Upload
tory
View
40
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
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 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
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) seehttp://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
Building typology: Romania
Building typology: Romania
Elena Ottulescu building, architect Horia Creangă, 1934-35
Bedroom/ nightzone
Livingroom, includingdinning
Corridors/ circulationzone
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
Building typology: Italy
Giuseppe Terragni - Como
Photos 2005
Italy
Como
Building typology: Italy
Giuseppe Terragni - Milano
Photos 2005
Italy
Milano Rationalist architecture: blue Novecento architecture: red
Building typology: Italy
Novecento
Photos 2007
Building typology: Italy
Novecento
Photos 2007
Building typology: Italy
Novecento
Building in Via Domenichino, architects Lancia şi Ponti1928-30
Living room, dinning
Bathroom, toilets
Kitchen
Hall
Corridors / circulation zone
Deposit
Bedroom / 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: GreecePhotos 2005
Greece
Athens
Greece
Bedroom/ nightzone
Livingroom, includingdinning
Corridors/ circulationzone
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
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
ReparationRebuilding
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
Computation methodology
Computation methodology
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_cover bmz2512. Unc Conc 0.000122 G.p.(b) 1 0.1500, crack_cover bmz4411. Unc Conc 0.000101 G.p.(a) 1 0.1500, crack_cover bmz4412. Unc Conc 0.000109 G.p.(b) 1 0.1500, crack_core bmz3511. Conf Conc 0.000104 G.p.(a) 1 0.1500, crack_cover bmz3511. Unc Conc 0.000116 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)
5 1 0.1500, crack_cover bmz2512. Unc Conc 0.000122 G.p.(b)
6 1 0.1500, crack_cover bmz4411. Unc Conc 0.000101 G.p.(a)
7 1 0.1500, crack_cover bmz4412. Unc Conc 0.000109 G.p.(b)
8 1 0.1500, crack_core bmz3511. Conf Conc 0.000104 G.p.(a)
9 1 0.1500, crack_cover bmz3511. Unc Conc 0.000116 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
yieldingin beams
at 1st floor
yielding in beams at 4th floor
yielding in beams at 2nd
and 3rd floor
yielding in beams at 5th floor
crushing in ground floor
columns
spalling in first floor columns
spalling in ground floor
columnsNot retrofitted
Retrofitted with side walls
Retrofit method EQfracture+crush+spall+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
Mod
el
Ret
rofi
t
Ear
thqu
ake
1
Ear
thqu
ake
2
Rep
arat
ion(
€)
Ret
rofi
t (€)
Tot
al(€
)
Reb
uild
(€)
Rep
arat
ion/
R
ebui
ld
Ret
rofi
t/
Reb
uild
T
otal
/ R
ebui
ld
Tot
al/
Reb
uild
-0,3
0 R
epar
atio
n/
Ret
rofi
t R
etro
fit/
R
epar
atio
n
Dif
fere
nce
to
not r
etro
fitt
ed
(€)
Rep
arat
ion
savi
ng/
retr
ofit
retr
ofit
/ R
epar
atio
n sa
ving
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 1986 452600 102960 555560 3195391 0,14 0,03 0,17 -0,13 4 0,22748564 54450 1 2
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 Sidewalls 1986 1977 458350 102960 561310 3195391 0,14 0,03 0,18 -0,12 4 0,22463183 458350 4 0
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
Mod
el
Ret
rofi
t
Ear
thqu
ake
1
Ear
thqu
ake
2
Rep
arat
ion(
€)
Ret
rofi
t (€)
Tot
al(€
)
Reb
uild
(€)
Rep
arat
ion/
R
ebui
ld
Ret
rofi
t/
Reb
uild
Tot
al/
Reb
uild
Tot
al/
Reb
uild
-0,3
0
Rep
arat
ion/
R
etro
fit
Ret
rofi
t/
Rep
arat
ion
Dif
fere
nce
to
not r
etro
fitt
ed
(€)
Rep
arat
ion
savi
ng/
retr
ofit
retr
ofit
/ R
epar
atio
n sa
ving
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
Thessaloniki Thessaloniki 478800 67987 546787 3123067 0,15 0,02 0,18 -0,12 7 0,14199373 55750 1 1
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
Thessaloniki Thessaloniki 476700 67987 544687 3123067 0,15 0,02 0,17 -0,13 7 0,14261926 53650 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
Thessaloniki Thessaloniki 476700 176765 653465 3123067 0,15 0,06 0,21 -0,09 3 0,37081007 53650 0 3
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
Output for the decision system
Output for the decision system 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
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!