Tag Archives: blower door

How was that possible?

A couple of years back, after all major air sealing, we had a blower door test result of 2.1 ACH @ 50 pascal. This February the results dropped to 0.62 ACH @ 50 pascal in a follow up test! How was that possible?

From what I have read and heard, once the major air sealing is completed, it becomes increasingly difficult to tease out additional improvements in the blower door test results. And a drop from 2.1 to 0.62 ACH @ 50 pascal is – well – a massive improvement.

Let’s start by looking at what I mean by…

Major air sealing

In one sentence: We took good care of the building envelope.

On the 1st floor we had an application of closed cell foam followed by a layer of open cell foam. The 2nd floor just got one layer of closed cell foam. The closed cell foam on both floors was acting as our air barrier across the masonry wall plane.

The closed cell foam only provides a functioning air barrier if it is diligently installed. On a sloppy spray job, you may have to contend with leaks in your air barrier. I point to some examples here: on the open cell job on our 1st floor.

We air sealed the top of the attic with drywall, which was taped and mudded. The gaps around the attic edges were sealed with another bead of foam.

All penetrations through the building envelope were diligently sealed, typically with foam. Examples are:

  • The ERV fresh air intake and exhaust
  • The range hood exhaust
  • Any electrical conduits leading to the exterior
  • Any low voltage conduits leading to the exterior
  • The supply and return lines to our minisplits
  • Etc.

You can seal around electrical conduits, but that still leaves with a big hole – the conduit itself. To plug the conduit, we diligently used duct putty.

I made sure we had decent weather stripping on our exterior doors. And then there were the windows. We had good quality replacement windows on the 1st floor, while the 2nd floor still had the old double hung vinyl windows. However, I made sure the perimeter of each window was properly sealed.

This was our baseline that gave us the blower door test result of 2.1 ACH @ 50 pascal. Now let’s take a look at what may have caused the drop to 0.62 ACH @ 50 pascal.

The 1st floor

I took a mental walk through all improvements on the 1st floor, major or minor, since we completed the major air sealing.

There was some additional air sealing on the kitchen back door. This is a fancy way of saying, “I installed some additional weather stripping.” The back door was pretty air tight to begin with, though, so I am not sure that this effort contributed that much.

There was the transom window over the kitchen back door. It had a temporary window that most likely was not properly air sealed. I didn’t replace it with a properly sized window until I ordered the replacement windows for the 2nd floor last fall. This should have contributed to the reduction in air leakage.

 

I suspect that the biggest impact lies with the air sealing work I did on the 1st floor casement windows. Regular readers may recall my air leakage problems in the corners of the casements. The manufacturer was not able to resolve the issue, but was gracious enough to refund me the money for the leaky windows.

As described in a past post, the problem came down to 1/16 inch and I was determined to plug that gap. I invested a little research time online and found a single coated, low density, PVC foam tape, 1/16 inch thick. I installed it on the operable part of the casement, right across from the gaskets on the casement frame. The foam tape pushed against the gaskets, closed the gaps, and eliminated the air leaks. I could tell it did, because the cold drafts on windy winter days disappeared.

 

 

2nd floor

Like on the 1st floor, I did some additional air sealing around the 2nd floor back door. The most significant improvement may have come from my work on the door threshold, which was not properly sealed.

But the biggest reduction in air leaks must have come from the 2nd floor replacement windows, which I installed last fall. I thought I had done a good job air sealing the old double hung windows after we finished with the spray foam installation, but the blower door test numbers tell me otherwise.

Conclusion

I clearly underestimated the amount of air leakage from the 1st floor casement windows and the effect of good quality replacement windows on the 2nd floor. Or, I overestimated the effect of my air sealing efforts on those old double hung windows.

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the windows were the major contributors to the drop from 2.1 to 0.62 ACH @ 50 pascal.

So, maybe it is not that difficult to improve your blower door results after all major air sealing after all! Or maybe I have a unique definition of what “major air sealing” means.

And here is another thought: I made it my job throughout our deep energy retrofit to stay on top of all air sealing efforts and moisture management issues. That was my responsibility. There was no hole in the building envelope I didn’t know about or I didn’t make sure was sealed properly.

Most other remodels, gut-rehabs, energy retrofits, or even new construction that follow conventional methods probably won’t have that one person who is in charge of tracking the air sealing. There are a number of contractors and tradespeople coming and going, all doing their own thing, but no one person has a real incentive to pay attention to details – sometimes not even the details of their own work. Air sealing is probably not on their mind, or may not even be a concept to some.

Usually there is the general contractor, who, one could assume, would be in charge of managing all contractors and tradespeople and making sure air sealing is tracked and accounted for. But the success stories seem to be more an exception than the rule.

Building green has an uphill battle ahead with a lack of skilled labor, with contractors that often don’t think an inch beyond their own trade, and with no one on the job site who is responsible for tracking air sealing from the planning stages to the final execution.

Related posts:

A magic 0.6 – as airtight as it gets

Reaching a major milestone is a reason to celebrate. But what do you do when you exceed all expectations and it takes you by surprise?

