This document compares the GRIHA and BREEAM green building rating systems used in India and the UK. GRIHA was established in India in 2007 and evaluates buildings based on criteria like energy, water, and materials. BREEAM was developed in the UK in 1990 and rates buildings on categories like management, health, energy, and land use. The document provides details on the origins, criteria, and adoption of each system. It also summarizes case studies of the Suzlon One Earth building in India, which received GRIHA and LEED certifications, and the MET Office building in the UK, which achieved high ratings under the BREEAM In-Use assessment.

1. Comparing GRIHA With BREEAM For
New Construction: Strengths,
Weaknesses And Their Adoption In
India
PRESENTED BY:
Khushal Tadas

2. GRIHA (Green Rating for Integrated Habitat
Assessment)
 National rating system of India
 Minimize a building’s resource consumption, waste generation, and overall ecological impact
 Evaluates the environmental performance
 Balance between the established practices and emerging concepts
 Reduced energy consumption without sacrificing the comfort levels
 Reduced destruction of natural areas, habitats, and biodiversity, and reduced soil loss from
erosion etc.

3. BREEAM (Building Research
Establishment Environmental
Assessment Method)
 Used to masterplan projects, infrastructure and buildings
 Developed in the United Kingdom in 1990
 The overall building performance is awarded a ‘Pass’, ‘Good’, ‘Very Good’ or
‘Excellent’ rating based on the score.
 BREEAM has separate criteria/checklist for evaluation of Design and Procurement and
for Management and Operation of buildings

4. GRIHA BREEAM
Origin India UK
Established Nov 2007 1990
Responsible TERI and MNRE BRE Global
Countries that used the
certification system
India UK, Netherlands, Norway,
Spain, Sweden and other
countries
Types used in this Paper GRIHA version 2015 for new
construction
BREEAM for new construction
Number of certified buildings in
total
208* (registered so far) 115000 Certified Building, and
7000000 homes and building
registered
Evaluation criteria

5. GRIHA BREEAM
Groups of criteria Site Planning, Construction
management, Energy, Occupant
discomfort and well-being,
Water, Sustainable building
material, Solid waste
management, Socio economic
strategies, Performance
monitoring and validation
Management, Health and Well
Being, Water, Energy, Materials,
Transport, Waste, Land use and
ecology, Pollution, Innovation
Rating system 1 star (25-40)
2 star (41-55)
3 star (56-70)
4 star (71-85)
5 star (86-100)
Unclassified (Less than 30%)
Pass (30%-44%)
Good (45%-54%)
Very Good (55%-69%)
Excellent (70%-84%)
Outstanding (85%-100%)

6. BREEM Strengths & Weaknesses
Strengths Weaknesses
Efficient Technologies Initial Cost Is High
Easier Maintenance Availability Of Materials
Return On Investment Need Skilled Worker
Improved Indoor Air Quality Need More Time To Construct
Energy Efficiency
Waste Reduction
Water Conservation
Water Efficiency
Temperature Moderation
Economical Construction For Poor
Healthier Lifestyles and Recreation
Improved Health

7. GRIHA Strengths & Weaknesses
Strengths Weaknesses
Low operating costs GRIHA rating systems are not reliable at all the
places of India
Higher return on investment These rating systems will not give efficient results
when small scale housing projects
Greater tenant attraction GRIHA (12.5%) give less preference to water
usage whereas
Productivity benefits GRIHA neglect large scale old buildings
Enhanced marketability GRIHA rating processes are designed for new
buildings
Reduce liability and risk
Build healthier places to live and work
Demonstration of corporate social
responsibility
Future-proofed assets
Gain competitive advantage

8. Comparision of GRIHA and BREEAM
Sr. No. Category GRIHA BREEAM
1 Erosion & Sedimentation control/ Topsoil & Fill
Removal from site
 ✕
2 Minimum energy performance ✕ 
3 Renewable energy  ✕
4 Innovative waste water technologies  ✕
5 Indoor source of air pollution  ✕
6 Reduced heat island effect ✕ 
7 Ventilation efficiency  ✕
8 Safety and Security ✕ 
9 Alternative transportation/ Cyclist facilities/ Green
transport
 ✕
10 Pedestrian route  ✕
11 Proximity to amenities ✕ 
12 No pollution emissions ✕ 

