Optimal Energy-retrofit strategies

for existing buildings in Finland,

now and in the future
1960’s concrete panel apartment blocks

Master’s thesis

Tampere University

Faculty of Built Environment

The School of Architecture

Primesa Arapi, August 2021

8 Energy-retrofit strategies Energy-retrofit strategies 9

Table of Contents

1. Introduction..................................................................................... 10

1.1 Thesis scope and structure........................................................... 11

1.2 Research objectives .................................................................... 12

2. Energy-efficiency and existing buildings ........................................ 14

2.1 European standards on energy-efficiency ................................... 15

2.2 Energy-retrofit strategies for existing buildings............................. 16

2.3 Energy-retrofit strategies in cold climates (Literature Review)......22

2.3.1 Scandinavian countries (Norway, Sweden)............................... 24

2.3.2 Baltic countries (Estonia, Lithuania)...........................................28

2.3.3 Finland....................................................................................... 31

2.4 Lessons learned............................................................................36

3. Kerava Concrete Panel Apartment Block, Case Study................... 38

3.1 Methodology ................................................................................ 39

3.1.1 Energy-efficiency criteria............................................................ 39

3.1.2 Carbon emissions criteria...........................................................39

3.1.3 Indoor thermal comfort criteria................................................... 39

3.1.4 Climate zones and RCP scenario.............................................. 40

4.Results and discussion.................................................................... 42

4.1 Energy-performance of building in original condition.................... 42

4.2 Energy retrofit measures by building component .........................48

4.3 Energy retrofit measures in combinations.....................................52

5. Conclusions.....................................................................................60

References..........................................................................................66
Appendix A.......................................................................................... 73
Appendix B..........................................................................................81
38 Energy-retrofit strategies
3. Kerava Concrete
Panel Apartment Block
Case Study
This chapter analyzes optimal energy-retrofit strat-
egies for concrete panel apartment blocks in Fin-
land. The analysis is conducted using Sefaira soft-
ware that simulates building energy performance
and energy efficiency (Sefaira, 2021). It uses En-
ergyPlus and Radiance in the background to run
building physics simulations. EnergyPlus is a build-
ing simulation program for modelling energy con-
sumption of building operations like heating and
cooling, ventilation or lighting (EnergyPlus, 2021)
while Radiance is a lighting analysis and visualiza-
tion software (Radiance, 2014, 2019).
Therefore, both building operations and additional
heat gains are accounted for and Sefaira can be
used for early-stage analysis to test and compare
multiple energy retrofit concepts. The strategies are
tested on a concrete-panel apartment block built in
1960s in Kerava. The building is 3D modelled in
Sketchup where an initial analysis is conducted of
the building energy use, heat gains and losses as
well as daylight availability, using Sefaira plugin.
Then, the model is imported to Sefaira web applica-
tion, where energy-retrofit measures are explored
further in detail.
The studied apartment block fits within the residen-
tial building category that represents 75% of the Eu-
ropean Union’s existing building stock. Its structure
and year of construction are the most common type
both in Finland and Europe. These buildings have
the highest energy consumption levels (Niemin-
en & Virta, 2016) mainly because they were built
during the massive housing stock development of
the years 1950s-1970s using concrete-panel struc-
tures while the first energy regulations entered in
force after 1976.
These apartments have existed for more than 60
years already, which is the average building lifes-
pan. Even though housing can last twice as long,
aging factor and leaky buildings are vulnerable to
heat loss and higher energy demand. Hence this
building type can help to determine the optimal en-
ergy retrofit strategies that would apply for most of
the Finnish housing stock which need improvement
on their energy use.
Since the occupied spaces are all residential units,
the whole apartment block in Kerava will be mod-
elled, to discover the impact of the retrofit strate-
gies. However, the conditioned and unconditioned
zones will be defined in each floor (e.g., apartments,
corridors) taking into consideration differing internal
loads such as occupancy rate, equipment and light-
ing, in order to have a realistic consumption pattern
and zoning for the modelled building.
The simulation will look at different energy-retrofit
strategies that can help to reduce building energy
consumption and its carbon emissions as well as
help improve the indoor thermal comfort for the oc-
cupants, in today’s climate and the future.
3.1 Methodology
In the first part of the thesis, building energy-effi-
ciency regulations are analyzed along with previ-
ously conducted research on energy-retrofits for
similar buildings in cold climates. In this second
part, energy-retrofit strategies for Finland are tested
using the Sefaira analysis software for high energy
performance. Information for building the energy
model is obtained from the previous research pa-
per conducted by Tuomo Niemelä, Risto Kosonen
and Juha Jokisalo (Niemelä et al., 2017b). Niemelä
et al. (2017b) has looked at cost-effective retrofits
using the climate data from test reference year TRY
2012 where multiple heat pump concepts are de-
veloped (see section 2.3.3 Finland).
This thesis tests new combinations of passive and
active retrofit strategies, using future climate data
from test reference years TRY 2020/2030, 2050
and 2080 (2100) (Finnish Meteorological Institute,
n.d.). Effects of the strategies on the building are
evaluated using 3 main criteria: “Energy-efficiency”,
“low-carbon emissions” and “indoor thermal com-
fort” (see below). First, the building is simulated
in original condition and current location (Finnish
Thermal Zone I – Vantaa) with no improvements,
to look at its energy consumption and carbon emis-
sions as well as occupant comfort. Then, individual
simulations are run for each building component
separately (improved efficiency of exterior wall,
roof, ground floor, windows, shading, airtightness,
HVAC systems) while other building parameters
stay in original condition. Finally, simulation results
are used to develop combinations or sets of mea-
sures which can be effective in energy retrofitting.
Since the existing buildings have a fixed form, orien-
tation, structure etc., this study developed two ap-
proaches for combining retrofit measures: combina-
tions (passive + active measures) that are the same
for the whole building, and combinations (passive
+ active measures) that have different measures
applied to different building facades. This approach
targets limitations in existing buildings, by focusing
on the role of building form, orientation and solar
radiation in energy demand, occupant comfort and
heat gains (cold, glare, overheating) as well as (re-
newable) energy supply. The simulations for com-
bined measures are run for all 4 thermal zones of
Finland (Zone I – Vanta; Zone II – Jokioinen; Zone
III – Jyvaskyla and Zone IV – Sodankyla), for test
reference years 2020/2030, 2050 and 2080 (2100)
under RCP8.5 emission scenario.
Energy-retrofit strategies 39
3.1.1 Energy efficiency criteria
In order to look at the building energy efficiency, en-
ergy use intensity (EUI) under each improvement is
simulated. EUI is the amount of energy use of the
building on site, which is measured by annual en-
ergy consumption, expressed in kWh/m2 per year.
Maximum limit of total annual energy consumption
in Finnish residential apartments is ≤130 kWh/m2
per year. Since heating energy demand covers most
of the energy use for space conditioning in cold cli-
mates, annual heating energy is also explored in
the simulations. It is expressed in kWh/m2 per year
too but looks only at the energy used for heating the
spaces. Maximum limit for space heating energy is
taken from Passivhaus EnerPHit standard, which
specifies a consumption of ≤30 kWh/m2 per year
for cold climates. Results are discussed in the fol-
lowing sections for each building element as well as
the performance of combinations in different ther-
mal zones of Finland.
3.1.2 Carbon emissions criteria
There are multiple ways to look at carbon emissions
of the building. This study focuses on emissions
that derive from building operations like electricity
use, building systems and HVAC, aiming at max-
imum reductions possible. The impact of on-site
mechanical systems that demand energy to run is
evaluated by looking at the emission rates in simu-
lations, expressed in kgCO2e per kWh.
3.1.3 Indoor thermal comfort
criteria
To determine how the indoor thermal comfort lev-
els change, first a temperature range is set for the
occupied spaces of the building. In line with Finn-
ish requirements, the setpoint temperatures of
indoor spaces are 21°C, below which the space
needs heating and 27°C, above which the space
is uncomfortable outside the heating season. The
temperature range for heating season is 21/25°C.
However, Finnish thermal zones can have up to 2
months difference of when the seasonal changes
occur, such as winter being delayed in southern
and central regions. Since a seasonal division was
not possible in the simulation software, the same
criteria are applied for the whole year: too cold <
21 – 27 °C < too hot. The overheating risk during
heating season is also addressed with the use of
40 Energy-retrofit strategies
automated shading and by improving the building
envelope.
Setting up a thermal comfort range in building simu-
lations requires input data for the building occupan-
cy, the operation schedule for mechanical systems
as well as internal loads such as lighting loads and
equipment loads. According to reference values in
Finnish national building code, the occupancy rate
for residential apartments is 60%, with an occupant
density of 28m2/person, lighting load of 11 W/m2,
equipment loads of 4 W/m2 and HVAC operation
schedule of 24/7 (see Figure A3). In order to de-
termine the effectiveness of retrofit measures on
thermal comfort, the study looks at each dwelling
instead of the whole building, to see the overheat-
ing and/or cooling rate for different apartment sizes,
position, orientation and elevation.
3.1.4 Climate zones and RCP
scenarios
Finnish meteorological institute has developed the
Test Reference Years TRY for calculating the heat-
ing and cooling energy consumption. The weath-
er files for the climate years 2020, 2030, 2050 and
2080 (2100) are used in the simulations to test
the effectiveness of energy retrofit combinations.
Future climate data in these files is an estimation
based on the climatic conditions of 2020 and ex-
pected climate changes in the future. The 30-year
period between 1989 – 2018 is observed and vari-
ables for hourly temperature, relative humidity, ra-
diation, wind and precipitation are formulated for
three different scenarios of greenhouse gas emis-
sion levels also known as Representative Concen-
tration Pathways RCPs.
While RCP2.6 and RCP4.5 represent predictions
of mild to medium rise in GHG emissions over
the years (3-4°C by 2100), RCP8.5 foresees very
high amounts of GHG emissions (5-6°C by 2100).
RCP8.5 is used as the worst-case future scenario
which assumes that there will be no major changes
in our way of living and the emissions will continue
to rise as they are. Even though many countries are
developing policies and taking actions on emission
reduction, this scenario is the most likely for the rest
of the world that is not able to offer or implement
solutions for cutting their emissions. Hence, this
study uses the RCP8.5 scenario in simulations.
Energy-retrofit strategies 41
Based on where the institute has observation sta-
tions, Finland is divided into 4 climate zones (Figure
B3) them being Thermal zone I (Vanta), Thermal
Zone II (Jokioinen), Thermal Zone III (Jyväskylä)
and Thermal Zone IV (Sodankylä). To find out how
the formulated energy retrofit strategies work in
each thermal zone of Finland, they will be tested for
all climate zones. The findings can contribute to the
development of more specific retrofit strategies to
be applied in each thermal zone separately.
Finnish thermal zone I (Vantaa) has the longest
summer days and shortest winters, due to its geo-
graphical position, solar radiation and coastal re-
gions. The shortest day in Vantaa lasts around 6
hours while the longest day can last up to 19 hours.
Southern and Central Finland experience longer
heat waves during summer, when temperatures
are above 25°C for 10-15 days. The dominant wind
direction is from southwest, with an average wind
speed of 2.5-4 m/s inland.
Thermal zone III covers the central part of Finland,
with longer winters and snow cover of around 60-90
cm as well as longer heat waves during summer. It
is like a buffer zone between the coldest and hottest
regions of Finland, where the building energy ret-
rofit measures need to deal with both summer and
winter comfort. The sea is still affecting the western
regions, where there is less snow cover in winter-
time and higher temperatures in the summer.
Northern Finland experiences cold temperatures
much earlier than other regions. While Southern re-
gions have around 100 days of winter with the cold-
est temperatures being around –40 °C, Lapland
has around 200 winter days and temperatures can
Figure B1. Finnish thermal zones, differences in temperature and snow cover. The weather data is retrieved from the Finnish Meteorological Institute
reach up to -50°C. During the polar nights, dark can
webpage. Thermal zone 1 – Weather observation station in Vantaa; Thermal zone 2 - Weather observation station in Jokioinen; Thermal zone 3 -
last up to 51 days in the wintertime while during the
Weather observation station in Jyvaskyla; Thermal zone 4 - Weather observation station in Sodankyla.
polar days the sun doesn’t set for around 73 days.
42 Energy-retrofit strategies Energy-retrofit strategies 43

