ZEB - Annual Report 2013
The Research Centre on Zero Emission Buildings
Annual Report 2013
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]
Host organisation: Faculty of architecture and fine art, NTNU Partners: Norwegian University of Science and Technology - NTNU SINTEF Building and Infrastructure SINTEF Energy Research BNL – Federation of construction industries Brødrene Dahl ByBo Caverion Norge AS DiBK – Norwegian Building Authority DuPont Enova SF Entra Forsvarsbygg Glava Husbanken Hydro Aluminium Isola Multiconsult NorDan Norsk Teknologi Protan SAPA Building Systems Skanska Snøhetta Statsbygg VELUX Weber Members of the ZEB Board: Tore Haugen, NTNU Arild Gustavsen, NTNU Jonas Holme, SINTEF Byggforsk Kim Robert Lisø, Skanska Phillipp Müller, SAPA Group Zdena Cervenka, Statsbygg Tine Hegli, Snøhetta Jens Petter Burud, Caverion Oddvar Hyrve, Weber AS
Front page: ZEB Living Lab, Trondheim Illustration: Luca Finocchiaro
ZEB 2013 – Great progress and results The positive feedback from the midterm evaluation of the ZEB Centre in March 2013 was one of several highlights for ZEB last year. The evaluation panel gave important feedback with respect to the ongoing activities and to the results after 4 years of activity in ZEB. The evaluation was organized by the Norwegian Research Council, and ZEB was one of the few national Centres for Environment-friendly Energy Research (FME) that did not have to make any alterations in the original project plan. The support and funding for the 8 years project is now verified by the Research Council. The midterm evaluation also gave important feedback from all partners in the ZEB Centre. Their views create important input to the further work in ZEB regarding scientific developments, innovations and practical implementation of findings. The cooperation between the research partners, real estate developers, the public authorities and the whole AEC industry is fundamental for reaching the goal Zero Emission Buildings. After the midterm evaluation, the ZEB management has arranged separate meetings with all partners. The research activities reached a high level in 2013 through a high number of reports, papers, published articles and scientific and public presentations at numerous workshops, seminars and conferences. The two first ZEB PhD candidates finished their thesis work and the public defense. The development of the pilot projects have also been important for the implementation and testing in real full scale. Two ZEB pilot buildings; the ZEB Living Lab and the ZEB Test House, are now under construction at the NTNU Gløshaugen campus. The ZEB Vision formulated in 2008 about eliminating the climate gas emissions from buildings is still valid. The climatic changes challenge the AEC- industry and our modern society. Research and innovation based on cooperation between many partners are vital for success in developing new and refurbished Zero Emission Buildings for the future. Tore Haugen Chairman ZEB Professor NTNU
Summary The vision of The Research Centre on Zero Emission Buildings (ZEB) 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 and 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 200 000 million NOK. The activities in the ZEB Centre are divided in five work packages, these are: WP-1: Advanced material 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 expanding existing laboratories and building new laboratory facilities for development, research and testing of zero emission building technologies. In Work Package 1 the development of new thermal insulation materials has continued. Different synthesis methods have been evaluated, and the focus has been on using hollow silica spheres where the size of the spheres is in the nanometer range. For these hollow nanospheres the heat conductivity may be very low due to the Knudsen effect. The various studies have been on optimization of thermal properties and on the possibility of developing an insulation material with less embodied emissions, which will be important if the material is to be used in zero emission buildings. A state-of-the-art article on available vacuum insulation panels and future perspectives has also been published. Further, new multifunctional coatings for windows have been examined. In Work Package 2 experimental studies in a hot box have been performed to study how a solar shading system can affect the insulation properties of windows. The results show that the venetian blind system studied increases the overall heat loss through the window. Another study has been on the possibility of using vacuum insulation panels (VIP) to thermally insulate an old brick wall on the inside. Experiments have been conducted in a large-scale vertical building envelope climate simulator where rain, relative humidity, solar radiation and temperature can be varied to simulate different climate conditions. The studies show that moisture can accumulate in the wall during specific conditions. However, with careful design and construction the risk of damages to the old structure may be minimized. These studies are performed in collaboration with a PhD candidate from Chalmers University in Sweden. Furthermore, in December 2013 PhD candidate Francesco Goia defended his thesis on dynamic building envelope components and nearly zero energy buildings. Various technologies for energy supply and air conditioning in buildings have been investigated in Work Package 3. One of the studies has been on the use of CO2 heat pump solutions in combination with ice storage in a passive house residential building. The study was conducted on a building and followed by simulations on Modelica. In another study the auxiliary energy used to operate an automation and control system in a passive house office building with demand control on room/zone level has been measured to better understand the environmental impact related to this kind of building operation. A third study, on simplified space heating systems for residential passive houses, has revealed that air heating or a single point heat emitter might give satisfactory indoor thermal conditions in Nordic climates, even for detached two story houses. This, however, requires that the residents use the houses in a right way and that it is not located in the very coldest areas.
ZEB Annual Report 2013
4 of 53
In Work Package 4 research on use and implementation of zero-emission buildings is important. One of the reports from this work package describes the experiences from the design phase of the ZEB pilot project Powerhouse Brattørkaia in Trondheim. The interviews carried out showed that the participants have managed to balance the effectiveness of a traditional division of labour with the learning effects that occur in more timeconsuming workshops, but with wider involvement of all project members. User evaluation of a new external wall solution developed by Weber in Work Package 2 has also been performed. Improvements of the zero emission building definitions and continuation of the pilot and concept building activities in ZEB have been important activities in Work Package 5. Results from this work will be particularly evident in 2014 when the first of ZEB's pilot buildings will be completed, including Powerhouse Kjørbo in Sandvika and ZEB's own Living Lab in Trondheim. PhD candidate Birgit Risholt defended her thesis in June 2013. The title of the thesis is “Zero energy renovation of single family houses". According to the thesis, the market success of zero-energy-renovation depends on housing owners' priorities. The renovation being carried out should not only result in energy savings, but also a better home to live in. Different homeowners have different priorities when it comes to what is important, whether it's appearance or function. This must be reflected in the solutions available for retrofitting to a zero energy level. Furthermore, in 2013 12 PhD candidates are partly/directly funded by the centre, with an additional 5 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 2013
5 of 53
Table of contents SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................................................4 TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................................6 VISION AND GOAL .......................................................................................................................................7 RESEARCH PLAN AND STRATEGIES .........................................................................................................8 Environmental Impact and Security of Supply .......................................................................................8 Innovation ..............................................................................................................................................9 State-of-the-art of Zero Emission Buildings ...........................................................................................9 Research Questions ............................................................................................................................11 A Research Centre for the construction sector ....................................................................................11 ORGANIZATION ..........................................................................................................................................12 Organizational Structure ......................................................................................................................12 Partners ...............................................................................................................................................13 Partner participation and exchange of researchers .............................................................................15 Transfer and utilization of competence and results .............................................................................15 ACTIVITIES..................................................................................................................................................16 Administrative activities .......................................................................................................................16 WP 1: Advanced Material Technologies ..............................................................................................16 WP 2: Climate Adapted, Low Energy Envelope Technologies ............................................................16 WP 3: Energy Supply Systems and Services ......................................................................................16 WP 4: Use, Operation, and Implementation ........................................................................................17 WP 5: Concepts and Strategies for ZEBs ............................................................................................17 Laboratories and Infrastructure ...........................................................................................................17 RESULTS.....................................................................................................................................................20 Heat and Daylight Management of Buildings through Aerogel Windows .............................................20 Multifunctional Coatings for Window Glazings .....................................................................................22 Optimal transparent parts in office building façades in different climates ............................................24 Can protected masonry buildings be turned into ZEBs?......................................................................26 Hourly energy demand of ZEBs – an important input for grid analysis ................................................28 Building bridges – Powerhouse Brattørkaia .........................................................................................30 Passive House at the Crossroads: The past and the present of a voluntary standard that managed to bridge the energy efficiency gap ..........................................................................................32 Advanced insulation materials for energy retrofitting of buildings: aerogel and vacuum insulation panels ......................................................................................................................................34 Powerhouse Kjørbo – the first ZEB pilot building:................................................................................36 INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION .............................................................................................................38 RECRUITMENT ...........................................................................................................................................39 COMMUNICATION AND DISSEMINATION ................................................................................................40 A2 – STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS ............................................................................................................45 A3 – PUBLICATIONS ..................................................................................................................................47
ZEB Annual Report 2013
6 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 2013
The ZEB pilot building FLO Håkonsvern, Bergen, Illustration: Forsvarsbygg and LINK Arkitektur
7 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 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 2013
8 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 Even though there have been a lot of work internationally the last years, there is still no common international understanding or agreed-upon definition of a zero (greenhouse gas) emission building9,10,11. 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”12. 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 grid13. Thus, on a yearly basis, their energy demand is outweighed by the amount of renewable energy that they feed into the electricity grid. In Norway, through the ZEB Centre, several zero emission building projects are under way, and the first ones will be finished in 2014.
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 Dokka, T.H., Sartori, I., Thyholt, M., Lien, K., Lindberg, K.B. A Norwegian Zero Emission Building Definition, Proceedings of Passivhus Norden, 2013. 12 Voss, K. et al.: “Building Energy Concepts with Photovoltaics – Concepts and Examples from Germany”, Advances in Solar Energy, Vol. 15, 2002, ASES. 13 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 2013
9 of 53
“Zero energy” in the interpretation of a fully autonomous energy supply for a building with locally available sources only, has also been demonstrated14. So far, this concept has not proved to be technically, economically or environmentally viable in view of wide scale application 13,14,15. 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. In Norway, it is expected that the passive house standard will be the minimum requirement in 2015. 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)16, aerogels17, phase change materials (PCM)18, nano insulation materials (NIM)19, smart windows20, various advanced glazing and window technologies21, building integrated photovoltaics (BIPV) and development of new solar cell technologies22. Research is also being carried out on space heating distribution modelling tools23, energy carrier and peak power optimization analysis tools24, and membrane based heat recovery units25,26. Addressing the climate ageing, durability and CO2 emissions of new materials and solutions are also important tasks27. 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 sector28,29. Thus, our zero emission buildings have to be designed to meet the challenges of potential future climate change. Some researchers have begun to investigate the challenge of low energy buildings in future climates30,31, 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.
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. 16 M. J. Tenpierik, ”Vacuum insulation panels applied in building constructions (VIP ABC)”, Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 2009. 17 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. 18 M. F. Demirbas, ”Thermal energy storage and phase change materials: An overview”, Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning and Policy, 1, 85 95, 2006 19 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. 20 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. 21 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 22 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. 23 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. 24 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. 25 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. 26 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. 27 B. P. Jelle, ”Accelerated Climate Ageing of Building Materials, Components and Structures in the Laboratory”, Journal of Materials Science, 47, 6475-6496, 2012. 28 Lisø, K.R. et al.: ”Preparing for climate change impacts in Norway’s built environment”, Building Research and Information, 31 (3-4), , 2003. 29 Roberts, S. “Effects of climate change on the built environment”, Energy Policy, Article in Press, 2008, Elsevier. 30 Nazaroff, W.W.: “Climate change, building energy use and indoor environmental quality”, Indoor Air, Vol. 18, No 4, 2008, Blackwell Publishing. 31 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. 14 15
ZEB Annual Report 2013
10 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.
