Ne zer+ d2+2+nzebr+success+cases

The sole responsibility for the content of this presentation lies with the authors. It does not
necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union. Neither the EACI nor the European
Commission are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained
therein.
Contract N°: IEE/13/763/SI2.674877
March 2014 - February 2017
Success cases of
Near Zero Energy Building Rehabilitation
(NZEBR)

Table of Contents
• Introduction ....................................................... 3
• Austria ................................................................. 4
• Bulgaria ................................................................ 17
• Finland .................................................................. 32
• France ................................................................... 51
• Germany .............................................................. 58
• Italy ........................................................................ 71
• Netherlands ........................................................ 76
• Norway ................................................................. 97
• Portugal ................................................................111
• Romania ...............................................................115
• Spain .....................................................................130
• Sweden .................................................................145
2© copyrightFebruary 2015

Introduction
NeZeR (2014-2017) promotes implementation and smart integration of Nearly Zero
Energy Building Renovation (NZEBR) measures and deployment of Renewable Energy
Resources (RES) in the European renovation market.
NeZeR objectives and main steps
• Using existing knowledge about energy efficient building for concrete guidelines for
NZEBR.
• Increasing awareness among all stakeholders (decision makers, building industry,
general public) about potential advantages from NZEBR.
• Disseminating the results to stakeholders and collaborating with them in order to
enable the efficient implementation.
• Securing the implementation of NZEBR in the partner cities and beyond by
stakeholder-specific road maps, city action plans and design competitions.
3

General description
• Building year: 1850-1873
• Number of apartments and blocks: 8
• Ownership type: commercial owner for rental
• NZEBR project:
• Renovation year: 2014
• Duration: around 6 months
• Cost: 1.6M€
• Financing: city of Vienna’s grant, 143,000 €; state loan, 292,000 €;
owner own funding
• Description of energy performance leap: Raised to category A
After and Before
6

Before and After (technology)
Original building After NZEBR
Walls Brick or stone walls, without insulation* All facades were repaired and insulated.
Floors No insulation
The basement ceiling were provided with
thermal insulation.
Roofs - -
Windows Double glass windows* Passive house windows were installed
HVAC
Natural ventilation
Central (oil, gas) heating*
Controlled ventilation: a central
ventilation unit with heat recovery
(recovery rate of 82%).
A groundwater heat pump for hot water
and heating.
RES - a photovoltaic system on the roof.
Energy consumption 151.27 kWh / m2, a (93,5 MWh/a) 11.11 kWh / m2, a (9,2 MWh/a)
Energy generation - -
*Based on common characteristics of the building typology
7

• Barriers:
• Impact on residents:
• The rent will increase app. 1 €/m2
• A significant increase in living comfort was achieved.
Barriers and Impact on residents
Barriers Existing barriers How were barriers addressed?
Social
The tenants were able to remain in their
homes for almost the entire duration of the
work, except during the most intensive
work phase (2-3weeks).
A free apartment was at their disposal.
Technical
The renovates building was a made to
historical building from 1850 to1873
(Gründerzeithause).
In this case the street facade was destroyed
by a bomb damage. This made it possible to
insulate the building envelope according to
the passive house quality criteria.
Economic
- A15-year loan was obtained for the
renovation.
Others - -

• Parties involved:
• City of Wienna
• City of Wienna have a strong interest to get these kind of renovation
done as an example of the renovation of historican building
(Gründerzeithause)
Organisation & Process
Succes and failure factors
Success factors
• Good example of the renovation of the historical building.
• Significant decrease in the energy consumption.
Failure factors
• Expensive renovation and, thus, public funding was needed.
Reference
https://www.wien.gv.at/rk/msg/2014/11/07008.html 9

Volksschule und Kindergarten Windigsteig
(School and kindergarten)
Windigsteig, Austria
1
0

General description
• Building year: 1914
• Number of apartments and blocks:
School and kindergarten, 1284 m2, two floors
• Ownership type: Public building
• NZEBR project:
• Duration: 1.5-2 years
• Description of energy performance leap:
decreased to almost 14%
Before
After 11

Walls 50-70 cm brick, no insulation
0.16 to 0.17 W/(m²K), 20 cm EPS with
lambda 0.04 W/mK.
Floors - 0.18 W/m2K, 10 cm EPS
Roofs -
0.10 W/m2K , 10 cm EPS. In the areas with
unheated basement, 12 cm cellulose
insulation was placed.
Windows
2-fold glazed, sometimes only one, with
wooden frames, 2.2 W/m2K
0.72 W/m2K, wood-alu.minum windows
with 3-fold glazing
HVAC Oil heating
Pellet heating plus radiators. Heat recovery
rate 84%.
RES -
A photovoltaic system, with 15 kWp
supplies around 13,600 kWh/yr
electricity.
Energy
consumption
(MWh/year)
34.83 kWh/(m³a)
Heating 4.93 kWh/m3
Primary energy use 135.8 kWh/m2
Energy generation
(MWh/year)
-
A photovoltaic system (99m2) with a total
output of 15 kWp supplies around 13,600
kWh/yr electricity. 12

• Feedback from residents: Generally positive impression. In particular,
the visual improvement and the indoor climate improvement.
• Planning and construction phase remained generally on schedule.
• The rainfall of the summer 2014 was particularly problematic in the
construction phase.
• A comfortable indoor climate by means of the ventilation system with
heat recovery.
• External sun protection prevents overheating in summer and in the
relevant transitional periods.
• Given to the southeast and southwest-oriented windows, electrically
operated venetian blinds were installed.
Impact on residents
Success factors
Reference
http://www.klimaaktiv-gebaut.at/onoff.php?id=1103&source=1
13

Rankweil - Übersaxenerstraße – Sanierung
Rankweil, Austria
14

General description
• Number of apartments and blocks: 16. 1,315 m2, 4 floors.
• NZEBR project:
• Cost: 1 M€, 810 €/m2
• Financing: own financing and support from the State of Vorarlberg.
Before and After 15

Walls Perforated brick wall
0.12 W/m2K
26 cm EPS 0.04 insulation
Floors
Reinforced concrete without any type of
insulation
16 cm thick EPS insulation on the
basement ceiling (U= 0.18 W/m²K).
Insulation from the ceiling with 5 cm -
basement walls about 50 cm wide and
26 cm of XPS.
Roofs
Reinforced concrete with 6 cm PU
insulation PU
Application of an additional 26 cm
thick insulation (18 cm EPS +8 cm PU)
to improve the U-value to 0.10W/m²K
Windows -
0.80 W/m2K
Renovation of the apartment window,
staircase windows and balcony doors:
Wood frame with triple glazingwith
argon filling + aluminium
weatherboard
HVAC Oil burner Gas condensing boiler
RES - 80 m² solar thermal system
Energy consumption 135.0 kWh/m2a 13.0 kWh/m2
16

• Rent was increased 1.98 €/m2
Impact on residents
Succes factor
• Energy consumption decreased at level 10% of the original
Reference
• http://www.klimaaktiv-gebaut.at/main.php?show=2
17

Multi-family building - 10, Zaharna Fabrika street
Sofia, Bulgaria
19

General description
• Number of apartments and blocks:
13 (before renovation) / 15 (after renovation)
• Ownership type: private
• NZEBR project:
• Duration: 2 years
• Cost: 52,375 €
• Financing: owners through a 20-year loan
from a Dutch bank (lower interest rates).
46% energy saving.
Before
After 20

Original building After renovation works
Walls Non-insulated external brick walls.
Thermal insulation of external brick
walls.
Floors Non-insulated basement. Thermal insulation of basement ceiling.
Roofs Non-insulated .
Whole reconstruction of attic; Water
proofing and new thermal insulation .
Windows Double glazed wooden windows.
New double glazed windows with PVC
frames.
HVAC
Heat substation supplied by district
heating.
Improvement of the heating system
(balance, insulation of pipes).
RES - -
Energy consumption
(kWh/ year)
217,470 122,496
21

• Barriers:
This project included the whole reconstruction of the roof (attic) and its
transformation into two small apartments. The rent of these new flats help
the owners to reimburse the loan.
Social
Lack of adequate organization of
homeowners.
It was registered the first association of
owners in Bulgaria.
Technical
Lack of know-how about energy
efficiency in housing.
It was made the energy audit before and
after renovation works.
Economic
Lack of affordable financial tools -
subsidies for renovation were limited and
application procedures were not clear.
The lower level of subsidizing the project
leads to a longer payback period (the
renovation with a “soft loan” had to be
repaid in a 20 year period).
22

• Parties involved: This project was initiated and realised by Bulgarian
Housing Association in partnership with Housing Association De Nieuwe
Unie, Rotterdam and Housing Association Woondrecht, Dordrecht.
Succes factors
• Estimate of GHG: 23.04 tCO2/year.
• Socio-economic aspects: The inhabitants are satisfied by the results, the
renovation extended the life span of the building for 40 years, the
insulation of the external envelope leaded to a better comfort and energy
saving; the economic effect means about 6,000 €/year savings.
• The project can be easily replicated in the neighbouring buildings, as they
have the same technical characteristics.
Reference
http://www.vmsw.be/Portals/0/objects/VMSW/DuurzaamWonen/Toolkit/R1
2_EI_Education_Casestudies.pdf
23

Multi-family building - 11, Assen Zlatarov street
Sofia, Bulgaria
24

General description
• BR project:
• Cost: 101,650 €
• Financing: 60% of the building design drawings
and the building envelope insulation costs were
covered by a subsidy from the state budget and the
remaining part (40%) was covered by the
apartment owners. 80% from the RES costs were
covered by EU FP6 Concerto program and the
apartment owners.
• Description of energy performance leap: 47% of
energy saving.
After
Before
25

Walls Ceramic hard bricks (thickness, 25 cm)
Thermal insulation on external brick walls
/ EPS 8 cm
Floors
above non-heated areas are with
cement leveling layer.
Ground slab insulation of basement .
Roofs
It was pitched with 4 parts, consisting
of wooden frames with wooden
coverage and finishing layer of
ceramic tiles. The roof was above non-
heated area.
New thermal insulation .
Windows
Wooden double framed ordinary
glazed.
Five cavity PVC profile with low emission
glazing.
HVAC
District heating system (the heat
exchanger placed in the basement of
building).
Improvement of the heating system .
RES -
Thermal solar panels - 25.7 m2 solar
collectors.
Energy consumption
(kWh/ year)
216,832 84,906
26

• Barriers:
• Impact on residents: the homeowners were organized in condominium
association type – this was a condition for receiving the necessary funds.
After implementation, the owners expressed a high level of satisfaction
with this project taking into consideration the decrease of energy costs.
Social
Involvement level of owner (tenant
especially) during the project preparation
phase.
Extensive preparation and special tool-kit
for the homeowners and their associations.
Technical
The involvement of the designers with
high professional expertise in the
technical system of building, especially the
RES installation .
Economic
Lack of affordable financial tools. Creating a system tailored at different
financing sources (funds) including
subsidies to cover the renovation costs.
27

• Parties involved: this project was initiated and realised by Bulgarian
Housing Association in partnership with homeowners association and
Sofia District Heating Company.
Succes factors
• GHG reduction: 35.84 tCO2/year;
• The inhabitants are satisfied with the project results ( the extending of
the building life, the increasing of the internal comfort, the decrease of
energy consumption - energy savings meaning about 10,000 Euro/year).
are the same technical characteristics.
Reference
http://www.shelterproject-iee.eu/public/Pilots_from_BHA_Bulgaria
28

Multi-family building - 2, Aleko Konstantinov street
Sofia, Bulgaria
29

General description
• BR project:
• Cost (€): 84,592
• Financing: 60% of the building design drawings
and the building envelope insulation costs were
covered by a subsidy from the state budget and
the remaining part (40%) was covered by the
apartment owners. 80% of the RES costs were
covered by EU FP6 Concerto program and the
apartment owners.
• Description of energy performance leap: 68 % of
energy saving.
Before
After
30

Walls Ceramic solid bricks (thickness, 25 cm).
Thermal insulation on external brick
wall, EPS 8 cm.
Floors Parquet floor above non-heated areas.
Insulation of the first floor with 8 cm
hard mineral wool plates .
Roofs
It was pitched with 4 parts, consisting of
wooden frames with wooden coverage
and finishing layer of ceramic tiles. The
roof was above non-heated area.
Insulation of pitched roof with 15 cm
mineral wool .
Windows wooden double framed ordinary glazed.
PVC window frame with double glazed
low emission glass.
HVAC
District heating system (the heat
exchanger placed in the basement of
building).
Improvement of the heating system .
RES -
Thermal solar panels - 41.12 m2 solar
collectors.
Energy consumption
(kWh/ year)
181,795 72,297
31

• Barriers:
• Impact on residents: the homeowners were organized in condominium
association type – this was a condition for receiving the necessary funds.
After implementation, the owners expressed a high level of satisfaction
with this project taking into consideration the decrease of energy costs.
Social
Involvement level of owner (tenant
especially) during the project phase.
Extensive preparation and special tool-kit
for the homeowners and their associations .
Technical
The involvement of the designers with high
professional expertise in the technical part,
especially the RES installation .
Economic Lack of affordable financial tools.
Creating a system tailored at different
financing sources (funds) including
subsidies to cover the renovation costs.
32

• Parties involved: This project was initiated and realised by Bulgarian
Housing Association in partnership with homeowners association and
Sofia District Heating Company.
Succes factors
• GHG reduction: 29.75tCO2/year.
• The inhabitants are satisfied with the project results ( the extending of
the building life, the increasing of the internal comfort, the decrease of
energy consumption - energy savings meaning about 7,920 Euro/year).
Reference
33

Success case
Innova
Riihimäki, Finland
35

General description
• Ownership type: Public housing, including a
kindergarten.
• NZEBR project:
• Duration: 11 months
• Cost: 4.3 M€ (1,510 €/m2)
• Financing: Own funding with a 4.2 % grant from
The Housing Finance and Development Centre of
Finland .
• Description of energy performance leap: The goal
was to reach 70% decrease. The energy
consumption in the first year after the renovation
was 30% lower than before renovation. After the
building services are adjusted etc. the 50% energy
saving might be possible.
Before
After
36

Walls
0.25-0.27 W/(m2K).
Air tightness 5-7 1/h
Concrete sandwich elements
0.088 W/(m2K).
Air tightness 0.8 1/h
The outer façade layers of the existing
prefabricated concrete sandwich elements
were removed leaving only the inner concrete
layer in place. A new façade was retrofitted
using prefabricated timber based elements
(TES Energy Façade). The HVAC was partly
integrated in the elements.
Floors 0.46 W/(m2K) 0.46 W/(m2K)
Roofs 0.22 W/(m2K) 0.08 W/(m2K)
Windows 2.9 W/(m2K), two glasses 0.66 W/(m2K),
HVAC No heat recovery Heat recovery with efficiency 0.75
RES - -
Energy
consumption
Total 594 MWh (157.5 kWh/m2)
Heating 350 MWh (92.8 kWh/m2)
Energy generation
(MWh/year)
- -
37

• Barriers:
• Rent was not increased because the rental company of Riihimäki
shared the costs of the renovation between different buildings
owned by it.
• Residents lived in the house during the renovation.
Social - -
Technical Installation time and process.
A method was developed to install new
elements fastly..
Economic High price of the renovation .
This was a pilot case. The cost might
decrease if the technology is widespread.
Others - -
38

• The goal was to reach a level of the passive house in energy consumption which
would have been 70% decrease. The energy consumption in the first year after the
renovation was 30% lower than before renovation.
The reason for this might be, that the residents did not know how to live in passive
house. They used too much heating and then opened the windows because of heat.
Also the old radiators in the department should be change and adjust.
After the building services are adjusted and resident have been taught to new ways
of living the 50% energy saving might be possible.
• There was a significant delay on the project both in the planning and in the
construction work. The project was a pilot project which was the main reason for
the delays.
• The renovation was planned so that the disturbance for the tenants sould be
minimal. This goal did not came true because renovation works inside of the
department had larger impact than expected. Also on the outside of the building
the renovation work caused more disturbation than expected.
• As result of the renovation, the building enhanced indoor comfort.
39

• Parties involved: Owner, VTT, Tekes – the Finnish Funding Agency for
Innovation, Sitra, Architecture office Kimmo Lylynkangas, Recair, Lammin
ikkuna, Paroc.
• Energy consumption has been measured after the renovation.
References
• Research report
• Innova. Kerrostalosta passiivitaloksi
• http://www.vtt.fi/inf/pdf/technology/2014/T193.pdf
• Innova www-pages
• http://www.paroc.com/campaigns/innova-project
40

General description
• Number of apartments and blocks: Single house.
• Ownership type: Private
• NZEBR project:
• Cost: >100,000 €
• Financing: Own funding.
Before
After 42

Walls
0.28 W/m2K, wooden construction,
sawdust used as an insulation.
0.09 W/m2K
Pre-fabricated insulation elements.
Floors 0.22 W/m2K 0.2 W/m2K
Roofs
0.3 W/m2K, steel, sawdust used as an
insulation.
0.085 W/m2K, insulated with mineral wool.
Windows
2.1 W/m2K, 2-glass windows. 0.59 W/m2K, windows with two thermo
elements
HVAC
Natural ventilation with air exchange
rate 0.36 l/h.
Oil burner.
Mechanical air exchange system with heat
recovery (0.7 efficiency).
Ground source heat pump.
RES - Solar thermal energy and PV panels
Energy
consumption
Heating: 0.32 MWh (178.9 kWh/m2,a) Heating: 0,05MWh (29.3 kWh/m2,a).
Energy generation
- Values are not measured, but it can be
assumed, that 50% of the annual domestic
water is proved with the solar heat and 900
kWh of electricity with the PV panels.
43

• Barriers:
• The value of the building increase 50% after the renovation
Social - -
Technical
To get the effective renovation process
for the wooden buildings from 1960-
1970
The new technoloy was developed for the
renovation.
Economic
The renovation using this method is
expensive compared to the value of the
renovated building.
This was a pilot case. Costs may be decrease
if the technology is widespread.
Others - -
44

• After the renovation it seems, that the goals for the energy saving might
be achieved. Energy consumption has been measured after the renovation
but the results are not yet reported.
• The renovation system is practical and the the apperance of the renovated
building was enhanced, even if the dimension of the buildings increased
• Paroc developed the insulation system for walls. It is based on the mineral
wool element which is attached on the plywood and thus it is easy to
handle and attach on the walls.
• The main problem of the renovation was the price. It is not sure whether
the savings in the energy consumption will cover the cost of the
renovation.
45

• Parties involved: owner, VTT, Paroc (insulation and RenZERO concept manufacturer),
Tekes (the Finnish Funding Agency for Innovation), Architecture office Kimmo
Lylynkangas, Oilon, Ensto, MetsäWood, Skaala.
• The interest of stakeholders was high because a new technology was developed for the
pilot case. Many of the co-operators have also strong power in the markets.
• Description of the process:
The initiative was started by Paroc and the idea was to develop a concept for the zero
energy renovation for the wooden buildings built between1960-1970.
Several renovations were undertaken concerning the insulation, windows, HVAC, etc.
References
• http://renzero.fi/index.php
• http://renzero.fi/pdf/VTT-report-Nearly-zero-energy-renovation-
concept-and-performance-assessment-of-the-concept.pdf
46

ReBuilt, Oulu
Oulu, Finland
47

General description
• Ownership type: Public housing organisation.
• NZEBR project:
• Renovation year: 2012-2013
• Cost: 1.4 M€ (2,483 €/m2).
• Financing: Owner own funding and supported
by EU FP7 project funding.
• Description of energy performance leap: 46%
energy reduction. From energy class C to A.
Before
After
48

Walls
0.28 W/m²K, concrete sandwich element
Air tightness 3,1 m2/h (q50)
0.11 W/m²K,
Air tightness 1,2 m2/h (q50)
The original outer sandwich façade layer
was removed, leaving only the inner layer.
A new façade based on timber elements
was placed (TES Energy Façade).
Floors 0.24 W/m²a 0.11 W/m²K
Roofs 0.22 W/m²a
0.08 W/m²a, a new timber truss roof was
constructed and a blown loose fill mineral
wool insulation of 550 mm installed .
Windows 2.1 W/m²K 0.8 W/m²K
HVAC
The real-time automatic valve control of
the flow of space heating of the district
heat exchanger was changed in 2006.
New district heat circuit and domestic
water pipes.
New thermostatic control radiators.
RES - -
Energy consumption
Total 115 MWh (198 kWh/m2,a)
Heating 53 MWh (91 kWh/m2,a)
Total 48 MWh (83 kWh/m2,a)
Heating 23 MWh (40 kWh/m2,a)
49

• The building condition before the renovation. Before design work began
the condition of the building was analysed. Tests were made for moisture
in the building envelope, VOC’s, asbestos, lead, indoor air microbes, and
capillary action. Minor moisture damage was found in some bathrooms
and floor materials. The original ground slab consisted of a 70 mm
reinforced concrete was insulated with 50 mm polystyrene.
Barriers
50

• Parties involved: Owner, PSOAS Student Housing Foundation of Northern Finland,
Aalto University, NCC Rakennus Oy, Finland (constructions), M3 architects, Oulun
Sähkö-Aika Oy (Electrical engineering), Suomen Rakennustuote Oy (TES elements).
• Description of the process: The pilot building in Virkakatu 8, Oulu, Finland, owned by
PSOAS Student housing Foundation of Northern Finland. The building, built in 1984,
has 8 apartments. The building was in need of a complete refurbishment and the
student apartments were outdated.
NCC Construction Finland (NCCFI) was turnkey contractor to design, retrofit,
commission and handover the building to PSOAS. The retrofit brought the building
above current building standards, reducing heating demand and introducing high
efficiency heat recovery ventilation.
Solutions for façade sandwich panels were focussed on industrialised manufacturing
methods and standardised retrofit measures with high replication potential.
M3 Architects in Oulu were principal designers for a comprehensive makeover of the
interior spaces: new apartments with enlarged balconies, open plan living rooms and
kitchens, improved indoor comfort and ventilation, and new saunas. A contemporary
architectural image was designed in harmony with the other buildings around.
51

• Tenants valued the design and outcomes positively, but they were
preoccupied with the disturbances that they suffered during the
renovations. Despite of this, there were some positive comments.
• Overall, a strong increase in perceived architectural qualities regarding
public spaces within the building but also balcony design and bathroom.
• Strengths and weaknesses in similar refurbishment strategies have been
identified.
• The first year of space heating has not met the target. This illustrates the
exposure of cold Nordic climate to varying extremes temperature in
winter and the financial limits to extremely insulated buildings.
Nevertheless, the Oulu building was built in 1985 according to central
European standards. The future challenge will be to reduce the use of
electricity, since life quality and indoor comfort was improved but with
an increase in electrical installations.
52

References
• http://www.e2rebuild.eu/
• http://www.e2rebuild.eu/en/links/deliverables/Documents/E2ReBuild_D2.
2_DemonstratorOulu_Final.pdf
3_EvaluationCaseStudiesDemonstrations.pdf
2_DemonstratorOulu_Final.pdf
53

Success case
Cotentin Falguière residence
Paris , France
55

General description
• Number of apartments and blocks: 87 dwellings
• Ownership type: owned by ICF Novedis
• NZEBR project:
• Duration: 2009-2013
• Cost: 4 M€ (695 €/m2)
• Financing: ICF Habitat performed the renovation
with its subsidiary for intermediate housing, ICF
Habitat Novedis.
reduction of energy consumptions.
Before
After 56

Walls
Walls street side: concrete + 2 cm
sandwich thermal insulation.
Walls back side: concrete + 2 cm
sandwich thermal insulation + 8 cm
ETICS EPS
Addition of 20 cm ETICS EPS polystyrene
thermal insulation - =0.032 W/(m K).
Floors Concrete. 10 cm EPS below the ceiling , =0.032 W/(mK)
Roofs Concrete + 5 cm thermal insulation.
New 10 cm polyurethane thermal insulation -
=0.024 W/(m K) on ceiling
Windows PVC double glazing, 20 years old. New PVC double glazing, U=1.5 W/(m²K).
HVAC
Heating 2 centralized gas boilers.
Ventilation system:Natural ventilation
grids in the kitchen, bathroom and toilets
(apparently no ventilation problems).
Heating: new condensing boilers for heating
and warm water.
Ventilation system: new controlled mechanical
ventilation.
RES None Heat recuperation from waste water.
Energy
consumption
205 kWh/m²/year Heating: 13 kWh/m²/year (gas)
Hot water: 28 kWh/m²/year (gas),
Ventilation fans (electricity): 2.6 kWh/m²/year
Auxiliaries (electricity): 0.5 kWh/m²/year
Lighting (electricity): 6 kWh/m²/year
Energy generation - ERS system biofluids: 10 kWh/m²/year
57

• Barriers:
• Most tenants did not have to move out during the retrofitting
work.
Social
The tenants in this city have
traditionally little social bondage with
the neighbourhood and the house.
The motivation to renovate the building was both
to take away complaints concerning the condition
of the building, to adapt the building to modern
standards and to give to the building a better
property value, making it fit for the market needs.
Technical
Monitoring phase: Difficulties have
been crossed over for the autonomies
of the battery of the sensor, resulting
in an impact on the communication
between sensors and routers.
No information.
Economic - -
Others - -
58

• Parties involved: ICF Habitat performed the renovation with its subsidiary for
intermediate housing, ICF Habitat Novedis.
• Communication:
• In order to make them accept the work more easily various methods have been
adopted during the pre-retrofit phase, such as: employment of new people in
charge of tenant interaction; individual interviews about occupation of the
dwellings, assessment of housing, use of common spaces of the building and
interest in the environment (72 dwellings interviewed among 87); letters to all
tenants informing about forthcoming renovation plans; two meetings where
general information about the retrofit project were shared; questionnaire about the
technical state of the building; two workshops on specific topics (energy
consumption commitment and renovation of outdoor spaces).
• During the work period: A showcase apartment was presented to tenants at the
beginning of the refurbishment.
• The house keeper was used as a communication channel; information website
informed about the work schedule; one person from the construction company
(BREZILLON) was dedicated to tenants interaction.
59

• Initiative: The context of the European research project BEEM UP.
• ICF Novedis decided to involve tenants within the whole process.
• The operation was initiated in January 2009. The main direction for the
retrofitting has been selected and refined in collaboration with the design team,
that was contracted in October 2009. The complete technical diagnosis is
available since June 2010; works started in June 2013.
• Managing and monitoring: Monitoring data was collected during the year 2012
(before retrofit) . The dwellings can see in the display their consumption on the
videophone’s screen daily, weekly, monthly and annually, and compare them to
the previous period.
60

• The case study indicated that people who are engaged in the
refurbishment are more aware of environmental issues and consequently
contribute to the successful accomplishment of the project.
References
• http://beem-up.eu/demostrators.php
• http://beem-up.eu/documents/2014 Paris.pdf
61

Success case
Blaue Heimat
Heidelberg, Germany
63

General description
• Number of apartments and blocks: 56 (old situation),
40 (new situation)
• Ownership type : Tenancy.
• NZEBR project:
• Duration: unknown.
• Cost: 1,260 €/m2
• Financing: building owner.
• Description of energy performance leap: heating
energy demand has decreased from ca. 180
kWh/m2 to 19 kWh /m2 (90% reduction.)
After
64

Walls Not insulated 16-20 cm insulation, U=0.15 W/(m²K).
Floors -
Polystyrene insulation of basement ceiling,
U=0.17 W/(m²K).
Roofs Insulation of uppermost ceiling slab Infilled mineral wool, U=0.13 W/(m²K).
Windows Standard double glass. Triple glazing, U=1.20 W/(m²K). (incl. frames)
HVAC Individual boilers, natural ventilation
Air tightness < 0.6 h-1
Heat Recovery Ventilation units (85% energy
recovery).
Centralized heating system, using gas-fired CHP
unit (80 kWth, 50 kWel), plus 2x 92kWth gas
boilers for peak load (5% of yearly demand)
Also 4700 l of hot water storage vessels
RES None
11.6 kWp PV installation on balcony roofs
Originally planned: purchasing of wind energy
(not realized, due to lack of market offers)
Energy
consumption
-
Heating+hot water: 30 kWh/m2a
Electricty: 30 kWh/m2/a
Total primary cons.: 188 kWh/m2a
Energy generation - PV generation: 35 kWh/m2/a
65

Barriers
Social
Relatively small appartment size (54 m2) in
original floor plan.
Some appartments are combined to obtain
variation in sizes, and average floor of 84
m2
Technical
Significant length of heat distribution pipes
through building.
Extra insulation of pipes (but still relatively
high losses).
Economic
Wind energy shares were to be purchased,
but no sufficent market offers for that.
Not solved, therefore building does not
achieve zero-energy level.
66

Success factors
• Use of CHP to provide basic heat supply
• Installation of PV system
• Reorganize floor plan to achieve more attractive apartments and more
variation in apartment size
Failure factors
• Insufficient potential for renewable energy generation
• Heat losses from heat distribution pipes
• Heat losses from hot water storage tanks
Reference
• K. Voss, E. Musall, Net Zero Energy Buildings, International projects of
carbon neutrality in buildings, Instutut für International Architectur-
Dokumentation, Munich, 2011, ISBN 978-3-0346-0780-3
67

Effizienshaus Smetanastrasse
Berlin, Germany
68

General description
• Construction: 1899
• Ownership type: private, Energiewohnen
GMBH, Berlin.
• NZEBR project:
• Duration: unknown
• Cost: 600,000 €(gross)
• Financing: private
• Energy performance leap:
85 % primary energy savings
85 % CO2 savings
69

Walls
Brick masonry 38 cm
no insulation.
Brick masonry 52 cm
Poysterol 12 cm, U= 1.5 W/(m²K).
Floors
Wood-beamed ceilings 30 cm
no insulation.
Wood-beamed ceilings 38 cm
Mineral wool 20 cm, U= 0.20 W/(m²K).
Roofs
Saddle roof, no insulation.
Saddle roof, mineral wool 20 cm
U= 0.19 W/(m²K).
Windows Double glazing, U window: 1,0 W/(m²K). Triple glass, U window: 1.0 W/(m²K).
HVAC
Individual gas heating with water convectors
Natural ventilation.
Heat pump outside air (30kW)
RES - -
Energy
consumption
Final energy needed: 161,4 kWh/m2 Final energy needed: 14,2 kWh/m2
70

• Energiewohnen GMBH, Berlin (owner, client).
• Ingenieurbüro Sven-Hagen Lèglise (building physics, energy).
Reference
• Fact sheet Smetanastrasse, DENA https://effizienzhaus.zukunft-
haus.info/effizienzhaeuser/suche-effizienzhaeuser-zum-
anschauen/einzelansicht/?tx_denagebaeudedb_pi1%5BshowEntity%5D=1743
71

Effizienshaus Zielstattstraße
München, Germany
72

General description
• Construction year: 1954
• Ownership type (private, Siemens
Wohnungsgesellschaft, München):
• NZEBR project:
• Duration: unknown
• Cost: 4.45 M€ (gross)
• Financing: private
• Energy performance leap:
87 % primary energy savings
63 % CO2 savings
Before
After
73

Walls
Brick masonry 30 cm
Poysterol 6 cm (2677 m2)
Brick masonry 30 cm
Poysterol 10 cm, U= 0.45 W/m2K (2677
m2)
Floors
Concret basement is heated
no insulation
Concrete basement is heated
Poysterol 14 cm, U= 0.35 W/m2K
Roofs
Flat Roof, no insulation Flat roof, mineral wool 20 cm
U= 0,19 W/m2K
Windows
Double glazing, U = 3W/m2K
Surface: 708 m2
Triple glass, U = 1.1 W/m2K
Surface: 729 m2
HVAC
Remote heat (1980), nominal power 350 kW
Natural ventilation
Remote heat (2005) , nominal power
245 kW
decentralized space way exhaust system
RES - -
Energy
consumption
Final energy needed: 138.8 kWh/m2 Final energy needed: 52.8 kWh/m2
74

The building has cultural value. Built in the 1950’s by Siemens, factory
housing estate (Architect, Emil Freymuth). The building is restored and
brought on the latest state of the art. A return of the buildings on the design
style of the 1950’s could be achieved together with conservation authorities
and builders, with consensus between the creative needs of monument
protection and the energetic (ENEV 50%), building-physics and
constructional requirements.
Barriers
• Energiewohnen GMBH, Berlin (owner, client).
• Ingenieurbüro Sven-Hagen Lèglise (building physics, energy).
Reference
• Fact sheet DENA, https://effizienzhaus.zukunft-
haus.info/effizienzhaeuser/suche-effizienzhaeuser-zum-
anschauen/einzelansicht/?tx_denagebaeudedb_pi1%5BshowEntity%5D=1
878. 75

3 Via Monte Ortigara Street in Rivalta
Torino , Italy
77

General description
• Number of apartments and blocks: 21 dwellings
(3 blocks).
• NZEBR project:
• Duration: no information
• Cost: 0.22 M€
• Financing: owner 20% funded by European
Commission.
78

Walls
Brick wall without cavity and provided with
6 cm of insulation. It is finished with plaster
and painting. U=0.52 W/m2 K.
10 cm of insulation are added through the
installation of an ETICS system.
U=0.21 W/m2 K.
Floors Concrete slab.
Brick and cement slab under 6 cm of
polystyrene insulation panel and concrete
screed. U=0.41 W/m2 K
Roofs
Brick and concrete slab with bitumen
membrane. Roof covering in traditional brick
tiles. Roof is not isolated.U=1.1W/m2K.
6 cm of thermal insulation material are
added to the brick and cement slab.
U=0.3 W/m2 K.
Windows
Doble glazing air filled (4+10+4) with
aluminium frame. U=1,79* W/m2 K
*Only glazzing U value
Doble glazing with PVC frame.
U=1.5* W/m2 K
HVAC 124,821 kWh/year 56,011kWh/year
RES - -
Energy
consumption
179.758 [kWh/year] 110.947 [kWh/year]
79

Barriers
Social
Building will be occupied during
refurbishment process.
Project in progress; to be addressed.
Technical
Exposure to solar gains in summer (south
façade).
No cooling systems projected – Need of
avoiding overheating during summer
season.
Special attention in order to resolve
dampness and leaking existing problems
to reduce existing thermal bridges.
Project in progress; to be addressed.
Economic - -
Others - -
80

• Parties involved: ATC Torino (Agenzia Territoriale per la Casa)
• Initiative: Papirus project (EC funded research project)
• The project is in progress.
Succes factor
• Promote, implement and validate innovative solutions through a new
public procurement process focused in near zero energy consumption
building.
References
• http://www.papirus-project.com/images/PAPIRUS__Turin_v03.pdf
81

Success case
Sleephelling
Rotterdam, The Netherlands
<Picture>
83

General description
• Building year: 1903.
apartments, at 9 lots.
• Ownership type: 14 privately owned
dwellings and 16 social housing units for
assisted living.
• NZEBR project:
• Duration: 1 year.
from label F-G to label A++ (passive house
level).
84

Walls Front and back: Single stone wall.
Front: Inside insulation 300 mm Rockwool
(Rc=10)
Backside: outside insulation 350 mm
polystyreen + plaster covering (Rc=10)
Floors Concrete floor, not insulated Insulation + ‘estrich’ floor board
Roofs Tile roof, little insulation
Inside and outside high level insulation, but roof
construction elements remain visible.
Windows Single glass
Front side sliding windows: double glass, low U
Other windows: triple glazing, Ar-filled, with
insulated wood/aluminium frames
Sun shades to prevent summer overheating
HVAC
Heating: gas heaters
Natural ventilation
Individual high efficiency gas boilers
Heat recovery ventilation
Air tightness conforms to passive house standard
RES none
Solar hot water boilers
Hot fill for washing machines and dish washer
Energy
consumption
Around 200 kWh/m2 Space heating and cooling: 25 kWh/m2/year
Total primary energy <130 kWh/m2/yr
Energy generation - Ca. 1800 kWh/yr (hot water)/residential unit.
85

Barriers
Social
Requires new way of thinking among
owners, planners and residents.
-
Technical
Front facade is listed as ‘protected city
view’.
Low insulation values and bad air
tightness in existing situation.
Risk of overheating in summer.
Insulation at inside for front facade.
Visual appearance of sliding windows was
maintained.
Sun shades in windows (outside or inside)
and active night cooling in summer.
Windows can be opened for extra natural
ventilation.
Economic
High initial investment required.
Life cycle cost perspective is not common
yet among housing association, private
buyers, mortgage banks.
Tenants, owners and banks need to
consider total cost of living in a house,
including the energy cost.
Not all renovation cost have been included
in selling price of private units.
Others
New techniques and installations were
applied.
User instructions for installation.
High comfort level in new situation, stable
temprature and more sound proof house.
86

• Parties involved: Housing association (Woonstad), architects (Villanova),
construction company (BAM Residential Building), technical
subcontractors, City authorities, potential buyers and tenants.
• Level of power and interest of stakeholders:
Stakeholder Power Interest
Housing association ++ ++
Private owners +/- ++
Tenants +/- ++
Architect ++ +
Construction company ++ +
Municipality + +
87

Success factors
• Good cooperation between stakeholders.
• Keep a close eye on comfort and demands of future residents.
• Part of investments are carried by commercial companies involved in
renovation.
Failure factors
• Not much experience yet with passive house renovations.
• Strict mortgage rules that do not take into account (reduced) energy costs.
• Unclarity about (future) market value of residential units.
References
• http://www.kennishuisgo.nl/voorbeeldprojecten/ProjectPage.aspx?id=382
• http://www.bouwwereld.nl/nieuws/sleephellingstraat-presteert-boven-
verwachting.
88

Renovation 5 apartment blocks mixed ownership
Surinamelaan, Amersfoort, The Netherlands
89

General description
• Number of apartments and blocks: 110 apartments,
5 blocks.
• Ownership type : partly private, partly public
housing organization
• NZEBR project:
• Duration: 4 weeks per block
• Cost: 2.2 M€
• Financing:
• Bank loan to owners associations, with
guarantee of province.
• 35,000 subside of province per block.
• Private owners also got subside of national
government (“More with Less”).
• Description of energy performance leap: from
label F to B. 90

Walls Rc = 0.36 m²K/W Rc=1.61 m²K/W
Floors Rc = 0.15 m²K/W Rc = 2.65 m²K/W
Roofs Rc =0.22 m²K/W Rc = 3.22 m²K/W
Windows U = 5.20 W/m2K U = 1.80 W/m2K
HVAC
Individual gas heating with water
radiators.
Individual gas boilers with water radiators
Mechanic ventilation, CO2-controlled.
RES - -
Energy
consumption
Gas 1600 m³ Gas 910 m³
91

Barriers
Social
Mixed ownership caused different
perspectives. Tenants were suspicious of
cost reduction on energy bill while rent
was going to be increased. For private
owners the contribution to the owner
association was going to be increased.
Creating support by installing a community of
practice with social housing company, Tenant
association, province, municipality, tenants
and owners. Feedback by tenants to tenants
and owners to owners.
Municipality released newsletter.
Technical
The blocks are located in protected
townscape. Optical changes on the facade
were not permitted.
Renovation was done from inside.
Economic
Cost benefits for residents differed
dependent on location in the block.
Banks were not willing to give a loan to an
association of owners.
The monthly costs for both tenants and
owners were not going to be increased after
the renovation. For some costst were even
going to decrease. This was accomplished by
the use of subsidies.
The loan from Rabobank was supported by a
provincial guarantee fund.
Others
The appartment block swere not on the
renovation program of the housing
company.
One of the owners initiated the project and
put a lot of energy in creating support by all
parties involved. Due to the succesfull
renovation concept and the tenants support
the housing company decided to participate.
92

• Parties involved: the Alliantie (social housing company), Woonbond
(tenant association), Province of Utrecht, municipality of Amersfoort,
Rabobank Amersfoort, Nijhuis (Building company), owners and tenants.
Alliantie ++ ++
Private owners + ++
Tenants + ++
Woonbond +/- +
Province +/- +/-
Municipality +/- +/-
93

