Risk Level Assessment of Monumental Historical Structures by Visual Inspection

M. Vatan, G. Arun, Structural Systems Division of the Faculty of Architecture, Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey

Introduction

Monumental historical structures are symbols of the cultural identity and continuity and they are the main part of the heritage and the human history. There is no fixed description of the term historic structure, definition depends on the history and cultural context to which it belongs and the place where it is located. In this paper, monuments are dealt with that have survived hazards for 100 - 1500 years. Along with the history and the new empires of this land the function of some of those structures had been changed and during these changes new structural elements were added. Minarets as well as some praying parts are the most distinctive and familiar additional elements during conversion of churches to mosques. These structural additions affect the behavior of the existing structure and made it more complicated. The masonry structures constructed with bricks, stones, adobe and mortar have very complex structural and geometrical layout. Depending on the construction period; geometrical typology, construction and organization of the structure, element size and type of construction material used are diverse (Figure 1). During their long life historical structures have experienced many actions occurred over long periods of time; endured long term deteriorating effects and earthquake loads. Safety is guaranteed by technical codes for new constructions. These codes are mostly not applicable to the existing historical structures because these structures do not meet the hypothesis assumed for new constructions. Since the value and authenticity of historical structures can not be assessed by fixed criteria, preservation and protection of historical monumental structures is a difficult task /1/. There are check lists for evaluating the risk level after any natural disaster for existing concrete and vernacular masonry structures (e.g. FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency, part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security) but pre-hazard risk assessment of historical structures and monuments is not common. Before hazardous events, identification of potential seismic hazard in existing historical buildings for hazard mitigation, disaster preparedness and prior knowledge of potential hazards is very important because they are culturally valuable and are open to large assembles of people. The aim of this paper is to present a method for assessing the risk level of monumental historical structures. The proposed method is the main part of the ongoing PhD study which can be used also for identifying the pre hazard vulnerability of those structures in seismic zones. Due to the fact that the researches on this field are mostly on vernacular buildings with regular geometry this study is focused on domed and vaulted historical monumental masonry structures in Turkey.

Figure 1: Examples of monumental structures in Istanbul (constructed in different periods)

Study on the structural safety of a historic building necessitates an interdisciplinary team of specialists and requires specific techniques. Safety assessment based on qualitative and quantitative data is necessary before making any intervention decision. The qualitative data is visual inspection of structural damages, decays and deteriorations and the quantitative data requires laboratory tests, structural analysis etc. Obtaining the

quantitative data requires detailed method which necessitates specialists and takes more time and can only be performed on a limited number of buildings /2/. The fact that there are so many historical structures and few specialists on this field it is very important to develop quick methods for assessing the safety condition of historic structures.

A Method for Evaluating the Risk Level of Historical Monumental Structures Based on Visual Inspections

Cultural heritage preservation is a complex phenomenon and to make precise and generally accepted decisions and get quantitative risk assessment is very difficult. Documentation, protection, and conservation of historical structures and monuments are the most important parts of the cultural heritage preservation. The aim of this method is to facilitate specialists works on the preservation and conservation of historical monumental structures. This method suggests using non-expert inspectors as students of architecture and civil engineering who are able to make a survey on historical structures, to fill in inspection forms developed for monumental structures in Turkey. Many rapid inspection methods used data obtained from the street and the inspection is done in a short time. Acquisition of data in the proposed method of this paper, differently from many existing methods, is made by inspection both from interior and exterior of the building. Since all data is obtained by visual inspection it is possible to say that by this method many potentially valuable and historical structures could be inspected in a relatively short time. There are some researches on this field, especially in the seismic zones. Mostly, these researches are on vernacular masonry buildings shaped of simple geometry. In the following the existing researches and the necessity of the evaluation methods for masonry monumental historical structures with complex geometry will be discussed. DAyala and Speranza developed TOSQA99 (An Integrated Procedure for the Assessment of Seismic Vulnerability of Historic Buildings) for evaluating the seismic vulnerability of historic buildings /3/. This approach is based on a simplified analysis of the structural characteristics of the buildings. Surveying is made from the street and collected data are those which can qualify the seismic performance of masonry buildings. Therefore site surveying is quick but includes only external features of the buildings. The block shape, the building position within it, number of free walls and floors, and so on, is surveyed. This post earthquake survey defines the damage level for each building. This program applied in seismic zones of Italy had satisfying results. After the TOSQA99 the Programme FAMIVE is developed from it /4/. These methods are based on a failure analysis of the structures through the identification of feasible collapse mechanisms and calculation of their associated failure load factors (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Failure mechanisms in TOSQA99 /3/

