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

 Energy-retrofit strategies 3

Primesa Arapi
Master’s thesis Optimal Energy-retrofit strategies for
Optimal Energy-retrofit strategies for existing buildings in Finland, now and in the future
1960’s concrete panel apartment blocks
existing buildings in Finland, now and
Tampere University
Faculty of Built Environment in the future
The School of Architecture
August 2021

Examiners / Supervisors
Assistant professor Sofie Pelsmakers, Tampere University
Postdoctoral researcher Raul Castano De la Rosa, Tampere University
1960’s concrete panel apartment blocks
4 Energy-retrofit strategies Energy-retrofit strategies 5

ABSTRACT
Tampere University
Faculty of Built Environment
The School of Architecture
August 2021
Master’s Thesis

Author Primesa Arapi

Title Optimal Energy-retrofit strategies for existing buildings in Finland, for now and in
the future - 1960’s concrete panel apartment blocks
Examiners/ supervisors Assistant professor Sofie Pelsmakers, Tampere University
Postdoctoral researcher Raul Castano De la Rosa, Tampere University
Year 2021
Number of pages 92
Language English

This thesis aims to research how energy-retrofits
can improve the energy-efficiency, operational
carbon emissions and indoor thermal comfort of
1960’s Finnish concrete-panel apartments, with
retrofit strategies that can be effective now and in
the future. Three main criteria are developed to
evaluate optimal strategies, them being “energy
efficiency criteria” (total energy use ≤ 130 kWh/
m2yr, space heating energy ≤ 30 kWh/m2yr), “car-
bon emissions criteria” (lowest emissions possi-
ble) and “thermal comfort criteria” (too cold ≤ 21°C
- 27 °C ≤ too hot).
Retrofit strategies are developed from literature
review of energy-efficiency regulations in cold cli-
mates and academic studies on energy-retrofits
in these countries. Identified retrofit measures
are simulated on a case study building in Finland
for TRY 2020/2030, 2050, 2080 and all 4 Finnish
Thermal Zones, under RCP8.5 scenario, using
Sefaira energy- modelling software.
Finally, most effective energy-retrofit strategies
for Finnish concrete-panel apartments of 1960’s
are suggested. Optimal strategies are identified
using the evaluation criteria and considering the
limitations in existing buildings such as complicat-
ed/ unfeasible installations. Findings can be used
to develop retrofit strategies for different Finnish
thermal zones as well as other cold climates.
Results suggest that improving space heating de-
mand should be targeted to reach higher reduc-
tions in total energy use. Thesis also raises ques-
tions about the retrofit combinations and whether
the physical limitations of existing buildings can be
used as an advantage. For instance, simulations
indicate that a hybrid strategy which proposes dif-
ferent retrofit measures for building facades based
on orientation and solar radiation, might be as ef-
fective as very high energy efficiency standards
on all facades, even though it would require less
insulation and investment.

keywords energy retrofit, energy-efficiency, space heating energy, operational carbon emissions, indoor
thermal comfort, concrete-panel apartments, existing buildings, cold climate, future climate

The originality of this thesis has been checked using the Turnitin Originality Check service.
6 Energy-retrofit strategies Energy-retrofit strategies 7

Acknowledgements
My deepest gratitude for the ongoing support of my supervisors, especially
Sofie who has dedicated much of her time into helping me find my way and
discover my ambition.

Sincere thanks to my family, especially my twin sister, Premisa and my loved

one, Alpper for putting up with my absence in their life, and yet being on the
other side of the phone whenever I needed support.

I would also like to extend my thanks to my friends from Kosovo, Turkey and
Finland, who have supported me along the way.

The completion of this study could not have been possible without you.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

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
10 Energy-retrofit strategies
1. Introduction
We are living in a time of environmental crisis
where the climate is changing, temperatures rise,
and precipitation amounts increase. Natural eco-
systems, agriculture, flora and fauna are endan-
gered because their environments are not the same
(Blogger, 2018; Dantas, 2018; Morecroft & Speak-
man, 2015; Weiskopf et al., 2020, p. 137782; WWF,
2017). People encounter health issues, resource
scarcity or discomfort in their living spaces.
While long-term climate predictions foresee more
floods, draughts, wildfires and heat waves (CMIP6
Climate Projections, 2021; Collins et al., 2013;
Hayhoe et al., 2017; Masson-Delmotte et al.,
2021), these events already interact with the build-
ing skin, structure and operation. They can dam-
age the structure or foundation, cause heat loss or
overheating, even lead to the collapse of buildings
(IFRC, n.d.; National Geographic, n.d.). In order to
overcome this crisis, buildings need to meet the
expected comfort levels, living conditions and
structural feasibility, now and in the future (Hao
et al., 2020, p. 7557; Sukanen, 2020).
Changes in climatic conditions are strongly affili-
ated with global warming and risen greenhouse
gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere.
The building and construction industry contributes
to the annual GHG emission levels with a share
of 38% (United Nations Environment Programme,
2020), while a building is responsible for impact-
ing the environment throughout its lifetime, includ-
ing the processes before and after its construction.
In response, many studies have been focused on
using the built environment itself to reduce its
own damage.
One way to address this emergency is simply by
improving how our building performs, in terms of
the energy it uses for daily operations such as
conditioning the occupied spaces, equipment and
lighting, and that which it produces from renewable
energy sources. The model and technical require-
ments for such an energy efficient building are
defined by building codes and building standards.
These documents are usually updated every few
years with improvements regarding their perfor-
mance. Changes are a result of developing tech-
nologies, material properties and EU energy-effi-
ciency targets.
The meaning of energy-efficiency and the extent
of required measures to reach an energy-efficient
building often vary for different building types, func-
tions, year of construction as well as the energy-ef-
ficiency concept defined in national regulations. For
example, the Finnish Ministry of Environment sets
different targets for new and existing buildings.
A comparison can be made in the Finnish E-val-
ue targets, which represent the annual energy
consumption taking into consideration the energy
carriers and heating energy demand (Ministry of
the Environment, 2013). The Decree on the Ener-
gy Performance of New Buildings sets a limit of 90
kWhE/(m2 a) for the E-value of apartment blocks
(Ministry of the Environment, 2017) while the De-
cree on Improving the Energy Efficiency of Build-
ings in Conjunction with Repair and Modification
Works has specified the calculation method in-
stead: “E required ≤ 0.85 x E calculated” (Ministry
of the Environment, 2013). This looks at possible
improvements without setting an ambitious target
since it is harder to achieve energy efficiency in old
buildings.
Many studies explore different improvement strate-
gies for warm climates and mainly public buildings,
but the research on energy-efficient strategies
for existing buildings is limited, more so for old
residential apartment blocks in cold climates
(Niemelä et al., 2017). A recent study argues that
70% of current building stock will exist in the year
2050 (Ruggeri et al., 2020).
Many others use past and present climate data and
not the future climate models. There is a lack of
understanding how the improved building performs
in the future periods of its life, therefore develop-
ing energy retrofit strategies where future climate
change scenarios aren’t considered might prove
ineffective.
Adequate retrofits are important for existing build-
ings because they usually need improvements/
maintenance every ~30 years (Lindahl & Sacco,
2016; Pelsmakers, 2015; Ruggeri et al., 2020). It
is an important opportunity to prolong the building
life before it comes to an end (Ruggeri et al., 2020),
hence, there is no room for mistakes. The existing
buildings need energy-efficient improvement strat-
egies which are effective now and in the future.
1.1 Thesis scope and structure
As one of the most GHG emitting sectors, the built
environment can contribute to mitigate climate
change and withstand its effects by improving its
energy performance and related carbon emis-
sions. Due to aging and low standards of energy
efficiency, existing buildings can be more energy in-
tensive. This is most likely due to their construction
year and lack of energy regulations. According to
Niemelä et al. (2017), the most common typology of
European housing stock consists of concrete-pan-
el apartment blocks built between 1960-1990s.
The building regulations of these years do not meet
with the current energy-efficiency targets, therefore
most of the existing residential buildings in Europe
are energy intensive (EU Buildings Factsheets,
2016).
Existing buildings can be improved through differ-
ent intervention strategies such as building reno-
vations and retrofits. Renovation means restoring
the building’s physical condition to its original state
(Cambridge Dictionary, 2021) while retrofitting re-
fers to changing the building state by adding new
components that didn’t exist before interventions
(Eames et al., 2014). These changes might include
replacing or upgrading building elements, such
as installing more efficient windows or insulation,
building services like mechanical systems or build-
ing use, in order to improve building’s energy per-
formance and reduce related CO2 emissions (Che
Husin et al., 2019; Shnapp et al., 2013; STBA, n.d.).
Since the existing housing from the 1960s isn’t
based on energy efficient design, renovating an
existing building to its original condition would not
improve it enough to meet today’s minimum en-
ergy-efficiency requirements or be efficient in the
future climate change scenarios. Hence energy-ret-
rofits will be investigated, which improve the build-
ing to a better condition than its original state. They
are strongly related to improving building’s opera-
tional energy, including energy consumption from
mechanical systems, lighting and household equip-
ment (Tam & Le, 2019), all of which are compo-
nents that can be replaced and upgraded.
More specifically, the study focuses on the ener-
gy-efficiency improvements in concrete sand-
wich panel buildings, since most of Finnish res-
idential housing from 1960-1990’s is built with this
structure (Build Up, 2019; Niemelä et al., 2017b;
Nieminen & Virta, 2016). Long-term effects of
retrofit strategies are evaluated, to find out if the
Energy-retrofit strategies 11
future climate changes affect the building energy
use under different retrofit scenarios. It’s important
to consider that there will always be new develop-
ments in retrofit implementations, building material
performances, system efficiencies, etc. Also, many
retrofit strategies that have a high implementation
cost today, can become cost-efficient in the future.
In order not to limit the preliminary findings to the
present-day economic capacity, technology and
building practices, the energy-retrofit measures
are evaluated based on three main criteria: “ener-
gy-efficiency”, “operational carbon emissions”
and “indoor thermal comfort”.
The study consists of two main parts, them being
literature review and energy performance sim-
ulations on a case study building. The retrofit
strategies that derive from literature review (chapter
2) and preliminary simulations of individual building
components’ energy performance (chapter 3) will
be used to develop retrofit combinations.
Total energy demand (kWh/m2 yr) and space heat-
ing energy (kWh/m2 yr) will be used for the “ener-
gy-efficiency” criteria, to compare and identify the
optimal strategies. Annual carbon emissions from
energy use on site (kgCO2e/yr) will be used for
“operational carbon emissions” criteria, to find
out the differences in environmental impact after
retrofits. Indoor temperature changes over the year
(too cold < 21°C-27°C < too hot) will be used for
“indoor thermal comfort” criteria, to assess the
occupant comfort and living conditions which may
worsen or improve as a result of retrofit measures.
This work is organized as follows:
First, energy-efficiency standards in Europe are
considered, especially cold climates where energy
use and space heating demands are much higher
in old buildings. Study includes literature review of
energy-retrofit strategies and applications in resi-
dential housing (chapter 2). Findings are used as a
basis for developing energy-retrofit strategies that
would be effective on concrete panel apartments.
This part consists of the sections on energy effi-
ciency in buildings, energy efficiency standards in
Europe and differences in cold climates. Building
retrofits in Finland, Scandinavian and Baltic coun-
tries are reviewed, to see the effects of a colder cli-
mate in retrofit decisions and effects.
Main questions to be addressed are: What is the
importance of energy consumption in existing
buildings and how can it be improved? How does
Europe regulate energy efficiency in existing build-
ings? What differs in regions with a cold climate?
12 Energy-retrofit strategies
The key findings are listed at the end of the chapter.
Then, the study looks at the retrofit strategies on
a specific building, respectively a concrete panel
apartment block of 1960s in Finland. Different en-
ergy-retrofit strategies are tested, where the energy
analysis is conducted using Sefaira software.
First, the retrofit measures are applied separately
when the other building components stay as in orig-
inal condition. Then, measures are mixed in retrofit
combinations and simulated on the building. The
strategies are evaluated for all four of the Finnish
thermal zones, using test reference years TRY for
2020/2030, 2050 and 2080 (Finnish Meteorological
Institute, n.d.).
This part looks to answer the questions: How do
different building components affect energy con-
sumption, carbon emissions and thermal comfort in
Finland, and how do they perform in combinations?
What are the most effective strategies to reduce
building energy use and related carbon emissions
while maintaining good indoor thermal comfort? Are
the identified energy-retrofit strategies still effective
in future climate change scenarios?
1.2 Research Objectives
While the discussions and developments on energy
efficiency continue, there is a need to identify opti-
mal energy-retrofit strategies in cold climates, for
existing buildings with poor energy performance.
This work is focused on the optimal strategies for
Finland, which could provide an understanding for
energy-retrofit applications and their effect in simi-
lar climates.
Recent studies mainly test different retrofit mea-
sures for new buildings, public buildings and de-
tached residential houses. However, there is limit-
ed academic research on the retrofit combinations
of old concrete panel apartment blocks (Niemelä
et al., 2017b). Residential buildings form 75% of
the EU existing building stock and concrete panel
apartments built between 1960-1990 are the most
common type in EU and Finland, with highest en-
ergy consumption levels (Bonakdar et al., 2014;
Csoknyai et al., 2016; European Commission,
2017; Kuusk & Kalamees, 2015; Niemelä et al.,
2017b; Paiho et al., 2013). Hence there is a need
to analyze this building typology further. Reviewed
literature confirms that most of these buildings are
inefficient and will eventually require retrofit mea-
sures to meet the EU targets.
Energy-retrofit strategies 13
The academic studies and building regulations
focus on retrofitting the building envelope, me-
chanical systems and renewable energy systems,
through individual or combined strategies that
provide low-energy or low-carbon buildings with
cost-effective solutions. (Bonakdar et al., 2014; Du
et al., 2015; Häkämies et al., 2015; Hirvonen et al.,
2020, 2021; Holopainen et al., 2016; Kuusk, Kala-
mees, et al., 2016; Kuusk & Kalamees, 2015; La
Fleur et al., 2019; Lindahl & Sacco, 2016; Niemelä
et al., 2017b; Nieminen & Virta, 2016; “NZEB Re-
quirements in Nordic Countries,” 2019; Palm & Re-
indl, 2016; Qu et al., 2020).
However, initiatives like financial support schemes,
differing market prices as well as technical develop-
ments through time will likely change the outcome
of the analyses that rely heavily on economic feasi-
bility. Moreover, there is a gap in testing long-term
energy performance and low-carbon impacts of ret-
rofit solutions and understanding how the retrofitted
building will perform in the future climate scenarios.
Effects of climate change are already influencing
the building thermal comfort levels and energy con-
sumption. For example, summer overheating re-
sults in longer operating hours of HVAC systems
to cool the building, hence building end-use energy
consumption and living costs might rise. Besides
the health issues, there is a risk of power outages
and energy poverty (Sukanen, 2020).
In response, this study aims to identify optimal en-
ergy-retrofit strategies for existing concrete-pan-
el apartments in cold climates, which improve the
current building energy performance and maintain
the levels of low energy demand over the forthcom-
ing years. In this thesis, the strategies are tested
for Finland, using Finnish climate zones which are
characterized as cold and arctic, using a typical
concrete-panel apartment of 1960’s located in Ker-
ava. Finally, the thesis aims to provide a better
understanding of:
1. How do different building components affect en-
ergy consumption, carbon emissions and thermal
comfort in Finland, and how do they perform in
combinations?
2. What are the most effective strategies to reduce
building energy use and related carbon emissions
while maintaining good indoor thermal comfort?
3. Are the identified energy-retrofit strategies still ef-
fective in future climate change scenarios?
14 Energy-retrofit strategies
2. Energy-efficiency and
existing buildings
The concept of energy-efficiency made an appear-
ance in the buildings and construction industry as
a solution to utilize renewable energy sources and
mitigate climate change. Buildings contribute to
global carbon emissions, which trigger tempera-
ture rise, loss of biodiversity, resource deple-
tion, health problems, social wellbeing, etc. All
the above mentioned come down to the effects
of human activity on earth and its energy needs,
including combustion of fossil fuels to heat the
buildings. They are finite energy sources that are
cheap and emit greenhouse gases when combust-
ed. Since the industrial evolution and development
of factories and production, fossil fuels are used to
meet almost all the energy needs for activities like
space conditioning, transport, material manufac-
ture, agriculture, food production, etc (Pelsmakers,
2015).
Events like the oil energy crisis during the 1970s
and collapse of the Organization of Petroleum Ex-
porting Countries (OPEC), revealed a high global
dependency on fossil fuels (Hu, 2019, pp. 1–3)
and international energy imports. Considering
the risk of resource depletion, these fuels will get
scarce in time hence more expensive (Pelsmakers,
2015). For the people who can’t afford it due to eco-
nomic, social or other limitations, lack of energy is
a lack of means to have a comfortable and healthy
environment. A transition of the energy mix is need-
ed towards using clean and sustainable resourc-
es in all sectors, including buildings. This change
would also lower the Greenhouse gas (GHG) emis-
sions caused by harmful human activities as well as
emissions caused by building operations, such as
lighting, space heating or cooling.
These building emissions, also known as opera-
tional carbon (Ibn-Mohammed et al., 2013), are
closely related to the energy source and energy
consumption amount. For instance, the building
emits CO2 in the case of fossil fuel combustion to
supply the HVAC system with the energy needed to
run. It still emits CO2 if the on-site power source is
electricity, but the electricity supply is obtained from
fossil fuels as primary energy sources. Situation is
worse for the existing buildings which account for
larger amounts of embodied carbon, that refers
to the CO2 amounts emitted during the manufac-
ture and transport of building materials as well as
building construction processes (Clark, 2019). They
consume more energy than new buildings because
their heat loss is higher, as a result of aging, in-
efficient building components and mechanical sys-
tems.
In response, improving energy efficiency in existing
building stock presents a key opportunity to explore
ways of assessing the building energy use and re-
lated carbon emissions. The more energy efficient
buildings normally result in lower energy demands,
even though the occupant behaviour can influence
the building energy consumption and might affect
the outcome (Chen et al., 2021; Paone & Bacher,
2018; V. Tam et al., 2018). Lower energy demands
are more likely to be met partially or completely by
renewable energy sources, when limitations in pro-
ducing enough energy supply from renewables are
considered. Such limitations may include renew-
able energy system efficiency, energy generation
capacity, daily, seasonal discrepancies (day/night,
summer/winter) or resource availability.
Interventions in energy-efficiency, resource-efficien-
cy and low-carbon-emissions are but a few solu-
tions to influence the building. These approaches
that target improving the building behavior are de-
fined in national building codes and Energy Perfor-
mance Certificates (EPCs), international energy-ef-
ficiency standards and rating systems. In order to
identify the optimal energy-retrofit packages for the
targeted housing stock, this study first analyzes the
attitude and regulations of Europe in general and
cold climates like Finland in more detail.
2.1 European Standards
on energy-efficiency
Energy-efficiency of a building can be evaluated
based on different criteria depending on the build-
ing regulations, such as the annual energy con-
sumption or annual heating energy demand.
The European Union Directive 2010/31/EU on the
energy performance of buildings (EPBD) defines
nearly net zero-energy buildings (nZEB), looking
at the on-site energy demand and energy supply
possibilities using renewable energy sources.
According to EU, “nZEBs are buildings with very
high energy-efficiency, and nearly zero energy de-
mand which is largely met through renewable en-
ergy supply, including the energy generated on the
building site or nearby” (European Union, 2010). If
the building can produce the exact amount of ener-
gy from renewable sources that is needed to supply
the annual energy consumption, it’s defined as a
net zero-energy building NZEB (Kurnitski, 2013).
Reducing the energy needs of buildings and con-
struction while supplying the remaining demand in
a sustainable way presents an opportunity to both
overcome future energy crises and mitigate
climate change. These definitions give space for
assessing building efficiency targets for energy de-
mand and emissions coming from the building op-
erations. Moreover, if the building reduces its car-
bon emissions to a large extent so that the emitted
carbon amounts are balanced with produced emis-
sion-free energy, it is defined as a net zero-carbon
building (D‫׳‬Agostino, 2015; D’Agostino & Mazzarel-
la, 2019; Lund et al., 2011; Panagiotidou & Fuller,
2013).
European building energy efficiency standards are
closely related to carbon emission reduction and
upgrading the energy and resource efficiency of
buildings as a part of the climate change mitigation
strategy (Climate Action, n.d.; EU Adaptation Strat-
egy, 2017). EU aims to achieve a 55% reduction
of 1990’s GHG emission levels by the year 2030
(European Commission, 2020c; Ministry of Envi-
ronment, n.d.).
Whereas the main objective of its long-term strat-
egy is becoming a climate-neutral continent by
2050, meaning that the emitted GHG amounts are
in balance with the eliminated amounts from the at-
mosphere. The European Green Deal (European
Commission, 2019), that was published in 2019,
Energy-retrofit strategies 15
addresses energy and resource efficiency in build-
ings and prepares the ground for climate-neutrality.
European Climate Law of 2021 further strength-
ens these ambitions since the target of cutting
emissions by 55% is legally binding (Climate Ac-
tion, n.d.; EU Adaptation Strategy, 2017; EU Cli-
mate Policy, n.d.). A renovation wave is proposed
(European Commission, 2020a) to trigger building
renovations, identify the struggles and eliminate
the financial barriers. In July 2021, EU commis-
sion launched the first part of proposals of cutting
GHG emissions, under the project “fit for 55”
which includes revisions on the climate and energy
laws (European Commission, 2021b). Among oth-
er measures, the proposal calls for setting higher
standards in annual energy consumption levels as
well as decarbonizing the energy use for heating
and cooling the buildings.
Renovation of existing European building stock is
further referred to in the EPBD Directive 2018/844/
EU which requires that all member states establish
long-term renovation strategies in order to stimu-
late nZEB renovations and meet the EU goal for
a decarbonized building stock of 2050 (European
Union, 2018). The directive addresses the energy
performance of buildings, establishment of short-
term, mid-term and long-term national renovation
strategies where energy poverty should be con-
sidered, decarbonizing existing building stock,
prioritizing energy efficiency as well as renewable
energy use. It proposes mixed measures in ener-
gy-efficiency improvements which would include
both passive and active measures instead of focus-
ing only on one approach. Highly efficient systems
are proposed when suitable in terms of technical,
functional and economic feasibility, while also pro-
viding healthy indoor spaces.
Other proposals include improvements in energy
performance certificates (EPC), automated tem-
perature controls, evaluation of energy efficiency
levels, e-monitoring and inspection of technical and
automated systems, etc. In 2020, many member
countries already submitted mandatory national
long-term strategies in relation to their commit-
ments to the Paris Agreement. The strategies are
expected to be updated every 10 years, taking into
consideration the developments in technology, en-
ergy-efficiency targets and other possible changes.
They involve reducing emissions in the building and
construction sector, including electricity, transport,
space heating and cooling (European Commission,
n.d.).
16 Energy-retrofit strategies Energy-retrofit strategies 17
CONCRETE-PANEL WALL U-value CALCULATION
ASSEMBLY SECTION EXAMPLE
2.2 Energy-retrofit for the thermal zone where the building is located
(Zone I - Vantaa), to find out if any of the measures
Thermal conductivity of wall layers:
strategies for existing alone has a larger impact on energy efficiency.
Then, passive and active retrofit combinations will surface Layer 1: Surface Plaster Layer 3: mineral wool
buildings be developed and tested on the same building over resistance Thickness (l): 0.01 m L = 0.09 m
the years and for all four thermal zones. outer concrete Thermal conductivity (λ) = 0.79 W/mK; λ = 0.058 W/mK;
Many academic studies look at optimal retrofit solu- surface
layer R = l/ λ = 0.01/0.79 = 0.0126 Km2/W R = 1.5517 Km2/W
mineral wool
tions to reduce energy consumption in buildings. Building envelope resistance
insulation Layer 2: Concrete Layer 4: concrete
Retrofit strategies often differ by building type, age, The envelope of the building includes surfaces that inner concrete L = 0.15 m L = 0.06 m

