Methods of sustainable assessment of buildings with examples of application OPEN HOUSE and CESBA...

This project is implemented through the CENTRAL EUROPE Programme co-financed by the ERDF.

Demonstration of energy efficiency

and

utilisation of renewable energy

sources through public buildings –

Methods of sustainable assessment of buildings with

examples of application OPEN HOUSE and CESBA

assessment in Slovenia and ID Green Building award

Dr. Marjana Šijanec Zavrl, u.d.i.g.

Ljubljana, 13 March, 2014

What is sustainable building?

2

Three pillars of sustainable building:

Environmental, economic and social

How to develop

sustainabiltyindicators?

Method/

Tool

Environment

al aspectSocial Economic

EU public

involved in the

method? javnost

vključena v

pripravo metode

GB tool DA DA Delno Delno

BREEAM DA Delno NE NE

LEED DA Delno NE NE

LENSE DA DA Delno Delno

DGNB DA DA Delno NE

Overview of sustainable building assessmnet tools, (over 250 global codes.)

• Qvantitative methods for assessment of buildings, based on LCA inventotymaterial sadnzmaterialnih in energijskih tokov in/ali oceni vplivov (le) na okolje (Envest,

EcoQuantum, GaBi)

• Qvalitative methods – compare indicators with a reference case; , give points, then use weighting to final score

• Assessment methods of the 1st generation– zelene stavbe• Assessment methods of the 2nd generation: trajnostne stavbe

Vir: FP7 OPEN HOUSE

OPEN HOUSE:

Benchmarking and mainstreaming building sustainability in the EU based on

transparency and openness (open source and availability) from model to

implementation

Funding by EC: FP7-ENV 2009

Project Coordinator: ACCIONA Infraestructuras (Spain)

Scientific and Technical Coordinator: FRAUNHOFER IBP (Germany)

Members: 20 partners from 11 European countries (whole construction sector)

2010 - 2013

OPEN HOUSE PartnersMore than 50 faces behind

Source: OPEN HOUSE Eßig, N.: 2010

Many assessment methods have been developed in Europe and the world

In Europe: more than 60 have been identified

All these methods are based on national regulations and adapted to local contexts

Four main methods: BREEAM, DGNB Certificate, HQE and LEED

Development of Building Assessment Methods

BREEAM

1990

Ime

Lo

go

1s

t za

go

n

dežela

Oc

en

aG

lavn

e k

ate

go

rije

LEED

19981996

HQE

No aggregation

into one rating

2007

DGNB

Comparison of SB assessment methodsN

am

eL

og

o1

st

lau

nch

Co

un

try

Rati

ng

Ma

in c

ate

go

rie

s

Management

Health & Wellbeing

Energy

Transport

Water

Materials

Waste

Land Use & Ecology

Pollution

Innovation

Site and construction

Management

Comfort

Health

Environmental Quality

Economic Quality

Sociocultural & functional

Quality

Technical Characteristics

Process Quality

Site Quality

Sustainable Sites

Water Efficiency

Energy and Atmosphere

Materials and Resources

Indoor Environmental

Quality

Innovation in Design

Source RICS, Going for green, May 2011

Source RICS, Going for green, May 2012

Source RICS, Going for green, Sept. 2013

Why OPEN HOUSE method of sustainability asseessment?

Indicator 1 Indicator 2 Indicator 3

Vir: FP7 OH, N.Essig

Indicator 1 Indicator 2 Indicator 3

No common understanding of the concept of sustainability

No common European building sustainability standards

Not enough efficient platform to create awareness and use

Aspects and Indicators DGNB BREEAM LEED

Ecological Aspects Environmental Emissions

Material Ressources

Waste

Water

Energy CO2 –Emissions

Energy Efficiency

Renewable Energies

Building Shell

Technical Building Equipment

Monitoring

Sub-Metering

Energy Efficiency of Electrical Buildung Equiment

Economical Aspects Life Cycle Costs

Value Stability

Socio-cultural Aspects Security

Barrier Free Acessibility

Regional and Social Aspects

Comfort and Health Thermal Comfort

Indoor Air Quality

Akustical Comfort

Visual Comfort

Operation Comfort

Functional Aspects Area Efficiency

Conversion of Feasibility

Design/ Innovation Architecture

Art in and at the building

Innovation

Comparison (V 2009)

Comparison (V 2009)

Aspects and Indicators DGNB BREEAM LEED

Technical Aspects Fire Protection

Durability

Cleaning and Maintenance

Resistance (Hail, Storm, High Water, Earthquake)

