Corrigendum to “The environmental impact of the zero energy ready home program on manufactured housing” [Next Mater. 4 (2024) 100194] (Next Materials (2024) 4, (S2949822824000911), (10.1016/j.nxmate.2024.100194))

The authors wish to inform you of elucidations to the manuscript that may be subject to misinterpretation. Each item is identified along with the corresponding clarification: In the abstract the current text “To understand how these changes will impact the environment and the building's durability, life cycle assessment and hygrothermal simulations were carried out for a standard manufactured home design and two ZERH designs in Knoxville, Tennessee.” should read, “To understand how these changes to the building envelope will impact the environment and the building's durability, life cycle assessment and hygrothermal simulations were carried out for a standard manufactured home design currently used by a supplier and two ZERH building envelope designs in Knoxville, Tennessee.” In the abstract the current text “Results indicate that the investment in embodied carbon of the zero energy ready homes is small relative to the savings in operational emissions.” should read, “Results indicate that the investment in embodied carbon of the envelope insulation of the zero energy ready homes is small relative to the savinegs in operational emissions resulting from upgrades to the building envelope.” In the first paragraph under section 2.1 Manufactured home characteristics, page 2, the current text, “The southern part, or Climate zone 3, is predominantly a cooling climate since the interior space is cooled during most days of the year.” should read, “The southern part, or Climate zone 1, is predominantly a cooling climate since the interior space is cooled during most days of the year.” In the last paragraph under 2.1. Manufactured home characteristics, page 3, the current text, “The area-weighted U-factor was calculated based on the wall area of the manufactured home and is shown in Table 1." should read, “The area-weighted U-factor was calculated based on the areas of the walls, floor, ceiling, doors, and windows of the manufactured home and is shown in Table 1." In the second paragraph under 3.2. Energy use, page 6, the current text, “The ZERH used 5.2 % less total energy per year than the standard home, with 9.6 % less energy for space heating and 4.5 % less energy for space cooling. The ZERH-AP used 9.2 % less total energy per year than the standard home, with 17.1 % less energy for space heating and 7.7 % less energy for space cooling." should read, “The ZERH envelope upgrades resulted in 5.2 % less total energy use per year than the standard home, with 9.6 % less energy use for space heating and 4.5 % less energy use for space cooling. The ZERH-AP envelope upgrades led to 9.2 % less total energy use per year than the standard home, with 17.1 % less energy use for space heating and 7.7 % less energy use for space cooling.” In the third paragraph under 3.2. Energy use, page 6, the current text, “A study of three side-by-side manufactured homes used field measurements to calibrate BEopt models and calculated energy use with Knoxville, TN as one of the three locations studied [20]. The authors found that the site energy use intensity for the home built to the HUD code was 556.5 MJ/m² and that for the home built to the ENERGY STAR manufactured home program [14] was 473.6 MJ/m² when both homes used an electric resistance furnace for heating and a split system air conditioner for cooling. The home built to the ENERGY STAR manufactured home program used 17.6 % less energy on heating and 20.3 % less energy on cooling than the home built to the HUD code. As a comparison, the energy use intensity for the standard home in this paper is 469.0 MJ/m², and that for the ZERH home is 445.2 MJ/m². The energy saving obtained from changing from the standard home to the ZERH or ZERH-AP home in this paper is smaller than in Levy et al. [20] because the standard home in this paper has a better thermal envelope than the home built to the HUD code in Levy et al. [20] and the differences amongst different home designs considered in this paper are in the envelope only.” should read, “A study of three side-by-side manufactured homes used field measurements to calibrate BEopt models and calculated energy use with Knoxville, TN as one of the three locations studied [20]. The authors found that the site energy use intensity for the home built to the HUD code was 556.5 MJ/m² and that for the home built to the ENERGY STAR manufactured home program [14] was 473.6 MJ/m² when both homes used an electric resistance furnace for heating and a split system air conditioner for cooling. The home built to the ENERGY STAR manufactured home program used 15 % less energy than the home built to the HUD code. As a comparison, the energy use intensity for the standard home (which is the current practice of the supplier and exceeds the energy efficiency requirements in the HUD code) in this paper is 469.0 MJ/m², and that for the ZERH home with the upgraded envelope is 445.2 MJ/m². The energy saving obtained from changing from the standard home to the ZERH or ZERH-AP home with the upgraded envelope in this paper is smaller than in Levy et al. [20] because the standard home in this paper has a better thermal envelope than the home built to the HUD code in Levy et al. [20] and the differences amongst different home designs considered in this paper are in the envelope only. If the energy use intensity of the ZERH home with the upgraded envelope is compared to the home built to the HUD code in Levy et. al. [20], the savings would be 20 %." In the first paragraph under 4. Conclusions, page 10, the current text, “In this study, the environmental impact, energy consumption and durability of the Zero Energy Ready Home requirements for manufactured housing was compared to the standard design.” should read, “In this study, the environmental impact, energy consumption and durability of the Zero Energy Ready Home requirements for the envelope insulation of manufactured housing was compared to the standard design currently used by a supplier." Fig. 3: The hot water energy consumption does not use the equipment prescribed in the zero energy ready home program. The intent was to focus on the contribution of the building envelope only. Table 3: The reason for the value of Window should be BOM. Table 4: the quantity of Blown Cellulose for ZERH should be 1167.8 instead of 11678.8. Table 5: the quantity of Blown Cellulose for ZERH should be 747.3 kg and that for ZERH-AP should be 649.0 kg. The authors would like to apologise for the inconvenience caused.