Sustainability Perspective to Support Decision Making in Structural Retrofitting of Buildings: A Case Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Sustainability Context in Building Retrofitting
- The use of building environmental sustainability assessment methods are not mandatory in national law;
- A complete LCA building quantification is difficult and almost impossible, but some simplified methodology could be an auxiliary for stakeholder’s decisions;
- Orientations and methodology for the use of new structural technologies in existing buildings with a focus on sustainable benefits;
- Building retrofitting levels and consequent technical guidelines are required;
- Regarding Portugal, recent legislation introduced changes in technical regulations of building retrofitting, with exceptional regimes for certain types of existing buildings. However, there is no explicit requirement in the regulation concerning sustainability.
3. Research Methodology
3.1. Retrofitting Management System
3.2. Case Study Building
- Floors with 595 m2 (new stair construction in posterior façade), use of the attic (450 m2);
- The floor area below level 0 has increased to 360 m2 (removal of soil and rocks).
4. Retrofitting Management System Application and Results Discussion
4.1. Structural Technology Options and Sustainability Analysis
- Option O1—Foundation and exterior walls below level 0 in a concrete structure. Wood flooring on wooden structure (similar to the existing one) with metallic elements;
- Option O2—T beam and block system slab in the roof. Pillars, beams, foundations, and slabs (floors) are in concrete (similar to new construction).
- Option O3—Foundation and exterior walls below level 0 in concrete, beams, and pillars in steel structure and metal deck for floors slabs.
- GWP (Global Warming Potential—KgCO2);
- ODP (Ozone Depletion Potential—KgCFC-11);
- AP (Acidification Potential—KgSO2);
- POCP (Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential—KgC2H4);
- EP (Eutrophication Potential—KgPO4);
- FFDP (Fossil Fuel Depletion Potential—MJ equiv.).
4.2. Structural Option Choice
- Good results in the categories of environmental impact despite the wood option having better ones;
- The previous negative experience with wooden structures and maintenance needs;
- Architectonic layers between floors (minimize the difficulty in pillars alignment—foundation to roof);
- Lighter frame structure (beams and pillars) for the auditorium;
- Cost-benefit contribution, compliance with the required regulations;
- Reversibility and compatibility with existing materials and elements (P13, P14, P23, P43);
- Reduce structural reinforcement in walls and foundations (P19, P20, P21);
- Regulation compliance (P15, P17, P24, P38);
- Reuse of existing elements (P22, P25);
- Reduced space for site works space availability (P32);
- Less intrusive solutions for the adjoining buildings (P33, P34, and P35);
- Improved quality control (P36, P37, P39);
- Reduction of occupational hazards (P41, P42);
- Reduction of construction and demolition waste due to the use of prefabricated pieces (P40, P45);
- Sustainability concerns for the operation phase of the building (P26 to P31).
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
GWP | Global Warming Potential |
ODP | Destruction of Atmospheric Ozone |
AP | Acidification Potential |
POCP | Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential |
EP | Eutrophication Potential |
FFDP | Fossil Fuel Depletion Potential |
LCA | Life Cycle Assessment |
EPD | Environment Product Declaration |
R.U.-I.S. | Intelligent and Sustainable Urban Retrofitting |
AICCOPN | Association of Civil Construction and Public Works Companies |
LEED | Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design |
BREAM | Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology |
SBTool | Sustainable Building Assessment Tool |
References
- European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions-Stepping up Europe’s 2030 Climate Ambition Investing in a Climate-Neutral Future for the Benefit of Our People; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations. Reference Manual for the Enhanced Transparency Framework under the Paris Agreement; United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: Bonn, Germany, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Carassus, J.; Andersson, N.; Kaklauskas, A.; Lopes, J.; Manseau, A.; Ruddock, L.; De Valence, G. Moving from production to services: A built environment cluster framework. Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manag. 2006, 10, 169–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nigam, P.K.; Akhtar, S. Retrofitting practices in various categories of RCC structures–A comprehensive review. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 45, 7123–7131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahdavipour, M.A.; Eslami, A.; Jehel, P. Seismic evaluation of ordinary RC buildings retrofitted with externally bonded FRPs using a reliability-based approach. Compos. Struct. 2020, 232, 111567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kibert, C. Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery, 3rd ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Sayin, B.; Yildizlar, B.; Akcay, C.; Gunes, B. The retrofitting of historical masonry buildings with insufficient seismic resistance using conventional and non-conventional techniques. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2019, 97, 454–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramesh, G.; Srinath, D.; Ramya, D.; Krishna, B.V. Repair, rehabilitation and retrofitting of reinforced concrete structures by using non-destructive testing methods. Mater. Today Proc. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliveira, R.; Lopes, J.; Sousa, H.; Abreu, I. A system for the management of old buildings retrofit projects in historical centres: The case of Portugal. Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manag. 2017, 21, 199–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Huang, Y.; Xu, C.; Xiao, Y.; Dewancker, B. Investigation of sustainability embodied in existing buildings: A case study of refurbishment adopted in a Chinese contemporary building. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 17283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Serrano-Jiménez, A.; Lima, M.L.; Molina-Huelva, M.; Barrios-Padura, Á. Promoting urban regeneration and aging in place: APRAM–An interdisciplinary method to support decision-making in building renovation. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 47, 101505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dodoo, A.; Gustavsson, L.; Tettey, U.Y. Effects of end-of-life management options for materials on primary energy and greenhouse gas balances of building systems. Energy Procedia 2019, 158, 4246–4253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernandes, M.A.O.; Keijzer, E.; Leeuwen, S.; Kuindersma, P.; Melo, L.; Hinkema, M.; Gutierrez, K.G. Material-versus ener-gy-related impacts: Analysing environmental trade-offs in building retrofit scenarios in the Netherlands. Energy Build. 2020, 231, 110650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toosi, H.A.; Lavagna, M.; Leonforte, F.; Del Pero, C.; Aste, N. Life cycle sustainability assessment in building energy retrofitting; A Review. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 60, 102248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- British Standards Institution (BSI). BS EN 15978:2011 Sustainability of Construction Works. Assessment of Environmental Performance of Buildings: Calculation Method; BSI: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Eldik, M.A.; Vahdatikhaki, F.; Santos, J.M.O.; Visser, M.; Doree, A. BIM-based environmental impact assessment for infra-structure design projects. Autom. Constr. 2020, 120, 103379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Fellows, R.; Liu, A. Research Methods for Construction, 4th ed.; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Mateus, R.; Bragança, L. Evaluation Guide of the SBToolPT-H Methodology; Portuguese Chapter, Ed.; School of Engineering, International Initiative for a Sustainable Built Environment: Guimarães, Portugal, 2009; ISBN 978-989-96543-0-3. [Google Scholar]
- Olander, S.; Landin, A. Evaluation of stakeholder influence in the implementation of construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2005, 23, 321–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costa-Carrapiço, I.; Raslan, R.; González, J.N. A systematic review of genetic algorithm-based multi-objective optimisation for building retrofitting strategies towards energy efficiency. Energy Build. 2020, 210, 109690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costa, A.; Arede, A.; Varum, H. Strengthening and Retrofitting of Existing Structures; Springer: Singapore, 2018; ISBN 9789811355080. [Google Scholar]
- Medineckiene, M.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Björk, F.; Turskis, Z. Original research article: Multi-criteria decision-making system for sustainable building assessment/certification. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 2015, 15, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Napoli, G.; Bottero, M.; Ciulla, G.; Dell’Anna, F.; Figueira, J.R.; Greco, S. Supporting public decision process in buildings energy retrofitting operations: The application of a Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding model to a case study in Southern Italy. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 60, 102214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bell, E.; Bryman, A.; Harley, B. Business Research Methods; Oxford Press: Oxford, UK, 2017; ISBN 978-0-19-254590-9. [Google Scholar]
Area | Indicators | Parameters Description |
---|---|---|
A2. Project design | I5. Characterization of building conditions | P12. Request for technical studies |
P13. Characterization diagnoses of building conservation status | ||
P14. Project Design specificities | ||
I6. Architectonic organization and salubrity | P15. Conceptual architecture configuration and adaptability | |
P16. Ratio useful floor area/gross lettable area (GLA) | ||
P17. Acoustic insulation and indoor air quality | ||
I7. Infrastructures, foundations, and structural elements conditions | P18. Building technical networks | |
P19. Peripheral retaining structures | ||
P20. Foundations | ||
P21. Structural elements | ||
I8. Materials | P22. Materials reuse | |
P23. New materials | ||
P24. Fire safety | ||
I9. Sustainability promotion | P25. Water recovery and reuse | |
P26. Solar collectors for hot water production | ||
P27. Electrical energy production | ||
P28. Energetic efficiency in thermal comfort | ||
P29. Other solutions for energetic efficiency | ||
P30. Bioclimatic solutions | ||
P31. Other sustainable solutions | ||
A3. Construction works and site works | I10. Initial works constraints | P32. Site works and surrounding space |
P33. Adjoining building conservation state | ||
P34. Stabilization and consolidation of building works and adjoining buildings | ||
P35. Adjoining building waterproofing | ||
I11. Industrialization/execution of works | P36. Workforce | |
P37. Specialized workforce and company’s technical capacities | ||
P38. Specialized subcontracts | ||
P39. Technical requirements monitoring | ||
I12. Risk and constraints potential | P40. Propensity to project design changes | |
P41. Propensity to the occurrence of unexpected works | ||
P42. Propensity to time overruns | ||
P43. Propensity to other work constraints | ||
I13. Other features resulting from works | P44. Archaeological works prospection | |
P45. Construction and demolition waste management |
Code and Group | Description |
---|---|
(X) Existing and design project aspects |
|
(Y) Economical, financial, and sustainability |
|
(Z) Site works and retrofitting works |
Parameters | Constraints | Recommended Solutions/Best Practices |
---|---|---|
P12 | X3, X5 | The real position and characterization of the stone masonry can only be modeled through the means of approximate methods. |
P14, P17, P19, P20, P21 | X8, X9, X10 | The project design must address a structural reinforcement that is compatible with the existing one and comply with actual regulations, including thermal and acoustic comfort. |
P15 | X2, X4, X6, X7, X9, X10 | A new stair block and also a lift for 12 people capacity were created. Regulations compliance were required in all architecture and technical project design. The auditorium was on the floor below level 0 with a distance between pillars of 10.90 m. The solution required a thicker frame structure, without pillars inside rooms and circulatory zones and in the auditorium. The library, meeting room, teaching room, and rooms need to comply with new regulations on space and mobility performance with adapted structure. |
P22 | Y1, Y3, Z3 | Reutilization of existing materials (stones, exterior walls, woods, windows). |
P23 | X8, X11, Y3 | Prefabricated solutions promote the reversibility principle. |
P24 | X10 | New structure and materials must comply with fire safety regulations. |
P25 | X12 | Compatible materials with existing ones and that enhance comfort levels benefits. |
P26 to P31 | X12, Y2, Y3 | Some of these ideas will be dealt with in the project’s second phase (not analyzed in the paper). |
P32 | Z1, Z3 | The access to the site works is limited with traffic signals. For ready-mixed concrete supply, a traffic controller ensures the smooth entry/exit to/from the workplace. |
P33 | X3 | The adjoining building is in a good conservation state without need of any work. |
P34 | X1, X8, Y1 | The adjoining building does not need any reinforcement or consolidation works. Reinforcement needs in all frame structures connected to the external walls are presented in the project design. |
P35 | X3 | Construction of the lateral roof wall was lacking in the adjoining building. |
P36, P37 | Y1, Y2 | Structure with prefabricated elements, manufactured by a specialized enterprise with a quality control system, promoting fast work in assembly, without skilled workforce needs. |
P38 | X4, X6, X7 | The new staircase construction and the façade conservation works do not require a specialized company. The elevator assembly needs a specialized company. |
P39 | X8 | The project design is very detailed without the need for permanent technical monitoring. It also allows the clarification of specific questions not frequent in design. |
P41, P42 | Y2 | The project design has a detailed survey of all constraints as well as their resolution measures and guidelines for real planning, reducing the exposure to occupational hazards. |
P43 | X6 | The pinnacles need reinforcement during roof works execution. |
P13, P40, P45 | X1, X2 | The building retrofitting works reutilize the existing materials of the façade, using some wood elements and some deconstruction/demolition wastes were reused. The solution for a prefabricated structure contributes to minimizing construction waste. |
Option | Constructive Solution Types | Unitary Values of the Categories of Environmental Impact | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GWPO2 | ODP | AP | POCP | EP | FFDP | ||
O1 | Weak fill concrete (kg) | 1.10 × 10−1 | 3.55 × 10−9 | 1.79 × 10−4 | 6.49 × 10−6 | 2.84 × 10−5 | 5.56 × 10−1 |
Foundations concrete (kg) | 1.48 × 10−1 | 3.55 × 10−9 | 5.56 × 10−4 | 5.28 × 10−5 | 5.76 × 10−5 | 0.124 × 101 | |
Metallic structure (kg) | 5.71 × 10−1 | 5.40 × 10−8 | 3.04 × 10−3 | 1.85 × 10−4 | 4.86 × 10−4 | 0.866 × 101 | |
Wooden structure (floors) (m2) | 0.868 × 101 | 1.37 × 10−6 | 6.06 × 10−2 | 3.53 × 10−3 | 1.96 × 10−2 | 2.02 × 102 | |
Roof wooden structure (m2) | −1.51 × 101 | 2.05 × 10−6 | 7.17 × 10−2 | 6.01 × 10−3 | 8.71 × 10−3 | 2.76 × 102 | |
O2 | Weak fill concrete (kg) | 1.10 × 10−1 | 3.55 × 10−9 | 1.79 × 10−4 | 6.49 × 10−6 | 2.84 × 10−5 | 5.56 × 10-1 |
Concrete structure (kg) | 1.48 × 10−1 | 3.55 × 10−9 | 5.56 × 10−4 | 5.28 × 10−5 | 5.76 × 10−5 | 0.124 × 101 | |
Reinforced concrete slabs (m2) | 1.09 × 102 | 8.71 × 10−6 | 3.32 × 10−1 | 1.9 × 10−2 | 6.44 × 10−2 | 1.14 × 103 | |
T beam and block slab (m2) | 1.76 × 101 | 1.46 × 10−6 | 5.32 × 10−2 | 3.14 × 10−3 | 9.80 × 10−3 | 1.94 × 102 | |
O3 | Weak fill concrete (kg) | 1.10 × 10−1 | 3.55 × 10−9 | 1.79 × 10−4 | 6.49 × 10−6 | 2.84 × 10−5 | 5.56 × 10−1 |
Foundations concrete (kg) | 1.48 × 10−1 | 3.55 × 10−9 | 5.56 × 10−4 | 5.28 × 10−5 | 5.76 × 10−5 | 0.124 × 101 | |
Metallic structure (kg) | 5.71 × 10−1 | 5.40 × 10−8 | 3.04 × 10−3 | 1.85 × 10−4 | 4.86 × 10−4 | 0.866 × 101 | |
Steel decking slab (m2) | 1.02 × 101 | 6.29 × 10−7 | 3.35 × 10−2 | 3.63 × 10−3 | 6.68 × 10−3 | 1.32 × 102 | |
T beam and block slab (m2) | 1.76 × 101 | 1.46 × 10−6 | 5.32 × 10−2 | 3.14 × 10−3 | 9.80 × 10−3 | 1.94 × 102 |
Option | Constructive Solution Types | Quantification of the Categories of Environmental Impact (Total) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GWP | ODP | AP | POCP | EP | FFDP | ||
O1 | Weak fill concrete (16,560 kg) | 1.82 × 103 | 5.88 × 10−5 | 0.296 × 101 | 1.07 × 10−1 | 4.70 × 10−1 | 9.21 × 103 |
Foundations concrete (302,500 kg) | 4.48 × 104 | 1.07 × 10−3 | 1.68 × 102 | 1.60 × 101 | 1.74 × 101 | 3.75 × 105 | |
Metallic structure (45,435 kg) | 2.59 × 104 | 2.45 × 10−3 | 1.38 × 102 | 0.841 × 101 | 2.21 × 101 | 3.93 × 105 | |
Wooden structure (floors) (2175 m2) | 1.89 × 104 | 2.98 × 10−3 | 1.32 × 102 | 0.767 × 101 | 4.26 × 101 | 4.39 × 105 | |
Roof wooden structure (642 m2) | −9.69 × 103 | 1.32 × 10−3 | 4.60 × 101 | 0.386 × 101 | 0.559 × 101 | 1.77 × 105 | |
Total results for Option O1 | 8.17 × 104 | 7.88 × 10−3 | 4.87 × 102 | 3.60 × 101 | 8.82 × 101 | 1.39 × 106 | |
O2 | Weak fill concrete (33,060 kg) | 3.64 × 103 | 1.17 × 10−4 | 0.592 × 101 | 2.15 × 10−1 | 9.39 × 101 | 1.84 × 104 |
Concrete structure (1,095,250 kg) | 1.62 × 105 | 3.89 × 10−3 | 6.09 × 102 | 5.78 × 101 | 6.31 × 101 | 1.36 × 106 | |
Reinforced concrete slabs (2173 m2) | 2.37 × 105 | 1.89 × 10−2 | 7.21 × 102 | 4.13 × 101 | 1.40 × 102 | 2.48 × 106 | |
T beam and block slab (642 m2) | 1.13 × 104 | 9.35 × 10−4 | 3.42 × 101 | 0.202 × 101 | 0.629 × 101 | 1.24 × 105 | |
Total results for Option O2 | 4.14 × 105 | 2.39 × 10−2 | 1.37 × 103 | 1.01 × 102 | 2.10 × 102 | 3.98 × 106 | |
O3 | Weak fill concrete (19,920 kg) | 2.19 × 103 | 7.07×10−5 | 0.357 × 101 | 1.29 × 10−1 | 5.66 × 10−1 | 1.11 × 104 |
Foundations concrete (362,500 kg) | 5.37 × 104 | 1.29×10−3 | 2.02 × 102 | 1.91 × 101 | 2.09 × 101 | 4.50 × 105 | |
Metallic structure (77,515 kg) | 4.43 × 104 | 4.19 × 10−3 | 2.36 × 102 | 1.43 × 101 | 3.77 × 101 | 6.71 × 105 | |
Steel decking slab (2173 m2) | 2.21 × 104 | 1.37 × 10−3 | 7.27 × 101 | 0.788 × 101 | 1.45 × 101 | 2.87 × 105 | |
T beam and block slab (642 m2) | 1.13 × 104 | 9.35 × 10−4 | 3.42 × 101 | 0.202 × 101 | 0.629 × 101 | 1.24 × 105 | |
Total results for Option O3 | 1.33 × 105 | 7.84 × 10−3 | 5.48 × 102 | 4.35 × 101 | 7.99 × 101 | 1.54 × 106 |
Option (Oθ) | Retrofitting Management System Parameters (60%)—P* | Categories of Environment. Impact (40%)—EC* | Sθ-Score Result | |||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P12 | P14,17(…)21 | P15 | P22 | P23 | P24 | P25 | P32 | P33 | P34 | P35 | P36/37 | P38 | P39 | P41/42 | P43 | P13,40, 45 | GWP | ODP | AP | POCP | EP | FFDP | ||
O1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2.33 |
O2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1.88 |
O3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2.38 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Oliveira, R.A.F.; Lopes, J.P.; Abreu, M.I. Sustainability Perspective to Support Decision Making in Structural Retrofitting of Buildings: A Case Study. Systems 2021, 9, 78. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems9040078
Oliveira RAF, Lopes JP, Abreu MI. Sustainability Perspective to Support Decision Making in Structural Retrofitting of Buildings: A Case Study. Systems. 2021; 9(4):78. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems9040078
Chicago/Turabian StyleOliveira, Rui A. F., Jorge P. Lopes, and Maria Isabel Abreu. 2021. "Sustainability Perspective to Support Decision Making in Structural Retrofitting of Buildings: A Case Study" Systems 9, no. 4: 78. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems9040078