< PreviousPushing the Envelope Canada 11NEWS AND VIEWSBEC Roundup .....................................................................................................................43Upcoming Events ................................................................................................................45TAKE ACTIONJoin the Ontario Building Envelope Council ...................................................................47INDEX TO ADVERTISERS .....................................................................................49Pushing the Envelope CanadaA publication of the Ontario Building Envelope CouncilSpring 2019Published By:Matrix Group Publishing Inc.Return all undeliverable addresses to:309 Youville StreetWinnipeg, MB R2H 2S9Toll Free: 1-866-999-1299Toll Free Fax: 1-866-244-2544www.matrixgroupinc.netPublications Agreement Number: 40609661President & CEOJack AndressOperations ManagerShoshana Weinbergsweinberg@matrixgroupinc.netPublisherJessica PotterEditor-in-ChiefShannon Savoryssavory@matrixgroupinc.netSenior EditorAlexandra Kozubakozub@matrixgroupinc.netFinance/AdministrationPat Andress, Nathan Redekop, Lloyd Weinbergaccounting@matrixgroupinc.netDirector of Circulation & DistributionLloyd Weinbergdistribution@matrixgroupinc.netSales Manager – WinnipegNeil GottfredSales Manager – HamiltonJeff CashSales Team LeaderColleen BellMatrix Group Publishing Inc. Account ExecutivesAndrew Lee, Bonnie Petrovsky, Brenda McPhee, Brian MacIntyre, Catrina Lee, Cheryl Klassen, Frank Kenyeres, Jim Hamilton, Julie Welsh, Kevin Harris, Renée Kent, Rob Gibson, Sandra Kirby, Selina Mills, Tanina Di Piazza, Tenisha Myke, Terri ErkelensLayout & DesignTravis BevanAdvertising DesignJames Robinson©2019 Matrix Group Publishing Inc. All rights reserved. Contents may not be reproduced by any means, in whole or in part, without the prior written permission of the publisher. The opinions expressed in this publication are not necessarily those of Matrix Group Publishing Inc. Printed in Canada. OBEC does not specifically endorse the editorial, products or services contained within this magazine. These products and services are presented here as an indication of the various possibilities in the Marketplace. OBEC wishes to advise the reader that sound Building Science Practices should be applied to any and all product or service selections. OBEC does not make or imply any warranties as to the suitability of any of these products or services for any specific situation. Furthermore, the opinions expressed in this magazine’s editorial content may not necessarily reflect the opinions of OBEC.n n n TABLE OF CONTENTSPushing the Envelope Canada 13What a great year we’ve had, here at the Ontario Building Envel-ope Council (OBEC), and with more good things to come. One of the big-gest changes for the board is that we are no longer managing the Building Science Specialist designation. A new non-profit organization, the Building Science Special-ist Board, has been created exclusively to manage this, which was previously a part of OBEC’s mandate. This was done to al-low the designation to be offered to build-ing scientists across Canada, and while I understand they’re working through a few expected hiccups, things are looking very positive. As far as our members and current BSS designation holders are con-cerned, impact on you will be minimal. The name of the designation has changed from Building Science Specialist of Ontario (BSSO) to simply Building Science Spe-cialist (BSS), and maintenance reporting will be through the BSS Board instead of OBEC, but OBEC will still be offering the same great content to help our members keep their knowledge up-to-date. With the creation of this new organiz-ation as their elected terms expired, Paul Pushman and Marianne Touchie have not sought re-election to OBEC, rather using their resources and experience to help get the BSSB organization off the ground—thank you both for your hard work with OBEC over the years. We wish you good luck in the future. With these two open-ings on the board, we’ve welcomed two new board members: Gauss Wong and Michael Rekker. Gauss previously served on our board and takes on the role of chair of the Awards & Scholarships Com-mittee, while Michael is our new chair of the Codes & Standards Committee. Mila Aleksic, Meagan Kikuta, and Rob-ert Quattrociocchi were re-elected to the board, and, respectively chair our Educa-tion, Communications, and Events Com-mittees. Marco Guzzo remains on the board in his dual roles of past-president and chair of the Membership Committee. Mark Clyde continues in the second year of his term as board member and chair of the Technical Committee, and Alen Vrabec will finish his term, continuing as our secretary / treasurer. Ehab Naim Ibrahim takes on the role of Awards Com-mittee chair and has also been elected by the board as president-elect, to take on OBEC’s leadership this fall when my term is complete. Congratulations to all on our board, and thank you for the support you give our organization. This past year, we saw the OBEC schol-arships awarded for a second time. A big congratulations are in order for Anna Farbis, our undergraduate scholarship winner, who is finalizing her degree at the University of Toronto, and Jelena Madzar-evic, our graduate scholarship winner whose Message from the PresidentOBEC PresidentIan Miller, P.Eng., LEED AP, CCCAProject Principal,Regional Manager (S.W. Ontario)Pretium Engineering Inc.Taking on 2019: Expanding Committees, Facing New ChallengesOBEC 2019 BOARD OF DIRECTORSPresidentIan Miller, P.Eng., LEED AP, CCCAPretium Engineering Inc.Vice-President Ehab Naim Ibrahim, OAA Int., MRAIC,LEED APGamma North AmericaPast-President & Chair, Membership CommitteeMarco Guzzo, Dipl. Tech.Engineering Link Inc.Secretary / TreasurerAlen Vrabec, P. Eng., BSSOCity of TorontoChair, Building Science Specialist CommitteeContinuing EducationMila Aleksic, B.Arch.Sc., M.A.Sc.George Brown CollegeChair, Codes & Standards CommitteeMichael Rekker, C.E.T., BSSTacoma Engineers Inc.Chair, Communications CommitteeMeagan KikutaTremco RoofingChair, Events CommitteeRobert QuattrociocchiEllisDonChair, Scholarships & Awards CommitteeGauss Wong, B.Eng., P.Eng.Sense EngineeringChair, Technical CommitteeMark Clyde, Dipl. Arch., BSSO, PMPHenry CompanyOBEC STAFFEvent CoordinatorBeth McKenzieMembership CoordinatorLiz BurnsOperations ManagerSherry Deneshan n n UP FRONTPushing the Envelope Canada 15work at Ryerson University included a study of the thermal conductivity of closed cell foam insulation materials and the effects of temperature and aging in addition to differ-ent chemical formulations. OBEC’s board in 2018 also voted to induct my colleague, Jerry Genge, as an OBEC Fellow. Jerry was one of OBEC’s founding members, is a past president of OBEC (twice-over), and he has contributed greatly to the organization over the years in a variety of different roles. We were proud to welcome Jerry into OBEC’s community of Fellows. It looks like 2019 is shaping up to be an exciting year as well. We are expand-ing our committees and taking on a whole range of new challenges. If you want to get involved, please contact us at info@obec.on.ca. We have some exciting sem-inars planned for this year as well. Al-ready lined up are a few great speakers, including Barbara Ross, Steve Kemp, and Joe Lstiburek, among others. We’re tak-ing a look at changing the format of our technical discussion groups to make them more inclusive, so keep an eye out for these changes, which will be coming soon. All in all, it’s shaping up to be a great year for OBEC and our members.This issue of Pushing the Envelope Canada has a great lineup of articles as well. To kick things off, we take an in-depth look at how a small, silicon-based solid could be making a huge difference in the building envelope. Rashmi Sharma and Dr. Umberto Berardi, Ryerson Uni-versity, explore aerogel, a transparent, insulating and lightweight material that is 1,000 times less dense than glass and is a very effective insulator (39 times more so than fibreglass), making it a possible gamechanger when it comes to thermal bridging. Flip to page 17 to read their thoughts on using aerogel-enhanced blan-kets for thermal bridging correction in concrete and steel buildings. On page 23, Morrison Hershfield’s Peter Adams discusses fenestration systems and how they can be adversely affected by a combination of things, like the design, fabri-cation, and /or installation by inexperienced or unqualified installers. Adams likens rain-screen fenestration systems to plumbing, in that having more water in a piping system than it is capable of properly draining will lead to back-ups and an unhappy owner.David Wach and Vladimir Maleev, En-gineering Link Inc., take a closer look at condensation potential in conventional and hybrid roof assemblies in their article on page 27. This feature explores how hygro-thermal simulations offer comparisons on the performance of both conventional and hybrid roof assemblies. It also looks at other factors, including limitations, long-term durability, expected service life, and ease of maintenance and repair.On page 31, Bomani Khemet, Uni-versity of Toronto, and Russell Richman, Ryerson University, break down the ins and outs of estimating preconstruction air-tightness in Ontario. The authors discuss air leakage trends from a national sample of more than 900,000 homes and consider how having a regional airtightness model-ing methodology in place could be an im-portant factor when it comes to increasing airtightness in the design phase.There is an important relationship be-tween mechanical and building envelope commissioning. On page 36, Zacharie Doerr and Paul Frasie, Pinchin Ltd., delve into everything you want to know—the what, why, who and when—of building commissioning and how you can ensure all building systems are installed, calibrat-ed, and