Refurbishment of Residential Buildings According to the
Serbian Policy: Case Study in Belgrade
Vladimir Jovanovic, PhD student
Institute of Architecture and Design, TU Wien
Vienna, Austria
jovanovic.vlad@yahoo.com
1. INTRODUCTION
Residential buildings had a share of 35% in total
energy consumption in Serbia in 2012 [1], where
around 70% of the population lives in houses. The First
Serbian National Energy Efficiency Action Plan
(NEEAP) pointed out the residential buildings built in
the 1970’s and 1980’s are the biggest problem
regarding the energy consumption in the country [2].
In recent years, energy efficiency policy in Serbia
has been changed exceptionally. The 2011 Regulation
on Energy Efficiency in Buildings declared a set of
criteria on building energy performance [3]; the First
NEEAP promoted a path to increase building energy
efficiency for 9% by 2018; and the Second NEEAP is
expected to be published within the year 2014.
Further clarification of the legal requirements is
important to encourage house-owners to invest in
retrofitting. The goal of this paper is to evaluate policy-
driven refurbishments through environmental,
economical and social assessment for a typical Serbian
house from 1980’s.
2. SAMPLING PROCEDURE
Combined methodologies were the case study,
experimental and simulation research with use of
EuroWAEBED and GEBA dynamic simulations. The
analyzed location was Belgrade, Serbia. For the
additional reason that 42% of the total housing stock
emerged in the period 1971-1990, we chose a house
from 1980’s to be the model for the simulations. The
house was designed by Vojinovic and extracted from
the catalogue of typical housing designs from 70’s and
80’s in old Yugoslavia (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Representative house “P+1-2/1” [5]
Karin Stieldorf, Ass. Prof.
Institute of Architecture and Design, TU Wien
Vienna, Austria
karin.stieldorf@tuwien.ac.at
3. DESIGNED SCENARIOS
First retrofit (R1) was developed according to the
2011 Regulation on Energy Efficiency in Buildings [3],
which announced boundary conditions on thermal
properties for new and refurbished building elements.
The external walls and the roof ceiling were retrofitted
with an addition of 6 cm expanded polystyrene
insulation (EPS) to achieve heat-transfer coefficient
(U-value) lower than 0.40 W/m2K.
Second refurbishment (R2) was designed in
relation to the First NEEAP targets, to reduce heating
demands of houses for at least 50 kWh/m2a [2]. For
this purpose, the R2 regarded an upgrade of the walls
as well as the roof ceiling with 8 cm of EPS insulation.
Third refurbishment (R3) was designed in relation
to the incoming Second Serbian NEEAP and EPBD
directive 2010/31/EC. As stated by Batas Bjelic et al.
[4], policy driven refurbishment for the Second
NEEAP could encompass a reduction of heating
demands for refurbished buildings to 75 kWh/m2a. The
R3 regarded the walls and the roof ceiling upgrade with
10 cm of EPS and a replacement of the openings with
shuttered double glazed windows.
Fourth scenario (R4) aimed to reach national
passive house standard with consumption of 15
kWh/m2a of net floor area. The walls, the basement
ceiling, the roof ceiling and the roof skin were
insulated with thick layers of EPS and extruded
polystyrene foam insulation (XPS). Moreover, the
windows and doors were replaced, air-tightness was
improved, heat recovery ventilation was installed and
thermal-bridge impact was reduced. The four scenarios
are summarized in the Table I.
TABLE I. DESIGNED SCENARIOS BY THE POLICY
Scenario According to Target
Initial - -
R1 2011 Regulation Boundary U-values
R2 1st NEEAP Reduce for 50 kWh/m2a
R3 2nd NEEAP estimation Reduce to 75 kWh/m2a
R4 Passive house standard Reduce to 15 kWh/m2a
 decreased for about 2° C (Figure 3). The R4 scenario
4. RESULTS showed the overheating potential and required
a) Environmental impact additional cooling demands to achieve optimal thermal
comfort in the room. This indicated that typical passive
Our investigation showed that the heating demands house principles should be carefully applied in
for the basic house were 145 kWh/m2a. The Southeast-European countries.
refurbishments reduced heating demands from 32% to
90% (Figure 2). Proposed retrofits improved overall
environmental impact of the building, since carbon
dioxide emissions from energy production were
reduced, respectively.

Figure 3. Temperatures in south-oriented living room on 15. July

Figure 2. Reduced heating demands in kWh/m2a
b) Economical aspects
5. CONCLUSION
In this research, we evaluated specific measures
that should be applied on the single house to meet the
current Regulation on Energy Efficiency in Buildings,
the First Serbian NEEAP and possible incoming
policies.

From the economical point of view, the partial Since we analyzed the typical house, the findings
renovation with the R1 and the R2 were the most could be used as a first step for refurbishment of
affordable options. The R3 scenario showed better ratio similar houses in the country. We may recommend that
of investment-return than the R4, where the investment for the refurbishment, house owners and planners do
was the highest. In 30 years estimation, refurbishment similar assessment and chose appropriate retrofit
achieved significant energy savings (Table II). measures for a particular house.
However, long pay off period appeared due to the
The clarification of the national policy and greater
relatively low current energy prices. The investment-
understanding of pros and cons of the refurbishment
return assessment was calculated with the average price
could contribute to the increase of future retrofit rates
of gas, wood and electricity, 4.9 ct/kWh. The
in Serbia.
investigation pointed out the economical obstacles in
refurbishing. ACKNOWLEGMENTS
TABLE II. FINANCIAL RETURN OF THE INVESTMENT This research paper was realized as a part of
the PhD thesis “Patterns for Energy Efficient Design in
Scenario Total Investment Savings in Payoff
investment per m2 30 years
Serbia” financially supported by the Alfred Toepfer
Initial - - - -
Stiftung FVS.
R1 4200 € 33 €/m2 177 MWh 15
years REFERENCES
R2 5000 € 40 €/m 2
204 MWh 15
[1] Serbian Energy Agency, Annual Report 2012, Belgrade, 2013.
years
[2] Todorovic, M., First NEEAP/BS national energy efficiency
R3 8800 € 70 €/m 2
278 MWh 20 action plan/building sector 2009-2018. u: Study Report and
years NEEAP-BS for the Republic of Serbia Ministry of Mining and
R4 28300 € 225 €/m2 491 MWh 35 Energy, Washington: IRG, June 2010.
years [3] Pravilnik o energetskoj efikasnosti zgrada (Sluzbeni glasnik
RS, br.61/2011)
[4] I. Batas Bjelic, N. Rajakovic, R.Elsland, W. Eichhammer,
Improvements of Serbian-NEEAP Based on Analysis of
c) Thermal comfort assessment Residential Energy Demand until 2030, Proceedings, 8th IEWT
conference, Vienna, Austria, February 2013.
Regarding the summer thermal comfort in the [5] Z. Mihailovic, Catalog of typical house designs, Organization
R1 and the R2 scenario, the south-oriented room for architectural design “Nas stan”, Belgrade 1979.
[6] Statistical office of RS, http://www.stat.gov.rs (01.04.13).
showed a small decrease of the inner temperatures. The
R3 demonstrated the best result under critical summer
conditions, where the maximal temperatures were