ZEB Annual Report 2013
11 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 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 2013
12 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: Chief Scientist, PhD Berit Time, SINTEF Buildings and Infrastructure WP-3: Professor, PhD Hans Martin Mathisen, Dept. of Energy and Process Engineering, NTNU WP-4: Professor, PhD Thomas Berker, Dept. of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture, NTNU WP-5: Research Manager, PhD Birgit Risholt, 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 2013
13 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. SAPA Building 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. 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
ZEB Annual Report 2013
14 of 53
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. 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) NAL (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 Industry partners take active part in many of the research and development activities in the centre. Examples are pilot building development (e.g. the Powerhouse Kjørbo, Multicomfort and Aadland pilot projects), ZEB definition work, and material and building component development (e.g. development of a new concrete building system). Materials from some of the material producers will also be used in some of the pilot projects. 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, where new solutions and products are tested. During 2013 researchers also started to work for one of the ZEB partners.
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. Exchange of personnel between collaborating 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 2013
15 of 53
Activities Administrative activities WP 1: Advanced Material Technologies Goal: Development of new and innovative materials and solutions, as well as improvements of the current state-of-the-art technologies. The main activities in WP 1 in 2013 have been:
Evaluation of Embodied Energy and Carbon Dioxide Emissions for Building Construction Development of nano insulation materials (NIMs) Development of glass materials with reduced weight and improved light transmittance Investigations of properties of transparent materials and solutions for future buildings Development of advanced coatings for windows Investigations of transparent pigments for application on aluminium surfaces
Activities on aerogel windows and new coatings for windows are further described in the results 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 (roof, walls and floors) that will give the least possible heat loss and at the same time reduced need for cooling. In 2013 the main research activities have been:
Investigations of old brick walls with vacuum insulation panels (VIP) Development of light-weigth wooden walls with U-value of 0.10-0.12 W/m2K Development of encapsulated VIP Solutions Development of a window solution with U-value below 0.55 W/m2K
The activity on old brick walls with VIP and results from one of the PhD candidates are presented in the next chapter.
WP 3: Energy Supply Systems and Services Goal: Development of new solutions for energy supply systems and building services systems with reasonable energy and indoor environment performance appropriate for zero emission buildings, The main activities in 2013 in WP 3 have been:
Development of an early decision support tool for selection of renewable energy carriers Studies of the effect of super-insulated envelopes on heating and cooling performance Studies of the interaction between zero emission buildings and the grid Development of a membrane-based energy recovery system Studies of demand controlled and low-pressure ventilation Investigations of new concepts for internal exchange of heat energy in buildings (Solar-T, HP, storage) Development of heat pump concepts for net zero energy buildings
ZEB Annual Report 2013
16 of 53
In the results chapter a CO2 heat pump system and hourly energy demand as input for grid analyses are presented.
WP 4: Use, Operation, and Implementation Goal: Development of knowledge and tools which assure usability and acceptance, maintainability and efficiency, and implementation of ZEBs. In 2013 the main activities in WP 4 have been:
Early user testing of sandwich elements with vacuum insulation core Literature study of behavioural interventions in non-residential buildings Empirical study of bottom-up innovation in sustainable facilities management Study of experts' roles between research and practice in the Swiss construction sector State of the art report: Studies of the performative role of economic calculations Study of the early design phase in one of ZEB’s pilot buildings Empirical study of controversies around buildings with high environmental ambitions
The study of the early design phase of one of ZEB's pilot buildings and the study of experts' roles between research and practice 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 research activities in 2013 in WP 5 have been: Development of a revised zero emission buildings definition, with focus on material emissions Further development of zero emission building concepts for office and residential buildings Participation in design and development of pilot buildings (seven pilot buildings are being developed, and construction of some of them started in 2013) Participation in the standardisation work for implementation of near zero, zero energy and plus energy buildings in Norwegian standards Aerogel and vacuum insulation panels for energy retrofitting of buildings and powerhouse Kjørbo – the first ZEB pilot building are further described in the results chapter.
Laboratories and Infrastructure Goal: Development and operation of building laboratories for investigation, testing and demonstration of new and innovative building technologies. ZEB researchers have performed research in the following laboratories: Advanced Material Technologies Laboratory Climate and Building Technologies Laboratory Energy and Environmental Laboratory
ZEB Annual Report 2013
17 of 53
Several experiments have been and are being carried out in these facilities, both within the ZEB Centre and within other projects. E.g. the turnable hot box has been used in several experiments, especially in WP 2 and in collaboration with ZEB partners. New tests are waiting in line. The following laboratories have been further developed Full Scale Test Cell Laboratory Living Laboratory Pilot Building Measurement In Situ Laboratory The construction of the two test buildings, ZEB Test Cell and ZEB Living Laboratory, has started. The buildings will be used for studies of user-technology interaction and research on interconnected zero emission building technologies. The laboratory facilities are 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.
Figure 1. ZEB Test Cell floor plan (Illustration: Bodil Angard Rian, Bergersen Arkitekter AS).
ZEB Annual Report 2013
18 of 53
ZEB Annual Report 2013
19 of 53
Results Results from the research activity are presented as a selection of nine short articles.
Heat and Daylight Management of Buildings through Aerogel Windows Tao Gao (NTNU), Bjørn Petter Jelle (SINTEF and NTNU), and Anne Gunnarshaug Lien (SINTEF) Background and Objective Windows as a building element allow light, fresh air, and solar energy to enter the living area and offer an irreplaceable indoor–outdoor interaction, thus having a huge impact on the occupant comfort. On the other hand, windows usually have a larger thermal transmittance (U-value) than those of walls or roofs, and constitute up to about 50 % of the total energy loss through the building envelope. In addition, shading devices are often required for clear glass windows due to e.g. reduction of cooling loads and glare, and for privacy purposes. It is therefore important to develop new glazing technologies for a better control of solar radiation through the window aperture, thereby reducing the corresponding heating, cooling, and lighting demands in buildings. It is also important to maximize the visual and thermal comfort of users. Aerogel Glazing Unit An aerogel glazing unit (AGU) has been assembled by incorporating aerogel granules into the cavity of a double glazing unit (Fig.1). Experimental results indicate that the AGUs are promising with respect to heat and daylight management through windows. Moreover, the optical and thermal properties of AGUs are significantly affected by the particle size of the employed aerogel granules. For example, compared to a conventional double glazing, a 58% reduction in heat losses (U-value) and a 38% reduction in (visible) light transmittance were achieved by AGUs with large aerogel granules (AeroWIN-1, particle size 3–5 mm); for AGUs with smallsized aerogel granules (AeroWIN-2, particle size < 0.5 mm), the reduction was 63% in heat losses, but 81 % in light transmittance (Fig.2). Note that a closer packing and compression of aerogel granules may lead to problems with open air cavities at the top of the aerogel windows. The importance of particle size will call for an optimization of not only the synthesis of aerogel granules, but also the assembly of high performance AGUs towards practical applications. Diffuse versus Specular Traditional clear glass windows represent a typical specular glazing technology, which can provide an unblocked view through the window aperture, hence important for the visual comfort of users. However, the visual comfort may also come along with problems such as glare, high contrast zones, solar overheating, and privacy aspects, therefore requiring further compensation technologies such as e.g. shading devices. In contrast, AGUs are translucent and a diffuse glazing technology, which enables the visible solar radiation to spread uniformly within the living area, and may thus reduce the potential glare problem (Fig.3). However, note that when aerogel is exposed to direct solar radiation, glare problems may occur, especially for slim aerogel window thicknesses. The solar radiation will diffuse in the aerogel surface and may result in a shining aperture
ZEB Annual Report 2013
20 of 53
that can be too bright to look directly at. Diffuse daylight is nevertheless preferred at many locations and the use of AGUs in a good daylight design may then be a nice alternative to diffusing glass.
Fig.1. Photo of (left) aerogel granules and (right) an assembled aerogel glazing unit.
Fig.2. Comparison between a double glazing reference (left) and AGUs with large (middle) and small (right) aerogel granules.
Fig.3. Comparison between specular clear glass glazing (left) and diffuse AGUs (right) in a small cardboard box model house.
ZEB Annual Report 2013
21 of 53
Multifunctional Coatings for Window Glazings Tao Gao (NTNU), Bjørn Petter Jelle (NTNU and SINTEF), and Arild Gustavsen (NTNU) Background and Objective The application of manufactured nanomaterials (MNM) in building sector has attracted considerable attention in recent years due to the fact that various vital characteristics of construction materials, such as strength and durability, can be greatly enhanced, and, more importantly, new and useful properties can be imposed by using MNMs. Self-cleaning (SC) and antireflection (AR) are two important properties that have potential applications in e.g. window glazing. The SC and AR functions can be readily achieved with hollow silica nanospheres (HSNS), which are also known for their predominant thermal insulation properties. The application of HSNSs as a multifunctional coating material for window glazing application is obviously worth pursuing. Antireflection effect of HSNS AR effect at any interface is related to the refractive index contrast between the two materials forming the interface. This creates a strong demand for new glass or coating materials that have refractive indices much lower than those of conventional glazing materials (e.g. nglass ≈ 1.5) since air or other gases typically have refractive indices of ~ 1. The fact that most of the solid materials have relatively large refractive indices of > 1.3 suggests the promising potential of using hollow/porous structures, of which the refractive indices are reduced due to the presence of air cavities. Fig.1 shows a ~ 20 % AR effect from a layer of HSNSs deposited on glass substrate. Self-cleaning effect of HSNS SC effect represents an interesting and useful function for window glazing, as it can reduce the amount of detergents and water used for cleaning exterior glazing, thereby also reducing negative environmental consequences. SC effect can be reached with two different coating systems: photocatalytic hydrophilic coatings (e.g. TiO2) and superhydrophobic coatings. A superhydrophobic surface can be readily obtained by modifying the surface of HSNSs, which involves the reaction between the surface hydroxyls with -CF groups (Fig.2). The dust accumulation that sticks at such hydrophobic surfaces can be washed away by rain. Durability of HSNS SC AR coatings As one of the most important façade components, window glazing is intended to last for 20–50 years without significant degradation in performance (i.e. thermal, optical, and mechanical properties). Therefore, any coatings applied to window glazing shall have a reasonably good long-term durability or stability. A good adherence between HSNS and the glass substrate is very important to ensure a satisfactory long-term durability of the HSNS SC AR coating. It is found that annealing the [email protected]
spheres at high temperature results in the formation of a “hard” HSNS coating on glass, where the stability of the HSNS/glass interface can
ZEB Annual Report 2013
22 of 53
be significantly enhanced, compared to the “soft” coatings made by, e.g. spin coating or layer-by-layer assembly (Fig.3). 30
3 25 20
1: glass 2: PS/glass 3: SiO2 coated PS/glass
4: HSNSs/glass 10 5
1 4 500
Wavelength (nm) Fig.1. Reflectance spectra of plain glass, polystyrene (PS) template, SiO2 coated PS, and HSNSs for comparison.