The frequent occurrence of damaging earthquakes in urban areas in India has demonstrated to the researchers the need of a comprehensive earthquake disaster risk management policy. Since detailed vulnerability evaluation is a technically complex and expensive procedure, the scientists in India, highlighted the importance of using simpler procedures that can help to rapidly evaluate the vulnerability of different types of buildings and then to limited detailed evaluations to the most critical buildings. According to these facts, Indias national vulnerability assessment methodology includes three basic procedures. Level 1: Rapid visual screening (RVS) which requires only visual evaluation and limited additional information; Level 2: Simplified vulnerability assessment (SVA) which requires limited engineering analysis based on visual observations information and structural drawings; Level 3: Detailed vulnerability assessment (DVA) which requires detailed computer analysis. The simplified vulnerability assessment procedure has providing more reliable assessment of the seismic vulnerability of the building and is formed the basis for determining the necessity for more complex vulnerability assessment /5/. MDDS, the Monument Damage Diagnostic System is an expert system widely used in many European countries. MDDS is originally developed within an EC research project for the diagnosis of damage to masonry structures. This expert system is based on the visual observations and contains an extensive damage atlas and also information on decay processes /6, 7/. All damages are defined in the computer data system. This approach is focused on decay and damage types. Inspection of the building can be done at distinct levels e.g. a whole wall or a part of the wall or composing units. The system is useful for regular geometric shapes (especially for rectangular walls or parts of the wall). Visual monitoring is performed by repeating MDDS survey over the years. All these researches indicate that there is no current method and general criteria for assessing the damage state of the monumental masonry structures as well as current definition of the term monument. Depending on the structural typology, culture and economy of the country involved in heritage conservation; methods and researches are different. It is very important to use simpler methods to evaluate the potential risk of many buildings as a first step of heritage preservation. The common point of the researches on

this field mentioned above is that the first step of the damage assessment is visual observation and check lists (inspection forms, damage atlas) are useful for this purpose. It is obvious that definition of the structural elements with complex geometry and taking into consideration the building as a whole during the risk assessment still is a problem. The focus of the proposed method in this paper is to define all structural elements in their real geometric shape, individually, then take into account building as a whole by interrelation all structural elements during the risk assessment procedure. The hardest part of this study is defining the structural elements with complex and irregular geometry in the inspection form. In this method, obtained data by visual inspection of the inspected building will be evaluated and classification of the risk level will be made through the developed data base computer system. With reference to this classification, buildings that necessitate any further detailed inspection can be oriented to the team of specialists. This study will also provide a systematic data collection and photographs archive of surveyed structures. The proposed method consist of two main parts: developing of the inspection form and developing of the evaluation form of the inspection. Inspection form collects data as historical information, physical condition, geometrical typology, structural elements, and construction material, damage type etc. of the inspected building. Historical information contains information as date of construction, past interventions and change of function. To gain information of the building as a whole, the first step of the buildings inspection is the identification of structural elements and especially the relation between these elements. Due to the complexity of the geometrical typology of monumental masonry structures, identification of each element is very difficult. In this method representation of the structural system as well as each structural element is provided by using codes for each structural element based on given axial system on the plan drawing. Through these elements codes, the geometry of the structural element can be identified and damages on each structural element can be interrelated. By this way the building can be considered as a whole during the evaluation process.

