Pilot Project - Integrated Techniques For

Pilot Project — Integrated techniques for
the seismic strengthening and energy

efficiency of existing buildings
Overview of technologies for the

combined seismic and energy retrofit of
buildings
da Porto, F., Caprino, A.
2020
Contents
1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 7
1.1 Current seismic and energy retrofit intervention strategies .............................................. 7
1.2 Barriers in implementing integrated seismic/energy retrofits of existing buildings ...................... 9
1.2.1 Technical barriers to combined retrofit interventions ........................................... 10
1.2.2 Financial barriers to combined retrofit interventions ............................................ 10
1.2.3 Organizational barriers to combined retrofit interventions ..................................... 11
1.2.4 Other cultural/social barriers ..................................................................... 13
1.3 Incentives and regulatory frameworks that favour integrated seismic/energy retrofits ............... 13
1.3.1 Incentives that favour integrated seismic/energy retrofits ...................................... 14
1.3.2 Regulatory framework ............................................................................. 16
2 Technologies for the combined seismic and energy retrofit of buildings ..................................... 18
2.1 Engineered exoskeletons for RC buildings ................................................................ 18
2.1.1 Seismic and energy performance ................................................................. 19
2.1.2 Level of invasiveness and business downtime.................................................... 21
2.1.3 Evaluation of costs ................................................................................. 21
2.2 Integrated interventions on envelope elements in R.C. buildings....................................... 22
2.2.1 Interventions on existing envelope elements .................................................... 22
2.2.2 Replacement of envelope elements .............................................................. 28
2.3 Integrated interventions on existing load-bearing masonry walls ...................................... 31
2.4 Timber-based panels technologies ....................................................................... 35
2.5 Strengthening of openings with steel frames integrated with window fixture ......................... 40
2.5.3 Evaluations of costs ................................................................................ 41
2.6 Stiffening of horizontal diaphragms integrated with energy solutions ................................. 42
2.6.1 Intervention on floor diaphragms ................................................................. 42
2.6.2 Intervention on roofs .............................................................................. 47
2.6.4 Evaluations of costs ................................................................................ 49
3
2.7 Comparison between different retrofitting strategies ................................................... 50
3 Methodological frameworks for integrating energy and seismic retrofit ..................................... 52
3.1 Economical decision-making models ..................................................................... 52
3.2 Multi-step design framework based on Life Cycle Thinking ............................................. 54
4 Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 56
References ........................................................................................................... 57
List of abbreviations and definitions ............................................................................... 67
List of figures ........................................................................................................ 68
List of tables ......................................................................................................... 70
4
Acknowledgements
The work herein presented entitled Overview of technologies for the combined seismic and energy retrofit of
buildings, was carried out under the European Commission Expert Contract no. CT-EX2020D377122-101, in the
framework of the European Pilot Project “Integrated techniques for the seismic strengthening and energy
efficiency of existing buildings”, financed by the EU with Decision C(2019) 3874 and led by the Joint Research
Centre (2019-2022). We would like to thank many experts, whose work is cited in the bibliography, that we
contacted during the preparation of this report and that shared their expertise with us.
Authors
da Porto, F., Caprino, A.
5
Abstract
Upgrading the existing EU building stock is increasingly pressing. 80% of EU buildings were constructed before
the 1990's and 40% of the total date back to before the 1960's. Poor seismic performance during earthquakes
(e.g. Italy, Greece) has led to significant economic losses, severe injuries and loss of human lives. Low energy
performance increases significantly the energy consumption (buildings are responsible for 40% of the EU energy
consumption).
Replacing the existing buildings with new is prohibitively expensive and has huge environmental and social
impact. Seismic and energy retrofitting is also very costly (the annual cost of repair and maintenance of existing
European building stock is estimated to be about 50% of the total construction budget, currently standing at
more than €300 billion).
Existing EU legislation addresses energy retrofitting (The Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 2010/31/EU
(EPBD), the Energy Efficiency Directive 2012/27/EU and Directive 2018/844 amending them ) and calls for actions
to mitigate the effects of natural and man-made disasters (Decision (EU) 2019/420 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 13 March 2019 amending Decision No 1313/2013/EU on a Union Civil Protection
Mechanism), while seismic retrofitting is foreseen by legislation at a regional and national level.
What is lacking is legislation based on a holistic approach for seismic and energy retrofitting. The implementation
of such holistic approach would significantly reduce costs, it would contribute to disaster risk reduction, as well
as to EUs commitment to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
The technologies for combined seismic and energy retrofitting of existing European buildings are addressed in
this topic. Indeed, for the world of professionals and researchers, and for the actual implementations of such a
holistic approach, there is also the need to understand which techniques and technologies are already available
to carry out combined seismic and energy retrofitting, and on which path further developments should be
directed. For a real feasibility, the interventions should be regarded not only in terms of their effectiveness, i.e.
potential improvement to the seismic and energy performance of the building, but also considering the related
level of invasiveness, business downtime, environmental impact, etc., in a life-cycle perspective.
6
1 Introduction
This chapter addresses the non-technical problems related to the execution of integrated interventions in
existing buildings. After a general classification of the main types of seismic and energy retrofit interventions,
useful to better understand the behaviour/scope of the main technologies/techniques described in chapter 2, a
general overview of the main obstacles that hinder the implementation of integrated interventions in existing
buildings is given. Indeed, besides the technical feasibility issues (considering that a series of integrated
techniques or methodologies have been recently developed or are under development), to date a series of
barriers related to high direct and indirect costs, organizational and administrative matters, other cultural and
social issues make consistently difficult to intervene with combined measures. Hence, the final subsection gives
an overview of incentives and other regulations that favour the execution of integrated interventions, but also
lists possible drawbacks that, in particular, do not allow the incentive measures to spread. Indeed, there might
be very effective solutions for the technical problems, but when there is insufficient owners’ awareness and a
lack of effective system of incentives, preventive integrated interventions will not be implemented to a large
extent. Therefore, it is very useful that technical measures are accompanied by correct regulatory and incentive
frameworks, as well as raise-awareness campaigns.
1.1 Current seismic and energy retrofit intervention strategies

To be effective, a seismic retrofit measure should accomplish one of the two main objectives: to reduce seismic
demand or to increase capacity. In addition, seismic retrofit strategies can be classified in the categories: global
interventions, if they modified the global behaviour of the structure, or local interventions, if they enhance the
performance of the weakest existing elements. To assess the effectiveness of an intervention, three main
properties have to be examined: strength, stiffness and deformation.
Some of the alternative choices that may be adopted for strengthening existing buildings against seismic action
can be conceptually, and schematically, subdivided into these main categories:
- Increasing capacity with insertion of additional elements. The systems are conceived to increase
strength and stiffness and eventually to regularize the torsional response of the building and may lead
to a complete change in the global behaviour of the building. This intervention is generally based on
steel-braced frames or concrete walls that can be inserted in the interior or, better, outside the building.
- Increasing capacity by intervening on existing elements. The damage and collapse modes can be
modified by locally increasing the strength of the elements, to increase the capacity and eliminate
possible brittle failures, or by increasing the deformation capacity of the elements, in particular the
deformation capacity of the critical sections of beams and columns.
- Reduction of demand. The intervention works by reducing the demand, either by introducing seismic
isolation systems or adding damping or tuned masses to reduce the displacement demand.
7
Figure 1. Seismic retrofitting conventional strategies.
Seismic retrofit designs
Increasing capacity Reducing demand
Local Global Global
ØRC jacketing ØAdding new ØAdding damping

ØSteel walls ØIntroducing tuned
reinforcement ØAdding steel mass
ØFRP solutions frames ØAdding an isolation
ØTRM-based ØExoskeleton system
solutions Ø… ØMass removal
ØDiatons Ø…
ØMasonry injections
ØTies
Ø…
Figure 2. Effect of local and global retrofit measures for RC buildings.
Source: Tsionis et al., 2014
Nowadays, there are three main solutions for enhancing the energy performance of buildings:
- Upgrading of the thermal shell. In older buildings, it is common to have walls with poor thermal
behaviour. Therefore, an upgrading of the thermal shell is often necessary. This could be done very
easily by attaching any insulating material on the surface of the wall and then protecting it with a
finishing layer. Another weak factor is represented by the low quality of the fenestration surface. For
8
this reason, it is necessary the complete replacement with highly efficient windows and doors. In this
way thermal losses and energy needs are minimized.
- Replacement of the mechanical equipment. The second way to enhance the energy performance of
existing buildings is by replacing the old and inefficient mechanical equipment. Nowadays, highly
efficient heat pumps combined whit ventilating equipment can satisfy energy needs at a low
consumption, reducing the building energy demand.
- Energy production on site through Renewable Energy Source (RES) systems. The third strategy, which is
often combined with the others, allows to reduce the energy purchase and to save money. In general,
renewable energy sources help reducing air pollution and cutting carbon dioxide emissions, however,
RES systems do not improve the energy efficiency of the building itself.
Figure 3. Energy retrofitting conventional strategies.
Energy retrofit design
Upgrading of Upgrading of Energy

thermal shell mechanical production
equipment
ØWalls insulation Ø Heat pumps Ø Photovoltaic

ØFloors insulation Ø Upgrading devices
ØReplacement of heating systems ØGeothermal
fenestration Ø… systems
Ø… Ø…
1.2 Barriers in implementing integrated seismic/energy retrofits of existing buildings

At present, most interventions for building enhancement focus either on energy efficiency or seismic
strengthening, considering the maximization of benefits independently of the integrated correlation between
both variables (Calvi et al., 2016). The first main reason for this disconnection among stakeholders is a cultural
one. Indeed, natural hazard risk mitigation has evolved independently of consideration for sustainable
development goals, therefore there is a lack of consistent language and understanding across these two fields
(Tapia and Padgett, 2012).
In addition, as long as sustainability has become a basic pillar of life-quality and a prerogative in any socio-
economic contexts, its environmental aspects (connected to energy efficiency of the built heritage) have grown
in relevance, whereas the social dimension, especially in relation to safety of the building stock, has been often
neglected. As a consequence, the big financial efforts of EU to increase the sustainability level of our cities (over
5% of the European Regional Development Fund in the 2014-2020 budget) has been directed towards energy
efficiency and low-carbon measures, but fewer efforts have been directed to reduce the seismic vulnerability of
the existing real estate (La Greca and Margani 2018).
Under the technical point of view, this has been reflected for years by the absence of a consistent procedure for
seismic and energy assessment and improvement of buildings, allowing to express both components in terms of
analogous quantities, in order to conjugate the cost and benefit approaches of the two sectors and better
understanding the return to the investment in case of combined interventions. Only recently, frameworks
incorporating natural hazard risks and their mitigation into the LCA to assess sustainability of buildings and
9
infrastructures, to adequately relate seismic performance and the economic/environmental benefits, and act as
a decision support system, have begun to emerge. Reference to these methods is made in Section 3.1. A model
for dealing with seismic efficiency of buildings based on the concept of expected annual loss, associated to a
seismic building classification (that might be similar to the energy efficiency one), has been conceptualized in
Calvi (2013). Its integration within cost and benefit analyses of energy efficiency intervention has been presented
in Calvi et al. (2016), and a method (and system of fiscal incentives, see 1.3.1) deriving from those studies is
currently in use in Italy (MIT 2017a, 2017b).
Besides this general lack of adequate procedures and tools to evaluate, within a common framework, the cost-
effectiveness of combined retrofit actions, there are other several barriers, especially for multi-owner housing
and high-rise buildings. According to La Greca and Margani (2018), these can be summarized as follow: (i)
technical barriers (e.g., unfeasibility and/or ineffectiveness of conventional retrofit solutions, need of regulatory
simplification, etc); (ii) financial barriers (e.g., high renovation costs, “split-incentive”/“landlord–tenant
dilemma”, and insufficient incentives and subsidies); (iii) organizational (e.g., temporary accommodation for
occupants, consensus to the retrofit expenditure by condominium ownerships, excessive time to obtain building
permits, etc.); and (iv) other cultural/social barriers (insufficient information and skills, and lack of adequate
policy measures to promote renovation actions).
1.2.1 Technical barriers to combined retrofit interventions

The principle of sustainability generally leads to prefer renovation activities over demolition and reconstruction
practices (Ding 2013; Munarim and Ghisi 2016), since renovation may keep and reuse many building components
resulting in saving resources and reducing waste, and limit urban-sprawl and soil consumption. However,
particularly in the case of buildings in a very poor state of conservation, seismic renovation can sometimes be
technically awkward. In some extreme cases, as in the case of RC buildings affected by significant design or
construction errors, it might also occur that any retrofitting measure may turn out to be ineffective. In these
cases, the most sensible solution would be to demolish and reconstruct the building (La Greca and Margani 2018).
The project technical feasibility is thus a basic prerequisite for the overall feasibility of the project, but it might
be also very difficult to identify, in simpler cases, skilled professionals for the technical design of the energy and
seismic retrofit and the identification of cost-effective solutions. According to Heiskanen et al. (2012), the
conflicting information on the costs and benefits of each solution is partly due to the more complex nature of
the intervention, to unsuccessful experiences from early experimental applications of solutions, but it is also
related to the competition between marketing claims for different solutions.
In the case of heritage buildings, there are several additional sources of technical difficulties to make an effective
intervention. First of all, the initial assessment requires acquiring knowledge of the building, where missing
information can be gained by conducting investigations or expert estimations. Investigations can be costly and
may not provide reliable information. On the other hand, expert estimations are a simple way to fill the gap
needed to conduct safety evaluations, but these could be not sufficiently reliable (Sigmund and Radujkovic 2016).
The retrofit interventions should satisfy many more requirements than in the case of non-listed buildings,
including compatibility with the existing structural elements and with the historical value of the building,
repairability, removability, etc, that are all needs that make the intervention more challenging and complex.
1.2.2 Financial barriers to combined retrofit interventions

The high initial costs of building retrofit investments are an overwhelming barrier for many owners, even for
measures that are cost-effective in the long term. Some building owners may have limited access to capital or a
high cost of capital, or they may be unwilling to incur debt due to personal or balance sheet-related reasons.
Although with building (energy and seismic) classification, the increase of the building price should be valued,
low or uncertain resale value of the property remain a barrier to retrofit in several ways: it may influence the
value of the property as collateral for a loan and it also has a direct impact on building owners that anticipate
selling their property in the near future (Heiskanen et al. 2012).
In the case of property that is rented, “occupant take-back” can be a concern: the expected savings might not be
significant because tenants would benefit from lower energy costs or they might increase their comfort levels
10
with e.g. higher room temperatures or ventilation rates. The “landlord-tenant dilemma” is better investigated
under section 1.2.3.
Costs for renovation actions depend on many variables, such as state of conservation, type of selected
intervention, number of stories, total floor area, plan irregularities, presence of adjacent buildings, local
seismicity, soil type, local prices for materials and labour, etc. La Greca and Margani (2018) give an overview of
the costs for the combined energy and seismic retrofit of apartment blocks in Italian urban areas built in the
period between 1950 and 1990. This cost ranges from 100 to 230 €/m3 (i.e., 300 to 700 €/m2 for a typical 3m
height inter-storey) where the main contribution is due to the seismic component, that ranges from about 50 to
150 €/m3 (i.e., 150 to 450 €/m2 for a typical 3m height inter-storey). High expenditures, along with a difficult
access to capital and an unwillingness to incur debt, often discourage building owners from supporting in
particular the seismic renovation practices, considering that it is uncertain when and where telluric shakes will
occur and thus the savings are not directly valuable as in the case of money saved from energy retrofit.
In addition to the direct cost of the renovation and the related difficulty to sustain it, also other indirect or
technical sources of costs should be taken into account. In particular, renovations usually imply some level of
disruption and need for relocation, which can generate even significant costs. Furthermore, the so-called
transaction costs (or “hidden costs”) relate to the costs of information and the costs of monitoring and controlling
economic exchanges (such as contracted renovation work). Typical examples include the lack of (or difficulty of
identifying) skilled service providers, which might imply a prohibitively expensive process (with external experts)
to identify the best technical solution, at a point when outcomes are still uncertain (Heiskanen et al. 2012).
Lastly, it may occur that families with low incomes also have dwellings with poor seismic and energy
performance, which reduces the opportunity of undertaking renovation actions even for the buildings with the
highest seismic vulnerability and decarbonization potential (La Greca and Margani 2018).
1.2.3 Organizational barriers to combined retrofit interventions

Excluding interventions that can be completely carried out from outside the building, in many of the other cases
renovation activities, particularly the structural interventions, imply the necessity of leaving the house during the
works. This entails a relevant disruption to the occupants, additional rental costs for an alternate accommodation
(which may last for some months), as already mentioned in section 1.2.2, a stressful interruption of everyday
routines (especially for elderly and disabled people), as well as psychological concerns about the real and timely
conclusion of the refurbishment works (La Greca and Margani 2018). From this point of view, interventions can
be more easily carried out in some stages of real estate market or inheritance operations in case of single-family
dwellings. However, these are not equally distributed among the EU countries, with some significantly seismic
prone countries, such as Greece or Italy, characterized by the more significant presence of multi-family
residential buildings (Figure 4).
Figure 4. Share of single- and multi-family dwellings by country
Source: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/eu-buildings-factsheets_en
11
Indeed, obtaining the consensus to the retrofit expenditure by condominium ownerships in multi-family
buildings may represent the most relevant barrier. Besides all aspects related to financial possibilities or personal
dislikes of all the owners, a very significant obstacle is represented by the presence, in a building, of different
occupant typologies, i.e., both owner-occupants and tenants (La Greca and Margani 2018). The share of required
majorities for decisions on renovations in most EU countries ranges between 50 and 75% (Heiskanen et al. 2012).
Even when the approval of renovation works is legally insured by absolute majority (i.e., >50%), therefore
substantial agreement can be found involving half of condominium owners, practical difficulties can arise every
time that one or more owners dissent, especially if they do not have sufficient financial resources (La Greca and
Margani 2018).
Indeed, another aspect related to organizational problems, but that can be also classified under the cost issue,
in the case of rented properties, is represented by the so-called “split-incentive barrier” or “landlord–tenant
dilemma”: i.e., tenants would benefit from lower energy costs but landlords, that make the decisions on
investments, are not driven to invest in efficient building systems. Conversely, if landlords pay energy expenses
(gross leases), tenants will have little incentive to save energy in their leased space (Dyson 2010). In addition, if
the building is rented out, also specific seismic renovation interventions will often be neglected, since landlords
are not driven to invest money for supporting tenants’ safety, unless the government, which is responsible for
financing healthcare and reconstruction activities due to catastrophic events, poses any condition on that. “Split-
incentive” issues are non-evenly distributed among EU countries, as the share of owner occupancy in multi-family
houses ranges from 23-26% for countries such as Austria, Germany, France, to more than 70% (up to 90%) in
countries such as Italy, Spain, Romania, Bulgaria (Heiskanen et al. 2012), where therefore the “split-incentive
barrier” may be less strong. The average of share of population living in owner-occupied dwellings, considering
the entire single- and multi-family buildings stock, is slightly smaller than 70% (Figure 5), where also on the
general building stock the shares are non-evenly distributed by country across Europe.
Figure 5. Share of population living in owner-occupied dwellings by country
Source: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news
Still under the organizational point of view, bureaucratic obstacles such as months elapse to obtain building
permits, particularly in the case of protected or listed edifices, makes more difficult the decision to intervene. In
some cases, the excessive time to obtain building permits is due to confusing regulations, to the fragmentation
of competences among many different agencies (responsible for architectural design, structures, listed buildings,
etc.), and to the inertia of the offices in charge of releasing permits (La Greca and Margani 2018).
12
Some authors identify, probably for particular geographical areas, risks deriving from the changes in standards
and laws during the phase of project preparation and implementation. For instance, in Croatia the protection
status of a building that is not listed can be changed after starting the permit acquisition process, having a high
impact on the overall project status and future management of the building. In such countries, measures
promoted with special programs that have the financial support of the government may also be abruptly
removed once the elections cause a government shift (Sigmund and Radujkovic 2016).
The access to fiscal incentives, which will be illustrated in Section 1.3, is in certain cases complicated, too (e.g.,
the use of distinct and parallel procedures for seismic and energy renovation incentives), although over the years,
some simplifications are being adopted.
1.2.4 Other cultural/social barriers

