Economics and retrofit

ECONOMICS AND
RETROFIT
Maria BOSTENARU DAN, Diana MENDES

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

Existing methods
 Urban scale
 At urban planning level there were Fingerhuth and Koch who clarified the
moderating role of the architect, among experts, passive public and active
affected people.
 At regional planning level it was Strassert (1995) developing a method of
balancing we will later employ.
 Building scale
 Inclusion of the factor cost into multicriteria decision analysis has been done more
recently by the team of Caterino et al (2007 and 2009), with a view to bracing of a
reinforced concrete building, but employing passive damping.
 For technical decision we built upon the book of Malczewski (1999) regarding
spatial problems.
 For the role of the architect Richter (course work) made a role model in the
decision space between goals, resources, benefits and costs.
 In renovation the model used in Weissenhof was described by Nägele (1992).
Also Nägele (1992) employed balancing.
 The ATC-40 considers a series of actors specifically for seismic retrofit. Both the
latter employ matrixes (decision tables).
 The role of the users were considered also by Ottokar Uhl in the model developed
for the Hollabrunn in the 1970s, the glory time of participatism.

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

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

Bucharest, Romania
Early RC skeleton

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

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

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

 Giuseppe Terragni - Como
Photos 2005

 Giuseppe Terragni - Milano
Photos 2005

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

 Novecento
Photos 2007

 Novecento
Building in Via
Domenichino, architects
Lancia şi Ponti
1928-30
Livingroom,dinning
B athroom,toilets
Kitchen
Hall
Corridors/ circulation zone
Deposit
B edroom/ Night zone

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

Building typology: Greece
Photos 2005

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

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

Plecnik
 In Austria
 skeleton
 photos 2005-2006

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

Portugal
Cassiano Branco (photos 2005)

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

Performance levels and seismic
retrofit costs

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

Formulas – principle of addition
Reparation of a column damaged till yield/crush =
48,16 x  + 1 x  + 270 x  + 10 x + 25 x  + 1 x  (1)
Reparation of a column damaged till reinforcement
yield/concrete crush =
41,68 x  + 1 x  + 2 x  + 270 x  + 0,9 x + 2,4 x + 1 x + 0,75 x 
(2)
Reparation of a column damaged till spall =
22,67 x  + 0,33 x + 270 x  + 10 x + 25 x  + 0,33 x  (3)
Reparation of a beam damaged till spall =
23,91 x  + 0,0572 x  + 0,8 x  + 0,009 x + 0,18 x  (4)
Reparation of a column with rifts = 36,48 x  + 4,8 x  + 0,015 x + 4,8
x 
(5)
Reparation of a beam with rifts = 38 x + 6,75 x  + 0,015 x  + 6,75 x  (6)
The formulas are based on the devices. The unknown depend on country and time as
follows:
-  is he hour salary,
-  is the price for bringing away concrete,
-  is the price for 1kg steel,
-  is the price for scaffolding 1m²,
-  is the price for supporting the scaffolding 1m,
-  is the preice for 1m³ concrete,
-  is the price for a hole in the slab,
-  is he price for 1m² plastering,
- is the approximative price for injection materials,
-  is the price for brining away the old plastering (1m³).
Total reparation cost =
reparation cost for yield/crush colum x nr. of yield crush/columns +
Reparation cost for spall column x nr. of spall columns +
Reparation cost for rifts colum x nr. of rifted colums +
Reparation cost for yield/crush beam x nr. of yield/crush beams +
Reparation cost for spall beam x nr. of spall beams +
Reparation cost for rifts beam x nr. of rift beams
While the numbers can be counted with the procedure shown before
Total preventive retrofit costs =
Costs for a measures device x nr. of elements
Alternatively a project management software can be employed.
Moment of the measure
Extent of the measure
Extent of the measure
Costs
Reparation
Rebuilding
Retrofit

The concept of cost curves
the derivation from the daylight shall be understood as follows: lets imagine a building consisting of
parallel bars. In this case the light comes through courtyards, and is decreased in the lower
levels by shadows. To overcome this, a building with stepwise recesses in the height has been
designed. Thus the courtyard in the ground floor is the tightest, while increasing in wideness with
the height. Therefore the shadow decreases in the height and more natural light is received by
the higher floors. However, for deep rooms even this natural light is not enough. To deal with the
huge depth a second window was added, following the line of the next floor, which is set back. To
optimize the light design the amount of setting back is different depending on floor, the second
window is closer to the main one in the lower floor and further in the upper floors, where the
natural light amount decreases deeper on. Transferred into our concept the window symbolizes
the amount of the measure, by amount we understand the costs beared by a certain retrofit or
repair intervention. The main window stays for repair and the additional one for retrofit. The
deeper the floor is, the less effect the investment in repair has, because the damages are more
extensive – the deeper floors correspond to stronger earthquakes, the less favourable situation.
The “moment of the measure” stays for the earthquake we consider to set our measure targeted
with, in German called “Bemessungsbeben” and which we can consider that the building shall be
designed for in order to reach a certain performance level. The moment of the measure, although
staying on the X axis is actually determined by the Y axis, namely if the curve shall be drawn for
a lower or an upper story, which are the ones determined parametrically by the earthquake
magnitude.

