GBA Logo horizontal- lakesideca.info Facebook- lakesideca.info LinkedIn- lakesideca.info Email- lakesideca.info Pinterest- lakesideca.info Twitter- lakesideca.info Instagram- lakesideca.info YouTube Icon- lakesideca.info Navigation Search Icon- lakesideca.info Main Search Icon- lakesideca.info Video Play Icon- lakesideca.info Audio Play Icon- lakesideca.info Headphones Icon- lakesideca.info Plus Icon- lakesideca.info Minus Icon- lakesideca.info Check Icon- lakesideca.info Print Icon- lakesideca.info Picture icon- lakesideca.info Single Arrow Icon- lakesideca.info Double Arrow Icon- lakesideca.info Hamburger Icon- lakesideca.info TV Icon- lakesideca.info Close Icon- lakesideca.info Sorted- lakesideca.info Hamburger/Search Icon- lakesideca.info
Lakesideca News

Aeroseal Rolls Out Air-Sealing Technology for Houses

The developer of a duct-sealing system promotes a new technique to air-seal a whole house with a low VOC sealant in just a few hours

AeroBarrier nozzles dispense a mist of waterborne acrylic that fills cracks and holes as it exits a house pressurized with a blower door. The developer of the technology says a house sealed in this way is capable of meeting the Passive House standard of 0.6 air changes per hour.
Image Credit: Aeroseal

For 20 years, a company called Aeroseal has been marketing a technique to seal air ducts from the inside with an aerosol mist, eliminating leaks that degrade the performance of HVAC systems and waste energy. Aeroseal now says the same approach can be used to seal whole houses, and offers builders a way of simplifying and speeding up one of the most persnickety details of building a high-performance house.

As it is, builders hoping to meet something as stringent as the Passivhaus airtightness requirement or build a net-zero energy house can count on investing many hours in applying acoustical sealant, gaskets, and flashing tape to plug air leaks. Materials alone may run into the thousands of dollars.

David Goodyear, for example, says it took 190 man-hours and some $4,500 (Canadian) in materials to meet the Passive House airtightness requirement on the 2,176 square-foot, two-story house he’s building in Flatrock, Newfoundland. Even meeting the much more lenient requirements in model building codes may give some builders a royal headache.

Is there a better way? Ohio-based thinks so. After four years of testing and development, it has started marketing an alternative called , which it says will prove faster, more reliable and potentially cheaper than air-sealing by hand.

Like the system used to seal air ducts, AeroBarrier works by forcing an atomized sealant into cracks and crevices under pressure and lets the compound gradually plug up leaks. In a few hours, the company says, a typical single-family house can be sealed tightly enough to satisfy most building code requirements. With a little more time, getting to the Passivhaus requirement — 0.6 air changes per hour under 50 pascals of pressure (0.6 ach50)— is entirely possible.

For Aeroseal, adapting the duct-sealing technology originally devised at the University of California made sense as building codes and public interest both lined up behind tighter buildings and better energy efficiency.

“We thought the technology would make a lot of sense in sealing the whole building envelope, which is typically a pretty difficult thing for builders to do effectively,” Paul Springer, Aeroseal’s manager of business development, said in a telephone call. “We believed that if we could do what we do with Aeroseal on a bigger scale that it would be a great solution for the marketplace.”

Here’s how it works

According to the company, a house can be sealed any time after rough-in, right up until the time occupants move in. It goes something like this:

Technicians start by setting up a series of spray nozzles (Aeroseal calls them “emitters”) throughout the house. The brains of the operation is a machine that controls the flow of sealant to the emitters and controls temperature and humidity inside the building. Depending on the size and layout of the space, installers could use between two and 16 emitters.

Anything that should not be sealed — bathroom fans, for example — must be protected so they don’t get plugged. The low-VOC, waterborne latex sealant can fill gaps up to 1/2 inch wide.

With a blower door running, the emitters start misting the sealant. Installers start with 50 pascals of pressure, the same that would be used for a standard blower-door test, but may ratchet that up to as much as 100 pascals. Installers monitor progress on a computer screen. When the building is tight enough to hit whatever target the installer is looking for, the equipment is turned off. Thirty minutes later workers can re-enter the building and get back to work (Aeroseal says the sealant is certified.) During application, everyone but the installer must clear out.

The automated process gives the installer a blower-door readout every 90 seconds. “All the person doing the install has to do is monitor the computer and do what the computer says to do when it tells you to do it,” Springer says. “So, if you just want to hit 3 ach50 so you can close on your house and get a certificate of occupancy, we can hit 3 ach50 on the nose. I’m not guessing if I’m going to hit 3 ach50. I know for a fact I’m hitting 3 ach50.”

How long the process takes depends on three key factors: the starting air leakage, the volume of the space that’s being sealed, and the air leakage target. That’s going to vary quite a bit, but the process on a hypothetical single-family house of 2,000 square feet of average construction might take between four and five hours, including setup and cleanup time, according to Springer.

How much does it cost

Cost is the “golden question,” Springer said. There’s no simple answer and the company doesn’t offer a flat fee.

“It’s really project based,” he said. “If you’re starting at 17 ach50 and you want to go to Passive House it’s going to cost more than if you start at 7 ach50 and want to go to Passive House.”

Installers would like to have at least a rough idea of where they’re starting before estimating how long the process will take.

An AeroBarrier installer monitors progress on a computer screen. The automated system takes a blower-door snapshot every 90 seconds, allowing the installer to reach whatever airtightness goal is specified.

“It’s typically priced per square foot, based on volume and different aspects of the project,” he said. “It could cost as little as 90 cents a square foot or as much as $4.50 a square foot. It really depends. You can get it as low as 90 cents to $1.50 a square foot. If you don’t want certified Passive House, we could get you below 1 ach50 for $1.50 a square foot.”

That would make the cost of air-sealing to 1 ach50 or below in a hypothetical 2,000-square-foot house about $3,000.

One key question for builders is how much of the special sealing tapes, foam, gaskets and other specialized products could be eliminated while still getting the house into the 1 ach50 neighborhood or below. Could AeroBarrier replace all of those specialized products, the ones that cost David Goodyear $4,500?

Aeroseal says it is working with the Department of Energy’s Building America program to better understand the optimum time for an AeroBarrier application, and what air-sealing products could be skipped by a builder. But the idea, Springer said, is that any product the builder is using specifically for air-sealing and nothing else could be eliminated.

“We could hit point-three ach50 on every install if we really wanted to,” he said. “We’re tying to have an impact on the building industry by helping builders build better houses every time they build, and take the guesswork out of it. At the end of they day, they have to change nothing in the build process, they can insert us for half a day into the process, and we can hit any number they want.”

Experience in the field

Like the Aeroseal duct-sealing technology, AeroBarrier was originally cooked up at the University of California and has been in development for four years. Last year, Aeroseal did some 500 installations using its own crews, but only this year was the technology made generally available. As a result, Springer said, the company doesn’t have a ton of data on the long-term durability of the sealant.

“Our subset of testing in the real world is minimal,” he said.

However, Springer says lab tests simulating 50 years of wear show negligible degradation of the sealant over that time. He also offered two Building America reports on the use of AeroBarrier in demonstration projects, one in California, the other in Minnesota. The report on the California testing was written by Curtis Harrington, a professional engineer with the University of California-Davis (where the process was originally invented), and Dave Bohac, a professional engineer at the .

In that field test, AeroBarrier was used to seal four homes in a subdivision in Lodi. Two of the houses were sealed with AeroBarrier after open-cell spray foam had been sprayed at the rim joist and below the roof deck. Here, installers got the houses to an average of 1.09 ach50 at the rough stage of construction (before drywall) with between 1 and 3 hours of sealing time.

