Temporary systems after the earthquake in L’Aquila

Abstract

After an earthquake, temporary structures play a key role in the immediate emergency and during the reconstruction. In the territory of L'Aquila, after the earthquake of the 6th April 2009, tents were used in the first emergency to provide immediate shelter to the population and prefabricated structures have been used later to accommodate the population during the longest stage of the reconstruction. But there is another type of temporariness too, linked to the securing of the damaged buildings and aimed to preserve the historical and artistic value and ensure the safety of road and workers during the reconstruction period. The secure systems use temporary devices, consisting mainly of tubular scaffoldings, multi-directional systems, systems in wood, systems with metal profiles and steel cables, polyester clamps. These systems are used interchangeably according to the function they perform, flexibility, time and cost of installation. During the reconstruction phase safety systems are disassembled, progressively generating an enormous amount of waste materials. For these materials it has not been planned a second lifecycle and disposal has a high environmental impact. It is proposed the reuse of these waste materials at zero distance. The purpose is to obtain environmental, logistic and economic advantages. Reuse provides a function change under the temporary, from safety systems to building systems, aimed to the construction of temporary structures, which, in the reconstruction phase, simplify site organization and, in the post-reconstruction phase, restructure public and private spaces.

Top-down reconstruction and the failure to “build back better” resilient communities after disaster: lessons from the 2009 L'Aquila Italy earthquake

“…The red zone was carved-up into districts and assigned to various influential local and national building firms. De Berardinis and De Gregorio (2014) claimed that in L'Aquila city alone, approximately 40,000 cubic metres of wood, 400,000 polyester strap ratchet clamps, 10,000 tonnes of steel, and 2 million segments of tubular scaffolding were used in the temporary safety measures. However, far from putting buildings into safety or being conducive to the effective physical reconstruction of damaged buildings, most safety measures implemented were disproportionate and damaging to property.…”

“…Safety measure implementation was not accompanied by any mid or long-term planning, or by any consideration of the social-ecological lifecycle of the materials being used, nor of how these interventions could have contributed to the physical reconstruction of the buildings (De Berardinis and De Gregorio, 2014). At the time of writing (early 2020), effective and sustainable procedures for dismantling, transporting, storing and re-using (or disposing) the safety measures are still unclear.…”

Circular Process for Sustainable On-Site Management of Valuable Materials in the Rehabilitation of the Built Heritage

“…The material's ID provides information needed to assess whether the component has the characteristics (material, technological and performance) to be reused in the redevelopment site of the same building in which it has already experienced its last life cycle [45]. If it is compatible, a zero-meter reuse, called endogenous reuse, is configured.…”

“…Otherwise, if the component is not compatible for endogenous reuse, compatibility for reuse at a redevelopment site located in a local dimension [46] may be assessed through exogenous reuse [45]; this is to ensure that the environmental and economic benefit from reuse is marred by the incidence of transportation. In the time between the selective demolition phase and the exogenous reuse phase, components will need to be temporarily stored under conditions that ensure that their performance is maintained.…”

The enhancement of local resources: research, teaching and experimentations in L’Aquila

“…2), both linked to territorial peculiarities such as wood, fibers linked to agriculture (straw), waste from the zootechnical industry (sheep wool) and to the current post-seismic reconstruction phase (rubble, pallets, materials deriving from selective demolition such as tiles, solid bricks, etc.). In particular, previous research [15] has highlighted the availability of a significant amount of waste result-ing from the disassembly of safety systems including scaffolding, pallets, steel beams, etc., materials whose transport to landfill and disposal involves significant logistical, economic and environmental costs for the community [16,17].…”