prova di impaginato · 1 theaftermathoftheearthquake 3.1.1 the idea what is the time difference...

1

The aftermath of the earthquake

3.1.1 The ideaWhat is the time difference that distinguishes atemporary or provisionally home from a perma-nent or final? It is not easy to respond to this ques-tion, if you consider the seemingly enduring eter-nity of what in Italy is built with the objective tolast for months, or for a maximum of few years.On the other hand, in Italy it is possible to referto the technical code of 2008 (NTC 2008), inwhich the nominal lifetime of a structure is defi-ned as the number of years in which the struc-ture can be used for the purpose it was built for,it is indicated in a table and it needs to be spe-cified in the design documents.It is interesting to note that the code only indi-cates a maximum for provisional works (10years) and two minima for ordinary and impor-tant works (50 and 100 years respectively). Ifone sticks to this data, it should be concludedthat all the provisional works that were con-structed in the aftermath of the earthquakes thattook place after WWII should actually be con-sidered permanent, since they had a lifetimelonger than 10 years (ignoring the fact thatapparently between 10 and 50 years works canneither be called provisional, nor permanent).If then the provisional does not exist from adurational point of view, it would be useful towonder whether it makes sense that it wouldexist looking at energy consumption, sustainableenvironment or pollution. It would also be usefulto wonder whether buildings could be con-structed with environmental characteristics andsafety level similar to that required for perma-nent ones on a temporary basis and with costper unit similar to provisional ones. If this shouldbe the case, it would be logical to propose tobuild provisional houses with characteristics ofthe permanent ones.A first complete conceptual proposal, with 3D-rendering and preliminary calculations was sub-mitted on April 16th, together with several com-ments. It was hypothesized to deliver the build-ings for 3,000 inhabitants within 5 months, guar-anteeing seismic safety by means of an isolationsystem at the level of an urban block, and pro-

posing elevate standards of living, technologyand environment protection. The pursuit of theseobjectives, apparently impossible, was based onthe construction of large isolated plates and thesubsequent assembling of pre-fabricated three-storey living units. The need for the project to beas much as possible independent from local soilconditions and from the unknown constructiontechnology (many different ones would havebeen necessary to meet the deadlines) becameimmediately clear. To this end it was stated theneed of urgently identifying the possible buildingtechnologies compatible with the timing pro-gramme and the technical constraints, of select-ing technical and commercial partners and ofexploring the production capacity of the market.The time programme was defining in four weeksthe date to open the construction sites, i.e. to startconstruction by mid-May, to deliver houses to3,000 inhabitants by September.The economic analyses indicated an estimatedcost of 120 million euro, VAT excluded, for3,000 inhabitants, with a 20% uncertainty rateand without considering furniture, purchase ofthe terrain and photovoltaic installations.In preliminary calculations it was assumed to usefriction pendulum devices [2-8], with a radius ofcurvature of 4m, a vibration period of 4s, a dis-placement capacity of about 300 mm, a frictioncoefficient between 3 and 5% and an equivalentviscous damping between 20 and 25%. Thealternative of using rubber isolators was alsotaken into consideration, but appeared in thisspecific case to be less competitive, consideringthe relatively low axial forces and the large hor-izontal displacement demands.In the days immediately following, several aspectsthat would have permanently defined the projectwere discussed and clarified:- The reduction of each one of the isolated

plates to about 20 by 60 m, suitable to sus-tain three-storey buildings with each floorsurface of about 600 m2, with a capacity ofabout 80 inhabitants in 25 to 30 apart-ments. Plates of this dimension should allowan adequate flexibility in relation to the

3.1 Reconstruction between temporary and definitive: the CASE project

G.M. Calvi1 and V. Spaziante2 �

1 Fondazione Eucentre - Centro Europeo di Formazione e Ricerca in Ingegneria Sismica, Pavia. www.eucentre.it2 Dipartimento della Protezione Civile, Roma. www.protezionecivile.it

plane altitude conditions of the areas to use(at that moment unknown) and the construc-tion technologies, also unknown;

- The definition of 150 as the approximatenumber of plates to construct and thereforeof about 12,000 inhabitants to settle in;

- The division of the intervention in numeroussmall villages, consisting of 4 to 20 platesand hence a number of inhabitants between300 and 1,600;

- The definition of a serial timesheet in whicha group of 30 plates should be finishedabout 15 days after the previous group,

which implied a forecast of delivery of theapartments in 5 tranches for 2,400 inhabi-tants a time, with deadlines spread outbetween 30 September and 30 November;

- The decision to manage the entire projectdirectly, without intervention of a general con-tractor, setting up a non-profit technical struc-ture that responds directly to the Civil Protec-tion Department (DPC). It was thought that thisway it would be possible to save substantialeconomical resources, mainly on generaladditional costs and to have a more accuratecontrol on deadlines and quality of the project.2

Progettazione Sismica

Fig. 1One of the first sketches ofthe project illustrating the

logic of the buildingsconstructed on isolated

plates.

Fig. 2A plan sketch made by

architects Ragazzi e Hofferas to illustrate the logic ofthe infrastructure in a court

open to pedestrians.

Fig. 3One of the many 3D

renderings used to illustratedesign hypotheses.

3


Fig. 4Images used in thepreliminary phase toillustrate possibletechnologies for theassemblage of the buildings.

3.1.2 The organisationThe definition of an operational, managementand outsourcing structure, of personnel roles,activities and their interaction, time programmeand milestones required several days of inten-sive work and was completed and formalised byMay 8th. The way the project is managed is veryinnovative with respect to the schemes that arenormally adopted, and not only in Italy. In fact asingle-purpose consortium was created (namedForCASE), formed by Eucentre (a non-profitfoundation, centre of competence for seismic riskof the department of civil protection, founded byfour public institutions and with a nature of ‘pub-lic company’ in Europe) and two constructioncompanies, (ICOP and Damiani). The two com-panies agreed to operate in this context as non-profit entities and not to participate in any otherreconstruction activity in Abruzzo. Their rolewould have been that of a technical office, and

therefore to facilitate the consortium to act onbehalf of the CPD as a general contractor, withthe capacity to manage directly supplies pur-chasing, to coordinate activities on the construc-tion site, to arrange and verify all accountingmatters.Obviously, the consortium had as well the maintask of carrying out all designing and construc-tion management activities, under the responsi-bility and coordination of the authors of this arti-cle. Coherently with what has been brieflydescribed, the operational organogram demon-strates five main areas of actions: two beingrelated to design activities, two to managementand accountancy activities and one to projectcoordination.In order to obtain maximum efficiency, in terms oftime and costs, and to ensure quality control,three different operational modalities for contract-ing and execution of the work were identified:

ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY OTHERSACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BYTHE CONSORTIUM

ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THECIVIL PROTECTION DEPARTMENT

ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE AUTHORITYFOR SUPERVISION OF PUBLIC CONTRACTS

CPDRESPONSIBLE

SUPPORTEDBY ART.2 COMMA 2

OPCM 3760

COORDINATOR

Management 01 Management 03

Management 01

Management 01 Management 01 Management 01 Management 01 Management 01

TECHNICAL SCIENTIFICCOMMISSION

PROTOTYPEDESIGN

GENERALDESIGN

PLATES ANDINFRASTRUCTURE

HOUSES CONSTRUCTIONMANAGEMENT

ASSISTANTCOORDINATOR

SECRETARIAT, SUPPORT FORCONTRACTS, PAYMENTS,COMPETITIONS, AWARDS

DOCUMENTATIONINFORMATION

COMMUNICATION

Employees 02

Employees 01

Management 01Employees 06

PROTOTYPEDEFINITION


EXECUTIONPILLARS


DEFINITIONOF CONSTRAINTS


PRELIMINARYPLANNING


PRELIMINARYARCHITECTURE


EXECUTIONINFRASTRUCTURES


PREPARATIONBUILDING SITE


SUPPLIERSELECTION


PRODUCTIONCONTROL


ACCOUNTING


PREPARATIONBUILDING SITE


SUPPLIERSELECTION


PRODUCTIONCONTROL


ACCOUNTING


STRUCTURES


PLANNING ANDARCHITECTURE


INFRASTRUCTURESAND PLANTS


PILINGS ANDASSISTANCE


SECURITY

LOCAL CONTACTS

INSTITUTIONALCONTACTS

QUALITY CONTROLFOR PLANNING AND

ARCHITECTURE

TESTINGCOMMISSION

- For the activities of preparation of the con-struction site and infrastructure works, it wasdecided to mainly use local contraction com-panies;

- For the foundation and isolation systems, itwas opted to act directly as a general con-tractor acquiring materials and supplies,such as concrete, welded wire meshes, steelcolumns, isolation devices, formwork posi-tioning, concrete casting, etc.;

- For the construction of the housing structuresit was decided to launch a call for bids thatincluded final design and global construc-tion, allowing the use any building technolo-gies compatible with the needs and avail-able time, and selecting the proposals withthe highest quality and the lowest cost.

The economic quantification of the costs for themanagement of all activities was estimatedbased on the pure cost of the staff assigned tothis temporary job (in months), on a monthlycost, in general between 3,000 and 12,000euro (these are costs for the consortium, not netsalaries), and on a sum to cover cost of accom-modation and travel, that could in any casenever exceed 3,000 euro per person per month.As all the activities would be executed within thenon-profit framework that characterizes theEucentre Foundation and the ForCASE consor-

tium, the estimations were considered as a max-imum not to be exceeded, while the real costswould be subjected to accountability checks.The DPC would directly execute, in cooperationwith the consortium, all the activities related to:- Definition of civil protection ordinances, pos-

sibly needed for the completion of the proj-ect;

- Finalisation and publication of call for bids;- Stipulation of contracts;- External checking and control;- Relations with institutions and obtainment of

permissions;- Identification of the intervention construction

sites, expropriations of lands and related activi-ties.

The Department of Civil Protection would directlyexecute, in cooperation with the consortium, allthe activities related to:- Definition of Civil protection ordinances, pos-

sibly needed for the completion of the project;- Finalisation and publication of call for bids;- Stipulation of contracts;- External checking and control;- Relations with institutions and obtainment of

permissions;- Identification of the intervention construction

sites, expropriations of lands and relatedactivities.


Fig. 5The personnel and work

organization plan set up inthe preliminary phase.

May

Preparatory Activities

Construction of the plates

Identification of the different areas

Design prototype

Guarantees

Design

Construction of the buildings

July 6, delivery of 30 plates

26 Set

5 Nov 25 Nov

15 Dic

16 Ott

June 8, start of the work

Remaining areas

Area 3Area 8

Delivery of 750 apartments each time

December 15, delivery of apartments for 12,000

people

June July August September October November December

5


Fig. 6A simplified version of theextremely detailed andcomplex time schedule thatallowed daily overviews oneach aspect of the projectand the construction.

3.1.3 Infrastructures and architectural designThe architectural project of a building unit, asbriefly presented, favoured the development ofdifferent types of apartments, as a function offamily compositions, which resulted in 109 dif-ferent shapes after the selection of 16 contract-ing bids, as discussed later.Regarding the choices on infrastructure, it needsto be highlighted that a first guiding concept wasthat of placing the settlements in the neighbour-hood of existing villages that had suffered severedamages because of the earthquake, to be ableto relocate the people within their own territory,to preserve the close ties that people have withland and neighbours.This general principle was confronted with tech-nical difficulties deriving from non-ideal geo-morphic, hydrological and geotechnical circum-stances of the areas, to finalise the best possibleselection of the areas of intervention.Once the settlements had been defined andsized as a function of quantitative needs andland capacity, considering the dimensionaland morphological characteristics of the loca-tion, the problem of existing infrastructures(roads, pipelines, sewing system, etc.) and oftheir improvement and integration had to befaced.Finally, the population indices could be defined,starting from figures between 100 and 150inhabitants per hectare, for location in morerural or more densely populated areas. Such fig-

ures imply a rather sparse settlement typology,marked by large green areas.A final infrastructure index had been identifiedby assigning 30% of the land surface to servicesand facilities, such as leisure, sport, shoppingcentres or education and religious structure.Based on these premises the final urban designof the areas was completed, obviously combin-ing the building units previously described(essentially consisting of three inhabited floorsabove a covered parking), also consideringexposure to sunlight, valley and mountain views,steepness of terrain.Driveways and walking paths were kept sepa-rated to the maximum possible extent, generallylocating vehicles roads on the outer skirts ofeach area, with access limited to parking lotsand ground floors of the buildings, also used asparking. The walking paths were designed elim-inating all architectural barriers, connectinggreen areas and inhabited levels to road systemsand parking lots with external elevators whenneeded.The final character of the new settlements tried tocombine in a optimal way people needs, envi-ronmental and landscape requirements, use ofexisting infrastructures and construction of newones, in an integrated vision.Later, another problem had to be faced, i.e. howto combine each one of the specific buildingunits (at this stage 150, in 20 different locations)to each one of the 16 different typologies pro-

SECOND FLOORheight +6.50 m

28 sleeping accomodations

FIRST FLOORheight +3.40 m

28 sleeping accomodations

GROUND FLOORheight +0.30 m

24+4 sleeping accomodations

TOTAL 80+4 sleeping accomodationsSLP total: 556 mq x 3

SLP total:1698 mq

DOWNSTAIRS FLOORheight -3.00 m

36 boxes

Fig. 7An example of the plans

that were designed for thebids of housing construction,

with an undergroundparking between the two

plates.


Fig. 8Location of the constructionsites, all within themunicipality of L’Aquila.

Il post-terremoto

Bazzano Coppito 2

Preturo Sassa Fig. 9Examples of the urban plansfor some site.

posed by the companies who won the call forbids. Choices had to be made in relation to con-struction technology and material, externalaspect, number of buildings awarded to eachcompany, construction plan and schedule pro-posed by each company.

Finally, considering the high environmentalvalue of the landscape, the design and realisa-tion of the green areas was again the subject ofa public, international call for bids, where againcost, time and quality of the proposal were con-sidered to select the winning bids.


8

3.1.4 Structural DesignPreliminary considerationsThe structural design of the buildings constitutesthe fundamental element that allowed the devel-opment of the entire project and is extremelysimple in its basic logic: two reinforced concreteplates, separated by columns and isolators, thelower one being in contact with soil and theupper one with the building. The plates weredesigned without knowing the local soil proper-ties, nor the weight and plan distribution andstructure of the buildings. Therefore for bothaspects conservative assumptions were used, tobe verified later. In a few cases, some potentiallyselected construction location had to be dis-carded because the soil properties appeared tobe unsuitable.It should be noted that the two plates are char-acterized by similar flexural actions induced bygravity, if it is assumed a uniform distribution ofthe building load and of the soil reaction. Pre-liminary evaluations, based on a column span of6 m in both directions (convenient for parkingarrangements), lead to a required thickness ofboth plates of 500 mm.The weight of each building, with three floors ofabout 600 m2 each, was estimated in a maxi-mum of 21 MN, with a consequent total maxi-mum weight of slab, dead loads and buildingdetails of between 30 and 40 MN (or an aver-age weight per column of about 1 MN).The first vibration period of the building can beestimated between Ts = 0.25 and Ts = 0.45 s,using the equation:

TS~= CSH0.75

in which H is the height of the building and Cs is0.05 for wall structures, 0.075 for reinforcedconcrete frames, 0.085 for steel frames. It ishowever well known that equations of this sorttend to underestimate the real vibration periodresulted from a secant stiffness to yield, that forthe examined buildings could arrive at valuesbetween 0.8 and 0.9 s, [9, 10].Based on these considerations, the designperiod of vibration of the isolation system wasselected in the range of 4 s.

It was also preliminary observed that even anextreme temperature variation of ±30 °C, leadsto variations in length of about 8.5 mm on eachside of the axe of symmetry, that would notinduce excessive horizontal loads into thecolumns.

Seismic actionSeismic action and in particular spectraldemands in acceleration and displacement arediscussed in detail elsewhere in this volume[11]. Here it is however important to note thatthe fundamental parameter to be assessed fora proper design of the isolation system is themaximum displacement demand at a period ofabout 4 s. The spectra derived from the regis-trations of April 6th show generally displace-ment demand of less than 120 mm, with oneexception, the AQK registration, in which spec-tra values are close to 250 mm. The code spec-tra for events with return periods of 1000years, to be used for the design of the isolationsystem, have values of about 300 mm for soiltype B and 400 mm for soil type E. These val-ues can be significantly reduced in presence ofenergy dissipation, as a function of an appro-priate equivalent damping, according to the ��

factor:

where ��is the equivalent viscous damping value,that could be in the order of 10-15% for rubberbearings and of 20% for friction sliders. The val-ues obtained from the reduction coefficients arebetween 0.6 and 0.7, with consequent estima-tions of displacement demands of about 250mm for soil type E. For the non-linear analyses the code spectrumfor vertical actions has also been considered,while for the building phases it was defined as a‘construction event’ consistent with what indi-cated in addendum A of Eurocode 8, part 2[13]. Such an event appeared to be consistentwith registrations corresponding to a magnitudeof 4.0, and was thus considered reasonable.While the demand in terms of acceleration wassignificant (in the order of ag = 0.10 on stiff

soil), the displacement demand was negligible. Eight sets of spectrum compatible accelerogramshave been used for non-linear analyses, derivedfrom registrations made in L’Aquila (3 records),and during the events of Imperial Valley in1979, Loma Prieta in 1989, Northridge in1994, Kobe in 1995 and Taiwan in 1999 (onefor each of these events).

Isolation systemThe design and the verification of the isolationsystem was carried out considering the possibil-ity of adopting two different configurations,characterised by different devices, one based onthe use of 12 elastomeric isolators, together with

28 multi-directional sliding pot-bearings and theother on the use of 40 isolators sliding on spher-ical surfaces, universally known as friction pen-dulum [FPS, 2].Both choices are compatible with the projectrequirements, in different ways. Actually, thesmaller dissipation capacity of the system withelastomeric isolators (estimated to be equivalentto 12% damping) with respect to the one withFPS isolators (estimated damping 20%,) requiresa larger displacement capacity; in the order of300 to 360 mm for the elastomeric isolators,versus 260 mm for the FPS, depending on thesoil properties.Obviously other combinations may be possible,

Fig. 10Acceleration anddisplacement spectra of anevent with a 1000 yearreturn-period in L’Aquila,according to the Italiancode [1], soil category Band E, damping 5%.

1000 years (NTC-08)

0,00

0,05

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

0,30

0,35

0,40

0,45

0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0

Period [s]

Spec

tral A

ccel

erat

ion

[m]

Class B

Class E

1000 years (NTC-08)

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

0,7

0,8

0,9

1,0

0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0

Period [s]

Spec

tral D

ispla

cem

ent [

g]

Class B

Class E

Fig. 11Comparison of severalspectra recorded on April6th on soil type B, codespectra for an event with a1000 year return-periodaccording code [1] andresults of a recent researchproject (DPC-INGV-S5 [2]).


Ground: Class B

0

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

0,25

0,3

0,35

0 1 2 3 4

Period [s]

Spec

tral D

ispla

cem

ent [

g]

06-April-09NTC08-1000DPC-INGV-S5

9

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

-0,20 -0,15 -0,10 -0,05 0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15

Displacement (m)

Shea

r For

ce (k

N)

also related to the various displacementdemands for isolators placed in different posi-tions (because of the eccentricity of the loadedmass, even only accidental, the demand at theperimeter is larger than that closer to the slabcentral area). It was therefore allowed to biddersto propose different solutions, provided that theywere respectful of design performances andinput. The result of the call for bids, in which FPSsystems were preferred, should not be consid-ered as a general demonstration of superioritywith respect to elastomeric devices, but rather asa consequence of the specific conditions of thisproject, characterised by relatively large hori-zontal displacement demands, low verticalforces on the devices and relatively low horizon-tal stiffness (as discussed, vibration periods ofthe order of 4 seconds were assumed). This wasthe reason why elastomeric isolators had to becoupled with pot bearings: the use of rubberbearings alone would have resulted in stiffnessvalues incompatible with the requirements of theproject. In the case of the FPS devices, the force corre-sponding to a displaced position is defined bythe following equation:

In which Mg is the axial action (M is the mass andg the acceleration of gravity), R = 4 m the radiusof the spherical surface, ��= 3% is the friction coef-ficient and d the displacement of the isolator. The least favourable conditions for the verifica-tion of displacement capacity of the isolationsystem versus the corresponding demand arelikely to be those of a rigid and heavy super-structure, i.e. those of a large participating massand deformations concentrated in the isolationsystem. With a configuration of this sort, the sys-tem global characteristics (40 pieces) resulted tobe ass follows.Effective stiffness, secant to the design displace-ment:

Keff = 14,615 kN/m

Corresponding period of vibration of the isola-tion system (note that in general heavier struc-tures are also stiffer, therefore characterised bylower vibration periods):

Corresponding equivalent damping:

Fig. 13Force – displacementresponse of the systemconsidering axial forcevariation due to verticalacceleration and global

interaction response [2, 4].

-5000

-4000

-3000

-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

-0,3 -0,2 -0,1 0 0,1 0,2 0,3

Displacement (m)

Shea

r For

ce (k

N) Keff

K =


10

Fig. 12Force – displacement

response of a system of 40isolators and heavy

superstructure.

Verification of slabs and columnsThe foundation and isolation plates have beensubjected to numerous finite element analyses,that allowed to calculate the maximum bendingand shear demand levels for several load combi-nations, to design the reinforcement, generallymade by welded wire meshes to favour a fastpositioning, and to verify the resulting actioncombinations with appropriate strength domains. Local verifications for loads concentration at thecolumn ends were also performed on both slabs,considering the consequences of the substitution

of a bearing as well. This operation was neededin hundreds of case during construction, whenthe isolators were not ye available at the time ofcasting the upper slabs. The columns have been designed and verifiedconsidering either the case of reinforced con-crete and of steel, again to allow the use of var-ious technologies and thus reducing the opera-tion time. For the same reason steel columnswere in general preferred, even if more expen-sive, using concrete only when no steel elementswere ready to be mounted.

-0.26

-0.26

-0.16

-0.06

0.04

0.14

0.24

0.34

-0.36 -0.16

Dis

plac

emen

t Y D

irect

ion

[m]

Displacement X Direction [m]

-0.20

-0.30

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

-0.30 -0.20

aqa -1000 - Eaqk -1000 - Eaqv -1000 - E

Dis

plac

emen

t Y D

irect

ion

[m]

-0.36

Displacement X Direction [m]

43.060.0- 0.240.140.04 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30

Fig. 14Examples of displacementhistories for an elastrometicisolator (left) and for a FPSisolator (right), subjected toevents with a 1000 yearreturn period derived from 3registrations in L’Aquila,compared with capacitycircles of 360 mm (left) and260 mm (right).


LEVEL 1

LEVEL 1

LEVEL 2

LEVEL 2

LEVEL 3

LEVEL 3

LEVEL 5

LEVEL 4

30 15

15

15

317

15

24

15 15

24 15 24

500

Fig. 16Examples of reinforcementdistribution in a section ofthe isolated plate.

Steel reinforcement

Level 1 Welded mesh D = 14 mm, at 100 mm in both directions


Level 3a Welded mesh D = 14 mm, at 100 mm in both directions

Level 3b 7 rebars D = 24 mm, L = 2,400 mm, at 250 mm (parallel to axis Y), centred on column heads


Level 5 7 rebars D = 24 mm, L = 2,400 mm, at 250 mm (parallel to axis Y), centre on column heads

-1500

-1000

-500

0

500

1000

1500

-15000 -10000 -5000

Mom

ent (

kNm

/m)

Axial Load (kN/m)

0 5000

COLUMN

BAR 30

BASE SLAB

TISSUESTHICKNESS

Fig. 15Example of bending stressesin the foundation plate, for

gravity loads (1st row,moments around the two

axes of symmetry inkNm/m) and for seismic

loads (2nd row: maximumvalues, and 3rd row:

minimum values).

Fig. 17Example of local

reinforcement of thefoundation plate at column

bases.

Fig. 18Example of bending

moment – axial actionstrength domain, for a

section of plate (at columnscentres).

Fig. 19Example of bending actionon the isolated plate during

bearing substitution atdifferent locations.

Prescription for building designAs already mentioned, the final design of thehome buildings was left to the bidders, to allowthe use of any building technology. However, thespecifications to which the projects would haveanyway to conform needed to be defined as toassure an appropriate safety level to the globalstructural system. The seismic demand was defined in terms ofdesign acceleration of the building masses, cal-culated with reference to the maximum value ofthe ratio between base shear and weight of thebuilding, obtained in the worst loading condi-tions, corresponding to those of a stiff building(T = 0.19 sec) with the lowest mass (1,500 t).For analyses performed with accelerograms com-patible with the design spectrum at a collapselimit state (SLC, return period ≈ 1,000 years), thebase shear always resulted less than 0.11 timesthe weight of the building. It was therefore pre-scribed to assume a design acceleration equal to0.1 g to verify the buildings at a life safety limitstate (SLV, return period ≈ 500 years).For the same conditions, the average inter storeydrift resulted on the range of 0.1%, a value thatcertainly allows a full use of the buildings evenafter a high intensity event. Together with these extremely simple designdata, a series of prescriptions on the character-istics of the buildings needed to be defined, inorder keep them within the parameters assumedfor the analyses and therefore avoiding unex-pected responses and jeopardizing the verifica-tion of plates, foundations and isolation system.A summary of these prescriptions follows:1. The load resulting from the building struc-

tures shall not induce in any element of the

slab – foundation system local actions largerthan those resulting from a uniformly distrib-uted live load equal to 50 kN/m2 (i.e.excluding the slab self weight).

2. The load distribution on the plates shallexclude concentrations potentially resultingin local collapses.

3. The maximum vertical action on a singlebearing should be less than 2,800 kN, eitherfor the seismic load combination and for thegravity combination at the ultimate limitstate, including the weight of the plate.

4. Bearings shall not be subjected to tensileforces in any load case.

5. The main period of vibration of the building(considered fixed at the base) shall notexceed 0.5 seconds.

6. The eccentricity between centre of mass ofthe building and centre of mass of the plateshall be less than 5% of the total length of theplate (57 m) in the longitudinal direction,and less than 10% of the length of the plate(21 m) in the transversal direction.

7. The maximum seismic mass of the buildingalone (i.e. without considering the weightand loads of the slab), calculated includingself weight, dead load and the fraction oflive load to be considered for seismic verifi-cation shall be less than 2,100 t.

8. The buildings shall be designed in accordancewith the technical code of 14/01/2008. It isaccepeted to represent the horizontal loadequivalent to the seismic action by means of astatic force vector, to be applied to the buildingfloors, according to equations given in thecode, assuming a design acceleration Sd (T1)of 0.1 g.

13


Fig. 20Reinforcement in afoundation plate withconcrete columns and steelcolumns with isolators on acasted plate.

3.1.5 Construction of the platesAs previously discussed, for the production ofthe plates, the ForCASE consortium has directlytaken the role of general contractor, with calls

for bids for excavations, supply of concrete (ini-tially about 200,000 m3, with peaks in deliveryof more than 5,000 m3 per day, self compactingand aerated), supply of welded wire meshes

Bid Contractor Bid price Price reduction Contract price

Forms and on site assistance GRUPPO BISON 15,078,609 12.25% 13,243,300

Forms and on site assistance ZOPPOLI & PULCHER 13,686,737 9.80% 12,354,109

Forms and on site assistance SACAIM 3,015,721 15.51% 2,551,007

Supply of concrete COLABETON 9,000,000 8.00% 8,280,000



Supply of welded wire mesh LA VENETA RETI 12,870,000 1.21% 12,714,000

Supply of steel columns RTI EDIMO E TADDEI 20,384,700 5.32% 19,303,440

Supply of steel columns CORDIOLI 20,384,700 9.81% 18,390,000

Supply of isolators ALGA 4,160,000 10.63% 3,718,000

Supply of isolators FIP INDUSTRIALE 3,200,000 9.84% 2,885,120

Supply of isolators ALGA 2,240,000 12.50% 1,960,000

Excavation CO.GE.FER. 3,394,340 27.37% 2,503,659

Excavation ATI PRS 3,005,759 35.63% 1,981,054

Excavation MIDAL 703,142 13.51% 612,011

Total 120,123,709 12.56% 108,726,204

14


(initially about 260,000 kN, in general withdiameter 14 mm at 100 mm), supply of steelcolumns (initially 180,000 ton, diameter 800mm), supply of isolators (initially 6,000 pieces,including assistance to positioning) and supplyof casting forms (initially for about 336,000 m2)

and on-site assistance for reinforcement posi-tioning and pouring of concrete. All quantitieswere later significantly increased, since the num-ber of buildings passed from 150 to 184. Theprices per unit obtained through bidding havebeen the following:

Contractors for the pro-duction of the plates withinitial price and offers.

3.1.6 Construction of the buildingsA public call for bids was launched for the con-struction of the buildings; including final design.The 150 buildings to be built were grouped in30 lots, each one of 5 buildings, allowing a bid-der to present a proposal for a maximum of 10lots. Depending on the final ranking of the offers, itmight have been possible to have from a mini-mum of 3 contractors (in case the first 3 wouldeach propose 10 lots) to a maximum number of30 contractors (in case each one would haveproposed 1 lot). The basic price for any lot of 5buildings (about 160 covered parking spots,3,000 m2 of outside pavement and 9,000 m2

internal living area) was fixed at 11 millioneuro. The evaluation of the proposals was essen-

tially based on the proposed improvement of theminimum performance characteristics foreseenby the existing norms (that already represents ahigh standard). The maximum time allowed forcompleting each building from the availability ofthe upper plate was fixed at 80 days, a pro-posed reduction was also considered in the eval-uation, together with a reduction of the pro-posed price.Following the presentation of the 58 proposalsand an accurate review, 16 contractors wereselected, with a total average amount per lot ofabout 10,500,000 euro, which means anoffered price reduction of about 5%.On a total of 150 buildings, timber structureswere proposed for 75 (50%), concrete structuresfor 45 (30%) and steel structures for 30 (20%).

• Self-compacting concrete 82.55 e/mc• Welded wire mesh 0.49 e/kg• Steel columns 2.09 e/kg• Isolators 1,427 e/piece• Forms and on-site assistance 91.7 e/m2

Fig. 21Rendering and floor plans

of some buildings,proposed by the

bidders.

Contractor Strucutre Material Buildings Number Price Per Building

Wood Beton Spa Timber 5 e 2,051,400

Rti Consorzio Stabile Consta S.C.P.A. – Sicap Spa Precast Concrete 10 e 2,027,342

Consorzio Etruria Soc.coop. A R.L. Concrete 5 e 2,090,000

Rti Impresa Costruzioni Giuseppe Maltauro Spa - Taddei Spa Steel 25 e 2,110,000

Rti Coge Costruzioni Generali Spa - Consorzio Esi Concrete 5 e 2,095,720

Rti Ing. Armido Frezza Srl-walter Frezza Costruzioni S.R.L.-archlegno Spa Timber 5 e 2,190,000

Meraviglia Spa Timber 5 e 2,089,123

Rti Eschilo Uno Srl/cogeim Spa/Alfa Costruzioni 2008 Srl Steel 5 e 2,115,080

Rti Iter Gestione E Appalti Spa-sled Spa-vitale Costruzioni Spa Timber 20 e 2,153,580

Ati Donati Spa/Tirrena Lavori Srl/ Dema Costruzioni Srl/Q5 Srl Concrete 10 e 2,024,000

Consorzio Stabile Arcale Timber 5 e 2,132,020

D’agostino Angelo Antonio Costruzioni Generali Srl Concrete 5 e 2,120,000

Orceana Costruzioni Spa Timber 20 e 2,120,000

Impresa Di Costruzioni Ing. Raffaello Pellegrini Srl Concrete 10 e 2,156,000

Cosbau Spa Timber 10 e 2,144,000

Rti Ille Prefabbricati Spa - Belwood Srl Timber 5 e 2,165,400

Total And Average Price 150 e 2,099,900

Contractors, structure material, number of buildings offered and price per building.

3.1.7 Infrastructures, furniture, elevators, mechan-ical and electrical installations, green areasTo complete the project it was necessary to pre-pare and launch other 5 groups of bids, in orderto satisfy various needs:- The upgrading and integration of the exter-

nal infrastructure (networks of any type) withthe difficult problem of interacting with theconstruction sites. Twenty bids werereleased, one for each area of intervention,inviting companies located in Abruzzo andpreferably in the province of L’Aquila. Fivecompanies randomly sorted out were invitedto bid for each site.

- The furniture and supplies necessary to imme-diately used the apartments. In this case a pub-lic competition was set up, on four lots of about1,000 apartments each. The foreseen time toassemble the furniture on site was 6 days fromthe moment an apartment would be finished.18 companies presented an offer, with the fol-lowing four resulting winners: Deltongo Indus-trie spa, Mobilificio Florida srl, RTI Europea spa– P.M. International Furnishings srl – Martexspa and Estel Office spa. The average pricereduction offered was about 34%, which corre-sponds to an average cost for the interior fur-nishing of an apartment of 9,500 euro. It has

to be underlined that the specifics of the bidrequested the highest possible standards alsofor the electrical and mechanical equipmentincluded in the offer, such as dish washer,washing machine, tv set, etc.

- 309 elevators to connect the various floors ofthe buildings and 129 elevators to connectthe buildings to the parking ground floor.This need derived from the specific choice ofcompletely eliminating all potential architec-tonical barriers case, in excess of what com-pulsory for legal requirement. A call for bidswas released for three lots of 146 elevatorseach; 12 companies participated in the com-petition. Marrocco elevators srl, ATI S.A.S.srl – Grivan Group srl, Schindler sparesulted winners with an average reductionof price of about 16%.

- The opportunity of producing electric energyon site, collocating photovoltaic panels onthe roofs. An estimate of about 45,000 m2

of roof surface was considered adequatelyexposed to sunshine and consequentlyanother bid was released for the design,construction, management and maintenanceof a photovoltaic system, capable of produc-ing about 4,500 kW. The call for bidassumed that there should have been no cost16


to the administration, and was based ontechnical merit and on one fundamental eco-nomical parameter, i.e. a yearly fee to bepaid, as a percentage of the public incen-tives provided to favour the use of alterna-tive, renewable energy sources. The winnerand therefore contractor was Enerpoint spa,Ener Point Energy Srl and Troiani & Ciaroc-chi Srl., who offered to refund 9,01% of theincentives.

- Finally, two last calls for bids were launchedto complete the green areas, simply groupingthe eastern and western construction sites.

The offers should obviously include landpreparation, grass, bushes and trees, walk-ing and cycling paths, but also irrigation anddrainage systems, external furniture, sportand leisure fields. 19 companies participatedin the bid and contractors were selected oncost and on evaluation of landscape beauty,environmental sustainability and mainte-nance and management characteristics of theoffers. The selected contractors were 3AProgetti S.p.a, which lowered the estimatedprice of 39% and the Sestante Consortium,that managed to offer a 35,16% reduction.

17

3.1.8 Work management, quality control, safetymeasuresThe extremely limited time available for the com-pletion of the project required an extreme levelof control and programming, with a continuousflow of information between engineering workmanagement and construction companies anddaily reports and checks. A coordination and management system wastherefore set up, focusing on the definition of pri-orities and of the main activities consequentlyrequired and on the identification of potentiallycritical elements and work phases that couldthreaten the fulfilment of the programmed timeschedule. As previously discussed, the work activities andtheir management and control were organised infive sectors, corresponding to production of theplates, buildings (including interior design andfurniture), mechanical and electrical installations,infrastructures roads and green areas. For eachtechnical sector a technical coordination structurewas defined with a responsible for program-ming, coordination with the construction compa-nies and management of works. The generaltimeline of the works was accordingly subdivided

into the same five sectors. Daily updates on thework progress and comparison with the timeplanning guaranteed that each sector was closelymonitored in terms of work progress, as well pro-viding all technical personnel with a an overviewof the general picture, fundamental to managethe coordination between different sectors. Thegraphical visualization of the daily progress ofthe works resulted to be particularly useful for arapid interpretation of the complexity of the datathat needed to be managed. An idea of the large quantities of materials andlabour that needed to be managed, can beobtained by considering the example of the foun-dation and isolation system, that on a daily basisneeded an average concrete supply of the orderof 5,000 m3, welded meshes and reinforcingbars for about 10,000 kN, about 200 steelcolumns (with a diameter of 800 mm), to be pro-vided in general in 20 different construction sites. The efficiency of the team that was set up to pro-gram and coordinate the activities, allowed sucha proper and precise forecasting of the workprogress that all construction sites proceededalways on time and actually all works were com-pleted ahead of time, despite of the difficulties


Fig. 22Some completed buildings.

