366
O. E. Bellini
solution). The choice of the structural solution depends on the initial stiffness of
the building and may be conceived as over-resistant or dissipative. The box-shaped
solution allows for the reduction of the stresses in the elements, by reducing the
thickness of the additional skin and the adoption of specific elements with the double objective of improving energy efficiency along with the safety of the building.
The wall solutions include, among others, the use of braces or walls with rigid or
dissipative connections, walls hinged at the base, rocking walls, adaptive seismic
walls and dissipative braces. The shell solution involves the creation of a new skin,
a diaphragm in which the entire façade structure becomes an earthquake-resistant
element (e.g. upgrade of grid shell and curtain wall or coating with resistant panels)
(Marini et al. 2016; Passoni 2016; Scuderi 2016).
These techniques, integrating and overlapping on a holistic basis, can produce
a lot of effects and benefits at different levels. They (a) allow for the upcycling
of the building structure, improve seismic resistance and resilience; (b) reduce the
environmental impact associated with seismic risk; (c) increase real estate value;
(d) protect the long-term economic investment, which could be compromised by the
damage caused by earthquakes; (e) reduce the cost of restructuring due to increased
resilience; ensure the coexistence in a single construction site of the architectural,
structural and energy renovation; (f) cancel out costs for the relocation of residents
during the work by intervening on the outside; (g) allow for the addition or expansion
of housing (rooftop, addition, etc.), thanks to new indoor and outdoor surfaces, the
sale of which can partially compensate the renovation costs; (h) promote urban
densification policies, through volumetric expansions, by reducing the consumption
of land; allow for the morpho-techno-typological redefinition of the building, that can
be redesigned in its vertical and horizontal connecting elements; (i) promote urban
regeneration; create more pleasant, sustainable and resilient environments (Bellini
et al. 2018). To increase the environmental value of the renovation, it is fundamental
to reconsider the operational approaches within the life cycle thinking, aiming at
maximizing performance and minimizing the impacts and environmental costs of
the building life cycle (Antonini et al. 2011; Bellomo and Pone 2011; Paris and
Bianchi 2018).
In addition to protecting the static aspects and monitoring the borderline states
of the system (performance-based design), the structural design refers to the choice
of materials—eco-efficient and recyclable—and technologies—prefabricated, dry,
reparable and adaptable—according to principles of minimization of the environmental and economic impacts (life cycle assessment and life cycle costs), implementing
the concepts of system sustainability and resilience (Bellini et al. 2018).
O. E. Bellini
solution). The choice of the structural solution depends on the initial stiffness of
the building and may be conceived as over-resistant or dissipative. The box-shaped
solution allows for the reduction of the stresses in the elements, by reducing the
thickness of the additional skin and the adoption of specific elements with the double objective of improving energy efficiency along with the safety of the building.
The wall solutions include, among others, the use of braces or walls with rigid or
dissipative connections, walls hinged at the base, rocking walls, adaptive seismic
walls and dissipative braces. The shell solution involves the creation of a new skin,
a diaphragm in which the entire façade structure becomes an earthquake-resistant
element (e.g. upgrade of grid shell and curtain wall or coating with resistant panels)
(Marini et al. 2016; Passoni 2016; Scuderi 2016).
These techniques, integrating and overlapping on a holistic basis, can produce
a lot of effects and benefits at different levels. They (a) allow for the upcycling
of the building structure, improve seismic resistance and resilience; (b) reduce the
environmental impact associated with seismic risk; (c) increase real estate value;
(d) protect the long-term economic investment, which could be compromised by the
damage caused by earthquakes; (e) reduce the cost of restructuring due to increased
resilience; ensure the coexistence in a single construction site of the architectural,
structural and energy renovation; (f) cancel out costs for the relocation of residents
during the work by intervening on the outside; (g) allow for the addition or expansion
of housing (rooftop, addition, etc.), thanks to new indoor and outdoor surfaces, the
sale of which can partially compensate the renovation costs; (h) promote urban
densification policies, through volumetric expansions, by reducing the consumption
of land; allow for the morpho-techno-typological redefinition of the building, that can
be redesigned in its vertical and horizontal connecting elements; (i) promote urban
regeneration; create more pleasant, sustainable and resilient environments (Bellini
et al. 2018). To increase the environmental value of the renovation, it is fundamental
to reconsider the operational approaches within the life cycle thinking, aiming at
maximizing performance and minimizing the impacts and environmental costs of
the building life cycle (Antonini et al. 2011; Bellomo and Pone 2011; Paris and
Bianchi 2018).
In addition to protecting the static aspects and monitoring the borderline states
of the system (performance-based design), the structural design refers to the choice
of materials—eco-efficient and recyclable—and technologies—prefabricated, dry,
reparable and adaptable—according to principles of minimization of the environmental and economic impacts (life cycle assessment and life cycle costs), implementing
the concepts of system sustainability and resilience (Bellini et al. 2018).