4. CA‘REDIVIVUS project
Step Goal Method Instrument Measure
1 technical reports on implementation
programmes
documentation investigation
training.
4; 8
2 a data table of use for the decision
method in the next step
parametrical study FEM 2
3 support the choices at step 4 and step
1
highlighting
comprehensibility
database 7
4 algorithm based on case studies (step
2) for experiments (step 6)
modularisation of the
decision model
pair wise
comparison
3
5 report about available systems for this
purpose
a basis system to
administrate modules
computer tools 6
6 trial of educational feasibility (step 3) project example exercise 5
7 dissemination of results presentation publications 1
Nr. Measures package
1 improving understanding of the
impact of earthquakes
2 development of an algorithm for
optimisation of retrofit measures
3 development of a decentralised
decision model
4 insights into applicability of
retrofit methods
5 development of a framework for
integral planning
6 solving contradictions between
the objectives of single actors
7 highlighting the comprehend-
sibility of the measures analysed
8 support changes by political and
economic environment:
Methodology
5. CA‘REDIVIVUS project
Modernism
a global movement in architecture,
music, arts, physics, philosophy,
economic and social theory and
industrialisation in the first half of the
20th century
one of the nuclei: housing programme
Industrial development > new
technologies > reinforced concrete >
innovation
6. CA‘REDIVIVUS project
Modernism
Western Europe: social housing
other: new image to capital cities,
housing for the middle class in
preferential areas
CIAM and Charter of Athens (1933):
functionalism
Seismic issues neglected
Nostalgy for that time in Greece and
Romania
7. CA‘REDIVIVUS project
The Charter of Athens
1933
Organisation of cities in functional
zones
Bucharest Master Plan 1934 > design
of buildings in the interwar time
• Ground occupancy > planimetric
irregularity
• Raised permitted height to define
streets by their fronts > set-back floors
• Encouraged mixed use in central zone
8. CA‘REDIVIVUS project
Comparative analysis
Romania Greece Italy Portugal
location capital capital N (Como, Milano) capital
city
centre
close to the
railway
station
city centre,
close to the
railway
station
Development
boulevards N
EQ
damage
2 EQs one EQ none none
maintenance
poor mixed good good
architect numerous several several Cassiano
Branco
programme residential residential,
school
residential,
offices
residential,
hotels
9. CA‘REDIVIVUS project
Greece
Athens: absence of town planning
applications
Extensions section by section, on
rudimentary street layouts > parcels
of rectangular contour result; the
parcels are like for individual
dwellings
Small blocks, but parcels bigger than
in Bucharest
10. CA‘REDIVIVUS project
Greece
Morphologic language: cubist and
ornamentless structures, like on the
islands
1929: new legislation
• Multiple ownership of blocks of flats
1925 establishment of Reinforced
concrete as material for load-bering
structures of buildings
Buildings have 5-6 storeys
12. CA‘REDIVIVUS project
Bedroom / night zone
Living room, including dinning
Corridors / circulation zone
Bathrooms, toillets
Kitchen
Hall / vertical circulation
Deposit / external circulation
Legend:
Functional scheme in a
Greek apartment building
13. CA‘REDIVIVUS project
Romania
End of XIXth century: Haussmannian
intervention of tracing main
boulevards in the city: major
throughfares and irregular parcels on
them resulted, fully occupied
Urban section of Modern buildings
with no equal in Europe (in other
places historic centres completed
long before); middle class housing
14. CA‘REDIVIVUS project
Romania
Bucharest Master Plan 1934, one
year after the CIAM in Athens
Main traffic routes reinforced by the
street facade, cornice raised to 24m
on the N-S boulevard, higher at
intersection corners > set-backs
Mixed use with cinemas and shops
The height of the building varied
from 2-3 to 12 floors
15. CA‘REDIVIVUS project
Romania
Earthquakes 1940 and 1977
In 1940 Carlton building collapsed
1977 about 30 buildings built 1920-
1940 collapsed
ARO building, restored after a fire,
behaved well
The buildings were replaced by new
ones of less architectural value and
the unity of the boulevard was
destroyed
16. CA‘REDIVIVUS project
Romania
The reinforced concrete structure
permitted flexibility in the
organisation of the floor and among
the floors
No moment resisting frames > RC
scheleton, sometimes with masonry
infill > seismic vulnerability
18. CA‘REDIVIVUS project
Functional scheme in a
Romanian ap. building
Bedroom / night zone
Living room, including dinning
Corridors / circulation zone
Bathrooms, toillets
Kitchen
Hall / vertical circulation
Deposit / external circulation
Legend:
20. CA‘REDIVIVUS project
Seismic features
Element Seismic
Deficiency
Earthquake
Resistent Features
Earthquake
Damage Patterns
Infill panels consoles Increasing stiffness rifts
Columns No moment
resisting frames
Low reinforcement
- Plastic hinges at soft
storey
Concrete spalling
Beams No moment
resisting frames
Well reinforced Plastic hinge in long
beams
Oblique rifts in short
beams
Roof and
Floors
too elastic Alternative solutions
with embeded bricks
More rifts at stair
flights
21. CA‘REDIVIVUS project
Italy
At the begin of the century:
• Arte Nuova and Futurism
• Reasoned picturesque (edilizia cittadina)
Reasoned picturesque and
enthusiasm for the vernacular
building > contextualism
(l‘ambientismo)
Contextualism will be maintained in
Italian Rationalism also.
22. CA‘REDIVIVUS project
Italy
Urban planning approch in Italian
architecture begun well before the
CIAM
1920-1940:
• Milanese Novecento – housing for the
middle class, flexibility in RC, stappeled
villa, serial building plan
• Italian Rationalism – innovated volumes
and facades, building plans remained
conventional
26. CA‘REDIVIVUS project
Historical
Building
Element
Material
Vulnerability
Structure
performance
Retrofit
elements
Strategy
Architect Engineer
Inhabitant Investor
Execution
Acceptance
Occupancy
Management
Availability
Indicators
Reversibility
Guidelines
Displacement, maximal
Tension
Facade
Interior space
Structure
Demolition
Size change
Looks change
Construction material change
Material
Earthquake
Shape score
Structure score
Forces
Displacement, remaining
Element replacement
New element
Non-structural > structural
System completion
Strengthening/Stiffening
Enhanced ductility
Reduced demand
Duration
Noise
Relocation
Participation
Ownership form
Safety
Own expenses
Other benefits
During measure
After measure
After earthquake
Aggregate
Building site
Phases
Repeatability
Construction material versus
Technology versus
Funds
Relocation space
Reparation/New building
Retrofit/New building
Reparation saving/Retrofit
Compatibility with old
Conservation of old
Maintenance new
Sustainability
Partial demolition
Historical
Building
Element
Material
Vulnerability
Structure
performance
Retrofit
elements
Strategy
Architect Engineer
Reversibility
Guidelines
Displa
Tensio
Facade
Interior space
Structure
Demolition
Size change
Looks change
Construction material change
Materi
Earthq
Shape
Structu
Forces
Displa
Elemen
New e
Non-st
System
Streng
Enhanc
Reduce
Compatibility with old
Conservation of old
Maintenance new
Sustainability
Partial
27. CA‘REDIVIVUS project
Urban – building scale
interdependence
ZONE B
ZONE A
ZONE C
BUILDING Y
BUILDING X
BUILDING Z
ELEMENT α
ELEMENT β
ELEMENT γ
marketingmanagementparticipation
consistsof
28. CA‘REDIVIVUS project
Number Legend
Volume height accents
47 (incl. 12 with aesthetic
qualities; 1 negative)
bordeaux-
red-orange
volume silhouette accents 4 blue
functional landmarks 1 triangles
aesthetic qualities 9+12 blue strips
negative value 4+1 black strips
Mapping of the hierarchy of the elements and of the façade (fronts
typology: continuous line = continuously built front, interrupted and
continuous line = front full with alveolar injections, interrupted line =
front broken by isolated buildings and vegetation, point line =
unstructured front; hierarchy of perception points: dark green =
intersection place, turquoise = reverence place, magenta = private/half-
private space, grey lines = public space with half-private character, light
green = public environmental space, dark magenta = public space).
Urban scale - IMPACT
29. CA‘REDIVIVUS project
Historical
Building
Element
Material
Vulnerability
Structure
performance
Retrofit
elements
Strategy
Architect Engineer
Inhabitant Investor
Execution
Acceptance
Occupancy
Management
Availability
Indicators
Reversibility
Guidelines
Displacement, maximal
Tension
Facade
Interior space
Structure
Demolition
Size change
Looks change
Construction material change
Material
Earthquake
Shape score
Structure score
Forces
Displacement, remaining
Element replacement
New element
Non-structural > structural
System completion
Strengthening/Stiffening
Enhanced ductility
Reduced demand
Duration
Noise
Relocation
Participation
Ownership form
Safety
Own expenses
Other benefits
During measure
After measure
After earthquake
Aggregate
Building site
Phases
Repeatability
Construction material versus
Technology versus
Funds
Relocation space
Reparation/New building
Retrofit/New building
Reparation saving/Retrofit
Compatibility with old
Conservation of old
Maintenance new
Sustainability
Partial demolition
Material Strategy
Inhabitant Investor
Execution
Acceptance
Occupancy
Management
Availability
Indicators
Residential value
Sys
Str
En
Red
Duration
Noise
Relocation
Participation
Ownership form
Safety
Own expenses
Other benefits
During measure
After measure
After earthquake
To
Ag
Bu
Pha
Rep
Co
Tec
Fun
Re
Rep
Ret
Rep
Compatibility with old
Conservation of old
Maintenance new
Sustainability
32. CA‘REDIVIVUS project
Historical
Building
Element
Material
Vulnerability
Structure
performance
Retrofit
elements
Strategy
Architect Engineer
Inhabitant Investor
Execution
Acceptance
Occupancy
Management
Availability
Indicators
Reversibility
Guidelines
Displacement, maximal
Tension
Facade
Interior space
Structure
Demolition
Size change
Looks change
Construction material change
Material
Earthquake
Shape score
Structure score
Forces
Displacement, remaining
Element replacement
New element
Non-structural > structural
System completion
Strengthening/Stiffening
Enhanced ductility
Reduced demand
Duration
Noise
Relocation
Participation
Ownership form
Safety
Own expenses
Other benefits
During measure
After measure
After earthquake
Aggregate
Building site
Phases
Repeatability
Construction material versus
Technology versus
Funds
Relocation space
Reparation/New building
Retrofit/New building
Reparation saving/Retrofit
Compatibility with old
Conservation of old
Maintenance new
Sustainability
Partial demolition
aterial Strategy
nhabitant Investor
xecution
cceptance
ccupancy
Management
Availability
Indicators
ntial value
System completion
Strengthening/Stiffening
Enhanced ductility
Reduced demand
Total costs/New bldg. – 30%
Aggregate
Building site
Phases
Repeatability
Construction material versus
Technology versus
Funds
Relocation space
Reparation/New building
Retrofit/New building
Reparation saving/Retrofit
33. CA‘REDIVIVUS project
Historical
Building
Element
Material
Vulnerability
Structure
performance
Retrofit
elements
Strategy
Architect Engineer
Inhabitant Investor
Execution
Acceptance
Occupancy
Management
Availability
Indicators
Reversibility
Guidelines
Displacement, maximal
Tension
Facade
Interior space
Structure
Demolition
Size change
Looks change
Construction material change
Material
Earthquake
Shape score
Structure score
Forces
Displacement, remaining
Element replacement
New element
Non-structural > structural
System completion
Strengthening/Stiffening
Enhanced ductility
Reduced demand
Duration
Noise
Relocation
Participation
Ownership form
Safety
Own expenses
Other benefits
During measure
After measure
After earthquake
Aggregate
Building site
Phases
Repeatability
Construction material versus
Technology versus
Funds
Relocation space
Reparation/New building
Retrofit/New building
Reparation saving/Retrofit
Compatibility with old
Conservation of old
Maintenance new
Sustainability
Partial demolition
Historical
Building
Element
Material
Vulnerability
Structure
performance
Retrofit
elements
Strategy
Architect Engineer
Displacement, maximal
Tension
Material
Earthquake
Shape score
Structure score
Forces
Displacement, remaining
Element replacement
New element
Non-structural > structural
System completion
Strengthening/Stiffening
Enhanced ductility
Reduced demand
Partial demolition
37. CA‘REDIVIVUS project
Retrofit options
pushover Y
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
-50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Displacement N6206
Baseshear(N)
Base Shear Y
Base Shear Y retrofit2
Base Shear Y retrofit3
160
Base Shear Y concrete
jacketing
higher disturbance
medium disturbance
lower disturbance
original
38. CA‘REDIVIVUS project
Demolition
Vulnerability
Retrofit
Structural
performance
Strategy
Building
Historical
Element
Material
EngineerArchitect
InvestorUser
Management
Availability
Indicators
Execution
Acceptability
Use
Residential value
Earthquake
Shape score
Material
Element replacement
New elements
Non-structural > structural
Partial demolition
Forces
Maximal displacement
Stresses
Facade
Interiors
Structural system
Reversibility
Guidelines
Size change
Looks change
Material change
Compatibility
Conservation
Maintenance
Aggregate
Building site
Phases
Repeatability
Material versus
Technologie v.
Replace space
Reparation/Rebuild
Reparation-saving/Retrofit
Total costs/Rebuild – 30%
Duration
Noise
Move
Participation
Property form
Assurance
Own costs share
Other advantages
During measure
After measure
After earthquake
Remaining displacement
Structure score
Sustainability
Funding money
Retrofit/Rebuild
50%15%
20%15%
50%
15%
15%
10%
50%
30%
10%
10%
70%
10%
40%
40%
20%
50%
50%
30%
30%
10%
30%
40%
20%
40%
30%
50%
10%
30%
15%
5%
70%
70%
15%
70%
10%
30%
30%
50%
20%
10%
30%
30%
30%
50%
15%
20%
15%
20%
30%
30%
20%
20%
20%
10%
50%
25%
25%
25%
25%
20%
Reduced demand
Enhanced ductility
StrengtheningStiffening
System completion
10%
55%
30%
5%
10%
10%
30%
40%
20%
39. CA‘REDIVIVUS project
Conclusions
typological study
Athens (Charter proclaimed),
Bucharest (Charter applied)
considered for the model
Greek and Romanian blocks of flats:
• mixed use (commercial functions at GF,
residential above)
• Greek buildings: 5-6 storeys
• Bucharest, zone dependent, 2-12 floors
40. CA‘REDIVIVUS project
Conclusions
economic development, framework also
given in Portugal and Italy,
possibility to employ new technologies: RC.
The model building: compromise between
the Greek and the Romanian typology
• six storeys
• a regular array (2.4, 3.6 and 6m span) of
columns (Greek)
• irregular planimetry
• section typical for Romanian parcels
41. CA‘REDIVIVUS project
Conclusions
Different countries, different frame
conditions
• Romania: irregularity of buildings
> addition of structural elements
• Greece: lack of ductility
> FRP wrapping
• Italy: no seismic hazard in this zone
• Portugal: small sample of buildings of
that type
42. CA‘REDIVIVUS project
Conclusions
The decision tree has shown that it is
a difficult problem to satisfy the
contradicting goals of the interest
groups considered.