The technician’s responsibilities
Compared to the initial version of May 30, 2024, the following changes have been made: changed some points which have taken into account the suggestions of the technical categories and professional orders. However, it appears the great responsibility falling on the certifying technician has been confirmed. In particular, regarding certifications that deal with building non-conformities in the seismic field, an in-depth evaluation is required by the technician who must also have the skills of a structural engineer expert in seismic verification and calculation.
THE’art. 34-bis paragraph 3 bis as updated within the TEU, it in fact provides that «for real estate units located in the seismic zones referred to in Article 83, except those with low seismicity indicated for this purpose in the decrees referred to in Article 83, the technician certifies also that the interventions referred to in this article comply with the provisions of section I of chapter IV of part II. This certification, referring to compliance with the technical standards for construction in force at the time of the implementation of the intervention (…)».
The substantial novelty compared to the first version that came into force, it is the more restrictive reference to the technical standards valid at the time of the execution of the building non-conformities that must be certified, and not to the current and more demanding NTC2018 as previously proposed. This means, for example, that if the non-conformities were carried out before 2008 the technician could find himself carrying out verification calculations still at the admissible stresses, and in any case with seismic criteria different from the current ones. However, some questions arise: if the technical standards of the time did not provide for anti-seismic criteria, or in any case were referred to seismic maps of the time in which there were areas still classified as “non-seismic”, how the technician should behaveperhaps in front of a structure that has undergone material degradation over time? The structure being certified is probably verified to the previous technical standards, but at the current state it is necessary to ask what its static and seismic safety is. The doubt will probably not concern so much the certification of specific interventions or of little seismic relevance, but rather those resulting from volumetric expansions, for example, which although modest may still have altered the dynamic response of the building.
The definition of “low seismicity” zones
A further question concerns the definition of “low seismicity” zones. Zones 1 and 2 are excluded from this concept, whose connotation of high and medium seismic risk is evident, while zone 4 certainly falls within this concept, which is low risk.
Instead What can be said about zone 3? Can it fall under the certification requirement under art. 34-bis paragraph 3 bis? Since there is no univocal definition, especially following the differentiations of regional seismic maps, reference can be made to what is expressed in art. 94-bis paragraph 2 of the TUE which refers to zones 3 and 4 as those with low seismicity.
The certification of minor building irregularities falling within the medium and high seismicity zones (zones 1 and 2) must be «(…) without prejudice to the provisions of Article 36-bis, paragraph 2, accompanied by the technical documentation on the intervention prepared on the basis of the minimum content required by Article 93, paragraph 3, is sent to the one-stop shop for the acquisition of the authorization of the regional technical office in accordance with the provisions of Article 94, or for the exercise of the control methods provided by the regions pursuant to Article 94-bis, paragraph 5, for the discrepancies that constitute interventions of minor relevance or of no relevance as per paragraph 1, letters b) and c), of the same Article 94-bis».
The opening in an attic for the passage of an internal staircase, the opening or enlargement of a window on a load-bearing masonry wall, partial reconstruction of the framework of a floor or of the coverage, a small volumetric expansionjust to give some examples of non-compliant interventions not reported in the past, will have to be assessed whether they comply with the seismic safety requirements pursuant to the provisions of the anti-seismic technical regulations in force at the time. This will imply all the necessary documentation such as simplified filing of works of no relevance or as complete filing for works pursuant to the par. 8.4 of NTC2018 and regional regulations (interventions of no relevance, local interventions, seismic improvement or adaptation), including technical-descriptive documentation pursuant to art. 93-94 of the TEU: plans, elevations and sections, technical and calculation report.
The final text of the Salva-Casa therefore requires less expensive earthquake checks referring to the technical standards in force at the time of the interventions being certified, however they represent a technical analysis of a certain importance and complexity which requires the technician to evaluate the influence that these non-conformities have on the seismic safety of the building. Some doubts remain about the extent of the checksbecause for logic and common sense it would be appropriate to extend them also to areas with low seismicity or in any case updated to the state of maintenance of the building, especially for non-conformities that influence the dynamic response of the entire structural skeleton.
Thank you for subscribing to the newsletter.
