Potential Misconceptions about Passive House and COVID
Recent guidance from ASHRAE and other authorities have prompted some misconceptions about Passive House design and how it complies with industry guidance in a post-COVID world. We have noted a few and hope to provide some clarity.
Misconception: The stringent Passive House airtightness requirement will reduce the amount of fresh air occupants receive, which will be harmful during a pandemic.
Clarification: The Passive House airtightness requirement is significantly higher than required by code for multi-family buildings in NYC (at least 4x more airtight depending on the size of the project). This requirement measures the airtightness of the building envelope with all windows and doors closed. However, all living spaces in Passive House buildings must have operable windows and natural ventilation is highly encouraged to reduce energy use. The airtightness requirement does not mean you cannot have open windows. It simply reduces the leakage of air through places you would not want air to come from, i.e., small cracks around your windows and walls. This also helps to prevent condensation and mold growth resulting in a much healthier living environment. In a PH, fresh air is effectively delivered through your mechanical ventilation system where it can be controlled and filtered, reducing the transmission of airborne viruses and providing the much-needed dilution that health organizations are currently recommending.
Misconception: Using an Energy Recovery Ventilation (ERV) system will result in the mixing of exhaust air with fresh air, potentially leading to the contaminated air being spread throughout the building.
Clarification: In ASHRAE’s recent “Position Document on Infectious Aerosols” in response to COVID-19, mention is made that buildings should “bypass energy recovery ventilation systems that leak potentially contaminated exhaust air back into the outdoor air supply.” While this strategy may make sense to use in extreme situations, the danger of cross-contamination is very low, especially in a Passive House compliant design. The reason is because the maximum cross-contamination leakage rate allowable for PH certified ERVs is very low and the filtration requirements for both return and outdoor air streams is higher than typically required.
To explain further, ERVs are designed to prevent incoming and outgoing air streams to mix, although a minor amount of leakage is unavoidable. For a Passive House certified ERV, this leakage must be less than 3%. In addition, Passive House requires that a minimum MERV 8 filter be installed on the return side of the ERV to filter exhaust air before it reaches the core, minimizing any potential transmission between the exhaust and supply streams at the unit. This may be increased to MERV 13, if desired and with the guidance of the MEP engineer. Additionally, if cross contamination is still a concern, most ERVs are available with a “bypass” capability, where the air stream can be directed around the heat exchanger. In fact, good Passive House design typically includes a system with bypass to take advantage of free cooling when outdoor conditions are favorable. Therefore, most Passive House projects already do a superb job of mitigating the mixing risk, but also have the ability to follow more extreme measures if necessary.
Misconception: Use of demand-control ventilation is counterproductive when trying to reduce virus transmission in a building.
Clarification: Since mechanical ventilation requires fan energy and increases your heating and cooling bills by introducing more outdoor air, good Passive House design pushes projects to reduce ventilation in large areas when it is not required. This means utilizing a system of controls and mechanical dampers to modulate the amount of ventilation supplied to areas with large occupancy swings (such as gyms, conference rooms, and assembly spaces). This strategy is called “demand-control ventilation” or DCV. ASHRAE recommends that building operators “disable demand-controlled ventilation” during a pandemic to allow for more fresh air flow, but this should not be understood as: demand-controlled ventilation is bad design for a COVID responsive design. In fact, if these controls are correctly designed, this type of system can be used to increase airflow when desired during an event such as the pandemic as well as restrict airflow when spaces are unoccupied to conserve energy during typical operation. The following image shows how demand-control ventilation is set up in a typical floorplan for a Passive House project, with CO2 sensors controlling mechanical dampers in both the exhaust and supply ductwork.