Field trialling of a pulse airtightness tester in a range of UK homes

A new low pressure ‘quasi-steady’ pulse technique for determining the airtightness of buildings has been developed further and compared with the standard blower-door technique for field-testing a range of typical UK homes. The reported low pressure air pulse unit (APU) has gone through several development stages related to optimizing the algorithm, pressure reference and system construction. The technique, which is compact, portable and easy to use, has been tested alongside the standard blower-door technique to measure the airtightness of a range of typical UK home types. Representative of the UK housing stock, the homes mostly have low levels of airtightness, resulting in poor energy performance, poor indoor air quality and poor thermal comfort. Some of these homes have been targeted for retrofitting and a quick, low cost and simple method for accurately determining their airtightness has clear advantages for correctly predicting the benefits of any improvements. A comparison between the results given by the two techniques is presented and the field trials indicate that the latest version of the pulse technique is reliable for determining building leakage at low pressure. Repeatability of multiple APU tests in the same house is found to be within +/-5% of the mean. A test where the leakage is increased by a known amount shows the APU is able to measure the change more accurately than the blower-door test. The APU also gives convenience in practical applications, due to being more compact and portable, plus it doesn’t need to penetrate the building envelope. The field trials demonstrate the pulse test has the potential to be a feasible alternative to the standard blower-door test

Post-construction thermal testing: Some recent measurements

In the UK, it has become apparent in recent years that there is often a discrepancy between the steady-state predicted and the measured in situ thermal performance of the building fabric, with the measured in situ performance being greater than that predicted. This discrepancy or gap in the thermal performance of the building fabric is commonly referred to as the building fabric 'performance gap'. This paper presents the results and key messages obtained from undertaking a whole-building heat loss test (a coheating test) on seven new-build dwellings as part of the Technology Strategy Board's Building Performance Evaluation Programme. While the total number of dwellings involved in the work reported here is small, the results illustrate that a wide range of discrepancies in thermal performance was measured for the tested dwellings. Despite this, the results also indicate that it is possible to construct dwellings where the building fabric performs thermally more or less as predicted, thus effectively bridging the traditional building fabric performance gap that exists in mainstream housing in the UK

A UK practitioner view of domestic energy performance measurement

There is a growing body of evidence concerning the energy efficiency performance of domestic buildings in the UK, driven by policy-based agenda, such as the need for zero carbon dioxide homes by 2016 for new build homes, and Green Deal and energy company obligation for sustainable refurbishment. While there have been a number of studies funded and results presented in this area, little work has been done to understand the drivers, practices and issues of data collection and analysis. There are a number of major building performance evaluation (BPE) studies in the UK, yet behind many of these research projects are practical issues of data loss, experimental error, data analysis variances and resident issues that are common when studies move from the actual to the living lab. In this paper the issues of domestic energy are addressed by leading BPE practitioners in the UK. They identify issues of client demands, technical failure, costs and implementation. The work provides insights of both academic and industry-based practitioners and considers not only the practicalities of building performance studies, but also implications for these types of studies in the future