Jump to content
  • entries
    53
  • comments
    404
  • views
    16016

Testing, testing


vivienz

4736 views

Yesterday was air tightness test day and MBC's final day on site getting everything prepped for the final test and then finishing off a few details.  For those not so familiar with this kind of thing, a few details of the process follow.

 

Our house isn't a passive house as it hasn't been designed with that in mind - it was the design first and then build to passive standards, so no accreditation or anything like that.  That said, I wanted a low energy house and hence the choice of the passive system offered by MBC.  Part of this system is that as well as the building and foundation being highly insulated, it also leaks very little air, as this is one of the major sources of heat loss in buildings and houses.  The leakiness of a house is measured in terms of the number of times the volume of air contained by the building passes out of all the various gaps in one hour.  As mentioned on this forum elsewhere, a modern well-built house without any special air tight measures would probably change its volume of air between 3 and 5 times per hour.  The final part of MBC's construction method is to tape over anywhere there is likely to be a gap and make the building as air tight as possible; the target is to have 0.6 or less air changes per hour.

 

One exterior door into the house is chosen as the point of measurement and this is where all the kit goes.  Note that the air tight test is testing the quality of MBC's work and whilst it will highlight gaps elsewhere, it's not MBC's remit to correct leaks caused by others, only themselves.  The point of measurement for my house is the door between the garage and the utility room, where the FD30 rated door was recently installed.  The door is sealed up with a membrane that's supported and held in place by an adjustable frame:

 

1177024322_Doorwayshield.thumb.jpg.d032703a2e2c82c32c54a2911211391f.jpg

 

960988985_shieldandframe.thumb.jpg.fc533b582edfca8f95fa203580ecd784.jpg

 

The hands are those of Steve, of Melin Consultants, who carry out most of MBC's air tests.  This is the frame/shield being put in place in the doorway.  I really did try and get a photo without builder's/air tester's bum, but to no avail.  Those with delicate sensibilities should look away now and skip the next photo.

 

576484245_frameinplace.thumb.jpg.4bc013d934507164328b6c10f6f6a56b.jpg

 

After the frame, the fan is put into the hole in the shield, drawn tight and any gaps between the frame and door frame are temporarily sealed up.

 

1842460189_bigfan.thumb.jpg.0ac6ee930538a6444a2c558351998751.jpg

 

The rate of air flow into and out of the building is altered by both the speed of the fan and the number of vents that are opened up on the fan.  The building is de-pressurised first, then re-pressurised and the readings taken.  Because of environmental factors such as wind, this is done 10 times to get a data set and the average is taken for the final result.  When this test was done yesterday, it was a windy day with the wind coming from the north east, the direction that the garage door faces.

 

As the test progressed, it became clear that the house is well sealed and so it needed a smaller fan.  The red shield was swapped over and the smaller fan put in place.

 

1688756011_smallfan.thumb.jpg.2c5c34f1610d9c7bdbe9fd9f9ff3c22b.jpg

 

The rest of the readings were taken and we got our final reading.  Darren and his MBC crew aced it - with a target of 0.6 ac/h it came in at 0.25.  Brilliant.  Darren is a calm chap under all sorts of pressures but the air test was about the only time I've seen him display (slight) signs of nerves.  He was equally understated in his satisfaction with the result even though it turns out that this is one of the lowest numbers they've had in 7 years.  Well done, Darren and crew.

 

If you're wondering what all that foam is doing on the floor, that's left over from work on the foul wastes over the weekend and foaming them in before putting air tight tape around them to make sure it wasn't detrimental to the air test result.

 

We have a few very minor leaks, mostly gaps between the panels in the windows that have several sections.  No surprise and these are due to be siliconed once we've finished most of the pretty stuff.  There is also a bit of air flow through the keyholes but I've been advised that a good coating of vaseline on the key and in and out of the lock a few times should seal it up well enough.  I daresay that would seal most things.  The gaps were temporarily sealed up with a bit of low tack plastic for the air test, so the result assumes this has been done.

 

All the battens are in now and the downstairs was finished off yesterday, and concrete was put into the remaining recess that had been formed for the lift and slide doors to get a level threshold.