location and climate. In the first part of thesis, retro-
fit applications for existing apartment buildings are
explored. Literature on retrofitting concrete-panel
apartments from 1960s-1990s in Finland, Scandi-
navian countries and Baltic countries are reviewed,
to see how colder climate affects the choices made
for enhancing efficiency in building energy use. A
summary table is provided in Appendix A.
The findings from these studies are tested and com-
pared in the simulations by building components,
along with the requirements of several Northern
energy efficiency regulations (Figure A1). The sim-
ulation results are then used to select the best per-
forming values for each component, and group
them into energy retrofit combinations.
Building energy-efficiency regulations
The reviewed building regulations belong to Fin-
land and the Scandinavian Countries respectively
Sweden, Norway and Denmark. While Sweden and
Norway are chosen due to their close proximity to
Finland, Denmark is included because it belongs
in the Scandinavian country classification and is a
reference for the Baltic climate referred to in liter-
ature review of academic studies. In addition, the
international energy performance standard Pas-
sivhaus/EnerPHit is included as a reference for in-
ternationally recognized very high energy-efficiency
standards.
WALL
divide the indoor spaces with the outdoors, such layer λ = 1.9 W/mK; λ = 1.9 W/mK;
as external walls, doors and windows, roofs and R = 0.0789 Km2/W R = 0.0315 Km2/W
basement floor. Temperature differences between
the divided spaces lead to heat transfer through the Thermal conductivity of wall surfaces:
building envelope components for balancing the
heat. Interior wall surface resistance Rsi = 0.13
heat transfer
Exterior wall surface resistance Rse = 0.04
U values Rt = Rn + Rse+ Rsi = 1.8449 Km2/W
Hence, components must have high thermal re-
sistance (R = m2K/W) / low thermal transmittance U value = 1/Rt = 0.54 W/m2K
(U-value = W/m2K) to delay heat transfer which will
trap the warm/cold air inside longer and desired in-
COMMENTS COMMENTS
door temperatures can be maintained by lower en-
ergy consumption to condition the occupied space.
An example calculation of exterior wall U value on a
prefabricated concrete-panel wall is given in Figure Building energy-efficiency regulations often set
A. The heat tends to flow from warmer bodies to colder maximum limits for U-values, such as U = 0.17
bodies, in the case of buildings from the warm W/m2K for renovated walls in existing Finnish
To find out what is the optimal U value for the ex- indoors to the colder outdoors through the building residential buildings. Before the first energy regula-
ternal walls, roofs and floors, different U values for envelope. This thermal transmittance is expressed tions of 1976, the common U values for building
each element are simulated for the baseline build- as U-value and is measured by W/m2K. U value components were much higher (U wall = 0.81
ing, evaluated according to the “energy-efficiency represents the heat transfer rate through 1 m2 of W/m2K; U roof/floor = 0.47 W/m2K; U window = 2.8
criteria”, “low carbon emission criteria” and “good material with 1°C temperature difference (Pelsmak- W/m2K), which gradually decreased over the years
indoor thermal comfort criteria” explained in the first ers, 2015). (U roof= 0.09 W/m2K; U floor = 0.16 W/m2K; U
part of thesis. The reference U values are selected window = 1.0 W/m2K).
from academic studies and building regulations, in
order to have both experimental and realistic val-
ues to compare. EUI ≤130 EUI ≤75 EUI ≤95 EUI ≤30
kWh/m2 kWh/m2 kWh/m2 kWh/m2
Airtightness (primary
energy)
(heating
energy)

Preventing heat loss is closely related to the air- Passivhaus

tightness of the building envelope as well. An air- Finland Sweden Norway
These regulations and standards are important to EnerPHit
establish base limits of what the minimum energy tight building is one with no gaps and cracks that Roof
original U = 0.44 W/m2K U ≤ 0.09 W/m2K U ≤ 0.13 W/m2K U ≤ 0.18 W/m2K UExt. insul.= 0.12 W/m2K
performance can be by building category (residen- may result in unwanted heat loss or air leakage.
tial, office, education etc.) or its condition (old, new, A blower door test is used to measure the air that Windows
original U = 2.10 W/m2K U ≤ 1.00 W/m2K U ≤ 1.20 W/m2K U ≤ 1.20 W/m2K U ≤ 0.65 W/m2K
changed use). They also help keep a realistic per- penetrates through the envelope components when
spective of the measures that are more likely to be the indoor air is sucked by a fan attached to the en- Exterior Wall
taken in actual situations apart from experimental trance door (MIT, 2018). It is then expressed as q50 original U = 0.55 W/m2K U ≤ 0.17 W/m2K U ≤ 0.18 W/m2K U ≤ 0.22 W/m2K U ≤ 0.22 W/m2K
studies. = l/s or m3/hr per m2 floor area under 50 Pascal
pressure. Airtightness q50 = 6.00 m3/m2h q50 = 6.00 m3/m2h q50 = 6.00 ACH q50 = 1.00 ACH
Preliminary software simulations
The findings from the reviewed studies and litera- Higher airtightness and insulation standards pro- Ground Floor
original U = 0.38 W/m2K U = lowest possible U = 0.15 W/m2K U = 0.15 W/m2K U = 0.15 W/m2K
ture will be tested in the simulations for the con- vide better energy efficiency but require the use of
crete panel apartment block of 1960s, using the test proper ventilation systems to maintain healthy in- Figure A1. U value calculation for a concrete-panel wall element (up) and reference U values (down) from building energy-efficiency regulations of
reference years and RCP8.5 scenario. First, the door conditions. In the second part of thesis when Finland (Ministry of the Environment, 2012), Sweden (Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and Planning (Boverket), 2019), Norway (Nor-
passive retrofit solutions will be tested separately airtightness is simulated, limit values from building wegian Building Authority, 2017) and Passivhaus EnerPhit criteria (Passive House Institute, 2016). The” original U” (bottom left) represent actual U
regulations are used as reference and no current values for case study building (second part of thesis).
18 Energy-retrofit strategies
pressurization test is carried out for the existing
state of the building. Considering that most energy
retrofit options include improved insulation and win-
dow upgrades, the implementations are assumed
to be done properly, leaving no unintentional open-
ings on the envelope.
Lower energy consumption can reduce the carbon
footprint of the building, since less primary energy is
used. Often energy retrofits target improving these
elements in order to passively reduce building en-
ergy demand such as better thermal insulation on
walls or efficient windows. However, too much
insulation and high airtightness standards will
trap moisture, humidity levels will increase, con-
densation will appear on windows and walls. Paired
with poor ventilation, it can result in unhealthy con-
ditions like bad air quality, mold or damp on the sur-
faces (Nieminen & Virta, 2016).
If the building has a high airtightness standard of
≤3-5 m3/hr per m2, one of the recommended ven-
tilation systems is mechanical ventilation with
heat recovery (Pelsmakers, 2015). Since we can-
not design everything from the beginning, reach-
ing a low U value in existing buildings can result in
thicker assemblies and loss of occupied space. We
may not be able to reach low thermal transmittance
values compared to new buildings because it can
cause more damage than good due to limitations
on site.
Windows
Glazing is very important for building energy effi-
ciency as well as daylight and thermal comfort of
occupants. High performance windows can re-
duce the heat loss through transparent surfaces,
solar heat gain amounts as well as shading ele-
ments. For example, they can let the visible light
in and reflect the infrared through (low) e-coating
layers that are attached to the glass. They can lim-
it the heat gain rate with a lower solar heat gain
coefficient (SHGC) or g-value which helps prevent
summer overheating.
Correspondingly, higher SHGC can reduce the
energy need for space heating during winter. For
the spaces that experience discomfort due to cold,
higher amounts of solar heat gain are suitable.
But, since recent studies indicate overheating is an
emerging threat in the future (Sukanen, 2020), this
is a value that needs to be tested further to find a
balance between the need for solar heat gain when
it’s cold and prevent the additional heat gain when
it’s hot.
Energy-retrofit strategies 19
In many cases low g-value can result in less light
(Sukanen, 2020), hence daylighting or the visible
transmittance rate is also important. This is the rate
of visible light that penetrates through the window.
When replacing windows, triple glazing windows WINDOW EFFICIENCY:
can be chosen over double glazing because they Original windows: U = 2.10 W/m2K; g = 0.70
are more energy efficient. While triple glazing win-
Window Type 2: U = 1.40 W/m2K; g = 0.75
dows have higher embodied carbon, they may re-
duce the building energy consumption enough to Window Type 3: U = 1.00 W/m2K; g = 0.70
WINDOW
offset at least a part of the carbon emissions over
TYPES
Window Type 4: U = 1.00 W/m2K; g = 0.60
the years (Pelsmakers, 2015).
N Window Type 5: U = 1.00 W/m2K; g = 0.50
In the second part of thesis when energy perfor-
mance of building components is simulated, glaz- Window Type 6: U = 0.80 W/m2K; g = 0.49
ing types are chosen from the reviewed academic Window Type 7: U = 0.80 W/m2K; g = 0.40
studies and literature which test different window concrete-panel apartment
performances to select the most efficient (Figure 1960s - Kerava, Finland
Window Type 8: U = 0.65 W/m2K; g = 0.50
A1, A2). 3D model: Niemelä et al. (2017b)
Shading SHADING
As for shading elements, in existing buildings STRATEGIES
shading is provided in many intentional and unin-
tentional ways that often cannot be modified. Such %100 Test Reference Year TRY 2080 Future Climate Weather File AUTOMATED SHADING:
is the shading of nearby buildings, plants in public 90 Performance of different window types, with and without shading
elements. External blinds,
spaces or balconies of the building itself. The build- 80
ing can have additional static shading elements at- External venetian blinds,
70 Internal blinds
tached to the façade as well as window integrated
STRATEGIES
shading. Horizontal static shading elements are 60 Internal venetian blinds
WINDOW
more suitable for the South facing façade because 50 %100
they can block the direct sunlight and glare. 40 98
30 96
Examples of horizontal shading are the balco-
20 94
nies, overhangs or venetian blinds. For east and
west facing facades, vertical shading can be more 10 92
suitable because these facades receive sunlight 0 Original Type Type Type Type Type Type Type
% 90
Percentage of comfortable hours in the building
at low altitudes when the sun rises or sets, which windows 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
may cause glare and overheating. In this case, hor- COMMENTS
COMMENTS
izontal blinds would bounce the light inside while
vertical shades help block the direct sunlight and
still receive the ambient light. North facing façades
don’t necessarily require shading due to the lack of The automated shading elements are
The performance of windows are evaluated according to
direct sunlight (MIT, n.d.). simulated for the building in original
operative temperature. The thermal comfort criteria
condition. The thermal comfort criteria
applied in simulations is “too cold < 21-27 C < too hot”. All
In simulations, if the shading elements are chosen applied in simulations is “too cold <
other building components are left as in original condition,
as regular venetian blinds, the software assumes 21-27 C < too hot”. Blinds are
which might explain why adding new windows doesn’t
that residents can open and close the blinds ac- assumed closed in temperatures
have a significant effect on existing building’s indoor com-
cording to their needs. When they are out, their above 27C. The comfort rates in
fort.The effects of shading are less visible with very high
apartment will lack proper shading and will over- graph are normalized to show the
performance windows (Type 6 - 8) with low solar heat gain
heat, while the simulation shows otherwise. As a differences of shading options. All
coefficients. They can be suitable especially when no
solution, automated and operable shading can options provided good thermal com-
additional shading elements are planned for the retrofit.
be tested in energy modelling software, to find out fort more than 90% of the time.
which shading type is more effective in maintaining
the average indoor temperatures or limiting addi- Figure A2. Glazing types and shading types that can be used in the second part of thesis, to run preliminary simulations on building components
tional solar heat gains, regardless of the space oc- and identify optimal solutions for retrofit combinations. The results in graphs are a part of preliminary simulations carried out for an existing case
cupancy. study building in Kerava, Finland. More information can be found in Chapter 3.
20 Energy-retrofit strategies
The response curve simulation carried out in Se-
faira, tests automated external blinds, external ve-
netian blinds, internal blinds and internal venetian
blinds on a concrete-panel apartment from 1960s
(Figure A2). These shading types are applied in
addition to the existing horizontal shading coming
from the balconies of the building.
As a result, internal venetian blinds could be the
most uncomfortable shading type, likely because
the blinds are placed indoors, and they act as ther-
mal masses to store the heat and release it inside
hence uncontrolled temperature rise. External ve-
netian blinds resulted in highest thermal comfort,
meaning they may be a better solution for overheat-
ing as well as cooling.
A factor that may directly influence the effective-
ness of windows and flexible shading elements in
providing comfortable indoor temperatures, is the
building occupancy profile. Some building occu-
pants might enjoy using balconies more and leav-
ing the doors open resulting in constant heat flow
which cannot be predicted by simulation software.
Internal loads
When reducing the energy consumption of a res-
idential building, internal loads from household
equipment and electric lighting also contribute.
Inefficient appliances use more energy to oper-
ate therefore consumption levels and related CO2
emissions are high. A++ rated equipment can be
used and halogen incandescent light bulbs, com-
pact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), or light-emitting di-
odes (LEDs) can be installed since they consume
almost 80% less, give the desired brightness and
last longer.
Mechanical systems
Another factor affecting energy consumption and
carbon emissions in existing buildings is the ener-
gy performance of mechanical systems and the
primary energy supply. Many concrete-panel apart-
ments built within the 1960s-1990s period have op-
erable windows and a mechanical ventilation sys-
tem with no heat recovery, and they are connected
to the main district heating grid (Bonakdar et al.,
2014; Häkämies et al., 2015; Kuusk, Kalamees, et
al., 2016; Kuusk & Kalamees, 2015; Niemelä et al.,
2017b, 2017a; Nieminen & Virta, 2016).
Operable windows can be effective in natural ven-
tilation if window openings are placed in adequate
positions both in plan and elevation so the air that
comes in can ventilate the space and get out, all
without using any additional fans or mechanical
HVAC systems, components and definitions 21
Heating Ventilation Air conditioning
system. When planning to improve the building’s
selected HVAC types
mechanical system or replace it with a new one,
natural ventilation can be tested as “integrated with
the HVAC system”. The windows can be assumed District Heating Mechanical extract Mechanical supply Dedicated Outdoor Air
closed when the building is unoccupied, and when ventilation and extract ventilation Systems DOAS
it is windy outside, while natural ventilation as well
In a district heating system, The exhaust indoor air is The clean fresh air/ exhausted The outside air is dehumidified,
as HVAC system would be simulated as active the energy is transferred from pulled/extracted outside, and air is moved in/out of the and its temperature is condi-
when the indoor temperatures are out of the de- the central plant through the fresh air supply comes through building with the help of fans tioned before being supplied.
fined temperature range of 21-27°C (Ministry of the insulated underground pipe the window openings, vents, and ductwork. Fresh air is The HVAC system can have
Environment, 2017). network to the buildings gaps and cracks of the conditioned in a centralized air multiple fan coil boxes placed
heating and/or cooling system, building envelope. This HVAC conditioning/handling unit in indoor spaces where the
e.g. hydronic radiators. is most suitable when the (AHU) in the building, or in occupants can modify the
When no heat is recovered from the exhaust indoor individual conditioning units heating and cooling demand
building airtightness is around
air, more energy is needed for pre-heating the fresh 2-10 m3/hrm2 (Pelsmakers, before being supplied indoors. through a thermostat.
ventilation air therefore the energy consumption is 2015).
higher. Mechanical systems that regulate heating,
Heat recovery in a mechanical ventilation system happens when part of the heat from the exhaust air is
ventilation and air conditioning in buildings, are used to pre-heat the incoming fresh air supply. The system will consume less energy to condition the air
called HVAC systems. They are referred to as ac- therefore the operational energy demand will be lower. Ventilation with heat recovery is most suitable
Heat recovery (%)
tive retrofit measures because they require energy when the building is airtight, with an air exchange rate of 2 m3/hrm2 or less and the heat recovery rate can
to operate. be as high as 90% or more, depending on the manufacturer (Pelsmakers, 2015).
The HVAC types that can be used in energy-ret-
Specific fan power Specific fan power SFP of a mechanical system is used to measure the fan efficiency. It represents the
rofit simulations as well as requirements of Finnish (SFP = W/m3/s) electric power in Watts that the fan needs in order to circulate the required air volume.
energy-efficiency regulations are given in Figure
A3. Finnish regulations require that the mechanical
systems are upgraded during repairs and renova- The fresh outside air pulled in (through fans), filtered (cleared of dirt through filters), de/humidified and
conditioned (heated or cooled with the help of coils) before distributed indoors through the supply air
tions to meet the minimum efficiency standards. ductwork.. The exhaust air in the indoor spaces is pulled towards the return air ducts and transported back
Air handling unit
(AHU) to the AHU unit where a part of it can be re-used for heat recovery and the rest is released outside.
The main problems in existing concrete panel apart- Heating and cooling coils are tubes that act as water-to-air heat exchangers, and they may contain condi-
ments of Finland are moisture risk and unhealthy tioned water or a refrigerant. The heated hot water energy source may be a boiler, a heat pump or the
building conditions (Nieminen & Virta, 2016). The district heating system itself.
passive retrofit combinations aim very high efficien-
cy with airtight buildings, which would show similar Heat pumps are highly efficient systems that can raise or lower the temperature that is obtained from the
signs if not properly ventilated. Therefore, mechan- air (air-to-air heat pumps), water (water source heat pumps), or ground (geothermal heat pumps). They
ical supply and exhaust air systems can be tested need an energy source like electricity or gas to operate. Water source heat pumps WSHP can be classified
further in combination with passive measures. Heat pumps as closed loop and open loop depending on their working system. A closed loop means that the water and
antifreeze mixture circulate in pipes or heat exchange panels placed in the water source (pond, river etc.)
where the heat is absorbed in the process. In an open loop system, fresh water is extracted from the water
To look at the effects on energy consumption and source, which travels to the heat exchanger and then discharged.
emissions, multiple heating energy sources can
be simulated for the hot water loop, such as district Technical Reference
req. value
heating, electric boilers, gas-fired boilers and heat
pumps. Since the average temperature range is Finland Finland
the same for all occupied spaces (residential apart-
ments), the chosen systems usually apply for the Heat Recovery ≥ 45% ≥ 90% 28 m2/person Occupant density
whole building. possible!
SFP
≤ 2.50 W/m3/s 60% Occupancy rate
According to Finnish regulations (FNBC D3), the (ventilation)
HVAC reference schedule full time, meaning it SFP Internal loads from
operates 24/7 and average occupancy rate of the (mech. supply + ≤ 2.00 W/m3/s 11 W/m2 lighting
building is 60% (Figure A3). The limit value for heat extract ventilation)
recovery is 45%, but there are more efficient sys- Internal loads from
SFP 4 W/m2 equipment
tems that offer a recovery rate of around 90% or (mech. extract ≤ 1.00 W/m3/s
more. ventilation) Average indoor
21.0 °C temperature
Figure A3. Reference technical values for improving mechanical systems in existing buildings, and HVAC systems with their components, which
can be tested further in preliminary simulations by building components (Chapter 3).
22 Energy-retrofit strategies Energy-retrofit strategies 12

2.3 Energy-retrofit Baltic countries (Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia) all fall

strategies in cold climates
EU directives and international agreements have
paved the way for the development of national en-
ergy-efficiency targets and energy efficient new
building stock. However, existing buildings that
were built before energy regulations are not aligned
to the new standards, especially in cold climates
where space heating needs are much bigger.
under the cold climate classification. Finland is di-
vided into four thermal zones (1-4), 3 of which are
characterized with a cold climate while the 4th zone
has harsher weather conditions and belongs to the
arctic climate classification. The following literature
review on energy retrofits consider the buildings
that are located in cold climates only, while the arc-
tic climate is presented in the final thesis section
(Thermal Zone 4), when the case study building is
tested in all four of the Finnish thermal zones.

As a measure of ensuring better energy perfor-

mance, countries like Finland (Haakana et al., 2016;
Implementation of the EPBD in Finland, 2018; Min-
istry of the Environment, 2012), Sweden (Hjorth
et al., 2016; Swedish National Board of Housing,
Building and Planning (Boverket), 2019), Norway
(Brekke et al., 2016; Direktoratet for byggkvalitet,
2017; Norwegian Building Authority, 2017), Estonia
(Kuusk, Tali, et al., 2016), Lithuania (Encius & Ba-
ranauskas, 2016) etc., often require that buildings
comply with the minimum national energy-efficien-
cy standards whenever renovated.

The extent to which the requirement applies varies

by country. For instance, Finland has different ener-
gy-efficiency standards for new and existing build-
ings, which can be met by upgrading the building
components and/or mechanical systems (upgraded
elements must meet the minimum energy-efficien-
cy criteria) or annual energy efficiency of the whole
building (Ministry of the Environment, 2012, 2013).

On the other hand, Scandinavian and Baltic Coun-

tries often demand extensions, altered or replaced
elements of the building to meet the energy-effi-
ciency criteria for new buildings. As achieving very
high energy performance is hard in old buildings,
this chapter looks at the academic research on en-
ergy-retrofit strategies that could effectively reduce
energy use and related emissions in concrete-panel
residential apartments built between 1960s-1990s.

Buildings in Finland, Scandinavian and Baltic coun-

tries are selected for literature review, in order to
study the retrofit measures, developed concepts
and their performance in colder regions. In Figure
A14, these countries are illustrated based on the
climate zone they belong to (Passipedia, 2017).
Scandinavian countries (Norway, Sweden, Den-
mark) are mostly characterized with a cold climate,
while northern Norway experiences an arctic cli-
mate and Denmark has milder i.e., a cool temper-
ate climate.

Figure A4. Scope of literature review on energy retrofit strategies in cold climate.
24 Energy-retrofit strategies Energy-retrofit strategies 25

2.3.1 Scandinavian countries PASSIVE MEASURES:

(%) Reductions
EUI (kWh/m2 yr)
(Norway, Sweden) Thermal insulation (U = 0.1 W/m2K,
vacuum insulation panel) Heating energy (kWh/m2 yr)
Emissions (kgCO2e/yr)
Norway is characterized with cold climate in south- Improved airtightness (EPDM foil)
88.38%
Triple Glazing (U=0.62 W/m2K)
ern regions and arctic climate in Northern regions. Airtightness layer
Apartment No. 64 Efficient windows (U = 0.62 W/m2K) and
Therefore, energy efficiency and related measures Room temperature sensors
Bertramjordet Association Complex balcony doors 71.44%
are likely to differ by building location. In research Ground source heat pump
1987 - Olso, Norway

STRATEGIES
from Qu et al. (2020), a 4-story apartment block ACTIVE MEASURES AND

RETROFIT
3D Model: Qu et al. (2020) Heat recovery 86%
with balconies from 1987 is studied (Figure A5). RENEWABLE ENERGY: 75.22% Photovoltaic PV panels
Mechanical ventilation with heat recovery
The same building is later retrofitted in terms of (86%)
energy-efficiency and won a sustainability award
(OBOS, 2021). Retrofit strategies include mea- Temperature control (room sensors)
sures such as glazing efficiency, thermal insulation,
Efficient lighting (LED lighting) 88.38%
airtightness improvements, thermal comfort (room Triple Glazing (U=0.62 W/m2K)
temperature sensors), efficient heating systems Ground source heat pump Airtightness layer
and renewable energy systems like solar thermal 57.92% Room temperature sensors
collectors and PV panels. Apartment No. 64 - Energy-Retrofitted Solar thermal collectors and photovoltaic Ground source heat pump
Photo: Trygve Indrelid, OBOS (2021) panels (roof, facade, walls / balcony railings)
Heat recovery 86%
The building is in Oslo, Norway where cold climate 68.43%
is dominant. It is a part of the Bertramjordet hous-
ing complex built after the first energy-efficiency
PROPOSED MEASURES
regulations, hence it might have a better efficiency BUILDING STATE FROM LITERATURE:
standard compared to the older buildings. The total AFTER RETROFIT
floor area of the apartment is 1839.4 m2. The main 77.5% Triple Glazing (U=0.62 W/m2K)
façade faces south-east while other facades likely
lack proper daylight and heat gains. (1) efficient windows, airtightness, Ground source heat pump
Prioritizing space heating energy efficiency for old build-
temperature control sensors, 58% Heat recovery 86%
ings in cold climate can significantly reduce the overall
The presence of pulled-in balconies can also add ground source heat pump; Solar thermal collector
energy demand.
to the heat loss because of glazing surfaces and 63.42% Photovoltaic PV panels
shading. This is a residential building, where occu- (2) efficient windows, mechanical
Key measures include efficient windows, new airtightness ventilation with heat recovery,
pants are families with children and retired elderly
layer, heat recovery in mechanical ventilation or efficient ground source heat pump;
people. Therefore, the building occupancy rate is

CONCLUSIONS
heating systems like ground source heat pumps. 77.55%

higher than average. Annual energy consumption is
around 172 kWh/m2 and space heating consumes
almost 60% of it, reaching 103 kWh/m2 use per
year.
The retrofit combinations from Qu et al. (2020) and
OBOS (2021) are listed in detail in Appendix A while
a summary is given in Figure A5. Overall, a vari-
ety of passive measures, passive + active combi-
nations as well as renewable energy systems inte-
grated with these combinations are tested. Qu et al.
(2020) developed evaluation criteria for identifying
optimal retrofits, such as “fabric priority”, “renew-
able in supplement” and “avoid complicated instal-
lations”.
The energy-retrofit strategies of old buildings could
benefit from the evaluation of technical feasibility
and installation on site. As they already exist, it can
be hard and expensive to intervene and alter the
building components. The occupants might be dis-
COMMENTS
(3) efficient windows, mechanical Triple Glazing (U=0.62 W/m2K)
Differences in occupant behavior which could lead to ventilation with heat recovery, 50.6% Airtightness layer OR Heat recovery 86%
higher consumption can be targeted by using tempera- ground source heat pump, build- Solar thermal collector
Room temperature sensors OR
ture sensors that control the space heating. ing integrated PV panels.
Ground source heat pump
59.8%
Using renewable energy systems like thermal collectors (4) efficient windows and balcony
doors, mechanical ventilation with
or PV panels can help reduce the carbon emissions relat-
heat recovery, thermal insulation
ed to primary energy use. Building roof as well as facades
of the envelope, facade-integrat-
can be used for panel integration. ed PV panels.
Figure A5. Apartment No 64., Bertramjordet Assoc. Complex: Energy retrofit strategies, proposed optimal solutions and key findings (Indrelid & OBOS, 2021; OBOS, 2021; Qu et al., 2020)
turbed by the construction works. Therefore, con- ical systems can further lower the energy consump- provide 17% reduced energy use while combined with
sidering possible limitations in implementing retro- tion and regulate the space heating according to active systems this rate is around 40%. The actual ret-
fits can help to find solutions that are more feasible occupants. Using renewable energy systems can rofit of the building has resulted in 78% reduced energy
for the existing and occupied buildings. Simulation help decarbonize the supply energy, and there are consumption (OBOS, 2021) which includes thermal in-
results show that glazing efficiency and improved a lot of methods to make use of solar power, such sulation of building envelope. As a result, energy-retro-
airtightness can prove very effective in reducing as solar thermal collectors, PV panels on the roof, fits could cut primary energy consumption for 77-90%
heat loss and energy needs. LED lighting, room exterior walls or balcony railings. Qu et al. (2020) (OBOS, 2021; Qu et al., 2020).
temperature sensors and heat recovery in mechan- argues that tested passive retrofit measures would
26 Energy-retrofit strategies Energy-retrofit strategies 27

Like Norway, most of the Swedish housing stock is
apartment buildings which need energy-efficiency
improvements because they are very energy inten-
sive (Bonakdar et al., 2014; Hall & VIiden, 2005; Ho-
lopainen et al., 2016; La Fleur et al., 2019; Lindahl
& Sacco, 2016; Palm & Reindl, 2016). Among them,
prefabricated concrete structure apartments are
identified by the Swedish Energy Agency as they
sunlight and heat gain. This might have a negative
effect on the building embodied carbon. To reach
passivhaus criteria, the study proposes a combi- 1 PASSIVE MEASURES:
nation of insulated exterior walls (~20 cm thermal Concrete-panel apartments Thermal insulation of walls (U = 0.1
insulation, U = 0.1 W/m2K), roof (30-40 cm thermal Million Programme W/m2K
insulation, U = 0.08 W/m2K) and window upgrade 1960’s - Sweden
(U= 0.9 W/m2K). Holopainen et al. (2016) Thermal insulation of the roof (U = 0.08
W/m2K for roof)

STRATEGIES
have poor insulation and need energy-retrofits (Ho- On the other hand, Holopainen et al. (2016) com-

lopainen et al., 2016).
Their energy demand is almost 40% more than new
buildings. While the energy-retrofit strategies most-
ly focus on investment payback times and energy
savings of the building, the studies indicate that en-
ergy-retrofits are important for other aspects of the
building like the aesthetics or indoor comfort and
wellbeing of occupants. These factors influence the
property value and the property price as well, which
are strong incentives for the owner to undertake a
retrofit (Holopainen et al., 2016).
To find optimal energy-retrofit solutions, Holopain-
en et al. (2016) and Bonakdar et al. (2014) have
studied 4-storey apartment buildings from 1960’s
(Figure A6). These buildings are a part of the Million
Program in Sweden which was engaged in building
RETROFIT
Efficient windows (U = 0.9 W/m2K)
pares different retrofit combinations of passive ret-
rofit measures, active systems and renewable en-
ergy systems to see how the building performance ACTIVE MEASURES AND
can be improved. The strategies are developed to RENEWABLE ENERGY:
comply with the traditional renovation measures Exhaust Air heat pump integrated with
(implementations and requirements of national district heating
Concrete-panel apartment
building energy-efficiency regulations) and nearly
Million Programme Photovoltaic PV panels
zero-energy buildings (nZEB). 1964 - Växjö,Sweden
Bonakdar et al. (2014)
A passive + active combination is proposed to
reach nearly zero-energy standards (Wall U = 0.17
W/m2K; Roof U = 0.08 W/m2K; window U = 0.9 W/ PROPOSED MEASURES
m2K; Exhaust air heat pumps integrated with dis- FROM LITERATURE:
trict heating; PV panels). Detailed retrofit measures
and combination tables are given in Appendix A.
Even when located in different countries, the 1960’s build-
Both studies propose the same measures for roof ings have almost the same heating energy consumption: (1) ~20 cm thermal insulation on
and windows, which indicates that leaky envelopes ~100 kWh/m2 yr exterior wall, U = 0.1 W/m2K;
30-40 cm thermal insulation on

CONCLUSIONS
affordable housing during the years 1960s-1970s and heat loss through these components are key el-

(Hall & Viden, 2005).
Like apartment no 64. (Chapter 2.2.1), they also
consume around 100 kWh/m2 in space heating
which is interesting because they have differenc-
es in components and structure. The building in
research from Holopainen et al. (2016) has a con-
crete panel structure with no additional layers while
the building in Bonakdar et al. (2014) has brick
cladding. Similar space heating needs in these
buildings can be a result of low energy-efficiency
standards, same occupant profile, regional climate
effects as well as building form and orientation.
ements for this climate. Since it improves the whole
envelope along with the heating system, the nZEB
retrofit can result in around 58% reduced space
heating energy. But the final demand would still be
~ 33 kWh/m2 which is higher than Passivhaus lim-
its (30 kWh/m2). At this point, it might be helpful to
look at future climate models to evaluate and devel-
op this combination.
Figure A6. Swedish Concrete-panel apartments built in 1960’s, under Millon programme (Bonakdar et al., 2014; Holopainen et al., 2016)
COMMENTS
It can be a result of low energy-efficiency standards of the roof, U = 0.08 W/m2K;
60’s, same occupant profile and consumption loads, cold efficient windows, U= 0.9 W/m2K
climate effects as well as building form and orientation.
(2) thermal insulation on exterior
Window efficiency and roof insulation are the common wall, U = 0.17 W/m2K; thermal
retrofit measures to be considered with very high energy-ef- insulation on the roof U = 0.08
ficiency standards which means most of the heat loss and W/m2K; efficient windows, U = 0.9
leakage happens there. W/m2K; exhaust air heat pumps
integrated with district heating; PV
mineral wool and EPS can be used as insulating materials panels

In research from Bonakdar et al. (2014), the effects

of insulated exterior walls, basement walls and roof
are simulated (mineral wool panels, λ = 0.034W/m
K, thickness 45-510 mm; EPS insulation panels, λ
= 0.039W/m K, thickness 70-300 mm; mineral wool
insulation, λ = 0.037W/m K, thickness 50-500 mm),
as well as better windows (U = 1.2 - 0.6 W/m2 K).
Insulating exterior walls and upgrading the window
efficiency were found most effective, even though
insufficient on their own.

Moreover, some of the measures result in 100%

thicker insulation layer (Bonakdar et al., 2014) and
windows can become too deep which means less
28 Energy-retrofit strategies Energy-retrofit strategies 29

2.3.2 Baltic countries (Lithua-
nia, Estonia)
As heating needs are higher, they can cause dis-
comfort for the occupants which end up using more
energy to condition their spaces. Hence another
important factor to consider when retrofitting exist-
The buildings lack proper ventilation, and the spac-
es don’t have thermostat for temperature control.
As improvement, studies target space heating 36 PASSIVE MEASURES:
needs by testing a range of thermal transmittances Thermal insulation for walls and roof (EPS
Multi family apartments
for building components and propose technical im- Lithuania and Finland
or mineral wool)
provements like heat recovery in mechanical venti- Du et al. (2015) Improved airtightness
lation, heat pumps, gas or electric boilers as heat-
ing energy sources of HVAC systems. This method
1
Efficient windows and balcony doors
might be useful in early-stage planning of retrofits,

STRATEGIES
ing buildings is the indoor thermal quality. Du et al.

(2015) looks at the changes in indoor temperatures
after building retrofits in Lithuania and Finland,
by installing sensors and monitoring the changes
during heating season.
Retrofit package includes passive measures as
well as new heating systems and renewable energy
generation. Swedish retrofits often focus on glazing
and roof insulation while Du et al. (2015) proposes
adding heat recovery in ventilation as well. Similar-
ly, EPS and mineral wool are the common insula-
tion materials applied.
RETROFIT
where emissions related to primary energy are con- concrete-panel apartment
sidered. 1980’s - Estonia ACTIVE MEASURES AND
Kuusk and Kalamees (2015) RENEWABLE ENERGY:
However, reaching a nearly zero-energy building Mechanical ventilation with heat recovery
would require very low U values, especially for the
walls and the roof. There is a risk of adding to the Efficient heating systems like heat pumps,
gas/electric boilers
embodied carbon of the building while implement-
ing these measures. As seen in Lithuania and Fin- Room temperature control sensors
land, the indoor air and thermal quality can become
worse, health issues, moisture, or mold growth on concrete-panel apartment Solar thermal collectors and Photovoltaic
the surfaces might occur and the size of occupied Estonian TRY - Estonia panels
3D model in (“NZEB Requirements in
spaces might reduce due to internal insulation.
Nordic Countries,” 2019)

After retrofits, occupant responses indicate that this
retrofit package can effectively provide good indoor
temperatures in Lithuania (reference temperature
range 20-40°C; maintained temperature range 18-
22°C) while Finnish users still experience cold (13%
of the time) and increased overheating (13% of the
time) after the retrofit (reference temperature range
21-25°C; maintained temperature range 18-24°C).
Both countries report a problem with cold floor sur-
faces while an increase in mold growth is seen at
6.3% of Finnish apartments.
According to “NZEB Requirements in Nordic Coun-
tries,” (2019), national energy-efficiency regulations
also need to be improved, as they have different
calculation methods. This makes a strategy effec-
tive in some countries and inefficient in others. Swe-
den doesn’t calculate lighting and equipment loads
in final energy results, so the actual consumption is
much higher. Finland has very low primary energy
factors which makes it easier to reach a nearly zero
energy building.
What is interesting about these apartment build-
PROPOSED MEASURES
FROM LITERATURE:
Effectiveness of retrofit strategies depend on occupant
(1) thermal insulation, efficient
comfort levels and climate, including solar radiation, mois- windows and doors, improved
ture and air quality.
heating systems, ventilation with
heat recovery, solar thermal
When the building form and orientation are not optimal,
collectors, room temperature
energy generation from solar power will be lower and sensors;
higher energy-efficiency standards in passive compo-

