Renovation of a School Building: Energy Retrofit and Seismic Upgrade in a School Building in Motta Di Livenza

The main part of Italian building stock was built before the energy and seismic regulations, so most of buildings need comprehensive refurbishment to achieve the performance required by laws that are in force. This paper presents an experimental study for an energy and structural upgrade methodology...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Sustainability 2018-03, Vol.10 (4), p.969
Main Authors: Mora, Tiziano Dalla, Pinamonti, Maria, Teso, Lorenzo, Boscato, Giosuè, Peron, Fabio, Romagnoni, Piercarlo
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Aseismic buildings
Building envelopes
Buildings
Carbon dioxide
Energy
Energy conservation
Energy demand
Intervention
Refurbishment
Retrofitting
Seismic analysis
Sustainability
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The main part of Italian building stock was built before the energy and seismic regulations, so most of buildings need comprehensive refurbishment to achieve the performance required by laws that are in force. This paper presents an experimental study for an energy and structural upgrade methodology, applied to an existing school building in the north-east of Italy. The methodology is based on the International Energy Agency-Energy in Buildings and Communities Programme (IEA-EBC) Annex 56 project guidelines. For the energy retrofit, a set of interventions is defined concerning the building envelope and systems. Among these interventions, the optimal cost is identified: this minimizes the energy demand and the CO2 emissions, and reduces the financial commitment. The analysis of the seismic retrofit is developed using innovative techniques of intervention and high-performance materials. The proposed interventions are evaluated in terms of efficacy and cost. The results show that it is possible to identify a comprehensive energy retrofit at optimal cost, thanks to high energy saving and subsidies. For the seismic retrofit, the intervention with the higher cost-effectiveness ratio is determined, but the related investment does not have a payback time. The union of the two retrofits permits the combination of benefits and has a payback time for both the interventions. It is possible to state that the cost of a combined intervention is lower than the costs of two different interventions; therefore, when a single retrofit is needed, the possibility of a combined intervention should be evaluated.
ISSN:2071-1050
2071-1050
DOI:10.3390/su10040969