Report with recommendations for a common EU certification ... · Report with recommendations for a...
42
Report with recommendations for a common EU certification scheme of sport buildings Authors: SPEED S.A. Date: August 2015. Update : December 2015 The sole responsibility for the content of this deliverable lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union. Neither the EASME nor the European Commission are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein .
Transcript of Report with recommendations for a common EU certification ... · Report with recommendations for a...
Report with recommendations for a
common EU certification scheme of sport buildings
Authors: SPEED S.A. Date: August 2015. Update : December 2015
The sole responsibility for the content of this deliverable lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European
Union. Neither the EASME nor the European Commission are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein
.
2
Step2Sport Project STEP by STEP renovation towards nearly zero energy SPORT buildings is co-
financed by the Intelligent Energy Europe Programme of the European Union.
Project Partners:
LEITAT Technological Center
Catalan Energy Institute
SPEED Development Consultants SA
THE POLISH NATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION AGENCY
Skåne Association of Local Authorities
PICH-AGUILERA ARQUITECTOS S.L.P
Ippocrate AS S.r.l.
BULGARIAN CONSTRUCTION CHAMBER
ENERGY AGENCY OF PLOVDIV
Samnite Agency for Energy & Environment
Mediterranean SOS Network
Self Energy
3
INDEX
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 4
1. Literature survey on Energy Performance Certification schemes for non-residential buildings in non-EU countries ........................................................................................................................................... 6
2. Literature survey on energy requirements set by major International Sports Associations .............. 12
2.1. FIBA – Official Basketball Rules 2014 (Article 17) ............................................................................ 12
2.2. FINA – FEDERATION INTERATIONALE DE NATATION HANDBOOK 2015 – 2017 ............................. 14
2.3. EUROPEAN HANDBALL FEDERATION – EHF ..................................................................................... 14
2.4. FIIH – INTERNATIONAL ICE HOCKEY FEDERATION .......................................................................... 15
2.4.1. Technical characteristics of the HVAC systems of an ice rink ..................................................... 15
2.5. INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF VOLLEY BALL (FIVB) – VOLLEYBALL REGULATIONS - MAY 2013 16
2.6. Badminton World Federation (BWF) ............................................................................................... 16
2.7. International Table Tennis Federation (ITTF) .................................................................................. 17
2.8. World Squash Federation (WSF) ..................................................................................................... 18
2.9. International Judo Federation (IJF) .................................................................................................. 18
2.10. Conclusions .................................................................................................................................. 19
3. Literature survey on voluntary energy performance schemes ........................................................... 20
4. Qualitative analysis of the EPC schemes of the participating EU M-S in the “STEP-2-SPORT” project ............................................................................................................................................ 22
5. Energy benchmarking methodologies – The role of Normalized Performance Indicator ...... 24
5.1. Purpose of benchmarking..................................................................................................................... 24
5.2. Types of benchmarking methods ......................................................................................................... 24
5.3. Normalized Performance Indicator scheme ......................................................................................... 26
5.3.1. Dry Sports Centres ............................................................................................................................. 28
5.3.2. Wet sports centres ............................................................................................................................ 28
5.4. Normalized Performance Indicator Analysis for the 26 audited sports Buildings - Conclusions .................................................................................................................................................. 30
6. Proposals for a methodology of an EU common Energy Certification scheme for sports buildings – Conclusions – Further considerations ....................................................................................... 37
6.1. Further considerations ......................................................................................................................... 41
References ................................................................................................................................................... 42
4
Introduction
In previous Tasks of this STEP-2-SPORT project, qualitative work has been done on Energy
Performance Certification (EPC) in EU sports buildings i.e. as energy consumption per gross area or
per net floor area or per conditioned floor area or per conditioned volume, the different energy
usage of sports buildings compared to residential or other nonresidential buildings, etc., and on
energy audits performed for sports buildings and their obtained EPC, where significant information
and data on EPC, from different EU Member States (M-S), were presented, including a detailed and
well-presented SWOT (Strength-Weakness-Opportunity-Threats) analysis, showing the differences
in the EPC between the different M-S calculation methods.
The main target for this Task is to establish a common methodology for Energy Performance
Certification schemes for all EU sport buildings, independently to their design characteristics and
local weather conditions, based on the directions of the EU-Directive 2010/31/EU, titled “Energy
Performance on Buildings (recast)” art. 11.9.
The Task is divided into seven main sections, which will conclude to a general proposal for a
common methodology for an EU-Energy Performance Certification scheme, for all types of sports
buildings, both dry- and wet-ones:
Analytically:
1. Literature survey on existing certification schemes for sport buildings in USA, Canada, Singapore,
Australia, referring to their regulatory context,
2. Literature survey on energy requirements set by International Sports Associations, (i.e.
basketball, volleyball, polo, etc.) and their impact on final energy consumption and, therefore, to
their Energy Performance Certification (EPC),
3. Literature survey on voluntary energy performance schemes in any country, if exists,
4. Existing problems or peculiarities of the existing EPC schemes in M-S, participating in STEP-2-
SPORT project,
5. Qualitative analysis of the existing EPC schemes of the participating M-S in the STEP-2-SPORT
project based on the provided SWOT analysis, performed in previous task of this project and
proposals for overpassing them,
6. Presentation of the existing energy benchmarking methodology and of the “Normalized
Performance Indicators” of sports buildings, according to their building type, occupancy, total
5
energy consumption and their weather region (i.e. Heating Degree Days - HDD/Cooling Degree
Days-CDD) and finally,
7. Proposal and recommendations for improving the existing criteria for the common methodology
for EPCs for EU sports buildings and facilities.
All the above-mentioned activities are presented in the following sections of this report, in details,
with the appropriate citation.
6
1. Literature survey on Energy Performance Certification schemes for non-residential buildings in non-EU countries
Buildings worldwide account for a surprisingly high 40% of global energy consumption, and the
resulting carbon footprint, significantly exceeding those of all transportation combined. Large and
attractive opportunities exist to reduce buildings’ energy use at lower costs and higher returns than
other sectors. These reductions are fundamental to support achieving the International Energy
Agency’s (IEA) target of a 77% reduction in the planet’s carbon footprint against the 2050 baseline
to reach stabilized CO2 levels called for by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Policy-makers and governments extend current building codes to include strict energy-efficiency
requirements (adapted to regional climate conditions) and commit to enforcing and tightening
these over time (see EU’s Energy Efficiency policies in EPB Directive, 2010/31/EU-recast and Energy
Efficiency Directive, 2012/27/EU). The building industry and governments also develop energy
measurement and labeling mechanisms requiring nonresidential building owners to display energy
performance levels.
Building energy inspections and audits must be introduced to measure performance, identify
improvement opportunities, and establish priorities for implementing efficiency measures1.
In general, public labeling of building energy performance is becoming common, as internationally
many governments are working comprehensively to reduce energy use, as part of their strategies
for CO2 reduction (i.e. EU policies under the «20-20-20» mandatory targets, the Buildings
Technology Office of the Department of Energy in USA program etc.). Important information on
EPCs for non-residential buildings, which to a great extent include sport buildings, in different non-
EU countries are given below in order to be taken into account for the development of a common
EU certification scheme for sport buildings:
AUSTRALIA2
Australia has developed the national program Commercial Building Disclosure, under the «Building
Energy Efficiency Disclosure Act 2010 – BEED Act», where companies must not advertise a building
1 Transforming the Market: Energy Efficiency in Buildings, WBCSD, 2009
2 www.cbd.gov.au/overview-of-the-program/what-is-cbd
7
for sale or lease, unless a current National Australian Built Environment Rating System (NABERS)
Energy star rating for the building is included in all advertisements.
The Building Energy Efficiency Disclosure Amendment Act 2015 (Amendment Act) commenced on 1
July 2015, seeking to reduce regulatory burden on building owners and landlords. The changes will
affect building owners and landlords wishing to sell or let office space exceeding 2,000 m2.
Under the above-mentioned Amendment Act, a Certificate will need to set out:
1. An energy efficiency rating for the building or area of the building; and
2. A lighting energy efficiency assessment for the building or area of the building.
CANADA3
Canada’s commercial building sector accounts for 14% of energy consumption and 10% of the
country’s carbon emissions. So, the Canadian Government through the Canadian Green Building
Council (CaGBC) has developed the GREEN UP® program based on
a national building performance database and an information
system that allows building owners and managers to improve the
energy and environmental performance of their buildings. The
program is available for the following building types: office, multi-
family, long-term healthcare, hotel, retail, K-12 school, and government buildings. The program also
uses the ENERGY STAR rating, which is explained in the USA section.
USA
The United States of America have no federal policy requiring building energy rating. On the state
and local levels, several policies require energy rating for commercial buildings, including sports
centers, to demonstrate compliance with federal tax incentives and energy efficient mortgage
programs.
The three most market-adopted types of energy ratings, are described below4:
ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager: Portfolio Manager, introduced in 2000, is a nonresidential
building energy rating tool for existing buildings administered by U.S. Environmental Protection
3 “Energy labelling for Commercial Buildings in Canada” – A White paper, prepared by Light House Sustainable Building
Centre, March 2013 4 www.iea.org/efficiency - IEA Energy Performance Certification of Buildings – A Policy tool to improve energy efficiency
8
Agency-EPA. It became the most widely used commercial building energy rating tool in the U.S.
marketplace, as more than 13 billion ft2 of nonresidential floor space has been rated, using Portfolio
Manager, until today, accounting for 16.5% of the total U.S. non-residential government and
privately owned building stock (out of a total of 78 billion ft2). Portfolio Manager is an operational
rating that measures a building’s actual performance, rating buildings on a 1-100 scale relative to
the energy efficiency of peer buildings nationwide. Peer building data is derived from the
Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) administered by the U.S. DoE’s Energy
Information Administration. Portfolio Manager requires several nontechnical data points to derive
ratings, including 12 consecutive months of utility bills, which are normalized for climate and
occupancy factors.
ENERGY STAR target finder: Target Finder, launched in 2004, is a
nonresidential rating tool for new buildings and large renovations,
administered by EPA ENERGY STAR. This is awarded to new buildings with
energy performance at least 15% better than the 2006 IEEC code; it uses
the same 1-100 scale and comparison methodologies as Portfolio Manager,
but it represents estimated energy efficiency (based on inputs from
independent energy modeling) rather than measured performance.5
ASHRAE Building EQ - bEQ: The Building EQ, released in 2012, is a labelling scheme for non-
residential buildings, developed by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). Building EQ uses an alphabetical scale from “A” to “G”, with “A”
being the best rating, following the European experience in labelling. The asset rating (as delivered
rating – in ASHRAE’s terminology) is obtained from inputs from independent energy modelling
performed in the building, while the operational rating from a building energy audit. Analytically:
The “As Designed rating” uses an energy model with standardized inputs as compared to a baseline
median Energy Use Index (EUI) to evaluate a building’s potential energy use independent of
operational and occupancy variables.
The “bEQ-In Operation” assessment includes an ASHRAE Level 1 Energy Audit and provides building
managers with building-specific energy savings measures with estimated costs and payback
information that can be used to improve building energy performance. The rating focuses on the
5 www.iea.org/efficiency - IEA Energy Performance Certification of Buildings - A Policy tool to improve energy efficiency
9
building’s metered energy use for the preceding 12 to 18 months. The ASHRAE Level 1 Energy Audit
contained in bEQ’s In Operation Workbook delivers analysis unavailable in other building labeling
programs. These methodology and calculation procedures have been determined by building
energy use experts to yield the most reliable and actionable results.
They include:
A Preliminary Energy-Use Analysis (PEA), including a review of monthly utility bills, utility
rates classes, and peak energy demand.
A space function analysis and energy end use summary.
Identification of low-cost/no-cost facility or operations and maintenance procedural
changes and their approximate savings.
A summary of special problems or needs, including possible operations and maintenance
procedural revisions, as well as recommended potential capital improvements and their
estimated costs and savings.6
INDIA7
The Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) of the Ministry of Power has taken up various policy and
regulatory initiatives to enhance energy efficiency of building sector, namely the Energy Efficiency
Building Code (ECBC), support for energy assessment & retrofitting process and voluntary star rating
programme for commercial buildings. To create a market pull for energy efficient buildings, BEE
developed a voluntary Star Rating Programme for commercial buildings, which is based on the
actual performance of a building, in terms of energy usage in the building over its area expressed in
kWh/sq. m/year. This Programme rates buildings on a 1-5 star scale, with 5-Star labelled buildings
being the most energy efficient. The rating requirements differ according to the usage of the
buildings, which are categorized as follows:
Office Buildings
Malls
BPO (Business Process Outsourcing) Buildings
Hospitals
Other types of commercial buildings
6 www.buildingenergyquotient.org
7 https://beeindia.gov.in/content/existing-building
10
CHINA8
In China, several local governments, like Shanghai and Beijing, developed building energy efficiency
labels. Also, a national program, based on the Civil Building Energy Efficiency Regulation, was
launched in 2008. The regulation legally requires that the energy performance of new government-
owned office buildings or large public buildings should be rated and labelled. The building labelling
program is administered by the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development (MOHURD).
It is only mandatory for four types of buildings:
New government-owned office buildings or large public buildings
Existing buildings (of the type listed above) that apply for government funding to subsidize
energy retrofits
State or provincial energy efficiency demonstration buildings
Buildings that apply for National Green Building Labels
The MOHURD rating program has five levels, from one star to five stars, and covers both residential
and non-residential buildings. It also is unique in its inclusion of both asset and operational ratings.
JAPAN9
In Japan the CASBEE (Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency) is the
system used for energy rating of new and existing buildings. CASBEE is a method for the evaluation
and rating of the environmental performance of buildings and built environment. It is a
comprehensive assessment of the quality of a building, evaluating features such as interior comfort
and scenic aesthetics, in consideration of environmental practices which include using materials and
equipment that save energy or achieve smaller environmental loads. The CASBEE assessment is
ranked in five grades: Superior (S), Very good (A), Good (B), Slightly Poor (B-) and Poor (C). CASBEE is
comprised of assessment tools tailored to different scales: construction (houses and buildings) and
urban (town and city development).
8 http://aceee.org/files/proceedings/2010/data/papers/2173.pdf
9 www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/index.htm
11
RUSSIA10
According to the Decree N 262, titled “On Energy Efficiency Requirements to Buildings and
Constructions” of 28.05.2010 by the Federal Ministry for Regional Development, an energy
efficiency class should be established for all new and renovated buildings and can range from A to E.
However, it is not established what such an energy certificate should exactly measure nor is the
procedure for issuing certificates established. At present the “Energy Passport” scheme is used for
all types of buildings11.
BRAZIL12
As the largest country and economy in Latin America, Brazil is emerging as a leader in energy
efficiency in the building sector. The country’s massive, quasi-governmental utility company,
Elecrobras, created an energy-benchmarking tool a decade ago.
Procel Edifica13 was established in 2003 to promote responsible energy use, using energy modelling
to compare the efficiency of commercial and residential buildings. A labelling program for public
buildings (Procel EPP) has recently been added to the repertoire.
The program rates energy performance through a simulation of that performance (an asset rating).
It evaluates the envelope, lighting, and HVAC system of a new or existing building, and rates it on a
5-point scale from A to E. This practice is currently voluntary, but nationally available in Brazil.
10
www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/d-
ru/dv/dru_20131017_11_/dru_20131017_11_en.pdf 11
Building Energy Rating Schemes, IPEEC, February 2014 12
www.buildingrating.org/jurisdiction/Brazil 13
cb3e.ufsc.br
12
2. Literature survey on energy requirements set by major International Sports Associations
Energy requirements set by major International Sports Associations is a judicious issue for
discussion and for further analysis, when dealing with the formation of a common methodology for
energy certification of all types of sports centers – both dry and wet ones, that are open to be
visited by the public and, in some cases, requires the use of mass media to cover the events (i.e.
radio, TV).
There are some important requirements on the operation aspects of a sports center, mainly dealing
with energy and water consumption that international sports associations are requesting from the
sports center operator, dealing with the thermal comfort of both the athletes and the spectators. It
is clear that these requests are having a direct effect on the energy (and water) consumption and
this can have a direct implication on its energy categorization.
A short description of the energy requirements set up by some well-known International Sports
Associations are presented below:
2.1. FIBA – Official Basketball Rules 2014 (Article 17)14
The Official Basketball Rules, given by FIBA and referring to those parameters that they have a direct
effect on energy consumption in a sport building (i.e. lighting) are presented below:
17. Lighting
17.1 The playing court shall be uniformly and adequately lit. The lights shall be positioned so they
do not hinder the players’ and officials’ vision.
17.2 Table 1 defines the lighting levels for FIBA televised events, at different levels of competition,
where L1 is an International basketball game, L2 is a national basketball league game and L3 is a
national lower division basketball game.
14
www.fiba.com
13
Table 1: The lighting levels for FIBA televised events, at different levels of competition,
Rule 17.2 states that: “the above average levels are required during any event. A maintenance factor
is usually specified to compensate for the ageing and soiling of the light sources, reflectors and front
glasses. In the absence of the relevant information, it is recommended to use a maintenance factor
of 0.8.
The average illuminance towards the main camera for the first 12 rows of seats shall be between 10
and 25 % of the average illuminance of the field of play (FOP) towards the main camera. Above the
first 12 rows, the light level shall be uniformly reduced”, meaning that lighting is an important
parameter for sports halls following FIBA’s rules, which have a direct effect on energy consumption,
due to the required large electrical loads
17.3 All lighting installations shall:
• Reduce glare and shadows by the correct positioning of the lighting equipment. The luminary
aiming angle (from downward vertical) shall be 65° and the intensity of the light source shall be
adapted in relation to the installation height.
• Be in compliance with the national safety requirements for electrical equipment.
14
2.2. FINA – FEDERATION INTERATIONALE DE NATATION HANDBOOK 2015 – 201715
Rules, given by FINA and referring to those parameters that they have a direct effect on energy
consumption in a wet sport building (i.e. water temperature, lighting), are presented below:
Art. 2.12 Water Temperature shall be 25° - 28°. During competition the water in the pool must be
kept at a constant level, with no appreciable movement. In order to observe health regulations in
force in most countries, inflow and outflow is permissible as long as no appreciable current or
turbulence is created.
Art. 2.13 Lighting - Light intensity over starting platforms and turning ends shall not be less than 600
lux.
2.3. EUROPEAN HANDBALL FEDERATION – EHF16
From the EHF’s Arena Construction Manual those parameters that they have a direct effect on
energy consumption in a sport building (i.e. lighting) are presented below
Art. 2.7. Lighting
Natural lighting of the arena shall be in compliance with EN standards. For artificial lighting, the
following reference values for light intensity apply for TV broadcasting:
Top quality: 1500 lux (minimum)
Standard quality: 1200 lux (minimum)
Basic reporting quality: 1000 lux (minimum)
Care must be taken to ensure that all hall lighting installed is of the same colour temperature to
avoid a mixed lighting situation.
15
http://www.fina.org/H2O/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4161&Itemid=184
16 www.eurohandball.com
15
2.4. FIIH – INTERNATIONAL ICE HOCKEY FEDERATION17
The International Ice Hockey Federation has issued rules and regulations on how the ice arena
should be during the games. Rules referring to those parameters having a direct effect on energy
consumption in this type of sport building (i.e. lighting, HVAC), are presented below.
Table 2 below shows the available lamps for the operation of an ice rink:
Table 2: Available lighting for the operation of an ice rink
2.4.1. Technical characteristics of the HVAC systems of an ice rink The structure of the floor is important from the energy point of view. Plant characteristics include
the refrigeration, ventilation, dehumidification, heating, lighting and ice maintenance systems. The
operational characteristics are the length of the skating season, air temperature and humidity, ice
temperature, supply air temperature and fresh air intake of the air-handling unit as well as the
control- and adjustment parameters of the appliances.
Take into account that for a standard single ice rink approximately 300 – 350 kWe of refrigeration
capacity is adequate.
The refrigeration capacity is normally sized according to the heat loads during the ice making
process. The table 3 shows the indoor air design values for ice rink, according the specifications
given by FIH18
17
www.iihf.com 18
www.fih.ch
16
Table 3: Indoor air design values for ice rink
2.5. INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF VOLLEY BALL (FIVB) – VOLLEYBALL REGULATIONS - MAY 2013
The official Volleyball rules and regulations, given by FIVB and referring to those parameters that
have a direct effect on energy consumption in a sport building (i.e. lighting) are presented below:
Article 15 of the Regulations19 is proposing the lighting criteria for the volleyball games:
15.2.3 for the lighting, movable lamps are preferable along each external side of the free zone. All
lighting must obtain FIVB approval.
a) Lamps must not dazzle the players in any way, be too bright nor be placed over the centerline of
the court.
b) Light intensity must be no less than 1500 lux measured at 1 m from the floor.
c) Light beams should eliminate shadows on the floor.
d) Spectator Stands should be adequately and consistently lit.
For athletes’ warming-up period:
Art. 17.5 The lighting must be of 500lux minimum and all lamps should be protected.
2.6. Badminton World Federation (BWF)
The official Badminton venue regulations, given by BWF and referring to those parameters that
have a direct effect on energy consumption in a sport building (i.e. lighting) are presented below.
19
www.fivb.com
17
Appendix 2 of Part III Section 1A of the Handbook II of Laws and General Competition Regulations20
states the following requirements:
4. Background and lighting
4.1. To avoid any difficulty in sighting the shuttle, no part of the background behind the ends of the
court should be colored white. It is desirable that only darker colors are used.
4.2. The minimum recommended lighting level is 1000 Lux to provide even light over the court area.
(Note: TV advises on their lighting requirements and the optimal conditions for still photographers
are 1800-2000 Lux)
4.3. Lighting should not be directly over or behind the playing area but be positioned along the sides
of the court
4.4. All sources of daylight or sunlight behind or along the sides of the court, should be eliminated
5. Air movement
5.1. Any air movement e.g. draughts from air conditioning must be tightly controlled or eliminated
2.7. International Table Tennis Federation (ITTF) The official Table Tennis venue regulations, given by ITTF and referring to those parameters that
have a direct effect on energy consumption in a sport building (i.e. lighting) are presented below.
As described in the Regulations for International Competitions of the ITTF Handbook21 the
requirements are the following:
3.02.03.03: The playing area shall be enclosed by surrounds about 75cm high, all of the same dark
background color, separating it from adjacent playing areas and from spectators.
3.02.03.04 In World, Olympic and Paralympic title competitions the light intensity, measured at the
height of the playing surface, shall be at least 1000 lux uniformly over the whole of the playing
surface and at least 500 lux elsewhere in the playing area; in other competitions the intensity shall
be at least 600 lux uniformly over the playing surface and at least 400 lux elsewhere in the playing
area.
3.02.03.05 Where several tables are in use, the lighting level shall be the same for all of them, and
the level of background lighting in the playing hall shall not be greater than the lowest level in the
playing area.
3.02.03.06 The light source shall not be less than 5m above the floor.
20
www.bwfbadminton.org/page.aspx?id=14915 21
www.ittf.com/ittf_handbook/ittf_hb.html
18
3.02.03.07 The background shall be generally dark and shall not contain bright light sources or
daylight through uncovered windows or other apertures.
2.8. World Squash Federation (WSF) The official Squash venue regulations, given by WSF and referring to those parameters that have a
direct effect on energy consumption in a sport building (i.e. lighting & temperature) are presented
below.
According to the Complete Court Accreditation Scheme22 the requirements are the following:
Type of court Lighting requirements Temperature requirements
Club Courts (CL) Can be fixed or suspended from the ceiling construction above. Recommended lighting levels to be a minimum of 500 lux.
NA
Competition Courts (CO)
Can be fixed or suspended from the ceiling construction above. Minimum lighting levels to be 500 lux.
NA
Championship Courts (CH)
Needs to be partially or fully supported independent of court enclosure. Minimum lighting levels to be 500 lux. Recommended lighting levels to be 650 lux. If television coverage is considered likely then a minimum of 1200 lux is considered necessary
Temperature controlled environment.
Stadium Court (ST) Minimum lighting levels to be 650 lux or as agreed with the venue
Temperature controlled environment.
2.9. International Judo Federation (IJF) The official Judo venue regulations, given by IJF and referring to those parameters that have a direct
effect on energy consumption in a sport building (i.e. lighting & temperature) are presented below.
According to the Sport and Organization Rules23 and the Event Organization Guide24 the
requirements are the following:
The venue should be well lit and of a constant temperature of between 18 – 22°C
A lighting rig should be installed at every IJF event FOP Lighting. A warm lighting specification is
required.
22
www.worldsquash.org 23
www.intjudo.eu/upload/2015_07/18/143721224782727697/18072015_sor_final_ld.pdf 24
www.intjudo.eu/upload/2015_04/13/142892146132444474/2015_ijf_eog.pdf
19
The light from the rig must be 1,500 Lux on the tatami and should be consistent. This means that it
should be 1,500 Lux covering all tatamis and the entire safety area and one meter beyond the safety
area.
