20 Figure 12: Solution 3 Fixed Exterior Wood Grill Cross Section Areas ......................................................................20 Figure 13: Solution 4 Operable Exterior Wood Grill Cross Section View..................................................................21 Figure 14: Solution 4 Operable Exterior Wood Grill Cross Section Areas ................................................................21 Figure 15: Solution 5 Fixed Exterior Wood Cross Section View ................................................................................22 Figure 16: Solution 5 Fixed Exterior Wood Cross Section Areas ...............................................................................22 Figure 17: Solution 6 Operable Exterior Wood Cross Section View ..........................................................................23 Figure 18: Solution 6 Operable Exterior Wood Cross Section Areas .........................................................................23 Figure 19 - Temperature Difference Without Storm Windows ....................................................................................25 Figure 20 - Temperature Difference With Storm Windows .........................................................................................26 Figure 21: 953 Empress Ave. ......................................................................................................................................51 Figure 22: External Latches……………. .....................................................................................................................51 Figure 23: Air Vents on Operable Storm Windows .....................................................................................................51 Figure 24: Internal Linkage to Operate Storm Windows ............................................................................................51 Figure 25: 50 Wellington St. .......................................................................................................................................52 Figure 26: External Storm Windows on Front Façade ...............................................................................................52 Figure 27: 57 Cambridge St. .......................................................................................................................................52 Figure 28: External Storm Windows on Front Façade ...............................................................................................52 Figure 29: External Storm Windows on Front Façade ...............................................................................................53 Figure 30: External Storm Windows on Front and Side Façades ...............................................................................53 Figure 31: External Storm Windows on Front Façade ...............................................................................................53

Table of Tables Table 1 - Comparison of Estimated Heat Loss by Subassembly 7

2

Summary

The Province of B.C. has pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 33 per cent and to conserve energy equivalent to 50 per cent of B.C. Hydro's electricity demand growth by 2020. As climate change becomes an increasingly important issue, energy solutions are needed that upgrade an existing building's efficiency while retaining its heritage value.

As stipulated in the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, all upgrades made to heritage buildings must maintain the building's "character defining elements." Until the B.C. Building Code is upgraded to incorporate rehabilitation, building projects rely on a building inspector's knowledge of alternative compliance solutions for existing modern or heritage buildings.

For this B.C. Heritage Branch project, energy upgrade solutions that would allow buildings to retain their heritage values and character defining elements were researched. This work intends to provide guidance and knowledge about alternative compliance options that are acceptable under the new B.C. Building Code to homeowners, developers and building inspectors. In addition to a list of general solutions, six storm window solutions were designed and analyzed for their effective R-values. Though none of the solutions upgraded existing windows to new EnergySTAR required R-values, they did serve to double the energy efficiency of a case study window: an existing window at the Emily Carr House in Victoria, B.C.

The Emily Carr House was built in Victoria in 1864. Because of its designation as a National Historic Site, any improvements must preserve all character defining features of the building.

In addition, an energy audit of the Emily Carr House was conducted using the EnerGuide for Houses blower door test system. The National Resources Canada Hot-2000 software report generated by an auditor from City Green, in addition to one completed in-house, are analyzed in this report for their consistency and suitability for modeling heritage buildings.

3

Finally, a case study was undertaken in the dining room of the Emily Carr House using a heat shrink film kit to minimize air leakage around the windows and to increase the thermal barrier. This experiment was undertaken to compare with the theoretical values calculated using 1-Dimensional heat transfer analysis on the storm window designs.

The Project

A case study was completed to measure the current operating energy of the Emily Carr House using the Natural Resources Canada Hot-2000 software. An EnerGuide for Houses expert from Green City was then consulted to analyze the building, and the two models were compared. Note that the City Green analysis models certain energy upgrade solutions, while my analysis models the Emily Carr House only as it exists today. An explanation of software assumptions and presets is also provided.

Analysis of six alternative compliance window upgrade solutions are provided. The operable window is modeled from a window in the Emily Carr House boardroom. Although the results are generalized so as to be applicable to most heritage and existing windows, the benefit of modeling an Emily Carr House window is that the solutions can eventually be applied to the building. The energy efficiency of these solutions is also compared to a typical Energy Star window.

Finally, a case study of interior heat shrink film, the simplest storm window solution, is analyzed for its performance in the dining room of the Emily Carr House. The temperature difference, as the room currently exists, between inside the dining room and directly outside was recorded three times a day for a week. Heat shrink film, from a kit, was then applied to all dining room windows. The temperatures were again tested and then compared to previous results.

4

1 EnerGuide for Houses Analysis

1.1 EnerGuide for Houses The case study generated by the EnerGuide for Houses expert provides an EnerGuide rating relative to other houses considered to be in the same class as the Emily Carr House. The Emily Carr House received an EnerGuide rating of 31 on a 100-point scale. For reference, houses of similar age in Canada average a score of 44 on this scale. The report continues to state that the Emily Carr House could be rated as high as 80 if it implemented all of the EnerGuide recommendations. The EnerGuide for Houses analysis generates EnerGuide ratings based on the expert’s Hot2000 model of the house in its current form and with recommended upgrades. The EnerGuide rating also incorporates data collected during a blower door test. EnerGuide estimated annual energy consumption of the Emily Carr House to be 299 Gigajoules (GJ). Space heating of the current house was estimated to consume 250 GJ annually. By implementing non-heating upgrades to the house, the space heating energy consumption can be reduced to 108 GJ. By upgrading all thermal systems in the Emily Carr House, space heating energy consumption can be further reduced to 37 GJ. These values are summarized in Figure 1, taken from the EnerGuide report.

Figure 1 - EnerGuide for Houses Estimated Annual Heat Loss Comparison

The EnerGuide report also estimates annual heat loss, which it breaks down into subassemblies. These values are shown both for the Current Emily Carr House and after making the recommended improvements. The graph, taken from the EnerGuide report is given in Figure 2. Please see Appendices D and E for the complete Hot2000 reports on the Current and Upgraded Emily Carr House models generated by EnerGuide for Houses.

5

Figure 2 - Estimated Annual Heat Loss by Subassembly, EnerGuide Model

6

1.2 My Hot2000 Model In my case study of the Emily Carr House, the current house configuration is considered. No improvements are suggested or considered for this analysis. Since the EnerGuide rating is created using both Hot2000 model and blower door data, an EnerGuide rating cannot be generated in my analysis. The purpose of my analysis is to validate the two Hot2000 models, since they had different authors and used different modeling approaches. This Hot2000 analysis estimated annual energy consumption to be 310 GJ. Annual energy Space heating energy consumption of the Emily Carr House in this analysis is estimated at 291 GJ annually. Estimated annual heat loss is provided in the Hot2000 report by subassembly. Only the current Emily Carr House configuration is considered for this analysis. The graph summarizing annual heat loss by subassembly is given in Figure 3. Please see Appendix C for the complete Hot2000 report on my Emily Carr House model.

Estimated Heat Loss (Gigajoules)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Ceiling

Main Walls

Exposed Floors

Windows

Doors

Basement

Air Leakage & Ventilation

Figure 3 - Estimated Annual Heat Loss by Subassembly, My Model

7

1.3 Comparison To validate these different models, the estimated heat loss values were compared. A numerical summary of each model is provided in Table 1. Total heat loss between my current Emily Carr House model and the EnerGuide for Houses current Emily Carr House model differs by 39.85 GJ, which is 10.68% of the total. Therefore, though different authors using different modeling methods generated the two models, both models are considered valid approximations. A graph summarizing this comparison is given in Figure 4. Dian Hot2000 EnerGuide Hot2000 Current EnerGuide Hot2000 Upgrade




Ceiling 28.01 25.76 25.76Main Walls 139.33 129.79 47.02Exposed Floors 0.00 0.00 0.00Windows 91.68 83.06 40.72Doors 6.62 5.80 5.80Basement 19.64 19.89 6.56Air Leakage, Ventilation 87.75 68.87 53.05Total 373.02 333.17 178.92

Table 1 - Comparison of Estimated Heat Loss by Subassembly

Annual Heat Loss Comparison

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Ceiling

Main Walls

Exposed Floors

Windows

Doors

Basement

Air Leakage & Ventilation

EnerGuide, UpgradedEnerGuide, CurrentEstimated Heat Loss (Gigajoules)

Figure 4 - Annual Heat Loss Comparison by Subassembly

8

1.4 Discussion of Hot2000 Models In all Hot2000 models, the window sizes are approximate. Windows on each side of the house were measured. However, measurements were not taken for each individual window. In the models, the correct number of windows has been incorporated for each side of the house. All of them are assigned the same approximate size. Only the upstairs quarters and downstairs kitchen were considered as living spaces in all of the models. The EnerGuide for Houses modeled upgrade windows as aluminum single glazed units. However, the alternative compliance solutions introduced in Section 2 provide a more substantive improvement than the aluminum windows modeled. The theoretical values for total annual energy consumption estimated by the Hot2000 models were approximately double the actual energy consumption at Emily Carr House for 2006. The EnerGuide for Houses model of the Current Emily Carr House predicted annual energy consumption of 299 GJ, or 83056 kWh. Actual energy usage in 2006 was 37494 kWh. The difference between actual energy usage and estimated energy usage is 45562kWh, or 54.9% of the estimated usage. The discrepancy between estimated and actual annual energy usage is due to the models considering year-round heating of all rooms within the house to comfortable temperature levels (around 20ºC). The first floor of the Emily Carr House is rarely heated, which reduces heating energy consumption.

9

2 Alternative Compliance Solutions

2.1 Alternative Compliance Methods of Operating Energy Reduction for Heritage Buildings

The following quotation summarizes many agencies’ views on retention of heritage building assemblies:

Consider replacing older, wooden exterior doors with metal, insulated units, which are more durable, easier to weather-strip, and maintain their appearance with lower maintenance needs. There is a trade-off between the aesthetics of the “heritage house” and thermal values.

-- Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation Renovating for Energy Savings

1 Background

BC Building Code, Division A, Appendix A Application to Existing Buildings (A-1.1.1.1.(1)) “It is not intended that the BCBC be used to enforce the retrospective application of new requirements to existing buildings or existing portions of relocated buildings, unless specifically required by local regulations or bylaws… Code application to existing or relocated buildings requires careful consideration of the level of safety needed for that building. This consideration involves an analytical process similar to that required to assess alternative design proposals for new construction.”

2 Solutions English Heritage Building Regulations and Historic Buildings: Improving Window Insulation (8.4, p.21):

1. Draught proofing 2. Secondary glazing 3. Old louvred and paneled external shutters 4. Heavy lined curtains (insulated curtains) and insulated and reflective internal blinds

Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources BC New Low Rise Green Building Code Lifecycle Cost Analysis:

10

Windows (2.2.2, p.4): “The BC building code requires that windows be double glazed (or single with a storm sash.)” Conclusions (4, p.16): “Cost effective actions for electrically heated single family houses include:

• Advanced frame walls with increased insulation • Full height basement insulation • Ground source heat pumps • Compact fluorescent lights • Efficient appliances • Additional wall ceiling and basement insulation • Heat recovery ventilators with increased air tightness of the air barrier.”

National Resources Canada Consumer’s Guide to Buying Energy Efficient Windows and Doors: Windows: The Ratings Game (Section 6) “[M]ost fixed windows tend to have better Energy Rating numbers than operable ones. There are two reasons for this. First, the standard size for a fixed window is nearly twice as large as most of the operable windows and thus has more glass area relative to frame area. Frames are also thinner because they do not need separate moveable sashes. This translates into more solar gains and les frame losses… Second, fixed windows tend to have less air leakage compared to operable ones.” Doors (Section 9.1) “Doors have less impact than windows on the energy consumption of a home… because there are fewer of them.” The following summarizes the threat to wooden door industry and heritage door character: “A badly deteriorated door should be replaced with a new one with energy efficient insulation… New insulated doors are usually made of foam and wood covered with metal. Door frames are normally wood, clad with metal or vinyl.” National Resources Canada ENERGY STAR: “An ENERGY STAR window will have many of the following features: [those attainable by heritage windows are bolded.]”

• Double or triple glazing with a sealed insulated glass unit. [With storm windows.] • Low-emission glass. • Inert gas (argon, krypton) in sealed unit. • Low conductivity or “warm edge space bars.” [Can be added.] • Insulated frames, sashes and door cores. • Good airtightness. [By using weather-stripping and caulking.]

11

Qualifying Criteria “All ENERGY STAR qualified windows, doors, and skylights have been certified by an independent accredited agency for their quality and energy performance. Because of this, manufacturers often offer longer warranties for these products.” National Resources Canada Improving Window Energy Efficiency: Repairing Operable Windows (p.4) “If the window appears to be in good shape, it may be possible to improve airtightness by doing the following:

• Adjusting or replacing the sash locks or adding more locks to large windows. • Repairing or replacing hindges on casement windows. • Ensuring that caulking, weather-stripping and paint are not interfering with the

operation of the window. • Ensuring that weather-stripping is fully functional (ie. It should be flexible, be properly

located and make full contact between the sash and the frame.) Proper window maintenance includes annual cleaning of the hardware, tightening of hardware screws and lubricating moving parts… [A]lso replace any cracked glazing. If major repairs are required, consider seaking the services of a contractor.” Caulking (p.5): “Air leakage can be reduced by applying a constant bead of caulking around the window trim, at the mitred joints of the trim and between the trim and the frame ... Caulking on the outside of a window should be done only after interior sealing is complete. If the exterior is caulked first, it can trap warm, moist air in the wall, which can, in time, damage the wall.” Weatherstripping (p.5): “For older wood-frame windows, look for a good quality, self-adhesive plastic V-strip weatherstripping.” Exterior Storm Windows (p.7): “Exterior storm windows were once very common in Canadian houses and continue to serve a useful role in many applications… Exterior storm windows can be either seasonal or permanent… Permanent exterior storm windows are usually equipped with a built-in screen and sliding sash. When using exterior storm windows, the main interior window must be air sealed more tightly than the storm window to prevent moist household air from entering the space between the windows and being trapped, where it can condense and cause deterioration of the sash and frame.” Interior Storm Windows (p.7-9):

12

“[Interior storm windows] reduce the risk of condensation because its surface is closer to warm room air. Any condensation that does occur is on the storm window, which prolongs the life of the main window. [They are also] lighter and more accessible than seasonal exterior storm windows and are therefore particularly useful on upper floors.” (First 2 options are inexpensive, do-it-yourself; third option is more expensive and requires a contractor.)

1. Heat-Shrink Film with Double-Sided Tape: “With this system, two-sided tape is used to attach the film to the window trim, after which the film is heated with a hair dryer to shrink it tightly across the window.”

Advantage: Good seal and visibility. Disadvantage: 2-sided tape can remove paint. Also, once system is installed window cannot be accessed without removing or puncturing film and film can only be used once. 2. Clear Plastic Film with Spline and Channel: “A rigid plastic channel is permanently

attached to the window frame using small nails, screws or double-sided tape. A clear plastic film is then stretched tightly across the window and snapped into place using the spline section.” Advantage: Plastic film is reusable for several years and airtight. Spline and channel system lasts for several years. Disadvantage: Film may reduce visibility.

3. Clear Rigid Acrylic Sheets with Snap-On or Magnetic Seals: “The snap-on system works like the spline and channel system except that it is more substantial because it holds a heavy acrylic sheet in place. The rigid glazing is easier to attach and remove than film, and it is easier to clean, is more durable and has a more finished appearance.” Advantage: More durable, reusable, easier to clean. Disadvantage: When acrylic sheets are not is use, they must be stored either flat or vertical in a cool place protected from exposure to sunlight.

4. **Double Window like at Lynn Valley School in North Vancouver**: Retains the original windows, but adds a second window casement system inside that can be opened to give access to the original window.

Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, by Baird Smith, Preservation Brief 3: Conserving Energy in Historic Buildings Inherent Energy Saving in Historic Buildings (p.1) “Many historic buildings have energy saving physical features and devices that contribute to good thermal performance. [They maximize] sources of heating, lighting and ventilation.” Air Infiltration (p.5)

13

“Care should be taken not to reduce infiltration to the point where the building is completely sealed and moisture migration is prevented. Without some infiltration, condensation problems could occur throughout the building.” Attic Insulation (p.6) “Adding insulation in accessible attic spaces is very effective in saving energy… Problems occur if the attic space is not properly ventilated. This lack of ventilation will cause the insulation to become saturated and lose its thermal effectiveness.” Doors and Storm Doors (p.8) “Most historic wooden doors, if they are solid wood or paneled, have fairly good thermal properties and should not be replaced… [Insure] that caulking and weather-stripping is applied as necessary.” Wall Insulation (p.9) “The installation of wall insulation in historic frame buildings can result in serious technical problems… Introducing insulation in wall cavities without a vapour barrier and some ventilation can be disastrous. The insulation [will] become saturated, losing its thermal properties and … actually increasing the heat loss through the wall. Additionally, the moisture (in vapour form) may condense into water droplets and begin serious deterioration of adjacent building materials such as sill, window frames, framing and bracing…. There are two insulation types not recommended for wall insulation: urea formaldehyde foams and cellulose which use aluminum or ammonium sulphate instead of boric acid as a fire retardant. The cellulose reacts with moisture in the air and forms suphuric acid which corrodes many metals and causes building stones to slowly disintegrate.”

Heritage Canada, by Craig Sims and Andrew Powter Repair or Replace Windows in Historic Buildings: Arriving at a Sustainable Solution (p.2) “Residential wood windows can be in service for 100 years before requiring a major retrofit to remain in service for a second 100 years. Similarly, it is not unusual for modern windows to experience major, non-repairable failures to sealed units, vinyl welds, caulk joints and wood joints within 10 to 25 years. Today, most sealed units carry warranties of only 8 to 10 years.” “The most significant factor relating to heating costs and human comfort is air infiltration… The used of sealants on fixed joints in combination with weather-stripping on operable joints results in significant improvements and usually the CSA [Canadian Standards Association] can be met.” “CSA A440 also rates weather shedding performance. Because the construction and detailing of traditional windows … include[s] drip designs and angled sill slopes that ensure water sheds effectively.”

14

(p.3) “[H]istoric windows are maintainable…. [Calling modern window assemblies] ’[m]aintenance-free’ is often industry double-speak for un-maintainable or disposable. Vinyl- or aluminum-clad widows do not require the cyclical painting that wood does, but they scratch and fade, factory applied sealants fail, and joints may separate. These forms of deterioration cannot be halted by maintenance. In the last few years the advice to homeowners from the window replacement sector has been that responsible homeowners should replace their windows about every 25 years…. [G]lass and aluminum are two of the most energy-dense building materials requiring the highest use of energy in their manufacture and recycling. Vinyl is a non-renewable petroleum product and in not bio-degradable.” National Resources Canada R-2000 Initiative “Breathe Easier” (p.2) “Ventilation – the elimination of stale humid air from the home and the introduction of outdoor air – is also very important.” (Heritage buildings, by their nature, provide considerable natural ventilation.)

2.2 Alternative Compliance Methods of Operating Energy Reduction for Heritage Buildings with Regards to Windows

Summary of solutions.

1 Least Invasive Solutions

1.1 Heavy lined curtains (insulated curtains) and insulated and reflective internal blinds

2 Middling Invasive Solutions

2.1 Draught proofing

2.1.1 Caulking

2.1.2 Weatherstripping

2.2 Old louvred and paneled external shutters

15

3 Most Invasive Solutions

3.1 Secondary glazing

3.1.1 Storm Windows

3.1.1.1 Exterior

3.1.1.2 Interior (From least invasive to most invasive)

3.1.1.2.1 Heat-Shrink Film with Double-Sided Tape

3.1.1.2.2 Clear Plastic Film with Spline and Channel

3.1.1.2.3 Clear Rigid Acrylic Sheets with Snap-On or Magnetic Seals

3.1.1.2.4 Casement Window (second window added to the interior of the original window)

16

2.3 Storm Window Designs

Assumptions:

1. 1-D Conduction. 2. No radiation. 3. No generation. 4. Internal Temperature = 20 Celsius; External Temperature = 0 Celsius. 5. Still air outside (no wind). 6. Conduction only through film and window (not walls). 7. Conduction (no convection – still air) only through air pocket between window and storm

window. 8. No conduction through hinges or linkages. 9. Convection coefficient inside air: hi = 5 Watts/ square metre*Kelvin; ho = 10 W/sq.m*K. 10. Conduction coefficient hardwood: 0.16W/m*K; glass: 1.4 W/m*K; still air: 26.3x10^-3

W/m*K. 11. R-values for EnergySTAR windows: R-2.9 – R.4.0 sq.ft*h*F/Btu. (Maximum U-value:

2.0). Note: U is the reciprocal of R. 12. Conversion rate: 1 Imperial R-Value = 0.17611 sq.m*K/W. 13. Conversion rate: 1in = 2.54 cm; 1 sq.in = 6.4516 X 10^-4 sq. m.

17

Baseline (Existing Window):

Figure 5: Existing Window with Cross Section View

Figure 6: Existing Window

Power required to maintain the room at 20 C when outside is 0 C: 18.45 W. R-value in SI units: 4.458 W/sq.m*K. R-value in Imperial Units: 0.79 sq.ft*h*F/Btu. R-value for EnergySTAR windows: 2.9 – 4.0 sq.ft*h*F/Btu. Shortfall: R-2.11 – R-3.21.

18

Solution 1: Heat Shrink Film Kit

Figure 7: Solution 1 Interior Heat Shrink Film Cross Section View

Figure 8: Solution 1 Interior Heat Shrink Film Cross Section Areas


19

Solution 2: Interior Operable Casement

Figure 9: Solution 2 Interior Casement Cross Section View

Figure 10: Solution 2 Interior Casement Cross Section Areas

Power required to maintain the room at 20 C when outside is 0 C: 9.76W. R-value in SI units: 8.761 W/sq.m*K. R-value in Imperial Units: 1.54 sq.ft*h*F/Btu. R-value for EnergySTAR windows: 2.9 – 4.0 sq.ft*h*F/Btu. Shortfall: R-1.36 – R-2.46.

20

Solution 3: Fixed Exterior Window Wood Grill

Figure 11: Solution 3 Fixed Exterior Wood Grill Cross Section View

Figure 12: Solution 3 Fixed Exterior Wood Grill Cross Section Areas Power required to maintain the room at 20 C when outside is 0 C: 9.54W. R-value in SI units: 8.788 W/sq.m*K. R-value in Imperial Units: 1.55 sq.ft*h*F/Btu. R-value for EnergySTAR windows: 2.9 – 4.0 sq.ft*h*F/Btu. Shortfall: R-1.35 – R-2.45.

21

Solution 4: Operable Exterior Window Wood Grill

Figure 13: Solution 4 Operable Exterior Wood Grill Cross Section View

Figure 14: Solution 4 Operable Exterior Wood Grill Cross Section Areas Power required to maintain the room at 20 C when outside is 0 C: 9.58W. R-value in SI units: 8.775 W/sq.m*K. R-value in Imperial Units: 1.55 sq.ft*h*F/Btu. R-value for EnergySTAR windows: 2.9 – 4.0 sq.ft*h*F/Btu. Shortfall: R-1.35 – R-2.45.

22

Solution 5: Fixed Exterior Window 2 Panes of Glass

Figure 15: Solution 5 Fixed Exterior Wood Cross Section View

Figure 16: Solution 5 Fixed Exterior Wood Cross Section Areas


23

Solution 6: Operable Exterior Window 2 Panes of Glass

Figure 17: Solution 6 Operable Exterior Wood Cross Section View

Figure 18: Solution 6 Operable Exterior Wood Cross Section Areas


24

2.4 Discussion of Storm Window Designs

1. The heat shrink film kit does not significantly improve the R-value of the existing window (R-0.81 versus R-0.79). However it does improve the air leakage around the windows; the difference in temperature between inside and outside rose from the base case of 5 degrees Celsius to 6.5 degrees Celsius.

2. There is little difference in R-values between the interior casement storm (solution 2) and

the exterior storms (solutions 3 - 6), (R-1.54, R1.55, R1.55, R-1.55, R-1.54, respectively). Consequently, decision making must instead focus upon historic integrity, aesthetics, ease of use, and maintenance and storage scenarios.

3. The benefit of using operable exterior storms is that they provide thermal protection in

the winter, and shading and ventilation in the summer. Furthermore, most of the wear occurs on the storms, not the original windows. As a result, storm windows can be left on year-round, thereby minimizing maintenance and storage costs.

4. Additional energy savings could be realized by using double-glazed low-emissivity or

argon-filled glass in the storm windows. Then, the window system would effectively be triple-glazed.

5. The window upgrade solutions do not consider the energy-saving effects of draught-

proofing by adding weatherstripping and caulking. Invisible products are available.

6. Although adding additional glazing units (solutions 2 – 6) theoretically succeeds in doubling the R-value of the existing window system (R-1.55 versus R-0.79), and halving the power required to maintain a room at 20 C when it is 0 C outside (9.54 W versus 18.45 W), it does not succeed in achieving EnergySTAR window ratings (R-2.9 – R-4.0).

7. Emily Carr House has only two operable single hung windows and two operable

casement windows. Therefore, operable exterior storms would only be required for four windows. Also, since the casement windows open inwards, exterior windows that open outwards would also be used upon them.

8. Further research is needed to determine solutions for Emily Carr House’s bathroom

original frosted glass windows which cover two full walls. The bathroom, and the windows, contribute to an uncontrollable temperature zone. The bathroom is very hot in the summer and freezes in the winter.

25

3 Heat Shrink Film Case Study The dining room on the ground floor of the Emily Carr House was selected for a case study on the Heat Shrink Film. Temperatures outside a South-facing external window and inside the room were recorded at 9:30 AM, 2:30 PM, and 7:30 PM every day between November 20 and 26, 2007. The heat shrink film was then applied to all the dining room windows. As before, the temperatures inside and outside the room were recorded at 9:30 AM, 2:30 PM, and 7:30 PM every day between December 3 and 10, 2007. Graphs of the temperature distributions and temperature differences are provided below in Figure 19 and Figure 20. In the scenario where no storm windows are used, the temperatures inside and outside directly correlate. The average temperature difference is 5 degrees Celsius. In the scenario with heat shrink film interior storm windows, the inside and outside temperatures are less correlated. The skewed data from December 3 is likely due to disruptions in temperature associated with applying the film. Overall, however, using the film produced an average temperature difference of 6.5 degrees Celsius. This value is higher than expected given the theoretical R-value calculated for this system (R-0.81) is only slightly higher than the base case existing window system (R-0.79). Therefore, the energy savings associated with reducing air leakage around the window are significant in an actual window system.

Temperature Difference Without Storm Windows

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

20-Nov-07 21-Nov-07 22-Nov-07 23-Nov-07 24-Nov-07 25-Nov-07 26-Nov-07 27-Nov-07 28-Nov-07

Date & Time

Without Storm Windows Inside CWithout Storm Windows Outide CWithout Storm Windows delta T C

Figure 19 - Temperature Difference Without Storm Windows

26

Temperature Difference With Storm Windows

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

3-Dec-07 4-Dec-07 5-Dec-07 6-Dec-07 7-Dec-07 8-Dec-07 9-Dec-07 10-Dec-07 11-Dec-07

Date & Time

With Heat Shrink Film Inside CWith Heat Shrink Film Outside CWith Heat Shrink Film delta T C

Figure 20 - Temperature Difference With Storm Windows

27

4 Conclusion As referenced in the BC Green Building Code (BCGBC) proposals, which are currently under review, embodied energy has a significant role in the analysis of energy consumption and emissions. Further, the Life Cycle Assessment in Heritage Buildings report demonstrated that operating cost comparisons alone do not fully consider the environmental impacts of demolition and new construction. There is, however, an increasing emphasis being placed upon the reduction of energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. It is critical that any alternative compliance methods, as they pertain to heritage buildings, have a scientific basis. Given that a heritage waiver is currently under public review, and that this waiver would excuse heritage buildings from the proposed Energy Efficiency Act, upgrade solutions are still required to improve the energy efficiency of heritage buildings while retaining their heritage value. In order to achieve the specific goal of determining the theoretical R-values (thermal resistance) for window upgrades that retain the original windows, heat transfer analysis case studies for six different storm window assemblies were completed. Since all six studies netted results that make them viable energy reduction solutions, albeit not to EnergySTAR rated new windows, it is proposed that they be inserted into the new BCGBC under the heading “Heritage Buildings – Alternative Compliance.” Further research of alternative energy upgrade solutions for building assemblies other than windows is required.

28

5 Recommendations This report represents a starting point for the in-depth research required to demonstrate that heritage buildings can achieve the standards required by the Building Code while retaining original materials and assemblies in the form of alternative compliance solutions. Further research is required that will continue to draw upon international examples as well as the experiences of the BC construction sector and tailored scientific research. At least one of the alternative compliance solutions outlined in this report should eventually be applied to the Emily Carr House. Additional weather-stripping and caulking around the windows would also be a good, and relatively inexpensive, method of reducing air leakage. Other solutions, as outlined in the City Green EnerGuide report, are recommended as long-term solutions; a cost benefit analysis would need to be completed to determine the financial and environmental costs of retaining versus replacing or augmenting existing systems. If upgrades are completed, and a second energy audit conducted within 18 months, EnerGuide grant money, up to a maximum of $5000, can be accessed. This grant money should act as incentive to complete certain energy upgrades (such as the addition of storm windows) soon. The intention with modeling the Emily Carr House using the EnerGuide for Houses system was to determine the suitability of Hot-2000 for projecting the energy efficiency of heritage buildings by comparing the theoretical values to actual costs. Given that this process is useful for determining and reducing areas of high-energy consumption, this process could be directed towards modeling older industrial buildings as retrofit projects. The benefit of using EnerGuide and Hot-2000 is that they are respected housing-industry systems. Quantifying the performance of heritage buildings in these systems increases the validity of the arguments for their preservation.

6 References List of Places in Victoria, BC that Sell Storm Windows Note: This list is not all-inclusive. It represents the most easily accessed, and in the case of the exterior wooden storm windows, the most used company options.

1 Heat Shrink Film Kits Capital Iron: 1900 Store Street V8T 4R4 (250) 385-9703 Do-It Centre: 1720 Cook Street V8T 3P3 (250) 384-8181 Home Building Centre: (250) 652-1121 2046 Keating Cross Road Saanichton V8M2A6 Rona Baywest: 220 Bay Street V9A 3K5 (250) 595-1225

29

2 Interior Rigid Acrylic Storm Windows Industrial Paints and Plastics: 3944 Quadra Street V8X1J6 (250) 727-3545 Note: Sells plexiglass sheets at 6.29$/sq/ft for 3/16” or at 8.09$/sq.ft for ¾”, but magnetic or snap on seals are required separately.

3 Exterior Wooden Storm Windows Prestige Joinery: 434 William V9A 3Y9 (250) 384-0406 Vintage Woodworks: 408 Alpha Terrace V8Z 1B6 (250) 386-5354 Note: A range of solutions is available from both suppliers.

30

6.1 Bibliography for Structural Terminology Used in the National Resources Canada “Hot-2000” Software

Anderson, L.O. United States Government. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Wood Frame

House Construction: Agriculture Handbook No. 73. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975.

