Presentation about the economic impact of seismic retrofit of buildings at the ESF conference by Barcelona, Spain, 2011

1. THE ECONOMIC IMPACT
OF SEISMIC RETROFIT
ON HERITAGE
BUILDINGS WITH
HISTORIC
REINFORCED
CONCRETE SKELETON
STRUCTURE OF THE
INTERWAR TIME
Maria BOSTENARU DAN

2. 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

3. The building typology

4. 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

5. 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

6. Early RC skeleton
Bucharest, Romania

7. 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

8. Romania

9. Building typology: Romania

10. Building typology: Romania
Legend:
Bedroom / night zone
Living room, including dinning
Elena Ottulescu Corridors / circulation zone
building, Bathrooms, toillets
architect Horia Kitchen
Creangă, 1934- Hall / vertical circulation
35 Deposit / external circulation

11. Building typology: Italy
 Two directions
 Rationalism (contextual Modernism)
 Giuseppe Terragni
 Novecento
 Decorative
 Geometrical
 Novecento: function bound housing typologies,
condominium
 Zoning: function groups, double entrance

12. Building typology: Italy
 Giuseppe Terragni - Como
Photos 2005

13. Italy
 Como

14. Building typology: Italy
 Giuseppe Terragni - Milano
Photos 2005

15. Italy
 Milano
 Rationalist
architecture: blue
 Novecento architecture: red

16. Building typology: Italy
 Novecento
Photos 2007

17. Building typology: Italy
 Novecento
Photos 2007

19. Building typology: Italy
 Novecento
B edroom / Night zone
Living room, dinning
Corridors/ circulation zone
B athroom, toilets
Kitchen
Hall
Deposit
Building in Via
Domenichino, architects
Lancia şi Ponti
1928-30

20. 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

21. Building typology: Greece
Photos 2005

22. Greece
 Athens

23. Greece
Legend:
building on Bedroom / night zone
Zaimi and Living room, including dinning
Stournari Corridors / circulation zone
streets, Bathrooms, toillets
architects
Kitchen
Valentis and
Michailidis, Hall / vertical circulation
1933 – 1934 Deposit / external circulation

24. 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

25. Slovenia
 Plecnik

26. Plecnik
 In Austria
 skeleton
 photos 2005-2006

27. Slovenia Triglav
versicherung
peglezen
Joze plecnik
gymansium
National and uni
bibl

28. 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

29. Portugal
Cassiano Branco (photos 2005)

30. Haussmannian Boulevard
Portugal built before those in Paris
Middle-age
quarter
Alfama
Baixa quarter built after the
1755 earthquake

31. Performance levels and seismic
retrofit costs

32. 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

33. Extent of the measure
Moment of the measure Reparation
Rebuilding
Retrofit
Extent of the measure
Costs

35. Building modelling

36. 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

41. 350mm
30mm
Steel bars anchored
into the concrete
to which the braces are fixed
350mm
30mm
350mm

42. Computation methodology

43. 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)

