| Abstract | phase 1 of this study, six (6) party-wall specimens were tested on the airtight of partitions between adjacent residential units’ project. The selected six specimens were defined to reflect current industry practices of partywalls construction among Canadian homebuilders.
Following up on project phase 1 outcomes, the present report summarizes phase 2 results of the project. For the phase 2, future code requirements, it was determined to continue with several other alternatives for airtightness testing using a spun-bonded polyolefin (SBPO) membrane as an air barrier (AB) within double wood stud partition wall specimens. As the use of the SBPO represents a novel approach in partition wall construction, it was desired by the project collaborators, Canadian Home Builders Association (CHBA), to evaluate fire performance as well as acoustical performance of such assemblies. The following double wood stud wall specimens were examined:
Airtightness test
1. with 2 unsealed spun-bonded polyolefin (SBPO) membranes (AB) behind drywall
2. with 2 sealed SBPO membranes (AB) behind drywall.
3. with 2 sealed SBPO membranes (AB) behind drywall with penetrations from nails and screws.
4. with airtight drywall AB.
5. with airtight drywall AB with penetrations from nails and screws.
6. with 2 sealed Polyethylene (PE) membranes (AB) behind drywall.
7. with 2 sealed PE membranes (AB) behind drywalls with penetrations from nails and screws.
Fire resistance test
F1. with 2 unsealed SBPO membranes (AB) behind drywall.
F2. with 2 sealed SBPO membranes (AB) behind drywall.
Acoustic test
A1. with 2 unsealed SBPO membranes (AB) behind drywall,
A2. with 2 sealed SBPO membranes (AB) behind drywall.
The airtightness test results show that the use of membrane AB systems (both, SBPO and PE) increases airtightness very effectively (air flow rates as low as 0.005 L/(m2·s)) and screw and nail penetrations do not affect the airtightness significantly. The air flow rate of the specimen with airtight drywall approach was higher: 0.116 L/(m2·s) and the effect of fastener penetrations was considerable: the value increased to 0.136 L/(m2·s).
Fire resistance test results show a slight difference in the time till failure: 75 minutes and 72 minutes for sealed and unsealed SBPO membrane respectively, both with identical structural failure.
Similarly, acoustic test results show a slight difference between the two specimens: Sound Transmission Class STC51 and STC49 for sealed and unsealed SBPO membrane respectively. |
|---|
