Final Report

Dakota Lakes Research Farms
“Design of a Net-Zero Energy Facility
And Bio-based Insulation Validation”
South Dakota State University
Advisors:
John Versteeg
Michael Twedt
Date:
12/17/2014
Authors:
Tate Buxcel
Paige Haase
Thomas Gergen
Christopher Maks

Final Report
Buxcel, Gergen, Haase, and Maks Page 2
Contents
Table of Figures..................................................................................................................................3
Table of Equations..............................................................................................................................4
Table of Tables...................................................................................................................................5
Abstract.............................................................................................................................................6
State-of-the-Art..................................................................................................................................7
Background:...................................................................................................................................7
Competitive Designs: ......................................................................................................................7
Current Systems .............................................................................................................................8
Shop Systems:.............................................................................................................................8
Office Systems:...........................................................................................................................8
Introduction and Procedure ................................................................................................................9
Objectives:.....................................................................................................................................9
Project Significance:........................................................................................................................9
Methods:.....................................................................................................................................10
Insulation Validation:.................................................................................................................10
Net Zero Facility:.......................................................................................................................15
Interpretation of Results...................................................................................................................17
Insulation Validation.....................................................................................................................17
Net-Zero Design............................................................................................................................19
Time Management and Labor Hours..................................................................................................30
Deliverables:.................................................................................................................................30
Budget:........................................................................................................................................31
Gantt Chart: .................................................................................................................................31
Labor Hours:.................................................................................................................................33
Anticipated Insulation Testing Hours: .........................................................................................33
Anticipated Net-Zero Energy Research Hours:.............................................................................33
Actual Labor Hour Breakdown....................................................................................................33
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................40
References.......................................................................................................................................41

Final Report
Table of Figures
Figure 1: Insulation Test Regions .......................................................................................................11
Figure 2. Test Wall with all InstrumentationApplied...........................................................................12
Figure 3. Attached Thermocouple and Heat Flux Sensor......................................................................13
Figure 4. LabView User Interface .......................................................................................................13
Figure 5: Energy Simulation vs. Actual Use .........................................................................................22
Figure 6: eQuest Model of the Shop...................................................................................................23
Figure 7: 2D Layout of the Shop.........................................................................................................23
Figure 8: Energy Usage by Month ......................................................................................................24
Figure 9: PV Production vs. Facility Use..............................................................................................25
Figure 10: Net-Zero Energy Flow Chart...............................................................................................29
Figure 11: Insulation Testing Gantt Chart ...........................................................................................31
Figure 12: Net-Zero Gantt Chart........................................................................................................32
Figure 13: Complete Project Gantt Chart............................................................................................32
Figure 14: Semester 1 Individual Hours..............................................................................................34
Figure 15: Semester 1 Individual Hour Breakdown..............................................................................34
Figure 16: Semester 1 Project Hour Breakdown..................................................................................35
Figure 17: Semester 2 Individual Hours..............................................................................................36
Figure 18: Semester 2 Individual Hour Breakdown..............................................................................36
Figure 19: Semester 2 Project Hour Breakdown..................................................................................37
Figure 20: Project Individual Hours ....................................................................................................38
Figure 21: Project Individual Hour Breakdown....................................................................................38
Figure 22: Project Hour Breakdown ...................................................................................................39

Final Report
Table of Equations
Equation 1: Fourier's Law..................................................................................................................14
Equation 2........................................................................................................................................14
Equation 3: Heat Transfer Equation ...................................................................................................17
Equation 4: Metric to English Conversion...........................................................................................17
Equation 5: R-value Conversion.........................................................................................................17
Equation 6: Motor Power Calculation ................................................................................................21
Equation 7: Power Calculation...........................................................................................................21
Equation 8: Energy Content of a Bale of Switch Grass .........................................................................28
Equation 9: Thermal Storage Capacity................................................................................................28
Equation 10: InsulationVisiting Hours................................................................................................33
Equation 11: Insulation Testing Hours................................................................................................33
Equation 12: Net-Zero Energy Research Hours ...................................................................................33

Final Report
Table of Tables
Table 1. Scoring Multiplier Table........................................................................................................15
Table 2. Rated Renewable Energy Resources.....................................................................................15
Table 3. Rated Renewable Energy Resources Multiplied by Total Multiplier.........................................16
Table 4: Equipment in the Shop and Office.........................................................................................20
Table 5: Energy Breakdown of the Entire Shop ...................................................................................24
Table 6: Energy Content of a Bale of Switch Grass...............................................................................27
Table 7: Semester 1 Hour Breakdown................................................................................................33
Table 8: Semester 2 Hourly Breakdown..............................................................................................35
Table 9: Project Hourly Breakdown....................................................................................................37

Final Report
Abstract
The Dakota LakesResearchFarm isa not-for-profitcorporationthatwasfoundedwiththe intent
to provide a place at which applied or systems research could be done. To continue to be a model of
future practices to farmers around the country, Dakota Lakes Research Farm proposed a project with
two main parts. The first part consisted of bio-based spray foam insulation validation and the second
part was to design a proposal of alternative systems to convert the shop building to a net-zero energy
facility. The insulation validation was already underway when the team stepped in. The experiment
consisted of a wall with bio-based insulation and petroleum-based insulation sprayed on it in varying
thicknessesof twoanda half,four,andsix inches.Heatflux sensors and thermocouples are being used
to collectdata. Thisexperimentwillbe carriedoutovera minimumof five yearstoensure the insulation
does not break degrade over time. The second part of the experiment consisted of designing a set of
systems to implement in order to achieve a net-zero energy facility. To do this, an energy audit was
done on the shop building to determine current energy usage. Past bills were compared to models to
determine validity.Afterthe model wasrefined, the team proposed a system to Dakota Lakes Research
Farm that includedusingphotovoltaic(PV)panelstoproduce the annual plugloaduse of approximately
22,400 kWh/year. To heat the new building, the team chose to use a solar thermal system along with
biomassboilerthatwouldburna SwitchGrass bale and store the thermal energy to heat the shop for a
minimum of three days.

Final Report
State-of-the-Art
Background:
The Dakota Lakes Research Farm is a not-for-profit corporation that was founded in 1981 with
the intenttoprovide a place at whichappliedorsystemsresearch could be done. They originally asked
SouthDakota State University(SDSU) toconductthisresearch but could not do it alone. By 1989 Dakota
Lakes Research Farm Corporation had found a location to erect a building and irrigation system for a
portionof the land.Theirgoal thenandnow isto findbetterwaystomanage farms to produce food in a
way that minimizes the negative impacts on soil erosion, water quality degradation and excessive
energyuse.Theycurrentlyown840 acres of land between the main sight and a smaller portion of land
north of the mainstationusedfor westriversoil research. One of the first research projects was no-till
farming. The Farm has been a no till facility since day one. Within the first 20 year period (1990-2010)
the crop productions have increased year after year to be more productive and efficient. To continue
beinga model ineffective farming practices, Dakota Lakes Research Farm would like to become a net-
zero facility in the near future.
Competitive Designs:
To date, there are other farms in the United States that have become net-zero or carbon
neutral. One of these farmsis calledAppletonEstatesandislocatedin Massachusetts. When the article
was written, Appleton Estates uses a bio-burner to heat the buildings, a heat exchanger to reuse heat
from the dairy cows, and manure as fertilizer. Their goal was to become carbon neutral by 2011. (Fox,
2010)
However, Dakota Lakes Research Farms is a unique research farm unlike any other. It is a self
sustainingresearchfarmthatincorporatesnew ideasand non-conventional farming practices. It is also
located in a different part of the country with a far different climate. Solutions here are still different
than the solutions currently used by Appleton Estates.

Final Report
Current Systems
There are several systemscurrentlyutilizedatDakotaLakesResearchFarm.All of these systems
draw energytosome degree andwill be lookedatin more depth during this last semester. The current
systems are listed below.
Shop Systems:
 Lanair Model MX-150 Waste Oil Heater
 Propane Pulse Furnace withForcedAir
 13kW and 27 kW ElectroBoiler
 SH764 FantechHeatExchanger
 HigherPowerHydraulicDoor
 LED Lighting
 SHR 2005R FantechHeat Exchanger
 7.5 HP ContinuousDutyaircompressor
 FlorescentLighting
 MagneTekCentury1 HP AC Motor
 Reliance ElectricWaterHeaterModel No.630DORT
 A.O.Smith1/4 HP ACMotor
Office Systems:
 Freezer
 Refrigerator
 2 ConstantTemperature Cabinets
 3 Space Heaters
 2 Laptops
 4 DesktopComputers
 Printer

Final Report
Introductionand Procedure
Objectives:
Dakota LakesResearchFarm wantsto setan example for other farms around the country. They
wouldlike toshow how to take regular farming practices and update them in a greener manner. To do
this,soybased insulation has been installed at the facility. While this is a good example of renewable
and sustainable techniques, the insulation must also perform at a level comparable to regular
polyurethane based insulation.
Anotherwayto demonstrate sustainability will be tomake the mainshop“net-zero”,orin other
wordsable to produce enoughenergytosupport the shop energy usage annually. The farm will not be
takenoff-gridincase of unpredictable circumstances, but the goal is to establish an optimal system so
the facility can support itself under normal conditions. An effective system was proposed to Dakota
Lakes Research Farm that included using PV panels to produce the plug loads energy and using a solar
thermal system along with a biomass boiler to produce the required heating loads in the new shop
building.
Project Significance:
Farmersacross the UnitedStatesand othercountries can learn a great deal from the success of
thisproject. The reason this project is so significant is because the majority of a farmer’s expenses are
related to fossil fuel products. . According to Dwayne Beck, fossil fuels are related to about 80% of
Dakota Lakes Research Farm’s costs. (Beck, 2014) This cost includes fuel, heat, electricity, and other
forms of energy. If the team can provide Dakota Lakes Research Farm the tools to become energy
independent,thiswillbe asteppingstone forfarmersacross the world to become more self-sustaining
and profitable all while having a smaller carbon footprint.

Final Report
Methods:
Insulation Validation:
To validate the Heatlok Soy-200 spray foam insulation, a side by side comparison test was
developed. This side by side comparison features Heatlok Soy-200 and a polyurethane based spray
foaminsulation. Both types of insulation were applied and tested at thicknesses of 2.5”, 4” and 6”. To
measure the thermal resistance (R-Value) of insulation, both heat flux and temperature difference
across each specimen are required. To measure heat flux and temperature change the following
equipment was used:
• 24 Hukseflux Heat Flux Sensors (measures heat flux of the insulation samples)
• Thermocouples (24 interior thermocouples, 6 exterior thermocouples, used to
measure temperature difference across the wall)
• 1 National Instruments Data Acquisition System (used to collect and log data over
time)
• 2 NI 9213 Thermocouple Modules (Work with DAQ to condition thermocouple
signals)
• 2 NI 9205 Voltage Modules (Work with DAQ to condition Heat Flux signals)
The heat flux sensormodel chosenforthe validation test are Hukseflux HFP01 heat flux plates,
whichare recommendedfortheirbuildingphysicsapplication.Type Tthermocouple’s were chosen due
to their low cost and ability to meet the temperature requirements needed for testing. Data was
collected and recorded using a National Instruments Data Acquisition system. For the temperature
collection, an NI 9213 Thermocouple module was used while the heat flux was collected using an NI
9205 Analog Voltage Input module.
To create an accurate validation study, multiple samples of both types of insulation were
applied at depths of 2.5”, 4”, and 6”. The test wall was divided into 4 equal regions. Each region
features6 insulation samples, 3 samples of soy based insulation and 3 samples of polyurethane based
insulation. A detailedschematicof eachregionandan image of the actual testsite can be viewedbelow
in Figures 1 and 2 respectively.

Final Report
Figure 1: Insulation Test Regions

Final Report
Figure 2. Test Wall with all Instrumentation Applied
The heat flux sensors and thermocouples were applied according to ASTMStandards C1046 &
C1155 which are standards for in-situ thermal resistance measurement in a building envelope (ASTM
C1046, 2013)(ASTM C1155, 2013). All thermocouples were installed and fastened to the interior and
exterior surfaces using thermally conductive epoxy. This adhesive was used to ensure temperature
independenceforthe thermocouples.The heatflux sensorswerefastenedbyapplying thermal paste to
the sensor portion of the heat flux plate along with a ring of silicone around the outer rim of the heat
flux plate to fasten the sensor to the wall. The thermal paste was used to create a uniform contact
surface so that contact resistance can be neglected. A detailed image of a test specimen fitted with
instrumentation can be viewed below in Figure 3.

Final Report
Figure 3. Attached Thermocouple and Heat Flux Sensor
A LabView program was created to manage the data acquisition by collecting and then storing
data points every 10 seconds. LabView was selected as the operating program because of its
compatibilitywithNational Instrumentsmeasurementequipmentanditsabilitytogenerate a relatively
simple user interface. The simple user interface was an excellent feature because the employees at
Dakota Lakes Research Farm have limited experience operating data acquisition systems. Figure 4
displays the user interface screen from the LabView program.
Figure 4. LabView User Interface

Final Report
After the LabView program was developed to measure and record data from the heat flux
sensors and thermocouples, an Excel spreadsheet was created. The Excel file was created to calculate
thermal resistance using the recorded heat flux and temperature measurements. Fourier’s Law was
usedto developanequationforthermal resistance.Withaknownheatflux andtemperature difference,
thermal resistance can be calculated using Equation 1.
𝑞′′ =
1
𝑅
Δ𝑇
Equation 1: Fourier's Law
Where: 𝑅 =thermal resistance
Δ𝑇 =temperature difference
𝑞′′ =heatflux
The temperature difference can be directly measured using the thermocouples while the heat
flux measuredbythe sensorplatesmustbe convertedtoauseful form. Each heatflux sensorsoutputsa
voltage thatis proportional tothe amountof heatflux beingmeasured. The interiortemperatures at all
24 testingsiteswere measureddirectlywhile an exterior temperature was averaged between six total
thermocoupleslocatedonthe exteriorof the building.The conversionequationfor heat flux, which can
be seenbelowinEquation2,usesa heat flux sensorconstantspecifictoeachindividual sensor. Voltage
output from the sensors is in volts but must be converted to microvolts to match the units of each
sensor’s constant. The voltage output is multiplied by 1,000,000 to convert it to microvolts.
𝑞′′ = |
𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑂𝑢𝑡𝑝𝑢𝑡(𝑉) ∗ (
1,000,000 µ𝑉
1 𝑉
)
𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡
|
Equation 2
This validation study is to be run for at least five years to ensure the insulation properties are
maintained.Throughoutthe testperiod,the bio-based insulation thermal resistance will be compared
with that of the polyurethane based insulation to ensure neither insulation type is experiencing
symptoms of degradation.

Final Report
Net Zero Facility:
The secondsectionof the project was to propose asystemthat will develop the main shop into
a net-zeroenergyfacility.The primarygoal forthe mainshop isto determine heating, cooling, and plug
loadsso thiscan be switchedovertonet-zero. A variety of methods including computer models, hand
calculations, and past data were used to evaluate the energy consumption of the main shop.
In order to accurately assign research priority to the different types of renewable energy
systems a design matrix was developed. The matrix itself can be seen below in Tables 1,2, and 3. The
grouptook intoaccount the currentstate of the researchfacilityandthe surroundingareato determine
whattypesof energywouldbe more efficient. Anexplanationof how to use the decision matrix can be
viewed below
To developthe multiplier factor, the importance of each category in Table 1 was rated by both
Dakota LakesResearchFarm andthe consultingparty. Inorderfor DLRF to have a greaterimpact on the
proposed system they were able to give each individual category a rating of 1-5 (5 being most
important, 1 being least important). The consulting group had to rate the 5 categories together 1-5 (5
beingmostimportant,1 beingleastimportant). The tworatingswere then multiplied together to get a
total multiplier.
Table 1. Scoring Multiplier Table
After the scoring multiplier was developed, 5 different types of renewable energy were
compared and evaluated based on the same 5 categories used in Table 1. Table 2 displays the 5
differentsourcesof renewable energyandtheirrespective ratings for each governing category (lowest
cost of system,paybackperiod,carbonfootprint,etc.). SimilartoTable 1 a score of 5 wasthe bestand a
score of 1 was the worst.
Table 2. Rated Renewable Energy Resources
Each scoring category from Table 2 was then multiplied by the total multiplier from Table 1 to
getthe weightedscore foreachsource of renewable energy. All governingcategoriesforeachsource of
renewable energy were then summated to achieve each systems total score as seen in Table 3.
Factor Cost of System Energy Savings Carbon Footprint Payback Period Ease of Installation
Group Importance 1 5 4 3 2
DLRF Importance 1 5 5 2.5 1
Total Multiplier 1 25 20 7.5 2
Lowest Cost of System Greatest Energy Savings Least Carbon Footprint Shortest Payback Period Ease of Installation
Geothermal 2 3 2 3 2
Wind 3 2 3 2 3
Solar 4 4 4 4 5
Hydro 1 5 1 1 1
Biomass 5 1 5 5 4

Final Report
Table 3. Rated Renewable Energy Resources Multiplied by Total Multiplier
Due to their high scores in Table 3, it was decided to focus the research for this system on
biomassandsolarenergysources. Windwasruledout as a possible source of renewableenergy for the
followingreason:the facility is located in a low lying topographical region so putting a turbine close to
the studied building would not generate the wind energy desired. It was possible to move the wind
turbine toa higherparcel of land, however the cost and logistics of energy transport to the facility was
not feasible.
The facilityislocatedfairlyclose tothe Missouri River however, hydroelectric power was ruled
out because asubstantial sizeddamnwouldhave beenrequiredto generate the needed energy due to
low water currents. The cost to build such a damn would be astronomical. Another issue with using
hydroelectric power is the amount of government regulations to follow would have made the system
much more complicated than other sources of renewable energy.
Geothermal was quickly eliminated from the possible renewable energy system because the
new addition to the shop has already been created and the cost associated with adding geothermal
loopsto an existingbuildingissubstantial. Itwasalsoa goal of DakotaLakes Research Farm to create as
much “multi-purpose” energy as possible. This makes solar energy a much more feasible option than
geothermal.
The heatingloadsforthe shopwere calculated inavarietyof ways.Firstpast data was collected
fromthe energyprovider,Oahe Electric, andelectricboilerdata. Next,anenergysimulationwas built in
Excel that determined energy usage for everything in the shop including heating, office, shop, and
heating equipment. The energy simulation was broke down month by month and was built off of the
billsprovided by Oahe Electric and data from Dwayne Beck, the manager of DLRF. Hand calculations of
the plug loads were performed using amp draws collected at the farm, motor sizes, and invoice data.
These were thenputinthe energysimulation. ThenaneQuest model was built based on specifications
of the buildingand a comparison was made between the energy simulation and the model in order to
verify the model.Usingthismodel,coolingloadsforthe buildingwill be determined. Cooling loads will
not be compared against known data because there is no air conditioning system currently installed.
Lowest Cost of System Greatest Energy Savings Least Carbon Footprint Shortest Payback Period Ease of Installation Total
Geothermal 2 75 40 22.5 4 143.5
Wind 3 50 60 15 6 134
Solar 4 100 80 30 10 224
Hydro 1 125 20 7.5 2 155.5
Biomass 5 25 100 37.5 8 175.5

