Se ha denunciado esta presentación.
Utilizamos tu perfil de LinkedIn y tus datos de actividad para personalizar los anuncios y mostrarte publicidad más relevante. Puedes cambiar tus preferencias de publicidad en cualquier momento.

Decathlon SOLARE

126 visualizaciones

Publicado el

Notes about the Solar Decathlon 2002, October - Washington DC per la lezione del 2 marzo 2018 nel corso di PSCE2018

Publicado en: Ingeniería
  • Sé el primero en comentar

  • Sé el primero en recomendar esto

Decathlon SOLARE

  1. 1. DIECI GARE “SOLARI”(solar decathlon)
  2. 2. 2002: an academic competition in Washington DC The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) – Office of Energy Efficiency – launch the first SOLAR DECATHLON, within the Renewable Energy’s Solar Technologies Program, with the support of: • The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) • BP Solar • The Home Depot • EDS (Electronic Data Systems) • The American Institute of Architects • …
  3. 3. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/33151.pdf
  4. 4. Late 1999 – Discussions about the Regulations Summer 2000 – Publication of the first version of the Solar Decathlon Rules and Regulations 0ct 2000 – Request for Proposals (public call) Feb 2001 – Preliminary acceptation of 12 proposals (11 + other 3 will go to Washington) Apr 2001 – Inspirational meetings Dec 2001-June 2002 – Design/construction qualification Nov 2000 – sept 2002 re-elaboration of the rules with stakeholders representatives Sep 19, 2002 – construction starts at 12:00 ends sep 25th Sep 23, 2002 – the 10 contests start Oct 4th close Oct 5th, 2002 – Final Ceremony Oct 7-9, 2002 – Disassembly THREEYEARS PREPARATION FORTHREE WEEKS OF WORKS
  5. 5. A long list of requirements (few of them) • Each team had a “lot” (5500 ft2 – 511 m2), a height limitation of 18 ft (5.5 m) and a max footprint of the building of 800 ft2 (74.3 m2) [ramps, decks, or porches not included]. • No building could cast any shadow on neighboring ones. • 450 ft2 (41.8 m2) of the 800 ft2 (74.3 m2) was to be conditioned (Tair+UR for comfort), while the “solar array” was restricted to the max footprint of the building. • Low accessibility requirements (as public space) but full compliance, as a real housing, to basic regulation (fire/electrical safety …) • Light foundation provision but high uplift resistance (90-mph wind)
  6. 6. Auburb Uni - Alabama Carnegie Mellon Uni - Pennsilvanya University of Colorado at Boulder Crowder College - Missouri University of Delaware University of MarylandUniversidad de Puerto Rico University of Missouri-Rolla University of Texas at Austin
  7. 7. Texas A&M University Tuskegee University - ALABAMA Univ. of North Carolina - Charlotte University of Virginia University of VirginiaTech «Based on the success of this first event, there will be subsequent Solar Decathlons. The next Solar Decathlon will be held in 2005, and another in 2007. More information is available at the Solar Decathlon Web site: http://www.solardecathlon.org/»
  8. 8. CONTESTS AND SCORING • Each team took part of each of the 10 Contests. • The winning was the team that earned the greatest number of points. • Each contest was worth a maximum of 100 points, except Design and Livability, which was worth a maximum of 200 points (max 1.100). • Each contest might have been split in subcontests (component) • Each component had a ranking (ex-aequo possible) and the points were given proportionally to the ranking (1°=max, last=0 points) • Also performance intexes were translated in ranking and then in points
  9. 9. The ten contests 1. Design and Livability 2. Design Presentation and Simulation 3. Graphics and Communication 4. The Comfort Zone 5. Refrigeration 6. Hot Water 7. Energy Balance 8. Lighting 9. Home Business 10. Getting Around SUBJECTIVE RESPONSE of a jury panel of six architects and design professionals
  10. 10. The ten contests 1. Design and Livability 2. Design Presentation and Simulation 3. Graphics and Communication 4. The Comfort Zone 5. Refrigeration 6. Hot Water 7. Energy Balance 8. Lighting 9. Home Business 10. Getting Around Building Energy Simulation. A panel judged the quality and completeness ofthe computer simulations: 50 points Construction Drawings. Two judging panels subjectively evaluated the construction drawings for 25 points each
  11. 11. The ten contests 1. Design and Livability 2. Design Presentation and Simulation 3. Graphics and Communication 4. The Comfort Zone 5. Refrigeration 6. Hot Water 7. Energy Balance 8. Lighting 9. Home Business 10. Getting Around Web Site (40 points) Newsletter (30 points) House tour (30 points)
