Master's thesis_Seungmok Lee

SEUNGMOK LEE Rehabilitation of an existing industrial steel-framed structure : a case study in Kaldnes Vest, Tønsberg

A thesis for the degree of Master of Science Trondheim, May 2022 Supervisor: Michael Gruner

Norwegian University of Science and Technology

ABSTRACT Reusing steel could save 96% of environmental impact compared to the primary production of new steel. Despite the benefit, existing steel materials are not reused often due to a lack of incentives for reuse and technical barriers(Sansom & Avery, 2014). Recycling steel is currently dominant which still creates a lot of emissions when scrap steel is melted down in an arc furnace.

This rehabilitation project aims to transform one of the old steel frame industrial structures out of three buildings into an Olympic-sized pool combined with a nursing home by reusing steel materials on the site. Additional steel materials are reused from other industrial halls nearby in Kaldnes Vest, Tønsberg. Kaldnes Vest is located at the end of the canal axis on its west side which was previously a ship yard established in 1899. Kaldnes Vest has a great regional potential to accommodate a variety of activities and extend the currently closed promenade by the end of the canal starting from the city. The combination of the swimming hall and the nursing home could bring a high level of social mix. Furthermore, by connecting the activities of the indoor pool and the outdoor sea bath, it can provide unique experiences to users.

The analysis of daylighting, energy and lifecycle assessment was carried out. Due to the need to provide appropriate thermal comfort conditions of indoor swimming pools, its energy demand is up to 276.79 kWh/m2 yearly. In total, 411.3 kWh/m2/year is required to cover the demand from both the swimming hall and the nursing home. Photovoltaic modules installed on the south roof generate 499 819kWh yearly and it can cover the electrical energy in summer entirely. The steel joist slab system was proposed by assembling approximately 1 000 tons of steel materials from other structures thereby it could save 1469.9 tons of steel in total. 10307.9 ton of concrete is also saved by reusing most of its previous structure. Thanks to reusing massive concrete and steel elements and on-site energy generation, the project saved 4.67 kgCO2e/m2/y and 5.41 kgCO2e/m2/y respectively out of total 13.32 kgCO2e/m2/y

I

II

SAMMENDRAG Gjenbruk av stål kan spare 96 % av miljøbelastningen sammenlignet med primærproduksjon av nytt stål. Til tross for fordelen, gjenbrukes ikke eksisterende stålmaterialer ofte på grunn av mangel på insentiver for gjenbruk og tekniske barrierer (Sansom & Avery, 2014).

Gjenvinning av stål er dog dominerende i dagens samfunn, noe som skaper mye utslipp når skrapstål smeltes ned i en lysbueovn.

Dette rehabiliteringsprosjektet tar sikte på å transformere en av de tre gamle industrikonstruksjonene av stålramme om til et basseng i olympisk størrelse kombinert med et sykehjem, ved å gjenbruke stålmaterialer på stedet Ytterligere stålmaterialer gjenbrukes fra andre industrihaller i nærheten i Kaldnes Vest, Tønsberg. Kaldnes Vest ligger i enden av kanalaksen på sin vestside som tidligere var et verft etablert i 1899. Kaldnes Vest har et stort regionalt potensiale for å romme en rekke aktiviteter og forlenge den nå stengte promenaden ved enden av kanal, som starter fra byen. Kombinasjonen av svømmehallen og sykehjemmet vil kunne gi høy sosial miks. Ved å koble sammen aktivitetene til innendørsbassenget og det utendørs sjøbadet kan dette dessuten gi unike opplevelser til brukerne.

Analysen av dagslys, energi og livsløpsvurdering har blitt utført. På grunn av behovet for å sørge for passende termiske komfortforhold for innendørs svømmebassenger, er energibehovet opp til 276,79 kWh/m2 årlig. Totalt kreves det 411,3 kWh/m2/år for å dekke etterspørselen fra både svømmehallen og sykehjemmet. Solcellemoduler installert på sørtaket genererer 499 819 kWh årlig, og de kan alene dekke den elektriske energien som kreves om sommeren. Stålbjelkeplatesystemet ble foreslått ved å sette sammen ca. 1 000 tonn stålmaterialer fra andre strukturer, slik at det kunne spare 1469,9 tonn stål totalt. 10307,9 tonn betong spares også ved å gjenbruke det meste av sin tidligere struktur. Takket være gjenbruk av massive betong- og stålelementer, samt energiproduksjonen på stedet, sparte prosjektet henholdsvis 4,67 kgCO2e/m2/år og 5,41 kgCO2e/m2/år av totalt 13,32 kgCO2e/m2/år.

III

IV

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my supervisor Michael Gruner for his supervision. I was able to finish my master’s thesis thanks to his invaluable help and inspirations. Secondly, I also want to thank Bunji Izumi for his sincere advice on the structural stability of the project. Last but not least, thank you Sigurdur Gunnarsson from Asplan Viak for sharing his knowledge of Tønsberg and great feedbacks on the work.

Norwegian University of Science and Technology, May 2022.

V

VI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

VII

II VI

INTRO

1

CLIMATE ANALYSIS

3

SITE ANALYSIS

5

PROGRAM

7

VISUALIZATION(AXONOMETRY, SECTION B1-B2)

9

FLOOR PLANS

11

SITE PLAN

14

VISUALIZATION(SECTION A1-A2)

15

DAYLIGHTING ANALYSIS

17

FACADE OPTIMIZATION

19

STRUCTURAL DETAIL

21

PROPOSAL_STEEL JOIST SLAB SYSTEM

23

MATERIAL

25

ENERGY ANALYSIS

29

LIFECYCLE ASSESSMENT

33

REFERENCE

35

VIII

IX

X

INTRODUCTION Tønsberg is a middle-sized city in southern Norway, located in the inner Oslo fjord. In the center of the municipality, Kaldnes Vest is located at the end of the canal axis on its west side which was previously a ship yard established in 1899. The yard focused on shipbuilding and have had produced large and complicated vessels constantly with several companies which have gone in and out through several decades. Due to a gradual reduction of the area-intensive industry in the North Sea, opportunities open up for modern urban development with a high concentration of jobs. Currently, the building has provided a temporary boat storage space for the small boats on trailers(“Takes the Kaldnes name back,” n.d.).

