ZEB – Annual Report 2012

SINTEF Academic Press

The Research Centre on Zero Emission Buildings (ZEB)

Annual Report 2012

2012

The scheme of the Centres for Environment-friendly Energy Research (FME) seeks to develop expertise and promote innovation through focus on long-term research in selected areas of environment-friendly energy, transport and CO2 management in close cooperation between prominent research communities and users.

Contact: Centre Director: Arild Gustavsen, NTNU, [email protected] Centre Manager: Anne Gunnarshaug Lien, SINTEF Building and Infrastructure, [email protected] Partners: NTNU SINTEF SINTEF Energy BNL – Federation of construction industries Brødrene Dahl ByBo DiBK – Norwegian Building Authority DuPont Enova SF Entra Forsvarsbygg Glava Husbanken

Hydro Aluminium Isola Multiconsult NorDan Norsk Teknologi Protan Skanska Snøhetta Statsbygg VELUX Weber YIT

ZEB – Annual report 2012 Photo, cover: Kjørbo in Sandvika, Powerhouse 2. Illustration: Snøhetta/MIR

© Copyright SINTEF Academic Press and Norwegian University of Science and Technology 2013 The material in this publication is covered by the provisions of the Norwegian Copyright Act. Without any special agreement with SINTEF Academic Press and Norwegian University of Science and Technology, any copying and making available of the material is only allowed to the extent that this is permitted by law or allowed through an agreement with Kopinor, the Reproduction Rights Organisation for Norway. Any use contrary to legislation or an agreement may lead to a liability for damages and confiscation, and may be punished by fines or imprisonment.

Norwegian University of Science and Technology N-7491 Trondheim Tel: +47 22 73 59 50 00 www.ntnu.no www.zeb.no

SINTEF Building and Infrastructure Trondheim Høgskoleringen 7 b, POBox 4760 Sluppen, N-7465 Trondheim Tel: +47 22 73 59 30 00 www.sintef.no/byggforsk www.zeb.no

SINTEF Academic Press c/o SINTEF Building and Infrastructure Oslo Forskningsveien 3 B, POBox 124 Blindern, N-0314 Oslo Tel: +47 22 96 55 55, Fax: +47 22 69 94 38 and 22 96 55 08 www.sintef.no/byggforsk www.sintefbok.no

Summary The vision of The Research Centre on Zero Emission Buildings is to eliminate the greenhouse gas emissions caused by buildings. The main objective is to develop competitive products and solutions for existing and new buildings that will lead to market penetration of buildings that have zero emissions of greenhouse gases related to their production, operation and demolition. The ZEB Centre encompasses both residential and commercial buildings, as well as public buildings. The Research Centre is organized as a joint NTNU/SINTEF unit, hosted by The Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). The Centre encompasses the whole value chain of market players within the Norwegian construction industry. The companies represent more than 100 000 employees and have a yearly turnover of more than 200 million NOK. The activities for the ZEB Centre are divided in five work packages, these are: WP-1: Advanced materials technologies WP-2: Climate-adapted low-energy envelope technologies WP-3: Energy supply systems and services WP-4: Energy efficient use and operation WP-5: Concepts and strategies for zero emission buildings In addition The ZEB Centre is working on upgrading and expanded existing laboratories and building new laboratory facilities for development, research and testing of zero emission building technologies. Important results in 2012 include continuation of the development of new nano insulation materials (NIMs), a new glass material with reduced thermal conductivity and weight, and aerogel incorporated concrete. The new nano insulation material has a thermal conductivity of about 0.020 W/(mK). A new wall system with encapsulated vacuum insulation panels has also been developed, and an advanced Phase Change Material (PCM) window has been investigated in the new climate simulator. Further, energy supply solutions for zero emission buildings are being investigated, and a new type of cross flow energy exchanger using membrane technology is under development. Energy efficiency and thermal comfort for simple heating systems in superinsulated envelopes has also been investigated. Evaluations of (near) ZEBs in use have shown that user interfaces still need a lot of work to support users in their daily use of these buildings. The current use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in building operation has been evaluated, and improvements have been proposed. Non-technical and noneconomic factors supporting or slowing down implementation of ZEBs have been identified. The Centre is involved in seven pilot building projects with ambitions ranging from close to zero emission in operation to the final ZEB-ambition of zero emission during the whole life cycle of the building. Several of the projects have planned construction start in 2013, e.g. Skarpnes in Arendal (40 dwellings) and the office renovation project Powerhouse Kjørbo in Sandvika. Results from concept studies (and pilot buildings) indicate that more focus should be put on the embodied energy of the loadbearing structure and the building envelope. So far it seems that more than 60 % of the CO2 emissions from a zero emission building in its life cycle come from the materials used in the building. A revised ZEB definition has also been proposed. The laboratory facilities have been further expanded, and the turnable hot box and climate simulator are now in full operation. Detailed planning of two test buildings, the ZEB Test Cell and the ZEB Living laboratory, has been performed. The buildings will be realized in 2013. Furthermore, in 2012 13 PhD candidates are partly/directly funded by the centre, with an additional 8 being associated with the centre. About 25 researchers have conducted research within the centre (of which several have been working part time).

ZEB Annual Report 2012

3 of 53

Table of contents SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................................................3  VISION AND GOAL .......................................................................................................................................5  RESEARCH PLAN AND STRATEGIES .........................................................................................................6  Environmental Impact and Security of Supply .......................................................................................6  Innovation ..............................................................................................................................................7  State-of-the-art of Zero Emission Buildings ...........................................................................................7  Research Questions ..............................................................................................................................9  A Research Centre for the construction sector ......................................................................................9  ORGANIZATION ..........................................................................................................................................10  Organizational Structure ......................................................................................................................10  Partners ...............................................................................................................................................11  Partner participation and exchange of researchers .............................................................................13  Transfer and utilization of competence and results .............................................................................13  ACTIVITIES..................................................................................................................................................14  Administrative activities .......................................................................................................................14  WP 1: Advanced Material Technologies ..............................................................................................14  WP 2: Climate Adapted, Low Energy Envelope Technologies ............................................................14  WP 3: Energy Supply Systems and Services ......................................................................................15  WP 4: Use, Operation, and Implementation ........................................................................................15  WP 5: Concepts and Strategies for ZEBs ............................................................................................15  Laboratories and Infrastructure ...........................................................................................................16  REBO ................................................................................................................................................16  RESULTS.....................................................................................................................................................17  Nano Insulation Materials (NIMs) for Buildings ....................................................................................17  Advanced Glass and Coating Materials and Solutions for Buildings ...................................................19  The researchers look at the 1980’s house ...........................................................................................21  Energy Design of Sandwich Masonry Blocks ......................................................................................23  Membrane based energy exchanger ...................................................................................................24  Simplified distribution of space heating in Norwegian passive houses ................................................25  Marienlyst School: Learning from Norway's first passive house school ...............................................26  The future of efficient building operation: Managing millions of square meters from one room ...........28  Zero emission energy systems for Ådland is planned for 500-800 homes ..........................................30  Office buildings with zero emissions of CO2 ........................................................................................31  INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION .............................................................................................................33  RECRUITMENT ...........................................................................................................................................34  COMMUNICATION AND DISSEMINATION ................................................................................................35  A1 - PERSONNEL .......................................................................................................................................39  A2 – STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS ............................................................................................................43  A3 – PUBLICATIONS ..................................................................................................................................45 

ZEB Annual Report 2012

4 of 53

Vision and goal The vision of The Research Centre on Zero Emission Buildings, ZEB, is to eliminate the greenhouse gas emissions caused by buildings. This national research centre will place Norway in the forefront with respect to research, innovation and implementation within the field of energy efficient zero-emission buildings. The main objective of ZEB is to develop competitive products and solutions for existing and new buildings that will lead to market penetration of buildings that have zero emissions of greenhouse gases related to their production, operation and demolition. The Centre encompasses both residential and commercial buildings, as well as public buildings. In addition to being highly energy-efficient and carbonneutral, the buildings and related solutions also have to fulfil a range of other criteria in order to be competitive. They need to provide a healthy and comfortable indoor environment and be flexible and adaptable to changing user demands and needs. They need to be costeffective, i.e. give economic benefits to producers, users and the society. They need to be architecturally attractive and easy to construct, use, operate and maintain. Finally, they need to have minimum negative environmental impact during production, use and demolition, and be robust with respect to varying climate exposure and future climate changes.

ZEB Annual Report 2012

The ZEB pilot building Depotbygget in Bergen, Forsvarsbygg Illustration: LINK Arkitektur

5 of 53

Research Plan and Strategies Environmental Impact and Security of Supply Both worldwide and in Europe buildings account for about 40 % of all primary energy use and therefore contribute to significant greenhouse gas emissions. A combination of making buildings more energy-efficient and use a larger fraction of renewable energy is therefore a key issue to meet the global challenges related to climate change and resource shortages. However, achieving substantial reductions in energy use and greenhouse gas emissions from this sector requires much more than incremental increases in energy efficiency. Currently, a prominent vision proposes so called “net zero energy”, “net zero carbon” or even “plus energy” buildings. Although these terms have different meanings and are poorly understood, several IEA countries have adopted the vision of zero emission buildings as a long-term goal of their building energy policies (CA, DE, UK, USA, NL, NZ). According to the Directive on energy performance of buildings (EPBD)1, member states will be required to actively promote the higher market uptake of buildings of which both carbon dioxide emissions and primary energy consumption are low or equal to zero, by producing national plans with clear definitions and targets for their uptake. Two new White Papers from the Norwegian Government stress that within 2020 the energy use in buildings should be nearly zero (see Gode bygg for eit betre samfunn – Ein framtidsretta bygningspolitikk [Good buildings for a better society – building policy for the future]2 and Norsk klimapolitikk [Norwegian Climate Policy]3). Reducing the demand for energy may be more cost-effective than extending the capacity in the energy supply system. In the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group III4, it is indicated that there is a global potential to cost-effectively reduce approximately 29 % of the projected baseline emissions by 2020 in the residential and commercial building sectors, the highest among all sectors studied in the report. In Norway the most cost-effective measures for greenhouse gas emission reductions are probably also in the building sector5. The new energy performance requirements for buildings as part of the Technical Regulations imply a significant improvement of the energy performance of new buildings. The CO2 abatement costs associated with the requirement level have been estimated to be between 100 and 260 NOK/ton CO2. This is compared to the 360 NOK/ton CO2 if CO2 sequestration technology should be included in the Kårstø gas-fired power plant6. Buildings in Norway are accountable for about 40 % of the country’s total energy use and about 50 % of the electricity use. A special feature of energy use in Norwegian buildings is that a large share (around 70 %) of the heating load is covered by direct electric heating. Efforts to reduce the heating load and substitute electric heating with heat from new renewable energy sources are paramount in the Norwegian energy policy. Present policy aims to improve the security of supply, and to make electricity available for other high-value purposes within the industry and transport sectors. Reduced electricity demand in the building stock leads to less demand for increased capacity in the power production and for infrastructure. New electricity production may result in several unwanted environmental consequences, such as increased greenhouse gas emissions (by use of fossil fuels), intervention in the natural landscape (e.g. wind and hydro power), use of non-renewable energy sources, etc. Avoiding such negative effects has a positive value that is difficult to quantify. Compared to a business-as-usual scenario, and given that all existing buildings and new buildings towards 2035 gradually achieve passive house standard, the energy reduction potential in the Norwegian building stock is about 23 TWh per year in 2035. The corresponding reduction potential for the electricity demand is

1 Directive 2

2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings, May 2010. Meld. St. 28 (2011–2012) Melding til Stortinget Gode bygg for eit betre samfunn - Ein framtidsretta bygningspolitikk http://www.regjeringen.no/nn/dep/krd/Dokument/proposisjonar-og-meldingar/stortingsmeldingar/2011-2012/meld-st-2820112012.html?id=685179 3 Meld. St. 21 (2011–2012), Melding til Stortinget, Norsk klimapolitikk http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/md/dok/regpubl/stmeld/2011-2012/meld-st-21-2011-2012.html?id=679374 4 IPCC (2007), Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 5 Norwegian Pollution Control Authority (2007), Reduksjon av klimagasser i Norge. En tiltaksanalyse for 2020 (Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in Norway. Mitigation options of reduction potential in 2020.) 6 Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development, “Changes in Technical Regulations under the Planning- and Building Act, Discussion document”, June 2006.

ZEB Annual Report 2012

6 of 53

about 15 TWh7. The reduced electricity demand corresponds to approximately four to five Kårstø gas-fired power plants, or about 2400 windmills (each 2MW). If all buildings achieved a zero emission standard in the future, the energy and electricity saving potential would be even higher.

Innovation The construction industry represents a large part of Norway’s value creation, with an annual turnover of 45 billion Euros. The BAE-council estimates that innovation within the construction sector can result in an additional annual value creation of 3-4 billion Euros8. Moreover, the number of people employed in the construction industry adds up to about 320.000 people. As much as two thirds of the physical capital in the country is created by the construction industry (buildings and infrastructure). Realizing zero emission buildings will require development of new, very high quality building products and systems that are robust with respect to future user requirements and future climate and political changes. Due to rather harsh and variable climate conditions and a high quality building tradition, the Norwegian industry has a competitive edge with respect to developing and exporting high performance products and services. Facing the future risks of climate change, Norway also provides a unique “laboratory” for testing the robustness of new building envelope solutions. The industrial partners within the ZEB Centre all have very high ambitions with respect to energy and environment. Several of the R&D environments in ZEB are in the forefront of international research within their fields. Our combined expertise within material science, building technology, renewable energy, architecture and social sciences represent a real competitive edge. With the research centre, encompassing the R&D environment and the building industry, Norway has the opportunity to be a central player in the very important future international arena of sustainable energy use.

State-of-the-art of Zero Emission Buildings There is no common understanding or agreed-upon definition of a zero (greenhouse gas) emission building9,10. A variety of different expressions are used, e.g. “zero energy building”, “carbon neutral building” and “equilibrium building”. Torcellini et. al.9 define a net zero energy emission building as “a building that produces as least as much emissions-free energy as it uses from emissions-producing energy sources.” Several building projects around the world have been constructed in this non-defined context of “zero energy/emission”. Some even more ambitious projects have used the label “plus energy buildings”11. The majority of these buildings are small residential buildings, and they are mostly new houses. Most of them rely on grid-connected photovoltaic power supply combined with solar low energy (passive) designs. Some solar low energy apartment buildings combine this with the use of natural gas or diesel driven cogeneration units and are claimed to reach “zero energy”. This is justified based on the claim that the national grid is based on fossil fuels with a low fraction of central cogeneration, and emission credits are thus gained by feeding electricity from renewables into the electricity grid12. Thus, on a yearly basis, their energy demand is outweighed by the amount of renewable energy that they feed into the electricity grid.

