3rd International Conference on

PROTECTION OF HISTORICAL CONSTRUCTIONS

Lisbon, Portugal, 12 15 July, 2017

REHABILITATION OF A SET OF HOUSING BUILDINGS IN A

HERITAGE PROTECTION ZONE IN LISBON

David M. Gama*, Joo F. Almeida* and Miguel S. Loureno*

* Structural Engineers at JSJ Structural Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal

e-mails: dgama@jsj.pt, jalmeida@jsj.pt, mlourenco@jsj.pt

Keywords: Rehabilitation; Heritage; Seismic design; Traditional materials.

Abstract. In this paper the essential aspects of the rehabilitation of a set of housing buildings,
constructed at the end of the 19th century in the Liberdade Avenue, in Lisbon, are presented. These
buildings are located in a special protection zone, intended to protect the built heritage. Therefore, it
was necessary to take into account not only the demands related with structural safety, economy and
execution time, but also the ones that result from the heritage protection. These aspects led to the use
of a great diversity of structural solutions and materials for the reinforcement of the buildings
structure and its different elements: foundations, resistant walls in masonry and wood pavements.

1 INTRODUCTION
This paper presents the essential aspects of the rehabilitation of a set of housing buildings,
constructed at the end of the 19th century in the Liberdade Avenue and Rosa Arajo Street in
Lisbon (Fig.1). This is a central area of the city with great historical importance; therefore it is
part of a special heritage protection area. In this context, the structural intervention had to
reconcile the need to preserve the original identity of the buildings (both in terms of the
original structural design and existing materials), the architectural program and the comfort
and safety requirements (both structural and not structural) of a modern housing building. It
should be noted that these buildings are intended for luxury housing, thus raising the
requirements of comfort. These requirements are often incompatible with the original
structural solutions, resulting in an additional challenge to structural design.

Figure 1: Location of the set of buildings.

 David M. Gama et al.

1 STRUCTURAL CHARACTERIZATION OF THE ORIGINAL BUILDINGS

The original design documents were not available, thus, the information on the
construction was obtained from geometric/topographic surveys and on knowledge acquired
during the construction works and of the constructive practices of the construction era. The
buildings originally have a basement, ground floor and five to six stories, the exception being
Building 2, with only two stories (Figs. 2, 3). Their structural system consists of:

Floors made of wood frames topped with flooring and supported on exterior and
interior walls. These wood beams are, in general, perpendicular to the faades;
Exterior Walls and their Foundations The exterior walls are made of rubble stone
masonry with limestone and lime mortar; it thicknesses vary in height (between
0.65m and 1.15m), being substantially wider in the foundations. In some cases the
wall is supported on arches that born on stone masonry piers, reaching the
resistance stratum more than 12m below the ground level;
Interior Walls and their Foundations - The interior walls are either: (i) structural
(rubble masonry wall, with a wood bracing structure, 0.15m thick) or (ii) non-
structural (wood boards). Most of the interior walls have no continuity to the
ground floor (because it is a commercial floor), being supported on cast-iron beams
at the first floor. These beams are supported by columns of the same material,
which are supported on stone columns with foundations on the -1 floor.
Roofs Portuguese roof tiles supported on wood rafters.

Figure 2: Original front elevation and general cross-section of the set of buildings 1 to 5.

2
 David M. Gama et al.

Figure 3: Original Floor Plan of buildings 1 to 4.

The conservation state before the intervention was different from building to building.
Building 1 was very well preserved. In fact, although it was built at a time when good
constructive practices were in disuse, the constructive philosophy, structural design and
quality of execution were high. The exterior walls are robust and well founded, the wood
framework embedded in the masonry walls and the interior walls form a three-dimensional
cage (Fig. 4 a)). The exceptions were the pavement of kitchen/bathrooms where, due to water
infiltrations, the degradation of the wood beams was evident. Buildings 2 to 5, however, were
severely damaged, with several anomalies in the structural elements (infiltrations,
proliferation of fungi, attack of woodworm, excessive deformation ...); to the point that one of
the buildings exterior walls have collapsed (Fig. 4 b)).

a) Building 1: Interior walls (after the masonry fill demolition) b) Building 2 - Ruins

Figure 4

2 INTERVENTION

2.1 General Aspects

The original set of buildings was divided into three structural blocks (Fig. 5):

3
 David M. Gama et al.

Block A, where, given the good state of conservation of the original building, the
intervention consisted in the rehabilitation and reinforcement of the existing
structure; the building was also expanded vertically with two upper floors;
Block B, where, due to the state of degradation, a complete demolition of all the
buildings that constitute this block was executed, preserving only the front and
back faades. These faades were enlarged both in height and width, while
maintaining the original aesthetics. The new structure is in prestressed concrete;
Block C corresponds to the smaller building, where a complete demolition was also
executed, while maintaining the main faade. The new structure is in prestressed
concrete.
In the area corresponding to Blocks B and C, the architect planned three underground
floors for car parking. This corresponds to an excavation with a variable depth of 12 to 14m.
A tunnel was made in order to allow access to the parking lot from Block A. This tunnel is at
levels -1 and -2, as shown in Fig. 5.

Figure 5: Front elevation and general cross-section after the intervention.

4
 David M. Gama et al.

Figure 6: Floor Plan (typical underground and upper levels).

2.1 Block A
On the upper floors the architect planned the demolition of several interior walls, including
those supporting the wood beams. As so, a framed structure of steel beams and columns was
adopted to support the wood framework; the steel elements on the outer perimeter were fixed
to the exterior masonry wall (Fig. 7).

