Passive House Model for Quantitative and Qualitative Analyses and Its Intelligent System

  • Arturas KaklauskasEmail author
Part of the Intelligent Systems Reference Library book series (ISRL, volume 81)


The Passive House, along with models of its composite parts, has been developed globally. Simulation tools analyze its energy use, comfort, micro-climate, quality of life and esthetics as well as its technical, economic, legal/regulatory, educational and innovative aspects. Meanwhile the social, cultural, ethical, psychological, emotional, religious and ethnic aspects operating over the course of the existence of a Passive House are given minimal attention or are ignored entirely. However, all the aspects mentioned must be analyzed in an integrated manner during the time a Passive House is in existence. The author of this chapter along with colleagues implemented this goal while they participated in two Intelligent Energy Europe programs, the NorthPass and the IDES-EDU projects. The Passive House model for quantitative and qualitative analyses and its intelligent system was developed during the time of these projects. The model and intelligent system are briefly described in this chapter, which ends with a case study.


Housing Cost Multivariant Design Protestant Work Ethic Smart Window Passive House 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Badescu V (2007a) Simple and accurate model for the ground heat exchanger of a passive house. Renew Energy 32(5):845–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Badescu V (2007b) Economic aspects of using ground thermal energy for passive house heating. Renew Energy 32(6):895–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Badescu V, Staicovici MD (2006) Renewable energy for passive house heating model of the active solar heating system. Energy Build 38(2):129–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brechin S (1999) Objective problems, subjective values, and global environmentalism: evaluating the postmaterialist argument and challenging a new explanation. Soc Sci Q 80(4):793–809Google Scholar
  5. Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Kim E, Lewenstein BV (2009) Religiosity as a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Publ Underst Sci 18:546–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buildings and the Passive House (2010) Energy efficiency. Accessed 5 Sept 2014
  7. Canadian Passive House Institute (2011) Canada’s source for PH training and information. Accessed 5 Sept 2014
  8. Chlela F, Husaunndee A, Inard C, Riederer P (2009) A new methodology for the design of low energy buildings. Energy Build 41:982–990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cultural Tradition and Innovation in Construction (2008) Research Papers Center. Accessed 8 Sept 2014Google Scholar
  10. Davey I (2009) Environmentalism of the poor and sustainable development: an appraisal. JOAAG 4(1):1–10MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Department for Communities and Local Government (2008) Definition of zero carbon homes and non-domestic buildings. Accessed 22 Jan 2010
  12. Dessai S, Adger WN, Hulme M, Turnpenny J, Kohler J, Warren R (2004) Defining and experiencing dangerous climate change. Clim Change 64(1–2):11–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Emerson J, Esty DC, Levy MA, Kim CH, Mara V, de Sherbinin A, Srebotnjak T (2010) Environmental performance index. Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  14. Energy Union (2010) Passive houses: energy efficiency shows the way out of the economic crisis. Accessed 22 Feb 2014
  15. Franzen A, Meyer R (2010) Environmental attitudes in cross-national perspective: a multilevel analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000. Eur Sociol Rev 26(2):219–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guha R (2000) Environmentalism: a global history. Longman, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Guha R, Martínez-Alier J (1997) Varieties of environmentalism. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Hasselaar E (2006) Health performance of housing, indicators and tools. Dissertation, Delft University of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  19. Hasselaar E (2008) Health risk associated with passive houses: an exploration. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on indoor air quality and climate, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  20. Ho SS, Brossard D, Scheufele DA (2008) Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. Int J Publ Opin Res 20:171–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Inglehart R (1995) Public support for environment protection: objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. Polit Sci Polit 28:57–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Inglehart R (1997) Modernization and postmodernization. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  23. Inglehart R, Welzel C (2005) Modernization, cultural change and democracy—the human development sequence. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Kahan DM, Slovic P, Braman D, Gastil J, Cohen G, Kysar D (2008) Biased assimilation, polarization and cultural credibility: an experimental study of nanotechnology risk perceptions. Research Brief No. 3Google Scholar
