NBSIR 83-2701

Comparative Analysis of

Thermographic Inspections

Performed on Retrofitted Homes

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

National Engineering Laboratory

Center for Building Technology

Washington, DC 20234

May 1983

Prepared for: Building Systems Division

Office of Building Energy Research

and Development

^ U.S. Department of Energy

100 Washington, DC 20585

.1156

33-2701

NBSIR 83-2701

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF

THERMOGRAPHIC INSPECTIONS

PERFORMED ON RETROFITTED HOMES

RATIONAL BUREAU QP STANDARDS

LIBRARY 6.VC.

q<:

I GO

, U 5 C?

U-aio

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

May 1983

Prepared for: Building Systems Division

Office of Building Energy Research

and Development

U.S. Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20585

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

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler. Director

ABSTRACT

An applied research program was sponsored by the Department of Energy to analyze

and compare the results from inspections that utilized infrared sensing systems

to identify thermal deficiencies in buildings. This research consisted of both

thfe laboratory evaluation of the commonly used infrared sensing equipment for

building inspections and the field evaluation of the accuracy and consistency

of the results of thermographic surveys performed by various thermographic

inspectors. The field evaluation of thermographic inspection performed by

infrared contractors was undertaken using residences previously inspected by

the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) as part of the Community Services Administration Weatherization Program. The results of the first phase was carried

out in 1978-79 and published in a previous report. The present report contains

the analysis and comparison of thermal anomalies detected by NBS and infrared

contractors, during the second phase of this research program, on twenty

single-family residences in five cities in 1980-81.

A substantial improvement was apparent in the style of reporting by infrared

contractors, under phase two, as compared with phase one. However, contractors'

surveys still have problems related to completeness of inspection, quality of

hard-copy documentations, interpretation of thermal defects, and utilization of

equipment. Consequently, contractors generally identified only about 50 percent

of the total defects.

Key words: comparison of inspections; infrared sensing systems; insulation

voids; interpretation of thermograms; location of heat loss;

quality controls; thermal deficiencies; thermographic inspections.

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. It is

based on data and analysis submitted to NBS by the New England Innovation Group

(NEIG) under contract //NB80SBCA0337 .

The conclusions and recommendations in this report were made in response to a request by the Department of Energy that the National Bureau of Standards evaluate, using the material submitted by NEIG, the effectiveness of surveys performed by contractors using infrared imaging systems in determining thermal

anomalies. The contractors noted in this report were not retained by nor .under

the supervision of NBS; their equipment and techniques were not perscribed by nor approved by NBS.

iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors wish to acknowledge the professional efforts of Dr. Richard Munis

and Mr. Rick Regan of NEIG, without which this work would have not been possible.

Also appreciated is the effort of Patrick Lane, a cooperative education student,

who assisted in data analysis and in report preparation.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT ill

d. PREFACE iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENT v

LIST OF TABLES viii

LIST OF FIGURES xi

SI CONVERSION xiii

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONTRACTORS 3

3. THERMOGRAPHIC INSPECTIONS BY CONTRACTORS 4

4. DATA ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY 5

5. DISCUSSION AND SUGGESTED GUIDELINES 7

6. CONCLUSION 9

REFERENCES 10

APPENDIX A A-l

APPENDIX B B-l

vi
LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1A. Comparison of Insulation Voids in Wall Areas Given in

ft^ Observed by Each Surveying Contractor and by NBS in

Atlanta, GA 12

Table IB. Comparison of Insulation Voids in Wall Area Given in

ft^ Observed by Each Surveying Contractor and by NBS in

Colorado Springs, CO 13

Table 1C. Comparison of Insulation Voids in Wall Areas Given in

ft^ Observed by Each Surveying Contractor and by NBS in

Minneapolis-St . Paul, MN 14

Table ID. Comparison of Insulation Voids in Wall Areas Given in

ft^ Observed by Each Surveying Contractor and by NBS in

Providence, RI 15

Table IE. Comparison of Insulation Voids in Wall Areas Given in

ft^ Observed by Each Surveying Contractor and by NBS in

Washington, D.C 16

Table 2A. Thermal Defects Observed in Each Dwelling in Group A ... 17

Table 2B. Thermal Defects Observed in Each Dwelling in Group B . . . 18

Table la. Summary of Defects Observed in Atlanta House #1 B-3

Table lb. Environmental Condition During Inspection of

Atlanta House #1 B-4

Table Ila. Summary of Defects Observed in Atlanta House #2 B-8

Table lib. Environmental Conditions During Inspections of

Atlanta House #2 B-9

Table Ilia. Summary of Defects Observed in Atlanta House #3 B-13

Table Illb. Environmental Conditions During Inspections of

Atlanta House #3 B-15

Table IVa. Summary of Defects Observed in Atlanta House #4 B-19

Table IVb. Environmental Conditions During Inspections of

Atlanta House #4 B-21

vii
LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table Va. Summary of Defects Observed in Colorado Springs

House //I B-25

Table Vb. Environmental Conditions During Inspectsion of

Colorado Springs House #1 B-27

Table Via. Summary of Defects Observed in Colorado Springs

House #2 B-31

Table VIb. Environmental Conditions During Inspections of

Colorado Springs House #2 * B-34

Table Vila. Summary of Defects Observed in Colorado Springs

House #3 B-38

Table Vllb. Environmental Conditions During Inspections of

Colorado Springs House #3 B-41

Table Villa. Summary of Defects Observed in Colorado Springs

House #4 B-45

Table VUIb. Environmental Conditions During Inspections of

Colorado Springs House #4 B-47

Table IXa. Summary of Defects Observed in Minneapolis-St . Paul

House #1 B-51

Table IXb. Environmental Conditions During Inspections of

Minneapolis-St. Paul House //I B-53

Table Xa. Summary of Defects Observed in Minneapolis-St. Paul

House #2 B-38

Table Xb. Environmental Conditions During Inspections of

Minneapolis-St. Paul House #2 B-60

Table XIa. Summary of Defects Observed in Minneapolis-St. Paul

House #3 B-64

Table Xlb. Environmental Conditions During Inspections of

Minneapolis-St. Paul House #3 B-65

viii
LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table Xlla. Summary of Defects Observed in Minneapolis-St . Paul

House #4 B-69

Table Xllb. Environmental Conditions During Inspections of

Minneapolis-St. Paul House #4 B-7

Table Xllla. Summay of Defects Observed in Providence House til B-75

Table Xlllb. Environmental Conditions During Inpsections of

Providence House til B-78

Table XlVa. Summay of Defects Observed in Providence House til B-82

Table XlVb. Environmental Conditions During Inpsections of

Providence House til B-85

Table XVa. Summay of Defects Observed in Providence House ti3 ...... B-90

Table XVb. Environmental Conditions During Inpsections of

Providence House #3 B-94

Table XVIa. Summay of Defects Observed in Providence House #4 B-99

Table XVIb. Environmental Conditions During Inpsections of

Providence House #4 B-102

Table XVIIa. Summary of Defects Observed in Washington, D.C.

House til B-107

Table XVIIb. Environmental Conditions During at Inspections of

Washington, D.C. House til B-109

Table XVIIIa. Summary of Defects Observed in Washington, D.C.

House til B-113

Table XVIIIb. Environmental Conditions During at Inspections of

Washington, D.C. House til B-115

ix
LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table XIXa. Summary of Defects Observed in Washington, D.C.

House // 3 B-119

Table XlXb. Environmental Conditions During at Inspections of

Washington, D.C. House //3 B-123

Table XXa. Summary of Defects Observed in Washington, D.C.

House #4 B-127

Table XXb. Environmental Conditions During at Inspections of

Washington, D.C. House #4 B-130

x
LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1. Distribution of percentage defects remaining in homes

observed in homes by IR contractors using HRIS 19

Figure 2. Distribution of percentage defects remaining in homes

, observed in homes by IR contractors using LRIS 19

Figure I. Thermal deficiencies observed in ceiling and southeast

bedroom in Atlanta House #1 B-132

Figure II. Thermal deficiencies observed in Atlanta House #2 B-133

Figure III. Thermal deficiencies observed in Atlanta House #3 .B-134

Figure IV. Thermal deficiencies observed in Atlanta House #4 B-135

Figure V. Thermal deficiencies observed in Colorado Springs

House //I B-136

Figure VI. Thermal deficiencies observed in Colorado Springs

House #2 B-137

Figure VII. Thermal deficiencies observed in Colorado Springs

House #3 B-138

Figure VIII. Thermal deficiencies observed in Colorado Springs

House H B-139

Figure IX. Thermal deficiences observed in Minneapolis-St . Paul

House #1 B-140

Figure X. Thermal deficiences observed in Minneapolis-St. Paul

House #2 B-141

Figure XI. Thermal deficiences observed in Minneapolis-St. Paul

House #3 B-142

Figure XII. Thermal deficiences observed in Minneapolis-St. Paul

House #4 B-143

Figure XIII. Thermal deficiences observed in Providence House #1 .... B-144

Figure XIV. Thermal deficiences observed in Providence House #2 .... B-145

Figure XV. Thermal deficiences observed in Providence House #3 .... B-146

Figure XVI. Thermal deficiences observed in Providence House #4 .... B-147

xi
LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure XVII. Thermal deficiencies observed in Washington, D.C.

House #1 6-148

Figure XVIII. Thermal deficiencies observed in Washington, D.C.

House it 2 B-149

Figure XIX. Thermal deficiencies observed in Washington, D.C.

House it 3 B-150

Figure XX. Thermal deficiencies observed in Washington, D.C.

House #4 B-151

xii
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 3 m

3 9.29 x 10" 2 Volume V ft 3 m

3 2.83 x 10“ 3

Temperature T Fahrenheit Celsius TC = (TF-32)/ 1 .8

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

8

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

xiii

1. INTRODUCTION

The application of infrared (IR) thermal sensing systems to energy conservation

in building envelopes of residential, commercial, and industrial buildings has

bejen significantly increased in recent years. Using thermography as a building

diagnostic tool, thermal anomalies can be observed from IR inspection performed

on these buildings [1,2]. In general, the most common building defects are thermal insulation problems such as insulation voids, improper installation of

insulation, cracks within insulation, moisture damage of insulation, air

infiltration and leakage, moisture damage to roofs, thermal bridges, and excessive heat loss from unconditioned spaces such as eaves, crawl spaces, and

attics.

The images generated from thermographic surveying equipment correspond to

thermal variations in surface temperature distributions. These images are displayed in the form of thermograms where the bright portions represent high

temperatures, dark portions represent low temperatures, and grey shades indicate

temperatures between hot and cold. Since anomalies in the thermal properties

of the building envelopes cause variation in the surface temperature, IR thermographic inspections have the capability of identifying heat loss in problem

areas which normally appear to be efficient in retaining heat within buildings.

Consequently, IR equipment has been utilized as a tool in assessing the thermal

performance of building envelopes to locate thermal defects and to identify

areas where weatherization retrofits would increase the energy efficiency of

their homes [3]. This thermographic technology is also valuable during con- struction of new buildings or during the retrofit of an existing building for

providing a thermal quality control of construction and assessing retrofit

work. Thermography can also be used during periodical inspections of a building for preventive maintenance such as roof inspections. Paramount to each

of these applications is the accuracy and consistency of thermographic inspections in locating and identifying thermal defects. In order to compare the

quality of inspections using IR thermographic technology, a laboratory and

field program was undertaken to analyze and compare the results from inspections by utilizing thermographic equipment to identify thermal deficiencies in

buildings.

The initial laboratory assessment, conducted in 1978, involved an evaluation of

various classes of thermographic equipment for the thermal inspections of

buildings performed by major manufacturers of portable IR sensing systems in a "cold room" at the U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory

(USACRREL) [4]. The equipment used for the laboratory evaluation included two

high resolution imaging systems (resolution less than 0.5°F), one low resolution imaging system (resolution greater than 0.5°F), and a line scanner (a

single straight-line scanned on the target [5]). The result showed that all

systems did better in detecting defects than in determining regions of insulation levels, and the high resolution imaging systems (HRIS) performed better

than the low resolution imaging system (LRIS) and the line scanner. Furthermore, the LRIS did not perform well at the lowest temperature differential.

Currently, the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) is constructing an infrared

imaging system evaluation laboratory for measuring the pertinent parameters of

infrared imaging systems for the detection of thermal defects in buildings [6].

1
The field evaluation consisted of a two-phase evaluation of IR inspection

contractors, using residences inspected by NBS as part of the Community

Services Administration (CSA) Weatherization Program [7] as a baseline. In

order to confirm the validity of both the laboratory and field tests, the same types of IR devices were selected to perform the scanning for both measurements.

The field test of this project was coordinated by the New England Innovation

Group (NEIG) , which also handled and provided interpretation of the data

submitted by the IR contractors [8].

In the first phase of the field test, carried out during the heating season of

1978-79 at 12 homes in three cities, NBS used a HRIS to scan each wall of the

residences and a 35-mm camera to photograph the thermal patterns on the oscilloscope screen [9], The field test indicates that most of the IR contractors

failed to cover the entire house in their inspections and located between 45

percent and 86 percent of the total defects in wall areas. Many thermograms

submitted by the IR contractors were poor in quality, causing uncertainties in

the analysis and wide discrepancy in results.

In the second phase of the field evaluation, conducted during the heating

season of 1980-81 at 20 homes in five cities, NBS used a HRIS to scan the

dwellings and a video tape recorder to collect the data while some IR contractors used HRIS and others used LRIS in performing inspectors. This report

presents the results from the analysis and comparison of thermal anomalies

detected by the inspections.

2
2. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONTRACTORS

Results of the field surveying by the IR contractor of Phase I indicated that

the degree of completeness of inspection was the most important factor for

defect identification. IR contractors of Phase I were unrestrained in the

selection of the method of inspection, documentation, and data interpretation.

As a result, data submitted by these contractors had tremendous variations.

In two cases the data were inadequate for performing meaningful analysis and

incomparable with these from other firms and NBS [8].

In order to reduce the variability of data encountered under Phase I, the

Residential Thermographic Inspection Form (RTIF) (see appendix A) was developed

by NEIG to aid the IR contractors in data collection, recordation, and documentation during field inspections. The RTIF contained standard formats for

environmental conditions, floor plan sketch with orientations, and data sheet

for location, estimated size, and description of each uninsulated area. Also

furnished were instructions for use of RTIF and a example to illustrate the

recordation of informations on the data sheet. However, the utilization of the

RTIF was a recommendation, not a requirement, to IR contractors in the process

of data gathering during their inspections. To further improve the quality and

the accuracy of data submitted, NEIG also amended the service agreements with

IR contractors to include the double verification of retrofitted areas with

NEIG as well as CSA personnel, and the amended requirement of carrying out

interior IR inspection of the entire house.

3
3. THERMOGRAPHIC INSPECTIONS BY CONTRACTORS

In the second phase of the field evaluation, 18 IR contractors were selected

to perform IR inspections on 20 residences, with four in each of the following

five cities: Atlanta, GA; Colorado Springs, CO; Hughesville, MD (suburb of

Washington, D.C.); Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN; and Providence, RI. Each IR

contractor was assigned to four homes in the same city. Therefore, all dwellings in the same city were inspected by the same four contractors; except

those in Colorado Springs to which only two contractors were assigned. Ten of

the IR contractors operated HRIS; the rest operated LRIS; with NBS performed

baseline inspections using a HRIS to scan the dwellings and a video tape

recorder to collect the data. Again, with the exception of those homes in

Colorado Springs, all dwellings were inspected by both HRIS and LRIS.

In this report, thermographic inspection firms will be identified according to

the first letter of the city name such that contractors A1 through A4 are firms surveying residences in Atlanta, contractors Cl and C2 are firms

surveying residences in Colorado Springs, and so forth.

As mentioned previously, prior to the execution of the service agreement with

IR inspection firms, NEIG had established recommendations to assist the IR

contractors in providing a more accurate and detail documentation of their

findings. However, only 78 percent IR contractors submitted RTIF and 72 percent verified retrofitted areas with CSA and NEIG prior to their IR thermographic inspections. Furthermore, most of them did not cover the entire

interior wall areas of the dwellings in their IR surveyings with 25 percent of

the IR contractors reported incorrect orientations of the houses inspected.

Based on the hard-copy documentation of thermal anomalies of those homes, it

seemed that a few IR contractors with HRIS did not fully utilize their equipment to collect data in order to provide much more concise information in

clear documents from their inspections. Thus it would cause the discrepancies

in estimation and in identification of uninsulated areas. Another problem

encountered was the unrecognized solar reversal patterns by one IR contractor

during his daytime IR inspections. Such patterns would show the uninsulated

area at a higher surface temperature rather than a lower surface temperature.

4
4. DATA ANALYSIS AND SUMMARY

A detailed description of thermal deficiencies in each dwelling from the

comparative analysis of documents produced by individual thermographic inspections is presented separately in appendix B. General descriptions of these

residences, retrofitted options, sketches of thermal anomalies, comparative

evaluations, and some thermograms as examples to illustrate the location of

heat loss area are also included in appendix B. Of the 20 homes selected for

IR surveys, 10 were eliminated from the CSA weatherization program after retrofitted options were completed. Thus the house data, such as the dimensions of

rooms, windows, and doors, were unavailable for the calculation of the total

insulated wall area. In some residences, informations of neither the floor

plan nor the dimension of the house itself were given. Since the purpose of

this field test is mainly a comparative evaluation of five independent surveys

of each dwelling, the analysis based on the combined documents can still be

considered as a baseline reference in a qualitative comparison among them.

Without detailed information of the house, the estimates of the percentage of

defective wall areas with respect to the entire wall areas of these residences

will not be able to perform. Therefore, the comparative analysis of thermographic inspections of dwellings is divided into two groups: group A are

those dwellings remained in the CSA program so that complete house data are available; and group B are those homes dropped from the CSA program without

detailed informations of house data.

The IR equipment employed by NBS personnel during thermographic inspection

consisted of a high resolution imaging system of a scanner and a monitor, con- nected to a video tape recorder. The data were collected on video cassettes

by scanning each wall of every room inside the house in a continuous format by

going through the entire home, including the stairways and ceilings. Simultaneously, the surveyor, who was accompanied by the home owners during inspections, would speak into a microphone to record the environmental conditions,

orientations, and the problem areas encountered. By communicating with the

home owner, correct orientations, retrofitted options, and special problems of

the house can be obtained by the surveyor. Furthermore, completeness of

inspection would easily be achieved because the home owners were anxious to

verify the quality of the insulation work, which effected their energy savings

directly. As a result, NBS inspected each house thoroughly and observed most

of the defective wall areas except in two houses where only two small void areas were missing. Moreover, even though exterior surveying is not a requirement for the IR firms, NBS personnel carried out both interior and exterior

thermographic inspections for 15 of the total 20 residences. The exterior

inspection includes views of the entire sidewall area of the house to contrast

the surveyor's findings from interior inspection, and to identify additional

thermal anomalies and by-pass heat loss locations. Therefore, results from

NBS' inspections will be used as a baseline for comparison.

The numerical estimation of defective wall areas in appendix B was based on the

analysis of data and documentations submitted by each IR firm, with video tapes

by NBS, from their thermographic inspections. Due to the variability of estimated sizes for the same defects reported by different IR contractors, one common value of area size will be given in this report for each defective area

5
found by NBS , by any IR contractor with hard-copy documentation and estimated

size, or by any two IR contractors with estimated size. Tables 1A through IE are the summaries of results from appendix B. Using the result from NBS as a baseline, the percentages of overall void areas identified by each surveyor

are calculated and are presented in tables 1A through IE.

The extent to which defective wall areas identified by each IR contractor

differ is very great, ranging from 10 to 90 percent, with an average of

48.7 percent. Of the 18 IR contractors, only ten located more than 50 percent

of the total defective wall areas. In general, it appears that those IR firms

using HRIS out performed those using LRIS in each city. Based on the results

in tables 1A through IE, figures 1 and 2 illustrate the distributions of percentage of uninsulated wall areas in dwellings identified by IR contractors

using HRIS and using LRIS, respectively. As shown in figure 1, most IR firms

with HRIS observed more than 40 percent of defects and two of them only recognized between 20 to 40 percent of the total defects. Both of these contractors,

Ml and M2, were assigned to inspect dwellings in Minneapolis-St . Paul.

According to their documents, they missed the entire uninsulated east wall in

the kitchen of house no. 1, and reported no defects or only a small void on top of the front door in house no. 3. Consequently, they only observed about

one fourth of the total defective wall areas. As for the IR firms with LRIS,

half of them located 20 percent or less of the total defects, as shown in

figure 2. This is mainly due to incomplete inspections and lack of documentations during their scannings. Furthermore, the hard copies produced by the

LRIS are of such poor quality that difficulties arise in performing analysis.

The remaining half of the IR firms with LRIS observed the high percentage of

defects (in one case over 80 percent) indicating that reasonably accurate

data can be achieved when the surveyor fully utilizes the equipment to scan,

and documents sufficiently the problem areas with detailed sketches and

estimated sizes during his inspection.

Summary results of thermal deficiencies interpretated from the thermographic

inspections for all dwellings are given in tables 2A and 2B. As indicated in

these two tables, the most severe thermal anomalies, besides uninsulated wall

areas, are defective ceilings with air penetration paths found at wall-toceiling and wall-to-wall joints. Other common heat loss locations observed in

these residences are leakage paths around windows and doors. Table 2A also

includes the percentage of uninsulated wall area in ten dwellings of group A.

It can be seen that between 2 percent and 23 percent defective wall areas were found in the houses of this group. Since the house data of group B are not

available only defectve wall areas are given without the percentage values.

6
5.

DISCUSSION

Use of the RTIF (appendix A) was recommended to IR firms for data documentation

by NEIG in the hope of improving uniformity and reducing omissions, both of

which are necessary for a reliable assessment of locating thermal defects

within dwellings. Overall, the analysis of results from field inpsections

performed under Phase II (use of RTIF) showed only a slight improvement over

those conducted in Phase I (without RTIF). The style of reporting and the

quality of data submitted by some IR contractors from Phase II seemed to be

better than those from Phase I, however, the recommendations of the RTIF were

not followed completely.

With the aid of the RTIF, all IR contractors documented the data, the time, and

the environmental conditions during their surveys. They also gave floor plan

sketches of the residences, but none of them would provide the dimensions of

the rooms; with a few of them gave incorrect orientations of the houses. -Even

though the locations and sizes of defective areas were given by some IR contractors, the description and estimation of identical void areas given by

individual contractors were quite diversified. As for the hard copy documentations submitted, some IR contractors included visual pictures with thermograms

of the same region to indicate areas of thermal defects, and some contractors

provided clear thermograms to show thermal patterns of insulation voids.

However, a number of IR contractors provided no hard copies at all, or the

thermograms attached were in extremely poor condition and no images could be

observed

.

Due to the inconsistencies of the data submitted by IR contractors from their

field measurements, it is necessary to establish effective surveying methodology

to improve the existing techniques for thermographic inspections. Based on the

findings of data analysis of field evaluations in both Phase I and Phase II,

the following are suggested for consideration as requirements for thermographic

inspections.

1. Completeness of inspections.

2. Sketches of floor plans with approximate sizes and correct orientations.

3. Understanding of the characteristics of the IR equipment used.

4. Suitable environment to perform IR inspection.

5. Understanding the existing environmental condition.

6. Verification of regions to be inspected.

7. Interpretation of thermal anomalies from thermal pattern displayed at

site

.

8. Additional scanning of doubtful areas.

9. Hard copies of photographs and thermograms of the same regions.

Presently, the implication of thermographic standards to promote the proper

application of thermographic inspection of building envelopes has been developed

by several working groups; such as the International Standards Organization

(ISO), the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), and the American

Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)

[10-12]. The standards activities of these professional societies and organization are mainly to specify guidelines such as inspection procedures, proper

7
environmental conditions, equipment requirement, and method of inspection in

order to assist IR surveyors to obtain reasonable accuracy from thermographic

inspections

.

8
6. CONCLUSION

Analysis of the data collected by IR contractors in Phase II (voluntary

utilization of RTIF) produced a variety of inadequacies ranging from failure in

detecting a majority of the thermal deficiencies within a dwelling to the

incorrect reporting of house orientation. A substantial improvement was apparent in the style of reporting and in documentation of environmental conditions under Phase II, as compared with those under Phase I. In some instances,

due to lack of training or understanding in the thermographic inspecting

methods, it appears that some IR contractors tried to perform surveys with a minimal effort resulting in the failure to depict a majority of thermal deficiencies in the dwellings. Moreover, it seems that some IR contractors with

HRIS did not utilize the full potential of their equipment to produce better

hard-copy documents, and some contractors included no thermograms in their

reports. The result of the overall percentage estimation of defect identification under Phase II is even lower than that under Phase I.

Other inadequacies of voluntary utilization of RTIF are revealed from the data

submitted by IR contractors. Incompleteness of inspection seems to be the

major problem. The given instructions for inspection were not totally followed

such as contacting NEIG to verify the areas of homes to be inspected. Incorrect

reporting of the orientations of the house inspected and problems of thermal

interpretation also occurred.

To obtain adequate results from thermographic inspection of building envelopes,

it is necessary to establish and mandate guidelines for IR firms to perform IR

inspections. Training programs for surveyors are considered to be equally

important for IR contractors to provide a complete and accurate thermographic

inspection of buildings.

9
REFERENCES

[1] Purrin, A.F., "Infrared Technology in Public School: Application in

Berlin, NH,” Thermal Infrared Sensing Applied to Energy Conservation in

Building Envelopes (Therraosense III), Proc. SPIE 254, pp. 106-110,

Bellingham, WA, 1981.

[2] Rangland, R.C. , "Commercial/Industrial Heat Loss," Thermal Infrared

Sensing Applied to Energy Conservation in Building Envelopes

(Thermosense III), Proc. SPIE 254, pp. 104-105, Bellingham, WA, 1981.

[3] Hamoen, D.W. J. , "New Low-Cost Residential Energy Audit Techniques,"

Thermal Infrared Sensing Appied to Energy Conservation in Building

Envelopes (Thermosense IV), Proc. SPIE 313, pp. 35-44, Bellingham, WA,

1982.

[4] Grot, R.A. and Munis, R.H. , "A Comparative Testing of the Applicability

of Various Thermal Scanning Systems for Detecting Heat Losses in Buildings," Proceedings of Fourth Biennial Infrared Information Exchange,

pp. 71-99, AGA Corp. , Secaucus, NJ, 1979.

[5] Kaplan, H. , "Infrared Equipment Available for Energy Surveys," Thermal

Infrared Sensing Technology for Energy Conservation Programs (Thermosense

II), Proceedings pp. 87-93, Falls Church, VA, 1980.

[6] Wood, J.T. and Grot, R.A. , "Description of a Facility for Evaluating

Infrared Imaging Systems for Building Applications," Thermal Infrared

Sensing Applied to Energy Conservation in Building Envelopes (Thermosense

V), Proc. SPIE 371, pp. 246-249, Bellingham, WA, 1983.

[7] Crenshaw, R. , Clark, R. , Chapman, R. , Grot, R.A. , and Godette, M. , "CSA

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

[8] Regan, R.A. , "Comparison Analysis of Infrared Contractors: Retrofit

Insulation Quality Control Inspection Performed on Residential Buildings,"

Thermal Infrared Sensing Applied to Energy Conservation in Building

Envelopes (Thermosense IV), Proc. SPIE 313, pp. 80-84, Bellingham, WA,

1982.

[9] Chang, Y.L. and Grot, R.A. , "Quality of Inspection Utilizing Infrared

Technology on Weatherization Retrofit Installations," NBSIR 82-2510,

November 1982.

[10] Grot, R.A.

,

"Implications of Thermographic Standards on the Inspection of

Buildings," Thermal Infrared Sensing Applied to Energy Conservation in

Building Envelopes (Thermosense V), Proc. SPIE 371, pp. 118-122,

Bellingham, WA, 1983.

10
[ 11 ]

[ 12 ]

Wood, J.T. , "Evolving American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)

Procedures on Use of Infrared (IR) Imaging Devices for Building

Diagnostics," Thermal Infrared Sensing Applied to Energy Conservation in

Building Envelopes (Thermosense III), Proc. SPIE 254, pp. 154-158,

Bellingham, WA, 1981.

Snow, F.J., "American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air

Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Thermographic Standard 101P," Thermal

Infrared Sensing Applied to Energy Conservation in Building Envelope

(Thermosense IV), Proc. SPIE 313, pp. 94-98, Bellingham, WA, 1982.

11
o Table 1A. Comparison of Insulation Voids in Wall Areas Given in ft *• Observed in Each Surveying Contractor and by NBS in

Atlanta, GA*

City House No. NBS Al(HRIS)

Survey Contractor

A2(HRIS) A3(LRIS) A4 ( LRI S

ATL 2 (31)** 36 36 7 36 6

ATL 3 (32) 52 25 21 8 8

ATL 4 (33) 221 147 135 93 25

Total Area of

Voids Detected

309 208 162 137 39 .

Percentage of

Voids Detected 67.3 52.4 44.3 12.6

* House No. 1 is excluded from comparison because only one room was insulated

and no major defects were observed.

** Numbers in parentheses denote corresponding house numbers in CSA program.

*** Based on results of all surveys.

12
o Table IB. Comparison of Insulation Voids in Wall Areas Given in ft

Observed by Each Surveying Contractor and by NBS in

Colorado Springs, CO

City House No. NBS

Survey

Cl(HRIS)

Contractor

C2(HRIS)

CSP 1 (17)* 65 5 31

CSP 2 (34) 230 140 116

CSP 3 (43) 111 24 52

CSP 4 (47) 124 66 110

Total Area of

Voids Detected

530 235 309

Percentage of

Voids Detected**

44.3 58.3

* Numbers in parentheses denote corresponding house numbers in CSA

program.

** Based on results of all surveys.

13
o Table 1C. Comparison of Insulation Voids in Wall Areas Given in ft Observed

by Each Surveying Contractor and by NBS in Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN

City House No. NBS Ml(HRIS)

Survey

M2 ( HRI S

)

Contractor

M3(HRIS) M4(LRIS)

MSP 1 (151)* 157 36 42 134 21

MSP 2 (152) 40 28 30 42 23

MSP 3 (174) 103 0 5 89 4

MSP 4 (200) 69 34 18 53 11

Total area of

Voids Detected

369 98 95 318 59

Percentage of

Voids Detected** 99.2 26.3 25.5 85.5 15.9

* Numbers in parentheses denote corresponding house numbers in

CSA program.

** Based on results of all surveys, 372 ft^.
2 Table ID. Comparison of Insulation Voids in Wall Areas Given in ft Observed

by Each Surveying Contractor and by NBS in Providence, RI

City House No. NBS Pl(LRIS)

Survey

P2(HRIS)

Contractor

P3(LRIS) P4(LRIS)

PRO , 1 (28)* 93 37 37 82 13

PRO 2 (37) 184 161 139 151 153

PRO 3 (219) 252 204 226 203 157

PRO 4 (287) 155 114 139 136 89

Total Area of

Voids Detected

684 516 541 572 412

Percentage of

Voids Detected**

75.4 79.1 83.6 60.2

* Numbers in parentheses denote corresponding house numbers in CAS program.

** Based on results of all surveys.

15
o Table IE. Comparison of Insulation Voids in Wall Areas Given in ft^ Observed

by Each Surveying Contractor and by NBS in Washington, D.C.

City House No. NBS Wl(LRIS)

Survey

W2(HRIS)

Contractor

W3(LRIS) W4(HRIS)

WAS 1 (2)* 26 2 7 3 9

WAS 2 (8) 126 13 44 17 101

WAS 3 (44) 189 36 86 9 39

WAS 4 (47) 352 93 180 68 309

Total area of

Voids Detected

693 144 317 97 458

Percentage of

Voids Detected**

20.8 45.7 14.0 66.1

* Numbers in parentheses denote corresponding house numbers in CSA program.

** Based on results of all surveys.
Table 2A. Thermal Defects Observed in Each Dwelling in Group A

City ATL ATL CSP CSP CSP CSP WAS WAS WAS WAS

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

Defective Wall

Area (ft^) 36 52 65 230 111 124 26 126 189 352

% of Defective

Wall Area 2 6 9 17 17 21 4 15 15 23

Defects Observed:

Walls

Shrinkage or Fissues * A A A Cross Braces A A A A A

Air Penetration * A A A A

Ceilings

Sloped A A A Flat * * A A A A A A A Air Penetration a a A A * A A A A

Doors

Frames * A A A A

Air Leakage a a A A A A A A A A

Windows

Frames * A A

Air Leakage * * A A A A A

Joints

Wall-Wall a A A A A A A & Ceiling-Wall * A A A A A A Floor-Wall A A A

Floor * A

Heat Loss

Eaves A A By-Pass A A A A

Basement or Crawl Space A A

17
Table 2B. Thermal Defects Observed in Each Dwelling in Group B

City ATL ATL MSP MSP MSP MSP PRO PRO PRO PRO

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

Defective Wall

Area (ft^) 221 157 40 103 69 93 184 252 155

Defects Observed:

Walls

Shrinkage or Fissures * * * Corner Braces * Air Penetration * -

Ceilings

Slope * * k * Flat * * * * * k * * Air Penetration * * * * * * * k

Doors

Frames * * * Air Leakage * * * * :

k

*

Windows

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

Joints

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

18
NUMBER

OF

HOMES

£

NUMBER

OF

HOMES

e 1. Distribution of percentage defects remaining in homes

observed by IR contractors using HRIS

Figure 2. Distribution of percentage defects remaining in homes

observed by IR contractors using LRIS

19

APPENDIX A

RESIDENTIAL THERMOGRAPHIC INSPECTION FORM

OmT)

Thermographic Inspection Contractor :

Name:

Address:

Tel. No:

Home Inspected :

City:

Address:

House #:

Date Inspected:.

Time Started: Time Finished:

Outside Ambient Air Temperature:

Start Inspection: °F

Finish Inspection: OF

Inside Ambient Air Temperature:

Basement Temperature: °F 0 * Relative Humid i ty

1st Story Temperature: °F 0 % Relative Humidity

2nd Story Temperature: °F 0 % Relative Humid i ty

3rd Story Temperature: °F 0 % Relative Humi di ty

Wind Speed : mph Wind Direction :

Weather Conditions:
FLOOR PLAN SKETCH

A- 2
IHSUrncmfTLT IlCSUlOTtO UtlAS wto swcn

Docuamt

IMO>er Story Moo

Mil

Orientation Location

fcrw

\ft*)

'

WISTWt CWTOWIMTO) MttAS WTA SHCCT

fcatoer Story Mm

Mil

Orientation Location

Area

(ft?)
UWESULATTP AACAS

&»TA SHtn

tocwnt MW'- Story fcx»

Moll

Orl rotation location Atm

lf»2)

DAMAGED IHSULATIWI *«tAS

DATA SHEET

Opwt

taber Story ftOQB Moll Orientation Location

Araa

(*t*)
Instructions for Use of

Residential Thermographic Inspection Form

(RTIF)

The following ancillary equipment is recommended for making environmental

and meteorological measurements required on Page 1 of RTIF:

1 . Thermometer

2. Compass

3. Air Current Velocity Meter*

4. Hygrometer

Measurement of wind speed and direction at the site of inspection are preferred. Recording from nearest measurement site, of wind speed and

direction, will be acceptable if measurement at site is not possible.

Weather Conditions

The most appropriate of the following examples should be used to best identify

existing weather conditions during inspection at site: Clear, Partly Clear,

Overcast, Snow, Rain, Sleet, Fog.

Floor Plan Sketch

Each story which is either partially or fully inspected by the infrared contractor

must be identified in a floor plan sketch which includes the following:

1. Orientation

2. Story and Room Identificiation

3. Window and Door Identification

4. Number Each Room in Sequence of Inspection

5. Identify and Give Temperature of Non-Heated Rooms

Data Sheets

Document numbers listed on individual Data Sheets should coincide with numbers

indicated on hard copy documentation. In addition story, room identification,

and room number in sequence of inspection should be taken from floor plan

sketch and recorded in appropriate areas on data sheets.

An example of how information is to be posted on on the reverse side of this page.

A5

the Data Sheets is given
UNINSULATED AREA

DATA SHEET

Document

Nunber Story Room

Wall

Orientation Location

Area

(ft“)

3 2 Bedroom (6) North/East Void above window

4 4 4 A

Void size

Identified location of void area

Indicates wall orientation of void area

Indicates sequential number of room inspection

Indicates room of void area location

Indicates story of void area location

Indicates hard-copy documentation number

AAPPENDIX B

ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF TH ERMOGRAPH I C AL INSPECTIONS

. Atlanta House #1

This is a single story residence whose interior dimensions are 38

ft. in length, and 36 ft. in width; located in Atlanta, GA. There

are totally 6 rooms as living space with 2 porches and an attic.

Its exterior construction consists of concrete-block walls and an asphalt shingle roof.

Prior to the implementation of the w eather izat ion program, this

house had no insulation. The only insulation added to this house

was to install rigid board to the inside of the exterior walls of

the southeast bedroom, and to blow rockwool into the attic. After

retrofitted options were completed, this dwelling was inspected

by NBS personnel and by IR contractors Al, A2, A3, and AA. Figure

I is a sketch of voids and locations of heat loss of the ceiling

and the southeast bedroom obtained from video tapes by NBS, and

thermograms and documents by IR contractors.

Generally speaking, the wall areas of the southeast bedroom of

this house were considered to be well insulated, except for some

cold spots on the east wall. This might be due to mechanical

fastening of the board to the sheetrock wall surface. If this

were the case, then they should not be considered as defects.

However, a great deal of mottling was observed at the ceiling,

indicating uneven placement of the blown in rockwool insulation.

Furthermore, a rectangular pattern of insufficient insulation was

also found in the corners of the ceilings, indicating thermal

deficiencies in the voids between the joists.

Thermographic inspection by NBS was carried out for both the

exterior and the interior of this residence. Besides the

southeast bedroom, the thermograms by NBS revealed that the wall

area above all of the windows was also insulated. However, NBS

only inspected part of the ceilings of this house, where a lot of

defects in the entire ceiling were found by the contractors.

Contractors Al and A2 employed HRIS to inspect this dwelling by

producing 8 and 6 thermograms respectively. Contractor Al

provided visual photographs as well as thermograms of identical

locations to cover all major defects of this house. Although this

contractor did not submit the documentation sheets supplied by

NEIG, his report contained detailed description of defect

location and commentary to support his findings. Contractor A2

observed mostly the defective ceilings by submitting very clear

copies of thermograms. Contractors A3 and AA, who used LRIS for

inspection, also identified the ceiling defects by producing 6 and A thermograms respectively. The qualities of the thermograms

produced by the LRIS are very poor, thus making it difficult to

perform analysis.

B -

1
A detailed description of ceiling defects observed by IR

contractors is summarized in table la. No summary of defective

wall areas will be included because only one room of this house

was insulated and no major defects were observed. Furthermore,

.this house will be excluded from calculations of total area of

'defective walls observed by each contractor. Table lb presents

the environmental conditions documented by each IR contractor.

Thermograms 1-1 to 1-6 are some examples to demonstrate

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

descriptions in table la.

B-2
Table la Summary of Defects Observed in Atlanta

House #1

Room & Or ientat ion

*

Southeast

Bedroom

Southwest

Bedroom

L iv ing

Room

Dining

Room

Kitchen

East

Bedroom

Description

of Ceiling Defects

Observed by

NBS Contractors

A 1 A2 A3

Thermogram

A 4 No. in

Append ix

SE Missing Insulation at

Corner

S & Mottling to Show

SW Uneven Insulation

W Large Area of Mottled

Pattern to Show

Def ic ienc ie s of

Insulat ion

NW Missing Insulation at

Corner and along N Side

N Missing Insulation in

Area Above Window

E Lack of Insulation in

Area Above Window

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 1-1

1-2

1-3

No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes No Yes 1-4

No Yes Yes Yes Yes 1-5

No Yes Yes Yes No

No Yes Yes Yes Yes 1-6

B - 3
Table lb. Env ironment a 1 Conditions During Inspections of

Atlanta House #1

Contractors

* A

A2 A3 A4

Date 3-11- 81 3-9-81 3-11-81 3-5-81 | T im e 11:10 - 9:25- 11:25 pm - 9:45 - 11:35 pm 9:40 pm 12:15 am 10:35 pc! Weather clear 6 clear clear partly

Condition cold clear

Outside 44 0 F

Ui o o

5 1 °F 48 °F

Temperature --

Inside

Temperature

7 5 °F ''-4 O *1 7 4°F 7 2°F

Re 1 a t iv e Humid i t y

26% 35% 60% 51%

Wind Speed(MPH) 1 5-18 calm calm 13

Wind Direction NW - NW

B-4
Thermal Anomalies Observed in Atlanta House #1

1-1

Ceiling defects observed

at SE corner of SE bedroom

(by NBS)

1-2

Air leakage along window

on E wall of SE bedroom

(by contractor Al

)

1-3

E of SE bedroom

(by contractor Al)

1-4

Ceiling defects observed

in living room (by NBS)

1-3

Dining room ceiling

defects

(by contractor Al)

1-6

Ceiling defects and voids

observed in E bedroom

(by contractor A2)

B-5
II. Atlanta House #2

This is a single story, approximately 23 years old residence

whose interior dimensions are 30 ft. in length, 30 ft. in width,

and 8 ft. in wall height; located in Atlanta, GA. There are

totally 3 rooms as living space with an attic and a crawl space.

Its exterior construction consists of concrete-block walls and an asphalt shingle roof.

Prior to the implementation of the weather izat ion program, this

house had no insulation. Aninsulation contractor was instructed

to insulate the walls of this dwelling with styrofoam covered

with sheetrock, and fill the cavities of the cinder blocks with

vermiculite; also to blow rockwool in the attic, and install

fiberglass batts in the floor joists. After retrofitted options

were completed, this dwelling was inspected by NBS personnel and

IR contractors Al, A2, A3, and A4. Figure II is a sketch of voids

and locations of heat loss obtained from video tapes by NBS,

thermograms and documents by IR contractors.

Generally speaking, the wall areas of this house were considered

to be well insulated, except in the bathroom whose exterior wall

was observed to be completely uninsulated. Furthermore,

insufficient insulation was found in the corners of the

ceilings. Other defects included an uninsulated attic hatch, lack

of vermiculite in the northwest corner of the kitchen west wall,

mottled thermal pattern on kitchen floor indicating moisture

problems, and no insulation in the bathroom floor.

Thermographic inspection by NBS observed most defects of this

residence except the kitchen and bathroom floors and the small

sealing problem above the northeast corner of the north window of

living room. Contractors Al and A2 employed HRIS to inspect this

dwelling by producing 8 and 4 thermograms , respectively.

Contractor Al provided visual photographs as well as thermograms

of identical locations to cover all major defects of this house

except the bathroom floor. Although this contractor did not

submit the documentation sheets supplied by NEIG, his report had

detailed description of defect location and commentary to support

his findings. However, this contractor had some problems to

identify the correct orientations of defects found in the

bathroom wall from thermograms produced by the interior and the

exterior inspections. Contractor A2 observed mostly the defective

ceilings. This contractor claimed that he could not have good

results from inspection of the bathroom wall because this small

wall is covered with tiles. Contractors A3 and A4, who used LRIS

for inspection, observed all the defects in the ceiling by

producing 4 thermograms each. Furthermore, contractor A3

inspected the bathroom thoroughly to identify the entire

uninsulated exterior wall and indicate that the floor has no

insulation neither. Contractor A4 only reported the infiltration

problems in the bathroom without mentioning the exterior wall and

the floor. However, this contractor did not verify with NEIG the

areas within this house which were insulated and to be inspected.

The qualities of the thermograms produced by the LRIS are very

B-6
poor, thus makes it difficult to perform analysis.

A detailed description of defects observed by NBS as well as 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 video tapes, available thermograms and

documentation. The total estimates of void areas is approximately

36 ft^ which represents about 2% of the gross wall area. Table

lib presents the environmental conditions documented by each IR

contractor. Thermograms 2-1 to 2-6 are some examples to

demonstrate locations of heat loss anomalies, as they are

referred to the descriptions in table Ila.

B-7
Table Ila. Summary of Defects

House #2

Room & OrientationDescription of

Defects

Defective

Wall

Area

in Ft 2

Living N Insufficient Insulation

Room at Ceiling

Observed in Atlanta

Observed by

NBS Contractors

Al A2 A3 A4

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Therm o- gram

No . in

App end ix

Sealing Problem Above (1) No Yes No No No

NE Corner of Window

NE Lack of Insulation

in Ceiling and Air

Leakage at Wall-Wall

Joint

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Southeast

B e dr oom

E Air Leakage Underneath

Window

Yes No No No No

SE Insufficient Insulation

in Ceiling and Air

Leakage at Wall-Wall

Joints

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

S Air Leakage Underneath

Window

Yes No No No No

Southwest

B e dr oom

SW Air Leakage From

Ceiling and Wall-Wall

Joint

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Bathroom W Missing Insulation in 30

the Entire Wall

Yes Yes No Yes No

No Insulation in Floor No No No Yes No

Kitchen W Air Leakage on Both

Sides of Back Door

Yes Yes No No No

Small Voids at NW 6

Corner

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Moisture in Insulation

Below Floor

No Yes No No No

NW Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

2-1

2-2

2-3

2-4

2-5

Lack of Insulation in 2-6

Ceiling and Air Leakage

at Wall-Wall Joint
Table Ila. Summary of Defects Observed in Atlanta

House #2 (Cont'd)

Room & Orientation

Description of

Defects

Defect ive Observed by Therm oWall NBS Contractors gr am

Area A1 A2 A3 A4 No . in

in Ft 2 Ap p end ix

Hallway W Missing Insulation (2) Yes Yes No No No

at Attic Hatch

Total Wall Area of 36 36 36 7 36 6

Insulation Voids Detected

Given in Ft 2

Table lib. Environmental Conditions During Inspections of

Atlanta House #2

Contractors

J

I

A1 A2 A3 A4

Date 3-11-81 3-9-81 3-11-81 3-5-81

Time 10 : 10- 9 : 00- 10:50- 9 : 00-

10:40 pm 9:15 pm 11:30 pm 9:30 pm

Weather clear sky clear clear partly

Condition clear

Outs id e 47 °F 5 1 °F 5 3 °F 48 °F

T emp er a t ur e Inside 7 6 °F 9 0 °F 7 7 °F 7 2°F

T emp er atur e

Re 1 a t iv e 24% 3 5% 50% 51%

Humid ity

Wind Speed(MPH) 15-20 calm calm 13

W ind Direct ion NW NW

B-9
Thermal Anomalies Observed in Atlanta House #2

2-1

Lack of insulation in NE

ceiling of living room

(by contractor A2)

2-2

Insufficient insulation in

ceiling at SE corner of SE

bedroom (by contractor Al)

2-3

Uninsulated W wall

of bathroom

(by contractor Al)

2-4

Uninsulated W wall

of bathro om

(by contractor Al)

2-5

Air leakage at back door,

W of kitchen (by NB S

2-6

Lack of insulation at NW

corner and ceiling of kitchen

(by contractor A2)

B - 1 0
III. Atlanta House #3

This is a single story, approximately 10 years old residence

whose interior dimensions are 31 ft. in length, 37 ft. in width,

and 8 ft. in wall height; located in Atlanta, GA. There are

totally 5 rooms as living space with an attic and a crawl space.

Its exterior construction consists of wood sidings with a brick

yeneered front an asphalt shingle roof.

Prior to fhe implementation of the weather izat ion program, this

house had no insulation. An insulation contractor was instructed

to insulate the walls of this dwelling with cellulose; also to

blow rockwool in the attic, and install fiberglass batts in the

floor joists. After retrofitted options were completed, this

dwelling was inspected by NBS personnel and IR contractors Al,

A2, A3, and A4. Figure III is a sketch of voids and locations of

heat loss obtained from video tapes by NBS, thermograms and

documents by IR contractors.

Generally speaking, the insulation work in the wall areas of this

house was considered to be fair, except some uninsulated partial

bay cavities along the windows and cross braces on the east and

west walls. Furthermore, air leakage from the ceiling were found

at the corners, and on south and north sides. Other locations of

thermal anomalies observed were penetration of cold air

underneath the kitchen and living room floors, and inside the

partition wall between kitchen and bathroom; indicating a possibility of heat loss due to by-pass.

Thermographic inspection by NBS was carried out for both exterior

and interior of this residence. The exterior inspection revealed

the phenomenon of sun loading on both south and west sides of the

house. The solar patterns observed on the south wall were due to

heat stored in the moisture portion of the studs; not uninsulated

areas. Furthermore, the attic was warm, indicating it was well

insulated. Contractors Al and A2 employed HRIS to inspect this

dwelling by producing 18 and 16 thermograms, respectively.

Contractor Al provided visual photographs as well as thermograms

of identical locations to cover most defects of this house except

the uninsulated wall areas of bathroom, living room, and south

bedroom. Moreover, this contractor gave detailed descriptions of

the thermal deficiencies of the kitchen and living room floors;

and was the only one to identify the uninsulated attic hatch in

the hallway. Although contractor Al did not submit the

documentation sheets supplied by NEIG, his report had detailed

description of defect location and commentary to support his

findings. Contractor A2 observed mostly the defective ceilings

and missed about 60% of the uninsulated wall areas. This

contractor did not found the thermal deficiencies of the floors

neither. Contractors A3 and A4, who used LRIS for inspection by

producing 12 and 7 thermograms, respectively. However, they

missed a lot of thermal anomalies and observed about 15% of the

defective wall areas, without identifying the cold floors.

Contractor A3 did not verify with NEIG the areas within this home

which were insulated and to be inspected. The qualities of the

B - 1
thermograms produced by the LRIS are very poor, thus makes it

difficult to perform analysis.

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

contractors is summarized in table Ilia. Besides the total

defective wall area in ft * found by each inspection, table Ilia

aho includes the defective wall areas in ft^ of each room of the

house, analyzed from video tapes, available thermograms and

documentation. The total estimates of void areas is approximately

52 f t ^ which represents about 6% of the gross wall area. Table

Illb presents the environmental conditions documented by each IR

contractor. Thermograms 3-1 to 3-9 are some examples to

demonstrate locations of heat loss anomalies, as they are

referred to the descriptions in table Ilia.

B - 1 2
Table Ilia. Summary of Defects Observed in Atlanta

House #3

Room & Or ientat ionDescription of

Defects

Defective Observed by

Wall NBS Contractors

Area Al A2 A3 A4

in Ft 2

Therm og r am

No . in

App end ix

Living

Room

E Voids in 2 Partial

Bay Cavities Along

Both Edges of Window

10 Yes No No No No

Air Leakage Above

Window; and at SE

Corner of Wall-Wall

and Wall-Floor Joints

Yes No Yes No No

Sma 1 1 Void on S of

Window

2 Yes No Yes No Yes

S Insufficient

Insulation at Ceiling

From SE Corner and

Extended to Area

Above Window

Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Small Void on E of

Front Door and Air

Leakage Under Front

Door

2 Yes No No No No

Missing Insulation in

2 Floor Joints From N

to S Between the

Living Room Floor

Yes Yes No No No 3-1

3-2

Hal lway W Missing Insulation

at Attic Hatch

(4) No Yes No No No

South

Bedroom

s Small Void Along W

Side of Window

3 Yes No No No No

Insuf f icient

Insulation at Edge

of Ceiling

Yes No Yes Yes No

Southwe s t Bedrooms Insufficient

Insulation at S Edge

of Ceiling

Yes Yes Yes Yes No 3-3

w Small Voids at SW 4 Yes Yes Yes Yes No 3-4

Corner and on S of

Window

B - 1 3
Table Ilia. Summary of Defects

House #3 (Cont'd)

Observec in Atlanta

Room & -Orientation

Description of Defective

Defects Wall

Area

in Ft 2

Observed by

NBS Contractors

A 1 A2 A3 A

Thermogram

No . in

Appendix

Insulation Void at

SW Corner of Ceiling

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Nor thwe s t BedroomW Some Voids at the Stud 3

Brace at SW Corner

Yes Yes Yes No No

Small Void at NW 2

Corner

Yes Yes Yes No No

N Small Voids on W of 2

Window

Yes No Yes No No

Partial Bay Cavity 4

Along E Side of Window

Yes Yes No No No

Insufficient Insulation

at N Edge of Ceiling

and Air Leakage at NW

Corner

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Bathroom N Small Voids Below 4

Window

Yes No Yes Yes No

Insufficient Insulation

in Ceiling W of Window

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Kitchen/

Dining

Room

W This Partition Wall Has

Cold Air Coming From

Attic, due to Missing

Insulat ion

Yes Yes No No No 3-5

3-6

3-7

N Insufficient Insulation

at Ceiling Along N Edge

of Wall

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes !

Partial Bay Cavity on 6

W of Back Door

Yes Yes No No No

Some VoidsonE of 4

Back Door and Air

Leakage at NE Corner

Yes No Y e s N o No 3-8

3-9

Missing Insulation

in 1 Floor Joint

Yes Yes No No Yes

B-14
Table Ilia. Summary of Defects Observed in Atlanta

House #3 (Cont'd)

Room & Or ientat ionDescription of

Def ects

Defect ive

Wall

Area

in Ft 2

Observed by

NBS Contractors

A1 A2 A3 A4

Thermogram

No . in

Append ix

NE Insufficient Insulation

in Ceiling at NE Corner

Yes Yes Yes No Yes

E 1 Partial Bay Cavity 6

at N of Window & Small

Voids on S of Window

Yes Yes No No Yes

Total Wall Area of 52 52 25 21 8 8

Insulation Voids Detected

Given in F

1

Table Illb. Environmental Conditions During Inspections of

Atlanta House #3

Contractors

A1 A2 A3 A4

Date 3-11-81 3-9-81 3-11-81 3-5-81

Time 7:15-

8:30 pm

7:15-

8:00 pm

8:15-

9:11 pm

7 : 15-

8:00 pm

Weather

Condition

clear sky clear clear partly

clear

Outside

Temperature

5 5 °F 5 1 °F 54°F 49 °F

Inside

Temperature

7 7 °F 84°F 8 1 °F 8 1 °F

Relat ive

Humidity

23% 35% 46% 56%

Wind Speed(MPH) 15-28 calm 5-8 14

Wind Direction NW NW NW

B - 1 5
Thermal Anomalies Observed in Atlanta House #3

3-1 3-2 3-3

Living room

floor facing

S (by

contr . Al )

Missing insulation

in living room floor

(by contractor Al

)

Solar patterns

observed on the S wall of SW bedroom

(by NBS)

3-4

Void areas on SW

corner of SW bedroom

(by contractor A2)

3-5

E (partition) wall

of bathroom

(by contractor Al

)

3-6

Cold area in partit ion wall of 3-5

(by contractor Al)

Same cold area of 3-6

shown in the opposite

side, W wall of

kitchen (by NBS)

Insulation voids

around back door in

kitchen, interior

(by NBS)

Insulation voids

around back door

in kitchen, exterior

(by NBS)

i

i

'

B - 1 6
IV. Atlanta House #4

This is a single story residence whose interior dimensions are 24

ft. in length, and 42 ft. in width; located in Atlanta, GA. There

are totally 6 rooms as living space with an attic. Its exterior

construction consists of brick walls and an asphalt shingle roof.

Prior to the implementation of the weather izat ion program, this

house had no insulation. An insulation contractor was instructed

to insulate the walls of this dwelling with UF foam, and to add

fiberglass batts on top of the existing loose fiberglass

insulation to the attic. After retrofitted options were

completed, this dwelling was inspected by NBS personnel and IR

contractors Al , A2, A3, and A4. Figure IV is a sketch of voids

and locations of heat loss obtained from video tapes by NBS,

thermograms and documents by IR contractors.

Generally speaking, the insulation work to this house was

considered to be very poor, as a lot of regions was observed to

have missing insulation, such as on the upper portion of the

walls, and above and around the windows. Further, partial voids

under the window and insufficient foam insulation or shrinkage

were found on the north wall of northwest bedroom. The panel wall

on the north side of the middle bedroom had low temperature

differential which made it difficult to observe defects. Cold air

was also leaking from the ceiling , indicating a severe problem

in the attic insulation.

Thermographic inspection by NBS observed most defects of this

residence except some difficulties to scan the south walls due to

sun loading. NBS also locate the voids above and on east side of

the window in the outside portion of the east wall of middle

bedroom. None of the contractors inspected this wall which is

partially an interior wall. Contractors Al and A2 employed HRIS

to inspect this dwelling by producing 11 thermograms each, mostly

on defective ceilings; and they identified about 70% of the total

defective wall areas. Contractor Al provided visual photographs

as well as thermograms of identical locations to exhibit the

defects of this house. Although this contractor did not submit

the documentation sheets supplied by NEIG, his report had

detailed description of defect location and commentary to support

his findings. Contractor A2 detected mostly the defective

ceilings, and stated that approximately 20% of the wall areas

were voided. Contractors A3 and A4, who used LRIS for inspection,

located mostly the defects in the ceiling by producing 13 and 6 thermograms, respectively. Neither contractors inspected this

house thoroughly as they identified between 10% and 40% of the

total defective wall areas. Contractor A3 did not verify with

NEIG the areas within this home which were insulated and to be

inspected. The qualities of the thermograms produced by the LRIS

are very poor, thus makes it difficult to perform analysis.

B- 17
A detailed description of defects observed by NBS as well as IR

contractors is summarized in table IVa. Besides the total

• • O defective wall area in f t x found by each inspection, table IVa

also includes the defective wall areas in ft^ of each room of the

house, analyzed from video tapes, available thermograms and

documentation. The total estimates of void areas is approximately

-2 2 1 ft . Since the dimensions of the windows and doors of this

dwelling were not available the percentage defective wall area of

the gross wall area would not be presented. Table IVb presents

the environmental conditions documented by each IR contractor.

Thermograms 4-1 to 4-8 are some examples to demonstrate

locations of heat loss anomalies, as

descriptions in table IVa.

they are referred to the

B - 1 8
Table IVa Summary of Defects Observed in Atlanta

House #4

Room & Description of Defective Ob served by ThermoOr ientat ion Defects Wall NBS Contractor s g r am

JL Area Al A2 A3 A4 No . in

in Ft 2 Append ix

Living

Room

N Voids Above Front

Door

5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 4-1

1 Bay Cavity Along

E Side of Front Door

10 Yes Yes Yes No No

2 Upper Bay Cavities

Between Door and

Window

10 Yes No Yes No No

Voids Above Window 6 Yes No No No No

1 Upper Bay Cavity

at NW Corner

4 Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Defective Insulation

at Ceiling and Air

Leakage at CeilingWall Joint

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

NE Missing Insulation at

Ceiling & Air Leakage

at Wall-Wall Joint

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 4-2

4-3

4-4

E 1 Full Bay and 2

Upper Bay Cavities

at NE Corner

20 Yes Yes Yes No No

Voids Above Window 4 Yes No Yes No Yes

Small Voids

Scattering on E Wall

Between Living Room

and Dining Area

6 Yes No Yes No No

Kitchen/

Dining

Room

SE Missing Insulation

in Ceiling & Around

Both Windows

16 Yes Yes Yes Yes No

S Voids Above Back Door

& Missing Insulation

in Ceiling Above

2 Yes Yes No Yes Yes 4-5

4-6

1 Bay Cavity Between

Back Door and Window

10 Yes No No No No

B-19
Table IVa Summary of Defects Observed in Atlanta

House #4 ( cont " d

)

Room Description of Defective Observed by ThermoOr ient a t ion Defects Wall NBS Contractors gram

£. Area Al A2 A3 A 4 No . in

in Ft 2 Append ix

Bathroom S Voids Above Window 3

Voids Below Window 6

Defective Ceiling

Above Window

Southwest SW Defective Ceiling

Bedroom

2 Upper Bay Cavities 8

on S Side

W Upper Portion of 35

the Entire Wall

Uninsulated

Voids Above Window 3

Northwest W Missing Insulation 22

Bedroom at the Upper portion

of the Wall

Defective Ceiling

NW Defective Ceiling & 4

Voids in Some Upper

Bay Cavities on N

N Voids and Shrinkage 20

All Over the Wall

Middle N 1 Full Bay and 1 14

Bedroom Upper Bay Cavity

on W of Window

Voids Above Window 4

Small Void at NE 4

Corner

Defective Ceiling

Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Yes No No No Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes No No No

Yes Yes Yes No No

Yes No No Yes No

Yes Yes No Yes No

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes No No Yes No

Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Yes Yes Yes No No

Yes No No No Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

4-7

4-8

B - 2 0
Table IVa. Summary of Defects Observed in Atlanta

House #4 (cont'd)

Room & Or ientat ion

Description of

Defects

Defective

Wall

Area

in Ft 2

Observed by ThermoNBS Contractors gram

Al A2 A3 A4 No . in

Append ix

E Voids Above and on 5 Yes No No No No

E Side of Window on

the Portion of the

Outside Wall

Total Wall Area of

Insulation Voids Detected

Given in Ft

221 221 147 135 93 25

Table IVb . Environmental Conditions During Inspections of

Atlanta House #4

Contractors

Al A2 A3 A4

Date 3-11-81 3-9-81 3-11-81 3-5-81

Time 8 : 50- 8:10- 9 : 3 0- 8:10-

9:35 pm 8:40 pm 10:25 pm 8:45 pm

W eather clear sky clear clear partly

Cond it ion clear

Outside 5 0 °F 50°F 5 3 °F 49 °F

Temperature

Inside 7 1 °F 7 6 °F 7

5 °F 7 1 °F

Temperature

Re 1 a t iv e 26% 35% 55% 54%

Humid ity

Wind Speed(MPH) 15-28 calm 5-8 13

Wind Direction NW NW NW

B - 2

1
Thermal Anomalies Observed in Atlanta House #4

4-1

Voids above front door,

defective ceiling, and air

leakage on N wall of living

room (by contractor A2)

isaflBVfr

4-2

NE corner of living room

(by contractor Al)

4-3

Uninsulated wall and

ceiling areas at NE

corner of living room

(by contractor Al)

4-4

Thermal defects observed

at NE corner of living

room as shown in 4-3

(by NBS)

4-5

S wall of

kitchen (by

contractor Al

)

4-6 4-7

Voids above back door

and missing insulation

in S ceiling of kitchen

(by contractor Al)

Voids above window

and defective ceiling

on S wall of bathroom

(by contractor Al)

4-8

Missing insulat ion in wal

and ceiling areas

on SW corner of SW

bedroom (by NBS

)

B - 2 2
V . Colorado Springs House #1

This is a single story, approximately 65 years old residence

whose interior dimensions are 33 ft. in length, 30 ft. in width,

and 8 ft. in wall height; located in Colorado Springs, CO. There

are totally 5 rooms as living space with 2 unheated porches, an

/ttic, and a b a s e m e n t / c r a w 1 space. Its exterior construction

consists of frame sidings and a tar paper roof.

Prior to- the implementation of the weather izat ion program, this

house had no insulation. An insulation contractor was instructed

to insulate the walls and ceiling of this dwelling with

cellulose, and ba sement / craw 1-space ceiling with rockwool batts.

After retrofitted options were completed, this dwelling was

inspected by NBS personnel and IR contractors Cl, and C2. Figure

V is a sketch of voids and locations of heat loss obtained from

video tapes by NBS, and from thermograms and documents by IR

contractors .

In general, the insulation work to the exterior walls of this

house was considered to be fair with voids above most of the

windows and doors, and uninsulated bay cavities along some

windows. Furthermore, the wall-to-wall joints have uninsulated

corner braces at the bottom and heat loss from the eaves.

However, the ceiling insulation was observed to be very poor as

almost the entire ceiling was not insulated except 3 ft. from the

west wall. Neither the northeast bedroom nor the northeast

corner of the kitchen had any insulations in their ceilings.

According to results from all inspections the area of uninsulated

ceiling was estimated to be about 75% of the entire ceiling.

Thermographic inspection by NBS was carried out for both interior

and exterior of this house, in two consecutive winters.

Therefore, the results from both inspections would give a more

accurate estimation. The exterior inspection revealed the cold

basement even though the entire basement was supposed to be

insulated, and also the location of heat loss from the eaves.

Moreover, NBS observed some cold air leaking into the partition

wall between the bathroom and the northeast bedroom from the

interior inspections.

Both contractors Cl and C2 employed HRIS to inspect this dwelling

and they did not provide enough hard-copy documentations to

support their findings by producing 5 and 2 thermograms,

respectively. Neither did they contact NEIG for areas to be

inspected. They identified the defective ceiling but failed to

recognize a lot of uninsulated wall areas. Besides that,

contractor Cl did not follow instructions to submit documentation

sheets, given by NEIG, of thermal anomalies as he only mentioned

the uninsulated corner braces by including only one colored

thermogram of one corner. Both thermograms provided by contractor

C2 were locations of defective ceilings. The qualities of these

thermograms were not clear, thus increased the uncertainties on

analysis.

B-23
A detailed description of defects observed by NBS as well as IR

contractors is summarized in table Va. Besides the total

2 defective wall area in ft found by each inspect ion,

also includes the defective wall areas in ft z of each room

table V a of the

house, analyzed from available video tapes, thermograms, and

sketches. The total estimates of void areas is approximately 65

f t^ which represents about 9 % of the gross wall area. Table Vb

presents the environmental conditions documented by each IR

contractor. Thermograms 5-1 to 5-5 are some examples to

demonstrate locations of heat loss anomalies, as they are

referred to the descriptions in table Va. The colored thermograms

submitted by contractor Cl were not

cost for reproduction.

included due to the high

B -24
Table Va. Summary of Defects Observed In Colorado Springs

House #1

I!

Room & Orientation

c.

D e s c r i p t i o n o f Defective

Defects Wall

Area

in Ft 2

Ob s NBS

e r v e d by

Contractors

Cl C 2

Thermogram

No . in

Append ix

L iv ing

i Room

S Voids Above Window

and Front Door

(4) Yes No Yes

j Voids in Lower SW

Corner Brace

(2) Yes Yes Yes

!

t

Air Leakage at Front

Door and Infiltration

at SW Corner

Yes Yes Yes

-

!

1

l

W Small Voids Above and

Misses Below Window

3 Yes No No

Voids in Lower SW

Corner Brace

2 Yes Yes Yes

j Lack of Insulation in

Ceiling Beginning Three

Feet From The W Wall

Yes Yes Yes 5-1

5-2

Nor thwe s t BedroomW Voids Above Window

and in 1 Whole Bay

Cavity at N of Window

12 Yes No Yes

Voids in Lower NW

Corner Brace

2 Yes No Yes 5-3

5-4

Lack of Insulation

in Ceiling Beginning

Three Feet From W Wall

Yes Yes Yes 5-5

N Voids in Lower NW

Corner Brace

2 Yes No Yes

Voids Above Window & on E Side of Window10 Yes No Yes

Defective Ceiling Yes Yes Yes

Bathroom N Missing Insulation 14 Yes No No

Above & Below Window,

and in 1 Whole Bay

Cavity at NE Corner

B - 2 5
Table V a

Summary of Defects Observed In Colorado Springs

House #1 (Cont'd)

Room & Orientat ion

Description of

Defects

Defective Observedby

Wall NBS Contractors

Area Cl C2

in Ft 2

E Air Penetration in 1 (12)

Bay Cavity and Some

Partial Bays of the

Partition Wall

Defective Ceiling

Northeast N Small Voids in Bay 3

Bedroom Cavities at NE Corner

and at the W of Window

Defective Ceiling

E Small Voids at S of 1 Window

Cold Spot on Ceiling

Kitchen E Voids Above S Window 2

Some Cold Spots

S Voids Above Window 14

and in 1 Whole Bay

Cavity at W of Window

Uninsulated Ceiling

Total Wall Area of 65

Insulation Voids Detected

G iv en in Ft 2

Yes No No

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes

Yes No No

Yes No No

Yes No No

Yes Yes No

Yes No No

Yes Yes Yes

65 5 31

Thermogram

No . in

Append ix

B-26
Table Vb

Environmental Conditions During Inspections of

Colorado Springs House #1

Contractors

Cl C 2

Date 3-9-81 3-16-81

Time 10:00 - 9:00 - 11:30 pm 9 : 50 pm

Weather clear sky & part ly clo

Condition calm wind

Outside 3 3 °F 46 °F

Temperature

Inside 6 5 °F 7 0 °F

Temperature

Re 1 a t iv e below 2 0 % 33%

Humidity

Wind Speed(MPH) calm 0

B - 2 7
Thermal Anomalies Observed in Colorado Springs House #1

5-1

Lack of insulation in

living room ceiling

(by contractor C2)

5-2

Lack of insulation in

living room ceiling

facing W (by NBS)

5-3

Voids in NW corner brace of NW bedroom

shown in interior thermogram (by NBS)

5-4

Voids in NW corner of

NW bedroom shown in

exterior thermogram

(by NBS)

5-5

Lack of insulation

ceiling of NW bedroom

(by NBS)

B-28
VI. Colorado Springs House #2

This is a two-story, approximately 40 years old residence whose

interior dimensions are 38 ft. in length, 28 ft. in width, 9 ft.

in wall height on the first floor, and 7.4 ft. in wall height on

the second floor; located in Colorado Springs, CO. There are

.-totally 6 rooms as living space with an unheated porch, an attic,

.and a crawl space. Its exterior construction consists of frame

sidings and an asphalt shingle roof.

Prior to the implementation of the w ea th er iz a t ion program, this

house had no insulation. An insulation contractor was instructed

to insulate the walls and ceilings of this dwelling with

cellulose, and the floor joists with fiberglass batts. After

retrofitted options were completed, this dwelling was inspected

by NBS personnel and IR contractors Cl, and C2. Figure VI is a sketch of voids and locations of heat loss obtained from video

tapes by NBS, and from thermograms and documents by IR

contractors

.

In general, the insulation work to the exterior walls of this

house was considered to be quite poor as voids above most of the

windows and doors, and uninsulated bay cavities were observed at

wall-to-wall joints. The bath room on the first floor was shown

to have a defective ceiling as well as several uninsulated

partial bay cavities on both the south and east walls. The

insulation work on the second floor was even worse as the entire

pitched ceiling and regions behind the kneewalls were found to be

void of insulation. Moreover, heat loss from the eaves,

uninsulated bay cavities on east and west walls and corner

braces, were also observed from inspections upstairs.

Thermographic inspection by NBS was carried out for both interior

and exterior of this house, in two consecutive winters.

Therefore, the results from both inspections would give a more

accurate estimation. The exterior inspection revealed the warm

attic with leaking eaves, and the uninsulated bay cavities at

wall-to-wall joints, which were not detected from interior

inspections. Moreover, NBS also observed some warm air leaking

down into the uninsulated crawl space from the exterior

inspect ions

.

Both contractors Cl, and C2 employed HRIS to inspect this

dwelling and they did not provide enough hard-copy documentations

to support their findings by producing 1 and 2 thermograms,

respectively. Neither did they contact NEIG for areas to be

inspected. They gave general information of the defective ceiling

and kneewalls without any detailed descriptions by submitting one

thermogram each, but failed to recognize a lot of uninsulated

wall areas on the second floor. Besides that, contractor Cl did

not follow instructions to submit documentation sheets, given by

NEIG, of thermal anomalies as he only mentioned the uninsulated

regions of the kitchen, the bathroom, and the southeast bedroom

on the first floor. Contractor C2 did not inspect the bathroom

and submitted thermograms with poor qualities, thus increased the

B-2 9
uncertainties on analysis.

A detailed description of defects observed by NBS as

contractors is summarized in table Via. Besides

defective wall area in ft found by each inspection,

also includes the defective wall areas in ft^ of each room

well as IR

the total

table

o f

.house, analyzed from available video tapes, thermograms,

sketches. The total estimates of void areas is approximately

ft^ which represents about 17% of the gross wall area. Table

Via

the

and

230

VIb

presents the environmental conditions documented by each IR

contractor. Thermograms 6-1 to 6-6 are some examples to

demonstrate locations of heat loss anomalies, as they are

referred to the descriptions in table Via. The colored

thermograms submitted by contractor Cl were

the high cost for reproduction.

not included due to

B-30
Table Via. Summary of Defects Observed in Colorado Springs

House #2

R o o m & Description of Defective Observed by ThermoOr ientat ion Def ect s Wall NBS Contractors g r am

Area Cl C 2 No. in

In Ft 2 Append ix

First Floor

:

L iv ing

Room

S Voids Above Window & in 1 Bay Cavity on

East of Window; Air

Infiltration at SW

Corner

12 Yes No No

W Voids Above Window

and Above Door

;

6 Yes No Yes

Air Leakage Underneath Door and at

Side of Door and

Window

Yes Yes No

Dining

Room

W Voids at Top of

Several Bays & Partial

Void of 1 Bay Cavity

at NW Corner

10 Yes No Yes

Voids Below Window 3 Yes No No

N Voids Above and Below

Window

4 Yes No No

1 Bay Cavity Missed

Completely (From

Exterior Inspection)

12 Yes No No

Kit chen N Voids in Bay Cavities

Behind Cabinets and

Counter Tops

8 Yes Yes Yes

Missing Insulation

Also Found Below

Ceiling & Below Window

on E Side of Cabinets

6 Yes Yes No

E Missing Insulation in 3 Yes No No

the 1st Bay of NE

Corner; Air Leakage

Around Door and on S Side of Window

B-31
Table Via . Summary of Defects

House #2 (Cont^d)

Observed in Colorado Sp rings

Room & Or ientat ionD e s c r i p t i o n o f Defective

Defects Wall

Area

In Ft 2

Observed by

NBS Contractors

Cl C 2

Thermogram

No. in

Appendii

Southeast

Bedroom

E Voids at Top of

Several Bays and in

1 Whole Bay Cavity

Behind the Electric

Box Outside

16 Yes Yes Yes 6-3

S Voids Above & Below

Window, and 1 Whole

Bay Cavity on E Side

of Window

18 Yes No No

Bathroom E 1 Whole Bay and 2

Partial Bays Found

Uninsulated From

Exterior Inspections

24 Yes Yes No 6-4

S Voids in Several Bay

Cavities

10 Yes Yes No

Defective Ceiling Yes No No

Second Floor • Utility

Room

N Voids Above Window & on W Side of Window

3 Yes No No

Lack of Insulation

at Ceiling

Yes No No

E Closet Found

Uninsulated Inside

15 Yes No No

East

B edr oom

N Missing Insulation

at Upper Corners & on W Side of Attic

Door of Knee-Wall

4 Yes Yes Yes

Lack of Insulation

in Sloped Ceiling

Yes Yes Yes

;

E Voids in 1 Bay at

NE Corner and Below

the Sloped Ceiling

8 Yes Yes Yes 6-5
Table Via. Summary of Defects Observed in Colorado Springs

House #2 (Cont'd)

Ro o m & Or ientat ion

Description of

Defects

Defective Observedby

Wall NBS Contractors

Area Cl C 2

In Ft 2

Thermogram

No . in

Appendix

S Several Uninsulated

Bay Cavities Found

in Knee-Wall

18 Yes Yes Yes

Lack of Insulation in

Sloped Ceil ing , (Showing Sun Loading)

Yes Yes Yes

S t a irwe 1S Voids in 2 Partial

Bays

4 Yes No No

West

Bedroom

S Voids in Corner Brace

at SW Corner

4 Yes Yes Yes

Uninsulated Opening

for Batt Insulation

Behind Knee-Wall

7 Yes Yes Yes

Lack of Insulation

in Sloped Ceiling

Yes Yes Yes

W Voids in 2 Bay

Cavities and Under

Sloped Ceiling, Also

in Some Partial Bays

18 Yes Yes Yes

N Voids in 1st 2 Bay

Cavities From W

Corner

10 Yes Yes Yes

Uninsulated Opening

for Batt Insulation

Behind Knee-Wall

7 Yes Yes Yes

Lack of Insulation

in Sloped Ceiling

Yes Yes Yes

Total Wall Area Of 230 230 140 116

Insulation Voids Detected

Given in Ft 2

B-33
Table VIb. Environmental Conditions During

Colorado Springs House #2

Contractors

Cl

Date 3-10-81

Time 10:00 - 11:30 pm

Weather clear sky

Cond it ion calmw ind

Outside 2 7 °F

Temperature

Inside 5 3 °F

Temperature

Re 1 a t iv e below 20%

Humid i ty

Wind Speed(MPH) calm

Inspect ions of

C 2

3-16-81

8:15 -

8 : 50 pm

part ly cloudy

48 °F '

6 1 °F

30%

0

B-34
Thermal Anomalies Observed in Colorado Springs House #2

6-1

Void on N rear wall of

kitchen (by NB S

)

6-3

Voids in one bay cavity

and upper E wall of SE

bedroom (by NB S

)

6-5

Defective pitched ceiling

and insulation voids in E

wall at NE corner of E bedroom

on the second floor (by NBS)

6-2

Poor quality of do cuman t a t ion

to show defects on N wall of

kitchen (by contractor C2)

6-4

Insulation voids in three bay

areas on E wall of bathroom

shown in exterior thermogram

(by NBS)

6-6

Defetive pitched ceiling and

insulation voids in wall area

on S of E bedroom (by NBS)

B-3 5
VII. Colorado Springs House #3

This is a single story, approximately 15 years old residence

whose interior dimensions are 32 ft. in length, 30 ft. in width,

and 8 ft. in wall height; located in Colorado Springs, CO. There

are totally 5 rooms as living space with a garage, an attic, and

a finished basement. Its exterior construction consists of frame

sidings and an asphalt shingle roof.

Prior to the implementation of the weather izat ion program, this

residence was insulated with 2" fiberglass batt insulation. An

insulation contractor was instructed to add UF foam to the walls,

and cellulose to the attic on top of the existing insulations of

this dwelling. Also, he was to insulate the basement walls with

fiberglass batts to about 3 ft. below grade. After retrofitted

options were completed, this dwelling was inspected by NBS

personnel and IR contractors Cl, and C2. Figure VII is a sketch

of voids and locations of heat loss obtained from video tapes by

NBS, and from thermograms and documents by IR contractors.

Since UF foam was blown into the walls on top of the existing

batt insulation, different density levels of insulations were

shown from the inspections of the wall areas. In general, the

insulation work to the exterior walls of this house was

considered to be poorly done as a lot of regions in the south

wall were observed with foam insulation hung up, indicating

shrinkage or missing insulations. Furthermore, air leakage from

ceiling on both east and west sides of the house exhibited the

same patterns as in the south wall. The north wall of the living

room is facing the garage which was not insulated. Mottled areas

found over the entire wall might be due to the low temperature

differential. This wall will be excluded from calculations of

defective wall areas because it is not an exterior wall. Also,

the corner at the garage door was observed to have air leakage.

The basement walls also exhibited some voids above and around the

windows and the entire bathroom wall was found to be

uninsulated. The insulation contractor was supposed to open the

basement walls and install fiberglass batt insulations in them.

Therefore, these thermal deficiencies indicated the insulation

work was questionable. The basement walls will form seperate

calculation from the defective wall areas on the main floor.

Thermographic inspection by NBS was carried out for both interior

and exterior of this house, in two consecutive winters.

Therefore, the results from both inspections would give a more

accurate estimation. The exterior inspection showed that the

attic was insulated very well. However, it also revealed the warm

brick foundation on the west side, indicating the possibility of

heat loss through by-pass.

B - 3 6
Both contractors Cl, and C2 employed HRIS to inspect this

dwelling and they did not provide enough hard-copy documentations

to support their findings by producing 5 and 2 thermograms,

respectively. Neither did they contact NEIG for areas to be

inspected. It seemed that both contractors had trouble to

determine the defects of the walls from the different density

levels of insulations as they recorded mostly ceiling defects and

infiltrations, and failed to report foam shrinkage or voids of

the walls of the main floor. Contractor Cl did not follow

instructions to submit documentation sheets, given by NEIG, of

thermal anomalies as he identified only 20% of the defective

wall areas on the main floor and located about half of the voids

in the basement with colored thermograms. Contractor C2 inspected

the entire basement and found all the thermal deficiencies.

However, he only located about 40% of the defective wall areas on

the main floor.

A detailed description of defects observed by NBS as well as 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 video tapes, thermograms, and

sketches. The total estimates of void areas is approximately 111

ft^ which represents about 17% of the gross wall area. Table Vllb

presents the environmental conditions documented by each IR

contractor. Thermograms 7-1 to 7-6 are some examples to

demonstrate locations of heat loss anomalies, as they are

referred to the descriptions in table Vila. The colored

thermograms submitted by contractor Cl were not included due to

the high cost for reproduction.

B-37
I Table Vila. Summary of Defects Observed in Colorado Springs

House #3

Room & Description of Defective Observed by ThermoDr ientat ion Defects Wall NBS Contractors gram

Area Cl C2 No . in

in Ft z App end ix

Front

Entrance

W Small Void Above

and Air Infiltration

Around Front Door

1 Yes No No

L iv ing

Room

W Voids Below Window

and Mottled Area

Over the Entire Wall

15 Yes No Yes

-

Ceiling Cold Pattern at WallCe il ing Joint

Indicating Uninsulated

Eave Vent , or Air

Currents Under the

Insulation

Yes Yes Yes 7-1

7-2

N Mottled Area Over the

Entire Wa 1 1 . ( Ex c 1 ud e

in Area Calculation)

Yes No No

Cold Corner at Garage

Door and Air Leakage

at Wall-Floor Joint

7-3

Kitchen N Small Void or Air

Leakage Above and on

W of Side Door

3 Yes No No

E Partial Voids at

Lower N Corner,

Around the Cabinets

and Above Window

12 Yes Yes Partial

Ceiling Cold Pattern at WallCeiling Joint

Indicating Uninsulated

Eave Vent or Air

Penetration Under the

Insulat ion

Yes Yes Yes

Bathroom E Voids Above Window 4 Yes No Yes

and Void or Shrinkage

Below Window

B-38
Table Vila. Summary of Defects Observed in Colorado Springs

House # 3 (Cont'd)

Room & Description of Defective Observed by Thermo-

.Orientation Defects Wall NBS Contractors gram

\ Area Cl C 2 No . in

in Ft z Appendix

Southeast E Voids Above Window, 12 Yes Yes Yes

Bedroom Missing Insulation,

Shrinkage or Fissures

on Both Sides of Window

Ceiling Cold Pattern at Wall- Yes No Yes

Ceiling Joint

Indicating Uninsulated

Eave Vent , - or Air Penetration

Under Insulation

Yes Yes Yes

S Miss ing Foam

,

Shrinkage, or Fissures

Over the Entire Wall

30 Yes No N o 7-4

Heat Loss at Both

Corners of Wall-Wall

Joints and Also at

Wall-Floor Joint

Yes Yes No

Southwes

S Missing Foam, 15 Yes No No 7-5

Bedroom Shrinkage or Fissures,

Over the Entire Wall

Vo ids at Lower E

Corner

2 Yes No Yes

Heat Loss at Both

Corners of Wall-Wall

Joints

Yes Yes No

W 1 Partial Bay Cavity

and Voids on Top at

S of Window

9 Yes No Yes

Some Voids on N of,

and Below Window

8 Yes No No

Heat Loss at SW Corner Yes Yes No 7-6

of Wall-Wall and WallFloor Joints

B - 3 9
Table Vila. Summary of Defects Observed in Colorado Springs

House #3 (Cont'd)

Description of Defective Observed by ThermoDefects Wall NBS Contractors gram

Area Cl C2 No. in

2 in Ft Appendix

Ceiling Cold Pattern at WallCeiling Joint Indicating Uninsulated Eave

Vent or Air Penetration

Under Insulation

Yes Yes Yes

Total Wall

Insulat ion

Given in Ft

Area of

^o id s Detected

111 111 24 52

Basement W Small Void at S Corner 2 Yes No Yes

Family

Room

Missing Insulation on

Both Sides of Windows

6 Yes Yes Yes

N 1 Bay Cavity at W

Corner

3 Yes No Yes

Bathroom E No Insulation on the

Entire Wall

5 Yes No Yes

Bedroom E Voids Above Window 2 Yes Yes Yes

Total Wall Area of 18 18 8 18

Insulation Voids Detected

Given in Ft ^ ( bas ement

)

B -40

Room & ^Orientation
Table Vila. Summary of Defects Observed in Colorado Springs

House #3 (Cont'd)

Room & Description of Defective Observed by ThermoOrientation Def ect s Wal

1

NBS Contractors g r am

Area Cl C 2 No . in

in Ft 2 Appendix

Southeast E Voids Above Window, 12 Yes Yes Yes

B e dr oom Missing Insulation,

Shrinkage or Fissures

on Both Sides of Window

Ceiling Cold Pattern at Wall- Yes No Yes

Ceil ing J o int

Indicating Uninsulated

Eave Vent ,- or Air Penetration

Under Insulation

Yes Yes Yes

S Miss ing Foam

,

Shrinkage, or Fissures

Over the Entire Wall

30 Yes No No 7-4

Heat Loss at Both

Corners of Wall-Wall

Joints and Also at

Wall-Floor Joint

Yes Yes No

Southwe s t S Missing Foam, 15 Yes No No 7-5

B e dr o om Shrinkage or Fissures,

Over the Entire Wall

Voids at Lower E

Corner

2 Yes No Yes

Heat Loss at Both

Corners of Wall-Wall

Joints

Yes Yes No

W 1 Partial Bay Cavity

and Voids on Top at

S of Window

9 Yes No -Yes

Some Voids on N of,

and Below Window

8 Yes No No

Heat Loss at SW Corner Yes Yes No 7-6

of Wall-Wall and WallFloor Joints

B-3 9
Thermal Anomalies Observed in Colorado Springs House #3

7-1

Defective ceiling at W of

living room (by NB S

)

7-2

Defective ceiling as shown in

7-1 (by contractor C2)

7-3

Air leakage at corner of

garage on E side (by NBS)

7-5

Shrinkage of foam insulation

on S wall of SW bedroom

(by NBS)

7-4

Shrinkage of foam insulation

on S wall of SE bedroom

(by NBS)

7-6

Warm brick foundation on W

side indicating by-pass

heat loss (by NBS)

B-42
I

VIII. Colorado Springs House #4

This is a single story, approximately 70 years old residence

whose interior dimensions are 34 ft. in length, 18 ft. in width,

8 ft. in wall height; located in Colorado Springs, CO. There are

totally 5 rooms as living space with an attic, an unheated

4>orch, and a crawl space. Its exterior construction consists of

\ frame sidings and an asphalt shingle roof.

Prior to, the implementation of the weather izat ion program, this

house had no insulation. An insulation contractor was instructed

to insulate the upper walls and ceiling of this dwelling with

cellulose, lower walls with UF foam, and the crawl space with

fiberglass batts. After retrofitted options were completed, this

dwelling was inspected by NB S personnel and IR contractors Cl,

and C2. Figure VIII is a sketch of voids and locations of heat

loss obtained from video tapes by NBS, and from thermograms and

documents by IR contractors.

In general, the insulation work to the exterior walls of this

house was considered to be quite poor as voids above most of the

windows and doors, and uninsulated bay cavities were observed

along the windows and at wall-to-wall joints. Furthermore, the UF

foam in the lower part of the living room walls exhibited

shrinkage, or the original insulation work was poorly done that

it never reached the bottom of the cellulose insulation.

Thermographic inspection by NBS was carried out for both interior

and exterior of this house, in two consecutive winters.

Therefore, the results from both inspections would give a more

accurate estimation. The exterior inspection revealed the

uninsulated bay cavities in south wall of kitchen, which were not

detected from the interior inspection due to the obstruction by

the cabinets. Moreover, NBS also observed some warm air leaking

down into the uninsulated crawl space from the exterior

inspect ions

.

Both contractors Cl, and C2 employed HRIS to inspect this

dwelling and they did not provide enough hard-copy documentations

by producing 4 and 2 thermograms, respectively. Neither did they

contact NEIG for areas to be inspected. They identified the

regions of missing insulation between the UF foam and the

cellulose, and other areas of thermal deficiencies. However, they

failed to observe some locations of heat loss, and detected

between 50 to 80 percent of the total defective wall areas.

Besides that, contractor Cl did not follow instructions to submit

documentation sheets, given by NEIG, of thermal anomalies as he

only included colored thermograms showing the defects of the

living room. Contractor C2 submitted thermograms with poor

qualities, thus increased the uncertainties on analysis.

B -43
A detailed description of defects observed by NBS as well as IR

contractors is summarized in table Villa. Besides the total

defective wall area in ft found by each inspection, table Villa

also includes the defective wall areas in ft z of each room of the

house, analyzed from available video tapes, thermograms, and

sketches. The total estimates of void areas is approximately 124

£ which represents about 21% of the gross wall area. Table

VUIb presents the environmental conditions documented by each IR

contractor. Thermograms 8-1 to 8-6 are some examples to

demonstrate locations of heat loss anomalies, as they are

referred to the descriptions in table Villa. The colored

thermograms submitted by contractor Cl were not included due to

the high cost of reproduction.

B-44
Table Villa. Summary of Defects Observed in Colorado Springs

House #4

Room & Or ientat ion

Description of

Defects

Defective

Wall

Observed by

NBS Contractors

Thermogram

Area Cl C 2 No . in

in Ft z Append ix

L iv ing N 1 Bay Cavity at W 15 Yes Yes Yes 8-1

Room Corner and a Half Bay

Cavity on E of Window

8-2

Missing Foam at Upper

Part of the Bottom

Portion of the Entire

Wall

16 Yes Yes Yes

-

Small Void at Top 2 Yes No Yes 8-3

Air Leakage at E

Corner

Yes No Yes

E Voids Above N Window,

Above and on E of

Front Door

8 Yes Yes Yes

Missing Insulation in

2 Upper Bay Cavities

At S Corner

10 Yes Yes Yes

Din ing S 1 Bay Cavity at W 12 Yes No Yes

Room Corner and Voids

Above Window

Kit chen S Voids Above Window

and Above Cabinet

4 Yes Yes Yes

Partial Bay Cavities

at Edges of Window,

and on W of Window

15 Yes No Yes 8-4

W Small Voids Above

Side Door and Above

W indow

4 Yes No Yes 8-5

Air Leakage Around

Side Door

Yes No No

Bedroom W Voids Around Electric 4 Yes Yes Yes

Outlet on S

B-45
Table Villa. Summary of Defects Observed in Colorado Springs

House #4 (cont'd)

Room & Description of

Drientation Defects

Defective Observed by ThermoWall NBS Contractors gram

Area

in Ft 2

Cl C 2 No . in

Append ix

Missing Insulation on

S of Window

6 Yes No Yes

Air Leakage at Lower

N Corner

Yes No No

N 1 Bay Cavity at W

Corner

10 Yes No Yes OO i O'

Partial Voids Above

Window

4 Yes No Yes

Voids Along Both Sides

of Window

6 Yes No No

Bathroom N Voids Above and Along

E Side of Window, and

on Lower E of Window

8 Yes Yes No

Total Wall Area of 124 124 66 110

Insulation Voids Detected

Given in Ft

B-46
Table VUIb Environmental Conditions During Inspections of

Colorado Springs House #4

Contractors

Cl C 2

Date 3-10-81 3-16-81

Time 7:30- 6:15 - 9:30 pm 7 : 20 pm

Weather clear sky & partly cloudy

Condition calm wind with intermitten

s 1 ight breeze

Outside

T emp er a t ur e

3 3 °F 54°F

Inside

Temperature

8 1 °F 7 6 °F

Re 1 a t iv e Humid ity

below 20% 31%

W ind Speed (MPH ) calm 0-3

Wind Direction W
Thermal Anomalies Observed in Colorado Springs House #4

8-1

Missing insulation in upper

wall, shrinkage of foam in

lower wall on NW of living

room (by NBS)

8-2

Defects in N wall of living

room as shown in 8-1 (by

contractor C2)

8-3

Shrinkage of foam in lower

wall and small void above

on NE of living room ( NB S

)

8-4

Uninsulated bay cavities on

S of kitchen shown in exterior

thermogram (by NBS)

8-5

Defective areas on W side

shown in exterior thermogram

(by NBS)

8-6

Missing insulation on N wall

of bedroom (by NBS)

B -48
IX. Minneapol is-St . Paul House #1

This is a two-story residence located in M i nn e a p o 1 i

s - S t . Paul,

MN. There are totally 5 and 4 rooms as living space on the first

and second floors, respectively, with an attic and an unheated

porch

.

Prior to the implementation of the weather izat ion program, this

house had no insulation. An insulation contractor was instructed

to insulate the sidewalls and the attic of this dwelling with

cellulose. After retrofitted options were completed, this

dwelling was inspected by NBS personnel and IR contractors Ml,

M2, M3, and M4. Figure IX is a sketch of voids and location of

heat losses obtained from video tapes by NBS, thermograms and

documents by IR contractors.

In general, the insulation work in the wall areas of this house

was considered to be fair except the completely uninsulated east

wall of the kitchen, and some voids around the windows and at

wall-to-wall joints. However, the insulation work in the attic

was not too good as defective pitched ceilings were observed.

Furthermore, both the bathroom and the kitchen on the first floor

were found to have cold air leaking from their ceilings. Other

locations of thermal anomalies included air penetration into the

partition walls in the north wall of the west bedroom on the

first floor and in the east wall of the living room on the second

floor.

Thermographic inspection by NBS was carried out for both interior

and exterior of this dwelling and observed most defects except

the partition wall in the west bedroom on the first floor.

Contractors Ml, M2, and M3 employed HRIS to observe defects in

this dwelling by producing thermograms and visual photographs of

identical locations. Both contractor Ml and M2 failed to

recognize the uninsulated east wall of the kitchen. Even though

they provided 19 and 18 thermograms, respectively, they only

identified between 20 to 30 percent of the total defective wall

areas. Contractor Ml inspected this house with two different

pieces of equipment ( a raster scanner and a HRIS with data on

video tapes) and submitted hard-copy photographs of the results

from both systems. However, the quality of the hard copies made

from the video tapes was not good enough to identify locations of

heat loss, only could be used as supporting materials. This

contractor also stated that video tapes from the inspection were

available for analysis. However, he still missed a lot of

uninsulated areas. Neither did contractors M2 and M3 submitted

the documentation sheets supplied by NEIG, but their reports had

description of defect locations and comments to support their

findings. Contractor M3 provided 18 thermograms and was the only

contractor who identified the uninsulated east wall in the

kitchen. Contractor M4 who used the LRIS to inspect this dwelling

seemed to have trouble to locate thermal defects of this house.

Although this contractor provided 10 thermograms he observed less

than 15% of the total defective wall areas. The qualities of the

thermograms produced by the LRIS are very poor in contrast, thus

B-49
makes it difficult to perform analysis.

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

contractors is summarized in table IXa. According to NEIG, all IR

contractors were supposed to contract NEIG prior to performing IR

inspections to verify areas to be inspected. However, contractors

M2 and M4 failed to follow this particular instruction. This

might be one of the reasons that they did not recognize a lot of

thermal deficiencies. Besides the total defective wall area in

ft found by each inspection, table IXa also includes the

defective wall areas in ft^ of each room of the house, analyzed

from video tapes, available thermograms and documentations. The

total estimates of void areas is approximately 157 ft . Table IXb

presents the environmental condi tions documented by each IR

contractor. Thermograms 9-1 to 9-16 are some examples to

demonstrate locations of heat loss anomalies, as they are

referred to the descriptions in table IXa.

B - 5 0
Table IXa. Summary of Defects Observed in Minneapolis

St. Paul House #1

Room & Description of

Orientation Defects

Defective Observed by

Wall NBS Contractors

Area Ml M2 M3 M4

in Ft 2

First Floor : Living N Small Void Under

Room Ceiling

E Small Void Above N

Window and Heavy

Infiltration at NE

Corner

S Small Void Above

Front Door to Porch

( Excluded

)

Southwest S Missing Insulation

Bedroom Below Windows & Area

Between Windows

SW Void Above W Window

at SW Corner

1 Partial Bay Cavity

and Air Leakage at SW

Corner

West

B edr oom

W Void Above Window

Air Leakage From

Ceil ing

N Some Air Penetration

in Partition Wall at

NE Corner

Bathroom W Voids Above Window & Along N Side Half Way

Down

Some Defects in Ceiling

Insulation and Air

Leakage From Ceiling

Kitchen N Air Penetration From

Floor Under Cabinet

Yes Yes Yes No No

Yes No No Yes No

(2) Yes Yes Yes Yes No

8 Ye s No No No No

2 Yes No No Yes Yes

8 Yes No Yes No No

5 Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Yes No Yes Yes No

No No No Yes No

4 Yes No No Yes No

Yes No Yes Yes No

Yes No Yes No No

Thermog r am

No . in

Appendix

9-1

9-2

9-3

9-4

B - 5 1
Table IXa. Summary of Defects Observed in MinneapolisSt. Paul House #1 (Cont'd)

Room & OrientationDescription of

Defects

Defective

Wall

Area

in F t ^

Observed by

NB S Contractors

Ml M2 M3 M4

Thermo

gram

No . in

Ap p end

E Missing Insulation in 90 Yes No No Yes No

the Entire Wall With

Air Infiltration Along

Side Door and Window

9-5

9-6

9-7

Large Area of Yes No Yes Yes No

Uninsulated Ceiling

Second Floor :

L iv ing

Room

E Some Air Leakage at

Corner of Stairwell

Yes No No No No

S 1 Partial Bay Cavity 5 Yes Yes No Yes Yes 9-8

at SE Corner

Small Voids Above 5 Yes Yes No Yes No

Window and 1 Partial

Bay Cavity on W of

Window

SW Small Void at Corner 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes No

W Void at Top Under 5 Pitched Ceiling and

Also Defective Ceiling

NW Missing Insulation and 4

Air Infiltration at

Ceiling-Wall Joint

West W Void Above Window 2

Bedroom

Missing Insulation at

Pitched Ceiling

Yes Yes Yes Yes No 9-9

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Bathroom NW Air Infiltration From Yes Yes Yes No No

Ceiling

N Voids Above Window & 6 Yes Yes Yes No No 9-10

along Both Sides of

Window

B - 5 2
Table IXa. Summary of Defects Observed in MinneapolisSt. Paul House #1 (Cont'd)

Room & Description of Defective Observed by Therm oOrientation Defects Wall NBS Contractors gr am

Area Ml M2 M3 M4 No . in

in Ft 2 Append ix

Kitchen NW Void in Lower Portion

of Corner

8 Ye s No Yes Yes Yes 9-11

9-12

9-13

NE Defective Pitched

Ceil ing

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 9-14

9-15

E Air Infiltration From

Pitched Ceilings

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Total Wall Area of

Insulation Voids Detected

Given in Ft

157 157 36 42 134 21

Table IXb. Environmental Conditions During Inspections of

Minneapolis - St. Paul House #1

Ml

Contractors

M2 M3 M4

Date 3-19-81 3-2-81 3 -11-81 3-3-81

Time 8 : 31-

9:30 pm

11:05 am12:20 pm8 : 18-

9:30 am

11:30 am1:30 pm

Weather

Condit ion

clear clear clear partly

clear

Outside

Temperature

3 4°F 2 5 °F 34°F 28°F

Inside

Temperature

7 0°F 7 7 °F 6 7 °F 6 8 °F

Relat ive

Humidity

62% 71% 62% 30%

Wind Speed(MPH) 2 calm 2-3 10-12

Wind Direction N NW S

B-53
Thermal Anomalies Observed in Minneapo 1 is-S t . Paul House #1

9-1 9-2 9-3

Partial bay cavity at Partial bay cavity at area under cabinet

SW corner of SW bedroom SW corner shown in 9-1 N of kitchen on 1st

on 1st floor (contr .M2) (by contractor M2) floor (by contr .M2)

9-4

Air penetration from

floor under cabinet, N

of kitchen on 1st floor

(by contractor M2)

E wall of kitchen

on first floor (by

contractor M2

9-6

Uninsulated E wall

of kitchen on first

floor (by contr. M3)

9-7

Void areas above window

in E wall of kitchen on

1st floor (by contr. M2)

9-8 9-9

Uninsulated bay cavity Unisulated bay

and voids above window cavities and deat SE corner of living fective pitched

room on 2nd floor (by ceiling at SW

contractor Ml) corner of living

room on 2nd floor

(contr. Ml)

B - 5 4
Thermal Anomalies Observed in Minneapol is-St . Paul House #1

9-10 9-11

Voids above window and defective

pitched ceiling in N wall of

bathroom on 2nd floor (by NBS)

N wall (with junction box)

of kitchen on 2nd floor

(by contractor M3)

9-12

Cold area of junction box

in 9-11, shown in interior

thermogram (contractor M3)

9-13

Cold area of junction box in

9-11, shown in ext. thermogram

(by NBS)

9-14

Uninsulated bay cavity in

pitched ceiling at NE corner

of kitchen on 2nd floor

(by contractor M2)

9-13

Uninsulated bay cavity in

pitched ceiling at NE corner

of kitchen on 2nd floor

(by contractor M2)

B-55
X. Minneapolis-St. Paul House #2 ! This is a two-story residence located in Minneapolis-St. Paul,

MN. There are totally 7 rooms as living space on the second floor

with an attic. The first floor was not included as area of IR

inspection for the contractors, thus no comparison of results on

the first floor will be performed.

Prior to the implementation of the weather izat ion program, this

house had no insulation. An insulation contractor was instructed

to insulate the sidewalls and the attic of this dwelling with

cellulose. After retrofitted options were completed, this

dwelling was inspected by NBS personnel and IR contractors Ml,

M2, M3, and M4. Figure X is a sketch of voids and location of

heat losses obtained from video tapes by NBS, thermograms and

documents by IR contractors.

In general, the insulation work in the wall areas of this house

was considered to be fairly good except some voids above the

windows and doors, and slight air infiltration at some wall-towall and w a 1

1 - 1 o -c e i 1 ing joints. The insulation work in the attic

was also good with only a small area in the north bedroom ceiling

found to have non-uniform application of insulations.

Thermographic inspection by NBS was carried out for both interior

and exterior of this dwelling and observed most defects except

the the voids in the north wall of the north bedroom; and air

protection in the partition walls at north of kitchen and at east

of southeast bedroom. Furthermore, NBS included the inspection

of the first floor. Contractors Ml, M2, and M3 employed HRIS to

observe defects in this dwelling by producing thermograms and

visual photographs of identical locations. Both contractor Ml and

M2, who provided 8 and 5 thermograms, respectively, did not

inspect the north bedroom and failed to recognize the uninsulated

areas on the east exterior wall of the house. Contractor Ml

inspected this house with two different pieces of equipment (a

raster scanner and a HRIS with data on video tapes) and submitted

hard-copy photographs of the results from both systems. However,

the quality of the hard copies made from the video tapes was not

good enough to identify locations of heat loss, only could be

used as supporting materials. This contractor also stated that

video tapes from the inspection were available for analysis.

However, he still missed a lot of uninsulated areas. Neither did

contractors M2 and M3 submit the documentation sheets supplied by

NEIG, but their reports had description of defect locations and

comments to support their findings. Contractor M3 provided 11

thermograms and observed all the major defects of this house

except a small void on the southwest corner of the north bedroom

west wall. Contractor M4 used the LRIS to inspect this dwelling

by including 7 thermograms, and identified about 50% of the total

defective wall areas. The qualities of the thermograms produced

by the LRIS are very poor in contrast, thus makes it difficult to

perform analysis.

B - 5 6
A detailed description of defects observed by NBS as well as IR

contractors is summarized in table Xa. According to NEIG, all IR

contractors were supposed to contract NEIG prior to performing IR

inspections to verify areas to be inspected. However, contractors

M2 and M4 failed to follow this particular instruction. This

.might be one of the reasons that they did not recognize a lot of

thermal deficiencies. Besides the total defective wall area in

f t ^ found by each inspection, table Xa also includes the

defective wall areas in ft^ of each room of the house, analyzed

from video tapes, available thermograms, and documentations. The

total estimates of void areas is approximately 45 ft^. Table Xb

presents the environmental conditions documented by each IR

contractor. Thermograms 10-1 to 10-9 are some examples to

demonstrate locations of heat loss anomalies, as they are

referred to the descriptions in table Xa.

B - 5 7
Table Xa . Summary of Defects Observed in MinneapolisSt. Paul House #2

Room & Orientation

Description of

Defects

Defective Observed by

Wall NBS Contractors

Area Ml M2 M3 M4

in Ft 2

Thermogram

No . in

Append ix

Entrance E Small Void at Top of

Stairwell

2 Yes No No Yes No

Southeast

Bedroom

E Air Penetration at

Middle of Partition

Wall

No No Yes No Yes

S Voids at Top of SE

Corner & Above Small

Door

8 Yes No No Yes No

'

Southwes

Bedroom

S Missing Insulation at

Top of SE Corner and

Above Both Windows

10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

SW Air Leakage at WallWall JointYes No No Yes No

W Void Above Window 10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 10-1

L iv ing

Room

W Small Void at Top of

2nd Bay Cavity From

SW Corner

2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Voids Above Both

W indows

6 Yes Yes Yes Yes No 10-2

NW Air Leakage at WallCeiling and Wall-Wall

Joints

Yes No No Yes No 10-3

10-4

Kitchen N Air Penetration at

Top of NW Corner on

Par t it ion Wall

No Yes Yes Yes Yes 10-5

10-6

10-7

North

Bedroom

W Small Void at Top of

SW Corner

1 Yes No No No Yes

N Small Voids Above W

Corner, and Along W

Side of Window

3 No No No Yes No 10-8

10-9

Ceiling Non-Uniform Applica- No No No Yes No

tion of Insulation

B-58
Table Xa . Summary of Defects Observed in MinneapolisSt. Paul House #2 (Cont'd)

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

Area

in Ft 2

Ml M2 M3 M4 No . in

Append ix

Hallway E Void Above Rear Door

on N Side

1 Yes No No Yes No

Bathroom E Small Void Along N

Side of Window and

Air Infiltration at

Ceiling-Wall Joint

2 Yes No No No No

East

Bedroom

1

E Air Infiltration Along

S Side of Window and

at Ceiling-Wall and

Wall-Wall Joints

Yes No No No Yes

Total Wall Area of 45 42 28 30 42 23

Insulation Voids Detected

Given in Ft

i

i

!

B-5 9
Table Xb Environmental Conditions During Inspections of

Minneapolis - St. Paul House #2

i

Contractors

4- Ml M2 M3 M4

Da t e 3-19-81 3-19-81 3-10-81 3-3-81

T ime 10:13- 8 : 00- 7 : 29- 10:15-

11:00 pm 9:15 pm 8:25 pm 11:15

Weather clear partly clear partly

Condition cloudy clear

Outside 3 2 °F 34°F 33 °F 2 5 °F

T emp er a t ur e Inside 7 2 °F 7 2 °F 7 3 °F 7 4°F

T emp er a t ur e

Re 1 a t iv e 61% 62% 65% 30%

Humidity

Wind Speed(MPH) 4 5-8 0-1 8-10

Wind Direct ion N NNW NW S

B-60
Thermal Anomalies Observed in M inne ap o 1 i

s -S t . Paul House #2

10-1 10-2

Interior thermogram

of voids above window

in W wall of SW

bedroom (by contr.Ml)

Exterior thermogram

exhibits defects on

W wall of living room

SW bedroom (by NBS)

10-3

NW corner of 1 iv ing room

with voids above window

at W and warm areas at

N partition wall from

stove behind (by NBS)

10-4

Exterior thermogram of

10-3, warm areas above

window and at corner

(by NBS)

10-5

N part it ion wal

1

of kitchen (by

contractor M3

)

10-6

Air penetration in N

partition of kitchen

(by contractor M3)

10-7

Air penetration in N

partition wall of

kitchen (by contr .M2)

10-8

N wall of N bedroom

(by contractor M3)

10-9

Defects in N wall

of N b e d r o om (by

contractor M3

)

B-61
XI. M inn ea p o I i

s -S t . Paul House #3

This is a single-story residence located in M inne a po 1 i

s - S t . Paul,

MN. There are totally 7 rooms as living space with an attic.

Prior to the implementation of the weather izat ion program, this

house had no insulation and contained only 4 rooms. An

insulation contractor was instructed to insulate the sidewalls

and the attic of this dwelling (of 4 rooms) with cellulose. After

retrofitted options were completed, a construction of three rooms

was added to this home. Afterward, this house was inspected by

NBS personnel and IR contractors Ml, M2, M3, and M4. Figure XI is

a sketch of voids and location of heat losses obtained from video

tapes by NBS, thermograms and documents by IR contractors. Since

the addition of the house was not retrofitted according to the

weatherization plan they will not be included in the IR

inspect ions .

In general, the insulation work in the wall areas of this house

was considered to be fairly poor as a lot of voids above windows

and uninsulated bay cavities were observed all over the house.

However, the insulation work in the attic seemed to be good

except some leakage at the w a 1 1 - 1 o - c e i 1 i ng and wall-to-wall

joints.

Thermographic inspection by NBS was carried out for both interior

and exterior of this dwelling and observed all major defects.

Both contractors Ml and M2 employed HRIS to inspect this house

but failed to observe the thermal anomalies. Contractors Ml

reported no defects were found even though he used two different

pieces of equipment (a raster scanner and a HRIS with data on

video tapes) for inspection. This contractor also stated that

video tapes from the inspection were available for analysis but

no hard copies were included. Contractor M2 only located the

small void at top of the front door by submitting only 3

thermograms. Contractor M3, who also used HRIS for inspection,

provided 13 thermograms and visual photographs of identical

locations. This contractor observed most thermal defects of this

dwelling except the east side of the house and a small void on

the west of the northwest corner of the living room. Although

contractor M3 did not submit the documentation sheets supplied by

NEIG, but his report had description of defect locations and

comments to support their findings. Contractor M4 who used the

LRIS to inspect this dwelling seemed to have trouble in the floor

plan such that the sketch was a different floor plan provided by

NEIG. This contractor documented that he only encountered two

small voids in the walls of the southwest bedroom by including

two thermograms. The qualities of the thermograms produced by the

LRIS are very poor in contrast, thus makes it difficult to

perform analysis.

B - 6 2
A detailed description of defects observed by NBS as well as IR

contractors is summarized in table XIa. According to NEIG, all IR

contractors were supposed to contract NEIG prior to performing IR

inspections to verify areas to be inspected. However, contractors

M2 and M4 failed to follow this particular instruction. This

jinight be one of the reasons that they did not recognize a lot of

thermal deficiencies. 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 video tapes, available thermograms and documentations. The

total estimates of void areas is approximately 103 ft^. Table Xlb

presents the environmental conditions documented by each IR

contractor. Thermograms 11-1 to 11-9 are some examples to

demonstrate locations of heat loss anomalies, as they are

referred to the descriptions in table XIa.

B-6 3
Table XIa. Summary of Defects Observed in MinneapolisSt. Paul House #3

Room & Orientat ion

Description of

Defects

Defective Observed by

Wall NBS Contractors

Area Ml M2 M3 M4

in Ft 2

Thermog r am

No . in

App end ix

L iv ing W Void at Top and on N 5 Yes No Yes Yes No 11-1

Room Side of Front Door

Partial Void in Bay 1 8 Yes No No Yes No 11-2

Cavities Between Front

Door & Window, & Voids

Above Window

11-3

Heavy Infiltration

Underneath Front Door

Yes No Yes Yes No 11-4

Small Void at Top of

NW Corner and Air

Leakage at Wall-Wall

& Ceiling-Wall Joints

2 Yes No No No No

Bathroom E Missing Insulation at

Bottom of Entire Wall

and Small Voids at SE

Corner

12 Yes No No No No 11-5

Southea s t E Voids Above Window 5 Yes No No No No

B edr oom

Partial Bay Cavities 10 Yes No No Yes No 11-6

and Small Void at Top

at SE Corner

11-7

S Void Above Window and

on E of Window

8 Yes No No Yes No 11-8

Air Infiltration at Yes No No Yes No 11-9

Ceiling-Wall and WallWall Joints

Southwest S Partial Bay Cavity 30 Yes No No Yes No

Bedroom Along W Side of Window,

and Voids Above and on

Both Sides of Window

Small Void at Top of

SW Corner

2 Yes No No Yes Yes

W Small Void at SW

Corner

2 Yes No No Yes Yes

B-6 4
Table XIa. Summary of Defects Observed in MinneapolisSt. Paul House #3 (Cont'd)

Room & Description of Def e c t iv e Ob s erv ed by ThermoOrientation Defects Wall NBS Contractors g r am

Area Ml M2 M3 M4 No . in

in Ft 2 Append ix

Voids at NW Corner 14 Yes No No Yes No

Along S Side of Window,

and on S of Window

Total Wall Area of

Insulation Voids Detected

Given in Ft

103 103 0 5 89 4

Table Xlb. Environmental Conditions During Inspections of

Minneapolis - St. Paul House #3

Contractors

Ml M2 M3 M4

Date 3-19-81 3-2-81 3-10-81 3-3-81

Time 6 : 53- 9 : 30- 6 : 20- 9 : 30-

7:38 pm 10:25 am 7:12 pm 10:15 am

Weather clear clear clear partly

Cond it ion clear

Outside 3 5 °F 23 °F 3 0 °F 25°F

Temperature

Inside o o

7 5°F 6 9 °F 66°F

Temperature

Re 1 at iv e 61% 67% 71% 35%

Humidity

Wind Speed (MPH

)

6 calm 0-1 8-10

Wind Direction NW NW S

B-65
Thermal Anomalies Observed in Minneapo 1 is-S t . Paul House #3

11-1

Voids at top and on N

side of front door on

W of living room (by NBS)

11-2

W wall of living

room (by

contractor M3 )

11-3

Voids N of front door

on W of living room

(by contractor M3)

11-4

Air infiltration

under front door

(by contractor M2)

11-5

Missing insulation at

bottom of bathroom, E

wall (by NBS)

11-6

Voids in partial

bay cavities, E wall

of SE bedroom (by

contractor M3

)

11-7

SE corner of SE

bedroom (by

contractor M3

11-8

Defective areas in S wall of SE bedroom

(by contractor M3)

11-9

Defective area observed

at SE corner of SE

bedroom, as shown in

11-6, 11-8 (by NBS)

B-66
XII. Minneapol is-St . Paul House #4

This is a two-story residence located in Minneapol is-St. Paul,

MN. There are totally 4 rooms as living space on each of the

first and second floors, with an attic and an unheated porch.

jPrior to the implementation of the weather izat ion program, this

house had no insulation. An insulation contractor was instructed

to insulate the sidewalls and the attic of this dwelling with

cellulose. After retrofitted options were completed, this

dwelling was inspected by NB S personnel and IR contractors Ml,

M2, M3, and M4. Figure XII is a sketch of voids and location of

heat losses obtained from video tapes by NBS, thermograms and

documents by IR contractors.

In general, the insulation work in the wall areas of this house

was considered to be fair except some voids above and around the

windows, and air infiltration at wall-to-wall and wall-to-ceiling

joints. The insulation work in the attic was also good as only

one uninsulated bay cavity was observed in the pitched ceiling.

Other locations of thermal anomalies included uninsulated wall

areas in south and west walls of both kitchens on each floor.

Thermographic inspection by NBS was carried out for both interior

and exterior of this dwelling and observed all major defects

except the the small void above front door in the north wall of

living room. Since this wall and the east wall of the north

bedroom are the interior walls of the unheated porch, they will

be excluded from the calculation of defective wall areas.

Contractors Ml, M2, and M3 employed HRIS to observe defects in

this dwelling by producing thermograms and visual photographs of

identical locations. Both contractor Ml and M2, who submitted 8

and 7 thermograms, respectively, failed to recognize a lot of the

uninsulated wall areas as they only identified between 25 to 50

percent of the total defective wall areas. Contractor Ml

inspected this house with two different pieces of equipment (a

raster scanner and a HRIS with data on video tapes) and submitted

hard-copy photographs of the results from both systems. However,

the quality of the har • copies made from the video camera was not

good enough to ident . locations of heat loss, only could be

used as supporting ma rials. This contractor also stated that

video tapes from the nspection were available for analysis.

However, he still mist d a lot of uninsulated areas. Neither did

contractors M2 anc M3 submitted the documentation sheets supplied

by NEIG, but their reports had description of defect locations

and comments to support their findings. Contractor M3 provided 18

thermograms and identified about 80% of the defective wall areas.

Contractor M4 who used the LRIS to inspect this dwelling seemed

to have trouble to locate thermal defects of this house. This

contractor provided 7 thermograms and observed only 15% of the

total defective wall areas. The qualities of the thermograms

produced by the LRIS are very poor in contrast, thus makes it

difficult to perform analysis.

B-6 7
A detailed description of defects observed by NBS as well as IR

contractors is summarized in table Xlla. According to NEIG, all

IR contractors were supposed to contract NEIG prior to performing

IR inspections to verify areas to be inspected. However,

contractors M2 and M 4 failed to follow this particular

instruction. This might be one of the reasons that they did not

/recognize a lot of thermal deficiencies. Besides the total

defective wall area in f t ^ found by each in s p ection, table Xlla

also includes the defective wall areas in f t ^ of each room of the

house, analyzed from video tapes, available thermograms and

documentations. The total estimates of void areas is

approximately 69 ft . Table Xllb presents the environmental

conditions documented by each IR contractor. Thermograms 12-1 to

12-7 are some examples to demonstrate locations of heat loss

anomalies, as they are referred to the descriptions in table

Xlla .

B - 6 8
Table Xlla. Summary of Dei t . . Observed in MinneapolisSt. Paul House i/ 4

Room & Description of Def ect ive Observed by Therm oOr ientat ion Defects Wall NBS Contractors g r am

Area Ml M2 M3 M4 No . in

in Ft 2 Append ix

First Floor :

L iv ing N Void Above Front Door (3) No No Yes Yes No

Room to Porch (Excluded)

E Void Above N Corner 2 Yes No Yes Yes Yes

of S Window

Air Infiltration at

Ceiling-Wall and WallWall Joints

Yes No No No No

Bathroom E Missing Insulation

Above and on N Side

of Window

8 Yes No No Yes No

Infiltration at WallWall Joints

Yes No N o No No

Kitchen E Void Above Window 3 Yes No Yes Yes No

and

Entrance Void at Top of NE 2 Yes No No Yes No

Hall Corner

Air Infiltration

Around Side Door, at

Ceiling-Wall and WallWall Joints

Yes No No No No

S Void and Infiltration 5 Yes No No Yes Yes

at Top of SE Corner

of Entrance Hall

Small Void at Top of 2 Yes No No No No

SW Corner of Stairway

Wall and Infiltration

at Wall-Wall Joints

W Small Voids at Top of

NW Corner of Stairway

Wall

2 Yes Yes No No No

Void Above Window 4 Yes Yes Yes Yes No

12-2

B-6 9
Table Xlla Summary of Defects Observed in MinneapolisSt. Paul House #4 (Cont'd)

Room & Or ientat ion

Description of

Defects

Defective Observed by

Wall NBS Contractors

Area Ml M2 M3 M4

in F t ^

Thermogram

No . in

Append i>

Missing Insulation in 16 Yes Yes No Yes No

Several Partial Bay

Cavities at Upper

Port ion of Wal

North

Bedroom

N Sma 11 Void on E

Side of Window and

Infiltration Around

Window

2nd Floor : North

Bedroom

N Small Void on E of

Window

2 Yes No No No No

2 Yes No No No Yes

NE Missing Insulation Yes No No Yes No

in 1 Bay Cavity in

Pitched Ceiling

Air Infiltration at Yes No No No No

Ceiling-Wall and WallWall Joints

Middle

B edr oom

E Small Void Above 2

Window & Infiltration

at Ceiling-Wall Joints

Yes No No No No

Bathroom E Voids & Infiltration 5 Yes No No Yes No

Above Window at NE

Corner & Below Window

Kitchen E Heavy Infiltration Yes No No Yes No

From Ceiling & Between

Walls

S Void Above Window 3 Yes Yes No Yes No

Void Above Door to 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Porch

Void Between Window 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

and Door

1 2-3

12-4

12-5

1 2-6

12-7

B - 7 0
I

Table Xlla. Summary of Defects Observed in MinneapolisS t . Paul House #4 (Cont'd)

Room & Description of Def e c t iv e Observed by ThermoOrientation Defects Wall NBS Contractor s gram

Area Ml M2 M3 M4 No . in

in Ft 2 Appendix

' Some Infiltration From

Pitched Ceiling

Yes Yes No No No

W Small Void at SW

Corner

2 Yes No No No No

Void

at NW

Above Window and

Corner

4 Yes Yes Yes No No

Total Wall

Insulat ion

Given in Ft

Area of

^oids Detected

69 69 34 18 53 11

Table Xllb . Environmental Conditions During Inspections of

Minneapolis - St. Paul House #4

Ml

Contractors

M2 M3 M4

Date 3-19-81 3-19-81 3-10-81 3-3-81

Time 9 : 25-

10:40 am

6 : 00-

7:30 pm

8:43

11:00 pm

1 : 40-

2:15 pm

Weather

Condi t ion

clear partly

cloudy

clear partly

clear

Outside

Temperature

40 °F 3 7 °F 3 1 °F 3 2 °F

Inside

Temperature

7 4°F 7 0°F 7 5°F 74°F

Re 1 a t iv e Humidity

66% 65% 58% 25%

Wind Speed(MPH) 1 -var iab 1

e

8-10 2-3 12-14

Wind Direction W NW NW S

B-7 1
Thermal Anomalies Observed in Minneapol i-St . Paul House #4

12-1

Voids above window at W and

insulation hung up at NW corner

of kitchen of 1st floor (NBS)

Same defective areas as observed in 12-1 (by

contractor Ml

12-3

Missing insulation in

bay cavity in pitched

ceiling at NE corner

upstairs (by NBS)

12-4 12-5

NE corner in N Missing insulation in

bedroom upstairs pitched ceiling as

(by contractor M3) observed in 12-3

(by contractor M3)

12-6

Voids above window and door and

in area with electric box on back

wall, observed on S wall of kitchen

on second floor (by NBS)

12-7

Defective areas observed on S

wall of kitchen on second floor

as in 12-6 (by contractor M2)

B - 7 2
XIII. Providence House #1

This is a two-story residence located in Providence, RI. There

are totally 6 and 3 rooms as living space on the first and second

floors, respectively, with an attic and an unheated porch.

Prior to the implementation of the weatherization program, this

house had no insulation. An insulation contractor was instructed

to insulate the exterior walls, except the dormer walls in the

upstairs bathroom, and the attic of this dwelling with cellulose.

After retrofitted options were completed, this dwelling was

inspected by NBS personnel and IR contractors Pi, P2, P3, and P4.

Figure XIII is a sketch of voids and location of heat losses

obtained from video tapes by NBS, thermograms and documents by IR

contractors

.

In general, the insulation work in the wall areas of this house

was considered to be fair except the uninsulated kneewalls in the

den on the second floor. Furthermore, some voids above and around

the windows, and at wall-to-wall and w a 1 1- 1 o-c e i 1 ing joints were

also observed. The insulation work in the attic was also fairly

good as only a small portion of the pitched ceilings above the

kneewalls exhibited defective. Other locations of thermal

anomalies in this dwelling included air penetration in the flat

ceilings above the stairway and the north side of living room on

the first floor, and air infiltration at the wall-to-wall and

w a 1 1 - 1 o- c e i 1 ing joints.

Thermographic inspection by NBS was carried out for both interior

and exterior of this dwelling and observed most defects except

the void areas above and along both sides of the window in the

east wall of living room. Since this wall and the north wall of

the entrance are the interior walls of the unheated porch, they

will be excluded from the calculation of the defective wall

areas. Contractor P2 employed HRIS to inspect this dwelling, but

he only submitted the documentation sheet with locations and

areas of defects without any thermograms. Thus the analysis was

only based on the contractor's descriptions. Moreover, this

contractor also reversed his decision on the west kneewall of the

den upstairs to state that this wall was insulated. According to

the inspections of another contractor as well as NBS, this

kneewall was uninsulated indeed. As a result, contractor P2 only

located less than 40% of the total defective wall areas.

Contractors PI, P3, and P4 used LRIS to observe defects of this

house by submitting different kinds of documentations. Contractor

Pl included 3 thermograms with visual photographs of identical

locations, and 7 sketches with descriptions of defects; but he

did not include the documentation sheet provided by NEIG. This

contractor also failed to observe the uninsulated kneewall on the

west side of the den on the second f loor.Theref ore, he identified

about 40% of the total defective wall areas. Contractor P3

provided the documentation sheets with detailed description of

each location of thermal deficiencies by producing 9 thermograms

to identify 90% of the total defective wall areas. Besides

B-73
identifying the uninsulated west kneewall in the den upstairs,

this contractor put in additional effort to scan the bathroom

also, even though this room was not excluded from the

inspections. It seemed that this contractor fully utilized his

equipment to inspect the house, even the qualities of the

thermograms produced by the LRIS are not too good in contrast, as

expected. Contractor PA did not submit any thermograms, only the

documentation sheet provided by NEIG by reporting a few locations

of thermal anomalies on the first floor and a small void under

the window in the north wall of the den on the second floor.

Again, the analysis was only based on this contractor's

interpretations, and only 15% of the total defective wall areas

was observed.

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

contractors is summarized in table Xllla. Besides the total

defective wall area in ft found by each inspection, table Xllla

also includes the defective wall areas in ft^ of each room of the

house, analyzed from video tapes, available thermograms and

documentations. The total estimates of void areas is o approximately 93 ft . Table Xlllb presents the environmental

conditions documented by each IR contractor. Thermograms / sketches 13-1 through 13-4 are some examples

locations of heat loss anomalies, as

descriptions in table Xllla.

they are

to demonstrate

referred to the

B - 7 4
XIII. Providence House #1

This is a two-story residence located in Providence, RI. There

are totally 6 and 3 rooms as living space on the first and second

floors, respectively, with an attic and an unheated porch.

I _Prior to the implementation of the weatherization program, this

house had no insulation. An insulation contractor was instructed

to insulate the exterior walls, except the dormer walls in the

upstairs bathroom, and the attic of this dwelling with cellulose.

After retrofitted options were completed, this dwelling was

inspected by NBS personnel and IR contractors Pi, P2, P3, and P4.

Figure XIII is a sketch of voids and location of heat losses

obtained from video tapes by NBS, thermograms and documents by IR

contractors

.

In general, the insulation work in the wall areas of this house

was considered to be fair except the uninsulated kneewalls in the

den on the second floor. Furthermore, some voids above and around

the windows, and at wall-to-wall and w a 1 1- 1 o-c e i 1 ing joints were

also observed. The insulation work in the attic was also fairly

good as only a small portion of the pitched ceilings above the

kneewalls exhibited defective. Other locations of thermal

anomalies in this dwelling included air penetration in the flat

ceilings above the stairway and the north side of living room on

the first floor, and air infiltration at the wall-to-wall and

w a 1

1 - 1 o- c e i 1 ing joints.

i Thermographic inspection by NBS was carried out for both interior

and exterior of this dwelling and observed most defects except

the void areas above and along both sides of the window in the

east wall of living room. Since this wall and the north wall of

the entrance are the interior walls of the unheated porch, they

will be excluded from the calculation of the defective wall

areas. Contractor P2 employed HRIS to inspect this dwelling, but

he only submitted the documentation sheet with locations and

areas of defects without any thermograms. Thus the analysis was

only based on the contractor's descriptions. Moreover, this

contractor also reversed his decision on the west kneewall of the

den upstairs to state that this wall was insulated. According to

the inspections of another contractor as well as NBS, this

kneewall was uninsulated indeed. As a result, contractor P2 only

located less than 40% of the total defective wall areas.

Contractors Pi, P3, and P4 used LRIS to observe defects of this

house by submitting different kinds of documentations. Contractor

Pi included 3 thermograms with visual photographs of identical

locations, and 7 sketches with descriptions of defects; but he

did not include the documentation sheet provided by NEIG. This

contractor also failed to observe the uninsulated kneewall on the

west side of the den on the second f loor.Theref ore, he identified

about 40% of the total defective wall areas. Contractor P3

provided the documentation sheets with detailed description of

each location of thermal deficiencies by producing 9 thermograms

to identify 90% of the total defective wall areas. Besides

B-7 3
identifying the uninsulated west knee wall in the den upstairs,

this contractor put in additional effort to scan the bathroom

also, even though this room was not excluded from the

inspections. It seemed that this contractor fully utilized his

equipment to inspect the house, even the qualities of the

thermograms produced by the LRIS are not too good in contrast, as

expected. Contractor P4 did not submit any thermograms, only the

documentation sheet provided by NEIG by reporting a few locations

of thermal anomalies on the first floor and a small void under

the window in the north wall of the den on the second floor.

Again, the analysis was only based on this contractor's

interpretations, and only 15% of the total defective wall areas

was observed.