Fig.2. Photographs of water droplets on (left) plain glass and (right) HSNS AR coating after surface hydrophobization.
Fig.3. Photographs of a peel adhesion test by using 3M tapes. HSNS AR coatings prepared by (a) spin coating and (b) spin coating followed with an annealing at 550°C for 3 hours. Arrows indicate the edge between the original (untouched) and the test (tape removal) area. Scale bar = 1 mm.
ZEB Annual Report 2013
23 of 53
Optimal transparent parts in office building façades in different climates Goia, Francesco (NTNU) The façade can be considered the simplest technology for solar energy harvesting of a building. In fact, thanks to the balance between the transparent components and the opaque ones, as well to the use of solar shading systems, or the integration of technologies for solar energy exploitation, the façade can, respectively, control the heat loss, manage the solar heat gain, and convert solar irradiance into thermal energy or electricity. Prefabricated façades are becoming more and more popular in office and commercial buildings, giving the chance for advanced façade modules to be produced on a large scale. The research from the PhD work of Francesco Goia (Goia 2013) is thus aimed at investigating how the optimal configuration of a façade module is affected by the climate and to identify the optimal façade module configuration32 for each climate. Only one parameter of the façade module’s configuration is investigated in this analysis – i.e. the transparent-to-opaque ratio, also called the window-to-wall ratio, WWR. All the other possible variables (e.g. the adopted materials, the glazing type, the solar shading system and its activation strategy) are kept constant. The final goal of this investigation is to define ready-to-use information to façade manufacturers and practitioners about the “average” configuration of a façade module, for an “average” office building, in different European climates. The actual optimal configuration depends on the exact characteristics of the office building and on a large number of boundary conditions, but this investigation can provide a rule-of-thumb to be used during the preliminary design stage. The optimal configuration is searched for in four different climates across Europe. An integrated modelling approach is used, coupling thermal and lighting simulations, in a total energy perspective. All the four main orientations are investigated, and robustness of the solutions is also checked against different HVAC system efficiencies and in buildings with different Surface Area over Volume ratios (SA:V). The results demonstrate that each climate requires a dedicated optimized solution, though it is shown that the façade configuration (i.e. the WWR) has a moderate impact on the total energy need of the low energy office building. In Fig. 1, the optimal configuration of the façade module is therefore given by the WWR where the minimum value of function is found. Placing the focus on the Nordic climate – i.e. Oslo (Fig. 1) – it is possible to see that the optimal WWR for a south-facing façade module lies between 0.5 and 0.6 (meaning that 50-60% of the façade is transparent), while for all the other orientations, the optimal configuration is around 0.4. The south-exposed façade is the one with the lowest energy need, thanks to the solar heat gains and to the daylight.
In this paper, the term “optimal configuration” refers to that configuration that minimizes, on a yearly basis, the sum of the energy demand for heating, cooling and lighting. ZEB Annual Report 2013
24 of 53
The reliability of the results has also been checked against different Surface Area to Volume ratios (Fig. 2) and against different HVAC systems efficiencies (Fig. 3). Although only the south-exposed façade is shown in this paper for the sake of brevity, similar results are obtained for the other orientations. As far as the sensitivity against the HVAC efficiency is concerned, a change (+25% or -25%) in the efficiency of the heating system does not affect the optimal WWR, regardless of the climate where the office building is located or of the façade orientation. A change in the efficiency in the cooling system will, on the contrary, determine a different optimal WWR in the south-exposed façade, in all the climates, with a stronger effect as the location moves southward.
Fig. 1. Yearly operational total energy as a function of WWR.
Fig. 2. Yearly operational total energy demand as a function of WWR (south façade) for different SA:V.
Fig. 3. Yearly operational total energy demand as a function of WWR (south façade): comparison between different HVAC efficiencies (SCOPh +/-25%, SCOPc +/- 25%) .
Reference: Goia, Francesco. Dynamic Building Envelope Components and nearly Zero Energy Buildings. Doctoral thesis at NTNU, 2013:364, Norway, 2013.
ZEB Annual Report 2013
25 of 53
Can protected masonry buildings be turned into ZEBs? Pär Johansson (Chalmers) Existing buildings In Europe, the majority of the future building stock has already been built. The turnover in the building stock is low since the existing buildings fulfil a large part of the future housing needs. However, the increasing pressure to move towards ZEBs and to reduce the CO2 emissions and energy use in general results in an urgent need for energy efficiency measures in the existing building stock. Interior retrofitting Retrofitting of an exterior wall changes the hygrothermal performance of the wall. If it is not properly done, this could lead to damages and in the worst case building failure. When adding insulation to the exterior, the existing structure is kept in a warm and dry condition which is beneficial from a moisture point of view. However, many old buildings, in particular brick buildings, are considered to be of great historical value and are listed for their exterior appearance, and exterior insulation is not permitted. Hence, the only adequate solution to retrofit the walls of these buildings is to add interior insulation. Climate exposure and risk of damage When retrofitting old buildings, the prerequisites are given by the existing construction. The intermediate floors in old brick buildings are often carried by wooden beams which are embedded in the brick. Mold and dry rot can damage the wooden beams, and the risk for that is higher when interior insulation is added because of the higher relative humidity in the wall. Driving rain can contribute to rising of the moisture content in the wall and wooden beam ends, increasing the risk for moisture damages. Also, air leakages from the interior into the area around the wooden beam ends can transport moist air from the interior, raising the moisture content even further. Unprotected brick walls may also have freeze-thaw damages. A large scale experimental study In cooperation with Chalmers Technical University a PhD-project (Johansson 2014) has performed a large scale laboratory study where a brick wall with wooden beam ends was thermally insulated with VIPs on the interior. A parametric study was performed using hygrothermal numerical simulations to evaluate the influences by the climate, the thickness of the wall, and the properties of the brick and mortar on the moisture content in the wall. Based on these results, the wall was built and tested in a large-scale building envelope climate simulator. The wall was exposed to driving rain on the exterior surface and a temperature gradient. It was expected that the moisture content would increase in the wall with VIPs on the interior. However, the measurements showed that there was no significant difference between the cases with and without VIPs. Careful design From this it can be concluded that a substantial energy use reduction can be achieved when using VIPs in old buildings. With a careful design and construction process, the risk of damages to the old structure and the VIP can be minimized.
Reference: Johansson, P. Building Retrofit using Vacuum Insulation Panels: Hygrothermal Performance and Durability, Doctoral thesis at Chalmers University of Technology, ISSN 0346-718X; nr 3657, Sweden. ZEB Annual Report 2013
26 of 53
The wall under construction
Below: The large-scale building envelope climate simulator in the laboratory of NTNU and SINTEF Building and Infrastructure with the brick wall installed between the interior and exterior climate chambers
Cross section of wall
ZEB Annual Report 2013
27 of 53
Hourly energy demand of ZEBs – an important input for grid analysis Karen Byskov Lindberg (NTNU) Zero Emission or Zero Energy Buildings (ZEB) constitute an important step towards a holistic and integrated renewable energy system. However, the ZEB concept encompasses a new way of how we perceive the energy system as the energy flows are no longer only flowing from central energy producers to small end consumers. With the introduction of ZEBs, each energy consumer is additionally an energy producer, which means that the energy system is changing towards a system with many thousands of small distributed generation (DG)33 units, and with the energy flowing both to and from each customer. In this context the consumers – or ZEBs – are most likely taking advantage of the possibility of managing and controlling their own energy consumption and production through energy management systems (EMS) within the building. With the deployment of automatic metering systems (AMS), customers may be exposed to a real time electricity price, changing hour by hour, making it profitable to increase consumption (i.e. turning on the washing machine) or store energy in local energy storages when prices in the electricity market are low. At other hours, when prices are high, it is profitable to reduce consumption (turning off electric equipment, or heat) or to drain the energy storage. This concept of the energy system described here is also a part of what is known as smart grids. In our work we are investigating the effects (advantages and disadvantages) of introducing highly energy efficient and energy producing buildings, with the possibility of controlling their energy flows, into the energy system. The first step in this work has been to determine the energy demand of ZEB buildings at a high time resolution level, gaining hourly electricity and heat load profiles, as the predicted hourly load profiles form the basis of the energy management system within the buildings. There are several ways of obtaining such load profiles, either through simulation by use of building models, or through hourly measured energy consumption data of existing buildings by use of statistical analysis. As the main question of our work is to analyze how the load profile of Norwegian building stock will change from today’s profiles, it was important to use measured consumption data, and thus the latter approach was applied. In the published work, a model for heat demand is developed and tested on school buildings. Measured hourly electricity and heat consumption data from 1.1.2009 - 31.12.2011 was collected with the help of the company Entro. Out of 56 school buildings, 26 buildings were identified to have suitable measurements and were selected for the analysis. The schools are located in the following cities: Bergen, Hamar, Kristiansand, Namsos, Nærøy, Porsgrunn, Skien, Sør-Odal, Trondheim, Oslo, Østre-Toten and Drammen. Together with the energy data, Entro also provided building specific data such as building size, e.g. heated floor area (m2). ZEB buildings are assumed to have the passive energy standard. Measured hourly energy data for passive schools in Norway have been hard to collect. Only one passive school in Drammen had hourly energy measurements over a three-year period. The data was collected with the kind help of Drammen Eiendom KF. After fitting the model, it is possible to predict heat consumption for “average” schools, and for “passive” schools separately based on the same outdoor temperature. In this way, the change of the heat load profiles when going from an average school building in Norway to a passive school building, when situated in the same geographical location, is determined.
Also called Distributed Energy Resources (DER).
ZEB Annual Report 2013
28 of 53
Figure 2 shows predicted heat demand profiles for a typical week in winter, using hourly outdoor temperatures
20 15 10 5 0 ‐5 ‐10 ‐15 ‐20
60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Passive Sch. Average Sch. Temperature
1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101 111 121 131 141 151 161
Heat demand (W/m2)
in Drammen. From the input data it was registered that the annual heat consumption was reduced by 60 % when comparing the average of the 26 school buildings to the passive school building in Drammen. Further, the prediction model shows that the heat peak demand and the maximum amplitude of the heat load profile are reduced by 50 %.
Figure 2 Predicted heat demand for a typical week in winter. Average school buildings and passive school building. (Wh/h per m2 floor area).
Summed up, a regression model for heat demand profiles of non-residential buildings is developed and tested on Norwegian school buildings. The main findings are that heat consumption in passive buildings is halved compared to normal school buildings both in terms of yearly energy demand and in terms of peak loads. Demand profiles of other non-residential buildings such as offices, nursery homes, kindergartens and hospitals are to be developed with a similar approach, and this work is in progress.
ZEB Annual Report 2013
29 of 53
Building bridges – Powerhouse Brattørkaia Lillian Strand and Torill Meistad (NTNU) Powerhouse Brattørkaia (earlier called Powerhouse One) is a building project initiated to prove that energypositive buildings can be built in Norway. Energy-positive buildings produce more energy than they consume over the lifespan of the building. It was conceived by the "Powerhouse alliance", established specifically to develop the market for energy-positive buildings by demonstrating their technical and commercial viability. Partners in the alliance include Entra Eiendom, Skanska, Snøhetta, ZERO, Hydro, Sapa and Asplan Viak. Each partner in the alliance has a specific area of expertise. In addition, The Research Centre on Zero Emission Buildings (the ZEB Centre) has been an important contributor in planning of the buildings, with knowledge in many key areas and to make sure that the high ambitions levels were kept. The challenge is to combine existing knowledge and available technology into a solution that is commercially sustainable. This study uses interviews with nine project participants to identify the characteristics and lessons learnt from the planning process of Powerhouse Brattørkaia. Particular attention has been given to explaining how the interdisciplinary work processes and integrated design method applied in the project have contributed to the final concept of the building. The alliance partners have not made it easy for themselves by setting a very ambitious target for the building. Harvesting renewable energy on site and compensating for embodied energy in a building as far north as Trondheim is a challenge that brought motivation and fun to the work. The participants have enjoyed the opportunity to learn something new with other inspiring experts. It was reported as being rewarding for the individuals as well as for their organizations to be part of pushing the front of environmentally friendly buildings in Norway. The project managers from Snøhetta applied the integrated design method to develop and test possible solutions for the building and its energy systems. Focus has been on getting all relevant knowledge on the table as early as possible, to avoid wast of time on concepts that were not relevant. Most participants said that they had no or little experience with interdisciplinary collaboration based on large workshops and specialized working groups prior to Powerhouse Brattørkaia. The nine participants interviewed described a high level of mutual learning and trust. Above all they underlined that the integrated solutions developed for the project could not have been the result without the collective work done in the workshops. Although workshops are time consuming and limiting in terms of specialized discussions, they agreed that the advantage was that concepts and solutions were tested early in the process. Decisions taken after plenary discussions built consensus for the chosen solutions. The project manager responsible for the progress and overall organization of the process coordinated the specialized groups who worked between the four workshops. Due to a shared vision, the knowledge of the partners’ areas and researchers from the ZEB Centre, and increased appreciation of integrated solutions, the partners expected less work to be required in the next stages of the construction process and fewer workshops in consecutive projects. To the surprise of some project members, photovoltaics was found to be the most effective among the various renewable energy technologies considered in this project. Two major knowledge gaps were identified by the interviewees in this context. The first was the integration of energy production elements in dynamic building skins in general and the use of solar energy in particular. The other challenge that was mentioned was to perform the necessary life cycle assessments (LCAs) and analyses, as there is a lack of available data to use in calculation of embodied energy. ZEB Annual Report 2013
30 of 53
All project members interviewed agreed that Powerhouse Brattørkaia will be valuable as a pilot project, proving that energy-positive construction is possible in Norway. Two challenges remained, according to the interviewees: First, in order to realize Powerhouse Brattørkaia, the concept needs to be modified to fit local regulation plans or to be accepted by public authorities. Secondly, the viability of Powerhouse Brattørkaia as a commercial building has to be demonstrated.
Powerhouse Brattørkaia, Trondheim Illustration: Snøhetta/MIR
ZEB Annual Report 2013
31 of 53
Passive House at the Crossroads: The past and the present of a voluntary standard that managed to bridge the energy efficiency gap Liana Müller and Thomas Berker Energy efficiency in dwellings is generally seen as the low hanging fruit of climate change mitigation. In particular, decreased heat loss through better insulation is suggested as one of the most cost-effective means to achieve the ambitious national and international goals of climate gas reduction. In fact, this measure to reduce energy use in buildings has been recommended warmly in a host of publications since the 1970s, and that it is still seen as having a great potential shows that there is a more than 40 years long history of missed opportunities - a phenomena that has been called the energy efficiency gap. Our research seeks to describe how the Passive House standard as a technological innovation has managed to bridge the energy efficiency gap. Building on interviews, document analysis and observation at the Passive House conference in Innsbruck, we followed the creation of the standard, the most relevant steps in its development, and the conditions in which the standard can be exported to other climate conditions and building traditions. Ultimately, the article depicts the role of standards in technological innovation in the construction sector, and shows that the key to success of such standards covers more than a robust technology. The Passive House standard became successful in a certain political and economic contexts. Moreover, the standard competed with other concepts and standards. With Bruno Latour’s concept of immutable mobile, we show how the scientific foundation that stays at the base of the standard was completed by a broad range of technical and non-technical activities, such as the certification of products, dwellings and people, the creation of a protected market niche, and increasing professionalization of the marketing. The creation of the standard facilitated the information transfer. The Passive House Institute (PHI), the calculation tool Passive House Planning Package (PHPP) and the certification schemes built an unavoidable passage point that allowed only certain actors to enter the (niche) market of Passive House, and at the same time it created advantages for the certified products also outside this market. Moreover, the invisible ties that kept the Passive House actors together allowed them to meet and communicate, and in this way to create a community of like-minded peers. The strict quality assurance and the engagement of the participants reduced uncertainty and created trust among clients and possible users. However, the Passive House story is long from over. It is now extended to other climate conditions and building traditions, where the standard meets resistance. E.g., Norway and Sweden adopted the concept, but created new standards that fit the local technical, social, legislative, economic and climatic conditions better. This deviates from the strict version of Passive House certification promoted by the PHI and raises questions regarding the possibility to export the immutable mobile Passive House without distortion. We describe two possible scenarios for the near future: either the passive houses become a matter of fact and are implemented as the standard proposed by the PHI, or the PHI willingly or unwillingly allows for flexible adaptability. In the first case, the PHI would keep the exclusive right to decide the development of the standard, but would hinder a broader diffusion. In the second case, the coexistence of multiple certification agencies, each with their own priorities, would create a broader, though looser, network, having as base rather the basic passive house principles than the actual Passive House standard. The Passive House standard is a success story, not necessarily due to the numbers of passive houses built all over the world, but more because of its impact on technological innovation in the construction sector. Especially in Europe the passive houses were chosen as a reference standard for technical requirements (e.g. the case of Norway), or as prime examples for energy efficient dwellings (Vorarlberg in Austria). However, the success resides in the common efforts of all actors involved in the creation, implementation and development
ZEB Annual Report 2013
32 of 53
of the standard, completed by a story, almost a myth, where the Passive House becomes the way towards sustainable development in the building sector due to the guaranteed energy efficiency and a strict quality control of the passive houses.
ZEB Annual Report 2013
33 of 53
Advanced insulation materials for energy retrofitting of buildings: aerogel and vacuum insulation panels Nicola Lolli (NTNU/SINTEF), Anne Grete Hestnes (NTNU) The use of aerogel and vacuum insulation panels (VIPs) as insulation materials in buildings is recent. Their highly efficient insulation properties have opened a path towards lighter and thinner construction in energy retrofitting, whereas commercially available materials, such as EPS and mineral wool, result in massive wall solutions. These characteristics are extremely advantageous because the current national codes for energy efficiency in buildings in Scandinavian countries requires high insulation levels for walls, roofs, and basements. Vacuum insulation panels are at the present time a promising solution for energy retrofitting. This is mostly due to the extremely low thermal conductivity condensed in a thin light-weight panel. A VIP panel consists of an airtight envelope containing an open-micro-pore core in which a low-pressure gas is trapped. Fumed silica or silicon dioxide (SiOx) is used for the core material because of its very low thermal conductivity. The air water vapour tightness of the core is secured by a multi-layered film, which completely wraps the silica core. The thermal conductivity of the composed panel varies from 0.004 W/mK to 0.008 W/mK due to ageing effects. The thermal conductivity of mineral wool is typically 0.037 W/mK and of EPS 0.034 W/mK. Silica-based aerogels have interesting physical properties, which make this material one of the best insulating materials that also is flexible in terms of how it can be used in the building sector. The structure constituting the skeleton of the aerogel, called gel, is a three-dimensional sponge-like network of particles made by condensing particles that are dispersed in a liquid solution, called sol. To obtain the final product from this solgel compound, the liquid part is substituted with air through various processes. A commercially available product by Aspen consists in a gel structure made to adhere to a fibre matrix, in order to strengthen its tensile properties. This can be used for walls insulation and has a typical thermal conductivity of 0.014 W/mK. Given the above-described characteristics of VIP and aerogel, these materials are so far among the most promising new technologies for energy savings in buildings. Their application in energy retrofitting and new construction promotes the use of thinner constructions. This might be particularly advantageous in energy retrofitting, when the new construction has to be attached to an existing structure. In addition, a thinner construction reduces the cost of transportation of the components, and the cost associated to their dismantling and disposal. Finally, a thinner wall construction allows a higher amount of sunlight, regardless of the glazing area. However, production of these materials is very energy intensive and their greenhouse gas emissions per kg are higher than those for the production of a conventional insulation material. These are for aerogel four times and for VIP eight times higher than the emissions for the production of a kg of mineral wool. The objective of the European 20-20-20 climate and energy target, which is is part of the wider roadmap to a European low-carbon economy by 2050, goes beyond the assessment of the energy use in the European building stock and includes a 20% reduction in EU greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels. In such a perspective, the use of insulation materials such as aerogel and VIP needs to be evaluated by comparing the advantages given by the higher energy savings and the disadvantages due to the high embodied emissions. This work describes a comprehensive greenhouse gas analysis of the use of three different insulation materials (mineral wool, aerogel, and VIP) applied to residential building upgrades to the passive house standard. It estimates the potential environmental disadvantages of using such materials in energy retrofitting. The realized renovation of a social housing complex from the late 1960s, located in Oslo, is used as reference building. The building was upgraded to the passive house standard, with facades with a U-value of 0.12 W/m2K and with a 70% reduction in yearly energy demand. A further upgrade of the insulation levels of the facades is proposed by reducing the wall thermal conductivity to a U-value of 0.10 W/m2K. This is achieved by
ZEB Annual Report 2013
34 of 53
applying correspondingly appropriate thicknesses of mineral wool, aerogel and vacuum insulation. A cradle-tograve analysis is then performed on the facade components to determine the greenhouse gas emissions of each proposed insulation option. The calculation of the emissions from the building energy use is done by using the European electricity-CO2 conversion factor. Results for the energy demand of the building show that the improved insulation layer saves up to 2% of the yearly energy demand for all the proposed insulation alternatives. The results of the greenhouse gas analysis show that the alternatives with VIP have approximately 3% higher CO2 emissions than the mineral wool solution, which is, on the other hand, equivalent to the reference building. In such a perspective, the energy savings achieved in the alternative with mineral wool and a higher insulation value are lost due to the embodied emissions of the increased thickness of the insulation layer. The alternative with aerogel has 2% higher emissions than the alternative with mineral wool. In conclusion, the analysis shows that any of the three proposed insulation alternatives is a viable option in terms of total lifecycle emissions. However, some considerations have to be taken into account. The service life of VIP and aerogel was set in this work as the same as the building lifetime. Although a 50year service life is realistic for mineral wool, this might not be the case for VIP and aerogel. It is likely, but not yet thoroughly studied, that these materials have a service life shorter than 50 years. In such a perspective, the use of aerogel and VIP has little advantage. Moreover, the cost per m2 of aerogel and VIP is much higher than that of mineral wool, and this, in addition to the short service life, has a considerable impact. Finally, the emissions per kg for the production of aerogel and VIP are higher than those for the mineral wool. In a future perspective of a greener power grid and if no improvement in the efficiency of the production of aerogel and VIP is considered, the choice of these materials for building insulation might be environmentally worse than using mineral wool.
