Latest revision as of 12:49, 30 November 2021

Abstract

In current times, built heritage is being lost at an alarming rate due to natural and human hazards. Policies for its protection and rehabilitation involve, among other things, challenges related to the refinement of suitable structural strengthening approaches. The arduous balance between gaining acceptable safety levels for occupants without deploying intrusive devices, inconsistent with conservation principles such as those of the ICOMOS charters, is not a simple task. The interest and efforts of the scientific community in this regard have been increasing for decades, but still, it is the structural professional 's responsibility and experience which must define this arduous balance on a case-to-case basis. This study addresses the question: How can the quality of structural rehabilitation interventions be assessed in light of conservation principles such as those given by ICOMOS? Here, a preliminary method - called “Intervention Quality Index” (IQI) method is proposed. It assesses the restoration intervention quality in relation to: (i) the level of compliance given by the conservation ́s principle score (conservation ́s factor, CF); and (ii) the current state of conservation of the monument (safety factor of building considering the seismic intensity, Δs). The IQI method considers the compliance level of the designed reinforcement with conservation principle, formalized through the fulfillment of a category, i.e. respected, partially respected, and not respected. Then, these judgments are translated into scores and statistically evaluated. Scores are attributed in relation to the relevance of the fulfillment of a certain conservation principle (authenticity, minimal intervention and intrusiveness, compatibility, recognizability and reversibility) for the seismic structural safety point of view. Preliminary results show that an effective employment of traditional earthquake-resistant practices together with a wise use of modern retrofit strategies allow for the preservation and reinforcement of built heritage without harming its identity.

Full document

References

[1] Cracow Charter, 2000. Signed by representatives of conservation institutions, Proc Int. Conf. On Conservation, Krakow 2000, Krakow, 191–193.

[2] Venice Charter, 1964. International charter for the conservation and restoration of monuments and sites, Proc., 2nd Int. Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments, Venice, Italy.

[3] Spence R, D’Ayala D (1999) Damage assessment and analysis of the 1997 Umbria-Marche earthquakes. Struct Eng Int J Int Assoc Bridge Struct Eng 9(3):229–233

[4] Cancino C (2010) Damage assessment of historic earthen sites after the 2007 earthquake in Peru. Adv Mater Res 133–134:665–670

[5] Wilkinson S, Grant D, Williams E, Paganoni S, Fraser S, Boon D, Mason A, Free (2013). Observation and implications of damage from the magnitude Mw 6.3 Christchurch, New Zealand earthquake of 22 February 2011. Bull Earthq Eng 13(1):1–35

[6] D’Ayala, D. (2014). Conservation principles and performance based strengthening of heritage buildings in post-event reconstruction. In Perspectives on European Earthquake Engineering and Seismology (pp. 489-514). Springer, Cham

[7] Palazzi, N. C., Rovero, L., De La Llera, J. C., Sandoval, C. (2019). Preliminary Assessment on Seismic Vulnerability of Masonry Churches in Central Chile. International Journal of Architectural Heritage, 1-20.

[8] Palazzi, N. C., Favier, P., Rovero, L., Sandoval, C., & de la Llera, J. C. (2020). Seismic damage and fragility assessment of ancient masonry churches located in central Chile. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 1-25.

[9] SESOC (2013) Building seismic performance. Submission to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment 8 March 2013.

[10] Masonry Standards Joint Committee, (1999). Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures, ACI-530-99/ASCE 5-99/TMS 402-99, American Concrete Institute, American Society of Civil Engineers and Masonry Society, Detroit, New York, Boulder.

[11] E.080, (2017). Ministerio de Vivienda, Construcción y Saneamiento. Diseño y construcción con tierra reforzada. Lima, Perú.

[12] Eurocode 8, (2004). Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 1: General rules, seismic actions, and rules for buildings (EN 1998-1), European Committee of Standardization. Brussels, Belgium; 2004.

[13] MIT, (2008), Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni. DM 14 gennaio 2008, Gazzetta Ufficiale, n. 29 del 4 febbraio 2008, Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, Roma.

[14] Circolare n. 26/2010 (2010) Linee Guida per la valutazione e riduzione del rischio sismico del patrimonio culturale, Prot. 10953 del 2 dicembre 2010.

[15] INN, 2013. Estructuras –Intervención de construcciones patrimoniales de tierra cruda– Requisitos del Proyecto Estructural. Santiago, Chile NCh3332.Of2013.

[16] Arya, A. S., Boen, T., & Ishiyama, Y. (2014). Guidelines for earthquake resistant non-engineered construction. UNESCO.

[17] International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) Principles for the analysis, conservation and structural restoration of architectural heritage (2003).

[18] Jorquera, N., Misseri, G., Palazzi, N., Rovero, L. and Tonietti, U. (2017). Structural characterization and seismic performance of San Francisco church, the most ancient monument in Santiago, Chile. Intern Jour of Archit Her11(8),1061-1085.

[19] Palazzi, N.C., Rovero, L., Tonietti, U., de la Llera, J.C., Sandoval, C. (2018a). Kinematic limit analysis of Basilica del Salvador, a significant example of the neo- gothic architecture in Santiago, Chile. In 16th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Thessalonica, Greece 18-21 june 2018.

[20] Petzet M. (2004). Principles of preservation: an introduction to the international charters for conservation and restoration 40 years after the Venice Charter

[21] Giaretton, M., Dizhur, D., da Porto, F., & Ingham, J. (2016). Seismic assessment and improvement of unreinforced stone masonry buildings: literature review and application to New Zealand.”. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, 49(2).