4. Results and Discussion The planimetry is designed so that most apartments

have access to their own balcony, except the small- BUILDING ENVELOPE
est apartment units facing south. The reason why Thermal transmittance of walls (U = 0.55
Existing apartment building balconies do not face south might be because it’s
the dominant wind direction in Finland and therefore
W/m2K

The chosen concrete-panel apartment building is
located in Kerava, Finland (Figure B2, see also
Section 2.3.3 Finland, Figure A9). It’s built in 1960’s
with prefabricated sandwich concrete panels, which
were very common during that period (Nieminen &
Virta, 2016), because there was a need of quick
and easy construction to fulfil the housing needs
that followed migration and urbanization.
can cool the apartment causing thermal discomfort, Thermal transmittance of the roof (U =
0.44 W/m2K for roof)
especially when the building envelope components
are inefficient. Thermal transmittance of the floor (U =
0.38 W/m2K for roof)
The south façade is straight with no edges or at-
tached elements, which could result in lower en- Efficiency of windows (U = 2.1 W/m2K; g =
ergy needs due to direct solar radiation and heat 0.7)
gains through windows. However, discomfort due
to overheating or glare is also possible because of HVAC SYSTEM, TECHNICAL DATA:

It consists of 5 floors, with 10 apartments on each the orientation and lack of shading elements. Simu- Mechanical ventilation with no heat recovery,
lations indicate south solar radiation contributes to operating 7/24
apartment floor and a total of 88 occupants. Heat-
the summer cooling loads, along with internal loads

EXISTING
ed net floor area of the case study is 2898 m2. Exhaust air heat flow rate = 0.4 dm3/(sm2),

STATE
The North, East and West facing apartments have (lighting, equipment, people). constant air volume CAV supply to all spaces
access to a balcony. The 4 apartment types are:
kitchen + 1 room apartment 31m2; kitchen + 2 room The dwellings on the corners have balconies facing SFP = 1.50 kW/(m3/s)

apartment 49m2; kitchen + 3 room apartment 69m2
and kitchen + 4 room apartment 87m2.
4.1 Energy-performance of
building in original condition
Energy performance of the housing block is first
simulated using its original condition. The simula-
tion results show that generally the existing building
doesn’t meet the energy efficiency standards under
today’s climate nor the future.
However, the building is simulated using the input
data which is a combination of actual use of the
building and reference values provided in the build-
ing regulations for calculation purposes, when the
actual data is lacking.
Therefore, the results of the simulations may not
fully represent the real condition of the building but
rather give a baseline of understanding how the
given building can be improved or what the effects
east and west. These facades receive shorter inter-
vals of sunlight in the morning or afternoon, have
balconies that provide static shading, all of which
may be a reason for higher energy needs and heat
loss. North-facing facades do not receive any direct
sunlight. Windows and balconies are considered
the main thermal bridges in buildings that contrib-
ute to heat loss, because their resistance to heat
transfer is lower than the surrounding elements.
Overall, north-facing façade could be the most vul-
nerable to heat losses and energy needs. Differ-
ences in solar radiation and wind speed can cause
more overheating, glare or unintended cooling
when the windows are open therefore these exter-
nal factors may affect occupant comfort and space
energy needs directly.
To understand the effects of building elements in
annual energy use, space heating energy, carbon
emissions and thermal comfort, and to look at both
whole building block’s performance and situation in
individual apartment units within the building, the
3D model is imported to Sefaira Web Application for
District heating, hydronic radiators supply/re-
turn water temperature 80/60°C
INTERNAL LOADS:
Occupant density = 28m2/person
Occupancy rate = 60%
Lighting = 3.5 W/m2 in apartments; 9.0
W/m2 in staircases
concrete-panel apartment Equipment = 9 W/m2 in apartments
1960s - Kerava, Finland
Model parameters obtained from: Average indoor temperatures = 21.0 °C in
Niemelä et al. (2017b) apartments; 18.0 °C in staircases
PRELIMINARY RESULTS
Most energy is used to heat the spaces, while there is
not enough daylight due to the unnecessary shading
Wall conduction
in North, East and West facades. Heat loss happens
Glazing conduction
mainly because of conduction through windows
Roof conduction
and doors on the façade as well as the exterior walls,

