PSI - Issue 64

Rosario Montuori et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 64 (2024) 841–848 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

847

7

(a) (b) Fig. 7. Retrofitting interventions with concrete jacketing (a) and with steel jacketing (b).

4.2. Structural Intervention for the pile foundation Regarding the structural verification of the pile foundation, based on the available information, a simplified static linear analysis has been carried out to evaluate the maximum actions on the foundation piles. Under seismic actions, some foundation piles, especially of the external cores (T1+T2) and central core (T5), could be subjected to the significant tension actions. Unfortunately, the lateral resistance of the foundation piles has been neglected due to exact knowledge of the length of the foundation piles. Consequently, for the sake of safety, a retrofitting intervention should be proposed. In particular, a possible structural solution could be the expansion of the plinths by adding new foundation piles as reported in Fig. 8. With reference to the mentioned structural intervention, the maximum action in compression is equal to 70.22 t in the foundation pile P11 belonging to T5 core. From a construction point of view, the new foundation piles are characterized by a diameter of 500 mm with an average length of 10 m and 6 steel bar of 18 mm diameter. 4.3. Comparison of the retrofitting interventions The structural solutions I1 and I2 were compared for their economic and environmental impacts. Economically, costs were assessed based on the Campania Region's price list, focusing solely on material costs, excluding structural design and finishes. Environmentally, the analysis measured CO 2 equivalent emissions through Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), limited to the production phase ("cradle to gate"). In particular, by considering the environmental product declarations (EPDs) provided by EPD Italy, the Global Warming Potential (GWP) expressed in CO 2 per 1.00 t have been multiplied by the weight of the materials to compute the total value of the CO 2 for both interventions. A comparison of the interventions is summarized in Fig. 9 in terms of the seismic performance, economic and environmental costs. It is useful to note that the CO 2 emissions are divided by 10 for representation reasons (t/10). The I2 solution, employing steel plates, offers superior structural performance but at a higher cost than I1. Nonetheless, I2 is more environmentally sustainable.