Building Design & Construction
Reed Business Information

FREE Subscriptions:	Quick Links:
:: Print Edition :: Digital Edition :: eNewsletters	:: Reader Service :: Webcasts :: White Papers :: Award Programs :: Store

Site Search

Talk Back

There are no comments posted for this article.

Post a comment

RSS Feed

Add BD&C Headlines to your
RSS Reader

ASHRAE Mulls Continuous Air Barriers

In a major study, NIST researchers conclude that tight building envelopes reduce energy costs.

By Jeff Yoders, Associate Editor

March 1, 2006

Building Design and Construction

A study from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) reports that continuous air barrier systems can reduce air infiltration by up to 60% and energy consumption by almost 40% in commercial buildings.

Researchers Steven Emmerich, Timothy P. McDowell, and Wagdy Annis completed "Investigation of the Impact of Commercial Building Envelope Air Tightness on HVAC Use" last fall. They used a combination of building airflow infiltration computer models and building energy models to study the impact of continuous air barriers on commercial buildings in five cities (Miami, Phoenix, St. Louis, Minneapolis, and Bismarck, N.D.) in different climate zones.

Using baseline energy, climate, and building data from each city, they modeled an apartment building, an office structure, and a retail facility. The research team used air-barrier systems with components that met minimum material air tightness levels.

The results showed a wide range of gas-electric cost savings across the board. Improved air tightness in frame construction buildings in Bismarck would be 33% for an office building, 22% for retail, and 31% for an apartment building. In Minneapolis, the cost reductions were even higher, while more modest gains were observed in Miami and Phoenix.

"We used these methods because air tightness comes from a lot of different things working together," said Emmerich, research engineer for NIST's Building and Fire Research Laboratory. "We wanted to show how air affects a building differently if it's wood or masonry. Air tightness isn't just like installing insulation. Everything has to be accounted for."

The study, sponsored by the U.S. Energy Department's Office of Building Technology, tested building wraps and coated air barrier models. Air leakage from other parts of the envelope was also a factor. The study recommends further testing of continuous air barriers on more building types, analysis of costs and potential savings from tightening of existing buildings, development of more refined air tightness targets, testing of air tightness of buildings in states with state tightness standards (such as Massachusetts) to determine if standards are met in practice, and examination of interaction between air tightness and other building parameters.

Emmerich said the study was done in part to assist the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) in making changes to its Standard 90.1, which includes building air leakage. Proposed Addendum Z to 90.1-2004 contains requirements for a continuous air barrier. ASHRAE's Standard Project Committee is currently considering public comments on the proposed change.

A continuous air barrier requirement from ASHRAE would cause a surge in sales for suppliers, but many engineers are still skeptical of requiring it as a best practice. Many have already said the NIST study's results will cause designers to simply plan more commercial buildings without operable windows, rather than invest in a continuous air barrier.

"That's not the message I would take from this research," Emmerich said. "It's certainly possible to build to this level of tightness with operable windows. Although it's not specifically evaluated, improving building envelope air tightness also reduces the potential for problems caused by leakage, such as poor indoor air quality, thermal comfort, and degradation of building materials due to moisture damage. It's a whole building issue."

Energy cost savings

City	Gas savings		Electrical savings		Total savings
Office building
Bismarck	$1,854	42%	$1,340	26%	$3,195
Minneapolis	$1,872	43%	$1,811	33%	$3,683
St. Louis	$1,460	57%	$1,555	28%	$3,016
Phoenix	$124	77%	$620	9%	$745
Miami	$0	0%	$769	10%	$769
Retail building
Bismarck	$1,835	26%	$33	2%	$1,869
Minneapolis	$1,908	28%	$364	18%	$2,272
St. Louis	$1,450	38%	$298	9%	$1,748
Phoenix	$176	64%	$992	14%	$1,169
Miami	$6	98%	$1,224	14%	$1,231
Apartment building
Bismarck	$2,187	40%	-$116	-9%	$2,071
Minneapolis	$2,421	43%	-$165	-14%	$2,256
St. Louis	$1,794	57%	-$232	-12%	$1,562
Phoenix	$133	65%	$0	0%	$133
Miami	$31	63%	$380	9%	$411
The NIST study looked at the effects of building envelope tightening on three building types in five different climates. Results show cost reductions in each region and building type modeled. Apartment buildings saw an increase in electrical costs from losing the "free cooling" effect, but still posted significant savings overall.