CONCLUSIONS
nents must be sought to minimize energy consumption

Hence, adequate thermal insulation and airtight-
ness as well as retrofit implementation methods
need to be considered. Cold temperatures can be
addressed with better window efficiencies while
lower solar heat gains, blinds and cooling systems
would be needed to mitigate overheating. As av-
erage room temperatures and occupant tolerance
levels differ, optimal energy-retrofit solutions will be
different for these two countries.
Looking at the building energy performance, near-
ly zero-energy retrofits of Estonian concrete-panel
apartments from 1960s-1990s period, are explored
in research from Kuusk and Kalamees (2015) and
“NZEB Requirements in Nordic Countries,” (2019).
Similar to previous literature, Estonian apartments
with a concrete panel structure are highlighted as
inefficient in terms of energy, indoor climate and
heat loss through the envelope.
COMMENTS
ings is that they have different orientations for their (2) thermal insulation of walls and
and reach nearly zero-energy buildings roof, efficient windows, improved
longer façade, and this affects the optimal retrofit
strategy that suits them. When the longer facades airtightness, mechanical ventila-
Building location and orientation parallel to its form tion with heat recovery;
of the apartment face North and South (Kuusk & and physical limitations can determine the extent of
Kalamees, 2015), the building facades and roof are renovations or different solutions that can be imple-
more suitable to install PV panels because there is (3) thermal insulation of building
mented. envelope, improved airtightness,
more space and nearly zero-energy standards can
be achieved more easily. efficient windows, efficient heating
Because of differences in calculation methods and prima- systems working with district heat-
ry energy factors, a retrofit strategy can be effective in ing, heat pumps or electric boilers
The downside of such orientation is overheating some countries and inefficient in others.
risk if not properly shaded and cold temperatures
on North-facing façade if not properly insulated. Figure A7. Energy-retrofit strategies in Baltic countries (Du et al., 2015; Kuusk, Kalamees, et al., 2016; Kuusk & Kalamees, 2015; “NZEB Require-
When the building orientation is East-West (“NZEB ments in Nordic Countries,” 2019)
Requirements in Nordic Countries,” 2019), less
energy will be coming from solar radiation, either
as internal heat gains or renewable energy supply.
Then, the building needs higher U-values for its en-
velopes. Hence, building location and orientation
parallel to its form and physical limitations can de-
termine the extent of renovations or different solu-
tions that can be implemented.
30 Energy-retrofit strategies
2.3.3 Finland
Energy-efficiency of existing buildings in Finland
is evaluated based on the 4/13 Decree of the Min-
istry of the Environment on improving the energy
performance of buildings undergoing renovation or
alternation and the amending 2/17 Decree of the
Ministry of the Environment on the same topic (Min-
istry of the Environment, 2013, 2017; The National
Building Code of Finland, n.d.). When there is no
information on any requirement for existing build-
ings, regulations for new buildings are considered.
According to the Finnish National Building Code
(FNBC), when an existing building is improved by
the means of repair, renovation or alteration, the
energy and resource consumption must be low-
ered. To renovate an existing building, a permit for
renovation is needed for its functional, technical
and economic feasibility. The property owner can
decide on the energy-efficiency solutions to be im-
plemented and whether the renovation happens al-
together or in phases over the years.
The first option that may be chosen for retrofit is
improving the energy efficiency by building com-
ponents, respectively improving their thermal
transmittance expressed in heat transfer coef-
ficient U value. Finnish regulations specify the U
value requirements by building components (pas-
sive energy retrofit measures): Wall U value ≤0.17
W/m2K; Roof U value = ≤0.08 W/m2K; Window
U value ≤1.00 W/m2K; Floor U value = maximum
improvement possible etc. (see Figure A1).
As an example of retrofitting by building compo-
nent, thermal transmittance of an exterior wall can
be lowered by adding thermal insulation to the ex-
isting structure which will delay the heat transfer
(Nieminen & Virta, 2016). In winter, this will keep
the heat inside for longer while in summer it can
also delay the heating of interior spaces due to the
high outdoor temperatures.
As for carbon emissions, Finland has developed a
national climate policy, that aims to lower green-
house gas emissions for 80% by the year 2050,
compared to the emission levels of 1990 (Finland’s
National Climate Change Policy, n.d.). Carbon-neu-
trality objective is to be achieved by 2035 which will
be followed by a carbon-negative country. To do
that, Finland is focusing on reducing emissions
from sectors like building specific heating and cool-
ing systems, transport, agriculture and waste man-
agement. Some of the measures include the man-
Energy-retrofit strategies 31
datory blending of oil with bioliquids, phasing out oil
heating in public buildings, offering guidance and fi-
nancial support for building renovations, installation
of renewable energy sources and heat pumps, en-
ergy tax on fuels etc. (Government Report on Medi-
um-Term Climate Change Plan for 2030 – Towards
Climate-Smart Day-to-Day Living, 2017). In order
to serve these long-term objectives of the govern-
ment, targeting space heating demands and reduc-
ing carbon emissions of the building is important.
The reductions can be achieved by improving the
building envelope, building operations such as
energy-efficient home appliances, LED lighting,
more efficient HVAC systems and related mea-
sures that reduce energy consumption of the build-
ing. The energy source of heating and cooling
systems can also be chosen or upgraded to fuels
that emit less carbon dioxide when combusted. In
addition, the integration of renewable energy sys-
tems can be considered, which reduces the amount
of carbon emissions coming from the use of fossil
fuels as primary energy sources.
Looking at the energy generation in power plants,
Finland uses nuclear and hydro energy as well as
biomass (IEA, n.d.). The waste from processing
wood is used to generate electricity while natural
gas and its required pipe networks are considerably
rare in Finland (REHVA Federation of European
Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Associa-
tions, 2019). Therefore, Finnish energy sources are
progressing towards a more clean and renewable
energy mix which can contribute to reducing prima-
ry energy emissions in the future.
The Finnish emissions factor that represents the
mix of fuels used by Finnish power stations to pro-
duce energy is 0.136 kgCO2e per kWh (Carbon
Footprint, 2020), while Finnish primary energy (PE)
factors used in European Commission recommen-
dations are 1.2 for electricity, 0.5 for district heat-
ing and 1.0 for natural gas (REHVA Federation of
European Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning
Associations, 2021). A primary energy factor rep-
resents the amount of primary energy that is used
to generate a unit of energy like electricity that can
be used on site.
Enhancing the energy efficiency of building enve-
lope components may contribute to the raise of
embodied carbon emissions. Each material has
an amount of embodied carbon, that represents the
carbon emissions during its production, including
extraction, transport and manufacture. As an ex-
ample, improving the thermal insulation will reduce
 VENTILATED EXTERNAL UNVENTILATED EXTERNAL
INSULATION INSULATION

32 Energy-retrofit strategies
inner concrete inner concrete
layer layer
mineral wool mineral wool
heat loss, energy use and related operational car- chosen structure and materials are affecting energy insulation insulation
bon emissions but the embodied carbon of the insu- efficiency more than aging of building elements. outer concrete
lation material can be higher than the reduction so layer outer concrete
layer
materials, their thickness and application methods Holopainen et al. (2016), explores traditional ren- additional thermal
should be taken into consideration. Embodied car- ovation strategies and nearly zero-energy renova-

bon emissions are not the main focus of this study
which looks at the operational carbon emissions
I.e., emissions derived from onsite energy uses re-
lated to space heating, ventilation, air conditioning,
lighting and appliances.
Thermal comfort depends on the occupants who
can feel comfortable, meaning not too hot or too
cold, at certain temperatures. Building regulations
usually give an average temperature range which is
acceptable by the vast majority. There are other pa-
rameters of thermal environment that affect the hu-
man comfort, such as humidity which is preferred to
be around 40-65% because higher rates can cause
mold growth and health problems (Nieminen & Vir-
ta, 2016; Pelsmakers, 2015).
According to the 1009/2017 Decree of the Ministry
of the Environment on the Indoor Climate and Ven-
tilation of New buildings, the average room tem-
perature during the heating season is 21 °C while
the acceptable temperature range is within 20-25
°C for the heating season and 20-27°C outside the
heating season. The building must be sufficiently
daylit, with shading devices that can be controlled
to suit different activities inside. Also, the 1010/2017
Decree of the Ministry of the Environment on the
Energy Performance of New Buildings requires that
the spaces need cooling if the indoor temperature
reaches +27°C which means overheating has oc-
WALL
insulation
additional thermal
tions proposing passive retrofit measures (wall U = facade support
insulation
0.14 - 0.09 W/m2K; roof U = 0.10 - 0.08 W/m2K; frames (fastening
through the wool
floor U = 0.15 W/m2K; windows U = 0.7 W/m2K), plaster
layer to the
exhaust air heat pumps, PV panels and thermal concrete)
collectors. These measures could reduce space facade (plastered
heating energy from 130 kWh/m2 to 50-19 kWh/ sheet, sheet
m2 per year. On the other hand, research from metal, etc.).
Nieminen and Virta (2016) focuses solely on the im-
portance of adequate thermal insulation in Finnish
concrete-panel apartments from 1950s-1970s, and COMMENTS COMMENTS
possible implications like moisture, mold growth
and health problems. These are related to poor
construction and implementation of retrofits, lack of Additional thermal layer can be implemented along
information on detailing, wrong material choices for Applying thermal insulation without a ventilation gap
with a second layer of façade, so that there is a or secondary façade layer is possible but not
insulation etc. ventilation gap between the new thermal insulation
recommended due to mositure risk.
and the new outer layer (façade) of the wall. The Plaster layer can be applied as a thin layer of 8-10
The outer concrete layers of the building structure support structure in-between is used to fasten the
can be damaged over time resulting in corrosion. mm or a thick layer of 20-25 mm. If the material has
new façade layer through insulation to the existing higher thermal conductivity, the insulation layer will
If that happens, a new insulation layer cannot be wall. Common insulation materials are mineral wool
added on top of the existing walls or roof, but the need to be thicker in order to provide the desired
and EPS. thermal transmittance of the assembly.
damaged layers (concrete and/or thermal insula-
tion) need to be replaced. This is an opportunity
to use better insulation materials, external façade, VENTILATED EXTERNAL UNVENTILATED EXTERNAL
prefabricated elements with ventilation system etc. INSULATION new bitumen chemi- INSULATION
On the other hand, construction works are bigger, cal coating
they may last longer and there will be a need to the base of the bitumi-
adjust building spaces (roof or rooms) to accommo- nous cream coating
(mineral wool)
date new HVAC systems (Nieminen & Virta, 2016). bitumen chemical
mineral wool insulation
old bituminous coating
Since improving building envelope accounts for

curred.
Finnish existing housing stock is mostly built in
1950s-1990s, as a response to urbanization and
immigration from rural areas (Häkämies et al.,
2015; Hirvonen et al., 2020, 2021; Holopainen et
al., 2016; Niemelä et al., 2017b; Nieminen & Virta,
2016). Apartments are often built with prefabricated
concrete sandwich panels and flat roofs, connected
to the district heating grid. Some buildings have ad-
ditional brick cladding while planimetry can be with
or without balconies.
These buildings are in very bad condition in terms
of energy, and Holopainen et al. (2016) identifies
the main reason behind not undertaking a retrofit
as financial, such as not being feasible economi-
cally, not possible to calculate long-term profitability
or no economic capacity to fund the retrofit. More-
over, they have higher energy consumption levels
than older brick buildings, which indicates that the
ROOF
most of the energy retrofit cost (Pelsmakers, 2015),
this study reviews the option of additional layers
on top of the existing ones, assuming that the con-
crete panel wall is in good condition (Figure A8).
The importance of efficient roof assemblies for cold
climate retrofits is addressed in this research as
well. According to Nieminen and Virta (2016), roofs
of concrete panel apartments from 1960s are often
unventilated, poorly insulated and inefficient.
Common insulation for concrete sandwich panels in
all reviewed literature are mineral wool and EPS.
However other materials can also be explored un-
der the criteria of embodied carbon emissions,
while considering the material properties, imple-
mentation methods, feasibility on-site and overall
efficiency. When choosing a material, it is important
to look at its other properties besides the thermal
conductivity. For example, a plaster layer with wa-
terproof properties will be effective in Finland for the
moisture to evaporate outside. Adding new insula-
Figure A8. Thermal insulation applications on the walls and roof of Finnish concrete-panel apartments from 1950s-1970s (Nieminen & Virta, 2016)
cream coating
mineral wool insulation
vapor barrier
load-bearing
concrete structure
COMMENTS
Roof layers are usually unventilated. An additional
layer of insulation can be added on top of the water-
proof layer, either ventilated through the grooved
insulation panel or unventilated. Another waterproof
layer is then installed on top of the new insulation.
Attention must be paid to the insulation layers being
dry during construction because moisture can lead
to mold growth in them. Old waterproof layer and
thermal insulation can be replaced with new materi-
als as well.
mineral wool insulation
vapor barrier
load-bearing
concrete structure
COMMENTS
In the concrete panel apartments of 1960s-1970s,
roof layers are usually unventilated. After the
vacuum fans that were used to dry the structure,
grooved (strips in the material) wool materials start-
ed to be implemented for roof ventilation. The tem-
peratures in grooves reach +50°C in summer and
heat the ventilation air inside which dries the struc-
ture. The ventilation strips are connected to the
vacuum fans, eaves and outside air while the venti-
lation gaps need to be protected from rain and
snow.
34 Energy-retrofit strategies (%) Reductions Energy-retrofit strategies 35
EUI (kWh/m2 yr)
1 Heating energy (kWh/m2 yr)
tion on top of the existing structure is not likely to Concrete-panel apartment PASSIVE MEASURES: Emissions (kgCO2e/yr)
affect the habitant’s everyday routine who can re- 1970s - Finland Thermal insulation of walls (U = 0.09 -
main at home during this part of the retrofit and the Holopainen et al. (2016) 0.11 W/m2K
implementation period is shorter. Triple Glazing (U=0.7 W/m2K)
Thermal insulation of the roof (U = 0.08 - 85.38%
In addition to the passive measures of energy ret- ALL 0.07 W/m2K for roof) Thermal insulation (Wall U = 0.09 W/m2K)
Thermal insulation (Roof U = 0.08 W/m2K)

STRATEGIES
rofitting, Häkämies et al. (2015) and Niemelä et al. concrete-panel apartments 71.5%

RETROFIT
Thermal insulation of the floor (U = 0.15
Thermal insulation (Floor U = 0.15 W/m2K)
(2017b) test the role of heat pumps (exhaust air 1950’ - 1970s - Finland W/m2K for roof)
Nieminen and Virta (2016) Exhaust air heat pump
heat pumps, ground source heat pumps, air to wa-
ter heat pumps) integrated in district heating. They Efficient windows (U = 0.7 W/m2K; g = 35.8% Photovoltaic PV panels
0.42)
are often combined with very high energy efficiency Solar thermal collectors

standards for passive measures.

Triple Glazing (U=0.7 W/m2K; g = 0.42)

Niemelä et al. (2017b) tests heat pump concepts Ground source heat pump

with passive retrofit measures like wall insulation ACTIVE MEASURES AND 72.2% Thermal insulation (Wall, thickness = 300mm)
(8 options within the thickness range of 80mm- RENEWABLE ENERGY: Thermal insulation (Roof thickness = +400mm)
300mm), roof insulation (10 options within the concrete-panel apartment Improved district heating grid with a two
Photovoltaic PV panels (area = 130m2)
thickness range of 0mm-400mm), repaired win- 1960s - Helsinki, Finland pipe system and low temperature hydronic
Häkämies et al. (2015) radiators
dows (5 options within the U value range of
original U value – 0.6 W/m2K) and new windows Mechanical ventilation with heat recovery
(3 options within the U value range of original U
value – 0.7 W/m2K). Exhaust air heat pumps

Ground source heat pumps

Energy performance is simulated in 1960’s con- Triple Glazing (U=0.8 W/m2K; g = 0.49)
crete-panel apartments with South-North orienta- Air to water heat pumps, Ground source OR Exhaust air heat pump
tion and balconies (Niemelä et al., 2017b) as well 59.6%
Thermal insulation (Wall, thickness = 180mm)
as without balconies (Häkämies et al., 2015). Re- Solar thermal collectors and Photovoltaic
Thermal insulation (Roof thickness = +400mm)
newable energy is generated by PV panels that panels
Photovoltaic PV panels (area = 130m2)
supply the heating energy need of HVAC systems. concrete-panel apartment
1960s - Kerava, Finland
As a result, ground source heat pumps (GSHP) Niemelä et al. (2017b)
and exhaust air heat pumps (EAHP) are found
most effective. They also work well with the district PROPOSED MEASURES
heating system. There are some limitations to con- FROM LITERATURE:
sider such as the high investment cost (GSHP) or
difficulty in sizing the HVAC units (EAHP) because
space heating needs are so high. Triple Glazing (U=0.8 W/m2K; g = 0.49)

(1) thermal insulation of walls and 37% Ground source heat pump
Concrete-panel apartment structure can result in higher
Nevertheless, it is recommended to study the air- roof, efficient windows and doors, Thermal insulation (Wall, thickness = 180mm)
space heating needs than brick buildings built earlier.
to-water heat pump in residential buildings since exhaust air heat pumps, PV
Building materials and structure are more important in Photovoltaic PV panels (area = 130m2)
the technology is developing at a fast pace and it is panels;
cold climates than aging of components.
CONCLUSIONS
promising in terms of lower costs and energy-effi- COMMENTS
ciency. (2) thermal insulation of walls and
Poor construction and implementation of retrofits, 67.96%
roof, improved HVAC systems to
lack of information on detailing, wrong material choic- Triple Glazing (U=0.9 W/m2K)
While the literature looks at different passive and meet minimum energy-efficiency
es for insulation etc. can result in moisture, bad indoor 58.4% Thermal insulation (Wall U = 0.17 W/m2K)
active measures, identified risks of physical dam- requirements;
air quality, mold growth, asthma, corrosion of concrete,
age in buildings as well as deteriorating living con- Thermal insulation (Roof U = 0.08 W/m2K)
damaged insulation layer and low energy-efficiency.
ditions of occupants highlight the importance of fu- (3) very high energy efficiency 48.8% Exhaust air heat pump
ture proofing in design. Long-term effects of energy standards in thermal insulation of Photovoltaic PV panels
Identified risks of physical damage in buildings and deteri-
retrofits must be investigated, especially for the ex- building envelope, improved
orating living conditions of occupants highlight the impor-
isting concrete-panel apartments. airtightness, efficient windows,
tance of future proofing in design. Long-term effects of
ground source heat pumps or
energy retrofits must be investigated.
exhaust air heat pumps, integrat-
ed with district heating, PV
panels;
Figure A9. Energy-retrofit strategies in Finland (Häkämies et al., 2015; Hirvonen et al., 2020, 2021; Holopainen et al., 2016; Niemelä
et al., 2017b; Nieminen & Virta, 2016)
36 Energy-retrofit strategies Energy-retrofit strategies 37

2.4. Lessons learned • If the retrofit is not planned and implemented

The literature review of energy retrofits helps in de-
veloping methods of evaluating optimal solutions
and formulating combinations, as well as identifying
problems that can be encountered during or after
retrofits.
• The passive and active energy-retrofit measures
can be first analyzed individually, to see if any of
them is a key measure to be prioritized in all combi-
nations. Then individual solutions can be analyzed
in combinations, since it is not likely for one retro-
fit measure alone to make a big difference to the
building performance. Differences in existing build-
ings can be addressed with evaluation criteria that
look at physical limitations in buildings and how to
make use of fixed parameters that cannot change.
• Even when located in different countries or having
different external envelope layers (concrete/brick
cladding), the 1960’s buildings have almost the
same heating energy consumption: ~100 kWh/m2
yr. Building materials and structure have a bigger in-
fluence in cold climates than aging of components.
Space heating energy demand can be targeted to
reach significant total energy use reductions. Most
efficient mechanical systems are ground source
heat pumps and exhaust air heat pumps.
properly, building and its occupants face problems
like mold growth (moisture), asthma, bad indoor
air quality, corrosion of concrete layers (poor ma-
terial choice, bad retrofit implementation), reduced
indoor space (internal insulation), energy poverty
(inefficient building) etc. Identified risks of physical
damage in buildings and deteriorating living condi-
tions of occupants highlight the importance of fu-
ture proofing in design. Long-term effects of energy
retrofits must be investigated.
• Occupant surveys and site inspections can help to
identify possible implications after retrofits. Differ-
ent user profiles can have different opinions on the
indoor comfort because of their personal preferenc-
es and tolerance levels. Unpredicted results due to
occupant behavior could be controlled at least par-
tially, if room temperature control sensors are used
to regulate the space heating
• The building energy-efficiency regulations can re-
sult in efficient buildings, but they are not enough
to meet nearly or net zero-energy buildings, which
would need more strict requirements as well as
making good use of the building form and orienta-
tion. Because of differences in calculation methods
and primary energy factors, a retrofit strategy can
be effective in some countries and inefficient in oth-
ers.

• Main passive retrofit measures in cold climates

are highly energy-efficient windows and very well
insulated roofs, followed by a new airtightness
layer, heat recovery in mechanical ventilation and
thermal insulation of building envelope.

• Renewable energy systems like thermal collectors

or PV panels can help reduce the carbon emissions
related to primary energy use. They can be placed
on the roof, on façade elements like walls or bal-
cony railings or nearby the building. Solar power
can be the energy source for electricity, hot water
or heat pumps.

• When the building form and orientation are not

optimal, energy generation from solar power will
be lower and higher energy-efficiency standards in
passive components must be sought to minimize
energy consumption and reach nearly zero-energy
buildings. Building location and orientation parallel
to its form and physical limitations can determine
the extent of renovations or different solutions that
can be implemented.
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
60 Energy-retrofit strategies Energy-retrofit strategies 61

EUI (kWh/m2 yr) Finnish EUI (%) Reductions

5. Conclusions According to literature, achieving very high ener-

gy-efficiency in concrete panel apartments is pos-
Heating energy (kWh/m2 yr)
< 130 kWh/m2 yr
EnerPHit Heating energy
EUI (kWh/m2 yr)
Heating energy (kWh/m2 yr)
Emissions (kgCO2e/yr) <30 kWh/m2 yr
This work looks at the long-term energy perfor- sible with ambitious passive and active strategies, Emissions (kgCO2e/yr)
mance of retrofit combinations on concrete pan- often targeting nearly/net zero energy building stan- 250
E 17

dards (U = 0.1 - 0.07 W/m2K; Window U = 0.6 - 0.7 A 01 65%

el buildings from 1960’s. The main purpose is to 200 + Fan coil units with a

define optimal energy-retrofit combinations for W/m2K; q50= 1.00-3.00 m3/m2h). 150
central plant
82% THERMAL + heat pump for heating
different regions in Finland, which are effective for

182
100 ZONE energy source
a long period of time, this way pro-longing the One of the energy-retrofit solutions proposed in re-
76.5% 1-4

106
50 + heat recovery 90%
search from Holopainen et al. (2016) was a combi-

16
19

60
64

12
67
lifespan of the building and reducing maintenance 0
needs. nation of wall U value = 0.14-0.09 W/m2 K, roof U Thermal Zone I
E 17 - TRY2030 E 17 - TRY2050 E 17 - TRY2080
value = 0.1-0.08 W/m2 K, floor U value = 0.15 W/ (Vantaa) TRY2030

For this purpose, building energy-efficiency reg- m2K, window U value = 0.7 W/m2 K, heat pumps 250
A 01 A 01
ulations of cold climates (Norway, Sweden, Es- and PV panels. This combination reduced the 200
Window U=1.00 W/m2K SHGC = 0.7

tonia, Lithuania, Finland) and literature review of space heating energy demand from 130 kWh/m2 150 41% Shading from 3D model (balconies)

energy retrofits in these countries are analyzed. to 50-19 kWh/m2 per year. Niemelä et al. (2017b) 130
kWh/m2 yr
Automated Shading (External Venetian)

238
100
This helped to understand the building energy also proposed a similar combination for a nearly 49-53% THERMAL Exterior Wall U = 0.17 W/m2K

149
zero-energy building, (new wall U value = 0.11 W/
50 ZONE

30
78

73

25

18
needs in cold climates and retrofitting means

66
30
kWh/m2 yr
0 1-4 Roof U = 0.09 W/m2K
to address them. The literature identified existing m2 K, 280 mm insulation; roof U value = 0.07 Thermal Zone IV 45%
Floor U = 0.15 W/m2K
concrete-panel apartments of the 1960’s as ener- W/m2 K, 400 mm insulation; window U value = (Sodankyla) TRY2030 E 17- TRY2030 E 17 - TRY2050 E 17 - TRY2080

gy-intensive and in need of retrofits. Hence, a simi-
lar case study building from Finland is simulated for
testing new energy-retrofit combinations in Finnish
thermal zones.
The effects of retrofit strategies vary when tested
in different Finnish thermal zones. Southern and
Southeast regions, respectively Thermal zones
I-III have a shorter heating season and lower space
heating demands. Solar heat gains result in more
overheating in buildings. When the building is ret-
rofitted by passive measures according to Finnish
energy-efficiency standard (A-01), the buildings in
these thermal zones might reduce their energy con-
sumption levels below the minimum annual energy
use consumption of 130 kWh/m2 per year. Howev-
erm the requirements are not enough to reach the
annual energy consumption target for the thermal
Zone-IV , where buildings would need either ex-
tensive retrofits with better mechanical systems, or
much stricter requirements for passive measures.
When prioritizing space heating demand over to-
tal energy use, maximum reductions that can be
achieved with A 01 for TRY2030 are between 50-60
kWhm2, which is twice as much energy as the En-
erPHit passivhaus standard for existing buildings
in cold climate. Hence, the building needs higher
efficiency standards such as the retrofit measures
from combinations A-02;03;04, to reduce the ener-
gy consumption levels below EnerPHit space heat-
ing limit. Simulation results show that seeking high-
er standards on the building envelope can eliminate
the need for extensive retrofits because they are
successful in reducing the space heating demand
to a very large extent.
0.7 W/m2 K and g-value 0.42, new district heating Airtightness q50 = 6.00 m3/hm2
Figure B10. Simulation results on energy use intensity, space heating energy demand and carbon emissions of the existing apartment building
substation).
when its retrofitted according to Combination A 01 (Finnish requirements by building component and minimum technical requirements) and Com-
bination E 17 (Finnish requirements by building component and a new HVAC system with heat pump).
Final simulations in this thesis have a quite similar
outcome for the same case study building, show-
ing that especially space heating energy can be
reduced to a large extent (~90%) with a tight, ef-
ficient envelope (U≤0.1 W/m2K; q50= 2.00-3.00
m3/m2h). However, future climate data indicates an
increased overheating risk (up to 6% in TRY2080)
COMBINATION A 02 COMBINATION A 04
with these combinations, which means they need
additional measures like adequate shading and/or RETROFIT MEASURES RETROFIT MEASURES
HVAC systems to regulate indoor thermal comfort
and lower the cooling loads.
SOUTH-FACING FACADE
Even though strict measures have a significant ef- Triple Glazing U=0,65 W/m2K SHGC = 0.4
(%) Reductions Triple Glazing U=0,65 W/m2K SHGC = 0.4
fect on the building energy use, current Finnish en- Shading from 3D model (balconies) EUI (kWh/m2 yr)
ergy-efficiency standards (EUI≤130 kWh/m2yr) can Exterior Wall U = 0.15 W/m2K
be met with lower requirements (U≤0.17 W/m2K; Automated Shading (External Venetian Heating energy (kWh/m2 yr)
Blinds, closed when +27.0 °C) Emissions (kgCO2e/yr)
q50= 6.00 m3/m2h), given that improvements are
WEST / NORTH / EAST FACADE
consistent throughout the envelope. Coupled with Exterior Wall U = 0.10 W/m2K
a new energy-efficient HVAC system (e.g. heat Triple Glazing U=0,80 W/m2K SHGC = 0.5
Roof U = 0.09 W/m2K
pump fan coil units with a central plant), Finnish re-
Floor U = 0.15 W/m2K +86% Exterior Wall U = 0.10 W/m2K
quirements by building component can reduce the +70%
annual space heating demand below 30 kWh/m2 Airtightness q50 = 2.00 m3/hm2
COMMON MEASURES
(Figure B10). Hence, investigating the potential of Mechanical ventilation with 90% heat +76%
improving Finnish limit values of technical sys- recovery Roof U = 0.09 W/m2K
tems might raise the energy performance of build- District heating Floor U = 0.15 W/m2K
ings to internationally recognized high energy-effi- Airtightness q50 = 2.00 m3/hm2
ciency standards. Mechanical ventilation with 90% heat
Final reductions in energy use intensity, space heating demand and
operational carbon emissions are similar for both combinations. recovery
This indicates that the hybrid strategies might provide same results District heating
as very high energy efficiency standards, with less insulation and Shading from 3D model (balconies)
investment cost, as upgrading envelope/facade components is often Automated Shading (External Venetian
the most expensive. Blinds, closed when +27.0 °C)
Figure B11. Hybrid passive strategies that can be effective in reducing building energy use and related carbon emissions.
62 Energy-retrofit strategies Energy-retrofit strategies 63

Another solution is a hybrid strategy that has multi- siders the building as a whole. Effects of this ap-
ple retrofit options instead of using one combination proach on individual apartment units and their in- COBMINATION A 04 250

for the whole building. None of the studies diversi- door climate can be tested further, to look at the EXCEPTIONS: SOUTH FACADE 200

fy their retrofit strategies according to the possible heat movements across building envelope compo- Triple Glazing U=0,65 W/m2K
limitations of existing buildings. In response, a se- nents, space heat distribution and changes in occu- 150

EUI (kWh/m2 yr)

SHGC = 0.4 Fınnısh upper lımıt
lective approach is developed in this study to test pant comfort as well as other possible implications.

COMBINATION D 15
Exterior Wall U = 0.15 W/m2K 100

RETROFIT MEASURES)
a mix of different retrofit measures based on façade
orientation (higher efficiency requirements in When it comes to max. possible energy-efficiency 50
OTHER MEASURES:
areas that receive lower amounts of solar heat and low-carbon emissions, most research on retro- Triple Glazing U=0,80 W/m2K
gain). fits turn to Passivhaus requirements (extremely

RESULTS
0
SHGC = 0.5 original TRY TRY TRY original TRY TRY TRY
airtight, very low heating demand) and solar as- Shading from 3D model (balconies)
2030 2050 2080 2030 2050 2080

Results are very similar when compared to very sisted HVAC systems with heat pumps which use Fınnısh Thermal Zone 1 Fınnısh Thermal Zone 4

high energy-efficiency standards (Figure 11). This solar power as their energy supply. Solar assisted Automated Shading (External
means that similar results can be achieved follow- HVAC systems can be used in mixed retrofit strate- Venetian Blinds) 200

ing a selective rather than uniform approach, that gies to reduce energy consumption and operation- Exterior Wall U = 0.10 W/m2K

Space heatıng (kWh/m2 yr)

150

makes use of building form and orientation. It re- al carbon emissions, close to zero-energy building Roof U = 0.09 W/m2K
quires less investment cost hence could be optimal standards. 100

for users that struggle with financial limitations as Floor U = 0.15 W/m2K
50
EnerPhıt upper lımıt
well. Ground source and exhaust air heat pumps are the Airtightness q50 = .00 m3/hm2
most common choice as they are more efficient and/ 0
original TRY TRY TRY original TRY TRY TRY
Hence, the combinations using a hybrid strat- or can work integrated with district heating which is 2030 2050 2080 2030 2050 2080

egy would be most suitable for reducing building the main heating system of existing concrete-panel Fan coil units with a central plant Fınnısh Thermal Zone 1 Fınnısh Thermal Zone 4

energy use and preventing possible embodied car- apartments. Along with solar thermal collectors, PV
bon due to added insulation as well as when the ex- panels are proposed on the building roof or façade,
tensive retrofits exceed the investors financial ca- either integrated to the exterior wall or balcony rail- Combination D 15 uses

kWh/m2 yr
pacity. Including efficient HVAC systems in passive ings. hybrid strategy for
strategies that have such reductions could lower passive measures and

EUI
the annual energy use considerably, as a first step This study also investigated a variation of DOAS includes a new HVAC
towards reaching net-zero energy buildings. HVAC systems and their effects on both energy 250 system (heat pump fan
Base case
use and carbon emissions when heating energy coils with a central
If the maximum possible energy-efficiency is target- source is district heating, electric boiler or a Retrofit group A plant).
200
ed for the whole building, lower energy use inten- heat pump. Similar to the findings from literature Retrofit group B
sity can be achieved with passive strategies A-02 (Element Energy & Carbon Alternatives, 2016; 150 The simulation results
Retrofit group C
and A-04, and with passive+active that use heat Häkämies et al., 2015; Heat Network Partnership 130
kWh/m2 yr are pretty close to the
pumps as heating energy source. Among the for Scotland, 2017), heat pumps are found more 100 Retrofit group D + E Combination C 11
tested HVAC systems, combinations simulated with successful for low carbon emissions. Seeking high- which uses a uniform
a heat pump fan coil unit and central plant have er standards results in very low space heating de- 50 passive strategy where
resulted in highest energy-efficiency. mand which could be met with renewable energy. all of the building com-

15
0 C 11 ponents must have very

Combination A-02 reduces annual energy use in-
tensity by an average of 70% in all thermal zones,
while mixed strategies such as B-07 (Combination
A 02 + heat pump fan coil units and a central plant)
can have a reduction of around 74% for southern
and central Finland and 77.3% for Northern regions.
Overall, A hybrid / selective retrofit strategy con-
sidering building’ physical limitations might have
similar results to more extreme strategies such as
high insulation, with less ambitious energy-efficien-
cy requirements.
Further study: Thermal bridges can occur in joints/
corners with differing thermal transmittance. The
selective retrofit strategy also proposes different
U-values based on façade and orientation. It con-
A PV panel simulation was carried out in Sefaira for
Finnish Thermal Zone IV, under TRY2030 future cli-
mate scenario. As a result, 100m2 of PV panels (tilt
45°, 21% efficiency) could generate around 20,687
kWh electricity per year hence ~130 m2 of PV pan-
els on the roof would supply the total space heating
energy if the building is retrofitted using Combi-
nation D15 (selective retrofit strategy for passive
measures + fan coil units with a central plant + heat
pump as heating energy source, see Figure B12).
Another simulation tested 90° angle PV panels, as
façade-integrated panels were used in energy-ret-
rofitting Apartment no 64 in Sweden (Indrelid &
OBOS, 2021; Qu et al., 2020). It resulted in 15,328
kWh/yr electricity generation, around 25% less than
using the optimal angle by location. However, these
D
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 kWh/m2 yr
30
kWh/m2 yr space heating energy high energy efficiency
requirements, regard-
less of orientation.
Figure B12. Effects on the building energy performance over the years for all proposed retrofit strategies in general and Combination D 15
in particular.
simulations do not consider the surrounding urban Further study: The renewable energy generation
environment of the building in actual situations. While systems and their contribution to the building en-
Apartment No 64 doesn’t have any buildings or vegetation ergy performance can be investigated further, as a
that shades the PV panels and lowers their efficiency, this part of the selective retrofit strategy. Also, this study
might not be the case for all existing buildings. considers reference limit values according to Finn-
ish standards for improving lighting and equipment,
hence modelling actual use with more efficient ap-
pliances can reduce total energy demand and low-
er the target amount of energy generation.
64 Energy-retrofit strategies
Most of the energy retrofit strategies can still be ef-
fective in future climate change scenarios if devel-
oped with future proofing in mind.
Climate change is a reality, and we are already ex-
periencing effects like heat waves, forest fires and
floods. These events are not likely to stop in the
near future, so we need to think and plan our retrofit
in advance. One of the measures to lower emis-
sions also proposed in research from Häkämies et
al. (2015), is installing renewable energy systems
and heat pumps integrated to district heating These
measures coupled with gradual decarbonization
of energy mix, will reduce carbon emissions today
and may develop into zero-carbon emissions in the
long-term.
On the other hand, future climate models are not
usually considered in research on energy retrofits.
Therefore, the developed strategies in this study
were tested in future weather models (TRY2020 –
TRY2080) to look at the possible changes in en-
ergy efficiency or thermal comfort. Both passive
and mixed strategies resulted in approx. 56-77 %
reductions in TRY2030 and maintain good energy
performance over a 50-year period, with lower en-
ergy demand and carbon emissions. Hybrid pas-
sive measures (Combination A 04) and very high
energy-efficiency standards (Combination A 02)
reduced the space heating energy demand to 12
kWh/m2 for the TRY 2080. Overheating in the ther-
mal zone of Vantaa was seen around 3% of the time
with these combinations, otherwise experienced
around 5% of the time.
Similar combinations from literature which aim at
low-energy and low-carbon buildings such as wall
U value = 0.09 – 0.11 W/m2K, roof U value = 0.07
W/m2K, floor U value = 0.15 W/m2K, window U val-
ue = 0.7 W/m2K, ground source / exhaust air heat
pumps (Häkämies et al., 2015; Holopainen et al.,
2016; Niemelä et al., 2017b), are likely to perform
efficiently in the following years. This is mainly be-
cause temperatures are predicted to rise and not
fall, and it only strengthens the need of insulated,
airtight buildings.
With these strategies in mind, rising energy demand
and emissions as well as the risk of overheating
and occupant wellbeing should be considered while
planning the retrofit. Recent research has tested
overheating mitigation strategies (Sukanen, 2020),
pointing out the importance of natural ventilation
and blinds as key measures in eliminating future
overheating. This study also looks at how opera-
ble windows and automated blinds can work with
HVAC systems. Blinds are assumed closed when
indoor temperatures exceed 27˚ C and windows
are simulated as operable which considers the
option that users might open their windows even
when a supply and extract mechanical ventilation
is simulated for the building. This configuration has
resulted in comfortable indoor temperatures, with
1.8-3.6 % overheating occurring in Finnish thermal
zone 1, 1-2% in thermal zones 2 and 3, and less
than 1% in Finnish thermal zone 4, under TRY2080
future climate model.
Further study: The rising temperatures and other
weather changes can influence the wellbeing of oc-
cupants and buildings alike. Very hot weather, too
much insulation, moisture, insufficient ventilation,
bad air quality etc. can result in health problems
and sick building syndrome, damage the concrete
layer of the building if external insulation is not ap-
plied during retrofit etc. Effects of very strict retrofit
measures can be studied further. Also, the extent of
reliance on shading to prevent heating while block-
ing daylight and visual connection can be studied in
relation to unpredicted occupant behavior. Surveys
and on-site inspections could be helpful to deter-
mine maintenance needs and possible implications
in the future.
Energy-retrofit strategies 65
Key Findings:
The physical limitations of existing buildings can be inves-
tigated to their advantage to develop optimal retrofit strate-
gies. For instance, a hybrid/selective strategy considering
building’ physical limitations might have similar results to
more extreme strategies such as high insulation, with less
ambitious energy-efficiency requirements.
Passive retrofit combinations with a high energy efficien-
cy standard such as A 02 (Uwall = 0.1 W/m2K; Uroof = 0.9 W/m2K;
Ufloor = 0.15 W/m2K; q50 = 2.00 m3/hm2) and hybrid combinations
such as A 04 ( Uwindow = 0.8 W/m2K; Usouth window= 0.65 W/m2K; Uwall =
0.10 W/m2K; Usouth wall = 0.15 W/m2K; Uroof = 0.9 W/m2K; Ufloor = 0.15 W/
m2K; q50 = 2.00 m3/hm2) might effectively reduce annual energy
consumptions by more than 86%, space heating demand
by 70% and operational carbon emissions by 76%, in all
Finnish thermal zones. The strategies are likely to provide
very similar results in future climates, for instance both of
the tested combinations result in 6 kWh/m2 yr of space heat-
ing demand in TRY2080
These passive measures are found to be most effective
when combined with active retrofit measures as well, such
as the combinations B 07 (A 02 + heat pump fan coils with central
plant) and D 15 (A 04 + heat pump fan coils with central plant), pro-
viding 95-97% reductions in space heating, depending on
building location.
Improving Finnish energy-efficiency regulations’ limit values
for technical systems, might raise the energy performance
of Finnish buildings to internationally recognized high en-
ergy-efficiency standards. For instance, combination E 17
(Finnish requirements by building component + heat pump fan coils)
might reduce the space heating needs in Finnish thermal
zone IV below EnerPHit limits (from 149 kWh/m2yr to 30 kWh/
m2yr in TRY2030)
Solar assisted HVAC systems can be used in mixed retrofit
strategies to reduce energy consumption and operational
carbon emissions, close to zero-energy building standards
Future weather data and preliminary simulations can help
develop retrofit strategies which are effective in the long
term, since potential risks like overheating or colder tem-
peratures could be identified
66 Energy-retrofit strategies
References
Bertoldi, P., & Benigna, B. K. (2018). One-
stop-shops for energy renovations of buildings
(No. JRC113301). European Commission, Is-
pra. https://e3p.jrc.ec.europa.eu/publications/
one-stop-shops-energy-renovations-buildings
Blogger, G. (2018). What is Biodiversity and How
Does Climate Change Affect It? State of the Planet.
https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/01/15/biodiver-
sity-climate-change/
Bonakdar, F., Dodoo, A., & Gustavsson, L. (2014).
Cost-optimum analysis of building fabric renova-
tion in a Swedish multi-story residential building.
Energy and Buildings, 84, 662–673. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.09.003
Boverket. (2020). Boverket building regulations.
Boverket The National Board of Housing, Building
and Planning. https://www.boverket.se/sv/lag--ratt/
forfattningssamling/gallande/bbr---bfs-20116/
Brekke, T., Isachsen, O. K., & Strand, M. (2016).
Implementation of the EPBD in Norway. CA
EPBD. https://epbd-ca.eu/ca-outcomes/out-
comes-2015-2018/book-2018/countries/norway
Build Up. (2019). Overview Socioeconomic and
technical approaches to building stock renovation.
https://www.buildup.eu/en/node/58540
Bygningsreglementet. (2018). Danish Building
Regulations 2018 (BR18). https://bygningsregle-
mentet.dk/
Cambridge Dictionary. (2021). Renovation Defini-
tion. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/en-
glish/renovation
Carbon Footprint. (2020). International Electricity
Factors. Carbon Footprint Ltd. https://www.carbon-
footprint.com/international_electricity_factors.html
Case Study Library Map. (2021). World Green
Building Council. https://www.worldgbc.org/case-
study-library
Che Husin, S. M., Mohd Zaki, N. I., & Abu Husain,
M. K. (2019). Implementing sustainability in exist-
ing building through retrofitting measures. Interna-
tional Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology,
10(1), 1450–1471. http://iaeme.com/MasterAdmin/
Journal_uploads/IJCIET/VOLUME_10_ISSUE_1/
IJCIET_10_01_133.pdf
Chen, S., Zhang, G., Xia, X., Chen, Y., Setunge,
S., & Shi, L. (2021). The impacts of occupant
behavior on building energy consumption: A re-
view. Sustainable Energy Technologies and As-
sessments, 45, 101212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
seta.2021.101212
Clark, D. (2019). What Colour is your Building?
RIBA Publishing.
Climate Action. (n.d.). European Commission.
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/index_en
CMIP6 climate projections. (2021). Copernicus Cli-
mate Data Store. https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/
cdsapp#!/dataset/projections-cmip6?tab=overview
Collins, M., Knutti, R., Arblaster, J., Dufresne, J. L.,
Fichefet, T., Friedlingstein, P., Gao, X., Gutowski,
W. J., Johns, T., Krinner, G., Shongwe, M., Tebal-
di, C., Weaver, A. J., & Wehner, M. (2013). Long-
term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments
and Irreversibility. In: Climate Change 2013: The
Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Inter-
governmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker,
T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen,
J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M.
Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/
WG1AR5_Chapter12_FINAL.pdf
Csoknyai, T., Hrabovszky-Horváth, S., Georgiev,
Z., Jovanovic-Popovic, M., Stankovic, B., Villatoro,
O., & Szendrő, G. (2016). Building stock character-
istics and energy performance of residential build-
ings in Eastern-European countries. Energy and
Buildings, 132, 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.en-
build.2016.06.062
D‫׳‬Agostino, D. (2015). Assessment of the progress
towards the establishment of definitions of Nearly
Zero Energy Buildings (nZEBs) in European Mem-
ber States. Journal of Building Engineering, 1, 20–
32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2015.01.002
D’Agostino, D., & Mazzarella, L. (2019). What is
a Nearly zero energy building? Overview, imple-
mentation and comparison of definitions. Journal
of Building Engineering, 21, 200–212. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.10.019
Dantas, T. (2018). How Climate Change Affects
Biodiversity Loss. Medium. https://thalesetd.me-
dium.com/how-climate-change-affects-biodiversi-
ty-loss-d6a93fb1a760#:%7E:text=The%20link%20
between%20climate%20change,and%2C%20con-
tributing%20to%20biodiversity%20loss.
Direktoratet for byggkvalitet. (2017). Norwegian
Building Technical Regulations (TEK17). https://
dibk.no/regelverk/byggteknisk-forskrift-tek17/
Du, L., Leivo, V., Prasauskas, T., Turunen, M.,
Kiviste, M., Martuzevicius, D., & Haverinen-Shaugh-
nessy, U. (2015). Energy Retrofits in Multi-family
Buildings in North-east Europe: The Impacts on
Thermal Conditions. Energy Procedia, 78, 860–
864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2015.11.008
Eames, M., Dixon, T., Lannon, S., Hunt, M., Lau-
rentis, C. D., Marvin, S., Hodson, M., Guthrie, P.
G., & Georgiadou, M. C. (2014). Retrofit 2050: Crit-
ical Challenges for Urban Transitions (No. 978–1-
899895-12–0). Cardiff University. http://orca.cardiff.
ac.uk/id/eprint/65743
Element Energy & Carbon Alternatives. (2016).
Heat Pumps in District Heating. Department of
Energy and Climate Change. https://assets.pub-
lishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/sys-
tem/uploads/attachment_data/file/502500/DECC_
Heat_Pumps_in_District_Heating_-_Final_report.
pdf
Encius, R., & Baranauskas, T. (2016). Implemen-
tation of the EPBD in Lithuania. CA EPBD. https://
epbd-ca.eu/ca-outcomes/outcomes-2015-2018/
book-2018/countries/lithuania
EnergyPlus. (2021). EnergyPlus. https://energy-
plus.net/
EU Adaptation Strategy. (2017). European Com-
mission. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/adap-
tation/what_en
EU Buildings Factsheets. (2016). European Com-
mission. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/eu-build-
ings-factsheets_en
EU climate policy. (n.d.). Ministry of the Environ-
ment. https://ym.fi/en/eu-climate-policy
European Commission. (n.d.). National long-
term strategies. https://ec.europa.eu/info/
energy-climate-change-environment/imple-
mentation-eu-countries/energy-and-climate-gov-
ernance-and-reporting/national-long-term-strate-
Energy-retrofit strategies 67
gies_en
European Commission. (2017). Good practice in
energy efficiency - For a sustainable, safer and
more competitive Europe (ISBN 978–92-79-65331-
5). https://doi.org/10.2833/75367
European Commission. (2019). The European
Green Deal. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-con-
tent/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52019DC0640#docu-
ment2
European Commission. (2020a). A Renovation
Wave for Europe - greening our buildings, creating
jobs, improving lives. European Commission: Brus-
sels, Belgium. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/
ener/files/eu_renovation_wave_strategy.pdf
European Commission. (2020b). European Climate
Law. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/
TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020PC0080
European Commission. (2020c, September 17).
State of the Union 2020 [Press release]. https://
ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/
ip_20_1599
European Commission. (2021a). Energy perfor-
mance of buildings directive - European Com-
mission. Energy - European Commission. https://
ec.europa.eu/energy/topics/energy-efficiency/en-
ergy-efficient-buildings/energy-performance-build-
ings-directive_en#directive-amendments
European Commission. (2021b). “Fit for 55”: deliv-
ering the EU’s 2030 Climate Target on the way to cli-
mate neutrality. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-con-
tent/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52021DC0550
European Union. (2010). Directive 2010/31/EU
on the energy performance of buildings. Official
Journal of the European Union. https://eur-lex.
europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=O-
J:L:2010:153:0013:0035:EN:PDF
European Union. (2012). DIRECTIVE 2012/27/EU
on energy efficiency. Official Journal of the European
Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex-
UriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:315:0001:0056:en:PDF
European Union. (2018). Directive 2018/844/
EU amending the energy performance of build-
ings and energy efficiency. https://eur-lex.euro-
pa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX-
:32018L0844&from=EN
68 Energy-retrofit strategies
Finland’s national climate change policy. (n.d.).
Ministry of the Environment. https://ym.fi/en/fin-
land-s-national-climate-change-policy
Finnish Government. (n.d.). 3.1. Carbon neutral
Finland that protects biodiversity. Valtioneuvosto.
https://valtioneuvosto.fi/en/marin/government-pro-
gramme/carbon-neutral-finland-that-protects-biodi-
versity
Finnish Government. (2017). FinLex Government
Decree numerical values of the coefficients for the
forms of energy used in buildings. FinLex. https://
www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/alkup/2017/20170788
Finnish Government. (2020). Long-term renovation
strategy 2020–2050 Finland. https://ec.europa.eu/
energy/sites/default/files/documents/fi_2020_ltrs_
en.pdf
Finnish Meteorological Institute. (n.d.). Energi-
alaskennan testivuodet TRY2020. Ilmatieteen lai-
tos. https://www.ilmatieteenlaitos.fi/energialasken-
ta-try2020
Government Report on Medium-term Climate
Change Plan for 2030 – Towards Climate-Smart
Day-to-Day Living (ISBN 978–952-11-4752-4).
(2017). Ministry of the Environment. http://urn.fi/
URN:ISBN:978–952-11-4752-4
Haakana, M., Laitila, P., & Forssell, K. M. (2016).
Implementation of the EPBD in Finland. The Con-
certed Action EPBD. https://epbd-ca.eu/ca-out-
comes/outcomes-2015-2018/book-2018/countries/
finland
Häkämies, S., Hirvonen, J., Jokisalo, J., Knuuti,
A., Kosonen, R., Niemelä, T., Paiho, S., & Pulak-
ka, S. (2015). HP4NZEB Heat pumps in energy
and cost efficient nearly zero energy buildings in
Finland (ISBN 978–951-38-8356-0). VTT Techni-
cal Research Centre of Finland Ltd. https://www.
vttresearch.com/sites/default/files/pdf/technolo-
gy/2015/T235.pdf
Hall, T., & VIiden, S. (2005). The Million Homes Pro-
gramme: a review of the great Swedish planning
project. Planning Perspectives, 20(3), 301–328.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02665430500130233
Hao, L., Herrera-Avellanosa, D., del Pero, C., &
Troi, A. (2020). What Are the Implications of Cli-
mate Change for Retrofitted Historic Buildings?
A Literature Review. Sustainability, 12(18), 7557.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187557
Hayhoe, K., Edmonds, J., Kopp, R. E., LeGrande,
A. N., Sanderson, B. M., Wehner, M. F., & Wueb-
bles, D. J. (2017). Climate models, scenarios, and
projections. In: Climate Science Special Report:
Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume I
[Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J.
Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)].
U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washing-
ton, DC, USA, pp. 133–160. https://doi.org/10.7930/
J0WH2N54
Heat Network Partnership for Scotland. (2017). Dis-
trict Heating Strategy Factsheet Application of Heat
Pumps in District Heating. https://www.districthe-
atingscotland.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/
Module-4-Heat-Pumps.pdf
Hirvonen, J., Heljo, J., Jokisalo, J., Kurvinen, A.,
Saari, A., Niemelä, T., Sankelo, P., & Kosonen, R.
(2021). Emissions and power demand in optimal
energy retrofit scenarios of the Finnish building
stock by 2050. Sustainable Cities and Society, 70,
102896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.102896
Hirvonen, J., Jokisalo, J., Heljo, J., & Kosonen, R.
(2018). Towards the EU emissions targets of 2050:
optimal energy renovation measures of Finnish
apartment buildings. International Journal of Sus-
tainable Energy, 38(7), 649–672. https://doi.org/10.
1080/14786451.2018.1559164
Hirvonen, J., Jokisalo, J., Heljo, J., & Kosonen, R.
(2019a). Effect of apartment building energy reno-
vation on hourly power demand. International Jour-
nal of Sustainable Energy, 38(10), 918–936. https://
doi.org/10.1080/14786451.2019.1613992
Hirvonen, J., Jokisalo, J., Heljo, J., & Kosonen, R.
(2019b). Towards the EU Emission Targets of 2050:
Cost-Effective Emission Reduction in Finnish De-
tached Houses. Energies, 12(22), 4395. https://doi.
org/10.3390/en12224395
Hirvonen, J., Jokisalo, J., Sankelo, P., Niemelä, T.,
& Kosonen, R. (2020). Emission Reduction Poten-
tial of Different Types of Finnish Buildings through
Energy Retrofits. Buildings, 10(12), 234. https://doi.
org/10.3390/buildings10120234
Hjorth, H. O. K., Antonsson, R., Söderberg, T. L.,
Wellander, S., Olsson, E., & Fant, K. (2016). Imple-
mentation of the EPBD in Sweden. CA EPBD. https://
epbd-ca.eu/ca-outcomes/outcomes-2015-2018/
book-2018/countries/sweden
Holopainen, R., Milandru, A., Ahvenniemi, H., &
Häkkinen, T. (2016). Feasibility Studies of Energy
Retrofits – Case Studies of Nearly Zero-energy
Building Renovation. Energy Procedia, 96, 146–
157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2016.09.116
Hu, M. (2019). Net Zero Energy Building: Predict-
ed and Unintended Consequences (1st ed.). Rout-
ledge.
Ibn-Mohammed, T., Greenough, R., Taylor, S., Oza-
wa-Meida, L., & Acquaye, A. (2013). Operational
vs. embodied emissions in buildings—A review of
current trends. Energy and Buildings, 66, 232–245.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.07.026
IEA. (n.d.). Finland. IEA International Energy Agen-
cy. https://www.iea.org/countries/finland
IEA. (2020). World Energy Balances 2020 Edition,
Database Documentation. INTERNATIONAL EN-
ERGY AGENCY. https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/
assets/4f314df4-8c60-4e48-9f36-bfea3d2b7fd5/
WorldBAL_2020_Documentation.pdf
IFRC. (n.d.). Types of disasters. The International
Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Soci-
eties. https://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/disas-
ter-management/about-disasters/definition-of-haz-
ard/#:%7E:text=Natural%20hazards%20are%20
naturally%20occurring,wildfires)%2C%20meteoro-
logical%20(cyclones%20and
Implementation of the EPBD in Finland. (2018).
Epbd-ca.Eu. https://epbd-ca.eu/ca-outcomes/out-
comes-2015-2018/book-2018/countries/finland
Indrelid, T. & OBOS. (2021, June 11). Vinner av
Bærekraftprisen 2021 [Photograph]. https://res.
cloudinary.com/obosit-prd-ch-clry/image/upload/
ar_2.2,w_auto:100:1280,c_fill,g_auto/c_limit/f_
auto/q_auto/v1623658853/Nyhetsbilder/2021/
w9Q0aiJg
Kurnitski, J. (2013). Cost Optimal and Nearly Ze-
ro-Energy Buildings (Nzeb): Definitions, Calcula-
tion Principles and Case Studies. Springer.
Kuusk, K., & Kalamees, T. (2015). nZEB Retrofit of
a Concrete Large Panel Apartment Building. Ener-
gy Procedia, 78, 985–990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
egypro.2015.11.038
Kuusk, K., Kalamees, T., Link, S., Ilomets, S., &
Mikola, A. (2016). CASE-STUDY ANALYSIS OF
CONCRETE LARGE-PANEL APARTMENT BUILD-
Energy-retrofit strategies 69
ING AT PRE- AND POST LOW-BUDGET ENER-
GY-RENOVATION. JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGI-
NEERING AND MANAGEMENT, 23(1), 67–75.
https://doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2014.975741
Kuusk, K., Tali, M., & Tamm, R. (2016). Implemen-
tation of the EPBD in Estonia. CA EPBD. https://
epbd-ca.eu/ca-outcomes/outcomes-2015-2018/
book-2018/countries/estonia
La Fleur, L., Rohdin, P., & Moshfegh, B. (2019).
Investigating cost-optimal energy renovation of a
multifamily building in Sweden. Energy and Build-
ings, 203, 109438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.en-
build.2019.109438
Lindahl, A., & Sacco, F. (2016). ENERGY EFFI-
CIENT RETROFIT MEASURES State-of-the-art
and the renovation potential of Million program
multi-storey buildings in Sweden. Lund University.
https://www.ebd.lth.se/fileadmin/energi_byggnads-
design/publications/exjobb/16-3-web.pdf
Lucon, O., Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Zain Ahmed, A., Ak-
bari, H., Bertoldi, P., Cabeza, L. F., Eyre, N., Gadgil,
A., Harvey, L. D. D., Jiang, Y., Liphoto, E., Miras-
gedis, S., Murakami, S., Parikh, J., Pyke, C., & Vi-
lariño, M. V. (2014). Buildings. In: Climate Change
2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of
Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona,
E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I.
Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann,
J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T.
Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New
York, NY, USA. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/up-
loads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter9.pdf
Lund, H., Marszal, A., & Heiselberg, P. (2011).
Zero energy buildings and mismatch compensation
factors. Energy and Buildings, 43(7), 1646–1654.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.03.006
Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pirani, A., Con-
nors, S. L., Péan, C., Berger, S., Caud, N., Chen,
Y., Goldfarb, L., Gomis, M. I., Huang, M., Leitzell,
K., Lonnoy, E., Matthews, J. B. R., Maycock, T. K.,
Waterfield, T., Yelekçi, O., Yu, R., & Zhou (Eds.),
B. (2021). Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate
Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contri-
bution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Cambridge University Press. https://www.
ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_
70 Energy-retrofit strategies
AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf
Ministry of Environment. (n.d.). Government’s
climate policy: Carbon neutral Finland 2035.
Ympäristöministeriö. https://ym.fi/en/carbon-neu-
tral-finland-2035
Ministry of the Environment. (2012). The nation-
al building code of Finland. Ympäristöministeriö.
https://ym.fi/en/the-national-building-code-of-fin-
land
Ministry of the Environment. (2013). 4/2013 De-
cree of the Ministry of the Environment on Improv-
ing the Energy Efficiency of Buildings in Conjunc-
tion with Repair and Modification Works. https://
ym.fi/en/the-national-building-code-of-finland#:~:-
text=The%20Land%20Use%20and%20Build-
ing,building%20supervision%20by%20the%20au-
thorities.
Ministry of the Environment. (2017). The 1010/2017
Decree of the Ministry of Environment on the
Energy Performance of New Buildings. https://
ym.fi/en/the-national-building-code-of-finland#:~:-
text=The%20Land%20Use%20and%20Build-
ing,building%20supervision%20by%20the%20au-
thorities.
MIT. (2018). MIT OpenCourseWare OCW. Envi-
ronmental Technologies in Buildings | Architecture
| MIT OpenCourseWare. https://ocw.mit.edu/cours-
es/architecture/4-401-environmental-technolo-
gies-in-buildings-fall-2018/lecture-slides-1/
Morecroft, M. D., & Speakman, L. (2015). Biodi-
versity Climate Change Impacts Summary Report.
Living With Environmental Change (ISBN 978–0-
9928679-6-6). Living With Environmental Change.
https://nerc.ukri.org/research/partnerships/ride/
lwec/report-cards/biodiversity/
The national building code of Finland. (n.d.). Minis-
try of the Environment. https://ym.fi/en/the-national-
building-code-of-finland
National Geographic. (n.d.). Natural Disasters.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/
topic/natural-disasters-weather
Niemelä, T., Kosonen, R., & Jokisalo, J. (2017a).
Cost-effectiveness of energy performance reno-
vation measures in Finnish brick apartment build-
ings. Energy and Buildings, 137, 60–75. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.12.031
Niemelä, T., Kosonen, R., & Jokisalo, J. (2017b).
Energy performance and environmental impact
analysis of cost-optimal renovation solutions of
large panel apartment buildings in Finland. Sus-
tainable Cities and Society, 32, 9–30. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.02.017
Nieminen, J., & Virta, J. (2016). RAKEN-
NUSTEN LISÄLÄMMÖNERISTÄMINEN (ISBN:
978–951-685-391-1). Kiinteistöalan Kustannus
Oy ja ympäristöministeriö. https://ym.fi/docu-
ments/1410903/38439968/RakennustenLisalam-
moneristaminen_ekirja-68690719_645C_4FF5_
ABD3_3B05EF1D9DD7-117577.
pdf/73fe91a6-dcc4-c4d6-1fae-1fda1ab1999d/
RakennustenLisalammoneristaminen_ekir-
ja-68690719_645C_4FF5_ABD3_3B05EF1D9DD7-117577.
pdf?t=1603260159018
Norwegian Building Authority. (2017). Norway
Building technical regulations (TEK17) with guid-
ance. Direktoratet for byggkvalitet. https://dibk.no/
regelverk/byggteknisk-forskrift-tek17/14/14-3/
NZEB requirements in Nordic countries. (2019).
The Rehva European HVAC Journal, 56(6), 8–12.
https://www.rehva.eu/rehva-journal/detail/06-2019
OBOS. (2021). Vinner av Bærekraftprisen 2021.
https://nye.obos.no/dette-er-obos/nyheter/vin-
ner-av-barekraftprisen-2021
Paiho, S., Hedman, S., Abdurafikov, R., Hoang,
H., Sepponen, M., Kouhia, I., & Meinander, M.
(2013). Energy saving potentials of Moscow apart-
ment buildings in residential districts. Energy and
Buildings, 66, 706–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enbuild.2013.07.084
Paiho, S., Seppä, I. P., & Jimenez, C. (2015). An
energetic analysis of a multifunctional façade sys-
tem for energy efficient retrofitting of residential
buildings in cold climates of Finland and Russia.
Sustainable Cities and Society, 15, 75–85. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2014.12.005
Palm, J., & Reindl, K. (2016). Understanding en-
ergy efficiency in Swedish residential building ren-
ovation: A practice theory approach. Energy Re-
search & Social Science, 11, 247–255. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.11.006
Panagiotidou, M., & Fuller, R. J. (2013). Progress
in ZEBs—A review of definitions, policies and
construction activity. Energy Policy, 62, 196–206.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.099
Paone, A., & Bacher, J. P. (2018). The Impact of
Building Occupant Behavior on Energy Efficien-
cy and Methods to Influence It: A Review of the
State of the Art. Energies, 11(4), 953. https://doi.
org/10.3390/en11040953
Passipedia. (2017). Component guidelines for
cost-optimal Passive Houses and EnerPHit retrofits
[Illustration]. https://passipedia.org/_detail/picopen/
map.png?id=planning%3Acomponent_guidelines_
for_cost-optimal_passive_houses_and_enerphit_
retrofits
Passive House Institute. (2016). Criteria for the
Passive House, EnerPHit and PHI Low Energy
Building Standard. https://passiv.de/downloads/03_
building_criteria_en.pdf
Pelsmakers, S. (2015). The Environmental Design
Pocketbook (2nd ed.). RIBA Publishing.
Prime Minister’s Office. (2020). Voluntary National
Review 2020 Finland - Report on the implementation
of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
(No. 978–952-287-947–9). https://sustainablede-
velopment.un.org/content/documents/26261VNR_
Report_Finland_2020.pdf
Qu, K., Chen, X., Ekambaram, A., Cui, Y., Gan, G.,
ØKland, A., & Riffat, S. (2020). A novel holistic EPC
related retrofit approach for residential apartment
building renovation in Norway. Sustainable Cities
and Society, 54, 101975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scs.2019.101975
Radiance. (2014). Energy.Gov. https://www.energy.
gov/eere/buildings/downloads/radiance
Radiance. (2019). Radiance Online. https://radi-
ance-online.org/about
REHVA Federation of European Heating, Venti-
lation and Air Conditioning Associations. (2019).
Nordic Countries. The REHVA European HVAC
Journal, 56(6). https://www.rehva.eu/rehva-journal/
detail/06-2019
REHVA Federation of European Heating, Venti-
lation and Air Conditioning Associations. (2021).
NZEB Requirements vs European Benchmarks in
Residential Buildings. The REHVA European HVAC
Journal, 58(2), 40–44. https://www.rehva.eu/reh-
va-journal/detail/02-2021
Ruggeri, A. G., Gabrielli, L., & Scarpa, M. (2020).
Energy-retrofit strategies 71
Energy Retrofit in European Building Portfolios: A
Review of Five Key Aspects. Sustainability, 12(18),
7465. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187465
SCIS Project. (2020). Upscaling urban residential
retrofit for the EU’s low carbon future: Challenges
and opportunities. European Commission Smart
Cities Marketplace. https://smart-cities-market-
place.ec.europa.eu/insights/publications/upscal-
ing-urban-residential-retrofit-eus-low-carbon-fu-
ture-challenges-and
Sefaira. (2021). SketchUp. https://www.sketchup.
com/products/sefaira
Shnapp, S., Sitjà, R., & Laustsen, J. (2013). What
is a Deep Renovation Definition? Global Buildings
Performance Network (GBPN). https://www.gbpn.
org/sites/default/files/08.DR_TechRep.low_.pdf
STBA. (n.d.). Retrofit Measures. Sustainable Tra-
ditional Buildings Alliance, Responsible Retrofit
Knowledge Centre. http://responsible-retrofit.org/
measures/
Sukanen, H. (2020). Housing Architecture in a Time
of Climate Emergency – Climate change and over-
heating in buildings. Tampere University. https://
trepo.tuni.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/121403/Su-
kanenHeidi.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y
Swedish National Board of Housing, Building and
Planning (Boverket). (2019). Boverket’s build-
ing regulations. Boverket. https://www.boverket.
se/en/start/building-in-sweden/swedish-market/
laws-and-regulations/national-regulations/build-
ing-regulations/
Taloyhtion energiakirja: Vol. ISBN 978–981-563-
819-9 (1st Edition). (2011). Tekijät ja Kiinteistoalan
Kustannus Oy.
Tam, V., Almeida, L., & Le, K. (2018). Energy-Relat-
ed Occupant Behaviour and Its Implications in En-
ergy Use: A Chronological Review. Sustainability,
10(8), 2635. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082635
Tam, V. Y., & Le, K. N. (2019). Sustainable Con-
struction Technologies: Life-Cycle Assessment,
Chapter 5 - Life Cycle Energy Consumption of
Buildings; Embodied + Operational (1st ed.). But-
terworth-Heinemann.
United Nations Environment Programme. (2020).
2020 Global Status Report for Buildings and Con-
struction: Towards a Zero-emission, Efficient and
72 Energy-retrofit strategies Energy-retrofit strategies 73

Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector. Nai-

robi. https://globalabc.org/sites/default/files/in-
line-files/2020%20Buildings%20GSR_FULL%20
REPORT.pdf

Weiskopf, S. R., Rubenstein, M. A., Crozier, L. G.,

Gaichas, S., Griffis, R., Halofsky, J. E., Hyde, K. J.,
Morelli, T. L., Morisette, J. T., Muñoz, R. C., Persh-
ing, A. J., Peterson, D. L., Poudel, R., Staudinger,
M. D., Sutton-Grier, A. E., Thompson, L., Vose,
J., Weltzin, J. F., & Whyte, K. P. (2020). Climate
change effects on biodiversity, ecosystems, eco-
system services, and natural resource manage-
ment in the United States. Science of The Total En-
vironment, 733, 137782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2020.137782

WWF. (2017). Effects Of Climate Change. https://

www.wwf.org.uk/learn/effects-of/climate-change

APPENDIX A
74 Energy-retrofit strategies
Table 1. Summary: Literature Review of Academic Studies, Energy-retrofit applications in cold climates
Literature review
Apartment no 64 in
Bertramjordet housing
complex (Qu et al.,
2020)
Place and year:
Oslo, Norway (1987)
Energy-retrofit of an
apartment block in
Bertramjordet housing
complex (OBOS, 2021)
Place and year:
Oslo, Norway (1987)
Swedish Million
Program Apartment
block (Holopainen et al.,
2016)
Place and year:
Sweden (1960’s)
Swedish Million
Program Apartment
block (Bonakdar et al.,
2014)
Place and year:
Växjö, Sweden (1964)
Energy-retrofit measures
Passive measures
 Thermal insulation (U = 0.1
W/m2K, vacuum insulation panel)
 Improved airtightness (EPDM
foil)
 Efficient windows (Uglazing = 0.62
W/m2K)
Passive measures
 Thermal insulation of the
building envelope
 Efficient windows and
balcony doors
Passive measures
 Thermal insulation on
façade exterior wall (U value =
0.54/ 0.17 W/m2K)
 Thermal insulation on the
roof (U value = 0.13/ 0.08 W/m2K)
 Efficient windows (U value =
1.13/0.9 W/m2K)
Passive measures
 Thermal insulation on
façade exterior wall (Mineral
wool, U value = 0.21 – 0.055 W/m2K)
 Thermal insulation on
basement exterior wall (EPS
insulation, U value = 0.29 – 0.1
W/m2K),
 Thermal insulation on attic
floor (mineral wool, U value = 0.18 –
0.057 W/m2K)
 Efficient windows (U value = 1.4
– 0.6 W/m2K)
Active measures and renewable
energy systems
 Mechanical ventilation with
heat recovery (86%)
 Temperature control (room
sensors)
Efficient lighting (LED lighting)
 “fabric priority” – building envelope upgrades
 Ground source heat pump
 Solar thermal collector
 Photovoltaic panels
Active measures and renewable
energy systems
 Mechanical ventilation with
heat recovery
 Façade-integrated
photovoltaic panels on the
balcony railings and exterior
wall
Active measures and renewable
energy systems
 Exhaust air heat pumps with
existing district heating grid
 Photovoltaic panels
Active measures and renewable
energy systems
N/A
Energy-retrofit strategies 75
Energy-retrofit strategies Conclusions / Comments
Strategies: Prioritizing space heating energy efficiency for old buildings in cold
 Passive combinations climate can significantly reduce the overall energy demand.
 Passive + active combinations
 Passive + active combinations + renewable energy systems This can be done by retrofit measures like efficient windows, new
airtightness layer, heat recovery in mechanical ventilation or efficient
Evaluation criteria: heating systems like ground source heat pumps.
“renewable in supplement” - renewable energy systems The possible differences in occupant behavior which could lead to
“avoid complicated installation” higher consumption can be targeted by using temperature sensors
that control the space heating.
Under these criteria, combinations with a maximum number of
4 measures are proposed: Using renewable energy systems like thermal collectors or PV panels
(1) efficient windows, airtightness, temperature control sensors, can help reduce the carbon emissions related to primary energy use.
ground source heat pump;
(2) efficient windows, mechanical ventilation with heat recovery,
ground source heat pump;
(3) efficient windows, mechanical ventilation with heat recovery,
ground source heat pump, building integrated PV panels.
The building facades can be used for PV panel integration, either on
top of the existing wall or as balcony railings. Even though they won’t
be as effective as PV panels on the roof with optimal sun angles, they
N/A can contribute to decarbonizing the energy supply.
Also, vertical PV panels are less likely to be covered by leaves or
branches which would reduce their efficiency or cause stretches and
marks on the panel surface.
Strategies: The building energy-efficiency requirements are effective to lower the
 Passive combinations (traditional renovation) annual energy demand of the building to acceptable values by
 Passive + active combinations + renewable energy systems national regulations (traditional renovation). However, if the aim is
(Nearly zero-energy building renovation nZEBR) to reach a nearly or net zero-energy building, then they are not
enough.
Traditional renovation considers country-specific building
energy-efficiency regulations and requirements by building The building usually needs a thicker insulation for the envelope
component. Since the renovations in Sweden often include components or one with better thermal properties, as well as more
improving the building façade, roof insulation and ventilation efficient glazing and heating systems (nZEBR). For example, exhaust
system, these are prioritized in the combination. air heat pumps can be used integrated with the district heating
system, to lower the energy demand.
Strategies: Improving the energy-efficiency of building envelope components is
Passive combinations (façade retrofit) usually more expensive as it often requires the replacement of
windows and doors, extra insulation or additional construction work
Passive measures are tested separately in order to find out how when the outer wall layers need replacement because of aging and
much they contribute to energy-efficiency. A range of insulation damages.
material thicknesses are tested for exterior walls, basement
walls and roof, while different U-values are tested for the Analyzing the retrofit measures individually can help find out which
windows. The most cost-effective retrofit combinations are building components can be prioritized when developing a strategy
compared with Swedish building energy-efficiency requirements thus provide a solution for cost-effective retrofits. But this will likely
and passive house criteria. need a following analysis on how retrofit measures perform in
combinations and what is their overall effect on energy efficiency
because passive retrofit measures alone do not lower the energy use
below national energy-efficiency limits or passive house criteria.
76 Energy-retrofit strategies
Table 1. Continued.
Apartment buildings in Passive measures
Lithuania (20 buildings)
and Finland (16  Thermal insulation of
buildings) (Du et al., exterior walls (EPS, mineral wool)
2015)  Thermal insulation of the
roof
Place and year:  Efficient windows and doors
Lithuania and Finland (glazing)
Concrete large panel Passive measures
apartment building,
nZEB retrofit (Kuusk &  Thermal insulation of walls
Kalamees, 2015) and roof
 Efficient windows
Place and year:  Improved airtightness
Estonia (1986)
(“NZEB Requirements in Passive measures
Nordic Countries,”
2019)  Thermal insulation of
exterior walls (U value = 0.14
Place and year: W/m2K)
EU, Estonia, Finland,  Thermal insulation of roof (U
Sweden, Norway (2019
value = 0.1 W/m2K)
 Thermal insulation of the
– simulation model)
floor (U value = 0.12 W/m2K)
 Efficient windows (U value = 0.9
W/m2K, g value = 0.45)
 Improved airtightness (1.0
m3/hm2 at 50 Pa pressure)
Active measures and renewable
energy systems
 Mechanical ventilation with
heat recovery
 Improved heating and hot
water system
 Solar thermal collectors
Active measures and renewable
energy systems
 Thermostatic valves in the
heating system
 New 2-pipe heating system
 Mechanical ventilation with
heat recovery (70%)
 Solar thermal collectors
 Photovoltaic panels
Active measures and renewable
energy systems
 Mechanical ventilation with
heat recovery (80%)
 Efficient HVAC systems (district
heating, gas boilers etc.)
 Improved fan power of
mechanical system (SFP = 1.5
kW/m3/s)
Energy-retrofit strategies 77
Strategies: Post-retrofit inspections can contribute to understanding how the
 Passive + active combinations + renewable energy systems retrofit solutions perform and what may be possible setbacks or
unaccounted factors. Data loggers and occupant surveys can help to
The combinations differ by building, while the main focus of the understand the effects on the living environment and consumer
study is to find out the energy retrofits that contribute to satisfaction levels.
improving the thermal conditions of indoor spaces. 10 out of 36
buildings were monitored after the retrofit using data loggers Acceptable thermal comfort vary by occupant behavior and some
that register indoor temperature and relative humidity. people can feel more comfortable than the others under the same
conditions. Therefore, the effects of energy retrofits also depend on
location and occupant profile.
Climatic conditions and retrofit applications can cause health issues.
For example, high humidity levels, moisture and extra insulation can
result in mold growth, which is reported in Finnish apartments after
the retrofit. This can lead to asthma or allergies. Attention must be
paid to drying the underlying layers, choosing suitable (waterproof)
materials and proper implementation methods.
More efficient windows don’t always mean better thermal comfort.
The solar heat gain coefficient or g-value determines the additional
heat gains which can be desirable for heating in winter, but they can
also cause overheating. A solution can be installing additional
shading systems.
Strategies: Building form and orientation play an important role for the energy
 Passive combinations (Class D major renovation) use and occupant comfort.
 Passive + active combinations (Class C requirements for
new buildings) Longer facades towards north-south direction can result in higher
 Passive + active combinations + renewable energy systems energy gains from renewable sources because there is a larger space
(Class B requirements for low-energy buildings) and for renewable energy systems.
(Class A requirements for nZEB)
On the other hand, additional heat gains on southern façade can
The strategies are tested by adding new measures to the cause problems with overheating while north-facing dwellings may
previously tested ones, gradually improving from class D to class experience cold.
A.
Strategies: There are differences in energy calculations by country therefore a
 Passive combinations comparison can be made only after reviewing national requirements
 Passive + active combinations and calculation methods.
 Passive + active combinations + renewable energy systems
For instance, Finland has lower primary energy factors that affect the
The strategies vary by national net zero-energy building results of carbon emissions from primary energy use in comparison
requirements. with other countries. Also, Sweden doesn’t include the energy
consumption from lighting and household equipment when
calculating final energy use, even though they contribute to the
annual energy demand and could be addressed by efficient light
bulbs and A rated appliances.
78 Energy-retrofit strategies Energy-retrofit strategies 79

Table 1. Continued.
Finnish apartment block Passive measures Active measures and Strategies: In order to reach nZEB requirements, the space heating and domestic
(Holopainen et al., renewable energy systems  Passive combinations (traditional renovation) hot water heating system can be upgraded to district heating with
2016)  Thermal insulation on façade  Exhaust air heat pumps  Passive + active combinations + renewable energy systems exhaust air heat pump.
exterior wall (U value = 0.54/ 0.17 with existing district (Nearly zero-energy building renovation nZEBR)
Place and year: W/m2K) heating grid Since the energy use for domestic hot water heating is significantly
Finland (1970’s)  Thermal insulation on the roof  Photovoltaic panels higher than other countries (51 kWh/m2a), using solar thermal
(U value = 0.13/ 0.08 W/m2K) collectors and PV panels can help lower the related carbon emissions.
 Efficient windows (U value = 1.13/0.9
W/m2K)
External insulation often provides better results in social and
technical feasibility also lowering the risk of thermal bridges, while
internal insulation has risks like condensation and moisture, reduced
indoor space, nails or holes on the wall which damage the insulation
and airtightness layers, disruption of every-day life etc.
1960’s Finnish concrete Passive measures Active measures and Strategies: Finnish concrete sandwich panel apartments of 1960s-1970s are
panel apartments renewable energy systems  Passive combinations leaky, energy-intensive buildings which may experience problems like
(Nieminen & Virta,  Thermal insulation of exterior corrosion on the outer concrete layer, poor indoor conditions due to
2016) walls The research is focused on retrofit implementations for ventilation or mold growth in living spaces.
 Thermal insulation of the roof improving thermal insulation of building elements while
Place and year:  Thermal insulation of basement N/A preventing problems like moisture and mold growth. The thermal properties of walls and roof can be improved by adding
Finland (1960’s) and foundations insulation on top of the existing assembly if it’s in good condition or
replacing the damaged layers with new ones. Applications with a
ventilation gap are better because it can prevent condensation and
moisture, which are common problems in this type of buildings.
1960’s Finnish concrete Passive measures Active measures and Strategies: Ground source heat pumps can be an energy-efficient solution for
panel apartments renewable energy systems  Active combinations + renewable energy systems Finnish apartments but there can be limitations such as high
(Häkämies et al.2015)  Mechanical exhaust installment cost or space limitations on site.
ventilation The research tests different active systems respectively heat
Place and year:  District heating pumps, while other parameters of the building stay in original Exhaust air heat pumps can be both energy-efficient and affordable
Finland (1960’s) N/A  Exhaust air heat pump (COP condition. No additional passive retrofit measure is carried out. for installing in the existing buildings. They work well with district
3.7) heating too, so the already existing grid can be used with the
 Ground source heat pump integration of a heat pump.
(COP 3.7)
 Air source heat pump (COP
4.2)
Photovoltaic panels can be used to produce electricity for heat pumps
 Solar thermal collectors (solar assisted heat pumps) which would lower the annual carbon
 Photovoltaic panels emissions from primary energy. Heat pumps are efficient systems
that result in lower energy demand which can be met at least
partially by renewable energy sources.
1960’s Finnish concrete Passive measures Active measures and Strategies: A retrofit combination that includes exhaust air heat pumps or
panel apartments renewable energy systems  Passive + active combinations + renewable energy systems ground source heat pumps, external wall insulation (160-180mm),
(Niemelä et al.2017) roof insulation, more efficient windows (U=0.8 W/m2K, g=0.49) and
 Thermal insulation of exterior  District heating
The research tests nearly 228 million combinations with photovoltaic panels (130m2), can result in 90-116 kWh/m2a primary
walls (U value = 0.23/0.11 W/m2K)  Air to water heat pumps
Place and year: different U value ranges for walls and roof as well as 4 types of energy use hence upgrade the building to nZEB level.
 Thermal insulation of the roof (U  Exhaust air heat pumps
Finland (1960’s) heat pumps. As a result, the study proposes combinations such
value = 0.13/0.07 W/m2K)  Ground source heat pumps
 Efficient windows (U value = 0.8/0.8 as: Better results (55-80 kWh/m2a) can be achieved with ground source
 Solar thermal collectors
W/m2K, g value = 0.49/0.42) heat pumps, exhaust air heat pumps and district heating, thicker
 Photovoltaic panels
(1) improved district heating substation, thermal insulation of insulation layers for walls (180-300mm) and roof (+400mm), efficient
walls (U=0.23 W/m2K) and roof (U=0.13 W/m2K), efficient windows (U=0.6 W/m2K, g=0.39), improved ventilation and
windows(U=0.8), heat pumps renewable energy generation systems.
(2) improved district heating substation, thermal insulation of
walls (U=0.11 W/m2K) and roof (U=0.07 W/m2K), efficient
windows (U=0.7 W/m2K), heat pumps
80 Energy-retrofit strategies Energy-retrofit strategies 81

APPENDIX B
82 Energy-retrofit strategies Energy-retrofit strategies 83

Table 2. Summary: Energy-retrofit measures that are used as input data in Sefaira Software. Table 2. Continued
Appendixes
Passive energy retrofit HVAC system Hea�ng hot Other technical input parameters
Building Envelope Components strategy water energy
Glazing performance Exterior Wall performance Ground Floor Roof Air�ghtness source
Performance Performance A – 02 Open loop Water source heat District Hea�ng Airflow rate: 0.50 l/s m2
U value = 1.00 W/m2K U value = 0.17 W/m2K U value = 0.15 U value = 6.00 GLAZING PERFORMANCE: pump fan coils Heat recovery efficiency: 90%
U value = 0.65 W/m2K
A SHGC = 0.7 W/m2K 0.09 W/m2K m3/hrm2 SHGC = 0.4
B 05 AHU Peak SFP: 1.00 W/ls
01 Shading from 3D model (balconies) and Shading from 3D model (balconies) and Electric boiler Fan coil unit Peak SFP 0.64 W/ls
Automated Shading, External Vene�an Automated Shading, External Vene�an Heat pump efficiency COP 4.5
Blinds, Zone temperature threshold 27.0
Blinds, Zone temperature threshold 27.0 °C
B 06 Closed loop Water source District Hea�ng DH Supply/return water temp.
°C heat pump fan coils 80°C/60°C
EXTERIOR WALL Electric boiler Electric Boiler efficiency COP 0.9
U value = 0.65 W/m2K U value = 0.1 W/m2K U value = 0.15 U value = 2.00 U value = 0.1 W/m2K
A SHGC = 0.4 W/m2K 0.09 W/m2K m3/hrm2 B Peak distribu�on efficiency 0.85
02 Shading from 3D model (balconies) and GROUND FLOOR B 07 Fan coil units and central District Hea�ng Airflow rate: 0.50 l/s m2
U value = 0.15 W/m2K plant Heat recovery efficiency: 90%
Automated Shading, External Vene�an
Blinds, Zone temperature threshold 27.0 ROOF Heat pump Peak SFP: 1.50 W/ls
°C U value = 0.09 W/m2K
B 08 VRF fan coils Heat pump
U value = 0.8 W/m2K U value = 0.15 W/m2K U value = 0.15 U value = 3.00 AIRTIGHTNESS
A SHGC = 0.5 W/m2K 0.09 W/m2K m3/hrm2 2.00 m3/hrm2
03 Shading from 3D model (balconies) and A – 03 C 09 Open loop Water source heat District Hea�ng Same as in B-05
Automated Shading, External Vene�an GLAZING PERFORMANCE: pump fan coils
U value = 0.8 W/m2K
Blinds, Zone temperature threshold 27.0 SHGC = 0.5 Electric boiler
°C Shading from 3D model (balconies) and
East-North-West South Facade East-North- South Facade U value = 0.15 U value = 2.00 Automated Shading, External Vene�an C 10 Closed loop Water source District Hea�ng
Blinds, Zone temperature threshold 27.0
Facade West Facade W/m2K 0.09 W/m2K m3/hrm2 °C
heat pump fan coils
U value = 0.8 U value = 0.65 U value = U value = Electric boiler
W/m2K W/m2K 0.10 W/m2K 0.15 W/m2K EXTERIOR WALL
U value = 0.15 W/m2K
A SHGC = 0.5 SHGC = 0.4 C C 11 Fan coil units and central District Hea�ng Same as in B-07
04 Shading from 3D model (balconies) and GROUND FLOOR plant
U value = 0.15 W/m2K
Automated Shading, External Vene�an Heat pump
Blinds, Zone temperature threshold 27.0 ROOF
°C U value = 0.09 W/m2K
Internal Loads
C 12 VRF fan coils Heat pump
AIRTIGHTNESS
Occupant density Equipment power density Ligh�ng power Indoor Occupancy 3.00 m3/hrm2
density temperature rate
range A – 04 D 13 Open loop Water source heat District Hea�ng Same as in B-05
28 m2/person Apartments: 9.0 W/m2 Apartments: 3.5 21°C - 27°C 0.6 GLAZING PERFORMANCE: pump fan coils
South facing façade:
Staircases: 0 W/m2
U value = 0.65 W/m2K
Staircases: 11.0 SHGC = 0.4 Electric boiler
W/m2 Other facades:
U value = 0.8 W/m2K
Mechanical system specifica�ons SHGC = 0.5
HVAC system Airflow rate Heat Recovery Peak Specific DH Supply / Shading from 3D model (balconies) and
D 14 Closed loop Water source District Hea�ng
A Efficiency Fan Power return Automated Shading, External Vene�an heat pump fan coils
Blinds, Zone temperature threshold 27.0
temp. °C
Electric boiler
Mechanical exhaust ven�la�on with heat 0.50 L/sm2 45% A-01 1.00 W/Ls 80°C/60°C
recovery 90% A-02;03;04 EXTERIOR WALL
South facing façade:
100% of windows operable D U value = 0.15 W/m2K D 15 Fan coil units and central District Hea�ng Same as in B-07
District Hea�ng with hydronic radiators Other facades:
U value = 0.1 W/m2K plant

GROUND FLOOR Heat pump

U value = 0.15 W/m2K

ROOF
U value = 0.09 W/m2K
D 16 VRF fan coils Heat pump

AIRTIGHTNESS
2.00 m3/hrm2
A – 01
GLAZING PERFORMANCE:
U value = 0.1 W/m2K
SHGC = 0.7
Shading from 3D model (balconies) and
Automated Shading, External Vene�an E 17
Blinds, Zone temperature threshold 27.0
°C

EXTERIOR WALL The HVAC system is chosen based on its energy performance in simula�ons by building
U value = 0.17 W/m2K
E component. The tested HVAC system is Fan coil units with a central plant, that use an
GROUND FLOOR electric boiler for hea�ng hot water energy source.
U value = 0.15 W/m2K

ROOF
U value = 0.09 W/m2K

AIRTIGHTNESS
6.00 m3/hrm2
84 Energy-retrofit strategies Energy-retrofit strategies 85
Table 3. Full list of results obtained from Energy-retrofit simulations using Sefaira Software.
Finnish thermal Energy Annual energy use intensity (kWh/m2) Annual space heating energy use (kWh/m2) Annual carbon emissions (kgCO2e/yr) Thermal comfort rate
zone retrofit Too cold (-20˚C)
Acceptable (20-27˚C)
strategies Too hot (+27˚C)
Finnish test reference years: TRY2020 TRY2030 TRY2050 TRY2080 TRY2020 TRY2030 TRY2050 TRY2080 TRY2020 TRY2030 TRY2050 TRY2080 TRY2020 TRY2030 TRY2050 TRY2080
; TC 23.09 A 76.55 A 78.4 A 77.43
A 74.17 TH 3.42 TH 3.42 TH 4.58
Building in original condition 198 182 168 146 118 106 95 78 133.556 122.238 111.935 95.763 TH 2.73 TC 20 TC 18.18 TC 17.99
A01 118 109 101 89 58 51 44 35 74.187 67.672 61.628 53.169 A 95.05 A 94.44 A 94.16 A 93.75
TH 2.89 TH 3.4 TH 3.98 TH 5.43
TC 2.048 TC 2.06 TC 1.81 TC 0.79

A02 60 58 55 52 13 11 8 6 30.945 29.434 27.565 25.706 A 99.15 A 98.6 A 98.08 A 96.97

TH 0.77 TH 1.37 TH 1.83 TH 3.01
TC 0.055 TC 0.025 TC 0.07 TC 0

A03 69 66 62 57 20 17 14 10 37.909 35.489 33.051 29.839 A 98.4 A 97.91 A 97.45 A 96.35

TH 1.25 TH 1.88 TH 2.37 TH 3.57
TC 0.32 TC 0.194 TC 0.18 TC 0.065

A04 61 58 56 52 14 12 9 6 31.76 30.126 28.21 26.14 A 99.12 A 98.57 A 98.03 A 96.95

TH 0.8 TH 1.38 TH 1.89 TH 3.05
TC 0.075 TC 0.05 TC 0.075 TC 0

B05 75 74 71 70 19 17 16 12 38.668 37.215 35.971 34.728 A 99.42 A 99 A 98.9 A 98.26

TH 0.57 TH 0.94 TH 1.135 TH 1.72
TC 0 TC 0 TC 0 TC 0

B06 67 69 59 64 9 10 3 5 32.377 33.142 27.662 29.979 A 99.39 A 99 A 98.8 A 98.24

TH 0.6 TH 0.97 TH 1.2 TH 1.76
TC 0 TC 0 TC 0 TC 0

B07 55/51 54/50 52/49 51/49 8/4 7/4 6/3 5/2 27.985 27.208 26.016 25.244 A 99 A 98.5 A 98.08 A 96.96
TH 0.85 TH 1.43 TH 1.9 TH 3.03
DH / HP /23.937 /23.574 /23.125 /22.797 TC 0 TC 0 TC 0.02 TC 0

B08 57 56 55 54 9 7 6 4 26.603 26.169 25.763 25.242 A 99.35 A 98.97 A 98.64 A 97.84

TH 0.62 TH 1.02 TH 1.34 TH 2.16
TC 0.01 TC 0 TC 0.0005 TC 0

C09 87 84 81 78 31 27 25 21 46.77 44.303 42.508 40.146 A 99 A 98.67 A 98.34 A 97.57

Finnish thermal TH 0.92 TH 1.33 TH 1.65 TH 2.31
zone 1 TC 0 TC 0 TC 0 TC 0

C10 74 74 67 67 15 14 9 8 36.01 35.643 31.471 31.124 A 99.03 A 98.6 A 98.29 A 97.55

TH 0.96 TH 1.37 TH 1.68 TH 2.45
TC 0 TC 0 TC 0.015 TC 0

C11 63/56 60/54 58/53 55/51 16/9 14/8 11/6 8/4 33.759 31.972 30.18 27.967 A 98.6 A 97.97 A 97.47 A 96.34
TH 1.36 TH 1.96 TH 2.45 TH 3.65
DH / HP /26.238 /25.466 /24.734 /23.843 TC 0.075 TC 0.05 TC 0.05 TC 0

C12 62 61 60 58 14 12 10 7 29.246 28.544 27.926 27.01 A 98.8 A 96.39 A 98.018 A 97.12

TH 1.08 TH 1.56 TH 1.88 TH 2.87
TC 0.1 TC 0.05 TC 0.03 TC 0

D13 76 75 73 71 21 18 17 13 39.704 38.136 36.843 35.467 A 99.43 A 99 A 98.8 A 98.11

TH 0.56 TH 0.97 TH 1.18 TH 1.87
TC 0 TC 0 TC 0.015 TC 0

D14 67 69 63 65 9 10 7 6 32.343 33.081 29.659 30.208 A 99.4 A 98.99 A 98.79 A 98.09

TH 0.59 TH 0.9 TH 1.2 TH 1.9
TC 0 TC 0 TC 0 TC 0

D15 56/52 54/51 53/50 51/49 9/5 8/4 6/3 5/2 28.59 27.628 26.413 25.311 A 99.5 A 98.54 A 98.06 A 96.93
TH 0.86 TH 1.44 TH 1.92 TH 3.08
DH / HP /24.183 /23.751 /23.281 /22.843 TC 0.015 TC 0.005 TC 0.02 TC 0

D16 58 57 56 54 9 8 6 4 26.959 26.478 26.069 25.49 A 99.33 A 98.92 A 98.58 A 97.73

TH 0.64 TH 1.06 TH 1.3 TH 2.27
TC 0.5 TC 0.005 TC 0.0005 TC 0

E17 71 67 64 60 23 19 16 12 33.018 31.391 29.923 27.909 A 96.54 A 96.09 A 95.73 A 94.43

TH 3.01 TH 3.64 TH 4.125 TH 5.5
TC 0.48 TC 0.28 TC 0.12 TC 0.065
86 Energy-retrofit strategies Energy-retrofit strategies 87
Table 3. Continued.
Finnish thermal Energy Annual energy use intensity (kWh/m2) Annual space heating energy use (kWh/m2) Annual carbon emissions (kgCO2e/yr) Thermal comfort rate
zone retrofit Too cold (-20˚C)
Acceptable (20-27˚C)
strategies Too hot (+27˚C)
Finnish test reference years: TRY2030 TRY2050 TRY2080 TRY2030 TRY2050 TRY2080 TRY2030 TRY2050 TRY2080 TRY2030 TRY2050 TRY2080
A 77.88 A 79.2 A 80.83
TH 2.29 TH 2.83 TH 4.19
Building in original condition 184 171 151 107 97 81 123.556 114.023 99.1 TC 19.82 TC 17.97 TC 14.98
A01 107 99 88 49 43 34 66.086 60.66 52.606 A 96.15 A 95.54 A 94.30
TH 3.06 TH 3.6 TH 4.99
TC 0.8 TC 0.82 TC 0.68

A02 55 53 51 9 7 5 27.682 26.329 24.897 A 99.31 A 98.95 A 97.77

TH 0.66 TH 1.03 TH 2.23
TC 0.015 TC 0.015 TC 0

A03 63 60 56 15 13 9 33.647 31.61 28.963 A 98.69 A 98.21 A 97.1

TH 1.146 TH 1.61 TH 2.79
TC 0.15 TC 0.15 TC 0.0005

A04 56 54 51 10 8 6 28.46 27.022 25.457 A 99.31 A 92.90 A 97.7

TH 0.67 TH 1.08 TH 2.29
TC 0 TC 0.015 TC 0

B05 70 68 68 18 16 13 36 34.99 33.795 A 99.61 A 99.32 A 98.64

TH 0.39 TH 0.67 TH 1.36
TC 0 TC 0 TC 0

B06 58 58 60 6 5 5 27.227 26.958 28.2 A 99.59 A 99.30 A 98.6

TH 0.41 TH 0.7 TH 1.39
TC 0 TC 0 TC 0

B07 51/49 50/49 50/48 5/3 4/2 3/2 25.248 24.637 24.258 A 99.264 A 98.89 A 97.734
TH 0.73 TH 1.1 TH 2.26
DH / HP /23 /22.742 /22.534 TC 0 TC 0 TC 0

B08 55 54 53 6 5 4 25.634 25.395 24.967 A 99.51 A 99.24 A 98.43

TH 0.47 TH 0.75 TH 1.56
TC 0 TC 0 TC 0

C09 80 78 76 28 25 20 42.858 51.277 39.161 A 99.22 A 98.88 A 98.09

Finnish thermal TH 0.78 TH 1.07 TH 1.9
zone 2 TC 0 TC 0 TC 0

C10 63 62 64 9 8 7 29.455 28.959 29.815 A 99.18 A 98.85 A 98.05

TH 0.81 TH 1.14 TH 1.95
TC 0 TC 0 TC 0

C11 58/53 56/52 54/50 11/6 9/5 7/4 30.076 28.73 26.964 A 98.73 A 98.31 A 97.05
TH 1.25 TH 1.67 TH 2.94
DH / HP /24.88 /24.317 /23.582 TC 0.015 0 TC 0

C12 60 59 57 11 10 7 27.949 27.525 26.817 A 99.09 A 98.68 A 97.76

TH 0.91 TH 1.3 TH 2.23
TC 0 TC 0.01 TC 0

D13 71 70 69 19 8 14 36.97 35.889 34.593 A 99.57 A 99.31 A 98.59

TH 0.41 TH 0.68 TH 1.4
TC 0 TC 0 TC 0

D14 59 58 61 6 6 5 27.528 27.239 28.466 A 99.56 A 99.29 A 98.55

TH 0.43 TH 0.69 TH 1.44
TC 0 TC 0 TC 0

D15 52/50 51/49 50/48 5/3 4/2 4/2 25.803 25.072 24.514 A 99.26 A 98.88 A 97.63
TH 0.75 TH 1.125 TH 2.36
DH / HP /23.217 /22.911 /22.636 TC 0 TC 0 TC 0

D16 55 55 54 7 6 4 25.842 25.711 25.292 A 99.49 A 99.225 A 98.33

TH 0.5 TH 0.925 TH 1.67
TC 0 TC 0 TC 0

E17 65 62 59 17 15 11 30.414 29.176 27.387 A 96.66 A 96.186 A 94.86

TH 3.19 TH 3.75 TH 5.09
TC 0.135 TC 0.055 TC 0.025
88 Energy-retrofit strategies Energy-retrofit strategies 89
Table 3. Continued.

Finnish thermal Energy Annual energy use intensity (kWh/m2) Annual space heating energy use (kWh/m2) Annual carbon emissions (kgCO2e/yr) Thermal comfort rate
zone retrofit Too cold (-20˚C)
Acceptable (20-27˚C)
strategies Too hot (+27˚C)
Finnish test reference years: TRY2030 TRY2050 TRY2080 TRY2030 TRY2050 TRY2080 TRY2030 TRY2050 TRY2080 TRY2030 TRY2050 TRY2080
A 74.36 A 76.52 A 96.95
TH 1.55 TH 1.96 TH 3.05
Building in original condition 198 183 159 118 106 88 134.015 122.661 105.025 TC 24 TC 16.88 TC17.90
A01 116 106 92 56 49 37 72.1 65.532 55.375 A 96.86 A 96.62 A 95.92
TH 2.25 TH 2.66 TH 3.43
TC 0.9 TC 0.72 TC 0.63

A02 59 56 52 12 10 6 29.839 28.374 25.621 A 99.73 A 99.5 A 98.7

TH 0.23 TH 0.46 TH 1.26
TC 0.03 TC 0.035 TC 0.03

A03 68 64 58 19 16 11 36.334 33.938 29.92 A 99.23 A 98.94 A 98.34

TH 0.61 TH 0.96 TH 1.76
TC 0.16 TC 0.09 TC 0.09

A04 60 57 53 13 11 7 30.735 29.161 26.198 A 99.74 A 99.46 A 98.6

TH 0.2 TH 0.49 TH 1.34
TC 0.04 TC 0.03 TC 0.03

B05 72 72 68 20 16 14 37.575 36.507 34.437 A 99.92 A 99.75 A 99.09

TH 0.02 TH 0.24 TH 0.9
TC 0 TC 0 TC 0

B06 60 65 60 7 7 5 28.029 30.66 28.091 A 99.91 A 99.73 A 99.07

TH 0.085 TH 0.26 TH 0.92
TC 0 TC 0 TC 0

B07 53/50 52/49 50/48 6/4 5/3 3/2 26.242 25.57 24.129 A 99.71 A 99.48 A 98.7
TH 0.28 TH 0.51 TH 1.31
DH / HP /23.451 /23.107 /22.541 TC 0.0005 TC 0.005 TC 0

B08 56 55 54 8 7 4 26.204 25.871 25.168 A 99.75 A 99.67 A 99.03

TH 0.1 TH 0.32 TH 0.97
TC 0.11 TC 0 TC 0

C09 83 82 77 31 26 22 44.88 42.974 39.955 A 99.66 A 99.43 A 98.76

Finnish thermal TH 0.28 TH 0.56 TH 1.23
zone 3 TC 0.01 TC 0 TC 0

C10 64 70 63 10 12 8 30.069 33.499 29.459 A 99.64 A 99.4 A 98.73

TH 0.36 TH 0.6 TH 1.26
TC 0 TC 0 TC 0

C11 60/55 58/53 54/51 13/8 11/6 7/4 31.664 30.002 27.231 A 99.25 A 99.15 A 98.14
TH 0.71 TH 1.025 TH 1.8
DH / HP /25.621 /24.874 /23.752 TC 0.035 TC 0.025 TC 0.005

C12 61 60 58 13 12 8 28.633 28.204 27.058 A 99.3 A 99.2 A 98.59

TH 0.44 TH 0.73 TH 1.38
TC 0.23 TC 0.07 TC 0.01

D13 74 74 70 22 18 15 38.678 37.548 35.342 A 99.92 A 99.72 A 99.08

TH 0.075 TH 0.27 TH 0.91
TC 0 TC 0 TC 0

D14 60 65 60 7 8 5 28.224 30.921 28.259 A 99.91 A 99.71 A 99.07

TH 0.085 TH 0.285 TH 0.92
TC 0 TC 0 TC 0

D15 54/51 52/50 50/48 7/4 6/3 4/2 26.949 26.136 24.458 A 99.76 A 99.45 A 98.62
TH 0.23 TH 0.53 TH 1.37
DH / HP /23.735 /23.333 /22.672 TC 0.005 TC 0 TC 0

D16 57 56 54 9 8 5 26.581 26.253 25.492 A 99.73 A 99.68 A 98.95

TH 0.16 TH 0.31 TH 1.04
TC 0.09 TC 0 TC 0

E17 68 64 59 20 17 12 31.645 30.003 27.691 A 97.39 A 97.03 A 96.4

TH 2.38 TH 2.85 TH 1.46
TC 0.2 TC 0.12 TC 0
91 Energy-retrofit strategies Energy-retrofit strategies 91
Table 3. Continued.
Finnish thermal Energy Annual energy use intensity (kWh/m2) Annual space heating energy use (kWh/m2) Annual carbon emissions (kgCO2e/yr) Thermal comfort rate
zone retrofit Too cold (-20˚C)
Acceptable (20-27˚C)
strategies Too hot (+27˚C)
Finnish test reference years: TRY2030 TRY2050 TRY2080 TRY2030 TRY2050 TRY2080 TRY2030 TRY2050 TRY2080 TRY2030 TRY2050 TRY2080
A 67.65 A 70.05 A 74
TH 1.32 TH 1.48 TH 2.08
Building in original condition 238 220 191 149 135 112 163.36 149.925 128.746 TC 31.03 TC 28.44 TC 23.9
A01 140 129 112 76 67 53 182.527 81.6 69.249 A 97.016 A 97.39 A 97.17
TH 1.97 TH 2.14 TH 2.65
TC 0.99 TC 0.5 TC 0.15

A02 67 63 58 19 16 11 35.02 32.711 29.155 A 99.72 A 99.49 A 99.05

TH 0.27 TH 0.4 TH 0.94
TC 0 TC 0 TC 0

A03 79 74 66 28 24 18 43.754 40.465 35.425 A 99.28 A 99.25 A 98.69

TH 0.58 TH 0.7 TH 1.31
TC 0.13 TC 0.075 TC 0

A04 68 65 59 20 17 12 36.281 33.858 30.094 A 99.74 A 99.58 A 99.02

TH 0.255 TH 0.41 TH 0.98
TC 0.005 TC 0 TC 0

B05 80 78 73 25 22 19 41.809 40.053 37.47 A 99.825 A 99.76 A 99.44

TH 0.175 TH 0.24 TH 0.56
TC 0 TC 0 TC 0

B06 75 73 62 18 15 7 37.568 36.193 29.264 A 99.819 A 99.74 A 99.42

TH 0.18 TH 0.255 TH 0.575
TC 0 TC 0 TC 0

B07 57/54 55/52 52/50 11/7 9/5 6/3 29.76 28.2 25.879 A 99.69 A 99.56 A 99.036
TH 0.31 TH 0.435 TH 0.96
DH / HP /25.095 /24.346 /23.31 TC 0 TC 0 TC 0

B08 60 59 56 12 11 8 28.039 27.469 26.395 A 97.93 A 98.92 A 99.31

TH 0.2 TH 0.31 TH 0.63
TC 1.6 TC 0.77 TC 0.015

C09 94 90 84 38 34 29 50.727 48.162 44.405 A 99.56 A 99.56 A 99.21

Finnish thermal TH 0.335 TH 0.41 TH 0.78
zone 4 TC 0.105 TC 0.015 TC 0

C10 83 81 69 25 23 12 42.162 40.823 32.962 A 99.63 A 99.51 A 99.17

TH 0.37 TH 0.45 TH 0.82
TC 0 TC 0 TC 0

C11 68/61 64/58 59/54 21/14 18/11 12/7 37.518 34.909 31.001 A 99.26 A 99.18 A 98.65
TH 0.63 TH 0.8 TH 1.34
DH / HP /28.335 /27.107 /25.369 TC 0.1 TC 0.015 TC 0

C12 66 65 62 18 17 13 31.086 30.37 29.916 A 97.34 A 98.7 A 99.01

TH 0.43 TH 0.55 TH 0.94
TC 2.225 TC 0.72 TC 0.04

D13 82 80 75 27 24 20 43.158 41.309 38.591 A 99.82 A 99.76 A 99.4

TH 0.17 TH 0.24 TH 0.6
TC 0.005 TC 0 TC 0

D14 75 61 63 18 6 8 37.453 28.7 29.711 A 99.81 A 99.72 A 99.37

TH 0.185 TH 0.27 TH 0.62
TC 0 TC 0 TC 0

D15 59/55 57/53 53/50 12/8 10/6 6/4 30.829 29.143 26.587 A 99.69 A 99.56 A 99.01
TH 0.3 TH 0.43 TH 0.99
DH / HP /25.542 /24.723 /23.597 TC 0.005 TC 0 TC 0

D16 61 60 57 13 12 9 28.518 27.94 26.812 A 97.84 A 98.88 A 99.3

TH 0.19 TH 0.3 TH 0.68
TC 1.56 TC 0083 TC 0.02

E17 78 73 66 30 25 18 36.5 34.202 30.964 A 97.2 A 97.51 A 97.19

TH 2.18 TH 2.26 TH 2.79
TC 0.62 TC 0.225 TC 0.02
Primesa Arapi, August 2021