Energy Renovation of The Multi-Residential Historic Building After The Zagreb Earthquake - Case Study

Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 38 (2022) 102300
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Case Studies in Thermal Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/csite
Energy renovation of the multi-residential historic building after

the Zagreb earthquake – Case study
Bojan Milovanović a, Marina Bagarić a, *, Mergim Gaši a, Mislav Stepinac b
a
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Department of Materials, Zagreb, Croatia
b
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Department for Structures, Zagreb, Croatia
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Historic buildings represent our cultural heritage and identity. Due to their age and building
Earthquake damaged historic buildings tradition, they are extremely vulnerable to seismic excitations, as confirmed by the recent
Energy renovation earthquake in the city of Zagreb. In addition, historic buildings are among the buildings with the
Integrated retrofitting worst energy performance and very low indoor comfort. In the scope of this paper, the seismic
Thermal bridges and energy integrated approach is applied to a typical multi-residential building in Zagreb his
Indoor comfort
torical downtown. The main focus of the paper is on building envelope energy efficiency mea
Hygrothermal performance
sures. Different variants of thermal insulation (external and internal), secondary windows
(maintaining existing ones vs. new efficient ones) and ventilation (natural vs. mechanical with
heat recovery) are analysed in terms of building energy performance (3D level). Furthermore,
replacement of existing technical systems and installation of RES are also considered. Moreover,
the acceptability of the proposed retrofitting solutions for opaque elements is evaluated in terms
of thermal bridges (2D level) and long-term hygrothermal performance (1D level). Finally, the
results show that it is possible even for a 100-year-old building to meet the current national
primary energy requirements for new buildings and provide good indoor environmental quality
for occupants while respecting the cultural heritage.
1. Introduction
Southern Europe was recently struck by devastating earthquakes and the same problems regarding the vulnerability of building
stock appeared in Italy [1,2], Albania [3], Greece [4], Turkey [5] and Croatia [6]. In 2020, Croatia was struck by two severe earth
quakes. The first one was on the March 22, 2020, and the second one was on December 30, 2020. Several regions in the central part of
Croatia were hit by intensities of VII or more according to EMS-98 scale. The Croatian capital, Zagreb, and its surroundings were hit by
both earthquakes. The epicentre of the first one was just 7 km northeast of Zagreb’s centre, and epicentre of the second one was near
the city of Petrinja, 50 km southeast of Zagreb. After the Zagreb earthquake, around 25,000 buildings were estimated damaged, most of
them being in the historic city centre. After the Petrinja earthquake, around 56,000 were estimated damaged, causing additional
damage to the buildings in the historic city centre of Zagreb. World Bank estimates the total financial damage from the Zagreb
earthquake as EUR 11.3 billion and EUR 5.5 billion for the Petrinja earthquake [7,8].
The historic urban ensemble of the city of Zagreb is a cultural-historical entity included in the Register of Cultural Heritage of the
Republic of Croatia as protected cultural property. The historic urban ensemble of the city of Zagreb includes several areas determined
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: marina.bagaric@grad.unizg.hr (M. Bagarić).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2022.102300
Received 28 March 2022; Received in revised form 6 July 2022; Accepted 16 July 2022
Available online 30 July 2022
2214-157X/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
B. Milovanović et al. Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 38 (2022) 102300
by natural, topographical, cultural-historical and developmental features that were created during the formation of the city. In the area
of the central zone of the city, these are the oldest urban origins, the Upper Town and Kaptol with their historical suburbs, and the
urban ensemble of the Lower Town from the nineteenth century [9]. The buildings of the cultural-historical ensemble represent an
invaluable heritage that is part of the historical and cultural identity of every nation and state. The Old Town of Zagreb is rich in
buildings that serve various purposes, such as religious buildings, hospitals, educational buildings, residential buildings, etc. In the
course of the protection of historical buildings, valorisation was made according to the principle of preservation and value of spatial
and architectural structure into the protection zones "A" and "B", Fig. 1. In the protection zone "A", the full preservation protection
refers to the historical architectural ensemble or its parts, which contain extremely well preserved and particularly valuable historical
structures. In the area of this zone, the introduction of new structures and contents that do not fit with the preserved cultural and
historical values is strictly controlled. Adaptation of existing historic functions and contents to modern needs may be accepted with
minimal interference with historic structures. In protection zone "B", partial preservation protection refers to parts of the historic
architectural ensemble that contains valuable elements of historic structures with varying degrees of preservation. In the area of this
zone, interventions related to the adaptation of functions and contents to modern needs are allowed, but without significant changes to
the preserved elements of the historic structures [10].
Most of the buildings in the old town of Zagreb were built between the 1880 earthquake and the middle of the 20th century,
therefore before any seismic codes and regulations. The buildings are mainly built of unreinforced masonry (URM), timber floors and
timber roofs, therefore so-called box effect is missing. Due to their age and building tradition, the buildings of the cultural-historical
ensemble are extremely vulnerable to seismic excitations, as confirmed by the recent earthquake in the city of Zagreb. On March 22,
2020, Zagreb was shaken by a magnitude (ML) 5.5 earthquake [11]. Damage classification of the residential buildings in Zagreb
historical downtown is explained by Stepinac et al. [6].
The buildings in the historical centre of Zagreb are not only extremely seismically vulnerable but also consume a lot of energy for
heating and cooling. Residential buildings account for the largest part of energy consumption. According to the analysis of reference
buildings from 2014, the average specific heating energy demand for a residential building built before 1970 in the continental part of
Croatia is Q′′ H, nd = 142.96 kWh/m2 per year and the specific primary energy is 410.48 kWh/m2 per year [12].
It is well known that buildings are responsible for about 40% of energy consumption in the EU and for 36% of greenhouse gas
emissions. But only 1% of buildings undergo energy-efficient renovation each year, which is not enough to meet the EU’s ambitious
goal of making Europe climate neutral by 2050. From 2030, all new buildings must be zero-emission [13]. However, the share of newly
constructed buildings is much lower compared to the share of existing buildings in the current EU building stock. It is expected that
85–95% of today’s buildings will still be standing in 2050 [13]. Therefore, their contribution to achieving the EU’s energy efficiency
and climate targets is crucial. This is especially true for the buildings with the worst energy performance, e.g., old buildings such as
historic buildings. These energy renovation initiatives are additionally promoted by the European Green Deal [14,15] and the
Renovation Wave Strategy [16,17]. The need for a faster energy transition is particularly pronounced when the energy supply is
uncertain, as is currently the case in Europe due to the ongoing war crisis.
According to an estimate of total investments in Europe, for the period between 2014 and 2049 around 3 × 109 EUR will be
dedicated to energy processes. In such an expected scenario, it is thus clear that seismic upgrade must represent an added value for the
energy renovation of buildings. This is especially the case in existing masonry structures, which, in most cases, need robust seismic
strengthening interventions [18]. There is no question about the need for seismic upgrading, but the potential of seismic and energy
integrated retrofitting (in the further text –integrated retrofitting) has not yet been exhausted. It would add value for occupants by
reducing the energy consumption of their inefficient buildings and increasing their living comfort and overall quality of life. In its
report, Croatia Earthquake – Rapid Assessment of Damage and Needs 2020 [7], prepared for the World Bank, the Government of the
Republic of Croatia emphasizes that the reconstruction process should be guided by the principles of “build back better,” i.e., repair
and improve damaged buildings to reduce the risk of future earthquakes and enable functional improvements, including the appli
cation of energy efficiency principles. The overall vision for retrofitting will emphasize the use of sustainable and environmentally
friendly materials, taking into account the circular economy and climate change. Long-term needs focus on systematic restoration of
Fig. 1. The case study building – Location within the protected zone B.
2
the historic city centre, improving resilience to earthquakes and other risks, and applying energy efficiency measures to the immovable
cultural heritage [7]. The same integrated retrofitting approach is encouraged by European Commission through the pilot project
“Integrated techniques for the seismic strengthening and energy efficiency of existing buildings” [19].
Additionally, the integrated retrofitting approach offers an opportunity to have the thermal insulation works performed at the same
time as seismic strengthening to avoid potential recurrence of renovation relating to construction issues like construction site noise,
duration of works, disrupting the lives of tenants, disruption of life in surrounding buildings, the potential need for tenant accom
modation, etc. If done properly, energy renovation would also improve the indoor environment quality (IEQ) in such buildings as well
as ensure lower energy costs in use for in majority older population living in these buildings.
Despite the obvious benefits, the literature review revealed that research studies directly addressing the integrated energy and
seismic assessment and retrofit measures on historic buildings are relatively scarce [20–26]. In general, all of the aforementioned
studies agree that evaluating the performance of historic buildings as well as their improvement requires a multidisciplinary and
multilevel approach. Güleroğlu et al. [23] applied four phases of an integrated approach to a historic building in the Mediterranean
city of Izmir, Turkey. The authors concluded that the implementations of strengthening and thermal insulation measures on the
exterior walls and the application of a new HVAC system were the most effective measures, both in terms of energy and seismic
performance and cost, enhancing the building performance by more than 60%. Moschella et al. [20] proposed a methodology for
energy and seismic retrofit consisting of a pre-diagnostic and a diagnostic process, where in the pre-diagnostic process the cognitive
phase emphasizes the relationship between the different specialized disciplines (energy and structural). As shown by De Vita,
D’Antonio and Mannella [21], the implementation of only seismic measures can have a negative impact on the U-value of the envelope
elements. In their case study of a historic masonry building severely damaged in L’Aquila earthquake in Italy, grout injections and 2 cm
of reinforced plaster increased the U-value of the walls from 1.57% to 4.59% compared to the values before the intervention. The same
phenomenon was found by De Vita et al. in another, more comprehensive study [25], which also dealt with historic buildings severely
damaged by earthquake in Italy. The authors suggest combining thermal insulating plaster or External Thermal Insulation Composite
System together with seismic measures to compensate for the deterioration of a wall’s thermal performance. Depending on the
combination of integrated measures, as well as the wall thickness and the thickness of the thermal insulation, the reduction of the
U-value ranges from 25% to 86%. As for the financial aspects of the integrated retrofit approach, although it inevitably increases the
initial cost, it is still more economically effective than implementing seismic and energy measures separately. As Kobraei showed in his
study [24] on a two-story heritage building in Victoria, Canada, the simultaneous implementation of both measures resulted in cost
savings of 11%, with a payback period of less than five years thanks to the financial savings in annual energy consumption.
Fig. 2. 3D model of multi-residential building in Palmotićeva street: a) East (street) facade, b) West façade, c) North-West façade, d) South-East façade; Floor plans of:
e) ground floor and characteristic floor (1st, 2nd, 3rd floor).
3
None of the presented studies evaluate the suitability of the proposed integrated retrofit solutions with respect to moisture transfer
and thermal bridges. With seismic and energy interventions, the hygrothermal conditions of existing building envelope elements
inevitably change. Undesirable moisture conditions in a structure can lead to mould growth, the general deterioration of building
materials and compromised indoor environmental quality. In addition, thermal bridges can be more pronounced, leading to increased
heat loss and potentially additional moisture problems. Proposed integrated retrofit solutions should not be applied without careful
consideration of potential moisture conditions and heat loss due to thermal bridge effects. Currently, there is a lack of such specific
analyses and approaches in the literature. Generally, it can be concluded that there is a critical gap in knowledge, where the holistic
sustainable renovation of historic buildings in order to improve simultaneously their seismic and climate change resilience is not being
fully practiced. This was also confirmed by Paschoalin and Isaacs [27] in their comprehensive review of international projects,
methods and criteria within such a holistic approach.
The goal of this paper is to investigate the possibilities and limitations of the integrated retrofitting approach by using the example
of a realistic building. The building is a typical multi-residential building located in the historical city centre of Zagreb, damaged
initially by the Zagreb earthquake and additionally by the Petrinja earthquake. The focus of energy efficiency measures is primarily on
building thermal envelope.
The main contribution of the research is the proposed methodology for an integrated retrofitting approach consisting of three steps,
whereas the last step is crucial and serves as a proof-of-concept for acceptability of the combined energy renovation and seismic
upgrading measures. The acceptability is assessed in terms of the thermal bridge effect and long-term hygrothermal performance for
the specific building and climate conditions.
2. The case study