perform interactively according to the owner’s project requirements and operational needs.We hope you enjoy the array of articles we’ve curated for this edition of Pushing the Envelope Canada. If you’re interested in contributing to a future edition of the publication, please reach out to Meagan Kikuta, chair of the Communications Committee, at mkikuta@tremco.ca with an idea for consideration and to get more details on submission guidelines and the types of features we’re looking for.With that, I would like to thank all of our members. You are what makes OBEC such a great organization and you make me proud to be a part of it. nn n n UP FRONTHERE TO SERVE YOUThe Ontario Building Envelope Council is here to serve you. To become a member of the asso-ciation or to learn more about its initiatives, go to www.obec.on.ca.KEEP IN TOUCH ON SOCIAL MEDIA You can find us on:Twitter: @Info_OBECFacebook: Ontario Building Envelope CouncilLinkedIn: Ontario Building Envelope CouncilPushing the Envelope Canada 17Thermal bridges have been wide-ly proven to significantly impact building energy performance. This study used an aerogel-enhanced blanket to provide a solution for improving thermal bridges. In building science, more effort should be given to design building envelopes with improved connection details. The common method to consider thermal bridges in the whole energy modelling is the equiva-lent U-value method; however, this does not take into account the dynamic effect of thermal bridges. Minimizing thermal bridges in a building not only reduces the annual heating and cooling loads but also reduces the error in the modeling perform-ance of the equivalent U-value method.The equivalent U-value method can underestimate the annual heating energy demand by up to 13 per cent for the poured-in-place concrete building with standard connection levels.1 While the difference between 3D dynamic model-ing and equivalent U-value method was reduced to less than three per cent when the connections are improved. This sug-gests that improved connection details help reduce modeling errors. While the 3D dy-namic method is more accurate and should be used preferably, this research was fo-cused on the dynamic effect of the thermal bridges before and after the application of the aerogel-enhanced blanket in a mid-rise residential building. This study includes:• Two different building systems: 1. Concrete building; and2. Steel building. n n n FEATUREBy Rashmi Sharma, B.Arch., CPHC, Ryerson University Graduate Building Science Candidate & Dr. Umberto Berardi, M.Sc., Ph.D., P.Eng., Associate Professor, Engineering & Architectural Science, Ryerson UniversityFigure 1. Wall and floor connection with concrete structure (standard on the left, improved on the right).The Use of Aerogel-Enhanced Blankets for Thermal Bridging Correction in Concrete & Steel BuildingsAerogel particles (left) are transparent, lightweight, and effective insulators, making them a nice addition to enhance thermal blankets for the building envelope.18 Spring 2019 • Ontario Building Envelope Council• Five different details: 1. Balcony to floor;2. Shelf angle location;3. Foundation to wall;4. Wall to floor; and5. Wall to roof. • Two different modeling approaches:1. Equivalent U-value method; and2. 3D dynamic method.Aerogel-enhanced blankets are super insulating materials developed from silica aerogel and reinforced fibre. Pure silica aerogels have high compressive strength but low-tension strength. To strengthen the tensile property of aerogel, it is interwoven with a fibrous material. Aerogel-enhanced blankets are mechanically strengthened, flexible and highly porous material with a very low thermal conductivity. Due to the unique nature of aerogel blankets, they can be used in both interior and exterior applications. Aerogel-enhanced blankets have a high fire resistance, making it possible for interior application for a retro-fit. Its hydrophobic properties help it for the exterior insulation. Aerogel-enhanced blan-kets composed of synthetic amorphous silica dioxide have been proposed in retrofitting projects or whenever space and weight con-straints exist.2,3 It is also found to be more advantageous in building retrofits for space saving, since they achieve high thermal re-sistance with thin layers.4 The thermal con-ductivity of an aerogel-enhanced blanket is in the range of 0.014 to 0.016 watts per metre Kelvin (W/mK).According to the National Energy Code of Canada for Buildings,5 thermal bridges can be reduced by providing the continuous insulation in the details. These standards do not specify any temperature distribu-tion calculations. The standard requires FEATURE n n nFigure 2. Per cent difference between energy loads for the base case model and improved model with aerogel blankets at thermal bridges.Pushing the Envelope Canada 19that thermal bridges, due to the repetitive structural members such as studs and joists, and of ancillary members such as lintels are taken into account for the calculation of ef-fective thermal resistance. However, minor penetrations or minor structural members and major penetrations, like balconies with a cross-section less than two per cent of the penetrated wall area, are not taken into ac-count for effective thermal resistance.The ASHRAE 1365-RP, Thermal Per-formance of Building Envelope Details for Mid- and High-Rise Building guidelines in-clude thermal transmittance data focusing on 3D thermal bridges. It contains 40 typical building assembly details with thermal bridg-es in North America.6 ASHRAE Standard 90.1 provides the maximum U-value to the building envelope components for mass, steel, wood frame, and for all climatic zones. 