GHG emissions for retrofitting alternatives for the 50-year lifetime scenario. The bars show the Embodied Emissions (EE), the emissions from energy use for operation using the the European energy mix (BOP EU), and the emissions from the end-of-life treatment (M+EOL). All values are normalized to 1 m2 of heated building area for 1 year.
ZEB Annual Report 2013
35 of 53
Powerhouse Kjørbo – the first ZEB pilot building: Bjørn Jensen and Tor Helge Dokka (Skanska) The renovation project Powerhouse Kjørbo is a ZEB pilot building project. During the life cycle of the building, renewable energy harvested on or near the buildings will compensate for energy used for operating the buildings and for the energy used for making and maintaining the materials and technical systems applied during the life cycle. The energy production on the building site will in certain periods result in surplus energy that will be used by other buildings on the site. Powerhouse is also called a plus energy building. Combining very ambitious energy performance with good indoor climate, low environmental impact and robust solutions on commercial terms requires a different approach than in traditional building projects. The key to success lies in integrated, holistic design. This requires coordination, expert knowledge and a holistic perspective. "Less is more" is a good term, but achieving "more" with "less" requires multidisciplinary knowledge. This is reflected in the technology concepts that have been chosen in the project. The floor plans of Powerhouse Kjørbo are easy to divide into appropriate ventilation zones by using air flowing from more polluted areas to less polluted areas. The work places are located close to the facades, which give good access to daylight and the ability to control the indoor climate by window airing. Regarding the need for space heating, the quality of the building envelope is very important. The new Powerhouse Kjørbo facade is similar to the old one, but it has larger windows, is far better insulated and is very air tight. Other key parameters for the design of the facades are daylight, views, solar shading / sun protection, reduction of embodied energy and the possibility for natural ventilation. Energy systems (heating, ventilation, cooling and lighting) must be planned with a focus on using energy only when there is need for it and at the same time on reducing the number of sensors and controls to a minimum. The sensors measure the presence of occupants, the daylight conditions and the temperature where it is appropriate. The building management system controls the airflow, the lighting and the temperatures. To reduce the air speed and pressure drop as much as possible, the supply, extract and exhaust ducts in the central existing shaft has been removed, and the shaft is converted to a building integrated air supply. The air is taken in through the north façade and treated directly in an air handling unit with a spaciously designed rotary heat recovery unit. The heat recovery unit has a bypass function to avoid unnecessary pressure drop when not needed. If needed, a spaciously dimensioned heat exchanger placed downstream provides free cooling in summer, or preheating via the ground sourced heat pump in winter. From the air handling unit the supply air is sent to the shaft for distribution. The supply fan maintains the overpressure in the shaft at 20 Pa, which assures sufficient capacity to cover the ventilation demand even at peak load. Another special solution is that the exhaust fan is controlled by the need for heat recovery. This means that the balanced ventilation is run only when full recovery is needed. When the exhaust fan speed is reduced due to reduced need for heat recovery, excess return air is let out through automatically controlled windows in the central stairwell, and eventually also through other windows opened by the users. The low heating demand has resulted in a radiator system that is limited to a few large units located centrally in the open plan office. This results in reduced need for piping, leading to reduced heat loss, reduced pump operation, fewer components, less embodied energy and reduced costs. Exposed concrete in ceilings and floors reduces temperature fluctuations and makes it possible to avoid mechanical cooling. During the summer, night cooling may be used to cool the building. This means that acoustic ceilings could not be used and that other solutions were necessary to ensure satisfactory acoustic
ZEB Annual Report 2013
36 of 53
conditions. Acoustic baffles, absorbents on interior walls and thoughtful floor plans with regard to sound transmission are examples of actions taken. Central issues for lighting are use of daylight, energy efficient lighting and optimal light control. The lighting will be controlled by presence detectors and daylight sensors locally in each zone. A typical lighting zone will be around 15 m2 in the open plan office and serve a maximum of four people. Ten 200 m deep wells are drilled, where the fluid is circulated in a closed circuit. The temperate liquid is used directly for cooling in summer and as energy source for the heat pumps heat in winter. Two heat pumps are installed and dimensioned to cover the entire heating need for the buildings, including domestic hot water demand. For electricity production, 1550 m2 photovoltaic panels (PV) are installed on the roof. Evaluation of different alternatives for local energy production from renewable sources has shown that PV is the most cost and energy efficient technology available. Embodied energy is usually given very little attention in traditional building project. The calculated embodied energy of Powerhouse Kjørbo is almost equal to the predicted operational energy over the project's life time. The existing load-bearing system of the building is conserved, which reduces the need for energy-intensive load-bearing materials to a minimum. Optimization of technical ducts contributes to low embodied energy for ducts, pipes and other technical systems. The existing facade glass is used for interior walls where possible. Robust materials with low embodied energy and long expected lifetime are used when possible. The siding, made of aspen, has a burned (carbonized) surface (a Japanese technique to prevent rot) and is an example of this. The same applies for the acoustic absorbers in the ceiling, which are made of recycled plastic. Partners in Powerhousealliance are Snøhetta, Skanska , ZERO, Hydro, Entra, Asplan Viak and Sapa. More information about the project can be found on the website: www.powerhouse.no
Powerhouse Kjørbo in Sandvika, Illustration: Snøhetta/MIR
ZEB Annual Report 2013
37 of 53
International Cooperation ZEB focuses most of its international research activities on participation in IEA and EU projects, as this ensures fruitful collaboration within active international networks. ZEB participates in the following tasks and annexes:
IEA EBC Annex 53 Total Energy Use in Buildings: Analysis & Evaluation Methods IEA EBC Annex 57 Evaluation of Embodied Energy and CO2 Emissions for Building Construction IEA EBC Annex 58 Reliable Performance Analysis and Prediction based on Full Scale Measurements IEA SHC Task 40/EBC Annex 52 Towards Net Zero Energy Solar Buildings IEA SHC Task 41 Solar Energy and Architecture IEA SHC Task 51 - Solar Energy in Urban Planning IEA ECES Annex 23 Applying Energy Storage in Ultra-low Energy Buildings IEA HPP Annex 40 Heat Pump Concepts for Nearly ZeroEnergy Buildings
In many of these projects ZEB participants have leading roles, and the projects have already provided valuable research input and results. Examples of on-going EU projects are:
RetroKit – Toolboxes for systemic retrofitting EFFESUS – Energy Efficiency for EU Historic Districts’ Sustainability ZenN – Near Zero energy Neighborhoods RAMSES – Reconciling Adaptation, Mitigation and Sustainable Development for Cities EERA Joint Programme on Smart Cities
In addition to close collaboration with international research organizations, IEA and EU projects facilitate valuable interaction with industry in the other countries involved. 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, including under the new H2020 program. 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 Committee has members from two of these institutions (FhG-ISE, and LNBL). In 2013, the committee met to evaluate the Centre and gave input both to the 2014 work plan and also to the work performed by the PhD candidates. ZEB researchers are continuously active on the international arena, giving talks and lectures at international conferences and meetings as well as participating in various research projects.
ZEB Annual Report 2013
38 of 53
Recruitment In 2013, ZEB got two new work package leaders, for WP 3 and WP 5. Further, ZEB announced 3 new PhD positions (2 in WP1 and 1 in WP4) and 1 post doc position (in WP2) in the autumn of 2013. The new candidates will start in the beginning of 2014. Both the new WP 5 leader and the WP 2 post doc were previously ZEB PhD candidates who successfully defended their PhD theses in 2013. In numbers, there were 11 PhD candidates and 1 post doc working in the ZEB Centre in 2013. In addition 5 PhD candidates are associated with the ZEB Centre, but funded through other projects.
ZEB Annual Report 2013
39 of 53
Communication and Dissemination The ZEB researchers published results can be seen from the attached list of publications with 27 journal papers, 22 published conference papers, 29 conference and seminar presentations incl. posters, 1 popular science article, contribution in 1 book, 9 ZEB reports, 2 PhD theses, 16 MSc reports and 16 media contributions. Communication with focus on making the knowledge developed interesting and accessible for the ZEB partners, the building industry and to the public is also an important goal. Several activities are carried out to achieve this. Ten popular science articles based on research results was presented in a short version of the ZEB Annual report of 201234. This booklet was printed in 250 copies for distribution to partners, to visitors and to participants on conferences and seminars. Two newsletters35,36 were sent out in 2013, and news were also presented on the ZEB web site.
Press releases and other media contributions are presented at the web site under publications and media contributions: http://www.zeb.no/index.php/media-contributions
The ZEB conference 2013 "Hvorfor nullutslippsbygg når Norge flyter over av ren energi?" was held September 4th at Britannia Hotel, Trondheim. The conference had 135 participants. Presentations were held partly by industry and public partners and partly by ZEB researchers. All presentations are available on the web site. One workshop for all partners and several researchers was held at the Quality Airport Hotel at Gardermoen in November. The workshop was organized in connection with an extra general assembly meeting for election of a new board. During the first session of the workshop most of the industry partners presented their building products. During the second session the partners and the work package leaders discussed the content of the 2014 work plan. In addition, ZEB hosted three breakfast meetings in 2013:
"Klimax" in Trondheim: September 4th, Systematic energy upgrading of dwellings (Birgit Risholt and Tommy Kleiven)
"Brød&Miljø" in Oslo: October 10th, Embodied emissions from materials (Torhildur Kristjansdottir and Reidun Dahl Schlanbusch)
Bergen kommune: December 4th, Zero Emission Building – planning the Ådland area (Birgit Risholt and Torbjørn Haug, ByBo, Magnar Berge, ZEB PhD)
A special meeting was arranged with the reference group for discussions on communication to the Norwegian building industry.. The ZEB home page (www.zeb.no) has been regularly updated. Special focus has been on presenting the ZEB publications and on news and events. There were between 1000 and 3000 unique visitors each month.
