THE PROTECTION OF «MINOR» HERITAGE PROBLEMS AND …

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


HOW CAN WE CHECK

THE RESISTENCE OF THIS MINOR HERITAGE?

Athens, 02 December 2013 3

procidasantorini

4

VULNERABILITY’S FACTORS


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


High

0Value oftechniques & materials

6

THE «MINOR» HERITAGEIS IN DANGER

MORE THAN MONUMENTS AND ARCHEOLOCIAL REMAINS?


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


8

STANDING UP BY REDUNDANCY

Benevento

Evora

Evora

S. LorenzelloAriano irpino


9

CHINA XVI

STANDING UP BY DEFORMABILITY

JAPAN XIV

CHINA XV


10

TO IMPROUVE THE SEISMIC RESISTANCE: TWO APPROACHESIMPACTING ENERGY

CAPTURED ENERGY

DamagesproducinDissipated

Métabolized

MASS(Resistance by redundancy)

DEFORMABILITY(Resistance by friction)

Absorbed


11

THE LSC TAKE IN CHARGEALL THE COMPONENTS OF THE SEISMIC

STRESS..

NEPAL

GREECE

horizontal

ALGERIA

vertical

torsional


Fontecchio 2010 12

ALGERI

.. ESPECIALLY THE HORIZONTAL ONES

MYTILINI (Grecia)

AKROTIRI (Grecia, 2500 AC)

CEPPALONI (Italia)

PEROU

Athens, 02 December 2013 13

HISTORICAL ISOLATORSAGAINST CUTTING ACTIONS

Uzsbekistan (xi)

14

THERE IS BUTTRESS AND BUTTRESS….


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

17

DIFFUSION AND ENDURANCE OF THE LOCAL SEISMIC CULTURE


18

DIFFUSION of

TRADITIONAL SEISMIC PROOF TECHNIQUES

PAESTUM, in south of Italy, is not very seismic, but it has been founded by the Greeks …..


19

ENDURANCE of TRADITIONAL TECHNIQUES

1MYTHILINI, 1800 A.C.

From Touliatos

THIRA, 2500 B.C.


20

NEPAL 1800


2

NEPAL 1997


21

PEKIN, 2007

STANDARD TEMPLE, 1600


3


22

PEKIN, 2007

STANDARD TEMPLE, 1600


3


23

THE LOSS OF THE LOCAL SEISMIC CULTUREAND HIS EFFECTS


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


• 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 ….


BY L’AQUILA EARTHQUAKE


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


30

WE ADOPT DANGEROUS (but legally imposed) REINFORCEMENTS……..


31

THE MACRO-ELEMENTS APPROACH



THE DYNAMIC BLOCKS


THE ANALYSIS BY «DAMAGE MECHANISMS»


THE DESIGN OF INTERVENTIONS

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


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


THE PROTECTION OF «MINOR» HERITAGE PROBLEMS AND …

Documents

Transcript of THE PROTECTION OF «MINOR» HERITAGE PROBLEMS AND …