AlllOb M3L6M3

NBS

PUBLICATIONS

l :

- NBSIR 82-2510

Quality of Inspections Utilizing

Infrared Technology on

Weatherization Retrofit

Installations

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Building Technology

Washington, DC 20234

November 1982

Prepared for: Building Energy Sciences Branch

Building Systems Division

Office of Building Energy Research and Development

nr U.S. Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20585

Uu

,115b

#2-2510

1902

C.2

NBSIR 82-2510

MlQUALITY OF INSPECTIONS UTILIZING

INFRARED TECHNOLOGY ON

WEATHERIZATION RETROFIT

INSTALLATIONS

Yui-May L. Chang

Richard A. Grot

U S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Building Technology

Washington, DC 20234

November 1982

Prepared for: Building Energy Sciences Branch

Building Systems Division

Office of Building Energy Research and Development

U.S. Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20585

OF STANDARDS

LIBRARY DEC 1 1982

acc-

* QC \00

U

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Director
*

'•

'

. .5

v

,r

• ;i

.

•: ' -J .' v •

^ T&r-tfa

•:

: : :• .•

•

'

.
ABSTRACT

A comparative evaluation of various portable infrared sensing systems used for

detecting heat loss anomalies within building envelopes was performed. This

is the second of a two-stage applied research program sponsored by the Department of Energy to assess the application and reliability of using infrared

technology. Twelve single-family residences in three cities from the Weatherization Program of the Community Services Administration were employed as field samples. The results of infrared surveys carried out by thermographic

surveying firms and those by the National Bureau of Standards were analyzed

and compared in the categories of: completeness of scanning, identification

of defects, weather condition of inspection, and method of equipment operation.

The thermograms of uninsulated areas, sketches of observed thermal deficiencies,

and total areas of defects for each dwelling are presented. Through the comparison, the degree of completeness of inspecting the residences thoroughly

was evaluated to be the most important factor for defect identification. The

results of thermographic inspection of the homes showed that serious thermal

anomalies still existed in most of these 'weatherized' residences, with a majority exhibiting between 5 percent and 15 percent of the wall areas uninsulated, or defective. The total uninsulated areas observed by each surveyor

was found to be affected by the quality of thermograms submitted.

Key Words: Building heat losses; comparison of inspections; infrared scanning

systems; insulation voids; interpretation of thermograms; thermal

deficiencies; thermographic inspections; weatherization retrofits

iii
PREFACE

This report is one of a series documenting National Bureau of Standards

research and analysis efforts in support of the Department of Energy/Oak Ridge

National Laboratory/ National Bureau of Standards" Building Thermal Envelope

Systems and Insulating Materials" Program. The work covered in this report was performed under the "Laboratory Tests in Support of Thermographic Standards"

project and under DOE/NBS Interagency Agreement No. DE-AI05-780R061 13 , Task

No. 11.

iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This report is based on the data and analysis submitted to NBS by the New

England Innovation Group (NEIG) under contract //NB80SBCA0337 . The authors wish

to acknowledge the professional efforts of Dr. Richard Munis and Mr. Rick Regan

of NEIG, without which this work would not have been possible.

v
CONVERSION FACTORS TO METRIC (SI) UNITS

Physical

Quantity Symbol

To Convert

From To Multiply By

Length L ft m 3.05 x 10" 1

Area A ft 2 m2 9.29 x 10“2

Volume V ft 3 m3 2.83 x 10"2

Tempera ture T Fahrenheit Celsius TC - (TF-32)/l .8

Temp. Diff. dT Fahrenheit Kelvin K * (TF)/1 .8

Wind Speed W ft /min m/s 5.08 x 10-3

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT iii

PREFACE iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENT v

SI CONVERSION vi

LIST OF TABLES viii

LIST OF FIGURES x

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. THERMOGRAPHIC INSPECTION AND INTERPRETATION FROM

THERMOGRAMS SUBMITTED BY CONTRACTORS 3

3. DATA ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY 5

4. CONCLUSION 9

5. REFERENCES 10

APPENDIX

I. Fargo House //I A-l

II. Fargo House #2 A-6

III. Fargo House #3 A-10

IV. Fargo House #4 A-16

V. Minneapolis-St . Paul House #1 A-21

VI. Minneapolis-St. Paul House #2 A-27

VII. Minneapolis-St. Paul House #3 A-34

VIII. Minneapolis-St. Paul House #4 A-41

IX. Portland House #1 A-46

X. Portland House #2 A-53

XI . Portland House #3 A-58

XII. Portland House #4 A-64

vii
LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1. Comparison of Insulation Voids Given in ft^ Observed

by Each Survey Firm and NBS 6

Table 2. Thermal Defects Observed in Each Dwelling 7

Table la. Summary of Defects Observed in Fargo House #1 A2

Table lb. Environmental Conditions Recorded at Inspections of

Fargo House til A-4

Table Ila. Summary of Defects Observed in Fargo House #2 A-7

Table lib. Environmental Conditions Recorded at Inspections of

Fargo House ti 2 A8

Table Ilia. Summary of Defects Observed in Fargo House #3 A-ll

Table Illb. Environmental Conditions Recorded at Inspections of

Fargo House #3 A-13

Table IVa. Summary of Defects Observed in Fargo House #4 ............. A-17

Table IVb. Environmental Conditions Reported at Inspections of

Fargo House #4 A-19

Table Va. Summary of Defects Observed in MinneapolisSt. Paul House til A-22

Table Vb. Environmental Conditions Reported at Inspections of

Minneapolis-St . Paul House #1 A-25

Table Via. Summary of Defects Observed in MinneapolisSt. Paul House til A-28

Table VIb. Environmental Conditions Reported at Inspections of

Minneapolis-St. Paul House til A-31

Table Vila. Summary of Defects Observed in MinneapolisSt. Paul House ti3 A-35

Table Vllb. Environmental Conditions Reported by Inspections of

Minneapolis-St. Paul House #3 A-38

Table Villa. Summary of Defects Observed in MinneapolisSt. Paul House tiU A-4

2

viii
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Page

Table VUIb. Environmental Conditions Reported by Inspections of

Minneapolis-St . Paul House #4 A-44

Table IXa. Summary of Defects Observed in Portland House #1 A-47

Table IXb. Environmental Conditions Reported at Inspections of

Portland House //I A-50

Table Xa. Summary of Defects Observed in Portland House #2 A-54

Table Xb. Environmental Conditions Reported at Inspections of

Portland House #2 A-56

Table XIa. Summary of Defects Observed in Portland House #3 A-59

Table Xlb. Environmental Conditions Reported at Inspections of

Portland House #3 A-61

Table Xlla. Summary of Defects Observed in Portland House #4 A-66

Table Xllb. Environmental Conditions Reported at Inspections of

Portland House #4 A-68

ix
LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Distribution of Defective Areas in Dwellings

Inspected 8

Figure I. Thermal Deficiencies Observed in Fargo House // 1 A-71

Figure II. Thermal Deficiencies Observed in Fargo House #2 A-72

Figure III. Thermal Deficiencies Observed in Fargo House #3 A-73

Figure IV. Thermal Deficiencies Observed in Fargo House #4 A-74

Figure Va. Thermal Deficiencies Observed on the First Floor

in Minneapolis-St . Paul House #1 A-75

Figure Vb. Thermal Deficiencies Observed on the Second Floor

in Minneapolis-St. Paul House //I A-76

Figure Via. Thermal Deficiencies Observed on the First Floor

in Minneapolis-St. Paul House #2 A-77

Figure VIb. Thermal Deficiencies Observed on the Second Floor

in Minneapolis-St. Paul House #2 A-78

Figure Vila Thermal Deficiencies Observed on the First Floor

in Minneapolis-St. Paul House #3 A-79

Figure Vllb. Thermal Deficiencies Observed on the Second Floor

in Minneapolis-St. Paul House #3 A-80

Figure Villa. Thermal Deficiencies Observed on the First Floor

in Minneapolis-St. Paul House #4 A-81

Figure VUIb. Thermal Deficiencies Observed on the Second Floor

in Minneapolis-St. Paul House #4 A-82

Figure IXa. Thermal Deficiencies Observed on the First Floor

in Portland House #1 A-83

Figure IXb. Thermal Deficiencies Observed on the Second Floor

in Portland House #1 A-84

Figure Xa. Thermal Deficiencies Observed on the First Floor

in Portland House #2 A-85

Figure Xb. Thermal Deficiencies Observed on the Second Floor

in Portland House #2 A-85

x
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Page

Figure XI. Thermal Deficiencies Observed in Portland House #3 A-86

Figure XI la. Thermal Deficiencies Observed on the First Floor

in Portland House //4 A-87

Figure Xllb. Thermal Deficiencies Observed on the Second Floor

in Portland House #4 A-88

xi

1 . INTRODUCTION

The infrared radiation measurement to assess the energy loss in building

structures has been shown as a viable technique for noncontact measurements

of surface temperature distribution [1,2]. Based on the fact that insulation

materials impede the flow of thermal energy, infrared thermography can be

utilized to provide images of the temperature distribution along the surface

of a building envelope and interpret the thermal defects of building envelopes.

The thermal defect problems include missing insulation, voids or cracks within

the insulation itself, improperly installed insulation, wet insulation, air

leakage, air penetration, etc. Prior to the weatherization of buildings, this

technique is capable of locating the regions having high heat loss in order to

appraise more adequately the retrofit requirements of the building. Thermographic inspection can also be employed as a quality control tool to evaluate

postweatherization retrofits [3,4].

Essentially, a thermographic survey is a tool to detect thermal abnormalities

and to determine insulation effectiveness in buildings. In spite of the fact

that the thermographic inspection involves only measurement of relative apparent surface temperature distribution instead of the profiles of surface heat

flux, the thermal patterns produced are able to identify thermal anomalies

within building envelopes. Thermography is an indispensable technique to

locate and document heat loss anomalies in buildings that are not evident to

the human eye. Further development of this technique will result in improved

diagnostic procedures for determining building performance as well as building

envelope energy efficiency.

The infrared equipment currently available and being used for energy surveys

can be classified as:

(1) high resolution thermal image systems (HRIS)

;

(2) low resolution thermal image systems (LRIS);

(3) thermal line scanners; and

(4) spot radiometers.

In order to assess the potential of each of the foregoing classes of infrared

equipment for locating defects in buildings, an attempt was made to conduct a comparative evaluation of portable infrared sensing devices for detecting heat

loss in buildings. Accordingly, a two-stage program was developed to invite

participants using the most common thermographic equipment employed in building

inspections, to locate thermally defective areas in buildings.

Stage one consisted of a laboratory test undertaken by thermographic firms in a "cold room" at the U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory

(USACRREL) [5]. The conclusions of the laboratory tests indicate that when various classes of infrared scanning equipment were compared, the high resolution

systems performed better than the low resolution systems and the line scanners. Furthermore, all systems did better in detecting defects than in determining

regions of insulation levels, and the low resolution image system did not

perform well at the lowest indoor/outdoor temperature differential.

1
Stage two involved a field evaluation of infrared inspection contractors, using

residences inspected by NBS as part of the Community Services Administration

(CSA) Weatherization Program [6] as a baseline. Simultaneously, cost

effectiveness and quality of inspection services offered by thermographic firms

could also be assessed. In order to confirm the validity of both laboratory

and field tests, the same types of infrared devices were used to perform

the scanning for both measurements. The field test of this project was coordinated by the New England Innovation Group, which also provided the interpretation of the data submitted by the thermographic inspection contractors. There were two phases of evaluation in the field tests. According to the types of

data recorded by NBS during thermographic inspections, the dwellings used for

field evaluation were divided into two groups. Phase one of the field evaluation consisted of those homes where thermograms were produced by NBS during

inspection. Phase two would be those homes where videotapes were recorded by

NBS during scanning. This report includes the comparison and analysis of

thermograms for phase one of the field evaluation.

In phase one, the field evaluation was carried out in four cities: Portland,

Maine; Fargo, North Dakota; Minneapolis-St . Paul, Minnesota; and St. Louis,

Missouri. In these cities single-family, cavity frame wall, low-income housing

had been retrofitted by the CSA with various types of wall insulation. Eight

thermographic inspection firms were asked to inspect different dwellings in

these four cities. The types of infrared sensing devices which were utilized

included five high resolution thermal image systems (resolution less than

0.5°F), a low resolution thermal image system (resolution greater than 0.5°F),

a thermal line scanner used in conjunction with a spot radiometer, and a pyroeletric vidicon. In the baseline inspection, NBS used a high resolution

image system to scan each dwelling thoroughly for quality control of the

weatherization retrofits. Using NBS infrared survey results as a baseline,

comparisons were performed on the results of thermograms, photographs, and

contractors' own interpretations of the data obtained by thermographic inspection contractors.

2
2c THERMOGRAPHIC INSPECTIONS AND INTERPRETATION FROM THERMOGRAMS SUBMITTED BY

CONTRACTORS

Of the eight firms which participated in the comparative evaluation of

thermographic inspections, the results of only six are analyzed and presented

in this report. The data from the other two could not be compared with data

from NBS and the other firms. One contractor using a spot radiometer submitted

only general letter reports to describe the results of his inspection. Without

documentation of any regions of voids, it was impossible to make direct comparison of void sizes with data from NBS and others. Documentation from another

contractor, using a pyroelectric vidicon, only included a few locations having

voids and air leakage paths and was not adequate for comparisons with data

from NBS, as well as other contractors.

Due to the unfavorable weather conditions, contractors were unable to carry

out inspections for residences in St. Louis. Hence analysis and comparison of

inspections were performed for dwellings in only three cities - Fargo,

Minneapolis-St . Paul, and Portland, with four residences in each city.

