SUSTAINABILITY

Column
This article was published in ASHRAE Journal, August 2021. Copyright 2021 ASHRAE. Posted at www.ashrae.org. This article may not be copied and/or distributed
electronically or in paper form without permission of ASHRAE. For more information about ASHRAE Journal, visit www.ashrae.org.

Exploring the Feasibility

Of Natural Ventilation
BY ERIN MCCONAHEY, P.E., HBDP, FELLOW ASHRAE; PETER SIMMONDS, PH.D., FELLOW/LIFE MEMBER ASHRAE

Many in the HVAC&R industry can see the appeal of natural ventilation for environ-
mental stewardship concerns; however, there is some reticence about the applica-
tion of natural ventilation as well as confusion over the interpretation of the current
standards. This column compiles a handful of lightly edited excerpts from the new
ASHRAE Design Guide for Natural Ventilation to provide insights into critical conversations
that inevitably ensue regarding the benefits and risks of natural ventilation.
The confusion regarding interpretation of current
standards may be from a lack of ASHRAE-endorsed
methodology that establishes a rigorous analytical path
and the inputs and equations necessary to complete
even a feasibility analysis. The guide was written to
assist owners, architects, engineers, facilities personnel
and building design professionals explore the feasibility
of natural ventilation for their project during the early
phases of design.
This column represents a fraction of the material
from the guide’s introductory chapter. The progress of
a design team from conception to fruition for a natural
ventilation scheme is one of collaborative review of criti-
cal analysis results. The guide is intended to normalize
expectations regarding the minimum steps and analy-
ses necessary to facilitate key decision-making conver-
sations with stakeholders interested in the technical
feasibility, social acceptability and economic viability of
natural ventilation in a building project.
Natural ventilation as a comfort-conditioning method
will always be compared to HVAC schemes that are
easier to control from a predictability perspective. The
social acceptability of a natural ventilation scheme is as
important to its success as its technical feasibility. This
guide is intended to normalize expectations regarding
the minimum steps and analyses necessary to facilitate
key decision-making conversations with stakeholders.
It lays out a recommended order of decision-making
steps and is organized in the order of milestone gate-
way decisions to help design teams decide whether to
continue investing in exploring the feasibility of natural
ventilation. Each chapter highlights key issues to discuss
with stakeholders and the level of analysis to be per-
formed to inform those decisions.
Natural Ventilation vs. Natural Conditioning
One of the key concepts discussed in the guide is
the difference between natural ventilation and natu-
ral conditioning. The term “natural ventilation” has
been used since at least 1899.1 The challenge at the time
was to establish how to design “engineered” natural
Erin McConahey, P.E., is a principal in mechanical engineering at Arup, Los Angeles.
Peter Simmonds, Ph.D., is a principal at Building and Systems Analytics in Marina Del
Rey, Calif.

66 A S H R A E J O U R N A L  ashrae.org  AU G UST 2021

 COLUMN  SUSTAINABILITY

ventilation systems to give equivalent ventilation perfor-

mance as one might achieve with mechanical systems. What’s in the Design Guide
This remains the challenge we attempt to tackle over a
The recently released ASHRAE Design Guide for Natu-
century later in this design guide.
ral Ventilation provides a comprehensive overview of
Ventilation is the provision of outside air to a space.
the issues associated with
When people talk about natural ventilation in normal
the application of natural
parlance, they usually envisage opening a window to
ventilation in modern build-
bring fresh air into a space. The adjective “natural” is
ings, including:
used to differentiate the driving force causing the air
• Perceived benefits and
movement as compared to a “mechanical” means.
risks;
Most people will open a window to relieve staleness
• Relevant standards and
of air or to cool a room down. For the purposes of this
codes;
guide, the former is considered “natural ventilation,”
• Prescriptive compliance
and the latter is called “natural conditioning,” according
paths to meet standards and
to the definitions established by ASHRAE. If a team is
requirements;
successful at providing natural conditioning, it is highly
• Characteristics of building envelopes and how
likely that natural ventilation is also accomplished.
they affect natural ventilation systems;
• Terminology and key concepts;
Perceived Benefits and Risks
• A deep feasibility analysis with a multi-factor as-
Natural ventilation or natural conditioning is often
sessment of outdoor conditions; and
proposed as an alternative to conventional HVAC sys-
• Control of openings, including the use of motor-
tems. There are many concerns that must be considered
ized openings.
when applying natural ventilation to commercial and
Learn more about the design guide at www.ashrae.
institutional buildings. Persuasive arguments are made
org/bookstore
that appropriate relaxation of comfort standards for the
individual results in energy savings that, if applied at
scale, could contribute to climate change mitigation.
FIGURE 1  Balancing indoor conditions: environmental quality vs. comfort.
While social consciousness and reputational benefits
may be a factor in the decision to pursue natural ventila-
tion, clients will typically need evidence specific to the Environmental
Quality Comfort
scale of their own projects to make a credible argument
for a tangible benefit before invoking that support. They
deserve to understand the benefits and risks of natural Reduced Absenteeism Increased Exposure to
ventilation as an asset-embedded investment, so that they From Sick Building Allergens and Particulates
Syndrome
can judge its efficacy against other priorities for funding.
One of the issues with jumping to the energy vs. com- Quiet Environment Increased Noise Break-In
Without HVAC Noise From Outdoors,
fort argument directly is it typically does not match Less Speech Privacy
benefit and risk to the same stakeholder. There are argu- Reduced Comfort From High
Reduced Indoor
ments within the definition of comfort itself that must CO2 Levels
Temperature and Yearlong
Temperature Variability
be resolved prior to addressing energy concerns. When
the issues are adjusted to match scale and target audi- Increased Air Speed Variability of Air Movement,
and Ventilation Rates Indoor Air Temperature
ence, three classic dilemmas typically frame the start of And Relative Humidity
the conversations:
• Indoor conditions: environmental quality vs. com-
fort (Figure 1);
• Occupant discretion: device control vs. situational
constraint; and

AU G UST 2021  ashrae.org  A S H R A E J O U R N A L 67

COLUMN  SUSTAINABILITY
• Cost of ownership: market value vs. operational risk
(Figure 2).
The goal of the design team is to address the likelihood
and extent of risk and to demonstrate the benefits in the
application. Within each discussion, the client can test
his or her capability and tolerance level to manage the
risk against the attractiveness of the noted benefits. Each
comparison can be evaluated independently for viabil-
ity. Then, if not all priorities are shown to be reasonably
viable, the client can clearly see the choice at hand.
Weighing the Benefits and Risks
Once the client has agreed that indoor conditions
under a natural ventilation scheme would be acceptable
and that the target tenants would have enough personal
freedom to adjust devices and clothing and that the cost
of ownership is manageable, the conversation of comfort
versus energy use can be further explored in greater
detail.
The California Energy Commission funded a study2 to
determine the energy savings benefits of applying natu-
ral ventilation in the state. Linden, Arens and Daish2 is
a comprehensive study of the “benefits and barriers to
retrofitting California commercial buildings with natu-
ral or mixed mode ventilation for cooling.” (p. iv). The
study found that energy savings for retrofitting natural
ventilation in conjunction with aggressive conventional
energy savings (power and lighting energy use reduc-
tion, ceiling fans, external shades, increased insulation
and supply air temperature reset) could reduce cooling
energy by 44% in pre-2008 buildings, but acknowledged
that only 25% of that is due to the natural ventilation
itself after the other measures are applied (p.9).
When examined by California climate zone, the
aggressive measures and natural ventilation packages
average about 5% to 6% return on investment for large
and medium offices but struggle to reach 4% for most
small offices (p. 99). Chen, Augenbroe and Song3 have
a similar simulation-based exercise across four U.S.
climate zones for small and medium offices, estimating
the potential for a 17% mean energy savings in Atlanta,
19.7% in Seattle, 43.8% in San Francisco and 42.9% in Los
Angeles.
While both of the above-listed studies normalize for
compliance with either the adaptive comfort or predicted
percentage dissatisfied-predicted mean vote (PPD-PMV)
comfort standard, Brager and Borgeson4 explicitly
68 A S H R A E J O U R N A L  ashrae.org  AU G UST 2021
FIGURE 2  Balancing cost of ownership: market value vs. operational risks.
Market Operational
Value Risk
Improved Reputation for Stability of Long-Term Value, in
Environmental Stewardship Light of Climate Change
Improved Resilience for Unpredictability of Daily
Operation During Extreme Outdoor Conditions—First
Hot Day Events Cost of Backup Systems
Direct Access to Fresh Air Tenants Misunderstanding
as Differentiating Feature Building Operations
Decreased Annual Energy and Increased Janitorial and
Equipment Maintenance Costs Security Operating Costs
provide a comparison using simulation of energy cost,
adaptive and PMV comfort for a well-performing mixed
mode building placed in a handful of California climate
zones to explore an annualized understanding of comfort
range exceedances as an important parallel factor when
evaluating the potential impact on buildings’ energy
use. This study is unique in that it simulates and reports
comfort simultaneously to energy savings for each of the
studied climate zones. This direct comparative report-
ing from simulation models can be applied at the single
building level to provide credible trade-off information
to help with decision making on the energy versus com-
fort question after many of the other risks have already
been deemed manageable.
References
1. Boyle, R. 1899. Natural and Artificial Methods of Ventilation.
London: Robert Boyle & Son, Limited.
2. Linden, P., E. Arens, N. Daish. 2016. “Natural Ventilation
for Energy Savings in California Commercial Buildings.” CEC-
500-2016-039. California Energy Commission.” https://tinyurl.
com/4shcsh8x
3. Chen, J., G. Augenbroe, G. X. Song. 2017. “Hybrid ventilation
potential investigation for small and medium office buildings
in different US climates under uncertainties.” 34th International
Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC 2017)
894 – 900. https://tinyurl.com/5fnhsujt
4. Brager, G., S. Borgeson. 2010. “Comfort Standards and
Variations in exceedance for mixed-mode buildings.” Building
Research & Information 39(2):118 – 133. https://tinyurl.com/y4w7ptjr