The growing population of the city creates a potential for an attractive accessible canal landscape using urban space as the driver in strengthening the city centre.

However, The accessibility is poor at the canal front since this large area is occupied by industry. Industrial sites along the canal offer great potential for the city centre development, as they are near the city centre as well as the residential areas, and hence can work as a linking element between them, decreasing distances for bicyclists and pedestrians. Also, the site holds several characteristic buildings and elements that can convey the city’s industrial history in a new cityscape. In Norwegian tradition, the recreational outdoor life is strong. However, there has been an increased interest in urban qualities in the cities in the last few years. According to TNS gallup in 2014, it showed that in the 13 biggest cities in Norway, the majority of the population would like the municipalities to focus on livability and attractive city centres(Husum, 2016) This design project is a part of the ‘Integrated planning of zero-emission area(INTO-ZERO’ project from Asplan Viak, an interdisciplinary consulting company. The main goal of the project is “the development of a new and integrated process with associated methodology, tools and business for planning and design of cities and areas with minimal GHG emissions in a life cycle perspective”(“Project, Integrated planning of zero-emission areas,” n.d.)

In this regard, the design project aims to transform one of the old industrial buildings into a useful state by reusing the existing structure and other structural elements from the other buildings in the site for minimum emissions in the life cycle perspective. In order to contribute this area to be attractive and accommodate a variety of people in a wide age range, the industrial hall will be transformed into an Olympic-size swimming hall combined with a nursing home together.

1I

2 Source: https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/6d5e55e6e495453f8ce82548b02a1eab

Humidity Ratio [kg water/kg air]

CLIMATE ANALYSIS

Design strageties 1.16%

2 Thermal Mass + Night Vent

0.05%

3 Internal Heat Gain

29.60%

4 Passive Solar Heating

15.90%

N

Jun-Aug

Nov-Feb

W

E

W

6 11 .2 12 .8 14 .4 16 .0 < m /s

46.54%

0

Total

passive strategies

1 Time within comfort zone

N

E

9.

4

8.

6.

8 4.

2 3.

6

0 1.

.0

S

<0

0< Ho ur s

2

18

4

16

14

6

8

12

10

90

72

54

36

18

<0

.0

0

Operative Temperatrue °C S

< Psychrometric Chart _ Sandefjord AP-Torp >

The climate of Tønsberg is mild, and generally warm and temperate. There is a lot of rain even in the driest month. According to Köppen and Geiger, this climate is classified as Cfb. The average temperature in Tønsberg is 7.4 °C. About 1046mm of precipitation falls annually. Precipitation is the lowest in April, with an average of 57mm and the greatest amount of precipitation occurs in October, with an average of 122mm(”Climate Tønsberg(NORWAY),” n.d.).

3

According to the psychrometric chart, the climate conditions of the site represent a comfort zone of 1.16 % during the year. The most effective passive strategy is keeping internal heat gains using low U-value constructions that are adding 29.6 %. In addition, to cover the coldest and driest periods below 13 °C, it needs the use of a the heating system combined with solar heating gain through the windows oriented to the south which provides an extra 15.9 % of comfort time.

There is a short warm period of 0.05 % of the year that is covered by natural ventilation

SUMMER

WINTER

Radiation comes mostly from the south and can go up to 436 kWh/m2 during the summer solstice. The wind blows from most of the direction but the most prevailing wind direction during summer is from the south and the north. The wind velocity reaches a maximum of 11.2 m/s in the south and 9.6 m/s in the north

During the winter, the velocity of the winds is higher than in the summer in most directions. The prevailing wind is coming from the north side and it reaches to a maximum of 14.4 m/s.

4

200m

400m

600m

800m

1000m

1200m

HALL A

PROJEC

T SITE

HALL B

165 000 m2 HALL A

5

6

PROGRAMS

Deploying programs in the project mainly derived from the idea of taking advantage of the existing structural benefit. The construction had two big cranes on the top that have a capacity of 64 tons and 400 tons respectively. One of them was disassembled previously and there is still the structure of the vertical bracing system around the disassembled crane which could bear the load of 400 tons. Furthermore, the building has huge frames on both east and west façades for the full height sliding doors.

The site has a strong potential to extend the promenade up to the end of the canal that is closed currently. On the west side of the project it could accommodate various activities connecting indoor places to outdoor shoreline.

Due to its structural strength and potential to create unique activities on the site, additional floor slabs are gathered on this plot mostly and it could make open space on the west side facing the sea.

VOLLEYBALL COURT

RESIDENTIAL UNITS

FITNESS CENTER MULTIPURPOSE HALL CANTEEN KITCHEN

OFFICE

RENT WAVE POOL OUTDOOR SPA CAFE

SPA+SAUNA LOCKER ROOM +SHOWER COMPETITION POOL

JACUZZI POOL KIDS POOL TRAINING POOL

7

8

+24 440

+19 400 6th level

+14 400 5th level

+10 800 4th level

+7 200 3rd level

+3 600 2nd Level

+0 Ground Level

SECTION B1-B2 9

10

30175

6000 5425

8200

4125 4125 A2

8300

7460

9450

PRIVATE 103

7698

4500

PRIVATE 104

1500

PRIVATE 102

PRIVATE 105

4500

11136

PRIVATE 106

4375

VOID

DN

18145

UP

KITCHEN

12

DN

CANTEEN

11755

PRIVATE 101

10

11750

11600

UP

11

11

+ 0.000

20250

STORAGE 42 m2

12000

OFFICE

COMMON KITCHEN + LIVINGROOM

12125

13

MEN LOCKER ROOM 224 m2

18050

HANDICAPPED SHOWER ROOM 97 m2

12

18000

DN

UP 13

SPA 146 m2

WOMEN LOCKER ROOM 222 m2

SAUNA 43 m2

10

5964

14

14

LOBBY 81 m2

7491

LOBBY 205 m2

1500

OFFICE 92 m2

UP

15

15

4200 4800 3000

47385

7520

12000

UP

9

9

STORAGE 40 m2

18600

8

8

- 1.500

UP DN

20900

Ⅰ

Ⅰ

CAFE

18200

UP

UP

1

24500

UP

UPDNUP

2

2

3

13200

3

RENT 1 84.5 m2

1

UP

5

4

- 6.000

43800 124420

SPECTATORS SEATINGS

4

RENT 1 77.4 m2

48000

7 6

50250

WAVE POOL 304 m2

12000 124291

35500

COMPETITION POOL 1 000 m2

5

6

7

RENT 1 119 m2

6049

Ⅱ

STORE

43200

B1

B2

17372

Ⅳ

JACUZZI POOL 180 m2

- 8,600

N

N

Ⅴ

Ⅴ

DN

- 1,350

DN

24000

Ⅳ

Ⅲ

- 800

Ⅲ

16400

KIDS POOL 331 m2

43200

Ⅱ

CAFE SEATINGS

2m

2m

4m

6m

8m

10m

2m

0m

2m

4m

6m

12 I

H

G

F

E

D

C

B

A

A1 F

E

D

C

B

A

48000

0m

12520

I

11

12000

H

11700

G

12300

2 FLOOR PLAN

Ⅵ

Ⅵ

1 FLOOR PLAN

SECTION B1-B2

8m

10m

15

40852

BEACH VOLLEYBALL COURT

12

13

25753

15000

14

24000

11

+ 19.500

6

7

8

9

10

+ 0.000

123203 97450

+ 7.500

+ 10.000

Ⅱ

Ⅰ

1

+ 3.600

+ 5.000

+ 3.000

2

3

4

5

+ 16.750

N

N

Ⅴ

Ⅳ

Ⅲ

+ 9.600

SITE PLAN

Ⅵ

6 FLOOR PLAN 2m

2m

4m

6m

8m

10m

0m

5m

10m

20m

30m

I

H

G

F

E

D

C

B

14 A

13

0m

+19 400

+14 400

+10 800

+7 200

+3 600

+0

-800

-1 500

-6 000 -8 400 -11 400

SECTION A1-A2 15

16

For the public pool, there are several guidelines of regulations determining specific daylighting conditions. The UK’s Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers(CIBSE) Society of Light and Lighting(SLL) specifies the requirements of the level of illuminance for a wide range of applications.

DAYLIGHTING ANALYSIS

1ST FLOOR

2ND FLOOR

According to SLL Guide 4: Sports Lighting, levels increase depending on the level of competition, from an Olympic televised pool to local leisure center. Typically most pools require between 200-700 lux. Generally, over 300 lux is enough to indoor pool but in case of competition pool it may require 500 lux or more.

Glare from light fixtures or glazed openings must be minimized to the lifeguards’ advantage and eliminated where eyesight cannot penetrate the water’s surface through to necessary depths. This potentially dangerous glare results from the light being reflected off the water from a light source located in front of the lifeguard and can be reduced by using indirect lighting sources or using light sources at a steep angle of incidence(Strange et al., 2017).

However since the plan for the indoor lighting is out of the project scope, only glare resulting from daylighting is examined. The glare is imperceptible level with a DGP(Daylight Glare Probability) of 0.29 from the ground floor.

The guide divided regulations into 3 different classes in terms of the size and capacity of facilities. The project is catergorized in Lighting class II, a mid-level compeition level which can accommodating county regional competition, and has medium spectator capacities with medium viewing distance. The programs the building accomodates comply with the recommended illuminance level of indoor pool such as volleyball court, and fitness trainning as below. However the uniformity(U0), the ratio of the minimum illuminance to the average illuminance(Emin/E) was not able to reach to the recommended level.

< Table of recommendation of illuminance level >

17

00 30 0.

0 37 0 5.

00 45 0.

00 52 5.

00 60 0.

00 67 5.

00 75 0.

00 LU X

00

22 5.

0

15 0.

75 .0

<0 .0

0

6TH FLOOR

U0(Emin/Eav)

Group

Eav

swimming/diving /racing/polo/synchronised *

300 lux

0.7

volley ball(indoor)*

500 lux

0.7

fitness training *

500 lux

0.8

Canteen, pantries **

200l ux

writing/typing/reading data processing ** residents(no visual task)**

DGP=0.288

< Glare examination from 1st floor >

< Daylight glare comfort classes and relative DGP thresholds > Criterion Glare is mostly not perceived

DGP DGP ≤ 0.35

Glare is perceived but mostly not disturbing

0.35 < DGP ≤ 0.4

-

Glare is perceived and often disturbing

0.4 < DGP ≤ 0.45

500 lux

-

180 lux

-

Glare is perceived and mostly intolerable

* CIBSE SLL Guide 4 : Sports Lighting ** EN 12464-1 *** EN 12665

DGP ≥ 0.45

Source(Wienold, 2009)

18

% / sk

ylight

s 1m*

50m*

2EA

25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0 5.0 0.0

Optimizing area of skylights

60

70

80

90

60

70

80

90

530 520 510 500

488 Kwh/m2/y

490 480 470 460 450

10

20

30

35

40

45

50

WWR of W and S facade Illuminance

Energy load

< Illuminance level and energy load depending on WWR >

2

3

(WWR on the North)

80.0

500

60.0 50.0 40.0

66.9 % 488 kWh/m2

60.2 % 492 kWh/m2

70.0

400

30.0 20.0 10.0 300

*2

40 N

EA

EA 1m

*5

0m

*4

*2 0m

%

0.0

*5 0 37 0 5.

00 45 0.

00 52 5.

00 60 0.

00 67 5.

00 75 0.

00 LU X

00

50

30

0.

00

5.

0.

22

15

0

.0 0

.0

75

<0

45

540

TEST ROUND

0m

2EA

40

90.0

EA

Adjusting WWR of the north facade

50m*

35

*5

s 1m*

30

1m

ylight

20

550

(skylights) % / sk

10

WWR of W and S facade

Because these simulations are to figure out what the best envelope scenario is, the energy model from Grasshopper was made as simple as possible with general input values therefore the results of the energy demand are not really realistic.

TEST ROUND

44.6%

30.0

%

Adjusting WWR on west and south facade

Generally, glazings on the north facade affect the energy demand of the building significantly.

Adjusting the WWR on the north side showed that heating demand is changing a lot depending on its ratio. As a result, 35% of the glazing is considered an optimized ratio on the north side taking into account daylighting conditions.

35.0

30

50%

40.0

N

50% N

45.0

%

W&S

50%

1

kWh/m2/year

19

45% N

TEST ROUND

35

50%

% N35

3

50%

W&S

30% N

WS 40

TEST ROUND

40% N

As a result of the first test, 40% of WWR is the most efficient ratio for the west and south facades considering both energy demand and illuminance level. However additional adjustment was necessary as the water surface on the competition pool was not still bright enough to meet the requirement. Several scenarios of the skylights were simulated and the horizontal glazings along the long span of the competition pool with the dimension of 1m*50m turned out the most efficient one distributing daylights evenly on the water surface with the lowest heating demand.

However, the energy load for lighting is not much affected by the addition of skylights.

N

50%

% N50

2

50%

W&S

20% N

WS 40

TEST ROUND

35% N

2m

1

W&S

50%

% of area complyin with the recommended level(300 - 750 lux)

TEST ROUND

W&S

W&S

10% N

% of area complyin with the recommended level(300 - 750 lux)

Window wall ratio (WWR) is an important factor to decide not only indoor daylighting conditions but also energy demand of the building. In order to optimize WWR of the pool it was tested with the fixed north glazing while modifying the south and west facades since the north view facing to the the canal is regarded significant element for the users’ quality experiences. Also, the east side is neglected for the simulation as there is an internal walls shared by the nursing home section. The tests collected area percentage which ranges from 300 - 750 lux. A careful examination was needed particularly on the competition pool as it has a two-floor-high office on its south which blocks the direct sunlight into the pool.

W&S

Energy load kWh/m2/year

FACADE OPTIMIZATION

< Optimizing WWR and skylights >

20

AXIS III-VI

N

AXIS 3-4

EL

LV EE

2

+13

N

STRUCTURAL DETAIL

200

FIC

OF

FLOOR COVERING WATERPROOF MEMBRANE 50mm RIGID THERMAL INSULATION 80mm CONCRETE SLAB

9 1 + L E ELV E FIC OF

150*150mm WELDED WIRE MESH SHEER STUD STEEL DECKIN

600 0 L +

BEAM WEB PENETRATION FOR DUCT SYSTEM

D

UN

O GR

BEAM HEB 600

E LEV

FIRE PROOFING FURRING CHANNEL 250mm MECHANICAL CLEARANCE 12,5mm GYPROC SOUNDBLOCK PLASTERBOARD

00

240mm Cross laminated timber AIR BARRIER 50mm RIGID THERMAL INSULATION

R

TO

A CT

SPE

150mm BATT INSULATION

G

+3

TIN

SEA

600

O

SP

KID

-8 OL

D13

20mm GYPSUM BOARD

240mm CONCRETE 250mm GROSS CONCRETE

0 L +

D

UN

O GR

20mm PVC PANNEL

E LEV

OM

-4

200

600mm x 1500mm PRECAST CONCRETE BEAM

1500mm

BEAM HEA 220

3300mm

1500mm

BEAM HEA 320

D16 80mm

D16

D32

O .R

H TEC

8 K EC

80mm

00 4D32

LD

600mm

NG

TR

I AIN

O PO

600mm

1500mm REINFORCED CONCRETE 25mm CERAMIC TILE 240mm CONCRETE

ING

IN TRA

25mm CERAMIC TILE

-11 L O PO

400

VAPOUR RETARDER 240mm CONCRETE RETURN INLETS 200 mm REBAR REINFORCED CONCRETE

O

150mm PEA SHINGLE 40mm TILE & SCREED 200mm REBAR REINFORCED CONCRETE C35

NP

C

OM

ITI PET

L OO

-6

000

200 mm REBAR REINFORCED CONCRETE

40mm TILE & SCREED 200mm REBAR REINFORCED CONCRETE C35 600mm x 1260mm PRECAST CONCRETE BEAM

FO

000

IO

AT

D UN

13 N-

1500mm REINFORCED CONCRETE

75mm LEAN MIXTURE CONCRETE C10 75mm STONE REJECTS

21

22

50 40

0

+1 9 +1 4

t site

+1 4

10

0

Hall C

Hall B

50

0

+1 0

80

0

Hall A

0 20 +7 +3

60

0

< The structure system of hall A >

< The structure system of hall B >

Element

weight(Ton)

HEB 600*

530.83

HEB 320*

287.53

IPE 600*

92.18

UNP 160*

30.58

UNP 180*

60.35

HUP 100X100X5*

28.80

TOTAL

+0

As a result, it could save more than 1 000 tons of steel from two other halls. As they have different dimensions for each element, the height of the slabs might differ from each other ranging from 600mm to 1 200mm. Since there are technical barriers to structural steel reuse, it is recommended to develop an automated deconstruction process in order to reduce deconstruction times and labor load. For design teams, it is highly recommended to start sourcing out all the elements at an early stage of the project. In addition to the technical barriers, there are three other main concerns; sourcing of steel, cost of steel resue, and the re-certification which are out of the project’s scope but should be carefully handled(Tingley, 2014).

