This document discusses airtightness testing of large buildings. It begins by outlining the impacts of air leakage on building energy consumption, indoor air quality, durability, comfort and more. Despite this, building energy codes provide little guidance on air barriers or verification of performance. The document then reviews differences between testing houses versus high-rises, common test methods and standards, and examples of performance requirements in different jurisdictions. It presents data on airtightness test results and the impact of requirements. It also discusses trends in air barrier materials, impacts of testing, and clarifies the difference between airtightness and actual air leakage.
Structural Analysis and Design of Foundations: A Comprehensive Handbook for S...
Airtightness of Large Buildings - Where We're At and Where We're Going
1. 1 of 56
Airtightness of Large Buildings:
Where We’re At and Where We’re Going
HPO & BCBEC - BUILDING SMART WITH AIR AND VAPOUR BARRIERS
FEBRUARY 18, 2016
PRESENTED BY LORNE RICKETTS, MASC
2. 2 of 56
Airflow in and out of buildings affects:
Building Energy Consumption
Indoor Air Quality
Building Durability
Occupant Comfort (Thermal & Acoustics)
30% of secondary energy is used by buildings¹
>10% of that energy is attributable to air leakage² ³
1. Natural Resources Canada, 2014
2. VanBronkhorst, Persily, & Emmerich, 1995
3. Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 2007
4. 4 of 56
Despite the significant impact of
air leakage on building energy
consumption:
Building energy codes provide
little to no guidance
No verification of air barrier
performance is required
Many jurisdictions are
considering implementing whole
building airtightness testing
Is common for Part 9 already
5. 5 of 56
Loose Sheet Applied
Membrane – Taped Joints
& Strapping
Sealed Gypsum Sheathing
– Sealant Filler at Joints
Liquid Applied
Sealants/Membranes
Self-Adhered vapor
permeable membrane
Self-Adhered vapor
impermeable membrane
Curtainwall, window-wall
& glazing systems
Mass Walls
(concrete)
Sprayfoam
BUT, IT’S THE DETAILS THAT MATTER
9. 9 of 56
Test Methods and Procedures
Most common airtightness
test methods are based on
similar fundamental
principles
Fans are used to create a
pressure difference across
the building enclosure
Airflow rate through the fan
at specific pressure
difference(s) recorded
10. 10 of 56
Fan induced pressures must
exceed building pressures to
mitigate noise in data and
potential for error
More difficult for large buildings
than for houses
Test Methods and Procedures
11. 11 of 56
Test Methods and Procedures
More than just a
bigger house test
How do you get here
to seal these?
Fans
12. 12 of 56
Test Methods and Procedures
Lots of Gear…
13. 13 of 56
Standards and Qualifications
Many Standards Exist
CGSB 149.10 & 149.15
ASTM E 779 & ASTM E 1827 (blower door)
US Army Corps of Engineers
Air Barrier Association of America (ABAA)
National Environmental Balancing Bureau (NEBB)
Airtightness Testing and Measurements
Association (ATTMA) in the UK
Not Many Qualification Programs Exist
NEBB Building Enclosure Testing Certified Professional
14. 14 of 56
Test Methods and Procedures
Testing may be difficult for
buildings which are:
Large
Tall
Air-leaky and/or
Compartmentalized
It may be more feasible to
test smaller sections
Floor-by-Floor
Suite-by-Suite
15. 15 of 56
Test Methods and Procedures
+50 Pa
0 Pa 0 Pa
0 Pa
0 Pa 0 Pa
Exterior=0Pa
0 Pa
0 Pa
0 Pa
Exterior=0Pa
+50 Pa
Section View – Floor Above and Below Plan View – Test Floor
Test # 1 – Pressurize Suite (Adjacent Suites Open to Exterior)
+50 Pa
+50 Pa +50 Pa
0 Pa
0 Pa 0 Pa
Exterior=0Pa
0 Pa
0 Pa
0 Pa
Exterior=0Pa
+50 Pa
Test # 2 – Pressurize Suite and Floor Above
Section View – Floor Above and Below Plan View – Test Floor
+50 Pa
+50 Pa +50 Pa
0 Pa
+50 Pa +50 Pa
Exterior=0Pa
0 Pa
0 Pa
0 Pa
Exterior=0Pa
+50 Pa
Test # 3 – Pressurize Suite, Floors Above and Below
Section View – Floor Above and Below Plan View – Test Floor
+50 Pa
+50 Pa +50 Pa
+50 Pa
+50 Pa +50 Pa
Exterior=0Pa
0 Pa
+50Pa
0 Pa
Exterior=0Pa
+50 Pa
Test # 4 – Pressurize Suite, Floors Above and Below, and Hallway
Section View – Floor Above and Below Plan View – Test Floor
+50 Pa
+50 Pa +50 Pa
+50 Pa
+50 Pa +50 Pa
Exterior=0Pa
+50 Pa
+50Pa
0 Pa
Exterior=0Pa
+50 Pa
Test # 5 – Pressurize Suite, Floor Above and Below, Hallway and Left Suite
Section View – Floor Above and Below Plan View – Test Floor
+50 Pa
+50 Pa +50 Pa
+50 Pa
+50 Pa +50 Pa
Exterior=0Pa
+50 Pa
+50Pa
+50 Pa
Exterior=0Pa
+50 Pa
Test # 6 – Pressurize Suite and All Adjacent Interior Surfaces
Section View – Floor Above and Below Plan View – Test Floor
16. 16 of 56
Performance & Testing Requirements
Washington State & Seattle, ABAA
Target, GSA, IBC Option
< 2.0 L/(s·m²) @ 75 Pa
US Army Corps of Engineers
< 1.26 L/(s·m²) at 75 Pa
Passive House
0.6 ACH50 (~0.12 cfm/ft² at 75 Pa)
LEED, 6-sided apartment test
(~1.25 L/(s·m²) at 50 Pa)
UK (AATMA) Large Buildings
~0.70 to 1.75 L/(s·m²) at 75 Pa
Canada – currently no requirement
17. 17 of 56
Database of Test Results
Survey of Industry Preparedness
Where We’re At
18. 18 of 56
Where We’re At – The Data
Airtightness testing data was compiled in a database
from the following sources:
Published literature
Industry members
Unpublished data provided by the project team
721 Airtightness Tests
584 Unique Buildings
566 Acceptable Tests
for Comparison
19. 19 of 56
Where We’re At – The Numbers
Building Types
25%
20%
9%
46%
Types of Buildings in Database
Commercial
MURB
Institutional
Military
Sample of 566 buildings
16%
66%
18%
Location of Buildings in Database
Canada
USA
UK
Sample of 566 buildings
Building Locations
20. 20 of 56
Whole Building Airtightness Data
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
1945 1955 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015
Airtightness[cfm/ft²@75Pa]
Airtightness[L/(s.m²)@75Pa]
Construction of Building [year]
Airtightness Vs Year of Construction of All Buildings
Sample of 179 Buildings
Airtightness versus Year of Construction
21. 21 of 56
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Research USACE Washington
Airtightness[cfm/ft²@75Pa]
Airtightness[L/s·m2@75Pa]
Summary of Airtightness of Buildings, Research vs Required
Performance
Requirement
Performance
Requirement
(214 Buildings) (260 Buildings) (44 Buildings)
Maximum off scale at 25
Minimum
Median
Third Quartile
First Quartile
Whole Building Airtightness Data
Airtightness of Buildings – Impact of Requirements
Mandated performance and testing
makes a big difference!
22. 22 of 56
2.12
1.12
0.94
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
No Requirement, Post 2000
Construction
Washington USACE
Airtightness(cfm/ft²@75Pa)
Airtightness(L/s·m²@75Pa)
Jurisdiction Testing Requirements
Average Airtightness Test Results by Jurisdiction
Performance
Requirement
(2.0 L/ s·m2 @ 75 Pa)
Performance
Requirement
(1.25 L/ s·m2 @ 75 Pa)
(Count 31)
(Count 38) (Count 245)
Whole Building Airtightness Data
Airtightness of Buildings – Impact of Requirements
Reporting Only
24. 24 of 56
Impact of Requirements – Mandatory
Does airtightness requirement
increase cost?
Opinions of the Current
Airtightness Target
(< 0.40 cfm/ft² at 75 Pa)
[< 2.0 L/s·m² at 75 Pa]
56%
0%
33%
11%
Choose one of the following statements that best rep
opinion of current whole building air leakage targe
jurisdiction:
Okay A
Too Str
Too Len
Other
39%
0%
61%
Aside from the cost of the test itself, do you feel that whole building
air leakage requirements increase the total cost of construction?
No, or not significantly
Yes, significant
Yes, moderate
f, do you feel that whole building
the total cost of construction?
