IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i17p9962-d629705.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Requalification of RC Frame Apartment Buildings: Comparison of Seismic Retrofit Solutions Based on a Multi-Criteria Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Giuseppe Santarsiero

    (School of Engineering, University of Basilicata, 85100 Potenza, Italy)

  • Angelo Masi

    (School of Engineering, University of Basilicata, 85100 Potenza, Italy)

  • Vincenzo Manfredi

    (School of Engineering, University of Basilicata, 85100 Potenza, Italy)

  • Giuseppe Ventura

    (School of Engineering, University of Basilicata, 85100 Potenza, Italy)

Abstract

Increasing environmental concerns are leading to measures and incentives aimed at reducing the energy consumption of buildings, which must be accompanied by substantial mitigation of seismic and structural risk. As for technical issues, it is important to select effective solutions specifically for medium-size RC apartment buildings (e.g., 3–6 storeys), which is where a large share of the Italian population lives today. To this end, it is important to compare, among other factors, the direct and indirect costs related to alternative techniques, thus allowing stakeholders (mainly private) and designers to select the most suitable solution for each case at hand and, finally, to speed up the design process. In this paper, different seismic strengthening techniques are designed and applied to a case study RC frame building that is representative of the EU building stock. An in-depth comparison is made with the aim of showing the advantages and disadvantages of different choices, mainly based on required costs and possible disruptions, keeping the targeted structural performance equal. Specifically, the possibility of disruption is a key point in hastening or, more frequently, hindering the implementation of the decision. In fact, people’s hesitation to leave their home, as well as the difficulty and high costs involved in finding temporary apartments if many people are involved, generally prevent such interventions from taking place. For this reason, some state-of-the-art techniques—that have minimum impact on non-structural elements, that can be applied only on the outside, and that can still provide an effective seismic retrofit—are examined and critically compared in the paper through a multi-criteria decision-making method.

Suggested Citation

  • Giuseppe Santarsiero & Angelo Masi & Vincenzo Manfredi & Giuseppe Ventura, 2021. "Requalification of RC Frame Apartment Buildings: Comparison of Seismic Retrofit Solutions Based on a Multi-Criteria Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-23, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:17:p:9962-:d:629705
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/17/9962/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/17/9962/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vincenzo Manfredi & Giuseppe Santarsiero & Angelo Masi & Giuseppe Ventura, 2021. "The High-Performance Dissipating Frame (HPDF) System for the Seismic Strengthening of RC Existing Buildings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-16, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Emmanouil Golias & Adamantis G. Zapris & Violetta K. Kytinou & George I. Kalogeropoulos & Constantin E. Chalioris & Chris G. Karayannis, 2021. "Effectiveness of the Novel Rehabilitation Method of Seismically Damaged RC Joints Using C-FRP Ropes and Comparison with Widely Applied Method Using C-FRP Sheets—Experimental Investigation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-19, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:17:p:9962-:d:629705. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.