Lisø PhD Dissertation Manuscript - NTNU
Lisø PhD Dissertation Manuscript - NTNU Lisø PhD Dissertation Manuscript - NTNU
limited to details of the building’s identity, the building type, ownership and possibly the address. For buildings erected after 1983, more information is available. A search based on selected building types reduced the sample from the approximately 3.7 million buildings in the register to around 9,000 buildings in the municipalities in question. In the search results, 10 to 12 buildings have been chosen from each of the 10 municipalities selected. In selecting the buildings, the time when the building was registered or erected was used as an indicator of the building’s age. Where the buildings’ floor space was stated, this has been used as an indicator for finding buildings comprising main load-bearing structures with spans of more than 10 metres. The selected municipalities were then asked to provide the following information for each of the chosen buildings: A copy of the building licence application form. Copies of plan drawings and front elevations used in the building licence application. Confirmation on whether the municipality had archived construction drawings and design calculations or not. The information has been used to select the buildings that will best suit the original priorities of the investigation. To make the investigation practicable, buildings for which documentation existed was given priority. Selected buildings Based on the assessments above, 20 buildings were selected (see Table 3, LAST PAGE). The table lists the municipality in which the buildings were selected, the building type and the requirement that currently applies to characteristic snow load on the ground and to the reference wind velocity. As shown in the table, attempts have been made to keep the selected buildings as anonymous as possible. Problems in obtaining the necessary documentation implied that an investigation of only one building was conducted in two of the municipalities, while this was extended to three buildings in two other municipalities. Three of the buildings were constructed in the period before 1970, eight were built in the period 1970-79 and nine were built in the period after 1979. This implies that the loads are determined by the 1949 building regulations for three of the buildings, by NS 3052 for eight of the buildings and by NS 3479 for the latest nine buildings. Project documentation investigation and field study Calculation models, loads, forces and solutions used when the buildings were constructed have been investigated. The forces in the structure were then determined in accordance with new load requirements, and the capacities checked in accordance with new design rules. In the light of these analyses, the structure’s utilization ratio has been determined in accordance with new calculation rules, and the need for reinforcement assessed. On site, it has been investigated whether the structures have defects or deficiencies that are not apparent from the project documentation investigation. Special attention has been paid to the investigation of whether the construction is in accordance with the documentation, and whether there are weaknesses in the structure owing to reduced durability or due to reconstruction. RESULTS Geometry and material data External dimensions, maximum spans and the material of the main load-bearing structures are shown in Table 3. The building’s external dimensions are quoted as width, length, height and roof slope. The height indicates the cornice height for buildings with approximately flat roofs and the roof ridge height for buildings with other roof shapes. Additions or extensions that are not included in the assessments have not been included in the dimensions. Manuscript No. ST/2005/024694 8 of 13
As is apparent from the values in the table, the buildings selected can be characterised as mediumsized buildings with medium spans. The roof slope varies between 0 and 26 degrees. All the buildings are of low height relative to their width and length. Essentially, the buildings included in the investigation are lightweight constructions, because buildings of this type are empirically expected to be most vulnerable. Availability and scale of the documentation When the investigations started, the authors were prepared for the fact that it might be difficult to obtain full documentation on the load-bearing structures in the buildings, which in this context have been defined as design calculations and structural drawings. Although there were requirements in the building regulations up to 1997 that design calculations should form part of the building licence application, it is well known that many municipalities have not enforced this requirement. In the light of the information supplied by the municipalities, a total of 20 buildings were selected. Buildings with available documentation were given priority. It was decided at an early stage that built-in structures would not be opened and investigated. It was therefore necessary to obtain the best possible documentation so that built-in structures were known from the documentation. If there were a link between available documentation in the municipality and existing documentation, such a selection criteria would lead to the buildings most extensively planned being included in the investigation. Buildings that are planned in detail are probably also those with the fewest defects. It has not been possible to assess the significance of this aspect within the scope of this investigation. A lack of important documentation for buildings included in the investigation can affect the results. The calculations must then be based on our own assumptions and assessments, which may be different from the constructor’s (see Table 3 for information on available structural calculations). Deficient information on hidden, structural measures may then be significant. A lack of documentation makes it difficult to uncover the reason for chosen structural designs unambiguously. All buildings in the investigation were approved for erection by the local authority (the municipality in which they are located). But, according to the available documentation, only 14 of the selected buildings proved to be designed by professionals. The actual number of buildings designed by professional is probably higher. Changes in design snow loads and wind actions for selected buildings Current requirements for characteristic snow loads on the ground and characteristic gust velocity pressures against the selected buildings are presented in Table 3. In the table, Andøy 2, Fræna 1 and Nittedal 1 are quoted with a) and b) versions. Here, a) means the original building and b) means additions (or extensions). Furthermore, the changes in design loads on the buildings are shown, where current requirements are compared with the requirements that applied when the building was being designed. Table 3 shows that the changes in design snow loads vary between 0.8 and 2.7 and have a mean value equal to 1.6. The changes in design wind action against the buildings vary accordingly between 0.4 and 1.4 and have a mean value equal to 0.9. In other words, the design snow load has on the average increased, while the design wind action has on the average been reduced. As Table 3 indicates; only two buildings in two municipalities experience reduced design snow loads, one experiences an unaltered load level, while the rest experience increased snow loads. The changes in the rules for snow loads have therefore been of major importance to the requirement concerning design snow loads on most of the buildings that have been investigated. Buildings with a low roof slope dominate the investigation. Pitched roofs with roof slopes of between 15 º and 60 º have been given reduced shape factor for snow loads on the lee side of the roof. For the seven buildings with roof slopes > 15 º , the increase in design load is on the average 1.4, which is somewhat lower than the mean value for all the buildings. The changes in the wind action rules have not been as important as the change in the snow load rules for the design loads on the buildings investigated. As Table 3 shows, the changes in the rules have only resulted in a significant increase in the wind action on the buildings in the coastal Manuscript No. ST/2005/024694 9 of 13
- Page 75 and 76: cost of repairing process-induced b
- Page 77 and 78: change in quality (Mehus et al., 20
- Page 79 and 80: on the impacts of different climati
- Page 81 and 82: different strategies: risk-based, p
- Page 83 and 84: Lisø, K.R./ Building envelope perf
- Page 85 and 86: Learning from experience - an analy
- Page 87 and 88: An important aspect of the programm
- Page 89 and 90: Concrete walls 32 % LECA masonry 10
- Page 91 and 92: construction industry, and academic
- Page 93 and 94: BUILDING RESEARCH &INFORMATION (JAN
- Page 95 and 96: greater variations (Lisø et al., 2
- Page 97 and 98: Typical problem areas and recommend
- Page 99 and 100: Figure 3b Recommended design of win
- Page 101 and 102: Figure 7 Example showing the recomm
- Page 103 and 104: Figure 11a Poor solution for a £as
- Page 105 and 106: Acknowledgements This paper was wri
- Page 107 and 108: Climate adapted design of masonry s
- Page 109 and 110: 2. Masonry defects in Norway 2.1. S
- Page 111 and 112: Fig. 2. Example illustrations of th
- Page 113 and 114: The presented results are in good a
- Page 115 and 116: appropriate in a more severe type o
- Page 117 and 118: screen in a two-stage weatherproofi
- Page 119 and 120: INCREASED SNOW LOADS AND WIND ACTIO
- Page 121 and 122: The hurricane (Beaufort number 12)
- Page 123 and 124: The extensive revisions of the code
- Page 125: The number of buildings investigate
- Page 129 and 130: climate change is now dominated by
- Page 131: TABLE 3. Summary of findings Struct
- Page 134 and 135: Lisø, K.R./ Building envelope perf
- Page 136 and 137: temperature of -4°C or less. See F
