Sustainable Retrofit Strategies for an Existing Laboratory Building

As 60% of buildings in the United States were constructed prior to 1979 (CBECS 2012) and prior to the 1975 adoption of minimal energy performance benchmarks established by ASHRAE 90 (Laustsen 2008), there are currently more existing, inefficiently performing buildings than newer, post energy crisis buildings in the United States.

We are faced with an urgent, global responsibility to retrofit existing buildings and severely improve their energy performance, as much as 80-90% by the year 2050 (Bazaz et. al, 2018). To achieve such energy consumption reductions in a span of just 3 decades, efficient and proper retrofitting strategies of existing buildings will be crucial. However, existing research on sustainable retrofit methods for historic buildings is scarce, as most quantitative simulation methods are geared toward the new design and construction of new buildings. Yet, retrofitting of existing buildings, as opposed to demolishing them and building new buildings is more environmentally sustainable (Aksamija 2017), and the wide array of available computational technologies can assist with developing an efficient framework for quickly evaluating both passive and active retrofit strategies in to quantitatively improve performance of existing buildings.

Due to some significant challenges in retrofitting of existing buildings, associated primarily with their generalized lack of passive design strategies, outdated system technologies, inefficient spatial organization, lack of maintenance, and aging among others, this process is often perceived as economically unfeasible, uncertain, and time-intensive. It is a challenge to empirically assess building performance, extents of physical decay, or to know composition layers of solid facades despite the availability of current day scanning technologies. Designers must heavily rely on archival drawings for much of this information, which may or may not have been constructed as drawn and for which details may not have been drawn. Moreover, archival drawings illustrate optimally performing design intent, not accounting for aged decay or lack of maintenance. Thus, the risks of uncovering underlying conditions which may extend retrofit projects’ timelines and budgets persist. Beyond the scope of challenges associated with retrofitting of facades and mechanical systems, adaptations to building codes often require significant reconfigurations and re-sizing of interior spaces and their circulation, which pose additional challenges for designers.

However, despite these challenges, there are also numerous opportunities in retrofitting existing buildings. Implementing sustainable retrofit measures to achieve more sustainable performance can ensure continued, long-term function (Aksamija 2017), improve occupant comfort, health, and a general sense of well-being (Tobias et al. 2009), and ensure higher real-estate value and interest of occupancy by the users, offsetting the need for new construction (Smith and Gill, 2011). It would take decades for a new high-performance building to overcome the negative environmental impacts from new construction (Tabataabaee et al., 2015), and it is the embodied energy saved in existing building structures that provides one of the main environmental benefits of building reuse, which reduces carbon emissions (Aksamija, 2017). Achieving sustainable, high-performing retrofits can be realized through the implementation of both passive design strategies and advanced technologies, which can be analyzed and evaluated by utilizing computational simulation software programs. They allow designers to quantify, evaluate, and compare numerous combinations of potential retrofit strategies, and to select ones that offer the highest possible energy efficiency while being least invasive and cost-inducive.

The goal of this research was to utilize a combination of these methods to help inform potential and delicate retrofit strategies of a historic laboratory building. Though a single case study, the employed methods can be applied to any style of existing buildings as a process through which to analyze and quantify performance and develop sustainable retrofit strategies.

Aksamija, A., Aksamija, Z., Farid Mohajer, M., Upadhyaya, M. et al. (2020). "Thermoelectric Facades: Simulation of Heating and Cooling Potential for Novel Intelligent Facades", Proceedings of the Facade World Congress 2020.

Aksamija, A., Aksamija, Z., Counihan, C.H., Brown. D., et al. (2019) "Experimental Study of Operating Conditions and Integration of Thermoelectric Materials in Facade Systems", Frontiers in Energy Research, Vol. 7, pp. 1-10.

Aksamija, A. 2017. “Impact of Retrofitting Energy-Efficient Design Strategies on Energy Use of Existing Commercial Buildings: Comparative Study of Low-Impact and Deep Retrofit Strategies.” Journal of Green Building 12 (4): 70–88.

Aksamija, A. 2013. Sustainable Facades: Design Methods for High-Performance Building Envelopes. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

ASHRAE. 2019. ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2019: Energy Standard for Buildings except Low-Rise Residential Buildings: I-P Edition. ASHRAE.

Bazaz, Amir, Paolo Bertoldi, Marcos Buckeridge, Anton Cartwright, Heleen De Coninck, François Engelbrecht, Daniela Jacob, et al. 2018. “Summary for Urban Policy Makers - What the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C Means for Cities.” C40 Cities. Retrieved from https://www.c40.org/researches/summary-for-urban-policymakers-what-the-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5-c-means-for-cities.

EPA. (2008). “Laboratories for the 21st Century: An Introduction to Low-Energy Design (Revised)”. United States: N. p., 2008. Retrieved from https://www.osti.gov/biblio/907998

Griffin, B., (2005). “Laboratory Design Guide. [Electronic Resource] : For Clients, Architects and Their Design Team : The Laboratory Design Process from Start to Finish”, 3rd ed. Architectural Press. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat06087a&AN=umass.016085679&site=eds-live&scope=site.

Laustsen J. 2008. Energy efficiency requirements in building codes, energy efficiency policies for new buildings. OECD/IEA.

Mohammad Shafee, Maryam. 2014. “Architecture for Science: Space as an Incubator to Nurture Research.” Masters Theses, University of Massachusetts Amherst.

NFRC. 2017a. “NFRC 500-2017[E0A0] – Procedure for Determining Fenestration Product Condensation Resistance Rating.” NFRC (National Fenestration Rating Council), Inc. Greenbelt, MD.

NFRC. 2017b. “THERM 7 / WINDOW 7 – NFRC Simulation Manual,” NFRC (National Fenestration Rating Council), Inc. Greenbelt, MD.

NREL. n.d. “PVWatts Calculator,” National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Alliance for Sustainable Neergy, LLC. Golden, CO. Retrieved from https://pvwatts.nrel.gov/

O’Connor, R. 2021. “Simplicity vs. Complexity – Modeling for Energy & Daylighting Analysis in Sefaira,” Sefaira. Retrieved from https://support.sefaira.com/hc/en-us/articles/206331335-Simplicity-Vs-Complexity-Modeling-for-Energy-Daylighting-Analysis-in-Sefaira

Smith A., and Gill G. (2011). Toward Zero Carbon: The Chicago Central Area DeCarbonization Plan. Edited by Kevin Nance and Debbie Fry. Hong Kong: The Images Publishing Group.

SollarWall. 2021. “How it Works,” Conerval Engineering Inc. Retrieved from https://www.solarwall.com/technology/solar-wall-single-stage/

Special Collections and University Archives, University of Massachusetts Amherst Libraries.

Tabataabaee, S., Weil, B., and Aksamija, A., (2015). “Negative Life-Cycle Emissions Growth Rate through Retrofit of Existing Institutional Buildings”, Proceedings of the Architectural Research Centers Consortium (ARCC) 2015 Conference, Chicago, April 6-9, pp. 212-221.

Tobias, Leanne, George Vavaroutsos, Mark Bennett, Eric A. Grasberger, Tom Paladino, Rod Wille, and Michael Zimmer. 2009. Retrofitting Office Buildings to Be Green and Energy-Efficient: Optimizing Building Performance, Tenant Satisfaction, and Financial Return. Washington D.C.: Urban Land Institute.

WUFI. 2019. “WUFI Pro 6 Manual,” Fraunhofer IBP 2019, Germany.