|
Subject
|
Traditional
|
Duct
Smoking
|
|
Program
|
Energy
Star, HERS Ratings, State Energy Code Compliance, Utility Programs.
|
Quality
Control procedure &Pro-active remediation
|
|
Methodology
|
Various
methods: Homes may or may not be inspected. Duct systems may or may not
be tested. Testing equipment
may or may not be used. Different
testing equipment for different programs.
|
Every duct
system is tested. One standardized procedure with one piece of testing
equipment.
|
|
Deliverables
|
A paper report based upon different standards for different programs for
the "as is" structure.
|
Perpetual savings in dollars based upon corrective actions taken for the
lifetime of the duct system.
|
|
Testing
Equipment Used
|
Duct
Blasters with or without blower doors and manometer.
Blower door with or without duct blasters and manometer. Pressure
Pan with blower door and manometer. Some programs do not even use test
equipment.
|
Stand-alone,
portable duct smoker
|
|
Method to
Gauge Programs
|
Reports
that may or may not include duct leakage statistics.
May include other efficiency parameters concerning mechanical and
thermal envelope characteristics. Pass/Fail or scaled score.
Could be passed based upon a batch sample.
|
Quality
Control Procedure.
Duct
System
“
Passes
”
when all visible failures have been addressed.
|
|
Time when
inspection performed
|
Usually
after AC started and drywall and insulation installed.
May not be inspected or tested if part of a batch system.
May include a mid-point insulation inspection.
|
At frame
“Rough-in” stage.
|
|
Remediation
Potential for leakage
|
Extremely
limited, ductwork entombed above drywall and insulation, very limited
accessibility and extremely poor working conditions.
Limited lighting and leakage invisible.
|
Very easy.
Ductwork completely accessible. Normal
working conditions for ductwork installers. Leaks are visually
identified with fog.
|
|
Ability to
assign responsibility for identified problems.
|
“Bad”
reports lead to assigning blame on subcontractors who cannot easily
remediate problems. Subcontractors
deny responsibility because the testing was not conducted when they are
present or other subcontractors damaged work. Reporter blamed for poor
results or is accused by subcontractors of not being competent. Leads to
“Kill the Messenger” or “Finger Pointing” work atmosphere.
|
No
questions of who is responsible for failures but problems are fixed
immediately. Subcontractor is part of problem resolution instead of
target of blame.
|
|
Savings
payback
|
Based on
nebulous reports that may or may not reflect actual savings and may or
may not capture occupant’s behavior. Savings dependent on the
assumption that subcontractors are performing incrementally better
because of potential of testing.
|
Failures
addressed immediately resulting in immediate savings in perpetuity for
the life of the ductwork.
|
|
Cost of
Remediation
|
Varies,
depending on complexity of duct system(s) related to house geometry
characteristics of duct zone(s). Areas
may not be accessible. Quality of remediation severely limited, in spite
of additional costs.
|
All ducts
accessible, can build quality control test into installation cost.
Additional QC test minuscule in comparison to total installation
of air distribution system.
|