Since the void areas were estimated from documentation provided by each contractor, numerical data depend mainly on the quality of thermograms, area

covered, interior furnishings which obstruct subject surface, and interpretation by contractors. The accuracy for estimating the size of void area was

limited by random variables such as angles of viewing, equipment adjustments

like sensitivity, and type of thermal anomaly.

The instructions given to each infrared inspection firm were to inspect the

interior as well as exterior of each surveyed dwelling. They were also asked

to submit reports documenting the location of all insulation voids, air infiltration paths, and other important building heat loss anomalies such as cracks,

weatherstripping and caulking defects. However, only insulation voids in

exterior walls were included in the comparative evaluation. Other sources of

heat loss anomalies were only documented as recognitions.

In this report, thermographic inspection firms will be identified as contractors

no. 1 through no. 6. Only contractor no. 1 was using a low resolution infrared

system (LRIS) for scanning; the other five all used high resolution infrared

systems (HRIS). Infrared contractor no. 1 covered the most dwellings in this

program, four houses in Fargo and three houses in Minneapolis-St .Paul , for a total of seven houses. Although no thermograms were submitted, (the low resolution imaging system was not capable of producing hard copies of its display)

sketches of walls with void areas in each room of every house furnished by contractor no. 1 provided a fairly complete documentation of the house condition.

There was some difficulty by contractor no. 1 in using the low resolution scanning system to distinguish the differences in insulation performance levels in

two houses located in Fargo and one house in Minneapolis-St. Paul. As a result, contractor no. 1 reported some partial void areas as "cool" areas

instead, and the estimated void areas were substantially lower than results

from NBS. Infrared contractor no. 2 surveyed six houses, four in Fargo and two

in Minneapolis-St. Paul. Besides the interior photographs and thermograms of

identical locations, no. 2 always included exterior photographs and orientation

3
of the house. Such documentation was very effective for analysis of the

thermographic data. However, contractor no. 2 did not cover the whole envelope

during the inspection of two of its houses (one in Fargo and one in Minneapolis

St. Paul) and thus gave a much lower estimation of the void area than NBS’ data

Contractors no. 3 through no. 6 inspected four houses in one city, which

overlapped the work of the other contractors. In other words, there were at

least two contractors carrying out inspections for each dwelling. In spite of

the fact that both contractors no. 3 and no. 4 submitted photographs and thermo

grams of identical locations of the respective homes in their inspection, they

missed significant uninsulated areas in their observations, with the exception

of Minneapolis-St . Paul house #2, where 27 thermograms were produced by

contractor no. 4. Other dwellings in Minneapolis-St. Paul had 4, 9 and 13

thermograms from contractor no. 4 and dwellings in Fargo had between 7 to 10

thermograms from contractor no. 3. With such a small number of thermograms

available, the actual void area of each mentioned home cannot be interpreted

accurately from these incomplete inspections. Furthermore, it seemed that the

sensitivity of the scanning systems used for these two contractors (no. 3 and

no. 4) was set incorrectly, thereby providing insufficient resolution for

void detection. Hence the estimated void areas provided by these contractors

were lower than those for the NBS survey.

Four houses in Portland were inspected thoroughly by contractors no. 5 and

no. 6. Contractor no. 5 submitted the most elaborate documentation of envelope

heat loss anomalies, with sketches provided for each house giving locations

where the thermograms and observations were taken, stating the dimensions of

voids, and giving the probable causes of the heat loss anomalies. Contractor

no. 6 described in detail the weather conditions, interior temperature conditions, and other factors that might present a problem in interpreting the data

from the scanning. Even though some thermograms taken by contractors no. 5

and no. 6 were not focused correctly, estimations of void area from their

results were close to NBS* data, with exceptions of Portland house til from

contractors no. 5 and no. 6, and Portland house #4 from contractor no. 5. The

discrepancies in void estimation from these two cases were simply due to the

failure to inspect the whole house by these contractors. Furthermore, none of

the contractors seemed to include exterior thermographic scannings for any of

these dwellings, as only interior thermograms were provided.

A detailed discussion of the analysis made, and comparisons of each dwelling’s

thermal defects are summarized in the following section.

4
3. DATA ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY

A detailed analysis for each dwelling surveyed by contractors and NBS personnel

is presented separately in the appendix. General descriptions of these residences, insulation options, sketches of thermal deficiencies, some thermograms

as examples to demonstrate the location of heat loss anomalies, and comparative

evaluations are also included in the appendix. A typical thermogram of a surface will provide an intensity-modulated image where the light and dark

portion respectively represent the hot and cold region, and the grey shades

indicate temperatures between hot and cold.

According to the analysis of results from infrared inspections, a summary of

void areas estimated from thermograms and documents submitted by each contractor is presented in table 1 . The total area of known defects of each dwelling

in table 1 is based on results from all inspections. Using the sum of known

defects of each house inspected by individual survey contractor as the total area of voids to be detected, the percentage of overall void areas identified

by each surveyor is calculated and presented in table 1.

NBS personnel employed the draft American Standard Test Method (ASTM) for

infrared inspection and achieved the highest percentage, 93.5, of defective

area observed. Furthermore, the defective regions in Fargo house #1 not

recognized by NBS were due to camera malfunction and the result for Portland

house #3 was provided by local staff of CSA. If the areas of these two houses

were excluded, NBS would have 97.7 percent in defect detection.

Despite the difficulties with the use of LRIS at low temperature differentials, contractor no. 1 inspected and sketched every wall of each room in each

house to indicate the locations and areas of defects. Hence it still recognized

more than 70 percent of the existing voids. As for those using HRIS, contractors no. 2, no, 5, and no. 6 observed about 70 to 90 percent of existing voids.

However, contractors no. 3, and no. 4 who could only find less than 50 percent

of the total defects, in the authors' opinions, are considered to be questionable in terms of surveying performance.

A summary of thermal deficiencies interpreted from the thermograhic surveys

for dwellings in these three cities is shown in table 2. As indicated in

table 2, the most common heat loss locations observed in these dwellings are leakage paths around and through windows and doors; penetration from ceilings

and walls; and infiltration paths at wall-to-wall joints. Furthermore, only

one basement of a house was inspected in the survey and it was found to have

heat loss in the regions above ground. It is also shown in the table that

between 5 percent and 15 percent of the wall area defects have still remained

in most of the dwellings after retrofit. Six of the dwellings surveyed had

thermal defective areas accounted for 5 to 10 percent of total wall areas and

three showed between 10 percent and 15 percent defective areas. Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of insulation voids among these houses. The

average defective area of all dwellings is found to be 9.75 percent.

5
Table 1. Comparison of Insulation Voids Given In ft^

Observed by Each Survey Contractor and NBS

City House NBS Survey Contractor Total Area of

No. No.l No.

2

No.

3

No.

4

No.

5

No.

6

Known Defects*

** FAR 1 (2) 70 35 17 18 70

FAR 2 (25) 42 78 78 50 78

FAR 3 (30) 75 60 59 23 75

FAR 4 (36) 63 34 63 38 67

MSP 1 (2) 85 30 31 89

MSP 2 (4) 169 125 142 144 174

MSP 3 (21) 310 277 118 310

MSP 4 (45) 75 24 21 75

POR 1 (16) 106 97 92 io6

POR 2 (18) 97 43 67 97

POR 3 (20) 135 144 154 164

POR 4 (26) 105 68 110 119

Total Area 1332 633 389 129 314 352 423

of Voids

Detected

Total Area 1425 849 553 290 648 487 487

of Voids to

be Detected

Percentage 93.5 74.6 70.3 44.5 48.4 72.3 86.8

of Voids

Detected

* Based on results of all surveys.

** Numbers In parenthesis denote corresponding house numbers In

CSA program.

6
Table 2. Thermal Defects Observed in Each Dwelling

City FAR FAR FAR FAR MSP MSP MSP MSP POR POR POR POR

House No. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Defective

Wall Area (ft^) 70 78 75 67 89 174 310 75 106 97 164 119

% of Defective

Wall Area 7% 9% 10% 11% 6% 10% 20% 4% 8% 5% 20% 7%

Defects

Observed:

Walls

Shrinkage or a a a * Fissures

Air * a a a * a * a Penetration

Ceilings

Sloped * a a * Flat * * a a a * a * * *

Doors

Frames * * a * a a a * Air Leakage a a a a a * * a * A

Windows

Frames a a a * * a a * Air Leakage * a a * * a * * a *

Joints

Wall-Wall a a * a a a a * Ceiling-Wall a a * * * a * a a * Floor-Wall * *

Eaves a * * * a A

Basement or Crawl Space

7
Number of houses = 12

Mean area = 9.75%

Figure 1* Distribution of Defective Areas in Houses Inspected

8
4 . CONCLUSION

The field inspection results showed that the infrared survey contractors

located approximately 45 percent to 86 percent of the known thermal defects

during their inspections. The main cause of failure to locate defects is that

contractors failed in many cases to inspect all exterior walls of each house

involved. Thus the inspection procedures used by the infrared contractors are very important to the outcome of inpsections. The results of the interpretation of the thermographic data are affected by the quality of thermograms.

With a higher operational cost, thermograms generated from contractors using

HRIS are supposed to provide better documentations than sketches produced

manually by the contractors using LRIS. However, many thermograms submitted

by the contractors were quite poor in quality due to out of focus or lack of

adequate thermal contrast. This causes uncertainty in the analysis and

estimation of voids, and therefore causes a wide discrepancy in results among

the contractors. There is a need to develop recommended measurement techniques,

inspection procedures, and analysis methods to provide consistent results for

infrared survey of buildings.

As for the quality of the installation of insulation into these dwellings, the

results from this program indicated serious defects still existed in most of

the houses after weatherization. Some defects, such as air penetration into

ceilings, heat loss at soffits and eaves, and excessive heat loss from attics,

are usually not considered as normal weatherization measures. However, defects

such as missing insulation, shrinkage or fissures, air leakage at windows and

doors, etc., are primarily due to a poor quality of workmanship.

9
5. REFERENCES

1. Pettersson, B., and B. Axen, "Thermography-Testing of the Thermal Insulation

and Airtightness of Buildings," Swedish Council for Building Research,

Stockholm, Sweden, 1980.

2. Grot, R. A., D. T. Harrje, and L. C. Johnston, "Application of Thermograhpy

for Evaluating Effectiveness of Retrofit Measures," Proceedings of Infrared

Information Exchange 76, AGA Corp., Secaucus, New Jersey, 1978.

3. Mill, P. A. D., "Thermography-A New Tool for Diagnosing Building Performance

and Quality Assurance," Proceedings of Thermosense II, Second National

Conference on Thermal Infrared Sensing Technology for Energy Conservation

Programs, American Society of Photogrammetry , pp. 109-144, Falls Church,

Virginia, 1980.

4. Grot, R. A., "The Interpretation of Thermographic Data for the Identification

of Building Heat Loss." Proceedings of the Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers, Vol. 254, Bellingham, Washington, 98227.

5. Grot, R. A., and R. H. Munis, "A Comparative Testing of the Applicability

of Various Thermal Scanning Systems for Detecting Heat Losses in Buildings,"

Proceedings of Fourth Biennial Infrared Informatiom Exchange, p. 71-99,

AGA Corp., Secaucus, New Jersey, 1979.

6. Crenshaw, R., R. Clark, R. Chapman, R. Grot, and M. Godette, "CSA

Weatherization Demonstration Project Plan," NBSIR 79-1706, March, 1979.

10
APPENDIX

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF THERMOGRAPHICAL INSPECTIONS

I. Fargo House #1

This is a one-story, approximately 25 year old residence whose interior

dimensions are 24 ft. in length, 25 ft. in width, and 7.4 ft. in wall height;

located in Fargo, ND. There are 5 rooms of living space, with an attic and a basement. Its exterior construction contains metal siding and an asphalt

shingle roof

.

Prior to the weatherization program, this residence was insulated with 3 1/2”

glass fiber batt insulation in the cavity walls. An insulation contractor was instructed to add UF foam to this existing insulation. After the retrofitted

foam was injected into the walls, this dwelling was inspected by NBS personnel

and IR contractors #1, #2, and #3. A sketch of the voids and the locations of

heat loss obtained from thermograms and documents by NBS, as well as those by

the IR contractors, is shown in figure la.

In general, the most common area of heat loss in this house were found at wallceiling joints, at corners (bridges), and also around the diagonal braces. This

might be due to the defective sealing at eave junctions such that air leaked

into the dwelling. Also, cold ceilings were found at the corners of the south

and north sides on the main floor as well as in the attic.

Thermographic inspection by NBS observed most known defects of this residence

so that its result can be used as a baseline for comparison. Due to the fact

that UF foam was added on to the existing insulation, different performance

levels of insulation could be observed in locations where the foam did not

reach the intended locations.

Contractor #1, who used LRIS for inspection, had difficulties in identifying

the partial insulation voids from different performance levels and sketched

most of the locations of low temperatures as 'cool* areas instead of voids.

This report will interpret these 'cool* areas as void areas.

Contractors #2 and #3 failed to inspect several regions in this house as compared with the inspection by NBS.

A detailed description of the defects observed by NBS as well as those by the

IR contractors, is summarized in table la. Besides the total defective wall

area in ft^ found by each inspection, table la also includes each defective

wall area in ft^ of each room of the house, analyzed from available thermograms

and sketches. The total estimates of void areas is approximately 70 ft^, which

represents about 7 percent of the gross wall area. Table lb presents the environmental conditions documented from each inspection. Therraograms/sketches 1-1

to 1-9 are some examples which demonstrate the locations of heat loss anomalies,

as they are referred to in the descriptions in table la.