Process/ Management Planning Process

Construction Site Process

Commissiong

Operation

Site Micro-Site

Public Transport Conditions

Bycicle Comfort

Neighbourhoud

Legal Frameworks

Possibility for Expansaton

Area Consumption

Protection of the Nature and Landsite

Biodiversity

Source: Essig, N. 2010

Draft final EU Ecolabel criteria for office buildings

http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/buildings/stakeholders.html

EU Ecolabel and Green Public Procurementfor Buildings

“Weighting” of particular group of criteria

http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/buildings/stakeholders.html

CEN /TC 350 Building Sustainability

OPEN HOUSE development

Bottom-up-Approach:

complementing existing systems and based on existing standards, assessment methods and

international initiatives

……

CEN/TC 350

ISO TC59/SC17

Standards Assessment

methodsInternational

initiatives

OPEN HOUSE development:

N° Assessment Methodology Indicator

1 DGNB Thermal Comfort in Winter

2 DGNB Thermal Comfort in Summer

3 BREEAM ES Thermal comfort

4 BREEAM ES Thermal zoning

5 VERDE Thermal comfort

6 BREEAM Europe Thermal Comfort

7 BREEAM Europe Thermal Zoning

8 Protocollo ITACA Air temperature

9 SBTOOL PL - E-AUDIT Relative humidity in primary

occupancies

10 SBTOOL PL - E-AUDIT Air temperature in primary

occupancies.

11 Miljöklassad Byggnad Thermal comfort

12 Miljöstatus för byggnader o. E. Thermal Comfort

13 SPCR 114 E Thermal comfort

13 out of the 560 entries

correspond to the issue

Thermal Comfort

Proposed name for the OH indicator: Thermal Comfort (plus Sub-Indicators)

Indicator analysis: - Example: Social/Functional Quality

Evaluation and selection of OPEN HOUSE indicators

• 560 “all” indicators > 95 preselection of suitable indicators> 56 “Full system” > 30 “Core system”

OPEN HOUSE Methodology

OPEN HOUSE framework: 6 categories

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

BE

UK

DE

DE

PL

PL

GR

SE

CH

ES

FR

SI

FR

PL

CAN THE CLIENT PROVIDE INFORMATION NEEDED FOR DETERMINATION OF PARTICULAR INDICATOR?


treshold

LEGEND3 - Yes2 - Yes, but... Partly1 - No

0 - no answer, n.a.

ACCEPTABILITY OF INDICATORS

PER COUNTRYGood 2-3

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

BE

UK

DE

DE

PL

PL

GR

SE

CH

ES

FR

SI

FR

PL

IS THERE AN EXISTING AVAILABLE METHOD FOR DETERMINATION OF INDICATORS' VALUE IN YOUR

COUNTRY?

IS THERE AN EXISTING AVAILABLE METHOD FOR DETERMINATION OF INDICATORS' VALUE IN YOUR COUNTRY?

treshold


0 - no answer, n.a.

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

BE

UK

DE

DE

PL

PL

GR

SE

CH

ES

FR

SI

FR

PL

COULD THE BENCHMARK BE SET FOR THIS INDICATOR?


treshold


0 - no answer, n.a.

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

BE

UK

DE

DE

PL

PL

GR

SE

CH

ES

FR

SI

FR

PL

COULD THIS INDICATOR BE APPLIED?


treshold


0 - no answer, n.a.

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0Global Warming Potential (GWP)

Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP)Acidification Potential (AP)EutrophicationPotential (EP)

Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP)Risks from materials

Certified wood

Microclimate / Heat-Island-Effect

Biodiversity

Light Pollution

Non-Renewable Primary Energy Demands (PEne)

Total Primary Energy Demands and Percentage of Renewable Primary Energy

Abiotic Resource Depletion

Non-renewable freshwater resources depletion

Depletion of habitats

Contamination of undisturbed areas

Exhaustion of solid waste sites suitable for non-hazardous waste

Waterbody pollution excluding Eutrophication

Hazards from disposal of non-radioactive hazardous waste

Hazards from disposal or storage of radioactive waste

Responsible Material Sourcing

Barrier-free Accessibility

Personal Safety and Security of Users

Thermal Comfort

Indoor Air Quality

Water Quality

Acoustic ComfortVisual Comfort

Operation ComfortService QualityElectro Magnetic Pollution

AccessibilityNoise from Building and SiteQuality of the Design and Urban Development of the building and SiteBicycle Comfort

Building-related Life Cycle Costs (LCC)Socio-economic impact

Value Stability

Fire Protection

Designing for Robustness

Easiness of clean and maintenance

Ability to resist against hail, storm, high water and earthquake

Noise Protection

Quality of the building shell

Area Efficiency

Conversion Feasibility

Quality of the Project’s Preparation

Integral Planning

Optimization and Complexity of the Approach to Planning

Evidence of Sustainability during Bid Invitation and Awarding

Construction Site impact/ Construction Process

Quality of the Executing Contractors/Pre-Qualification

Quality Assurance of Construction Execution

Commissioning

Use and Operation

Risks at the Site

Circumstances at the Site

Options for TransportationImage and Condition of the Location and Neighbourhood

Vicinity to amenitiesPlanning law - ?Adjacent Media, Infrastructure, Development


IS THERE AN EXISTING AVAILABLE METHOD FOR DETERMINATION OF INDICATORS' VALUE IN YOUR COUNTRY?



LEGEND

3 - Yes

2 - Yes, but... Partly

1 - No

0 - no answer, n.a.

Acceptability of all 61 indicators (average value per partners).

OPEN HOUSE Case Studies

OPEN HOUSE methodology for sustainability assessment

“Full list" and “Core” indicators• 6 groups:

• System boarder: building and building site

• Location is considered informatively outside the system boarder.

Okoljska kakovost

Družbena in funkcionalna

kakovost

Ekonomska kakovost

Tehnične lastnosti

Procesna kakovost

Lokacija


1.1 Global Warming Potential (GWP)

1.2 Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP)

1.3 Acidification Potential (AP)

1.4 EutrophicationPotential (EP)

1.5 Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP)

1.6 Risks from materials

1.7 Biodiversity and Depletion of Habitats

1.8 Light Pollution

1.9 Non-Renewable Primary Energy Demands (PEne)

1.10Total Primary Energy Demands and Percentage of Renewable Primary Energy

1.11 Water and Waste Water

1.12 Land use

1.13 Waste

1.14 Energy efficiency of building equipment (lifts, escalators etc.)

Social / Functional

Quality

2.1 Barrier-free Accessibility

2.2 Personal Safety and Security of Users

2.3 Thermal Comfort

2.4 Indoor Air Quality

2.5 Water Quality

2.6 Acoustic Comfort

2.7 Visual Comfort

2.8 Operation Comfort

2.9 Service Quality

2.10 Electro Magnetic Pollution

2.11 Public Accessibility

2.12 Noise from Building and Site

2.13Quality of the Design and Urban Development of the building and Site

2.14 Area Efficiency

2.15 Conversion Feasibility

2.16 Bicycle Comfort

2.17 Responsible Material Sourcing

2.18 Local Material

Economic Quality

3.1 Building-related Life Cycle Costs (LCC)

3.2 Value Stability

Technical Characteristics

4.1 Fire Protection

4.2 Durability of the structure and Robustness

4.3 Cleaning and maintenance

4.4 Resistance against hail, storm high water and earthquake

4.5 Noise Protection

4.6 Quality of the building shell

4.7 Ease of Deconstruction, Recycling, and Dismantling

Process Quality

5.1 Quality of the Project’s Preparation

5.2 Integrated Planning

5.3 Optimization and Complexity of the Approach to Planning

5.4 Evidence of Sustainability during Bid Invitation and Awarding

5.5 Construction Site impact/ Construction Process

5.6 Quality of the Executing Contractors/Pre-Qualification

5.7 Quality Assurance of Construction Execution

5.8 Commissioning

5.9 Monitoring, Use and Operation

The location

6.1 Risks at the Site

6.2 Circumstances at the Site

6.3 Options for Transportation

6.4 Image and Condition of the Location and Neighbourhood

6.5 Vicinity to amenities

6.6 Adjacent Media, Infrastructure, Development


1.1 Global Warming Potential (GWP)

1.2 Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP)

1.3 Acidification Potential (AP)

1.4 EutrophicationPotential (EP)

1.5Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP)

1.9Non-Renewable Primary Energy Demands (PEne)

1.10Total Primary Energy Demands and Percentage of Renewable Primary Energy

1.11 Water and Waste Water

1.12 Land use

1.13 Waste

Social / Functio

nal Quality

2.1 Barrier-free Accessibility

2.3 Thermal Comfort

2.4 Indoor Air Quality

2.6 Acoustic Comfort

2.7 Visual Comfort

2.8 Operation Comfort

2.10 Electro Magnetic Pollution

2.11 Public Accessibility

2.12 Noise from Building and Site

2.15 Conversion Feasibility

2.16 Bicycle Comfort

2.17 Responsible Material Sourcing

2.18 Local Material

Economic

Quality

3.1 Building-related Life Cycle Costs (LCC)

Technical

Characteristics

4.6 Quality of the building shell

4.7Ease of Deconstruction, Recycling, and Dismantling

Process Quality

5.1 Quality of the Project’s Preparation

5.5 Construction Site impact/ Construction Process

5.8 Commissioning

The location

6.1 Risks at the Site

6.3 Options for Transportation

Vir: D1.5 Baseline model and assessment

methodology, FRAUNFOFER

“Full list" in “Core" indicators

“Full list “ and “Core" indicators

• OPEN HOUSE full system indicators

contains 56 indicators

• OPEN HOUSE core indicators contains

31 indicators (ki so del celotnega

sistema).

• OFFICE BUILDINGS,

• new < 10 years

Co

rein

dic

ato

rs

Full

list

of

ind

icat

ors

Quickassessment

Completeassessemnt

Quick

Quick

Quickassessement

Designphase

Completeassessement

Buildingin use

Klju

čni

ind

ikat

orj

i

Ce

lotn

i nab

or

ind

ikat

orj

ev

Hitra ocena Podrobna ocena

Hitra ocena

Hitra ocena

Osnovno vrednotenje

Faza načrtovanja

Celovito vrednotenje

Končana stavba v uporabi

Assessment Guideline

AGOPEN HOUSE

Vodnik za trajnostno vrednotenje stavbe s

podrobnim opisomOPEN HOUSE

metodologije.

Vsebuje okvir za vrednotenje in opis

indikatorjev ter podindikatorjev.

Dostopen na spletu..

OPEN HOUSE Vodnik za vrednotenje

Testing OH methodologie

• FP7 OPEN HOUSE methodology was tested on 52 case studies in 34 countries all over geographical area of Europe.

• 68 selected buildings v 34 countries.

• Aim: To evaluate and refine the methodology by the feedback resulting from case studies and real sustainable public procurement cases and other stakeholders inputs

Project CH.4

Foyer Zug, Switzerland

Building Type

93% Office, 1% Education , 4% Restaurant,

2% Sports

Building Phase

Construction , Date of Completion: 10/2012

Building Characteristics

Total Floor Area: 39 649 m²

Number of storeys: 10

Address

Landis & Gyr – Strasse

6300 Zug

SWITZERLAND

Assessor

Regina Hardziewski

ETH Zurich

Building Owner

Credit Suisse, Real Estate Asset Management

Architect

axess Architekten, Zug, CH

Assessment Methodology

OPEN HOUSE v1.1 (01/2012)

Complete Sustainability Assessment

34

Project FR.8

EDF – Immeuble GODINOT – Lyon, France

Building Type

Office Building

Building Phase

In use

Date of Completion: 09/2011


Total Floor Area: 8965 m²


Address

154 rue Thiers,

69006 Lyon

FRANCE

Assessor

Bruno Ziegler

EDF R&D

Building Owner

EDF

Architect

Viguier JC, Paris




Project AT.4

LCT ONE, Austria

Building Type

Office Building

Building Phase

In use





Address

Färbergasse 17 b

6850 Dornbirn

Austria

Assessor

Rainer Strauch, Cree GmbH

Building Owner

Cree P1 GmbH

Architect

Architekten Hermann Kaufmann ZT,

Austria



Basic and Quick Sustainability Assessment

Project DE.2

ZUB - Zentrum für Umweltbewusstes Bauen, Germany

Building Type

Office Building

Building Phase

In use




Address

Kassel, GERMANY

Assessor

Dr. Natalie Essig, Vincent Peyramale

Fraunhofer IBP

Building Owner

Zentrum für Umwelbewusstes Bauen e.V

Architect

Jourdan & Müller PAS




• Testing of OPEN HOUSE methodology in Slovenia

OPEN HOUSE Case study report

Project SL.1 Menerga

Core indicators – environmental quality

Okoljska kakovost

1.1 Potencial za globalno segrevanje zaradi izpustov CO2 pri fosilnih gorivih (GWP) (kg CO2eqv.)

1.2 Potencial za zmanjševanje koncentracije ozona v stratosferi zaradi CFC plinov (ODP) (kg CFC-11eqv.)

1.3 Zakislevanje ozračja zaradi povečanega sproščanja SO2 in NOx (AP) (kg SO2ekv.)

1.4 Eutrofikacija zaradi neposredne in posredne uporabe gnojil (EP) (kg PO4ekv.)

1.5 Poletni smog – potencial fotokemičnega nastajanja ozona v nižjih plasteh ozračja (POCP) (kg C2H4)ekv.

1.9 Raba primarne energije, neobnovljive (PEne) (MJ)

1.10 Celotna raba primarne energije in delež obnovljivih virov v primarni energiji

1.11 Voda in odpadna voda

1.12 Raba zemlje

1.13 Odpadki

• Definition of LCA indicators?