Final Report
InterpretationofResults
Insulation Validation
In order to validate the thermal resistivity specifications of the manufacturer, both types of
spray foaminsulationwill continue tobe evaluatedonanR-Value/inch basis throughout the remainder
of the testingperiod. Asmentionedearlier,Fourier’sLaw is used to relate temperature difference and
thermal resistance tofindheatflux.Manipulationof the theorygivesusourR Value equation,whichcan
be seen in the Methods section as Equation 3.
To calculate the total R-value at each depth of insulation, Fourier’s Law was manipulated. As
observedafterevaluatingrecordeddata,the heat flux lags behind the temperature change. To negate
this factor when calculating thermal resistance, ISO Standard 9869 was used (ISO 9869:2014). This is a
standardfor in-situthermal resistance measurement. To neglect the time step, the summation of the
temperature change overthe time period must be divided by the summation of the heat flux over the
time period to produce a thermal resistance value as seen in Equation 3.
𝑅 ( 𝑚2 𝐾
𝑊⁄ ) =
∑∆𝑇(𝐾)
∑ 𝑞′′(
𝑊
𝑚2)
Equation 3: Heat Transfer Equation
To convert thermal resistance from SI units to English units, Equation 4 was used:
𝑘 ∗ 𝑚2
𝑊
∗
10.7639 𝑓𝑡2
1 𝑚2 ∗
1.8 𝑅
1𝐾
∗
1 𝑊
3.412141366
𝐵𝑡𝑢
ℎ𝑟
=
ℎ𝑟 ∗ 𝑓𝑡2 ∗ °𝐹
𝐵𝑡𝑢
Equation 4: Metric to English Conversion
To calculate the resultingRvalue perinchthe EnglishR value isdividedby the thickness of each
sample:
𝑅 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑛𝑐ℎ =
𝑅 (
ℎ𝑟 ∗ ℉ ∗ 𝑓𝑡2
𝐵𝑡𝑢
)
𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑐𝑘𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 (𝑖𝑛𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑠)
⁄
Equation 5: R-value Conversion
The insulationanalysisisconductedusinganExcel spreadsheetcontainingeachweekof data. A
single heat flux sensor is used for measurement on each sample. It was decided to eliminate daytime
hoursof measurementtoensure accurate data. Currently,DakotaLakesResearch Farm has an oil press
that sits 3 feet away from the B Range wall. This press operates during the daytime hours and it was
noticedthatheatflux measurementsare affectedwhilethe press is in operation due to a heater that is
used before the press.

Final Report
The first round of testing was done on only a single region, Region D. This was because the
remainingheatflux sensorswere intransitfromHukseflux. This data was slightly erroneous due to the
fact that theyhadnot settledintocorrectmeasurementsandwere still receivingfluctuations.Itwasalso
determinedlaterthatthe terminal configurationsettingonsome heat flux sensors were different than
others.Some were settoa “Differential”settingwhileotherswere set to “Reference Single End”. After
deliberationswithMr.JohnVerSteegand a representative from Hukseflux, it was determined that the
correct terminal configuration setting was “differential”. All heat flux sensors were then set to the
correct terminal configuration.
An additional problem with skewed data was a result of the “voltage range” setting on the
voltage modules. The voltage modules were deemed range according to the manufacturer’s
specifications,howeveritwasdetermined this function did not work. After the voltage modules were
adjusted to a range of ±200 mV, the heat flux sensors began producing accurate results.
The final portion of testing occurred once the LabView program was implemented and will
continue forfive years. The validationstudyisfullyfunctioningandcontinuingtorecorddata. Overall it
was determined that the implemented system to conduct the study works well. After analyzing up to
date data collected with this system, all ranges of insulation are producing accurate results, and no
symptoms of degradation for either the petroleum based insulation or the soy based insulation are
evident.

Final Report
Net-Zero Design
In orderto analyze the facilityasa net-zerofacility,the teamneeded to decide what needed to
be analyzed. After looking at the grain bins at the facility, the irrigation pivots, the old shop, the new
shop,the teamdecidedtofocusthe net-zeroenergyportion of the project on the new shop, plug loads
of the old shop and the office. This was done due to time and monetary constraints. For example, to
produce enough electricity on site to power the peak demand of the grain bins alone, the renewable
systemwouldhave toprovide apeakdemandof approximately40kW. A PV systemthat islarge enough
to provide this much demand is too expensive for a farm to buy to only use three months out of the
year. For the irrigation pivots, the demand is not nearly as high, only about 7 kW, however, the use of
these is sporadic and varied depending on the year. So to build a system to supply power for the
irrigation pivots would be expensive because of the infrequent use.
Once the team determinedwhatwasgoingtobe analyzedforthe net-zerofacility,the teamhad
to calculate the base heating and plug loads. To do this, an Excel sheet, called the energy simulation,
was built that analyzed the individual power-drawing equipment in the shop and office. The energy
simulation was categorized monthly to determine demand and energy usage. The data for the energy
simulation came from electric bills obtained from Oahe Electric and data from Dakota Lakes Research
Farm alongwith specifications from the various equipment located in the shop. All available data was
turnedoverto the group to determinethe base heatingloadsinthe new shop along with the base plug
loadsinthe newshop,oldshop,andoffice. Table 4shows the different categories of the equipment in
the shop and office.

Final Report
Table 4: Equipment in the Shop and Office
Many of the pieces of equipment in the shop that consume energy are electric motors.
Examples of these are grinder, drill presses, blowers for the heating system, and air compressors.
Equation 6 shows how the team evaluated the power consumption of these pieces of equipment.
Heating
Waste oil heater blower motor
Waste Oil heater oil motor
waste oil heater burner motor
13.5 kW electric boiler
Oil press
screw press motor
heater
Shop
air compressor
hydraulic door
Roll up door in old shop
Drill Press
Bench Grinder
SH764 heat exchanger
SHR2005R heat exchanger
Lighting
Old Shop (54@32W)
Attic in Old Shop (9@32W)
LED lights in new shop
Office
Freezer
Refrigerator
Soil Dryers (X2)
Space Heaters (X3)
Laptop (X2)
Desktop (X4)
Printer
Water Heater
DLRF Current Energy Usage

Final Report
𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 =
𝐻𝑃 ∗ .746
𝑘𝑊
𝐻𝑃
∗ 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟
𝜂
Equation 6: Motor Power Calculation
Where:Power=powerconsumedbythe motor(demand)
HP=ratedhorsepowerof the motor
Load factor=Percentof ratedhorsepowerthe loaddemands
𝜂=efficiencyof the motor
.746
𝑘𝑊
𝐻𝑃
is a conversionfactor
The powerthat was calculatedusingthisequationcouldthenbe multipliedbythe hoursit is used every
month to determine an energy usage for that specific piece of equipment.
Much of the otherequipmentinthe shop,especiallythe equipmentinthe office, was tested on
location with a power meter. This gave instantaneous results of power draw. For all the other
equipmentinthe shopthatwasnot an electricmotoror the powercouldnotbe readdirectlythe power
was calculated using a derivation of Ohm’s law. This calculation is shown in Equation 7.
𝑃𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 = 𝑉 ∗ 𝐼
Equation 7: Power Calculation
Where:V= voltage supplytothe equipment
I=currentdraw of the equipment
This was also multiplied by the hours that that piece of equipment ran every month to determine
monthly energy consumption.
The total monthly usage was then plotted and compared to the bills from 2014. Data for 2014
had to be usedbecause the electricboilerscame online in December 2013, but they were not metered
individually.StartinginJanuary 2014, a new meter was installed that was a sub meter of the shop. This
provided the team with accurate data of the energy that the boilers were using along with the rest of
the shop.The teamhas notcollectedbillssince September 2014 because the team felt this, along with
data fromDakota LakesResearchFarm, providedenoughinformation to simulate an average year. The
comparison plot is shown in Figure 5.

Final Report
Figure 5: Energy Simulation vs. Actual Use
It was found,usingthe energysimulation, thatthe shopandoffice demanded approximately 18
kWh and consumedapproximately 22,000 kWh/year in plug loads while the electric boilers demanded
13.5 kWh and consumed approximately 36,000kWh/year to heat the new shop.
It was requested of the team to determine the cooling loads of the shop and office, so those
areas could be cooled for employee comfort. This was more difficult because DLRF currently does not
have a cooling system. To do this, an eQuest model was created. It was refined and the heating loads
were comparedagainstthe energy simulation and bills to determine validity. Using the eQuest model
cooling loads could be determined.
Below is the process used to create an eQuest model. It is very powerful software with
numerous inputs which allow the group to evaluate energy usage based on the different equipment
selected. This means the group can change different pieces as they see fit to model the amount of
energy the shop will use.

Final Report
Figure 6: eQuest Model of the Shop
The building distribution can be seen below. The goal is to model the facility as accurately as
possible and allow the eQuest software to add a basic HVAC system. Then the user can go in and add
specific equipment to modify the desired HVAC system.
Figure 7: 2D Layout of the Shop

Final Report
Figure 7, shows a 2D layout of the facility with the old shop and new additions. Both large
garage doorsare modeledaswell asall windows and exits. The simulation was run and it output many
informational charts and figures. Space heating was determined using electric boilers as the heating
source.Thiswouldbe the currentsysteminplace.Thenthe heatingwastakenout of the simulation and
was ran with conventional HVAC equipment to determine cooling loads. This can be seen in Figure 8.
Figure 8: Energy Usage by Month
The bar graphsshowthat heating,coolingandarealightingare majorenergyusers. Figure 8also
shows that the base plug loads are fairly consistent whether heating or cooling is taking place. Below,
the heating,cooling,and plug loads are broken down for the entire shop, the old shop, and new shop.
Table 5: Energy Breakdown of the Entire Shop
Next, the team did some research and brain storming on what would be viable renewable
heating,cooling,andelectrical solutions.The teamquicklydetermined the most viable way to produce
electricity from renewable resources would be to use photovoltaic (PV) panels. This was determined
because sunlight is very plentiful in Pierre, SD. According to Dwayne, very seldom does the farm go
three days withoutthe sunshining (Beck,2014). However,otheroptionswere considered.These include
a generator powered by an engine that consumed straight vegetable oil. This was thrown out though
due to maintenance,reliabilityissues,andlogisticsof getting the engine to run during the winter time.
Entire Shop
Current System Total Yearly Energy Use (Btu/yr) Total Energy in Units of Electricity (kWh/yr) Proposed System Proposed Energy Generated
Heating Electric Boilers/Propane/Waste Oil 220,000,000.00 64,475.64 Non-Food Grade Oil Burner and Radiant Floor 220,000,000 Btu/yr
Cooling None 72,664,000.00 21,295.72 4 Ton Absorption Chiller 43,200,000 Btu/yr
Plug Electrical Grid 74,337,702.34 21,786.23 60 Panel PV System (28,527 kWh/yr) 97,334,000 Btu/yr
Total 367,001,702.34 107,557.58 360,534,000 Btu/yr
New Addition
Current System Total Yearly Energy Use (Btu/yr) Total Energy in Units of Electricity (kWh/yr) Proposed System Proposed Energy Generated
Heating Electric Boilers 120,484,544.00 35,312.00 Radiant Floor with Solar Thermal 125,200,000 Btu/yr
Cooling None 39,794,949.57 11,663.23 4 Ton Absorption Chiller 43,200,000 Btu/yr
Plug Electrical Grid 45,168,056.00 13,238.00 Portion of PV System (17,333 kWh/yr) 59,140,000 Btu/yr
Total 205,447,549.57 60,213.23 227,540,000 Btu/yr