A-l
Table la Summary of Defects Observed in Fargo House #1

Room & Description of Defective Observed by ThermoOrientation Defects Wall NBS Contractors gram

Area #1 # 2 n No. in

in ft^ Appendix

Front S Air Infiltration

Entrance Underneath & Around

'Hollow* Door

No No Yes Yes 1-1

E Air Infiltration

or Void at Ceiling

No No Yes No

Living S Voids & Infiltration: 6 Yes Cool Yes No 1-2

Room Above & Below Window

at Corner of SW & Ceiling

Yes No No Yes 1-3

W Voids Around 7 Yes Yes No No 1-4

Diagonal Brace

Thermal Bridge at

SW Corner

Yes No No No 1-5

Ki tchen w Voids Below & Above

Window; Partial Bay 6 Yes Cool Yes No

Cavity at NW Corner

Infiltration Around

'Hollow' Door & at

Lower Left of Door

No No Yes Yes 1-6

N Small Void above

Refrigerator at

Ceiling & in wall

Behind Cabinets

2 Yes No No No

Bathroom N Voids Above & below

Window; Penetration 6 Yes No No No 1-7

From Ceiling 1-8

Northeast N Voids Below

Bedroom Window & Around

the Diagonal Brace

4 Yes No No Yes

Air Penetration Yes No Yes No

From Ceiling at

NE Corner

A2
Table la Summary of Defects Observed in Fargo House //I

Room & Description of Defective Observed by The rmo Orientation Defects Wall NBS Contractors gram

Area #1 #2 #3 No. in

in ft^ Appendix

E 1 Half Bay Cavity

at HE Corner

7 Yes Cool Yes No

Partial Voids in

2 Upper Bays and

Below Window With

Infiltration

Yes No No No

Southeast E Voids Above and 12 Yes Yes No No

Bedroom on Both Sides of

Windows

1 Bay Cavity Above

Diagonal Brace at

S of Window

Yes Yes No No 1-9

Air Leakage at SE

Corner

Yes No Yes Yes 1-10

S Voids Below Window

Partial Void at SE

Co rner

8 Yes No No Yes

2 Upper Bay Cavities

at W of Window

Yes No No No

Air Penetration From

Ceiling

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Attic E Voids Below Window 4 Yes No Yes No

Partial Bay Cavity

at NE Corner

Yes No No Yes

S Uninsulated Sloped

Ceiling

Yes No No Yes

W Voids Above & at S 8 Yes No No No

Side of Window

Uninsulated Sloped

Ceiling

Yes No No Yes 1-11

N Uninsulated Sloped

Ceiling

Yes No No Yes

Total Wall Area of 70 70 35 17 18

Insulation Voids Detected

Given in ft^

A3
Table lb. Environmental Conditions During Inspections of

Fargo House //I

Contractors

NBS #1 n n

Date

Time

3/1/79

11:00 am

4/10/79

9:00-10:00 pm

4/25/79 4/17/79

10:00 am

Weather Condition overcast bright

sunlight

Outside Temperature 10°F 47°F 49 C F

Inside Temperature 68°F 55°F

60°F(attic)

68 # F 67®F

Inside Humidity 54%

Wind Speed (MPH) 5-10 2-5 25-30

Wind Direction NW NW SE

A-4
Thermal Anomalies Observed in Fargo House //I

1-1

Solar Effect on 'hollow' front door,

(by contractor #3)

1-2

SE corner on S

of living room.

(by contractor #2)

SW corner on S

of living room,

(by NBS)

1-4

W corner on W

of living room,

(by NBS)

1-5

SW corner on W

of living room.

(by contractor #3)

'Hollow' side door

scanned at overcast,

(by contractor #3)

1-7

Above window & at

ceiling of bathroom,

(by NBS)

1-10

SE corner of

SE bedroom.

(by contractor #2)

.9

.7

.3

1-8

Below window

of bathroom,

(by NBS)

-.5

1-11

Solar effect at

the attic ceiling,

(by contractor //3)

VOID 58" VERT.

1-9

E wall of SE

bedroom, (by LRIS)

II. Fargo House #2

This is a one-story, approximately 50 year old residence whose interior

dimensions are 36 ft. in length, 19 ft. in width, and 8 ft. in wall height;

located in Fargo, ND. There are 6 rooms of living space, with an attic and a basement. Its exterior construction contains wood siding and a cedar shingle

roof

.

Prior to the weatherization program, this house had no insulation. An

insulation contractor was instructed to insulate the walls of this house with

UF foam. After the retrofitted foam was injected into the walls, this dwelling

was inspected by NBS personnel and IR contractors // 1 , #2 , and #3. A sketch of

the voids and the locations of heat loss obtained from thermograms and documents

by NBS, as well as those by the IR contractors, is shown in figure Ila.

In general, the most common area showing heat loss in this house were found on both the east and west sides. The voids in these walls may be due to poor

installation or extreme shrinkage of foam. The north wall enclosed by the

porch was not insulated since insulation was supposed to be added to the outside

walls of the house. The outer walls of the porch were not inspected because

the porch was not heated. Hence this wall was omitted in area calculations.

Thermographic inspection by NBS missed the data on east walls of the bathroom

and the northeast bedroom due to camera malfunction. Therefore, its results

can not serve as a baseline for these two walls.

Contractors #1 and // 2 identified all defective wall areas while contractor #3

missed a few locations. In addition, contractors #2 and #3 included inspections of the ceiling of the dining room and found that the insulation in the

ceiling was not adequate.

A detailed description of the defects observed by NBS as well as thoe by the IR

contractors, is summarized in table Ila. Besides the total defective wall area

in ft^ found by each inspection, table Ila also includes the defective wall

areas in ft^ of each room of the house, analyzed from available thermograms and

sketches. The total estimates of void areas is approximately 78 ft^, which

represents about 9 percent of the gross wall area. Table lib presents the

environmental conditions documented from each inspection. Therraograms/sketches

2-1 to 2-7 are some examples which demonstrate the locations of heat loss

anomalies, as they are referred to in the descriptions in table Ila.

A6
;
Table Ila. Summary of Defects Observed in Fargo House //2

Room & Description of Defective Observed by ThermoOrientation Defects Wall NBS Contractors gram

Area #1 #2 #3 No. in

in ft^ Appendix

Living E Voids Above & Air

Room Infiltration Below

Wind ow; Shr inkage

of Insulation at

Lower NE Corner

8 Yes Yes Yes Yes 2-1

S Voids Above SW

Corners of Door 4 Yes Yes Yes Yes

and SW Window

Air Infiltration at

Lower Part of Door

No Yes Yes Yes

W Voids Above Windows 8 Yes Yes Yes No

2 Upper Bay Cavities

at NW Corner

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Dining W Voids Above Both

Room Windows; Missing

Insulation on Both

Sides of SW Window

and 4 Upper Bay

Cavities

10 Yes Yes Yes Yes 2-2

Ceiling Missing Insulation No No Yes Yes 2-3 or Moisture Damage

East E Voids Above Window

Bedroom and Partial Bay

Cavities in Upper

Wall

10 Yes Yes Yes Yes

Ceiling Missing Insulation No No Yes No 2-4 or Moisture Damage

Bathroom E Voids in Upper Part

of Whole Wall

20 No Yes Yes Yes 2-5

1 Partial Bay & Air

Infiltration Below

Window

No Yes Yes No

Northeast E Voids Above Window

Bedroom and 1 Upper Bay

Cavity at SE of

Window

7 No Yes Yes No 2-6

A7
Table Ila. Summary of Defects Observed in Fargo House //

2

Room & Description of Defective Observed by ThermoOrientation Defects Wall NBS Contractors gram

Area

in ft^

//I n #3 No. in

Appendix

Voids & Infiltration

Below Window

No Yes Yes No 2-7

N Small Void Above

Window

2 Yes Yes Yes No

Kitchen W Voids Above Window

& Under Cabinets

at NW Corner

9 No Yes Yes No

Total Area Wall of 78 42 78 78 50

Insulation Voids Detected

Given in ft^

Table lib. Environmental Conditions During Inspections of

Fargo House #2

Contractors

NBS H n n

Date 3/2/79 4/10/79 4/26/79

Time 2:00 pm 8:15-9:15 pm 1:15 pm

Weather Condition light bright

snow sunhine

Outdoor Temperature 15°F 37°F 38°F 59°F

Indoor Temperature 75°F 77°F 78°F 71 °F

Indoor Humidity 53%

Wind Speed (MPH) 2-5 calm 20-25

Wind Direction NW SE

A8
Thermal Anomalies Observed in Fargo House #2

2-1 2-2

E wall of

living room,

(by NBS)

W wall of

dining room.

(by contractor #2)

2-3

Dining room

ceiling.

(by contractor #3)

2-4

E bedroom

ceiling.

(by contractor #2) 2-5

E wall of bathroom, (by LRIS)

2-6 2-7

Upper E wall of

NE bedroom.

(by contractor #2)

Lower E wall

of NE bedroom.

(by contractor #2)

A9

III. Fargo House #3

This is a one-story, approximately 60 year old residence whose interior

dimensions are 34 ft. in length, 24 ft. in width, and 8 ft. in wall height;

located in Fargo, ND. There are 6 rooms of living space, with an attic and a basement. Its exterior construction contains wood frame with aluminum siding,

and an asphalt shingle roof.

Prior to the weatherization program, this house had no insulation. An

insulation contractor was instructed to insulate the walls of this house with

UF foam. After retrofitted foam was injected into the walls, this dwelling was inspected by NBS personnel and IR contractors #1 , #2, and #3. A sketch of the

voids and the locations of heat loss obtained from thermograms and documents by

NBS, as well as those by the IR contractors, is shown in figure Ilia.

In general, the most common area of heat loss in this house were found above

windows, doors, and eaves as well as air leakage paths below windows.

Thermographic inspection by NBS identified most known defects of this residence

so that its results can be used as a baseline for comparison. Furthermore, NBS

included scanning of the basement walls which were colder at the top. Since

the top part of the basement is above ground and the bottom part is under ground,

there seemed to be cold air penetration to the basement from outside.

Contractors #1 and // 2 each missed inspection of a few locations, but contractor

// 2 inspected the dining room ceiling and found some voids at the ceiling, the

west partition wall of the dining room, and the north partition wall of the

bathroom. However, these voids were not included in calculations for defects.

Contractor #3 scanned this dwelling under bright sunlight so that the high

temperature areas do indicate void areas due to the high temperature from solar

radition. Several locations were missed by contractor #3 which were identified

by contractors #1 and #2 as well as NBS.

A detailed description of the defects observed by NBS as well as those by the

IR contractors, is summarized in table Ilia. Besides the total defective wall

area in ft^ found by each inspection, table Ilia also includes the defective

wall areas in ft^, of each room of the house, analyzed from available thermograms and sketches. The total estimates of void areas is approximately 75 ft^,

which represents about 10 percent of the gross wall area. Table Illb presents

the environmental conditions documented from each inspection. Thermograms/

sketches 3-1 to 3-12 are some examples which demonstrate the locations of heat

lo8 8 anomalies, as they are referred to in descriptions in table Ilia.

A- 10
.

.

.
Table Ilia. Summary of Defects Observed in Fargo House #3

Room & Description of Defective Observed by The rmo- Orientation Defects Wall NBS Contractors gram

Area //I #2 n No. in

in ft^ Appendix

Living N Voids Above Window 10 Yes Yes Yes No 3-1

Room and Door

1 Upper Bay Cavity

at NE of Window &

Air Infiltration

Around Door

Yes Yes Yes Yes

E Voids Above Window

and 2 Upper Bay

Cavities at SE of

Window

8 Yes Yes Yes Yes 3-2

Dining E Voids in Upper Part

Room of the Entire Wall 17 Yes Yes Yes No 3-3

1 Bay Cavity at NE

Corner & Infiltration Yes Yes No No 3-4

Below Window

W Voids in Partition

Wall & Cold Ceiling

No No Yes No 3-5

Kitchen E Voids Above Window

and Infiltration 7 Yes No No No

Below Window

Voids Above and at 1 Side of Near Door;

Air Infiltration at

SE Corner

NE

Yes No No No

S Air Penetration &

Voids Below Window

2 Yes No No No

Northeast N Voids Above Window

Bedroom and in 2 Upper

Bays at NE Corner

8 Yes Yes Yes No 3-6

W Voids in 1 Upper Bay 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes

Air Penetration at

Lower NW Corner

Yes No No No

A-l 1
Table Ilia. Summary of Defects Observed in Fargo House #3

Room & Description of Defective 1Observed by ThermoOrientation Defects Wall NBS Contractors gram

Area #1 in #3 No. in

in ft^ Appendix

Bathroom W Voids Above Window

and in 2 Upper Bays 10 Yes Yes Yes No

at Both Sides of

Window

N Some Voids in No No Yes No

Partition Wall

Southwest W Voids Above Window 8 Yes Yes Yes Yes 3-7

Bedroom and in 3 Upper Bays 3-8

at SW Corner 3-9

S Voids at SW Corner 4 Yes No No Yes

of Window

Basement Cold Air Penetrated Yes No No No 3-10

From Outside at Top 3-11

of Wall 3-12

Total Wall Area of 75 75 60 59 23

Insulation Voids Detected

Given in ft^

A- 12
Table Illb. Environmental Conditions During Inspection of

Fargo House #3

Contractors

NBS #1 n #3

Date 3/1/79 4/9/79 4/25/79 4/17/79

Time 2:00 pm 7:00-8:00 pm 12:00 noon

Weather Condition cloudy bright

sunlight

Outdoor Temperature 15°F 35°F 4l°F 56°F

Indoor Temperature 79°F 72°F 69°F 78°F

Indoor Humidity 40%

Wind Speed (MPH) 5-10 8-12 20-25

Wind Direction NW N SE

A-13
• •' ••

• T‘K
Thermal Anomalies Observed in Fargo House #3

3-1

N wall of

living room,

(by NBS)

3-2

E wall of

living room.

(by contractor #2)

3-3

E wall of

dining room.

(by contractor # 2)

NE corner on E

of dining room,

(by NBS)

3-5

Ceiling & W wall of

dining room.

(by contractor #2)

3-6

N wall of NW bedroom. (by LRIS)

A- 14

\INFILTRATION AT BASE OF WALL

3-7

W wall of SW bedroom. (by LRIS)

Thermal Anomalies Observed in Fargo House #3 (continued)

3-8

SW corner of SW bedroom.

(Scanned at overcast

by NBS)

SW corner of SW bedroom

(Scanned under bright sunlight

by contractor #3)

3-10

At basement door

.

(by NBS)

3-11

NW corner of

basement

.

(by NBS)

3-12

NE corner of

basement

.

(by NBS)

A- 15

IV. Fargo House #4

This is a one-story, approximately 15 year old residence whose interior

dimensions are 23 ft. in length, 21 ft. in width, and 8 ft. in wall height;

located in Fargo, ND. There are 4 rooms of living space with an attic and a basement. Its exterior construction contains wood frame with wood lap siding

and an asphalt shingle roof.

Prior to the weatherization program, this house was insulated with 3 and 1/2*'

glass fiber batt insulation in the cavity walls. An insulation contractor was instructed to add UF foam to the existing insulation. After the retrofitted

foam was injected into the walls, this dwelling was inspected by NBS personnel

and IR contractors #1, #2, and #3. A sketch of the voids and the locations of

heat loss obtained from thermograms and documents by NBS as well as those by

the IR contractors, is shown in figure IVa.

In general, the most common area of heat loss in this house were found above

most windows and doors, and below most of the windows. The corner of the wallceiling joints were also defective with several vertical partially-voided

corner bays. Problem areas may be due to the insulation defects at the eaves underneath the roof and compression of old insulation as well as missed foaming.

These were loose fitting paneling in the bathroom and a moisture problem in

the attic. Both doors were found to be uninsulated with severe air leakage

around them.

Thermographic inspection by NBS observed most known defects of this residence

except of the south entrance. Contractor #2 also included all defects except

for the east wall of the living room. Therefore, from the combination of these

two inspections, a baseline were established for comparison purposes.

From contractor #1 ' s comment, the thermal pattern observed in this house was

due to: (1) damp insulation, (2) uneven application of foaming (different

density), and (3) foam mixed with other kind of insulation, providing areas of

different R-values. Therefore, it claimed that no voids were found in this

house. However, this house did have insulation before and the inspection should

be locating voids in the foam retrofits. Hence the ’cool area' indicated by

contractor #1 should be considered as defects, misses, or shrinkage of foaming.

The cool areas found by contractor #1 were interpreted as voids in the house.

However contractors //I and #3 failed to inspect many areas in this dwelling.

A detailed description of the defects observed by NBS as well as those by the

IR contractors, is summarized in table IVa. Besides the total defective wall

area in ft^ found by each inspection, table IVa also includes the defective

wall areas in ft^ of each room of the house, analyzed from available thermograms. The total estimates of void areas is approximately 67 ft^, which represents about 11 percent of the gross wall area. Table IVb presents the

environmental conditions documented from each inspection. Thermograms 4-1 to

4-8 are some examples which demonstrate the locations of heat loss anomalies,

as they are referred to in the descriptions in table IVa.

A- 16

Table IVa. Summary of Defects Observed in Fargo House //4

Room & Orientation

Living E

Room

N

Bathroom E

S

South S

ENTRANCE

Kitchen W

Description of Defective Observed by

Defects Wall NBS Contractors

Area #1 #2 #3

in ft^

Thermogram

No. in

Appendix

Air Penetration

from Ceiling and

Infiltration Around

’Hollow' Door

5 Yes Yes Yes Yes

Voids Above Window Yes Yes No No

1 Half Bay Cavity

and Infiltration

at NE Corner

Yes No No Yes

1 Half Bay Cavity

at NW Corner

12 Yes Yes Yes Yes 4-1

Voids Above Window;

Missing Foam in

Several Upper Bays

and Infiltration at

Ceiling-Wall Joint

Yes No Yes Yes 4-2

Voids Below Window 6 Yes Yes Yes Yes 4-3

Voids Above Window

and in 1 Upper Bay

at NE Corner

Yes No Yes No

Partial Bay Cavities

at SE Corner; Missing

a Good Deal of Foam

in Wall

7 Yes No Yes No

Voids Above Door & Air Penetration

Through Attic Hatch

4 No Yes Yes No 4-4

Air Leakage Around &

Penetration Tthrough

'Hollow' Door

No No Yes Yes 4-5

Voids Above and Yes Yes Yes No

Below Window

A- 17
Table IVa. Summary of Defects Observed in Fargo House #4

Room & Description of Defective Observed by ThermoOrientation Defects Wall NBS Contractors gram

Area #1 n #3 No. in

in ft^ Appendix

Foam Missing Partially

in Several Bays on Yes No Yes Yes

Both Sides of window

Ceiling Possible Moisture

Damage at 1 Spot

No No Yes Yes 4-6

Bedroom W Voids Above Window 10 Yes Yes Yes No

2 Upper Bay Cavities

and Air Penetration Yes No Yes Yes 4-7

Through Ceiling at

NW Corner

Foam Missing Partially

in 2 Upper Bays at SW Yes No Yes No 4-8

of Window

N Air Penetration at

NW Corner & Around 10 Yes No Yes Yes

Window

Voids Above Window & Foam Missing Partially Yes Cool Yes No

in Some Bays on Both

Sides of Window

1 Partial Bay Cavity Yes Yes Yes No

at NE Corner

Total Wall Area of 67 63 34 62 38

Insulation Voids Detected

Given in ft^

A- 18
Table IVb. Environmental Conditions During Inspection of

Fargo House #4

Contractors

NBS //I n #3

Date 3/2/79 4/9/79 4/25/79 4/17/79

Time 4:00 pm 8:15-9:15 pm 2:45 pm

Weather Condition overcast bright

sunshine

Outdoor Temperature 13°F 35°F 37°F 59°F

Indoor Temperature 75°F 75°F 76°F 79°F

Indoor Humidity 51%

Wind Speed (MPH) 5-10 3-5 25-35

Wind Direction NW S SE

A-19

Thermal Anomalies Observed in Fargo House #4

4-1

NW corner on N of living room. (Different density levels of

insulation by NBS)

4-2

N wall of living room. (Different density levels

of insulation by contractor #2)

4-3 4-4 4-5

Below window on

E of bathroom.

(by contractor #3)

Attic hatch & above side door,

(by contractor #2)

Infiltration around & underneath side door,

(by contractor #2)

4-6 4-7 4-8

Problems at NW corner on W

kitchen ceiling. of bedroom,

(by contractor #2) (by NBS)

SW corner on W

of bedroom.

(by NBS)

A-20

V. Minneapolis-St . Paul House #1

This is a two-story, approximately 60 year old residence whose interior

dimensions are 33 ft. in length, 30 ft. in width, and 9 ft. in wall height on

the first floor, and 8 ft. in wall height on the second floor; located in

Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN. There are 8 rooms of living space, with an attic

and a basement. Its exterior construction contains wood frame with stucco

siding and an asphalt shingle roof.

Prior to the weatherization program, this house had no insulation. An

insulation contractor was instructed to insulate the walls of this dwelling

with UF foam. After retrofitted foam was injected into the walls, this dwelling was inspected by NBS personnel and IR contractors #2, and #4. A sketch of

the voids and locations of heat loss obtained from thermograms and documents

by NBS as well as those by the IR contractors, is shown in figures Va and Vb.

In general, voids in this house were found above most of the windows and doors,

and these locations were also sites of air leakage. The wall and ceiling joints

have thermal bridges with infiltration, and bay cavities were also found at wallto-wall joints. Several walls on the second floor were found to have foam shrinkage.

Thermographic inspection by NBS revealed most of the defects of this residence,

except for those in the north upstairs room. Furthermore, NBS carried out both

interior and exterior inspections of this house. Besides giving the correct

location of the fireplace chimney, the exterior thermograms illustrated some defects on the west wall of the southwest bedroom where no interior thermograms

were produced. Therefore, results of NBS' inspection were used as a baseline

for comparison purposes.

Contractors #2 and #4 employed HRIS to observe defects in this dwelling by

producing thermograms and visual photographs of identical locations. However,

they failed to recognize many uninsulated areas. Neither contractor inspected

all of the walls, as they submitted only nine thermograms each, covering different areas of the house. There were also some questionable interpretations

from the contractors. Both contractors observed the east wall of the living

room and the southeast bedroom upstairs; and considered the 'cool' areas as voids. These areas are locations of the fireplace chimney, which are always

cold except during use. Contractor #2 did identify this area as a fireplace

chimney for the bedroom upstairs, without also considering the cold area in

the living room, which is just behind the fireplace. NBS' interior and

exterior thermograms gave a clear indication of the chimney location.

A detailed description of the defects observed by NBS as well as those by the

IR contractors, is summarized in table Va. Besides the total defective wall

area in ft^ found by each inspection, table Va also includes the defective wall

areas in ft^ of each room of the house, analyzed from available thermograms and

sketches. The total estimates of void areas is approximately 89 ft^, which

represents about 6 percent of the gross wall area. Table Vb presents the environmental conditions documented from each inspection. Thermograms 5-1 to 5-9 are some examples which demonstrate the locations of heat loss anomalies, as they are referred to in the descriptions in table Va.

A-21
Table Va. Summary of Defects Observed in MinneapolisSt. Paul House #1

Room & Orientation

Living E

Room

S

w

Stairway W

(1st Floor)

Kitchen W

N

Dining N

Room

Description of Defective Observed by ThermoDefects Wall NBS Contractors gram

Area #2 #4 No. in

in ft^ Append ix

Small Voids Above

Both Windows

2 Yes No No

Cold Air Penetration

from Chimney of

Fireplace; Infiltration

Through Both Windows

Yes Yes Yes 5-1

Voids Above Window

and in 1 Upper Bay

at SW of Window; Warm

Area at SE Indicating

Solar Loading; Air

Penetration Through

Ceiling

6 Yes Yes No 5-2

Small Voids Above

Door

Yes No No

Voids Above & Below

Window

4 Yes No No

1 Partial Bay Cavity

at Side Door and

Infiltration or Leakage Through Door

3 Yes No No

Voids Above Window

and Pantry

8 Yes No Yes

Voids Below Pantry Yes Yes No

1 Partial Bay Cavity

at SW Corner

Yes No No

Voids Above Window

and Behind Cabinets

6 Yes Yes No 5-3

Voids Above Window

and Partially in 1 6 Yes Yes Yes 5-4

Bay at NW of Window

A-22
Table Va. Summary of Defects Observed in Minneapolis

St. Paul House #1

Room & Description of Defective Observed by ThermoOrientation Defects Wall NBS Contractors gram

Area n U No. in

in ft^ Appendix

Small Voids at NE

Corner

Yes Yes No

Air Infiltration

Around & Below Window

Yes Yes No

E Voids Above SE

Corner of Window 8 Yes No No

and 1 Partial Bay

Cavity at SE Corner

Stairway W Voids Above Window

(2nd Floor) and Infiltration 4 Yes No Yes 5-5

at Ceiling

Bathroom W Voids Above Window

and Infiltration

at NW Corner

3 Yes No Yes

N Small Void and

Infiltration Above

Shower Area

1 Yes No No

Nort broom N Voids Above Window 4 No No Yes

Northeast N Voids Above Window 4 Yes Yes Yes

Bedroom

Partial Bay Cavities

on Both Sides of

Window

Yes Yes No

Shrinkage of Foam Yes Yes Yes

E Voids Above Window

and in Upper Part

of Wall at SE of

Window

4 Yes Yes No

Shrinkage of Foam

at NE Side of Window

and Infiltration at

Ceiling-Wall Joint

Yes No No 5-6

A-23
f

Table Va. Summary of Defects

St. Paul House #1

Observed in MinneapolisRoom & Orientation

Description of Defective

Defects Wall

Area

in ft^

Observed by

NBS Contractors

n m

Thermogram

No. in

Appendix

Southeast E

Bedroom

Cold Air Penetration

at NE of Window

Through Fireplace

Chimney; Missing

Insulation at Both

Sides of Window

8 Yes Yes Yes 5-7

S 1 Half Bay Cavity

at SE Corner

10 Yes No Yes

Voids Above Window

and in Partial Bays

at SW of Window;

Shrinkage of Foam

Yes No No 5-8

Southwest S

Bedroom

Voids Above Window

and in 2 Upper Bays

at SE Corner; Some

Shrinkage of Foam

3 Yes No No

W Voids in Upper

on Both Sides of

Windows

Yes No No 5-9

Total Wall Area of 89 85 30 31

Insulation Voids Detected

Given in ft^

A-24
Table Vb. Environmental Conditions During Inspection of

Minneapolis-St . Paul House #1

CONTRACTORS

NBS n U

Date 2/14/79 4/27/79 Mh/19

Time 10:00 am 12:25 pm

Weather Conditions partly

cloudy

Outdoor Temperature 13°F 49 °F 42°F

Indoor Temperature 75°F 75°F 74°F

Wind Speed(MPH) 5-10 6

Wind Direction NW N

A-25
• ?

