ESF conference Spain

THE ECONOMIC IMPACT

OF SEISMIC RETROFIT

ON HERITAGE

BUILDINGS WITH

HISTORIC

REINFORCED

CONCRETE SKELETON

STRUCTURE OF THE

INTERWAR TIME

Maria BOSTENARU DAN

Overview

Introduction

The building typology

Performance levels and seismic retrofit costs

Building modelling

Computation methodology

Structural damage

Comparison of costs

Output for the decision system

Outlook to further studies

The building typology

The RC skeleton building

typology in Europe

Studies of seismic countries: Romania, Italy, Greece, Slovenia, Portugal (for the first two including archives)

Studies of other countries presenting the typology: Poland, Bulgaria, France, Czech Republic, Estonia, Austria, Netherlands, Spain, Germany (the last two moderate seismicity; Germany is steel frame) and of Art Nouveau forerunners (Belgium, Romania, Hungary, Estonia, Finnland, Germany) see http://bostenaru.natkat.org/project_results/study_trips.html

http://bostenaru.natkat.org/project_results/study_trips.html

The RC skeleton among typologies

in Bucharest, Romania

Romanian housing typologies analysed (WHE&beyond)

Historic building with timbered balcony

„wagon“ house (single story brick row)

Two story brick masonry timber floor

Multistory brick masonry steel composite floor

RC skeleton (residential and mixed use)

RC skeleton with RC braces

Cast in situ RC structural walls (vulnerable and not)

Precast RC structural walls

Moment resisting RC frame multistorey (socialist)

Moment resisting RC frame low rise (post 1989)

RC skeleton most vulnerable

Bucharest, Romania

Early RC skeleton

Building typology: Romania

Impact of apartment buildings bigger than any

other housing

Strong economy, private enterprise

Deviations from mainstream movement dicated

by the market

Condominium, like in Greece, until today

Double entrance

Ottulescu building: free plan in an apartment

block

Romania



Elena Ottulescu

building,

architect Horia

Creangă, 1934-

35

Bedroom / night zone

Living room, including dinning

Corridors / circulation zone

Bathrooms, toillets

Kitchen

Hall / vertical circulation

Deposit / external circulation

Legend:

Building typology: Italy

Two directions

Rationalism (contextual Modernism)

Giuseppe Terragni

Novecento

Decorative

Geometrical

Novecento: function bound housing typologies,

condominium

Zoning: function groups, double entrance


Giuseppe Terragni - Como

Photos 2005

Italy

Como


Giuseppe Terragni - Milano

Photos 2005

Italy

Milano

Rationalist architecture: blue

Novecento architecture: red


Novecento

Photos 2007


Novecento

Photos 2007


Novecento

Building in Via

Domenichino, architects

Lancia şi Ponti

1928-30

Living room, dinning

B athroom, toilets

Kitchen

Hall


Deposit

B edroom / Night zone

Building typology: Greece

1929 – ownership system for multistorey apartments

Housing in private hand, seen to be unique, but similar to Romania and Portugal

Training in Germany, little in France

zonation

Zaimi and Stournary street example: „ressemble Italian rationalism“ – to be investigated

Double entrance

Building typology: Greece

Photos 2005

Greece

Athens

Greece

Bedroom / night zone

Living room, including dinning


Bathrooms, toillets

Kitchen

Hall / vertical circulation

Deposit / external circulation

Legend:

building on

Zaimi and

Stournari

streets,

architects

Valentis and

Michailidis,

1933 – 1934

Slovenia

Few reinforced concrete skeleton multi-family

housing

Joze Plecnik built housing programmes

The multi-family housing by Plecnik can be

found in Vienna (ex. Zacherl house)

Multi-family housing is mainly in brick

Ljubljana was reconstructed after the 1895

earthquake mainly with buildings of Art

Nouveau; Modernism and RC came later

Slovenia

Plecnik

Plecnik

In Austria

skeleton

photos 2005-2006

Slovenia

National and uni

bibl

Joze plecnik

gymansium

peglezen

Triglav

versicherung

Portugal

RC buildings in the north of the city, where

avenues were built in the interwar time

Master Plan according to the 1933 Charter of

Athens was done post-war

Traditional floor plans

Portugal

Cassiano Branco (photos 2005)

Portugal

Middle-agequarterAlfama

Baixa quarter built after the1755 earthquake

Haussmannian Boulevardbuilt before those in Paris

Performance levels and seismic

retrofit costs

Performance levels and seismic

retrofit costs

Inspiration from studies in the theory of

daylight in atria

Depending on the expected earthquake, the

measure can be more extensive or not

Adding a second window should be similar to

adding a retrofit element and the distance to

the amount

Moment of the measure

Extent of the measure

Extent of the measureCosts

Reparation

Rebuilding

Retrofit

Building modelling

Building modelling

Study of the structural typology of early RC

Report for the WHE (extended characteristics)

Study of planimetry to identify typology of

distribution of spans and bays in a skeleton

Modelling in the software

Building

Retrofit measures

350mm

30mm

350mm

30mm

350mm

Steel bars anchored

into the concrete

to which the braces are fixed



Calculation using construction devices for „retrofit elements“ for Retrofit measures

Repair measures after earthquake damage, depending on damage degree (the software allowed to apply the retrofit method on a predamaged element) Computed following performance criteria available in fibre

based software

Option for use of Project Management software (considering all costs transformed in time)

Calculation using surfaces for rebuilding the building in case of total damage Use of MS Excell forms

Option for use of new BIM software (2011)

Retrofit measure

Repair measure

After supervised work of Öztürk (2003)

Otpt No: 73 Time= 9,3360, spallig reached. Elm: Cb51ba. Unc Conc Strain = -0.002173 - G.p.(b)

Otpt No: 73 Time= 9,3360, spallig reached. Elm: Cb2051a. Unc Conc Strain = -0.002116 - G.p.(b)

Otpt No: 73 Time= 9,3360, spallig reached. Elm: C2031a. Unc Conc Strain = -0.002198 - G.p.(b)

Otpt No: 73 Time= 9,3360, yield reached. Elm: C11bb. Steel Strain = 0.002502 - G.p.(a)

Otpt No: 73 Time= 9,3360, yield reached. Elm: C2011a. Steel Strain = 0.002633 - G.p.(b)

Otpt No: 73 Time= 9,3360, fracture reached. Elm: C2011b. Steel Strain = 0.069858 - G.p.(a)

Otpt No: 73 Time= 9,3360, fracture reached. Elm: C2011b. Steel Strain = 0.109096 - G.p.(b)

Otpt No: 73 Time= 9,3360, crush reached. Elm: C2011b. Conf Conc Strain = -0.007241 - G.p.(a)

Otpt No: 73 Time= 9,3360, crush reached. Elm: C2011b. Conf Conc Strain = -0.04781 - G.p.(b)

Otpt No: 73 Time= 9,3360, yield reached. Elm: C5011b. Steel Strain = 0.005749 - G.p.(a)

Typical log-file output

Otpt No: Time= reached Elm: Mat 1 Mat 2 Strain = Gauss point

1 0.1500, crack_cover bmz3412. Unc Conc 0.000107 G.p.(b)

1 0.1500, crack_core bmz2511. Conf Conc 0.000101 G.p.(a)

1 0.1500, crack_cover bmz2511. Unc Conc 0.000113 G.p.(a)

1 0.1500, crack_core bmz2512. Conf Conc 0.000108 G.p.(b)




1 0.1500, crack_core bmz3511. Conf Conc 0.000104 G.p.(a)


1 0.1500, crack_core bmz3512. Conf Conc 0.000111 G.p.(b)

Log-file output imported in MS Excell

ID Otpt No: Time= reached Elm: Mat 1 Mat 2 Strain = Gauss point

1 1 0.1500, crack_cover bmz3412. Unc Conc 0.000107 G.p.(b)

2 1 0.1500, crack_core bmz2511. Conf Conc 0.000101 G.p.(a)

3 1 0.1500, crack_cover bmz2511. Unc Conc 0.000113 G.p.(a)

4 1 0.1500, crack_core bmz2512. Conf Conc 0.000108 G.p.(b)




8 1 0.1500, crack_core bmz3511. Conf Conc 0.000104 G.p.(a)


10 1 0.1500, crack_core bmz3512. Conf Conc 0.000111 G.p.(b)

Log-file imported in MS Access

Gesamtsumme von ID yield crush spall crack_core crack_cover element

15 4 1 2 4 4 bmx121

14 4 2 4 4 bmx122

14 4 2 4 4 bmx133

14 4 2 4 4 bmx141

14 4 2 4 4 bmx142

10 2 4 4 bmx152

10 2 4 4 bmx153

10 2 4 4 bmx154

8 4 4 bmx161

8 4 4 bmx162

MS Access query

Structural damage

Structural damage

The method allows to count the damaged

elements, and thus the costs for the entire

building

The method also allows to localise the

damaged elements

crushing in

ground floor

columns

spalling in

first floor

columns

spalling in

ground floor

columnsNot retrofitted

Retrofitted with side walls

Retrofit method EQ

fracture+crush+s

pall+crack

yield+crush+

spall+crack

crush+spall

+crack

yield+spall

+crack

spall+

crack

yield+

crack

crack

only

None

1977 0,98 8,5 0 47,1 0 18,3 25,16

1986 0 0,7 0 19,9 1,0 1,0 77,45

1990, 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 65,7

1990, 2 0 0 0 0 2,0 7,2 88,6

1977+1977 3,27 14,05 0 45,75 0 16,01 20,92

1977+1986 0,98 9,15 0 44,12 0 19,93 25,82

1977+1990,2 0,98 9,15 0 44,44 0 19,28 26,14

1986+1990,1 0 3,92 0 17,32 1,63 9,74 47,39

Th.+Th. 0 0 0 0 0,98 0 97,71

Metal jacketing

1977 0 9,2 0 50,7 0,0 19,0 30,39

1986 0 2,6 0 20,9 2,0 28,8 45,75

1990, 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 66,3

Thessaloniki 0 0 0 0 0,98 0 97,71

Side walls

1986 0 0 1,2 0 0,6 0 62,3

1990, 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 64,0

1990, 2 0 0 0 0 0,6 0,3 88,3

Thessaloniki 0 0 0 0 1,75 0 96,78

1977+1977 0,58 10,53 0 63,16 0 10,53 15,2

1977+1986 0,88 8,19 0 50 0 19,93 21,64

1977+1990,1 0,88 8,19 0 39,47 0 13,45 31,87

1977+1990,2 0,88 9,06 0 38,89 0 16,67 28,65

1986+1977 0 4,09 0 16,08 0,29 23,1 48,83

1986+1977 0 7,02 0 53,8 0,29 18,13 20,76

Diagonal braces

1986 0 0 0 0 0 0 64,05

1990,1 0 0 0 0 0 0 54,25

1990,2 0 0 0 0 0 0 85,62

Structural wall

1990,1 0 0 0 0 0 0 56,36

1990,2 0 0 0 0 0,3 0 77,24

Comparison of costs

Comparison of costs

Done for

Retrofit techniques (braces, jacketing, structural wall, side walls) – seen earlier at %

Retrofit strategies (amount and position of braces)

Compared for different earthquakes

Compared with rebuild

Computed the savings done in repair costs by applying the retrofit before the earthquake, or before a second earthquake

Mo

del

Retr

ofi

t

Eart

hq

uake 1

Eart

hq

uake 2

Rep

ara

tion

(€)

Retr

ofi

t (€

)

To

tal(

€)

Reb

uil

d (

€)

Rep

ara

tion

/

Reb

uil

d

Retr

ofi

t/

Reb

uil

d

To

tal/

Reb

uil

d

To

tal/

Reb

uil

d-0

,30

Rep

ara

tion

/

Retr

ofi

t R

etr

ofi

t/

Rep

ara

tion

Dif

fere

nce

to

no

t re

tro

fitt

ed

(€)

Rep

ara

tion

sav

ing

/

retr

ofi

t re

tro

fit/

Rep

ara

tion

sav

ing

Gregor - 1977 - 406968 0 406968 3195391 0,13 0,00 0,13 -0,17 - 0 - - -

Gregor - 1986 - 432952 0 432952 3195391 0,14 0,00 0,14 -0,16 - 0 - - -

Gregor - 1990,1 - 271407 0 271407 3195391 0,08 0,00 0,08 -0,22 - 0 - - -

Gregor - 1990,2 376411 0 376411 3195391 0,12 0,00 0,12 -0,18 - 0 - - -

Gregor - 1977 1977 430400 0 430400 3195391 0,13 0,00 0,13 -0,17 - 0 - - -

Gregor - 1977 1986 398150 0 398150 3195391 0,12 0,00 0,12 -0,18 - 0 - - -

Gregor - 1977 1990,1 0 0 3195391 0,00 0,00 0,00 -0,30 - - - - -

Gregor - 1977 1990,2 401200 0 401200 3195391 0,13 0,00 0,13 -0,17 - 0 - - -

Gregor - 1986 1977 0 0 3195391 0,00 0,00 0,00 -0,30 - - - - -

Gregor Metal jacket 1977 - 445586 55152 500738 3195391 0,14 0,02 0,16 -0,14 8 0,12377395 38619 1 1

Gregor Metal jacket 1986 - 324031 55152 379183 3195391 0,10 0,02 0,12 -0,18 6 0,17020591 -108921 -2 -1

Gregor Metal jacket 1990,1 273885 55152 329037 3195391 0,09 0,02 0,10 -0,20 5 0,20136897 2479 0 22

Gregor Metal jacket Thessaloniki 408750 55152 463902 3195391 0,13 0,02 0,15 -0,15 7 0,13492844 0 -

Gregor Sidewalls 1986 299336 102960 402296 3195391 0,09 0,03 0,13 -0,17 3 0,34396188 -133616 -1 -1

Gregor Sidewalls 1990,1 295488 102960 398448 3195391 0,09 0,03 0,12 -0,18 3 0,34844055 24081 0 4

Gregor Sidewalls 1990,2 411170 102960 514130 3195391 0,13 0,03 0,16 -0,14 4 0,25040768 34759 0 3

Gregor Sidewalls Thessaloniki 457050 102960 560010 3195391 0,14 0,03 0,18 -0,12 4 0,22527076 0 -

Gregor Sidewalls 1977 1977 513400 102960 616360 3195391 0,16 0,03 0,19 -0,11 5 0,20054538 83000 1 1


Gregor Sidewalls 1977 1990,1 438650 102960 541610 3195391 0,14 0,03 0,17 -0,13 4 0,23472016 438650 4 0

Gregor Sidewalls 1977 1990,2 426400 102960 529360 3195391 0,13 0,03 0,17 -0,13 4 0,24146341 25200 0 4


Gregor Braces 1986 - 264600 87624 352224 3195391 0,08 0,03 0,11 -0,19 3 0,33115646 -168352 -2 -1

Gregor Braces 1990,1 - 224100 87624 311724 3195391 0,07 0,03 0,10 -0,20 3 0,39100402 -47307 -1 -2

Gregor Braces 1990,2 - 353700 87624 441324 3195391 0,11 0,03 0,14 -0,16 4 0,24773537 -22711 -0 -4

Gregor Structural wall 1990,1 - 251100 103622 354722 3195391 0,08 0,03 0,11 -0,19 2 0,41267224 -20307 -0 -5

Gregor Structural wall 1990,2 - 345950 103622 449572 3195391 0,11 0,03 0,14 -0,16 3 0,29952883 -30461 -0 -3

Mo

del

Retr

ofi

t

Eart

hq

uake 1

Eart

hq

uake 2

Rep

ara

tion

(€)

Retr

ofi

t (€

)

To

tal(

€)

Reb

uil

d (

€)

Rep

ara

tion

/

Reb

uil

d

Retr

ofi

t/

Reb

uil

d

To

tal/

Reb

uil

d

To

tal/

Reb

uil

d-0

,30

Rep

ara

tion

/

Retr

ofi

t

Retr

ofi

t/

Rep

ara

tion

Dif

fere

nce

to

no

t re

tro

fitt

ed

(€)

Rep

ara

tion

sav

ing

/

retr

ofi

t

retr

ofi

t/

Rep

ara

tion

sav

ing

Özzi

1977 - 506950 0 506950 3123067 0,16 0,00 0,16 -0,14 - 0 -

1977 1977 526850 0 526850 3123067 0,17 0,00 0,17 -0,13 - 0 -

Thessaloniki - 422000 0 422000 3123067 0,14 0,00 0,14 -0,16 - 0 -

Thessaloniki Thessaloniki 423050 0 423050 3123067 0,14 0,00 0,14 -0,16 - 0 -

Özzi Braces 1

1977 - 544400 74785 619185 3123067 0,17 0,02 0,20 -0,10 7 0,1373719 0 0 6236566

1977 1977 595400 74785 670185 3123067 0,19 0,02 0,21 -0,09 8 0,12560507 0 0 3407139

Thessaloniki - 422000 74785 496785 3123067 0,14 0,02 0,16 -0,14 6 0,17721626 0 0 -

Thessaloniki Thessaloniki 479850 74785 554635 3123067 0,15 0,02 0,18 -0,12 6 0,15585133 0 0 4111961

Özzi Braces 2

1977 - 553050 67987 621037 3123067 0,18 0,02 0,20 -0,10 8 0,1229303 46100 1 1

1977 1977 605250 67987 673237 3123067 0,19 0,02 0,22 -0,08 9 0,11232813 78400 1 1

Thessaloniki - 67987 67987 3123067 0,00 0,02 0,02 -0,28 0 - -422000 -6 -0


Özzi Braces 3

1977 - 580950 67987 648937 3123067 0,19 0,02 0,21 -0,09 9 0,11702659 74000 1 1

1977 1977 606650 67987 674637 3123067 0,19 0,02 0,22 -0,08 9 0,1120689 79800 1 1

Thessaloniki - 473900 67987 541887 3123067 0,15 0,02 0,17 -0,13 7 0,14346191 51900 1 1


Özzi Braces 4

1977 - 455100 135973 591073 3123067 0,15 0,04 0,19 -0,11 3 0,29877653 -51850 -0 -3

1977 1977 596400 135973 732373 3123067 0,19 0,04 0,23 -0,07 4 0,22798994 69550 1 2

Thessaloniki - 345850 135973 481823 3123067 0,11 0,04 0,15 -0,15 3 0,39315657 -76150 -1 -2

Thessaloniki Thessaloniki 408900 135973 544873 3123067 0,13 0,04 0,17 -0,13 3 0,33253412 -14150 -0 -10

Özzi Braces 5

1977 - 176765 176765 3123067 0,00 0,06 0,06 -0,24 0 - -506950 -3 -0

1977 1977 586250 176765 763015 3123067 0,19 0,06 0,24 -0,06 3 0,3015184 59400 0 3

Thessaloniki - 176765 176765 3123067 0,00 0,06 0,06 -0,24 0 - -422000 -2 -0


Özzi - 1990,1 - 333461 0 333461 2808021 0,12 0,00 0,12 -0,18 - 0

Özzi - 1990,2 - 389594 0 389594 2808021 0,14 0,00 0,14 -0,16 - 0



The costs have to be compared to the benefits;

benefits stay in first place

Benefits can be compared among different

retrofit techniques and strategies, or compared to

the status quo (no measure)

Comparison was done with two out of four

identified methods:

Pairwise comparison (costs are ranked numerically)

Utility value method (costs enter the measurement

spaces of some criterions)

Pairwise comparison method

Utility value method

[Nr.] Criterion [from] [to] [unit] [weight] Observations (on the units)

1 A

RC

HIT

EC

T

Reversibility 0 100 % 37,5 reversibility of the measure

2 Guidelines 1 5 points 37,5 for the complinance with maintenance guidelines

5 Facade 1 4 style points 9,0 for the architectural value of the façade

6 Interiors 1 4 spatiality points 9,0 for the architectural value of the space

7 Structural system 1 4 technology points 3,0 for the architectural value of the structure

8 Demolition 0 100 rebuild possibility 9,0 of the building following the original plans

9 Size change 0 50 cm 9,0 size change of a building element

10 Looks change 1 5 points 4,5 look change of a building element

11 Material change 1 2000 age (years) 9,0 of the construction material

13 Compatibility 0 100 % 4,5 collaboration with the existing construction material

14 Conservation 0 100 % 11,3 maintenance of the existing building material

15 Sustainability 1 500 years 2,3 lifetime of the building

16 Maintenance 1 50 years 4,5 lifetime of the new construction material

17

US

ER

Duration 1 100 weeks 4,5 of the measure

18 Noise 1 45 dB 1,5 noise during the measure

19 Move 1 100 weeks 12,0 duration of the relocation

20 Participation 0 15 decision steps 12,0 with possible participation of the inhabitants

21 Property form 1 5 points 7,2 lastingness of the inhabitance

22 Assurance 0 100 % coverage 33,6 earthquake damage through assurance

23 Own costs share 1 100 % 4,8 own costs/measure costs

24 Other advantages 1 5 points 14,4 for inhabitant advantages of the measure

25 During measures 0 200 spaces 9,0 usable during the measure

26 After measure 0 200 spaces 15,0 usable after the measure

27 After earthquake 0 200 spaces 6,0 usable after damaging in earthquake

29 Value 1 20 points 30,0 for housing quality

33

EN

GIN

EE

R

Earthquake 1 12 EMS intensity 27,5 of the earthquake

34 Shape 8 10.10 scores 5,0 for seismic suitability of the conformation

35 Structure 0 8 scores 15,0 for seismic suitability of the structure

36 Material 1 6 scores 2,5 for seismic suitability of the construction material

37 Forces 0 1000 kN base shear 35,0 during the design earthquake

38

Remaining

displacement 0 200 mm 105,0 at roof level after the earthquake

39 Maximal displacement 0 200 mm 105,0 at roof level during the earthquake

40 Strains -6 60 ‰ 105,0 in building elements during earthquake

27 After earthquake 0 200 spaces 6,0 usable after damaging in earthquake

29 Value 1 20 points 30,0 for housing quality

33

EN

GIN

EE

R

Earthquake 1 12 EMS intensity 27,5 of the earthquake

34 Shape 8 10.10 scores 5,0 for seismic suitability of the conformation

35 Structure 0 8 scores 15,0 for seismic suitability of the structure

36 Material 1 6 scores 2,5 for seismic suitability of the construction material

37 Forces 0 1000 kN base shear 35,0 during the design earthquake

38

Remaining

displacement 0 200 mm 105,0 at roof level after the earthquake

39 Maximal displacement 0 200 mm 105,0 at roof level during the earthquake

40 Strains -6 60 ‰ 105,0 in building elements during earthquake

41 Element replacement 0 300 number 25,0 replaced elements

42 New elements 0 300 number 7,5 new elements

43 Nonstruct>struct 0 300 number 10,0 nonstructural elements which become structural

44 Partial demolition 0 300 number 7,5 demolished elements

45 System completion 0 200 needed anchors 5,0 for a system completion measure

46

Strengthening/Stiffeni

ng 1 6 Sa_new/Sa_old 15,0 spectral acceleration new/old

47 Enhanced ductility 1 4 Sd_new/Sd_old 20,0 spectral displacement new/old

48 Reduced demand 1 6 damping actor 10,0 of the soil movement

49

INV

ES

TO

R

Aggregate 1 44 nr. owners 8,0 of the building

50 Building site 0 24 hours available 12,0 for the work

51 Phases 1 44 simultaneous 12,0 conducted

52 Repeatability 1 200 nr. identical 8,0 retrofit measures

53 Material versus 10 40 price T€/app. 8,0

construction material price for measure at one

housing unit

54 Technology v. 0 10 number 8,0 available technologies

55 Funding money 0 10 nr. programs 4,0 which could grant funding money

56 Replace space 0 5 eq. buildings 20,0 available for the relocation

57 Reparation/Rebuild 0 2 €/€ 5,0 costs/costs

58 Retrofit/Rebuild 0 0.5 €/€ 5,0 costs/costs

59

Reparation-

save/Retrofit -5 5 €/€ 5,0 costs/costs

60

Total costs/Rebuild-

30% -0.3 2.2 €/€ 5,0 costs/costs

Outlook to further studies

Optimisation of the current study

Taking the prices for hour work for the country from where the typology and the measures are (not always available; despite of flexible computation mean)

Making the computed curves to meet the one from the concept

Optimisation of measures for a given earthquake in order to make right computations

Employment also of probabilistic means to extend from the study cases to larger urban base

Comparison to the retrofit costs for a real building (soon envisaged through contact to offices; already done for stone masonry)

Studies of implemented retrofit

measures

Italy

FRP (Torre delle Nazioni, Napolo)

Seismic dissipators (school Fabriano)

Romania

Cutting of the corner <> new planimetry

Jacketing

Greece

Combined methods of FRP for horizontal elements and jacketing for vertical elemens (Army Pension Fund building, hotel in northern Greece)

Relationship to earlier RC

structures

Pre-study of the distribution of predecessors in

Europe is already done

Before RC skeleton the Hennebique system

was spread (after it was RC frame)

Differences and common features have to be

put in connection

Relationship to timber

Preliminary research on a language for

reinforced concrete from timber

Lessons to be learned from half-timbered

housing for reinforced concrete

A similar study of geografic distribution of half-

timbered construction

Study of the bracing method for retrofit

Local seismic culture in reinforced concrete bracing

Computations for steel

Realised projects with dissipators

Computer games

A method of training in the pre-disaster phase

might be computer games

For the genre computer and management games

there is an economic component, which can be

derived from this research

At urban scale: SimCity, also involving in the early

phases disaster scenarios such as 1906 San

Francisco Earthquake

For building scale, see the games following the Ken

Follett novels

Abstractisation of needed materials and people

Playing „World without End“

Construction and management games

Conclusions

Conclusions

An original methodology for computation of costs was developed, based on available project management methods and software possibilities

The method is aplicable for the single building (type)

The building typology under study represents heritage across Europe in seismic and non-seismic countries

An orginal concept of costs levels depending on expected earthquake was developed

It shows the value of planned conservation

The costs have been put in the context of decision of experts and larger participation in conservation efforts, part of which retrofit is

Acknowledgements

EFS Grant to attend this workshop

fellowship in frame of the DFG funded Research Training Network 450 “Natural Disasters” at the Universität Karlsruhe (TH), Germany (2000-2003)

Marie Curie Early Stage Research Host Fellowship, contract HPMT-CT-2001-00359, at the Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori di Pavia, Italy (2002-2003)

Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship, contract MEIF-CT-2005-009765, same host institution as above (2005-2007)

Marie Curie European Reintegration Grant, contract MERG-CT-2007-200636, at Foundation ERGOROM ´99, Bucharest, Romania (2007-2010)

Thank you!

Date post:	15-May-2015
Category:	Education
Upload:	maria-bostenaru
View:	899 times
Download:	0 times

ESF conference Spain

Education