Final Report
Quoteswere receivedfrom GreenEnergyProductsinSpringfieldMN fora PV systemthatwould
be large enoughto provide enoughenergyforthe shop and office without the electric boilers running.
Thissystemwasa turn-keysystemthatincluded60panelsandinverters.Thissystemsupplied 19.13 kW
demand and produces 28,527 kWh/year. For electrical storage the grid would be used. This would
provide the facilitywiththe abilitytobuyelectricityduringcloudydays in the winter and sell electricity
back during sunny days in the summer. Figure 9 shows the PV system output plotted against the
electrical demand of the facility. A PV system of this size would cost approximately $78,500 without a
governmentrebate andbefore installation.Usingasimple paybackperiod,itwasfoundthat this system
would take 42.3 years to payback. For a household or individual, this is an extremely long payback
period and would not be feasible. However, for a business or farm that will be active and running for
manygenerations,apaybackperiodof this lengthisnotoutlandish.Thisisalsoa simple payback period
and does not take into account the rising cost of electricity.
Figure 9: PV Production vs. Facility Use
For cooling solutions, the team had two major options. These included conventional HVAC
equipmentorusinganabsorption chiller. Conventional HVAC equipment would be a viable option for
DLRF. To cool the new shop a 4 ton cooler would be required. This could be run off the excess energy
that isproducedbythe PV systemduringthe summermonthswithhighsolarradiation.However, if this
was done, the electricity produced in the summer time would not be able to be sold back to Oahe
Electric.Ona yearlybasis,thiswouldprove thatthe electrical consumptionat DLRF to no longer be net-
zero.In orderto keepthe powerboughtandsold to Oahe Electric even, a larger PV system would have
to be installed.Thiswouldnotbe costeffective because inordertomaintainnetzero-another six kW of
electrical demandwouldhave to be supplied only for the summer months. This left the team with the
only other viable option for cooling, an absorption chiller. An absorption chiller works similar to a
conventional refrigeration cycle, except instead of a compressor being used to evaporate the working
fluid; heat is used to evaporate the working fluid. This will be done during the summer using solar
thermal.

Final Report
Heating solutions had several viable options; the best option for Dakota Lakes Research Farm
had to be determined.Some of the heatingoptionsincludedpoweringthe existingelectric boilers using
a PV system, geothermal, an oil boiler, solar thermal, or a biomass boiler. After looking increasing the
size of the plugloadPV systemtopowerthe electricboiler,the teamdecidedthiswould be too great of
an initial cost for a viable payback period. Using geothermal with the radiant floor heating would be
anotherviable option;however, this option would make more sense to implement when the building
was beingbuilt. Addingageothermal heatingsystemlater on is an expensive and usually difficult task.
DLRF grows theirownoil seedcropsandpresstheirownoil makingan oil firedboilera viable option for
them. However, most of the oils that the farm presses are edible grades; this means the farm can sell
this oil for much more profitability than they can burn it. This makes an oil fired boiler a less cost
effectiveoption.The final twooptionstoheatthe new shopare solar thermal anda biomass boiler. The
teamchose to use both of these optionstogether.The solarthermal optionwouldbe able to power the
absorptionchillerduringthe summermonthswhile providingsome heatinthe winter.If there were too
manycloudydays duringthe wintertokeepthe shopwarmthe biomassboilerwould be used to charge
a large heat storage boiler to heat the shop.
The solar thermal system would cost approximately $28,000 without a government rebate. At
thiscost the simple paybackperiodwouldbe 15.9years.Thissystemwouldsupplythe necessaryenergy
to heat the shop except during periods of prolonged low radiation levels, or days where it was below
average seasonal temperatures.Thissystem wouldbe used to charge a large heat storage boiler during
daylighthourswhenradiationwasanavailable resource.The storage systemwould be used to heat the
existing radiant floor during all hours of the day or night.
The backup systemtothe solar thermal system would be a biomass boiler. Early in the project,
DLRF showedaninterest in growing its own biomass to heat the shop. This would be done in roadside
ditchesandotherareas that provedtoosmall tobe cultivatable.Some of the cropsthatDLRF showedan
interestingrowingwere Switch Grass and Big Blue Stem. These are both energy rich biomass products
with energy contents as high at 7929 BTU/lb and 8020 BTU/lb respectively. In order to harvest the
energy from either one of these products they would have to be burnt in a boiler system. To do this
DLRF would create bales for storage and handling. When the solar thermal system was no longer
adequate, a bale would be burnt in the boiler and the heat from it would be used to charge the heat
storage boiler. A 89,000 BTU biomassboilerwasfound.Thisboiler isa high efficiency boiler that is able
to burn several types of biomass. It would cost $3868 and would provide a simple payback period of
approximately2.2years. DLRF alsoshowedan interestinbuildingitsownbiomassboiler. This would be
done to customize the size of the fireboxtoaccepta small roundbale of biomass.The teamexpectsthat
the cost of materials and labor to DLRF would be comparable to purchasing a commercially available
biomass boiler. This would result in the payback period being comparable.
The heat storage boilerhad twooptions. The first is using ceramic bricks to store the heat. This
wouldbe done bytransportingthe heatusinga workingfluidsuchas an antifreeze/water mixture from
the solar thermal collectors or the biomass boiler to an insulated mass of bricks. However, this is the

Final Report
more expensive optionandwouldrequirereplacementof the bricks after they started to degrade from
the constant heatingandcoolingand beingincontact with a liquid. The other option would be to store
the usable heat in a liquid such as water. This proved to be a viable option due to cost and ease of
installation and maintenance. The heat storage boiler would have to be large enough to store all the
energy from the burning of a Switch Grass bale. Switch Grass was selected because it has a lower
heatingvalue;thisprovidesaworstcase scenarioso DLRF doesnotexhausttheir energy supply. To find
the amountof energyneeded,the energycontent of a Switch Grass bale was calculated at several bale
densities.A bale size was assumed to be a cylinder with width of 5 ft and diameter of 3 ft. This is not a
standardsize foran agricultural round baler;however,thissize wasselectedinorder tofitan entire bale
through a boiler door. Also, the column marked Bales/year are the number of bales that DLRF would
needinorderto heatthe newshopusingonlyabiomassboiler. The energy content of each bale, while
varyingbale densities, isshown inTable 6while the equationtocalculate the energycontentisshownin
Equation 8.
Table 6: Energy Content of a Bale of Switch Grass
C switchgrass= 7930 Btu/lb
diameter = 3 ft
width = 5 ft
bale volume 35.34 ft^3
Energy needed = 292664000 Btu
Bale Density (lb/ft^3) Bale Mass (lb) Energy (Btu/bale) Bales/year
6 212 1681616 174
6.5 230 1821751 161
7 247 1961885 149
7.5 265 2102020 139
8 283 2242155 131
8.5 300 2382289 123
9 318 2522424 116
9.5 336 2662559 110
10 353 2802693 104
10.5 371 2942828 99
11 389 3082963 95
Energy of 1 Switchgrass Bale