’ ?• *•

;? -

' - .V • ’ •-* >

•
Thermal Anomalies Observed in Minneapolis-St . Paul House #1

5-1 5-2

E wall of

living room.

(by contractor #2)

S wall of

living room. (by contractor #2)

5-3

N wall of

kitchen

.

(by contractor #2)

5-4 5-5

N wall of W of stairway

dining room. on 2nd floor,

(by contractor #4) (by NBS)

5-6

E wall of

NE bedroom,

(by NBS)

5-7

E wall of

SE bedroom,

(by NBS)

5-8

S wall of

SE bedroom,

(by NBS)

5-9

W wall of

SW bedroom,

(exterior by NBS)

A-26

VI. Minneapolis-St . Paul House #2

This is a two-story, approximately 80 year old residence whose interior

dimensions are 45 ft. in length, 24 ft. in width, and 8 ft. in wall height on each floor; located in Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN. There are 9 rooms of living

space, with an attic and a basement. Its exterior construction contains wood

siding and an asphalt shingle roof.

Prior to the weatherization program, this house had no insulation. An

insulation contractor was instructed to insulate this house with UF foam. After

the retrofitted foam was injected into the walls this dwelling was inspected

by NBS personnel and IR contractors #1, #2, and #4. A sketch of the voids and

the locations of heat loss obtained from thermograms and documents by NBS as well as those by the IR contractors, is shown in figures Via and VIb.

In general, the insulation on the first floor of this house is better than that

on the second floor. Furthermore, all doors were found to be uninsulated and

voids were observed at stairwells and ceilings. On the first floor, many void

areas were found in the living room, family room, dining room, and kitchen. On

the second floor, pitched ceilings were found to be uninsulated, many walls

have voids, windows have voids above them, and air was leaking from joints of

pitched ceilings and walls.

Thermographic inspection by NBS identified most of the defects, except for

those in the wall area underneath the uninsulated pitched ceiling at north of

the west bedroom upstairs. Besides the interior inspection, NBS made a fairly

complete exterior thermographic survey of this dwelling and observed most of

the voids. There were some locations where only exterior thermograms were

taken, such as the east wall on the left side of the window in the family room

and above the north door of the dining room. The results of the NBS survey

were used as a baseline for comparison purposes.

This is the only house in Minneapolis-St. Paul that was inspected by all three

contractors, two contractors (#2 and #4) used HRIS to produce thermograms and one ( // 1 ) used LRIS to sketch locations of missing locations. Contractors #2

and #4 produced 26 and 27 thermograms respectively and gave detailed locations

of each wall. Even though they missed some defects during inspection, their

results are considered to be fairly good. Contractor #1 provided 16 sketches

of which some did not show uninsulated areas. Hence its performance was not

as good as that of the other contractors.

A detailed description of the defects observed by NBS, as well as IR those by

the contractors, is summarized In table Via. Besides the total defective wall area in ft^ found by each inspection, table Via also includes the defective wall

areas in ft^ of each room of the house, analyzed from available thermograms and

sketches. The total estimates of void areas is approximately 174 ft^, which

represents about 10 percent of the gross wall area. Table VIb presents the

environmental conditions documented from each inspection. Thermograms/ sketches

6-1 to 6-17 are some examples which demonstrate the locations of heat loss

anomalies, as they are referred to in the descriptions in table Via.

A-27
Table Via Summary of Defects Observed in MinneapolisSt. Paul House #2

Room & Description of Defective Observed by The rrao- Orientation Defects Wall NBS Contractors gram

Area #1 n n No. in

in ft^ Appendix

Ki tchen W Voids Above Window

and in Several

Upper Bays Air

Infiltration From

Ceiling

10 Yes Yes Yes Yes 6-1

N Voids Above

Refrigerator & Above

Door; Air Leakage

Around the Door

5 Yes Yes Yes Yes 6-2

E Voids Above Window

And in Lower Bays

at SE of Window

10 Yes No No No

Voids Below Cabinets

and Infiltration

Around Window

Yes Yes No No

Family E Voids Above Window 13 Yes No No Yes

Room

Voids at Upper Part

of Whole Wall

Air Infiltration

From Floor

Yes No No No 6-3

Living E Air Infiltration

Room or Leakage Around

Window

Yes Yes No No

S Air Leakage Through

Door

10 Yes Yes No No

Voids Above Window

and in Several Bays

Partially at SE of

Window

Yes Yes Yes Yes 6-4

Small Void Below

Window & Infiltration Yes Yes Yes No

Around Window; Uneven

Application of Foam
Table Via. Summary of Defects Observed in MinneapolisSt. Papl House #2

Room & OrientationDescription of Defective Observed by

Defects Wall NBS Contractors

Area #1 //2 //4 in ft^

Thermogram

No. in

Appendix

W No Defects Yes Yes No No

Dining

Room

W Voids Above Window

and in 2 Bays

Partially at SW of

Window

18 Yes Yes Yes Yes 6-5

Insulation Shrinkage

and Fissure in

Several Bays at NW

of Window

Yes Yes Yes No 6-6

N Small Voids Above

Door

9 Yes No No No 6-7

Air Leakage Through

Door

Yes No Yes Yes

Missing Insulation

in 1 Lower Bay in

Stairwell

Yes Yes Yes Yes

Missing Insulation at

Ceiling of Stairway

Yes Yes Yes No

North

Bedroom

W Uninsulated Pitched

Ceiling

6 Yes No Yes Yes 6-8

Voids Above Window

and in 1st Bay at

NE and NW Corners

Partially

Yes No Yes No 6-1

N Voids Below Pitched

Ceiling and above

Window

10 Yes Yes Yes Yes 6-2

Voids in 1st Bay

Cavities at NE and

NW Corners

Yes No Yes Yes

A-29
Table Via. Summary of Defects Observed in Minneapolis

St. Paul House #2

Room & OrientationDescription of

Defects

Defective

Wall

Area

in ft^

Observed by The mo

NBS Contractors gram

#1 #2 H No. in

Appendix

E Voids Above Window

and in Half Bay

Cavity at NE of

Window

7 Yes Yes Yes Yes

Uninsulated Pitched

Ceiling With Air

Penetration Through

Ceiling

Yes No Yes Yes

Bathroom E Missing Insulation 25 Yes Yes Yes Yes 6-9

in the Upper Part 6-10

of the Wal 1 6-3

S Air Leakage at

Ceiling-Wall Joint

Under Pitched

Ceiling

No No Yes No

Sewing E Missing Insulation 8 Yes Yes Yes Yes

Room Above Window at SE

Corner

S Voids Above Window

and at SE of Window 7 Yes Yes No Yes 6-11

Under Ceiling 6-12

South S Uninsulated Bay

Bedroom Cavities in the

Upper Part of the

Entire Wall

20 Yes Yes Yes Yes 6-13

Air Infiltration

Below SE Window

Yes Yes Yes Yes

w Uninsulated Pitched

Ceiling and Air

Leakage Underneath

Small Voids Above

Window

1 Yes Yes Yes Yes 6-14

A-30
Table Via. Summary of Defects Observed in MinneapolisSt. Paul House 112

Room & Description of Defective Observed by ThermoOrientation Defects Wall NBS Contractors gram

Area

in ft^

in 112 11 4 No. in

Appendix

West

Bedroom

W Voids Above Window

& Under the Ceiling

at NW and SW Corners

10 Yes Yes Yes Yes 6-15

N Uninsulated Pitched

Ceiling and Wall

Area Underneath

5 No No Yes No 6-16

S Uninsulated Pitched

Ceiling

No No Yes Yes

Total Area of 174 169 125 142 144

Insulation Voids

in ft^

Table VIb. Environmental Conditions During Inspection of

Minneapolis-St . Paul House 11

2

Contractors

NBS 11 1 112 11k

Date 2/13/79 4/12/79 4/27/79 4/4/79

Time 11:00 am 8:45-9:30 pm 9:30 am

Weather Conditions overcast

Outdoor Temperature 16°F 43°F 43°F 38°F

Indoor Temperature 75°F 76°F 73°F 77°F

Wind Speed (MPH) 5-10 15-20 6

Wind Direction NW N

A-31
. :

1

1 £ \

r<.

.

• ;

1

I

•• v:

r

£

'

.

:

. ••

•

. v. ,:r

• •

’ : i

. 1 - T -

\

' -

% •

; : . .. .

. ...
Thermal Anomalies Observed in Minneapolis-St . Paul House #2

6-1

W side of kitchen

& N bedroom.

(exterior by NBS)

6-2

N side of kitchen

& N bedroom,

(exterior by NBS)

6-3

E side of family room & bathroom,

(exterior by NBS)

6-4

S wall of

living room,

(by NBS)

6-5

SW corner on W

of dining room,

(by contractor #2)

6-6

NW corner on W

of dining room,

(by contractor #2)

6-7

N side of

dining room,

(exterior by NBS)

6-8

W pitched ceiling

of N bedroom.

(by contractor #4)

A-32

Thermal Anomalies Observed in Minneapolis-St . Paul House #2 (continued)

6-9

NE corner on E

of bathroom.

(by contractor #2)

6-10

SE corner on E

of bathroom.

(by contractor #2)

Could only see top part - clutter below

6-12

S side of sewing room & S bedroom,

(exterior by NBS)

6-13

S wall of

S bedroom.

(by contractor #2)

6-11

S wall of

sewing room,

(by LRIS)

6-14

W pitched ceiling

of S bedroom.

(by contractor #4)

6-15

W side of W

bedroom.

(exterior by NBS)

6-16

N pitched ceiling

of W bedroom.

(by contractor #2)

A-33

VII. Minneapolis-St . Paul House #

3

This is a two-story, approximately 45 year old residence whose interior

dimensions are 36 ft. in length, 24 ft. in width, and 8 ft. in wall height on each floor; located in Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN. There are 7 rooms of living

space, with an attic and a basement. Its exterior construction contains wood

frame with steel siding and an asphalt shingle roof.

Prior to the weatherization program, this house had no insulation. An

insulation contractor was instructed to insulate the walls of this house with

UF foam. After retrofitted foam was injected to the walls, this dwelling was inspected by NBS personnel and IR contractors #1 , and #4. A sketch of the voids

and the locations of heat loss obtained from thermograms and documents by NBS

as well as those by the IR contractors, is shown in figures Vila and Vllb.

The quality of the insulation job for this dwelling is questionable since there

are about 15 whole bay cavities, 25 half bay cavities, and 17 one third bay

cavities still without insulation in the house. The overall defects of this

dwelling were found to be worse on the west and the north sides; with voids in

the walls, and air penetration under the ceiling insulation. The east side

was found to have missed insulation in about half of the walls on the second

floor, with air penetration at the joint under the pitched ceiling. The first

floor exhibited voids around windows and doors. The south side was shown to

have one bay cavity and a few small voids on the second floor.

Thermographic inspection by NBS observed most of the known defects of this

residence so that its results were used as a baseline for comparison purposes.

In addition, NBS depicted the ceiling defects of the den/kitchen, showing some cold spots that may be damaged by moisture from condensation or a leaking roof.

Contractor //I conducted a rather complete inspection of this house, missing

only a few voids, while contractor #2 failed to observe several voids, as it

produced only seven thermograms . The quality of these thermograms was quite

poor and the area of scanning was often incomplete.

A detailed description of the defects observed by NBS as well as those by the

IR contractors is summarized in table Vila. Besides the total defective wall area in ft^ found by each inspection, table Vila also includes the defective

wall areas in ft^ of each room of the house, analyzed from available thermograms

and sketches. The total estimates of void areas is approximately 310 ft^, which

represents about 20 percent of the gross wall area. Table Vllb presents the

environmental conditions documented from each inspection. Thermograms/sketches

7-1 to 7-11 are some examples which demonstrate the locations of heat loss

anomalies, as they are referred to in the descriptions in table Vila.

A-34
; .

•

. .v .

M

> <3 ’?' !
Table Vila. Summary of Defects Observed in MinneapolisSt. Paul House #3

Room & OrientationDescription of Defective Observed by

Defects Wall NBS Contractors

Area #1 #4

in ft^

Thermogram

No. in

Appendix

Living

Room

Voids Above Window,

Voids Above Door &

in 1 Upper Bay

Between Window and

Door

10 Yes Yes Yes

W Voids Above Window

And in 1 Bay Cavity

at NW of Window;

Foam Shrinkage or Voids on Both Sides

of Window

30 Yes Yes Yes 7-1

7-2

Dining W Partial Voids Above

Room Window and in Bay

Cavities at Both

Sides of Window,

Missing Insulation

in the Upper Part

of the Entire Wall

38 Yes Yes No

N Partial Voids Above

Window and in Bay

Cavities on Both

Sides of Window

35 Yes Yes No

Missing Insulation

at the NW Side of

Window

Yes Yes Yes

Den & W Air Penetration from 5 Yes No No 7-4

Kitchen Ceiling

Foam Shrinkage or Voids in Upper Bays Yes No No 7-5

Partially

N Voids Above Window

and in Upper Bay 13 Yes No No 7-6

Cavity at NW Corner

A-35
Table Vila. Summary of Defects Observed in Minneapolis

St. Paul House #3

Room &

Orientation

Description of Defective Observed by

Defects Wall NBS Contractors

Area #1 //4 in ft^

Air Penetration from

Ceiling and Some Yes Yes Yes

Defects at Lower SW

Corner of Window

E Small Voids Above

Door & Some Spots 5 Yes Yes No

at Ceiling

Ceiling Defective Ceiling Yes No No

Stairway E Some Voids Around

Window & at Upper

SE Corner on 1st

Floor; Voids Also 26 Yes Yes Yes

in Several Partial

Bay Cavities on the

2nd Floor

Southeast E Voids Above Window,

Bedroom in 1 Lower Bay Cavity

at NE Corner, & in 15 Yes Yes No

the Upper Part of the

Entire Wall at SE of

Window

S Voids Above Window &

in 1 Lower Bay Cavity 7 Yes Yes No

of SE Corner

Southwest S Voids in Partial Bay

Bedroom Cavities at Upper SW 7 Yes No No

Corner & at SE Side

of Window

W Voids in 1 Bay Cavity 18 Yes Yes Yes

at SW Corner

Voids in Upper Part Yes Yes No

of the Entire Wall

Thermogram

No. in

Appendix

7-7

7-8

7-9

7-10

A-36
Table Vila. Summary of Defects Observed in MinneapolisSt. Paul House #3

Room & Description of

Orientation Defects

Defective Observed by

Wall NBS Contractors

Area //I #4

in ft^

Thermogram

No. in

Appendix

Northwest W

Bedroom

Voids in 1 Bay Cavity

at SW Side of Window

and in the Upper Part

of the Entire Wall

30 Yes Yes Yes

N Voids in 1 Bay Cavity

at NW of Window & in 26 Yes Yes No 7-11

the Upper Part of the

Entire Wall

Bathroom N Uninsulated Upper

Part of the Entire 20 Yes Yes No

Wall

Voids at CeilingWall Joint with Air Yes Yes Yes

Penetration from the

Ceiling

E Voids Above Window

and in Several Upper 25 Yes Cool No

Bay Cavities

S Voids Suspected in

Partition Wall

Yes No No

Total Wall Area of 310 310 277 118

Insulation Voids Detected

Given in ft^

A-37
Table Vllb. Environmental Conditions During Inspection of

Mlnneapolis-St . Paul House //3

Contractors

NBS #1 H

Date 2/14/79 4/11/79 4/4/79

Time 5:00 pm 7:30-8:45 pm 11:00 am

Outdoor Temperature 10°F 39°F 43°F

Indoor Temperature 75°F 75°F 78°F

Wind Speed(MPH) 5-10 30+

Wind Direction NW

A-38
Thermal Anomalies Observed in Minneapolis-St . Paul House #3

7-1

SW on W of

living room.

(by contractor #4)

7-3

W wall of

dining room,

(by LRIS)

7-2

NW on W of

living room.

(by contractor #4)

•5 i

^

-.3

7-4

Ceiling on W of

den/kitchen.

(by NBS)

7-5

W wall of

den/kitchen.

(by NBS)

7-6

N wall of

den/kitchen

(by NBS)

7-7

Ceiling of

den/kitchen

(by NBS)

A-39

Thermal Anomalies Observed in Minneapolis-St . Paul House #3 (continued)

7-8

W wall of stairway,

(by bRIS)

7-10

SW corner of

SW bedroom,

(by NBS)

7-11

N wall of NW bedroom,

(by LRIS)

A-40

VIII. Minneapolis-St . Paul House #4

This is a two-story, approximately 50 year old residence whose interior

dimensions are 42 ft. in length, 30 ft. in width, and 8 ft. in wall height on each floor; located in Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN. There are 7 rooms of living

space, with an attic and a basement. Its exterior construction contains wood

siding and an asphalt shingle roof.

Prior to the weatherization program, this house had no insulation. An

insulation contractor was instructed to insulate the walls of this house with

UF foam. After retrofitted foam was injected into the walls, this dwelling was inspected by NBS personnel and IR contractors it 1, and #4. A sketch of the voids

and the location of heat loss obtained from thermograms and documents by NBS,

as well as those by the IR contractors, is shown in figures Villa and VUIb.

In general, the insulation job for this dwelling was considered to be fairly

good except for both the north side and the east wall of the northeast bedroom

on the second floor, and the west wall of the living room on the first floor.

Thermographic inspection by NBS located most known defects of this residence so that its results were used as a baseline for comparison purposes.

Contractor #4 submitted only four thermograms of the living room and the north

wall of the northeast bedroom. On the other hand, contractor #1 seemed to

inspect every room of the house; but reported that many walls were satisfactory,

and interpreted many low temperature regions as cool areas instead of defects.

Therefore, the estimated number of voids from contractor it 4's thermograms, and

from contractor it l's sketches, were considered to be low.

A detailed description of the defects observed by NBS as well as those by the

IR contractors, is summarized in table Villa. Beside the total defective wall

area in ft^ found by each inspection, table Villa also includes the defective

wall areas in ft^ of each room of the house, analyzed from available thermograms

and sketches. The total estimates of void areas is approximately 75 ft^, which

represents about 4 percent of the gross wall area. Table VUIb presents the

environmental conditions documented from each inspection. Thermograms/ sketches

8-1 to 8-8 are some examples which demonstrate the locations of heat loss

anomalies, as they are referred to in the descriptions in table Villa.

A-41
Table Villa. Summary of Defects Observed in MinneapolisSt. Paul House #4

Room & Description of Defective Observed by ThermoOrientation Defects Wall NBS Contractors grams

Area #1 #4 No. in

in ft 2 Appendix

Kitchen W Small Void at N of

Window and Air

Infiltration at NW

Corner

3 Yes No Yes

N Small Voids Above

Window & Door, Also

in Half Bay Cavity

at NE Corner

5 Yes No No

Dining N Small Void Below

Room Window and at NW

Upper Corner Air

Infiltration Around

Window & at NE Corner

5 Yes No No

E Voids Above Window & Missing Insulation at 16 Yes No No 8-1

Both Sides of Window 8-2

Living E Only Some Infiltration Yes No Yes

Room Underneath Window

S Some Voids Above Door 8 Yes Yes Yes

Partial Voids Above

Window & 1 Upper Bay

at SE Corner

Yes No Yes

W Voids Above Window

and in Partial Bay 8 Yes Yes No 8-3

Cavities at Both

Sides of Window

8-4

Stairway w Voids Above Window

(2nd Floor) and in 1 Partial Bay 6 Yes Yes No 8-5

Cavity at S of Window 8-6

Northwest w Small Void at NW

Bedroom Corner Under Ceiling;

Air Penetration From 2 Yes No No

Ceiling, and Above & Below Window

A-42
Table Villa. Summary of Defects Observed in MinneapolisSt. Paul House //

4

Room & Description of Defective Observed by ThermoOrientation Defects Wall NBS Contractors grams

Area #1 H No. in

in ft^ Appendix

N Small Voids at NW

and NE Corners; Air

Penetration From

Ceiling

4 Yes No No

Bathroom N Air Penetration at

Top & Around Window

Yes No Yes

Northeast N Voids Above Window

Bedroom and Across the Top

at E Side of Window

with Shrinkage of 10 Yes Yes Yes 8-7

Insulation or Fissure

Air Infiltration

Around Window

> 8-8

E Voids Above Window

and in Partial Bay

Cavity at NE Corner

6 Yes No No

South S Voids in Partial Bay 2 Yes No No

Bedroom Cavity at SE Corner

Air Penetration at

Floor & Above Window

Yes No Yes

Total Wall Area of 75 75 24 21

Insulation Voids Detected

Given in ft^

A-43
Table Vlllb. Environmental Conditions During Inspection of

Minneapolis-St . Paul House #4

Contractors

NBS #1 #4

Date 2/13/79 4/12/79 4/4/79

Time 3:00 pm 7:30-8:15 pm 11:55 am

Outdoor Temperature 15°F 44°F 43°F

Indoor Temperature 75°F 74°F 75 # F

Wind Speed (MPH) 5-10 20

Wind Direction W

A-44
Thermal Anomalies Observed in Minneapolis-St . Paul House #4

8-1

NE on E wall

of dining room,

(by NBS)

8-2 8-3

Above window on Above window & E wall of dining room at bottom of stairs

(by NBS) on W of living room. (by NBS)

8-4

W wall & stairway

of living room,

(by NBS)

8-5

Below window on W of stairway upstairs,

(by NBS)

Above window on W of stairway

upstairs

.

(by NBS)

8-7

NE corner on N

of NE bedroom,

(by contractor #4)

8-8

E wall of

NE bedroom,

(by LRIS)

A-45

IX. Portland House #1

This is a two-story, approximately 23 year old residence whose interior

dimensions are 32 ft. in length, 25 ft. in width, and 7 ft. in wall height on each floor; located in Portland, ME. There are 8 rooms of living space with

an attic and a basement. Its exterior construction contains wood frame siding

and an asphalt shingle roof.

Prior to the weatherization program, this house had no insulation. An

insulation contractor was instructed to insulate the walls and attic with cellulose, and install storm windows and storm doors. After retrofitted options were completed this dwelling was inspected by NBS personnel and IR contractors

#5, and #6. A sketch of the voids and the locations of heat loss obtained from

thermograms and documents by NBS, as well as those by the IR contractors, is

shown in figures IXa and IXb.

In general, the most common heat loss areas in this house were found at at

locations around most windows and above the windows upstairs. There are many

ceiling areas with defects. At the bottom of the stairway, missed insulation

was depicted at the upper right of the window and at the ceiling. Also the

ceiling over the stairs, on the second floor showed an uneven temperature distribution at the surface, indicating defective insulation. Moreover, variable

insulation at the pitched ceiling at the north side of the northeast bedroom

is probably the result of the insulation not being installed at full density.

The north wall of this room seemed to have air penetration as well.

Thermographic inspection by NBS observed most known defects of this residence

so that its results were used as a baseline for comparison purposes.

Contractors #5 and // 6 seemed to identify most of the defective areas of this

dwelling, by submitting thermograms and/or statements.

A detailed description of the defects observed by NBS as well as those by the

IR contractors, is summarized in table IXa. Besides the total defective wall

area in ft^ found by each inspection, table IXa also included the defective

wall areas in ft^ of each room of the house, analyzed from available thermograms and statements. The total estimates of void areas is approximately

106 ft^, which represents about 8 percent of the gross wall area. Table IXb

presents the environmental conditions documented from each inspection. Thermograms 9-1 to 9-13 are some examples which demonstrate the locations of heat

loss anomalies, as they are referred to in the descriptions in table IXa.
«
Table IXa Summary of Defects Observed In Portland House #1

Room & OrientationDescription of Defective Observed by

Defects Wall NBS Contractors

Area #5 #6

in ft^

Kitchen N Small Void Above W

Window; Air Leakage

Under Windows

Yes Yes Yes

Small Void Between

Door & Cabinet;

Air Leakage Around

Door & Below Cabinet

Yes Yes Yes

Dining E Voids Above Window,

Romm Around Window, & in

1 Partial Bay Cavity

at NE Corner; Air

Infiltration UnderNeath Window

14 Yes Yes Yes

Air Infiltration at

Both SE & SW Corners

Yes Yes Yes

Front S Voids Under Light

Entrance Switch at W of Door;

Air Infiltration

Around Door and at

Both SE & SW Corners

Yes Yes No

Living

Room

Cold Vertical Area

Behind Picture, (May

be Outside Crack) Air

Infiltration on W of

Window and at Both

SE and SW Corners

Yes Yes No

W Voids in 1 Bay Cavity

at SW Corner, 1 Bay

Cavity at S of SW

Window, Between SW & 35 Yes Yes Yes

Center Windows, and

Partially Center & NW

Windows; Air Leakage

From Ceiling

Thermograms

No. in

Appendix

9-1

9-2

9-3

9-4

9-5

9-6

A-47
Table IXa Summary of Defects Observed in Portland House #1

Room & Orientation

N

Stairway N

(1st Floor)

E

Stairway N

(2nd Floor)

Northeast N

Bedroom

E

Southeast E

Bedroom

S

Bathroom S

Description of Defective Observed by

Defects Wall NBS Contractors

Area it 5 it 6

in ft^

Small Voids at Top

of NE Corner; Air

Infiltration at E

Side of Window

Voids at Bottom

of Stairs and Air

Penetration from

Ceiling

Small Void in

Partition Wall

Defective Ceiling

Over Stairway

Defective Pitched

Ceiling (May be Due

to Shrinkage or Moisture Damage)

Insulation Missing

Below Window & Inside

Closet; Air Leakage

on S Side of Window

Voids at SE Corner

of Window; Air

Penetration from

Ceiling

Defective Sloped

Ceiling

Voids Above Windows,

in 1 Partial Bay

Cavity at E of Windows;

Air Infiltration Below

W Window at SE Corner

Voids Above Window

and in Upper Part

of Wall

3 Yes Yes Yes

3 Yes Yes Yes

1 Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

5 Yes Yes Yes

5 Yes Yes Yes

12 Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

2 Yes No No

The rmo- grams

No. in

Appendix

9-7

9-8

9-9

9-10

9-11

A-48
Table IXa.

Room & Orientation

Southwest S

Bedroom

W

Northwest W

Bedroom

N

Summary of Defects Observed in Portland House #1

Description of Defective

Defects Wall

Area

in ft^

Observed by

NBS Contractors

#5 #6

The rmo- grams

No. in

Appendix

Voids Above Window 4 Yes Yes Yes

Voids at Both Upper

SE and SW Corners

Yes Yes No

Voids in Upper Wall

at S of Window and

Also in NW Corner

9 Yes Yes Yes

Small Voids at Both

SW and NW Upper

Corners

3 Yes Yes Yes

Defective Sloped

Ceiling at W Side

of Window

4 Yes Yes Yes 9-12

Voids Above Window

and at West Side

of Window

Yes No Yes 9-13

Total Wall Area of 106 106 97 92

Insulation Voids Detected

Given in ft^
Table IXb. Environmental Conditions During Inspection of

Portland Hours //I

Contractors

NBS #5 #6

Date 3/15/79 4/10/79 4/12/79

Time 10:00 am 7:45-9:30 pm 9:00 pm

Outdoor Temperature 35°F 37°F 45°F

Indoor Temperature 68°F 67-68°F

Wind Speed(MPH) 0-5 0-10

Wind Direction W

A-50
Thermal Anomalies Observed in Portland House #

1

E wall of

dining room,

(by NBS)

SW corner of

S entrance.

(by NBS)

9-3

SE corner of

S entrance.

(by NBS)

9-4

SE corner on S

of living room,

(by contract #5)

9-5

SW corner on W

of living room,

(by contractor #5)

9-6

W wall of

living room. (by contractor #6)

9-7

Bottom of stairway

on N of 1st floor,

(by contractor #5)

9-8

Over stairway on N of 2nd floor,

(by NBS)

9-9

N pitched ceiling

of NE bedroom,

(by contractor #5)

A-51

Thermal Anomalies Observed in Portland House #1 (continued)

9-10

S pitched ceiling

of SE bedroom,

(by contractor #5)

9-11

Above window

on S of bathroom,

(by NBS)

9-12

W pitched ceiling

of NW bedroom,

(by NBS)

9-13

Above and on W side of window

of NW bedroom,

(by contractor #6)

A-52

X. Portland House #2

This is a two-story, approximately 80 year old residence whose interior

dimensions are 24 ft. in length, 42 ft. in width, and 9 ft. in wall height on

the first floor, and 8 ft. in wall height on the second floor; located in

Portland, ME. There are 7 rooms of living space, with an attic and a basement.

Its exterior construction contains wood siding and an asphalt shingle roof.

Prior to the weatherization program, this house had no insulation. An

insulation contractor was instructed to insulate the walls and the attic with

cellulose. After retrofitted options were completed this dwelling was inspected

by NBS personnel and IR contractors #5, and #6. A sketch of the voids and the

locations of heat loss obtained from thermograms and documents by NBS, as well

as those by the IR contractors, is shown in figures Xa and Xb.

In general, the most common heat loss areas in this house were found at the

ceilings. Very large uninsulated areas were found in pitched ceilings upstairs

as well as in flat ceilings downstairs. Some of these uninsulated sloped ceilings extended to the walls underneath; e.g., the south wall of the east bedroom.

Due to the fact that the exact dimensions of these walls were unknown and the

thermograms only showed the part of these voids which extended from the

ceiling, the estimated wall area of voids for this dwelling will only be an

approximation.

Thermographic inspection by NBS identified most known defects in this residence

so that its results were used as a baseline for comparison purposes.

Contractors #5 and #6 failed to inspect several areas to identify the defective

locations.

A detailed description of the defects observed by NBS as well as those by the

IR contractors, is summarized in table Xa. Besides the total defective wall

area in ft^ found by each inspection, table Xa also Includes the defective wall

areas in ft^ of each room of the house, analyzed from available thermograms.

The total estimates of void areas, without taking into account void areas of

any ceilings, is approximately 97 ft^, which represents about 5 percent of the

gross wall area. Table Xb presents the enviremental conditions documented

from each inspection. Thermograms 10-1 to 10-10 are some examples which

demonstrate the locations of heat loss anomalies, as they are referred to in

the description in table Xa.

A-53
Table Xa Summary of Defects Observed in Portland House P 2

Room & Description of Defective Observed by

Orientation Defects Wall NBS Contractors

Area P 5 P6

in ft^

Kitchen E Missing Insulation

& Laundry at Top:

Room on N of Door 1 Yes Yes Yes

On S of Door Yes Yes No

S Missing Insulation

at Top:

On E of Window 5 Yes No Yes

On W of Window Yes Yes Yes

Air Leakage at SE

Corner

Yes Yes Yes

W Small Void at Top

of NW Corner; Air

Penetration From

Ceiling

1 Yes Yes Yes

Bathroom W Air Infiltration

at Top & NW Corner

Yes No No

N Small Void at E

Side of Window; Air

Penetration From

Ceiling

3 Yes No No

Dining N Air Penetration from 7 Yes No Yes

Room Ceiling

Small Void at E Side

of Window

Yes No Yes

S Small Void at Top of 1 Yes No No

SW Corner of Window

Thermograms

No. in

Appendix

10-1

10-2

10-3

10-4

A-54
Table Xa Summary of Defects Observed in Portland House #2

Room & Description of Defective Observed by The rmo- Orientation Defects Wall NBS Contractors grams

Area #5 #6 No. in

in ft^ Appendix

Living

Room

E Small Void at Top of

SE Corner of Window

1 Yes Yes Yes 10-5

Air Penetration from

Ceiling & Infiltration

Around Window & Door,

and at NE & SE Corners

Yes Yes Yes

Stairway N

(1st Floor)

Missing Insulation

Around Light Switch

Area

Yes Yes Yes 10-6

Hallway W

(2nd Floor)

Missing Insulation

in 4 Upper Bay

Cavities

14 Yes Yes Partial 10-7

N Missing Insulation

at Top of Window

4 Yes Yes Yes 10-8

Air Penetration from

Ceiling

Yes Yes Yes

East

Bedroom

N Uninsulated Pitched

Ceiling

Yes Yes Yes

E Voids Above Window;

Voids Under & at N

Side of Window

12 Yes Yes Yes

Defective Pitched

Ceiling

Yes Yes No

S Uninsulated Pitched

Ceiling

38 Yes No Yes 10-9

Uninsulated Entire

Wall Area

Yes No Yes 10-10

West

Bedroom

S Uninsulated Sloped

Ceiling

6 Yes Yes Yes 10-11

Some Shrinkage of Yes No No

Insulation in Wall
Table Xa Summary of Defects Observed in Portland House #2

Room & Description of Defective Observed by ThermoOrientation Defects Wall NBS Contractors grams

Area

in ft^

#5 % No. in

Appendix

W Same Void at Top

of NW Corner

4 Yes Yes Yes

Defective Pitched

Ceiling

Yes Yes Yes

N Uninsulated Pitched

Ceiling

Yes Yes Yes

Total Wall Area of 97 97 43 67

Insulation Voids Detected

Given in ft^

Table Xb. Environmental Conditions During Inspection of

Portland House #2

Contractor

NBS #5 #6

Date 3/15/79 4/10/79 4/12/79

Time 1:00 pm 6 : 1 5-7 : 30 pm 7:00 pm

Outdoor Temperature 38°F 40°F 45°F

Indoor Temperature 73°F 70 o -75°F

Wind Speed(MPH) 0-5 5

Wind Direction W

A-56
THERMAL ANOMALIES OBSERVED IN PORTLAND HOUSE #2

10-1

Above door on E of

kitchen. (by con- tractor // 5)

10-3

Ceiling on N side

dining room, (by

contractor // 6)

10-4

Above window on S of dining room,

(by NBS

)

10-5

Above window on E of

living room.

(by contractor #6)

10-6

Around light switch on

N wall of stairway on 1st

floor (by contractor #6)

10-7

W wall of hallway on 2nd

floor. (by contractor #5)

10-9

10-8

N wall of hallway on 2nd

floor. (by contractor #5)

10-10

S pitched ceiling of E bedroom

(by NBS)

S side of W bedroom,

(by NBS)

A-57

XI. Portland House #3

This is a one-story, approximately 40 year old residence whose interior

dimensions are 30 ft. in length, 33 ft. in width, and 8 ft. in wall height;

located in Portland, ME. There are 6 rooms of living space, with an attic and

a basement. Its exterior construction contains wood frame siding and an asphalt

shingle roof.

Prior to the weatherlzation program, this house had no insulation. An

insulation contractor was instructed to insulate the walls and the attic with

cellulose. After retrofitted options were completed, this dwelling was inspected by IR contractors #5, #6, and the local staff of CSA, as representatives for NBS. A sketch of the voids and the locations of heat loss obtained

from thermograms and documents by NBS, as well as those by the IR contractors,

is shown in figure XIa.

Generally speaking, the quality of insulation work in this dwelling was relatively poor, as the house was observed to have more than ten bay cavity

voids, voids above most windows, air infiltration, and air penetration.

Thermographic inspection by local staff of CSA to represent NBS did not cover

all of the rooms of this residence. Comparison of area of defects should rely

only on thermograms submitted by contractors. Results from NBS can only be

considered as supporting documents, as it failed to inspect the kitchen, the

bathroom, the east side of the living room, and the east side of the northeast

bedroom. Hence, the discrepency in estimated void areas between NBS and contractors (or the combined areas) can be expected.

Contractors #5 and #6 failed to recognize some defective areas as well.

A detailed description of the defects observed by NBS as well as those by the

IR contractors, is summarized in table XIa. Besides the total defective wall

area in ft^ found by each inspection, table XIa also includes the defective

wall areas in ft^ of each room of the house, analyzed from available thermograms. The total estimates of void areas is approximately 165 ft^, which represents about 20 percent of the gross wall area. Table Xlb presents the environmental conditions documented from each inspection. Thermograms 11-1 to 11-16

are some examples which demonstrate the locations of heat anomalies, as they

are referred to in the descriptions in table XIa.

A-58
i

' i

i

'
Table XIa . Summary of Defects Observed in Portland House #3

Room & Description of Defective Observed by ThermoOrientation Defects Wall NBS Contractors grams

Area #5 #6 No. in

in ft2 Appendix

Living E Missing Insulation: (Partial)

Room Above & Around Door; 31 Yes Yes Yes 11-1

Above Window Yes Yes Yes 11-2

in 1 Bay Cavity at

S of Window

Yes No Yes 11-3

S Voids Above E Window

and in 1 Bay Cavity

at W Side of E Window; 16 Yes Yes Yes 11-4

Air Penetration from

Fireplace Chimney

Voids Above W Window Yes No No

Ceiling Defective Ceiling,

May be Due to

Moisture Damage

No Yes No 11-5

Dining S Missing Insulation:

Room Above Window 26 Yes Yes No

Below Window & Bay

Cavities at SE and Yes Yes Yes 11-6

SW Corner 11-7

Ki tchen s Voids Above Door &

Air Leakage Above & 2 No Yes Yes 11-8

Underneath Door 11-9

w Voids Above Window

and in 2 Partial Bay

Cavities at N & S of

Window

12 No Yes Yes

Northwest w Voids Above, Below,

Bedroom and in Partial Bay

Cavities at N & S

of Window

23 Yes Yes No 11-10

Missing Insulation

Inside Closet

Yes Yes Yes 11-11

A-59
Table XIa.

Room & Orientation

N

Bathroom N

Northeast N

Bedroom

Summary of Defects Observed in Portland House #3

Description of Defective Observed by ThermoDefects Wall

Area

in ft^

NBS 'Contractors

#5 #6

grams

No. in

Appendix

Voids Above Window

Voids in 1 Bay Cavity

13 Yes Yes Yes 11-12

Between Window and

Closet

Yes No Yes

Voids Above Window 15 Yes Yes Yes

Voids in 1 Bay Cavity

in Tub Area

No Yes Yes 11-13

Voids in Lower SW

Corner of Window;

Air Infiltration

at NW Corner

No Yes Yes 11-14

Voids Above Window

& in 2 Bay Cavities

at Both E & W Sides

of Window; Air

Infiltration at NW

Corner

23 Yes Yes Yes 11-15

11-16

Voids Above Window 3 No No Yes

Total Wall Area of - 164 135 144 154

Insulation Voids Detected

Given in ft2
Table Xlb. Environmental Conditions During Inspection of

Portland House #3

Contractors

NBS #5 // 6

Date 3/16/79 4/9/79 4/11/79

Time 2:00 pm 7:00-8:15 pm 7:30 pm

Outdoor Temperature 25°F 36°F 40°F

Indoor Temperature 68°F 68°F

Wind Speed(MPH) 0-5 5

Wind Direction NW

A-61
' '< '-:C
Thermal Anomalies Observed in Portland House #3

11-1

At top & both

sides of E door

in living room,

(by NBS)

11-2

Above window on

E of living room,

(by contractor #6)

11-3

SE corner on E

of living room,

(by contractor #6)

11-4

S wall of

living room,

(by NBS)

11-5

Ceiling of

living room.

(by contractor #5)

11-6

SE corner on S of dining room,

(by NBS)

SW corner on

S of dining room,

(by NBS)

11-8

Above S door

in kitchen.

(by contractor #6)

11-9

Underneath S door in kitchen,

(by contractor #6)

A-62

Thermal Anomalies Observed in Portland House #3 (continued)

11-10

Around window on W of NW bedroom,

(by contractor # 5)

11-11

Inside closet on W of NW bedroom,

(by contractor #5)

11-12

N wall of

NW bedroom,

(by NBS

)

ra

11-13 11-14 11-15

Tub area on N NW corner on NW corner on N of

of bathroom. N of bathroom. NE bedroom.

(by contractor #5) (by contractor #5) (by contractor #5)

11-16

NE corner on N

of NE bedroom,

(by contractor #5)

A-63

XII. Portland House #4

This is a two-story, approximately 100 year old, L-shaped residence whose

interior dimensions are 43 ft. in length, 31 ft. in width, and 8 ft. in wall

height on the first floor, and 7 ft. in wall height on the second floor;

located in Portland, ME. There are 8 rooms of living space with an attic and

a basement. Its exterior construction contains wood frame siding and an asphalt

shingle roof.