Sartori, I., “Modelling energy demand in the Norwegian building stock”, Doctoral thesis at NTNU, 2008:18. BAE-Council: “Research and development in the construction industry. Challenges and value creation potential”. Part 1 of 2, Oslo, Sept 2002. 9 Torcellini, P. et al.: ”Zero Energy Buildings. A critical look at the definition”, Conference Paper NREL/CP-550-39833, June 2006. 10 Marszal, A.J., Heiselberg, P., Bourrelle, J.S., Musall, E., Voss, K., Sartori, I., and Napolitano, A.: Zero Energy Building – A review of definitions and calculation methodologies, Energy and Buildings, Volume 43, Issue 4, 2011. 11 Voss, K. et al.: “Building Energy Concepts with Photovoltaics – Concepts and Examples from Germany”, Advances in Solar Energy, Vol. 15, 2002, ASES. 12 Voss, K. and M. Kranz: “Net Zero Energy Buildings. A Concept Paper for an International Research and Demonstration Activity in the IEA SHCP Framework”, 3rd draft, January 2008. 7 8

ZEB Annual Report 2012

7 of 53

“Zero energy” in the interpretation of a fully autonomous energy supply for a building with locally available sources only, has also been demonstrated13. So far, this concept has not proved to be technically, economically or environmentally viable in view of wide scale application 12,13,14. The first step towards achieving zero emission buildings is to reduce the energy demand to a minimum. In Norway, and in many other European countries, so called “passive houses” are entering the market. These are buildings with a very low energy demand (about ¼ of normal standard) achieved through “passive strategies” such as well insulated building assemblies, good air tightness, and effective heat recovery. Research is being carried out in Norway and internationally on several of the technologies that can be used in zero emission buildings. Examples of state-of-the-art technologies and current research beyond these ones are vacuum insulation panels (VIP)15, aerogels16, phase change materials (PCM)17, nano insulation materials (NIM)18, smart windows19, various advanced glazing and window technologies20, building integrated photovoltaics (BIPV) and development of new solar cell technologies21. Research is also being carried out on space heating distribution modelling tools22, energy carrier and peak power optimization analysis tools23, and membrane based heat recovery units24,25. Addressing the climate ageing, durability and CO2 emissions of new materials and solutions are also important tasks26. Also, the global climate is likely to undergo changes, regardless of the implementation of abatement policies. The full range of impacts resulting from these changes is still uncertain; however, it is becoming increasingly clear that adaptation to climate change is necessary and inevitable within the building sector27,28. Thus, our zero emission buildings have to be designed to meet the challenges of potential future climate changes. Some researchers have begun to investigate the challenge of low energy buildings in future climates29,30, but much work still remain. The exact definition of a “zero emission building” within the ZEB Centre is being established through an integrated analysis of building types, climate, technologies, economics, and social issues. Different goals are defined for different types of buildings, e.g. some types of buildings may have the potential to be net energy producers and some may be energy autonomous.

Voss, K. et al, “The Self-Sufficient Solar House in Freiburg. Results of 3 years of operation”, Solar Energy, Vol 58, no 1-3, 1996, Elsevier. Sartori, I. and A. G. Hestnes, ”Energy use in the life cycle of conventional low-energy buildings – A review article”, Energy and Buildings, Vol 39, 2006, Elsevier. 15 M. J. Tenpierik, ”Vacuum insulation panels applied in building constructions (VIP ABC)”, Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 2009. 16 R. Baetens, B. P. Jelle and A. Gustavsen, ”Aerogel Insulation for Building Applications: A State-of-the-Art Review”, Energy and Buildings, 43, 761-769, 2011. 17 M. F. Demirbas, ”Thermal energy storage and phase change materials: An overview”, Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning and Policy, 1, 85 95, 2006 18 T. Gao, L. I. Sandberg, B. P. Jelle and A. Gustavsen, ”Nano Insulation Materials for Energy Efficient Buildings: A Case Study on Hollow Silica Nanospheres”, Proceedings of the Energy and Materials Research Conference (EMR 2012), Torremolinos, Málaga, Spain, 20 22 June, 2012. 19 R. Baetens, B. P. Jelle and A. Gustavsen, ”Properties, requirements and possibilities of smart windows for dynamic daylight and solar energy control in buildings: A state-of-the-art review”, Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 94, 87-105, 2010. 20 B. P. Jelle, A. Hynd, A. Gustavsen, D. Arasteh, H. Goudey and R. Hart, ”Fenestration of Today and Tomorrow: A State-of-the-Art Review and Future Research Opportunities”, Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 96, 1-28, 2012 21 B. P. Jelle, C. Breivik and H. D. Røkenes, ”Building Integrated Photovoltaic Products: A State-of-the-Art Review and Future Research Opportunities”, Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 100, 69-96, 2012. 22 L. Georges and V. Novakovic “On the proper integration of wood stoves for the space-heating of passive houses”, COBEE conference, August 2012, Boulder, Colorado. 23 U. I. Dar, I. Sartori, L. Georges, V. Novakovic, “Evaluation of load matching and grid interaction of an all-electric Net-ZEB in Norwegian context”, EuroSun 2012, Rijeka, Crotia. 24 L.-Z. Zhang, ”Heat and mass transfer in a quasi-counter flow membrane-based total heat exchanger”, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 53, 5478-5486, 2010. 25 M.J. Alonso, H.M. Mathisen, V. Novakovic ,and C.J. Simonson. 2012. Heat and Mass Transfer in Membrane-Based Total Heat Exchanger, Membrane Study, 7th International Cold Climate HVAC Conference. 26 B. P. Jelle, ”Accelerated Climate Ageing of Building Materials, Components and Structures in the Laboratory”, Journal of Materials Science, 47, 6475-6496, 2012. 27 Lisø, K.R. et al.: ”Preparing for climate change impacts in Norway’s built environment”, Building Research and Information, 31 (3-4), , 2003. 28 Roberts, S. “Effects of climate change on the built environment”, Energy Policy, Article in Press, 2008, Elsevier. 29 Nazaroff, W.W.: “Climate change, building energy use and indoor environmental quality”, Indoor Air, Vol. 18, No 4, 2008, Blackwell Publishing. 30 Holmes, M.J. and J.N. Hacker: “Climate change, thermal comfort and energy: Meeting the design challenges of the 21st century”, Energy and Buildings, Vol 39, 2007, Elsevier. 13 14

ZEB Annual Report 2012

8 of 53

Research Questions The following research questions are being examined:  Which material properties are important in order to achieve optimal envelopes for zero emission buildings and how can such materials be developed?  How should buildings be constructed in order achieve optimal energy efficient, climate adapted, and renewable energy harvesting envelopes?  What are the optimal building services systems for energy efficient use and operation of zero emission buildings?  Which combinations of building envelope and building services technologies are preferable in zero emission buildings?  How should the implementation, use, maintenance, and operation be organized in order to realize the technical potentials of zero emission buildings?  Which measures are needed for zero emission buildings to become the default building standard?  Which building concepts are optimal with regard to achieving cost optimal zero emission buildings?

A Research Centre for the construction sector The Norwegian Research Centre for Zero Emission Buildings encompasses the whole value chain of market players within the Norwegian construction sector. In total, the companies in the Centre have a yearly turnover of more than 200 billion NOK and over 100,000 employees. As such, the ZEB Centre represents a historical effort in this area, which is outstanding also in an international perspective. Moreover, several of the industrial participants that operate in other countries have expressed that the establishment of such a centre is instrumental in attracting and increasing their R&D activities in Norway. The user partners have emphasized the importance of such a centre to coordinate, enhance and strengthen the R&D and innovation within the important field of energy efficient buildings. Recruitment, job-creation, visibility and sustainability are other keywords that have been expressed. Furthermore, the ZEB Centre is a breeding ground for new industries, both within the established construction sector and beyond.

ZEB Annual Report 2012

9 of 53

Organization Organizational Structure The Research Centre is organized as a joint NTNU/SINTEF unit, hosted by The Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). The Centre leadership is thus shared between the two organizations. Centre Director: Professor, PhD Arild Gustavsen, NTNU, Faculty of Architecture and Fine Art, Dept. of Architectural Design, History and Technology. Centre Manager: Senior researcher, PhD Anne Gunnarshaug Lien, SINTEF Building and Infrastructure, Energy and Architecture. Senior Scientific Advisor: Professor Anne Grete Hestnes, NTNU, Faculty of Architecture and Fine Art, Dept. of Architectural Design, History and Technology. Centre Industry Liaison: Vice President Terje Jacobsen, SINTEF Building and Infrastructure. European Research Contacts: Professor Øyvind Aschehoug and Associate Professor Annemie Wyckmans, NTNU, Faculty of Architecture and Fine Art, Dept. of Architectural Design, History and Technology. The Centre has a General Assembly and an Executive Board. The General Assembly includes all partners. The General Assembly gives guidance to the Board in their decision-making on major project management issues and approval of the semi-annual implementation plans. The Board is responsible for the quality and progress of the research activities towards the Research Council of Norway and for the allocation of funds to the various activities. The Board is comprised of the Centre management and partner representatives. The user partners have majority on the Board and are selected from different groups of user partners. The International Advisory Committee has representatives from leading international institutes and universities and will ensure international relevance and quality of the work performed. The Reference Group consists of representatives from end user groups and relevant organizations and is used both as a forum for testing the relevance of the work and to help disseminate the results to appropriate Norwegian audiences.

General Assembly All partners

Executive Board 7 representatives: 5 user partner representatives, NTNU and SINTEF

Centre Management Centre Director, Centre Manager Centre Management Group Centre Management, Centre Industry Liaison, Work Package Leaders International Advisory Committee Leading international expertise from cooperating institutes and universities

WP-1: Advanced materials technologies

WP-2: Climate-adapted low-energy envelope technologies

Reference group User representation

WP-3: Energy supply systems and services

WP-4: Energy efficient use and operation

WP-5: Concepts and strategies for zero emission buildings

The main participating NTNU departments are Dept. of Architectural Design, History and Technology (host institution), Dept. of Civil and Transport Engineering, Dept. of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture, and Dept. of Energy and Process Engineering. The main SINTEF units participating in the Centre are SINTEF Building and

ZEB Annual Report 2012

10 of 53

Infrastructure, SINTEF Materials and Chemistry, and SINTEF Energy Research. In addition, cooperation is established with other relevant FMEs. SINTEF has status as research partner in the Centre. The Work Package (WP) leaders coordinate the research tasks within the WPs, and report to the Centre management. The leaders of the Work Packages are: WP-1: Professor, PhD Bjørn Petter Jelle, Department of Civil and Transport Engineering, NTNU, Senior researcher, SINTEF Buildings and Infrastructure WP-2: Research Manager, PhD Berit Time, SINTEF Buildings and Infrastructure WP-3: Professor, PhD Vojislav Novakovic, Dept. of Energy and Process Engineering, NTNU WP-4: Professor, PhD Thomas Berker, Dept. of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture, NTNU WP-5: Senior researcher, PhD Tor Helge Dokka, SINTEF Buildings and Infrastructure

Partners For each of the user partners, the Centre’s importance regarding innovation and value creation is described below. BNL - Federation of construction industries (incl. Construction products association): The potential for social profit from increased innovation within the industry is considerable, and it is to a large degree the society itself that will benefit from the innovative efforts to be addressed by the Centre. Rethinking construction and stimulating renovation is of utmost importance for a healthy development of the industry. Brødrene Dahl (HVAC equipment supplier): A cluster like the ZEB Centre consortium would create synergy effects for all the different industries by developing optimal solutions together. This will help the company to bring knowledge to its manufacturers to guide them to optimize their products. Through the Centre the products can be tested and the results documented and used to show the market that building environmentally friendly is possible and profitable. ByBo (housing developer): The win-win situation created by increased knowledge and better products at competitive prices is a driving force for the company to search innovative solutions in a traditional market. The company expects that cooperation with the proposed centre will greatly improve its ability to identify such innovations. DiBK – Norwegian Building Authority: Practical and user targeted research activities are the basis for standardization, and the results can be transformed into regulations. Development of building requirements regarding energy efficiency and energy supply will undoubtedly contribute to significant benefits for society. Research on actions to be taken in the existing building stock should be a part of the research activities and will be of importance for further development of building regulations and building practise on this field. DuPont (building products producer): DuPont is a dynamic market-driven science company and has a strong R&D capability. There is a lot of R&D effort in order to improve existing and to develop completely new innovative products. DuPont and the ZEB members could mutually benefit from cooperation to test new concepts and accelerate the developments toward achievement of Zero Energy Building. DuPont's focus will continue to be on existing commercial products, but also on future innovative solutions that could be tested during the ZEB project. Enova SF was established in 2001 in order to drive forward the changeover to more environmentally friendly consumption and generation of energy in our country. Enova promote more efficient energy consumption and increased production of “new” renewable energy. Enova do this via targeted programmes and support schemes in the areas in which the greatest effect in the form of saved, converted, or generated clean energy can be documented. Entra is state-owned through the Ministry of Trade and Industry. Entra’s main purpose is to provide premises to meet central government needs and to operate on commercial principles. In addition, Entra is also able to serve municipal and private customers. The company’s strategy is to maintain an active presence throughout the value chain. Its buildings shall be eco-friendly, modern and flexible.

ZEB Annual Report 2012

11 of 53

Forsvarsbygg (Norwegian Defence Estates Agency): NDEA as a public-owned building client is under considerable political pressure to act as a role model for private building clients. By applying the latest technology in order to reach superior energy performance, public construction activities are targeted to be demonstration objects for the whole construction industry. Glava (producer of insulation materials): New superior insulation materials and thermal protection building systems for the future will lead to new market shares. Husbanken (The Norwegian Housing Bank): The Centre has the potential to play a decisive role concerning reduced energy use and emissions from the building stock, both by research and other related activities. Husbanken especially sees a huge potential in using pilot projects as centre points and arenas for regional dissemination of ambitions, knowledge and for regional market development. This will be an essential foundation for innovation and value creation and implementation of results and experiences done by the research Centre and its partners. Hydro Aluminium (producer of aluminium products and solar systems): An increased value added from additional investment in product development, including both active solar energy generation and improvement in more established passive energy efficient products and building envelope solutions, is foreseen. Isola (building products producer/supplier): A large range of new products can benefit from basic R&D in cooperation with the ZEB Centre. Innovative new products will be instrumental in further growth and development of the company. Multiconsult (consulting company): The development of new tools that can provide analysis of the environmental impact of new products or services may lead to new standards, guidance, and analysis models that will help introduce new services to the construction sector. NorDan (building products producer): NorDan participates in ZEB in order to be in the forefront regarding development of environment energy efficient windows and doors. Norsk Teknologi (Norwegian Technology; Confederation of companies within the technical and technological sector): Norsk Teknologi is a federation of 1550 companies with a total of 32,800 employees and annual revenue of 3.8 billion Euros. A significant potential for innovation and value creation is possible related to investments in energy efficiency measures. Protan (manufacturer of building materials): For the company’s efforts in marketing sustainable roofing systems worldwide it is a necessity to be in the front with the best technology and solutions. Even if the target for ZEB involving Protan’s scope is not described in detail so far, all improvements and new achievements will be useful. Skanska (large building contractor and developer): A national centre as proposed, with a joint effort from universities, research institutes and the building industry, will contribute to sustainable construction through increased awareness and competence combined with development of new quality assured concepts, components and materials. Snøhetta (architect): The Centre will expand the office’s competence in designing buildings with very low impact on the environment, with special focus on climate. Generation of sustainable solutions will be implemented and multiplied in projects all over the world. Statsbygg (Directorate for Public Construction and Property): The ZEB Centre provides an opportunity to develop knowledge needed by Statsbygg to fulfil Statbygg’s existing and future requirements for energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Innovation and higher efficiency in the Norwegian property, building, and construction industry is of vital importance for Statsbygg as well as for the Norwegian society. VELUX (building products producer): VELUX is very experienced in the use of natural ventilation as an energy saving alternative to mechanical ventilation of buildings. It is our experience that natural ventilation via dynamically operated windows is both energy saving and ensures a good indoor climate in summertime. Weber (building products producer/supplier): The building industry will be facing radical new challenges with respect to more energy efficient and robust products and solutions. The company’s ambition is to continuously offer new solutions to the market, fulfilling future requirements and strengthening its position in the Norwegian and European market. The company expects “ZEB-Research Centre” to be a hub and catalyst in the development, and to be an important partner for the company.

ZEB Annual Report 2012

12 of 53

YIT (technical installations contractor): The company will continuously develop its own solutions and be able to use the results from the FME Centre in this work. YIT expects demand for energy-efficient buildings and solutions in the future and that it will increase the company’s sales in energy-related technology. In addition, the ZEB Centre has a Reference Group which consists of representatives from end user groups and relevant organizations. This group is used both as a forum for testing the relevance of the work and to help disseminate the results to appropriate Norwegian audiences. The Reference Group members are not expected to contribute financially to the Centre. The Reference Group members are: Forbrukerrådet (Norwegian Consumer Council) NBBL (Norwegian Federation of Co-operative Housing Associations) NVE (Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate) ECOBOX (environment information agency, Norwegian Association of Architects) Lavenergiprogrammet for bygg og anlegg (The Construction Industry Low-Energy Programme) Norsk VVS Energi- og Miljøteknisk Forening (Driftsforum) (Forum for Building management, operation and maintenance of buildings at The Norwegian Society of HVAC)  Arkitektbedriftene (Association of Consulting Architects in Norway)      

Partner participation and exchange of researchers In 2012 the industry partners took active part in many of the research and development activities in the Centre. Examples are pilot building development, ZEB definition work, and material and building component development. This collaboration ensures that the activities carried out are relevant. Cooperation also facilitates implementation. The cooperation takes place in workshops and meeting, either with a group of partners and/or in one-to-one meetings. Active collaboration also takes parts in the ZEB laboratories.

Transfer and utilization of competence and results ZEB ensures active participation by the user partners through the following means:  The General Assembly, consisting of all







 

consortium partners, has at least one meeting per year. The work to be carried out is discussed in workshops within the five work package areas. Project activities are defined and organized and, when relevant, executed together with collaborating consortium partners. Project meetings where results are presented and discussed with respect to utilization by the industrial partners are organized on a regular basis. ZEB Workshop for ZEB partners and ZEB researchers in Bergen Exchange of personnel between collaborating January 2012 (Photo: Forsvarsbygg) consortium partners and the Centre are organized. Testing of new materials and technical solutions are carried out. Results are presented on the web site, and an internal website for the consortium (eRoom) is used for exchange of documents.

The partners cooperate through the work they perform in the projects (technical work and joint projects meetings).

ZEB Annual Report 2012

13 of 53

Activities Administrative activities The activities include detailed planning of the various activities in ZEB. This has been carried out in cooperation with the Partners and resulted in the ZEB Work Plan. Four board meetings were held, on February 9th, June 13th, September 6th, and November 22nd. The General Assembly meeting was held on September 6th in Oslo, and a workshop was organised in connection with the meeting. The workshop was on the ZEB definition. Below, the main activities of the work packages are listed together with a description of the main laboratory developments. The next chapter describes some of the main findings in 2012.

WP 1: Advanced Material Technologies Goal: Development of new and innovative materials and solutions, as well as improvements of current state-of-the-art technologies. The main activities in 2012 have been:     

Theoretical studies of heat transfer. Development of nano insulation materials (NIM). Investigations of transparent pigments for application on aluminum surfaces, with Hydro Aluminium. Development of new glass materials and coatings. New compositions of phase change materials (PCMs).

The main activities and the results obtained from the nano insulation materials and glass materials and coatings development are further described in the next chapter.

WP 2: Climate Adapted, Low Energy Envelope Technologies Goal: Development of climate adapted, verified, and cost effective solutions for new and existing building envelopes (roofs, walls and floors) that will give the least possible heat loss and at the same time a reduced need for cooling. The main activities in 2012 have been:  Development and testing of a new sandwich masonry building block with vacuum insulation panel (VIP), with Weber.  Planning and construction of a masonry wall insulated with VIP on the inside, with Chalmers Technical University. Hygrothermal conditions will be experimentally investigated in 2013.  Studies of renovation options for a dwelling from the 1980s towards a zero emission building.  Numerical and laboratory investigations of building integrated photovoltaics to investigate cooling by natural convection and rain tightness.  Studies of improved window and facade solutions (e.g. window rating procedures, optimal window to wall ratios, shading solutions and PCM windows).  Investigation of embodied energy in building components. The sandwich masonry building block design and dwelling renovation activity is further described in the results chapter.

ZEB Annual Report 2012

14 of 53

WP 3: Energy Supply Systems and Services Goal: Development of new solutions for energy supply systems and building services systems with energy and indoor environment performance appropriate for zero emission buildings. The main activities in 2012 have been:  Investigations of renewable energy supply options for zero emission buildings (e.g. studies of an air-towater heat pump coupled to solar thermal panels for a ZEB residential building).  Numerical studies of interaction between user needs, energy supply and building services (e.g. thermal comfort and energy efficiency has been investigated for a Norwegian passive house with air heating, also looking at the effect of realistic occupational patters on energy supply efficiencies).  Post occupancy evaluation (POE) and monitoring of passive residential buildings with regard to energy performance, indoor air quality, thermal comfort and user behavior.  Development and testing of a new energy recovery system based on membrane technology.  Development of new concepts for wood fired furnaces. A simplified distribution for space heating of Norwegian passive houses and the new membrane based energy recovery system are further presented in the next chapter.

WP 4: Use, Operation, and Implementation Goal: Development of knowledge and tools which assure usability and acceptance, maintainability and efficiency, and implementation of ZEBs. The main activities in 2012 have been:  Research on roles and potential impact of end-users' practices on energy use in high performance buildings.  Development of knowledge and tools for efficient maintenance, operation and administration of zero emission buildings.  Exploration of opportunities and barriers regarding feed-in tariffs in Norway.  Observation and analysis of some of the ZEB Centre pilot building projects. Some lessons learned in two of the activities are further presented in the next chapter.

WP 5: Concepts and Strategies for ZEBs Goal: Development of concrete concepts for zero emission buildings which can be translated into realized pilot buildings within the time frame of the Centre. The main activities in 2012 have been:  Development of a revised zero emission building (ZEB) definition.  Development of two ZEB concept buildings (one residential and one office building) for analysis of energy use and CO2 emissions.  Participation in development of zero emission pilot buildings (seven building projects are being developed, where construction start is expected in 2013 for some of them).  Participation in standardization work for implementation of a methodology on export/import of near zero, zero energy, and plus energy buildings. One of the pilot projects and the concept buildings are further described in the results chapter.

ZEB Annual Report 2012

15 of 53

Laboratories and Infrastructure The six laboratories in which the ZEB researchers are performing research have been further developed: 1. Advanced Material Technologies Laboratory 2. Climate and Building Technologies Laboratory 3. Energy and Environmental Laboratory 4. Full Scale Test Cell Laboratory 5. Living Laboratory 6. Pilot Building Measurement In Situ Laboratory Several experiments have been and are being carried out in these facilities, both within The The projected ZEB Test Cell (Illustration: Luca Finocchiaro) ZEB Centre and within other projects. The newly installed climate simulator has been in continuous operation since it was ready for use. The turnable hot box has been used in several experiments. Both apparatus demonstrate good flexibility and give valuable results. The experiments give excellent learning on how to operate and to make important adjustments to the equipment. New tests are waiting in line. Detailed planning of two test buildings, the ZEB Test Cell and the ZEB Living laboratory, has been performed. The buildings will be realized in 2013 and used for studies of user-technology interaction and research on interconnected zero emission building technologies. An application has also been submitted to the Research Council of Norway on establishment on a new large scale “Norwegian Zero Emission Building Laboratory”. The main objectives of the laboratory developments are to develop, investigate, test and demonstrate new and innovative building technologies. The laboratory facilities will be an arena for risk reduction in implementation of zero emission building technologies, needed in buildings becoming the default standard in 5-20 years, i.e. buildings with improved performance levels both with regard to energy use and climate robustness.

REBO REBO (Sustainable Renovation of Multi-Storey Housing) is an interdisciplinary research project financed by the Norwegian State Housing Bank. The project is part of the ZEB-program, and its overall objective is to contribute to increased knowledge as well as actual changes in praxis in achieving sustainable renovation of existing buildings. In a first part of the research project seven case studies were carried out. The cases with ambitious goals for universal design, reduced energy demand, increased use of renewable energy sources and/or user participation were studied. The results are presented in four reports; REBO: User participation and decision making processes, REBO: Ambitions in energy efficiency and universal design, REBO: Presentation of case studies and REBO: Interdisciplinary analysis of case studies. In the project, researchers from different disciplines, i.e. architects, engineers and social scientists, have cooperated in collecting and analyzing the data and have recommended strategies to achieve sustainable renovations. Four pilot building projects were followed in 2012. Energy strategies and strategies for universal design have been developed. The projects are either cooperative multifamily housing or owned by the municipality, which have long decision processes. Whether the strategies developed in REBO will be followed is not yet decided. The project started in 2008 and was finalized in December 2012. A closing seminar will be held during the spring of 2013.

ZEB Annual Report 2012

16 of 53

Results Nano Insulation Materials (NIMs) for Buildings Background and Objective Currently, research is being conducted to accomplish the leap from today's traditional and state-of-the-art thermal insulation materials to the future solutions. Increasingly more energy-efficient buildings are being constructed, thus leading to larger wall thicknesses. In order to achieve passive house standard, zero energy and zero emission buildings, the wall thicknesses may become 40-50 cm by application of traditional thermal insulation materials such as mineral wool and polystyrene products (EPS og XPS) with thermal conductivities between 30 to 40 mW/(mK). Hence, there will be several challenges with respect to economy, floor area, transport volumes, architectural restrictions and other limitations, material usage, existing building techniques and building physical principles and issues. Polyurethane (PUR) has thermal conductivity values between 20 to 30 mW/(mK), but during a fire PUR will when burning release hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and isocyanates, which are very poisonous. So-called state-of-the-art thermal insulation materials such as vacuum insulation panels (VIP) and aerogels do also exist. VIP and Aerogel Vacuum insulation panels (VIP) consist of an open porous core of fumed silica enveloped by several metalized polymer laminate layers. VIPs represent a state-of-the-art thermal insulation solution with thermal conductivities ranging from typical 4 mW/(mK) in fresh non-aged condition to typically 8 mW/(mK) after 25 years ageing due to water vapour and air diffusion through the VIP envelope and into the VIP core material which has an open pore structure. Depending on the type of VIP envelope, the aged thermal conductivity after 50 and 100 years will be somewhat or substantially higher than this value. This inevitable increase in thermal conductivity represents a major drawback of all VIPs. Puncturing the VIP envelope, which might be caused by e.g. nails, causes an increase in the thermal conductivity to about 20 mW/(mK). As a result, VIPs cannot be cut for adjustment at the building site or perforated without losing a large part of their thermal insulation performance. This represents another major disadvantage of VIPs. Aerogels represent another state-of-the-art thermal insulation solution with thermal conductivities between 12 to 20 mW/(mK) at ambient pressure. The production costs of aerogels are still very high. Aerogels have a relatively high compression strength, but is very fragile due to its very low tensile strength. A very interesting aspect of aerogels is that they can be produced as either opaque, translucent or transparent materials, thus enabling a wide range of possible building applications. For aerogels to become a widespread thermal insulation material for opaque applications, the costs have to be substantially lowered. The Path to NIM During experiments with developing a thermal insulation material surpassing both the traditional and state-ofthe-art thermal insulation materials regarding robustness and overall performance, the idea of nano insulation materials (NIM) was conceived. The theoretical models and calculations resulted in the concept material NIM. This involved among others the Knudsen effect to reduce the gas thermal conductivity in nano porous materials (Fig.1 and Fig.2). Hence, initial experiments to manufacture NIMs based on hollow silica (SiO2) nanospheres were carried out (Fig.3). Thermal conductivity values down to 20 mW/(mK) have been measured for these hollow silica nanospheres as a bulk powder before optimization has been performed with respect to e.g. inner sphere diameter and shell thickness.

ZEB Annual Report 2012

17 of 53

Figure 1 Nanotechnology and its application on high performance thermal insulation materials. Various Pore Gases

T = 300 K

25

100 000 Pa 300 K

20

Air

15

Argon Krypton

30 25

4 mW/(mK)

5 0 10 mm

1 mm

100 μm

10 μm

1 μm

100 nm

Characteristic Pore Diameter

10 nm

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

20

Xenon

10

mK)) nductivity (mW/( Gas Thermal Co

Gas Thermal Conductivity (mW/(mK))

Air 30

1 nm

15 10 5

105 104 a) 103 (P 102 e

0 105

r

101 su 100 es Pr 10-1 e

104

103 Por eD 102 iam 101 ete r (n m)

100

10-2

r Po

Figure 2 Theoretical concepts illustrating gas thermal conductivity versus pore diameter (left, 2D) and both pore diameter and pore pressure (right, 3D).

