1 / 20

Costantino Menna , U. Vitiello, G.M. Mauro, D. Asprone , N. Bianco and A. Prota

Dept. of Structures for Engineering and Architecture, University of Naples Federico II (Italy) – costantino.menna@unina.it. Costantino Menna , U. Vitiello, G.M. Mauro, D. Asprone , N. Bianco and A. Prota.

nhunter
Download Presentation

Costantino Menna , U. Vitiello, G.M. Mauro, D. Asprone , N. Bianco and A. Prota

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Dept. of Structures for Engineering and Architecture, University of Naples Federico II (Italy) – costantino.menna@unina.it Costantino Menna,U. Vitiello, G.M. Mauro, D. Asprone, N. Bianco and A. Prota Integration of seismic risk into energy retrofit optimization procedures: a possible approach based on life cycle evaluation

  2. EXISTING BUILDING STOCK: current Italian situation - Masonry - Reinforced Concrete - Other Source: ISTAT, 2001. Census of Population. Statistics by the National Institute of Statistics 2463

  3. EXISTING BUILDING STOCK: a sustainability issue • 1976 - 1977 - Legge 373/76 and D.M. 10/3/1977 ‘‘Norme per il contenimento del consumo energetico per usi termici negli edifici’’ •  National guidelines for improving energy efficiency of new buildings • 1974 - Legge n. 64 del 2 Febbraio 1974 “Provvedimenti per le costruzioni con particolari prescrizioni per le zone sismiche” •  Introduction of specific measures for seismic risk mitigation on new structures Approximately 55-60% of existing building stock wasconstructed without any design concern for energy efficiency, anti-seismic building specifications 2463

  4. EXISTING BUILDING STOCK: a sustainability issue • High vulnerability of Italian existing buildings • 44% of the Italian surface is prone to seismic risk* • 36% of the population involved* • 5.5 million buildings: residential/non-residential, historic value* • Variety of climatic zones (energy demand) • Life cycle environmental impacts • Life cycle costs due to consumptions and seismic events “Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable” The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (UN) *Source: CRESME - ANCE 2463

  5. EXISTING BUILDING STOCK: a sustainability issue 2463

  6. EXISTING BUILDING STOCK: possible retrofit strategies Construction turnover very low rate: 1 - 2.5% / year Energy retrofit measures RETROFIT Existing buildings Building components Materials Building Envelope Building Systems Systems Standards Technologies INTEGRATED DESIGN? Structural Performance 2463

  7. EXISTING BUILDING STOCK: possible retrofit strategies …. Try to avoid independent retrofit strategies August 2016 - Central Italy earthquake SUSTAINABILITY INTEGRATED LIFE CYCLE APPROACH 2463

  8. Integrated Life Cycle Design Approach • Italian Perspective • Incentives for energy efficiency measures • (e.g. ecobonus– 2018)  reduce energy consumption • Incentives forstructural retrofit with innovative technologies • (e.g. sisma bonus - 2018)  reduce expected economic losses STRUCTURAL – ENERGY INTERACTION • Expected Economic Loss Assessment • Cost-Optimal Energy Analyses 2463

  9. Integrated Life Cycle Design Approach 1stSTEP: site characterization  combined site-dependent input parameters • Energy Demand • Heating Degree Days (HDD) • Seismic Risk • 475-year (10% in 50-year) Peak Ground • Acceleration (PGA) CSSI = 0.31 Climatic-SeismicSeverity Index (CSSI) • Severe Climatic and Seisimic conditions • D, F Climatic zone • > 0.2 ag 2463

  10. Integrated Life Cycle Design Approach 2ndSTEP: linking ERMS to the structural performance  engineering demand parameters 3rdSTEP: evaluate Discounted Payback Time 4thSTEP: select optimized structural retrofit solutions 2463

  11. ITEGRATED DESIGN: applications to case study Case Study • Existingresidential RC building • Old structural code, i.e. without any seismic provision • Low thermal resistance (U > 1.5 W/m2K) 1. Cost-optimal energy retrofit Influence of building location on total LC costs 2. Coupling with structural retrofit Influence of climatic zones on total LC costs BENEVENTO Italian climatic zone C, (HDDs = 1316), PGA > 0.2 g MILANO Italian climatic zone E, (HDDs = 2404), PGA 0.049 g LATTARICO Italian climatic zone D, (HDDs = 1644), PGA > 0.2 g NORCIA Italian climatic zone E, (HDDs = 2604), PGA 0.255 g SPOLETO Italian climatic zone E, (HDDs = 2427), PGA > 0.2 g 2463

  12. APPLICATION 1: energy retrofit measures optimization Design variables of the bi-objective optimization problem building envelope and to the variation of set point temperatures Insulation (walls and roof), windows, plastering Genetic algorithm  approx. 800 solutions 2463

  13. APPLICATION 1: energy retrofit measures optimization Improving the energy performance of primary energy systems including the exploitation of renewable energy sources (RESs) Minimize global energy costs  Optimal energy retrofit solution MILAN NORCIA Cost - Optimal Solution 2463

  14. APPLICATION 1: structural interaction Cost- Optimal Solutions  Effects on LCC approach 2463

  15. APPLICATION 1: structural interaction Life Cycle Cost = LCC (as built) – LCC (energy retrofit + structural) • Milan: the final GCS changes from 197.05 k€ to 188.94 k€, and the DPB from 11 to 11.2 years • Norcia: the final GCS changes from 166.12 k€ to 54.98 k€, and the DPB from 12.1 to 20 years Shift For similar climatic conditions, the level of seismic risk highly affects the effectiveness of the investment 2463

  16. APPLICATION 2: structural interaction – climatic zones Life Cycle Cost  Discounted Payback Time shift Cost Effective Structural Retrofit strategies Use of RC shear wall-based RC jacketing-based strengthening solution 3) FRP – RC jacketing-based strengthening solution PGA capacity-demand  safety level 2463

  17. APPLICATION 2: structural interaction – climatic zones Life Cycle Cost  Only Structural Retrofit 2463

  18. APPLICATION 2: structural interaction – climatic zones Life Cycle Cost  Cost-effective Energy-Structural Retrofit • Locations where buildings are highly prone to seismic damage • Structural retrofit is able to restore an acceptable payback time 2463

  19. CONCLUSION • Novel assessment framework in the context of sustainability evaluation of retrofit intervention on existing buildings • Integration of cost optimal energy analysis with building structural performance of existing buildings prone to seismic damage • Outcome: potential global cost saving estimated over the residual building lifetime, taking into account the expected annual loss related to the seismic induced damage • The potential economic benefit deriving from energy savings could be not sufficient to overcome the expected seismic economic losses in the cases of vulnerable existing buildings • Stimulating insights about energy retrofit which, in a wider sustainability perspective, should be combined with seismic retrofit measures in order to reduce the overall economic losses  national policies and assessment methods (social, environmental and economic aspects) 2463

  20. Costantino MENNA costantino.menna@unina.it 2463 “Gone are the dayswhen the construction industry can ignore the burgeoning set of technology solutions across the asset life cycle. […] As predictions come to life and new capabilities infiltrate the field, team, and office, the winners will be the ones that adapt sooner rather than later.” Seizing opportunity in today’s construction technology ecosystem - McKinsey, September 2018

More Related