Salva-Casa and new structural verification procedure, how the project should be drawn up: hypotheses and points to be clarified

The new paragraph 3 bis of art. 34 bis

In particular, the new paragraph in very brief terms indicates that in buildings located in seismic zoneswith the exception of buildings located in low seismicity areas^*, for each certification of existence of construction toleranceseven for works that are irrelevant to public safety, is it is necessary to file a project with the Civil Engineering Department for the acquisition of seismic authorization.

This project must verify that the building structures meet the structural design requirements. referring to the time of construction of the building or of the interventions carried out subsequently. The important thing to underline is that this duty must be honored in any case, even where tolerances that have not affected the structures must be certifiedwhich means that it must from now on be considered a mandatory fixed obligation for each tolerance certificate or for each request for verification of conformity pursuant to art. 36 bis.

How to draft the requested project: hypothesis

Article 3 bis contains a series of indications around which it is possible to develop a hypothesis of how the project required by the law should be drawn up. The following key elements are provided on this point:

• basically, it is still a attestation and not of a real project. In the case of construction tolerances, the Civil Engineering office should not therefore send the documents to the Public Prosecutor’s Office for the hypothesis of the crime of failure to report; however, this could happen in the case in which the procedure is implemented within the scope of a regularization pursuant to art. 36 bis especially where the discrepancies also affect the structures (moved pillars; different floor texture; different profile of the external shape): it would be important to clarify this aspect because Structural regularizations are often not undertaken by the client due to the delays and risks associated with a report for alleged crimeseven if very often the person submitting the request is not the material author of the possible abuse;
• given the tenor of the law, it is still a question of having to carry out a project, at least sketchedas it is necessary to verify that the structures in their current state detected comply with the seismic design standards referring to the time of execution of the abuse (if subsequent to construction) or rather to that of the construction (if the non-conformity dates back to the original construction). The designer must therefore in any case follow a technical rule and must try to understand, as far as possible and under his own responsibility, the internal structure of the elements in order to be able to correctly verify them (applying where logical also the criterion of approximation or underestimation of the resistances);
• the attestation must comply with the minimum project contents provided for by art. 93 paragraph 3 DPR 380/01: therefore, referring to the clear regulatory provision, it is necessary to produce a project “comprehensive for floor plan, plans, elevations and sections” and a “ must be attachedtechnical report” as well as contain the documents required by the applicable technical standard. On the contents of the project and the technical report, it is believed that the designer must operate in good faith but it is clear that it must be the exhaustive graphic reconstruction of the building structuresat least as far as can be detected even by carrying out tests, probably necessary in almost all contexts. The real difference in application is in the “other documents required by the technical standards” because given that the law provides that the checks must be carried out with regard to the technical standard in force at the time of the execution of the non-compliant work, it is necessary to verify each time what was the minimum content of the documents required by the various standards. Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that art. 93 paragraph 3 refers first of all to the documents required by the regional technical office, therefore the concrete application of these provisions may also vary from region to region;
• after the deposit of the certificate, the office proceeds to issue the seismic authorization, but the technician himself can, once the terms have matured in the absence of conflicting communications or requests for integrationdeclare that it has expired;
• it appears clear that the certification referred to in paragraph 3 bis must be provided by professionals who have not only professional competence but also the specific knowledge suitable for managing what are real structural projects to be implemented ex-post: it therefore appears clear that even the simple certification of construction tolerances from now on is the prerogative of professionals with a strong multidisciplinary approach or of team of professionals each specifically trained for their own area of ​​expertise.

Points to clarify

Although not expressly provided for by the law, given the extreme sensitivity of the context, it would be useful toissuance of at least one harmonization circular issued by the Superior Council of Public Works in order to avoid that each Civil Engineering office interprets in an overly personalized way the rules which, all in all, appear clear but with some interpretative nuances which should be mitigated immediately.

Above all, it appears evident that the wording of Article 3 bis has in fact resurrected the validity of all technical construction standards issued in the past: it would be appropriate for the Ministry to issue a file in which the historical rules are publishedwith clear time references and a summary of the obligations and calculation methods. Probably, Structural design software will also have to adapt offering the ability to perform checks backwards in time.

Finally, it appears of no secondary importance to establish whether, in addition to the technical standards referring to the time of construction of the works, the reference to the time of production it must be extend also to seismic classification. Naturally, just as the technical standards have evolved over time, so too have the classified seismic zones, so much so that today Italy has an extension of seismic risk zones much wider than the first classifications dating back to the early decades of the twentieth century. From this it follows that for works carried out in the pastactually it may happen that at the time the works were carried out the area was not classified as being at seismic risk, while it is today: at this point, will it be necessary to follow the rules for works not subject to seismic zones or not? In the opinion of the writer, a distinction must be made:

• in order to establish whether or not the fulfillment referred to in paragraph 3-bis is due, reference must be made to the seismic classification in force at the time of submission of the applicationas it is the legislator’s intention to apply specific surveillance to the areas that to date they are seismic;
• in order to evaluate the applicable technical standard, it is necessary to refer to the seismic classification in force at the time of construction of the worksas otherwise it would be impossible to verify the structure of a building and the meaning of the regulation which aims to ascertain whether the structural works were carried out in compliance with the regulations in force at the time of their execution would be lost.

Unfortunately the rule is not clear enough to be able to indicate with certainty that the previous one is the correct interpretation: the one reported above appears to be a common sense assessment but this is not an official procedural indication.