Final Report
𝐸 𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑒 = 𝑉𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑒 ∗ 𝜌 𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑒 ∗ 7929 𝐵𝑇𝑈/𝑙𝑏
Equation 8: Energy Content of a Bale of Switch Grass
Where: 𝐸 𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑒 =energycontentof one bale
𝑉𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑒 =volume of a bale
𝜌 𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑒 =densityatwhichthe bale isbackedby the baler
7929
𝐵𝑇𝑈
𝑙𝑏
=energycontentof SwitchGrass
It is assumed that the bales will not be packed at a high density because of equipment
limitations and handling ease. So a density of 8
𝑙𝑏
𝑓𝑡3
was selected for the heat storage analysis. Most
commerciallyavailableboilersthatwouldhave the capacitytoburn a bale of this size are 80% efficient.
Therefore, the selected density would produce 1,793,734 BTU’s from the burning process. This led the
team to size the thermal storage for 1,800,000 BTU’s. Equation 9 shows how this was done.
𝑉𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 =
𝐸 𝑏𝑎𝑙𝑒
Δ𝑇 ∗ 𝑐 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 ∗ 𝜌 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟
∗ 7.48
𝑔𝑎𝑙
𝑓𝑡3
Equation 9: Thermal Storage Capacity
Where: 𝑉𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 =volume of waterneededtostore the energy
Δ𝑇 =Temperature rise of the water(110°F)
𝐶 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 =specificheatof water
𝜌 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 =density of the water
7.48
𝑔𝑎𝑙
𝑓𝑡3
=converstionfactor
Usingthe above equationitwasfound that the required amount of water, at a 110°F temperature rise,
to store the energy of one Switch Grass bale being burned was 2000 gallons. Once this analysis was
complete, the team sought out quotes for sizing. One option that the team found was a 1040 gallon
glasslinedtankwith 3 heat exchangers installed. This tank also contained a back up electric resistance
heater.Price of thisstorage systemwas$7000 per tank,and a total of 2 tankswouldbe neededbringing
the price to approximately $14,000 for thermal storage.
The team has determinedthe mostoptimal net-zerosystemforDLRFto be PV panelsto provide
plugloadsinthe oldshop,newshop,andoffice;asolarthermal systemwitha biomass boiler backup to
provide heat to a thermal storage tank; and a thermal storage tank to provide heat in the winter to
warm the newshopand to an absorptionchillerinthe summertocool the new shop. Figure 10 shows a
flowchart on how the heating and the cooling of the new and old shop will be done. The proposed

Final Report
system will save Dakota Lakes Research Farm $3498.50 per year which will result in a simple payback
periodof 57 years.Thispaybackperiod isestimatingthe installedsystembe to approximately $200,000.
The proposed system would provide 98.24% of the energy the facility uses.
Figure 10: Net-Zero Energy Flow Chart

Final Report
Time Management and Labor Hours
Deliverables:
 Gantt Charts
o PreliminaryGanttChartcompletedon1/28/14
o Revision1completedon2/21/14
 Memos
o Five memoswere collectedfromeachgroupmemberthroughoutthe duration
of the project
o 1/28/14
o 2/21/14
o 4/15/14
o 5/9/14
o 9/25/14
o 12/17/14
 Individual LogbookSubmission
o 5/9/14
o 12/17/14
 2014 EngineeringExpoPresentation
o Exporegistrationcompletedon2/28/14
o 6 minute classpresentationcompletedon4/22/14
o ExpoPresentationcompletedon4/25/14
 1st
SemesterFinal ProgressReport
o Completed5/9/14
 Scope of Work
o Completedon2/21/14
o Revisedon10/21/14
 InsulationValidationResults
o The group took5 tripsto Dakota LakesResearchFarm to install insulation
validationequipment
 2/7/14
 3/7/14
 4/7/14
 9/30/14
 12/9/14
o Insulationdataisbeingcollectedcontinuously
 Final Report
o Submitted12/17/14

Final Report
Budget:
During the spring semester of 2014, the team was not been given a budget. It has been
expressed to the team that money will be spent on approval from the Dakota Lakes Board. So far,
approximately$18,082 has beenspenton24 heatflux sensors, adhesives to apply thermocouples, and
data acquisitioncomponents.Additionalfundsmaybe spenttopurchase equipmentinorder to achieve
a net-zero facility.
Gantt Chart:
Three differentGanttcharts have been prepared to categorize the overall project. The project
life time is drawn out over both semesters but the events occurring in the first half of the charts are
more concrete than those inthe latterhalf of the timeline.All charts are color coordinated, activities in
green are in progress events, blue represents events that are already completed, and red represents
activities that have not been started yet.
Figure 11 represents the planned events for insulation testing. Most of the planned activities
have been completed, but testing will be continued for the next 5 years. The Net-zero Gantt chart as
seeninFigure 12 containsa detailedlistof eventsanddates.Figure 13containsbothparts of the project
in the same graph.
Figure 11: Insulation Testing Gantt Chart
1/16 2/18 3/23 4/25 5/28 6/30 8/2 9/4 10/7 11/9 12/12
Insulation Testing
Order Thermocouple Supplies
Develop Test and Procedure
Install Testing Equipment in Pierre Facility
Collect First Round of Data
Collect Second Round of Data
Develop and Interpret Results for Expo
Make Presentation for Expo
Collect Third Round of Data
Collect Fourth Round of Data
Interpret Results
Draw Conclusions for the Project
Insulation Testing Gantt Chart

Final Report
Figure 12: Net-Zero Gantt Chart
Figure 13: Complete Project Gantt Chart
1/16 2/18 3/23 4/25 5/28 6/30 8/2 9/4 10/7 11/912/12
Tour Dakota Lakes Research Facility
Meet With Dwayne to Discuss his Wants/Budget
Research Possible Renewable Energy Sources
Examine Current System
Gather Energy Bills
Energy Audit
Presentation at Expo
Intensify Research on Desired System
Final System Proposal
Possibly Start Implementing System
Senior Design Conference (Final Presentation)
Net-Zero Gantt Chart
1/16 2/18 3/23 4/25 5/28 6/30 8/2 9/4 10/7 11/912/12
Insulation Testing
Order Thermocouple Supplies
Develop Test and Procedure
Install Testing Equipment in Pierre Facility
Collect First Round of Data
Collect Second Round of Data
Develop and Interpret Results for Expo
Make Presentation for Expo
Collect Third Round of Data
Collect Fourth Round of Data
Interpret Results
Draw Conclusions for the Project
Tour Dakota Lakes Research Facility
Meet With Dwayne to Discuss his Wants/Budget
Research Possible Renewable Energy Sources
Examine Current System
Gather Energy Bills
Energy Audit
Presentation at Expo
Intensify Research on Desired System
Final System Proposal
Possibly Start Implementing System
Complete Project Gantt Chart