Old buildings like ours are notoriously leaky. Even a lot of newer buildings are. That’s something you will notice when you try to escape the cold drafts in your own home on a windy winter day. We know how leaky our building was before we started with the deep energy retrofit, because we conducted a blower door test on the 2nd floor unit. It leaked a whopping 4,763 cfm @ 50 pascal.

The blower door basically depressurizes the building or unit by 50 pascal. At that point you take a reading of the airflow. In our case, the 4,763 cfm @ 50 pascal is the air volume that is leaking through the building or unit. To get to a metric that has a common denominator, the airflow is converted into air exchanges per hour or ACH @ 50 pascal. We ended up with 13.9 ACH @ 50 pascal.

Our results were not that unusual. Blower door test results often range from 7 – 15 ACH @ 50 pascal, depending on the building.

What are the air leakage standards?

Air leakage standards in the U.S. are a moving target. There is no national standard; instead, a builder or homeowner can pick from a list of requirements. Here are some examples:

The PHIUS standard discontinued to use the metric of air exchanges per hour (ACH), and instead replaced it with cubic feet per minute (cfm) of air infiltration per square foot of gross building envelope area, measured at 50 and 75 pascal. The rationale behind this metric is that it can be scaled, unlike ACH. Because ACH is based on the building volume, it allows larger buildings to have a greater rate of air leakage compared to smaller buildings. And where do air leaks occur? At the surface of the building enclosure. Thus it appears logical to measure air leakage based on the gross building envelope area.

How did we do?

We ran a blower door test on the 2nd floor unit after we finished with the spray foam insulation and major air sealing. The results were 720 cfm @ 50 pascal or 2.1 ACH @ 50 pascal. That was a remarkable improvement over the 13.9 ACH @ 50 pascal and caused some excitement.

About a year later we conducted a blower door test on the finished 1st floor unit during a project tour organized by the Chicago Community Loan Fund.That test gave us a reading of 630 cfm @ 50 pascal which also equated 2.1 ACH @ 50 pascal.

 

I have learned over the past years through reading and talking with green builders that once the major air sealing is done, shaving the last few 1/10th off an ACH @ 50 pascal is painstaking work. It involves a lot of chasing, tracking and sealing small air leaks.

All our major air sealing work was completed. My hope was that I would be able to get a final result of just under 2 ACH @ 50 pascal by plugging the last few leaks I could find. That would have made me very happy!

In for a major surprise…

This past week, I hosted another tour of our deep energy retrofit. It was organized by Eco Achievers, our LEED rater and also a PHIUS+ Rater. Part of the tour was another blower door test demonstration. This time we tested the 1st and 2nd floor unit together.

 

The reading of 385 cfm @ 50 pascal seemed unreal. So much so that I asked to start the test over again including another recalibration of the blower door equipment. Yet we got the same reading for a second time.

385 cfm @ 50 pascal for the 1st and 2nd floor unit equates 0.62 ACH @ 50 pascal! If I use the PHIUS metric, I come up with 0.05 cfm50 per square foot of gross envelope area.

Do I need to say that it took a while for this to sink in? Never in my wildest dreams would I have thought a less than or equal to 1 ACH @ 50 pascals would be possible on our deep energy retrofit. I guess it’s time to celebrate! And I have to find out how I managed to drop from 2.1 to 0.62 ACH @ 50 pascal.

Related posts:

Blower door test – after insulation

It was time to face the music – or better, the roar of the blower door fan.

Quick recap: We applied for an insulation rebate. To qualify for the rebate, we were required to demonstrate an energy savings of at least 30%. The energy savings are in part calculated on how leaky or air tight a building is.

John, from Chicago Home Performance, conducted a blower door test prior to any insulation and air sealing. That pre-improvement test is used as the baseline to calculate the energy savings. It turned out that our 2nd floor was pretty drafty at 4,763 cfm50 or 13.9 ach50.

The preparations

A lot of work has been completed since that first test:

Were we done with all the air sealing tasks? No – not yet. I still needed to install an insulated back door from the kitchen to the porch and replace the remaining double hung windows with new insulated glazing units (IGU’s).

But – with the insulation rebate deadline approaching, these items just had to wait. We needed to get the post-improvement blower door test done – quickly!

The test

John set up his blower door equipment, just like he did for the pre-improvement test. He fired up the fan – and he didn’t get a reading at first!

The blower door fan has two flow rings (A and B) and a lid that covers the center.

 

The building was so leaky during the pre-improvement test that John had all of the flow rings on the fan removed.

 

Fast forward to post-improvements: We had tightened up the building so much that, with all flow rings removed, there wasn’t enough airflow velocity through the fan to yield a valid reading. John increased the velocity by constricting the airflow with the flow ring A, and eventually with the flow ring B.

 

That finally gave us a valid reading:

720 cubic feet per minute at 50 pascal (720 cfm50) or 2.1 air exchanges at 50 pascal (2.1 ach50).

