Assessment of the Residential Building Passivity According to the Criteria of the Passive House Institute and the PHPP Algorithm

This study compares PHPP and ArCADia-TERMOCAD software and methodology in assessing the energy efficiency of a newly built single-family house. Three design scenarios were analysed to achieve a heating and ventilation energy demand of QH,nd ≤ 15 kWh/(m²∙a). PHPP results showed that only an 88% efficient heat recovery ventilation system met the criteria, classifying the building as Passive – Classic. Adding PV micro-installations increased the PER production rate to 44.7 kWh/m² annually, still below the 60 kWh/m² requirement for the Passive–Plus class. CO₂ emissions remained below 20 kg/m² annually. ArCADia-TERMOCAD results differed by 18-50%. While PHPP provides a detailed thermal bridge analysis, it does not comply with national reporting standards, and the use of certified solutions significantly increases the calculated energy demand. The EP indicator for non-renewable primary energy demand, due to the exclusion of household electricity consumption (e.g., for appliances and electronics), is lower under method M1 by 22% for scenario 1 (with hybrid ventilation) and up to 150% for scenario 2 (with mechanical ventilation). Additionally, the EP indicator in PHPP is calculated independently of photovoltaics, meaning the presence of PV installations does not directly reduce the EP value.