COOLING
HEATING
CONCLUSIONS
Floor conduction
might be for different energy retrofit combinations running more detailed simulations. meaning that they are inefficient in terms of energy.

over the years in different thermal zones.
Preliminary simulation indicates that most of the
annual energy use is for space heating, while heat
loss mainly happens because of conduction through
windows and doors as well as exterior walls (Figure
B2). Hence, the building envelope needs to be im-
proved in terms of energy-efficiency. Balconies are
present in the East, North and West facing facades.
Energy consumption
When the building is analyzed in original condition
using TRY weather files, the energy needs, and
related carbon emissions are in decline over the
years, because of the temperature rise and climate
change (figure B3). The building in original condi-
tion is performing almost the same when it is simu-
lated for the Finnish Thermal Zone I and II. These
two zones have a similar regional climate.
COMMENTS
Infiltration
Internal loads
Highest heat gains come from internal loads and
(people and equipment)
South solar radiation, all of which increase the cool-
Internal loads (lighting)
ing loads for the building. Conduction through the roof
Solar radiation (South)
and floors as well as solar heat gains from East, West
Solar radiation
and North have less impact than the afore mentioned
(North, West, East)
building components, which can be targeted when
developing energy-retrofit strategies.
Figure B2. Kerava Concrete Panel Apartment block is 3D modelled in Sketchup, and building elements such as ground floor, exterior walls, roof,
operable and non-operable windows and static shading elements are specified in the Sefaira plugin. Then, the 3D model is imported to Sefaira
Web Application for running energy retrofit simulations.
44 Energy-retrofit strategies
They experience cold temperatures later and
have a shorter heating season than the Northern
regions. The winter season reaches late, mainly
because of the coastal regions since the sea and
lake water cool down slower and delay the colder
temperatures. Therefore, these zones may have
lower needs for space heating due to the seasonal
lengths.
Southern and Central Finland experience longer
heat waves during summer, which can be a reason
for higher thermal discomfort in the simulations.
zones. Dominant southwest wind direction and
shorter heating season might be causing addition-
al heat loss through the building envelope or other
openings.
In Northern Finland, long lasting cold temperatures
affect the heating energy demand of buildings re-
sulting in higher energy consumptions under to-
days’ climate, with a strong possibility of providing
better comfort under the future overheating scenar-
ios. On the other hand, continuous solar heat gains
from direct and indirect solar radiation during the
polar days can result in overheating in cases like
when the building has windows with high g-value
and insufficient shading.
When we look at the building energy use in a time
of highest overheating risk (TRY 2080), the annu-
al energy consumption is around 166 kWh/m2 per
year while the heating energy consumption is 59
kWh/m2. Considering Finnish building regulations
require ≤ 130 kWh/m2 of annual energy use in resi-
dential apartments after retrofits, the building needs
to be retrofitted to meet any energy efficiency stan-
dard.
250
200
EUI (kWh/m2/yr)
150
100
50
0
Total Annual Energy Space Heating
Consumption Energy Consumption
Figure B3. Annual energy demand, heating energy demand
and net carbon emissions of the building in original condition,
when it is simulated for the test reference years 2020, 2030,
2050 and 2080.
The reason behind a poor energy performance can
be related to many factors, such as its form, po-
sition or thermal properties of its materials. Since
it was built before first Finnish energy regulations,
the energy-efficiency may not have been a primary
design concern.
Building envelope
The building structure is concrete sandwich panels,
and the exposed concrete layers can act as thermal
mass, storing the solar heat and releasing it inside.
The exterior walls are around 30 cm, consisting of
the inner concrete layer, 90mm of mineral wool in-
sulation in the middle and a concrete outer layer
which is either painted or covered with brick tiles.
Since the 1960s, this structure is very common in
Finland (Nieminen & Virta, 2016). It makes sense
for cold weather, but the climate is changing, and
this building structure might not be effective any-
more. Since the whole building façade cannot be
shaded to block the summer sun, additional unin-
tended heat gains through unshaded surfaces are
a possibility.
Looking at transparent surfaces, the performance
of original double-pane windows is quite low,
around 2.1 W/m2K. While there are even better
window types, Finnish requirements are at least
1.0 W/m2K of thermal transmittance for windows.
The low efficiency and aging of windows can cause
heat loss and higher space heating demand for the
building because of unintended air leakage through
the cracks on the frames and corners. Hence the
building will use more energy to heat the space.
According to the thermal comfort simulations, most
of the uncomfortable hours are due to colder indoor
spaces of apartment units that face North, East and
West, all of which have balconies while South fac-
ing apartments with no balconies do not experience
colder hours. This may be because of insufficient
thermal insulation, poor airtightness and inefficient
glazing, including the balcony doors that help re-
TRY 2020 lease the heat.
TRY 2030
TRY 2050 Balconies may contribute to cooling as well, through
TRY 2080 shading the apartments when vertical shading is not
actually needed on this façade. Also, the top floor
experiences colder temperatures which indicates
that additional roof insulation may be effective for
the building. While these elements influence most-
ly heating of occupied spaces during cold weather,
the need for cooling the building in the summer is
an emerging need for Finland and other countries.
The recent overheating studies under future cli-
Energy-retrofit strategies 45
Besides heat gains and losses which
result in higher energy consumption,
weather conditions can cause occu-
pant discomfort such as glare, underlit
living spaces or overheating.
0
200 Windows with lower visible transmit-
400
600
tance values or too much/wrong shad-
+800 lux ing, can result in dark spaces. Deep
Lux levels on March 21, 9:00 a.m. measured at 0.8 meters above
plans are another factor in existing
ground (window height).
buildings that result in lower daylight.
The consequences are seen in occu-
pant dissatisfaction with their living
CONCLUSIONS
spaces.
COMMENTS
When the existing building is analyzed
0
200 in terms of annual daylighting, the
400 dwellings are 50-75% daylit, while the
600
+800 lux stairways don’t receive any natural
Lux levels on March 21, 3:00 p.m. measured at 0.8 meters above
light. However Finnish heating season
ground (window height).
can be darker due to shorter days and
cloudy skies.
For instance, when the building is simu-
lated for a cloudy sky on March 21st in
the morning (9:00 a.m.) and afternoon
(3:00 p.m.), the amounts of sunlight are
0
considerably low, receiving 0-200 lux,
25
50 while the average annual illuminance
75
100% level is often around 300 lux. Lux is the
Percentage of occupied hours with at least 300 lux illuminance, measure of the illuminance or daylight
measured at 0.8 meters above ground (window height). intensity on a surface.
Figure B4. Annual daylighting analysis for Kerava Concrete-panel apartment block, indicates that the building may experience overheat-
ing, glare and underlit living spaces, which need to be addressed with adequate building components.
mates (Sukanen, 2020) have shown increased dis- organizations and studies recommend that tenants
comfort due to overheating of the building. It may keep blinds closed during hot summer days in order
be caused by the type and amount of glazing on the to prevent uncomfortable indoor temperatures and
envelope, its high thermal conductivity as well as glare. The preliminary simulation on annual day-
high solar heat gain coefficient. Another reason can light availability also supports these claims (Figure
be the shading type and location. When the blinds B4). Physical limitations of the existing building as
are placed on the inside, they can store the heat well as its location and climate can cause discom-
that is received through the window and release it fort like glare, underlit spaces and overheating.
in the indoor environment. Many Finnish housing
46 Energy-retrofit strategies Energy-retrofit strategies 47

Internal loads
Another factor can be the typology of the building in
relation to energy consumption. All occupied spac-
es are apartment units, which actively use house-
hold equipment, electric lighting and other electron-
ic devices. The internal gains of these loads are
simulated according to the actual use.

