Air sealing and ventilation improvements were tested in six multifamily buildings to reduce odor transfer between units. General approaches included ventilating odor sources, reducing air leakage between units through sealing, and increasing ventilation of receiving units. Air sealing focused on leaks between units and reduced shared leakage by an average of 23%. Ventilation was increased by installing new fans, converting intermittent exhaust to continuous, and balancing air flows, raising average rates by 60%. Tracer gas tests found reduced odor transfer in 65% of units, with 80% of tenants reporting less frequent and severe secondhand smoke drift. The study demonstrated practical, low-cost air sealing and ventilation treatments can effectively improve indoor air quality in multifamily housing.
1 of 117
More Related Content
Air Sealing and Ventilation Improvements for Multifamily Buildings - Fitzgerald and Bohac
1. Air sealing and ventilation
improvements for multifamily
buildings
March 2, 2012
Jim Fitzgerald
Dave Bohac
Center for Energy and Environment
Better Buildings: Better Business Conference
2. Better air quality through sealing leaks
between units and ventilation improvements
What causes problems?
Air leakage & air flow rate measurements
• 6 building CEE study
Air sealing and ventilation case studies
Maybe save energy too
4. Convert to smoke-free building
Association of Nonsmokers - Minnesota
http://www.mnsmokefreehousing.org/
500+ smoke-free apartment buildings listed in Minnesota
5. Owners – cooking odors are worst problem
What type of odor or contaminant is the most common source of
objectionable air in buildings you manage?
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
cooking odors
tobacco odors
other
none
don't know
6. How big are air flows between units?
Pacific Northwest:
• Building average – 13 to 26% air from other units
• Individual units – as high as 35%
NJ mid-rise: 4th floor – 22% from other units
West Coast: 4% air from adjoining units
Francisco & Palmiter (1994)
Harrje et al (1988)
Feustal & Diamond (1988)
Multizone tracer gas measurements
7. How big are air leaks between units?
Minnesota: Modera et al. (1986)
• 52% air leaks between units
• 1900’s low-rise masonry
Chicago: Diamond et al. (1986)
• Similar results to Minnesota
• 1900’s low-rise
Sweden: Levin (1988)
• 12 to 36% air leaks between units
• 3 Swedish apartment buildings
Blower door air leakage tests
8. What are the driving forces to
move air into and though
buildings?
9. What are the driving forces?
Winter
Stack Effect
Taller Building => Bigger Effect
In at the bottom and
out the top
10. What are the driving forces?
Wind Effect
In on windward side and
out on leeward side
Taller Building => Bigger Effect
11. Mechanical ventilation is required by code:
bathrooms, corridors & some kitchens
Exhaust ventilation => draws air into an apartment
Flow imbalances can also cause air to move from
one apartment to another
What are the driving forces?
Mechanical System Effect
12. Does it help for a smoker in a lower floor unit
to open a window?
Not upstairs neighbor
Pressure in smoker’s unit
will be about the same as
outside, which increases
pressure to upstairs and
increases flow from
smoker’s unit to upstairs
13. In at the bottom and out the
top
Anyway it can!
Gaps in walls, floors, mechanical chases
Some are accessible and others too diffuse or
inaccessible for sealing
How does the air travel between units?
23. Can practical air sealing and
ventilation treatments reduce
secondhand smoke (SHS) transfer?
6 dissimilar buildings common to local multifamily
building types
This research project was funded in part by ClearWay Minnesota, … funded by proceeds from
the Minnesota tobacco settlement. These findings are solely the responsibility of the authors
and do not necessarily represent the official views of ClearWay Minnesota.
