← 論文一覧に戻る

構造・外皮劣化とエネルギーfeedback下における低炭素建築物の不安定性制約付きライフサイクル最適化

Instability-Constrained Lifecycle Optimisation of Low-Carbon Buildings under Structural–Envelope Degradation and Energy Feedback (原題)

Seyed Reza Samaei, ASSED NAKED HADDAD, James Riffat

Green Technology & Innovation📚 査読済 / ジャーナル2026-10-13#省エネOrigin: Global経営インパクト: コスト削減対象セクター: real_estate
DOI: 10.65582/gti.2026.017
原典: https://doi.org/10.65582/gti.2026.017
📄 PDF

🤖 gxceed AI 要約

日本語

本研究は、劣化とエネルギーの連成ダイナミクスを考慮した不安定性制約付きライフサイクル改修最適化フレームワークを提案する。連成状態固有値指標(CSEI)で不安定性を定量化し、リスク調整後ライフサイクルコスト・炭素・CVaR95を同時最適化する。12,000m²オフィス事例では、不安定性考慮戦略が期待コストを23.41%、炭素を6.28%削減し、不安定性曝露を99.8%低減した。コスト・炭素のみの評価では捉えられないリスク次元の存在を示す。

English

This study proposes an instability-constrained lifecycle retrofit optimisation framework that jointly optimises intervention timing, deterioration reset, envelope restoration, and HVAC COP improvement against risk-adjusted lifecycle cost, carbon, and CVaR95 of instability exposure. Using a coupled-state eigenvalue indicator (CSEI) on a 12,000 m2 office case with Building Data Genome Project 2 data, the instability-aware strategy cut expected cost by 23.41%, carbon by 6.28%, and instability exposure by 99.8% versus no intervention. Cost- and carbon-only strategies left materially greater tail instability, showing cost and carbon alone miss a decision-relevant risk dimension.

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters

日本のGX文脈において

日本では省エネ改修・ZEB化・長期修繕計画がGXと不動産価値評価の接点となる。本手法は炭素とコストに加え劣化リスクを明示的に扱う点で、統合報告書やTCFD/SSBJの物理リスク・移行リスク評価、不動産の脱炭素投資判断に示唆を与える。

In the global GX context

Globally, this adds a risk dimension to building decarbonisation and retrofit decision-making that TCFD/ISSB physical-risk and transition-planning disclosures often treat qualitatively. It offers a quantitative, scenario-based method for aligning asset-level retrofit strategy with lifecycle carbon and risk-adjusted financial metrics under CSRD/ISSB reporting expectations.

👥 読者別の含意

🔬研究者:Provides a coupled deterioration–envelope–energy optimisation framework and a tail-risk (CVaR) lens for lifecycle retrofit research beyond cost–carbon trade-offs.

🏢実務担当者:Suggests that retrofit packages optimised only for cost or carbon may leave hidden instability risk, supporting monitoring-informed, asset-specific maintenance and decarbonisation planning.

🏛政策担当者:Highlights that building energy/carbon policy metrics may need to incorporate degradation and tail-risk dimensions to avoid under-protecting long-lived assets.

📄 Abstract（原文）

Lifecycle retrofit optimisation can favour interventions that perform well in conventional cost–carbon terms while leaving coupled deterioration–energy dynamics insufficiently controlled. This study introduces an instability-constrained lifecycle decision framework that jointly optimises intervention timing, deterioration reset, envelope restoration, and HVAC coefficient-of-performance improvement against expected risk-adjusted lifecycle cost, lifecycle carbon, and the 95% conditional value-at-risk (CVaR95) of cumulative instability exposure. Instability is quantified using a coupled-state eigenvalue indicator (CSEI), which represents positive local modal amplification within the reduced-order deterioration–envelope–energy model and is not a measure of structural failure, code compliance, or physical safety. The framework is demonstrated using a 12,000 m2 office-building reference case anchored to Building Data Genome Project 2 electricity data and evaluated under uncertain degradation and climate conditions using separate training and independent 5,000-scenario out-of-sample evaluation sets. Relative to no intervention, the selected instability-aware strategy reduced expected risk-adjusted lifecycle cost by 23.41%, lifecycle carbon by 6.28%, and mean instability exposure by 99.799%, while persistent instability decreased from 96.38% to 1.60% of scenarios. Cost- and carbon-oriented strategies achieved superior performance in their respective conventional objectives but retained materially greater tail instability, demonstrating that cost and carbon alone do not recover the full lifecycle risk ordering. Across nine deterministic parameter perturbations, the fixed selected package consistently reduced operational carbon and produced no positive nominal CSEI interval through year 25. These findings establish instability-related risk as a distinct and decision-relevant dimension of lifecycle retrofit optimisation, revealing vulnerabilities that conventional cost–carbon assessment can overlook while defining a clear pathway toward monitoring-informed, asset-specific application.

🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース

🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。

gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。