Performance Evaluation and 

Opportunity Assessment for 

St. Bernard Project 

Bruce Dickson 

IBACOS, Inc. 

June 2011
NOTICE

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the 

United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency 

thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or 

assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or 

usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents 

that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific 

commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or 

otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, 

or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and 

opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the 

United States government or any agency thereof.

Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Scientific and Technical Information

P.O. Box 62

Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062

phone: 865.576.8401

fax: 865.576.5728

email: mailto:reports@adonis.osti.gov

Available for sale to the public, in paper, from:

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, VA 22161

phone: 800.553.6847

fax: 703.605.6900

email: orders@ntis.fedworld.gov

online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/ordering.htm

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 20% postconsumer waste
i 

Technical Report: Performance Evaluation and 

Opportunity Assessment for St. Bernard Project 

Prepared for: 

Building America 

Building Technologies Program 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Prepared by: 

IBACOS, Inc. 

2214 Liberty Avenue 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 

NREL Technical Monitor: Michael Gestwick 

Prepared under Subcontract No. KNDJ-0-40341-02 

Deliverable 6.4.2 

June 2011 
ii 

[This page left blank]
iii 

Contents 

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................ iv

List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................. vi

Introductions and Observations ................................................................................................................ 1

Energy Modeling and Analysis .................................................................................................................. 2

Modeling Conclusions .............................................................................................................14

Construction Assessment ........................................................................................................................ 15

Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 42
iv 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Cost Optimization Analysis from BEopt ................................................................................... 3

Figure 2. Creely Drive Photo ...................................................................................................................... 4

Figure 3. Creely Drive Floor Plan .............................................................................................................. 4

Figure 4. Creely – Slab Foundation Energy Modeling Results ............................................................... 6

Figure 5. Creely – Open Pier Foundation Energy Modeling Results ..................................................... 8

Figure 6. Mehle Street Photo...................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 7. Mehle Street Floor Plan .............................................................................................................. 9

Figure 8. Mehle – Slab Foundation Energy Modeling Results ............................................................. 11

Figure 9. Mehle – Open Pier Foundation Energy Modeling Results .................................................... 13

Figure 10. Photo of Open Mechanical Chase Lid .................................................................................. 16

Figure 11. Photo of Sealed Mechanical Chase Lid ................................................................................ 16

Figure 12. Photo of Missing Draftstopping ............................................................................................ 17

Figure 13. Photo of Proper Draftstopping .............................................................................................. 17

Figure 14. Photo of Drywall Gaps ............................................................................................................ 18

Figure 15. Illustration of Continuous Drywall Application .................................................................... 18

Figure 16. Photo of Recessed Light Fixtures ......................................................................................... 19

Figure 17. Illustration of Proper Air Sealing at Recessed Fixtures...................................................... 19

Figure 18. Photo of Open Plan Flooring ................................................................................................. 20

Figure 19. Photo of Closed Cell Foam Under Floor Decking ................................................................ 20

Figure 20. Photo of Unsheathed Attic Knee Walls ................................................................................ 21

Figure 21. Photo of Properly Sheathed Attic Kneewalls ....................................................................... 21

Figure 22. Photo of Uninsulated Raised Floors ..................................................................................... 22

Figure 23. Photo of Closed Cell Foam Under Floor Decking ................................................................ 22

Figure 24. Photo of Missing Attic Insulation at Ceiling ......................................................................... 23

Figure 25. Photo of Well Insulated Attic at Ceiling ................................................................................ 23

Figure 26. Photo of Missing Attic Insulation .......................................................................................... 24

Figure 27. Photo of Attic Insulation Under Roof Deck .......................................................................... 24

Figure 28. Photo of Short Kraft Faced Fiberglass Batts ....................................................................... 25

Figure 29. Photo of Proper Installation of Unfaced Batts ..................................................................... 25

Figure 30. Photo of Panned Return ......................................................................................................... 26

Figure 31. Photo of Sealed Return .......................................................................................................... 26

Figure 32. Photo of Identically Sized Ducts ........................................................................................... 27

Figure 33. Diagram of Properly Sized Duct Systems ............................................................................ 27

Figure 34. Photo of Oversized HVAC Equipment .................................................................................. 28

Figure 35. Photo of Properly Sized HVAC Equipment .......................................................................... 28

Figure 36. Photo of Attic Exhaust Fan .................................................................................................... 29

Figure 37. Photo Attic Ridge Venting ...................................................................................................... 29

Figure 38. Photo of Missing Door Flashing ............................................................................................ 30

Figure 39. Photo of Proper Door Sill Flashing Installation ................................................................... 30

Figure 40. Photo of Missing Door Flashing ............................................................................................ 31

Figure 41. Photo of Proper Door Flashing Installation ......................................................................... 31

Figure 42. Photo of Missing Drip Cap at Door Head ............................................................................. 32

Figures 43 and 44. Illustrations of Proper Drip Cap Installation .......................................................... 32

Figure 45. Photo of Mis-lapped Window Flashing ................................................................................. 33

Figure 46. Photo of Proper Window Flashing Installation .................................................................... 33

Figure 47. Photo of Unsealed Wall Penetration ..................................................................................... 34

Figure 48. Photo of Properly Sealed Wall Penetration .......................................................................... 34

Figure 49. Photo of Improperly Installed Drip Edge .............................................................................. 35

Figure 50. Photo of Properly Installed Drip Edge .................................................................................. 35

Figure 51. Photo of Improper Roof Boot Installation ............................................................................ 36

Figure 52. Photo of Proper Roof Boot Installation ................................................................................ 36

Figure 53. Photo of Insufficient Underlayment at Roof Edge ............................................................... 37
v 

Figure 54. Photo of Proper Underlayment Installation at Roof Edge .................................................. 37

Figure 55. Photo of Downspout Discharge Against Foundation ......................................................... 38

Figure 56. Photo of Effective Roof Drainage Discharge ....................................................................... 38

Figure 57. Photo of Insufficient Grade Separation ................................................................................ 39

Figure 58. Photo of Adequate Grade Separation ................................................................................... 39

Figure 59. Photo of Insufficient Flashing Surrounding Tub ................................................................. 40

Figures 60 and 61. Illustrations of Proper Tub Surround Flashing ..................................................... 40

Figure 62. Photo of Improper Backer Board Installation ...................................................................... 41

Figure 63. Photo of Proper Back Board Installation .............................................................................. 41

* Unless otherwise noted, all figures were created by IBACOS.
vi 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Creely - Slab Foundation Base Specifications and Option Upgrade Packages .................... 5

Table 2. Creely - Open Pier Foundation Base Specifications and Option Upgrade Packages ........... 7

Table 3. Mehle - Slab Foundation Base Specifications and Option Upgrade Packages ................... 10

Table 4. Mehle - Open Pier Foundation Base Specifications and Option Upgrade Packages .......... 12

* Unless otherwise noted, all tables were created by IBACOS.
1 

Introductions and Observations 

The St. Bernard Project is a nonprofit, community-based organization whose mission is to assist 

Hurricane Katrina survivors return to their homes and communities in the New Orleans area. 