7 With the complex 3D thermal bridges, steady state method of the calculation for building energy demand is obsolete. For a proper calculation of overall assembly ther-mal resistance, dynamic analysis is necessary. The method calls for calculating the energy by taking into consideration the realistic daily condition of the calculation time, like daily temperature changes, interior conditions, the rate of natural and artificial ventilation in dif-ferent seasons, and solar gains.In this study, the equivalent U-value method was employed using THERM 7.6 and 3D thermal bridges were modelled with WUFI Plus. A total of six connections were analyzed for both steel and concrete con-structions. The connections were modelled in a mid-rise residential building in Toronto, ON (Climate Zone 6). The building is two storeys, 31.9 metres long by 17.78 metres wide by six metres tall, with approximately 1,114 square-metres’ gross floor area. The building is designed per a baseline model with the different building envelope. A win-dow-to-wall ratio of 40 per cent was used for the study.The typical thermal bridges in each building included are:1. Floor-to-wall junction; 2. Balcony-to-wall junction; 3. Shelf angle detail; 4. Foundation-to-wall; 5. Wall-to-roof; and 6. Sill and lintel detail.An example of the aerogel blanket placement is shown in Figure 1 (on page 17) for the wall-floor connections with concrete structure. A similar insertion of aerogel blanket was made in similar thermal bridges in other connections of the case building and with a steel structure instead of concrete. First, the results of the equivalent U-value method calculated the linear ther-mal transmittance for both details with and without the addition of an aerogel blan-ket. The wall-to-balcony connection with concrete structure resulted in the greatest improvement in linear thermal transmit-tance (88 per cent lower). For the steel structure details, an aerogel blanket placed in a roof showed the largest improvement in linear thermal resistance (89 per cent low-er). For both concrete and steel construc-tions, other typical thermal bridges showed reduction of linear thermal transmittance in the range of 64 per cent and 89 per cent. In terms of the 2D heat transfer meth-od used to analyze the details, the stan-dard ψ-value are higher than the improved ψ-value. In general, improvement can be achieved if the ψ-value gets close to 0 W/mK. Since ψ-value is the additional heat flow from the junction, the higher ψ-value shows there is more energy loss from the thermal bridges and there are more oppor-tunities to improve them. The improved ψ-value is less as the use of an aerogel-en-hanced blanket acts as a thermal break. The varying reduction of ψ-value depends on the thickness and strategies of the aerogel-enhanced blanket used. The use of an aerogel-enhanced blanket not only helps reduce heat transfer but also helps provide a comfortable interior surface temperature. The thickness of an aerogel-enhanced blanket used to correct the thermal bridg-es in this research is 10 millimetres and 20 millimetres, which can be further increased to achieve lower ψ-value. We should also consider that changes cannot compromise the structural performance of the building. The aerogel-enhanced blanket has allowed insulation in the air gap, but it is still limited to the thickness of the air gap available. For the aerogel-enhanced blanket on the exter-ior surface, moisture management should also be considered.In the 3D simulations, the reduction of the thermal bridge impact is measured by the change in heating and cooling load after adding aerogel in the detail. A total of three 3D simulations were performed for both concrete and steel constructions where:• Base case buildings had thermal bridges;• Case building with an aerogel blanket placed at thermal bridges; and• Thermal bridges used the equivalent u-value calculations to draw compari-sons between the two methods.The purpose of these three different models was to determine the effect of ther-mal bridges to the base case building energy loads and to quantify the improvement n n n FEATUREFigure 3. Per cent difference between 3D thermal bridge and equivalent U-value modelling methods.Next >