Latest revision as of 12:50, 30 November 2021

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

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 & 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.