Resources

API Reference

Validation Test Cases

Honeybee-Revive has been validated against the Phius KMR Example model for both resiliency simulations and ADORB cost calculations. The test model is a single-zone, single-family home with a below-grade basement and two on-grade floor surfaces.

Resiliency Comparison

Peak-week resiliency simulations were compared between the Phius GUI tool and Honeybee-Revive for both winter (extreme cold week) and summer (extreme hot week) assessment periods. The comparison covers indoor environment (dry-bulb, RH, SET comfort temperature), outdoor conditions, internal gains, window gain/loss, and ventilation airflow.

Key findings:

Very close alignment across key interior air properties (dry-bulb, RH, SET) in both winter and summer.
Outdoor boundary conditions are aligned, with minor variations (+/- 0.1°C) due to different weather file processing methods.
Internal gains (people, lighting, equipment) are aligned between models.
Window solar gain and heat loss show good alignment.

Known differences:

Kiva ground solver — Phius GUI uses KIVA; Honeybee does not currently support it natively.
Thermal comfort model — SET output requires the Pierce comfort model, which requires a temporary patch in Honeybee.
Infiltration parameters — Different Temperature/Velocity Term Coefficients produce a minor difference in infiltration airflow.

Full resiliency comparison with charts and model files →

ADORB Cost Comparison

Full annual EnergyPlus simulations were executed for both the Phius GUI and Honeybee-Revive models, and ADORB costs were calculated from the results. The Phius case uses the Phius GUI ADORB calculator, while Honeybee-Revive uses the PH-ADORB library.

Key findings:

Good alignment in simulated indoor conditions, internal gains, and ventilation airflows.
Heating and cooling energy consumption show good alignment in both summer and winter.
Operational energy ADORB costs (purchase + CO₂) are closely aligned.
Grid transition PV-costs are aligned between both tools.

Known differences:

Mechanical equipment — Phius GUI uses hard-coded residential systems; Honeybee-Revive uses NREL OpenStudio Standards templates, which don't match perfectly.
Construction measure costs — A bug in the Phius GUI duplicates construction material costs at year 0, leading to erroneously high ADORB costs. This is corrected in Honeybee-Revive.
Year-0 CO₂ — Phius GUI omits construction material CO₂ at year 0; Honeybee-Revive includes it.

Full ADORB cost comparison with charts and model files →

Model Files

Test model files and Grasshopper scripts used in validation:

Related Repositories

honeybee_REVIVE_grasshopper — Grasshopper components
honeybee_revive — Python data model for retrofit analysis
PH-ADORB — ADORB cost calculation engine

Phius REVIVE Reference

Phius REVIVE v24.2.0 — KMR Example model and GUI tool
Phius — Passive House Institute US