https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/blower-door-testers-wanted-scientists-and-engineers-preferred/ Building science knowledge, HVAC design, & fun Sun, 09 Oct 2011 11:18:22 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.6.2 https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/blower-door-testers-wanted-scientists-and-engineers-preferred/#comment-2876 Sun, 09 Oct 2011 11:18:22 +0000 http://energyvanguard.flywheelsites.com/?blog_post=blower-door-testers-wanted-scientists-and-engineers-preferred#comment-2876 As always, a significant
As always, a significant article.I have just had a house built. The test was 0.8 and then on completion it was 0.8ac/h@50pascals. Frankly, I don’t believe the second test as air entry control was not as easy nor as rigorous as the initial test. Multiple measures would clarify this situation.Anyways the test is an indicator only and not related to whether you have a cat valve or not.The test should be done with people living in the house and then the variability would be profound.Cheers Mike Legge

]]> https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/blower-door-testers-wanted-scientists-and-engineers-preferred/#comment-2875 Fri, 07 Oct 2011 21:56:51 +0000 http://energyvanguard.flywheelsites.com/?blog_post=blower-door-testers-wanted-scientists-and-engineers-preferred#comment-2875 I have recognized the
I have recognized the problems with ASTM E-779 and when I proposed the large building testing standard, the method bypassed those problems so you could get stable results under any weather conditions. 
 
 
 
Since then I have written a detailed paper where I tested the same building over a million times by chopping up the mass of data collected for different time intervalsa and compared the results. A new test method emerged that I am currently campaigning for adoption by ASTM and ISO. I am giving a presentation on this next week in Brussels and hope to talk with Max Sherman of LBL about it as well. Bottom line is that the new RESNET procedure uses some of the techniques I mention in my paper.  
 
 
 
If anyone wants a copy of the USACE test protocol or the paper, send me a message to colin@retrotec.com 
 
 
 
I am trying to make it easier to get consistent results and save time by not doing things that don’t count.  
 
 
 
Colin

]]> https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/blower-door-testers-wanted-scientists-and-engineers-preferred/#comment-2874 Fri, 07 Oct 2011 18:18:28 +0000 http://energyvanguard.flywheelsites.com/?blog_post=blower-door-testers-wanted-scientists-and-engineers-preferred#comment-2874 Sorry for the lack of detail
Sorry for the lack of detail above. For EnergyLogic, all of our tests are above 5000’AGL. Lots of them are greater than 30 degrees dT.

]]> https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/blower-door-testers-wanted-scientists-and-engineers-preferred/#comment-2873 Fri, 07 Oct 2011 18:15:42 +0000 http://energyvanguard.flywheelsites.com/?blog_post=blower-door-testers-wanted-scientists-and-engineers-preferred#comment-2873 OK, did some checking. Good
OK, did some checking. Good news is we are on it as we do all of our BD’s with TecTite. Bad news, we haven’t been proactive in getting the word out past our staff and some Rater Partners. One of our ace staff members, Glenn Pease, tore the new standard apart back in August and brought up all the details. As we use TecTite, the discussion didn’t go further.  
 
On the topic of what we train, etc. We don’t train to comply with 119 or especially 779. They simply aren’t practical in the field, especially 779. So, hang us up by our toenails, but I will buy the beer for anyone who tells me they do a 779 compliant blower door test in the field. As for what to train, yes, be aware of what the standard says, but to train 119 or 779, no way. We see that as part of our “Go Deeper” activities, but not part of the base training.  
 
This brings up the eternal conundrum all trainers face with RESNET, BPI, LEED, etc. – when the standard changes and the test doesn’t change we are stuck teaching the “old” way because that’s what the test will reflect versus the “new” way which is what will have to be done for the current state of any given program. Sigh.

]]> https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/blower-door-testers-wanted-scientists-and-engineers-preferred/#comment-2872 Fri, 07 Oct 2011 03:02:12 +0000 http://energyvanguard.flywheelsites.com/?blog_post=blower-door-testers-wanted-scientists-and-engineers-preferred#comment-2872 I am liking my Retro-tech
I am liking my Retro-tech more and more each day. The software (Fan-Testic)compensates for altitude and temp, it also gives a confidence interval. It comes standard with a multi-point test feature ( up to 10 tests at varying predetermined pascals)

]]> https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/blower-door-testers-wanted-scientists-and-engineers-preferred/#comment-2871 Thu, 06 Oct 2011 23:24:25 +0000 http://energyvanguard.flywheelsites.com/?blog_post=blower-door-testers-wanted-scientists-and-engineers-preferred#comment-2871 Retrotec is putting on a
Retrotec is putting on a Webinar on this topic that might help but for now, the idea of the RESNET procedure is that you don’t need to use a computer necessarily. If folks want it done in software, let us know and we’ll make it happen.

]]> https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/blower-door-testers-wanted-scientists-and-engineers-preferred/#comment-2870 Thu, 06 Oct 2011 19:05:33 +0000 http://energyvanguard.flywheelsites.com/?blog_post=blower-door-testers-wanted-scientists-and-engineers-preferred#comment-2870 Michael:
Michael: Good questions. I can’t answer for the whole country, but I think here in the Southeast, most raters are doing single-point tests and not applying corrections. I don’t know if there’s any place here that’s high enough for the elevation correction, and we do almost all of our testing with less than a 30° F ΔT. Florida does require multi-point tests, but I think most of the trainers in the other Southeastern states do single-point. I’ve talked to a trainer in another part of the country who said they’ve ignored the ASHRAE 119 standard, too. They said even their lawyers agreed it wasn’t reasonable for doing in the field.

]]> https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/blower-door-testers-wanted-scientists-and-engineers-preferred/#comment-2869 Thu, 06 Oct 2011 18:40:22 +0000 http://energyvanguard.flywheelsites.com/?blog_post=blower-door-testers-wanted-scientists-and-engineers-preferred#comment-2869 Allison – 

Allison – 
 
I figured that was the case — not many people actually looked up those standards even though they were supposed to follow them. So I can understand how the new standard can look more complicated than the old — we’ve now incorporated the entire testing procedure into the RESNET standards rather than reference external complicated standards. 
 
I’m curious what you consider to be current common practice among raters when doing a blower door test — do they use a temperature correction? do they do automated multi-point tests using a laptop? do they do one point CFM50 tests without any corrections or anything? I guess this uncertainty is one of the main reasons for creating the new standard.  
 
It’s not easy to create a testing standard that is specific and defensible without it looking very complicated. I think that trainers like you, after reading the new standard carefully, will recognize that it’s actually now pretty easy to just do a one point “official” CFM50 test and you will come up with easy ways to teach the standard.  
 
HERS software providers will need to make some changes to deal with the 2 levels of accuracy, but it seemed like a good trade-off compared to just forbidding testing under windy conditions.

]]> https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/blower-door-testers-wanted-scientists-and-engineers-preferred/#comment-2868 Thu, 06 Oct 2011 16:18:43 +0000 http://energyvanguard.flywheelsites.com/?blog_post=blower-door-testers-wanted-scientists-and-engineers-preferred#comment-2868 Michael B.
Michael B.: Now I see the source of your comment, and I plead guilty on that one. I’m one of the many who wasn’t following the standard referenced in the HERS Standards. When I went through the HERS class in ’03, my training provider didn’t cover it. When I worked for them teaching HERS from 2008-10, we never even mentioned it. We taught the students the method as described in the Blower Door manual and the steps called out in App. A of the HERS Standards. 
 
You admit that “few (if any) testers were actually following these standards,” and that’s my sense, too. I wonder if any trainers actually taught their students about the details of ASHRAE 119 section 5.1. Since most teach a 5 day class, my guess is that no one did. 
 
I understand your objection to this article now, Michael. Thanks for pointing it out. Yes, relative to the actual standard raters were supposed to be using, the new standard is easier. Relative to what most have been doing, though, I still contend that it’s more rigorous, though not necessarily more time-consuming. Further, I think we both agree that it’s a great improvement, no matter how you look at it.

]]> https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/blower-door-testers-wanted-scientists-and-engineers-preferred/#comment-2867 Thu, 06 Oct 2011 15:29:28 +0000 http://energyvanguard.flywheelsites.com/?blog_post=blower-door-testers-wanted-scientists-and-engineers-preferred#comment-2867 Allison- 

Allison- 
 
It appears that you are still misunderstanding how the standards have changed. The testing standards have become simpler, easier, faster, and require less statistical analysis and less rigor overall.  
 
Perhaps you aren’t familiar with what the standards actually required prior to this change? They required following ASHRAE 119 section 5.1 which references two testing methods — ASTM E779-87 and CAN/SGSB-149.10-M86. Both of these testing methods are far more rigorous and complicated with more requirements and statistics than what is now allowed by the new standard.  
 
The new standard was developed to officially sanction simpler testing methods because the prior standards were more appropriate for researchers than production testing and required far too much work for little gain in accuracy (do you know that the standard required pressurization and depressurization testing with the results averaged?).  
 
The reality is that few (if any) testers were actually following these standards — even those doing multi-point tests using a laptop. The new standard has less stringent requirements and provides more options — including an officially sanctioned approach for simple one point tests using the cruise@50 feature found in newer gauges.  
 
So I think the title and content of your article are off base — the standards have actually changed from very complicated and time consuming to much simpler.

]]>