2.1. Building description
The building under observation is located at Palmotićeva street in the protected zone "B" (Fig. 1) of the Lower Town and was built in
1920. The building consists of a street part and a courtyard part which are interconnected and form one multi-residential building. The
building’s external dimensions are approx. 24.40 × 12.0 m (main wing) and 10.6 × 12.0 (utility wing), with the characteristic floor
area of approx. 407 m2 and a total building height of 22.70 m. The longer side of the main wing of the building is in the north-south
direction, and in the east-west direction for the utility wing, respectively.
The semi-basement, high ground floor, 3 floors and loft extend through both parts of the building, while the unfinished attic is
located only in the street part of the building (Fig. 2). On the main (street) wing of the building there is a pitched timber roof, and on
the utility wings in the courtyard, there is a flat roof made of timber beams. The typical residential building in the centre of Zagreb is
asymmetrical in plan and the indentation of the floor plan itself is unfavourable and subject to the irregular response of the structure
during an earthquake, thus resulting in certain parts of the building behaving structurally independently and causing torsion [6]. On
the north side the ground floor, 1st and 2nd floor of the street building part leaned against the adjacent occupied lower rise building.
The building envelope consists of a system of interconnected solid brick walls that continuously extend from the foundation to the
roof. The external and internal load-bearing walls are made of solid bricks of the old format (290 × 140 × 65 mm) with a thickness
varying throughout the building, reducing with height, and are 90, 60, 45, 38, 30 and 15 cm, respectively (Fig. 2e).
Partition walls are also solid brick walls and are 7 and 15 cm thick. The walls are connected by lintels, parapets and beams whose
composition and quality are not fully known. All external walls are plastered on both sides, except for the south and north gable walls
of the main wing. The ceiling above the basement in the main wing is a reinforced concrete slab with a system of reinforced concrete
beams, while other ceiling structures consist of timber beams with a board floor and loose filling inside the ceiling structure. Certain
reconstructions were also performed in the courtyard building, resulting in original timber beam ceilings reinforced with concrete
slabs of unknown properties. Other interventions and reconstructions are unknown, except for the loft that has been transformed into a
residential space at one point in time.
The pitched timber roof is completely uninsulated and consists of tiles laid on battens. The windows are mostly old wooden single
glazing windows with secondary window, but in some positions, there are also single-leaf wooden windows with single glazing
(without secondary window). Unmaintained and poorly sealed windows, together with generally deteriorated other envelope ele
ments, contribute significantly to a very low envelope airtightness (assumed n50 = 10 1/h for the purpose of energy calculations in
accordance with [28]). Only natural ventilation is present in the building. This means that ventilation heat losses are quite high.
The main central staircase is made of prefabricated reinforced concrete elements, and it is unheated, as well as the basement and
Table 1
Geometry characteristics of the existing building.
Characteristic Value
Envelope surface area, A [m2] 2941.41

Usable heated floor area, UFA 1470.18
Gross heated floor area, GFA [m2] 1846.83
Heated building volume, Ve [m3] 6234.19
Heated air volume, Va [m3] 4139.26
Shape factor, f0 [-] 0.47
Unheated air volume, Vunheated [m3] 1837.98
Window – wall ratio (for heated zone), WWR [%] 13.03
4
attic under the pitched roof. Other areas of the building (apartments) are heated and for the purpose of the energy calculations
analysed as one single thermal zone.
Geometry characteristics needed for the calculation of existing energy performance are shown in Table 1.
As expected, the thermal transmittance, so called U-value, of the current building envelope elements (table available in the
Supplementary material) deviate significantly compared to the current criteria from Croatian Technical regulation on energy economy
and heat retention in buildings [29]. For example, the U-values of external walls are 2.53–8.43 times higher than the current national
criteria, depending on the thickness of the masonry, while for windows they are 2.25–3.25 times higher. This means that except for
large transmission heat losses, the internal surface temperatures are quite low contributing to poor IEQ and subject to construction
damage.
Table 2
List of earthquake-related damage to the case study building.
DAMAGE OF WESTERN-ORIENTED EXTERNAL WALLS (utility wings – courtyard)
FAILURE OF THE GABLE WALL – North façade
DAMAGE DETECTED INSIDE THE BUILDING – Wall at 3rd floor [30]
5
2.2. Damage after the Zagreb earthquake

A rapid, preliminary post-earthquake assessment of the usability of the building under observation was performed on March 22,
2020 [30], while a detailed inspection was conducted on May 28, 2020. The building was categorized as a temporarily unusable
building in need for a detailed inspection due to severe damage (usability label PN1 [6]) of the partition walls and moderate damage of
most load-bearing walls, except for the west courtyard wall, which was severely damaged (Table 2). Long diagonal cracks are visible
and they extend at some walls along the whole height of the wall. The width of the crack is up to 15 mm which means that the wall has
failed and poses a great danger to the building and tenants in the event of subsequent earthquakes.
The south and north gable walls under the pitched roof and the chimneys were also severely damaged (Table 2). It can be seen that
the gable wall on the north side collapsed through the entire attic. Inspection from inside of the building revealed that the entire gable
wall of the loft and the 3rd floor failed out of-plane. The chimneys were collapsed or badly damaged.
Semi-basement and ground floor suffered minor damage, such as cracks in lintels and parapets, as well as in partition walls. Other
floors suffered more pronounced damage.
Minor damage was recorded on the staircase and pitched roof structure with an indication of very severe damage to the chimney
and falling off parts of the roofing tiles.
In addition to the damage from the earthquake, Table 2 also shows the relatively poor condition of the building in terms of energy
efficiency. The north and south gable walls are not insulated or even externally plastered, the windows have been partially replaced
and the old ones are in extremely poor condition, resulting in increased air permeability and thus greater heat losses and lower indoor
comfort. In addition, the attic is in extremely poor condition and moisture penetrations are visible, which have resulted in construction
damage and potentially reduced durability of the pitched roof structure and ceiling structure as well. Significant air leakages result in
large heat losses through an unheated attic.
2.3. Integrated retrofitting approach

The proposed methodology for integrated retrofitting approach is presented in Fig. 3, whereas the cornerstone is raising the seismic
resistance level of the buildings so that buildings could provide an acceptable level of safety for occupants in the event of a future
earthquake. With adequate seismic strengthening measures and maintenance, the service life of existing buildings should be extended.
The selected seismic upgrading level depends on the building type and thus, the targeted level of seismic resistance. It needs to be
highlighted, that in this specific case, i.e. historic building, strengthening measures (applied materials and technologies) must preserve
the original appearance of the building – visible street facades.
After the seismic upgrade, the next step is energy renovation based on a carefully defined energy concept. The weak points, from
the aspect of energy performance, must be identified and adequately addressed. Existing buildings always impose certain limitations in
energy intervention, especially historic buildings. Therefore, an optimal balance between reducing energy consumption and ensuring
comfortable and healthy indoor conditions is a must. Materials and products must be selected in a way that they are compatible with
original materials and respect the original visual appearance.
Optimal energy renovation solutions, combined with seismic measures, should be confirmed in the last step as proposed in this
paper, where they are analysed from the aspect of thermal bridge effect and long-term hygrothermal performance. In this way,
additional heat losses, as well as risk from superficial and interstitial vapour condensation are evaluated. This provides relevant in
formation whether selected renovation solutions are damage-free through the period of building use.
In case the last step reveals condensation problems or moisture accumulation, the analysed energy renovation solution is rejected
and the whole procedure returns to the previous step (Step 2), where the renovation solution is adapted (optimized) or the new one is
chosen.
Fig. 3. Graphical representation of the integrated retrofitting approach.
6
3. Seismic upgrading
3.1. Seismic strengthening levels
In June 2020, Croatian Technical regulation for building structures [31] was amended by a provision that more precisely regulates
the reconstruction after an earthquake. The Technical regulation defines four renovation levels, depending on the degree of damage,
the purpose of the building and the financial capabilities of the investor. Level 1 refers to re-establishing the initial resistance of the
structure as it had before the earthquake, while levels 2, 3 and 4 achieve satisfactory earthquake resistance for the reference return
period (95 years, 225 years, 475 years – more info available in Supplementary material). Fig. 4 describes selected concept for seismic
upgrading of case study building to Level 4.
3.2. Seismic concept

Note that Level 2 is the minimum required level for residential buildings such as this case study building in Palmotićeva street.
However, it should be emphasized that Level 2 does not have a satisfactory level of safety that is generally accepted. The new Croatian
law on the reconstruction of earthquake-damaged buildings in the city of Zagreb, Krapina-Zagorje County and Zagreb County [32],
states that the ultimate limit state return period can be different depending on the level of strengthening for old masonry buildings
damaged in earthquakes. For Level 2 the Limit States of Significant Damage are monitored for a 95-year earthquake return period
corresponding to a probability of exceeding 10% in 10 years.
According to EN 1998 standards [33,34], the renovation of the building to Level 3 is still not acceptable, but due to the financial
matters and cost-benefit analyses it is considered to ensure an acceptable level of safety in the event of a future earthquake [31].
Accordingly, the Limit States of Significant Damage and Damage limitations are considered for the return period of 225 years which
corresponds to a probability of exceedance of 20% in 50 years.
The highest level of seismic safety is achieved with Level 4. Accordingly, strengthening measures and their range must be tailored to
achieve the mechanical resistance and stability of the building in relation to seismic action for a comparative probability of exceeding
10% in 50 years (return period 475 years).
The cultural value of historic buildings and their generally increased vulnerability require/justify higher levels of intervention.
Therefore, the Level 4 intervention measures are proposed (Fig. 4), including:
• New reinforced concrete walls and core
• Strengthening masonry walls with concrete shotcrete
• Composite wood-concrete slabs behaving as a rigid diaphragm
As this paper’s focus is set on energy renovation of the building, just the concept of strengthening and seismic upgrading is pre
sented. The most typical method for the seismic assessment of damaged buildings in Croatia is the usage of linear dynamic methods
such as modal analyses. Although these methods are probably more on the conservative side, the designers in Croatia are used to
software which includes modal analyses. Of course, the building’s choice of modelling and design method affects the accuracy and
reliability of the results themselves [35]. Lately, static nonlinear methods such as pushover analyses are more often used [36]. It may
be used for newly designed and existing structures to check or control overstrength, to estimate expected plastic mechanisms and
distribution of damage, to assess the behaviour of existing or renovated buildings according to EN 1998-3 [34]. Unfortunately, due to
limitations of a pushover analysis of buildings with asymmetrical floor planes, modal analysis is still more common and probably the
better option in the fast evaluation of damaged buildings in Zagreb. Several papers of the assessment and renovation of existing
damaged buildings [8,18,35–40] were recently published, but none about integrated approach where both seismic and energy
renovation are included. The case study building was one of the illustrative examples of how to model the seismic performance of
Fig. 4. Selected seismic concept for strengthening building under observation.
7
existing masonry buildings. All four methods from Eurocode 8 with their peculiarities were made to help Croatian engineers in
evaluation of existing buildings [41].
The concept of repair and seismic upgrading is based on results from numerical analyses and presented in Fig. 4, which includes
significant reinforcement of the vertical support structure with concrete shotcrete and construction of new reinforced concrete walls. It
is also planned to perform a rigid diaphragm by joining reinforced concrete and timber beams as a prerequisite for significant rein
forcement of walls.
Shotcreting requires a cleaned wall up to 1.5 cm deep joints, installation of reinforcing mesh, installation of anchors, and the
application of concrete, usually in 2 layers of 3.0 cm. New reinforced concrete (RC) wall is casted in one-sided formwork and it is 12 cm
thick in case of internal application on the existing wall or 20 cm thick in case of external application on the existing wall. As it can be
seen from Fig. 4, interventions on the main wing of the building are foreseen from the interior, while on the courtyard part of the
building interventions are foreseen at the external sides of wall. This approach derived from the limitation of intervening on street-
oriented facades (preservation of original visual appearance).
A rigid diaphragm is planned to be constructed by connecting an 8 cm thick concrete slab with existing wooden beams and walls.
The mentioned system will act as a horizontal diaphragm for obtaining the so-called box effect.
4. Energy renovation
4.1. Energy concept
The energy concept is based on two main requirements: i) reduce energy consumption; ii) ensure indoor comfort and healthy living
conditions for occupants. It is important to highlight that these two requirements need to be balanced with each other. It can be
achieved in the following way:
• Thermal insulation of opaque building envelope elements would decrease transmission losses and losses to unheated spaces.
However, special attention needs to be given to the selection of thermal insulation materials appropriate for historic buildings and
maintaining original street-oriented facades as well as to ensure fire safety in the building. By insulating opaque building envelope,
their internal surface temperature would be increased during heating period. This would also reduce the difference between indoor
air temperature and elements’ internal surface temperature (<4 ◦ C), thus providing a higher level of thermal comfort [42].
• Keeping the original primary (outer) windows, repairing them and sealing them. Replacing the secondary (inner) windows with
completely new and more efficient windows. In this way, the original appearance would be preserved, while reducing thermal
losses in heating period but also reducing solar gains in cooling period and thus the risk of summer overheating. Maintaining
original primary windows and replacing the secondary windows would help further reduce transmission losses and increase
thermal comfort.
• By applying thermal insulation, sealing existing primary windows and installing new secondary windows, airtightness of building
envelope can be significantly improved, resulting with reduced air infiltration. Reduced air infiltration implies reduced thermal
losses, increased comfort and reduced transport of water vapour. Infiltration of air into building envelope layers by leakage (which
also allows entry of water vapour) is approximately 30 times greater for 1 mm width crack compared to transfer by diffusion per
one square meter of surface [43]. Reduced transport of water vapour reduces the risk of moisture-related damage in building
elements.
• On the other hand, improved airtightness requires adequate ventilation of the space to ensure good indoor air quality (IAQ), but
also to regulate the relative humidity in the room and thus reduce the risk of water vapour condensation and mould growth [43]. If
possible, it is desirable to install a mechanical ventilation with heat recovery (MVHR) system, which will allow for healthier (or at
least equally healthy) indoor conditions (CO2, T, RH, VOC, …) with lower energy consumption compared to natural ventilation
(window opening). MVHR with optimized control strategies is a promising solution to the unfortunately still existing trade-off
between energy efficiency, comfort and IAQ [44]. Comfort (T, RH) and IAQ (CO2) indicators are defined in EN 16798-1 [45]
and their proposed values differ for 4 classes (satisfaction level).
• Replacing existing technical systems with more efficient ones to maintain proper indoor microclimatic conditions for the occu
pants’ comfort [46] and lower heating and cooling costs.
Preserving the original appearance of street-oriented facades excludes conventional and currently one of the most used systems for
thermal insulation of opaque envelope elements – External Thermal Insulation Composite System (ETICS). Street-oriented facades
require the application of internal thermal insulation or in case of external intervention using materials that are very similar to
characteristics of traditional plaster and masonry walls. In that context, compatible plasters are considered for the building under
observation, Table 3.
Cork plaster is an environmentally friendly, premixed plaster composed of cork, hydraulic lime and other natural materials [47]. It
Table 3
Material properties of plasters used in energy calculations.
PLASTER TYPE Thermal conductivity Water vapour diffusion resistance factor Dry density Specific heat capacity
λ [W/mK] μ [− ] ρ [kg/m3] ϲ [J/kgK]
Conventional thermal plaster (TP) 0.110 20 400 1000

