PSI - Issue 55

Giovanna Bartels et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 55 (2024) 88–95 Giovanna Bartels et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2023) 000 – 000

91

4

also the project's commitment to durability and sustainable practices. Such an approach not only aligns with financial prudence but also influence responsible and sustainable choices. T he roof’s costs were computed based on information supplied by the development team, defining the value associated with each layer in all the combinations considered. This comprehensive data not only facilitated the determination of the total cost but also enabled a thorough comparison of values across the 15 potential combinations. 2.3. Multi-criteria Scenarios application While identifying environmentally favourable combinations, it became evident that no singular solution stood out prominently. At the same time, absolute cost does not offer a complete and nuanced evaluation of the solutions. Recognizing this, it was decided to develop a weighting process, that started by a normalization of the environmental impacts and costs, to enhance the depth of the analysis. This process involved establishing a given ratio where the highest value of each variable was standardized to 1, with other values adjusted proportionally by dividing per that highest value. In order to gain a deeper understanding of the options and identify solutions that strike a balance between costs and sustainability, four distinct multi-criteria scenarios were applied to the normalized data:

• Scenario 01: Costs: 70%; Environmental: 30% (GWP: 15% and PE-NRe: 15%) • Scenario 02: Costs: 50%; Environmental: 50% (GWP: 25% and PE-NRe: 25%) • Scenario 03: Costs: 34%; Environmental: 66% (GWP: 33% and PE-NRe: 33%) • Scenario 04: Costs: 34%; Environmental: 66% (GWP: 50% and PE-NRe: 16%)

By aligning priorities within these scenarios, it is possible to anticipate that decision-makers have the data to make more informed, responsible decisions that align with their sustainability objectives. These scenarios provide a framework for evaluating options, ensuring that the final choice not only meets financial considerations but also aligns with environmental responsibility, fostering a balanced and conscientious approach. 2.4. Maintenance planning Proactive Maintenance Plan is a tool to improve longevity and the performance of the roof. Through regular inspections and preventive measures, it identifies and resolves potential issues before they burgeon into major problems. By aiming to prevent breakdowns and minimize downtime, proactive maintenance ensures optimal performance of the property's components. Beyond these immediate benefits, this approach also plays a pivotal role in preserving the property's aesthetics and functionality. Defining maintenance source elements is essential and requires understanding of the flat roof system. In the context of this study, this involves dissecting the flat roof system into two distinct layers, thermal insulation and waterproofing, as it shows in Table 1. By considering these layers, it is possible to understand their unique maintenance needs, and enable a comprehensive approach to roof maintenance.

Table 1. Definition of the maintenance source elements. Layer

Maintenance Source Element

Reinforcement (R22R/R23R/FV/R22PP/NT)

Waterproofing Layer (Layer A)

Polyurethane Membrane (PU/PUD) Basecoat reinforced with Glass Fiber

Thermal Insulation Layer