The influence of the acoustic performance in the certification of a school buildings according to the ITACA protocol

Abstract

The study and analysis of the processes that determine environmental sustainability of buildings are nowadays topics of great interest for the sustainable, economic and social development of the cities. The international context presents guidelines and protocols for the energy-environmental sustainability, often aimed to assigning a sustainability label to the buildings. In Italy one of the most used rating systems is the ITACA Protocol, recently updated by the Italian Standard UNI/Pdr 2019, which through a series of criteria identifies global indicators of the sustainability of the building examined. This paper presents the potential of the ITACA protocol which could be a method for designing innovative and efficient architectures. In particular, the aspects related to the acoustic comfort are examined and how these criteria change the overall performance of a building. The evaluation of the sustainability performance was applied to a school building. Results show that an optimal acoustic quality improve over to 2 point of the final protocol score.

Keywords

Sustainable environments energy efficiency indoor environmental quality acoustic design

Introduction

Today the issues of sustainability have gained more space in the construction sector, bringing out tools for assessing sustainability. These tools are based on the global definition of sustainability that meets the Environmental, Economic and Social criteria. The building topic represents an important research field in the construction or transformation of buildings and the relationships between the urban context and the people who live in the building. Recent researches are oriented toward the definition of global indices useful to quickly define the characteristics of energy-environmental sustainability of a building. Despite its consolidated and long tradition, this field of investigation has not it is still impoverished, but is receiving renewed attention in the scientific community for being the subject of multiple trends and phenomena.^1
–3 Within systems theory, a system is defined as complex when its constituent elements cannot explain the overall characteristics of the system due to their nonlinear links. Espinosa and Walker⁴describe a theoretical framework based on complexity science with a focus on organizational and second order cybernetics, one that presents a powerful new insight into the concept of sustainability.

Cui et al.⁵ explains the understanding connectedness between urbanization, resources and environment and to find the direction of sustainable urbanization by outlining a complex system theory of Urbanization-Resources-Environment (URE). With the same approach in Tratalos et al.,⁶ in five UK cities, the social status of residents was related to measures of tree cover. Many approach to reduce the impact of increasing urbanization is to minimize the spatial extent of urban areas by developing more compact city forms. In Gregory McPherson⁷ the method directly connects vegetation structure with the spatial-temporal flow of functional benefits and costs, because the urban greenspace provides many environmental and social services that contribute to the quality of life in cities. Many application studies in China were performed, in these studies the general eco-environmental integrity is under significant urbanization pressure.^8
–10

Considering the environmental performance, the use of sustainable materials in building design and renovation has been driven by government initiatives in large part of the world. A different constructive solutions for walls (lime mortar, gypsum plaster board, and OSB) were studied in terms of thermal transmittance and thermal delay, and with respect to airborne sound insulation. Marques et al.^11,12 in the study present the experimental hygrothermal and acoustic characterization of sustainable construction building solutions using rice straw bales. Sustainability assessment of environments is related to a variety of different issues. One of them is the acoustic performance of the analyzed buildings. Improved sound insulation is reflected directly in rating results, but it also has impact on the ecological quality of a building. Measures lead to an increased amount of material with related environmental impacts. Several case study on typical walls illustrates the relation between environmental impact and acoustic performance.^1,13
–15

Deverell et al.¹⁶ presents the results from in situ measurements of insulation against unwanted sound (noise) for a sustainable walling system in particular straw bale walls. Numerous countries/regions have developed green building programs aimed at promoting more sustainable buildings.^17
–19

In Italy was recently improved the ITACA protocol (Institute for Innovation and Transparency of Contracts and Environmental Sustainability), administered by UNI-ITACA. The ITACA protocol green building rating system encourages an integrated design approach, with a points scheme that allots credits for building design features deemed to improve sustainability, which includes reductions in energy use and improvements in indoor and outdoor environment quality.²⁰

Considering the existing regulatory framework and the ITACA environmental protocol, this paper aims to evaluate the relationship between the acoustic performances, the energy saving and environmental impact of the building. The multicriteria methods are describe in the ITACA protocol and rating systems based on national and international legal standard. A school was chosen to apply the ITACA protocol, varying the acoustic characteristics of the components, with the aim of evaluating the impact of it on the overall performance.

The paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the ITACA protocol and a focus in the acoustic category of the protocol, the case study and bioclimatic approach for nZEB design whereas it is presents simulation tool. Results of optimization analysis and discussion are reported in Section 3. Section 4 draws the conclusions of the work.

Materials and methods

The ITACA environmental protocol

The ITACA Protocol is a procedure for assessing the level of energy and environmental sustainability of buildings. The Protocol allows to verify the performance of a building with reference not only to consumptions and energy efficiency, but also taking into consideration its impact on the environment and on human health. The aim of the protocol is the construction of increasingly innovative buildings, NZEB, with reduced water and material consumption which in their production involve low energy consumption and at the same time guarantee a high level of welfare. As part of the collaboration between ITACA (Institute for Innovation and Transparency of Contracts and Environmental Sustainability) and UNI (Italian National Unification Body), in order to evolve the various protocols to national technical standards of reference, the UNI/PdR 13:2019 Reference Practice was created, which replaced the last version of the ITACA Protocol UNI/PdR 13:2015).^21,22

The update of the previous protocol essentially derives from the need to adapt the instrument to the innovations relating to the technical regulations and the introduction of the minimum environmental criteria, DM of 11 October 2017.²³ The Minimum Environmental Criteria are indications aimed at directing public bodies toward a rationalization of consumption and purchases and underline the importance of integrating environmental criteria in the different phases of the tender procedures (subject of the contract, technical specifications, related rewarding technical characteristics the method of awarding the most economically advantageous tender, conditions for carrying out the contract). The Ministerial Decree²³ reiterates the importance of so-called rating systems, among which the ITACA Protocol is expressly mentioned, and the possibility to make use of it as it provides that the contracting entity may also select among the projects submitted to a verification phase valid for the subsequent certification of the building according to one of the protocols of energy and environmental sustainability.

The ITACA protocol provides indications for the calculation of the performance score of new or restored constructions. The performance score of the building must be calculated through an evaluation procedure which is divided into three consecutive phases:

characterization: the performance of the building for each criterion is quantified through appropriate indicators;

normalization: the value of each indicator is made dimensionless and is “heated” in a normalization interval;

aggregation: normalized scores are combined together to produce the final score.

The evaluation procedure to be followed for calculating the building performance score is described in detail in UNI/PdR 13.0:2019²⁴ which for each criterion illustrates:

code, name, evaluation area and category to which it belongs, need (or the quality objective to be pursued);

performance indicator and the relative unit of measurement (if quantitative);

reference performance scale to be used for the normalization of the indicator in the range from −1 to +5;

verification method and tools to be used to characterize the value of indicator.

The energy and environmental certification system according to the protocol therefore provides for the examination of the performance of the building in relation to the various issues to be examined, called assessment areas which include:

Area A: Quality of the site

Area B: Consumption of Resources

Area C: Environmental loads

Area D: Indoor environmental quality

Area E: Quality of service

Each area is divided into categories that represents homogeneous subgroup of arguments as energy, water, materials, acoustic.

The criteria are divided into categories. Each criterion is associated with one or more physical quantities which, combined together, allow to quantify the performance of the building.

An important aspect for a correct understanding of the method is that it is not necessary for the project to demonstrate excellent value for each of the requirements. To obtain a positive result, the designer will decide whether to focus only on some of the requirements and check whether these are sufficient to achieve an overall positive value. Once the scores obtained for each evaluation form present in the reference PdR have been established, a weighted vote can be obtained.

The evaluation form can be made up as shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Interpretation of scores on the ITACA protocol rating scale.

-1	Represents a performance below standard and current practice.
0	Represents the minimum acceptable performance defined by laws or regulations in force, or, if there are no relevant regulations, represents current practice.
1	Represents a slight improvement in performance compared to current regulations and current practice.
2	Represents a moderate improvement in performance compared to current regulations and current practice.
3	Represents a significant improvement in performance compared to current regulations and common practice. It is to be considered as the best current practice.
4	Represents a moderate increase in current best practice.
5	It represents a considerably advanced performance compared to the best current practice, of an experimental nature.

Category D.5: Acoustic comfort

Each area of the protocol includes several categories. Each categories are divided into criteria. In the evaluation of the area D, the protocol describes the visual, acoustic, thermal and air quality comfort. In the category D.5 the acoustic performances are evaluated.

In each sheet of the category D.5., the type of building to which the criterion is applied and the type of intervention considered is clarified. This work focuses on the acoustic quality of the building and therefore on the D 5.5. criteria (Reverberation time) and D 5.6. (Acoustic quality of the building). The criteria are defined according to the Italian standard UNI 11367:2010.²⁵

D.5.5.: Reverberation time

Criterion D.5.5. is only for the non residential buildings, then the overall score is calculated as average weighted of reverberation time value for each principal rooms. Table 2 show the criteria sheet D.5.5. for the calculation of reverberation time (RT). The criterion verifies the fulfillment of the acoustic requirements of UNI 11532,²⁶ applying the calculation model defined in UNI EN ISO 12354-6.²⁷

Table 2.

Criteria sheet D.5.5—Reverberation time.

Area D—Indoor environmental comfort	D.5 Category—Acoustic quality
New construction/Renovation	Non residential
Needs	Ensure adequate acoustic correction of sound reverberation in the main rooms
Performance Index	Percent ratio between the average value of the reverberation time of the building in question and the average value of the reverberation time of the limit building
Performance scale
	[%]	score
Negative	>100	−1
Sufficient	100	0
Good	85	3
Excellent	75	5

The building performance score is calculated as a percent ratio between the average RT time of building B (Tm) and the average RT time of limit building A (Tm,lim) as:

\frac{P e r f o r m a n c e}{I n d e x} = B / A = \frac{T m}{T m, l i m} * 100 = [%]

(1)

D.5.6: Acoustic quality of the building

The overall score of the criterion D.5.6. is calculated as average weighted in accordance with the acoustic global class value achieved. Table 3 show the criteria sheet D.5.6. relatives to the acoustic quality of the building. The criterion is calculated in accordance with the acoustic requirements of UNI 11367,²⁵ applying the calculation model defined in UNI EN ISO 12354:2017^28
–31 and UNI/TR 11175:2005.³² The acoustic indexes are:

Table 3.

Criteria sheet D.5.6—Acoustic quality of the building.

Area D—Indoor environmental comfort	D.5 Category—Acoustic quality
New construction/Renovation/Current state	Residential/Non residential
Needs	Protection from external and internal building noise
Performance Index	Overall acoustic class of the building
Performance scale—residential/non residential
	[–]	score
Negative	Global Acoustic Class IV	−1
Sufficient	Global Acoustic Class III	0
Good	Global Acoustic Class II	3
Excellent	Global Acoustic Class IV	5
Performance scale—school building
	[–]	score
Negative	One or more acoustic requirements don’t achieve basic performance	−1
Sufficient	Most acoustic requirements achieve basic performance	0
Good	Most acoustic requirements achieve superior performance	3
Excellent	All acoustic requirements achieve superior performance	5

facade sound insulation evaluation index D2m,nT,w;

apparent sound reduction index R’w;

normalized impact sound pressure level L’n,w;

SPL introduced by continuous (LAeq) and discontinuous (LASmax) technological systems.

The calculation of the global acoustic class of the building unit, is standardized in the paragraph 6.4 of the UNI.²⁵ The performance index of criterion will resulted as average mean of all score for each building unit were calculated.

The input data for the model were carried out from data-sheet of materials manufacturers or calculated with models published in scientific literature.^12,33
–36

The case study

To evaluating the methodology of the ITACA Protocol to a public building, a new school building was chosen.

The case study is the reconstruction of the E. De Amicis primary and kindergarten school, after the 2016 earthquake of the center of Italy, in Muccia (MC) town.

The building has an oblong parallepiped shape for an area of about 1000 m² and offers large common areas, to be used for informal lessons, reading and being together (see Figure 1).

The plan of the school is depicted in Figure 2.

The new school is built with the platform frame technology with wooden frames, guaranteeing the highest degree of resistance available to earthquakes.

The construction with prefabricated wooden elements with strong insulation thicknesses, combined with underfloor heating, the photovoltaic system, the heat recovery air renewal units, the heat pump systems, guarantees the highest standards of comfort and energy saving, allowing the classification of the structure among the Nearly Zero Consumption Buildings (NZEB).

The layer composition of the facade wall is pictured in Figure 3 and the layer composition for the roof is pictured in Figure 4. The physical/thermophysical characteristics for the construction packages are listed in Tables 4 –6.

Table 4.

M1 wall layer and their physical/thermophysical characteristics.

Layer		Thickness [mm]	Conductivity [W/mK]	Density [kg/m³]
Facade wall
Total thickness [mm]			330
Surface mass [kg/m²]			81
U-value [W/m²K]			0.163
Rw [dB]			58
1	Plasterboard	13	0.250	900
2	Plasterboard	13	0.250	900
3	Non-ventilated cavity	50	0.278	-
4	OSB	18	0.120	1.60
5	Vapor barrier	0.50	0.500	1.80
6	Rockwool -Acoustic 225	160	0.035	1.03
7	Clima control 80	0.50	0.220	1.70
8	OSB	18	0.120	1.60
9	Mineralized fir wood fibers	50	0.065	1.47
10	Plaster	7	0.300	0.84

Table 5.

C1 False ceiling and their physical/thermophysical characteristics.

Layer	Thickness [mm]	Conductivity [W/mK]	Density [kg/m³]
False ceiling
Total thickness [mm]	13
Surface mass [kg/m²]	12
U-value [W/m²K]	3.964
Plasterboard plates	13	0.250	900

Table 6.

S3 cover layer and their physical/thermophysical characteristics.

Layer		Thickness [mm]	Conductivity [W/mK]	Density [kg/m³]
Wooden cover
Total thickness [mm]		266
Surface mass [kg/m²]		62
U-value [W/m²K]		0.201
Rw [dB]		47
1	Roof tiles	10	1	2000
2	Bitumen	4	0.170	1200
4	OSB	15	0.120	450
5	Non-ventilated cavity	50	-	-
7	Clima control 80	0.50	0.220	400
6	Rockwool - Hardrock Energy	160	0.036	110
7	Polyethylene	1	0.500	980
8	Fir wood	25	0.120	450

Tool implementation

For the application of the ITACA protocol, a tool implemented directly by the working group was built. This tool is not intended as an alternative to commercial software, but was developed solely for academic research purposes to improve UNI practice.^21,22

The primary intention of the “self-built” tool was precisely to integrate in it most of the calculations useful for the drafting of the protocol starting from the construction of the building according to the technological system described in UNI 8290³⁷ and breaking it down into all its parts: horizontal and vertical partitions, window frames and glazed elements, division of the real estate units, the latter, according to their intended use. In this way it was possible to attribute the corresponding structural, thermal and acoustic parameters to each component. Once the building has been defined using the “General data” function of the same tool, the calculation scene is determined; the corresponding intended use is selected, the type of construction and the energy performance parameters are entered, the only ones not directly calculated by the tool. By selecting the construction type, the tool in total autonomy suggests the ITACA practice to refer to, excluding from the calculation the criteria not certified to it. The compilation of the criteria takes place through tabular insertion and is managed by a hierarchical tree. Each criterion, following the compilation of the fields and parameters required by practice, expels the indicator and final score.

The criteria of the ITACA protocol as known, are based on calculations and procedures standardized by international and national standards. For this reason, many inconsistencies have been encountered between those that are the requirements of the legislation and those that are the peculiarities of the practice, most of them have been resolved within the software which today turns out to be a good tool for the provisional evaluation and as verification of a post-work test.

Finally, the tool allows the generation of an evaluation report containing the individual scores of the criteria, the final score of the work and the certificate of the ITACA protocol provided by the same body.

This tool was also designed for the evaluation of the C.A.M. according to the Ministerial Decree of October 2017²³ and the ITACA Protocol on an URBAN scale, which makes it a versatile and complete tool but above all easily modifiable and upgradeable according to the scientific, technological and regulatory progress.

Acoustic evaluation

Among the requirements to be met in the design of the rooms, acoustics plays a crucial role, as the acoustic parameters are strongly connected with their intended use. International research in the acoustic field has paid strong attention to the quality of listening in school environments. Since school learning is a long and delicate process, the acoustic design of a classroom must be aimed at achieving both optimal conditions for verbal communication and general well being conditions for the occupants. In the case of the school of Muccia, assuming category A3,³⁸ considering the volume of the classrooms and furnishings, a reverberation time (RT) equal to 0.82 s has been estimated. Therefore, the excellent design is attested in function of the sound reverberation. Figure 5 shows the tool screen for the calculation of the reverberation time.

The calculation of the acoustic quality of the building was carried out in compliance with the UNI EN ISO 12354 series.^28
–31

In particular, the acoustic properties of noise insulation from outside to inside and between rooms were considered for the calculation. The following classrooms indexes were assessed:

Facade noise insulation index D2m,nT,w which respects both the limit value set at 48 dB in accordance to Ministerial Decree³⁹ and 43 dB according to Ministerial Decree²³;

Airborne sound insulation index Dnt,w compared to the limits specified in the UNI²⁵: 50 dB between classrooms and 30 dB between the classroom and common use areas.

Noise produced by the technical equipment (continuous and discontinuous systems) Lic, compared to the limits specified in UNI²⁵ 34 dB;

Figure 6 shows the tool screen for the calculation of the acoustic quality in accordance with standards previously cited.

These analysis have been carried out using the values calculated for evaluate the scores of criteria “Reverberation time” (D.5.5) and “Acoustic quality of building” (D.5.6). Sum of values calculated in criteria D.5.5 and D.5.6 are used to evaluate the acoustic comfort in building.

Results of the analysis show that in the case studies, the acoustic performances related to the school represents a considerably advanced performance compared to the best current practice. In both criterion the score is five that is the maximum in the rating scale of the ITACA protocol.

Table 7 and Table 8 summarize the results obtained through the calculations obtained using the tool.

Table 7.

Criteria sheet D.5.5—Summary table of calculations.

Criteria sheet D.5.5.—Reverberation Time
Performance Index	69
SCORE	5
Reverberation time referred to the building calculated as a weighted average of the limit values of the Ti for individual main rooms on the relative useful surfaces:
Tm	0,82 [s]
Reverberation time referred to the limit building calculated as a weighted average of the limit values (table D.5.5. c) for the single main rooms on the relative useful surfaces:
Tm,lim	1,2 [s]

Table 8.

Criteria sheet D.5.6—Summary table of calculations.

Criteria sheet D.5.6.—Acoustic quality of building
Performance Index	100
SCORE	5
Global acoustic class	I
Facade noise insulation index D2m,nT,w	52	[dB]
Airborne sound insulation index Dnt,w (between two classrooms)	48	[dB]
Noise produced by the technical equipment Lic	32	[dB]

The results of the analysis show the acoustic performances related to the reference (law limit) value.

Results

The weight of the criteria in ITACA is defined on the basis of three values, namely²⁴:

Duration (Dk): measures the duration over time of the effect related to the criterion. Dk has a value of 1 if the duration is less than 10 years, 2 is greater than 10 years, 3 if it is greater than 50 years;

Extension (Ek): measures the geographical extent of the effect related to the criterion. Ek has a value of 1 if the extension is at the site or building level, 2 if it is at the district or city level, 3 if it is at the regional or global level;

Intensity (Ik): measures the magnitude of the effect related to the criterion. Ik has a value of 1 if the intensity is low, 2 if it is moderate or indirect, 3 if it is high or direct.

Based on the duration (Dk), extension (Ek) and intensity of the effect related to a criterion, it is possible to determine its impact level (Pk) as:

P k = D k * E k * I k

(2)

The weight of a criterion within its category must be calculated according to the following formula:

w_{i, j, k} = \frac{P_{k}}{Σ_{k = 1}^{N_{c} (i, j)} P_{k}}

(3)

With reference to the weight that the acoustics have on the indoor quality of the building, reference is made to the following Table 9:

Table 9.

Attribution of weights to criteria and categories.

Category D.5.	Impact level (Pk)	Criterion weight on the category D.5.
D.5.5	9	50%
D.5.6	9	50%

In relation to the case study, on the basis of the building types used, the geometric dimensions and the calculation methods used, the building complies with the acoustic requirements and achieves a high sustainability score in the criteria established by the ITACA protocol.

Based on the building types used, the internal comfort values achieved and the urban-architectural information received, according to the ITACA protocol, the building obtained a score of 3.62.

The final score of the protocol is obtained in according with equation (4):

S = 0.1 * S Q L + 0.9 * S Q E

(4)

SQL is the score regarding to “areas quality”; SQE is the score regarding to “building quality”; S is the final total score regarding to “global building quality.”

This score which on the performance scale “represents a significant improvement performance compared to current regulations and common practice and is to be considered as the best current practice.”

In order to verify the effect at a national level of a growing use performances as resulting from the case study, lower acoustic comfort score have been hypothesized taking into account less performing construction types. With the aim of evaluating how the acoustic performance affects the overall assessment of the building in accordance with the ITACA protocol, various scenarios have been hypothesized. Four different scenarios were created. In each of them acoustic performances have been variated but maintaining the comply with the minimum building requirements required by Italian law. The assumed scenarios are shown in the following Table 10. For scenario A we consider an external wall with a single plasterboard sheet on the internal side, rock wool in the cavity and external coat in XPS. The false ceiling remains the same. For scenario B, the false ceiling in modular microfiber metal panel is considered, while the external wall remains unchanged. For scenario C, the external wall is considered as scenario A and the false ceiling as scenario B. In the last scenario D, we consider an external wall with cavity with 5 cm of rock wool and external coat in rock wool. The suspended ceiling is the same as scenario A.

Table 10.

Summary table of scenarios.

Scenario A
Facade wall (M2)		Roof (S3)
Total thickness [mm]	315	Total thickness [mm]	266
Surface mass [kg/m²]	41	Surface mass [kg/m²]	62
U-value [W/m²K]	0.168	U-value [W/m²K]	0.201
Rw [dB]	54	Rw [dB]	47
Scenario B
Facade wall (M1)		Roof (S3)
Total thickness [mm]	330	Total thickness [mm]	266
Surface mass [kg/m²]	81	Surface mass [kg/m²]	62
U-value [W/m²K]	0.163	U-value [W/m²K]	0.201
Rw [dB]	58	Rw [dB]	47
Scenario C
Facade wall (M2)		Roof (S3)
Total thickness [mm]	315	Total thickness [mm]	266
Surface mass [kg/m²]	41	Surface mass [kg/m²]	62
U-value [W/m²K]	0.168	U-value [W/m²K]	0.201
Rw [dB]	54	Rw [dB]	47
Scenario D
Facade wall (M3)		Roof (S3)
Total thickness [mm]	320	Total thickness [mm]	266
Surface mass [kg/m²]	43	Surface mass [kg/m²]	62
U-value [W/m²K]	0.164	U-value [W/m²K]	0.201
Rw [dB]	62	Rw [dB]	47

The single interventions have been combined each other (see Table 11).

Table 11.

Combination of interventions.

Facade wall		Cover	False-ceiling
A	M2	S3	C1
B	M1	S3	C2
C	M2	S3	C2
D	M3	S3	C1

The ITACA protocol score was recalculated for all scenarios. The result of simulation are listed in the Table 12.

Table 12.

List of results for all scenarios.

SQL “Area quality”		SQE “Building quality”	ITACA final score
A	-	1.55	1.96
B	-	1.71	2.12
C	-	2.85	3.26
D	-	3.62	4.03

Discussion

The choice of less performing materials from the point of view of acoustic insulation has also led to a lowering of the energy performance of the building. Therefore, the changes not only degrade the acoustic performance of the building but there is also a significant impact on other criteria concerning the performance of the building and clearly also lower the scores relating to the criteria on building materials. The categories of the ITACA protocol that were involved in the calculation were: B.1 “Primary energy required during the life cycle,” B.4 “eco-friendly materials,” B.6 “Enclosure performance,” C.1 “Emissions of CO₂ equivalent,” D.5 “Acoustic comfort.” In particular the criteria that modifies the ITACA final score are:

- B.1.2 Non-renewable primary energy

- B.1.3 Total primary energy

- B.4.6 Recycled / recovered materials

- B.4.7 Materials from renewable sources

- B.4.8 Local materials

- B.4.10 Disassemblable materials

- B.4.11 Certified materials

- B.6.1 Thermal energy useful for heating

- B.6.2 Thermal energy useful for cooling

- B.6.3 Global average coefficient of heat exchange

- B.6.4 Control of solar radiation

- C.1.2 Expected emissions in the operational phase

- D.5.5 Reverberation time

- D.5.6 Acoustic quality of the building

As see in Table 12, by modifying the characteristics of the envelope and modifying the efficiency of the thermal and electric system, a substantial modification (2.07 point) of the score relative to the quality of the building is obtained. Clearly the quality of the external areas remains unchanged as these variations do not concern the criteria of area A. The level of accuracy of the prediction of the model described certainly depends on many factors, one of which is the accuracy of the input data.

The construction of non-residential buildings with technical performances such as these is easily flexible because buildings technologies and plants already widely used in the building market are used. The fluctuation depend on the different building construction, the greatest increases are observed in wooden structure while in traditional buildings performance are smaller.

Conclusion

Today, the new policies adopted by Green Building Labels, which operate at an international and national level, reveal that acoustic performance and noise protection are a fundamental part of the social sustainability aspects of a building. Thus, the approach on how to consider acoustic performance and the impact on evaluation results vary widely. Acoustics is present in almost all aspects of modern society, from both a physical and human perspective. It is, of great importance to consider how research of acoustics and its applications could become an integrated part of sustainability. The necessary checks were carried out on the basis of the reference standards as specified in the previous sections. In this paper, some are explored from the built environment perspective, in terms of acoustic comfort, in particular referred to sustainability protocol. From the applications of the ITACA Protocol and from the analysis of the score achieved, it is demonstrated how increasing the level of acoustic comfort of building structures as well as their integration in a favorable urban context contributes positively to obtaining an overall performance that is current best practice. With a view to extending the study further acoustic aspects can be considered such as the impact the building will have on the neighborhood. It is clear that the noise emission from the building will have a consequent disturbance of the neighborhood and so the urban sound planning, the use of natural means for noise reduction will be a relevant descriptors to determine the acoustic impacts of sustainable measures. At the end, the research should be focuses on people’s perception, trying to understand the effects of human behaviors experience in residential o not residential areas.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thanks the Andrea Bocelli Found., Eng. Paolo Bianchi and the Engineering company Serpilli S.r.l, Italy, who kindly allowed to use the building for the study.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by Regione Marche, call for the promotion of research projects in support of the implementation of the National Strategy for Sustainable Development “Bando Snsvs 2,” project titled “VALUTAZIONE DEGLI ASSETTI URBANI E TERRITORIALI PER LA RESILIENZA DELLE COMUNITÀ (VAU.TE.RE.CO.).”

ORCID iDs

Samantha Di Loreto

Fabio Serpilli

References

Kang

Acoustic sustainability in urban residential areas. Procedia Environ Sci 2011; 10: 471–477.

Kang

. Acoustics and sustainability in the built environment: an overview and case studies. In: Inter-noise and noise-con congress and conference proceedings, vol. 2005, pp.3907–3916. Washington, DC: Institute of Noise Control Engineering.

Kang

. Sustainability analysis of architectural acoustic materials. In: Proceedings of the 13th International congress on sound and vibration (ICSV), Vienna, Austria.

Espinosa

Walker

A complexity approach to sustainability: theory and application. World Scientific Books, Imperial College London, UK, 2011.

Cui

Fang

Liu

, et al. Assessing sustainability of urbanization by a coordinated development index for an urbanization-resources-environment complex system: A case study of Jing-Jin-Ji region, China. Ecol Indic 2019; 96: 383–391.

Tratalos

Fuller

Warren

, et al. Urban form, biodiversity potential and ecosystem services. Landsc Urban Plan 2007; 83(4): 308–317.

Gregory McPherson

. Accounting for benefits and costs of urban greenspace. Landsc Urban Plan 1992; 22(1): 41–51.

Liu

Yao

Wang

, et al. An integrated sustainable development approach to modeling the eco-environmental effects from urbanization. Ecol Indic 2011; 11(6): 1599–1608.

Xian

Crane

An analysis of urban development and its environmental impact on the Tampa bay watershed. J Environ Manag 2007; 85(4): 965–976.

10.

Kong

Yin

Nakagoshi

, et al. Simulating urban growth processes incorporating a potential model with spatial metrics. Ecol Indic 2012; 20: 82–91.

11.

Marques

Tadeu

Almeida

, et al. Characterisation of sustainable building walls made from rice straw bales. J Build Eng 2020; 28: 101041.

12.

Fayaz

Khan

Rahman

, et al. Ensemble machine learning model for classification of spam product reviews. Complexity 2020; 2020: 1–10.

13.

Dolezal

Spitzbart-Glasl

Relevance of acoustic performance in green building labels and social sustainability ratings. Energy Proc 2015; 78: 1629–1634.

14.

Fuda

Aletta

Kang

, et al. Sound perception of different materials for the footpaths of urban parks. Energy Proc 2015; 78: 13–18.

15.

Arenas

Sakagami

Sustainable acoustic materials. Sustainability 2020; 12(16): 6540.

16.

Deverell

Goodhew

Griffiths

, et al. The noise insulation properties of non-food-crop walling for schools and colleges: A case study. J Build Appraisal 2009; 5: 29–40.

17.

Zhou

Yin

XB.

Multi-objective optimization of material selection for sustainable products: artificial neural networks and genetic algorithm approach. Mater Des 2009; 30(4): 1209–1215.

