Historic HomeWorks Forum

[jbmnd93]

In the Window Preservation Standards, it's unclear (or at least contradictory) whether or not the W4 window included a storm window.

Did W4 include a storm window or did this best performer achieve its superior results without a storm. Was it really something as simple as a new interior stop/seal at the sash bottom rail?

On page. 84-96, 6 different treatments are described. W4 performed the best against the IECC 2012 air infiltration standard by testing at less than 0.1 cu. ft./min.

The narrative on page 86 indicates W4 included installation of a storm window. ("The three fully weatherstripped windows (W2, W3, W4) tested demonstrate that with sash weatherstrip and a quality storm window, these windows exceeded the 2012 IEC for air infiltration.")

But the chart on page 86 does not include a storm window in the description of W4.

In another place, the treatment summary table on page 89, a storm window is not included for W4 either.

Which is correct?

Brendan
Washington, DC

[johnleeke]

Brendan,

Thank you for spotting this "inconsistency" in the Window Standards.

There was no storm on window #4.

The error in the second paragraph on page 86 says that there was a storm. That paragraph should read:

[jbmnd93]

I try to use them as much as possible, especially when a specific component needs a very special treatment. For reference, I wish the WPS had section numbers instead of page numbers. That would make it look more like a "code" than just a "book." Yes, that's more optics than anything substantial, but optics help the blind see more clearly.

[johnleeke]

Brendan,