ENGINEERS NOTEBOOK

This article was published in ASHRAE Journal, September 2012. Copyright 2012 ASHRAE. Posted at www.ashrae.org. This article may not be copied
and/or distributed electronically or in paper form without permission of ASHRAE. For more information about ASHRAE Journal, visit www.ashrae.org.

Classifying Duct Leakage

By Lee Feigenbaum, Student Member ASHRAE

s an ever-increasing number of
buildings seek LEED certification, energy-conserving initiatives call for HVAC systems that deliver
high levels of performance at relatively
low pressures.1 To that end, engineers
routinely specify air duct leakage
testing to verify that their f inished
systems meet acceptable standards for
air conveyance.
Based on the SMACNA standard for
leakage testing, leakage classification
helps relate leakage to duct surface
area.1 To avoid unnecessary costs or
lost productivity resulting from failed
leakage tests in the field, it is important
to understand how leakage classification

impacts the leakage factor, or permissible leakage.

Leakage classification is the value that
ties static pressure (in. w.g.) to acceptable
leakage rates. At any given pressure, leakage classification identifies a permissible
leakage rate measured in cfm/100 ft2 (L/s
per 20 m2) of duct surface area at 1 in.
w.g. (249 Pa).1
To simplify the procedure of calculating acceptable leakage, SMACNA
provides leakage factors that correspond
to Leakage Classifications 2, 4, 8, and 16
in Table E-1.1 Although leakage classification can be expressed by any number
(including decimals and/or fractions), it
should not be selected arbitrarily.

SMACNA provides suggested values

in its leakage standards as a general
guideline. Other values are also acceptable given that they are achievable using the correct fabrication and sealing
techniques. ASHRAE/IES Standard
90.1-2010 recommends Leakage Class
6 for ductwork at 1 in. w.g. (249 Pa).
To maintain efficiency while conducting leakage testing, it is important to
understand how to properly calculate the
specified allowable leakage.
One example would be when the
specif ied leakage class is 5. Many
engineers and contractors in this situation quickly jump to the next most
restrictive classification as set forth in
SMACNA Table E-1. In doing so they
exceed the specifications, which is un-

Advertisement formerly in this space.

78

A S H R A E J o u r n a l

September 2012

Advertisement formerly in this space.

ENGINEERS NOTEBOOK
necessary and potentially expensive on
Maximum
Static
Leakage Class
Test Area
Allowable Leakage
a first cost basis.
Leakage Rate (F)
(CL)
(ft2)
Pressure (P)
The proper formula to calculate allow4 in. w.g.
4
9.8
2,000
196
4 in. w.g.
5
12.3
2,000
246
able leakage is:
4 in. w.g.
6
14.8
2,000
296
F=CL PN
where
Table 1: Allowable leakage of sample section of duct tested to 4 in. w.g. (996 Pa)
F = Maximum leakage rate per unit and various leakage classifications.
of duct surface area as cfm/100
ft2 (L/s per 20 m2) (Lmax in Standard 90.1-2010)
outlet fully open. The impact to a contractors productivity and/or
CL = Leakage Class (given)
profitability under these undesirable circumstances is unacceptable.
P = Static Pressure (given)
Leakage classification is an important component of leakage
N = 0.65 (constant value unless specified otherwise)1
calculations. When multiplied by the surface area of a test secUsing this formula on a duct system constructed to 4 in. w.g. (996 tion the leakage classification can become a powerful and costly
Pa) and Leakage Class 6, the leakage factor (F) is 14.8 cfm/100 ft2 hindrance if not given proper consideration and care. Diligence
(15 L/s per 20 m2). The same system at Leakage Class 5 yields a while calculating leakage factors is important, as unexpected
slightly more restrictive factor of 12.3 cfm/100 ft2 (12 L/s per 20 consequences of erroneous calculations may include unrealistic
m2). At Leakage Class 4 this system only allows a stingy factor of leakage goals and lost productivity. To that end, SMACNA states
9.8 cfm/100 ft2 (10 L/s per 20 m2).
that prudent contractors must take testing seriously; work seWhen applied over a large test area, this difference becomes quence, work duration and costs can be significantly affected.1
significant. For instance, assume a test area of 2,000 ft2 (186 m2)
at Leakage Class 5. If an engineer or contractor follows Table E-1 References
1. SMACNA. 2012. HVAC Air Duct Leakage Test Manual (2nd ed).
and jumps to the next most restrictive Leakage Class 4, rather than
calculating the leakage factor for Leakage Class 5, he essentially Lee Feigenbaum is a project manager at Heritage Mechanical
forfeits 50 cfm (24 L/s) of allowable leakage (Table 1). That is Services: An EMCOR Co. in Farmingdale, N.Y. He is studying for
roughly equivalent to testing the system with an undampered air an MBA degree at Hofstra University.

Advertisement formerly in this space.

80

A S H R A E J o u r n a l

September 2012