THERMAL SCIENCE

International Scientific Journal

Aleksandar Petrovski

,

Lela Petrovska-Hristovska

,

Jelena A. Ivanović-Šekularac

,

Nenad D. Šekularac

ASSESSMENT OF THE SUSTAINABILITY OF FAçADE REFURBISHMENT

ABSTRACT
Dominant share of the residential stock in the European countries has an exploited service life and is in a need for façade refurbishment. This paper contributes with an establishment of a tool for assessment of the sustainability of design options for refurbishment of buildings` façade. The tool is based on a multicriteria system, assessing four design criteria, relevant to the process of façade refurbishment. The criteria are evaluated by several surveyed participants and by utilizing the Analytic-Hierarchic Process (AHP), the indicators` weights are calculated and used for operationalization of the assessment tool. Further, the tool is used on several façade refurbishment design proposals assessment. The case-study on which these proposals are applied is a residential building situated in Skopje, Western Balkans, Europe. Each of the façade proposals is assessed regarding their energy performance, CO2 emissions, investment costs and return of investment. Further, the results of the LCA analysis of all of the applied materials shows the contribution of each of them regarding the LCA indicators. The results of the research show that the use of wood and modified wood products as façade elements used for buildings` façade refurbishment can substantially decrease the greenhouse emissions and contribute to the carbon offsetting. However due to the higher investment costs, the return of the investment is longer, leading to lower sustainability assessment ranking. It is concluded that the refurbishment of the façade with a conventional contact façade has the highest ranking on sustainability, followed by façade refurbishment with contact façade combined with only roof refurbishment/ glazing refurbishment or both. Also, the modified wood wall types show high sustainability ranking regarding their refurbishment potential.
KEYWORDS
Sustainability assessment, Life-Cycle Assessment, energy performance, investment costs, return of investment, residential buildings, AHP
PAPER SUBMITTED: 2019-02-18
PAPER REVISED: 2019-06-23
PAPER ACCEPTED: 2019-07-04
PUBLISHED ONLINE: 2019-08-10
DOI REFERENCE: https://doi.org/10.2298/TSCI190218307P
CITATION EXPORT: view in browser or download as text file
THERMAL SCIENCE YEAR 2020, VOLUME 24, ISSUE Issue 2, PAGES [991 - 1006]
REFERENCES
  1. David A, Chiel B, John M. Handbook of Sustainable Building: An Environmental Preference Method for Selection of Materials for Use in Construction. Earthscan Publications Ltd.; Revised edition (January 1996); 1996.
  2. Buildings - Energy - European Commission. Energy 2018. /energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency/buildings (accessed October 28, 2018).
  3. Periodic Reporting for period 1 - INSUPanel (Building the green way: wide take-up of a versatile, proven, energy and cost efficient insulation technology) | Report Summary | INSUPanel | H2020. CORDIS | European Commission 2015. cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/186598_en.html (accessed October 28, 2018).
  4. Asif M, Muneer T, Kelley R. Life cycle assessment: A case study of a dwelling home in Scotland. Building and Environment 2007;42:1391-4. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.11.023.
  5. World Commission on Environment and Development. Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1987.
  6. Handy SL, Boarnet MG, Ewing R, Killingsworth RE. How the built environment affects physical activity: views from urban planning. Am J Prev Med 2002;23:64-73.
  7. Northridge DME, Sclar DED, Biswas MP. Sorting out the connections between the built environment and health: A conceptual framework for navigating pathways and planning healthy cities. J Urban Health 2003;80:556-68. doi:10.1093/jurban/jtg064.
  8. Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 May 2010 on the energy performance of buildings. vol. OJ L. 2010.
  9. 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 (Text with EEA relevance). vol. OJ L. 2018.
  10. Sartori I, Napolitano A, Voss K. Net zero energy buildings: A consistent definition framework. Energy and Buildings 2012;48:220-32. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.01.032.
  11. Europe‘s buildings under the microscope. BPIE - Buildings Performance Institute Europe 2011. bpie.eu/publication/europes-buildings-under-the-microscope/ (accessed November 3, 2018).
  12. Boosting Building Renovation: What Potential and Value for Europe? - Think Tank 2016. www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document.html?reference=IPOL_STU(2016)587326 (accessed October 28, 2018).
  13. Mastrucci A, Marvuglia A, Leopold U, Benetto E. Life Cycle Assessment of building stocks from urban to transnational scales: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2017;74:316-32. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2017.02.060.
  14. Bentivegna V, Brandon PS, Lombardi P. Evaluation of the Built Environment for Sustainability. Taylor & Francis; 2003.
  15. Zileska - Pancovska V, Petruseva S, Petrovski A. Predicting Sustainability Assessment at Early Facilities Design Phase. Facilities 2017;35:388-404 (SJR=0.371 Scopus).
  16. Zujo V, Zileska - Pancovska V, Petruseva S, Petrovski A. Construction Manager‘s Perception for Sustainable Construction Contributing Factors: Analysis using Support Vector Machine. TEM Journal 2017;6:391-399(Web of Science-Thomson Reuters). doi:10.18421.
  17. Petrovski A, Marina O, Dimkov G, Papasterevski D. Sustainable design for improvement of healthy built environment. Proceedings of 2nd International Academic Conference on Places and Technologies, Nova Gorica: University of Ljubljana - Faculty of Architecture; 2015, p. 52-8.
  18. Mwasha A, Williams RG, Iwaro J. Modeling the performance of residential building envelope: The role of sustainable energy performance indicators. Energy and Buildings 2011;43:2108-17. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2011.04.013.
  19. Friege J, Chappin E. Modelling decisions on energy-efficient renovations: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2014;39:196-208. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.091.
  20. Organ S, Proverbs D, Squires G. Motivations for energy efficiency refurbishment in owner‐occupied housing. Structural Survey 2013;31:101-20. doi:10.1108/02630801311317527.
  21. Petrovski A, Samardzioska T. Influence of orientation, shape and glazing in the energy efficiency of groundfloor housing buildings. 15th International Symposium of MASE, Struga: 2013.
  22. Petrovski A, Zileska - Pancovska V, Zujo V. Improving building sustainability by optimizing facade shape and solar insolation use. International Scientific Conference People, Buildings and Environment 2014 (PBE2014), Kromeriz, Czech Republic: 2014, p. 374-83.
  23. Petrovski A, Kochov A, Zileska - Pancovska V. Sustainable improvement of the energy efficiency of an existing building. Mechanical Engineering - Scientific Journal 2014;32.
  24. Ramage MH, Burridge H, Busse-Wicher M, Fereday G, Reynolds T, Shah DU, et al. The wood from the trees: The use of timber in construction. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2017;68:333-59. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.107.
  25. Sandberg D, Kutnar A, Mantanis G. Wood modification technologies - a review. IForest - Biogeosciences and Forestry 2017;10:895-908. doi:10.3832/ifor2380-010.
  26. Hill CAS. Wood Modification: Chemical, Thermal and Other Processes. John Wiley & Sons; 2006.
  27. Thermowood. Lunawood 2018. lunawood.com/thermowood/ (accessed September 18, 2018).
  28. Chabot Space & Science Center | Kebony 2018. kebony.com/en/projects/chabot-space-science-center/ (accessed June 9, 2018).
  29. Lande S, Westin M, Schneider M. Properties of furfurylated wood. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, Supplement 2004;19:22-30.
  30. Accsys 2018. www.accsysplc.com/ (accessed June 8, 2018).
  31. Morozovs A, Buksans E. Fire performance characteristics of acetylated ash (Fraxinus excelsior L.) wood. Wood Materials Science and Engineering 2009;4:76-9.
  32. Rautkari L. Surface modification of solid wood using different techniques. Aalto University; 2012.
  33. Rautkari L, Properzi M, Pichelin F, Hughes M. Surface modification of wood using friction. Wood Sci Technol 2009;43:291. doi:10.1007/s00226-008-0227-0.
  34. Hill CAS, Ramsay J, Keating B, Laine K, Rautkari L, Hughes M, et al. The water vapour sorption properties of thermally modified and densified wood. J Mater Sci 2012;47:3191-7. doi:10.1007/s10853-011-6154-8.
  35. Ivanović-Šekularac J, Čikić-Tovarović J, Šekularac N. Restoration and conversion to re-use of historic buildings incorporating increased energy efficiency: A Case Study - the Haybarn Complex, Hilandar Monastery, Mount Athos. Thermal Science 2016;20:1363-76. doi:10.2298/TSCI160208131I.
  36. Ivanović-Šekularac J, Čikić-Tovarović J, Šekularac N. Application of wood as an element of façade cladding in construction and reconstruction of architectural objects to improve their energy efficiency. Energy and Buildings 2016;115:85-93. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.03.047.
  37. Ivanović-Šekularac J, Šekularac N. Impacts of traditional architecture on the use of wood as an element of facade covering in Serbian contemporary architecture. Spatium 2011:57-62. doi:10.2298/SPAT1124057I.
  38. Google maps. Google Maps 2018. www.google.com/maps/search/google+maps/@41.9948431,21.3866333,13z (accessed November 7, 2018).
  39. Rulebook on energy efficiency. Official Gazette of R of Macedonia 2013;94.
  40. Правилник за енергетски карактеристики на зградите. 2013.
  41. CEN/TC 350. FprEN 15978. Sustainable of construction Works - Assessment of environmental performance of building - Calculation method. n.d.
  42. ÖKOBAUDAT 2018. www.oekobaudat.de/ (accessed June 9, 2018).
  43. Pizzol M, Laurent A, Sala S, Weidema B, Verones F, Koffler C. Normalisation and weighting in life cycle assessment: quo vadis? Int J Life Cycle Assess 2017;22:853-66. doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1199-1.
  44. Crawley DB, Hand JW, Kummert M, Griffith BT. Contrasting the capabilities of building energy performance simulation programs. Building and Environment 2008;43:661-73. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.10.027.
  45. Getting Started with EnergyPlus, Basic Concepts Manual - Essential Information You Need about Running EnergyPlus 2013.
  46. MakStat database. State Statistical Office 2018. makstat.stat.gov.mk/ (accessed May 30, 2018).
  47. Meteonorm. Meteonorm: Irradiation data for every place on Earth 2018. www.meteonorm.com/en/ (accessed June 27, 2018).
  48. Timber Cladding Options Explained. Build It 2016. www.self-build.co.uk/timber-cladding-options-explained/ (accessed November 3, 2018).
  49. Saaty RW. The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used. Mathematical Modelling 1987;9:161-76. doi:10.1016/0270-0255(87)90473-8.
  50. Nidhra S, Satish LPK, Ethiraj VS. Analytical Hierarchy Process issues and mitigation strategy for large number of requirements. 2012 CSI Sixth International Conference on Software Engineering (CONSEG), 2012, p. 1-8. doi:10.1109/CONSEG.2012.6349467.
  51. Државен завод за статистика - соопштение: Цени на електрична енергија и природен гас ,01-06.2018 (Republic of Macedonia State statistical office 0 Electricity prices and Natural gas prices the first semester of 2018) 2018. www.stat.gov.mk/PrikaziSoopstenie.aspx?rbrtxt=120 (accessed November 4, 2018).
  52. GhaffarianHoseini A, Dahlan ND, Berardi U, GhaffarianHoseini A, Makaremi N, GhaffarianHoseini M. Sustainable energy performances of green buildings: A review of current theories, implementations and challenges. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2013;25:1-17. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.01.010.
  53. IEA. Promoting energy efficiency investments: case studies in the residential sector. OECD; 2008.
  54. Weiss J, Dunkelberg E, Vogelpohl T. Improving policy instruments to better tap into homeowner refurbishment potential: Lessons learned from a case study in Germany. Energy Policy 2012;44:406-15. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.02.006.
  55. Petrovski A, Ivanovic-Šekularac J, Šekularac N. Comparison of Wooden and Conventional Houses` Sustainability: Increasing Application of Modified Wood in R. of Macedonia. Thermal Science 2018:(IF 2017 =1.431). doi:doi.org/10.2298/TSCI180705292P.
  56. Risholt B, Time B, Hestnes AG. Sustainability assessment of nearly zero energy renovation of dwellings based on energy, economy and home quality indicators. Energy and Buildings 2013;60:217-24. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2012.12.017.
  57. Šúri M, Huld TA, Dunlop ED, Ossenbrink HA. Potential of solar electricity generation in the European Union member states and candidate countries. Solar Energy 2007;81:1295-305. doi:10.1016/j.solener.2006.12.007.
  58. Dinçer F. The analysis on photovoltaic electricity generation status, potential and policies of the leading countries in solar energy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2011;15:713-20. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2010.09.026.
  59. Samsung LPC250SM (250W) Solar Panel n.d. www.solardesigntool.com/components/module-panel-solar/Samsung/784/LPC250SM/specification-data-sheet.html (accessed September 26, 2018).
PDF VERSION [DOWNLOAD]
Assessment of the sustainability of façade refurbishment

© 2024 Society of Thermal Engineers of Serbia. Published by the Vinča Institute of Nuclear Sciences, National Institute of the Republic of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International licence