1 / 29

__________________________________ Marjana Sijanec Zavrl

COST C23. WG1 case study 1 - Slovenia. LCC & Integrated Planning Approach in Design Process of Mercator Retail Trade Shop Refurbishment. COST C23, WG1 meeting Porto , January 12-13, 2006. __________________________________ Marjana Sijanec Zavrl

mio
Download Presentation

__________________________________ Marjana Sijanec Zavrl

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. COST C23 WG1 case study 1 - Slovenia LCC & Integrated Planning Approach in Design Process of Mercator Retail Trade Shop Refurbishment COST C23, WG1 meeting Porto, January 12-13, 2006 __________________________________ Marjana Sijanec Zavrl Building and Civil Engineering Institute ZRMK

  2.   Scope of the case study • In traditional practice the reburbishment scenario is based mostly on investment costs • Running costs, maintenance, repair and other life cycle costs are neglected • Investor should be informed (in figures) about LCC costs before decision making at the design stage • 1 - The scope of the case study is to show the benefits of planning the building refurbishment based on LCC (Life Cycle Costs) assessment Life cycle costs of building - NPV

  3. Scope of the case study • 2 - The scope was also to motivate the building owners (once they are aware of the most economical refurbishment scenario) to do integrated planning of refurbishment • Integrated planning (IP) of refurbishment means that also a whole list of building quality aspects that can not be directly evaluated in money was taken into account, like thermal comfort, reduction of CO2 emissions • The case study is about the process – how to approach to planning of refurbishment • To illustrate LCC & IP in planning of refurbishment in practice the approach was used at refurbishment of Mercator retail trade shop: • Aim - to propose cost effective and environmentally friendly energy restoration scenario

  4. Partner Institution short description of the partner institution, e.g. • Poslovni sistem Mercator d. d. / Mercator j.s.c. • The biggest alimentary retail trade company in Slovenia (with 41% of market share in Slovenia) • Mercator owns mainly commercial buildings: • alimentary shopping centres (22 in 5 years in Slovenia and abroad), • office building, • M-hotel + conference centre, • 1000 alimentary shops (5-40 years old, 100-800 m2), 20 – 30 refurbished yearly • 138 franchising shops ! – (smaller buildings all over Slovenia) • The company owns their commercial buildings • Company vision: • energy efficient buildings, • quality of indoor environment, • care for the environment, CO2 emissions reduction, • business cost reduction

  5. 1. Activities • Medium size shop “Mercator na Gmajni” • Preliminary discussions, agreement • (Feb.-Apr. 2004) • Introductory meeting with Mercator project team • Jul. 2004 • (final selection of building) • Data collection • from Aug. 2004 • (existing situation, refurbishment plans, energy consumption)

  6. 1. Before • General data • 610 m2 • Shop, storage rooms • Built in 60-ties, in Ljubljana (3300 DD) • Core Mercator project team • Department for investments • Mercator Optima architects • Head clerk

  7. 1. Before • Building envelope… • Sept. 2004 • Concerte frame structure • Walls – • Brick Uwall=1,2 W/m2K… • Windows – • Double glazing Uwin = 2.4 W/m2K • Shop-window single gl. Uwin= 5.0 W/m2K

  8. 1. Before • Inventory of HVAC devices • Refrigeration technology ! • Electrical lighting • Sept. 2004 ! Not in the hands of investment dept., but a task of technology dept. And therefore not involved in the analyses

  9. 1. Activities • Monitoring of temperature and RH… • … • …

  10. 1. Activities

  11. 2. Tools • Idea – to use commercially available tool for LCC in building refurbishment • IDA-tool in use for energy calculations… • LC-Profit used for LCC analysis (spreadsheet by STATSBYGG, Norway) http://www.equa.se/eng.ice.html

  12. LCC tools

  13. 2. Energy calculations - scenarios • Definition of the model • Preliminary list of measures • Implementation of energy efficient (EE) glazing / windows • Wall insulation, roof insulation … • Shading – passive cooling • EE refrigeration techniques ** (decision made separately, on the performance and reliability criteria) • Ventilation with recuperation • Refurbishment scenarios - selected for energy and LCC-calculation • Scenario 0 (existing situation, no investment, only maintenance and operation costs as usual) • Scenario I (12 cm TI for envelope) • Scenario II (new windows Ust=1,1W/m2K) • Scenario III (scenario I + scenario II) • Scenario IV (new windows Ust=0,9W/m2K) • Scenario V (scenario I + scenario IV) • Scenario VI (scenario II + some roof insul.) • Additional analyses for support of IP • Scenario VII – summer shading, natural ventilation during night time (better thermal comfort without cooling devices)…

  14. Simulation of thermal response & energy flows (IDA ICE tool)

  15. Energy use for heating Scenario 0 (existing situation, no investment, only maintenance and operation costs as usual) Scenario I (12 cm TI for envelope) Scenario II (new windows Ust=1,1W/m2K) Scenario III (scenario I + scenario II) Scenario IV (new windows Ust=0,9W/m2K) Scenario V (scenario I + scenario IV) Scenario VI (scenario II + some roof insul.) ENERGY SAVINGS - HEATING 0% -18% - 22% -33% -23% -35% -25% TI envelope 12 cm, windows 0,9 W/m2K

  16. Energy use for heating Electricity consumption Yearly use of heat and electricity – comparison of scenarios

  17. Refurbishment scenario I - VI Scenario 0 (existing situation, no investment, only maintenance and operation costs as usual) Scenario I (12 cm TI for envelope) Scenario II (new windows Ust=1,1W/m2K) Scenario III (scenario I + scenario II) Scenario IV (new windows Ust=0,9W/m2K) Scenario V (scenario I + scenario IV) Scenario VI (scenario II + some roof insul.) OPERATIONAL COSTS PER YEAR TI envelope 12 cm, windows 0,9 W/m2K

  18. ELECTRICAL HVAC Construction Maintenance Assumptions Calculations Factors Alternativ Operation Management Front page LCC analysis – LC-Profit* • Norwegian program for NPV of annual costs for: • Management • Operational costs • Maintenance and repair • Investment in building • Investment in HVAC • Investment in electricity • Assumptions • Discount rate • Life time of a building • Division of costs: • Owner, tenant *STATSBYGG

  19. Scenario II (new windowsUg= 1,1 W/m2K) Building lifetime – 30, 40, 50, 60 years

  20. LCC – NPV for scenarios I - VIInvestment costs, management, operating, maintenance costs Scenario 0 (existing situation, no investment, only maintenance and operation costs as usual) Scenario I (12 cm TI for envelope) Scenario II (new windows Ust=1,1W/m2K) Scenario III (scenario I + scenario II) Scenario IV (new windows Ust=0,9W/m2K) Scenario V (scenario I + scenario IV) Scenario VI (scenario II + some roof insul.) NPV INVESTMENT + FUTURE COSTS IN SERVICE LIFE OF BUILDING Windows U= 1,1 W/m2K

  21. 3. Outcomes • The lowest CO2 emissions alternative • based on energy simulation (Scenario III, V) • The cheapest alternative • based on LCC the least cost alternative (Scenario II) • Alternative carried out in the refurbishment : • based on LCC&IP - new windows (display window - from single gl. in Al frame to Ug=1.1W/m2K), roof insulation (partly), new refrigeration technique, bigger shop area (coffee bar omitted), renewed electrical lightning (Scenario VI) • Refurbishment scenarios - selected for energy and LCC-calculation • Scenario 0 (existing situation, no investment, only maintenance and operation costs as usual) • Scenario I (12 cm TI for envelope) • Scenario II (new windows Ug=1,1W/m2K) • Scenario III (scenario I + scenario II) • Scenario IV (new windows Ug=0,9W/m2K) • Scenario V (scenario I + scenario IV) • Scenario VI (new windows Ug=1,1W/m2K, roof insulation partly)

  22. Conclusions • LCC assessment pointed out scenario II (exchange of windows Ug=1,1 W/m2K) to be the option with lowest NPV Scenario II lowest NPV • 33 kWh/m2year of energy savings, • 22% less energy used for heating compared to existing case, • estimated heating savings - 1000 EUR/year • reduction of CO2 emissions - 3.800 kg CO2/year • Integrated planning showed the importance of better thermal comfort, roof insulation was added and new refrigerators – scenario VI Scenario VI implemented • Additional 5% of energy savings and CO2 emissions • Existing situation • energy use for heating : electricity use = 1 : 3 33 kWh * 610 m2 * 1.9kg/sm3 / 10 za Sm2 = 6,27 kg CO2/m2 * 610 m2 = 3.800 kg CO2 prihranka na celo stavbo pri scenariu 2

  23. BUT - Conclusions 2 • Refurbishment was finally not focused on the envelope only, but also on improvement of functionality of the shop: • Increased shopping area • Authomatic door • Significant number of new refrigeratiors • Heat needed for refrigerators does not remain in the shop but it is used for hot water preparation. • Therefore actual electricity use after refurbishment in 2005 is slightly higher comparing the existing situation 2003 • Refrigerators became an important source of chill in the shop area, additional heating had to be provided. • Energy use for heating has therefore increased in spite of transmission heat losses reduction.

  24. After, 2005 • Implemented measures: • Wall- ventilated metal covering, no TI • Roof partly insulated (storage area) • windows • EE windows double glazed Uglazing = 1,1 W/m2K • Functional changes : • shopping area bigger, • more refrigerators, • recovered heat form refrigerators used for hot water)

  25. After, 2005

  26. Use of gas and electricity before 2003 and after refurbishment 2005

  27. Lessons learnt • Life Cycle Cost analysis is important for building owners in retail trade sector, • Energy savings & CO2 emissions reductions could be higher (scenario III, V) • IP stimulates focusing on other building quality issues • better (thermal, visual…) comfort and quality of the service attract the customers • total energy and electricity costs increased • BUT the turnover was doubled after the refurbishment ! • Future view on LCC and IP in refurbishment – well accepted, but necessary to overcome the barriers like: lack of LCC tools, lack of databases, lack of staff, tight schedules for refurbishment… • The core of the case study is rather the use of LCC and IP method in refurbishment process than actually implemented technologies and achieved savings!

  28. More information: • http://www.gi-zrmk.si/EUprojekti/LCC-refurb.htm • http://www.eva.ac.at/projekte/lcc_refurb/ • Mercator Case study is a part of SAVE project LCC-REFURB – “Integrated Planning for Building Refurbishment” 2004-2005, co-financed by EC and Slovenian ministry MOP

  29. Hvala za pozornost! E-pošta: msijanec@gi-zrmk.si

More Related