<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
	<rss version="2.0">
		<channel>
			<title>Green Building Forum - How tight is tight? ( all discussion in m3/h/m2  @ 50Pa )</title>
			<lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 May 2026 09:21:27 +0100</lastBuildDate>
			<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/</link>
			<description></description>
			<generator>Lussumo Vanilla 1.0.3</generator>
			<item>
		<title>How tight is tight? ( all discussion in m3/h/m2  @ 50Pa )</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=11&amp;Focus=67#Comment_67</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=11&amp;Focus=67#Comment_67</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2007 22:24:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>tony</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[Ok then how tight in air leakage numbers is tight?   How much air leakage should a new house be allowed?<br /><br />Would you accept a window open all the time? a door? both halves of a patio door not there all winter?]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>How tight is tight? ( all discussion in m3/h/m2  @ 50Pa )</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=11&amp;Focus=68#Comment_68</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=11&amp;Focus=68#Comment_68</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2007 22:32:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>Mike George</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[Welcome Tony, I think I know which Tony you are by the topic! <br /><br />Is there a conversion factor for ach at normal air pressure. These are the values I normally use?]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>How tight is tight? ( all discussion in m3/h/m2  @ 50Pa )</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=11&amp;Focus=71#Comment_71</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=11&amp;Focus=71#Comment_71</guid>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2007 22:49:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>nigel</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[10 is crap but I think 5 is ok and 3 possible.]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>How tight is tight? ( all discussion in m3/h/m2  @ 50Pa )</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=11&amp;Focus=88#Comment_88</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=11&amp;Focus=88#Comment_88</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 2007 16:33:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>tony</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[Come on where are you Paul in Montreal listen to us we don't even know the meaning of the word tight yet.<br /><br />I agree 10 is rubbish anything more than one is too much for me.]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>How tight is tight? ( all discussion in m3/h/m2  @ 50Pa )</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=11&amp;Focus=91#Comment_91</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=11&amp;Focus=91#Comment_91</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 2007 16:45:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>nigel</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[Guidance for achieving one would be much appreciated?]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>How tight is tight? ( all discussion in m3/h/m2  @ 50Pa )</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=11&amp;Focus=100#Comment_100</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=11&amp;Focus=100#Comment_100</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:29:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>ecoworrier</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[LOL,<br />I guess the answer is as tight as possible...............<br /><br />I'm not helping am I?]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>How tight is tight? ( all discussion in m3/h/m2  @ 50Pa )</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=11&amp;Focus=101#Comment_101</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=11&amp;Focus=101#Comment_101</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 2007 18:33:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>Mike George</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[I know have a conversion factor as I went to a very good AECB seminar today given by John Willoughby and Peter Warm. The building regs requirement is 10m3/h/m2 @50pa This equates to roughly the same number of ach at 50pa  Divide by 20 to get normal air pressure [I think?]. What this boils down to is that as Nigel says 10 is crap, 5 is okay and 3 is possible.]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>How tight is tight? ( all discussion in m3/h/m2  @ 50Pa )</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=11&amp;Focus=106#Comment_106</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=11&amp;Focus=106#Comment_106</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 2007 20:21:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>Guest</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[I'm not sure how to convert ACH that's in m3/h/m2 into ACH. The figures we use over here are just ACH@50Pa which is 20 times higher than at normal pressure. R2000 is 1.5ACH@50Pa - but I'm not sure what this is in the m3 figures. I guess I could look at my own hot2000 figures to get the volume and area of the walls ... but it's not obvious since the house is attached on one side.<br /><br />Paul in Montreal<br /><br />p.s. I registered but haven't received confirmation of my username/password yet so this will be anonymous]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>How tight is tight? ( all discussion in m3/h/m2  @ 50Pa )</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=11&amp;Focus=117#Comment_117</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=11&amp;Focus=117#Comment_117</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:16:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>tony</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[Great to see you Paul here but how did you get in?]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>How tight is tight? ( all discussion in m3/h/m2  @ 50Pa )</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=11&amp;Focus=128#Comment_128</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=11&amp;Focus=128#Comment_128</guid>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 2007 22:18:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>Guest</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[Keith gave me the link but my registration hasn't been validated yet.<br /><br />Paul in Montreal]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>How tight is tight? ( all discussion in m3/h/m2  @ 50Pa )</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=11&amp;Focus=144#Comment_144</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=11&amp;Focus=144#Comment_144</guid>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 2007 12:56:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>Paul in Montreal</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[Finally I'm registered. One thing that struck me about the m^3/h/m^2 figures for air leakage is that smaller buildings will naturally be worse since they have proportionately a larger surface area for their volume.<br /><br />From what I can tell 1.5ACH@50Pa is about the same as 3m^3/h/m^2 - if that's the case, then a figure of 10 as a target is dismal indeed. Over here, mechanical ventilation is mandated in the building codes so there's no excuse for leaky construction. If I recall correctly, R2000 certified construction requires a blower door test to be performed post-construction to verify the air tightness detailing. It's certainly not rocket science, though, as an estimated 70% of builders here can and do build to R2000 standards, whether or not the properties they build are R2000 certified. The new house we built was not R2000 certified - in fact, based on energy usage, we exceed R2000 standards by quite a bit (mainly due to the GSHP). Even the 109 year old house, post-renovation, exceeds R2000 energy usage standards, but is certainly not leak free (it measures 6.7ACH@50Pa - which I believe is still better than the target 10m^3/h/m^2 specified in the UK!)<br /><br />Paul in Montreal]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>How tight is tight? ( all discussion in m3/h/m2  @ 50Pa )</title>
		<link>https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=11&amp;Focus=195#Comment_195</link>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.greenbuildingforum.co.uk/newforum/comments.php?DiscussionID=11&amp;Focus=195#Comment_195</guid>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Feb 2007 09:27:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<author>tony</author>
		<description>
			<![CDATA[Our regulators have chosen these units for us to use and I strongly suspect that it is for the opposite reason -- namely is easier to get good results for big buildings!<br /><br />You are right about the target being dismal. Even funnier is that if the test fails then some attempt is made to do rectification then on retest it an automatic pass! Further only one building type needs to tested on an estate the rest are assumed to be just as leaky. They will for sure be leakier of course.]]>
		</description>
	</item>
	
		</channel>
	</rss>