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

contractors is summarized in table XI I la. Besides the total

defective wall area in ft found by each inspection, table XHIa

also includes the defective wall areas in ft z of each room of the

house, analyzed from video tapes, available thermograms and

documentations. The total estimates of void areas is

approximately 93 ft . Table XHIb presents the environmental

conditions documented by each IR contractor. Thermograms / sketches 13-1 through 13-4 are some examples

locations of heat loss anomalies, as

descriptions in table Xllla.

they are

to demonstrate

referred to the
Table Xllla. Summary of Defects Observed in Providence

House #1

Room & Description of Defective Observed by Therm oOrientation Defects Wall NBS Contractors gr am

Area PI P 2 P 3 P4 No . in

in Ft 2 Append ix

First Floor:

Dining E Missing Insulation in

Room Ceiling Above Middle

Window and Some

Infiltration Around

S Window

Southeast E Small Void at Upper

Bedroom

Kitchen

NE Corner

Air Infiltration at

Wall-Floor Joint and

at SE Corner

Voids Above Back Door

Voids Above Window

Missing Insulation in 5

Stairway to Basement

W Air Infiltration at

Floor-Wall Joint

Under Window and

Wall-Wall Joints at

Both Corners

Bathroom W Voids Above Window

at N

Voids and Air

Infiltration Under

W indow

West W Voids Above Both

Bedroom Windows

Small Void Along N

Side of N Window

1

5

6

2

L iv ing

Room

W Voids Above Window

at S

2

Yes No No No No

Yes No Yes Yes No

Yes No No No No

Yes No Yes Yes No

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 13-1

Yes No No No No

Yes No No No No

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes No 13-2

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 13-3

Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

B-7 5
Table XHIa Summary of Defects Observed in Providence

House #1 (Cont'd)

Room & Orientation

Description of Def ect ive Observed by ThermoDefects Wall NBS Contractors gram

Area PI P 2 P 3 P4 No . in in Ft 2 Appendii

NW Air Infiltration at

Corner

Yes No No No No

N Void in Ceiling Above

Middle Window and Air

Infiltration on E

Side of E Window

Yes Yes No No No 13-4

E Voids Above Window (3) No Yes Yes Yes No

Voids Along Both

Sides of Window

(2) No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Foyer N Voids Above Front

Door to Porch

(3) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Small Void at Upper

NE Corner

(1) Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Air Leakage Underneath

the Door

Yes No No No No

E Voids Above Window on

the E Side

4 Yes Yes Yes Yes No 13-5

Defective Ceiling and

Air Infiltration at

Floor-Wall Joint

Yes No No No No

Second Floor • Stairway E Missing Insulation in

Sloped Ceiling

No No Yes Yes No 13-6

Bedroom S Voids Under Sloped

Ceiling on Both Sides

of Window

5 Yes No Yes Yes No

Air Infiltration at

Wall-Wall and WallCeiling Joints

Yes No Yes Yes No

Bathroom

( dormer

)

All Exterior Walls

are Not Insulated

(80) Yes No No Yes No

B-7 6
Table XHIa Summary of Defects Observed in Providence

House #1 (Cont'd)

Room & OrientationDescription of

Defects

Defective Observed by

Wall NBS Contractors

> Area

in Ft 2

PI P 2 P 3 P4

Den W Small Void Inside

Closet

2 Yes No Yes No No

Defects Found in Both

Sloped & Flat Ceilings

Yes No No Yes No

Missing Insulation in

the Entire Knee Wall

32 Yes No No Yes No

'

N Voids Above Window 2 Yes No Yes No No

Voids Under Window 1 Yes No No Yes Yes

Small Voids at Both

Corners Under the

Pit ched Ceil ing

2 Yes No Yes No No

E Missing Insulation in

4 Bay Cavities

16 Yes Yes No Yes No

Defects Found in

Sloped Ceil ing

Yes No No No No

Total Wall Area of 93 93 37 37 82 13

Insulation Voids Detected

Given in Ft^

Thermogram

No . in

Append ix

5 - 7 7
Table XHIb Environmental Conditions During Inspections of

Providence House #1

Contractor s PI P 2 P 3 P4

Date 3-10-81 3-10-81 3-12-81 3-3-81

Time 9 : 10-

10:20 pm

7 : 30-

8:30 pm

8 : 05-

9:15 pm

6 : 58-

7:20 pm

Weather

Condition

cloudy , hum i dpartly

clearclear

clear clear

Outside

Temperature

3 4°F 3 9 °F 3 7 °F 3 2 °F

Inside

Temperature

6 6 °F 7 0°F 6 8°F 6 7 °F

Re 1 a t iv

Humidity

45% 39% 41% 40%

Wind Speed(MPH) 1 ight calm 9 10

Wind Direction W WSW NW
Thermal Anomalies Observed in Providence House #1

13-1

Voids above window on S wall

and air infiltration at SW

corner of kitchen on first

floor (by NB S

)

13-2

Voids and air infiltration

under window on W wall of

bathroom on first floor

(by NBS)

13-3

Voids over both windows and in

first half bay cavity to right

of N window on W wall of W

bedroom (by contractor Pi)

n

13-5

Voids above window on

E wall of stairway

(by contractor Pi)

13-4

Voids in ceiliing above middle

window on N wall of living

room on first floor (by NBS)

13-6

Missing insulation in ceiling

above stairway (by NBS)

B-79
XIV. Providence House #2

This is a two-story residence located in Providence, RI. There

are totally 3 and 4 rooms as living space on the first and second

floors, respectively, with an attic and an unheated porch used as the foyer with a closet.

Prior to the implementation of the weather izat ion program, this

house had no insulation. An insulation contractor was instructed

to insulate the

dwelling with

completed, this

contractors Pi,

and location of

thermograms and

exterior walls, and the attic stairway of this

cellulose. After retrofitted options were

dwelling was inspected by NBS personnel and IR

P2, P3, and P4. Figure XIV is a sketch of voids

heat losses obtained from video tapes by NBS,

documents by IR contractors.

Generally speaking, the insulation work in the wall areas of this

house was considered to be fairly poor as voids were observed

above every window and below some windows, and also at some

areas of wall-to-ceiling joints. Besides uninsulated areas above

the window on first floor, the north wall of stairway was found to

have unfilled cavities that continued up to the areas below the

second floor window. The insulation work in the attic was fairly

good as only a small portion of the ceilings on the west side

above the foyer and the bathroom exhibited defective. Other

locations of thermal anomalies in this dwelling included air

penetration at the w a 1

1 - 1 o- f 1 oor joints, and air infiltration at

the wall-to-wall and w a 1 1- 1 o -c e i 1 ing joints.

Thermographic inspection by NBS observed most defects of this

dwelling except some voids areas in the foyer. However, NBS did

indicated that the entire porch seemed to be uninsulated and the

contractors identified a lot of defects among them. Since the

porch is unheated, retrofitted insulation work might not be

included in this areas, even it is used as the foyer. Therefore,

the thermal deficiencies of the porch will be excluded from

calculations of total defective wall areas. As for the

contractors, all four of them seemed to inspect this house

thoroughly and located between 75% and 90% of the total defective

wall areas. Contractor P2 employed HRIS to inspect this dwelling,

but he only submitted the documentation sheet with locations and

areas of defects without any thermograms. Thus the analysis was

only based on the contractor's interpretations. It seemed that

this contractor did not inspect the north wall of the stairway at

all because he identified the rest of the thermal deficiencies of

this house without mentioning this wall.

Contractors Pi, P3, and P4 used LRIS to observe defects of this

house by submitting different kinds of documentations. Contractor

Pi included 3 thermograms with visual photographs of identical

locations, and 12 sketches with descriptions of defects; but he

did not include the documentation sheet provided by NEIG. This

contractor was the only one to indicate that the west wall of

living room had voids above the windows and a large area of

insufficient insulation on the north of windows. However, without

B-80
supporting hard-copy documentation or any corroboration by either

contractors or NBS, it is difficult to sustain this finding.

Therefore, no thermal anomalies was considered in this wall.

Contractor P3 provided the documentation sheets with detailed

description of each location of thermal deficiencies by producing

14 thermograms to support his findings. Although this contractor

jdid miss surveying some areas, it seemed that he fully utilized

his equipment to inspect the house, even the qualities of the

thermograms produced by the LRIS are not too good in contrast, as

expected. Contractor P4 did not submit any thermograms, only the

documentation sheet provided by NEIG by reporting locations of

thermal anomalies. Again, the analysis was only based on this

constractor's interpretations.

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

contractors is summarized in table XlVa. Besides the total

defective wall area in ft found by each inspection, table XlVa

also includes the defective wall areas in ft^ of each room of the

house, analyzed from

documentations. TheO approximately 184 ft.

conditions documented

sketches 14-1 through

locations of heat loss

video tapes, available thermograms and

total estimates of void areas is

Table XlVb presents the environmental

by each IR contractor. Thermograms / 14-9 are some examples

anomalies, as they are

to demonstrate

referred to the

descriptions in table XlVa.

B-8

1
Table XlVa. Summary of Defects

House #2

Observed in Prov idence

Room & Orientation

Description of Defective

Defects Wall

Area

in Ft 2

Observed by

NBS Contractors

PI P 2 P 3 P4

Thermogram

No . in

Appendii

First Floor:

Living

Room

S Voids Above Windows

& Leakage Along Both

Sides of Windows

6 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

SW Air Leakage at

Ceiling-Wall Joint

Yes Yes No No No

Foyer S Voids Above Window (3) No No Yes Yes No

W Voids Above Door and

on N of Door

(13) Yes No Yes Yes No

Air Leakage Through

C e i 1 ing-Wa 1 1 , WallWall, and Wall-Floor

Joints

Yes No No No No

N Voids Above Closet

Window and NE Upper

Corner

(3) Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Air Infiltration

Below Window and at

NW Wall-Wall Joint

Yes No No No No

Stairway N Voids in NW Corner

and Above Window in

Stairway

5 Yes Yes No Yes Yes 14-1

Horizontal Void Along

the Stairway About 3

ft. High

35 Yes Yes No Yes Yes 14-2

14-3 j

Kit chen N Air Leakage Around

Side Door

Yes No No No No

Small Voids Under

and Along W Side of

Window

3 Yes No Yes No No

NE Air Infiltration at

Wall-Wall & CeilingWall Joints

Yes No No No No

B - 8 2
Table XlVa. Summary of Defects Observed in Providence

House #2 (Cont'd)

Room & i)r ientat ion

Description of

Defects

Defective Observed by

Wall NBS Contractors

Area Pi P2 P3 P4

in Ft 2

Thermogram

No . in

Append ix

E Voids Above Window 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Voids Along N Side

of Window

3 Yes Yes No No No

Missing Insulation at

Upper Portion of 2

Bay Cavities at SE

Corner

4 Yes Yes Yes No Yes 14-4

Air Leakage From

Wall-Wall and WallCeiling Joints

Yes No No No No

Dining

Room

E Missing Insulation at

Top of Entire Wall;

Leakage at Wall-Wall

& Wall-Ceiling Joints

15 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 14-5

S Unfilled Bay Cavities

at Top of Entire Wall

20 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Air Leakage at WallWall and Ceiling-Wall

Joints

Yes No No No No

Second Floor

Hal lway W Void at Top Between

Partition Wall and

Exterior Wall

10 Yes No Yes No No

NW Air Leakage at Wall-

& Wall-Ceiling Joints

Yes No Yes No No

N Air Leakage Above and Yes No Yes No No

Along Both Sides of

Window

Voids Below Window 14-6

(Included in 1st

Floor Stairway

)

B-83
Table XlVa. Summary of Defects Observed in Providence

House #2 (Cont'd)

Room & Dr ientat ion

Descript ion of

Defects

Defective Observed by ThermoWall NBS Contractors gram

Area PI P 2 P3 P4 No . in

in Ft 2 Appendii

Northeast N Missing Insulation 24 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Bedroom Above & Below Window,

and at Top on Both

Sides of Window

Air Leakage at WallWall, Ceiling-Wall,

and Wall-Floor Joints

Yes No No No No

E Voids Above Window & 5 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

in Upper Portion of

2nd Bay Cavity on N

of Window

Small Void at Top on

S of Window

2 Yes Yes No No No

Air Leakage at WallWall and Ceiling-Wall

Joints

Yes Yes Yes No No

Southeast E Voids Above Window 4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 14-7

Bedroom and at Top on S Side

of Window

Voids at Top on N of

W indow

1 Yes No Yes Yes Yes

SE Air Leakage at Joints

(Double Studs Shown

Yes No No No No

on S Wall)

S Voids Above Window & at Top Between Windows

15 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Voids Below Window 5 Yes Yes Yes No Yes

Southwest S Voids Above Window 6 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 14- 8 Bedroom

Voids Below Window 6 Yes Yes Yes No No

SW Air Leakage at Corner Yes No Yes No No

W Voids Above Window 3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes IJ

B-84

1
Table XlVa Summary of Defects Observed in Providence

House #2 (Cont'd)

Room & Descript ion of Defect ive Ob s erved by Therm oOr ientat ion Defects Wall NBS Contractors gr am

Area PI P 2 P3 P4 No . in

in Ft 2 Append ix

Bathroom W Voids Above Window & at Top of the Entire

Wall

9 Yes No Yes Yes No

Air Penetration at

Wall-Floor joint

and in Partition Wall

Yes No Yes No No 14-9

Total Wall

Insulat ion

Given in Ft

Area of

^o ids Detected

184 184 161 139 151 153

Table XlVb. Environmental Conditions During Inspections

Providence House #2

o f

PI

Contractor s P 2 P3 P4

Date 3-5-81 3-10-81 3-11-81 3-5- 81

Time 8 : 30-

10:15 pm

8:40-

10:10 pm

8 : 20-

9:35 pm

8 : 00

8:30 pm

Weather

Condit ion

overcast clear partly

cloudy

cloudy

Outside

Temperature

3 9°F 37 °F 3 6 °F 36 °F

Inside

T emp er a tur e

6 8 °F 7 1 °F 6 8 °F 7 2°F

Re 1 a t iv e Humidity

5 2% 41% 48% 42%

Wind Speed(MPH) extremely

1 ight

calm 7 10

Wind Direct ion NW N

B-85
Thermal Anomalies Observed in Providence House #2

14-1

Defective ceiling and insulation

voids at NW corner of stairway

on first floor (by NB S

14-2

Horizontal void area along the

stairway and up to the second

floor on N wall of stairway (NBS)

/

/ 1

Vo\d Kv\osf iiVel^

doe Hro ^TnxwovNC) cVav^e

Apyro* area - !>0

14-3

Horizontal void observed on N

of stairway as shown in 14-2

(by contractor Pi)

ta°A Wo\l

~-Deor ^

“

1

14-4

Defective areas in the E wall and

warm area of the pipe along S of

window in the kitchen (by NBS)

14-5

Voids at upper parts of walls

observed in dining room on

1st floor (by contractor PI)
Thermal Anomalies Observed in Providence House #2

( con t . )

14-6

Voids below window as shown in 14-2 from

stairway up to second floor (by NBS)

g«V Vjg\\ S-eAWaU

Voidi

3b io>

radvortor z^

VerW\« ctv\oYna\^ \«s&4A*aY\

\y\ mov^-Hn av\d li W+ Or? a* insula^'® A

Void, ^orVtar ns^axhwq c««aVrodi<r>\

£>V4-V\\5 leaxVioyv ij> VYeedtd'^'O ax&orocta av\a\vja\$,

14-7

Thermal deficiencies observed in SE

bedroom on second floor (by contractor Pi)

14-8

Voids above window and

location of fireplace

chimney on S wall of SW

bedroom, 2nd floor (by NBS)

14-9

Air penetration at

wall-floor joint on W

of bathroom (by NBS)
XV. Providence House #3

This is a two-story residence located in Providence, RI. There

are totally 6 and 4 rooms as living space on the first and second

floors, respectively, with an attic, a basement, and an unheated

porch.

Prior to the implementation of the w e a t h e r i z a t ion program, this

house had no insulation. An insulation contractor was instructed

to insulate the exterior walls of this dwelling with UF foam.

After retrofitted options were completed, this dwelling was

inspected by NBS personnel and IR contractors Pi, P2, P3, and P4.

Figure XV is a sketch of voids and location of heat losses

obtained from video tapes by NBS, thermograms and documents by IR

contractors

In general, the insulation work of the first floor of this house

was considered to be fair except small voids above and around

some windows, and uninsulated partial bay cavities along some

windows and at wall-to-wall and joints were observed.

Furthermore, foam shrinkage or fissures were also existed.

However, the insulation work on the second floor was much worse

than the first floor as the upper halves of both the north and

south kneewalls were found to be uninsulated. Moreover, lack of

insulations were also observed in a lot of wall areas under the

ceiling on both east and west sides. The pitched ceiling and the

flat ceiling downstairs are having problems as cold air is

leaking in, although the contractors are not required to survey

the ceilings. Other locations of thermal anomalies in this

dwelling included some sealing problems at the corners of wallto-wall joints on the first floor with air infiltration.

Thermographic inspection by NBS was carried out for both interior

and exterior of this dwelling and observed all major defects

including the ceilings. The exterior scanning also revealed some

insulation in the upper part below grade of the basement walls.

The east wall of the music room is the interior walls of the

unheated porch, and it will be excluded from the calculation of

the defective wall areas. Contractor P2 employed HRIS to inspect

this dwelling, but he only submitted the documentation sheet with

locations and areas of defects without any thermograms. Thus the

analysis was only based on the contractor's interpretations.

However, according to this contractor's documentation, it seemed

that he inspect this house thoroughly as more than 90% of the

total defective wall areas was reported.

Contractors PI, P3, and P4 used LRIS to observe defects of this

house by submitting different kinds of documentations. Contractor

Pi included 1 thermograms with visual photographs of identical

locations, and 17 sketches with descriptions of defects; but he

did not include the documentation sheet provided by NEIG. The

sketches submitted by this contractor are very clear, but the

areas of defective walls was not estimated correctly. As a result, contractor Pi located about 80% of the total defective

wall areas. Contractor P3 who provided the documentation sheets

B-88
with detailed description of each location of thermal

deficiencies by producing 17 thermograms, also identified 80% of

the total defective wall areas. Although this contractor did miss

surveying the bathroom, south of kitchen, and east of living

room, it seemed that he fully utilized his equipment to inspect

the house, even the qualities of the thermograms produced by the

XRIS are not too good in contrast, as expected. Contractor P4 did

not submit any thermograms, only the documentation sheet provided

' by NEIG by reporting a few locations of thermal anomalies, and

both defective kneewalls on the second floor. Again, the analysis

was only based on this contractor's interpretations and 60% of

the total defective wall areas was observed.

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

contractors is summarized in table XVa. Besides the total

defective wall area in ft z found by each inspection, table XVa

also includes the defective wall areas in ft^ of each room of the

house, analyzed from video tapes, available thermograms and

The

2 documentations,

approximately 252 ft

conditions documented

sketches 15-1 through

locations of heat loss

total estimates of void areas is

. Table XVb presents the environmental

by each IR contractor. Thermograms / 15-10 are some examples to demonstrate

anomalies, as they are referred to the

descriptions in table XVa.
Table XVa. Summary of Defects Observed in Providence

House #3

Room & OrientationDescript ion of

Defects

Defective Observed by

Wall NBS Contractors

Area PI P2 P3 P4

in Ft 2

First Floor:

L iv ing N Voids Under Window 8 Yes Yes No No No

Room

Some Defects in Yes No No No No

Ceil ing and Air

Infiltration Along E

Side of Window -

E Some Voids in the 1st 5 Yes No Yes Yes Yes

2 Bay Cavities at N

and Air Leakage at NE

Wa 1 1-Wal 1 Joint

Small Voids Above All

3 Windows

6 Yes No No No No

Insulation Shrinkage

at the S 2 Bay

Cavities of Windows

6 Yes Yes Yes No No

Mu sic

Room

E Small Voids at Upper

N Corner

(1) Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Voids Above Front (3)

Door & on N Side of

Front Door with

Infiltration Underneath

Yes No No No No

Small Voids at Upper

S Corner of Front Door

(1) Yes No Yes Yes No

SE Shrinkage and Crack of

Insulation in 4 Bay

Cavities of Corner and

Also Sealing Problem

at Corner

Yes Yes No Yes No

S Small Void at Top of

W indow

1 Yes No Yes Yes No

Bathroom S Missing Insulation 8 Yes Yes No No No

Above & Along W Side

of Window

Thermogram

No . in Ap p endii

15-1

15-2

15-3

B - 9 0
Table XVa Summary of Defects Observed in Providence

House #3 (Cont'd)

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

Area PI P2 P3 P4 No . in

in Ft 2 Appendix

Small Voids Under

W indow

2 Yes No No No No

Kitchen S Missing Insulation at

Upper SE Corner and

Voids Above W Window

4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Some Shrinkage in the

Wall and Leakage at

Wall-Floor Joint

Yes No No No No

W Small Void Above

W indow

1 Yes No Yes No No

Stairway SW Small Voids at Corner

Above Both Side and

Back Doors

2 Yes Yes No No No

Den W Voids in 4 Upper & 2

Lower Portion of Bays,

and in 1 Partial Bay

Cavity on N Side of

W indow

10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

NW Sealing Problem at

Corner, and Leakage

at Wall-Wall, WallCeiling, and WallFloor Joints

Yes Yes No No No

N Small Void Under

Window

1 Yes No Yes No No

Dining

Room

N Voids in Upper W Bay

Cavity, Above Windows,

and Below Windows

8 Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Some Shrinkage in the

Wall

Yes No No No No

B-91

i
Table XVa Summary of Defects Observed in Providence

House #3 (Cont'd)

Room & Description of Defect ive Observed by ThermoOr ientat ion Defects Wall NBS Contractors gram

Area PI P2 P 3 P4 No . in

in Ft 2 Appendix

Second Floor:

Northeast

B edroom

N Missing Insulation in

the Upper Portion of

the Entire Wall

40 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 15-5

Problems Found in

Pitched Ceil ing

Yes No No No No

E Voids in Upper Portion

of Wall on N Side of

Window

4 Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Voids Above and Under

Window

4 Yes No Yes No No

Shrinkage or Missing

Insulation in 1st S

Bay Cavity

3 Yes No Yes Yes No

Southeast

Bedroom

E Missing Insulation at

Upper Portion of 1st

N Bay Cavity and Above

Window

8 Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Voids or Shrinkage at

Top of the S 5 Bay

Cavities

6 Yes Yes Yes No No 15-6

S Missing Insulation in

Upper Portion of 6

Bay Cavities

20 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Defective Pitched

Ceil ing

Yes No No No No

Southwest

B e dr o om

S Missing Insulation in

Upper Portion of 5

Bay Cavities & Above

the Window

15 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 15-7

Defective Pitched

Ceil ing

Yes No No No No

B - 9 2
Table XVa. Summary of Defects Observed in Providence

House #3 (Cont'd)

Room & Description of Def ec t ive Observed by ThermoOrientation Defects Wall NBS Contractors gram

Area PI P 2 P3 P4 No . in

in Ft 2 Appendix

Missing Insulation in 15 Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Upper Portion of Wall

Ins ide Closet

W Voids in 1st Bay

Cavity at SW Corner

5 Yes No Yes No No

Hallway W Voids in Upper Portion 8 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

of 1st Bay Cavities

at S and Above Window

Voids in Lower Portion 10 Yes No Yes Yes No

of 3 Bay Cavities at N

and Below Window

Shrinkage of Insulation Yes No No No No

and Air Leakage Along

S Side of Window, at

Ceiling-Wall and WallFloor Joints

Northwest W Missing Insulation at 5 Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Bedroom N Under Pitched Ceiling

Voids Above Window 2 Yes No Yes Yes No

N Missing Insulation in 45 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Upper Half of Knee

Wall Including the

Wall in the Closet

Defective Pitched Yes No No No No

Ceil ing

15-8

15-9

15-10

Total Wall Area of

Insulation Voids Detected

Given in Ft

252 252 204 226 203 157

B-93
Table XVb Environmental Conditions During Inspections of

Providence House #3

Contractors

PI P 2 P3 P4

Date 3-10-81 3-10-81 3-11-81 3-5-81

T ime 5 : 55-

7:40 pm

10 : SO11 : 3 0 pm

6:20-

7:50 pm

6:30-

7:36 pm

Weather

Condition

overcast clear partly

cloudy

cloudy

Outside

Temperature

43°F 3 0 °F 37 °F 33°F

Inside

Temperature

6 9 °F 6 7 °F 68°F 6 8°F

Re 1 a t iv e Humidity

53% 42% 45% 40%

Wind Speed(MPH) extremely

light

calm 8 10

Wind Direction NW N

B-94
Thermal Anomalies Observed in Providence House #3

15-1

Cold air leaking in the

ceiling on N of living

room (by NB S

)

^•3

15-2

Shrinkage and crack of

insulation in 4 bay cavities

and sealing problem at SE

corner of front door (by NBS)

Void ik uA cor tor dssLow

^Tnbu^\(.teVei UfcoWuft. aloove. ^ 4o

0^ uoivvidu) $Wt-iv\U<xx^, .

15-3

Voids and shrinkage observed

in S wall of bathroom

(by contractor Pi)

/

Voids |

sV\nnlto.^e os

^>Wnor\.

SVxnnVcc^e around r\ak4- erf

voindoui Wrvce result vnq m

Void. \44V^

15-4

Voids and shrinkage observed in W

wall of den (by contractor Pi)

B - 9 5
Thermal Anomalies Observed in Providence House #3 (cont.)

15-5

Missing insulaion

observed in NE bedroom on 2nd floor

(by contr. Pi)

15-6

Voids or shrinkage at top of 5 bay cavities at SE corner and also

defective pitched ceiling on S of

SE bedroom (by NBS)

15-8

KWiV. \i Y\^i\Oal |

Missing insulation in

upper portion of 5 bay

cavities and defective

pitched ceiling on S of

of SW bedroom (by NBS)

}hk£ Wo.U

Voids in upper portion

of 1st bay cavity at SW

corner and some shrinkage of insulation on W

wall of the 2nd floor

hallway (by NBS)

15-9 15-10

Missing insulation observed

in NW bedroom on the 2nd

floor (by contractor PI)

Missing insulation in upper half

of kneewall and in pitched ceiling

on N of NW bedroom (by NBS)

B-96
XVI. Providence House #4

This is a two-story residence located in Providence, RI. There

are totally 5 rooms as living space on each of the first and

second floors, with an attic.

Prior to the implementation of the weather izat ion program, this

.house had no insulation. An insulation contractor was instructed

to insulate the exterior walls and the attic of this dwelling

with blown fiberglass. After retrofitted options were completed,

this dwelling was inspected by NBS personnel and IR contractors

Pi, P2, P3, and P4. Figure XVI is a sketch of voids and location

of heat losses obtained from video tapes by NBS, thermograms and

documents by IR contractors.

In general, the insulation work in the wall areas on the first

floor of this house was considered to be fair except voids above

and around some windows, and the front door. Furthermore, air

penetration problem was also observed at ceilings of the kitchen

and the dining room. Other locations of thermal anomalies on the

first floor included air leakage along windows and front door,

and at the wall-to-wall joints. During the time period of

infrared scanning, the family room had heavy drapes covering both

the east and south exterior walls with windows. Therefore, it

would be difficult to identify uninsulated regions, if existed,

except the paths of air leakage at the corners. The insulation

work on the second floor was considered to be worse than the

first floor as a lot of uninsulated bay cavities was found on the

east and west sides of the house, and voids above most windows.

