Homestar

The most cost-effective approach to Homestar – by far
A simpler, lower-cost way to achieve Homestar standards.
No alternative building systems required.
Set target airtightness in design model and use with standard, familiar construction processes and systems.

Pragma Homes - Verified Airtightness Results

Pragma achieved the airtightness levels required for Homestar using a simple, low-cost AeroBarrier approach that integrated easily with standard construction practices. Performance was independently verified by BXG through blower door testing, providing confidence in the result.

Typical airtightness costs were around $3,000–$4,000 per dwelling, with alternative systems typically costing three to four times more to achieve comparable outcomes.

“We were able to hit all our Homestar targets. We’re pretty stoked about how it came out.”

Liam Pugh, Senior ESD Consultant, BXG

Cost reduction through airtightness

Setting airtightness targets at the very start of the design process in ECCHO energy modelling creates a powerful opportunity to value-engineer the entire specification.

As shown in the screenshots, improving airtightness from the default 5 ACH50 to a modeller-set target of 2 ACH50 reduces heating demand from 45.1 to 38.7 kWh/m² and electrical demand from 39.7 to 36.4 kWh/m² with the same set of other specifications.

This uplift in building-envelope performance allows Homestar targets to be met with less reliance on higher-spec or higher-cost measures—such as upgraded glazing, extensive thermal breaks, slab-edge insulation, or additional loft insulation.

By improving performance at the envelope level first, airtightness unlocks simpler, more cost-effective solutions across the rest of the build.

Reduced Cost

Traditional membrane-based airtightness systems are typically two to four times more expensive than aerosol air-sealing solutions on a per-unit basis.

While some economies of scale can be achieved on repeat projects, membrane systems remain highly labour-intensive and rely on precise installation by multiple trades, often early in the construction sequence when the airtight layer is most exposed to damage. They also introduce non-standard sequencing, extensive taping and junction detailing, and higher material costs due to large surface areas.

Defects are frequently identified late through final testing, increasing the likelihood of rework, programme extension, and cost escalation.

From a cost-certainty and risk-management perspective, membrane systems therefore represent a higher-risk and higher-cost approach to achieving airtightness compared with aerosol air sealing.

Lower risk

Many airtightness approaches rely on perfect installation of unfamiliar systems and remain vulnerable to later trades.

With wraps, membranes, or panel systems:

  • Installation errors can go unnoticed
  • Later penetrations by plumbers or electricians can compromise the airtight layer
  • Issues are often only found at final testing, when fixes are costly or impractical
 
AeroBarrier reduces this risk:
 
  • Airtightness is measured continuously during sealing
  • Leaks are sealed after all penetrations are complete
  • A certified airtightness result confirms the outcome
 

The target is achieved because it is tested—not assumed.

Simple path

Unlike other sealing systems, AeroBarrier:

  • Makes standard construction systems, that builders and trades are used to working with, airtight
  • Seals thousands of invisible leaks automatically
  • Measures airtightness during the sealing process
  • Continues until the target airtightness level is reached
  • Produces a certified airtightness result for compliance and sign-off
 

This removes uncertainty for specifiers and assessors—and dramatically reduces the risk of costly remedial work late in the project.

“AeroBarrier achieved exactly what we needed to achieve. We got down to the right amount of air changes for Homestar 6. We couldn’t ask for better.”

Nick Allan, Builder and Director, Nuline

Building envelope vs operational components

It’s important to distinguish between:

  • The building envelope – walls, roof, floor, and fixed junctions
  • Operational components – systems that are designed to open, move, or ventilate
 
Operational leakage is expected, normal airflow from components that reopen after sealing—such as vents, dampers, sliders, and hatches. This ‘leakage’ is not a failure. It is simply the building operating as designed.
 

Airtightness systems, such as SIPs panels, Intelligent wraps and membranes and AeroBarrier tighten the building envelope but are not intended to address the operational leakage.

Indicative operational leakage by component

Disclaimer: Actual leakage depends on product selection, detailing, and installation quality. Values in the table are indicative only and not to be relied on for design.

Source: aggregated data from international agencies and industry associations.

Component
Indicative contribution (ACH50)
Rangehoods & kitchen exhausts
0.2 - 0.5
Bathroom / laundry fans
0.2 - 0.3
Ceiling access hatches
0.1 - 0.4
Window & door hardware
0.1 - 0.5
Trickle vents
0.05 - 0.2
LED Downlights
0.05 - 0.15
Electrical outlets
0.01 - 0.04
Weep holes
~0.01

Specify and build Homestar with confidence

AeroBarrier helps Homestar projects:

  • Achieve airtightness targets reliably
  • Reduce risk for builders and specifiers
  • Simplify ECCHO modelling
  • Unlock value engineering opportunities
  • Deliver homes that perform as designed
 

If you want a clear, measurable, and low-risk pathway to Homestar, start with airtightness—and start with Aero.

Some images on this page have been AI-generated by Gemini

Sign up to our newsletter

Receive industry updates, case studies, and research on airtightness, ventilation and energy efficiency.

Book CPD presentation

(10 Formal CPD points)