Presentation at the CEC5 International Conference in Ljubljana, Slovenia

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. What is sustainable building?
2
Three pillars of sustainable building:
Environmental, economic and social
How to
develop
sustainabilty
indicators?

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.  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. OPEN HOUSE PartnersMore than 50 faces behind

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. 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. Source RICS, Going for green, May 2011

9. Source RICS, Going for green, May 2012

10. Source RICS, Going for green, Sept. 2013

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. 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. 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. 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. CEN /TC 350 Building Sustainability

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. 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. Evaluation and selection of OPEN HOUSE
indicators
• 560 “all” indicators > 95 preselection of
suitable indicators
> 56 “Full system” > 30 “Core system”

19. OPEN HOUSE Methodology
OPEN HOUSE framework: 6 categories

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. “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. Core
indicators
Fulllistofindicators
Quick
assessment
Complete
assessemnt
Quick
Quick
Quick
assessement
Design
phase
Complete
assessement
Building
in use

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

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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

36. • Testing of OPEN HOUSE methodology in Slovenia

37. OPEN HOUSE Case study report
Project SL.1 Menerga

38. 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

39. Example 1.13 Waste
• Separation of
recyclable waste
• Composting
1.13.1 Konteiners for recyclable waste
1.13.2 Composting

40. 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

41. Examle: 2.1 Barrier-free Accessibility
(Social – functional quality)
• 2.1.1 Dostop brez ovir
• Več kot 150*150 cm prostora pred dvigalom

42. 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

43. 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

44. • 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

45. 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

46. 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

47. 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

48. 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

49. 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

50. Pilotni primer:Tolmin
Prenova stavba v nizkoenergijski nivo, uporaba materialov z manjšimi škodljivimi
vplivi na okolje in zdravje človeka.

51. Pilotni primer
QNH=260kWh/m2(PHPP)

52. Pilotni primer
nizko energijski nivo

53. 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

54. Case study: Tolmin Slovenia – CEC5
Daylight factor

55. 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

56. Merila za novogradnje
Materiali in konstrukcije

57. Case study: Tolmin Slovenia – CEC5
Environmental and economic assessment

58. • 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

59. Case study: Tolmin Slovenia – CEC5
CESBA vrednotenje

60. 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.

61. • 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

62. 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

63. 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.

64. 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.

65. 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)

66. 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)

67. 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