  25. Kaklauskas A, Ditkevicius R, Gargasaite L (2006) Intelligent tutoring system for real estate management. Int J Strateg Property Manag 10(2):113–130Google Scholar
  26. Kaklauskas A, Kaklauskas G, Krutinis M, Ditkevicius R (2005) Intelligence computer learning systems in VGTU. In: 6th international scientific conference, public relation, quality, benefits and risks, RigaGoogle Scholar
  27. Kaklauskas A, Rute J, Zavadskas EK, Daniunas A, Pruskus V, Bivainis J, Gudauskas R, Plakys V (2012) Passive house model for quantitative and qualitative analyses and its intelligent system. Energy Build 50:7–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Karlsson JF, Moshfegh B (2006) Energy demand and indoor climate in a low energy building—changed control strategies and boundary conditions. Energy Build 38(4):315–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kumar R, Sachdeva S, Kaushik SC (2007) Dynamic earth-contact building: a sustainable low-energy technology. Build Environ 42(6):2450–2460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leiserowitz AA (2005) American risk perceptions: is climate change dangerous? Risk Anal 25:1433–1442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Martinez-Alier J (1995) The environment as a luxury or “too poor to be green”? Ecol Econ 13:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Martinez-Alier J (2000) Environmental justice as a force for sustainability. In: Pieterse J (ed) Global futures: shaping globalization. Zed Books, New York, pp 149–174Google Scholar
  33. Nation Ranking (2011) 2011 Quality and power index. Accessed 2 Sept 2014
  34. Parker DS (2009) Very low energy homes in the United States: perspectives on performance from measured data. Energy Build 41(5):512–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rakotomalala R (2005) TANAGRA: un logiciel gratuit pour l’enseignement et la recherche. In: Actes de EGC’2005, RNTI-E-3, vol 2, pp 697–702Google Scholar
  36. Rice University (2010) Nanomaterials poised for big impact in construction. ScienceDaily. Accessed 5 Sept 2014
  37. Scheufele DA (2006) Messages and heuristics: how audiences form attitudes about emerging technologies. In: Turney J (ed) Engaging science: thoughts, deeds, analysis and action. The Wellcome Trust, LondonGoogle Scholar
  38. Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res 7:659–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schnieder J, Hermelink A (2006) CEPHEUS results: measurements and occupants’ satisfaction provide evidence for passive houses being an option for sustainable building. Energy Policy 34:151–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Science, Technology and Innovation (2011) Eurostat regional yearbook 2011. Accessed 2 Sept 2014
  41. Slovic P (2000) The perception of risk. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. (2010) New window changes automatically when it gets hot. Accessed 16 Jan 2012
  43. Technology (2008) Pasyvus būstas su įprastinėmis statybinėmis medžiagomis atsieina nepigiai. Accessed 4 Sept 2014
  44. Thiers S, Peuportier B (2008) Thermal and environmental assessment of a passive building equipped with an earth-to-air heat exchanger in France. Sol Energy 82(9):820–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tzikopoulos AF, Karatza MC, Paravantis JA (2005) Modeling energy efficiency of bioclimatic buildings. Energy Build 37(5):529–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. US Housing and the Passive Home Standard (2009) Passive solar design overview—part 1. Accessed 22 Feb 2014
  47. Van de Vliert E (2008) Climatoeconomic roots of survival versus self-expression cultures. J Cross-Cult Psychol 38:156–172Google Scholar
  48. Van de Vliert E, Tol RSJ (2011) Local warming, local economic growth, and local change in democratic culture. ESRI working paper 378, DublinGoogle Scholar
  49. Wang L, Gwilliam J (2009) Case study of zero energy house design in UK. Energy Build 41:1215–1222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Willis R (2007) The future is disruptive. Accessed 9 Jan 2010
  51. Yakubu GS (1996) The reality of living in passive solar homes: a user-experience study. Renew Energy 8:177–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zeiler W, Boxem G (2009) Active house concept versus passive house. Accessed 9 Jan 2010
  53. Zelazna A, Pawłowski A (2011) The environmental analysis of insulation materials in the context of sustainable buildings, environmental engineering. In: Selected papers of the 8th international conference on environmental engineering, Vilnius, Lithuania, pp 825–829, 19–20 May 2011Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Vilnius Gediminas Technical UniversityVilniusLithuania

Personalised recommendations