A Preliminary Structural Survey of Heritage Timber Log Houses in Tonsberg, Norway

== Abstract ==

The  formulation  of  a  multi-hazard  loss  model  for  a  given  structure  is  not  only  of 
interest for predicting the economic impact of future damage but it can also be of importance 
for risk mitigation. A methodology that can assess the vulnerability of the built environment is 
a  significant  component  of  a  loss  model.  The  multi-risk  vulnerability  of  heritage  buildings 
necessitates  greater  knowledge  about  the  history  of  their  construction,  including  aspects 
relating  to  preserving  them  as  assets.  Timber  as  an  organic  material  is  more  susceptible  to decay and the structural assessment of  timber buildings is essential for  their preservation. A 
preliminary  survey  as  a  basis  for  multi-risk  vulnerability  assessment  of  such  buildings  is 
essential. In this step of the process, the history of the building is investigated, as well as any 
intervention to it during its lifetime. A damage inspection of structural elements conducted by 
experts  is  an  essential  part  of  the  second  step.  After  this,  the  configuration  of  the  building, including height, plan view and connection details should be documented. After the preliminary survey of the building, detailed methods are employed to gather further information about the structure’s behaviour under different risk scenarios. In this paper, heritage timber buildings in Tønsberg, Norway have been selected as case studies for multi-risk vulnerability assessments. The  preliminary  survey  has  been  conducted  by  a  team  of  experts  and  useful  data  have  been recorded and explained. 3D laser scanners have been used in the survey in place of traditional 2D methods to obtain a more detailed and accurate 3D representation of the buildings.

== Full document ==
<pdf>Media:Draft_Content_693109122p628.pdf</pdf>
== References ==

[1] Shabani A, Kioumarsi M and Zucconi M. State of the art of simplified analytical methods  for seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry buildings. Eng Struct (2021);  239: 112280. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.112280.  

[2]  Larsen  KE  and  Marstein  N.  Conservation  of  historic  timber  structures.  An  ecological  approach. Riksantikvaren, (2016).  

[3] Riggio M, D’Ayala D, Parisi MA, et al. Assessment of heritage timber structures: Review  of standards, guidelines and procedures. Journal of Cultural Heritage (2018); 31: 220-235.  

[4] Shabani A, Kioumarsi M, Plevris V, et al. Structural Vulnerability Assessment of Heritage  Timber Buildings: A Methodological Proposal. Forests (2020); 11: 881. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3390/f11080881.  

[5] Cruz H, Yeomans D, Tsakanika E, et al. Guidelines for on-site assessment of historic timber  structures. International Journal of Architectural Heritage (2015); 9: 277-289.  

[6] Riveiro B, Morer P, Arias P, et al. Terrestrial laser scanning and limit analysis of masonry  arch bridges. Construction &amp; Building Materials (2011a); 25: 1726–1735. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.11.094.  

[7] Jung R-K, Koo B-S  and Yu  Y-S. Using Drone and Laser Scanners  for As-built Building  Information Model Creation of a Cultural Heritage Building. Journal of KIBIM (2019); 9:  11-20.  

[8]  Milani  G,  Esquivel  YW,  Lourenço  PB,  et  al.  Characterization  of  the  response  of  quasi-periodic  masonry:  Geometrical  investigation,  homogenization  and  application  to  the Guimarães castle, Portugal. Eng Struct (2013); 56: 621-641. DOI:  10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.05.040.  

[9] Macchioni N, Brunetti M, Pizzo B, et al. The timber structures in the Church of the Nativity  in Bethlehem: typologies and diagnosis.  Journal  of Cultural Heritage (2013); 13: 42-53.  DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2012.10.004.  

[10]  Pöchtrager  M,  Styhler-Aydın G, Döring-Williams  M,  et  al.  Digital  reconstruction  of  historic  roof  structures:  developing  a  workflow  for  a  highly  automated  analysis.  Virtual  Archaeology Review (2018); 9: 21-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4995/var.2018.8855.  

[11] Wilson L, Rawlinson A, Frost A, et al. 3D digital documentation for disaster management  in historic buildings: Applications following fire damage at the Mackintosh building, The  Glasgow School of Art. Journal of Cultural Heritage (2018); 31: 24-32. DOI:  10.1016/j.culher.2017.11.012.  

[12] Degnbol H. A Dictionary of old norse prose:@ Ordbog over det norrųne prosasprog. Den  arnamagnęanske kommission, (1989).  

[13] Berg A. Norske tømmerhus frå mellomalderen, bd. II: hus for hus i Buskerud, Vestfold og  Oppland. Landbruksforlaget, Oslo, (1990).  

[14] Hovland JM. Kåpebur – fortidens kjøleskap eller motepåfunn? ,  https://www.notteroyhistorielag.no/john-m-hovland-kapebur-fortidens-kjoleskap-eller- motepafunn/ (2016, Access (2016)).  

[15] Hrasnica M, Cauševic A and Rustempašić N. Laser scanning for the evaluation of historic  structures.  Handbook  of  Research  on  Seismic  Assessment  and  Rehabilitation  of  Historic Structures. (2015), pp.734-764.