Answers.com. 2007. 02 April 2007 <http://www.answers.com/topic/green-lumber>. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE).

Proposed Standard 189, Standard for the Design of High-Performance Green Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings: First Public Review. Atlanta, 2007

Burden, Ernest. Illustrated Dictionary of Building Design and Construction. New York:

McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2005. C &N Barns. 2003. 08 April 2007

<http://www.cnbarns.com/Building%20Terms%20and%20Definitions.htm>. The Encyclopedia of Wood: A Tree by Tree Guide to the World’s Most Versatile Resource. Ed.

Aidan Walker. New York: Facts on File, Inc., 1989. The Garden Web. 2006. 02 April 2007.

<http://ths.gardenweb.com/forums/load/repair/msg0321525210865.html?18>. Government of Canada. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Canadian Wood – Frame

House Construction. 4th ed. Canada: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 2003. Government of Canada. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. A Glossary of House –

Building and Site – Development Terms. Canada: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 1982.

Government of Canada. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Glossary of Housing

Terms. 2nd ed. Canada: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 1997. Government of Canada. National Resources Canada. <http://www.oeenrcan.gc.ca>. Green Builder. 04 August 2006. 21 March 2007

<http://www.greenbuilder.com/sourcebook/Flyash.html>. Gustafson, Christine. BC Hydro Power Smart: Quality Assurance. Email Interview. 11 April

2007. Hornung, William J. Metric Architectural Construction Drafting and Design Fundamentals.

Englewood Cliffs: Prentice – Hall Inc., 1981. Jones, Frederic. Ph.D. The Concise Dictionary of Construction. Crisp Publications Inc.: Los

31

Altos, 1991. Journal of Light Construction. The Essential Guide to Exteriors. Washington: Hanley Wood,

2005. Patterson, Terry L. Construction Materials for Architects and Designers. Englewood Cliffs:

Prentice – Hall Inc., 1990. Schwartz, Max. Basic Engineering for Builders. 6th ed. Carlsbad: Craftsman Book Company,

2001. Spence, William. Encyclopedia of Construction Methods and Materials. New York: Sterling

Publishing Co., Inc., 2000.

32

6.2 Bibliography of Emily Carr House Site Information Adams, John D. Province of BC. Heritage Conservation Branch. Carr House Heritage Site

Interpretation Plan. Victoria: 1984. Andre and Knowlton Associates Ltd. Mrs. Carr’s Bedroom: Exhibit Design Recommendations

and Audio Visual Program. Victoria: Exhibit Planning and Design, 2001. Baxter, Robert W. and The Wade Williams Partnership. Richard Carr Residence Exterior

Architectural Analysis. Victoria: 1984. (3 copies). Burnham, Ron and Daphne Fuller. Instructor: Jennifer Iredale. Looking Into the Carr House

Mystery Window. Victoria: 1992. Burnham, Ron and Daphne Fuller. Instructor: Jennifer Iredale. Residential Hardware of the 19th

Century and its Use in the Carr House of Victoria. Victoria: 1992. Burnham, Ron and Daphne Fuller. Instructor: Jennifer Iredale. Investigative Analysis Project:

Northeastern Wall of Upstairs Rooms 25 and 26 (Boardroom) of Carr House. Victoria: 1992.

Candy, Ronald N. Exterior Paint Analysis for Carr Family House. Victoria: 1983. Carr, Diane, et al. Carr House – Student Project. Victoria: UVic Cultural Resource

Management, 1992. Carr House Heritage Site Planning Committee. Province of BC. Heritage Conservation Branch,

Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services. The Carr House Heritage Site: Phase 1 – The Working Plan. Victoria: 1983.

Cotton, Peter. Carr House Photographs (Restoration). Cotton, Peter. Province of BC. Emily Carr House Architectural Drawings. Victoria: 1968. Cotton, Peter. Province of BC. Emily Carr House Photographs March 12, 1969. Victoria: 1969. Dean, Pamela. Province of BC. Heritage Properties Branch. Dining Room Project. Victoria:

1989. Graham, Philip. Richard Carr House Restoration Work 20th May, 1980 Photographs. Victoria:

1980. Hoehn, Carol. Province of BC. Heritage Branch. Emily Carr’s Bedroom at Carr House:

Research into Original Fittings, Furnishings and Finishes. Victoria: 1998.

33

Iredale, Jennifer and Rosia King. Province of BC. Heritage Branch. Background Research Notes (On Interpretation of) Mrs. Carr’s Bedroom. Victoria: 2001.

Iredale, Jennifer. Province of BC. Heritage Branch, Ministry of Provincial Secretary and

Government Services. BCARS Finding Aids on Emily Carr Material. Victoria: 1991. Iredale, Jennifer, et al. Province of BC. Heritage Properties Branch. Carr House Exhibits:

Breakfast Room and Gallery. Victoria: 1990. Macdonald, Jean. Province of BC. Heritage Properties Branch, Ministry of Municipal Affairs,

Recreation and Culture. The Richard Carr House: Wallpapers. Victoria: 1989. Macdonald, Jean. Province of BC. Heritage Properties Branch, Ministry of Municipal Affairs,

Recreation and Culture. The Carr House – A Proposal for the Interior. Victoria: 1983. MacFarlane, G. Edward. Province of BC. Heritage Conservation Branch, Ministry of Provincial

Secretary and Government Services. The Emily Carr House Report: A. Victoria: 1977. MacFarlane, G. Edward. Province of BC. Heritage Conservation Branch, Ministry of Provincial

Secretary and Government Services. The Emily Carr House Report: B. Victoria: 1978. Perjril, Henry. Province of BC. Resource Management Division, Heritage Conservation

Branch. A Survey of the Richard Carr House. Victoria: 1982. Province of BC. Heritage Branch. Archival Photographs of Carr Memorabilia. Victoria: 1984. Province of BC. Heritage Branch. Bathroom Reno Carr House 1995 Photographs. Victoria:

1995. Province of BC. Heritage Branch, Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services.

BCARS Manuscript Material on Emily Carr. Victoria: 1991. Province of BC. Heritage Conservation Branch. Carr House Conservation. Victoria: 1976. Province of BC. Heritage Conservation Branch. Carr House Photographs: Restoration in

Progress. Victoria: 1980’s. Province of BC. Heritage Branch. Carr House Renovation Photographs. Province of BC. Heritage Conservation Branch. Carr House Restoration and Archival Slides.

Victoria: 1960’s – 1980’s. Sager, Murray, and Stuart Stark. Carr House Restoration Work 1989/90. Victoria: 1990. Smart, Rosemary. Province of BC. Heritage Conservation Branch. Emily Carr House Project

November 8 – 21, 1983. Victoria: 1983.

34

Stark, Stuart. Report on Interior Site Investigation of the Principal Rooms Richard Carr House. Victoria: 1983. (copy 3, text-only; copy 1 full report).

Stricker, Judith. Research Section, Resource Management Division, Heritage Conservation

Branch, Province of BC. Carr House Furnishing Inventories – 19th Century Sources. Victoria: 1984.

Stricker, Judith. Research Section, Resource Management Division, Heritage Conservation

Branch, Province of BC. Richard Carr House – A History. Victoria: 1980. (2 copies). Tech Mechanical Systems Ltd. Province of BC. Heritage Conservation Branch. Emily Carr

House: Automatic Sprinkler System. Victoria: 1984.

35

6.3 Annotated Bibliography American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE).

Proposed Standard 189, Standard for the Design of High-Performance Green Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings: First Public Review. Atlanta, 2007

Mandates to provide the baseline criteria for new buildings and renovation projects in order to balance “environmental responsibility, resource efficiency, occupant comfort … and community sensitivity.” Includes prescriptive requirements for building design concepts including water usage, indoor air quality and maintenance. Includes a durability sample plan for creating a sustainable site. Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. Wayne Trusty. Renovating vs. Building New: the

Environmental Merits. Ontario. Analyzes the environmental implications of the renovation, rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of two case studies of older Canadian buildings that have been submitted to the Green Building Challenge. Angus Technopole Building, a locomotive manufacturing and repair facility in Montreal, and Red River College, part of a redevelopment in Winnipeg, were assessed using the not-for-profit Athena Institute’s Life Cycle Assessment software, the Environmental Impact Estimator. Particular attention is paid to the value of retaining original building materials and assemblies in these case studies. Proposes two methodologies for the assessment of rehabilitation projects. Method 1 measures the environmental costs of using new materials in a rehabilitation project against the benchmark of constructing a new building on the site, including the cost of demolishing the old building. The second approach analyzes the environmental effects avoided by rehabilitating a building using ‘environmental impact avoidance scenarios.’ Concludes that the process of Life Cycle Assessment is an important tool for analyzes proposed rehabilitation building scenarios. Canada. Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation. “Buying a Toilet,” About Your House.

2001. A pamphlet that briefly outlines the history of toilets. Discusses the merits and types of ultra-low flush (ULF) toilets. Includes well labeled diagrams of the different toilets. Answers basic questions, such as where such toilets are sold and how to install ULF toilets. Canada. Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation. “Renovating for Energy Savings: Pre-

World War II Houses.” Issue I, p. 1-6: October 2004. Outlines solutions for improving the energy efficiency of heritage houses. Methods are invasive and include: sealing all possible sources of air leakage; replacing the heating system; replacing windows and doors; and adding insulation to walls and foundations. Mandates to reduce energy consumption with little consideration for retention of heritage value.

36

Canada. Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation. “Water Penetration Resistance of Windows – Study of Codes, Standards, Testing, Certification,” Technical Series 03-125. November 2003.

Summary of a review of how “existing codes, standards, testing and certification processes address in-service water penetration resistance of windows.” Includes an analysis of these systems, including recommendations for these systems to better address the issue of water penetration through windows. Canada. Heritage Canada. Repair or Replace Windows in Historic Buildings: Arriving at a

Sustainable Solution. Summer 2006. Addresses the issue of whether repairing, or replacing windows in heritage buildings is the most sustainable option, and which option reduces energy consumption the most. Evaluates the durability, maintenance, and heating costs of both types of assemblies. Concludes that, if properly repaired, heritage windows can perform to comparable levels as new windows, with the added bonus that heritage assemblies have proven long-term durability and are maintainable. Furthermore, argues that because of the embodied energy already present in the heritage assemblies, and the energy required to create vinyl or aluminum assemblies, retention is the most sustainable solution. Canada. National Resources Canada. ecoENERGY. Air Leakage Control. Office of Energy

Efficiency: Canada, 2007. Addresses causes of air leakage and methods of reduction in houses. Illustrates options with instructive diagrams. Options presented range from non-invasive caulking and weatherstripping to window replacement. References “Improving Window Energy Efficiency,” for window upgrade repair solutions. Includes warnings against common problems when upgrading windows, such as moisture problems associated when sealing houses. Recommends ventilating then sealing, to avoid this issue. Outlines the ‘stack effect,’ an explaination of how and why heat leaves buildings. Canada. National Resources Canada. ecoENERGY. Keeping the Heat in. Office of Energy

Efficiency: Canada, 2007. Detailed analysis of the casues of heat loss in houses. Explains how houses work as systems. Itemizes discussions on ways to reduce heat loss, ranging from the attic to basement. Lists pros and cons for each type of operating energy improvement. Fairly considers the contribution heritage buildings and their assemblies should make in rehabilitation projects. Includes step by step instructions with diagrams for installing many of the energy upgrade solutions. Warns of the health and safety issues associated with the different described procedures. Canada. National Resources Canada. ecoENERGY. Moisture Problems. Office of Energy

Efficiency: Canada, 2007. Outlines basic issues concerning moisture problems in buildings and how they can lead to mold growth. Approaches the issue of moisture from the perspective of indoor air quality, energy expenditure and structureal integrity of the building. Recommends the use of interior storm

37

windows to reduce the moisture around windows. Cautions homeowners to replace windows only as a final option. Includes diagrams of where to look for moisture problems. Also includes information as to how get rid of mold. Canada. National Resources Canada. “Section 3: Understanding Basic Terms,” Consumer’s

Guide-to Buying Energy-Efficient Windows and Doors. 4 Jan. 2006. 30 October. 2007 <http://www.oeenrcan.gc.ca/publications/infosource/pub/renovate/Consumers_Guide_EE_Windoes_Doors.htm>.

Explains basic window and door terminology. Outlines in general terms the merits and detriments of various window and door types. Includes diagrams of the different assembly types in order to provide clarity for the user. Canada. National Resources Canada. “Section 4: How Windows Perform,” Consumer’s Guide-

to Buying Energy-Efficient Windows and Doors. 4 Jan. 2006. 30 October. 2007 <http://www.oeenrcan.gc.ca/publications/infosource/pub/renovate/Consumers_Guide_EE_Windoes_Doors.htm>.

Addresses solar gains in windows in terms of window placement, design, glazing and shading. Also addresses factors that cause heat loss: radiation, conduction, convection and air leakage. Notes that south-facing windows are net gainers, north-facing windows are net losers and west- and east-facing windows are neutral. Includes diagrams to demonstrate the various factors in windows performance. Canada. National Resources Canada. “Section 6: The Ratings Game,” Consumer’s Guide-to

Buying Energy-Efficient Windows and Doors. 4 Jan. 2006. 30 October. 2007 <http://www.oeenrcan.gc.ca/publications/infosource/pub/renovate/Consumers_Guide_EE_Windoes_Doors.htm>.

Outlines the most common window rating systems including the Canadian Standards Association and the Natural Resources Canada “Energy Rating.” Explains the baselines with these systems and what various ratings mean. Seeks to quantify the gains from using more energy efficient windows. Canada. National Resources Canada. “Section 7: High Performance Windows,” Consumer’s


Explains new advances in window energy efficiency, including such technologies as low-emission coatings, inert gas fills, special films on glazing, low conductivity window spacers, and better frame materials. Briefly skims over potential detriments to these systems, instead focusing mainly on benefits. Includes basic diagrams to show the gains associated with new, energy efficient technology, versus standard, baseline technology. Canada. National Resources Canada. “Section 9: Doors, Patio Doors and Skylights,”

Consumer’s Guide-to Buying Energy-Efficient Windows and Doors. 4 Jan. 2006. 30 October. 2007

38

<http://www.oeenrcan.gc.ca/publications/infosource/pub/renovate/Consumers_Guide_EE_Windoes_Doors.htm>.

Explains the factors to consider when choosing a door and how to maximize energy efficiency. Notes the biggest areas of air leakage, using demonstrative diagrams. Notes that doors have less of an impact on heat loss than windows in large measure because there are usually fewer doors than windows in a building. Canada. National Resources Canada. “Section 11: Getting What You Paid For,” Consumer’s


Outlines the importance of a good installation of doors and windows. Explains the basic methodology behind installing windows, including diagrams. Notes warrantees for most assemblies, but recommends that the user research these before beginning work. Also recommends that the user inspect windows before they are installed. Canada. National Resources Canada. Improving Window Energy Efficiency. Nov. 2004. 17

Sept. 2007 <http://www.oeenrcan.gc.ca/equipment/english/page50.cfm?PrintView=N&Text=N>.

Outlines energy saving improvements for existing and new windows. Improvements range from less invasive solutions, such as repair and retrofit, to more invasive options, such as reglaze and replace. Emphasizes repair where possible; the focus of the article is mainly upon this option. However, the parent article on the National Resources Canada website states “[r]eplacing your home’s old windows is your best option for energy savings.” Canada. National Resources Canada. R-2000 Initiative: Breathe Easier with Healthy Ventilation

and Fewer Pollutants. 2003. <http://www.oeenrcan.gc.ca/r-2000>. Outlines the mandate of R-2000 Standard houses, with particular focus on indoor air quality. Many issues addressed concerning poor air quality and off-gassing in modern houses are not issues in heritage buildings. Promotional summary to support the building of R-2000 houses from a health and wellness perspective. Canada. National Resources Canada. Tips, EnerGuide Savings and Home Improvement. 13

Sept. 2005. 17 Sept. 2007 <http://www.oeenrcan.gc.ca/equipment/english/page125.cfm?PrintView=N&Text=N>.

Outlines methods of reducing energy consumption and the resulting financial and environmental costs. Proposed methods are mainly preventative, but include minor replacement strategies, such as using energy efficient light bulbs or using caulking and weath-stripping to seal out drafts. Mandates to inform consumers about the second (energy) cost to buying appliances and other household items.

39

Canada. National Resources Canada. “Window Condensation in Historic Buildings that Have Been Adapted for New Uses,” Construction Technology Update. No. 5. May 1997. 13 February 2007 <http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/pubs/ctus/5-print_e.html>.

Case study of how a heritage building will perform under new conditions. Looks at the adaptive re-use project of Laurier House, Ottawa from being a residence to being a museum. Addresses the moisture issues commonly encountered when altering a heritage building from its original state to modern standards, while also focusing on how to improve the thermal performance of heritage window assemblies. Includes diagrams of different types of window assemblies used in Laurier House. Clarke, Martyn and Andrew Townsend. Technical Pamphlet 13: The Repair of Wood Windows.

Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings: London, 1991. Gives background on the history of windows in England. Outlines the most common sources of deterioration of wood windows. Describes in detail how to effect the repairs, using diagrams. English Heritage Building Conservation and Research Team. Building Regulations and Historic

Buildings. England, 2002. Identifies areas where building upgrades and compliance with the building code is impractible and undesirable for heritage buildings. Recognizes heritage buildings contribution to sustainability through their embodied energy and original design, citing specific examples. Acknowledges that heritage buildings should strive to reduce operating energy costs within the framework of conserving heritage values. Offers suggestions as to how to accomplish this goal, particularly in the areas of improving window and door insulation. Further research would be required to apply or fully understand any of the proposed energy upgrade solutions. English Heritage. Building Conservation Principles: Consultation Stage 2. England, 2006. Provides a framework for establishing the conservation and management of historic places that is viable and sustainable. It addresses the issue of retaining and articulating heritage values. English Heritage. Door and Window Furniture. England, 1994. Outlines the history of window and door hardware. Notes that original, missing, hardware can often be replaced with modern copies. Includes photographs and diagrams of the different hardware types. Also discusses how original windows and doors can be made more secure without replacing them. English Heritage. Draughtproofing and Secondary Glazing. England, 1994. Summarizes study sponsored by English Heritage to determine the time required to amortize the cost of certain energy upgrades. Determines that the energy and financial costs associated with replacing heritage windows with double glazed windows was far greater than any energy and finicial savings resulting from reduced operating energy requirements. Instead recommends draughtproofing and adding storm windows as the most viable solutions. Includes contact information for more technical data.

40

English Heritage. Energy Savings. England, 1994. Summarizes the environmental savings associated with repairing and upgrading heritage windows, versus replacing them. References a study sponsored by English Heritage that analyzes the total costs of different window solutions over their lifetimes. Concludes that repairing and upgrading windows is the most sustainable solution. English Heritage. Timber Sash Windows. England, 1994. Gives background history of wooden sash windows in England. Includes a detailed diagram explaining the parts of sash windows. Explains how heritage windows can be upgraded to improve thermal performance. Notes the most common types of window deterioration and briefly describes how to repair them. Includes contact information for more technical information. English Heritage. Window Comparisons. England, 1994. Compares the merits and detriments of wood,vinyl, and aluminum windows in terms of performance and customized options. Then compares the costs associated with repairing and upgrading original, heritage windows versus replacing them with various types of new windows. Concludes that the repair and upgrade of windows is the most cost effective solution. Includes frontal and cross sectional diagrams of the most common types of heritage windows. Also lists contact information for obtaining the specifications of the described upgrade procedures. Morstead, Thomas. “Water Penetration Testing of In-Service Windows,” Construction Canada.

P. 67 – 68. May 2003. Outlines the methodology of testing in-service windows for their ability to resist rain penetration, with reference to the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) requirements. Morstead is a building envelope consultant, with extensive background in the performance of walls, windows and roofs. His paper calls for more stringent standards from the CSA in order to address more realistic performance requirements of in-service window assemblies. Murphy, Bill. “Your Old House – Wood Windows,” Vancouver Heritage Foundation. 2000. 26

November 2007. <http://www.vancouverheritagefoundation.org/articles/yohwindows.html>.

Outlines the basic methodology to repairing, versus replacing, different types of heritage windows. Notes the benefits of adding the traditional design option of storm windows to improve the thermal performance of existing windows. Includes some demonstration photographs of the key concepts. Province of British Columbia. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. BC New

Low Rise Green Building Code Lifecycle Cost Analysis: Revised Draft Final Report. Victoria, 2007.

41

Presents the lifecycle cost (LCC) impacts of upgrades to energy efficiency in new residential buildings. Analysis responds to the new BC Energy Policy which mandates that energy efficiency be improved in new and existing buildings. Specifically, it addresses how to raise these buildings to high EnerGuide for Houses ratings as governed by National Resources Canada. Purports to only provide a financial assessment of energy upgrades. Does not consider other issues, such as safety, heath, or social values. As a draft, it does not include all necessary appendices or results. Taylor, Jonathan. “The Conservation and Thermal Improvement of Timber Windows,” Building

Conservation Directory. 1996. 27 November 2007. <www.buildingconservation.com>. Addresses the issue of making heritage-concienous energy upgrade decisions for existing wooden windows. Discusses the possibility of storm window, noting that they can also facilitate ventilation issues. Turner, Susan. “Windows in Historic Buildings: Sustainable, Repairable,” The Heritage Canada

Foundation: Heritage News. 20 August 2007. <www.heritagecanada,org/eng/news/article.html>.

Gives a brief overview of the two main methods of improving the thermal performance of wooden, heritage windows without replacing them: draughtproofing and adding storm windows. Argues that the retention and repair of existing windows is the most environmentally sustainable option because of the embodied energy of windows. Notes that sending windows to the landfill increases energy consumption. United Kingdom. Peak District National Park Authority. Built Environment Service.

Conserving Your Heritage Building: Building Regulations and Windows. Peak District: Derbyshire, 2002.

Briefly explains how heritage buildings and their building assemblies are dealt with in the English Building Code. Notes that while traditional window assemblies cannot achieve the energy efficiency requirements of new windows, they can be rehabilitated and thermally improved by draughtproofing, using internal shutters, using heavy curtains, and installing storm windows. Intended as a general knowledge pamphlet. Includes contact information for obtaining further technical information. United States of America. Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service, US

Department of the Interior. Preservation Brief 3: Conserving Energy in Historic Buildings. April 1978. 13 February 2007. <http://www.cr.hps.gov/hps/tps/briefs/brief03.htm>.

Written in response to the American energy crisis in the 1970’s. Addresses methods of improving the operating energy of heritage buildings, while recognizing the inherent energy saving characteristics of these buildings. Recommends retention and enhancement of heritage materials and assemblies, such as the addition of storm windows. Explains and addresses major heat loss issues associated with heritage buildings, such as air infiltration. Includes warnings against common problems encountered when retrofitting heritage buildings to be more energy efficient and how to avoid them.

42

Vancouver Heritage Foundation. “How Can I Insulate My Heritage House?” <http://www.vancouverheritagefoundation.org>.

Recommends energy upgrade solutions for heritae buildings that will retain heritage value. Focuses on draughtproofing and additing storm windows to the original windows, but also recommends additing insulation in the attic. Warns against common problems encountered when attempting to upgrade heritage buildings. Intended as a short, general knowledge handout. Further research would have to be undertaken to affect any of the energy upgrade solutions. Welsh Assembly Government. Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Heritage protection

for the 21st Century. Crown, 2007. A white paper that calls for reform in the English and Welsh heritage protection system. Presents proposals based upon the following principles: “developing a unified approach to the historic environment; maximizing opportunities for inclusion and involvement; and supporting sustainable communities by putting the historic environment at the heart of an effective planning system.” Outlines the process for updating the heritage register and facilitating heritage designation.

44

6.4 Sustainability Terminology Athena Sustainable Materials Institute: Founded in 1996, the Athena Institute is a not for profit organization that directs and undertakes research in conjunction with engineering firms such as Morrison Hershfield. that facilitates incorporating environmental considerations into the building design process. They have recently released the “Environmental Impact Estimator”, a software program that conducts Life Cycle Assessments of buildings in North America. BRE: Building Research Establishment. BREEAM: Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method. A method for assessing the environmental quality of buildings by considering building design issues that affect the global and local environment as well as the health of occupants. Created by BRE. BRE-SLAM: A spreadsheet tool developed by BRE for the identification and minimization of risks to service life. The tool, BRE-SLAM (BRE Service Life Assessment Method), provides a systematic assessment process that corresponds to the basic assessment processes laid in the ISO standard and the CSA guideline. Athena Institute and Morrison Hershfield. “Service Life Considerations in Relation to Green Building Rating Systems: An Exploratory Study.” Brownfield Site: Real property that has previously been developed or that has been a site of toxic waste. Often located in industrial zones. Building Envelope: The building envelope consists of those parts of the building that separate the controlled indoor environment from the uncontrolled outdoor environment. The building envelope includes the foundation, walls, windows and doors, and roofs. Athena Institute and Morrison Hershfield. “Service Life Considerations in Relation to Green Building Rating Systems: An Exploratory Study.” Canada Green Building Council: The Council is a broad-based inclusive coalition of representatives from different segments of the design and building industry. The Council works to: change industry standards; develop best design practices and guidelines; advocate for green buildings; and develop educational tools to support its members in implementing sustainable design and construction practices. Developed out of the US Green Building Council, it evaluates buildings using the LEED Canada rating system. Canada Green Building Council.

45

Canadian Standard Association (CSA) Guidelines: Guidelines for measuring durability in buildings. Based upon the following three premises: 1. The achievement of durability requires that life expectancy be considered in the design procedures for buildings and their components; 2. The decisions taken during the life of a building, and even before the development of actual design documents, affect all subsequent decisions and resultant performance; and 3. Beginning with the initial concept for a building, the design process should take into account the environmental loads and deleterious agents to which the building components will be exposed. Athena Institute and Morrison Hershfield. “Service Life Considerations in Relation to Green Building Rating Systems: An Exploratory Study.” Carbon Footprint: A measure of the carbon dioxide emitted from the combustion of fossil fuels in the everyday operations of a business, an individual or household. It is usually calculated in terms of tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions per year. Carbon Points: A system whereby businesses are rated for their total carbon footprint. In order to lower their points, businesses can purchase carbon ‘credits’ from lower emitting businesses. Chemical Incompatibility (of materials): A factor that can reduce the service life of a building. Based on the principle that certain materials within an assembly will react with each other and weaken the overall assembly. Durability: The ability of a building or any of its components to perform its required functions in its service environment over a period of time without unforeseen cost for maintenance or repair. The following factors are taken into account when measuring durability: 1. Site Specificity: Durability is a function of a material in its environment, and environments change on a micro and macro level. An element on a building next to a river may have a dramatically different service life than the identical element on an identical building constructed on bedrock. Similarly, building elements resist different ranges of environmental stress in different regions. 2. Building Interior Environmental Loads: One of the factors that has a significant effect on durability is interior environmental conditions. The envelope of a building that is operated in a cold climate with high interior relative humidity is more likely to experience frost and condensation problems and resulting loss in service life. 3. Maintenance Information: Maintenance of materials and systems can dramatically affect service life, and in some cases can have the largest influence on service life (such as maintaining a paint coating on exterior wood). 4. Design Criteria: To achieve a reasonable service life, it is important to design and construct building elements in a manner suitable for the specific element used. The degree to which the ideal design is achieved for a specific element can have significant effects on the material’s service life. Athena Institute and Morrison Hershfield. “Service Life Considerations in Relation to Green Building Rating Systems: An Exploratory Study.” EF: Ecological Footprint. A measure of the load imposed by a population on nature (ie a building). Represents the land area necessary to sustain current levels of resource consumption and waste discharge by the population.

46

EIA: Environmental Impact Assessment. A classical assessment of the effects of a proposed activity on the environment. EIS: Environmental Impact Statement. A detailed report required by the government and prepared by qualified engineers and landscape architects for large projects or those in environmentally sensitive areas. Sustainable Design Resource Guide. Embodied Energy: The energy consumed during the extraction, manufacture, transportation and installation of a product. It is a measure of ecological cost and a significant component in the lifecycle of buildings. English Heritage: The United KingdomGovernment's statutory adviser on the historic environment. Officially known as the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England, English Heritage is an Executive Non-departmental Public Body sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). Their mandate is to Conserve and enhance the historic environment by broadening public access to the heritage, andincreasing people's understanding of the past.

Environmental Agents: Environmental factors that affect the building envelope. Athena Institute and Morrison Hershfield. “Service Life Considerations in Relation to Green Building Rating Systems: An Exploratory Study.” Environmental Effects (effect potentials): The primary response by the environmental system. These effects are considered in terms of global warming potential (GWP), acidification potential (AP) and nutrification potential (NP). Environmental Framework: A system for describing the physical interactions that occur throughout the life cycle of buildings. These physical interactions include the use of energy, materials and other resources in addition to the effect of buildings on land use, worker health and productivity, and the resulting wastes and emissions associated with building. A building is a technical subset of an environmental framework. “Environmental Framework.” Annex 31 Energy-Related Environmental Impact of Buildings. Environmental Impacts: Occur as the result of environmental effects. Represent a quantitative loss or gain to the environment. Are measured in terms of changes to the climate, human health and resource availability. Environmental Impacts - Actual: A consequence for resource availability, human health, and plant life. Environmental Impacts - Potential: An indication of a hazard, not an assessment of consequences. Environmental Load: A direct intervention with the environment in terms of emissions to the air, soil, or water; generation of noise, vibrations, or odor; or the use of natural resources.

47

Environmental Performance Gap: The gap between the expected environmental performance of a building due to materials and technology and the actual performance of a building. Factor Method: A method of determining the service life of a building. Requires the following seven factors: A. Quality of components as supplied to the project; B. Design level of a component or assembly’s installation (e.g. how protected it is from elements which may degrade it); C. Work execution level or skill level of the installers; D. Indoor environment (e.g. whether the component will be utilized in a wet area such as a bathroom or kitchen, or in a relatively stable indoor environment such as a coat closet); E. Outdoor environment (e.g. northern climate, coastal climate, southern climate, etc.); F. In-use conditions (refers to specific use conditions of the building); and G. Maintenance level (what is the level of maintenance possible for the particular component for the span of its useful life?). The formula for calculating the service life, where ESL is the estimated (predicted) service life and RSL is the reference service life is: ESL = RSL x A x B x C x D x E x F x G. The Reference Service Life is obtained either through empirical testing and is the lowest service life that can be expected for a given material or assembly. Athena Institute and Morrison Hershfield. “Service Life Considerations in Relation to Green Building Rating Systems: An Exploratory Study.” Feedstock Energy: The energy of fuel bearing materials that are taken into the system but are used as materials rather than fuel. Functional Unit: An element of the technosphere that is quantifiably describable and subject to analysis (ie a building). Global Warming: The process of the Earth’s atmosphere warming to temperatures above normal due to high levels of gases, such as carbon dioxide, which trap radiation leaving the earth and prevent the earth from cooling. Sustainable Design Resource Guide. Green Building Council Australia: Assessment model based on the following nine rating categories: management, IEQ, energy, water, land use and ecology, transport, materials, emissions, and innovation. Green Globes: Green Globes (GG) is an environmental assessment and rating system that was developed by the Green Building Initiative (GBI), and grew out of the UK’s Building Research Establishment's Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM). American Institute of Architects. Greenhouse Effect: Solar radiation is transmitted through the earth’s atmosphere and absorbed by the earth. This radiation is then emitted from the earth, but can no longer escape from the atmosphere because of high levels of gases such as carbon dioxide. As a result, the earth’s temperature rises. Sustainable Design Resource Guide.

48

Greywater: Water from sinks and baths that can be reused fir watering, landscaping and other domestic purposes. Most environmental assessment models give credit to buildings that incorporate plans to reuse greywater. Sustainable Design Resource Guide. HK BEAM: Hong Kong Building Environmental Assessment Method. HVAC: Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning. The mechanical systems that heat, cool, ventilate, filter, humidify or treat air in buildings. Sustainable Design Resource Guide. IAQ: Indoor Air Quality. It is determined from the following physical factors:� ambient temperature and humidity; mechanical factors: air speed and ventilation rates; and chemical factors:� pollutants from combustion devices and room materials. Rehva.

Incompatibility (of materials): When certain combinations of materials in a building assembly have a negative effect upon each other so that the overall service life of the assembly is diminished because of the particular materials chosen. For example, galvanic corrosion is a typical problem with incompatibility between metals. Athena Institute and Morrison Hershfield. “Service Life Considerations in Relation to Green Building Rating Systems: An Exploratory Study.” Infiltration: The air that leaks in around doors, windows, and electrical outlets, etc. It can be a major source of heat loss and is of particular consideration in heritage buildings. Sustainable Design Resource Guide. ISO: International Standards Organization. A standard for predicting the service life of a building. Based on the following seven factors: 1. Quality of materials. 2. Design level of a component’s or an assembly’s installation. 3. Installer skill level. 4. Indoor environment. 5. Outdoor environment. 6. In-use condition. 7. Maintenance level. Athena Institute and Morrison Hershfield. “Service Life Considerations in Relation to Green Building Rating Systems: An Exploratory Study.” LEED Canada: Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design. Most widely used assessment model. Based on 70 points that assess the environmental impact of buildings. There are four levels of certification – certified, silver, gold, and platinum – allotted by the number of points a building achieves. One point allotted for the ‘Durability’ of a building (Credit 8). Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA): Looks at the environmental impact of a building from ‘cradle to grave’. It sums the overall lifetime energy usage of the building from extraction of resources, to creation and transportation of materials, to creation of the building, to maintenance, to post-consumer disposal. Life Cycle Costing (LCC): Life cycle costing (LCC), also called whole life costing, is a technique to establish the total cost of ownership. It is a structured approach that addresses all

49

the monetary cost elements, including the costs of planning, design, construction, operations, maintenance and disposal. Athena Institute and Morrison Hershfield. “Service Life Considerations in Relation to Green Building Rating Systems: An Exploratory Study.” Life Cycle Cost Analysis: The total cost of a product or material including the initial cost and the long term maintenance costs. This approach can often be used to justify building more expensive, energy efficient systems which save money over the life of the product. Sustainable Design Resource Guide. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI): Used to describe the first two steps in a Life Cycle Assessment: goal and scope definition, and inventory analysis. Lower-Level Reuse: When materials from an existing building are recycled into less valuable materials for another building. Maintainable Assemblies (versus unmaintainable): Assemblies in which individual components can be replaced without replacing the whole assembly. This minimizes operational energy costs. Operating Energy: The energy required to maintain (operate) the building. Pre-Consumer (% recycled content): Refers to using or selling leftover materials from manufacturing processes (scraps). Not truly a form of recycling because the scraps have never been used. Sustainable Design Resource Guide. Service Life: The actual period of time during which the building or any of its components performs without unforeseen costs or disruption for maintenance and repair. The seven factors that effect service life are as follows: 1.Water 2. Air and air pollutants 3. Wind 4. Biological and ecological agents 5. Temperature 6. Solar radiation 7. Chemical reactions and incompatibility of materials Athena Institute and Morrison Hershfield. “Service Life Considerations in Relation to Green Building Rating Systems: An Exploratory Study.” Service Life - Design: The service life specified by the designer in accordance with the expectations (or requirements) of the owners of the building. Athena Institute and Morrison Hershfield. “Service Life Considerations in Relation to Green Building Rating Systems: An Exploratory Study.”

50

Service Life - Differential: The concept that there are service life differences between the components of a building system such that the service life of one component can affect the service life of another. Athena Institute and Morrison Hershfield. “Service Life Considerations in Relation to Green Building Rating Systems: An Exploratory Study.” Service Life - Predicted: The service life forecast from recorded performance, previous experience, tests, or modeling. Athena Institute and Morrison Hershfield. “Service Life Considerations in Relation to Green Building Rating Systems: An Exploratory Study.” SUIT: Sustainable Development of Urban Historical Areas through an Active Integration within Towns. Coordinated by Belgium’s University of Liege, the three-year project (2000 – 2003) involved six universities and a Belgian regional authority. It has produced detailed guidance for carrying out impact assessments on urban plans and projects that affect cultural heritage. European Commission. Sustainable Development, Environmental Sustainability, or Sustainability: Meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. A recognition of the balance between the economy, the environment and society. Technosphere: All processes and objects designed or created by people. All resources used by such systems, either as inputs or outputs, are ultimately derived from the natural environment. “Environmental Framework.” Annex 31 Energy-Related Environmental Impact of Buildings. Water Degradation: An environmental agent that can reduce the service life of a building. It come in the following forms: biological degradation, such as mold and fungi; corrosion, such as the rusting of steel supports; and freeze/thaw cycling or frost heave, such as when water enters a porous material and later freezes, causing a weakening of the material. Athena Institute and Morrison Hershfield. “Service Life Considerations in Relation to Green Building Rating Systems: An Exploratory Study.” WBCSD: World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Founded in 1991, the WBCSD is a coalition of 180 international companies who advocate for sustainability within the business community through economic growth, ecological balance and social progress. Their financial case for sustainability is that “firms are more competitive, resilient to shocks, nimbler in a fast changing world, and more likely to attract and hold customers and the best employees.”

51

Appendix

Appendix A: List of Places in Victoria that Use Storm Windows, with Photographs Note: 1. An address with an asterix beside it indicates a heritage house that has received a grant

from the Victoria Heritage Foundation to add storm windows to the existing windows. 2. Most houses with storm windows are located either in Fairfield or Esquimalt, both

older neighbourhoods.

1. 953 Empress Ave.

Figure 21: 953 Empress Ave.

Figure 22: External Latches Figure 23: Air Vents on Operable Storm Windows

Figure 24: Internal Linkage to Operate Storm Windows

2. 50 Wellington St.

52

Figure 25: 50 Wellington St.

Figure 26: External Storm Windows on Front Façade

3. 57 Cambridge St.

Figure 27: 57 Cambridge St.


53

4. 17 Cambridge St.


5. *75 Cook St.

Figure 30: External Storm Windows on Front and Side Façades

6. 11 Cook St.


55

Appendix B: Hot2000 Report, Emily Carr House, Dian Ross

HOT2000Natural Resources CANADA

Version 10.12

File: ECH_111207_2000.HSE Application Type: General

User Weather File:

Weather Data for ,

Builder Code: ECH Data Entry by: Dian Ross Date of entry: 23/10/2007 Company: Heritage Branch Client name: Ross, Jan Street address: 207 Government St. City: Victoria Region: British Columbia Postal code: V8V 2K8 Telephone: 250-361-4642

GENERAL HOUSE CHARACTERISTICS

House type: Single Detached Number of storeys: One storey

Plan shape: T-shape Front orientation: West Year House Built: 1863 Wall colour: Default Absorptivity: 0.40 Roof colour: Medium brown Absorptivity: 0.84 Soil Condition: Normal conductivity (dry sand, loam, clay)

56

Water Table Level: Normal (7-10m/23-33ft)

House Thermal Mass Level: (A) Light, wood frame Effective mass fraction 1.000

Occupants : 2 Adults for 70.0% of the time 2 Children for 50.0% of the time

0 Infants for 0.0% of the time

Sensible Internal Heat Gain From Occupants: 3.04 kWh/day

HOUSE TEMPERATURES

Heating Temperatures Main Floor: 21.0 °C Basement: 20.0 °C TEMP. Rise from 21.0 °C: 2.8 °C

Basement is- Heated: NO Cooled: NO Separate T/S: YES Fraction of internal gains released in basement : 0.150

Indoor design temperatures for equipment sizing Heating: 22.0 °C Cooling: 24.0 °C

WINDOW CHARACTERISTICS

Label Location # Overhang Width (m)

Header Height

(m) Tilt deg

Curtain Factor

Shutter (RSI)

South Window - South1 Wall - FLR1S 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Window - South2 Wall - FLR1S 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Window - South3 Wall - FLR1S 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Window - South4 Wall - FLR1S 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Window - South5 Wall - FLR2S 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Window - South6 Wall - FLR2S 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Window - South7 Wall - FLR2S 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Window - South8 Wall - FLR2S 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00

57

East Window - East1 Wall - FLR1E 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Window - East2 Wall - FLR1E 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Window - East3 Wall - FLR1E 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Window - East4 Wall - FLR1E 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Window - East5 Wall - FLR2E 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Window - East6 Wall - FLR2E 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Window - East7 Wall - FLR2E 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Window - East8 Wall - FLR2E 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00North Window - North1 Wall - FLR1N 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Window - North10 Wall - FLR2N 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Window - North11 Wall - FLR2N 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Window - North2 Wall - FLR1N 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Window - North3 Wall - FLR1N 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Window - North4 Wall - FLR1N 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Window - North5 Wall - FLR1N 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Window - North6 Wall - FLR1N 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Window - North7 Wall - FLR2N 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Window - North8 Wall - FLR2N 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Window - North9 Wall - FLR2N 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00West Window - FrtDr1 Wall - FLR1W 1 0.00 0.00 90.0 1.00 0.00Window - West10 Wall - FLR2W 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Window - West2 Wall - FLR1W 2 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Window - West3 Wall - FLR1W 2 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Window - West4 Wall - FLR1W 2 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Window - West5 Wall - FLR1W 2 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Window - West6 Wall - FLR2W 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Window - West7 Wall - FLR2W 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Window - West8 Wall - FLR2W 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Window - West9 Wall - FLR2W 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00

Label Type # Window Width

(m)

Window Height

(m)

Total Area (m2)

Window RSI SHGC

South Window - South1 ECH Wood Frame SG Win 1 1.18 1.24 1.46 0.192 0.6371Window - South2 ECH Wood Frame SG Win 1 1.18 1.24 1.46 0.192 0.6371Window - South3 ECH Wood Frame SG Win 1 1.18 1.24 1.46 0.192 0.6371Window - South4 ECH Wood Frame SG Win 1 1.18 1.24 1.46 0.192 0.6371Window - South5 ECH Wood Frame SG Win 1 1.03 1.09 1.13 0.197 0.6090Window - South6 ECH Wood Frame SG Win 1 1.03 1.09 1.13 0.197 0.6090

58

Window - South7 ECH Wood Frame SG Win 1 1.03 1.09 1.13 0.197 0.6090Window - South8 ECH Wood Frame SG Win 1 1.03 1.09 1.13 0.197 0.6090East Window - East1 ECH Wood Frame SG Win 1 1.08 1.14 1.24 0.195 0.6193Window - East2 ECH Wood Frame SG Win 1 1.08 1.14 1.24 0.195 0.6193Window - East3 ECH Wood Frame SG Win 1 1.08 1.14 1.24 0.195 0.6193Window - East4 ECH Wood Frame SG Win 1 1.08 1.14 1.24 0.195 0.6193Window - East5 ECH Wood Frame SG Win 1 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.201 0.5892Window - East6 ECH Wood Frame SG Win 1 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.201 0.5892Window - East7 ECH Wood Frame SG Win 1 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.201 0.5892Window - East8 ECH Wood Frame SG Win 1 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.201 0.5892North Window - North1 ECH Wood Frame SG Win 1 1.10 1.16 1.27 0.194 0.6226Window - North10 ECH Wood Frame SG Win 1 1.06 1.12 1.18 0.196 0.6141Window - North11 ECH Wood Frame SG Win 1 1.06 1.12 1.18 0.196 0.6141Window - North2 ECH Wood Frame SG Win 1 1.10 1.16 1.27 0.194 0.6226Window - North3 ECH Wood Frame SG Win 1 1.10 1.16 1.27 0.194 0.6226Window - North4 ECH Wood Frame SG Win 1 1.10 1.16 1.27 0.194 0.6226Window - North5 ECH Wood Frame SG Win 1 1.10 1.16 1.27 0.194 0.6226Window - North6 ECH Wood Frame SG Win 1 1.10 1.16 1.27 0.194 0.6226Window - North7 ECH Wood Frame SG Win 1 1.06 1.12 1.18 0.196 0.6141Window - North8 ECH Wood Frame SG Win 1 1.06 1.12 1.18 0.196 0.6141Window - North9 ECH Wood Frame SG Win 1 1.06 1.12 1.18 0.196 0.6141West Window - FrtDr1 ECH Wood Frame SG 1 1.60 3.00 4.80 0.167 0.7965Window - West10 ECH Wood Frame SG Win 1 0.85 0.90 0.76 0.206 0.5607Window - West2 ECH Wood Frame SG Win 2 0.97 1.02 1.98 0.178 0.7299Window - West3 ECH Wood Frame SG Win 2 0.97 1.02 1.98 0.178 0.7299Window - West4 ECH Wood Frame SG Win 2 0.97 1.02 1.98 0.178 0.7299Window - West5 ECH Wood Frame SG Win 2 0.97 1.02 1.98 0.178 0.7299Window - West6 ECH Wood Frame SG Win 1 0.85 0.90 0.76 0.206 0.5607Window - West7 ECH Wood Frame SG Win 1 0.85 0.90 0.76 0.206 0.5607Window - West8 ECH Wood Frame SG Win 1 0.85 0.90 0.76 0.206 0.5607Window - West9 ECH Wood Frame SG Win 1 0.85 0.90 0.76 0.206 0.5607

WINDOW CODE SCHEDULE

Name Internal Code

Description (Glazings, Coatings, Fill, Spacer, Type, Frame)

59

ECH Wood Frame SG Win 100022 Single (SG), Clear, 13 mm Air, Metal, Slider with sash, Wood, ER* = -

69.50, Eff. RSI= 0.34 ECH Wood Frame SG 100002 Single (SG), Clear, 13 mm Air, Metal, Picture, Wood, ER* = -72.45, Eff.

RSI= 0.36

* Window Standard Energy Rating estimated for assumed dimensions, and Air tightness type: CSA - A1; Leakage rate = 2.790 m3/hr/m

BUILDING PARAMETER DETAILS

CEILING COMPONENTS

Construction Type Code Type Roof Slope Heel Ht.(m) Section Area

(m2) R.

Value (RSI)

Ceiling - FLR1E Attic/gable ECH Plaster 4.0/12 0.16 21.46 2.47

Ceiling - FLR1N Attic/gable ECH Plaster 3.0/12 0.15 11.52 2.42

Ceiling - FLR1W Attic/gable ECH Plaster 3.0/12 0.15 36.58 2.48

Ceiling - FLR2BA Attic/gable ECH

Plaster 2.5/12 0.16 5.12 2.42

Ceiling - FLR2CA Attic/gable ECH

Plaster 4.0/12 0.16 38.65 2.50

Ceiling - FLR2EW Attic/gable ECH

Plaster 10.0/12 0.23 57.61 2.53

Ceiling - FLR2F Flat ECH Flat 0.0/12 0.15 42.11 2.44 Ceiling - FLR2NS Attic/gable ECH

Plaster 6.0/12 0.17 74.38 2.53

CEILING CODE SCHEDULE

Name Internal Code

Description (Structure, typ/size, Spacing, Insull, 2, Int., Sheathing, Exterior,

Studs)

ECH Plaster 2211M09000 Wood frame, 38x140 mm (2x6 in), 400 mm (16 in), N/A, None, Lath & plaster, N/A, N/A, N/A

MAIN WALL COMPONENTS

Label Lintel Type Fac. Dir Number of

Corn. Number of

Inter. Height

(m) Perim.

