Available via license: CC BY 3.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Physics: Conference Series
PAPER • OPEN ACCESS
Implementation of strategies for the realization of
ecologically and economically optimized serial
type house buildings for social housing
To cite this article: M Vollmer et al 2021 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 2042 012173
View the article online for updates and enhancements.
You may also like
Social housing for workers – A new
housing model for Ho Chi Minh City,
Vietnam
L M. Ngo
-
Issues of Contemporary Social Housing
Problems Nowadays
Mariusz Zadworny
-
Social housing energy retrofitting:
Business Model and supporting tools for
public administration
P Penna, A Schweigkofler, R Brozzi et al.
-
This content was downloaded from IP address 181.214.109.75 on 19/11/2021 at 05:11
Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd
CISBAT 2021
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2042 (2021) 012173
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2042/1/012173
1
Implementation of strategies for the realization of ecologically
and economically optimized serial type house buildings for
social housing
M Vollmer1*, H Harter1, K Theilig1, D Kierdorf1, W Lang1
1 Technical University of Munich, Institute of Energy Efficient and Sustainable
Design and Building, Arcisstraße 21, 80333 Munich, Germany
* Corresponding Author: michael.vollmer@tum.de
Abstract. The goal of this research is to develop ecologically and economically optimized
implementation strategies for social housing. Therefore, a case study is analysed over its life
cycle using life cycle assessments (LCA) and life cycle costs (LCC) regarding the global
warming potential (GWP) and its environmental impact costs (cost per ton of CO2). The case
study is optimized regarding the embodied emissions of construction and energy demand during
its use stage. Considering the cost ceiling for social housing, it is evident, that an implementation
of renewable materials and energies is mandatory in order to prevent the risk of a project failure
due to excessive environmental impact costs.
1. Introduction
The aim of this research is to identify the life-cycle based optimized ecological and economical
strategies for social housings. This is necessary to work out potentials for the further development,
realization and undercutting of cost ceilings. The main focus in this research are the embodied emissions
based on the building construction, the technical building services and the operational energy demand.
Obstacles to the implementation of cost-effective and ecological buildings in affordable housing will be
identified and suitable measures will be worked out. The findings are applied to a case study to develop
ecologically and economically optimized type houses with a high series factor in cooperation with the
building practice (housing association from Nuremberg and construction company from Regensburg,
Germany). The results will be further processed and systematized in such a way that they can be applied
to other housing projects as well.
2. Project description
This study is based on the research project ‘BEWOOpt’ of the Institute of Energy Efficient and
Sustainable Design and Building of the Technical University of Munich in cooperation with the housing
association wbg Nürnberg and the construction company Ferdinand Tausendpfund GmbH & Co. KG.
As a case study, an already developed type house of a four-story social residential building, located in
Nuremberg, Germany, is used. The base case of the type house (further referred to as v01) is planned
using a massive construction method. The external walls consist of sand-lime brick stone with an
external insulation made of expanded polystyrene foam (U = 0.18 W/m²K). The other load bearing
constructions are planned as reinforced concrete. Regarding the quality of the thermal envelope the
foundation has a U-value of U = 0.37 W/m²K, roof U = 0.14 W/m²K, windows Uw = 1.30 W/m²K.
CISBAT 2021
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2042 (2021) 012173
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2042/1/012173
2
The planned characteristics of the building are summarized as follows:
Area thermal envelope: A = 1,605 m²
Gross volume: Ve = 3,836 m³
Air volume: V = 3,068 m³
Net floor area: ANF = 1,227 m²
Regarding the technical building services, floor heating in combination with district heating is used. The
district heating will be provided by the energy provider ‘E-NERGIE’ of Nuremberg, according to ‘E-
NERGIE’ the district heating has a greenhouse gas emissions factor fCO2-eq. of 0 kg CO2-eq./kWh. This
value of zero is made possible by allocating all the occurred emissions to the generated electricity, which
is highly debateable but in the context of finding accurate optimization solutions for the given project,
this is considered in all the calculations accordingly. Furthermore, no cooling or active air handling units
are realized. The domestic hot water will be realized with decentralized flow heaters. For the electricity
demand (artificial lighting, domestic hot water and auxiliary energy) the generic dataset for the energy
grid in Germany (Dataset: Electricity grid mix scenario 2020 – decarbonisation is not included) is
considered according to the freely accessible German LCA-database OEKOBAUDAT 2020-II [1],
provided by the German Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community.
