The Habitat for Humanity (HFH) team in Engineering Projects in Community Service (EPICS) worked on two projects in Fall 2011: Central Plateau (CP) and Sustainable Housing through Affordable Design and Education (SHADE). Each project sub team is working with our project partner, Habitat for Humanity of Lafayette, and more specifically with Alan Welch (Director of Operations) and with Doug Taylor (Executive Director), who is currently on-leave in Haiti working with Habitat for Humanity International.

The Central Plateau sub team is developing design plans to update and repair existing homes in the Central Plateau region in Haiti. This sub team is exploring whether Earthbag Construction would be effective in Haiti and what limits would be imposed upon this type of construction in the Central Plateau region. The team is also exploring different ways to purify the water in Haiti and how to make it potable, and safe for cleaning purposes.

The SHADE (Sustainable Housing through Affordable Design and Education) sub team, is currently working to improve the sustainability and energy efficiency of HFH Lafayette’s homes by identifying affordable methods of green building and educating the homeowners on these different types of building practices and the methods they can undertake to ensure optimal energy conservation. SHADE is also working to analyze energy consumption of HFH homes in Lafayette in order to compare their energy consumption to that of homes built before 2008 and rate their energy efficiency. To tie into this, the SHADE team is also looking at what changes have been made to the new EnergyStar standards, which will be in effect starting January 1, 2012. Furthermore, the team is putting together a construction manual and training videos, in order to help HFH train their volunteers in order

to build the homes more effectively.

Design Review

12/8/2011

1:30pm - 3:20pmARMS 1098C

TEAMORGANIZATION

CENTRAL PLATEAU

Name

Email

Major

Year

Role

Michael Aspatore

maspator@purdue.edu

ECE

Freshman

Webmaster

Julianne Brock

brock5@purdue.edu

E

Freshman

 

Carly Buschman

cbuschma@purdue.edu

E

Freshman

 

FengHai

fhai@purdue.edu

E

Freshman

 

Katherine Martin

marti470@purdue.edu

E

Freshman

 

Kerri Rapes

krapes@purdue.edu

ME

Junior

 

Emily Rasmussen

erasmuss@purdue.edu

E

Freshman

 

Ban Pin Ooi

booi@purdue.edu

CE

Junior

Project Leader

Hai Min Yie

hyie@purdue.edu

ME

Freshman

 

SHADE

Name

Email

Major

Year

Role

Laura Heverly

lheverly@purdue.edu

CE

Senior

Team Leader

Andrew Bardeleben

abardele@purdue.edu

CONSE

Junior

 

Yan Linwood

ylinwood@purdue.edu

CE

Senior

Project Leader

Justin Felton

felton@purdue.edu

CE

Sophomore

 

Alexander Johnson

johns575@purdue.edu

IE

Sophomore

 

Trevor Klatko

tklatko@purdue.edu

CE

Sophomore

 

Emily Pearce

pearcee@purdue.edu

CE

Sophomore

 

Anna Knowles

aknowle@purdue.edu

CHE

Sophomore

 

ADVISORS

Dulcy Abraham

dulcy@purdue.edu

Ali Mostafavi

mostafavi@purdue.edu

TEACHING ASSISTANT

Mallory Schaus

mlschaus@purdue.edu

CENTRALPLATEAU

Semester Summaries

The Central Plateau team is divided into three sub-teams working on three separate projects: houses incremental upgrades, Earthbag construction and water treatment. The house upgrade subgroup is working on upgrading the existing houses in Central Plateau in increments with cost less than $150 per increment because this is the amount of money the low income group in Central Plateau could afford. The Earthbag construction subgroup will test the new, sustainable, low-cost construction method of the earthbag house and analyzing its viability as an alternative to traditional house construction in Haiti. Finally, the water treatment subgroup is currently investigating sustainable and economical ways to provide clean water to the Central Plateau community.

Repair and Upgrades to Existing Homes

The Repair and Upgrades sub-team has been tasked with investigating methods for incrementally repairing and upgrading existing homes in Central Plateau. The sub-team corresponded with Doug Taylor to determine the different phases in which repairs and upgrades will be implemented. These phases include repair and upgrades to the following features of a home: roof, wall, floor, ventilation, and resistivity to Haitian weather. With Doug Taylor’s recommendation, the repair and upgrade of roofs was given precedence.

To address the need for improved roofs, the sub-team has focused its efforts on techniques to prevent leakage. The condition of the roofs of homes in CP was assessed with photographs provided by Doug Taylor. Two categories of roofs were identified, both of which are depicted below:

Figure 1: Category I Roof

Figure 2: Category II Roof

Category I roofs are constructed with scrap materials such as leaves, fabric, plastic, and wooden sticks to which the other materials are bound. Category II roofs are corrugated metal sheets, many of which are second-hand, rusty, and have incurred damage from falling objects and nails.

The sub-team began generating concepts to improve the roofs of existing homes in CP by acknowledging a number of constraints:

· $150 budget

· On average, Haitians can afford to commit $10 a month to home improvements; a $150 budget was assessed to ensure that the 18-month payment plan offered by Habitat for Humanity is not financially cumbersome to Haitians.

· Limited availability of materials

· Limited availability of tools

· Limited availability of electric tools

· Available tools may be in poor condition

Having considered these constraints, the sub-team initially identified the following concepts as potential means of repairing leaky roofs:

1) Place a plastic sheet under the roof to catch rain and direct it out of the house.

· Plastic can be substituted with another water-resistant material such as polyethylene and polyvinyl chloride.

2) In the event that the sources of leaks can be isolated on the roof, employ rubber patching (with hot black glue) to prevent leakage.

3) Papercrete

· The constituents of papercrete are readily available resources in Haiti: straw (a substitute for paper), cement or clay, earth, and sand.

· According to Kelly Hart, an associate of the ‘inventors’ of papercrete, Mike McCain and Eric Patterson, papercrete is a material with which roofs are commonly built when using earth-bag construction. www.greenhomebuilding.com/papercrete.htm

· Papercrete is a good insulator. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240785/pdf/ehp0110-a0126d.pdf

· Papercrete is lightweight—less than 1/3 the weight of a comparably sized concrete brick.

· However, papercrete exhibits diminishing water-resistivity; papercrete needs replacing every 3-4 years if it is exposed to rainfall.

Initially, the sub-team suggested a solution in which the entirety of roofs would be plastered with papercrete. However, Ban Pin Ooi, the CP team leader, gained insight during a three-day trip to Haiti in October 2011; these insights led the sub-team to contemplate better, alternative uses of papercrete. Ban discovered that Category II roofs typically incur damage from falling objects or pre-existing nail holes because of their second-hand nature. Thus, the sub-team concluded that papercrete is better-suited as an adhesive for roof patching. Considering the availability and cost of materials in Haiti, weaved bamboo and sheared ‘patches’ of corrugated metal were chosen as the materials with which the sub-team would experiment with roof-patching.

Figure 3: Weaved Bamboo and Corrugated Metal ‘Patches’

A work plan was then prepared, detailing an experimental procedure to evaluate the effectiveness of papercrete as a roof-patching adhesive. This work plan can be found in Appendix [X]. The procedure is organized in three stages: pre-testing, testing, and post-testing. Pre-testing details a process with which a roof structure can be built with a corrugated metal sheet and wood. The procedure likewise describes methods of damaging the roof structure to emulate the condition of roofs in Haiti. The roof structure constructed by the sub-team is depicted below:

Figure 4: Experimental Roof Structure

The ensuing procedure for testing demonstrates how to mix papercrete and how to make roof patches by shearing a second corrugated metal sheet and cutting weaved bamboo. Instructions are then offered for applying papercrete to secure the roof patches over comparably sized holes in the roof structure.

Experiment:

Following the brief procedures of the experiment carried out in Armstrong Hall room 1011 to test the papercrete.

1. We started our experiment/lab work with making three holes in the corrugated metal board.

2. We then add four wooden legs to the corrugated metal board to make it into a roof.

3. Next, we soaked 2 pounds of straw with water in a 5-gallon bucket the day before we formally started the work.

4. We made two more holes in the roof the test waved straw patches.

5. Then, we cut 2 patch sheets out of the other corrugated metal board and 2 patch sheets from the waved straw bag we got from Haiti.

6. Next, we mixed the papercrete with the following mix design:

Figure 5: Papercrete

7. Finally, we applied the papercrete and the patches to the roof and left it to dry for three and half days like the picture below.

Figure 6: Patching process done

On Thursday, Novenmber 17th, 2011, three and half days after we applied papercrete, the papercrete was completely dried. As it turned out, our papercrete is very brittle that it is easily breakable if pressed by fingers. In addition, the papercrete does not stick to the metal roof. It may be because we added too much water when mixing the papercrete. Because the finished product is very brittle and not cohesive to the metal roof, it is not worth it to continue further testing on water-resistibility and heat-resistibility.

We will try to make at least another mixture of papercrete with a different mix design, certainly with much less water and add some clay or fly ash, to test its adhesiveness to metal boards.