2.1

Identification of the Structural Elements of the Existing Monumental Masonry Structures

Load bearing scheme and formation of the structure of historical monuments is very complex. In order to collect data of its damage state each element should be represented with its true geometry on the inspection form. This representation is very difficult for inspecting each element one by one and then interrelate all of them to can evaluate building as a whole. Typology of the existing monumental structures is diverse, therefore load carrying system and transitional elements and relation between those elements is different for each structure. To be able to define each structural element with their real geometrical shape as circular, semi circular, curvilinear or irregular and position as orthogonal or non-orthogonal giving axial system to the existing structure is decided. In risk assessment, the geometry and position of the structural element in the building system is very important and this is lacking partly in this field. The main idea of setting an axial system in plan drawing is to identify existing structural elements. Hence it is not important to draw axis lines precisely like in an application plan

drawing and it is not necessary to draw each axis in the center of gravity of the element. The emphasis is to identify all structural elements in simple and understandable way as much as possible by using minimum axis lines to avoid confusions. Vertical, horizontal and diagonal axis lines are drawn along the structural elements and just vertical and horizontal lines are entitled, in one direction by letters in the other direction by numbers. In case of the wall placed diagonally, the axis line is drawn along the wall in diagonal way and the intersection point of the diagonal wall axis to the other elements axis is identified with vertical and horizontal axis lines. In case of curved walls, vertical and horizontal axes are drawn at both ends of the curved element and at the point where curvature is tangent to horizontal. Consequently, it is possible to differentiate wall types, pillars and columns according to their codes represented by the intersection points of given vertical and horizontal axes. Examples are given below: Pillar or column: intersection points of the vertical and horizontal axes; one letter and one number (Figure 3: G6; I6) Linear wall: intersection points of the vertical and horizontal axes at both ends of the wall; two letters and two numbers, two of them the same (Figure 3: A3C3) Diagonal wall: intersection points of the vertical and horizontal axes at both ends of the wall; two letters and two numbers, all different (Figure 3: C2D1) Curvilinear wall: intersection points of the vertical and horizontal axes at both ends and at tangent point of the wall; three letters and three numbers, two of them may be the same or all may be different (Figure 3: G4H3I4)

Figure 3: Giving the axial system to the existing building

Codes of the structural elements are keys of the structure and useful to define elements and their damages. By this way, it is possible to understand the location and position of the element, to inspect both interior and exterior part of it separately and then make relation between exterior and interior damages. Especially when the crack pattern is inspected, it is very important to understand if cracks pass through the element and are present on both sides of the element. Elements codes make possible to use this data as

an input for the evaluation data base system. Owing to the fact that evaluation will be done automatically, interrelation between structural elements is made by codes and the building can be evaluated as a whole. After giving axes to the whole building, before the inspection, the adjacent sections of the building that is different in height and length as seen from the exterior has to be separated so that each of these building sections can be inspected separately, one by one (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Division of the building into parts

2.2

Development of the Inspection Form

Processing the inspection forms to obtain data of damage state of the surveyed buildings is a widely used method in visual inspections as mentioned in the previous paragraphs. According to the structural types, the questionnaire is changed. Common parts of many inspection forms are geometrical data of the building, physical conditions, material types and damage state. To avoid subjective interpretations of users during the survey a questionnaire set is arranged and scoring system is used for the evaluation. According to the existing researches in this study it is decided to develop the inspection form set for site survey. In order to collect data of the structures geometry and visible damages as cracks, material decay and deteriorations, defects, interventions, man made damages etc., the inspection form is developed. The main idea of this inspection form is to classify the risk level of monumental heritage, to minimize the data collection tasks of specialists if the building necessitates detailed investigation for the preservation and protection of the cultural heritage buildings studies and intervention decisions. Data collection and inspection of the structures can be done by non-expert inspectors as

students of architecture and civil engineering, but decision making process necessitates the team of specialists. Because non-expert inspectors tend to overestimate or to underestimate the real level of damage, the inspection forms needed to be developed so that no judgment is left to the inspectors. The inspection form is created in the MS Office Excel software and includes seven main sections: A General information, B Description of the building, C Physical information, D Roof system and geometry, E Facades, F Inspected floor information and G Interior places. Sections A, B, C, D and E collect data from the exterior and F and G from the interior of the building (Figure 5). Inspection forms shown in figure 5 are not written in English, the reason for which their readability is of less importance in this contribution. Figure 5 demonstrates the overall layout of the inspection form.

Figure 5: Example of some pages of the inspection form

In case of the building being separated into parts with different in height and length, each part has to be inspected individually by the inspection form set. The first page of the inspection form which includes general information of the building (Section A - General Information and Section B - Description of the building) is a common page for all separated parts of it. Separated parts of the building will be inspected by using sections C (Physical information), D (Roof system and geometry), E (Facades), F (Inspected floor information) and G (Interior places) and will be collected under the first page for the final evaluation of the building as a whole.

The first page of the inspection form includes information about the person who inspects the building, date of inspection, name of the building, construction date or century, function of the building, information if there is change of the function of the building, axis codes of the buildings parts, information if seismic joint can be observed between the separated building parts, earthquake zone of the building. In this first page there is also a section showing the risk level to be filled out by experts after the building is evaluated. In the second page there is the section C Physical information which includes typology, topographic information and relation with the adjacent parts (both in plan and in section) of the inspected part of the building. In the next page there is section D Roof system and geometry which includes information about configuration of the roof system, how many roof levels are there in the roof system, which supporting elements are used, how many roof elements are there and if there are damages on those elements. In the next page there is section E Facades which includes information about the elements of the facade, construction materials, damages and interventions and also crack pattern of the faade. Each faade is inspected separately and is drawn schematically on the space left at the left side of the inspection form. The axial code of the plan has to be written above the sketch before starting the inspection. In order to identify the place of the damage on each element of the facade, a similar axial system of the plan has to be given on each faade as shown in Figure 5. For this, vertical axes are given at the edges of the faade wall and at the midpoints of the openings and horizontal axes are given at the bottom and top of the wall and at the midpoints of the openings. When the damage type is questioned in the form, the place of the damage is asked to be identified by codes represented by the axes. For example in Figure 6, the cracks from left to right have to be identified as AB23; F23; GH34 and IH34. If the code constitutes three elements it means that the crack is between the edges of the wall or between two openings laid horizontally or vertically. And similarly if the code constitutes four elements it means that the crack is in the area between the openings or the edge.

Figure 6: Giving axes to the faade

In the sixth page there are sections F Inspected floor information and G Interior places. The section F includes information of the inspected floor. In the section G, the inspected building is divided into interior places and each place is inspected one by one. The inspection of interior places includes plan shape of the place, floor system and its material and supporting system and damages on each element. G.1 floor system, G.2 structural elements of floor system, G.2.1 supporting elements of floor system and damages on them, G.2.2 walls of the inspected interior place, dimensions, construction material, damages and cracks, G.2.3 pillars, dimensions, material type and damages, G.2.4 columns, dimensions, material type, damages and G.2.5 arches, dimensions, construction material type and damages. During the inspection of the walls of each interior place, axial system similar to the facades is given on the wall to identify the location of cracks.

2.3

Processing of the Inspection Form

The user guide of the inspection form is prepared for the surveyors. Before any study or inspections on the field, the surveyor will read the instructions and explanations given in the guide. This user guide explains the inspection form, types of damages, and a glossary of used terms. Survey of monumental masonry structures by processing the developed inspection form consists of three parts: Arrangement of site works in the office, Inspection on site and

 Writing the data collected to computer program in the office. The first step of the work is to make a research on the building such as history of the building, earthquake zone and drawings. If there is an architectural drawing of the building, it has to be controlled on the field to see if there are any changes. Afterwards the axial system is set on the buildings plan. Depending on the size of the building, an inspection on site might require more than one day. The capability of processing of the inspection form is discussed and improved by applications on the group of buildings in the Historic Peninsula in Istanbul. Students of the Faculty of Architecture made inspection by using this form and gave idea for its improvement. According to the discussions with them definition and categorization of the damages made simpler, explanations in the user guide were changed, the time of work is observed, the questionnaire was improved.

