revision of green public procurement criteria for windows and...
TRANSCRIPT
Revision of Green Public Procurement Criteria for
Windows and external Doors
BACKGROUND REPORT INCLUDING DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL CRITERIA AREAS PROPOSAL
Working document for
1st AHWG-MEETING FOR THE REVISION OF GREEN PUBLIC PROCUREMENT CRITERIA
Alicia Boyano Larriba, Oliver Wolf
May 2012
2
Revision of Green Public Procurement Criteria for Windows and external Doors
Background report including environmental criteria area proposal Working Document for the 1st AHWG Meeting Time: Tuesday 5th June 2012 9:30-18:30 Place: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies
Sustainable Production and Consumption Unit Edificio EXPO c) Inca Garcilaso 3, Seville
Alicia Boyano Larriba, Oliver Wolf
DG JRC (IPTS) 2012
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This working document gives a general overview of the environmental performance of
windows and external doors. Its aim is to identify the key environmental thematic areas where
further research should be carried out to revise the current GPP criteria and if necessary
develop new SCP policy tools in the coming years
The findings related to the product definition, market analysis, user behaviour and technical
analysis are briefly summarized in this work.
There are a large number of official statistics and schemes where the product group Windows
and Doors takes part in. After reviewing the different definitions and classifications, those
provided by the international standards EN 12519 and EN 14351 are proposed to be followed
in this study. These definitions are:
- window: a building component (glazing) for closing an opening in a wall that will admit
light and may provide ventilation, including the frame of the window which is defined as the
component forming the perimeter of a window, enabling it to be fixed to the structure.
Windows intended for installation in a roof (roof windows) have the same characteristics as
windows installed in walls with regard to function, cleaning, maintenance and durability
- external door: doorset which separates the internal climate from the external climate of a
construction for which the main intended use is the passage of pedestrians, including the
frame of the door which is defined as the component forming the perimeter of a door,
enabling it to be fixed to the structure.
The market structure seems to be dominated by plastic frames although this information
is not reported by official statistics probably due to the small size of the companies involved.
According to the official statisticsGermany is a key player in the market in terms of
production and demand for frames made of iron and steel, plastic or aluminium, whereas in
terms of wooden frame based products, some other MSs have a dynamic market.
The European market demand is expected to be stabilized in the coming years after the
slowdown experienced in the construction sector and even returned to small growth. Windows
production in the EU-27 in 2010 reached circa 75 million units. Generally speaking, the
demand of these products is in accordance with the population and therefore Germany is one
of the main drivers. Poland has been an emerging market in the recent years too. Nordic
countries tend to demand wooden frame windows, Mediterranean countries aluminium frame
ones and in Central Europe, the plastic frame windows present the highest market share. On
4
the supply side, there is an extremely high number of manufacturers and agents involved in
the window market since most of them are SME or microbusinesses. Finally, new products
triple glazing windows, low emissivity coatings or smart windows are coming to the market,
but their high cost of production is the main drawback for a fast penetration, especially in the
residential sector.
The European legislation concerning windows and external doors consists in regulations and
directives which had to be transposed into the national legislations. Most of this legislation is
related to construction products, energy efficiency products, packaging, waste management or
use of hazardous substances. In addition, there are voluntary agreements in many MS that
label the environmental performance on this product group as well as recommendations to
public authorities to purchase better environmental performance products. Most of the MS
labels focus primarily on U- and g- values, daylighting transmittance and air permeability,
materials restrictions and energy efficiency. The national legislation of the MS is in general
linked to building regulations and addresses the U-value which is driven by better energy
performance of the buildings as European Performance Building Directive recast 2010
(2010/31/EU) requires.
The European GPP scheme consists of three sets of criteria. The first one addresses the
energy efficiency of the windows and restrictions on the materials and substances used in the
frames and filling gases. The second one is concerning the use of wood and wood fibres, lead,
proportion of recycled content of materials and chemical products. Finally, the third one
advises on the maintenance and the management of generated waste from the refurbishment
of the windows.
The main environmental impacts of the windows and external doors are due to the energy
losses during the operational phase of the buildings. This aspect is predominant regardless
of the materials used for its construction and points out that the emission of GHGs is the
main concern. Other environmental impacts are (not in order of importance) acidification,
photo-oxidation, primary energy consumption or waste production. These environmental
impacts can be partially decreased by increasing the rate of recycling of the materials
involved, its lifetime and especially by increasing the thermal properties of the windows,
which should be adequately selected depending on the design of the building and the climate
conditions where it is located.
Generally speaking, the energy performance of the window very much depends on its
location and the balance between the heating and cooling seasons. The U-value is the key
parameter in cold/medium climate zones while not so important in warm climate zones. In
5
this last zone a very low g-value and high U-value of the windows seems to be the better
performing combination since solar gain is minimized and heat is able to be lost through the
window reducing the cooling loads of the building.
Best Available Technology (BAT) and Best Not yet Available Technology (BNAT) windows
have been identified. BAT windows are, always depending on their location, triple or
vacuum glazing, low-e coating glazing or even smart windows that are able to change solar
factor and transmittance properties to adjust the outside and inside conditions. Composite
frames and krypton are considered BAT regarding the frames and the glazing cavity gas
fills.
The technology under development is focussing on triple vacuum glazing, gasochronomic
windows, solar cell glazing or aerogels. All of these are not expected to come to the wider
market in the near future.
Based on the outcomes of the previous findings, the proposed environmental thematic areas
are:
1. Energy consumption during use phase (thermal efficiency, solar gain, air
tightness, etc related to the window or external door, or addressed as part of the energy
performance of the building)
2. Lifetime considerations or expected life time warranty
3. Selection of Materials (chemical restrictions, sustainable timber, recycled
aluminium and PVC, etc)
4. Waste reduction over the whole life-cycle and waste requirements (easy
deglazing, avoidance of pollutants for recycling, etc)
5. Maintenance recommendations
6
Table of contents 1. Background
13
2. Objectives
14
3. Methodology
14
4. Basis and limits of this working paper
16
5. Product definition and scope 17
5.1 Product categorization 17
5.2 Product definitions 17
5.3 Summary of the definitions and product categorization
20
6. Economic and market analysis of the European windows and external doors 21
6.1 Market data 21
6.1.1 EU production 22
6.1.2 EU trade 25
6.1.3 EU apparent consumption 30
6.1.4 Annual EU Sales/real consumption 30
6.1.5 Annual EU Sales Growth 32
6.1.6 Summary of the market data 33
6.2 Market and Production structures 34
6.2.1 General trends in product design and product features 34
6.2.1.1. Global trends 34
6.2.1.2. European Window market trends 35
6.2.1.3. European external door market trends 35
6.2.1.4. European market trends depending on materials 36
6.2.1.5. Technology market trends 37
6.3 Market Structure 40
6.3.1. Trends in the market across Europe 40
6.3.2. Structure of the supply side
40
7
7. Environmental performance of windows and external doors 42
7.1.- Environmental performance of windows and external doors based on LCA
(literature review)
42
7.1.1. Environmental performance of wooden windows based on LCA (literature
review)
43
7.1.2. Environmental performance of PVC and aluminum windows based on LCA
(literature review)
44
7.2. Environmental performance of external doors based on LCA (literature review) 45
7.3.- Main conclusions from the LCA for windows and doors review
46
8. User behaviour 47
8.1. Repair and maintenance 47
8.2. Product lifetime 49
8.3. Actual User behaviour regarding End of Life 50
8.4 Present Fraction to recycling, reuse and disposal 51
8.5. Summary of the user behaviour
54
9. Existing legislation and standards 55
9.1 European legislation: directives, regulations and national legislation 55
9.1.1. Construction Products Regulation (CPR) No EC 305/2011 55
9.1.2. Other European legislation that do not focus on windows and external doors
but that may affect this product group
55
a) Energy Performance of Building Directive (EPBD recast) 2010/31/EC 55
b) Directive limiting CO2 emissions by improving energy efficiency (SAVE)
93/76/ECC
56
c) Directive 2006/32/EC on energy end-use efficiency and energy services 56
d) Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste 56
e) Directive 2008/98/EC on Waste (Framework) 56
f) REACH Regulation EC 1907/2006 57
g) Directive 2009/125/EC establishing a framework for the setting of
Ecodesign Requirements for Energy related Products (ErP)
57
9.2 European National legislation 57
9.3 European voluntary agreements: environmental labels 59
8
9.3.1 EU ecolabel regulation EC 66/2010 59
9.3.2 Nordic Swan 59
9.3.3 Finland - Window Energy Label 60
9.3.4 Sweden - Window Energy Label 60
9.3.5 Denmark - Window Energy Label 61
9.3.6 UK- British Fenestration Ratings Council 61
9.3.7 Natureplus 62
9.4 Third-countries voluntary agreements: environmental label 63
9.4.1 New Zealand - Window Efficiency Rating Scheme (WERS) 63
9.4.2 Australia - Window Efficiency Rating Scheme 63
9.4.3 Australia - Skylight Energy Rating Scheme 64
9.4.4 USA – ENERGY STAR 64
9.4.5 USA – Green Seal 65
9.4.6 Canada – ENERGY STAR 65
9.3.7 Hong Kong – Green Label Scheme 66
9.4.8 China – Environmental Label 66
9.5. Conclusion of the comparison and review of European existing labels
67
10. Green public procurement in the European Countries 69
10.1 Requirements of the GPP communication. 69
10.2. Public procurement market 70
10.3 European Green Public Procurement for Windows 71
10.4 National Green Public Procurement schemes
72
11. Developing an evidence base: preliminary results 74
11.1.- Description of the base cases 74
11.2 Technical inputs for EcoReport 74
11.2.1 Production phase 75
11.2.2 Distribution phase 75
11.2.3 Use phase 75
11.3 Base Cases 79
11.3.1 Windows – product Specific Inputs 79
11.3.2 External doors – product Specific Inputs 82
9
11. 4 Scenario cases – Sensitivity analysis 86
11.4.1 Energy consumption 86
11.4.3 Material change 89
11.4.4 Extended product life time 90
11.5 Summary of the findings
91
12. Best available technology and best not yet available technology 93
12.1 Best Available Technology 93
12.1.1 Description of BAT 93
12.2. Best not yet available technology
97
13. Derivation of key environmental criteria areas for windows and external doors 99
10
List of tables
Table 1 Summary of the definitions provided in environmental labels and international standards for the windows and external door product group
Table 2 2009 CN with corresponding PRODCOM codes
Table 3 Estimates Value of Import/Exports (€) – Units in 000s (2010) Sold Production in Numbers of Items (000s p/st) and in Monetary terms (000s Euros) – 2010
Table 4 Value of Import/Exports (€) – Units in 000s (2010)
Table 5 % of the apparent consumption for different PRODCOM codes 2010
Table 6 Residential and non-residential window and door areas for the main populated countries
Table 7 Forecast for the residential and non-residential window and door areas for EU27
Table 8 Estimated sales for the most populated MS in 2010
Table 9 Forecasted sales growth in EU27
Table 11 Production and consumption across EU-27 in 2010
Table 12 Breakdown of the European window and external door market depending on the material used
Table 13 World Window and Door Demand (Value – Euros converted from USD)
Table 14 Contribution analysis of LCA study
Table 15 Expected lifetime of external pedestrian doors (summary stakeholder feedback)
Table 6 Estimated lifetime various standard doors, windows and windows and door components
Table 17 Recovinyl registered recycled volumes per country (tonnes)
Table 18 Maximum U value requirements for roof, wall, floor, window and doors. Source; BPIE Survey
Table 19 Swedish window energy ratings
Table 20 Energy Rating and U-Factors for Windows and Doors
Table 21 Heating degree-day range and maximum U-factor for Skylights
Table 22 Heat insulating requirements for doors and windows
Table 23 Estimated window area in public owned building m2
Table 24 Estimated door area in publicly owned building m2
Table 25 Summary of the current GPP criteria for windows
Table 26 GPP Information on Windows and General Construction for 10 Member States
Table 27 Energy performance of a range of windows
Table 28 EcoReports inputs for energy consumption for windows
11
Table 29 EcoReport inputs for energy consumption for External doors
Table 30 EcoReport default values for fate of materials at end-of-life
Table 31 Bill of materials – UPVC double glazed window
Table 33 AEA Impact assessment for double glazing
Table 34 Impact Summary for a UPVC Double Glazed Window
Table 35 Bill of materials – UPVC double glazed window
Table 36 AEA Impact assessment for double glazing
Table 37 Impact Assessment for a UPVC and a wooden External Door
Table 38 BoM for the range of windows with different energy balance
Table 39 Environmental impacts related to the different climate zones
Table 40 Environmental impacts related to the different frame materials
Table 41 Environmental impacts related to the different life times
List of figures
Figure 1 Breakdown of window production depending on the frame material used
Figure 2 Example of typical triple glazed window unit (section view)
Figure 3 Example of a vacuum glazing system
Figure 4 Example Solar Cell Technology
Figure 5 Example of translucent aerogel insulation used for commercial purposes
Figure 6 Service Life of Wood Window Alliance windows compared to generic wood and PVC-U
Figure 7 Maximum U-Value requirement against HDDs for Member States
Figure 8 ENERGY STAR Qualification Criteria for Residential Windows, Doors
and Skylights
12
Abbreviations
EuP Energy using products GHG Greenhouse gas
ErP Energy using products GWP Global warming potential
LCC Life cycle cost CH4 Methane
LCA Life cycle assessment NOx Nitrogen oxides
LLCC Least Life cycle cost SOx
BAT Best available technology CO2 Carbon dioxide
BNAT Best not yet available technology VOCs Volatile organic compounds
SCP Sustainable consumption and production Al Aluminium
MEEuP Methodology study for Ecodesign of
Energy using Products
CPR Construction product regulation
MEErP Methodology study for Ecodesign of
Energy related Products
CPD Construction product directive
R&D Research and development EPBD Energy performance building
directive
GPP Green public procurement SAVE
AHWG Ad-hoc working group BPIE Building performance institute of
Europe
SME Small and medium enterprises HDD Heat
MS Member state REACH
Prodcom WER
CN Combined nomenclature NFRC
ECW
PVC
PVU
13
1.- Background
SCP policy is introduced as a concept that looks holistically at systems of production and
consumption and explores how these systems can change to reduce their ultimate
environmental impact. The SCP centres attention on (amongst other sectors) housing as one
of the most environmental relevant sector.
The global contributions from buildings toward energy consumption and environmental
damage have steadily increased, reaching figures of 40% of the total energy consumption in
Europe and up to 36% of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions1. Growth in population,
increasing pressure for building services and enhanced comfort levels, together with the time
spent inside buildings, assure that the upward trend in energy demand will continue in the
future2. For these reasons, reducing the environmental impacts by increasing the
environmental performance of buildings is today a prime objective for achieving a sustainable
development at European level.
Among the building component products, windows and external doors cause environmental
impacts due to the energy losses through ventilation, poor efficiency of the sealing after
several years of service and their high embodied energy (energy needed for their production)
what results in a high contribution to the total environmental impact of the building, not only
during the use phase but also during its construction phase. Windows can also affect the
energy consumption of building through other performance characteristics, for example
insulation and energy losses and solar transmission properties of the window or external door
itself.
Windows and external doors are regarded as a product where the development and revision of
SCP policy tools can bring environmental and cost-effective benefits. This project aims at
providing the scientific background for the revision of the current green public procurement
(GPP) criteria but also for the development of any other possible SCP policy tool in the
coming years.
The studies carried out in this project are based on MEErP methodology3, explained in detail
in section 3. This methodology was chosen to facilitate the potential development of
1 http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/projections-of-ghg-emissions-outlooks 2 GN. Spyropoulos, C.A. Balaras, Energy consumption and the potential of energy savings in Hellenic office buildings used as bank branches – A case study, Energy and buildings, 43 92011) 770-778 3 MEEuP Methodology description under: http://www.meerp.eu/methodology.htm
14
Ecodesign criteria while being suitable for the revision and development of other SCP policy
tools, such as GPP, Ecolabel or Energy label.
2.- Objective
This working document gives a general overview of the environmental performance of
windows and external doors and follows the previous work of this project undertaken in the
reports "Product definition and Scope", "Economic and Market analysis" and the first results
of "Technical analysis". The aim of this document is to identify the key environmental
thematic areas regarding the environmental performance of windows and external doors.
Moreover, criteria areas linked to these environmental thematic areas are proposed. These
criteria areas shall be the basis for the revision of the existing Green Public Procurement
(GPP) criteria and any other Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP)4 policy tool to
be developed in the coming years. In this document no values and thresholds for criteria are
proposed. The key aim of the 1st AHWG meeting is to discuss the validity of the criteria areas.
3. Methodology
The methodology used in this study follows the Methodology study for Ecodesign of Energy
related Products (MEErP)5 in accordance with the Ecodesign Directive 2009/125/EC6. This
methodology explains the data collection procedure, formulations of energy and caused
environmental impact estimation, and possible reductions. These are obtained following the
structure described below:
- Task 1: Scope: Product definition, standards and legislation
This task should define the product category and define the system boundaries of the playing
field for the study. It is important for a realistic definition of design options and improvement
4 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/pdf/brochure.pdf 5 http://www.meerp.eu/downloads/MEErP%20Methodology%20Part%201%20Final.pdf 6 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:285:0010:0035:en:PDF
15
potential and also relevant in the context of technically defining any implementing legislation
or voluntary measures (as Ecolabel or GPP policy tools).
- Task 2: Economic and market (volumes and prices)
It aims to place the product group with the total of EU industry and trade policy, provide
market and cost inputs for the EU-wide environmental impact, provide insight in the latest
market-structures and ongoing trends in product design and provide practical data set of prices
and rates to be used in a LCC calculation
- Task 3: Users (product demand side)
Consumer behavior can be influenced by product-design but overall it is very relevant input
for the life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle cost (LCC) studies. One aim is to identify
barriers and restrictions to possible measures, due to social, cultural and infra-structural
factors.
- Task 4: Technology (product supply side, includes both best available technology
(BAT) and best not yet available technology (BNAT)
It entails a general technical analysis of current products on the EU-market and provides
general inputs for the definition of the base case(s) as well as the identification of
improvement potentials.
These four tasks have a clear focus on data retrieval and initial analysis. They have a dual
purpose: a) provide the inputs for the modeling in the following tasks b) give a basic
understanding of the problem
- Task 5: Environment and economics (base case LCA & LCC)
It requires that one or more average EU product(s) have to be defined or a representative
product category as the Base-Case for the whole EU27 has to be chosen. On this base-case
most of the environmental and LCC analyses will be built throughout the rest of the study.
- Task 6: Design options
It identifies design options, their monetary consequences in terms of LCC for the consumer,
their environmental costs and benefits and pinpointing the solution with the least life cycle
cost (LLCC) and BAT. The assessment of monetary LCC is relevant to indicate whether
design solutions might negatively or positively impact the EU consumers expenditure over the
total product life (purchase, running costs, etc) while taking into account for the purchase
price development the manufactures R&D and investment costs. The distance between the
16
LLCC and BAT indicate the remaining space for product differentiation. The BAT indicates a
medium target that would probably more subject to promotion measures than restrictive
action. The BNAT indicates long-term possibilities and helps to define the exact scope and
definition of possible measures.
- Task 7: Scenarios (policy, scenario, impact and sensitivity analysis)
It summarizes and totals the outcomes of all previous tasks. It looks at suitable policy means
to achieve the potential e.g. implementing LLCC as a minimum and BAT as a promotional
target, using legislation and voluntary agreements, labeling, benchmarks and possible
incentives. Scenarios are forecast for 2020/2030/2040/2050 quantifying the improvements
that can be achieved vs. a business-as-usual scenario and compares the outcomes with EU
environmental targets.
This study summarizes the research carried out on the four first tasks. Further information
about these tasks can be found in the official website of this project7.
4.- Basis and limits of this working paper
In this working paper, scientific findings on the environmental performance assessment of
windows and external doors from peer-reviewed papers and scientific reports are
presented. Relying on the evidences described in the preliminary report "Technical analysis"
and in respect of the requirements of the GPP communication, the key environmental
thematic areas regarding the environmental performance of the windows and external doors
are identified.
The GPP criteria areas proposed for the discussion will be focused on these key
environmental thematic areas. However, it should be highlighted that an exact formulation
of GPP criteria together with the performance and /or limit values is not included in this
working paper but they are expected to be the input for the second ad hoc working
group (2nd AHWG) meeting.
7 http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/windoors/stakeholders.html
17
5.- Product definition and scope
A clear definition and categorization of the products included in the product group "Windows
and external doors" is needed to identify the scope of the measures to be revised and/or
developed.
The definition and categorization of windows and external doors includes a review of existing
product categorizations and definitions based on official statistics, existing GPP and
ecological labels criteria and relevant standards. In addition, it includes an overview of
existing legislation and test standards relevant to this product group at an international,
European, Member State and Third Country level as appropriate.
5.1 Product categorization
Windows and external doors are building components that can cover a wide range of
products. The categorization of windows and external doors can be divided into categories on
the basis of their glazing type, design type or function, e.g. opening mechanisms. These
products may be applicable to domestic and/or non-domestic construction projects, for new
constructions, major renovations or replacement of windows and external doors in buildings.
This product group is categorized in official statistics such as PRODCOM8 and Combined
Nomenclature (CN)9 as a single group with some exceptions such as the wood framed doors
and windows. Essentially the official statistical codes enable data on the following categories
to be determined: wood windows, wood doors, plastic windows and doors, aluminium
windows and doors and iron or steel windows and doors
5.2 Product definitions
It is common for windows and external doors to have separate definitions due to the different
functions they provide, although there may be design elements of the two product types that
are similar. The existing definition and scope for windows and external doors that are used in
the current GPP specifications10 are as follows:
8 PRODCOM: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/PRODCOM_statistics 9 Combined Nomenclature: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/customs_duties/tariff_aspects/combined_nomenclature/index_en.htm 10 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/pdf/windows_GPP_%20product_sheet.pdf
18
- window: an opening in a wall or roof mounted in a fixed frame to admit daylight.
Often it is possible to open the window through a sliding or hinged component of the frame to
allow air to enter into the building. This definition encompasses external glazed doors and
skylights.
Other existing environmental labels for windows and external doors have been identified. It is
useful to consider the definitions used in these labels, where a clear scope/definition is
provided. A more detailed summary of the definitions currently used in different labels for
this product group can be found in the "Definition and categorization of Windows and
external doors" document11. A more detailed analysis of these existing environmental labels
has also been undertaken.
Table 1. Summary of the definitions provided in environmental labels and international standards for the windows and external door product group
Label/Standard Definition Nordic Swan 12 - The product group consists of opening windows, window doors and exterior doors
- Exterior doors: door forming the boundary between free and heated areas. Energy Star 13 Window: an assembled unit consisting of a frame/sash component holding one or more
pieces of glazing functioning to admit light and/or air in an enclosure of designed for a vertical installation in an external wall of a residential building Door: a sliding or winging entry door system designed for an installed in a vertical wall separating conditioned and unconditioned space in a residential building Skylight: a window designed for sloped or horizontal application in the rood of a residential building, the primary purpose of which is to provide daylighting and/or ventilation. May be fixed or operable.
Green Seal 14 Glazed Exterior Door: any glazed exterior partition having movable parts, installed on a building wall, capable of admitting solar radiation in to the building area, and intended for human entrance and exit from the building with glazed areas greater than 144in2 per panel. Skylight: any glazed partition having fixed or movable parts, installed on a building roof, and capable of admitting solar radiation into the building Storm door: any glazed partition having movable parts, installed on a building wall, capable of admitting solar radiation into the building area, and intended for human entrance and exit from the building Window: any glazed partition having fixed or movable parts, installed on a building wall and capable of admitting solar radiation into the building
EN 1251915 Window: building component for closing an opening in a wall or pitched roof that will admit light and may provide ventilation, including the frame of the window which is defined as the component forming the perimeter of a window, enabling it to be fixed to the structure Roof window: window intended for installation in a roof or the like which is inclined. Roof windows have the same characteristics as windows installed in wall with regard
11 "Definition and categorization of Windows and external doors" available under: http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/windoors/stakeholders.html 12 Nordic Ecolabelling of Windows and Exterior Doors: http://www.pvch.ch/docs/PDF/NordicSwan_Fenster_Kriteriedokument.pdf 13 Energy Star; http://www.energystarwindowssite.com/index.html 14 Green Seal: http://www.greenseal.org/ 15 EN 12519 Windows and pedestrian doors - Terminology
19
to function, cleaning, maintenance and durability Door: building component for closing an opening in a wall that allows access and may admit light when closed
EN 1435116 External pedestrian doorset: doorset which separates the internal climate form the external climate of a construction for which the main intended use is the passage of pedestrians, including the frame of the door which is defined as the component forming the perimeter of a door, enabling it to be fixed to the structure
Following the above review, it is clear that the sources quote different product definitions.
Keeping in mind the desire of getting a harmonized definition across Europe, the definitions
provided by the EN standards seems to be a sensible and justifiable approach.
Consequently the definitions for frames, windows and roof windows from EN 12519 and
external pedestrian doorsets from EN 14351 were proposed in the first questionnaire, for the
consultation of the stakeholders opinion.
The majority of the stakeholders were in agreement with the definitions proposed for
"windows", "roof windows" and "external doors" based on the EN standards. However, some
comments concerning the inclusion of solar shading products into the framework of this
initiative were proposed. The comments in favor of their inclusion stated that solar shading
products are products that adapt the window properties to the climatic conditions and the user
needs. In addition, they are covered by a set of standards (mainly EN 1221617, EN 1365918,
EN 1356119 and EN 1312020) and by most of European thermal regulations and EPBD recast
201021. Although these statements are true, the choice of solar shading will depend on
building specific conditions, e.g. climate/aspect, and they will be considered regarding the
overall energy performance of the building. As this study focuses specifically on windows
and external doors products, it is therefore proposed not to include specific reference to solar
shading products when considering setting performance parameters for windows and external
doors.
16 EN 14351-1: Windows and doors — Product standard, performance characteristics — Part 1: Windows and external pedestrian doorsets without resistance to fire and/or smoke leakage characteristics 17 EN 12216 Shutters, external blinds and internal blinds, Terminology 18 EN 13659 Shutters - Performance requirements including safety 19 EN 13561: External blinds: Performance requirements including safety 20 EN 13120 Internal blinds. Performance requirements including safety 21 Recast of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council of the European on 19 May 2010 Directive 2010/31/EU
20
5.3 Summary of the definitions and product categorization
Definitions based on the terms used in EN 12519 and EN 14351 will be used, as presented in
the following boxes
It is proposed that the following are included within the scope:
- residential and commercial windows and external doors
- opaque (non-glazed) as well as part and fully glazed external doors
- different frame materials e.g. wood, steel, aluminium, plastic
- components required to operate the window e.g. handles, locks, hinges, etc
It is proposed that the following are excluded from the scope
- non-pedestrian doors, e.g. industrial or garage doors
- doors designed with specific safety features/characteristics e.g. fire doors
- windows designed for escape routes
- internal windows or doors
- revolving doors / swing doors
- tubular daylighting devices (TDDs)
- roof laternes
- automatic doors
Window: building component (glazing) for closing an opening in a wall or pitched roof that will admit light and may provide ventilation, including the frame of the window which is defined as the component forming the perimeter of a window, enabling it to be fixed to the structure
Roof Window: window intended for installation in a roof or the like which is inclined. Roof windows have the same characteristics as windows installed in walls with regard to function, cleaning, maintenance and durability
External doors: doorset which separates the internal climate form the external climate of a construction for which the main intended use is the passage of pedestrians, including the frame of the door which is defined as the component forming the perimeter of a door, enabling it to be fixed to the structure
21
6.- Economic and market analysis
The aim of the economic and market analysis section is to understand the size of the market
for windows and external doors, so that the potential impacts of any improvement can be
quantified.
The preferred source of information is official EU statistics, but due to the aggregation of the
data in these sources some models to estimate the stock and sales figures were created. Other
factors considered into this section concern the trends in the market for windows and external
doors, details on the share of different products across the market as well as the product
development.
6.1 Market data
The first approach to estimate the product market sales in EU27 is to compute its apparent
consumption. The apparent EU consumption is estimated from production, exports and
imports data, as follows:
For production statistics, the PRODCOM 2010 was used while for statistics on exports and
imports the study relies on CN codes 2010. As a consequence and due to the availability of
the data, some assumptions and calculations were required. In addition, it should be noted
that national statistics do not require to survey businesses with less than 20 employees.
Therefore, it seems that there is a significant number of small sized companies within the
window and external door manufacturing industry, that do not report the data and therefore
comparisons to other market data sources, where available, are needed for verification.
The codes considered for this analysis under the PRODCOM and CN databases are
summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. 2009 CN with corresponding PRODCOM codes
PRODCOM code
PRODCOM Code Description
CN codes CN Code Description
16.23.11.10 Windows, French windows and their frames of wood 4418 10 10 Windows and French windows and
their frames, of okoumé, obeche, ** 4418 10 50 Windows and French windows and
their frames, of coniferous wood 4418 10 90 Windows and French windows and
= - +Exports to
countries outside Imports for
countries outside Apparent
consumption Production
sold
22
their frames, of wood *** 16.23.11.50 Doors and their frames and
thresholds, of wood 4418 20 10 Doors and their frames and thresholds, of okoumé, obeche, **
4418 20 50
Doors and their frames and thresholds, of coniferous wood
4418 20 80 Doors and their frames and thresholds, of wood ***
22.23.14.50 Plastic doors, windows and their frames and thresholds for doors 3925 20 00 Doors, windows and their frames and
thresholds for doors of plastic 25.12.10.30 Iron or steel doors, thresholds for
doors, windows and their frames 7308 30 00 Doors, windows and their frames and thresholds for doors, of iron or steel
25.12.10.50 Aluminium doors, thresholds for doors, windows and their frames 7610 10 00
Doors, windows and their frames and thresholds for door, of aluminium (excl. Door furniture)
** sapelli, sipo, acajou d''afrique, makoré, iroko, tiama, mansonia, ilomba, dibétou, limba, azobé, dark red meranti, light red meranti, meranti bakau, white lauan, white meranti, white seraya, yellow meranti, alan, keruing, ramin, kapur, teak, jongkong, merbau, jelutong, kempas, virola, mahogany "swietenia spp.", imbuia, balsa, palissandre de rio, palissandre de para and palissandre de rose ***(excl. Okoumé, obeche, sapelli, sipo, acajou d''afrique, makoré, iroko, tiama, mansonia, ilomba, dibétou, limba, azobé, dark red meranti, light red meranti, meranti bakau, white lauan, white meranti, white seraya, yellow meranti, alan, keruing, ramin, kapur, teak, jongkong, merbau, jelutong, kempas, virola, mahogany "swietenia spp.", imbuia, balsa, palissandre de rio, palissandre de para and palissandre de rose, and coniferous wood)
6.1.1 EU production
Based on the analysis of the PRODCOM categories, the following were selected to be most
relevant to the study, collecting the following information:
- 16.23.11.10 Windows, French windows and their frames of wood: Italy sold the highest
number of products, followed by the UK and Poland in terms of units of products. Italy also
had the highest value of production, followed by Germany and France, although they have
sold noticeably less units of products compared to UK. Germany's value in production is
almost twice as much as the UK
- 16.23.11.50 Doors and their frames and thresholds, of wood: Spain sold the highest
number of units, followed by Italy and UK. Germany has the highest value, followed by Italy
and UK. Spain's value of production was around 25% lower than that of Germany
- 22.23.14.50 Plastic doors, windows and their frames and thresholds for doors: UK sold
the highest number of units, followed by Germany and Poland. Germany has the highest
production, followed by UK and France. The value of Polish production was less than half
that of France
- 25.12.10.30 Iron or steel doors, thresholds for doors, windows and their frames: Poland
had by far sold the highest number of products, followed by Ireland and Germany. Italy had
the highest production's value, followed by Germany and France. Poland account for 36% of
the overall EU number of products, but account for just 4% of the overall production's value
23
- 25.12.10.50 Aluminium doors, thresholds for doors, windows and their frames: France
sold the most units of product, followed by Spain and Italy. However, Italy had the highest
production's value followed by France and Germany. Spain produced more product units than
Italy, yet the Spanish production's value was less than half that of Italy's
However, within PRODCOM data there are missing data that are recorded as estimates or
confidential. For the purposes of this study, estimates of the missing data were produced
based on the EU total produced by Eurostat22 and the GDP 2010 of the countries. The figures
obtained for the value of production and the numbers of items sold are not comparable.
There seems to be a large variation between the quantity of the products sold and the value of
the production sold. Overall, some countries sell a lot of items but have a lower value of
production, and other countries sell a similar or lower number and have a greater value in
production. These variations can be an indication of the high proportion of small and medium
sized companies involved in the production of these products, which do not necessarily have
to report data.
Table3 summaries the EU production figures and items sold. Estimates are marked with an
asteric (*), the three top countries are highlighted in read for each relevant code in term of
units produced and value of production.
Table 3 Estimated Sold Production in Numbers of Items (000s p/st) and in Monetary terms (000s Euros) – 2010
16.23.11.10 16.23.11.50 22.23.14.50 Windows, French Windows & their frames of wood
Doors & frames and thresholds, of wood
Plastic doors, windows, frames & thresholds for doors
Units 000s p/st € p/st € p/st € Austria 1,110 445,713 1,336 264,262 1,781 440,639 Belgium 200 98,494 1,100 115,573 998 408,653 Bulgaria 16 2,402 74 8,830 434 59,533 Cyprus - - - - 0 - Czech Rep 229 71,950 1,812 136,214 3,158 419,228 Denmark 2,496 509,435 2,003 157,383 432 123,644 Estonia 377 58,812 3,577 59,409 140 17,990 Finland 1,225 240,263 1,733 166,614 11 5,758 France 2,104 595,396 8,090 670,770 6,360 2,108,388 Germany 2,357 848,327 10,200 978,796 11,399 2,880,001 Greece 10 4,863 43 9,931 3,133 32,183 Hungary 862 90,126 447 28,325 1,295 93,831 Ireland 22 6,422 904 60,557 731 90,365 Italy 5,587 1,944,760 14,439 937,165 1,150 427,943 Latvia 41 10,663 944 18,292 148 17,358 Lithuania 94 26,174 437 18,308 329 39,006
22 Eurostat: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home
24
Luxembourg - - - - 0 - Malta - - - - 0 - Netherlands 1,296 * 312,964 2,124 231,693 1068* 196,273 Poland 2,856 495,371 7,370 383,362 8,030 961,267 Portugal 67 11,628 2,116 114,908 145 24,260 Romania 136 23,340 604 30,161 2,401 233,597 Slovakia 9 4,463 14 5,060 872 152,833 Slovenia 140 49,139 388 38,050 460 93,391 Spain 632 99,205 19,279 680,668 810 209,845 Sweden 1,668 376,996 1,931* 230,680* 2,024 11,673 UK 3,785 434,125 11,968 842,698 13,313 2,799,235 Total EU27 27,319 6,761,030 92,934 6,187,707 60,623 11,846,896
25.12.10.30 25.12.10.50 Iron or steel doors,
thresholds for doors, windows
and frames
Aluminium doors, thresholds for
doors, windows and frames
Units 000s p/st € p/st € Austria 972 189,962 298 222,401 Belgium 268 78,319 936 413,040 Bulgaria 29 5,974 664 62,129 Cyprus - - - - Czech Rep 485 52,081 268 56,105 Denmark 18 18,513 136 88,617 Estonia 35 18,916 18 14,191 Finland 80 61,532 986 97,222 France 4,201 831,165 9,423 1,970,575 Germany 4,389 1,514,225 3,155 1,610,618 Greece 74 12,802 104 29,522 Hungary 245 20,047 66 40,849 Ireland 13,036 36,269 1,105 69,137 Italy 3,398 1,522,895 7,041 2,788,074 Latvia 13 7,076 23 8,976 Lithuania 49 19,895 10 4,005 Luxembourg - - - - Malta - - - - Netherlands 1,083* 280,419 961* 289,863 Poland 20,677 252,928 598 176,463 Portugal 2,768 152,818 2,150 901,949 Romania 40 10,408 372 40,807 Slovakia 47 7,625 418 38,263 Slovenia 26 5,940 53 63,378 Spain 2,944 602,236 8,910 1,255,692 Sweden 635 252,405 563 181,389 UK 1,184 538,400 2,757 927,510 Total EU27 56,695 6,492,850 41,018 11,350,773
p/st refers to number of items * means value was estimated by the study team Note: Three top countries are highlighted in red for each relevant code in terms of units produced and of value of production
25
6.1.2 EU trade
In this section the export and import data are analyzed. The data are categorised in terms of
CN codes. Similar to the PRODCOM data some of the data are missing and therefore
assumed to be near-zero and negligible.
The following information was collected.
-44181010 Windows and French windows and their frames of tropical wood as specified:
for this specific CN code around a third of MSs reported no values for 2010. Germany was
the country that exports the most outside the EU 27 and Poland inside. France and Luxemburg
were the highest importers closed followed by UK. It is noted that imports from outside EU27
represented only a small fraction of the overall imports (which are 8% of the imports value)
-44181050 Windows and French windows and their frames of coniferous wood: the
market between the MSs was buoyant. In terms of intra EU27 exports, Poland dominated the
market representing 32% of the value of intra EU27 export followed by Denmark which
accounted for 22% of the overall value. The UK was the main intra EU27 importer, closely
followed by Denmark
-44181090 Windows and French windows and their frames of wood: Italy and Germany
were the MSs exporting the most within the EU 27. Poland exported the most outside of the
EU 27, followed by Denmark. England was the main importer both from within the EU27 and
from the rest of the world
From these three groups, the window with wooden frames made of coniferous wood
represented the highest import value amongst all other wooden window frame
-44182010 Doors and their frames and thresholds, of exotic wood: Germany and Italy
were the key exporters outside the EU27, Ireland was dominating intra EU 27 exports. France
and Netherlands recorded the highest imports form outside the EU27. The Netherlands also
imported the most form outside the EU 27. The Netherlands had the highest imports overall,
which seems to indicate a noticeable preference for this type of product in this country
-44182050 Doors and their frames and thresholds, of coniferous wood: Estonia and
Poland were leading the exports within the EU27, between them they represented almost 40%
of the total exports within the EU27. The UK represented just over 30% of the imports from
outside the EU 27, followed by France. Denmark represented a quarter of intra EU27 imports,
followed by the UK
26
-44182080 Doors and their frames and thresholds, of wood: Italy dominated the exports
outside the EU27, followed by Germany, which dominated the exports within the EU 27,
followed by Italy. The UK represented 57% of all the imports from outside the EU27,
followed by France and dominated imports arising within the EU27, followed by Germany.
-39252000 Doors, windows and their frames and thresholds for doors, of plastic:
Germany and Italy were the largest exporters to outside the EU27, Poland and Germany
dominated the exportation with the EU27 and Germany was the main importer form outside
the EU27 followed by the UK. France and Germany both dominated the imports coming from
within the EU27.
- 73083000 Doors, windows and their frames and thresholds for doors, of iron and steel:
Germany dominated the whole iron and steel type of window and door frames, followed by
the Netherlands and France was the main importer from within the EU27
- 76101000 Doors, windows and their frames and thresholds for doors, of aluminium:
Germany dominated the exports, both intra and extra EU 27 and was also the country
importing the most from outside the EU27, followed by France. France imported the most
closely followed by the UK.
From these data it can be noted that Germany is a key player within the window and doors
market especially in term of frames made of iron and steel, plastic and aluminium. In terms of
wooden frame based products, it appears that a few MSs have a dynamic market.
Table 4 summaries the EU trade for each of the CN codes under study and commented in this
section.
Table 4 Value of Import/Exports (€) – Units in 000s (2010) CN 44.18.20.10 CN 44.18.10.090
EE IE IE II EE IE IE II Austria 68 946 2 1,057 2,071 9,478 407 5,463 Belgium - 2,283 1,054 1,191 52 2,836 1,863 1,506 Bulgaria 84 - 1 5 1 13 57 353 Cyprus - - 11 139 - - 26 413 Czech Rep 12 1,068 - 563 65 48 19 802 Denmark 173 - - 18 2,791 18,849 67 15,676 Estonia 85 2 1 4 205 380 17 1 Finland 103 3 107 13 171 1 5 749 France 105 414 9,756 864 3,075 1,091 2,473 11,612 Germany 3,014 3,443 19 208 11,152 6,198 418 771 Greece - 29 - 933 111 463 776 5,602 Hungary - - 2 - 10 1,965 9 399 Ireland - 5,066 25 1,052 15 437 1,222 4,026
27
Italy 2,410 2,657 47 569 10,318 4,153 1,535 3,694 Latvia 6 - 3 28 673 111 23 550 Lithuania 50 45 2 12 3,569 5,218 31 372 Luxembourg - 307 - 1,975 0 321 - 4,400 Malta - 0 25 24 - - - 29 Netherlands 59 276 9,964 16,848 179 20 177 45 Poland 73 1,791 115 126 2,939 44,504 39 849 Portugal 586 2,679 1 648 251 26 7 1,695 Romania 863 552 22 59 22 5,567 7 585 Slovakia - 1 1 3 16 4,482 - 2,963 Slovenia 174 927 0 153 2,071 264 5 10 Spain 95 323 10 6,706 2,491 84 223 1,523 Sweden 66 616 193 1,185 752 1,144 210 5,707 UK 30 1,106 2,066 9,940 617 1,567 9,888 11,555
Eu27 8,055 24,533 23,427 44,324 43,617 109,221 19,502 81,350
1 CN 76.10.10.00 CN 44.18.10.10
EE IE IE II EE IE IE II Austria 7,529 19,100 5,761 43,487 19 60 - 203 Belgium 1,427 26,447 3,958 16,211 - 2,077 645 1,198 Bulgaria 693 2,168 101 900 144 - 2 45 Cyprus 2 - 780 710 - - - 310 Czech Rep 2,579 20,439 647 10,370 364 2,688 - 954 Denmark 7,389 15,761 1,382 9,379 501 1 - 1,659 Estonia 971 1,547 312 971 - - - - Finland 2,438 10,558 554 6,600 - - - - France 5,605 15,284 14,301 81,734 45 189 532 4,271 Germany 66,147 115,542 17,778 36,550 7,769 8,853 76 255 Greece 2,689 1,253 553 2,032 - 25 - 1,819 Hungary 356 12,782 88 2,570 - - - - Ireland 60 19,597 134 5,770 34 1,636 6 697 Italy 46,768 66,335 3,368 14,140 2,602 2,893 9 394 Latvia 1,351 5,274 40 1,100 220 215 - 35 Lithuania 1,574 1,140 99 558 291 84 - - Luxembourg 34 7,517 384 15,156 - 293 - 4,247 Malta 53 - 14 159 - - - 1 Netherlands 12,609 31,206 6,151 15,051 14 79 101 795 Poland 4,908 42,909 275 6,797 222 12,836 0 - Portugal 9,467 43,956 769 5,561 3 - - 35 Romania 194 11,695 369 4,402 - 1,122 - 111 Slovakia 694 14,888 87 6,012 - 383 - 16 Slovenia 4,377 31,452 3,155 5,203 969 1,870 1 1 Spain 6,058 28,310 1,220 8,335 1 30 39 181 Sweden 11,258 14,441 4,182 10,246 221 - 97 20 UK 4,322 18,974 11,853 72,915 26 922 341 3,791
Eu27 201,551 578,575 78,311 382,918 13,444 36,257 1,849 21,037
28
1 CN 44.18.20.80 CN 39.25.20.00 EE IE IE II EE IE IE II Austria 9,893 13,345 1,222 24,862 20,685 75,464 4,869 78,403 Belgium 714 30,290 13,715 14,688 1,567 50,767 5,778 47,165 Bulgaria 316 761 2,148 2,033 1,141 2,056 255 2,163 Cyprus 35 173 218 2,312 12 - 56 1,358 Czech Rep 410 16,032 160 7,330 3,250 92,891 337 71,719 Denmark 2,429 6,273 294 10,534 17,126 72,615 869 46,695 Estonia 326 2,217 73 1,579 442 808 17 1,088 Finland 1,414 4,945 45 3,605 849 1,330 300 1,832 France 11,525 14,116 24,685 32,018 7,217 8,316 13,173 184,168 Germany 47,962 64,330 1,476 44,170 67,210 292,708 30,000 120,088 Greece 215 2,059 1,610 9,321 1,491 2,589 329 3,269 Hungary 80 7,869 175 5,095 3,712 30,894 1,353 25,551 Ireland 302 144 7,756 8,799 427 14,455 121 13,116 Italy 64,331 49,340 3,511 7,137 28,412 28,839 1,921 57,903 Latvia 490 1,361 286 1,659 929 2,474 37 1,740 Lithuania 3,203 726 1,467 1,825 6,659 3,937 42 5,797 Luxembourg - 351 0 14,039 8 19,514 170 33,514 Malta 682 - 406 351 - - 250 193 Netherlands 3,077 21,421 17,875 24,784 2,576 10,701 1,375 31,209 Poland 6,819 32,333 189 4,379 13,595 394,334 1,485 8,020 Portugal 11,979 48,981 57 6,484 1,107 4,139 167 13,717 Romania 2,067 11,219 11,963 9,550 1,082 28,406 1,737 12,651 Slovakia 13 2,570 158 18,373 9,725 65,219 27 55,118 Slovenia 6,214 6,685 98 2,862 1,177 18,604 3,978 9,521 Spain 13,442 14,441 1,318 11,781 1,727 14,508 522 15,405 Sweden 39,137 9,057 4,111 2,353 1,607 1,332 504 11,926 UK 1,388 12,439 127,676 64,036 2,469 50,354 15,995 38,461
Eu27 228,463 373,475 222,694 335,958 196,200 1,287,252 85,666 891,791
CN 44.18.10.50 CN 73.08.30.00
EE IE IE II EE IE IE II Austria 8,312 50,374 282 19,632 20 53,967 9,862 43,557 Belgium 37 272 132 34,158 5 13,357 1,649 55,837 Bulgaria 15 - 12 650 1 476 2,719 5,868 Cyprus - - 22 52 0 26 1,263 955 Czech Rep 647 4,196 160 11,693 2 23,268 728 23,766 Denmark 11,231 126,767 385 95,160 8 11,878 8,315 15,680 Estonia 2,557 20,603 182 899 3 8,469 528 2,537 Finland 1,880 10,716 490 5,452 15 7,092 2,408 21,692 France 678 1,321 1,623 50,659 16 11,456 14,068 137,168 Germany 20,570 46,446 272 68,953 188 313,650 21,759 106,908 Greece 2 36 96 1,923 1 1,367 2,433 9,223 Hungary 7,861 70,429 175 9,700 4 4,903 902 15,021 Ireland 37 2,632 327 10,135 0 624 671 6,810 Italy 2,827 2,407 2,882 21,718 63 77,727 3,822 34,828 Latvia 525 6,431 - 864 6 1,494 632 1,947
29
Lithuania 7,107 12,953 29 986 11 1,858 1,763 4,550 Luxembourg - 714 - 4,444 0 1,777 10 16,736 Malta - - - 3 0 - 52 467 Netherlands 2 106 1 22,392 43 122,828 6,247 28,620 Poland 11,608 184,730 2,072 10,334 24 38,278 10,093 58,876 Portugal - 9 1 1,998 12 13,315 29 11,937 Romania 113 797 14 4,019 2 3,411 12,661 17,869 Slovakia 30 9,724 1 3,589 0 3,102 782 10,913 Slovenia 3,933 14,408 197 2,817 4 3,682 2,240 10,074 Spain 325 22 81 7,148 30 26,339 3,587 26,958 Sweden 8,983 2,992 1,029 22,897 27 11,991 6,772 16,375 UK 7 5,910 7,962 96,913 13 9,857 11,127 30,910
Eu27 89,288 574,995 18,426 509,190 497 766,193 127,120 716,082
CN 44.18.20.50 EE IE IE II Austria 2,248 2,561 384 10,307 Belgium 488 97 430 4,719 Bulgaria 11 18 148 317 Cyprus - - 21 179 Czech Rep 915 23,178 213 8,844 Denmark 904 49,335 2,632 51,857 Estonia 5,961 57,592 234 3,586 Finland 16,228 8,938 8 8,357 France 577 8,346 10,159 7,263 Germany 11,657 8,354 1,799 20,327 Greece 1 7 24 273 Hungary 40 2,744 7 1,612 Ireland 1 944 8,357 2,683 Italy 2,790 1,330 725 3,941 Latvia 3,659 13,150 2,836 3,441 Lithuania 6,476 9,045 1,326 1,109 Luxembourg - 7 - 1,489 Malta - - - 107 Netherlands 21 2,365 1,162 4,709 Poland 3,143 56,037 3,002 355 Portugal 393 1,124 7 422 Romania 67 11,481 9,996 1,813 Slovakia 1 3,847 73 4,304 Slovenia 1,496 4,688 292 1,478 Spain 230 836 1,286 101 Sweden 41,686 9,389 5,672 33,997 UK 51 4,720 22,465 28,141 Eu27 99,044 280,133 73,255 205,732
EE: EU27- Extra Export, EI: EU27- Extra Import, IE: EU27- Intra Export II: EU27- Intra Import
30
6.1.3 EU apparent consumption
Apparent consumption is calculated in terms of product units. However, trade data are not
available in unit terms (volume data are only available in terms of weight) and results were
extracted from Eurostat in monetary terms. These monetary data were converted to the
number of items with a unit price (derived from PRODCOM data).
The apparent consumption was calculated by applying the above stated formula (see page 21).
This formula assumes no change in unsold stock in a given country, which is clearly not going
to be true, though the assumption is probably acceptable as an average result (and therefore it
was considered in this study).
A comparison of the apparent consumption for the different material types in terms of product
units suggests that wooden products dominate the market at EU27 level. However, the
indications from stakeholder feedback is that this is not necessarily the case, with plastic
frames dominating for the EU27 overall. This highlights the limitation of the official
statistical data, which may be the result of inaccurate reporting, estimations and non-reporting
e.g. SME business.
Table 5. % of the apparent consumption for different PRODCOM codes 2010
EU27 Share (%) Windows, French windows and their frames of wood 26888 9.68 Doors and their frames and thresholds of wood 92691 33.37 Plastic doors, windows and their frames and thresholds for doors 60058 21.67 Iron and steel doors, windows and their frames 57801 20.81 Aluminium doors, windows and their frames, and thresholds for doors 40269 14.50 TOTAL 277707 100
6.1.4 Annual EU Sales/real consumption
Due to the limitation of the official statistical data and the impossibility to provide a
breakdown for all type of windows and doors by materials, nor of residential versus non-
residential uses, a comprehensive spreadsheet model of the market was created, covering both
the domestic and non-domestic sectors.
Inputs to the model consisted of EU official statistics, stakeholders feedback and various
relevant studies, guides and regulations concerning the European building sector23. Using this
model, estimated data for sales were calculated by using the stock data divided by the life
23 Eurostat: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home
31
span for windows and external doors. The calculations of m2 of doors and windows across the
EU27 were calculated using the following assumptions and references:
- the report BPIE 201024 was used to establish a baseline m2 of building across the EU27. It
states that 75% of the buildings are residential buildings while just 25% are non-residential.
Among the residential buildings, a division of 64% houses and 36% flats was applied. Among
the non-residential building the following was applied: wholesale retail (28%), offices (23%),
educational (17%), hotels and restaurants (11%), hospital (7%), sport facilities (4%) and
others (11%).
In addition, the current stock for the door area (m2) within residential area for each MS was
calculated. The assumptions used to calculate this have been based on stakeholders feedback.
The average door area across EU for residential and non-residential has been assumed to be
equal to 1% of the overall floor area. As the area of the building is closely linked to the
population, Italy, Germany, France, Spain and UK have the largest residential area and
Luxemburg has the smallest.
The current stock for the window area was calculated assuming that:
- the average window area across the EU residential is assumed to be 15%25 of the overall
residential building area in m2
- the average window area across the EU for non-residential is assumed to be 10%26 to take
account of the wide differences in building.
Similarly to the calculation of the door area and it is closely related to the population of the
MS. Italy, Germany, France, Spain and UK have the largest residential area and Luxemburg
has the smallest.
Table 6 presents some of the data calculated in this section for window and door areas
depending on the type of building.
Table 6. Residential and non-residential window and door areas for the main populated countries
('000 m2) Non-residential Residential Windows Doors Windows Doors
Germany 91.056 9.106 409.753 27.317 France 72.035 7.203 324.157 21.610 Italy 100.654 10.065 452.943 30.196 Spain 76.714 7.671 345.215 23.014
24 http://www.bpie.eu/ 25 Technical Analysis document available under http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/windoors/stakeholders.html 26 Based on input from technical experts.
32
UK 69.023 6.902 310.602 20.707 EU27 600.000 60.000 2.700.000 180.000
Finally the stock of windows and external doors is likely to grow over the years to 2050.
Table 7 presents the forecast for window and external doors to 2050 based on a 2% overall
floor space increase for both residential and non-residential building.
Table 7. Forecast for the residential and non-residential window and door areas for EU27
('000 m2) year
Non-residential Residential Windows Doors Windows Doors
2010 600000 60000 2700000 180000 2015 662448 66245 2981018 198735 2020 731397 73140 3291285 219419 2025 807521 80752 3633845 242256 2030 891568 89157 4012058 267471 2040 1086817 108682 4890676 362045 2050 1324824 132482 5961707 397447
6.1.5 Annual EU Sales Growth
The models used in the previous section were used to generate estimates on sales of windows
and external doors. The estimations were based on the relationships between the total stock of
facilities and their anticipated lifetimes. It is estimated there is an additional 2% of floor space
added every year across EU27, and that the refurbishment rate for windows and external
doors is typically 30 years, which enables to establish a replacement cycle of 5% per year.
Thus using the stock data calculated above the estimated sales growth over the coming years
as shown in the Table 8
Table 8. Estimated sales for the most populated MS in 2010
('000 m2)
Non-residential Residential Windows Doors Windows Doors
Germany 4552810 455281 20487645 1365843 France 3601745 360175 16207853 1080524 Italy 5032699 503270 22647144 1509810 Spain 3835724 383572 17260759 1150717 UK 3451138 345114 15530120 1035341 EU27 30000000 3000000 135000000 9000000
Based on the replacement rate of 5% per year and 2% per year growth rate for floor area
across EU27 for all buildings, a forecast of estimated sales to 2050 has been calculated as
shows in table 9
33
Table 9. Forecasted sales growth in EU27
('000 m2)
Non-residential Residential Windows Doors Windows Doors
2010 30000 3000 135000 9000 2020 36570 3657 164564 10971 2030 44578 4458 200603 13374 2040 54341 5434 244534 16302 2050 66241 6624 298085 19872
6.1.6 Summary of the market data
The market data section concentrated on providing an overview of what the current market for
windows and external doors looks like. The section established the stock, the annual sales, the
annual production levels and the production and consumption in the recent years of windows
and external doors in the EU.
The production and consumption across EU in 2010 is summarized in Table 10
Table 10. Production and consumption across EU-27 in 2010
Units sold (million)
Cumulative value (bimillion euro)
Highest seller (number units)
Highest seller in value
Windows, French windows and their frames of wood 27.3 6.8
Italy UK
Poland
Italy Germany France
Doors and their frames and thresholds of wood 92.9 6.2 Spain
UK Germany
UK
Plastic doors, windows and their frames and thresholds for doors 60.6 11.9
UK Germany Poland
Germany UK
France
Iron and steel doors, thresholds for doors, windows and their frames 56.7 6.5 Poland
Germany
Italy Germany France
Aluminium doors, thresholds for doors, window sand their frames 41 11.4
France Spain Italy
Italy France
Germany
Looking at the trade across MSs and outside the EU, Germany is a key player within the
windows and external doors market especially in terms of frames made of iron and steel,
plastic or aluminium. In terms of wooden frame based products, few MSs have a dynamic
market. The calculations carried out in this study suggest that wooden frame products
dominate the market at EU27 level. However, the indication from stakeholders feedback is
that this is not necessarily the case, with plastic frames dominating the EU 27 overall. This
highlights the limitations within the official statistical data. For this reasons these figures
34
should be treated with caution. The overall apparent consumption for the EU was estimated at
277.7 million units broken down as shown in Table 11
Table11. Breakdown of the European window and external door market depending on the material used
Share (%) Windows, French windows and their frames of wood 9.68 Doors and their frames and thresholds of wood 33.37 Plastic doors, windows and their frames and thresholds for doors 21.62 Iron and steel doors, thresholds for doors, windows and their frames 20.81 Aluminium doors, thresholds for doors, window sand their frames 14.5
6.2 Market and Production structures
6.2.1 General trends in product design and product features
6.2.1.1. Global trends
Despite the recent downturn in the global economy, worldwide demand for windows and
external doors is forecast to rise 6.8 % per year. The demand for windows and external doors
in the residential building construction market is expected to outpace demand in the non-
residential building construction market as the residential market in developed countries
suffered a greater impact due to the recession in 2009 and 201027
Through to 2015, demand for energy efficient windows and external doors is expected to rise
faster than the overall market. This has been attributed to increasing consumer awareness and
government support e.g. the Energy Star in the US28 and the Programmes in Canada29. China,
due to its rapid economic growth and increasing house sizes, is the world’s largest national
window and external door market, accounting for 27% in 2010 and expected to expand to
30% in 2015. The US market for windows and external doors is expected to recover and grow
by 7.7% through to 2015. This is after experiencing a decline of approximately 25% between
2008 and 2010 due the countries major economic recession. Demand in Japan and Western
Europe is expected to recover after declines in 2009 and 2010. The developing nations of the
Africa/ Middle East region and Latin America are also forecast to experience especially fast
growth between 2008 and 2013, despite a deceleration from the pace of the period 2003-2008.
Table 12 shows global demand across a number of regions.
27 http://www.freedoniagroup.com/brochure/27xx/2790smwe.pdf 28 http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=windows_doors.pr_taxcredits 29 Value converted: 1 GBP = 1.18230 EUR http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Business-Industry/Energy/Action/energy-efficiency-policy/Potentialforloans
35
Table 12. World Window and Door Demand (Value – Euros converted from USD)
Year % annual growth Regions 2005 2010 2015 2005-2010 2010-2015 Windows and door demand 86.8 104.8 145.8 3.8 6.8 North America 27.5 21.3 30.4 -5 7.4 Western Europe 22.9 24.6 29.2 1.4 3.5 Asia/pacific 27.8 46.8 69.5 11 8.2 Other regions 8.7 12.1 16.7 7.1 6.7
6.2.1.2. European Window market trends
The European window market stabilised in 2010 after a major slowdown in 200930. Of the
125.8 million window units produced in Europe during 2010, 59.6% were in the EU27, 15.7%
in Norway, Switzerland and Turkey, and 24.7% in Russia and the Ukraine, being the recovery
in those last countries the driving force to increase the European window market between
2009 and 2010 in 0.4%. After a collapse of 49.4% in 2009, the total market in these countries
grew by 21.4% last year. In contrast, the market across the 27 EU states decreased by 6.6% in
2010 following a 10.9% decrease in 2009 31.
German market increased by 3.3% in 2009 and 4.9% in 2010 largely due to support for
installation of energy efficient windows. However, government support will be significantly
lower in 2011 and the growth in German window demand is expected to slow. With 12.6
million window units installed last year, Germany was the largest single window market in
Europe during 2010 accounting for 16.8% of the EU market and 10% of the wider European
market.
Poland has emerged as major market for windows and external doors in recent years. A total
of 6.36 million window units were installed in Poland in 2010 compared to 6.23 million in
2009. Spain’s window demand fell 35% in 2010 to 5.15 million units sold. This follows an
18.4% decline in 2008 and 34% decline in 2009. In Europe, the market is expected to stabilise
and a return to growth, although small, is expected.
6.2.1.3. European external door market trends
Accurate figures for external pedestrian door demand across Europe were more difficult to
obtain. External pedestrian door market is directly linked to the windows markets as the two
30 These are the results of a study carried out by the Fenster + Fassade trade association (VFF) with the support of Professor Dirk Hass of the KünzelsauerInstitutfür Marketing (KIM), which was presented at BAU 2011 in Munich 31 http://www.globalwood.org/market/timber_prices_2009/aaw20110201e.htm
36
products are often purchased at the same time for new builds and renovation purposes,
however trends based on data as identified above for windows were not available.
6.3.2. European market trends depending on materials
There are a number of key global trends with regards materials27
- Plastic is predicted to be the fastest growing material through to 2015 by continuing demand
for vinyl windows and doors due to their “low cost, durability, minimal maintenance
requirements and superior energy efficiency”. Plastic windows are expected to account for 37
% of global window demand in 2015
- Fibreglass entry doors are expected to take market share from wood and steel entry doors as
improvements in manufacturing techniques have enabled manufacturers to make fibreglass
that more closely resembles wood.
Figure 1. Breakdown of window production depending on the frame material used
The key trends in materials used for windows in 2009 are summarized in Figure 1. PVC holds
the dominant position (56% but lower than previous years), timber (18% but decreasing),
aluminium (22% maintained its position). The market in Europe for wood windows is greatly
influenced by cultural preferences and building styles. For example Norway, Sweden and
Finland comprise 70% of the market share of wood windows. In contrast PVC is very
dominant across the rest of Europe. For example PVC market share is over 70% in emerging
markets including Russia, Poland and Turkey.
These results were confirmed by the feedback from stakeholders. In Northern Europe, wood
windows hold the dominant market share and represent as much as 90% of the domestic
market while in Southern Europe aluminium windows are most popular. This trend in
Southern European countries appears to be shifting as the drive for greater energy efficiency
is pulling an increase in demand for PVC windows. In Middle European countries PVC
windows are estimated to account for 50% of the demand.
37
Aluminium is most favoured for non-residential construction. Aluminium has an unusually
high market share in Italy (37%), especially in the south of the country, and in Spain (70%).
Generally, high rise buildings demand higher requirements of windows such as fire proofing
and reinforced glass.
In 2004, wood was the dominant material for external doors (46%), followed by metal (43%),
with a small share going to plastics (11%)32. By 2009, wood and metal are essentially even,
by 2014, metal door demand will pull slightly ahead of wooden ones, with plastics still
lagging by a considerable margin. Historically, wood has been favoured particularly in
Northern Europe where a strong tradition of wood construction has influenced the demand.
However, concerns over deforestation are improving the share of other materials on the
market. Metal doors are gaining market share by enhancement in product design, strong
demand from commercial users, and special applications. Recent technical advances permit
manufactures of plastic doors to offer improved appearance and performance, and unlike
competitive wood and metal units, are completely rot-proof and rust-proof.
6.2.4. Technology market trends
The trend towards increased versatility in window design and innovation is most likely to
intensify going forward. This trend is being strongly driven by environmental, energy and
hence cost saving principles. In recent years, the trend for highly glazed buildings,
conservatories and orangeries has grown worldwide in modern architecture. These changes in
design, and a focus from consumers on energy efficiency and the demand for better design
e.g. thermal performance has put pressure on industry to respond to these requirements.
A further market influence is the shift from new construction to retrofit construction activity.
Retrofitting provides an enormous market opportunity for owners and green builders and,
recently, energy service provider companies.
Glazing is nearly always the largest constitute part area of the overall window unit in terms of
area, and therefore the properties of the glazing, for example the U-value are very important.
Multilayer glazing is the most popular commercially available glazing. Today, triple glazed
windows are growing in popularity due to the inherently low U-value. As Figures 2 and 3
show, triple-glazing features consist in three pieces of glass sealed together to create an
insulated glass unit. The gas fill between the panes is typically argon or krypton, with krypton
producing a lower U-value with less cavity or fill thickness, which at the same time helps to
32 Ecolabel and GPP Criteria for Windows and Doors Preliminary Report December 2010 (unpublished)
38
reduce the weight of the window. Due to higher thermal insulation requirements demands
from the market, three-layer glass with a U-value of 0.6 W/m2K will be used increasingly,
becoming the ‘norm’ in Scandinavian countries in recent years and growing rapidly in
Germany33.
Figure 2: Example of typical triple glazed window unit (section view)34
Figure 3 Example of a vacuum glazing system35
Vacuum glazing consists of two sheets of glass separated by a narrow space with an array of
support pillars keeping the two glass sheets apart. Intensive research leads to a minimization
of the convective heat transfer and the total weight of the window. Due to the thinness of
vacuum glazing and its excellent thermal performance, it is highly suited to retrofit in existing
buildings having the potential to significantly reduce heating.
Other market share are the low-emissivity (low-e) coating windows or the smart windows36
that can change solar factor and transmittance properties to adjust to outside and indoor
conditions, reducing energy costs relating to heating and cooling. Recent technology
developments in solar cell glazing and aerogels37 have enabled solar energy collection from
33 http://www.glassforeurope.com/en/issues/faq.php 34 http://www.conservatoriesscotland.com/Windows_And_Doors.htm 35http://www.pilkington.com/europe/uk+and+ireland/english/products/bp/bybenefit/thermalinsulation/spacia/default.htm 36 Properties, requirements and possibilities of smart windows for dynamic daylight and solar energy control in buildings; A state of the art review. Available online at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MiamiImageURL&_cid=271495&_user=525224&_pii=S0927024809002992&_check=y&_coverDate=2010-02-01&view=c&wchp=dGLbVlS-zSkzS&md5=82ea9530c114356a48790da8a5310617/1-s2.0-S0927024809002992-main.pdf 37 Aerogel insulation for building applications; A state of the art review. Available online at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MiamiImageURL&_cid=271089&_user=525224&_pii=S0378778810004329&_check=y&_coverDate=2011-04-01&view=c&wchp=dGLbVlV-zSkWz&md5=33133e1b8d74002d1dd203ca75af973f/1-s2.0-S0378778810004329-main.pdf
39
transparent glass or lower density of windows respectively. This area is seen as having a lot of
potential in the building industry and highlights the alternative uses for windows (Figure 4
and 5).
However, the high costs are major down sides at the moment for the new products. These
products are more suited to roofing and facades in commercial buildings and sports halls and
are not yet in a position to challenge conventional residential windows where transparent (and
not translucent) glazing is most often required.
Figure 4: Example Solar Cell Technology
Figure 5: Example of translucent aerogel insulation used for commercial purposes
The frame can have a significant influence on the efficiency. Although it comprises 10- 25%
of the window area in commercial buildings, the quality will affect the insulation properties of
a double glazing window by up to 30%38. Research shows that frames of high-performance
are composite materials, such as fiberglass, that offer most of the strength, stiffness and
durability of aluminium with the thermal performance of wood. Other composite frames
include foam-filled vinyl frames with aluminium exterior claddings, wood frames with
polyurethane foam thermal breaks and slender foam-filled fibreglass extrusions with wood
interior finish and aluminium outer weathered components39. Aluminium-clad softwood core
frames have proved a successful composite combination with a longer life. Timber faced with
aluminium exterior is common reaching an estimated U-value < 1 W/m2K. The range of low
energy windows, which include windows with a U-value of 0.8 -1.0 W/m2K, is continually
growing. These types of windows will have the best chance of competing on the market in the
future.
38 http://www.double-glazing-info.com/Choosing-your-windows/Window-frame 39 http://www.wbdg.org/pdfs/jbed_winter10.pdf
40
6.3 Market Structure
6.3.1. Trends in the market across Europe
The European market is heavily influence by the cost of raw materials, advancements in
technology, policy and regulatory considerations. In addition to this, window and external
doors have a decorative role in both commercial and domestic markets and as such they are
influenced by social and cultural preferences. In terms of market shares, the residential sector
takes 66% and the non-residential sector 34% being approximately 60% due to renovation and
40% due to new build.
In general the European market for windows and external doors across can be segregated into
Northern Europe (Scandinavia), middle Europe (Germany, France etc.) and southern Europe
(Italy, Greece etc.) with evident trends in each area. In Northern Europe, windows which are
open to the outside are extremely common while in middle Europe tilt and turn windows are
popular. In the south, sliding windows are very common in domestic properties. At a national
level, casement windows are very popular in France.
Regarding material types, 90% to 95% of the market is wooden windows in northern Europe,
in middle Europe the market for PVC is extremely strong (greater than 50%) while in
southern Europe aluminium is greater than 50% of the market40 although PVC is growing due
to the requirements for improved insulation.
In relation to glazing types, triple glazing is becoming the standard across middle Europe.
This excludes the UK where U-value requirements are higher than middle continental Europe
and the drive for triple glazing is slower. Southern Europe has very different glazing
requirements and aim to achieve a lower g-value41. In general, across Southern Europe, single
paned, coated glass is quite common. However, the trend towards double glazing is
increasing. Across Europe, aluminium framed windows are commonly found in older
commercial buildings.
6.3.2. Structure of the supply side
In general across Europe, the development of the market has been at a national and in some
cases local level. Depending on the trend and preferred window types, specialised
manufacturers have developed to cater for the local or national market.
40 Figures estimated by stakeholders 41 This expresses the share of solar energy that is transmitted, through the element, to the inside of a building
41
For both aluminium and PVU-U windows and external doors the structure of the supply side
is similar. Companies are involved in the extrusion of the material producing a series of
profiles. These profiles are cut and crimpled/welded together, such as the outer frame, sash,
transom and beads. Assembling together the profiles one complete system is made up. The
quantification of the number of window manufacturers operating across Europe is difficult, as
much of the market is composed of SME’s and microbusinesses. For example, in Greece up to
95% of the market is composed of SME’s.
The extruded profiles are usually purchased from the company is by the manufacturer (known
as the fabricator). The fabricators range from smaller companies producing a few frames per
week to larger companies producing several thousand per week. Manufacturers utilise the
profiles to form the finished window or external door. This is achieved by cutting and
assembling the profile and adding hardware such as locks, hinges and handles as well as
weather seals and gaskets. For example, in Germany, approximately 300 manufacturers make
up 60% of the market. The remaining 40% is made up of approximately 5000 small
businesses. Many of these companies carry out product installation also. Fabricators can then
sell directly to the home owner (retail/domestic market) or they may supply the new-build
market (house builders) or the commercial and public sector (local authorities/social housing).
There are thousands of window installers across Europe varying in size from large specialised
companies to local micro enterprises. Most of these companies do not manufacture, and will
buy their products from a fabricator. Many local builders are involved in installation, often as
part of a refurbishment or extension construction project.
42
7.- Environmental performance of windows and external doors
7.1.- Environmental performance of windows and external doors based on LCA
(literature review)
This section aims at reviewing the existing literature and providing an initial indication of
where the key life cycle impacts are likely to exist for windows and external doors. The life
cycle assessment (LCA) is a widely used environmental analysis methodology which provides
a systematic scheme to evaluate and compare the environmental burdens of a process or
product's life cycle within a defined system boundary. The environmental impacts considered
results from the whole life cycle including the materials production stage (raw material
supply, transport, manufacturing, etc), use stage (energy loss, maintenance, etc) and finally
the end of life (recycling, disposal, etc)
The LCA of windows vary significantly in the assumptions they seek to inform and hence the
scope and design of such analyses also vary significantly. Salazar and Sowlati42 undertook a
review of published and unpublished papers on LCA of windows. This review concluded that
in general, LCAs are carried out on windows for two reasons: a) to compare window frame
materials and compare their relative impacts throughout the life cycle or 2) justifying
increased emissions or resource use during manufacturing when compared with energy saved
during the use-phase for improved product performance.
In addition, a study commissioned by the European Commission in 200443 presented a review
of LCA studies examining windows. The study discussed how LCA comparisons should be
undertaken at application level rather than at material level. LCAs focused on the application
stage establish a more complete and comprehensive view of the environmental impacts over
the life cycle of the product. Therefore, correlations can be drawn between the production
phase, use phase and end of life treatment and important impacts of these stages should be
included.
The study concluded that for windows, in terms of preferable material, there is no windows
material that has an overall advantage for the standard environmental impact categories. This
conclusion is reached as it shows the most promising ways to lower the environmental
42 Salazar and Sowlati: A review of life-cycle assessment of windows, Forest Products J., Oct, 2008: 58, 10 43 LCA of PVC and of principal competing materials available under: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/chemicals/files/sustdev/pvc-final_report_lca_en.pdf
43
impacts is through design optimization, therefore the choice of materials is of a minor
importance as long as the material can provide the required system quality of the window.
7.1.1. Environmental performance of wooden windows based on LCA (literature review)
A recent study examining the LCA of wood windows showed the main contribution of such
windows to the GHG effect was during the use-phase. However, the contribution depends on
the emissions of CH4 because of the combustion for heating the buildings. The impacts of the
end of life phase are smaller but not negligible and mostly dependent on the CH4 emissions
due to wood anaerobic decomposition in landfill. During the production phase, double glazing
production was the most relevant process to GHG emissions followed by the semi-finished
wood tables which are used for window frame production.
Tarantini et al44 studied a wooden window produced and mounted in the North of Italy. This
study fully agrees within the above mentioned results and considers that the contribution of
other production processes such as wood frame machining, pin insertion, frame gluing and
assembling, brushing or even painting do not significantly contribute to the GHG effect. The
low contribution of in-company processes to GHG effect can be explained also because the
factory shed is heated by burning wood scraps recovered from the industrial processes. The
energy used for drying the tables and for transport them within the production area is the main
determinant of the wood table production contribution.
The contribution to the photo-oxidant formation category is mainly due to the window
production processes and in the second place to the used and maintenance. Glass production
contributes to VOCs emissions due to the production of the electricity used within the
process, whereas wood tables production impacts are due to NOx emissions from truck
transport in Northern Europe.
The contribution of the wood window life cycle to the acidification category is mainly due to
the window production phase. The combustion of fossil fuels for generating the electricity for
operating machine tools and for heating the building in the use phase is the main source of
SOx and NOx emissions. Transports are a not negligible source of NOx emissions.
44 Tarantani et al, A LCA to GPP of building materials and elements: a case study on windows, Energy 36 (2011) 2473-2482
44
Analyzing the primary energy indicator, the contribution of the use phase reaches 85% of the
consumption; the manufacturing of the main windows components is modest whereas the
contribution of the maintenance and end-of-life stages is irrelevant.
Table 13 shows a summary of the environmental impacts caused by the wood windows. As
observed, for each impact category the most critical processes in the window life cycle are
identified. Burning fossil fuels for heating the building is the single most important process
for all the impacts categories except waste production. Although the environmental impact of
production processes cannot be neglected. The contribution can range between 10 to 60%.
These results have been conducted considering specific climate conditions (which affect the
product weathering and thermal loss and gain) and technologies. Different assumptions on
window service life, climatic conditions and domestic heating or cooling systems, electric
energy production processes, etc which are crucial parameters in the window life cycle can
significantly affect the results.
Table 13. Contribution analysis of LCA study
Key environmental impacts Responsible processes or life cycle stages GHG effect Energy losses in the use phase (heating and cooling)
Double glazing production Production of semi-finished wood tables Wood frame production
Acidification Energy losses in the use phase (heating and cooling) Double glazing production Production of semi-finished wood tables Wood frame production
Photo-oxidant formation Energy losses in the use phase (heating and cooling) Maintenance (brush painting) Double glazing production Production of semi-finished wood tables Painting process in production phase
Primary energy consumption Energy losses in the use phase (heating and cooling) Double glazing production Production of semi-finished wood tables Wood frame production
Waste production Copper and steel production for ironware Window end-of-life
7.1.2. Environmental performance of PVC and aluminum windows based on LCA (literature
review)
According to the previous mentioned studies different materials are appropriate for different
situations and environments. For example, wooden frames and the periodic maintenance that
45
they require will not be appropriate for high or inaccessible locations, while standard PVC
frames will not be appropriate for very hot locations.
Tarantini et al reviewed the environmental impacts caused by the PVC and aluminium
windows too. In both material cases the dominance of the use phase in determining the GHG
effect has been confirmed by several LCA studies on windows. In fact, most of the analyzed
studies deduce that no material has advantages in all impact categories and highest potentials
for improvement are expected in the optimization of the frame structure (e.g. lowering the
specific heat loss, raising the amount of used secondary material or lowering the amount of
material needed for the same function). Recycling offers the potential to save primary energy
and resources for all window frames, especially for non renewable materials as it is the case
of PVC and aluminium.
According to the study carried out by Salazar and Sowlati, focused on Northern America
residential sector, PVC, aluminium clad wood and fibreglass frames are comparable in cradle-
to-gate emissions and significant improvements of the windows life cycle can be obtained for
a longer service life and lower replacement frequency. Moreover, the study indicated that the
life cycle impacts were dominated by generating electricity for operating machinery as in the
case of wood windows.
In these aluminium and PVC cases, the dominance of the use phase for GHG effect and the
importance of the primary energy for the frame windows production over the other impacts
categories is confirmed by all the analyzed studies. Moreover, the production of aluminium
and PVC frames causes the following environmental impacts to a lower extent: acidification,
photo-oxidant formation, waster production (Al, PVC) and emission of hazardous chemicals
(PVC).
7.2. Environmental performance of external doors based on LCA (literature review)
Unfortunately existing life cycle studies for external doors have not been identified. However,
it may be reasonable to assume similar conclusions with regards energy consumption during
the production and use phase given the long life times of the products, although given the
reduced areas of doors within the building envelope this is likely to be reduced when
compared to windows.
46
7.3.- Main conclusions from the LCA for windows and doors review
The key findings from the previous LCA studies are:
- in terms of preferable materials, there is no window frame material that has an overall
advantage for the standard impact categories. The most promising ways to lower the
environmental impacts of windows is through design optimization
- for LCAs carried out on windows that considered frame materials, wood had lower
embodied energy than the market alternatives, PVC and aluminium. It was found that the
embodied energy of the aluminium framework is much higher than those of other materials
- LCAs show that the use phase contributed around 85% to the total primary energy while for
the GHG effect the use phase represented approximately 80% of the total
- no material has advantages in all impact categories. The highest potential for improvements
is expected in optimizing the frame structures
The analysis of existing LCA studies indicates that there is no reason to draw a distinction
between frame materials when considering the scope and definition of window for this
project, with the use phase energy consumption related to the installation of windows the most
significant aspect within the life cycle.
There is a lack of studies on the LCA of external doors. However, it may be reasonable to
assume similar conclusions with regards embodied and use phase energy consumption given
the long life times of the products, although given the reduced area of doors within the
building envelope this is likely to be reduced when compared to windows.
47
8. User behaviour
The assessment of the environmental and economic performance is incomplete without
considering the effects of user behaviour on a product. LCAs have shown that the effect of
windows on the energy used in the operational phase of buildings is considered to be the
highest impact. Thus windows and external doors are critical components in terms of heat loss
and solar gain of a building. This section considers the key parameters relating to user
behaviour:
8.1. Repair and maintenance
Proper maintenance and repair is an important aspect to consider in terms of the durability and
service life windows and external doors. During the lifetime of a window, some maintenance
will be required, irrespective of the materials used to construct it. If a window or external door
is neglected this will reduce the products lifetime.
PVC frames are sensitive towards heat and UV radiation while timber windows require
regular maintenance to maintain their durability, such as coatings. Aluminium frames can
perform poorly in corrosive conditions especially in coastal or industrial areas if not protected
by coatings.
Faults on PVC-U frames occur usually in the operation mechanism or the seals. However
since the PVC frames do not have to be painted with fungicides or protective coatings and no
maintenance but cleaning is required45.
If the window or external door is properly maintained, for example, if a wooden window is
regularly sanded and painted with oil, preservative or paint, this will increase the service life
of the window. Maintenance therefore has a significant cost implication during the lifetime of
the product.
In this sense, aluminium and timber windows can easily last more than 40 years. Aluminium
cladded timber windows over 40 years, while PVC frames have an optimum service life of 25
to 50 years46
In relation to maintenance costs, timber windows are the most expensive as they require
regular maintenance of the frame. The costs associated with aluminium frames are minimal,
requiring occasional cleaning to maintain brightness. PVC frames should be cleaned with
45 German Institute for Construction with Plastics on behalf of the German Federal Ministry for Environmental Planning, Construction and Urban Development,
48
alkaline detergents after every 6 months to maintain their appearance which will have an
associated cost. This cost is however lower than that for timber windows. Aluminium clad
frames require no external maintenance since the coating keeps the cladding protected against
environmental impacts.
The environmental impacts of the maintenance of external doors, windows and surrounding
frames in the façade were reported by Blom et al.47. When the service life of the building
component is extended by 50%, all of the environmental impact categories48 examined are
reduced by 17–27%. The study shows that reducing maintenance frequency leads to an
overall reduction of the environmental impact categories by 5–11%. In addition, this research
suggests the most effective way to reduce the environmental impact is:
- to reduce gas consumption for space heating by replacing the glazing with high
efficiency double glazing
- performing maintenance when needed by closely monitoring the degradation of the
window or external door rather than at planned intervals, and finally
- partial replacements have a lower environmental impact than complete replacements
and should be considered by applying better protection and higher quality maintenance to fast
degrading area of the façade.
Across the industry maintenance is recommended as a means to extending the service life of
the product. Guidance documents for the maintenance of windows are readily available in the
public domain49.
Air infiltration through a sash window in good condition can be reduced by as much as 86%
by adding draught proofing. Heat loss through contact with the glass and frames can be
significantly reduced by adopting simple measures like closing thick curtains and plain roller
blinds. In the test, heat loss was reduced by 41% and 38% respectively50.
46 M. Asif et al, Life Cycle of Window Materials – A Comparative Assessment 47 I Blom et al., Environmental impact of dwellings in use: Maintenance of façade components. 48 Abiotic depletion, global warming, ozone layer depletion, photochemical oxidation, human toxicity, fresh waste aquatic ecotoxicity, terrestrial ecotoxicity, acidification, eutrophication. 49 http://www.woodwindowalliance.com/fileadmin/Specifiers_Guide/Maintaining_windows.pdf 50 http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/research/buildings/energy-efficiency/thermal-performance-of-traditional-windows/
49
8.2. Product lifetime
In brief, it is reported that aluminium and timber windows can easily last more than 40 years;
aluminium cladded timber windows over 40 years and PVC windows around 25 years,
although it is also reported that PVC-U windows last over 35 years51.
Wood windows, if maintained to a good standard, can have a service life of up to 30 years.
However, with improvements in manufacturing and standards it is claimed the service life can
be extended even further, at least 60 years as reported in a study52 and shown in Figure 6. This
report reveals that by following high redecoration levels every three to five years, the service
life of a window can be significantly increased.
Figure 6: Service Life of Wood Window Alliance windows compared to generic wood and PVC-U53
Limited information exists in the public domain relating to the life time of external pedestrian
doors. Table 14 shows a summary of the responses to this question.
Table 14: Expected lifetime of external pedestrian doors (summary stakeholder feedback)
Material Lifetime range given by stakeholders Wood 10- 50 years Plastic 25 – 50 years Iron/Steel 15 – 35 years Aluminium 10 – 35 years
51 http://www.pauljervis.net/filemgmt_data/files/BRE%20Service%20Life%20PVC-U%20Windows%20Executive%20Summary.pdf 52 http://www.woodwindowalliance.com/fileadmin/Specifiers_Guide/Specifiers_guide_full.pdf 53 http://www.woodwindowalliance.com/fileadmin/Specifiers_Guide/Specifiers_guide_full.pdf
50
The estimated lifetimes for building products is reported by German Bundesamt für
Bauwesen und Raumordnung54 (BBSR) and shown in the following tables.
Table 15: Estimated lifetime various standard doors, windows and windows and door components
Product Lifetime (years) Product Lifetime
(years) Standard Doors: Hardwood ≥ 50 Window frame and sash* ≥ 50
Standard Doors: Metal ≥ 50 Window (frame and sash): plastics, treated softwood
40
Standard Doors: wood 40 Sealing Profiles 20 Standard Doors: plastic 40 Sealants 12 Standard doors: softwood 35 Door locks, door hinge dampers, panic locks 25 Fittings: simple fittings, sliding door fittings 30 Door closers 20
Fittings**: 25 Door operators 15 Blinds 40 * aluminum, aluminum-wood composite, aluminum-plastic composite, hardwood handled, steel ** Tilt-turn fittings, swing wing fittings, Hebedrehkippbeschläge This information confirms the views of stakeholders. Components are often the limiting factor
unless replaced, with many of the components in Table 13 having shorter lifetimes than the
actual window or external door product.
8.3. Actual User behaviour regarding End of Life
Previous research has examined ways to improve site practices for collection and clean
separation of composite (glass) materials in the construction and demolition industry55. The
results showed there was much scope to increase the awareness of recycling and separation of
materials within the industry. The reasons quoted by window replacement companies for not
carrying out more recycling included: lack of financial incentive, time and “hassle” of
segregation and storage, the glass was considered too dirty by collection companies, the
replacement window companies were charged by the glass collectors for the collection of
glass and finally there is no financial benefit.
In domestic demolition, in general, the timber, glass, steel and aluminium are removed with
the glass and timber going to landfill and the metals being segregated for recycling. In
commercial buildings, the glass shards come down with the building, 80% is crushed into the
hardcore. This is used as hardcore so the glass (which is 1% of the building material by
54 Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning 55 http://www.wrap.org.uk/downloads/C_and_DGlass.1f4d62f8.259.pdf
51
volume) does not go to landfill. The remaining 20% of the glass is attached to the frames and
goes to landfill.
The main drivers affecting the viability of flat glass recovery are time, cost and health &
safety of site operatives. The purity (i.e. amount of contaminants) of the collected flat glass
cullet has a significant influence on the applications for which it can be used and therefore on
its value to a reprocessing company. The recoverability of the glass depends on the ease of
deglazing. Most domestic double-glazed unites are easy to de-glaze by removing the glazing
beads and removing the glass as a whole for transportation. Single glazed unit requires the
glass to be broken for removal. However, wherever possible windows are removed in whole
for health and safety reasons.
Many older commercial windows comprise heavier duty frames and larger panes of glass. Pre
1990’s, rolled steel or aluminium window frames where common for commercial buildings.
These were normally single glazed with larger areas and were thicker compared with
domestic windows. Older windows were often fully bedded in a glazing compound which
overtime hardens making it more difficult to recover. Composite frames, e.g. timber frame
clad with aluminium are more common. The glass is generally double glazed and dry glazed
using polymeric gaskets and retaining beads. The replacement of commercial style windows
is not always easily achieved due to the problems of access and handling. Windows and
glazing are usually only replaced at the time when the whole building is refurbished. This is
frequently linked to the end of a lease period (typically 21 or 25 years).
Good practice guidance for the collection of flat glass for use in flat glass manufacture was
published in 2008 giving tips on avoiding contamination of the product as well as collection,
transportation, handling and storage56.
Industry experts have indicated that glass recovered from old glazing products is not used to
make new glazing products for safety reasons. The contaminants within recovered glass have
the potential to affect the strength of the glass and therefore the safety and well-being of the
end user.
8.4 Present Fraction to recycling, reuse and disposal
Across Europe in general, the data relating to present fractions of windows and external doors
reused, recycled or disposed of is quite poor and varies from one country to the next. Reuse
figures are almost non-existent.
56 http://www.docstoc.com/docs/71110076/Flat-Glass
52
Newer aluminium windows are much more energy efficient (thermally broken) than the
aluminium windows produced a decade ago. Therefore the older aluminium windows are
mostly recovered and recycled rather than being reused. No official statistics are collected
indicating the amount of aluminium products reused or recycled. A study shows that the
collection rates for aluminium vary between 92% and 98%. Peak collection rates are
invariably related to the collection of larger parts, such as windows, corrugated roof plates,
curtain walls and thick exterior cladding plates, whereas aluminium losses are commonly
incurred with small items like door handles. The content of aluminium in buildings varied
between northern and southern Europe. Residential buildings in the northern Europe are seen
to have on average 38 g/ton on aluminium while southern residential buildings contain on
average 630 g/ton. Non-residential buildings are revealed to contain on average 2.014kg/ton
or up to 7000kg per building. The major incentives for its recycling are the high intrinsic
value of aluminium and the energy required to recycle (often as little as 5% of the required for
primary production)57.
In 2000, the European PVC industry started a 10-year plan (RecoVinyl Scheme) to enhance
sustainability of its products and production over the full lifecycle, especially to collect and
recycle post consumer PVC building products58. The scheme was highly successful including
establishing infrastructure for the annual collection and recycling of over 250,000 tonnes of
PVC (Table 16), which prior to 2000 had been dismissed by many as an “unrecyclable”
material destined for landfill59.
Table 16: Recovinyl registered recycled volumes per country (tonnes)
Year 2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Austria 4,398 3,815 4,616
Belgium 1,500 2,739 1,954 3,462** 5,493** 5,141
Czech Rep 1,165 5,858 13,685 16,464
Denmark 2,896 2,586 2,445 2,923
France 2000*** 7,446 13,276 16,943 10,890 17,377
Germany 5,522 35,927 77,313 71,081 92,242
Hungary 828 256 804 538 617
Italy 10,972 4,252 16,115 15,681 16,417
Netherlands 4,500 8,959 10,731 10,009 16,909
Poland 475 3,518 7,648 13,227
Portugal 477 903 1,437
57 http://www.alueurope.eu/?page_id=5582 58 The European Council of Vinyl Manufacturers (ECVM), The European Plastics Converters (EuPC), The European Council for Plasticisers and Intermediates (ECPI) , The European Stabiliser Producers Association (ESPA) 59 http://www.vinylplus.eu/uploads/Progress_Report_2011/Vinyl2010-ProgressReport2011_English.pdf
53
Romania 27
Slovakia 994 1,959
Spain 2 6,293 93 14,838
Sweden 94 1,277
UK 8,000 17087**** 42,162 42895**** 33,963 49,343
Total 16,000 44,690 111,322 191,393 186,238 254,814 *Actual figure in tonnes ** Belgium figures include the ones form Luxemburg in 2008 and 2009 *** This volume was recycled by PVC Recyclage now included in Recovinyl **** UK figures include Ireland in 2006 and 2008 The lower gate fees to incineration plants and higher capacities in Northern European
countries imposed difficulties for recyclers to obtain materials for recycling. In Southern
European countries and thanks to increased pressure on collectors to sort more waste before
sending to landfill, an increase of the export of old PVC profiles towards the Far East and
Northern Africa was also registered.
Reuse data relating to both coated mild steel and stainless steel windows and external doors is
not known. Although, the products may have the potential to be reused, it is most likely that
these products are recovered and recycled. Steel-containing products, often in combination
with other materials, are most frequently shredded and separated from other materials by
magnetic, eddy current and sink-float separation processes.
Very limited information is available on the level of timber window recycling undertaken
across Europe. The recycling of timber windows is complicated by the fact the windows are
treated with chemical coatings to preserve and protect the material. Older windows in
particular may have been treated with hazardous substances. It is necessary to separate
hazardous from non-hazardous frames but contaminants are not tolerated during the recycling.
Energy recovery has been regarded as a possible alternative to recovery. However, there may
be scope to improve the recyclability of modern windows once they reach their end of life
through design for disassembly, recyclable paint/coating and the ability to identify this when
the window is removed.
The Waste Framework Directive60 sets a target for the EU of 70% of construction and
demolition waste to be recycled by 2020 and this has been a significant drive in improving the
recycling rates across Europe.
60 Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives
54
8.5. Summary of the user behaviour
Maintenance is a key aspect to ensure the longevity of windows and external doors, but there
are associated costs to this stage. It was found that timber required the most maintenance and
is also the most expensive; PVC should be maintained every 6 months but with associated
low costs while aluminium is most maintenance free.
The product life of aluminium and wood frames windows can be expected to last more than
40 years if well maintain and PVC window optimum service is estimated at 25 years
The end of life management depends on several drivers. The viability of flat glasses recovery
depends on time, cost and health and safety of site operatives. Ease of deglazing is also a key
driver, most domestic double-glazed units are easy to deglaze by removing the glazing beads
and removing the glass as a whole for transportation. However, whenever possible windows
are removed in whole for health and safety reasons
Aluminium frame are the most recovered due to the market value of the metal and the savings
in energy in comparison to the primary process.
55
9. Existing legislation and standards
9.1 European legislation: directives, regulations and national legislation
9.1.1. Construction Products Regulation (CPR) No EC 305/2011
The CPR has been recently adopted by the Commission and repeals the previous Construction
Product Directive CPD 89106/EEC. The aim of this regulation is to better define the
objectives of Community legislation and make its implementation easier. It now includes a
specific essential requirement related to the sustainable use of natural resources, stating that
"the construction works must be designed, built and demolished in such a way that eh use of
natural resources is sustainable and ensures the following:
- recyclability of the construction works, their materials and parts after demolition
- durability of the construction works
- use of environmentally compatible raw and secondary materials in the construction
works.
This regulation sets up the basis for the CE marking and following the introduction of the
product standard EN 14351-1, the CE marking of window and external door products has
been mandatory since February 2010
9.1.2. Other European legislation that do not focus specifically on windows and external
doors but that may affect this product group
a) Energy Performance of Building Directive (EPBD recast) 2010/31/EC
This directive does not address directly the production, use or end of life of the windows or
external doors but it aims at clarifying, strengthening and expanding the transposition, by
member state, of the original directive (EPBD 2002). In doing so, a significant portion of the
remaining cost-efficient potential in the building sector will be reaped. The directive promotes
the improvement of the energy performance of buildings, within the union, taking into
account outdoor climatic and local condition and well as indoor climate requirements and
cost-effectiveness. Its provision cover energy needs for space and hot-water heating, cooling,
ventilation and lighting for new and existing residential and non-residential buildings.
56
b) Directive limiting CO2 emissions by improving energy efficiency (SAVE) 93/76/ECC
The purpose of the SAVE directive is to enable the harmonization of national measures
regarding labelling information and minimum efficiency standards on the consumption of
energy and of other essential resources. The focus is on limiting CO2 emissions devising and
implementing programmes to ensure or encourage certification of the energy performance of
buildings, and thus relates directly to all fenestration products.
c) Directive 2006/32/EC on energy end-use efficiency and energy services
The aim of this directive is to improve energy efficiency, manage demand and reduce energy
consumption across Europe. Installing energy efficient fenestration products is one way of
doing this and the directive particularly encourages the public sector in each member state to
set a good example regarding investments, maintenance and other expenditure for energy-
using equipment, energy services and other energy efficiency measures.
d) Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packaging waste
The aim of the directive is to harmonize national measures concerning the management of
packaging and packaging waste to provide a high level of environmental protection to all
Member States and to ensure function of the internal marketed and to avoid obstacles to trade
and distortion of competition within the Community. The directive seeks to reduce the impact
of packaging and packaging waste on the environmental by introducing recovery and
recycling targets for packaging waste, and by encouraging minimisation and reuse of
packaging.
e) Directive 2008/98/EC on Waste (Framework)
It encourages the prevention and reduction of harmful waste by requiring that member states
ensure that measures exist to recover or dispose of waste without endangering human health
or causing harm to the environment. The directive introduces a target of 70% recycling and
recovery by weight of non-hazardous construction and demolition waste on all Member states
by 2020.
f) REACH Regulation EC 1907/2006
The aim of the REACH is to improve the protection of human health and the environment
through the better and earlier identification of the intrinsic properties of chemical substances.
Manufacturers are required to register details of the properties of their chemical substances on
a central database, which is run by the European Chemical Agency. The regulation also
57
requires the most dangerous chemicals to be progressively replaced as suitable alternatives
develop.
g) Directive 2009/125/EC establishing a framework for the setting of Ecodesign
Requirements for Energy related Products (ErP)
This directive increases the scope form the energy using product directive 2005/32/EC to
energy related products. As windows and doors are considered energy related products, this
Directive can be applied to this product group. This directive sets a clear framework for the
setting of Ecodesign requirements for ErP, aimed at avoiding disparities in regulation amongst
MSs, ensuring the free movement of such products within the internal market. This directive
provides for the setting of requirements which the ErP covered by implementing measures
must fulfil to be placed on the market and/or put into service. It contributes to sustainable
development by increasing energy efficiency and the level of protection of the environment,
while at the same time increasing the security of the energy supply. The Ecodesign directive
does not in itself set binding requirements for specific products, however, it does define
conditions and criteria for setting, through subsequent implementing measures, minimum
requirements regarding environmentally relevant product characteristics and allows them to
be improved quickly and efficiently.
9.2 European National legislation
National legislation for windows is generally linked to building regulations within different
MSs. The common parameter for which requirements are set is U-value of the window or
door. The BPIE61 provides data on “maximum” U-value requirement for roof, wall, floor and
window and doors for new buildings. Given the diversity in climatic conditions, maximum U-
value requirements vary across different countries and within some countries, different types
of buildings and the type of heating. Table 15 shows the maximum U-value requirements for
different building components.
61 http://www.bpie.eu/country_review.html
58
Table 17: Maximum U value requirements for roof, wall, floor, window and doors. Source; BPIE Survey
Figure 7 shows the range of U-values for windows and doors in relation to heating demand
days (HDD) for the countries that set requirements. It is clear from this that there is significant
variation in the standards required even for a similar number of HDDs, indicating there may
be potential improvement opportunities.
Figure 7: Maximum U-Value requirement against HDDs for Member States
The variation in the U-values for windows and doors may be due to the increasing drive for
assessing the energy performance of buildings as a whole. Some countries do not set stringent
U-values for building components to allow designers/architects some degree of flexibility in
59
terms of building design, so long the energy performance of the building as a whole meet the
necessary requirements.
9.3 European voluntary agreements: environmental labels
9.3.1 EU ecolabel regulation EC 66/2010
There are no existing European Ecolabel criteria for windows and external doors but this
scheme can be one of the candidates to be developed on the basis to this study in the coming
years.
9.3.2 Nordic Swan62
The goal of the Nordic Ecolabelling criteria is to promote the use of energy efficient products
that are also manufactured with a minimum of environmental impact. Nordic ecolabelling
adopted the criteria for windows and exterior doors in 2008 and are valid until 2012.
The criteria apply to fixed and opening windows, window doors and exterior doors. The
Nordic Ecolabel sets high requirements on energy efficiency and sets relevant product
certification requirements. The manufacturers must also have documented procedures and
instructions for quality and environmental assurance. The main aspects of the Nordic Swan
Ecolabel are:
- Heat transfer (U-value): the U-value must be 1.3W/m2K or lower, for a 12x12m window
including the frame. An exterior door must have a U-value of 1.0 W/m2K or lower and air-
tightness of at least 600Pa
- Solar energy transmittance (g-value): must be 52% or more, measured perpendicular of the
glass (so incoming solar energy heats the building)
- Daylight transmittance: the daylight transmittance must be 63% or higher, i.e. the window
must not be considered as daylight shielding
- Air permeability: a window must fulfil Class 4 of EN 12207 for air permeability under
negative and positive pressure
Material restrictions:
- 70% of the solid wood in exterior doors must come from certified sustainable forests
62 Nordic Ecolabelling of Windows and Exterior Doors http://www.nordic-ecolabel.org/criteria/product-groups/
60
- Halogenated plastics are not permitted; neither are plastics containing additives of lead,
cadmium, chlorinated/brominated paraffin, organic tin compounds, phthalates or
polybrominated diphenyl ethers.
- Exterior doors must not contain chemical products classified as carcinogenic, toxic to
reproduction, causing inheritable damage, toxic or sensitizing by inhalation in accordance
with regulations in force in Nordic countries and/or EU classification system 1999/45/EC.
- Plastic casement and frame parts heavier than 50mg must be visible labelled for recycling in
accordance with ISO 11469
- Filler gases that contribute to the GHG effect, with a GWP > 5 over a period of 100 year
may not be used in the insulation units.
- Chemical products (paint, adhesive, sealants, putty) in the finished window/exterior door
must contain < 2% of substances classified as environmentally hazardous (Directive
67/548/EEC). For wood preservative this rises to 3%
- Significant (and specified) sections must be made of heartwood, all exposed wooden
sections must be treated with wood preservatives in accordance with the Nordic Wood
Preservation Council's (NTR) class B, or the metal covered.
9.3.3 Finland - Window Energy Label63
A voluntary national energy labelling scheme for windows was introduced in Finland in 2006.
The parameters tested to be awarded with the Finnish window energy label are:
- U-value of the total window (includes pane, frame and the linear transmission)
- g-value of the total window (pane and frame)
- Air leakage
9.3.4 Sweden - Window Energy Label64
Window Energy Rating initiated in 2006 is a voluntary scheme that uses labels similar to
those seen on household appliances. The label tells how energy efficient the windows are by
rating them in an A-G scale. The U-value is calculated in accordance with ISO10077-2 and in
laboratories that meet ISO 12567-1 as shown in Table 18
Table 18: Swedish window energy ratings
Energy rate A B C D E F G U-value, W/m2K 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
63 http://www.odyssee-indicators.org/publications/PDF/finland_nr.pdf 64 http://www.energifonster.nu/sv/vill_du_veta_mer_.aspx
61
9.3.5 Denmark - Window Energy Label65
Denmark introduced a rating system for the sealed glass units within the aim of phasing-out
traditional sealed units (U-value 3.0W/m2K) and promoting energy efficient units. The
manufacturers participating in the Danish Energy rating and labelling system have to provide
information on their products regard the four energy labelling data for glazing:
- Thermal transmission coefficient (centre of glazing)
- Total solar energy transmittance (centre of glazing)
- Light transmittance (centre of glazing)
- Equivalent thermal conductivity
The original Danish Energy rating label differs from the labels used in the UK, Finland and
Sweden. The energy classification consists of only three levels, A-C. A-rated windows have a
frame configuration U-value <0.18 W/m2K and an A rated sealed unit. A B-rated window has
a frame configuration U-value of 0.18 -≤ 0.20 W/m2K and an A rated sealed unit. A C-rated
window has a frame configuration U-value of 0.20-≤0.22 W/m2K and an A rated sealed unit.
1.8 is a rather high U-value for a Nordic country.
More recently the above scheme has been superseded, and an energy rating scheme has been
implemented, similar to the UK scheme. There is no information publicly available regarding
the equations or detailed calculation used for the Danish energy rating. Further information is
being sought from stakeholders.
9.3.6 UK- British Fenestration Ratings Council66
Window Energy Ratings were launched in March 2004. The scheme establishes the Window
Energy Rating system (WERs) to assess the thermal efficiency of windows of a standard size
allowing comparison of products against one another under identical conditions. The WER’s
labelling scheme contains an A-G rating system and gives a rating based on the energy
performance of the whole window (frame and glass) and therefore allows fair comparison of
one window with another
The use of WERs as an alternative to U-values as a criterion for compliance gives a more
accurate indicator of the energy performance of a window because they take a range of factors
into account including the thermal transmittance, useful solar heat gain and air tightness. The
measure allows comparison between different products but it does not provide the actual
65 http://www.energifonster.nu/backnet/media_archive/original/562d6a1f3200e0e5141beeebd1ec4c6a.pdf
62
energy efficiency for specific products when installed as it will depend on the location, the
building parameters (the insulation and occupancy), the building geometry and orientation,
the local climate and the indoor temperature set by the occupants.
The WERs assess the whole window, so covers the frame material, the frame design, the glass
type and all the other components that make up the window. The rating is carried out by
computer simulation of the product to European Standards and the use of climate data and
building models. This generates a single value that can then be used to compare the energy
performance of a window simply and quickly.
From 2010 it will only be legal for window companies to take orders for windows with a
WER of band C or above, or a combined U-value of 1.6 W/m2K for installation into existing
dwellings. Likewise, all doors ordered on or after 2010 will have to have a maximum U-value
of 1.8 W/m2K67. Those having band B or better may carry the Energy Saving Trust
Recommended Logo68.
9.3.7 Natureplus69
This Type 1 environmental label (ISO 14024) aims at providing all those involved in
construction, with a reliable orientation aid towards sustainable products. The quality label
may be awarded to a range of construction products and components however all products
must fulfil the basic criteria. Natureplus specifically refers to timber-framed windows70 and
wooden doors71. No specific guidance has been issued for timber-framed windows however
award guidelines for wooden doors was published in 2009 specifying criteria for wooden
house entrance doors (Award Guideline RL1602)72.
The component parts of the wooden doors regulated by this guideline are first and foremost,
the door leaf and the frame /casement. Wooden doors must be classified according to EN
14351 (parts 1 to 3).
66 http://www.bfrc.org/trade/retailerScheme.aspx 67 http://www.listertf.co.uk/uploads/Approved%20Document%20Part%20L.pdf 68 http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/Home-improvements-and-products/Home-insulation-glazing/Glazing 69 http://www.natureplus.org/uploads/tx_usernatureplus/RL0000BasicCriteria2011.pdf 70http://www.natureplus.org/en/natureplus/issuance-guidelines/?user_natureplus_pi3%5Bcat%5D=15&cHash=9a56e9c7bd 71http://www.natureplus.org/en/natureplus/issuance-guidelines/?user_natureplus_pi3%5Bcat%5D=16&cHash=f25388eb21
63
9.4 Third-countries voluntary agreements: environmental labels
9.4.1 New Zealand - Window Efficiency Rating Scheme (WERS) 73
The Window Efficiency Rating Scheme scale runs from five stars which is the highest rating
to one star, the lowest. The system shows how the most common types of glass and frame
types perform in term of heating, cooling and fading74.
Frames considered include aluminium, thermally broken aluminium, composite timber and
aluminium, timber and PVC. Glazing includes clear glass, tinted glass, laminated glass,
double glazing options and Low-E double glazing75.
WERS uses computer simulation, based on real data, to reflect the changes in performance in
the key areas of heating, cooling and fading. These computer results are translated to a generic
star rating system and allow an evaluation of the cost and benefit implications of various
frame and glass combinations. The New Zealand Building Code E2/VM1 1.2f requires that
Window and door units must be tested to NZS 4211 to the appropriate wind zone or specific
design wind pressure and labelled.
9.4.2 Australia - Window Efficiency Rating Scheme
WERS enables windows to be rated and labelled for their annual energy impact on a whole
house, in any climate of Australia. Window makers must obtain energy ratings for their
products and meet all Australian standards, including AS2047-1999 (Windows in Buildings-
Selection and Installation) and AS 1288-1994 (Glass in buildings - selection and installation).
WERS ranks residential windows for their energy performance in typical housing anywhere
in Australia and complements manufacturer's existing standards for wind, water penetration
and safety (AS 1288 and AS 2047).
In addition to WERS, a Skylight Energy Rating Scheme (SERS) has been developed. Some
skylight manufacturers are currently using the system, which provides similar information to
WERS, adjusted to skylight heating and cooling performance, as well as additional
information about daylighting performance.
The WERS scheme operates on three levels to convey information about the energy
performance of custom rated windows and skylights:
72 http://www.natureplus.org/uploads/tx_usernatureplus/RL1600_Wooden_Doors.pdf 73 http://www.wanz.co.nz/windows-efficient
74 http://www.design-navigator.co.nz/WERS2.html
75 http://www.wanz.org.nz/StarCharts
64
- Star ratings for cooling and heating performance: the more stars, the more energy-efficient
the window.
- Indicative % reduction in heating and cooling needs for the whole house, compared with
base case, single-glazed, standard aluminium window: the higher the percentage, the more
energy will be saved by installing the window.
