1. Albuquerque, NM Black band lives here! Team MembersRole Matt TurnerArchitectural & Foundations Engineer Matt MooreStructural Engineer Stu BurgessFluid Systems Engineer Andy BirkelBuilding Thermal Systems Engineer Doug HeminkSolar Thermal Systems Engineer

2. Agenda Black band lives here! 1.Architectural 2.Foundations 3.Structural 4.Hydronic System 5.Building Thermal 6.Solar Thermal

3. Architectural First Floor Black band lives here!

4. Architectural Second Floor Black band lives here!

5. Architectural Basement? Initial research showed that few houses in New Mexico are built with basements, due to poor soil conditions Further research into the soil conditions, using www.websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov, has shown that almost half of the soil in the Albuquerque area would not be a limiting factor as far as basements are concerned www.websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov Thus, further consideration shall have to be taken as far as the basement situation is concerned Additionally, both floors need windows added to them Black band lives here!

6. Foundation Compression due to House According to the International Residential Code, the live load varies from about 20 to about 60 pounds per square foot ≈ 40psf First Floor: 40 psf Second Floor: 30 psf Roof: 30 - 50+ psf ≈ 40psf All units then converted to metric, for consistency Produced the following table: Black band lives here!

7. Foundation Compression due to House Black band lives here! For concrete : 3,500 psi = 2460850 kg/m 2 For cinder blocks : 2,200 psi = 1546820 kg/ m 2

8. Foundation Force Caused by Soil Frost line Depth = 9’’ =.2286 m Minimum Footing Depth = 6’’ Below Frost line = 15’’ =.381 m If a basement is feasible, depth = 8’ = 2.44 m Had difficulty finding a specific soil density, instead just found a large range of densities Created the following table, displaying the force caused by the soil, as a function of soil depth and soil density Black band lives here!

9. Foundation Force caused by Soil Black band lives here!

10. Foundation Bending stress Caused By Soil Columns in yellow: minimum depth and “basement” depth From here moments and bending stresses caused by these forces can be determined Based on prior knowledge, it is already known that rebar will be necessary For now.2302 m is used as a thickness Black band lives here!

11. Foundation Bending Stress Caused By Soil Black band lives here!

12. Foundation What's Next From here I need to determine if any of these will give the desired factor of safety Assuming they won't, I'll need to determine amount of rebar required –Can also determine if the thickness can simply be increased A cost comparison should also take place Check to see if any pros/cons from one type significantly outweigh others Black band lives here!

13. Structural Engineer Support roof materials Support FPC system Factor of Safety = 4 to 6 Overhang Black band lives here! Roof Truss Design

14. Structural Engineer Possible Truss Designs Black band lives here! Fink TrussHowe Truss Double FanModified Queen

15. Structural Engineer Material Selection Black band lives here! Ponderosa Pine, Douglas FirSteel Relatively inexpensive Could require repair due to rotting Expensive Less maintenance required

16. Structural Engineer Fink Truss Analysis Black band lives here! R1R1 R2R2 Force from FPCs Span of 9.144 m

17. Structural Engineer Fink Truss Analysis Black band lives here! For 5 FPCs : ~ 4500 N R1 = 3042 N R2 = 304 N 2” x 4” members2’’ x 6” membersPonderosa Pine σ c = 0.9 MPaσ c = 0.6 MPa FOS = 5.6FOS = 8.5

18. Hydronic System Analysis System Schematic Transports fluid between FPCs and Storage Tank Appropriate pump, valves and piping are to be chosen given an array of FPCs

19. Hydronic System Analysis Calculations With 5 FPCs Max head = 40.40 ft Pipe Diameter= 1.5” Flow Rate = 20gpm With 10 FPCs Max head = 40.14 ft Pipe Diameter= 2.0” Flow Rate = 40gpm

20. Hydronic System Analysis Pump Selection Cost with 5 FPCs $513.35 Cost with 10 FPCs $737.84 Both cases require similar head 10 FPCs requires a greater flow rate

21. Hydronic System Analysis Valve Selection Gate and Ball valves Minimal pressure drop Good for on/off applications Globe Valve Creates some pressure drop Good for regulating flow

22. Hydronic System Analysis Piping materials CPVC Cheap Self-insulated Lightweight Easy to work with Can become brittle and discolored when exposed to UV rays PVC Shares many of the upsides of CPVC Not suitable for hot water usage Copper Proven durability Fire resistant Requires skilled labor to install/repair Galvanized Steel High durability Expensive Very difficult to repair

23. Hydronic System Analysis Piping Costs Copper 1.5” Diameter $94.76 per 10 ft 2.0” Diameter $149.46 per 10 ft CPVC 1.5” Diameter $42.45 per 10 ft 2.0” Diameter $58.76 per 10 ft

24. Building Thermal Systems Andy Birkel

25. Wall Construction Drywall Stud Insulation Plywood Stucco

26. Insulation Polyurethane Foam K value –0.023 W/mK Density –28 kg/m 3 Price –Roughly $7.43 per cubic ft Fiber Glass Batt K value –0.046 to 0.035 Density –16 to 40 kg/m 3 Price –Average $7.37 per cubic ft

27. Wall Construction Drywall Length0.0095m K Value0.1600W/mK R Value0.0595m 2 K/W Stud Length0.0889m Width0.0381m O.C.0.4064m K Value0.1000W/mK R Value0.8890m 2 K/W Poly Insulation Length0.0889m Width0.3683m K Value0.0240W/mK R Value3.7041m 2 K/W Plywood R Value0.1200m 2 K/W Stucco Length0.0222m K Value0.8100W/mK R Value0.0274m 2 K/W

28. Ceiling Construction Drywall Length0.0095m K Value0.1600W/mK R value0.0595m 2 K/W Stud Length0.2286m Width0.0381m O.C.0.6096m K Value0.1000W/mK R value2.2860m 2 K/W Poly Insulation Length0.2286m Width0.5715m O.C.0.6096m K Value0.0240W/mK R value9.525m 2 K/W

29. R Percentages Wall Materials Rvalue Between StudsAt Studs Drywall0.0595 Stud---0.8890 Poly Insulation3.8652--- Plywood0.1200 Stucco0.0274 Total R4.07221.0960 Percentage of Wall90.6259.375 Ceiling Materials Rvalue Between StudsAt Studs Drywall0.0595 Stud---2.2860 Poly Insulation9.9391--- Plywood0.1200 Total R10.11872.4655 Percentage of Wall93.756.25

30. Total Values Total Wall R value 3.7932 Km 2 /W 21.5386 hrft 2 F/BTU Total Wall U 0.2636 W/m 2 K Total Wall UA 63.3508 W/K Total Ceiling R value 9.6403 Km 2 /W 54.7405 hrft 2 F/BTU Total Ceiling U 0.1037 W/m 2 K Total Ceiling UA 5.1220 W/K Total U0.3823 Total UA71.2228 Q519.3330 °F°C In70.000021.1111 Out56.875013.8194

31. Solar Thermal System Objectives Provide Domestic Hot Water and/or Space Heating Minimize Life Cycle Cost Maximize Solar Fraction

32. Solar Thermal System Proposed Flat Plate Collectors Unglazed Liquid Flat Plate Collector Cheap Solution Generate low water temperatures Used almost exclusively for swimming pool heating Glazed Flat Plate Collector More expensive Generates higher temperatures Generally used for DHW and SH

33. Solar Thermal System Assumptions Collector Slope = 57° Down Payment =$2,500 Fuel = Electricity = 0.1090 $/kW-hr Daily hot water usage = 80 Gallons Water / Environmental temperature = 120°F / 68°F Used for both DHW and SH Unglazed Liquid Flat Plate Collector Analyzed using data on Sun Trek Brand Glazed Flat Plate Collector Analyzed using data on American Energy AE-40E

34. Solar Thermal System Unglazed For 12 collector panels: Solar Fraction = 0.888 Life Cycle Costs = $17,378 Life Cycle Savings = $7210

35. Solar Thermal System Glazed For 5 collector panels: Solar Fraction = 0.817 Life Cycle Costs = $10,675 Life Cycle Savings = $6,318