Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Documento - Teste de Estanquidade em Dutos
Documento - Teste de Estanquidade em Dutos
Abstract
Although air leakage from ducts has previously been treated as insignificant and leakage testing as not cost effective, this paper
demonstrates that even minor leakage can have a significant effect on plant energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
Recognising this, the recently published AS 4254.2:2012 reverses past practice and now mandates leakage testing of systems over
3000 L/s. Not only will reducing leakage reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions producing a better outcome for the building
owner and community, but attention to issues raised in this paper will benefit the contractor by reducing or eliminating the need for
costly rectification of leaks revealed by leakage testing. The paper examines the implications of the Standards testing requirements
and suggests extension of its scope.
1.Introduction
In the past, the effects of duct leakage have received little
attention in Australia. The last time AIRAH published a paper
on the subject was 1978 [1], and in 2002 AS 4254 [2] followed
earlier editions in recommending against duct leakage testing
on the grounds that leakage tests are an added expense in
system installation [and] generally not cost effective. With
the publication of AS 4254.2:2012 [3] that view has changed
and leakage testing is now required for each duct system over
3000 L/s. As the standard has been incorporated into the 2013
National Construction Code, leakage testing a will be a legal
requirement for all such systems after 1 May 2013. It is therefore
an appropriate time to look at duct leakage, duct sealing and
leakage testing in the light of the new standard.
Eco l i b r i u m M AY 2 0 1 3
FORUM
Negative
Maximum air
velocity
Pa
Pa
m/s
500
500
10
0.027 p0.65
1000
750
20
0.009 p0.65
2000
750
40
0.003 p0.65
Figure 1: Shows equation (2) plotted for the pressure ranges above.
1.700
1.600
1.500
1.400
1.300
Class A
1.200
Class B
1.100
Class C
1.000
0.900
0.800
0.700
0.600
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100 2200
Qleak = C As pn
(1)
49
FORUM
3.Leakage testing
Test methods such as HVCA DW/143 [9] and SMACNA [10]
require a section of duct to be temporarily sealed by covering
the inlet end, incomplete branches, spigots and the like, to make
it air tight (Figure 2). The test apparatus consists of a relatively
low volume fan or blower fitted either with an inlet damper
or variable speed drive to permit the flow to be varied. This is
temporarily connected to the duct system via a flow measuring
device such as an orifice plate or anemometer. The blower speed
or damper is then adjusted to achieve the nominated static test
pressure in the duct, the air volume supplied by the blower being
the leakage from the duct at that pressure. If it is less than the
permitted leakage, the system passes. If not, the leaks must be
found, sealed and the system retested. Leak detection can employ
a variety of methods including visual inspection, listening for
leaks, feeling for air movement, application of soap and water
or use of tracers such as a smoke pellet in the duct or tracer
gasintroduced at the blower. When leaks are detected, the source
should be recorded and, since AS 4254.2:2012 requires only a
type-test, the information used to rectify leaks in the parts
of the system not tested.
Duct system under test
Flexible duct
Office plate
and manometer
to measure
leakage rate
Temporary caps
on duct ends,
branches and spigots
Manometer to measure
test pressure in duct
Eco l i b r i u m M AY 2 0 1 3
Figure 3: Despite having been painted, this duct still shows potential
leakage points (arrowed).
FORUM
This however raises a third issue: how much of the system should
be tested. Eurovent [8] uses a staged strategy in which the first
stage of testing uses 10% of the total surface area for round ducts
or 20% for rectangular. If the air leakage rate on test is greater
than the permitted rate, the test is repeated with double the
duct area. If it still fails, Eurovent requires that the whole of the
system be tested. This staged strategy compels the contractor to
fix most leaks, not just those in the test section. AS 4254.2:2012
does not include such a strategy and, since in Australia most
duct systems are rectangular, requires only half the amount
to be tested (10%) compared to Eurovent.
The fourth issue is that the permissible leakage in
AS 4254.2:2012 is expressed as a percentage of the design flow.
This criterion has the merits of being simple and directly
related to the effect the standard wants to achieve, reducing the
impact of total leakage on the system. However, it differs from
the practice in Europe and the US where permissible leakage
is expressed as a function of system pressure and duct surface
area. In 1985, SMACNA [12] concluded that this approach is
far superior to the arbitrary assignment of a percentage of fan
flow rate as a leakage criteria. The single percentage used in AS
4254.2:2012 produces anomalous results as can be illustrated by
reference to equation (2). Consider two systems each handling
3000 L/s. One has a duct surface area of 50 m and operates at
200 Pa, the other has a surface area of 150 m and operates at
500 Pa. For each system the permissible leakage is 5% of 3000
L/s or 150 L/s. Substituting these values into equation (2) gives
may 2 0 1 3 Eco l i b r i u m
51
FORUM
4. Conclusion and
recommendations
[3
5.References
[1] Gilberg, J.; The consequences of air leakage from ducts
on operating economy, Australian Refrigeration, Air
Conditioning, and Heating, Vol. 32, pp. 45-51, May (1978).
[2] Australian Standard: AS 4254:2002 : Ductwork for
air-handling systems in buildings. Sydney: Standards
Australia, (2002).
52
Eco l i b r i u m M AY 2 0 1 3
Australian Standard: AS 4254.2:2012 : Ductwork for airhandling systems in buildings Rigid duct. Sydney: Standards
Australia, (2012).
[5] Carri, F. R., Bossaer, A., Andersson, J. V., Wouters, P., and
Liddament, M. W.; Duct leakage in European buildings:
Status and perspectives, Energy and Buildings, Vol. 32,
pp. 235243, (2000).
[6] Wray, C. P. and Matson, N. E.: Duct leakage impacts on VAV
system performance in California large commercial buildings,
Berkeley: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, (2003).
[7] Aydin, C. and Ozerdem, B.; Air leakage measurement and
analysis in duct systems, Energy and Buildings, Vol. 38,
pp. 207213, (2006).
[8] Eurovent Standard: Eurovent 2/2 : Air leakage rate in sheet
metal air distribution systems. Brussels: Eurovent Association,
(1996).
[9] HVCA Standard: DW/143 A practical guide to ductwork
leakage testing. London: Heating and Ventilating Contractors
Association, (2000).
[10] SMACNA Standard: HVAC air duct leakage test manual,
2nd edition. Washington: SMACNA, (2012).
[11] Fisk, W. J., Delp, W., Diamond, R., Dickerhoff, D., Levinson,
R., Modera, M., Nematollahi, M., and Wang, D.; Duct systems
in large commercial buildings: Physical characterization, air
leakage, and heat conduction gains, Energy and Buildings,
Vol. 32, pp. 109119, (2000).
[12] SMACNA Standard: HVAC air duct leakage test manual.
Washington: SMACNA, (1985).