  12. 12. The ten contests 1. Design and Livability 2. Design Presentation and Simulation 3. Graphics and Communication 4. The Comfort Zone 5. Refrigeration 6. Hot Water 7. Energy Balance 8. Lighting 9. Home Business 10. Getting Around SUBJECTIVE: Innovation of system and consumer appeal/ integration of system (30 points) OBJECTIVE: measurement
  13. 13. The ten contests 1. Design and Livability 2. Design Presentation and Simulation 3. Graphics and Communication 4. The Comfort Zone 5. Refrigeration 6. Hot Water 7. Energy Balance 8. Lighting 9. Home Business 10. Getting Around
  14. 14. The ten contests 1. Design and Livability 2. Design Presentation and Simulation 3. Graphics and Communication 4. The Comfort Zone 5. Refrigeration 6. Hot Water 7. Energy Balance 8. Lighting 9. Home Business 10. Getting Around
  15. 15. The ten contests 1. Design and Livability 2. Design Presentation and Simulation 3. Graphics and Communication 4. The Comfort Zone 5. Refrigeration 6. Hot Water 7. Energy Balance 8. Lighting 9. Home Business 10. Getting Around the sun supplies the energy necessary for all the daily energy demands of a small household and a home-based business … each team was scored on the basis of how well its house met energy demands using only its PV system. There was no subjective component to this contest.
  16. 16. The ten contests 1. Design and Livability 2. Design Presentation and Simulation 3. Graphics and Communication 4. The Comfort Zone 5. Refrigeration 6. Hot Water 7. Energy Balance 8. Lighting 9. Home Business 10. Getting Around the teams had to demonstrate that their lighting systems could maintain acceptable levels of illumination and lighting quality during both the daytime and the nighttime. Organizers monitored illumination levels. The Engineering Design Panel subjectively evaluated each team’s lighting system (20 points).
  17. 17. The ten contests 1. Design and Livability 2. Design Presentation and Simulation 3. Graphics and Communication 4. The Comfort Zone 5. Refrigeration 6. Hot Water 7. Energy Balance 8. Lighting 9. Home Business 10. Getting Around
  18. 18. The ten contests 1. Design and Livability 2. Design Presentation and Simulation 3. Graphics and Communication 4. The Comfort Zone 5. Refrigeration 6. Hot Water 7. Energy Balance 8. Lighting 9. Home Business 10. Getting Around Evaluation of the personal transportation needs and the extra energy generated to transport solar decathletes around town in a street-legal, commercially available electric vehicle.
  19. 19. 1st: University of Colorado at Boulder Polystyrene structural insulated panels (SIPs); walls = R30 (RSI 5.3), ceiling = R40 (RS 17); floor with Icynene foam insulation
  20. 20. 2nd: University of Virginia Engineered studs, foam insulation; walls = R50 (RSI 9), roof = R70 (RSI 12); ground- coupled floor Ground source heat pump; radiant floor
  21. 21. 3rd: Auburn’s University SIPs: floors = R24 (RSI 4.2); outer walls, ceilings, and roof = R38 (RSI 6.7) Air source heat pump + solar collector Water-filled cylinders
  22. 22. 4th: University of Maryland Polyurethane structural insulated panels (SIPs); walls = R35 (RSI 6.2), ceiling = R40 Space heating: Radiant slab
  23. 23. 5th: Virginia Polytechnic South, east, and west walls = R15 (RSI 3), north wall = R23 (RSI 4), roof = R31 (RSI 5) Ground source heat pump and solar thermal
  24. 24. 6°: Crowder College Stud walls with Foam Glass batt (15 cm) Roof = R-40 (RSI 7); Special low-e windows Radiant floor
  25. 25. 7th: University of Puerto Rico Steel framing 4-in. (10.2-cm) polystyrene = R19 (RSI 3) and R21 (RSI 4). Liquid Dessiccant carrier
  26. 26. 8th: University of Texas at Austin Steel prefabricated frame; SIP infill
  27. 27. 9th: University of Missouri–Rolla EcoThermal SIPs; walls = R30 (RSI 5.3), ceiling = R50 (RSI 8.8),floor = R18 (RSI 3)
  28. 28. 10th: University of Delaware EcoThermal SIPs; walls = R30 (RSI 5.3), ceiling = R50 (RSI 8.8),floor = R18 (RSI 3)
  29. 29. 11° - Tuskegee University Wood stud walls; batt insulation High- efficiency heat pump
  30. 30. 12th: Carnegie Mellon SIPs; walls = R33 (RSI 5.8), roof = R50 (RSI 8.8) Water source heat pump
  31. 31. 13th: University of North Carolina at Charlotte SIPs; walls = R19 (RSI 3), roof = R40 (RSI 7) Water source heat pump + passive ventilation
  32. 32. Few references • Solar Decathlon (US) – the general site • Solar Decathlon Europe (since 2007) • Solar Decathlon Latin America & Caribean (since 2015) • Solar Decathlon Middle East (Since 2018) • Solar Decathlon China (since 2018) • Solar Decathlon Africa (since 2019) • Solar Decathlon 2002: The Event in Review (a publication)

×