You are on page 1of 153

Reporte final del desarrollo de la DEEVi -

Diseo Energticamente Eficiente de la Vivienda


para el programa Sisevive-Ecocasa
Final report - DEEVi development
Sisevive-Ecocasa Programme

Programa Energa Sustentable en Mxico, SENER - GIZ


Componente Edificacin
Reporte final del desarrollo de la DEEVi
Diseo Energticamente Eficiente de la Vivienda
para el programa Sisevive-Ecocasa
ltima actualizacin: 03 de marzo de 2014

Preparado por:
Passivhaus Institut
Dr. Wolfgang Feist
Rheinstrasse 44/46
64283 Darmstadt, Alemania
Telfono +49 (0) 6151 826 99-0
Fax +49 (0) 6151 826 99-11
mail@passiv.de
www.passivehouse.com

Para el Componente Edificacin,


Programa de Energa Sustentable en Mxico,
por encargo de GOPA / INTEGRATION

GOPA Consultants INTEGRATION


Hindenburgring 18 Bahnhofstrae 9
61348 Bad Homburg, Alemania 91322 Grfenberg, Alemania
Telfono: +49 6172 930 215 Telfono: +49 9192 9959-0
Fax: +49 6172 930 200 Fax: +49 9192 9959-10
E-mail: gopa-en@gopa.de E-mail: int-ee@integration.org
Passive House Institute

Dr. Wolfgang Feist

Rheinstrae 44/46

64283 Darmstadt, Germany

Tel. +49 (0) 6151/826 99-0


Fax. +49 (0) 6151/826 99-11
mail@passiv.de

www.passivehouse.com

03. March 2014

Final Report of the development of the DEEVi -


Diseo Energticamente Eficiente de la
Vivienda for the Sisevive-Ecocasa programme

In collaboration with:
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

Contents

1. Introduction.......................................................................................................... 3
2. PHPP Adaptation................................................................................................. 4
2.1. Radiation balance of opaque building elements ......................................................4
2.2. Summary of U-values in U-list worksheet ................................................................5
2.3. Direct input in U-list worksheet ................................................................................5
2.4. Input of orientation for windows and walls ...............................................................5
2.5. Integration of Shading and Shading-S worksheets ..................................................5
2.6. Input of specific summer data .................................................................................6
2.7. Summer ventilation strategies against overheating .................................................6
2.8. Estimation of overheating frequency from calculated summer temperatures ...........8
2.9. Ventilation in summer..............................................................................................8
2.10. Enthalpy of vaporization ..........................................................................................8
2.11. Consideration of the effects of vapour diffusion through exterior .............................
building elements ....................................................................................................9
2.12. Dehumidification .....................................................................................................9
2.13. Generation of calculation methods for radiation barriers (ventilated .........................
roofs, as an example)...........................................................................................11
2.14. Evaluation and extension of calculation of shading factors for tropical climate ......11
2.15. Calculation of heat loads by DHW distribution or storage and .................................
heat emissions of electricity units within the summer case ....................................11
2.16. Addition of simplified calculation of primary energy savings delivered by
photovoltaic panels ...........................................................................................................12
3. Evaluation of Mexican Basics ............................................................................ 13
3.1. Acceptable indoor temperatures / humidity ...........................................................13
3.2. Occupancy ............................................................................................................14
3.3. Internal heat gains / humidity gains .......................................................................14
3.4. Domestic hot water ...............................................................................................15
3.5. Primary energy values ..........................................................................................15
3.6. Standard electricity household units ......................................................................16
3.7. Evaluation of ventilation and airtightness ..............................................................16
3.8. Evaluation of Mexican building elements...............................................................21
4. Climate Data ...................................................................................................... 22
4.1. Climate zones in Mexico .......................................................................................22
4.2. Representative locations .......................................................................................24
4.3. Data analysis ........................................................................................................27
5. Validation of the PHPP summer algorithms ....................................................... 28
5.1. Validation approach ..............................................................................................28
5.2. Brief description of the building model...................................................................28
5.3. Comparison of stationary and dynamically calculated results ................................32
5.4. Bypass control ......................................................................................................32
5.5. Summer ventilation ...............................................................................................33
5.6. Dehumidification ...................................................................................................36
5.7. Sensible cooling ....................................................................................................38
5.8. Low insulation levels .............................................................................................42
5.9. Summary of the PHPP/DEEVi summer validation...............................................45
6. Coordination of adaptation and simplification .................................................... 46
6.1. Coordination trip....................................................................................................46
6.2. Multiple registration of houses / registration of packages ......................................46
6.3. Baseline calculation ..............................................................................................47
6.4. RUV registration system process ..........................................................................47
6.5. Facilitation of verification .......................................................................................48
6.6. Consideration of ceiling fans .................................................................................48

1
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

6.7. Verification requirements ......................................................................................49


6.8. Consideration of eco-technologies ........................................................................49
6.9. Multiple prototype registration ...............................................................................49
6.10. Security issues ......................................................................................................50
7. NOM020 calculation .......................................................................................... 51
7.1. Compliance with the norm.....................................................................................51
7.2. Automatic retrieval of data entered into DEEVi for the .............................................
NOM-020-ENER-2011 calculation.........................................................................52
7.3. General data and calculation values (datos generales y valores ..............................
para el clculo).....................................................................................................52
7.4. Calculation of shading factors ...............................................................................52
7.5. Calculation of K-Value (coeficiente-K) ...................................................................53
7.6. Reference building (edificio de referencia) ............................................................53
7.7. Projected building (edificio proyectado).................................................................54
7.8. Automatic determination of possible compliance with norm and etiquette .............54
8. PHPP adaptation and simplification for Mexico ................................................. 55
8.1. Elimination of calculations and input areas for non-residential buildings................55
8.2. Elimination of international climate data and development of ..................................
climate zone climate data sets for Mexico .............................................................55
8.3. Elimination of pre-entered specific building component data and .............................
replacement by Mexican data ..............................................................................55
8.4. Elimination of input sheets for the calculation of heating systems, ..........................
heating and cooling load .......................................................................................56
8.5. Ground calculation ................................................................................................56
8.6. Simplification of thermal bridge loss coefficient calculation....................................57
8.7. Simplification of windows input..............................................................................57
8.8. Simplification of shading input by generation of default values for ...........................
horizontal shading .................................................................................................58
8.9. Simplification of U-Value input of U-values............................................................58
8.10. Simplification of ventilation input ...........................................................................58
8.11. Simplification of input of cooling units....................................................................58
8.12. Parametric calculation of 4 orientations and baseline case calculation ..................59
8.13. Hidden worksheets in DEEVi ................................................................................61
8.14. Import-/Export macros...........................................................................................61
8.15. Hipoteca Verde Button for specific calculation of Hipoteca Verde wall ..................62
8.16. Input of eco-technologies according to Infonavit Hipoteca Verde ............................
lists into the DEEVi ...............................................................................................62
8.17. Graphic display of different results within the result sheet .....................................62
8.18. Implementation of a registration number ...............................................................62
8.19. Air change rate by infiltration defaults in the DEEVi...............................................63
8.20. DEEVi users manual ............................................................................................63
9. Spanish Translation of DEEVi ........................................................................... 64
9.1. Spanish translation of the DEEVi tool....................................................................64
9.2. Spanish translation of the DEEVi Manual ..............................................................64
10. Conclusions ................................................................................................... 65
10.1. Recommendations and next steps, DEEVi ............................................................66
10.2. Recommendations and next steps, energy efficiency in Mexico ............................66
11. References .................................................................................................... 68

Annex 1. The dynamic building simulation software DYNBIL ................................ 70


Annex 2. Comparison of PHPP and DEEVi with DesignBuilder results ................. 76
Annex 3. Comparison between CFE data and PHPP calculation results ............... 96
Annex 4. Mexican climate data .............................................................................103
Annex 5. Component lists included in DEEVi .......................................................115
1.
2
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

Introduction
DEEVi (Diseo Energticamente Eficiente de la Vivienda - Mexican Energy
Efficiency Package) is a simplified tool designed to calculate the energy efficiency of
social housing projects in Mexico. The idea was to develop an adapted and simplified
tool, based on the PHPP (Passive House Planning Package) that focuses on a
whole house approach to calculate the energy balance of buildings. The tool uses
standardised values in many cases (calculation on the safe side) in order to obtain
a quickly responding calculation and oriented to results which can be translated into
a design process of energy-efficient housing. The main objective of the tool is to
allow for social housing project developers in Mexico to assess the energy efficiency
of their projects. At the same time, the tool enables the registration on the platform of
the National Register of Housing (RUV) within the Sisevive-Ecocasa programme,
which comprises a qualification system for the valuation of the energy efficiency of
housing projects.

The task of the PHI (Passive House Institute) was not only to simplify and adapt the
current calculation methods of the PHPP to fit the requirements of the DEEVi, but
also to validate the existing algorithms for the summer calculations, and to ensure
that the tool provides plausible results for climates with hot and humid features.

Moreover, the development of the tool required assessment of the plausibility of the
values of the Mexican components, the creation of a concept to provide climate data
for the entire country without the need for single climate data sets, and the adaptation
of many crucial parts of the calculation methodology and basic values to meet the
requirements of the Mexican users. Finally, the on-going development of the
registration concept also required further modifications and adaptations of the tool.
All of this could not have been done without the collaborative work of GOPA-
INTEGRATION/GIZ, INFONAVIT and the Registro nico de Vivienda (RUV) and also
the invaluable support of the German Development Cooperation Agency (GIZ), the
Interamerican Development Bank (BID) and the Sociedad Hipotecaria Federal (SHF).

The present report gives a general idea of the process and the adaptations that were
carried on for the development of the DEEVi energy calculation tool. It can be used
as a first reference to understand the functionality of the DEEVi, the differences
between it and the PHPP as well as the scientific basis to validate the plausibility of
the calculations of the DEEVi tool.

3
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

2. PHPP Adaptation
The Passive House Planning Package (PHPP) is an integrated tool for energy
balance calculations including all energy flows within the system boundary. The
programme is based in large part on European and international norms (e.g. EN 832
and ISO 13790) and is a design tool for buildings with very low energy demand (such
as Passive Houses). This calculation tool has been evaluated with detailed
simulations and with measured and monitored results of hundreds of buildings.
Thousands of consultants and designers have many years of experience with the use
of this tool in designing low energy and Passive House buildings.

The PHPP presents a broad variety of options concerning the implementation of


energy efficiency parameters in all sorts of buildings and with all sorts of
technologies. In addition, due to its flexible and widely known platform MS-Excel,
PHPP can be easily adapted, expanded or reduced according to local or even
personal necessities.

The PHPP version 7, which formed the basis of the DEEVi tool, was originally
developed for German and European climates. Its initial focus was on space heating.
Algorithms for cooling and dehumidification had been added in 2006. For the DEEVi
tool, a large number of issues have been modified and adapted in order to simplify
the usage, account for experiences from the tools past application and from the
validation calculations performed in the present project, improve the applicability for
cooling-dominated climates, etc. These changes are briefly described in the following
subsections.

2.1. Radiation balance of opaque building elements

In PHPP 7, the absorptivity and emissivity of wall and roof elements were entered in
the Areas worksheet. The data are indeed processed in this worksheet because the
orientation and shading situation of each area needs to be considered in the radiation
balance.

In principle, however, absorptivity and emissivity are properties of the respective


building element assembly, not of its area or orientation. Data input can be simplified
if absorptivity and emissivity are entered in the U-values worksheet, where the
building element assemblies are defined. Accordingly, this input has been moved to
the U-values worksheet. The Areas worksheet is automatically assigning these data
to the respective areas.

4
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

2.2. Summary of U-values in U-list worksheet

All U-values are presented in a consistent list in the U-list worksheet. In PHPP 7, the
Excel formulae for this transfer were complicated, and there was a risk of corrupting
the whole list if lines would have to be entered in a calculation in the U-values
worksheet. The formulae were therefore simplified and are now using direct
references to the corresponding cells in the U-values worksheet. The list also
contains the radiative properties of the building element assemblies, the input of
which has been moved from the Areas worksheet to the U-values worksheet (see
above).

2.3. Direct input in U-list worksheet

If U-values are provided externally, e.g. by thermal bridge calculations or by picking


them from a list of standard constructions, it is convenient to enter the results directly
into the U-list worksheet. In PHPP 7, this was only possible after removing the
protection of the worksheet and changing its structure. Now, explicit input cells for the
properties of complete building element assemblies are available.

2.4. Input of orientation for windows and walls

In PHPP 7, the orientation of walls/roofs and of the windows were entered


separately. This can result in inconsistent data entries. Given that each window is
assigned to a wall for proper subtraction of the window area from the wall area
anyway, a connection between wall and window existed already. The orientation of
windows is therefore entered indirectly now by entering the orientation of the
corresponding wall in the Areas worksheet and then choosing the respective wall in
the Windows worksheet.

2.5. Integration of Shading and Shading-S worksheets

Shading coefficients differ between the heating and the cooling period due to
different solar altitudes in different seasons. Therefore, PHPP 7 contained a Shading
and a Shading-S worksheet to calculate shading coefficients for the winter and
summer periods. Apart from two columns, both worksheets contained the same input
data. For simplification as well as for adaptation to hot climates, where cooling is
dominant, calculation of shading factors for both winter and summer was moved to a
common Shading worksheet.

5
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

2.6. Input of specific summer data

The input structure of specific data for summer calculations in PHPP 7 reflects the
fact that the PHPP has originally been developed for a heating climate with short and
moderately warm periods and that routines for active cooling have been added in a
relatively late stage. Some input for active cooling, for example, needs to be made in
the Summer worksheet (which is dedicated to the calculation of passive cooling
only). This is also true for the heat capacity of the building, which is also needed in
the heating and cooling demand calculations.

The location of the respective input data was therefore reconsidered, and many
changes were made in order to make data input easier to understand and to
represent the heating and cooling situation on a similar level. Examples: Input of
building thermal mass and summer design temperature has been moved to the
Verification worksheet, input of the ventilation strategies in summer now takes place
consistently in the Summvent worksheet.

2.7. Summer ventilation strategies against overheating

Although the results of PHPP 7 for overheating frequency in summer agreed quite
satisfactorily with dynamic simulations, some difficulties were identified as of late in
the course of investigations for non-residential buildings [Schnieders 2012]. For high
summer ventilation rates, in particular, the agreement of PHPP 7 and a more detailed
hourly dynamic simulation may occasionally become poor. This is due to the fact that
in PHPP 7, heat removal from the building by summer ventilation is calculated as a
fixed amount of power, based on the temperature at the beginning of the time step.
This approach may lead to oscillations and arbitrary results (as well as to
intermediate results which are physically impossible) if ambient temperatures are
moderate, but also if internal and solar loads as well as ventilation rates, are high.
This situation may sometimes be encountered in Mexican dwellings, too.

Heat removal by summer ventilation is now calculated via introduction of additional


conductances between room temperature and equivalent ambient temperatures. The
resulting algorithms are still simple and fast. In actuality, they are simpler than before
and even more stable.

6
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

40

T_ambient
35 T_av DEEVi
T_av PHPP 7
T_inf DEEVi
30 T_inf PHPP 7
Temperature [C]

25

20

15

10

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
Hour of year

Figure 1. In the PHPP, temperatures for the estimation of overheating frequency are calculated
on a monthly basis, with shorter intervals in July. Equilibrium temperatures with full night
ventilation are calculated for each interval, serving as a basis for calculating the average
temperatures during that interval by means of a simple dynamic building model.

The example shows the effect of night ventilation for a heavy-weight building in a German
climate with an air change rate of 0.5 h -1. Ambient monthly temperatures may drop to near 0 C
in winter. In PHPP 7, this could result in equilibrium temperatures (designated with T_inf) far
below 0 C. This is irrelevant for the result because only temperatures above e.g. 25 C are
evaluated. However, the old algorithm could result in excessively low temperatures in the
beginning of the overheating period, as is indicated in the diagram.

7
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

2.8. Estimation of overheating frequency from calculated summer


temperatures

The variation of temperature in time was originally evaluated by conversion to a


duration curve. This approach does not allow for the consideration of short-term
fluctuations, which become relevant particularly in poorly-insulated buildings that are
close to thermal comfort in terms of daily averages. Therefore, this part of the
algorithm was changed, too.

2.9. Ventilation in summer

In PHPP 7, the input of summer ventilation strategies sometimes lead to confusion.


For example, for additional summer ventilation, either mechanical or window
ventilation could be chosen. Each would have a corresponding air change rate to be
entered in the same input field and would be interpreted differently depending on the
type of ventilation. The physical meaning of this air change rate also depends on the
type of ventilation, which was often not fully understood by the users. As a remedy
the input of additional summer ventilation was rearranged.

Furthermore, it is now possible to enter both mechanical and window ventilation as


simultaneous summer ventilation strategies.

In hot and/or humid climates, the ideal ventilation strategies may change in the
course of the warm period. In transitional periods, a bypass of the heat recovery and
strong window ventilation may help to reduce cooling demand, whilst during the
hottest or most humid months, it is preferable to run the heat/humidity recovery and
keep windows closed. Such combinations could not be represented in PHPP 7.

In the new version, the use of a heat recovery bypass and of additional mechanical
ventilation may depend either on temperature or on enthalpy differences. Window
ventilation is checked for its influence on both temperature and humidity, and
opening of windows will only be assumed when it has a net positive effect. These
changes allow representing appropriate ventilation strategies more correctly.

2.10. Enthalpy of vaporization

In PHPP 7, the enthalpy of vaporization was assumed as a fixed value of 2550 kJ/kg,
very close to its value at 25 C. In the revised version of the PHPP, and thus in
DEEVi, the dependence of this value on temperature is now taken into account,
improving the precision of the calculations.

8
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

2.11. Consideration of the effects of vapour diffusion through exterior


building elements

For constructions which are very open to vapour diffusion, would the amount of
vapour getting into the building through the walls and the roof become significant
enough to be considered in the calculation? This question was investigated using an
example. It was found that, at a very low total sD of 1.7 m, the vapour transport
through a wall of 1 m is approximately equal to an airflow rate of 0.05 m/h. For a
two-storey building of 240 m of living area and a wall and roof area adjacent to
ambient air of 280 m, the equivalent airflow rate amounts to a total of 15 m/h. This
is approximately 6% of a typical airflow rate of 240 m/h for such a building. It will be
much smaller for the majority of constructions. For simplicity of use, this amount was
neglected, except for the validation calculations.

2.12. Dehumidification

The calculation of annual dehumidification demands in the Cooling Units worksheet


of PHPP 7 was still to be verified. The algorithm uses a very simple dynamic model of
indoor humidity, with a single capacity for humidity, such that in the beginning of the
humid period, a dry building would not need as much dehumidification as would
result from the monthly values alone. Given the large storage capacity and the long-
time constants of building elements with respect to humidity storage, this appeared to
be a good approximation.

Comparison of the existing procedure to detailed hourly simulations using the The
dynamic building simulation software DYNBIL1 program showed a reasonable
agreement of the results. Significant weaknesses could be detected in the beginning
of the year in very humid climates like Cancn, where dehumidification is already
required in January. This was due to the fact that the dynamic model started with a
fixed value of the indoor humidity ratio of 8 g/kg, which is not a good assumption for
year-round humid climates.

In addition, it was found from dynamic simulations that the average monthly indoor
humidity ratio in a building tends to be lower than the set point during months where
ambient humidity is not much higher (or lower) than this set point, although a
humidity balance with monthly values would lead to the opposite result. This is due to
periods within these months where ambient humidity is lower than required.

For thermal models, a similar behaviour is known for temperatures. The PHPP, in
accordance with EN 13790 and with good results, uses a utilisation factor for the free
heat, i.e. internal and solar gains, in the heating case and symmetrically for the heat

1
For more information about the DYNBIL dynamic simulation software please go to Annex 1

9
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

losses in the cooling case. Applying this approach to the humidity balance, an
approach which is also favoured in [Bednar 2012], proved pointless in the present
case because lower indoor humidities also occur when, considering monthly
averages, there are no humidity losses at all. It appears possible to achieve better
results by using other strategies. This could, however, not be pursued further within
this project.

Instead, the verification results even allowed for a further simplification of the
humidity model: neglecting the humidity storage effects leads, on average, to better
agreement of simulation and PHPP model than the explicit consideration of storage
effects. This simplifies the input (start humidity ratio and storage capacity for humidity
are no longer required) and the calculation at the same time. The difference between
the useful dehumidification demands according to simulation and PHPP exceeds 2
kWh/(ma) only on rare occasions.

In PHPP 7, cooling devices which can also provide dehumidification, such as interior
units of split systems, are entered by giving information about the control strategy
(on/off systems vs. Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) systems), the lowest possible
surface temperature of the cooling coil and, if applicable, the airflow volume. The
temperature of the cooling coil is often not known and could only indirectly be
estimated from other manufacturer specifications. The new version requires the rated
useful cooling power output instead, which is then used to determine the required
cooling coil temperature automatically, a process that requires a complex
interpolation. As an additional feature, Variable air volume (VAV) systems can be
modelled for the case of recirculated air.

The energy efficiency ratio for cooling and dehumidification was entered as a
common value for all devices in the Primary Energy worksheet of PHPP 7. The new
version allows the user to specify energy efficiency ratios individually for each cooling
or dehumidification device. The average efficiency ratio is automatically calculated.

Moreover, the PHPP 7 provided the possibility to enter an additional dehumidification


device. This device was assumed to simply extract the desired amount of humidity
from the air without changing its temperature. This model is a strong simplification.
Typically, stand-alone dehumidifiers release their waste heat to the room. In some
cases, the waste heat may be discharged outside of the thermal envelope. Thus,
dehumidification will either heat or cool the air of the room. In the new version,
release of the waste heat to the room can be modelled, too, with its consequences
for the cooling units. The old algorithm is still available as an option.

10
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

2.13. Generation of calculation methods for radiation barriers (ventilated


roofs, as an example)

A common strategy to reduce solar loads through the roof in hot climates is the use
of radiant barriers, i.e. the installation of low-emissivity coatings like aluminium foils
under the roof, ideally in conjunction with a ventilated attic above the living space.
The temperature in the attic will generally differ from the temperature in the rest of
the building.

For the new version of the PHPP, a tool for calculating equivalent U-values, exterior
absorption coefficients, and exterior emission coefficients for ventilated attics was
developed. To this end, a network of thermal resistances for this situation was set up.
Solving the resulting equations by means of a computer algebra program lead to the
conclusion that there is indeed at least one set of equivalent parameters for each
configuration of ventilated attics. These equivalent parameters can now be calculated
and used within the PHPP.

2.14. Evaluation and extension of calculation of shading factors for


tropical climate

Shading factors for all latitudes and both winter and summer declinations of the sun
were already present in PHPP 7. In order to make sure that the program calculates
suitable shading factors for Mexico, these algorithms were revised against dynamic
simulations once more. The results were satisfactory, so no changes to the shading
algorithms had to be made.

2.15. Calculation of heat loads by DHW distribution or storage and heat


emissions of electricity units within the summer case

Heat emissions from the domestic hot water (DHW) system are considered in the
primary energy balance of PHPP 7. However, they do not explicitly affect the internal
heat gains that enter into the heating and cooling demand calculations. Instead, a
flat, default contribution to the internal heat gains is assumed. This behaviour is
intended because it prevents users from reducing the calculated heating demand by
poor insulation of distribution pipes in climates where heating is necessary during a
long period in the year.

For the case of climates where active cooling is necessary during a long season of
the year, it is preferable to represent the effects of heat losses from the DHW system
to the room. Therefore, internal heat loads for the case of cooling are calculated
including these heat flows, so that the annual cooling demand, peak cooling load,
and overheating frequency are adjusted according to the DHW losses.

11
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

Heat emissions from electrical appliances and people are treated in the same
manner.

2.16. Addition of simplified calculation of primary energy savings


delivered by photovoltaic panels

A worksheet that estimates the energy produced by photovoltaic panels was


integrated into the PHPP which makes use of the PHPP algorithms for the calculation
of solar radiation on arbitrarily oriented surfaces. The energy produced by PV is
shown in comparison with the buildings electricity demand on a monthly basis.

12
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

3. Evaluation of Mexican Basics


An important part of the task in the adaptation of the PHPP to the Mexican conditions
and produce the DEEVi tool was to include basic values that would represent current
building standards in Mexico. The following section contemplates boundary
conditions that correspond to the current construction methods and standards of
social housing in Mexico. The definitions of these boundary conditions have been
agreed to by the relevant stakeholders, as a result of the inter-institutional dialogue
within the frame of the Mesa Transversal de Vivenda by CONAVI (see minute Mesa
Transversal de Vivenda, 9th of August 2012).

3.1. Acceptable indoor temperatures / humidity

According to the agreements of the NAMA [PHI 2012], the acceptable indoor
temperatures and indoor humidity were set to the values presented in Table 1:

Table 1. Acceptable indoor temperatures / indoor humidity boundary conditions in


DEEVi/PHPP

Winter temperature 20 C acc. to [Fanger 1970] / [PHI 2012]

Summer temperature 25 C acc. to [Fanger 1970] / [PHI 2012]

acc. to [Fanger 1970] / DIN ISO


Humidity ratio set point 12 g/kg
7730

acc. to [Fanger 1970] / DIN ISO


Summer temperature with fans 27.5 C
7730

acc. to [Fanger 1970] / DIN ISO


Humidity ratio set point with fan 14 g/kg
7730

In case ceiling fans are used in each of the main rooms of the building, acceptable
summer temperature and humidity ratio will be increased 2.5 K, as described in
section 6.6 of this report.

13
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

3.2. Occupancy

The occupancy of the buildings was set to 20m of treated floor area per person,
according to the agreed conventions of the NAMA [PHI 2012]. Even if some of the
prototypes presented show the possibility of 4 inhabitants in 40m of living area, the
the conservative assumption was made that two persons would be the average
occupancy over a 30 year lifecycle of the housing unit (period under observation).

Table 2. Set occupancy for the PHPP adaptation to DEEVi

Living area/person 20 m/P acc. to NAMA [PHI 2012]

3.3. Internal heat gains / humidity gains

The internal heat gains for the calculation of the cooling demand in the summer time
are thereby calculated on the basis of 20m/person. Additionally, heat gains by
standard domestic appliances will be considered, as well as heat gains by the
domestic hot water (DHW) distribution inside the thermal envelope or DHW storage
as well as heat gains by auxiliary energy consumption of building services equipment
such as ventilation units, ceiling fans or DHW production, if installed within the
thermal envelope.

Internal heat gains for the calculation of the heating demand have been set to 2.1
W/m. The value represents a good average occupancy and efficiency of household
electricity appliances. In contrast to the cooling calculation, internal heat gains would
reduce the energy demand. High internal heat gains created by inefficient household
electricity appliances or hot water distribution would lead to a wrong improvement
and increase energy consumption in the summer in case of cooling requirement.

Internal humidity sources have been set to 2 g/(mh), a common value for residential
buildings. Table 3 presents a summary of the internal heat loads and humidity loads
values used for DEEVi.

Table 3. Internal heat loads / internal humidity sources in DEEVi

Winter 2.1 W/ m Standard residential

Summer 3.0-6.0 W/ m specific acc. to prototype

Humidity sources 2.0 g/ mh Standard residential

14
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

3.4. Domestic hot water

The demand of domestic hot water (60 C) was calculated according to a good
average consumption predicted by the SAAVi. The domestic hot water demand
thereby has been increased to 30 l / Pd of hot (60 C).

Table 4. Domestic hot water boundary conditions in DEEVi

Hot water demand (60 C) 30 l/P/d acc. to SAAVi

3.5. Primary energy values

The primary energy values and the CO2 emission factors were entered according to
the values agreed in the NAMA calculations [PHI 2012], based on Gemis 3.0 (Global
emission model for integrated systems) values, as can be seen in Table 5.

Table 5. Primary energy values and CO2 emission factors Source: GEMIS 3.0 and CONAVI

Tabla de Factores-EP (energa primaria) y los factores de las emisiones de CO 2 equivalentes de diferentes fuentes de
energa

Factor-EP (de
fuentes de energa CO2 GEMIS 3.0
Tipo de energa Fuentes de energa
no renovables) kg/kWhFinal
kWhPrimaria/kWhFinal

1 Ninguno

Combustible 2 Gasoil 1.1 0.31

3 Gas natural 1.1 0.25

4 Gases Licuados del Petrleo GLP 1.1 0.27

5 Hulla 1.1 0.44

6 Madera (Biomasa) 0.2 0.05

Electricidad 7 Electricidad de la red (mezcla renovable/no renovable) 2.716049383 0.5836

8 Electricidad procedente de energa fotovoltica 0.7 0.25

As the electrical demand (electricity mix) is the highest energy demand in the majority
of Mexican households, its primary energy and CO2 emission factor was based on
actual Mexican figures. Though no official factor has yet been established in Mexico,
the factor used is based on the figure agreed by CONAVI through the Mesa
Transversal de Vivienda Sustentable. This factor is based on data from 2010 and
includes the annual transmission and distribution losses.

15
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

3.6. Standard electricity household units

DEEVi, following the whole house approach, also considers the electricity demand of
buildings and includes it in the energy balance calculation, as does PHPP.
Nonetheless, for the version 1 of DEEVi, standard fix values are considered for the
electricity demand of the projects as well as for the internal heat loads. This means
that the use of standard electrical appliances are contemplated in all calculations
made with DEEVi. These values cannot be changed by the user.

Table 6. Electrical appliances used for DEEVi Version 1 calculations. Source: Passive House
Institute

Dish washing not considered

Clothes drying not considered

Clothes washing 0.96 kWh/use acc. to NAMA_EcoCasa1

Refrigerator/Freezer 1.01 kWh/d acc. to NAMA_EcoCasa1

Cooking (with gas) 0.25 kWh/use acc. to NAMA_EcoCasa1

Lighting (with 100% CLFs) 32 kWh/(P*a) acc. to NAMA_EcoCasa1

Consumer electronics 100 kWh/(P*a) acc. to NAMA_EcoCasa1

Small household appliances 50 kWh/(P*a) acc. to NAMA_EcoCasa1

As per Table 6, the electrical appliances that were chosen are based on information
about the current average appliances used for social housing of INFONAVIT. The
energy electrical efficiency values are based on standard appliances by FIDE and
take into account the standard occupancy and number of housing units entered by
the user.

3.7. Evaluation of ventilation and airtightness

Sufficient ventilation is a crucial element of indoor air quality, regardless of whether


fresh or extract air can be provided by a mechanical ventilation system or by opening
windows only. It is recommended to avoid air change rates below 0.3 1/h in order to
ensure the removal of smells or emissions. However, in small houses, the fresh air or
extract air demand might dominate the considerations. Thereby, the automatic
calculation of the air change rate in the DEEVi is carried out according to the
parameters presented in the following table:

16
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

Table 7. Ventilation parameters in DEEVi

Fresh air demand per person 30 m/(P*h) DIN 1946 / 6

Exhaust air demand per kitchen 60 m/h DIN 1946 / 6

Exhaust air demand per bathroom 40 m/h DIN 1946 / 6

Exhaust air demand per WC or shower only 20 m/h DIN 1946 / 6

Minimum air change rate 0.3 1/h PHI

Airtightness of windows with seals 3.0 1/h specific acc. to prototype

Airtightness of windows without seals 10.1 1/h specific acc. to prototype

Airtightness of sliding windows 15.2 1/h specific acc. to prototype

In addition to the intended ventilation through windows or controlled ventilation in


case of mechanical ventilation, the accidental and uncontrollable ventilation quantity
caused by infiltration must be considered. In the PHPP the user is required to
introduce a value that indicates the airtightness (n 50 of the building based on a
pressurization test) according to EN 13829. With this value, the infiltration air
exchange is calculated. This value is very important in order to determine the energy
efficiency of a building, since the infiltration air exchange rate can have a crucial
impact on the energetic performance of a building, especially in climates with high
humidity and/or temperatures that exceed the minimal and maximal comfort range.

In Mexico, however, executing pressurization tests is not common practice,


especially in social housing projects. For this reason, the estimation of standard
values was established, based on the construction type of the windows applied in the
project. In case of large windows, in relation to small areas of living space, very high
pressure test results (up to 20 or more for small buildings with sliding windows) will
be generated automatically. This estimation is, of course, on the safe side but is
based in the possible airtightness values of the buildings.

Figure 2 through Figure 7 (below) show examples of construction details that can
commonly be found in social housing projects and that were used for the estimation
of the infiltration air change value generation in DEEVi. According to Joachim Zeller
[Zeller 2008] and based on ISO 9972:2006, the equivalent leakage area in the
envelope can be determined by the following formula, based on the infiltration air
change:

17
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

Calculation of the infiltration air change at the pressurization test V50:

V 50 = n50 * Vn50

Calculation of the equivalent leakage area Aeq:

V50
Aeq = 0.50cm *
m/h

n50 = airthightness value [1/h]

Vn50 = net air Volume [m]

V50 = Infiltration air change at 50Pa [m/h]

Aeq = equivalent leakage area [cm]

18
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

The following pictures illustrating possible cavities were taken in the social housing
development Los Hroes Tecmac in the North of Mexico City:

Figure 2. Cavities under entrance door (1) Figure 3. Window installation cavities in
union of window frame

Figure 4. Intended! openings in window Figure 5. Cavities in window frame


frame

Figure 6. Skylight with untight wall Figure 7. Intended openings in the roofs to
connection avoid thermal tensions

19
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

Considering gaps, cavities or even intended openings as presented above and


keeping in mind, that pressure tests of small European buildings have shown
airthightness-results up to 30, the plausibility of the values generated in DEEVi can
be better understood.

In case of the example project Casa Derya, developed by the Passive House
Institute as course material for DEEVi, which is close to the row house typologies
shown above in the leakages examples from the Heroes de Tecamac settlement,
the automatically generated airtightness-value of n50 = 12.8 1/h and the net air
Volume of 204,075 m results in an infiltration air change of 2616 m/h, as showed in
the following table.

Table 8. Airtightness value generation in case of Casa derya with sliding windows

The addition of the estimated cavities in the Figure 2-7 show a significantly higher
total of leakage areas (3604cm) than the leakage area according to the
automatically estimated airtightness by the DEEVi (1308cm), as can be observed in
Table 9.

Table 9. Plausibility of automatically generated airtightness for Casa Derya

20
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

In conclusion, the automatic generation of the airtightness values seems plausible,


as long as common constructions are used according to the illustrated standards and
pressure-tests of building prototypes are not commonly carried out in order to provide
evidence of the airtightness quality.

3.8. Evaluation of Mexican building elements

Another important part of developing the DEEVi tool, was adapting it to the specific
use of Mexican traditional building elements. PHPP is open to any building system or
building material, but the user is required to gather and enter the characteristic
values and information about the building elements used in the projects. For DEEVi,
the idea was that, at least to a certain extent, the characteristic values of standard
building elements from Mexican social housing would already have been entered, in
order to simplify the input effort for the user.

The list of building materials and equipment, elaborated and provided by GOPA, is
based on the valid Mexican standards for generic values, and only products certified
by the Mexican certification bodies like ANCE, ONNCCE and NORMEX have been
taken into account for the following elements:

- List of typical walls, roofs and floors build-ups (according to analysis of


Mexican social housing developments)

- List of thermal conductivity values of selected construction materials and


insulation materials (NOM-020-ENER-2011; ONNCCE, ANCE)

- List of typical windows (glazings and frames) and doors together with its
characteristic values (NOM-024-ENER-2012; ONNCCE)

- List of typical cooling units to be found in the Mexican market (only for air
circulation cooling, for dehumidification, PHI used a list of typical
dehumidification units to be found in the U.S. American market)

- Characteristic values for solar domestic hot water collector and tank (DTESTV
by CONUEE; ONNCCE)

- Characteristic values of water boilers (NOM-003-ENER-2011; ANCE)

The rest of the characteristic values to be found in DEEVi come from the information
that the PHPP already provides for the users, except that irrelevant values or devices
for Mexico were eliminated.

21
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

4. Climate Data
Information on the local climate represents the basic starting point for calculating the
cooling and heating demand of a building. When using DEEVi as a tool to assess
and optimise a buildings energy performance, the selected climate data should
represent the typical local conditions as best and as reasonably as possible. Keeping
in mind that the local weather can vary considerably from year to year and that errors
involved in recording climatic data and converting it to the required format cannot be
completely ruled out, it becomes clear that the typical climate conditions can only be
predicted to some level of certainty. The level of accuracy aimed for is to ensure that
the impact of individual optimisation measures can be assessed correctly with the
planning tool and that the buildings average annual energy demand will be of the
same order of magnitude as predicted.

DEEVi calculates a buildings energy demand based on a monthly energy balance for
which the boundary conditions are set, based on the climate conditions. The
necessary information for this is contained in a climate data set that contains
information about the monthly average ambient temperature, global solar radiation on
the horizontal and vertical (north, east, south, west), humidity (dew point) and sky
temperature. This monthly data is linked directly to various worksheets to calculate
the energy demand for space heating and cooling (latent and sensible). The ground
temperatures, which are needed to calculate the heat losses through the floor slab,
are not predetermined in the climate data set, but instead calculated by the software
itself (see section 8.5 of this report).

4.1. Climate zones in Mexico

The climatic conditions in Mexico differ largely as the country extends over many
latitudes and features immense topographic variations. Instead of generating an
immense number of climate data sets for cities across the entire country, the
approach chosen was to select locations that are somewhat representative for main
climatic differences and that can be used on a regional basis. Additional climate data
sets can be added at a later point in time if the need arises.

As an approximation, it is possible to divide Mexico into a manageable number of


climate zones that are fundamentally different. Many different approaches and
methodologies, based on various combinations of different climatic parameters, have
been developed in the past to defined climate zones. Figure 8 to Figure 11 show
maps of Mexico with defined main climate zones according to different sources. The
zoning in these maps vary, which is to be expected because of differing data sources
and data post processing. It is apparent, however, that they have certain tendencies
in common, which can be used as an orientation for the main climatic conditions:

22
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

- Tropical (hot & humid) conditions on the coast lines and in the Southwest

- The North is generally dryer than the South

- The central regions between the mountain ranges that generally feature a
high altitude, are dryer and cooler with decreasing tendencies from North
to South

Figure 8. Different climate zones of Mexico as per the Kppen-Geiger classifications


[Peel 2007] (colouring adapted by PHI).

Figure 9. Main climate zones of Mexico as per CONAVIs Criterios e indicadores para
desarrollos habitacionales sustenables.

23
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

Figure 10. Different climate zones in Mexico as per PHIs certification criteria for transparent
building components

Figure 11. Climate zone map according to INEGI [RUV]

Additional parametric building simulations carried out by the Passive House Institute
confirm that active cooling (sensible and latent) is dominant along the coastal areas
and the South-Eastern tip. In the central regions, high thermal comfort can be
achieved also without active air conditioning. This is not the case of the North-
Western region and for the tropical zones along the coastlines and the Southeast.

4.2. Representative locations

The approach adopted for DEEVi is based on climate zoning, according to the map
issued by INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica, y Geografa) (see Figure 11).
Within each of the specified climate zones, individual locations were selected for
which the local climatic conditions were evaluated (see section 4.3). This data is then
used as representative for the climate in the surrounding areas within the same
climate zone.

24
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

The following factors were taken into account for the selection of locations:

- City relevance (number of inhabitants based on statistics published by INEGI


and the demand potential as identified by Infonavit)

- Geographic location (cities spread across the country with location in each of
the identified main climate zones)

- Climate data availability (local stations rather than interpolated data)

All in all, a total of 34 locations were selected, as listed in table 10. The only climate
zone that is not specifically represented with a city is the scarce zone Frios de alta
montaa, which can best be represented through an altitude correction of the
nearest location within the surrounding climate zone Templado subhmedo.

The DEEVi user first selects the climate zone corresponding to the project location
and then, in a second drop down menu, chooses the corresponding city. If the city
happens not to be one of the 34 representative locations, the user simply enters the
sites latitude, longitude and altitude. Based on this information, the software
automatically selects the climate data of the closest representative location within the
specified climate zone and performs an altitude correction to the temperatures.

The user can see which climate data is being used for the project in the
Comprobacin worksheet. This way, the user can critically cross-check the
plausibility of the climate data used, especially if there is a significant distance
between the project location and the representative climate location.

25
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

Table 10. Climatic zones of INEGI and representative cities for climate

data generation in DEEVi

26
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

4.3. Data analysis

The following sources were accessed and compared for generating the DEEVi
climatic data sets for the selected representative locations:

- Temperature data from the Servicio Meteorolgico Nacional Mxico (SMN),


accessed online

- Tempeature data and climate zone information as per CONAVIs Hoja de


clculo para definir zonas trmicas, zonas climticas y grados das por mes y
anuales para una localidad sin estacin meteorological

- Solar radiation maps provided online by the Instituto de Investigaciones


Electrical (IIE) and the Secretara de Energa (SENER)

- International Weather for Energy Calculations (IWEC) files by the American


Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)

- Interpolated satellite data from NASA

- Data from weather stations generated with the software Meteonorm

The final data was selected individually for each location from the various sources
based on plausibility. The temperature data from different sources was mostly in
good agreement but information was partially scarce for solar radiation and humidity.
For reasons of consistency, the same solar radiation data source (NASA) was used
for all sites.

In addition to the monthly data, all data sets include climate information to be able to
calculate the heating and cooling load of a Passive House. Though this data is only
indirectly used in DEEVi, it is essential for the more comprehensive PHPP
calculations. The load data was determined for all representative locations also
based on NASA satellite data.

27
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

5. Validation of the PHPP summer algorithms


The aim of the validations carried out in the context of the DEEVi developments was
to test and, where necessary, to improve the algorithms for the summer calculations
i.e. aspects that affect the useful energy demand for latent and sensible cooling
(active cooling) or the overheating frequency (no active cooling), as the case may be.
Since the PHPP was originally developed for climates where the heating demand is
dominant and the summer comfort is usually less of a concern, it needed to be
confirmed that the later implemented algorithms for active cooling were reliable for
Mexican climate conditions. This includes the new features that were implemented in
order to improve the applicability of the software to a variety of different climates.

5.1. Validation approach

The validation of the PHPP/DEEVi summer algorithms was carried out result-
oriented. A simplified building model including only the relevant components was
calculated both with the PHPP/DEEVi (stationary model) and as a dynamic
simulation with PHIs software DYNBIL (for more information about DYNBIL see Annex
I). Specific parameters of the models properties (see Table 11) were varied and the
respective results of the two calculation tools were then compared both on an annual
and on a monthly basis. In case of deviations of the results, this approach allowed
easy identification of the cause. Based on a closer analysis of any deviations, it was
then decided whether the PHPP/DEEVi algorithms were sufficiently correct within the
achievable and acceptable limit of accuracy or whether a modification of these
algorithms was required. The results shown in this report reflect the final comparison
of the dynamically calculated energy demand with the stationary results determined
with the adapted summer algorithms implemented in DEEVi Version 1.

5.2. Brief description of the building model

The validation model was deliberately kept simple in order to avoid misleading effects
on the result not caused by the building components and algorithms in question. For
example, the effects of thermal transmission towards the ground were entirely
neglected. The dimensions of the model are based on a semi-detached house as
one single thermal zone with a treated floor area of 240 m (i.e. two attached single
family homes with 120 m each) and average U-Value of the thermal envelope of
0.217 W/(mK). The dynamic model calculates the energy demand for sensible
cooling and dehumidification for an ideal system i.e. the useful energy required to
keep the set minimum and maximum temperature and humidity level within the
building without system losses or regulation effects.

28
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

Note that the presented results do not necessarily depict the expected energy
demand for a building of a similar size and building envelope as some components
(e.g. floor slab) and user influence (e.g. night time ventilation) were neglected or
simplified in order to be able to eliminate effects irrelevant to the question at hand. It
also does not reflect the electricity demand needed to air-condition the building,
which in turn depends on the cooling devices used and their energy efficiency ratio.

Table 11. Parameter variations for the validation of the calculated useful energy demand for
cooling. The reference values applied whilst varying a different parameter are displayed in bold
print. Source: Passive House Institute

Range of values considered &


Parameter
reference value

Maximum admissible temperature [C] 23 / 25 / 27 / 29

Summer ventilation [m/h]


60 / 120 / 240 / 480
ventilation unit & additional

Efficiency of heat recovery 0 / 50 / 65 / 80 / 95

Always active (no heat recovery) /


Bypass regulation of the heat recovery temperature regulated /
enthalpy regulated / no bypass

0 / 50 / 100 / 200
Mechanical ventilation at night [m/h] a) temperature controlled
b) enthalpy controlled

Manual window ventilation at night at 1K


0 / 0.25 / 0.5 / 1
temperature difference [h-1]

Solar gains / shading factor 1 / 0.5 / 0.4 / 0.3 / 0.2

Absorption coefficient 0.2 / 0.4 / 0.6 / 0.8

Emissivity 0.6 / 0.7 / 0.8 / 0.9

Humidity sources within the building


0 /2/4/6
[g/(mh)]

Maximum admissible humidity


8 / 10 / 12 / 14
(dehumidification level) [g/kg]

Level of humidity recovery (ventilation


0 / 30 / 60 / 90 % (no bypass)
system) [%]

29
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

All calculations were carried out for various different climatic situations in Mexico.
Three selected locations, at which both sensible and latent cooling are relevant
factors, are presented in this report, namely:

Hot & humid all year round (p22m087 - Figure 12) e.g. Cancun, INEGI
climate zone clido subhmedo

Temperate all year round (p16m091 - Figure 13) e.g. Montes Azules,
INEGI climate zone clido hmedo

Extremely hot and humid summer, temperate and dry winter (p27m111 -
Figure 14) e.g. Hermosillo, INEGO climate zone muy seco

Satellite data that was processed in the context of [Feist 2011] was used as a source
for the Mexican climate data because it was readily available in both required
formats. There was no need to invest further time in sourcing validated climate data
for representative locations, as this was irrelevant for the purpose of the comparative
exercise. A summary of the climate data is presented below as monthly values in
Figure 12 to Figure 14.

Figure 12. Monthly climate data of the hot and humid climate p22m087. Source: Passive House
Institute

30
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

Figure 13. Monthly climate data of the slightly colder but fairly continuously humid climate
p16m091. Source: Passive House Institute

Figure 14. Monthly climate data of the seasonal reference data p27m111 with an extremely hot
and humid summer and cooler and drier winter. Source: Passive House Institute

31
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

5.3. Comparison of stationary and dynamically calculated results

This subsection contains selected results from the validation calculations. These
results undoubtedly confirm that the DEEVi algorithms reliably assess the impact of
various influential factors for the latent and sensible cooling demand under various
given climate conditions. The energy demand calculated with DEEVis stationary
energy balance is in very good agreement with the dynamic simulations.

5.4. Bypass control

In most climates, the ventilation system in an energy efficient building should include
a highly efficient heat or energy recovery, e.g. plate heat exchanger or rotary wheel,
in order to minimise the ventilation loads/losses. Depending on the season, however,
the energy recovery can be a disadvantage. It is therefore important that the
ventilation unit includes an option of bypassing the heat/energy recovery temporarily.
In some ventilation units the bypass can be activated only manually by physically
removing a flap. More complex units include an automated electronic bypass control
that is triggered under certain conditions. Such an automated bypass control is
especially effective in climates with varying seasons. Depending on the climate it is
more effective to base this bypass control on temperature differences to minimise the
thermal load or on enthalpy/moisture differences to minimise also the humidity load.

An added feature in DEEVi / PHPP V8 is the possibility of modelling four different


monthly bypass control strategies (see section 2.9). Instead of assuming the bypass
will either be ON or OFF during the entire cooling season, a bypass control based
either on temperature or on enthalpy can now be modelled. With these new
algorithms the heat/energy recovery is activated or bypassed on a monthly basis
depending on whether it can contribute to reducing the temperature/enthalpy within
the building or not. The effect of different bypass control strategies, as calculated with
DEEVi and with DYNBIL, are shown in Figure 15 for the three climates considered.
The effects on both the latent and sensible cooling are the same for both calculation
tools, the recommended most energy efficient strategy depends on the climatic
conditions. For two of the considered climates (p27m111, p16m091), the new
configurations of monthly temperature or enthalpy controlled bypass regulation lead
to slight energy savings compared to a continuously ON/OFF energy recovery
setting.

32
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

Figure 15. The useful energy demand for latent and sensible cooling calculated with DEEVi and
Dynbil for the different possible bypass control strategies in three exemplary Mexican climates.
p22mo87 (top left), p27m111 (top right) and p16m091 (bottom). Source: Passive House Institute

5.5. Summer ventilation

Temporary additional ventilation is often an effective passive strategy to reduce the


active sensible cooling. However, depending on the climate conditions this additional
ventilation can be counter-productive e.g. if the ambient humidity is above the
comfort threshold, additional ventilation would lead to increased humidity loads and
thus additional dehumidification. The PHPP/DEEVi algorithms aim to assess the
ideal impact of this passive cooling strategy.

In the case of automated additional mechanical ventilation, the user is able to


differentiate between temperature and enthalpy control. The influence of the different
mechanical ventilation strategies can be seen clearly in the left and centre plots in
Figure 16 in which, DEEVi and DYNBIL again are in very good agreement. Though the

33
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

overall effect of an increased additional summer ventilation on the sum of latent and
sensible cooling is similar for the given examples, the ratio of sensible and latent
cooling is not (especially for the seasonal climate p27m111). Without consideration of
the humidity, the demand for dehumidification potentially increases due to the
additional summer ventilation.

For additional summer ventilation via windows, DEEVi assumes that the occupants
will keep the windows closed if either the outside temperature or humidity is above
the comfort level (equivalent to enthalpy control). The results as calculated with
DEEVi and DYNBIL for this ventilation strategy are shown in the right hand plots in
Figure 16.

34
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

Figure 16. The useful energy demand for latent and sensible cooling calculated with DEEVi and
Dynbil for the different additional mechanical summer ventilation strategies (left) & centre) and
for additional summer ventilation via opening windows (right). The results are shown for all
three climate conditions, from top to bottom: p22m087 p16m091 and p16m091. Source: Passive
House Institute

35
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

5.6. Dehumidification

The first round of validation calculations showed discrepancies between the PHPP
V7(2012) and the Dynbil results for the dehumidification demand, especially under
tropical climate conditions. The algorithms were thus reviewed and slightly modified
(see section 2.12) in order to improve the accuracy and reliability of PHPP/DEEVi
results.

Figure 18

Figure 17. The useful energy demand for dehumidification calculated under varying boundary
conditions for a tropical continuously hot and humid climate (p22m087). Source: Passive
House Institute

Figure 17 shows the annual dehumidification demand as calculated with the final
DEEVi algorithms compared with DYNBIL results under varying boundary conditions
and for different climates with a significant humidity load. The modified algorithms of
the PHPP V8 lead to results that correspond extremely well with the dynamic
simulation.

36
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

Figure 18. The useful energy demand for dehumidification calculated under varying boundary
conditions for p27m111. Source: Passive House Institute

37
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

Figure 19. The useful energy demand for dehumidification calculated under varying boundary
conditions for p16m091. Source: Passive House Institute

5.7. Sensible cooling

The stationary calculation of the sensible cooling demand is a little more complex
than the dehumidification demand, as it is influenced mainly by dynamic effects such
as the solar gains, ambient temperature swings, etc. Nevertheless, the comparative
calculations of DEEVi and Dynbil show that the stationary model leads to highly
accurate annual results, as can be seen in Figure 20 to Figure 22.

38
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

Figure 20. The useful energy demand for sensible cooling calculated under varying boundary
conditions for a tropical continuously hot and humid climate (p22m087). Source: Passive
House Institute

39
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

Figure 21. The useful energy demand for sensible cooling calculated under varying boundary
conditions for p27m111. Source: Passive House Institute

40
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

Figure 22. The useful energy demand for sensible cooling calculated under varying boundary
conditions for p16m091. Source: Passive House Institute

41
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

5.8. Low insulation levels

In a building without insulation, the dynamics are naturally higher as significantly


more heat loads and losses are present. The PHPP/DEEVi accounts for these
dynamics by applying a utilisation factor to the available losses/loads. This has
proven itself in the past as a valid approach leading to highly accurate results for the
heating demand calculations. However, this approximation becomes less accurate
with increased dynamics. Additional comparative calculations (D YNBIL vs.
PHPP/DEEVi) were therefore carried out in order to analyse the reliability of cooling
demand results for buildings with less or no insulation. The same simplified building
model as described above was calculated with four different insulation levels,
corresponding to average U-values of the opaque elements of 4, 1.88, 0.85 and
0.18 W/(mK), respectively. The results are shown in Figure 23 for the tropical climate
p22m087.

Figure 23. Exemplary results of the comparative studies for four different insulation levels in
the hot & humid climate of Cancun (p22m087). The range of possible results for the dynamic
calculation indicated by the error bars are based on the results of the parameter variations as
specified in Table 12. Source: Passive House Institute

If the default settings are used in both software, the discrepancy of the results
increases with lower insulation levels, with PHPP/DEEVi generally leading to higher
cooling demands than calculated dynamically (on the safe side). The main cause for
these differences could be identified as the influence of the heat transfer at the
surfaces of the building elements. PHPP and DEEVi, both being stationary
calculation tools, use fixed default values to estimate the convective and radiative
heat transfer, whilst in DYNBIL these values are calculated in every time step

42
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

according to the current boundary conditions with the equations described in


[Feist 1994]. The main influencing factors for the heat transfer are listed in Table 12,
together with the respective estimated range of uncertainty. This level of uncertainty
is based simply on the fact that these values can physically be determined only with
limited accuracy. The wind velocity, for example, might be known from measured
records at the site location. However, the wind speed near the various surface
elements of a building cannot be directly deduced from this value. Another example
is the long wave radiation balance, which depends on the temperature of the
surroundings, which in turn is determined by the sky temperature and properties of
nearby building surfaces and ground constitution (road, grass etc.). It is apparent that
the influence of surrounding buildings cannot be assessed perfectly, but also the sky
temperature can be known only with some uncertainty. Often this value represented
in the climatic data set is not taken from direct measurements but is instead derived
from other values, such as the relative humidity, ambient temperature and sky cover.

In order to assess the influence of these uncertain boundary conditions on the


buildings cooling demand, the corresponding boundary conditions were adapted in
the dynamic simulation model. The respective influence on the results are listed in
and indicated by the error bars in the default results shown in Figure 23.

The spread of results caused by the slightly adapted boundary conditions is clearly
larger than the discrepancy of the DYNBIL and PHPP/DEEVi default results. The
PHPP/DEEVi results therefore lie well within a feasible range of the predicted energy
demand depending on the actual heat transfer through the construction elements,
which remains a source of uncertainty. The deviations in the results calculated with
the PHPP/DEEVi and DYNBIL do not lead to the conclusion that the stationary
calculation model with its default assumptions is inappropriate for less insulated
buildings. On the contrary, the presented results are an eye opener for the
uncertainties of energy calculations and required depth of understanding when
setting up a calculation model and interpreting the results. The energy demand of a
building without insulation is clearly more strongly affected by the heat transfer and
resulting temperatures at the exterior surfaces of its building components. The
predicted energy demand of less insulated buildings thus inherently has a higher
uncertainty, simply due to unknown physical boundary conditions, independent of the
calculation tool used.

43
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

Table 12. The main influencing parameters for the heat transfer at the exterior surface of the
opaque building elements. These parameters were varied independently in the dynamic
calculations within the specified max/min range, whilst keeping all other parameters at the
default value. Source: Passive House Institute

Parameter Value and range

Absorption coefficient [-] 0.4 0.5

Emissivity [-] 0.9 0.5

Sky temperature [C] 2K

0.4
Average absorption coefficient of
the surrounding [-] min: 0.15
max: 0.7

Avg. wind speed 3 2 m/s

Table 13. The effect of the individual boundary conditions as specified in Table 12 on the
dynamically calculated energy demand for sensible cooling for the example building in Cancun
without insulation. Source: Passive House Institute

Energy demand for sensible cooling


(DYNBIL) kWh/(ma)
Parameter
min default max

Absorption coefficient 164.1 199.8

Emissivity 177.4 181.8 186.3

Sky temperature 163.6 200.7

Average absorption coefficient Default


166.6 198.4
of the surrounding DEEVi:
Avg. wind speed 170.2 198.8 204.4

All the above combined 2 149.7 220.4

2
For reasons of simplification the range of results from each individually varied parameter were
combined assuming an uncorrelated linear relationship i.e. Dy = sumi [Dxi ].

44
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

5.9. Summary of the PHPP/DEEVi summer validation

The useful energy demand for sensible and latent cooling as calculated with DEEVi
Version 1.03 are in very good agreement with the dynamically calculated values
under all considered boundary conditions. Thanks to the algorithm modifications
carried out in the context of this project, as well as the added features for summer
ventilation strategies, highly relevant humidity related aspects are now represented
more extensively and accurately in the PHPP/DEEVi energy balance. The results
shown in this report clearly demonstrate that DEEVi can be used as a reliable
planning tool under Mexicos hot and/or humid climate conditions.

The user influence has a significant effect in the energy consumption of buildings.
This influence is currently depicted in DEEVi based in boundary conditions based on
the information available and assumptions can only be confirmed with future
monitoring projects.

45
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

6. Coordination of adaptation and simplification


In order to achieve a successful adaptation and simplification of PHPP into DEEVi,
coordination between all the partners, including a coordination trip on behalf of the
PHI, aided to the successful implementation of the DEEVi. The following section
covers some of the aspects that were included within the coordination activities.

6.1. Coordination trip

This coordination trip to Mexico enabled the PHI to directly communicate both with
the project partners as with relevant actors. Besides the agreements on important
issues the trip served as an opportunity to gather either technical input for the
development of the software or administrative input from financing institutions or
governmental organisations dealing with energy efficiency and living conditions.

Furthermore, in order to better understand construction types, methods and materials


of the current Mexican social housing, a construction site visit was carried out to the
big social housing development Los Hroes Tecmac. The trip provided better
knowledge of airtightness conditions in Mexican social housing, typical urban
development and materials. Additionally, the trip showed the necessity of the multiple
registration of houses because of the sheer size of the development itself and the
amount of houses to be built at once.

During the coordination meetings with specialists of GOPA, RUV and INFONAVIT,
the following issues were discussed and decided:

- Multiple registration of housing projects / registration packages

- Baseline calculation

- RUV registration system process

- Facilitation of verification

- NOM-020-ENER-2011 calculation

6.2. Multiple registration of houses / registration of packages

As a requirement for the registration into the system of RUV, the developers first
have to register a house prototype, regardless of its location or orientation, in form of
ground floor plans, sections, elevations, declaration of materials and so on. The
registration and energetic evaluation of the buildings would take place in a second

46
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

step, when whole house-packages will then be registered, up to 300 or 400 at once,
depending on the urban master plan of the site.

However, entrusting the developers to calculate the energy efficiency of every single
house in such a development would be too much of an effort in the course of the
registration process. This led to the requirement to evaluate the energetic
performance of a whole package of houses, containing different house prototypes
and even houses with different orientations.

The suggested solution was a parametric calculation of the energetic performance of


the 4 main orientations of one prototype. A convention was set up to always enter the
prototypes with their entrance doors heading north, so the calculations can be
verified more easily. For the whole package or development, an average calculation
can then be carried out within the RUV registration system, if the quantity of houses
with certain orientation and of certain prototypes has been declared by the developer.

6.3. Baseline calculation

One of the requirements of the system was that the tool would not only evaluate
absolute energy performance of a building, but also the efficiency improvement by
the use of efficiency improvements compared to a reference standard, a so called
baseline standard. The energetic comparison of the projected building and the
building according to this baseline standard, in the form of an overall energy demand
for heating, cooling and dehumidification and for the primary energy demand of the
building, is to be the basis for the scaling of the indicators of the Sisevive programme
initiated by INFONAVIT. This baseline is based on the NAMA calculations (for more
information see [PHI 2012]).

6.4. RUV registration system process

The developers are supposed to download the current version of DEEVi from RUVs
registration platform and enter specific data of the prototypes within a building. By
uploading and registering the prototype and the corresponding DEEVI calculation,
the projected houses and its energetic performance are read by the registration
platform of RUV and the developer gets feedback on the calculation.

For the upload of the DEEVi calculations to the RUV registration systems, two
possibilities were discussed:

The upload of the Excel workbook file with the entered data. In this case RUV
suggested the file size of the DEEVi should not exceed 4MB because of possible
problems with internet connections.

47
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

An alternative suggestion, which finally came to implementation, was that RUV


only reads information from the Resultados and the Verificacin worksheet. The
system takes the information of the selected file by the user and does not require
saving the large file. As a backup, in the case of an internal audit, a text file
containing all the exported information of the DEEVi, should be uploaded by the
user. Together with this, a security chain system would be implemented by RUV.

Ultimately, the second option was implemented. Section 6.10 presents a description
of this solution and the possible security issues that may arise with it.

6.5. Facilitation of verification

The upload of the DEEVi calculation spreadsheet starts a verification process.


Accredited verifiers of RUV will then check the building on-site progress, compare the
situation found on construction site with the data entered into the DEEVi, as well as
check the compliance of materials or components relevant for the energy
performance of the houses. This verification process is already required by Infonavit
within the registration of social housing projects.

In order to facilitate this process, two additional worksheets were developed and
included that should present the most important values of the calculation. The
Verificacin worksheet, which the DEEVi users cannot see, provides the verifiers
with the main information about the construction so that they can assess the
accuracy of the calculation and the compliance of the buildings in progress. The
second worksheet, Indicadores, serves to present the most relevant data entries
and allow a quick overview for the users over the precision of the entered values by
offering comparisons with boundary values that commonly seem reasonable for the
specific entry, like g-values or U-values of glazing, absorption coefficients, lambda-
values, etc.

6.6. Consideration of ceiling fans

Even if not cooling the interior air, ceiling fans are commonly applied in order to
improve indoor comfort in Mexican houses. According to DIN ISO 7730, the
acceptable indoor temperature can be increased 2.5 K through the use of ceiling fans
in all main rooms of a building. Ceiling fans can be entered in the worksheet for
summer ventilation. The acceptable indoor temperature for the cooling demand
calculation is the set to 27.5 C automatically and the energy loads created by the
ceiling fans will be considered for the internal heat gains.

48
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

6.7. Verification requirements

Since all built projects go through a process of on-site verification through certified
verification professionals on behalf of INFONAVIT, it was considered advantageous
that the list of issues to verify would be produced directly from the DEEVi tool. This
was first thought for the Indicadores worksheet, but as the project advanced, it was
decided that the Indicadores worksheet would remain as a double-check for the
user and that a hidden worksheet called Verificacin would present a simple list of
aspects for the verifier to assess on-site.

6.8. Consideration of eco-technologies

During the implementation of the DEEVi, the need to also integrate the eco-
technologies for the Hipoteca Verde programme into the calculations came about.
This was deemed useful not only from the perspective of the user who can have
more requirements centralised, but also from the requirements of registration of
projects and reduction of the flow of information for RUV. It was thus implemented
that the user can link the energy efficiency parameters used for the project to a
specific eco-technology. This information is also reported to the Verificacin
worksheet.

6.9. Multiple prototype registration

As the development of the tool advanced further (and once the beta version was out)
it was noticed that the registration on RUV happens per prototype. This meant that it
was calculated per apartment or living unit and not for the entire building envelope,
as DEEVi calculates. However, the energy evaluation of single living units or
apartments does not make sense from the energy balance point of view. This would
present too many uncertainties due to all the surfaces that are shared with other
apartments, where the boundary conditions are unknown, which would make such a
calculation too imprecise.

This is why a special system had to be developed, in which a building could be


introduced as a whole, but also divided into prototypes. This would also have
influence the Verificacin worksheet, since the verifiers revise not just whole
buildings, but also prototypes. The solution was created together with RUV,
INFONAVIT and GOPA and included important changes in many worksheets of
DEEVi, especially the Superficies and Verificacin worksheets. The implementation
of this issue had to be taken into account very carefully, because it could imply a
setback in the compatibility of PHPP and DEEVi,

49
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

6.10. Security issues

Another issue which arose during the implementation process after the beta version
was available, was the security of the tool. Since all the DEEVi files subscripted to a
project cannot possibly be revised due to logistics and staff, a solution had to be
implemented that would both include security checks for RUV, but that would allow
the system to flow quickly and to maintain the file size usage at its lowest. The
security chains solution was then proposed by RUV. This way PHI indicated around
80 cells that would be more susceptible to changes by the user, and RUV makes
sure to check that these cells are not changed when the user enters the information
into their system.

PHI expressed its concerns for the security of the entire system. This is because
without a thorough check, it would be almost impossible to ensure that no user can
enter faulty information or make changes into the algorithms, which makes the
system more susceptible to errors. However, this option was chosen for
implementation since in the end, it is easier to be executed. Uploading and revising
all the DEEVi files produced by the project developers would be so time consuming,
that the system at this stage cannot support the required effort.

50
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

7. NOM020 calculation
The current valid Mexican standard for energy efficiency of the building envelope of
residential buildings, the NOM-020-ENER-2011, has been integrated into the DEEVi
calculation tool, as agreed with the Mexican institutions. The calculations of the
standard within the DEEVi are based on a spreadsheet calculation tool provided by
CONUEE. Further adaptation of the DEEVi was undertaken in close collaboration
with GOPA, so as to assure that the method of data entry fulfilled the requirements of
the calculation methodology defined by the standard.

The calculation of the NOM-020-ENER-2011 is now fully referenced to the data


entries for the DEEVi and therefore operates entirely automatic. The following
sections present a general overview of the adaptation and adjustments that the
DEEVi had to undergo in order to integrate the NOM-020-ENER-2011 calculation. A
more detailed description of the functionality of both calculation tools can be found in
the DEEVi users manual.

7.1. Compliance with the norm

The compliance with the standard is reported automatically in the Resultados


worksheet of DEEVi. In order to facilitate the registration and verification process for
large housing developments, it was agreed to automatically calculate the four
possible orientations defined by the standard, thus allowing for the simultaneous
registration of different oriented building prototypes. This way, the user receives
feedback on the quality of the evaluated building instantaneously after introducing
information about it.

At a later stage of the development of the DEEVi it was convened that the calculation
of the norm should always be done orienting the building with the larger window
areas facing west. This way, the calculations are done on the safe side. Though the
tool calculates the four possible orientations of the building on the Resultados
worksheet, the rest of the worksheets only show the calculations for the main
orientation entered by the user. This means, the user should be aware of this
convention and enter the building with the corresponding orientation.

51
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

7.2. Automatic retrieval of data entered into DEEVi for the NOM-020-
ENER-2011 calculation

All data entered by the user for the DEEVi calculation, which is based on the PHPP
methodology as described in this report, can be then used for the calculation of the
NOM-020-ENER-2011. It is thus not necessary that the user enters the same
information twice.

The automatic calculation of the Mexican norm was achieved through the
introduction of all the tables contained in the NOM-020-ENER-2011 document, and
the linkage of all the building information already entered by the user. This lessens
significantly the effort that the user would have to undertake while also reducing the
possibility of mistakes, when erroneously copying information from the annexes of
the norm. Some specific issues about the integration of both calculation tools are
presented next.

7.3. General data and calculation values (datos generales y valores para
el clculo)

The worksheets NOM020_Datos generales and NOM020_Valores para el clculo


both present the basic building values used for the calculation of the norm, including
general building information, dimensions of opaque surfaces and windows,
orientation, location, equivalent ambient and inside temperatures, K-coefficient, solar
gain coefficient, etc. This information is updated automatically based on the input of
the worksheets Resultados, Comprobacin, Superficies and Ventanas of DEEVi.
It also gathers information from the NOM020_Tabla 1. This way, the user must not
enter the information twice and any data update is automatically retrieved in the
calculation of the NOM-020-ENER-2011 as well.

7.4. Calculation of shading factors

The calculation of the external shading correction factors was also automatized, so
the user does not have to do additional calculations. The NOM-020-ENER-2011
specifies the calculation of shading factors through the use of reduction factors,
which are obtained from the tables annexed to the text of the norm (table 2 through 5
NOM-020-ENER-2011). These reduction factors tables were integrated into DEEVi
and the calculation of such shading factors was made automatic. The only value that
the user has to enter in addition to the automatic calculations is the value of A,
according to the norm, corresponding to the lateral width of the shading object. This
reduces the effort of this calculation for the user significantly, also reducing the
possibility of input mistakes.

52
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

After agreement with CONUEE the convention was established that the programme
always calculates the shading factors on the safe side. For example, in the case that
the side overhang of a window is an irregular form, the shortest width will be
considered.

7.5. Calculation of K-Value (coeficiente-K)

The calculation method of the thermal transmittance of building elements defined by


the Mexican Standard NOM-020-ENER-2011 (expressed by the K-value) is different
to the method defined by the international standard EN ISO 6946 (expressed by the
U-value). It was agreed that DEEVi contemplates both standards and calculates in
parallel according to the different methodologies.

In DEEVi the user enters the information about the thermal transmittance of the
opaque building elements in the Valores-U worksheet. The tool transfers this
information either to the NOM020_Coeficiente-K worksheet, in the case of building
elements with only homogeneous layers, or to the NOM020_Sup No Homognea 1
and NOM020_Sup No Homognea 2, in the case that the building element presents
inhomogeneous layers.

This way, DEEVi calculates with the U-Value according to the EN ISO 6946, so as to
correspond to the internationally common methodologies for CO 2 emission
calculations. At the same time, the tool reports the compliance with the valid Mexican
standard through the K-Value for conveying with the NOM-020-ENER-2011. Despite
the differences in methodology, the user only has to enter the information details to
calculate the thermal transmittance once

7.6. Reference building (edificio de referencia)

The data about the reference building which can be found on the NOM020_Edificio
de referencia worksheet are linked with the NOM020_Datos generales worksheet.
At the same time the NOM020_Datos generales worksheet contains references to
other parts of the DEEVi as previously described in section 7.3. The reference
building is then calculated with the thermal transmittance based on the Tabla 1 of the
norm and a percentage of transparent elements of 10%.

53
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

7.7. Projected building (edificio proyectado)

The NOM020_Edificio proyectado 1 and NOM020_Edificio proyectado 2


worksheets present the characteristics of the entered building, as designed by the
user the way it is established by the official Mexican norm. The information presented
in these worksheets is linked and automatically updated from the Superficies,
Ventanas and NOM020_Tabla 1 worksheets.

7.8. Automatic determination of possible compliance with norm and


etiquette

The NOM-020-ENER-2011 stipulates that a comparison must be made between the


projected and the reference buildings in order to establish the compilation with the
norm as well as the amount of energy savings of the building. This comparison is
made in the NOM020_Resumen del Clculo worksheet. In this worksheet the final
results for the reference and projected building is automatically updated and the
comparison is calculated automatically throwing a final percentage for the energy
savings achieved by the building.

Moreover, the possible compliance with the norm is reported, as mentioned before, in
the Resultados worksheet for the four orientations of the building. The results of the
actual calculated project, without consideration of the four orientations, are also
reported in the Comprobacin worksheet. This enables the user to take the
influence of the different energy efficiency parameters into account. Moreover, the
NOM_020_Etiqueta worksheet also updates automatically and shows, in the form of
the etiquette stipulated by the norm, the possible compliance with it.

54
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

8. PHPP adaptation and simplification for Mexico


Since PHPP is an international calculation tool, which can also be used for non-
residential buildings and several different equipment and building systems, many
sections of it had to be either adapted, simplified or even deleted in order to meet the
requirements of the system (a simplified tool for the Mexican social housing users).
In addition to the issues mentioned in section 6, the following section describes the
actual simplifications and adaptations that the PHPP underwent in order to create the
DEEVi.

8.1. Elimination of calculations and input areas for non-residential


buildings

Since DEEVi is a tool for evaluating housing projects, all the worksheets and
references to non-residential buildings of PHPP had to be deleted, including all
related information in the users manual. This was relatively uncomplicated when it
came to worksheets not linked to other worksheets, but proved to be more complex
when it affected contents of worksheets included in DEEVi, for example, the
Comprobacin worksheet. Every worksheet, column, line or formula deleted from
PHPP always has to be revised because it can affect other calculations.

8.2. Elimination of international climate data and development of climate


zone climate data sets for Mexico

The climate data plays a crucial role in the energy demand calculations. PHPP
contains hundreds of climate data sets for a wide variety of global locations. Since
DEEVi is a tool that has been adapted for the Mexican market, these entire
international climate databases were deleted, contributing to reducing the size of the
file and to providing a tool that aims at social housing projects in Mexico. Moreover,
the climate database was further developed and adapted. The selection of climate
data in DEEVi has been explained in section 4 of this report.

8.3. Elimination of pre-entered specific building component data and


replacement by Mexican data

PHPP includes a broad list of certified components to facilitate the planning of energy
Passive Houses and highly energy efficient buildings. These lists have been replaced
by lists of Mexican components, mainly with building elements that are common to
social housing projects. The lists were provided to the Passive House Institute by
GOPA. It is also possible for the user to include other components apart from the
ones listed, as long as the characteristic values are known.

55
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

8.4. Elimination of input sheets for the calculation of heating systems,


heating and cooling load

Part of the adaptation of PHPP into DEEVi included deleting sections that refer to
systems that are not typical for Mexico. This is why the worksheets HP-Combi (for
calculating combined heat pumps) and District Heating of PHPP were deleted.
Furthermore, it was decided that the worksheets that include the detailed calculation
of the heating and cooling demand (Annual Heating Demand, Monthly Method,
Cooling and Summer) were to be hidden, to avoid confusion to the user and to focus
on the evaluation of the passive measures and the improvement of the building, and
keeping the tool as simple as possible. Finally, the information about the heating and
cooling load was also eliminated, as a further simplification to the results.

8.5. Ground calculation

Heat losses or loads through the ground can be considered in two different ways in
PHPP 7. One method is the Ground worksheet, which is based on an algorithm
developed by Hagentoft (cf. e.g. [Hagentoft 1988]) that has later become [ISO 13370]
and has been corrected and extended by the PHI (cf. [AkkP 27]). This worksheet
requires several additional inputs about ground properties and geometrical properties
of the building. In order to simplify the input to DEEVi, this worksheet was removed.

Instead, the second method from the PHPP was applied. It makes use of climate-
dependent reduction factors for the heat flows through the ground. The major
advantage of this method is that it does not require any additional user input.

However, during the tests of the DEEVi it turned out that, under certain
circumstances, the default procedure for heat transfer through the ground did not
lead to satisfactory results. In particular, the fact that the reduction factor is
independent of the building shape and insulation level makes it impossible to account
for both uninsulated and well-insulated slabs. For buildings with good thermal
protection of the above-ground building shell, but with an uninsulated floor slab, the
difference between the simplified procedure and the more precise method from the
Ground worksheet became unacceptable.

In order to achieve improved accuracy without the need for additional input, a new
algorithm was developed: The thermal resistance between the top of the floor slab
and the ground surface can be represented by a series connection of two
resistances, that of the floor slab itself (basically 1/(UA)) and that of the ground. The
latter resistance was precalculated for a relatively unfavourable situation and is
added to the resistance of any building element that is adjacent to the ground. Thus,

56
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

the reduction of heat flows through the floor slab by the ground below is taken into
account as accurately as possible without compromising the simple input for the
user.

8.6. Simplification of thermal bridge loss coefficient calculation

Thermal bridges can have an important influence in the energy balance and its
precise calculation requires expert knowledge. In DEEVi, in order to consider the
thermal losses through thermal bridge effect without the absolute need for precise
calculations, a supplement standard value has been included. This value depends on
the total surface of the thermal envelope. This thermal bridge supplement is
automatically calculated in the Superficies worksheet. In the case that the user
wants to have a more precise estimation of the thermal bridges in the building, other
values for standard thermal bridges, on the safe side, have been included and listed
in the same worksheet. The user only has to enter the dimensions of the thermal
bridges.

8.7. Simplification of windows input

The specific consideration of Psi-Values for glazing-edge or window-installation was


simplified by pre-entering a default linear thermal bridge value of 0.08 W/mK for the
glazing edges as well as for the window-installation.

As most of the glazing produced in Europe is described with a g-Value, the PHPP
and thereby the DEEVi calculations use g-Values to calculate radiation gains by
transparent elements. The CS value presents a quotient of the g-Value of the glazing
and the g-Value of a 3mm clear glazing (0.87):

g-Value = 0.87 x CS-Value / CS-Value = g-Value / 0.87

To enable the data entry of Mexican glazing that is defined by CS-Value, both values
can be entered, and a special column was added for the calculation from CS- to g-
Value or the other way around.

57
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

8.8. Simplification of shading input by generation of default values for


horizontal shading

An important simplification carried out for DEEVi was the standardisation of the
calculation of the shading effects of surrounding buildings. In PHPP, the user has to
indicate the distances and heights of all surrounding shading objects. For DEEVi, the
only information that the user should introduce is the average width of the streets and
the average height of the buildings. The shading factor is then estimated
automatically, reducing the effort that the user has to put into this calculation. This
also leads to the reduction of the precision of the effects by this type of shading.

8.9. Simplification of U-Value input of U-values

U-Values of elements are dependent on layer-thickness and the l-value [W/(mK)] of


the materials. While the layer-thickness is known very well, the l-values of the
materials are often unknown. To facilitate the input of the layers of roofs, walls or
floors, two lists of l-values were added next to the U-Value calculations, one list
defined by the NOM-020-ENER-2011 and one list with several insulation materials
fulfilling the NOM-018-ENER

8.10. Simplification of ventilation input

The data input of air quantities or air change rates for ventilation purposes was
facilitated by an automatic calculation of the maximum of 3 different ventilation
demand cases :

Case a) minimum air change rate of 0.3 1/h

Case b) minimum fresh air demand based on 30 m/(P*h)

Case c) minimum exhaust air demand based on the number of kitchens or


bathrooms entered in the DEEVi, according to DIN 1946-6, also see 4.7

8.11. Simplification of input of cooling units

The input for air conditioning units in PHPP includes options for the calculation of air
supply air cooling and panel cooling. For DEEVi, these options were removed, to
simplify the data introduction and better adapt to the reality of the Mexican market.

Moreover, based on the availability of the Mexican market, a list of air conditioning
and dehumidification units were included. The user can select one from the list or

58
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

incorporate a unit different than the ones included. As part of the adaptation to
Mexico, the DEEVi user has the possibility to introduce the electrical power either in
kW or in tonnes, which is a more common unit for air conditioning engineering in
Mexico.

Moreover, as not all buildings are registered with air conditioning units, the
calculation of a theoretical cooling demand was implemented. This way, when the
user does not indicate a cooling/dehumidification unit for the building or when the
units indicated are not enough to cover the demand, DEEVi calculates it with a
theoretical low efficient unit. This way, the programme shows a demand to be used in
the qualification system, but the project developer is not forced to install
cooling/dehumidification units in the building.

8.12. Parametric calculation of 4 orientations and baseline case


calculation

As described in section 6.2, a parallel calculation of the specific energy demands of


the same building orientated to 4 main directions was required to allow the
registration of whole packages of houses. In case the master plan of a development
is not exactly orientated to north, the (average in case of non-regular urban design
layout) deviation of the streets to north can be entered. The prototype or building still
has to be entered correctly orientated to north, the deviation from which will be
considered in the Resultados worksheet only.

In addition, a reference value of a baseline standard building was needed to be able


to evaluate the energy reduction provided by the efficiency measures applied for the
project (see 6.3).

For this baseline standard, default values for the quality of walls, roofs, windows or
efficiency of the main electricity household units were used, differing to general
default values presented in section 3. These values were defined according to the
NAMA [PHI 2012] and are presented in Table 14. Any of the calculation of the
reference baseline case is carried out employing these default values.

59
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

Table 14. Basic values for DEEVi low comfort baseline calculation

Indoor Temperatures

Winter temperature 20 C acc. to [Fanger 1970] / NAMA

Summer temperature 25 C acc. to [Fanger 1970] / NAMA

Summer temperature with fans not considered in baseline

Domestic Hot Water

Percentage of solar hot water generation 0 % not considered in baseline

Ventilation

Airtightness (n50 test result) 15.2 1/h Passive House Institute

Ventilation Window acc. to NAMA_Baseline

Household electricity appliances

Dish washing not considered

Clothes drying Clothesline, exterior

Clothes washing 1.12 kWh/use acc. to NAMA_Baseline

Refrigerator/Freezer 2.68 kWh/d acc. to NAMA_Baseline

Cooking (with gas) 0.25 kWh/use acc. to NAMA_EcoCasa1

Lighting (with 100% CLFs) 11 kWh/(P*a) acc. to NAMA_EcoCasa1

Consumer electronics 180 kWh/(P*a) acc. to NAMA_EcoCasa1

Small household appliances 50 kWh/(P*a) acc. to NAMA_EcoCasa1

Quality of opaque building envelope

U-values of opaque elements 4.30 W/(mK) acc. to NAMA

Absorptivity roof 50 % acc. to NAMA

Absorptivity exterior walls 80 % acc. to NAMA

60
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

Quality of transparent building envelope

U-values of window glazing 5.60 W/(mK) acc. to NAMA

g-Value of window glazing 0.87 acc. to NAMA

U-values of window frames 5.50 W/(mK) acc. to NAMA

Temporary shading in summer

Temporary shading not considered in baseline

Cooling units

EER for sensible cooling 2.72 acc. to NOM-023-ENER-2010

EER for dehumidification 0.80 Passive House Institute

8.13. Hidden worksheets in DEEVi

For DEEVi, many worksheets that were irrelevant for the evaluation of Mexican social
housing projects were eliminated, as described in section 8.4 of this report. However,
other worksheets that still have a function in DEEVi (e.g. Annual Heating Demand
worksheet) but are not crucial for Mexico, or that were not wished by the project
counterparts, were hidden. These worksheets can always be activated again, if so
wished, in order to make the DEEVi evaluation more precise.

8.14. Import-/Export macros

From the version 1.03 of DEEVi onwards, there is an Import-Export tool that allows
transferring data from a DEEVi to another DEEVi. On one hand, this is useful for the
user, who can copy the information of, for example, a same prototype but with
different building characteristics, without having to enter the entire building geometry
again. On the other hand, this will also allow for RUV to keep a back-up of all projects
registered in RUV with a very low memory size, in case of an audit.

61
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

8.15. Hipoteca Verde Button for specific calculation of Hipoteca Verde


wall

In the Superficies worksheet of DEEVi, the user has the option, by checking a cell, to
calculate automatically a wall with a different construction, oriented to a predefined
direction. This way, when the four orientations of a prototype are calculated, the wall
with highest solar radiation can be calculated with thermal insulation always to the
optimal orientation, as stipulated in the Hipoteca Verde programme.

8.16. Input of eco-technologies according to Infonavit Hipoteca Verde


lists into the DEEVi

All of the 33 eco-technologies from the Hipoteca Verde catalogue are listed in the
Indicadores worksheet. The user has the opportunity to use the corresponding
identification number and introduce it in the analogous worksheets (Valores-U,
Aparatos-R, Calentador, ACS-Solar) to indicate when an eco-technology is used in
a project. This is later reported in the Verificacin worksheet and can be taken into
account when registering the Project in RUV. Moreover, in the Indicadores
worksheet, next to the list of the eco-technologies, a reference is automatically
displayed whenever the user has indicated an eco-technology in the rest of the
worksheets of DEEVi. The verifier also gets a report on which eco-technologies are
being reported in the project.

8.17. Graphic display of different results within the result sheet

A group of graphs have been included at the bottom of the Resultados worksheet to
assist the evaluation of the energy efficiency of the housing projects. These
represent the results in terms of the energy balances of heating and sensible cooling
demand, the final and primary energy for electricity and other sources and a monthly
summary of the gains and losses for the cooling and heating cases. This can be of
great help to the user when seeking to optimise a project, as it can clearly be seen
which the weakest components of the building are and the effects of its optimisation
can also instantly be confirmed.

8.18. Implementation of a registration number

As DEEVi will have a very large number of users within the Sisevive programme, it
was necessary to implement a way to protect the software and to ensure that only
registered users of the RUV system have access to the calculation tool. The use of
registration numbers, that are given to each user individually, was thus implemented.
This way, the DEEVi tool can only calculate correctly when a valid registration

62
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

number is entered in the Comprobacin worksheet. This function was developed


specially for the DEEVi and allows for having a better overview and control on the
user licences and the validity of the calculations.

8.19. Air change rate by infiltration defaults in the DEEVi

As has been explained in section 3.7 of this report, the airtightness of typical Mexican
housing projects was analysed in order to obtain a standardised airtightness value for
the calculation of infiltration air exchange rate without the need of a pressurization
test in DEEVi. This standardised value is mostly based on the type of window
installed in the project, taking into account the most typical window types in Mexican
housing projects.

The user has the opportunity to choose between the following 3 types of windows:

Case a) Pivot windows with gaskets

Case b) Pivot windows without gaskets

Case c) Sliding windows without gaskets (as commonly used in Mexico)

According to these cases, the infiltration air exchange rate is automatically


calculated, based on the information of the building envelope. The values are on the
safe side and go from a very low airtightness (case c) to a relatively higher
airtightness (case a). In the case that the user does make the effort of performing a
pressurization test, there is the opportunity to introduce this value directly, in which
case the standardised calculation is blocked.

8.20. DEEVi users manual

In the same way as the DEEVi tool, which undertook several modifications for the
development of the 1.03 version, the PHPP manual had to be adapted and revised,
parallel to the modifications of the tool. Every time an update was made to the tool,
the corresponding information had to be updated and translated into the manual.

Moreover, additional energy efficiency advice was integrated to serve the DEEVi
users as an additional guideline about basic points to consider regarding energy
efficiency. Other supplementary issues that were integrated were an acronym list, a
glossary and a step-by-step example of how to enter multiple prototypes into the
DEEVi tool. This way, the users manual is not only a guide to learn how to use the
DEEVi, but also it has the added value of reinforcing the knowledge about the basic
energy efficiency concepts on which DEEVi and PHPP is based.

63
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

9. Spanish Translation of DEEVi

9.1. Spanish translation of the DEEVi tool

The DEEVi, simplified tool based on PHPP, also based its translation process on the
translation process of the PHPP software. This procedure uses an Excel macro that
extracts all the single cells of the PHPP into a list and, after translation, re-enters all
these thousands of cells back into the PHPP file or, in this case, into the DEEVi file.
Finally, the formatting and congruence of the entire DEEVi file had to be revised and
adapted to fit the DEEVi screen, including the hidden comments in each of the
worksheets of DEEVi. After the translation and formatting process was implemented,
the correct operation of the tool was checked to make sure that no formulae were
altered during the translation process and that the integrity of the coherence and
formatting of the file remained unaffected.

9.2. Spanish translation of the DEEVi Manual

The DEEVi manual, originally written in German/English, was translated into


Spanish. Once the beta version of the manual was ready, the valuable support of
GOPA and Infonavit and of the pilot course participants was of great help, not only
for corrections but also for further adaptation to Mexican terminology and to the
Sisevive programme.

64
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

10. Conclusions
The DEEVi tool, mainly based on PHPP, had to undergo many adaptations and
simplifications in order to meet the current requirements of the Sisevive-Ecocasa
programme. The final result is a tool that meets many necessities while being flexible
to continue adapting and progressing with the programme itself. Furthermore, the
tool has been recognised by relevant Mexican public and private stakeholders.

One of the most important accomplishments of the DEEVi is the automatic


calculation of the official Mexican norm NOM-020-ENER-2011. After the introduction
of the information about the climate region and location, building geometry and the
material properties of the projects, the tool automatically carries out the calculation
according to the methodology established by the standard. The tool also adopts the
required information contained in the Tabla 1 through Tabla 5 of the norm
automatically, thus reducing the chances of input mistakes. Ultimately, the tool
generates the reference and projected buildings as stipulated by the norm,
comparing them and reporting the amount of energy savings.

The theoretical validation and analyses have shown that the PHPP and thereby the
DEEVi calculation algorithms produce reliable results for energy balance calculations
in both hot and humid climates. Further knowledge can only be gained by monitoring
projects. Many of the default values of DEEVi have been based on the knowledge
currently at hand and were agreed with the Mesa Transversal de Vivienda
Sustentable. These values may be adapted as a result of future studies. Likewise,
possible standardisation and homogenisation of the methodology, units and
conversion factors of the relevant indicators between the Mexican NAMA and the
Sisevive-Ecocasa programme may also influence the current version of the tool.

One particular and crucial issue that will require special attention within the
framework of the monitoring projects is dehumidification. In the course of the project
it became clear that dehumidification is not a common practice in Mexican
households. This is true, even though the climate data shows the need for
dehumidification in many Mexican climates in order to achieve a comfortable indoor
environment and avoid building damage through condensing water and mould
growth. It is also closely linked both to sensible and latent cooling.

This document concludes the first phase, dedicated to the development of the tool
and the adaptation to Mexico (feedback from the training courses to 600 developers
has been contemplated and incorporated). The upcoming phase involves the testing
of the tool within the pilot phase in RUV. The experiences from the test run, as well
as first results from the monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) programme will
allow for further revisions of the calculation tool.

65
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

10.1. Recommendations and next steps, DEEVi

The DEEVi version 1 has been a result of the extensive team work of all involved
parties. The final outcome is a tool that meets the needs of the current social housing
market and that enables the implementation of the Sisevive-Ecocasa programme.
Some examples of possible future adaptations are:

- As the prototype calculation was implemented half way into the development
of the tool, after agreement with Infonavit/RUV, this aspect of the calculation
can be enhanced, particularly after the feedback from the pilot phase is
gathered. An example would be the inclusion of an auxiliary introduction of
areas into the Superficies worksheet.

- Improvement of of drop-down menus through the use of drop-down lists

- Detailed introduction of electrical appliances and/or lighting (if they are to be


provided by the project developer)

- Introduction of further calculation tools (e.g. calculation of geothermal heat


pumps) or improvement of current tools (e.g. enhancement of the IFV
worksheet for calculation of photovoltaic systems)

- Replenishment of component database, including more Mexican available


components with its characteristic values

10.2. Recommendations and next steps, energy efficiency in Mexico

As a result of the knowledge gathered during the development of the projects in


Mexico, but also over 20 years of experience in the field of energy efficiency in
buildings, the Passive House Institute has also gathered the following issues as
recommended next steps for the on-going developments in Mexico:

a) Pilot projects and monitoring: after the theoretical implementation it seems


crucial to have built examples that can prove that efficiency works. Namely,
there should be a representative number of examples. This ought to include
the appropriate consultancy for planning and implementation and a meaningful
monitoring programme that examines energy consumption, living comfort, user
behaviour and satisfaction.

b) Capacity building measures: it is very important that further courses and


awareness making actions are carried out in order to cover the aspects related
or influenced by energy efficiency measures in buildings such as fire
protection, manufacturing guidelines, avoiding building damage, and humidity

66
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

problematic of insulating materials and as side effect of active cooling, central


building equipment systems and non-residential buildings.

c) Studies: further studies about topics that are relevant for the future
developments of energy efficiency in Mexico such as saving and expansion
potentials, non-residential use, urban development, different housing types
and energy efficiency in illegal spontaneous settlements and buildings.

d) Technology transfer: there seems to be the opportunity of further expansion of


the technology available, especially when it comes to highly energy efficient
buildings. Examples of technical solutions are efficient ventilation systems with
heat recovery, dehumidification systems, highly energy efficient windows and
solutions for ensuring airtightness in constructions.

e) Communication platform: a platform that would address the topic of energy


efficiency in building would be desirable. This could be a very useful tool to
offer an overview of the results of pilot projects, monitoring, analyses, reports,
Mexican legislation and energy efficient products and trainings or courses.

f) Involvement of the private sector, construction industry and tradespeople:


separate of the registered construction companies that are regularly receiving
courses and trainings, there seems to be the need to integrate the rest of the
building industry, including component manufacturers, architects and building
engineers, energy consultants as well as tradespeople.

67
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

11. References
[AkkP 27] Wrmeverluste durch das Erdreich; Protokollband Nr. 27 des
Arbeitskreises kostengnstige Passivhuser Phase III; Passivhaus Institut;
Darmstadt 2004.

[Bednar 2012] Bednar, T., R. Hanic, T. Holzer, M. Grner: Strategische Optimierung


der Luftfeuchteregulation bei Lftungsanlagen zur Reduktion des Energieeinsatzes
fr Be- und Entfeuchtungsanlagen. Bundesministerium fr Verkehr, Innovation und
Technologie, Wien 2012

[Fanger 1970] Fanger, P.O.: Thermal Comfort. Analysis and Applications in


Envronmental Engineering. McGraw-Hill, 1970

[Feist 1994] Feist, Wolfgang: Thermische Gebudesimulation: kritische Prfung


unterschiedlicher Modellanstze; Heidelberg: Verlag C.F. Mller, 1994.

[Feist 2011] Feist, Wolfgang (Ed.): Passive Houses for different climate zones.
Passivhaus Institut, Darmstadt, November 2011.

[GEMIS] Globale Emissions-Modell integrierter Systeme (GEMIS). ko-Institut e.V.,


Version 4.2; Oktober 2004.

[Hagentoft 1988] Hagentoft, Carl-Eric: Heat loss to the ground from a building. Slab
on the ground and cellar, Lund Institute of Technology, Division of Building
Technology, Report TVBH-1004, Lund, April 1988.

[ISO 7730] DIN EN ISO 7730:2006-06: Ergonomics of the thermal environment -


Analytical determination and interpretation of thermal comfort using calculation of the
PMV and PPD indices and local thermal comfort criteria (ISO 7730:2005); Beuth,
Berlin May 2006

[ISO 13370] DIN EN ISO 13370, 1998-12: Wrmetechnisches Verhalten von


Gebuden, Wrmebertragung ber das Erdreich, Berechnungsverfahren, Beuth-
Verlag, Berlin 1998.

[NOM-003-ENER-2010] Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-003-ENER-2011, Eficiencia


trmica de calentadores de agua para uso domstico y comercial. Lmites, mtodo
de prueba y etiquetado; Secretara de Energa - Pedraza Hinojosa, Mexico, 2010

[NOM-010-ENER-2004] Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-010-ENER-2004, Eficiencia


energtica del conjunto motor bomba sumergible tipo pozoprofundo. Lmites y
mtodo de prueba. Secretara de Energa, Mexico 2004

68
0120_Infonavit: DEEVi Final Report

[NOM-020-ENER-2011] Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-020-ENER-2011, Eficiencia


energtica en edificaciones.- Envolvente de edificios para uso habitacional.
Secretara de Energa - Pedraza Hinojosa, Mexico, 2011

[NOM-023-ENER-2010] Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-023-ENER-2010, Eficiencia


energtica en acondicionadores de aire tipo dividido, descarga libre y sin conductos
de aire. Lmites, mtodo de prueba y etiquetado. Secretara de Energa - Pedraza
Hinojosa, Mexico, 2010

[NOM-024-ENER-2012] Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-024-ENER-2012,


Caractersticas trmicas y pticas del vidrio y sistemas vidriados para edificaciones.
Etiquetado y mtodos de prueba. Secretara de Energa - Pedraza Hinojosa, Mexico,
2012

[Schnieders 2012] Schnieders, Jrgen: Planungstools fr den Sommerfall im


Nichtwohngebude. In: Arbeitskreis kostengnstige Passivhuser, Protokollband Nr.
41, Darmstadt, Passivhaus Institut, 2012

[PHI 2012] Passive House Institute, NAMA Technical Annex:Evaluation of social


housing building types in Mexico, Passive House Institute, Darmstadt, Germany,
2012

[Zeller 2008] Zeller, Joachim: Messung der Luftdichtheit der Gebudehlle;


Auswertung. In: Gebude-Luftdichtheit Band 1; Kassel; Fachverband fr Luftdichtheit
im Bauwesen e.V (FLIB), 2008

69
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Annex 1. The dynamic building simulation software


DYNBIL
Brief description

The first version of Dynbil, the hygrothermal dynamic simulation software for
buildings, was created by Dr. Wolfgang Feist in the 1980s in order to study concepts
for low energy buildings. Since then, the programme has been continually developed.
The algorithms used in Dynbil were developed and further theoretically substantiated
in Feists dissertation (on the subject of Thermal Building Simulation, published in
[Feist 1994]) based on parameter studies and comparisons with other programmes.
From 1990 onwards, the programme was used with great success for the planning
and subsequent evaluation of measured data of the first Passive House in
Darmstadt-Kranichstein. A graphical user interface was provided in 1997; since 2007
it has been possible to depict the influences of storage and transport of moisture in
buildings and its interaction with the thermal processes.

The validation of the Dynbil software is based on several built and monitored Passive
House projects. Of particular importance is [Feist 1997] where the outstandingly well-
prepared and carefully meassured Darsmtadt-Kranischstein Passive House is
documented. Among other things, the temperature conditions of exterior components
and glazing surfaces were considered in the analysis together with extraordinarily
accurate monitoring of the internal heat gains through detailed recording of user
behaviours over several weeks. Successful measurement and simulation
comparisons are also documented, for example in [Kaufmann 2001] for another free-
standing terrace house, and in [Schnieders 2002] for a non-residential building. In
2012, validation of the hygric part of the calculations took place through a
comparison with specialised software for hygrothermal examination of individual
building components.

The main characteristics of Dynbil are summarised in the following table (see also
Annex figure 1).

70
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Features

Model type Dynamic multi-zone 2-star network model; 3-star model


for surface heating

Building model Zone model linked through reference values (e.g. for
ventilation) and dynamic models of walls

Room model 2-star model: indoor air and radiative nodes are dealt with
separately, a heating surface node is added in case of
surface heating

Long-wave radiative Radiant heat exchange takes place between the interior
exchange inside the surface on the inside and the (not real) radiation node.
room The interior surfaces of components multiplied by their
emissivity are weighting factors. Temperature
dependency according to Plancks law. Convective heat
transfer is completely separate from this.

Convective heat Empirical formulae with heat transfer coefficients


transfer inside the depending on temperature differences according to
room a = a Tm DTn, calculated separately for each surface,
differing vertically, horizontally, above and below.

Thermal window model Each pane in a multiple glazing unit has its own
temperature node (without thermal capacity). Heat
transfer between the panes through long-wave radiation
and convection is calculated as a function of the
temperature. A star-triangle transformation eliminates the
pane surface in the room model.

71
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Window model for The following are determined by summing up the multiple
short-wave irradiation reflections:

a) Transmission of solar radiation,

b) Solar absorption in each pane and the resulting heat


flows at the interior surface.

Direct radiation and diffuse radiation are calculated


separately, each of the radiation-related physical
characteristics of the glazing is taken into account
depending on the angle of incidence

Short-wave irradiation Distribution of the incident radiation on the surfaces of the


inside the room room by means of a single calculation of the distribution
factors

Wall model One-dimensional dynamic heat conduction; discretisation


with p-elements. Calculation of the wall temperatures
using the forward differences method, which ensures
energy conservation in all circumstances. Moisture
transfer processes are shown analogously, separate
diffusion and sorption conduction, non-linear sorption
isotherms of the materials; taking into account of sorption
heat. Depiction of latent heat storage in building
components is possible

Ventilation model Time and temperature dependant parametrisable


conductance of the indoor air nodes to the outside or to
other interior air nodes, also in the form of directed flow

Ventilation heat Heat exchanger with heat recovery and possibly moisture
recovery recovery, taking into account condensation inside the
heat exchanger

Convective heat Empirical formulae a = a0 + a1vn (v wind velocity)


transfer at outer
surfaces of walls a0 -?

a1 -?

Long-wave radiative Long-wave radiation balance exchanged with the


exchange at outer atmosphere, the surroundings and objects causing
surfaces of walls shading with fixed incidence coefficients

72
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Short-wave radiation Constant absorption coefficient at the exterior surface,


absorption at outer which can be preset individually for each building
surfaces of walls component

Shading Consideration of rectangular shading elements at the


sides and above the windows, as well as horizontal
shading for direct and diffuse radiation; analogously for
opaque exterior components

Climate data Input of hourly data regarding exterior temperature,


ground temperature, atmospheric counter-radiation, wind
velocity, outdoor air humidity, diffuse and direct solar
irradiation; other time resolutions are also possible.
Determination of e.g. ground temperatures is possible via
multi-dimensional thermal conductance models

Internal heat sources Possible for users to expressly preset these, input into
the indoor air and radiative nodes or into a surface

Heating system Alternatively:

a) Ideal air heating

b) heating using radiators

c) heating using surface heaters

d) supply air heating,

each with parameterisable pre-defined nominal values for


the indoor air temperature depending on the condition of
the building. Simulation of hot water pie networks,
thermostat valves, heat dissipated from heaters and
concrete core temperature control is possible, regulation
according to indoor and temperatures or operative
temperatures

Room and building Successive iteration:


model solution
a) determination of the temperature-dependent reference
values and preparation of the coupling equations
between the indoor air node and the radiation node in all
rooms (e.g. ventilation heat flows)

b) determination of the temperatures through inversion of


the linear equation system for the entire building

73
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Annex figure 1. Example of zone modelling in DYNBIL

74
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Literature

[Feist 1994] Feist, Wolfgang: Thermische Gebudesimulation: kritische Prfung


unterschiedlicher Modellanstze. 1. Aufl., Heidelberg, C. F. Mller 1994

Feist, Wolfgang: Thermal building simulation: critical examination of


different modelling approaches. 1st edition, Heidelberg, C. F. Mller 1994

[Feist 1997] Feist, Wolfgang, Tobias Loga: Vergleich von Messung und Simulation. In:
AkkP, Protokollband Nr. 5, Energiebilanz und Temperaturverhalten, PHI,
Darmstadt 1997.

Feist, Wolfgang, Tobias Loga: Comparison of measurements and


simulation. In: AkkP, Protocol Volume No. 5, Energy balance and
temperature behaviour, PHI, Darmstadt 1997

[Kaufmann 2001] Kaufmann, Berthold und Feist, Wolfgang: Vergleich von Messung und
Simulation am Beispiel eines Passivhauses in Hannover-Kronsberg.
CEPHEUS-Projektinformation Nr. 21, Hannover, Passivhaus Institut
Darmstadt, Juni 2001.

Kaufmann, Berthold und Feist, Wolfgang: Comparison of measurements


and simulation using the example of a Passive House in Hanover-
Kronsberg. CEPHEUS Project Information No. 21, Hanover, PHI
Darmstadt, June 2001

[Schnieders 2002] Schnieders, Jrgen; Feist, Wolfgang: Passiv-Verwaltungsgebude


Wagner & Co. in Clbe. Messdatenauswertung mit Hilfe der dynamischen
Gebudesimulation. Endbericht. Passivhaus Institut, Darmstadt, Februar
2002.

Schnieders, Jrgen; Feist, Wolfgang: Passive House office building


Wagner & Co. in Clbe. Evaluation of measured data using dynamischen
building simulation. Final Report. PHI, Darmstadt, February 2002

75
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Annex 2. Comparison of PHPP and DEEVi with


DesignBuilder results

Introduction

The present report was made in order to clarify the differences between the results of
the calculation of the Baseline building for the NAMA 2011 in the case of Adosada in
the climate of Cancun. The dynamic simulation carried out with the software
DesignBuilder by experts of GOPA showed drastically different results to the
calculations made with PHPP for the NAMA. That, unfortunately, leads to the
speculation that PHPP and thereby DEEVi calculation results are far from plausibility.

However, after carefull replication of some basic boundary conditions of the


DesignBuilder simulation with PHPP, it has been observed that the correlation
between the results improves considerably. This confirms the initial notion that, far
from it being a problem of the softwares used, the differences in the results are
mainly caused by difference in the entered or pre-entered boundary conditions.

This report is supposed to show how the result of the PHPP calculation draws nearer
to the results of the dynamic simulation by adapting some of the detected differences
in the entered boundary conditions. The changes applied in the calculations are
shown on a step-by-step basis.

Initial Situation

Calculation Model to be examined:

The questioned calculation result is the useful cooling energy demand estimated for
the NAMA 2011 for the so called Baseline standard building of the Adosada type in
the hot and humid climate of Cancun.

The specific cooling demand values according to the NAMA studies 2011 are:

Calculation model: PHPP 2007

Specific sensible cooling demand: 419 kWh/(ma)

Specific latent cooling demand: 190 kWh/(ma)

Total specific cooling demand: 609 kWh/(ma)

76
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Building model of the NAMA 2011 calculation:

The building model of the calculation was a single Adosada (end house) with the
following characteristics:

Treated floor area TFA: 40.74 m

Total thermal envelope to ambient A: 198.25 m

Enclosed volume V: 137.25 m

Ratio A/V: 1.44

Climate data set: as per the NAMA 2011

Ground floor plan of the building model used for the NAMA 2011:

Annex figure 2. Reference model used for the NAMA 2011 calculations.

Source: GOPA 2010 (with modifications by PHI)

The results of the NAMA calculation have been compared with calculations of an
Adosada building type in Cancun. These calculations have been carried out by
GOPA with the dynamic simulation program DesignBuilder.

77
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

The specific cooling demand values according to DesignBuilder calculations are:

Calculation model: DesignBuilder

Specific sensible cooling demand: 135.63 kWh/(ma)

Specific latent cooling demand: 33 kWh/(ma)

Total specific cooling demand: 169 kWh/(ma)

Building model of the DesignBuilder calculation


The building model calculated was a double Adosada type (end house and middle
house.

Treated floor area TFA: 81.48 m

Total thermal envelop to ambient A: 371.80 m

Enclosed volume V: 274.50 m

Ratio A/V: 1.35

Climate Date: Meteonorm file WMO Station 765906 / 2002

78
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Ground floor plan of the building model of the DesignBuilder calculations:

Annex figure 3. Reference model used for the DesignBuilder calculation.

Source: GOPA 2012

Entry values of the calculations

The calculations, as far as could be determined were carried out with the following
entry values defined as Baseline standard for the NAMA 2011 studies:

79
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Annex table 1. Summary of known entry values for the two calculations. Source: GOPA

PHPP 2007 calculation as per NAMA DesignBuilder calculation

80
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Differences in building geometry, entry values and approach

Differences in entry values:

A closer look at the calculations shows some obvious differences between the PHPP
2007 calculation of the NAMA 2011 studies and the DesignBuilder calculations:

a. Differences in the building geometry that has been calculated

b. Differences in the climate data of the calculations

c. Differences in the air change rate assumed for the calculations

d. Differences in the ground temperature assumed for the calculations

e. Differences in the internal heat gains assumed for the calculations

Methodology to compare the calculations

The difference in the results between both calculations seems quite large. However
these results are not comparable with one another since many entry values and
boundary conditions are different, as could be observed in section 1 of the present
report. In order to make a comparison, the evident differences were eliminated step
by step in the PHPP calculation, with the purpose of coming closer to the model used
in the DesignBuilder calculation.

Only by doing this, the calculation algorithms of the two programs can be compared.
In order to find out the deviations of the calculation models in detail it is also
necessary to compare partial results, not only the final results. The partial results of
the energy balance calculations for the specific sensible and latent cooling demand
that have been compared are as follows:

a. Transmission and radiation heat loads through opaque surfaces such as:

Walls

Roofs

Floor slabs

Windows

Doors

b. Ventilation heat loads by:

Windows

Ventilation

81
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Infiltration

c. Solar heat gains through windows

d. Internal heat gains:

Occupants

Household electricity units and Lighting

Auxiliary Electricity

Domestic hot water distribution

e. Dehumidification demand

In order to eliminate the differences in the building geometry of the carried out
calculations, the NAMA 2011 calculations have been modified to match the building
calculated in DesignBuilder.

