Posted By aggirose on 15 Feb 2012 03:48 PM
Hi all,
My first post so be kind ;-)
I'll be building a 20x28 2 storey ICF in the Maritimes [Canada] on an R20 slab with R60 in the attic and have a question re anyone's experience with the air being *too dry* in the winter...my HVAC guy is suggesting I go with an ERV rather than an HRV because he's finding passive solar ICF homes in our area are too dry in the winter.
This is the opposite of what I was expecting so I'm hoping to learn from others' experiences ;-) I have extreme sensitivities so IAQ is critical for me.
I've been looking at the Venmar EKO 1.5; he's suggesting the Duo 1.2 instead. I'd appreciate comments on people's experiences with either of those as well?
Help?!
And thanks in advance.
AR
Interior winter air that is "too dry" is a symptom of a number of factors, the primary being too high a ventilation rate. In houses that have not been detailed for air tightness the minimum ventilation rate is outside of your control- it's whatever infiltration rates happen from wind and stack effect forces. ICF homes are comparatively easy to air-seal compared to timber-frames, but it doesn't happen all by itself. It's easiest and best when a continuous 360 degree primary air barrier is defined in the construction drawings, and are followed meticulously during construction. With ICF the walls are inherently air-tight, but the windows/doors/ceilings are not, and will need detailing to become part of the continuous air barrier that would also include those tight concrete walls.
The definition of "how tight is tight enough" varies, but the Canadian R-2000 spec calls out 1.5 air exchanges per hour max at 50 pascals pressure (ACH/50), as measured with a calibrated blower door. PassiveHouse calls out 0.6 ACH/50. In practice it's tough to retrofit to that level, but meeting R-2000 tightness levels aren't too difficult to meet if you're planning for it during design and construction.
If you can make it R-2000 tight you can control the wintertime interior humidity by raising and lowering the ventilation rates. An ERV would allow you higher ventilation rates than you could go with HRV without drying it out too much, but it's not a huge distinction. In non-smoking families either would provide enough ventilation for healthy air, but with multiple smokers indoors you'd probably need to run higher ventilation rates and add humidity with a humidifier (not ideal.)
If the occupancy rate of the house is low (say a 2 person family both of whom work outside the home and are gone 12 out of every 24 hours) not much moisture is being emitted into the house, and the ventilation rates would have to be quite low to not dry out the house.
In a tight house the ERV/HRV question is more relevant in the summer, in climates where the outdoor dew points are higher than would be most-comfortable or healthy as indoor air. In massive well insulated homes the sensible cooling loads are practically non-existent in the maritimes, and air conditioning for sensible cooling may not be needed at all. Outdoor dew points of over 15C are pretty common in NB & NS in July/August, sometimes exceeding 20C. While this isn't a HUGE latent load to be handled by a dehumidifier, it does mean that there will be days/weeks where you can't dry out the interior by increasing the ventilation rate. But the average dew points are low enough that there's no "payback" on installing ERV to cut that latent load down- simply lowering the ventilation rate and running a dehumidifier during the few sticky days would be enough. )Most of the time a night-time ventilation strategy such as opening the windows for sensible-cooling would work without introducing more moisture into the house.)
Since the cores of ERVs are more readily damaged by frost it's probably better to just build tight and not overventilate in winter and instead go with HRV in your location. Most of the year your ventilation rates can be VERY high without overdrying, but December-March you might have to back it off a bit, particularly during cold-snaps.