Passive House Building Methods Comparisons

7th Annual North American Passive House Conference
September 27-30, 2012 Denver CO
Performance of 8 Passive House

Envelopes in Cold Climates
Rolf Jacobson, LEED AP
CSBR, University of Minnesota

ZEB, Norwegian University of Science
and Technology
September 29, 2012

7th Annual North American Passive House Conference
September 27-30, 2012 Denver CO
Session Learning Objectives:
Understand the significance of accurately calculating R-values using 2-
dimensional calculation protocols, and the benefits of using continuous
insulation for overall R-value performance.
Identify common linear thermal bridges in a residential envelope, and identify

the steps that can be taken to minimize thermal bridging at these locations.
Identify and understand the significance of an envelopes critical layer in

terms of moisture performance. What steps can be taken to minimize the risk
of moisture damage and/or mold growth in the critical layer?
Develop a general understanding of the embodied energy and embodied

carbon in common envelope materials. Answer the question of whether or
not Passive House envelopes built with these materials exhibit life-cycle
carbon savings and energy savings compared to standard homes?
Outline
1. Background
2. Review
3. Case studies & envelope selection
4. Section 1 2-D R-value calculations
5. Section 2 Thermal bridging (THERM simulations)
6. Section 3 Hygrothermal performance (WUFI simulations)
7. Section 4 Life cycle environmental impacts (Athena models)
Outline
1. Background
2. Review
3. Case studies & envelope selection
4. Section 1 2-D R-value calculations
5. Section 2 Thermal bridging (THERM simulations)
6. Section 3 Hygrothermal performance (WUFI simulations)
7. Section 4 Life cycle environmental impacts (Athena models)
The goal is not to pick a winner, but to use the comparison to

investigate issues common to all passive house envelopes. Also,
to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of different envelope
types.
Background
B.A. in physics and math from St. Olaf College, 2001
Worked as a framer building homes from 2002 - 2005
Began work on Masters thesis in 2007
Fulbright scholarship to complete thesis and study cold climate
envelopes in Norway in 2010/2011
Performance of 8 Passive House Envelopes in Cold Climates February 22, 2012

Background
In Norway, studied at the Center for Zero Emissions Buildings (ZEB)
Housed within the Norwegian technical

university, NTNU, in Trondheim
ZEB has close ties with SINTEF Byygforsk

SINTEF is similar to the Buildings
Technology Center (BTC) at ORNL, but
greater cooperation between industry
and university research. Also responsible
for national building/energy code
development.

Review Cold Climate - for these purposes,
primarily Climate Zones 6,7, plus Scandinavia

Review- climate comparison
Kirkenes
Arctic
circle
Trondheim
Lillehammer
Bergen
Oslo

Case Studies IECC climate zone 5,6

Case Studies IECC climate zone 6

Case Studies IECC climate zone 7

Case Studies Scandinavian climates

Case Studies Scandinavian climates
Average R-values of cold-climate Passive House case studies

Above grade wall: R-62.9 Target: R-60
Roof: R-83.8 Target: R-80
Floor slab: R-67 Target: R-60
Average air tightness

0.46 ACH @50Pa Requirement: 0.6
Case Studies results and comparison
Envelope:
R-80
Walls R-60
(4x higher)
R-60 R-60
Roof = R-80
reference IEC
(2x higher)
Floor slab = R-60

(6x higher)
R-7

High Performance Envelopes
What are the concerns?
Will the embodied energy and carbon neutralize the savings?
With increased insulation and airtightness, is there increased

risk of mold and moisture problems? (hygrothermal performance)
What is a thermal bridge-free detail?
Unfamiliarity what R-values are really required in this

climate, and how should they be calculated?
What types of envelopes work best?

Double stud
2x4 studs, 16 o.c. spacing
truss roof, 24 o.c. spacing
asphalt shingles
roofing paper
0.5 OSB
ventilated cold attic
19.5 blown
cellulose,
back-ventilated
R 3.8/inch
cladding
weather barrier
0.75 fiberboard 0.5 OSB (air barrier/

sheathing vapor retarder
16 blown cellulose, R 3.8/inch 0.5 gypsum
0.5 OSB (air barrier/vapor retarder) Double Stud

0.5 gypsum Frame

TJI Frame (I-joist)
16 TJI studs, 24 o.c. spacing
20 TJI roof joists, 24 o.c. spacing
asphalt shingles
roofing paper
0.5 OSB
1.5 ventilated air gap
weather barrier
back-ventilated 0.75 fiberboard

cladding sheathing
20 dense-pack
weather barrier fiberglass, R 4.35/inch
0.75 fiberboard 0.5 OSB (air barrier/
sheathing vapor retarder
16 dense-pack fiberglass 0.5 gypsum

R 4.35/inch
0.5 OSB (air barrier/vapor retarder)

0.5 gypsum TJI Frame

Advanced Frame with SPF
asphalt shingles
roofing paper
0.5 OSB
19.5 blown
cellulose,
back-ventilated
R 3.8/inch
cladding
weather barrier 1 SPF, R 6.2/inch
(air barrier/vap. retarder)
7 unfaced
polyiso, R 5.0/inch
0.5 OSB
5.5 SPF, R 6.2/inch 0.625 gypsum
(air barrier/vapor retarder)
Adv. Frame
0.5 gypsum with SPF

Advanced Frame with cross strapping
2x2 cross strapping
asphalt shingles
roofing paper
0.5 OSB
19.5 blown
cellulose,
back-ventilated
R 3.8/inch
cladding
weather barrier polyethylene air
barrier/vapor retarder
9.85 mineral
wool, R - 3.8/inch 1.5 mineral wool,
R 3.8/inch
0.5 OSB
5.5 mineral wool, R 3.8/inch 0.625 gypsum
polyethylene air barrier/vapor retarder

1.5 mineral wool, R 3.8/inch Adv. Frame w.
0.5 gypsum Cross Strapping

Structural Insulated Panel (SIP)
asphalt shingles
roofing paper
0.5 OSB
weather barrier
back-ventilated 4 unfaced poly-

cladding iso, R 5.0/inch
weather barrier roofing paper

14.25 SIP
(13.375 EPS), R-4.0/inch
3 unfaced poly- (air barrier/vapor
isocyanurate, R 5.0/inch retarder)
0.5 gypsum
14.25 SIP panel (13.375 EPS),
R 4.0/inch (air barrier/vapor retarder)
0.5 gypsum SIP panel

Massivtre/SEP panel
storage truss roof, 24 o.c. spacing
asphalt shingles
roofing paper
0.5 OSB
12 foil-faced
back-ventilated polyiso, R 6.33/inch
cladding 0.5 gypsum
weather barrier bitumen roofing membrane
(foil facing, (air barrier/vapor retarder)
joints taped)
0.5 OSB
9 foil-faced polyiso,
R 6.33/inch
bitumen roofing membrane

(air barrier/vapor retarder) Massivtre/
1.5 OSB SEP panel SEP panel

Insulated Concrete Form (ICF)
2.5 gravel ballast
EPDM roof membrane
16 polyisocyanurate,
R 5.0/inch
vapor retarder
2 concrete
EIFS stucco structural topping
finish (air barrier)
6 concrete
10 EPS, hollow-core plank
R 4.0/inch
3.5 air gap
11 ICF (6 concrete, 0.5 gypsum

2 EPS layers @ 2.5),
R 4.0/inch
Insulated Concrete
0.5 gypsum Form (ICF)

Mass wall
asphalt shingles
roofing paper
0.5 OSB
21.5 blown
cellulose,
back-ventilated
R 3.8/inch
4 brick
polyethylene air
14 mineral
wool (Murfilt),
R 4.2/inch
0.625 gypsum
6 concrete
0.5 gypsum Mass wall

Base case standard frame
asphalt shingles
roofing paper
0.5 OSB
12 blown
cellulose,
vinyl cladding
R 3.8/inch
weather barrier polyethylene air

0.5 OSB
5.5 fiberglass batt, R 3.3/inch 0.625 gypsum
polyethylene air barrier/vapor retarder

Base Case
0.5 gypsum Standard Frame

Section 1 2-D R-value calculations
Center of cavity R-value the R-value calculated through the
center of the wall, with no framing. (R-19) Very inaccurate.
Clear wall R-value the R-value calculated for a clear section

of the wall (no windows, doors, other penetrations), includes
framing, which can make up 25% of the wall area in typical
residential construction. (R-16) This is the typical parallel paths
or UA method used in U.S.
2-D R-value based on the clear wall calculation, but adds

lateral heat flow in the wall. Takes into account extra heat loss due
to 2-dimensional flow of heat through thermal bridges such as studs .
(R-15.5) Follows EN ISO 6946

to achieve R-60
Wall models are

assembled using
thicknesses of actual
construction products
and achieve R-60 (with
some variation).

Final 2-D R-value

divided by center of
cavity R-value.
Shows the percentage

reduction in R-value
due to repetitive
thermal bridges such
as studs, plates,
splines, etc.

Section 2 Thermal Bridge Analysis
Thermal bridges
repetitive bridges already accounted for!
roof/wall
intersection
point bridges heat loss too small to consider
rim joist linear bridges heat loss should be calculated
Circled areas are common

linear thermal bridges
wall/foundation Image from David White,

intersection Right Environments, 2010

Image from David White,
Right Environments, 2010
The thermal bridge heat loss is the difference between the true
heat loss, calculated using 2-dimensional simulation (THERM), and
the heat loss calculated using the typical UA method.

10 locations (but no window t.bridges), 8 different envelope types
Adv Frame w Adv Frame w Average psi value
Thermal Bridge Location cross strap SPF Double Stud TJI Frame ICF Mass wall SEP panel SIP panel of TB location
1. Exterior wall corner
1 above grade -0.054 -0.039 -0.058 -0.051 -0.051 -0.064 -0.036 -0.045 -0.050
2. Foundation wall
2 corner below grade -0.062 -0.062 -0.062 -0.062 -0.051 -0.075 -0.062 -0.062 -0.062
3. Exterior wall corner
3 with foundation wall -0.062 -0.056 -0.060 -0.064 -0.051 -0.075 -0.051 -0.061 -0.060
4. Wall to roof corner at
4 gable wall -0.054 -0.069 -0.059 -0.051 0.042 -0.061 -0.037 -0.049 -0.042
5. Wall to roof corner at
5 side (bearing) wall -0.054 -0.069 -0.059 -0.018 0.042 -0.058 -0.014 -0.017 -0.031
6. Roof peak (lofted
6 envelopes only) - - - -0.052 - - -0.034 -0.047 -0.044
7. Rim joist on
7 foundation wall 0.010 0.003 0.006 0.006 0.003 0.000 0.003 0.009 0.005
8. Rim joist on above
8 grade wall 0.006 0.005 0.006 -0.001 0.003 0.000 -0.001 0.009 0.003
9. Floor slab to
foundation wall
9 intersection below -0.021 -0.021 -0.021 -0.021 -0.005 0.008 0.034 0.034 -0.002
10. Floor slab to exterior
wall intersection at
10 grade 0.005 0.008 -0.001 0.009 0.006 0.006 0.023 0.052 0.014
Average psi value of
envelope -0.032 -0.033 -0.034 -0.030 -0.007 -0.036 -0.017 -0.018
Passive House guideline, </= 0.01 W/mK

Average values for each detail location across all envelope types



Double stud frame: = - 0.058 W/mK TJI frame: = - 0.051 W/mK
Both walls are the same thickness and have the same R-value.
Both details easily pass the </= 0.01 W/mK guideline, but double stud wall slightly better
STEP 1 Avoid elements that bridge from interior to exterior

SEP panel rim joist: = 0.003 W/mK SIP panel rim joist: = 0.009 W/mK
SEP panel walls external insulation is aligned with basement walls external insulation
Only SEP detail easily passes the </= 0.01 W/mK guideline
STEP 2 Align insulation layers

SEP panel FPSF: = 0.023 W/mK SIP panel FPSF: = 0.052 W/mK
SEP panel walls external insulation is better aligned, and value is much better,
But neither detail comes close to passing the </= 0.01 W/mK guideline
STEP 3 Avoid radiation fins, even well-insulated ones.

ICF footing: = 0.005 W/mK Foamglas block footing: = 0.006 W/mK
Both ICF footing and Foamglas block footing perform much better than the FPSF
Both details pass the </= 0.01 W/mK guideline
STEP 4 - An insulated break between the floor slab and exterior wall is necessary!
Section 3 Hygrothermal Analysis
What are we worried about?
Moisture levels in highly insulated envelopes
Mold growth
Indoor air quality
Durability of structure
In general, relative humidity

above 80% combined with
temperatures above freezing
can initiate mold growth on
wood/cellulose.

Passive House air Insulation
leakage limit, 0.6 ACH thickness
Mold growth potential
20 inches
Average new MN home
air leakage, 2.5 ACH
14 inches
10 inches
6 inches
S. Uvslkk, 2011 Air leakage, ACH @50Pa
Increasing insulation thickness without improving air tightness increases the risk of mold.
But constructing an airtight 0.6 ACH @ 50Pa passive house envelope with 20 inches of
insulation actually reduces the risk of mold growth on wood sheathing.
How do you track potential for mold growth?
No need to monitor every layer in the envelope for temperature and RH.
Determine the critical layer(s) and monitor temperature and RH levels

there
Generally, the critical layer is the first condensing surface (must be cold, at
or below the dewpoint) encountered by outward migrating moisture. Must
also contain organic nutrients such as cellulose that support mold growth.
Wood sheathing is commonly the critical layer in residential assemblies.
What temperatures and RH levels are required?

Risk lines for mold growth on wood
week
weeks
RH %
weeks
weeks
weeks
32 50 68 86 104
Temperature Skanska AB, Tengberg, 2010
In the most general terms, it takes temperatures above freezing and RH above 80% to
initiate mold growth on wood. Higher RH levels lead to mold growth in shorter time spans.
Colder temperatures slow down mold growth.

Double stud wall, 12 week averages
100.0
90.0
80.0
Relative Humidity (%)
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
-10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0
Temperature (Celsius)
Critical layer = fiberboard sheathing, no exterior

insulation
What happens when we add exterior insulation?

Double stud wall, 12 week averages Adv. frame w cross strap 12 wk. avg.
100.0 100.0
90.0 90.0
80.0 80.0

70.0 70.0
60.0 60.0
50.0 50.0
40.0 40.0
30.0 30.0
20.0 20.0
-10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0
Temperature (Celsius) Temperature (Celsius)
Critical layer = fiberboard sheathing, no exterior Critical layer = OSB sheathing, beneath 10
insulation of mineral wool
What happens when we add exterior insulation?
Temperatures in the critical layer go up, heat drives off excess moisture.

SIP wall, 12 week averages
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
-10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
Critical layer = OSB sheathing, beneath 3 unfaced polyiso
What happens if the exterior insulation is not vapor permeable (such as XPS)?

SIP wall, 12 week averages SIP wall variant, 12 week averages
100.0 100.0
90.0 90.0
80.0 80.0

70.0 70.0
60.0 60.0
50.0 50.0
40.0 40.0
30.0 30.0
20.0 20.0
-10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 -10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0
Temperature (Celsius) Temperature (Celsius)
Critical layer = OSB sheathing, beneath 3 unfaced polyiso Critical layer = OSB sheathing, beneath 3 XPS
(perm rating = 4 @ 1 inch thickness) (perm rating = 0.75 @ 1 inch thickness)
What happens if the exterior insulation is not vapor permeable (such as XPS)?
Despite heat, drying is reduced and you may end up with a wetter critical layer!

ICF wall, 12 week averages Is this assembly moisture safe?

100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
-10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0

ICF wall, 12 week averages Is this assembly moisture safe?

100.0
90.0 no critical layer in an ICF

80.0
assembly, risk line doesnt
apply
70.0
60.0
data taken 0.5 from exterior
50.0 surface
40.0
30.0
what about wood materials
put into the wall?
20.0
-10.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0
what about R-value
performance of the EPS?

Summary what are the take-away messages here?
Know the vapor permeance of the materials in your envelope. The

colder the climate, the more important a warm-side vapor retarder
becomes.
Several inches of permeable exterior insulation is a good idea to warm

the critical layer and reduce mold growth risks.
Or eliminate the critical layer with an assembly (such as ICF) that does
not support mold growth and is relatively impervious to moisture.
Hit the air tightness target (0.6 ACH @50Pa)!

Section 4 Life Cycle Env. Impacts
Life cycle environmental impacts of the envelope materials:
Measured using Athena Environmental Impact Estimator
Athenas life cycle includes raw material extraction/mining, transportation,

processing, product fabrication, distribution, maintenance, and disposal
Entire envelopes were modeled, ensuring functional equivalence
Results measured in terms of 8 environmental indicators such as embodied

energy, global warming potential, weighted resource use, eutrophication, etc.
These indicators represent a comprehensive view of the impact on the
environment

180
Life cycle weighted resource
160 use of above grade walls by
140
building element
Weighted Resource Use (lbs)
120
concrete, brick and
100 mineral wool have large
Vapor retarder/air barrier impacts
80
Exterior cladding
Interior finish material
60
Insulation insulation in general has
40
Structure the smallest impact (its
mostly air)
20

180
Life cycle embodied energy
160 of above grade walls by
140
building element
120
mineral wool and foam
Primary Energy (kBTU)
100 insulation have quite a bit

Vapor retarder/air barrier of embodied energy
80
Exterior cladding
60
Insulation fiberglass is better, but
40
Structure cellulose is best
20
Concrete, brick, vinyl
0 siding and bitumen
roofing membrane also
have large embodied
energy

Life cycle global warming
100
potential of the envelope
materials:
80
concrete, EPS, brick, and

GWP (lbs CO2 equivalent)
60
mineral wool have high
GWP, but
Vapor retarder/air barrier
Exterior cladding
40
Interior finish material spray polyurethane foam
Insulation
blown with HFC blowing
Structure
20 agents has almost 100x
greater GWP than
0
fiberglass per unit area
per R-value
Similar effects are seen with

XPS! all XPS removed from
envelopes.
Incredibly high GWP of closed
100 cell SPF and XPS are reported in
Environmental Building News
article by Alex Wilson in 2010.
80
XPS can be replaced by EPS or

GWP (lbs CO2 equivalent)
60 foamglass below grade. Above

Vapor retarder/air barrier
grade, a good replacement
Exterior cladding might be non-foil-faced polyiso.
40
Insulation
Closed cell SPF can be replaced
Structure
20
with spray foam that does not
use HFC blowing agents
(icynene, for example).
0
New blowing agent

formulations for both closed cell
SPF and XPS are expected
starting in late 2013.

The big question do Passive House envelopes save energy and

carbon emissions in the long run?
We know the embodied energy and carbon of passive house envelopes are
often several times higher than a standard envelope.
Add the yearly operating impacts (energy use and carbon emissions) of a
standardized Passive House to the embodied energy and GWP of the envelopes.
Compare to a base case house with a standard envelope to see if there are any
paybacks

Life cycle
embodied
energy plus
site operating
energy.
Energy payback: Mass wall envelope = 4.4 years

ICF envelope = 2.7 years
Double stud envelope = immediate

Life cycle
embodied
carbon plus
carbon
emissions from
operating
energy. (Carbon
emissions
based on
Minnesota
emissions
factors for
electricity and
natural gas.)
Carbon payback: Advanced frame with SPF envelope = 23 years

Mass wall envelope = 7.5 years
Double stud envelope = immediate

Conclusion
No great differences between envelope types for linear thermal

bridges (specific location matters more!)
There are substantial differences in terms of

1) hygrothermal performance
2) life-cycle performance
3) R-value performance (i.e. R-value/inch, repetitive thermal
bridges)

Passive House Building Methods Comparisons

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Passive House Building Methods Comparisons

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Passive House Building Methods Comparisons

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

7th Annual North American Passive House Conference

September 27-30, 2012 Denver CO

Performance of 8 Passive House

CSBR, University of Minnesota

September 29, 2012

Identify common linear thermal bridges in a residential envelope, and identify

Identify and understand the significance of an envelopes critical layer in

Develop a general understanding of the embodied energy and embodied

The goal is not to pick a winner, but to use the comparison to

Performance of 8 Passive House Envelopes in Cold Climates February 22, 2012

Housed within the Norwegian technical

ZEB has close ties with SINTEF Byygforsk

Performance of 8 Passive House Envelopes in Cold Climates February 22, 2012

Performance of 8 Passive House Envelopes in Cold Climates February 22, 2012

Performance of 8 Passive House Envelopes in Cold Climates February 22, 2012

Performance of 8 Passive House Envelopes in Cold Climates February 22, 2012

Performance of 8 Passive House Envelopes in Cold Climates February 22, 2012

Performance of 8 Passive House Envelopes in Cold Climates February 22, 2012

Performance of 8 Passive House Envelopes in Cold Climates February 22, 2012

Average R-values of cold-climate Passive House case studies

Average air tightness

Floor slab = R-60

Performance of 8 Passive House Envelopes in Cold Climates February 22, 2012

Will the embodied energy and carbon neutralize the savings?

With increased insulation and airtightness, is there increased

What is a thermal bridge-free detail?

Unfamiliarity what R-values are really required in this

What types of envelopes work best?

Performance of 8 Passive House Envelopes in Cold Climates February 22, 2012

0.75 fiberboard 0.5 OSB (air barrier/

16 blown cellulose, R 3.8/inch 0.5 gypsum

0.5 OSB (air barrier/vapor retarder) Double Stud

Performance of 8 Passive House Envelopes in Cold Climates February 22, 2012

back-ventilated 0.75 fiberboard

16 dense-pack fiberglass 0.5 gypsum

0.5 OSB (air barrier/vapor retarder)

Performance of 8 Passive House Envelopes in Cold Climates February 22, 2012

Performance of 8 Passive House Envelopes in Cold Climates February 22, 2012

polyethylene air barrier/vapor retarder

Performance of 8 Passive House Envelopes in Cold Climates February 22, 2012

back-ventilated 4 unfaced poly-

weather barrier roofing paper

0.5 gypsum SIP panel

Performance of 8 Passive House Envelopes in Cold Climates February 22, 2012

bitumen roofing membrane

Performance of 8 Passive House Envelopes in Cold Climates February 22, 2012

2.5 gravel ballast

EPDM roof membrane

11 ICF (6 concrete, 0.5 gypsum

Performance of 8 Passive House Envelopes in Cold Climates February 22, 2012

0.5 gypsum Mass wall

Performance of 8 Passive House Envelopes in Cold Climates February 22, 2012

weather barrier polyethylene air

polyethylene air barrier/vapor retarder

Performance of 8 Passive House Envelopes in Cold Climates February 22, 2012

Clear wall R-value the R-value calculated for a clear section

2-D R-value based on the clear wall calculation, but adds

Performance of 8 Passive House Envelopes in Cold Climates February 22, 2012

Wall models are