IBACOS, along with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and U.S. Department 

of Energy (DOE), is involved in consulting for the organization’s Rebuilding Program. 

IBACOS has been tasked with performing Building Energy Optimization (BEopt) modeling on 

two representative plans furnished by St. Bernard Project and recommending affordable 

measures to be adopted into the St. Bernard Project’s retrofit process. To help homeowners and 

the parties involved understand the benefits of an investment in such improvements, IBACOS 

has conducted simple energy modeling to understand and visualize the energy savings associated 

with specific upgrades in comparison to St. Bernard Projects current practices. 

In addition to the BEopt modeling, on January 25 and 26, 2011, IBACOS, along with 

representatives from the DOE, NREL, and St. Bernard Project, conducted an extensive field 

walk of several of St. Bernard Project homes in the New Orleans area that are currently being 

rebuilt. The purpose of this field walk was to observe and document current construction 

practices in terms of building durability, energy efficiency, occupant comfort, health and safety. 

Following the field walks, the IBACOS team reviewed the field data and identified the most 

critical areas to focus on in terms of energy efficiency improvements and preventing moisture 

related building durability issues. 

The following pages in this report will first depict the energy modeling results of two plans that 

the St. Bernard Project put forth as “typical” building types. The remaining portion of the report 

includes pictures and descriptions of Quality Issues that were observed during the field walk and 

Best Practice recommendations to consider that will improve the energy efficiency and durability 

of the renovated homes. 
2 

Energy Modeling and Analysis 

BEopt or Building Energy Optimization modeling. is a computer software program developed by 

the National Renewable Energy Laboratory that is designed to find optimal building designs 

along the path to highly efficient buildings. The models are based on evaluating the marginal 

costs of different combinations of energy efficiency options. 

The BEopt analysis uses an efficient search technique to identify optimal and near optimal 

combinations of efficiency options. The sequential search approach used by the analysis method 

involves searching all construction categories (wall type, ceiling type, window glass, mechanical 

systems, etc.) for the most cost-effective combination of practices along the path to higher 

energy efficiency. 

IBACOS has analyzed two designs with the BEopt modeling program that represent the typical 

house types existing within the St. Bernard Project’s operation. The plans were taken from two 

specific houses: Creely Drive, and Mehle Street, St. Bernard Parish. These particular houses are 

single family, slab-on-grade, and typical for the region. In addition to the slab-on-grade models, 

an open pier foundation with a wood framed floor system was also modeled to account for as 

many common house types in the New Orleans area. 

The first initial model analyzed the energy improvement characteristics that are being achieved 

through St. Bernard Project’s current retrofit strategies. To perform this model, a pre-Katrina 

base case specification package was developed for comparison purposes. The base case 

specifications are estimated building components that would typically have been installed in a 

home before the Hurricane Katrina storm event. The base case building includes R-11 wall 

insulation, R-19 ceiling insulation, a very leaky building envelope (18.6 ACH/50), uninsulated 

and leaky ductwork located in the attic, single pane windows, electric furnace, standard water 

heater and appliances, and no fluorescent light fixtures. Houses are modeled as all-electric, due 

to limited availability of gas. 

BEopt modeling showed that the current strategies that St. Bernard Project is implementing in 

their retrofit packages are achieving an improvement in energy savings between 10% to 13% 

over the base case house. These savings can mostly be attributed to an increased wall R-value, 

better air tightness, the use of ENERGY STAR® appliances, and better ductwork. 

Further optimization modeling was then conducted on the two houses to identify possible 

strategies that would improve the percentage of savings against the current St. Bernard Project 

specification package. The building specifications packages recommended in this report have 

been defined, in part, through the use of BEopt version 1.0.1. 

Figure 1 represents the results of the cost optimization analysis from BEopt, where the points 

along the curve represent the most cost-effective specification package of measures that achieve 

a given energy savings. For each plan type modeled, IBACOS identified four “upgrade” 

packages driven by this analysis. More information on these packages can be found later in this 

report. Cost information included in this report, derived from BEopt, represents national 
3 

construction data and may not accurately reflect local construction labor and/ or materials pricing 

available to St. Bernard Project. 

Figure 1. Cost Optimization Analysis from BEopt 

The tables and graphs that follow represent recommended specification packages that should be 

considered to improve the overall energy performance of the typical St. Bernard Project’s retrofit 

activities; each table is specific to the house type, foundation, and exterior cladding. Although 

both the Creely and Mehle plans are clad in brick, they were also modeled in an open pier 

configuration with vinyl cladding to give a representative example of a house with that type of 

foundation. 
4 

Figure 2. Creely Drive Photo 

©2010 by Bridget Nolan, reprinted with permission.

Figure 3. Creely Drive Floor Plan 

©2010 by Dave Holt, reprinted with permission.
5 

Table 1. Creely - Slab Foundation Base Specifications and Option Upgrade Packages 

Single Story Slab-on-grade 1684 sqft conditioned floor area, 164 sqft window area Category Name Pre-Katrina Housing Spec. St. Bernard Standard Spec. Upgrade Option 1 Upgrade Option 2 Upgrade Option 3 Walls Wood Stud R11 batts 2x4 16"o.c. R13 batts 2x4 16"o.c. R13 batts 2x4 16"o.c. R13 batts 2x4 16"o.c. R13 batts 2x4 16"o.c. Exterior Finish Red Brick Red Brick Red Brick Red Brick Red Brick Ceilings/Roofs Unfinished Attic 

Ceiling R19 Fiberglass Batts Vented 

Ceiling R19 Fiberglass Batts Vented 

Ceiling R19 Fiberglass Batts Vented 

Ceiling R19 Fiberglass Batts Vented 

Ceiling R19 Fiberglass Batts Vented 

Radiant Barrier None None None None None Foundation/Floors Slab None None None None None Windows Window Type 

Single Pane, U-0.869 SHGC0.619 Double Clear, U-0.49 SHGC- 0.65 Double Clear, U-0.49 SHGC-0.65 Double Clear, U-0.32 SHGC-0.3 Double Clear, U-0.32 SHGC-0

Airflow Infiltration 18.6 ACH 50 14.5 ACH 50 10.3 ACH 50 3.7 ACH 50 3.7 ACH 50 Mechanical Ventilation None Exhaust 50% of A-62.2 Exhaust 50% of A-62.2 Exhaust 50% of A-62.2 Exhaust 50% of A-62.2 Major Appliances Refrigerator Standard Top Mount Freezer 

Energy Star Side-by-Side Freezer 

ENERGYSTAR Side-by-Side Freezer 

ENERGYSTAR Side-by-Side Freezer 

ENERGYSTAR Side-by-Side Freezer 

Cooking Range Electric Conventional Electric Conventional Electric Conventional Electric Conventional Electric Conventional Dishwasher Standard ENERGYSTAR ENERGYSTAR ENERGYSTAR ENERGYSTAR Clothes Washer Standard ENERGYSTAR ENERGYSTAR ENERGYSTAR ENERGYSTAR Clothes Dryer Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric Lighting Lighting 0% Fluorescent Hardwired 0% Fluorescent Hardwired 100% Fluorescent Hardwired 100% Fluorescent Hardwired 100% Fluorescent Hardwired Space Conditioning Air Conditioner None SEER 13 SEER 13 SEER 13 None Furnace Electric Electric Electric Electric None Heat Pump None None None None SEER 13. HSPF 8.1 Ducts Leaky Uninsulated (Attic) Typical R6 Insulation (Attic) Typical R6 Insulation (Attic) Typical R6 Insulation (Attic) Typical R6 Insulation (Attic) Water Heating Water Heater Electric Standard, 92% EF Electric Standard, 92% EF Electric Standard, 92% EF Electric Standard, 92% EF Electric Standard, 92% EF 

Percent Improvement on St. Bernard Standard 0.0% 4.5% 9.7% 22.4% 

Percent Improvement on Pre-Katrina House 11.2% 15.2% 19.8% 31.1% 

Highlighted options are upgrades to observed St. Bernard Project specifications 
6 

40.6 40.6 40.6 40.6 40.6 40.6

0.3 0.5 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1

27.7 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2

22.1 22.1

10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5

3.8 4.7

5.3 5.1 4.2 2.4

33.6

31.7 32.7 26.4 23.6

101.3 41.4

43.3

20.0

17.7

12.1

33.5

30.8

30.8

30.8

29.4

29.4

229.3

199.0

188.4

165.9

154.9

144.8

-15.0

35.0

85.0

135.0

185.0

235.0

285.0

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Pre-Katrina Housing Spec St. Benard Standard Spec Upgrade Option 1 Upgrade Option 2 Upgrade Option 3 Upgrade Option 4

Hot Water (E)

Heating (E)

Cooling (E)

HVAC Fan/Pump (E)

Lights (E)

Lg. Appl. (E)

Vent Fan (E)

Misc. (E)

Creely - Slab Foundation

S

o

u

r

c

e

E

n

e

r

g

y

U

s

e

(

M

B

t

u

/

y

r

)

Figure 4. Creely – Slab Foundation Energy Modeling Results 
7 

Table 2. Creely - Open Pier Foundation Base Specifications and Option Upgrade Packages 

Vented Crawl or Open Pier Foundation 1684 sqft conditioned floor area, 164 sqft window area Category Name Pre-Katrina Housing Spec. St. Bernard Standard Spec. Upgrade Option 1 Upgrade Option 2 Upgrade Option 3 Walls Wood Stud R11 batts 2x4 16"o.c. R13 batts 2x4 16"o.c. R13 batts 2x4 16"o.c. R13 batts 2x4 16"o.c. R13 batts 2x4 16"o.c. Exterior Finish Gray Vinyl Siding Gray Vinyl Siding Gray Vinyl Siding Gray Vinyl Siding Gray Vinyl Siding Ceilings/Roofs Unfinished Attic 

Ceiling R19 Fiberglass Batts Vented 

Ceiling R19 Fiberglass Batts Vented 

Ceiling R19 Fiberglass Batts Vented 

Ceiling R19 Fiberglass Batts Vented 

Ceiling R19 Fiberglass BattVented 

Radiant Barrier None None None None None Foundation/Floors Crawlspace 4' Uninsulated Vented Uninsulated Vented Uninsulated Vented Uninsulated Vented Uninsulated Vented Windows Window Type 

Single Pane, U-0.869 SHGC0.619 Double Clear, U-0.49 SHGC-0.65 Double Clear, U-0.49 SHGC-0.65 Double Clear, U-0.32 SHGC-0.3 Double Clear, U-0.32 SHGC

Airflow Infiltration 18.6 ACH 50 14.5 ACH 50 10.3 ACH 50 3.7 ACH 50 3.7 ACH 50 Mechanical Ventilation None Exhaust 50% of A-62.2 Exhaust 50% of A-62.2 Exhaust 50% of A-62.2 Exhaust 50% of A-62.2 Major Appliances Refrigerator Standard Top Mount Freezer 

ENERGYSTAR Side-by-Side Freezer 

ENERGYSTAR Side-by-Side Freezer 

ENERGYSTAR Side-by-Side Freezer 

ENERGYSTAR Side-by-SidFreezer 

Cooking Range Electric Conventional Electric Conventional Electric Conventional Electric Conventional Electric Conventional Dishwasher Standard ENERGYSTAR ENERGYSTAR ENERGYSTAR ENERGYSTAR Clothes Washer Standard ENERGYSTAR ENERGYSTAR ENERGYSTAR ENERGYSTAR Clothes Dryer Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric Lighting Lighting 0% Fluorescent Hardwired 0% Fluorescent Hardwired 100% Fluorescent Hardwired 100% Fluorescent Hardwired 100% Fluorescent HardwireSpace Conditioning Air Conditioner None SEER 13 SEER 13 SEER 13 None Furnace Electric Electric Electric Electric None Heat Pump None None None None SEER 13. HSPF 8.1 Ducts Leaky Uninsulated (Attic) Typical R6 Insulation (Attic) Typical R6 Insulation (Attic) Typical R6 Insulation (Attic) Typical R6 Insulation (Attic) Water Heating Water Heater Electric Standard, 92% EF Electric Standard, 92% EF Electric Standard, 92% EF Electric Standard, 92% EF Electric Premium, 95% EF 

Percent Improvement on St. Bernard Standard 0.0% 4.4% 10.0% 23.6% 

Percent Improvement on Pre-Katrina House 11.4% 15.3% 25.8% 32.3% 

Highlighted options are upgrades to observed St. Bernard Project specifications 
8 

40.6 40.6 40.6 40.6 40.6 40.6

0.3 0.5 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1

27.7 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2 25.2

22.1 22.1

10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5

4.4 5.4

6.2 5.4 4.0 2.7

34.9

33.1 28.6 30.3 26.1

110.4 52.7

55.3

49.6

22.1

11.5

33.5

30.8

30.8

30.8

30.8

29.4

238.9

212.2

202.7

191.7

164.6

147.0

-15.0

35.0

85.0

135.0

185.0

235.0

285.0

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Pre-Katrina Housing Spec St. Benard Standard Spec Upgrade Option 1 Upgrade Option 2 Upgrade Option 3 Upgrade Option 4

Hot Water (E)

Heating (E)

Cooling (E)

HVAC Fan/Pump (E)

Lights (E)

Lg. Appl. (E)

Vent Fan (E)

Misc. (E)

Creely - Open Pier Foundation

S

o

u

r

c

e

E

n

e

r

g

y

U

s

e

(

M

B

t

u

/

y

r

)

Figure 5. Creely – Open Pier Foundation Energy Modeling Results 

300 

150 

0 

50 

100 

200 

250 Source Energy Use (Mbtu/yr) 
9 

Figure 6. Mehle Street Photo 

©2010 by Bridget Nolan, reprinted with permission.

Figure 7. Mehle Street Floor Plan 

©2010 by Dave Holt, reprinted with permission.
10 

Table 3. Mehle - Slab Foundation Base Specifications and Option Upgrade Packages 

Single Story Slab-on-grade 1894 sqft conditioned floor area, 189 sqft window area Category Name Pre-Katrina Housing Spec. St. Bernard Standard Spec. Upgrade Option 1 Upgrade Option 2 Upgrade Option 3 Walls Wood Stud R11 batts 2x4 16"o.c. R13 batts 2x4 16"o.c. R13 batts 2x4 16"o.c. R15 batts 2x4 16"o.c. R13 batts 2x4 16"o.c. Exterior Finish Light Brown Brick Light Brown Brick Light Brown Brick Light Brown Brick Light Brown Brick Ceilings/Roofs Unfinished Attic 

Ceiling R19 Fiberglass Batts Vented 

Ceiling R19 Fiberglass Batts Vented 

Ceiling R19 Fiberglass Batts Vented 

Ceiling R19 Fiberglass Batts Vented 

Ceiling R19 Fiberglass BattVented 

Radiant Barrier None None None None None Foundation/Floors Slab None None None None None Windows Window Type 

Single Pane, U-0.869 SHGC0.619 Double Clear, U-0.49 SHGC-0.65 Double Clear, U-0.49 SHGC-0.65 Double Clear, U-0.49 SHGC-0.65 Double Clear, U-0.49 SHGC

Airflow Infiltration 18.6 ACH 50 14.5 ACH 50 10.3 ACH 50 3.7 ACH 50 3.7 ACH 50 Mechanical Ventilation None Exhaust 50% of A-62.2 Exhaust 50% of A-62.2 Exhaust 50% of A-62.2 Exhaust 50% of A-62.2 Major Appliances Refrigerator Standard Top Mount Freezer 

ENERGYSTAR Side-by-Side Freezer 

ENERGYSTAR Side-by-Side Freezer 

ENERGYSTAR Side-by-Side Freezer 

ENERGYSTAR Side-by-SidFreezer 

Cooking Range Electric Conventional Electric Conventional Electric Conventional Electric Conventional Electric Conventional Dishwasher Standard ENERGYSTAR ENERGYSTAR ENERGYSTAR ENERGYSTAR Clothes Washer Standard ENERGYSTAR ENERGYSTAR ENERGYSTAR ENERGYSTAR Clothes Dryer Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric Lighting Lighting 0% Fluorescent Hardwired 0% Fluorescent Hardwired 100% Fluorescent Hardwired 100% Fluorescent Hardwired 100% Fluorescent HardwireSpace Conditioning Air Conditioner None SEER 13 SEER 13 SEER 13 None Furnace Electric Electric Electric Electric None Heat Pump None None None None SEER 13. HSPF 8.1 Ducts Leaky Uninsulated (Attic) Typical R6 Insulation (Attic) Typical R6 Insulation (Attic) Typical R6 Insulation (Attic) Typical R6 Insulation (Attic) Water Heating Water Heater Electric Standard, 92% EF Electric Standard, 92% EF Electric Standard, 92% EF Electric Standard, 92% EF Electric Standard, 92% EF 

Percent Improvement on St. Bernard Standard 0.0% 3.9% 9.9% 19.5% 

Percent Improvement on Pre-Katrina House 12.5% 15.9% 21.2% 29.6% 

Highlighted options are upgrades to observed St. Bernard Project specifications 
11 

38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6

0.3 0.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

24.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5

23.7 23.7

11.2 11.2 11.2 11.2

3.9 5.0

5.8 5.4 4.2 3.3

36.1

34.6 32.7 34.9

21.6

103.8

42.6

47.4

38.2

18.2

13.8

29.2

26.9

26.9

26.9

26.9

25.5

223.8

195.8

188.1

176.4

157.5

137.5

-15.0

35.0

85.0

135.0

185.0

235.0

285.0

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Pre-Katrina Housing Spec St. Benard Standard Spec Upgrade Option 1 Upgrade Option 2 Upgrade Option 3 Upgrade Option 4

Heating (E)

Cooling (E)

HVAC Fan/Pump (E)

Lights (E)

Lg. Appl. (E)

Vent Fan (E)

Misc. (E)

Mehle - Slab Foundation

S

o

u

r

c

e

E

n

e

r

g

y

U

s

e

(

M

B

t

u

/

y

r

)

Figure 8. Mehle – Slab Foundation Energy Modeling Results 
12 

 Table 4. Mehle - Open Pier Foundation Base Specifications and Option Upgrade Packages

Vented Crawl or Open Pier Foundation 1894 sqft conditioned floor area, 189 sqft window area Category Name Pre-Katrina Housing Spec. St. Bernard Standard Spec. Upgrade Option 1 Upgrade Option 2 Upgrade Option 3 Walls Wood Stud R11 batts 2x4 16"o.c. R13 batts 2x4 16"o.c. R13 batts 2x4 16"o.c. R13 batts 2x4 16"o.c. R13 batts 2x4 16"o.c. + 1" fExterior Finish Gray Vinyl Siding Gray Vinyl Siding Gray Vinyl Siding Gray Vinyl Siding Gray Vinyl Siding Ceilings/Roofs Unfinished Attic 

Ceiling R19 Fiberglass Batts Vented 

Ceiling R19 Fiberglass Batts Vented 

Ceiling R19 Fiberglass Batts Vented 

Roof R19 Fiberglass Batts Unvented 

Roof R30 Fiberglass Batts Unvented 

Radiant Barrier None None None None None Foundation/Floors Crawlspace 4' Uninsulated Vented Uninsulated Vented Uninsulated Vented Uninsulated Vented Uninsulated Vented Windows Window Type 

Single Pane, U-0.869 SHGC0.619 Double Clear, U-0.49 SHGC-0.65 Double Clear, U-0.49 SHGC-0.65 Double Clear, U-0.32 SHGC-0.3 Double Clear, U-0.32 SHGC

Airflow Infiltration 18.6 ACH 50 14.5 ACH 50 10.3 ACH 50 10.3 ACH 50 10.3 ACH 50 Mechanical Ventilation None Exhaust 50% of A-62.2 Exhaust 50% of A-62.2 Exhaust 50% of A-62.2 Exhaust 50% of A-62.2 Major Appliances Refrigerator Standard Top Mount Freezer 

ENERGYSTAR Side-by-Side Freezer 

ENERGYSTAR Side-by-Side Freezer 

ENERGYSTAR Side-by-Side Freezer 

ENERGYSTAR Side-by-SidFreezer 

Cooking Range Electric Conventional Electric Conventional Electric Conventional Electric Conventional Electric Conventional Dishwasher Standard ENERGYSTAR ENERGYSTAR ENERGYSTAR ENERGYSTAR Clothes Washer Standard ENERGYSTAR ENERGYSTAR ENERGYSTAR ENERGYSTAR Clothes Dryer Electric Electric Electric Electric Electric Lighting Lighting 0% Fluorescent Hardwired 0% Fluorescent Hardwired 80% Fluorescent Hardwired 100% Fluorescent Hardwired 100% Fluorescent HardwireSpace Conditioning Air Conditioner None SEER 13 SEER 13 None None Furnace Electric Electric Electric None None Heat Pump None None None SEER 13. HSPF 8.1 SEER 13. HSPF 8.1 Ducts Leaky Uninsulated (Attic) Typical R6 Insulation (Attic) Typical R6 Insulation (Attic) Typical R6 Insulation (Attic) Typical R6 Insulation (Attic) Water Heating Water Heater Electric Standard, 92% EF Electric Standard, 92% EF Electric Standard, 92% EF Electric Standard, 92% EF Electric Premium, 95% EF 

Percent Improvement on St. Bernard Standard 0.0% 6.1% 24.9% 32.0% 

Percent Improvement on Pre-Katrina House 10.5% 15.9% 32.8% 39.0% 

Highlighted options are upgrades to observed St. Bernard Project specifications 
13 

38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6 38.6

0.3 0.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

24.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5

23.7 23.7 12.7 11.2 11.2 11.2

4.9 6.1

7.8 5.5 4.2 3.8

39.3

34.9

31.5 27.2 24.5

120.5

58.8

58.7

25.1

17.1 14.2

29.2

26.9

26.9

26.9

25.5

25.5

241.6

216.2

203.1

162.3

147.3

141.2

-15.0

35.0

85.0

135.0

185.0

235.0

285.0

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Pre-Katrina Housing Spec St. Benard Standard Spec Upgrade Option 1 Upgrade Option 2 Upgrade Option 3 Upgrade Option 4

Heating (E)

Cooling (E)

HVAC Fan/Pump (E)

Lights (E)

Lg. Appl. (E)

Vent Fan (E)

Misc. (E)

Mehle - Open Pier Foundation

S

o

u

r

c

e

E

n

e

r

g

y

U

s

e

(

M

B

t

u

/

y

r

)

Figure 9. Mehle – Open Pier Foundation Energy Modeling Results 
14 

Modeling Conclusions 

IBACOS considered option upgrades to feed into the modeling program including the use of 

increased air tightness of the envelope, higher R-values for attic and wall insulation, better 

windows, higher efficiency of mechanical equipment and appliances, and lighting packages. 

For the St. Bernard Project slab-on-grade houses, the modeling results show significant energy 

saving can be achieved by improving the R-values of the insulation, standardizing a low U value 

and shading coefficient for all windows, installing fluorescent light fixtures, utilizing Energy Star 

appliances, using a heat pump for space conditioning and tightening up the envelope from air 

infiltration. 

Additionally, the open pier versions saw similar savings with the same specification changes and 

the addition of insulation into the wood floor framing. 
15 

Construction Assessment 

While on site, IBACOS observed 13 houses that were in various stages of retrofit construction. A 

wide range of construction practices were observed. The following pages highlight current 

construction practices that IBACOS deems to be potential “Quality Issues” as these practices 

may compromise building durability, energy efficiency, or occupant comfort. 

Following each Quality Issue, IBACOS highlights an example of a construction “Best Practice” 

which, when applied to St. Bernard Project retrofit activities would result in overall better living 

environments for the occupants. 
16 

Quality Issue – Air Barrier Details 

Mechanical Chase Lids 

Homes with air handlers 

located in closets within 

the living space did not 

have any type of sealed lid 

where the ductwork was 

routed in to the attic 

through the ceiling plane. 