That is an 85% reduction compared to the 4,763 cfm50 or 13.9 ach50 of the pre-improvement test.

Needless to say that our air sealing and insulation work paid off. We were all surprised – pleasantly surprised!

The meaning of…

What does 85% reduction in air leakage or 2.1 ach50 mean? It would be more than enough to meet the energy rebate requirement of 30% energy savings. But how does it compare to other projects or standards?

The recently published International Energy Conservation Code (IECC 2012) requires buildings to meet 3 ach50 for climate zone 5 (Chicago is in climate zone 5).

The Canadian R-2000 program mandates 1.5 ach50, while the Passive House standard requires 0.6 ach50. The latter is a hard one to achieve, even in new construction.

The Green Building Advisor blog post “Blower Door Basics” by Martin Holladay mentions that “a 2002 study of 24 new Wisconsin homes showed a median air leakage of 3.9 ach50” and “new home builders in Minnesota routinely achieve 2.5 ach50.”

Mind you, these are results for new construction. Tightening up an existing building is considered to be notoriously more difficult. So I think we are doing pretty well with our 2.1 ach50 – although I would like to get it down to 1.5 ach50.

Maybe we will get there once we install the drywall, tape and mud it, once the new kitchen back door is in, and once we have all the new replacement windows installed.

To learn more about blower door tests, read the following:

GreenBuildingAdvisor.com – Blower Door Basics

Wikipedia.org – Blower door

Related posts:

 

Blower door test – before insulation

I mentioned the blower door test, which is one of the insulation rebate requirements. To quantify the energy savings we need to conduct one blower door test prior and one after the insulation installation.

What is a blower door test?

A blower door test depressurizes the building (typically to 50 pascal) and measures the resulting air flow in and out of the building. This test establishes how air tight a building is, and/or allows the detection of air leaks that need to be fixed.

Why do air leaks or air tightness matter? Because unwanted air movement can significantly negate the effect of insulation. The classic example is batt insulation in a stud wall. If cold or hot air can blow through the insulation batts, they have little insulation value.

Depressurizing the building sounds complicated, but is relatively straight forward. It starts with an adjustable metal frame that can be fitted into a door, typically the front or back door. Before the fitting, the frame gets wrapped into a cover, which has a hole toward the bottom for a powerful fan that will take care of the depressurizing.

Measuring the pressure differentials and air leakage is a little more complicated. It requires a sophisticated pressure and flow gauge which is mounted on the inside of the blower door, and a few tubes.

You may have noticed in the video above the small green tube that John placed on the front porch and through the fan opening. That tube references the pressure outside the building and connects to the gauge, which at the same time measures the pressure inside the building.

To measure the airflow, the gauge measures again the pressure inside the building and references it against the pressure inside the fan, which is connected to the gauge with a small red tube.

Conducting the test

We were almost ready to go, except for a few more items that needed to be checked:

  • Close all windows and exterior doors (except the one with the blower door).
  • Install all deadbolts and door knobs in exterior doors, or seal over them (in our case, the back door leading to the porch).
  • Seal all ventilation terminals (HRV and range hood).
  • Fill all dry P-traps with water – sinks, showers, floor drains, etc.
  • Seal any conduits connecting the basement and first floor to the second floor.
  • Turn off heating equipment or water heaters (did not apply here as the heating equipment is located in the basement, not the 2nd floor, which we were testing).

One note on the numbers shown on the pressure and flow gauge: The number to the left shows the pressure reading (in pascal), and the number on the right shows the airflow in cubic feet per minute (cfm).

The first test results

Our official reading for the 2nd floor was 4,763 cfm at 50 pascal (4,763 cfm50).

Another metric that is used is air changes per hour at 50 pascal (ach50). To convert to an ach50 value, I multiply the cfm50 reading by 60 (60 minutes) and divide the result by the building volume (20,608 cubic feet for the second floor).

4,763 cfm50 * 60 minutes / 20,608 cubic feet = 13.9 ach50

In translation: While the 2nd floor is depressurized to 50 pascal, its entire air volume is exchanged almost 14 times per hour.

4,763 cfm50 or 13.9 ach50 appear to be high numbers but are not that uncommon for old buildings like ours. Here is what John from Chicago Home Performance, who did the blower door test, had to say:

Your house actually falls right in line with what I would expect with masonry buildings of similar construction type/age. I would say 7-15 ach50 is pretty normal depending on what has been done to the building over time. However, I have seen them as high as 20 ach50 in some really beat up places.

We have a pretty leaky 2nd floor. In fact, while we ran the blower door test, I walked around, felt the drafts and could easily follow them to their source. Take the unsealed gap between the 1st and 2nd floor for example…

… or the old double hung windows in the south wall.

Areas like this need serious air sealing. Some, like the old window, were sealed when we installed the replacement windows, while others, like the floor gap, wait for the closed cell SPF (spray polyurethane foam) application.

To learn more about blower door tests, visit the GreenBuildingAdvisor.com blog: Blower Door Basics.

Related posts: