More Guest Blogs
Here is my rundown of the recentAffordable Comfort (ACI) conferencein Detroit.
It was great to catch up with — or at least brush by — longtime industry friends, in the case of Allison Bailes of Energy Vanguard and Andy Frank of密封。这个行业足够小真是您甚至可以成为大人物的朋友，这真是太酷了。
For anyone considering going to ACI, it is worth it for the networking alone. Last year I had dinner with Chris Dorsi, one of the authors of my energy auditor textbook. I just asked if he was hungry. He was. So we ate. Try the same thing.
A contentious, one-sided debate
艾莉森（Allison）的能量先锋wrote a post on the Great Ventilation Debate。我以为他对此非常外交，但我觉得辩论实际上比他说的要比他说的要多于争议和单方面。
对于初学者，ASHRAE 62.2-2013是一种新的通风标准，通常需要更高的新房屋通风水平。换句话说，必须不断地有大量的气流（并因此进入）房屋，以提供连续的新鲜空气。
由志愿者（他们真的被枪杀的穷人）委员会设计了新的标准，但是建筑科学公司的乔·劳雷克（Joe Lstiburek）博士坚决地不同意他们的发现。在几个交界处，乔看起来很生气，他可以吐口水。我看到了他的论点的三个主要力量。
Too much moisture during the summer
First, much of his criticisms was based on the idea that the new standard required so much airflow that in hot humid climates too much moist outside air would be brought in in summer and in cold climates too much dry winter air would be brought in — decreasing comfort and increasing energy costs for both examples.
新的，通常更高的流量标准的点是在挥发性有机化合物，一氧化碳和其他污染物等房屋中稀释不良东西。乔认为，没有流行病学研究表明这些事情实际上对我们不利，但我们知道上述水分问题确实是一个问题。因此，我们正在调整以修复我们不确定的事情，以几乎保证损害我们确定的事情。
Balanced systems work better than exhaust-only systems
Second, there was the argument about balancing exhaust and supply air flows. Dr. Joe has come up withhis own competing “standard”- 一种为平衡系统提供更多余地的余地，该系统有意允许同等数量的进气和排气（吮吸和吹牛）。ASHRAE 62.2-2013标准与仅排气（吮吸）系统的处理平衡系统不同。
I agree with Joe wholeheartedly on this. If you only provide for exhaust, where does the makeup air come from? Probably lousy places like basements, crawlspaces, and attics. The committee was trying to reduce costs here, but an alternative path requiring less ventilation for balanced systems would be good.
Politics or science?
Third, the standards were largely politically motivated, not based on sound science.
以我的拙见，乔博士登陆了辩论中最大的一场拳。62.2委员会的唯一好评是当住宅能源动力学的里克·卡格（Rick Karg）问乔的流行病学证据在哪里。乔没有直接答案。他确实引用了加拿大的经验，在加拿大，他们的通风标准与旧标准相似，在10 CFM的300,000户房屋后没有发现任何健康状况。一个不完美的答案，但与我们实际拥有一样好。
I posted the final score as Joe 25, Audience 5, 62.2 Committee 1. It was one of the most obvious debate wins I’ve ever seen.
内特·亚当斯（Nate Adams）is a recovering insulation contractor turned Home Performance consultant. His company,能源智能家庭表演, is located in Mantua, Ohio. Using a comprehensive design approach, he fixes client woes with a market-driven process that he hopes will lead to market transformation for our industry.
10 Comments
Common sense
One of the great benefits of knowing and learning from Joe for many years is that you get to know his passion and all his “Joe-isms”, which many of them gets into your head and they are hard to get rid of. But the best thing I’ve learn from him is that Building Science changes by the minute and he is not afraid to correct it or correct himself.
任何人都很难说服我，我们在阿尔伯克基（Albuquerque）或卡利（Cali）适用于达拉斯（Dallas），诺拉（Nola），芝加哥或波士顿的相同通风解决方案。我不需要博士来使用常识，并且认为由于AC和加热解决方案对于不同的气候区域并不相同，因此通风解决方案也应该是不同的。最后我听说，HVAC上的V是用于通风，并一起工作！
如果我从这些讨论there needs to be more research by ASHRAE, BSC and the BS (no pun intended) community, and I eagerly wait for some scientific answers; but until then, I’ve changed my design specs to include balanced ventilation to every house instead of supply only (cheaper and easier) just because it makes sense.
关于美国ASHRAE标准的快速问题。
is the new standard mandatory for every new construction in the whole us of a ?
Response to Jin Kazama
Jin,
不，ASHRAE 62.2对于美国的新房屋不是强制性的，但是，2012年IRC（在大多数司法管辖区尚未实施）包括在某些房屋中进行机械通气的要求；新代码中所需的最低通风率低于ASHRAE 62.2率。有关更多信息，请参阅2012年能源法规的概述。
ok
So please explain what is the use for the ASHRAE standards then if not mandatory ?
I thought that this was the base of your building code.
还是您最近在QC中讨论的“ Novoclimat”类似于“ Novoclimat”的“提议”高级代码？
供应，排气和平衡。
漂浮的建议有点令人困惑。FHB刚刚发表了一篇关于通风的文章，该文章将供应量排在排气旁，原因是Nate提到的原因 - 通过稍微向房屋加压，它可以使任何令人讨厌的任何东西都无法进入条件空间，而排气只能通过建筑物组装来吸引污染物。
Fair enough from the occupants standpoint, but from the building envelope's perspective a bit of negative pressure will surely lead to less problems than positive. I see the advantage of a balanced system, but still don't see the clear cut advantage of supply over exhaust - especially if the exhaust system has passive supply vents.
Response to Malcolm Taylor
Malcolm,
问：“我看到了平衡系统的优势，但仍然看不到供应比排气的明确优势。”
A. Here's the traditional argument: with a supply-only ventilation system, you get better fresh air distribution (especially in bedrooms) than you do with an exhaust-only system.
Response to Jin Kazama
Jin,
Q. "What is the use of the ASHRAE standard then, if not mandatory?"
A. Standards define best practice in an industry, and are sometimes adopted by reference in building codes. They can also be referenced by architects when advising clients, or by lawyers when litigating.
Supply, Exhaust or Balanced
I understand the traditional arguments and the cost issues, including first costs, operating costs and the cost of energy penalties. Of course the level of required occupant oversight to keep the system operating as designed and the level of required maintenance are also variables to consider.
A few questions for Martin about other (somewhat traditional) arguments:
1.当前对供应系统更适合潮湿气候的理论的想法是什么，因为它们略微加压了内部，因此不太可能将室外空气中的水分推向信封腔，从而造成水分问题？
2. And what is the current thinking on the similar theory that there is an advantage for exhaust systems in cold climates because they are less likely to drive warm moist air into the building envelope based on an assumption of slight depressurization of the conditioned space?
3.使用带有排气系统的被动进气口控制新鲜空气来源的经验是什么？我可以想象，在温和的气候下，这可能是一个非常有效的选择。
Response to Armand Magnelli
阿曼德，
您的问题的许多答案可以在本文中找到：Designing a Good Ventilation System。
Briefly, the airflow rates required for a ventilation system are quite low -- generally in the range of 40 cfm to 100 cfm. In most homes, these low air flow rates are overwhelmed by more powerful factors like the stack effect and wind. That's why the very slight pressurization from a supply-only system, and the very slight depressurization from an exhaust-only system, neither prevents envelope problems, nor is likely to cause envelope problems.
The best way to ensure that you don't have hidden moisture problems in your building envelope is to try to make your envelope as airtight as possible, and to properly manage the moisture on the exterior through good flashing practices, a ventilated rainscreen, roof overhangs, and proper grading.
Passive air inlets are not required unless your house is extraordinarily airtight.
马丁
I have no reason to doubt that in theory passive air vents aren't necessary with an exhaust only system, but I live in a not very tight house and whenever I turn on a kitchen or bath fan I can feel the air flow at the vent with my hand. Maybe that flow is dwarfed by the air being drawn in through numerous other sources but there sure is a difference between having a fan on and off.
登录或创建一个帐户以发布评论。
注册 登录