Thermo-physical evaluation of an ultra-low-energy family house

Urcsanyi P., Sedlakova A.

Technical University of Kosice, Civil Engineering Faculty,
Institute of Architectural Engineering

Ultra-low-energy house is a term known very well to engineers and architects all over the world. In these times of minimizing an energy loads and negative emissions, energy efficient houses are one of the best ways to meet European “20-20-20” targets. The main topic of this paper is to create a building envelope assessment of an ultra-low-energy family house designed for Slovak Republic climate. Family house was designed taking in account architectural, environmental and constructional requirements of today´s European directives focusing on energy performance and energy efficiency. Ultra-low-energy house was evaluated in one dimensional thermo-physical software TEPLO. The Passive House is not an energy standard but an integrated concept assuring the highest level of comfort. The integrated concept doesn't contain any numerical values and is valid for all climates. This definition shows that the Passive House is a fundamental concept and not a random standard. Ultra-low-energy building have not been “invented” by anyone – in fact, this principle was discovered. Thermal comfort is achieved to a maximum extent through passive measures (insulation, heat recovery, passive use of solar energy and internal heat sources). Results of this project are displayed in numbers as well as in graphic figures. Our goal was to find out how the designed building will perform energetically and environmentally so we could predict and minimize environmental load on nature and society in case of its actual realization.

1. V. Belpoliti, G. Bizzarri, “A parametric method to assess the energy performance of the social housing stock and simulate suitable retrofit scenarios: An Italian case study, ” Energ. Buildings, vol. 96, pp. 261–271, 2015.
2. S. Copiello, “Achieving affordable housing through energy efficiency strategy, ” Energ. Policy, vol. 85, pp. 288–298, 2015.
3. W. A. Friess, K. Rakhshan, M. P. Davis, “A global survey of adverse energetic effects of increased wall insulation in office buildings: degree day and climate zone indicators, ” Energ. Effic. 2016.
4. Available: %C5 %A1ice.
5. Available: