Search

Duct leakage is a major source of energy loss in residential buildings. Most duct leakage occurs at the connections to registers, plenums, or branches in the duct system. At each of these connections, a method of sealing the duct system is required. Typical sealing methods include tapes or mastics applied around the joints in the system. Field examinations of duct systems have shown that taped seals tend to fail over extended periods of time. The Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) has been testing sealant durability for several years using accelerated test methods and found that typical duct tape (i.e., cloth-backed tapes with natural rubber adhesives) fails more rapidly than other duct sealants. The test results for collar-toplenum connections showed that the current UL testing and certification program is not sufficient for indicating durability and many tapes showed significant failure when testing using UL 181B procedures. The current study focused on evaluating UL181B-FX duct sealants on round flex duct to sheet metal collar connections that placed less stress on the joint to be sealed. After two years of testing, the flex-to-collar connections showed little change in air leakage, but substantial visual degradation from some products. A surprising result from the testing was that most of the clamps used to mechanically fasten the connections failed during the testing. This indicates that the durability of clamps also need to be evaluated to ensure longevity of the duct connection. Testing also included advanced tape products being developed by major manufacturers on a collar-to-plenum connection as used in previous studies. The advanced tape performed better than previously tested cloth backed tapes and failed after about 60 days of testing. During this study we completed an ASTM standard (E2342-03) for evaluating the durability of duct sealants using the collar-to-plenum connection.

Duct leakage is a key factor in determining energy losses from forced air heating and cooling systems. Several studies (Francisco and Palmiter 1997 and 1999, Andrews et al. 1998, and Siegel et al. 2001) have shown that the duct system efficiency cannot be reliably determined without good estimates of duct leakage. Specifically, for energy calculations, it is the duct leakage air flow to outside at operating conditions that is required. Existing test methods either precisely measure the size of leaks (but not the flow through them at operating conditions), or measure these flows with insufficient accuracy. The DeltaQ duct leakage test method was developed to provide improved estimates of duct leakage during system operation. In this study we developed the analytical calculation methods and the test procedures used in the DeltaQ test. As part of the development process, we have estimated uncertainties in the test method (both analytically and based on field data) and designed automated test procedures to increase accuracy and reduce the contributions of operator errors in performing field tests. In addition, the test has been evaluated in over 100 houses by several research teams to show that it can be used in a wide range of houses and to aid in finding limits or problems in field applications. The test procedure is currently being considered by ASTM as an update of an existing duct leakage standard.

Flow measurement at residential registers using flow hoods is becoming more common. These measurements areused to determine if the HVAC system is providing adequate comfort, appropriate flow over heat exchangers and in estimates of system energy losses. These HVAC system performance metrics are determined by using register measurements to find out if individual rooms are getting the correct airflow, and in estimates of total air handler flow and duct air leakage. The work discussed in this paper shows that commercially available flow hoods are poor at measuring flows in residential systems. There is also evidence in this and other studies that flow hoods can have significant errors even when used on the non-residential systems they were originally developed for. The measurement uncertainties arise from poor calibrations and the sensitivity of exiting flow hoods to non-uniformity of flows entering the device. The errors are usually large – on the order of 20% of measured flow, which is unacceptably high for most applications. Active flow hoods that have flow measurement devices that are insensitive to the entering air flow pattern were found to be clearly superior to commercially available flow hoods. In addition, it is clear that current calibration procedures for flow hoods may not take into account any field application problems and a new flow hood measurement standard should be developed to address this issue.