Compared to the standard use of the building which

assumes 4.0 W/m2 average gain from equipment,
actual value is around 9.0 W/m2 in apartments
which is more than twice the reference value. While
this usage amount may be because of inefficient
appliances, unpredictable occupant behavior as-
sociated with background, cultural values and way
of living, might also explain a part of the high con-
sumption levels. As a result, key aspects to be addressed for retro-
fitting Kerava apartment block can be:
Mechanical systems
The building is using mechanical ventilation with no • Reducing space heating energy consumption
heat recovery and district heating with hydronic ra- (efficient windows and balcony doors, roof insula-
diators. The absence of heat recovery can be one tion, exterior wall insulation, high heat recovery rate
of the key reasons for higher energy consumption, in mechanical ventilation)
but multiple HVAC systems need to be tested to
find a better solution. Previous studies confirm that • Balancing the energy consumption with actu-
the most efficient HVAC systems for 1960s Finnish al energy demand (room temperature control sen-
apartment buildings are ground source heat pumps sors, setting an average temperature range, heat
GSHP, air source heat pumps ASHP and exhaust pumps in HVAC systems)
air heat pumps EAHP (Häkämies et al., 2015;
Niemelä et al., 2017a). • Making use of fixed and automated building
components in mitigating high energy consump-
However, the installation cost of GSHP is higher, tion (optimal efficiency standards for components
and they might not be feasible to install in case of depending on building façade and solar heat gain,
existing buildings because of limitations like not automated blinds that open/close according to in-
enough space for drilling the borehole or placing door temperatures and average temperature range)
underground pipes etc. Using a water source heat
pump integration with district heating is also a possi-
bility (Element Energy & Carbon Alternatives, 2016;
Heat Network Partnership for Scotland, 2017).
 U VALUE
RANGE Test Reference Year - TRY 2080
Exterior walls have a more visible effect on building
48 Energy-retrofit strategies energy use and space heating demand!
U = 0.55 W/m2K existing state 180

Annual Energy use (kWh/m2/yr)

160
U = 0.275 W/m2K preliminary calculation (provided by 140 U = 0.55 W/m2K
Finnish regulations):
4.2 Energy retrofit measures by

WALL
is run, which tests the effects of multiple shading U = 0.18 W/m2K 0.55 W/m2K x 0.5 = 0.275W/m2K
120
U = 0.17 W/m2K
types. Simulation results indicate that external ve- 100
U = 0.10 W/m2K
U = 0.17 W/m2K
building component netian blinds could offer higher comfort. Glazing Finnish upper limit 80

alone does not offer much energy-efficiency, and U = 0.15 W/m2K Swedish upper limit
60

the EUI changes are moderate. 40

U = 0.10 W/m2K high energy-efficiency 20

To see if any of the building components has a standard! 0
larger effect on improving annual energy demand, This may be because it’s not tested in combina- Total Energy Use Space heating
(kWh/m2 yr) Energy Use
Net carbon
emissions

carbon emissions or thermal comfort, they are first tion with insulation or other passive retrofit mea- (kWh/m2 yr) (kgCo2e/m2 yr)

simulated separately and then grouped in combina-
tions. First simulations are done using a range of
U values (W/m2K) for thermal transmittance, g-val-
ues for heat gains and air leakage rates (l/sm2) for
airtightness (Figure B5) while other building com-
sures discussed earlier. Heating energy use shows
a slight variability, with lower energy consumption
needs when higher g-value is tested hence more Test Reference Year TRY 2020 and TRY 2080
Annual heatıng energy demand is similar within the roof
solar heat gain is calculated but it is not enough to
120 U value range of 0.15 - 0.09 W/m2K!
make a clear distinction. U = 0.38 W/m2K existing state

Space heatıng energy (kWh/m2/yr)

ponents stay in original condition. U = 0.15 W/m2K 100

ROOF
The windows can be tested in combination with in-
Simulation results show that the effects of the pas- sulation and other envelope improvements to have U = 0.13 W/m2K values from literature 80

sive measures are significantly low, when they are a better result, but the simulation points out that the U = 0.10 W/m2K 60
applied alone. Most of the energy use is due to north facing apartments have a considerably high
energy demand for heating along with the ground U = 0.09 W/m2K Finnish upper limit
space heating and when the heat travels to colder 40

bodies, the building envelope acts as one element. and top floors. Improvements can be made on the
20
Improving the walls while the roof remains ineffi- roof and floor insulation as well as façade.
cient or there are cracks on the wall near the win- 0

dows does not stop the heat loss, but rather creates The original HVAC system of the building (district U = 0.38 W/m2K U = 0.15
(original) W/m2K
U = 0.13
W/m2K
U = 0.09
W/m2K

a thermal bridge effect which weakens the whole
envelope.
Some elements have less impact on energy effi-
ciency than others. For example, the lowest chang-
heating with hydronic radiators, mechanical venti-
lation with no heat recovery) is compared with new
250 The effect of floor U-value on annual energy consumption
systems like mechanical ventilation with 45% heat is very low, compared to other components!
recovery, water source heat pump fan coils (open 200
loop and closed loop), fan coils with a central plant U = 0.44 W/m2K existing state

FLOOR

EUI (kWh/m2/yr)
es are due to the ground floor. This can be because and VRF fan coils. The units are all Dedicated Out- U = 0.15 W/m2K values from literature
150 TRY 2020

all other elements (external walls, roof, glazing) door Air Systems DOAS where the outside air is 100
TRY 2030

are in direct contact with outdoor air, sun, wind or dehumidified, and its temperature is conditioned U = 0.10 W/m2K Finnish upper limit TRY 2050

precipitation on one side, and conditioned indoor before being supplied. A heat recovery rate of 90% 50 TRY 2080

space on the other hence temperature differences is applied and SFP value within the range of 1.00 -
0
are higher. 1.50 W/Ls. U = 0.44 W/m2K U = 0.10 W/m2K
(original)

The ground floor sits on top of the earth soil which
has constant temperatures. This floor doesn’t re-
ceive extra heat from another apartment below or
from the sun so it’s important that it has good insu-
At least two different heating energy sources are
tested, them being district heating, electric/gas Performance of different window types, with and
boilers and/or heat pumps. Natural ventilation is Original windows: U = 2.10 W/m2K; g = 0.70 %100 without shading elements
tested as integrated with the HVAC system of the Test Reference Year - TRY 2080
Window Type 2: U = 1.40 W/m2K; g = 0.75
90

lation and surface material properties. If the indoor building, where all windows are fully operable. The 80

space needs additional heat gains, the exposed windows are assumed closed when the building is WINDOWS Window Type 3: U = 1.00 W/m2K; g = 0.70 70

floor can be used as a thermal mass by choosing a unoccupied, and when it is windy outside. Natural 60

ventilation as well as HVAC system are assumed Window Type 4: U = 1.00 W/m2K; g = 0.60
surface material that absorbs and stores the solar 50

heat. active when the indoor temperatures are out of the Window Type 5: U = 1.00 W/m2K; g = 0.50 40

defined temperature range of 21-27°C. 30

Window Type 6: U = 0.80 W/m2K; g = 0.49
Glazing is another measure that is often pursued in 20

energy retrofits. As discussed, the aging and lower As expected, higher heat recovery rates have a Window Type 7: U = 0.80 W/m2K; g = 0.40 10

performance of the windows may result in heat loss significant effect on building energy demand. Us- 0 Original Type Type Type Type Type Type Type

ing heat pumps has resulted in highest energy effi- Window Type 8: U = 0.65 W/m2K; g = 0.50 windows 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
and higher energy consumption. Integrated shad-
ing is very common in Finland, where the venetian ciency while fan coils with central plant and Variable
Refrigerant Volume (VRF) fan coils could reduce AIRTIGHTNESS
blinds are placed by the manufacturer in between
the glass layers of the window. Since this option the annual energy by around 41%. It can save sig- Values within 1.00 - 3.00 m3/m2h reduce heat loss
was not available in simulation controls, external nificant energy because of the refrigerant flow rate significantly
and speed based on specific space demand which reference airtightness q50 = 6.00 m3/m2h 200 150
shading with venetian blinds is applied in the sim- kWh/m2yr q50 = 6.00 q50 = 3.00 q50 = 1.00 kWh/m2yr

ulations. In addition, a response curve simulation is controlled by the occupants. However, previous tested airtightness q50 = 3.50 - 1.00 m3/m2h m3/m2h m3/m2h m3/m2h

Figure B5. Parameters used for different building components in preliminary simulations. The results are used to identify optimal measures that
can offer better energy-efficiency, lower carbon emissions and/or higher thermal comfort.
 50 Energy-retrofit strategies Energy-retrofit strategies 51

studies have also identified GSHP and EAHP as buildings. Therefore, multiple HVAC systems need
optimal solutions in existing buildings. Moreover, to be tested in combination with passive retrofit
VRF fan coils usually work with natural gas which measures to find optimal solutions.
is imported to Finland hence not very common in

For the test reference year 2020, current windows with shading provide around 90% average thermal comfort
(staircases are excluded from results) with the largest share of discomfort in apartments being due to colder
temperatures. Staircases experience overheating, likely because they hold a central position in the floor plan,
and have no operable windows to release the heat. Comfort levels also differ by seasonal changes, orientation
and location of the apartments.

North facing apartment units have less to none overheating, around 0.3% of the occupied time. However, the
discomfort due to colder temperatures is around 16% in the floors 2-4 and around 49% in the ground and top
floors. This may be because of the lack of direct solar radiation and high window to wall ratio among with insuf-
ficient insulation. The added amount of glazing, operable windows and balcony doors on the North façade can
lower the indoor temperatures. The balconies also act as horizontal shading that can block a part of the sun
from entering space. Since the thermal conductivity of windows is high, having a good solar heat gain coeffi-
cient doesn’t solve the problem, probably because the spaces cannot keep the heat inside for long due to air
leakage and heat flow.

The insulation is the same for all external walls. While the insulation layers are a part of the sandwich concrete
panels, this uniform envelope on the Northern wall may not be enough to provide needed insulation. Therefore,
the apartments built using concrete panel structure become vulnerable to cold in shaded facades. If the build-
ing is simulated with a better window type, for example U = 0.65, g = 0.4, all apartments in the 2-4 floors are
comfortable most of the time which means improving windows does have a visible effect on heating demand.
But the condition of north facing apartments on the ground floor and the 5th floor are not completely improved.
They still experience around 45% discomfort, and it may be improved with added insulation.

NORTH FACADE

North facing apartment units and

corner apartment units don’t have a
straight facade. The corners and
WEST FACADE

edges leave more of the exterior wall

EAST AND

surfaces exposed to wind and may

raise the effect of thermal bridges.
Corner units have a slightly higher
value of overheating compared to
North-facing units, due to the solar
heat gains in the morning or after-
0 5 10 20
noon.

SOUTH FACADE

South facing apartments don’t have a big discomfort problem. Colder hours are often experienced in the
ground and top floors. The smallest apartment unit is by far the best in terms of comfort, probably due to its
position in the middle, small size and south orientation. Overheating is likely in this apartment unit in the future,
therefore solar heat gain coefficient must be chosen carefully.

With a U value of 0.8 - 0.65 W/m2K and a low solar heat gain coefficient of around 4.5, the results are
constant, providing comfortable environments. Shading helps, which can be because it acts as an additional
layer that keeps part of the heat inside as well as accumulate thermal mass even though studies suggest that
internal shading is a better choice if the blinds are to be used for this purpose.

52 Energy-retrofit strategies
4.3 Energy retrofit measures in
combinations
Energy retrofit combinations are developed from
the literature review (chapter 2) and preliminary
energy performance simulations by building com-
ponents. As the main conclusion of the first thesis
part, almost all the 1960’s concrete-panel apart-
ments in cold climates have similarly high space
heating demand, which represents most of the total
annual energy use.
Literature review and preliminary simulations by
building component have shown that key measures
affecting space heating are very high efficiency
standards of building envelope (especially exterior
walls and roof), heat recovery in mechanical venti-
lation (90% or more) and heat pumps in HVAC sys-
tems.
Exterior walls with a U value between 0.10-0.15 W/
m2K, perform better in terms of energy efficiency.
This range is quite close to the Finnish upper limit
of 0.17 W/m2K as well, hence can be chosen in ret-
rofit applications. The Finnish limit U value for roof
thermal conductivity is already very high, 0.09 W/
m2K, which is why it is used in all retrofit combina-
tions. Also, the effect of ground floor was found to
be very little, when simulated for the U values be-
tween 0.44 - 0.10 W/m2K. Therefore, the limit value
of Norway and Sweden, I.e., 0.15 W/m2K is used in
all applications.
Airtightness is simulated using values q50 = 2.00
and 3.00 m3/hm2, which represent a very high ener-
gy-efficiency standard. This is because 1960’s con-
crete panel apartments are very energy-intensive
buildings which suffer from air leakage and most
likely have damaged airtightness layers in need of
improvement. As stated before, any interventions
by residents on the walls can break the airtightness
layer, not to mention the building is occupied since
construction.
The effects of mechanical systems are found to be
dependent on passive measures as well as chosen
system efficiency. Therefore, mechanical ventila-
tion with heat recovery, water source heat pump fan
coils, fan coils with a central plant and VRF fan coils
are tested in passive+active retrofit combinations.
They are tested with at least two different heating
energy sources (district heating, electric boiler, heat
pump), in order to look at the changes in energy
efficiency and carbon emissions.
Triple Glazing U=1.00 W/m2K SHGC = 0.7 The first combination (A-01) of energy retrofit
measures aims at reaching the minimum
energy efficiency standards for existing build-
COMBINATION A 01
Shading from 3D model (balconies)
ings in Finland. The input data for this combi-
RETROFIT MEASURES
Automated Shading (External Venetian
The results for Combination A 01 are similar for
three of the Finnish thermal zones (Vantaa, Joki- Blinds, closed when +27.0 °C)
nation comes from the Finnish energy efficien-
cy regulations and results can be used to
oinen and Jyvaskyla) and retrofitting by building Exterior Wall U = 0.17 W/m2K discuss the energy performance that these
measures provide as well as possible changes
component requirements given in Finnish national
regulations can result in annual energy use intensi- Roof U = 0.09 W/m2K that may be needed. The thermal transmit-
ty below the Finnish energy-efficiency limit of 130 tance of building envelope elements is
kWh/m2 per year. Floor U = 0.15 W/m2K improved, automated external venetian blinds
are simulated with a zone temperature thresh-
Combination A 01 can reduce the annual energy Airtightness q50 = 6.00 m3/hm2 old of 27°C above which the blinds are
use in these thermal zones by 40%, space heating assumed closed to prevent overheating and
energy consumption by 53% and carbon emissions Mechanical ventilation with 45% heat mechanical ventilation system is improved by
recovery
by 46%. Differences can be seen in thermal zone adding a 45% heat recovery and lowering the
IV, Sodankyla which is characterized by arctic cli- District heating specific fan power SFP of the air handling unit
mate (Figure B6). AHU to 1.00 Watts per liter per second.
Applying stricter measures by keeping the ther-
mal transmittance of walls, floor and roof within
the range of 0.10-0.15 W/m2K, lowers consump-
tion even more, reaching an energy use intensity
EUI value of approx. 60-70 kWh/m2 per year. Such
measures are included in Combinations A-02;03;04
which test the passive strategies on the building This is a comparison of how the building performs in its original condition when
simulated in future climate years. According to Finnish regulations, when an exist-
to see how they improve energy efficiency without
considering additional energy use or replacement ing residential apartment building is retrofitted, it must have ≤130kWh/m2 of
EUI (kWh/m2 yr)
annual energy consumption. Therefore, energy retrofit measures must reduce
of mechanical systems (Figure B7). Heating energy (kWh/m2 yr)
current energy needs by at least 34%. This reduction is possible for Vantaa,
THERMAL ZONE I
net kgCO2e/yr
when Finnish requirements by building component are followed. However,
A-02 uses very low thermal conductivity values for
nearly half of the overall energy is consumed for space heating and there is a
VANTAA
building envelope elements and assumes that the 250
building is completely airtight, which will result in potential for much higher energy efficiency if this consumption is targeted sepa-
200
a considerable energy saving. However, it is often
150
hard to reach these values for an existing building 130
kWh/m2 yr
in real life for many reasons. For example, it may
198
100
133 . 556
not be cost effective for the investor, hard or impos-
118
118
109
101
50
74187
67672
61628
53169
89
sible to implement on site or result in higher carbon
58
30
51
44
35
kWh/m2 yr
emissions due to the embodied carbon that derives 0
Thermal Zone I (Vantaa)
from the materials. Therefore, A-03 is tested in ad- Base case - TRY2020 A 01 - TRY2020 A 01 - TRY2030 A 01 - TRY2050 A 01 - TRY2080
dition, which is more flexible and applicable for the
studied apartment building.
Finally, A-04 is a mixed strategy that targets the ef- The effects of extreme weather can clearly be seen in simulation results. The
fects of building orientation, by specifying different annual energy demand is as high as 238 kWh/m2 while the space heating
passive strategies (exterior wall insulation and win- demand is 149 kWh/m2. To reach the Finnish energy-efficiency requirements, a
EUI (kWh/m2 yr)
dow efficiency) on different facades. Considering Heating energy (kWh/m2 yr)
reduction of at least 55% is required, which cannot be achieved when Finnish
THERMAL ZONE IV
the simulation results that show how some surfaces net kgCO2e/yr requirements by building component are followed. Also, the space heating
are more vulnerable than the others, North façade demand is much higher than the EnerPHit standard of 30 kWh/m2 per year.
SODANKYLA
is assumed to have thicker insulation and windows 250
with higher solar heat gain coefficients, while South
200
facing façade has less insulation and lower heat
gain. 150
130
kWh/m2 yr
182
238
100
The aim of testing these combinations is to find out 122 . 238
163 . 360
140
106
149
129
112
81 . 600
89 . 671
69 . 249
whether the difference in external factors can be 50
76
30
67
53
balanced and accounted for different parts of the
kWh/m2 yr
0
building. Main parameters used in simulations as Thermal Zone I (Vantaa)
Base case - TRY2030
Thermal Zone IV (Sodankyla)
Base case - TRY2030 A 01 - TRY2030 A 01 - TRY2050 A 01 - TRY2080
well as full list of results from each measure are
listed in Appendix B.
Figure B6. Energy use intensity, space heating energy use and carbon emissions of the building after its retrofitted using Combination A 01. The
results are given for Finnish thermal zone 1 and 4, to discuss on differences due to weather conditions.
 (%) Reductions
EUI (kWh/m2 yr)
41%
Heating energy (kWh/m2 yr)
54 Energy-retrofit strategies
THERMAL
COMBINATION A 01 49-53%
ZONE
Emissions (kgCO2e/yr)

The amount of heating energy that the building
needs in its original condition is approx. 110 kWh/m2
per year in Finnish thermal zones 1-3, and around
150 kWh/m2 per year in zone 4. It is interesting that
1,2,3,4
the interior plaster finish that is applied in the end of
construction, but it is vulnerable to occupants’ ac- 45%
tions because any intervention like holes or cracks
on the wall will damage it (Pelsmakers, 2015). In (%) Reductions
Triple Glazing U=0,65 W/m2K SHGC = 0.4

COMBINATION A 02
the energy consumption of the building is very sim- reality, it’s often hard to achieve and maintain this EUI (kWh/m2 yr)
70%

RETROFIT MEASURES
ilar when simulated for Finnish thermal zone 1 in standard in existing buildings, because occupant Shading from 3D model (balconies) Heating energy (kWh/m2 yr)
TRY2020 and thermal zone 3 in TRY2030. behavior cannot be predicted. Automated Shading (External Venetian Emissions (kgCO2e/yr)

Blinds, closed when +27.0 °C) 90% THERMAL

This indicates that the energy retrofit options for Previously conducted passive energy retrofit mea- ZONE
Southern regions today can be effective solutions sures are also tested coupled with four different Exterior Wall U = 0.10 W/m2K 1,2,3
77% 71.8%
in central Finland in the near future. While combi- HVAC systems to see how the active systems con- Roof U = 0.09 W/m2K
nation A 01 may result in almost 50% reduction in tribute to the building energy performance and its Floor U = 0.15 W/m2K
heating energy consumption (58 kWh/m2 yr), the space heating demand in particular (Figure B8). 87.2% THERMAL
simulations for combinations A 02, 03 and 04 show Combinations in group B use the passive mea- Airtightness q50 = 2.00 m3/hm2 ZONE
a reduced demand by an average of 86% (13-20 sures of A-02, group C use the measures of A-03 Mechanical ventilation with 90% heat 4
recovery 78.56%
kWh/m2 yr) in Finnish thermal zones 1-3, which is and group D use the measures of A-04.
also lower than the EnerPHit space heating limit District heating
(≤30kWh/m2 yr). Lastly, E-17 tests the minimum Finnish energy-effi-
ciency requirements by building component, along
(%) Reductions
Since the heating energy demand can be reduced with replacing the original HVAC system instead Triple Glazing U=0,80 W/m2K SHGC = 0.5 EUI (kWh/m2 yr)
to much lower values, it may be possible for Finnish of repairing it. The technical parameters of tested

COMBINATION A 03
65.5% Heating energy (kWh/m2 yr)
regulations to meet the EnerPhit standard if they HVAC systems are listed in Appendix B. Simulat- Shading from 3D model (balconies)

RETROFIT MEASURES
have higher mechanical system requirements. On ed measures show that the space heating energy Automated Shading (External Venetian
Emissions (kgCO2e/yr)

the other hand, these retrofit measures are not demand can be significantly lowered when using 84% THERMAL
Blinds, closed when +27.0 °C)
enough to have an energy efficient building for efficient systems (Figure B9). ZONE
Exterior Wall U = 0.15 W/m2K 1,2,3
Thermal Zone 4. The space heating demand is 72.3%
much higher than the EnerPHit standards, around Roof U = 0.09 W/m2K 66.8%
76 kWh/m2 in TRY 2030.
Floor U = 0.15 W/m2K
81.2% THERMAL
Looking at two retrofit combinations, respectively Airtightness q50 = 3.00 m3/hm2 ZONE
A-02 and A-04, they differ in the choice of exterior Mechanical ventilation with 90% heat 4
73.21%
wall insulation and window type in façade surfaces. recovery
While A-02 assumes same requirements for each District heating
orientation, A-04 offers flexibility for the south facing
façade, assuming that the additional heat gains can
SOUTH-FACING FACADE (%) Reductions
be balanced with higher heat transfer rates through
EUI (kWh/m2 yr)
the vertical surfaces. Triple Glazing U=0,65 W/m2K SHGC = 0.4
Heating energy (kWh/m2 yr)

The simulation results are almost identical, mean- Exterior Wall U = 0.15 W/m2K Emissions (kgCO2e/yr)

COMBINATION A 04
ing that in some cases, similar energy-efficiency 69.4%
performances might be achieved with less insula- WEST / NORTH / EAST FACADE

RETROFIT MEASURES
tion or fewer cost simply by making use of the build- THERMAL
Triple Glazing U=0,80 W/m2K SHGC = 0.5 89%
ing form and orientation.
Exterior Wall U = 0.10 W/m2K ZONE
1,2,3
Apart from these factors, difference in façade/fin- 76.7%
ish color and texture, combinations of shading sys- COMMON MEASURES
tems by form, materiality and movement as well
Roof U = 0.09 W/m2K
as the effect of the urban and natural environment 71.4%
can have significant effects on the performance of Floor U = 0.15 W/m2K
energy retrofit strategies. Hence, they need to be Airtightness q50 = 2.00 m3/hm2
Mechanical ventilation with 90% heat 86.6% THERMAL
studied further integrated with the energy retrofit ZONE
combinations. recovery
District heating 4
77.8%
Except for the additional heat gains, another rea- Shading from 3D model (balconies)
son for this similarity can be the specified high air- Automated Shading (External Venetian
tightness standard. The airtightness layer can be Blinds, closed when +27.0 °C)
Figure B7. Passive retrofit combinations, A 01, A 02, A 03 and A 04, and their effect on reducing building energy use and related carbon
emissions.
 Heating energy
COBMINATION A 02 source (%) Reductions
Effects of various retrofit combinations on annual energy use B 07

COMBINATION B
Water source heat pump fan coils District Heating EUI (kWh/m2 yr)
B 05 intensity and space heating demand, in Vantaa and Sodankyla 73%
(open loop)

RETROFIT MEASURES

RETROFIT MEASURES
Heating energy (kWh/m2 yr)
Triple Glazing U=0,65 W/m2K Electric Boiler provide more than 50% reductions!
Emissions (kgCO2e/yr)
SHGC = 0.4
Water source heat pump fan coils District Heating
250
97% THERMAL
Shading from 3D model (balconies) B 06 B 07

(PASSIVE)
ZONE

(ACTIVE)
(closed loop) Electric Boiler 200

EUI (kWh/m2/yr)
Automated Shading (External 1,2,3
Venetian Blinds) B 150 81% 77%
Fan coil units with a central plant District Heating
Exterior Wall U = 0.10 W/m2K B 07 100
Heat pump THERMAL
Roof U = 0.09 W/m2K 50 95%
ZONE
Floor U = 0.15 W/m2K Variable Refrigerant Flow fan coils
0
Original B 06 B 07 B 08 Original B 06 B 07 B 08 4
B 08 Heat pump 84%
Thermal Zone I (Vantaa) Thermal Zone IV (Sodankyla)
Airtightness q50 = 2.00 m3/hm2

Heating energy THERMAL ZONE 4 - SODANKYLA - TRY2030

COBMINATION A 03 source Energy retrofit strategies and their effect on the building energy use breakdown (%) Reductions
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 %
C 11 EUI (kWh/m2 yr)
COMBINATION C

total
Water source heat pump fan coils District Heating energy
C 09
(open loop)
(HP) E 17 use 71% Heating energy (kWh/m2 yr)
RETROFIT MEASURES

RETROFIT MEASURES
Electric Boiler

effective
Triple Glazing U=0,80 W/m2K (HP) D 16
Emissions (kgCO2e/yr)
SHGC = 0.5 (HP) D 15
THERMAL
Water source heat pump fan coils District Heating 94%
Shading from 3D model (balconies) (DH) D 15
C 10 ZONE
(PASSIVE)

(ACTIVE)
(closed loop) Electric Boiler (EB) D 14 C 11
Automated Shading (External 1,2,3
Venetian Blinds)
(DH) D 14 80% 74%
(EB) D 13
Fan coil units with a central plant District Heating
Exterior Wall U = 0.15 W/m2K C 11 (DH) D 13
Heat pump THERMAL
90%
Roof U = 0.09 W/m2K (HP) C 12
ZONE
(HP) C 11
Floor U = 0.15 W/m2K Variable Refrigerant Flow fan coils 4
C 12 Heat pump (DH) C 11
82%

ALL STRATEGIES
Airtightness q50 = 3.00 m3/hm2 (EB) C 10
(DH) C 10
(EB) C 09

COBMINATION A 04 (DH) C 09 (%) Reductions

D 15 EUI (kWh/m2 yr)

effective
(HP) B 08
EXCEPTIONS: SOUTH FACADE Heating energy 73%
source (HP) B 07 Heating energy (kWh/m2 yr)
Triple Glazing U=0,65 W/m2K
COMBINATION D

(DH) B 07 Emissions (kgCO2e/yr)

SHGC = 0.4 Water source heat pump fan coils District Heating
D 13 THERMAL
RETROFIT MEASURES

(open loop) (EB) B 06 97%

RETROFIT MEASURES

Exterior Wall U = 0.15 W/m2K Electric Boiler (DH) B 06 ZONE

(EB) B 05 1,2,3 D 15
Water source heat pump fan coils District Heating 81%
(PASSIVE)

effective
OTHER MEASURES: D 14 (DH) B 05
(ACTIVE)

Triple Glazing U=0,80 W/m2K (closed loop) Electric Boiler (DH) A 04 77%
SHGC = 0.5 (DH) A 03
Shading from 3D model (balconies) Fan coil units with a central plant District Heating (DH) A 02
94.6% THERMAL
D 15
Automated Shading (External Heat pump (DH) A 01 ZONE
Venetian Blinds) (DH) BASE CASE
4
84.3%
district heating - DH Heating energy
Exterior Wall U = 0.10 W/m2K D 16 Variable Refrigerant Flow fan coils Heat pump electric boiler - EB Internal loads (lighting + appliances)
heat pump - HP Other (fans, ventilation, cooling, heat pumps, system)
Roof U = 0.09 W/m2K
Floor U = 0.15 W/m2K EUI (kWh/m2 yr) Finnish EUI (%) Reductions
< 130 kWh/m2 yr
Airtightness q50 = .00 m3/hm2 Heating energy (kWh/m2 yr) EUI (kWh/m2 yr)
EnerPHit Heating energy E 17 Heating energy (kWh/m2 yr)
Emissions (kgCO2e/yr) <30 kWh/m2 yr
65% Emissions (kgCO2e/yr)
COMBINATION E

COBMINATION A 01 250
RETROFIT MEASURES

A 01
200
82% THERMAL
150
Triple Glazing U=1.00 W/m2K ZONE
182

100
122 . 238 A 01
SHGC = 0.7 1-4

29923
106

27909
31391
(PASSIVE)

76.5%
50

60
64

16
67

19
Shading from 3D model (balconies)

12
MEASURES

0
41%
RETROFIT

Thermal Zone I
Automated Shading (External Heating energy (Vantaa) TRY2030 E 17 - TRY2030 E 17 - TRY2050 E 17 - TRY2080
source
Venetian Blinds) E 17 Fan coil units with a central plant 250
Heat pump A 01
THERMAL
Exterior Wall U = 0.17 W/m2K 200 49-53%
150 ZONE
Roof U = 0.09 W/m2K
130
kWh/m2 yr

