You are being redirected because this document is part of your ASTM Compass® subscription.
    This document is part of your ASTM Compass® subscription.

    STP1255

    Air Leakage Characteristics of Various Rough-Opening Sealing Methods for Windows and Doors

    Published: 0


      Format Pages Price  
    PDF (244K) 12 $25   ADD TO CART
    Complete Source PDF (5.6M) 300 $109   ADD TO CART

    Cite this document

    X Add email address send
    X
      .RIS For RefWorks, EndNote, ProCite, Reference Manager, Zoteo, and many others.   .DOCX For Microsoft Word


    Abstract

    The air leakage characteristics of eight methods of sealing, or otherwise treating, the rough openings (R/O) found around window and door frames were evaluated under laboratory conditions. The eight methods studied were: 1. no treatment (empty), 2. conventional (fiber glass), 3. densely packed, fiber glass, 4. backer rod, 5. casing tape, 6. poly-return, 7. poly-wrap, and 8. foamed-in-place urethane.

    The untreated R/O (Method 1) displayed the greatest leakage while the second largest occurred using the conventional practice of packing fiber glass into the R/O space (Method 2). In contrast, Methods 5, 6, 7 and 8 were able to reduce R/O leakage to negligible levels.

    To relate these results to the overall building leakage, an estimate was made of the percentage of the total building leakage which would occur through the R/Os in a typical 97 m2 (1040 ft2) bungalow. Two levels of total house airtightness were assumed: 1.5 air changes per hour at 50 Pa (ac/h50) representing tight construction and 5.0 ac/h50 (representing loose construction). For the tight house with Method 1 (no treatment), the R/O leakage accounted for 39% of the total house leakage; with Method 2 (conventional), this figure dropped to 14%. With each of Methods 5 to 8, the contribution of R/O leakage to total house leakage was less than 1%. For the loose house and Method 1, the R/O leakage was 12% of the total; with Method 2, it dropped to 4% and with Methods 4 to 8, it was less than 1%.

    The incremental builder cost of each technique (i.e., exclusive of mark-up for overhead, profit, etc.) was estimated assuming Method 2 as conventional practice with a base cost of zero. Incremental costs ranged from a low of $18 per house for the urethane approach (Method 8) to $84 per house for the poly-wrap technique (Method 7).

    Keywords:

    residential airtightness, air leakage, rough-opening air leakage, window, door air leakage


    Author Information:

    Proskiw, G
    Proskiw Engineering Ltd., Winnipeg, Manitoba


    Committee/Subcommittee: E06.41

    DOI: 10.1520/STP14694S