24. General approach to reduce odor transport
between apartments and improve air quality
Ventilate the source
• Capture source before transported
Reduce transport between apartments
• Seal building leaks
• Reduce driving force - pressure difference
Ventilate receiver’s apartment
25. General approach to reduce odor transport
between apartments and improve air quality
Ventilate
Seal
Ventilate
27. New 4 story
138 unit
11 story
1982
2001
1999
Minnesota SHS transfer study
28. Page 28
Quantify – building tests
Before and after fan pressurization tests
• Total “effective leakage area” of apartment
• Fraction of leakage area to outside and to other
units
29. Guarded Zone Multiple Fan Air Leakage Test
Up to 6 tests per unit
Test 1 Test 2
Unit A Unit B Unit C Unit A Unit B Unit C
QB1 QA2 QB2
Common Area Common Area
Q50
B total = QB1 Q50
B to A = QB1 - QB2
Test 3 Test 4
Unit A Unit B Unit C Unit A Unit B Unit C
QB3 QC3 QB4
QComm4
Common Area Common Area
Q50
B to C = QB1 - QB3 Q50
B exterior = QB4
Fan Fan Fan
Fan Fan Fan
Fan
Test 1 Test 2
Unit A Unit B Unit C Unit A Unit B Unit C
QB1 QA2 QB2
Common Area Common Area
Q50
B total = QB1 Q50
B to A = QB1 - QB2
Test 3 Test 4
Unit A Unit B Unit C Unit A Unit B Unit C
QB3 QC3 QB4
QComm4
Common Area Common Area
Q50
B to C = QB1 - QB3 Q50
B exterior = QB4
Fan Fan Fan
Fan Fan Fan
Fan
Test 1 Test 2
Unit A Unit B Unit C Unit A Unit B Unit C
QB1 QA2 QB2
Common Area Common Area
Q50
B total = QB1 Q50
B to A = QB1 - QB2
Test 3 Test 4
Unit A Unit B Unit C Unit A Unit B Unit C
QB3 QC3 QB4
QComm4
Common Area Common Area
Q50
B to C = QB1 - QB3 Q50
B exterior = QB4
Fan Fan Fan
Fan Fan Fan
Fan
Test 1 Test 2
Unit A Unit B Unit C Unit A Unit B Unit C
QB1 QA2 QB2
Common Area Common Area
Q50
B total = QB1 Q50
B to A = QB1 - QB2
Test 3 Test 4
Unit A Unit B Unit C Unit A Unit B Unit C
QB3 QC3 QB4
QComm4
Common Area Common Area
Q50
B to C = QB1 - QB3 Q50
B exterior = QB4
Fan Fan Fan
Fan Fan Fan
Fan
1: Total Leakage
2: 1 – 2= Leak to Right
3: 1 – 3= Leak to Left
4: 1 – 4= Leak to Out
30. Page 30
Quantify – building tests
Before and after fan pressurization tests
• Total “effective leakage area” of apartment
• Fraction of leakage area to outside and to other units
Before and after tracer gas tests
• Week long average tests
• Passive perfluorocarbon tracers
• Nicotine
• Particles
Measure exhaust ventilation flow
Measure before/after treatments
Up to 7 units per building
31. Tracer gas tests show considerable air
movement between apartments
Fraction of Air Coming From Adjoining
Units Compared to Total Inflow
Building Min Median Max Min Median
Duplex 6% 35% 65%
8-Plex 1% 3% 24%
12-Plex 1% 12% 26%
138 Unit 1% 11% 25% 1% 7%
11 Story 2% 5% 12% 1% 2%
4 Story 1% 2% 10% 0% 2%
All Units 1% 5% 65% 0% 3%
Pre-Treatment (%) After Sealing (%
26%16%
26%
One-week tracer gas measurements
32. Range Median
Top-floor units: 2 to 26% 16%
Mid-floor units: 1 to 20% 5%
Lowest-floor units: 1 to 4% 2%
How does the fraction vary by floor?
Fraction of Air Coming From Adjoining Units
Compared to Total Inflow
One-week tracer gas measurements
33. Total air leakage of individual units
Min Median Max Min Median Max Min Median Max < 1.25
2,101 2,368 2,636 115 130 145 3.16 3.56 3.97 0%
837 1,008 1,031 46 55 57 1.93 2.04 2.46 0%
731 917 1,318 40 50 72 1.61 2.02 2.90 0%
390 665 754 21 37 41 0.86 1.01 2.06 88%
376 454 958 21 25 53 0.57 0.76 2.14 86%
921 1,156 1,559 51 63 86 1.05 1.85 2.30 14%
376 861 2,636 21 47 145 0.57 1.66 3.97 22%
NELA (si/100 sf)Ref. Flow Rate(cfm50) ELA (si)
Building Min Median Max Min Median Max Min
Duplex 2,101 2,368 2,636 115 130 145 3.16
8 Plex 837 1,008 1,031 46 55 57 1.93
12 Plex 731 917 1,318 40 50 72 1.61
138 Unit 390 665 754 21 37 41 0.86
11 Story 376 454 958 21 25 53 0.57
4 Story 921 1,156 1,559 51 63 86 1.05
All Buildings 376 861 2,636 21 47 145 0.57
Ref. Flow Rate(cfm50) ELA (si)
LEED Green Building Rating system for MF SHS control requires ELA
divided by wall & floor & ceiling area to be less than 1.25 si/100 sf
ELA – equivalent leakage area, reference 4Pa & coef. = 1
(1999)
(1982)
(2001)
Blower door air leakage tests
34. Fraction of air leakage to adjacent units
Total
Building ELA (si) ELA (si) (%)
Duplex 130 26 20%
8 Plex1
55 28 59%
12 Plex1
50 28 57%
138 Unit 37 5 16%
11 Story 25 8 26%
4 Story 64
All Buildings 47 9 27%
1 - leakage to adjacent units includes leakage to common area
To Adjacent Units
Blower door air leakage tests
35. Leakage Area of Individual Units
712
34
1.8
612
28
1.1
514 512 510
28 1.3 24 0.5 33
2.5 1.1 4.4
414 412 410
34 2.4 22 0.1 53
1.0 2.3 4.2
314 312 310
21 3.0 25 1.3 33
1.2
212
23
Elevator
11 Story Building
37. General approach to reduce odor transport
between apartments and improve air quality
Ventilate
Seal
Ventilate
38. Air sealing treatments
Focus on leaks between units (not exterior)
Seal as much is practical – 3 to 8 hours/unit.
Average cost of about $700/unit
Blower door test to monitor total leakage
Use visual/smoke puffer diagnostics
sometimes aided by blower door. Tried IR in
limited cases
39. Total and shared leakage
CFM50/unit
Existing After Treatments
Total Shared Total Shared
Duplex 2409 466 1881 601
8-plex 1032 475 916 307
12-plex 918 507 769 247
138 unit 641 90 639 88
New 4 story 1150 25 900 20
11 story 556 120 417 108
Blower door air leakage tests
40. Modest overall reductions in leakage between
apartment units – but some were significant
Range Median
Duplex: small change
8-plex: 21 to 44% 35%
12-plex: 14 to 70% 55%
New 138-unit: 0 to 23% small change
New 4-story: 0 to 20%
11-story: 0 to 56% 23%
Blower door air leakage tests
41. Mechanical ventilation observations
Often provided only by occupant-operated
(highly intermittent-typically off) bath fans
Many bath fans are better noise-generators
than air movers, even when new
Apartment bath fans are not
maintained (corrosion, dirt)
Apartment exhaust flows are
rarely balanced
42. Continuous ventilation in code
“Old” Codes
• Kitchens: 0 cfm OR 100+ cfm
• Baths: 50 cfm
2012 International Mech. Code
• Kitchens: 25 cfm
• Bathrooms: 20 cfm
ASHRAE 62.1 -2010
• 5 cfm per person + 0.06cfm/sq ft
• Kitchens: 50 cfm
• Kitchenettes: 0.30 cfm/sq ft
• Toilets: 25cfm
43. Corridor supply choices
Minimum 0.05 cfm/sq ft corridor area (IBC)
Minimum 0.06 cfm/sq ft corridor area
ASHRAE 62.1-2010
Supply all ventilation to corridor & exhaust
from units
Original design flow (typically higher)
Confirm with local code official
44. Ventilation treatments – for study
Install effective (and quiet) exhaust fans with
capacity of at least 30 to 45cfm
Convert intermittent exhaust to continuous
exhaust
Balance exhaust air flows to reduce
ventilation driving force between units
46. Ventilation rate increased substantially
60% Increase*only one unit with added fan
Existing After Treatments
Duplex: 28 (12 to 43) 43 (35 to 50)
8-plex: 38 (19 to 58) 50 (26 to 79)
12-plex: 38 (23 to 75) 73 (57 to 157)
New 138-unit: 26 (15 to 47) 41 (31 to 53)
11-story: 28 (18 to 79) 69 (45 to 124)
4-story*: 45 (26 to 61) 48 (22 to 88)
Average 34 54
Median Ventilation Rate (cfm)
min to max
One-week tracer gas measurements
47. Cleaner air, same transfer rate
Original ventilation system may be a direct path
for smoke transfer (11 story, 138 unit, 4 story
ducts)
More smoke is captured near source
Dilution reduces concentration in nonsmoker’s
or receiver’s unit
48. Effect of Treatments: Air Transfer
Fraction of Incoming Air From Adjoining Units
Existing After Treatments
Top-floor: 16% (2 to 26%) 13% (0 to 42%)
Mid-floor: 5% (1 to 20%) 2% (0 to 12%)
Lowest-floor: 2% (1 to 4%) 7% (1 to 19%)
One-week tracer gas measurements
49. Effect of treatments
65% of the units had decreased air transfer
60% increase in ventilation rate
80% of tenants: SHS drift was less frequent and
less severe
55. Easy air flow is possible through framing
around pipes, etc
56. Page 56
Is better good enough?