Cork plaster (CP) 0.045 4 360 1000
8
is a relatively new material available on the market and represents a certain development in the field of thermal insulating plasters.
With up to 59% lower thermal conductivity compared to conventional thermal plasters (Table 3), its conductivity opens space for
greater energy savings. Its high permeability also makes it suitable for interior applications. Its mix composition makes it suitable for
historic buildings and there are references of projects realized all over the world [47]. The maximum thickness for each applied layer is
4 cm.
There are other high-efficiency plasters on the market, such as aerogel insulating plaster [48] with a thermal conductivity of 0.028
W/mK. This makes it a better thermal insulator than conventional thermal insulation materials such as mineral wool, expanded
polystyrene, etc. Thanks to its very low thermal conductivity, efficient insulation is possible even with thin layers of plaster and
without changing the external appearance of historical buildings. Moreover, it is suitable for both exterior and interior applications
[48–50]. However, the application of aerogel insulating plaster will not be discussed in this paper, since the main purpose was to
briefly familiarise the reader with the availability of efficient plaster systems on the market, but not to make a detailed comparison and
analysis of efficient plasters with each other.
Another possible technical solution that allows thermal improvement of the external walls, while preserving their original
appearance by avoiding any intervention on the facades, is the use of internal thermal insulation systems [51]. Various systems are
available on the market – from traditional mineral wool, mineral insulation boards [51] to more advanced systems such as vacuum
insulation panels (VIP) [50], phase change materials (PCM) [52] and typha [53]. Building assemblies with internal insulation are
usually more susceptible to moisture, and thus to durability problems, because the thermal insulation reduces the surface temperature
of the wall and increases the risk of water vapour condensation [54–56]. Therefore, in the case of mineral wool, a vapour barrier must
be provided and properly installed, which requires that all joints and penetrations be properly sealed. Certain thermal insulation
materials, such as mineral insulation boards, do not require a vapor barrier, according to their manufacturers. Mineral insulation
boards (MIB) are made of calcium silicate hydrates with a very high percentage of air-filled pores, they are vapour open and have the
ability to store and redistribute a certain amount of moisture.
The utility wing of the building, as “hidden” from direct view, can be externally insulated with systems like ETICS.
Traditional ceilings, especially the ones adjacent to unheated spaces, can be insulated by filling the gap between the timber beams
with thermal insulation. It provides thermal protection but also acoustic protection.
Due to the specifics of the existing building, a decentralized mechanical ventilation with heat recovery (MVHR) system is
potentially more appropriate than a conventional centralized system. Decentralised system is more flexible and can be positioned at
certain rooms avoiding complex distribution of ventilation pipes for fresh air supply and stale air extraction and reducing the fire safety
Table 4
Overview of analysed energy renovation measures.
Scenario Case ID Windows External walls External Unheated n50 Natural MVHR. n
(courtyard) walls staircase [1/ ventilation nmin [1/h]
(street) walls h] [1/h]
Baseline Existing Old existing windows – / / / 10 1 /

condition existing condition
Seismic Old existing windows – Concrete shotcrete or new RC walls, 8 1 /

upgrading (SU) existing condition Rigid diaphragms
1 SU ER_1 TP þ Old existing windows ETICS (12 cm) TP (4 cm) TP (4 cm) 6 1 /

ETICS (repaired, sealed) + Natural
SU ER_1 CP þ ventilation ETICS (12 cm) CP (4 cm) CP (4 cm) 6 1 /
ETICS
SU ER_1 MIB MIB (12.5 cm) MIB (12.5 MIB (5 cm) 6 1 /
internal cm) internal internal
2 SU ER_2 CP þ W New secondary windows (2 × CP (4 cm) CP (4 cm) CP (4 cm) 3 1 /

SU ER_2 TP þ IZO) + Natural ventilation ETICS (12 cm) TP (4 cm) TP (4 cm) 3 1 /
ETICS þ W
SU ER_2 CP þ ETICS (12 cm) CP (4 cm) CP (4 cm) 3 1 /
ETICS þ W
SU ER_2 MIB þ MIB (12.5 cm) MIB (12.5 MIB (5 cm) 3 1 /
W internal cm) internal internal
3 SU ER_3 CP þ W New secondary windows (2 × CP (4 cm) CP (4 cm) CP (4 cm) 1.5 / 1

þ MVHR IZO) + Mechanical ventilation
SU ER_3 TP þ with heat recovery (80%) ETICS (12 cm) TP (4 cm) TP (4 cm) 1.5 / 1
ETICS þ W þ
MVHR
SU ER_3 CP þ ETICS (12 cm) CP (4 cm) CP (4 cm) 1.5 / 1
ETICS þ W þ
MVHR
SU ER_3 MIB þ MIB (12.5 cm) MIB (12.5 MIB (5 cm) 1.5 / 1
W þ MVHR internal cm) internal internal
SU=Seismic upgrading, ER = Energy renovation, TP = Thermal plaster, CP=Cork plaster, ETICS = External Thermal Insulation Composite System, W=Windows, MIB =
Mineral insulation board, MVHR = Mechanical ventilation with heat recovery.
9
risks, while on the other hand they are not as efficient as the centralised MVHR, and require numerous penetrations of thermal en
velope as well as maintenance access from each room where the system is installed. Examples of energy renovation measures on
historic buildings that include both opaque and transparent elements, as well as decentralised mechanical ventilation, can be found in
Supplementary materials supporting this paper.
4.2. Analysed energy efficiency measures

Table 4 provides a comprehensive overview of measures analysed in this research as possible variants of energy renovation of the
case study building. Special focus was given to the fact that the analysed building is located within the zone of a cultural and historical
ensemble, although itself it is not protected cultural property.
Three different scenarios of energy renovation (ER), integrated with seismic upgrading (SU), were investigated:
1) ER_1: Old existing windows (repaired, sealed) + Natural ventilation
2) ER_2: New secondary windows (2 × IZO) + Natural ventilation
3) ER_3: New secondary windows (2 × IZO) + Mechanical ventilation with heat recovery (80%)
For each of the abovementioned scenarios, different variants of thermal insulation materials were analysed:
• ETICS on courtyard walls + thermal plaster applied externally on street walls
• ETICS on courtyard walls + cork plaster applied externally on street walls
• Cork plaster applied externally on all walls
• Mineral insulation board applied as internal insulation on all walls
For the sake of brevity, an energy intervention concerning the replacement of technical heating, domestic hot water and cooling
systems is considered only in certain cases.
The U-values have improved significantly compared to the situation before the energy renovation, however, for some elements the
current requirements of the Croatian regulation [29] are not yet met (table available in Supplementary material). The Croatian
regulation in the field of energy efficiency in buildings [29] does not distinguish U-value requirements for new buildings and for
existing buildings undergoing major renovation (more than 75% of the building envelope is renovated). These requirements are
challenging to meet for historic buildings because of conservation limitations imposed. As shown in Supplementary material, external
walls with ETICS and MIB meet the current requirements, which is due to their thickness (12 cm and 12.5 cm, respectively). External
walls with plaster (both cork plaster and thermal plaster) have higher U-values than allowed. This could be compensated by increasing
their thickness, but this would also potentially lead to a change in the appearance of the building façade. Another possible solution
would be to use more advanced plasters with lower thermal conductivity, such as aerogel plasters, but the acceptability of advanced
materials needs to be discussed with conservation practitioners. However, this analysis is beyond the scope of this paper.
Energy calculations at building level are conducted according to the procedure described in [28], which is in line with standard EN
ISO 13790:2008, using the software KI Expert Plus v7.10.0.0 [57]. This software is used because it complies with Croatian regulations
in area of energy efficiency [29] and thus it is approved by the Croatian Ministry of Physical Planning, Construction and State Assets.
Fig. 5. Specific annual heating and cooling energy needs for different energy renovation scenarios.
10
4.3. Results and discussion

Fig. 5 presents the results of the energy simulation for different energy efficiency measures applied on the analysed building.
Metrics used for evaluation is the specific annual energy required for heating (Q’’H, nd) and cooling (Q’’C, nd) for the existing (reference)
condition, the case when only seismic upgrading is carried out according to Level 4, and eleven proposed energy renovation variants
for the building in question. The red dashed line indicates the maximum allowed Q’’H, nd = 51.54 kWh/m2a for new buildings (ac
cording to Croatian legislation [29] for multi-residential building located in continental climate, and with shape factor 0.20 < f0 <
1.05, the maximum Q’’H, nd can be calculated as Q’’H, nd = 32.39 + 40.58 × f0).
It can be seen that in case of implementation of solely seismic upgrading Level 4, as described in Section 3.2., a reduction of energy
demand for heating by negligible 2.9% can be expected, which is derived from the additional layers of reinforced concrete and
somewhat increased airtightness of envelope. On the other hand, if the envelope elements are thermally insulated in accordance with
the combinations of measures described in the previous section, energy savings for heating the building in question can be achieved
between 43% and up to 82% for more comprehensive measures (MVHR).
When analysing the effects of the implemented measures for integrated renovation, it becomes clear that the greatest reduction in
energy demand for heating is mainly due to the thermal insulation of the opaque envelope elements (measures ER_1). Savings of more
than 40% can be achieved by applying a thermal insulation layer several cm thick, although this saving depends on the thickness of the
insulation layer and the characteristics of the product used. Besides significantly reduced transmission losses, it also contributed to the
additionally increased airtightness of envelope and thus reduced infiltration losses. It turns out that the intervention on the openings in
ER_2 (with the replacement of the secondary windows) achieves additional savings of 14% compared to analogous measures ER_1 and,
in addition to reducing transmission losses, it also affects the reduction of ventilation losses of the building and the increase in living
comfort. Despite the significant reduction of energy demand by the scenarios ER_1 and ER_2, only the installation of a decentralized
MVHR system meets the current requirements of legislation [29].
For the sake of brevity, the impact of energy efficiency measures on primary energy was analysed only for the scenarios ER _2 (new
windows + natural ventilation) and ER _3 (new windows + MVHR), for the case when a combination of cork plaster and ETICS system
is used (Table 5). The results suggest that by applying only measures related to building envelope, a significant reduction of the total
primary energy, i.e., primary energy that includes heating, cooling and domestic hot water, can be achieved up to 53% compared to the
existing condition of the building, or by up to 67% if the measures envisage high air tightness of the building envelope (mechanical
ventilation). By replacing the existing technical system for heating, cooling and preparation of domestic hot water (DHW) with a new,
more efficient system, an additional reduction in primary energy is achieved compared to the existing situation, which is up to 63% or
even 75% if mechanical ventilation is also foreseen (Case SU ER _3 CP + ETICS + W + MVHR).
The existing heating and DHW system is an old gas boiler with an atmospheric burner, and the cooling system consists of old air
conditioners with outdoor units installed on the courtyard walls. For the purpose of this study, the existing system is replaced with a
more efficient one by installing a new condensing boiler for heating and DHW, and the existing air conditioning units (COP = 2.5) with
new, more efficient ones (COP = 4), respectively. Thus, proven systems were selected that are available on the market and do not (or at
least should not) pose a threat to the cultural value of the building. For different energy resources, Republic of Croatia had defined
different values of primary energy factors fprim [58] for conversion of delivered energy Edel into primary Eprim. Those values are fprim =
1.614 for electrical energy and fprim = 1.095 for natural gas.
It can be concluded that in historic buildings, which are large consumers of energy, the greatest contribution to improving their
energy performance is primarily building envelope related measures in the form of thermal insulation of envelope elements,
replacement of windows and increasing air tightness (principle of low-hanging fruit). In order not to compromise the hygrothermal
comfort and air quality in the interior spaces, it is necessary to provide the users of the building with sufficient fresh air. To reconcile
the requirements of reducing energy consumption and ensuring a healthy indoor environment, MVHR systems can be used. Centralised
and decentralised MVHR systems both have their advantages and disadvantages but even if there is no room for complex network of
distribution pipes, a decentralised MVHR system allows minimal interference with the building envelope and the impairment of its
original appearance.
However, a comprehensive renovation of a building should also keep in mind the replacement of outdated and inefficient technical
systems. More efficient systems help reduce operating costs throughout the extended life cycle of the building. In the design principles
Table 5
Delivered and primary energy results for analysed energy efficiency measures – building envelope and technical system.
Case ID Technical systems Edel, total [kWh/ E’’prim,total [kWh/ Reduction E’’prim,total CO2 [kg] Reduction CO2
a] m2a] [%] [%]
Existing condition Old existing 387530.76 294.88 / 85592.85 /
Seismic upgrading (SU) Old existing 377895.69 287.78 − 2.4 83474.02 − 2.5
SU ER_2 CP þ ETICS þ W Old existing 177294.14 138.53 − 53.0 39308.40 − 54.1