18.

Akadiri

Olomolaiye

Chinyio

EA.

Multi-criteria evaluation model for the selection of sustainable materials for building projects. Autom Constr 2013; 30: 113–125.

19.

Zabalza Bribián

Valero Capilla

Aranda Usón

. Life cycle assessment of building materials: Comparative analysis of energy and environmental impacts and evaluation of the eco-efficiency improvement potential. Build Environ 2011; 46(5): 1133–1140.

20.

Baglivo

Congedo

Fazio

Multi-criteria optimization analysis of external walls according to itaca protocol for zero energy buildings in the Mediterranean climate. Build Environ 2014; 82: 467–480.

21.

UNI/ITACA. Environmental sustainability of construction works -operational tools for sustainability assessment -residential buildings. Standard UNI/PdR 13.1:2019, UNI/ITACA, 2019.

22.

UNI/ITACA. Environmental sustainability of construction works -operational tools for sustainability assessment non-residential buildings. Standard UNI/PdR 13.2:2019, UNI/ITACA, 2019.

23.

Ministerial Decree. Criteri ambientali minimi per l’affidamento di servizi di progettazione e lavori per la nuova costruzione, ristrutturazione e manutenzione di edifici pubblici. Ministerial Decree, 11 January 2017.

24.

UNI/ITACA. Environmental sustainability of construction works -operational tools for sustainability assessment general framework and methodological principles. Standard UNI/PdR 13.0:2019, UNI/ITACA, 2019.

25.

UNI. Building acoustics -acoustic classification of building units -evaluation procedure and in situ measurements. Standard UNI 11367:2010, UNI, 2010.

26.

UNI. Caratteristiche acustiche interne di ambienti confinati -metodi di progettazione e tecniche di valutazione -parte 1: Requisiti generali, 2018. Standard UNI 11532-1, UNI, 2018.

27.

UNI. Building acoustics -estimation of acoustic performance of building from the performance of elements -part 6: Sound absorption in closed environments. Standard UNI EN ISO 12354-6:2006, UNI, 2006.

28.

UNI. Building acoustics -estimation of acoustic performance of buildings from the performance of elements -part 1: Airborne sound insulation between rooms. Standard UNI EN ISO 12354-1:2017, UNI, 2017.

29.

UNI. Building acoustics -estimation of acoustic performance of buildings from the performance of elements -part 2: Impact sound insulation between rooms. Standard UNI EN ISO 12354-2:2017, UNI, 2017.

30.

UNI. Building acoustics -estimation of acoustic performance of buildings from the performance of elements -part 3: Airborne sound insulation against outdoor sound. Standard UNI EN ISO 12354-3:2017, UNI, 2017.

31.

UNI. Building acoustics -estimation of acoustic performance of building from the performance of elements -part 5: Sounds levels due to the service equipment. Standard NI EN ISO 12354-5:2009, UNI, 2009.

32.

UNI. Acustica in edilizia -guida alle norme serie uni en 12354 per la previsione delle prestazioni acustiche degli edifici applicazione alla tipologia costruttiva nazionale. Standard UNI/TR 11175:2005, UNI, 2005.

33.

Fabio

Giovanni

Mariano

Airborne sound insulation prediction of masonry walls using artificial neural networks. Build Acoust 2021; 28(4): 391–409.

34.

Zayed

Cheng

A critical review of acoustic modeling and research on building façade. Build Acoust 2022; 29: 107–134.

35.

Serpilli

Lori

Di Loreto

Evaluation of floating floors performances using the reception plate method. In: INTER-NOISE and NOISE-CON Congress and Conference Proceedings, InterNoise21, 2021, vol. 8, pp.970–1944. Washington, DC: Institute of Noise Control Engineering.

36.

Ciaburro

Iannace

Machine learning-based algorithms to knowledge extraction from time series data: a review. Data 2021; 6(6): 55.

37.

UNI. Residential building. building elements. classification and terminology. Standard UNI 8290.1:2003, UNI, 2003.

38.

UNI. Caratteristiche acustiche interne di ambienti confinati -metodi di progettazione e tecniche di valutazione -parte 2: Settore scolastico. Standard UNI 11532-2, UNI, 2020.

39.

Ministerial Decree. Determinazione dei requisiti acustici passivi degli edifici pubblicato in g.u. serie generale n. 297 del 22 dicembre 1997. Ministerial Decree, 1997.