See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/236449498

Protocol for field testing of tall buildings to determine envelope air leakage rate

Conference Paper · July 1999

CITATIONS READS
7 724

3 authors, including:

William Parry Bahnfleth

Pennsylvania State University
146 PUBLICATIONS   2,042 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

UV Disinfection View project

Risk Assessment of Occupant Exposure During Extraordinary Events View project

All content following this page was uploaded by William Parry Bahnfleth on 26 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

4275 (RP-935)

Protocol for Field Testing of Tall

Buildings to Determine Envelope
Air Leakage Rate

William P. Bahnfleth, Ph.D., P.E. Grenville K. Yuill, Ph.D., P.E. Brian W. Lee
Member ASHRAE Fellow ASHRAE Student Member ASHRAE

ABSTRACT through the envelope can cause serious moisture problems if

The objective of this project was to develop a relatively
simple, accurate method for testing the overall envelope leak-
age rate of tall buildings. Two fan pressurization test tech-
niques, the floor-by-floor blower door method and the air-
handler method, were developed and tested on two buildings.
Criteria for conducting accurate tests were developed, includ-
ing limitations on outdoor air temperature and wind speed.
The floor-by-floor blower door method permits isolation and
measurement of the leakage flow rate of a single floor, but it
is difficult and time-consuming to apply. The air-handler
method uses building air distribution fans for pressurization.
It is most easily applied on a system-by-system level rather
than floor-by-floor. Fan airflow techniques including orifice
plate, pitot traverse, and tracer gas dilution were considered.
The tracer gas method was found to be relatively easy to apply
and highly accurate. Fan airflow rate measurement uncer-
tainty by tracer gas was estimated to be 5.4% to 8.8% for the
cases considered, assuming a 5% uncertainty in interzonal
leakage.
INTRODUCTION
Building envelope tightness is of importance to owners,
operators, and tenants of tall buildings for operational, indoor
environmental quality and financial reasons. Airflows through
envelope leakage paths caused by pressure differential due to
stack effect and wind have several undesirable effects. Uncon-
trolled entry of unconditioned outdoor air into occupied
spaces may adversely affect comfort. Movement of air within
a building as a result of envelope leakage may transfer
contaminated air. Leakage also adds to air-conditioning peak
loads and total energy consumption. The movement of air
air is cooled to its dew point while within an exterior wall.
Stack effect pressure differential across building shafts can
generate objectionable noise that is particularly evident at
stairwell and elevator doors. In view of the negative conse-
quences of envelope leakage, construction methods to limit
leakage and testing procedures to verify their efficacy should
be a part of building design and commissioning.
Measurement of the envelope leakage of houses and other
small buildings through pressurization and depressurization
testing is a common procedure (Shaw et al. 1990). The typical
test method utilizes a temporarily installed fan to pressurize or
depressurize the building to a series of desired indoor-outdoor
pressure differentials. The airflow rate into or out of the build-
ing is measured at steady state for each differential. Data from
these tests are used to establish a correlation between airflow
and pressure differential. In principle, this approach is also
applicable to tall buildings. However, stack and wind effects
and the large flow rates required for standard leakage tests
make the application of these techniques to tall buildings less
than straightforward.
The objective of ASHRAE Research Project 935 (Bahn-
fleth et al. 1998) was to develop a method to evaluate the
airtightness of the envelope of tall buildings that represents the
best compromise between simplicity and accuracy. Two leak-
age test procedures were developed for tall buildings by exten-
sion of established pressurization test procedures. Criteria for
accurate application of these methods to tall buildings were
developed. The procedures were tested in two different build-
ings and evaluated according to criteria including the value of
the information acquired, ease of use, and degree of disruption
of building operations.

William P. Bahnfleth is an assistant professor in the Department of Architectural Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, University Park,
Pa. Grenville K. Yuill is director of Architectural Engineering at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, Neb. Brian W. Lee is a health facilities
officer at the U.S. Air Force Health Facilities Division, Atlanta, Ga.

THIS PREPRINT IS FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY, FOR INCLUSION IN ASHRAE TRANSACTIONS 1999, V. 105, Pt. 2. Not to be reprinted in whole or in
part without written permission of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc., 1791 Tullie Circle, NE, Atlanta, GA 30329.
Opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASHRAE. Written
questions and comments regarding this paper should be received at ASHRAE no later than July 7, 1999.
Modeling of Envelope Leakage
Air leakage through the envelope of a building is typically
modeled as a power law function of pressure differential
(ASHRAE 1997):
Q = C∆P n
where
Q = airflow rate (cfm or m3/s),
∆P = interior-exterior pressure difference (in. H2O or Pa),
C = flow coefficient (ft3/[min⋅(in. H2O)n] or m3/[s⋅Pan]),
n = flow exponent (dimensionless).
The objective of most envelope leakage test methodolo-
gies is to obtain the data needed to determine the coefficients
C and n.
Flow resistance depends upon the crack geometry,
entrance and exit effects, and wall composition. For fixed-size
cracks, the flow exponent should vary between values of 0.5
and 1.0. Fixed-size cracks with greater flow resistance behave
like capillaries and have flow exponents closer to 1. Large
cracks that offer little resistance to flow behave like orifices
and have flow exponents closer to 0.5. If cracks open or close
under the influence of pressure differential, values outside this
range may be obtained.
Wind pressure and stack effect cause pressure differen-
tials across the envelope of a tall building to vary substantially
with height and surface orientation. Equation 1 can be applied
accurately to an entire building only if an appropriate average
pressure difference, ∆PAvg, is used. This pressure difference is
obtained by partitioning the building surface into zones of
nearly uniform pressure differential and calculating the effec-
tive whole-building pressure differential by area-weighted
nonlinear averaging:
M 1/n
 
 ∑ α i Ai ∆P in
i = 1  building (Shaw et al. 1973);
∆PAvg =  -------------------------------
 ATotal 
 
 
where
Ai = envelope surface i area (ft2 or m2);
∆Pi = absolute value of interior-exterior pressure
difference, |Pin − Pout|, across envelope surface i (in.
H2O or Pa);
αi = (Pin − Pout)i / |(Pin −Pout)i| (note: this factor accounts
for the direction of flow through a surface, which is
assumed to be positive from inside to outside);
M = number of surfaces in tested zone;
M completeness of mixing (when tracer gas methods are used).
ATotal = ∑ Ai .
i=1
Envelope leakage comparisons may be made by a number
of methods, including the following.
• Direct comparison of C and n values.
 
• Comparison of leakage flow rate at a standard pressure
differential calculated using Equation 1. A common
standard of comparison is the leakage flow rate at a
pressure difference of 0.20 in. H 2O (50 Pa). This is
referred to as Q50.
(1) • Comparison of effective leakage area calculated from
flow rate at a standard pressure differential. A common
reference pressure is 0.016 in. H2O (4 Pa), and the asso-
ciated effective leakage area is denoted as ELA4.
• Comparison of the average air changes per hour based
on the calculated leakage rate at a standard pressure dif-
ferential.
Leakage Testing Techniques
Evaluation factors for an envelope leakage measurement
technique include accuracy, simplicity, cost-effectiveness,
and minimal disruption of activities in occupied buildings. A
variety of measurement techniques are described in the liter-
ature. These include fan pressurization methods (CGSB 1996;
ASTM 1992); use of buoyancy caused by stack effect to create
pressurization (Hayakawa and Togari 1990); and tracer gas
techniques (Kronvall 1980). Each method has advantages and
disadvantages relative to the criteria stated above. A brief
overview of the various approaches follows.
The methods reviewed utilize natural or controlled pres-
surization and depressurization to create airflow through the
building envelope. A correlation between flow and pressure
differential is derived from the results of a series of steady-
state tests over a range of pressure differential values
(Kronvall 1980). The pressurization method and method of
measuring the airflow through the envelope are the distin-
guishing characteristics of each test technique.
Pressurization techniques described in the literature
include
• use of building air distribution fans, with return and
exhaust air dampers closed, to pressurize an entire
(2)
• use of a large external fan with sufficient capacity to
pressurize an entire building as in a blower door test
(Shaw et al. 1990);
• use of a portable blower door to pressurize a test zone in
a building (Hunt 1986; Modera 1995); and
• use of stack effect to pressurize or depressurize the
whole building (Hayakawa and Togari 1990).
The largest uncertainty in envelope leakage testing is
associated with leakage flow rate measurement (Kronvall
1980). Total uncertainty depends upon the combination of
uncertainties in instrumentation accuracy, the interzonal air
transfer (in methods that test part of a building), and the
The two most commonly used classes of techniques for
measuring leakage airflow rate are zone tracer gas concentra-
tion methods and fan airflow measurement methods.
Zone tracer gas flow measurements are based on the rela-
tionship between inflow of air to a zone by leakage and the
dilution of a known tracer gas source within the zone. The
three most widely used zone tracer gas concentration flow
measurement techniques, as presented by Kronvall (1980), are
• decay of tracer gas concentration, in which the leakage
rate is derived from the rate at which an initial concen-
tration of tracer gas changes with time;
• constant tracer gas concentration, in which the leakage
rate is inferred from the tracer gas flow rate required to
maintain a steady concentration in the test zone; and
• constant tracer gas emission, in which leakage rate is
related to the test zone tracer gas concentration associ-
ated with a fixed rate of release.
Tracer gases should be easily detectable, nontoxic, and
not normally present within the building. Two of the most
common gases used for airflow measurement are N2O and
SF6.
Fan airflow measurement techniques measure the total
airflow through the pressurization fan, which is assumed to be
the same as the envelope leakage rate out of the test zone (or
related to it in a known way). This implies that interzonal leak-
age is zero, a condition probably never achieved in practice.
However, if interzonal air transfer can be kept small, accurate
results can be obtained by this method. Fan airflow measure-
ments may be done by any of several methods, including pitot
tube traverse, blower door, or tracer gas dilution. The differ-
ence between the tracer gas dilution method applied to fan
airflow measurement and the zone tracer gas methods
described previously is that the tracer is released in the duct-
work connected to the fan and its concentration is also
measured there.
LEAKAGE TESTING ISSUES FOR TALL BUILDINGS
Tall building envelope leakage predictions are subject to
uncertainty that can arise from any of the following sources:
• wind pressure and stack effect (Modera and Wilson
1990);
• extreme pressure differential (either low or high) during
leakage testing (Sherman and Palmiter 1995); and
• extrapolation to the ELA4 differential of a correlation
derived from measurements at larger pressure differen-
tials (Persily and Grot 1985).
Each of these potential problems and guidelines for limit-
ing the measurement uncertainty they create will be
discussed.
Wind Pressure and Stack Effect Error
Under zero wind and zero temperature difference condi-
tions, an envelope leakage measurement can be correlated
with a single measurement of indoor-outdoor pressure differ-
ential. Stack effect and wind pressure make the distribution of
pressure over the surface of a building nonuniform both hori-
zontally and vertically. As pressure asymmetry increases with
increasing wind speed or indoor-outdoor temperature differ-
ence, it becomes necessary to increase the spatial refinement
of surface pressure measurements in order to maintain accept-

able accuracy in a leakage test. To limit loss of accuracy due
to pressure asymmetry, it is essential to take at least one pres-
sure measurement per exposure and to measure at multiple
vertical locations when measurements are made for zones
larger than one floor. Compensation for wind effects is partic-
ularly problematic because of their transient nature. There-
fore, even spatial refinement of pressure measurements will
not be sufficient to account for the effects of a high, gusty
wind. Under such conditions, it may be impossible to conduct
a quasi-steady-state test.
Because of the cost and analytical complexity of obtain-
ing accurate results when stack and wind effects are strong,
it is prudent to limit the temperature range and maximum
wind speed under which tests are conducted. Existing leak-
age testing standards provide guidelines for limiting these
effects. The authors concur with the specification in ASTM
Standard E 779 (ASTM 1992) that testing be limited to a
range of outdoor temperature from 41°F to 95°F (5°C to
35°C) to limit the influence of stack effect. However, the
wind speed limit of 4 mph (2 m/s) established by ASTM
Standard E 779 may be overly conservative. Analysis has
been undertaken to determine whether a less restrictive
criterion is acceptable.
Regions of elevated pressure occur on building surfaces
facing into the wind, and regions of depressed pressure occur
on surfaces facing away from the wind. If wind speed is suffi-
ciently large, it can cause a negative pressure differential and
inflow for some exposures while there is a large negative
differential and increased outflow for other surfaces of a nomi-
nally pressurized zone. Further, the distribution of pressure on
a planar surface of a given orientation is nonuniform, so a
single pressure measurement per exposure may not be suffi-
cient to represent outdoor pressure accurately when there is a
high wind.
Typical pressure distributions for tall building surfaces of
varying orientation have been published by Davenport and
Hui (1982). An analysis of the effects of wind pressure has
been constructed using this data. A building of square plan
shape was evaluated at orientations of 0 degrees and 30
degrees to the prevailing wind. Horizontal pressure coefficient
'HJUHH)DFH
'HJ UHH)DFH
'HJUHH)DFH
'HJ UHH)DFH
Figure 1 Typical pressure coefficients as a function of
horizontal position on walls with various
orientations toward the wind (Davenport and Hui
1982).