(m) Area (m2)R.

Value (RSI)

60

Wall - FLR1E Type: ECH External

N/A East 1 1 2.74 23.77 65.22 0.77

Wall - FLR1N Type: ECH External

N/A North 1 1 2.46 10.00 24.60 0.78

Wall - FLR1S Type: ECH External

N/A South 1 1 2.46 10.00 24.60 0.79

Wall - FLR1W Type: ECH External

N/A West 1 1 3.48 26.52 92.30 0.77

Wall - FLR2E Type: ECH External

N/A East 1 1 2.46 10.00 24.60 0.77

Wall - FLR2N Type: ECH External

N/A North 1 1 2.46 10.00 24.60 0.78

Wall - FLR2S Type: ECH External

N/A South 1 1 2.46 10.00 24.60 0.78

Wall - FLR2W Type: ECH External

N/A West 1 1 2.80 31.09 86.90 0.77

Floor Header - 2 Type: FLR HEAD

N/A 4 4 0.23 55.41 12.67 0.48

WALL CODE SCHEDULE

Name Internal Code


Studs)

ECH External 1201009410 Wood frame, 38x89 mm (2x4 in), 400 mm (16 in), None, None, Lath & plaster, Plywood/Particle board 9.5 mm (3/8 in), Wood (lapped), 2 studs

FLR HEAD 1800000000 Floor header, N/A, N/A, None, None, N/A, None, None, N/A

DOORS

Label Type Height (m) Width (m) Gross Area (m2)

R. Value (RSI)

61

Door - Back Loc: Wall - FLR1S Solid wood 1.90 1.12 2.13 0.39

Door - Main Frnt Loc: Wall - FLR1W Solid wood 2.69 1.12 3.01 0.39

Door - Side Loc: Wall - FLR1S Solid wood 1.90 1.12 2.13 0.39

FOUNDATIONS

Foundation Name: Foundation Foundation Type: Basement Volume: 130.9 m3 Data Type: Library Opening to Main Floor: 2.32 m2 Total Wall Height: 1.12 m Non-Rectangular Depth Below Grade: 0.91 m Floor Perimeter: 55.78 m

Floor Area: 117.34 m2 Interior wall type: User specified R-value: 1.40 RSI Exterior wall type: User specified R-Value: 0.00 RSI Number of corners : 8

Lintel type: N/A Added to slab type : User specified R-Value: 0.00 RSI

Floors Above Found.: FLR 1 R-Value: 0.75 RSI

Exposed areas for: Foundation Exposed Perimeter: 55.78 m

Configuration: BCIN_1 - concrete walls and floor - interior surface of wall insulated over full-height - any first storey construction type

FOUNDATION CODE SCHEDULE

Floors Above Foundation

Name Internal Code

Description (Structure, typ/size, Spacing, Insul1, 2, Int., Sheathing, Exterior, Drop

Framing) FLR 1 4231006700 Wood frame, 38x235 mm (2x10 in), 400 mm (16 in), None, None, Wood,

62

Plywood/Particle board 18.5 mm (3/4 in), None, No

ROOF CAVITY INPUTS

Gable Ends Total Area: 39.49 m2 Sheathing Material Plywood/Part. bd 9.5 mm (3/8 in) 0.08 RSI Exterior Material: Hollow metal/vinyl cladding 0.11 RSI Sloped Roof Total Area: 276.43 m2 Sheathing Material Plywood/Part. bd 12.7 mm (1/2 in) 0.11 RSI Exterior Material: Asphalt shingles 0.08 RSI Total Cavity Volume: 177.0 m3 Ventilation Rate: 0.50 ACH/hr

BUILDING ASSEMBLY DETAILS

Label Construction Code

Nominal (RSI)

System (RSI)

Effective (RSI)

CEILING COMPONENTS Ceiling - FLR1E ECH Plaster 2.37 2.53 2.47 Ceiling - FLR1N ECH Plaster 2.37 2.53 2.42 Ceiling - FLR1W ECH Plaster 2.37 2.53 2.48 Ceiling - FLR2BA ECH Plaster 2.37 2.49 2.42 Ceiling - FLR2CA ECH Plaster 2.37 2.53 2.50 Ceiling - FLR2EW ECH Plaster 2.37 2.53 2.53 Ceiling - FLR2F ECH Flat 2.37 2.44 2.44 Ceiling - FLR2NS ECH Plaster 2.37 2.53 2.53 MAIN WALL COMPONENTS

Wall - FLR1E ECH External 0.00 0.77 0.77 Wall - FLR1N ECH External 0.00 0.78 0.78 Wall - FLR1S ECH External 0.00 0.79 0.79 Wall - FLR1W ECH External 0.00 0.77 0.77 Wall - FLR2E ECH External 0.00 0.77 0.77 Wall - FLR2N ECH External 0.00 0.78 0.78 Wall - FLR2S ECH External 0.00 0.78 0.78 Wall - FLR2W ECH External 0.00 0.77 0.77 Floor Header - 2 FLR HEAD 0.00 0.48 0.48

63

FLOORS ABOVE BASEMENTS

Foundation FLR 1 0.00 0.75 0.75

BUILDING PARAMETERS SUMMARY

ZONE 1 : Above Grade

Component Area m2 Gross

Area m2 Net

Effective (RSI)

Heat Loss MJ

% Annual Heat Loss

Ceiling 287.44 287.44 2.49 28008.77 7.51 Main Walls 380.08 323.65 0.75 139331.61 37.35 Doors 7.27 7.27 0.39 6617.08 1.77 South Windows 10.35 10.35 0.19 18907.63 5.07 East Windows 8.76 8.76 0.20 15716.83 4.21 North Windows 13.54 13.54 0.20 24587.98 6.59 West Windows 16.52 16.52 0.18 32469.06 8.70 ZONE 1 Totals: 265638.97 71.21

INTER-ZONE Heat Transfer : Floors Above Basement

Area m2 Gross

Area m2 Net

Effective (RSI)

Heat LossMJ

117.34 117.34 0.748 17111.36

ZONE 2 : Basement


Area m2 Net

Effective (RSI)

Heat Loss MJ

% Annual Heat Loss

Walls above grade 11.22 11.22 - 3850.59 1.03 Below grade foundation 168.34 168.34 - 15786.31 4.23

ZONE 2 Totals: 19636.90 5.26

Ventilation

House Volume Air Change Heat Loss MJ

% Annual Heat Loss

1302.58 m3 0.505 ACH 87747.328 23.52

64

AIR LEAKAGE AND VENTILATION

Building Envelope Surface Area: 847.09 m2

Air Leakage Test Results at 50 Pa.(0.2 in H2O) = 9.38 ACH Equivalent Leakage Area @ 10 Pa = 4644.47 cm2 Terrain Description Height m @ Weather Station : Open flat terrain, grass Anemometer 10.0 @ Building site : Parkland, bushes Bldg. Eaves 9.1 Local Shielding: Walls: Light Flue : Light Leakage Fractions- Ceiling: 0.300 Walls: 0.500 Floors: 0.200

Normalized Leakage Area @ 10 Pa: 5.4828 cm2/m2 Estimated Airflow to cause a 5 Pa Pressure Difference: 738 L/s Estimated Airflow to cause a 10 Pa Pressure Difference: 1158 L/s

F326 VENTILATION REQUIREMENTS

Kitchen, Living Room, Dining Room 3 rooms @ 5.0 L/s: 15.0 L/s Utility Room 1 rooms @ 5.0 L/s: 5.0 L/s Bedroom 1 rooms @ 10.0 L/s: 10.0 L/s Bedroom 2 rooms @ 5.0 L/s: 10.0 L/s Bathroom 2 rooms @ 5.0 L/s: 10.0 L/s Basement Rooms : 5.0 L/s

SECONDARY FANS & OTHER EXHAUST APPLIANCES

Control Supply (L/s) Exhaust (Other Fans Continuous 0.00 7.79

Rated Fan Power Watts

AIR LEAKAGE AND VENTILATION SUMMARY

65

F326 Required continous ventilation: 55.000 L/s (0.15 ACH) Other Continuous Supply Flow Rates: 0.000 L/s ( ACH) Other Continuous Exhaust Flow Rates: 0.000 L/s (0.02 ACH) Total house ventilation is Balanced Gross Air Leakage and Ventilation Energy Load: 86529.969 MJ

Seasonal Heat Recovery Ventilator Efficiency: 0.000 %

Estimated Ventilation Electrical Load: Heating Hours: 0.000 MJ

Estimated Ventilation Electrical Load: Non-Heating Hours: 0.000 MJ

Net Air Leakage and Ventilation Load: 87747.297 MJ

SPACE HEATING SYSTEM

Primary Heating Fuel: Electricity Equipment: Baseboard/Hydronic/Plenum(duct) htrs. Manufacturer: Model: Calculated* Output Capacity: 37.00 kW

* Design Heat loss X 1.00 + 0.5 kW Steady State Efficiency: 100.00 %

DOMESTIC WATER HEATING SYSTEM

Primary Water Heating Fuel: Electricity Water Heating Equipment: Conventional tank Energy Factor: 0.82 Manufactuer: Wizard DHW Manufactuers Model: Wizard DHW Model

Tank Capacity = 302.77 Litres Tank Blanket Insulation

0.00 RSI

Tank Loacation: Outside

66

ANNUAL SPACE HEATING SUMMARY

Design Heat Loss at -7.00 °C (28.04 Watts / m3): 36528.25 Watts Gross Space Heat Loss: 373023.13 MJ Gross Space Heating Load: 373023.13 MJ Usable Internal Gains: 27592.17 MJ Usable Internal Gains Fraction: 7.40 % Usable Solar Gains: 54854.89 MJ Usable Solar Gains Fraction: 14.71 % Auxilary Energy Required: 290576.09 MJ Space Heating System Load: 290576.03 MJ Furnace/Boiler Seasonal efficiency: 100.00 % Furnace/Boiler Annual Energy Consumption: 290576.03 MJ

ANNUAL DOMESTIC WATER HEATING SUMMARY

Daily Hot Water Consumption: 224.99 Litres Hot Water Temperature: 55.00 °C Estimated Domestic Water Heating Load: 15103.63 MJ Primary Domestic Water Heating Energy Consumption: 19408.13 MJ Primary System Seasonal Efficiency: 77.82%

BASE LOADS SUMMARY

kwh/day Annual kWh Interior Lighting 3.00 1095.00 Appliances 9.00 3285.00 Other 7.60 2774.00 Exterior Use 1.00 365.00 HVAC Fans HRV/Exhaust 0.37 136.39 Space Heating 0.00 0.00 Space Cooling 0.00 0.00 Total Average Electrical Load 20.97 7655.39

67

FAN OPERATION SUMMARY (kWh)

Hours HRV/Exhaust Fans Space Heating Space Cooling Heating 133.46 0.00 0.00 Neither 2.93 0.00 0.00 Cooling 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 136.39 0.00 0.00

ENERGY CONSUMPTION SUMMARY REPORT

Estimated Annual Space Heating Energy Consumption = 290576.03 MJ = 80715.56 kWh

Ventilator Electrical Consumption: Heating Hours = 0.00 MJ = 0.00 kWh Estimated Annual DHW Heating Energy Consumption = 19408.13 MJ = 5391.15 kWh

ESTIMATED ANNUAL SPACE + DHW ENERGY CONSUMPTION = 309984.16 MJ = 86106.71 kWh

Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions 50.83 tonnes/year

ESTIMATED ANNUAL FUEL CONSUMPTION SUMMARY

Fuel Space Heating Space Cooling DHW Heating Appliance Total Electricity (kWh) 80849.00 0.00 5391.15 7521.93 93762.08

ESTIMATED ANNUAL FUEL CONSUMPTION COSTS

Fuel Costs Library = Embedded

RATE Electricity (BC Hydro)

Natural Gas(Toronto)

Oil (BC 05)

Propane (Terasen)

Wood ($100/cd) Total

$ 5980.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5980.75

68

MONTHLY ENERGY PROFILE

Month Energy Load (MJ)

Internal Gains(MJ)

Solar Gains (MJ)

Aux. Energy (MJ)

HRV Eff. %

Jan 52031.290 2343.444 2344.008 47343.839 0.000 Feb 43674.232 2116.659 3198.792 38358.782 0.000 Mar 42272.427 2343.444 5170.425 34758.557 0.000 Apr 32677.139 2267.849 6182.613 24226.677 0.000 May 23590.673 2343.444 6565.578 14681.651 0.000 Jun 15444.181 2267.849 5917.176 7259.156 0.000 Jul 10483.296 2343.444 5183.571 2956.281 0.000 Aug 11132.978 2343.444 5290.055 3499.480 0.000 Sep 17557.927 2267.849 5745.955 9544.124 0.000 Oct 30954.769 2343.444 4646.778 23964.548 0.000 Nov 42079.358 2267.849 2607.497 37204.011 0.000 Dec 51124.866 2343.444 2002.449 46778.973 0.000 Ann 373023.156 27592.160 54854.895 290576.094 0.000

FOUNDATION ENERGY PROFILE

Heat Loss (MJ) Month Crawl Space Slab Basement Walkout Total


69

FOUNDATION TEMPERATURES & VENTILATION PROFILE

Temperature (Deg °C) Air Change Rate Heat Loss Month Crawl Space Basement Walkout Natural Total (MJ

Jan 0.000 17.989 0.000 0.635 0.657 13217.125 Feb 0.000 18.008 0.000 0.619 0.641 10915.424 Mar 0.000 18.256 0.000 0.579 0.601 10232.168 Apr 0.000 18.705 0.000 0.521 0.542 7614.244 May 0.000 19.267 0.000 0.438 0.460 5117.760 Jun 0.000 19.794 0.000 0.369 0.390 3175.001 Jul 0.000 20.272 0.000 0.307 0.328 2154.609 Aug 0.000 20.284 0.000 0.297 0.318 2185.726 Sep 0.000 19.853 0.000 0.354 0.375 3381.294 Oct 0.000 19.301 0.000 0.469 0.490 6568.306 Nov 0.000 18.714 0.000 0.584 0.605 10145.872 Dec 0.000 18.235 0.000 0.638 0.660 13039.767 Ann 0.000 19.063 0.000 0.483 0.505 87747.328

SPACE HEATING SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

Month Space Heating

Load (MJ)

Furnace Input (MJ)

Pilot Light (MJ)

Indoor Fans (MJ)

Heat Pump Input (MJ)

Total Input (MJ) System Cop

Jan 47343.831 47343.831 0.000 0.000 0.000 47343.831 1.000 Feb 38358.786 38358.786 0.000 0.000 0.000 38358.786 1.000 Mar 34758.558 34758.558 0.000 0.000 0.000 34758.558 1.000 Apr 24226.681 24226.681 0.000 0.000 0.000 24226.681 1.000 May 14681.652 14681.652 0.000 0.000 0.000 14681.652 1.000 Jun 7259.155 7259.155 0.000 0.000 0.000 7259.155 1.000 Jul 2956.281 2956.281 0.000 0.000 0.000 2956.281 1.000 Aug 3499.480 3499.480 0.000 0.000 0.000 3499.480 1.000 Sep 9544.125 9544.124 0.000 0.000 0.000 9544.124 1.000 Oct 23964.544 23964.544 0.000 0.000 0.000 23964.544 1.000 Nov 37204.013 37204.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 37204.013 1.000 Dec 46778.968 46778.968 0.000 0.000 0.000 46778.968 1.000 Ann 290576.094 290576.094 0.000 0.000 0.000 290576.094 1.000

70

MONTHLY ESTIMATED ENERGY CONSUMPTION BY DEVICE (MJ)

Space Heating DHW Heating Lights & HRV & Air Month Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Appliances FANS Conditioner


ESTIMATED FUEL COSTS (Dollars)

Month Electricity Natural Gas Oil Propane Wood Total Jan 909.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 909.10 Feb 744.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 744.17 Mar 687.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 687.40 Apr 498.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 498.80 May 331.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 331.77 Jun 197.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 197.64 Jul 123.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 123.13 Aug 132.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 132.44 Sep 237.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 237.20 Oct 494.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 494.32 Nov 726.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 726.39 Dec 898.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 898.38 Ann 5980.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5980.75

The calculated heat losses and energy consumptions are only estimates, based upon the data entered and assumptions within the program. Actual energy consumption and heat losses will be influenced by construction practices, localized weather, equipment characteristics and the lifestyle of the occupants.

72

Appendix C: Hot2000 Report, Emily Carr House, EnerGuide for Houses


Version 10.12

File: 38JBD00104.HSE Application Type: General

User Weather File:

Weather Data for ,

Builder Code: 38JBD00104 Data Entry by: Joy Beauchamp Date of entry: 31/10/2007 Company: City Green Client name: Ross, Dian Street address: 207 Government St City: Victoria Region: BC Postal code: V8V 2K8 Telephone: 250 361-4642


House type: Single Detached Number of storeys: Two storeys

Plan shape: Rectangular Front orientation: Northwest Year House Built: 1863 Wall colour: Default Absorptivity: 0.40

73

Roof colour: Medium brown Absorptivity: 0.84 Soil Condition: Normal conductivity (dry sand, loam, clay) Water Table Level: Normal (7-10m/23-33ft)





HOUSE TEMPERATURES

Heating Temperatures Main Floor: 21.0 °C Basement: 19.0 °C Crawl Space: Unheated TEMP. Rise from 21.0 °C: 2.8 °C Indoor design temperatures for equipment sizing Heating: 22.0 °C Cooling: 24.0 °C



Header Height

(m) Tilt deg

Curtain Factor

Shutter (RSI)

Southeast Southeast0001 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Southeast0002 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Southeast0003 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Southeast0004 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Southeast0005 Second level 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Southeast0006 Second level 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Southeast0007 Second level 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Southeast0008 Second level 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Northeast

74

Northeast0001 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Northeast0002 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Northeast0003 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Northeast0004 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Northeast0005 Second level 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Northeast0006 Second level 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Northeast0007 Second level 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Northeast0008 Second level 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Northwest Northwest0001 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Northwest0002 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Northwest0003 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Northwest0004 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Northwest0005 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Northwest0006 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Northwest0007 Second level 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Northwest0008 Second level 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Northwest0009 Second level 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Northwest0010 Second level 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Northwest0011 Second level 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Southwest Southwest0001 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Southwest0002 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Southwest0003 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Southwest0004 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Southwest0005 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Southwest0006 Second level 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Southwest0007 Second level 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Southwest0008 Second level 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Southwest0009 Second level 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Southwest0010 Second level 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00


(m)

Window Height

(m)

Total Area (m2)

Window RSI SHGC

Southeast Southeast0001 100002 1 1.18 1.24 1.46 0.174 0.7522Southeast0002 100002 1 1.18 1.24 1.46 0.174 0.7522Southeast0003 100002 1 1.18 1.24 1.46 0.174 0.7522Southeast0004 100002 1 1.18 1.24 1.46 0.174 0.7522Southeast0005 100002 1 1.03 1.09 1.13 0.177 0.7379Southeast0006 100002 1 1.03 1.09 1.13 0.177 0.7379Southeast0007 100002 1 1.03 1.09 1.13 0.177 0.7379

75

Southeast0008 100002 1 1.03 1.09 1.13 0.177 0.7379Northeast Northeast0001 100002 1 1.08 1.14 1.24 0.176 0.7431Northeast0002 100002 1 1.08 1.14 1.24 0.176 0.7431Northeast0003 100002 1 1.08 1.14 1.24 0.176 0.7431Northeast0004 100002 1 1.08 1.14 1.24 0.176 0.7431Northeast0005 100002 1 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.178 0.7277Northeast0006 100002 1 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.178 0.7277Northeast0007 100002 1 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.178 0.7277Northeast0008 100002 1 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.178 0.7277Northwest Northwest0001 100002 1 1.10 1.16 1.27 0.175 0.7448Northwest0002 100002 1 1.10 1.16 1.27 0.175 0.7448Northwest0003 100002 1 1.10 1.16 1.27 0.175 0.7448Northwest0004 100002 1 1.10 1.16 1.27 0.175 0.7448Northwest0005 100002 1 1.10 1.16 1.27 0.175 0.7448Northwest0006 100002 1 1.10 1.16 1.27 0.175 0.7448Northwest0007 100002 1 1.06 1.12 1.18 0.176 0.7405Northwest0008 100002 1 1.06 1.12 1.18 0.176 0.7405Northwest0009 100002 1 1.06 1.12 1.18 0.176 0.7405Northwest0010 100002 1 1.06 1.12 1.18 0.176 0.7405Northwest0011 100002 1 1.06 1.12 1.18 0.176 0.7405Southwest Southwest0001 100002 1 0.97 1.02 0.99 0.178 0.7299Southwest0002 100002 1 0.97 1.02 0.99 0.178 0.7299Southwest0003 100002 1 0.97 1.02 0.99 0.178 0.7299Southwest0004 100002 1 0.97 1.02 0.99 0.178 0.7299Southwest0005 100002 1 0.97 1.02 0.99 0.178 0.7299Southwest0006 100002 1 0.85 0.90 0.76 0.181 0.7128Southwest0007 100002 1 0.85 0.90 0.76 0.181 0.7128Southwest0008 100002 1 0.85 0.90 0.76 0.181 0.7128Southwest0009 100002 1 0.85 0.90 0.76 0.181 0.7128Southwest0010 100002 1 0.85 0.90 0.76 0.181 0.7128


Name Internal Code


100002 100002 Single (SG), Clear, 13 mm Air, Metal, Picture, Wood, ER* = -72.45, Eff. RSI= 0.36

76



CEILING COMPONENTS


(m2) R.

Value (RSI)

Ceiling01 Attic/gable User specified 4.0/12 0.10 135.84 7.64

Ceiling02 Cathedral 2231001000 4.0/12 0.00 34.00 0.23


Name Internal Code


Studs)

2231001000 2231001000 Wood frame, 38x235 mm (2x10 in), 400 mm (16 in), None, None, 12 mm (0.5 in) gypsum board, N/A, N/A, N/A


Label Lintel Type

Fac. Dir

Number of Corn.

Number of Inter.

Height (m)

Perim. (m) Area (m2)

R. Value (RSI)

CathGable04 Type: 1201001121

100 N/A 2 0 2.07 12.40 25.60 0.64

Main floor Type: 1201001121

100 N/A 4 4 3.02 55.41 167.21 0.67

Second level Type: 1201001121

100 N/A 4 4 2.59 41.82 108.34 0.67

MWhdr-02 Type: 1800000520

N/A 4 4 0.23 55.41 12.74 0.70

WALL CODE SCHEDULE

Name Internal Code


Studs)

77

1201001121 1201001121 Wood frame, 38x89 mm (2x4 in), 400 mm (16 in), None, None, 12 mm (0.5 in) gypsum board, Waferboard/OSB 9.5 mm (3/8 in), Hollow metal/vinyl cladding, 3 studs

1800000520 1800000520 Floor header, N/A, N/A, None, None, N/A, Plywood/Particle board 12.7 mm (1/2 in), Hollow metal/vinyl cladding, N/A

DOORS


R. Value (RSI)

Door-01 Loc: Main floor Solid wood 1.90 1.12 2.13 0.39



FOUNDATIONS

Foundation Name: Foundation - 1 Foundation Type: N/A Crawl space Volume: 103.2 m3 Data Type: Library Ventilation Type: Ventilated Thermal Break R-Value: 0.00 RSI Skirt R-value: 0.00 RSI Total Wall Height: 0.70 m Non-Rectangular Floor Perimeter: 54.80 m Floor Area: 147.16 m2

Wall type: 1600050000 R-Value 1.52 RSI Number of Corners: 4

Lintel Type: Crawl Lintel Added to slab type : N/A R-value : 1.40 RSI

Floors above found.: 4231000600 R-value : 0.60 RSI

Exposed areas for: Foundation - 1 Exposed Perimeter: 54.80 m

Configuration: SCA_17 - concrete or soil (for crawl space) floor

78

- top of slab fully insulated - first storey is non-brick veneer or bricks thermally broken from concrete floor


Crawl Space Wall

Name Internal Code

Description (Structure, typ/size, Spacing, Insul1, 2, Int., Sheathing, Exterior,

Studs)

1600050000 1600050000 Solid, 75 mm ( 3 in) Concrete, None, None, 38 mm (1.5 in) XTPS IV, None, None, None, 2 studs


Name Internal Code


Drop Framing)

4231000600 4231000600 Wood frame, 38x235 mm (2x10 in), 400 mm (16 in), None, None, None, Plywood/Particle board 15.5 mm (5/8 in), None, No

Lintel Code Schedule

Name Code Description ( Type, Material, Insulation )

~ & ~ 100 Double, Wood, None Crawl Lintel 100 Double, Wood, None

ROOF CAVITY INPUTS


79



Nominal (RSI)

System (RSI)

Effective (RSI)

CEILING COMPONENTS Ceiling02 2231001000 0.00 0.23 0.23 MAIN WALL COMPONENTS

CathGable04 1201001121 0.00 0.64 0.64 Main floor 1201001121 0.00 0.66 0.67 Second level 1201001121 0.00 0.66 0.67 MWhdr-02 1800000520 0.00 0.70 0.70 CRAWL SPACE WALLS Foundation - 1 1600050000 1.32 1.52 1.52 FLOORS ABOVE CRAWL SPACE

Foundation - 1 4231000600 0.00 0.60 0.60




Area m2 Net

Effective (RSI)

Heat Loss MJ

% Annual Heat Loss

Ceiling 169.85 169.85 1.01 25760.48 7.73 Main Walls 313.90 266.11 0.67 129788.58 38.96 Doors 6.39 6.39 0.39 5803.92 1.74 Southeast Windows 10.35 10.35 0.18 20926.52 6.28 Northeast Windows 8.76 8.76 0.18 17542.23 5.27 Northwest Windows 13.54 13.54 0.18 27284.27 8.19 Southwest Windows 8.76 8.76 0.18 17303.10 5.19 ZONE 1 Totals: 244409.09 73.36

ZONE 2 : Basement


Area m2 Net

Effective (RSI)

Heat Loss MJ

% Annual Heat Loss

ZONE 3: Crawl Space Foundation

80


Area m2

Net Effective

(RSI) Heat Loss

MJ % Annual Heat Loss

Foundation 147.16 147.16 - 19886.34 5.97 ZONE 3 Totals: 19886.34 5.97

Ventilation


% Annual Heat Loss

945.49 m3 0.541 ACH 68870.805 20.67



Air Leakage Test Results at 50 Pa.(0.2 in H2O) = 12.66 ACH Equivalent Leakage Area @ 10 Pa = 4548.99 cm2 Terrain Description Height m @ Weather Station : Open flat terrain, grass Anemometer 10.0 @ Building site : Suburban, forest Bldg. Eaves 7.5 Local Shielding: Walls: Heavy Flue : Light Leakage Fractions- Ceiling: 0.150 Walls: 0.600 Floors: 0.250



Kitchen, Living Room, Dining Room 3 rooms @ 5.0 L/s: 15.0 L/s Utility Room 1 rooms @ 5.0 L/s: 5.0 L/s Bedroom 1 rooms @ 10.0 L/s: 10.0 L/s Bedroom 2 rooms @ 5.0 L/s: 10.0 L/s Bathroom 2 rooms @ 5.0 L/s: 10.0 L/s Other 2 rooms @ 5.0 L/s: 10.0 L/s

81

Basement Rooms : 0.0 L/s


Control Supply (L/s) Exhaust (Other Fans Continuous 0.00 7.79Dryer Continuous - 1.20

Dryer is vented outdoors









Primary Heating Fuel: Electricity Equipment: Baseboard/Hydronic/Plenum(duct) htrs. Manufacturer: Wizard SPH man Model: Calculated* Output 39.50 kW

82

Capacity: * Design Heat loss X 1.10 + 0.5 kW Steady State Efficiency: 100.00 %


Primary Water Heating Fuel: Electricity Water Heating Equipment: Conventional tank Energy Factor: 0.82 Manufactuer: Wizard DHW man Model: Wizard DHW mod


0.00 RSI

Tank Loacation: Main floor


Design Heat Loss at -7.00 °C (37.51 Watts / m3): 35466.66 Watts Gross Space Heat Loss: 333166.34 MJ Gross Space Heating Load: 333166.22 MJ Usable Internal Gains: 31550.54 MJ Usable Internal Gains Fraction: 9.47 % Usable Solar Gains: 50638.78 MJ Usable Solar Gains Fraction: 15.20 % Auxilary Energy Required: 250976.89 MJ Space Heating System Load: 250976.86 MJ Furnace/Boiler Seasonal efficiency: 100.00 % Furnace/Boiler Annual Energy Consumption: 250976.86 MJ


Daily Hot Water Consumption: 225.00 Litres Hot Water Temperature: 55.00 °C Estimated Domestic Water Heating Load: 15104.57 MJ

83

Primary Domestic Water Heating Energy Consumption: 18283.11 MJ Primary System Seasonal Efficiency: 82.61%

BASE LOADS SUMMARY

kwh/day Annual kWh Interior Lighting 3.40 1241.00 Appliances 9.00 3285.00 Other 7.60 2774.00 Exterior Use 4.00 1460.00 HVAC Fans HRV/Exhaust 0.37 136.43 Space Heating 0.00 0.00 Space Cooling 0.00 0.00 Total Average Electrical Load 24.37 8896.43







Estimated Greenhouse Gas 45.37 tonnes/year

84

Emissions






Natural Gas(VanIslan)

Oil (BC 05)

Propane (Terasen)


$ 5343.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5343.24



Internal Gains(MJ)

Solar Gains (MJ)

Aux. Energy (MJ)

HRV Eff. %



85







Month Space Heating Furnace Pilot Indoor Heat Total Input System Cop

86

Load (MJ)

Input (MJ)

Light (MJ)

Fans (MJ)

Pump Input (MJ)

(MJ)






87



88

Appendix D: Hot2000 Report, Upgraded Emily Carr House, EnerGuide for Houses


Version 10.12

File: 38JBD00104.HSE Application Type: General

User Weather File:

Weather Data for ,

Builder Code: 38JBD00104 Data Entry by: Joy Beauchamp Date of entry: 31/10/2007 Company: City Green Client name: Ross, Dian Street address: 207 Government St City: Victoria Region: BC Postal code: V8V 2K8 Telephone: 250 361-4642


House type: Single Detached Number of storeys: Two storeys

Plan shape: Rectangular Front orientation: Northwest Year House Built: 1863

89

Wall colour: Default Absorptivity: 0.40 Roof colour: Medium brown Absorptivity: 0.84 Soil Condition: Normal conductivity (dry sand, loam, clay) Water Table Level: Normal (7-10m/23-33ft)





HOUSE TEMPERATURES

Heating Temperatures Main Floor: 21.0 °C Basement: 19.0 °C Crawl Space: Unheated TEMP. Rise from 21.0 °C: 2.8 °C

Cooling Temperature: Main Floor : 25.00 °C

Indoor design temperatures for equipment sizing Heating: 22.0 °C Cooling: 24.0 °C



Header Height

(m) Tilt deg

Curtain Factor

Shutter (RSI)

Southeast Southeast0001 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Southeast0002 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Southeast0003 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Southeast0004 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Southeast0005 Second level 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Southeast0006 Second level 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00

90

Southeast0007 Second level 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Southeast0008 Second level 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Northeast Northeast0001 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Northeast0002 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Northeast0003 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Northeast0004 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Northeast0005 Second level 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Northeast0006 Second level 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Northeast0007 Second level 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Northeast0008 Second level 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Northwest Northwest0001 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Northwest0002 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Northwest0003 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Northwest0004 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Northwest0005 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Northwest0006 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Northwest0007 Second level 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Northwest0008 Second level 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Northwest0009 Second level 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Northwest0010 Second level 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Northwest0011 Second level 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Southwest Southwest0001 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Southwest0002 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Southwest0003 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Southwest0004 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Southwest0005 Main floor 1 0.41 2.79 90.0 1.00 0.00Southwest0006 Second level 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Southwest0007 Second level 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Southwest0008 Second level 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Southwest0009 Second level 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00Southwest0010 Second level 1 0.41 0.20 90.0 1.00 0.00


(m)

Window Height

(m)

Total Area (m2)

Window RSI SHGC

Southeast

Southeast0001 Wood double with insulated space 1 1.18 1.24 1.46 0.360 0.6646


91







Northeast

Northeast0001 Wood double with insulated space 1 1.08 1.14 1.24 0.360 0.6566








Northwest

Northwest0001 Wood double with insulated space 1 1.10 1.16 1.27 0.360 0.6581









92



Southwest

Southwest0001 Wood double with insulated space 1 0.97 1.02 0.99 0.361 0.6449











Name Internal Code


Wood double with insulated space

200202 Double/double with 1 coat, Clear, 13 mm Air, Insulating, Picture, Wood, ER* = -13.85, Eff. RSI= 0.42



CEILING COMPONENTS

93


(m2) R.

Value (RSI)

Ceiling01 Attic/gable User specified 4.0/12 0.10 135.84 7.64

Ceiling02 Cathedral 2231001000 4.0/12 0.00 34.00 0.23


Name Internal Code


Studs)

2231001000 2231001000 Wood frame, 38x235 mm (2x10 in), 400 mm (16 in), None, None, 12 mm (0.5 in) gypsum board, N/A, N/A, N/A


Label Lintel Type

Fac. Dir

Number of Corn.

Number of Inter.

Height (m)

Perim. (m) Area (m2)

R. Value (RSI)

CathGable04 Type: BLOCEL3.6/in

100 N/A 2 0 2.07 12.40 25.60 2.21

Main floor Type: BLOCEL3.6/in

100 N/A 4 4 3.02 55.41 167.21 1.99

Second level Type: BLOCEL3.6/in

100 N/A 4 4 2.59 41.82 108.34 1.97

MWhdr-02 Type: 1800000520

N/A 4 4 0.23 55.41 12.74 0.70

WALL CODE SCHEDULE

Name Internal Code


Studs)

BLOCEL3.6/in 1201A09760 Wood frame, 38x89 mm (2x4 in), 400 mm (16 in), N/A, None, Lath & plaster, Plywood/Particle board 18.5 mm (3/4 in), Stucco, 2 studs

1800000520 1800000520 Floor header, N/A, N/A, None, None, N/A, Plywood/Particle board 12.7 mm (1/2 in), Hollow metal/vinyl cladding, N/A

DOORS


R. Value (RSI)


94



FOUNDATIONS

Foundation Name: Foundation - 1 Foundation Type: N/A Crawl space Volume: 103.2 m3 Data Type: Library Ventilation Type: Closed Thermal Break R-Value: 0.00 RSI Skirt R-value: 0.00 RSI Total Wall Height: 0.70 m Non-Rectangular Floor Perimeter: 54.80 m Floor Area: 147.16 m2

Wall type: 1600050000 R-Value 1.52 RSI Number of Corners: 4

Lintel Type: Crawl Lintel Added to slab type : N/A R-value : 1.40 RSI

Floors above found.: crawlspace ceiling R-value : 4.97 RSI

Exposed areas for: Foundation - 1 Exposed Perimeter: 54.80 m

Configuration: SCA_17 - concrete or soil (for crawl space) floor - top of slab fully insulated - first storey is non-brick veneer or bricks thermally broken from concrete floor


Crawl Space Wall

Name Internal Description

95

Code (Structure, typ/size, Spacing, Insul1, 2, Int., Sheathing, Exterior, Studs)

1600050000 1600050000 Solid, 75 mm ( 3 in) Concrete, None, None, 38 mm (1.5 in) XTPS IV, None, None, None, 2 studs


Name Internal Code


Drop Framing) crawlspace ceiling 4231506600 Wood frame, 38x235 mm (2x10 in), 400 mm (16 in), RSI 4.9 (R 28) batt,

None, Wood, Plywood/Particle board 15.5 mm (5/8 in), None, No

Lintel Code Schedule

Name Code Description ( Type, Material, Insulation )

~ & ~ 100 Double, Wood, None Crawl Lintel 100 Double, Wood, None

ROOF CAVITY INPUTS




Nominal (RSI)

System (RSI)

Effective (RSI)

CEILING COMPONENTS Ceiling02 2231001000 0.00 0.23 0.23 MAIN WALL COMPONENTS

CathGable04 BLOCEL3.6/in 2.25 2.21 2.21

96

Main floor BLOCEL3.6/in 2.25 2.03 1.99 Second level BLOCEL3.6/in 2.25 2.01 1.97 MWhdr-02 1800000520 0.00 0.70 0.70 CRAWL SPACE WALLS Foundation - 1 1600050000 1.32 1.52 1.52 FLOORS ABOVE CRAWL SPACE

Foundation - 1 crawlspace ceiling 4.91 4.97 4.97




Area m2 Net

Effective (RSI)

Heat Loss MJ

% Annual Heat Loss

Ceiling 169.85 169.85 1.01 25760.48 14.40 Main Walls 313.90 266.11 1.84 47019.88 26.28 Doors 6.39 6.39 0.39 5803.92 3.24 Southeast Windows 10.35 10.35 0.36 10189.97 5.70 Northeast Windows 8.76 8.76 0.36 8613.13 4.81 Northwest Windows 13.54 13.54 0.36 13320.93 7.45 Southwest Windows 8.76 8.76 0.36 8599.52 4.81 ZONE 1 Totals: 119307.82 66.68

ZONE 2 : Basement


Area m2 Net

Effective (RSI)

Heat Loss MJ

% Annual Heat Loss

ZONE 3: Crawl Space Foundation


Area m2

Net Effective

(RSI) Heat Loss

MJ % Annual Heat Loss

Foundation 147.16 147.16 - 6559.64 3.67 ZONE 3 Totals: 6559.64 3.67

Ventilation


% Annual Heat Loss

945.49 m3 0.417 ACH 53049.992 29.65

97



Air Leakage Test Results at 50 Pa.(0.2 in H2O) = 9.65 ACH Equivalent Leakage Area @ 10 Pa = 3469.14 cm2 Terrain Description Height m @ Weather Station : Open flat terrain, grass Anemometer 10.0 @ Building site : Suburban, forest Bldg. Eaves 7.5 Local Shielding: Walls: Heavy Flue : Light Leakage Fractions- Ceiling: 0.150 Walls: 0.600 Floors: 0.250



Kitchen, Living Room, Dining Room 3 rooms @ 5.0 L/s: 15.0 L/s Utility Room 1 rooms @ 5.0 L/s: 5.0 L/s Bedroom 1 rooms @ 10.0 L/s: 10.0 L/s Bedroom 2 rooms @ 5.0 L/s: 10.0 L/s Bathroom 2 rooms @ 5.0 L/s: 10.0 L/s Other 2 rooms @ 5.0 L/s: 10.0 L/s Basement Rooms : 0.0 L/s


Control Supply (L/s) Exhaust (Other Fans Continuous 0.00 7.79Dryer Continuous - 1.20

98

Dryer is vented outdoors









Primary Space Heating Fuel: Natural Gas Space Heating Equipment: Air Source Heat Pump Manufacturer: Model: Capacity at XT3 °C: 0.00 kW HSPF at XT3 °C: 8.00 COP at XT3 °C: 3.79 Crankcase Heater Power: 0.00 watts Heat Pump Temperature Cut-Off: Balance point


Secondary Heating Fuel: Electricity

99

Equipment: Baseboard/Hydronic/Plenum(duct) htrs. Manufacturer: Wizard SPH man Model: Calculated* Output Capacity: 23.00 kW

* Design Heat loss X 1.10 + 0.5 kW Steady State Efficiency: 100.00 % Fan Mode: Continuous Low Speed Fan Power: 0 watts High Speed Fan Power: 422 watts

AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM

System Type: Conventional A/C Manufacturer: Model: Capacity: 14542 Watts SEER 14.00 Rated COP 3.0 Sensible Heat Ratio: 0.76

Indoor Fan Flow Rate: 981.22 L/s Fan Power (watts) 760.45

Ventilator Flow Rate: 0.00 L/s Crankcase Heater

Power (watts): 0.00

Fraction of windows Openable

0.00

Economizer control: N/A Indoor Fan

Operation: Auto

Air Conditioner is integrated with the Heating System


Primary Water Heating Fuel: Electricity Water Heating Equipment: Conventional tank Energy Factor: 0.82 Manufactuer: Wizard DHW man Model: Wizard DHW mod


0.00 RSI

Tank Loacation: Main floor

100


Design Heat Loss at -7.00 °C (21.90 Watts / m3): 20706.56 Watts Gross Space Heat Loss: 178917.47 MJ Gross Space Heating Load: 178917.42 MJ Usable Internal Gains: 39579.48 MJ Usable Internal Gains Fraction: 22.12 % Usable Solar Gains: 36160.14 MJ Usable Solar Gains Fraction: 20.21 % Auxilary Energy Required: 103177.83 MJ Space Heating System Load: 103177.80 MJ Heat Pump and Furnace Annual COP: 2.73 Heat Pump Annual Energy Consumption: 30335.75 MJ Furnace/Boiler Annual Energy Consumption: 5360.00 MJ Annual Space Heating Energy Consumption: 35695.75 MJ

ANNUAL SPACE COOLING SUMMARY

Design Cooling Load for July at 24.00 °C: 11603.31 Watts Design Sensible Heat Ratio: 0.77 Estimated Annual Space Cooling Energy: 1130.83 Seasonal COP ( May to October): 2.47


Daily Hot Water Consumption: 225.00 Litres Hot Water Temperature: 55.00 °C Estimated Domestic Water Heating Load: 15104.57 MJ Primary Domestic Water Heating Energy Consumption: 18283.54 MJ Primary System Seasonal Efficiency: 82.61%

BASE LOADS SUMMARY

kwh/day Annual kWh Interior Lighting 3.40 1241.00

101

Appliances 9.00 3285.00 Other 7.60 2774.00 Exterior Use 4.00 1460.00 HVAC Fans HRV/Exhaust 0.37 136.43 Space Heating 5.55 2024.45 Space Cooling 0.50 183.09 Total Average Electrical Load 30.42 11103.97







Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions 14.65 tonnes/year



102




Natural Gas(VanIslan)

Oil (BC 05)

Propane (Terasen)


$ 1756.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1756.23



Internal Gains(MJ)

Solar Gains (MJ)

Aux. Energy (MJ)

HRV Eff. %




Jan 778.904 0.000 0.000 0.000 778.904 Feb 694.429 0.000 0.000 0.000 694.429 Mar 720.316 0.000 0.000 0.000 720.316 Apr 610.124 0.000 0.000 0.000 610.124 May 510.057 0.000 0.000 0.000 510.057 Jun 389.705 0.000 0.000 0.000 389.705

103

Jul 318.907 0.000 0.000 0.000 318.907 Aug 308.827 0.000 0.000 0.000 308.827 Sep 367.042 0.000 0.000 0.000 367.042 Oct 507.999 0.000 0.000 0.000 507.999 Nov 617.566 0.000 0.000 0.000 617.566 Dec 735.762 0.000 0.000 0.000 735.762 Ann 6559.641 0.000 0.000 0.000 6559.638





Month Space Heating

Load (MJ)

Furnace Input (MJ)

Pilot Light(MJ)

Indoor Fans (MJ)

Heat Pump Input (MJ)

Total Input (MJ) System Cop

Jan 19446.674 2151.019 0.000 737.267 5388.598 8276.884 2.448 Feb 15144.155 605.770 0.000 665.919 4533.255 5804.943 2.775 Mar 12774.090 57.182 0.000 737.267 3962.230 4756.679 2.984 Apr 7776.778 47.361 0.000 713.484 2400.627 3161.472 2.990 May 3543.160 30.899 0.000 641.433 1081.085 1753.416 3.010 Jun 1010.862 11.827 0.000 446.615 305.501 763.943 3.017

104

Jul 129.178 1.832 0.000 275.765 38.763 316.360 3.018 Aug 154.383 2.179 0.000 337.087 46.424 385.690 3.012 Sep 1702.073 18.027 0.000 548.857 514.942 1081.827 3.022 Oct 7759.054 42.819 0.000 733.576 2357.977 3134.372 3.047 Nov 14498.182 259.284 0.000 713.484 4395.610 5368.378 2.928 Dec 19239.210 2131.802 0.000 737.267 5310.735 8179.804 2.455 Ann 103177.797 5360.001 30335.746 7288.021 0.000 42983.766 2.731

AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

Month Sensible Latent AirCond Fan Ventilator Total COP Av.RH Jan 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Feb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Mar 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Apr 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 May 467.7 21.8 46.5 33.8 0.0 55.9 2.4 34.0 Jun 1472.0 104.6 148.7 107.0 0.0 178.4 2.5 36.3 Jul 3315.1 311.5 338.3 240.1 0.0 405.0 2.5 38.0 Aug 2859.4 308.1 296.1 209.5 0.0 354.2 2.5 38.7 Sep 914.8 98.7 95.6 68.3 0.0 114.5 2.5 38.7 Oct 5.2 1.3 0.7 0.5 0.0 0.9 2.1 43.3 Nov 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Dec 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Ann 9034.2 846.0 925.9 659.1 0.0 1108.9 2.5 37.7



Jan 5388.6 2151.0 1654.2 0.0 2678.4 779.0 0.0 Feb 4533.3 605.8 1508.1 0.0 2419.2 703.6 0.0 Mar 3962.2 57.2 1654.2 0.0 2678.4 779.0 0.0 Apr 2400.6 47.4 1559.8 0.0 2592.0 753.9 0.0 May 1081.1 30.9 1553.9 0.0 2678.4 716.9 167.5 Jun 305.5 11.8 1447.3 0.0 2592.0 594.0 535.2 Jul 38.8 1.8 1451.6 0.0 2678.4 557.6 1217.9 Aug 46.4 2.2 1436.3 0.0 2678.4 588.3 1065.8

105

Sep 514.9 18.0 1406.5 0.0 2592.0 657.5 344.1 Oct 2358.0 42.8 1496.1 0.0 2678.4 775.8 2.6 Nov 4395.6 259.3 1503.8 0.0 2592.0 753.9 0.0 Dec 5310.7 2131.8 1611.8 0.0 2678.4 779.0 0.0 Ann 30335.7 5360.0 18283.5 0.0 31536.0 8438.3 3333.1




windows - british columbia · upgrade an existing building's efficiency while retaining its...

Documents