Among the other barriers to the combined energy and seismic retrofit of buildings, a very important one is
constituted by the insufficient awareness of building owners, which are often unaware of the real seismic
vulnerability and energy performance of their dwellings. In particular, with specific reference to the seismic
vulnerability, they might tend to assume that earthquakes are unlikely events, unless they are driven by the
emotional push of a recent devastating seismic event. To a lesser extent, also energy performance issues can be
ignored by building owners, who do not monitor their energy consumption and costs. Therefore, owners do not
fully comprehend the effectiveness of building retrofit and might not be keen in learning about renovation
options (La Greca and Margani 2018).
If the owners surmount this barrier, there may be a lack of experts and resources or they may find it difficult to
understand and process the available information, i.e., there is a lack of skills. Seismic and energy retrofitting
technologies, and the works related financial or fiscal incentives, require a specific knowledge and expertise,
while there is a lack of advice agencies, skilled professionals (architects, engineers, auditors) and qualified
constructors. There is also a strong need of simple and reliable decision-making tools to compare different
seismic and energy retrofitting scenarios and select the best option in terms of costs, available incentives and
financial aids, improved seismic and energy performance, thermal comfort, increased property value, and
reduced disruption to the residents (La Greca and Margani 2018). New tools to support the decision making
process will be presented in Chapter 3.
1.3 Incentives and regulatory frameworks that favour integrated seismic/energy retrofits
To substantially favour the execution of integrated seismic and energy retrofit, information and engagement
campaigns (at any level) are recommended to achieve a behavioural inclination towards more sustainable
choices and decisional strategies. La Greca and Margani (2018) also includes, as an alternative to public actions,
contractors giving decision-support package in their services, although these might not be perceived as impartial
and clients could be unwilling to pay for this extra assistance.
In some cases, where decisions are hindered by conflicting interests in multi-family buildings, as described in
Section 1.2.3, a possible solution may consist in engaging external parties - such as municipal agencies, housing
associations, structural and energy consultants - to support and speed up decision making. Of course, in these
specific cases a useful contribution to reach consensus is given by solutions that minimize the disruption to the
occupants during the renovation works, for example operating mainly from the outside of the building (La Greca
and Margani 2018).
In the case of “split-incentive barrier” a possible countermeasure consists in revising contracts to permit
landlords to raise the rent of the retrofitted property, with an increase commensurate with the reduced energy
bill paid by tenants and the enhanced seismic performance, and in any case landlords could benefit from the
exploitation of tax incentives. Moreover, the money saved by tenants on energy costs will leave more money left
over for rent, reducing defaulting circumstances, and in a competitive rental market, a seismic-safe, low-energy
and thermally-comfortable building will have better chances to be well rented or sold. Consequently, the “split-
incentive barrier” might be overcome simply through appropriate information campaigns (La Greca and Margani
2018).
13
However, practice has shown that fiscal incentives are the most effective measure, so far, to encourage private
investment in seismic and energy efficiency retrofit. Therefore, in the following sub-sections, incentives and
regulatory frameworks that favour this type of investment are analysed more in detail.
1.3.1 Incentives that favour integrated seismic/energy retrofits

Following the costs for the combined energy and seismic retrofit of apartment blocks in Italy given in section
1.2.2, an average of 165 €/m3 yields to 495 €/m2 for a typical 3m height inter-storey, i.e. around 50.000 € for a
standard 100m2 apartment. This is a relevant amount of money, that turns out to be unaffordable for most
people. Therefore, as observed by La Greca and Margani (2018), the most effective solution to promote
renovations consist in granting fiscal incentives, such as tax deduction, tax credits and VAT reduction.
In Italy, in particular, for the last 50 years there has been a VAT reduction from 20-22% to 10% for all costs related
to building renovations and works (MEF 1972). In addition, since 1998, there has been a gradual introduction of
tax credits, allowing subtracting 36–65% of refurbishment costs from the tax due, with deductions equally
distributed over 5 or 10 years (Parlamento Italiano 1997, 2006, 2015). At the end of 2016, for the period 2017-
2021, the shares have been consistently increased to 70-80% and 75-85% for seismic upgrades of, respectively,
single-family and industrial and commercial buildings and multi-family buildings, according to how many classes
(one or two) of seismic risk can be reduced by doing the intervention (MIT 2017a, 2017b). Correspondingly, 70-
75% of refurbishment costs for energy upgrades can be deduced from the tax due, according to the reached
energy performance, whereas previously these were fixed at 55-65% (Parlamento Italiano 2006, 2016).
These tax credits are due on a maximum cost of the works of 96.000 € for each property (the seismic one) and
40.000 € for each property (the energy one in multi-family buildings, higher for single family houses). Indeed, the
shares of tax credits are connected to the above-mentioned maximum costs for each property, plus the common
part, in multi-family buildings, and are higher in multi-family buildings as well. Hence, the works result to be very
convenient in case of apartment buildings, thus going towards not only a more effective reduction of seismic risk
(considering the higher exposure of multi-family buildings), but also a more attractive measure, contributing to
solve some of the organizational problems mentioned in section 1.2.3, in this kind of buildings.
During the following years, other important measures have been launched. Among the others, it has been made
more convenient, for multi-family buildings, to combine energy and seismic retrofit interventions by extending
the higher share of tax credits given for the seismic retrofit alone (75-85%) to the combined energy and seismic
intervention, calculated over a maximum cost of 136.000 € for each property plus the common part (Parlamento
Italiano 2017). More recently, in the framework of the decree to relaunch the economic system after the COVID-
19 pandemic, an even more convenient tax credit share of 110% has been introduced (Presidente della
Repubblica, 2020).
Other two significant measures introduced by this set of laws are related first to the possibility, for low income
people, whose tax credit turns out to be higher than the tax due, to transfer the credit to third parties, such as
the contractor or construction company or other private subjects (and only in some cases, banks). Second, and
according to the seismic hazard zone, it is possible to acquire this tax credit also buying new apartments/houses
from a construction company that has bought an entire building, demolished it, and rebuilt according to current
regulation, thus generating an overall renewal of the built heritage.
D’Agata et al. (2017) demonstrated that, for various RC multi-apartment building in southern Italy, taking
advantage of these combined fiscal incentives (in the original form before the relaunch decree) as well as the
reduced energy bill after renovation, the investment for combined seismic and energy retrofitting may be repaid
within 10-11 years. Evola and Margani (2016) further demonstrated that, despite the increased costs in case of
installation of renewable energy source systems, in mild climates the pay-back period may reach similar values.
The impact of energy and seismic retrofitting in terms of intervention payback period, reduction of CO2 emissions
and reduction of losses is parametrically evaluated, independently by any fiscal incentive, for several types of
buildings and in various European environment in Pohoryles et al. 2020.
The problem of low-income people, for which tax credits or deductions are not appealing, is dealt with in various
countries in different ways. In the case of Netherlands tax-exempt entities and low-income owners are allowed
to receive a higher level of grant assistance (Sigmund 2019). In the case of energy retrofit, according to
Economidou et al (2019), grant schemes can be useful at stimulating the market, filling an immediate financial
gap. Despite they typically rely on limited resources and can neither offer a sustainable solution, nor support
14
massive uptake programs, they constitute the most commonly found mechanism that EU countries currently use
to encourage energy efficiency improvements in the building stock. However, they should be more carefully
designed to avoid negative impact on market players as well as attraction of the so-called free riders (recipients
who would have carried out the investments even without the incentive), in favour of low-income households,
tenants, and small and medium enterprises.
Low-interest loans are also available in a number of countries. In the USA, for example, tax incentives, including
relief from income tax, property tax, value-added tax (VAT), transfer tax, inheritance tax and capital gains tax,
are used. However, to alleviate cash flow problems, low-interest and guaranteed loans, in addition to grant aid
and fiscal incentives, are also used to encourage conservation activity (Bullen and Love 2009). According to
Economidou et al (2019), in the EU, private debt financial products designed specifically for energy renovations
in buildings are currently not fully developed. In addition, this type of instrument is not always suitable for small
projects, due to high transaction costs, and the more common low-term financing opportunities are not enough
to support deeper retrofit measures. To grant these loans easily, in case of energy retrofit, the energy cost savings
generated by the intervention could also be accepted as a form of collateral (Matschoss at al. 2013), as currently
done with performance contract bill repayment models. Other loan models developed and used in the US are
based on the use of specific bonds offered by municipal governments to investors, repaid via the annual property
tax-bill (Property Assessed Clean Energy, PACE, only experimentally introduced in Europe through EuroPACE), or
loans with on-utility bill repayment model, unsuccessfully implemented in the UK in 2013 (Economidou et al
2019).
Another financial incentive, for energy retrofitting only, is represented by feed-in tariffs, or subsidies to produce
thermal energy from renewable energy sources and to increase energy efficiency (La Greca and Margani 2018).
In Italy, these subsidies cover 40% of the eligible expenditure, with specific limits for the unit and total costs of
each type of intervention and are refunded in five annual rates for private buildings (MISE 2016). Fiscal measures
for energy renovations investments are in any case very well developed, and a very comprehensive review of
financial and fiscal instruments across the EU is given by Economidou et al (2019), whereas an updated overview
of national and regional schemes (by EU country) for energy renovation of non-residential buildings and other
facilities, municipalities, social housing, companies and enterprises, residential buildings and individuals
(homeowners and tenants) can be found in the Build Up European Portal for Energy Efficiency in Buildings
(https://www.buildup.eu/en/). Incentive measures in this field are found in all EU countries, and account to even
142 different types, where all countries implemented financial measures, 9 countries have approved fiscal
schemes, 4 countries a market-based scheme such as white certificate, and Sweden, Norway and Switzerland a
taxation scheme. The Odyssee-Mure project gives tools for evaluating the efficiency trends, and evaluated that
35% of these measures have a high impact, i.e. save more than 0,5% of the sector energy consumption (Federici
et al., 2018). Despite seismic retrofit programs, connected to various form of incentives, are also found in some
countries (for example, Italy in the EU, or many US states), the systematic combination of energy and seismic
retrofit incentives is extremely rare world-wide.
A different type of incentive, with reference to the high investment costs, is related to the possibility of creating
surplus volume, that may offer extra living space for the inhabitants that contribute to the investment, increase
the property value, may be sold directly, or may constitute a volume bonus to be sold to third parties, such as
building contractors and construction companies. This generally occurs by law, where the government allows
increasing the building volume, for instance by 10%. Such measures may contribute to enhance the economic
appeal of the operation, to reach consensus in case of multi-owner housing, and to encourage an active
involvement of general contractors. La Greca and Margani (2018) also report other possibilities, such as
decreasing the story height by 10% (for instance, in Italy, apartments built during 1950–1990 often have a net
floor height of 3m or even higher, which can be reduced to 2.7 m according to the current regulations), however
these cases entails significant structural modifications of the building, that actually make the intervention
technically awkward and extremely expensive. Systematic overview of cases of volumetric extensions to roof and
façades of buildings, also termed "add-ons", is presented in the Build Up European Portal for Energy Efficiency in
Buildings (https://www.buildup.eu/en/). The use of Add-ons can be easily integrated to the use of renewable
energy systems but, in the very common case of roof extension, it must be underlined that this type of
interventions poses the risk of exceeding structural limits, especially in terms of seismic safety. To overcome this
problem, additions should be conceived with support structures or other systems that improve the mechanical,
static and seismic performance of the existing structure as well.
Regarding the specific case of cultural heritage or listed buildings, in some countries, as in Belgium, Germany,
Netherlands, and the UK within Europe, but also the US abroad, for instance, there are dedicated property tax
15
exemption or deduction. These incentives are usually raised at the regional, local or municipal government level
and, in general, they work for restoration/maintenance works, i.e. they do not directly address the energy or
seismic performance of buildings.
Within the VIOLET project (https://www.interregeurope.eu/violet/), that studies how to combine the needs of
conservation and intervention for improved energy usage and reduced carbon emissions in heritage buildings,
the good practice of Cyprus has been reported (https://www.interregeurope.eu/policylearning/). From the end
of the Eighties - beginning of the Nineties an economic incentive programme based on low interest loans, grants
according to the owners’ income (subsequently cancelled), direct grants, tax incentives and transfer of
Development Rights, was started. Thanks to the incentives 3500 buildings have been restored up-to-date and
the number of Listed Buildings is steadily increasing (about 70 per year), while restoration works are on-going
for about 350 buildings per year. Hence, the instrument is quite successful, however, the fact that these
incentives do not specifically address the energy or seismic performance of buildings (although they are not
excluded), implies that the overall financing is too low to include these interventions as well, and they should be
strengthened with additional or combinational measures to make the energy-seismic measures a priority.
It should be stressed that, in general, for cultural heritage buildings there are benefits associated with their
restoration, including their use value, lower energy consumption in development compared to new buildings,
socioeconomic advantages through contributing to the viability of existing communities, uniqueness, and less
tangible values arising from their appearance and existence, which accrue to society as a whole. However, their
costs accrue only to private owners or occupiers. This should provide the rationale for public support, and specific
lines of incentives in the energy and seismic retrofit dedicated to this type of buildings.
1.3.2 Regulatory framework

As discussed by La Greca and Margani (2018), an effective way of promoting building renovation is the imposition
of a seismic label to rate the seismic safety of a building. This label has been recently adopted in Italy (MIT 2017a,
2017b), although it is not yet compulsory, except for accessing the fiscal incentives. As for the rest, the seismic
label is very similar to the energy one, which has been already imposed by the directive on the energy
performance of buildings (European Parliament 2018), to rate the energy performance. However, according to
Baek and Park (2012), the energy performance certificate for the sale or rent of buildings has still had little effect
on the market price of the real estate. Other and more recent studies demonstrated that there is an impact of
energy labelling on the transaction prices (Zancanella et al. 2018), however it seems that higher energy
performances (label A, B and C) improve significantly (up to about 6%-8% according to various sources) the prices
for residential housing, but the negative effect linked to low performance (E, F and G) is always greater than the
positive impact of good labels. Zancanella et al. (2018) also report that the estimated rental premium for energy
efficiency was smaller than the estimated sales price premium. According to La Greca and Margani (2018), to
increase the value of the renovated stock, the seismic and energy label should also be supported by a new
taxation for real estate transactions, which should be indexed according to the reached performance.
Moreover, governments should promote mandatory insurances to cover damage from natural hazards, with
premiums based again on the same label system. The risks faced by the insurance company in case of
earthquakes or other natural hazards may be alleviated through new security tools, like the catastrophe bonds
(namely “cat bonds”), which allow transferring some of these risk from the insurance company to the investors
(Edesess, 2014). Whereas some typically seismic prone countries, such as Japan or US, do not have compulsory
earthquake insurance, in some others, such as Turkey or New Zealand, there are specific laws forcing to actually
purchase earthquake insurance coverage. In Turkey, for example, the Disaster Law n. 7296 was amended in 1999,
due to the exceptionally high public costs of the Marmara earthquake, bringing from a situation where the
government had an obligation to finance reconstruction of all dwellings destroyed by natural disasters to the
compulsory catastrophe insurance. This new scheme gave citizens an incentive to undertake mitigation measures
and, at least in principle, forced the undeveloped culture of insurance to grow. Enforcement mechanisms include
obligation for owners to present a valid earthquake insurance policy in a government real estate registration
office to register any real estate transaction, or to open accounts for water and natural gas services (Gurenko et
al. 2006).
La Greca and Margani (2018) also points at additional useful measures, represented by compulsory
establishment of renovation funds, in order to collect money for future retrofitting activities. In Germany, a
renovation fund as high as 1% of the building value has been activated (Matschoss at al 2013), but according to
16
them, this rate is usually too little to cover expensive interventions like seismic upgrades. Fund rates should be
determined according to the seismic vulnerability and energy performance of the considered building. They also
found that, in some countries such as Italy, a substantial regulatory simplification, both for seismic and energy
renovation actions, would be necessary to reduce bureaucratic burden and time to building permit, including
also access to fiscal incentives (particularly for the combined renovations).
In some countries, in the specific case of heritage buildings, there are regulatory policies to force building
(general) conservation. In the worst cases, the owner may be expropriated, and the building assigned to other
bodies. When deliberate neglect of a listed building can be proved in the UK, for instance, buildings may be sold
to a Building Preservation Trust for repair (Sigmund 2018). In some countries, such as Croatia, direct regulations
to conserve heritage assets is necessary, however, as Sigmund (2018) observes, this strategy is neither popular
nor efficient as the level of public subsides is very low, and generally sanctions for non-compliance with
regulatory policies are limited to the use of the architectural heritage buildings, and in reality, authorities are
reluctant to use force against private owners without economic compensation and only take action in the most
severe cases.
17
2 Technologies for the combined seismic and energy retrofit of buildings
This chapter deals with the technologies that allows carrying out seismic and energy retrofit of the buildings,
with reference in particularly to reinforced concrete and masonry buildings. The technologies are described
following a logical path that goes from global interventions (such as exoskeletons), to interventions on the
building envelope elements (either infill walls in RC frames and walls in load-bearing masonry buildings), the use
of timber panels (CLT or OSB), and then intervention on single elements, such as strengthening of openings and
stiffening of horizontal diaphragms integrated with energy solutions. This chapter is not intended to be a
comprehensive review of any type of seismic retrofit interventions (i.e., global interventions to reduce demand
or many types of local interventions on RC and masonry elements are not reported) neither of energy retrofit
interventions (i.e., energy production and upgrading of mechanical equipment are not, or are only very briefly,
reported). Only the interventions that to-date, according to the literature and the authors, are already carried
out with a certain degree of integration between the structural and energetic components, or that show a strong
potential for integration, are described, whereas simple “additional” measures (such as, for example, base
isolation and energy retrofit, and others) are not.
For each technology/technique, besides its description, aspects such as potential improvement in seismic
performance and in energy performance will be discussed, significant installation phases, the level of
invasiveness and business downtime. Direct costs (i.e., not including secondary costs due to business downtime
and residents’ relocation) are evaluated for all of the various intervention strategies. In the final subsection of
this chapter there is a summary of the characteristics (in terms of seismic and energy improvement,
feasibility/intrusiveness of the execution phases and costs) of the various technologies, in order to compare their
performance in a tabular way. As the costs are referred to the Italian market, an indication of how actualizing
the costs to other EU countries is also given.
2.1 Engineered exoskeletons for RC buildings

An exoskeleton is an external self-supporting system rigidly linked to an existing building that is vulnerable to
seismic actions (Martelli et al., 2020). Since the ‘80s the use of external additive structures is considered one of
the possible alternatives for seismic retrofit of existing RC building with low dissipative capacity. In the last years,
the interest in integrated retrofit solution, coupling structural and energy interventions, has grown. In this
scenario, the use of exoskeleton is of great relevance, because it can be effectively adopted for integrated energy
and seismic retrofit (Marini et al., 2015). As combined retrofit strategy, exoskeletons entail important co-benefits
(Marini et al., 2017):
• Elongation of the building structural service life;
• Minimization of post-earthquake building downtime;
• Reduction of the environmental impact associated to seismic risk over the building life cycle;
• Possible addition of new stories;
• Advantage of a single construction site for both architectural, energy and structural renovation, with
the added benefit that some of the components may be used for multiple purposes.
For a better eco-efficiency of the intervention, particular attention should be paid to the choice of materials, to
minimize the use of raw materials and to reduce waste production. It must be beard in mind that, according to
the type of system, the exoskeleton may increase the forces acting at the frame nodes or on the foundations,
requiring specific interventions thereof. In addition, the added systems generally rely on the existing floors for
redistributing the horizontal forces, therefore careful evaluation of the in-plane stiffness of the horizontal
diaphragms must precede the choice and design of this type of intervention.
18
2.1.1 Seismic and energy performance
A complete state-of-the-art and catalogue of exoskeletons can be find in (Landolfo et al., 2019) and (Di Lorenzo
et al., 2020). It is possible to divide exoskeletons in two main categories: braced-frame and 2D wall or shell
systems.
Figure 6. Structural safety's increment provided by exoskeleton.
Source: Ferro et al., 2020
• Braced-frame systems has been the most used type of exoskeleton until now. The secondary structure
is usually made by steel elements that can absorb the lateral actions unloading the principal structure.
The braces can be provided with dissipative dampers that reduce the seismic demand on the structure
(Passoni et al., 2020). For the structural resistance, braced-frame exoskeletons can increase structure’s
capacity in terms of strength, stiffness and ductility towards lateral actions (Badini et al., 2019). In terms
of energy retrofit, braced-frame exoskeletons can be easily integrated with prefabricated panels with
appropriate thermic properties (see 2.2.1.2) or photovoltaic devices.
Figure 7. Braced-frame exoskeleton.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismic_retrofit#/media/File:ExteiorShearTruss.jpg
• In wall solutions (Figure 8a), the additional stiffness and resistance are lumped into few elements placed
perpendicular or in adhesion to the building façade. However, in case of very stiff existing structures or
19
in high seismicity areas, wall system may not be a viable solution since a significant number of walls may
be needed. Moreover, the foundations may be insufficient and additional interventions on them may
be required. When the stiffness required to the additional system is too high to be obtained with regular
walls, shell solutions may be adopted. In the shell solution (Figure 8 b and c), the façade is wrapped by
a whole new external envelope that can increase the resistance (Labò et al., 2016).
Figure 8. 2D solutions: a) wall system; b) shell system; c) gridshell system.
Source: Labò et al., 2016
In terms of energy retrofit, in wall systems the energy efficiency upgrade is guaranteed by the finishing curtain
walls or by the envelope attached to the exoskeleton (Figure 9a); in this case, the two structural-energetic
systems work in parallel. In shell system, the energy efficiency upgrade and structural safety could be achieved
through a dual-use of the same elements (Figure 9b). When located in close proximity to the building, the new
envelope becomes a structural-thermal coating. An example of structural-thermal coating is presented in (Pertile
et al., 2018; Pertile et al. 2021) (Figure 10). This innovative system, comparable to a Figure 9b exoskeleton,
consists of adding to the existing building’s envelope a new seismic-resistant external skin, made by a thin RC
slab cast in situ between two or one pre-assembled layers of insulating materials used as permanent formworks.
The connection with the existing structure is done by means of connectors installed in the beams of the structural
frame. Nevertheless, the use of concrete makes this system less environmentally friendly and not reversible. In
(Manfredi and Masi, 2018) the double-skin technique, which is made up of new infilled frame connected to the
existing RC frames, can increase the ratio between seismic capacity and demand from 0.38 to 1.38 (+263%) and
it can reduce energy demand from 74 kWh/year for unit area to about 43 kWh/year. In (Ferrante et al., 2018)
the proposed exoskeleton can guarantee good performance in terms of transversal displacement (+16-17%) and
it entails a reduction from 155 kWh/m2 per year to 61.5 kWh/m2 per year in terms of gas consumption.
Figure 9. Structural and energy function in wall systems (a) and shell systems (b).
Source: Marini et al., 2017
20
Figure 10. Insulating concrete formworks: scheme and view.
Source: Pertile et al., 2021
2.1.2 Level of invasiveness and business downtime

The exoskeleton is a highly invasive intervention that completely modifies the façade of the structure. For this
reason, this kind of retrofit intervention is not suitable for heritage buildings. Nevertheless, especially in the case
of post war RC buildings, it may be used as an architectural renovation tool, to improve the aesthetics of the
building façades, and allowing the construction of additional living spaces, balcony, and new stories.
Despite the invasiveness, the external structure allows to reduce business downtime and to avoid residents’
relocation thanks to the operative processes that are carried out (mainly) from the outside, however this should
be also evaluated considering the eventual need of interventions on the frame elements/floors, as briefly
mentioned in the introduction. Most of the exoskeleton elements are easily demountable and reparable, for this
reason building downtime is also minimized during the maintenance process.
2.1.3 Evaluation of costs

The costs of this retrofit strategy strongly depend on the design materials and their quantity. For the structural
part, most common elements are steel HE sections (4-5 €/kg). For the energy part, there are too many possible
design options for an accurate cost estimation; however, the use of insulating panel is very common, with a range
of cost from 10-20 €/m2 for stone wool panels up to 400-500 €/m2 for aerogel panels. According to the case
studies presented in this section, a range of possible values is 250-350 €/ m2 (overall square meter of floor area)
for steel-braced exoskeleton and 250-700 €/ m2 (overall square meter of floor area) for shell exoskeleton.
On the other hand, avoiding business downtime and residents’ relocation allows to minimize secondary costs. In
(Ferrante et al., 2018) it is estimated a cost reduction of 16.5% due to the avoided residents’ relocation, and a
real estate unit value increase of 130-180 €/m2.
21
2.2 Integrated interventions on envelope elements in R.C. buildings
Although external infill walls in RC buildings are not considered to be structural elements, they have a significant
interaction with the structure during seismic events, and they can themselves present high vulnerability in case
of seismic events. Envelope elements of existing building, in fact, as shown by recent events, are particularly
damage-prone (Figure 11), representing a source of danger for residents’ safety.
Indeed, masonry enclosure walls mobilize their maximum in-plane resistance for small values of imposed shear
deformation, usually with the appearance of shear cracking. Their response is rather brittle, characterized by a
decrease of resistance for larger values of shear deformation imposed by the frame during earthquakes, thus
resulting in severe damage, possibly even disintegration or out-of-plane collapse of the wall. In addition, infill
walls modify the response of the structure, and if the stiffening effect of the infills on the structure may lead to
positive reduction of the frame deformability (but the counterpart is an increase of actions at the RC frame nodes
and extreme column and beam sections), on the other hand, irregular plan or elevation distribution of the infill
walls may lead to torsional effects or soft-storey effects.
Figure 11. Example of damage to masonry infills in RC multi-storey buildings.
Source: Dolce and Manfredi, 2009
In addition, the energy consumption of a building is strongly dependent on the characteristics of its envelope.
Improving the thermal performance of infill walls represents a key factor to obtain an energy-efficient building
and reduce greenhouse gases emissions.
For these reasons, there is no doubt that particular attention should be paid to the envelope elements, providing
appropriate structural and energetic retrofit interventions. It is possible to adopt two different strategies:
intervening on the existing elements (section 2.2.1) or replacing them (section 2.2.2).
2.2.1 Interventions on existing envelope elements
2.2.1.1 Structural aspects

For long time, the most common techniques to increase the strength of infill walls were those involving steel
elements or RC jackets. However, these applications require intensive labour and considerable quantities of
material (high cost) and interrupt for a long time the use of the building under renovation (high business
downtime). For these reasons, in the last decades new techniques, based on advanced composite materials (i.e.
fibre-reinforced polymer FRP or textile-reinforced mortar TRM) have been developed.
The use of FRP materials (Figure 12) has grown thanks to the favourable characteristics of these materials: high
strength with a low increment of weight, ease of application and minimal changes in the geometry of the wall. A
guide on the use of FRP materials could be find in (Erol et al., 2012) and (CSLP, 2009) Despite their advantages,
FRP strengthening techniques entail also some drawbacks: poor behaviour at high temperatures, high cost,
inapplicability on wet surfaces or low temperatures, health and safety issues for the workers, incompatibility
with substrate materials, durability, etc. (Bournas, 2018).
22
To overcome the problems of the FRP techniques, a novel composite material called textile-reinforced mortar
(TRM, also known as fibre-reinforced cementitious mortars or FRCM) has been proposed. In TRM, the epoxy-
based resin used in FRP as binder is replaced by inorganic matrices, such as cementitious mortars, and the uni-
directional fibre sheets or strips generally used in FRP applications as reinforcement is replaced by bidirectional
orthogonal textiles (or meshes) made from knitted or woven rovings of high-strength fibres (e.g. carbon, glass or
basalt). The textiles can also be made from natural fibres, e.g. hemp or flax. Figure 13 shows possible layouts of
TRM application. An exhaustive comparison between FRP and TRM is presented in (Koutas et al., 2019), while a
state-of-art review of TRM uses for seismic retrofit of infilled RC frames is presented in (Pohoryles and Bournas,
2020). Both types of techniques, FRP reinforcement and TRM/FRCM applications, to date have complete
guidelines for the design and construction (see, for example, CNR DT200, 2004; CNR DT215, 2018).
Figure 12. Example of FRP application.
Source: Erol et al., 2012
Figure 13. Possible layout of TRM application.
Source: Pohoryles and Bournas, 2020 (Modified)
Based on the test results presented in (Koutas et al., 2015), the TRM retrofitting scheme resulted in an enhanced
global response of the infilled frame, both in terms of lateral strength (increase of 56%) and deformation capacity
(increase of 52%). Moreover, the TRM retrofitted RC frame dissipated about 22% more energy than the un-
retrofitted one for the same loading history. The test results of (da Porto et al., 2015) show that external
application of TRM only slightly improves the initial stiffness and maximum in-plane capacity of the frame, while
the out-of-plane capacity of the infills is on average 3.5 higher than that of the un-retrofitted reference specimen.
The experimental tests presented in (Minotto et al., 2020) allow evaluating the reduction of out-of-plane capacity
due to in-plane damage. The strength degradation in TRM retrofitted elements, made of weak clay masonry
23
units, is around 39% at 1.2% drift. Similar URM infill walls presented definitely higher strength degradation value,
i.e. 73% at 1.2% drift. In addition, all the strengthened specimens investigated in the experimental campaign,
after reaching a 1.2% in-plane drift, showed an out-of-plane capacity at least 26% higher than that of the
reference unreinforced specimens.
Figure 14. TRM application procedure: (a) dampening of surface; (b) first layer of mortar; (c) textile application; (d) patch
textile application; (e) wrapping of the specimen; (d) final finishing.
Source: Koutas and Bournas, 2019
2.2.1.2 Energy aspects

The external envelope plays a fundamental role in the energetic characterization of a building, since it is a border
between the internal and the external environment, influencing the thermal comfort of the inhabitants (Mathi
et al., 2014) and the energy loss during the operating phase (Rodríguez-Soria et al., 2015; Vollaro et al., 2015).
Moreover, the incidence of thermal losses through the opaque walls represents a large amount on the whole
energy losses of the building (Asdrubali et al., 2013), so the use of adequately insulated walls has become
essential. The insulating material is the layer that mainly contributes to the thermal behaviour of the opaque
walls. Insulating materials must guarantee acceptable performance throughout the whole life cycle of the
building, but thermal performance is not the only parameter that should be addressed when selecting an
insulator. Indeed, the choice of these materials in the building sector is starting to be inspired by a holistic
approach, which considers also non-thermal features such as sound insulation, fire resistance, water-vapor
permeability and impact on the environment and on human health (Jelle, 2011). In addition to insulating
properties, it is very important to assess the real sustainability of insulating materials. For this purpose, two
important parameters can help: embodied energy and embodied carbon. The embodied energy is the sum of all
the energy required to produce goods and includes the energy necessary for the mining, transport, manufacture,
assembly, installation, disassembly, and decomposition. Typical embodied energy units are MJ/kg (megajoule of
energy needed to make a kilogram of product). For insulating material, typical units are MJ/FU (megajoule of
energy needed to make a functional unit, where functional unit is defined as the quantity of material necessary
to assure a thermal resistance of 1 m2K/W for 1 m2 of wall) (Figure 15). The embodied carbon is linked to the
embodied energy and it represents the greenhouse emissions produced during the manufacturing, transport,
installation … (the entire life-cycle) of construction materials or components.
The most used insulation building materials today can be classified in three main categories (Figure 17):
conventional, alternative and advanced materials. An exhaustive review of the properties of the main insulation
materials is presented in (Jelle, 2011) and (Schiavoni et al., 2016).
24
Figure 15. Embodied energy of various insulating materials per Functional Unit.
Source: Asdrubali, 2009
Figure 16. Life Cycle Impact of insulating materials (Cumulative Energy Demand Method), for a given value of thermal
resistance.
Source: Asdrubali, 2009
25
Figure 17. List of the principal insulation materials.
Source: Schiavoni et al., 2016
Table 1. Characteristics of principal insulating materials.
Resistance Environmental
Thermal Performance Cost per
conductivity if fire, water impact of
Material thermal
[mW/mK] perforated and production and
resistance
chemical use
Mineral wool 30-40 Same Low Low Low
Expanded polystyrene
30-40 Same Low Low High
(EPS)
Extruded polystyrene
30-35 Same Moderate High High
(XPS)
Cellulose 40-50 Same Low Low Low
Polyurethane (PUR) 20-30 Same Moderate High High
Vacuum insulation
4-8 Worse Low High Moderate
panels (VIP)
Gas-filled panels (GFP) 10-40 Worse Low High Moderate
Aerogels 13-14 Same Moderate High Moderate
Nano insulation
<4 Same Moderate High Moderate
materials (NIM)
Source: Bournas, 2018
26
Due to their effectiveness in reducing the energy demand of a building, research on new insulating materials
continues. The researchers’ interests focus on finding more efficient and sustainable technologies such as natural
fibres (Juarez Rodriguez et al., 2011; Mohd Nasir et al., 2014; Shobha et al., 2020) or advanced materials, such as
nanocellulose-based materials (Apostolopoulou-Kalkavoura et al., 2020) and Phase Change Materials (Zalba et
al., 2003). PCMs are not properly thermal insulation materials, but they are still used for thermal building
applications. PCMs can store and release heat as latent heat changing phase during daytime and night-time
(Figure 18) (Yang et al., 2019). PCMs change phase from solid state to liquid state when heated, thus absorbing
energy in the endothermic process. When the ambient temperature drops again, the liquid PCMs will turn into
solid state materials, while giving off the earlier absorbed heat (Jelle, 2011).
Figure 18. Principle of PCM-based envelope.
Source: Yang et al., 2019
PCMs are divided in two major groups: organic and inorganic materials. Organic materials are obtained from
petroleum, vegetables, or animal sources. Inorganic materials can be classified in salt hydrates and metallic. Both
organic and inorganic materials can be found with different phase change temperatures, latent heat of transition
and conductivity (Bragança et al., 2012). A review of main PCM materials and their applications is presented in
(Nader, 2015) and (Durakovic, 2020).
2.2.1.3 Seismic and energy retrofitting

Integrating seismic plus energy interventions on existing envelope elements makes retrofitting economically
viable. This allows with one intervention to achieve both the required safety and energy performance, while
keeping the overall cost low by reducing the labour cost. The integration of different insulation materials (see
Figure 17) to the textile reinforcement could result to various hybrid retrofitting solutions (Figure 19). Moreover,
TRM could be also applied in a matrix containing Phase Change Materials (Bournas, 2018).
27
Figure 19. TRM combined with thermal insulation panels.
Source: Pohoryles et al., 2020
2.2.1.4 Level of invasiveness and business downtime

The invasiveness of interventions on infill walls depends on the operational strategy. The type of intervention
with TRM strengthening is generally applied on the external side of existing infill walls, also to prevent the out-
of-plane failure of the damaged infills during the earthquake occurrence, and thus allows to avoid business
downtime and residents’ relocation, although intervening on two sides may be more effective. This operational
strategy deeply modifies the façade of the building, for this reason it is not suitable for buildings of artistic and
historic value. In any case, for existing RC buildings this is very often not an issue or may even have a positive
impact on the building regeneration under the aesthetic point of view. In the (rare) case that the intervention is
carried out on the internal side of the infill walls, then total or partial residents’ relocation is needed, and business
downtime and invasiveness of the intervention are definitely higher. In addition, thermal bridges are formed at
the floor level, reducing the energy efficiency of the intervention. Intervening on the internal side also generates
a loss of gross floor surface.
2.2.1.5 Evaluation of costs

An accurate estimation of the costs for this retrofitting strategy is not possible without an operational case of
study. A substantial amount of the total costs depends on the used materials. TRM retrofitting costs about 70-
80€/m2. The cost of insulating panels is very variable, with a range of cost from 10-20 €/m2 for stone wool panels
up to 400-500 €/m2 for aerogel panels. Common applications, considering also the labour cost and the
installation phase, amount to 160-230 €/m2 (square meter of building envelope area). Bournas (2018) estimated
that combining seismic and energy interventions with TRM and insulating panel application on infill walls can
reduce costs by 30%, compared to carrying out the seismic and energy interventions separately, by reducing the
labour costs. A more detailed cost-benefit analysis on combining seismic and energy intervention on infill
elements is presented in (Gkournelos et al., 2019).
2.2.2 Replacement of envelope elements

Often, intervening on the existing infill walls is not feasible in practice or not economically viable. In this case,
the replacement of the elements is a valid alternative, although extremely invasive compared to the infill wall
retrofit carried out on the external side of existing infill walls. In any case, when the retrofit of the frame requires
to intervene on some structural elements by partial dismantling of the existing infill walls, the burden due to the
construction of a new wall, and the related loss of finishing and instalments on the previous wall, are already
entailed in the works. During the last years, the interest has been focused on the development of elements that
can join both seismic resistance and energy performance. However, in practice the new technologies foresee the
use of more energy efficient elements (either units and mortar) for the wall construction, or the application of
insulating layers on top of the new wall.
28
2.2.2.1 Seismic and energy performance
To solve the main seismic problems of infill walls highlighted in the introduction of section 2.2, three main
approaches have been followed so far. A recent European project has explored the possibilities of all of the three
approaches, yielding to many different technological solutions, various of which have been also patented
(INSYSME project; da Porto et al. 2016).
Figure 20. Reinforced masonry infill walls.
Source: da Porto et al., 2020
Figure 21. Infill wall with sliding joints: scheme (a); walls with deformable joints: experimental testing (b).
a) b)
Source: Morandi et al., 2018 (a); Verlato et al. 2016 (b)
Figure 22. Infill masonry wall uncoupled from the RC frame.
Source: Marinkovic and Butenweg, 2019
29
The first approach increases both strength and stiffness of the enclosure walls, when these are rigidly attached
to the frame. Increased mechanical characteristics can be obtained by means of external plaster reinforcements,
as described in section 2.2.1.1 or, for new walls, by means of internal steel (vertical, horizontal, or both, e.g.
Figure 20) reinforcements (see, for example, da Porto et al. 2020). Conversely, the second approach increases
the enclosure deformability, to reduce the damage due to in-plane deformation of the RC frame. High levels of
enclosure deformability can be obtained in different ways: through the implementation in the masonry enclosure
of special horizontal sliding joints (e.g., Morandi et al. 2018), vertical sliding surfaces (e.g., Vintzileou, et al. 2016)
or both horizontal and vertical special deformable joints (e.g., Verlato et al. 2016) (Figure 21). With these
systems, the level of interaction forces between frame and infill wall are significantly reduced. The third approach
allows relative displacements between RC frame and masonry enclosure to occur, to further reduce interactions
and damage due to in-plane deformation of the frame. The uncoupling of the construction elements needs the
interposition of thick layer of soft and deformable materials between the frame and the masonry enclosure, still
providing a restraint effect towards out-of-plane failure of the infill (see, for example, Marinkovic and Butenweg
2019, Figure 22). Besides the improvement of the infill wall behaviour, i.e. taking into account how the structural
response of the frame influences the behaviour of the infill and causes damage, it must be taken into account
the reverse problem as well, i.e. how the infill wall modify the response of the structure, as described in the
introduction of this section 2.2. It is evident that such engineered systems may be designed on-purpose for
tackling these problems as well.
The simplest coupled-functions elements are traditional clay or concrete bricks filled whit insulating materials
(Figure 23). In this case, the energy performance is guaranteed by the insulating materials that can be of different
types, starting from more traditional Styrofoam (see Figure 23) to aerogels (Wernery et al., 2017) or PCMs (Kant
et al., 2017).
Figure 23. Clay brick infilled with insulating material.
Source: http://www.andil.it/
Recent researches are focused on the development of infill elements that combine traditional construction
materials with insulating materials. Nowadays, on the market it is possible to find new composite bricks (e.g.
Figure 24) made with eco sustainable, fully recyclable materials, having good resistance and insulating properties
(Kamara and Onjefu, 2019; El-Naggar et al., 2019; Hombal et al., 2018; Karim, 2018; Mocktar et al., 2020; Razab
et al., 2019). Natural composite bricks provide high thermal insulating and sound absorption. They are highly
transpiring, favouring healthy indoor environment with no mould and condensation. They are compatible with
any types of frame structure (wood, RC, steel), with a low weight and easy to handle, but they are not suitable
for the construction of a load-bearing wall (Fuzio, 2020). However, the structural and seismic behaviour of the
new composite bricks is not yet fully investigated.
30
Figure 24. Example of kenaf composite bricks.
Source: Razab et al., 2019
2.2.2.2 Level of invasiveness and business downtime

Replacing the existing infill walls with more (seismic and energy) efficient elements allows to improve the quality
of the building. Nevertheless, this strategy is more demanding. Residents’ relocation is always necessary and
business downtime is substantial. Replacing the existing elements is a highly invasive intervention that generates
a great amount of waste, very often not recyclable due to the original material age. In addition, if one replaces
an original weak infill with a more robust one, already provided, thanks to the unit robustness and the eventual
presence of internal reinforcing elements, with considerable in-plane and out-of-plane capacity, it should be
taken into account the eventual increase of forces at the RC frame nodes. The increase of lateral stiffness can
produce not only a decreased deformability of the frame, but also an increased seismic demand to the frame.
On the other hand, if the RC frame intervention already foresees to strengthen the nodes or extreme elements
(beam and column) sections, and this entails a partial or complete dismantling of the existing infill walls, this type
of intervention may be justified and will improve, among the others, the overall building quality and indoor
comfort.
2.2.2.3 Evaluation of costs

An accurate estimation of the costs for this retrofitting strategy is not possible without a specific operational case
of study. The cost may vary according to the type of masonry materials (units and mortar) used and on the basis
of the choice of masonry type (ordinary URM, RM walls, infill walls provided with special devices to increase their
ductility and deformation capacity, infill walls provided with special devices to allow disconnecting them from
the frame, etc). In any case, a plausible range of cost could be 120-150 €/m2, taking into account dismantling of
the original infill, and construction of a better-quality wall (URM, RM, or simple deformable systems). In addition
to these costs, secondary costs, such as costs due to residents’ relocation, business downtime, waste removal
should be considered, particularly if the intervention is carried out alone and not in conjunction with other type
of structural retrofit on the elements, as above mentioned.
2.3 Integrated interventions on existing load-bearing masonry walls

Despite masonry constructions have decreased over the years, a large amount of European traditional buildings
is made of masonry (Figure 25 shows, as an example, the evolution of construction materials for residential
buildings in Italy). Most of them, including heritage and cultural buildings, were built in absence of seismic codes.
The typical low tensile resistance makes masonry buildings particularly vulnerable to both in-plane and out-of-
plane seismic actions. In addition, old masonry buildings present insufficient thermal insulation properties. For
these reasons, most of the times seismic and energy retrofitting intervention are necessary. However, masonry
walls can be made of very different materials (natural stones, clay bricks, earthen blocks, etc) and the resulting
31
morphology of the wall and arrangement of the constituent materials (irregular or regular texture, multi-leaf or
monolithic sections, etc.) can also vary a lot. As a consequence, the seismic behaviour of the masonry walls can
be characterized by specific features, and the intervention techniques should be differentiated, being more
suitable for one or the other type of masonry, according to the specific structural need (da Porto et al., 2018).
Figure 25. Trend of buildings in Italy during XX century.
100%
% Masonry Buildings
% Reinforced Concrete Buildings
80%
% Other Buildings
60%
40%
20%
0%
1919-45
1946-61
1962-71
1972-81
1982-91
Pre-1919
Post-1991
Source: ISTAT 2001

A review of conventional structural retrofitting techniques for URM can be find in (Quelhas et al., 2014; da Porto
et al., 2018), while a review of the state-of-art energy retrofitting techniques is presented in (Ma et al., 2012).
An evaluation of energy aspects of conventional seismic retrofitting measures is presented in (De Vita et al.,
2018). In (Sassu et al., 2017) a simultaneous evaluation of the role of multiple structural and thermal parameters
is proposed. In (Mistretta et al., 2019) the unitary economic (€/m2) and the ecological (kg CO2/m2) costs of
conventional seismic retrofitting strategies are analysed. However, researchers’ interest in innovative methods
that can join both seismic and energy aspects has grown more recently. In (Triantafillou et al., 2017) a new system
combining TRM with thermal insulation is presented (Figure 26). The concept and the possible material choice
are very similar to those presented in Section 2.2.1 for intervening on existing masonry infill walls.
Figure 26. Schematic view of TRM-based structural and energy retrofitting system.
Source: Triantafillou et al., 2017
According to Triantafillou et al. (2017), the proposed TRM-insulation combined system, applied to clay brick
masonry walls, is better than the use of TRM alone: TRM alone increased the out-of-plane strength by 170%,
whereas the combined system ensured an increase from 200% to 340%. In terms of out-of-plane deformation
capacity, the combined system was more effective than the TRM alone, too, by approximately 140-145%. In
32
(Giaretton et al., 2018) different TRM configurations applied to clay brick and clay block masonry walls were
analysed by means of diagonal shear tests. The application of the strengthening layer to the tested wall panels
improved performance by avoiding the brittle failure observed on all un-retrofitted samples (Figure 27). Single-
sided TRM strengthened wall presents a peak diagonal load 43% higher than the as-build one, whereas the
increase of peak diagonal load for double-sided TRM is 157%. In addition, the sample with TRM combined with
an external insulation layer, on which the strengthening layer is applied, presents an increment of peak diagonal
load and a crack pattern which are in the same range of the masonry wall with single sided strengthening and
TRM alone. The application of the strengthening layer above the external thermal insulation layer required some
screw-anchors to secure it to the masonry wall (Figure 28). Triantafillou et al. (2018) also carried out in-plane
cyclic tests on clay hollow brick masonry walls with combined TRM jacketing and thermal insulation. The
retrofitting system was applied in the form of two- or one-sided jacketing and with the insulating panel either on
the outer face or between the TRM and the masonry. It was concluded that the proposed retrofitting scheme is
highly effective, where the exact positioning of the TRM and the insulating material does not play an important
role in the in-plane response, as long as proper bonding between the different layers is achieved.
Figure 27. Failure modes of clay-brick panels: (a) as-built; (b) single-sided strengthening; (c) double-sided strengthening.
Source: Giaretton et al., 2018
Figure 28. Failure modes of clay-brick panel with external thermal insulation layer and single-sided strengthening (ETICS):
(a) failure mode; (b) close-up of the anchor (after manual removal).
Source: Giaretton et al., 2018
In (Borri et al., 2016) and (Righetti et al., 2016) results of shear tests, carried out on solid brick masonry panels
with a new technique based on the use of glass fibre reinforced polymers (GFRP) grids combined with thermal
insulating mortar, are presented. Retrofitted panels exhibit an enhancement in lateral capacity up to 115%,
whereas thermal mortar ensures a reduction of the thermal transmittance value in the 34-45% range. In (Longo
et al., 2019) a technique based on the use of innovative fabric-reinforced cementitious matrix (FRCM) is
presented. In particular, different percentages in volume of aggregates were replaced with recycled materials
(i.e. waste tire rubber, WTR). The aim of the research is to quantify the decrease of mechanical strength and the
enhancement of the thermal insulation according to the substitution rates (10%, 20% and 30% of substitution).
33
The test results confirmed that the substitution of sand with a lower thermal conductivity material implies a
modest increase in thermal resistance because of the CCC process (continuous conductive chain: the heat-flow
was deviated by the presence of WTR) and a dramatic decay in mechanical resistance at the same time. In
(Coppola et al., 2019), an innovative Portland-free lightweight structural plaster for seismic and energy
retrofitting of poor-quality stone masonry building is presented. Results indicate that the Portland-free alkali
activated-based plaster, manufactured with expanded glass aggregate, is able to provide a 28-day compressive
strength equal to 8 MPa and a thermal conductivity of 0.35 W/mK. In (Longo et al., 2020) a new geo-polymeric
FRCM-system that combines fly-ash binder (reused material) and expanded glass aggregate (recycled material)
is presented. The results were compared with those of traditional FRCM (commercially available), presenting a
scatter in terms of shear strength gain lower than 5% and a reduction in thermal transmittance of 25%.

Most of masonry retrofitting methods can be carried out from the outside, but some of them specifically require
to be carried out on both masonry sides or they are applied to the inner layer of multiple-leaves masonry walls
(such as grout injection in stone masonry walls). In the case of TRM/FRCM solutions, carrying out the intervention
on both masonry sides increases the intervention effectiveness (e.g., see the shear strength increase in Giaretton
et al., 2018), but the experimental works demonstrated the effectiveness of carrying out the intervention on one
side only, provided that due attention is paid to construction details. Depending on the initial seismic
performance of the building and the quality of masonry, a double-sided intervention could be needed with these
techniques as well. In these cases, residents’ relocation is not avoidable, business downtime is lengthened, and
the intervention generates a loss of gross floor surface.
When it is possible to intervene on the external side of load-bearing masonry walls only, avoiding residents’
relocation and reducing business downtime improve the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. However, this
operational strategy deeply modifies the façade of the building, and in masonry buildings this could be often not
suitable, because of the artistic and historic value of the building, or because the building is located within an
historic centre. In these cases, the intervention may be also applied on the internal side of the walls, entailing all
the issues related to relocation, downtime, and loss of gross floor surface, in addition to decreased effectiveness
of at least the thermal performance.

A TRM-based retrofitting intervention on load-bearing masonry walls costs about 90-100€/m2. The cost of
insulating panels is very variable, starting from 10-20 €/m2 for stone wool panels. Combining seismic and energy
intervention can decrease cost by reducing labour costs. A plausible combined cost can be estimated in 180-250
€/m2. A more detailed cost-benefit analysis, including environmental costs, of conventional retrofitting
techniques for masonry walls is presented in (Giresini et al., 2020).
Table 2. Economic and environmental costs of the conventional retrofitting techniques.
Materials Economic costs Environmental costs
Polystyrene panel 1517 €/m3 138 kgCO2eq/m3
Diatons 80 €/m2 0.25 kgCO2eq/m2
Ferrocement 2080 €/m3 450 kgCO2eq/m3
CFRP stripes 2160 €/m3 87.140 kgCO2eq/m3
GFRP stripes 1723 €/m3 15.062 kgCO2eq/m3
GFRP nets 4667 €/m3 520 kgCO2eq/m3

Source: Giresini et al., 2020
34
2.4 Timber-based panels technologies
In the context of seismic and energy integrated strategies, intervention techniques based on the use of timber
panels have acquired particular importance. For the concept of sustainable building, wood presents important
properties: high structural strength, thermal insulation, sound absorption, low weight and ease of assembly that
allow to reduce on-site work and building downtime, fire resistance, fully recyclable and reduced CO2
manufacturing emissions (Asdrubali et al., 2017; Nocera et al., 2018). Comparing wooden materials with other
construction materials it is possible to notice that the embodied energy (Figure 30) and the embodied carbon
(Figure 29) of the former is lower than those of the other construction materials like concrete and steel
(Hammond and Jones, 2008).
Figure 29. Embodied Carbon Dioxide Emissions for wood-based products (blue) and other products (red).
Source: Asdrubali et al., 2017
Figure 30. Values of embodied energy for different wooden species and wood-based products.
Source: Asdrubali et al., 2017
35
Despite their recent introduction, among other systems, two timber panels technologies have rapidly spread:
cross-laminated timber (CLT) and oriented strand board (OSB). CLT panels (Figure 31 a) are solid wood elements
consisting of three, five or seven stacked crosswise (typically 90 degrees) layers of softwood boards, bonded
together with structural adhesive (EN 16351, 2015). OSB (Figure 31 b) is a type of engineered wood similar to
particle board, formed by adding adhesives and then compressing layers of wood flakes in specific orientation
(Chen and He, 2017).
Figure 31. a) section of a CLT panel, b) OSB panel.
a) b)
Source: https://www.apawood.org/

Timber-based technologies can be divided into two main operational strategies: adding a system made of timber
frames and boards (Figure 32) or timber panels directly linked to the structural elements (Figure 33, Figure 34).
Figure 32. Timber frame and OSB board: a) scheme, b) view.
a) b)
Source: Guerrini et al., 2020
36
Figure 33. OSB timber panels directly linked to the masonry wall: a) scheme, b) view.
a) b)
Source: Iuorio et al., 2021
Figure 34. CLT timber panels directly linked to the masonry wall for seismic and energy retrofit.
Source: Valluzzi et al., 2021
Due to their composition, timber-based elements are able to transfer loads in all directions and they can be easily
integrated with additional energy system, such as for example insulating panels (Dalla Mora et al., 2015), or
ventilated façade. In (Valluzzi et al., 2021) a new CLT-based retrofitting technique is presented, suitable to
preserve the external envelope of buildings of historical value. The retrofitting strategy, called Nested Building,
involves the removal of the internal elements and the insertion of an inner coat layer made by CLT panels,
integrated with thermal insulation layers (Figure 34). Different systems are being developed for either RC
buildings or load bearing masonry buildings. In the case of RC buildings, the timber-based panels can be attached
to the existing envelope (Figure 35) or used to replace traditional infill walls. During the last years, multiple
studies about the use of CLT and OSB panels as integrated retrofitting strategy have been presented,
nevertheless studies concerning the potential of this strategy are still under investigation.
37
Figure 35. CLT panels used as external reinforcement in RC frames.
Source: Margani et al., 2020
Guerrini et al. (2020) carried out quasi-static in-plane cyclic tests of calcium silicate URM walls strengthened by
adding timber frame and OSB panels. The tests showed that it is possible to increase the increase ultimate
displacement by 167% and the lateral strength by 35%. The same authors have also validated the techniques by
means of shaking table tests (Miglietta et al., 2020). Iuorio et al. (2021) carried out out-of-plane tests of masonry
walls retrofitted with OSB panels directly fixed to the masonry by means of threaded dry rods with injectable
chemical adhesive. Adding OSB panels to the masonry wall ensure an out-of-plane capacity that is 1.4 (for a single
side intervention) and 1.8 (for a double side intervention) times higher than the capacity of unretrofitted
elements. In (Stazi et al., 2019), it is demonstrated that CLT infill walls allow the RC frame to reach lower in-plane
drift values, and 4 times higher maximum force than that related to the bare RC. Seismic behaviour of CLT panel
can be improved by adding properly designed dissipative steel connectors (Figure 36) that reduce the energy
transmitted from the RC frame to the panels (Marchi et al., 2020; Latour and Rizzano, 2017).The on-site tests
presented in (Giongo et al., 2021) show that damaged masonry walls have a shear capacity that is 20% greater
than the original one, after being repaired with CLT panels connected to the masonry. When using CLT panels as
preventive strengthening strategy, the shear capacity of the reinforced specimen is 40% higher than the capacity
of similar unreinforced specimens. Margani et al. (2020) demonstrated that adding prefabricated CLT panels as
external reinforcement of masonry infill walls in RC frames, combined with new high-performing windows can
reduce U-value by 80% and the overall annual energy needs for heating and cooling up to 56%. Valluzzi et al.
(2021) demonstrated that a new CLT-based retrofitting technique for masonry buildings ensures an increase of
global stiffness with a reduction of in-plane displacements (20-30%). In addition, CLT panels combined with a
rock wool layer (5 cm) ensure a reduction of U-value for various masonry types: -49% for solid clay brick masonry,
-69% for hollow brick masonry, -87% for stone masonry.
Figure 36. Example of dissipative connector.
Source: Marchi et al., 2020
38
The level of invasiveness of timber-based retrofitting systems is dependent on the operational strategy.
Intervening on the external side allows avoiding business downtime and residents’ relocation, however, it deeply
modifies the façade of the building. For this reason, the intervention is not suitable for buildings of historic value.
Intervening on the internal side increase the invasiveness of the intervention, as result business downtime is
lengthened, and residents’ relocation is needed. It also generates a loss of gross floor surface. The effectiveness
of the intervention depends also on the reliability of the structural connections between the wooden system and
the original structural elements. As an example, this means that, in the particular case of application to masonry
structures, if the masonry quality is very low, the intervention could turn out to be ineffective, and/or there could
be the need for increasing the masonry wall compactness and quality by applying some specific strengthening
material. However, this would entail prolonged duration of the intervention, increased costs, and increased
levels of invasiveness and business downtime, according to the selected ancillary intervention. In any case,
timber-based elements can be easily prefabricated, for this reason they are easy to handle on site and their
application is quicker than other retrofitting strategies.

The costs of timber panels depend on the thickness of the elements. CLT panels may cost 80-140 €/m2, while
OSB panels are cheaper (25-80 €/m2). At the cost of timber panels, it is necessary adding costs due to energy
layers, demolition, application and finishing; a plausible total cost can be estimated in 350-500 €/m2 (square
meter of floor area).
39
2.5 Strengthening of openings with steel frames integrated with window fixture

Another strategy that allows to improve seismic behaviour of URM buildings is introducing a steel frame in the
opening (Figure 37). If properly linked to the masonry, and properly designed considering the original masonry
wall stiffness, the ratio of the steel frame to masonry wall stiffness, and the frame capacity, steel frame can
assure both stiffness and shear strength increments to the masonry wall (Oña Vera, 2018) (Figure 38). Originally,
this type of intervention has been addressed to those (frequent) cases where new openings are created in
masonry walls and have been thus aimed at restoring as much as possible the loss of stiffness and strength
caused by the new openings. These situations have been recently experimentally and numerically tested in (Oña
Vera, 2018) and the results are summarized in (Oña Vera et al., 2021).
Figure 37.Strengthening of an opening with steel frame.
Source: Vinci, 2018
Figure 38. Lateral resistance of a wall with steel frame intervention.
Source: Vinci, 2018 modified
In older structures it is also very common to see single glaze fenestration surfaces without any insulating frame.
Apart from having a low thermal resistance, these fenestration surfaces also have significant losses due to air
penetration, since they do not seal completely when closed (Gkoumelos et al., 2019). It is clear that high energy
performance windows are necessary to achieve a reasonable energy efficiency of the building (Wilson, 2004). On
40
the other hand, with the substitution of fenestration with more energy efficient, but also airtight, windows, it
might be needed to combine the replacement of fenestration with new mechanical ventilation equipment. Figure
39 show the U-values of the most common types of windows in service today.
Figure 39. U-value of most common types of windows.
Source: Bournas, 2018
Starting from these two considerations, Caliò and Occhipinti (2021) have recently proposed the implementation
of ductile steel frames in already existing openings, even not rigidly connected to the surrounding wall, to reduce
the global vulnerability of a load-bearing masonry school building. Costs and downtime periods are also
estimated to be reduced, compared to other possible technical solutions. The proposed strategy is investigated
by detailed 3D FEM and discrete macro-element models and is proposed to be applied together with the
complete substitution of fenestration with more modern and energy efficient ones.

Although further analyses are still going on, it seems that this intervention may be regarded as convenient when
windows replacement is needed, to reduce the consistent energy losses from building envelope attributed to
them. In those cases, a structural intervention on openings has a medium level of invasiveness. The area
concerned by the works is limited around the openings, reducing demolition and reconstruction works and,
despite the relocation of occupants and activities in the area interested by the works is needed, a sequential
approach may be adopted, where the building undergoes partial and sequential downtimes where the works are
concentrated, still being occupied in other portions. Therefore, the business downtime can be reduced
significantly. Of course, issues of intervention effectiveness may be raised according to the initial stiffness/wall
thickness of the masonry walls, compared to the steel profile that can be reasonably used within the opening,
and if the fenestration replacement is not foreseen, other types of seismic and energy retrofit of the building
may more effective.
2.5.3 Evaluations of costs

The costs of this strategy depend on the size of openings. For typical sizes (90x120/120x160 cm) it in possible to
estimate a cost of 750-1000 €/m2 for the structural part and 150-750 €/m2 for the energy part, depending on the
performance of the new fenestration.
41
2.6 Stiffening of horizontal diaphragms integrated with energy solutions
In the seismic behaviour of a structure, horizontal diaphragms have the task of transferring the horizontal actions
to the resistant elements. For a floor to be able to perform this task, it is necessary to ensure sufficient in-plane
stiffness and an appropriate connection with the resistant elements. These two aspects represent one of the
most common vulnerability of existing structures. In many cases none of the two is ensured, leading the structure
to a non-adequate seismic behaviour, and favouring local collapses. The issue of flexible floors is common in
masonry structures, where floors have the additional task of avoiding the out-of-plane displacement of the walls.
In masonry buildings the floor and the roofs are mainly made of timber joists and wooden planks or one-way
steel beams with large flexural deformability and low in-plane stiffness, for this reason stiffening interventions
are often necessary (Gattesco and Macorini, 2008). A study about the role of the in-plane stiffness of timber
floors in the seismic response of un-reinforced masonry buildings is presented in (Brignola et al., 2008) and
(Piazza et al., 2008), and is experimentally tested on shaking table by (Senaldi et al. 2014). However, in both
masonry and early RC buildings, it is possible to find old types of tile floors, having no RC slab or with slab not
well connected with the (prefabricated or cast) floor beams, where thus the in-plane stiffness is not guaranteed.
2.6.1 Intervention on floor diaphragms
2.6.1.1 Seismic aspects

Several seismic retrofit techniques for floor diaphragms have been developed. A non-exhaustive list includes:
• Second wood layer on timber floor (Giuriani et al., 2014; Valluzzi et al. 2008, 2010, 2013): consisting of
the overlapping of a second layer of wood planks over the existing one; usually the planks are crossly
arranged (45° or 90°) to the existing ones and fixed with screws or nails (Figure 40). For the second wood
layer, it is possible the use of alternative timber-based elements such as OSB (Oriented Strand Board)
panels (Gubana and Melotto, 2018) (Figure 41 a) or CLT (Cross Laminated Timber) panels (Branco et al.,
2015) (Figure 41b).
Figure 40. New layer of wood planks.
Source: Brignola et al., 2008
Figure 41. Timber-based retrofit intervention with a) OSB panels and b) CLT panels.
Source: Gubana and Melotto, 2018
42
• diagonal bracing: generally consisting in the application of composite materials glued to the horizontal
diaphragm by means of epoxy-based resin. The strips are glued with a diagonal pattern to provide a
bracing action to the diaphragms. FRP materials and also composite materials based on natural fibres
have been tested (Valluzzi et al. 2008, 2010, 2013). The application of FRP strips at the floor extrados
can be used for wooden floor (Gattesco and Macorini, 2014) (Figure 42), but also for RC floor (del Rey
Castillo et al., 2019) (Figure 43). Also the application of steel strips or light steel plates, nailed on the
wooden planking (Figure 44) (Gattesco and Macorini, 2006) has provided good results (Valluzzi et al.
2004). The steel plate techniques can be also used for steel floors, with the strips welded on the steel
beams. The use of metallic ties bracing at the floor intrados can also improve the stiffening effect (da
Porto et al. 2018).
Figure 42. Wooden floor stiffened using FRP.
Source: Gattesco and Macorini, 2014
Figure 43. RC floor stiffened using FRP.
Source: del Rey Castillo et al., 2019
Figure 44. Wooden floor stiffened using steel strips.
Source: Gattesco and Macorini, 2006
43
• RC slab: a very common and traditional retrofit method consists in the use of a lightweight reinforced
concrete slab (50-60 mm thick) with steel connectors. The slab reinforcement is usually composed of
welded wire-mesh (5-6 mm diameters). This method allows to obtain an almost infinite stiffness in the
plane, but it implies various important disadvantages: it increases the weight (not always sustainable),
it poses compatibility issues with wooden floors, due to the wet casting process, the new RC layer needs
connections, or may have a non-proper interaction, with the vertical elements, it is irreversible. This
technique is commonly used for wooden floor (Figure 45a) (Piazza and Turrini, 1983) and steel floor
(Figure 45b). In addition, in the case of non-stiff existing RC floors, stiffening of the floor using RC slab
linked to the existing elements is also a viable option (Figure 45c).
Figure 45. Additional concrete slab on a) wooden floor b) steel floor c) RC floor.
a
b
Source: Brignola et al., 2008, https://www.tecnaria.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/restauroVoltinePutrelle1.jpg,

https://www.tecnaria.com/solai-in-laterocemento/tipologia-solao-laterocemento/
A very specific type of dry strengthening technique for wooden floors is presented in (Valluzzi et al., 2005). This
intervention is particular because it is intended to increase the flexural capacity of the floor, by placing above
each beam of the existing frame a new plank connected to the beam by means of dowels (Figure 46). A “T” beam
compound section is thus obtained. At the same time, planks or timber-based panels are overlapped to the T-
beams, and the connections among these elements ensure an increase of in-plane floor stiffness as well. Between
two consecutive T-section beams an air cavity is created that can be filled with insulating foam or it can be used
for the electric systems or other piping placement. This type of intervention, therefore, shows a minimum level
of integration between the structural and, at least, the installation aspects.
An exhaustive comparison of the effectiveness of the different retrofitting strategies for wooden floors is
presented in (Scotta et al., 2018) and in (Parisi and Piazza, 2015), with also a comparison among various
techniques in terms of in-plane floor behaviour (Figure 47).
44
Figure 46. T-section wooden beams.
Source: Valluzzi et al., 2005
Figure 47. Experimental force vs mid-span displacement: (a) simple planking, (b) double planking, (c) diagonal bracing with
steel plates, (d) diagonal bracing with FRP, (e) RC slab
Source: Parisi and Piazza, 2015
2.6.1.2 Energy aspects

To date, there are not so many specific retrofitting technologies that allow to join structural and energy
improvement for horizontal diaphragms in a single element. Nevertheless, carrying out energy interventions and
structural interventions at the same time ensures the reduction of construction costs (demolition and
reconstruction of finishing) and allows finding right synergies between intervention (e.g., an extrados
strengthening intervention may be connected to the use of insulating panels or radiant floors, whereas an
intrados strengthening intervention may be connected to the use of false ceiling and the use of the cavity to
install new equipment). In the following, several strategies that allow to achieve an improvement in the energy
efficiency of floors are presented. All these strategies can be applied separately, or combined, depending on the
level of energy improvement needed.
• Floor insulation (Alghimlas and Omar, 2004): very often basements (as well as attics) are not air-
conditioned. In these cases, the heat loss through the floor and the roof can represent a deficiency in
the energy behaviour of the building. It is possible to prevent this effect by including an insulation panel
in the floor configuration (Figure 48). This intervention can be applied on every type of diaphragm
(wooden, RC, steel).
45
Figure 48. Floor with insulating panel.
Source: https://www.isolconfort.it/sistemi-isolanti/pavimento/eco-espanso-f
• Reducing heated/cooled volume (AbdelRazek et al., 2014): the intervention involves the insertion of an
insulating false ceiling (Figure 49). The false ceiling allows, in buildings with a high storey height, to
reduce the heated/cooled volume decreasing the energy demand. False ceiling is particularly suitable
for intervention carried out on the intrados because it also allows avoiding restoration works and
finishing, and the related costs. This intervention can be applied on every type of diaphragm (wooden,
RC, steel), although in some cases, the intrados appearance of some historic types of floors (particularly
in the case of wooden floors or steel floors with vaulted clay tiles, etc) needs to be preserved.
Figure 49. False ceiling.
Source: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controsoffitto#/media/File:Suspended-ceiling-VGA.jpg
• Upgrading energy systems (Byung-Cheon and Bernardes, 2011): the most common heating system in
existing building is through radiators. Intervening on the floor creates the opportunity to upgrade the
heating systems, by replacing the radiators with radiant floors (Figure 50). In radiant floors the heat is
distributed more evenly ensuring a decrease in the energy required for heating. In addition, if combined
with a heat pump, radiant floors can be used in winter as well as summer months as air cooling system.
This intervention can be applied on every type of diaphragm (wooden, RC, steel).
Figure 50. Radiant floor.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Underfloor_heating_pipes.jpg
46
Figure 51. Intervention with RC slab, insulating panel and radiant floor: a) on RC and b) on wooden diaphragm; with
insulating panels and ventilating layers: c) on RC and d) on wooden roof; with false ceiling and insulating panel: e) on RC
and f) on steel floor.
a b
d
c
e f
Source: https://www.3therm.it/SOLUZIONI-DI-ISOLAMENTO-TERMICO/
2.6.2 Intervention on roofs
2.6.2.1 Seismic and energy retrofitting

In addition to the generic interventions previously described, in the literature there are seismic and energy
retrofitting strategies suitable specifically for roof diaphragms. In general, besides specific interventions for the
roof elements (e.g., the repair of wooden trusses, or the local strengthening of RC beams, etc.), the interventions
described in section 2.6.1.1 for the seismic improvement of floors can be also applied to the roof pitches.
Conversely, in the case of energy retrofit interventions, the solutions given in section 2.6.1.2 are more specific
for floors than for roofs, except for insulation and, eventually, the insertion of false ceilings. However, in the case
of roofs, a ventilation system can be envisaged to improve the energy efficiency (Kain et al., 2020).
A ventilated roof presents an air cavity between the structural layer and the finishing layers. The air gap lets out
steam coming from indoor during the winter months and it reduces stagnation of heat which would otherwise
be transmitted to the indoor during the summer months. Ventilated roofs maintain the indoor temperature close
47
to the ambient temperature, significantly reducing the incident of solar radiation on the indoor environment and
reducing the energy need of the building (Dimoudi et al., 2006).
Figure 52. Ventilated roof.
Source: https://www.isocoppo.com/en/isocoppo-range/applications/91-ventilated-roof.html
In (Giuriani et al., 2016) it is proposed a technique that can be usefully addressed for the recovery of historic
wooden roofs. The solution (Figure 53) is based on the construction of a thin folded shell overlaying the existing
roof pitch rafters and planks. Each pitch plane is transformed into a diaphragm composed by pitch joists, by
perimeter chords and by web panel overlaying the existing planks. To ensure energy improvement a ventilating
secondary structure is added. A more schematic view is presented in Figure 54.
Figure 53. Thin-folded shell combined with ventilating layer for existing wooden roofs.
Source: Giuriani et al., 2016
Figure 54. Schematic views of thin-folded shell combined with ventilating layer for existing wooden roofs.
48
The invasiveness of intervention, particularly on intermediate floors, is high. When the intervention is carried
out on the extrados, it is generally necessary to remove the existing floor layers and finishing, and in the more
recent structures, it is generally necessary to completely reconstruct the installations (either electric system or
plumbing). When working at the floor intrados, it is generally needed to remove eventual finishing (e.g., plaster)
but the work can be also carried out directly on the structural elements (e.g., in the case of wooden or steel
floors) and the eventual use of false ceilings can avoid the reconstruction of finishing, etc. However, residents’
relocation is always needed, and depending on the side of intervention (intrados or extrados), it is often
necessary to relocate residents of two different floors simultaneously. For these reasons, business downtime is
consistent. Regarding the intervention on the roofs, things may be different and could reduce eventual business
downtime, and/or avoid residents’ relocation, according to the presence of an attic floor that divides the roof
structure from the inhabited space and according to the type of intervention, i.e. if the intervention is carried
out above the existing structural layers or not.
2.6.4 Evaluations of costs

A general evaluation of costs in not possible without a specific operative case because of the different possible
combinations that have been above described. Based on the unitary cost presented in (DEI, 2019), a second
wooden planks costs 40-50 €/m2, FRP-based retrofitting intervention cost 30-50 €/m2, whereas the construction
of a new RC slab can cost 50-60 €/m2. A typical floor insulation costs 20-60 €/ m2, a false ceiling costs 35-90 €/m2,
a radiant floor cost 70-150 €/m2, a ventilated roof costs 40-80 €/m2. There is no doubt that the total cost depends
on the technologies and materials used. Overall, a minimum of 200 €/m2 for interventions of this type,
considering also dismantling and waste disposal, may be easily taken into account. A lower cost may be
considered only for the structural intervention, if this is carried out with steel bracing at the intrados. However,
in this case, there is no specific combination with energy retrofit, unless this is carried out adding new
installations within a false ceiling, or acting at the extrados, which would in any case entail a significant cost of
the energy retrofit.
49
2.7 Comparison between different retrofitting strategies
In the following table it is presented a schematic comparison among the different retrofitting strategies
previously described, in terms of lateral load capacity improvement, reduction of U-value, cost of
implementation (including the direct costs evaluated throughout section 2, excluded any indirect cost such as
costs for residents’ relocation or business downtime), level of invasiveness, business downtime, necessity for
residents’ relocation, and the type of integration between the seismic and the energy retrofit.
Table 3. Comparison between different retrofitting strategies.

Lateral load Integration of
U value Costs of Level of Business Residents’
capacity seismic-energy
reduction implementation invasiveness downtime relocation
improvement retrofit (1)
Steel-braced
50-100% 70-80% 250-350 €/sm3 High Low Not needed Coupled
exoskeleton
Shell
50-100% 70-80% 250-700 €/sm3 High Low Not needed Integrated
exoskeleton
50-60% Not needed if
Interventions Low if carried
in-plane carried out
on existing 70-80% 160-230 €/sm4 Medium out from the Coupled
300-400% from the
envelope external face
out-of-plane external face
50-100%
Replacing of
in-plane
existing 70-80% 120-150€/sm4 High Medium-High Needed Integrated
300-400%
envelope
out-of-plane
Not needed if
Low if carried
Timber-based carried out Integrated/
25-50% 40-85% 350-500 €/sm3 Medium out from the
panels from the coupled
external face
external face
Interventions Not needed if
Low if carried
on load- carried out
50-350% 35-70% 180-250 €/sm4 Medium out from the Integrated
bearing from the
external face
masonry external face
Strengthening
of openings 900-1700 €/sm
25-50%2 50-70% Medium Medium Needed Coupled
with steel of openings
frame
10-50 Needed
High
Stiffening of times higher (not always
50-60% 200-400 €/sm 4 High (Low-medium Coupled
floors in-plane needed for
for roof)
stiffness roof)
(1) In this table entry is indicated if the seismic plus energy retrofitting is done by a single element (integrated) or two elements working
in parallel (coupled).
(2) This value is highly dependent on the total wall and opening area ratio.
(3) The unitary cost refers to the floor area of the building.
(4) The unitary cost refers to the surface of intervention on the building envelope.
A comparison among costs that refer to different quantities (overall floor area of the building; surface of
intervention on the building envelope; unitary cost of single substituted element) may not be straightforward.
For this reason, and for the sake of direct comparison, it is assumed to apply the different retrofitting strategies
to a standard 3-storey building of 200 m2 (10mx20m) of floor surface, 3 m of inter-storey height, either a RC
frame with masonry infill walls or a load bearing masonry building. The building is characterized by a total floor
area of 600 m2 (plus the roof) and a surface of the external walls of 540 m2. It is assumed the presence of 12
windows per floor (2 for every short side, 4 for every long side), with 1.9 m2 of opening. It is assumed to apply
the various interventions to all of the external walls and to all of the floors (except for the ground floor but
including 200 m2 of roof). In the following table the costs (for square meter of total floor area of the building) of
the different retrofitting strategies are presented. Of course, this evaluation is very simplistic, and the outcomes
may vary for different geometric and structural configurations, seismic and climatic zones, etc. A direct
comparison on real case-studies would be much more significant. However, the following table can give a first
idea.
50
Table 3. Cost of implementation for a standard building, referred to the overall floor area.
Lateral load
U value Costs of
capacity
reduction implementation
improvement
Steel-braced exoskeleton 50-100% 70-80% 250-350 €/sm
Shell exoskeleton 50-100% 70-80% 250-700 €/sm
50-60%
in-plane
Interventions on existing envelope 70-80% 145-215 €/sm
300-400%
out-of-plane
50-100%
in-plane
Replacing of existing envelope 70-80% 110-140€/sm
300-400%
out-of-plane
Timber-based panels 25-50% 40-85% 350-500 €/sm
Interventions on load-bearing masonry 50-350% 35-70% 170-230 €/sm
Strengthening of openings with steel frame 25-50% 50-70% 100-190 €/sm

10-50
Stiffening of floors times higher 50-60% 200-400 €/sm
in-plane stiffness
All these costs are referred to the Italian market. However, it is possible to estimate costs referred to other
European countries using the European cost index. This important tool is a relative cost indicator that provide an
estimate on how construction costs in a given country compare to all of the other countries in Europe.
Table 4. Construction costs index compared to Italy.
Albania 59.65% Netherlands 87.58%

Austria 107.52% Norway 171.68%
Belgium 95.36% Poland 70.07%
Bosnia and Herzegovina 60.25% Portugal 53.75%
Croatia 58.74% Russia 82.58%
Czech Republic 65.27% Slovenia 85.44%
France 110.94% Spain 75.32%
Germany 103.19% Sweden 143.31%
Greece 67.78% Switzerland 146.77%
Ireland 84.57% United Kingdom 106.80%
Source: http://constructioncosts.eu/cost-index/
51
3 Methodological frameworks for integrating energy and seismic retrofit
Up to now, energy aspects and structural retrofit design of existing buildings, to improve safety and optimize the
use of environmental and economic resources, have been rarely coupled/managed together. Some
methodological frameworks that help decision-making for the (combined) retrofit design of existing buildings
have been recently proposed. They integrate energy and structural aspects related to seismic risk in cost-benefit
analyses based on building performance classification and expected annual loss, and on other aspects, mainly
related to environmental and social impacts. The main objective of this chapter is to briefly review some of the
available frameworks, which are tackled more into details in action 3 of this pilot project.
3.1 Economical decision-making models

Up to a few years ago, the efforts to jointly consider risk mitigation and sustainable development goals were
based on the evaluation of environmental impacts of existing buildings including the effects of seismic action
over a period of time, neglecting the potential of energy efficiency enhancements and, more importantly, the
possible benefits of integrated investment strategies. The resulting decision-making models included, into the
life-cycle assessment (LCA), the environmental impacts that could arise from repairing or demolishing after a
natural disaster (see, e.g., Comber et al. 2012; Menna et al. 2013; Wei et al. 2016a). The potential effects of
combined (energy and seismic) interventions has been introduced in LCA frameworks by Belleri and Marini
(2016). They demonstrated, with the LCA of a specific case study located in Italy, that the ratio between the
expected annual CO2 emission associated to seismic risk and the annual operational CO2 emission after a thermal
refurbishment of the building is 10% and 87% for a building located in a high seismicity region, with and without
structural retrofit carried out in combination with the energy refurbishment, respectively.
Vitiello et al. 2017 and Wei et al. (2016b) proposed solutions where Life Cycle Assessment and seismic expected
annual losses (EAL) are combined following a Life Cycle Cost (LCC) perspective. Vitiello et al. 2017 proposed an
enhanced life-cycle cost analysis method, which integrates expected direct and indirect (such as casualties and
injuries costs and cost of building unavailability) seismic losses over the building lifetime, to assess the most cost-
effective intervention strategy for existing structures. The wider LCA framework of Wei et al. (2016b) for
assessing the sustainability performance of buildings exposed to seismic risk, in terms of social (fatalities),
economic (costs) and environmental (CO2 emissions) parameters, allows evaluating the combined costs and
benefits from all three metrics, expressed in monetary terms, and defining the effectiveness of different retrofit
solutions.
In the framework of the SAFESUST approach (Safety and Sustainability, see Caverzan et al. 2018), Lamperti
Tornaghi et al. (2018) developed a Sustainable Structural Design method (SSD) which optimize energy and
structural performance in a LCC perspective, by carrying out energy performance assessment, life-cycle
assessment, structural performance assessment, and combining the results of these three phases in economic
terms in the final stage of the procedure (Figure 55). Under another perspective, Leone and Zuccaro (2016)
developed a decision support system to evaluate the impact of natural hazards on the built environment to
support strategic choices (both during the emergency phase and the urban design and planning), and one of the
dedicated modules can simulate the effects of seismic and energy retrofitting options, through multi-criteria and
cost-benefit analyses, allowing the comparison and ranking of alternative solutions. Mauro et al. (2018) proposed
a multi-step approach enabling to quantify the overall economic life-cycle costs associated with the energy and
structural performances of a retrofitted building. The steps encompass the optimization of building energy
retrofit based on the use of a genetic algorithm procedure, the assessment of seismic economic losses in terms
of expected annual losses, the integration of energy and structural aspects and the assessment of the influence
of energy retrofit on seismic economic losses. The solution, however, still do not identify the most cost-effective
structural retrofit solution.
52
Figure 55. Logical path of the SSD method proposed by Lamperti Tornaghi et al.
Source: Lamperti Tornaghi et al. 2018
Calvi et al. (2016) developed a proposal for the integrated assessment of energy efficiency and earthquake
resilience, according to which environmental and seismic impact metrics are translated into common financial
decision-making variables. A significant choice of this procedure consists in including probabilistic seismic risk
assessments into the multi-criteria decision for building intervention, in order to define probabilistic building
expected loss due to seismic-induced damage over a given time period. From a decision-making point of view,
time-based assessments can be used to provide the average annual value of loss, which is particularly useful in
the context of benefit-cost studies for different retrofit strategies, as also stated in FEMA P-58-1 (FEMA 2012).
When the building performance is determined through a complete seismic risk analysis, all its features are
combined for an alternative and more meaningful way of communicating risk and possible improvement of
seismic resilience with stakeholders and other decision-making entities. The average annual value of a
performance measure—loss ratio—is considered as input to determine a reasonable investment for improved
seismic resistance in a building, comparing the net present value (NPV) of average annual costs that are avoided
throughout the building life cycle, versus the costs associated with providing an enhanced seismic resistance.
Indeed, the expected annual loss (EALS) is the average value of loss that the building will sustain annually over its
life-span due to seismic action, and is thus a very concise information, easy to communicate, and useful for cost-
benefit analyses. The energy efficiency counterpart, i.e. the energy expected annual loss (EALE) based on the
annual expected energy consumption, can be directly compared with the previous. Discrete classes of both
earthquake resilience and energy efficiency were proposed in Calvi et al. (2016), providing a consistent
framework for building classification as a function of mutual performance parameters and for prioritizing energy
efficiency and disaster-resilient practices, associating the target performance to a level of “risk rating”.
From this model, dealing with seismic efficiency of buildings based on the concept of expected annual loss,
associated to a seismic building classification similar to the energy one, a calculation method and a system of
fiscal incentives (see 1.3.1) were derived and are currently in use in Italy (MIT 2017a, 2017b). To explore the
impact of combined energy and seismic retrofitting, a recent work (Pohoryles et al. 2020) studied twenty
European cities located in areas of different seismic hazard (five seismic zones) and climatic conditions (four
climatic areas), and various types of masonry and RC buildings, and evaluated their combined seismic and energy
performance with the above-mentioned method. The results showed that the combined retrofitting scheme
reduces substantially the payback periods in moderate to high seismicity regions, validating the combined energy
and seismic approach as an alternative to the sole energy retrofitting typically applied today in existing buildings.
53
Lastly, among the multi-criteria rating systems for buildings, it can be mentioned a recent proposal from the
Green Building Council, that among the sustainability criteria of the other LEED rating systems, that somehow
help informing design and construction decisions across a wide array of sustainability goals, leading to stronger
outcomes in terms of overall environmental impacts, included also some on-purpose criteria for heritage
buildings, in particular related to the structural rehabilitation and to the specific topics of structural
investigations, monitoring, as well as reversibility and structural compatibility of the intervention (Bertagni et al.
2020).
3.2 Multi-step design framework based on Life Cycle Thinking

The limitations of some of the previously described methods have been already discussed. Some of the methods,
however, are already very advanced, as they integrate energy and structural performance of building
design/retrofit in an LCC perspective. Even more holistic approaches include Life-Cycle Energy, Life-Cycle
Assessment and Life-Cycle Costing criteria into a unique Life-Cycle Thinking (LCT) approach, as developed, for
example, for building façade selection in the work of Saleem et al. (2018). In relation to the approaches described
in section 3.1, Passoni et al. (2019) proposed a further enhancement of the previously described approaches in
terms of LCT methodology. Passoni et al. (2019) based their proposal on the observed limitations, mainly due to
the fact that the previous approaches have been developed for the assessment of end-retrofit solutions that
were designed separately according to available sectorial methods, neglecting the possibility to adapt current
design practices to the multifaceted initial building needs. These limitations mainly encompasses the fact that
the aforementioned approaches consist of “ex-post” evaluations, where retrofit strategies are evaluated at the
end of the design process; that those approaches do not adopt real synergic tools, but carry out separated
analyses and considerations adopting sectorial tools; and that the best retrofit option is obtained by expressing
performances of very different nature, for instance economic losses and environmental impacts, just in terms of
costs, thus resulting in an oversimplification of the problem (Marini et al. 2018).
For these reasons, the holistic framework for the design of retrofit solutions proposed by Passoni et al. (2019),
introduces the principle of Life Cycle Thinking in the design process, leading to the selection and the design of
the most sustainable option, fostering safety, resilience, well-being, and sustainability. Again, this is a multi-step
procedure (Figure 56) including:
- the comprehensive building audit in its as-is situation, evaluating the deficiencies/needs in all relevant
areas of intervention (safety, energy, operational, environment etc), in order to define the minimum
performance objectives in the renovation process. Any possible barrier/constraint (see also section 1.2)
should also be considered, as well as the building residual life to define whether the best option is
renovation or demolition;
- the definition of the most sustainable solutions taking into account the results of the previous step,
weighting various aspects according to sustainability criteria, qualitative priorities addressed by
owners/investors/developers, and minimum performance objectives fixed by codes and policies;
- the design of selected interventions according to a multi-performance energy and structural
Performance Based Design (PBD), where typical target values may be corrected based on LCT criteria
and on interferences arising from the combination of different retrofit options;
- a comparative quantitative assessment of the different alternative solutions performances in terms of
environmental regeneration, human safety, energy efficiency, and costs throughout the building life
cycles adopting LCA and LCC procedures, both in terms of losses/costs and environmental footprint, and
related return period of the investment. The best solution is detected by ranking them following Multi-
Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) approaches (as an example, see Caterino et al. 2008).
The proposed framework actually solves many of the above-mentioned drawbacks of current procedures,
however it is still necessary, to make this new LCT method operational, to develop updated design and
assessment tools, to define multi-criteria decision-making methods considering new sustainable principles for
the pre-screening and final assessment of different retrofit options, and to validate the framework with reference
to case study buildings with different initial conditions and needs.
54
Figure 56. 4-step design framework based on LCT proposed by Passoni et al.
Source: Passoni et al. 2019
55
4 Conclusions
This report gives an overview of technologies for combined seismic and energy retrofitting of existing European
buildings. It is not intended to be a comprehensive review of any type of seismic, neither of energy, retrofit
intervention, but only the interventions that to-date are already carried out with a certain degree of integration
between the structural and energetic components, or that show a strong potential for integration, are described.
The technologies are described following a logical path that covers the potential improvement in seismic and in
energy performance. Significant installation phases, and their impact on the level of invasiveness and business
downtime are commented. Direct costs (i.e., not including secondary costs due to business downtime and
residents’ relocation) are evaluated for all of the various intervention strategies.
From the literature study, it appears that only a few of the technologies here presented are already conceived
to be fully integrated or coupled. Most often the combined seismic and energy purpose of those intervention
has emerged only very recently, and there is still a lack a comprehensive experimental and analytical works that
tackle the two aspects together. For this reason also, but not only, there is a certain variability in the way in which
the various significant parameters, such as constraints and limitations, cost of implementation, energy saving,
seismic improvement, disruption time, environmental impact, life span, recycling possibility, indoor
environmental quality, potential health risks, degree of compatibility, potential damage and reduction of
efficiency, life-cycle assessment, etc., are described and treated.
This fact points at the need to carry out further research on this topic, both in terms of technological
development of the existing interventions and of new systems, and in terms of creating a framework, also
through shared case-studies, for the assessment of all the above-mentioned parameters. Lastly, it is evident that,
for an effective and large scale application of combined seismic and energy retrofitting of existing buildings, it is
also needed on one hand, a comprehensive regulatory framework (also supported by incentives and raise-
awareness campaigns), and on the other hand, practical tools to support decision-making and multi-criteria
design of such interventions.
56
References
AbdelRazek, A., Taha, I., Morsy, M., and Abdel-Rahman, A. K. (2014). The effect of using false ceiling on roof
cooling load. Journal of Engineering Sciences, 42(3):666–682, doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.2727.4960
Abdul Razab, M. K. A., Mohd Ghani, R. S., Muhammad Noor, A. S., Mocktar, N., Mohd Zin, F., Abdullah, N., Auli,
N., and Mohamed, M. (2019). Kenaf cellulose nanofibrils as mechanical enhancers of composite brick. 2068.
doi:10.1063/1.5089370
Alghimlas, F., and Omar, E. A. (2004). Impact of thermally insulated floors. Texas A&M University; Energy Systems
Laboratory.
Apostolopoulou-Kalkavoura, V., Munier, P., and Bergström, L. (2020). Thermally Insulating Nanocellulose-Based
Materials. Advanced Materials, 50. doi:10.1002/adma.202001839
Asdrubali, F., Ferracuti, B., Lombardi, L., Guattari, C., Evangelisti, L., and Grazieschi, G. (2017). A review of
structural, thermo-physical, acoustical, and environmental properties of wooden materials for building
applications. Building and Environment, 114, 307–332. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.12.033
Asdrubali, F. (2009). The role of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) in the design of sustainable buildings: Thermal and
sound insulating materials. Euronoise, 6.
Asdrubali, F., Baldassarri, C., and Fthenakis, V. (2013). Life cycle analysis in the construction sector: Guiding the
optimization of conventional Italian buildings. Energy and Buildings, 64, 73–89.
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.04.018
Badini, L., Stefano, C., Custodi, A., Predari, G., and Ferrante, A. (2019). Seismic Strengthening of Existing RC
Structure Through External 3D Exoskeleton. The evolving metropolis - IABSE congress, New York City.
doi:10.1080/10168664.2019.1599209
Baek, C. and Park, S. (2012) Policy measures to overcome barriers to energy renovation of existing buildings.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 3939–3947.
Belleri A., and Marini A. (2016) Does seismic risk affect the environmental impact of existing buildings? Energy
and Buildings, 110:149–58, doi: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.10.048
Bertagni, S., Boarin, P., Zuppiroli, M. (2020). The Dialogue between Structural Interventions and Sustainability
Criteria in Rating Systems for Cultural Heritage:mThe Experience of GBC Historic Building, International Journal
of Architectural Heritage, 14(1):139-161, doi:10.1080/15583058.2018.1511001
Borri, A., Corradi, M., Sisti, R., Buratti, C., Belloni, E., and Moretti, E. (2016). Masonry wall panels retrofitted with
thermal-insulating GFRP-reinforced jacketing. Materials and Structures, 49(10), 3957–3968.
doi:10.1617/s11527-015-0766-4
Bournas, D. (2018). Concurrent seismic and energy retrofitting of RC and masonry building envelopes using
inorganic textile-based composites combined with insulation materials: A new concept. Composites Part B:
Engineering, 148, 166–179. doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.04.002
Bournas, D. (2018). Innovative Materials for Seismic and Energy Retrofitting of the Existing EU Buildings. JRC
Technical Reports. doi:10.2760/091621
Bragança, L., Russo Ermolli, S., and Koukkari, H. (2012). Phase Changing Materials in Buildings. International
Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development, 2. doi:10.5390/SUSB.2011.2.1.043
Branco, J.M., Kekeliak, M., and Lourenço, P.B. (2015). In-plane stiffness of timber floors strengthened with CLT.
European Journal of Wood and Wood Products, 73(3), 313–323. doi:10.1007/s00107-015-0892-2
Brignola, A., Podestà, S., and Pampanin, S. (2008). In-plane stiffness of wooden floor. New Zeland Society of
Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE) Conference, Waikarei, New Zeland.
Bullen P.A., and Love P.E.D. (2009) Residential regeneration and adaptive reuse: Learning from the experiences
of Los Angeles. Structural Survey 27(5) pp 351–60
Byung-Cheon, A., and Bernardes, M. A. dos S. (2011). Radiant Floor Heating System. In Developments in Heat
Transfer (p. Ch. 7). IntechOpen. doi:10.5772/22409
57
Caliò, I., Occhipinti, G. (2021). A Low-Impact Seismic Retrofitting Strategy for URM Buildings. Sustainability
(Special Issue Low-Impact and Integrated Approaches for Seismic and Energy Retrofit of Built Heritage).
Calvi, G.M. (2013). Choices and Criteria for Seismic Strengthening. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 17(6), 769–
802. doi:10.1080/13632469.2013.781556
Calvi, G.M., Sousa, L., and Ruggeri, C. (2016) Energy Efficiency and Seismic Resilience: A Common Approach. In:
Multi-hazard Approaches to Civil Infrastructure. Ed. by P. Gardoni and J. M. LaFave. Cham: Springer International
Publishing, pp 165-208. ISBN: 978-3-319-29713-2. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-29713-2_9.
Caterino N., Iervolino I., Manfredi G. and Cosenza E. (2008). Multi-criteria decision making for seismic retrofitting
of RC structure. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 12:555-583; doi: 10.1080/13632460701572872
Caverzan, A., Lamperti Tornaghi, M., Negro, P. (2018). Matching safety and sustainability: the SAFESUST
approach. IOP Conf. series: Materials Science and engineering 442:012019, doi:10.1088/1757-
899X/442/1/012019
CNR DT200 (2004) Guide for the design and construction of externally bonded FRP systems for strengthening of
existing structures. In: Technical document no. 200/2004, Italian National Research Council (CNR), Rome
CNR DT215 (2018) Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded Fibre Reinforced Inorganic Matrix
Systems for Strengthening Existing Structures. In: Technical document no. 215/2018, Italian National Research
Council (CNR), Rome
Comber, M., Poland, C., and Sinclair, M. (2012). Environmental Impact Seismic Assessment: Application of
Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Methodologies to Optimize Environmental Performance. Structures
Congress, 2012, 910–921. doi: 10.1061/9780784412367.081
Consiglio superiore dei lavori pubblici - CSLP (2009) Linee guida per la Progettazione, l’Esecuzione ed il Collaudo
di Interventi di Rinforzo di strutture di c.a., c.a.p. e murarie mediante FRP. General Assembly of the Superior
council of Public Works, Rome, 24/07/2009
Coppola, L., Coffetti, D., Crotti, E., Marini, A., Passoni, C., and Pastore, T. (2019). Lightweight cement-free alkali-
activated slag plaster for the structural retrofit and energy upgrading of poor quality masonry walls. Cement and
Concrete Composites, 104, 103341. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2019.103341
D’Agata, G., Margani, G., Pettinato,W. (2017). Cost evaluation of seismic and energy retrofit for apartment blocks
in southern Italy. In Demolition or Reconstruction? Proceedings of the Colloqui.AT.e 2017, Ancona, Italy, 28–29
September 2017; Bernardini, G., Di Giuseppe, E., Eds.; EdicomEdizioni: Monfalcone, Italy, 2017; pp. 870–881.
da Porto, F., Guidi, G., Verlato, N., and Modena, C. (2015). Effectiveness of plasters and textile reinforced mortars
for strengthening clay masonry infill walls subjected to combined in-plane/out-of-plane actions. Mauerwerk,
19(5):334–354. doi:10.1002/dama.201500673
da Porto, F., Verlato, N., Guidi, G., Modena, C. (2016). The INSYSME project: innovative construction systems for
earthquake resistant masonry infill walls. In Proceedings of the 16th International Brick and Block Masonry
Conference (Padova), 1155-1162, ISBN 978-1-138-02999-6
da Porto F., Valluzzi M.R., Munari M., Modena C., Arêde A., Costa A. (2018). Strengthening of stone and brick
masonry buildings. In: Costa A., Arêde A., Varum H. (eds.), Strengthening and retrofitting of existing structures,
Series: Building Pathology and Rehabilitation, Vol. IX, Springer, 59-84; doi:10.1007/978-981-10-5858-5_3; ISBN:
978-981-10-5857-8.
da Porto, F., Donà, M., Verlato, N., Guidi, G., (2020). Experimental testing and numerical modelling of robust
unreinforced and reinforced clay masonry infill walls, with and without openings. Frontiers in Built Environment,
6:591985; doi: 10.3389/fbuil.2020.591985
Dalla Mora, T., Righi, A., Peron, F., and Romagnoni, P. (2015). Functional, Energy and Seismic Retrofitting in
Existing Building: An Innovative System Based on xlam Technology. Energy Procedia, 82, 486–492.
doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2015.11.851
De Vita, M., Mannella, A., Sabino, A., and Marchetti, A. (2018). Seismic Retrofit Measures for Masonry Walls of
Historical Buildings, from an Energy Saving Perspective. Sustainability, 10(4), 984.
DEI (2019). Prezzi informativi dell’edilizia. DEI - Tipografia del genio civile.
58
del Rey Castillo, E., Kanitkar, R., and Smith, S. (2019, October 11). Floor Diaphragm Strengthening of Concrete
Structures with FRP. Concrete NZ conference, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Di Lorenzo, G., Colacurcio, E., Filippo, A., Formisano, A., Alfredo, M., and Landolfo, R. (2020). State-of-the-art on
steel exoskeletons for seismic retrofit of existing RC buildings. Ingegneria Sismica, 37, 50.
Dimoudi, A., Androutsopoulos, A., and Lykoudis, S. (2006). Summer performance of a ventilated roof component.
Energy and Buildings, 38(6), 610–617. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2005.09.006
Ding, G. (2013). Demolish or refurbish – Environmental benefits of housing conservation. Australasian Journal of
Construction Economics and Building 13(2) pp 18–34
Dolce, M., and Manfredi, G. (2009). Research needs in earthquake engineering highlighted by the 2009 L’Aquila
earthquake. The State of Earthquake Engineering Research in Italy: The ReLUIS-DPC 2005-2008, 469–480.
Durakovic, B. (2020). Phase Change Materials for Building Envelope. In PCM-Based Building Envelope System (pp.
17–37). Springer, Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-38335-0_2
Dyson, C. (2010). The Split Incentive Barrier: Theory or Practice in the Multifamily Sector?. In: The Climate for
Efficiency is Now, Proceedings of the 2010 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, Pacific
Grove,CA, USA, 15–20 August 2010; Berg Publishers: Stockholm, Sweden, 2010; pp. 64–75.
Economidou, M., Todeschi, V., Bertoldi, P. (2019). Accelerating energy renovation investments in buildings–
Financial & fiscal instruments across the EU, EUR 29890 EN, Publications Office of the European Union,
Luxembourg, 2019, ISBN 978-92-76-12195-4, doi:10.2760/086805, JRC117816.
Edesess, M. (2014). Catastrophe Bonds: An Important New Financial Instrument; EDHEC-Risk Institute: Nice,
France, 2014.
El-Naggar, K. A. M., Amin, Sh. K., El-Sherbiny, S. A., and Abadir, M. F. (2019). Preparation of geopolymer insulating
bricks from waste raw materials. Construction and Building Materials, 222, 699–705.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.06.182
Erol, G., Karadogan, H., and Cili, F. (2012, September 24). Seismic Strengthening of Infilled Reinforced Concrete
Frames by CFRP. 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbona.
European Committee for Standardization. EN 16351:2015. Timber structures - Cross Laminated Timber—
Requirements, European Committee for Standardization, Bruxelles, October 2015.
European Parliament (2018). Directive (EU) 2018/844 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May
2018 amending Directive 2010/31/EU on the energy performance of buildings and Directive 2012/27/EU on
energy efficiency. Official Journal of the European Union, 19/06/2018
Evola, G.; Margani, G. (2016). Renovation of apartment blocks with BIPV: Energy and economic evaluation in
temperate climate. Energy Build. 2016, 130, 794–810.
Federici A., Iorio G., Martini C. (2018). “Buildings and incentives schemes”. Available online:
https://www.odyssee-mure.eu/publications/policy-brief/increasing-building-energy-efficiency-incentive-
schemes.pdf . (Last accessed on 25 October 2020)
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), (2012). Seismic performance of buildings. Volume 1—
Methodology (FEMA Publication No. P-58-1). Prepared by the Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA.
Ferrante, A., Mochi, G., Predari, G., Badini, L., Fotopoulou, A., Gulli, R., and Semprini, G. (2018). A European
Project for Safer and Energy Efficient Buildings: Pro-GET-onE (Proactive Synergy of inteGrated Efficient
Technologies on Buildings’ Envelopes). Sustainability, 10, 812. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030812
Ferro, G. A., Restuccia, L., and Martelli, L. (2020). Adeguamento sismico mediante esoscheletro strutturale.
Ingegno.it, 4.
Fuzio, G. (2020). Isolamento termico degli edifici: L’alternativa al cappotto. Ingegno Web. https://www.ingenio-
web.it/25486-isolamento-termico-degli-edifici-lalternativa-al-cappotto
Gattesco, N., and Macorini, L. (2008). High reversibility technique for in-plane stiffening of wooden floors.
Structural Analysis of Historic Construction, Bath, UK.
59
Gattesco, Natalino, and Macorini, L. (2006). Strengthening and stiffening ancient wooden floors with flat steel
profiles. In Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions. P.B. Lourenço, P. Roca, C. Modena, S. Agrawal (Eds.).
Gattesco, Natalino, and Macorini, L. (2014). In-plane stiffening techniques with nail plates or CFRP strips for
timber floors in historical masonry buildings. Construction and Building Materials, 58, 64–76.
Giaretton, M., Dizhur, D., Garbin, E., Ingham, J. M., and Porto, F. da. (2018). In-Plane Strengthening of Clay Brick
and Block Masonry Walls Using Textile-Reinforced Mortar. Journal of Composites for Construction, 22(5),
04018028. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000866
Giongo, I., Rizzi, E., Riccadonna, D., and Piazza, M. (2021). On-site testing of masonry shear walls strengthened
with timber panels. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Structures and Buildings, 1–15.
doi:10.1680/jstbu.19.00179
Giresini, L., Paone, S., and Sassu, M. (2020). Integrated Cost-Analysis Approach for Seismic and Thermal
Improvement of Masonry Building Façades. Buildings, 10, 143.
Giuriani, E., Marchina, E., Cominelli, S., and Molinari, A. (2014). Indagine sperimentale su diaframmi di piano
antisismici realizzati con doppio assito. University of Brescia. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.3599.6320
Giuriani, E. P., Marini, A., and Preti, M. (2016). Thin-folded Shell for the Renewal of Existing Wooden Roofs.
International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 10(6), 797–816. doi:10.1080/15583058.2015.1075626
Gkoumelos, D. P., Bournas, D. A., and Triantafillou, T. C. (2019). Combined seismic and energy upgrading of
existing buildings using advanced materials. JRC Technical Reports.
Gkournelos, P. D., Bournas, D. A., and Triantafillou, T. C. (2019). Combined seismic and energy upgrading of
existing reinforced concrete buildings using TRM jacketing and thermal insulation. Earthquakes and Structures,
16(5), 625–639. doi:10.12989/EAS.2019.16.5.625
Gubana, A., and Melotto, M. (2018). Experimental tests on wood-based in-plane strengthening solutions for the
seismic retrofit of traditional timber floors. Construction and Building Materials, 191, 290–299.
Guerrini, G., Damiani, N., Miglietta, M., and Graziotti, F. (2020). Cyclic response of masonry piers retrofitted with
timber frames and boards. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Structures and Buildings, 0(0), 1–54.
doi:10.1680/jstbu.19.00134
Gurenko E., Lester R., Mahul O., Oguz Gonulal S. (2006). Earthquake insurance in Turkey: history of the Turkish
Catastrophe Pool. Washington DC, 2006, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The
World Bank, doi:10.1596/978-0-8213-6583-0
Hammond, G. P., and Jones, C. I. (2008). Embodied energy and carbon in construction materials. Proceedings of
the Institution of Civil Engineers - Energy, 161(2), 87–98. doi:10.1680/ener.2008.161.2.87
Heiskanen, E.; Matschoss, K.; Kuusi, H.; Kranzl, L.; Lapillone, B.; Sebi, C.; Mairet, N.; Zahradník, P.; Atanasiu, B.;
Zangheri, P.; Georgiev Z.; Diaz Regodon I.; Boneta M.F.; Burger V.; Steibach J.; Kockat J.; and Rohde C. (2012).
Working Paper: Literature Review of Key Stakeholders, Users and Investors; European Union: Brussels, Belgium,
2012; Available online: http://www.entranze.eu/files/downloads/D2_4/D2_4_Complete_FINAL3.pdf (Last
accessed on 25 October 2020).
Hombal, R., Gatti, R., Pooja.K, and LG, S. (2018). Useful Application of Plastic Waste in Composite Brick
Manufacturing. Sahyadri International Journal of Research, 4.
Iuorio, O., Dauda, J.A., and Lourenço, P.B. (2021). Experimental evaluation of out-of-plane strength of masonry
walls retrofitted with oriented strand board. Construction and Building Materials, 269, 121358.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121358
Jelle, B.P. (2011). Traditional, state-of-the-art and future thermal building insulation materials and solutions –
Properties, requirements and possibilities. Energy and Buildings, 43(10), 2549–2563.
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.05.015
Juarez Rodriguez, N., Yáñez-Limón, M., Gutiérrez-Miceli, F., Gomez-Guzman, O., Matadamas, P., Lagunez-Rivera,
L., and vazquez feijoo, J. (2011). Assessment of coconut fibre insulation characteristics and its use to modulate
60
temperatures in concrete slabs with the aid of a finite element methodology. Lancet, 43, 1264–1272.
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.01.005
Kain, G., Idam, F., Federspiel, F., Réh, R., and Krišťák, Ľ. (2020). Suitability of Wooden Shingles for Ventilated
Roofs: An Evaluation of Ventilation Efficiency. Applied Sciences, 10, 6499. doi:10.3390/app10186499
Kamara, V., and Onjefu, L. (2019). Water Absorption and Compressive Behaviour of Energy Efficient Bricks from
Agricultural Residues in Namibia. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, Volume 10, 90–101.
Kant, K., Shukla, A., and Sharma, A. (2017). Heat transfer studies of building brick containing phase change
materials. Solar Energy, 155, 1233–1242. doi:10.1016/j.solener.2017.07.072
Karim, H. (2018). Production of Lightweight Thermal Insulating Clay Bricks using Papyrus. Polytechnic Journal, 9.
doi:10.25156/ptj.v9n1y2019.pp74-81
Koutas, L., Bousias, S.N., and Triantafillou, T.C. (2015). Seismic Strengthening of Masonry-Infilled RC Frames with
TRM: Experimental Study. Journal of Composites for Construction, 19(2), 04014048. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-
5614.0000507
Koutas, L.N., and Bournas, D.A. (2019). Out-of-Plane Strengthening of Masonry-Infilled RC Frames with Textile-
Reinforced Mortar Jackets. Journal of Composites for Construction, 23(1), 04018079.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000911
Koutas, L.N., Tetta, Z., Bournas, D.A., and Triantafillou, T.C. (2019). Strengthening of Concrete Structures with
Textile Reinforced Mortars: State-of-the-Art Review. Journal of Composites for Construction, 23(1), 03118001.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000882
Labò, S., Passoni, C., Marini, A., Belleri, A., Camata, G., Riva, P., and Spacone, E. (2016). Diagrid solutions for a
sustainable seismic, energy, and architectural upgrade of European RC buildings. 14.
Lamperti Tornaghi M., Loli A., Negro P. (2018). Balanced evaluation of structural and environmental
performances in building design. Buildings 8(52), doi:10.3390/buildings8040052
Landolfo, R., Massimilla, A., Di Lorenzo, G., Di Filippo, A., Colacurcio, E., and Formisano, A. (2019). Steel
exoskeletons for seismic retrofitting of existing reinforced concrete buildings: State-of-the art and a case study.
Atti Del XVIII Convegno ANIDIS L’ingegneria Sismica in Italia: Ascoli Piceno, 15-19 Settembre 2019, 178–190.
doi:10.1400/271093
Latour, M., and Rizzano, G. (2017). Seismic behavior of cross-laminated timber panel buildings equipped with
traditional and innovative connectors. Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 17(2), 382–399.
doi:10.1016/j.acme.2016.11.008
Leone M.F. and Zuccaro G. (2016). Seismic and energy retrofitting of residential buildings: a simulation based
approach. Journal of urban planning, landscape and environmental design, 181):11-25,
Longo, F., Cascardi, A., Lassandro, P., Sannino, A., and Aiello, M.A. (2019). Mechanical and Thermal
Characterization of FRCM-Matrices. Key Engineering Materials, 817, 189–194.
doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/kem.817.189
Longo, F., Cascardi, A., Lassandro, P., and Aiello, M.A. (2020). A New Fabric Reinforced Geopolymer Mortar
(FRGM) with Mechanical and Energy Benefits. Fibers, 8(8), 49.
Ma, Z., Cooper, P., Daly, D., and Ledo, L. (2012). Existing building retrofits: Methodology and state-of-the-art.
Cool Roofs, Cool Pavements, Cool Cities, and Cool World, 55, 889–902. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.08.018
Manfredi, V., and Masi, A. (2018). Seismic Strengthening and Energy Efficiency: Towards an Integrated Approach
for the Rehabilitation of Existing RC Buildings. Buildings, 8(3), 36. doi: 10.3390/buildings8030036
Marchi, L., Trutalli, D., Scotta, R., and Pozza, L. (2020). Macro-element modelling of a dissipative connection for
CLT structures. Structures, 26, 582–600. doi:10.1016/j.istruc.2020.04.044
Margani, G., Evola, G., Tardo, C., and Marino, E. (2020). Energy, Seismic, and Architectural Renovation of RC
Framed Buildings with Prefabricated Timber Panels. Sustainability, 12, 4845. doi:10.3390/su12124845
Marini, A., Feroldi, F., Passoni, C., Preti, M., Riva, P., Giuriani, E., and Plizzari, G. (2015). Coupling energy
refurbishment with structural strengthening in retrofit interventions. SAFESUST Workshop, Ispra.
61
Marini, A., Passoni, C., Belleri, A., Feroldi, F., Preti, M., Metelli, G., Riva, P., Giuriani, E., and Plizzari, G. (2017).
Combining seismic retrofit with energy refurbishment for the sustainable renovation of RC buildings: A proof of
concept. European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, 1–20. doi:10.1080/19648189.2017.1363665
Marini A., Passoni C., Belleri A. (2018). Life cycle perspective in RC building integrated renovation. Procedia
structural integrity 11 (2008): 28-35; doi:10.1016/j.prostr.2018.11.005
Marinkovic, M., and Butenweg, C. (2019). Innovative decoupling system for the seismic protection of masonry
infill walls in reinforced concrete frames. Engineering Structures, 15:109435,
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109435
Martelli, L., Restuccia, L., and Ferro, G. A. (2020). The exoskeleton: A solution for seismic retrofitting of existing
buildings. Procedia Structural Integrity, 25, 294–304. doi:10.1016/j.prostr.2020.04.034
Mathi, M., Sundarraja, M. C., and Shanthipriya, R. (2014). A comparative study of the thermal comfort of different
building materials in madurai. International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering, 7, 1004–1018.
Matschoss, K.; Heiskanen, E.; Atanasiu, B.; Kranzl, L. (2013). Energy renovations of EU multifamily buildings: Do
current policies target the real problems? In Rethink, Renew, Restart, Proceedings of the ECEEE 2013 Summer
Study, Stockholm, Sweden, 3–8 June 2013; Berg Publishers: Stockholm, Sweden, 2013; pp. 1485–1496.
Mauro G.M., Menna C., Vitiello U., Asprone D., Ascione F., Bianco N., Prota A. and Vanoli G.P. (2017). A Multi-
Step Approach to Assess the Lifecycle Economic Impact of Seismic Risk on Optimal Energy Retrofit. Sustainability
9:989
Menna C., Asprone D., Jalayer F., Prota A., Manfredi G. (2013). Assessment of ecological sustainability of a
building subjected to potential seismic events during its lifetime. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
18: 504-515, doi: 10.1007/s11367-012-0477-9
Menna C., Vitiello U., Mauro G.M., Asprone D., Bianco N., Prota A. (2019). Integration of Seismic Risk into Energy
Retrofit Optimization Procedures: A Possible Approach Based on Life Cycle Evaluation. IOP Conference Series
Earth and Environmental Science 290:012022, January 2019, doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/290/1/012022
Miglietta M., Damiani N., Guerrini G., Graziotti F. (2020). Full-scale shake-table tests on two unreinforced
masonry cavity-wall buildings: effect of an innovative timber retrofit. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, doi:
10.1007/s10518-017-0185-8
Ministero dell’economia e delle Finanze (MEF). Decree of the President of the Republic 633/1972. In Istituzione
e Disciplina Dell’imposta sul Valore Aggiunto; Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana n. 292 del 11.11.1972:
Rome, Italy, 1972. (In Italian)
Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti (MIT). Ministerial Decree 58/2017a. Sisma Bonus - Linee guida per
la classificazione del rischio sismico delle costruzioni nonché le modalità per l'attestazione, da parte di
professionisti abilitati, dell'efficacia degli interventi effettuati. Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti:
Rome, Italy, 28 February 2017. (In Italian)
Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti (MIT). Ministerial Decree 65/2017b. Sisma Bonus - Linee guida per
la classificazione del rischio sismico delle costruzioni e i relativi allegati. Modifiche all'articolo 3 del DM58/2017
del 28/02/2017. Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti: Rome, Italy, 07 March 2017. (In Italian)
Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico (MISE). Ministerial Decree 16.02.2016. Aggiornamento della disciplina per
l’incentivazione di interventi di piccole dimensioni per l’incremento dell’efficienza energetica e per la produzione
di energia termica da fonti rinnovabili; Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana No. 51 del 2.3.2016: Rome,
Italy, 2016. (In Italian)
Minotto, M., Verlato, N., Donà, M., and da Porto, F. (2020). Strengthening of In-Plane and Out-of-Plane Capacity
of Thin Clay Masonry Infills Using Textile- and Fiber-Reinforced Mortar. Journal of Composites for Construction,
24(6), 04020059. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0001067
Mistretta, F., Stochino, F., and Sassu, M. (2019). Structural and thermal retrofitting of masonry walls: An
integrated cost-analysis approach for the Italian context. Building and Environment, 155, 127–136.
doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.03.033
62
Mocktar, F.A., Abdul Razab, M.K.A., and Mohamed Noor, A. (2020). Incorporating kenaf and oil palm
nanocellulose in building materials for indoor radon gas emanation reduction. Radiation Protection Dosimetry,
189(1), 69–75. doi:10.1093/rpd/ncaa014
Mohd Nasir, N., Anuar, H., Mel, M., Othman, R., Mohamed, N., Fitrie, A., and Uyup, M.K.A. (2014). Study of
Chemical and Thermal Properties of Kenaf Biomass-basedPolylactic Acid (PLA). Introduction. Advances in
Environmental Biology, 8, 633–638.
Morandi, P., Milanesi, R., and Magenes, G. (2018). Innovative solution for seismic-resistant masonry infills with
sliding joints: in-plane experimental performance. Engineering Structures 176:719-733,
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.09.018
Munarim, U.; Ghisi E. (2016). “Environmental feasibility of heritage buildings rehabilitation”, Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 58:235-249
Nader, N. (2015). Application of Phase-Change Materials in Buildings. American Journal of Energy Engineering, 3,
46. doi:10.11648/j.ajee.20150303.13
Nocera, F., Gagliano, A., and Detommaso, M. (2018). Energy Performance of Xlam Cross-Laminated Timber Panel
Buildings: A case study. Mathematical Modelling of Engineering Problems, 5, 175–182.
doi:10.18280/mmep.050307
Oña Vera, M.Y. (2018). LOCAL INTERVENTIONS IN UNREINFORCED MASONRY WALLS: NEW OPENINGS AND
SEISMIC RETROFITTING STRATEGIES [PHD]. Università degli Studi di Brescia.
Oña Vera, M.Y., Metelli G., Barros J.A.O., Plizzari G.A. (2021). Effectiveness of a steel ring-frame for the seismic
strengthening of masonry walls with new openings. Engineering Structures
226:111341https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111341
Parisi, M. A., and Piazza, M. (2015). Seismic strengthening and seismic improvement of timber structures. Special
Issue: Reinforcement of Timber Structures, 97, 55–66. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.05.093
Parlamento Italiano. Law 449/1997. In Misure per la Stabilizzazione della Finanza Pubblica; Gazzetta Ufficiale
della Repubblica Italiana n. 302 del 30.12.1997; Istituto poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato: Rome, Italy, 1998. (In
Italian)
Parlamento Italiano. Law 296/2006. Disposizioni per la Formazione del Bilancio annuale e Pluriennale dello Stato
(Legge Finanziaria 2007); Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana n. 299 del 27.12.2006: Rome, Italy, 2006. (In
Italian)
Parlamento Italiano. Law 208/2015. Disposizioni per la Formazione del Bilancio Annuale e Pluriennale dello Stato
(Legge di Stabilità 2016); Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana n. 302 del 30.12.2015: Rome, Italy, 2015. (In
Italian)
Parlamento Italiano. Law 232/2016. Bilancio di Previsione dello Stato per l’anno Finanziario 2017 e Bilancio
Pluriennale per il Triennio 2017–2019; Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana n. 297 del 21.12.2016: Rome,
Parlamento Italiano. Law 205/2017. Bilancio di Previsione dello Stato per l’anno Finanziario 2018 e Bilancio
Pluriennale per il Triennio 2018–2020; Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana n. 302 del 29.12.2017: Rome,
Passoni, C., Marini, A., Belleri, A., and Menna C. (2019). A Multi-Step Design Framework Based on Life Cycle
Thinking for the Holistic Renovation of the Existing Buildings Stock. IOP Conference Series Earth and
Environmental Science 290:012134, January 2019, doi: 10.1088/1755-1315/290/1/012134
Passoni, C., Guo, J., Christopoulos, C., Marini, A., and Riva, P. (2020). Design of dissipative and elastic high-
strength exoskeleton solutions for sustainable seismic upgrades of existing RC buildings. Engineering Structures,
221, 111057. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111057
Pertile, V., De Stefani, L., and Scotta, R. (2018). Development and characterization of a system for the seismic
and energy retrofit of existing buildings. Procedia Structural Integrity 11:347–354.
doi:10.1016/j.prostr.2018.11.045
Pertile, V., De Stefani, L., and Scotta, R. (2021). Thin insulated concrete panels for integrated retrofit of buildings,
Journal of Building Engineering (under review)
63
Piazza, M., Baldessari, C., and Tomasi, R. (2008). The role of in-plane floor stiffness in the seismic behaviour of
traditional buildings. 14th World Conference on Earthqueake Engineering, Beijing, China.
Piazza, M., and Turrini, G. (1983). Una tecnica di recupero statico dei solai in legno. Recuperare, 5, 224–237.
Pohoryles, D.A., and Bournas, D.A. (2020). Seismic retrofit of infilled RC frames with textile reinforced mortars:
State-of-the-art review and analytical modelling. Composites Part B: Engineering, 183, 107702.
doi:10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.107702
Pohoryles, D.A., Maduta, C., Bournas, D.A., and Kouris, L.A. (2020). Energy performance of existing residential
buildings in Europe: A novel approach combining energy with seismic retrofitting. Energy and Buildings,
223:110024. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110024
Presidente della Repubblica. Decree 34/2020. Misure urgenti in materia di salute, sostegno al lavoro e
all'economia, nonché di politiche sociali connesse all'emergenza epidemiologica da COVID-19. Gazzetta Ufficiale
della Repubblica Italiana n. 21 del 19.05.2020: Rome, Italy, 2020. (In Italian)
Quelhas B., Cantini L., Guedes J.M., da Porto F., Almeida C. (2014). Characterization and reinforcement of stone
masonry walls. In: A. Costa, J.M. Guedes, H. Varum (eds.), Structural rehabilitation of old buildings, Series:
Building Pathology and Rehabilitation, 2(5): 131-156; doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39686-1, Springer Berlin
Heidelberg.
Righetti, L., Borri, A., and Corradi, M. (2016, October 26). Sustainable Strengthening Techniques for Masonry
Structures. XII International Conference on Structural Repair and Rehabilitation (CINPAR).
Rodríguez-Soria, B., Domínguez-Hernández, J., Pérez-Bella, J. M., and Coz-Díaz, J. J. del. (2015). Quantitative
analysis of the divergence in energy losses allowed through building envelopes. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, 49, 1000–1008. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.05.002
Sassu, M., Stochino, F., and Mistretta, F. (2017). Assessment Method for Combined Structural and Energy
Retrofitting in Masonry Buildings. Sustainability, 3(7).
Schiavoni, S., D‫׳‬Alessandro, F., Bianchi, F., and Asdrubali, F. (2016). Insulation materials for the building sector: A
review and comparative analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 62, 988–1011.
doi:10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.045
Scotta, R., Trutalli, D., Marchi, L., and Pozza, L. (2018). Seismic performance of URM buildings with in-plane non-
stiffened and stiffened timber floors. Engineering Structures, 167, 683–694. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.02.060
Senaldi I., Magenes G., Penna A., Galasco A., Rota M. (2014) “The effect of stiffened floor and roof diaphragms
on the experimental seismic response of a full scale unreinforced stone masonry building”, Journal of Earthquake
Engineering, 18 (3): 407-443.
Shobha, M., Br, M., Vedant, M., Bhatia, P., and B R, V. (2020). Banana Fibre as Alternative Thermal Insulation and
Comparison with Conventional Thermal Insulation in Buildings. TEST Engineering & Management, 82.
Sigmund Z. (2019). “Barriers and Incentives for Extensive Implementation of Combined Seismic and Energy
Efficiency Retrofits”, IOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science 222:012018, January 2019, doi:
10.1088/1755-1315/222/1/012018
Sigmund Z., Radujkovic M. (2016). “Risk management tool for improving project flows for construction projects
on existing buildings”. Elektronički časopis građevinskog fakulteta Osijek 12(12):76, July 2016, doi:
10.13167/2016.12.9
Stazi, F., Serpilli, M., Maracchini, G., and Pavone, A. (2019). An experimental and numerical study on CLT panels
used as infill shear walls for RC buildings retrofit. Construction and Building Materials, 211, 605–616.
Tapia, C. and Padgett, J. (2012). “Examining the Integration of Sustainability and Natural Hazard Risk Mitigation
into Life Cycle Analyses of Structures”. Structures Congress, 2012, 1929–1940. doi:10.1061/9780784412367.169.
Triantafillou, T.C., Karlos, K., Kefalou, K., and Argyropoulou, E. (2017). An innovative structural and energy
retrofitting system for URM walls using textile reinforced mortars combined with thermal insulation: Mechanical
and fire behavior. Construction and Building Materials, 133, 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.12.032
64
Triantafillou, T.C., Karlos, K., Kapsalis, P., Georgiou, L. (2018). Innovative Structural and Energy Retrofitting
System for Masonry Walls Using Textile Reinforced Mortars Combined with Thermal Insulation: In-Plane
Mechanical Behavior. Journal of Composites for Construction. 22(5): 04018029. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-
5614.0000869
Tsionis, G., Apostolska, R., and Taucer, F. (2014). Seismic strengthening of RC buildings. EUR - Scientific and
Technical Research Reports. doi:10.2788/138156
Valluzzi, M.R., Garbin, E., Modena, C., and da Porto, F. (2004). A strengthening technique for timber floors using
traditional materiaIs. In Structural Analysis of Historical Constructions: Vol. II (pp. 911–921).
Valluzzi M.R., Garbin E., Dalla Benetta M., Modena C. (2008). Experimental assessment and modelling of in-plane
behaviour of timber floors. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Structural Analysis of Historical
Constructions, 2008, Bath, UK. Vol. II, pp. 755-762.
Valluzzi M.R., Garbin E., Dalla Benetta M., Modena C. (2010). In-plane strengthening of timber floors for the
seismic improvement of masonry buidings. World conference on timber engineering, Riva del Guarda, Italy. June
20-24, 2010, 6 pp (on CD-ROM).
Valluzzi M.R., Garbin E., Dalla Benetta M., Modena C. (2013). Experimental characterization of timber floors
strengthened by in-plane improvement techniques. International Conference on Structural Health Assessment
of Timber Structures, SHATIS’13, September 4-6, 2013, Trento, Italy. Advanced Materials Research Vol. 778
(2013) pp. 682-689, Trans Tech Pub., doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.778.682
Valluzzi, M.R., Saler, E., Vignato, A., Salvalaggio, M., Croatto, G., Dorigatti, G., and Turrini, U. (2021). Nested
Buildings: Innovative strategies for the integrated seismic and energy retrofit of existing URM buildings with CLT.
Sustainability (Special Issue Low-Impact and Integrated Approaches for Seismic and Energy Retrofit of Built
Heritage).
Verlato, N., Guidi, G., da Porto, F., Modena C. (2016). Innovative systems for masonry infill walls based on the
use of deformable joints: combined in-plane/out-of-plane tests. In Proceedings of the 16th International Brick
and Block Masonry Conference (Padova), 1359-1366, ISBN 978-1-138-02999-6
Vinci, M. (2018). Metodi di calcolo e tecniche di consolidamento per edifici in muratura. Dario Flaccovio editore.
Vintzileou, E., Adami, C.-E., and Palieraki, V. (2016). In-plane and out-of-plane response of a masonry infill divided
into smaller wallettes. In Proceedings of the 16th International Brick and Block Masonry Conference (Padova),
1367–1373, ISBN 978-1-138-02999-6
Vollaro, R.D.L., Guattari, C., Evangelisti, L., Battista, G., Carnielo, E., and Gori, P. (2015). Building energy
performance analysis: A case study. Energy and Buildings, 87, 87–94. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.10.080
Vitiello, U., Asprone, D., Di Ludovico, M., and Prota, A. (2017). Life-cycle cost optimization of the seismic retrofit
of existing RC structures. Bullettin of Earthquake Engineering, 15:2245-2271, doi:10.1007/s10518-016-0046-x
Wei, H.H., Skibniewski, M.J., Shohet, I.M., and Yao, X. (2016a). Lifecycle Environmental Performance of Natural-
Hazard mitigation for Buildings. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 30(3):04015042, doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000803
Wei H.H., Shohet I.M., Skibniewski M.J., Shapira S., and Yao X. (2016b). Assessing the Lifecycle Sustainability Costs
and Benefits of Seismic Mitigation Designs for Buildings. Journal of Architectural Engineering, 22(1): 04015011,
doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000188.
Wernery, J., Ben-Ishai, A., Binder, B., and Brunner, S. (2017). Aerobrick—An aerogel-filled insulating brick. Energy
Procedia, 134, 490–498. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.09.607
Wilson, H.R. (2004). High-performance windows. Freidburg Solar Academy.
Yang, L., Liu, Y., Qiao, Y., Liu, J., and Wang, M. (2019). Building Envelope with Phase Change Materials. Zero and
Net Zero Energy. doi:10.5772/intechopen.85012
Zalba, B., Marı ́n, J., Cabeza, L. F., and Mehling, H. (2003). Review on Thermal Energy Storage with Phase Change:
Materials, Heat Transfer Analysis and Applications. Applied Thermal Engineering, 23, 251–283.
doi:10.1016/S1359-4311(02)00192-8
65
Zancanella, P., Bertoldi, P., and Boza-Kis, B (2018). Energy efficiency, the value of buildings and the payment
default risk. EUR 29471 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2018, ISBN 978-92-79-
97751-0, doi:10.2760/267367,
Build Up. European Portal for Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Available online:
https://www.buildup.eu/en/news/overview-linking-financial-incentives-energy-savings-achieved-0. (Last
accessed on 08/11/2020)
Build Up. European Portal for Energy Efficiency in Buildings. Available online:
https://www.buildup.eu/en/news/overview-increasing-real-estate-value-existing-buildings-counterbalance-
energy-retrofit-0. (Last accessed on 08/11/2020)
European Commission. Energy: EU Buildings Factsheets. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/energy/eu-
buildings-factsheets_en. (Last accessed on 25/10/2020)
European Commission. Eurostat. Products Eurostat News. Available online:
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news. (Last accessed on 25/10/2020)
Interreg Europe. Available online: https://www.interregeurope.eu/violet/ (Last accessed on 08/11/2020)
Interreg Europe. Available online: https://www.interregeurope.eu/policylearning/good-
practices/item/2085/financial-incentives-for-the-restoration-and-rehabilitation-of-listed-buildings/ (Last
accessed on 08/11/2020)
66
List of abbreviations and definitions
CCC Continuous Conductive Chain
CLT Cross Laminated Timber
EAL Expected Annual Losses
FEM Finite Element Modelling
FRCM Fibre-Reinforced Cementitious Mortars
FRP Fibre-Reinforced Polymers
GFRP Glass Fibre-Reinforced Polymers
LCA Life Cycle Assessment
LCC Life Cycle Cost
LCT Life Cycle Thinking
NPV Net Present Value
OSB Oriented Strand Board
PBD Performance Based Design
PCM Phase Change Materials
RC Reinforced Concrete
RES Renewable Energy Source
RM Reinforced Masonry
SSD Sustainable Structural Design
TRM Textile-Reinforced Mortars
URM Unreinforced Masonry
VAT Value Added Tax
WTR Waste Tire Rubber
67
List of figures
Figure 1. Seismic retrofitting conventional strategies. .............................................................. 8
Figure 2. Effect of local and global retrofit measures for RC buildings.............................................. 8
Figure 3. Energy retrofitting conventional strategies. ............................................................... 9
Figure 4. Share of single- and multi-family dwellings by country .................................................. 11
Figure 5. Share of population living in owner-occupied dwellings by country .................................... 12
Figure 6. Structural safety's increment provided by exoskeleton. ................................................. 19
Figure 7. Braced-frame exoskeleton. ................................................................................ 19
Figure 8. 2D solutions: a) wall system; b) shell system; c) gridshell system. ...................................... 20
Figure 9. Structural and energy function in wall systems (a) and shell systems (b). .............................. 20
Figure 10. Insulating concrete formworks: scheme and view. ..................................................... 21
Figure 11. Example of damage to masonry infills in RC multi-storey buildings. .................................. 22
Figure 12. Example of FRP application. .............................................................................. 23
Figure 13. Possible layout of TRM application. ..................................................................... 23
Figure 14. TRM application procedure: (a) dampening of surface; (b) first layer of mortar; (c) textile application;
(d) patch textile application; (e) wrapping of the specimen; (d) final finishing. ................................... 24
Figure 15. Embodied energy of various insulating materials per Functional Unit. ................................ 25
Figure 16. Life Cycle Impact of insulating materials (Cumulative Energy Demand Method), for a given value of
thermal resistance. ................................................................................................... 25
Figure 17. List of the principal insulation materials. ................................................................ 26
Figure 18. Principle of PCM-based envelope. ....................................................................... 27
Figure 19. TRM combined with thermal insulation panels. ........................................................ 28
Figure 20. Reinforced masonry infill walls. .......................................................................... 29
Figure 21. Infill wall with sliding joints: scheme (a); walls with deformable joints: experimental testing (b). ... 29
Figure 22. Infill masonry wall uncoupled from the RC frame. ...................................................... 29
Figure 23. Clay brick infilled with insulating material. .............................................................. 30
Figure 24. Example of kenaf composite bricks. ..................................................................... 31
Figure 25. Trend of buildings in Italy during XX century. ........................................................... 32
Figure 26. Schematic view of TRM-based structural and energy retrofitting system. ............................ 32
Figure 27. Failure modes of clay-brick panels: (a) as-built; (b) single-sided strengthening; (c) double-sided
strengthening. ........................................................................................................ 33
Figure 28. Failure modes of clay-brick panel with external thermal insulation layer and single-sided
strengthening (ETICS): (a) failure mode; (b) close-up of the anchor (after manual removal). .................... 33
Figure 29. Embodied Carbon Dioxide Emissions for wood-based products (blue) and other products (red). ... 35
Figure 30. Values of embodied energy for different wooden species and wood-based products. ............... 35
Figure 31. a) section of a CLT panel, b) OSB panel. ................................................................. 36
Figure 32. Timber frame and OSB board: a) scheme, b) view. ..................................................... 36
Figure 33. OSB timber panels directly linked to the masonry wall: a) scheme, b) view. .......................... 37
68
Figure 34. CLT timber panels directly linked to the masonry wall for seismic and energy retrofit. .............. 37
Figure 35. CLT panels used as external reinforcement in RC frames. .............................................. 38
Figure 36. Example of dissipative connector. ....................................................................... 38
Figure 37.Strengthening of an opening with steel frame. .......................................................... 40
Figure 38. Lateral resistance of a wall with steel frame intervention. ............................................. 40
Figure 39. U-value of most common types of windows. ........................................................... 41
Figure 40. New layer of wood planks. ............................................................................... 42
Figure 41. Timber-based retrofit intervention with a) OSB panels and b) CLT panels. ............................ 42
Figure 42. Wooden floor stiffened using FRP. ...................................................................... 43
Figure 43. RC floor stiffened using FRP. ............................................................................. 43
Figure 44. Wooden floor stiffened using steel strips. .............................................................. 43
Figure 45. Additional concrete slab on a) wooden floor b) steel floor c) RC floor. ................................ 44
Figure 46. T-section wooden beams. ................................................................................ 45
Figure 47. Experimental force vs mid-span displacement: (a) simple planking, (b) double planking, (c) diagonal
bracing with steel plates, (d) diagonal bracing with FRP, (e) RC slab .............................................. 45
Figure 48. Floor with insulating panel. .............................................................................. 46
Figure 49. False ceiling. .............................................................................................. 46
Figure 50. Radiant floor. ............................................................................................. 46
Figure 51. Intervention with RC slab, insulating panel and radiant floor: a) on RC and b) on wooden diaphragm;
with insulating panels and ventilating layers: c) on RC and d) on wooden roof; with false ceiling and insulating
panel: e) on RC and f) on steel floor. ................................................................................ 47
Figure 52. Ventilated roof. ........................................................................................... 48
Figure 53. Thin-folded shell combined with ventilating layer for existing wooden roofs. ........................ 48
Figure 54. Schematic views of thin-folded shell combined with ventilating layer for existing wooden roofs. ... 48
Figure 55. Logical path of the SSD method proposed by Lamperti Tornaghi et al. ................................ 53
Figure 56. 4-step design framework based on LCT proposed by Passoni et al..................................... 55
69
List of tables
Table 1. Characteristics of principal insulating materials. .......................................................... 26
Table 2. Economic and environmental costs of the conventional retrofitting techniques. ....................... 34
Table 3. Cost of implementation for a standard building, referred to the overall floor area. .................... 51
Table 4. Construction costs index compared to Italy. .............................................................. 51
70