(1.1-1.5, 1.9, 1.10)

Using EPDs from ESUCO database

EPD is environmetal label Type III

http://www.google.si/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=4sOgOpofVHONlM&tbnid=eDw7HbZS6C8cXM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aresfvg.it%2Findex.php%3Fq%3Dit%2Fnode%2F714&ei=-kWMUeTnM4rdtAam64DICg&bvm=bv.46340616,d.bGE&psig=AFQjCNEzIANXdAW4dELTZTIOsTKFpqOfIw&ust=1368233714860660

Example 1.13 Waste

• Separation of recyclable waste

• Composting

1.13.1 Konteiners for recyclable waste

1.13.2 Composting

Core indicators – social functional quality

Družbeno funkcional

na kakovost

2.1 Dostop brez ovir / Barrier-free Accessibility

2.3 Toplotno ugodje / Thermal Comfort

2.4 Kakovost notranjega zraka / Indoor Air Quality

2.6 Akustično ugodje / Acoustic Comfort

2.7 Vidno ugodje / Visual Comfort

2.8 Obratovalno ugodje / Operation Comfort

2.10 Elektro magnetno onesnaženje / Electro Magnetic Pollution

2.11 Dostopno za javnost / Public Accessibility

2.12 Hrup s stavbe in lokacije / Noise from Building and Site

2.15 Sposobnost spremembe namembnosti / Conversion Feasibility

2.16 Kolesarsko ugodje / cycling comfort

2.17 Odgovorna izbira virov materialov / Responsible Material Sourcing

2.18 Lokalni materiali / Local Material

Examle: 2.1 Barrier-free Accessibility(Social – functional quality)

• 2.1.1 Dostop brez ovir

• Več kot 150*150 cm prostora pred dvigalom

Example: 2.7 Visual comfort

• 2.7.1 Dnevna svetloba po vsej stavbi

• 2.7.2 Dnevna svetloba na voljo na delovnih mestih

• 2.7.3 Pogled navzven

• 2.7.4 Preprečevanje bleščanja pri dnevni svetlobi

• 2.7.5 Preprečevanje bleščanja pri umetni svetlobi

• 2.7.6 Porazdelitev svetlobe pri umetnem osvetljevanju

• 2.7.7 Barve - render

Core indicators – economic quality, technical, process and site …

Ekonomska kakovost

3.1 Vseživljenjski stroški stavbe / Building-related Life Cycle Costs (LCC)

Tehničnelastnosti

4.6 Kakovost stavbenega ovoja / Quality of the building shell

4.7Primernost za razgradnjo, reciklažo / Ease of Deconstruction, Recycling, and Dismantling

Procesna kakovost

5.1 Kakovost priprave projekta/ Quality of the Project’s Preparation

5.5 Proces graditve / Construction Site impact/ Construction Process

5.8 Postopek comissioning / Commissioning

Lokacija6.1 Tveganja lokacije (potres, poplave….) / Risks at the Site

6.3 Možnosti transporta / Options for Transportation

• 5.2.1 Integral design team /Integralna projektna skupina

• 5.2.2 Quality of the team / Kvalifikacija integralne projektne skupine

• 5.2.3 Design Charrette – intenzivno delo /Priprava na predstavitev

• 5.2.4 Integrated designprocess /Proces integralnega načrtovanja

• 5.2.5 Participation of future users / influence on localcommunity / Udeležba bodočih uporabnikov in drugih deležnikov / vplivi na lokalno skupnost

Vir: Projekta, Bajc

Primer: 5.2 Integrated design

Opinion on usability of the method

• Fig. 9: Future usability of OPEN HOUSE methodology (30 core indicators) -respondents’ vision of sustainable building, – all cases vs. former YU countries

0

0,5

1

1,5

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

4,5

Glob

al W

arming Po

tent

ial (

GWP)

Ozon

e De

plet

ion Po

tent

ial (

ODP)

Acidifi

catio

n Po

tent

ial (

AP)

Eutrop

hica

tionP

oten

tial (

EP)

Phot

oche

mical O

zone

Cre

ation Po

tent

ial (

POCP

)Bi

odiver

sity

and

Dep

letio

n of

Hab

itats

Ligh

t Pollutio

nAb

iotic

Dep

letio

n Po

tent

ial for

Fos

sil F

uels (A

DP Fos

sil)

Tota

l Prim

ary En

ergy

Dem

ands

and

Sha

re of R

enew

able P

rimar

y En

ergy

Wat

er and

Was

te W

ater

Land

use

Was

teEn

ergy

efficienc

y of

building eq

uipm

ent (

lifts

, esc

alato

rs and

mov

ing walkw

ays)

Abiotic

Dep

letio

n Po

tent

ial for

Non

Fos

sil F

uels

(ADP

Elem

ent)

Barrier-free

Acc

essibilit

yPe

rson

al S

afet

y an

d Se

curit

y of

Use

rsTh

ermal C

omfo

rtIndo

or A

ir Qu

ality

Wat

er Q

ualit

yAc

oust

ic C

omfo

rtVisu

al C

omfo

rtOp

erat

ion Co

mfo

rtSe

rvice Qu

ality

Public A

cces

sibilit

yNo

ise from

Building an

d Si

teBi

cycle Am

eniti

esMat

erial S

ourc

ing

Build

ing-

relate

d Life

Cyc

le C

osts

(LCC

)Va

lue St

ability

Clea

ning

and

maint

enan

ceNo

ise Pr

otec

tion

Quality

of t

he b

uilding sh

ell

Ease

of D

econ

stru

ction, R

ecyc

ling, and

Disman

tling

Quality

of t

he P

roject

’s P

repa

ratio

nInte

grat

ed P

lann

ing

Optim

izat

ion an

d Co

mplex

ity of t

he App

roac

h to

Plann

ing

Eviden

ce of S

usta

inab

ility

dur

ing Bi

d Invita

tion an

d Aw

arding

Cons

truc

tion Si

te im

pact

/ Co

nstruc

tion Pr

oces

sQu

ality

of t

he Exe

cutin

g Co

ntra

ctor

s/Pr

e-Qu

alifica

tion

Quality

Ass

uran

ce of C

onst

ruct

ion Ex

ecut

ion

Commission

ing

Mon

itorin

g, U

se and

Ope

ratio

n

Risk

s at

the Si

teCi

rcum

stan

ces at

the Si

teOp

tions

for T

rans

portat

ion

Acce

ss to

amen

ities

Environmental

Quality

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.111.121.13 1.14 1.15Social /

