Buildings in Europe are the largest consumers of energy, since they are responsible for 40% of energy consumption and 36% of pollutant gas emissions. The energy efficiency, the consequential economic savings and the reduction of environmental impacts must necessarily consider the design of improvements that affect the opaque vertical envelope of a building. The vertical envelope generally constitutes the largest dispersing surface. In this paper, a comparative evaluation of different ETICS (External Thermal Insulation Composite System) solutions through the application of a multicriteria decision support method is proposed. The criteria at the basis of the procedure relate to the energy, environmental, indoor comfort, and economic aspects. Through the application to the case study, consisting of two types of vertical walls with reference to three different climate zones, the ETICS alternative that achieves the best compromise between the various evaluation criteria is highlighted and the solidity of the method itself is tested. The potential of the methodology in the analysis of the alternatives in adherence to individual subcriteria and the possibility of implementation with additional indicators as the needs change are also highlighted. The social impact is undoubtedly one of the expected effects of the application of the method, since a better performance of the building envelope leads to an increase in comfort and liveability of indoor spaces. Moreover, all studies aimed at increasing the performance of the building or parts of it, consequently, lead to greater accessibility by the most vulnerable members of society, in line with the principles of sustainability and inclusiveness of the United Nations 2030 Agenda.

A Tool for the Evaluation of Energy-Environmental Retrofit Interventions on Opaque Walls Using ETICS

Pierfrancesco Fiore
;
Giuseppe Donnarumma;Carmelo Falce
2021-01-01

Abstract

Buildings in Europe are the largest consumers of energy, since they are responsible for 40% of energy consumption and 36% of pollutant gas emissions. The energy efficiency, the consequential economic savings and the reduction of environmental impacts must necessarily consider the design of improvements that affect the opaque vertical envelope of a building. The vertical envelope generally constitutes the largest dispersing surface. In this paper, a comparative evaluation of different ETICS (External Thermal Insulation Composite System) solutions through the application of a multicriteria decision support method is proposed. The criteria at the basis of the procedure relate to the energy, environmental, indoor comfort, and economic aspects. Through the application to the case study, consisting of two types of vertical walls with reference to three different climate zones, the ETICS alternative that achieves the best compromise between the various evaluation criteria is highlighted and the solidity of the method itself is tested. The potential of the methodology in the analysis of the alternatives in adherence to individual subcriteria and the possibility of implementation with additional indicators as the needs change are also highlighted. The social impact is undoubtedly one of the expected effects of the application of the method, since a better performance of the building envelope leads to an increase in comfort and liveability of indoor spaces. Moreover, all studies aimed at increasing the performance of the building or parts of it, consequently, lead to greater accessibility by the most vulnerable members of society, in line with the principles of sustainability and inclusiveness of the United Nations 2030 Agenda.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11386/4765203
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 3
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 2
social impact