Karl Landsteiner Private University for Health Science

Building description

NameKarl Landsteiner Private University for Health Science
LocationKrems / Austria
Building OwnerFederal State of Lower Austria
Partnere7 Energie Markt Analyse GmbH
Type of buildingUniversity building
Use typeOffice, Laboratory, Classrooms, Auditorium

The Building

The new constructed university building, opened in March 2017, fulfils a dual function as an office and an educational institution containing auditoriums, class-/seminar rooms and laboratories of various sizes next to the administrative office areas. It is equipped with a reversible ground source heat pump providing warm and cold water for room heating and cooling, a compression chiller as a backup system for cooling as well as several air handling units and a photovoltaic system on the buildings’ roof. The useful energy is provided by space heating / cooling systems such as thermo-activated building components and floor heating as well as via the air ventilation units. The operation of all systems is supported by a building management system. The building is owned by the federal state of Lower Austria and operated by an external facility management company.

Quality Management


The quality management service started immediately after the building was handed over from the constructor to the building owner. The main objective was to identify deficiencies relating to the BMS and energy efficiency improvement potentials from the very beginning, in order to meet the energy performance targets and to secure a good indoor environment. It is therefore an addition to the already implemented energy monitoring infrastructure.

Building owner:Initiated the commissioning of the service
Facility Management:Contract Partner; Responsible for the building operation;
BMS contractorImplementation of warranty claims, organisation of data transfer
ESCOProvision of the QM service: Functional performance tests, comfort survey

The service comprised four performance tests carried out within the first year of operation including the setup of an online platform which enables the facility management team to constantly supervise the operation of the systems. Additionally, a user survey was conducted. The results of the individual performance tests were reported to the client. Any anomalies and deficiencies found have been passed on to the BMS contractor. As a consequence, these faults could be corrected within the warranty period.

The performance tests were based on the execution planning and the parameters set during the commissioning by the BMS installer. The operation data was handed over regularly once a week by the BMS. The online-dashboard was updated automatically. In agreement with the Facilities Management team, performance checks for a defined period were conducted. Identified faults were evaluated based on the actual operation data and instructions issued in order to fix deficiencies.

Why commissioning:
A gap between the predicted building performance and the actual is known from many projects. The technical monitoring was contracted to check the performance of the technical systems and to identify deficiencies during the early operation phase.

Building’s technical equipment

System/typePower, source/fuel type, size, circuits …Selected for QM-process
HeatingGround source heat pump
  • Floor heating
  • Thermoactive components
  • Heating coils AHU
Hot water storageElectric boilers Decentralized electric boilersNo
CoolingGround source heat pump
Compression chiller
  • Thermoactive components
  • Heating coils AHU

VentilationCentral air handling unit Central air handling unit Several smaller decentralized units
  • Common areas
  • Laboratories / office &- study areas
  • Various


Energy Performance (Evaluation of Savings)

Baseline (kWh/a)Savings (kWh/a)%Savings (kg/a)
Heating Energy337.00021.70062.100
Cooling Energy154.00020.500132.000

Operational Performance

Economic benefits include energy cost savings and non-energy related cost savings. The total energy cost savings are calculated at approximately 10,000 Euros per year. Further potential savings arise by:

  • Less stress for the ventilation system since the fluctuation of the duct pressure could be reduced
  • Replacement of not operating sensors
  • Repositioning of unsuitable placed sensors
  • Recalibration of energy meters
  • Less stress for the heat pump due to a reduction of the switch-on / switch-off processes

Additional potentials to improve the thermal comfort was identified, such as:

  • Adaption of the supply air temperature (especially during summer) according to the initial design