NAMA: Adosada Baseline standard (end house) / PHPP 2007

Annex figure 4. Result for sensible and latent specific useful cooling demand: 609 kWh/(ma).

Source: Passive House Institute

82
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Modified geometry: DoubleAdosada (end + mid house) / PHPP 2007

Annex figure 5. Summary of surface calculation of the calculated building.

Screenshot from PHPP. Source: Passive House Institute

With the purpose of adapting the building model of the single Adosada end house to
the DoubleAdosada model used in the DesignBuilder calculation, the building
geometry was recalculated and other elements of the thermal envelope ( the quantity
of the windows, the volume flow rate of the recirculation air cooling, the treated floor
area, the enclosed building volume, floor slab area) were doubled. Any other input
stayed the same as for the NAMA calculation of the Adosada Baseline standard.

Annex figure 6. Results for sensible and latent specific useful cooling demand: 556 kWh/(ma).

Source: Passive House Institute

As can be seen, the difference in the building geometry of the DesignBuilder


calculations creates a lower sensible cooling demand, as was to be expected
because of the better compactness of the building. This result, thereby, represents
the starting point for any comparison with the DesignBuilder calculations.

83
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Continue with PHPP7: DoubleAdosada / PHPP 7

Annex figure 7. Results for sensible and latent specific useful cooling demand: 556 kWh/(ma).
Screenshot from PHPP.

Source: Passive House Institute

84
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

The calculation of the PHPP 7 shows the same results as PHPP 2007. Every other
further changes and calculations will thereby be carried out with PHPP 7.

Step by step modification of the entry values

In order to illustrate the differences, the starting point of the step by step adaptation is
the Baseline standard calculated in the NAMA studies in 2011. The PHPP
spreadsheet Cooling will be displayed for any of the adaptation changes to show
the influence on the results in sensible and latent cooling demand as well as on the
partial results.

Modification of climate data: NAMA climate Data > Design Builder Data

Annex figure 8. Results for sensible and latent specific useful cooling demand: 513 kWh/(ma).

Source: Passive House Institute

Instead of the climate data set for Cancun used for the NAMA calculations, the
Meteonorm data set used for the DesignBuilder calculations was entered into the
PHPP calculation. The sensible cooling demand is decreased because of fewer solar
radiation, thereby fewer solar heat gains through windows or radiation gains through
opaque elements.

85
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Annex figure 9. Climate data comparison for Cancun. DesignBuider and NAMA climate data.

Source: Passive House Institute

Important differences with the climate data used for the NAMA can be observed in
Annex figure 9, both for the global radiation and for the exterior temperatures. In
general, the NAMA climate data presents higher values. This explains the reduction
in the results when using the DesignBuilder climate data for Cancun.

Modification of air change rate: from 1.42 1/h to 0.28 1/h

Annex figure 10. Results for sensible and latent specific useful cooling demand: 375
kWh/(ma).

Source: Passive House Institute

86
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Annex figure 11. Summer ventilation before modification. Screenshot from PHPP.

Source: Passive House Institute

Annex figure 12. Summer ventilation after modification. Screenshot from PHPP.

Source: Passive House Institute

Annex figure 13. Cooling units before Annex figure 14. Cooling units after
modification modification

Screenshots from PHPP. Source: Passive House Institute

In this step, the air change rate has (originally: 1.42 1/h) has been modified to 0.277
1/h as has been entered in the DesignBuilder calculation. A smaller air change
creates less humidity to be carried into the building, thereby a much lower
dehumidification demand. However, an air change rate lower than 0.80 1/h would not
be recommendable for calculating such a building in order to achieve the minimum
hygienic requirement according to EN 1946. This value depends on the amount of
extract air rooms like kitchen or bathroom. The air change rate assumed for the

87
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

NAMA was estimated on the safe side based on the size of the windows and average
time that these remain open.

Modification of ground temperature: from PHPP values to DesignBuilder values

Annex figure 15. Result for sensible and latent specific useful cooling demand: 349 kWh/(ma).

Source: Passive House Institute

The DesignBuilder calculation of the DoubleAdosada building, as indicated by


GOPA, was carried out considering a ground temperature of two Kelvin below the dry
bulb temperature. On the other hand, PHPP calculates the ground temperatures
according to the climate data, insulation of the floor slab and geometry of the floor
slab. So, for this step, the assumptions of DesignBuilder for the ground temperature
were copied and modified within the PHPP7 calculation.

Annex figure 16. Climate data used in the original PHPP calculations for the climate of Cancun.

Source: Passive House Institute

The ground temperature is calculated in the Ground worksheet of PHPP considering


the various parameters influencing it. Annex figure 16 shows the original ground
temperature calculation as per the PHPP methodology.

88
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Annex figure 17. Climate data with ground temperatures copied according to the information of
the DesignBuilder simulation.

Source: Passive House Institute

As can be observed in Annex figure 17, the temperatures are relatively low in
comparison, which explains the big initial difference between the partial results of
DesignBuilder and PHPP.

Though the ground temperature was corrected in order to make the results
comparable, the calculation method of the PHPP Ground sheet is considered to be
very accurate. The PHPP calculates heat losses or gains through the ground based
on the European standard EN 13370. The standard itself reflects the work of
Hagentoft in Sweden; unfortunately, it contains a number of significant errors, which
have been identified and corrected by PHI in a research project in 2004 [Arbeitskreis
kostengnstige Passivhuser, Protokollband 27].

The method implemented in the PHPP shows good agreement with dynamic 3D heat
flow calculations. The applicability of these heat flow calculations was recently
supported by long-term measurements of heat flows and temperatures in the ground
under a school building. The algorithm uses a superposition technique to individually
determine the steady-state and annually periodic (higher orders are negligible) heat
flow through floor slabs or basements of arbitrary shape and insulation level,
including no insulation. It also accounts for different properties of the ground itself.
The heat flows are then used to determine an equivalent temperature outside those
building elements which are adjacent to the ground. The PHPP calculation of monthly
heating and cooling demands uses these temperatures.

The method therefore appears superior to approaches using fixed reduction factors
or given temperatures below the floor slab, as they are, for simplicity, quite commonly
used.

89
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Modification of internal heat gains: from 5.26 W/m to 3.76

Annex figure 18. Results for sensible and latent specific useful cooling demand: 338
kWh/(ma).

Source: Passive House Institute

Reducing the internal heat gains to the same value as entered in the DesignBuilder
calculation proved to further decrease the sensible cooling energy demand, bringing
the results closer together

Annex figure 19. Internal heat gains as calculated according to PHPP / total : 46.1 kWh/(ma)

Annex figure 20. Internal heat gains as according to the DesignBuilder entries / total : 33.5
kWh/(ma)

90
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Partial results

Annex figure 21. Results for sensible and latent specific useful cooling demand: 338
kWh/(ma). Source: Passive House Institute

91
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

All recognizable differences were eliminated (using the exact same building
geometry, climate data, air change rate, ground temperature and internal heat gains)
and the results show a drastic improvement in the correspondence of the results.

Baseline standard (uninsulated)

The following table provides a summary of the different changes in parameters


applied and their influence on the results:

Annex table 2. Overview of parameter change and results. Source: Passive House Institute

The significant differences between results of the PHPP and DesignBuilder


calculations for the Adosada building type in the climate of Cancun that were initially
observed were considerably reduced only through the adaptation of a few general
boundary conditions, described in the present report. Nonetheless, the differences
between the results, though notably less dramatic, still point out at possible
differences in the calculation models or in boundary conditions / assumptions not yet
matched.

Moderately insulated building

The same procedure has been carried out with a moderately insulated building,
(named XPS standard) in the DesignBuilder calculations.

Annex table 3. Comparison of results of the modification of the baseline and moderately
insulated building

As was to be expected, the differences in the calculations are much lower.

92
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Differences in boundary conditions or assumptions

The differences between the PHPP calculation and the DesignBuilder results are still
too large to be neglected. Especially when looking at partial results, the difference in
values cannot easily be explained by obviously different entry values. The result for
dehumidification demand, for example, is still nearly twice the amount in the PHPP
calculation compared to the DesignBuilder results. Though the absolute difference of
26 kWh/(ma) does not seem to be too dramatic, the latent cooling demand should
be a parameter with a very straightforward calculation that uses data of external
humidity and air change rate. Nevertheless, the results differ.

This leads us to believe that there are boundary conditions from the DesignBuilder
calculations that are still unknown. For the case of the latent cooling demand, for
example, there could be information about humidity storage capacity of the
construction, internal humidity sources or minimum temperatures which have not yet
been identified and could influence the dehumidification demand considerably.
Moreover, after realising that only through the modification of four parameters the
results come drastically closer, it is inevitable to conclude that these differences in
the results are due to differences in boundary conditions that were impossible to
replicate with the information at hand.

This fact becomes even more evident when observing the results of dynamic
simulations of uninsulated buildings made with DYNBIL and compared with PHPP
(see PreliminaryReport2_ValidationDEEVi). These results clearly demonstrate that
the PHPP calculation model shows very precise results for uninsulated building
components in comparison with a dynamic building simulation tool. Referring to
standard conditions for surface heat transfer resistance values (in accordance to the
DIN EN ISO 6946 as described in the PHPP manual), as they are assumed in the
PHPP, the resulting sensible cooling demand is estimated slightly on the safe side.
This approaches the simulation results gradually more as the insulation level
increases.

Finally, it can be argmented that the PHPP results are within the result range of the
dynamic simulations, even if these results calculated by dynamic simulation software
are much more influenced by the boundary conditions like convective heat transfer or
long wave radiation balance. The results of the dynamic simulation thereby have to
be evaluated very carefully, as the uncertainties of the entered boundary conditions,
when it comes to un-insulated buildings, are high, regardless of the software used.

93
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

To illustrate the point, the analysis of the partial results of the DesignBuilder
calculations shows some values that might be questioned as well:

Annex table 4. Comparison of partial results of the different standards in the DesignBuilder
calculation.

As can be seen, some of the partial results of the XPS standard building are equal or
higher than the values calculated for the baseline standard. This seems implausible
as the components are supposed to be improved for the XPS standard, so the heat
transfer through the improved building component should be lower.

Especially in case of the glazing it should be expected, that a lower g-value should
guarantee for lower solar heat gains, however the values that were provided show
equal numbers. That seems impossible.

However, any further explanation on this phenomenon can only be an assumption,


as long as more about the entered values, the boundary conditions, the
DesignBuilder calculation files themselves are unknown. Further inquiry would only
be possible with a remarkable time effort, which seems inappropriate in the frame of
the carried out analysis.

Plausibility of the results

As both, PHPP and DesignBuilder are trustworthy softwares, assuming that the
differences lie in inaccuracies of the calculation algorithms of one or the other seems
implausible. Taking into account the recent validation of uninsulated or poorly
insulated buildings and the possible differences in calculation results (because of
different boundary assumptions) the PHPP calculation model shows to produce
plausible results.

94
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

The calculations carried out within the NAMA document 2011, for un-insulated and
insulated buildings all the same, thereby seem to provide sufficient precisions for the
calculation of cooling and heating energy demand based on the boundary conditions
that where at hand in 2011 and have not yet been proven to be unrealistic.

95
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Annex 3. Comparison between CFE data and PHPP


calculation results
Introduction

The Passive House Planning Package (PHPP), integrated tool for energy balance
calculations, on which the DEEVi tool is based, has been evaluated with detailed
simulations and with measured monitored results of hundreds of buildings in
European climates. It has been used successfully in the design of thousands of
Passive Houses. Furthermore, in order to evaluate the preciseness of the results for
the cooling case, crucial for many Mexican climates, the tool has been validated
again through dynamic simulations within the development of the DEEVi tool.

In the following, an additional comparison between the baseline model of the


Adosada building (based on the NAMA 2011) and electricity consumption data from
CFE (SENER 2008) is carried out. As can be observed in the present report, the
results of PHPP and the actual consumption data are generally in good agreement.
Significant differences are observed in two specific climates; the reason probably lies
in the boundary conditions.

Applied values

For the comparison, the model of the Adosada baseline building based on the NAMA
2011 calculations has been used. This is a 40 m building, with 10 cm concrete walls,
roof and floor, 3mm glazing and aluminium frame. Moreover, for the comparison, the
PHPP 7.2 has been used to make a parametric analysis of the different electricity
demand results of the Adosada baseline building in the following cities:

- Oaxaca

- Guadalajara

- Chihuahua

- Veracruz

- Monterrey

- Culiacan

- Hermosillo

- Mexicali

- Merida

- Acapulco

96
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

These locations were chosen based on the selected cities of the study by SENER.
Only the cities that have validated PHPP climate data sets were used, in order to
avoid possible errors resulting from the climate data (with the exception to Merida, for
which climate data is very similar to that of Cancun).

Some specific boundary conditions were defined as can be seen in the following
table:

Annex table 5. Boundary conditions used for the PHPP calculation. Source: Passive House
Institute

Type of lighting Compact fluorescent lights 20W

Refrigerator (1.10 kWh/d), TV (0.19 kWh/d),


A/C (3 COP/EER), washing machine (0.32
Electrical appliances
kWh/d) with 180 W of additional consumer
electronics.

Heat generator for water Tankless LP Gas water heater

Cooking LP Gas stove

Number of m per person 20 m per person

Internal heat gains 3.3 W/m (calculated with PHPP)

Airtightness 5 h-1

Temperature limit summer 28 C

Temperature limit winter 18 C

Cooling method Recirculation cooling (3000 m/h)

97
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Difference between electricity demand for cooling and cooling demand

When it comes to the outcomes for cooling and heating demand it is important to
clarify that the results shown in the Verification worksheet of PHPP (hoja
Comprobacin in DEEVi) are referring to the amount of useful heat which needs to
be either removed (in the case of cooling) or provided (in the case of heating) into the
room in order to keep the operative temperature at a predefined level. Therefore,
these values cannot be compared directly with measured consumption electricity
data.

Nonetheless, PHPP also calculates the electricity demand for cooling and heating.
Specifically, the electricity demand for cooling is calculated based on the cooling
systems performance ratio (defined through the energy efficiency ratio {EER}). The
better the EER value, the lower the electricity demand for cooling would be, even at
the same cooling demand. The specific3 electricity demand for cooling as well as the
total specific electricity demand can be found in the PE Value worksheet of PHPP(in
DEEVi at the hoja Valor-EP).

3
Specific electricity demand refers to the electricity demand per square meter of treated floor area. In
order to obtain the absolute values used for the present comparison, the specific electricity demand
was multiplied by the treated floor area, in order to obtain absolute values for the entire building.

98
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Results of the comparison

The following graph shows the results of the comparison between the parametric
calculation with PHPP 7.2 and the consumption data. The same boundary conditions
have been used for all cities.

Annex figure 22. Comparison between CFE data and PHPP results.
Source: Passive House Institute

As can be observed, the relationship between the PHPP results for electricity
demand and the consumption data shows very good agreement. The comparison of
Oaxaca and Guadalajara (see below) emphasizes the fact that, without additional
information on the specific use of the buildings, an error margin of 500 kWh/a must
be accepted due to uncertainties in user behaviour alone. Moreover, there might be a
significant but unknown number of households without any cooling at all that
influences the mean value of the measured consumption.

99
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

The deviation of measured and calculated electricity consumptions is 20% or lower in


nearly all cases. This is a very good result, regarding that the exact boundary
conditions in each of the locations are unknown. There are only three exceptions to
this general result: the cities of Oaxaca, Cancun and Acapulco.

A. Oaxaca and Guadalajara

The case of Oaxaca, on the far left of figure 1, shows to be very interesting if one
compares it to the results of Guadalajara. The climatic conditions of Guadalajara and
Oaxaca are actually very similar. This can be observed both in the climate data sets
in PHPP as in the SENER study. Nonetheless, the CFE consumption figures of
Oaxaca are much lower, whilst the demand calculated by PHPP is similar to
Guadalajara. In the case of Guadalajara the PHPP data corresponds very well to the
consumption data.

A possible explanation to this would be that the difference in the consumption


between the two cities is related to the type and amount of household appliances and
different comfort standards between Oaxaca and Guadalajara. This explanation
seems plausible when one considers that the population size and level of economic
development of Guadalajara is much higher than that of Oaxaca, which would
explain why the electrical consumption of the first city is higher than the one of the
second, regardless of the similar climates. The comparison of consumptions during
the winter period (months without cooling demand) indicates the same.

B. Cancun (Merida) and Acapulco

The cases of Cancun and Acapulco, on the far right of the graph, exhibit a very high
difference between the PHPP calculated results and the consumption data. The
explanation of this likely lies in the temperature and humidity set points chosen for
the PHPP calculation. Though those calculations represent a low thermal comfort,
they may still be too demanding for what is customary in the average of the
population in hot and humid cities, especially in social housing. Moreover since the
PHPP validated climate data from Merida is currently not available the calculations
with PHPP were done with the climate data of Cancun. It can be assumed that the
differences between the climate of Merida and the climate of Cancun are also partly
responsible for the difference in the results.

With the sole electricity consumption figures it is difficult to draw conclusions on the
users customary cooling practices. It should be noted, however, that the measured
electricity consumption in Acapulco is close to that of Guadalajara, where very little
active cooling is required. This indicates that many buildings in Acapulco do not use
active cooling to a significant extent. In these particular climates the temperatures do
not rise excessively, so it is possible that people accept relatively high temperature
and humidity levels and do not use any active cooling at all. It can also be assumed
that the occupation of part of the housing stock (temporary occupancy) of these cities

100
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

is not the same over the whole year, which has an influence in the average
consumption values. To understand the special situation of Acapulco more
information is required.

When one raises the upper temperature comfort level by few degrees and changes
the upper humidity comfort level in the PHPP calculations, the demand results and
the consumption figures match again. More accurate monitoring data would be
necessary in order to draw more conclusive results.

Boundary conditions and comfort

In reality, the inhabitants of a baseline building (meaning a building with no insulation


or passive cooling systems) may achieve good thermal comfort (e.g. 25 C, 60%)
only in some rooms of the house whilst the other rooms are not actively cooled. This
may result in, for example, 25 C in the bedrooms but 32 C in the rest of the rooms,
for which the used temperature of 28 C would represent an average. Similarly, they
may turn on their air conditioning during certain times of the day only, resulting in an
average temperature of 28 C, too. Much the same happens with the humidity level.

It is important to note that the boundary conditions of the calculation used the
temperatures of 18-28 C. However, experience shows that as soon as the
occupants of a housing building are technically and economically able to raise the
indoor comfort through the use of active cooling and/or heating, they do, aiming for
the optimal comfort range of 20-25 C .Thereby they increase their energy use for
heating and/or cooling. It may therefore be more appropriate to use this narrower
temperature range in the comparison of existing buildings with those of improved
efficiency.

Conclusions

The present report has shown that the comparison between electricity consumption
data and the electricity demand calculated with the PHPP shows good agreement,
particularly if the low level of information about the monitored buildings is taken into
account. The only important difference, observed in the hot and humid climate of
Acapulco and Merida, can be explained through possible differences of the boundary
conditions/ user behaviour and the use of different climate data (in the case or
Merida where the climate data of Cancun was used).

101
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Sources

[PHI 2012] Passive House Institute, NAMA Technical Annex: Evaluation of


social housing building types in Mexico, Passive House Institute,
Darmstadt, Germany, 2012

[PHPP] Passive House planning package and manual, Passive House


Institute, Darmstadt, Germany, 1998 - 2012

[SENER 2008] Estudio sobre tarifas elctricas y costos de suministro


SECRETARA DE ENERGA Mxico Junio 2008

102
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Annex 4. Mexican climate data

Introduction

The following tables represent the climate data for 34 Mexican cities, situated in different climate areas. This data shows temperatures
according to the deviation from the north, temperatures of the sky and the ground, as well as the dew point. The tables distinct each
months average temperatures and dew points, showing the general heating and cooling load (in the far right end of the table).

The data comes from PHPP Climate data sheet, also included in DEEVi.

Climate data

a. Calido humedo

1) Uruapan- Michoacan

103
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

2) Villahermosa- Tabasco

3) Xalapa- Veracruz

b. Calido subhumedo

1) Acapulco- Guerrero

104
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

2) Campeche- Campeche

3) Cancun- Quintana Roo

4) Matamoros- Tamaulipas

105
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

5) Mazatlan- Sinaloa

6) Tampico- Veracruz

7) Tuxtla- Chiapas

106
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

8) Veracruz- Veracruz

c. Muy seco

1) Hermosillo- Sonora

2) Juarez- Chihuahua

107
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

3) La Paz- Baja California Sur

4) Mexicali- Baja California

5) Torreon- Coahuila

108
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

d. Seco y semiseco

1) Aguascalientes- Aguascalientes

2) Chihuahua- Chihuahua

3) Culiacan- Sinaloa

109
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

4) Durango- Durango

5) Leon- Guanajuato

6) Monterrey- Nuero Leon

110
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

7) Nuero Laredo- Tamaulipas

8) Oaxaca- Oaxaca

9) Queretaro- Queretaro

111
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

10) Saltillo- Coahuila

11) San Luis Potosi- San Luis Potosi

12) Tijuana- Baja California

112
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

e. Templado humedo

1) Teziutlan- Puebla

f. Templado subhumedo

1) Ciudad Victoria- Tamaulipas

2) Guadalajara- Jalisco

113
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

3) Mexico D.F.- Distrito Federal

4) Puebla- Puebla

5) Toluca- Mexico

114
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Annex 5. Component lists included in DEEVi


List of typical walls, roofs and floor build-ups

tipo

Valor-U
Nr. com- Emisividad de la Valor-K
Determinacin de elemento constuctivo / composicin EN ISO
posicin Espesor total envolvente exterior NOM 020 ener
6946

m W/(mK) - W/(mK)

28 Sistemas Constructivos Muros

29 Concreto armado 10cm. Ext: Mortero de cal. Int: Mortero de cal. 0.130 3.757 0.93 3.372

Concreto armado 10cm. Ext:Impermeabilizante acrlico, Mortero de cal. Int: Mortero de


30 0.131 3.451 0.93 3.123
cal.

31 Concreto armado 10cm. Ext: Recubrimiento perlita mineral. Int: Mortero de cal. 0.125 3.211 0.93 2.925

32 Concreto armado 10cm. Ext: EPS de 1.5 + Mortero de cal. Int: Mortero de cal. 0.168 0.738 0.93 0.722

33 Concreto armado 10cm. Ext: XPS de 1 + Texturizado. Int: Yeso. 0.145 0.818 0.93 0.798

34 Concreto armado 10cm. Ext: Texturizado. Int: XPS de 1 + Tabla de yeso. 0.145 0.798 0.93 0.779

35 Concreto armado 10cm. Ext: Texturizado. Int: Fibra de vidrio 2.5 + Tabla de yeso. 0.164 0.715 0.93 0.700

36 Block hueco 10x20x40. Ext: Mortero de cal. Int: Mortero de cal. 0.130 2.995 0.93 2.472

Block hueco 10x20x40. Ext: Impermeabilizacin/aislante trmico, Mortero de cal. Int:


37 0.131 2.780 0.93 2.345
Mortero de cal.

115
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

38 Block hueco 10x20x40. Ext: EPS de 1.5 + Mortero de cal. Int: Mortero de cal. 0.168 0.698 0.93 0.665

39 Block hueco 12x20x38. Ext: Visible. Int: Yeso. 0.130 2.290 0.93 2.102

40 Block trmico 15x30x60. Ext: Recubrimiento de perlita mineral. Int: Yeso. 0.140 2.400 0.93 2.660

Sistemas de aislamiento trmico que cumplen con la NMX-C-460-ONNCCE-2009 (DIT


42 0.93
emitido por ONNCCE)

43 NOVACERAMIC S. A. DE C. V. : Sistema TABIMAX 11.5 / DIT/157/10 0.115 0.983 0.93 0.983

44 NOVACERAMIC S. A. DE C. V. : Sistema NOVABLOCK 10 / DIT/157/10 0.100 0.100 0.93 0.100

45 NOVACERAMIC S. A. DE C. V. : Sistema MULTEX 12 / DIT/157/10 0.120 0.988 0.93 0.988

48 Sistemas Constructivos Techos Planos

49 Losa de concreto 10cm. Ext: Impermeabilizacin. Int: Yeso 0.114 3.760 0.93 3.434

Losa de concreto 10cm. Ext: Entortado, Impermeabilizacin/aislante trmico. Int:


50 0.136 3.447 0.93 3.296
Mortero

51 Losa de concreto 10cm. Ext: Perlita mineral, Impermeabilizante acrlico. Int: Mortero 0.166 0.945 0.93 0.933

Losa de concreto 10cm. Ext: EPS de 1.5 + Entortado, Impermeabilizacin/aislante


52 0.174 0.725 0.93 0.718
trmico. Int: Mortero.

53 Losa de concreto 10cm. Ext: XPS de 1 + Empastado, Impermeabilizacin. Int: Yeso. 0.169 0.706 0.93 0.700

54 Losa de concreto 10cm. Ext: Impermeabilizacin. Int: XPS de 1.5 + Yeso. 0.152 0.574 0.93 0.571

Losa de concreto 10cm. Ext: Impermeabilizacin. Int: Fibra de vidrio 3.5 + Tabla de
55 0.206 0.373 0.93 0.372
yeso.

116
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Losa de concreto 10cm. Ext: Impermeabilizacin. Int: Fibra de vidrio 2.5 + Tabla de
56 0.181 0.495 0.93 0.492
yeso.

57 Losa de vigueta y bovedilla. Ext: Entortado mortero de cal. Int: Yeso. 0.308 1.017 0.93 0.546

Nervada de concreto armado y casetones de EPS. Ext: EPS de 1.5 . Int: Mortero
58 0.203 0.597 0.93 0.371
cemento-arena.

Sistemas de aislamiento trmico que cumplen con la NMX-C-460-ONNCCE-2009


60
(DIT emitido por ONNCCE)

61 NOVIDESA S. A. DE C. V. : Panel de entrepiso aislante makros 15cm / DIT/23311 0.221 0.336 0.93 0.336

62 NOVIDESA S. A. DE C. V. : Panel de entrepiso aislante makros 20cm / DIT/23311 0.271 0.301 0.93 0.301

PROTECCIN ANTICORROSIVA DE CUAUTITLN, S. A. DE C. V. : SISTEMA PASA


63 POLI NRG/IMPER PASA-PASA POLI NRG/IMPER NRG PARA TECHOS Imper Pasa 0.127 0.681 0.93 0.681
3 blanco / DIT/178/10

PROTECCIN ANTICORROSIVA DE CUAUTITLN, S. A. DE C. V. : SISTEMA PASA


64 POLI NRG/IMPER PASA-PASA POLI NRG/IMPER NRG PARA TECHOS Imper Pasa 0.126 0.677 0.93 0.677
3 blanco / DIT/178/10

68 Sistemas Constructivos Techos inclinados

69 Losa de concreto 20 cm. Ext: Impermeabilizacin. Int: Tirol. 0.208 3.220 0.93 3.088

70 Losa de concreto 20 cm. Ext: Teja / Impermeabilizacin. Int: Tirol. 0.223 3.129 0.93 3.004

88 Sistemas Constructivos Piso

89 Piso de concreto 10cm. Acabado aparente, pulido. 0.100 5.334 0.93 5.334

90 Piso de concreto 8cm. Acabado aparente, pulido. 0.080 5.683 0.93 5.683

117
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

91 Piso de concreto 10cm. Acabado: Loseta cermica. 0.105 5.202 0.93 5.202

92 Piso de concreto 8cm. Acabado: Loseta cermica. 0.085 5.532 0.93 5.532

108 Sistemas Constructivos Superficie Inferior

109 Concreto armado de 10cm. Ext: Mortero de cal. Int: Acabado aparente, pulido. 0.115 4.087 0.93 3.876

110 Concreto armado de 8cm. Ext: Mortero de cal. Int: Acabado aparente, pulido. 0.095 4.289 0.93 4.057

111 Concreto armado de 10cm. Ext: Mortero de cal. Int: Loseta cermica. 0.120 4.009 0.93 3.806

112 Concreto armado de 8cm. Ext: Mortero de cal. Int: Loseta cermica. 0.100 4.202 0.93 3.980

Sistemas de aislamiento trmico que cumplen con la NMX-C-460-ONNCCE-2009


114
(DIT emitido por ONNCCE)

COMERCIALIZACIN Y PREFABRICADOS COMPRE, S. A. DE C. V. : Bovedilla de


115 0.170 0.290 0.93 0.290
12cm y placa de poliestireno de 5cm / DIT/125/11

COMERCIALIZACIN Y PREFABRICADOS COMPRE, S. A. DE C. V. : Bovedilla de


116 0.158 0.329 0.93 0.329
12cm y placa de poliestireno de 3.8cm / DIT/125/11

COMERCIALIZACIN Y PREFABRICADOS COMPRE, S. A. DE C. V. : Bovedilla de


117 0.145 0.393 0.93 0.393
12cm y placa de poliestireno de 2.5cm / DIT/125/11

Source: NMX-C-460-ONCEE-2009, information gathered by GOPA

Comment: For all systems the K-value provided was transferred and, in some cases, recalculated to U-value as per ISO 6946

118
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

List of thermal conductivity values, u values and density of selected construction materials and insulation material

Materials according to NOM020-ENER 2011

Materiales respecto a la NOM020-ENER 2011 Densidad Conductividad trmica l [W/(mK)] Aislamiento trmico (M)

3 2
kg/m W/mK m K/W

Material Resistente

Tabique rojo cocido comn

* al exterior 2 000 0.872 -----

* con recubrimiento impermeable por fuera ----- 0.768 -----

* al interior ----- 0.698 -----

Tabique de barro extruido

* Slido vidriado, para acabado exterior 2 050 1.282 -----

* Bloque hueco vertical, (60 a 67% slido) 2 050 0.998 -----

* Bloque hueco vertical, relleno con vermiculita 2 050 0.575

Tabique ligero con recubrimiento impermeable por fuera

* densidad 1 600 0.698 -----

* densidad 1 400 0.582 -----

* densidad 1 200 0.523 -----

119
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

* densidad 1 000 0.407 -----

Tabique ligero al exterior 1 600 0.814 -----

Bloque de concreto celular curado c/autoclave

* densidad 450.000 0.120 -----

* densidad 600.000 0.210 -----

Bloque de concreto celular curado c/autoclave

* densidad 500.000 0.190 -----

* densidad 600.000 0.210 -----

Bloque de concreto

* 20 cm de espesor, 2 3 huecos 1 700 ----- 0.180

* el mismo con perlita 1 700 ----- 0.360

* el mismo con vermiculita 1 700 ----- 0.300

Concreto

* armado 2 300 1.740 -----

* simple al exterior 2 200 0.210 -----

* ligero al exterior 1 250 0.698 -----

* ligero al interior 1 250 0.582 -----

120
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Mortero

* cemento arena 2 000 ----- -----

* con vermiculita 500.000 ----- -----

* con arcilla expandida 750.000 ----- -----

Asbesto cemento, placa

* Asbesto cemento, placa 1800.000 0.582 -----

* Asbesto cemento, placa 1360.000 0.250 -----

Bloque

* de tepetate o arenisca calcrea al exterior ----- 1.047 -----

* de tepetate o arenisca calcrea al interior ----- 0.930 -----

* de adobe al exterior ----- 0.930 -----

* de adobe al interior ----- 0.582 -----

Piedra

* Caliza 2 180 1.400 -----

* Granito, basalto 2 600 1.500 -----

* Mrmol 2 500 2.000 -----

* Pizarra 2 700 2.000 -----

121
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

* Arenisca 2 000 1.300 -----

Madera

* Viruta aglutinada (Pamacn) 700.000 0.163 -----

* Blanda 610.000 0.130 -----

* Dura 700.000 0.150 -----

Vidrio

* Sencillo 2 200 0.930 -----

* Sencillo 2 700 1.160 -----

Metales

* Aluminio 2 700 204.000 -----

* Cobre 8 900 372.200 -----

* Acero y fierro 7 800 52.300 -----

Material Resistente

Tablero de asbesto cemento 1 932 0.557 -----

* Espesor 0.32 cm 1 932 ----- 0.005

* Espesor 0.84 cm 1 932 ----- 0.110

Tablero de triplay ----- 0.115

122
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

* Espesor 0.64 cm ----- ----- 0.055

* Espesor 0.96 cm ----- ----- 0.083

* Espesor 1.27 cm ----- ----- 0.110

* Espesor 1.60 cm ----- ----- 0.137

* Espesor 1.90 cm ----- ----- 0.165

Tablero de yeso

* Espesor 0.96 cm ----- ----- 0.057

* Espesor 1.27 cm ----- ----- 0.083

* Espesor 1.69 cm ----- ----- 0.110

Aplanados

* Yeso 800.000 0.372 -----

* Mortero de cal al exterior ----- 0.872 -----

* Mortero de cal al interior ----- 0.698 -----

* Tezontle ----- 0.186 -----

* Arena seca, limpia 1 700 0.407 -----

Placas

* Tierra, arena o grava expuesta a la lluvia ----- 2.362 -----

123
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

* Terrados secos en azoteas ----- 0.582 -----

* Fibracel 1 000 0.128 -----

Azulejos y mosaicos ----- 1.047 -----

Ladrillo exterior ----- 0.872 -----

Ladrillo exterior con recubrimiento impermeabilizado por fuera ----- 0.768 -----

Madera (humedad 12%)

* Pino 663.000 0.162 -----

* Cedro 505.000 0.130 -----

* Roble 753.000 0.180 -----

* Fresno 674.000 0.164 -----

Membranas impermeabilizantes

Membranas asflticas 1 127 0.170 -----

Asfalto bituminoso 1 050 0.174 -----

Fieltro de papel permeable ----- ----- 0.011

Source: NOM-020-ENER 2011

124
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Reflective coatings that meet ASTM C1549 standards for solar reflectance and ASTM C 1371 for thermal emissivity
(Certificate issued with ONNCCE)

Recubrimientos reflectivos que cumplen con las normas ASTM C1549 para reflectancia solar y ASTM C 1371 para emisividad trmica (Certificado emitido
por ONNCCE)

Reflectancia
Empresa Marca No. Certificado Absorptividad
Solar

[%] [%]

CREST S. A. DE C. V. ImperCrest 3, 5 y 10 aos DIT/259/11 16.2% 83.8%

CREST S. A. DE C. V. ImperCrest Acril 360 4, 6 y 11 aos DIT/259/11 15.1% 84.9%

INDUSTRIAS ZAHORI Elastocover 5A DIT/271/11 17.5% 82.5%

INDUSTRIAS ZAHORI Elastocover Ecolgico 7A DIT/271/11 19.1% 80.9%

NASACOAT S. A. DE C. V. Sun Glare DIT/082 09 16.7% 83.3%

NASACOAT S. A. DE C. V. Power Skin 10 DIT/082/09 11.7% 88.3%

PINTURAS THERMICAS DEL NORTE S. A. DE C. V. Thermotek doble accin fibratado 5 aos DIT/282/11 13.5% 86.5%

PINTURAS THERMICAS DEL NORTE S. A. DE C. V. Bio Reflection DIT/282/11 10.7% 89.3%

PROTECCIN ANTICORROSIVA DE CUAUTITLN, S. A. DE C. V. Pasa Reflemax DIT/308.1/12 14.7% 85.3%

PROTECCIN ANTICORROSIVA DE CUAUTITLN, S. A. DE C. V. Imper NRG 5 DIT/308.1/12 17.0% 83.0%

Source: ONNCCE

125
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Thermal insulation to comply with NOM-018-ENER-2011 (Certificate issued by ONNCCE)

Aislantes trmicos que cumplen con la NOM-018-ENER (Certificado emitido por ONNCCE)

Empresa Tipo de Producto No. Certificado Conductividad

trmica l
[W/(mK)]

Concretos

Concretos Apasco S. A. de C. V. - Planta Vallejo Concreto EcoTerm 1600 PZP-017-004/10 0.416

Concretos Apasco S. A. de C. V. - Planta Vallejo Concreto EcoTerm 600 PZP-017-001/10 0.131

Lightmix S. A. de C. V Termocel 15 PGG-017-002/11 0.109

Xella Mexicana S. A. de C. V. Concreto Celular Autoclaveado clase AAC-2 SMM-017-001/11 0.050

Espuma de poliuretano

Bayer de Mxico, S. A. de C. V. Sistema de Poliuretano rgido, Bayseal 3500 NNN-017-001/10 0.020

Sistema de Poliuretano, Poliol Voracor* CY 3149 e Isocianato Voracor*


Dow Qumica, S. A. DE C. V. NZD-017-003/12 0.021
CE 101

Impermeabilizantes y Aislantes Trmicos Falcn, S.


Poliuretano de densidad nominal 46 kg/m, marca Cofapol 1146 SJL-017-001/10 0.021
A. de C. V.

Espuma de Poliuretano de densidad nominal 32 kg/m, marca


Mxima Dimensin, S. A. de C. V. SHL-017-003/12 0.023
Aspersin 230 32

Espuma para rellenar bloques

126
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Sellamientos e Impermeabilizaciones
Aislante trmico Fergu NEP-017-003/12 0.033
Profesionales, S. A. de C. V.

Fibra de vidiro

Owens Corning Mxico, S de R.L. de C.V. Aislante Termo acstico en colcha de fibra de vidrio R-13 RRJ-017-001/10 0.039

Owens Corning Mxico, S de R.L. de C.V. Aislante Termo acstico en colcha de fibra de vidrio R-19 RRJ-017-002/10 0.048

Owens Corning Mxico, S de R.L. de C.V. Aislante Termo acstico en colcha de fibra de vidrio R-11 RRJ-017-006/10 0.038

Impermeabilizantes

Aisla Coat , S de R.L . MI Impermeabilizante/Aislante Trmico, marca Plasticool SMJ-017-001/12 0.063

Basf Mexicana S. A. de C. V. Masterseal I600 PZY-017-001/12 0.131

Curacreto S. A. de C. V. - Planta Edo. de Mxico Tecnoply SBS o testarosso PPO-017-001/12 0.099

Proteccin Anticorrosiva de Cuautitln, S. A. de


IMPER NRG NPP-017-001/11 0.061
C.V.

Ladrillos, bloques de barro

NPY-A.9-017-
Ladrillera Mecanizada, S. A. de C. V. Barrobloque fabricado con frmula universal 0.241
001/10

Ladrillera Santa Clara, S. A. de C. V. Bioladritec fabricado con barro extruido con aligerante NPQ-017-002/11 0.161

Ladrillo Multex y Multexbrick fabricado con mezcla de tierras utilizado


Novaceramic, S.A. de C. V. SCH-017-001/10 0.142
en material para visto

Precsoblock S. A. de C. V. Mezcla para la fabricacin de bloques y tabiques trmicos POG-017-001/11 0.228

127
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Neopor Placa de poliestireno expandido Neopor tipo 16 SLT-017-005/11 0.031

Neopor (placa de poliestireno expandido de densidad nominal 16


Fanosa, S. A. de C. V. (Planta Mexicali) NZB-017-006/12 0.032
kg/m)

Materiales del Nazas, S. A. de C. V.

Otros

Grupo Metal Intra S. A. P. I. de C. V. Megawall de PVC extruido PZG-017-001/11 0.053

Grupo Metal Intra S. A. P. I. de C. V. membrana antigoteo para Intrateja PZG-017-003/11 0.033

Grupo Metal Intra S. A. P. I. de C. V. Intrapet PZG-017-005/11 0.033

Paneles

NQO-017-001-
Metecno, S. A. de C. V Metwall (con placas de fibrocemento de 4 mm de espesor) 0.025
S/10

NQO-017-002-
Metecno, S. A. de C. V Metwall CY (con placas de fibrocemento y yeso) 0.027
S/10

Paneles de Madera y Concreto, S. A. de C. V. Panel de fibra de madera y cemento gris NDG-017-001/11 0.057

Paneles de Madera y Concreto, S. A. de C. V. Panel de fibra de madera y cemento blanco NDG-017-002/11 0.071

Perlita expandida

Grupo Perlita de la Laguna, S. A. de C. V. Multiperl, (perlita mineral expandida) Proporcin 3:1 EZO-017-002/12 0.095

Lightmix S. A. de C. V. Termocel Relleno PGG-017-001/11 0.071

128
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Poliestireno expandido - EPS

BNQ-017-001-
Aislantes Industriales de Monterrey S. A. de C. V. Placa de poliestireno expandido de densidad nominal 15 kg/m 0.036
S/12

BNQ-A.1-017-
Aislantes Industriales de Monterrey S. A. de C. V. Bovedilla de poliestireno expandido de densidad nominal 15 kg/m 0.036
001-S/12

Materiales del Nazas, S. A. de C. V. Placa de Poliestireno Expandido de densidad nominal de 12 kg/m NZB-017-002/12 0.040

NZB-A.1-017-
Materiales del Nazas, S. A. de C. V. Caseton de Poliestireno expandido de densidad nominal de 12 kg/m . 0.040
002/12

Poliestireno extruido - XPS

Aislapanel S. A. de C. V. Placa de Poliestireno extruido Termofoam 40. NNE-017-001/12 0.025

Dow Qumica, S. A. de C. V. Placa de poliestireno extruido Square Edge. POB-017-001/12 0.028

Owens Corning Mxico, S de R.L. de C.V. placa de Poliestireno Extruido Foamular 250 RRJ-017-003/10 0.026

Plsticos Espumados, S. A. de C. V. Placa de Espuma de Poliestireno extruido marca INSUFOM NEZ-017-001/11 0.024

129
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Recubrimientos, estuco, productos base


cemento

Crest, S. A. de C. V. Crestuco Trmico NQE-017-002/11 0.129

Curacreto S. A. de C. V Aislacreto Trmico NYG-017-001/11 0.054

Curacreto S. A. de C. V Aislacreto Trmico NYG-017-001/11 0.054

Termolita S. A. de C. V. Termocreto, marca Termolita SMA-017-004/11 0.078

Sistema EIFS de aislamiento trmico para


exterior

Corev de Mxico sistema PRECOR EIFS NDE-017-001/11 0.041

Panel Rey S. A. sistema Densglass - EIFS POO-017-001/11 0.063

Yeso

Yesera Monterrey, S. A. Yeso Construccin Mximo y Yeso Construccin Hidalgo NQP-017-001/12 0.219

Source: NOM-018-ENER, ONNCCE

Comment: Exceptionally low thermal conductivity values of some of the insulation materials, e.g. extruded polystyrene (0.024) in
comparison with expanded polystyrene (0.036)

130
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

List of typical windows (glazings and frames) and doors together with its characteristic value

Glazing types

TIPO

Nr. de
compo- Acristalamiento Valor g Valor-Ug Valor-CS Certificado
sicin

W/(mK)

12 Acristalamiento sencillo 4mm 0.87 5.80 1.00

13 Doble acristalamiento 4/12 aire/4 0.77 2.90 0.89

14 Doble acristalamiento 4/16 aire/4 0.77 2.70 0.89

15 Doble acristalamiento 4/20 aire/4 0.77 2.80 0.89

16 Doble acristalamiento 4/25 aire/4 0.77 2.80 0.89

17 Doble acristalamiento 4/30mm aire/4 0.77 2.80 0.89

18 Triple acristalamiento 4/10 aire/4/10 aire/4 0.70 2.00 0.80

20 Doble acristalamiento 4/16 argn 90%/4 Epsilon=0.1 0.64 1.30 0.74

21 Doble acristalamiento 4/16 argn 90%/4 Epsilon = 0.05 0.60 1.20 0.69

22 Doble acristalamiento 4/16 argn 90%/4 Epsilon=0.04 0.56 1.10 0.64

63 Acristalamientos sencillos

131
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

64 Vidrios Marte, S.A. de C.V. : Vidrio monoltico claro / 3mm 0.83 6.76 0.95 DIT/266-S.1/11

65 Vidrio claro / 3mm 0.87 5.80 1.00

66 Vidrio claro / 6mm 0.82 5.70 0.94

70 Doble acristalamientos

71 Vidrios Marte S.A. de C.V. : Solarban 60 on clear 0.38 1.65 0.44

72 Vidrios Marte S.A. de C.V. : Vidrio claro Thermak 0.77 3.17 0.88

73 Vidrios Marte S.A. de C.V. : Vidrio Low-E Thermak 0.52 2.27 0.60

77 Triple acristalamientos

78 Vidrios Marte S.A. de C.V. : Solarban 60 on clear 0.38 1.65 0.44

87 Puertas

88 Cuprom Technovent. Elite - Corrediza 0.70 3.97 0.80

Source: Passive House Institute, GOPA and ONNCCE

Comment: Calculation of the CS value carried out by the Passive House Institute based on the NOM-020-ENER-2011 guidelines. Only
one certified glazing value by ONNCCE could be included. Other glazing values according to standard characteristic values.

132
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Window frame types


Dimension
TIPO Valor Uf es de los
marcos

Nr. de Anchur
Anchur Anchur
compo Marco Marco Marco Marco Anchura a
Marcos de ventana a a
- izquierda derecha abajo arriba izquierda superio
derecha inferior
sicin r

W/(mK) W/(mK) W/(mK) W/(mK) m m m m

Marcos de ventana con espaciador de acero inoxidable o


13
plstico

14 Marcos de ventana metal, sin divisin trmica, pintura 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.140

15 Marcos de ventana metal, sin divisin trmica 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.140

16 Marcos de ventana metal, con divisin trmica 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.140

17 Marcos de ventana de plstico sencillos 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.140

18 Marcos de ventana de plstico mejorados 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.140

19 Marcos de ventana de plstico 3 cmaras 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.140

20 Marcos de ventana madera 45 mm 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.140

21 Marcos de ventana madera 68 mm 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.140

22 Marco altamente aislado; calidad trmica media 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.140

133
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

23 Marco altamente aislado; buena calidad trmica 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.72 0.140 0.140 0.140 0.140

30 MATERIALES GENERALES [GENRICO]

31 Metlico 5.70 5.70 5.70 5.70

32 Metlico RPT (4mm<=d<=12 mm) 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00

33 Metlico RPT (d>=12mm) 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20

34 Metlico RPT (separadores especiales >24mm) 1.90 1.90 1.90 1.90

35 Madera dura ( = 700 kg/m3 y 60 mm de espesor) 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20

36 Madera blanda ( = 500 kg/m3 y 60 mm de espesor) 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00

37 Perfiles huecos de PVC (2 cmaras) 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20

38 Perfiles huecos de PVC (3 cmaras) 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.80

40 PERFILES HUECOS DE PVC

41 Aluplast. IDEAL 2000 - 3 Chambers 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.60

42 Aluplast. IDEAL 4000 - 5 Chambers 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30

Source: Passive House Institute and GOPA

Comment: Limited amount of product information was available. List was extended through standard values.

134
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

List of typical cooling units and dehumidifiers to be found on the Mexican market

List of cooling units


Aparato de refrigeracin por circulacin (Split)

Potencia
Potencia de Volumen de Funcionamiento REE
Nr. Fabricante / Modelo en
refrigera-cin aire cclico? anual
toneladas

kW tn m/h

6 Aux de Mxico ASW-24B2/SAR1-1 7.034 2.000 1000 x 3.25

7 Aux de Mxico ASW-24B2/SSR 7.034 2.000 1000 x 3.25

8 Johnson Controls Mxico BE YHCC12FSAADG 3.517 1.000 500 x 3.02

9 Johnson Controls Mxico BE YHCC18FSAADG 5.275 1.500 750 x 3.00

10 Johnson Controls Mxico BE YHCC24FSAADG 7.034 2.000 1000 x 3.08

11 Panasonic de Mxico CS/CU-YC12MKV-6 3.517 1.000 500 x 3.08

12 Panasonic de Mxico CS/CU-YC18MKV-6 5.140 1.461 730 x 3.00

13 Bristol Internacional EDF121G-CDF121G 3.517 1.000 500 x 3.00

14 Bristol Internacional EDF121A-CDF121A 3.517 1.000 500 x 3.00

15 Bristol Internacional EDF121B-CDF121B 3.517 1.000 500 x 3.00

16 Bristol Internacional EDF121E-CDF121E 3.517 1.000 500 x 3.00

135
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

17 Bristol Internacional EDF121N-CDF121N 3.517 1.000 500 x 3.00

18 Bristol Internacional EDF121R-CDF121R 3.517 1.000 500 x 3.00

19 Bristol Internacional EDF181G-CDF181G 5.275 1.500 750 x 3.00

20 Bristol Internacional EDF181A-CDF181A 5.275 1.500 750 x 3.00

21 Bristol Internacional EDF181B-CDF181B 5.275 1.500 750 x 3.00

22 Bristol Internacional EDF181E-CDF181E 5.275 1.500 750 x 3.00

23 Bristol Internacional EDF181N-CDF181N 5.275 1.500 750 x 3.00

24 Bristol Internacional EDF181R-CDF181R 5.275 1.500 750 x 3.00

25 Whirlpool Mxico WA4011Q 3.520 1.001 500 x 3.00

26 Whirlpool Mxico WA3011Q 3.520 1.001 500 x 3.00

27 Whirlpool Mxico WA4211Q 6.450 1.834 920 x 3.08

28 Whirlpool Mxico WA3211Q 6.450 1.834 920 x 3.08

29 Panasonic de Mxico CS/CU-YS18MKV-6 5.100 1.450 730 4.68

30 Panasonic de Mxico CS/CU-YS24MKV-6 6.450 1.834 920 4.39

31 Panasonic de Mxico CS/CU-S12MKV-6 3.150 0.896 450 4.68

32 Panasonic de Mxico CS/CU-S18MKV-6 5.200 1.479 740 4.68

33 Panasonic de Mxico CS/CU-S24MKV-6 6.000 1.706 850 4.39

136
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

34 Panasonic de Mxico CS/CU-YS12MKV-6 3.520 1.001 500 4.68

35 Whirlpool Mxico WA6052Q 3.517 1.000 500 4.68

36 Whirlpool Mxico WA6151Q 5.275 1.500 750 4.68

Source: FIDE

137
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

List of dehumidifiers
Potencia Calor de
Nr. Fabricante / Modelo deshumidi- REE anual escape en la
ficacin habitacin?

6 Equipo de limpieza de aire Horizonte VERT 47 1.84 x

7 Sistemas de stano Sani-Dry 100 48 1.88 x

8 Sistemas de stano, Inc SaniDry XP SD109 62 1.88 x

9 Crawlspace Concepts Compact Air Plus 60 29 1.52 x

10 Dezair DEZ-1100 48 2.04 x

11 Dri-Eaz Products CMC 100 33 1.56 x

12 Dri-Eaz Products LGR 2800i F410 63 2.02 x

13 Hisense DH-70K1SJE 33 1.31 x

14 Kenmore 70 Pint deshumidificador 50701 33 1.33 x

15 Midea DH645 23 1.36 x

16 Premier DDR65CHP 37 1.33 x

17 Santa-Fe Advance 90 42 1.88 x

18 Santa-Fe Classic 100 48 1.88 x

19 Santa-Fe RX 74 35 1.75 x

138
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

20 Therma-Stor 180SD 87 2.22 x

21 Therma-Stor DR120 56 1.8 x

22 Therma-Stor DR90 42 1.81 x

23 Therma-Stor Santa Fe 70 Compact 33 1.68 x

24 Therma-Stor UA XT 155H 75 2.42 x

25 Therma-Stor XT 105 51 2.96 x

26 Ultra-Aire UA65 30 1.35 x

27 Ultra-Aire UA-70H 33 1.64 x

28 Ultra-Aire UA90 44 1.89 x

29 Ultra-Aire XT155 68 2.52 x

30 Whirlpool, Mega Dry WPDH70 35 1.34 x

Source: Energy Star

Comment: Standard units of the Energy Star list were implemented due to lack of information at hand

139
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Characteristic values for solar domestic hot water collector and tank

List of solar domestic hot water collectors

Sup. til ngulo de


Kdir Tempe-
Lista para seleccin de colectores h0 = del inclinacin
k1 k2 C Kdfu Rendimiento RK / FK ratura de
solares FR*(ta) mdulo respecto a la
(50) operacin
(apertura) horizontal

Favor de
Breve descripcin - W/(mK) W/(m K) kJ/(mK) - - kWh/(ma) m indicar

1 Colector plano DTESTV 0.72 3.5 0 5 0.9 0.8 500 1.80 FK 22 50

2 Tubos evacuados DTESTV 0.62 0.395 0.02 11.5 0.95 0.9 487 1.50 RK 22 50

6 Colector plano estndar 0.77 3.5 0.02 6.4 0.9 0.8 300 2.00 FK

7 Colector plano mejorado 0.854 3.37 0.0104 4.7 0.97 0.94 546 2.60 FK

8 Colector con tubos evacuados 0.62 0.395 0.02 11.53 0.95 0.9 487 1.20 RK

Calentadores Solares Monarca


25
Modelo CSM 150 Plus 1.60 FK 21 60

26 Ecovo P150.13 RK

27 Kalotron - Calentador Solar 47008 y


46002 1.73 FK 50

28 CALENTADORES DE AMERICA 1.77 FK 23 50

140
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Cinsa - Termosifn SGV - Cinsa SGV

CALENTADORES DE AMERICA
29
Optimus - Ecosun 150 1.74 FK 22 50

CALENTADORES DE AMERICA
30
Cinsa- Solei SGV 1.77 FK 23 50

Calentadores Solares Monarca -


31
Modelo CSM 150 Eco 1.70 FK 21 60

Enerverde - E/TI-A-0-12-108/SS/H-
32
12-180-58 1.50 RK 27 65

Frantor Sunsol - SPO-500- 58/2000-


33
10-C (HV-100/10) 1.37 RK 21 65

34 Global Solar - GSG-470-1800/58-18 2.30 RK 20 60

35 Mdulo Solar - Axol 2011 HVA 150 1.70 FK 50

36 Mdulo Solar - Axol 2011 HVP 150 1.60 FK 50

37 Sunway - SM-37V 1.75 Fk 11-22 50

38 Innovasolar - IS-INF1-58*1800*14 1.60 RK 20 65

Source: Dictamen tcnico de energa solar trmica en vivenda (DTESTV), CONUEE 25/10/2011

Minimal requirements DTESTV NMX-ES_004-NORMEX-2010

141
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Comment: The values presented on this list are estimated values based on the results of the standard DTESTV. The data sheets of
the certificates (DIT) only declare the fulfilment of the DTESTV norms but no specific performance values are declared. Moreover, the
information on the specific test procedures was not available at the time of the development of this calculation. For these reasons,
average performance values have been estimated for a standardised DTESTV collector (one flat plate and one evacuated tubes
collector). These performance values considered for the calculation of solar collectors are based on the testing procedures of solar
collectors according to EN 12975-2.

142
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

List of solar domestic hot water tanks

Volumen de la Prdidas Prdidas


Volumen de la Vacu Breve
Volumen parte de slamente solamente
Lista para seleccin de tanques parte solar Prdidas m,aux descripcin
total del disposicin de la parte de la parte
solares (volumen totales /
acumulador (volumen de de
inferior) Vtotal
superior) disposicin disposicin

Vacum,aux
Breve descripcin Litros ltr. Vacum,sol ltr. kWh/d W/K W/K

1 Tanque solar DTESTV 150 45 105 0.65 3.00 0.30

6 Tanque solar sencillo 200 60 140 0.78 0.65 3.00 0.30 AcumSol

7 Tanque solar sencillo 300 90 210 0.78 0.65 2.80 0.30 AcumSol

8 Tanque solar sencillo 400 120 280 0.82 0.69 3.20 0.30 AcumSol

10 Tanque solar con estratificacin trmica 313 94 219 0.78 0.65 2.59 0.30 AcumSolEstrat

11 Tanque solar con estratificacin trmica 391 117 274 0.82 0.69 2.88 0.30 AcumSolEstrat

12 Tanque solar con estratificacin trmica 490 147 343 1.01 0.84 3.29 0.30 AcumSolEstrat

13 Tanque solar con estratificacin trmica 755 227 529 1.23 1.03 4.38 0.30 AcumSolEstrat

Tanque solar con estratificacin trmica AcumSolEstrat+I


14
con intercambiador AC 490 147 343 0.71 0.59 2.00 0.30 ntercambAC

Tanque solar con estratificacin trmica AcumSolEstrat+I


15
con intercambiador AC 550 165 385 0.60 0.50 2.00 0.30 ntercambAC

143
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Tanque solar con estratificacin trmica AcumSolEstrat+I


16
con intercambiador AC 800 240 560 0.96 0.80 2.50 0.30 ntercambAC

Tanque solar con estratificacin trmica AcumSolEstrat+I


17
con intercambiador AC 1000 300 700 1.08 0.90 3.10 0.30 ntercambAC

Tanque solar con estratificacin trmica AcumSolEstrat+I


18
con intercambiador AC 2000 600 1400 1.44 1.20 4.50 0.30 ntercambAC

19 Tanque solar combinado (doble camisa) 698 209 489 1.01 0.84 3.16 0.30 AcumSolCombi

20 Tanque solar combinado (doble camisa) 982 295 687 1.23 1.03 3.98 0.30 AcumSolCombi

Calentadores Solares Monarca - Modelo Acero inoxidable,


25
CSM 150 Plus 150 45 105 0.78 0.65 3.00 0.30 Poliuretano

26 Ecovo P150.13 150 45 105 0.78 0.65 3.00 0.30

Kalotron - Calentador Solar 47008 y Acero al carbn,


27
46002 150 45 105 0.78 0.65 3.00 0.30 Poliuretano

CALENTADORES DE AMERICA Cinsa Acero al carbn,


28
- Termosifn SGV - TS-150/C-403 150 45 105 0.78 0.65 3.00 0.30 Poliuretano

CALENTADORES DE AMERICA Acero al carbn,


29
Optimus - Ecosun 150 150 45 105 0.78 0.65 3.00 0.30 Poliuretano

CALENTADORES DE AMERICA Cinsa Acero al carbn,


30
- Solei SGV 150 45 105 0.78 0.65 3.00 0.30 Poliuretano

Calentadores Solares Monarca - Modelo Acero al carbn,


31
CSM 150 Eco 150 45 105 0.78 0.65 3.00 0.30 Poliuretano

144
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Enerverde - E/TI-A-0-12-108/SS/H-12- Acero inoxidable,


32
180-58 108 32 76 0.78 0.65 3.00 0.30 Poliuretano

Frantor Sunsol - SPO-500-58/2000-10- Acero inoxidable,


33
C (HV-100/10) 110 33 77 0.78 0.65 3.00 0.30 Poliuretano

Acero inoxidable,
34
Global Solar - GSG-470-1800/58-18 150 45 105 0.78 0.65 3.00 0.30 Poliuretano

Acero al carbn,
35
Mdulo Solar - Axol 2011 HVA 150 150 45 105 0.78 0.65 3.00 0.30 Poliuretano

Acero al carbn,
36
Mdulo Solar - Axol 2011 HVP 150 150 45 105 0.78 0.65 3.00 0.30 Poliuretano

Acero al carbn,
37
Sunway - SM-37V 151 45 106 0.78 0.65 3.00 0.30 Poliuretano

Acero al carbn,
38
Innovasolar - IS-INF1-58*1800*14 122 37 85 0.78 0.65 3.00 0.30 Poliuretano

Source: Dictamen tcnico de energa solar trmica en vivenda (DTESTV), CONUEE 25/10/2011
Requerimientos minimos DTESTV y NMX-ES_004-NORMEX-2010

Comment: The values presented on this list are estimated values based on the results of the standard DTESTV. The data sheets of
the certificates (DIT) only declare the fulfilment of the DTESTV norms but no specific performance values are declared. Moreover, the
information on the specific test procedures was not available at the time of the development of this calculation. For these reasons,
average performance values have been estimated for a standardised DTESTV tank (to be selected together with the DTESTV solar
collector, either flat panel or evacuated tubes). The specific performance values considered in the DEEVi calculation are based on the
testing procedures of solar tanks according to EN 12977-3.
145
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Characteristic values of water boilers

Flujo de Tipo de ID
Nr NOM, NMX, DIT Marca y modelo Capacidad Carga Funcionamiento Eficiencia
agua gas Ecotecnologa

composic Trmica
Trmica
in Mnima

Lts por
Litros kW %
minuto

CALENTADOR DE AGUA INSTANTNEO

NOM-003-ENER-
1 Calentador 1 5 Instantneo 74.0% GAS0206
2000

NOM-003-ENER-
2 Calentador 2 5.9 Instantneo 84.0%
2011

NOM-003-ENER-
3 Calentador 3 6 Instantneo 74.0%
2000

NOM-003-ENER-
4 Calentador 4 9 Instantneo 84.0%
2011

NOM-003-ENER-
5 Calentador 5 9.1 Instantneo 74.0%
2000

NOM-003-ENER-
6 Calentador 6 12 Instantneo 84.0%
2011

NOM-003-ENER-
7 GAXECO ECO-12000 12 14.8 Instantneo 84.0%
2011

146
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

9 CALENTADOR DE AGUA DE RPIDA RECUPERACIN

NOM-003-ENER- LP,
10 Guardian 40056 5 8.7 Rpida recuperacin 74.0%
2000 Natural

NOM-003-ENER- LP,
11 Kalotron 40086 5 8.7 Rpida recuperacin 74.0%
2000 Natural

NOM-003-ENER-
12 Calentador 12 4 Rpida recuperacin 82.0%
2011

NOM-003-ENER- LP,
13 Guardian 40090 7.8 10 Rpida recuperacin 74.0%
2000 Natural

NOM-003-ENER- LP,
14 Calentador 14 7.8 10 Rpida recuperacin 74.0%
2000 Natural

NOM-003-ENER-
15 Calentador 15 7.5 Rpida recuperacin 82.0%
2011

NOM-003-ENER-
16 Calentador 16 10 Rpida recuperacin 74.0%
2000

NOM-003-ENER-
17 Calentador 17 10 Rpida recuperacin 82.0%
2011

19 CALENTADOR DE AGUA ALMACENAMIENTO

NOM-003-ENER- Guardian 40016, LP,


20 40 3.5 Almacenamiento 74.0%
2000 semiautomatico Natural

NOM-003-ENER- LP,
21 Kalotron 40080, automtico 38 3.5 Alamcenamiento 74.0%
2000 Natural

147
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

NOM-003-ENER-
22 Calentador 22 1.0-40.0 Alamcenamiento 76.0%
2011

NOM-003-ENER- LP,
23 Kalotron 40081, automtico 58 3.6 Alamcenamiento 74.0%
2000 Natural

NOM-003-ENER-
24 Calentador 24 40.0-62.0 Alamcenamiento 77.0%
2011

NOM-003-ENER- LP,
25 Kalotron 40082, automtico 78 3.3 Alamcenamiento 74.0%
2000 Natural

NOM-003-ENER- LP,
26 Kalotron 40083, automtico 96 4.1 Alamcenamiento 74.0%
2000 Natural

NOM-003-ENER-
27 Calentador 27 62.0-106.0 Alamcenamiento 79.0%
2011

NOM-003-ENER- LP,
28 Kalotron 40084, automtico 120 3.8 Alamcenamiento 74.0%
2000 Natural

NOM-003-ENER-
29 Calentador 29 106.0-400.0 Alamcenamiento 82.0%
2011

Source: NOM-003-ENER-2011

148
Annexes. DEEVi Final Report

Ventilation Units

Eficiencia de
Nr. Aparato de recuperacin de calor recuperacin de Eficiencia elctrica
calor (efectiva)

% Wh/m

1 Ventilacin manual mediante ventanas 0% 0.00

2 Aparato de extraccin o impulsin de aire 0% 0.25

3 Aparato de recuperacin de calor 83% 0.40

Source: Passive House Institute

Comment: The values are based on standard ventilation equipment. Manual ventilation considered with zero.

149
Datos de contacto:
Infonavit Programa Energa Sustentable en Mxico
Subdireccin General de Sustentabilidad y Tcnica Componente Edificacin, SENER - GIZ
Barranca del Muerto No. 280 Insurgentes Sur 813, piso 11
Col. Guadalupe Inn Col. Npoles
Del. lvaro Obregn C.P. 01029 Mxico, D.F. Del. Benito Jurez, C.P. 03810 Mxico, D.F.
Telfono: +52 55 5322 6600 ext. 809618 Telfono: +52 55 5523 8808
E-mail: aalbarran@infonavit.org.mx E-mail: PES_edificacion@gopa.de