Phius Ventilator Certification Program: An Upcoming Comprehensive Evaluation Tool

The main goal of the Phius Ventilator Certification Program is to comprehensively evaluate heat-recovery and energy-recovery ventilators’ suitability for passive building applications.

Ventilator BlogDefining the end goal of the program was easy, but the path to it has not been. Our technical staff has been busy analyzing existing data, creating a new set of criteria, and tinkering to balance the stringency of the program with available test methods. The end result will be a comprehensive certification program that pairs useful performance data for energy modeling with Phius-specific endorsements for most types of ventilators.

The foundation of the Phius Ventilator Certification Program is the six categories for which it gives out endorsements: 

  • Thermal Performance & Climate Zone Endorsements
  • Electrical Performance
  • Air Quality
  • Defrost & Condensate 
  • Summer Bypass Mode 
  • Acoustics

Of those, only acoustics has non-critical endorsements, meaning that a product can miss out on certification if it does not meet minimum criteria in all these areas — except for acoustics.

The presence of those critical endorsements means it is a certification program and not “just” a rating system. But this program’s evaluation goes beyond a simple yes-or-no certification. Products can earn a variety of endorsements under each of the six categories mentioned above, including climate zone-specific endorsements. 

Another aspect of the Phius Ventilator Certification Program intended to ensure reliable data is its annual verification process. Units selected at random will be subjected to physical testing as a means of verifying that performance remains consistent. In order to make the program as fair and equitable as possible, Phius has developed its own methodology for selecting units for verification each year. The formula is such that products made by “high-volume” manufacturers will be selected more often than those made by “low-volume” manufacturers. 

Building a program of this scope has come with its challenges, but the technical team at Phius has remained committed to making the program comprehensive. This has meant figuring out ways to account for a wide variety of ventilator systems varying from small packaged units to large commercial components. As an all-encompassing program, the Phius Ventilator Certification Program will adapt as new ventilation devices are developed.

As with all Phius product certification programs, the ventilator program aims to collect performance data that can be used for energy modeling while also providing a comprehensive and consistent set of performance standards that can be used to compare products.

As Phius continues to bring passive building into the mainstream, we will continue to provide any and every tool possible to those willing to help. The Phius Ventilator Certification Program is one of the main product-related tools we are providing. We look forward to seeing its impact on the growth of passive building across the world.

On International Climate-Specific Passive Projects

Andres-vert3Phius Certification Team Member Andres Pinzon, PhD, explores the process of passive projects being built outside of the United States.

“Qué es una casa pasiva?” reads the cover of the drawing set of the Merlot House, a project submitted by CPHC Ignacio López pursuing PHIUS+ 2018 certification in Baja California-Mexico. This project — the first in this country — adds to the growing interest of Phius certification across latitudes.

During a regular week at Phius, we move between reviews on different climate zones, building functions and building types, assessing data from residential and non-residential, new construction, or retrofit. 

At first sight, the path toward certification may look intimidating, and we at Phius know that. Our team offers guidance and support for project submitters, especially when working on their first projects (overseas or not). The reviewers go above and beyond in helping project teams meet the specific, wide-ranged, and performance-driven goals of their buildings. This process offers achievable steps for certification within the context of each project.

How does Phius do it? The process includes: rounds of review, real-time feedback, conference calls, online open resources, etc. Phius tailors this process by providing solutions in compliance with certification, looking for red flags, and pointing out paths to avoid. This allows us to work with clients, architects, engineers, building scientists, etc. on the critical aspects of certifying a project in a particular part of the world.

Here are some remarks from our experience working with projects submitted to Phius outside of the mainstream of US and Canada.

The first step is generally custom climate data, followed by calculating the project-specific performance targets. Using the appropriate climate data and performance targets are essential to accurately modeling and reducing energy loads. Phius generates custom climate datasets for project teams that accurately represent their current project’s location. For most locations, we have not had trouble finding a TMY3 station within a (80-km) 50-mile range.  

In addition to climate data, marginal costs of electricity ($/kWh) at the regional/national level are needed to calculate the custom space conditioning targets they will use for certification. With this, teams can begin to work on comprehensive design and energy modeling; aware of the demands and loads that are expected for their buildings. 

Phius has projects in places such as Japan, Colombia, Nigeria and Mexico, where Phius certification represents a third-party verification on a desired performance for energy use and high-quality housing (see post on Housing Equity). The accumulated experience of different situations helps Phius come up with new solutions for diverse challenges and pass that knowledge to teams in subsequent projects.  

For example, approaches on cooling and dehumidification seen in Phius projects in southern states can guide us on how to tackle larger demands and peak loads in projects in tropical areas of South America or Africa. We see this potential in aspects such as: the enclosure’s insulation and airtightness, shading dimensioning and optimization to avoid overheating, and the proper selection and sizing of mechanical devices.  

Energy and carbon saving targets in buildings and operational budgets are a global concern. However, some information might be lost in translation when moving between countries, languages, cultures, or systems of measurement. In this sense, Phius is working on expanding the limits on a technical language that might hinder the domain of Phius projects.

Phius’ CPHC training is also offered and taught in SI units. In this way, professionals abroad who are interested in earning this credential can have access to material on building science principles, design exercises, and software tutorials prepared in the metric system. Furthermore, WUFI® Passive, the energy modeling software used for Phius certification, allows users to easily toggle between SI and IP units any time during the process.

More actions are in development within the idea of expanding the Phius community abroad. It is exciting to see creative and innovative approaches, integrating different sorts of information to make a high-performance building, such as the “bilingual” drawing set from the Merlot house. I cannot wait to attend the breakout session on international climate-specific passive projects at PhiusCon 2021 to continue the conversation.

Feedback on the standard adaption: A summary

GWLast year the PHIUS Technical Committee published its draft report on a climate specific passive building standard. It also called for formal public comment. Here, with an update on that process, is PHIUS Senior Scientist Graham Wright.

We got some good feedback on our standard-adaptation work – fourteen folks submitted some fifty pages of formal commentary altogether. Thanks to all who took the time to write out their thoughts. The PHIUS Technical Committee (TC) reviewed all the feedback.

I’ll summarize the process, but first you might remember that our report is also a report to U.S. Department of Energy Building America (BA) program, a proposal for the next-generation Zero Energy Ready program (ZERH). The reviewers for BA sent 134 line-item comments on the draft report. (We’ve been busy responding to those, and we think the final report is much better now!)

Click on the cover graphic to download the final U.S. DOE Building America report at the Building Science Corporation site.

The DOE/BA and the passive house community have the same goals and are, at a broad conceptual level, working on the same thing (otherwise this work would not have been funded.)  At the workaday level though, there are a lot of differences, and also a lot of investment by the two communities in their own approaches – it’s part-and-parcel with the commitment and passion for better building that both communities share.  But when you ask the questions “is there anything passive house can bring to BA/ZERH” and “is there anything BA can bring to passive building,” it turns out the answer is yes.

The TC believes we’ve achieved a fruitful synthesis, a best-of-both-worlds combination. For example, when it comes to designing for high performance, we agree it’s better to set performance targets and do an energy design than to use prescriptive tables (and by the way that design can be somewhat site-specific). But when it comes to field quality assurance, then  a checklist table – like the BA approach — is the right tool for the job.

To put a finer point on it, we at PHIUS hope the final report persuades BA that the ZERH program should be a performance standard, with criteria on both heating/cooling loads and on total source energy, and that those performance targets are predicated on ducts inside, strict air-tightness, and using really good windows for comfort reasons.

Likewise we hope it makes the case to the passive building community that the heating/cooling criteria can be adjusted for economic feasibility / competitiveness in a climate-sensitive way, that the risks to comfort and building durability are low, and that the heating/cooling energy savings are still impressively deep.  Over all the climate locations studied, the proposed criteria represent median reductions in peak heat load of ~77%, annual heating of ~86%, peak cooling of ~69%, and annual cooling of ~46%.  (The baseline is 2009 IECC code.)

So, about those formal comments: Most commenters checked either 12-20 or 20+ years experience. In terms of survey questions we asked, no one liked star-ratings, so pass-fail it is. In going through the feedback the TC found no surprises–most all of the concerns had indeed been fully vetted en route a consensus over the past two+ years.  Here are some of the specific questions we received, along with answers:

Q: Could WP software be modified to make heating/cooling load calculations consistent with ACCA Manual J and ANSI/ASHRAE/ACCA Standard 183?
A: That is possible!  Added to the feature request list.

Q: Could PHIUS consider consolidating QA/QC checklist to be free standing from DOE ZERH and EPA Energy Star (for both residential and commercial projects)?
A: Some progress has been made on this. Stay tuned.

Q: Will the standard help me design smaller passive houses?
A: The short answer is probably yes.  There is no explicit “small house break” but there are three changes that indirectly tend to benefit small detached buildings at least in some climates:  air-tightness criterion by shell area instead of volume, source energy allowance per person instead of per square foot, and higher plug load defaults and detailed internal-gain accounting.

Q: Has there been any progress with PHIUS and NFRC in aligning data to meet PHIUS needs and possibly using NFRC data?
A: Not a lot. But we want to get it done this year. Third quarter.

Q: Please explain why you chose the specific denominators in the formulas. For example, why $ 0.155 electricity? 482 kWh? 1341 HDD65?
A: Those are the best-fit numbers determined by the regression analysis, that is, it’s like when you fit a line to a trend in x,y data, the trendline formula has the form y = m*x + b.  The numbers in the denominator are like the m, the slope or sensitivity to each of the factors.

In terms of final refinements to the new standard, PHIUS has been operating an alternate certification path along the lines of the BA draft report for some months as a pilot program. In the February and March meetings, the TC did pass some changes in advance of broader implementation. The changes came from both the feedback and the pilot program experience.

One kind of comment that spoke to us was, “this isn’t disruptive but you might want to change this to align with, or not conflict with, the building code.” The most to-the-point answer to feedback about rules is what gets changed or upheld, so here is the list of changes the TC agreed on:

  • Source energy: The U.S. source energy factor for electricity is adjusted to 3.16 (aligns with IECC 2015). The residential source energy limit is adjusted to 6200 kWh/person.yr.
  • Air-tightness criterion: 0.05 cfm50/sf of envelope area or 0.08 cfm75/sf (testing at 75 Pa aligns with commercial code and U.S. Army Corps). If testing at 75 Pa, report the flow coefficient and exponent from the blower door tests (that way the software can extrapolate to 50 Pa for compatibility of figuring the natural air change rate for infiltration losses).
  • Non-threatening air leakage: If the air-tightness criterion is missed, and the extra leakage can be proven to be due to a non-assembly-threatening leakage element such as a vent damper, certification staff may allow that element to be taped off for the purpose of passing the air-tightness criterion. The un-taped test result must be used for the energy model.
  • Phase-in period:  Dual certification path continues until September 15, after that the old protocol is phased out for PHIUS+ 2015.
  • Break-in period: If a project is seriously constrained on one of the criteria, a case-by-case overage may be allowed on any one of the four space conditioning criteria, or source energy, for the next year.
  • Retrofit:  The retrofit criteria are the same as new construction, except for a case-by-case energy allowance for foundation perimeter thermal bridges or other such hard-to-fix structural thermal bridges. Provided the design is “damage-free” that is, low risk from a moisture point of view.
  • Add-on badge: for supply air heating and cooling sufficient, per static calculation, with the average ventilation rate no more than 0.3-0.4 air changes per hour. (That is, low peak heating load and low peak cooling load. Special recognition for those who favor and design to this particular “functional definition” of a passive building.)

And finally, Katrin’s long-awaited favorite:

  • Add-on badge: for source net zero.  Onsite renewable electricity generation above any that was already credited as coincident-production-and-use, counts towards net zero with the same source energy factor multiplier for electricity, i.e., 3.16.

To me the most substantial comment was along the lines that cost has been added on to the building delivery process, when you consider the labor of the CPHC, the pre-certification review, and the rater visits for quality assurance. The TC believes much of this concern is simply a matter of getting used to the requirements until it becomes the new normal, but we know that there is room for improvement on making the planning tools easier to use, and we will keep working hard on that.  Most commenters felt it was also very important to get the standard written out in human-readable form, not just encoded in WUFI Passive, and we will work on this as well.

Overall, we believe that PHIUS+ 2015 will make passive building more cost-effective across climate zones. The community’s collective experience informed all the work–so thank you all for all your input and hard work and again, thanks to everyone who took the time to submit formal comment. We’re excited to implement the new standard and believe it will dramatically increase adoption of passive building.

 

Comments on climate-specific standards study now open

ClimateSpecificColor
In cooperation with Building Science Corporation, under a U.S. DOE Building America Grant, the PHIUS Technical Committee has completed exhaustive research and testing toward new passive house standards that take into account a broad range of climate conditions and other variables in North American climate zones and markets.

This report contains findings that will be adapted for use as the basis for implementing climate-specific standards in the PHIUS+ project certification program in early 2015. Furthermore, as materials, markets and – climates – change, the PHIUS Technical Committee will periodically review and adapt the standard to reflect those changes.

  • We invite formal comment on the science. Please use this online form to submit. Deadline for formal comment: January 16, 2015.
  • Formal comments will not be public, and are for Tech Committee review only. (The Tech Committee or PHIUS staff will contact you for permission, should we be interested in publishing your comments.) All formal comments will be reviewed, but we cannot guarantee an individual response.
  • Passive House Alliance US Members: An online informal discussion forum is available to all members. The forum discussion will be visible to the general public, but only PHAUS members can make comments. Comments on the discussion forum are not guaranteed to be reviewed by the Technical Committee.
  • If you are not a PHAUS member, use the blog comments section below. Comments on the blog cannot be guaranteed to be reviewed by the Technical Committee. To ensure Committee review, use the online formal comment form.