An investigation of alternative methods for determining envelope airtightness from suite-based testing in multi-unit residential buildings

• Published in: Energy and buildings 2020-05, Vol.214, p.109845, Article 109845
• Main Authors: Fine, Jamie P., Gray, Jason, Tian, Xinxiu, Touchie, Marianne F.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Air flow; Air leakage; Air tightness testing; Airtightness; Buildings; Computer simulation; Construction; CONTAM; Error analysis; Flow characteristics; Flow rates; Flow velocity; High rise buildings; Housing; Methods; Model accuracy; Multi-unit residential building; MURB; Neutralization; Noise; Noise measurement; Noise sensitivity; Pressure; Pressure neutralization test; Residential areas; Residential buildings
• ISSN: 0378-7788; 1872-6178
• DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.109845

•Two alternative air tightness test methods are examined for use in high-rise MURBs.•A sequential pressure neutralization test is successfully performed in a MURB suite.•Field test results are used to calibrate a CONTAM air flow model.•The Love and Passmore method exhibited a characterization error of 108%.•The Lstiburek method exhibited a characterization error of 0.2%. Blower door testing is commonly used to characterize exterior façade air leakage in buildings. This characterization is needed to improve the accuracy of energy models and certify building performance. Performing these tests in large buildings requires air flow rates that are sometimes impractical to achieve using available equipment, which necessitates testing in individual zones within those buildings. However, when performing these tests in individual zones, the conventional whole-suite tests are unable to isolate the required envelope flow characteristics and pressure neutralization tests are, in most cases, too logistically difficult to perform, which necessitates an investigation into alternative methods. In this study, two methods developed for use in row housing were adapted to a high-rise multi-unit residential building (MURB) context in which the test suite is surrounded by adjacent suites: The Love and Passmore method, and the Lstiburek method. The efficacy of these adapted techniques was assessed in a single suite located in a high-rise MURB that followed typical North American construction habits. To carry out these assessments, a combination of field data and calibrated CONTAM simulations are used. For the case study building, the Love and Passmore method exhibits exterior boundary characterization errors of 108%, and is inappropriate for this characterization in high-rise MURBs. Alternatively, the Lstiburek method exhibits an exterior boundary characterization error of 0.2%, but additional analysis showed the Lstiburek method exhibits greater sensitivity to measurement noise than the pressure neutralization method. As a result of this increased noise sensitivity, and because of the similar labour and equipment requirements, it is therefore also not recommended as a replacement for the pressure neutralization method. It is important to note that buildings constructed using different details and techniques may exhibit different results, which is a limitation of this study. Details related to these tests, including a discussion of potential shortcomings and strengths, are prese