Figure 7: Steel elements fixed to the exterior masonry wall.

5
 David M. Gama et al.

The steel columns are supported at

the first floor level by the original
structural system of cast-iron
columns, now embedded on concrete
columns as shows Fig. 8.
In the floor areas corresponding to
bathrooms and kitchens the
requirements related to the thermal
and acoustics did not allow
maintaining the wood pavement,
reason why a composite floor
solution was adopted (Fig. 9). This
solution was also adopted in the areas
where the wood floors were
damaged.
On the ground floor, due the
increase of loads corresponding to the
new commercial use (with a high
liveload, 4 kN / m2), the existing
floors were completely replaced by
the composite slab solution.
Figure 8: Strengthening of the existing masonry
Floor -1 (which also corresponds
and cast-iron columns
to the foundations level) is a
structural slab in reinforced concrete.

Figure 9: Composite slab detail and photo.

The foundations of the original building are at floor -1, where due to the increase of loads,
it was necessary to transfer the loads from the existing foundations to micropiles (Figs. 8 and
10).

6
 David M. Gama et al.

Figure 10: Foundation Strengthening: Piles Cap.

The architectural proposal planned a vertical expansion of the building. This expansion
was made with a steel structural solution, as shown in Fig. 11. This structure is supported by:
(i) a reinforced concrete beam, directly connected to the exterior masonry walls and to the
steel frame system and (ii) the interior shear walls.

Figure 11: Vertical expansion of the building.

Seimic Strengthening

The adopted measures for seismic strengthening of the building were: (i) to ensure that the
floors have a diaphragm behavior; (ii) the strengthening of the exterior masonry walls; (iii) to
create shear walls with the strengthening of the inner courtyard and existing stairs masonry
walls.

(i) Diaphragm behavior - The diaphragm behavior of the floors of the structure is
guaranteed by the composite slabs and by steel bracing (Fig. 12) in the zones where the wood
framework was maintained;

7
 David M. Gama et al.

Figure 12: Steel bracing on the wood framework areas.

(ii) Strengthening of the exterior masonry walls Reinforced plastering mortar layers and
transverse connections were used on the exterior masonry walls (Fig. 13). The use of this
solution increases wall confinement, thus its strength and ductility. As so, the behavior of the
walls was improved, both in their plane (contributing to the seismic resistance of the
structure) and out of the plane (which corresponds to a local failure mode in masonry
buildings). The thickness of the reinforcement layers varied from 3 to 5cm, according to the
circumstances. They incorporated stretched steel mesh (inner side) or carbon fiber mesh
(outer side). The exterior walls are attached to the metal structure of the building contour
through bolts distributed at the height of the steel columns (Fig. 7). In addition, the building
corners were nailed with stainless steel rods (Fig. 13), in order to strengthen the connection
between walls, avoiding local modes of failure;

Figure 13: Strengthening of the exterior walls

(iii) Strengthening of masonry walls of the inner courtyard and existing stairs Two shear
walls were created in the interior of the building: (a) the masonry walls of the inner courtyard
were strengthened with a reinforced concrete layer of 8cm on both sides and confined with
transverse nailings and (b) The masonry wall of the existing stairs was surrounded by a 20cm
thick concrete wall. (Fig. 6)

8
 David M. Gama et al.

2.1 Blocks B and C

In Blocks B and C a prestressed concrete structural solution of was adopted. This structure
was built after the demolition of the interior of the existing buildings and after the excavation
phase was completed. Fig. 14 shows a general plan of the excavation area, which was done
using a Berliner earth retaining wall, associated to a previous treatment of the materials of the
embankment with the use of soil-cement columns.

Figure 14: Excavation solution

To support the weight of the faades during the excavation and the construction works, the
system represented in Fig. 15 was used. In this system the weight of the masonry walls was
transferred to the micropiles through concrete beams prestressed with high resistance GEWI
bars.

Figure 15: Support of the exterior walls

The stability of the faades to horizontal actions during the construction works was assured by
a steel structure, as shows Fig. 16. This solution was based on the lateral support of the main
faades in four steel towers supported by micropiles foundations. The wall movements were
monitored during all construction works.

9
 David M. Gama et al.

Figure 16: Lateral support Towers

3 FINAL REMARKS
The intervention in the set of buildings
in Liberdade Avenue and Rosa Arajo
Street in Lisbon resulted in two distinct
situations, with different challenges.
In the contiguous buildings of Rosa
Arajo Street, where the high state of
degradation led to its almost total
demolition, a new structure in prestressed
concrete was adopted. In this case the
biggest challenge was the maintenance of
the faades during the construction works,
in particular the posterior faade, due to its
location inside the excavation area.
The building of Liberdade Avenue was
distinguished by the original quality of the
construction, even in the execution of the
foundations, where it was necessary to
deal with thick layers of landfill. this Figure 17: Finished building

10
 David M. Gama et al.

building there were impositions of the licensing authority regarding the maintenance of
several structural (and not structural) elements. Thus, the adopted intervention was to
strengthen the existing structure in order to make possible the architectural program, while
meeting a seismic performance that is in line with the current seismic standards..

4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the real estate developer, Liberdade 203, SA and to
acknowledge that the solutions presented herein are the result of a team work, namely with
the architect Frederico Valsassina Arquitectos, the geotechnical designer JetSJ, the contractor
HCI and the construction inspection firm, Engexpor.

11