Randich Residence

This home is located in a residential suburban neighborhood in Farmington, CT. The sloped site lent itself to an “upside down” floor plan that locates a main living space and master suite above a lower level with flexible uses and generous daylight. The simple rectangular form is optimized for solar orientation and shading. It extends to contain an ample garage, generous covered front entry, and rear screen porch. Tree clearing required for the drive approach to the south assured good solar exposure.

The building’s simple forms are expressed with craft detail. Materials were selected for durability and beauty. Tilt turn windows allowed larger south facing openings with a cross muntin pattern that kept them in scale with the traditional and familiar building style. Framing was designed to align these openings to minimize thermal bridging. The double stud “sandwich wall” workflow and scissor truss roof follow familiar framing and mechanical rough in methods while providing a visible and verifiable air barrier the trades learn to honor and protect. The air tightness was measured at 0.49 ACH50.

The building was designed using PHPP to optimize free gains and allow a single ducted minisplit to satisfy the small heating and cooling loads with a single supply to each level. The Zehnder HRV provides balanced heat recovery ventilation. Enclosed space beneath the scissor truss interior slope along the north side of the first floor provides a location for the air handler and distribution paths within the envelope. Domestic hot water is provided by a heat pump water heater.

This project won the grand prize in the 2013 CT Zero Energy Challenge. During construction the public was invited to an Open Wall Open House to learn about and see how it is constructed and was open again after completion as part of ASES National Solar Homes Tour. Construction methods were shared with professionals at a NESEA BE Local event. 

The home was open to the public during a local effort to encourage town residents to install Solar PV (Solarize Farmington) where the home owners functioned as Solar Ambassadors.  This 20 week program resulted in 90 signed contracts to install solar PV in Farmington homes.

Quick Facts

General

Location
17 Metacomet Rd
Farmington, CT060321801
United States
Building Type
Project Type
Basis of Performance Claim
Bedrooms
Conditioned Floor Area 2 378

Energy Summary

Energy Data Type
Renewable Energy System Type(s)
Ratings
Annual renewable energy generated 11 388

Envelope and Mechanicals

Subslab assembly

6” Type II EPS with 10 mil poly air.vapor barrier taped to sidewall polyiso

Foundation wall assembly

Conventional 10” concrete foundation with 2” polyiso and 5 ½” densepack cellulose

Above grade wall assembly

“Sandwich Wall:” a double stud 12" wall with dense pack cellulose in the 2x6 exterior and 2x4 interior frame walls, 24" on center exterior walls and 3” polyiso foam panels in the center – interior wall is for mechanicals

Door Assembly

o U=0.106 SHGC 0.62 south and north facades
o U=0.088 SHGC 0.37 east and west facades

Air Changes per hour, ACH50 0.49

Project Team:

Other Team Members:

Ratings:

Awards:

Completion

Completion Date:

Scope

Type of Construction
Number of buildings
Floor area of each building
Bedrooms
Stories
Conditioned Building Volume
Conditioned Floor Area 2 378

Location and Climate Details

Address
17 Metacomet Rd
Farmington, CT060321801
United States
Location Type Suburaban
Climate Region Zone 5
Köppen Climate Type Dfb
Lat. / Long. POINT (-72.8002346 41.7405398)
Elevation 420
Solar Insolation 4.24 kWh/m2/day
Annual CDD and Base Temp 712 | 75
Annual HDD and Base Temp 6179 | 68

Site

Site Conditions:

Site Description:

Monthly Energy Data and Utilities

Energy Data Type:

Electric Utility: Connecticut Light and Power

Gas Utility: State Line Propane

Renewables and Energy Balance

Renewable Energy Sources:

Renewable Energy System Description & Details:

Annual renewable energy generated 11 388
Annual Renewable Energy Generated Data Type
Power Rating 10Watts
Renewable Energy System Type(s)
Source of Annual Production Data

Walls and Roof

Subslab assembly

6” Type II EPS with 10 mil poly air.vapor barrier taped to sidewall polyiso

Subslab R-value 24.00
Slab edge assembly

4” EPS

Slab edge R-value 16.00
Foundation wall assembly

Conventional 10” concrete foundation with 2” polyiso and 5 ½” densepack cellulose

Foundation wall R-value 32.00
Above grade wall assembly

“Sandwich Wall:” a double stud 12" wall with dense pack cellulose in the 2x6 exterior and 2x4 interior frame walls, 24" on center exterior walls and 3” polyiso foam panels in the center – interior wall is for mechanicals

Above grade wall R-value 51.00
Cathedral ceiling assembly

Raised heel scissor truss ceiling: 24” loose fill cellulose over taped OSB sheathing air barrier – vented attic space

Cathedral ceiling R-value 84.00

Windows and Doors

Window Assembly:

Schuco E+ tilt turn

Door Assembly:

o U=0.106 SHGC 0.62 south and north facades
o U=0.088 SHGC 0.37 east and west facades

Average window U-factor 0.10
Door U-Factor
Door Area

Mechanical Systems

Space cooling - Manufacturer & Model Fijitsu ,
Space heating - Manufacturer & Model Fijitsu ,
Domestic hot water - Manufacturer & Model
Domestic hot water - capacity
Ventilation - Manufacturer & Model Zehnder,
Lighting Manufacturer and Model
Lighting Efficiency
Mechanical Equipment Installation Details and Comments

Envelope

Air Changes per hour, ACH50 0.49
Air Changes per hour, CFM50

General Process

Our intentions for undertaking this project included several major goals. These included creating a home where: all space was of use, it would be easy to maintain, the layout would allow us to age in place, and energy efficiency was a focus. Energy efficiency was important both to make the home comfortable and energy costs predictable when living in retirement. Although the original intention was not necessarily to build a net zero home, information sources like the Green Building Advisor and the CT Zero Energy Challenge led us to Jamie Wolf, who showed us what was possible within our budget. Jamie’s design allowed us to accomplish all of our goals without compromise. Not only did we achieve net zero, but the inherent low load home design allowed us to build excess PV capacity with future plans to buy an Electric Vehicle.

Design for Adaptability:

Software Tools

Software Tools:

General modeling information:

Lessons Learned

Outcome of Project Goals:

Discrepancies:

Rebates and Financial Incentives

Federal incentives
Local incentives
State incentives
Utility incentives
Other incentives
Top