23

projec

+1 0

According to a report from Bioregional(2009), there is a 96% environmental impact saving from reusing steel sections compared to procuring new steel. However, due to the lack of incentives for steel reuse and barriers to hamper its resue, it is estimated that the resue of steel sections at merely 6% compared to 93% being recycled(Sansom & Avery, 2014). In order to reuse as many existing steel materials in the project, a steel joist slab system is proposed. The project has 6 floors covering the eastern part of the plot where it was previously a big void space that is going up to 27 meters high. These slabs could be assembled by taking advantage of huge material sources from two other halls. Unfortunately, the steel elements of hall A were too old and rusted also most of them are combined with concrete elements together so it was not possible to collect them to assemble the slab system. However, hall B, the largest structure among those three industrial buildings, has a significant potential for reuse. Because most of the elements are not welded to each other but connected with bolted stud connections, it would not be difficult to salvage beams and columns without significant damage.

0

PROPOSAL STEEL JOIST SLAB SYSTEM

1030.26

< Material list of the steel joist system >

24

MATERIAL

The main intention of the project is to reuse as many existing structural materials as possible to save extra embodied emissions in a lifecycle perspective. It has a significant potential to save a tremendous amount of materials, approximately 10 300 tons of concrete and 1400 tons of steel.

Comparing two scenarios between reusing existing materials and creating totally new building, the steel material takes part of 1.32% and 7.24% of the whole material use respectively. Even if the concrete is the major material of the building, it is impossible to reuse existing concrete from old buildings. Instead of reuse, the project used recycled concrete for the extra slabs and walls. The project keeps only the first-floor slab with the foundations and pool walls which are 1500mm thick going down to 13 meters deep so the project saved 10307.94 tons of concrete. The rest of the slabs which laid on the north side are demolished and new slab systems were covered on the east side for the nursing home section.

CON. 70.32%

STEEL

1.32%

WOOD

18.59%

MATERIAL PROPORTION (KG)

STEEL 112.0 TON

CONCRETE 7334.5 TON

CERAMIC TILE 4.99% INSULATION GLAZING CARPET

3.73% 0.93% 0.11%

< REUSE SCENARIO >

CON. 79.44%

MATERIAL PROPORTION (KG)

GLASS 97.0 ton

STEEL

7.24%

WOOD

8.73%

CERAMIC TILE INSULATION GLAZING CARPET

2.34% 1.75% 0.44% 0.05%

CERAMIC TILE 520.4 TON

INSULATION 389.0 TON

CARPET 11.7 TON

WOOD 1939.4 TON

< NEWLY BUILT SCENARIO >

Crossed laminated timber and glue-laminated timber come next largest amount of material after steel. It is mainly used in facades and interior walls of a nursing home. Then ceramic tile takes the 4th and insulation for both rigid type and fiberglass type got 5th.

reuse

new building

CON.

17642.4

7334.5

STEEL

1607.8 137.9

WOOD

1939.4

CERMC

520.4

INSUL.

389

GLAZ.

97

CARP.

11.7

0

25

ton

SAVINGS

STEEL 1469.9 TON

5000

10 000

15 000

CONCRETE 10307.9 TON

20 000

26

As the project starts, the material lists of the three halls were given from Asplan Viak. Unlike hall B and C, the steel frame structure of hall A was mainly combined with concrete. During the site visit, I and the engineering students from OsloMet were able to check the condition of the steel material of hall A which was very old and rusted and we decided to use hall B as a main resources for reuse. The table is set to sort out which profile of steel beams and columns from Hall A and B could be reused for assembling the steel joist slab system. Hall C keeps most of its structures except for bracings on the north and south facades thereby it has 439.68 tons of steel frame.

The steel connections and bolts used to be easily neglected as it is regarded that their amount and impact would not be powerful. Surprisingly, it turned out that the project has over 8 tons of steel joint plates and over 2 tons of bolts. Since it was hard to estimate the exact amount of the elements and the type of the steel connection among a variety of classes from the given materials and documents, only major elements were considered in the calculation based on the detailed plans. Considering this assumption, it is expected that the building has much more elements than 10 tons in total. From the other two halls, 1030.26 tons of steel materials are collected to assemble the steel joist slab system.

In addition to the existing steel connections, the extra steel connection elements are needed to join the steel joist slabs. Due to the difficulties to figure out the exact amount, it is roughly assumed that the amount of them would be proportionate to the amount of the steel material used. As a result, utilizing the amount used in Hall C, 20.37 tons of extra plates and 5.53 tons of extra bolts are needed for the slab system.

Element

Class

Steel columns

HEB 600

191.31

IPE 600

72.64

Steel beams

Steel joist slab

Steel joints_Hall C

Weight(Ton)

HEB 600*

530.83

UNP 160

37.66

UNP 180

16.98

HUP 150X100X5

1.14

HUP 100X100X5

16.76

HEB 320

87.07

HEB 320*

287.53

IPE 600*

92.18

UNP 160*

30.58

UNP 180*

60.35

HUP 100X100X5*

28.80

Gusset plate

0.57

Fin plate

7.91

Bolts

2.30

Steel from Hall C

439.68

Steel from Hall A&B

1030.26

Total used existing steel

1469.94

Country

kg/m2(BTA)

Ready-mix concrete, C28/35, XC 1, CEM II/A-V 52,5 N, Grön väggbetong (Skanska, Stockholm area)

Sweden

311.28

Ready-mix concrete, C35/45 (B35 M45), low-carbon class extreme (Skedsmo Betong)

Noway

292.82

Glue laminated timber (Glulam), 468 kg/m3, 12% moisture content (Holmen Wood Products AB)

Sweden

90.11

CLT (cross laminated timber), 430 kg/m3, moisture content 12% (Södra Skogsägarna)

Sweden

67.17

Concrete beam, C45/55 (B45 M60), low carbon class B (Block Berge Bygg)

Norway

47.92

Precast reinforced stairs and landings, 2400 kg/m3, low carbon class B (Contiga AS)

Norway

17.36

Aggregate (crushed gravel), generic, dry bulk density, 1600 kg/m3

Norway

16.74

Sand, loose dry density, 1555 kg/m3

Norway

13.76

Italy

9.67

Norway

9.20

Germany

7.95

Resource

Ceramic tiles, Italian average, 10mm, 19.9 kg/m2 (Confindustria Ceramica) Hot-dip galvanized steel sheets, Steel thickness range: 0.4-3.0 mm (0.015-0.12 in), zinc coating: 20 μm (787.4 µin) (0.28kg/m2 / 0.057 lbs/ft2 sheet steel), 80% recycled content Insulated glazing, double pane, 20.6 kg/m2

Concrete slab

-

2050.65

Laminated plywood, waterproof, 10.2 mm (Fibo Trespo)

Norway

4.18

Concrete Isolation

-

3638.19

Concrete wall

-

4623.48

Glass wool acoustic ceiling insulation, with glass fiber coating, 55 mm, 7.8 kg/m2, Parafon Decibel Mute (Paroc)

Norway

4.01

Flooring for sports facilities, 0.310in, 44.7 oz/ft2, 38x38in, Duo Tile (Mats Inc.)

North America

3.36

Gypsum plasterboard, 12.5 mm, 9 kg/m2, Normal – Standard (Gyproc)

Norway

2.54

Mono-crystalline photovoltaic module, per m2, average 226 Wp/m2, 10.73 kg/m2, Maxeon 3 (SunPower)

Mexico

2.21

Denmark

1.99

Norway

1.47

Denmark

0.9

Norway

0.07

Total used existing concrete *

Materials collected from Hall A and B

< Reused material list >

10307.94

Glass wool insulation batt, unfaced, L = 0.034 W/mK, R = 1 m2K/W, 45-195 mm, 19.8 kg/m3 (uncompressed), Formstykker λ34 (Isover) EPS insulation panels, L= 0.038 m2K/W, R=1 m2K/W, 38 mm (10-200 mm range), 600 x 1200mm, 0.57 kg/m2, 15 kg/m3, Lambda=0.038 W/(m.K), Styropor S80 (Vartdal Plastindustri AS) Tufted broadloom carpet tiles, 3.42 kg/m2, pile material polyamide 6, Epoca Rustic (egetaepper a/s) Plastic vapour control layer, 0.15 mm (Tommen Gram )

< New material list > 27

28

ENERGY ANALYSIS

< Energy budget of the swimmng hall > Division Heating Heating battery Hot water Fans Pumps Lighting Technical equip.

Cooling battery Total need

kWh/m2/year 10,8 11,0 44,7 20,7 0,8 29,2 23,4 3,0 143,5

< Energy budget of the nursing home >

NURSING HOUSE

% .9 23 at er w

14.4% Fans He

3 598 m2 (BRA)

ing

Te c eq hni uip ca . l

at

20

16

16.9%

.3%

.9%

.3% 20

* Energy load for snow melting and grey water heating recovery are roughly calculated assuming they would proportionate to m2 of the areas for each program of the reference building

8 596 m2 (BRA)

t

Ho

er

t wa

.1 31

ng

29

Technical equip.

Cooling battery Snow melting * GWHR * Total need

13%

g tin ry a Heatte b

SWIMMING HALL

%

H baea tteting ry

hti

An indoor swimming pool requires higher water and energy demand levels due to the need to provide appropriate thermal comfort conditions. Statistics Norway published a report in 2011 indicating that the average FAEC(final annual energy consumption) of 21 Norwegian swimming facilities was 280 kWh/m2 of usable area(Kampel, 2015). However, this is an average value of all swimming facilities ranging from small local size to huge natatorium size which would bring nonsense to compare with the project’s specific size. Kampel(2015) mentioned that a swimming facility can be better described as a process plant due to its complex technical systems for water purification and climate control.

In order to comly with realistic energy demand, the project needs a proper standard to follow up. Since there is no specific energy load requirement for swimming facilities from TEK 17 and NS 3031, the project benchmarked the real energy budget of Norway’s first passive house swimming pool completed in 2017 in Asker municipality.

57,8 36,1 165,6 20,7 22,9 1,0 20,4 4,7 0 46,9 -99.36 276.79

Ho t

Fans

Sn meltoi w ng

8.3%

a

7%

Lig

Heating Heating battery(Vent.)

Hot water Sauna Fans Pumps Lighting

kWh/m2/year

ting

un

< Key figures >

Division

Sa

7.

Pumps 0.6%

ps Pum

5%

% 7.5

7.

Cooling 2.1%

Pumps 0.4%

Ligh

411.3 kWh/m2/y 304.3 kWh/m2/y 12194 m2 2500 m2 41.2 kWh/m2/y

7.4%

Net energy req.

Energy delivered Total area(BRA) PV areas PV production(in use)

Technical equip. 1.7%

Area Swimming hall

Electricity grid 230.9 kWh/m2/y

Heat pump 36.3 kWh/m2/y

Nursing home Total

103.5 kWh/m2/y

10.6kWh/m2/y 304.3kWh/m2/y

PV -41 kWh/m2/y -

< Delivered Energy >

As shown in the table, total energy load for the project is 411.3 kWh/m2/year, with 276.8 kWh/m2/year for the swimming hall and 143.5kWh/m2/year for the nursing home respectively. With 60% of heating coverage from the heat pump and 40% of the electricity grid system, the net delivered energy demand reaches 304.3 kWh/m2/year. Since the huge amount of energy load for the heating water, grey water heat recovery systems are considered to cover heating water demand. The Source of grey water may be collected from showers, handbasins, kitchen sinks, washing machines, and some of them from swimming pool water losses. That grey water contains huge amounts of ready-to-use thermal energy. Liebersbach et al.(2021) proposed a GWHR system

which could cut energy consumption by 37% up to 67% for pool water preheating and domestic hot water. It results from daily hot water demand of 50 l/person per day out of 160 l/person per day of total water consumption based on the European Guidelines. Savings are biggest in the swimming pool after the recreational pool(56%) and children’s pool(48%). Considering that the project accommodates all the programs, it is simply estimated to save 60% of the energy demand for preheating the water. As a result, it could save up to 99.4kWh/m2 yearly.

30

Considering the cold climate in Tønsberg, it is important to preserve the internal gain in order to reduce the heat demand. To save as much heat gain as possible, low U-values in constructions of 0,12 W/m2K for the exterior wall and 0,7 W/m2K for the windows are applied. A thermal bridge is also a strong factor contributing to the heat loss significantly. The thermal bridge is controlled with 0.03W/m2K. As shown in the

chart below, it has a high-efficiency heat recovery system covering more than half of the internal gain. On the other hand heat loss is occurred with the same amount as the heat gains. Ventilation takes the major contributor to the heat losses after the transmission in the second place.

[kWh]

[kWh]

800000

400000

700000 600000

Heating Heat recovery Ventilation Fans Lighting Technical equip.

Person Solar

500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 0

350000 300000 250000 200000 150000

50000

-100000

Cooling battery Infiltration Ventilation Transmission

-200000 -300000 -400000

supplied by the grid exported electricty

100000

0

ration ity gene c ri t c e l e PV

Jan

Feb Thermal E

Mar

electricity in use Apr

Mai

Jun

Electricity E

Jul

Aug Total E

Sep

Okt

Nov

Des

PV production

-500000 -600000

< Energy profile >

-700000 -800000

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

Mai

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Okt

Nov

Des

< Monthly energy balance > [kWh] 500000

Heating Heating battery Hot water Fans Pumps Lighting Technical equip.

Cooling Snow melting Sauna

400000 300000 200000 100000 0 Jan

31

Feb

Mar

Apr

Mai

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

< Monthly net energy demand >

Okt

Nov

Des

In order to decrease the delivered energy, 2 500m2 of PV panels are installed on the south roof with 6-degree tilt angle, generating 499 819 kWh yearly. Since there is a discrepancy between the period of the peak energy generation and peak energy demanded, surplus energy is exported to the grid system in the summer. On the other hand, in the winter, as it cannot produce enough energy to cover the high demand, the rest of the demand should be supplied by the grid system. As a result, the PV system could compensate for the entire need for electricity from April to September

U value Exterior wall(pool) Exterior wall(nursing home) Windows floor slab Ceiling Roof Thermal bridge Air leakage(n50)

0.12 W/m2K 0.18 W/m2K 0.71 W/m2K 0.08 W/m2K 0.08 W/m2K 0.09 W/m2K 0.03 W/m2K 0.60 /h

< Building technique >

32

180-220 220-260

A majority of the part of the emission in the whole life cycle is mainly from B6 phase, the operational phase. The photovoltaic modules on the south roof generate 499 819 kWh/m2 yearly which can compensate up to 65 976 kgCO2e including the surplus energy. This amount could cover five-sixths of emissions of the energy used in the building operation. The emission factor 132gCO2/kWh is selected by what ZEB currently has used(Kristjansdottir et al., 2014).

178 kg CO2e/m2

A B

C

260-300

D

300-340

E

340-380

F

>380

G

Cradle to grave(A1-A5 / B4-B5, C1-C40

Material list Ready-mix concrete

26.24

Hot-dip galvanized steel sheets

17.80

Mono crystalline photovoltaic module

15.91

1.08%

Insulated glazing, double pane

10.25

1.57%

Concrete beam

6.07

2.15%

EPS insulation panels

4.51

2.24%

Glue laminated timber (Glulam)

3.36

2.32%

CLT (cross laminated timber)

2.79

Composite PVC membrane for tunnels

2.30

Glass wool acoustic ceiling insulation

2.21

Tufted broadloom carpet tiles

2.13

Laminated plywood, waterproof

1.56

Polyethylne vapor barrier membrane

1.07

Ceramic tiles, Italian average

0.73

Steel bolt, for rock support, corrosion protected

0.55

Gypsum plasterboard

0.48

Glass wool insulation batt, unfaced

0.46

Flooring for sports facilities

0.28

Glass wool insulation batt, unfaced

0.25

TOTAL

33

kgCO2e/m2(BRA) 0.74% 0.56% 0.49% 0.46% 0.28% 0.25%

20.00

1.47 15.00 6.62

1.39

10.00

0.67 0.98

6.62

0.37

0.68 0.93 0.12

As a result, comparing two scenarios, this transformation project could save a total 1 539 tonCO2e. Therefore, subtracting all the compensation, it creates 3.21 kgCO2e/m2 of heated area per year while a newly built scenario might emit almost double amount of the carbon. However, the processes of excavating the ground for creating the pools and assembling the steel joist system were not taken into account in the calculation due to the difficulties to estimate the workloads. Moreover, the realistic emission estimation of the construction, end of life, and beyond construction lifecycle need to be calculated with a variety of detailed information further.

5.00

7.65

3.58 0.00

-4.71

-6.41

-5.00

2.82% 3.40%

26.52%

-5.41 PV

10.36%

< Global Warming Potential of the materials >

B6

A4

TRANSPORTATION TO SITE

C1-C4 END OF LIFE

A5

CONSTRUCTION PROCESS

D

17.99%

-10.00

-5.41

16.08% Reuse

OPERATION EXTERNAL IMPACTS EMISSION COMPENSATION

Emission saving materials

PV

6.13%

98.94

A1-A3 PRODUCTION & MANUFACTURE

B1-B5 MAINTENANCE &REPLACEMENT

4.56% HALL A&B

<180

[kgCO2e/m2/27y]

New building

HALL C

13.32 kgCO2e/m2/year 4 386 Tons CO2e

CO2

Unlike recycling, the reuse of steel structures extends the steel life with lower impacts, because steel recovery through the melting process is not needed(Vares et al., 2018). Savings of the emissions from the production and manufacture phase reach up to more than 100% than new building scenario. This amount contains not only the reuse of existing steel but also concrete structures. The lifetime for the project is set to 27 years according to the service time of the existing Finish industrial halls. In order to measure the emissions from the construction phase which cannot be simply estimated from OneClickLCA tool, the project relied on hypothetical assumptions.

Vares et al.(2018) assumed that the deconstruction of the steel frame is the same process as its erection with an additional effort to maintain the integrity of the disconnected components. Such additional effort measured with workload multipliers ranges from 1 to 2 depending on the amount of reused steel. This project takes advantage of the average multiplier of 1.5. In addition to A1-A3 phases, it could also save extra emissions from the transportation phase since the resources are already on site.

SAVINGS

LIFECYCLE ASSESSMENT

For the embodied emission calculation, it is presented with 13.32 kg CO2e/m2/year and gets an ‘A’ grade in the carbon benchmark that does not take into account the building operational phase. The most powerful material is ready-mix concrete taking up over a quarter of the total amount of emission of the materials. Besides existing steel structure for reuse, the project has several parts made of steel such as new steel connections for the steel joist system for the floor slab and layerS in the roof and floor slabs. This brings the steel material taking the second place in the emission.

A1-A3

Steel beam, columns(HEA, HEB, UPE, UNP, IPE profile)

604

Steel beam, columns(HEA, HEB, UPE, UNP, IPE profile)

251

Steel connection plates

17

Steel connection bolts

2.8

Ready-mix concrete_isolation, foundation

211

Ready-mix concrete_basement pool

269

Concrete slab C50

100

TOTAL (tCO2eq)

< The emission balance for the project over 27-year life >

1454.8

A4

84.2

34

REFERENCE

[11] Sansom, M., & Avery, N. (2014). Reuse and recycling rates of UK steel demolition arisings.

Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Engineering Sustainability, 167(ES3), pp. 89-94. https://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/doi/epdf/10.1680/ensu.13.00026

[1] Austin, K. J., Simpson, M. D., Blackburn, P. A., Bosher, D. W., & Smith, N. A. (2006). Lighting Guide 4: Sports Lighting. Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers

[12] Standard Norge. (2014). Calculation of energy performance of buildings Method and data

[2] Bioregional. (2008). Reclaimed building products guide: A guide to procuring reclaimed

(NS 3031:2014).

Retrieved https://www.standard.no/nettbutikk/sokeresultater/?search=ns+3031

from

building products and materials for use in construction projects. WRAP Guide

[13] Standard Norge. (2021). Light and lighting – Basic terms and criteria for specifying lighting [3] Building technical regulations (TEK17) with guidance. (2020, October 1). Retrieved from https://dibk.no/regelverk/byggteknisk-forskrift-tek17/14/14-2/

requirements (NS-EN 12665:2018).

Retrieved https://www.standard.no/nettbutikk/sokeresultater/?search=en+12665

from

https://en.climate-

[14] Standard Norge. (2018). Light and lighting – Lighting of Work place - Part 1: Indoor work

Swimming pool.

(2020, Feb 17).

Retrieved from https://www.futurebuilt.no/Forbildeprosjekter?#!/Forbildeprosjekter/Holmen-svoemmehall

[15] Strange, R. B., Blankenberger, D., Ramaswamy, A., Mahic, A., & Wymelenberg, K. V. D. (2017).

[4] Climate

Tønsberg(Norway). (n.d.).

Retrieved data.org/europe/norway/vestfold/t%C3%B8nsberg-9932/

from

[5] Holmen

[6] Husum, H. (2016). Towards and Attractive City; Tønsberg. (Masters dissertation). University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, https://issuu.com/hannahusum/docs/thesis

Denmark.

Retrieved

from

places(NS-EN 12464-1:2021).

Retrieved https://www.standard.no/nettbutikk/sokeresultater/?search=EN+12464&subscr=1

from

Improving Visibility in Aquatics Facilities by Minimizing Glare. IES Annual Conference (pp. 1-10).

ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323542767_Improving_Visibility_in_Aquatics_Facilit ies_by_Minimizing_Glare

[16] Takes the Kaldnes name back. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://kaldnesvest.no/historie [7] Kampel, W. (2015). Energy Efficiency in Swimming Facilities (Doctoral dissertation). Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.

[8] Kristjansdottir, T., Fjeldheim, H., Selvig, E., Risholt, B., Time, B., Georges, L., Dokka, T. H., Bourelle,

J., Bohne, R., & Cervenka, Z. (2014). A Norwegian ZEB-definition embodied emission (ZEB Project report 17). The Research Centre on Zero Emission Buildings.

[17] Tingley, D. D., & Allwood, J. (2014). Reuse of structural steel: the opportunities and challenges.

Proceedings of the European Steel Environment & Energy Congress 2014. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279441808_Reuse_of_structural_steel_the_opportu nities_and_challenges

[18] Vares, S., Hradil, P., Pulakka, S., Ungureanu, V., & Sansom, M. (2018). Environmental-and life [9] Liebersbach, J., Zabnienska, A., Polarczyk, I., & Sayegh, M. A. (2021). Feasibility of Grey Water

Heat Recovery in Indoor Swimming Pools. Energies, 14(14), 1, Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353240156_Feasibility_of_Grey_Water_Heat_Reco very_in_Indoor_Swimming_Pools

[10] Project Integrated planning of zero-emission areas-’INTO-ZERO’. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.asplanviak.no/prosjekter/integrert-planlegging-av-nullutslippsomraader-intozero/

35

cycle cost impact of reused steel structures: A case study. Proceedings of the International Symposim on Life-Cycle Civil Engineering 2018, Belgium, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328759444_Environmentaland_life_cycle_cost_impact_of_reused_steel_structures_A_case_study

[19] Wienold, J. (2009). Dynamic Daylighting Glare Evaluation. Eleventh International IBPSA Conference. pp. 944-951. daylight-glare-evaluation

Slideshare.

https://www.slideshare.net/coolgirl0000/dynamic-

36