{"title":"Decision-making approaches for optimal seismic/energy integrated retrofitting of existing buildings","authors":"M. Caruso, R. Couto, R. Pinho, R. Monteiro","doi":"10.3389/fbuil.2023.1176515","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Given the ambitious targets of carbon emission reduction set for the very near future, it is now expected that retrofitting operations on existing buildings aim both at reducing their operational energy consumption and at improving their seismic performance. Indeed, it is now well acknowledged that, if a sole energy efficiency upgrade is provided to a given building, in case of an earthquake occurrence, double economic and environmental losses will be experienced due to both the lost investment for energy retrofitting and the repair and retrofitting activities for post-earthquake damage. Moreover, social losses may also be experienced in terms of casualties, injured or homeless due to the seismic and structural deficiencies of the existing structure. To aid thus the process of a coupled seismic/energy renovation of the existing building stock, several multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approaches have been developed for the identification of optimal retrofitting solutions for buildings. Such procedures typically consider a range of economic, social, technical, and, more recently, environmental aspects that are assumed to be of interest to decision makers (e.g., installation cost, duration of works, architectural impact, need for specialised workers, etc.). The present study demonstrates the application to a case-study school building of two different MCDM approaches, which account for seismic vulnerability and energy efficiency, as well as related environmental impacts of buildings. The main differences between the two procedures are explored in terms of considered decision-making parameters and corresponding weights, rankings of retrofitting options and identification of the optimal retrofitting strategies.","PeriodicalId":37112,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Built Environment","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Built Environment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2023.1176515","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CONSTRUCTION & BUILDING TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Given the ambitious targets of carbon emission reduction set for the very near future, it is now expected that retrofitting operations on existing buildings aim both at reducing their operational energy consumption and at improving their seismic performance. Indeed, it is now well acknowledged that, if a sole energy efficiency upgrade is provided to a given building, in case of an earthquake occurrence, double economic and environmental losses will be experienced due to both the lost investment for energy retrofitting and the repair and retrofitting activities for post-earthquake damage. Moreover, social losses may also be experienced in terms of casualties, injured or homeless due to the seismic and structural deficiencies of the existing structure. To aid thus the process of a coupled seismic/energy renovation of the existing building stock, several multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approaches have been developed for the identification of optimal retrofitting solutions for buildings. Such procedures typically consider a range of economic, social, technical, and, more recently, environmental aspects that are assumed to be of interest to decision makers (e.g., installation cost, duration of works, architectural impact, need for specialised workers, etc.). The present study demonstrates the application to a case-study school building of two different MCDM approaches, which account for seismic vulnerability and energy efficiency, as well as related environmental impacts of buildings. The main differences between the two procedures are explored in terms of considered decision-making parameters and corresponding weights, rankings of retrofitting options and identification of the optimal retrofitting strategies.