the protection of «minor» heritage problems and …
TRANSCRIPT
THE PROTECTION OF «MINOR» HERITAGEPROBLEMS AND CRITERIA
Athens, 2 December 2013
by F. Ferrigni
Workshop onSeismic Protection of Monuments
2
THE PROTECTION OF «MINOR» HERITAGEPROBLEMS AND CRITERIA
• The «minor» heritage
• The vulnerability’s factors of Cultural Heritage
• The different problems in protection of monuments and «minor» Cultural Heritage
• The Local Seismic Culture
• The consequences of the loss of the LSC
• A rigorous approach to reinforce an irregular built up
Athens, 02 December 2013
4
VULNERABILITY’S FACTORS
Athens, 02 December 2013
PHYSICAL• Structural features
KNOWLEDGE• Modelizing• Recognizing materials• Recognizing modifications
USERS BEHAVIOUR• Ownership• Manegement• Available resources• Utilization• Urban & Seismic regulations
5
HISTORICALBUILT UP
ARCHEOLOGICALREMAINS
LISTEDBUILDINGS
Features of IF VI
Vulnerability Increasing (VI)
0 low1 medium2 high
Features of IF VI Features of IF VI
GLO
BA
L
VU
LN
ER
AB
ILIT
Y Plain
Easy
Easy toknow
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
State
State
Sufficient
Not in use
Not enforceable
TOTAL VULNERABILITY’S INCREASE
2
Higher thancurrent buildings
Possible
Nearly alwaysrecognizable
Frequently known, or easy to know
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
State or public bodies
Nearly neversufficientIn use, nearlydifferently than atoriginPossibleexemption
0
State or public bodies
INCREASING FACTORS
0
Not alwayssuitable
Very difficult
Not alwayspossible
Rarelypossible
2
2
2
1
2
0
1
Usually private
Sufficient only if generating added valueIn use, often the original one
0
Private, under public control, weak & indirect
2
PH
YS
ICA
LL
KN
OL
WLE
DG
ECULTURAL HERITAGE
No exemptioneven to improuvecomfort
BE
HA
VIO
UR
DEPE
NDI
NG
ON
LSC
Urban & seismic rules
Available resources
Utilization
Modelling
Recognizing oftechniques & materials
Recognizingmodifications
Ownership
Management
2 4 13
Athens, 02 December 2013
High
0Value oftechniques & materials
6
THE «MINOR» HERITAGEIS IN DANGER
MORE THAN MONUMENTS AND ARCHEOLOCIAL REMAINS?
Athens, 02 December 2013
THE «MINOR» HERITAGEIS THE RECORD
OF THE OLD KNOWLEDGE
7
THE LOCAL SEISMIC CULTURE
• Monuments are built for eternity (or nearly)
• The ancient communities living in seismic prone regions knew the effect of earthquakes on buildings and, in case of short recurrence, they was able to check the effectiveness of reparations
• They can also knew the effect on buildings, bridge, etc. of a short or bad maintenance, of a not appropriate utilization
Some banal observations:
We can define this combination of technical knowledge andconsistent behaviours as a “Local Seismic Culture”
In seismic prone regions the local communitieshave to had develop
seismic proof “rules” for construction, use and maintenance of buildings
Athens, 02 December 2013
8
STANDING UP BY REDUNDANCY
Benevento
Evora
Evora
S. LorenzelloAriano irpino
Athens, 02 December 2013
10
TO IMPROUVE THE SEISMIC RESISTANCE: TWO APPROACHESIMPACTING ENERGY
CAPTURED ENERGY
DamagesproducinDissipated
Métabolized
MASS(Resistance by redundancy)
DEFORMABILITY(Resistance by friction)
Absorbed
Athens, 02 December 2013
11
THE LSC TAKE IN CHARGEALL THE COMPONENTS OF THE SEISMIC
STRESS..
