Evaluation of a versatile energy auditing tool

Energy auditing can be an important contribution for identification and assessment of energy conservation measures (ECMs) in buildings. Numerous tools and software have been developed, with varying degree of precision and complexity and different areas of use.   This paper evaluates PHPP as a versatile, easy-to-use energy auditing tool and gives examples of how it has been compared to a dynamic simulation tool, within the EU-project iNSPiRe. PHPP is a monthly balance energy calculation tool based on EN13790. It is intended for assisting the design of Passive Houses and energy renovation projects and as guidance in the choice of appropriate ECMs.   PHPP was compared against the transient simulation software TRNSYS for a single family house and a multi-family house. It should be mentioned that dynamic building simulations might strongly depend on the model assumptions and simplifications compared to reality, such as ideal heating or real heat emission system. Setting common boundary conditions for both PHPP and TRNSYS, the ideal heating and cooling loads and demands were compared on monthly and annual basis for seven European locations and buildings with different floor area, S/V ratio, U-values and glazed area of the external walls.   The results show that PHPP can be used to assess the heating demand of single-zone buildings and the reduction of heating demand with ECMs with good precision. The estimation of cooling demand is also acceptable if an appropriate shading factor is applied in PHPP. In general, PHPP intentionally overestimates heating and cooling loads, to be on the safe side for system sizing. Overall, the agreement with TRNSYS is better in cases with higher quality of the envelope as in cold climates and for good energy standards. As an energy auditing tool intended for pre-design it is a good, versatile and easy-to-use alternative to more complex simulation tools.

Energy performance comparison of three innovative HVAC systems for renovation through dynamic simulation

In this paper, dynamic simulation was used to compare the energy performance of three innovativeHVAC systems: (A) mechanical ventilation with heat recovery (MVHR) and micro heat pump, (B) exhaustventilation with exhaust air-to-water heat pump and ventilation radiators, and (C) exhaust ventilationwith air-to-water heat pump and ventilation radiators, to a reference system: (D) exhaust ventilation withair-to-water heat pump and panel radiators. System A was modelled in MATLAB Simulink and systems Band C in TRNSYS 17. The reference system was modelled in both tools, for comparison between the two.All systems were tested with a model of a renovated single family house for varying U-values, climates,infiltration and ventilation rates.It was found that A was the best system for lower heating demand, while for higher heating demandsystem B would be preferable. System C was better than the reference system, but not as good as A or B.The difference in energy consumption of the reference system was less than 2 kWh/(m2a) betweenSimulink and TRNSYS. This could be explained by the different ways of handling solar gains, but also bythe fact that the TRNSYS systems supplied slightly more than the ideal heating demand.