New efficient 140235.90 108.67 − 63.2 31054.47 − 63.7
SU ER_3 CP þ ETICS þ W þ Old existing 123957.19 98.00 − 66.8 27530.37 − 67.8

MVHR New efficient 95932.07 75.10 − 74.5 21275.07 − 75.1
New efficient + 85737.66 63.90 − 78.3 18881.32 − 77.9
photovoltaics
11
of Kyoto pyramid [43], renewable energy systems are considered as the “cherry on the cake”. It is a special challenge to design
renewable energy sources in historic buildings in protected areas. In this particular building, the flat roof of the courtyard with a gross
floor area of 85 m2 is imposed as an option. It certainly has the potential to accommodate a photovoltaic system, but this is something
that must be agreed to by the building conservation practitioners and historic environment experts. In a brief analysis, the option of
installing 60 m2 of photovoltaic panels with southern exposure and an optimum tilt angle of 30◦ was studied. The south orientation of
the photovoltaic panels was chosen because it is not shaded by the neighbouring buildings or by the pitched roof of the building under
study. Moreover, the southern orientation allows the highest peak values of electricity generation. Intensively ventilated modules
made of monocrystalline silicon are considered. The results indicate that 60 m2 of the photovoltaic system can generate 10194.41 kWh
of electrical energy annually, thus covering about 11.9% of the total delivered energy at the level of the entire building for this specific
case (Table 5), which of course translates into a further reduction in the total primary energy of the building.
In the Croatian regulations [29], the maximum permissible values for primary energy consumption are specified depending on the
type of building and the location of the building (climate), as well as whether it is a new building (nearly zero-energy building) or a
comprehensive reconstruction of an existing building. It is also worth highlighting that the regulation clearly defines which energies
are included in the primary energy calculations depending on the type of building. For example, for multi-residential buildings, the
primary energy criterion includes primary energy for heating, DHW and ventilation, if foreseen, and the maximum allowed value in the
continental climate of Croatia is 80 kWh/m2 per year for new multi-residential buildings and 180 kWh/m2 per year for existing
buildings undergoing a comprehensive reconstruction.
If for the analysed cases the total primary energy (Table 5) is reduced by the amount of primary energy for cooling and compared
with the current requirements, Fig. 6, it can be concluded that even by applying only measures related to the building envelope, the
annual primary energy demand for existing buildings can be met. Moreover, the example of Case SU ER _3 CP + ETICS + W + MVHR
confirms that it is possible to make an ambitious step forward, and for a 100-year-old building to meet current primary energy re
quirements for new buildings by replacing technical systems. This means that old historical buildings have the potential to transform
into modern buildings and adapt to the needs of today’s people, but at the same time respect the heritage.
The calculated energy savings can be expressed in terms of a reduction in heating and DHW costs. Table 6 shows an estimate of the
reduction in the cost of heating and DHW at a conservative current price (March 2022) of natural gas as an energy source (0.0433
€/kWh including taxes). It should be emphasized that the global increase in energy prices has triggered a wave of rising prices in
Europe, and they also announce significant increases in gas prices for households. For Croatia, a price increase of up to 79% has been
announced, which would certainly bring a certain number of citizens to the brink of energy poverty. For this reason, various packages
of government measures aim to limit the increase in gas prices by a maximum of 20% starting from April 1st, 2022 [59]. Table 6
contains both governmental projections for gas price growth (+17% as the optimistic scenario and +76% as worst-case scenario). The
calculation is based on the delivered annual energy E”del [kWh/m2a] for heating and DHW, which depends on the efficiency of the
installed technical systems.
As can be seen from Table 6, the replacement of existing and inefficient technical systems, which is one of the mechanical measures
of energy efficiency, is certainly necessary in the integrated retrofitting of buildings. In this case, the reduction of heating and DHW
costs is even greater, as well as occupants’ indoor comfort. And in the event of a change in energy prices, it provides greater stability for
occupants, that is, reduces their sensitivity to changes in energy prices.
Another aspect that must be mentioned when applying internal thermal insulation, and this is the functional one, is the loss of
usable floor area. In particular, for the building in question, with 12.5 cm thick MIB internal insulation, the loss of useful area is about
13.5 m2 per floor or about 67.6 m2 at the level of entire building.
5. The effect of thermal bridges

A thermal bridge is defined as an area of the building envelope which has a significantly higher heat flow than the surrounding area.
It occurs because of change in material, change in thickness and/or change in geometry of the building element [56,60–62]. Depending
Fig. 6. Comparison of primary energy results with current requirements for new and existing multi-residential building undergoing major renovation.
12
Table 6
Approximate reduction of heating costs (for UFA = 1470.18 m2).
Technical Case ID E′′ del for heating and Energy savings [% and absolute Reduction of heating and DHW costs
systems DHW [kWh/m2a] difference in relation to existing
0.0433a 0.0507b 0.0762c
condition]
€/kWh €/kWh €/kWh
Old existing Existing condition 252.18 / / / /
Old existing SU ER_2 CP + ETICS 108.52 56.9% (143.66 kWh/m2a) 9138.39 10708.17 16090.29
+W €/year €/year €/year
SU ER_3 CP + ETICS 73.73 70.8% (178.45 kWh/m2a) 11351.42 13301.36 19986.86
+ W + MVHR €/year €/year €/year
New efficient SU ER_2 CP + ETICS 87.84 65.2% (164.34 kWh/m2a) 10453.87 12249.62 18406.50
+W €/year €/year €/year
SU ER_3 CP + ETICS 58.63 76.8% (193.55 kWh/m2a) 12311.95 14426.89 21678.10
+ W + MVHR €/year €/year €/year
a
Current gas prices for the household.
b
Optimistic gas price increase scenario.
c
Worst-case gas price increase scenario.
on their type, thermal bridges are divided into linear and point thermal bridges. Furthermore, thermal bridges in buildings are
distinguished according to the areas in which they occur:
• Geometric thermal bridges, which occur at locations where the geometry of the building’s envelope changes.
• Thermal bridges due to changes in materials.
• Structural thermal bridges, where increased heat flow through the envelope of the building occurs due to unprotected structural
elements (ceilings, beams) penetrating the thermal insulation layer.
Fig. 7. Geometric models, temperature distribution and isotherms for Level 4 seismic upgrading: a) Detail 1, b) Detail 2.
13
• Convective thermal bridges, which occur in places where increased air flow occurs through unsealed joints of walls and at the joints
of doors and windows with the building envelope [63].
In addition to the increased consumption caused by thermal bridges, as one of the most critical parts of the building envelope, they
pose the greatest risk of fungus and mould growth due to the lowering of the surface temperature on the inside [56,60–62]. Thermal
bridges are designed according to the standards: HRN EN ISO 10211 [60] and HRN EN ISO 14683 [64]. The standard HRN EN ISO
14683 provides a simplified calculation of heat losses due to linear thermal bridges [64], while for a more detailed calculation the
standard HRN EN ISO 10211 [60] is used, which provides a method for numerical calculation of thermal bridges (linear and point). In
the numerical calculation of thermal bridges, according to the standard HRN EN ISO 10211, the influence of point thermal bridges can
be neglected in comparison to heat losses due to linear thermal bridges.
Neglecting thermal bridges can lead to unpredictable energy consumption for heating and cooling and also means that problems
caused by the condensation of water vapour are also neglected, which ultimately translates into increased costs for building occupants
and potential mould growth on building components.
For examples of externally insulated walls, authors [65] concluded that simplified procedures of thermal bridges implementation in
transmission heat losses calculations can vary significantly and thermal bridges need to be determined via more precise procedures.
Historic buildings present a particular challenge for energy renovation. Insulating masonry walls internally is often the only
possible solution, where partition walls and ceilings will act as thermal bridges and there may be an increased risk of mould growth
[56].
Therefore, during seismic upgrading, it is necessary to consider the effect of thermal bridges during the building envelope design.
To achieve this, the use of numerical methods is inevitable. The aim of this section is to investigate the impact of thermal bridges in
historic building under observation. For selected details, only linear thermal bridges are considered. Quantification of linear thermal
bridges (increase in heat flow transfer) on the total heat flow can be done by calculating linear heat transmittance coefficient ψ-value
[W/(m K)], Equation (1). ψ-value is equal to the increase of the stationary heat flow through the linear thermal bridge, relative to the
undisturbed area [60].
∑
Ψ = L2d − (Ui · li ) [W / (mK)] Equation 1
where L2d [W/(m K)] is a thermal coupling coefficient from two-dimensional calculation, Uj [W/(m2 K)] is the thermal transmittance of
the one-dimensional component j and lj [m] is length over which the value Uj applies.
Numerical analysis of heat and water vapour transfer is performed using the in-house developed computer program CRORAL [66]
based on the calculation procedures described in the EN ISO 10211 [60] and EN ISO 10077-2 [67] standards. CRORAL is validated by
current versions of these standards [66].
5.1. Geometric models and boundary conditions

This study investigates the effect of the thermal bridge created by external wall and ceiling junction. Fig. 7 shows the geometric
models of the thermal bridge details according to the assumed seismic upgrading Level 4. The properties of the materials used in
numerical models are in accordance with [29]. Interior and exterior boundary conditions (temperature T, relative humidity RH, heat
transfer coefficient h) presented in Table 7 are in line with the standard HRN EN ISO 10211 [60].
Two external wall seismic strengthening details and five cases per each wall detail were analysed. A total of 10 variants were
calculated (Table 8). These calculations are 2D calculations (at the element level). Therefore, new case IDs were needed, different from
those used to calculate the energy performance of analysed building in Section 4.2.

For the sake of brevity, calculated isotherms are presented in Fig. 7 only for the seismic upgrading cases. The calculation results are
given for all 10 variants (Table 9 and Table 10).
Table 9 shows the numerical results of the parameters required to characterize the effects of thermal bridge. The most important
parameters describing the thermal bridge are the thermal coupling coefficient L2D and the minimum temperature on the inner surface
Tsi,min, since these parameters describe the heat losses through the thermal bridge and the risk of water vapour condensation on the
inner surface. Cases for which there is high possibility of surface condensation occurrence are marked red in Table 9. Table 10 shows
the reduction of heat losses compared to the existing condition case for the calculated heat flux (L2D) through the thermal bridge. Red
in the graphs indicates the worst case and green indicates the best case in terms of energy efficiency (Table 10).
Table 9, part a), and Table 10 show the results of the numerical calculations for Detail 1. After the seismic upgrade, heat losses were
reduced by only 9% (Table 10), so it is necessary to implement certain energy efficiency measures. Both before and after the seismic
strengthening measures, there is a risk of water vapour condensation on the interior surface at the thermal bridge location, as shown by
the coefficient fRsi, which is close to 0.7 in both cases. However, the risk is somewhat smaller after this particular seismic upgrading
Table 7
Boundary conditions of thermal bridge calculations.
Boundary name T [◦ C] RH [%] h [W/(m2 K)]
Interior 20,00 60 7,69

Exterior − 10,00 90 25,00
14
Table 8
Analysed variants for thermal bridge calculation.
DETAIL 1 DETAIL 2
Reinforcement of the existing masonry wall (30 cm thick) with a new Reinforcement of the existing masonry wall (30 cm thick) with
reinforced concrete wall on the exterior side reinforced shotcrete from the inside (6 cm thick).
(20 cm thick).
CASE 1 – Thermal bridge before seismic upgrading.

TB
CASE 2 – Thermal bridge after seismic upgrading without thermal insulation.
TB
CASE 3 – Thermal bridge after seismic upgrading with external thermal insulation applied to external wall (mineral wool – 12 cm thick).
TB
CASE 4 – Thermal bridge after seismic upgrading with external thermal insulation applied to external wall (cork plaster– 4 cm thick).
TB
CASE 5 – Thermal bridge after seismic upgrading with internal thermal insulation applied to external wall (mineral insulation board – 12.5 cm thick).
TB
intervention – new RC wall constructed at the exterior side of masonry. The most favourable solution from the building physics point of
view is the application of thermal insulation on the external surface since in this situation there is the lowest heat loss compared to the
situation before the earthquake (85% when 12 cm thick ETICS is installed and 63% when 4 cm thick cork plaster is installed), Table 10.
The second argument is the highest temperature on the internal surface, i.e. the lowest risk of occurrence of fungi and mould. It should
be emphasized that these results for the case with external plaster would be even better if a more effective plaster was applied, such as
an aerogel-based plaster.
In addition, the results of the case with internal insulation are also presented for Detail 1 (Table 9, part a), and Table 10). Although
in this case 75% less heat loss is achieved compared to the case before the energy renovation, it is necessary to pay attention to the
comfort of the interior spaces. In the case of internal insulation, the risk of water vapour condensation on the interior surface at the
thermal bridge location is the highest (fRsi = 0.68), so special attention must be paid to reducing this risk during the design.
Table 9, part b), shows the calculation results for Detail 2. In these cases, similar solutions are obtained as for Detail 1. Although the
coefficients fRsi are greater than 0.7, certain energy efficiency measures should be implemented in order to reduce energy consumption
and prevent surface condensation at the thermal bridge location, and thus increase indoor comfort for occupants.
It can be concluded that numerical methods for predicting the effects of thermal bridges in integrated retrofitting approach can be
of great importance for the selection of appropriate measures that ensure the durability of the building envelope already in the design
phase. Even more important, they would also provide moisture-free buildings that are comfortable and healthy for occupants.
Another important segment to focus on in the energy retrofit of historic buildings are the windows. Historic buildings in Croatia
typically incorporate double windows (external primary and internal secondary hinged casement). Energy efficiency interventions are
limited when design codes for such buildings do not allow any aesthetic changes to the external primary windows. Repairing and
sealing both primary and secondary windows actually increases air tightness and thus reduces heat loss through infiltration. However,
the surface temperature of the secondary windows most likely deviates significantly from the indoor air temperature during the cold
season. Larger temperature differences between the window surface and the indoor air can also result in convective heat transfer
through air movement, especially in cold weather. Drafts caused by such air movements, together with asymmetry of radiant tem
perature, are one of the most important causes of local thermal discomfort. Another consequence is the increased risk of surface
condensation on secondary windows. The optimal solution would be to increase the surface temperature of the windows. This can be
done by replacing secondary window casements with new, more efficient windows with double or even triple glazing. In a recent study
[68], it was shown that the measured temperatures in the centre of the glass during the coldest period showed a significant
improvement due to the secondary window casement. The average surface temperatures at the centre of the glass of double-pane and
single-pane secondary windows during the coldest period (average outdoor temperature of − 6.11 ◦ C) were 20.11 ◦ C and 13.72 ◦ C,
respectively. The average indoor temperature was 22.89 ◦ C. As shown in this study [68], the surface temperature of double-pane
windows was lower than the indoor temperature by up to 2.78 ◦ C, while this difference was significantly higher for single-pane
windows (9.17 ◦ C). Considering that people feel uncomfortable when objects and bodies surrounding them simultaneously radiate
with different intensity towards the human body (the difference in body temperature is more than 4 ◦ C [42] or even 3.5 ◦ C for the
passive house standard [69]), it becomes clear that occupants do not feel comfortable in buildings with old single-pane windows.
6. Long-term hygrothermal performance

The interaction of the building with the outdoor environment and the indoor environment takes place through the building en
velope which, as an active participant in the processes of heat, air and moisture transfer – HAM (hygrothermal performance), is directly
exposed to environmental loads and must therefore be robust enough but at the same time adaptable to changes. Building elements
degradation is frequently moisture related. Undesired moisture conditions are responsible for 75% up to 90% of all building envelope
damages [70,71]. Some of them are mould, mildew, rot, freeze/thaw, salt attack, corrosion, cracks, blisters and swelling [72]. These
durability issues cause the performance degradation of envelope which can lead to increased energy consumption and decreased
occupant comfort. This can be a particular problem for existing buildings with established hygrothermal behaviour that undergo
significant reconstruction (increased airtightness and higher insulation levels), which inevitably changes their current state of dynamic
15
Table 9
Comparison of numerical calculation results for seismic upgrading Level 4: a) Detail 1, b) Detail 2.
hygrothermal equilibrium. Inadequate retrofitting solutions can lead to an accumulation of moisture and, as a consequence, to
structural damage and a reduced quality of living.
Undesired moisture conditions can be predicted by hygrothermal analysis: traditional steady-state (Glaser) method or dynamic
Heat, Air and Moisture – HAM modelling.
Limitations of Glaser method are derived from its assumptions, such as heat transfer occurs only by conduction (Fourier’s law)
while moisture transfer occurs only by water vapour diffusion (Fick’s law), and they are not coupled. Despite the fact it was developed
for the cold stores where claddings and the insulation are hardly hygroscopic and where the ambient conditions are close to steady
state, the Glaser method become popular as a tool for assessing the moisture conditions of building assemblies, overlooking the fact
many building materials are porous, i.e. they have the capacity to store and distribute moisture [62,72].
Although more sophisticated methods, representing more realistic moisture conditions in buildings, are nowadays available, Glaser
is still the most widely used tool in everyday engineering practice. The same applies for Croatia, where [29] prescribes calculation of
interstitial and superficial condensation according to standard HRN EN ISO 13788 [76] which is based on Glaser method.
16
Table 10
Reduction of heat losses through the respected thermal bridges (calculated L2D).
On the other hand, there is a dynamic approach that also exists, so-called HAM modelling. This transient approach can capture the
influence of the shorter time events – hourly change of boundary conditions within the observed longer time period. HAM modelling
offers the possibility to simulate hygrothermal behaviour of not only 1D building component, like traditional Glaser method, but also
to evaluate the moisture conditions in 2D connection of components, such as corners of the building (possibility to take into account
the effect of thermal bridges) and moreover the entire building structure in 3D. It considers all heat and moisture transport mechanisms
as coupled, moisture storage and built-in moisture, etc. By this approach, more information on hygrothermal behaviour of building
envelope can be obtained, i.e. the service life of building, energy needs, indoor comfort and indoor air quality, which is directly related
to the health of occupants, can be influenced in the design stage [77–82].
There is a certain number of research studies [53,62,77,83,84] concerning the comparison of steady-state Glaser method and
transient HAM modelling. All of them agree that Glaser is rarely applicable, since it can potentially underestimate, or overestimate
moisture conditions compared to transient HAM tools. It can be concluded that real-life performance of buildings can be predicted
better using HAM modelling [85]. Certain building elements, like green roofs, cannot be reliably evaluated by the help of dew point
calculation methods at all [86]. Nevertheless, as previously mentioned, Glaser is still prescribed by standard in many countries all over
the world which causes the gap between the state-of-art knowledge and the current practice.
Thus, the authors of this paper strongly believe that additional research is needed to widen understanding of Glaser’s and HAM’s
capability to evaluate the probability of moisture failure risks for different integrated retrofitting solutions of existing opaque building
elements. This will be done by investigating the influence of different thermal insulation materials and seismic upgrading combina
tions on the moisture behaviour of the historic building in question.
6.1. Analysed retrofitting cases

Software WUFI® Pro 5.2 [87] was used for 1D transient heat and moisture simulations. WUFI® is developed by the Fraunhofer
Table 11
Analysed variants for long-term hygrothermal performance.
Case ID Wall Seismic upgrading Thermal insulation (of external wall) Orientation
thickness
Case 1 – HAM 30 cm / / West

CASE 2 – Detail 1: /
HAM New reinforced concrete wall on the exterior side (20 cm
CASE 3 – thick) External thermal insulation (ETICS)
HAM
CASE 4 – Internal thermal insulation (mineral insulation
HAM board)a
CASE 5 – 30 cm / / East
HAM
CASE 6 – Detail 2: /
HAM Reinforced shotcrete from the inside (6 cm thick)
CASE 7 – External thermal insulation (cork plaster)
HAM
CASE 8 – Internal thermal insulation (mineral insulation
HAM board)a
a
To avoid interventions on the exterior of the wall, the original old external plaster was retained. This decision is mainly driven by heritage conservation reasons.
17
Institute for Building Physics from Germany, and it has proven its capability of simulating hygrothermal performance of diverse as
semblies with high accuracy, as presented in different research studies such as for example [86,88–90].
Two external wall seismic strengthening details and four cases per each wall detail were analysed. A total of 8 variants were
calculated (Table 11). These calculations are 1D calculations (at the element level). Therefore, new case IDs were needed, different
from those used to calculate the energy performance of analysed building in Section 4.2. and thermal bridge effect in Section 5.1.
Climate of the characteristic meteorological station Zagreb Maksimir is reference climate for the continental part of Croatia where
in 2017 the mean monthly outdoor air temperature was 12.6 ◦ C with max temperature of 37.4 ◦ C and min − 14.0 ◦ C. Measured climatic
data for 2017 were provided by Croatian Meteorological and Hydrological Service and processed to simulate the Actual Meteorological
Year (AMY).
Dynamic calculations must take into account typical construction imperfections through which liquid water from the atmosphere
can enter the building structure. In the present study, it was assumed that a total of 1% of wind-driven rain penetrates behind the
exterior lime plaster into the first 5 mm of the masonry, but only for the case of an existing condition. The idea was to simulate the
deteriorated condition of the façade. In the case of seismic and energy integrated retrofitting measures, it is assumed that the inter
vention is carried out in compliance with the rules of practice – imperfections are minimized and thus no penetration of wind-driven
rain is assumed.
For Detail 1 calculation cases the west orientation is defined, while for the Detail 2 calculation cases the east orientation is defined.
These orientations correspond the real situation (Fig. 4). Short-wave radiation absorptivity is set as 0.4 (Limestone, bright) for all cases
with external plaster, while for the case with a new concrete wall on the exterior side and internal insulation it was set as 0.65 (Tiles,
concrete, uncoloured). Adhering fraction of rain is taken according to inclination and construction type as 0.7.
Dynamic simulations were conducted in two stages. In the first stage, preliminary simulations were performed for each existing
condition case in order to determine the water content of the existing wall assemblies. This was necessary since this research is focused
on integrated renovation of existing structures, which means that walls before retrofitting were already in their dynamic hygrothermal
balance. Preliminary simulations were performed for period of 5 years with initial conditions considered constant and in equilibrium
with air at 80% and 20 ◦ C. Afterwards, in the second stage, seismic and energy retrofitting measures were applied to existing wall and
results obtained from preliminary simulations were used as initial conditions for the main retrofitting simulations. Calculation period
for the main simulations of retrofitted walls was 10 years with time step of 1 h. It was expected that over the 10-year period new
dynamic hygrothermal balance will be reached after the initial drying or potential wetting period.
All material characteristics of investigated assemblies are taken from WUFI® Pro database. It needs to be noted, that chosen
exterior lime plaster has an absorption coefficient A = 2.0 kg/m2h1/2, which simulates original historical plaster with no rainwater
protection to the wall.
Boundary conditions imply outdoor environment described by climatic conditions of chosen location, and indoor environment
described by terms of occupants’ behaviour (defined according to EN 15026 [91], where both indoor air temperature and relative
humidity vary with outdoor air temperature). Indoor air temperature is in range from 20 to 25 ◦ C, while relative humidity (normal
moisture load) is in range from 30% to max 60%.

Fig. 8 shows that all retrofit interventions on an existing wall result with a change in established state of its dynamic hygrothermal
balance. However, when considered globally (at the level of the entire multilayer element), there is no accumulation of moisture in any
of the observed variants over a calculation period of 10 years. For the west-facing walls, the continuous drying trend is present, and the
difference between wetting and drying cycles is less pronounced compared to the east-facing walls. The drying trend is due to the fact
that a new 20 cm thick RC wall has been applied on the outside of the west-facing walls, and its initial built-in moisture is now drying
out. For the east-facing walls, the wetting and drying cycles are more pronounced, but a dynamic equilibrium has been established and
the walls are moisture-safe. East-facing walls generally have a higher total amount of water, which is due to the orientation of the walls
Fig. 8. Total water content of analysed walls: a) west orientation, b) east orientation.
18
(precipitation, intensity of solar radiation), but certainly also due to the fact that east-facing walls have RC shotcrete applied to the
inside of the wall as part of the seismic upgrade and it reduces the drying capacity of a wall.
Furthermore, if we compare the influence of the position of the thermal insulation, both east and west oriented walls show the same
trend – the lowest total moisture content is present in variants with thermal insulation placed externally, while placing the thermal
insulation internally results in the highest total moisture content. When the thermal insulation is located on the outside of the wall, it
protects it from direct contact with moisture (wind-driven rain) and from direct solar radiation (reduced temperature stresses that
affect the durability of the wall). On the other hand, if the thermal insulation is located on the inside, the drying ability of the wall will
be limited to some extent. It should be noted that this also strongly depends on the type of internal insulation used.
The performance criteria for interstitial condensation in WUFI® and generally in all HAM tools are not as straightforward as in
Glaser, where RH = 100% implies that condensation has occurred. In contrast, the approach of HAM simulates realistic building
materials, most of which are hygroscopic and therefore have some moisture absorption capacity. In addition, real building materials
usually have some capillary conductivity that attempts to expel moisture accumulation. This behaviour, along with constantly
changing boundary conditions, will rarely cause the material RH = 100%. This means that condensation can occur during dynamic
simulations even if the relative humidity of the material does not reach 100%. There are no general criteria for identifying interstitial
condensation that apply to every case. Different materials and different applications require different criteria. Some of the possibilities
are: i) select arbitrary RH threshold for the porous materials, e.g. 90% or 95%, and anything above this threshold is considered
condensation; ii) the total water content exceeds the initial value (defined by the initial conditions) by more than 1 kg/m2 [92]; iii) the
total water content exceeds the free saturation content of the material.
For the purposes of this study, the risk analysis of interstitial condensation was performed using an arbitrary threshold for the
material RH = 95%. Interstitial condensation is checked for the most critical location in the wall, which is on the cold side of the
internal insulation (Fig. 9).
In the case of a west-facing wall, the peaks of relative humidity at the contact between the internal thermal insulation and the wall
reach 90%, but these are single short periods that do not pose a risk of water vapour condensation. In the case of the east-facing wall,
the peak values reach up to 95%, and for longer periods RH values are above 90% compared to the west-facing wall. This wall is
therefore more sensitive to internal thermal insulation.
By Glaser approach, on the other hand, considerable condensation occurs at the junction between the internal MIB insulation and
the wall. The condensation exceeds criteria from Croatian legislation which defines that the maximum total amount of condensate
within the building element shall not be higher than 1.0 kg/m2. Therefore, calculations according to Glaser suggest that this kind of
internal insulation should not be applied to building in question. The same behaviour occurs for both seismic strengthening variants –
the west-facing wall reinforced externally with a new RC wall and the east-facing wall reinforced internally with the shotcrete. Hence,
it can be concluded that Glaser is a much more conservative approach compared to HAM.
In both cases with internal insulation (Fig. 9), HAM simulation results indicated possible mould formation on the cold side of
insulation: overpassing the generally accepted limit of 80% RH. However, this criterion is valid in case of an air gap. Relative humidity
at the interface between substrate and thermal insulation should be RH < 95% in case of a gap free application to avoid condensation,
ice formation and rot. Since there is no air gap between insulation and wall in observed Case 4 and Case 8, and RH values are below
95%, no mould growth is possible. The simulation cases with internal insulation described above assume original old external plaster
will be retained, which is often the situation since the owners don’t have the funds to invest to refurbish completely the building façade
and thus, they will not do it if it is not necessary.
The above results suggest that the analysed retrofitting solutions with internal MIB insulation work, but it is important to note that
external water-repellent plaster or other water-repellent coating should be used when insulating wall internally. A water-repellent
plaster applied to the external face of the wall in terms of i.e. silicate render would reduce RH of the masonry and thus also the RH
Fig. 9. Relative humidity at the cold side of insulation for walls with internal insulation and additional modification of Case 8 (water-repellent external plaster and
thicker masonry wall).
19
at the interface between the substrate and the internal thermal insulation, giving the walls additional resistance to moisture. Please
note that presented simulation results are for walls with 30 cm thick solid brick. For thicker walls, RH would additionally decrease on
the cold side of the insulation. More specifically, if a water-repellent plaster with water absorption coefficient A = 0.1 kg/m2h0.5
(instead of original existing old plaster with A = 2.0 kg/m2h0.5) is applied to the external face of the east-oriented wall from Case 8, and
a thicker brick (60 cm) is used, the peak values of RH at the cold side of the insulation decrease from 95% to 85% (Fig. 9).
In all simulations performed in this study, the temperature of the interior surface was always higher than the dew point temperature
of the ambient air, indicating that no surface condensation occurred. The potential for mould growth on the interior surface is
additionally analysed using isopleth diagrams with limiting isopleths lines LIM I and LIM II [88, 93]. Simulations highlight that there is
no risk of mould growth for all analysed cases, but more information is available in Supplementary material.
When evaluating mould growth, it must be taken into account that it is largely related to the indoor climatic conditions, especially
indoor air temperature and relative humidity. The indoor climate depends primarily on the conditions of use, that is, on the habits of
users. This means that a wall assembly may be resistant to mould under a certain indoor condition, but the same wall assembly may be
susceptible to mould growth under completely different indoor conditions. However, this is not the subject of this study.
7. Conclusion
The impact of an earthquake includes economic damage, human casualties and psychological consequences for society. More than
40% of the building stock in Croatia is older than 50 years, meaning that the service life of a given structure is fully expired. Poor design
and construction, degraded material, and other factors resulted in severe damage from the earthquake(s) that hit Croatia in 2020, and
this was particularly the case with historic buildings.
This paper investigates the potential for seismic and energy integrated retrofitting of earthquake-damaged historic buildings where
a case study of a typical multi-residential building in the old city centre of Zagreb is presented. Seismic upgrading is conducted ac
cording to present norms and standards by combining external/internal new RC walls and external/internal RC shotcrete, as well as
rigid diaphragms (with respect to imposed preservation requirements). The focus of this work, however, is on energy-related reno
vation measures, primarily measures on the thermal envelope. In order to preserve the original appearance of the street facades,
thermal plaster and cork plaster were used externally, while the ETICS system was planned for the courtyard-facing facades. A variant
using mineral insulation boards as internal insulation of all walls (street and courtyard side) was also studied. The study includes a
situation where the original primary and original secondary windows are retained (repaired and sealed), as well as a situation where
only original primary windows are retained while secondary windows are replaced with new, more efficient windows (2 × IZO
glazing). The proposed thermal envelope measures are analysed from three different aspects: i) energy performance at the building
level (3D), ii) thermal bridge effect at element level (2D), iii) long-term hygrothermal performance at the element level (1D). The
influence of HVAC and RES on building energy performance was also briefly analysed.
The main findings of this study are as follows:
i-1) By applying only thermal insulation on seismically strengthen opaque building elements, transmission losses are significantly
reduced, and airtightness is somewhat improved. The results indicate that this leads to annual energy savings for heating (Q′′ H,
nd) of the building in question between 43% and up to 53% compared to the pre-earthquake condition.
i-2) When secondary windows are replaced with new, more efficient windows (PVC with 2 × IZO glazing), along with thermal
insulation of the opaque elements, this additionally improves airtightness and reduces heat loss, resulting in additional energy
savings (Q′′ H,nd) of 14% compared to analogous measures involving thermal insulation only. In addition to additional energy
savings, the new secondary windows also improve indoor thermal comfort thanks to the higher surface temperature. This also
reduces the risk of water vapour condensation on the surface.
i-3) Only the installation of a decentralised MVHR system meets the current requirements of Croatian legislation. In combination
with thermal insulation of opaque elements and replacement of secondary windows, energy savings (Q′′ H,nd) of up to 82% are
achieved compared to the pre-earthquake condition. Decentralised MVHR reduces energy consumption while maintaining high
indoor air quality.
i-4) However, without the HVAC systems, the building cannot provide adequate indoor microclimatic conditions for the occupant
comfort. Therefore, the replacement of the existing inefficient technical systems is necessary. The results suggest that a sig
nificant reduction in total primary energy of up to 55% (ETICS + cork plaster, new secondary windows) compared to the pre-
earthquake condition of the building can be achieved through envelope measures alone, or up to 67% if the measures include
mechanical ventilation and high air tightness of the building envelope (ETICS + cork plaster, new secondary windows, MVHR).
By replacing the existing technical system with a new, more efficient one, an additional reduction of primary energy is achieved
compared to the existing situation, up to 63% or even 75% if MVHR is foreseen. This last scenario even meets the current
Croatian E′′ prim requirement for new buildings, which means that it is possible even for a 100-year-old building to meet the
current national primary energy requirements for new buildings.
i-5) Further reduction of primary energy can be achieved by installing RES, such as photovoltaics, if this is agreed with the cultural
preservationists. On the flat roof of the utility wings (courtyard part), 60 m2 of south-facing PV panels have been installed,
generating enough electrical energy to cover about 12% of the total annual delivered energy E′′ del for the case studied.
i-6) Energy savings can be communicated through potential financial savings. The reduction in heating and DHW costs varies
greatly under different price growth scenarios. The greater the energy savings, the greater the stability for occupants, i.e., the
20
less sensitive they are to changes in energy prices. This is particularly evident when energy supplies are uncertain, as is currently
the case in Europe due to the ongoing war crisis.
ii-1) The thermal bridge analysis shows that after the seismic upgrade, the heat losses through the respected thermal bridges
(calculated L2D) were reduced by only 9%, so it is necessary to implement certain energy efficiency measures. Both before and
after the seismic strengthening measures, there is a risk of water vapour condensation on the interior surface at critical thermal
bridge position, as shown by the coefficient fRsi, which is close to 0.7 in both cases.
ii-2) The most favourable solution from the building physics point of view is the application of thermal insulation on the external
surface, since in this situation there is the lowest heat loss through the respected thermal bridges (calculated L2D) compared to
the situation before the earthquake (85% when 12 cm thick ETICS is installed and 63% when 4 cm thick cork plaster is
installed). The second argument is the highest temperature on the interior surface, i.e., the lowest risk of occurrence of fungi and
mould.
ii-3) Although in the case with internal insulation 75% less heat loss is achieved through the respected thermal bridges (calculated
L2D) compared to the case before the energy renovation, it is necessary to pay attention to the comfort of the interior spaces. In
the case of internal insulation, the risk of water vapour condensation on the interior surface is highest at the critical thermal
bridge position (fRsi = 0.68), so special attention must be paid to reducing this risk during design.
iii-1) The transient hygrothermal calculations showed that all interventions on the existing walls changed the established state of the
dynamic hygrothermal balance. However, in a global view (at the level of the entire element), there is no accumulation of
moisture in any of the observed variants over a calculation period of 10 years.
iii-2) East-facing walls generally have a higher total amount of water, which is due to the orientation of the walls (precipitation,
intensity of solar radiation), but certainly also due to the fact that, in the case of east-facing walls, RC shotcrete applied to the
inside of the wall as part of seismic upgrading reduces its drying capacity.
iii-3) The results indicate that the analysed retrofitting solutions with internal MIB insulation work (RH < 95% on the cold side of the
insulation), which means that no interstitial condensation should occur. However, it is important to note that a water-repellent
exterior plaster or other water-repellent coating should be used if the wall is insulated internally. A water-repellent plaster
applied to the external face of the wall, for example in the form of a silicate render, would reduce the RH of the masonry and
thus also the RH at the interface between the substrate and the internal thermal insulation and give the walls additional
moisture resistance.
In conclusion, the research presented in this paper broadens the knowledge about the energy savings and comfort improvement
potential of an integrated retrofitting approach. Moreover, it also supports the view that energy renovation measures should be un
dertaken in conjunction with seismic upgrading of earthquake-damaged historic buildings. Comprehensive energy renovation mea
sures should be implemented, covering at the same time opaque and transparent envelope elements, HVAC and RES. This makes it
possible, that even if, for example, the U-values of individual elements are not met (avoiding surface condensation and compromised
comfort), that the requirements for the specific heating and cooling energy as well as the requirements for primary energy can be met at
the level of the entire building.
However, the selection of technical solutions must be clearly communicated with cultural preservationists, and their long-term
performance must be evaluated in the early design phase in order to select optimal solutions for specific case and avoid any con
struction damage. After all, historic buildings represent an invaluable heritage that is part of the historical and cultural identity of
every nation and country. However, their most important function is to provide a safe, comfortable, and healthy environment for their
occupants. Unfortunately, these basic functional requirements are not being met for the majority of historic building, and by excluding
or limiting energy renovation measures, they will continue to deteriorate and eventually lose their cultural value. Therefore, close and
open-minded cooperation between researchers, architects, engineers and preservationists is needed. This would certainly pave the way
for the application of new, state-of-the-art materials and systems in historic buildings.
Credit author statement

Bojan Milovanović: Methodology, Conceptualization, Writing – Review and editing, Supervision. Marina Bagarić: Methodology,
Conceptualization, Visualization, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft, Writing – Review and editing. Mergim Gaši: Investigation,
Writing – Review and editing. Mislav Stepinac: Visualization, Writing – Original Draft, Writing – Review and editing.
Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgment
The authors kindly acknowledge competences gained through EU projects “BIMzeED” and “The nZEB Roadshow”. One part of this
21
research was funded by the Croatian Science Foundation, grant number UIP-2019-04-3749 (ARES project—Assessment and reha
bilitation of existing structures—development of contemporary methods for masonry and timber structures).
Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2022.102300.
References
[1] A. Penna, P. Morandi, M. Rota, C.F. Manzini, F. da Porto, G. Magenes, Performance of masonry buildings during the Emilia 2012 earthquake, Bull. Earthq. Eng.
12 (2014) 2255–2273, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9496-6.
[2] S. Mazzoni, G. Castori, C. Galasso, P. Calvi, R. Dreyer, E. Fischer, A. Fulco, L. Sorrentino, J. Wilson, A. et al Penna, 2016–2017 Central Italy earthquake sequence:
seismic retrofit policy and effectiveness, Earthq. Spectra 34 (2018) 1671–1691, https://doi.org/10.1193/100717EQS197M.
[3] H. Bilgin, N. Shkodrani, M. Hysenlliu, H.B. Ozmen, E. Isik, E. Harirchian, Damage and performance evaluation of masonry buildings constructed in 1970s during
the 2019 Albania earthquakes, Eng. Fail. Anal. 131 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2021.105824.
[4] G. Vlachakis, E. Vlachaki, P.B. Lourenço, Learning from failure: damage and failure of masonry structures, after the 2017 Lesvos earthquake (Greece), Eng. Fail.
Anal. 117 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2020.104803.
[5] K.O. Cetin, S. Altun, A. Askan, M. Akgün, A. Sezerm, C. Kıncal, C.Ö. Özkan, Y. İpek, et al., The site effects in Izmir bay of October 30 2020, M7.0 samos
earthquake, Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 152 (2022), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.107051.
[6] M. Stepinac, P.B. Lourenço, J. Atalić, T. Kišiček, M. Uroš, M. Baniček, M. Šavor Novak, Damage classification of residential buildings in historical downtown
after the ML5.5 earthquake in Zagreb, Croatia in 2020, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduc. 56 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102140.
[7] Government of the Republic of Croatia and the World Bank, The Croatia earthquake - rapid damage and need assessment 2020. https://mpgi.gov.hr/
UserDocsImages/dokumenti/Potres/RDNA_web_04082020.pdf, 2020.
[8] N. Perković, M. Stepinac, V. Rajčić, J. Barbalić, Assessment of timber roof structures before and after earthquakes, Buildings 11 (2021), https://doi.org/
10.3390/buildings11110528.
[9] Republic of Croatia Ministry of Culture and Media, Register of Cultural Heritage of the Republic of Croatia, 2022. https://registar.kulturnadobra.hr/#/.
(Accessed 16 February 2022).
[10] Zagreb City Office for the Strategic Planning and Development of the City, General Urban Plan of the City of Zagreb - Amendments 2016, Final Plan Proposal,
2016. https://www.zagreb.hr/userdocsimages/arhiva/prostorni_planovi/GUP ZAGREBA_KP lipanj 2016/KP_tekstualni dio/01_GUP GZ_ID 2016 _KNJIGA I -
Odredbe za provođenje_KPP.pdf.
[11] J. Atalić, M. Uroš, M. Šavor Novak, M. Demšić, M. Nastev, The Mw5.4 Zagreb (Croatia) earthquake of March 22, 2020: impacts and response, Bull. Earthq. Eng.
19 (2021) 3461–3489, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01117-w.
[12] Energy Institute Hrvoje Požar, Minimum Energy Performance Requirements for Multi-Residential Buildings in Continental and Littoral Croatia, for the Period up
to 1970, 1971-2005, after 2006, and Nearly Zero-Energy Buildings, 2014. Croatia.
[13] European Commission, Renovation Wave: Doubling the Renovation Rate to Cut Emissions, Boost Recovery and Reduce Energy Poverty, 2020. https://ec.europa.
eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_20_1835. (Accessed 17 March 2022).
[14] European Commission, The European Green Deal, COM, 2019, p. 640, final, 2019, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:208111e4-414e-4da5-
94c1-852f1c74f351.0004.02/DOC_1&format=PDF.
[15] European Commission, Annex to the European Green Deal, COM, 2019, p. 640, final ANNEX, 2019, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?
uri=CELEX:52019DC0640&from=EN.
[16] European Commission, A Renovation Wave for Europe - Greening Our Buildings, Creating Jobs, Improving Lives. COM(2020) 662 Final, Official Journal of the
European, 2020, p. 26. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:0638aa1d-0f02-11eb-bc07-01aa75ed71a1.0003.02/DOC_1&format=PDF.
[17] European Commission, Annex to A Renovation Wave for Europe - Greening Our Buildings, Creating Jobs, Improving Lives, COM, 2020, p. 662, final ANNEX,
2020, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:0638aa1d-0f02-11eb-bc07-01aa75ed71a1.0003.02/DOC_2&format=PDF.
[18] M. Stepinac, T. Kisicek, T. Renić, I. Hafner, C. Bedon, Methods for the assessment of critical properties in existing masonry structures under seismic loads-the
ARES project, Appl. Sci. (2020) 10, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10051576.
[19] K. Gkatzogias, G. Tsionis, E. Romano, P. Negro, D. Pohoryles, D. Bournas, L. Sousa, Integrated techniques for the seismic strengthening and energy efficiency of
existing buildings, in: JRC Conference and Workshop Report, Publications Office of the European Union, 2021, https://doi.org/10.2760/665617.
[20] A. Moschella, A. Gagliano, A. Lo Faro, A. Mondello, A. Salemi, G. Sanfilippo, A methodology for an integrated approach for seismic and energy refurbishment of
historic buildings in Mediterranean area, Sustainability 10 (2018) 2448, https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072448.
[21] M. De Vita, R. D’Antonio, A. Mannella, Energy consumption and seismic retrofitting interventions in the architectural heritage: building performance
simulations of a historical building in Italy, in: CESBP 2019, MATEC Web of Conferences, vol. 282, 2019, 02099, https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/
201928202099.
[22] F. Ascione, F. Ceroni, R.F. De Masi, F. de’ Rossi, M.R. Pecce, Historical buildings: multidisciplinary approach to structural/energy diagnosis and performance
assessment, Appl. Energy 185 (2017) 1517–1528, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.11.089.
[23] S.K. Güleroğlu, M.E. Karagüler, İ. Kahraman, E.S. Umdu, Methodological approach for performance assessment of historical buildings based on seismic, energy
and cost performance: a Mediterranean case, J. Build. Eng. 31 (2020), 101372, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101372.
[24] M. Kobraei, Retrofitting Heritage Buildings for Energy and Seismic Upgrades, Master thesis, University of Victoria, 2020, http://dspace.library.uvic.ca/
bitstream/handle/1828/12146/Kobraei_Mohsen_MASc_2020.pdf.
[25] M. De Vita, A. Mannella, A. Sabino, A. Marchetti, Seismic retrofit measures for masonry walls of historical buildings, from an energy saving perspective,
Sustainability 10 (2018) 984, https://doi.org/10.3390/su10040984.
[26] I. Nardi, T. de Rubeis, M. Taddei, D. Ambrosini, S. Sfarra, The energy efficiency challenge for a historical building undergone to seismic and energy
refurbishment, Climamed 2017 – Mediterranean Conference of HVAC Historical buildings retrofit in the Mediterranean area 12-13 May 2017 - Matera, Italy,
Energy Proc. 133 (2017) 231–242, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.09.357.
[27] R. Paschoalin, N. Isaacs, Holistic renovation of historic and heritage buildings: comparing New Zealand and international scenarios, Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt.
39 (2021) 602–618, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBPA-06-2020-0049.
[28] V. Soldo, S. Novak, I. Horvat, Algorithm for calculating the energy required for heating and cooling building space according to HRN EN ISO 13790 (In
Croatian), https://mpgi.gov.hr/UserDocsImages/dokumenti/EnergetskaUcinkovitost/meteoroloski_podaci/Algoritam_HRN_EN_13790_2017.pdf, 2017.
[29] Republic of Croatia Ministry of Physical Planning; Construction and State Assets, Technical Regulation on Energy Economy and Heat Retention in Buildings,
2022 (In Croatian), Official Gazette 128/15, 70/18, 73/18, 86/18, 102/20, https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2020_09_102_1922.html.
[30] Croatian Centre of Earthquake Engineering, HCPI - Hrvatski Centar Za Potresno Inženjerstvo: the Database of Usability Classification (In Croatian), University of
Zagreb, 2020, https://www.hcpi.hr/.
[31] Republic of Croatia Ministry of physical planning; construction and state Assets, Croatian technical regulation for building structures (In Croatian), Official
Gazette 17/17, 75/20, 7/22, https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2022_01_7_72.html, 2022.
22
[32] Croatian Parliament, Law on the reconstruction of earthquake-damaged buildings in the city of Zagreb, Krapina-Zagorje county and Zagreb county (In Croatian),
Official Gazette 102/20, 10/21, 117/21, https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2021_10_117_2004.html, 2021.
[33] European Committee for Standardization, EN 1998-1. Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance—Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and
Rules for Buildings, 2004.
[34] Croatian Standards Institute, HRN EN 1998-3:2011 Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance—Part 3: Assessment and Retrofitting of
Buildings (EN 1998-3:2005+AC:2010), 2011.
[35] M. Milić, M. Stepinac, L. Lulić, N. Ivanišević, I. Matorić, B.Č. Šipoš, Y. Endo, Assessment and rehabilitation of culturally protected prince Rudolf Infantry
barracks in Zagreb after major earthquake, Buildings 11 (2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings11110508.
[36] L. Lulić, K. Ožić, T. Kišiček, I. Hafner, M. Stepinac, Post-earthquake damage assessment—case study of the educational building after the Zagreb earthquake,
Sustainability 13 (11) (2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116353.
[37] S. Markušić, D. Stanko, D. Penava, D. Trajber, R. Šalić, Preliminary observations on historical castle Trakošćan (Croatia) performance under recent ML ≥ 5.5
earthquakes, Geosciences 11 (11) (2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences11110461.
[38] J. Pojatina, D. Barić, D. Anđić, D. Bjegović, Structural renovation of residential building in Zagreb after the 22 March 2020 earthquake, Gradevinar 73 (2021),
https://doi.org/10.14256/JCE.3195.2021.
[39] I. Hafner, D. Lazarević, T. Kišiček, M. Stepinac, Post-earthquake assessment of a historical masonry building after the Zagreb earthquake—case study, Buildings
12 (3) (2022), https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12030323.
[40] M. Stepinac, M. Gašparović, A review of emerging technologies for an assessment of safety and seismic vulnerability and damage detection of existing masonry
structures, Appl. Sci. 10 (15) (2020), https://doi.org/10.3390/app10155060.
[41] (In Croatian)M. Uroš, M. Todorić, M. Crnogorac, J. Atalić, M. Šavor Novak, S. Lakušić (Eds.), Earthquake Engineering - Renovation of Masonry Buildings,
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Zagreb, Croatia, 2021.
[42] A. Auliciems, S.V. Szokolay, Thermal Comfort, PLEA NOTE 3 Passive and Low Energy Architecture, 2007.
[43] B. Milovanović, M. Bagarić, How to achieve Nearly zero-energy buildings standard, Gradevinar 72 (2020) 703–720, https://doi.org/10.14256/JCE.2923.2020.
[44] N. Carbonare, T. Pflug, C. Bongs, A. Wagner, Comfort-oriented control strategies for decentralized ventilation using co-simulation, IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci.
Eng. 609 (2019) 1–7, https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/609/3/032018.
[45] European Committee for Standardization, EN 16798-1:2019 Energy Performance of Buildings – Ventilation for Buildings – Part 1: Indoor Environmental Input
Parameters for Design and Assessment of Energy Performance of Buildings Addressing Indoor Air Quality, Thermal Environment, lighting and aco, 2019.
[46] A. Bonora, K. Fabbri, M. Pretelli, Historic indoor microclimate, the role of HVAC in heritage buildings’ restoration: the case of the palace of Venaria Reale,
J. Phys. Conf. (2021) 2069, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2069/1/012078.
[47] Diasen, Diathonite Evolution, 2022. https://www.diasen.com/en/diathonite-evolution/. (Accessed 1 March 2022).
[48] A.G. Fixit, Fixit Aerogel Insulating Plaster, 2022. https://www.fixit-aerogel.com/en/. (Accessed 1 March 2022).
[49] I.M. Lisitano, D. Laggiard, S. Fantucci, V. Serra, E. Fenoglio, Evaluating the impact of indoor insulation on historic buildings: a multilevel approach involving
heat and moisture simulations, Appl. Sci. 11 (2021), https://doi.org/10.3390/app11177944.
[50] S. Van de Putte, E. Himpe, J. Nonneman, M. Steeman, A. Janssens, Assessment of the heat loss coefficient of a renovated historical dwelling using a co-heating
test, J. Phys. Conf. (2021) 2069, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2069/1/012085.
[51] D. Bottino-Leone, M. Larcher, D. Herrera-Avellanosa, F. Haas, A. Troi, Evaluation of natural-based internal insulation systems in historic buildings through a
holistic approach, Energy 181 (2019) 521–531, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.05.139.
[52] M. Frigione, M. Lettieri, A. Sarcinella, Phase change materials for energy efficiency in buildings and their use in mortars, Materials 12 (2019), https://doi.org/
10.3390/ma12081260.
[53] V. Cascione, E. Marra, D. Zirkelbach, S. Liuzzi, P. Stefanizzi, Hygrothermal analysis of technical solutions for insulating the opaque building envelope, in: Energy
Procedia, Elsevier B.V., 2017, pp. 203–210, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.08.141.
[54] E. Vereecken, S. Roels, Hygrothermal performance of internally insulated masonry walls with embedded wooden beam heads: a field study on the impact of
hydrophobisation, J. Phys. Conf. (2021) 2069, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2069/1/012019.
[55] F. Lucchesi, S. Svendsen, K. Koldtoft, Internal insulation of preservation worthy facades, J. Phys. Conf. (2021) 2069, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2069/
1/012084.
[56] N.F. Jensen, C. Rode, E.B. Møller, Hygrothermal assessment of internally insulated historic solid masonry walls with focus on the thermal bridge due to internal
partition walls, J. Phys. Conf. (2021) 2069, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2069/1/012079.
[57] Knauf Insulation Croatia Ltd, KI Expert Plus - Computer Program for the Calculation of Energy Performance of Building, 2021. Version 7.10.0.0 (In Croatian).
[58] Republic of Croatia Ministry of Physical Planning; Construction and State Assets, Primary Energy Factors and CO2 Emissions, 2017. https://mpgi.gov.hr/
UserDocsImages/dokumenti/EnergetskaUcinkovitost/meteoroloski_podaci/FAKTORI_primarne_energije.pdf.
[59] (In Croatian), Government of the Republic of Croatia, Package of Measures to Mitigate the Growth of Energy Prices, 2022, https://vlada.gov.hr/
UserDocsImages/Vijesti/2022/02 veljača/16 veljače/Paket mjera za ublažavanje rasta cijena 16-02-2022.pdf.
[60] Croatian Standards Institute, HRN EN ISO 10211:2017 Thermal Bridges in Building Construction — Heat Flows and Surface Temperatures — Detailed
Calculations, 2017.
[61] S. Medved, S. Domjan, C. Arkar, Sustainable Technologies for Nearly Zero Energy Buildings - Design and Evaluation Methods, Springer Tracts in Civil
Engineering, 2019.
[62] S. Medved, Building Physics - Heat, Ventilation, Moisture, Light, Sound, Fire, and Urban Microclimate, Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering, 2022.
[63] S.P. Dudić, I.M. Ignjatović, D.D. Šešlija, V.A. Blagojević, M.M. Stojiljković, Leakage quantification of compressed air on pipes using thermovision, Therm. Sci. 16
(2012) 571–581, https://doi.org/10.2298/TSCI120503191D.
[64] Croatian Standards Institute, HRN EN ISO 14683:2017 Thermal Bridges in Building Construction — Linear Thermal Transmittance — Simplified Methods and
Default Values, 2017.
[65] M. Gaši, B. Milovanović, S. Gumbarević, M. Bagarić, The effect of thermal bridges in buildings undergoing seismic retrofitting (In Croatian), in: S. Lakušić (Ed.),
Proceedings of the 8th Congress of Croatian Builders “Construction and Climate Change,”, Croatian Association of Civil Engineers, Zagreb, 2021, pp. 41–53.
[66] Department of Materials Faculty of Civil Engineering University of Zagreb, Croral - computer program for thermal bridge analysis and vapour analysis. https://
www.croral.org/, 2021.
[67] European Committee for Standardization, EN ISO 10077-2:2017 Thermal Performance of Windows, Doors and Shutters — Calculation of Thermal
Transmittance — Part 2: Numerical Method for Frames, 2017.
[68] K. Kiatreungwattana, L. Simpson, Demonstration and evaluation of lightweight high performance secondary windows. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/
79112.pdf, 2021.
[69] Passipedia, Local Thermal Comfort, 2019. https://passipedia.org/basics/building_physics_-_basics/thermal_comfort/local_thermal_comfort. (Accessed 5 March
2022).
[70] B. Milovanović, D. Mikulić, Assessment method for combined heat, air and moisture transfer in building components, in: V. Zanki (Ed.), Proceedings of the
International Conference on Energy Management in Cultural Heritage, UNDP Croatia, 2011.
[71] D. Bastien, M. Winther-Gaasvig, Influence of driving rain and vapour diffusion on the hygrothermal performance of a hygroscopic and permeable building
envelope, Energy 164 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.07.195.
[72] H.L.S.C. Hens, Combined heat, air, moisture modelling: a look back, how, of help? Build. Environ. 91 (2015) 138–151, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2015.03.009.
[76] Croatian Standards Institute, HRN EN ISO 13788:2002 Hygrothermal Performance of Building Components and Building Elements – Internal Surface
Temperature to Avoid Critical Surface Humidity and Interstitial Condensation – Calculation Methods, 2002.
[77] M. Pinterić, Building Physics - from Physical Principles to International Standards, Springer, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57484-4.
23
[78] H.S.L. Hens, Applied Building Physics: Ambient Conditions, Building Performance and Material Properties, second ed., Ernst & Sohn (A Wiley Company, 2016
https://doi.org/10.1002/9783433607114.
[79] V. Peixoto de Freita, J.M.P.Q. Delgado (Eds.), Building Pathology and Rehabilitation - Course Outline, Springer, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-
31158-1.
[80] M. Bagarić, I. Banjad Pečur, B. Milovanović, Hygrothermal performance of ventilated prefabricated sandwich wall panel from recycled construction and
demolition waste – a case study, Energy Build. 206 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2019.109573.
[81] L. Ducoulombier, Z. Lafhaj, Comparative study of hygrothermal properties of five thermal insulation materials, Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 10 (2017) 628–640,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2017.11.005.
[82] J. Yoo, S.J. Chang, S. Yang, S. Wi, Y.U. Kim, S. Kim, Performance of the hygrothermal behavior of the CLT wall using different types of insulation; XPS, PF board
and glass wool, Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 24 (2021), 100846, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2021.100846.
[83] Z. Huang, Application of Bamboo in Building Envelope. Green Energy and Technology, Springer, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12032-0.
[84] K. Pietrzyk, A.S. Kalagasidis, T. Gustavsson, The use of HAM tools versus the traditional steady-state methods in the aspect of quantification of probability of
undesired moisture conditions, in: HB 2006 - Healthy Buildings: Creating a Healthy Indoor Environment for People, Proceedings, 2006, pp. 67–70. http://www.
scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84871587900&partnerID=tZOtx3y1.
[85] D. Szagri, B. Nagy, Experimental and numerical hygrothermal analysis of a refurbished double-skin flat roof, Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 25 (2021), 100941, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2021.100941.
[86] D. Zirkelbach, S.-R. Mehra, K.-P. Sedlbauer, H.-M. Künzel, B. Stöckl, A hygrothermal green roof model to simulate moisture and energy performance of building
components, Energy Build. 145 (2017) 79–91, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.04.001.
[87] Fraunhofer Institute for Building Physics, WUFI® Pro - computer program for one-dimensional hygrothermal calculations (n.d.), https://wufi.de/en/software/
wufi-pro/.
[88] S.O. Mundt-Petersen, Moisture Safety in Wood Frame Buildings - Blind Evaluation of the Hygrothermal Calculation Tool WUFI Using Field Measurements and
Determination of Factors Affecting the Moisture Safety, PhD thesis, Lund University, 2015.
[89] S. Kordziel, S.V. Glass, C.R. Boardman, R.A. Munson, S.L. Zelinka, S. Pei, P.C. Tabares-Velasco, Hygrothermal Characterization and Modeling of Cross-Laminated
Timber in the Building Envelope, Building and Environment, 2020, p. 177, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.106866.
[90] T. Ghazaryan, F. Tariku, Hygrothermal performance assessment of split insulated cork wall assemblies under various moisture load conditions, J. Phys. Conf.
(2021) 2069, https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/2069/1/012031.
[91] European Committee for Standardization, EN 15026:2007 Hygrothermal Performance of Building Components and Building Elements - Assessment of Moisture
Transfer by Numerical Simulation, 2007.
[92] German Institute for Standardization, DIN 4108-3:2018-10 Thermal Protection and Energy Economy in Buildings - Part 3: Protection against Moisture Subject to
Climate Conditions - Requirements, Calculation Methods and Directions for Planning and Construction, 2018.
[93] K. Sedlbauer, Prediction of Mould Fungus Formation on the Surface of and inside Building Components, PhD thesis, Universität Stuttgart, 2001, http://www.
ibp.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ibp/en/documents/ks_dissertation_etcm1021-30729.pdf.
24

