Hi everyone, 

   A couple of my colleagues were discussing the benefits of air sealing, when I was asked if I could quantify the actual value of air sealing based on how many BTU's per CFM(50) of air leak.  The software does the energy savings calculations of air sealing for my clients, but I was never asked the actual value per BTU. I guess if I could answer that I would have a better understanding of the math behind the savings. 

Can anyone help me with this? Is there a formula?

Thanks

Luis

Tags: CFM, air, energy, saving, sealing

Views: 1352

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Temp Difference x Actual CFM Leakage x 1.08 = BTU loss/gain.

Thanks Bob!

  I just want to make sure I am understanding this correctly... If the outside temperature average is 33, the inside is a heating design of 70 and the actual leakage is 14,200 CFM, the formula would be:

(70-33) x 14,200 x 1.08 => 37 x 14,200 x 1.08 =  567432 BTU loss/gain (is the a per hour figure)

 

I really appreciate your help understanding this! 

Luis

Luis, where are you getting the 14,200 CFM?  Is this a very large leaky building?

Bud

Yes, that is an actual reading... but I do not want that number change the main thing I am trying to understand how to do.... what about if the building leak was only 3500 CFM50?

You have to forget about CFM50, this isn't the condition the building normally operates at. You must use ACTUAL leakage rate under normal operation conditions, which is difficult to measure. This will vary considerably based on wind speed and outdoor temperature.

OK, I already forgot about CFM50... If the outside temperature average is 33, the inside is a heating design of 70 and the actual leakage is 2,200 CFM, the formula would be:

(70-33) x 2,200 x 1.08 => 37 x 2,200 x 1.08 =  87912 BTU loss/gain (is the a per hour figure?) Is the formula used correctly? 

Your help is greatly appreciated!

Remember to convert CFM (cubic feet per MINUTE) to cubic feet per HOUR (i.e. ft3/hr = CFM/60) if you want an answer in BTU/hr.

Maybe this will help.

Air requires 0.018 BTUs per cubic foot to raise its temperature 1° F.

CFM50 divided by "n" approximates the natural leakage, or just divide by 20.  Here is a link for determining what "n" should be in your area if you want to be more specific. http://www.waptac.org/data/files/Website_docs/Technical_Tools/Build...

But that's just a snapshot for one delta T.  If you want to know savings per year you need to convert ▲T to HDD.

I would recommend you pick up a copy of Residential Energy by Krigger and Dorsi as it covers all of these equations and a lot more.

Bud

If I'm reading that right the 14,200CFM50 would be about 710CFM in normal conditions?

The divide by 20 was an early attempt to convert from CFM50 to natural where they ran BD tests on a bunch of houses and then used tracer gas to determine the actual air leakage.  Dividing by twenty was a happy medium.  The "n" from LBL came later in an attempt to account for wind and exposure of the building.  In an article from one of the developers of the "n" number he stated the resulting estimate could be off by minus 50% to plus 100% so calling it a ball park estimate may be generous.

As for the 14,200 CFM, I think my BD only goes up into the 6,000 or 7,000 range and even with the "can't reach fifty" that may be beyond a single BD.  But I think Luis was just picking a number as an example.

Residential Energy shows an equation for annual air-leakage heating costs but I haven't figured out what units they are using and they multiply by "n" which confuses me.  Maybe Darrel will stop by.

Bud

Correction, I was looking at a 4th edition so pulled out my 5th edition and they have indeed changed that formula.  For Luis, here is what they give, just as they show it.

Credit Residential Energy by Krigger and Dorsi 5th edition:

ALH = ((26 x HDD x Fuel Price X CFM50)/(n x heating efficiency)) x 0.6

ALH is annual air leakage heating cost.

HDD is annual heating degree days.

n is the LBL correlation factor

The number 26 combines the heat capacity of air (0.018) with the factors 24 and 60 for relating CFM to HDD.

Now, they may have a newer edition, but this looks reasonable.  If you like it we can dig through it to determine what the needed numbers look like.

Bud

WoW, That looks fantastic!  I have the Krigger book... I have to dig it out and start reading this section! I am taking the BPI heating professional class in February so I am trying to get prepared to actually learn something from the class! Thank you Bud, you gave plenty of food for thought... I be practicing this formula this Week End! 

RSS

Home Energy Pros

Home Energy Pros was founded by the developers of Home Energy Saver Pro (sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy,) and brought to you in partnership with Home Energy magazine.

Latest Activity

reflintorm replied to Jamie Kaye's discussion Flickering LED lights
"I think, Better to replace the dimmer switch if it is not recovered then once go through the…"
2 hours ago
Kurt Shafer replied to Tom Conlon's discussion Whole House Fans - Love 'Em or Not?
"Glen,  You are the first person who has ever told me they prefer lower CFM. What you left out…"
12 hours ago
Glen Gallo replied to Tom Conlon's discussion Whole House Fans - Love 'Em or Not?
"Tamarack has lower CFM than typical fans and has a insulated lid that automatically closes when fan…"
12 hours ago
Tom Conlon's discussion was featured

Whole House Fans - Love 'Em or Not?

I just searched this forum for "Whole House Fan", but I didn't find much about them (except …See More
14 hours ago
Tom White shared Brandon Walton's blog post on Twitter
14 hours ago
Brandon Walton's blog post was featured

12 Things Every Home Performance Contractor Should Have on Their Work Truck

Every home is unique and differs from the last. It would be a perfect world (from a project…See More
14 hours ago
Griffin Hagle replied to Tom Conlon's discussion Whole House Fans - Love 'Em or Not?
15 hours ago
Griffin Hagle replied to Tom Conlon's discussion Whole House Fans - Love 'Em or Not?
"Kurt, Whoops, looks like I got my links mixed up. Thanks for pointing that out. Here's the…"
16 hours ago
Kurt Shafer replied to Tom Conlon's discussion Whole House Fans - Love 'Em or Not?
"Glen,  I went to Homepower.com and did a search for whole house fan. Could not find that…"
16 hours ago
Glen Gallo replied to Tom Conlon's discussion Whole House Fans - Love 'Em or Not?
"I no longer have my subscription to the Home Power Magazine but these figures were pulled from the…"
16 hours ago
Kurt Shafer replied to Tom Conlon's discussion Whole House Fans - Love 'Em or Not?
"Glen,  I read your blog with some interest.  You say  " Per the Home…"
16 hours ago
tedkidd commented on Scott Mellberg's blog post Lessons from Energy Efficiency Advisors: Getting Homeowners Onboard with Home Performance
"OMG, you are one of those myopic thinkers are you? Others do it better therefore drastic action is…"
17 hours ago

© 2014   Created by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service