English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This report describes the field test of a retrofit audit. The field test was performed during the winter of 1985-86 in four South Central Wisconsin counties. The purpose of the field test was to measure the energy savings and cost effectiveness of the audit-directed retrofit program for optimizing the programs benefit-to-cost ratio. The audit-directed retrofit program is described briefly in this report and in more detail by another report in this series (ORNL/CON-228/P3). The purpose of this report is to describe the methods and results of the field test. Average energy savings of the 20 retrofitted houses are likely (0.90 probability) to lie between 152 and 262 therms/year/house. The most likely value of the average savings is 207 therms/year/house. These savings are significantly (p &lt; .05) smaller than the audit-predicted savings (286 therms/year/house). Measured savings of individual houses were significantly different than predicted savings for half of the houses. Each house received at least one retrofit. Thirteen of the 20 retrofitted houses received a new condensing furnace or blown-in wall insulation; all but two of the houses received one or more minor retrofits. The seven houses which received condensing furnaces saved, on average, about as much as predicted, but three of the seven houses had significantly more or less savings than predicted. The six houses which received wall insulation saved, on average, about half as much as predicted. The remaining houses which received only minor retrofits saved, on average, less than predicted, but the difference was not significant. Actual retrofit costs were close to expected costs. Overall measured energy savings averaged 15 therms/year per hundred retrofit dollars invested. Houses which received wall insulation or a condensing furnace did slightly better, and the houses which received only minor retrofits did poorly. When estimated program costs were included, average savings dropped to about 13 therms/year/per hundred dollars. The uncertainty associated with the energy savings means that these comparisons of savings and costs also have large uncertainties

Field Test Evaluation of Conservation Retrofits of Low-Income, Single-Family Buildings in Wisconsin: Audit Field Test Implementation and Results