1-4
238

100
163 , 360

36 , 500

34 , 202

30 , 964
45%
149

50
Floor U = 0.15 W/m2K
78

66
30

18
73

25
30

kWh/m2 yr
0
Thermal Zone IV
Airtightness q50 = 6.00 m3/hm2 (Sodankyla) TRY2030 E 17- TRY2030 E 17 - TRY2050 E 17 - TRY2080

Figure B8. Passive+Active retrofit measures. Figure B9. Key results from passive+active strategies.
58 Energy-retrofit strategies
Usually in Finland ground source and water source
heat pumps are referred to as highly efficient sys-
tems, especially for the 1960s buildings that have
higher space heating energy demands than the
new built (Häkämies et al., 2015). In the simula-
tions, water source heat pump fan coils that work
with the closed loop system can have higher reduc-
tions in space heating demand rather than open
loop systems.
On the other hand, in concrete applications it’s
possible that open loop systems have a better ef-
ficiency because they don’t work by absorbing the
water energy through pipes and there isn’t any tem-
perature drop across the pipe (Heat Network Part-
nership for Scotland, 2017). These effects cannot
be predicted by the software. Also, water quality
can result in pipe corrosion and freezing can occur
due to the cold temperature of water, in which case
closed loop systems with an antifreeze mixture can
be a better choice.
However, these systems are expensive and con-
sidering Finnish regulations look at economic fea-
sibility too, air source heat pumps can be anoth-
er solution for space heating energy savings at a
lower investment cost (Häkämies et al., 2015). The
struggle of using such a system with an existing
residential building can be the sizing of mechanical
units. Simulated fan coil systems are more efficient
than using open loop water source heat pumps with
district heating. Almost all the exhaust air heat is
being recovered and heat pumps are used as heat-
ing and cooling coil sources to condition the supply
air. Also, water source heat pumps are slightly more
efficient when the heating hot water source is elec-
tricity rather than district heating.
Including active strategies in retrofit combinations
could reduce these energy demands in Finnish
thermal zone 4, to around 50 kWh/m2 for the annu-
al energy use and 7 kWh/m2 for space heating en-
ergy. While the supply and return temperatures for
district heating are constant inputs for all weather
locations, delivering the water at this temperature
might require more energy in this location, which
cannot be determined in simulations.
Using water source heat pumps with passive strat-
egies result in higher energy demands. When the
combination A-01 is tested with the active systems
such as fan coil units with heat pumps (E-17), the
space heating demand in TRY2030 is around 30
kWh/m2 which is the limit value of EnerPHit stan-
dard. Colder temperatures and less amounts of
radiation over the year reduce the effectiveness
of strategies and there is a higher need for airtight
buildings with proper insulation.
When the energy consumption levels are ana-
lyzed, this study looks at operational carbon emis-
sions too. From this perspective, an energy retrofit
of passive strategies with essential repairs to the
original HVAC system can be an option. High re-
ductions with only passive means are mostly pos-
sible because the old buildings have higher energy
needs, especially for space heating while they can-
not keep the heat inside due to aging of building
components, poor airtightness and insulation.
If on-site renewable energy systems like PV panels
for electricity generation and solar thermal collec-
tors are used, it is possible to reduce the emissions
more. 100m2 of PV panels on the roof, facing south
with a tilt of 45° and an efficiency of 21% can gen-
erate around 20,687 kWh during TRY2030 and cut
the emissions for 8%. The annual net electricity use
is 162.189 kWh per year, 64% of which is used in
lighting and household appliances and around 30%
for space heating, respectively 65.839 kWh per
year. More efficient light bulbs and appliances can
also reduce the electricity use and related emis-
sions, while around 300m2 of PV panels would be
needed to supply the heating energy demands only.
When the building is retrofitted using Finnish re-
quirements by building component along with fan
coil units and heat pumps, the energy use and car-
bon emissions are 39% lower than Combination A
01 which uses the existing mechanical ventilation
system with 45% heat recovery. Thermal trans-
mittance values seem to be less important than
mechanical system efficiency in the case of cold
climates where heat recovery measures are import-
ant to balance the space heating needs.
Therefore, the minimum Finnish energy efficiency
regulations can be improved from the perspective
of better technical requirements. In order to en-
sure low energy demand and low carbon emissions
when the technical system requirements are con-
sidered instead, attention can be paid to the heat-
ing and cooling energy sources, such as using heat
pumps with a COP of 4.5, using electricity for the
heating and cooling coils instead of gas fired boil-
ers, choosing fans that have a specific fan power of
1.00 or better etc.
The main energy source for building operations like
lighting, equipment or HVAC is electricity which is
supplied by a central plant. In HVAC systems, elec-
tricity can be used for heating the spaces, operate
Energy-retrofit strategies 59
fans, heat or cool the coils, supply energy for heat at the energy use breakdown by building opera-
pumps or chillers etc. In the passive combination tions in the thermal zone that has highest space
group (Group A), carbon emissions are reduced heating demand. Among passive strategies, A-02 is
by lower energy need for conditioning the spaces, most effective in targeting space heating demands,
such as adding higher heat recovery efficiency that where the heating energy use rate is reduced from
results in much less energy needs to heat the air, 76% to 30% out of total energy consumption of the
low SFP value which uses less electricity to operate building.
or more energy-efficient systems like heat pumps
which can regulate the temperature using less Internal loads like lighting and appliances use 64%
energy. As a result, reductions are achieved in all of the total energy after the retrofit, while they cov-
combinations, with highest rates in combinations A ered only 21% when the building is tested in original
02-04, due to lower energy demands. condition. The improvements are even more visible
for mixed combinations such as B-07 (fan coil units
All the tested combinations can provide good in- and central plant, heating auxiliary energy source is
door thermal comfort, which stays within the tem- a heat pump), where the space heating can repre-
perature range of 21°C - 27°C for more than 80% of sent around 13% of total energy demand, in which
the time. However, applying the combination A-04 case internal loads cover 77% of the total use.
for the year 2020 can result in 0% colder tempera-
tures in North-facing apartments and around 0.3% By energy retrofit measures, space heating would
in South and West facing apartments while over- no longer be a primary concern for the building.
heating is seen approx. 0.8% of the time, mostly in Also, it is possible for the lighting and equipment
the smallest apartment type (1.84% of the time). In to be upgraded to higher efficiency standards such
the test reference year 2080, the simulations show as installing LED light bulbs and A++ equipment. It
the spaces can still be comfortable for more than might be possible to lower the total electricity (ener-
80% of the time, but the average overheating rate is gy) demand to amounts that can be met with onsite
around 3% in all apartment types. This overheating renewable energy generation, hence retrofit the
rate can be reduced to nearly 0% with the use of building to the standards of net zero energy.
more efficient mechanical systems.
When the building is simulated in original condition
for the thermal zone III (Jyvaskyla), the main dis-
comfort is seen in the top and basement floors, as
well as the dwellings that face north, all of which
experience cold temperatures. For this zone, the
passive combination A-04 can be used, since there
is a clear distinction on the thermal comfort based
on building orientation and solar radiation. This
combination results in 100% comfortable indoor
temperatures through the year. Also, the thermal
comfort can be maintained for more than 80% of
the year by choosing the combination E-17, which
represents lower passive retrofit standards with a
more efficient HVAC system.
The main problem of the building in thermal zone
4, is experiencing cold temperatures for around 30-
54% of the year. Hence when the building enve-
lope is improved, the only discomfort is due to over-
heating on the South-facing apartments, which can
occur for around 0.2-0.6% within a year. Including
efficient active systems in retrofit combinations will
then be mainly for reducing annual energy use and
reaching very low energy demand.
In order to find the strategy which can lower the
space heating energy demand most, we can look