Residential remodel/addition for Bed & Breakfast conversion
77% air leakage reduction in 80 minutes
STUDY: CAULK/FOAM AT DRYWALL VS. AEROBARRIER:
A component of this installation was to first do as thorough a job as possible to seal every leakage point that was visually identified. Narrow leakage points were sealed with caulk, such as between drywall and electrical boxes, lighting cans, etc. Other wider leakage points, such as between drywall and bathroom fan boxes, were sealed with a foam gun.
The manual sealing work resulted in a low 3.2 ACH50 test-in leakage result. However, when we put the structure under low positive pressure with theatrical smokers in operation inside, we could see plenty of smoke coming out of many points on the exterior of the structure. This smoking effort revealed that there was still a lot of leakage that our manual work had not been able to seal up. We left the smoke inside the structure while running the AeroBarrier process, and within a short time there was no more smoke that we could see coming out anywhere on the exterior. This exercise proves that AeroBarrier does a superior job of sealing up a structure at drywall stage of construction as opposed to the utilization of caulk and foam.
Of note, we discovered that the high-quality aluminum windows installed had leakage points where there should not be any. We could see evidence (built up AeroBarrier sealant) of leakage occurring between the glass and aluminum frames at “fixed” windows, as well as at other points of the frames where there should be no air leakage. we will be providing this evidence to the manufacturer to help them understand that there are flaws in their manufacturing – there should be no air infiltration such as we found in their fixed windows.
Note regarding the graph on certificate to the right: The spike at around minute-40 is an aberration, it has no relevance.