Energy Renovation of The Multi-Residential Historic Building After The Zagreb Earthquake - Case Study

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Energy Renovation of The Multi-Residential Historic Building After The Zagreb Earthquake - Case Study

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Studies in Thermal Engineering 38 (2022) 102300

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Thermal Engineering

Energy renovation of the multi-residential historic building after

2. The case study

Envelope surface area, A [m2] 2941.41

DAMAGE OF WESTERN-ORIENTED EXTERNAL WALLS (utility wings – courtyard)

FAILURE OF THE GABLE WALL – North façade

DAMAGE DETECTED INSIDE THE BUILDING – Wall at 3rd floor [30]

2.2. Damage after the Zagreb earthquake

2.3. Integrated retrofitting approach

Fig. 3. Graphical representation of the integrated retrofitting approach.

3.2. Seismic concept

Fig. 4. Selected seismic concept for strengthening building under observation.

Conventional thermal plaster (TP) 0.110 20 400 1000

Baseline Existing Old existing windows – / / / 10 1 /

Seismic Old existing windows – Concrete shotcrete or new RC walls, 8 1 /

1 SU ER_1 TP þ Old existing windows ETICS (12 cm) TP (4 cm) TP (4 cm) 6 1 /

2 SU ER_2 CP þ W New secondary windows (2 × CP (4 cm) CP (4 cm) CP (4 cm) 3 1 /

3 SU ER_3 CP þ W New secondary windows (2 × CP (4 cm) CP (4 cm) CP (4 cm) 1.5 / 1

4.2. Analysed energy efficiency measures

4.3. Results and discussion

Existing condition Old existing 387530.76 294.88 / 85592.85 /

SU ER_2 CP þ ETICS þ W Old existing 177294.14 138.53 − 53.0 39308.40 − 54.1

SU ER_3 CP þ ETICS þ W þ Old existing 123957.19 98.00 − 66.8 27530.37 − 67.8

5. The effect of thermal bridges

5.1. Geometric models and boundary conditions

5.2. Results and discussion

Boundary name T [◦ C] RH [%] h [W/(m2 K)]

Interior 20,00 60 7,69

CASE 1 – Thermal bridge before seismic upgrading.

6. Long-term hygrothermal performance

6.1. Analysed retrofitting cases

Case 1 – HAM 30 cm / / West

6.2. Results and discussion

Credit author statement

Declaration of competing interest

Data will be made available on request.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

You might also like