Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Energy Efficiency and Seismic Resilience: A Common Approach

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Multi-hazard Approaches to Civil Infrastructure Engineering

Abstract

To the present date, building retrofit and enhancement interventions tend to focus on either energy efficiency or seismic resilience techniques, highlighting the lack of consistent language and understanding across both fields, as well as the disconnection among stakeholders that arises from the development of seismic risk mitigation independently of sustainable development goals. Although extensive know-how can be identified in both areas, efforts for its joint consideration presented in the literature are based on the evaluation of environmental impacts of expected repairs due to seismic action over a period of time, neglecting the potential of energy efficiency enhancements and, more importantly, the possible benefits of an integrated investment strategy. This chapter presents a proposal for the integrated assessment of energy efficiency and earthquake resilience, according to which environmental and seismic impact metrics are translated into common financial decision-making variables. In this context, similarly to what is a common practice when evaluating the energy and environmental performance of buildings, discrete classes of both earthquake resilience and energy efficiency are proposed, providing a consistent proxy for building classification—green and resilient indicator (GRI)—as a function of mutual performance parameters. The findings of this chapter highlight the fact that it is possible to directly compare energy efficiency and seismic resilience from a common point of view, as it is plausible to assume the green and resilient counterparts of the GRI classes as a proxy for investment return potential. In addition, it is verified that the benefit of a given intervention can only be maximized up to the point in which an additional investment does not result in increased performance. Thus, an integrated approach shall always be advantageous with respect to the investment in only earthquake resiliency or energy efficiency, devising an investment strategy in a way that simultaneously maximizes “individual” benefits and its integrated result.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Arvizu, D. (2011). Direct solar energy. In IPCC special report on renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ASCE/SEI 41. (2006). Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. Reston, VA: American Society of Civil Engineers.

    Google Scholar 

  • ASHRAE Design Guide. (2011a). Advanced energy design guide for small hospitals and healthcare facilities. Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE.

    Google Scholar 

  • ASHRAE Design Guide. (2011b). Advanced energy design guide for small office buildings. Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE.

    Google Scholar 

  • ASHRAE Design Guide. (2011c). Advanced energy design guide for K-12 school buildings. Atlanta, GA: ASHRAE.

    Google Scholar 

  • ATC. (2011). Guidelines for seismic performance assessment of buildings (uncompleted draft). Redwood City, CA: Applied Technology Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bommer, J. J., Pinho, R., & Crowley, H. (2005). Using displacement-based earthquake loss assessment in the selection of seismic code design levels. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability, Rome, Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bommer, J. J., & Pinho, R. (2006). Adapting earthquake actions in Eurocode 8 for performance-based seismic design. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 35(1), 39–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burton, H., Deierlein, G., & Lepech, M. (2011). Assessing the scale of environment impacts from a major California earthquake earthquake. Proceedings of the 80th Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) Annual Convention. Las Vegas, Nevada

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvi, G. M. (2013). Choices and criteria for seismic strengthening. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 17, 769–802. doi:10.1080/13632469.2013.781556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calvi, G. M., Pietra, D., & Moratti, M. (2010). Criteri per la progettazione di dispositivi di isolamento a pendolo scorrevole. Progettazione Sismica, 2(3), 7–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caterino, N., Iervolino, I., Manfredi, G., & Cosenza, E. (2008). Multi-criteria decision making for seismic retrofitting of RC structures. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 12(4), 555–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caterino, N., Iervolino, I., Manfredi, G., & Cosenza, E. (2009). Comparative analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods for seismic structural retrofitting. Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, 24, 432–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • C2EF—Center for Climate and Energy Solution. (2012). Climate techbook: Solar system. Arlington, VA: C2EF—Center for Climate and Energy Solution.

    Google Scholar 

  • CEN. (2005). Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 3: Assessing and retrofitting of buildings. EN 1998-3. Brussels, Belgium: Comité Européen de Normalisation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung, W., Hui, Y. V., & Miu Lam, Y. (2006). Benchmarking the energy efficiency of commercial buildings. Applied Energy, 83(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Comber, M., Poland, C., & Sinclair, M. (2012). Environmental Impact Seismic Assessment: Application of Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Methodologies to Optimize Environmental Performance. Structures Congress, 2012, 910–921. doi: 10.1061/9780784412367.081.

  • Cornell, C., Jalayer, F., Hamburger, R., & Foutch, D. (2002). Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC Federal Emergency Management Agency steel moment frame guidelines. Journal of Structural Engineering, 128(Special Issue: Steel Moment Frames After Northridge—Part II), 526–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Court, A., Simonen, K., Webster, M., Trusty, W., & Morris, P. (2012). Linking Next-Generation Performance-Based Seismic Design Criteria to Environmental Performance (ATC-86 and ATC-58). Structures Congress, 2012, 922–928. doi: 10.1061/9780784412367.082.

  • Crowley, H., Silva, V., Bal, I., & Pinho, R. (2012). Calibration of seismic design codes using loss estimation. Proceedings of the 15th WCEE, Lisbon, Portugal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennemann, K. L. (2009). Life-cycle cost-benefit (LCC-B) analysis for bridge seismic retrofits civil and environmental engineering. Houston, TX: Rice University.

    Google Scholar 

  • D.P.R. (2009) n. 59 recante; Attuazione dell'articolo 4, comma 1, lettere a) e b), del decreto legislativo 19 agosto 2005, n. 192, e successive modificazioni, concernente attuazione della direttiva 2002/91/ce sul rendimento energetico in edilizia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elnashai, A. S., & Pinho, R. (1998). Repair and retrofitting of RC walls using selective techniques. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2(4), 525–568.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fajfar, P., & Krawinkler, H. (Eds.). (2004). Performance-based seismic design concepts and implementation. Report 2004/05. Richmond, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER).

    Google Scholar 

  • Fassbender, J. (2007). A decade and more of monthly construction statistics. ISSN. Catalogue number: KS-SF-07-129-EN-N.

    Google Scholar 

  • FEMA. (1999). Earthquake loss estimation methodology—HAZUS 99. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency and National Institute of Buildings Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • FEMA. (2000). Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings (FEMA Publication No. 356). Prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • FEMA. (2012). Seismic performance of buildings. Volume 1—Methodology (FEMA Publication No. P-58-1). Prepared by the Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Filiatrault, A., & Christopoulos, C. (2006). Principles of passive supplemental damping and seismic isolation. Pavia, Italy: IUSS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh, J., Tapia, C., & Padgett, J. (2011). Life-cycle analysis of embodied energy for aging bridges subject to seismic hazards. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering, ETH Zurich. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giardini, D., Woessner, J., Danciu, L., Cotton, F., Crowley, H., Grünthal, G., et al. (2013). Seismic hazard harmonization in Europe (SHARE). Online Data Resource, doi:10.12686/SED-00000001-SHARE.

  • Grant, D. N., Bommer, J. J., Pinho, R., Calvi, G. M., Goretti, A., & Meroni, M. (2007). A prioritization scheme for seismic intervention in school buildings in Italy. Earthquake Spectra, 23(2), 291–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haselton, C. B., Goulet, C. A., Beck, J. L., Deierlein, G. G., Porter, K. A., Stewart, J. P., et al. (2007). An assessment to benchmark the seismic performance of a code-conforming reinforced concrete moment-frame building. Report 2007/12. Richmond, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER).

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO. (2006a). 14040:2006 life cycle assessment—Principles and framework. Geneva: ISO.

    Google Scholar 

  • ISO. (2006b). 14044:2006 environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Requirements and guidelines. Geneva: ISO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Itoh, Y., Wada, M., & Liu, C. (2005). Lifecycle environmental impact and cost analyses of steel bridge piers with seismic risk. 9th International Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability, Rome, Italy. Rotterdam: Millpress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kneer, E., & Maclise, L. (2008a). Consideration of building performance in sustainable design: A structural engineer’s role. Proceedings of the 77th Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) Annual Convention. Hawaii, U.S.A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kneer, E., & Maclise, L. (2008b, December). Disaster resilience as sustainable design. Structural Engineer, ZweigWhite Information Services LLC, 9(11).

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy, J. I., Nishioka, Y., & Spengler, J. D. (2003). The public health benefits of insulation retrofits in existing housing in the United States. Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source, 2, 4. doi:10.1186/1476-069X-2-4.

  • Luco, N., Ellingwood, B. R., Hamburger, R. O., Hooper, J. D., Kimball, J. K., & Kircher, C. A. (2007). Risk targeted versus current seismic design maps for the conterminous United States. In Proceedings of the 76th Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) Annual Convention. Squaw Creek, U.S.A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitrani-Reiser, J. (2007). An ounce of prevention: Probabilistic loss estimation for performance based earthquake engineering. PhD dissertation, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • NZSEE. (2006). Assessment and improvement of the structural performance of buildings in earthquakes. Recommendations of a NZSEE Study Group on earthquake risk buildings. New Zealand: NZSEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Padgett, J. E., Ghosh, J., & Tapia, C. (2009). Sustainable infrastructure systems subjected to multiple threats. TCLEE Conference, Oakland, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, K. (2003). An overview of PEER’s performance-based earthquake engineering methodology. Proceedings of the Ninth Conference on Application of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering, San Francisco, 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, K. A., Beck, J. L., & Shaikhutdinov, R. V. (2002). Investigation of sensitivity of building loss estimates to major uncertain variables for the Van Nuys testbed (Report 2002/03). Richmond, CA: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER).

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramirez, C. M., & Miranda, E. (2009). Building specific loss estimation methods and tools for simplified performance-based earthquake engineering (Report 171). Stanford, CA: John A. Blume Center, Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadek, F., Mohraz, B., Taylor, A. W., & Chung, R. M. (1997). Method of estimating the parameters of tuned mass dampers for seismic applications. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 26, 617–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SEAOC. (1995). Vision 2000—A framework for performance-based engineering. Sacramento, CA: Structural Engineers Association of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, T. J., & Calvi, G. M. (2011). Considerations for the seismic assessment of buildings using the direct displacement-based assessment approach. 2011 ANIDIS Conference, Bari, Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tapia, C. & Padgett, J. (2012). Examining the Integration of Sustainability and Natural Hazard Risk Mitigation into Life Cycle Analyses of Structures. Structures Congress, 2012, 1929–1940. doi:10.1061/9780784412367.169.

  • Tapia, C., Ghosh, J., & Padgett, J. (2011). Life cycle performance metrics for aging and seismically vulnerable bridges. Proceedings of the 2011 Structures Congress, Las Vegas, Nevada. Reston, VA: ASCE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tesmafatian, S., Sadiq, R., & Najjaran, H. (2010). Decision making under uncertainty—An example for seismic risk management. Risk Analysis, 30(1), 78–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thermou, G., & Elnashai, A. (2006). Seismic retrofit schemes for RC structures and local–global consequences. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 8, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thermou, G. E., Pantazopoulou, S. J., & Elnashai, A. S. (2007). Design methodology for seismic upgrading of substandard reinforced concrete structures. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 11(4), 582–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DOE—United States Department of Energy. Federal Energy Management Program. (2006). Guiding principles of federal leadership in high performance and sustainable buildings. Retrieved May 19, 2011, from http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/regulations/eo13514.html

  • UNI/TS 11300. (2008a). Prestazioni energetiche degli edifici—Parte 1: Determinazione del fabbisogno di energia termica dell'edificio per la climatizzazione estiva ed invernale.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNI/TS 11300. (2008b). 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNI/TS 11300. (2012). Prestazioni energetiche degli edifici—Parte 4: Utilizzo di energie rinnovabili e di altri metodi di generazione per la climatizzazione invernale e per la produzione di acqua calda sanitaria.

    Google Scholar 

  • USGBC (2011) Green Job Study. Prepared by Booz Allen Hamilton for the U.S. Green Building Council. Washington DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welch, D. P., Sullivan, T. J., & Calvi, M. (2012). Towards a direct displacement-based loss assessment methodology for RC frame buildings. Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Lisbon, Portugal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zareian, F., & Krawinkler, H. (2012). Conceptual performance-based seismic design using building level and story-level decision support system. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 41(11), 1439–1453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Part of this work has been developed under the scope of the World Bank’s Regional Urban, Water and Disaster Risk Management program, and referred Innovation Grant KP-P143217-KMPD. In this context, the assistance and support of the project manager, Mr. Sergio Dell’Anna, are acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori (IUSS), Pavia, Italy

    Gian Michele Calvi

  2. RED-Risk Engineering and Design and FEUP - Faculty of Engineering of the University of Porto, Pavia, Italy

    Luis Sousa

  3. Studio Calvi, Pavia, Italy

    Cristiana Ruggeri

Authors
  1. Gian Michele Calvi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luis Sousa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cristiana Ruggeri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gian Michele Calvi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA

    Paolo Gardoni

  2. U. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, USA

    James M. LaFave

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Calvi, G.M., Sousa, L., Ruggeri, C. (2016). Energy Efficiency and Seismic Resilience: A Common Approach. In: Gardoni, P., LaFave, J. (eds) Multi-hazard Approaches to Civil Infrastructure Engineering. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29713-2_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29713-2_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-29711-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-29713-2

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation