I am looking into installing a fireplace insert or wood stove into an existing chimney.
In my research, one of the issues that comes up is back drafting. I do have both a laundry exhaust and a kitchen exhaust 20-30 feet away from the fireplace and am concerned that if both were running that could create a backdraft.
I already have an ERV. I could try to run it at high positive pressure. However, it would be hard for it to efficiently provide pressure to that area of the house because it is a whole house ERV and the house has other floors that it is also supplying. We also frequently have strong winds.
This leads one to consider an OAK (outdoor air kit). I have read this article about the downsides of an OAK. This lead me to brainstorm for solutions to the downsides.
I had the idea of providing a direct line of air from the ERV to the firebox (this would split off from the existing ERV fresh air flow). It is possible with an ERV to prevent most backflow to the ERV when the ERV is not running (I run my ERV 24/7, at a low setting, this scenario would be an ERV repair) with a backdraft damper. It is also possible to get an accurate CFM into the firebox by flow restricting this line from the ERV to the appropriate CFM with a special flow restriction damper.
This approach would help with all 3 of the disadvantages I see from an OAK (energy loss, flow reversal, de-pressurization and back drafting). On the backdrafting issue, I am not entirely certain what the result would be. The ERV is providing increased pressure that can push air into the room as well as out the chimney. I think the result would be significantly better because more air would go through the chimney and even if more air did come into the room it would be more diluted.
There's probably an issue with pushing more air into the room when putting in wood. This could be solved by having a powered damper switch near the firebox that turns off the ERV flow to the firebox. This same powered damper would also be used to prevent any possibility of backflow when the ERV is being repaired or otherwise off and to disable flow when there is no fire.
What do you think of this concept?
This approach can be modified to not output the ERV line directly into the firebox, but instead to output it into the home very close to the firebox. This is somewhat similar to cracking a window but is more energy efficient. This would remove the possibility of backflow directly into the line and to the ERV. It would also remove the concern of the ERV pressure causing more air to come into the room both during wood loading and during negative pressure (backdraft). The pressure truly available to the firebox would be reduced, but that reduction would be combating any negative room pressure. Additionally, if the fireplace ERV line is running when there is no fire, that just puts more fresh air in the house at that location instead of wasting that air through the chimney. That makes it possible to not use a special flow restriction adapter as well although an off switch to the flow would still be useful for efficiency when there is no fire, particularly at night when we sleep on the level above. The downside of course is that the possibility of backdrafting is increased, particularly if the ERV is not operating, or is operating on a low setting. Normally when it is windy, I run the ERV on low. However, if a fire is going I might want to keep it running on a higher setting to combat wind pressure increasing the odds of backdraft.
In my research, one of the issues that comes up is back drafting. I do have both a laundry exhaust and a kitchen exhaust 20-30 feet away from the fireplace and am concerned that if both were running that could create a backdraft.
I already have an ERV. I could try to run it at high positive pressure. However, it would be hard for it to efficiently provide pressure to that area of the house because it is a whole house ERV and the house has other floors that it is also supplying. We also frequently have strong winds.
This leads one to consider an OAK (outdoor air kit). I have read this article about the downsides of an OAK. This lead me to brainstorm for solutions to the downsides.
I had the idea of providing a direct line of air from the ERV to the firebox (this would split off from the existing ERV fresh air flow). It is possible with an ERV to prevent most backflow to the ERV when the ERV is not running (I run my ERV 24/7, at a low setting, this scenario would be an ERV repair) with a backdraft damper. It is also possible to get an accurate CFM into the firebox by flow restricting this line from the ERV to the appropriate CFM with a special flow restriction damper.
This approach would help with all 3 of the disadvantages I see from an OAK (energy loss, flow reversal, de-pressurization and back drafting). On the backdrafting issue, I am not entirely certain what the result would be. The ERV is providing increased pressure that can push air into the room as well as out the chimney. I think the result would be significantly better because more air would go through the chimney and even if more air did come into the room it would be more diluted.
There's probably an issue with pushing more air into the room when putting in wood. This could be solved by having a powered damper switch near the firebox that turns off the ERV flow to the firebox. This same powered damper would also be used to prevent any possibility of backflow when the ERV is being repaired or otherwise off and to disable flow when there is no fire.
What do you think of this concept?
This approach can be modified to not output the ERV line directly into the firebox, but instead to output it into the home very close to the firebox. This is somewhat similar to cracking a window but is more energy efficient. This would remove the possibility of backflow directly into the line and to the ERV. It would also remove the concern of the ERV pressure causing more air to come into the room both during wood loading and during negative pressure (backdraft). The pressure truly available to the firebox would be reduced, but that reduction would be combating any negative room pressure. Additionally, if the fireplace ERV line is running when there is no fire, that just puts more fresh air in the house at that location instead of wasting that air through the chimney. That makes it possible to not use a special flow restriction adapter as well although an off switch to the flow would still be useful for efficiency when there is no fire, particularly at night when we sleep on the level above. The downside of course is that the possibility of backdrafting is increased, particularly if the ERV is not operating, or is operating on a low setting. Normally when it is windy, I run the ERV on low. However, if a fire is going I might want to keep it running on a higher setting to combat wind pressure increasing the odds of backdraft.