As it is right now, we are considering the possibility of using papercrete for floor improvement and using other potentially cohesive materials as adhesives for the patches. Most of the houses in Haiti only have dirt floor and it becomes muddy every time it rains. So we will carry out further testing to test if papercrete can be an inexpensive material to cover the floor.

To assist the team in Spring 2012, we are preparing semester summary report and a revised work plan, so that the future students will know exactly what we did wrong and will not make the same mistakes, and they also have an work plan reference for testing potentially adhesive materials in the future. Next semester students could continue to do experiment on papercrete using the same procedures in the work plan.

Earthbag Construction

The Earthbag team’s goal for this semester has been to test the new, sustainable, low-cost construction method of the earthbag house and implement it to the contractor in Haiti. Thus far, the team has looked into the various types of construction, materials used including types of bags, foundation laying materials, and methods of keeping the bags together. Our research has led to the realization of various benefits associated with earthbag construction. According to www.earthbagbuilding.com the houses are structurally sound, easy to assemble, cost efficient, easy to repair and improve, and make good use of natural materials.After investigating which types of earthbags were accessible, we have concluded via the decision matrix below by rating each bag type on a relative 1-3 scale; 3 being the best bag for a given factor, one being the worst bag for a given factor. Using the matrix, we have concluded that polypropylene bags yielded the best results. The bags keep the houses cool in the temperate Haitian climate.

Table 1: Earthbag House: Bag Type Decision Matrix

Factors

Weight

Polypropylene

Burlap

Hemp

Strength

5

1

2

3

Resistance to mold

1

3

2

1

Bio-degradability

2

3

2

1

Resitance to degradation

4

3

2

1

Cost/Unit

4

3

2

1

Ability to patch

3

2

1

1

Flexibility

4

1

2

3

Total

48

43

41

        Figure 7: Picture of the Earthbag

http://tbumchurchhaitiumvimteam.blogspot.com/2010/07/earthbag-house-in-mizak-haiti-for-saint.html

Testing

Typical construction consists of laying a foundation of concrete or gravel. After which, bags are laid in square or rectangular pattern along the edges of the base. In between each bag, two strips of barbed wire are put in place to ensure that the bags stay in their stacked formation. Our team has proposed to build a 4’x6’ model to test various aspects of earthbag construction. Our model will be made in the same ways which we have researched. However, we will be using relatively small bags (14”x26”) to construct the model. Once the model is built, we will test the structural stability, thermal capabilities, and moisture levels inside.

Work Plan

Problem Statement: Construct an earthbag test structure of the house to measure structural stability .

Constraints:

1. Budget: about $300

2. Small amount of space

Climate in Central Plateau, Haiti:

1. In August, 2011, the average temperature in shade is 35º C (95º F)

2. Different sources state different annual rain amounts in Haiti, but the general range is between 140 to 200 centimeters.

3. There are two rain seasons in Haiti

Testing the structure here will not be the same as testing in in Haiti due to differences in the climate.

Experiment: Earthbag Test House

· Experiment Objective:

1. Measure structural stability of earthbag building (pounds)

2. Measure thermal capabilities of earthbag building (watts per meter kelvin)

3. Collect data for future analytical of construction purposes

· Experiment Materials:

ItemQuantityUnit CostsTotal CostSupplies needed to installStorage RequirementsSupplier

Polypropelene Bags200≈ $0.2$34.00ShovelCloset spaceLowes

Barbed Wire660≈ $.75 / foot$90.00Tent stakes, rubber hammerCloset spaceLowes

Polyethylene sheeting 1$10$10Tent stakesCloset spaceLowes

3” x 6’ PVC pipe1$3$3NoneCloset spaceLowes

La Crosse Digital Thermometer1$22$22NoneCloset spaceLowes

Cement stuccoCement sprayer, cement mixerStorage room spaceLocal Contractor

Shock SensorsNoneCloset space

Fill Dirt4yd3 ShovelMound, 4 cubic yardsLocal Contractor

· Experiment Tools:

1. Rubber hammer

2. Measuring device for dirt

3. Shovel

4. Cement Sprayer

5. Cement Mixer

· Experiment Conditions:

1. N/A, Indoors

· Experiment Budget: $350

· Experiment Location:

1. Testing location: Bowen Lab

· Experiment Procedure

House Structure

1. Dig a trench one foot deep in the shape of the perimeter of the model using shovels on site.  (Michael Aspatore)

2. Fill Polypropylene bags on site with local soil that we bring on site with us (given that the Bowen Lab approves of the implementation of soil on sight), using small shovels, so that each bag is about 5 inches thick and so that there is enough bag left to be folded under the bag to seal it. (Emily Rasmussen)

3. Either seal the bag by i) using industrial staples or ii) folding extra bag at the opening under the filled back so that its weight holds it down. With the three team members working, this process should take roughly 10 hours on site with the filling and sealing of each bag. Option 1 would allow for a quicker time arranging the bags, but will be more prone to breakage and leakage than option ii. (Emily Rasmussen).