Functional Quality

2.12.22.3 2.42.52.6 2.72.82.9 2.112.122.16 2.17Economic Quality3.1 3.2Technical

Characteristics

4.34.54.6 4.7Process Quality5.15.25.35.45.55.65.75.8 5.9The Location6.16.26.36.5

AT Austria

BE Belgium

CH Switzerland

CZ Czech Republic

DE Germany

DK Denmark

EE Estonia

ES Spain

FI Finland

FR France

GR Greece

HU Hungary

IE Ireland

IS Iceland

IT Italy

LT Lithuania

LU Luxemburg

LV Latvia

ME Montenegro

MK Republic of Macedonia

MT Malta

NL Netherlands

NO Norway

Weighting of indicators per countries in EU – pole OPEN HOUSE

Weighting

Primary QualityPoints

indicator

Points

maximal

Degree of

performance

indicator

Indicator

Weighting

Category

Weighting

Degree of

performance

overall

1.1 Global Warming Potential (GWP) 67 100 67% 1

1.2 Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) 50 100 50% 1

1.3 Acidification Potential (AP) 10 100 10% 1

1.4 EutrophicationPotential (EP) 0 100 0% 1

1.5 Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP) 25 100 25% 1

1.6 Risks from materials 100 100 100% 1

1.7 Biodiversity and Depletion of Habitats 100 100 100% 1

1.8 Light Pollution 75 100 75% 1

1.9 Non-Renewable Primary Energy Demands (PEne) 50 100 50% 1

1.10 Total Primary Energy Demands and Percentage of Renewable Primary Energy 100 100 100% 1

1.11 Water and Waste Water 100 100 100% 1

1.12 Land use 10 100 10% 1

1.13 Waste 25 100 25% 1

1.14 Energy efficiency of building equipment (lifts, escalators etc.) 25 100 25% 1

2.1 Barrier-free Accessibility 100 100 100% 1

2.2 Personal Safety and Security of Users 100 100 100% 1

2.3 Thermal Comfort 100 100 100% 1

2.4 Indoor Air Quality 75 100 75% 1

2.5 Water Quality 25 100 25% 1

2.6 Acoustic Comfort 75 100 75% 1

2.7 Visual Comfort 50 100 50% 1

2.8 Operation Comfort 65 100 65% 1

2.9 Service Quality 20 100 20% 1

2.10 Electro Magnetic Pollution 10 100 10% 1

2.11 Public Accessibility 0 100 0% 1

2.12 Noise from Building and Site 0 100 0% 1

2.13 Quality of the Design and Urban Development of the building and Site 0 100 0% 1

2.14 Area Efficiency 25 100 25% 1

2.15 Conversion Feasibility 50 100 50% 1

2.16 Bicycle Comfort 100 100 100% 1

2.17 Responsible Material Sourcing 100 100 100% 1

2.18 Local Material 100 100 100% 1

3.1 Building-related Life Cycle Costs (LCC) 85 100 85% 1

3.2 Value Stability 100 100 100% 1

4.1 Fire Protection 0 100 0% 1

4.2 Durability of the structure and Robustness 75 100 75% 1

4.3 Cleaning and maintenance 25 100 25% 1

4.4 Resistance against hail, storm high water and earthquake 75 100 75% 1

4.5 Noise Protection 50 100 50% 1

4.6 Quality of the building shell 65 100 65% 1

4.7 Ease of Deconstruction, Recycling, and Dismantling 100 100 100% 1

5.1 Quality of the Project’s Preparation 0 100 0% 1

5.2 Integral Planning 100 100 100% 1

5.3 Optimization and Complexity of the Approach to Planning 75 100 75% 1

5.4 Evidence of Sustainability during Bid Invitation and Awarding 25 100 25% 1

5.5 Construction Site impact/ Construction Process 75 100 75% 1

5.6 Quality of the Executing Contractors/Pre-Qualification 50 100 50% 1

5.7 Quality Assurance of Construction Execution 65 100 65% 1

5.8 Commissioning 20 100 20% 1

5.9 Monitoring, Use and Operation 0 100 0% 1

6.1 Risks at the Site 75 100 75% 1

6.2 Circumstances at the Site 0 100 0% 1

6.3 Options for Transportation 25 100 25% 1

6.4 Image and Condition of the Location and Neighbourhood 50 100 50% 1

6.5 Vicinity to amenities 100 100 100% 1

6.6 Adjacent Media, Infrastructure, Development 80 100 80% 1

56%

46%

55%

33%

33%

33%

67%

OPEN HOUSE Full System Indicators

The location

Process Quality

Technical

Characteristics

Economic

Quality

Social /

Functional

Quality

Environmental

Quality

Weight may be set to 1-5

Weight of categorymay be nationally

specific tbd.

Source: D1.5 Baseline model

and assessment methodology,

FRAUNFOFER

Ongoing – pilot use of OPEN HOUSE indicators for SB

• FP7 EE HIGHRISE – demonstracijski projekt izgradnje energijsko učinkovite trajnostne stavbe Eko-srebrna hiša v Ljubljani

• 2013-2018

• Poteka okoljsko in trajnostno vrednotenje stavbe po mednarodni metodologiji FP7 OPEN HOUSE

• WWW.EE-HIGHRISE.EU

The project is financially

supported by the European

Commission through the FP7

Programme

http://www.akropola.si/eko-srebrna-hisa

http://www.google.si/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=gszKJLh0zU080M&tbnid=mbFDGIouNCNlpM:&ved=0CAgQjRwwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.akropola.si%2Feko-srebrna-hisa&ei=d1cXUtnMKcSL4gSg-IDQAw&psig=AFQjCNG85RwMApOVKACTUTrbsVhqwhD6mA&ust=1377347831705302

V projektu razvito orodje CESBA

Zajeta so naslednja področja: okoljska, družbena in ekonomska.

Kriteriji razdeljeni po naslednjih kategorijah:

Kvaliteta lokacije in transporta,

Raba energije,

Vpliv na zdravje in udobje,

Gradbeni materiali in konstrukcije.

Proces načrtovanja in kakovost,

Več informacij: http://wiki.CESBA.eu

Pilotni primer:Tolmin

Prenova stavba v nizkoenergijski nivo, uporaba materialov z manjšimi škodljivimi

vplivi na okolje in zdravje človeka.

Pilotni primer

QNH=260kWh/m2(PHPP)

Pilotni primer

nizko energijski nivo

Kriteriji za prenovo: Zunanji ovoj stavbe U≤ 0,15 W/m2K Toplotna prehodnost okna (Uw) <= 0,80 W/m2K Toplotna prehodnost stekla (Ug) <= 0,50 W/m2K Prepustnost za sončno sevanje (g) = > 0,50 Tristopenjski rekuperator z 80% izkoristkom

Case study: Tolmin Slovenia – CEC5


Daylight factor

Upoštevanje konstantnega R: U=0,146 W/m2K

GWP….Global warming potential of the building (Co2)AP:……Acidification potential of the building (So4)PEI……Non renewable primary energy consumption of the building (MJ)


Analysis ECOSOFT

Merila za novogradnje

Materiali in konstrukcije


Environmental and economic assessment

• Wooden windows wilh Al covering• Rood wooden windows• Mineral wool with EPD• Celulose insulation for roof• Floor covering – mostly recycled material

Case study - Tolmin

Materials and components used


CESBA vrednotenje

CESBA General assessment frame fornew and existing buildings

CEBA-Tool Version 1.116. Juni 2012

Merila za javne stavbe (novogradnja)

A Standardna kakovost in oprema max. 80

A 1 Priključitev na javno prometno omrežje 30

A 2 Okoljska kvaliteta mesta 30

A 3 Kolesarnice 25

B POSTOPEK IN KAKOVOSTNO NAČRTOVANJE max. 200

B 1 Odločanje in testiranje variant 25

B 2 Opredelitev energetskih in okoljskih ciljev M 20

B 3 Poenostavljen račun ekonomičnosti M 40

B 4Produktno upravljanje – uporaba gradbenih izdelkov z malo škodljvimi

snovmi in nizkimi emisijami60

B 5 Načrtovanje, optimairanje in preverjanje energijske učinkovitosti stavb 60

B 6 Informiranje uporabnikov 25

C Energija in oskrba max. 450

C 1 Potreba po ogrevanju PHPP M 100

C 2 Potreba po hlajenju PHPP M 100

C 3 Poraba primarne energije PHPP M 125

C 4 Emisije CO2- po PHPP 75

C 5 Fotovoltaični sistemi, CO2-ekvivalent 50

C 6 Poraba energije M 10

C 7 Poraba vode/ uporaba deževnice 20

D Zdravlje in udobje max. 200

D 1 Toplotno ugodnje poleti 125

D 2 kakovostno prezračevanje- higiensko in skrb za raven hrupa 40

D 3 Dnevna svetloba, količnik dnevne svetlobe 40

E Materiali in konstrukcije max. 200

E 1 OI3TGH-lc Ekološka občutljivost toplotnega ovoja 200

max. 1000

max. TočkObvezni

kriterij (M)Naslov

Skupaj

Nr.

• Guidelines for investors and designers in design process

• Enables better living comfort, lower costs, higher real estate value…

• Supports the development of sustainable building (market)

• Guideline for development of construction products

• The basis for comparison of sustainability levels of various buildings (labelling)

• Public sector – support in green public procurement

Assessment of building sustainability

Holistic approachrecommended-

based on

METHODS FOR SUSTAINABLE

ASSESSEMENT OF BUILDINGS

Particular “green” indicatos as used now

Energy class A30% of wood, 15% EPD

Designer with reference of RES…Biomass heating…

Decree on GPP & sustainability assessment

Razpis za evropsko Green Building / ID nagrado

• Projekt MaTrID je v sodelovanju s programom EC Green Building oblikoval evropsko nagrado za integralno načrtovanje energijsko učinkovite stavbe Green Building / ID nagrado.

• Zanjo lahko na odprtem razpisu kandidirajo projekti nestanovanjskihstavb, ki ustrezajo merilom osnovnega Green Building programa in hkrati izkažejo, da je načrtovanje potekalo v skladu z načeli integriranega (energijskega) načrtovanja.

• Podelitev nagrad je enkrat letno, upoštevajo pa se prijave prispele do konca februarja.

Povzetek – prednosti integralnega (energijskega) načrtovanja – KAKO LAHKO VPLIVAMO

• V zgodnjih fazah procesa načrtovanja lahko s pozornim načrtovanjem uspešno nadzorujemo stroške projekta, medtem ko je med izvedbo strošek spremembe projekta visok.

Povzetek – prednosti integralnega (energijskega) načrtovanja – RAZPOREDITEV OBSEGA DELA

• V tradicionalnem procesu načrtovanja je večina dela projektne skupine vezanega na projektiranje in pripravo izvedbene dokumentacij, znova se poveča vključenost projektne skupine po predaji objekta, ko se pričnejo reševati reklamacije. (Vir: S. Carlucci, eERG-Polimi, MaTrid)

Povzetek – prednosti integralnega (energijskega) načrtovanja – RAZPOREDITEV OBSEGA DELA

• Pri integralnem načrtovanju želimo del nabora vloženega v pripravo izvedbene dokumentacije prenesti v zgodnejše, bolj učinkovite faze. (Vir: S. Carlucci, eERG-Polimi, MaTrid)

Hvala za pozornost!

[email protected]

CEC5, http://www.projectcec5.eu/

FP7 OPEN HOUSE, www.openhouse-fp7.eu

FP7 EE-HIGHRISE, www.ee-highrise.eu

http://www.projectcec5.eu/

http://www.openhouse-fp7.eu/



http://www.ee-highrise.eu/



Methods of sustainable assessment of buildings with examples of application OPEN HOUSE and CESBA...

Business

Transcript of Methods of sustainable assessment of buildings with examples of application OPEN HOUSE and CESBA...