No, or not significantly
Yes, significant
Yes, moderate
56%33%
11%
Choose one of the following statements that best represents your
opinion of current whole building air leakage target in your
jurisdiction:
Okay As Is
Too Stringent
Too Lenient
Other
25. 25 of 56
84%
11%
5%
Impact of Requirements – Mandatory
Beneficial and
Worthwhile
Not Beneficial and Not
WorthwhileBeneficial, but
Not Worthwhile
26. 26 of 56
Passive House Airtightness
<0.6 ACH @ 50 Pa
~0.029 cfm/ft2 @ 75 Pa
Self-adhered sheet membrane
primary AB, transition to poly at
ceiling
27. 27 of 56
Passive House Airtightness
0.13 ACH @50 Pa
~0.014 cfm/ft2 @75 Pa
Sealed sheathing primary AB transition to SA membrane at roof
28. 28 of 56
Industry Testing Capacity
Locations of Companies Contacted to Complete Survey
30. 30 of 56
Industry Testing Capacity
Ratings of qualifications, cost and availability of whole
building airtightness testing services in Canada
Sample of 105 responses
Shift
33. 33 of 56
Impact of Testing
Other In-Situ M&V Measures
Commissioning of Fire
Safety Systems
Balancing of
HVAC Systems
Water Penetration
Testing of Windows
34. 34 of 56
Impact of Testing
The Life of a Building
Upstream Effects
Material Selection
Assembly Design
Quality Control
35. 35 of 56
Seeing Shifts from Mechanically Attached to
Self-Adhered Membranes & Liquid Applied Membranes
Trends in Air Barrier System Selection
36. 36 of 56
Trends in Air Barrier System Selection
Seeing shifts from common sheet applied bituminous
peel and stick membranes to non-bituminous
adhesives, and to liquids
37. 37 of 56
New AB/WRB Materials in a Growing Market
Many new self-adhered
and liquid applied vapour
permeable sheathing
membranes available on
the market
Fills a niche of combined
vapour permeable
air-barrier/WRB on
exterior of sheathing
38. 38 of 56
Lessons Learned with New Materials So Far…
Compatibility?
Wet Weather?
Long-term Durability?
Self-Sealing?
Cold Weather?
Crack Bridging?
39. 39 of 56
Changes in Design Process
Clear identification of air
barrier on all drawings
both at detail level and
at whole building level
40. 40 of 56
Changes in Quality Control
Noticeable improvements as soon as somebody cares –
specific people designated to look at air barrier
Coordination between all team members essential
Air Boss
41. 41 of 56
Impact of Testing
The Life of a Building
Upstream Effects
Material Selection
Assembly Design
Quality Control
42. 42 of 56
Impact of Testing
The Life of a Building
Downstream Effects
Energy Consumption
Indoor Air Quality
Acoustics
Durability
43. 43 of 56
Why Airtightness isn’t Air Leakage
What it Is and What it Isn’t
44. 44 of 56
Airtightness vs Air Leakage
Airtightness is only tells us about the size of the hole,
says nothing about the pressure difference
No pressure
difference, no flow
No hole,
no flow
It takes BOTH pressure
difference and a hole for flow.
45. 45 of 56
Airtightness vs Air Leakage
In-service air leakage is the combination of airtightness
and pressure differences created by the driving forces
of airflow
46. 46 of 56
Driving Forces
Climate
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
PercentageofDrivingForcePressure
Daily Average Distribution of Pressure Difference due to Driving
Forces for a 40 m Tall Building in Miami40m Tall Building in Miami
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
PercentageofDrivingForcePressure
Daily Average Distribution of Pressure Difference due to Driving
Forces for a 40 m Tall Building in Vancouver40m Tall Building in Vancouver40m Tall Building in Toronto
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
PercentageofDrivingForcePressure
Daily Average Distribution of Pressure Difference due to Driving
Forces for a 40 m Tall Building in Toronto
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
PercentageofDrivingForcePressure
Daily Average Distribution of Pressure Difference due to Driving
Forces for a 40 m Tall Building in Fairbanks40m Tall Building in Yellowknife
Wind Stack Effect Mechanical
(10 Pa)
47. 47 of 56
Building Height
Driving Forces
Wind Stack Effect Mechanical
(10 Pa)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
PercentageofDrivingForcePressure
Daily Average Distribution of Pressure Difference due to Driving
Forces for a 20 m Tall Building in New York
20m Tall Building in Vancouver
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
PercentageofDrivingForcePressure
Daily Average Distribution of Pressure Difference due to Driving
Forces for a 40 m Tall Building in New York
40m Tall Building in Vancouver
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
PercentageofDrivingForcePressure
Daily Average Distribution of Pressure Difference due to Driving
Forces for a 60 m Tall Building in New York
60m Tall Building in Vancouver
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
PercentageofDrivingForcePressure
Daily Average Distribution of Pressure Difference due to Driving
Forces for a 80 m Tall Building in New York
80m Tall Building in Vancouver
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
PercentageofDrivingForcePressure
Daily Average Distribution of Pressure Difference due to Driving
Forces for a 100 m Tall Building in New York
100m Tall Building in Vancouver
48. 48 of 56
Determining Air Leakage from Airtightness
Difficult to extrapolate airtightness test results to air
leakage rates because in-service pressure differences
are unknown
50. 50 of 56
Only One Piece Of the Puzzle
Building
Airflows
Occupants
Whole Building
Airtightness
Controls
Ventilation
Equipment
Climate
Operable Windows
Airtightness testing helps with
modelling inputs, but doesn’t
give us the whole answer.
52. 52 of 56
Where We’re At - Summary
Airtightness performance and testing requirements
have been implemented in other jurisdictions such as
Washington State, USACE, and GSA.
Target of 2.0 L/(s·m²) (0.40 cfm/ft²) at 75 Pa is
common
Numerous whole building airtightness testing
procedures and methodologies exist
Overall perceptions of whole building airtightness
testing seems positive
There is currently some capacity for whole building
airtightness testing in Canada/BC, but further capacity
needs to be developed
Technical training of testers likely needed
53. 53 of 56
Airtightness is Coming…
What’s in the code?
BCBC 2012, NECB 2011 and ASHRAE
90.1-2010
› Something like: The building envelope shall
be designed and constructed with a
continuous air barrier system.
› Some material requirements
› No testing requirements
What’s coming?
Next code cycles expect to adopted in
BC late 2017 to 2018 and likely to
include a testing requirement, and
potentially a performance requirement
54. 54 of 56
rdh.com | buildingsciencelabs.com
RDH Building Engineering Ltd. and Building Science Consulting Inc. have merged. Effective November 1, 2015, we now operate as
one integrated firm. The merger brings two of the leading building science firms in North America together to provide a
combination of cutting-edge research with leading design and implementation capabilities. The result is a unique offering for our
clients–an ability to explore new and innovative ideas based on science and our practical knowledge of what can be built. We are
excited about the possibilities as we launch the new firm.
Discussion + Questions
LORNE RICKETTS – LRICKETTS@RDH.COM
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE VISIT
Hinweis der Redaktion
One area where this whole building system approach is already beginning to be implemented is in airtightness
Moving away from specification for materials, components, and accessories (relatively meaningless) and moving instead towards performance for all of these acting as a system
Found that implementing performance and testing requirements for the whole building has had a large impact on the performance of the building
Interestingly, this has been found to have a fairly significant impact even when just testing is required (i.e. no mandated performance level)
- Survey of industry members involved with design, construction, and testing of air barriers in Washington State were surveyed and asked “In general, do you feel that whole building air leakage requirements are beneficial and worthwhile in terms of increased building performance & quality of design/workmanship?”
- Vast majority indicated that they found it to be both beneficial and worthwhile (despite any additional cost)
in addition to the obvious improvements in airtightness that have been realized, there are a number of somewhat secondary effects that this is having.
These requirements are impacting upstream material selection, assembly design, and quality control measures.
- There are some other M&V or commissioning measures which are currently done on buildings, and what we really see is that whenever there is an opportunity to have measure actual performance of a system of building as a whole, this can have dramatic impacts on performance as designers and builders are now accountable
in addition to the obvious improvements in airtightness that have been realized, there are a number of somewhat secondary effects that this is having.
These requirements are impacting upstream material selection, assembly design, and quality control measures.
Projects with airtightness testing typically require much more rigorous quality control and assurance
In places like Washington State and also in Passive House, often an “air boss” is used. Have to tell “air boss” whenever any holes in the air barrier are made so that they can make sure they are adequately fixed later on
in addition to the obvious improvements in airtightness that have been realized, there are a number of somewhat secondary effects that this is having.
These requirements are impacting upstream material selection, assembly design, and quality control measures.
Downstream this is impacting some things you would expect like energy consumption, which is the main reason it was implemented in the first place
But also having secondary benefits for things like indoor air quality, acoustics, and moisture durability
Airtightness provides a good quantitative measure of the quality of a building enclosure, which helps with all aspects including water resistance etc.