Final Report
Labor Hours:
At the beginning of the project, anticipated labor hours were estimated and calculated. These
anticipated hours are shown below in Equation 10, Equation 11 and Equation 12.
Anticipated Insulation Testing Hours:
4 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠
𝑣𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑡
∗
2 𝑣𝑖𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑠
𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ
∗
6 𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑠
1
∗
4 𝑝𝑒𝑜𝑝𝑙𝑒
1
= 192 𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑟 − ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 ≈ 200 𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑟 − ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠
Equation 10: Insulation Visiting Hours
2 𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑎 𝑠𝑒𝑡𝑠
𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ
∗
6 𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ
1
∗
4 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑦𝑧𝑒
𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑎 𝑠𝑒𝑡
Equation 11: Insulation Testing Hours
Therefore, based on this estimation, the team will provide approximately 250 labor-hours to
complete the insulation testing portion of the project.
Anticipated Net-Zero Energy Research Hours:
3 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑐ℎ
𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑘
∗
24 𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑘𝑠
1
∗
4 𝑝𝑒𝑜𝑝𝑙𝑒
1
Equation 12: Net-Zero Energy Research Hours
Actual Labor Hour Breakdown
The team’s hoursfrom the firstsemesterare totaledupandbroke downintoseveral categories.
The breakdown is shown in Table 7.
Table 7: Semester 1 Hour Breakdown
Item Paige Tate Chris Tommy Total
Organization 5.5 10.5 7 16.25 39.25
Research 6.5 7 19.5 7.25 40.25
Class work 37 45 23 24.5 129.5
Install 42 44.5 38.5 39 164
Analysis 4 0 3.5 5 12.5
Meetings 16 10 17.75 15.5 59.25
Total 111 117 109.25 107.5 444.75
Insulation 59 69.25 65.5 71.5 265.25
Net-zero 14 1.25 19.25 10 44.5
Class work 38 46.5 24.5 26 135
Total 111 117 109.25 107.5 444.75

Final Report
Figure 14: Semester 1 Individual Hours
Figure 15: Semester 1 Individual Hour Breakdown

Final Report
Figure 16: Semester 1 Project Hour Breakdown
Each memberof the team hashandedin two memorandums;these were due onSeptember 25,
2014 and December 17,
2014. The hourly breakdown for the second semester is shown in Table 8.
Table 8: Semester 2 Hourly Breakdown
Organization 3.5 3 4.75 6.5 17.75
Research 32 29 56 36.5 153.5
Class work 24 37 43.75 46.5 151.25
Install 6.5 13 12.5 6 38
Analysis 27 26 42.5 43 138.5
Meetings 8 9 8.5 7.5 33
Total 101 117 168 146 532
Insulation 7.5 16 65.5 67.5 156.5
Net-zero 53.5 55.5 50 21.5 180.5
Class work 40 45.5 52.5 57 195
Total 101 117 168 146 532

Final Report
Figure 17: Semester 2 Individual Hours
Figure 18: Semester 2 Individual Hour Breakdown

Final Report
Figure 19: Semester 2 Project Hour Breakdown
At the end of the project, the team added the hours from both semesters and found that total
projecthourscame to 976.75 hours.Thiswas over1.75 timesthe anticipatednumberof 550 laborhours
that the team estimated at the beginning of the project. According to the Project Hour Breakdown pie
chart, the insulation validation study took the majority of the time of the team. Next was class work,
finally,the net zero portion took the least amount of total time, but still a substantial amount of labor
hours went into completing this part of the project.
Table 9: Project Hourly Breakdown
Organization 9 13.5 11.75 22.75 57
Research 38.5 36 75.5 43.75 193.75
Class work 61 82 66.75 71 280.75
Install 48.5 57.5 51 45 202
Analysis 31 26 46 48 151
Meetings 24 19 26.25 23 92.25
Total 212 234 277.25 253.5 976.75
Insulation 66.5 85.25 131 139 421.75
Net-zero 67.5 56.75 69.25 31.5 225
Class work 78 92 77 83 330
Total 212 234 277.25 253.5 976.75

Final Report
Figure 20: Project Individual Hours
Figure 21: Project Individual Hour Breakdown

Final Report
Figure 22: Project Hour Breakdown

Final Report
Conclusion
Overthe course of the project, there have been many hurdles that the team has tackled. It has
taken this team of engineers many hours to accomplish the tasks at hand. Together, we all brought
togetherdifferentviewpoints,ideas,andexperiences in order make progress on the project. The team
has put in many more hours than expected; however, results have come from those long hours. The
insulation validation is set up and running.
A Net-Zeroplanhasbe presentedtoDwayne BeckatDakota LakesResearchFarm.Hopefully,he
will take the consulting team’s ideas and plans and implement them to be a leader in the world of
energy efficient agriculture.

Final Report
References
ASTMC1046-95 (2013), StandardPractice for In-SituMeasurementof HeatFlux andTemperature on
BuildingEnvelope Components,ASTMInternational,WestConshohocken,PA,
2013, www.astm.org
ASTMC1155-95 (2013), StandardPractice for DeterminingThermal Resistance of BuildingEnvelope
Componentsfromthe In-SituData,ASTMInternational,WestConshohocken,PA,
2013, www.astm.org
Beck,D. (2014, February7). (T. Buxcel,Interviewer)
Fox,A.(2010, 10 18). America’sOldestFarm Leadsthe Herd Toward Zero Carbon Emissions.Retrieved
fromwww.onearth.org:http://www.onearth.org/blog/america%E2%80%99s-oldest-farm-leads-
the-herd-to-netzero
Hukseflux.(2006).HFP01 Manual. HFP01 and HFP03 User Manual.Hukseflux Thermal Sensors.
ISO9869:2014 (2014), Thermal insulation -- Buildingelements -- In-situmeasurementof thermal
resistance andthermal transmittance,International Organizationof Standards,London,United
Kingdom,2014, www.iso.org

Final Report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (17)

Similar to Final Report

Similar to Final Report (20)

Final Report