3. Methodology
In order to develop and display specific implementation strategies for the optimization of the new type
houses, a life-cycle based, multi-step approach is used. The base case (v01), with the given
characteristics (see Chapter 2) functions as the starting point for the holistic evaluation and optimization
approach. Important to note is that the building size, location, orientation and window area are set and
cannot be changed. The ecological and economic performance of the building is evaluated using Life
Cycle Assessments (LCA) and Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCC). The LCA is calculated according to
DIN EN ISO 14040 [2], DIN EN ISO 14044 [3] and DIN EN 15978 [4]. For the life cycle impact
assessment (LCIA) the OEKOBAUDAT 2020-II with specific datasets for building products is used.
Specifically, the LCA is used to identify the environmental impacts and functions as a foundation for
calculating the environmental impact costs. The ecological impacts of the building are calculated for the
impact indicator Global Warming Potential (GWP) given in [kg CO2-eq]. The building assessment is
based on the building life cycle stages according to DIN EN 15804 [5] for the following life cycle stages:
production (A1-A3), refurbishment (B4), operational energy use (B6) and the end of life (C1-C4).
Regarding the lifespan of the building, 50 years are considered. In the first step, different building
construction methods are evaluated. In the second step parametric optimizations using building
performance simulations (BPS) in combination with optimization algorithms are carried out with IDA
ICE 4.8 SP 2 [6]. As for the optimization a combination of the two algorithms Particle Swarm
Optimization and Hooke-Jeeves is used. Within the scope of the project the three different types of
building construction are a) reinforced concrete b) sand-lime brick and c) wood-hybrid. Furthermore,
energy systems a) gas-boiler and b) district heating as well as c) photovoltaic (PV) and d) solar thermal
systems (ST) are evaluated. The building is also compared to the reference building according to the
German energy saving ordinance (v00) (EnEV) [7]. Based on the results of the LCA environmental
impact costs are determined and evaluated. For the costs, the cost groups 300 (building - building
construction without the costs of the garages) and 400 (building - technical installations) according to
the DIN 276 [8] are considered. The cost ceiling for the construction costs of 2,250 € per m² of living
space is to be used according to the Bavarian State Ministry for Housing, Construction and Transport
[9]. For the calculation of the environmental impact costs (EIC), the minimum cost rate is set according
to the ‘Climate Protection Program 2030’ of the German Federal Government. The cost for one ton of
CO2 is set to 25 €/tCO2 [10]. Going beyond this rather conservative estimation, the central environmental
authority of Germany is stating higher cost rates. A cost rate of 195 €/tCO2-eq. is set based on a higher
weighting of the welfare of current versus future generations. If the weighting is equal between present
and future generations a cost rate of 680 €/tCO2-eq. is proposed [11]. Based on the LCA results the EIC
are calculated for the described cost rates and compared to the cost ceilings for social housing in Bavaria,
CISBAT 2021
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2042 (2021) 012173
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2042/1/012173
3
Germany as described in [9]. In the cost analysis an annual price increase of 5 % and a calculation
interest rate of 1.5 % is considered.
4. Results
Based on the assessment as described in Chapter 3. a total amount of five different building variations
are compared. The characteristics of the five variations are shown in the following Table 1.
Table 1. Overview of the different analysed building and energy system variations
Variation
Construction
Energy system
PV / ST
Optimized
v00
Reinforced concrete
Gas-boiler
-
-
v01
Lime-Sand Stone
District heating
-
-
v02
Wood-Hybrid
District heating
-
-
v03
Wood-Hybrid
District heating
yes
yes
v04
Wood-Hybrid
District heating
yes and accounted
according to
DGNB [12]
yes
The results of the respective LCA are displayed in Figure 1 and the environmental impact cost analysis
in Figure 2. Since the environmental impact costs are calculated based on the LCA results, the respective
ratios are the same. The values for the building constructions include the production, refurbishment and
the end of life. In the use stage, heating, domestic hot water, electricity for artificial lighting and auxiliary
energy is considered. In the technical building services, the heating system itself as well as photovoltaic
and solar thermal system is included.
Figure 1. LCA results for the different variations regarding GWP [kg CO2-eq.] over 50 years
For the reference building according to EnEV (v00) the total GWP amount to 1,445,759 kg CO2-eq. In
regards to the change of the energy system (v01) a reduction of 477,7108 kg CO2-eq. is achieved.
Furthermore, by changing the building construction between (v01 – Lime-Sand-Stone) and
(v02 – Wood-Hybrid) it can be seen, that the share for the building construction can be reduced from
395,099 kg CO2-eq. to 298,671 kg CO2-eq., which equals a relative reduction of -38 %. Since there is
no change in the energy system from v01 and v02, the GWP for the use stage and the technical building
CISBAT 2021
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2042 (2021) 012173
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2042/1/012173
4
services are the same. In total this results in a reduction of -10 %. Based on the first results, for the
further evaluations only the wood-hybrid construction is used. Hence, the actual optimization process is
based on v02. Furthermore, PV and ST systems are considered. The individual analysed and optimized
parameters are displayed in Table 2. By taking the whole life-cycle and different components of the
building into account, it is possible to find the optimal combination of parameters. For v03 it can be
seen, that the use stage was reduced significantly compared to v02. A reduction from 553,484 kg CO2-
eq. to 296,012 kg CO2-eq. is achieved. This is possible due to the fact that the PV and ST system directly
contribute to reduce the remaining energy demand for electricity. The remaining energy demand for the
use stage in v03 derives from electricity for lighting, domestic hot water and auxiliary energy. Regarding
the optimized parameters for v03, see Table 2, it is evident, that regarding the thickness of the thermal
insulations and the PV and ST systems, there is a life-cycle based sweet spot (Optimum). Increasing or
decreasing each parameter is not goal-oriented and would result in an increase of the total GWP, due to
more GWP in the building construction and technical building services or in more GWP for the use
stage. Excess renewable energy can be credited positively towards the total amount of GWP according
to German Sustainable Building Council (DGNB) within the framework of the ‘Climate positive: Now!’
initiative [12]. Methodically, fossil non-renewable electricity is displaced by supplying renewably
generated electricity to the power grid. By taking these measures into account the optimization
algorithms make use of the maximum defined area (200 m²) for PV. By using the renewable generated
electricity and supplying the excess energy to the grid, a net positive use stage can be achieved, see
Figure 1, v04. Taking the reference according to EnEV (v00) and the base case (v01) into account a total
GWP reduction of -74 %, respectively -61 % is achieved.
Table 2. Analysed and optimized building parameters for the variations
No.
Parameter
Unit
Min-Max-Values
Optimized v03
Optimized v04
1
Thickness insulation of ext. wall
m
0.02…0.50
0.28
0.28
2
Thickness insulation of roof
m
0.02…0.50
0.22
0.26
3
Thickness insulation foundation
m
0.02…0.50
0.20
0.20
4
Solar gain factor of sun shading
-
0.15…065
0.55
0.55
5
Solar heat gain coefficient of glazing
-
0.30…0.75
0.55
0.55
6
U-Value windows
W/m²K
0.60…2.90
0.60
0.60
7
Infiltration rate
h-1
0.30…3.00
0.30
0.30
8
Area of Photovoltaics
m²
0…200
55
200
9
Angle of Photovoltaics
°
0…90
25
25
10
Orientation of Photovoltaics
°
-180…180
0
0
11
Area of solar thermal system
m²
0…200
10
0
12
Angle of solar thermal system
°
0…90
75
-
13
Orientation of solar thermal system
°
-180…180
-20
-
14
Volume hot water tank
m³
0.10…2.00
0.5
0.5
Based on the results of the LCA, the EIC are as follows, see Figure 2. For the cost rates according to the
‘Climate Protection Program 2030’ of the German Federal Government costs between 63 €/m² (v00)
and 8 €/m² (v05) are derived. The EIC increase significantly to 493 €/m² (v00) and 64 €/m² (v05) for
the cost rates of 195 €/tCO2-eq. and 1,720 €/m² (v00) and 222 €/m² (v05) for the cost rates of
680 €/tCO2-eq. respectively. For the base case (v01) a range between 37 €/m² and 999 €/m² is calculated.
In regards to the wood-hybrid building construction in combination with the optimization process a
reduction to 22 €/m² to 610 €/m² is achieved.