• Communication: Residents were informed by other residents who
participated in the project group. The municipality released a news
letter.
• It started with one private owner who wanted to make his apartment
less energy consuming and more comfortable. Because he was part
of an association of owners he had to convince the others, so he did
with a lot of personal energy. He was the inspiration and connector.
He organised for all stakeholders to participate in a community of
practice, later on project group.
• The housing company, owners and tenants worked together in the
project group to formulate the question to the market. Together they
made a selection for a building company.
• The contract and realisation was supervised by the housing
company.
94

Success factors
• Enthusiastic house owner as initiator and support of housing company.
• Guarantee fund of province as a security for the loan to owners assocation.
• Local bank is involved and flexible.
• Frequent communication to tenants and owners.
Failure factors
• It took a long time to reach agreement, create a suitable renovation plan and
organize the financial part. Almost too long for an initiator to stay enthusiastic
• Banks don’t want to give a loan to an association of owners because there is
no security. The project would not have succeeded without the guarantee
fund of the province.
• Mixed ownership and different interests made the process complex.
Reference
• http://www.kennishuisgo.nl/voorbeeldprojecten/ProjectPage.aspx?id=949
95

Renovation 3 apartments
Voermanstraat, Groningen, The Netherlands
96

General description
• Number of apartments and blocks: 3 apartments
(part of 1 block with 24 apartments).
• Ownership type: social housing organisation (Lefier)
• NZEBR project:
• Duration: 3 weeks
• Cost: not exactly known, between 240,000€-
and 300,000€
• Financing: by the builder. One of the pilot
projects in ‘Green Deal De Stroomversnelling’
(the builder finances, because of large
replication potential).
• Description of energy performance leap: from
label G to A++; Near Zero Energy ‘on the meter’.
Before
After 97

Walls Rc = 0.36 m2K/W Rc = 5 m2K/W
Floors Rc = 0.15 m²K/W Rc = 5 m²K/W
Roofs Rc = 0.22 m2K/W Rc = 5 m2K/W
Windows U = 5.20 W/m2K (single pane) U = 1.00 W/m2K (three panes)
HVAC
Individual gas heating with water
convectors.
Natural ventilation.
Gas heating with water convectors
Mechanical ventilation with heat recovery
RES - Solar thermal panels and Photovoltaics.
Energy consumption ? No monitoring yet
Energy generation ?
No monitoring yet
98

Barriers
Social
The first barrier is the willingness of
residents to take part in the renovation.
The renovation has been substantial.
The second social barrier is the
financial issue: the residents will have
to pay a higher rent and get lower
energy costs. Are they wiling to trust
the promise of lower energy costs?
Much has been done to get the optimal
willingness. The first thing was to do a
pilot of three houses first in order to
provide an example for other tenants. Also
meant for learning from the building
process.
The residents will have a role in the scale-
up of the pilot. They will report to other
residents about their experiences during
the construction and of living in the new
house.
The solution for he second barrier is that
Lefier gives a guarantee on the lower
energy costs.
Technical
The renovation will be carried out in
inhabited homes.
Dimension of foundation is not big
enough for extra building-skin.
The pilot gives the opportunity to gain
experience in an empty and in an
inhabited dwelling.
The foundation was enlarged in order to
place an extra building skin.
99

Barriers
Economic
Barrier is the financing of a ‘zero’ renovation in
a social apartment-housing project.
The assumption is that financing will be
possible by using the avoided energy costs.
Avoided energy costs can be converted to
an investment budget.
A second element is the approach of the
process. It is assumed that the outsourcing
of the entire process (design, construction
and financing) leads to a better and
cheaper renovation.
Upscaling is also part of the strategy to
make a zero renovation feasible. This
project is a pilot to examine this strategy.
Others Acoustic -
100

• Parties involved: the residents are tenants, Lefier (social housing
organisation) is owner, Dura Vermeer (project developer) is designer,
builder, financer and responsible for the involvement of residents,
National Government is facilitator via the programme Green Deal ‘De
Stroomversnelling’ (‘The Rapids’).
The resident + (willingness)
+ (comfort, rent,
costs)
Lefier ++ (owner, client) ++ (rental life)
Dura Vermeer ++ (DBF) ++ (turnover)
National
Gouvernement
+ (Green Deal) ++ (climate policy
101

• Communication: willingness of residents is an important item. Lefier is legally allowed to
continue the renovation only when 70% of the tenants wants to participate. The
responsibility for cooperation with and participation of residents is in the DBF tender
laid at builder Dura Vermeer.
Dura Vermeer pays much attention to cooperate with the tenants. Experience of the pilot
(3 homes) are discussed and used for the next phase of 24 homes.
• Initiative : De Green Deal ‘Stroomversnelling’ generated attention and publicity for
‘zero on the meter’ renovation of apartments. Lefier has a great number of those
apartments and showed interest.
• Legislation: national legislation on tenant contracts had to be adapted in order to
allow the housing association to execute the energy supply contract with tenants.
• Contracting was done by means of a Design-Finance-Build (DBF) scheme.
• Realisation: the pilot (3 dwellings) has been realised in spring 2014. The sequel, 24
apartments, features in 2015.
• Monitoring by means of smart energy meters.
102

Success factors
• the clear goal: zero on the meter.
• choosing a Design-Build-Finance tender.
• choosing for a pilot with 3 houses first.
• the choice of involving residents to make it part of the DBF tender.
• the attention that building company (Dura Vermeer) devotes to the
involvement of residents.
Failure factors
• only the pilot-homes has been (successfully) done. Problems, or even failure
factors, can arise when scaling up or in the format of the financial statement.
• there were some technical problems identified in the pilot homes: the
ductwork hangs too low, people bump their head against it and no outdoor
space any more for clothesline (balconies are now glazed).
References
• https://www.lefier.nl/Projecten/Algemeen/Project-Stroomversnelling-
voermanstraat
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHu52TMuGXo#t=12
103

Barkaleitet Borettslag
Åsane, Norway
105

General description
and 5 blocks
• Ownership type: Housing cooperative.
• NZEBR project:
• Renovation year: Planning began in 2003 and the
project started in the winter of 2008 and was
completed in the spring of 2010.
• Duration: 1.5 years
• Cost: 22M€
• Financing: Loan from Housing bank. An
additional floor with apartments were built which
resulted in a contribution of 9 M€.
Before
After 106

Walls
External walls main façade 0.46 W/m2K
(100 mm insulation , plates)
External gable elevation 0.55 W/m2K
(concrete wall with 70 mm insulation)
New main facade 150 mm insulation with
U-value of 0.28 W/m2K and new external
gable elevation 200 mm insulation with
U-value of 0.23 W/m2K
Floors
Original floor had a calculated U-value
of 0.2 W/m2K
50 mm screeds of 50 mm insulation, 200
mm insulation under cover (no change in
U-value)
Roofs
About 150 mm insulation with U-value
0.41 W/m2K
New roof elements with U-value of 0.158
W/m2K
Windows
Wooden windows with isolerglasruta, u-
value 2.6 W/m2K.
Wood/aluminum windows with double
glazing, u-value 1.4 W/m2K.
HVAC Natural ventilation
ESX-ventilation system with heat recovery
efficiency of about 80 %.
RES - -
Energy
consumption
209 kWh/ m2 per year. 115 kWh/m2 per year.
107

•Barriers:
Social - -
Technical
The condition before the upgrade was
very poor and there was a huge need for
renovation. Some of the problems were;
poor insulation, extensive water leaks,
poor ventilation, high energy
consumption etc.
The following measures were implemented: Additional
insulation, new windows and doors, balanced
ventilation with heat recovery. An explicit goal at the
beginning was to raise the quality of the buildings to a
modern standard. Another aim was to increase the
number of apartments to 215 divided over 5 floors.
Economic
The total cost was about 28 M€, financed
by loan from Housing bank.
Income from the sale of the new apartments on 5th
floor was about €11.8 million.
Others
Residents did not actively have the
possibility to participate in the planning
process, however the chairman and the
board was concerned about their desires
and needs. They saw it as important that
residents got good information and
answers to their questions.
During the upgrade, there was a discussion whether it
was considered conceivable to move out all residents,
but it was found to comprehensive. Therefore the
apartments were occupied during the entire
construction period. This made the project especially
challenging, and made the project much more costly.
A few were given the opportunity to travel away at the
housing cooperative's expense during the upgrade. Not
all who accepted this opportunity, mostly because they
had concerns related to what the neighbors would
think, The residents that were particularly bothered
moved to their relatives.
108

• Parties involved: Housing Bank.
• Frequent information to the residents was very important to avoid
negative rumors and clarify confusion. Elected representatives were
therefore involved to provide information and handle complaints.
• In 2003 it become apparent that the exterior needed upgrade. Normally
one would just refurbished facades, but Barkaleitet decided to do a total
refurbished and to build a new floor with apartments.
• Barkaleitet condominium invited five architectural office to make
proposals for the rehabilitation and equipment. Wiberg AS - architecture
& planning was selected as winner of the competition.
109

Success and failure factors
Success factors
• Several residents feel that they have become more familiar with their
neighbours through the upgrade. “There is much talk about
refurbishment, which leads to more contact and inquiries between the
neighbours”. The residents are overall very happy with the upgrade.
Failure factors
• Universal design resulted in additional costs in engineering. The
architects had to work more than expected and were thus paid for the
considerable extra hours afterwards. Planned detail of the project was
revised, and this was a comprehensive effort. Selection of products took
too much time. Products that were described in the project proposal, were
replaced. Eg: doors, windows, tiles, etc. Tender documents were good and
very detailed, but very much of this was changed.
Reference
SINTEF, 2013. Presentasjon av casestudier i REBO.
110

Myhrerenga
Skedsmokorset, Norway
111

General description
apartments and 7 blocks.
• Ownership type: Housing cooperative.
• NZEBR project:
• Cost: 6.6 M€ for passive house (if a
conventional renovation had been conducted
the cost would have been 4.7 M€).
• Financing: Loan, stakeholders equity and
minor contribution from Enova (0.56 M€).
Before
After
112

Walls
External walls main façade U-value
around 0.40 W/m2K
External walls gable 0.45 W/M2k.
Addition of a 200 mm insulation to the existing
wooden construction and new facades with Cemberit
plates. New U-value 0.15 W/m2K. Focus on
airtighten the building.
Floors
Floor construction (u-value included the
thermal resistance of the unheated
cellar) 0.58 W/m2K.
Added a 100 mm insulation to the cellar ceiling, to
“thermally decouple” the unheated cellar from the
first floor. U-value 0.23W/m2K.
Roofs
Original building had about 50 – 100
mm insulation with U-value around
0.35 W/m2K.
Additional insulation (blown in) on the existing roof
construction, total thickness about 350 – 500 mm
with U-value 0.11 W/m2K.
Windows /
balcony doors
Existing windows and doors had an U-
value of arounf 2.8 W/m2K.
All windows and doors were replaced, U-value about
1.20 W/m2K.
HVAC Extract air ventilation system. ESX-ventilation system, heat recovery efficiency 80%
RES - Vacuum solar collectors for hot water production.
Energy
consumption
Space heating: 195-220 kWh/m2
DHW: 30kWh/m2
Fans and pumps: 10kWh/m2
Electricity use: 40kWh/m2
Sum 275-300 kWh/m2
Space heating: 15 kWh/m2
DHW: 15 kWh/m2
Fans and pumps: 10kWh/m2
Electricity use: 40kWh/m2
Sum 80 kWh/m2
Energy generation - Unkown. 113

• Technical barrier: complaints from the tenants concerning drag, cold
floors and poor air quality in combinations with a façade in need of
renovation initiated the renovation process in 2006. Due to the fact that
there was need of a major renovation, the Norwegian State Housing Bank
in cooperation with SINTEF suggested an ambitious “Passive House
renovation”.
Barriers
• At Myhrerenga residents had great confidence in their consultants the
experience of Barkaleitet, where the leader of the board was greatly
respected among the residents and facilitated resident participation has
proven a particularly good example.
• The residents felt sufficiently informed about the upgrading process and
while they were not necessarily a part of every project decision they
showed great confidence towards the leaders of the project.
• Complaints from the tenants concerning drag, cold floors and poor air
quality in combinations with a façade in need of renovation initiated the
renovation process in 2006.
114

• The total, cost for the project was 6.6 M€. This can be compared to a
conventional façade renovation which would have amounted to 4.7 M€.
However, taking into account allowances of 0.56 M€ granted by the
Norwegian energy agency Enova, the Passive House renovation in only 1.34
M€ higher than a conventional renovation.
• The simulations show that the extra cost of the energy measures is calculated to
be covered by the reduction in energy costs, even without subsidies. In fact,
with the grants, the total monthly cost for both the capital costs and the energy
costs will be 10% lower than with a conventional façade renovation.
• After the project eight residents were interviewed: Everyone was happy with
the results, mostly with the new facade expression and the larger balconies. Air
quality is considered better and sound and heating needs have been very low
through the first winter.
References
• Dokka, Tor Helge and Klinski, Michael, 2009. Myhrerenga borettslag: Ambisiøs
rehabilitering av 1960-talls blokker med passivhuskomponenter.
• SINTEF, 2013. Presentasjon av casestudier i REBO.
115

Stjernehus Borettslag
Kristiansand, Norway
116

General description
(evenly divided between 2-bedroom and 4-bedroom
apartments) in 1 block.
• Ownership type: Housing cooperative
• NZEBR project:
• Duration: 1
• Cost: 3.2 M€
• Financing: Full financing by Husbanken (3.2 M€)
and a minor contribution from ENOVA (0.2 M€)
• Energy consumption before: 279 kWh/m2year, of
which 195 kWh/m2year was for heating.
• Energy consumption after: 95 kWh/m2year, of
which 15 kWh/m2year is for heating.
Before
After 117

Barriers
• Technical: The apartments were in need of significant renovation due to thermal
bridges in concrete structures, heating and maintenance needs. Thus, the upgrade
consisted of among other things: additional insulation of walls, floors and ceilings,
removed/minimize thermal bridges, asbestos removal of facade panels,
replacement of windows and doors to units with low U-value, mounting balanced
ventilation with heat recovery.
• Parties involved: Husbanken and Enova.
Organisation
118
• http://www.arkitektur.no/stjernehus-borettslag-oppgradering
• http://www.husbanken.no/forbildeprosjekter/prosjekt/?id=257483#2576
93
References

General description
• NZEBR project:
• Cost: 143,260 €
• Financing: owner own funding
• Description of energy performance
leap: reach category A
121

Walls
Uninsulated granite stone walls (without
coverings)
U value: 1,82( W/m2 0C)
Insulating cork boards (ICB)
U value: 0.45( W/m2 0C)
Floors
Wood structure floors (not insulated).
Ground floor in direct contact with soil.
ICB under floor slab
U value: 0.81( W/m2 0C)
Roofs
wood structure roof (not insulated)
U value: 4,55( W/m2 0C)
Wooden falseceiling,creation of close dair
space, structural oriented strandboard
(OSB), placemen to fICB , watertight
covering
U value: 0.23( W/m2 0C)
Windows
Glazed windows with wooden and
frames (degraded).
U value 4,6( W/m2 0C)
New double glazed ones with low emissivity
layers, within wooden frames(4+16+6mm).
U value: 2.05( W/m2 0C)
HVAC Heating was provided by a fireplace
RES - 4.2 MWh/year
Energy consumption
(MWh/year)
0.55 0.14
Energy generation
(MWh/year)
0 4.2
122

Barriers factors
• Barriers in this case were essentially related with the bureaucracy for
obtaining the building permit and funding sources. The building permit
from the municipality and national tourism entities is still a time
consuming process that causes delays and doubts for the business plan.
• With respect to the investment costs, the building owners not always
understood the unconventional nature of this renovation project, and
therefore expected conventional costs as well, whether for the renovation
works as for the consultants.
• Residents need to abandoned their home during the works.
Reference
http://www.iea-annex56.org/Groups/GroupItemID6/Melgaco.pdf.
123

Hostel of the Gym Primary and High School “Cetate Deva”
Deva, Romania
125

General description
• Ownership type: public.
• BR project:
• Cost (€): 90,935
• Financing: sponsorship .
43% energy savings.
Before
After 126

Walls Non-insulated external walls New thermal insulation EPS 10 cm
Floors Non-insulated basement New thermal insulation EPS 8 cm
Roofs Non-insulated New thermal insulation EPS 12 cm
Windows Single glazed wooden windows
Low-E coating with triple panes glass
and PVC frame
HVAC Heat source - District heating system
Improvement of the technical system
(heating and domestic hot water pipes)
RES - -
Lighting Incandescent lamps
CFLs and motion sensors for common
places
Energy consumption
(kWh/year)
328,300 143,281
127

• Economic: Lack of local funds. Thus, a partnership for financing the renovation
works (audit, engineering, materials, execution) was set up.
Barrier
• Identified success and failure factors:
- Energy savings : 6300 Euro/year
- Estimate of GHG: 45.70 tCO2/year;
128

• Parties involved: engineering company, professional association, thermal insulation
and material suppliers, construction companies
• Level of power and interest of stakeholders: this building is a part of the gym building
complex very famous at the national and international level taking into consideration
the Romanian gym expertise
• Initiative: Institute for Studies and Power Engineering (ISPE)
• Analysis: ISPE, IPCT Instalatii and AAECR
• Formulating contract: Romanian Association of Energy Auditors for Buildings (AAECR)
• Realisation: BASF, VEKA, Ferestre CONEXPERT, RIGIPS, fabryo, Ceresit and SOLARON
(material suppliers and execution companies)
• Managing and monitoring: AAECR, Deva Municipality and Ministry for Regional
Development and Public Authorities)
Reference
http://aaecr.ro/proiecte-pilot/
129

Multi-family building – 1-2, Marasti square
Timisoara, Romania
130

General description
• Ownership type: private.
• Dwellings: 47
• BR project:
• Duration: 1year
• Cost (€): 326,295
• Financing: 50% central administration budget,
30% local budget and 20% owner budget
(financing scheme approved by Governmental
Decision no. 18/2009).
energy savings (heating consumption).
Before
After
131

Walls Non-insulated external walls New thermal insulation EPS 10 cm
Floors Non-insulated basement New thermal insulation EPS 5 cm
Roofs Non-insulated New thermal insulation XPS 10 cm
Windows Double glazed wooden windows
Low-E coating with double glass and PVC
frame
HVAC Heat source : District heating system
(new thermal insulation of pipes)
RES - -
Energy consumption
(kWh/year)
1,333,973 1,155,234
132

• Barriers:
• Impact on residents: the energy cost (corresponding to heat
consumption) was decreased significantly.
Social
Involvement of homeowners during the
project preparation phase as owner
association .
The owners learned to decide together for
their building, including to co-finance the
renovation works. The association’s president
and administrator needed to be trained.
Technical
The existent indoor heating distribution
system (vertical distribution) does not allow
the individual heating metering .
In the first phase, there are installed the heat
meters at the entry of each building; in the
next phase the transforming of the heating
distribution system is studied (from vertical
to horizontal type) .
Approving the financial scheme (GD
18/2009) for this kind of the works which
contain different financing sources (central
budget, local budget and private fund) to
cover the renovation costs.
133

• Parties involved: Timisoara Municipality, consulting and construction companies.
• Initiative: Homeowner association
• Analysis: Timisoara Municipality
• Formulating contract: Timisoara Municipality (it is mandated by the building
owner association)
• Realisation: SC IPROTIM SA Timisoara (consulting company for building energy
audit) and SC NGF Construct SRL (construction company)
• Managing and monitoring: Timisoara Municipality as main financing body
Succes factors
• Energy savings: 178,736 kWh/year (8,650 Euro/year)
• The project can be easily replicated in the neighbouring buildings, as they are
the same technical characteristics.
Reference
http://www.primariatm.ro/index.php?meniuId=14&viewCat=1704&viewItem=2520
134

Multi-family building – 1, Hotinului street
Timisoara, Romania
135

General description
• Dwellings: 20
• BR project:
• Duration: 1year
• Cost (€): 61,512
• Financing: 50% central budget, 30% local
budget and 20% owner budget (financing
scheme approved by Governmental
Decision no. 18/2009).
energy savings (heating consumption).
Before
After 136

Walls Non-insulated external walls. New thermal insulation EPS 10 cm.
Floors Non-insulated basement. New thermal insulation EPS 5 cm.
Roofs Non-insulated . New thermal insulation XPS 10 cm.
Windows Double glazed wooden windows.
Low-E coating with double panes glass
and PVC frame .
HVAC Heat source : District heating system.
(new thermal insulation of pipes).
RES - -
Energy consumption
(kWh/year)
207,092 138,723
137

• Barriers:
• Impact on residents: the energy cost (corresponding to heat
consumption) was decreased significantly.
Social
Involvement of homeowners during the
project preparation phase as owner
association .
The owners learned to decide together for
their building, including to co-finance the
renovation works. The association’s president
and administrator needed to be trained.
Technical
The existent indoor heating distribution
system (vertical distribution) does not allow
the individual heating metering .
In the first phase, there are installed the heat
meters at the entry of each building; in the
next phase the transforming of the heating
distribution system is studied (from vertical
to horizontal type) .
Approving the financial scheme (GD
18/2009) for this kind of the works which
contain different financing sources (central
budget, local budget and private fund) to
cover the renovation costs.
138

• Parties involved: Timisoara Municipality, consulting and construction companies.
• Initiative: Homeowner association.
• Analysis: Timisoara Municipality.
• Formulating contract: Timisoara Municipality (it is mandated by the building
owner association).
• Realisation: SC IPROTIM SA Timisoara (consulting company for building energy
audit) and SC PRO SAMAC SRL (construction company).
• Managing and monitoring: Timisoara Municipality as main financing source.
Succes factors
• Energy saving: 68,369 kWh/year (3,300 €/year).
Reference
139

Success case
District of Mogel
Eibar, Spain
141

General description
• Number of apartments and blocks: 150 dwellings (15
blocks) (9,450 m2) (302 neighbours).
• NZEBR project:
• Duration: 20 month
• Cost: 5.2 M€
• Financing cost: 33,900 €-36,230 €/dwelling.
Grant ( 53-57 %): 14,213 €/dewlling- Basque
Government; 850 €/dewlling- council; 4,400
€/dewlling- Zeen project.
• Description of energy performance leap: Energy
certification B.
Before
After 142

Walls
Buildings have a mixed system of facades
with stone in the ground floor and brick in
the rest, with wooden slabs.
External insulation of the envelope.
Floors Concrete External insulation of the envelope.
Roofs Gabled roof External insulation of the envelope.
Windows Old windows. Aluminum or wood frame.
Double glazing windows with thermal break
frames.
HVAC 1064.4 (MWh/yr) 696.9 (MWh/yr)
RES -
Installation of a solar thermal system
providing hot water and preheated water for
heating, covering at least 30% of the building
demand.
Energy
consumption
119.5 kWh/(m² yr) 65.2 kWh/(m² yr).
Energy generation - 10 kWh/(m² yr). Solar thermal .
143

Barriers
Social
Property is very fragmented, with individual
owners occupying their house, or renting it
to tenants. Common decisions are made at
building level, and common actions require
agreements from 100 of the owners.
Additional awareness raising measures for
owners and tenants.
The renovation project in Mogel is mainly
driven by the owners of the dwellings in the
neighbourhood. There is a Commission that
represents the interests of all the neighbours,
but as it has no decision-making power, all
topics must be approved per hall.
Economic Rehabilitation cost.
Project also receives support from several
local and regional institutions, as part as their
programs to improve energy efficiency in the
building stock.
144

• Parties involved: Municapality of Eibar, DEBEGESA, Gobierno Vasco and Zeen
(European research project).
• Communication: Information about the project was transmitted to the
neighbourhood by means of advertisement in the mailbox, general meeting with
technical and economic data, information point in the district during the weekend
and information through e-mail, press, etc.
• Initiative: ZEEN European project.
• Realisation: the renovation started in June 2013, The estimated deadline for the
works completion is 20 months.
• Update September 2014.
Four halls have already completed the renovation works. In seven halls 85% of the
work has been already executed. In four halls 50% of the work has been executed.
The estimated deadline for the works is maintained, that is to say by December
2014.
• Monitoring will be undertaken after the rehabilitation works (2015).
145

• Technical challenges: providing cost effective technical solutions that substantially
improve building energy performance while allowing for reasonable return of
investment periods Financial challenges: providing an adequate financial scheme to
facilitate involvement from population sectors with limited resources.
• Property Structure challenges: complex property structures at the neighborhood scale
often lead to actions that require broad and complex agreements.
• Social Challenges : challenges related to the conservation of architectural qualities of
buildings, user acceptance issues, etc.
• Some of the owners that initially declined being part of the project have changed their
mind during these months, in light of the outcome, and evident benefit for their
neighbors. We started with fifteen buildings and now construction documentation is
being prepared for five more buildings, out of a district consisting of twenty one
buildings. With only one building out now, this means an early replication success for
the project.
References
• http://www.zenn-fp7.eu
• http://www.anpdm.com/article/414259417841455046784541514471/7860932/987010l
• http://www.irekia.euskadi.net/es/news/23779-consejero-aburto-visita-las-obras-
rehabilitacion-del-barrio-eibarres-mogel 146

Doctor Juan Bravo 19, Fuencarral
Madrid, Spain
147

General description
• Building year: 1960s
• Number of apartments and blocks: 2 dwellings (211
m2 /dwellings).
• NZEBR project:
• Duration: February to December 2013.
• Cost: 200,000 € (948 €/m2 ).
• Financing: owner: ANERR Asociación Nacional
de Empresas de Rehabilitación y Reforma .
• Description of energy performance leap: energy
certification A.
Before
After 148

Walls Brick walls, insulation unknown SATE: 0,24 W/m-2K
Floors Concrete Insulation
Roofs Concrete Insulation
Windows - Soudal window system
HVAC -
Heating system: condensing gas boiler, heat
pump, electric radiator
Low temperature floor heating
Hot water system: condensing gas boiler, heat
pump, solar Thermal
Cooling system: reversible heat pump, tape,
radiant ceiling
Ventilation system: natural ventilation
RES No Solar photovoltaic
Energy
consumption
246,40 kWh PE/m2/year 132,00 kWh PE/m2/year
149

• Parties involved: National Associoation of Rehabilitation and Repair
companies (ANERR).
• Initiative National Associoation of Rehabilitation and Repair
companies (ANERR).
• Analysis:
• The assessment by the users has been exceptional.
• Especially valued has been the improvement of the comfort of
the building.
• Realisation
• The complete Energy Refurbishment Pilot Project is a project
able to demonstrate the possibilities of energy refurbishment
through a case study of a building in Madrid, and how a
building graded G, can become a grade A, resulting in energy
savings and improved comfort for its users, as well as
revaluation for the building itself.
150

Succes factors
• Success factor: 5.99 KgCO2/m2/year
• Award:
• The best energy renovation of building – ASPRIMA-SIMA 2014
• The Best energy rehabilitation of buildings 2013- Consejería de
Economía y Hacienda de la Comunidad de Madrid.
References
• http://gahecor.com/reformas/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ecoconstruccion.pdf
• http://www.construction21.org/espana/case-studies/es/prei-fuencarral-piloto-
rehabilitacion-energetica-integral.html
• http://gahecor.com/reformas/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ecoconstruccion.pdf
• http://www.buildup.eu/sites/default/files/content/PILOTSCHEMECOMPLETEENERG
YREFURBISHMENTINARESIDENTIALBUILDINGINMADRID.pdf
• http://www.anerr.es/images/stories/pdf/proyecto_prei_anerr_2013.pdf
151

Success case
Cuatro de Marzo District
Valladolid, Spain
152

General description
• Number of apartments and blocks: 300 dwellings (30 blocks) .
• Ownership type: Dwellings are in private ownership. The buildings are multifamily
and multi-property.
• NZEBR project:
• Renovation year: 2015.
• Duration: 18 month.
• Cost: 2.1 M€
• Financing: owner and 60% funded by the European Commission .
153

Walls
A double-leaf facade that consists of leafs
of solid brick and a wall of airbrick with
a narrow air-space between, without
isolation material.
Integral ventilated façade improving the
existing wall insulation
Floors Concrete -
Roofs
Horizontal lightweight concrete slab and
two-slopes of clay roof tiles.
Roof renovation improving insulation
Windows
Metallic frame of aluminum or PVC with
single glazed whithout thermal break
Improving glass window features
Shading elements
HVAC
Energy demand estimated: 162.52
kWh/m2
RES There is no data
Renewable energy systems as solar PV and
solar thermal
Energy
consumption
174.54 kWh/m2year 56.03 kWh/m2year
Energy
generation
- No data
154

• Parties involved : VIVA, CARTIF, Acciona y ONYX solar energy
• Communication:
• Meetings with stakeholder and communities of owners.
• A brochure with information.
• Initiative: Valladolid Municipality. Sociedad Municipal de Suelo y Vivienda de
Valladolid - VIVA, S.L
• VIVA, S.L. will play the role of coordinator/supervisor of the refurbishment
works. Moreover, it encourages the neighbours to join to the retrofitting urban
plan. In order to carry out the renovation works in a building, common
approval is required.
• Example of collaboration between public and private sector
References
• http://r2cities.eu/Demos/Valladolid/Case_Study_In_Short.kl
• http://www.certificadosenergeticos.com/rehabilitacion-energetica-
subvencionada-barrio-residencial-valladolid 155

Backa red - Katjas Street 119
Gothenburg, Sweden
157

General description
• Building year: 1971.
and 1 block (4 storeys tower block, most common
apartment size: 80 m2 with 3 rooms + kitchen), total
heated area is 1357 m2.
• Ownership type: Municipal housing company
(Bostad AB Poseidon).
• NZEBR project:
• Duration: 1 year
• Cost: 1.74 M€
• Financing: Shareholders equity and loan.
• Description of energy performance leap: A
reduction in energy consumption to less than a
third of what it was before the renovation.
Before
After 158

Walls External walls, U-value: 0.31 W/m2K
External walls, U-value: 0.12 W/m2K
Additional insulation of façades 200 mm and
building envelope with high air tightness.
New balconies on freestanding pillars to minimize
thermal bridges
Floors
Floors, U-value: 0.4 W/m2K
Floors, U-value: 0.1 W/m2K
Additional insulation in the foundation with 500
mm LECA.
Roofs Roofs, U-value: 0.14W/m2K
Roofs, U-value: 0.10 W/m2K
Additional insulation of the attics 500 mm.
Windows Windows, U-value: 2.4 W/m2K Windows, U-value: 0.9 W/m2K
HVAC Central ES-ventilation system
Central ESX-ventilation system, 85% degree of
efficiency, rotating heat exchanger
RES - -
Energy
consumption
Heating: 138 kWh m2
Hot water: 32 kWh /m2
Building electricity: 8kWh/m2
Sum: 178 kWh /m2
Heating: 21 kWh /m2
Hot water: 23 kWh /m2
Building electricity: 8 kWh/m2 (incl. outdoor
lights)
Sum: 52 kWh /m2
159

Social
Backa red is a relatively central suburb of
Gothenburg. The area has, however, alike
many of the Million Programe buildings,
had a bad reputation for a long time and
has been associated with social problems
and high crime rates.
The area needed to become safer. Thus, lighting
has been installed in the streets and a park
nearby, it was also decided that it was important
that something in the area was open during the
evenings to make the area more safe.
Residents in Backa red were invited to participate
in the renovation of its neighborhood. At first, the
residents protested over the process, but then,
realized that they had the possibility to influence.
Technical No major barriers
The energy efficiency measures performed were:
new ventilation system with heat recovery,
additional insulation and airtightness of the
building envelope.
Economic
The energy efficiency measures was not
profitable according to the calculations.
Rents were increased from €67/m2 to €91/m2
Energy related cost savings amounted to €8.4/m2
Others
There was a great need of renovation in
the building. It was not the energy
efficiency measures that were the main
reason for the renovation.
Standard enhancement measures were performed
together with the energy efficiency measures.
New kitchens and bathrooms, and all the
sanitation installations were replaced.
160

• Parties involved: the housing company and a contractor (Skanska).
• There was a discussion whether to demolish the buildings and build new, but this
was not considered feasible as there is a great shortage of housing in Gothenburg.
Katja Street is a pilot project for capacity building. The municipality has many areas
from the 50s and the Million Programme housing era that are in great need of
renovation.
• As the housing company had ambitious energy and climate goals, they wanted to get
hands-on experience of the opportunities and obstacles (e.g. technical and
economical) and how residents perceive the indoor environment after the measures.
• The project communicated with the residents by arranging workshops with residents
regularly. The manager of the housing company organized the meetings.
o There was a large attendance and the mood was positive.
o Residents were given a chance to choose between interiors and to choose
whether they wanted glazed balcony or not.
• Energy saving monitoring is performed by using individual metering and billing of
hot water.
161

• According to Bostad AB Poseidon's calculations, the energy efficiency measures on
Katjas Street 119 are not profitable. However, if the energy efficiency measures
that resulted in a more comfortable indoor environment had been regarded as
standard-raising and hence rent-raising, an additional rent supplement of 6.4
€/m2 would have made the energy efficiency measures profitable.
• After the upgrade Poseidon conducted a survey at Katja Street 119 and the results
showed that: there is less outside noise, better indoor environment (including air
and heating).
• But there were complaints over the fact that the residents had to move during the
winter due to technical problems in the ventilation room and that it is now easier
to hear noise from the neighbours.
• Overall, the residents were happy with the upgrade and the new big balconies
particularly.
References
• Energicentrum vid Miljöförvaltningen Stockholm Stad, 2012. Ekonomi vid
ombyggnader med energisatsningar.
• Lågan, 2013. Ombyggnation med sänkt energibehov.
• SINTEF, 2013. Presentasjon av casestudier i REBO. 162

Brogården
Alingsås, Sweden
163

General description
• Building year: 1971-1973.
and 16 blocks (lamellar house), 19,500 m2 heated
area.
• Ownership type: Municipal housing company
(Alingsåshem).
• NZEBR project:
• Cost: 36.5 M€
• Financing: Stakeholders equity, loan and minor
contribution from EU (0.68 M€) and about 0.4 M€
from county administrative board.
• In depth renovation by using the passive house
concept, reconstruction of apartments and
reducing the energy consumption with about 60%.
Before
After 164

Walls Brick walls, insulation unknown.
Additional insulation 430-480 mm.
Sealing of walls with plastic film (for air
tightness)
New balconies detached to avoid thermal bridges
Floors Unknown. 100 mm of insulation on the base plate
Roofs Unknown. Additional insulation of 500 mm
Windows U-value around 2 W/m2K New windows, U-value of 0.85 W/m2K
HVAC Central ES-ventilation system
Installation of central ESX-ventilation system
All apartments have received a kitchen fan where
the air is directly lead out and not mixed with
ventilation air
Building heated by ventilation air (passive house
concept)
RES None. Solar collectors for hot water production
Energy
consumption
Heating: 115kWh/m2
Hot water: 42 kWh/m2
Sum: 177 kWh/m2
Heating: 19kWh/m2
Hot water: 18kWh/m2
Sum: 48 kWh/m2
Energy generation
(MWh/year)
- -
165

Social Involving the different stakeholders.
Residents and other stakeholder groups were
created. The aim was to create an area of
increased accessibility, variety and with more
venues.
Technical
Many of the Million Programme buildings are
in need of extensive renovation and Brogården
is no exception. Leaking pipes, thermal bridges
and drafty, poorly soundproofed and energy-
gulping buildings lead Alingsåshem to decide
to renovate all the buildings in Brogården.
The Passive House concept was used for
renovation, i.e. well insulated and airtight
houses without separate heating systems.
Passive Houses are heated primarily by internal
heat loads, i.e. electrical appliances and the
tenants’ body heat.
Economic -
Rents were increased from 67€/m2 to 91€/m2
Energy related cost savings: 19.3€/m2
Others
The residents had to move out during the
upgrade project. Alingsåshem offered them
apartments in the area, so that residents had
somewhere else to stay while renovations took
place.
Residents have had some impact, for example
they decided to increase the number of
planned bicycle racks and how the benches
outside were placed. Residents could chose if
they wanted a shower or bath tub and if they
wanted to have a washing machine in the
apartment or use the common laundry.
166

• Media highlighted that residents didn’t receive information about the renovation
project. Therefore Alingsåshem put a greater focus on information to the residents
and to increase the residents participation. A special magazine was created. The
contractor (Skanska) used the magazine to inform the residents about the progress.
• The project was initiated due to the imminent nead of renovation; leaking pipes,
thermal bridges and drafty, poorly soundproofed and energy-gulping buildings.
Alingsåshem decided to renovate all the buildings in Brogården.
• A partnering contract where set up between Alingsåshem and the contractor. The
procurement weighted skills to 80% and the price to 20%. In-depth interviews
were conducted, references were gathered and scored according to a custom
template.
• Energy saving is monitored by individual metering and billing of hot water. After
the refurbishment electricity and hot water is no longer included in the rent.
Meanwhile energy efficient appliances and lighting have been installed.
Household electricity has decreased from the estimated 39 to 21 measured
kWh/m2. Water-saving faucets and shower heads have reduced energy use for hot
water from estimated 42 to measured 16 kWh/ m2
167

• After renovation about 25% of those who lived there did not come back. This was
mostly due to the large increase in rent, rent increased in average by 40%. Some
seniors were moved to nursing homes. Some families needed more space, and chose
to move for that reason. Residents were generally satisfied with the apartments after
the upgrade (to newly built standard).
• Choosing the passive house heating philosophy at a rebuild was a lot more
challenging in comparison to building a new construction using the same method.
Alingsåshem had to eliminate thermal bridges and solve moisture problems on the
base plate which was then insulated. One important lesson that come from the
project was that one should use standard materials in standard sizes.
• The knowledge developed at Brogården has spread to other projects, through e.g.
over 700 study visits and collaborations in several national and international energy
efficiency programs.
References
• BeBo , 2012. Brogården – miljonhusen blir passiva.
• Energicentrum vid Miljöförvaltningen Stockholm Stad, 2012. Ekonomi vid ombyggnader
med energisatsningar.
• Lågan, 2013. Ombyggnation med sänkt energibehov.
• SINTEF, 2013. Presentasjon av casestudier i REBO. 168

Sustainable Järva - Sibeliusgången 2
Stockholm, Sweden
169

General description
• Number of apartments and blocks: 99 apartments and
1 block (12 storey lamellar house, heated area 9070
m2.)
• Ownership type: Municipal housing company (Svenska
Bostäder).
• NZEBR project:
• Renovation year: 2011-2012.
• Cost: 10.4 M€
• Financing: Shareholders equity and government
funding.
Before
After 170

Walls Not known.
Additional isolation, façades : 80 mm .
Additional isolation basement wall: 80 mm.
Increased air tightness: 0.4 l/s at 50 Pa.
Floors Not known.
Roofs Not known. Additional isolation attic: 300 mm
Windows and
doors
Not known.
Changed to energy-efficient windows, U-
value of 0.9 W/m2K.
HVAC ES ventilation
Installation of water-saving faucets.
Installation of ESX ventilation system,
efficiency of 65%.
Replacement and adjustment of heating
systems.
Heat recovery from wastewater.
RES None 240 m2 solar cells.
Energy
consumption
Heating: 82 kWh/m2
Building electricity: 12 kWh/m2
Sum: 137 kWh /m2
Heating: 33 kWh/m2
Building electricity: 19 kWh/m2
Sum: 89 kWh /m2
Energy generation None No information.
171

Ne zer+ d2+2+nzebr+success+cases

Ne zer+ d2+2+nzebr+success+cases

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (16)

Similar to Ne zer+ d2+2+nzebr+success+cases

Similar to Ne zer+ d2+2+nzebr+success+cases (20)

More from Belinda Pelaz Sánchez

More from Belinda Pelaz Sánchez (8)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Ne zer+ d2+2+nzebr+success+cases