Tags: envelope

INTRODUCTION

Inadequate control of airflow through the building envelope is often a primary factor contributing to premature building envelope failures. If moisture-laden air is permitted to travel through the building envelope, the moisture may, under certain environmental conditions, condense within the walls of the structure. In above-freezing conditions, this may cause corrosion or rotting of the structural components, staining of the interior and/or exterior facade, and may stimulate the growth of mold and mildew. In cold climates, accumulated moisture may experience numerous freeze-thaw cycles, which can precipitate spalling and the formation of icicles on the exterior facade.

Air leakage is also a concern in areas where interior temperatures differ greatly from exterior temperatures, such as the Prairie Provinces, which can experience periods of extreme cold during the winter and extreme heat during the summer. The excessive heating and cooling loads placed upon buildings in this type of climate leads not only to an increase in space conditioning costs to the owner, but also has a negative impact upon the environment through increased energy consumption and the emission of greenhouse gases. In fact, studies conducted on high-rise residential and commercial buildings in cold climates have shown that anywhere from 20 to 50 percent of heat loss can be attributed to air leakage.

In Canada, building rehabilitation for roofing and wall system repairs and replacement cost an estimated $7.5 billion annually. A conservative estimate of the premature failure rate is 3 to 5 percent, or $225 to $375 million per year, with premature failure defined as any performance condition requiring repair or replacement of the system before the benchmark date. The building envelope has been identified as being particularly vulnerable to durability problems.
It is the growing global awareness of these air leakage-related problems that is driving the federal governments in Canada and the United States to introduce more stringent codes and regulations to govern building air permeance. In order to improve occupant health and safety, revisions were made to the National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) in 1995 designed to reduce air leakage in buildings, including those buildings classified within Part 3 of the Code1. Public Works Canada also recently revised their National Master Specification to include air barrier inspection and testing. In the United States, Persily’s Envelope Design Guidelines for Federal Office Buildings: Thermal Integrity and Airtightness (1993) also documents the requirements as outlined in the NBCC. In addition, State Energy Codes are being adopted and/or revised, making air barriers a mandatory requirement in new construction and retrofits. ASHRAE/IENSA Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings (90.1-1999) also governs building envelope sealing.
Recently, air barrier trade associations have formed in Canada and the United States with the objective to improve the quality of air barrier system installations by providing education and training for the workforce. For an installer to become ‘certified’ through the association, an applicant must possess the required knowledge of air barrier material and system theory, and demonstrate sufficient skills in practical applications. In addition, through the associations’ quality assurance programs, documented self-testing and on-site third party audits are performed to verify the quality of the installation, and confirm the certified installers’ ability to build to expected standards.

While there are numerous ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) methods, says Jan Luistermans, for testing air barrier systems and/or components, there is no generic regimen for the application of these techniques being utilized on a widespread basis. The need for a complete design, inspection and testing protocol for air barrier systems cannot be understated. A recent study concluded that even routine testing can have a significant impact upon the airtightness of a building. Where air leakage testing was conducted, there was an overall reduction in air leakage for the system, a significant decrease in heating and cooling loads, a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and an increase in the life cycle of the building envelope.
With the growing use of inaccessible air barrier systems (such as bituminous membranes), on-site inspection and testing during installation is necessary to identify problems before the system is covered with finishing materials. The cost to repair an air barrier system after it has been covered can be conservatively estimated to be 50-60 times the cost of a correct first-time installation. Hence, the need for inspection and testing is obvious.

ABSTRACT

The negative impacts that can be attributed to air leakage through the building envelope are primarily threefold:

  1. damage to the building envelope components;
  2. increased heating and cooling loads resulting in excessive energy consumption and a subsequent increase in greenhouse gas emissions; and
  3. occupant health and comfort issues caused by drafts, the entry of dust and pollution into residential living quarters, and wetting of materials which can stimulate the growth of mold and mildew.

The growing North American concern in these regards is the driving force behind the development and implementation of more stringent government regulation for air barrier systems in buildings, including those buildings classified within Part 3 of the National Building Code of Canada. As it is only recently that air barrier system technologies have begun being applied on a widespread basis in North American buildings, it can be reasonably expected that flaws would exist in the current ‘process’ of air barrier system design and installation. The prevalence of premature building envelope failures, increasing levels of energy consumption, and health concerns would suggest that the quality of air barrier installation is questionable. While air barrier system failures are most commonly the result of installation deficiencies, there are instances where material and/or design flaws are factors contributing to the system failure.
This article presents a methodology to help both designers and installers deliver an air barrier system that meets the requirements and recommendations of the National Building Code of Canada and any specifications particular to that project. Common design and installation flaws will be identified, and a protocol for the inspection and testing of the system, as it is being installed, will be documented. Reviewed by Marty Lapedus.

How do these elements come together on a project? We often hear talk about “capturing synergies” with integrated design but what do we really mean? Let’s look at a common example. Typically, high-performance glazing costs more than standard glazing that satisfies the Code requirements, and so it is rarely specified. What happens if that highperformance, solar-control glazing reduces the air-conditioning load enough that the mechanical system duct size can be reduced significantly? Now the structural beams can be reduced in depth, and floor-to-floor height can be reduced. Mechanical, structural and cladding costs have come down—perhaps enough to pay for the high-performance glazing. If the building is tall enough, perhaps an extra floor can be added while still fitting under height restrictions.

What happens if the better glazing and insulation improve wall and window thermal properties enough that perimeter radiant heating is not required to maintain cold weather comfort or the window properties are able to reduce overheating in summer?
Now you have gained back at least an extra six inches of leasable space around the building perimeter, saved energy costs and have more satisfied occupants. These measures can increase the client’s rate of return—again paying for the improvements in envelope performance.

Any one of these improvements, if looked at in isolation, would not be considered affordable. Savings like this will not be realized unless there is an integrated process where the mechanical and structural engineers, energy modeller and likely the cost consultant and property management, are all sitting down very early on with the architect and talking about building envelope and its impacts on other systems.
Without the dialogue at an early stage, no system will be supportive of any other system and the synergies won’t be captured. These are some examples of synergies, but nearly every project will reveal other opportunities. Improvements like this are more affordable if done together than if done separately. Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, first identified this possibility which he calls “Tunnelling Through the Cost Barrier,” Reviewed by Marty Lapedus.