4. Lay the initial rectangular perimeter of the structure directly into the trench using the filled bags. No tools are required. This will take about an hour on site. (Katie Martin)

5. Cut two strips of barbed wire (represent by the x in the picture below) a few inches short of the length of the bag using pliers. Lay the two parallel strips of barbed wire along the top of the length and width of the perimeter, pounding them securely in with a hammer. Repeat for each layer and leach bag. 6 hours on site. (Michael Aspatore) 

6. Continue the layering process of the bags on top of the initial perimeter, being careful to alter the starting position of each bag at each corner. (Emily Rasmussen)

7. Repeat steps 4 and 5 until the structure is 50 inches, or 12 layers high.

8. Prepare cement stucco on site with a mixer and apply it to both the inside and outside of the construction and allow to dry. The covering should take 2 hours but the dry time will be several days. (Katie Martin)

9. The structural sensors will adhere to the sides of the structure (depicted as a red dot), 1 on each wall inside and out, 8 total. (Michael Aspatore)

Roof

1. Position a 2-inch thick, 72-inch long PVC pipe vertically in the center of the structure one foot into the ground using a small shovel. (Katie Martin)

2. Lay a 10x25 foot tarp over the pipe and secure to the walls of the structure with stakes (depicted as magenta X’s) and hammers. The tarp will cover the entire open top of the structure. (Michael Aspatore)

TESTING

1. Thermal (watts per meter kelvin)

· Bake a bag of the house in an oven.

· Using sensors, labview, and a sensor board, calculate the K value (thermal conductivity)

2.Structural – (kilogram)

- (possibly) hit the structure with a large object such as sledgehammer

3.Waterproofing – (meter)

· Experiment Documentation:

1. Pictures will be taken at each step during our experiment

2. Videos will also be taken at each step during our experiment

Currently, we encountered several problems that will most likely hinder our timely delivery of the final earthbag house design. The configuration of the roof is one such problem, which is an effort best linked with the housing repair team, since they are also looking to improve the quality of roofs. Since there is a very limited amount of building supplies on site and wood and metal are expensive in Haiti, our budget will be increased; thus wood or metal roofing would not be an option. However, we are looking into alternative methods of roof-building such as using bamboo or papercrete in future semesters.

We originally were going to incorporate the thermal testing into the test house; however, time constraints and weather proved to be obstacles in our ability to construct the structure. We decided, instead, to test (as described in the procedure below) the heat conductivity of an individual cement block used in the current Habitat for Humanity house design and of an earthbag to determine which provides better insulation against heat. We plan to acquire results from this test by the end of the Fall 2011 semester with the intention to prove that earthbag construction is a viable building option for Habitat for Humanity, Haiti.

Item

Quantity

Unit Costs

Total Cost

Supplies needed to install

Storage requirements

Supplier

Plate Resistor

1

N/A

N/A

Wires

Locker

Purdue?

Insulation Wrap

1 roll

$10.00/roll

$10.00

Gorilla Tape

Locker/Lab

Lowes/Home Depot

Thermal Glue

1 Bottle

$8.00/ bottle

$8.00

N/A

Locker

Home Depot/ Purdue

Cement Block

1

N/A

N/A

N/A

Locker

Lowes/Home Depot

Procedure

1) Fill one bag with dirt. Dirt can be obtained from an off-campus location (ie. woods or landscaping contractor)

2) First test will test the thermal capacity of a typical concrete block. Attach the plate heater to the small side of the concrete block.

3) Using a digital multi-meter, measure the voltage across the plate and the current running into it.

4) Multiply the values together to get the power, in Watts, delivered to the block.

5) Wrap the 4 long sides of the block in thermal insulation. Number of layers TBD.

6) Using the thermal couple hooked up to the meter, measure the temperature on the other side of the block.

7) Apply these values to the equation given and find the thermal conductivity constant.

8) Using the earthbag instead of the concrete block, apply steps 3-8.

9) Compare the values of the constant for each test. If the earthbag traps heat at the same rate, or near the same rate as the concrete block, the test is a success.

Because the climate in Haiti is very warm, we want the earthbag structure to conduct heat so the house will stay cool in the summer months.