NEPAL
GREECE
horizontal
ALGERIA
vertical
torsional
Athens, 02 December 2013
Fontecchio 2010 12
ALGERI
.. ESPECIALLY THE HORIZONTAL ONES
MYTILINI (Grecia)
AKROTIRI (Grecia, 2500 AC)
CEPPALONI (Italia)
PEROU
15
RECURRENCE OF EARTHQUAKES
AND LEVEL OF THE LOCAL SEISMIC CULTURE
1generation
CSL LEVEL
YEARS10020 40 60 80
EQ
EQ
10020 40 60 80
CSL LEVEL
YEARSAthens, 02 December 2013
RECURRENCE/INTENSITY and VARIOUS KINDS of LOCAL CULTURES SEISMIC
L S C of P R E V
E NT I
ON(Techniques)
L S C of R E P AR AT I ON(Anomalies)
NO CSL
Recurrence2010 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
VIII
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
IX
XIntensity
G r e ck s i t e sCentral américa s i t e sI t al i ans s i t e s
F r e nch s i t e s
18
DIFFUSION of
TRADITIONAL SEISMIC PROOF TECHNIQUES
PAESTUM, in south of Italy, is not very seismic, but it has been founded by the Greeks …..
Athens, 02 December 2013
19
ENDURANCE of TRADITIONAL TECHNIQUES
1MYTHILINI, 1800 A.C.
From Touliatos
THIRA, 2500 B.C.
Athens, 02 December 2013
24
LOCAL SEISMIC CULTURE AND BUILT-UP SEISMIC RESISTANCE
EARTHQUAKES
TIME
CU R R E NT R E S I S T ANCE
R E S I ST ANCEI N S E I S MI C P R ONE R E G I ONS
DEFICIENT OR INAPPROPRIATE MAINTENANCE
BUILT-UP SEISMIC RESISTANCE
CSL
NO CSL
From TOULIATOS, modifiedAthens, 02 December 2013
Good maintenance
No maintenance
Reinforced
A STATISTIC SUPPORT
DAMAGES AND MAINTENANCEOF ADOBE BUILT UP
(1994 Northridge Earthquake)
Dam
ag
eLevel
(arb
itrary
nu
meric
al
scale
)
A(0)
B(1)
C(2)
D(3)
E(4)
PGA (g)0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.50
25Athens, 02 December 2013
26
SOME MISUNDERSTANDINGS
Athens, 02 December 2013
• Are the pushing structures dangerous in seismic areas?
• Is to stiffen the historical masonry?
27
THE SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS
but seismic code and handbooksdemand to eliminate them
vaults are very seismic proof structures ….
Athens, 02 December 2013
29
WE IMPOSE NEW TECHNIQUESTO RETROFIT OLD BUILDINGS ………
the new floorremain in place….
…..the old wall is destroyed
the roof stay intact, but ….
…. just two floors lower
Athens, 02 December 2013
35
SOME METHODOLOCICAL QUESTIONS
• For the protection of Cultural Heritage can we use both our knowledge and the ancient one?
• How can we recognize it?
• How ca we validate it?
• How can we improuve the historical techniques, if usefull?
• How can we define protocols to validate no-standard techniques?
A POLITICAL QUESTIONHow stimulate decision makers and researchers
don’t considering surpassedthe traditional seismic proof techniques
Athens, 02 December 2013
36
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1718 19 2021 22 2324 25
A) VULNERABILITY INCREASING '
B) VULNERABILITY REDUGING
S OP R AE L E V AZ I ONI AL L AR G AM E NT O V ANI E BU CAT U R E E L I M I NAZ I ONE DE L L E V OL T E S OS T I T U Z I ONE DE I S OL AI I N L E G NOS OS T . COP E R . P I ANA CON COP E R . A T E T T OT R AS L AZ I ONE DE I S OL AI
BU CAT U R E I N P R OS S I M I T A' DE I CANT ONAL I
E L I M I NAZ I ONE DI T R AM E Z Z AT U R E I NT E R NE NU OV I T R AM . I NT E R NI CON BL OCCH I AU T OP .NI CCH I E P E R AL L OG G I AM E NT O CONT AT OR I
I NS E R I M E NT O CANNE F U M AR I E
I NS E R I M . DI AS CE NS OR I O M ONT ACAR I CH I
DE M OL I Z . E R I COS T R . CON G I U NT O T E CNI CO
I NCAT E NAM E NT I I N F E R R OI NCAT E NAM E NT I I N L E G NOBAR BACANIR I NG R OS S I A S CAR P A O P AR AL L E L IAR CH I DI CONT R AS T O T R A E DI F I CIP AS S AG G I COP E R T IS CAL E R AM P ANT I F R A E DI F I CIS CAL E E S T E R NEL OG G E E S T E R NECOR P I AG G I U NT I
PERMITTEDPROHIBITED
MODIFICATIONS INCREASING / REDUCINGTHE VULNERABILITY
AND HITS LEGITIMACY IN TOWN PLANS
Athens, 02 December 2013