 TABLE 1
Percent Error in Pressure Measurement Due to Wind Pressure (0 Degrees and 50 Pa)

Number of Pressure Taps

Wind Velocity MPH (m/s) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2 (0.9) 0.11 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4 (1.8) 0.47 0.12 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01
6 (2.7) 1.25 0.28 0.13 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03
8 (3.6) 3.02 0.55 0.26 0.16 0.11 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05
10 (4.5) 13.37 1.58 0.05 1.09 0.42 0.06 0.39 0.17 0.07
12 (5.3) 11.08 5.85 3.79 2.22 0.74 0.74 0.43 0.14 0.09
14 (6.2) 7.57 2.92 1.53 0.88 0.51 0.27 0.10 0.02 0.12
16 (7.1) 7.14 2.72 1.50 0.98 0.70 0.54 0.43 0.36 0.31
18 (8.0) 6.81 2.47 1.32 0.85 0.61 0.46 0.38 0.32 0.28
20 (8.9) 6.64 2.34 1.24 0.79 0.56 0.43 0.35 0.29 0.26

distributions were assumed to be worst-case values from Extrapolation Error

Davenport and Hui. Figure 1 shows the assumed pressure
coefficient values for the 30-degree orientation. Each of the
four surfaces of the building was assumed to have one or more
equally spaced exterior pressure measurements. Error in the
nonlinear area-weighted exterior pressure was calculated as a
function of wind speed.
Typical results (for the zero degree orientation) are
shown in Table 1. For wind speeds less than 9 mph (4 m/s),
the number of pressure taps has little effect on measurement
uncertainty. In other words, one tap per exposure should be
sufficient provided that wind during a test is below this limit.
For wind velocity exceeding 9 mph (4 m/s), the error
increases substantially when there is only one tap per side.
This error can be reduced to low levels at the cost of adding
additional taps. However, additional concerns arise when the
wind velocity exceeds 9 mph (4 m/s), such as the possibility
of flow reversal on the windward side of the building and
large pressure gradients within the test zone. Therefore, the
authors recommend that the maximum wind velocity for
envelope leakage testing be 9 mph (4 m/s).
Low and High Pressure Differential Error
Use of data from tests made at either low or high pres-
sure differentials can introduce large error into leakage
modeling due to the uncertainty associated with measure-
ment of small differentials and to departure from the power
law relationship (Sherman and Palmiter 1995). To prevent
these problems, testing should be performed with interior-
exterior pressure differentials from 0.05 to 0.30 in. H2O
(12.5 to 75 Pa), as prescribed by ASTM Standard E779
(ASTM 1992). It is also recommended, simply in the interest
of standardization of practice, that the series of pressure
differentials for a tall building test conform to ASTM Stan-
dard E779, i.e., 0.05, 0.10, 0.15, 0.20, 0.25, 0.30 in. H2O
(12.5, 25, 37.5, 50, 62.5, 75 Pa).
It is common practice to describe the air leakage rate
through a building envelope in terms of ELA4, effective leak-
age area at 4 Pa (0.016 in. H 2O). This allows the comparison
of buildings under “atmospheric” conditions. However large
uncertainty is associated with extrapolating a power law leak-
age model to this very small differential. Uncertainty is small-
est in the middle of the range of measured pressure differences
(Persily and Grot 1986). Therefore, the authors recommend
that tall building leakage be compared on the basis of airflow
per unit of envelope area at a pressure differential of 0.20 in.
H2O (50 Pa), i.e., Q50/Area. This procedure makes use of the
flow coefficient and exponent determined by regression anal-
ysis but eliminates error caused by extrapolation, as 0.20 in.
H2O (50 Pa) is near the center of the range covered by the
ASTM E779 procedure.
LEAKAGE TESTING METHODS
FOR TESTING TALL BUILDINGS
Two methods for testing the envelope leakage of tall
buildings were investigated: the floor-by-floor blower door
method and the air-handler method. Both are pressurization/
depressurization methods intended to obtain the data needed
to determine the coefficients of a leakage model of the form
described by Equations 1 and 2. The purpose of the floor-by-
floor blower door method is to determine the envelope leakage
of zones spanning a single floor. Internal leakage paths within
the building are sealed and the floors are pressurized by
blower door fans. Such a method would provide very detailed
information about the leakage of a tall building; however, it
also poses the greatest challenges in application. The air-
handler method measures the envelope leakage through each
air-handler zone. This method utilizes the building supply fans
centrally located in the mechanical room to pressurize the air-
handling zone. Its primary limitation is the minimum size of

 

Figure 2 Floor-by-floor blower door testing method
schematic.
the zone that can be tested, but in application it has advantages
in terms of simplicity of implementation.
Floor-by-Floor Blower Door Method
The floor-by-floor blower door test procedure uses
portable blower doors to pressurize the test floor and adja-
cent floors. Blower doors can be installed either in a door
leading to a stairwell shaft or mounted directly to an existing
opening to the outside, such as an operable window.
Commercial blower doors are available with the flow
measurement and data-logging capabilities needed to
conduct standard tests.
A typical test setup is shown in Figure 2. Airflow rates are
indicated by the symbol “Q” and pressures by the symbol “P.”
If, as shown, only the test floor is pressurized, there will be
leakage to the adjacent upper and lower floors and it will be
impossible to separate envelope leakage from interzonal
transfer. Interzonal leakage (QUp and QDown) can be elimi-
nated (for practical purposes) if the floors above and below the
test floor are pressurized so that pressures PUp, PDown, and PTest
are equal. This requires a minimum of two additional blower
doors, one for each of the adjacent floors. Alternatively, air-
handling unit fans may be controlled to achieve the same
result. Under these conditions, the fan flow rate, QFan, and the
envelope leakage rate, QOut, should be equal when corrected
to standard temperature and pressure (i.e., the mass flows they
represent are equal).
A potential advantage of the floor-by-floor blower door
method is that it can be used to determine the floor-by-floor
distribution of envelope leakage. The ability to pinpoint areas
of large envelope leakage would be an asset when determin-
ing which envelope areas should be repaired. A logistical
advantage of this procedure is that the leakage test can be set
up on the unoccupied floors of an occupied building.
The major disadvantage of this method is the setup time
required. Interior leakage paths from the testing floor to all
other building components (i.e., elevator and stair shafts and
ductwork) must be sealed. This can be a very difficult task in
a large building, since there can be many vertical shafts
through a single floor. A blower door test can be completed
by a one- or two-person crew. Sealing of leakage prior to test-
ing can be done by any number but is expedited by larger
numbers.

Air-Handler Method
The air-handler method uses air-handler fans to pressur-
ize a portion of a building that can vary in size from the area
served by a single fan to the entire building. The test objective
is to measure the envelope leakage associated with the test
zone, which is equal to the quantity of outdoor air brought in
by the system air handler to maintain the interior pressure. The
major differences between this method and the floor-by-floor
blower door method are the size of the zone served by the
building air handler and the lack of the need for an independent
fan pressurization unit. In the air-handler method, the test zone
is defined as the part of the building served by the air handler
to which the airflow is being measured. The test zone can vary
in size from a single air-handler zone to a whole building,
depending on the air-handler configuration. Tests can be
conducted with the air-handling unit in 100% outside air mode
or with recirculation.
The major advantage of the air-handler method is the
rapidity of installation of the flow measurement devices, all of
which are centrally located within the air-handler. The main
disadvantage of this method is that it may not be possible to
determine the location of the leaks in the exterior envelope as
precisely as is possible with the floor-by-floor blower door
method. However, if a building has more than one air-handler,
a degree of localization of leakage can be achieved.
As noted previously, the outdoor airflow rate entering an
air handler can be determined by several methods, including
tracer gas dilution, orifice plate, and pitot traverse. The tracer
gas method is easily set up in the air handler, but care must be
taken to ensure that the tracer gas is thoroughly mixed with the
airstream at points where concentration measurements are
made. The orifice plate method requires that a calibrated
orifice be installed in the outdoor air path. In general, the
orifice plate must be calibrated on site because building and
duct geometry may affect its performance. Access to the
outdoor air supply duct or grille is also required and will
preclude the use of this technique in many high-rise buildings.
The duct pitot traverse is feasible in most cases; however, the
accuracy of results will depend upon the accessibility of suit-
able locations for measurement.
Fan capacity must be adjusted during testing to produce
the required series of pressure differences. If the air handler is
configured for a 100% outside air test, airflow rate (and, there-
fore, pressure differential) can be controlled by any of several
methods, including adjustment of fan inlet or outlet vane posi-
tion, fan speed control, or adjustment of outdoor air damper
position. If these methods are not capable of producing a suffi-
ciently low differential, control of recirculation by modulating
mixed air and outdoor air dampers can be used to obtain lower
outdoor airflow at a higher fan flow rate. The recirculated
airflow will lower the zone pressure differential, but it will
increase the uncertainty in tracer gas dilution flow measure-
ments.
Air-Handler Method with Tracer Gas Flow Measure-
ment. For both pitot traverse and orifice plate outdoor airflow

 Figure 3 Air-handler tracer gas outdoor airflow rate
measurement, recirculating case.
rate measurements, there is no difference between the 100%
outside air and recirculating cases. In either instance, the flow
measurement must be made directly on the outdoor airstream.
When tracer gas flow measurement is used, the measurement
system configuration for 100% outdoor air is different from
the configuration when there is recirculation. This section
describes the procedures required for each case.
Recirculating airflow. Outdoor airflow measurement by
tracer gas dilution in an air handler with recirculation is shown
in Figure 3. Because the relief air damper is closed and sealed,
the supply airflow rate QSup is equal to the sum of the return
airflow QRet and the outdoor airflow QOA. In general, it will not
be possible to make a single dilution measurement in the
outdoor air intake, so the general case requires injection of the
tracer source S into the return and measurement of tracer
concentration at three locations, two in the return (CRet1 and
CRet2) and one in the supply (CSup). Measurement of the source
strength and three concentrations permits the outdoor airflow
rate to be calculated by simultaneous solution of the following
three conservation equations:
Tracer gas balance at injection point:
S Figure 5. Both the exhaust and return air dampers are closed
Q Ret = --------------------------------------
( C Ret2 – C Ret1 )
Tracer gas balance at mixed air section:
C Ret2
Q Sup = QRet  -------------
C Sup
Total airflow balance at mixed air section:
Q OA = Q Sup – Q Ret
where
QRet = return airflow rate (ft3/min, m3/s),
QSup = supply airflow rate (ft3/min, m3/s),
QOA = outdoor airflow rate (ft3/min, m3/s),
S = tracer gas supply quantity (ppm⋅ft3/min, ppm⋅m3/s),
CRet1 = tracer gas concentration in return air/building (ppm),
CRet2 = tracer gas concentration in return air after tracer gas
injection (ppm),
CSup = tracer gas concentration in supply air (ppm).
 
Figure 4 Tracer gas injection/sampling manifold.
The outdoor airflow rate, therefore, is
S C Ret2 – C Sup
Q OA = -----------  --------------------------------- (6)
C Sup C Ret2 – C Ret1
Because there is recirculation, the concentrations
measured in this procedure will increase over time until a
steady state is achieved. Final measurements for the purpose
of calculating leakage rate should be taken under steady condi-
tions.
Uniform mixing of the tracer gas and measurement of the
correct average concentration are essential to realizing the
potentially high accuracy of this method. An injection/with-
drawal manifold designed to achieve these objectives is shown
in Figure 4. This device can be used to distribute the tracer
over the full cross section of the duct and also to sample from
multiple locations over the full cross section of the duct. Addi-
tional mixing provided by the fan will increase the possibility
of a well-mixed flow downstream.
One hundred percent outdoor air. A typical setup for
air-handler pressurization with 100% outdoor air is shown in
(3)
and sealed, so return flow is zero and supply and outdoor
airflows are identical. This simplifies data collection and
reduces measurement uncertainty by eliminating the need for
the two return concentration sensors. Because the concentra-
(4) tion of tracer gas in outdoor air is zero, a single concentration
measurement downstream of the tracer source is sufficient to
determine flow rate:
(5)
Figure 5 Air-handler tracer gas outdoor airflow rate
measurement, 100% OA case.
 S ground floor). During testing, the entire building was pres-
Q OA = ----------- (7)
C Sup
The tracer gas is injected upstream of the outdoor air
dampers, or as close to the outdoor air damper as possible,
and the concentration is measured downstream of the fan.
Because the flow rate through the fan should remain nearly
constant throughout a test, the measured tracer gas concen-
tration will quickly reach steady state. As noted above, a
significant lag exists between the initiation of tracer release
and the establishment of steady state when there is recircula-
tion.
TRIAL APPLICATION OF
LEAKAGE TEST METHODS
The proposed leakage test methods were applied in two
buildings, a 6-story university library located in central Penn-
sylvania and a 64-story office building located in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.
Site 1—University Library
The library is a 130,000 ft2 wing of the main library at a
university. The building is six stories in height with two inter-
nal elevator shafts and three perimeter stair shafts. It has a
nearly triangular footprint. Two sides of the library are brick
veneer with fixed windows and the third is a glass curtain wall
extending from ground level to the top of the building. The
building has a poured concrete structural system. The
mechanical system serving the library is equipped with
central chilled water and hot water production and central air
distribution. Two air handlers located in a mechanical room
on the ground level supply floors one through four and two
rooftop air-handling units located on the roof serve the fifth
floor. The two main constant-speed supply air fans supply
78,000 cfm (36.8 m3/s) and 67,000 cfm (31.6 m3/s), respec-
tively. Indoor comfort is maintained through the use of reheat
coils located in the distribution air ducts. In addition to the
supply fans, there are also two return fans with capacities of
93,000 cfm (43.9 m3/s) and 44,000 cfm (20.8 m3/s). An
exhaust fan located on the roof serves the lavatories.
Site 2—Office Building
The office building is a 64-story, 841 ft (256 m) tall
structure located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It encloses
approximately 2.9 million ft2 (270,000 m2) of floor area, of
which 2.4 million ft2 (220,000 m2) is leasable. The office
building has an exterior structural steel frame with curtain
wall construction. All the windows in the building are
operable and are routinely opened for cleaning purposes.
At the time of testing, window mullions were in the early
stages of being retrofitted to eliminate direct air passage
through the large openings between the widow and the
window frame that was evident in most windows. Four
mechanical rooms are located throughout the building (on
floors 3, 34, 63/64, and on the general concourse level/

surized; however, leakage was measured only in the upper
air-handling zone, which spans floors 49 through 61. Vari-
able-air-volume (VAV) supply fans are designed to trans-
port a maximum of 500,000 cfm (236 m3/s) to this zone
from air handlers located on the 64th floor. Approximately
400,000 cfm (189 m3/s) is returned from those floors. To
achieve the desired pressures required for the air-handler
test procedure, only two supply air handlers, each with a
capacity of 96,000 cfm (45.3 m3/s), were used.
Equipment and materials required for these tests included
the following.
• Blower doors, made of an impermeable fabric attached
to an expandable frame able to create a seal against stan-
dard door frames. A fan, used to induce either positive
or negative pressure to the space, is attached to a prefab-
ricated hole in the fabric. The fan is constructed of
molded plastic and outfitted with a 3/4 hp (0.56 kW) AC
motor that has a design flow of 6,400 cfm (3 m3/s). The
fan flow measurements have been factory calibrated to
±3% of the actual flow.
• Digital pressure gauges, used to measure the pres-
sure differential across each face of the building dur-
ing the pressurization testing. They indicate pressures
from 0.0 to 0.80 in. H2O (0.0 to 199.9 Pa) with an
accuracy of ±1% of reading.
• Automatic tracer gas monitor with a microprocessor-
controlled electron capture gas chromatograph. The
monitor was used to measure the concentration of sulfur
hexafluoride present in the space. The monitor has an
onboard supply of calibration gas diluted in ultra-pure
air. An onboard vacuum pump pulls the test air into the
chromatograph. Measurements are stored on a diskette
during testing for later off-line analysis. The accuracy of
the tracer gas monitor is ±3% of the reading in its linear
dynamic range, 0.05 to 10 ppb.
• Sealing material used to cover large areas, such as the
exhaust and return dampers, in both the library and
the office building. A six mil plastic sheeting was
used.
• Duct tape was used to adhere the plastic sheeting to the
return grilles in the blower door method. Additionally,
duct tape was also used to seal doors between zones by
covering the crack between the door frame and the door
itself.
• Injection / withdrawal manifold, designed to achieve
uniform dispersion of the tracer gas in the ducts and
provide accurate average samples. The manifold had a
rigid return/supply header across the duct with evenly
spaced flexible tubes dropping vertically through the
cross section of the duct. This arrangement permitted
easy transport and installation of the manifold. Pinhole
orifices were distributed along each of the flexible
tubes.

RESULTS
Floor-by-Floor Blower Door Method
Testing was conducted first at the university library site,
beginning with the floor-by-floor blower door method.
Numerous attempts were made to execute this procedure, but
adequately sealing a single floor to isolate it from its neighbors
was found to be impossible. Elevators, doors, ducts, and other
apparent leakage paths were carefully and completely sealed,
yet a large amount of additional, inaccessible floor-to-floor
leakage remained. This was evident because, with the test
floor sealed and adjacent floors pressurized by additional
blower doors, high pressures were recorded on the test floor
when the blower door fan was off. The inability to adequately
seal the test floor is perhaps more significant in view of the fact
that a crew of four workers spent nearly three hours in the
effort on each occasion that the procedure was tested. Extrap-
olating this level of effort very roughly to the larger office
building, one obtains an estimate on the order of 500-1,000
person hours simply to seal interfloor leakage paths.
Further efforts to find hidden leaks did not substantially
reduce interzonal leakage. Numerous holes and cracks that
could not be reached and sealed were found in return risers and
elevator shafts. Further, the return air shaft was found to be
constructed of 16 in. concrete masonry unit (CMU) blocks that
offer only a small resistance to airflow. Sealing this return
shaft leakage was not feasible. It was concluded on the basis
of these discouraging experiences that the floor-by-floor
blower door test method is impractical for general use and it
was not tested further.
It is possible that a floor-by-floor method could be applied
more successfully in buildings with floor-by-floor air-
handling systems. In such buildings, there are no riser shafts
to serve as large interzonal leakage paths. However, elevator
and stair shafts must be sealed. At the library test site, elevator
shafts were constructed of poured concrete and were essen-
tially impervious to leakage once the doors were sealed with
plastic sheeting. When this is the case, there is some hope of
reducing leakage area between floors to the extent that blower
doors can be used to zero the interzonal flow.
At the completion of blower door testing, the three-person
crews were working approximately eight hours per test zone
at the library, or a total of 24 person-hours per floor. In larger
buildings, the time requirement for sealing could be expected
to increase in proportion to the floor area of the building, while
the 12 person-hours required for actual testing should remain
relatively constant.
Air-Handler Method
The air-handler method was tested at both the university
library and office building sites. In both buildings the simpler,
more accurate, 100% outdoor air configuration was found to
be workable. The tracer gas flow measurement method was
tested at both sites. Orifice plate flow measurements were
 