Prior to the weatherization program, this house had no insulation. An

insulation contractor was instructed to insulate the walls and the attic with

cellulose, and to install storm doors. After retrofitted options were completed

this dwelling was inspected by NBS personnel and IR contractors #5, and #6. A

sketch of the voids and the locations of heat loss obtained from thermograms

and documents by NBS, as well as those by the IR contractors, is shown in

figures Xlla and Xllb.

Among three independent inspections, this dwelling seemed to be covered quite

thoroughly. Insulation on the first floor is considered to be adequate except

for the northeast corner and the southwest of the kitchen's west wall. Infiltration was found around most of the windows and door. Air leakage existed at

most wall-to-wall and wall-to-ceiling joints. At the time of thermographic

inspections, the second floor was unoccupied and its interior temperature was very low. This condition made it difficult to collect meaningful data especially in the room above the kitchen. Consequently, the entire kitchen ceiling

was found to be very cold. On the second floor, the most common area of voids

found by both contractors and NBS is above the windows and below the pitched

ceiling.

This residence was inspected thoroughly by both contractors and NBS, except

for a few areas that were missed by each group. The discrepency in estimating

defective areas between contractor #5 and the others, was the east wall at the

northeast corner of the northeast sitting room downstairs, where contractor #5

did not inspect. According to the report from contractor //6, due to sunshine

throughout the day and the overheated radiator in the room, the room temperature was so high that the upper portion of the thermogram was obscured. Even though

the upper wall portion of the northeast corner appeared to be warm, the studs were warmer than the bay areas. Hence it suggested that all bays around this corner were completely uninsulated. Nevertheless, inspection by NBS supported

contractor #6's statement of an overheated radiator as it exhibited the identical phenomena of the studs being warmer than the bays. However, contractor #3

only observed the north side of this corner, without inspecting the east side;

and, as a result, the defective wall area was estimated to be much less than

the findings of contractor #6 and NBS.

Another area that demonstrated the same phenomena of the studs being warmer

than the bay areas was the south side of the kitchen. This finding might be

due to the sun loading on the south side of the house, which did not imply

uninsulated bays. Some thermograms from NBS' inspection indicated a cold

ceiling in this room, which was caused by the unheated room upstairs.

A-64

A detailed description of the defects observed by NBS as well as those by the

IR contractors, is summarized in table Xlla. Besides the total defective wall

area in ft^ found by each inspection, table Xlla also includes the defective

wall areas in ft^ of each room of the house, analyzed from available thermograms

and statements. The total estimates of void areas is approximately 119 ft^,

which represents about 7 percent of the gross wall area. Table Xllb presents

environmental conditions documented from each inspection. Thermograms 12-1 to

12-11 are some examples which demonstrate the locations of heat loss anomalies,

as they are referred to in the descriptions in table Xlla.

A-65
Table XI la Summary of Defects Observed in Portland House #4

Room & Orientation

Front N

Entrance

Northeast N

Sitting

Room

(1st Floor)

E

Kitchen E

S

W

Northwest W

Bedroom

(1st Floor)

Description of Defective Observed by

Defects Wall NBS Contractors

Area #5 #6

in ft^

Small Void in Upper

NW Corner; Air

Leakage Under and

Around Door

Missing Insulation

in a Lot of Bay

Cavities, E of Window;

1 Partial Bay Cavity

at W of Window

Missing Insulation

in 3 Bay Cavities

at NE Corner; Air

Infiltration Around

Windows

Small Voids Above

Window

Cold Ceiling Indicating

Unheated Room Upstairs

Cold Ceiling; Effect

of Sun Loading to

Show Warmer Studs in

Uninsulated Wall

Missing Insulation

in 1 Bay Cavity at SE

Voids Behind Cabinet

and in 1 Lower Bay

Cavity Air Penetration

from Lower NW Corner

Small Voids Above

Window and at Upoer

NW Corner Air

Infiltration at Both

NW and SW Corners

1 Yes Yes Yes

28 Yes Yes Yes

30 Yes No Yes

1 Yes No Yes

Yes No Yes

Yes No Yes

23 Yes No Yes

Yes Yes Yes

6 Yes Yes Yes

Thermograms

No. in

Appendix

12-1

12-2

12-3

12-4

A-66
Table XI la Summary of Defects Observed in Portland House #4

Room & Orientation

Description of Defective Observed by

Defects Wall NBS Contractors

Area #5 #6

in ft^

Thermograms

No. in

Append ix

N Small Void Above

Window; Air

Infiltration at Both

NE and NW Corners

1 Yes No No

Northeast N Air Infiltration Yes Yes No

Bedroom

(2nd Floor)

and Penetration

E Small Void at S Side

of Window; Air

Infiltration at SE

and NE Corners

3 Yes Yes No 12-5

S Small Void at SW

Corner

4 Yes No No 12-6

SothH E Voids Above Window

Bedroom and in Some Partial 15 No Yes Yes 12-7

(2nd Floor) Bay Cavities; Air 12-8

Leakage from Ceiling 12-9

W Air Penetration from

Ceiling

Yes Yes No

Bathroom W Voids Below Pitched

(2nd Floor) Ceiling and at NW

Corner

4 Yes No Yes 12-10

Northwest N Small Void at NE

Bedroom Corner Under 3 Yes Yes Yes 12-11

(2nd Floor) Pitched Ceiling

S Cold Pitched Ceiling Yes Yes No

Total Wall Area of 119 105 68 110

Insulation Voids Detected

Given in ft^

A-67
Table Xllb. Environmental Conditions During Inspection of

Portland House #4

Contractors

NBS #5

Date

Time

3/17/79

3:00 pm

4/9/79

8:45-10:15

4/11/79

pm 9:00 pm

Outdoor Temperature 35°F 40°F

Indoor Temperature 69°F 69°F

Wind Speed (MPH) 0-5 5

Wind Direction NW

Weather Condition sunshine

throughout

the day

Indoor Condition over-heated

radiation at

NE sitting room

A-68
Thermal Anomalies Observed in Portland House #4

12-1

NE corner of

sitting room.

(by contractor #6)

12-2

E wal 1 of

kitchen,

(by NBS

)

12-3

Cold ceiling on E

of kitchen.

(by NBS)

12-4

S wall of

kitchen.

(by contractor #6)

12-5

E wall of

NE bedroom.

(by contractor #5)

12-6

S wal 1 of

NE bedroom.

(by NBS)

A-69

Thermal Anomalies Observed in Portland House #4 (continued)

12-7

Above window on

E of S bedroom,

(by contractor //5)

12-8

Below pitched

ceiling on E of

S bedroom.

(by contractor #5)

12-9

SE corner of

S bedroom.

(by contractor #5)

12-10

W wall of bathroom,

on 2nd floor.

(by NBS)

12-11

NE corner of NW

bedroom on 2nd floor.

(by NBS)

A-70

N

NOT TO SCALE

H COMPLETE VOIDS

n PARTIAL VOIDS (MISSING FOAM)

INFILTRATION AND LEAKAGE PATHS

VOIDS OR PENETRATION FROM CEILING DEFECTS

Figure I. Thermal deficiencies observed in Fargo house #1

A- 71
NOT TO

VOIDS

INFILTRATION AND LEAKAGE PATHS

VOIDS OR PENETRATION FROM CEILING DEFECTS

Figure II. Thermal deficiencies observed in Fargo house #2

A-72
NW

BR

PARTITION WALL

LR

BATH

CEILING

DR

SW

BR

m

m

e

mi.

KD~I

DN

W

!

so p

N

NOT TO SCALE

m voids

INFILTRATION AND LEAKAGE

PATHS

HI PENETRATION

Figure III. Thermal deficiencies observed in Fargo house #3

A- 73
m COMPLETE VOIDS

H PARTIAL VOIDS (MISSING FOAM) —INFILTRATION AND LEAKAGE PATHS

H PENETRATION

VOIDS OR PENETRATION FROM CEILING DEFECTS

Figure IV. Thermal deficiencies observed in Fargo house #4

A-74
m voids — INFILTRATION AND LEAKAGE PATHS

[3 PENETRATION

Figure Va. Thermal deficiencies observed on the first floor

in Minneapolis-St. Paul house #1

A-7 5
M VOIDS — INFILTRATION AND LEAKAGE PATHS

PENETRATION

g VOIDS OR PENETRATION FROM CEILING DEFECTS

g VOIDS DETECTED BY EXTERIOR THERMOGRAMS

Figure Vb. Thermal deficiencies observed on the second floor

in Minneapolis-St. Paul house #1

A-76
Figure Via. Thermal deficiencies observed on the first floor

in Minneapolis-St . Paul house #2

A.-7 7
PENETRATION

H VOIDS OR PENETRATION FROM CEILING DEFECTS

H VOIDS DETECTED BY EXTERIOR THERMOGRAMS

Figure VIb. Thermal deficiencies observed on the second floor

in Minneapolis-St Paul house #2

A-7 8
— INFILTRATION AND LEAKAGE PATHS

PENETRATION

H VOIDS OR PENETRATION FROM CEILING DEFECTS

Figure Vila. Thermal deficiencies observed on the first floor

in Minneapolis-St . Paul house #3

A-7 9
m voids — INFILTRATION AND LEAKAGE PATHS

Figure Vllb. Thermal deficiencies observed on the second floor

in Minneapolis-St. Paul house #3

A- 80
N

VOIDS

INFILTRATION AND LEAKAGE PATHS

Figure Villa. Thermal deficiencies observed on the first floor

in Minneapolis-St .Paul house #4

A-81
N

NOT TO SCALE

H VOIDS — INFILTRATION AND LEAKAGE PATHS

PENETRATION

Figure VUIb. Thermal deficiencies observed on the second floor

in Minneapolis-St . Paul house #4

A-82
&CL

w

'///, W

W////M/,

a

LR

1i\4

NOT TO SCALE

VOIDS

INFILTRATION AND LEAKAGE PATHS

VOIDS OR PENETRATION FROM CEILING DEFECTS

Figure IXa. Thermal deficiencies observed on the first floor

in Portland house #1

A-83
H VOIDS — INFILTRATION AND LEAKAGE PATHS

PENETRATION

VOIDS OR PENETRATION FROM CEILING DEFECTS

Figure IXb. Thermal deficiencies observed on the second floor

in Portland house #

1

A-84
1st FL

w

v/A

m voids — INFILTRATION AND LEAKAGE PATHS

m VOIDS OR PENETRATION FROM CEILING DEFECTS

Figure X. Thermal deficiencies observed in Portland house #2

A-85
n VOIDS

-> INFILTRATION AND LEAKAGE PATHS

PENETRATION

Figure XI. Thermal deficiencies observed in Portland house #3

A-86
N

NOT TO SCALE

VOIDS

INFILTRATION AND LEAKAGE PATHS

VOIDS OR PENETRATION FROM CEILING DEFECTS

Figure Xlla. Thermal deficiencies observed on the first floor

in Portland house #4

A-87
m voids — INFILTRATION AND LEAKAGE PATHS

PENETRATION

m VOIDS OR PENETRATION FROM CEILING DEFECTS

Figure Xllb. Thermal deficiencies observed on the second floor

in Portland house #4

A-88
N3S-114A (REV. 2-80 r— 1,1 - ~ —

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET (See instructions)

1. PUBLICATION OR

REPORT NO. NBSIR 82-2510

2. Performing Organ. Report No. 3. Publication Date

November 1982

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

QUALITY OF INSPECTIONS UTILIZING INFRARED TECHNOLOGY ON

WEATHERIZATION RETROFIT INSTALLATIONS

5. AUTHOR(S)

Yui-May L. Chang, Richard A. Grot

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS, see instructions)

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

7. Contract/Grant No.

8. Type of Report & Period Covered

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City. State, ZIP)

Building Energy Sciences Branch, Building Systems Division

Office of Building Energy Research and Development

U.S. Department of Energy

Washington, D.C. 20585

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

~1 Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

11. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here)

A comparative evaluation of various portable infrared sensing systems used for detecting

heat loss anomalies within building envelopes was performed. This is the second of a two-stage applied research program sponsored by the Department of Energy to assess the

application and reliability of using infrared technology. Twelve single-family

residences in three cities from the Weatherizat ion Program of the Community Services

Administration were employed as field samples. The results of infrared surveys carried

out by thermographic surveying firms and those by the National Bureau of Standards were

analyzed and compared in the categories of: completeness of scanning, identification

of defects, weather condition of inspection, and method of equipment operation. The

thermograms of uninsulated areas, sketches of observed thermal deficiencies, and total areas of defects for each dwelling are presented. Through the comparison, the degree

of completeness of inspecting the residences thoroughly was evaluated to be the most

important factor for defect identification. The results of thermographic inspection

of the homes showed that serious thermal anomalies still existed in most of these

' weatherized' residences, with a majority exhibiting between 5 percent and 15 percent

of the wall areas uninsulated, or defective. The total uninsulated areas observed

by each surveyor was found to be affected by the quality of thermograms submitted.

12. KEY WORDS (S/x to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolon s) Building heat losses; comparison of inspections; infrared scanning systems;

insulation voids; interpretation of thermograms; thermal deficiencies; thermographic

inspections; weatherization retrofits.

13. AVAILABILITY 14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

\j_~^ Unlimited

| 1 For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

1 Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 109

15. Price 20402.

fxj Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161 $12.00

USCOMM-DC 6043-P80


/