“There were slight differences in the time required for sealing and the starting leakage rate which is likely due to differences in the floor plan for the homes,” the report says. “The AeroBarrier reduced the leakage in both cases by about 75% bringing them down to 1.11 and 0.95 ACH50, which is roughly 80% below the California requirement of 5 ACH50.”

Even before AeroBarrier was applied, these houses were “consistently below code” for airtightness, the report says. “However,” it adds, “it appears that the greatest benefit for the AeroBarrier method would be a possible reduction in overall sealing costs by eliminating many of the current sealing practices.”

The two other houses in Lodi were sealed before open-cell foam was installed. These required a little more prep work to get the houses to 4.39 ach50 and 3.47 ach50 respectively before AeroBarrier came into the picture. The AeroBarrier process reduced leakage by about 85%, to 2.15 and 1.43 ach50, the report said. After spray foam was installed, air leakage dropped to 1.25 and 1.06 ach50.

“The AeroBarrier installations were all very effective at sealing air leaks in the homes,” the report says. “The average tightness achieved was 1.09 ACH50 which is nearly 80% below the California requirement of 5 ACH50, and this is before drywall is installed in the homes. That is compared to an average tightness of 4.10 ACH50 for homes at the same stage of construction but not treated with AeroBarrier.”

AeroBarrier’s website also includes testimonials from Dwell Development in Seattle, and a net-zero developer in Arizona that became a beta tester for AeroBarrier and reports consistent blower door results of 0.6 ach50.

Questions from builders

The process could be a boon for production builders who, in Springer’s words, “are struggling to meet code.” But both durability and redundancy will be issues for builders to weigh — especially owner/builders who plan on long-term occupancy, not just a sale or a certificate of occupancy.

Eric Whetzel, who is writing a series of posts about building a 1,500-square foot Passive House near Chicago, estimates he has spent about $15,000 on air-sealing products that he’s installed himself. He wouldn’t even guess how much time he’s put into the effort.

“It almost sounds too good to be true,” he said in an email. “If it works, it certainly sounds like a game-changer that could make airtight construction available to even the most green-resistant production builder. Presumably, a builder using this product would be counting on it for all, or nearly all, of their air-sealing, so if it fails over time it could be disastrous for the structure.”

Goodyear raised the same concerns. In an email, he said: “The only question I would raise is where is the redundancy? I’m not a huge fan of air-sealing without levels of redundancy built in. Should one component fail, another is there to back it up…So, adding multiple products working together decreases the likelihood of failure should the structure change, which it will over the service lifetime of the building.

“It’s a great idea,” he added, “much more cost effective, but the long-term performance is the big question.”

There’s also the time factor. In Goodyear’s case, that amounted to more than 23 eight-hour days to reach his airtightness goals.

Springer says AeroBarrier could accomplish the same thing in a half-day, and plug leaks that are impossible to see.

“The biggest problem is that if you can’t see it you can’t seal it,” he said. “The chance of missing something is still high. The beauty of our technology is that you don’t have to know where it is. Our sealant is going to find it.”

California-Builder-Report.pdf

Minnesota-report.pdf

15 Comments

  1. Malcolm Taylor | | #1

    Residual Mist
    How much of the acrylic mist is left on surfaces once the air-sealing is complete?

  2. Randy Williams | | #2

    Sealant cleaning
    I recently took a class put on by the Center for Energy and Environment. They have been conducting a study into Aeroseal since the fall of 2016. The presenter said the acrylic material isn't an issue to clean up in new construction where there are no finished surfaces present. If the process is done after finished surfaces are in place or in a remodeling situation, these surfaces need to be protected. I found it interesting that they don't cover windows. If the window leaks, it gets sealed. After the application is complete, the air sealing contractor opens all the windows to break that seal, cleans them up and conducts a post application blower door test to confirm the air sealing goal is met. I believe the acrylic material used for the sealing can be cleaned up with water.

