HomeMy WebLinkAbout844 Thornhill Pl - Inspection Results - 10/17/2001City of Fort Collins
ENERGY SCORE Home Energy Rating Program - Version 2.0.4
******************************************************************************
ENERGY RATING RESULT
Owner: Greg Martin Builder
.ddress: 844 Thornhill Place
Zip: 80524
Phone: 970/567-0305
3uilder:
Model:
Devel:
Reference #:
Data File:
Run Date:
Year Built:
Rating Firm:
Site Rater:
Rating Date:
131788
A:844THOR.DAT
10-17-2001
2001
Anderson Associates
Dick Anderson AIA
October 16 2001
*******************************************************************************
ENERGY SCORE:
(Least
Efficient)
***********
* G - 74 * t Z
***********
G - 74
v
v
G-0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
(Most
Efficient)
This program is offered by the City of Fort Collins as an aid in comparing
the energy efficiency of homes. The information provided does not constitute
any warranty, express or implied, as to the presence or lack of energy
features in this house, the heating fuel used in the house and its costs,
or the actual energy consumption or performance of the house.
City of Fort Collins
ENERGY SCORE Home Energy Rating Program - Version 2.0.4
DETAILED ENERGY REPORT FOR RATED BUILDING
Owner: Greg Martin Builder
3dress: 844 Thornhill Place
zip: 80524
Phone: 970/567-0305
Reference #: 131788
Data File: A:844THOR.DAT
Run Date: 10-17-2001
Year Built: 2001
Rating Firm: Anderson Associates
uilder:
Site Rater: Dick Anderson AIA
Model-
Mod
Mod-
Rating Date: October 16 2001
el
UILDING CHARACTERISTICS
'onditioned Space Area:
1138
sq ft
ft
SCORE
Y NERGSCORE
ENERGY
Total Glazing Area:
107
sq
AC/h
Air Infiltration Rate:
0.45
* G _ 74
Eff. Thermal Capacity:
2457
Btu/F
*******74
Util. of Direct Solar:
0.68
3UILDING ENERGY SUMMARY
Load
Efficiency
Energy
Consumed FuelCost
-
EnergyCost
KBtu/sf
----------
%-
---------------
KBtu/sf
MMBtu $/MMBtu
$ sf
3as Space Heat 27.2
.0
17
19.6 4.24
0.07
3as Water Heat 9.3
54.0
54
.2
51.1
58.2
0.22
Building TOTAL 36.5
COMPONENT SUMMARY: SPACE HEATING
Coeff Gross Heat
Loss Useful Gains
Net
Heat
Loss
-Heat
-Load
Btu/hr-F
------------------
KBtu/sf
KBtu/sf %
KBtu/sf
MMBtu
3.4
Ceilings/Roofs
28.0
10
3.9
7 0.9 5
21 1_1 6
3.0
9_9
11_3
Frame Walls
80.0
29
11_0
Masonry Walls
-
_
-
-
Rim/Band Joists
-
7 2
14 4.5 25
2.7
3.1
windows/Skylights
52.4
19
-
- - _
-
-
Sunspace
-
3
1 0
2 0.0 0
1.0
1.1
Doors
7.1
-
- - _
-
_
Foundation walls
-
0.1
0 0.0 0
0.1
0.1
Frame Floors
0 5
0
- _ -
-
-
Slab Floors
Crawl Sp/Unfit Bsmt
-
49.2
-
18
6.8
13 0.1 0
0.0 0
6.7
8 5
7.6
9 7
Infiltration
62.1
22
8.5
38.2
16
73 6.5 36
31.9
36.3
Envelope TOTAL
279.2
100
Active Solar Spc Ht
0.0
0 5.9 32
-5.9
-6.7
Internal Gains
7.2
14 5.9 32
1.3
1.5
Duct/Pipe Losses
6.8
13 0.0 0
6.8
7.7
Furnace Losses
52.2
100 18.3 100
33.9
38.6
Space Heating TOTAL
COMPONENT SUMMARY: WATER HEATING
19.6
MMBtu
Gas
_
Solar
---�_--
-
17.2
KBtu/sf
= 19.6
MMBtu
"Crawl space correction" for systems analysis code compliance /ESCORE
Crawl space homes have been treated a bit unfairly in past ENERGY SCORE systems analysis code
compliance. C.S. homes built with prescriptive code features receive lower scores than basement
homes -built -with code features. The correlation line that determined code complying scores for
different size homes represented a compromise (on a sample with few c.s. homes); c.s. homes
typically fall a little below the line. This means that they need better than prescriptive code features
to meet code using systems analysis.
The reason is that ENERGY SCORE ratings are based on energy use per square foot of
conditioned floor area. Comparing ranch homes, a home with basements has double the square
footage of the analogous c.s. home, but not use proportionally more energy (assuming both homes
are built to prescriptive code, R-11 basement and R-19 c.s.). The c.s. home thus gets a significantly
lower score -- even though it meets code.
The proposed correction is based on looking at the original set of homes used to set the correlation
between ENERGY SCORE and prescriptive code ( h:\data\encode\sysanaly\SysSummx.xls). Homes
SY04,_SYtQand_SYl7 are -the -three homes with full c.s. m the -sample: They all Tali'below the
regression line by 1-2 points. Hence the proposed correction:
• For full crawl spaces or c.s. representing more than 65% of the footprint: add 2 points to the
score calculated by the software.
• For crawl spaces between 35% and 65% of the footprint, add 1 point.
• For crawl spaces representing less than 35% of the footprint, no change in score.
hAdata\encodeuysanalylcrawl space cortection.doc -- 12J6/00
No Text
I