44. Retrofit measure

45. Repair measure

46. After supervised work of Öztürk (2003)

47. ID Otpt No: Time= reached Elm: Mat 1 Mat 2 Strain = Gauss point
Otpt No: 73 Time= 9,3360, spallig reached. Elm: Cb51ba. Unc Conc Strain = -0.002173 - G.p.(b) 1 1 0.1500, crack_cover bmz3412. Unc Conc 0.000107 G.p.(b)
Otpt No: 73 Time= 9,3360, spallig reached. Elm: Cb2051a. Unc Conc Strain = -0.002116 - G.p.(b) 2 1 0.1500, crack_core bmz2511. Conf Conc 0.000101 G.p.(a)
Otpt No: 73 Time= 9,3360, spallig reached. Elm: C2031a. Unc Conc Strain = -0.002198 - G.p.(b)
3 1 0.1500, crack_cover bmz2511. Unc Conc 0.000113 G.p.(a)
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) 4 1 0.1500, crack_core bmz2512. Conf Conc 0.000108 G.p.(b)
Otpt No: 73 Time= 9,3360, fracture reached. Elm: C2011b. Steel Strain = 0.069858 - G.p.(a) 5 1 0.1500, crack_cover bmz2512. Unc Conc 0.000122 G.p.(b)
Otpt No: 73 Time= 9,3360, fracture reached. Elm: C2011b. Steel Strain = 0.109096 - G.p.(b) 6 1 0.1500, crack_cover bmz4411. Unc Conc 0.000101 G.p.(a)
Otpt No: 73 Time= 9,3360, crush reached. Elm: C2011b. Conf Conc Strain = -0.007241 - G.p.(a) 7 1 0.1500, crack_cover bmz4412. Unc Conc 0.000109 G.p.(b)
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) 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)
Typical log-file output Log-file imported in MS Access
Otpt No: Time= reached Elm: Mat 1 Mat 2 Strain = Gauss point Gesamtsumme von ID yield crush spall crack_core crack_cover element
1 0.1500, crack_cover bmz3412. Unc Conc 0.000107 G.p.(b) 15 4 1 2 4 4 bmx121
1 0.1500, crack_core bmz2511. Conf Conc 0.000101 G.p.(a) 14 4 2 4 4 bmx122
1 0.1500, crack_cover bmz2511. Unc Conc 0.000113 G.p.(a) 14 4 2 4 4 bmx133
1 0.1500, crack_core bmz2512. Conf Conc 0.000108 G.p.(b) 14 4 2 4 4 bmx141
1 0.1500, crack_cover bmz2512. Unc Conc 0.000122 G.p.(b) 14 4 2 4 4 bmx142
1 0.1500, crack_cover bmz4411. Unc Conc 0.000101 G.p.(a) 10 2 4 4 bmx152
1 0.1500, crack_cover bmz4412. Unc Conc 0.000109 G.p.(b) 10 2 4 4 bmx153
1 0.1500, crack_core bmz3511. Conf Conc 0.000104 G.p.(a) 10 2 4 4 bmx154
1 0.1500, crack_cover bmz3511. Unc Conc 0.000116 G.p.(a) 8 4 4 bmx161
1 0.1500, crack_core bmz3512. Conf Conc 0.000111 G.p.(b) 8 4 4 bmx162
Log-file output imported in MS Excell MS Access query

50. Structural damage

51. 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

52. Retrofitted with side walls
spalling in spalling in crushing in
first floor ground floor ground floor
Not retrofitted columns columns columns

53. fracture+crush+s yield+crush+ crush+spall yield+spall spall+ yield+ crack
Retrofit method EQ pall+crack spall+crack +crack +crack crack crack only
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
None Th.+Th. 0 0 0 0 0,98 0 97,71
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
Metal jacketing Thessaloniki 0 0 0 0 0,98 0 97,71
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
Side walls 1986+1977 0 7,02 0 53,8 0,29 18,13 20,76
1986 0 0 0 0 0 0 64,05
1990,1 0 0 0 0 0 0 54,25
Diagonal braces 1990,2 0 0 0 0 0 0 85,62
1990,1 0 0 0 0 0 0 56,36
Structural wall 1990,2 0 0 0 0 0,3 0 77,24

54. Comparison of costs

55. 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

56. Reparation(€)
not retrofitted
Earthquake 1
Earthquake 2
Difference to
Rebuild-0,30
Reparation/
Reparation/
Rebuild (€)
Retrofit (€)
Reparation
Reparation
Reparation
Retrofit/
Retrofit/
Total(€)
Rebuild
Rebuild
Rebuild
Retrofit
Retrofit
retrofit/
saving/
retrofit
Model
saving
Total/
Total/
(€)
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

57. Reparation(€)
not retrofitted
Earthquake 1
Earthquake 2
Difference to
Rebuild-0,30
Reparation/
Reparation/
Rebuild (€)
Retrofit (€)
Reparation
Reparation
Reparation
Retrofit/
Retrofit/
Total(€)
Rebuild
Rebuild
Rebuild
Retrofit
Retrofit
retrofit/
saving/
retrofit
Model
saving
Total/
Total/
(€)
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-
Özzi Thessaloniki Thessaloniki 423050 0 423050 3123067 0,14 0,00 0,14 -0,16 - 0-
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 -
Özzi Braces 1 Thessaloniki Thessaloniki 479850 74785 554635 3123067 0,15 0,02 0,18 -0,12 6 0,15585133 0 0 4111961
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 2 Thessaloniki Thessaloniki 478800 67987 546787 3123067 0,15 0,02 0,18 -0,12 7 0,14199373 55750 1 1
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 3 Thessaloniki Thessaloniki 476700 67987 544687 3123067 0,15 0,02 0,17 -0,13 7 0,14261926 53650 1 1
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
Özzi Braces 4 Thessaloniki Thessaloniki 408900 135973 544873 3123067 0,13 0,04 0,17 -0,13 3 0,33253412 -14150 -0 -10
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 Braces 5 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

59. Output for the decision system

60. 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)

