Advertisement

Cultural Heritage Monuments and Historical Buildings: Conservation Works and Structural Retrofitting

  • Romeu Vicente
  • Sergio Lagomarsino
  • Tiago Miguel Ferreira
  • Serena Cattari
  • J. A. R. Mendes da Silva
Chapter
Part of the Building Pathology and Rehabilitation book series (BUILDING, volume 9)

Abstract

The preservation and strengthening of historical constructions over time is highly to be supported due to their cultural and heritage value and the potential economic exploitation related to tourism. Old masonry buildings are subjected to slow aging processes, which must be monitored in order to prevent irreversible deterioration of materials and structural damage, as well as reduce vulnerability to natural hazards, in particular earthquakes. Conservation requirements may be summarized with the principle of “minimum intervention”, which is based on the idea of maintaining, as much as possible, the original characteristics of the buildings, avoiding the use of invasive strengthening techniques that would compromise their authenticity. However, the daily use of this building stock, which is very important to avoid abandonment, raises the problem of complying not only building conservation but also safety principles. Within this scope, the selection and use of correct structural modelling tools to assess the present state and to support the design of the necessary strengthening interventions is a challenging issue. Thus, this chapter presents, by means of case studies, examples of methodological approaches for the diagnosis and seismic assessment of historical structures, as well as for the design of retrofitting and strengthening works.

Keywords

Preservation of cultural heritage Diagnosis and appraisal Seismic assessment of historical structures Towers Mosques Palaces 

Notes

Acknowledgements

It is indispensable an extensive acknowledgment to all the teams, all the institutions, all the supporters of the restoration process of the Tower of the University of Coimbra, that contribute with their work, their knowledge, with their advice, with their financial support, with their determination to the results presented and discussed in this chapter. Moreover, the PERPETUATE project was funded by Seventh Framework Programme of the European Commission, ENV.2009.3.2.1.1-Environment, Grant Agreement No. 244229 (www.perpetuate.eu).

References

  1. 1.
    Titchen SM. On the construction of outstanding universal value: UNESCO’s World Heritage Convention (Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, 1972) and the identification and assessment of cultural places for inclusion in the Wo 1995; Australian National University.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ICOMOS Hrsg. The international council on monuments and sites. Herit Risk. 2015;6–7.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter 1964). Int Congr Archit Tech Hist Monum. 1964;1–4.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Vecco M. A definition of cultural heritage: from the tangible to the intangible. J Cult Herit. 2010;11(3):321–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    UNESCO. Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. In: General Conference at its Seventeenth Session 1972;1:135–145.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). International charter for the conservation of historic towns and urban areas (The Washington Charter). 1987;1–3.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ICOMOS Australia. The Australian ICOMOS charter for the conservation of places of cultural significance, Burra, Australia 1979.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goodwin C, Tonks G, Ingham J. Identifying heritage value in URM buildings. J Struct Eng Soc N Z. 2009;22(2):16–28.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vicente R, Ferreira TM, Mendes da Silva JAR. Supporting urban regeneration and building refurbishment. Strategies for building appraisal and inspection of old building stock in city centres. J Cult Herit. 2015;16(1):1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    ICOMOS/ISCARSAH Committee. Recommendations for the analysis, conservation and structural restoration of architectural heritage. In: ICOMOS international committee for analysis and restoration of structures of architectural heritage 2005.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    AAVV. University of Coimbra—Alta e Sofia, vol. I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII. University of Coimbra, Coimbra (http://issuu.com/unescouc) 2012.
  12. 12.
    Mendes da Silva JAR, Lopes N, Marques C. O processo de candidatura a património mundial da Universidade de Coimbra: desafios e estratégias de gestão e salvaguarda. V Congreso Latinoamericano REHABEND 2014 about “Patología de la Construcción, Tecnología de la Rehabilitación y Gestión del Patrimonio”.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mendes da Silva JAR, Lopes N. O contributo dos “planos diretores dos edifícios para a gestão de longo prazo de conjuntos classificados”. O caso da Universidade de Coimbra. V Congreso Latinoamericano REHABEND 2014 about “Patología de la Construcción, Tecnología de la Rehabilitación y Gestión del Patrimonio”.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mendes da Silva JAR. Full and pedagogical access to a restoration site: the tower of the University of Coimbra. ReUSO—III Congreso Internacional sobre Documentación, Conservación y Reutilización del Patrimonio Arquitectónico y Paisajístico 2015;2156–2163.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Júlio ENBS, da Silva Rebelo CA, Dias-da-Costa DASG. Structural assessment of the tower of the University of Coimbra by modal identification. Eng Struct. 2008;30(12):3468–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Structural Vibration Solution. ARTeMIS Extractor Pro. Release 5.3. Aalborg, Denmark, 2012.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Beneditini F, Gentile C. Ambient vibration testing and operational modal analysis of a masonry tower. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international modal analysis conference 2007;285–292.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    CEN. Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 3: assessment and retrofitting of buildings, Brussels, Belgium 2005.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    ASCE/SEI 41/06. Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. Reston: American Society of Civil Engineers; 2007.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ISO 13822. Bases for design of structures: assessment of existing structures. 2nd ed. Switzerland: ISO International Standard; 2010.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    CIB 335. Guide for the structural rehabilitation of heritage buildings. CIB Commission W023 – Wall Structures, ISBN 978-90-6363-066-9, 2010.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Recommendations P.C.M. 9/2/2011. Seismic assessment and risk mitigation of cultural heritage according to Italian Technical Code for Constructions (NTC 2008). G.U. n. 47 of 26-2-2011, Suppl. Ord. n. 54 (in Italian) 2011.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lagomarsino S, Cattari S. PERPETUATE guidelines for seismic performance-based assessment of cultural heritage masonry structures. Bull Earthq Eng. 2015;13(1):13–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Douglas J, Seyedi DM, Ulrich T, Modaressi H, Foerster E, Pitilakis K, Pitilakis D, Karatzetzou A, Gazetas G, Garini E, Loli M. Evaluation of seismic hazard for the assessment of historical elements at risk: description of input and selection of intensity measures. Bull Earthq Eng. 2015;13(1):49–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lagomarsino S, Cattari S. Seismic performance of historical masonry structures through pushover and nonlinear dynamic analyses (Chapter 11). In: Ansal A, editor. Perspectives on European earthquake engineering and seismology, geotechnical, geological and earthquake engineering, vol. 39. New York: Springer; 2015. p. 265–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Freeman SA. The capacity spectrum method as a tool for seismic design. In: Proceedings of 11th European conference of earthquake engineering. Paris, France; 1998.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lagomarsino S, Abbas N, Calderini C, Cattari S, Rossi M, Ginanni Corradini R, Marghella G, Mattolin F, Piovanello V. Classification of cultural heritage assets and seismic damage variables for the identification of performance levels. In: Proceedings of structural repairs and maintenance of heritage architecture conference. WIT Press; 2011. pp. 697–708. ISSN 1743-3509.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lagomarsino S. Seismic assessment of rocking masonry structures. Bull Earthq Eng. 2015;13(1):97–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cattari S, Lagomarsino S, Karatzetzou A, Pitilakis D. Vulnerability assessment of Hassan Bey’s Mansion in Rhodes. Bull Earthq Eng. 2015;13(1):347–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rossi M, Cattari S, Lagomarsino S. Vulnerability assessment of Great Mosque of Algiers. Bull Earthq Eng. 2015;13(1):369–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lagomarsino S, Penna A, Galasco A, Cattari S. TREMURI program: an equivalent frame model for the nonlinear seismic analysis of masonry buildings. Eng Struct. 2013;56:1787–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lagomarsino S, Ottonelli D. A Macro-Block program for the seismic assessment (MB-PERPETUATE). PERPETUATE (EC-FP7 project), Deliverable D29, www.perpetuate.eu.
  33. 33.
    Gambarotta L, Lagomarsino S. Damage models for the seismic response of brick masonry shear walls. Part II: the continuum model and its applications. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. 1997;26:441–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Calderini C, Lagomarsino S. Continuum model for in-plane anisotropic inelastic behavior of masonry. J Struct Eng ASCE. 2008;134(2):209–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fajfar P. A non linear analysis method for performance-based seismic design. Earthq Spectra. 2000;16(3):573–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Faouzi G, Nasser L. Scalar and vector probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: application for Algiers City. J Seismol. 2014;18:319–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Romeu Vicente
    • 1
  • Sergio Lagomarsino
    • 2
  • Tiago Miguel Ferreira
    • 3
  • Serena Cattari
    • 2
  • J. A. R. Mendes da Silva
    • 4
  1. 1.RISCO, Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of AveiroAveiroPortugal
  2. 2.Department of Civil, Chemical and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of GenoaGenoaItaly
  3. 3.ISISE, Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of MinhoGuimarãesPortugal
  4. 4.Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Science and TechnologyADAI/LAETACoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations