Implementation of the Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) Model for the Assessment of a Retrofitted Historical Masonry Building

Abstract

Achieving a satisfactory level for indoor environments of historical buildings is an ongoing problem that needs to be solved due to a large demand for deep retrofits in the whole of Europe. The implementation of the indoor environmental quality index (IEQ) to predict an occupant’s satisfaction in thermo-modernized historical buildings is a new concept which is a response to existing needs. In this article, a relevant study is provided with the intention to evaluate the indoor environmental performance of retrofitting effects in historical buildings dating back to the years 1873–1878. Considering the historical character of the buildings, some of the cellar spaces were fitted out with an innovative internal insulation system of mineral sheets based on calcium silicate to prevent water vapor condensation and effectively limit mold growth. The IEQ methodology was applied for retrofitted and non-retrofitted spaces as a comparison. Four essential components of indoor quality are investigated: thermal comfort, indoor air quality, acoustic comfort, and visual quality. The results of sub-component indexes are calculated based on the measured indoor parameters and the specific sensory functions. This paper discusses the results of an indoor environmental analysis including a mycological air quality assessment with the newly developed IAQindex (fungal air contamination index), total volatile organic compound concentration (TVOC), CO2, and formaldehyde (HCHO) assessment, the evaluation energy-related thermal comfort, acoustic, and visual quality, of modernized spaces. A questionnaire survey study was additionally carried out among a building’s users intentioned to compare the accounts of satisfaction before and after the retrofitting process and also to compare “subjective” results with the one’s based on in situ tests. The retrofitting approach was proven to be effective in limiting the presence of molds and a significant difference in indoor environmental quality between thermally insulated and uninsulated spaces was observed and discussed.

Low-Emissivity Window Films as an Energy Retrofit Option for a Historical Stone Building in Cold Climate

“…Old and historic buildings are mostly energy-inefficient [2,3], and generate more emissions than new buildings [4]. Most of these buildings also suffer from thermal discomfort because when they were built, the main focus was on architecture, durability, mechanical performance, function, and to a much lesser extent, the occupants' comfort and health [5]. Although old and historic buildings are exempt from strict energy-related requirements, retrofitting them has huge potential to provide improved indoor thermal comfort [5] and a reduction in their energy consumption and CO 2 emissions [3,6], which ensures the continued use of these buildings over time and, consequently, their conservation [7].…”

Beyond Cultural and Historic Values, Sustainability as a New Kind of Value for Historic Buildings

“…A number of experts stress the indoor overheating produced during the summer due to interior insulation of the envelope [31,32]. Some of them even add that interior insulation also causes permanent moisture, a larger quantity of volatile contaminants, and radon pollution, with no other solution than a mechanical ventilation system [33,34].…”

Global Comfort Indices in Indoor Environments: A Survey

“…However, other relevant research on different case studies concerning IEQ factors and/or their relationships were found for this review. For the sake of completeness, these pertinent studies are mentioned below: Chiang et al (2001) [74], Frontczak and Wargocki (2011) [75], Kim and de Dear (2012) [76], Catalina and Iordache [77], Sakhare and Ralegaonkar [78], Nimlyat and Kandar (2015) [79], Gadotti and Albatici (2016) [80], Ricciardi and Buratti (2018) [81], Nimlyat (2018) [82], Yang and Moon (2019) [83], Piasecki (2019) [84], Rohde et al (2020) [85], Piasecki et al (2020) [86], and Tang et al (2020) [87].…”