- Page 138 and 139: Today, frost resistance of brick, c
- Page 140 and 141: degree of saturation, freezing will
- Page 142 and 143: accelerated frost damage or frost d
- Page 144 and 145: A possible objection to the present
- Page 146 and 147: [17] Dührkop H., Saretok V., Sneck
- Page 149 and 150: Decay potential in wood structures
- Page 151 and 152: Wood decaying fungi will only be ac
- Page 153 and 154: to promote decay prevails. Two of t
- Page 155: Acknowledgements This paper has bee
- Page 158 and 159: (a driving rain gauge), however, is
- Page 160 and 161: Fig. 1. Map of Norwayshowing the lo
- Page 162 and 163: Frequency 25 20 15 10 5 0 highest p
- Page 164 and 165: interesting to compare those result
- Page 167 and 168: Effects of wind exposure on roof sn
- Page 169 and 170: In ISO 4355 ”Bases for design of
- Page 171 and 172: variety of roofs and wind exposures
- Page 173 and 174: Li and Pomeroy [13] evaluated hourl
- Page 175 and 176: Fig. 5. Exposure coefficients for 3
limited to details of the building’s identity, the building type, ownership and possibly the address. For<br />
buildings erected after 1983, more information is available. A search based on selected building types<br />
reduced the sample from the approximately 3.7 million buildings in the register to around 9,000<br />
buildings in the municipalities in question. In the search results, 10 to 12 buildings have been chosen<br />
from each of the 10 municipalities selected. In selecting the buildings, the time when the building was<br />
registered or erected was used as an indicator of the building’s age. Where the buildings’ floor space<br />
was stated, this has been used as an indicator for finding buildings comprising main load-bearing<br />
structures with spans of more than 10 metres.<br />
The selected municipalities were then asked to provide the following information for each of the<br />
chosen buildings:<br />
A copy of the building licence application form.<br />
Copies of plan drawings and front elevations used in the building licence application.<br />
Confirmation on whether the municipality had archived construction drawings and design<br />
calculations or not.<br />
The information has been used to select the buildings that will best suit the original priorities of the<br />
investigation. To make the investigation practicable, buildings for which documentation existed was<br />
given priority.<br />
Selected buildings<br />
Based on the assessments above, 20 buildings were selected (see Table 3, LAST PAGE). The table<br />
lists the municipality in which the buildings were selected, the building type and the requirement that<br />
currently applies to characteristic snow load on the ground and to the reference wind velocity. As<br />
shown in the table, attempts have been made to keep the selected buildings as anonymous as possible.<br />
Problems in obtaining the necessary documentation implied that an investigation of only one building<br />
was conducted in two of the municipalities, while this was extended to three buildings in two other<br />
municipalities.<br />
Three of the buildings were constructed in the period before 1970, eight were built in the period<br />
1970-79 and nine were built in the period after 1979. This implies that the loads are determined by<br />
the 1949 building regulations for three of the buildings, by NS 3052 for eight of the buildings and by<br />
NS 3479 for the latest nine buildings.<br />
Project documentation investigation and field study<br />
Calculation models, loads, forces and solutions used when the buildings were constructed have been<br />
investigated. The forces in the structure were then determined in accordance with new load<br />
requirements, and the capacities checked in accordance with new design rules. In the light of these<br />
analyses, the structure’s utilization ratio has been determined in accordance with new calculation<br />
rules, and the need for reinforcement assessed.<br />
On site, it has been investigated whether the structures have defects or deficiencies that are not<br />
apparent from the project documentation investigation. Special attention has been paid to the<br />
investigation of whether the construction is in accordance with the documentation, and whether there<br />
are weaknesses in the structure owing to reduced durability or due to reconstruction.<br />
RESULTS<br />
Geometry and material data<br />
External dimensions, maximum spans and the material of the main load-bearing structures are shown<br />
in Table 3. The building’s external dimensions are quoted as width, length, height and roof slope. The<br />
height indicates the cornice height for buildings with approximately flat roofs and the roof ridge<br />
height for buildings with other roof shapes. Additions or extensions that are not included in the<br />
assessments have not been included in the dimensions.<br />
<strong>Manuscript</strong> No. ST/2005/024694 8 of 13