Advertisement

LCA-based study on structural retrofit options for masonry buildings

  • Loredana NapolanoEmail author
  • Costantino Menna
  • Domenico Asprone
  • Andrea Prota
  • Gaetano Manfredi
BUILDING COMPONENTS AND BUILDINGS

Abstract

Purpose

Over the last decade, the rehabilitation/renovation of existing buildings has increasingly attracted the attention of scientific community. Many studies focus intensely on the mechanical and energy performance of retrofitted/renovated existing structures, while few works address the environmental impact of such operations. In the present study, the environmental impact of typical retrofit operations, referred to masonry structures, is assessed. In particular, four different structural options are investigated: local replacement of damaged masonry, mortar injection, steel chain installation, and grid-reinforced mortar application. Each different option is analyzed with reference to proper normalized quantities. Thus, the results of this analysis can be used to compute the environmental impact of real large-scale retrofit operations, once the amount/extension of them is defined in the design stage. The final purpose is to give to designers the opportunity to monitor the environmental impact of different retrofit strategies and, once structural requirements are satisfied, identify for each real case the most suitable retrofit option.

Methods

The environmental impact of the structural retrofit options is assessed by means of a life-cycle assessment (LCA) approach. A cradle to grave system boundary is considered for each retrofit process. The results of the environmental analysis are presented according to the data format of the Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) standard. Indeed, the environmental outcomes are expressed through six impact categories: global warming, ozone depletion, eutrophication, acidification, photochemical oxidation, and nonrenewable energy.

Results and discussion

For each retrofit option, the interpretation analysis is conducted in order to define which element, material, or process mainly influenced the LCA results. In addition, the results revealed that the recycling of waste materials provides environmental benefits in all the categories of the LCA outcomes. It is also pointed out that a comparison between the four investigated options would be meaningful only once the exact amount of each operation is defined for a specific retrofit case.

Conclusions

This paper provides a systematic approach and environmental data to drive the selection and identification of structural retrofit options for existing buildings, in terms of sustainability performance. The final aim of this work is also to provide researchers and practitioners, with a better understanding of the sustainability aspects of retrofit operations. In fact, the environmental impacts of the retrofit options here investigated can be used for future research/practical activities, to monitor and control the environmental impact of structural retrofit operations of existing masonry buildings.

Keywords

Local replacement Masonry structures Mortar injection Reinforced grid Steel chain Structural retrofit 

References

  1. AFV Beltrame Group (2012) Environmental product declaration of manufacturing plants. Institut Bauen und Umwelt e.V. (IBU) Declaration nr. S-P-00252Google Scholar
  2. Allacker K (2012) Environmental and economic optimization of the floor on grade in residential buildings. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:813–827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asadi E, da Silva MG et al (2012) Multi-objective optimization for building retrofit strategies: a model and an application. Energ Build 44:81–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ascione F, de Rossi F et al (2011) Energy retrofit of historical buildings: theoretical and experimental investigations for the modelling of reliable performance scenarios. Energ Build 43(8):1925–1936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biekšaa D, Šiupšinskas G et al (2011) Energy efficiency challenges in multi-apartment building renovation in Lithuania. J Civ Eng Manag 17(4):467–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bosiljkov V, Uranjek M et al (2010) An integrated diagnostic approach for the assessment of historic masonry structures. J Cult Herit 11(3):239–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boylu M (2005) A benefit/cost analysis for the seismic rehabilitation of existing reinforced concrete buildings in Izmir. İzmir Institute of Technology, İzmir, p 206Google Scholar
  8. Chen MZ, Lin JT et al (2011) Utilization of recycled brick powder as alternative filler in asphalt mixture. Construct Build Mater 25(4):1532–1536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Circolare n. 617 (2009) Istruzioni per l’applicazione delle ‘Nuove norme tecniche per le costruzioni di cui al decreto ministeriale 14 gennaio 2008Google Scholar
  10. CNR-DT 200 (2004) Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, guide for the design and construction of externally bonded FRP system for strengthening existing structures. Rome 13/07/2004Google Scholar
  11. Das S (2011) Life cycle assessment of carbon fiber-reinforced polymer composites. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(3):268–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DOCC&EE (2011) Securing a clean energy future - The australian government’s climate change plan. Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, Commonwealth of Australia - ISBN 978-0-642-74723-5Google Scholar
  13. Flourentzou F, Roulet CA (2002) Elaboration of retrofit scenarios. Energ Build 34(2):185–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Foxon TJ, Mcilkenny G et al (2002) Sustainability criteria for decision support in the UK water industry. J Environ Plann Manag 45(2):285–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hedemann J, König U (2007) Technical documentation of the ecoinvent database. Final report ecoinvent data v2.2 No. 4, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  16. HUD/U.S. (2005) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Washington, DC 20410–8000 - MORTGAGEE LETTER 2005–50: Enhancements to “Streamlined (k)” Limited Repair ProgramGoogle Scholar
  17. ISO:14025 (2006) Environmental labels and declarations—type III environmental declarations—principles and procedures, ISO - International Organization for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
  18. ISO:14040 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework, ISO - International Organization for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
  19. ISO:14044 (2006) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines, ISO - International Organization for StandardizationGoogle Scholar
  20. Juan Y-K, Kim JH et al (2009) GA-based decision support system for housing condition assessment and refurbishment strategies. Autom Constr 18(4):394–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kanapeckiene L, Kaklauskas A et al (2011) Method and system for multi-attribute market value assessment in analysis of construction and retrofit projects. Expert Syst Appl 38(11):14196–14207Google Scholar
  22. Ma Z, Cooper P, Daly D, Ledo L (2012) Existing building retrofits: methodology and state-of-the-art. Energ Build 55:889–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Menna C, Asprone D et al (2013) Assessment of ecological sustainability of a building subjected to potential seismic events during its lifetime. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:504–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. MIT (2014) Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti (Italy) - DECRETO-LEGGE 28 marzo 2014, n. 47 Misure urgenti per l’emergenza abitativa, per il mercato delle costruzioni e per Expo 2015. (14G00059) (GU n.73 del 28-3-2014)Google Scholar
  25. Moliner E, Fabregat J, Cseh M, Vidal R (2013) Life cycle assessment of a fibre-reinforced polymer made of glass fibre phenolic resin with brominated flame retardant. 1st Symposium of the Spanish LCA Network: LCA & Bioenergy, 2013Google Scholar
  26. NTC (2008) NTC, Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni, D.M 14 gennaio 2008Google Scholar
  27. Perini K (2013) Retrofitting with vegetation recent building heritage applying a design tool—the case study of a school building. Front Architect Res 2(3):267–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Raslanasa S, Alchimovienėa J et al (2011) Residential areas with apartment houses: analysis of the condition of buildings, planning issues, retrofit strategies and scenarios. Int J Strat Prop Manag 15(2):152–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. ReLuis (2011) (Rete dei Laboratori Universitari di Ingegneria Sismica), linee guida per riparazione e rafforzamento di elementi strutturali, tamponature e partizioni, www.reluis.it/doc/pdf/Linee_guida1.pdf
  30. Rodrigues C, Freire F (2014) Integrated life-cycle assessment and thermal dynamic simulation of alternative scenarios for the roof retrofit of a house. Build Environ 81:204–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sahely HR, Kennedy CA, Adams BJ (2005) Developing sustainability criteria for urban infrastructure systems. Can J Civ Eng 32(1):71–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. UNI EN 1015–19 (2008) Methods of test for mortar for masonry—part 19: determination of water vapour permeability of hardened rendering and plastering mortarsGoogle Scholar
  33. UNI EN 13242 (2002) Aggregates for unbound and hydraulically bound materials for use in civil engineering work and road constructionGoogle Scholar
  34. UNI EN 15804 (2012) Sustainability of construction works—environmental product declarations—core rules for the product category of construction productsGoogle Scholar
  35. UNI EN 998–2 (2004) Specification for mortar for masonry—masonry mortarGoogle Scholar
  36. Užšilaitytea L, Martinaitis V (2010) Search for optimal solution of public building renovation in terms of life cycle. J Environ Eng Landsc 18(2):102–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Waheed B, Khan F et al (2009) Linkage-based frameworks for sustainability assessment: making a case for driving force-pressure-state-exposure-effect-action (DPSEEA) frameworks. Sustainability 1:441–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wu S, Zhu J et al (2011) Experimental investigation on related properties of asphalt mastic containing recycled red brick powder. Construct Build Mater 25(6):2883–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Xing Y, Hewitt N, Griffiths P (2011) Zero carbon buildings refurbishment—a hierarchical pathway. Renew Sust Energ Rev 15(6):3229–3236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhang C, Lin WX et al (2012) Environmental evaluation of FRP in UK highway bridge deck replacement applications based on a comparative LCA study. Adv Mat Res 374:43–48Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Loredana Napolano
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Costantino Menna
    • 1
  • Domenico Asprone
    • 1
  • Andrea Prota
    • 1
  • Gaetano Manfredi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Structures for Engineering and ArchitectureUniversity ofNaples, Federico IINaplesItaly
  2. 2.Stress S.c.ar.l. Sviluppo Tecnologie e Ricerca per l’Edilizia sismicamente Sicura ed ecoSostenibileNaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations