Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- planning:calculating_energy_efficiency:phpp_-_the_passive_house_planning_package:phpp_-_validated_and_proven_in_practice [2019/02/28 09:18] – cblagojevic
+++ planning:calculating_energy_efficiency:phpp_-_the_passive_house_planning_package:phpp_-_validated_and_proven_in_practice [2024/08/19 10:54] (current) – [Validation Studies of PHPP] yaling.hsiao@passiv.de
@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 \\
 |{{ :picopen: comp_PHPP_measurements.png }}|
-|//**Figure 1: \\ Comparison of measured consumption (statistical data) with the PHPP calculation.** \\ \\ It is only possible to compare average measured results from sufficiently large statistical samples \\ because individual consumption values fluctuate too much on account of the different user behaviours. \\ The average values match the PHPP results exactly.//|
+|//**Figure 1: \\ Comparison of measured consumption (statistical data) with the PHPP calculation.** \\ \\ It is only possible to compare average measured results from sufficiently large statistical samples because individual consumption values fluctuate too much on account of the different user behaviours. The average values match the PHPP results almost exactly.//|
 \\
 It is surprising that the results of the average measured values agree so well with the PHPP calculation. This is probably coincidental, because neither the accuracy of the measurement nor of the calculation is very high. Nevertheless, the depicted values are actual measured data - and the calculated results are those which were computed before the start of construction and already published before completion of the buildings. \\
+\\
+Mitchell and Natarajan investigated a large sample of built passive houses build in the UK [Mitchell 2020]. They also compared these monitoring results with PHPP calculation, the results corroborate the analysis given here. \\
+\\
+We often get the question, why there is such a huge [[operation:operation_and_experience:measurement_results:energy_use_measurement_results#summary|fluctuation of the energy demand between different users]]: This is actually the case for all energy standards and not specific for energy efficient buildings - and it does not matter much in the case of passive houses, because even the highest consumption is still very small.\\
 \\
 ===== More accurate than conventional methods =====
@@ Line 32: / Line 36: @@
 These and other details lead to differences in calculation results based on the standard and the PHPP which are rather significant for energy efficient buildings. Since the algorithms in the PHPP have been developed and validated for energy efficient buildings, it provides more accurate results here than conventional calculation methods. \\
 \\
+===== PHPP for exisiting buildings =====
+PHPP was originally developped and validated for the design of energy efficient buildings with low energy demand. The question arises whether the same method and tool is also applicable and reliable for less efficient buildings, or even existing buildings with very high energy demand. This question was adressed as part of the [[https://europhit.eu/phpp-step-step-retrofits|EuroPHit project]]. A comparison of PHPP results with results from dynamic simulations revealed that, although some algorithms were developed with highly efficient, well-insulated buildings in mind, the PHPP can be used also for buildings with high energy demand with sufficient accuracy. The full report "Optimisation of the PHPP for old buildings with high energy consumption" can be downloaded from the EuroPHit website [[https://europhit.eu/phpp-step-step-retrofits|here]].
+\\
+===== Cooling Energy Algorithms =====
+With the application of passive houses also in hot and huinid climates of planet Earth, algorithms for the claculation of the annual cooling energy and the cooling loads were required. This have also been validated against results of dynamic building simulations, documented in [[planning:calculating_energy_efficiency:phpp_-_the_passive_house_planning_package:calculations_in_hot_and_humid_climates:comparison_with_dynamic_simulation|cooling energy]].
+\\
 ===== Example =====
@@ Line 40: / Line 54: @@
 |{{:picopen:phpp_monthly_balance.png|}}|{{ :picopen:phpp_annual_balance.png }}|
 |//**Figure 3: \\ PHPP – monthly heating balance\\ for the example terraced house unit.** \\ \\ Source: [AkkP 20]//|//**Figure 4: \\ PHPP – annual heating balance (sum of \\ monthly balances) for a terraced Passive House.** \\ \\ Source: [AkkP 20]//|\\
-\\
 **Solar gains and internal heat sources make for a greater share of heat gains than heating energy (column on the right).**\\
 \\
+===== Validation Studies of PHPP =====
+. **[[https://passiv.de/downloads/04_PHPP9_ASHRAE140_Summary.pdf|Summary Validation of PHPP v9.6 using ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140-2017]]** \\
+In January 2019, the Passive House Planning Package (PHPP) version 9.6 was evaluated in accordance with ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140, a comparative testing method for building energy programs. The validation tests consist of a series of carefully described sample case building plans. Results from modelling different test cases with the software being tested are compared to those of reference software results. The results of PHPP agreed very well with those of the reference software. For heating, PHPP results fell within the acceptance range in all cases. For sensible cooling, PHPP was within the acceptance range for all but one case, where PHPP predicted a cooling demand that was 9% below the lower limit.
+. ** [[https://europhit.eu/sites/europhit.eu/files/EuroPHit_T2.4.2_Report_PHPPForOldBuildings.compressed.pdf|Report: Optimisation of the PHPP for old buildings with high energy consumption]]** \\
+PHPP was originally developed and validated for the design of energy efficient buildings with low energy demand. The question arises whether the same method and tool is also applicable and reliable for less efficient buildings, or even existing buildings with very high energy demand. This question was addressed as part of the [[https://europhit.eu/phpp-step-step-retrofits|EuroPHit project]]. A comparison of PHPP results with results from dynamic simulations revealed that, although some algorithms were developed with highly efficient, well-insulated buildings in mind, the PHPP can be used also for buildings with high energy demand with sufficient accuracy. The full report “Optimisation of the PHPP for old buildings with high energy consumption” can be downloaded from the EuroPHit website [[https://europhit.eu/phpp-step-step-retrofits|here]].
 ===== Literature =====
@@ Line 63: / Line 85: @@
 **[Feist 2001]** Stellungnahme zur Vornorm DIN-V-4108-6:2000 aus Sicht der Passivhausentwicklung, CEPHEUS-Bericht, 1. Auflage, Passivhaus Institut, Darmstadt 2001 \\
 Statement regarding the Prestandard DIN-V-4108-6:2000 from the Passive House perspective, CEPHEUS Report, first edition, Passive House Institute, Darmstadt 2001 \\
+**[Mitchell 2020]** Mitchell, Rachel and Natarajan, Sukumar: UK Passivhaus and the energy performance gap; Energy and Buildings, Volume 224, 1 October 2020, 110240 \\
 **[PHPP 2007]** Feist, W.; Pfluger, R.; Kaufmann, B.; Schnieders, J.; Kah, O.: Passivhaus Projektierungs Paket 2007, Passivhaus Institut Darmstadt, 2007 \\
@@ Line 69: / Line 94: @@
 ====== See also ======
+[[https://europhit.eu/sites/europhit.eu/files/EuroPHit_T2.4.2_Report_PHPPForOldBuildings.compressed.pdf|Report_Optimisation of the PHPP for old buildings with high energy consumption]]
+{{ :picopen:phpp-ashrae-140-validation-report-jan-23-2019.pdf |PHPP V9.6 Validation using ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 140-2017}}
 [[planning:calculating_energy_efficiency|]] \\
@@ Line 76: / Line 106: @@
 [[planning:calculating_energy_efficiency:phpp_-_the_passive_house_planning_package]] \\
-NEW! [[planning:calculating_energy_efficiency:phpp_-_the_passive_house_planning_package:phpp_8|]] \\
 \\
 **Further reading articles** \\