However, from all inspections, the attic seemed to be well

insulated without showing any indications of thermal

deficiencies . Thermographic inspection by NBS was carried out for both interior

and exterior of this dwelling and observed all the major defects

in it. The exterior scanning revealed the location of the

fireplace chimney, which is not an indication of defective areas.

Contractor P2 employed HRIS to inspect this dwelling, but he only

submitted the documentation sheet with locations and areas of

defects without any thermograms. Thus the analysis was only based

on the contractor's interpretations. By comparing his results

with those of others, this contractor seemed to cover this house

thoroughly in his survey and located about 90% of the total

defective wall areas.

Contractors PI, P3, and P4 used LRIS to observe defects of

this house by submitting different kinds of documentations.

Contractor PI included 5 thermograms with visual photographs of

identical locations, and 11 sketches with descriptions of

defects; but he did not include the documentation sheet provided

by NEIG. This contractor also failed to report the uninsulated

regions of the foyer, the kitchen, and the mud room; plus other

locations of thermal anomalies as he observed about 80% of the

total defective wall areas. Contractor P3 provided the

documentation sheets with detailed description of each location

B-97
of thermal deficiencies by producing 18 thermograms to identify

90% of the total defective wall areas. It seemed that this

contractor fully utilized his equipment to inspect the house,

even the qualities of the thermograms produced by the LRIS are

not too good in contrast, as expected. Contractor P4 did not

submit any thermograms , only The documentation sheet provided by

NEIG by reporting some locations of thermal anomalies on the

first and second floors. This contractor also missed the

inspection of the kitchen, the mudroom, the foyer, and all three

bathrooms. Again, the analysis was only based on this

contractor's interpretations and about 60% of the total defective

wall areas was observed.

A detailed description of defects observed by NB S as well as IR

contractors is summarized in table XVIa. Besides the total

defective wall area in f t ^ found by each inspection, table XVIa

" A C M M ^ A — A C also includes the defective wall areas in f t of each room of ^ Jlj 0

house, analyzed from video tapes, available thermograms and

The

2

documentat ions,

approximately 155 ft

conditions documented

sketches 16-1 through

locations of heat loss

total estimates of void areas is

Table XVIb presents the environmental

by each IR contractor. Thermograms /

16-8 are some examples to demonstrate

anomalies, as they are referred to the

descriptions in table XVIa.

B-98
Table XVIa. Summary of Defects Observed in Providence

House #4

Room &

Or ientat ion

Description of

Def ec t s Defective Observed byWall NBS Contractors

Area PI P2 P3 P4

in Ft 2

First Floor : Dining W Voids Above Window 4

Room

Some Air Penetration

Problems at Ceiling &

Along N Side of Window

NW Air Penetration From

Ceiling to Wall-Wall

Joint

Voids in 2 Partial 4

Bay Cavities at Corner

N Voids Above All 3 9

Windows

Defective Ceiling

Foyer N Missing Insulation 14

Above Front Door and

Along Both Sides of

Door

Air Infiltration

Underneath Front Door

Living N Voids Above All 8

Room Windows

NE Air Leakage at WallWall and Wall-Floor

Joints

E Voids in 1 Bay Cavity 5 Along S Side of S

Window

Voids Above Both 6

Windows

Air Leakage Along

Window Side Between

Fireplace and Window

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes No No No No

Yes No No No No

Yes No Yes No No

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes No No No No

Yes No Yes Yes No

Yes No No No No

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes No No No No

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes No Yes Yes No

Yes Yes No No No

Thermogram

No . in

Appendix

16-1

16-2

16-3

16-4

B-9 9
Table XVIa Summary of Defects Observed in Providence

House #4 (Cont'd)

Room & OrientationDescription of

Defects

Defective Observed by

Wall NBS Contractors

Area PI P2 P3 P4

in Ft 2

Therm og r am

No . in

Appendix

Family

Room

E&S Only Some Air Leakage

at Wall-Wall Joints

& Under Windows (Both

Walls Were Covered by

Heavy Drapes

)

Yes No Yes No No

Bathroom S Voids Above Window 2 Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Voids Below and Along

Side of Window

8 Yes Yes No No No

Mud

Room

S Small Voids at Bottom

of SW Corner

3 Yes No Yes Yes No

Air Leakage at WallWall and Wall-Floor

Joint

Yes No No No No

Kit chen W Some Voids Found

Between Cabinets and

Counter Tops

3 Yes No Yes No No 16-5

Defective Ceiling Yes No No No No

Second Floor

Master

B edroom

N Voids Above Window &

on W of Window

4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 16-6

1 Upper Portion Bay

Cavity on E of Window

2 Yes Yes Yes Yes No

E Missing Insulation

in 1st 2 Full Bay

Cavities at NE Corner

20 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 16-7

16-8

Voids Above Both

Windows and in 1 Full

Bay Cavity Along S Side of Window

15 Yes Yes Yes Yes No

Air Leakage at NE

Corner at Wall-Floor

Joint

Yes No No No No

B-100
Table XVIa. Summary of Defects Observed in Providence

House #4 (Cont'd)

Room & Description of Defective Observed by ThermoOr ientat ion Defects Wall NBS Contractors gram

Area PI P 2 P 3 P4 No . in

in Ft 2 Append ix

Bathroom

(#2)

W Small Void Under

Window

2 Yes No No No No

South

Bedroom

S Some Voids at E of

W indow

4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Voids Above Window 2 Yes No Yes Yes Yes

W 1 Bay Cavity at SW

Corner

10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Voids Above Window & 5

at Both Sides of Window

Yes No Yes Yes Yes

North

Bedroom

W 1 Bay Cavity at NW

Corner

10 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Voids Above Window & 5

on Both Sides of Window

Yes Yes Yes Yes No

N Voids Above Window & 8

at Both Sides of Window

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Closet N Voids Above Window 2 Yes No Yes No No

Total Wall Area of 155 155 114 139 136 89

Insulation Voids Detected

Given in Ft 2

B-101
Table XVIb Environmental Conditions During Inspections of

Providence House #4

Contractors

PI P 2 P3 P4

Date 3-5-81 3-10-81 3-12-81 3-3-81

Time 6 : 10- 6:00- 6 : 00- 6 : 00-

8:15 pm 7:15 pm 7:40 pm 6:45 pm

Weather cloudy & partly clear clear

Condi t ion humid clear

Outside

Temperature

3 3 °F 42 °F 3 9 °F 3 4°F

Inside

Temperature

7 0°F 7 2°F 7 0°F 68°F

Relat ive

Humidity

52% 29% 45% 40%

Wind Speed(MPH) 1 ight 9 15 10

Wind Direction W NW WSW NW

B-102
Thermal Anomalies Observed in Providence House #4

i Missing insulation above and

along both sides of front

door on N wall (by NBS)

NJorVV Wa\\

6>a\| \©eA\ae*v\ (o\V\cio\0 aw)

"pWi taojWV CA t&\vAd\A

Void.

pKrco- aV>ovfi ^cVjuu^ jLCi iV\<Ao'^0

vjWArv5»\)\aXsua

V/a\\^ S>«»o4V

\v\dov3

16-2

Uninsulated areas observed in living room

(by contractor Pi)

16-3

Voids above window and

1 bay cavity along S side of S window on E

wall of living room, &

cold area of fireplace

chimney on 1st floor

(by NBS)

16-4

Exterior thermogram

shows the voids above

N window on E wall of

living room, and area

of fireplace chimney

(by NBS)

16-5

Smal 1 void area

observed between

cabinets and counter

top in wall of

kitchen (by NBS)

B-103
Thermal Anomalies Observed in Providence House #4

( cont . )

I laai| nql^ uo»v\(ioiO - i'L

vo\d. Over v^irvioij avd 4o le^

sV\oudy^ aypmr \nso*f4 ,cten4|^

1 ^

"V(oo m YvorVV, corner and

-fvrs'V r\qWA eft ^oo'VVv VO^ndou

Void.

over vo\ndbudS Ocppear

lASv)Wc\ey\'V

^°Va\ o>mv\soVsVei area. cx^ro* ^CoPT 2-

16-6

Insufficient insulation areas observed

in master bedroom on the second floor

(by contractor Pi)

16-7

Missing insulation in 1st two

bay cavities on E wall at NE

corner of master bedroom on

the second floor (by NBS)

16-8

Exterior thermogram shows the

same defects as shown in 16-7

and portions of the fireplace

chimney (by NBS)

B-104
XVII. Washington, D.C. House #1

This is a two-story, approximately 29 years old residence whose

interior dimensions are 34 ft. in length, 31 ft. in width, and 8

ft. in wall height on the first floor; located in the suburb of

Washington, D.C. area. There are totally 5 rooms as living space

with an unheated porch, an unheated attic as the second floor,

"and a basement. Its exterior construction consists of wood

subsidings with asbestos shingles, and an asphalt shingle roof.

Prior to the imp 1 em e t a t i on of the w e a t h e r i z a t i o n program, this

house had no insulation. An insulation contractor was instructed

to insulate the walls and attic of this dwelling with cellulose,

and basement walls with combinations of fiberglass, cellulose,

and styrofoam. After retrofitted options were completed, this

dwelling was inspected by NBS personnel and IR contractors Wl,

W2, W3, and W4. Figure XVII is a sketch of voids and locations of

heat losses obtained from video tapes by NBS, thermograms and

documents by IR contractors.

Generally speaking, the wall areas of this house were considered

to be well insulated, except some shrinkage or fissures, some

uninsulated cross braces and stud braces, a few partial bay

cavities, and two uninsulated doors. However, severe problems of

air penetration from defective ceilings and in the partition wall

between kitchen and living room were observed. During the time of

inspection, the entire attic on the second floor and the enclosed

porch on north side were unheated. This condition makes it

difficult to collect meaningful data so the exterior walls of

these areas will be excluded from calculation of defective wall

areas . Thermographic inspection by NBS observed most defects of this

residence except the bathroom and the basement. Contractors W 2 and W4 employed HRIS to inspect this dwelling by producing 3 and

8 thermograms , respectively, to cover different areas of the

house. Thermograms submitted by contractor W2 are sharp, but they

only represented a few of the uninsulated regions. Contractor W4

is the only one to inspect and to locate insulation defects in

the attic and in the basement, even though the quality of the

thermograms produced is not too good. Contractors Wl and W3, who

used LRIS for inspection, failed to observe a lot of defects on

the first floor. Contractor W3 identified only infiltration paths

rather than uninsulated areas. It seemed that this contractor did

not follow the given instructions for inspection. Furthermore,

the number of thermograms submitted is not corresponding to the

number in the documentation sheet. This would increase the

uncertainties in analysis. Contractor Wl gave detailed sketches

of the interior of the house with indication of locations of

defects. However, most thermal deficiencies were not included as only two locations were shown in thermograms and in

documentat ion .

| B - 1 0 5
A detailed description of defects observed by NBS as well as IR

contractors is summarized in table XVIIa. Besides the total

defective wall area in f t ^ found by each inspection, table XVIIa

also includes the defective wall areas in ft z of each room of the

house, analyzed from video tapes, available thermograms and

documentation. The total estimates of void areas on first floor

iis approximately 26 f t ^ which represents about 4% of the gross

wall area. The uninsulated areas on the unheated attic will be

excluded from calculation of total void areas. Table XVIIb

presents the environmental conditions documented by each IR

contractor. Thermograms 17-1 to 17-6 are some examples to

demonstrate locations of heat loss anomalies, as they are

referred to the descriptions in table XVIIa.

B-106
Table XVIIa. Summary of

House #1

Defects Observed in Washington, D. C .

Room & Description of Defective Observed By ThermoOrientation Defects Wall

Area

in Ft 2

NBS Contractors

W1 W 2 W 3 W 4

gram

No . in

App end ix

First Floor

;

L iv ing

Room

S No Insulation Around

Front Door

3 Yes No No Yes No

Voids Around Electric

Switches

2 Yes Yes No No Yes 17-1

Leakage Along Both

Sides of Window

Yes No No No No

W Voids in 1st Half Bay

Cavity at N

5 Yes No Yes No No

Some Small Voids

Scattered Over the

Entire Wall

3 Yes No No No No

N Air Penetration into

Partition Wall Between

Kitchen & Living Room

Yes No No No No 17-2

Kitchen W Air Leakage Through

the Side Door

Yes No No Yes No

Some Insulation Voids

Bel ow W indow

1 Yes No Yes No No 17-3

Pantry W Partial Voids at NW

Corner

5 Yes No No No No

N Ceiling Problem

Bathroom N Some Insulation

Missed in Wall Over

Tub

(1) No No Yes No No

Middle

Bedroom

(Ceil ing

)

Air Penetration from

Ceiling Severely

Yes No No No No 17-4

East E Uninsulated Cross 3 Yes No No No Yes

Bedroom Brace and Stud Brace

Shrinkage or Fissures

at N Corner

B - 1 0 7
Table XVIIa. Summary of Defects Observed in Washington, D.C.

House #1 ( Cont ' d

)

Room & Description of

.-Orientation Defects

Defective

Wall

Area

in Ft 2

Observed By Thermo

NBS Contractors gram

W1 W 2 W 3 W 4 No. in

Appendi

s Voids Below and Above

Window, Shrinkage or Fissures at E Corner

4 Yes No No No Yes 17-5

Ceiling Air Penetration from

Ceiling Severely

Yes No No No Yes 17-6

Second Floor :

N Voids Above Window &

2 Partial Uninsulated

Bay Cavities at NE

of Dormer

(8) Yes No No Yes Yes

E Small Void on N of

Window

(1) Yes No No No Yes

S Voids Above & Below

Window

(3) Yes No No No No

W Small Voids Above

Window

(1) Yes No No No No

Ceiling Defective Pitched and

Flat Ceilings by

Moisture Problems

Yes No No Yes Yes

Total Wall Area Of

Insulation Voids Detected

Given in Ft z

26 26 2 7 3 9

Basement S Voids in Wall on Left

and Right of Window

9 No No No No Yes

Total Wall Area Of 9 9

Insulation Voids Detected

Given in Ft

B - 1 0 8
Table XVIIb. Environmental Conditions During Inspections of

Washington, D.C. House #1

CONTRACTORS

> W1 W2 W3 W4

Date 3-6-81 3-3-81 2-26-81 3-9-81

Time 12 : 01- 10 : 04- 1 : 45- 11 : 40

1:15 pm 10:45 am 4:30 pm 12:30 pm

Weather clear clear s unny

,

overcast

Condition mild, occasional

gusty wind sun

Outside

Temperature

41 °F 38 °F 5 2 °F 5 2°F

Inside

Temperature

6 4°F 6 9 °F 7 5 °F 7 0°F

Re 1 a t iv e Humidity

74% 60% 38% 3 9%

Wind Speed(MPH) 17-29 5 15-25 0-8.5

Wind Direction NW NE NW W

B - 1 0 9
Thermal Anomalies Observed in Washington, D.C. House #1

17-1

Voids around electric switch

along front door on S wall of

living room (by conttactor W4)

17-2

NW corner of living room; half

bay cavity at corner and air

penetration into M partition

wall (by NBS)

17-3

Shrinkage of insulation on

W wall of kitchen (by contr.W2)

17-5

Shrinkage or fissures

at E corner of S wall in

SE bedroom (by contr.W4)

17-4

Defective ceiling in middle

bedroom (by NBS)

17-6

Defective ceiling in SE

bedroom (by NBS)

B-110
XVIII. Washington, D.C. House #2

This is a single story, approximately 40 years old residence

whose interior dimensions are 24 ft. in length, 36 ft. in width,

and 8 ft. in wall height; located in the suburb of Washington,

D.C. area. There are totally 7 rooms as living space with an

unheated porch, an attic, and a basement. Its exterior

construction consists of German lap sidings and an asphalt

shingle roof.

Prior to the implementation of the weather izat ion program, this

house had no insulation. An insulation contractor was instructed

to insulate the walls with UF foam, the attic with cellulose, and

the floors joists with fiberglass batts to this dwelling. After

retrofitted options were completed, this dwelling was inspected

by NB S personnel and IR contractors Wl, W2, W3, and W4. Figure

XVIII is a sketch of voids and location of heat losses obtained

from video tapes by NBS, thermograms and documents by IR

contractors . In general, the insulation work in this house was not too good as

voids were found above most of the windows and doors, and these

locations were also sites of air leakage. Some wall and ceiling

joints have thermal bridges with infiltration, and bay cavities

were also found at wall-to-wall joints.

Thermographic inspection by NBS was carried out for both

interior and exterior of this residence. The exterior inspection

revealed cold air penetrating from the old chimney into the west

wall of the northwest bedroom where not much insulation was blown

in due to its height. It also showed the contrast of different

insulation levels in the walls between the dining room and the

southwest bedroom, a cold room. Contractor W2 and W4 employed

HRIS to observe defects in this dwelling by producing 14 and 33

thermograms, respectively, to cover a fair amount of areas of the

house. Contractor W4 identified most thermal anomalies of this

dwelling and included detailed documentations of their locations.

Furthermore, this contractor also inspected the exterior of this

dwelling and submitted exterior thermograms as well as interior

thermograms for some regions to identify the defects. It appears

that contractor W2 had some difficulties to record the correct

orientation of the walls of some rooms, and observed only about

one third of the defect areas. Contractors Wl and W3, who used

LRIS for inspection, failed to observe a lot of defects by

producing only 5 and 3 thermograms, respectively. According to

the documentation contractor W3 identified most infiltration

paths rather than uninsulated areas. It seemed that this

contractor did not follow given instructions for inspection.

Contractor Wl gave detailed sketches of the interior of this

house with indication of locations of defects. However, a lot of

thermal deficiencies were not included as only five locations

were shown in thermograms and in documentations.

B-lll
A detailed description of defects observed by NBS as well as IR

contractors is summarized in table XVIIIa. Besides the total

defective wall area in ft^ found by each inspection, table XVIIIa

also includes the defective wall areas in f t ^ of each room of the

house, analyzed from video tapes, available thermograms, and

sketches. The total estimates of void areas is approximately 126

ft -^ which represents about 15% of the gross wall area. Table

XVIIIb presents the environmental conditions documented by each

IR contractor. Thermograms 18-1 to 18-8 are some examples to

demonstrate locations of heat loss anomalies, as they are

referred to the descriptions in table XVIIIa.

B - 1 1 2
Table XVIIIa. Summary of

House #2

Defects Observed in Washington D.C.

Room & Description of Def ect ive Observed by ThermoOr ientat ion Defects Wall

Area

in Ft 2

NBS Contractors

W1 W2 W3 W4

gram

No . in

Appendix

Entrance ' E Narrow Voids on S

Side of Window

3 Yes No Yes No Yes

Air Leakage on S of

W indow

Yes No No No No

Kit chen E Voids at SE corner

Below & Above Cabinet

6 Yes No Yes No No

S Uninsulated Side Door Yes No No No No

Bathroom S Voids Above and on W

Side of Window

4 Yes No No No No

Southwe s

t

Bedroom

S Voids Above & Along

Lower E Side of

Window

3 Yes No No No No

Small Void on W Side

of Window

1 Yes No No No Yes

Ceil ing Some Leakage at SE

Corner

Yes No No No Yes

W Small Voids at N of

Window and at NW

Corner from Ceiling

3 Yes Yes No No Yes

Ceil ing Voids in Ceiling

Insulation

Yes No No No Yes 18-1

Dining

Room

w Voids at Top of Studs

on S and N of Window

6 Yes Yes Yes No Yes 18-2

Voids Above Window 4 Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Nor thw e s t Bedroom

w Unfilled Bay Cavities

at Top of Wall Above

& Under Cross Braces

and Around the Old

Chimney Area

50 Yes No No No Yes 18-3

N Voids at Top of 3 3 Yes No Yes No Yes

Studs on W of Window

B-113
Table XVIIIa. Summary of Defects Observed in Washington D.C.

House #2 (Cont'd)

Room 6

Or ientat ion

Description of

Defects

Defective Observed by ThermoWall NBS Contractors gram

Area W1 W2 W3 W4 No . in

in Ft 2 Appendix

Voids Above Window 2 Yes No No Yes Yes 18-4

18-5

Voids at Top of 2

Studs of NE Corner

2 Yes No No No No

Small Voids on Both

Sides of Window

3 Yes No Yes Yes Yes 18-6

Living N Voids at Top & Bottom

Room of 1st 2 Bays of W

4 Yes No Yes No Yes

Voids Above and on

Both Sides of Window

4 Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Two Partial Bay

Cavities at NE corner

10 Yes No Yes No Yes

Air Leakage at Both

NE and NW Corner's

Wall-Wall Joints

Yes No No No No

E Voids Above and on S 4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 18-7

Side of Window

1 Partial Bay Cavity

at NE Corner and 1 Full Bay Cavity at SE

Corner Behind Porch

14 Yes No No No No 18-8

Total Wall Area of 126 126 13 44 17 101

Insulation Voids Detected

Given in Ft

B-114
Table XVIIIb. Environmental Conditions During Inspections of

Washington D.C. House #2

Contractors

W1 W 2 W 3 W4

Date 3-6-81 3-3-81 2-27-81 3-9-81

Time 3 : 40-

4:35 pm

12:40-

1:10 pm

10:30-

12:45 pm

9 : 30-

11:20 am

Weather

Condition

clear clear sunny

,

cool,

gusty winds

cloudy , overcast

Outside

Temperature

44°F 44°F 50°F 49 °F

Inside

Temperature

6 6 °F 7 0 °F 7 2°F 7 2°F

Re 1 a t iv e Humid ity

74% 50% 40% 54%

Wind Speed(MPH) 18-30 5 5-10 0-5 .

5

Wind Direction WNW NE NW W

B - 1 1 5
Thermal Anomalies Observed in Washington, D.C. House #2

18-1

Voids in W ceiling

of SW bedroom

(by NBS)

18-2

Exterior thermogram

depicts the different

insulation levels between dining room and

SW bedroom from W wall

(by NBS)

18-3

Exterior thermogram

shows the unfilled areas

and air penetration from

old chimney on W of NW

bedroom (by NBS)

18-4

Voids above window in N wall

of NW bedroom (by NBS)

18-5

Defects observed as in 18-4

(by contractor W4)

18-6

Defects observed as

in 1 8-4 and 18-5

from the exterior

(by contractor W4)

18-7

Voids above and on

S side of window in

E wall of liv ing

room (by contr. W2)

18-8

1 full bay cavity at

SE corner in E wall of

living room (by NBS)

B-l 16
XIX. Washington, D.C. House #3

This is a two-story residence whose interior dimensions are 28

ft. in length, 26 ft. in width, and 8 ft. in wall height on both

the first and second floors; located in the suburb of Washington,

D.C. area. There are totally 7 rooms as living space with an

unheated porch, an attic, and a basement. Its exterior

construction consists of aluminum sidings with backings and a metal shingle roof.

Prior to the implementation of the weather izat ion program, this

house had no insulation. An insulation contractor was instructed

to insulate the walls and attic of this dwelling with cellulose,

and basement walls with combinations of fiberglass, cellulose,

and styrofoam. After retrofitted options were completed, this

dwelling was inspected by NBS personnel and IR contractors Wl,

W2, W3, and W4. Figure XIX is a sketch of voids and locations of

heat losses obtained from video tapes by NBS, thermograms and

documents by IR contractors.

Generally speaking, the insulation work of this house were

considered to be better on the first floor than on the second

floor. However, voids were found above most of the windows and

doors in this house. Some wall and ceiling joints have thermal

bridges with infiltration, and bay cavities were also found at

wall-to-wall joints. On the first floor, air leakage was observed

as it leaked into the wall from the electric box, into the

ceiling from south side, and also into the partition wall between

kitchen and the foyer. The north walls were not insulated since

they are the inside walls of the enclosed porch; and they will be

excluded from calculation of defective wall areas. The second

floor has a lot of uninsulated cross braces, stud braces, and bay

cavities. The bathroom floor was found to be cold. This may due

to the cold air leaking in between first and second floor.

Furthermore, moisture problems of ceiling above hallway and

fissures in the wall areas were also observed.

Thermographic inspection by NBS observed most defects of this

residence except the basement. Contractors W2 and W4 employed

HRIS to inspect this dwelling by producing 20 and 9 thermograms,

respectively, to cover different defective areas of the house.

They did not inspect the first floor of this dwelling thoroughly

expect for the living room ceiling. Contractor W2 identified the

uninsulated north walls, but they will be excluded from the

analysis. The only other defective area observed by contractor

W2 was the south wall of the living room. Contractor W4 did not

have the correct orientations of the house and submitted poor

documentation of his findings, thus it is difficult to perform

analysis from his results. However, this contractor reported that

the hot water heater in the basement required insulation, which

was not the objective of this analysis. Both contractors W2 and

W 4 inspected only the north and south walls of the second floor

of this house, except the west wall of the northwest bedroom and

the southwest corner of the bathroom.

B-117

/
Contractors Wl and W3, who used LRIS for inspection, failed to

observe a lot of defects of this house. Contractor W3 did not

include any thermograms and reported only infiltration paths

rather than uninsulated areas. It seemed that this contractor did

not follow the given instructions for inspection. Contractor Wl

gave detailed sketches of the interior of the house with

indication of locations of defects by including 12 thermograms.

Furthermore, this contractor also inspected the basement to

locate the uninsulated wall areas at the southeast corner.

However, a lot of thermal deficiencies were not identified by

this contractor as only west wall of kitchen, south wall of

living, south wall of southeast bedroom, north side of second

floor, and the second floor ceiling were shown in thermograms and

in documentation.

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

contractors is summarized in table XIXa. Besides the total

defective wall area in ix. 1 found by each inspection, table XIXa

also includes the defective wall areas in ft^ of each room of the

house, analyzed from video tapes, available thermograms and

documentation. The total estimates of void areas is approximately

189 ft^ which represents about 15% of the gross wall area. Table

XlXb presents the environmental conditions documented by each IR

contractor. Thermograms 19-1 to 19-7 are some examples to

demonstrate locations of heat loss anomalies, as they are

referred to the descriptions in table XIXa.
Table XlXa . Summary of Defects Observed in Washington D.C.

House #3

Room & Description of Defective Ob s erv ed by ThermoOrientation Defects Wall NBS Contractors gram

Area W1 W 2 W 3 W4 No. in

in Ft 2 Appendix

First Floor

:

Foyer S One partial Bay

Cavity on W of Front

Door, and Small Void

Above Front Door

6 Yes No No No No

Air Leakage From Front

Door and Electric

Outlet on W

Yes No No No No

Ceil ing Cold Air Leaking

From Ceiling

Yes No No No No

Kitchen W Small Void at NW

Corner Below Ceiling

3 Yes Yes No No No

Small voids at Bottom 5 Yes No No No No

of NW Corner and at

SW Corner Above Window

S Cold Wall May be Yes No No No No

Caused by Stove

N Uninsulated Wall and Yes No Yes Yes No

Air Leakage Around

Door and NW Corner

(Excluded From

Cal culat ion

)

Din ing

Room

I

I

i

N Uninsulated Wall Yes Yes Yes Yes No

(Excluded From

Cal culat ion

)

E 1 Bay Cavity Along 12 Yes No No No No

the N Side of Window

and Small Void Above

W indow

L iv ing

Room

I

E 1 Bay Cavity Along 12 Yes No No No No

S Side of Window and

Small Voids on N of

Window

B - 1 1 9

I

if
Table XlXa . Summary of Defects Observed in Washington D.C.

House #3 (Cont'd)

Room & Orientation

Description of

Def ect s Defective Observed by

Wall NBS Contractors

Area Wl W2 W3 W4

in Ft 2

Thermogram

No . in

Appendix

S 1 Partial Bay Cavity 6

at SW Corner

Voids Above Window 6

and Along W Side of

Window

Ceiling Uninsulated Ceiling

Joints From N to S

Above Window

Second Floor:

Hallway W Voids Around Window 5 Air Leakage at N

Corner

Ceiling Air Leakage From

Ceiling Above and

Inner Wall on N

Indicating Defective

Insulat ion

Northwest W Missing Insulation 6

Bedroom at Stud Brace on S

of Window

1 Bay Cavity Along N 12

Side of Window and

Voids Above Window

Voids Below Window 4

N 2 Bay Cavities at W 20

Corner (1st & 3rd)

Small Void Below 1 Window

Air Leakage Across

Top of Wall from

Ceiling and Also from

Both Corner s

Yes Yes Yes No No

Yes No Yes No Yes

Yes No Yes No Yes

Yes No No Yes No

Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Yes No No No No

Yes No No No No

Yes No Yes No No

Yes Yes Yes No Yes

Yes No Yes No No

Yes Yes No Yes No

19-1

19-2

19-3

B - 1 20
Table

Room & Orientation

Northeast N

Bedroom

E

Southeast E

Bedroom

S

XIXa. Summary of Defects Observed in Washington D.C.

House #3 (Cont'd)

Description of

Defects

Defective Observed by

Wall NBS Contractors

Area Wl W2 W3 W4

in Ft 2

Thermog r am

No. in

Appendix

Missing Insulation

at Cross Braces on W

of Window

Voids Above Window

Voids Below Window

Voids Along E Side

of Window

Small Void or

Fissures on E of

W indow

Air Leakage at Both

Corners

1 Partial Bay Cavity

Along N Side of

Window, 1 Partial

Cavity at S Corner,

and Voids Share

W indow

1 Partial Bay Cavity

at N Corner, 1 Partial

Bay Cavity Along S Side of Window, and

Voids Above Window

1 Bay Cavity at E of

E Window

Voids Above E Window

Voids Below E Window

Partial Bay Cavities

Between Windows

Small Voids Above

W Window

4 Yes Yes No No Yes

2 Yes No Yes No Yes

4 Yes No Yes No No

2 Yes No No Yes No

2 Yes Yes Yes No Yes

Yes No No No No

14 Yes No No No No

12 Yes No No No No

10 Yes No Yes No Yes

2 Yes No Yes No No

4 Yes No Yes No No

10 Yes No No No No

1 Yes Yes Yes No Yes

19-4

B-121
Table XIXa. Summary of Defects Observed in Washington D.C.

House #3 (Cont'd)

Room & Description of Defective Observed by ThermoOr ientat ion Def ect s Wall NBS Contractors gram

Area W1 W 2 W 3 W4 No. in

in Ft 2 Appendix

Bathroom S Voids Above Window 2 Yes No Yes Yes No 19-5

Missing Insulation on

W of Window and at

Corner Braces

14 Yes No Yes No No

Air Penetration into

Floor in Tub Area

Yes No No No No 19-6

W Missing Insulation at

Corner Braces Above

8 Yes No Yes No No 19-7

Tub Area and at Top

of SW Corner

Total Wall Area of 189 189 36 86 9 39

Insulation Voids Detected

Given in Ft 2

B - 1 22

I
Table XlXb Environmental Conditions During Inspections of

Washington, D.C. House #3

Contractors

'v W1 W 2 W3 W4

Date 3-6-81 3-2-81 2-26-81 3-9-81

Time 1 : 27- 6 : 50- 5 : 00- 3 : 05-

2:49 pm 8:35 pm 7:15 pm 4:30 pm

Weather clear partially sunny , overcast

Condit ion cloudy cool,

gusty winds

Outside

T emp er a tur e 42°F 41°F 5 1 °F 48 °F

Inside

Temperature

6 8°F 7 3°F 7 1 °F 7 3 °F

Relat ive

Humidity

61% 40% 31% 3 5%

Wind Speed(MPH) 21-34 10 10-15 0-9.5

Wind Direction NW NE NW N

B - 1 2 3
Thermal Anomalies Observed in Washington, D.C. House #3

19-1

Uninsulated ceiling joints

from N to S in living room

(by contractor W4)

19-3

Defects observed as in 19-2

(by contractor W2)

19-2

Two uninsulated bay cavities

at W corner in N wall of NW

bedroom (by NBS)

19-4

Missing insulation at cross

braces W of window in N wall

of NE bedroom on the second

floor (by contractor W2)

19-5

Voids above window

and W of window in

S wall of bathroom

(by NBS)

19-6

Cold floor posssibly

due to air penetration between floors

in the tub area of

bathroom (by NBS)

19-7

Missing insulation

at NW corner above

tub area in bathroom

(by NBS)

B - 1 2 4
XX. Washington, D.C. House #4

This is a two-story residence whose interior dimensions are 30

ft. in length, 24 ft. in width, and 8 ft. in wall height on both

the first and second floors; located in the suburb of Washington,

D.C. area. There are totally 5 rooms as living space and 2 rooms

s storage with an attic and a basement. Its exterior

construction consists of asbestos shingles with beveled sidings

and a metal roof.

Prior to the implementation of the w ea ther iz a t ion program, this

house had no insulation. An insulation contractor was instructed

to insulate the walls with UF foam, and the attic with cellulose

to this dwelling . After retrofitted options were completed, this

dwelling was inspected by NB S personnel and IR contractors Wl,

W 2 , W3, and W4. Figure XX is a sketch of voids and location of

heat losses obtained. from video tapes by NBS, thermograms and

documents by IR contractors.

In general, the insulation work in this dwelling was considered

to be poor as voids were found above and around most of the

windows and doors, and uninsulated bay cavities were observed

above the cross braces. Since the walls of this house have a lot

of cross braces it makes the insulation work difficult to

complete. Furthermore, heat-loss problems also existed as cold

air leaking into the dining room ceiling and into the pitched

ceiling upstairs, and foam penetrating into the partition wall of

dining room and southwest bedroom.

Thermographic inspection by NBS was carried out for both

interior and exterior of this residence. The exterior inspection

not only showed the uninsulated portion of the walls with cross

braces, but also revealed the warm attic from the west side

indicating some kind of by-pass mechanism existed. Furthermore,

the thermal deficiencies of the storage rooms on the second floor

were also identified from the exterior alone as these rooms were

not open for interior inspection.

Contractors W2 and W4 employed HRIS to observe defects in this

dwelling by producing 12 and 30 thermograms, respectively, to

cover a fair amount of areas of the house. Contractor W 4

identified most thermal anomalies of this dwelling and included

detailed documentations of their locations. Even though this

contractor did not give correct orientations of the house, the

corresponding directions were easily identified to perform

analysis. Moreover, this contractor also observed the uninsulated

upper portion of the east wall of the storage room #1.

Contractor W 2 only inspected the north and west walls on the

first floor and the northeast bedroom on the second floor of this

house, and observed about half of the defective areas. This

contractor also had some difficulties to record the orientation

of the walls in some rooms.

B - 1 2 5
Contractors W 1 and W3, who used LRIS for inspection, failed to

observe a lot of defects by producing only 6 and 5 thermograms,

respectively. According to the documentation contractor W3

identified most infiltration paths rather than uninsulated areas.

It seemed that this contractor did not follow given instructions

for inspection. However, this contractor was the only one that

^canned the basement to report that the basement door had air

leakage. Contractor Wl gave detailed sketches of the interior of

this house with indication of locations of defects, including the

survey of storage room #2. However, a lot of thermal deficiencies

were not included as no inspections were made in the living room

and the southwest bedroom.

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

contractors is summarized in table XXa. Besides the total

defective wall area in f t z found by each inspection, table XXa

also includes the defective wall areas in ft^ of each room of the

house, analyzed from available thermograms and sketc he s . The

total estimates of void areas is approximately 352 ft z which

represents about 23% of the gross wall area. Table XXb presents

the environmental conditions documented by each IR contractor.

Thermograms 20-1 to 20-9 are some examples to demonstrate

locations of heat loss anomalies, as

descriptions in table XXa.

they are referred to the

B - 1 26
Table XXa . Summary of Defects Observed in Washington, D.C.

House #4

Room & De s cr ip t ion of Defective Observedby ThermoOrientation Defects Wall NBS Contractors gram

Area

in Ft 2

W1 W2 W3 W4 No . in

Appendix

First Floor:

L iv ing

Room

E Missing Insulation

in Studs on N and S

of, Along Both Edges,

and Above Window

20 Yes No No No Yes

Voids in Cross Braces

at Both Lower Corners

4 Yes No No No No

Air Leakage Along

Ceiling-Wall and WallWall Joints

Yes No No Yes No

S Missing Insulation on

E of Window and in

Cross Brace at Lower

E Corner

10 Yes No No No Yes

Missing Insulation

Above and Around Door

12 Yes No No No Yes

Southwes t BedroomS 2 Bay Cavities at E

Corner

20 Yes No No No Yes

Voids Above and Along

Both Edges of Window

10 Yes No No No Yes

Missing Insulation in

3 Bays at Upper W

Corner

12 Yes No Yes No No

W 1 Bay Cavity at S

Corner & Small Voids

on S and Above Window

14 Yes No No No Yes 20-1

Dining

Room

W Missing Insulation in

2 Bay Cavities Above

Cross Brace at S

Corner

16 Yes No Yes No Yes 20-2

Missing Insulation in 16 Yes Yes No No Yes 20-3

2 Bay Cavities Above

Cross Brace at N

Corner

B-127
Table XXa . Summary of Defects Observed in Washington, D.C.

House #4 (Cont'd)

Soon & D e s c r i p t i o n o f Defective Observedby

Orientation Defects Wall NBS Contractors

Area

in Ft 2

W1 W2 W3 W4

Voids Above N Window

and Between Windows

4 Yes Yes No Yes Yes

Ceil ing Air Leakage From

Ceiling

Yes No No No Yes

S Foam Penetration

into Partition Wall

Yes No No No No

N Missing Insulation in

4 Bay Cavities Above

Cross Braces at W and

E Corners

32 Yes Yes Yes No Yes

Voids on Both Sides

and Above Door

6 Yes No No No Yes

Ceil ing Air Leakage From

Ceiling

Yes No No No Yes

Northeast N

Bedroom

Missing Insulation in

2 Bay Cavities Above

Cross Braces at W

Corner

16 Yes Yes Yes No Yes

Missing Insulation in

2 Bay Cavities Above

Cros s Braces at E

Corner

16 Yes No Yes No Yes

Air Leakage or Voids

Above Windows

Yes No No Yes No

E Small Void Below N

Window and in Cross

Brace at S Corner

6 Yes Yes No No No

Air Penetration From Yes No No No No

Location of Chimney

and Above Windows

Along Ceiling-Wall

Joint

Therm ogr am

No . in

Appendix

B-128
Table XXa . Summary of Defects Observed in Washington, D.C.

House #4 (Cont'd)

Room & D e s c r i p t i o n o

f

Orientation Defects

Defective Observedby

Wall NBS Contractors

Area Wl W2 W3 W4

in Ft 2

Thermog r am

No . in

Appendix

S e cond Floor

:

Northeast W

B e dr oom

Voids in 1 Bay Cavity

at S Corner

10 Yes No Yes No Yes 20-4

Voids Above Window

and in 2 Partial

Cavities on S of

Window

14 Yes No Yes No Yes 20-5

Small Voids on N of

Window

4 Yes

\ No No No Yes

N Missing Insulation in

2 Bay Cavities Above

Corner Braces at N

Corner

16 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 20-6

Missing Insulation in

2 Bay Cavities Above

Corner Brace at E

Corner

16 Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Ceil ing No Insulation on

Ceiling

Yes No No No Yes 20-7

E 2 Partial Bay

Cavities at N Corner

and Small Void Above

N Window

18 Yes No Yes Yes No

2 Partial Bay

Cavities at S Corner

and Small Voids Above

S Window

14 Yes NO Yes Yes Yes

Air Penetration From

Chimney

Yes No No No No

Storage E

Room #1

Upper Part of Entire

Wall Not Insulated

35 Yes No No No Yes 20-8

S Voids Above Window 8 Yes No No No Yes

and 1 Partial Bay

Cavity on E of Window

B-129
Table XXa Summary of Defects Observed in Washington, D.C

House #4 (Cont'd)

Room & D e s c r i p t i o n o

Orientation Defects

Defective Observedby

Wall NBS Contractors

Area Wl W2 W3 W4

in Ft 2

Thermogram

No . in

Appendix

Storage S

Room #2

Voids Above Window 3 Yes Yes No No No

W Exterior Inspection Yes No No No No 20-9

and Showed Warm Paths up

N to Attic Indicating

By-Pass Heat Loss

Total Wall Area of 352 352 93 180 68 309

Insulat ion

Given in Ft

^o id s Detected

Table XXb

Environmental Conditions During Inspections of

Washington, D.C. House #4

Contractors

Wl W2 W3 W4

Date 3-6-81 3-3-81 2-27-81 3-9-81

Time 10:21- 11:05 am 1:10- 1 : 50-

11:50 am 3:30 pm 3:00 pm

Weather

Condition

clear clear sunny

cool,

gusty winds

overcast,

occasional

sun

Outside

Temperature

40°F 40 °F 5 8 °F 5 2°F

Inside

Temperature

6 8°F 6 5 °F 7 4°F 7 6 °F

Re lat iv e Humidity61% 55% 12% 30%

Wind Speed(MPH) 17-25 15 + 10-15 0-8

W ind Direction NW NE NW NE

B-130
Thermal Anoma lies Observed in Washington, D.C. House #4

20-1 20-2

Missing insulation

above cross braces

and W window and 1 bay cavity at SW

corner of SW bedr o om (by NB S )

Missing insulation

above cross braces

at SW corner, and

foam penetration

into partition wall

on S of dining room

20-3

Missing insulation

in bay cavities above

corner braces at NW

corner of dining room

(by NBS)

20-4 20-5 20-6

Thermal deficiencies Voids above window Exterior thermogram

observed at SW corner and in 2 partial bay shows defects at N of

by exterior thermo- cavities on S of dwelling (by NBS)

gram (by NBS) window of W wall of

NE bedroom on 2nd floor

20-7 20-8

Voids and ceiling Missing insulation in

defects at NE upper part of entire E

bedroom on second wall on second floor

floor (by contr .W4) shown by exterior thermo g r am (by NBS)

20-9

Exterior thermogram

showing warm paths up

to attic at NW- corner

indicating by-pass

heat loss (by NBS)

B-131
"Ill,

NOT TO SCALE — INFILTRATION AND LEAKAGE PATHS

VOIDS OR PENETRATION FROM CEILING DEFECTS

Thermal deficiencies observed in ceiling and

southeast bedroom of Atlanta house #1

B-132
INSULATION VOIDS — INFILTRATION AND LEAKAGE PATHS

VOIDS OR PENETRATION FROM CEILING DEFECTS

Figure II. Thermal deficiencies observed in Atlanta house #2

B-133
NOT TO SCALE

INSULATION VOIDS — INFILTRATION AND LEAKAGE PATHS

B VOIDS OR PENETRATION FROM CEILING DEFECTS

B PENETRATION INTO PARTITION WALL AND FLOOR

Figure III. Thermal deficiencies observed in Atlanta house #3

B-134
INSIDE

OUTSIDE

E WALL

OF MD BR

t

N

FD

W

4

NOT TO SCALE

INSULATION VOIDS — INFILTRATION AND LEAKAGE PATHS

H VOIDS OR PENETRATION FROM CEILING DEFECTS

Figure IV. Thermal deficiencies observed in Atlanta house #4

B-135
INSULATION VOIDS — INFILTRATION AND LEAKAGE PATHS

VOIDS OR PENETRATION FROM CEILING DEFECTS

U PENETRATION INTO PARTITION WALL

Figure V

Thermal deficiencies observed in Colorado Springs

house #1

B-136
F igur e VI

.

Second Floor

BE &

DR

'mwiw'—ii, 7r

0 ^ h -S— m

LX UP

CIO

w 1 BATH

SC BR

W w

ID

>* *4- - J A

First Floor

\EUC BOX OUTSWC

NOT TO SCALE

H BATH

I b

%

INSULATION VOIDS — MflLTRATION AND LEAKAGE PATHS

VOIDS OR PENETRATION FROM CEILING DEFECTS

Thermal deficiencies observed in Colorado Springs

house #2

B-137
F igur e VII

COLO CORNER x

1 T \ I GARAGE I

GO

|

| SO 3

m

LR

|J)N^

K

oc—

zo

CABW

CAB

FD

1 BATH 0

[3"

i

SW BR O

o

SE BR = W

*

NOT TO SCALE

Main Floor

t"

1

1

[w]

1*1

1

1

1

1

1l-- 1

1

1

1 ,__J

1

FAMILY RM

UTIL RM

UP

1

1

1

1 [w]

1 BATH

1

[w]

l _

BR 0i

i

NOT TO SCALE

INSULATION VOIDS — INFILTRATION AND LEAKAGE PATHS Q VOIDS OR PENETRATION FROM CEILING DEFECTS

Basement

Thermal deficiencies observed in Colorado Springs

house #3

B-138
F igur e VI

a BATH

J '%>.

INSULATION VOIDS — MF1TRAT10N AND LEAKAGE PATHS

VOIDS OR PENETRATION FROM CEILING DEFECTS

Thermal deficiencies observed in Colorado Springs

house #2

B-137
Main Floor

t"

1

1 $

[w]

1

1

1

1

1•—1

1

1

1 r~l

1

FAMILY RM = UTIL RMUP

i

1

i

I [w]

1

BATH

1 [$

\

BR

i

1 p-L

W

1

i

NOT TO SCALE

INSULATION VOIDS — INFILTRATION AND LEAKAGE PATHS

VOIDS OR PENETRATION FROM CEILING DEFECTS

Basement

F igur e VII

Thermal deficiencies observed in Colorado Springs

house #3

B-138
INSULATION VOIDS — INFILTRATION AND LEAKAGE PATHS

VOIDS OR PENETRATION FROM CEILING DEFECTS

Figure VIII. Thermal deficiencies observed in Colorado Springs

house #4

B-139
Second Floor

Floor

INSULATION VOIOS — INFILTRATION AND LEAKAGE PATHS

VOIOS OR PENETRATION FROM CEILING DEFECTS

PENETRATION INTO PARTITION WALL

Figure IX. Thermal deficiencies observed in MinneapolisSt. Paul house #1

B - 1 40
Main (Second

Figure X.

> Floor

INSULATION VOIDS — INFILTRATION AND LEAKAGE PATHS

VOIDS OR PENETRATION FROM CEILING DEFECTS

d] PENETRATION INTO PARTITION WALL

NOT TO SCALE

Thermal deficiencies observed in MinneapolisSt. Paul house #2

B-141
INSULATION VOIOS — INFILTRATION AND LEAKAGE PATHS

Figure XI. Thermal deficiencies observed in Minneapolis

St. Paul house #3

B - 1 42
Second Floor

NOT TO SCALE m

N BR

- -- -]

PORCH I?

t N

—- LR

UP 0

0

0 K

BATH 0

0

ON nENT HALL SD ! nn B

NOT TO SCALE

INSULATION VOIDS — HFITRATION AND LEAKAGE PATHS

VOIOS OR PENETRATION FROM CEILING DEFECTS

First

Figure XII. Thermal deficiencies observed in Minneapolis

St . Paul house #4

Floor

B - 1 43
'Area excluded from inspection NOT TO SCALE

NOT TO SCALE

INSULATION VOIDS — INFILTRATION AND LEAKAGE PATHS

VOIDS OR PENETRATION FROM CEILING DEFECTS

Figure XIII. Thermal deficiencies observed in

house #1

Second Floor

First Floor

Providence

B-144
0

ON

NE BR Q

HALL UP

BATH

1 H SW BR SE BR

L_ 0^0 0 0

DOUBLE STUDS

NOT TO SCALE

Second

First

INSULATION VOIOS — INFILTRATION AND LEAKAGE PATHS

VOIDS OR PENETRATION FROM CEILING DEFECTS

Figure XIV. Thermal deficiencies observed in Providence

house #2

Floor

Floor

B-145
F igur e XV

—

/ NW BR CLO NE BR \

HALL

ON

SW BR SE BR \ /

CLO B

NOT TO SCALE

Second Floor

First Floor

INSULATION VOIDS — INFILTRATION AND LEAKAGE PATHS

VOIDS OR PENETRATION FROM CEILING DEFECTS

Thermal deficiencies observed in Providence

hous e #3

B - 1 46
Figure XVI.

BATH = 2

r*i

a

BATH -1

hh

W WALL OF BATH -2 HOT TO SCALE

Second Floor

INSULATION VOIOS — INFILTRATION AND LEAKAGE PATHS

VOIDS OR PENETRATION FROM CEILING DEFECTS

Thermal deficiencies observed in Providence

house #4

B - 1 47
Figure XVII

INSULATION VOIDS — INFILTRATION AND LEAKAGE PATHS

VOIDS OR PENETRATION FROM CEILING DEFECTS

PENETRATION INTO PARTITION WALL

Thermal deficiencies observed in Washington, D.C.

house #1

B - 1 48
OLD

CHIMNEY

E i3

r T. P.~ NW BR LR

w

FD | _ PORCH 0 _

DR

ENTRANCE

0 SW BR BATH K H

fCABl

0 0 SO

NOT TO SCALE

INSULATION VOIDS — INFILTRATION AND LEAKAGE PATHS

VOIDS OR PENETRATION FROM CEILING DEFECTS

H] PENETRATION

Figure XVIII. Thermal deficiencies observed in Washington, D.C.

house #2

B-149
0 0 t«

0

NW BR NE BR 0

0 °N HALL

SE BR

(cold room]

MIRRORS rx

TUB :V..: BATH, 0

/ y

S' H / 0M0

NOT TO SCALE

Second Floor

INSULATION VOIDS — INFILTRATION AND LEAKAGE PATHS

VOIDS OR PENETRATION FROM CEILING DEFECTS

PENETRATION INTO PARTITION WALL AND FLOOR

First Floor

Figure XIX. Thermal deficiencies observed in Washington, D.C.

house #3

B-150
W WALL OF NE BR H 3 0

t"

NE BR nn . 0

ON

1 w p

STORAGE STORAGE RM =2 RM =1

HOT TO SCALE

Second Floor

NOT TO SCALE

INSULATION VOIDS — INFILTRATION AND LEAKAGE PATHS

VOIDS OR PENETRATION FROM CEILING DEFECTS El PENETRATION INTO PARTITION WALL AND BYPASS

HEAT LOSSES

First Floor

Figure XX. Thermal deficiencies observed in Washington, D.C.

house #4

B-151
NBS-1 14A 'REV. 2-8CI U.S. SEPT. OF comm.

4.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET (See instructions)

1. PUBLICATION OR

REPORT NO.

2. Performing Organ. Report No. 3

NBSIR 83-2701 (DoE)

TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Publ ication Date May 1983

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THERMOGRAPHIC INSPECTIONS

PERFORMED ON RETROFITTED HOMES

5. AUTHOR(S)

Yui-May L. Chang and Richard A. Grot

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS, see instructions) 7. Contract/Grant No. NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

8 . Type of Report & Period Covered

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

Building Systems Division

Office of Building Energy Research and Development

U.S. Department of Energy

Washington, DC 20585

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

_ Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FlPS Software Summary, is attached.

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

bibliography or literature Survey, mention it here) - , , An applied research program was sponsored by the Department of Energy to analyze and

compare the results from inspections that utilized infrared sensing systems to identify

thermal deficiencies in buildings. This research consisted of both the laboratory

evaluation of the commonly used infrared sensing equipment for building inspections

and the field evaluation of the accuracy and consistency of the results of thermographic surveys performed by various thermographic inspectors. The field evaluation

of thermographic inspection performed by infrared contractors was undertaken using

residences previously inspected by the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) as part of

the Community Services Administration Weatherization Program. The results of the first

phase was carried out in 1978-79 and published in a previous report. The present report

contains the analysis and comparison of thermal anomalies detected by NBS and infrared

contractors, during the second phase of this research program, on twenty single-family

residences in five cities in 1980-81.

A substantisl improvement was apparent in the style of reporting by infrared con- tractors, under phase two, as compared with phase one. However, contractors’ surveys

still have problems related to completeness of inspection, quality of hard-copy

documentations, interpretation of thermal defects, and utilization of equipment.

Consequently, contractors generally identified only about 50 percent of the total

defects

.

12. KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolons

)

Comparison of inspections; infrared sensing systems; insulation voids;

interpretation of thermograms; location of heat loss; quality controls; thermal

deficiencies: thermoeranhic inspections.

13. AVAILABILITY 14. NO. OF vv Uni imited For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

PRINTED PAGES

189

Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. 15. Price

y~y' Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161 $17.50

USCOmm-DC 6043-P80