  3. Malcolm Taylor | | #3

    Randy
    Thanks! The article mentions that the air-sealing could occur any time before the occupant's move in. Doing it after any finished surfaces are on place would seem to complicate things. I'm still having problems conceptually imagining something that would permanently seal gaps that can afterwards be easily removed from where you don't want it. Doing earlier in the process would eliminate those concerns.

  4. Lance Peters | | #4

    Thickness
    So, I wonder how much movement this sealant can take once cured?

    Think about how this stuff will fill a gap. As the material builds up and the gap narrows, there will be a point where flow stops. At that point there's no more material buildup, and the "bridge" of material covering the gap could (will?) be only thick enough to resist the pressurization on the envelope. Pretty thin.

    I would be really interested in seeing a time-lapse video showing how this material builds up in cross section as gaps are filled. Does it remain flexible once cured? Will it handle relative movement on both sides of the gap?

    Compare this to flashing tape. The tape is strong, flexible, elastic, and able to maintain its grip by adhering to relatively large areas on either side of a gap with application specific adhesive. I'd be very surprised if this "additive" method is anywhere near as resilient. I'd like to be proven wrong!

    I like Eric Whetzel's comment in the article: "Presumably, a builder using this product would be counting on it for all, or nearly all, of their air-sealing, so if it fails over time it could be disastrous for the structure."

  5. Randy Williams | | #5

    Demo
    I'm going to a demonstration next Thursday, an Aeroseal contractor will be sealing a couple houses in the Minneapolis area. Hoping to take a few photos and maybe a video. I'll start a new posting after the demo.

  6. Andrew C | | #6

    comparison to tapes
    @ Lance, A time lapse video of different size holes and/or cracks being filled would be interesting.

    I think comparisons to flashing tape are...not cut and dried. Air sealing in general is very detail oriented work. Dedicated individuals with no time clock can do a great job. In the field, for most builders, applying tape to dirty sheathing without using the proper primer and without finishing with a J-roller will likely result in less than ideal sealing that doesn't have great durability.

    Another thought: if the house moves and the sealant opens up a bit in some areas, your leakage might go from 0.6 ACH50 to 1.4 over (say) 15 years. You could redo the AeroBarrier (or similar) and still be miles ahead in cost and effectiveness.

    Just thinking out loud (dangerous for some of us, I know).

    @ Randy - looking forward to more information. Thanks for sharing.

  7. Evergreen Certified | | #7

    Seattle demos
    Hi all-

    We had the AeroBarrier team out to Seattle for a couple demonstrations so I can provide some insight. Full disclosure - our company has since signed up to be AeroBarrier dealers/installers for the greater Seattle area.

    The demos were on a new single family home at rough-in (right before insulation) and on a ~280 SF apartment in a new building, also at rough-in.

    Malcolm - Regarding post-seal remnants, the mist does only settle on horizontal surfaces. The window glass, for example, was completely clean. On horizontal surfaces it looks very much like drywall dust, a very thin layer. It can be swept/vacuumed, or frankly at that stage of construction you wouldn't do anything at all. If the home was finished you'd probably want to cover things with drop cloths which would involve a lot more prep work.

    Lance - interesting thoughts on the build-up process and "bridge" That makes sense conceptually although I can't say I noticed anything like that on the areas that got sealed. It was very uniform. It also remains pliable after it cures, much like a caulk. One thing that everyone commented on was the ability to seal up all the gaps / cracks / wire punch-outs in an electrical box. How long do we normally spend chasing those!? :)

    I'd have to agree with Andrew - tapes and caulks are great but are subject to the quality of installation. What's attractive to us is that AeroBarrier removes most or all of the human error from the process.

