SEISMIC WORKS
elements will be inserted to reinforce columns and beams. The works also include the installation of bracing systems, dissipative meshes, as well as the construction of joint columns and bracing systems.
l Slab strengthening – By means of reinforced concrete overlays and fibre reinforcements.
l Necessary non-structural works – Plastering, painting, seismic-resistant support systems for non-structural elements and installations.
l Structural protection works – Cladding and intumescent treatments to provide adequate fire resistance.
The types of structural interventions designed to achieve seismic improvement can be summarised as follows: l Identification of the main structural interventions, defined according to general schemes ensuring reinforcement of beams and columns, and the insertion of steel frames extending vertically across all floors of the affected building wings (C, D, E, G, H) down to the foundations.
l Foundation reinforcements, including the enlargement of some footings and the installation of micropiles.
l Longitudinal and transverse steel bracing meshes to be inserted within the reinforced concrete structural framework.
l Column reinforcement by means of steel jacketing.
l Strengthening of the existing beams on the extrados with a lightweight structural slab;
l Insertion of anchor bolts to connect columns between floors.
l Construction of support elements for non-structural elements and installations. Specific steel-framed supports, anchored to the reinforced concrete beams, were designed for plant components (ducts and trays), so as to avoid anchoring them to the slab, which does not ensure safety against seismic action.
As already highlighted, the structural works had – and still have – to be carried out while maintaining hospital operations. For this reason, it was not possible, as would have been technically logical, to intervene immediately after the earthquake in many areas of the historical Monoblock building. For example, it has not yet been possible to intervene in the basement of wing D, which also includes foundation strengthening, due to the presence of the two main electrical cabins of the hospital. Currently, their transfer has been scheduled to a nearby area where seismic improvement works have already been completed, thus making it possible to vacate the current area and carry out the required structural works.
IFHE DIGEST 2026
These examples illustrate the difficulties not only of a technical nature but also organisational ones that must be faced in implementing such complex and impactful structural interventions, which affect not only healthcare activities directly but also the plant systems ensuring their functionality. The goal of achieving 60 per cent seismic safety compared to the standard required for new constructions must necessarily be reconciled with the need for continuity of healthcare services. This can only be achieved by carrying out the works in successive functional phases. The current Masterplan, developed with the aim of completing seismic improvement works to the 60 per cent target, is based on the above analysis and on the identification of the areas where works must be carried out. Accordingly, in the following image (Fig 7): l Areas marked in green indicate the floors of wings C, D, E, G, and H where seismic improvement works up to 60 per cent have already been carried out.
l Areas marked in yellow indicate the floors where interventions are still required to complete the seismic improvement of the five wings, involving major renovation works.
Because healthcare services must continue uninterrupted, the works are divided into four successive phases. The total project duration is estimated at 9 years and 6 months, including testing and validation. This staged approach ensures that seismic safety improvements do not compromise hospital functionality. Each phase will be awarded through specific tenders, with careful planning to guarantee safety for patients, visitors, and staff during construction (Fig 7).
Organisational and logistical challenges The project poses significant technical and organisational challenges: l Temporary relocation of wards during construction.
l Concurrent and potentially interfering worksites.
l Management of patient flows and hospital accessibility during renovations.
l High costs and extended timelines.
Despite these challenges, the University Hospital has chosen not to relocate its services to external facilities, avoiding additional costs and ensuring continuity of care. The routes will therefore be
Figure 6. Examples of structural elements.
reorganised in phases in order to reconcile healthcare activities with construction activities, defining in detail the closures and relocations of departments. As regards the works to be carried out in the
21
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104