Pilot Project - Integrated Techniques For

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pilot Project - Integrated Techniques For

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pilot Project — Integrated techniques for

the seismic strengthening and energy

Overview of technologies for the

da Porto, F., Caprino, A.

1.1 Current seismic and energy retrofit intervention strategies

Seismic retrofit designs

Increasing capacity Reducing demand

Local Global Global

ØRC jacketing ØAdding new ØAdding damping

Figure 2. Effect of local and global retrofit measures for RC buildings.

Source: Tsionis et al., 2014

Figure 3. Energy retrofitting conventional strategies.

Energy retrofit design

Upgrading of Upgrading of Energy

ØWalls insulation Ø Heat pumps Ø Photovoltaic

1.2 Barriers in implementing integrated seismic/energy retrofits of existing buildings

1.2.1 Technical barriers to combined retrofit interventions

1.2.2 Financial barriers to combined retrofit interventions

1.2.3 Organizational barriers to combined retrofit interventions

1.2.4 Other cultural/social barriers

1.3.1 Incentives that favour integrated seismic/energy retrofits

1.3.2 Regulatory framework

2.1 Engineered exoskeletons for RC buildings

Source: Ferro et al., 2020

Figure 7. Braced-frame exoskeleton.

Source: Labò et al., 2016

Source: Marini et al., 2017

Source: Pertile et al., 2021

2.1.2 Level of invasiveness and business downtime

2.1.3 Evaluation of costs

Source: Dolce and Manfredi, 2009

2.2.1 Interventions on existing envelope elements

2.2.1.1 Structural aspects

Source: Erol et al., 2012

Figure 13. Possible layout of TRM application.

Source: Pohoryles and Bournas, 2020 (Modified)

Source: Koutas and Bournas, 2019

2.2.1.2 Energy aspects

Source: Asdrubali, 2009

Source: Asdrubali, 2009

Source: Schiavoni et al., 2016

Table 1. Characteristics of principal insulating materials.

Mineral wool 30-40 Same Low Low Low

Cellulose 40-50 Same Low Low Low

Polyurethane (PUR) 20-30 Same Moderate High High

Gas-filled panels (GFP) 10-40 Worse Low High Moderate

Aerogels 13-14 Same Moderate High Moderate

Source: Yang et al., 2019

2.2.1.3 Seismic and energy retrofitting

Source: Pohoryles et al., 2020

2.2.1.4 Level of invasiveness and business downtime

2.2.1.5 Evaluation of costs

2.2.2 Replacement of envelope elements

Source: da Porto et al., 2020

Figure 22. Infill masonry wall uncoupled from the RC frame.

Source: Marinkovic and Butenweg, 2019

Source: Razab et al., 2019

2.2.2.2 Level of invasiveness and business downtime

2.2.2.3 Evaluation of costs

2.3 Integrated interventions on existing load-bearing masonry walls

2.3.1 Seismic and energy performance

Source: Triantafillou et al., 2017

Source: Giaretton et al., 2018