A practical review of alternatives to the steady pressurisation method for determining building airtightness

Xiaofeng Zheng, Edward Cooper, Mark Gillott and Christopher Wood

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2020, vol. 132, issue C

Abstract: As an important indicator of construction quality and envelope integrity of buildings, airtightness is responsible for a considerable amount of energy losses associated with infiltration. It is crucial to understand building airtightness during construction and retrofitting to achieve a suitable envelope airtightness which is essential for obtaining a desirable building energy efficiency, durability and indoor environment. As a convenient means of measurement, the current steady pressurisation method has long been accepted as a standard testing method for measuring building airtightness. It offers an intuitive and robust approach for measuring building airtightness and performing building diagnostics. However, it also has some shortcomings that are mainly related to its high pressure measurement, requirement for skilful operation, long test duration and change to the building envelope. Efforts have been made by manufacturers and researchers to further improve its accuracy and practicality with much progress achieved. Work has also been done to develop alternative methods that can overcome some of the issues. This paper provides a practical review on the incumbent methodology and efforts that have been made over the past decades in research and development of other methods to achieve a similar purpose. It compares them in relation to aspects that are considered important in achieving an accurate, quick and practical measurement of building airtightness and the finding shows other methods such as acoustic and unsteady technique have their own advantages over the steady pressurisation method but also add some of their own restrictions, which therefore makes them suited for different applications.

Keywords: Building airtightness; Steady pressurisation; Blower door; Unsteady technique; The pulse technique; Acoustic method (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032120303403
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:rensus:v:132:y:2020:i:c:s1364032120303403

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/600126/bibliographic
http://www.elsevier. ... 600126/bibliographic

DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2020.110049

Access Statistics for this article

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews is currently edited by L. Kazmerski

More articles in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().