BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//ABAA - ECPv6.16.5//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:ABAA
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://airbarrier.org
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for ABAA
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:America/Detroit
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20250309T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20251102T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20260308T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20261101T060000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:-0500
TZOFFSETTO:-0400
TZNAME:EDT
DTSTART:20270314T070000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:-0400
TZOFFSETTO:-0500
TZNAME:EST
DTSTART:20271107T060000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Detroit:20261022T130000
DTEND;TZID=America/Detroit:20261022T140000
DTSTAMP:20260814T150919Z
CREATED:20260814T150524Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260814T150919Z
UID:990000440-1792674000-1792677600@airbarrier.org
SUMMARY:Building Enclosure Commissioning vs. Enclosure Testing 1.0 CEU/HSW
DESCRIPTION:As building performance expectations rise\, confusion often persists between Building Enclosure Commissioning (BECx) and Building Enclosure Testing (BET). While both serve to verify performance\, they are distinct processes that meet at key points in design and construction. This session clarifies the relationship between BET and BECx and shows how testing requirements should flow from the Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR) through design\, construction\, and final functional performance testing. \nHistorically\, many project specifications reference outdated standards such as NIBS 3-2012 and ASHRAE Guideline 0-2005. The industry has since advanced: NIBS 3 has evolved into ASTM E2813\, and ASHRAE Guideline 0 is now ASHRAE Standard 202\, which together defines the modern foundation for the BECx process. Yet\, in practice\, many designers still omit Building Enclosure Specification 01-91-15 (or 01-91-19 under the Whole Building Design Guide framework)\, leaving owners without clear direction on who conducts or verifies enclosure testing. \nThis session equips attendees with a practical understanding of how to align specifications with current standards\, define roles and responsibilities\, and integrate enclosure testing as the final functional performance verification of the enclosure system. Using real-world project examples\, we’ll explore common ASTM and AAMA testing protocols—such as window spray testing (AAMA 501.2)\, chamber testing (ASTM 1105/783)\, and whole-building pressurization (ASTM E779) as tools within the larger commissioning process. By the end of this session\, participants will gain a clear\, current framework for discussing BECx and BET with owners\, designers\, and contractors\, establishing a shared language to deliver durable\, efficient\, and high-performing building envelopes. \nLearning Objectives: \n\n Learn the differences between BE Commissioning and BE Testing.​\nUnderstand how Owner Project Requirements relate to design decisions affecting function performance testing of the Enclosure\n Develop a common basis for discussing Building Enclosure testing methods with the AEC Team.\n​Understand how the Building Enclosure Commissioning process incorporate Enclosure Testing as the final Functional Performance Test of the various Enclosure Systems.\n\n  \nMike Lackey\, PE\, CBECxP\, CxA\, CCP\, LEED AP\, Managing Member\, LCCx \nMike Lackey is a Professional Engineer and Certified Building Enclosure Commissioning Professional with over 35 years of experience in building systems performance and commissioning. As Principal of LCCx\, he has led numerous complex projects across Texas\, including stadiums\, healthcare facilities\, higher education campuses\, and major government buildings. Mike’s leadership focuses on ensuring that building systems performed as intended\, delivering the efficiency\, comfort\, and reliability owners expect.
URL:https://airbarrier.org/event/building-enclosure-commissioning-vs-enclosure-testing-1-0-ceu-hsw/
CATEGORIES:CEU Webinars
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://airbarrier.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Placeholder-Webinar.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Detroit:20261029T130000
DTEND;TZID=America/Detroit:20261029T140000
DTSTAMP:20260813T195816Z
CREATED:20260813T195816Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260813T195816Z
UID:990000439-1793278800-1793282400@airbarrier.org
SUMMARY:Preserving an Icon while Re-envisioning the Enclosure of the United State Air Force Academy Chapel 1.0 CEU/HSW
DESCRIPTION:How does one address an iconic building’s systemic water infiltration issues while preserving its unique character? \nThe multi-denominational United States Air Force Academy Cadet Chapel\, designed by Walter Netsch of Skidmore Owings and Merrill and completed in 1963\, exemplifies modernist architecture with its minimalist style and use of contemporary materials. The Chapel received the AIA’s National Twenty-five Year Award in the 1990s for its architectural significance\, is a National Historic Landmark as part of the Academy’s Cadet Area\, and holds the distinction of being the most visited man-made structure in Colorado. \nThe design of the Chapel\, both inside and out\, draws inspiration from European cathedrals\, the surrounding mountainous landscape\, and the industrial exterior of modern aircraft used by the Air Force. With its lack of right angles and orthogonal planes\, the building enclosure tested the limits of contemporary material understanding during its era. Despite its brilliance\, Netsch’s creation has experienced persistent water leakage to the interior since its construction. \nThe exterior features a patchwork of aluminum extrusions and glass that serves as the single barrier against water intrusion. After decades of leaks\, dating to before the Chapel’s official opening\, and numerous repair attempts addressing only the symptoms\, the Air Force embarked on the monumental task of tackling the root causes of the water leakage and applying our current understanding of building enclosure detailing to the historic building. \nCurrently under construction\, the design process took nearly three years to finalize. The case study presented will explore the design challenges of integrating a modern rainscreen system behind a replication of the existing aluminum cladding. Presenters will discuss the decision-making process leading to unique solutions for this distinctive building\, including how these solutions were validated and refined through full-scale mock-ups. \nLearning Objectives: \n\nIdentify the causes of water leakage issues in a significant\, historic modernist structure\n Analyze the building enclosure design and water management system of the existing building compared to the repair design\n Discuss determination and implementation of the design-phase laboratory performance mock-up process for the repair design\nEvaluate the results and lessons learned from the mock-up construction and testing to inform the final repair design\n\n  \nBryan Rouse\, AIA\, Associate Principal\, Wiss\, Janey\, Elstner Associates\, Inc \nSince joining Wiss\, Janney\, Elstner Associates\, Inc. (WJE) as a summer intern in 1995\, Mr. Rouse’s career has focused on the investigation and repair design of the building enclosure. His work has touched the exterior facades of hundreds of buildings ranging from single-family homes to historic structures of masonry\, glass\, and metal. Mr. Rouse is a member of AIA\, a licensed architect in six states\, and served as Chair of the Chicago Chapter of the Building Enclosure Council. He has guest-lectured at the University of Illinois – Urbana-Champaign and presented to multiple industry organizations. Mr. Rouse held a lead role in the development of the Cadet Chapel recladding design and now serves as project manager for WJE’s role in the ongoing renovation work.
URL:https://airbarrier.org/event/preserving-an-icon-while-re-envisioning-the-enclosure-of-the-united-state-air-force-academy-chapel-1-0-ceu-hsw/
CATEGORIES:CEU Webinars
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://airbarrier.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Placeholder-Webinar.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=America/Detroit:20261105T130000
DTEND;TZID=America/Detroit:20261105T140000
DTSTAMP:20260814T153922Z
CREATED:20260814T153306Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260814T153922Z
UID:990000441-1793883600-1793887200@airbarrier.org
SUMMARY:Clarity in the Cloud: Rapid Fog Testing of Air Barrier Assemblies 1.0 CEU/HSW
DESCRIPTION:Fog testing is a practical and revealing method for verifying air barrier performance in building construction. Traditional fog testing demands three key components for meaningful results: a fog generator\, an enclosure to contain and create a pressure differential across the assembly\, and a variable speed fan to pressurize the enclosure. \nWe have streamlined this process by integrating the fog generator and variable speed fan into a single portable machine\, which largely eliminates the need for a dedicated test enclosure. This pressurized fog system can easily push fog through a wide range of construction assemblies\, enabling early-stage testing and rapid feedback without disruption to subcontractors or schedule. Our methodology works for testing mockups\, assemblies at any phase of construction\, and in any season of the year. With it\, we can assess 8-12 air barrier details or assemblies per day. \nThis streamlined methodology allows us to verify every critical envelope detail for air tightness when it is first installed so adjustments to design or installation can be made easily before the detail is replicated. This method is especially effective at testing complex and 3-dimensional air barrier transitions. This early feedback makes it easy for project teams to meet stringent air barrier targets and avoid condensation\, rot\, and rust caused by air leakage. \nBeyond its value as a quality assurance measure\, our fog testing approach serves as a powerful diagnostic tool for identifying and understanding problematic air leakage pathways in both new and existing structures. Unlike other test methods\, fog testing identifies both the entry and exit path of a problematic air leak. \nThis presentation will demonstrate how the testing works\, strengths and weaknesses of the method\, and case studies from fifteen years of rapid fog testing in building envelope commissioning and diagnostics. \nLearning Objectives: \n\n Compare the rapid air tightness verification method with other air tightness verification methods\n Describe our rapid fog testing machine and how it works\n Provide case studies with rapid air tightness verification on new construction\n Provide case studies with rapid air tightness testing in diagnosing envelope failures\n\n  \nJon Haehnel\, CEI\, BPI- BA-T BA-P\, CABS\, Director of Envelope Services\, Salas O’Brien \nJon Haehnel has been testing and inspecting building envelopes for over 23 years. His expertise in building envelope commissioning and design focuses primarily on institutional and commercial buildings\, both new construction and renovation. Jon has commissioned the building envelope on all types of construction: laboratories\, clean rooms\, indoor pools\, hospitals\, military facilities\, manufacturing\, dormitories\, high rise construction\, and educational buildings. His experience also includes building envelope forensics. Jon is coauthor of “Setting Airtightness Standards” (ASHRAE Journal\, Sept. 2005) and has presented on building envelope topics for the Better Buildings by Design Conference\, Building Commissioning Association (BECxA)\, Construction Standards Institute (CSI)\, American Institute of Architects (AIA)\, and the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC). Jon formerly taught commercial energy auditing and blower door testing at Vermont Technical College. \n\nQuinn Treadgold\, CEI\, Building Envelope Testing Manager\, Salas O’Brien \nQuinn Treadgold has worked in the Building Envelope Commissioning field since 2016\, following his graduation from the University of Vermont with a BS in Mechanical Engineering. He previously worked closely with Jon Haehnel at Zero by Degrees\, which later merged with BVH Integrated Services and became part of Salas O’Brien. Quinn began his career as a Building Envelope Commissioning (BECx) provider\, performing extensive field-based air and water leakage testing and diagnostic services. His strong technical aptitude and construction experience have supported his progression into the role of Building Envelope Testing Manager at Salas O’Brien. Drawing on his engineering background\, interest in fluid dynamics\, and internship at SOH Wind Engineering\, Quinn collaborated with Jon to develop an improved rapid fog testing method for building envelope transitions. This approach has enhanced testing efficiency\, enabled more complex conditions to be evaluated\, and delivered added value to project teams. The method has helped distinguish the firm within the industry\, with the broader goal of advancing building envelope testing practices overall.
URL:https://airbarrier.org/event/clarity-in-the-cloud-rapid-fog-testing-of-air-barrier-assemblies-1-0-ceu-hsw/
CATEGORIES:CEU Webinars
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://airbarrier.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Placeholder-Webinar.png
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR