AeroBarrier is touted as the best route to never fail another blower door test. The technology, which involves pressurizing a space with a blower door fan while misting a water-based glue into the air from multiple points throughout the space, is most often being used on new multifamily buildings after drywall is installed. SWA first experimented with the technique on the Cornell Tech high-rise building. Back in March, I reached out to Yudah Schwartz at SuperSeal Insulation, Inc. about a personal project, the gut rehab of a 2,500 SF detached single family home. While renovations aren’t something they normally do, Yudah and his team agreed to try a demo. Here’s what happened.
AeroBarrier: A New Tool for Gut Rehabs?
Choosing Insulation for Carbon Value – Why More is Not Always Better Part 1
SWA’s Enclosure Group is acutely aware that insulation is the most important single material choice to maximize the enclosure’s thermal resistance over its operational life. Many of us in the building industry believe that, combined with a good continuous air seal, the highest insulation value makes the greenest enclosure, helping to reduce a structure’s carbon footprint and combat climate change. It may come as a surprise, then, that some of the most commonly used insulation materials are so carbon-heavy to manufacture and/or install, that for many decades they wipe away the carbon-energy savings they are supposed to provide. The following is a detailed discussion of how and why this is, and what the industry is doing to change the equation.
Embodied vs. Operational Carbon
The built environment looms large in the climate picture, because almost 40% of the total carbon put into the planet’s atmosphere each year is attributed to buildings. Over the past 30 years of green building, we have overwhelmingly focused on operational carbon – the carbon that buildings emit as they are being used. Only recently have we begun to focus on embodied carbon – the carbon that goes into constructing buildings, which is typically far greater than the energy saved in the first decades of operation. Changes in energy codes are aimed at operational carbon, and even those organizations and standards that have been at the forefront of promoting sustainable building [LEED, PH] have not been quantifying or limiting embodied carbon, although they bring attention to it.
The Time Value of Carbon
Assuming that a building stands for many decades, or even centuries, its operational carbon will eclipse its embodied carbon over its lifetime, and therefore when the building’s carbon Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is calculated, operational carbon savings will be more important than embodied carbon saved/spent in the long run. Why does embodied carbon deserve equal weight with operational carbon? Because of the total global carbon emissions from buildings, 28% is pegged to embodied carbon. That’s already a large percentage, but when you consider the near term, the first 30 years of a building’s life, the percentage jumps to about 50%. In effect, every new building is in carbon debt upon completion due to the huge amount of carbon emitted in order to construct it., And in order for the climate to benefit from the energy savings provided by a well-insulated and sealed enclosure and a high efficiency energy system, the building needs to last and be used for a very long time. The problem is that we may not have 30 years, let alone 60, to pay off that carbon debt.
In the first 30 years of a building’s operational life, 50% of its total carbon emissions are still due to embodied carbon (Source: Architecture 2030)
Technically Speaking: Not All Insulation is Graded Equally
About a year ago, I worked along with other HERS raters and the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (NAIMA, a.k.a. Insulation Institute) to conduct a study on the importance of insulation installation quality and grading.
RESNET, the nation’s leading home energy efficiency network and the governing body of the Home Energy Rating System (HERS® Index) established standards for grading insulation installation.
The grading is as follows:
Grade I— the best and nearly perfect install which includes almost no gaps or compression… what some would call “G.O.A.T.”
Grade II—allows for up to 2% of missing insulation (gaps) and up to 10% compression over the insulation surface area… what some would call “mad decent”.
Grade III—insulation gaps exceed 2% and compression exceeds 10%… anything worse and the insulated surface area is considered un-insulated.
Project Spotlight: 1115 H Street – Transforming the Neighborhood with LEED Platinum
Front elevation of the building
The newly constructed five-story mixed-use building located at 1115 H Street, NE is raising the bar with a LEED for Homes Platinum certification in the works. Offering 16 high-performance condominiums with an array of sustainable practices, including environmentally preferable products, and water- and energy-conserving fixtures and appliances, the project is contributing to the rapid revitalization of the H Street Corridor neighborhood. Steven Winter Associates, Inc. supported the energy and green building goals for the project, including LEED certification.
Air Sealing with Open Cell Spray Foam Insulation – Know the Risks
As the latest versions (2012 and 2015) of the International Energy Conservation Codes (IECC) push for more efficient homes, we are getting more questions from architects on how to achieve the air tightness requirements of 3 ACH50. There is no one correct answer, but it can be often achieved through taping of exterior structural or insulated sheathing, air sealing of wall cavities prior to insulating, and/or the use of insulation that is restrictive of air movement. The most common approach that we are asked about is the use of open cell spray polyurethane foam (ocSPF), as it is air impermeable (required thickness is dependent on the specific product, so check requirements in the ICC Evaluation Services Report), reasonably priced, and theoretically, doesn’t require any changes to standard builder practices. While it is true that ocSPF will provide air sealing cost-effectively, we typically do not recommend it in our cold climate region without additional measures due to risk potential over time. To effectively build a home with ocSPF, thoughtful detailing and a high level of execution is required to ensure that it remains effective 5, 10, 15…25 years from now.
While this wall assembly was not insulated with ocSPF, poor window flashing details are a common issue that we see and is one of the reasons we are cautious with this insulation approach.
- ocSPF is vapor permeable, so there is a greater potential for condensation in the building enclosure than if closed cell spray polyurethane foam (ccSPF) is used. A hybrid approach of ccSPF and an alterative insulation (ocSPF, cellulose, fiberglass, etc.) is often used to keep costs down.
- ocSPF can absorb 40% of water by volume. Therefore, if bulk water from leaks does make it into the building enclosure, the ocSPF will retain the water until saturated. Pinpointing the source of the leak may be difficult as the water can migrate within the foam.
Our main concern is that the performance of the product requires several trades to meet a high level of quality to ensure success and hope that the homeowners don’t unwittingly cause problems down the road through lack of maintenance. Here’s what we suggest… (more…)
SWA High Performance Design Best Practice: Limiting Shelf Angles in Masonry Buildings
BACKGROUND
The multifamily building industry has adopted a best practice long touted by the building science community: continuous insulation at the exterior of the building. However, even in this ideal circumstance in which the insulation is installed flush and without gaps against the exterior substrate (concrete block or sheathing) with an air barrier applied to this substrate beforehand, the overall performance of the insulation will be vastly reduced by the installation of shelf angles.
Shelf angles (also know as relieving angles) are designed to support the expansion and contraction of the brick coursing; however, this presents a direct challenge to the continuity of exterior insulation. Standard design details interrupt the exterior insulation at every shelf angle, typically at every floor in line with window lintels. Since the shelf angle is made of steel, a highly conductive material, this interruption impacts not only the effectiveness of the insulation in general, it provides a considerable thermal bridge over the entire horizontal band of the building at every occurrence.
A recent article by Urban Green Council, “State Energy Code Clarification Will Stem Heat Loss through Walls,” made it clear that a continuous shelf angle has “about the same poor thermal performance as [an] exposed slab edge.” The full article can be read here.
Fig. 1. An infrared (IR) image that shows the thermal impact of shelf angles
SWA RECOMMENDATION #1: LIMITING SHELF ANGLES
Not all buildings require relieving angles. Building owners, architects, and structural engineers should first ask themselves whether relieving angles are necessary at all for the building being designed. If it is determined that these angles will be necessary, the next question the structural engineer should ask himself is what the minimum frequency necessary is to support the brick course. Generally speaking, buildings do not need one shelf angle per floor—despite this being common practice.
In addition to the aforementioned energy implications involved in specifying shelf angles, there are other benefits to eliminating these steel members when possible. The most obvious impact is on upfront costs. At approximately $25/foot of angle iron (via Union Iron Works), shelf angles for multifamily buildings in New York City can cost tens of thousands of dollars.
Upfront and operating (i.e. energy) costs aside, there is also the embodied energy of the material to consider. Not only does the manufacture of the steel angle contribute to its embodied energy, but also all of the energy used to transport these pieces to the project site. By reducing the need for the production of these angles, the overall energy expended to construct a new building decreases.
One additional consideration for owners is the maintenance required for shelf angles. The introduction of brick lintels creates an inherent and inevitable need for future maintenance. Since the cost of this upkeep is often considerable, owners may wish to use the opportunity to limit shelf angles during design to reduce long-term maintenance costs.
SWA RECOMMENDATION #2: OFFSETTING SHELF ANGLES
In addition to limiting their frequency, consider a shelf angle offset to further reduce thermal bridging. One such system that allows for this is manufactured by FERO called FAST (FERO Angle Support Technology).
Fig. 2. Typical FAST TM system detail
FAST is designed to offset the shelf angle from the structural backing, allowing the insulation and air barrier installations to be more continuous. More information about this product can be found on their website.
SWA welcomes the input of design teams for other possible solutions to achieve a more continuously insulated wall. By accomplishing this, the building will have a truly continuous thermal envelope. As a result, thermal bridging will be eliminated along with the associated energy losses.
Fig.3. An offset shelf angle
Fig.4. A wall section with an offset structural shelf angle
CONCLUSION
To implement best building practices, fulfill the continuous insulation requirements of certification programs, and comply with NYC Energy Conservation and Construction Code, SWA recommends limiting the number of shelf angles in the construction of the envelope. This will help limit upfront material and long-term maintenance costs.
SWA also recommends off-setting the shelf angle to reduce the thermal bridging these steel elements create. Fewer shelf angles means that there are less obstacles imposed on exterior insulation, resulting in less thermal bridging. Limiting the impact of shelf angles produces a more robust and insulated envelope that will, in turn, positively impact the energy performance of the building and comfort of its occupants.
SWA would like to thank Robert Murray for his assistance with this article.
Robert J. Murray, P.E., LEED AP, Principal
Murray Engineering, PC
307 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1001
New York, NY 10001
Telephone: 212.741.1102
Email: rmurray@murray-engineering.com
REFERENCES
1. Anderson, J., D’Aloisio, J. DeLong, D., Miller-Johnson, R., Oberdorf, K., Ranieri, R., Stine, T., and Weisenberger, G. “Thermal Bridging Solutions: Minimizing Structural Steel’s Impact on Building Envelope Energy Transfer.” American Institute of Steel Construction. Modern Steel Construction, 1 Mar. 2012. Web. <http://msc.aisc.org/globalassets/modern-steel/archives/2012/03/2012v03_thermal_bridging.pdf>.
2. FERO: Engineered Construction Technologies. Product Catalogue. Edmonton: FERO: Engineered Construction Technologies, 2014. Web. <http://www.ferocorp.com/pages/fast/fast.html>