2012 IECC PerformanceTesting: Lessons from the Duct and ... · The 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) requires new homes and major renovations to have a pressure test

2012 IECC Performance Testing:Lessons from the Duct andEnvelope Tightness (DET) Verifier Program

Mike BarcikAssociate Member ASHRAE

© ASHRAE (www.ashrae.org). For personal use only. Additional reproduction, distribution, or transmission in either print or digital form is not permitted without ASHRAE’s prior written permission.

ABSTRACT

The 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) requires new homes and major renovations to have a pressuretest of the building envelope and duct systems that are located outside of the thermal envelope. Testing is vital as leaky homesand ductwork often represent major sources of energy waste in homes. Many states will likely adopt the 2012 IECC over the nextfew years. However, many states currently lack the capacity to meet the testing requirements mandated by the 2012 IECC. Toensure code adoption and compliance, it is critical that states build a lasting infrastructure to offer testing services and that theseservices be available at a competitive price. If not, there could be a serious threat of a backlash against the testing provisionsof the 2012 IECC, or perhaps the entire code.

In 2011, Georgia implemented a building energy code that requires duct and building envelope leakage testing (DET) andaddresses performance testing issues left unresolved by the IECC such as who is qualified to perform the required testing, wherethe testing results should be recorded, how the testing requirements apply to upgrades and renovations to existing homes andduct systems, whether there should be special considerations for multifamily buildings (e.g., sampling), and what is an acceptableand effective duct sealant. This case study addresses key issues such as the appropriate experience and training required for DETprofessionals, acceptance of existing national testing certifications, and effective outreach strategies to recruit and train DETprofessionals.

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Department of Energy has identified air leakagein building envelopes and duct systems as major sources ofenergy waste (PNNL and ORNL 2010). Air leakage can alsobe a source of comfort, durability, and indoor air quality prob-lems (PNNL and ORNL 2010). Historically, updating build-ing energy codes focused on increasing insulation levels andwindow and equipment efficiency requirements. However, themost recent versions of the International Energy ConservationCode (IECC) recognize the important contribution of air leak-age to energy use and are more explicitly addressing both thebest practice recommendations for reducing air leakage, aswell as performance testing to set maximum thresholds for airleakage of the building envelope and duct systems.

Testing provisions were first referenced in the 2009IECC, which required testing for ducts outside the thermalenvelope and allowed for optional building envelope testingversus prescriptive air-sealing measures (ICC 2009). The2009 IECC set criteria for both duct and envelope testing. The2012 IECC requires both whole house air-leakage testing andthe testing of duct systems when they are located outside of thethermal envelope (ICC 2012). The 2012 IECC also strength-ened the passing criteria for both tests above the 2009 IECCperformance thresholds. The majority of U.S. states haveadopted or are at least on track for adopting the 2009 IECC andmany will likely adopt the 2012 IECC over the next few years,with some states implementing the latest code as early as 2013(see Figure 1).

© 2013 ASHRAE

Mike Barcik is the Director of Technical Services at Southface Energy Institute, Atlanta, GA.


Although the 2009 IECC includes testing requirements oroptions, the manner in which testing is executed is unclear.Code enforcement bodies throughout the nation are strugglingto address the testing criteria of both the 2009 and 2012 IECC.A primary concern is the greatly varying distribution of profes-sionals trained in conducting whole house and duct system air-leakage testing, such as Residential Energy Services Network(RESNET) Home Energy Rating System (HERS) Raters(RESNET 2012) or Building Performance Institute (BPI)Professionals (BPI 2012). Furthermore, the level of expertiserequired to verify the testing criteria of the building energycode may not be as stringent as required for testing certificationby existing organizations and beyond-code programs such asENERGY STAR® or green building certification. To ensuresuccessful code adoption and compliance, it is critical thatstates build lasting capacity to offer testing services that meetthe code criteria, and that these services are available at acompetitive price. Program administrators, government agen-cies and others need to plan to fill this gap in order to preparethe new construction marketplace for the full testing requiredby 2012 IECC implementation.

BACKGROUND

In 2010, Georgia adopted the Georgia State MinimumStandard Energy Code (IECC with Georgia State Supplementsand Amendments) to be effective January 1, 2011. The Georgiaenergy code is based on the 2009 IECC; however, Georgiaadopted amendments to the 2009 IECC that require duct andwhole house building envelope air-leakage testing (GA DCA2010). Georgia’s mandated duct and envelope testing (DET)was later mirrored by the 2012 IECC. The Georgia energy codealso addressed performance testing issues left unresolved by the2009 and 2012 IECC codes. Table 1 presents a comparison ofthe 2009 and 2012 versions of the IECC and the 2011 Georgiaenergy code. For example, Georgia fully vetted the questions ofwho is qualified to perform the required testing (called a veri-fier), where the testing results should be recorded, how the test-ing requirements apply to upgrades and renovations to existinghomes and duct systems, whether there should be specialconsiderations for multifamily dwellings (e.g., sampling), andwhether mastic should be required as a duct sealant. In answer-ing these questions, Georgia developed a new certificationprogram for individuals wishing to demonstrate compliance

Figure 1 Current status of residential energy code adoption by state (DOE 2013).

2 Thermal Performance of the Exterior Envelopes of Whole Buildings XII International Conference


with the duct and envelope testing requirements known as theDET Verifier Certification Program.

The relevance of having a successful DET VerifierProgram was made evident during an attempt to roll back theGeorgia energy code amendments by a small, but politicallyconnected, faction in early 2012. The demonstration ofsubstantial numbers of certified DET verifiers around the stateprepared to offer the testing at affordable rates, plus a testingequipment loan program, helped quell this code-weakeningeffort.

Georgia determined that the verifiers who conduct thecode-required testing must be trained and certified and that theymust understand how to properly record the tightness results onan amended energy code compliance certificate. See Figure 2 fora completed example of the Georgia energy code compliancecertificate template. The Atlanta-based non-profit organization

Southface Energy Institute volunteered to develop a Duct andEnvelope Tightness (DET) Verifier training curriculum for theGeorgia Department of Community Affairs (DCA), the stateagency tasked with oversight of building code adoption andinterpretation. In the interest of consistent code implementation,Southface chose to provide the DET Verifier curriculum at nocharge to other training entities that are deemed qualified by theGeorgia DCA (Southface 2012). Additionally, Georgia recog-nized RESNET certified Home Energy Raters and BPI certifiedBuilding Analysts and Envelope Professionals as DET verifiersand did not require them to have additional training. Southface’sDET experience, training curriculum, and supporting resourceshave been made available free-of-charge to assist other states inpreparing for implementing the new code.

The DET Verifier Training is a one to two-day coursedesigned to introduce the skills necessary to conduct pressure

Table 1. Duct and EnvelopeTightness Requirements

Issue 2009 IECC 2011 GA Energy Code 2012 IECC

Envelope testing—single familyOptional: Blower door (BD) testor visual inspection checklist

Mandatory BD test with optionalvisual inspection checklist

Mandatory BD test and visualinspection checklist

Envelope testing—multifamilyOptional: BD test or visualinspection checklist

Optional – Visual Inspection orBD test. Sampling 1 in 4 units perfloor or RESNET protocol

Mandatory BD test(no mention of sampling)

Envelope passing criteria <7 ACH50 all climate zones (CZ) <7 ACH50 all CZ (2–4)3 ACH50 in CZ 3-85 ACH50 in CZ 1-2

Clarify if envelope test requiredon alteration or renovation

No guidance“When construction affects allaspects of building envelope (gutrenovation)”

No guidance

Duct testing criteria at rough-in(RI) (Total)

4% – RI total no air handler 6% -RI total w/ air handler

6% - RI total w/ air handler3% – RI total no air handler4% – RI total with air handler

Duct Testing criteria at postcon-struction—Postconstruction total(PCT) or postconstruction tooutside (PCO)

12% – PCT8% – PCO

12% – PCT8% – PCO

4% PC (no incentive for testingat final or To Outside)

Record/display test results Not requiredOn energy code certificate –template provided

On energy code certificate – nospecifics on what to provide

Exempt from duct testingDucts and air-handler unit (AHU)entirely inside building thermalenvelope

Ducts and AHU entirely insidebuilding thermal envelope

Ducts and AHU entirely insidebuilding thermal envelope

Duct pressure test required whenmodifying an existing system

No guidance

When >50% of existing duct sys-tem is modified. When AHU ischanged out, test is not requiredbut duct sealing with masticthrough plenum connections isrequired

No guidance

Building cavities allowed as ducts Only for returns Not allowed for supply or returns Not allowed for supply or returns

Duct sealing material UL* tape, mastic, etc.No UL* tape, only mastic andmastic tape

UL* tape, mastic, etc.

Qualified testers No guidanceDET verifiers and RESNET andBPI certified professionals

No guidance

*UL = Underwriter’s Laboratory.

Thermal Performance of the Exterior Envelopes of Whole Buildings XII International Conference 3


Figure 2 Sample of The Georgia Residential Energy Code Compliance Certificate source (Georgia Department of CommunityAffairs 2010).



tests of the ducts and building envelope. Prior to taking thetraining, participants must demonstrate math proficiencythrough an on-line prerequisite course and must view ten-minute videos on duct testing using a duct blower and buildingenvelope testing using a BD. In the classroom, participantsthen learn:

• Basics of the 2011 Georgia energy code including man-datory requirements such as air sealing and duct sealingdetails (2009 IECC based);

• Setup and testing protocols for BD and duct-leakagetesting based on RESNET guidelines;

• Calculations for leakage testing, per the code require-ments, plus how to fill in the results on the GA EnergyCode Certificate; and

• Tips for successfully completing the written and in-fieldDET verifier certification exams, which are offered aspart of the training.

The Georgia Code implementation schedule provided forapproximately six months of time from adoption to statewiderequirement of the DET verification implementation. To meetthis ambitious schedule, Southface developed a train-the-trainerprogram on DET, which was targeted primarily at communitycollege faculty and energy efficiency professionals. Southface,along with electric utility partners, private firms, and commu-nity colleges, trained over 500 verifiers in just four months.Many of the verifiers work in the housing industry in fields suchas heating and air conditioning, construction management, andweatherization (see Figure 3). To help meet the statewide needfor verifiers, the Georgia DCA partnered with local homebuilder associations to offer a loan program for BD and duct-testing equipment. The loan program charges a modest daily feefor equipment rental and is designed to allow verifiers to test themarket for DET services and to serve rural areas of the statewhere new home construction is not strong enough to supportequipment purchase by individual verifiers.

Lessons Learned

Several important lessons have been learned from the pasttwo years, both in terms of training and outreach as well as ineffectively implementing and maintaining the DET VerifierProgram:

1. Need to educate industry professionals on ventilation.Ventilation strategies are now required by the 2012 codes(2012 IRC mandates the prescriptive ventilation tables,but not the formulas, of ASHRAE 62.2 [2010]). Insection R303.4 of the 2012 International ResidentialCode, intentional, whole-house ventilation is mandatedfor any home tighter than 5 air changes per hour at 50 Pa(ACH50) whereas in the 2012 IECC section R402.4.1.2,all homes must be <3 or 5 ACH50, depending on CZ.There is a need to teach how to determine the cubic feetper minute (CFM) of ventilation air required, the methodsof ventilating a home, and how to commission and vali-date the actual quantity being delivered. This education isneeded because intentional, whole-house ventilation hasgenerally only been implemented by builders participat-ing in beyond-code programs.

1. Need for the DET Verifier training to be multiday. Anexpanded format is necessary in order to allow additionalhands-on field testing opportunities, as well as to providemore direction for a novice DET verifier if the home’senvelope or duct system fails.

2. Need for one central database of certified DET verifiers.Unfortunately, Georgia does not have a central databaseof all DET verifiers. The Georgia DCA does keep a list ofall approved DET trainers but the lack of a central data-base for DET verifiers makes it more challenging to iden-tify a certified DET verifier. Alabama seems primed tohave a superior approach wherein the State LicensingBoard for Heating, Air Conditioning, and Refrigerationwill keep a master list of all entities certified in the entirestate (Alabama’s testing requirement is currently sched-uled to go active on January 1, 2014).

3. Need for continuing education and quality assurance (QA)on certified DET verifiers. While the opportunity stillexists for Georgia to implement, unfortunately there are noformal provisions for actively maintaining the DET veri-fier certification. It is important to note that the DET veri-fier certification is for the individual and not for a company.Illinois is developing a DET verifier program that willutilize their established HERS industry group to adminis-ter QA to DET verifiers on an annual basis (IAER 2012).

4. Need for equipment loan program. the Georgia Environ-mental Financing Authority (state energy office). Allo-cated funds that placed testing equipment in a number oflocal home builder associations around the state. Theintent is that this equipment can be rented for a modest feeand the revenue would be maintained by the local HBA.This access to equipment helps prevent spikes in testing

Figure 3 Percentage of DET attendees who fell into eachdemographic category (Southface EnergyInstitute 2010).



costs in smaller population centers and allows contractorsto determine if there is a viable market for testing servicesprior to purchasing equipment.

5. Need for reciprocity. As other states come on board withDET verifier programs, it is important to establish reci-procity between states that at a minimum enables DETverifiers to work in housing markets that span stateboundaries. Due to amendments, each individual stateoften has their own unique test results template (often theenergy code compliance certificate) and the testingoptions allowed may be different. Examples for the stateof Alabama and city of Chattanooga, Tennessee arepresented in Figures 4 and 5. Although states may modifytesting and reporting requirements, the fundamental skillset of how to conduct pressure tests remains the same.

6. Need for a discussion on certified versus third-party testing.The code is vague on this issue and always refers to the localcode official. Third-party testing impacts costs, QA, andother issues. DET verifier is a certification that the contrac-tor knows how to correctly conduct the test and the generalintention is that certified DET verifiers could potentiallytest their own work. In other words, builders with the DETcertification could conduct BD tests of the houses they havebuilt and HVAC installers could perform duct-leakage testsof duct systems that they have installed.

7. Need for a consistent curriculum. Although the amend-ment was originally written in language that called uponthe Georgia DCA to approve any curriculum, the agencyquickly determined the value of just one training pack-age. Southface developed the curriculum and has made anoverview presentation available for general audiences toview for free. The instructional materials, includingpresentations, speaker notes, tests, and evaluation forms,have been shared with all DCA-approved training enti-ties. These instructional materials have been modified forother states as typically the code and test results form hasbeen unique to a given state.

DISCUSSION

Unfortunately, there have not been funds to fully evaluatethe effectiveness of the DET program. However, the state andlocal chapters of the National Association of Home Buildershave been supportive of the approach. In fact, these groupsworked successfully to prevent repeal of the DET require-ments in Georgia. This industry support indicates that thetraining and equipment loan programs are letting marketforces meet the requirement for DET. As an active participantin a variety of housing forums in the state, Southface has anec-dotal evidence that home builders have adequate access toDET verifiers and that testing services are not posing an unduefinancial burden.

For this paper, Southface polled four companies for dataon their experience providing DET testing services. The fourcompanies represented a variety in terms of company size,scopes of work (some performed sealing in addition to testing),

and geographic and CZ areas where they offered services. Datawas provided for single-family homes as well as multifamilydwellings and included projects simply being tested for mini-mum-code compliance as well as homes participating inbeyond-code programs, such as EarthCraft House andENERGY STAR.

Company Data Provided/Geographic Region/

Housing Type/Code vs. Beyond Code

Company A tested envelope and/or ductwork for over1,200 single-family homes in the greater metro Atlanta area in2012 (Climate Zones 3A and 4A). Data was made available for944 homes of which 595 were for minimum-code compliancewhile 349 participated in a beyond-code program (EarthCraftor other).

Company B focused mainly on leakage-testing measure-ments for multifamily developments in the southern and east-ern parts of the state (Climate zones 2A and 3A). Data wasprovided for 77 units in three different multifamily develop-ments in three different cities. The buildings were all certifiedunder a beyond-code program (EarthCraft) and dwelling unitfloor areas ranged from 774 ft2 to 1320 ft2.

Company C provided testing data for 22 single-familyhomes in the southern portion of the state (Climate Zone 2A),with 19 of these homes tested for minimum-code complianceand three for ENERGY STAR v2.5.

Company D provided data for 55 single-family homes insome of the northernmost counties of the state (Climate Zone4A). All homes were tested only for simple code compliance.

Envelope Testing Results

Company A released data for 936 homes that were BDtested (587 minimum code and 349 beyond code). The averagebuilding envelope leakage for code compliant homes was 4.42ACH50 while the average for homes in beyond-code programswas 3.41 ACH50.

Company B showed that for 77 units in three differentmultifamily developments in three different cities under abeyond-code program (EarthCraft), the overall averageACH50 was 4.26. The data shows that, in spite of an ACH50bias that favors large volume homes and works against smallvolume homes, multifamily units can still successfully passleakage criteria, particularly when participating in a beyond-code program.

Company C provided BD results for twenty homes withan average ACH50 of 3.76. Seventeen of the homes featuredspray foam rooflines and easily passed the BD test on the firstattempt. The three remaining homes were conventionalvented attic-style construction; two of these required retestingafter not passing their initial envelope tightness test. Thesevented attic homes were also the only ones that required ducttesting (since the spray foam houses created fully encapsu-lated ductwork).

Company D provided simple code compliance data for 55single-family homes in north Georgia (Climate Zone 4A). Of the



Figure 4 Sample of The Alabama Residential Energy Code Duct and Envelope Testing Results data sheet (Alabama Power 2013).



Figure 5 Sample of The City of Chattanooga Energy Code Compliance Certificate (City of Chattanooga Department ofPublic Works [Southface 2013]).



45 homes that passed, the average BD test score was 4.7ACH50.For the 10 homes that did not pass the BD test, the results rangedfrom 7.5 to 12ACH50. Only two homes chose to retest since thecounty code officials chose to grant the Certificate of Occupancywithout enforcing energy code performance requirements.

Duct-Leakage Testing Results

Company A performed a total of 1,617 duct-leakagetests (1,022 systems to meet minimum code requirements and595 systems for homes in beyond-code programs). The ductswere tested either at rough-in stage (RIT) or at final stagemeasuring leakage to outside (PCO). The average duct leak-age for minimum-code compliance was 3.9% while the aver-age beyond-code program duct leakage was 2.9%.

Company B measured duct leakage in 77 multifamilybeyond code units that averaged 2.7%.

Company C provided duct testing data for the five homesout of 22 that were conventionally vented attic-styleconstruction. These vented attic homes were also the onlyones that required duct testing (since the sprayed-foamroofline houses created fully encapsulated ductwork). Fiveduct systems were tested but only three passed initially; theother two required minor sealing around the boot penetra-tions and some touch-up around the air handler but, after thiswere able to pass while still on the initial visit.

Company D only leak tested 18 duct systems out of the55 single-family homes in the northern part of the state(Climate Zone 4A). About half of the remaining duct systemsdid not require testing since the ductwork was inside the ther-mal envelope. The other half ignored the required testing, butthe home still received a Certificate of Occupancy due to thejurisdiction’s lack of energy code enforcement. The averagepassing duct-leakage test score was around 11% total leakageat final (PCT). This value is close to the noncompliant thresh-old of 12%. Five of 18 duct systems failed but only two choseto retest since code compliance was not being enforced.

Additional

Company A also performed air sealing and inspectionservices in many of their over 1, 200 single-family homes. Inall cases, the need to perform BD or duct-leakage retests wasfairly small (less than 2%).

Company B also evaluated 32 single-family homes thatpassed all envelope and duct-leakage tests. Failure rate herewas estimated at less than one percent.

Company C did not perform air sealing as part of theirscope of work. They did bring air-sealing materials along tohelp educate on how to seal top plates, penetrations, andchases. Company C did not charge for this service but saw thevalue of fostering good business relationships in case thehomes did not pass on the first BD attempt.

Company D expressed frustration at the lack of or incon-sistent code enforcement. Retests were rarely performed evenif the envelope or duct system failed; only fear of liability wasenough to spur some builders to pay for a retest. Other blatant

lack of enforcement issues included walkout basements withno insulation on the concrete walls as required by code andfrustration that certain counties were not even performinginsulation inspections.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2009 IECC (2011 Georgia Energy Code)

Requirements Can be Met

Overall, the data indicate that with a fairly modest effort,the performance levels for DET required by the code are easilyobtainable. The thresholds arguably are too easy, especiallyfor larger homes and floor areas served by larger duct systems.The performance thresholds in the 2012 IECC are signifi-cantly more challenging to achieve and may be especiallydifficult for the majority of states that have not mandated test-ing in the 2009 code cycle.

Beyond-Code Programs Work

The data show that beyond-code certification programsconsistently produce homes that exceed code-built homes.Many beyond-code programs, such as EarthCraft House andENERGY STAR, mandate complete compliance with theenergy code as a baseline. Beyond code homes will typicallyexceed energy code regardless of local enforcement activityand capability.

Companies that Performed Additional Services

Achieved Higher Performance

While some may question the inherent bias of testinghomes where the subcontractor performed the work and laterdid the testing, the data indicate that the these homes achievedhigh performance levels. Generally the subcontractor has avested interest in the home passing and quickly learns wherethe trouble spots are in the envelope and ductwork. Use of BDguided-air sealing was occasionally performed by all of thecontractors.

Energy Code Enforcement Matters

Regions where energy code enforcement was spotty indi-cate poor performance testing results for ducts and homes.Although admittedly a small sample size, nearly 20% (10 out of55) of the BD tested homes in counties with minimal enforce-ment failed the leakage test the first time out.And, duct systemsthat did pass were very close to the failure threshold.

SOUTHFACE ENERGY INSTITUTE

RECOMMENDATIONS

In addition to the results of this limited poll, Southfaceoffers the following recommendations based on our experi-ence teaching over 1,500 Energy Code and DET verifiercourses over the past decade, as well as our experience work-ing directly with over 25,000 single-family and multifamilyhomes certified under the EarthCraft green building programand other beyond-code programs.



• Improve the IECC Table R402.4.1.1 – Air Barrier andInsulation Installation checklist. The concept of TableR402.4.1.1 is solid, but the wording is cryptic and con-fusing; a graphic demonstration of many of the items isrecommended. An example is the provision that “cor-ners and headers shall be insulated” without providingdetails or minimum R-values to the builder and codeofficial (IECC 2012).

• There are numerous ways to report and adjust BD scoresbased on house size. The ACH50 approach (ACH50 =CFM50 × 60/Volume) is biased against small homes andnot a sufficiently robust standard for larger homes astheir much greater volumes tend to dominate the calcu-lation. The code should move away from ACH50 and toa different metric such as envelope leakage ratio (ELR).This approach (ELR50 = CFM5/square feet of buildingthermal envelope) does not artificially favor largerhomes since the CFM50 of measured leakage is dividedby the size of the home’s building thermal envelopeinstead of the volume. This approach is more consistentacross all building sizes and has been used in certainbeyond-code programs for some time. Also, a similarversion (tested at 75 Pa instead of 50 Pa) has been incor-porated as a commercial building testing standard andadopted by the U.S. Army Core of Engineers and thecommercial section of the 2012 IECC.

• Single-family homes should be individually tested forcode compliance but the code should include a samplingprotocol for multifamily buildings. Georgia adopted astandard of testing one in four dwelling units per floorof a multifamily building. One piece of language miss-ing from the Georgia amendments is what to do if thetested unit fails—the implication is that the unit must beretested and the other three must also be tested. If thesampling identifies problems, then all units must betested.

• Duct testing techniques have changed in the 2012 IECC.Postconstruction testing at final has effectively been dis-couraged since the threshold for passing is no different(4%) than when testing total leakage at rough-in (RIT).Rough-in testing of ducts should include a stricter pass-ing criteria than when testing at final since additionalconstruction activity could impact the final leakage rate.Duct testing without an air handler (AH) should be elimi-nated as an option since the cabinet of the AH is allowedto leak up to 20 cfm on a relatively small, 2.5-ton system(section R403.2.2.1, up to 2% of system airflow isallowed by the AH cabinet alone) (IECC 2012). Finally,certain methods of indirect duct testing should be deemedunacceptable, namely the BD subtraction method andsimply adding flow-hood measurements at each grillwhile the house is pressurized with a BD, as these tech-niques do not provide the accuracy and repeatabilityattained by direct pressure testing.

• The code should adopt regionally appropriate ventila-tion strategies. For example, the code should prohibitexhaust only strategies for whole house ventilation inhumid regions of the country, such as CZs 1A, 2A, and3A, since a building experiencing continuous negativepressure increases the risk of mold or other moisturefailure

• Finally, the code should provide a detailed template ofthe energy code certificate that clearly indicates whattesting information must be provided. The IECC shouldmimic aspects of the Georgia, Alabama, and Chatta-nooga, Tennessee compliance templates. The Georgiatemplate also requires a summary of the manual J-loadcalculations plus the name and contact info of the indi-vidual who performed the calculations as well as theDET verifier.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Southface Energy Institute

Diana Burk, Building Energy Codes, Project EngineerDennis Creech, Executive DirectorRebekah Lynn Hogg, Research InternBourke Reeve, Building Energy Codes, Project ManagerDavid Smedick, Research Fellow

Others

Mike DeWein, Manager, NE Regional Office, Codes andEnergy, Institute for Building Technology and Safety

Richard Faesy, Principal, Energy Futures GroupRoxanne Greeson, Energy Policy Associate, Southeast

Energy Efficiency Alliance

REFERENCES

Alabama Power. 2013. Alabama residential energy code ductand envelope testing results data sheet. http://www.ala-bamapower.com/business/services/hvac-training/pdf/08a-2009%20IRC%20DET%20Energy%20Code%20AL%20Test%20Results%20Formv6.pdf

ASHRAE. 2010. ASHRAE Standard 62.2, Ventilation andAcceptable Indoor Air Quality in Low-Rise ResidentialBuildings. Atlanta: ASHRAE.

Building Performance Institute (BPI). 2012. Accreditedcompanies. www.bpi.org/companies.aspx.

DOE. 2013. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Statusof state energy code adoption. www.energycodes.gov/sta-tus-state-energy-code-adoption.

Georgia Department of Community Affairs. 2010. Georgiastate minimum standard energy code (international energyconservation code with Georgia state supplements andamendments). www.dca.state.ga.us/development/constructioncodes/programs/codes2.asp.

Illinois Association of Energy Raters and Home EnergyProfessionals. 2012. DET verifier certification.www.ilenergyraters.org/detverifier.



International Code Council. 2009. 2009 InternationalEnergy Conservation Code. www.shop.iccsafe.org/2012-international-energy-conservation-code-soft-cover.html.

International Code Council. 2012. 2012 InternationalEnergy Conservation Code. shop.iccsafe.org/2012-international-energy-conservation-code-soft-cover.html.

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and Oak RidgeNational Laboratory. 2010. Air Leakage Guide. Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Department of Energy, Building Tech-nology Program.

Residential Services Network (RESNET). 2012. Certifiedhome energy professional. www.resnet.us/dir-ectory/search.

Southface Energy Institute. 2010. Duct and envelope tight-ness verification training. www.southface.org/learning-center/trainings/duct-and-envelope-tightness-verification-training.

Southface Energy Institute. 2013. City of Chattanooga Resi-dential Energy Code Compliance Certificate. http://www.southface.org/default-interior/09-chattanooga2009codecompliancecertificateairbarrierandinsulationchecklist.pdf

United States Army Core of Engineers. 2012. Air leakagetest protocol for measuring air leakage in buildings.www.airbarrier.org/whole_building/index_e.php.



Documents

2012 IECC PerformanceTesting: Lessons from the Duct and ... · The 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) requires new homes and major renovations to have a pressure test