 

1762679071_Downstairsbattens.thumb.jpg.4c0f0c86bee04078e9367b369c25f7e5.jpg

 

2053079334_windowconcrete.thumb.jpg.c910e9a82c7473510eaaa5ef59b0a2cf.jpg

 

I am, of course, delighted with the air tight result and really pleased for MBC as well, as they have worked really hard and whenever there has been a problem, come up with solutions.  I know that others have had varied experiences but for my own, I have found MBC to be a pleasure to work with right from the start.  At the design stage, David worked his socks off liaising with my architect to get all the details right and to work out how to build the design using their system, and this has been the case with any third parties I've asked them to speak with directly.  The communication from Trish has been great - I've always know what was going to happen and when and been kept informed when timings have had to change.  The guys on the ground have worked like machines; I'm astonished at how hard they work, to be frank, and throughout the whole time I've never heard any rows or arguments.  That's not to say that there haven't been any, but if there have, they didn't take place in front of me.  For me, this has been a really good experience.

 

What next?  There's still plenty to do but the next main contractor is largely doing all of the internal systems, plumbing and wiring (note - I'm no longer giving details of this as I can't recommend due to unfinished work).  The MVHR ducting and manifolds have been worked on but will kick off in earnest on 3rd December once the cellulose has been blown in upstairs.  The cellulose is arriving on Friday 30th, along with Gordon, who will put it into the walls and ceiling.  All 520 bags of it!  Before then, my Ryterna garage door is due to be installed next week so I'll report back on that.  That's being supplied and installed by Joe from Dorset Garage Doors Ltd, just up the road from me in Lydlinch.

 

There's a lot of work to be done outside, too, but I'll be thinking through that today and get my plan of action together.  Whatever else happens, some gentle heat will be put into the slab this week, using a couple of Willis heaters.  It's getting pretty chilly on site now and it will be nice to get the house drying out properly and check that side of things is working properly.

 

A good week and, hopefully, more to come.

air test gadgets.jpg

fan openings.jpg

sealing a few gaps.jpg

  • Like 11

33 Comments


Recommended Comments



11 minutes ago, jack said:

 

 

To be fair, 0.58 is a stunning result by any other measure - something like 10 times better than building regs requires. We managed 0.56, so only slightly better than you. The big slider in our kitchen seems to be the worst single contributor, and unfortunately it isn't adjustable.

 

You may be able to get some improvements by adjusting the windows so they pull in a little more tightly. We've done that as best we can, but a couple of windows just don't seem to be adjustable far enough to get a proper seal. We get definite air (and hence sound) leaks in those rooms. 

yes I dont have an issue with .58 happy enough just saying it pales a bit in comparison.

 

B windows are and were a debacle.  I am told all adjusted to properly now.  Very frustrating to have lovely windows ruined by cowboys who installed them and to get the leaks and cold spots after all the efforts.....I have a roll of the stick on sponge draught excluder from old house ( hardwood double glazed and leaky) if it was grey not brown might try sticking it on the Internorms LOL.  Will ask man sorting threshold problems if he thinks any more adjustment possible, thanks for the tip.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, lizzie said:

windows are and were a debacle.  

 

We had cowboys too - not as bad as yours, for sure, but it's frustrating to pay good money for quality windows, only to have a poor result due to crappy installation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, JSHarris said:

Depends on the volume. 

 

By comparison, our 0.48 ACH figure equatd to 0.652 m³/m²/h.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, lizzie said:

Mine came in at 0.58 so although within the MBC contracted limit of 6 and I’m fine with that it seems poor by comparison to others here. I suspect that the finished house is nowhere near 0.58 because it was very air (and water)  leaky for the test with windows not fitted properly etc (everything was just temp taped over by the air testers and I was told by the testers it needed to be properly sorted) the issues were never properly resolved afterwards and I have seriously cold areas around the window/wall junctions. The areas around the tilt and turn windows in the rendered walls seem worse than the sliders on the clad walls. I have areas in some rooms that feel colder to sit in if nearer windows/walls and I have altered positions of furniture to take account of these cold spots.