61. Pairwise comparison method

63. Utility value method

64. [Nr.] Criterion [from] [to][unit] [weight]Observations (on the units)
1 Reversibility 0 100% 37,5reversibility of the measure
2 Guidelines 1 5points 37,5for the complinance with maintenance guidelines
5 Facade 1 4style points 9,0for the architectural value of the façade
6 Interiors 1 4spatiality points 9,0for the architectural value of the space
ARCHITECT
7 Structural system 1 4technology points 3,0for the architectural value of the structure
8 Demolition 0 100rebuild possibility 9,0of the building following the original plans
9 Size change 0 50cm 9,0size change of a building element
10 Looks change 1 5points 4,5look change of a building element
11 Material change 1 2000age (years) 9,0of the construction material
13 Compatibility 0 100% 4,5collaboration with the existing construction material
14 Conservation 0 100% 11,3maintenance of the existing building material
15 Sustainability 1 500years 2,3lifetime of the building
16 Maintenance 1 50years 4,5lifetime of the new construction material
17 Duration 1 100weeks 4,5of the measure
18 Noise 1 45dB 1,5noise during the measure
19 Move 1 100weeks 12,0duration of the relocation
20 Participation 0 15decision steps 12,0with possible participation of the inhabitants
21 Property form 1 5points 7,2lastingness of the inhabitance
USER
22 Assurance 0 100% coverage 33,6earthquake damage through assurance
23 Own costs share 1 100% 4,8own costs/measure costs
24 Other advantages 1 5points 14,4for inhabitant advantages of the measure
25 During measures 0 200spaces 9,0usable during the measure
26 After measure 0 200spaces 15,0usable after the measure
27 After earthquake 0 200spaces 6,0usable after damaging in earthquake
29 Value 1 20points 30,0for housing quality
33 Earthquake 1 12EMS intensity 27,5of the earthquake
34 Shape 8 10.10scores 5,0for seismic suitability of the conformation
35 Structure 0 8scores 15,0for seismic suitability of the structure
36 Material 1 6scores 2,5for seismic suitability of the construction material
37 Forces 0 1000kN base shear 35,0during the design earthquake
Remaining
38 displacement 0 200mm 105,0at roof level after the earthquake
ER
39 Maximal displacement 0 200mm 105,0at roof level during the earthquake

65. 29 Value 1 20points 30,0for housing quality
33 Earthquake 1 12EMS intensity 27,5of the earthquake
34 Shape 8 10.10scores 5,0for seismic suitability of the conformation
35 Structure 0 8scores 15,0for seismic suitability of the structure
36 Material 1 6scores 2,5for seismic suitability of the construction material
37 Forces 0 1000kN base shear 35,0during the design earthquake
Remaining
38 displacement 0 200mm 105,0at roof level after the earthquake
ENGINEER
39 Maximal displacement 0 200mm 105,0at roof level during the earthquake
40 Strains -6 60‰ 105,0in building elements during earthquake
41 Element replacement 0 300number 25,0replaced elements
42 New elements 0 300number 7,5new elements
43 Nonstruct>struct 0 300number 10,0nonstructural elements which become structural
44 Partial demolition 0 300number 7,5demolished elements
45 System completion 0 200needed anchors 5,0for a system completion measure
Strengthening/Stiffeni
46 ng 1 6Sa_new/Sa_old 15,0spectral acceleration new/old
47 Enhanced ductility 1 4Sd_new/Sd_old 20,0spectral displacement new/old
48 Reduced demand 1 6damping actor 10,0of the soil movement
49 Aggregate 1 44nr. owners 8,0of the building
50 Building site 0 24hours available 12,0for the work
51 Phases 1 44simultaneous 12,0conducted
52 Repeatability 1 200nr. identical 8,0retrofit measures
construction material price for measure at one
53 Material versus 10 40price T€/app. 8,0housing unit
INVESTOR
54 Technology v. 0 10number 8,0available technologies
55 Funding money 0 10nr. programs 4,0which could grant funding money
56 Replace space 0 5eq. buildings 20,0available for the relocation
57 Reparation/Rebuild 0 2€/€ 5,0costs/costs
58 Retrofit/Rebuild 0 0.5€/€ 5,0costs/costs
Reparation-
59 save/Retrofit -5 5€/€ 5,0costs/costs
Total costs/Rebuild-
60 30% -0.3 2.2€/€ 5,0costs/costs

68. Outlook to further studies

69. 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)

70. 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)

71. 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

72. 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

73. 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

74. Construction and management games
Playing „World without End“

75. Conclusions

76. 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

77. 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)

78. Thank you!