Experimental insights into the airtightness measurement of a house-sized chamber in a sheltered environment using blower door and pulse methods. (September 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Zheng, Xiaofeng; Cooper, Edward W.; Mazzon, Joe; Wallis, Ian; Wood, Christopher J.
• Is Part Of: Building and environment. Volume 162(2019)
• Publication Date: 2019-09
• Subjects: Building airtightness -- Blower door -- Pulse -- Sheltered environment; Buildings -- Environmental engineering -- Periodicals; Building -- Research -- Periodicals; Constructions -- Technique de l'environnement -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; 696
• DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106269
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0360-1323

Abstract

Abstract: This paper introduces a comparison study of measuring the airtightness of a house-sized test chamber using the novel pulse technique and a low range blower door method in a sheltered environment. Eight different testing plates were prepared and applied to the improvised envelope of the chamber to establish different leakage characteristics. Each testing plate has a unique opening in its centre, achieved by obtaining different combinations of shape and thickness of the opening. By using the sheltered environment, the vagaries of the natural condition when testing within buildings have been reduced providing a more robust testing environment. This investigation focuses on how the air leakage rate calculated from the measurements made by both techniques compare with each other. Comparable results (0–5.3%) under most scenarios have been obtained. Larger discrepancies (14.6% and 21.8%) were observed in the two airtight scenarios due to insufficient pressure range achieved in a standard pulse test. This finding guided further improvement on the testing performance. Further pulse tests under different scenarios, involving the use of an internal barrier and various locations of the pulse unit were also performed to investigate the uniform pressure distribution and resilience to external interferences. It showed the internal barrier and location had minor impact (1.62%–4.65%) on the test results. Highlights: This manuscript introduces a pulse pressurisation technique, which gives a realistic measurement. The experimental study presents a direct comparison between the pulse and blower door methods in a sheltered condition. A close agreement (0–5.3%) with each other was obtained in most scenarios. Larger discrepancies (14.6% and 21.8%) were shown in two highly airtight scenarios where the pulse was delayed. The location of pulse and internal barrier had minor impact (1.62% to 4.65%) on the measurement.