    I'll attach some pics from both demos. Note AeroBarrier was done after a regular foam/caulk air seal job so the areas that it sealed had been missed. The single family started at 2.66 ACH50 and ended at 0.22 ACH50

  8. Alan B | | #8

    Oh dear god
    More aeroseal shills are going to start pushing their way into every air sealing discussion on every forum on the internet with their claims, their rationalizations, their sensational outcomes that appeal to gullibles and numbers they invent their own scales for to sound "amazing".
    At least this time (x)ACH50 is already standardized and the fact that air sealing does actually save energy.

  9. Andrew C | | #9

    pros and cons of new air sealing tool
    I understand Alan’s skepticism. Big news always attracts people interested in making money, and some of them are con artists, and some of them are people who don’t really understand it but they sure as heck want to use it because they’re desperate for an edge. And I worry as some others have that some fundamentals will be bypassed in the hope/expectation that aero sealing will be a cure-all.

    I get that, and I’m a sceptic at heart. But if air sealing becomes a focus and talking/selling point in the building industry, and if because of the results people are forced to install ventilation systems (you know, the “V” in HVAC), I’ll live with some shysters and hangers-on.

  10. Mitchell Costa | | #10

    The photos show promise
    Would like to see some shear strength and elasticity comparisons between AeroBarrier, foams, tapes and caulks to better understand it's strengths and weaknesses. However, the pictures clearly show how it seals areas that would traditionally be very time consuming to seal and would in many cases be missed. The research and simulated longevity tests from UC Davis make this look like a promising option for taking air sealing to the next level at reasonable cost, but agree that there is a danger if overly relied upon to cover up poor design and construction techniques.

  11. Evergreen Certified | | #11

    Skepticism
    Skepticism is good, we should all have plenty. We've been working in energy efficiency/sustainability/building science/passive house for many years and have seen plenty of products come and go. AeroBarrier seems like a game changer for air sealing, but only time will tell. Hope to have more data and experience to share with the GBA community as the months go by.

  12. Alan B | | #12

    @ Andrew C
    I've had to put up with their shills many, many, many times elsewhere, when someone mentions duct leakage one or more of them shows up, often within a day to give foolish numbers and brag about the very expensive aeroseal treatment. They get mad when you call them out on it, as if anyone who doesn't sing their praises is the real problem.
    Its funny because its not a terrible product from what i know but they are not interested in answering more then the basic technical questions, they sell, sell, sell, and anyone who gets in the way of the grand pitch is a thorn. They remind me of bad car salesmen.

  13. Rob Hunter | | #13

    Nobody home
    I've emailed them twice to ask for a discussion about air sealing my 'good enough house' build in Santa Rosa later this year. Not even an "out of office" email - nothing.

    Not impressed by a company that can't answer an inquiry.

  14. Phil Boutelle | | #14

    No CA Dealer
    Rob, I also emailed about using this product in California. They wrote back and said "Thanks for reaching out. At this time we don’t have an AeroBarrier dealer in your area. We are actively working to expand our network, so please feel free to check back in". Try [email protected]

  15. Robert Hronek | | #15

    A lot of comments about if it
    A lot of comments about if it will fail over time. I think if you can get a higher level of sealing at a lower cost then people or builders my seal to a higher level. Than if it develops some minor leaks you are still ahead if the game. Now if you were to use it along with blown in or sprayed cellose or dense packed fiberglass the 2 systems will work together in the long run. The weakest link will be more likely to fail but a redundant system will endure.

    This seems like a much more foolproof method than a crew running around with a myriad of products trying to plug some small holes in very hard to reach places.

    On new construction it seems prep would be minimal. On existing home it might be doable if it was vacant. I would wonder about things like carpet, light fixtures, inside of cabinets/drawers etc. Prep or clean may ad significantly to the price.

Log in or create an account to post a comment.

Related

Community

Recent Questions and Replies

  • |
  • |
  • |
  • |
нарядное платье для девочки

ここで読みます

Наш полезный портал на тематику депозиты в долларах https://zaraz.org.ua