The goals that the team will complete for rest of the semester presenting a construction plan for the test house to present to the Boeing Labs in order to have a sight on which to build the proposed house. Acquisition of the space would allow the Spring 2012 semester team construct the test house and run tests on it including its ability to insulate from heat, its ability to withstand earthquakes, and its overall sustainability so that we can make informal assumptions about the best way to go about designing a standard house for Habitat for Humanity, Haiti. We also plan to test the thermal capabilities of both a cinderblock and an earthbag to test which provides the greatest insulation against heat.

Water Treatment

Currently in Haiti, the water available for drinking and cleaning is contaminated with cholera. Cholera is a bacteria causing an infection when consumed. As a result, when the people in Haiti consume the cholera infested water, they become very ill, dehydrated, and it typically ends in death. Therefore, it is our goal to collect rain water that is not infected with cholera for the purpose of bathing and cleaning.

After the first design review it became clear that our initial problem statement was vague and did not specifically define our focus in detail for the semester. We then re-defined our problem statement so that we had a clear focus and deliverable for the end of the semester. Our goal is to collect rain water for uses of bathing and cleaning. The new method of collection should remove debris, keep animals from getting in to the water, and address the issue of overflow.

Our initial focus changed after one of our group members took a trip to Central Plateau, Haiti. When she was there, she witnessed bamboo gutters already being utilized to collect water off the roofs. As a result, we wanted to improve the existing collection system. Our second option of organic filtration (using mussels) also did not hold as a valid solution because safely disposing the organisms caused pollution and health issues. After learning more about the native culture from several locals it was determined that mussels would most likely not be a socially acceptable solution; the likelihood that the people of the Central-Plateau would consume the organisms ,making them ill, and defeating the purpose of the project was very high According to what our group member experienced when she went to Haiti, if they did make the correlation between the sickness and the mussels, the organisms would become unwelcome in the area, again hindering the progress of this project. We are now focusing on improving the system of how the water is collected using the gutters in place. The design needs to keep debris out of the tank, to be easily cleaned, and to redirect water away from the house.

Figure 8: Water tank available in Haiti

*Photos courtesy of Kerri Rapes

For our new design, we have assumed that functional gutters are already in place and the household has a tank to collect the water. A rounded strainer containing small holes will be made out of a scrap of tin to fit the width of the tank. This scrap should be large enough to be shaped into a bowl and still cover the opening of the barrel, while still maintaining extra material on the sides. The extra material will then fold over the sides of the tank so that the strainer stays in place. This allows debris to be filtered from the water, and the tank will be covered so that animals do not enter. Since the strainer will just be relatively small and lightweight a, it will be easy to remove and clean. The tank will then be placed below the open ended gutter so that the water directly flows from the roof, into the gutter, and into the tank. On the side of the tank close to the top but below the strainer, there will be a pipe that leads away from the house. Once the water in the tank reaches the hole for the pipe, the excess water will be directed away from the house and in to a water reservoir ditch. The ditch leads the water away from the foundation of the house and towards local drainage routes. This will prevent the water in the tank from overflowing.

Figure 9: Picture of the water tank

Overflow was calculated using the average monthly precipitation found on “http://www.climatetemp.info/haiti/”. By dividing each month into four weeks the predicted amount of water to be gathered by the system was calculated. Then the expected usage by the family was subtracted from this number leaving only the water left in the barrel after one week of use. This was then repeated for each of the following 47 weeks; remembering that the preceding weeks left over water was added in. If the total volume exceeds 50 gallons then overflow is said to occur. After calculating this for 12 months the probability of overflow shows that the tank will overflow every week.

Figure 10: Haiti climate graph

http://www.climatetemp.info/haiti/

Figure 11: Graph of volume of water collected

The positive aspects of our design are as follows: if the water overflows then it won’t stagnate; the overflow pipe will lead the water away from the house. The negative aspects of our design include: there may be some difficulty molding the tin into the desired shape; rust will form on the tin due to oxidation; the probability data for overflow is based off of percentages for Haiti and not specifically the Central Plateau. The positives will outweigh the negatives, so we would recommend the design.

In spring 2012, the students can work on improving the design and creating a prototype to test here at Purdue. They can then work on incorporating a filtering system that will purify the water for drinking purposes.

SHADE

Semester Summaries

The SHADE team has been working on three projects: benchmarking, construction documentation and Energy Star research. The Benchmarking sub team is working on analyzing energy efficiency measures for Habitat for Humanity houses. The second sub team is working on the Construction Documentation project, which is focusing on developing a step-by-step manual for volunteers to use when constructing a house. Finally, the Energy Star research team is examining the changes that have been made from the EnergyStar 2006 Guidelines (version 2 standards) to the EnergyStar 2012 Guidelines (version 3 standards), which will take effect for any home which receives a building permit after January 1, 2012

Benchmarking

This semester the Benchmarking team followed along with Spring 2011’s project of creating an algorithm to model and justify the energy efficiency improvements implemented in the EPICS home build. We took this project a step further and wanted to create and analyze an algorithm that would allow us to pinpoint specific energy saving measures to create a recommendation of worthy energy saving solutions. We were able to complete the creation of models which will be used to determine the isolated energy saving effect an improvement will have. We also laid out the steps for next semester to analyze areas where improving energy efficiency will provide a significant cost savings.

Last semester’s benchmarking team achieved three major tasks. They created and distributed surveys to gather information about homeowner’s behavior. Also, they collected energy bills for both the Bristol Park Habitat for Humanity houses and the EPICS house. Lastly, they created an algorithm in Excel to analyze data, obtained from homeowners, to justify the energy efficiency improvements implemented in the EPICS home build.

This semester we created models using a software program instead of editing last semester’s algorithm because their algorithm lacked clear assumptions and required major revisions so we decided to start over with a free commercially used product. The product we chose to use was eQuest (Quick Energy Simulation Tool), a building energy simulation tool designed to perform detailed analysis in a sophisticated, yet easy-to-use manner. This ease of use is from the building creation “wizard” that walks you through the process of creating an effective building energy model. This involves following a series of steps that help in describing features of your design that would impact energy use. One of eQuest’s best aspects is the “intelligent defaults”. These defaults are based off of information gathered earlier in the building creation wizard. This feature is useful because it allows us to create a high quality model without needing to know values for every step.

Information used to create eQuest models came from a variety of sources. We took information from surveys gathered by Spring 2011, we contacted Habitat for Humanity about blueprints, and we used common sense to approve the intelligent defaults that eQuest provided. The “eQuest Instructional Documentation” document goes step by step through each assumption that we made in creating our model. After entering all of the necessary data eQuest can simulate the performance of the model. This will result in a large amount of data including energy usage and power costs displayed in detailed charts.

By using eQuest we were able to create three models; the first is a model of the EPICS house. The second is a model of a Habitat for Humanity built house (HFH house), in the Bristol Park development area. This house was created to ensure the accuracy of the model because we compared the results of the model with the actual electricity bill for the house. The final model we created is the Baseline house. This house is the HFH house structure and uses the EPICS house behavioral characteristics (ex. Number of people and building temperature). This house is going to be used to test specific energy efficiency measures because it has been determined to be accurate by the HFH house and any behavioral influences are eliminated by using the EPICS house behavioral characteristics.

Students next semester will be able to follow specific directions, in the Transition Report, for how to analyze the specific increased energy savings methods implemented in the EPICS house. They will input different energy efficient characteristics into the Baseline house to determine the effect each characteristic has. Through analyzing the effect specific characteristics have, next semester will be able to present to Habitat for Humanity a fact-based recommendation of cost-beneficial measures to implement in future houses. In order for next semester to easily understand what we did we created a few documents. The first document is an instruction guide of how to access the eQuest models. The other document is a step-by-step guide that walks through the assumptions that we made for each step.

Construction Documentation

Problem Scope:

The focus for the Construction Documentation team this semester is to begin gathering information about the step by step construction process of a Habitat for Humanity home, creating informational videos, and compiling written documentation to refer to before and during the construction process. Tasks completed this semester include developing a script to use in the first training module that addresses the issue of painting the interior of a house. This task also included developing an introduction and conclusion script that will be using in each training video, to give the series a more cohesive and sequential order. Additionally, that task was accomplished by visiting Habitat for Humanity Lafayette office and speaking with construction coordinators, volunteers, and staff members. The people we worked with specifically included Alan Welch (Director of Operations), Debbie Belange (Homeowner Coordinator), Bob Greene (Construction Coordinator), and John Sears (Construction Site Supervisor). The entire Habitat for Humanity Lafayette staff gave helpful input on how to complete our project to meet their needs. Our group also visited construction work sites to gather additional footage and talk with volunteers on the site. Below is table that summarizes the purpose and video footage that we collected on our visits to Habitat Lafayette and the video footage that we collected.

Date of Visit

What was Filmed/Accomplished

People Interviewed

September 15, 2011

-Construction Site

-Tools/facility around office

-Alan Welch

-Bob Greene

September 22, 2011

-Developed first draft of Painting Script

-Alan Welch

-Bob Greene

September 29, 2011

-Went around to 3 different work sites and took general construction footage

-Alan Welch

-Bob Greene

-John Sears

October 20, 2011

-Went over painting script for changes

-Filmed a site on 16th street

-Bob Greene

-Laura De Leon

October 27, 2011

-Went over each shot and made changes to goals of videos taken

-Took brushes and paint to work site to paint

-Alan Welch

-Bob Greene

-Laura

November 3, 2011

-Took Footage of men’s group working. Used light for ceiling shots

-Alan Welch

-Bob Greene

November 10, 2011

-Made changes to the script and got footage of volunteer working on 16th street

-Alan Welch

November 17, 2011

-Discusses Song choice and final script revisions

-First viewing of Habitat for Humanity Video Clip

-Alan Welch

-Bob Greene

-Cindy Taylor

We discussed with them what would be beneficial for volunteers to learn before arriving at the work site. Incorporated into our design is the ability for our videos and written documentation to be used for Habitat for Humanity chapters across the nation. Therefore, we did not add opinions of local offices. We kept a process based approach to developing a solution to Habitat for Humanity’s greater need. Our team hopes that our design will help improve the volunteering experience for Habitat for Humanity and create a positive, long lasting impact on their construction practices.

Completed Tasks

Our completed tasks for this semester are to complete a series of tasks related to the problem scope outlined above. These tasks are to be completed this semester include completing one entire video that Habitat for Humanity can use for training modules by the end of the semester along with a template that previous semesters can follow in order to make it easier for them. Another mission that the Construction Documentation sub-team would like to accomplish is to gather video footage his semester so that future semesters will be able to refer to and use when they are compiling their documentation. This will save time and create a more efficient transition for semester to semester. New team members will then have the information and support needed to continue the Construction Documentation’s greater goals. Since we are fortunate to have warmer weather for the fall semester, we are trying to plan ahead so the spring semester will still be able to complete construction documentation despite weather restrictions. The video footage that is collected this semester will be stored on an external hard drive. By storing video footage on an external hard drive, team transitions will go smoothly and more efficiently. Completing these series of tasks will ensure that the Construction Documentation sub-team’s goals are fulfilled in a reasonable time frame.

Procedure:

How we plan to create construction documentation is by first interviewing our Habitat for Humanity project partner and finding out what their volunteers struggle with and what would be the most useful information we can give to volunteers. The second step is to gather footage related to the construction process and to compile a list of pictures and videos to use in order to illustrate the points being made in the video. The third step of the process will be to come up with a script to put with the video, and a written document communicating the same information as the video. The Construction Documentation team will accomplish these tasks with frequent visits to job sites, interviews with employees at the Habitat for Humanity office on a biweekly bases, and participation in Habitat for Humanity builds on the weekends when possible for the team members. The editing process of the video footage collected will be done using iMovie software on Macintosh computers. This software was selected because many of our team members have Macintosh computers and are familiar with iMovie software. Additionally, iMovie is an easy to learn software with features that are capable of precise video editing. Clip trimming, transition effects, video editing improvements (brightness, contrast, saturation, shadows), and ability to export in different medias, are all features of iMovie that we have been utilizing in developing the painting video module. The ability to export movie projects in different medias including MP4, AVI, FLC, IPOD, and MOV files provides us with the means to share our videos with Habitat for Humanity and the EPICS program. The written documentation will be a laminated pamphlet or flyer that will be created using Microsoft Office Suite. This procedure goes step by step to address how we plan on developing video tutorials and written documentation.

Deliverables:

Deliverables at the end of the semester will be one completed video that has been edited, updated, and finalized using team and focus group input. Written documentation will also accompany the Painting Tutorial Module video. The painting video will explain how to complete Habitat for Humanity volunteer tasks including cutting in around corners, using a paint roller efficiently, safety when using ladders, and setting up equipment. Safety is essential in all of EPICS videos that we develop. Therefore, safety will be emphasized throughout the entire painting process. In conclusion, we plan to meet the needs of our target audience (Habitat for Humanity volunteers of all ages and experience levels) by delivering an easy to use product that informs volunteers of the painting process.

Future Goals for Project:

This is a brand new project within the Construction Documentation team, so no progress has been made in previous semesters. Because of this, the Construction Documentation team will be sure to have efficient documentation and resources for future semesters in order to efficiently complete this project. We will accomplish this by saving all video footage and written documentation on a single external hard drive. When the team transitions into Spring 2012, team members will be informed of how to create additional tutorial videos for Habitat for Humanity. In conclusion, our future goals for the Construction Documentation team are to continue creating tutorial videos relating to framing, siding, and caulking a house, and developing written documentation related to these areas of construction.

Visual Representation of Project

Energy Star Research

A new EnergyStar standard has been issued by the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which will be in effect for all new homes with a build permit starting on January 1, 2012 (version 3). Habitat for Humanity continues to strive to be as energy efficient as possible, but with the standards changing so quickly, it is difficult to know what the most up to date standards and practices is. The goal of this sub-team is to determine what has changed in the EnergyStar rating system since the last one which was required for all homes built before April 1, 2011 (version 2). An easy to follow and easy to understand document will be submitted to Habitat for Humanity in a side by side comparison. This will help ensure that Habitat for Humanity knows exactly what needs to be changed to ensure that all of their homes continue to meet the EnergyStar level.

There have been many significant changes between the version 2 and version 3 EnergyStar ratings. One of the main changes were the required checklist. The version 2 standard only required the thermal bypass to be completed. Now, a HVAC (heating ventilation and air conditioning) system quality installation contractor checklist is required along with a HVAC system quality installation rater checklist. The last checklist that is now required under the version 3 guidelines is the water management system builder checklist. These three checklists must now be used because the houses that are currently being built that exceed these checklists are the most energy efficient.

Another big change that will greatly affect the Habitat for Humanity community is how the version 3 standard calculates the HERS index. Currently, under the version 2 guidelines, it is just a standard calculation of the HERS rating, which is usually just done by using a software on the computer. However, during the version 3 standards, the standard calculation of the HERS rating is then multiplied by the size adjustment factor which is the multiplied by an adjustment factor. The adjustment factor is calculated by dividing the conditioned floor area of the benchmark home by the conditioned floor area of the rated house. The conditioned floor area of the benchmark home is given in a table, which can be seen in Figure 13, and is located in the EnergyStar document. This change was implemented in order to make larger and smaller homes comparable. Under the version 2 standard, larger homes had a much easier time qualifying than smaller ones.

Figure 13: Conditioned Floor Area of the Benchmark Home

Another change that will affect HFH is the appliances requirement. Under the version 3 standards, all appliances must be EnergyStar rated unlike under the version 2 requirements where there was no requirement for the number of appliances that were EnergyStar rated. The reason for this change is that the EnergyStar rated appliances are more energy efficient than ones that are not, so in order for the homes to be as energy efficient as possible, they need to be equipped with these approved appliances.

The last major change which was researched this semester was the change in the windows and doors requirements of their u-value. The u-value of windows and doors is the overall heat transfer coefficient. The lower the u-value, the greater the window or door is at resisting heat and the better its insulating properties are. Therefore, when designing and constructing a house, it is usually best to have the lowest u-value possible. Under the version 2 standard, there was no u-value that the home’s doors and/or windows and had to have. However, with the version 3 standards, all windows and doors must have a u-value of 0.32. This was done to ensure that the windows and doors can easily resist heat and will contain good insulating properties.

For next semester, this group will finalize the rest of the major changes that have been made between the version 2 and version 3 EnergyStar rating system. This information will then be presented to Habitat for Humanity in an easy-to-read fashion, similar to that shown in Table 4, which will include what the version 2 standards are, the version 3 standards and why the standards were changed between the two versions.

Table 4: Summary Table of EnergyStar Changes

 

Version 2

Version3

Reasons for Changing

Required Checklist

thermal bypass

thermal bypass, HVAC system quality installation contractor, HVAC system quality installation rater and water management system builder checklist

studies proved that homes were more energy efficient when the new three were done

HERS Index

standard caclulation

standard calculation times size adjustment factor

previously easier for larger homes to qualify (makes it equal for larger and smaller homes)

Appliances

use whichever homeowner preferred

must be equipped with EnergyStar rated appliances

EnergyStar rated appliances are more efficient than standard ones

windows and doors

 

u-factor of 0.32 or better

 

Closing Thoughts

Throughout this semester, there have been challenges met. The Habitat for Humanity EPICS team has had a successful semester and will continue to do so in future semesters. Our team would not be possible without all of the hard work from our project partner, Habitat for Humanity of Lafayette and Habitat for Humanity International.

�

Tin strainer separated from the water tank.

Tin strainer attached to the water tank.

Entire view of house.

The data used corresponds to the dark green line on the graph.

Fig 12 - Painting script outline created in Microsoft PowerPoint - with time outline of video footage required

� http://www.energydesignresources.com/resources/software-tools/equest.aspx

� How to guide for using eQuest

� How-to guide for how we modeled the houses

1