 

 

The 0.6 ACH is the PassivHaus Institut target figure, so anything under 0.6 ACH would get a tick in the box for air tightness as a certified PassivHaus, and there aren't many of those around in the UK (not sure, but I think the number is in the low hundreds in total, out of the thousands of new builds every year).

 

0.58 ACH is a damned good result, and as others have said probably 1/10th of the allowable leakage for a "normal" new build.  Given that mass housebuilders often really, really struggle to get airtightness that's around 10 times worse than yours, I'd be as chuffed as anything to get that figure.

 

In practice, I doubt that there would be any impact on overall practical, real world, thermal performance or comfort issues for any airtightness figure below about 0.6 ACH.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, HerbJ said:

By comparison, our 0.48 ACH figure equatd to 0.652 m³/m²/h.

 

To illustrate the impact of volume and floor area, we had a nearly identical permeability number to yours Herb (0.66 m³/m²/h), but the air change value was 0.56 ACH.

Link to comment
28 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

 

 

The 0.6 ACH is the PassivHaus Institut target figure, so anything under 0.6 ACH would get a tick in the box for air tightness as a certified PassivHaus, and there aren't many of those around in the UK (not sure, but I think the number is in the low hundreds in total, out of the thousands of new builds every year).

 

0.58 ACH is a damned good result, and as others have said probably 1/10th of the allowable leakage for a "normal" new build.  Given that mass housebuilders often really, really struggle to get airtightness that's around 10 times worse than yours, I'd be as chuffed as anything to get that figure.

 

In practice, I doubt that there would be any impact on overall practical, real world, thermal performance or comfort issues for any airtightness figure below about 0.6 ACH.

As I said I am fine with that as a result.  

 

My point is that it was the result on the day but I doubt it would achieve that again as the many leaky areas that were taped temporarily for the test were not properly dealt with afterwards.  My windows being the main problem, I definitely have cold spots and areas of rooms colder than others, you need a blanket to sit in one armchair that is next to a window. My bedroom is really cold and one side of our open plan area is very chilly. I have to have UFH cranked right up in those rooms.

 

If I knew then what I know now (thank you all) then the problem areas shown up at test time would have been properly dealt with but I didn't know and the people who were supposed to either didnt know or didnt care. Its too late now and its a lesson for those like me who in hindsight should have educated themselves more and not devolved responsibility.....I took the dog and bark yourself approach which now has been shown to be a big mistake. I blame no one but myself.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, jack said:

 

To illustrate the impact of volume and floor area, we had a nearly identical permeability number to yours Herb (0.66 m³/m²/h), but the air change value was 0.56 ACH.

I have looked at mine and it reads

 

Permeability at 50Pa (M3/h/M2) 0.479.

Air change is 0.58

Building volume is 474 with a floor area of 189.1 and an envelope area of 570.1

 

My house is single storey and quite a bit smaller than others.

Edited by lizzie
Link to comment
7 hours ago, JSHarris said:

In practice, I doubt that there would be any impact on overall practical, real world, thermal performance or comfort issues for any airtightness figure below about 0.6 ACH.

 

Five years ago a friend had an air tightness result of 0.9ACH and she was disappointed because she had put so much effort into taping etc. The house was very comfortable with no cold spots or draughts. To help her I ran the PHPP to see what the effect of different air tightness values would be on the space heating demand. Results below. I asked on the AECB forum why the PHI had set the maximum value at 0.6ACH and had an answer from Mark Siddall shown below. So until you get to relatively quite high air tightness values, space heating demand is not affected greatly. Of course the PHPP has been designed to work at the low end of air tightness.

 

Pressurisation Test Result ACH     Specific Space Heating Demand kWh/(m2.a)
               0.2                                                        12.1
               0.4                                                        12.3
               0.6                                                        12.5
               0.8                                                        12.7
               1.0                                                        12.9
               2.0                                                        14.0

A 2pa pressure difference (what you get over 2 a storey building) would mean that assuming a 1m long, 1mm wide gap would permit about 360g of water vapour to be transported through the gap in 1 day. On the basis of the internal temp being 20C/50%RH and ext. temp of 0C/80%RH then you can expect this moisture to hit the dew point as it passes through the insulation.
The air tightness threshold is 0.6 so as to protect structure from moisture damage.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...