Building Airflow Standards and the Average Contractor

Im running into some common issues in NYS that seem to keep coming up, and I am looking for feedback from others.  It is often noticed in my travels that a contractor will identify a target CFM50, and then work only to achieve that goal.

 

BPI's thoughts are,"Get them as tight as possible, fiqure out what amount of air needs to be made up, and provide make up air for that."

 

Are contractors afraid of the consequences of getting a home too tight?  Mold, Poor Client Health, etc, etc..  Is this because they dont understand the simpleness of supplying make up air?  Do they feel as though it is too costly?  Is it because Government Programs usually stiff the contractor on that type of measure?  Is it laziness? After all they achieved thier goals.  Is it that we as Trainers don't emphasize the ideals enough?

 

I am really just looking for thoughts.  I want to eventually address the problem locally.

 

 

Views: 1446

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

In the report I provide the general terminology "recommended standard for airflow" and then quickly discuss it's components (i.e. occupancy, volume, mechanical ventilation). The first point I stress is "leakiness." Folks typically don't want a leaky home, agreed? I tie comfort and healthy air into the mix to try and drive the importance of airflow management home.
The specific part of the report addresses not the "average" house but the one they live in. For example, not "Homes are typically leaky and can introduce a host of issues." Rather, my approach for better or worse, is to say "Your home (which I just spent 3 hours evaluating) has ratty FG in the attic, nothing in the walls, and a few other shortcomings. There are a lot of opportunities for cost-effective improvements, with immediate and long-lasting benefits to each.

Once the HOs see the full range of benefits to accrue from tightening up and controlling air exchange, I find that most almost completely shed their unease with tight houses.

I wonder what the house would look like during an opposing season. Assuming you are in a 4 season environment, would such a home that appears to be poorly constructed, had been "caught on a good day" where expansion & contraction provided ideal conditions, and falsely optimistic test results.

This sounds the difference between Pressure Boundary and Thermal Boundary.  Anyone who has lived in a mobile home can attest.

 

If you take a shoe box (mobile home), and wrap it in plastic (what they do), you have an outstanding pressure barrier, but no thermal barrier. 

 

I'd liken it to wearing a rubber boot, but no socks.  When the foot works, it heats up, that moisture from sweat gets trapped in the rubber boot.  When the foot stops, the heat stops, the non-insulated rubber boot lets the heat dissipate quickly, and the foot gets cold, and damp.

 

As for the BAS it is based on ASHRAE 62

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.2-2010, Ventilation and Acceptable Indoor Air Quality in Low-Rise Residential Buildings, is the only nationally recognized indoor air quality standard developed solely for residences. It defines the roles of and minimum requirements for mechanical and natural ventilation systems and the building envelope intended to provide acceptable indoor air quality in low-rise residential buildings.
The 2010 standard encourages home retrofits to improve indoor air quality through allowance of alternative methods for meeting the standard’s requirements regarding kitchen and bathroom exhaust fans. The standard currently requires fans in those rooms.

 

For the explaining part - I have to give props to Ben Stallings for the approach I use now which compares how the two types of houses "breething" equates to their living counterparts (Namely insects & humans)

You can find the three simple slides I used for a class to high school trade teachers on Energy Auditor Talk

Eric, can we do a little reconcilliation here?

What was:

SF
blower door cfm50
Your calc of 100% bas
How do you get the number (software, spreadsheet, pencil)

RSS

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Twitter

Latest Activity

Profile IconAshley Noreuil, Fred Smith and Peter Moncada joined Home Energy Pros
2 hours ago
George Matthews commented on George Matthews's event Proof is Possible Tour by the Home Performance Workshop
"Here is the flyer for the Advanced Techniques and Tools in Home Performance Friday October 7th at…"
14 hours ago
George Matthews posted an event

Proof is Possible Tour by the Home Performance Workshop at Truitt and White Lumber Conference Room

October 7, 2016 from 9am to 1pm
Building Energy Performance Testing is sponsoring the Proof is Possible Tour to come to the San…See More
15 hours ago
George Matthews replied to George Matthews's discussion Shortridge 8400 Flowhood for A/C airflow testing in the group Energy Auditing Equipment for Sale, Trade or to Purchase
"Here are the pics of the flowhood and airdata manometer"
Saturday
Sarah Holloway posted a photo
Friday
Joe Urycki added a discussion to the group Energy Auditing Equipment for Sale, Trade or to Purchase
Thumbnail

TEC blower door and UEI combustion analyzer for sale

For sale is one used TEC Minneapolis blower door system: Includes model 3 fan with rings A and B,…See More
Friday
John Nicholas replied to Kevin Emerson's discussion Studies re: radon mitigation and energy efficiency
"The Nay side is well represented with the links already posted. I presented a neutral side, with…"
Friday
Ray Lehman replied to Kevin Emerson's discussion Studies re: radon mitigation and energy efficiency
"Hey John, Thanks for the information.  Very good empirical data. While I agree that running…"
Friday

© 2016   Created by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service