Figure 3. The step from theoretical concepts to the first laboratory experiments manufacturing NIMs based on hollow silica nanospheres (TEM and SEM photos). ZEB Annual Report 2012

18 of 53

Advanced Glass and Coating Materials and Solutions for Buildings Background and Objective Glass and various coating materials constitute an important part of buildings, both for existing buildings and for the ones to be built. The transparent elements provide daylight and heating by the solar radiation. However, in general, windows have a larger heat loss due to a larger thermal transmittance (U-value) than the rest of the building envelope. Furthermore, buildings may also be overheated by the solar radiation. Thus, the aim is to make advanced glass and coating materials and solutions for the best optimization and dynamic control of solar radiation and thermal radiation through glazing, hence reducing the need for heating and cooling in buildings. A New Glass Material A new glass material has been fabricated in the laboratory (Fig.1). Glass represents an important and widely used material in buildings, and crucial aspects to be addressed include heat loss, solar radiation and visible light transmittance, and weight and total thickness issues for windows with many glass panes in order to obtain as low U-values as possible. Hence, we have currently developed a new and innovative glass material with reduced mass density (weight) by almost a factor 2 for building applications, i.e. 1.6 kg/dm3 (new glass) versus 2.8 kg/dm3 (normal glass). Added benefits are reduced thermal conductivity, currently by a factor 2, i.e. 0.45 W/(mK) (new glass) versus 0.9 W/(mK) (normal glass), and increased solar and visible transmittance (Fig.1), the latter one being important with respect to reduced solar and visible transmittance due to several glass pane layers in order to obtain as low thermal transmittance (U-value) as possible. Advanced Coating Materials for Windows and other Glass Elements Transparent and translucent materials and solutions represent an important part of the building envelope. Thus, investigations are being carried out in order to determine what transparent materials and solutions may be used in future buildings. Parts of this work investigate and fabricate advanced coatings such as low emissivity, anti-reflection, solar selective and smart coatings for windows, which will have a large impact on the buildings with respect to solar radiation aspects, energy-efficiency and comfort. Electrochromic windows, which are one type of smart windows, are able to dynamically control the solar radiation through windows, thus enabling energy savings. Tailoring anti-reflection coatings (Fig.2) and solar selective coatings (Fig.3) by applying nanotechnology represent two other pathways for various application areas within solar radiation control.

Figure 1 Photo (left) of a new glass material with reduced mass density (weight), reduced thermal conductivity and increased solar transmittance (right).

ZEB Annual Report 2012

19 of 53

Figure 2 Transmission electron microscope (TEM) image of the as-synthesized hollow silica nanospheres (HSNS) (left), scanning electron microscope (SEM) image of the as-synthesized HSNS coatings on glass substrate (middle), and reflection spectra of glass substrates with and without the HSNS coatings (right).

Figure 3 Developing core-shell-typed Ag@SiO2 nanoparticles as a solar selective coating material. Transmission electron microscope (TEM) images of the as-prepared Ag nanoparticles (left) and Ag@SiO2 nanoparticles (middle), and selective absorption spectra and photos (right) of the solutions for the Ag and Ag@SiO2 nanoparticles.

ZEB Annual Report 2012

20 of 53

The researchers look at the 1980’s house Upgrading the 1980’s house to a zero energy home is the topic of the PhD-study performed by Birgit Risholt. Technical potential The objective of her study is to examine whether it is possible to upgrade houses built in the 1980's to become zero energy houses. The focus is on finding upgrading measures that are optimal with respect to the economy and where the solution is also attractive to home owners with respect to indoor air quality, functionality and maintenance. The solutions should therefore be tailored both to the house and the residents. The first step was to look at the technical potential for energy efficiency of the building and installations. 1980’s houses have 20-25 cm insulation in the roof. This is somewhat less than what we use today. But the greatest difference is found in floors, facades, and installations. The floors and basement Foto: Birgit Risholt walls are poorly insulated, exterior walls have only 10-15 cm of insulation, windows let through twice as much heat as those sold today, and the ventilation is only exhaust ventilation. Air tightness for many of these villas is also far worse than in today's buildings. Lack of progress The most effective improvement measures for these homes is by insulating outer walls, installing windows with triple glazing, and installing balanced ventilation systems with heat recovery. For that to be cost effective the measures should be carried out when the landlords decide to do renovation anyhow, for reasons other than energy. Status reports for 91 houses have been investigated. Results show that 60% of the houses have defects and damage in plumbing (Fig.1). An interesting fact is that 46 houses had renovated the bathroom, but that 22 of these still performed poorly and had damage. It is also worrying to see the high proportion of houses that have moisture problems in the basement. Only 3 of the 91 houses that were included in the study had improved the drainage. When homeowners are replacing drainage and have to dig up around the house, the opportunity to add heat insulation is great.

Figure 1 Percentage share of the investigated dwellings with defect in floor – basement – exterior wall – windows – bathroom – roof - or other.

ZEB Annual Report 2012

21 of 53

Special care is needed Figure 1 also shows that many of the houses need refurbishment of windows, exterior walls and roof. For wood walls and ceilings, adding 20 cm insulation is recommended if this is possible. But, built-in-moisture during the construction phase may be a problem. Thick walls must be protected from rain, the vapour barrier should be sealed, and the wind barrier should provide sufficient air tightness. Further, special attention should be placed on the ventilation system when improving the air tightness of the house, if good ventilation is not ensured. All new homes are built with balanced ventilation where the supply air is preheated by the air drawn out. This is also a good solution for the 1980’s houses. Renewable energy production To get down to zero energy use, renewable energy production is necessary. This may be solar thermal collectors, photovoltaic panels, a heat pump or a biofuel boiler. Which solution is the best depends on who is living in the house and where the house is located. If there is access to cheap firewood, a wood-fired boiler can be profitable. If there are teenagers in the house and there consequently is a large consumption of water, a solar thermal collector can be a solution to get 50% of the hot water for free. Air-water heat pumps can meet the needs both for hot water and space heating. If the house owner does not want to insulate the house as much as described, he may also choose to install renewable heat production to compensate for heat loss, although this is a less robust solution. In the current situation of relatively low energy prices and high expenses related to upgrading, it may, however, be a cost effective solution. The profitability of energy efficiency depends on the individual household use of energy throughout the year and between different house types.

ZEB Annual Report 2012

22 of 53

Energy Design of Sandwich Masonry Blocks Introduction Sandwich elements are widely used in the building envelope, in walls and foundations in particular. The thickness of sandwich elements is increasing as the demand for reduced heat loss from the building envelope is required. The building industry is searching for means and alternative materials to reduce the volume of the building envelope, but at the same time obtain the same thermal performance. Sandwich element constructions might be especially suitable for highly effective insulation materials such as VIPs (Vacuum Insulation Panels) and aerogels. Some commercial products are available today, others exist only as prototypes. A new masonry block design The aim of this work has been to investigate the possibilities of optimizing the thermal performance of a sandwich masonry block system. The possibilities of maintaining the thermal performance and the structural properties and at the same time decreasing the thickness of the sandwich construction block systems have been the aims of the producer. A block system with VIPs has been developed, and a prototype has been made. An integrated working process The design of the masonry block system has been performed in close cooperation between researchers in the ZEB Centre Testing of developed sandwich masonry block system in the hot box in the ZEB/NTNU/SINTEF laboratory. and the producer of the block system. The motivation for the researchers was twofold: 1) to gain and spread new knowledge about optimal energy design of sandwich elements in general and with VIPs in particular, and 2) to participate in the development and to verify a prototype of a sandwich element block system. The motivation for the producer was to further develop a well known and successful product towards the future energy regimes in the building sector. The producer (Saint-Gobain Byggevarer) is offering several versions of sandwich masonry block systems today. The sandwich blocks, known as Isoblocks, consists of two light-weight aggregate block leaves and a highly insulating core of polyurethane (PUR). The most used products today having a PUR thickness of 100 or 150 mm. To meet future operational energy requirements in buildings the producer has even delivered products with a 300mm PUR thickness (Leca® Rex 50, total wall thickness 500mm).Their experience in building with such block thicknesses is that it is not always practical. Several workshops were arranged in order to discuss the theoretical approach used by the researchers and the possibilities and limitations in production. The producer has filed for a patent for the product and process of incorporating the VIP in the PUR core. A step forward Sandwich elements can be a robust way of using VIPs in building components such as wall elements. This work shows how to reduce thickness and volume in order to optimize the thermal performance of a sandwich element. Comparative studies with simplified and advanced numerical simulation models and large scale laboratory tests have been performed for verifications of performance and studies of air transport within the wall. At this point durability studies are being performed, and a survey among potential users of ZEB technology will take place.

ZEB Annual Report 2012

23 of 53

Membrane based energy exchanger In order to minimize the energy use for heating, passive houses are constructed with well insulated building assemblies. In addition they have minimal air leakages and no vents in exterior walls for direct supply of fresh air. Therefore, mechanical ventilation systems are mandatory in these buildings. With the aim of achieving further energy use reduction, the effort must be set on efficient energy recovery from used air. In residential buildings with several apartments, centralized air handling units are regarded as the most energy efficient system. However, to prevent odours to transfer between apartments it is important to avoid carryover leakages of pollutants between the exhaust air and the supply air inside the heat exchanger. Rotary heat exchangers (heat wheels) are very energy efficient (85%) but have the drawback of transferring odours from exhaust air to fresh supply air. To avoid transfer of odours in apartment buildings, flat plate heat exchangers are commonly used instead. Unfortunately, the state-of-the-art flat plate heat exchangers have problems with water vapour condensation and frost formation at low supply inlet temperatures. To avoid this problem the efficiency must be reduced on cold days, causing a decrease in the annual efficiency (70%) and a consequent increase in yearly energy use for air heating. An alternative to the flat plate heat exchanger is the so called quasi-counter flow membrane-based heat and mass recovery exchangers. In a membrane based exchanger, moisture is transferred from the humid exhaust air to the dry supply air. In this way condensation and frosting should be avoided at the exhaust air side. Experiments have been performed to compare a membrane energy exchanger to a heat exchanger using a thin, non vapour permeable plastic foil as the heat transfer surface. The study focused on verifying condensation and freezing problems and how the membrane energy exchanger performs. To compare the different plate materials a test rig has been built in the laboratory. The experiments proved that non permeable heat exchangers had problems with condensation and freezing during the tested conditions. For the same conditions the membrane based exchanger did not experience the same problems. However, additional problems with swallowing of the membrane in high humidity conditions showed that the tested membrane type had drawbacks and needs further development before it can become commercially applicable. In addition a mathematical model was developed to predict the heat and moisture transfer effectiveness in a membrane based energy exchanger. The model was validated against measurements and showed very good correlation with the experimental results and results from literature. The method and the calculation tool developed can be used to investigate alternative membranes heat and moisture transfer effectiveness. The calculations indicate that membrane based exchangers might reach values comparable to the best rotary wheels, and preliminary tests has proven efficiencies of 85%.

Figure 1 The flat plate heat exchanger is composed of several layers of heat transfer surfaces. ZEB Annual Report 2012

Figure 2 The air flow in counterflow directions at each side of the heat transfer surfaces. Ideal flow pattern at the top and real at the bottom 24 of 53

Simplified distribution of space heating in Norwegian passive houses The passive house standard is often associated with the idea that the heat distribution system can be simplified. This opportunity is connected to the well-insulated building envelope. For example, radiators below each window are not required anymore. In passive houses, windows are equipped with a well-insulated frame and triple glazing. Three different strategies can be followed for the simplification of heating systems: distribution using the ventilation air (so-called air heating), a reduced number of low-temperature radiators, and the use of wood stoves. These techniques have been analysed using simulation tools. So far, standard equipment already present on the market has been analysed. The overall objective is to give guidelines to the building industry about the proper integration of space heating systems in passive houses as well as to pave the way for the development of new solutions, by highlighting the limitations of current technologies. Wood stoves are often said not to be adapted to passive houses. Passive houses are indeed airtight and equipped with balanced mechanical ventilation, so that the combustion air induced by the stove draft may interfere or pollutants may even be emitted inside the building. Fortunately, the stove industry is now proposing airtight stoves with an independent air supply and flue gas exhaust, solving the aforementioned problem. The second argument against the integration of wood stoves is that the power of current models is oversized compared to the needs of a passive house (e.g. a passive house in the Oslo climate typically needs 3kW, while the lowest stove power is about 6kW). This may lead to severe overheating. With the lowest stove powers available, the simulations showed that the overheating risk can be controlled by current pellet stoves if they are equipped with a large power modulation (i.e. 30%), while the integration of log stoves is still critical (but possible under certain conditions). Results also showed that special skills and knowledge are required for the correct stove selection. This choice is thus less subjective than before. (The work was done in collaboration with the StableWood project from SINTEF Energy Research.) Air heating is the simplification that is most often associated with the passive house concept. Nevertheless, unlike the German definition of the passive house standard, the Norwegian one is not directly related to the air-heating concept. A specific analysis was thus required to investigate the air heating potential under Norwegian conditions. Simulation results showed that this potential strongly depends on the building location. For example, air-heating temperatures remain moderate for the mild climate of Bergen, while prohibitive temperatures can be found for the extreme case of Karasjok. Considering a detached passive house, it was also shown that the current air-heating solutions do not offer sufficient flexibility for the user to adapt the temperature locally in a given room (e.g. it is common to have a lower temperature in bedrooms in Norway). The work also gave us a better understanding of what conditions lead to a correct air-heating integration and design. The passive house standard is often considered as the future minimal performance requirement for new building envelopes in Norway. Due to their high level of insulation, these envelopes respond thermally to their environment in a different way compared to past buildings. As a consequence, the long term goal of the research is to gain fundamental knowledge about the main heat transfer processes inside these buildings.

Old poorly insulated dwellings with huge heating demands require furnaces that give 10-15 kW 

The housing stock of today, with insulation requirements from the1990’s require furnaces that give 3-8 kW

Today’s well insulated, and future dwellings require furnaces that give 1-6 kW

Figure 1 Illustrations of the reduced power needs of the house with increased insulation levels (from StableWood project) ZEB Annual Report 2012

25 of 53

Marienlyst School: Learning from Norway's first passive house school Houses with balanced ventilation systems are received with some scepticism in Norway. Can a building that does not "breath naturally" be a good building at all? We have conducted one of the most comprehensive evaluations of a passive house school building so far, and the conclusions are clear: both teachers and students are generally satisfied with their new school, but there is still room for learning and improvements. The passive house concept, originally developed in Germany in the 1990s and implemented successfully in thousands of buildings mainly in Austria and Germany, is rapidly gaining ground in Norway. With the Norwegian climatic and cultural context being slightly different from the German and Austrian one, the question is legitimate whether the concept will work at least as well as traditional building types also in Norway. Passive house principles will play an important role within zero emission buildings, it is therefore important to be sure that these principles do not do any harm to the building's occupants. The instrument of choice for the test of occupants' experiences with buildings is the so-called Örebro questionnaire, which is based on the WHO definition of indoor climate. In our case, we could refer to a tailored version of the questionnaire that was developed for use in Norwegian schools. This had the additional advantage of us being able to compare our case, the Marienlyst School in Drammen, directly with other schools. Since a quantitative survey may very well miss some of the more subtle experiences made by the occupants, we interviewed teachers in two rounds: one during winter and one during summer. Marienlyst School from outside, and from the canteen Finally, making this evaluation even more (Photo: Sofie Mellegård, SINTEF) comprehensive we talked with building operators to understand more about how this particular building performs and conducted measurements of moisture in the building's envelope. Marienlyst School - commissioned to use in 2010 - is Norway's first school that complies with the passive house principles, housing some 50 employees and 470 students (age 13-15). Its main technical features are that it uses balanced and demand controlled ventilation based on CO2 and temperature sensors. The lighting is based on LED technology and is controlled by motion sensors. The questionnaire results, when compared to results from other Norwegian schools, revealed no signs of problematic indoor environment. The only results that were statistically significant (i.e. not very likely to be due to random factors) were that the passive house school performed better when it comes to dry air, dust and dirt, and stale air. Of the non-significant findings from the questionnaires, above all cold temperature, static electricity and variations in temperature are the most important ones. In addition, the students' reports indicate problems with the solar shading system. The qualitative study confirmed the overall positive impression, but it also confirmed the (non-significant) concerns about static electricity and temperature (especially during the first winter and on sunny days in the rooms located at the upper levels). Additionally, occupants complained about difficulties to open doors because of pressure differences. There were also some interesting differences between the first and the second round of interviews that indicate that some problems had either been solved or that the respondents have become used to them. This was above all the case with the noise of the ventilation system. Since the aim of the study was to learn what can be improved, the general satisfaction that we have found in both the quantitative and qualitative inquiry is a less useful result than the problems we saw. These fall into

ZEB Annual Report 2012

26 of 53

two categories: First, there were problems that can be connected to well known problems with demand controlled, balanced ventilation systems. These have to be carefully calibrated and adapted to the uses of the different rooms to deliver optimal results. Second, there are problems - such as the low temperatures in the first winter - that have their origin in a hectic initial adjustment phase. The pitfalls of the assumption that a building is ready for use right away are well documented for all kinds of buildings, and methods to support the initial adjustment have been proposed (such as the so-called "Soft landings" method). Arguably, the more a building concept introduces new technical concepts and the more its components are interacting in a complex manner, the more urgent it is to prepare for a "soft landing", i.e. to help occupants and building operators to adjust the new building to their uses and needs. All in all our comprehensive study gives the impression that the Marienlyst School is a success. Students and teachers expressed pride in the brand new school building with its environmental profile. Still, we would miss an important learning opportunity - both for the operation of the school itself but also for the Norwegian introduction of buildings with high energy ambitions - if we did not focus on the problematic areas. We have seen that there is potential for improvements in the adjustment of the balanced, demand controlled ventilation system, and that buildings with innovative solutions should be introduced into use with even more care than conventional buildings.

ZEB Annual Report 2012

27 of 53

The future of efficient building operation: Managing millions of square meters from one room Professional building operation increasingly includes digital control and monitoring of buildings from central control rooms. Our researchers have observed how the 2.4 million m2 of one of the largest European airports are managed from one control room in order to learn about the future of efficient operation of non-residential buildings and to propose improvements. It is in the nature of the term zero emission building that we picture these buildings as physical entities. And making these walls, roofs, windows, and heating systems more energy efficient is indeed an important part of the centre's mission. However, if we focus on the "zero emission" instead of the "building" part of the centre's title, the performance of the building becomes the main concern. Buildings in this sense are in constant flow as they interact with their occupants, climate and the context they are located in. Building operation is the art of managing this flow in a way that makes sure that a broad range of performance criteria is reached - not only zero emission.

A Norwegian airport (Photo: Knut Bry/Oslo Lufthavn AS)

Over a period of three days we have been part of the fixtures of the building operation control room of one of Europe's largest airports. During this observation period we talked to virtually everyone learning about how exactly the operators use their tools to make sure that the airport's buildings are operated in the best possible ways. The resulting 60+ pages report was then presented to the operators that confirmed that our impressions were accurate. The size of this operation is overwhelming: 300 buildings with 28.000 rooms are operated from one control room. This is possible through 14.000 automated subsystems (ventilation, heating, electricity, solar shading, lifts, etc) that are equipped with 220.000 sensors. The main tool for failure detection is the software that constantly compares the data from the sensors for unacceptable deviations. In addition, another software is used to receive and process failure reports from occupants.  The overall efficiency of such a centralized system that is based on automation is obvious. The critical point in terms of the performance of such a complex system, however, is failures and how they are dealt with. Here, "old-fashioned", local building operation has the advantage of local knowledge about the systems, their location, their immediate context, their history, and their quirks. The local janitor "knows" the building in a completely different way than a distant operator who sees the building as a set of data points. For fault repair, clearly formalized rules that prescribe who reacts how and when on what kind of failure are in place. But our observation showed that this formalized system in practice struggles with four main problems that are solved through the use of improvisation and additional tools:  The buildings and installations change over time and receive new functions and names.  A large fraction of the failures is unique and does not fit into predetermined schemes.  The organizational structure changes continuously, leading to ambiguous and unclear competences and responsibilities.  Occupants' failure reports are not in compliance with the categories, terms and structures of the other systems used for failure detection and repair.

ZEB Annual Report 2012

28 of 53

The additional tools that we observed fall into two categories:  In order to find out what lies behind a failure report, "decisiveness, frustration tolerance, and stubbornness" (from an interview with an operator) is needed. Experience plays an important role when the occupants' reports and sensor readings are translated into a failure that can be repaired, but so does extensive communication with colleagues and the documentation of what has been done in a logbook which exists electronically but which in addition also is printed out to make sure that some older reports are not forgotten.  When a failure is identified sufficiently, the repair team has to find the right room and the right installation to fix. In many cases, the control room is helping in the localization using a book that provides a plan of the whole airport, and several other databases. Telephones and radios are used excessively in these failure hunts. These observations enabled us to propose improvements to the operation of the airport's buildings. Above all we recommended to build up a database which connects sensor names, their location in the buildings (including the official room name), the responsible group, and the current (and sometimes also previous) official names of the building (parts). Building operation is changing and we have many reasons to believe that future non-residential zero emission buildings will be operated in similar ways as the buildings of the airport that was object of our study. We have observed a huge potential for efficient operation through automatization and advanced fault detection. But the technology is only one part of the story. As buildings and their occupants change over time, the experience of the operators, their ability to communicate and a broad range of information sources is needed to keep the operation as efficient as possible. We will continue the research on how to provide the best possible tools to make sure that zero emission buildings remain zero emission buildings during their whole operation.

ZEB Annual Report 2012

29 of 53

Zero emission energy systems for Ådland is planned for 500-800 homes Ådland in Bergen is the largest pilot building project in ZEB. The goal is to develop a large new residential area with no greenhouse gas emissions. This means that the houses are built with high quality and with very low energy demands. It also means that local production of renewable energy will meet the demand for heating and electricity for the operation and construction of the houses. Use of materials with low CO2 emissions from production is also important. The building site is planned to meet the zero emission goals. Energy supply without CO2 emissions must be planned according to costs, robustness of operation, life cycle, and installations that can be adapted to available roof area and infrastructure. The match or mismatch between energy production and energy need over the year must also be considered. Two alternative energy supply systems have been investigated for Ådland. The first one is a combination of solar thermal collectors for production of hot water, a bioCHP (Combined Heat and Power) plant for production of thermal energy and electricity, and Illustration: Norconsult photovoltaic panels for production of electricity. The other one is a combination of solar collectors, heat pumps, and PV panels. Solar collectors for production of hot water are the cheapest installation and can cover 30% of the heating demand for space heating and domestic hot water. The PV panels produce electricity for lighting, equipment, and operation of the heat pumps. The PV electricity has the highest cost and is limited by the available south facing roof area. The bioCHP system consists of engines fuelled by biogas or other liquid biofuels. The bioCHP solution that was investigated has an output of 35% electricity and 55% heat (10% loss). A heat pump requires electricity amounting to 30% of the heat that is produced. This electricity needs must be covered by PV and increases the need for available roof area. The choice of energy system The primary advantage of the bioCHP system is the good match between production and energy demand. Its limitations are access to biogas at a reasonable price and the availability of operation expertise. Solar collectors and PV panels cover nearly all the need for thermal energy and electricity during the summer, and the bioCHP plant covers both the need for thermal energy and electricity during winter. The BioCHP unit is optimized for heating, and the electricity production can be seen as a (wanted) by-product of the heat production. Even with a good annual balance between production and demand, in some periods electricity will be exported to the grid, while import will be necessary in other periods. Buying and selling to the electricity grid (net metering) and a reasonable rate is necessary. The alternative system with solar collectors, heat pumps and PV panels will have larger annual variations in energy production, and comprehensive exchange towards the grid is necessary. A dialog with the local energy company to discuss ownership, operation and financing of the energy system for Ådland has started. During the project period new business models to give the house owners incentives to save energy will be developed and tested. A lighthouse project ByBo is an ambitious developer with experience from building the passive houses at Løvåshagen. This was the first major residential area with passive houses in Norway. ByBo is a partner in ZEB and has for a long time wanted to build a residential area with higher ambitions than passive houses. There is also an ambition for Ådland to create a learning arena for building homes for the future. The experience from the project will be disseminated to the construction industry. The Ådland project will be built over an extended period in order to learn from each step and to increase the ambitions for the project along the way.

ZEB Annual Report 2012

30 of 53

Office buildings with zero emissions of CO2 Buildings that produce as much energy as they consume, so called zero energy buildings, are quite challenging for the building industry. The goal for The Research Centre on Zero Emission Buildings is, however, far more ambitious than even that. Its goal is to develop zero emission buildings where absolutely all CO2 emissions are accounted for. This means that the building's own production of energy must offset the energy use and resulting emissions from the production and transportation of building materials, the operation of the building for 60 years, and the demolition of the building. Several buildings are being studied, both (real) pilot buildings and so-called concept buildings. The aim of the concept studies is to model theoretical buildings with technical solutions that can be used in real buildings. The first results show that it is possible to reach extremely low demands for energy both for office buildings and for residential buildings. The work to find out what kind of materials should be used to reach zero emission has just started. Analyses of a theoretical, typical four story office building have been carried out. The building is modelled with data on emissions both for the building materials and for the technical installations. Is it possible to reach zero emission for materials? The analysis shows that the four-story office building can not produce enough energy to offset the CO2 emissions both from the energy use for operation and from the production and transportation of materials. It is very difficult to reach zero emission over the lifetime for buildings with many floors. The first step has been to optimize energy use and energy production for a conventional building design, i.e. the materials have not yet been optimized. With a building form optimized for energy production and materials optimized for low CO2 footprint, the goal might be reached, however. The demand for materials with a low CO2 footprint may result in a change from concrete based to wood based materials. However, wood may not be the best solution. Studies show that some wood based boards are worse off than gypsum boards. The use of glue and the drying process increase the CO2 emissions for wooden boards. Improvements in the production process will most likely reduce the CO2 emissions in the future. Cement and concrete materials may also be significantly improved by the use of new additives in socalled "green concrete".  

CO2‐balance ‐ Roof  & "whole" south facade  kg/m²year

Embodied emission

14

Cooling

12

Appliencies

10

Lighting

8

Fans & pumps

6

Heat pump system

4

Solar thermal systemsystem PV‐facade

2

PV‐roof

0 Emssion oper&embodied

PV‐production

Figure 1 The CO2 balance between emissions from production and operation, and PV-production for the theoretical office building. Both the roof and all available area on the south façade is used for PV panels.

ZEB Annual Report 2012

31 of 53

Easier for detached houses The same analysis is also done for a model of a detached house of 160 m2 on two stories. The two story building can produce a larger share of solar energy since the roof area is larger in relation to the floor area compared to the four story office building. The energy demand per square meter is, however, quite similar for the office building and the detached house. An interesting result is that the PV panels contribute more to the total CO2 emissions than the solar thermal collectors. However, since the thermal energy demand is very low, it is more important to produce electricity. Another reason that the detached houses reach zero emission easier is that office buildings need heavier materials both for the load bearing structure and for sound protection. With heavier materials the CO2 emissions per square meter are higher. In some of the pilot buildings planned in ZEB, alternatives to concrete in the floors and gypsum board and mineral wool in the walls have been investigated. The challenge is that the documentation of the alternative materials is not good enough. Requirements for fire protection, sound protection and environmental impact are a tough challenge for new materials. Another challenge is the CO2 footprint for the technical installations. In the next phase of the concept, work alternative materials and solutions for ventilation and heating systems will be analysed. Reference: Claude Olsen: "Kontorbygg med null utslipp av CO2", ZEB nyhetsbrev 2013

ZEB Annual Report 2012

32 of 53

International Cooperation ZEB has so far focused most of its international research activities on participation in IEA and EU projects. Within the IEA ZEB researchers have participated in SHC Tasks 40, 41, and 51, ECBCS Annexes 53 and 57, ECES Annex 23, and HPP Annex 40. In many of these projects ZEB participants have had leading roles, and the projects have already provided valuable research input and results. Within the EU ZEB researchers have so far been involved in the development of new proposals as well as in COST Actions TU0902 and TU1104. Four of the EU proposals with ZEB involvement (RetroKit, EFFESUS, ZenN, and RAMSES, see below for more information) have been approved and are in a start-up phase. Both the IEA and the EU projects have also facilitated valuable interaction with industry in the other countries involved. Participation in EU activities also has a valuable strategic component. The activities “Towards Nearly ZeroEnergy Buildings; definition of common principles under the EPBD”, and “Nearly zero energy buildings (nZEB) definitions and system boundary: REHVA31 definition for uniformed national implementation of EPBD recast” in which ZEB is involved, will have a direct effect on the EPBD implementation. ZEB researchers have also participated in the establishment of EERA JP Smart Cities and are leaders of Sub-Programme 3: Energy Efficient Interactive Buildings as well as members of the Steering Committee. In addition, ZEB researchers received funding from NRC to establish a Norwegian stakeholder platform among research and industry, to promote Norwegian interests in EERA JP Smart Cities and to disseminate EERA results to Norwegian stakeholders. ZEB is also represented in E2BA (“the Energy Efficiency in Buildings Alliance”), participating in the development of the new roadmap and promoting ZEB research topics and interests in this document, in the ECTP (the” European Construction Technology Platform”), and in EPUE (the “European Platform of Universities Engaged in Energy Research and Education”). The international research partners with which ZEB has formal agreements are presently VTT (Finland), Chalmers University (Sweden), FhG-IBP and FhG-ISE (Germany), TNO (The Netherlands), LBNL (USA), MIT (USA), University of Strathclyde (Scotland), and Tsinghua University (China). ZEB’s International Advisory group has members from three of these institutions (VTT, FhG-ISE, and LNBL). In 2012, the committee met to evaluate the Centre, and its members have on several occasions taken part in Centre events. Members of the Centre Management Team, as well as some of the partners, also visited some of these institutions to discuss further cooperation. Several members of the ZEB Management team are continuously very active on the international arena, giving talks and lectures at international conferences and meetings as well as participating in various research projects. Two international partners (Hydro Aluminium/Wicona and Dupont) are also involved in the design and development of some of ZEB pilot buildings, working with the Norwegian developers. Some of the ZEB PhD-candidates participated in the IBPSA-Nordic at the BuildSim-Nordic (2012). Two PhDcandidates at foreign institutions (FhG-ISE and Chalmers University) have stayed at the ZEB Centre for extended periods of time, two candidates at NTNU have spent some of their time at foreign institutions (MIT and LBNL), and one candidate is doing a double PhD degree (at NTNU and Politecnico di Torino). In addition, several Postdoctoral fellows hired by the Centre come from foreign universities (University of Cambridge, UC Louvain-la-Neuve, and Politecnico di Torino) and maintain contact with these institutions, facilitating future exchange of both staff and students. As of 2013, ZEB Centre researchers are involved in several new EU projects: ZenN (Near Zero energy Neighborhoods), RAMSES (Reconciling Adaptation, Mitigation and Sustainable Development for Cities), RetroKit (Toolboxes for systemic retrofitting), EFFESUS (Energy Efficiency for EU Historic Districts’ Sustainability), and EERA Joint Programme on Smart Cities. ZEB researchers are also involved in the IEE II project Episcope. The establishment of the ZEB Centre (and the research carried out in the Centre) has resulted in a larger success-rate for NTNU and SINTEF related to EU projects. We also get many more invitations to join new initiatives.

31

REHVA = Federation of European Heating, Ventilation and Air-conditioning Associations

ZEB Annual Report 2012

33 of 53

Recruitment 13 PhD candidates (partly or fully financed by ZEB) and four postdocs were working in the ZEB Centre in 2012. Another 5 PhD candidates were also associated with the Centre (but had funding from other sources). Recruitment of new PhD candidates is expected in the second half of 2013, when the first PhD candidate finishes. The postdoc who worked in WP1 has started as a researcher in the Centre, and the postdoc who worked in WP5 has started as an Associate Professor at the Faculty of Architecture and Fine Art, NTNU. The recruitment of a ZEB professor at the Department of Construction and Transport Engineering (BAT) has been completed. Professor Bjørn Petter Jelle, who is also the leader for Work Package 1, started his professorship (a 60% position) in January 2013. The first batch of students from the international MSc-programme in Sustainable Architecture (with the specific title “Towards Zero Emission Built Environment”) completed their studies in 2012. There were in total 11 master graduates. One of these was employed by one of the Centre’s partners. The demand for this programme in autumn 2012 was very encouraging and the number of candidates was increased to 26.

ZEB Annual Report 2012

34 of 53

Communication and Dissemination The ZEB researchers have been active in publishing results from their work - as can be seen from the attached list of publications with 12 journal papers, 19 published conference papers, 61 conference and seminar presentations incl. posters, 2 popular science articles, contribution in 1 book, 18 reports and 12 media contributions. Many of the participants have been asked to give general presentations in a wide range of forums, and several have also been interviewed for articles in various media. These include both popular media such as newspapers, and more professional magazines, such as Teknisk Ukeblad and the like. The ZEB conference "Nullutslippsbygg – fra forskning til praksis" was held at the Ullevaal Buisness Centre on September 5th. The conference had more than 200 participants. Presentations were held partly by industry partners and public partners and partly by ZEB researchers. A number of cross-disciplinary activities were arranged also in 2012. The Management Team met regularly (every two weeks) to exchange information between the Work Packages, the very active Board met twice a semester to discuss progress and plans, and all the Partners met once a semester to do the same. The Partners also met in workshops organized by the different Work Packages to discuss more specific issues and activities. “Internally”, quite a lot of time was spent arranging workshops and meetings with the user partners, making sure they are continuously informed and involved. A lunch-to-lunch workshop for all partners and several researchers and PhD students was held at the Scandic Oslo Airport Hotel at Gardermoen in December. Concept studies on an office building and a detached house were carried out, with a main focus on PV systems and materials use. A mini workshop on a decision support tool was carried out in conjunction with the main workshop. In addition, several events were organized for all researchers involved in ZEB – for internal information exchange and in order to get better acquainted. These so-called “ZEB-inars” are important, as the researchers represent very different disciplines (from material science, to architecture, to social science) and therefore need time to “develop a common language”. The “ZEB office area”, on the 8th floor of Sentralbygg I at Gløshaugen, is important to achieve the “Centre feeling”. The ZEB office is a preferred meeting point, where lunches, Friday afternoon coffee, etc. are organized for all. Lunch lectures are held every other Wednesday with presentations of results from PhD work and other ZEB research work. The PhD students also arrange collaborative days and sit together working and sharing information. ZEB researchers primarily located at the other NTNU campus, as well as those located in Oslo or Bergen, were provided with space in the ZEB office where they spent hours, days, or weeks. The permanent ZEB staff located there are the administration, PhD students and visiting researchers. The ZEB home page (www.zeb.no) got a totally new design at the start of 2012, with a new logo and design template. Special focus for the work with the home page has been on presenting the ZEB publications and on news and events. Two ZEB Newsletters were sent out in 2012.

ZEB Annual Report 2012

35 of 53

ZEB Annual Report 2012

36 of 53

Attachments

ZEB Annual Report 2012

37 of 53

ZEB Annual Report 2012

38 of 53

A1 - Personnel Key Researchers and Key Personnel Name

Institution

Main research area

Anna Svensson

SINTEF Byggforsk

Anne Grete Hestnes

NTNU

Anne Gunnarshaug Lien Annemie Wyckmans Aoife Houlihan Wiberg Arild Gustavsen Bente Gilbu Tilset Berit Time

SINTEF Byggforsk NTNU NTNU NTNU SINTEF Materialer og kjemi SINTEF Byggforsk

Bjørn H Bakken

SINTEF Energi AS

Bjørn Petter Jelle Brit Gullvåg Christian Rone Simon Egil Rongvik Einar Bergheim Elisabeth N. Haugen Frode Frydenlund Halv Høilund-Kaupang

NTNU/SINTEF Byggforsk NTNU SINTEF Materialer og Kjemi SINTEF Byggforsk SINTEF Byggforsk SINTEF Energi AS SINTEF Energi AS SINTEF Byggforsk

Hans Martin Mathisen Helen Jøsok Gansmo Igor Sartori Ingeborg Graabak

NTNU NTNU SINTEF Byggforsk SINTEF Energi AS

Ingeborg Simonsen Inger Andresen

SINTEF Byggforsk NTNU

Ingrid C. Claussen John Simon S. nygård Jøran Solli Kari Sørnes

SINTEF Energi AS SINTEF Byggforsk NTNU SINTEF Byggforsk

Kari Thunshelle Katrine Peck Sze Lim Kjell Ar. Thorvaldsen Kjell Windsland Lars Gullbrekken Luca Finocchiaro Magnus Vågen Mathieu Grandcolas

SINTEF Byggforsk NTNU SINTEF Byggforsk SINTEF Materialer og Kjemi SINTEF Byggforsk NTNU SINTEF Byggforsk SINTEF Materialer og Kjemi

WP5 Concepts and strategies for zero emission buildings Scientific Advisor (Until September. 2012, Centre Director) Centre Manager Sustainable design Concepts and strategies for zero emission buildings Centre Director (From September 2012) Advanced materials technologies WP2 Climate-adapted low-energy envelope technologies WP5 Concepts and strategies for zero emission buildings WP1 Advanced materials technologies Higher Executive Officer WP1 Advanced materials technologies WP2/LAB WP2/LAB WP3 Energy supply systems and services Energy supply systems and services WP2 Climate-adapted low-energy envelope technologies Building Services systems WP4 Energy efficient use and operation Energy use in buildings, energy efficiency WP5 Concepts and strategies for zero emission buildings WP2/WP5 WP5 Concepts and strategies for zero emission buildings WP3 Energy supply systems and services WP2/LAB WP4 Energy efficient use and operation WP5 Concepts and strategies for zero emission buildings WP4 Energy efficient use and operation Higher Executive Officer WP2/LAB WP1 Advanced materials technologies WP2/WP5 Climate and architecture WP2/WP5 WP1 Advanced materials technologies

ZEB Annual Report 2012

39 of 53

Name

Institution

Main research area

Maria Justo Alonso Matthias Haase Mette Maren Maltha

SINTEF Energi AS NTNU/ SINTEF Byggforsk SINTEF Byggforsk

Monica Berner Natasa Djuric Rolf Bohne Sivert Uvsløkk

SINTEF Energi AS NTNU NTNU SINTEF Byggforsk

WP3 Energy supply systems and services Energy use in buildings, solar energy WP5 Concepts and strategies for zero emission buildings WP3 Energy supply systems and services Life time commissioning

Sofie E Mellegård

SINTEF Byggforsk

Susie Jahren Tao Gao Terje Jacobsen Thomas Berker Tor Helge Dokka

SINTEF Materialer og kjemi NTNU SINTEF Byggforsk NTNU SINTEF Byggforsk

Tore Haugen Torhildur Kristjansdottir Vojislav Novakovic Oystein Holmberget Øyvind Aschehoug Åshild L. Hauge

NTNU SINTEF Byggforsk NTNU SINTEF Byggforsk NTNU SINTEF Byggforsk

WP2 Climate-adapted low-energy envelope technologies WP5 Concetps and strategies for zero emission buildings WP1 Advanced materials technologies WP1 Advanced materials and technologies Centre Industry Liason WP4 Energy efficient use and operation WP5 Concepts and strategies for zero emission buildings Chairperson of ZEB Board WP2/WP5 WP3 Energy supply systems and services WP2/LAB EU contact person WP4 Energy efficient use and operation

Visiting Researchers Name Florian Kagerer Pär Johansson

Affiliation Fraunhofer – ISE

Nationality German

Sex M

Sweden

M

Chalmers

Duration 6 months

Topic Analysis and evaluation of supply systems for residential buildings Cooperation with WP 2

Postdocotral Researchers Name Tao Gao (100%) Robert Bye (60%) Aoife Houlihan Wiberg (100%) Laurent Georges

ZEB Annual Report 2012

Nationality China Norway Ireland

Period 01.11.2009 - 29.02.2012 01.04.2010 - 31.07.2012 15.02.2010 - 14.02.2012

Sex M M F

Belgium

01.02.2011 - 31.01.2013

M

Topic Nano Materials (WP1) Optimal Operation (WP4) Building Concepts, CO2 calculations (WP5) Energy supply options (WP3)

40 of 53

PhD students with financial support from NTNU Name Nicola Lolli Julien Bourelle Steinar Grynning Usman Dar

Nationality Italy Canada Norway Pakistan

Period 22.09.2009 - 21.09.2013 17.08.2009 - 13.08.2013 01.09.2010 - 31.08.2014 01.04.2010 - 31.03.2014

Sex M M M M

Topic Retrofit, dwellings (WP5) Definitions (WP5) Transparent envelope elements (WP2) Energy Supply options (WP3)

PhD students working on projects in the centre with financial support from ZEB Name Andreas Eggertsen Teder Birgit Risholt Francesco Goia Jens Tønnesen Karen Byskov Lindberg Krishna Bharathi Liana Müller Linn Ingunn Sandberg Magnar Berge

Nationality Sweden

Period 15.10.2010 - 14.01.2015

Sex M

Topic

Funding

Building concepts (WP5)

NFR

F M M F

Retrofit, dwellings (WP2)

NFR

Responsive facades (WP2)

NFR & UiTorino

Building services (WP3)

NFR

Grid interaction (WP3)

NFR

Success factors (WP4)

NFR

Norway Italy Norway Norway

15.02.2010 - 30.04.2013

USA Romania Norway

01.10.2010 - 30.09.2013 01.08.2011 - 31.07.2015

F F F

Norway

01.12.2010 - 30.11.2014

M

01.01.2011 - 31.12.2013 01.03.2011 - 28.02.2014 01.09.2011 - 31.08.2015

01.10.2010 - 30.09.2013

Laws and regulations (WP4)

NFR

Nano insulation materials (WP1)

NFR

Indoor environment quality (WP3)

NFR& HiB

PhD students working on projects in the centre with financial support from other sources Name Cezary Misiopecki Clara Good

Peng Liu

Nationality Poland

Period Sept. 2011- Sept 2014

Sex M

Sweden

Oct. 2012- Oct. 2015

F

China

Oct. 2012- Sept. 2015

M

Toril Meistad

Norway

2010-2014

F

William Throndsen

Norway

2011-2014

M

ZEB Annual Report 2012

Topic

Funding

Improved window solutions for energy efficient buildings BIPV/T systems for zero emission buildings

NFR

The application of membrane based total heat exchanger in cold climates Sustainability and the Norwegian building industry End users of smart grid infrastructures

Strategic funding through NTNUSHJT Joint research center Strategic funding through EPT, NTNU Strategic funding through BAT, NTNU Strategic funding through NTNUs thematic focus area “Energy and environment”

41 of 53

Master degrees - 2012 Name

Nationality

Period

Sex

Alise Plavina Arjun Basnet

Latvia Nepal

2012 2012

F M

Chen Chen Guo

China

2012

F

Christer Breivik

Norway

2012

M

Italy

2012

F

Hannelore Christiaens Ivan Kalc

Belgium

2012

F

Serbia

2012

M

Krister Midtdal

Norway

2012

M

Kristof Lijnen Larisa Marinova Decheva Lin Du Martin Sveinssønn Melvær Mathieu Daniel Hamm Michael Gruner

Belgium

2012 2012

M F

China Norway

2012 2012

F M

The impact of building morphology on energy consumption

France

2012

M

Multi-Functional Building Envelopes: Key Properties, State-of-theArt Technologies and Visions for the Future

German

2012

M

Mila Shrestha Nikola Djordjevic

Nepal Serbia

2012

F M

The potential of façade-integrated ventilation systems in Nordic climate PCM application- effect on energy use and indoor temperature

Elisabetta Caharija

Nigar Zeynalova Noora A. Khezri Sofie Marie Aarnes Synne Christina Helgerud Vegard Heide

ZEB Annual Report 2012

Azerbaijan 2012

F

Iran

2012

F

Norway Norway

2012 2012

F F

Norway

2012

M

Topic Transformation of a barn at Camphill Rotvoll Architectural integration of photovoltaic and solar thermal collector systems into buildings The impacts on solar access and energy demand of different building masses in linear building forms Building Integrated Photovoltaics - A State-of-the-Art Review, Future Research Opportunities and Large-Scale Experimental Wind-Driven Rain Exposure Investigations Emissions accounting for ZEB shoebox office model: strategies for optimizing the operational energy supply, strategies for reducing the embodied carbon from a life cycle perspective Towards a Zero Emission Built environment in Norway Energy retrofits of residential buildings- impact on architectural quality & occupants’ comforts Self-Cleaning Glazing Products: A State-of-the-Art Review and Future Research Pathways Thermal mass activation- Power House Windows for Energy-Efficient Buildings - Heat Bridges by Window Localization Life-cycle assessment of a multi-family residence built to passive house standard

Efficience of the hydronic system used for the space heating of passive envelopes Emissions accounting for ZEB shoebox office model: strategies for optimizing the operational energy supply, strategies for reducing the embodied carbon from a life cycle perspective Comparative analysis of PV shading devices for energy performance and daylight Membrane Based Heat Exchanger Durability of Vacuum Insulation Panels in Alkaline Environment Sustainable residential ventilation

42 of 53

A2 – Statement of Accounts Annual funding The total funding in 2012, including in-kind contribution was NOK 49,074,200.-. The table below shows the funding per partner (all figures in 1 000 NOK): Funding The Research Council The Host Institution (NTNU) Research Partners (SINTEF) Enterprise partners Brødrene Dahl AS ByBo AS Byggenæringens Landsforening DuPont de Nemours Glava AS Hydro Aluminium AS Isola AS Multiconsult NorDan AS Norsk Teknologi Protan SINTEF Skanska Norge AS Snøhetta AS Velux AS Weber YIT AS Transferred from 2012 to 2013 Public partners Direktoratet for byggkvalitet Enova Entra Eiendom AS Forsvarsbygg Statsbygg Transferred from 2012 to 2013 Total

ZEB Annual Report 2012

Amount

Amount 20 091 6 111 1 891 13 504

412 1 742 238 146 429 761 349 417 327 177 100 2 168 4 137 270 800 1 034 400 -403 7 567 24 500 5 598 255 1 145 -45 49 074

43 of 53

Annual Cost The total cost in 2012 was NOK 49,074,200.-. The table below shows the costs for the different activities. Activity

2012

Management and administration of the Centre WP1: Advanced materials and technologies WP2: Climate-adapted low-energy envelope systems WP3: Energy systems for zero-emission buildings WP4: Energy efficient use and operation WP5: Concepts and strategies for ZEB Dissemination of knowledge (conferences, seminars, workshops) Training of research personnel, professor position In kind contribution from the user partners Ongoing projects within the Centre (only public funding) Equipment Total costs

3 541 3 481 2 145 2 004 1 720 4 107 1 972 10 713 12 624 1 891 4 875 49 074

The table below shows the cost per partner (all figures in 1 000 NOK): Cost The Host Institution (NTNU) Research Partners (SINTEF) Enterprise partners Brødrene Dahl AS ByBo AS Byggenæringens Landsforening Dupont de Nemours Glava AS Hydro Aluminium AS Isola AS Multiconsult NorDan AS Norsk Teknologi Skanska Norge AS Snøhetta AS Velux AS Weber YIT AS Public partners Direktoratet for byggkvalitet Entra Eiendom AS Forsvarsbygg Statsbygg Equipment Total

ZEB Annual Report 2012

Amount

Amount 19 438 12 136 7 351

162 1 292 188 33 129 261 224 217 77 127 3 137 120 550 634 200 5 274 24 5 000 105 145 4 875 49 074

44 of 53

A3 – Publications Journal Papers Berker T, Bharathi K. Energy and buildings research: challenges from the new production of knowledge. Building Research & Information 2012;40(4):473–480. doi:10.1080/09613218.2012.690954 Djuric N, Novakovic V. Identifying important variables of energy use in low energy office building by using multivariate analysis. Energy and Buildings. 2012;45:91-98. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.10.031 Djuric N, Novakovic V, Frydenlund F. Improved measurements for better decision on heat recovery solutions with heat pumps. International Journal of Refrigeration. 2012;35(6):1558-1569. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2012.05.011

Georges L, Massart C, Van Moeseke G, De Herde A. Environmental and economic performance of heating systems for energy-efficient dwellings: Case of passive and low-energy single-family houses. Energy Policy. 2012;40:452-464. Goia F. Thermo-physical behaviour and energy performance assessment of PCM glazing system configurations: A numerical analysis. Frontiers of Architectural Research 2012;1:341–347. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2012.10.002

Goia F, Zinzi M, Carnielo E, Serra V. Characterization of the optical properties of a PCM glazing system. Energy Procedia 2012;30:428-437. Goia F, Perino M, Haase M. A numerical model to evaluate the thermal behavior of PCM glazing system configurations. Energy and Buildings. 2012;54:141-153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.07.036 Gansmo HJ. Municipal planning of a sustainable neighbourhood: action research and stakeholder dialogue. Building Research & Information, 2012;40(4):493–503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2012.676319 Haavi T, Jelle BP, Gustavsen A. Vacuum insulation panels in wood frame wall constructions with different stud profiles. Journal of Building Physics. 2012;36(2):212-226. DOI: 10.1177/1744259112453920. Jelle BP, Breivik C, Røkenes HD. Building Integrated Photovoltaic Products: A State of theArt Review and Future Research Opportunities. Solar Energy Materials & Solar Cells. 2012;100:69-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2011.12.016

Jelle BP, Breivik C. State-of-the-Art Building Integrated Photovoltaics. Energy Procedia. 2012;20:68-77. Jelle BP, Breivik C. The Path to the Building Integrated Photovoltaics of Tomorrow. Energy Procedia. 2012;20:78-87. Jelle BP, Nilsen T-N, Hovde PJ, Gustavsen A. Accelerated Climate Aging of Building Materials and their Characterization by Fourier Transform Infrared Radiation Analysis. Journal of Building Physics. 2012;36:99112. Jelle BP. Accelerated Climate Ageing of Building Materials, Components and Structures in the Laboratory. Journal of Materials Science. 2012;47:6475-6496. Jelle BP. Development of a Model for Radon Concentration in Indoor Air. Science of the Total Environment. 2012;416:343-350.

ZEB Annual Report 2012

45 of 53

Jelle BP, Noreng K. Shielding Fresh Air Ventilation Intakes. ASHRAE Journal. 2012;April:34-42. Jelle BP, Rüther P, Hovde PJ. investigations of Accelerated Climate Aged Wood Substrates by Fourier Transform Infrared Material Characterization. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, 2012:Article ID 827471. DOI: 10.1155/2012/827471. Jelle BP, Hovde PJ. Fourier Transform Infrared Radiation Spectroscopy Applied for Wood Rot Decay and Mould Fungi Growth Detection. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering. 2012:Article ID 969360. DOI: 10.1155/2012/969360. Satori I, Napolitano A, Voss K. Net zero energy builings: A consistent definition framework. Energy and Buildings. 2012;48:220-232.

Published Conference Papers Andresen I, Haanshuus FT, Hoel J, Jonassen I, Nilsen NI, Mysen M, Nytræ S, Time B. Design of a zero energy office building at Haakonsvern, Bergen. In: Postmyr L (ed). Proceedings of Passivhus Norden; 21-23 October 2012, Trondheim, Norway. [internet] http://www.tapironline.no/fil/vis/963 Alonso MJ, Mathisen HM, Novakovic V, Simonsen CJ, Georges L. Review of Air-to-Air Heat/Energy Exchangers for Use in NZEBs in the Nordic Countries. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Building Energy and Environment, COBEE2012, pp 536-543; 1-4 August 2012, Boulder, Colorado, USA. Alonso MJ. Mathisen HM, Novakovic V, Simonsen CJ. Heat and Mass Transfer in Membrane-Based total heat Exchanger, Membrane Study. In: Proceedings from Seventh International Cold Climate HVAC Conference, 1214 November 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Bianco L, Goia F, Serra V. Impact on thermal comfort of conventional and advanced glazed façades in office buildings. In: Zhiqiang JZ, Ziangli Li HW (eds). Proceedings of Conference on Building Energy and Environment COBEE 2012; pp 355-363; 1-4 August 2012, Boulder, Colorado, USA. Dar U, Georges L, Sartori I, Novakovic N. Performance evaluation of a combined solar-thermal and heat pump technology in a Net-ZEB under stochastic user-loads. In: Postmyr L (ed). Proceedings of Passivhus Norden; 21-23 October 2012, Trondheim, Norway. [internet] http://www.tapironline.no/fil/vis/985 Dokka TH, Andersen G. Marinlyst school – Comparison of simulated and measured energy use in a passive house school. In: Postmyr L (ed). Proceedings of Passivhus Norden; 21-23 October 2012, Trondheim, Norway. [internet] http://www.tapironline.no/fil/vis/989 Favoino F, Goia F, Perino M, Serra V. Experimental assessment of the energy performance of an advanced responsive multifunctional façade module. In: Conference on Building Energy and Environment COBEE 2012, pp 870-877; 1-4 August 2012, Boulder, Colorado, USA. Favoino F, Goia F, Perino M, Serra V. Energy performance assessment of an advanced responsive multifunctional facade module: first results of an experimental campaign. In: 5th International Building Physics Conference (IBPC 2012), pp 545-552; 28-31 May 2012, Kyoto, Japan. Gao T, Sandberg LIC, Jelle BP, Gustavsen A. Nano insulation materials for energy efficient buildings: from theory to practice. In: Proceedings of the Energy and Materials Research Conference (EMR 2012), p. 376 (Extended Abstract Paper). 20-22 June 2012, Torrmolinos, Spain.

ZEB Annual Report 2012

46 of 53

Georges L, Novakovic V. On the Proper Integration of Wood Stoves for the Space-Heating of Passive Houses. In: Proceedings of The Second International Conference on Building Energy and Environment, COBEE2012; pp 225-232; 1-4 August 2012, Boulder, Colorado, USA. Goia F, Boccaleri E, Perino M. Investigation of the thermal properties and heat-storage reliability of a paraffin wax for LHTES application under direct solar radiation. In: The 12th International conference on Energy Storage, pp 1-9. InnoStock 2012; 16-18 May 2012, Lleida, Spain. Goia F, Haase M, Perino M. Optimal transparent percentage in façade modules for office buildings in a central Europe climate: a case study in Frankfurt. In: IEECB 2012 - The 7th International Conference on Improving Energy Efficiency in Commercial Buildings; pp 1-12; 18-19 April 2012, Frankfurt, Germany. Goia F, Haase M, Perino M. A numerical model to evaluate the thermal behaviour of PCM glazing systems. In: 5th International Building Physics Conference (IBPC 2012), PP 385-392; 28-31 May 2012, Kyoto, Japan. Gruner M, Haase M, Wiberg, AH. From Passive House to Zero Emission Buildings from an EmissionAccounting Perspective. In: Postmyr L (ed). Proceedings of Passivhus Norden; 21-23 October 2012, Trondheim, Norway. [internet] http://www.tapironline.no/fil/vis/993 Grynning S, Goia F, Rognvik E, Time B. Possibilites for characterization of a pcm window system large scale measurements. In: Postmyr L (ed). Proceedings of Passivhus Norden; 21-23 October 2012, Trondheim, Norway. [internet] http://www.tapironline.no/fil/vis/971 Heide V, Haase M. Sammenligning av klimagass-utslipp med naturlig- og balansert ventilasjon. In: Postmyr L (ed): Proceedings of Passivhus Norden; 21-23 October 2012, Trondheim, Norway. [internet] http://www.tapironline.no/fil/vis/998

Jacobsen R. Performance of 8 Cold-Climate Envelopes for Passive Houses. In: Postmyr L (ed): Proceedings of Passivhus Norden; 21-23 October 2012, Trondheim, Norway. [internet] http://www.tapironline.no/fil/vis/1011 Jelle BP, Gustavsen A, Baetens R. Innovative High Performance Thermal Building Insulation Materials Today's State-of-the-Art and Beyond Tomorrow. In: Proceedings of the Building Enclosure Science & Technology (BEST 3 - 2012), 2-4 April 2012, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Sveipe E, Jelle BP, Wegger E, Uvsløkk S, Grynning S, Thue JV, Time B, Gustavsen A. ”Retrofitting Timber Frame Walls with Vacuum Insulation Panels. In: Proceedings of the Building Enclosure Science & Technology (BEST 3 – 2012, 2-4 April 2012, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Time B, Uvsløkk S, Gustavsen A, Gullbrekken L, Murphy M, Hyrve O. Energy Design of Sandwich Masonry Blocks. In: Postmyr L (ed): Proceedings of Passivhus Norden; 21-23 October 2012, Trondheim, Norway. [internet] http://www.tapironline.no/fil/vis/972 Thyholt M, Dokka TH, Rasmussen R. The Skarpnes resisdential development. In: Postmyr L (ed). Proceedings of Passivhus Norden; 21-23 October 2012, Trondheim, Norway. [internet] http://www.tapironline.no/fil/vis/960 Thyholt M, Dokka TH, Jensen B. Powerhouse One: the first plus-energy commercial building in Norway. In: Postmyr L (ed). Proceedings of Passivhus Norden; 21-23 October 2012, Trondheim, Norway. [internet] http://www.tapironline.no/fil/vis/965

ZEB Annual Report 2012

47 of 53

Conference and seminar presentation (incl. posters) Andresen I. Depotbygget på Haakonsvern, Bergen. Presented at ZEB Konferansen 2012; 5 September 2012; Oslo; Norway. Andersen I. Passiv – Lavenergi – Nesten null – Plusshus. Begreper, definisjoner og prinsipper. Kursdagene ved NTNU, 3. januar 2012. Berker T. Det store bildet. Hvor er vi nå? Presented at ZEB Konferansen 2012; 5 September 2012; Oslo; Norway. Berker T. Sustainability transitions outside the modernization paradigm. Gains and losses. IST 2012 International Conference on Sustainability Transitions. 29-31 August 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark. Berker T. Framtidens hus og boformer. Presentation at Dagskonferanse om energieffektivisering; 11 mai 2012, Trondheim. Berker T. Kicking the habit. What happens after people have decided to invest in energy efficient technologies? Presented at Energy and Society conference,22-23 mars 2012, Lisbon. Borchsenius CH. Erfaringer med markedsutvikling for høye energiambisjoner. Presented at ZEB Konferansen 2012; 5 September 2012; Oslo; Norway. Bourrelle J. Zero Emission Buildings vs Zero Energy Buildings. Presented at Smart energy Solutions, Rohevik 2012 - Green Growth Forum, 25 October 2012, Tartu, Estonia. Burud JP. En teknisk entreprenørs utfordringer i praksis. Presented at ZEB Konferansen 2012; 5 September 2012; Oslo; Norway. Bye R, Glöss M. FM-departments and central control and monitoring systems. Presented at 2012 EuroFM annual meeting, 23-25 mai 2012, Copenhagen. Dar UI, Georges L, Sartori I, Novakovic V . Influence of user-behavior on the performance of the building and the energy supply system. Presented at Strathclyde conference on Building Simulation and Optimization (BSO2012); 10-11 September 2012, Longhborough, England. Dar U, Georges L, Sartori I, Novakovic V. Influence of stochastic loads on the performance of energy systems in Net-ZEB. Presented at Technoport Renewable Energy Research Conference 2012; 16-18 April 2012; Trondheim. Djuric N, Novakovic V, Frydenlund F. Performance estimation and documentation of an integrated energy supply solution. Presented at Technoport Renewable Energy Research Conference 2012; 16-18 April 2012; Trondheim. Dokka, TH. ZEB-kriterier for nullutslippsbygg – og områder. Presented at “Hvordan beregne klimagassutslipp fra stasjonær energibruk i byområder på en praktisk gjennomførbar måte”. FutureBuilt Workshop, 24 September 2012, Oslo, Norway. Dokka TH. Forholdet mellom nullenergi og nullutslipp. Presented at ZEB Konferansen 2012; 5 September 2012; Oslo; Norway.

ZEB Annual Report 2012

48 of 53

Eggertsen Teder A. Powerhouse One. Presented at FLYT – fasader og energiforsyning. Erichsen & Horgens fagseminar. 7 November 2012, Oslo, Norway. Eggertsen Teder A. Powerhouse One. Presented at TEVAS fagdag 2012. 20 September 2012, Bergen, Norway. Eggertsen Teder A. Powerhouse One. Presented at Energi og miljø i eiendom 2012. 17 April 2012, Oslo, Norway. Gao T, Sandberg LIC, Jelle BP, Kubowicz s, Gustavsen A. Experimental Fabrication and Characterization of Hollow Nano Insulation Material Spheres for Application as a Thermal Building Insulation Material. Presented at Technoport Renewable Energy Research Conference 2012; 16-18 April 2012; Trondheim. Georges L, Novakovic V. On the integration of wood stoves for the space-heating of passive houses: Assessment Using Dynamic Simulation. Presented at Strathclyde conference on Building Simulation and Optimization (BSO2012), 10-11 September 2012, Longhborough, England. Georges L, Novakovic V. On the proper integration of wood stoves in passive houses: investigation using dynamic simulations. Presented at Technoport Renewable Energy Research Conference 2012; 16-18 April 2012; Trondheim. Gansmo HJ. Zero emission buildings and development of professional (energy) operation culture: Learning and professional development in operation of large buildings. Annual Meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science, 17-20 October 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark. Gansmo HJ. Energy culture in the comfort society. Energy and Society, 22-24 March 2012, Lisboa, Portugal. Gustavsen A. Nye isolasjonsmaterialer – er nanoteknologi løsningen? Presented at ZEB Konferansen 2012; 5 September 2012; Oslo; Norway. Hart R, Misiopecki C, Gustavsen A, Jelle BP, Arasteh D. Impacts of Operating Hardware on Wondows Thermal Performance. Presented at Building Enclosure Science and Technology (BEST3) Conference; 2-4 April 2012; Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Hestnes, AG. Fremtidsens bygg – veien mot nullutslippsbygg utfordrer oss til nye løsninger. Foredrag på Grønn Byggalianses seminar. 23. mai 2012, Oslo. Hegli T. Powerhouse #1 på Brattørkaia I Trondheim. Presented at ZEB Konferansen 2012; 5 September 2012; Oslo; Norway. Helland K. Erfaringer med markedsutvikling for høye energiambisjoner. Presented at ZEB Konferansen 2012; 5 September 2012; Oslo; Norway. Hjerman JO. Hva gjør en byggevareprodusent når veggene nærmer seg middelalderens kistemurer? Presented at ZEB Konferansen 2012; 5 September 2012; Oslo; Norway. Haase M. Effekt og energisimuleringer. Presented at VVS-dagene 2012; Praktisk bruk av simuleringsverktøy for beregning av energi og inneklima i bygninger;18 October 2012, Lillestrøm, Norway. Haase M, Wyckmanns A. Integrated energy design – the architectural approach. Presented at Technoport Renewable Energy Research Conference 2012; 16-18 April 2012; Trondheim.

ZEB Annual Report 2012

49 of 53

Jager W. Façade development in a Zero Emission Building perspective. Presented at ZEB Konferansen 2012; 5 September 2012; Oslo; Norway. Jelle BP, Breivik C. State-of-the-Art Building Integrated Photovoltaics. Presented at Technoport Renewable Energy Research Conference 2012; 16-18 April 2012; Trondheim. Jelle BP, Breivik C. The Path to the Building Integrated Photovoltaics of Tomorrow. Presented at Technoport Renewable Energy Research Conference 2012; 16-18 April 2012; Trondheim. Jelle BP, Gustavsen A, Baetens R. High Performance Thermal Building Insulation: Today’s State of the Art. Presented at The third Building Enclosure Science and Technology (BEST3) Conference; 2-4 April 2012; Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Kristjansdottir T. Livssyklusanalyser av Powerhouse #1 på Brattøra-kaia i Trondheim. Presented at ZEB Konferansen 2012; 5 September 2012; Oslo; Norway. Lie M. Politiske mål og ambisjoner – en utfordring til byggenæringen. Presented at ZEB Konferansen 2012; 5 September 2012; Oslo; Norway. Lien AG. Fremtidens bygninger – hvordan og hvorfor? Presented at «Konferanse om funksjonelle og enegieffektive bygg», 18-19 September 2012, Trondheim, Norway. Mathisen HM. Krav og forventingen til temperatur og luftkvalitet i fremtidens bygninger. Presented at «Konferanse om funksjonelle og enegieffektive bygg», 18-19 September 2012, Trondheim, Norway. Mathisen HM. Ventilasjon og energigjenvinning i kaldt klima. Presented at ZEB Konferansen 2012; 5 September 2012; Oslo; Norway. Müller L; Berker T. The History of the Passive House Concept and Standard: How a voluntary standard managed to bridge the energy efficiency gap. Presented at: Annual Meeting of the Society for Social Studies of Science, 17-20 October 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark. Müller L. The legal dwelling: The interface between buildings researchers and construction law in Norway. How do you manage? Presented at: Unravelling the situated practice of environmental management; 29 May2 June 2012, Hamburg, Germany. Müller L. Passive House as normality? Presented at Workshop CenSES RA1: Politiske Virkemidler;13 mars 2012, Trondheim. Nord N. Hvilke programmer fins – brukbarhet og brukerterskel. Presented at VVS-dagene 2012; Praktisk bruk av simuleringsverktøy for beregning av energi og inneklima i bygninger;18 October 2012, Lillestrøm, Norway. Novakovic V. Behov for beregning, modellering og simulering; Historisk utvikling. Presented at VVS-dagene 2012; Praktisk bruk av simuleringsverktøy for beregning av energi og inneklima i bygninger;18 October 2012, Lillestrøm, Norway. Novakovic V. Effektiv energibruk og energiforsyning/lokal produksjon i fremtidens bygninger. Presented at «Konferanse om funksjonelle og enegieffektive bygg», 18-19 September 2012, Trondheim, Norway. Novakovic V. Verktøy for valg av energiforsyning. Presented at ZEB Konferansen 2012; 5 September 2012; Oslo; Norway.

ZEB Annual Report 2012

50 of 53

Risholt B. Vindusløsninger ved energieffektivisering av eneboliger. Presented at Spilka Fagdager, 17 October 2012, Ålesund, Norway. Risholt B. Life Cycle Cost Perspectives on Zero Energy Renovation of a Single Family House. Presented at Technoport Renewable Energy Research Conference 2012; 16-18 April 2012; Trondheim. Risholt B. Bærekraftig rehabilitering av eneboliger mot nullenerginivå. Presented at Enova, 7 mars 2012. Sveipe E, Jelle BP, Wegger E, Uvsløkk S, Grynning S, Thue JV, Time B, Gustavsen A. Retrofitting Timber Frame Walls with Vacuum Insulation Panels. Presentated at Building Enclosure Science and Technolgy (BEST 3-2012), 2-4 April 2012, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. Throndsen W. Moving towards smart metering in Norway: The case of one DSO and their AMI-project. IST 2012 - International Conference on Sustainability Transitions, 29-31 August 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark. Thyholt M. Powerhouse. Presented at Konferanse om funksjonelle og energieffektive bygg, 19. september 2012, Trondheim, Norway. Thyholt M. Boligområdet Skarpnes i Arendal. Presented at ZEB Konferansen 2012; 5 September 2012; Oslo; Norway. Thyholt M. Rehabilitering av boligblokk med ZEB-ambisjoner. Presented at Enovakonferansen, 24-25 januar 2012, Trondheim, Norway. Thyholt M, Hegli T. Powerhouse. Presented at FutureBuilt2012, 7-8 June 2012, Oslo, Norway. Thyholt M. Energikonsept for Powerhouse One. Presented at Kursdagene ved NTNU, 4. januar 2012, Trondheim, Norway. Time B. Nullenergibygg er mulig! Hvordan kan og bør de være? Presented at Åpningsseminar for Prosjekt Virtuelt 0-energibygg. 17 October 2012, Oslo, Norway. Time B. Zero Emission Buildings – produkter og løsninger for eksisterende bygninger. Kursdagene ved NTNU, 4. januar 2012. Wiberg A. Fremtidens bygninger i et livsløpsperspektiv – materialbruk og CO2 utslipp. Presented at «Konferanse om funksjonelle og enegieffektive bygg», 18-19 September 2012, Trondheim, Norway.

Popular Science Articles Aschehoug Ø. Norsk byggebransje deltar nesten ikke i EUs forskning. Byggeindustrien nr 12 – 2012. Dokka TH, Rødsjø A. Passivhus som forskriftskrav i 2013, Byggeindustrien nr. 1 – 2012. Jelle BP, Noreng K,Time B, Gustavsen A. Unngå byggskader ved laboratorietesting av nye materialer og løsninger. Byggaktuelt, no. 7-8, p. 56-57, 2012. Jelle BP, Noreng K, Meløysund V. Flytende tregulv – Pass på avstanden!. Tre & profil, no. 1, p. 44 49, 2012.

ZEB Annual Report 2012

51 of 53

Books Gao T, Sandberg LIC, Jelle BP, Gustavsen A. Nano insulation materials for energy efficient buildings: A case study on hollow silica nanospheres. In: A.A. Mendez-Vilas (Ed) "Fuelling the Future: Advances in Science and Technologies for Energy Generation, Transmission and Storage", Brown Walker Press, Boca Ration, 2012, pp 535-539. ISBN-976-1-61233-558-6.

Reports Alinaghizadeh N. Comparative Analysis of PV Shading Devices for Eneregy Performance and Daylight. MSc thesis, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, June 2012. Aarnes SM. Membrane Based Heat Exchanger. MSc thesis, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, June 2012. Basnet A. Architectural Integration of Photovoltaic and Solar Thermal Collector Systems into buildings. MSc thesis, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, June 2012. Cahrija E, Zeynalova N. Emissions Accounting for ZEB Shoebox Office Model: - Strategies for optimizing the operational energy supply - Strategies for reducing the embodied carbon from a life cycle perspective. MSc thesis, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, June 2012. Christiaens H. Towards a Zero Emission Built Environment in Norway. ME, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium, June 2012. Gruner M. The Potential of Facade-Integrated Ventilation Systems in Nordic Climate. MSc thesis, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, June 2012. Guo C. The Impacts on Solar Access and Energy Demand of Different Building Masses in Linear Buildings Forms. MSc thesis, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, June 2012. Heide V. Sustainable residential ventilation. MSc thesis, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, June 2012. Helgerud S. Durability of Vacuum Insulation Panels in Alkaline Environment. MSc thesis, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, June 2012. Kalc I. Energy Retrofits of Residential Buildings – impact on architectural quality & occupants’ comfort. MSc thesis, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, June 2012. Khezri NA. Comparative Analysis of PV Shading Devices for Energy Performance and Daylight. MSc thesis, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, June 2012. Lijnen K. Thermal mass activitation. MSc thesis, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, June 2012. Lin D. The impact of building morphology on energy consumption. MSc thesis, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, June 2012. Melvær MS. Life-cycle assessment of a multi-family residence built to passive house standard. MSc thesis, NTNU, March 2012. Plavina A. Transformation of a barn at Camphill Rotvoll. MSc thesis, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, June 2012.

ZEB Annual Report 2012

52 of 53

Shrestha M. PCM Application – Effect on energy use and Indoor temperature. MSc thesis, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, June 2012. Thunshelle K, Hauge ÅL. Brukerundersøkelse om innemiljø på Marienlyst skole. ZEB-project report no 5-2012. SINTEF Academic Press, ISBN 978-82-536-1275-1. Throndsen W, Berker T. Households on the Rebound. Factors Increasing and Decreasing Rebound Effects in Norwegian Households. ZEB-project report no 4-2012. SINTEF Academic Press, ISBN 978-82-536-1262-1.

Media contributions Avspark for plusshus-rehabilitering. Byggeindustrien bygg.no. 2012-02-02 Dette bygget lager mer energi enn det broker. Aftenposten, fredag 9. november 2012. Målet er null. Teknisk Ukeblad no 18, 18. mai 2012. Nedslitt blokk skal bli energiforbilde. Byggeindustrien bygg.no. 2012-02-07 Nanoisolert passivhus. Arild Gustavsen vil gjøre passivhusveggen tynnere ved å bruke nanoisolasjon. Teknisk Ukeblad no 32, 3. oktober 2012, p 16. Nye, godt isolerte vinduer dugger mer. www.dinside.no, 05.10.12 Passivhus – Nullhus – Plusshus. Nullhus skal danke ut passivhus. TU på nett. www.tu.no. Publisert 24. mai 2012. Passivhusekspert Tor Helge Dokka spår fjernvarmens død. Teknisk ukeblad, nr 28/6 sept 2012. Varmere hus med ny og bedre isolasjon. Adresseavisen tirsdag 17. januar 2012. Vedovner i passivhus. Moderne hus tar livet av vedovnene. TU på nett. www.tu.no. Publisert 14. september 2012. Veggtykkelse 40 cm skremselspropaganda. Byggeindustrien bygg.no 2012-02-23 ZEB konferansen. Intverview with Tor Helge Dokka and Trine Hegli. NRK Morgennytt, 2012-09-05

ZEB Annual Report 2012

53 of 53

The Research Centre on Zero emission Buildings (ZEB) The main objective of ZEB is to develop competitive products and solutions for existing and new buildings that will lead to market penetration of buildings that have zero emissions of greenhouse gases related to their production, operation and demolition. The Centre will encompass both residential and commercial buildings, as well as public buildings.

Partners NTNU www.ntnu.no

YIT www.yit.no

Byggenæringens Landsforening www.bnl.no

SINTEF www.sintef.no

ByBo www.bybo.no

Norsk Teknologi www.norskteknologi.no

Skanska www.skanska.no

Multiconsult www.multiconsult.no

Direktoratet for byggkvalitet www.dibk.no

Weber www.weber-norge.no

Brødrene Dahl www.dahl.no

DuPont www.dupont.com

Isola www.isola.no

Snøhetta www.snoarc.no

NorDan AS www.nordan.no

Glava www.glava.no

Forsvarsbygg www.forsvarsbygg.no

Enova www.enova.no

Protan www.protan.no

Statsbygg www.statsbygg.no

VELUX www.velux.com

Hydro Aluminium www.hydro.com

Husbanken www.husbanken.no

Entra www.entra.no

www.zeb.no