University of Hull laboratory tests found ordinary duct tape reduced water leakage through doors by 97–98 per cent, outperforming sandbags. Researchers stress it is a temporary measure, not a substitute for professional flood protection.
According to realestate.com.au, new flood-testing research out of the University of Hull has found that ordinary duct tape, something many Australians already have in a kitchen drawer or toolbox, can outperform sandbags when it comes to keeping floodwater out of a home. The finding is a useful reminder for owners in flood-prone pockets of the country that effective mitigation does not always require a large outlay, even as it raises broader questions about how households prepare for, and insure against, water damage.
The study, led by Professor Stuart McLelland, professor of water science at the University of Hull, tested a range of commercially available tapes against sandbags on a number of different doors, simulating water depths up to 60cm in 5cm increments. The results were striking. Standard duct tape applied across an external door reduced water leakage by 97 to 98 per cent compared with an unprotected door, while flexible synthetic rubber tape achieved a 99 per cent reduction. Sandbags, by comparison, reduced leakage by around 70 per cent at their most effective, even when researchers stacked 54 bags with plastic sheeting between them and the door.
Professor McLelland noted that for unprotected doors, leakage often reached thousands of litres per hour once water depth hit 60cm. The team measured this by capturing any water that leaked through test doors in a sealed enclosure behind them, then continuously pumping it out and recording the rate of ingress. Even the worst-performing tape in the trial still cut leakage by 80 per cent, and taped outward-opening doors generally performed better than inward-opening ones.
Why a $3.99 Roll of Tape Matters
The practical appeal of the finding lies in its simplicity. A roll of duct tape can cost as little as $3.99 at a hardware store such as Bunnings, and most households already own one. Sandbags, by contrast, carry hidden costs and logistical burdens: they are heavy, messy, labour-intensive to deploy, and difficult to dispose of safely once contaminated by floodwater. Many households simply do not have a ready supply on hand when a flood warning is issued, whereas tape is immediate and requires no advance sourcing.
Professor McLelland was careful to frame the finding as a complement to, rather than a replacement for, professionally designed flood protection. "It is a temporary measure that may reduce water entering through particular gaps; it cannot guarantee a dry home or prevent water entering through other routes, including walls, floors, and drains," he wrote. Its effectiveness depends on the condition of the door and frame, the surface to which tape is applied, and the quality of the seal achieved under real flood conditions, which can differ from controlled laboratory testing.
The Cost of Getting It Wrong
The research is also useful because it puts a number on what is at stake. Water damage restoration for a typical residential property generally sits between $1,500 and $8,000, according to figures cited in the study, while major structural damage involving contaminated water or an entire flooded ground floor can exceed $10,000 to $30,000 depending on the extent of the damage and clean-up required. Set against those figures, a $4 preventative measure that meaningfully reduces the volume of water entering a home looks like a sound addition to any household's pre-flood checklist, even if it cannot eliminate risk altogether.
For properties in areas of genuine flood exposure, Professor McLelland's conclusion is unambiguous: professionally assessed protection remains important, and tape should be understood as one layer within a wider preparedness plan rather than a stand-alone solution.
Implications for Owners, Landlords and Buyers
For property owners, the research is a timely prompt to check what is actually covered under an existing building or landlord insurance policy before a flood event occurs, rather than after. Flood cover arrangements and exclusions vary between insurers and policies, and confirming the specifics of an existing policy is a more reliable safeguard than assuming water damage will automatically be covered.
The finding also has relevance for owners of strata-titled apartments, where responsibility for insuring common property typically sits with the owners corporation while individual lot owners are generally responsible for their own contents and fit-out. Understanding where that line falls matters in a flood scenario, since water ingress at ground-floor or basement level can affect both common areas and individual lots simultaneously. Our Strata Title vs Torrens Title Explained guide sets out how insurance responsibilities are typically divided between these two ownership structures, which is a useful starting point for owners trying to work out who is on the hook for what after a water event.
Buyers assessing a property in a flood-prone area should also factor acquisition costs into their overall budgeting, since these vary meaningfully by state and territory. Our Stamp Duty in Australia — State by State Guide breaks down how these costs differ across jurisdictions, which is a relevant consideration alongside any additional insurance premiums that flood-exposed properties may attract over time.
Practical Takeaways
The broader message from this research is that flood resilience does not always demand a major investment. Keeping a roll of duct tape or a specialist sealing tape on hand, understanding how to apply it across external door gaps, and knowing the flood history of a property are all low-cost steps that can be taken well before a weather warning is issued. Owners should also keep a simple record of any preparedness measures taken, as this can support a claim by demonstrating that reasonable steps were taken to limit damage.
Renters, too, have a role to play. Raising flood preparedness directly with a property manager, asking whether the building has a flood history, where any barriers or sealing materials are stored, and what the evacuation plan looks like, costs nothing and can materially reduce disruption if floodwater does arrive. For anyone assessing a property's long-term suitability, whether buying or renting, flood exposure deserves the same scrutiny typically applied to building and pest inspections or title searches, rather than being treated as an afterthought once water is already at the door.
This article was produced with AI assistance and reviewed for accuracy. Content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or property investment advice.