- Basic thermal, solar and optical performance data including the U-value for the window; the
g-value; visible transmittance; fabric fading transmittance and air Infiltration.
Most windows are rated entirely by a two-stage process, physical testing and computer
simulation. After initial modelling or testing, a second stage of computer simulation follows
using Australia's Nationwide House Energy Rating Software is used, from which the final
WERS rating is generated.
WERS ranks windows in terms of their whole-house energy improvement when compared to
the base-case window. The rankings generate star ratings that give 11 levels of performance,
which is sufficient to distinguish different products without confusing consumers.
9.4.3 Australia - Skylight Energy Rating Scheme
The scheme provides procedures for the energy rating of skylights under the skylight module
of the WERS for roof windows76, skylights with shafts, and tubular skylights77. As with other
procedures for vertical windows, WERS for Skylights uses the WINDOW and THERM
fenestration modelling tools. WERS for Skylights provides comparative values for skylight
systems for:
- U-value (thermal transmittance, U-Factor)
- Solar heat gain coefficient (SHGC)
- Visible transmittance (VT)
- Luminous efficacy (.cool daylight rating.) (ke = VT / SHGC)
9.4.4 USA – ENERGY STAR
The ENERGY STAR includes windows, doors, skylights, and dynamic glazing products for
residential applications78. The performance of windows, doors, and skylights must be
independently tested and certified in accordance with National Fenestration Rating Council
76 Roof windows are termed „skylights. in the NFRC system; see NFRC Simulation Manual (2010) 77 Known as tubular daylighting devices (TDDs) in the NFRC system; see NFRC Simulation Manual (2010). 78http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/archives/downloads/windows_doors/WindowsDoorsSkylightsProgRequirements7Apr09.pdf
65
(NFRC) procedures for U-Factor (NFRC 100) and Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC)
(NFRC 200). All products containing insulating glass (IG) units must have them certified
according to NFRC procedures when such procedures are established. Tubular Daylighting
Devices must meet the skylight U-factor criteria using U-factor ratings certified under the
NFRC computer simulation procedure. Performance criteria for windows and skylights are
based on climatic zones and ratings certified by the NFRC79. To qualify for Energy Star,
products must have certified U-Factor and, where applicable, SHGC ratings at levels which
meet or exceed the minimum qualification criteria specified in Figure 8. Windows and
skylights, rated under the NFRC 2004 procedures or the most recent procedures available
from NFRC, must meet the criteria for a given ENERGY STAR Climate Zone.
Doors can provide more insulation than a window or skylight can (as they don't have any
glass or have lower glass-to-frame ratios than windows or skylights). Performance criteria for
doors are based on the amount of glass they have (called glazing level, see Figure 8) and
ratings certified by the NFRC.
Figure 8: ENERGY STAR Qualification Criteria for Residential Windows, Doors and Skylights
79 http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=windows_doors.pr_anat_window
66
9.4.5 USA – Green Seal
The Green Seal Standard for Windows establishes environmental requirements for residential
fenestration products including windows, skylights, glazed exterior doors, and storm doors80.
Standards for parameters specified are included such as U-values for the entire product
according to the provisions of the NFRC standard No.100-9181. Additionally the specific
standards for solar heat gain82, the visible light transmission coefficient83 and the air leakage
rate84 for the entire product are listed.
9.4.6 Canada – ENERGY STAR85.
Windows, doors, skylights, and dynamic glazing products (while in the minimum tinted state
for switch-able glazing products or the full “OPEN” position for internal shading systems) for
residential applications that have been certified for their energy performance may qualify for
the ENERGY STAR. To be ENERGY STAR qualified, products must meet specific energy
efficiency levels that have been set for four climate zones (A, B, C and D) in Canada. In
addition, all products must be certified by an accredited agency for their energy efficiency.
Products may comply based on either their U-factor or their Energy Rating (ER) that is a
formula that includes the U-factor, air leakage and the benefit of potential solar gain. The
higher this value is the higher the potential annual energy savings.
Table 19: Energy Rating and U-Factors for Windows and Doors
Zone Heating Degree-Day
Range
Compliance Paths Energy Rating or U-factor Minimum ER
U-factor<2.00 W/m²•K Maximum
U-factor W/m²•K Windows only Minimum ER
A ≤3500 21 or 1.80 (0.32) 13 B >3500 to ≤5500 25 or 1.60 (0.28) 17 C >5500 to ≤8000 29 or 1.40 (0.25) 21 D >8000 34 or 1.20 (0.21) 25
80 http://www.greenseal.org/Portals/0/Documents/Standards/GS-13/GS-13_Windows_Standard.pdf 81 NFRC Standard No. 100-91: Procedure for Determining Fenestration Product Thermal Properties (Currently Limited to U-values). NFRC Attachment A: Interim standard test method for measuring the steady state thermal transmittance of fenestration systems using hot box methods. 82 NFRC Standard No. 200-93: Procedure for Determining Fenestration Product Solar Heat Gain Coefficients at Normal Incidence 83 NFRC Standard No. 300-93: Procedure for Determining Fenestration Product Optical Properties 84 An entire product shall be measured at a wind speed of 25 MPH according to Test Procedure ASTM Standard No. E283-89 (04.07): Rate of Air Leakage Through Exterior Windows/Curtain Walls/Doors-Test, American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). When final, NFRC 400 may be used.
67
Table 20 :Heating degree-day range and maximum U-factor for Skylights
Zone Heating Degree-Day Range Maximum U-factor W/m²•K A ≤3500 2.80 (0.50) B >3500 to ≤5500 2.60 (0.46) C >5500 to ≤8000 2.40 (0.42) D >8000 2.20 (0.39)
Windows and sliding glass doors must also have an air leakage rate of ≤1.65m³/h/m of
product opening or ≤1.5 l/s/m2 of product area. Windows and sliding glass doors must also
have an air leakage rate of ≤1.65m³/h/m or ≤1.5 l/s/m².
9.3.7 Hong Kong – Green Label Scheme86.
The Hong Kong Green Label Scheme (HKGLS) launched in 2000 is a voluntary scheme for
the certification of environmentally preferable products. HKGLS is an ISO1402487 Type 1
label, which sets up the parameters “all ordinary windows and window-doors” must comply
with88. The following is a list of the criteria as outlined in this document:
- U-value < 1.4W/m2K.
- The windows shall not contain chlorinated plastics.
- The windows shall not contain additives based on Pb, Cd, chlorinated/brominated paraffin’s,
Hg, As, organic tin compounds, phthalates or polybrominated diphenylethers, and hexavalent
chromium.
- Criteria on paint (GL-008-010) shall apply to the painted windows whenever appropriate.
- Packaging materials shall not contain chlorine-based plastics and timber treated with
biocides or wood preservatives; and general packaging requirements shall comply with GL-
Packaging).
9.4.8 China – Environmental Label
Standards have been set for “Energy-Saving Doors and Windows” (HBC 2002–14)89. The
technical requirement specifies classification, definition, basic requirements, technical
contents and test method of environmental labelling for energy saving plastic doors and
windows. Table 21 list the requirements which windows and doors must conform to.
85 http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/residential/business/energystar/windows.cfm 86 http://www.greencouncil.org/eng/greenlabel/intro.asp 87 ISO 14024 Environmental Labels and Declarations- Type I Environmental Labelling - Principles and Procedures 88 http://www.greencouncil.org/hkgls/GL008004_rev3.pdf 89 http://www.sepacec.com/cecen/tr/200510/t20051008_94201.htm
68
Table 21: Heat insulating requirements for doors and windows
Physical property Limitation Wind resistance performance (Pa) ≥3000 Air tightness (m3/h·m) ≤0.5 Rainwater tightness (Pa) ≥350 Air sound weighted sound insulation performance (dB) ≥30
9.5. Conclusion of the comparison and review of European existing labels
The European legislation concerning the windows and external doors consists in directives,
regulations and transpositions into the national legislation. In addition, there are voluntary
agreements in many Member States that label the environmental performance of this product
group as well as recommendations to public authorities to purchase better environmental
performance products.
The European legislation addresses safety, end of life management, durability, energy
performance, packaging, content of hazardous substances, labelling of products as well as due
diligence.
At Member State level there is a number of labelling schemes focus primarily on the heat
transfer value (U-value) and solar energy transmittance (g-value), daylighting transmittance
and air permeability, material restrictions and energy efficiency. The national legislation of
the MS is generally speaking linked their building regulations and address the U-value which
is driven by better energy performance of the building as EPBD recast 2010 requires.
Just three MSs have national GPP criteria specifically for windows and/or doors: Belgium,
Finland and the UK. The criteria mainly focus on thermal efficiency, solar gain and air
tightness requirements, material restrictions, overall building efficiency, chemical restrictions,
waste management and lifetime considerations.
An array of third countries (e.g. Australia, USA, China) labels exist for windows and doors.
The primary focus of these labels is around the energy efficiency, implementation of new
windows, U and g-values, hazardous substances, end of life management and packaging
69
10.- Green public procurement in Europe
10.1 Requirements of the GPP communication.
The GPP scheme is a policy tool that aims at promoting voluntary measures to increase the
green spending of public authorities. GPP is not only important because governments are
among the largest purchasers of goods and services, but also because they can set positive
examples for consumers and business to follow. With GPP, authorities can demonstrate that
they are taking global challenges seriously and can inspire others to do the same.
Furthermore, environmental standards applied by public authorities may spread and set a
benchmark for producers as a whole. The GPP criteria are generally divided into core and
comprehensive criteria and can lead to savings, especially when a life cycle costing (LCC) is
considered.
GPP criteria should be based on scientific evidence and take into consideration the latest
technological developments. In this sense the following remarks should be considered:
- the most significant environmental impacts (air, water and soil pollution, impacts of
ecosystems and biodiversity, depletion of resources, etc)
- the substitution of hazardous substances by safer substances, as such as via the use of
alternative materials and designs, wherever technically feasible
- criteria should be expressed as far as reasonably possible via technical key environmental
performance indicators
Furthermore, the revision of the existing GPP criteria will try to harmonize the relevant
existing legislation and voluntary agreements. Although the approach and procedure of the
GPP criteria revision is similar and closely related to other SPC policy tool criteria
development, the application and purpose of these GPP criteria require some additional
issues. In particular, the GPP criteria require an estimation of the public procurement market,
public procurement expenditure, an evaluation of the costs to public procurers and a
demonstration of the ways in which life cycle costing (LCC) must be calculated. Moreover,
the net environmental balance between the environmental benefits and burdens, including
when appropriate social and ethical aspects, should be taken into consideration.
70
10.2. Public procurement market
In order to determine the possible impacts of GPP on the windows and external doors market,
it is necessary to determine the size of the market within public purchasing control. There are
four categories that play an important role: commercial buildings, hospitals, educational
establishments and prisons.
Little information was found on the percentage of schools, universities, hospitals or prisons
under public ownership across EU. In the absence of accurate data, alternative means of
estimating those percentages were required: for educational establishments90,91 and for
hospital92. Based on the above data and the assumptions, 100% of wholesale and retail floor
area as well as hotels and restaurants are privately owned, the following tables present the
estimate windows and external doors areas in the public sector.
Table 22. Estimated window area in public owned building m2
Offices Educational Hospital Sport facilities Other Publicly owned
window area m2 France 4,970,408 9,674,287 4,538,199 864,419 2,377,152 22,424,465 Germany 4,188,585 11,919,256 5,417,844 728,450 2,003,236 24,257,371 Italy 3,472,562 13,004,493 6,411,658 603,924 1,660,791 25,153,427 Poland 1,083,299 3,843,355 2,000,178 188,400 518,099 7,633,331 Spain 2,646,650 9,389,853 4,671,912 460,287 1,265,789 18,434,490 UK 2,381,285 8,917,740 3,333,799 414,137 1,138,875 16,185,836 EU27 20,700,000 77,520,000 37,800,000 3,600,000 9,900,000 149,520,000
Table 23. Estimated door area in publicly owned building m2
90 www.oecd.org/education/database [27.07.2011] 91 http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=RFIN1 [27.07.2011] 92 http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu /nui/show.do?query=BOOKMARK_DS-055814_QID_148EFB41_UID_-3F171EB0&layout=UNIT,L,X,0;HF_SHA,L,X,1;TIME,C,Y,0;GEO,L,Y,1;INDICATORS,C,Z,0;&zSelection=DS-055814INDICATORS,OBS_FLAG;&rankName1=INDICATORS_1_2_-1_2&rankName2=UNIT_1_2_0_0&rankName3=HF-SHA_1_2_1_0&rankName4=TIME_1_0_0_1&rankName5=GEO_1_2_1_1&sortR=ASC_-1_FIRST&pprRK=FIRST&pprSO=NO&rStp=&cStp=&rDCh=&cDCh=&rDM=true&cDM=true&footnes=false&empty=false&wai=false&time_mode=ROLLING&lang=EN
Country Offices Educational Hospital Sport facilities
Other Publicly owned door area m2
France 49,704 96,743 45,382 8,644 23,772 224,245 Germany 41,886 119,193 54,178 7,284 20,032 242,574 Italy 34,726 130,045 64,117 6,039 16,608 251,534 Poland 10,833 38,434 20,002 1,884 5,181 76,333 Spain 26,466 93,899 46,719 4,603 12,658 184,345 UK 23,813 89,177 33,338 4,141 11,389 161,858 EU27 207,000 775,200 378,000 36,000 99,000 1,495,200
71
10.3 European Green Public Procurement for Windows
The legal framework of the EU GPP scheme is set in Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC.
Current GPP criteria apply to windows, external glazed doors and skylights that will be used
in the building envelope, encompassing residential and commercial properties, and social
properties such as schools and hospitals since the product group is defined as an opening in a
wall or roof with glass mounted in a fixed frame to admit day-light. They are when possible
referred to the national regulations and standards and set thresholds on the following aspects
and split in the following kind of criteria:
Table 24. Summary of the current GPP criteria for windows
Technical Specifications provide a clear, accurate and full description of the requirement and standard to which goods, works or services should conform. 1 - Achievement of greater thermal efficiency than required by national regulations by demonstrating that the U-value, g-value, L50 value and daylighting transmittance indicators are improved in x% in comparison to the value defined in the relevant national legislation. The indicators are to be applied to the whole window, glazing and frame combined. The minimum improvement percentage recommended is 20%. 2 - Plastic components weighting > 50g should be marked according to ISO 11469 or equivalent 3 - Filler gases that contribute to the GHG effect, with a GWP >5 over a period of 100 years may not be used in the insulating units 4 - The bidder shall demonstrate that the production of PVC complies with the best practice in accordance with Vinyl 2010 or equivalent 5 – Timber used shall come from legal sources (comprehensive criterion) Selection Criteria based in the capacity/ability of the bidders to perform the contract No criteria proposed Award Criteria* set the basis of which the contracting authority will compare the offers and base its award. 1 - The final product made of wood, wood fibres or wood particles stemming from forest that are verified as being sustainably managed so as to implement the principles and measures aimed at ensuring sustainable forest management, on condition that these criteria characterize and are relevant for the product 2 - Lead (R23, R25 and H301, H331) and its compounds must not intentionally be added to the plastics and coatings used in windows. The final window product will not release or leach out any substances or preparations that are classified according to Directive 1999/45/EC and 67/548/CEEany substances with the listed R-phrases specified below, under normal usage conditions: carcinogenic (R40, R45, R49) , harmful to the reproductive system (R60, R61, R62, R63), mutagenic, cause heritable genetic damage and possible risks of irreversible effects (R46, R68), toxic (R23, R24, R25, R26, R27, R28, R51), allergenic when inhaled (R42), harmful to the environment (R50, R50/53, R51/53, R52, R52/53, R53), danger of serious damage to health by prolonged exposure (R48), 3 – The proportion to the recycled content of materials used. This excludes process waste. 4 – Chemical products (paint, adhesive, sealants, putty, etc) in the finished window must satisfy one of the following two criteria: a) the product may not be classified as environmentally hazardous according to the EU directive 1999/45/EC or b) the product may contain a maximum of 25 by weight of substances classified as environmentally hazardous according to EC directive 67/548/EC. For wood preservative this rises to 3% as defined by directive 67/548/EC (comprehensive criterion) Contract Performance Clauses specify the conditions must be met in the contract execution 1- The bidder must ensure maintenance recommendations are provided with the product. It also has to provide documented procedures and instructions for quality and environmental assurance
72
2- The bidder must demonstrate that the contractor for retro-fitting or refurbishing window installations has in place effective policies and procedures to ensure that post-consumer waste (i.e. the removed windows) is properly dealt with in a sustainable manner, such as recycling or diverting form landfill where possible (comprehensive criterion) *Award criteria are not pass/fail criteria, meaning that offers of products that don’t comply with the criteria may still be considered for the final decision, depending on their score on the other award criteria.
10.4 National Green Public Procurement schemes
In addition to the European GPP criteria, three MSs have national GPP criteria for this
product group: Belgium, Finland and the UK.
As well as the GPP criteria specifically for windows, a number of MSs have GPP criteria for
other construction activities which may influence the type of windows selected as they
include requirements in relation to materials and/or building energy efficiency requirements.
Table 2593 summarises the national GPP criteria for 10 Member States.
Table 25: GPP Information on Windows and General Construction for 10 Member States
Member State
Window General
construction Criteria Document
Environmental and/or social aspects addressed
Austria X Construction Wood from legal sources Overall building efficiency Waste reduction
Belgium X X
Sustainable Procurement Guide Windows and Exterior doors Construction Works
Thermal efficiency, solar gain and air tightness requirements Material restrictions for wood and plastic in frames Chemical restrictions Waste requirements Lifetime considerations
Finland X Criteria for Windows
Thermal efficiency, solar gain and air tightness requirements Adequate installation and operational instructions Expected life time warranty Chemical restrictions
France X
GEM Guide – Environmental quality in the construction and rehabilitation of public buildings
Overall building efficiency Waste management
Netherlands X Construction and Renovation of Office Buildings
Overall building efficiency Sustainable timber Waste management requirements
93 Assessment and Comparison of National Green and Sustainable Public Procurement Criteria and Underlying Schemes
73
Norway X Execution and construction of buildings
Tropical timber is not to be used Overall building efficiency Waste management
Sweden X Building Contracts (flats)
Whole building approach Waste management Daylight factor requirements.
United Kingdom
X X Glazing Standards
Thermal efficiency, solar gain and air tightness requirements Sustainable supply of timber as a raw material Overall building efficiency
EU X X Windows
Thermal efficiency, solar gain and air tightness requirements Material restrictions for wood and plastic in frames Chemical restrictions Waste requirements Lifetime considerations Overall building efficiency
74
11.- Developing an evidence base: preliminary results
This section aims at reporting the preliminary results obtained when the Methodology of the
Ecodesign of Energy Related Products (MEErP) was applied. An important part of MEErP is
EcoReport, a simplified life cycle tool. This tool was used to demonstrate the key
environmental life cycle impacts via the identification and application of three base cases of
typical products: a window and two external doors made of UPVC and wood. The
characteristics of these products are then used as input parameters to EcoReport.
11.1.- Description of the base cases
Windows and external doors of the domestic and non-domestic sectors come in a variety of
designs, using a range of different materials and varying functionality depending on their
intended use.
Windows: UPVC double glazed window
According to the stakeholders replies and the studies conducted previously point out that the
UPVC double glazed window is most dominant on the European market as a whole. These
windows are designed to be robust, hard wearing and long lived. They require little
maintenance and any replacement parts required are likely to be small components, such as
handles or hinges.
External doors: UPVC and solid wooden external doors
For external doors the market trend appears to be more evenly split between UPVC and
wooden external doors. For this reason two base cases have been developed: UPVC and solid
wooden. Both are designed to be robust, hard wearing and long lived. They require little
maintenance and any replacements parts but small components.
11.2 Technical inputs for EcoReport
EcoReport requires a number of technical inputs across the different life cycle phases of
production, distribution, use and end-of-life. In addition to the base case analyses, further
analyses have been done using EcoReport looking at a range of other window and external
doors, including wood and aluminium framed windows, and single and triple glazing, as well
as UPVC and wooden doors that will be briefly reported in the coming sections.
75
11.2.1 Production phase
The information used in this section was provided by the stakeholder consultation and direct
contact through telephone conversations and meetings. The materials used are limited and the
majority of the windows are of UPVC whilst external doors tend to be a balance between
UPVC and wood. This is unlikely to change in the short to medium term. Windows tend to be
double glazing although this situation varies between different MS.
11.2.2 Distribution phase
EcoReport considers in this phase the packaging and packaged volume. Whilst stakeholder
contribution did not provide detailed BoM data for packaging, stakeholders indicated that
windows and external doors are predominantly supplied in plastic film packaging with the
fittings usually supplied in plastic packaging and transported on reusable pallets.
11.2.3 Use phase
The main factor of this phase is the influence on the building's energy performance. In order
to calculate the energy balance of windows and external doors a number of assumptions have
been made:
11.2.3.a Calculation of energy consumption - Windows
The energy balance of a window and external door is influenced by its construction, the
building it is installed in and the local climate. Due to these factors, it is difficult to define the
standard window and external door. However, for this project two important values were
considered the u-value, which represents the heat losses through the window or external door
and the g-value that accounts for the heat gains.
For windows, most of the national labels do not calculate an energy balance figure, instead of
that they present standards for the U- and g-value that must be achieved within that country.
The BFRC scheme94 in the UK is the main exception and has used an energy rating
calculation for a number of years. It is understood that the schemes in Finland and more
recently Denmark use a similar approach; however detailed information relating to the
equations and scope of these two schemes has not been identified for the research to date.
76
Further communication with relevant stakeholders is underway to understand them further.
Given that EcoReport requires energy input figures in terms of kWh, BFRC calculation
routine has been considered. The analysis in Table 24 shows the BFRC energy ratings
calculated for a range of different windows, with various energy performances from the most
energy efficient to the worst energy efficient windows. Generally speaking, high performing
windows with low U-value and a relatively high g-value performed better as they have a net
energy gain, mainly due to minimal heat loss and additional heat gained through solar gains.
Window 1 is a possible best frame and triple glazing window while window 14 is the worst
performing with a net energy loss due to considerably higher U-value, this window is
constructed of poor quality frame and single glazing. Further information is available in the
Technical Analysis document95.
Table 26. Energy performance of a range of windows
Num U-value g-value BRFC Num U-value g-value BRFC 1 0.7 0.51 51.70 8 1.95 0.67 -2.44 2 1.0 0.58 44.92 9 1.95 0.46 -43.76 3 1.1 0.60 42.01 10 2.6 0.78 -25.32 4 1.4 0.58 17.52 11 2.6 0.56 -68.61 5 1.4 0.63 27.36 12 2.5 0.78 -19.16 6 1.5 0.67 28.38 13 4.7 0.87 -151.47 7 1.5 0.46 -12.93 14 4.7 0.66 -192.78
Units: Overall U-Value (W/m2K), Glass g-value (W/m2K) and BFRC rating (kWh/m2/y)
For the base case, the energy performance of window 12 has been used. The energy
performance in a UK scenario will be used to calculate the environmental impacts of the
window along its life cycle phases and afterwards to provide an indication of the key factors
on which to focus the environmental criteria. Further analysis commissioned by Velux and
completed by the University of Denmark, aimed to provide an energy balance of the window
within different climatic areas of Europe96. This research has been used to inform part of the
sensitivity analysis undertaken, of which further details can be found in the Technical
Analysis document.
In addition to the EcoReport results, additional analysis was done on the impacts of different
local climatic conditions on the U- and g-values when the heating and cooling seasons
change. Further information regarding this is available in the Technical Analysis document.
94 http://www.bfrc.org/ 95 Technical analysis document available on : http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/windoors/stakeholders.html 96 http:/www.byg.dtu.dk/iupload/insntituttter
77
The table below shows the energy balance of a standard double, single and triple glazed
window for the size of glazing used for this analysis, based on the energy balance calculations
using the BFRC scheme equation.
Table 27 EcoReports inputs for energy consumption for windows
Glazing Glazing (m2) U-value (/m2) g-value (/m2) Heat loss (kWh/a) Heat saved (kWh/a) Double 1.82 2.5 0.78 34.88 0 Single 1.82 4.7 0.87 275.68 0 Triple 1.82 1.5 0.67 0 76.46
10.2.3.b Calculation of energy consumption – External doors
The BFRC have extended their rating scheme to include external doors, this also provides an
energy balance figure for external doors (kWh/m2/y) which will vary depending on the
performance parameters, in this case the U-value.
The BFRC rating scheme for doors uses a standard size of 1.23m wide x 2.18m high. The
scheme identifies three types of door design: a solid door, partially glazed door (10-30%
glazing), and a fully glazed door (>30% glazing). All three door types cater for all material
styles which are mainly UPVC, aluminium and timber.
The calculation methodology dictates that solar gain does not to be taken into account for
doors with glazing of less than 60%. Any door with glazing above 60%, where solar gain
needs to be considered, e.g. patio, French doors or sliding doors, would be treated as
windows. BFRC analysis explains that solar gains (g-value) should not be taken into account
when calculating the energy balance of an external door because it covers a much smaller
proportion from low U-values of 0.7 to high U-values of 1.8 W/m2K
For the purpose of this study, the energy performance of the door base cases has been based
on a door matching the UK building regulations requirement with a U-value of 1.4 W/m2K,
air leakage 0 m3/mh and a rating -96 kWh/m2/y.
Table 28 provides the energy balance of a standard door, based on high energy loss, medium
energy loss ad low energy loss within the context of the UK building regulations and the
BFRC energy rating scheme for doors
Table 28. EcoReport inputs for energy consumption for External doors
Door type Size (m2) U-value (/m2) Heat loss (kWh/year) High energy loss 2.68 1.4 257.28 Medium energy loss 2.68 1.1 201.00 Low energy loss 2.68 0.7 128.64
78
11.2.3.c Calculation of water usage per window and external door
Domestic and non-domestic windows and external doors would be cleaned on a regular basis.
However, no indication was given to the quantity of water consumption or the frequency of
the cleaning process. Estimations of 0.009m3/year per standard window and door was taken.
11.2.3.d Other in-use inputs
The use phase of windows and external doors will, in addition to the energy balance and
cleaning outlined, require detergent for the cleaning process. Also maintenance and repair
during their lifetime should be considered. Considering the latter first, as a first
approximation, window repair is infrequent and therefore it is unlikely to be a major
contributor to the life cycle. Considering cleaning, an estimation of 15ml detergent used per
window and year is considered (density 1kg/l à 0.02kg).
11.2.3.e End-of-life phase
Windows are considered to be usually recycled due to the economic value of UPVC,
aluminium and wood as well as that of glass. EcoReport fixed assumptions for the reuse,
recycling and recovery rates of materials.
Default values, based on a number of sources and assumptions are presented in Table 29.
These EcoReport default values for reuse, recycling and recovery rates have been used
alongside EcoReport’s defaults for incineration and landfill disposal. These values relate to
different categories of materials and not specific materials within the different categories.
Table 29, EcoReport default values for fate of materials at end-of-life
Fate Bulk Plastics Tecplastics Ferro Non-ferro Extra EoL mass fraction to reuse, in % 1 1 1 1 1 EoL mass fraction to recycling, in % 29 29 94 94 60 EoL mass fraction to heat recovery, in % 15 15 0 0 0 EoL mass fraction to incineration, in % 22 22 0 0 10 EoL mass fraction to landfill, missing, fugitive, in %
33 33 5 5 29
79
There is scope to change some of these values (not metals), and we would welcome the
opportunity to discuss this with stakeholders at the first workshop in June 2012 as
appropriate.
11.3 Base Cases
11.3.1 Windows – product Specific Inputs
11.3.1.a Bill of Materials
Considering the information previously analyzed the bill of materials (BoM) for a window of
UPVC and double glazing is summarized in Table 30. Moreover, a number of materials that
are not included in the standard list of EcoReport materials, such as flat glass, double and
triple glazing, wood and paint have been considered. The emission data for 1kg of these non-
included materials has been extracted for Simapro, after being multiplied by the impact
emission factors already established within EcoReport.
Table 30. Bill of materials – UPVC double glazed window UPVC framed double glazing (1230x1480mm)
Material Weight Dimensions
EcoReport code Comments / Remarks
Construction phase
UPVC frame 18.030 g 8-PVC Fittings (metal) 1.250 g 33-ZnAl4 cast Fittings (plastic) 1.000 g 8-PVC Fittings (rubber) 1.000 g 56- Bitumen Glazing 41.940 g 102-2 glazing
Packing plastic 0.18m3 Use phase Water for cleaning 9 l Lifetime 30 years Detergent 15 ml Heat loss 34.88 kWh/y
11.3.1.b Windows – Environmental Impact assessment
As commented, glazing is not included in EcoReport. However, developers of EcoReport
indicated that group 55 has been used to represent glass in other product groups, such as
shelves and lighting equipment. Glazing is obviously a significant component of windows and
therefore has an important contribution to several environmental indicators. The data used for
double glazing in EcoReport were obtained from Simapro and summarized in Table 31.
80
Table 31. AEA Impact assessment for double glazing
Name / material Units 102 - Double Glazing Other Resources & Waste
Primary Energy MJ 9.12 Electrical Energy MJ 0.80 Feedstock MJ 0.00 Water (process) litres 14.58 Water (cooling) litres 23.91 Haz Waste g 0.00 Non-Haz Waste g 70.00
Air Emissions
GWP kg CO2 eq. 2.13 AP g SO2 eq. 11.14 VOC mg 456.88 POP ng i-Teq 0.00 Heavy Metals mg Ni eq. 23.59 PAH mg Ni eq. 20.70 PM g 2.11
Water Emissions
Heavy Metals mg Hg/20 20.46 EP mg PO4 2,202.82
A summary of the data generated by the EcoReport tool, based on the inputs described, is
reported in this section. Although a detailed explanation of the results can be found in the
Technical Analysis document97, herewith the main aspects are summarized:
Resources and waste
- energy usage: the total energy use contributes from all four life cycle stages, with the use
phase being the most significant. The production impact includes the direct energy use to
produce the window, as well as non-product related energy use associated with aspects such
as the fuel mix and electricity distribution losses which are predefined by EcoReport.
Additional information regarding the assumptions behind the environmental impact unit
indicators can be found in the EcoReport methodology report98. The total energy consumption
in the production and manufacturing phases is dominated by the UPVC frame production.
The use phase makes the most significant contribution to the total energy use; further
investigation reveals that this is directly linked to the energy loss through the window glazing,
as expected. The energy use in the distribution phase relates to the transportation of products
to retail outlets. EcoReport assumes that the transport uses a medium-sized truck travelling a
distance of 200km. The impact for distribution is calculated based on the size of product
being transported.
97 Technical Analysis document available under http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/windoors/stakeholders.html 98http://www.eup-network.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Produktgruppen/ Methodology_prep_study/MEErP_study_by_vhk/20110819_MEErP_Methodology_Part_1.pdf
81
- water usage: the process water consumption is dominated by the production phase. The
amount of process water consumed in the use phase reflects the water consumption during the
window cleaning stage. There is a credit at the end-of-life for water recovered during the
water treatment process (considered in EcoReport by default).
The amount of cooling water used throughout the life cycle is focused in the production
phase, and is associated with the energy consumption used for the production process being
higher for the production of PVC and glass. Cooling water will be used as part of the energy
production processes, and will for example be taken and returned to nearby rivers once it has
been used for cooling. EcoReport reveals that the higher the total weight of raw materials is
used, including UPVC and glass that the higher water usage will be.
- wastes generated: The production phase dominates the amount of non-hazardous waste
production, though the total figures involved are relatively small. The production and
manufacturing phase makes the single largest contributions, arising from both the production
of raw materials (mainly glass and plastics) and from manufacturing process. Recycling at
end-of-life phase leads to a reduction in waste production as a result of the recovery of
materials. Hazardous waste generation is mainly from UPVC production phase, and is very
low in total.
Air emissions
- GWP100: The impact for GWP is significant in the in use phase, resulting from the energy
production for heating and its associated energy loss. The production phase and end-of-life
impacts are due to the production impacts of the UPVC and glass materials and the credits
earned through the recycling of these materials.
- other emissions: The general profile of the impact assessment for acidification, VOCs,
POPs, Heavy Metals and PAHs follow a similar trend with the production phase dominating
the impact. The raw material extraction and manufacturing processes involved in the
production of mainly glass and to a lesser extent UPVC, steel and rubber which are smaller
components of the overall window. In all five of these impact categories a credit is seen for
the end-of-life phases, driven by the benefit of recycling these materials.
Although the net result is still an impact, a significant contribution to POP emissions arises
from recycling, where credit arises for recycling UPVC, glass and metals. The production
phase is mostly impacted by manufacturing and production of materials. The PM emissions
for the standard window are related to the distribution phase.
82
Emissions to water
- Heavy metal emissions to water arise mostly from the production and the end of life
stages, with the former dominating, associated with the double glazing glass manufacturing.
- Eutrophication impacts for the window are very low across all life cycle phases. The
largest contribution is the production processes of the double glazing.
Table 32 Impact Summary for a UPVC Double Glazed Window
Parameter Unit Production %
Distribution %
Use %
End of Life %
Other Resources & Waste Total Energy (GER) MJ 29% 4% 62% 5% of which, electricity (in primary MJ)
MJ 93% 0% 1% 7%
Water (process) ltr 46% 0% 21% 32% Water (cooling) ltr 75% 0% 1% 25% Waste, non-haz./ landfill g 77% 2% 1% 20% Waste, hazardous/ incinerated g 82% 4% 1% 13% Emissions (Air) Greenhouse Gases in GWP100 kg CO2 eq. 33% 4% 51% 12% Acidification, emissions g SO2 eq. 66% 5% 6% 23% Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) g 62% 0% 1% 38% Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) ng i-Teq 51% 1% 1% 48% Heavy Metals mg Ni eq. 62% 1% 1% 37% PAHs mg Ni eq. 61% 1% 1% 37% Particulate Matter (PM, dust) g 34% 49% 0% 17% Emissions (Water) Heavy Metals mg Hg/20 63% 0% 1% 37% Eutrophication g PO4 68% 0% 1% 31%
The in use phase dominates two impact assessment categories: total energy consumption
and GWP while for the other impact assessments, with the exception of PM related to the
distribution phase, it is the production phase that has the largest impact.
11.3.2 External doors – product Specific Inputs
11.3.2.a Bill of Materials
Similarly to the window base case, the materials used in the base cases under consideration
for the external doors (UPVC and wooden ones) are presented in Table 33.
83
Table 33. Bill of materials – UPVC double glazed window Solid UPVC door (1230mm x 2180mm)
Material Weight Dimension
EcoReport code Comments / Remarks
Construction phase
UPVC 30.000 g 8-PVC Fittings (stainless steel)
5.000 g 26- Stainless 18/8 coil
Fittings (aluminum)
1.900 g 28-Al diecast
Fittings (zinc) 4.200 g 33- Zn Al4 cast Fittings (plastic) 1.000 g 8-PVC
Packing plastic 0.27m3 Use phase Water consumpt Lifetime 30 years
Detergent Heat loss 257.28 kWh/a
Solid Wooden door (1230mm x 2180mm) Hardwood 63,240 105-Hard wood Fittings
(Stainless steel) 5,000 26 –Stainless
18/8 coil
Fittings (Aluminium)
1,900 28 –Al diecast
Fittings (Zinc) 4,200 33 –ZnAl4 cast Fittings (Plastic) 1,000 8 –PVC Packing plastic 0.27m3 Use phase Water consumpt Lifetime 30 years
Detergent Heat loss 257.28 kWh/a
11.3.2.b External doors –Environmental impact assessment
As in the previous case, not all the materials needed are in the database of the Ecoreport. For
this reason, data from Simapro was used and summarized in Table 34.
Table 34. AEA Impact assessment for double glazing Name / material Units 105 - Hard wood Other Resources & Waste
Primary Energy MJ 0 Electrical Energy MJ 0.17 Feedstock MJ 0 Water (process) litres 2.09 Water (cooling) litres 2.83 Haz Waste g 0 Non-Haz Waste g 0
Air Emissions
GWP kg CO2 eq. 0.82 AP g SO2 eq. 1.23 VOC mg 650.00 POP ng i-Teq 9.25E-05 Heavy Metals mg Ni eq. 0.58 PAH mg Ni eq. 0.94 PM g 0.31
Water Emissions
Heavy Metals mg Hg/20 2.00 EP mg PO4 320.79
84
11.3.2.c External doors – Environmental Impact assessment
A summary of the data generated by the EcoReport tool, based on the inputs described, is
reported in this section. Further information can be found in the Technical Analysis
document99.
Resources and waste
- energy usage: all four life cycle stages contribute to the energy usage, with the use phase
the most significant. Total energy in the production and manufacturing phase is dominated by
the UPVC frame production. The impact during production phase is much smaller for the
wooden door. The use phase makes the most significant contribution to total energy use;
because this is directly linked to the energy loss, as expected.
- Water Usage is dominated by the production phase for both UPVC and wooden doors (to a
slightly lesser extent).The amount of process water in the use phase reflects the water
consumption during the window cleaning stage. There is a credit at end of life for water
recovered during the water treatment process, as explained before. The amount of cooling
water used is focused in the production phase, mainly by UPVC doors.
- Wastes generated of non-hazardous is dominated by the production phase. The production
and manufacturing phase makes the single largest contributions, arising from both the
production of raw materials and from the manufacturing process, this is true for both UPVC
and wooden doors. Recycling at end of life phase leads to a reduction in waste production
from the recovery of materials. The credit at end of life is similar for both UPVC and wooden
doors. Hazardous waste generation is mainly from production phase especially for UPVC
door. For wooden doors the impact is small across all four phases of the product.
Emissions to the air
- Acidification emission varies for both UPVC and wooden doors. The larger impact for the
production and manufacturing phase for the UPVC door is mainly due to the energy
consumed in the materials extraction and production phase. The impact during production
phase for wood is less due to the reduced energy demand during the production and
manufacturing process of wooden materials.
99 Technical analysis document available on http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/windoors/stakeholders.html
85
The impact during the in use phase is also relatively high for both types of doors, but
especially for a wooden door in relation to the other three phases, where the in use phase
contributes the highest impact.
- VOC impact is minimal for UPVC doors. In comparison for a wooden door the production
phase is influenced by VOCs due to the natural properties of wood, with significantly higher
levels of VOCs.
- POPs, heavy metals and PAHs follow a similar trend. Production phase dominates the
impact, driven by the raw material extraction and manufacturing process of mainly UPVC and
wood and to a lesser extent steel and other plastic. For both POPs and heavy metals a credit is
seen for the end-of-life phase, driven by the benefit of recycling these materials. PAHs
impacts are minimal across all five phases. PM distribution phase is dominated by distributing
the materials.
Emissions to water
- Heavy metal emissions arise mostly from the production and the end of life stages, with
the former dominating, associated with the UPVC and wood manufacturing.
- Eutrophication impacts for the external door are relatively low overall with the largest
contribution arising from the production processes.
The in use phase dominates two impact assessment categories: total energy and GWP. For all
other impact category, except PM, it is the production phase that has the largest impact.
Table 35 Impact Assessment for a UPVC and a wooden External Door Parameters of the UPVC door Unit % Prod % Dist % Use % EoL
Other Resources & Waste Total Energy (GER) MJ 9% 1% 88% 2% of which, electricity (in primary MJ) MJ 92% 0% 0% 7% Water (process) ltr 43% 0% 22% 34% Water (cooling) ltr 87% 0% 1% 12% Waste, non-haz./ landfill g 68% 2% 0% 30% Waste, hazardous/ incinerated g 83% 3% 1% 13% Emissions (Air) Greenhouse Gases in GWP100 kg CO2 eq. 8% 1% 88% 2% Acidification, emissions g SO2 eq. 51% 4% 27% 18% Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) mg 3% 17% 78% 2% Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) ng i-Teq 52% 0% 1% 47% Heavy Metals mg Ni eq. 52% 1% 0% 47% PAHs mg Ni eq. 43% 16% 2% 39% Particulate Matter (PM, dust) g 16% 78% 1% 5% Emissions (Water)
86
Heavy Metals mg Hg/20 55% 0% 1% 45% Eutrophication mg PO4 68% 0% 1% 32%
11. 4 Scenario cases – Sensitivity analysis
Any number of parameters could be varied in relation to the base case analysis of a standard
UPVC double glazed window. The energy consumption in the use phase is the most
significant environmental factor, though other factors also merit investigation. In this section,
results of a number of sensitivity analyses varying the energy used, the material used and
finally the extended product lifetime are presented. Unless otherwise stated, the results are
presented over the lifetime of the products i.e. 30 years.
11.4.1 Energy consumption
The energy balance for the standard UPVC double glazed window was a net energy loss of
34.88 kWh/a piece. However, the energy performance of a window can vary depending on
various factors, for example whether the glazing is triple or single glazed. Based on the
energy rating, the worst performing window, with the highest net energy loss, was a single
glazed window (275.68 kWh/a) with a glazed surface of 1.82m2. On the other hand, windows
Parameters of the wooden door Unit % Prod % Dist % Use % EoL Other Resources & Waste Total Energy (GER) MJ 2% 1% 94% 2% of which, electricity (in primary MJ) MJ 73% 0% 1% 25% Water (process) ltr 35% 0% 25% 40% Water (cooling) ltr 67% 0% 1% 33% Waste, non-haz./ landfill g 53% 2% 1% 44% Waste, hazardous/ incinerated g 46% 33% 2% 19% Emissions (Air) Greenhouse Gases in GWP100 kg CO2 eq. 6% 2% 88% 4% Acidification, emissions g SO2 eq. 34% 6% 33% 27% Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) g 62% 0% 1% 38% Persistent Organic Pollutants (POP) ng i-Teq 52% 0% 1% 47% Heavy Metals mg Ni eq. 52% 1% 1% 47% PAHs mg Ni eq. 52% 8% 1% 39% Particulate Matter (PM, dust) g 8% 86% 1% 6% Emissions (Water) Heavy Metals mg Hg/20 53% 0% 1% 46% Eutrophication g PO4 61% 0% 1% 39%
87
constructed using triple glazing result in a net energy gain. This is especially true for high
quality triple glazed windows which represent a net energy gain, ranging from 31.88 kWh/a to
94.10 kWh/a depending on the g-value (solar gain) of the window.
Using this information and the same assumptions, the specifications of the glazing were
changed. Table 34 shows the results when changing the weight of the glazing material. The
datasets refers to the base-case with a net energy loss of 34.88kWh/year, a single glazed
window with a high net energy loss of 275.68kWh/ year (SG), a double glazed window with
low net energy gain of 51.65kWh/ year (DG) and a triple glazed window with high net energy
gain of 76.46 per year (TG).
Table 36 BoM for the range of windows with different energy balance Material (g) EcoReport
code Base Case
SG DG TP
UPVC frame 8-PVC 18,030 18,030 18,030 18,030 Fittings (Metal) 33-ZnAl4 cast 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250 Fittings (Plastic) 8 -PVC 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Fittings (Rubber) 56 -Bitumen 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Glazing 102 –Double glazing 41,940 0 41,940 0 103- Triple Glazing 0 0 0 58,574 101- Single Glazing 0 21,410 0 0
As expected the total energy consumption is higher for a single glazed window where the net
energy balance is a significant energy loss. On the other hand, a credit is seen for a triple
glazed window where the net energy balance is energy gain. For almost all other categories
(except acidification) the impact of a triple glazing window is greater than a high efficiency
double glazed window due the production and manufacturing impact of materials such as
glass in particular.
11.4.2.1 Energy balance in different climates
The energy balance of the standard base case window was assessed based on the three
different climate areas and the energy performance during the heating season based on
research undertaken by DTU and detailed in the Technical Analysis document.100. A standard
double glazed window in climate zone 1 (Northern Europe) had an energy balance of net
energy loss of 180.38kWh/a. The same window in Zone 2 (Central Europe) has a net energy
loss of 93.51kWh/a. Finally a window in Zone 3 (Southern Europe) has a net energy gain of
100 Technical analysis document available on http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/windoors/stakeholders.html
88
118.18kWh/a. By changing the energy consumption figure in EcoReport, and leaving all other
parameters of the base case the same, a comparison between the performances of the same
window in different climatic areas was made.
The total energy, GWP and acidification, VOCs, PAHs and PM impacts are less for windows
in warmer climates compared to a cold climate in Northern Europe. A credit is seen for
windows in warmer climates where there is heat gain through the window. For all other
impact categories, there is no change between the different zones, demonstrating that the
energy consumption during the in use phase does not have an impact on these.
Similarly the energy balance of the defined window was assessed based on the performance
during the cooling season, The standard double glazed window in Zone 1 had an energy
balance of net energy gain of 22.71kWh/a, in Zone 2 the net energy gain was 36.15kWh/a and
in Zone 3 of 134.90kWh/a. The results show a net energy gain for all three windows in the
three different climate zones. As expected the results are similar to the heating season with
Total Energy, GWP, AE, VOCs, PAHs and PM showing a smaller impact for windows in
warmer climate due to the higher solar gain. Again all other impact categories are not affected
due to the in use phase not impacting on these.
The results show that during a cooling season in north and central Europe zones the U-value
appears to be the dominant factor. In south Europe, where it is warmer, a very low U-value is
not so important. During the heating season, windows with a very low g-value but also a high
U-value perform better. Therefore, solar gain is minimised and heat is able to be lost through
the window reducing the cooling loads. This shows that the environmental performance of a
window very much depends on its location and the balance between the heating and cooling
seasons of this location. Further background and analysis with regards the effect of climate on
a windows performance can be found in the Technical Analysis document101.
Table 37. Environmental impacts related to the different zones Env impact Z1 Z2 Z3 unit Air emissions GWP 100 1500 800 -750 kgCO2eq Acidification 1100 900 400 kgSO2eq VOC 32 24 4 G POP 5.8 5.8 5.8 ng i-Teq Heavy metals 420 420 420 mg Ni eq PAHs 359.6 359.2 358.4 mg Ni eq PM 845 842 834 G Total energy 28000 15000 -12000 MJ Water emissions
101 Technical analysis document available on http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/windoors/stakeholders.html
89
Heavy metals 400 400 400 mg hg/20 Eutrophication 7 7 7 g PO4 Water process 620 620 620 l Water cooling 1600 1600 1600 l Waste generation Waste non-harz 3950 3950 3950 g Waste harz 82 82 82 g
11.4.3 Material change
The window frame base-case with standard double glazing made of UPVC was compared
with a hardwood, softwood and aluminium frame. In contrast to energy usage, the change of
the frame material has an impact on some of the other impact categories. Closer inspection
reveals that switching to a wooden frame results in an increased impact for VOCs, Heavy
Metals and PAHs due to the manufacturing process of timber frames, especially due to the
high energy consumption during the kiln drying process. For the other impact categories there
is a reduced impact due to the smaller impacts at the material extraction phase.
For aluminium framed windows, the total energy consumption is slightly less than UPVC,
mainly influenced by the energy saved during the manufacturing process due to the high
proportion of aluminium recycled. Heavy metals (air and water), PAHs and POPs impact are
higher compared to UPVC and wooden frames, mainly due to the material extraction and
production phase.
For both non-hazardous and hazardous waste, the impact for UPVC is particularly higher than
the other materials. This is mainly due to the fate of the materials at end-of-life. Both
softwood and hardwood materials were added in extra materials category assuming that they
are 60% recycled. Similarly aluminium has a high recycling rate of 94% while only 29% of
plastics are assumed to be recycled. Therefore, the results show a much bigger impact from
waste production for UPVC framed windows compared to wood and aluminium frames.
As highlighted earlier, this is based on the default values within EcoReport. Therefore, results
can be slightly different depending on the assumptions considered.
Table 38. Environmental impacts related to the different frame materials Env impact UPVC Sw Hw Alu Air emissions GWP 100 408 348 342 357 Acidification 780 400 390 480 VOC 17 27 25 21 POP 6 6 6 35 Heavy metals 410 420 420 580 PAHs 360 380 380 510
90
PM 840 775 770 785 Total energy 7200 5500 5500 5900 Water emissions Heavy metals 400 400 400 500 Eutrophication 6.9 0.5 0.5 0.5 Water process 620 500 500 580 Water cooling 1600 510 510 530 Waste generation Waste non-harz 4000 400 400 900 Waste harz 85 10 10 10
11.4.4 Extended product life time
The environmental impact of extending a product’s lifetime is not a straightforward
consideration. A longer product lifetime means more years of use and therefore, inevitably,
larger total impacts, especially for the use phase. However, looking at the impacts on a per-
year basis, the longer the lifetime, the longer the period over which the production,
distribution and end-of-life environmental impacts can be shared, reducing the net impact per
year. Meanwhile, the use phase impacts are assumed to be the same year-on-year, so these
have no influence on the results.
This conceptual analysis shows how impacts change from the base-case of 30 years to a
shorter (20 years) or longer lifetime (40 years). Increasing a windows’ life time by 10 years is
plausible, and the results suggest that every environmental impact would be reduced if this
could be achieved. Stakeholder feedback has made it clear that product lifetime in these
categories varies between 20 and 50 years.
Table 39. Environmental impacts related to the different life time Env impact 30 20 40 Units Air emissions GWP 100 400 310 500 kgCO2eq Acidification 770 745 800 kgSO2eq VOC 18 16.7 19.2 G POP 5.79 5.78 5.80 ng i-Teq Heavy metals 417.521 417.517 417.524 mg Ni eq PAHs 359.01 358.96 359.06 mg Ni eq PM 840.1 839.6 840.6 G Total energy 7000 5800 8500 MJ Water emissions Heavy metals 393.33 393.32 393.34 mg hg/20 Eutrophication 6.85125 6.8511 6.8514 g PO4 Water process 630 590 700 l Water cooling 1637.43 1637.42 1637.44 l Waste generation Waste non-harz 3864.5 3862 3867 g Waste harz 86.28 86.23 86.32 g
91
11.5 Summary of the findings
This section reports the results of the EcoReport analysis carried out for the base-cases,
mainly a standard UPVC double glazed window and a UPVC door and wooden door. Looking
at the environmental impacts of the standard window as modelled in EcoReport, the single
most significant impact is related to total energy consumption. Almost 5,000MJ of energy are
lost during the use phase of a double glazed window’s lifetime. This is twice as much as the
volume of energy used during the production phase.
The other significant environmental impact is the GHG emissions, influenced by the energy
consumption in use phase. High efficiency performing windows, i.e. ones with a good energy
balance, where energy is saved as opposed to loss, see a credit in GHG emissions. Other
impact assessment categories are dominated by the production and manufacturing phase,
attributable largely to the production of key materials e.g. UPVC, wood, aluminium and glass
and to a much smaller extent for stainless steel and rubber fixtures and fittings.
A further environmental impact is PM, which arises from moving the heavy products around
in vehicles (distribution phase). However, the way to mitigate this impact is more likely to lie
in improving transport emissions than light weighting the products, though this is also
demonstrated to deliver environmental benefits.
The U-value and g-value properties influence the performance of a window when used in
different climates. Therefore criteria should take account of local climate to ensure the
performance of the window is optimised. Without a common European wide methodology or
rating scheme to assess windows across different Member States, it will be necessary to make
reference to national legislative requirements as a baseline against which better performing
products can be specified.
For external doors, the results are similar. External doors are not expected to have a
significant net energy gain due to their much smaller over all proportion of a buildings surface
area and the reduced level of glazing. Without this energy gain, the energy loss becomes the
key parameter for the energy rating of external doors. With these findings in mind, the natural
conclusion is that window and external door manufacturers wishing to improve the
environmental performance of their products should look primarily towards designing
systems where heat loss is minimised during the use phase. That means that depending on
other parameters such as climate, a balance between the U- and g-values is needed. The
92
production phase also has a considerable effect, in particular from impact categories such as
water consumption, acidification and VOC emissions and heavy metals.
93
12. Best available technology and best not yet available technology
In this section new and emerging technologies are investigated for windows and external
doors with respect to best available technology (BAT) and best not yet available technology
(BNAT). The term best is taken to mean the most effective in achieving a high level of
environmental performance of the product. The term available technology means that
developed on a scale that allows implementation of the product, under economically and
technically viable conditions, taking into consideration the costs and benefits. On the other
hand, not yet available technology means that not yet developed on a scale that allows the
implementation for the relevant product, but that is subject to research and development.
In the recent years the development of window technology has been focused on improving the
energy balance of the window while maintaining a satisfactory indoor environment for a
particular climate. Between 30-50% of the total energy loss of buildings comes from windows
therefore saving energy and carbon emissions are a top priority for the industry. Windows
have a huge potential to mitigate energy loss in building however, the best window/glazing
solution will depend on the location specific aspects climate, orientation, etc.
The information in this section will identify how products are improving and identifies the
technical standards which new products may reach including U- and g-values and other
thermal performance characteristics.
12.1 Best Available Technology
12.1.1 Description of BAT
The technologies described in this section were identified which are either: a) are currently at
the applied/prototype stage which may take two to three year to come to market or b) products
very new to the market that have yet to achieve market uptake due to cost or technology
barriers. Further information on these technologies can be found in the BAT and BNAT
document102
12.1.1.a Windows
In the recent years, the trend for highly glazed buildings, conservatories and orangeries has
grown worldwide. Recognising the trend and the influence it has upon energy consumption,
94
governments have ensured that national building standards have incorporated ever stricter
regulations governing the thermal performance of building fabric including windows. These
changes and a focus from consumers on energy efficiency has put pressure on industry
respond.
Glazing: Glazing nearly always comprises the largest area of the overall window unit in
terms of area and therefore the properties of the glazing are very important.
Multilayer glazing is the most popular commercially available glazing across EU. Triple
glazing is growing in popularity due to the low U-value that can be achieved. A lower U-
value provides a higher resistance to the flow of the heat through the window and is more
ideal in cold climates.
The gas fill between the panes is typically argon or krypton (with lower U-value and less
cavity or fill requirements and thus less weight). The use of triple glazing with U-value of 0.6
W/m2K has become the norm in Scandinavian countries and in recent years has seen growth
in Germany
Quadruple glazing windows have been on the market for many years but have not achieved
the same take as triple glazed products due to the higher price, weight and the reduced solar
transmittance. The advantage of the quadruple glazed windows is that they can reach a U-
value of 0.44 W/m2K.
Vacuum glazing consists of two sheets of glass separated by a narrow vacuum/space with an
array of support pillars keeping the two glass sheets apart and preventing the collapse between
them. The vacuum restricts conductive and convective heat transfer thus improving the
thermal performance of the window and achieving a low U-value and low weight. The
thinness of vacuum glazing and its excellent thermal performance it is highly suited to retrofit
in existing buildings having the potential to significantly reduce heating.
However, for the vacuum glazing to be effective, the continuous glazing edge seal must be
substantial enough to maintain the vacuum within the glazing below 0,1Pa for the duration of
the glazing lifetime. Significant research has been carried out in this aspect providing
different glazing systems such as high or low temperature vacuum glazing. High temperature
vacuum glazing is manufactured using a high temperature baking during the evacuation
process at which point the solder glass melts and is drawn between the two glass sheets acting
102 BAT and BNAT document available on http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/windoors/stakeholders.html
95
as a seal. The baking helps to evacuate process to outgas the internal glass surfaces efficiently
and rapidly while removing the gas from the system.
Low temperature vacuum glazing enables vacuum glazing to be produced at temperatures of
less than 160C. The glazing produced during the development of this technique used an
indium or an indium alloy seal with a secondary seal used to prevent moisture ingress form
occurring. The best-performing glazing achieved a U-value of 0,86W/m2K. The initial 200 °C
bake-out and out-gassing at 150 °C under a vacuum of 10−5 Pa produces vacuum glazing that
under normal operating conditions demonstrates no observable degradation. A low
temperature sealing process with temperatures of less than 200C can extend the range of low
emissivity coatings which can be applied to the surface of the glass and importantly does not
result in a significant loss of temper which can be a concern for high temperature glazing.
Theoretically, using the best available low-emissivity coatings and increasing the spacing
between the pillars, may produce U-values < 0.5 W/m2K for a glazing that is 8mm wide only.
Low emissivity coatings: Low emissivity coatings (low-e) help to control heat transfer
through insulated windows and are typically metals or metallic oxides that can be categorized
into hard and soft coatings.
Different types of low-e coatings have been designed to allow for high g-values (suitable for
cooler climates), moderate g-values or low g-values (suitable for warmer climates). The
thickness of the low-e coating and the position in the window dictate how the window will
perform. To inhibit solar heat gain from the outside to the inside of a building, the low-e
coating should be applied to the outside pane of glass. To retain heat within the building, a
low-e coating is ideally placed on the inside of the glass.
A low emissivity value assists in obtaining a low U-value. Low-e coating should have a high
light transparency (approx 80% single pane) and a very low U-value (<1.1W/m2K) and an
emissivity value less than 0.05. As drawbacks, the use of low-e glazing increases the cost of
production by 10-15% and when applied in high performance glazing products reduce the
visible transmittance and reflect solar energy.
The energy saving achievable using low-e coating will vary depending on the number of
external factors such as the climate where the window will be used and the type and
orientation of the building. Generally speaking double glazing with a low-e coating and high
solar heat gain is appropriate in temperate and cold climates. The low-e coatings combined
96
with other window characteristics such as glazing type, gas cavity fill, etc improve the
thermal performance of windows but it depends on external factors such as location.
Smart Windows: Smart windows can change solar factor and transmittance properties to
adjust to outside and indoor conditions, thus reducing energy costs relating to heating and
cooling. They are typically divided into three categories: thermo, photo and electro-chromic
materials, liquid crystals and suspended particle devices.
The electrochromic window is one of the most promising technologies already commercially
available. They utilise an electric current that can darken or lighten the window on demand. A
small voltage applied to the windows will cause them to darken; reversing the voltage causes
them to lighten. This enables the user to vary the g-value and the visible transmittance which
has benefits in terms of its energy efficiency and replaces the need for conventional blinds.
The costs of these windows are two times as much as one with typical low-e glass. However,
the outlook for smart windows is strong as they are expected to reduce electricity
consumption for cooling by up to 49%, lower peak electrical power demand by up to 16% and
decrease lighting costs by up to 51% through variable g-values and visible transmittance.
Suspended-particle devices (SPD) are another promising technology commercially available.
SPD have an electrically controlled film which utilised a thin, liquid-layer in which numerous
microscopic particles are suspended. When unpowered, the randomly oriented particles
partially block the light transmittance. The technology relies on an electronic field to align the
active elements to raise the transmittance. Commercial SPDs have a similar visible
transmittance of approx 0.04-0.5
Frames: The frames have a significant influence on the overall efficiency. Although it
comprises only 10-25% of the window area its quality affects the insulation properties of a
double glazing window by up to 30%. Research is focused in finding materials with a lower
U value.
Frames of high performance composite materials, commercially available as fibreglass
frames, offer most of the strength, stiffness and durability of aluminium with the thermal
performance of wood. Composite frames includes foam-filled vinyl frames with aluminium
exterior claddings, wood frames with polyurethane foam thermal breaks and slender foam-
filled fibreglass extrusions with wood interior finish and aluminium outer weathered
components. Aluminium clad softwood core frames have proved a successful composite
97
combination and has a life expectancy of 40 years. The best windows frames have U-factors
as low as 0.6-0.8 W/m2K
Glazing cavity gas fills: To improve the thermal performance of glazing units the aim is to
reduce the conductance of the air space between the glazing layers. Argon (18mW/mK) is the
most popular cavity gas in use due to its low cost relative to other cavity gases and low
thermal conductivity. Krypton (9.5mW/mK) is also commonly used as a cavity gas fill with a
lower thermal conductivity but a higher costs. It is used in high end markets. Xenon
(5.5mW/mK) has a considerably lower thermal conductivity than both argon and krypton but
it is the most expensive.
12,1,1,b External doors
No significant research was identified relating to improving the energy efficiency of doors.
12.2. Best not yet available technology
Information relating to the BNAT in windows and doors market proved difficult to obtain due
to market confidentiality. However, several technologies have been identified.
Triple Vacuum Glazing: Triple vacuum glazing can achieve U values as low as 0.2W/m2K.
However, a number of barriers prevent the product coming to market. The structural stability
of a vacuum window may be compromised as it needs to resist normal air pressure and
variable pressures caused by wind and vibration. The large, flat surfaces of a window tend to
bow and flex with changing pressures. In prototypes, minute glass pillars or spheres have
been used of maintain the separation between the panes. The pillars are very small but are
somewhat visible reducing the window clarity. Another issue is the maintenance of the seal.
Gasochromic Windows: Gasochromic windows are similar to electrochromic windows;
however, to alter the translucency of the window, diluted hydrogen in a carrier gas of argon or
nitrogen is introduced into the cavity in an insulated glass unit. The return the window to its
original transparent state, the gas is exposed to oxygen. This reduces the n- and g-values of a
triple glazing unit from 0.63 and 0.49 to 0.20 and 0.17, respectively, when the indoor pane is
coated with a standard low-e coating.
Solar cell glazing: New technologies enable solar energy collection from transparent glass.
The technology involves spraying a coating of silicon nanoparticles on to the window, which
work as solar cells. A large number of solar cells come as mono-crystalline silicon wafer (c-
98
Si) solar cells laminated in clear glass panes however, copper, indium, gallium, selenide or
cadmium telluride are in use also. Other than using opaque c-Si solar cells, the technology of
semi-transparent amorphous silicon (a-Si) solar cells on glass has been developed and
commercial products are available.
During the production process, the a-Si cells are made thin by adding a regular pattern of tiny
holes. The solar transmittance of the translucent glazing can be adjusted by changing the area
of these holes. For this reason, the poor output reduction is equivalent to its visual
transmittance. The solar cells are connected in series to produce glass panels (modules) of the
appropriate power rating. The distance between the cells depends on the desired transparency
level and the criteria for electricity production.
Thin-film, dye-sensitised solar cells that can be printed onto glass and other surfaces have
already been developed. Other dye-sensitised solar cells are being held back from further
development by the volatile nature of liquid electrolytes. The PVs technology replaces the
liquid electrolyte with a solid organic semiconductor, enabling entire solar modules to be
screen printed onto glass or other surfaces. It is predicted that manufacturing costs of its
product will be around 50% less than the current lowest-cost thin film technology in
approximately 5 years.
Aerogels: Aerogels, often know as solid air, has the lowest density solid known (from 1 to
150 kg/m3). The technology is relatively new in fenestration and it is based on the high grade
thermal-insulating of the aerogel that has an air content of around 97% and weights of 75g/l.
The microstructure of the aerogel is composed of a three dimensional grid. The pore size is
approx 20Nm. The grid structure surrounds the existing gas molecules and restricts their
movement while protecting from any impact between them. This prevents convection as well
as directly stopping the thermal conduction in the gas phase. Current products achieve already
U-values as low as 0.3 W/m2K. The major barriers are the high costs to commercialization. In
addition, the low visible transmittance limits its use as a fenestration product, being more
suitable to roofing and facades in commercial buildings and sport halls.
99
13. Identification of key environmental criteria areas for windows and
external doors
The following section is intended as a starting point for a discussion which criteria should be
covered by the EU GPP for Windows and external Doors. In this working paper no values
(limits or benchmarks) are proposed for the criteria areas. Discussing the values is foreseen
during the 1st AHWG meeting in Sevilla followed by written comments and the 2nd AHWG
meeting. Stakeholders should feel free to comment on every issue they consider and send us
their remarks and further proposals for consideration for the 1st AHWG.
In the previous chapters the following elements have been already discussed:
- the results obtained in the revision of the scope (definition and categorization), market
analysis and user behaviour
- a literature overview of environmental assessments of windows and their extrapolation to
external doors- an overview of existing labels and schemes in European Member States and
non-European States
- an overview of existing GPP criteria
Based on the outcomes of the previous findings, the proposed key environmental thematic
areas for which the development of the GPP criteria shall focus on are:
1. Energy consumption during use phase (thermal efficiency, solar gain, air
tightness, etc related to the window or external door, or addressed as part of the energy
performance of the building)
2. Lifetime considerations or expected life time warranty
3. Selection of Materials (chemical restrictions, sustainable timber, recycled
aluminium and PVC, etc)
4. Waste reduction all over the life-cycle and waste requirements (easy deglazing,
avoidance of pollutants for recycling, etc)
5. Maintenance recommendations