CONCLUSION
This paper has demonstrated the importance of evaluating design strategies applied in buildings, not exclusively in the operational phase but during the entire life cycle through different parameters. The method used, aims to analyse the design solution in buildings with a sustainable approach. The article presents a new approach based on the complex system of criteria that allows comprehensive evaluation of the design strategies in buildings combining the indoor comfort conditions, the life cycle assessment (LCA), life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) and the multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). Through the method proposed, it was possible to identify the design solutions that reduce the environmental impact, improved the indoor comfort conditions and reduce the cost. The design solutions, applied in the multi-family social building, show different performances in the four parameters. In the comfort parameters, the best solutions were the traditional reinforced concrete frame, as with the financial cost parameter. The constant and centennial use of reinforced concrete in civil engineering allows to a significantly cost reduction, compared to more advanced techniques. In the energy demand parameter the concrete and steel frame solutions obtained a better behaviour compared to the actual design project. Instead, the X-Lam design solutions obtained better results in the carbon dioxide emissions factor. The study shows that significant emission savings have been achieved by the use of wood products in the building. From the first analysis of the results, it is not clear which are the best design solutions in the building. Through the MCDM was possible to identify the best solution for the case study. The reinforced concrete frame with rectified bricks is the best choice of the building. The different databases used can completely change the design strategies’ behaviour in the energy and emissions life cycle. That is one of the problems of the international studies in the field of LCA. The climate change directly affects the future thermal and energy performance of the building. This is another important aspect to investigate in a life cycle analysis. Only two impact categories of LCA were evaluated. Some studies showed that the energy demand and the Global Warming Potential are not the categories with the greatest impact. The selection of other impact categories can assure a more comprehensive and accurate assessment. This choice may be made or by identifying the impact categories more used in the literature studies or by selecting the impact categories more significant after normalisation or by considering the impacts categories more relevant in the opinion of experts applying a survey. The method shown herein may become a useful tool for designers when choosing the most suitable design strategies, reducing the environmental impact and improving the quality of life of users.
Limitation
This paper shows a small part of a research. For this reason, it has some limitations which will be solved in future works: – In the demolition phase, the re-use of the design strategies material was not considered. Through recycling, the performance of the design solution in terms of energy and emissions could be improved.
- Only one of the six emission scenarios published by the IPCC [28] was considered. Other emission scenarios will be analysed in future studies;
- Only two impact categories of the LCA method were analysed. Through the study of other impact categories is possible to improve the analyse of the environmental impact in the building.
- The future improvements in energy efficiency of air-conditioning systems were not considered;
- Only 30 experts have participated in the survey to obtained the parameters weights and determine their priority.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank CAPES, a Brazilian agency for post-graduation education, for the PhD scholarship granted to Andrea Invidiata for the development of this research project.
REFERENCES
1 IEA. International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook. Available at:
http://www.iea.org, (2016).
2 IPCC. Summary for Policy makers, In: Climate: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (2013).
3 Griego, D., Krarti, M., Hernandez-Guerrero, A. Optimization of energy efficiency and thermal comfort measures for residential buildings in Salamanca, Mexico. Energy and Buildings, 54 (11), 540-549, (2012).
4 Gratia, E., De Herde, A. Design of low energy office buildings. Energy and buildings, 35, 5, 473-491, (2003).
5 Borgstein, E. H., Lamberts, R. Developing energy consumption benchmarks for buildings: Bank branches in Brazil. Energy and Buildings, 82, 10, 82-91, (2014).
6 Ramesh, T., Prakash, R., Shukla, K.K.. Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: an overview. Energy and Buildings, 42, 1592-1600, (2010).
7 Sharma, A., Saxena, A., Sethi, M., Shree, V. Life cycle assessment of buildings: a review. Renewable Sustainable Energy Review, 15, 871-875, (2011).
8 Blengini, G.A., Di Carlo, T. The changing role of life cycle phases, subsystems and materials in the LCA of low energy buildings. Energy and Buildings, 42, 869-880, (2010).
9 Paulsen, J., Sposto, R. A life cycle energy analysis of social housing in Brazil: case study for the program MY HOUSE MY LIFE, Energy and Buildings, 57, 95–102, (2013).
10 Cabeza, L., Berreneche, C., Miro, L., Martinez, M., Fernandez, I., Vorsatz, D. Affordable construction towards sustainable buildings: review on embodied energy in building materials. Environmental Sustainability, 5, 4, 229-236, (2014).
11 Motuziene, V, Rogoza, A, Lapinskiene, V, Vilutiene, T. Construction solutions for energy efficient single-family house based on its life cycle multi-criteria analysis: a case study, Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 532-541, (2016).
12 Kyilili, A., Ilic, M., Fokaides, P.A. Whole-building Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of a passive house of the sub-tropical climatic zone. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 116. 8., 169-177, (2017).
13 Anand, C., Amor, B. Recent developments, future challenges and new research directions in LCA of buildings: A critical review. Renewable Sustainable Energy Review. 67, 408–416, (2017).
14 ISO. International Standardization Organization, Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework, ISO 14040:1997, (1997).
15 Stazi, F., Vegliò, A., Di Perna, C., Munafò, P. Retrofitting using a dynamic envelope to ensure thermal comfort, energy savings and low environmental impact in Mediterranean climates. Energy and Buildings, 54, 350–362, (2012).
16 Atmaca, A., Atmaca, N. Life cycle energy (LCEA) and carbon dioxide emissions (LCCO2A) assessment of two residential buildings in Gaziantep, Turkey, Energy and Buildings, 102 (10), 417-431, (2015).
17 Mithraratne, N., Vale, B., 2004. Life cycle analysis model for New Zealand houses. Building and Environment, 39 (4), 483-492, (2004).
18 Invidiata, A., Ghisi, E. Life-cycle energy and cost analyses of window shading used to improve the thermal performance of houses,
Journal of Cleaner Production, 133, 1371-1383, (2016).
19 Mora, R., Bitsuamlak, G., Horvat, M. Integrated life-cycle design of building enclosures, Building and Environment, 46, 14691479, (2011).
20 Bachmann, T.M. Towards life cycle sustainability assessment: drawing on the NEEDS project's total cost and multi-criteria decision analysis ranking methods. International Journal of Life Cycle Assess. 18, 1698-1709, (2012).
21 Pombo, O., Allacker, K., Rivela, B., Neila, J. Sustainability assessment of energy saving measures: A multi-criteria approach for residential buildings retrofitting—A case study of the Spanish housing stock, Energy and Buildings, 116, 384-394, (2016).
22 Saaty, T.L. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1, 83-98, (2008).
23 ASHRAE, Standard 55–2013. Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy, American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA, (2013).
24 Zavadskas, E.K., Turskis, Z., Kildiene, S. State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ., 20, 165-179, (2014).
25 Kaklauskas, A., Zavadskas, E.K., Raslanas, S., Ginevicius, R., Komka, A., Malinauskas, P. Selection of low-e windows in retrofit of public buildings by applying multiple criteria method COPRAS: a Lithuanian case. Energy and Buildings, 38, 454-462, (2006).
35 ICE database. Inventory of Carbon and Energy. Available at:
http://www.circularecology.com /embodied-energy-and-carbon-footprint-database.html, (2011).
37 Monteiro, H., Fernandez, J., Freire, F. Comparative life-cycle energy analysis of a new and an existing house: The significance of occupant’s habits, building systems and embodied energy, Sustainable Cities and Society, 26, 507–518, (2016).
38 Takano, A., Pal, S., Kuittinen, M., Alanne, K., Hughes, M., Winter, S. The effect of material selection on life cycle energy balance: A case study on a hypothetical building model in Finland. Building and Environment. 89, 192–202, (2015).
39 Rauf, A., Crawford, R. The relationship between material service life and the life cycle energy of contemporary residential buildings in Australia. Architectural Science Review, 56, 3, 252-261, (2013).
40 Lewandowska, A., Noskpwiak, a., Grzegorz, P. Comparative life cycle assessment of passive and traditional residential buildings’ use with a special focus on energy-related aspects. Energy and Buildings, 67, 5, 635-646, (2013).
42 Scheuer, C. et al. Life cycle energy and environmental performance of a new university building: modelling challenges and design implications. Energy and Buildings, 35, 1049-1064, (2003).
43 Camera di commercio di Milano. Opere di ediliza, Available at:
www.piuprezzi.it, (2017).
46 ASHRAE, Standard 55–2013. Thermal Environmental Conditions for Human Occupancy, American Society of Heating Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, GA, (2013).
47 Frank, T. Climate change impacts on building heating and cooling energy demand in Switzerland, Energy and Buildings, 37, 1175–1185, (2005).
48 Invidiata, A., Ghisi, E. Impact of climate change on heating and cooling energy demand in houses in Brazil, Energy and Buildings, 130, 20–32, (2016).
49 Jentsch, M., James, P., Bourikas, L., Bahaj, A. Transforming existing weather data for worldwide locations to enable energy and building performance simulation under future climates, Renewable Energy, 55, 514–524, (2013).
51 IPCC, Summary for Policy makers, In: Climate: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (2013).