A Comparison of Techniques to Measure Commercial Building Infiltration

Rates
Paul Crovella
State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Department of
Construction Management and Wood Products Engineering, Syracuse, NY 13210.
*

Corresponding email: PLCrovella@esf.edu

ABSTRACT
Determining building envelope air tightness is essential for understanding energy use and air
quality in existing buildings. This study first reviewed the testing requirements for four
methods of pressurization for determining envelope air tightness in commercial buildings:
ASTM E 779-03, CAN 149.15-96, The British ATTA Standard 1, and ASHRAE RP-935. The
required environmental conditions to allow testing were compared to weather data in
Syracuse, NY. It was found that the available days for testing varied between 5 (ASTM
E779-03) to 182 (CAN 149.15). Suggestions were made to improve these limitations. Next
two of the methods (ASTM E779-03 using blower doors, CAN 149.15 using building air
handling units) were applied to a 3,950 m2 university building. Although one test did not
collect enough data to meet the threshold, the two methods showed close agreement (< 1.5%
difference) in measured building leakage rates at 75Pa. Data analysis showed that the two
methods easily allowed for the building to be classified for code or contract leakage
conformance. Finally a discussion is included of using testing results to predict energy
savings due to envelope sealing.
KEYWORDS
Building Air Tightness, Energy Use, Infiltration Rate, Blower Door Test
INTRODUCTION
Approximately 40% of the total energy used in the US is used by buildings (EIA, 2010).
Efficiencies in this realm represent an enormous potential for reducing our dependence on
non-renewable energy sources and our production of greenhouse gases. Additionally, the
EPA estimates that we spend approximately 90% of our time inside these buildings (EPA
2010). The quality of comfort provided by these enclosures directly affects our well-being. In
2005 the US Dept of Energy (DOE 2006) estimated that 40% of the energy used to heat and
cool buildings was lost due to uncontrolled flow through the envelope. The energy used to
heat and cool commercial buildings represents 6-7% of the total energy used in the US (EIA,
2010). Envelope leakage in commercial buildings accounts for 2-3% of the total energy used
in the US. This energy loss in commercial buildings has not been addressed as aggressively as
in the residential sector, due in part to a lack of evidence on verifiable gains due to testing and
retrofits (Woods 2007).
The objective of this work was to investigate the ability of various air tightness testing
methods to accurately predict the natural infiltration and potential energy savings in
commercial buildings.
In 1999, Persily (1999) found that although the data is limited, commercial buildings do have
significant levels of air infiltration. Using multiple data sets he found that the leakage is not
correlated to age, size, or construction type. In 2005 Emmerich, et al (2005) showed that

energy savings of between 3 and 36% could be attained by improving envelope performance
of sample commercial buildings (one-story retail, two-story office, four story apartment) when
modeled in five US cities (Miami, Phoenix, St. Louis, Bismark, Minneapolis). The greatest
savings corresponded to the cities with the greatest need for heating. Brennan and Cummings
(2002) have shown the potential health consequences of air leakage through the building
envelope materials.
Brennan and Clarkin (2007) cite four different standards for testing commercial buildings
using fan pressurization techniques. Further research has shown at least two other non-fan
pressurization techniques that have been developed in Europe (Roulet 2002, Persily 1997).
European codes have developed air tightness requirements and testing standards for
construction of commercial buildings. Some states (Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Michigan,
Rhode Island, Georgia, Minnesota, Florida) in the US have adopted codes specifying air
permeance of components and assemblies. However to date, no code-required air-tightness
testing has been included in the IECC. Nor has the government promoted air sealing of
commercial buildings with the same levels of support as weatherization of residential
buildings. This study investigates a number of the factors limiting widespread testing of
commercial buildings and accurate prediction of energy savings due to air sealing.
METHODS
Two approaches for testing envelope air tightness of commercial buildings have been
developed independently by a number of groups. The first approach is to mechanically force
air through the envelope, and measure the flow required to maintain a known pressure
differential. The second approach is to release a tracer gas and allow natural infiltration to
change the concentration over time. Due to the relative simplicity and repeatability of the
mechanical pressure methods, these are currently used by the residential industry for detached
single-family homes to determine air leakage (e.g. ASHRAE 119). Larger commercial
buildings present a number of unique conditions that must be addressed differently than in
single-family homes.
Four pressurization methods to determine the air-tightness of commercial buildings were
reviewed and their requirements compared: ASTM E779-03 Standard Test Method for
Determining Air Leakage Rate by Fan Pressurization, CGSB 149.15-96 Determination of the
Overall Envelope Airtightness of Buidings by the Fan Pressurization Method Using the
Buildings Air Handling Systems, British Air Testing and Measurement Association Standard
1: Measuring Air Permeability of Building Envelopes, and an ASHRAE Research Report
Protocol for Field Testing of Tall Buildings to Determine Envelope Air Leakage
Rate(Banfleth et al, 1998).
All of the methods requires that testing be done to determine the amount of air flow required
to create a specified pressure differential across the building envelope. These data are fit to a
power law function to model the airflow induced by any pressure differential:
Q = CPn

(1)

where Q is airflow rate (L/s), P is the pressure differential across building envelope (Pa), C
is the flow coefficient (L/s Pan), and n is the flow exponent (dimensionless).

The purpose of the pressurization test methods is to collect sufficient data to accurately
determine the values of C and n. The resulting power law function can be used to predict
infiltration under natural conditions (e.g. 4 Pa) and determine energy loss.
Because the resistance to flow is affected by the shape of the airflow openings, the test
methods all recognize the need to bound the value of n by the theoretical limits of 0.5 and 1.0.
Tests with results outside these values are not considered valid. These limits represent the
extreme cases of leakage occurring through fully turbulent flow (0.5) or fully laminar flow
(1.0).
In preparing to test a tall building envelope, there are two environmental factors that must be
controlled to ensure the accuracy of the results: maximum outdoor wind speed, and the stack
effect.
The differential pressures created by a changing wind on the surfaces of an arbitrarily-shaped
building are difficult to predict. However due to the relatively large pressure differentials
created mechanically during building testing, the methods all suggest that the effect of wind
be considered negligible if the wind speed is below a specified value. Table 1 lists some of
the maximum allowable wind speeds using the different testing methods.
Table 1.Comparison of Commercial Building Pressure Testing Standards Test Conditions.
Testing Standard
Max outdoor wind speed (m/s)
ASTM E779-03
None (0-2 preferred)
CAN 149.15
5.56
British ATTMA Std 1
6
ASHRAE RP-935 (Protocol)
4

Stack Effect T height (m C)

200
<525 (10 story height)
<250
None (5-35 C outdoor temp)

Table 1 also includes information regarding the stack effect. Due to temperature stratification
within the building envelope, the pressure differential across the building envelope is greater
at the top of the building than at the base. This effect is accentuated by greater building height
and greater indoor-outdoor temperature differential. The product of these two (height
measured in meters and temperature difference measured in C) is limited by each of the
methods (RP-935 limits temperature difference alone).
After reviewing the standards, the building was tested using the two principal techniques to
create a pressure differential: a set of blower doors, and the buildings air handling system.
ASTM E779-03 was used with the blower doors, and CAN 149.15 was used with the
buildings air handling system. These tests were carried out on the F. Franklin Moon Library
on the campus of the State University on New York College of Environmental Science and
Forestry, located in Syracuse, NY (figure 1).

Figure 1 Moon Library

Figure 2 Building sealed for testing

The 1968 concrete/brick two-story structure has a 3950 m2 gross floor area. The floor plan is
generally open with an elevator shaft and a large internal stairway. The building was
depressurized for ASTM E779-03 by using a set of three blower doors in the main entrance
and was pressurized for CAN 149.15 by using the buildings two supply air handlers (9650 l/s
and 10679 l/s). Ventilation system inlets and outlets were sealed as necessary during the
testing (Figure 2).
Testing using the building air handler system was done by shutting off and sealing the exhaust
system, and then using the supply air fans and varying the amount of recirculation air to
pressurize the building. Airflow was determined by taking a hot-wire anemometer traverse of
the supply duct.
Testing using the blower doors was done by manually adjusting a set of three blower doors to
create different pressure differentials and then summing the airflows through each to get a
total air flow.
The data acquisition and analysis requirements are shown in Table 2
Table 2. Acceptable Data Collection and Analysis Requirements.
Testing method
ASTM E779-03
CAN 149.15
British ATTMA Std 1
ASHRAE RP-935

Number of data points Testing range (Pa)

Fit test or quality
at least 5
10-60
Report 95% conf. limit
5
0-75
r>0.990
7(10-15 for wind > 3 m/s) 10-50 or 20-60
r2>0.980
6
12.5-75
n/a

RESULTS
To perform a building envelope air tightness test, the weather conditions must match
acceptable test conditions. To understand these limitations, the weather data for 2009 for the
Syracuse, NY airport was compared to the environmental conditions required for testing a ten
story building. The resulting number of days of acceptable test conditions is shown in Table
3.
Table 3 Acceptable Days for Testing a Ten Story Building during 2009 in Syracuse, NY.
Method
ASTM E779-03

Wind limit
83*

Stack effect limit

99

Combined limits
5

CAN 149.15
322
British ATTMA Std 1
332
ASHRAE RP-935
239
*(preferred wind speed)

195
114
240

182
112
172

The number of days meeting the combined temperature and wind conditions varied from 5
(ASTM E779-03) to 182 (CAN 149.15). The wind speed cited by ASTM E779-03 is a
preferred value, there is no maximum value mentioned in the standard. Although the
wind and temperature values from 2009 are daily averages taken at the airport, building
testing is often done at times and with exposures that correspond to these averages.
The results of testing the building provided a full set of data for the ASTM E779-03 test. The
CAN 149.15 test was stopped after only three data points were captured. After capturing the
first two data points with one supply air fan, the second fan was started. As the recirculation
dampers adjusted, the building pressure rose to over 112Pa, well outside the test range, and
high enough to deform building components. At this point the damper was adjusted to a
capture a reading at 75 pa and then the test was ended. The two power law curves fit to the
data are shown in Figure 3. The results for the CAN 149.15 test are not valid due to a lack of
data points. Further the curve fit to the data has an unacceptable flow exponent of < 0.5. This
can be caused be testing a building with a surfaces that deform during the test, as possible
occurred here.

Figure 3 Air Leakage Graph for Moon Library Tests

Determination of the leakage at 75 Pa allowed for a number of comparisons to be made: The
determination of average air tightness value (above ground envelope) of 1.79 l/s/m2 places the
building well below the 6.6 l/s/m2 value of 29 low-rise buildings from northern climates
compiled by Emmrich (Emmrich 2005). Including the below ground envelope, it can be
shown to meet the US Army Corps of Engineers Standard (Zhivov, 2010) (1.08 l/sec/m2 <

1.268 l/sec/m2). Using units defined by the British Code, the volume leakage of 6.45 m3/m2/hr
places this building below the code maximum for new buildings (13 m3/m2/hr at 75Pa) and
near the average for new office construction in Britain (6.5 m3/m2/hr at 75 Pa). Using this
single 75 Pa measurement the building can be shown to be better than average in envelope
performance.
However the determination of the flow coefficient and the flow exponent allow an
extrapolation to be made. To predict energy use due to infiltration a leakage area (ASTM
E779-03) of 0.464 m2 was calculated. This opening size helps determine the predicted
leakage under natural conditions (4 Pa). The flow rate by extrapolation at 4 Pa is 1195 l/sec.

DISCUSSIONS
The purpose of setting a value for maximum wind and stack effect is to reduce the noise in
relation to the signal (mechanically induced pressures). Applying these requirements to a
sample year eliminated from 50-98% of the days available for testing. In order to allow for
testing during more varied conditions, a better approach may be to set a performance level for
this ratio. Currently E779-03 requires that at least one pressure tap be placed on each side of
the building, and more if the building is over three stories. CAN 149.15 requires that pressure
taps be placed on the leeward side of the building and on the roof. Both of these are designed
to average the wind pressure differentials on different building faces. The British ATTMA
Std 1 requires that pressure differential before testing be measured for 30 seconds, and that
during that time the pressure vary no more than +/- 5 Pa. This latter method allows for a
performance based approach which may allow testing under more varied conditions. The US
Army Corps of Engineers (Zhivov, 2010) suggest taking a set of 12 bias pressure readings
over 20 seconds and requiring that no reading exceed 30% of the minimum test pressure.
This approach more clearly associates the noise and signal levels.
Redefining how the test conditions are determined might also allow the reporting
requirements to be adapted. Currently the variety of number of data points required, testing
range, and confidence limits or regression values (Table 2) do not align with the performance
criteria suggested above. If the goal is to test a building for a code or contract requirement
(e.g. leakage at 50 or 75 Pa) the data collection could be handled differently than if the goal is
to predict natural leakage (at 2.5 or 4 Pa). Although the CAN 149.15 test failed to meet
acceptable testing conditions to fit a curve, the measured leakage value at 75 Pa compared
very well to the value from the ASTM E779 test (within 1.5%).
Currently ASHRAE 119 allows the leakage rates determined for single-family homes to be
used to predict energy loss, and industry methods have been standardized to determine the
return on investment for air-sealing and weatherization. This has allowed for individual and
government investment to flow into this industry. To advance the development of a similar
system for the commercial building sector, the testing parameters need to be adjusted in light
of the unique considerations of commercial buildings. The results from these tests need to be
combined with a methodology (e.g. Emmrich 2005) to predict energy savings, and these
results have to be validated.
CONCLUSIONS

Determining appropriate cost-efficient energy conservation measures in existing commercial

buildings will require widespread, consistent air tightness testing. A study of the current
methods showed that there are differences in testing requirements and data presentation
among the methods that could limit their wide spread use. The sample building showed that
tests using different methods to determine leakage at 75 Pa provided nearly identical results.
This information could be very useful for code or contract compliance. However to predict
energy savings due to air sealing, the quality of the test data must be defined by how well it
correlates to actual infiltration values. Further testing of buildings will be required to develop
and validate these metrics.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work would not have been possible without the invaluable assistance of Bruce Marcham
from the SUNY-ESF Physical Plant. Thanks as well goes to the NYS Weatherization
Directors Association and Dale Sherman for use of the blower doors. Weather data on
campus was provided by the SUNY-ESF mapping lab.
REFERENCES
ASTM 1995 Standard E741-95 Test method for determining air change in a single zone by
means of tracer gas dilution. West Conshohoken, Pa: American Society of Testing and
Materials.
ASTM 2003 Standard E 779 03 Standard Test Method for Determining Air Leakage Rate
by Fan Pressurization. West Conshohoken, Pa: American Society of Testing and
Materials.
Bahnfleth, W.P., G.K Yuill, and B.W. Lee. 1998. Protocol for field testing of tall buildings to
determine envelope air leakage rate. Final Report for ASHRAE Research Project 935.
Brennan 2007, Brennan, T., Clarkin, M. Characterizing Air Leakage in Large Buildings.
Journal of Building Envelope Design, V3.3.
Brennan 2002, Brennan, T., Cummings, J. The Moisture Impact of Unplanned Airflows in
Buildings. ASHRAE Journal November, 2002
CGSB 149.15-96 Determination of the Overall Envelope Airtightness of Buildings by the Fan
Pressurization Method Using the Buildings Air Handling Systems
EIA 2010 information downloaded on 2/1/2010 from http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/
EPA 2010 information downloaded on 2/15/2010 from http://www.epa.gov/iaq/hbhp/
Emmerich 2005, Emmerich, S., Persily, A., McDowell, T., Impact of Commercial Building
Infiltration on Heating and Cooling Loads in U.S. Office Buildings. In: Conference
proceedings Ventilation in Relation to the Energy Performance of Buildings. AIVC, 2005
Persily 1999, Persily, Andrew K. Myths About Building Envelopes. ASHRAE Journal, March
1999.
Persily 1997, Persily, A. Evaluating Building IAQ and Ventilation with Indoor Carbon
Dioxide. ASHRAE Journal, V 103 pt.2 .
U.S. Department of Energy (2006). Annual Energy Review 2005. U.S. Department of Energy:
Washington, DC. www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/aer.pdf
Roulet 2002, Roulet, C.A. and Foradini F. Simple and Cheap Air Change Rate Measurement
Using CO2 Concentration Decays. International Journal of Ventilation. Vol. 1, no. 1.
Woods 2007, Improving the Building Envelope to Meet the Challenges of New Research and
Regulation. In: Proceedings of the Thermal Performance of the Exterior Envelopes of
Whole Buildings X International Conference. Florida, Paper #94, pp. 1-6.

Zhivov, et al. 2010 U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers Air Leakage Test Protocol For Measuring
Air Leakage In Buildings. Downloaded on 4/03/2010 from
www.wbdg.org/pdfs/usace_airleakagetestprotocol.pdf