Figure 6 Five-story library test data (9 July 1997).
conducted only at the library site because the outside air grille
of the tested zone of the tall office building was not accessible.
It was desired to compare orifice and tracer measurements at
the library. Unfortunately, the unforeseen early start of remod-
eling at this site resulted in the envelope undergoing consid-
erable change between the orifice plate and tracer gas tests.
Consequently, results of the two procedures could not be
compared directly. In addition, reliable calibration of the
orifice plate in the field proved difficult to obtain. For these
reasons, orifice plate results are not discussed in this paper.
Discussion of these tests may be found in the final report for
this project (Bahnfleth et al. 1998).
Tracer Gas Flow Measurement. Results obtained using
tracer gas flow measurement were consistent and repeatable.
The concentration downstream of the supply air fan for two
typical, 12-minute tests at the six-story library is shown in
Figure 6. This figure indicates both the repeatability of typical
tests and how rapidly steady state was achieved. The outdoor
airflow rates used to compute the envelope leakage flow coef-
ficient and exponent were the average of the last three
measured values for each test run, (minutes 8, 10, and 12),
which, as can be seen, are essentially steady-state values.
Tables 2 and 3 summarize tracer gas test results for the
6-story library and the 64-story office building, respectively.
The most striking aspect of these results is that flow expo-
nents for the library are somewhat lower than the theoretical
minimum value of 0.5 for fixed-size cracks and that the
result for the office building exceeds the theoretical maxi-
mum of 1.0. This variation in flow exponent values may be
caused by the change in leakage path areas under the influ-
ence of pressure differential. This explanation would suggest
that increased pressure differential at the library site tended
to open leakage paths, at least prior to the removal of the
curtain wall.
After gaining experience with the tracer gas method at the
library test site, the authors found the second application at the
office building site to be relatively easy. Preparation consisted
of inspection of mechanical drawings and one visit to the
building. The complete test setup and removal, with a crew of
two persons, was performed in two hours. Testing required a
 TABLE 2
Results of Air-Handler Pressurization with 100% Outdoor Air Tracer Gas Flow Measurement (Library)

5-Story Library

C n Q50 Q50/Unit Area

Test cfm/(in. H2O)n m3/s⋅Pan dimensionless cfm m3/s cfm/ft2 (m3/s)/m3

1 43,497 1.62 0.46 20,746 9.79 0.400 0.00203
2 41,604 1.73 0.44 20,492 9.67 0.396 0.00201
3 38,994 1.81 0.42 19,835 9.36 0.383 0.00194

TABLE 3
Results of Air-Handler Pressurization with 100% Outdoor Air Tracer Gas Flow Measurement (Office Building)

64-Story Office

C n Q50 Q50/Unit Area

Test cfm/(in. H2O)n m3/s⋅Pan dimensionless cfm m3/s cfm/ft2 (m3/s)/m3

1 52,700 0.19 1.30 65,085 30.72 0.435 0.00221

crew of four persons to move from floor to floor and measure
the pressure on each level. This testing lasted 4 hours (16
person hours). This totals to approximately 24 person-hours,
or less than 2 person-hours per floor, including setup. This is
far superior in labor requirement to the time spent in the
blower door method.
DISCUSSION
The leakage testing procedures considered in this
research can be applied to a variety of tall buildings. However,
because of the diversity of HVAC system types found in high-
rise construction, it is unlikely that a single test procedure
would be applicable to every tall building. The best envelope
leakage test procedure for each application will be determined
by the characteristics of the building being tested.
A major factor in the selection of the best test procedure
is the type of space conditioning systems in a building. A
building with central air-handling units serving multiple floors
typically has numerous additional interfloor leakage paths due
to supply and return shaft penetrations. These flow paths
frequently are inaccessible by reasonable means and preclude
tight sealing on a floor-by-floor level, as is required for blower
door testing. Even if leaks are accessible, thorough sealing is
a difficult, labor-intensive job. In this situation, the air-
handling system method will provide the best results, for three
reasons. One is that the ratio of the envelope leakage area to
the interfloor leakage area is increased when several floors are
tested at once. The second is that the air-handling system
method can achieve higher building pressures, so that the ratio
of the building pressure to the interfloor pressure difference
caused by imperfect balancing of the pressures on neighboring
floors is greater. The third reason is that in some buildings
there will be fewer openings through the floors between air-
handling system zones than through the floors within air-
handling system zones. When a building has floor-by-floor
air-handling systems, the air-handling system method may be
applicable on a floor-by-floor level.
The air-handler method with tracer gas flow measure-
ment requires a working knowledge of the relatively complex
tracer gas testing equipment. However, equipment for this
measurement procedure is quickly set up in the mechanical
room and testing can then begin with little lead time. Once the
user has gained familiarity with the procedure, testing can be
completed quickly and smoothly.
Tracer Gas Leakage Measurement Uncertainty
Tracer gas flow measurement proved to be relatively easy
to carry out as well as very accurate. Aside from the initial
expense of the necessary equipment, it appears to be a gener-
ally superior method for measuring flow rate in tall building
leakage tests. The uncertainty associated with tracer gas leak-
age measurements was evaluated by means of a root sum
square error analysis as described in, for example, Doebelin
(1975).
Uncertainty in a tracer gas envelope leakage flow rate
measurement is a function of uncertainties in the tracer source
strength, concentration measurements, and interzonal leakage
from the test zone to other interior areas of a building. The
expression for this error in terms of root square error is
 ∂Q OA  2  ∂Q OA  2  ∂Q OA
0.5
2
 -------------------- ∆C Ret1 +  -------------------- ∆C Ret2 +  ----------------- ∆C Sup1
 ∂C Ret1   ∂C Ret2   ∂C Sup 
Error RSS =
∂Q 2
+  ---------------- ∆S + ( Interzone Leakage ) 2
OA
 ∂S 
(8)
The partial derivatives of leakage flow rate shown in
Equation 8 are calculated by differentiation of the appropriate

