OVERVIEW

 

CA’REDIVIVUS: management

 

Step 1:

Method: Documentation (addressing objectives 4 and 8)

a. applicability for housing of steel braces retrofit systems in RC buildings

Instrument: literature and internet based research, the way it has been done for the World Housing Encyclopaedia; embedding newly acquired knowledge through advanced research training.

Starting point are the few examples of this kind known to the author: a retrofitted school building in Italy (Fabriano, Umbria-Marche region, affected by the earthquake in 1997), several approaches from Greece (as in publications by Penelis&Kappos, 1997, Dritsos, 2000, etc) and Japanese techniques. A form of two pages, with special regard to the architectural characteristics of the building will be developed to assess the applicability. This step will include several field trips where deemed necessary.

GOAL: about 5 technical reports of applications of this kind.

TIME: about 4 months

b. existing implementation programmes

Instrument: Investigation of availability of programmes  like Romania, Italy, Greece, Slovenia etc.

Starting point is the classification of programme types, regarding phasing and social basis of the implementation in the USA (FEMA 173-174).

GOAL: A collection of charts of what government support/incentives exists in Romania, Italy, Greece, Slovenia, for housing retrofit.

 

Step 2:

Method: Parametrical study (addressing objective 2)

Instrument: FEM simulations.

Starting point is modelling architecturally relevant reinforced concrete buildings. This will include a documentary phase, in some cases restricted to acquiring building plans and other related data as detailed as possible and making assumptions for the missing information (buildings from Italy previously mentioned in this proposal, some characteristic buildings from Romania, including a „Raumplan“ building, a type not yet analysed in previous work of the applicant, eventually the forerunner from France), in other cases including a preliminary documentary phase in order to identify such buildings (in Greece and Slovenia). Several retrofit options will be designed and an algorithm will be developed in order to find the optimal sizes for each position and earthquake intensity range. This step will also include some field trips.

GOAL: Setting up a data table of use for the decision method in the next step.

TIME: about 8 months

 

Step 3:

Method: Highlighting comprehensibility (addressing objective 7)

Instrument: A database for the presentation to the public, for navigation between urban/building level and for feedback from the programs.

Starting point is the database in the mentioned Housing Encyclopaedia project, as well as a sociology of architecture work of the applicant. The potential for collaborative issues in it will be investigated. Such ones might be: data sharing and information exchange, generation of charts to support decision making. A feedback form will be developed, taking into account also the kind of information needed at step 1, in order to assure the second flow, but especially questions of nature to determine the best participation instruments are envisaged.

GOAL: The results from this step may support the choices at step 4 and 1b.

TIME: 2½ months

 

Step 4:

Method: Modularisation of the decision model (addressing objective 3)

Instrument: the pair wise comparison method (Saaty, the „balancing method“ of Prof. Strassert)

Starting point are on one hand the data tables from the previous step and on the other hand „goal trees“ developed in order to structure the criteria of importance for the actors involved in the implementation of retrofit measures. Detailed insights will be provided to the measurability of the criteria. Finally the balancing algorithm will be customised for this decision problem, especially taking into account decision levels, in the dialogue between multiple actors and multiple criteria.

GOAL: An algorithm of use on concrete examples gained from step 2 in the concrete project in step 6.

TIME: 1 month

 

Step 5:

Method: Setting up a basis system to administrate the modules (addressing objective 6)

Instrument: Comparative employment of different computer tools for this problem

Starting point are available tools for decision making like spread sheets and GIS, as well as the multimedia knowledge of the applicant. GIS systems of this kind known to the author are HAZUS, EQSIM (a tool developed at the University of Karlsruhe) and GeoChoice. A spread sheet example is one supporting the pair wise comparison method of Prof. Strassert, but which is not publicly available. The possibilities of multimedia to facilitate decision making in case of visually determined objects like buildings will be investigated.

GOAL: A report about the pros and cons of each of the three systems, based on one example each.

TIME: 1½ months

 

Step 6:

Method: Project example (addressing objective 5)

Instrument: Exercise with students.

Starting point is the method of integral planning, a project type from the curriculum of the applicant. It means the simulation of a real case project, where specialists from several disciplines are advise and judge the same project from early stages. In this case the project will be a retrofit project on an existing building with architectural value, and the specialists will represent the categories of actors mentioned before.

GOAL: On one side trial of educational feasibility (see step 3), on other side obtaining some more practical examples.

TIME: 3 months

 

Step 7:

Method: Publication of results (addressing objective 1)

Instrument: Participation to conferences, publication in reviewed manner, web dissemination of results.

Starting point are the results from steps 1a., 2. and 6., 3-6 (three topics).

GOAL: At least 4 publications.

TIME: 4 months, splitted in four times one during the second year