HBI set out to achieve a LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) Silver rating for its rehabilitation of H.H.
Richardson’s Hayden Building. We enlisted
Conservation Services Group to guide us through this process. Conservation Services Group’s Consulting and
Construction Services group works with owners, architects, and builders to
achieve high performance buildings: healthy, durable, energy efficient, and affordable.
A cornerstone of CSG’s work is in-field verification to support the successful
implementation of smart designs. We asked Gabe Baldwin of CSG to write about
the challenges of making the Hayden Building air tight.
The Hayden Building project is on track to meet Gold rating under LEED
for Homes Midrise, a higher rating than initially planned. This process requires a series of third party inspections by
the Green Rater (CSG) to verify that the claimed measures are integrated into
the building. Measures include fresh air ventilation systems with
MERV 10 filters and heat recovery, low flow water saving fixtures, reclaimed and sustainably sourced building
materials, and an estimated 49.4% energy savings.
One of the major requirements for
LEED for Homes Midrise is achieving a high level of compartmentalization, or
unit to unit air tightness. Unit compartmentalization is important in ensuring
occupant health, safety, and energy efficiency. It helps control the movement
of fire, smoke, odors, pests, and noise between units.
Historic buildings face a greater
challenge meeting the compartmentalization targets than new buildings. New
buildings, when designed properly,are able to use consistent materials that tie
into each other minimizing air flow between units. The Hayden Building in comparison
has existing building materials that were never designed to stop air flow.
Looking over the building plans
helped us anticipate where air sealing would be required. Walking the building
throughout construction has allowed us to identify many of the air leakage
areas and what air sealing measures could be used to improve the assembly.
At the Hayden building we went above
and beyond to ensure that we are on track to meet the compartmentalization
requirements at the end of the project by performing a preliminary Blower Door
Test. The Blower
Door Test is used to quantify air infiltration and ex-filtration. A calibrated
fan is used to induce industry standard pressure differentials, while a gauge
measures the airflow.
The preliminary Blower Door Test allowed
us to identify the following air leakage pathways:
·
-Windows- The
existing windows were very leaky; the new interior storm windows reduced the
leakage substantially although not to the level of a new construction grade window.
Installing the interior storms allowed the building to maintain its historic
appeal while getting the biggest energy bang for the buck.
·
-Shafts- Ductwork
and plumbing run up through each unit to the roof.
·
-Unit Common Wall to Stairway- The intersection
of new construction and existing construction is challenging at this connection.
·
-Roof wall intersection- The
connection between the historic stone and brick façade and the existing but not
historic flat roof.
·
-Penetrations- Electrical,
plumbing, and the many other reasons holes exist need to be fully sealed to
stop air flow in unit’s floors, walls, and ceilings.
As
construction continues, air sealing will be included at each step, especially
at the above locations, to ensure that each unit passes the final Blower Door
Tests.
Find out more about CSG and the services that they provide
at their website below: http://www.csgrp.com/business/business_lines/new_construction.html


We have utilized ASTM E 783 – "Standard Test Method for Field Measurement of Air Leakage Through Installed Exterior Windows and Doors" as a more accurate test for this application rather than the “Blower Door Test” ASTM E 1827, "Standard Test Method for Determining Airtightness of Buildings Using an Orifice Blower Door(Leakage Rate by Fan Pressurization)". ASTM E 783 is also a less costly test to perform.
ReplyDeleteHello Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThe ASTM 1827 and ASTM 783 deal with totally different aspects of building diagnositcs. 783 is primarily a window assembly test, where as 1827 dictates testing of the entire enclosure of the building. Compartmentilization also can be very strenuous and needs continuous oversight, as well as an increased amount of testing to allow the discovery of infiltration pathways between the unit across the exterior walls, but more importantly in multi-family applications it allows for the reduction in noise, odors, pests, etc. by reducing commonly ignored party wall infiltration.
You are correct. ASTM 783 is only a cost effective option if testing windows only. The reason I brought this up is that we had a project where a consultant specified ASTM 1827 for window only testing.
ReplyDelete