Historic, listed, or unlisted, buildings account for 30% of the European building stock. Since they are complex systems of cultural, architectural, and identity value, they need particular attention to ensure that they are preserved, used, and managed over time in a sustainable way. This implies a demand for retrofit solutions able to improve indoor thermal conditions while reducing the use of energy sources and preserving the heritage significance. Often, however, the choice and implementation of retrofit solutions in historic buildings is limited by socio-technical barriers (regulations, lack of knowledge on the hygrothermal behaviour of built heritage, economic viability, etc.). This paper presents the approach devised in the IEA-SHC Task 59 project (Renovating Historic Buildings Towards Zero Energy) to support decision makers in selecting retrofit solutions, in accordance with the provision of the EN 16883:2017 standard. In particular, the method followed by the project partners to gather and assess compatible solutions for historic buildings retrofitting is presented. It focuses on best practices for walls, windows, HVAC systems, and solar technologies. This work demonstrates that well-balanced retrofit solutions can exist and can be evaluated case-by-case through detailed assessment criteria. As a main result, the paper encourages decision makers to opt for tailored energy retrofit to solve the conflict between conservation and energy performance requirements.
A rormd robin test programme was executed amongst several laboratories on the beam test recommended by the RILEM TC 162-TDF [1]. In the proposed test method, the mid-span deflection is to be measured on both sides of the beam (referred to as 81 and 62). A systematic fibre counting exercise was carried out on several beam sPecimens to investigate whether there is a correlation between differences between 8~ and 6z and the fibre distribution. The findings of the investigation suggest that differences between 8~ and 8z are not strongly linked with the fibre distribution regardless of concrete strength. It is likely that this phenomenon arises because the supports and loading points have enough degrees of freedom to accommodate any unevenness on the specimen surface. This reflects well on the robustness of the proposed test method as it means that the proposed boundary conditions are able to adapt and tolerate (to a certain degree) surface non-unifbrmity. However, it is also suggested that significant dift~ences between ~ and 82 may be brought about by experimental errors. The fibre count also reveals that toughness increases with the number of fibres across the critical section.1359-5997/03 9 RILEM
A round robin test programme was carried out on the beam-bending test recommended by the RILEM TC 162-TDF [1 ]. Plain concrete and steel fibre reinfbrced concrete (SFRC) beams were included in the test programme. The material variables for the SFRC beams consisted of two concrete strengths, three fibre dosages and three types of fibres. A comprehensive statistical analysis was carried out to determine the applicability and robustness of the test method. It was tbund that although inter-lab variations do occur, this was relatively small compared to the inherent material variation. It is also possible that the high variations observed could be due to the relatively small cross sections used for the test beams. Additionally, an investigation was carried out to evaluate the objectiveness of the calculation procedure proposed by RILEM TC 162-TDF to obtain the necessary design parameters. It was found that the prescribed calculation procedure was satisfactory, as the variation between the design parameters calculated at different laboratories was generally within the range of • An alternative method of obtaining the design parameters, by considering residual strengths, is suggested as it simplifies the calculation procedure and the test method. In general, the beam test was found to be a good robust test and relatively easy to carry out.. RESUMsUn programrne d'e.~ais comparatifi" entre laboratoires a dtO rdalisd pour le test de poutre soumise h la flexion, commepreser# par TC 162-TDF de la RILEM. Des poutres en b~ton normal et en b~ton de fibres m~talliqu~s" (BFM) sont inclues dans le programme d'es~i~. Pcatr les poutres en BFM, on a con~Mdrd comrne variables" de mat&'iaux: deux rdsi~tanc~es gl la compression, tro~ dosages" ate fibres et trois (vpes de fibres. Une anaO,se stat~tique exkxtustive a Ot~ erAcmOe l~mr determiner la pertinence c4 Ia solMitd de la m~thode d'essai. On a constatO que, bien que des variations de r~,~ltats entre les laboratoires existent, celles~'i sont relativement petites; surtout lorsque l',on compare avec lea' :mriations intrim~es des mat&iawc eux-m~mes. Ces derni~es variations peuvent ~re ~galement &4es cnec sections trans~ersales relativement petites qui sont utilis.~es pour les essais de poutre. Ensuite, une analyse a ~td rdalisOe en vu d'&,a.hter l'objectbeit~ de la mOthode de calcut q~d est proposd par TC 162-TDF de la R1LE]ff pour obtenir les paramfitres n~cessaires lots du dimemionnement. On a cons, taM que la m~thode de calcul prescrite" dtait satisftisante, parce que la variation des param~tres; calcut~e par les dij]~rents k~oratoires pour le dimensionnement; Otait d'un ordre de grandeur de +_5%. Une mdthode alternatfi~ est ndanmoins proposOe pout" obtenir les para,'n~es de" dimem'ionnement en prenant en comid~ration la r~sistance rds'iduelle. Cette m~thode sinwlifie la mdttuMe de cak~l et la m~thode d'essai. En gOndral, l ' essai de poutre soumise h la flexion simple, comme pre~crit par le TC 162-TDF de la RILE?r est un essai robuste et relativement simple ?t exdcuter. 1359-5997/03 ...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.