Does the agent replace PHPP?

No. PHPP remains the certifying energy-modelling tool produced by the Passive House Institute and stays the source of truth for demand and primary energy calculations. The agent focuses on passive house PHPP verification by checking that Revit geometry, fabric build-ups, and openings match the entries in PHPP. It closes the gap between spatial modelling and certification math without changing how PHPP itself is used.

Does it work for both Passivhaus new-build and EnerPHit retrofit?

Yes. Both Passive House Classic/Plus/Premium and EnerPHit use the same PHPP structure for geometry, envelope areas, and opening data. The verification rules compare Revit zones, walls, roofs, and windows to those PHPP tables regardless of whether the project is new-build or retrofit. Edge cases such as partially insulated existing walls are handled through project-specific rules calibrated per deployment.

How does it handle thermal bridge calculations?

Thermal bridge psi-values stay in PHPP and are not recalculated by the agent. Instead, the workflow checks that each declared junction in PHPP corresponds to a real junction between Revit elements and that the associated lengths and locations are consistent. It flags missing junctions, mismatched lengths, or geometry changes that would require the Passive House designer to update psi-value assignments in PHPP.

Does the agent issue Passive House certification?

No. Certification is issued only by accredited Passive House certifiers and the Passive House Institute. The agent prepares a structured verification report that shows how Revit geometry, treated floor area, U-values, and glazing entries align with PHPP. This gives the certified Passive House designer and certifier clearer evidence, similar in spirit to how the Sustainability Agent supports but does not replace other rating systems.

What’s the Labs engagement timeline?

Labs projects for Passive House PHPP Verification typically run 6–10 weeks from kickoff to a working agent on the customer’s first project. The ruleset is co-built with the customer’s certified Passive House designer so that checks match their preferred PHPP workflows and local climate files. Follow-on projects then reuse the same verification library, similar to how firms reuse Passive House PHPP and LEED v4.1 automated review setups across multiple jobs.

Use Case VitruAI Labs

Passive House PHPP Verification

Passive House PHPP Verification runs a Revit-side check that the modelled geometry, fabric specifications, and openings match the Passive House Planning Package entries used for Passivhaus or EnerPHit certification by the Passive House Institute. It uses the Code Compliance Agent to extract envelope areas, U-values, thermal bridges, and glazing schedules and flag discrepancies. Available now as a Labs engagement under MSA + Appendix.

Envelope areas, U-values, glazing schedules, and key junctions extracted from the Revit model and reconciled against PHPP entries for each zone and façade.
Modelled-vs-PHPP discrepancies flagged before submission to the Passive House certifier, reducing late-stage PHPP edits and remodelling loops.
Verification report and issue list formatted for the Passive House designer and certifier review, with element IDs, PHPP cell references, and decision history.

Scope a Labs engagement See capabilities ↓

How it works

From PHPP-vs-model reconciliation marathons to in-Revit verification flags.

Workflow today

01

Designer drafts the model + PHPP entries — two sources of truth diverge

Week 1–6. The architect develops the Revit model while the Passive House designer maintains PHPP as a separate spreadsheet. Treated floor area, envelope breakdowns, and glazing entries get updated at different times. Small plan changes, window moves, or construction buildup tweaks in Revit often never make it into PHPP, and vice versa, so the two datasets drift.

Week 1–6
02

Reconciliation sweep — manual cross-checking between Revit and PHPP

Week 6–8. Senior staff export schedules from Revit and manually reconcile envelope areas, glazing percentages, U-values, and thermal bridge entries against the PHPP workbook. They jump between views, filters, and Excel tabs, re-running area takeoffs after each model tweak. A single EnerPHit retrofit can take several days of back-and-forth just to confirm that PHPP matches the current model.

Week 6–8
03

PHPP designer review — more discrepancies surface late

Week 8–9. The certified Passive House designer runs their own review, checking PHPP geometry sheets, window lists, and thermal bridge tables against the latest exported drawings. They often find missing roof segments, mis-assigned opaque vs. transparent areas, or outdated U-values. Each discrepancy triggers another round of emails, screenshots, and updated spreadsheets.

Week 8–9
04

Submit to certifier — late errors trigger rework

Week 9–13. The submission goes to the Passive House Institute or another accredited certifier. If the certifier finds mismatches between the drawings and PHPP entries, the team must revise PHPP, adjust the Revit model, and regenerate plots. This can add weeks to the programme and delay related workstreams such as LEED v4.1 automated review or local energy-code submissions.

Week 9–13

Workflow with VitruAI

01

Run the agent against the working Revit file

Day 1, single-digit minutes per typical model. The BIM Manager enables the PHPP-verification ruleset within the Code Compliance Agent and points it at the current Revit file plus the relevant PHPP export. The workflow runs on standard Revit schedules and views, so it fits into existing model-audit routines alongside other checks such as sustainability and local energy regulations.

Day 1 · single-digit-minutes per typical model
02

Review reconciliation flags directly in Revit

Day 1–3. The agent annotates every envelope-area, U-value, glazing-schedule, or thermal-bridge discrepancy between the Revit model and PHPP. Each issue shows the Revit element ID, the modelled value, the PHPP cell reference, and a suggested resolution such as updating a wall type, adjusting window dimensions, or revising the treated floor area zone boundary.

Day 1–3
03

Passive House designer signs the verification report

Day 3–5. After the project team resolves issues in Revit and PHPP, the agent re-runs to confirm alignment. The certified Passive House designer reviews a citable verification report that lists each check, the current status, and any accepted deviations. This report can sit alongside Passive House PHPP documentation and other sustainability evidence such as LEED v4.1 automated review outputs.

Day 3–5
04

Submit to certifier with PHPP-vs-model evidence attached

Week 1. The submission package to the Passive House Institute or other certifier includes the verified PHPP workbook, drawings exported from the reconciled Revit model, and the model-vs-PHPP verification report. The certifier sees a clear trail from geometry to spreadsheet entries, reducing queries about envelope areas, window schedules, and thermal bridges for both Passivhaus and EnerPHit routes.

Week 1

Common questions