CISBAT 2021
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2042 (2021) 012173
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2042/1/012173
5
Figure 2. Results of the environmental impact cost analysis for the investigated variations over 50-
year lifespan, considering an annual price increase of 5% and calculation interest rate of 1.5%
5. Discussion
In regards to the realization of sustainable social residential buildings it is evident, that the use of
renewable materials and energies is mandatory. For social housing the economic aspects are highly
important. According to the Bavarian State Ministry for Housing, Construction and Transport a cost
ceiling construction costs of 2,250 € per m² of living space (for the cost groups 300 and 400 as in DIN
276 [8]) has to be met. By taking the environmental impact costs, in addition to the construction costs
into account, this could provide a very high risk to the realization of such projects. Especially when the
cost rates per ton CO2-eq. significantly increase, as discussed by the central environmental authority of
Germany. The rather conservative cost rates of 25 €/tCO2-eq. defined by the German Federal Government
indicate a low risk to the realization of social housing projects. Depending on the different scenarios
regarding the cost rates, environmental impact costs between 64 €/m² (v05 - 195 €/tCO2-eq.) up to
1,720 €/m² (v00 - 680 €/tCO2-eq.) are estimated. In comparison to the cost ceiling of 2,250 € per m² of
living space the environmental impact costs can be a huge risk to the success of realization social housing
projects. Therefore, in order to be able to realize social housing projects in the future there is no way
around building sustainably. And since buildings and its requirements get more complex, e.g. by taking
the whole life-cycle into account, which results in additional parameters, the use of optimization
algorithms is necessary. Compared to the minimum required standard, given by the German energy
saving ordinance (EnEV) [7], significant improvements over the life-cycle are possible. Furthermore, if
one takes the excess renewably generated electricity on the building site and supplies it to the energy
grid and displaces fossil non-renewable electricity life-cycle based net positive use stage can be
achieved. By implementing renewable materials and energies to the building design, the respective
environmental impact costs can also be significantly reduced. This is especially important for the type
of building conducted by this research.
6. Conclusion
This study has shown that in order to be able to realize social housing projects in the future the use of
renewable materials and energies is necessary. The realization of social housings using conventional
building constructions, non-renewable materials and non-renewable energies the resulting
CISBAT 2021
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2042 (2021) 012173
IOP Publishing
doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2042/1/012173
6
environmental impact cost can provide a huge risk to the success of social housing projects. Since the
environmental impact costs are dependent on the respective scenario a high variance is expected. Based
on the high variance the focus of developing economically and ecologically optimized solutions are
mandatory in order to prevent the risk of a project failure due to the lack of innovation. In comparison
to the rather conventional approaches in today’s building practise and by taking the possible risks into
account, a fundamental change towards sustainable buildings is necessary.
Acknowledgement
The presented study is based on research conducted in the project “BEWOOpt” financed by the
Bavarian Building Industry Foundation (BBIV), the housing association wbg Nürnberg and the
construction company Ferdinand Tausendpfund GmbH & Co. KG.
References
[1] Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Community. ÖKOBAUDAT: Sustainable
Construction Information Portal; 2021. Verfügbar unter: https://www.oekobaudat.de/en.html.
[2] Deutsches Institut für Normung e. V. DIN EN ISO 14040: Environmental management –
Environmental management – Life cycle assessment – Environmental management – Life cycle
assessment – Principles and framework; 2009 2009.
[3] Deutsches Institut für Normung e. V. DIN EN ISO 14044_2018: Environmental management –
Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines; 2018 2018.
[4] Deutsches Institut für Normung e. V. DIN EN 15978: Sustainability of construction works -
Assessment of environmental performance of buildings - Calculation method; 2012 2012.
[5] Deutsches Institut für Normung e. V. DINEN15804: Sustainability of construction works –
Environmental product declarations – Core rules for the product category of construction
products; 2020 2020.
[6] EQUA Simulation AB. Building Performance - Simulation Software. Verfügbar unter:
https://www.equa.se/en/.
[7] Verordnung über energiesparenden Wärmeschutz und energiesparende Anlagentechnik bei
Gebäuden (Energieeinsparverordnung – EnEV); 2014.
[8] Deutsches Institut für Normung e. V. DIN 276: Building costs.
[9] Bayerisches Staatsministerium für Wohnen, Bau und Verkehr. Materialien zum Wohnungsbau:
Förderung von Mietwohnraum in Mehrfamilienhäusern; 2021.
[10] Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit. Klimaschutzprogramm
2030 der Bundesregierung zur Umsetzung des Klimaschutzplans 2050; 2019.
[11] Matthey A, Bünger B. Methodenkonvention 3.1 zur Ermittlung von Umweltkosten:
Umweltbundesamt; 2020.
[12] Braune A, Lemaitre C, Jansen F, von Gemmingen U. Climate positive: Now!: How every
building can make a contribution to climate action: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen
- DGNB e.V. German Sustainable Building Council; 2020.