Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Wir verwenden Ihre LinkedIn Profilangaben und Informationen zu Ihren Aktivitäten, um Anzeigen zu personalisieren und Ihnen relevantere Inhalte anzuzeigen. Sie können Ihre Anzeigeneinstellungen jederzeit ändern.
This project is implemented through the CENTRAL EUROPE Programme co-financed by the ERDF.
Demonstration of energy efficien...
What is sustainable building?
2
Three pillars of sustainable building:
Environmental, economic and social
How to
develop
s...
Method/
Tool
Environment
al aspect
Social Economic
EU public
involved in the
method? javnost
vključena v
pripravo metode
G...
 OPEN HOUSE:
Benchmarking and mainstreaming building sustainability in the EU based on
transparency and openness (open so...
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 th...
BREEAM
1990
ImeLogo
1stzagon
dežela
OcenaGlavnekategorije
LEED
19981996
HQE
No aggregation
into one rating
2007
DGNB
Compa...
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 ...
Aspects and Indicators DGNB BREEAM LEED
Ecological Aspects Environmental Emissions
Material Ressources
Waste
Water
Energy ...
Comparison (V 2009)
Aspects and Indicators DGNB BREEAM LEED
Technical Aspects Fire Protection
Durability
Cleaning and Main...
Draft final EU Ecolabel criteria for office buildings
http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/buildings/stakeholders.html
EU Ecola...
CEN /TC 350 Building Sustainability
OPEN HOUSE development
Bottom-up-Approach:
complementing existing systems and based on existing standards, assessment meth...
OPEN HOUSE development:
N° Assessment Methodology Indicator
1 DGNB Thermal Comfort in Winter
2 DGNB Thermal Comfort in Sum...
Evaluation and selection of OPEN HOUSE
indicators
• 560 “all” indicators > 95 preselection of
suitable indicators
> 56 “Fu...
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...
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
DET...
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...
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?
COULD THIS I...
0,0
0,5
1,0
1,5
2,0
2,5
3,0
Global Warming Potential (GWP)
Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP)Acidification Potential (AP)
Eut...
OPEN HOUSE methodology for sustainability assessment
“Full list" and “Core” indicators
• 6 groups:
• System boarder: build...
Environmental
Quality
1.1 Global Warming Potential (GWP)
1.2 Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP)
1.3 Acidification Potential (...
“Full list “ and “Core" indicators
• OPEN HOUSE
full system indicators
contains 56
indicators
• OPEN HOUSE core
indicators...
Core
indicators
Fulllistofindicators
Quick
assessment
Complete
assessemnt
Quick
Quick
Quick
assessement
Design
phase
Compl...
Assessment Guideline
AG
OPEN HOUSE
Vodnik za trajnostno vrednotenje stavbe s
podrobnim opisomOPEN HOUSE
metodologije.
Vseb...
Testing OH methodologie
• FP7 OPEN HOUSE
methodology was tested on 52
case studies in 34 countries all
over geographical a...
Project CH.4
Foyer Zug, Switzerland
Building Type
93% Office, 1% Education , 4% Restaurant,
2% Sports
Building Phase
Const...
Project FR.8
EDF – Immeuble GODINOT – Lyon, France
Building Type
Office Building
Building Phase
In use
Date of Completion:...
Project AT.4
LCT ONE, Austria
Building Type
Office Building
Building Phase
In use
Date of Completion: 07/2012
Building Cha...
Project DE.2
ZUB - Zentrum für Umweltbewusstes Bauen, Germany
Building Type
Office Building
Building Phase
In use
Date of ...
• 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 fos...
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 Accessibil...
Examle: 2.1 Barrier-free Accessibility
(Social – functional quality)
• 2.1.1 Dostop brez ovir
• Več kot 150*150 cm prostor...
Example: 2.7 Visual comfort
• 2.7.1 Dnevna svetloba po vsej stavbi
• 2.7.2 Dnevna svetloba na voljo na delovnih mestih
• 2...
Core indicators – economic quality,
technical, process and site …
Ekonomska
kakovost
3.1 Vseživljenjski stroški stavbe / B...
• 5.2.1 Integral design team /Integralna projektna skupina
• 5.2.2 Quality of the team / Kvalifikacija integralne projektn...
Opinion on usability of the method
• Fig. 9: Future usability of OPEN HOUSE methodology (30 core indicators) -
respondents...
0
0,5
1
1,5
2
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
GlobalWarmingPotential(GWP)
OzoneDepletionPotential(ODP)
AcidificationPotential(AP)
Eutrophi...
Weighting
Primary Quality
Points
indicator
Points
maximal
Degree of
performance
indicator
Indicator
Weighting
Category
Wei...
Ongoing – pilot use of OPEN
HOUSE indicators for SB
• FP7 EE HIGHRISE – demonstracijski projekt izgradnje
energijsko učink...
V projektu razvito orodje CESBA
 Zajeta so naslednja področja: okoljska, družbena in ekonomska.
Kriteriji razdeljeni po ...
Pilotni primer:Tolmin
Prenova stavba v nizkoenergijski nivo, uporaba materialov z manjšimi škodljivimi
vplivi na okolje in...
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 prehodn...
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...
Merila za novogradnje
Materiali in konstrukcije
Case study: Tolmin Slovenia – CEC5
Environmental and economic assessment
• Wooden windows wilh Al covering
• Rood wooden windows
• Mineral wool with EPD
• Celulose insulation for roof
• Floor cov...
Case study: Tolmin Slovenia – CEC5
CESBA vrednotenje
CESBA General assessment frame for
new and existing buildings
CEBA-Tool Version 1.1
16. Juni 2012
Merila za javne stavbe (...
• Guidelines for investors and designers in design process
• Enables better living comfort, lower costs, higher real estat...
Holistic approach
recommended-
based on
METHODS FOR
SUSTAINABLE
ASSESSEMENT OF
BUILDINGS
Particular “green” indicatos as u...
Razpis za evropsko Green Building /
ID nagrado
• Projekt MaTrID je v sodelovanju s
programom EC Green Building oblikoval
e...
Povzetek – prednosti integralnega (energijskega)
načrtovanja – KAKO LAHKO VPLIVAMO
• V zgodnjih fazah procesa načrtovanja ...
Povzetek – prednosti integralnega (energijskega)
načrtovanja – RAZPOREDITEV OBSEGA DELA
• V tradicionalnem procesu načrtov...
Povzetek – prednosti integralnega (energijskega)
načrtovanja – RAZPOREDITEV OBSEGA DELA
• Pri integralnem načrtovanju želi...
Hvala za pozornost!
Marjana.sijanec@gi-zrmk.si
CEC5, http://www.projectcec5.eu/
FP7 OPEN HOUSE, www.openhouse-fp7.eu
FP7 E...
Methods of sustainable assessment of buildings with examples of application OPEN HOUSE and CESBA assessment in Slovenia an...
Nächste SlideShare
Wird geladen in …5
×

