Energy and Buildings 156 (2017) 327–342

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy and Buildings

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enbuild

Replication studies

Deep regeneration vs shallow renovation to achieve nearly Zero

Energy in existing buildings
Energy saving and economic impact of design solutions in the housing
stock of Bologna
Giovanni Semprini a,∗ , Riccardo Gulli b , Annarita Ferrante b
a
DIN, Department of Industrial Engineering, School of Engineering and Architecture, University of Bologna, Italy
b
DA, Department of Architecture, School of Engineering and Architecture, University of Bologna, Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Whilst new nearly Zero Energy (nZE) concepts have been the first priority in the previous decade, in more
Received 31 October 2016 recent years it has become widely acknowledged that renovating dwellings will have a large impact on
Received in revised form 6 August 2017 the energy use in buildings. Using a simplified calculation method, this paper illustrates the high-energy
Accepted 15 September 2017
consumption in several building types within the housing stock in Bologna. Among these, a specific
Available online 20 September 2017
building has been selected as the worst-case for an in-depth investigation. For this building the paper
analyses a large set of possible scenarios for renovation –from the more standard operations up to higher
Keywords:
levels of façade components’ transformation- as technically feasible solutions to achieve a nearly Zero
nZEBs –
Nearly zero energy buildings
Energy Building (nZEB).
Deep renovation By discussing the economic/energy impact of each scenario, this paper aims at contributing to the
Energy retrofitting debate on deep-versus-shallow renovation in existing buildings. In particular, it attempts at answering
Urban environment the following important research issues: whether the technical feasibility is associated to the economic
Social housing feasibility in the retrofitting towards nZEBs; to what extent deep renovation and high transformation
of buildings is competitive with respect to shallow retrofit; whether non-energy related factors can be
considered to properly assess the economic competitiveness.
Energy and economic benefits are the main renovation’s objectives in building renovation; nonetheless,
non-energy related aspects are also helpful to expand the feasibility of nZEBs retrofit in the current
building practises.
© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The first prototype solar building and the initial attempts to
achieve zero-heating demand date back to 1950s [1]; therefore,
in some ways, today we may state that the concept of energy con-
scious buildings belongs to the “history of architecture” [2].
Over the past three decades, energy oriented innovations in
building technology have emerged in many areas of the building
construction sector [3], till the latest experiences aiming at zero
carbon emission of new urban areas, like the village BedZED, the
Beddington Zero Emission Development [4] or even of a whole
city [5]. Furthermore, simulation-based decision support tool [6],
methodologies for economic efficient design [7] and cost-effective
design solutions [8] have been developed to integrate energy design
tools and economic efficiency into early design of nearly zero
energy buildings (nZEBs).
Efforts and discussion to achieve a common and standardized
definition of nZEB can be found in [9–13].
Whilst new nZEB concepts and experiments might have been
the first priority in the previous decade (the majority of pilot models
and constructions cited so far refers to newly conceived buildings
and development plans), in more recent years it has become widely
acknowledged that renovating dwellings is the most significant
opportunity to reduce global energy consumption and green house
emissions [2,13,14].
This is especially factual in the EU, due to the following geo-
political concurrent factors:

∗ Corresponding author. • the historically consolidated continent of the EU, where refur-
E-mail address: giovanni.semprini@unibo.it (G. Semprini). bishment represents the major need;

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.09.044
0378-7788/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
328 G. Semprini et al. / Energy and Buildings 156 (2017) 327–342
• the most challenging economic crisis that EU is facing, with
the construction and real estate sector representing the worst
affected market area;
• the current uncertainties on energy imports (since buildings
account for 30% of total energy consumption in the EU, the con-
sequent reduction of gas and oil in this sector could contribute to
bring back the EU dependency on imports).
Thus, energy efficient (EE) refurbishment is often suggested as
one of the potential solutions for the real estate/building construc-
tion crisis [15], as well as a potential leverage towards energy zero
targets. The current challenge is to widen technical nZEB knowl-
edge in existing built environments, shifting the methodological
and technical achievements on energy-efficiency from newly con-
ceived buildings towards the rehabilitation of existing building
stock especially in fragile sectors like the social residential areas
and housing [16,17].
Systematic approach to retrofit activities have been reported
and discussed in [18,19], and specific set of tools for energy retrofit
including economic cost-benefit models have been developed
[20,21]. Furthermore, studies, design proposals [22] and measure-
ments [23] on building energy retrofitting have discussed and
investigated to achieve energy saving tools and techniques towards
nZEBs in existing buildings.
Despite the recent attention received by this topic from
researchers and building market actors and notwithstanding the
stress on the goal of reaching nZEBs within 2020, the individual
buildings still face a number of obstacles to the retrofit market
uptake: i) the long pay-back times of retrofitting interventions (eco-
nomical barrier); ii) the lack of access to available and affordable
finance (financial barrier); iii) the insufficient incentives and the
rigidity of current regulations neither allowing significant improve-
ments in existing buildings nor giving priority to deep energy
renovation (legislative barriers); iv) the delay of States and Regions
in producing strategies for building energy renovation as foreseen
by article 4 of the Directive 29/2012/EU (Member State-dependent
legislative barrier).
Although a large set of economic and financial studies and doc-
uments have been produced to overcome these barriers [24,25,28],
in order to reach marketable zero-energy buildings within 2020
it is necessary to understand the technical and economic feasi-
bility of possible design solutions integrating retrofit options and
renewable energy systems.
In this framework, an inter-sectoral debate is occurring among
researchers and practitioners from the different disciplines of the
building construction market on whether it is necessary that these
buildings be renovated “deeply” or not. Definitions of deep renova-
tion (or deep retrofit/deep refurbishment) are discussed by [26] and
[27]. Deep renovation or deep energy renovation is a term for a ren-
ovation that captures the full economic energy efficiency potential
of improvement works, with a main focus on the building envelope
of existing buildings that leads to a very high-energy performance.
Some threshold values for Deep Renovation in residential buildings
are outlined in [26] and [27] and discussed in [2]; according to these
references the energy reduction of the renovated buildings should
be at least between the 65% and the 75% compared to the status of
the same buildings before the renovation.
Against such a backdrop, this work aims at contributing to
the current debate on deep-versus-shallow renovation in existing
buildings, showing potential achievement of deep renovation not
discussed so far.
First of all, using simplified calculation tools in the context of
several buildings of the housing stock in Bologna, this research
study defines and assesses a set of main key indicators to describe
and compare the energy performance in 10 different construction
and building’s types and to help the selection and the prior options
and actions to be undertaken in the process of energy retrofitting.
Secondly, simplified calculations have been validated with the
actual energy consumption trough a bill survey conducted in a
specific yet representative case study: the social housing build-
ings “Popolarissime”. As detailed in part 4., Popolarissime has been
selected because they represent the worst-case building in terms
of thermal and geometrical properties; furthermore this building
type is very frequent in the urban context of the peripheral areas
in the European cities.
Here, different options have been considered and compared
demonstrating that a large set of possible solutions is technically
feasible to achieve nZEBs, even in highly energy consuming build-
ings. These solutions vary from the more standard operations –like
insulation of opaque elements, windows’ replacement and plant
system renewal- up to higher levels of façade components’ trans-
formation, like volumetric additions. By discussing and comparing
the economic and energy impact of different design options, this
paper aims at addressing the following important research ques-
tions:
– Is the technical feasibility associated to the economic feasibility
in the retrofitting of existing buildings towards nZEBs?
– To what extent deep renovation and high transformation of
buildings towards nZEBs is competitive with respect to shallow
or conventional retrofit? Which type of non-energy related fac-
tors could be considered to properly assess this competitiveness?
2. The existing building stock
As a matter of fact, the existing building stock in EU consists in a
large percentage (about the 60%) of buildings built after the Second
World War (‘60s and ‘80s) [29].
This percentage even increases (up to 70–75%) if we confine
the analysis within the boundaries of the Southern Mediterranean
European countries (Greece, Cyprus, Spain, Portugal, etc.) and
slightly increases for Italy, as well (about 65%) (Fig. 1).
Since the majority of those buildings have been built long before
the energy saving measures introduced in the ‘90s and mostly by
EU Directives of the last decade, as a result the existing building
stock across EU present very low energy performances.
2.1. The existing building stock in the urban context of bologna
Following a similar trend, in the Emilia Romagna Region over
two-thirds of the residential buildings have been built before ‘80s,
while in the city of Bologna the percentage rise up 90% due to high
presence of historical buildings and urban post-war expansions
(Fig. 2).
The first important regulation on the energy saving in Italy,
dated 1977, imposed limits to the heat losses of the building enve-
lope and to the thermal power of boilers, subsequently replaced by
the Law n.10 of 1991 (with specific requirements for the construc-
tion of energy efficient buildings) and by new regulations, after
the national transpose of European EPBD Directive, in 2005. As a
consequence, the higher percentage of these buildings presents an
energy consumption for heating and domestic hot water (DHW)
production greater than 200 kWh/m2 year, while from ’80s new
buildings have progressively reduced the energy consumption up
to 50 kWh/m2 year of the last decade [30]. Correspondingly, the
analysis performed for the Energy Plan of the Municipality of
Bologna [31] has showed wide potential margins of efficiency in
energy use in buildings.
To investigate the potential of available measures and technolo-
gies in EE retrofitting of existing buildings to achieve nZEBs it is
 G. Semprini et al. / Energy and Buildings 156 (2017) 327–342 329

Fig. 1. The age distribution of EU existing building stock shows that the larger majority of buildings (about the 60%) have been constructed after the Second World War (‘60s
and ’80s).
Source: EU Report, Housing Statistics in the European Union, 2010

Fig. 2. Percentage of residential buildings in Emilia Romagna and in the city of Bologna (source: ISTAT 2011).

necessary to explore their application into demonstrative design
scenarios of real urban environments. Thus, for a specific climate,
reference buildings have to be defined on the basis of a building
stock analysis.
Reliable identification, estimation and quantification of the
building peculiar features (type, age, geometrical and thermal char-
acteristics of building components, construction techniques and
plant systems) by site surveys, energy modelling and/or bills’ read-
ing are essential for:
a estimating the energy performance in existing buildings,
b evaluate the compatibility of possible retrofitting measures with
respect to the architectural and constructive types,
c prioritise retrofit measures as a function of a) and b).
Thus, the research study has identified representative pilot cases
on the basis of the existing building stock consisting of different
building and construction types and located in different areas of
the urban context of Bologna, from the historical centre, via the
first periphery out to the city borders (Fig. 3).
Within this extensive urban sector, 10 different buildings have
been analysed as reference buildings and energy retrofit scenarios
have been designed to evaluate the energy and economic impact
[32] (Fig. 4: 4.1–4.10).
The main construction types for buildings in the different sectors
of the urban area of Bologna are schematized in the following Fig. 5.
These construction types are associated to different types of
envelope, as illustrated in the following Table 1. While in historical
buildings the structure and the envelope are always coextensive
(i.e., the type a) shown in Fig. 5 –brick wall as bearing structure- is
associated either with 1 or with 2–single or double layer of bricks-
with no other variations), more recent buildings present multiple
variants and different possibilities in the association between the
internal structure and the external envelopes.
Given the experimental nature of some of these structure-
envelope systems with respect to the time of construction, some
330 G. Semprini et al. / Energy and Buildings 156 (2017) 327–342

Fig. 3. Location of the reference residential buildings in the urban context of Bologna.

Table 1
Main envelope type and thermal transmittance in the selected buildings.

1) Single layer of 2) Double layer of 3) Single layer of 4) Double layer of hollow 5) Precast reinforced coatings
brick (15 cm) brick (30 cm) hollow brick brick with air gap (20 cm) with light insulation

U = 1,80 U = 1,55 U = 1,37 U = 0,76 U = 0,98–1,15

critical gaps consisting in cracks and breaks within the junctions
between the structures and the external walls have been observed
in some buildings (VRN, TPL, FIL).
3. Energy analysis of the representative buildings
Different methods and approaches for the energy analysis in
existing buildings can be used: energy assessment based on type
and age of the building’s components and plant construction, on-
site energy audit and surveys, energy modelling with stationary or
dynamic methods, etc.
For the selected buildings a preliminary analysis of the ther-
mal characteristics of building components and of the type and age
of heating plant system was carried oud, followed by energy sim-
ulation, in order to make identification and assessment of main
geometrical and physics key indicators to describe and compare
the energy performance in different construction and building’s
types. The energy use for space heating of each whole building
has been calculated, according to the quasi-steady-state method
based on a monthly heat balance, as described in the international
standard ISO 13790 [33] considering “standard conditions” used for
the asset rating evaluation. Commercial software certified by the
 G. Semprini et al. / Energy and Buildings 156 (2017) 327–342 331

Fig. 4. 4.1–10.Ten selected reference buildings.

Fig. 5. Main constructive and structural types encountered in the selected buildings.

Italian Thermo-Technic Committee (CTI) has been used for energy
calculations.
The following main standard conditions have been considered:
• monthly mean values of temperature and solar radiation based
on Italian standard UNI 10349 [34];
• internal temperature set to 20 ◦ C for 24 h/day from 15 October to
15 April;
• monthly mean value of the air change rate set to 0.3 h−1 ;
• internal loads as a function of apartment floor area equal to
(5294*A – 0,01557*A2 ) as defined in Italian standard UNI TS
11300-1 [35];
• gain utilization factor for heating calculated according to [35].
Results of main energy performance parameters correlated to
geometrical data of the buildings are shown in Table 2, where
332 G. Semprini et al. / Energy and Buildings 156 (2017) 327–342

Table 2
Main geometrical features and correlated energy performance parameters of the building envelope.

Buildings SU m2 S m2 V m3 S/V m2 /m3 SW /St m2 /m2 UP W/m2 K Cd W/m3 K QH,nd kWh EPH,env kWh/m2 QG kWh DO % DF % Dw% DTB %

1 MIR 769 983 2.787 0,35 0,07 1,80 0,76 34.681 123,9 14.220 52% 20% 28% 12%
2 STC 720 2.013 2.710 0,74 0,04 1,55 0,91 80.310 111,5 29.510 45% 26% 29% 18%
3 PPB 1.380 2.542 3.956 0,64 0,18 1,37 0,97 208.237 150,8 82.295 42% 14% 44% 24%
4 PBO 2.179 3.280 7.841 0,42 0,18 0,76 1,01 302.275 138,7 116.300 33% 12% 55% 23%
5 T2M 826 1.239 3.221 0,38 0,15 1,30 1,49 166.415 201,5 66.566 41% 19% 40% 23%
6 BAR 10.496 33.152 31.616 1,05 0,10 1,15 0,98 2.080.768 198,2 832.307 39% 21% 40% 22%
7 FIL 7.200 10.344 21.600 0,48 0,25 1,15 1,16 1.152.600 143,5 413.040 51% 17% 32% 24%
8 TCV 5.350 7.834 19.115 0,41 0,07 1,36 0,80 561.450 104,9 185.000 48% 13% 39% 25%
9 VRN 15.400 28.767 57.807 0,50 0,37 0,98 1,01 2.379.741 154,5 1.045.680 25% 17% 58% 17%
10 TPL 8.347 12.888 32.544 0,39 0,11 1,15 0,88 1.168.994 140,1 467.597 33% 17% 50% 18%

where:
SU = Net internal surface of the whole building block (m2 ).
S = Total dissipating surface of the building envelope (m2 ).
V = Gross heated volume (m3 ).
S/V = Ratio of dissipating surface to heated volume (m2 /m3 ).
UP = Average thermal transmittance of the external opaque envelope including thermal bridges (W/m2 K).
SW /St = Ratio of the windowed surface to the total dissipating surface.
Cd = Specific heat loss coefficient = D/(V*T) (W/m3 K).
D = Total heat loss calculated with a reference T = 25 K for Bologna.
T = difference of internal and external temperature (K).
QH,nd = Building energy need for continuous heating (kWh).
EPH,env = Energy performance index in the heating season for the building envelope (kWh/m2 year).
QG = Solar heat gains in the winter season (kWh).
DO = Ratio of opaque envelope heat loss to total heat loss including thermal bridges (%).
DF = Ratio of floor heat loss to total heat loss (%).
DW = Ratio of window heat loss to total heat loss (%).
DTB = Ratio of thermal bridge heat loss to total opaque heat loss (%).

different energy parameters are correlated to geometrical data of

the buildings. This co-relation allows the analysis of the thermal
behaviour as a function of the different building construction types.
The investigation is essential to the prior identification of the key
choices to be selected and adopted for the energy retrofit opera-
tions.
Values of the primary energy for heating demand EPH are strictly
depending on the type of the heating plant system: for the case
studies they vary from independent heating boiler for single apart-
ment, to centralised boiler for a whole building, to district heating
system.
For each case, different values of the global seasonal perfor-
mance of the heating plant was evaluated using a tabular method
where specific efficiencies are defined for each plant subsystems
(emission, distribution, control, production), as proposed by the
Fig. 6. Comparison of specific heat losses Cd and energy performance EPH,env with
Italian standard UNI 11300-2 [36]: the calculated values vary from
respect to S/V ratio.
90% (for recent single heating boiler) to 68% (for the district heating
system), giving a wide range of EPH values, varying from a minimum
of 150 kWh/m2 year to up to 250 kWh/m2 year. three floors above ground, while the BAR, a long and low building,
Considering only the energy use for space heating, the energy with porticoes towards the ground and consequent large dissipat-
performance index in the heating season for the building envelope ing surfaces, the surface/volume ratio reaches the higher value of
EPH,env , presents high values, approximately varying from 100 to 1.05.
200 kWh/m2 year, where major differences are due to the different The specific heat loss coefficient Cd present high values, from
geometrical shapes of the buildings’ volumes, the construction sys- 0.76 up to 1,16, with a very poor correlation to S/V ratio due to
tems and materials used. The following remarks are related mainly different structures and materials used, while the energy perfor-
to the buildings’ construction and layout type: mance EPH,env also present large spread of values due to different
i) the building type (S/V), ii) the opaque envelope (UP ), and (iii) orientation and windows surfaces (fig. 6).
the windows components (DW ).
3.2. Opaque envelope

3.1. Building type
As far as it concerns the volumetric and geometrical characters
of the buildings’ type within the reference building stock, the sur-
face/volume ratio (S/V) varies between 0.35 and 0.64, which means
rather dense and compact building types, with the exception of the
historic building of Via Santa Caterina (STC) and Barca (BAR). In
STC building, the surface/volume ratio reaches the value of 0.75,
due to the articulated volume of the house, varying from one to
Typical construction systems of years ‘50–‘70 are reflected in a
decisive way on the low thermal performance of the building enve-
lope and, in particular, on the values of the thermal transmittance
of the external structures. Also thermal bridges are widely present:
joints between external walls and floors, on the external horizontal
surfaces (roofs, coverings and floors against the ground), pillars and
balconies, joints between opaque and transparent elements.
Historical buildings constructed or re-constructed before 1800,
although renovated after the second world war, consist in bearing
 G. Semprini et al. / Energy and Buildings 156 (2017) 327–342
walls without insulation (MIR, STC) and present average thermal
transmittance values from 1,5 to 1.8 (W/m2 K), and the rate of
thermal bridges losses is less than 15 ÷ 18% compared to the total
dispersion for transmission through the opaque elements. This
physical and construction factor, together with the very low com-
patibility to facades’ modification due to historical preservation,
entails the selection of alternative retrofitting choices instead of the
external insulation (coatings): windows’ replacements with higher
thermal performing glazing and light internal insulation may be the
prior interventions in the energy retrofitting process in this type of
buildings.
Framed buildings with concrete load-bearing structure and
single hollow brick wall (PPB) have average thermal transmit-
tance values around 1,37 W/m2 K, while solutions with double
hollow brick layer and air gap (PBO) present lower values
(0,8 ÷ 0.9 W/m2 K). Conversely, in these last mentioned building
types, the presence of concrete pillars and beams leads to a higher
incidence of thermal bridges with values of 23 ÷ 24% compared to
the total transmission loss; this is a significant amount, consider-
ing that those buildings do not present overhangs, balconies, etc.
whose presence would have further increased this percentage.
Finally, the “Tunnel” construction types, with reinforced con-
crete baffles perpendicular to front facade (VRN, TCV) present
external concrete panels slightly isolated with high thermal trans-
mittance (1,0 ÷ 1,3 W/m2 K). Also in this case, the incidence of
thermal bridges on total transmission loss exceeds 20%.
Analysis of different heat losses parameters allows a first assess-
ment of the thermal insulation of each building. The high values
of Cd (generally greater than 0,9) are mainly due to high ther-
mal transmittances of building components that are 3 ÷ 5 times
higher than the actual limits set by recent legislation (according to
EPBD standard) for new buildings. The heat losses of opaque lat-
eral envelopes generally represent 40–50% of the total heat losses,
while roofs and porticoes floors represent about the 20%.
3.3. Windows
Type and construction system of each building greatly influ-
ences the amount of glazed surfaces. Analysing the ratio between
transparent and total dissipating surfaces SW /St, relatively low val-
ues in the historic building type can be deduced (SW /St less than
10%), compared to building block type and to the buildings built
with the “tunnel” single cast structure. In this last case (PBO and
VRN) the existing large windows cause respectively 55% and 58%
of the total thermal losses in winter period.
Heat losses are strictly related to the ratio between windowed
and opaque surfaces. In general, we can note that the increase of the
SW /St ratio produces a correspondently increase of the heat losses
(fig. 7), except for building FIL, due high thermal performance of
windows and to presence of solar greenhouses. Heat losses from
windows have a big influence on total heat dissipation of buildings
(in general more than 30%) and in some cases they reach values
up to 50%, like for “Popolarissime” (PBO), Virgolone (VRN) and the
“Pilastro” Tower buildings (TPL).
In particular, for the VRN building, large window areas are
present and in many cases even with single glass, representing
the “weak” point for these types of buildings. Also buildings TPL
and PBO present high windows winter losses due to the high val-
ues of thermal transmittance of the current window glazing and
frames. For those buildings, interventions aimed at the replacement
of windows with higher thermal performance can lead to signifi-
cant improvements of the winter energy performance; thus, in the
hypothetical scenario of a “step by step” renovation, this option
should be prioritized amongst others in the energy retrofitting pro-
cess. A different consideration can be made for the building TCV,
333
Fig. 7. Comparison of window heat losses (DW ) and specific solar heat gains (QG /Su )
to Sw/St ratio.
where the typical geometrical shape creates a low SW/St ratio, with
higher thermal losses through the opaque surfaces than windows.
Furthermore, solar heat gains from glazing surfaces are taken
into account. Considering the specific heat solar gains related to
internal floor surface, results for different buildings show a wide
spread of values depending not only on size of window surfaces,
but also on other factors like orientation, shading devices and vol-
umetric obstructions (Fig. 7).
Table 3 summarizes previous considerations and displays
how the correlation between construction type and associated
envelopes (alongside with historical or legislative constraints and
the analysis of the thermal behaviour as a function of the different
building construction types) can be very useful to the prior iden-
tification of the options to be selected and adopted in the energy
retrofitting operations.
In this context, the main possible options for energy retrofitting
of the building’s envelope are:
A.) Opaque envelope’s insulation including horizontal external
floors and coverings;
B.) Opaque envelope’s substitution (re-moving of existing and
mounting of new envelopes);
C.) Windows’ replacement.
These solutions may have some limitations. Historical and leg-
islative constraints reduce the possibility of a standard insulation
of the opaque envelopes (A). In such cases, the only options left
are windows’ replacement (C) (MIR, STC, T2M). Other non-energy
related factors, like the presence of structural gaps in the joints
between structure and envelopes encountered in particular kind
of pre-fabricated building constructions (FIL, VRN, TPL) might dis-
rupt the effectiveness of opaque envelope’s insulation (A); in these
cases, the substitution of the envelope (B) represents a preferable
option.
4. Energy retrofitting procedure in the “Popolarissime”
Among the 10 different buildings (Fig. 4 and Table 3), the
two buildings “Popolarissime” have been selected for an in-depth
investigation to test and compare different energy retrofit options,
considering the consequent impact of each solution. The selection
of the buildings has been made according the following criteria:
(i) Suitability to transformation by means of both standard and
deep renovation methods;
(ii) Presence of the building type and consequent impact in the
specific and wider context of the EU cities;
334 G. Semprini et al. / Energy and Buildings 156 (2017) 327–342

Table 3
Correlations between buildings’ type and prior identification of the energy retrofitting options. The buildings selected for in-depth energy investigation are highlighted with
a dotted (red) line.(For interpretation of the references to colour in this table legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

(iii) Worst-case building in terms of thermal and geometrical prop- Under these assumptions, the resulting global mean seasonal
erties. efficiency of thermal plant system is 80%.
The rehabilitation procedure research has set this reference
building against alternative design scenarios, starting from the
In fact (i), as shown in Table 3, in Popolarissime, standard insu- more standard retrofitting options (the provision of thermal insu-
lation (A) and substitution (B) are both possible options, as well as lation and the replacement of the glazed components) up to the
windows’ replacement (C). introduction of volumetric additions in the façade creating buffer
Secondly (ii), as block stand-alone buildings, they represent the zones between the inside and the outside of the building, designed
most frequent building type in the selected case of Bologna and in to reduce the energy losses through the building envelope and
the periphery of the majority of the EU and western-world cities as improve overall energy performance. Different levels of plants’
well. upgrading are considered, from a centralised system with heat
Finally (iii), Popolarissime represent the worst case in terms pumps to photovoltaic energy production.
of thermal properties of the building envelopes. The buildings
have an high surface/volume ratio (S/V = 0,64 m2 /m3 ), because of
4.1. Energy behaviour in the as-built case
the specific geometry: a very limited width (7 m), long façades
(42 m) and the height of the building up to 7 floors. This aspect
The heating demand of the building has been evaluated by col-
determines the most unfavourable conditions in terms of thermal
lecting the data of the gas consumption during three winter seasons
performance of the building. Thus, the adaptability to be trans-
(2011/12 ÷ 2013/14): Table 4 illustrates the heating primary energy
formed, the reiterated presence of this building type, together with
demands calculated from the annual gas volume consumptions and
the thermal/geometrical properties has driven to the selection of
the mean lower calorific value (LCV).
these buildings as the most representative amongst others.
Gas consumptions during the three years (and consequently the
Between the two identical buildings Popolarissime, the south-
primary energy for heating demands) are proportional to the exter-
ern one has been selected for further investigation (Fig. 8).
nal climatic conditions, as illustrated in Table 4 by the substantial
A detailed survey has been conducted on the household build-
equivalence of the specific gas consumptions normalized to Heating
ing (dated 1937) to determine the construction methods, the used
Degree Days (HDD) for the three winter periods (117–114 m3 /◦ C).
materials and the typology and main characteristics of the plant
This result is the logical consequence of the introduction of ther-
system. The energy model of the building (monthly method as
mostatic valves (occurred in 2011).
described in par. 3) was validated comparing the outputs with mea-
Considering an average seasonal performance of the heating
sured consumption bills in winter season; furthermore, the energy
plant of 80%, the primary energy demand for continuous heating in
performances of the building-plant system have been evaluated for
standard conditions (HDD = 2259 ◦ C) is calculated as 260296 kWh
different scenarios.
according to [33,34]: this value is very close to the actual consump-
The external envelope of the building consists of hollow brick
tion of winter season 2011–12 with similar HDD (Table 4). Thus, the
walls (Up = 1,37 W/m2 K) and single/double glass windows with a
primary energy demand for heating in standard conditions, in the
metal frame (average value of Uw = 4,5 W/m2 K). Floors of building
current situation, gives an EPH index equal to 188 kWh/m2 year.
roof and underground cellars have been recently insulated (average
Domestic hot water (DHW) is independently produced in each
value of Uf = 0,6 W/m2 K).
apartment and it is not monitored. Standard consumption for DHW
The existing centralised heating system consists of two new
production is calculated according to national directive [36] which
condensing gas boilers with a vertical water pipe distribution (par-
provides normalized consumption values depending on apartment
tially insulated) and radiators (located in each room on the external
dimensions: a mean value of EPDHW = 18 kWh/m2 year is consid-
walls) with thermostatic valves and climatic control system for
ered, giving a total value of EPTOT = 206,39 kWh/m2 year: thus,
the thermal power plant. According to [36], the following mean
Popolarissime is undoubtedly a very energy-intensive consuming
subsystem plant performances are considered:
building.

• radiator emission efficiency: 93% 4.2. Thermal insulation of envelope structures

• distribution efficiency: 95%
• control system efficiency: 95% As the energy performance of a building is mainly related
• gas boiler efficiency: 95% to the building envelope’s type and elements, these components
 G. Semprini et al. / Energy and Buildings 156 (2017) 327–342
Fig. 8. Location of the social houses “Popolari” (two block buildings on right side of the map N-NE and S-SE oriented) and “Popolarissime”, on the left side, S-SW. The reference
building – on the far left side – is framed by the red rectangle. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.)
Table 4
Gas consumption and Primary Energy demand of the building. Lower Calorific Values (LCV) are evaluated from declared Gross Calorific Values of the local Energy Supply and
distribution Company. The last column reports the Gas consumption normalized to Heating Degree Days.
Gas Consumption LCV Gas
m 3
MJ/Sm
2011/12 25633 35,29
2012/13 24920 34,95
2013/14 20320 34,86
model
represent the most significant parts to be analysed, re-designed
and transformed through energy efficient (EE) solutions in the
retrofitting process.
Different solutions have been suggested to increase the insula-
tion and thermal performance of envelope components. The first
retrofitting scenario consists of thermal insulation of opaque walls,
roofs and porticoes by using 10 cm thick layer of EPS placed on the
outer surfaces (Fig. 9); this solution reduce thermal bridges, avoids
the risk of interstitial water vapour condensation and increase
the energy performance of the building bringing the EPH index
down to = 64,31 kWh/m2 year (EPTOT = 82,31 kWh/m2 year); with
the only replacement of window components (low emitting dou-
ble glass and PVC frame), the energy performances are reduced to
EPH = 151,26 kWh/m2 year (EPTOT = 169,26 kWh/m2 year). Combin-
ing the two above-mentioned options, EPTOT = 50,47 kWh/m2 year.
This solution would allow a saving equal to 82,6% than the current
energy consumption of the building.
4.3. Volumetric addition: the greenhouse system
A higher transformation of the building’s shell has been hypoth-
esised and a buffer zone consisting of a sunspace between the
building and the outdoor environment has been designed. The main
role of this solution is to provide an effective zone to reduce thermal
losses in the cold winter season.
Nonetheless, many significant advantages can be identified
within this solution: i) Increasing of the internal volume and cre-
ation of additional spaces; ii) New architectural façade with higher
level of maintainability, iii) Higher commercial value, iv) Solar gains
335
Primary Energy HDD GC/HDD
◦
3
kWh C m3 /◦ C
261508 2232 117
251825 2311 109
204762 1797 114
260296 2259 115
for better performances and indoor comfort in winter and summer
periods, v) Cross ventilation with the addition of a stack ventila-
tion through vertical chimneys, vi) Possibility of inserting new pipe
network for heating and DHW plant, centralised mechanical ven-
tilation, vii) Flexibility in the internal rearrangement of the single
apartments.
Furthermore, the structural feasibility of this solution is given by
an external grid supporting the additional spaces in order to avoid
the risk of exceeding the load bearing of the existing building, which
was not conceived for these additional volumes.
In fact, the application of sunspace and additional volumes with
respect to the existing building envelope is technically feasible
thanks to the hypothesis of structural external grids appropriately
fixed to the existing buildings (Figs. 10–12).
This structure, if specifically designed and properly anchored in
the structural joints with the existing structure, could even pro-
vide the opportunity to improve the seismic performance of the
building.
The energy potential and overheating problems of sunspace
structures connected to the building has been comprehensively
investigated; in this specific context, these added spaces are consid-
ered open during the hot summer season (thus providing balconies
and shading on the building envelope) and closed in winter period,
when the spaces interposed between the filter and the outside
may greatly reduce the transmission losses through the building
envelope.
If this solution is combined to the external thermal insula-
tion, the building envelope can satisfy the values of transmittance
required by actual standards and, simultaneously, the building as a
336 G. Semprini et al. / Energy and Buildings 156 (2017) 327–342

Fig. 9. Sketch of the building with external wall insulated with 10 cm of EPS (U=0.27 W/m2 K). On the right, diagram of water vapour pressure (blu line) is lower than
saturation pressure (red line) calculate in January with internal conditions of T = 20 ◦ C and UR = 65%. (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the
reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

Fig. 10. From left to right: the structural grid of the existing buildings; the addition of external grids; the top connection; finally, the building-grid integration.

Fig. 11. The buildings Popolarissime as built (on the left) and in the deep-regeneration scenario including volumetric additions.

whole may achieve the minimum criteria required for the building
energy performance index.
This additional building envelope is a powerful technological
solution combining the improved energy performance of the build-
ings with a new aesthetic/formal quality. In fact, it could represent
the possible resolution of critical aspects in the existing context,
by providing more socially inclusive and attractive urban environ-
ments (Fig. 11).
4.4. The generation system: heat pump system
A significant improvement in the energy performance of the
building can be achieved through the substitution of gas boilers
with a central heating heat pump system and the replacement of
current old radiators with new elements working at lower tem-
perature (or radiating systems in case of internal restructuration).
The more efficient solution for the heating generation system is a
geothermal heat pump system (GHP) powered by a photovoltaic
plant (PV).
Energy calculations for this case study were carried out by the
“bin method” [37] where the energy delivered and the energy per-
formance of the heat pump was calculated considering the hourly
distribution of thermal loads, also taking in account consumption
of all auxiliary equipment. Results are reported in Fig. 13.
In order to optimise the energy performance of the GHP, an inte-
gration system with a simple electric resistance is planned due to
a large production from PV system. Alternatively, a gas boiler may
be provided, with higher values of primary energy; however the
choice should be assessed as a function of PV system’s size. The
total energy delivered from the heat pump is 29500 kWh, while
those delivered from the integrating system is 4700 kWh.
The calculated electric energy demand for the heating HP system
and auxiliary system is still about 5700 (4400 + 1300) kWhe /year.
 G. Semprini et al. / Energy and Buildings 156 (2017) 327–342 337

Fig. 12. Technical feasibility assessment via the detailed study of the structural connections between the new extension and the existing building.

Fig. 13. Building thermal energy need and supplied by heat pump and the integrated
system.
Fig. 14. Energy produced from different PV modules.

4.5. Photovoltaic system
The criterion to define the amount of photovoltaic (PV) panels is
strongly dependent to national energy policies and feed-in tariffs.
In the current context the best financial criterion for PV sizing is
related to direct use of the building for electric and thermal needs.
Because of the favourable solar orientation of the reference
building, the integration with technologies for the energy pro-
duction from renewable sources have been further explored, thus
extending the possibility of transformation to the plant systems.
Coloured photovoltaic panels in red and grey, made up by mono-
crystalline silicon and semi-transparent panels in single-crystal
silicon (with level transparency 10–15% as they are used a par-
tial replacement of the window glass components) are supposed
to be used in the south-oriented façade. Fig. 14 shows the energy
production from PV modules located in different position of build-
ing: existing pitched roof, added canopy on the last floor of the
façade addition (shed in Figs. 13 and 14), façade. For the case of
insulated building with heat pump system, only roof and shed PV
mono-crystalline modules (P = 195 W/m2 ) are needed for heating
needs, corresponding to about 105 m2 of PV surface installed.
In the financial analysis a larger installation of PV sys-
tem has been hypothesised, involving also the existing façades
corresponding to 370 m2 of coloured amorphous modules
(P = 122 ÷ 143 W/m2 ). This global solution (Fig. 15) may provide a
total PV production of about 65.000 kWhe /year, thus producing a
surplus of energy to be used in the urban context or to be sold back
to the Energy Management Service. In Fig. 14 the electric energy
338 G. Semprini et al. / Energy and Buildings 156 (2017) 327–342
Table 5
A comparison among the different energy retrofitting actions in the reference building and the corresponding energy saving.(For interpretation of the references to colour in
this table legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
Fig. 15. Electric energy need for HP system compared to PV production from roof.
needs for the GHP system are compared to PV production from
roof.
The high-efficiency mono-crystalline photovoltaic panels on the
roof address both the energy required by the heat pump and the
energy demand for residential users for domestic purposes, thus
bringing the building to zero energy balance. Considering a con-
version factor of 0,4 to transform thermal to electric energy, the
options 3 and 6 would have had the following electric energy
demand in standard conditions:
0, 4 × 50kWh/m2 y × 1.380 m2 = 27.000 kWhe (1)
Thus, as 1 kW peak (1 kWp ) of PV produces a mean year value of
1300 kWhe , the total peak power required will be:
27.000 kWhe /1300 kWhe = 20, 77 kWp (2)
To produce 1 kWp net, 5 m2 of PV surface are needed, thus
the total PV surface necessary for achieving nZEB could be only
103,85 m2 .
Table 5 highlights (yellow) the possible solutions to set the
building energy requirements within the current regulatory lim-
its for heating and domestic hot water (primary energy demand
lower than EPlim = 64,69 kWh/m2 year). As showed, also the simple
insulation of opaque envelope components and the substitution
of existing windows (option 3) allow the building to reach the
minimum performances. The highest transformations given by
combining sunspaces and insulation present very high energy per-
formance (green). Furthermore, the combination of GHP and PV
systems would drastically reduce the energy performance index of
the building (option 7 and 8).
The energy price where evaluated by Eurostat [38] and by the
Natural gas price statistics and the National Energy Authority [39]
considering prudential values for natural gas prices referred to the
period 2013–2014 for household consumers.
It can be affirmed that there is a high level of technical feasibil-
ity to set to zero the energy balance of existing buildings by using
solutions where energy saving can be reached by the search of an
integrated design combining constructive passive tools with exist-
ing technologies, like heat pumps using RES,. Furthermore, from
the obtained results it can be observed that:
– The preliminary analysis of geometrical and constructive con-
straints of the different building types is essential to individuate
the possible retrofitting options and the degree of transforma-
bility in the existing building stock. In fact, compared with the
limited possibilities of energy adaptation in historic buildings,
on the contrary, the energy and environmental adaptation of
the dwellings from the Modernism to date, show higher levels
of transformability: the technological and constructive charac-
teristics of the buildings, alongside the critical issues and the
potential values of the urban spaces they are located in, concur
to the formulation of proposals for energy retrofitting not neces-
sarily limited to the standard retrofitting, but more extensively
intertwined with the overall buildings transformation, positively
incising at the urban scale, as well.
– The “standard retrofitting” option consisting in the insulation
of opaque elements and windows replacement is the mini-
mum scenario to reach the energy performance limit (EPH about
65 kWm2 year) according to the current national legislation.
5. Economic analysis of design solutions of social housing
“Popolarissime”
To identify the economical feasibility of the energy retrofit
options, a cost-benefit analysis was conducted by means of mar-
ket surveys and techno-economical estimation [26], determining,
for each different design option, the evaluation in terms of energy
performance improvement, the related cost estimations and the
consequent cost-benefit analysis.
To achieve a direct comparison of the different hypotheses pre-
sented so far, the Table 6 is reported, where the various design
 G. Semprini et al. / Energy and Buildings 156 (2017) 327–342 339

Table 6
Investment costs (simple pay back time) for the different energy retrofitting options in the reference building Popolarissime.

Retrofitting Option Construction Costs Max tax deduction Costs with tax deductions Saving PBT (no tax deduction) PBT (with tax deduction)

(1–8) D (55%) D D D /year (years) (years)

1 – Insulation (10 cm polystyrene) 254.006 139.703 114.303 14.614 8,89 17,38

2 − Windows replacement 187.495 103.122 84.373 4.472 18,87 41,93
3 – 1+2 441.500 242.825 198.675 18.486 10,75 23,88
4 – Sunspace (4-12-4) 1.039.268 571.597 467.671 17.090 27,37 60,81
5 – Sunspace (4-12-4-12-4) 1.105.732 608.153 497.579 18.037 27,59 61,30
6 – 1+4 1.274.704 701.087 573.617 18.826 30,47 67,71
7 – 3 + PV + new Plant 842.719 463.495 379.224 21.041 18,02 40,05
8 – 6 + PV + new Plant 1.955.552 1.075.554 879.998 21.193 41,52 92,27

Fig. 16. Different Energy performance indexes in the various options and relative costs. The dashed line represents the EP limit value.

assumptions are correlated with their relative costs consisting in
the construction costs, the possible deductions, the savings costs
derived from the building’s primary energy reduction for heating
and hot water production.
Construction and refurbishment costs vary throughout Euro-
pean countries, building types, geographical location and context.
Specific costs were derived by applying the official regional list [40]
in the Emilia Romagna.
The maximum tax deduction in Table 6 refers to a year discount
over 10 years. Considering the tax deduction as distributed in 10
years, the payback time values, for options 2–7, do not change, since
for these types of intervention the payback time is far longer than
10 years. The only variation in this context could be the payback
time related to the option 1: here its value changes from 8,5 to 8,89
when considering the year discount.
As shown in Table 6, pay-back time (PBT) of standard retrofitting
operations (option 3) with and without public incentives varies
from 11 years to 24 years, respectively. The deep renovation by high
transformation scenario (option 8) does not appear to be economi-
cally competitive with respect to the complete building retrofitting
(option 7): the PBT of this solution, with and without public incen-
tives, varies from 18 years to 40 years, respectively, while for the
deep renovation including volumetric additions (option 8) varies
from 41 years to 92 years.
The above data shows that the high transformation (option 8)
are in no way comparable, in terms of up-front costs, with the stan-
dard retrofitting solution (insulation and replacement of window
components – option 3).
Nonetheless, this more radical transformation hypothesis dras-
tically reduces the energy performance indices of the buildings up
to the target of a passive house, which can easily achieve the target
of nZEB by using technologies fed up by renewable energy sources
(RES) like photovoltaic panels.
The different Energy Performance indices of the retrofitting
options have been compared to the corresponding costs in Fig. 16
where results of Tables 5 and 6 are combined: as expected, the
lower is the energy required by the building, the higher is the
building’s transformation, the higher are the up-front costs.
The same methodology of this case-study has been applied in
buildings with similar conditions in order to obtain more generally
applicable results.
All of the 10 reference buildings in Bologna have been inves-
tigated with similar simulations quantifying different variants in
retrofitting actions [32]; results showed that it is always possible
to reach an average Energy Performance index (EP) varying from 35
to 70 to kWh/m2 year by the insulation of opaque surfaces (internal
insulation in the case of protected buildings) and the replacement of
existing windows. However, similarly to the case of the Popolaris-
sime, the cost-benefit assessments of standard retrofitting have
always showed excessive payback times, with very similar results
with respect to the case illustrated in this paper.
To verify the possibility to counterbalance the economic invest-
ments, a more detailed financial analysis has been performed, by
a financial calculation consisting in the analysis of profitability of
the investment by using the Net Present Value (NPV) index. This
analysis includes the differential cash flows by which the NPV – as
the index of the ability of the investment to provide some economic
benefit- is calculated. To calculate this value, it is necessary to know
the annual cash flow, both incoming and outgoing, and the rate of
return costs. The annual cash flows are calculated as a difference
between gains and costs (Euro):
F k = R k + Ck (3)
where:
Fk is the annual cash flow;
Rk are the annual gains and savings;
Ck are the annual maintenance costs.
Thus, the NPV has been calculated by applying the following
formula:

n
Fk
NPV = (4)
k
k=1
(1 + i)
340 G. Semprini et al. / Energy and Buildings 156 (2017) 327–342
Fig. 17. The financial analysis of profitability using the method of differential cash flows to calculate the Net Present Value (NPV) and evaluate the investment profitability
(Options 3, 6, 7, 8).
where:
n is the life cycle of the retrofitted components and plant (years);
i is the rate of return.
The graphs drawn in Fig. 17 show that for none of the hypoth-
esised interventions present a financial profitability within the
lifetime considered (30 years).
In particular, for the retrofitting options not including the instal-
lation of photovoltaic systems and replacement of heating and
DHW plants, there will never be return of investment (descending
curve in the option 3 and 6).
Thus, the economic analysis of design solutions and the mutual
comparison among data show that the shallow renovation consist-
ing in the standard solution of thermal wall insulation and insulated
glazed components is the one requiring lower initial costs but will
never reach a return of investment in financial terms.
Conversely, the solution providing plant retrofitting combined
to the energy production requires a higher initial investment
(ascending curve in option 7); thus, even if it is economically
unfavourable in the short-term period, it will produce a partial
capital return. This financial performance also depends on the Ital-
ian national feed-in tariffs. In particular, the option 7 (standard
retrofitting including new plant and PV systems) is able to match
the option 3 in 25 years.
The full regeneration of the building, through the increase of
building transformation’s levels by the introduction of the biocli-
matic double skin (the greenhouse system) and the integration of
photovoltaic panels (option 8) represents undoubtedly the most
expensive solution, but it will produce a capital return in percent-
age higher than in option 7 (the curve in 8 is more ascending than
in 7).
6. Discussion and conclusions
This paper presented and discussed selected energy saving
design solutions up to the nZEBs target in a selected residential
building representative of the housing stock of Bologna.
It demonstrates that deep energy renovation of existing build-
ing stock, especially if combined with the overall enhancement
of the building involving also not-energy related aspects, is one
of the major opportunities to decrease energy consumption while
improving the quality of life for residents.
In particular, with respect to the main research questions, the
paper shows that:
• Considering the simple pay back time (PBT), the technical fea-
sibility is weakly and inadequately associated to the economic
feasibility in the retrofitting of existing buildings, being the design
solutions’ life cycle comparable to the pay back time of design
solutions (30 years). Albeit this is especially true considering
the case of deep retrofitting scenarios, the costs of investment
show high pay back times, even in the case of more standard
retrofitting options (PBT varies from 11 to 25 years for the stan-
dard retrofitting scenario and from 40 to 90 years in the deep
regeneration scenario, with or without incentives, respectively).
• Notwithstanding very high PBT in deep regeneration and high
transformation of buildings towards nZEBs, the NPV analysis has
shown how potential margins of profitability are achievable by
coupling the retrofitting scenarios with the RES systems. In fact,
an economic and financial viability of the deep renovation sce-
nario is achieved when it is coupled with the complete plant
retrofitting associated with RES (geothermal heat pump, PV pan-
els and solar panels). But, high initial costs undeniably represent
high-factor risks under economic uncertainty. These very high
initial costs and the potential trend of profitability lead future
research works in searching for new strategies and applications
to increase the economical competitiveness of deep renovation
options in energy retrofitting towards nZEBs.
• The reflection on economical quantifiable values, whether they
are energetic, economic, or technical, remains to be intersected
with other aspects, not quantified here. More holistic perspec-
tives are needed to properly assess the competitiveness of deep
energy regeneration with respect to shallow renovation. In par-
ticular, a set of non-energy related factors should be considered;
they consist in the overall retrofit of the building addressing other
physical, social and environmental characteristics, as listed in the
following points.
i) The possibility of achieve additional and new spaces with volu-
metric additions without exceeding the loading of the buildings
and the possible contribution of external structures to the seis-
mic retrofitting of the building; as a matter of fact, the larger
majority of existing building stock in EU consists of buildings
built well before standardization of regulatory requirements
 G. Semprini et al. / Energy and Buildings 156 (2017) 327–342
for structural reliability in seismic areas. In many urban areas,
especially in the Mediterranean, it is becoming imperative to
restructure and retrofit existing building to improve their seis-
mic reliability and safety. As a result, in the retrofitting of the
built environment the adoption of seismic provisions like energy
dissipation through external structures and other safety protec-
tion devices could be more easily provided by using external
structures (exoskeletons) and high transformation scenarios.
ii) The influence of the new external structure as a buffer zone
protecting the building from atmospheric agents, thus con-
tributing to the improved maintenance of the existing buildings’
envelopes and to a longer life-time of the building as a whole.
iii) The possibility of using the external addition for stack ventilation
through vertical chimneys and new pipe network for heating and
DHW plant, centralised mechanical ventilation and, generally,
for plant systems’ retrofitting with lower impact on existing res-
idential units and dwellers during retrofitting and construction
works. This may imply a consequent enhanced social inclusive-
ness for dwellers (often low-income tenants/owners) not forced
to abandon their dwellings and the flexibility in the internal
restructuring of each apartment.
iv) In a market perspective, the Real Estate incremented value pro-
duced by the volumetric addition, alongside with new building
envelope and the achievement of highly energy performing
buildings are all-important parameters in estimating the com-
mercial value of the buildings.
v) In environmental terms, it is crucial to highlight the lower envi-
ronmental impact of the retrofitting option with respect to the
demolition and reconstruction. The extraction of raw materials
for construction, production, processing of materials and their
transport, as well as the demolition and removal of the buildings
would require high energy and would consequently produce
high carbon emissions. These factors will be assessed and com-
bined with the economical analysis considering the retrofitting
scenario by deep regeneration strategy versus the option of new
building re-construction including demolition as these options
cannot be assessed based only on the variable price of recon-
struction and market value.
In the search for answer the research issues related to the
technical feasibility and economic feasibility in the retrofitting
towards nZEBs, the paper highlights the importance of considering
non-energy related factors to properly and holistically assess the
economic competitiveness of the energy and architectural retrofit.
In fact, deep energy and architectural regeneration, by incorpo-
rating non-energy related benefits, might use them to increase
motivations and willingness of main stakeholders (inhabitants,
home-owners, public bodies, real estate agencies, ESCOs) in the
energy retrofit market uptake.
In other terms, it can be concluded that retrofit is a multi-
objective optimisation problem and the energy and economical
benefit are indeed the main objectives but cannot be the only crite-
ria for the selection of retrofit and renovation options; non-energy
related aspects could increase the feasibility of deep regeneration
towards nZEBs in the building current practise.
7. Further research
In the present work, which is essentially based on the economic
evaluation based on a context specific case, many externalities hav-
ing a major impact on aggregate gain or loss of the society as a whole
have been disregarded in this paper. For these reasons, the authors
are currently performing wider and in-depth studies in residential
buildings located in other climatic areas and under different eco-
nomic conditions, developing a sensitivity analysis of the results
for different costs and contexts.
341
While generic conclusions cannot be drawn from one single case
study, this particular case presents a remarkable series of repeat-
able factors in the larger scale of the European and west-world
urban contexts.
Firstly, considering the case study’s significance, it should be
considered that Modernism in architecture has conceived build-
ings to be universal; thus, similar buildings in the different contexts
of the Western civilization and EU as well, were produced, starting
from the ‘50s. As a consequence, the relative recent European build-
ing stock presents similar energy and non-energy problems and
main common solutions can be identified, with a potential large
impact.
Amongst others, one common solution can be identified in the
proposed external structure, representing a powerful tool incor-
porating other aspects of building performance improvement as
safety and seismic reliability and market attractiveness. In fact, the
volumetric addition here presented is a design answer with high
level of technical feasibility, whose novelty relies in the original
integration of the main requirements of a building (energy, safety,
comfort, attractiveness, etc.) in a single technological solution.
To successfully implement this kind of energy solution in the
deep renovation of buildings, further research works are under
development. They are mainly focussed on the following aspects: i)
the evaluation and assessment of the seismic performance given by
the external structures as designed; ii) the life cycle analysis and
assessment of the environmental benefit due construction activ-
ities in the different design options; iii) the search for strategies
and applications to increase the economical competitiveness of
the volumetric additions, using them as a firmer leverage to reach
marketable zero-energy buildings within 2020.
Acknowledgements
The present paper contains data and images firstly elaborated
during the Master Thesis for Degree in Construction Engineering
and Architecture, 2009–10; 2010–11 by Stefano Romito and Chiara
Margini. The data have been elaborated under the supervision of
the authors and in collaboration with Eng. M. Monacelli. In both
cases, the supervisor was A. Ferrante and co-supervisor G. Semprini.
Recently, calculations have been assessed, revised and updated by
the authors. The authors acknowledge Stefano Romito and Chiara
Margini for their helpful production of materials and data. The
authors also acknowledge ACER Bologna for the kind help in achiev-
ing original data and drawings of the social housing stock.
References
[1] P. Hernandez, P. Kenny, From net energy to zero energy buildings: defining
life cycle zero energy buildings (LC-ZEB), Energy Build. 42 (2010) 815–821.
[2] A. Ferrante, Towards nearly zero energy, in: Urban Settings in the
Mediterranean Climate, Elsevier Ltd, Oxford, Cambridge, 2016, pp. 1–283,
ISBN: 9780081007358 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100735-8.00002-7.
[3] H.S. Brown, P.J. Vergragt, Bounded socio-technical experiments as agents of
systemic change: the case of a zero-energy residential building, Technol.
Forecasting Soc. Change 75 (2008) 107–130.
[4] B. Dunster, C. Simmons, B. Gilbert, Solutions for a shrinking world, in: The
ZEDbook, Taylor and Francis, New York, 2009, ISBN10 0–415-391997. ISBN13
978–0-415–39199-3.
[5] City of Copenhagen, Copenhagen Climate Plan, The Technical and
Environmental Administration City Hall, 1599 CopenhagenV,
www.kk.dk/klima, 2009.
[6] S. Attia, E. Gratia, A. De Herde, Jan L.M. Hensen, Simulation-based decision
support tool for early stages of zero-energy building design, Energy Build. 49
(2012) 2–15.
[7] M. Kapsalaki, V. Leal, M. Santamouris, A methodology for economic efficient
design of Net Zero Energy Buildings, Energy Build. 55 (2012) 765–778.
[8] G. Evola, G. Margani, L. Marletta, Cost-effective design solutions for low-rise
residential net ZEBs, Energy Build. 68 (2014) 7–18.
[9] P. Torcellini, S. Pless, M. Deru, Zero energy buildings: a critical look at the
definition, in: National, Renewable Energy Laboratory D. Crawley U. S.
Department of Energy to Be Presented at ACEEE, Summer Study Pacific Grove,
342 G. Semprini et al. / Energy and Buildings 156 (2017) 327–342
California, 2006, Retrieved from http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/39833.
pdf.
[10] A. Ferrante, Zero- and low-energy housing for the Mediterranean climate,
Adv. Build. Energy Res. 6 (No. 1) (2012) 81–118.
[11] M.J.N. Oliveira Panão, M.P. Rebelo, S.M.L. Camelo, How low should be the
energy required by a nearly zero-energy Building? The load/generation
energy balance of Mediterranean housing, Energy Build. 61 (2013) 161–171.
[12] F. Mejer, L. Itard, M. Sunnikka-Blank, Comparing European residential
building stocks: performance, renovation and policy opportunities, Build. Res.
Inf. vol. 37 (5–6) (2009), Taylor and Francis.
[13] I. Sartori, A. Napolitano, K. Voss, Net zero energy buildings: a consistent
definition framework, Energy Build. 48 (2012) 220–232.
[14] UNEP, SBCU, Sustainable buildings and climate initiative, copyright © united
nations environment programme, in: Buildings and Climate Change,
Summary for Decision-Makers, 2009,
http://www.unep.org/sbci/pdfs/SBCI-BCCSummary.pdf, Accessed August
2016.
[15] A. Kaklauskas, L. Kelpsiene, E. Zavadskas, D. Bardauskiene, D. Kaklauskas, M.
Urbonas, V. Sorakas, Crisis management in construction and real estate:
conceptual modeling at the micro-, meso- and macro-levels, LandUse Policy
28 (2011) 280–293.
[16] M. Santamouris, K. Kapsis, D. Korres, I. Livada, C. Pavlou, M.N.
Assimakopoulos, On the relation between the energy and social
characteristics of the residential sector, J. Energy Build. 39 (2007) 893–905.
[17] A. Ferrante, Energy retrofit to nearly zero and socio-oriented urban
environments in the Mediterranean climate, J. Sustain. Cities Soc. 13 (2014)
237–253.
[18] Zhenjun Ma, P. Cooper, D. Daly, L. Ledo, Existing building retrofits:
methodology and state-of-the-art, Energy Build. 55 (2012) 889–902.
[19] J. Ferreira, M.D. Pinheiro, J. de Brito, Refurbishment decision support tools
review—energy and lifecycle as key aspects to sustainable refurbishment
projects, Energy Policy 62 (2013) 1453–1460.
[20] A.M. Rysanek, R. Choudhary, Optimum building energy retrofits under
technical and economic uncertainty, Energy Build. 57 (2013) 324–337.
[21] G. Kumbaroglu, R. Madlener, Evaluation of economically optimal retrofit
investment options for energy savings in buildings, Energy Build. 49 (2012)
327–334.
[22] A. Ferrante, G. Semprini, Building energy retrofitting in urban areas, Procedia
Eng. 21 (2011) 968–975, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.07.046.
[23] M. Morelli, L. Rønby, S.E. Mikkelsen, M.G. Minzari, T. Kildemoes, H.M.
Tommerup, Energy retrofitting of a typical old Danish multi-family building
to a nearly-zero energy building based on experiences from a test apartment,
Energy Build. 54 (2012) 395–406.
[24] JWG: Towards assisting EU Member States on developing long term strategies
for mobilising investment in building energy renovation (per EU Energy
Efficiency Directive Article 4), in: Composite Document of the Joint Working
Group of CA EED, CA EPBD and CA RES, 2013, November http://www.ca-eed.
eu/reports/art-4-guidance-document/eed-article-4-assistance-document.
[25] Delivering Article 4 of the Energy Efficiency Directive, BPIE, Buildings
Performance Institute Europe (BPIE), 2013, February.
[26] S. Shnapp, R. Sitjà, J. Laustsen, What is a deep Renovation definition? in:
Global Buildings Performance Network, Technical Report, 2013, February
info@gbpn.org, www.gbpn. org, @GBPNetwork.
[27] K. Bettgenhäuser, R. de Vos, J. Grözinger, T. Boermans, Deep renovation of
buildings. An effective way to decrease Europeäs energy import dependency,
2014, Project number: BUIDE 14901 © Ecofys.
[28] Assistant Documents by the Joint Working Group of CA EED, CA EPBD and CA
RES, 2013.
[29] E.U. Report, Housing Statistics in the European Union, 2010.
[30] K. Fabbri, Building and fuel poverty, an index to measure fuel poverty: an
Italian case study Energy 89 (2015) 244–258.
[31] Piano d’azione per l’energia sostenibile, Action plan for sustainable energy,
http://www.comune.bologna.it/media/files/paes 12maggio2012 approvato 1.
pdf. Accessed March 2015.
[32] A. Ferrante, A.A.A. Adeguamento, Adattabilità, Architettura, Teorie E Metodi
Per La Riqualificazione Architettonica, Energetica Ed Ambientale Del
Patrimonio Edilizio Esistente, Bruno Mondadori Editore, Milano, 2012,
9788861598560.
[33] ISO 13790, Energy Performance of Buildings – Calculation of Energy Use for
Space Heating and Cooling, International Organization for Standardization,
Switzerland, 2008.
[34] UNI 10349, Riscaldamento E Raffrescamento Degli Edifici −Dati Climatici,
Ente Nazionale Italiano di Unificazione, Milano, 1994.
[35] UNI 11300-1, Prestazioni Energetiche Degli Edifici −Parte 1: Determinazione
Del Fabbisogno Di Energia Termica Dell’edificio Per La Climatizzazione Estiva
Ed Invernale, Ente Nazionale Italiano di Unificazione, Milano, 2008.
[36] UNI 11300-2, Prestazioni Energetiche Degli Edifici −Parte 2: Determinazione
Del Fabbisogno Di Energia Primaria E Dei Rendimenti Per La Climatizzazione
Invernale E Per La Produzione Di Acqua Calda Sanitaria, Ente Nazionale
Italiano di Unificazione, Milano, 2008.
[37] EN 15316-4-2, Heating systems and water based cooling systems in buildings,
in: Method for Calculation of System Energy Requirements and System
Efficiencies − Part 4-2: Space Heating Generation Systems, Heat Pump
Systems, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 2008.
[38] Eurostat Natural Gas Price Statistics, 2016, December http://ec.europa.eu/
eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Natural gas price statistics#Natural
gas prices for household consumers.
[39] Autorità Per l’energia Elettrica, Il Gas E Il Sistema Idrico, 2016 http://www.
autorita.energia.it/it/dati/gp27new.htm.
[40] Elenco Regionale dei prezzi delle opera pubbliche –Regione
Emilia-Romagna–Ed. 2012, January 2015.