This article was downloaded by: [New York University]

On: 31 July 2015, At: 05:07

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

European Journal of Environmental and

Civil Engineering
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tece20

Cold-formed thin-walled steel

structures as vertical addition and
energetic retrofitting systems of
existing masonry buildings
a a a a
G. Terracciano , G. Di Lorenzo , A. Formisano & R. Landolfo
a
Department of Structures for Engineering and Architecture,
University of Naples “Federico II”, Naples, Italy
Published online: 10 Nov 2014.
Click for updates

To cite this article: G. Terracciano, G. Di Lorenzo, A. Formisano & R. Landolfo (2015) Cold-formed
thin-walled steel structures as vertical addition and energetic retrofitting systems of existing
masonry buildings, European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, 19:7, 850-866, DOI:
10.1080/19648189.2014.974832

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2014.974832

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:07 31 July 2015
 European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, 2015
Vol. 19, No. 7, 850–866, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2014.974832

Cold-formed thin-walled steel structures as vertical addition and

energetic retrofitting systems of existing masonry buildings
G. Terracciano, G. Di Lorenzo, A. Formisano* and R. Landolfo

Department of Structures for Engineering and Architecture, University of Naples “Federico II”,
Naples, Italy
(Received 15 May 2014; accepted 6 October 2014)

According to the current trend for sustainable constructions in urban areas, the
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:07 31 July 2015

present paper deals with the analysis of vertical addition systems for energetic
retrofitting of existing masonry buildings. Starting from the current European (EN
1998-3:2005) and Italian (NTC 08) technical codes for the seismic assessment of
existing structures, first a FEM model has been implemented to investigate the struc-
tural performances of masonry units with variable storeys (1, 2 and 3) and material
strength (fk = 1, 3 and 6 MPa). Later on, traditional (reinforced concrete, masonry
and steel) and innovative (glued laminated timber and cold-formed thin-walled steel)
technologies have been proposed as a solution for vertical addition of the studied
buildings. Therefore, a numerical campaign of linear dynamic analyses has been
undertaken on the examined structures aiming at selecting the best vertical addition
solution. The achieved numerical analysis results have provided cold-formed steel
systems as the dominant solution for improving the energetic behaviour of the
inspected existing masonry buildings. Finally, the achieved numerical results have
been confirmed by a consistent and reliable multicriteria decision-making (MCDM)
TOPSIS method, where the proposed vertical addition systems have been compared
with each other in terms of structural, environmental and economic performance
parameters.
Keywords: cold-formed thin-walled structures; vertical addition; masonry buildings;
sustainability; structural assessment; multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) methods

1. Introduction
In the last decades, the concept of “sustainable development” emerged due to the appar-
ent inadequacy of energy production to meet consumer demands without causing impact
on the quality of life. Constructions play a major role in the environmental issue, since
it represents the greatest impact source (Fusco, 2013). In this policy framework focused
on energy saving, retrofitting of existing buildings to improve the energy efficiency of
the existing built-up has a significant role. In this regard, acting on the thermal insula-
tion of the building envelope, the ventilation and the air exchange, the so-called smart
home can be attained: the energy consumption is controlled and reduced, while the ideal
living comfort levels are achieved.
Within such a scenario, the housing shortage recently appeared. This problem is
particularly acute for Italian city historic centres, where the population growth is

*Corresponding author. Email: antoform@unina.it

© 2014 Taylor & Francis

 European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering 851

remarkable. Housing scarceness is certainly due to the exponential population growth,

and also to the lack of building soils.
Consequently, economic and environmental structural solutions are needed. At the
same time, they should preserve the existing built-up and meet housing needs. Vertical
addition is a suitable alternative to the traditional idea of growth of cities, allowing for:
(a) the preservation of virgin lands for future generations; (b) the upgrading of building
energy efficiency through the installation of ventilated roofs; (c) the optimisation of
local resources, increasing the housing volumes; and (d) the urban renewal, since the
increase of residences in urban areas may be also the solution both for the overcrowding
of neighbourhoods and the excessive daily mobility of workers towards the cities
(Cukovic-Ignjatovic & Ignjatovic, 2006; Duglas, 2006).
On the other hand, as demonstrated by recent seismic events, vertical addition
should be limited to buildings having a reduced seismic vulnerability, such as good-
quality masonry structures with plan regularity and a limited number of storeys.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:07 31 July 2015

Moreover, the erection of added floors may be difficult in the historic centres due to
problems related to the transportation, assembly and installation of manufactured prod-
ucts (D’Ayala & Speranza, 2002).
In this context, the study presented in this paper deals with the structural behaviour
of masonry buildings, the most common constructive technique in South Italy, subjected
to vertical addition using both traditional and innovative technologies. The goal of the
performed study is to establish, by means of an extensive campaign of numerical analy-
ses, the more or less effectiveness of each technology. Finally, a cost-benefit approach is
used to establish the most suitable vertical addition solution.

2. Construction systems for vertical addition of existing buildings

2.1. Traditional and innovative constructive systems
Many construction systems could be used for vertical addition of existing masonry
buildings. Besides the obvious solution involving the use of the masonry itself, added
storeys could be realised using different construction technologies, which can be classi-
fied into traditional types and innovative ones (Table 1).
The materials currently used in the Italian and European construction practice belong
to the first category, traditional types. Glued laminated timber is preferred to timber,
which was used in the past for erection of floors, since it allows obtaining sections of
general shape with minimal defects and high structural performances.
The possibility of reducing the dimensions of the vertical addition structure members
has led, in some cases, to the use of reinforced concrete. This constructive technique
necessarily implies the realisation of tie beams rigid enough to reduce the local effects
transmitted by columns to masonry walls.
A strong reduction of actions transmitted to the sub-structure (from 4 to 10 times)
can be obtained using high structural efficiency materials. Excluding structures made of
composite materials with polymeric matrix because of their high costs, steel structures

Table 1. Construction technologies for vertical addition of existing masonry buildings.

Traditional Innovative
Timber Glued laminated timber
Reinforced concrete Composite materials with polymeric matrix
Hot – rolled steel Cold-formed and/or high-strength steel
 852 G. Terracciano et al.

made of hot-rolled steel elements are widely used for the retrofitting of existing
buildings (De Matteis, Formisano, & Mazzolani, 2009; Mazzolani, 2009). At this aim,
both moment-resisting frame structure and pin-jointed frames with alternative forms of
bracings or shear panels are employed (De Matteis, Formisano, Mazzolani, & Panico,
2005; Formisano, De Matteis, & Mazzolani, 2010).

2.2. Cold-formed thin-walled structures

An innovative solution combining the use of light materials (structural incidence of the
order of .15–.30 kN/m2) with structural typologies distributing vertical loads uniformly on
all the masonry walls, is represented by the use of cold-formed (CF) systems (Calderoni,
De Martino, Formisano, & Fiorino, 2009; Calderoni, Formisano, & De Martino, 2005;
Landolfo, Fiorino, & Di Lorenzo, 2002). Depending on the prefabrication level, three
types of cold-formed constructive systems, namely stick-built constructions, panelised
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:07 31 July 2015

constructions and modular constructions, can be identified. Among these, stick-built con-
structions are certainly the most suitable ones for vertical addition, mainly for technologi-
cal reasons related to the easier installation and transportation, which are the most
important requirements for vertical addition within densely populated areas as the city
centres. This structural typology, deriving from wood housing, is characterised by dry
assembly of one-dimensional elements (studs) placed each other at a distance ranging
from 300 to 600 mm (Figure 1). In stick-built constructions, the conceptual design of the
vertical load-bearing systems, known as “wall studs”, have an important role. They allow

Figure 1. Conceptual design of cold-formed steel frames.

 European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering 853

both transmitting vertical loads to foundations and sustaining horizontal actions due to
wind and/or earthquake.
The way to transmit vertical loads allows differentiating the structural typologies
into “balloon frames” and “platform frames”. In balloon framing, the studs (vertical
members) extend the full height of the building, while in platform framing the wall
studs are independent for each floor.
On the other hand, the way to resist horizontal actions allows classifying the struc-
tural typologies into sheathing-braced and x-braced systems, respectively. In the first
solution, the bracing function is provided by cladding panels, normally made of wood,
attached to the studs by means of special connection systems designed to ensure energy
dissipation by bearing in the sheathing. In the x-braced system, the bracing function is
provided by steel braces. If designed according to the capacity design criterion, the
braces can ensure satisfactory ductility. In this case, the cladding panels have a protec-
tion function against the environmental actions. A typical stick-built construction with
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:07 31 July 2015

focus also on floor system is depicted in Figure 2.

3. Seismic assessment of existing masonry buildings

According to the provisions of the Italian technical code (NTC 08) (Ministerial Decree
of Public Works, 2008), the structural assessment of existing buildings is carried out by
means of analysis methods and code checks depending on the so-called “Knowledge
Levels” (KLs), based on the available information about the building geometry, con-
struction details and material properties. KLs influence the “Confidence factors” (CFs),
which modify the capacity parameters and the material partial factors to be used for
code checks. NTC 08 defines general criteria for the safety assessment of existing build-
ings, providing in the explanatory circular approved in 2009 (Circular n. 617, 2009)
guidance for KLs identification. According to the Italian code, three different KLs can
be defined. In particular, information about buildings can be limited (KL1), adequate
(KL2) and accurate (KL3). The analysis methods of masonry buildings can be either lin-
ear or nonlinear, both static and dynamic. In case of linear methods, seismic actions are
defined on the basis of a design spectrum, obtained by reducing the elastic spectrum by
the behaviour factor (q-factor), which implicitly takes into account the dissipation capa-
bility of structural systems. The behaviour factor depends on the structure type, design
criteria and material non-linear properties. The values of the q-factor for new and

Figure 2. Erection phase of a stick-built structure (a) and details of the typical floor system (b).
 854 G. Terracciano et al.

existing ordinary masonry buildings are compared in Table 2. As shown in the same
table, the q-factors are reduced in case of structural irregularity. Indeed, past seismic
events demonstrated that structural irregularities reduce the global energy dissipation
capability due to excessive excursion in the plastic field of few structural elements only.
Although linear analysis methods take into account the structural non-linear behav-
iour by the behaviour factors, they are not capable to get both changes in the system
response due to plasticisation and inelasticity distributions.
These phenomena can be evaluated by non-linear analysis methods, accounting for
material and geometrical non-linearities, change of structure stiffness and strength and
evolution of plasticity until the building collapse. Despite the difficulty in modelling the
material and structural components (piers, spandrels and nodal panels), the non-linear
static analysis are widely used for the study of masonry buildings, allowing for a more
realistic and reliable evaluation of the structural response. On the other hand, although
the non-linear procedures are easily implemented into all computer programs, they must
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:07 31 July 2015

be applied to both in-plan and in-elevation regular buildings only.

The vertical addition systems made of materials different from masonry give rise to
irregular buildings. Indeed, the stiffness difference between the masonry base building
and the added floor makes the extended masonry building as an in-elevation irregular
building. Consequently, the dynamic behaviour evaluation of super-elevated systems
cannot be disregarded.

4. Safety assessment of vertically extended Masonry buildings

4.1. Selection of the study sub-structures
A building in-line representative of the Naples built-up at the beginning of ‘900 has
been selected as a case study (Figure 3). According to Section 8.7.1 of the NTC 08
(Ministerial Decree of Public Works, 2008), a single structural masonry unit has been
extrapolated from the selected building in order to be vertically extended. The storeys
of the structural unit have been considered as variables from 1 to 3. Therefore, appropri-
ate wall thicknesses have been considered, namely 40 cm for the one-storey structure,
50 cm for the two-storey structure and 60, 50 and 40 cm for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors,
respectively, of the three-storey structure. 4.20 and 3.60 m have been used as inter-sto-
rey heights of the ground floor and the other floors, respectively. As a consequence, the
aspect ratios of lateral and central piers have been considered equal to 1 and .5,
respectively. The structural units have the potentiality to be vertically extended due the
following reasons. First of all, the unit was provided with 6 m spaced load-bearing shear

Table 2. Behaviour factors for ordinary masonry buildings.

Regular in Not regular in
elevation elevation
New buildings αu/α1 = 1.4 (1 story) 2.80 2.24
αu/α1 = 1.8 (2 or more 3.60 2.88
storeys)
Existing αu/α1 = 1.5 3.00 2.25
buildings
α1 is the horizontal seismic force multiplier attaining the ultimate strength in a pier.
αu is the 90% of the horizontal seismic force multiplier producing the building collapse.
 European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering 855
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:07 31 July 2015

Figure 3. The case study: a structural unit extracted from an urban masonry aggregate.

walls (less than 7 m, which is the maximum limit for new buildings) having a masonry
area – to – gross building area ratio in the two main directions within the limits of NTC
08 (Ministerial Decree of Public Works, 2008). Furthermore, the floors, made of steel
beams and hollow clay tiles, have been retrofitted with a reinforced concrete slab
anchored to the floor beams by shear connectors in order to give rise to a rigid dia-
phragm. Moreover, tie beams have been considered in order to both distribute the forces
among shear walls and ensure a building global box behaviour. It is worth to be noticed
that, for the installation of the vertical addition structure, the removal of a roof slope
slab has been foreseen, it producing a reduction of the permanent loads equal to 1.10
kN/m2.

4.2. Parametric study

The possible use of cold-formed systems for vertical addition of existing masonry build-
ings has been investigated by means of a parametric study. The FEM models of the
selected structural masonry units have been implemented by means of the PRO_SAP
structural program (PROfessional Structural Analysis Program [PRO_SAP], 2008)
(Figure 4). Masonry walls have been modelled by shell elements with mesh size of
about 30 cm. The geometrical models of the masonry units have been provided with lat-
eral restraints to reproduce the presence of adjacent buildings. A linear stress–strain
behaviour in compression and a negligible tensile strength have been assumed for the
masonry material. The dynamic properties of the masonry units have been discussed in
detail in (Terracciano, 2009).
As shown in Figures 5–9, the vertical addition systems made of masonry, reinforced
concrete, hot-rolled steel, cold-formed thin-walled steel and glued laminated timber have
been designed. Later on, the masonry compression (fk = 1, 3 and 6 MPa) and shear
 856 G. Terracciano et al.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:07 31 July 2015

Figure 4. FEM model of the base masonry building with the PRO_SAP analysis software.

Figure 5. The vertical addition masonry structure.

(fvk0 = .10 and .15 MPa) strength have been selected as variables for the masonry
sub-structure. The main elements of the parametric study performed with the PRO-SAP
software are illustrated in Figure 10 (Terracciano, Formisano, Mazzolani, Landolfo, &
Di Lorenzo, 2009).
Once the geometrical parameters of the sub-structure have been fixed, the FEM
models of all the vertical addition systems have been prepared. Shell elements with
30 cm mesh size have been used to model the masonry-added floor, whereas beam
elements have been employed to model all the other vertical addition systems.
By varying the number of floors, the vertical addition solutions and the masonry
mechanical properties, a numerical simulation programme consisting of 18 × 3 models
has been generated (Figure 11). The vulnerability towards both seismic actions (max
PGA at Life-Safety Limit State) and vertical loads (max vertical load at the Ultimate
 European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering 857
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:07 31 July 2015

Figure 6. The vertical addition-reinforced concrete structure.

Figure 7. The vertical addition hot-rolled steel structure.

Limit State) of the base masonry buildings has been assessed. In the first case, the seis-
mic vulnerability has been evaluated by dynamic analyses with the design spectrum. At
this aim, the response spectrum foreseen in Naples for the life-safety limit state has been
considered. The seismic action has been assumed acting along the most vulnerable
direction, which is the transverse one for building aggregates.
On the other hand, concerning the vertical load vulnerability, the maximum vertical
load sustainable by the super-structure roof up to the masonry wall failure at the vertical
addition structure – sub-structure interface has been estimated. This study has been used
to evaluate the masonry building capacity to resist accidental vertical actions, i.e. due to
ash falls deriving from a possible Vesuvius eruption.
 858 G. Terracciano et al.

4.3. Design of the vertical addition system by CF Steel

The vertical addition structures listed in the Section 4.2 have been designed according
to the Italian code (Ministerial Decree of Public Works, 2008). Omitting for brevity the
details of the design process of the traditional constructive solutions (masonry, rein-
forced concrete, rolled steel and timber), the design phases involving the CF solution
are herein briefly discussed (Terracciano et al., 2009). A stick-built platform frame
braced according to the x-bracing approach has been considered. The bracing system
has been designed following the capacity design principles, favouring the full plasticisa-
tion of the tensile diagonals, linked to the energy dissipation system. The system
non-dissipative structural elements (studs, tracks, connections, shear anchors and hold-
downs), have been oversized to guarantee their elastic behaviour until the diagonal
collapse. This has been achieved using S275 steel and adequate thicknesses for both
studs and tracks and S235 steel for the diagonal strips (Figure 8). In the numerical
model, the following actions have been considered: (a) dead loads; (b) permanent loads
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:07 31 July 2015

due to the coverage-insulated panels; (c) snow load, equal to 1.00 kN/m2. The earth-
quake has been represented by means of an elastic spectrum characterised by a PGA of
.35 g and increased with a Dynamic Amplification Factor (DAF) of 2 to take into
account the dynamic amplification effect produced by the sub-structure (Terracciano,
2009). According to experimental studies performed on different configurations of
x-braced walls (Al-Kharat & Rogers, 2006), in the modelling of seismic actions, a
behaviour factor equal to 3 has been assumed.

4.4. Comparison among results

The vulnerability study performed with modal analysis has shown that, except for the
masonry super-structure, all the techniques allow to increase the maximum acceleration
ag bearable by the sub-structure from 7 to 26% (Figure 12).
The reasons of the performance increase are follows: (1) the slope slab removal; and
(2) the improvement of the in-plane structural performance of building shear walls. The
slab removal reduces the overall structural system weight. This is due to the fact that

Figure 8. The vertical addition cold-formed, thin-walled steel structure.

 European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering 859
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:07 31 July 2015

Figure 9. The vertical addition glued laminated timber structure.

Figure 10. Basic elements of the parametric study.

the removed slope slab weight, approximately equal to 1.10 kN/m2, is higher than the
super-structure incidence per unit area, which ranges from .60 to .80 kN/m2 and includes
non-structural weights. Concerning the shear wall performances, the added floor directly
loads up the shear walls and also improves the bending–compression and shear resis-
tances of the walls. For masonry buildings characterised by low mechanical properties
(fk = 1 MPa and fvk0 = .10 MPa), representative of the Neapolitan area built-up, the best
solutions in terms of seismic performance are the low-weight vertical additions
(Figure 12). Indeed, in this case, a combined bending–compression failure mechanism
in lateral piers has been occurred.
 860 G. Terracciano et al.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:07 31 July 2015

Figure 11. Typological matrix of the numerical simulation programme.

Figure 12. Max PGA at the life safety limit state (fk = 1 MPa and fvk0 = .10 MPa).

However, the dynamic analyses have not shown a unique optimal solution varying
the number of floors. If vulnerability towards vertical loads is considered (Figure 13)
and when tie beams having a properly flexural stiffness are absent, as in the usual con-
structive practice, the reinforced concrete system provides clearly the worst result
because of both its high–weight and the significant stress concentration at the interface
between the columns and the masonry structure. The stress concentration appeared also
installing the light-weight frame super-structure, even if it is lower. The CF structures
are an exception. Indeed, they are made of studs close to each other realizing wall pan-
els able to transmit uniform loads to the sub-structure. Therefore, these structures repre-
sent the most favourable solution for vertical addition of existing masonry buildings,
since they restore the continuity of walls.
Finally, the dynamic analyses have also allowed to estimate the DAFs characterizing
the super-structure located on the building top. Comparing the response of the super-
structure with the same structure located at the ground level, it is noticed that that the
 European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering 861
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:07 31 July 2015

Figure 13. Max vertical load at the ultimate limit state (fk = 1 MPa and fvk0 = .10 MPa).

super-structure undergoes a base shear amplification ranging from 1.08 to 4.10. Table 3
shows the DAFs to be used in the first phase of the design process if the base masonry
building model is excluded for simplicity.

5. Choice of the optimal solution according to multicriteria decision-making

methods
The achieved numerical results have been confirmed by applying an innovative multicri-
teria decision-making (MCDM) method. This approach has allowed to compare with
each other the above different techniques, the so-called alternatives, with reference to
given performance criteria, namely structural (Max PGA at the Life Safety Limit State
and max vertical load at the Ultimate Limit State), environmental (Life Cycle Assess-
ments, related to materials production (Lavagna, 2008) and Energy Performance Index
for building winter heating) and economic parameters (Super-structure cost) (Table 4).
The existing literature offers many multicriteria decision methods in order to select
the best solution from a set of different alternatives on the basis of a set of selection cri-
teria. In this application, the TOPSIS method is used (Hwang & Yoon, 1981). Accord-
ing to this procedure, the best alternative should have the shortest distance from the
positive ideal solution and the farthest distance from the negative ideal one. Considering
the relative distances of each alternative from the ideal ones, the preference order among
proposed solutions is achieved.

Table 3. Dynamic Amplification Factors.

Base masonry structure
Vertical addition structure material 1 storey 2 storeys 3 storeys
Reinforced concrete 1.72 2.52 2.65
Glued laminated timber 2.53 3.47 2.66
Hot-rolled steel 2.94 3.07 2.69
Cold-formed steel 1.08 3.54 4.10
 862 G. Terracciano et al.

Table 4. Judgement criteria.

C1 – Energy performance index (EPi) C2 – Life cycle assessment (LCA)
C3 – Max vertical load at the ultimate limit state C4 – Max PGA at the life safety limit state
(Qv eff ) (PGA)
C5 – Super-structure structural cost

The MCDM problem involves the definition of both the decision matrix D and the
criterion weight wi. With regard to the two-level structural units, the D matrix has been
defined taking into account that the matrix elements dij are the rating of the alternative
Ai with respect to the criterion Cj (Table 5).
The weights of the criteria, expressed in percentage terms so that their sum is equal
to one, have been determined through the AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) method
developed by Saaty (1980), considering the linear scale of relative importance among
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:07 31 July 2015

alternatives (Table 6). So, by means of the Saaty’ scale, the pairwise comparison matrix
A is determined (Table 7). Each value aij of the matrix A measures the relative impor-
tance of the criterion Ci with respect to the criterion Cj. Consequently, the main eigen-
vector WT, whose components [w1, w2, w3, w4, w5] are identified in the column vector
[.0764, .0481, .1560, .2682, .4513] and represent the criteria weights, has been deter-
mined. Since this procedure is based on the decision-maker opinions, the judgement
consistency has been verified in order to guarantee the objectivity of the final solution.
In particular, the consistency ratio (RC) has been evaluated by checking that it did not
exceed the limit specified by Saaty.
In more detail, the TOPSIS method proposed in this paper for the two-level struc-
tural units only, has been applied through the following steps: (1) definition of the nor-
malised decision matrix R (Table 8), considering that the alternatives are judged on the
basis of criteria involving different physical quantities; (2) calculation of the weighted
normalised decision matrix V (Table 9), obtained by multiplying each column of the
matrix R for the corresponding weight; (3) determination of virtual best and worst solu-
tions (Table 10); (4) calculation of the distance of each alternative from virtual ones; (5)
assessment of the relative distance from the best solution (Ci ), which gives rise to the
preference order ranking among alternatives (Table 11) (Formisano, De Lucia, &
Mazzolani, 2011).
The application of the procedure has shown that the best solution is the cold-formed
steel one. The results have also been validated through a sensitivity analysis, used to
verify that the final results have not been influenced by the decision-maker judgements.
By assessing the absolute (AT) and the percentage (PT) variation parameters of the
criteria weight, it has been shown that the solution is stable. In fact, as shown in
Table 12, C1 is a strong criterion, since S = 1/PT = 0 (it means that C1 weight value

Table 5. Decision matrix D (fk = 1 MPa and fvk0 = 0,10 MPa).

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
Alternative kWm/m2 year – KN/m2 g €/m2
Glued laminated timber A1 162.80 .2096 6.16 .1680 174.00
Reinforced concrete A2 149.80 .8766 2.50 .1760 85.62
Hot-rolled steel A3 195.70 .5731 5.85 .1600 106.81
Masonry A4 168.30 .8405 10.50 .1340 103.92
Cold-formed steel A5 183.60 .5731 13.19 .1800 111.94
 European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering 863

Table 6. Saaty’ scale of relative importance.

Intensity of importance aij Definition
1 Equal importance
3 Moderate importance
5 Strong importance
7 Very strong importance
9 Extreme importance
2, 4, 6, 8 Intermediate preferences

Table 7. Pairwise comparison matrix A.

Judgement criterion C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
Energy performance index (EPi) C1 1 3 1/4 1/4 1/5
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:07 31 July 2015

Life cycle assessment (LCA) C2 1/3 1 1/3 1/5 1/6

Max vertical load at the ultimate limit state (Qv eff ) C3 4 3 1 1/3 1/3
Max PGA at the life safety limit state (PGA) C4 4 5 3 1 1/3
Super-structure structural costs C5 5 6 3 3 1

Table 8. Matrix R – Normalised decision matrix (fk = 1 MPa and fvk0 = .10 MPa).
Alternative C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
Glued laminated timber A1 .4214 .1421 .3235 .4570 .6469
Reinforced concrete A2 .3877 .5943 .1313 .4787 .3183
Hot-rolled steel A3 .5065 .3885 .3072 .4352 .3971
Masonry A4 .4356 .5698 .5514 .3645 .3863
Cold-formed steel A5 .4752 .3885 .6926 .4896 .4162

Table 9. Weighted normalised decision matrix V (fk = 1 MPa and fvk0 = .10 MPa).
Alternative C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
Glued laminated timber A1 .0322 .0068 .0505 .1226 .2920
Reinforced concrete A2 .0296 .0286 .0205 .1284 .1437
Hot-rolled steel A3 .0387 .0187 .0479 .1167 .1792
Masonry A4 .0333 .0274 .0860 .0977 .1744
Cold-formed steel A5 .0363 .0187 .1081 .1313 .1878

Table 10. Virtual best (A+) and worst (A−) solutions.

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
+
A .0296 .0286 .1081 .1313 .1437
A− .0387 .0068 .0205 .0977 .2920
 864 G. Terracciano et al.

Table 11. Preference order of alternatives on the basis of the relative distance from the best
solution Ci .
1 Cold-formed steel (A5) .7726
2 Hot-rolled steel (A3) .6565
3 Reinforced concrete (A2) .5741
4 Masonry (A4) .4648
5 Glued laminated timber (A1) .3412

Table 12. Sensitivity study.

Criterion wi AT PT (%) S
C1 .0764 – 0 0
C2 .0481 .3477 723 .0014
C3 .1560 .0755 48 .0207
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:07 31 July 2015

C4 .2682 .5507 205 .0049

C5 .4513 .4860 108 .0093

changes does not involve modifications in the preference order classification), while the
influence of the variation of other criterion weight is quite modest, producing only in
few cases different preference orders.

6. Conclusions
In this study, the comparative analyses of different manufacturing technologies to be
used for vertical addition of existing masonry buildings with storey number variable
from one to three have been done. Once the geometrical parameters of the sub-structure
have been fixed, by varying the number of floors, the vertical addition structure and the
masonry mechanical properties, a numerical simulation programme based on linear
dynamic analyses has been generated. The vulnerability of the base masonry buildings
has been assessed towards both seismic actions (max PGA at Life Safety Limit State)
and gravity loads (max vertical load at the Ultimate Limit State). The achieved results
have shown that the dynamic behaviour due to the difference in stiffness between sub-
structure and super-structure cannot be neglected. In fact, if the response of the super-
structure is compared with that of the same structure positioned at the ground level, it is
evident that the former is affected by larger forces with an amplification factor ranging
from 1.08 to 4.10, depending on both the base building features and the vertical addi-
tion system type. The results of linear dynamic analyses have also indicated that, except
for the super-structure made of masonry, all other techniques allow to increase the struc-
tural performance of the base building. With regard to low-strength masonry buildings,
the selection of the most effective solution, as the number of floors of the masonry sub-
structure changes, is not so simple. If we consider the performance evaluation for verti-
cal loads, we can certainly say that in all cases, without adequately rigid tie beams, the
super-structures made of a framing scheme are certainly the worst solutions because of
the considerable stress concentration at the columns–masonry structure interface. The
use of cold-formed structures, realising panel walls able to both restore the masonry
continuity and transmit uniformly the loads to the base structure, is certainly preferable.
As a result, these structures represent the most favourable solution for vertical addition
of existing masonry buildings. These numerical results have also been validated by
 European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering 865

applying a MCDM method. In particular, through a sensitivity analysis, it has been

checked that the final results were not influenced by the decision-maker judgements. By
assessing the absolute (AT) and the percentage (PT) variation parameters of the criteria
weight, it has been shown that the solution found is stable. In fact, one criterion was
strong, while the influence of the other criteria weight variation was quite modest, pro-
ducing only in very few cases different preference orders. This allows making reliable
the results achieved from the performed study, which has found a new and seismically
efficient solution for increasing living spaces into city centres.

Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the “2S.I. Software and Engineering Services” for the free furniture of
the programs PRO_SAP used in the present study.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:07 31 July 2015

References
Al-Kharat, M., & Rogers, C. A. (2006). Inelastic performance of cold-formed steel strap braced
walls. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 63, 460–474.
Calderoni, B., De Martino, A., Formisano, A., & Fiorino, L. (2009). Cold formed steel beams
under monotonic and cyclic loading: Experimental investigation. Journal of Constructional
Steel Research, 65, 219–227. ISSN: 0143-974X.
Calderoni, B., Formisano, A., & De Martino, A. (2005, January 20–22). Flexural cyclic behaviour
and low-cycle fatigue of cold-formed steel members. In Proceedings of the COST Action C12
Final Conference, Innsbruck, Austria (pp. 301–309). Great Britain: A.A. Balkema Publishers.
ISBN: 04-1536-609-7.
Circular n. 617 published on 2009, February 2nd. Instructions for application of “New technical
codes for constructions” (NTC 08). Official Gazette of the Italian Republic n. 47 published on
2009, February 26th, Ordinary Supplement n. 27, 2009.
Cukovic-Ignjatovic, N., & Ignjatovic, D. (2006, September). Some possibilities of extensions in
building renovation. Proceedings of the 23rd Conference on Passive and Low Energy
Architecture, Geneva.
D’Ayala, D., & Speranza, E. (2002, September). An integrated procedure for the assessment of
seismic vulnerability of historic buildings. Proceedings of the 12th European Earthquake
Engineering, London.
De Matteis, G., Formisano, A., & Mazzolani, F. M. (2009). An innovative methodology for seis-
mic retrofitting of existing RC buildings by metal shear panels. Earthquake Engineering &
Structural Dynamics, 38, 61–78. ISSN: 0098-8847.
De Matteis, G., Formisano, A., Mazzolani, F. M., & Panico,S. (2005, January 20–22). Design of
low-yield metal shear panels for energy dissipation. Proceedings of the COST ACTION
C12 Final Conference, Innsbruck, Austria, A.A. Balkema Publishers, Great Britain. ISBN:
04-1536-609-7.
Duglas, J. (2006). Building adaptation. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Formisano, A., De Lucia, T., & Mazzolani, F. M. (2011, September 6–9). Multi-criteria decision
methods for structural modification interventions: vertical addition and seismic retrofitting.
Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Civil, Structural and Environmental
Engineering Computing (CC 2011), Chania, Crete.
Formisano, A., De Matteis, G., & Mazzolani, F. M. (2010). Numerical and experimental behav-
iour of a full-scale RC structure upgraded with steel and aluminium shear panels. Computers
& Structures, 88, 1348–1360. ISSN: 0045-7949.
Fusco, G. L. (2013). Toward a smart sustainable development of port cities/areas: The role of the
“Historic Urban Landscape” approach. Sustainability, 5, 4329–4348.
Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making, Vol. 186. Lecture Notes in
Economics and Mathematical Systems. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Landolfo, R., Fiorino, L., & Di Lorenzo, G. (2002). Current trends and further developments for
cold-formed constructive systems (in Italian). Costruzioni Metalliche, 1, 33–50.
 866 G. Terracciano et al.

Lavagna, M. (2008). Life cycle assessment in Edilizia – Design in an environmental sustainability

perspective. Milan: Hoepli.
Mazzolani, F. M. (2009). Refurbishment by steelwork. Luxembourg: Arcelor Mittal.
Ministerial Decree of Public Works published on 2008, January 14th (NTC 08). (2008). New
technical codes for constructions [in Italian]. Official Gazette of the Italian Republic.
PROfessional Structural Analysis Program. (2008). Ferrar. Retrieved from http://www.2si.it
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Terracciano, G. (2009). Comparative study on the use of constructive typologies for vertical addition
of masonry buildings [in Italian] (Degree thesis). University of Naples “Federico II”, Naples.
Terracciano, G., Formisano, A., Mazzolani, F. M., Landolfo, R., & Di Lorenzo, G. (2009, September
28–30). Possibility of use of cold-formed thin walled members for vertical extension of existing
masonry building [in Italian]. Proceedings of the XXII CTA Congress: “Steel for a sustainable
future”, Padua, (pp. 1005–1018).
Downloaded by [New York University] at 05:07 31 July 2015