Unit #3 contaminants in unit #7 decreased by
factor of five
Fraction of air from unit #3 to #7 reduced from
11% to 6%
Unit #3 ventilation rate increased 158%
Marked reduction of SHS odors per tenants
Will owners pay for it? Who can do the work?
57. Page 57
Ongoing Success: 67 Buildings in
Condo Complex of Tested 8-plex
Condo Maintenance team trained to respond to
smoke complaints in additional buildings.
Smoker is back-charged for repair costs
20 additional units have been completed to date
15 more units are scheduled
Huge improvement in livability
Common areas air quality improved
58. Page 58
Details of Ongoing work
Typical complaint has smoker on lower level with fan off
and large bypasses venting smoke into chases.
Non-smoker on upper level often had higher exhaust fan
flows which increased airflow from chase into unit. Stack
effect enhances this flow in winter.
Seal major bypasses, 1-4 person hours
Ventilation modifications
• Nonsmoker: replace fan damper with CAR
• Smoker: remove fan damper and omit CAR for higher capture.
• Typical flows are 25cfm in nonsmoker and 75cfm in smoker’s
unit.
Existing Conditions
Practical & Effective Work
59. Page 59
High rise case study: seal hidden shafts
& rooftop exhaust ventilation
66. Page 66
Obstructions: undersized floor cutout
full-sized subduct
Concrete floor Bathroom
vent
sub duct
The 144 sq. in. shaft area only
has 32 sq. in. for air flow.
c
Vent chase: 12” X 12” = 144 Sq. in.
8 x 8 cutout
67. Page 67
Obstructions: undersized floor cutout
full-sized subduct
Vent chase: 12” X 12” = 144 Sq. in.
Concrete floor Bathroom
sub duct –
replaced
with 3” for
more flow.
The 144
in2 shaft
only has
32 in2 for
air flow
8 x 8 cutout
69. Page 69
Total: 506 cfm
From units: 93 cfm
Leaks: 413 cfm
No flow from lower 5 floors
Fan & register flow measurements
70. Page 70
Ventilation system problems
Restrictions cause most air to be drawn from
upper apartments
Duct leaks
• Air drawn from unknown sources
• Lower units no or reverse flow
Operable registers – occupant “balancing”
• No flow when closed
• Too high when open
71. Page 71
Ventilation system solutions
Reduce duct restrictions: 3” sub ducts to
upper 3 floors
Seal ductwork with Aeroseal technology
Install constant air regulators or designed
orifice plates at registers
Test and adjust fan flow to required duct
pressure
Thanks to Don Stevens for advising us of subduct code issue
Target: equal flow from all units
72. Page 72
Remove restriction and provide 3”
subducts for top 3 floors
Code: fire damper or sheet
metal sub duct extending
22” above fan inlet
73. Page 73
Aeroseal required for fan draw to reach
lower units Before After
Total: 506 279 cfm
From units: 93 221 cfm
Leaks: 413 58 cfm
Targets leaks
74. Page 74
Option used for test:
3” opening sized to
exact flow rate
Remove dampers, balance register flow
First option : “self-adjusting”
constant air regulator “CAR”
Production option:
fixed orifices – more to come
76. Page 76
Keep control fans on
Aethelometer Measurement of ETS
Particle Concentration in Nonsmoker's Apartment
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
11/28 11/29 11/30 12/1 12/2 12/3 12/4 12/5 12/6
ETSParticleConcentration(mg/m3
)
Instrument precision
ETS odors logged by resident
Kitchen shaft central exhaust fan turned off at midnight
SHS odor threshold
Secondhand smoke monitored in 11th floor unit
SHS logged by resident
77. From research to production:
current options
Spray seal ducts with mastic & seal fan curbs
Orifice restrictors
Efficient fan
Clean or remove blockages
79. Fan not connected - curb open
Current options: curb leakage
Total flow: 174 cfm
From units: 30 cfm
Airflow from building
shafts not exhaust grilles
81. Current options
CARs failures: How soon? How often?
After 9 years – 1 in 3 plugged
Dust buildup in 9 months
Adjustment holes
82. Current options
Fixed orifices Not prone to foul
Can be cleaned
Durable
Sized for flow at target
pressure
Mass - produced, low cost
Allow lower operating
pressure (reduced duct leakage,
& fan power)
2
11/2
11/4
1
83. Current options
Fixed orifices – flow rate guideline
Inside Diameter
(in)
Pressure, in wc (Pa)
Nominal Actual
0.15
(36)
0.2
(50)
0.25
(62)
0.36
(90)
0.5
(124)
0.75
(186)
2 2.45 36 40 44 54
1.5 1.97 21 24 28 34 39 48
1.25 1.73 18 21 26 29 36
1 1.37 16 18 22
# stories* 3 to 7 5 to 10 6 to 12 9 to 18 12 to 25 to 25
*- building size for Minneapolis climate (20F average outside temp)
84. Current options: efficient fan
384
471
505
622
710
25 42 50
86
126
940
1143
1234
1508
1720
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
CFMandWatts
Static Pressure PA
CFM
Watts
RPM
Linear (CFM)
Linear (Watts)
EC style fan upgrade: lab test results
C 9" diam test
Static
Press (Pa)
Flow
(cfm)
Power
(watts)
63.6 in2 inlet area 29 384 25
(13 inlets 2.45 in) 44 471 42
(21 inlets 1.97 in) 50 505 50
(27 inlets 1.73 in) 78 622 86
(43 inlets 1.37 in) 100 710 126
Orifice Area= 64 sq in
Fixed Orifice Area= 64 sq in
Vary fan speed
400w to 50w saves 3000kwh/yr each
86. Current options: blockages
Exhaust fan runs but DP low/high
Fan intake 20.9Pa too
low for flow needed
Fan outlet 221Pa to exterior
grille (side with resistance)
Check pressures
90. 300 inspected – 1 in 4 plugged
Current options: supply blockages
91. Exterior screen is clear. Hidden screen is forgotten
Current options: supply blockages
Pressure across grille 0.9 in wc
(221Pa)
Inspection: 18 of 46
Corridor supply intakes
obstructed
92. Nobody can keep this clean:
remove hidden screens
Current options: supply blockages
104. Continuous at 40cfm.
Installer sets high speed:
75, 160, or 390 cfm
Less than 20 watts at low
speed
Continuous ventilation with kitchen hood
in 1 unit
105. Duct seal side-benefit
Backdraft potential reduced by Aeroseal
-4.5 pa before -1.5pa after
80%-ID furnace both into B vent natural draft water heater
Door closed
dryer+ AC fan on
in 1 unit
108. Recommendations: air sealing
Seal between units
Large, accessible leaks (unoccupied or new is better)
Includes ducts and mechanical/plumbing
chases
Improvement possible –
can not eliminate transfer
109. In at the bottom and out the
top
Additional slides
110. Additional Information
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
Fact Sheet: Solving Odour Transfer Problems in Your Apartment
http://www.cmhc.ca/en/co/reho/reho_002.cfm
111. Fan not connected - curb open
Current options: curb leakage
Total flow: 174 cfm
From units: 30 cfm
Airflow from building shafts
not unit exhaust grilles
113. 2-part Foam Seals Plumbing Chase
Stop Vertical Air Transfer In Plumbing Wall
Patched, primed
Inject Foam Along Top of Wall
12-plex
Shared leakage reduced about
50% from 507 to 247 cfm50
114. Kitchen option for cooking source
In different project after work
Cooking moisture was an issue in 15% of units
Continuous kitchen fan option needed
VenMar developed (UL) a quiet continuous
range hood
115. Page 115
Note – Improvements are possible. Managing expectations is
important.
116. Page 116
What does this cost,
who pays, who can do it?
•Licensed mechanical contractor required for all duct alterations.
•Aeroseal franchisee required for duct sealing. (Maint. prep ok)
•Performance contractor/ consultant for design, balancing, QC
•$300 per unit or $3,200 for 1 shaft minimum, $5,000 for 2 shafts
•Changes to the building are an Association responsibility.