http://www.zeb.no/images/ZEB_Annual_Report_2012_Reprint_26082013.pdf http://www.zeb.no/index.php/news-and-events/70-nyhetsbrev-1-2013 36 http://www.zeb.no/index.php/news-and-events/zeb-newsletters/archive/view/listid-2-nyhetsbrev/mailid-16-zebnyhetsbrev-02-2013 35
ZEB Annual Report 2013
40 of 53
ZEB Annual Report 2013
41 of 53
A1 - Personnel
Key Researchers and Key Personnel Name
Main research area
Anne Grete Hestnes Anne Gunnarshaug Lien Annemie Wyckmans Aoife Houlihan Wiberg Arild Gustavsen Bente Gilbu Tilset Berit Time
NTNU SINTEF Byggforsk NTNU NTNU NTNU SINTEF Materialer og kjemi SINTEF Byggforsk
Bjørn Petter Jelle Brit Gullvåg Egil Rognvik Einar Bergheim Hans Martin Mathisen Helen Jøsok Gansmo Igor Sartori Inger Andresen
NTNU/ SINTEF Byggforsk NTNU SINTEF Byggforsk SINTEF Byggforsk NTNU NTNU NTNU/ SINTEF Byggforsk NTNU
Ingrid C. Claussen Jøran Solli Katrine Peck Sze Lim Lars Gullbrekken
SINTEF Energi AS NTNU NTNU SINTEF Byggforsk
Laurent Georges Luca Finocchiaro Mathieu Grandcolas Maria Justo Alonso Matthias Haase Michael Bantle Reidun Dahl Schlanbusch Silje Kathrin Korsnes
NTNU NTNU SINTEF Materialer og Kjemi SINTEF Energi AS NTNU/ SINTEF Byggforsk SINTEF Energi AS SINTEF Byggforsk SINTEF Byggforsk
Stig Larssæther Tao Gao Terje Jacobsen Thomas Berker Tor Helge Dokka
NTNU NTNU SINTEF Byggforsk NTNU SINTEF Byggforsk
Tore Haugen Torhildur Kristjansdottir Vojislav Novakovic
NTNU SINTEF Byggforsk NTNU
Scientific Advisor Centre Manager Sustainable design Concepts and strategies for zero emission buildings Centre Director 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 WP2/LAB WP2/LAB WP3 Energy supply systems and services WP4 Energy efficient use and operation Energy use in buildings, energy efficiency WP5 Concepts and strategies for zero emission buildings WP3 Energy supply systems and services WP4 Energy efficient use and operation Higher Executive Officer WP2 Climate-adapted low-energy envelope technologies WP3 Energy supply systems and services Climate and architecture WP1 Advanced materials technologies WP3 Energy supply systems and services Energy use in buildings, solar energy WP3 Energy supply systems and services WP1 Advanced materials technologies WP2 Climate-adapted low-energy envelope technologies WP2 Climate-adapted low-energy envelope technologies WP4 Energy efficient use and operation 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
ZEB Annual Report 2013
42 of 53
Main research area
Øyvind Aschehoug Åshild L. Hauge
NTNU SINTEF Byggforsk
EU contact person WP4 Energy efficient use and operation
Visiting Researchers Name Par Johansson
Topic Cooperation with WP 2
Postdocotral Researchers Name Laurent Georges
Period 01.02.2011 - 31.01.2013
Topic Energy supply options (WP3)
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 – 02.02.2014 17.08.2009 – 01.11.2014 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 Francesco Goia Jens Tønnesen Karen Byskov Lindberg Krishna Bharathi Liana Müller Linn Ingunn Sandberg Magnar Berge
Period 15.10.2010 - 14.01.2015
Building concepts (WP5)
M M F
Responsive facades (WP2)
NFR & UiTorino
Building services (WP3)
Grid interaction (WP3)
Success factors (WP4)
Laws and regulations (WP4)
Nano insulation materials (WP1)
Indoor environment quality (WP3)
Italy Norway Norway
01.01.2011 - 31.12.2013
USA Romania Norway
01.10.2010 - 30.09.2013 01.08.2011 - 31.07.2015
F F F
01.12.2010 - 31.05.2015
01.03.2011 - 28.02.2014 01.09.2011 - 31.08.2015
01.10.2010 - 30.09.2013
PhD students working on projects in the centre with financial support from other sources Name Cezary Misiopecki Clara Good
ZEB Annual Report 2013
Period Sept. 2011- Sept 2014
Oct. 2012- Oct. 2015
Oct. 2012- Sept. 2015
Improved window solutions for energy efficient buildings BIPV/T systems for zero emission buildings
The application of membrane based total heat exchanger in cold climates
Strategic funding through NTNUSHJT Joint research center Strategic funding through EPT, NTNU
43 of 53
Name Toril Meistad William Throndsen
Nationality Norway Norway
Sustainability and the Norwegian building industry
Strategic funding through BAT, NTNU Strategic funding through NTNUs thematic focus area “Energy and environment”
End users of smart grid infrastructures
Master degrees - 2013 Name
Chuanzhong Zhang Yidan Jia Marco Rimensberger Syed Hasnain Abbas Shah Javad Darvishi
Topic Sustainable refurbishment of Ellebo Housing Estate Impact on architectural quality, daylighting and thermal performance of different atria Sustainable refurbishment of Ellebo Housing Estate
Renovation of an office buildings in Bergen: architectural and daylighting design as a tool for energy efficiency
Renovation of an office buildings in Bergen: architectural and daylighting design as a tool for energy efficiency Sustainable Facade Renovation. Using Dynamic Performance Simulations
Ertsaas MA Reidun Dahl Schlanbusch Leif Småland
Aleksander Olsen Thoreby Kristin Melvik Alfstad Eline Rangøy Carine Aaslie
Performance Evaluation of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Applications in Low-Energy Houses
Validation of user profiles for building energy simulations
Sjur Vullum Løtveit
Elisabeth Gaal Wærnes
Kritian Stenerud Skeie Shabnam Arbab Sangyi Sun
ZEB Annual Report 2013
Artium Design in Office Buildings. An evaluation of how artium design influences the daylight availability A Design of Sustainable Energy Supply System of Shoebox Residential Building Emission Accounting of a Wooden Passive House from Life Cycle Perspective Emission Accounting of a Wooden Passive House from Life Cycle Perspective Evaluering av energibruk i passivhus studentboliger A New Nano Insulation Material for Applications in Zero Emission Buildings Modelling and Analysis of Heat Pumps for Zero Emission Buildings Analysis of CO2 heat pump for low energy residential building
Energy supply for building without greenhouse gas emissions (ZEB) on Climate Centre at Ringdalskogen Cost Optimality of Energy Systems in Zero Emission Buildings in Early Design Phase Encapsulated Vacuum Insulation Panels for Building Applications – Experimental Durability Investigations and Retrofitting Strategies
44 of 53
A2 – Statement of Accounts Annual funding The total funding in 2013, including in-kind contribution was NOK 41,319,882.-. The table below shows the funding per partner (all figures in 1 000 NOK): Funding The Research Council The Host Institution (NTNU) Enterprise partners Brødrene Dahl AS ByBo AS Byggenæringens Landsforening Caverion Norge AS DuPont de Nemours Glava AS Isola AS Multiconsult NorDan AS Norsk Teknologi Protan SAPA Building Systems SINTEF Skanska Norge AS Snøhetta AS VELUX AS Weber Transferred from 2012 to 2013 Public partners Direktoratet for byggkvalitet Enova Entra Eiendom AS Forsvarsbygg Husbanken Statsbygg Total
ZEB Annual Report 2013
Amount 14 165 7 555 14 791
815 2 917 111 316 113 443 320 411 353 167 100 831 2 749 2 731 234 593 1 140 447 4 809 37 500 870 298 1 956 1 148 41 320
45 of 53
Annual Cost The total cost in 2013 was NOK 41,319,882.-. The table below shows the costs for the different activities. Activity
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 Equipment Total costs
3 912 2 921 1 794 3 780 1 680 2 617 1 697 9 304 10 312 3 303 41 320
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 Caverion Norge AS Glava AS Isola AS Multiconsult NorDan AS Norsk Teknologi SAPA Building Systems Skanska Norge AS Snøhetta AS VELUX AS Weber Public partners Direktoratet for byggkvalitet Entra Eiendom AS Forsvarsbygg Husbanken Statsbygg Equipment Total
ZEB Annual Report 2013
Amount 19 421 8 430 7 507
565 2 767 61 116 143 195 211 103 117 331 1 731 84 343 740 2 659 37 620 148 1 456 398 3 303 41 320
46 of 53
A3 – Publications Journal Papers Baronetto S, Gianluca S, Serra V, Goia G. Numerical Model of a Slurry PCM-Based Solar Thermal Collector. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering; 2014; 263(3):13-20. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-39578-9_3 Berker, T: “In the morning I just need a long, hot shower”. A sociological exploration of energy sensibilities in Norwegian bathrooms. Sustainability, Science, Practice & Policy; 2013; 9(1):57-63. Bharathi K. Framing Transitions. American Institute of Architects. Forward; 2013;(2013):105-122. Bharathi K, Nicol LA. Between Research and Practice: Experts on Implementing Sustainable Construction. Journal of Buildings; 2013; 3(4):739-765. DOI: 10.3390/buildings3040739. Bharathi K. Engaging complexity: Social Science Approaches to Green Building Design. Design Issues; 2013; 29(4):82-93. DOI: 10.1162/DESI_a_00232. Breivik C, Jelle BP, Time B, Holmberget Ø, Nygård J, Bergheim E, Dalehaug A, Gustavsen Large-scale experimental wind-driven rain exposure investigations of building integrated photovoltaics. Solar Energy; 2013; 90 (April 2013):179-187. DOI: 10.1016/j.solener.2013.01.003. Bourrelle J, Gustavsen A, Andersen I. Energy Payback: An Attributional and Environmental Focused Approach to Energy Balance in Net Zero Energy Buildings. Energy and Buildings; 2013; 65(October 2013):84-92. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.05.038 Gao T, Jelle BP. Thermal conductivity of TiO2 nanotubes. Journal of Physical Chemistry; 2013; 117:14011408. DOI: 10.1021/jp3108655. Gao T, Jelle BP. Visible-Light Driven Photochromism of Hexagonal Sodium Tungsten Bronze Nanorods. Journal of Physical Chemistry C; 2013; 117:13753-13761. DOI: 10.1021/jp404597c. Gao T, Jelle BP. Paraotwayite-Type α-Ni(OH)2 Nanowires: Structural, Optical and Electrochemical Properties. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C; 2013; 117:17294-17302. DOI: dx.doi.org/10.1021/jp405149d Gao T, Jelle BP, Gustavsen A. Antireflection properties of monodisperse hollow silica nanospheres. Applied Physics A: Materials Science and Processing; 2013; 110(1):65-70. DOI: 10.1007/s00339-012-7468-3 Gao T, Jelle BP, Gustavsen A. Core-shell typed [email protected]
nanoparticles as solar selective coating materials. Journal of Nanoparticle Research; 2013; 15(1):1370. DOI 10.1007/s11051-012-1370-y. Gao T, Jelle BP, Sandberg LIC, Gustavsen A. Monodisperse Hollow Silica Nanospheres for Nano Insulation Materials: Synthesis, Characterization, and Pre-Life Cycle Assessment. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces; 2013;5:761-767. DOI: 10.1021/AM302303b. Gao T, Nordby P. Frame Stability of Tunnel-Structured Cryptomelane Nanofibers: The Role of Tunnel Cations. European Journal of Inorganic Chemistry: 2013; 2013(28):4948-4957. DOI: 10.1002/ejic.201300602 Georges L, Skreiberg Ø, Novakovic V. On the proper integration of wood stoves in passive houses: Investigation using detailed dynamic simulations. Energy and Buildings; 2013; 59(April 2013):203-213. DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.12.034.
ZEB Annual Report 2013
47 of 53
Goia F, Bianco L, Serra V, Perino M. Energy Performance Assessment of Advanced Integrated Facades by Means of Synthetic Metrics. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering; 2014; 263(3):21-28. DOI: 10.1007/978-3642-39578-9_3. Goia F, Haase M, Periono M. Optimizing the configuration of a façade module for office buildings by means of integrated thermal and lighting simulations in a total energy perspective. Applied Energy; 2013; 108(August 2013):515-527. DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.02.063 Goia F, Perino M, Serra V. Improving thermal comfort conditions by means of PCM glazing system. Energy and Buildings; 2013; 60(5):442-452. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.01.029. Grynning S, Gustavsen A, Time B, Jelle BP. Windows in the Buildings of Tomorrow; Energy Losers or Energy Gainers? Energy and Buildings; 2013; 61(June2013):185-192. DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.02.029. Jelle BP. Solar Radiation Glazing Factors for Window Panes, Glass Structures and Electrochromic Windows in Buildings - Measurement and Calculation. Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells; 2013; 116(September 2013):291-323. Müller L, Berker T. Passive House at the crossroads: The past and the present of a voluntary standard that managed to bridge the energy efficiency gap. Energy Policy; 2013; 60(September 2013):586-593. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.057. Nord N, Wall J. Heat pump options for low energy office buildings in cold climate. The REHVA European HVAC Journal; 2013; 50(5):33-36. Risholt B, Berker T. Success for energy efficient renovation of dwellings - Learning from private homeowners. Energy Policy; 2013; 61(2013):1022-1030. Risholt B, Time B, Hestnes AG. Sustainability assessment of zero energy renovation of dwellings based on energy, economy and home quality indicators. Energy and Buildings; 2013; 60:217-224. Sandberg LIC, Gao T, Jelle BP, Gustavsen A. Synthesis of Hollow Silica Nanospheres by Sacrificial Polystyrene Templates for Thermal Insulation Applications. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering; vol. 2013; Article ID 483651, 6 pages, 2013. DOI: 10.1155/2013/483651. Solli J. Navigating standards – constituting engineering practices – how do engineers in consulting environments deal with standards? Engineering Studies; 2013; 5(3):199-215. Thomsen J, Berker T, Hauge ÅL, Denizou K, Wågø S, Jerkø S. The interaction between Building and Users in Passive and Zero-Energy Housing and Offices: The Role of Interfaces, Knowledge and User Commitment. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment; 2013; 2(1):43-59.
Published Conference Papers Alonso MJ, Halvarson J, Mathisen HM, Malvik B. Measurements and Simulations of Airborne Moisture Transport in Bathrooms. In: Proceedings of CLIMA 2013. 11th REHVA World Congress and 8th International Conference on IAQVEC. 16-19 June 2013; Prague, Chez Republic. Alonso MJ, Mathisen HM, Aarnes S. Investigation of prototype membrane based energy exchanger. In: Heinke C, Wahlström Å (eds). Proceedings of Passivhus Norden, pp 463-476. 15-17 October 2013; Göteborg, Sweden.
ZEB Annual Report 2013
48 of 53
Berge M, Mathisen HM. Post-Occupancy Evaluation of Low-Energy and Passive House Apartments in the Løvåshagen Cooperative – Occupant Behavior and Satisfaction. In: Heinke C, Wahlström Å (eds). Proceedings of Passivhus Norden, pp 52-65. 15-17 October 2013; Göteborg, Sweden. Berker T, Müller L, Arnfinsen M. Between a standardization and flexibility. Norwegian controversies around sustainable building certification. In: Proceeding from PLEA 2013. 29th Conference, Sustainable Architecture for a Renewable Future. 10-12 September 2013, Munich, Germany. Forelagt styret 19 mai 2013. Dar UI, Sartori I, Georges L, Novakovic V. Improving the interaction between Net-ZEB and the grid using advanced control of heat pumps. In: Proceedings from the Building simulation conference (BS2013): pp: 13651372. 25-28 August 2013; Chambéry, France. Dokka TH, Sartori I, Thyolt M, Lien K, Lindberg KB. A Norwegian Zero Emission Building Definition. In: Heinke C, Wahlström Å (eds). Proceedings of Passivhus Norden, pp 188-201. 15-17 October 2013; Göteborg, Sweden. Gao T, Jelle BP, Gustavsen A. Synthesis and Characterization of Sodium Tungsten Bronse Nanorods for Electrochromic Smart Window Applications. In: Proceedings of the 13th IEEE International Conference on Nanotechnology, pp 1093-1096. 5-8 August 2013; Beijing, China. Gansmo HJ. FM towards zero emission buildings: Learning and professional development among energy operators of large buildings. In: International Journal of Facilities Management: FM for a sustainable future, Conference papers 12th EuroFM Research Symposium, pp 142-150; 22-24 May 2013, Prague, Czech Republic. Georges L, Berner M, Berge M, Mathisen HM. Analysis of the air heating in Norwegian passive houses using detailed dynamic simulations. In: IBPSA (eds): Building Simulation 2013 – 13th International Conference on the International Building Performance Simulation Association; pp 1802-1809. 25-29 August 2013; Chambery, France. Georges L, Berner M, Mathisen HM. Investigation of the Air-Heating Concept for Norwegian Passive Houses. In: Heinke C, Wahlström Å (eds). Proceedings of Passivhus Norden, pp 39-51. 15-17 October 2013; Göteborg, Sweden. Grandcolas M, Etienne G, Tilset BG, Gao T, Sandberg LI, Gustavsen A, Jelle BP. Hollow Silica Nanospheres as a Susperinsulating Material. In: Brunner S, Wakili KG (eds): Proceedings of the 11th International Vacuum Insulation Symposium (IVIS 2013), pp 43-44; 19-20 September 2013, Dübendorf, Zürich, Switzerland. Jelle BP, Gao T, Tilset BG, Sandberg LI, Grandcolas M, Simon C, Gustavsen A. Experimental Pathways for Achieving Superinsulation through Nano Insulation Materials. In: Brunner S, Wakili KG (eds): Proceedings of the 11th International Vacuum Insulation Symposium (IVIS 2013), pp 99-100; 19-20 September 2013, Dübendorf, Zürich, Switzerland. Johansson P, Time B, Geving S, Jelle BP, Kalagasidis AS, Hagentoft C-E, Rognvik E. Interior Insulation Retrofit of a Brick Wall Using Vacuum Insulation Panels: Design of a Laboratory Study to Determine the Hygrothermal Effect on Existing Structure and Wooden Beam Ends. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Thermal Performance of the Exterior Envelopes of Whole Buildings; pp 10. 1-5 December 2013; Clearwater Beach, Florida, USA. Kristjansdottir T, Mellegård S, Dokka TH, Time B, Haase M, Tønnesen J. The first phase of a Zero Emission Concept for an Office Building in Norway. In: Braganca L, Pinheiro M, Mateus R (eds). Portugal SB13 – ZEB Annual Report 2013
49 of 53
Contribution of Sustainable building to meet EU 20-20-20 targets; pp 19-26. 30 October- 1 November 2013; Guimares, Portugal. Lolli N, Hestnes AG. Greenhouse gas analysis of insulation options in residential energy retrofitting. In: Heinke C, Wahlström Å (eds). Proceedings of Passivhus Norden, pp 400-415. 15-17 October 2013; Göteborg, Sweden. Lolli N, Hestnes AG. Environmental perspective on two glazing typologies. In: Heinke C, Wahlström Å (eds). Proceedings of Passivhus Norden, pp 486-498. 15-17 October 2013; Göteborg, Sweden. Meistad T. Partnering for the development of an energypositive building. Case study of Powerhouse #1. In: Klagegg OJ, Kjølle KH, Mehaug CG, Olsson NOE, Shiferaw ST, Woods R. (eds): Proceedings from 7th Nordic Conference on Construction Economics and Oganization; pp 92.101. 12-14 June 2013, Trondheim, Norway [internet] Nord N, Wall J. Energy Supply Solution for Low-Energy Commercial Buildings in Cold Climates. In: Proceedings of CLIMA 2013; pp 293-302. 16-19 June 2013; Prague, Czech Republic. Thyholt M, Dokka TH, Jenssen B. Powerhoude Kjørbo: a plus-energy renovation office building project in Norway.In: Heinke C, Wahlström Å (eds). Proceedings of Passivhus Norden, pp 439-449. 15-17 October 2013; Göteborg, Sweden. Tønnesen J, Novakovic V. Towards LCA of building automation and control system in zero emission buildings – measurements of auxiliary energy to operate a KNX BUS-system. In: Proceedings of CISBAT 2013, pp 507512. 4-6 September 2013, Lausanne, Switzerland. Wiberg AH, Dokka T, Mellegård S, Georges L, Time B, Haase M, Lien AG. A net zero emission concept analysis of a Norwegian single family house – A CO2 accounting method. In: Proceedings of CISBAT 2013; pp 787-792. Presented as poster; P38. 4-6 September 2013, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Conference and seminar presentation (incl. posters) Andresen I. Deportbygget på Haakonsvern – nullenergi i det enkle. Presented at «Nær nullenergibygg» Grønn Byggallianse seminar. 13 March 2013, Oslo, Norway. Andresen I. Hva er forskjell på passivhus, nesten nullenergi, nullenergi og plussenergi/energipositivt? Presented at Kursdagene 2013. 8-9 January, 2013, Trondheim, Norway. Berker T. Three scenarios for the future of sustainable engineering in the built environment. Presented at Engineers and Sustainability. 6 June 2013, Trondheim, Norway. Berker T. Practice theory in context. Presented at IEA-DSM Task 24 Worskhop. 27 May 2013, Trondheim, Norway. Dokka TH. Framtidens byggstatus på forskningsfronten. Presented at SINTEF-seminar: Bli din egen strømprodusent. 19 March 2013, Oslo, Norway. Goia F. Advanced Façade Solutions. Towards energy efficient building skins. Presented at the DUAP Seminar No 1. 23 October 2013, Qatar.
ZEB Annual Report 2013
50 of 53
Goia F, Bianco L, Cascone Y, Perino M, Serra V. Experimental analysis of advanced dynamic glazing prototypes integrating PCM and thermo-tropic layers. Presented at SHC 2013, International Conference on Solar Heating and Cooling for Buildings and Industry, 23-25 September 2013; Freiburg, Germany, Grandcolas M, Tilset BG, Jelle BP, Gao T, Gustavsen A. Hollow Silica Nonospheres as a Super-Insulating Material. Presented at Noanokonferansen 2013. 18 March 2013, Oslo, Norway. Gustavsen A. The Research Centre on Zero Emission Buildings. Presented at the DAUP Seminar No 1. 23 October 2013, Qatar. Gustavsen A. Energivennlige og klimaeffektive bygninger. Presented at Politikerbesøk på NTNU. 31 May 2013, Trondheim, Norway. Gustavsen A. Energieffektivisering i bygninger. Forsknings- og demonstrasjonsaktiviteter med utgangspunkt i ZEB. Presented at Energi21 board meeting. 28 February 2013, Oslo, Norway. Hegli T. Powerhouse One and Kjørbo. Presented at SINTEF Byggforskdagene. 14 June 2013, Oslo, Norway. Hegli T. Hvordan legger myndighetene til rette for en innovativ og bærekraftig arkitektur? Erfaringer fra arbeidet med Powerhouse prosjektene. Presented at Byggsaksdagene, 3-5 April 2013, Storefjell, Norway. Hegli T. Kraftfullt miljøsatsing – Hvordan vi har jobbet for å få fram nye løsninger i Powerhouse? Byggedagene 2013, 6-7 March 2013, Oslo, Norway. Hegli T. Fremtidens bygg. Presented at NHOs regionkonferanse, 5 March 2013, Sundvollen, Norway. Hegli T. Smarte hus. Presented at NHO Troms Årskonferanse, 13 February 2013, Tromsø, Norway. Hegli T. Powerhouse One and Kjørbo. Presented at Arkitekthøyskolen i Oslo. 29 January 2013, Oslo, Norway. Hegli T. Hvordan legger myndighetene til rette for en innovativ og bærekraftig arkitektur? Erfaringer fra arbeidet med Powerhouse-prosjektene. Presented at Norges Bygg- og Eiendomsforening, 17 January 2013, Oslo, Norway. Hegli T. Smarte Hus. Presented at NHO Årskonferanse. 8 January 2013, Oslo, Norway. Hestnes AG. Solenergi i byplanlegging. Presented at Solenergidagen 2013. 26 April 2013, Oslo, Norway. Hestnes AG. Deltakelse i paneldebatt på temaet «Bygg smart – en mulighet for Trøndelag», på NHO Trøndelags Årskonferanse, 18 April 2013, Trondheim, Norway. Hestnes AG. Lavenergi og lavutslipp. Arkitektoniske muligheter og utfordringer. Presented at Erfaringsutvekslingsseminar hos Omsorgsbygg/Oslo Kommune. 11 April 2013, Oslo, Norway. Hestnes AG. Solar powered buildings – also for Norway. Lecture at Norwegian Solar Cell Conference 2013. 10 March 2013, Oppdal, Norway. Jacobsen T. Laboratorier for morgendagens løsninger. Presented at Leadergroup meeting Boligprodusentenes forening. 22 May 2013, Oslo, Norway. Lindberg KB, Doorman GL. Hourly load modeling of non-residential building stock. Presented at PowerTech conference 2013. 16-20 June 2013; Grenoble,France. ZEB Annual Report 2013
51 of 53
Liu P, Mathisen HM, Alonso MJ. Critical Sensible and Latent Effectiveness for Membrane Type Energy Recovery Ventilator (ERV) in Cold Climates. Presented at the IAQ 2013 Environmental Health in Low Energy Buildings Conference, October 15 - 18, 2013, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Nord N. What can we learn from case study buildings? Presented at CLIMA 2013. 16-19 June 2013. Prague; Czech Republic. Thyholt M. Hvordan anser markedet denne type bygg? Presented at SINTEF-seminar: Bli din egen strømprodusent. 19 March 2013, Oslo, Norway. Thyholt M. Powerhouse Kjørboe – reabilitering av kontorbygg til plussenergibygg. Presented at Kursdagene 2013. 8-9 January, 2013, Trondheim, Norway.
Popular Science Articles Wyckmans A, Fossland H. Smartere byer. Kronikk i Adresseavisen tirsdag 12. februar 2013.
Books Jelle BP, Sveipe E, Wegger E, Uvsløkk S, Grynning S, Thue JV, Time B, Gustavsen A. Moisture Robustness during Retrofitting of Timber Frame Walls with Vacuum Insulation Panels: Experimental and Theoretical Studies. In: Freitas, VP de de; Delgado JMPQ (eds). ”Hygrothermal Behavior, Building Pathology and Durability”. Book Series ”Building Pathology and Rehabilitation”, Springer-Verlag, Vol. 1, pp. 183-210, 2013. ISBN 978-3-642-31158-1.
Reports Abdiha S, Shahin N. Emission Accounting of a Wooden Passive House from Life Cycle Perspective. Master theses, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, October 2013. Alfstad KM. Performance Evaluation of Combined Heat and Power (CHP) Applications in Low-Energy Houses. Master Theses, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, June 2013. Alonso MJ, Nord N. Hybrid domestic heating with thermal solar collector and CO2 air/water heat pump. ZEB report 13-2013. SINTEF Academic Press. ISBN 978-82-536-1367-3. Alonso MJ, Stene J. State-of-the-Art Analysis of Nearly Zero Energy Building. Country report IEA HPP Annex 30 Task 1 – Norway. International Energy Agency, April 2013. Arbab S. Artium Design in Office Buildings. An evaluation of how artium design influences the daylight availability. Master theses, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, September 2013. Darvishi J, Abbas Shah SH. Renovation of an office buildings in Bergen: architectural and daylighting design as a tool for energy efficiency. Master theses, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, June 2013. Dokka TH, Wiberg AH, Georges L, Mellegård S, Time B, Haase M, Maltha MM, Lien AG. A zero emission concept analysis of a single family home. ZEB-report no 9-2013. SINTEF Academic Press, ISBN 978-82-5361324-6.
ZEB Annual Report 2013
52 of 53
Dokka TH, Kristjansdottir T, Time B, Mellegård S, Haase M, Tønnesen J. A zero emission concept analysis of an office building. ZEB-report no 8-2013. SINTEF Academic Press, ISBN 978-82-536-1323-9. Ertsaas MA. Evaluering av energibruk i passivhus studentboliger. Master theses, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, June 2013. Goia F. Dynamic building envelope components and nearly zero energy buildings . Doctoral theses, NTNU, 2013:364, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway. ISBN 978-82-471-4880-8. Hauge ÅL, Godbolt ÅL, Thomsen J, Berker T, Time B, Hyrve O. User evaluation of vacuum insulation in clay blocks. ZEB-report 12-2013. SINTEF Academic Press. ISBN 978-82-536-1365-9. Høilund-Kaupang H, Blom P, Uvsløkk S, Gullbrekken L. Beregning av kuldebroverdier for golv på grunn. ZEBreport 7-2012. SINTEF Academic Press, ISBN 978-82-536-1290-4. Jia Y. Impact on architectural quality, daylighting and thermal performance of different atria in renovation project. Master theses, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, June 2013. Lien KM. CO2 emissions from Biofuels and District Heating in Zero Emission Buildings (ZEB). ZEB-report no 10-2013. SINTEF Academic Press, ISBN 978-82-536-1337-6. Løtveit SV. Cost Optimality of Energy Systems in Zero Emission Buildings in Early Design Phase. Master theses, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, June 2013. Meistad T, Strand L. Powerhouse One – Erfainger med å utarbeide konseptet for et nullenergi-bygg. ZEBreport no 11-2013. SINTEF Academic Press, ISBN 978-82-536-8. Misiopecki C, Gustavsen A, Time B. Cooling of PV panels by natural convection. ZEB-report 6-2012.SINTEF Academic Press, ISBN 978-82-536-1290-4. Rangøy E. Validation of user profiles for building energy simulations. Master theses, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, June 2013. Risholt B. Zero energy renovation of single family houses. Doctoral theses, NTNU, 2013:153, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway. ISBN 978-82-471-4413-8. Schlanbusch RD. A New Nano Insulation Material for Applications in Zero Emission Buildings. Master theses, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, January 2013. Skeie KS. Sustainable Facade Renovation. Using Dynamic Performance Simulations. Master theses, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, June 2013. Småland L. Modelling and Analysis of Heat Pumps for Zero Emission Buildings. Master theses, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, June 2013. Sun S. A Design of Sustainable Energy Supply System of Shoebox Residential Building. Master theses, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, October 2013. Thoreby AO. Analysis of CO2 heat pump for low energy residential building. Master theses, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, June 2013.
ZEB Annual Report 2013
53 of 53
Wærnes EG. Encapsulated Vacuum Insulation Panels for Building Applications – Experimental Durability Investigations and Retrofitting Strategies.Master theses, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, June 2013. Zhang C, Rimensberger M. Sustainable refurbishment of Ellebo Housing Estate. Master theses, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, June 2013. Aaslie C. Energiforsyning for bygning uten klimagassutslipp (ZEB) på Klimasenteret på Ringdalskogen. Master theses, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway, June 2013.
Media contributions Framtidas vindu kan erstatte veggen. Nytt fra SINTEF Byggforsk/Fagartikkel. www.sintef.no/Byggforsk/ Bygger Norges første plusshus. Teknisk ukeblad nr. 35/24 oktober 2013. Framtidas isolasjon. Schrødingers katt; NRK1, 26. september 2013. Nytt og lavere powerhouse på Brattøra. Adresseavisen, 22. august 2013. Norske boliger råter på rot. Dagens næringsliv 21. august 2013. Rehabilitering av eneboliger. Eneboliger kan nesten bli nullenergibygg, men kundene skygger unna. Teknisk ukeblad. www.tu.no, 12. juli 2013. ZEB får fortsette. Byggindustrien på nett www.bygg.no; 2013-06-27. Grønt lys for ZEB. Byggfakta på nett, www.byggfakta.no; 2013-06-27. Rehabmarkedet er enormt – og uutnyttet. Teknisk Ukeblad nr 20/20. juni 2013. Gode skussmål til nullutslippsatsing. Universitetsavisa på nett www.universitetsavia.no. 2013-06-18. ZEB har fått sin første doktorgrad. Byggindustrien på nett www.bygg.no, 2013-06-07. Får verdens mest miljøvennlige boliger. Fanaposten 12. april 2013. Grønt lys for grønne boliger i Blomsterdalen. Miljøverndepartementet har bestemt seg etter fylkesmannens klage. Bergensavisen på nett www.ba.no 2013-04-09. Her kommer det 800 miljøboliger. Miljøvernminister Bård Vegar Solhjell ga grønt lys for miljøprosjektet på Ådland tirsdag. Bergens Tidene på nett www.bt.no 2013-04-09. Vil bygge 800 miljøboliger, men fylkesmannen sier nei. Bergens Tidene på nett www.bt.no 2013-03-19. Fra energisluk til energiprodusent. Et ordinært kontorbygg fra 80-tallet skal skape mer energi enn det bruker. Teknisk Ukeblad nr 2/17. januar 2013.
ZEB Annual Report 2013
54 of 53