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

350mm
30mm
350mm
30mm
350mm
Steelbarsanchored
intotheconcrete
towhichthebracesarefixed

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)

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

Interdependence structural – socio-
economic
Otpt No: 73 Time= 9,3360, spallig reached. Elm: Cb51ba. Unc Conc Strain = -0.002173 - G.p.(b)
Otpt No: 73 Time= 9,3360, spallig reached. Elm: Cb2051a. Unc Conc Strain = -0.002116 - G.p.(b)
Otpt No: 73 Time= 9,3360, spallig reached. Elm: C2031a. Unc Conc Strain = -0.002198 - G.p.(b)
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)
Otpt No: 73 Time= 9,3360, fracture reached. Elm: C2011b. Steel Strain = 0.069858 - G.p.(a)
Otpt No: 73 Time= 9,3360, fracture reached. Elm: C2011b. Steel Strain = 0.109096 - G.p.(b)
Otpt No: 73 Time= 9,3360, crush reached. Elm: C2011b. Conf Conc Strain = -0.007241 - G.p.(a)
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)
Typical log-file output
Otpt No: Time= reached Elm: Mat 1 Mat 2 Strain = Gauss point
Log-file output imported in MS Excell
ID Otpt No: Time= reached Elm: Mat 1 Mat 2 Strain = Gauss point
Log-file imported in MS Access
Gesamtsumme von ID yield crush spall crack_core crack_cover element
15 4 1 2 4 4 bmx121
14 4 2 4 4 bmx122
14 4 2 4 4 bmx133
14 4 2 4 4 bmx141
14 4 2 4 4 bmx142
10 2 4 4 bmx152
10 2 4 4 bmx153
10 2 4 4 bmx154
8 4 4 bmx161
8 4 4 bmx162
MS Access query

After supervised work of Öztürk (2003)

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

crushingin
groundfloor
columns
spallingin
first floor
columns
spallingin
groundfloor
columnsNot retrofitted
Retrofitted with side walls

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

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

Model
Retrofit
Earthquake1
Earthquake2
Reparation(€)
Retrofit(€)
Total(€)
Rebuild(€)
Reparation/
Rebuild
Retrofit/
Rebuild
Total/
Rebuild
Total/
Rebuild-0,30
Reparation/
RetrofitRetrofit/
Reparation
Differenceto
notretrofitted
(€)
Reparation
saving/
retrofit
retrofit/
Reparation
saving
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 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 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

Model
Retrofit
Earthquake1
Earthquake2
Reparation(€)
Retrofit(€)
Total(€)
Rebuild(€)
Reparation/
Rebuild
Retrofit/
Rebuild
Total/
Rebuild
Total/
Rebuild-0,30
Reparation/
Retrofit
Retrofit/
Reparation
Differenceto
notretrofitted
(€)
Reparation
saving/
retrofit
retrofit/
Reparation
saving
Özzi
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-
Thessaloniki Thessaloniki 423050 0 423050 3123067 0,14 0,00 0,14 -0,16 - 0-
Özzi Braces 1
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 -
Thessaloniki Thessaloniki 479850 74785 554635 3123067 0,15 0,02 0,18 -0,12 6 0,15585133 0 0 4111961
Özzi Braces 2
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 3
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 4
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
Thessaloniki Thessaloniki 408900 135973 544873 3123067 0,13 0,04 0,17 -0,13 3 0,33253412 -14150 -0 -10
Özzi Braces 5
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 - 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

From deterministic to
probabilistic
Monte-Carlo simulation – further study

Output for the decision system

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)

Urban ontology (COST TU0801
training school)
Sisi

Decision tree formulas
Total points = Summ (actor x weight of actor)
Actor = Summ (criteria x weight of criteria)
For criteria:
- Zero value
- Graphic of variation of criteria

Actors in
WHE
Architect
Civil engineer
Socio-economic
aspects
Proiect
management

Exemple of interwar building WHE
WHE

Indicators in WHE
Taxonomy in progress
http://www.world-housing.net/gem-building-
taxonomy-testing-and-evaluation-create-a-
report-using-taxt

Morphology and economy
From the decision model to
3D model

3D model
http://arhitectura-1906.ro/2012/07/marcel-
iancu-si-alfabetul-sau-formal-un-exercitiu-
didactic-in-derulare-i/
Revista Arhitectura
Marcel Janco morphogenesis exercise
• E-card.ro – Marcel Janco urban traces with sketches of buildings
• http://www.e-cart.ro/asociatia/ro/noutati/Traseu_urban_M.Iancu.pdf

3D model
http://arhitectura-1906.ro/2012/07/marcel-
iancu-si-alfabetul-sau-formal-un-exercitiu-
didactic-in-derulare-i/
Revista Arhitectura
Marcel Janco morphogenesis exercise
• Outgoing Mondrian
painting here
• http://www.wikipainting
s.org/en/piet-
mondrian/lozenge-
composition-with-red-
gray-blue-yellow-and-
black-1925

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)

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)

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

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

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

Playing „World without End“
Construction and management games

Other decision systems
Drama theory and conflict based software
The economic value of retrofit/restoration versus
demolition:
- Collaborative and competitive computer games

Restoration and demolition
game

Comparison to agent based
automated method
 Computer tools can aid local decision makers in
postearthquake disaster staff. Fiedrich (2004) proposed the
integrative model EQ-RESQUE to support the prioritisation of
intervention zones and the efﬁcient allocation of help-and-
rescue resources through action proposals. A distributed
simulation system (high level architecture) connects its two
interacting components:
 simulation of the dynamic disaster environment and of the work
of resources;
 decision process modelling using software agents
mathematically optimised with expert knowledge concerning the
multiple tasks and the communication structures and decision
competences within the disaster staff.

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

Acknowledgements
 COST action IS1104 for this Short Term Scientific Mission at
ISCTE-IUL Lisbon (March-April 2013)
 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)

Economics and retrofit

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (14)

Similar to Economics and retrofit

Similar to Economics and retrofit (20)

More from Maria Bostenaru

More from Maria Bostenaru (9)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Economics and retrofit