Duct Leakage and Leakage Testing
Duct Leakage and Leakage Testing
Duct Leakage and Leakage Testing
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 Standard’s testing requirements
and suggests extension of its scope.
44 E CO L I B R I U M M AY 2 0 1 3
FORUM
Figure 1: Shows equation (2) plotted for the pressure ranges above.
1.700
Maximum permissable leakage (L/s/m2 duct surface area)
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
If duct leakage has such significant effects we might ask why Qleak = C · As · ∆ pn (1)
it has not been seen as a problem in the past. One answer is
that conventional plant design techniques assume leakage is Where Qleak is the quantity of leaked air, C is a constant related
minimal so the fan is selected to handle the sum of the outlet air to the duct tightness (which relates to the details of manufacture,
quantities. In practice leakage does not show itself as a problem installation and sealing), As is the duct surface area, ∆p is the
because is compensated for by increasing fan speed or pitch pressure difference between the inside and outside of the duct
angle, a much cheaper solution for the contractor (but not the and n is an exponent related to the geometry of the holes through
building owner) than making the duct more airtight. which the air leaks. For leaks through round holes, n is 0.5, while
for long openings such as longitudinal seams, it is 0.6 or higher.
2.2 Duct leakage, tightness, surface area Eurovent [8] and most other sources use a value of 0.65 for n.
and pressure Substituting this into equation (1) gives:
Leakage is dependent on three factors: the “tightness” Qleak = C · As · ∆ p0.65 (2)
of the construction and installation; the duct surface area,
and the pressure differential across the duct wall. This can For Qleak in L/s, As in m² and ∆p in Pa, HVCA [9 Table 1] sets
be characterised by a power relationship (for a discussion the following limits. The values in the right hand column are
of the derivation of this, see [7]): the same as for the same Leakage Class (A, B or C) in Eurovent [8].
M AY 2 0 1 3 E CO L I B R I U M 45
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 1). 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 Figure 3: Despite having been painted, this duct still shows potential
gasintroduced at the blower. When leaks are detected, the source leakage points (arrowed).
should be recorded and, since AS 4254.2:2012 requires only a
type-test, the information used to rectify leaks in the parts 3.1 AS 4254.2:2012 Ductwork for air-handling
of the system not tested. systems in buildings – Rigid duct
As noted previously, previous editions of the AS 4254 series
Duct system under test recommended against leakage testing but AS 4254.2:2012
now requires testing (Clause 2.2.4). In summary, the standard
requires that each duct system of 3000 L/s or more be tested
to at least 1.25 times its operating pressure, and not leak more
Flexible duct
than 5% of the design air quantity of the duct system. It is
Temporary caps Office plate notable that the standard does not require the whole of the
and manometer
on duct ends, system to be tested. Instead it calls for type-testing of at least
to measure
branches and spigots 10% of the system, including longitudinal seams, circumferential
leakage rate
joints, floor distribution, riser and plant room duct, and each
Manometer to measure type of seam, joint and sealing construction. The standard
test pressure in duct Variable speed blower
does not indicate whether the 10% relates to total duct length,
Figure 2: Typical leakage testing set up. surface area or length to seams but overseas standards use duct
surface area. Designers and contractors should agree as to which
While leakage is clearly a cause for concern, leakage testing sections are to be tested having regard to design intent and
has its own issues. Apart from the time involved and cost and practicability on site.
complication of temporarily closing up the duct, testing disrupts Several points should be noted about these requirements.
efficient work flow on site. It is also essentially a contractual
hold point but may be difficult to program because the whole of Firstly, testing is done under static, rather than operating,
the section to be tested must be complete but not yet externally conditions and, as the test pressure is higher than the operating
insulated or enclosed in ceilings or risers. The contractor will pressure, the leakage rate in operation will be less. AS the
need to weigh up the cost of careful sealing of ducts at the factory actual leakage in operation cannot be calculated from the static
and as they are erected against the potentially greater cost and leakage, the approach recommended in [1] and [8] is to use the
complication of identifying and rectifying leaks found when the arithmetic average of the pressure at the start and end of the
system fails under leakage testing. duct system. For example, consider a rigid supply duct system
with 250 Pa at the fan end and 40 Pa at the spigot to the last
The demise in the 1970s of high-pressure, high-velocity flexible duct. For this system, the arithmetic average pressure
duct systems that were routinely leak tested has meant that is 145 Pa. The test pressure to AS 4254.2:2012 for such a system
few duct manufacturers and installers have had their normal is 312 Pa (1.25 times 250 Pa). In this case, the ratio of leakage
duct construction and sealing methods tested. Except in extreme rates, from equation (2) will be (145/312) 0.65 or about 61%. That
cases where leakage is so great that system air quantities cannot is, if the system passes the leak test with less than 5% leakage,
be achieved during commissioning, we simply do not know how in operation leakage can be expected to be less than 3%. This
little, or how much, ductwork constructed to current industry is an improvement on the design norm of 5% discussed above.
practice leaks. Some traditional approaches (Figure 3) are clearly It is also a significant improvement on leakage rates reported in
not leak tight. American research [11] measuring duct leakage overseas research [5] [6] and comparable with the value of 2.5%
in existing buildings found rates between 0% to 30%, with most
assumed for a “tight” system in [6].
between 10% and 20%. Since these American systems would
most likely have been constructed to SMACNA standards Secondly, type-testing of 10% of each system rather than whole
which are very similar to the AS 4254 series, similar results system should simplify the task and reduce the impact of leakage
are likely in Australia. testing on construction cost and site programing.
46 E CO L I B R I U M M AY 2 0 1 3
FORUM
This however raises a third issue: how much of the system should values for the constant, C (representing duct “tightness”) of
be tested. Eurovent [8] uses a staged strategy in which the first 0.096 for the first system and 0.018 for the second. That is, the
stage of testing uses 10% of the total surface area for round ducts second system must be over five times “tighter” than the first to
or 20% for rectangular. If the air leakage rate on test is greater meet the same leakage criteria. This is likely to create uncertainty
than the permitted rate, the test is repeated with double the for contractors since they will be unable to confidently predict
duct area. If it still fails, Eurovent requires that the whole of the (and hence price) what needs to be done to meet the AS
system be tested. This staged strategy compels the contractor to 4254.2:2012 leakage requirements. They could perhaps mitigate
fix most leaks, not just those in the test section. AS 4254.2:2012 this by using the surface area of the system to determine the
does not include such a strategy and, since in Australia most required leakage class and sealing using overseas standards.
duct systems are rectangular, requires only half the amount to be
tested (10%) compared to Eurovent. Finally, there is the question of what will and will not be tested.
Since AS 4254.2:2012 covers only rigid mild and stainless steel
The fourth issue is that the permissible leakage in sheet metal ducts, its testing requirements do not apply to:
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 materials not covered by AS 4254.2:2012.
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 as VAV boxes, active chilled beams, diffusers and grilles.
flow rate as a leakage criteria”. The single percentage used in AS
4254.2:2012 produces anomalous results as can be illustrated by Experience has shown that these can be very leaky, in part
reference to equation (2). Consider two systems each handling because of the division of responsibility on site.
3000 L/s. One has a duct surface area of 50 m² and operates at
200 Pa, the other has a surface area of 150 m² and operates at Although the standard does not include these, designers and
500 Pa. For each system the permissible leakage is 5% of 3000 specifiers should consider including them in the parts to be tested,
L/s or 150 L/s. Substituting these values into equation (2) gives having regard to the project’s performance and energy requirements.
HP pg47
M AY 2 0 1 3 E CO L I B R I U M 47
FORUM
Bastard-sized Ad pg48
48 E CO L I B R I U M M AY 2 0 1 3