Page 23

Post your comments and notes on the Summit Draft right here.
johnleeke
Posts: 374
Joined: April 13th, 2011, 7:34 pm
Full Name: John Leeke
Location: Portland
Organization: Historic HomeWorks
Permissions: Yes
Location: Portland, Maine
Contact:

Page 23

Postby johnleeke » August 2nd, 2011, 6:06 pm

Click "Post Reply" to enter your notes.

jlindtner
Posts: 19
Joined: June 20th, 2011, 12:59 am
Full Name: John Lindtner
Location: West Grove, PA
Organization: BPS, LLC
Permissions: Yes

Re: Page 23

Postby jlindtner » August 13th, 2011, 12:52 pm

Weatherstripping in general
I think it would be appropriate to comment on the systems that require the least change to the actual sashes. Some systems require cutting slots/kerfs in the sides of the stiles and the rails. Also, most systems that include weatherstrip on the bottom of the sash or sill and on the top of the top sash or the header/top of window frame will require some deduction from the top &/or bottom of the rails of the sashes. This may also slightly alter the alignment of the meeting rail with the meeting rail of the storm window if that was accurately lined up with the meeting rail of the primary window.

Patrick Roach
Posts: 12
Joined: August 3rd, 2011, 10:26 am
Full Name: Patrick M. Roach AIA
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Organization: Quinn Evans
Permissions: Yes

Re: Page 23

Postby Patrick Roach » August 16th, 2011, 10:50 am

@Typical Procedure:
Include permitted minimum distances from edge of member for sawcut kerfs.

@Materials:
Coordinate and include these material requirements with performance requirements at the front of the document.

@Quality of Results:
Can the percentage reduction statistics discussed here be translated into a specific performance standard, expressed as a maximum air infiltration rate (say, in CFM)? We've seen that even with wide variations in initial infiltration rates, application of these measures can produce consistent rates once upgrades are completed. Specifying a uniform target performance range will give tighter results overall, whereas specifying the reduction permits a range which may still vary unacceptably.

@Notes and Discussion:
Field testing protocols, and corresponding minimum performance requirements, should included in this document. These tests can get elaborate and expensive, as we saw at the Summit. It seems that there should be a few levels of testing and inspection protocols available to provide a range of options for testing and assessment, and guidelines for interpretation of the results, to determine what performance is acceptable or unacceptable. For example, one can use a smoke stick to detect air infiltration at a window perimeter; can a reasonable correlation be made between how much air movement is detected and what the corresponding infiltration rate is? Would this help justify a testing protocol and standard which states that infiltration has been adequately managed if no air movement is detected except at the tops of the meeting rails where they meet the jambs?

Patrick Roach
Posts: 12
Joined: August 3rd, 2011, 10:26 am
Full Name: Patrick M. Roach AIA
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Organization: Quinn Evans
Permissions: Yes

Re: Page 23

Postby Patrick Roach » August 16th, 2011, 10:58 am

A couple more comments:

1. I agree with John Lindtner's post.

2. Weatherstripping methods should reflect several different approaches. As we saw during the Summit, there are several approaches one can take to weatherstripping a sash, and all have performance. Because historic windows can vary so radically, no one approach may be correct for every window. Demonstrating several proven options, or combinations of options, using varying types of weatherstripping, will offer a broader range of solutions which can be applied to the appropriate situation, be it personal preference, field conditions, or availability of materials.


Return to “Summit Draft Comments”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest