Modern Heritage - Doing more by doing less

(1)

Modern Heritage - Doing more by doing less

Energy efficiency improvements of historic buildings from the 20

th

_century

Sander Nelissen

Towards a sustainable historic environment: Historic Scotland’s energy efficiency conference Glasgow, 30th _{September 2014}

(2)

wessel de jonge architecten bna bv Glasgow, 30th September 2014

Van Nelle Factory

Brinkman & Van der Vlugt 1926 – 1929

restoration 1999-2004

Box-in-box HUF store

Van den Broek & Bakema 1953

restoration 2010

Upgrade existing facade

GAK building / De Studio Merkelbach

1959

restoration 2012

New (curtain wall) facade

building skin concepts

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

new

old

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

section-sketch (master plan 1999)

box-in-box

(14)

original

façade NE

original

façade SW

box-in-box

(15)

corridor

office space

climate wall

2

nd

_facade

2

nd

_facade

box-in-box

original

façade NE

original

façade SW

(16)

wessel de jonge architecten bna bv Glasgow, 30th September 2014 _{Van Nelle Design Factory, Rotterdam}

(17)

(18)

wessel de jonge architecten bna bv Glasgow, 30th September 2014 _{Van Nelle Design Factory, Rotterdam}

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

wessel de jonge architecten bna bv

Glasgow, 30th September 2014 22

titel

(23)

(24)

(25)

25

titel

detail NT

_{detail NT}

snede gevels woonverdieping

westgevel

_westgevel

_oostgevel

park

‐

side

highway

‐

side

section

typical

floor

(26)

titel

detail HT

original

detail NT woningscheiding

new

detail NT PAF-raam

(parkside)

new

(27)

titel

detail HT

original

detail NT woningscheiding

new

detail NT PAF-raam

(parkside)

new

(28)

(29)

(30)

(31)

duurzaam verbeterd!

(sustainably improved!)

research

(32)

Reseach purpose

• Need for objective information: how sustainable is tranformation?

• Do we get the maximum attainable from the possibilities the building has to offer?

Research aimed at characteristic buildings. These buildings have difficulties to obtain a high score on the level of energy, without compromising on the characteristic values. But what are the possibilities?

Research questions

The aim is to show the possibilites a building has to offer to take enery saving measures.

• Is there a way to show how much more sustainable a building has become because of a transformation?

• Is there a way to show if we have reached the maximum attainable from the possibilities a building has to offer?

(33)

Conditions for a suitable methodology:

• Join the methodology that is used most often.

• Take materials, use of water, environment, health and usefulness into account, in addition

to energy.

• Is certification of additional value?

• The possibilty to set the level of ambition at the start of the transformation.

• Accesible

• Attention for monuments within the methodology

• Clear and verifiable

(34)

GPR (Gemeentelijke Praktijk Richtlijn voor duurzaam bouwen)

Measures sustainability on several levels:

• Energy

• Energy performance

• Environment

• Water, material

• Health

• Sound, air quality, thermal comfort, lighting and visual comfort

• Quality of use

• Accessibility, functionality, thermal quality, social safety

• Future Value

• future-oriented facilities

• Flexibility

(35)

EMI

Energieprestatie Maatregelen Index Index of Energy Measures

This index shows how the design of a transformation scores compared to the maximum attainable energy measures, without any changes to facade surfaces, glass surfaces, orientation etc.

EMI = f_EMI * (EP_high-EP)/(EP_high-EP_low)

f_EMI dimensionless scaling factor f_EMI= 10;

EP_high energy performance of the building without energy saving measures in MJ/m2_;

EP energy performance of the building in MJ/m2_;

(36)

Six pilot projects

Four research questions per project:

• What was the energy performance of the original building (EPhigh)?

• What is the energy performance of the building after transformation (EP)?

• What is the reasonable maximal achievable (optimum) energy performance (EPlow)?

(37)

wessel de jonge architecten bna bv Glasgow, 30th September 2014 HUF-building, Rotterdam GPR score: Energy total 5,8 Energy performance 5,3 Extra measures 7,4 Environment 7,1 Health 6,9 Quality of Use 7,8

Value for the future 7,4

Energy label C EMI: EP_{high (=original)} 6,01 EP_{low (=optimum)} 1,13 EP (after transformation) 2,14 EMI 7,9

The EPhigh, that shows the energy

performance of the original building, is very high. That means the use of energy was high, largely due to the high percentage of glass in the façade (85%).

This explains why the energy performance after the renovation is still quite high, but the optimum energy performance of this building is not much better, also because of the high percentage of glass.

The EMI shows here that quite a few of the possible measures have been taken. That explains the good score of 7.9.

(38)

Conclusions

• Sustainability ambitions prior to the start of the project have a major influence on the final result

• The energy component in GPR provides an absolute and comparable measure

• In GPR, the six buildings score fairly high on the parts of environment, health, quality of use and value for the future

• The score on energy performance is relatively low

• The EMI gives a clear picture of the amount of measures taken

Results & Future developments

 GPR has incorporated the EMI in 2012

 Extra points will be awarded to monuments in GPR

 Monuments will probably be allocated a longer lifetime

 NEN is prepared to look at some changes to the EMI

(39)

“frisse scholen”

CYGNUS Gymnasium Ingwersen 1956 restoration 2013

(40)

(41)

(42)

Model 0 Bestaande situatie

west facade

east facade

CO 2 CO 2

• high CO2-levels

• light shades (luxaflex vulnerable!) • traffic noise

• no ventilation

• no cooling high temperatures! • thermal bridges

(43)

• solar control glass & light shades • large reduction of traffic noise • mechanical ventilation

• no cooling, high ventilation volume • reduction of thermal bridges

(44)

(45)

(46)

Modern Heritage - Doing more by doing less