Assessment of integrated solutions for the combined energy efficiency improvement and seismic strengthening of existing URM buildings

Citation: Requena-Garcia-Cruz, M.-V.; Díaz-Borrego, J.; Romero- Sánchez, E.; Morales-Esteban, A.; Campano, M.-A. Assessment of Integrated Solutions for the Combined Energy Efficiency Improvement and Seismic Strengthening of Existing URM Buildings. Buildings 2022,12, 1276. https://doi.org/10.3390/ buildings12081276 Academic Editors: Anastasios Tsiavos, Ricardo Monteiro and Rita Bento Received: 12 July 2022 Accepted: 16 August 2022 Published: 20 August 2022 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). buildings Article Assessment of Integrated Solutions for the Combined Energy Efficiency Improvement and Seismic Strengthening of Existing URM Buildings Maria-Victoria Requena-Garcia-Cruz 1,* , Julia Díaz-Borrego 2, Emilio Romero-Sánchez 1, Antonio Morales-Esteban 1,3 and Miguel-Angel Campano 2 1Department of Building Structures and Geotechnical Engineering, University of Seville, Av. Reina Mercedes, 2, 41012 Seville, Spain 2Department of Building Constructions I, University of Seville, Av. Reina Mercedes, 2, 41012 Seville, Spain 3Institute of Architecture and Construction Sciences, University of Seville, Av. Reina Mercedes, 2, 41012 Seville, Spain *Correspondence: mr[email protected] Abstract: The European building stock is an aging infrastructure, mainly built prior to building codes. Furthermore, 65% of these buildings are located in seismic regions, which need to be both energetic and seismically retrofitted to comply with performance targets. Given this, this manuscript presents integrated constructive solutions that combine both energy efficiency improvement and seismic strengthening. The goal and novelty is to design and to evaluate one-shot, compatible, noninvasive, and complementary solutions applied to the façades of buildings with a minimum cost. To do so, different constraints have been borne in mind: the urban environment, achievable seismic and energy performance targets, and reduced construction costs. The method was applied to an old Spanish neighbourhood constructed in the 1960s. Different retrofitting packages were proposed for an unreinforced masonry case study building. A sensitivity analysis was performed to assess the effects of each configuration. A benefit/cost ratio was proposed to comparatively assess and to rank the solutions. The results of the seismoenergetic performance assessment showed that improving the behaviour of walls leads to higher benefit ratios than improving the openings. However, this latter strategy generates much lower construction costs. Integrating seismic into energetic retrofitting solutions supposes negligible additional costs but can improve the seismic behaviour of buildings by up to 240%. The optimal solution was the addition of higher ratios of steel grids and intermediate profiles in openings while adding thermal insulation in walls and renovating the window frames with PVC and standard 4/6/4 double glazing. Keywords: combined energy and seismic retrofit; building refurbishment; integrated interventions; energy saving; seismic retrofitting; unreinforced masonry walls 1. Introduction 1.1. Background and Motivation Most existing buildings in the European Union (EU) are reaching their nominal life, resulting in a significant degradation of their structural and nonstructural elements as well as their constructive materials. Moreover, 80% of the European residential building stock was built prior to the implementation of restrictive standards [ 1 ]. Therefore, they have become obsolescent and do not comply with modern requirements in terms of seismic safety, energy efficiency, and living comfort [ 2 ]. This may result in the partial or total collapse of these obsolescent structures, considering that at least 40% of them are located in regions of moderate to high seismic hazard [ 3 ]. Furthermore, these buildings are characterised by a low energy performance since their energy consumption is up to 40% of the total energy consumed by the EU [4]. Buildings 2022,12, 1276. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12081276 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings Buildings 2022,12, 1276 2 of 25 It is estimated that at least 65% of the EU building stock located in seismic regions needs to be both energetically and seismically retrofitted to comply with minimum acceptable targets [ 4 ]. Given this situation, the EU and national governments have shown a growing interest in the seismic strengthening and energy efficiency improvement of the building stock. In this context, the EU Green Deal was approved to achieve climate neutrality by 2050 [ 5 ]. To this end, the EU has established residential building retrofitting programmes to improve energy efficiency, focusing on reducing the risk of energy poverty. In addition, the new EU rules for energy consumption and emission management aim to improve energy efficiency by at least 32.5% by 2030 [ 5 ]. In the case of Spain, the national PRE5000 programme aims to promote energy refurbishment to ultimately reduce the energy consumption and the carbon emissions of the building stock. For this purpose, energy rehabilitation activities have been funded by the EU Next Generation Fund and in the framework of the Spanish Recovery, Transformation, and Resilience Plan. Despite investing major economic resources for the reduction of energy consumption and pollution emissions, seismic safety has usually been omitted in retrofitting activities. Several agreements have been signed on seismic risk reduction, such as the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030. This framework supports the application of science and technology to decision making in disaster risk reduction [ 6 ]. It also highlights the importance of novel analyses and methodologies in the seismic retrofitting of existing structures to improve earthquake safety and resilience. In this context, at the EU level, the Eurocode 8 (EC8) was proposed as a homogenisation tool to standardise seismic performance assessment and target behaviour [7]. Focusing on Spain, recent seismic events revealed the high seismic vulnerability of existing buildings, particularly after the 2011 Lorca earthquake. During this event, several buildings, especially unreinforced masonry (URM) structures, were damaged or collapsed, resulting in significant social and economic losses [ 8 ]. Spanish URM buildings present typical characteristics that make them highly vulnerable to earthquakes [ 9 ]: a lack of seismic design (they were built before the application of seismic regulations), mixed structures (URM walls and reinforced concrete (RC) frames), poor maintenance, degradation of materials due to ageing effects, a low quality of materials, and irregularities in floor plan and height. Past recent earthquakes in the EU have mainly impacted low-rise domestic masonry buildings, while more modern RC buildings, built following recent seismic regulations, have almost been unaffected [ 10 ]. Moreover, recent works on the damage accumulation on URM structures during seismic events pointed out that these structures show significant vulnerability to sequences of induced seismicity events [ 11 ]. A large number of these URM buildings can be found in Andalusia, which were mainly constructed in the 1960s–1970s. This region is located in southern Spain, and it is characterised by a moderate seismic hazard due to the convergence of the Eurasian–African tectonic plates. Hence, the seismic vulnerability of these buildings, coupled with the considerable seismic hazard, indicates their significant seismic risk. These old buildings that can be usually found in Andalusia are also typified by a low energy performance. The large amount of energy needed to reach acceptable comfort conditions and the corresponding CO 2 emissions indicate the very scarce energy efficiency of these buildings [ 4 ]. In fact, in Spain, the energy consumption of residential buildings represents about 20% of the total consumption of the country, and this has been growing steadily over recent years [ 12 ]. This poor performance mainly stems from the lack of insulation of walls and roofs, poor performance of acclimatisation systems, and ineffective sun exposure. In addition, in Spain, 93% of residential buildings were built before the first national Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD), and only 0.3% of the existing residential buildings have been energetically rehabilitated [1]. 1.2. Overview of Seismic and Energy Retrofitting Techniques The circumstances described above highlight that the Spanish building stock needs a comprehensive retrofitting to achieve adequate requirements in terms of seismic and Buildings 2022,12, 1276 3 of 25 energy target behaviours. URM building seismic retrofitting is based on four main strategies [ 13 ]: (a) reinforcing wall–wall and wall–slab connections, (b) increasing the rigidity of slabs, (c) improving the out-of-plane behaviour by adding tie rods or ring beams, and (d) strengthening masonry walls. The URM buildings built in the 1960s–1970s in Andalusia usually present rigid floors, ring beams, and good connections between walls and slabs. Therefore, techniques focused on improving the strength of masonry walls are the most effective. Within this strategy, the most implemented materials for the reinforcement of masonry panels are steel, used in profiles or grids, and fibre-reinforced polymers (FRPs), combined with mortar layers [ 13 ]. There are some other in-plane retrofitting techniques based on the implementation of a mortar joint technique. In [ 14 ], a collar-jointed wall was assessed to strength single-lead walls. However, the construction costs of these solutions are higher than the addition of steel grids or FRP strips. Steel grids added to masonry walls are one of the most conventional retrofitting techniques [15]. They are usually combined with the shotcrete technique to add mortar layers as experimentally analysed and validated in [ 16 ]. In [ 17 ], an innovative system constituted by a pretensioned stainless-steel grid was tested. A full-scale masonry wall reinforced was subjected to nonlinear static (NLS) analyses. It was concluded that this solution could considerably increase the strength and ductility of the wall. In [ 18 ], cyclic tests on masonry walls reinforced with single- and double-layered steel grout were performed. The specimens could withstand larger imposed loads and displacements, proving the efficiency of the strengthening technique. Steel is also added as profiles to create structural window frame systems to improve the in-plane behaviour of the masonry building. In [ 19 ], this solution was added to stiffen the openings, and it was validated through a series of experimental tests. In [ 13 ], this system was numerically assessed and applied to a case study building, being the most effective solution compared with the addition of steel grids. FRP combined with mortar layers was proved to enhance the strength of panels and to prevent from the diagonal shear failure of walls. In [ 20 ], the effectiveness of the FRP layout was parametrically and numerically analysed to improve the global seismic resistance of a URM specimen. In [ 21 ], the flexural and shear strengthening of URM panels through FRP bars was experimentally assessed. These works on the addition of FRP strips indicate that this material presents an extremely high strength/weight ratio, a high corrosion resistance, and easy application. However, it has a high economic cost. As an alternative to FRP strips, in [ 3 ], a novel composite material called textile-reinforced mortar (TRM) was experimentally validated. This consists of textile fibre reinforcement combined with inorganic matrices. It was concluded that it could produce a similar percentage of enhancement to FRP if the textile strips are carefully assessed. Regarding energy performance, the most influential factor in the energy consumption of residential buildings is the energy invested in climate control (heating and cooling). This represents 47.8% of the total annual energy consumption in Spanish households [ 4 ]. Focusing on the old URM buildings in Andalusia, these are characterised by the generalised low economic level of the population. This means that these dwellings do not present integrated air-conditioning systems. Instead, they generally rely on inefficient systems whose energy consumption/comfort ratio benefit is not optimal. Therefore, controlling the energy demand resulting from the transfer through the envelope is the most effective measure to reduce the thermal consumption associated with residential climate control [ 12 ]. As concluded in [ 1 ], the main strategies to reduce the demand are increasing the thermal insulation in façades and the renovation of windows and/or glazing systems. The authors reached this conclusion after performing a bibliographic review of the energy rehabilitation measures developed for the Spanish housing stock. The increase in roof insulation is the third most used technique, while the implementation of solar shading is the fourth. In [ 22 ], the authors observed that indoor thermal conditions were substantially improved by increasing the façades’ thermal properties, which led to a positive effect on the occupants’ living comfort. In [ 12 ], different strategies were proposed for the enhancement of the behaviour of openings by: replacing the glazing (single, double, and low Buildings 2022,12, 1276 4 of 25 emissivity) and frames (with or without thermal breaks). The authors concluded that the implementation of a 4-6-4 glazing without thermal breaks alone reduces the total energy demand of the building by 10%. In [ 23 ], the authors analysed the impact of energy efficiency measures in relation to the hydrothermal behaviour derived from the transfer of the external environment to the interior through the envelope. They pointed out the danger of moisture-related problems (risk of condensation, structural degradation, microbial growth) arising from an improper retrofitting of buildings, which can lead to the airtightness of the envelope. However, in general, the addition of thermal insulation on the back of façades reduces the risk of thermal bridges and condensation, presenting itself as an easier and safer solution [22]. The building’s thermal and lighting performances, as well as its energy consumption, are affected by the energy exchange processes that take place between the envelope and its surrounding environment [ 24 ]. As demonstrated in [ 25 ], the urban background is one of the factors that most affect the final energy performance of the building. In fact, this can affect the energy consumption by up to ± 10%. Similarly, in [ 26 ], it was found that the building performance depends, to a large extent, on its position with regard to its urban surrounding. The authors pointed out that the urban environment has a direct effect on the building’s air-conditioning loads. Therefore, the surrounding urban configuration must be taken into account to obtain the true potential energy saving that can be achieved [ 27 ]. In detailed analyses, different orientations of façades and energy saving analyses per dwelling will result in optimised actions in terms of material, environmental, and economic savings compared with single and uniform envelope solutions [12]. 1.3. Combined Seismic and Energy Retrofitting Techniques Until the last decade, seismic and energy retrofitting techniques were considered objectives to be achieved separately [ 28 ]. In some cases, the solutions were implemented without considering the benefits of performing integrated interventions. In [ 29 ], it was concluded that structural components had a larger impact on the economic losses than the energy performance if the structure was located in an earthquake-prone area. Additionally, it was pointed out that the energy retrofitting could affect the masses and structural configuration of the building, leading to a different seismic behaviour. In [ 28 ], different retrofitting techniques were assessed individually and then combined but not integrated. The solutions were classified according to the Italian seismic risk assessment. In [ 30 ], two different solutions were assessed to determine the benefits of the Italian tax incentives. The solutions were based on strengthening with reinforced plaster and the addition of thermal insulation of some structural walls selected randomly. It was concluded that tax incentives are essential to the profitability of building refurbishment [ 31 ]. In [ 32 ], a method was proposed to define fragility curves for RC buildings considering both the energy and the structural behaviour. Additionally, for RC buildings, in [ 33 , 34 ], a framework for the sustainable renovation of this type of buildings was proposed, comparing different solutions. In some other cases, new systems that combine both performances were proposed. In fact, in [ 35 ], the authors discussed the benefits of proposing integrated approaches for the buildings’ retrofitting from the thermal and structural point of view. It was concluded that composite materials can improve each performance while respecting the architectural requirements. Nevertheless, they are subjected to a proper experimental validation. In [ 36 ], a system composed of vertical steel profiles combined with thermal insulation was proposed. The equivalent frame (EF) method was followed to model the masonry panels, and diagonal trusses were added to account for the additional strength of the steel profiles. NLS analyses were performed to conclude that the ductility of the structure could be improved. However, there was not a specific analysis of the energy performance of the building or of the advantages of the system. In [ 3 ], an innovative technique that combined TRM-based composites with thermal insulation was numerically assessed. It was concluded that Buildings 2022,12, 1276 5 of 25 the solution could be efficient to improve the seismic and energy performance but also financially feasible. 1.4. Scope and Novelty of the Work Studies on the combined seismic strengthening and energy efficiency are very limited. A lack of clear strategies for the selection and analysis of integrated interventions to maximise the benefits is found. As suggested in several works, research on how the seismic and energy retrofitting systems can be combined in an integrated retrofitting solution is needed [ 37 ]. Furthermore, the sustainable retrofitting of existing buildings is a prerequisite for achieving climatic and energy objectives in the EU. Thus, practical tools supporting the evaluation and decision-making process when planning retrofit interventions are required [38]. Given this context, this work deals with the assessment of integrated seismic and energy retrofit techniques that are to be implemented in existing URM buildings. The novelty herein proposed consists in the design of one-shot, compatible, noninvasive, and complementary solutions applied to the façades of existing buildings. The goal is to assess solutions with a minimum cost, taking into account the urban environment while considering the following constraints: achievable structural and energy performance targets (i.e., using proper performance parameters or minimum targets prescribed by legislation), physical compatibility among techniques, disruption time, and harmonisation within the seismic and building codes in force. A benefit/cost ratio is used to comparatively assess and to rank the different seismic retrofitting techniques proposed [ 39 ]. The combination of the interventions is applied to an existing URM building selected as a case study building. This belongs to a typical neighbourhood constructed with the Mediterranean construction standard in the 1960s, and it is representative of the Andalusian residential building stock. The overall methodology allows the achievement of benefits from several points of view: cost-effectiveness solutions in the light of the construction costs and the reduction of the embodied energy (and corresponding CO 2 emissions) and the seismic damage, designed considering a minimum architectural impact, and the optimisation of resources during their implementation. The method followed in this research is shown in Figure 1. The definition of the variables shown in the flowchart is presented in Section 4.5. Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 27 improved. However, there was not a specific analysis of the energy performance of the building or of the advantages of the system. In [3], an innovative technique that combined TRM-based composites with thermal insulation was numerically assessed. It was concluded that the solution could be efficient to improve the seismic and energy performance but also financially feasible. 1.4. Scope and Novelty of the Work Studies on the combined seismic strengthening and energy efficiency are very limited. A lack of clear strategies for the selection and analysis of integrated interventions to maximise the benefits is found. As suggested in several works, research on how the seismic and energy retrofitting systems can be combined in an integrated retrofitting solution is needed [37]. Furthermore, the sustainable retrofitting of existing buildings is a prerequisite for achieving climatic and energy objectives in the EU. Thus, practical tools supporting the evaluation and decision-making process when planning retrofit interventions are required [38]. Given this context, this work deals with the assessment of integrated seismic and energy retrofit techniques that are to be implemented in existing URM buildings. The novelty herein proposed consists in the design of one-shot, compatible, noninvasive, and complementary solutions applied to the façades of existing buildings. The goal is to assess solutions with a minimum cost, taking into account the urban environment while considering the following constraints: achievable structural and energy performance targets (i.e., using proper performance parameters or minimum targets prescribed by legislation), physical compatibility among techniques, disruption time, and harmonisation within the seismic and building codes in force. A benefit/cost ratio is used to comparatively assess and to rank the different seismic retrofitting techniques proposed [39]. The combination of the interventions is applied to an existing URM building selected as a case study building. This belongs to a typical neighbourhood constructed with the Mediterranean construction standard in the 1960s, and it is representative of the Andalusian residential building stock. The overall methodology allows the achievement of benefits from several points of view: cost-effectiveness solutions in the light of the construction costs and the reduction of the embodied energy (and corresponding CO2 emissions) and the seismic damage, designed considering a minimum architectural impact, and the optimisation of resources during their implementation. The method followed in this research is shown in Figure 1. The definition of the variables shown in the flowchart is presented in Section 4.5. Figure 1. Flowchart of the work. Buildings 2022,12, 1276 6 of 25 2. Case Study 2.1. ‘El Plantinar’ Neighbourhood The old neighbourhood of ‘El Plantinar’ is located in Seville (Spain) (Figure 2), and it was constructed during the 1960s. It has been selected as case study since it is representative of the most widespread archetype old URM neighbours in Andalusia. The set is composed of three different types of buildings combined or separated by structural joints. They share the same structural configuration, URM walls in the perimeter and an interior RC frame. Despite being of five-storey height, the buildings present different structural distributions in plan and area. They were constructed before the application of energy and seismic codes in Spain. Therefore, they do not comply with energy behaviour targets, and they were built only considering gravitational loads (note that the first restrictive seismic code in force dates from 1994). Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 27 Figure 1. Flowchart of the work. 2. Case Study 2.1. ‘El Plantinar’ Neighbourhood The old neighbourhood of ‘El Plantinar’ is located in Seville (Spain) (Figure 2), and it was constructed during the 1960s. It has been selected as case study since it is representative of the most widespread archetype old URM neighbours in Andalusia. The set is composed of three different types of buildings combined or separated by structural joints. They share the same structural configuration, URM walls in the perimeter and an interior RC frame. Despite being of five-storey height, the buildings present different structural distributions in plan and area. They were constructed before the application of energy and seismic codes in Spain. Therefore, they do not comply with energy behaviour targets, and they were built only considering gravitational loads (note that the first restrictive seismic code in force dates from 1994). Figure 2. Case study neighbourhood and building location. 2.2. Case Study Building In this work, the Type 1 building was selected to be analysed. It is the largest one, and it can be found isolated. This enables avoiding in the seismic analyses the possible effects of pounding between adjacent buildings [40]. This case study building is analysed in four different orientations, covering the different cases of urban location that can be found in the neighbourhood. 2.2.1. Structural Characterisation The structural system of the building is based on RC ribbed slabs supported by external URM walls and an interior RC frame. URM walls were built with hollow ceramic bricks of 24 × 11.5 × 5 cm. Their thickness varies according to height: at the ground floor, they are of 0.34 m, and at the rest of floors, 0.28 m. The ribbed slabs were built with prestressed concrete joists, ceramic vaults, a superficial concrete layer, and a narrow RC ring beam. According to its structural configuration, the rigid behaviour of slabs and the horizontal connections (to prevent the structure from out-of-plane failure) is guaranteed. In Table 1, the mechanical parameters are listed, which have been defined according to the blueprints and the mandatory construction code during that period, the Spanish MV-201 [41]. The distribution in plan considering the structural system and the elevation of the Figure 2. Case study neighbourhood and building location. 2.2. Case Study Building In this work, the Type 1 building was selected to be analysed. It is the largest one, and it can be found isolated. This enables avoiding in the seismic analyses the possible effects of pounding between adjacent buildings [ 40 ]. This case study building is analysed in four different orientations, covering the different cases of urban location that can be found in the neighbourhood. 2.2.1. Structural Characterisation The structural system of the building is based on RC ribbed slabs supported by external URM walls and an interior RC frame. URM walls were built with hollow ceramic bricks of 24 cm × 11.5 cm × 5 cm. Their thickness varies according to height: at the ground floor, they are of 0.34 m, and at the rest of floors, 0.28 m. The ribbed slabs were built with prestressed concrete joists, ceramic vaults, a superficial concrete layer, and a narrow RC ring beam. According to its structural configuration, the rigid behaviour of slabs and the horizontal connections (to prevent the structure from out-of-plane failure) is guaranteed. In Table 1, the mechanical parameters are listed, which have been defined according to the blueprints and the mandatory construction code during that period, the Spanish MV-201 [ 41 ]. The distribution in plan considering the structural system and the elevation of the building is shown in Figure 3, including some photos taken by the authors. The gravitational loads were computed as in [ 42 ]. In total, the dead loads were 5.5 kPa, and the live loads 2 kPa (as suggested in the Spanish seismic code for residential buildings). Buildings 2022,12, 1276 7 of 25 Table 1. Mechanical parameters. Masonry γ= 18 kN/m3fc= 4.0 MPa fck = 1.14 MPa E= 1200 MPa G= 150 GPa τ0= 0.05 MPa RC γ= 25 kN/m3fc= 25.5 MPa fck = 17.5 MPa E= 3000 GPa G= 17000 GPa Steel γ = 78.6 kN/m 3fy= 428 MPa fyk = 400 MPa E= 210 GPa G= 800 GPa γ is the specific weight, f c is the compressive strength, f ck is the characteristic compressive strength, τ0 is the diagonal cracking strength of the masonry, Eand Gare the elastic and shear moduli, f y is the yielding strength of rebar steel, and fyk is the characteristic yielding strength of the rebar steel. Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 27 building is shown in Figure 3, including some photos taken by the authors. The gravitational loads were computed as in [42]. In total, the dead loads were 5.5 kPa, and the live loads 2 kPa (as suggested in the Spanish seismic code for residential buildings). Table 1. Mechanical parameters. Masonry γ = 18 kN/m3 fc = 4.0 MPa fck = 1.14 MPa E = 1200 MPa G = 150 GPa τ0 = 0.05 MPa RC γ = 25 kN/m3 fc = 25.5 MPa fck = 17.5 MPa E = 3000 GPa G = 17000 GPa Steel γ = 78.6 kN/m3 fy = 428 MPa fyk = 400 MPa E = 210 GPa G = 800 GPa γ is the specific weight, fc is the compressive strength, fck is the characteristic compressive strength, τ0 is the diagonal cracking strength of the masonry, E and G are the elastic and shear moduli, fy is the yielding strength of rebar steel, and fyk is the characteristic yielding strength of the rebar steel. Figure 3. Structural configuration highlighting in blue the masonry walls and, in orange, the interior RC frame. Distribution in plan and elevation. Photos of the building (by the authors). 2.2.2. Energetic Characterisation The configuration of the envelope (Table 2) is representative of neighbourhoods constructed during the 1960S–1970s in Andalusia. It is typified by the absence of thermal insulation and the numerous thermal bridges in the joints of the façade (Figure 4). The openings were constructed with sliding-type windows, aluminium frames without thermal breaks, and single glazing with an exterior roller shutter. Table 2. Constructive building characterisation. Composition Transmittance U (W/m2K) Solar Factor Façade Cement mortar (2 cm); one foot of hollow metric brick ‘gafa type’ (24 cm); cladding of plaster (1 cm). 1.74 - Façade of the ground floor Foot and a half of solid metric brick (36 cm); cladding of plaster (1 cm). 1.54 - Floor slab Terrazzo floor (2 cm); cement mortar (3 cm); jack arch brick one-way spanning slab (25 cm); cladding of plaster (1.5 cm). 1.57 - Figure 3. Structural configuration highlighting in blue the masonry walls and, in orange, the interior RC frame. Distribution in plan and elevation. Photos of the building (by the authors). 2.2.2. Energetic Characterisation The configuration of the envelope (Table 2) is representative of neighbourhoods constructed during the 1960s–1970s in Andalusia. It is typified by the absence of thermal insulation and the numerous thermal bridges in the joints of the façade (Figure 4). The openings were constructed with sliding-type windows, aluminium frames without thermal breaks, and single glazing with an exterior roller shutter. Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 27 Roof Pressed brick flooring (0.8 cm); cement mortar (1.5 cm); lost flooring (0.8 cm); lightweight aggregate concrete, formation of slope (mean 5 cm); jack arch brick one-way spanning slab (25 cm); cladding of plaster (1.5 cm). 1.59 - Ground floor Terrazzo floor (2 cm); cement mortar (3 cm); conventional solid concrete slab (10 cm) 1.24 - Windows Aluminium frame with no thermal break; single glass pane (6 mm) 5.70 0.83 Figure 4. Constructive and structural details of the building. 3. Energy and Seismic Performance of the As-Built Building 3.1. Seismic Performance Assessment 3.1.1. Numerical Modelling The numerical models for the seismic assessment have been developed using the OpenSees finite element (FE) software framework [43]. An STKO pre-/postprocessor [44] and Matlab [45] were used to graphically visualise and to handle the outputs, respectively. A load-control NLS analysis of the structure was performed, considering a triangular load pattern. This is the most restrictive load pattern, which is computed according to the masses at each floor and height [7]. The control node is located at the centre of masses of the top floor. There are several approaches to model URM structures. These were reviewed and classified in [46]. In this work, the numerical modelling of the structure was performed following the equivalent frame (EF) method [47]. This method idealises masonry walls as piers (vertical panels) and spandrels (horizontal panels) connected by rigid areas (where no seismic damage was observed after seismic events [48]). Macroelements were developed to model the URM panels considering the distributed plasticity approach, validated in a previous work developed by the authors [49]. A force-based element (FBE) with fibre cross sections were defined following the prescriptions established in [50]. These macroelements are able to predict the in-plane and the out-of-plane behaviour of the panels as well as the bending and the shear behaviours. Masonry nonlinearity was defined according to a uniaxial stress–strain law along the frame using the ‘Concrete02’ uniaxial material. A phenomenological shear force–deformation (V-γ) law was defined to account for shear, according to the prescriptions established in [50]. Different values of maximum interstorey drift were defined for the spandrels modelling and considering the experimental results obtained by [51]. The maximum strength of the panels (Vy) was computed according to the well-known Turnšek and Čačovič criterion [52] to account for the diagonal cracking. Vy is evaluated according to the acting axial load (N) in panels at each step. N varies during the analyses, owing to the redistribution phenomena. Note that in OpenSees, this is not automatically computed compared with other URM-wall-specific software. To overcome this limitation, and as suggested by [49,50], it has been decided to set at the beginning of the analyses the results from the gravitational loads applied at nodes. RC frames were modelled with the FBE and the distributed plasticity approach using the ‘Concrete02’ uniaxial, as already followed by the authors in [7]. More information on the modelling of the Figure 4. Constructive and structural details of the building. Buildings 2022,12, 1276 8 of 25 Table 2. Constructive building characterisation. Composition Transmittance U (W/m2K) Solar Factor Façade Cement mortar (2 cm); one foot of hollow metric brick ‘gafa type’ (24 cm); cladding of plaster (1 cm). 1.74 - Façade of the ground floor Foot and a half of solid metric brick (36 cm); cladding of plaster (1 cm). 1.54 - Floor slab Terrazzo floor (2 cm); cement mortar (3 cm); jack arch brick one-way spanning slab (25 cm); cladding of plaster (1.5 cm). 1.57 - Roof Pressed brick flooring (0.8 cm); cement mortar (1.5 cm); lost flooring (0.8 cm); lightweight aggregate concrete, formation of slope (mean 5 cm); jack arch brick one-way spanning slab (25 cm); cladding of plaster (1.5 cm). 1.59 - Ground floor Terrazzo floor (2 cm); cement mortar (3 cm); conventional solid concrete slab (10 cm) 1.24 - Windows Aluminium frame with no thermal break; single glass pane (6 mm) 5.70 0.83 3. Energy and Seismic Performance of the As-Built Building 3.1. Seismic Performance Assessment 3.1.1. Numerical Modelling The numerical models for the seismic assessment have been developed using the OpenSees finite element (FE) software framework [ 43 ]. An STKO pre-/postprocessor [ 44 ] and Matlab [ 45 ] were used to graphically visualise and to handle the outputs, respectively. A load-control NLS analysis of the structure was performed, considering a triangular load pattern. This is the most restrictive load pattern, which is computed according to the masses at each floor and height [ 7 ]. The control node is located at the centre of masses of the top floor. There are several approaches to model URM structures. These were reviewed and classified in [ 46 ]. In this work, the numerical modelling of the structure was performed following the equivalent frame (EF) method [47]. This method idealises masonry walls as piers (vertical panels) and spandrels (horizontal panels) connected by rigid areas (where no seismic damage was observed after seismic events [ 48 ]). Macroelements were developed to model the URM panels considering the distributed plasticity approach, validated in a previous work developed by the authors [ 49 ]. A force-based element (FBE) with fibre cross sections were defined following the prescriptions established in [ 50 ]. These macroelements are able to predict the in-plane and the out-of-plane behaviour of the panels as well as the bending and the shear behaviours. Masonry nonlinearity was defined according to a uniaxial stress–strain law along the frame using the ‘Concrete02’ uniaxial material. A phenomenological shear force–deformation (V- γ ) law was defined to account for shear, according to the prescriptions established in [ 50 ]. Different values of maximum interstorey drift were defined for the spandrels modelling and considering the experimental results obtained by [ 51 ]. The maximum strength of the panels (V y ) was computed according to the well-known Turnšek and ˇ Caˇcoviˇc criterion [ 52 ] to account for the diagonal cracking. V y is evaluated according to the acting axial load (N) in panels at each step. Nvaries during the analyses, owing to the redistribution phenomena. Note that in OpenSees, this is not automatically computed compared with other URM-wall-specific software. To overcome this limitation, and as suggested by [ 49 , 50 ], it has been decided to set at the beginning of the analyses the results from the gravitational loads applied at nodes. RC frames were modelled with the FBE and the distributed plasticity approach using the ‘Concrete02’ uniaxial, as already followed by the authors in [ 7 ]. More information on the modelling Buildings 2022,12, 1276 9 of 25 of the URM walls for this case study structure can be found in the previous works of the authors [49]. 3.1.2. Seismic Safety Criteria Once the capacity has been obtained, the seismic safety has been verified using the capacity/demand ratio (CDR). The CDR is expressed as the division of the seismic expected damage divided by the seismic demand displacement (d dem ). In this work, the severe damage limit state (LS) was considered for the seismic damage assessment (d SD-i ), as suggested by EC8. In order to comply with the seismic safety verification, the CDR should be higher than 1. For the computation, the average between the X- and Y-direction values was considered. In order to exhaustively assess the local damage in URM walls, the usability-preventing damage (UPD) LS, specifically developed in [ 53 ] for URM walls, was considered. Hence, in this work, the d SD-I from EC8 was computed following the criteria established for the UPD LS. Since the in-box behaviour of the structure is guaranteed owing to the horizontal connections, only the in-plane failure is borne in mind in the damage assessment. In order to compute the UPD LS, the criteria established in [ 53 ] was followed, which states that the UPD LS is attained when: (i) 50% of the masonry walls present light-widespread damage, (ii) one masonry wall reaches a 40% drop of V y in the case of the phenomenological nonlinear beam, and (iii) the attainment of 95% of the maximum V b of the structure. In addition, the UPD LS threshold should not be lower than 85% of the peak resistance since URM walls can present slight but widespread damage at values far from peak resistance. For the seismic demand assessment, the results obtained by the NLS analysis were used in conjunction with the N2 method to estimate the performance of the structure. As this method can lead to a certain level of inaccuracy if applied to URM buildings, dynamic analyses are recommended. However, for this study, the N2 method and NLS analyses are used as an initial seismic assessment and for the rapid design of possible retrofitting solutions, as inaccuracies are not expected to be notable. For the UPD LS, the ground motion return period is 475 years according to EC8. For the location of the building, the seismic action is equal to 0.1 g, and the importance factor is 1. 3.1.3. Preliminary Seismic Assessment of the As-Built Structure Before the design of the alternative retrofitting solutions, the performance of the asbuilt structure was assessed. The results of the modal analysis of the as-built structure are shown in Figure 5. As can be observed, Modes 1 and 2 are mainly translational in the X-direction (red axis) and Y-direction (green axis), respectively. Mode 3 is rotational in the X- and Y-directions, having a 30% of participation masses in each direction. Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 27 3.1.2. Seismic Safety Criteria Once the capacity has been obtained, the seismic safety has been verified using the capacity/demand ratio (CDR). The CDR is expressed as the division of the seismic expected damage divided by the seismic demand displacement (ddem). In this work, the severe damage limit state (LS) was considered for the seismic damage assessment (dSD-i), as suggested by EC8. In order to comply with the seismic safety verification, the CDR should be higher than 1. For the computation, the average between the X- and Y-direction values was considered. In order to exhaustively assess the local damage in URM walls, the usability-prevent- ing damage (UPD) LS, specifically developed in [53] for URM walls, was considered. Hence, in this work, the dSD-I from EC8 was computed following the criteria established for the UPD LS. Since the in-box behaviour of the structure is guaranteed owing to the horizontal connections, only the in-plane failure is borne in mind in the damage assessment. In order to compute the UPD LS, the criteria established in [53] was followed, which states that the UPD LS is attained when: (i) 50% of the masonry walls present light-wide- spread damage, (ii) one masonry wall reaches a 40% drop of Vy in the case of the phenomenological nonlinear beam, and (iii) the attainment of 95% of the maximum Vb of the structure. In addition, the UPD LS threshold should not be lower than 85% of the peak resistance since URM walls can present slight but widespread damage at values far from peak resistance. For the seismic demand assessment, the results obtained by the NLS analysis were used in conjunction with the N2 method to estimate the performance of the structure. As this method can lead to a certain level of inaccuracy if applied to URM buildings, dynamic analyses are recommended. However, for this study, the N2 method and NLS analyses are used as an initial seismic assessment and for the rapid design of possible retrofitting solutions, as inaccuracies are not expected to be notable. For the UPD LS, the ground motion return period is 475 years according to EC8. For the location of the building, the seismic action is equal to 0.1 g, and the importance factor is 1. 3.1.3. Preliminary Seismic Assessment of the As-Built Structure Before the design of the alternative retrofitting solutions, the performance of the asbuilt structure was assessed. The results of the modal analysis of the as-built structure are shown in Figure 5. As can be observed, Modes 1 and 2 are mainly translational in the X- direction (red axis) and Y-direction (green axis), respectively. Mode 3 is rotational in the X- and Y-directions, having a 30% of participation masses in each direction. Figure 5. Modal shapes of the case study according to the first three modes of vibration. The results of NLS analyses are expressed in terms of single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) capacity curves, normalised by dividing the shear force at the base (Vb) and the Figure 5. Modal shapes of the case study according to the first three modes of vibration. Buildings 2022,12, 1276 16 of 25 4.4. Results of the Sensitivity Analysis The performance assessment of the models retrofitted was conducted in the same fashion as the as-built structure, denoted as ‘As-built’. A model analysis for each solution established in Table 5was performed to obtain both the seismic and the energy performance. In the case of the seismic performance, following the modal analyses, NLS analyses were carried out, and the N2 method was used to determine the performance of each solution. In Figure 11, the results for the S-RP 1 technique were plotted. From this figure, it is immediately clear that adding encirclements in walls in one direction (X) does not affect the performance of the models in the other direction (Y). As can be seen, the initial stiffness of the URM system is not significantly affected by the addition of the retrofitting elements. Solutions that added O-profiles led to higher improvements than those that added L-profiles. The implementation of an enhanced steel material leads to a certain improvement of the performance, reaching improvements of up to 5–10% compared with the other steel material. Considerable differences can be observed from adding the smallest profile (either O- or L-profile) to the biggest one, reaching improvements of up to 20%. Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 27 In all scenarios, the thermal bridges were modified in the simulation model in accordance with the current regulation [60]. Concerning the prediction of the watertightness, when introducing the improvement of façades and/or openings, different assumptions were borne in mind. According to previous studies, it is concluded that the introduction of an ETICS system without touching openings does not introduce important modifications in the infiltrations of the dwelling [61,65]. Contrariwise, the renovation of the windows system produces a reduction of up to 30% to 40% of the n50 value [66]. This margin of improvement agrees with the data obtained in [61,67]. The difference in frame materials only implies a substantial change in PVC, while aluminium and wood behave in a similar way [67]. Therefore, based on the data measured in previous studies, the infiltration value remains constant for the E-RP2 scenarios, and it is modified for that of E- RP1. The n50 value was set to 6.5 for the hypothesis with aluminium and wood frames and to 5.0 for the PVC frames 4.4. Results of the Sensitivity Analysis The performance assessment of the models retrofitted was conducted in the same fashion as the as-built structure, denoted as ‘As-built’. A model analysis for each solution established in Table 5 was performed to obtain both the seismic and the energy performance. In the case of the seismic performance, following the modal analyses, NLS analyses were carried out, and the N2 method was used to determine the performance of each solution. In Figure 11, the results for the S-RP1 technique were plotted. From this figure, it is immediately clear that adding encirclements in walls in one direction (X) does not affect the performance of the models in the other direction (Y). As can be seen, the initial stiffness of the URM system is not significantly affected by the addition of the retrofitting elements. Solutions that added O-profiles led to higher improvements than those that added L-pro- files. The implementation of an enhanced steel material leads to a certain improvement of the performance, reaching improvements of up to 5%–10% compared with the other steel material. Considerable differences can be observed from adding the smallest profile (either O- or L-profile) to the biggest one, reaching improvements of up to 20%. (a) (b) Figure 11. Normalised SDOF-NLS curves considering the S-RP1 solutions in the X- (a) and Y- (b) direction. The implementation of steel grids in walls (S-RP2) has led to higher improvement ratios compared with the addition of encirclements in openings (Figure 12). This is mainly due to the considerable increase in the initial stiffness of the URM system, as observed in the plots. The best results were obtained with the solutions that proposed a smaller separation and enhanced the steel yielding strength. The increase in the diameter of the rebar Figure 11. Normalised SDOF-NLS curves considering the S-RP1 solutions in the X- ( a ) and Y- (b) direction. The implementation of steel grids in walls (S-RP 2 ) has led to higher improvement ratios compared with the addition of encirclements in openings (Figure 12). This is mainly due to the considerable increase in the initial stiffness of the URM system, as observed in the plots. The best results were obtained with the solutions that proposed a smaller separation and enhanced the steel yielding strength. The increase in the diameter of the rebar did not produce a considerable enhancement of the performance. This can be considered negligible. The behaviour of the Y-direction was improved since the walls in this direction were also retrofitted. In the case of the energy performance assessment, the improvement of the models established in Table 5compared with the As-built state is analysed. In Figure 13, the average-orientation annual thermal demand results for E-RP 1 and E-RP 2 are plotted. In addition, Figure 14 shows the annual thermal demand deviation per m 2 compared with the As-built state. These graphs clearly show how the window renovation results in a moderate annual energy improvement of the building. Likewise, the energy performance of the models does not undergo significant changes when the material of the window frames is modified. Finally, the introduction of low-emissivity glazing does not lead to a substantial reduction in the annual energy demand, while it will represent a considerable economic increase, as demonstrated in the following sections. Buildings 2022,12, 1276 17 of 25 Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 27 did not produce a considerable enhancement of the performance. This can be considered negligible. The behaviour of the Y-direction was improved since the walls in this direction were also retrofitted. (a) (b) Figure 12. Normalised SDOF-NLS curves considering the S-RP2 solutions in the X- (a) and Y- (b) direction. In the case of the energy performance assessment, the improvement of the models established in Table 5 compared with the As-built state is analysed. In Figure 13, the average-orientation annual thermal demand results for E-RP1 and E-RP2 are plotted. In addition, Figure 14 shows the annual thermal demand deviation per m2 compared with the As-built state. These graphs clearly show how the window renovation results in a moderate annual energy improvement of the building. Likewise, the energy performance of the models does not undergo significant changes when the material of the window frames is modified. Finally, the introduction of low-emissivity glazing does not lead to a substantial reduction in the annual energy demand, while it will represent a considerable economic increase, as demonstrated in the following sections. Figure 13. Annual thermal demand per m² of the hypothesis (average values of the different orientation models per hypothesis). Figure 12. Normalised SDOF-NLS curves considering the S-RP2 solutions in the X- ( a ) and Y- (b) direction. Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 27 did not produce a considerable enhancement of the performance. This can be considered negligible. The behaviour of the Y-direction was improved since the walls in this direction were also retrofitted. (a) (b) Figure 12. Normalised SDOF-NLS curves considering the S-RP2 solutions in the X- (a) and Y- (b) direction. In the case of the energy performance assessment, the improvement of the models established in Table 5 compared with the As-built state is analysed. In Figure 13, the average-orientation annual thermal demand results for E-RP1 and E-RP2 are plotted. In addition, Figure 14 shows the annual thermal demand deviation per m2 compared with the As-built state. These graphs clearly show how the window renovation results in a moderate annual energy improvement of the building. Likewise, the energy performance of the models does not undergo significant changes when the material of the window frames is modified. Finally, the introduction of low-emissivity glazing does not lead to a substantial reduction in the annual energy demand, while it will represent a considerable economic increase, as demonstrated in the following sections. Figure 13. Annual thermal demand per m² of the hypothesis (average values of the different orientation models per hypothesis). Figure 13. Annual thermal demand per m 2 of the hypothesis (average values of the different orientation models per hypothesis). Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 27 Figure 14. Demand deviation per m2 (average, maximum, and minimum) regarding the as-built state. The implementation of thermal insulation in walls led to higher improvements ratios compared with the window renovation (Figure 13 and Figure 14). This is mainly due to the considerable reduction of thermal bridges compared with the as-built state. Thus, the addition of thermal insulation on the exterior of the façade, in strict compliance with the CTE (e = 5 cm) [55], represents a considerable improvement in the energy performance of the building. In fact, it can decrease the annual heating and cooling demand by almost half. As expected, an increase in the thickness of up to 10 cm does not lead to a proportional reduction in the demand. Finally, in line with the results obtained from the as-built sate, a detailed treatment of the façades according to the orientation does not introduce an interesting margin of improvement. This happens due to the position of the blocks in the urban configuration (orientation) and the typology of the blocks themselves (doublefacing dwellings). Hence, there is no energy imbalance between the different orientations of the dwellings. 4.5. Results of the Benefit–Cost Assessment The goal of this work is to obtain the most optimal retrofitting configurations to save economic and material resources while producing a considerable performance enhancement. In order to perform the combined energy and seismic assessment, the most optimal solutions were first determined, bearing in mind separately the energy and seismic performance enhancements. In order to select them, a benefit/cost ratio was used, computed as the benefit (B) of each performance divided by the cost (C) of construction. This B/C ratio will allow defining the solutions with the highest improvement ratios and the best costs ratios of both RPs. Once the most optimal individual configurations have been determined for each RP, they have been later combined and integrated. The cost of the construction of each configuration was computed by means of a bill of quantities and using an updated construction cost database. This database takes into account the duration of the works, the labour and indirect costs, the industrial benefit, and the costs of the materials. A cost index (C = Ci/Cexp) is determined, expressed as the ratio between the construction cost of the solution analysed (i) and the costs of the most expensive one (exp). This cost index is then used together with the seismic and energy performance improvement ratios. The benefit was computed as the enhancement of the energy and seismic performances. The seismic enhancement ratio (BS = di/dasb) is obtained by dividing the CDR of the i solution by the CDR of the as-built state (asb). The energy enhancement (BE = Easb/Ei) is determined by the ratio between the energy demand (kWh/year) of the as-built condition and the demand of the i solution analysed. Figure 14. Demand deviation per m 2 (average, maximum, and minimum) regarding the as-built state. The implementation of thermal insulation in walls led to higher improvements ratios compared with the window renovation (Figures 13 and 14). This is mainly due to the considerable reduction of thermal bridges compared with the as-built state. Thus, the Buildings 2022,12, 1276 18 of 25 addition of thermal insulation on the exterior of the façade, in strict compliance with the CTE (e = 5 cm) [ 55 ], represents a considerable improvement in the energy performance of the building. In fact, it can decrease the annual heating and cooling demand by almost half. As expected, an increase in the thickness of up to 10 cm does not lead to a proportional reduction in the demand. Finally, in line with the results obtained from the as-built sate, a detailed treatment of the façades according to the orientation does not introduce an interesting margin of improvement. This happens due to the position of the blocks in the urban configuration (orientation) and the typology of the blocks themselves (double-facing dwellings). Hence, there is no energy imbalance between the different orientations of the dwellings. 4.5. Results of the Benefit–Cost Assessment The goal of this work is to obtain the most optimal retrofitting configurations to save economic and material resources while producing a considerable performance enhancement. In order to perform the combined energy and seismic assessment, the most optimal solutions were first determined, bearing in mind separately the energy and seismic performance enhancements. In order to select them, a benefit/cost ratio was used, computed as the benefit (B) of each performance divided by the cost (C) of construction. This B/C ratio will allow defining the solutions with the highest improvement ratios and the best costs ratios of both RPs. Once the most optimal individual configurations have been determined for each RP, they have been later combined and integrated. The cost of the construction of each configuration was computed by means of a bill of quantities and using an updated construction cost database. This database takes into account the duration of the works, the labour and indirect costs, the industrial benefit, and the costs of the materials. A cost index (C = C i /C exp ) is determined, expressed as the ratio between the construction cost of the solution analysed (i) and the costs of the most expensive one (exp). This cost index is then used together with the seismic and energy performance improvement ratios. The benefit was computed as the enhancement of the energy and seismic performances. The seismic enhancement ratio (B S = d i /d asb ) is obtained by dividing the CDR of the isolution by the CDR of the as-built state (asb). The energy enhancement (B E = E asb /E i ) is determined by the ratio between the energy demand (kWh/year) of the as-built condition and the demand of the i solution analysed. In Figure 15, the results of computing the benefit of each RP and the costs of each configuration combined (RP 1 and RP 2 ) are plotted. C took into account the costs of each RP in order to obtain, for a singular C, two different improvements. Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 27 In Figure 15, the results of computing the benefit of each RP and the costs of each configuration combined (RP1 and RP2) are plotted. C took into account the costs of each RP in order to obtain, for a singular C, two different improvements. (a) (b) Figure 15. Energy (a) and seismic (b) performance ratios compared with the construction costs of each retrofitting configuration considered. With regard to the B/C ratio analysis of the different energy-based RP, it can be seen that the highest benefit ratios were obtained for E-RP2, the addition of an external thermal insulating composite system (ETICS) in walls. E-RP2 achieved BE values ranging from 2.56 to 3.13. In the case of E-RP1, lower values of BE were obtained, ranging from 1.08 to 1.10. However, E-RP1 resulted in considerably lower values of C compared with RP2. Concerning E-RP1, the results show that two hypothesis groups can be clearly differentiated. The first one encompasses the wooden carpentry solutions, and the other, the aluminium and PVC frames. Despite having similar BE, wooden frames are significantly more expensive than the other group. In the case of glazing systems, the solutions that include low emissivity glass considerably increase C, providing a negligible BE. As regards E-RP2, the implementation of double insulating thickness material leads to the highest benefits. These solutions are the most profitable ones due to the low increment in costs compared with the outstanding BE. Changing the type of insulation material, from EPS to rock wool, does not imply a significant variation of the costs or a benefit as both materials present a similar thermal transmittance. Therefore, the solutions with the highest B/C ratio were, from higher to lower, E-W1, E-W5 and E-F2, E-F5. In the case of E- RP1 solutions, these hypotheses used aluminium and PVC joinery (materials mostly used in residential buildings in Spain due to their optimal energy performance/cost ratio) and standard 4/6/4 double glazing. They obtained similar BE values while being the cheapest ones. Finally, with regard to E-RP2, E-F2, and E-F5, these added the highest amount of thermal insulation, which in turn led to these solutions being the most beneficial and optimal ones. As previously obtained in the analysis of the as-built state, the solutions are not considerably affected by the orientation, dwelling typology, and urban situation of the blocks. The solutions with highest B/C ratios from both RPs were combined and integrated. The results of this combination are plotted in Figure 16. By combining them, the results show that the performance improvements are outstanding compared with the results obtained individually, reaching improvement ratios of up to 336.7%. In total, 16 E-RP3 configurations were exhaustively assessed. Figure 15. Energy ( a ) and seismic ( b ) performance ratios compared with the construction costs of each retrofitting configuration considered. Buildings 2022,12, 1276 19 of 25 With regard to the B/C ratio analysis of the different energy-based RP, it can be seen that the highest benefit ratios were obtained for E-RP 2 , the addition of an external thermal insulating composite system (ETICS) in walls. E-RP 2 achieved B E values ranging from 2.56 to 3.13. In the case of E-RP 1 , lower values of B E were obtained, ranging from 1.08 to 1.10. However, E-RP 1 resulted in considerably lower values of C compared with RP 2 . Concerning E-RP1, the results show that two hypothesis groups can be clearly differentiated. The first one encompasses the wooden carpentry solutions, and the other, the aluminium and PVC frames. Despite having similar B E , wooden frames are significantly more expensive than the other group. In the case of glazing systems, the solutions that include low emissivity glass considerably increase C, providing a negligible BE. As regards E-RP 2 , the implementation of double insulating thickness material leads to the highest benefits. These solutions are the most profitable ones due to the low increment in costs compared with the outstanding B E . Changing the type of insulation material, from EPS to rock wool, does not imply a significant variation of the costs or a benefit as both materials present a similar thermal transmittance. Therefore, the solutions with the highest B/C ratio were, from higher to lower, E-W1, E-W5 and E-F2, E-F5. In the case of E-RP 1 solutions, these hypotheses used aluminium and PVC joinery (materials mostly used in residential buildings in Spain due to their optimal energy performance/cost ratio) and standard 4/6/4 double glazing. They obtained similar B E values while being the cheapest ones. Finally, with regard to E-RP 2 , E-F2, and E-F5, these added the highest amount of thermal insulation, which in turn led to these solutions being the most beneficial and optimal ones. As previously obtained in the analysis of the as-built state, the solutions are not considerably affected by the orientation, dwelling typology, and urban situation of the blocks. The solutions with highest B/C ratios from both RPs were combined and integrated. The results of this combination are plotted in Figure 16. By combining them, the results show that the performance improvements are outstanding compared with the results obtained individually, reaching improvement ratios of up to 336.7%. In total, 16 E-RP 3 configurations were exhaustively assessed. Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 27 Figure 16. Combination of E-RPs. Annual average thermal demand values per m2 according to the orientation of the optimised solutions. In the case of the seismic enhancement, it can be seen that the highest benefits ratios were obtained for S-RP2, the addition of steel grids in walls. S-RP2 achieved BS values ranging from 2.08 to 2.88. In the case of S-RP1, lower values of BS were obtained, ranging from 1.17 to 1.84. However, this latter S-RP resulted in considerably lower values of C compared with S-RP2, being up to 70% of CRP2. There are two separated vertical lines that refer to different costs stemming from the increment of thermal insulation. From this first analysis, it was obtained that O-profiles have better benefit and cost ratios than the addition of L-profiles. Additionally, it was obtained that no significant differences can be found in the values of C among all S-RP2 solutions. However, BS considerably improves when the amount of material is increased. It was attained that the solutions with the highest B/C ratio were, from higher to lower, S-W8, S-W7, S-W1 and S-F8, S-F7, S-F10. In the case of S- W8 and S-W7, these solutions added the lowest section of O-profiles in openings with different types of steel material. They obtained moderate BS values, but they were the cheapest solutions. S-W1 is the next cheapest solution. S-F8 and S-F7 added the highest amount of retrofitting steel, resulting in the most beneficial and optimal solutions. S-F10 is the next solution that adds more retrofitting material. Once the most optimal solutions were determined for each RP assessed separately, they were combined as RP3. The results of this combination are plotted in Figure 17. In total, nine S-RP3 configurations were thoroughly assessed. By combining RP1 and RP2, the performance improvements were outstanding compared with the results obtained individually, reaching BS ratios of up to 250%. Figure 16. Combination of E-RPs. Annual average thermal demand values per m 2 according to the orientation of the optimised solutions. In the case of the seismic enhancement, it can be seen that the highest benefits ratios were obtained for S-RP 2 , the addition of steel grids in walls. S-RP 2 achieved B S values ranging from 2.08 to 2.88. In the case of S-RP 1 , lower values of B S were obtained, ranging Buildings 2022,12, 1276 20 of 25 from 1.17 to 1.84. However, this latter S-RP resulted in considerably lower values of C compared with S-RP 2 , being up to 70% of C RP2 . There are two separated vertical lines that refer to different costs stemming from the increment of thermal insulation. From this first analysis, it was obtained that O-profiles have better benefit and cost ratios than the addition of L-profiles. Additionally, it was obtained that no significant differences can be found in the values of C among all S-RP 2 solutions. However, B S considerably improves when the amount of material is increased. It was attained that the solutions with the highest B/C ratio were, from higher to lower, S-W8, S-W7, S-W1 and S-F8, S-F7, S-F10. In the case of S-W8 and S-W7, these solutions added the lowest section of O-profiles in openings with different types of steel material. They obtained moderate B S values, but they were the cheapest solutions. S-W1 is the next cheapest solution. S-F8 and S-F7 added the highest amount of retrofitting steel, resulting in the most beneficial and optimal solutions. S-F10 is the next solution that adds more retrofitting material. Once the most optimal solutions were determined for each RP assessed separately, they were combined as RP 3 . The results of this combination are plotted in Figure 17. In total, nine S-RP 3 configurations were thoroughly assessed. By combining RP 1 and RP 2 , the performance improvements were outstanding compared with the results obtained individually, reaching BSratios of up to 250%. Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 27 (a) (b) Figure 17. Normalised SDOF-NLS curves considering the RP3 solutions in the X- (a) and Y-direc- tions (b). 4.6. Results of the Combined Energy and Seismic Assessment In this section, the simultaneous enhancement of the seismic and energy performances and the construction costs are evaluated. The previously carried-out B/C ratio is proposed. In this case, the benefit stemmed from each performance enhancement having been normalised (by dividing the B of each RP configuration by the highest B). This was performed in order to avoid excessive improvement ratios and to establish a similar weight of each performance. The results of the combined assessment, RP3, are plotted in Figure 18. Figure 18. Combined energy and seismic benefit and cost of each integrated RP3 retrofitting configuration considered. When combining the RP and RP3 configurations, it was obtained that the seismic improvement leads to the highest differences in the results. This is due to the similar energy performance enhancement achieved for all the orientations and hypotheses considered. Nevertheless, the solutions with aluminium window frames and EPS insulation attained higher B/C ratios. In the case of the BS, there is a considerable difference in the benefit/cost ratio of solutions that add lower and intermediate values of retrofitting material than Figure 17. Normalised SDOF-NLS curves considering the RP3 solutions in the X- ( a ) and Y- directions (b). 4.6. Results of the Combined Energy and Seismic Assessment In this section, the simultaneous enhancement of the seismic and energy performances and the construction costs are evaluated. The previously carried-out B/C ratio is proposed. In this case, the benefit stemmed from each performance enhancement having been normalised (by dividing the B of each RP configuration by the highest B). This was performed in order to avoid excessive improvement ratios and to establish a similar weight of each performance. The results of the combined assessment, RP3, are plotted in Figure 18. When combining the RP and RP 3 configurations, it was obtained that the seismic improvement leads to the highest differences in the results. This is due to the similar energy performance enhancement achieved for all the orientations and hypotheses considered. Nevertheless, the solutions with aluminium window frames and EPS insulation attained higher B/C ratios. In the case of the B S , there is a considerable difference in the benefit/cost ratio of solutions that add lower and intermediate values of retrofitting material than those that add higher amounts. Significant B S ratios are obtained if the amount of retrofitting material is increased up to a certain point. In this case, the solutions that presented higher values of B S were those that added the highest amount of retrofitting material in the walls and those that added the lowest section of O-profiles in the openings. This is due to the negligible values of C among RP 2 solutions and the low C of O-profiles compared with the Buildings 2022,12, 1276 21 of 25 moderate benefit ratio. When combined with E-RP, these solutions obtained the highest benefit/cost ratios. Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 27 (a) (b) Figure 17. Normalised SDOF-NLS curves considering the RP3 solutions in the X- (a) and Y-direc- tions (b). 4.6. Results of the Combined Energy and Seismic Assessment In this section, the simultaneous enhancement of the seismic and energy performances and the construction costs are evaluated. The previously carried-out B/C ratio is proposed. In this case, the benefit stemmed from each performance enhancement having been normalised (by dividing the B of each RP configuration by the highest B). This was performed in order to avoid excessive improvement ratios and to establish a similar weight of each performance. The results of the combined assessment, RP3, are plotted in Figure 18. Figure 18. Combined energy and seismic benefit and cost of each integrated RP3 retrofitting configuration considered. When combining the RP and RP3 configurations, it was obtained that the seismic improvement leads to the highest differences in the results. This is due to the similar energy performance enhancement achieved for all the orientations and hypotheses considered. Nevertheless, the solutions with aluminium window frames and EPS insulation attained higher B/C ratios. In the case of the BS, there is a considerable difference in the benefit/cost ratio of solutions that add lower and intermediate values of retrofitting material than Figure 18. Combined energy and seismic benefit and cost of each integrated RP3 retrofitting configuration considered. 5. Conclusions This work dealt with the assessment of new integrated and combined seismic and energy retrofitting techniques specifically defined for existing URM buildings. To do so, the solutions were designed for a case study (that does not comply with the seismic and energy demand of the current legislation), and the energy and seismic assessment of its as-built state was also determined. The RPs proposed focused on the improvement of the seismic and energy performance of walls and openings. The novelty of this work is based on the design of one-shot, compatible, noninvasive, and complementary energy and seismic retrofitting solutions applied to the façades of buildings, bearing in mind: the urban environment effects, the achievable seismic and energy performance targets (prescribed by codes in force), and the reduction of costs. The sensitivity analysis enabled assessing the effects of adding each solution. The benefit/cost ratio allowed for obtaining the most optimal configurations to perform the combination and integration of solutions from both RPs and to rank the solutions. The results of the seismic performance assessment showed that the highest benefit ratio was obtained for S-RP 2 , the addition of steel grids in walls. O-profiles have better benefit and cost ratios than the addition of L-profiles. Additionally, it was obtained that no significant differences can be found in the values of C among all the S-RP 2 solutions. Enhanced steel material leads to an increase in performance by 5–10% compared with regular steel material. The increase in the diameter of the rebar in steel grids in walls did not produce considerable enhancement ratios. In the case of S-RP 1 , the most optimal solutions were those that added greater retrofitting materials. Similar conclusions were obtained for RP 2 . However, in that case, this is due to the negligible differences in the costs among these solutions. The results obtained for the individual assessment were later observed in the combined assessment, RP3. The results of the energy performance assessment showed that the introduction of exterior insulation in walls is the technique with the highest impact on the thermoenergetic behaviour of dwellings. Even if a minimum insulation thickness is added, in strict compliance with the CTE, the improvement is substantial. Therefore, it is concluded that for refurbishment activities in residential buildings subjected to reduced budgets, E-RP 2 , the improvement of the wall behaviour, seems to be the most profitable solution, despite Buildings 2022,12, 1276 22 of 25 the highest economic effort at the beginning. This conclusion is also applied to the seismic performance enhancement. Focusing on the case under study, it was obtained that the orientations, the building typologies, the height-to-width canyon ratios, and the urban situation do not affect the thermal behaviour of the dwellings in the neighbourhood. However, these factors affect the dwellings per floor within the same block. The window renovation without improving the façade behaviour does not imply a significant enhancement in the thermal, energy, and seismic/structural behaviour of the buildings. However, carrying out a combined renovation of windows while including insulation outside the face of the walls results in an improvement of the energy performance of the building by more than 300% compared with the individual renovations (RP 1 or RP 2 ). Similar conclusions resulted for the seismic behaviour. In the light of the results, this work can conclude that the multiobjective seismicenergetic retrofitting of buildings can lead to synergies, reducing the economic cost of the solutions due to the reduction of installation times, material, and workmanships needs. This can enable the improvement of the seismic/structural behaviour of buildings in case of a future seismic event of up to 240% compared with purely energy-related rehabilitation works. 6. Future Research Work Despite being able to comparatively assess and to rank the retrofitting solutions, this comparison was carried out based on an improvement/reduction ratio for each aspect analysed (reduction of both the seismic and the energy demand). The authors are aware that more exhaustive analyses are needed to introduce additional variables, such as the economic saving, the expected annual losses, or the environmental impact (from the construction and the use of the building). Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.-V.R.-G.-C., J.D.-B., E.R.-S., A.M.-E. and M.-A.C.; methodology, M.-V.R.-G.-C., J.D.-B., A.M.-E. and M.-A.C.; software, M.-V.R.-G.-C., J.D.-B. and E.R.-S.; validation, M.-V.R.-G.-C. and J.D.-B.; formal analysis, M.-V.R.-G.-C., J.D.-B. and E.R.-S.; investigation, M.-V.R.-G.-C. and J.D.-B.; resources, M.-V.R.-G.-C., J.D.-B. and E.R.-S.; data curation, M.-V.R.-G.-C. and J.D.-B.; writing—original draft preparation, M.-V.R.-G.-C. and J.D.-B.; writing—review and editing, M.-V.R.-G.-C., J.D.-B., A.M.-E. and M.-A.C.; visualization, M.-V.R.-G.-C., J.D.-B. and E.R.-S.; supervision, A.M.-E. and M.-A.C.; project administration, A.M.-E.; funding acquisition, A.M.-E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This work has been funded by the Consejería de Fomento, Infraestructuras y Ordenación del Territorio de la Junta de Andalucía, grant US.20-01, and the VIII-PPI of the University of Seville through the granting of a scholarship. The funding provided by the Instituto Universitario de Arquitectura y Ciencias de la Construcción is also acknowledged. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: Not applicable. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References 1. Ibañez Iralde, N.S.; Pascual, J.; Salom, J. Energy Retrofit of Residential Building Clusters. A Literature Review of Crossover Recommended Measures, Policies Instruments and Allocated Funds in Spain. Energy Build. 2021,252, 111409. [CrossRef] 2. Menna, C.; del Vecchio, C.; di Ludovico, M.; Mauro, G.M.; Ascione, F.; Prota, A. Conceptual Design of Integrated Seismic and Energy Retrofit Interventions. J. Build. Eng. 2021,38, 102190. [CrossRef] 3. Bournas, D.A. Concurrent Seismic and Energy Retrofitting of RC and Masonry Building Envelopes Using Inorganic Textile-Based Composites Combined with Insulation Materials: A New Concept. Compos. Part B Eng. 2018,148, 166–179. [CrossRef] 4. Instituto para la Diversificación y Ahorro de la Energía (IDAE). Proyecto SECH-SPAHOUSEC. Análisis del Consumo Energético del Sector Residencial en España; Informe Final; Instituto para la Diversificación y Ahorro de la Energía (IDAE): Madrid, Spain, 2011. 5. European Parliament. The European Green Deal; European Parliament: Strasbourg, France, 2019. Buildings 2022,12, 1276 23 of 25 6. Freddi, F.; Galasso, C.; Cremen, G.; Dall’Asta, A.; di Sarno, L.; Giaralis, A.; Gutiérrez-Urzúa, F.; Málaga-Chuquitaype, C.; Mitoulis, S.A.; Petrone, C.; et al. Innovations in Earthquake Risk Reduction for Resilience: Recent Advances and Challenges. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021,60, 102267. [CrossRef] 7. Requena-Garcia-Cruz, M.V.; Morales-Esteban, A.; Durand-Neyra, P. Optimal Ductility Enhancement of RC Framed Buildings Considering Different Non-Invasive Retrofitting Techniques. Eng. Struct. 2021,242, 112572. [CrossRef] 8. Sorrentino, L.; Cattari, S.; da Porto, F.; Magenes, G.; Penna, A. Seismic Behaviour of Ordinary Masonry Buildings during the 2016 Central Italy Earthquakes. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2019,17, 5583–5607. [CrossRef] 9. Avila-Haro, J.A.; Gonzalez-Drigo, R.; Vargas-Alzate, Y.F.; Pujades, L.; Barbat, A. Probabilistic Seismic Assessment of a High-Rise URM Building. J. Build. Eng. 2022,45, 103344. [CrossRef] 10. Sarhosis, V.; Giarlelis, C.; Karakostas, C.; Smyrou, E.; Bal, I.E.; Valkaniotis, S.; Ganas, A. Observations from the March 2021 Thessaly Earthquakes: An Earthquake Engineering Perspective for Masonry Structures. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2022 ,20, 5483–5515. [CrossRef] 11. Sarhosis, V.; Dais, D.; Smyrou, E.; Bal, ˙ I.E.; Drougkas, A. Quantification of Damage Evolution in Masonry Walls Subjected to Induced Seismicity. Eng. Struct. 2021,243, 112529. [CrossRef] 12. Domínguez, S.; Sendra, J.J.; León, A.L.; Esquivias, P.M. Towards Energy Demand Reduction in Social Housing Buildings: Envelope System Optimization Strategies. Energies 2012,5, 2263–2287. [CrossRef] 13. Segovia-Verjel, M.L.; Requena-García-Cruz, M.V.; De-Justo-Moscardó, E.; Morales-Esteban, A. Optimal Seismic Retrofitting Techniques for URM School Buildings Located in the Southwestern Iberian Peninsula. PLoS ONE 2019 ,14, e0223491. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 14. Wang, C.; Forth, J.P.; Nikitas, N.; Sarhosis, V. Retrofitting of Masonry Walls by Using a Mortar Joint Technique; Experiments and Numerical Validation. Eng. Struct. 2016,117, 58–70. [CrossRef] 15. Abeling, S.; Dizhur, D.; Ingham, J. An Evaluation of Successfully Seismically Retrofitted URM Buildings in New Zealand and Their Relevance to Australia. Australian J. Struct. Eng. 2018,19, 234–244. [CrossRef] 16. Shabdin, M.; Attari, N.K.A.; Zargaran, M. Experimental Study on Seismic Behavior of Un-Reinforced Masonry (URM) Brick Walls Strengthened with Shotcrete. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2018,16, 3931–3956. [CrossRef] 17. Spinella, N. Push-over Analysis of a Rubble Full-Scale Masonry Wall Reinforced with Stainless Steel Ribbons. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2018,17, 497–518. [CrossRef] 18. Garcia-Ramonda, L.; Pelà, L.; Roca, P.; Camata, G. Experimental Cyclic Behaviour of Shear Masonry Walls Reinforced with Single and Double Layered Steel Reinforced Grout. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022,320, 126053. [CrossRef] 19. Proença, J.M.; Gago, A.S.; Vilas Boas, A. Structural Window Frame for In-Plane Seismic Strengthening of Masonry Wall Buildings. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2019,13, 98–113. [CrossRef] 20. Proença, J.; Gago, A.S.; Cardoso, J.; Cóias, V.; Paula, R. Development of an Innovative Seismic Strengthening Technique for Traditional Load-Bearing Masonry Walls. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2012,1, 113–133. [CrossRef] 21. Turco, V.; Secondin, S.; Morbin, A.; Valluzzi, M.R.; Modena, C. Flexural and Shear Strengthening of Un-Reinforced Masonry with FRP Bars. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2006,66, 289–296. [CrossRef] 22. Broderick, Á.; Byrne, M.; Armstrong, S.; Sheahan, J.; Coggins, A.M. A Pre and Post Evaluation of Indoor Air Quality, Ventilation, and Thermal Comfort in Retrofitted Co-Operative Social Housing. Build. Environ. 2017,122, 126–133. [CrossRef] 23. Recart, C.; Sturts Dossick, C. Hygrothermal Behavior of Post-Retrofit Housing: A Review of the Impacts of the Energy Efficiency Upgrade Strategies. Energy Build. 2022,262, 112001. [CrossRef] 24. Yang, X.; Zhao, L.; Bruse, M.; Meng, Q. An Integrated Simulation Method for Building Energy Performance Assessment in Urban Environments. Energy Build. 2012,54, 243–251. [CrossRef] 25. Ratti, C.; Baker, N.; Steemers, K. Energy Consumption and Urban Texture. Energy Build. 2005,37, 762–776. [CrossRef] 26. Rodrigues, E.; Amaral, A.R.; Gaspar, A.R.; Gomes, Á. An Approach to Urban Quarter Design Using Building Generative Design and Thermal Performance Optimization. Energy Procedia 2015,78, 2899–2904. [CrossRef] 27. Mangan, S.D.; Koclar Oral, G.; Erdemir Kocagil, I.; Sozen, I. The Impact of Urban Form on Building Energy and Cost Efficiency in Temperate-Humid Zones. J. Build. Eng. 2021,33, 101626. [CrossRef] 28. Caprino, A.; Lorenzoni, F.; Carnieletto, L.; Feletto, L.; de Carli, M.; da Porto, F. Integrated Seismic and Energy Retrofit Interventions on a URM Masonry Building: The Case Study of the Former Courthouse in Fabriano. Sustainability 2021,13, 9592. [CrossRef] 29. Shen, Y.; Yarnold, M. A Novel Sensitivity Analysis of Commercial Building Hybrid Energy-Structure Performance. J. Build. Eng. 2021,43, 102808. [CrossRef] 30. Formisano, A.; Vaiano, G.; Fabbrocino, F. Seismic and Energetic Interventions on a Typical South Italy Residential Building: Cost Analysis and Tax Detraction. Front. Built Environ. 2019,5, 12. [CrossRef] 31. Copiello, S.; Donati, E. Is Investing in Energy Efficiency Worth It? Evidence for Substantial Price Premiums but Limited Profitability in the Housing Sector. Energy Build. 2021,251, 111371. [CrossRef] 32. de Angelis, A.; Ascione, F.; de Masi, R.; Pecce, M.; Vanoli, G. A Novel Contribution for Resilient Buildings. Theoretical Fragility Curves: Interaction between Energy and Structural Behavior for Reinforced Concrete Buildings. Buildings 2020 ,10, 194. [CrossRef] 33. de Angelis, A.; Tariello, F.; de Masi, R.F.; Pecce, M.R. Comparison of Different Solutions for a Seismic and Energy Retrofit of an Auditorium. Sustainability 2021,13, 8761. [CrossRef] Buildings 2022,12, 1276 24 of 25 34. Marini, A.; Passoni, C.; Belleri, A.; Feroldi, F.; Preti, M.; Metelli, G.; Riva, P.; Giuriani, E.; Plizzari, G. Combining Seismic Retrofit with Energy Refurbishment for the Sustainable Renovation of RC Buildings: A Proof of Concept. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 2022, 26, 2475–2495. [CrossRef] 35. Negro, E.; D’Amato, M.; Cardinale, N. Non-Invasive Methods for Energy and Seismic Retrofit in Historical Building in Italy. Front. Built Environ. 2019,5, 125. [CrossRef] 36. Formisano, A.; Vaiano, G. Combined Energy-Seismic Retrofit of Existing Historical Masonry Buildings: The Novel “DUO System” Coating System Applied to a Case Study. Heritage 2021,4, 4629–4646. [CrossRef] 37. D’Angola, A.; Manfredi, V.; Masi, A.; Mecca, M. Energy and Seismic Rehabilitation of RC Buildings through an Integrated Approach: An Application Case Study. In Green Energy Advances; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2019. [CrossRef] 38. Menna, C.; Felicioni, L.; Negro, P.; Lupíšek, A.; Romano, E.; Prota, A.; Hájek, P. Review of Methods for the Combined Assessment of Seismic Resilience and Energy Efficiency towards Sustainable Retrofitting of Existing European Buildings. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2022,77, 103556. [CrossRef] 39. Requena-García-Cruz, M.V.; Morales-Esteban, A.; Durand-Neyra, P.; Estêvão, J.M.C. An Index-Based Method for Evaluating Seismic Retrofitting Techniques. Application to a Reinforced Concrete Primary School in Huelva. PLoS ONE 2019,14, e0215120. [CrossRef] 40. Angiolilli, M.; Lagomarsino, S.; Cattari, S.; Degli Abbati, S. Seismic Fragility Assessment of Existing Masonry Buildings in Aggregate. Eng. Struct. 2021,247, 113218. [CrossRef] 41. Spanish Ministry of Housing MV-201. Unreinforced Ceramic Masonry Walls [Muros Resistentes de Fábrica de Ladrillo]; Spanish Ministry of Housing: Madrid, Spain, 1972. 42. de-Miguel-Rodríguez, J.; Morales-Esteban, A.; Requena-García-Cruz, M.-V.; Zapico-Blanco, B.; Segovia-Verjel, M.-L.; Romero- Sánchez, E.; Carvalho-Estêvão, J.M. Fast Seismic Assessment of Built Urban Areas with the Accuracy of Mechanical Methods Using a Feedforward Neural Network. Sustainability 2022,14, 5274. [CrossRef] 43. McKenna, F.; Fenves, G.L.; Scott, M.H. OpenSees: Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation; Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2000. 44. Petracca, M.; Candeloro, F.; Camata, G. STKO User Manual; ASDEA Software Technology: Pescara, Italy, 2017. 45. The MathWorks Inc. MATLAB and Statistics Toolbox Release 2018b; The MathWorks Inc.: Natick, MA, USA, 2018. 46. D’Altri, A.M.; Sarhosis, V.; Milani, G.; Rots, J.; Cattari, S.; Lagomarsino, S.; Sacco, E.; Tralli, A.; Castellazzi, G.; de Miranda, S. Modeling Strategies for the Computational Analysis of Unreinforced Masonry Structures: Review and Classification. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 2020,27, 1153–1185. [CrossRef] 47. Lagomarsino, S.; Penna, A.; Galasco, A.; Cattari, S. TREMURI Program: An Equivalent Frame Model for the Nonlinear Seismic Analysis of Masonry Buildings. Eng. Struct. 2013,56, 1787–1799. [CrossRef] 48. Serena, C.; Magenes, G. Benchmarking the Software Packages to Model and Assess the Seismic Response of Unreinforced Masonry Existing Buildings through Nonlinear Static Analyses. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2021,20, 1901–1936. [CrossRef] 49. Requena-García-Cruz, M.-V.; Cattari, S.; Bento, R.; Morales-Esteban, A. Comparative Study of Alternative Equivalent Frame Approaches for the Seismic Assessment of Masonry Buildings in OpenSees (Under Review). J. Build. Eng. 2022, in press. 50. Raka, E.; Spacone, E.; Sepe, V.; Camata, G. Advanced Frame Element for Seismic Analysis of Masonry Structures: Model Formulation and Validation. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2015,44, 2489–2506. [CrossRef] 51. Beyer, K.; Eeri, M.; Dazio, A. Quasi-Static Cyclic Tests on Masonry Spandrels. Earthq. Spectra 2012,28, 907–929. [CrossRef] 52. Turnšek, V.; ˇ Caˇcoviˇc, F. Some Experimental Results on the Strength of Brick Masonry Walls. In Proceedings of the Second International Brick Masonry Conference, Stoke-on-Trent, England, UK, 12–15 April 1971; pp. 149–156. 53. Cattari, S.; Camilletti, D.; Lagomarsino, S.; Bracchi, S.; Rota, M.; Penna, A. Masonry Italian Code-Conforming Buildings. Part 2: Nonlinear Modelling and Time-History Analysis. J. Earthq. Eng. 2018,22, 2010–2040. [CrossRef] 54. Spanish Ministry for the Ecological Transfer [Ministerio para la Transición Ecológica y el Reto Demográfico]. Processes for the Certification of Buildings; Spanish Ministry for the Ecological Transfer: Madrid, Spain, 2022. 55. Spanish Ministry of Public Works [Ministerio de Fomento de España]. Spanish Technical Code of Buildings [Código Técnico de La Edificación (CTE)]; Spanish Ministry of Public Works: Madrid, Spain, 2006. 56. Spanish Ministry of Transports Mobility and Urban Agenda [Ministerio de Transportes Movilidad y Agenda Urbana]. Basic Document: Energy Saving [Documento Básico HE-Ahorro de Energía]; Spanish Ministry of Transports Mobility and Urban Agenda: Madrid, Spain, 2022. 57. de la Flor, F.J.S.; Domínguez, S.Á.; Félix, J.L.M.; Falcón, R.G. Climatic Zoning and Its Application to Spanish Building Energy Performance Regulations. Energy Build. 2008,40, 1984–1990. [CrossRef] 58. Spanish Ministry of Transports Mobility and Urban Agenda [Ministerio de Transportes Movilidad y Agenda Urbana]. Basic Document: Healthiness [Documento Básico HS-Salubridad]; Spanish Ministry of Transports Mobility and Urban Agenda: Madrid, Spain, 2022. 59. Instituto para la Diversificación y Ahorro de la Energía (IDAE). Condiciones de Aceptación de Procedimientos Alternativos a LiDER y CALENER; Instituto para la Diversificación y Ahorro de la Energía (IDAE): Madrid, Spain, 2009. 60. Spanish Ministry of Public Works [Ministerio de Fomento]. Atlas de Puentes Térmicos DA DB-HE/3; Spanish Ministry of Public Works [Ministerio de Fomento]: Madrid, Spain, 2006. Buildings 2022,12, 1276 25 of 25 61. Fernández-Agüera, J.; Domínguez-Amarillo, S.; Sendra, J.J.; Suarez, R. Predictive Models for Airtightness in Social Housing in a Mediterranean Region. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019,51, 101695. [CrossRef] 62. León, Á.L.; Domínguez, S.; Campano, M.A.; Ramírez-Balas, C. Reducing the Energy Demand of Multi-Dwelling Units in a Mediterranean Climate Using Solar Protection Elements. Energies 2012,5, 3398–3424. [CrossRef] 63. Santamaría, J.; Girón, S.; Campano, M.A. Economic Assessments of Passive Thermal Rehabilitations of Dwellings in Mediterranean Climate. Energy Build. 2016,128, 772–784. [CrossRef] 64. Petrovˇciˇc, S.; Kilar, V. Design Considerations for Retrofitting of Historic Masonry Structures with Externally Bonded FRP Systems. Int. J. Archit. Herit. 2020,16, 957–976. [CrossRef] 65. Fernández-Agüera, J.; Domínguez-Amarillo, S.; Sendra, J.J.; Suárez, R. An Approach to Modelling Envelope Airtightness in Multi-Family Social Housing in Mediterranean Europe Based on the Situation in Spain. Energy Build. 2016 ,128, 236–253. [CrossRef] 66. Salehi, A.; Torres, I.; Ramos, A. Experimental Analysis of Building Airtightness in Traditional Residential Portuguese Buildings. Energy Build. 2017,151, 198–205. [CrossRef] 67. Feijó-Muñoz, J.; Pardal, C.; Echarri, V.; Fernández-Agüera, J.; Assiego de Larriva, R.; Montesdeoca Calderín, M.; Poza-Casado, I.; Padilla-Marcos, M.Á.; Meiss, A. Energy Impact of the Air Infiltration in Residential Buildings in the Mediterranean Area of Spain and the Canary Islands. Energy Build. 2019,188–189, 226–238. [CrossRef]