TL;DR
Get backup power and energy gear delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
A newly built home failed four duct-leakage tests, with the inspections exposing unsealed connections and damaged ducts. The report says local officials have begun enforcing testing requirements that have been in state code for more than a decade; the test results and repairs show why checking ducts can identify problems that may otherwise go undetected.
A newly built home failed four duct-leakage tests, exposing unsealed connections and damaged ducts, according to building-performance tester Randy Williams. His November 9 report describes the case as local officials increase enforcement of duct-testing rules that have been in his state’s code for more than a decade, bringing renewed attention to whether duct systems are installed and sealed properly.
Williams was hired to perform duct-tightness and blower-door testing at a home measuring just over 1,150 square feet. The slab-on-grade house was designed with its ducts in an unconditioned attic. The city’s code officials asked for results from both tests. The duct system failed four leakage tests, and the inspections revealed installation defects, including connections that had not been sealed and damaged ductwork.
The home also failed its blower-door test under the metric used for the assessment. It recorded 3.56 air changes per hour at 50 Pascals (ACH50), above the state limit of 3 ACH50. Williams said the home’s small size raised a question about whether an alternative blower-door metric could apply: the 2021 International Energy Conservation Code includes an option for homes under 1,500 square feet to measure leakage in CFM50 per square foot of building-enclosure area.
However, Williams said his state was still using a version of the 2012 IECC. The source account says he argued that the alternative metric could be used, but the supplied material ends before describing the decision or the final duct-test figures. It therefore does not establish whether the home passed after repairs or whether officials accepted the alternate blower-door measure.
Leaks Can Hide Beyond Living Areas
The case shows how duct testing can identify faults that a visual check alone may miss, particularly when ductwork runs through an attic or another space outside the home’s conditioned interior. Air escaping from ducts in an unconditioned area can mean heating or cooling is not delivered where intended. The report focuses on the defects found at this house; it does not quantify the energy loss or costs for this particular system.
Testing also gives builders and officials documented results to use when evaluating a home against applicable requirements. Finding loose connections and damaged ducts before a project is complete can give the responsible parties a chance to address those issues. The report does not say what repairs were made in this case, so any outcome for the home remains unknown.
Products Worth Considering
eufy Security SoloCam E42 4-Camera Kit with HomeBase 3, 4K Solar Security Cameras
LG S90TR 7.1.3‑Channel OLED Evo TV Matching Home Theater Soundbar (Black)
Philips Hue Festavia 65-Foot Smart LED String Lights, 250 Color-Changing Mini LEDs
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
Longstanding Rules, Closer Enforcement
Williams writes that duct-leakage testing requirements have been part of his state’s code for more than a decade, but local officials have only recently begun requiring the tests more consistently. He says he cannot explain why enforcement has changed. He suggests possibilities—such as state-provided education or officials encountering field problems—but presents these as speculation, not confirmed reasons.
The article places duct testing alongside blower-door testing, which measures air leakage through a home’s building enclosure. These are separate checks: one concerns the duct system, while the other concerns leakage through the house itself. The account notes that the 2021 IECC added an optional blower-door measurement for smaller homes, while the state in this case had not adopted that edition and remained on a version of the 2012 code. The excerpt does not provide enough information to determine the exact local code provisions governing every test.
“Why the change in enforcement? I can’t say.”
— Randy Williams, building-performance tester
Test Outcome and Repairs Remain Unreported
The supplied report excerpt does not give the duct-leakage measurements, the applicable pass threshold, or details of any repairs. It also cuts off while Williams is discussing whether the small home could use the 2021 IECC’s optional blower-door metric. The final disposition of the blower-door result, and whether the city approved an alternative measurement, are not confirmed in the available material.
The reason officials have stepped up enforcement is also unknown. Williams raises education and field problems as possibilities, but offers no confirmation. The account does not state whether the builder, city, or another party arranged repairs or follow-up testing.
Repairs and Follow-Up Testing
The immediate next steps for a project with failed tests would be to identify and address the reported defects and determine whether the home meets the requirements applied by the local authority. In this case, however, the report excerpt does not say whether repairs or retesting took place. Readers should not infer that the home passed or that the city accepted the alternative blower-door metric.
Further information from Williams or the city would be needed to establish the duct-test results, any corrective work, the final blower-door determination, and the specific code basis for approval. Meanwhile, Williams says he has been conducting more duct-leakage tests as local officials require them more often, suggesting testing will remain part of his work as enforcement continues.
Key Questions
What did the duct-leakage tests find?
The new home failed four duct-leakage tests. Williams reported unsealed duct connections and damaged ducts, but the supplied account does not provide the test measurements.
Did the home pass its blower-door test?
No. It measured 3.56 ACH50, above the state limit of 3 ACH50 under the metric used. The excerpt does not provide the final result under any alternative metric.
Why are local officials requiring more duct tests now?
The reason is not confirmed. Williams says the requirement had been in state code for more than a decade and suggests education or field problems as possible explanations, but does not verify either.
Were the ducts repaired and retested?
The available report excerpt does not say whether repairs were completed or whether the home underwent follow-up testing.
Source: greenbuildingadvisor.com
