PSI - Issue 44

Giuseppina De Martino et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 44 (2023) 1800–1807 Giuseppina De Martino et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000–000

1802

3

iii) C – Partially usable; iv) D - To be re-inspected; v) E – Unusable; vi) F-Unusable for external risk. In addition, the AeDES form allowed to collect a database containing first-level data which is gathered in a rapid visual inspection, such as the building geometrical characteristics, construction age and renovation, type and damage on structural components (vertical and horizontal structure, roof, stairs and infill partitions) and non-structural components. The AeDES form was filled for 74,254 buildings [Dolce e Goretti (2015)]. Once the usability assessment of buildings ended, the reconstruction process of OHC residential buildings started with the adoption of analytical model. It was regulated by the issue of several Ordinances of the Prime Minister (O.P.C.M.). In the second phase the parametric model was adopted to start the reconstruction process of IHC residential buildings. Despite the partly common legislative framework consisting of Decree Law 39/2009 and its conversion Law, there are some substantial differences between the analytical and the parametric model adopted for the OHC and IHC residential buildings model adopted for the IHC reconstruction, summarized in the following points: Analytical model of OHC residential buildings: • the reconstruction process involved slightly damaged building (B or C usability rating buildings) and heavy damage reconstruction (E rating buildings); • the reconstruction process was divided into two partially overlapping phases (light and heavy damage reconstruction) according to the usability rating detected by means of the AeDES form. To enable a fast re occupancy of slightly damaged building the priority was given to light damage reconstruction; the heavy damage reconstruction started in the second phase; • the repair costs to restore original condition of damaged structural or non-structural elements were fully covered by public grant; • different thresholds were defined to cover costs related to the local strengthening interventions (B or C usability rating buildings), or seismic capacity enhancement interventions (E usability rating buildings, seismic capacity increase up to a minimum level of 60 % and a maximum level of 80 % with respect to current design seismic demand); • the contribution allocated is clearly distinguished for Condominium Units, CU , Common Areas, CA, and Independent Dwellings, ID . The grant allocated for the condominium buildings is equal to the sum of the costs assessed by practitioner of CU and CA ; • repair and strengthening projects were submitted by practitioners engaged by owners to a proper commission, called “Filiera”. Parametric model of IHC residential buildings: • the reconstruction process involved Aggregate Minimum Unit - AMU (i.e. portions of Building Aggregates, BA, with homogeneous characteristics and with low or without mutual seismic dynamic interactions). Each AMU can be made of one or more buildings with the same or with different usability rating. • each office developed a parametric model to manage to define the maximum public grant to repair and strengthen the damaged buildings. • allowable grant (i.e. funding amount threshold) was established by means of parametric costs defined as a function of building vulnerability class and damage level assessed through AeDES form; ii) the definition of repair and strengthening intervention and relevant costs carried out by practitioners engaged by owners; • grant increases were allowed to preserve and restore valuable elements in historical heritage buildings (maximum increase of 60% with respect to the allowable grant) or to carry out intervention on buildings regulated by specific heritage protection provisions (i.e. Legislative Decree n. 42/2004), maximum increase of 100% with respect to the allowable grant; • the intervention project and relevant costs were submitted by practitioners and were checked by the Special Offices. If the intervention costs were lower than allowable grant, the Special Offices checked the intervention project only from administrative point of view. In case of intervention costs greater than allowable grant, the Special Offices checked the intervention project from administrative, technical and