Methods of sustainable assessment of buildings with examples of application OPEN HOUSE and CESBA assessment in Slovenia and ID Green Building award

1.993 Aufrufe

Veröffentlicht am

Presentation at the CEC5 International Conference in Ljubljana, Slovenia

Veröffentlicht in: Business
  • Als Erste(r) kommentieren

Methods of sustainable assessment of buildings with examples of application OPEN HOUSE and CESBA assessment in Slovenia and ID Green Building award

  1. 1. 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
  2. 2. What is sustainable building? 2 Three pillars of sustainable building: Environmental, economic and social How to develop sustainabilty indicators?
  3. 3. Method/ Tool Environment al aspect Social 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 inventoty material 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
  4. 4.  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
  5. 5. OPEN HOUSE PartnersMore than 50 faces behind
  6. 6. 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
  7. 7. BREEAM 1990 ImeLogo 1stzagon dežela OcenaGlavnekategorije LEED 19981996 HQE No aggregation into one rating 2007 DGNB Comparison of SB assessment methods NameLogo 1stlaunch Country RatingMaincategories 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
  8. 8. Source RICS, Going for green, May 2011
  9. 9. Source RICS, Going for green, May 2012
  10. 10. Source RICS, Going for green, Sept. 2013
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. 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)
  13. 13. 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
  14. 14. Draft final EU Ecolabel criteria for office buildings http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/buildings/stakeholders.html EU Ecolabel and Green Public Procurement for Buildings “Weighting” of particular group of criteria
  15. 15. CEN /TC 350 Building Sustainability
  16. 16. 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 methods International initiatives
  17. 17. 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
  18. 18. Evaluation and selection of OPEN HOUSE indicators • 560 “all” indicators > 95 preselection of suitable indicators > 56 “Full system” > 30 “Core system”
  19. 19. OPEN HOUSE Methodology OPEN HOUSE framework: 6 categories
  20. 20. 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? CAN THE CLIENT PROVIDE INFORMATION NEEDED FOR DETERMINATION OF PARTICULAR INDICATOR? treshold LEGEND 3 - Yes 2 - Yes, but... Partly 1 - No 0 - no answer, n.a. ACCEPTABILITY OF INDICATORS PER COUNTRY Good 2-3
  21. 21. 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 LEGEND 3 - Yes 2 - Yes, but... Partly 1 - No 0 - no answer, n.a.
  22. 22. 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? COULD THE BENCHMARK BE SET FOR THIS INDICATOR? treshold LEGEND 3 - Yes 2 - Yes, but... Partly 1 - No 0 - no answer, n.a.
  23. 23. 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? COULD THIS INDICATOR BE APPLIED? treshold LEGEND 3 - Yes 2 - Yes, but... Partly 1 - No 0 - no answer, n.a.
  24. 24. 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 Global 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 Comfort Visual Comfort Operation Comfort Service QualityElectro Magnetic Pollution Accessibility Noise from Building and SiteQuality of the Design and Urban Development of the building and Site Bicycle 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 Transportation Image and Condition of the Location and Neighbourhood Vicinity to amenities Planning law - ?Adjacent Media, Infrastructure, Development CAN THE CLIENT PROVIDE INFORMATION NEEDED FOR DETERMINATION OF PARTICULAR INDICATOR? IS THERE AN EXISTING AVAILABLE METHOD FOR DETERMINATION OF INDICATORS' VALUE IN YOUR COUNTRY? COULD THE BENCHMARK BE SET FOR THIS INDICATOR? COULD THIS INDICATOR BE APPLIED? 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
  25. 25. 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.
  26. 26. Environmental Quality 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) 1.10 Total 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 2.13 Quality 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 Environ mental Quality 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) 1.9 Non-Renewable Primary Energy Demands (PEne) 1.10 Total 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 Econom ic Quality 3.1 Building-related Life Cycle Costs (LCC) Technic al Charact eristics 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 5.5 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
  27. 27. “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
  28. 28. Core indicators Fulllistofindicators Quick assessment Complete assessemnt Quick Quick Quick assessement Design phase Complete assessement Building in use
  29. 29. Assessment Guideline AG OPEN 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
  30. 30. 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
  31. 31. 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
  32. 32. Project FR.8 EDF – Immeuble GODINOT – Lyon, France Building Type Office Building Building Phase In use Date of Completion: 09/2011 Building Characteristics Total Floor Area: 8965 m² Number of storeys: 6 Address 154 rue Thiers, 69006 Lyon FRANCE Assessor Bruno Ziegler EDF R&D Building Owner EDF Architect Viguier JC, Paris Assessment Methodology OPEN HOUSE v1.1 (01/2012) Complete Sustainability Assessment
  33. 33. Project AT.4 LCT ONE, Austria Building Type Office Building Building Phase In use Date of Completion: 07/2012 Building Characteristics Total Floor Area: 2319 m² Number of storeys: 8 Address Färbergasse 17 b 6850 Dornbirn Austria Assessor Rainer Strauch, Cree GmbH Building Owner Cree P1 GmbH Architect Architekten Hermann Kaufmann ZT, Austria Assessment Methodology OPEN HOUSE v1.1 (01/2012) Basic and Quick Sustainability Assessment
  34. 34. Project DE.2 ZUB - Zentrum für Umweltbewusstes Bauen, Germany Building Type Office Building Building Phase In use Date of Completion: 04/2001 Building Characteristics Total Floor Area: 2293 m² Address Kassel, GERMANY Assessor Dr. Natalie Essig, Vincent Peyramale Fraunhofer IBP Building Owner Zentrum für Umwelbewusstes Bauen e.V Architect Jourdan & Müller PAS Assessment Methodology OPEN HOUSE v1.1 (01/2012) Complete Sustainability Assessment
  35. 35. • Testing of OPEN HOUSE methodology in Slovenia
  36. 36. OPEN HOUSE Case study report Project SL.1 Menerga
  37. 37. 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
  38. 38. Example 1.13 Waste • Separation of recyclable waste • Composting 1.13.1 Konteiners for recyclable waste 1.13.2 Composting
  39. 39. 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
  40. 40. Examle: 2.1 Barrier-free Accessibility (Social – functional quality) • 2.1.1 Dostop brez ovir • Več kot 150*150 cm prostora pred dvigalom
  41. 41. 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
  42. 42. Core indicators – economic quality, technical, process and site … Ekonomska kakovost 3.1 Vseživljenjski stroški stavbe / Building-related Life Cycle Costs (LCC) Tehnične lastnosti 4.6 Kakovost stavbenega ovoja / Quality of the building shell 4.7 Primernost 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 Lokacija 6.1 Tveganja lokacije (potres, poplave….) / Risks at the Site 6.3 Možnosti transporta / Options for Transportation
  43. 43. • 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 local community / Udeležba bodočih uporabnikov in drugih deležnikov / vplivi na lokalno skupnost Vir: Projekta, Bajc Primer: 5.2 Integrated design
  44. 44. 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
  45. 45. 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 GlobalWarmingPotential(GWP) OzoneDepletionPotential(ODP) AcidificationPotential(AP) EutrophicationPotential(EP) PhotochemicalOzoneCreationPotential(POCP) BiodiversityandDepletionofHabitats LightPollution AbioticDepletionPotentialforFossilFuels(ADPFossil) TotalPrimaryEnergyDemandsandShareofRenewablePrimaryEnergy WaterandWasteWater Landuse Waste Energyefficiencyofbuildingequipment(lifts,escalatorsandmovingwalkways) AbioticDepletionPotentialforNonFossilFuels(ADPElement) Barrier-freeAccessibility PersonalSafetyandSecurityofUsers ThermalComfort IndoorAirQuality WaterQuality AcousticComfort VisualComfort OperationComfort ServiceQuality PublicAccessibility NoisefromBuildingandSite BicycleAmenities MaterialSourcing Building-relatedLifeCycleCosts(LCC) ValueStability Cleaningandmaintenance NoiseProtection Qualityofthebuildingshell EaseofDeconstruction,Recycling,andDismantling QualityoftheProject’sPreparation IntegratedPlanning OptimizationandComplexityoftheApproachtoPlanning EvidenceofSustainabilityduringBidInvitationandAwarding ConstructionSiteimpact/ConstructionProcess QualityoftheExecutingContractors/Pre-Qualification QualityAssuranceofConstructionExecution Commissioning Monitoring,UseandOperation RisksattheSite CircumstancesattheSite OptionsforTransportation Accesstoamenities Environmental Quality 1.11.21.3 1.41.5 1.7 1.8 1.91.10 1.111.121.131.14 1.15Social / FunctionalQuality 2.12.22.32.42.52.62.72.82.9 2.112.122.16 2.17EconomicQuality3.1 3.2Technical Characteristics 4.34.54.6 4.7ProcessQuality5.15.25.35.45.55.65.75.8 5.9TheLocation6.16.26.36.5 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
  46. 46. Weighting Primary Quality Points 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 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 category may be nationally specific tbd. Source: D1.5 Baseline model and assessment methodology, FRAUNFOFER
  47. 47. 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
  48. 48. 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
  49. 49. Pilotni primer:Tolmin Prenova stavba v nizkoenergijski nivo, uporaba materialov z manjšimi škodljivimi vplivi na okolje in zdravje človeka.
  50. 50. Pilotni primer QNH=260kWh/m2(PHPP)
  51. 51. Pilotni primer nizko energijski nivo
  52. 52. 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
  53. 53. Case study: Tolmin Slovenia – CEC5 Daylight factor
  54. 54. 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) Case study: Tolmin Slovenia – CEC5 Analysis ECOSOFT
  55. 55. Merila za novogradnje Materiali in konstrukcije
  56. 56. Case study: Tolmin Slovenia – CEC5 Environmental and economic assessment
  57. 57. • 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
  58. 58. Case study: Tolmin Slovenia – CEC5 CESBA vrednotenje
  59. 59. CESBA General assessment frame for new and existing buildings CEBA-Tool Version 1.1 16. 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 4 Produktno upravljanje – uporaba gradbenih izdelkov z malo škodljvimi snovmi in nizkimi emisijami 60 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. Točk Obvezni kriterij (M) Naslov Skupaj Nr.
  60. 60. • 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
  61. 61. Holistic approach recommended- based on METHODS FOR SUSTAINABLE ASSESSEMENT OF BUILDINGS Particular “green” indicatos as used now Energy class A 30% of wood, 15% EPD Designer with reference of RES… Biomass heating… Decree on GPP & sustainability assessment
  62. 62. 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 nestanovanjskih stavb, 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.
  63. 63. 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.
  64. 64. 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)
  65. 65. 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)
  66. 66. Hvala za pozornost! Marjana.sijanec@gi-zrmk.si CEC5, http://www.projectcec5.eu/ FP7 OPEN HOUSE, www.openhouse-fp7.eu FP7 EE-HIGHRISE, www.ee-highrise.eu

×