f Advanced Duct-Sealing
Technologies within the
Weatherization Assistance Program
November 2001
Mark P. Ternes
Ho-Ling Hwang DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY
Reports produced after January 1, 1996, are generally available free via the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) Information Bridge:
Web site: http://www.osti.gov/bridge
Reports produced before January 1, 1996, may be purchased by members of the public from the
following source:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: 703-605-6000 (1-800-553-6847)
TDD: 703-487-4639
Fax: 703-605-6900
E-mail: info@ntis.fedworld.gov
Web site: http://www.ntis.gov/support/ordernowabout.htm
Reports are available to DOE employees, DOE contractors, Energy Technology Data Exchange
(ETDE) representatives, and International Nuclear Information System (INIS) representatives
from the following source:
Office of Scientific and Technical Information
P.O. Box 62
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
Telephone: 865-576-8401
Fax: 865-576-5728
E-mail: reports@adonis.osti.gov
Web site: http://www.osti.gov/contact.html
This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an
agency of the United States government. Neither the United States
government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees,
makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal
liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or
usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process
disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately
owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product,
process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or
otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,
recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or
any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed
herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States
government or any agency thereof. ORNL/CON-480
Field Test of Advanced Duct-Sealing Technologies within
the Weatherization Assistance Program
Mark P. Ternes
Ho-Ling Hwang
November 2001
Prepared by the
OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831
managed by
UT-BATTELLE
for the
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
under contract number DE-AC05-00OR22725
iii
CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
v
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xvii
1.
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
1.1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
1.2
Project Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
2.
DUCT-SEALING TECHNOLOGIES USED IN THE FIELD TESTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
2.1
Conventional, Best-Practice Duct-Sealing Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
2.2
Aerosol-Spray Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
3.
FIELD TEST DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
3.1
Experimental Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
3.2
Data Parameters and Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.1 Time-Sequential Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2.2 Point-in-Time Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.3 Survey Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3
Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4.
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE HOUSES IN THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.1
All Houses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.2
Comparison between Best-Practice and Aerosol Houses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
5.
DUCT LEAKAGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.1
All Houses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.2
Comparison between Best-Practice and Aerosol Houses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.3
Comparison between Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6.
PRESSURE PAN MEASUREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.1
All Houses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.2
Comparison between Best-Practice and Aerosol Houses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
7.
ENERGY DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
7.1
All Houses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
7.2
Comparison between Best-Practice and Aerosol Houses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
7.3
Comparison among Weatherization Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
8.
ECONOMICS AND SAFETY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
8.1
Repair Times and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
8.2
Equipment Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 iv
8.3
Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
51
8.4
Manual Repair Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
53
8.5
Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
54
9.
WEATHERIZATION AGENCY INPUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
55
9.1
Aerosol-Spray Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
55
9.2
Best-Practice Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
57
10. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
59
10.1 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
59
10.2 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
60
REFERENCES
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
63
APPENDIX A. FIELD DATA COLLECTION FORMS AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
65
APPENDIX B. WEATHERIZATION AGENCY QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
97 v
FIGURES
2.1
The Aeroseal injector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
2.2
The Aeroseal tubing connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
3.1
Location of the five weatherization agencies participating in the study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2
The difference in energy use calculated by the ASAP and alternative analysis
methods for a sample of houses as a function of the difference in reference
temperature used in each model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4.1
Location of ducts in the field test houses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.2
Types of return and supply ducts found in the field test houses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1
Comparison of duct leakages measured by pressurizing the supply ducts
to 25 Pa with those measured by pressurizing the return ducts to 25 Pa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2
Comparison of total duct leakages to duct leakages to the outside . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.3
Distribution of total duct leakage based on pressurizing