Site preparation 2 days

Excavation 2 days

Positioning of reinforcement (foundation slab) 2 days

Concrete casting (foundation slab) 2 days

Positioning of columns 1 day

Positioning of the isolating devices 1 day

Formwork and positioning of reinforcement for the upper slab 3 days

Concrete casting (upper slab) 1 day

Removal of the formwork 3 days

Total time for the construction of foundation and isolation plates 17 days

inherent in the number of workers (more than8,000 in some phases) and in the complex inter-action between different work activities. An exam-

ple of the time schedule programmed for the con-struction of the two slabs systems, with foundationand isolation, can be summarised as follows:

Il post-terremoto

CONTROL DIAGRAM OF PLATE PRODUCTION

0

20.000.000

40.000.000

60.000.000

80.000.000

100.000.000

120.000.000

140.000.000

160.000.000

12/0

5/09

24/0

5/09

05/0

6/09

17/0

6/09

29/0

6/09

11/0

7/09

23/0

7/09

04/0

8/09

16/0

8/09

28/0

8/09

09/0

9/09

21/0

9/09

02/1

0/09

14/1

0/09

26/1

0/09

07/1

1/09

19/1

1/09

01/1

2/09

13/1

2/09

Dates

Prod

uctio

n Va

lue

[EU

RO]

Actual production (Netto)

Planned production

CONTROL DIAGRAM OF PLATE DELIVERY

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

12/5

/09

24/5

/09

5/6/

09

17/6

/09

29/6

/09

11/7

/09

23/7

/09

4/8/

09

16/8

/09

28/8

/09

9/9/

09

21/9

/09

2/10

/09

14/1

0/09

26/1

0/09

7/11

/09

19/1

1/09

1/12

/09

13/1

2/09

Dates

Num

ber o

f com

plet

ed p

late

s

Planned delivery of plates

Completed plates

Fig. 23Work in progress andcompleted works (on theprevious page).

Construction site (number) opened 20 of 20 100%

Concrete (square m) casted 294,023 of about 300,000 98%

Framework (piles) positioned 29298 of about 32871 89,1%

Pillars (number) positioned 7288 of 7368 98,9%

Isolators (number) positioned 6328 of 7368 85,9%

Plates (number) placed 183 of 183 100%

Slabs (number) casted 178 of 183 97,3%

Plates (number) delivered 164 of 183 89,6%

Buildings (number) under construction 161 of 183 88,0%

Buildings (number) completed 59 of 183 32,2%

Buildings (number) furnished 50 of 183 27,3%

Buildings (number) inhabited 41 of 183 22,4%

Summary overview 25 october 2009

Buildings delivered to inhabitants 23/10/2009; for about 320 in habitants

Extension from 150 to 183 buildings Unsettled inhabitants about 16.000

Finally, the great efficiency of the team in charge ofcontrolling all aspects of safety in the work processshould be noted. The extremely detailed and contin-uous checks allowed the completion of hundreds of

millions of euro worth of work in just a few monthswithout any notable accident and with the appreci-ation of all external controlling institutions, fromthose aimed to assure workers health to the unions.

Fig. 25Example of a productionsummary overview dailyform (25 October, generaloverview on the left,production and delivery ofplates on the right).

Fig. 24Example of a global dailyoverview form.

20

3.1.9 The costsThe total cost of the project is split in the tablebelow, considering the different category of workand giving the average cost per building, perapartment and per square meter of living space.The total cost of 655 million euro refers to a totalof 164 buildings, while 150 were foreseen at thestarting of the project and 184 were actually builtat the end. Applying a criterion of linear propor-tion it can be inferred that the original 150 build-ings would have cost 599 million euro, which is inline with the 700 million that were initially esti-mated, since the sums indicated do not include thecost for land expropriation and V.A.T. The cost ofthe double slab foundation system is compensatedto significant extent by the value of the coveredparking spots, each one of them have the size of alarge garage box (6 by 3 meter). The numberboxes exceed that of the apartments. It is thus rea-sonable to assume that the real cost of the founda-tion system is actually a fraction of that indicatedin about 30,000 e per apartment. If a fraction of

30% would be assigned to the foundation itself, thecost per square meter of the living space shouldresult to be less than 1,400 e, including founda-tions: a reasonable value, especially consideringthe compressed time of construction, that wasmade possible by a continuous work over the 24hours, with three turns of 8 hours each, day andnight and considering as well the very high qual-ity of the buildings for aspects related to energyconsumption, environment and detailing quality.It is interesting to note that the seismic isolation costonly about 1,5% of the total, or rather just a bitover 2% when only the building cost is considered.The modest cost of general and technical activi-ties has to be noted, made possible by the waythe project was managed, extensively discussedin the previous sections. The real share of thetechnical costs of the ForCASE consortium(design, management, security, etc) has beenaround 8 million euro, i.e. not much more than1% of the total cost. The costs of the furnitureincludes everything, from TV sets to bed sheets.

3.1.10 The futureAt the moment this article is being completed(September) the last 20 buildings are being con-structed, with a significantly lower cost becausethey are built in already inhabited areas. The

decision of the Civil Protection Department tobuild additional houses was motivated byupgraded in the population census. It is foreseenthat these buildings will be delivered within Feb-ruary 2010, with the possibility of notable antic-

Fig. 26Example of a daily report

on the general developmentof the project works (19

October).

Fig. 27Example of a daily report

on the generaldevelopments of the works

in a specific area (19October).

0. RAPPORTO GENERALE 2. METEO 3. ULTIMAZIONE LAVORAZIONI GIORNALIERE E PREVISIONE

PROGETTO C.A.S.E. Lu Ma Me Gi Ve Sa Do Previsti

Rapporto giornaliero n 134 del 19/10/2009 20/10/2009 21/10/2009 22/10/2009 23/10/2009 24/10/2009 25/10/2009

Area Lotto Piastre Nome

11/3° --- 11 11 11---OINOTNA'TNAS1111

--- 3 3 3---INOICNIRBELLOC3521. STATO AVANZAMENTO LAVORI PER AREA --- 02 02 02---ORUTERP ID ESEC0213

--- 11 11 11---ASSAS ID ERAILGAP11145-11 2 4 PAGANICA SUD --- 4 4 4---

7 7 9 TEMPERA - - - 8 --- 8 8 8 7 21 BAZZANO --- 12 12 12---9 7 7 SANT'ELIA 1 --- 7 7 7---

10 7 4 SANT'ELIA 2 --- 4 4 4---14 1 18 SASSA ZONA NSI --- 61 81 81---16 2 5 CAMARDA --- 5 5 5---20 6 4 ARISCHIA --- 4 4 4---21 6 ROIO POGGIO --- 6 6 6---22 6 ROIO 2 --- 6 6 6---23 4 ASSERGI 2 --- 4 4 4---24 25 PAGANICA 2 --- 12 42 52 1--25 4 GIGNANO --- 4 4 4---26 5 COPPITO 2 --- 5 5 5---27 18 COPPITO 3 1-- 71 81 81---

TOTALE - -771381481100 1

4. STATO AVANZAMENTO / AREA: DETTAGLIO

Area Lotto Piastre Nome PIA

ST

RE

Sca

vi

Pla

tea

Pila

stri

Sol

ai

Mur

i

CA

SE

Str

uttu

re

Impi

anti

Ser

ram

enti

Fin

iture

Urb

aniz

zazi

oni

Ope

re a

ver

de

Arr

edi

1 1 11 SANT'ANTONIO 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 72% 92% 71% 39% 55% 50% 0% 0%2 5 3 COLLEBRINCIONI 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 47% 87% 30% 0% 13% 35% 0% 0%3 1 20 CESE DI PRETURO 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 100% 99% 99% 97% 91% 55% 80%4 1 11 PAGLIARE DI SASSA 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 73% 91% 62% 64% 54% 43% 0% 0%

5-11 2 4 PAGANICA SUD 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 98% 98% 98% 98% 98% 44% 0% 0%7 7 9 TEMPERA 89% 92% 89% 89% 89% 89% 38% 60% 37% 10% 16% 39% 0% 0%8 7 21 BAZZANO 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99% 99% 99% 98% 99% 91% 50% 81%9 7 7 SANT'ELIA 1 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 96% 99% 99% 93% 91% 38% 30% 86%

10 7 4 SANT'ELIA 2 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 34% 75% 0% 0% 0% 39% 0% 0%14 1 18 SASSA ZONA NSI 97% 100% 100% 100% 89% 100% 79% 82% 77% 79% 74% 46% 0% 22%16 2 5 CAMARDA 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 85% 90% 80% 80% 80% 29% 0% 0%20 6 4 ARISCHIA 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% 40% 10% 0% 0% 74% 0% 0%21 0 6 ROIO POGGIO 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 26% 45% 13% 0% 15% 14% 0% 0%22 0 6 ROIO 2 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 55% 75% 50% 3% 53% 19% 0% 0%23 0 4 ASSERGI 2 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 32% 70% 5% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0%24 0 25 PAGANICA 2 88% 100% 98% 84% 84% 100% 22% 44% 13% 0% 0% 2% 0% 0%25 0 4 GIGNANO 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 40% 75% 30% 10% 0% 12% 0% 0%26 0 5 COPPITO 2 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 8% 18% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%27 0 18 COPPITO 3 98% 100% 100% 100% 94% 92% 44% 54% 39% 35% 36% 36% 0% 0%

97% 100% 99% 97% 96% 98% 62% 75% 56% 48% 50% 43% 13% 23%

IRUM REP ERUTINROF .6ERTSAIP REP ERUTINROF .5Forniture Fornitore Unità Giornaliero Progressivo Forniture Fornitore Giornaliero Progressivo

NOTEBALOC enorgaMcmNOTEBALOCenorgaMIMS]cm[cmIMS

NOTEBALOC ozzurtseclaCcmNOTEBALOCozzurtseclaCIMS]cm[cmIMS

Inserti inf. CORDIOLI cad.EDIMO cad. 7. SCAVI

]cm[ ivacs id emuloV.dacILOIDROCirtsaliPEDIMO cad.Impresa (Cls) cad. 8. AVANZAMENTO GENERALE Abitanti insediab.

Appoggi provv FIP cad. Piastre eq. iniziate (scavi) %99 281ALGA cad. Piastre eq. con scavi terminati %99 281

Appoggi def. FIP cad. Piastre eq. con platea gettata %99 181ALGA cad. Piastre eq. terminate %69 571ALGA per Cls cad. Piastre consegnate %09 461

Rete Veneta Reti kg Case iniziate %88 161Case con strutture completate %07 921Case ultimate 50 27%

43 23%37 20%

Piaste eq.= piastre equivalenti (57x21 m)9. OBIETTIVI, RISCHI E MISURE ADOTTATE 11. OSSERVAZIONI PARTICOLAR 12. STIMA VALORE PRODUZIONE 13. APERTURE E ORARI DI CANTIER

Fase di Lavorazione EURO Lu Ma Me Gi Ve Sa Do12/10/2009 - 18/10/2009 19/10/2009 - 25/10/2009 26/10/2009 - 01/11/2009 Realizzazione Area Nome

Piastre Scavi 7.433.774 1 SANT'ANTONIO 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20Costruzione 36.572.397 2 COLLEBRINCIONI 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20Rete armatura 15.085.138 3 CESE DI PRETURO 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20Pilastri 38.497.567 4 PAGLIARE DI SASSA 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20Isolatori 8.859.975 5-11 PAGANICA SUD 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20Calcestruzzo 21.861.627 02-7002-7002-70 AREPMET7 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20

8 BAZZANO 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-209 SANT'ELIA 1 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20

Case Strutture 130.479.359 10 SANT'ELIA 2 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20Impianti 32.601.771 14 SASSA ZONA NSI 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20Serramenti 27.668.298 16 CAMARDA 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20

Aree a rischio Misure da adottare Finiture 48.313.468 20 ARISCHIA 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-2021 ROIO POGGIO 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-2022 ROIO 2 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20

11.289.399 23 ASSERGI 2 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 15.636.191 24 PAGANICA 2 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20 07-20

10. SICUREZZA LAVOR Opere a verde 1.663.394 02-7002-7002-7002-7002-7002-7002-70ONANGIG52 079.878 iderrA 02-7002-7002-7002-7002-7002-7002-702 OTIPPOC62

02-7002-7002-7002-7002-7002-7002-703 OTIPPOC72TOTALE 385.551.930

1591315913

14077

201.135 4959,5

57 3121317683,5

2.952

560

22/10/2009 23/10/2009

Case arredate

2.232

Case consegnate agli abitanti

960

3.176

600

128.310.478 Totale Piastre

- Ultimare la costruzione delle piastre aggiuntive di Sassa NSI e proseguire la realizzazione di quella di Tempera

- Proseguire considerevolmente i lavori di urbanizzazione e la realizzazione degli edifici in tutte le aree

- Eseguire la consegna di ulteriori appartamenti agli abitanti con una media di 300 a settimana

-

- - -

NUMERO DI CANTIERI APERTI

Attività settimana in corso

239.062.897 Totale Case

UrbanizzazioniMuri

- Consegnare agli abitanti ulteriori edifici a Cese di Preturo e Bazzano il giorno 23/10/09

- Proseguire la realizzazione delle case, le opere di urbanizzazione, gli arredi e le opere a verde nell'ottica delle consegne della prossima settimana

-Ultimare le piastre di fondazione a Coppito 3 e Paganica 2 e iniziare i lavori sull'ultima piastra di Tempera

Attività prossima settimana

Progressivo

- Il giorno 16/10/2009 sono stati consegnati agli abitanti un edificio a Cese, 5 a Bazzano e 6 a S.Elia 1. Il numero complessivo di edifici abitati è ora pari a 37.- Proseguita la costruzione delle piastre aggiuntive a Sassa NSI, Paganica 2 e Coppito 3- Proseguita la costruzione delle case su tutte le aree, delle urbanizzazioni su tutte le aree ad eccezione di Paganica 2 e Coppito 2, delle opere a verde a Cese di Preturo, Bazzano e S.Elia 1, gli arredi a Cese di Preturo, Bazzano, S.Elia 1 e Sassa NSI

Attività settimana precedente

Sol

ai

19/10/2009

19/10/2009

Piastre 185

19/10/2009 20/10/2009

1.120

Piastre equivalenti 183

Sca

vi

Pla

tee

20/10/2009

Sca

vi

31.636

aggiunte 4 PIASTRE in data 15/09/2009

aggiunta 1 PIASTRA in data 15/09/2009


Pla

tee

Sol

ai

Sca

vi


Sol

ai

Pla

tee

4751424174

25/10/2009

14339

2.952 3.176

599.460

11279

3760

680

3235

31.794.728

20

21/10/2009

30.000

3.016 15825

4372

14339-

24/10/2009

LEGENDA

Lavori in anticipo

Lavori secondo programma

Case terminateCase in corsoFondazioni in corsoScavi in corsoCantiere da aprire

20. ARISCHIA

26. COPPITO 227. COPPITO 33. CESE DI PRETURO

4.PAGLIARE DI SASSA 14. SASSA NSI

1. SANT'ANTONIO

22. ROIO 2

21. ROIO POGGIO

10. SANT'ELIA 2

25. GIGNANO

8. BAZZANO

9. SANT'ELIA 1

24. PAGANICA 2

7. TEMPERA

5-11.PAGANICA SUD

16. CAMARDA

2. COLLEBRINCIONI

23. ASSERGI

0. RAPPORTO GENERALEPROGETTO C.A.S.E.Rapporto giornaliero 134 del 19/10/2009 21 Lotto 7Rapporto per Area 8 BAZZANO Progressivo giorni di lavoro N° 134

consegna: 9002/01/409002/80/50 consegna: 17/09/2009 fine entro: 21/10/2009 Completato 50%INFRASTRUTTURESTRADEPAVIMENTI INDUSTRIALI 17 Completato 81%

91%

Scavi PRS ATI Getti Zoppoli Pulcher

Lavori di fondazione Costruzione CaseLavori non iniziati Lavori iniziatiScavi finiti Strutture e tamponamenti terminatiPlatea finita Impianti finitiPilastri finiti Serramenti FinitiSolai finiti = piastra completata Finiture finite = casa ultimataMuri ultimati Casa arredata

A Casa consegnata agli abitanti

Piastra Scavi Platea Pilastri Solai MuriImpresaCASE

Data consegna piastra

Strutture e tamponamenti Impianti Serramenti Finiture

Data ultimazione edificio

8.1 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% MALTAURO 23/7/09 100% 100% 100% 100% 11/10/098.2 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% MALTAURO 23/7/09 100% 100% 100% 100% 11/10/098.3 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% MALTAURO 23/7/09 100% 100% 100% 100% 11/10/098.4 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% MALTAURO 25/7/09 100% 100% 100% 100% 13/10/098.5 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% CONSTA 21/7/09 95% 95% 100% 95% 10/10/098.6 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% CONSTA 21/7/09 95% 95% 95% 95% 10/10/098.7 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% CONSTA 14/7/09 100% 100% 100% 100% 27/9/098.8 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% CONSTA 11/7/09 100% 100% 100% 100% 24/9/098.9 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% ESCHILO 11/7/09 100% 100% 100% 100% 26/9/09

8.10 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% ESCHILO 11/7/09 100% 100% 100% 100% 6/10/098.11 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% COGE 11/7/09 100% 100% 100% 100% 24/9/098.12 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% COGE 15/7/09 100% 100% 100% 100% 8/10/098.13 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% FREZZA 11/7/09 100% 100% 100% 100% 27/9/098.14 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% FREZZA 11/7/09 95% 95% 100% 95% 7/10/098.15 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% MALTAURO 11/7/09 100% 100% 100% 100% 24/9/098.16 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% MALTAURO 11/7/09 100% 100% 100% 100% 24/9/098.17 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% MALTAURO 11/7/09 100% 100% 100% 100% 29/9/098.18 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% MALTAURO 11/7/09 100% 100% 100% 100% 29/9/098.19 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% MALTAURO 11/7/09 100% 100% 100% 100% 29/9/098.20 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% MALTAURO 15/7/09 100% 100% 100% 100% 3/10/098.21 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% CONSTA 21/7/09 95% 90% 70% 90% 29/10/09

%99%89%99%99%001%001%001%001%001

2. FORNITURE 3. SCAVIaserpmIovissergorParusiM àtinUerotinroFovissergorPonroiGarusiM àtinU

-cmenorgaM 4.299 321.68cmIMS/notebaloC PRS ATI-cm ozzurtnaslaC 25.698 Colabeton/SMI

ILOIDROC.dac.fni itresnI 4. ULTIMAZIONE LAVORAZIONI -.dac.fni itresnI 840 EDIMO Odierno Previsione

ILOIDROC.dacirtsaliP 19/10/2009 20/10/2009-.dacirtsaliP 840 EDIMO - -

--etamitlU eetalP .rN)slC( aserpmI.dacirtsaliPAppoggi provvcad. FIP Nr. Solai Ultimati - -Appoggi provvcad. - ALGAAppoggi def. cad. FIP Previsti 21 6. EDIFICIAppoggi def. cad. - 840 ALGA Ultimati 21 21 Rete kg - 3.751.587 Veneta Reti Da ultimare - 21

6. OSSERVAZIONI PARTICOLARI

6. SICUREZZA LAVORO

Case con arredi in corso:

- Il giorno 16/10/09 sono stati consegnati ulteriori 5 edifici agli abitanti: 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.11. Il lumero di edifici abitati dell'area è ora pari a 17- La costruzione degli edifici è praticamente ultimata (99%). In corso gli arredi sugli edifici 8.5, 8.6 e 8.14 che verranno consegnati il 23 ottobre

Avanzamento Case

Maltauro-Consta-Eschilo-Coge-Frezza

Consegnati

Completato 8.5, 8.6, 8.141.1 PIASTRE

Avanzamento Fondazioni

5. MURI

Nr. Scavi Ultimati

100% 99%

Iniziati

1.2 CASE

1.3 URBANIZZAZIONI

90%85%95%

Consorzio Sestantee1.4 OPERE A VERDE

Numero case arredateDel Tongo-Florida

1.5 ARREDI

No. Piastre

1. STATO AVANZAMENTO LAVORI PER LAVORAZIONE

Ing. Armido Frezza S.R.L.lavori da ultimarsi entro:

8.1

8.2

8.3

8.4

8.98.10

8.11 8.12

8.13 8.14

8.15 8.16

8.19 8.20

8.17 8.18

8.58.6

8.7

8.8

8.21

8.6

8.7

8.8

8.1

8.2

8.3

8.4

8.98.10

8.11 8.12

8.13 8.14

8.15 8.16

8.19 8.20

8.17 8.18

8.58.6

8.7

8.8

8.21

A

A

A A

A A

A A

A

AA

A

A

A

A

AA


Total cost Average cost Average cost Average cost Weight(million) per building (183.29) per house (4449) per m2 of living area percentage

Buildings

Excavations and foundations 133.8 729,991 30,074 321 18.45%

Seismic isolation 11.3 61,651 2,540 27 1.56%

Apartments 405 2,209,613 91,032 972 55.84%

Total buildings e 550.1 e 3,001,255 e 123,646 e 1,320

Infrastructure and complementary works

Infrastructure and external works e 78.7 e 429,374 e 17,689 e 189 10.85%(sustaining walls, drainage, roads, sewage, water adduction, gas and electric energy,etc.)

Green and urban landscape e 15 e 81,838 e 3,372 e 36 2.07%

Elevators and ramps e 16.6 e 90,567 e 3,731 e 40 2.29%

Furniture, apparels and cleaning e 55.5 e 302,799 e 12,475 e 133 7.65%

General and technical costs e 9.4 e 51,285 e 2,113 e 23 1.30%

Total e 725.3 e 3,957,118 e 163,026 e 1,741 100.00%

Parametric costs of the whole intervention, based on 183.29 equivalent buildings, v.a.t. not included.

21


ipation if the meteorological circumstancesshould be favourable. The delivery of the houses started Tuesday 29September with about 500 apartments and willcontinue at a pace of approximately 300 apart-ments a week. The property of the buildings willbe eventually assigned to the city of L’Aquilawho will be responsible for the managementand maintenance based on pre-defined proce-dures, specified in detail in the project docu-ments. Political and economical choices, withrelation to the progress in the repair, strengthen-ing and reconstruction of the buildings damagedin the historical centre and in the city outskirt,will drive the decision on rent costs and use ofthe new villages. The users of the houses are being carefully selectedjointly by the city of L’Aquila and the DPC, takinginto account the preferences expressed by the

homeless people, parameters connected to thefamily situation (number of components, age, eco-nomical capacity, etc.) and the localisation of theoriginal place of living. A prerequisite to be con-sidered is that a family previous home should havebeen classified in the category ‘non easily to berepaired’ (type E and F in the classification ofdamage). The houses will anyway become part of the city’sheritage and in the future it will be thereforepossible to reuse them to host vulnerable cate-gories of population (such as the elderly people)or to host students, a need particularly relevantin L’Aquila, where a significant fraction of the25,000 students come from other regions. In the near future the availability of student hous-ing at a controlled price could become a rele-vant peculiarity of the university, modifying itsattraction capacity in a positive way.

3.1.11 Tests and verification on the isolation sys-temAbout 400 isolating devices were tested in thelaboratory, at real scale, real velocity levels andvarious axial load levels, dynamically controlled.Significant variation of the friction coefficient wereevident, as a function of the axial force and of thevelocity. For what concerns axial force, thedynamic friction coefficient varied from about2.5% to about 5% for one producer, and from

about 5% to about 12% for the other one. Thestatic friction coefficient was in the range of twicethe dynamic value in the first case and only slightlylarge than the dynamic one in the second case.In addition, eleven buildings were dynamicallytested on site, moving the upper plate withrespect to the lower one using two hydraulicactuators. Displacements of 150 - 200 mm wereimposed at speeds of about 150 - 200 mm/s,depending on the weight of the building.

22


The available data are extraordinary, and cannoteven be summarised here. However, it is interest-ing to note that the larger than expected frictioncoefficient increase the equivalent damping of theisolation system, consequently significantly reduc-ing the displacement demand. On the opposite, it

is clear that the maximum base shear at the build-ing level results to be larger than expected anddepends essentially on the static friction coefficient,since during the response a relative movement atthe device level takes place only when the localshear force exceeds the limiting friction capacity.

Forecast of the number ofapartments and beds avai-lable in function of the fore-

seen completion period(forecast of September

22nd, including the twentybuildings that had just beenadded, of which forecasts

are cautious).

3.1.12 Conclusions on structural performancesThousands non linear analyses of the buildings,performed using the actual experimental data,allowed to estimate the maximum base shearthat could be attained in each case, in generallower than 20 % of the weight of the building.Such value was always acceptable consideringa low damage performance level, consistent

with the full use of the buildings after the design500 years return period event. The small changein the base shear for larger events and the verysmall interstorey drift demand, together with thedisplacement capacity of the isolating system,largely in excess of any reasonable demand,make the buildings essentially insensitive to anypotential earthquake.

23


Those who have contributed to the success of the C.A.S.E.project:

Department of Civil ProtectionGiacomo Aiello (legal responsible),Emilia Aloise, Gio-vanna Andreozzi, Enrico Ardito, Vincenzo Ardito,Arianna Bertelli, Mariano Bonvegna, Angelo Borrelli(administration responsible), Fabrizio Bramerini, Cri-stina Capriotti, Maria Teresa Cartolari, Mario Cera, Clau-dia Ciccone, Pietro Colicchio, Alessandra Conti, MarcoConti, Maria Laura Conti, Chiara D'angelo, Antonella DeFelice, Giulio De Marco, Giovanni Di Achille, Giovanni DiMambro, Mauro Dolce (technical responsible), RiccardoFabiani, Maria Cristina Ferroni, Salvatore Fiengo, ClaudiaFiore, Mariasilvia Gianneramo, Beatrice Guerra, GerardaIannarone, Federica La Chioma, Luisa Marinaro, LuciaPalermo, Francesca Paneforte, Ada Paolucci, RobertoPesolillo, Giancarlo Piccione, Patrizia Picuti, ImmacolataPostiglione, Giuseppina Sementilli, Vincenzo Spaziante(general coordinator), Tiziana Tarduini, Vergilio Tidei,Fabiola Toni, Angelo Vici.

CASE ConsortiumFabio Aldrovandi, Francesco Ambrosi, FrancescoAmici, Maurizio Ardingo (responsible for constructionsafety measures), Luciano Baglione, Giovanni Bastia-nini, Paolo Battegazzore, Giuliano Bellini, Maria TeresaDolores Bertelegni, Federica Bianchi, Saverio Bisoni,Gaia Boggioni, Filippo Bonali, Barbara Borzi, MariaBenedetta Bossi, Matteo Bottari, Vittorio Bozzetto,Roberto Brandimarte, Piero Burba, Maurizio Calderari,Andrea Caligari, Maura Castellani, Gian Michele Calvi(project leader, designer and construction director),Salvatore Caroli, Christian Caroli, Paolo Caroli, Fran-cesco Ceribelli, Antonio Coccia, Andrea Colcuc, Oli-viero Comand, Massimiliano Cordeschi, FilippoDacarro, Michele D’Adamo, Alberto Damiani (respon-sible for building construction), Pietro Damiani, EdiDanielis, Simonetta Di Nicola, Maurizio De Santis, Pas-quale Di Marcantonio, Dante Di Marco, StefanoD’Ottavio, Ettore Fagà, Mario Fanutti, Carlo Florio,Pierluigi Fontana, Fabrizio Frau, Renato Fuchs (organ-isation coordinator), Nicola Gallina, Marco Gasperi,Fabio Germagnoli, Federico Gianoli, Daniele Gimnetti,Sergio Giordano, Stefano Grasso, Carlo Lai, MassimoLardera (responsible for infrastructure), Ignazio Locci,Giuseppe Lombardi, Mauro Maganetti, GiovanniMagenes, Claudio Maggi, Carlo Magni, FabrizioMagni, Michele Magnotti, Gabriele Mantini, AntonioMarcotullio, Paola Marotta, Sara Martini, EmanueleMeago, Paola Migliazza, Enrico Misale, Marta Moli-nari, Federico Monutti, Matteo Moratti (site responsiblefor structures), Vincenzo Pane, Vincenzo Paolillo, Ales-sandro Papale, Carmine Pascale, Pierluigi Pascale,Moreno Pavan, Fausto Pedetta Peccia, GianfrancoPeressutti, Edoardo Peronace, Michele Pescina, PaoloPetrucco (site responsible for plates and infrastruc-ture), Piero Petrucco, Nereo Pettenà, Dario Pietra,Roberto Pitolini, Federica Polidoro, Alessandro Pollini,Stefano Pozzi, Salvatore Provenzano, Bruno Quadrio,Nadia Rizzardi, Enzo Rizzi, Fabio Roiatti, CristianaRuggeri (responsible for mechanical and electricalinstallations), Gaetano Ruggeri, Mario Rusconi,Daniele Sambrizzi, Valentina Scenna, Matteo Schena,Michele Schiabel, Paolo Scienza, Fabiola Sciore,Roberto Scotti, Domenico Sgrò, Martino Signorile,Danilo Marco Siviero, Luigi Spadaro, Davide Taglia-

ferri, Piergiuseppe Tamburri, Alessandro Tosello, StefanTrenkwalder, Roberto Turino (site responsible for build-ings), Diego Urbani, Marco Vecchietti, Paolo Verri, Ste-fano Vitalini (site responsible for plates), RobertaViviani

Checker team, administrative aspectsGiovanna Andreozzi, Maria Laura Conti, AlessandraConti, Michele D’adamo, Giovanni Di Mambro, Sal-vatore Fiengo, Giorgio Grossi, Emilia Aloise, MarianoBonvenga, Carlo Bordini, Cristina Capriotti, MariaTeresa Cartolari, Carluccio Codeghini, Fabio Compa-gnoni, Dario Compagnoni, Massimo Criscuolo, Anto-nella De Felice, Giuseppe Fasiol, Maria Cristina Fer-roni, Arturo Furlan, Achille Gentile, Alessandro Greco,Gerarda Iannarone, Giuseppe Ianniello, GiovanniInfante, Ettore Iorio, Paolo Marchesi, Luca Pagani,Lucia Palermo, Roberto Pesolillo, Salvatore Proven-zano, Rosario Romano, Gianni Strazzullo, FabiolaToni, Daniela Ursino, Michele Villani

Checker team, structuresEdoardo Cosenza, Gaetano Manfredi, ClaudioMoroni, Paolo Pinto (President), Paolo Zanon (assi-stenti: Massimo Acanfora, Claudio D’Ambra, AntimoFiorillo)

Companies and organisationsExcavations: CO.GE.FER. s.p.a.; Midal s.r.l.; P.R.S. Pro-duzione e Servizi s.r.l. Concrete: Colabeton s.p.a.;Società Meridionale Inerti SMI s.r.l. Steel reinforcement:La Veneta Reti s.p.a. Steel columns: A.T.I. Edimo Metallos.p.a. /Taddei s.p.a.; Cordioli & C. s.p.a.; Formworkand assistance: Consorzio Edile C.M. Gruppo Bison;Sacaim s.p.a.; Zoppoli & Pulcher s.p.a. Isolators: Algas.p.a.; FIP Industriale s.p.a. Buildings: A.T.I. ConsorzioStabile CONSTA s.c.p.a./Sicap s.p.a.; A.T.I. Donatis.p.a./Tirrena Lavori s.r.l./Dema Costruzioni s.r.l./Q5s.r.l.; A.T.I. Eschilo Uno s.r.l./COGEIM s.p.a./AlfaCostruzioni 2008 s.r.l.; A.T.I. Ille prefabbricatis.p.a./Belwood s.r.l.; A.T.I. Impresa Costruzioni Giu-seppe Maltauro s.p.a./Taddei s.p.a.; A.T.I. Iter Gestionee Appalti s.p.a./Sled s.p.a./Vitale Costruzioni s.p.a.;A.T.I. COGE Costruzioni Generali s.p.a. /Consorzio Esi;Consorzio Etruria s.c.a.r.l.; Consorzio Stabile Arcale;Cosbau s.p.a.; D’Agostino Angelo Antonio CostruzioniGenerali s.r.l.; Impresa di Costruzioni Ing. Raffaello Pel-legrini s.r.l.; Meraviglia s.p.a.; Orceana Costruzionis.p.a.; R.T.I. Ing. Armido Frezza s.r.l./Walter FrezzaCostruzioni s.r.l./ Archilegno s.r.l.; Wood Beton s.p.a.Furniture: Del Tongo Industrie s.p.a.; Estel Office s.p.a.;Mobilificio Florida s.r.l.; R.T.I. Europeo s.p.a./PM.International Furnishing s.r.l. Infrastructure:CO.M.AB. Appalti Pubblici e Privati s.n.c.; Codimars.r.l..; Codisab s.r.l.; Conglomerati Bituminosi s.r.l.; Fac-ciolini s.r.l.; G.C.G. s.r.l.; I Platani s.r.l.; Impresa Edile DiCola Michele; Ing. Armido Frezza s.r.l.; Molisana InertiConglomerati s.r.l.; Produzione e Servizi s.r.l.; RidolfiIdio e Figli s.r.l.; San Giovanni Inerti di Pietro Mascittis.r.l.; Valentini Costruzioni s.a.s.; Elevators: Marroccoelevators s.r.l., ATI S.A.S. s.r.l./Grivan Group s.r.l.,Schindler s.p.a.; Photovoltaic panels: R.T.I. Ener Points.p.a./Ener Point Energy s.r.l./Troiani & Ciarrocchi s.r.l.;Green areas: R.T.I. 3a Progetti/Gsa s.r.l./O.Ci.Ma.s.r.l./Bellomia-Sebastianini-Euroengineering s.r.l., Con-sorzio Sestante. Demolition: CODISAB SRL, A.S.M.s.p.a.; Connections to external pipeline networks:ENEL Rete Gas, ENEL Energia, GranSasso Acqua.1


References1. NTC (2008) - Norme Tecniche per le Costruzioni,

D.M. 14/01/2008, Gazzetta Ufficiale 04/02/2008,Italia.

2. Zayas V., Low S. (1990) - A Simple PendulumTechnique for Achieving Seismic Isolation, Earth-quake Spectra, Vol. 6, No. 2.

3. Almazan J.L., De la Llera J.C. (2002) - Analyticalmodel of structures with frictional pendulum isola-tors, Earthquake engineering and structural dyna-mics, Vol. 31, 305-332.

4. Calvi G.M., Ceresa P., Casarotti C., Bolognini D.,Auricchio F. (2004) - Effects of axial force variationon the seismic response of bridges isolated with fric-tion pendulum systems, Journal of Earthquake Engi-neering, Vol. 8, SI1, 187-224.

5. Christopoulos C., Filiatrault A. (2006) - Principlesof Passive Supplemental Damping and SeismicIsolation, IUSS Press, Pavia.

6. Priestley M.J.N., Calvi G.M. (2002) - Strategiesfor repair and seismic upgrading of Bolu Viaduct1, Turkey, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol.6, SI1, 157-184.

7. Tsai C.S. (1997) - Finite element formulations for frictionPendulum seismic isolation bearings, International Jour.for Num. Methods in Engineering, Vol. 40, 29-49.

8. Wang Y., Chung L.L., Liao W.H. (1998) - Seismicresponse analysis of bridges isolated with frictionpendulum bearings, Earthquake engineering andstructural dynamics, 27, 1069-109.

9. Priestley M.J.N., Calvi G.M., Kowalsky M.J. (2007)- Displacement based design of structures, IUSSPress, Pavia.

10. Crowley, H. and Pinho R. (2004) - Period-heightrelationship ofr existing European reinforced con-crete buildings, Journal of Earthquake Enginee-ring, Vol. 8 (SP1) - 93-120.

11. Crowley H., Stucchi M., Meletti C., Calvi G.M.,Pacor F. (2009) - Uno sguardo agli spettri delleNTC08 in relazione al terremoto de L’Aquila,capitolo 1.7 in questo volume.

12. AA.VV. (2007) - Definizione dell’input sismicosulla base degli spostamenti, progetto S5 INGV-DPC, http://progettos5.stru.polimi.it.

13. Comité Européen de Normalisation, Eurocode 8part 2 (2006) - prEN1998-2, CEN, Brussels.

Here and in the next pages, some pictures of the completed buildings areas.

prova di impaginato · 1 theaftermathoftheearthquake 3.1.1 the idea what is the time difference...

Documents