• Like

Loading…

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
350
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2

Actions

Shares
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Regression Based Criteria Determining for Preservation Strategies of Early RC Buildings Maria BOSTENARU DAN ROSE School / IUSS di Pavia
  • 2. Overview  Introduction  Historic concrete  Problem statement  Concrete today  Innovative uses of concrete  Lessons learned  Decision considerations  Conclusions 2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
  • 3. Introduction „The stones of Athens would not tell us the story of the urban life in the city, wouldn‘t have all the written heritage remained.“ Lewis Mumford  Story of construction technique (ex. Ostia: roman concrete > the vault)  Existing buildings: stories on construction concepts, materials, techniques testimonials of innovation and spread  Requirements and decay > intervention need 2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
  • 4. 2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
  • 5. Historic concrete 2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
  • 6. Concrete today 2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
  • 7. Concrete in time  Gap between use in antique and today  Natural stone for spatial structures in Gothic  19th century: reinforcement  RC in housing construction started to be employed during the Avantgarde  Some European capitals (RO, GR, PT): high-rise in central areas – luxury flats  Advanced construction technology was employed but not all possibilities researched 2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
  • 8. 2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
  • 9. Problem statement  Condominium buildings  Higher amount  Less experiment on material use  1930s  Across Europe  Romania, Italy, Greece, Portugal  Compared to Germany and France 2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
  • 10. 2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
  • 11. Innovative uses of concrete  Architecture office Kramm εt Strigl, Darmstadt, Germany  Housing construction since 1975  International recognition since 1983  Potential for lessons learned: housing construction with qualities above common buildings – like Modern Movement 2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
  • 12. Innovative use of concrete  Texture-modenature  Morphology and surface of glass and concrete: Pallaswiesen street, Darmstadt, DE  Role of concrete in the structure  Various materials, employment in concordance with the spatial feeling Technology park and future centre, Herten, DE  Technology  Spatial cells housing, Sauerland estate, Wiesbaden-Dotzheim, DE 2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
  • 13. 2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
  • 14. 2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
  • 15. Innovative use of concrete  Existing built substance  Bürgerparkviertel, Darmstadt, DE  Recycling procedure (TU Darmstadt)  Technical and economic value 2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
  • 16. 2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
  • 17. Lessons learned  Recycling: testimony of the composition of the material (demolition and rebuild)  Spatial cells: frame serving as a shelf  Ottokar Uhl, Hollabrunn, Austria Individual measures for units in condominium 2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
  • 18. Decision considerations  Decision – element in a management process  Decision – control options in operations  Management dimensions  Processural > decision  Structural: organisational and operational structures  Personal: system  System: object | process  Finding an optimal system for each group of actors  Regression technique > instruments for systematic decision 2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
  • 19. 2 Project objectives  Development of a decentralised decision model  Methodologic approach modularisation of a collaborative decision model  Non-measurable criteria, pairwise comparison  Decision making on two levels: actors and actors‘ criteria  Ways of solving contradictions between objectives of single actors in the retrofit implementation strategy  Methodologic approach development of a basis system to administrate modules on different levels of detail included in the urban strategical planning 2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
  • 20. Actors and groups of interests  Organisational – architect historical, building, element, material  Social – inhabitant execution, acceptability, use, residential val.  Technical – engineer vulnerability, structural performance, retrofit, strategy  Economic – investor management, availability (of technology, materials, funds), indicators 2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
  • 21. [Nr.] Criterion [from] [to][unit] [weight]Observations (on the units) 1 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 ARCHITECT 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 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 USER 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 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 ENGINEER 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 2nd elements New fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006 0 300 number 7,5 new elements 43 Nonstruct>struct 0 300 number 10,0 nonstructural elements which become structural
  • 22. 21 Property form 1 5 points 7,2 lastingness of the inhabitance USER 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 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 ENGINEER 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/Stiffening 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 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 40 price T€/app. INVESTOR 53 Material versus 10 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 2 Reparation-save/Retrofit -5 5 €/€ nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006 5,0 costs/costs 60 Total costs/Rebuild-30% -0.3 2.2 €/€ 5,0 costs/costs
  • 23. Building characteristics 2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
  • 24. Regression: goals of the architect  Induction  Data set: preservation, configuration, survey characteristics  Hypotheses: minimal intervention in the original structure  Deduction  Hypothesis: retaining the character  Hypotheses: element aspect  Statements: size, looks, material change 2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
  • 25. Regression: goals of the investor  Induction  Data set: four economic efficiency alternatives  Hypotheses: taking into account non-measurable criteria  Deduction  Hypothesis: benefit-cost investigation  Hypotheses: methods (transformation curves, ranking algorithms etc)  Statements: procedure to analyse the efficiency of pre- versus post-damage reparation 2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
  • 26. Reparattionsa- Total/ Rebuild- Reparation (€) Total/ Rebuild Difference to ving/ Retrofit unretrofitted Rebuild (€) Reparation/ Reparation/ earthquake earthquake Reparation Retrofit (€) Retrofit alternative Total(€) Retrofit/ Retrofit/ Second Rebuild Rebuild Retrofit First 0,30 (€) B0 EQ A - 506950 0 506950 1561534 0,32 0,00 0,32 0,02 - 0 - EQ A EQ A 526850 0 526850 1561534 0,33 0,00 0,33 0,04 - 0 - EQ B - 422000 0 422000 1561534 0,27 0,00 0,27 -0,03 - 0 - EQ B EQ B 423050 0 423050 1561534 0,27 0,00 0,27 -0,03 - 0 - B1 EQ A - 544400 74785 619185 1561534 0,34 0,04 0,39 0,10 7 0,13 0 0 EQ A EQ A 595400 74785 670185 1561534 0,38 0,04 0,42 0,13 8 0,12 0 0 EQ B - 422000 74785 496785 1561534 0,27 0,04 0,31 0,02 6 0,17 0 0 EQ B EQ B 479850 74785 554635 1561534 0,30 0,04 0,35 0,06 6 0,15 0 0 B2 EQ A - 553050 67987 621037 1561534 0,35 0,04 0,39 0,10 8 0,12 46100 1 EQ A EQ A 605250 67987 673237 1561534 0,38 0,04 0,43 0,13 9 0,11 78400 1 EQ B - 477100 67987 545087 1561534 0,30 0,04 0,34 0,05 7 0,14 55100 -6 EQ B EQ B 478800 67987 546787 1561534 0,30 0,04 0,35 0,05 7 0,14 55750 1 B3 EQ A - 580950 67987 648937 1561534 0,37 0,04 0,41 0,12 9 0,11 74000 1 EQ A EQ A 606650 67987 674637 1561534 0,38 0,04 0,43 0,13 9 0,11 79800 1 EQ B - 473900 67987 541887 1561534 0,30 0,04 0,34 0,05 7 0,14 51900 1 EQ B EQ B 476700 67987 544687 1561534 0,30 0,04 0,34 0,05 7 0,14 53650 1 B4 EQ A - 455100 135973 591073 1561534 0,29 0,08 0,37 0,08 3 0,29 -51850 -0 EQ A EQ A 596400 135973 732373 1561534 0,38 0,08 0,46 0,17 4 0,22 69550 1 EQ B - 345850 135973 481823 1561534 0,22 0,08 0,30 0,01 3 0,39 -76150 -1 EQ B EQ B 408900 135973 544873 1561534 0,26 0,08 0,34 0,05 3 0,33 -14150 -0 B5 EQ A - 422950 176765 599715 1561534 0,27 0,11 0,38 0,08 2 0,41 -506950 -3 EQ A EQ A 586250 176765 763015 1561534 0,37 0,11 0,48 0,19 3 0,30 59400 0 EQ B - 442600 176765 619365 1561534 0,28 0,11 0,39 0,10 3 0,39 -422000 -2 2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006 EQ B EQ B 476700 176765 653465 1561534 0,30 0,11 0,41 0,12 3 0,37 53650 0
  • 27. Regression: goals of the engineer  Induction  Data set: report on building types  Hypotheses: problems and opportunities, retrofit provisions, damage patterns  Deduction  Hypothesis: retrofit elements  Hypotheses: technical and management preservation strategy  Statements: damage patterns 2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
  • 28. Regression: goals of the inhabitant  Induction  Data set: case studies of success stories in participative planning and construction  Hypotheses: participative planning approaches  Deduction  Hypothesis: innovation through pilot projects which will become better routine  Hypotheses: communication and education strategy  Statements: participation and communication instruments 2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
  • 29. Computer support  Costs-efficiency method: MS Excell  Decision tree, Criterion weighting, Measurement space  Moderation between interests of actors  Difficulties  Limited number of actors > 1st level: categories of actors  Criteria strengthening / agravating reciprocically  Finding units of measure  Pair-wise comparison  Spread sheet  Multimedia  Typological choice: Hypertext and internet 2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
  • 30. 2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
  • 31. Conclusions  Criteria for the selection of multi-storey RC structures of housing buildings from the 1st half of the XXth century to be preserved were formulated > ongoing research towards the development of a decision model, encompassing actors involved in the implementation of a retrofit measure.  Methodology: modularisation of a collaborative decision model taking into account non-measurable criteria  Pair-wise comparison more useful than decision tree 2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
  • 32. Thank you! Acknowledgements: Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship MEIF-CT-2005-009765 contract of the European Commission Insights from Dr. Rui Pinho, Prof. Rüdiger Kramm