 
form of the tracer gas method expression for leakage flow TABLE 4
rate—Equation 6 when there is recirculation and Equation 7 Tracer Gas Flow Measurement
when the 100% outdoor air configuration is used. Component Uncertainty Values
Component errors used in estimating uncertainty are
summarized in Table 4. Values were obtained from manufac- Source of Error Error (%)
turers’ specifications for instrumentation. In the cases of inter- 1. SF6 concentration supply flow rate reading error (ppb⋅L/s) 3
zonal leakage, an estimated value of 5% of total flow rate was
2. SF6 supply flow loss in fittings (ppb⋅L/s) 5
assumed based on the construction of the office building and
anticipated deviation from zero pressure differential across the 3. Uneven SF6 distribution in duct (ppb⋅L/s) 10
top and bottom of the tested zone. The resulting absolute and 4. Return 1 concentration reading error (ppb) 3
relative error for six tests is shown in Table 5.
5. Return 2 concentration reading error (ppb) 3
Q50 Uncertainty 6. Supply concentration reading error (ppb) 3
The leakage rate estimate at 50 Pa, Q50, is the most 7. Interzonal leakage (L/s) 5
common standard for comparison of envelope leakage values
(Sherman and Palmiter 1995). It is calculated using the flow TABLE 5
coefficient and flow exponent, determined by regression anal- Absolute and Relative Error for Leakage Rate
ysis of test data, to estimate the leakage rate at a pressure Measured by Tracer Gas Dilution (Library)
difference of 50 Pa. The uncertainty introduced by a poor fit
to the test data must be accounted for in this procedure. Deriv- Tracer Gas with Tracer Gas with 100%
Recirculating Air Outdoor Air
ing the statistical uncertainty in the leakage flow rate estimate
requires analysis beyond the scope of this project. Therefore, Absolute Error Relative Absolute Error Relative
total error was estimated via a numerical experiment. Errors in Test cfm (m3/s) Error (%) cfm (m3/s) Error (%)
flow rate and pressure “measurement” values were produced
1 5720 (2.70) 8.8
by a random number generator using known component
uncertainties and added to “exact” values generated by an 2 5265 (2.48) 8.1
assumed power law leakage model (Bahnfleth et al. 1998). 3 4550 (2.15) 7.0
Flow rate measurement uncertainty was assumed to
4 7425 (3.50) 5.6
correspond to the tracer gas procedure, roughly 6% to 9%. To
this was added uncertainty in measurement of pressure differ- 5 7280 (3.43) 5.5
ential, which arises from pressure sensor accuracy limitations 6 7163 (3.38) 5.4
and error induced by wind pressure. The instrument error for
the pressure gauges used is one percent of the pressure read- TABLE 6
ing, as given by the pressure sensor manufacturer. The wind Relative Uncertainty in the Q50 Flow Rate Estimate
error is a function of the wind speed, number of pressure at a Wind Speed of 8.9 mph (4 m/s)
sensors, location of pressure sensors, and orientation of the
building. Wind error uncertainties derived as described previ- Number of Sensors per Wall Face Total Error in the Flow Rate
ously were used in this analysis. 1 3.28%
The estimated total uncertainty in Q50 for a wind speed
2 3.43%
of 9 mph (4 m/s) is shown in Table 6. The maximum value is
slightly less than 3.5%. For a speed of 6 m/s, the maximum 3 3.21%
uncertainty increases to more than 4.5%. Inspection of this 4 3.16%
table indicates that the number of pressure sensors across the
5 3.23%
face of the wall does not significantly decrease the overall
uncertainty in the flow measurement. This result may seem 6 2.96%
counterintuitive; however, it results from the fact that flow
measurement uncertainty is substantially larger than the address the problems arising in tall building leakage measure-
pressure measurement uncertainty at a wind speed of 9 mph ments. However, they and other published leakage measure-
(4 m/s). ment methods provide a variety of options suitable for
development into methods applicable to tall buildings.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Procedures for application to tall buildings require refine-
This research has reviewed methods used to measure ments and extension of generic procedures to overcome obsta-
envelope leakage rate and evaluated their applicability to tall cles to accurate measurement that are much less significant in
buildings. The two existing envelope leakage pressurization small, low-rise buildings. These include large envelope leak-
standards, ASTM Standard E779 (ASTM 1992) and the CAN/ age area, interfloor leakage, wind pressure, long vertical

 
shafts, and stack effect. These factors compromise the effec-
tiveness of established methods and motivate the development
of a method specific to tall buildings. This project has inves-
tigated two candidate procedures for measuring the envelope
leakage of tall buildings: the floor-by-floor blower door
method and the air-handler method. These methods are pres-
surization test procedures of a type widely used for smaller
buildings that have been adapted for use in tall buildings. Both
were tested on two large buildings.
The floor-by-floor blower door method procedure is
intended to isolate a selected floor of a building to determine
the envelope leakage rate associated with that test floor. This
method has conceptual merits, such as the ability to locate the
vertical position of large envelope leakage. Unfortunately, its
applicability to tall buildings is rather limited because sealing
leakage paths between floors and through shafts is an impos-
sible task in many buildings. Testing of this method in a build-
ing with a central air distribution system was not successful.
Buildings with either floor-by-floor air-handling units or
through-the-wall ventilating units, both with limited vertical
shafts, are ideal for the blower door testing method and seem
to compose the extent of its range of test buildings.
The air-handler method has a wider range of applicability.
This method uses the air-handler to pressurize a portion of the
envelope varying in size from a single zone to the entire build-
ing. The majority of tall buildings have large centralized air-
handling units and are compatible with this method.
A number of flow measurement techniques can be used
in the air-handler method, including tracer gas dilution,
orifice plate, and pitot tube traverse. Measurement tech-
niques that were tested in this research were tracer gas with
recirculation, tracer gas with 100% outdoor air, and orifice
plate. Orifice plate measurements at the library were not
satisfactory because of field calibration problems. The tracer
gas test with 100% outdoor airflow resulted in Q50 of
20,400 cfm (9.61 m3/s) for the five-story library. The 64-
story office building was tested with the tracer gas with
100% outdoor air method and was found to have Q50 of
65,100 cfm (30.72 m3/s) for a 13-story zone. These results
can be compared on the basis of Q50 per unit of envelope
area. Values of Q50/A for the library and the office building
were, respectively, 0.393 cfm/ft2 (0.00199 (m3/s)/m2) and
0.435 cfm/ft2 (0.00221 (m3/s)/m2).
The uncertainty of tracer gas flow rate measurement and
of Q50 were investigated by means of a root sum square error
analysis. Flow measurement uncertainty for the tracer gas
method was found to be 8.8% or less with recirculation and
5.6% or less with 100% outdoor air. These flow rate uncer-
tainties include an interzonal leakage estimate of 5%. The
overall uncertainty Q50 was estimated to be 3.0% to 4.6% for
a wind speed range from 790 to 1180 ft/min (4 to 6 m/s) and
1 to 6 pressure taps per exposure.
Guidelines have been proposed to promote accurate test-
ing of building envelope leakage. These guidelines are based

on recommendations in existing standards and from the expe-
rience gained in this project. The guidelines are intended to
limit uncertainty caused by poor regression analysis, varying
wind pressure, building orientation, and stack effect.
General guidelines for conducting a pressurization test
include the following.
To improve the precision of the regression analysis:
• Minimum envelope pressure differential = 0.05 in. H2O
(12.5 Pa)
• Maximum envelope pressure differential = 0.30 in. H2O
(75 Pa)
To reduce the effects of wind pressure due to wind speed and
building orientation:
• Maximum wind velocity = 9 mph (4 m/s)
To reduce the effects of stack effect:
• Minimum outside temperature = 41°F (5°C)
• Maximum outside temperature = 95°F (35°C)
The authors have shown through simulation that if the
preceding set of guidelines is followed, the overall uncertainty
in the estimate of the leakage flow rate at 0.20 in. H2O (50 Pa),
Q50, can be as low as 3%.
As is the case with most field measurement methods, the
ease of use and accuracy of the leakage testing procedures
considered in this project are in inverse proportion to the ambi-
tiousness of the test objectives. As a procedure for character-
izing the leakage of the whole building envelope (including
normal but uncontrolled leakage through openings at the tops
of elevator shafts and stairways and similar paths), the air-
handler method is very satisfactory and has been shown
analytically and in application to be repeatable and accurate.
It will be harder to use this method for measuring leakage
through a particular leakage path, such as the exterior walls of
buildings. In order to make such a measurement the user must
seal all the leakage paths that are not to be included. In a large
building this could be a difficult task.
REFERENCES
ASTM. 1992. ASTM Standard E779-92, Standard test
method for determining air leakage rate by fan pressur-
ization. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and
Materials.
ASHRAE. 1997. 1997 ASHRAE Handbook—Fundamen-
tals. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerat-
ing and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Inc.
Bahnfleth, W.P., G.K Yuill, and B.W. Lee. 1998. Protocol
for field testing of tall buildings to determine envelope
air leakage rate. Final Report for ASHRAE Research
Project 935.
CGSB. 1996. CAN/CGSB-149.15, Determination of the
overall envelope airtightness of buildings by the fan
pressurization method using the building’s air handling
system. Ottawa: Canadian General Standards Board.

 Doebelin, E.O. 1975. Measurement systems: Application
and design. New York: McGraw Hill.
Davenport, A.G., and H.Y.L. Hui. 1982. External and inter-
nal wind pressures on cladding of buildings. Boundary
Layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory, University of Western
Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. BLWT-820133.
Hayakawa, S., and S. Togari. 1990. Simple test method for
evaluating exterior wall airtightness of tall office build-
ings. ASTM STP 1067, Air change rate and airtightness
in buildings, M.H. Sherman, ed. Philadelphia: American
Society for Testing and Materials.
Hunt, C.M. 1986. Some induced-pressure measurements in a
high-rise office building. ASTM STP 904, Measured Air
Leakage of Buildings, H.R. Trechsel and P.L. Lagus,
eds. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and
Materials.
Kronvall, J. 1980. Airtightness—Measurements and mea-
surement methods. Swedish Council for Research.
Stockholm, Sweden.
Modera, M.P. 1995. Field comparison of alternative tech-
niques for measuring air distribution system leakage.
ASTM STP 1255, Airflow performance of building enve-
lopes, components and systems, pp. 284-298. Philadel-
phia: American Society for Testing and Materials.
Modera, M.P., and D.J. Wilson. 1990. The effects of wind on
residential building leakage measurements. ASTM STP

View publication stats
1067, Air change rate and airtightness in buildings,
M.H. Sherman, ed. Philadelphia: American Society for
Testing and Materials.
Persily, A.K., and R.A. Grot. 1985. Accuracy in pressuriza-
tion data analysis. ASHRAE Transactions 91 (2): 105-
116.
Persily, A.K., and R.A. Grot. 1986. Pressurization testing of
federal buildings. ASTM STP 904, Measured air leak-
age of buildings, H.R. Trechsel and P.L. Lagus, eds.
Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materi-
als.
Shaw, C.Y., S. Gasparetto, and J.T. Reardon. 1990. Methods
for measuring air leakage in high-rise apartments. ASTM
STP 1067, Air change rate and airtightness in buildings,
M.H. Sherman, ed. Philadelphia: American Society for
Testing and Materials.
Shaw, C.Y., D.M. Sander, and G.T. Tamura. 1973. Air leak-
age measurements of the exterior walls of tall buildings.
ASHRAE Transactions 79 (2): 40-48.
Sherman, M., and L. Palmiter. 1995. Uncertainties in fan
pressurization measurements. ASTM STP 1255, Airflow
performance of building envelopes, components and
systems, pp. 266-283. Philadelphia: American Society
for Testing and Materials.