9. Case study GRIHA
Suzlon One Earth, Pune
 Architects – Christopher Charles Benninger.
 Location - Pune, Maharashtra, India.
 Site area-10.3 acre • Project Year – 2009
 Landscape Design - Ravi & Varsha Gavandi.
 Structural Design - Santhosh ,Vastech
 Interior Design - Space Matrix in association with Manish Banker, Tao
Architects.
 Construction Management - Knight Frank INDIA.
 Cost-Rs.280 crores

10. Suzlon One Earth
 Received LEED Platinum rating in 2010.
 Spread over 10 acres
 One of the India’s first buildings to be LEED certified.
 Suzlon one earth is 100% powered by onsite and offsite renewable sources.
 The campus has 18 hybrid wind turbines that fulfil 7% of the total energy consumption, the rest of
energy demand is met from offsite wind turbines.
 Designed in a way to ensure maximum daylight exposure.
 Designed to enable water percolation.

11. Ratings and techniques
 World-leading wind energy company based in Pune, India.
 Focus on use of on non-toxic and recycled materials.
 A million S.F. of ground plus two levels in a 10.4 acre urban setting achieved a TERI
GRIHA 5 Star certification.
 8 percent of its annual energy generated on-site through photovoltaic panels and
windmills with a total incremental cost of about 11%.
 154 KW of electricity is produced on site (80% wind and 20% photovoltaic).
 4MW is produced in the client's wind mill farms. 92% (4 MW) being consumed by the
project is sustainable energy making this a Zero Energy Project.
 Lighting of individual offices is controlled by combined daylight and occupancy
sensors.
 65% of energy is saved by use of LEED outdoor light systems.
 30 to 40% reduction in operating cost, due to energy savings and water savings at 30%.

12. Case study BREEM
MET OFFICE, EXETER
 Became fully functional in 2003, allowing Met Office operations to relocate from
Bracknell to this purpose-built, 34,045 m² development.
 Designed to minimize its overall environmental impact, providing a comfortable and
productive work place.

13. Measures to increase sustainability included:
 Energy –
• 10% of energy from renewable sources and 15% from external CHP.
• On site natural gas CHP system generates 40% of the site’s electrical power supply.
 Water –
• consumption is monitored on a monthly basis.
• A sustainable urban drainage system (SUDs) .
• The system directs rainfall from the car park areas and the building into two storage ponds.
• This water is then filtered and used for flushing WCs.
• Within the system water filters and separators catch oil and minimize the potential for
watercourse pollution.
 Transport –
• encourage reduced single occupancy car use.
• Fuel efficient pool cars are also used.
 Waste –
• A waste minimization and recycling program in place.

14. The BREEAM In-Use audit
Assessment categories in which the building performed particularly well include the
following: −
 In Part 1, Asset performance, the building scored 100% in the Transport and Waste
categories, 84.2% in Pollution and 83.3% in Materials.
 In Part 2, Building management, the building scored 100% in the Management,
Materials, Water, Pollution, and Land use and ecology categories, and 92.5% in Health
and wellbeing.
 In Part 3, Organizational effectiveness, the building scored 95.6% in the Management
category, 90.4% in Water, 97.8% in Pollution, 95.6% in Materials and 93% in Health
and wellbeing
BREEAM
In-Use
Part 1 Part 2 Part 3
Rating Very Good Excellent Excellent
Score 59.15 76.13 75.60
Valid until 11 March
2011
11
March 2011
11 March
2011

15. Future plans
 The BREEAM In-Use assessment helped to identify areas that could be improved,
notably the building’s use of energy. The supercomputer required for this is responsible
for 80% of energy consumption.
 Improvements to ensure a 5% reduction in energy consumption for the supercomputer
and the estate have been identified and have started to be implemented.
 Trials have been carried out to assess potential energy savings from running the
supercomputer on DC power compared to the current AC. The results show that a
10.23% energy/CO2 emission reduction and £110,765 in savings can be achieved by
running on DC power.
 A free cooling system for the supercomputer was installed in 2010, and is expected to
deliver a reduction of 9.1% in CO2 emissions and £99,733 in energy costs per annum.
 Reducing energy use quickly, efficiently and at minimum cost. They involve the already
installed energy monitoring and targeting software, as well as the installation of smart
metering for electricity, gas and water.