The lighting must be rigged in a truss suspended from the ceiling of the venue. The lighting must
cover the entire contest and entire safety area, and must be evenly lit throughout. A recommended
warm lighting specification would be: Parcan CP 62 / 1,000 Watt / Filter Number 252.
All lights should be on dimmers, so that when one tatami finishes you can turn off the lights. They
are beam lights that give an oval shaped beam of light. However, name is not important. Most
important is 1,500 Lux with dimmers on the lights.
There should be two additional lights attached to the rig that face the audience per mat. These are
called “flood lights”. These are very strong lights that can go up to 2000 Lux. They are also on
dimmers. They should be set at much less than the tatami lights. Depending on the size of the
audience (which should be filled from the front row) the light will be adjusted accordingly. As they
are on dimmers it’s very easy to control the Lux output.
2.10. Conclusions As a general conclusion, it can be said that almost all International sports Federations are requesting
that the sport facilities are equipped with appropriate lighting, for both the spectators, the athletes
and the televised audience. In many cases (i.e. requirements of FIBA) the high lighting levels mean
high electrical consumption in the sport building.
As far as temperature requirements are concerned, FINA is requesting constant temperatures for
swimming pool water (26-28oC) which is also a parameter that is requesting vast amounts of hot
water to heat up thousands of liters of city water, increasing the energy consumption, IJF requests a
constant temperature of between 18 – 22oC and WSF a temperature controlled environment.
20
3. Literature survey on voluntary energy performance schemes
In 2011, as required by the recast EPBD, the European Commission explored ways in which to
achieve a voluntary pan-European standard, based on the following potential options25:
To adopt an approach of a standard EU calculation method and label based on the CEN
standards that are produced under the current mandate,
To create an EU "best-in-class"-label ranked according to the MS produced measurement
approaches in terms of how well they matched a standard EC approved procedure; and
A tool, which could be built into existing certification schemes; e.g. the energy related part of
an "Ecolabel" for buildings.
The Commission presented a draft proposal to Member States (MS) and a group of relevant
stakeholders involving an approach based on current national standards and current CEN (European
Committee for Standardization) standards, but little enthusiasm for the further development of this
draft proposal was achieved, as the main preference was given to the option to wait for a high
quality common EU calculation method based on the new set of CEN standards.
CEN is in the process of developing new standards on the calculation of the energy performance of
buildings (a default methodology for calculating the primary energy use of buildings under
‘standard’ conditions). This standard methodology will be available to all M-S and they may make
use of the method and will have the possibility to adapt it to their own needs. CEN will also propose
a "CEN preferred/default option" for calculating the energy performance of buildings. The CEN
standards under the current mandate will be available by 2015, at which point the Commission
wants to have the ‘voluntary common EU scheme’ ready for application.
In November 2014, a thorough market analysis, titled a “Voluntary common certification scheme for
non-residential buildings in the European Union”, with a focus on energy performance was
performed on behalf of EC-DG Energy, by TRIPLE, a Dutch consultant company26.
The legal basis of the proposed scheme, Directive 2010/31/EU (recast-EPBD)-Art. 11, requires the
European Commission to adopt, in consultation with the relevant sectors, a voluntary common
European Union certification scheme for the energy performance of non-residential buildings,
including all types of sports centres.
25
“Market Study for a voluntary common EU certification scheme for the energy performance of non-residential buildings -Final report”, TRIPLE, November 2014, p. 12 26 as 13, p.4
21
The approach to this market analysis study involved three stages, mainly to:27
1. undertake a market survey and an analysis of building certification schemes in M-S
2. identify the potential scope and positioning for a successful common EU certification
scheme for the energy performance of non-residential buildings, and
3. provide recommendations and a roadmap for further development and implementation
of such a scheme.
The study, also, presents a suggested scope and positioning for the voluntary common EU scheme.
This takes stakeholder support and concerns into account in order to suggest solutions that will lead
to a successful scheme.
Some key conclusions from this report are summarized below:28
The scheme is only intended to cover energy – there is no mention of wider sustainability
issues.
The scheme is intended to be voluntary - to be used in addition to the mandatory EPCs or
taken up by Member States on a voluntary basis. The Directive encourages Member States
to recognize or use the scheme (or parts of it) by adapting it to national circumstances.
The main focus of the scheme is the non-residential property market, where voluntary
sustainability certification (including an energy component) is already widespread.
The aim of the voluntary common EU scheme would be to enhance the
transparency of energy performance in the non-residential buildings market on
the basis of uniform conditions across the EU (see recital 31 of the EPBD).
27
as 13, p4 28
as 13, p7
22
4. Qualitative analysis of the EPC schemes of the participating EU M-
S in the “STEP-2-SPORT” project
During the course of this project, under the Task D2.1, titled “State-of-the-art if Energy Performance
Certification in EU sport buildings”, the progress and current status of EPC in buildings, with
attention to public and large buildings visited by public, including all types of sport facilities, was
presented in deliverable D2.1, titled “State-of-the-art of Energy Performance Certification in EU
sport buildings.”
Detailed SWOT analyses of the EPC schemes of the participating M-S to “STEP-2-SPORT” were
performed with remarkable results.
A summary of the findings is presented below, as these findings can be important assets during the
discussion for a common methodology of a EPCs for sports facilities:
All EU M-S have established an EPC for all types of buildings, fulfilling the obligations and
requirements of EPBD-recast
The Energy Performance (EP) ranking is fairly similar in each M-S, at least for those participating
in the project, classification A (or A+) to G, with the exemption of Poland where the
classification is only numerical (0 to >500 kWh/m2/yr)
The national method for calculating energy performance of a building differs between M-S; for
example, in some M-S, the EP is calculated by comparing energy performance to the energy
requirements set by their building codes and in other M-S, it is compared to the energy
performance of a “reference building”, which is assumed to have the same geometry and
construction characteristics with the one examined, and, its categorization is set as B, by
definition.
The differences between the national methods used for EPCs will be smoothened with the
introduction of a common CEN, which is going to elaborate and adopt the necessary standards
for a common methodology calculating EP for all types of buildings, in accordance with EPBD-
recast. This CEN is under preparation and is going to be an important tool for anyone working
in the area of energy efficiency in buildings.
The majority of national methods are requesting simplified calculations. This can be
problematic, when a building with complex activities is inserted for analysis, as a swimming
pool sport facility, where additional parameters can play an important role, i.e. humidity, water
23
dissipation, etc.
An important point in the EPCs is the role of RES; in many M-S, RES are included to the energy
performance calculation and in some, not, except for the percentage of DHW from solar energy
or PV for on-site generation, which are taken into consideration.
Some EPCs are calculating, also, CO2 emissions, which is an important parameter in energy
efficiency and in climate change. It is vital that the calculation of CO2 emissions should become
a common calculated parameter for all EU M-S EPCs.
In some EPCs internal air quality is determined - a crucial parameter for “thermal comfort”,
especially for large buildings visited by the public, as sport facilities. It is important that the
calculation of indoor air quality should become a common calculated parameter for all EU M-S
EPCs for buildings visited by public.
There is no coherent European policy and strategy, at least until now, for the energy
performance of large public buildings, which should be normalized with the full
implementation of the EU EPBD in coming years.
24
5. Energy benchmarking methodologies – The role of Normalized Performance Indicator
5.1. Purpose of benchmarking
Benchmarking of energy performance is a strategic point, towards setting realistic targets for energy
efficiency and identifying possible saving opportunities, without compromising building’s function
and performance. Energy benchmarking is an activity, whereby building owners or managers
compare their building’s performance to a standard or an average, allowing them to evaluate the
energy performance of their building in terms of energy performance by using his peers,
competitors or national performance, as a “yardstick”. Energy benchmarking has been effectively
and extensively used, internationally, for comparing the energy use for a numerous types of non-
residential buildings, as offices, schools and other commercial facilities. But, there have been
limited, internationally, efforts, so far, to benchmark the energy use of all types of buildings,
housing dry or wet sport centers.
5.2. Types of benchmarking methods
The most commonly used energy benchmark is the simplified Energy-Use Intensity, EUI, which
accounts for only one building feature that affects energy consumption: building floor area. It has
been widely used in energy analysis and as an energy benchmark for commercial buildings and
these EUIs are expressed in kWh/m2. The EUI is the energy consumption normalized by a common
denominator, in this case, the building floor area, which directly influences energy performance to
enable comparisons among similar buildings.
There are numerous energy-use benchmarking methods. Benchmarking techniques can be
categorized into four types, namely29:
1. Statistical Analysis benchmarking, where statistics for a large amount of similar buildings are
used to generate a benchmark, against which a building’s EUI is compared. This method requires
large data sets to produce a reasonably sized sample of comparison buildings. In this method,
instead of assuming building floor area to be the primary determinant in developing the EUI, step-
wise least squares linear regression is conducted to identify the possible key determinants of energy
29
D.Sartor, M.A. Piette, and W. Tschudi, (2000): Strategies for Energy Benchmarking in Cleanrooms and Laboratory- Type Facilities-Proceedings of the 2000 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings - American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Washington, D.C.
25
use. Statistical methods are typically used to correlate weather variables and other important non-
weather related variables of a single building with building energy use.
2. Points-Based Rating Systems as one of them, is the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Rating System. It provides standards and guidelines to
measure how efficient and environmentally friendly is a building and compares it to best-practice
standards. A LEED score is made up of credits assigned for satisfying different criteria, including
energy efficiency and other environmental factors. One of the disadvantages of such a rating system
is that it does not facilitate comparisons to be made against other buildings. More similar schemes
to LEED can be found in the report D2.1“State-of-the-art of EPC in EU sport building.”
3. Simulation Model-Based Benchmarking, calculates benchmarks based on an idealized model of
building or equipment and system performance. One obvious advantage is that this model can be
adjusted easily to account for a wide range of factors that can explain variation in energy use. They
can also be used to generate targets and compare design alternatives. A disadvantage is that they
are simulation models, and benchmarks based on models may not be well calibrated to the actual
buildings stock data.
4. Hierarchal and End-Use Metrics benchmarking method takes into account more of the
differences in features affecting energy use. Although an extensive amount of data is required, the
“end-product” is a benchmark that links energy-use to climate and functional requirements. There
are three levels of data required and some of these include how the space is used, hours of use,
equipment type and vintage, etc. Utility bills and weather data are also collected to examine the
weather sensitivity of the building. This method is less suitable for benchmarking the energy
performance of naturally ventilated buildings that are not weather sensitive. Regarding naturally
ventilated commercial buildings including sport facilities, three types of energy benchmarks are
developed:30
The first benchmark is the typical Energy-Use Intensity, EUI, where customary normalization by
building floor area is conducted.
The second benchmark is based on statistical analysis benchmarking, which identifies and
accounts for other possible important drivers of energy use, beyond the building floor area.
The third energy benchmarking technique used is based on fuzzy clustering, as fuzzy clustering
30 Sharp, T., 1996, Energy Benchmarking in Commercial Office Buildings, Proceedings of the ACEEE 1996
Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, 4, 321-329.
26
techniques, based on fuzzy logic, for building energy classification have been used and applied
with the aim of producing a concise representation of the energy characteristics of
buildings.31,32
A comparison is then made between performances of these three energy-benchmarking methods.
As mentioned earlier, energy benchmarking is used for comparing the energy use of numerous
types of non-residential buildings, as sports facilities. From the above described benchmarking
methods, it can be seen that all they have their “pros” and “cons”. The “simulation model-based
benchmarking”, initially, and the “hierarchal and end-use metrics benchmarking”, as a second
choice, can be used as a base for the creation of a benchmarking method for all types of sports
buildings. This will require the introduction of the appropriate alterations, in order to fit to a variety
of these types of buildings, with variety of systems installed, and a variety of weather conditions.
5.3. Normalized Performance Indicator scheme
The comparison of energy consumption between different sports facilities requires to account for
several factors that contribute to additional energy use.
A Normalized Performance Indicator (NPI) can be used for this purpose, so sports facilities with
different characteristics and size can be compared on the same basis. This method normalizes
energy consumption data, for different uncontrollable factors, as local weather or hours of use or
occupancy and for stable factors, as floor area and exposure. The data for energy consumption is
collected during an Energy Audit and is expressed in kilowatt-hours (kWh).
During the implementation of this process, commonly called “normalization”, there are many
assumptions that are widely used and which are described analytically33 as follows:
1. For swimming pools:
- It is not possible to estimate the amount of energy used for space heating, then it is
assumed 55% of the total energy consumed is for space heating and the remaining
31 Chiu, S. (1994) Fuzzy Model Identification Based on Cluster Estimation, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy
Systems, 2(3), 267-278. 32 Santamouris et al, Using intelligent clustering techniques to classify the energy performance of school
buildings-Energy and Buildings, (2006). 33
EEO –Energy Efficiency Office – Department of Environment, UK (1994) today:
https://www.carbontrust.com/resources/faqs/sector-specific-advice/energy-benchmarking
27
45% is electrical consumption.
2. For dry sports facilities:
- It is assumed that 75% of the total energy consumed is for space heating and the
rest 25% for electrical consumption.
3. NPI accounts for different locations and weather conditions, using data on Degree Days, which
indicate the amount of time and temperature difference below a base temperature, taken as
15.5oC. The Weather Correction Factor, or WCF, is calculated using a value for a standard year
with 2462 Degree Days. The value of WCF is equal to 1.
4. Annual consumption is corrected for different operating hours, by using a correction use factor.
Standard annual operating hours of use is assumed as:
4000 hours for swimming pools and
4910 hours for sports halls.
The hours of use factor is calculated as the ratio of the standard annual operating hours to the
actual number of hours of the specific facility. The upper and lower limits of use factor are 1.33 and
0.67 respectively. If the calculated value is outside these ranges, then, it is proposed to use the
appropriate upper or lower limit for NPI calculations.
5. Regarding heating exposure:
if the facility is sheltered, the Windbreak factor, WbF, is equal to 1.1,
If the facility is on ground level, in urban and rural surroundings, the WbF factor is equal
to 1.0,
if the facility is exposed, i.e. near the coast, on hilly sites with little or no adjacent
screening, then, the WbF factor is equal to 0.9.
All other energy use in the sport building is added to normalized energy consumption for space
heating. Non-space heating data is not normalized, as it is not significantly dependent on weather
conditions or building’ exposure. A weakness of the NPI is the absence in normalization of cooling
energy consumption.
In the following two sections, a full presentation of the calculation of the NPI for dry- and wet- sport
facilities is given, based on the above-mentioned assumptions.
28
5.3.1. Dry Sports Centres34
A. Total annual energy consumption, in kWh
B. Total annual energy consumption for heating purposes, in kWh: A x 0.75
Total annual energy consumption used for non-heating purposes, in kWh: A - B
C. Adaptation of energy for heating purposes
Heating Degree Days (HDD) of the place of the sport facility, in oC x days/yr
The Weather coefficient: 2462
Then, 2462 / HDD
Energy adjustment due to weather, in kWh: B x (2462 / HDD)
The Windbreak factor, WbF, is used in the next equation:
Energy adjustment due to windbreak factor, in kWh: WbF x B x (2462 / HDD)
D. Reduced Energy Use: (A – B) + (WbF x B x (2462 / HDD))
E. Reduced annual energy use for normal operation hours
Annual hours of operation of the dry sports center
Hour use coefficient for dry sports centers: 4910
Reduced annual energy use for normal operation hours: D x (4910 / hrs of operation), in kWh
F. Normalized Performance Indicator, NPI
Heated surface of the dry sport center is required
NPI = {D x (4910/ hrs of operation)} / Heated surface, in kWh/m2
5.3.2. Wet sports centres35
A. Total annual energy consumption, in kWh
B. Total annual energy consumption for heating purposes, in kWh: A x 0.55
Total annual energy consumption used for non-heating purposes, in kWh: A - B
C. Adaptation of energy for heating purposes
Heating Degree Days (HDD) of the place of the sport facility, in oC x days/yr
34
EEO –Energy Efficiency Office – Department of Environment, UK (1994) today: https://www.carbontrust.com/resources/faqs/sector-specific-advice/energy-benchmarking 35
EEO –Energy Efficiency Office – Department of Environment, UK (1994) today: https://www.carbontrust.com/resources/faqs/sector-specific-advice/energy-benchmarking
29
The Weather coefficient: 2462
Then, 2462 / HDD
Energy adjustment due to weather, in kWh: B x (2462 / HDD)
The Windbreak factor, WbF, is used in the next equation
Energy adjustment due to windbreak factor, in kWh: WbF x B x (2462 / HDD)
D. Reduced Energy Use: (A – B) + (WbF x B x (2462 / HDD))
E. Reduced annual energy use for normal operation hours
Annual hours of operation of the dry sports center
Hour use coefficient for dry sports centers: 4000
Reduced annual energy use for normal operation hours: D x (4000 / hrs of operation), in kWh
F. Normalized Performance Indicator, NPI
Heated surface of the wet sport center is required
NPI = {D x (4000 / hrs of operation)} / Heated surface, in kWh/m2
Concluding, for the calculation of the Normalized Performance Indicator, NPI, of a sport facility
the following data is a prerequisite:
a. the total annual energy consumption, both electricity consumed, in kWhel and the annual
consumption of fuel used, converted in kWhth.
b. The heating degree days, in oC x days/yr, of the location of the facility
c. The total hours of operation of the facility,
d. The heated surface of the facility, and
e. The role of wind to the position of the sport building within the city.
Then, the Normalized Performance Indicator, NPI, for the specific sport facility can be calculated.
Performance yardsticks for both dry- and wet- sports facilities, given in Table 4, can be used as a
first indication of how the actual energy consumption at a specific facility compares with other
similar facilities.
30
Normalized Performance Indicators (kWh/m2)
Poor Fair Good
Dry Sports facilities
(in terms of total heated
area)
>340 200-340 <200
Wet Sports facilities
In terms of pool water
surface
In terms of total surface area
>1390
>5900
1050 - 1390
4900 - 5900
<1050
<4900
Table 4: Performance yardstick for sports centers, in kWh/m2 expressed in terms of the NPI
5.4. Normalized Performance Indicator Analysis for the 26 audited sports Buildings - Conclusions
The analysis for NPI was first presented, as a tool for comparison, from the Energy Efficiency Office
(EEO) of UK, in 1994. Today, this is a common procedure for comparison of similar types of
buildings, including sport facilities. The calculation of NPI is indicative, and is applied only for
facilities equipped with some kind of HVAC installed equipment, used to create “thermal comfort”
conditions in the facility. One should take into account that if the sport facility is not equipped with
a heating system, for example, then the calculated NPI value will be low, but actually it is non-
comparative with the yardstick presented in Table 4.
The NPI values should be used with caution and the data need to be accurate. For example it is
important the value used for floor area; if the storage or unused spaces are included this will
decrease NPI, but it is not the actual case. So, it is important to compare similar data, i.e. to specify
from the beginning of the analysis that only heated areas will be included or, in contrary, all floor
areas, both heated and unheated will be used. So, data accuracy needs to be a priority, and this is
achieved only with a detailed Energy audit. As mentioned earlier the “yardstick” values, given in
Table 4, are obtained from the analysis of EEO, UK, in 1994. In recent literature, there are some
modifications and new proposals, as the one presented by T. Al-Shemmeri, 36 where the NPIs for
sports center, with swimming pool, are proposed to be as: Good <570 - Fair 570 – 840 - Poor >840,
36
http://www.wiley.com/legacy/wileychi/al_shemmeri/supp/powerpoints/chapter_2.pdf
31
in kWh/m2/yr.
As it can be seen, there are differences between the values from the two references and is an issue
that will be discussed later.
Therefore, for the purpose of this task, the twenty six, different-in-use, sports buildings were
audited and useful data was collected regarding their EPC calculation and possible scenarios for
energy efficiency measures implementation, were further analysed in order to calculate their NPIs.
There are fifteen wet-sports centres (swimming pools and ice rinks) and eleven dry sport centres,
mainly for basketball, volleyball, handball, etc. games.
So, the following two tables, Table 5 and Table 6, show the basic data characteristics, the EP
categorization, the “final energy consumption/area” value and the NPI of the dry- and the wet-
sports centres, respectively. It should be noted that HDD for all locations were calculated at the
basis of 15.5 ºC. The calculation of NPIs was following the methodologies described in sections
5.3.1., for dry-sports centres, and 5.3.2., for wet-sport centres.
Table 5: Data and Results for the 11 audited dry-sports centres
Note: The ESP D1 case is referring as SAF UAB, a University Sports Centre, situated in Cerdanyola del Vallès, in Spain. SAF has a covered sports hall, three saunas, two heated indoor swimming pools and solarium, four squash courts, indoor rock-climbing walls, physical fitness room and three activity rooms. The main swimming pool is 25 meters in length and 16.67 meters wide and the learner pool is 16.67 meters in length and 6 meters wide. The capacity of the main swimming pool is 416.75 m
3, while the capacity of the learner pool is 100.02
m3. The total conditioned area of the Sports Centre is 4225 m
2 while the pool area is 516.77 m
2 (12% of the
total area). This is the reason that a complex sports Centre is categorized as a DRY one.
Country Name CityArea
m2
Hrs of
operation
Energy
Consumption
kWh
WbF HDD Catergorization kWh/m2 NPI
GR D1 Closed Sport Centre Farsala, Thessaly 1355,4 2851 330428,5 0,9 1285 C 243,79 708,3
GR D2 Closed Sport Centre Elefsina, Attica 1295 3500 228510 1 717,5 E 176,46 699
ESP D1 SAF UAB Cerdanyola del Valles 4255 4766 1962820 1 866 C 461,30 1140,2
SWE D1 Bastad sport centre Bastad 7430 4485 749000 1 2331 E 100,81 115
SWE D2 Eslov Frisiks och Svettis Gym Eslov 1300 4100 228000 1 2507 D 175,38 207,2
BUL D1 Sport Centre "DUNAV" Plovdiv 694 2016 85930 1 1815,5 G 123,82 382,1
BUL D2 Sport Centre "LOCOMOTIV" Plovdiv 1502 2016 1905 0,9 1815,5 E 1,27 2,24
BUL D3 Sport Centre "MSH" Sofia 4708 4284 546020 1 2180,5 - 115,98 168,42
BUL D4 Multifunctional sports building Plovdiv 960 3000 37116 1 1815,5 F 38,66 69,42
IT D1 Athletic Club Vulcania Catania 1159 6570 149370 1 815,5 G 128,88 242,16
IT D2 Indoor Sports Arena Palavolcana Catania 2699 900 23910 1 815,5 G 8,86 121,51
32
Table 6: Data and Results for the 11 audited Wet-sport Centres
Analysing the above results, it can be seen that some data is missing in the EPC categorization in
alphabetical order, as for example, in Poland, where their EPC is expressed on numerical
categorization, based on their national regulation. This difference is due to the absence of a
common European standardization policy on this issue.
There is, also, data, especially in the “Final Energy Consumption”, which seems not to be an
adequate - real - one. For example, the BUL D2 is giving that the annual final energy consumption –
both electrical and thermal – is 1905 kWh, an extremely low value for a place with HDD of 1815.5,
as Plovdiv. This means that heating is provided only few hours during the heating season, mainly
during the official games, so no “indoor thermal comfort” occurs in the sports centre or, in another
case, there is not a heating system installed in the premise and all loads are only electrical. This data
provides extremely low NPI and calculated EPC value, in kWh/m2, and this case is not considered
further in this analysis.
Another issue is the low hours of operation, which are affecting the EPC value; typical example is
the IT D2, where the annual operation hours is 900, when the annual operation hours of the other
dry-sports centers are ranging from 2016 (min) to 6570 (max). Also this case was not considered in
our analysis.
Country Name City AreaHrs of
operation
Energy
ConsumptionWbF HDD Catergorization kWh/m2 NPI
GR W1 Indoor Swimming Pool Nea Smyrni, Athens 2878,0 5610 2821480,0 1 612 C 980,36 1861,2
ESP W1 CEM la Bordeta Barcelona 2782,2 5056 1514060,0 1 738,5 C 544,20 983,2
ESP W2 Fum d'Estampa Hospitalet de Llobregat 3657,0 4544 1597360,0 1 738,5 D 436,80 878,0
ESP W3 CEM Vallirana Vallirana 2527,0 4755 1204080,0 1 996 C 476,49 725,3
ESP W4 Club Poliesportiu Puigcerda 6742,0 4745 2166110,0 1 2538,5 C 321,29 266,4
SWE W1 Orkelijunga swimming pool Orkelijunga 1380,0 2500 691000,0 1 2546 G 500,72 786,6
POR W1 Piscina Alcochete Setubal 697,6 4004 449910,0 0,9 640 B 644,94 1516,8
POR W2 Piscina Barreiro Setubal 1004,2 4410 582140,0 0,9 640 C 579,71 1237,9
POR W3 Piscina Alhos Vedros Setubal 949,6 4680 880610,0 0,9 640 B 927,35 1866,0
POL W1 Aqua park Ozarow 2257,0 5616 2394030,0 0,9 2948 - 1060,71 652,3
POL W2 Aqua park Hajnowka 2480,0 5279 2228580,0 0,9 2861 - 898,62 596,45
POL W3 Aqua park Zambow 2943,0 5400 505860,0 0,9 2948 - 171,89 109,93
IT W1 4spa Catania 9354,0 6570 1990750,00 1 815,5 F 212,82 273,46
BUL W2 Swimming Pool 22 SOU School Sofia 1294,0 6017 353030,00 1 2180,5 - 272,82 194,24
BUL W1 Swimming Pool MADARA Sofia 1622,0 6130 805400,00 1 2180,5 - 496,55 347,62
33
All NPI calculated, after implementing the methodologies described in previous sections of this
report, and for all examined cases for the dry-sports centre are higher than the EPC value (annual
energy consumption/area). But this is not observed for the wet-sports centres, as it can be seen in
Diagram 2. Investigating further, the percentage difference of the NPI to the EPC value was
calculated and the results are presented in Diagrams 1 and 2, for dry- and wet-sports centres,
respectively.
Diagram 1: Percentage Difference of NPI to calculated EPC value for dry- sport center
GR D1 65,58
GR D2 74,76
ESP D1 59,54
SWE D1 12,34
SWE D2 15,35
BUL D1 67,60
BUL D3 31,14
BUL D4 44,31
IT D1 46,78
65,58
74,76
59,54
12,34 15,35
67,60
31,14
44,31 46,78
0,00
10,00
20,00
30,00
40,00
50,00
60,00
70,00
80,00
GR D1 GR D2 ESP D1 SWE D1 SWE D2 BUL D1 BUL D3 BUL D4 IT D1
34
Diagram 2: Percentage Difference of NPI to calculated EPC value for wet- sport center
Two parameters influence the NPI analysis, namely: HDD and the “hours of operation” of the sport
center. A simple “rule-of-thumb”, that can be safely applied, states the following: “High HDDs”,
which simply means “high energy consumption” in connection with extended “hours of operation” of
the sports hall drives to a lower NPI than the “consumption/area” value”.
Typical examples of this rule are these cases of the wet-sport centers with lower NPI value than the
“consumption/area” one; namely ESP W4, Pol W1, POL W2, POL W3, BUL W1 and BUL W2.
In all these cases the HDDs are quite high, ranging from 2180 for Plovdiv, BUL (W1 & W2) to 2948
for Zambow, POL (W3), as well as their hours of operation of the wet-sports centers, from 4745 for
Puigcerda, ESP (W4) to 6130, for Plovdiv, BUL (W2).
The exception of the SWE W1 - Orkelijunga Swimming Pool, where the NPI is lower to
“consumption/area” value - is due to the existing low hours of operation (2500 hrs). If, for example,
the “hrs of operation” of the above-mentioned sport center increases from, the existing, 2500 hrs
to 4000 hrs, then, again the new-calculated NPI becomes lower than the 500.72 kWh/m2. This
shows that the NPI is sensitive to the two parameters; of the HDD and of the “hours of operation”.
GR1 47,3
ESP1 44,6
ESP2 50,3
ESP3 34,3
ESP4 -20,6
SWE1 36,3
POR1 57,5
POR2 53,2
POR3 50,3
POL1 -62,6
POL2 -50,7
POL3 -56,4
IT1 22,2
BUL2 -40,5
BUL1 -42,8
47,3 44,6 50,3
34,3
-20,6
36,3
57,5 53,2 50,3
-62,6
-50,7 -56,4
22,2
-40,5 -42,8
-80,0
-60,0
-40,0
-20,0
0,0
20,0
40,0
60,0
80,0
GR1 ESP1 ESP2 ESP3 ESP4 SWE1 POR1 POR2
POR3 POL1 POL2 POL3 IT1 BUL2 BUL1
35
The performance “yardstick” of Table 4 (p. 26), set by Energy Efficiency Office of UK in 1994, was
followed, in order to categorize the 26 audited sports centers during the course of this project, with
the following results:
Type of sport center/ Categorization Poor Fair Good
Dry-
GR D1 GR D2 ESP D1 BUL D1
SWE D2 IT D1
SWE D1 BUL D3 IT D2
Wet-
GR W1 POR W1 POR W3
POR W2 ESP W1 ESP W2 ESP W3 ESP W4 SWE W1 POL W1 POL W2 POL W3 IT W1
BUL W1 BUL W2
Table 7: Categorization according to “yardstick” presented in Table 4
Note: For the Wet-sport centers the calculations, and categorization, are based in terms of the “total surface area” of each Centre.
From the above results, there are two characteristic cases, shown in red in the above Table; the
case of POR W1, which has an EPC of B and the performance “yardstick shows as “Poor” and of the
IT W1, which has an EPC of F and the performance “yardstick shows as “Good”.
It is clear that this “yardstick” is primarily dealing with heating, without taking into account cooling,
ventilation, lighting, etc., while EPC is covering all consumptions and many more.
But, if a building is categorized as B, during an EPC scheme, cannot be “Poor” in its heating part,
which is, by the way, the main part of its energy consumption, especially of a swimming pool as POR
W1. Similar argument is for the IT W1 case.
36
If the proposal of Al-Shemmeri (see p. 26) applied, only for wet-sport centers, then the following
situation exists:
Type of sport center/
Categorization Poor Fair Good
Wet-
GR W1 POR W1 POR W3 ESP W1 ESP W2
POR W2 POL W1 ESP W3 SWE W1
ESP W4 POL W2 POL W3 IT W1 BUL W1 BUL W2
Table 8: Categorization according to “yardstick” presented by Al-Shemmeni
Similar comments can be done for this categorization, as the previous analysis.
Finally, an issue that should be discussed and analysed in future work is that the current EPC
schemes, in all EU, are not able to simulate analytically, the complexity of indoor swimming pools
(e.g. how to simulate the energy performance of the dehumidifiers, percentage of humidity in the
air temperature, water pool temperature, heat pool dissipation etc.) and that there is no, until now,
any reference in the NPI for cooling.
So, additional research and work should be done to conclude to new common and more applicable
NP indicators for sports centers.
37
6. Proposals for a methodology of an EU common Energy Certification
scheme for sports buildings – Conclusions – Further considerations
All EU M-S have established an EPC scheme for all types of buildings, including sport facilities, as
part of the obligations of EPBD-recast. These EPC schemes are based on each M-S national method
and, in general, the ranking is based on an alphabetical order (A to G) and, on few cases, on
numerical ranking (0 to > 500 kWh/m2). So, referring to sports facilities, these EPCs can be used by
the managers/owners, in order to improve their energy behavior.
The conventional energy performance indicator for building energy use, in kWh/m2, is a blunt
instrument for peer group benchmark comparison; it is blunt instrument, as it includes all energy
consumptions of the sports facility, thermal and electrical, namely space heating, heat for producing
DHW, cooling energy, heat for pool water heating, electrical energy for lighting and equipment, etc.
Although benchmarking is important to verify and report success, benchmarks alone don’t save
energy. Benchmarks are most effective when tied to conservation policies and targets, so
governments, managers and owners can take action to improve. On the other hand, there is no
single best approach for developing an evaluation system for assessing energy performance of
buildings, especially sport facilities, of all types. Energy performance evaluation is a highly
complicated issue, involving many direct and indirect parameters such as building design, occupant
behavior, building HVAC and lighting systems, operation, maintenance, regulation and standards as
well as CO2 emissions, responsible for climate change.
So, an integrative and holistic approach is needed to accurately determine the energy performance
of a sport building, which is influenced by the interactions of many elements and processes within
the building and its immediate external environment.
The energy performance of a sport building will be assessed from the macro (whole building) and
micro (system level) perspectives to ensure a more thorough and accurate evaluation of the energy
performance.
Primary and secondary data pertaining to the multi-faceted nature of energy performance will be
sourced through various information channels (bills, data recording in a Building Energy
Management System, or BEMS, etc.). This will ensure that a more wholesome assessment of the
energy performance of sport building is achieved, thereby allowing more accurate remedial actions
to be taken.
38
A common EU certification scheme EPC calculation method, applied in the EU, should be more
realistic one than the one applied for all other types of buildings, as current EPC schemes are not
able to simulate clearly and in details the complexity for example of indoor swimming pools So, it is
necessary to consider on a series of critical issues, presented below:
Occupancy - variations in hours of operation between sport buildings can be significant. In
addition, occupant densities can vary significantly.
For example it is clear that when audience is present in a sports facility the amount of space
heating can be lower, due to latent heat by audience, than when only athletes are practicing in
the same sports hall and the space should be heated. Consider that in both cases, the next
presented issue, of “thermal comfort”, should be applied.
Another issue is the behavior-based approach by the managers/owners of a sport facility to re-
consider the existing heating pattern, possibly by installing a Building Energy Management
System, or BEMS system, followed, now, by the introduction of cooling pattern. This cooling
pattern is essential, as many EU sport facilities are not equipped with cooling systems, making
the indoor conditions hazardous, for both athletes and spectators, during hot weather periods.
Therefore, these two patterns will provide the required “thermal comfort” conditions to the
users (athletes and audience) of the sport facility. This “thermal comfort” is also a requirement
by all International sports Federations, according to their technical data to the
managers/owners of the sport facilities.
Another important parameter to be considered is the influence of the local climate data on
Energy Performance calculation for a sport facility. This influence is clear: using real climatic
data is an important factor to compare calculated results with real consumption data.
From many audits performed, during the course of this project – at least from the three Greek
ones – an essential conclusion is that the total final energy consumption (electricity and NG/Oil
consumption) is not referring to the above-mentioned “thermal comfort” conditions. The sport
facilities audited were not operated under these conditions, according to the analysis of the
data obtained. So, the application of the NPI method described in previous section of this
report cannot be applied, as it is not going to give “real” results. It is important that there is an
understanding of the sources of inaccuracy, and a sense for the reliability of the figures on
which comparisons are based. Otherwise managers/owners of a sport facility will frequently
find themselves chasing excess consumption that doesn't really exist, and highlighting
improvements that haven't really been made.
39
The parameter of CO2 emissions is missing in many EU M-S EPCs. It is a vital parameter as CO2 is
responsible for the existing climate change and any attempt to reduce it can be clearly
presented to the managers/owners of a sport facility.
For designing a sound and applicable methodology of an EU common Energy Certification scheme
for sports buildings, two “best cases” are presented, in short, as references for further discussion;
one by UK and the other by Denmark.
The UK example
It should be noted that UK has a long tradition, from early ‘90s, and strong background on energy
efficiency on sport facilities. Therefore, it is worth to analyze their methodology on EPCs. The UK
baseline benchmarks are sourced from CIBSE TM: 46, which has used UK based data in the form of
ECON 19 (www.carbontrust.org ) and CIBSE Guide F (www.cibse.org ).
These benchmarks cover buildings operating in both the public and private. A “D” rating will be
achieved if the building consumption is equal or slightly under the proposed baseline benchmarks
used for comparison.
The UK baseline benchmark, Energy Performance Indicator, EPI, data for electric and fossil fuel
energy is normalized for local conditions by:
1. Normalizing the heating EPI using degree-days from Meteorological stations around the country.
2. Normalizing electrical and fossil fuel baseline benchmark for variations in occupancy hours.
3. Mixed use buildings can be accounted for by the calculation of a composite benchmark based on
the relative percentage of total usable floor area allocated to each use. Therefore, a sport facility
with a restaurant would be considered mixed use.
4. Separable energy uses, which if metered can be deducted from the total metered consumption,
i.e. a typical example would be blast chilling or freezing rooms for ice rinks.
5. Energy use associated with primary production of energy is included by applying factors to the
recorded metered energy.
This proposal covers many, but not all, of the issues discussed previously. The main issues missing
are the cooling pattern for a sport facility, the use of RE systems and the lack of CO2 estimation.
40
The Danish model
Denmark is leading in the area of energy efficiency, for the past thirty or more years. During the
research of this task, a project being run by the Danish Electricity Saving Trust, titled “Danish Online
Benchmarking of Energy Consumption” was revealed37.
The project includes at least 471 buildings, in 16 categories, including offices, workshops,
trade/commerce, hotels, sports centers, etc.
All buildings are linked by data loggers to a website which can be accessed by the public. The EPIs
(kWh/person/y and kWh/m2/y) for each building are available on a daily, weekly and monthly basis,
as well as the average for each building category.
This form of online continuous monitoring has a number of benefits:
In each category, the buildings are ranked meaning an element of competition for energy
reduction is inherent.
Comparison is easily made against similar types of buildings
Climate variables and variables in relation to building regulations are more or less removed
compared to normalization with international benchmarks.
The Danish model seems to be more applicable, with some alterations, for covering the peculiarities
of all types of sport facilities, i.e. multi-use complexes, rules and regulations set up by international
sports federations for thermal comfort for both athletes and audience, use of cooling, etc.
The Danish process and the development of such a web-based benchmarking facility is an idea of
merit for the purposes of our project and is of further consideration. This means that there is going
to be a full collaboration of the managers with the energy engineers to implement this task by
feeding with data the benchmark facility and, then, analyze and data and obtained results. It is
proposed that this process should be “mandatory” for all players of sports facilities and this can be
obtained by introducing a specified legal framework in each M-S of EU.
37
http://www.efkm.dk
41
6.1. Further considerations
As it can see from all the above described, deciding which of the options for a common
methodology for an EU certification is best for a specific sport facility depends on many factors and
assumptions, which previously were presented.
Below are some of the questions for further consideration, in order to strengthen the proposed
actions of a web-based benchmarking facility
• Will the benchmarking program need to address uncontrollable factors likely to affect energy use
such as weather, vacancy, hours of occupancy, building type? ==> If yes, any program that applies
normalization can be used.
• Can one system benchmark all, or most, of the sport facility use types? ==> If yes, normalization
can be used for any sport building.
• Is the benchmarking program compatible with the way you currently receive data (for example,
hourly utility data, monthly bills, monthly vacancy updates)? ==> If yes, which program you use
depends on the specific data. That is data should be accurate
• Will you require the results for related programs such as greenhouse gas performance reporting?
==> If yes, any program that applies normalization can be used.
42
References 1. Sports and leisure Introducing energy saving opportunities for business – Carbon Trust
www.carbontrust.co.uk/energy
2. Market study for a voluntary common European Union certification scheme for the energy
performance of non-residential buildings - Final Report to the Commission-Triple E Consulting –
Energy, Environment & Economics B.V. (11/2014)
3. Building Research Establishment - International comparison of energy standards in building
regulations for non-domestic buildings: Denmark, Finland, Norway, Scotland, and Sweden –Scottish
Government – July 2008
4. A Market-Specific Methodology for a Commercial Building Energy Performance Index,
Constantine E. Kontokosta, Journal Real Estate Financial Econ (2015) 51:288–316
5. Energy Performance Certification of Buildings-A policy tool to improve energy efficiency: IEA
6. User Guide to the Calculation Tool for Display Energy Certificates (DEC) for Public Buildings by
SEAI (2013)
7. Energy Efficiency Best Practice programme: Good Practice Guide 219 “Energy efficiency in
swimming pools – for centre managers and operators” EEBPp, London, 1997
8. Energy Efficiency Best Practice programme: General Information Leaflet 37 “Sports and
recreation centres– a client/owner’s guide” EEBPp, London, 1996
9. Energy Efficiency Best Practice programme: Good Practice Guide 129 “Good housekeeping in dry
sports centres” EEBPp, London, 1994
10. Energy Efficiency Best Practice programme: Good Practice Guide 130 “Good housekeeping in
swimming pools – a guide for center managers” EEBPp, London, 1994
11. Tailored energy benchmarks for offices and schools, and their wider potential by Bill Bordass et
al, The Usable Buildings Trust, [email protected] CIBSE ASHRAE Technical Symposium, Dublin,
Ireland, 3-4 April 2014
12. Technical assessment of national/regional calculation methodologies for the energy
performance of buildings-Service contract no: ENER/C3/2013-425/SI2.679523- Final report (2015) -
Johann Zirngibl-CSTB France & Jana Bendžalová-TSUS Slovakia.
13. Energy Conservation Strategies for Sports Centres – Vol 1: Energy Efficiency and indoor Quality
Guidelines by C. Balaras, EC/DG Energy, SAVE Programme, 1996