Not sealing the lid at the 

top of duct or other 

mechanical chases may 

lead to 1) increased utility 

bills for the homeowners 

due to decreased thermal 

performance, 2) comfort 

issues due to the unwanted 

exchange of air from unconditioned to conditioned 

spaces. Figure 10. Photo of Open Mechanical Chase Lid 

Best Practice – Air Barrier Details

Mechanical Chase Lids 

The best method to seal 

duct chase lids is to install 

a panel product over the 

top of the chase and then 

cut the duct penetration 

through. This enables the 

installer to create a better 

fit through the lid and 

makes it much easier to 

seal. Fiberglass chinking is 

minimally effective in 

preventing the passage of 

air and so should not be 

used for air sealing. 

Expanding foam is the 

most effective sealant to 

use at this location. 

Figure 11. Photo of Sealed Mechanical Chase Lid 
17 

Quality Issue – Air Barrier Details

Tub and Shower 

Draftstopping 

Exterior walls behind tub 

and shower units are 

insulated but did not have 

any type of sheathing 

installed over the 

insulation to prevent drafts 

and convective air 

currents. 

Figure 12. Photo of Missing Draftstopping 

Best Practice – Air Barrier Details 

Tub and Shower 

Draftstopping 

This photo shows a cavity 

sheathed both to 

encapsulate the insulation 

so that the proper R-value 

is achieved and to avoid a 

convective loop. 

A convective loop occurs 

when air rises along a 

warm surface and falls 

along a cold surface 

creating a circular 

movement of air. Such a 

loop transfers heat through 

the building assembly, 

requiring more energy to 

replace the lost heat in 

heating seasons and the 

lost cool air in cooling 

seasons. 

Figure 13. Photo of Proper Draftstopping 
18 

Quality Issue – Air Barrier Details 

Continuous Drywall 

In homes with ceilings that 

are taller than the standard 

8 feet a large gap was left 

open at the base of walls. 

While baseboard will cover 

this area it will still permit 

air infiltration or 

exfiltration if left unsealed. 

 

 

Figure 14. Photo of Drywall Gaps 

Best Practice – Air Barrier Details 

Continuous Drywall 

Gluing the drywall to the 

perimeter framing will 

greatly increase the overall 

effectiveness of the 

insulation and air barrier. 

 

Figure 15. Illustration of Continuous Drywall Application 
19 

Quality Issue – Air Barrier Details 

Recessed Light 

Fixtures 

Many homes are equipped 

with recessed light 

fixtures. All of the units 

are air tight and insulation 

contact rated. Installing 

these fixtures with the 

gasketed or caulked in trim 

ring is critical in achieving 

the air tightness of the 

fixture. 

* The finished detail was 

not observed during this 

inspection but is included 

in this review for proper air 

sealing validation 

purposes. 

Figure 16. Photo of Recessed Light Fixtures

Best Practice – Air Barrier Details 

Recessed Light 

Fixtures 

Drawing showing the 

location of sealant between 

the trim ring and finished 

ceiling. 

 

Figure 17. Illustration of Proper Air Sealing at Recessed Fixtures 

 Source: Building America Best Practices Series
20 

Quality Issue – Air Barrier Details 

Wood Frame Floor Air 

Sealing 

Establishing a continuous 

and thorough air barrier 

between the thermal shell 

and outdoors is critical to 

the overall efficiency and 

comfort of the indoor 

environment. This open 

plank floor should be 

addressed and sealed with 

a panel product on the top 

surface or a continuous 

spray foam seal from 

beneath prior to installing 

the finished flooring. 

Figure 18. Photo of Open Plan Flooring 

Best Practice – Air Barrier Details 

Wood Frame Floor Air 

Sealing 

The most effective 

insulation and air sealing 

solution at framed floors 

on open pier foundations is 

to use a wash of closed cell 

foam over the entire 

underside of the floor 

system. 

As an alternative, sealing 

the joints in the floor 

boards with canned spray 

foam and scraping the 

excess off once cured is an 

acceptable approach that 

requires additional labor 

and time. 

Figure 19. Photo of Closed Cell Foam Under Floor Decking 
21 

Quality Issue – Insulation 

Attic Kneewalls 

At locations where 

insulated walls are adjacent 

to unconditioned attic 

space, the attic side of the 

wall should be sheathed, 

both to improve the 

airtightness of the wall 

assembly and to fully 

encapsulate the insulation 

so that the proper R-value 

is achieved. 

Figure 20. Photo of Unsheathed Attic Knee Walls 

Best Practice – Insulation 

Attic Kneewalls 

Sheathing the attic side of 

all kneewalls will ensure 

the batt insulation within 

the walls is encapsulated 

on all six sides. This will 

also ensure the 

effectiveness of the 

thermal envelope by 

preventing convection 

loops in the insulation. 

Figure 21. Photo of Properly Sheathed Attic Kneewalls 
22 

Quality Issue – Insulation 

Raised Floors 

A consistent strategy to 

maintain the thermal 

boundary at raised floors 

on open pier foundations 

needs to be established. 

Figure 22. Photo of Uninsulated Raised Floors 

Best Practice – Insulation 

Raised Floors 

The most effective 

insulation and air sealing 

solution at framed floors 

on open pier foundations is 

to use a wash of closed cell 

foam over the entire 

underside of the floor 

system. Thickness of 

closed cell foam will be 

dependent on desired Rvalue of the floor system. 

Figure 23. Photo of Closed Cell Foam Under Floor Decking 
23 

Quality Issue – Insulation 

Attics 

Instances of missing 

insulation and air sealing at 

penetrations were observed 

in most attics. 

Figure 24. Photo of Missing Attic Insulation at Ceiling 

Best Practice – Insulation 

Attics 

The best practice at attics is 

to inspect the attic before 

insulation to ensure that all 

penetrations are sealed and 

then use a loose fill 

fiberglass blown in 

insulation (R-30) over the 

entire attic floor. 

Due to the moisture 

retention capabilities of 

cellulose insulation, 

fiberglass fill is 

recommended for the hot 

humid New Orleans region. 

Figure 25. Photo of Well Insulated Attic at Ceiling 
24 

Quality Issue – Insulation 

Attics 

Another instance of 

missing insulation in the 

attic. 

Figure 26. Photo of Missing Attic Insulation 

Best Practice – Insulation 

Attics 

An alternate method of 

insulating the attic would 

be to insulate against the 

roof deck with closed cell 

foam. This practice 

provides a total air seal and 

thermal boundary that 

minimizes the extreme 

temperature effects on the 

air handling equipment and 

ductwork. 

Figure 27. Photo of Attic Insulation Under Roof Deck 
25 

Quality Issue – Insulation 

Walls 

In some instances, the 

fiberglass batts did not 

completely fill the stud 

bays. Often there was a 

gap at the top plate which 

will reduce the 

effectiveness of the 

insulation. 

The use of Kraft-faced 

batts is not recommended 

for hot and humid climate 

regions. The use of 

unfaced batts is the better 

approach that will provide 

more drying capability to 

the wall assembly. 

Figure 28. Photo of Short Kraft Faced Fiberglass Batts 

Best Practice – Insulation 

Walls 

Use of fiberglass insulation 

without any vapor barrier 

allows the wall assembly 

to breathe and dry to the 

inside. Additionally, it is 

far easier to do a thorough 

installation with unfaced 

batts. 

Figure 29. Photo of Proper Installation of Unfaced Batts 
26 

Quality Issue – Mechanical Systems 

Return Air Strategy 

Panned, or using framing 

cavities for duct return 

systems are inherently 

difficult to seal and tend to 

draw air from building 

cavities instead of living 

spaces which may lead to 

comfort and efficiency 

issues. 

Figure 30. Photo of Panned Return 

Best Practice – Mechanical Systems 

Return Air Strategy 

Building a sealed return 

plenum box beneath the air 

handler is the best way to 

maximize the return air 

capability of the unit and 

ensure that the air is 

coming from the living 

space instead of framing 

cavities or the attic. 

Figure 31. Photo of Sealed Return 
27 

Quality Issue – Mechanical Systems 

Duct Sizing 

Many of the duct systems 

that were observed did not 

seem to have any definitive 

sizing strategy. Duct 

systems that use similar 

size branch ducts may not 

deliver the necessary air 

amounts to certain rooms. 

This practice may result in 

comfort and efficiency 

issues that a homeowner 

will compensate for by 

adjusting the thermostat. 

Figure 32. Photo of Identically Sized Ducts 

Best Practice – Mechanical Systems 

Duct Sizing 

Requiring the mechanical 

contractor to follow and 

submit the ACCA Manual 

D “Residential Duct 

Systems” procedure will 

help to ensure that required 

air flows to specific areas 

of the house are met. 

Manual D is a nationallyrecognized standard for 

designing residential 

HVAC duct systems. 

For additional information: 

www.acca.org/industry/sys

tem-design/process 

Figure 33. Diagram of Properly Sized Duct Systems 
28 

Quality Issue – Mechanical Systems 

AHU Sizing 

ACCA Manual J load 

calculations were not 

available during site visit. 

Sizing of air handlers and 

cooling system should be 

verified to Manual J loads 

on each dwelling. This will 

maximize efficiency and 

allow better humidity 

control and comfort within 

the living spaces. 

Figure 34. Photo of Oversized HVAC Equipment 

Best Practice – Mechanical Systems 

AHU Sizing 

Utilizing protocols outlined 

in the ACCA Manual J 

“Residential Load 

Calculation” design 

guidelines will ensure the 

properly sized equipment 

will match the parameters 

of the home and result in 

optimum operation and 

long term performance. 

For additional information: 

www.acca.org/industry/sys

tem-design/process 

Figure 35. Photo of Properly Sized HVAC Equipment 
29 

Quality Issue – Mechanical Systems 

Attic Exhaust Fans 

Concerns regarding attic 

exhaust fans exist due to 

the lack of a 

comprehensive and 

thorough air sealing 

between the attic and 

living space. Without a 

tight air barrier, the attic 

fan can pull conditioned air 

from the living space and 

induce air intrusion from 

outdoors. 

Figure 36. Photo of Attic Exhaust Fan 

Best Practice – Mechanical Systems 

Attic Exhaust Fans 

Installing the appropriate 

soffit and either ridge or 

off ridge venting to remove 

excess heat from the attic 

is a better practice than the 

electric exhaust fan due to 

the impact on the living 

space that the fan can 

induce. 

Figure 37. Photo Attic Ridge Venting 
30 

Quality Issue – Drainage Plane Detailing 

Door Flashing 

No comprehensive flashing 

strategy was observed at 

exterior entry doors. 

Standardizing a complete 

strategy that includes a 

pre-formed sill pan beneath 

the threshold and 

integrating the sill pan with 

self-stick flashing at the 

jambs and head will insure 

a weather tight assembly. 

Figure 38. Photo of Missing Door Flashing 

Best Practice – Drainage Plane Detailing 

Door Flashing 

Example of a pre-formed 

sill pan beneath an entry 

door with the front lip 

extending out and over the 

drainage plane. 

Figure 39. Photo of Proper Door Sill Flashing Installation 
31 

Quality Issue – Drainage Plane Detailing 

Door Flashing 

No comprehensive flashing 

strategy was observed at 

entry doors. 

Figure 40. Photo of Missing Door Flashing 

Best Practice – Drainage Plane Detailing 

Door Flashing 

Standardizing a flashing 

strategy for new door 

installations that includes a 

sill pan beneath the 

threshold and properly 

applied self-stick flashing 

and drip edge over the 

head will minimize any 

potential for water 

intrusion at doorways. 

Figure 41. Photo of Proper Door Flashing Installation 
32 

Quality Issue – Drainage Plane Detailing 

Drip Caps at Door 

Heads 

No “z” flashing or drip 

edges were installed on the 

brick mould over the heads 

of doors. 

Figure 42. Photo of Missing Drip Cap at Door Head 

Best Practice – Drainage Plane Detailing 

Drip Caps at Door 

Heads 

Drip edges over doors 

ensure bulk water will 

drain down and away from 

the head of doorways 

minimizing the potential 

for water intrusion. 

Figures 43 and 44. Illustrations of Proper Drip Cap Installation 
33 

Quality Issue – Drainage Plane Detailing 

Window Flashing 

Self-stick window flashing 

was observed on exposed 

windows. Often the 

flashing pieces were mislapped with one another 

and did not maintain the 

shingling effect. 

Figure 45. Photo of Mis-lapped Window Flashing 

Best Practice – Drainage Plane Detailing 

Window Flashing 

Flashing should start at the 

sill with the side jamb 

pieces layering over the sill 

and the head over the 

jambs. Cutting 2 angle cuts 

in the house wrap at each 

corner of the head and 

creating a flap that can be 

folded over the flashing 

and taped is the best 

strategy at maintaining the 

shingling effect when 

flashing windows. 

Figure 46. Photo of Proper Window Flashing Installation 
34 

Quality Issue – Drainage Plane Detailing 

Vinyl Trim Blocks 

Wire penetrations and 

decorative trim boxes are 

common leak points if not 

detailed correctly. 

Figure 47. Photo of Unsealed Wall Penetration 

Best Practice – Drainage Plane Detailing 

Vinyl Trim Blocks 

Utilizing self-stick flashing 

in the proper shingling 

sequence will minimize 

any potential for water 

intrusion at these locations. 

Figure 48. Photo of Properly Sealed Wall Penetration 
35 

Quality Issue – Roofing 

Drip Edge Application 

Inconsistent practices were 

observed at drip edge 

applications at roof edges. 

The drip edge should be 

installed directly against 

the roof deck at the eave 

followed by the 

underlayment paper 

followed by the drip edges 

on the rakes. This layering 

sequence maintains the 

shingling effect to the 

gutters. 

Figure 49. Photo of Improperly Installed Drip Edge 

Best Practice - Roofing 

Drip Edge Application 

In this instance, the drip 

edge was installed 

correctly with the drip 

edge installed first at the 

eave and the underlayment 

over the edge followed by 

drip edge at the rakes. 

Figure 50. Photo of Properly Installed Drip Edge 
36 

Quality Issue – Roofing 

Roof Boots 

Proper roof boot coverage 

is necessary to promote 

good drainage. In this 

instance, there is not 

adequate shingle coverage 

at the edges. 

Figure 51. Photo of Improper Roof Boot Installation 

Best Practice - Roofing 

Roof Boots 

Example of a proper 

installation. The lower part 

of the flange overlaps the 

lower shingles and the side 

and upper shingles overlap 

the flange. 

Figure 52. Photo of Proper Roof Boot Installation 
37 

Quality Issue – Roofing 

Underlayment at Roof 

Edges 

When roofing practices 

were observed, the roofing 

paper underlayment did not 

completely cover the roof 

rake edges. 

Figure 53. Photo of Insufficient Underlayment at Roof Edge 

Best Practice - Roofing 

Underlayment at Roof 

Edges 

Running each course of 

building paper all the way 

to the rake edges is the best 

practice. 

Figure 54. Photo of Proper Underlayment Installation at Roof Edge 
38 

Quality Issue – Exterior Bulk Water Management 

Roof Drainage 

Rain water and ground 

water must be properly 

managed at the foundation 

and site in order to enhance 

the long-term durability of 

a home. If the ground 

around the house and the 

foundation system are 

saturated, then the 

possibility for water to 

penetrate the foundation or 

for moisture to wick 

through the foundation by 

capillary action is greatly 

increased. 

In many instances, gutter 

downspouts deposit bulk 

water from the roof next to 

foundations. 

Figure 55. Photo of Downspout Discharge Against Foundation 

Best Practice – Exterior Bulk Water Management 

Roof Drainage 

The best way to eliminate 

any potential moisture 

issues at the foundation is 

to direct water from 

downspouts to a yard 

bubbler or sump pit in the 

yard. 

If that is not feasible, at a 

minimum, taking the time 

to properly position 

splashblocks at 

downspouts so as to direct 

bulk water away is 

recommended. 

Figure 56. Photo of Effective Roof Drainage Discharge 
39 

Quality Issue – Exterior Bulk Water Management 

Grade To Siding 

Reveals 

In some instances there 

was insufficient grade 

separation between wall 

cladding and the 

landscaping/grade. 

Figure 57. Photo of Insufficient Grade Separation 

Best Practice - Exterior Bulk Water Management 

Grade To Siding 

Reveals 

Ideally, there is a minimum 

of 6 to 8 inches between 

the ground surface and the 

starting course for siding. 

This separation eliminates 

any potential for moisture 

wicking into the cladding 

or framing material. The 

gap also hinders insect 

activity into the framing. 

Figure 58. Photo of Adequate Grade Separation 
40 

Quality Issue – Tub and Shower Detailing 

Tub Surround Details 

No comprehensive flashing 

strategy was observed at 

the nailing fin of tub and 

shower units. In most cases 

the wall board was 

installed directly upon the 

unit. This detail will 

eventually deteriorate due 

to the wicking ability of 

the gypsum based backer 

board. 

Figure 59. Photo of Insufficient Flashing Surrounding Tub 

Best Practice - Tub and Shower Detailing 

Tub Surround Details 

Install 4” butyl flashing 

over the nailing fin of the 

tub unit and stick to the 

installed blocking. 

Installing a 4” butyl tape 

over the tub/shower nailing 

fin to the surrounding 

framing can prevent water 

from getting into the wall 

cavity. 

Figures 60 and 61. Illustrations of Proper Tub Surround Flashing 
41 

Quality Issue – Tub and Shower Detailing 

Tub Surround Details 

Another instance where the 

backer board was installed 

tightly to the tub. 

Figure 62. Photo of Improper Backer Board Installation 

Best Practice - Tub and Shower Detailing 

Tub Surround Details 

In this instance the backer 

board was held up and 

installed on the top edge of 

the fin. This practice is 

acceptable as long as the 

previously described 

flashing detail is carried 

out. 

Figure 63. Photo of Proper Back Board Installation 
42 

Summary 

The staff at St. Bernard Project are bringing tremendous assistance and value to many people in 

the New Orleans area that have been affected by the damaging effects of hurricane Katrina. The 

information provided in this report is intended to help St. Bernard Project in terms of improving 

the energy efficiency and long-term durability of the buildings that are being reconstructed. 

Although many of the best practice methods described will require product or process changes, 

some of the recommendations will only require additional training and supervision of the 

volunteer labor. 
DOE/GO-102011-3319 ▪ June 2011

Printed with a renewable-source ink on paper containing at 

least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post-consumer waste.