Evaluation of the Obtained Data

The evaluation of the data will be done automatically by a computer based system under the supervision of the specialist. Evaluation part is based on scoring system. Similar to the inspection form developed using MS Office Excel software, a formulation and a scoring system will be made using the same software. Representing each structural element by the axial system code will help to set up relation between structural elements and will facilitate the risk evaluation of the building as a whole. Even though the development of the evaluation form, formulation of data and development of the data base system is not finished yet; the frame of the evaluation can be listed as follows: In plane area ratio /8/; Area to weight ratio /8/; Effective shear ratio /8/; Slenderness of the walls; Ratio of the openings on the walls. Beside these criteria, structural factors as geometry of the building, load bearing elements, supporting system of the structure, damages on the structural elements and earthquake zone will be considered.

Conclusions

Protection and preservation of historical monumental heritage is very important. Risk assessment is the fundamental institutional process and requires team work. Depending on the scope and requirements, there are simple and detailed methods for assessing the existing condition and potential risks of historical structures. Detailed risk assessment is a technically complex and expensive procedure and can only be performed on a limited number of buildings. The professionals who can carry out detailed risk assessment procedures are few and it is necessary to involve inexperienced architects or civil engineers for risk assessment of the monumental heritage stock. It is therefore very important to use simpler procedures that can help to evaluate the risk level of such

buildings, so that the more complex evaluation procedures can be limited to the most critical ones. The method proposed in this study is pre-hazard risk assessment of historical monumental structures where inspection forms are developed to be used by inexperienced students of architecture and civil engineering. In cultural heritage preservation, pre-hazard risk assessment of historical structures will help to identify the potential seismic hazard in existing historical buildings for hazard mitigation, disaster preparedness and prior knowledge of potential hazards.

References

/1/ L. Binda, A. Saisi: Research on Historic Structures in Seismic Areas in Italy, Prog. Struct. Engng Mater. 7:7185, Wiley Interscience (www.intersciencewiley.com), 2005 /2/ P. Roca, P.: Recommendations for The Analysis, Conservation and Structural Restoration of Architectural Heritage, International Symposium on Studies on Historical Heritage, Antalya, Turkey, September 17 21, 2007 /3/D. DAyala, E. Speranza: A Procedure for Evaluating the Seismic Vulnerability of Historic Buildings At Urban Scale Based on Mechanical Parameters, 2nd International Congress on Studies in Ancient Structures, Istanbul, July 9 -13, 2001 /4/ D. DAyala, E. Speranza: An Integrated Procedure for the Assessment of Seismic Vulnerability of Historic Buildings, 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Elsevier Science Ltd., London, UK., 2002 (Paper Reference 561) /5/ R. Sinha, A. Goyal: A National Policy for Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Buildings and Procedure for Rapid Visual Screening of Buildings for Potential Seismic Vulnerability, Report to Disaster Management Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, 2004 /6/ K. Van Balen: Learning from Damage of Masonry Structures, Expert Systems Can Help!, Historical Constructions, P. B. Loureno, P. Roca (Eds.), Guimaraes, 2001 /7/ R. P. J. Van Hees, S. Naldini, L. Binda, K. Van Balen: The Use of MDDS in the Visual Assessment of Masonry and Stone Structures, SACoMaTiS 2008, International Rilem Conference, Varenna, Italy, 2008 /8/ P.B. Lourenco, J.A. Roque: Simplified Indexes for the Seismic Vulnerability of Ancient Masonry Buildings, Construction and Building Materials (200), 2006