The retrofitting of a Cultural Heritage Building always presents a challenge, as structural safety and heritage preservation are usually in conflict. The lack of acting code on the matter deepens the problem. An alternative of a whole new Eurocode would be to add some special items, concerning cultural heritage, in Eurocode 8-3. First, however, Eurocode 8-3 itself should be perfected, as it current edition is far from the complete and full code it should be. Furthermore, such parts on retrofitting must be added to other parts of Eurocode - 2, 3, 6, etc. There are other actions, apart from earthquakes.

To summarise, yes, we need such code, but I doubt we will have one in ten years or so.

The 1964 Venice Charter regards historic monuments as architectural works that attest to the culture and tradition of peoples over the centuries. It is incumbent upon us to preserve and safeguard them intact for future generations. The problem lies in the application of existing legislation and recommendations which, though not intended to apply to the cultural heritage, if rigidly enforced may often have serious and consequences through the use of flawed solutions. The selection of criteria and the technology of intervention is a technical and cultural issue, and whenever there is a gap between science and a humanist culture, which is very common in the case of interventions, the inevitable result is a highly unsatisfactory solution. Every effort should be made to conform to heritage protection requirements in the choice of materials and the preservation of traditional details of the original structure. Every intervention results in certain changes, causing further loss of some of the building's authenticity, which means that one must be extremely cautious when deciding on preventive interventions.

Dear Bimo Hernowo,

It seem that I have overlooked your question :( I have to apologize. I am sorry once again.

I am going to give a background to this issue and try to explain it more detailed.

MASONRY BUILDINGS

Structural assessment of historical buildings presents specific problem considering the ways they were built and the materials, which were used. Different specific problems arise by reparation and necessary strengthening or retrofit, for example to achieve earthquake resistance demanded by modern seismic codes. The aim is to preserve and reveal their aesthetic and historical values and to use original materials and original way of construction, if possible. But, where traditional techniques prove inadequate some modern construction and conservation techniques must be implemented. The same problems occur with traditional construction materials. In order to provide necessary resistance and ductility and fulfill the demands of new building codes the contemporary building materials have to be carefully implemented in the structures of those buildings.

Within European Macroseismic Scale (EMS, 1998) there is seismic vulnerability classification where building can be classified from A, weakest seismic structures to F, buildings with very good earthquake resistant design. Furthermore, there is a damage grades classification from grade 1 (negligible to slight damage or no structural damage) to grade 5 (destruction or very heavy structural damage). In spite of the fact that both classifications were developed for regular multistory buildings, they can be implemented for historical buildings as well, taking into account that they possess rather specific structural systems. The medieval stone masonry buildings are mostly brittle structures and can be ordered as unreinforced masonry (URM). Generally, the stone masonry structures belong to classes A and B in rare cases to class C, which means that they are rather vulnerable already for moderate earthquake motions. The historical buildings are traditionally built as unreinforced masonry without confining elements, in the way the confinement is assumed in modern technical codes. In some regions timber confinement or iron belts were used at stone masonry buildings. Typical curved structural forms as domes, arches and vaults are often part of historical buildings especially the religious one. As they are built as unreinforced masonry structures, the historical buildings are relatively stiff and show generally brittle behavior. The first damages in form of cracks appear already by moderate earthquakes on softer structural elements as domes and arches, or ceilings by wooden floors and on partition walls, if there are any. At the same time the main structure, as dick walls and abutments, is in linear range of the behavior, with no or almost no cracks. But, it's generally not true for very strong earthquake motion. The historical buildings are traditionally built as unreinforced masonry without confining elements, in the way the confinement is assumed in modern technical codes. In some regions timber confinement or iron belts were used at stone masonry buildings. Typical curved structural forms as domes, arches and vaults are often part of historical buildings especially the religious one. As they are built as unreinforced masonry structures, the historical buildings are relatively stiff and show generally brittle behavior. The first damages in form of cracks appear already by moderate earthquakes on softer structural elements as domes and arches, or ceilings by wooden floors and on partition walls, if there are any. At the same time the main structure, as dick walls and abutments, is in linear range of the behavior, with no or almost no cracks. But, it's generally not true for very strong earthquake motion. The rebuild project gave rise to lot of discussions and opposite opinions mostly between structural engineers and architects. However, the old strengthening method was not accepted by conservator for the new rehabilitation project. The reasons are unacceptable differences to the original historical concept of the mosque building, which should be rebuild with completely identical geometrical dimensions and as far as possible using the same materials as before. Revolution in constructions, initiated by use of new building materials, resulted in the discontinuity of knowledge transfer about dominant constructional method of that time – masonry. This knowledge and to-then experiences were lost during the time, owing to the fact that the method was based upon empiricism, no written records or data is available on this issue.

The dilemma about the method for elimination of damages is as old as human participation in building. This statement is supported by the lack of a general consensus provided by scientific and experts’ sources, which concerns methods for elimination of damages.

It is anticipated that the heritage facility should have a long lifetime; therefore this fact should be taken into consideration during the construction phase.

In such cases, authorities should decide in favour of both requirements, i.e. a declaration that will consolidate these two aspects of one single issue should be made. The declaration should diminish some requirements of technical constructional regulations very much oriented to contemporary constructional methods, i.e. materials. A like declaration was issued in neighbouring Croatia during the commencement of rehabilitation of historical heart of Dubrovnik town.

The document EuroCode  8-1-4 was particularly made because of the following reasons:

- Seismic movements can create in the facility such a condition that requires performance of extensive repairs

- During construction of ancient facilities, effects of seismic movements were not taken into consideration,

- On the basis of modern technologies, value of seismic effects is the factor that indicates necessity of boosting,

Dear Sara,

This is good point. Maybe General rules and rules for buildings should be improved through National Annex in more complex way.

Why do you need a Eurocode for Cultural Heritage Building?

Eurocode 8 Part 3 (Annex C.5) deals with the structural strengthening of existing masonry buildings, and this can be applied to any country. But to preserve the historical/cultural identity of historical building, you need a local building regulations (like Annex) specific to each country.

Since the culture (historic or current) of each country is different from each other, the requirements of rehabilitation/conservation of heritage and historic buildings are different from a country to another.

Each country should have its own Building Regulation for its Listed  Cultural &  Heritage Buildings. For example in UK, we have Buildings Regulation for Historic buildings which regulate the conservation/improvement of listed heritage and historic buildings.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_your_opinion_about_Perpetuate_project#view=54835d33d039b155358b4677

Dear Dr. Amir Causevic,

Not feasible because many complex and parameters are involved.