Upload
maria-bostenaru
View
385
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
fib congress 2006 Naples, Italy
Citation preview
Regression Based Criteria Determining for Preservation Strategies of Early RC Buildings
Maria BOSTENARU DAN
ROSE School / IUSS di Pavia
2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
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
Introduction
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
„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
2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
Historic concrete
2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
Concrete today
2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
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
2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
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
2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
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
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 feelingTechnology park and future centre, Herten, DE
Technology
Spatial cellshousing, Sauerland estate, Wiesbaden-Dotzheim, DE
2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
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
2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
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
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
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
Actors and groups of interests
Organisational – architecthistorical, building, element, material
Social – inhabitantexecution, acceptability, use, residential val.
Technical – engineervulnerability, structural performance,retrofit, strategy
Economic – investormanagement, availability (of technology,materials, funds), indicators
2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
[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
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
AR
CH
ITE
CT
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
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
US
ER
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
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
EN
GIN
EE
R
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
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
INV
ES
TO
R
Total costs/Rebuild-30% -0.3 2.2 €/€ 5,0 costs/costs
2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
[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
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
AR
CH
ITE
CT
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
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
US
ER
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
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
EN
GIN
EE
R
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
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
INV
ES
TO
R
Total costs/Rebuild-30% -0.3 2.2 €/€ 5,0 costs/costs
2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
Building characteristics
2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
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
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
Retrofit alternative
First
eart
hquake
Se
cond
eart
hquake
Repara
tio
n (
€)
Retr
ofit
(€)
To
tal(
€)
Reb
uil
d (
€)
Repara
tion/
Rebuild
Retr
ofit/
Rebuild
Tota
l/ R
ebuild
Tota
l/ R
ebuild
-0,3
0
Repara
tio
n/
Retr
ofit
Retr
ofit/
Repara
tio
n
Diffe
rence t
o
unre
trofitt
ed
(€)
Repara
ttio
nsa-
vin
g/ R
etr
ofit
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 -
B0
EQ B EQ B 423050 0 423050 1561534 0,27 0,00 0,27 -0,03 - 0 -
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
B1
EQ B EQ B 479850 74785 554635 1561534 0,30 0,04 0,35 0,06 6 0,15 0 0
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
B2
EQ B EQ B 478800 67987 546787 1561534 0,30 0,04 0,35 0,05 7 0,14 55750 1
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
B3
EQ B EQ B 476700 67987 544687 1561534 0,30 0,04 0,34 0,05 7 0,14 53650 1
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
B4
EQ B EQ B 408900 135973 544873 1561534 0,26 0,08 0,34 0,05 3 0,33 -14150 -0
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
B5
EQ B EQ B 476700 176765 653465 1561534 0,30 0,11 0,41 0,12 3 0,37 53650 0
2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
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
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
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
2nd fib Congress, Napoli, 5-8 June 2006
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
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