•Airsealing in unit is responsibility of individual condo owner
117. Page 117
Individual supply and very low
leakage required for best control
If an occupant opens a window to let smoke out air can
come in and blow smoke into adjacent units.
At 30F we measured a lower unit change pressure from
from -0.7pa to hall to +24pa to hall by opening 1 window.
Some flow still came in from under the kitchen kickboard
@+2pa to hall. The occupant complained about
intermittent smoke. Total air leakage down to 283cfm50
after work.
Some individuals may not tolerate any smoke transfer,
a large improvement may not be enough.
Editor's Notes
Probably the more appropriate title of this presentation is “how to achieve better air quality by sealing leaks between units and improving ventilation. Our focus is not necessarily on reducing energy, but what can be done to improve air quality in MF buildings. So we’ll talk about what the sources of contaminants are, how they get between units, what others have found regarding air leakage and air flows between units and then we’ll present information from our 6 building study in Minnesota.
So do you think the person in this apartment smoked a little bit? It’s either that or a lot of fired food. Secondhand smoke drift between units is one of the most significant sources of concern in apartment buildings and condos.
You could get rid of one of the SHS problem by converting the building to be smoke-free. There has been a strong effort in Minnesota and the “Live Smoke Free” program now has more than 500 smoke-free apartment buildings in Minnesota listed on their web site. They have a nice page that allows people to search for buildings in their area. They also have information for owners regarding steps to making their building smoke-free.
Survey of apartment owners indicates that cooking is the most common source of complaints. So even if a building goes smoke-free, you still have to deal with cooking and other odors that are transferred between units. Also, want to provide adequate ventilation in each unit to keep them fresh.
The cause of the problems are not just the sources, but that air and odors travel between units. You can see in these three studies with tracer gas measurements in apartments across the country that up to 35% of an apartment’s air comes from their neighbors.
Other studies that have looked at the leakage in apartment buildings have found 50% or more of the total leakage is to other apartments or to the common area.
So why is it that apartments share their air and their odors and other contaminants with their neighbors? What are the driving forces?
Just a little building science 101 here. In colder climates the main driving force is the stack effect. You have warm air in the building and colder air outside. Just like a hot air balloon, hotter air rises. In this case this tends to cause air to enter the building on the lower floors and exit out the top. This effect gets bigger with taller buildings, so it can be a big issue for taller MF buildings. That is unless the floors are air sealed or isolated from each other – and that doesn’t happen often.
The wind effect on buildings is pretty obvious. Air tends to enter on the windward side and leave on the downwind side. It is important to note that wind speeds are higher farther from the ground, so wind pressures are greater for the upper level of taller MF buildings.
The third effect is the mechanical system effect and sometimes that isn’t discussed much for single family houses. This is the imbalance of air flow in apartments. In most cases this occurs when there is more exhaust ventilation in one unit than an adjacent unit. Now in some buildings it makes sense to do this. Say for instance you have a pool attached to a school. You don’t want the chlorine smell from the pool to get into the school, so you run extra exhaust in the pool area which causes the pool to be at a negative pressure relative to the school and air flows from the school to the pool – not the other way around. Unfortunately, this same effect happens in MF buildings. Someone doesn’t like their neighbor’s cooking or smoking, so they turn on their bath fan. Unfortunately, that typically causes more air and odor to move into their unit. So turning on an exhaust fan has the exact opposite of the desired effect.
Sometimes smokers can be proactive. We’ve had buildings where the smoker got tired of their neighbor’s complaints so they opened a window when they smoked. Do you think that helps? Well on a cold day it probably helps the person in the unit below, but it doesn’t help their upstairs neighbor. When you open a window it causes the pressure to be about the same as outside which only increases the pressure difference from the smoker to the upper unit and produces more air flow (and odor) to the upper unit. Something to think about – another case where you intuition of what should help actually does not.
Of course you not only need the driving force, but also the pathways. For people that haven’t been involved in air sealing, the initial response can be – how does the air get from my unit to theirs? Solid floor no obvious leaks. But there are always leaks.
Unfortunately, most are small and spread out around the unit – access of occupied units can be a problem.
Baseboards or under walls can be an issue. 1/32” crack doesn’t seem like much but multiply that by 3’ and you have a 1 square inch leak. Multiply by 30’ and you have 10 sq inches.
Not sure if you want this slide here
Not sure if you want this slide here
Add unit ERV/HRV as per Gord Cooke
Stack vents
Put these 3 slides in with the LakeShore case study?