Prepared by: Kamarul Syahril Kamal¹, Lilawati Ab Wahab¹, Prof. Madya Dr. A. Ghafar Ahmad² , Shahruddin Shabri and Saiful Bari Abd Karim ¹Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia ²Universiti Sains Malaysia and University of Manchester UK
Keywords: Architectural Heritage, Building Conservation, Restoration, Refurbishment, Historical Building
Referring to the Risk Management Standard (2002), risk can be defined as the combination of the probability of an event and its consequences. Meanwhile Chapman & Ward (2003) defined risk management as an uncertain event or set of circumstances that, should it occur, will have an effect on the achievement on the project’s objectives. These definitions have common understanding of risk that is an event and its consequences with the purpose of improving performance through systematic strategies named risk management plan namely risk identification, risk analysis, risk response and, risk monitoring and control. The overall of the risk management process are as follow:
According to Burden (2004), refurbishment means to bring an existing building up to standard, or to make it suitable for a new use by renovations, or by installing new equipment, fixtures, furnishing and finishes. Highfield (2000) referred building refurbishment as part of repair, restoration and extension. The overall purpose of refurbishment is to extend the beneficial use of an existing building (Mansfield, 2000). According to Brochner & Holm (2000), the construction market in many developed countries is increasingly directed towards refurbishment of existing structures, which involves more work on surfaces and on building services than on the load-carrying structure itself. The principle advantages for refurbishment and re-use of an existing building rather than demolition and new construction normally gives the following financial benefits:
1. The shorter contract duration reduces the effects of inflation on building costs.
2. The shorter overall development period reduces the cost of financing the scheme.
3. The client obtains the building sooner, and therefore begins to earn revenue from it.
Meanwhile if the building which is going to be refurbished is a historical building, it could give some more advantages such as:
1. Preserving the architectural character and integrity of the building.
2. Keeping intact the sensitivity towards the past historical value and aesthetic of the building.
3. Generate income throughout heritage tourism to the country.
However, refurbishment should not be confused with conservation, although it does conserve old buildings and thus helps to preserve a continuous and evident building tradition. Refurbishment is also nothing to do with maintenance although, in the process of adapting a building element for a revised use, maintenance will have to be carried out on the existing structure. But this is a secondary component of refurbishment and should not be confused with its primary purpose. Therefore, refurbishment is a good management of the building stock of a country as we have seen enough examples of the way buildings of the past have been modified, extended and restyled to suit changing needs of the building owner.
Risk Assessment in Refurbishment Project
All refurbishment projects are made up of a series of one-off problems, which have to be tackled by the project team on a largely ad-hoc basis. Basically any refurbishment project doubles the complications experienced by the project team of new building project, due to the constraints imposed by the original structure. Risk assessment is therefore, vital for refurbishment projects as the design information such as specification, duration and costs are vague and inaccurate. Risk assessment is the overall process of risk analysis and risk evaluation. The refurbishment projects usually contain technical and economic uncertainties and risks more than new building projects. According to Avramidou (2001), the repairing or reinforcing works of a building involves a risk that need to be reduced at the minimum acceptable level. Mansfield & Reyers (2000) specified that it is the nature of refurbishment projects that uses pre-determined information and very much dependent on the experts and specialist consultant and contractor. Mansfield & Reyers (2000) suggested specific risks for refurbishment projects from the commissioning agent point of view as follows:
1. No guarantee of available organization with suitable experience and expertise.
2. Too much reliance on the specialist or craftsmanship by the design team.
3. Limited availability and prohibitive cost due to the use of original and authentic materials or component.
4. Project starts with incomplete design information with assumptions.
5. Minimum statutory requirement that affect the quality of specification.
The process should start at the very beginning of refurbishment projects and should provide the client or user with sufficient information to start the refurbishment strategy. Mansfield & Reyers (2000) has conducted a research on the assessment and concluded that there is no formal approach to risk identification and analysis and the tendency to go over budget is more than any new build projects while final account always exceeds the forecasted budget. Reyers & Mansfield (2001b) came out with five clusters of risks associated with refurbishment projects i.e. design information risk, cost risk, client / briefing risk, external risk and other internal parties risk. The following table gives further details of these clusters.
Furthermore, Mansfield & Reyers (2000) have provided different views of risk for refurbishment projects as follows:
1. Strict self-denial of archaeologist and self-confidence of creative architect resulted to balance of subjective judgment.
2. Wider use of skilled labour, craftsmen and specialist contractors.
3. Involvement of statutory agencies, historical associations, interests groups which lead to reduction of risk without an increase in cost as a result of good communication and procurement especially partnering.
Refurbishment of existing buildings in increasingly performed in the presence of tenants or tenant employees (Brochner & Holm, 2000). Thus, this will affect the overall planning of the project hence identified as one of the source of risk. Preparing a proper method statement in refurbishment projects helps to identify what exists on site and its condition as well as to check the original scope definition. Additionally, conducting survey to the structures of the building will enable the consultant and the contractor to know the status and the level modification needed and decide how to deal with it. For the purpose of this paper, the authors will not discuss in detail on the risk assessment activities but on the results of the identification, assessment and the method of how to respond with the situation. As such, this project uses a very simple assessment method, begins with building investigation and followed by analysis of the defects and proposed a solution in responding to the situation. However, the process should not stop here but followed by monitoring the actions and managing the feedback instead.
Historical Background of Batu Gajah District Court Complex
The complex was originally occupied by several government departments including the District Office and the Public Works Department as well as by Batu Gajah Court, which functioned as a High Court until the 1930s when many administrative functions were transferred to Ipoh. Judicial functions were no exception to this. The High Court moved to Ipoh and status of the Batu Gajah was changed to District Court. The complex was later occupied by the Batu Gajah Magistrates’ Court, although only the upper storey-the ground floor was occupied by the Land Office. In 1994 the Magistrates’ Court vacated the complex and transferred to a new courthouse also located in Batu Gajah.
The Architectural Design of Batu Gajah District Court Complex
The District Court complex’s central façade is a portico with twin pilasters at the corners and two attached columns, framing three tall openings. The columns carry a Classical entablature with a pediment decorated with dentils. In the centre of the façade is a pediment consisting of a broken arch with the marble plaque. The ground floor ties up with the linkway on either side, joining the centre with the two other buildings. The righthand block’s portico consists of a pair of square columns fluted on the lower third and joined by low, pierced balustrade walls. The side arcades are accentuated with pronounced keystones and low, pierced balustrade walls. The half-gabled and half-hipped roof has dormers with elaborate pediments. The lefthand block has a similar but simpler portico with a Classical pediment decorated with a circle-and-triangle pattern. The apex is capped by an ornament known as an ‘acroteration’.
Building investigation as defined by Spada (2002) is an examination and observation of the exterior and interior of buildings including the grounds, the structure, and the mechanical systems to determine the defects and other conditions. Before any refurbishment projects started, a building investigation has to be carried out as part of the risk assessment process, in order to obtain sufficient information about the building condition in the form of drawings, photographic records, considered opinions as well as the condition of the structure. All information gathered is compiled into a report for a further study on the conditions and method to incorporate with the new structure. Hence, the purpose of building investigation according to Watt (1999) is to identify, investigate and diagnosis of defects in existing buildings, and also to recommend for the most appropriate course of action. Various physical aspects of building investigation referring to Friedman (2000) include identifying types of building systems, looking for evidence of material deterioration and identifying combinations of movement and load effects. Apart from that, issues on safety and hazards to personnel, buildings and environment need to be considered during the whole course of the project. For this particular project, the results of the building investigations as part of the risk assessment process of Batu Gajah District Court Complex are shown in Table 2 as follow:
Given the age of the structure and that all construction settlement would have been complete by now, the foundations are deemed sufficient for their intended purpose of use.
All the exterior walls are in good repair. There are signs of effervescence on the south-west and south of the building, however, though this may be related to the paint materials used in the periodic repainting of the structure. There is some lime burns associated with birds’ nests within the main arch under the main dome. In areas where leaking is noticeable especially from the mezzanine floor and first floor bathrooms to the hotel rooms, paint peeling has occurred with noticeable mould growth present.
3. Windows and doors
All original woodwork and joinery which is believed to be dated from the time of the original construction are in good condition. The timber is sound with little to no presence of rot or infestation. Substantial checking of paintwork has occurred exposing large areas of wood. These conditions are due to the over painting of the old oil based paints with newer water based paints. The window panes are all intact with isolated broken panes. The majority of the panes are well fixed and rattle free. All doors and openings are serviceable. Internal modern door fixtures within the building require repairs specifically re-hanging and refining of fixtures.
Structurally the columns are considered sound. Given the method of the construction, all loads applied to the masonry are distributed through plate girder beams and therefore can be considered as uniformly distributed with no moment applied.
5. First floor and mezzanine floor
The first floor tiles in the main restaurant area are in good condition, however, there are signs of negative bending cracking moments over the beams .The majority of the tiles is in-place and uncracked with the exception of the beam line areas. The ground floor flooring is recent and tiled. Normal cracking is expected for this type of floor.
The structural steel within the roof areas is in good condition. The ridge timbers and the major purlin along the major rooflines are still serviceable and show little to no sign of rot. The major purlin at the jack roof, the portion of the roof which overhangs the wall, does contain rot. The timber purlin secondary rafter and minor purlin in the gable end and hop gable are in poor condition and extensively rotted. The roof and tiles are in a sorry state of repair. Approximately 40% of the tiles are cracked, dislodged or missing. The cast iron access doors to the roof are broken with the door unit missing and doorframes partially removed.
The recommendations for refurbishment of Batu Gajah District Court Complex are based on the information obtained from the previous building investigation as part of the risk assessment process. The recommendations for refurbishment works are considered as the minimal repairs to enable the building to be fit for its purpose of use. The recommendations are also based on a service life of an additional 20 years on the assumption of a regular maintenance. The following are some of the recommendations proposed for the refurbishment works on major building elements such as:
Given that the foundation is in a considered good condition, no repair works is required.
Given that there is no debonding of the stucco finishes in the walls except for the minor areas where services have been laid and poorly repaired, the recommendations are confined to finishing and paint work.
3. Windows and doors
It is proposed that only paint re-application is required for the exterior woodwork and that the interior woodwork is subject to interior design requirements. A standard paint preparation can be applied similar to the following.
Given that the columns are in a considered good condition, no repair works is required except for some plastering work on defects area and paint work.
5. First floor and mezzanine floor
Given that the floors are in a considered good condition, no repair works is required. But there are two possible courses of action for the rehabilitation on the floor tiles. These are divided into complete replacement or removal and partial replacement of the floor tiles. It is estimated that removal of the existing tiles would result in only 30% of the original tiles. Matching of the old and new tiles may prove difficult. Therefore our recommendation is to remove all the existing tiles and replace with modern but similar like tiling.
There are two possible courses of action for the rehabilitation on the roof. These are divided into complete replacement or removal and partial replacement of the roof. It is estimated that removal of the existing tiles would result in only 50% of the original tiles that could be re-used in the new roof. Matching of the old and new tiles may prove difficult. If this course was proceeded with then it would be recommended that the existing tiles be used on the front side of the building with the newer tiles being placed at the rear. Tuscany roof tiles are still being manufactured in Australia and Europe. Given the size of the roof, it will be reasonably economic to import sufficient tiles for a complete re-roofing. Therefore our recommendation is to remove all the existing tiles and replace with modern tiling.
As a conclusion, we can conclude that risk assessment is important during an extensive period of consultation by the project team at the early stages of any refurbishment projects. It is very critical part where the design, method of statements, specification, duration and cost are determined. Risk assessment is also a process whereby the project team can methodically address the risk attaching to their activities with the goal of achieving sustained within each activity and across the portfolio of all activities in the past, present and in particular, future. The focus of good risk assessment in this refurbishment project was on the building investigation stage as the result from it can determine the recommendations for the refurbishment works. It can be concluded from the assessment that the Batu Gajah District Court Complex is structurally sound. The most imposing portion of the building is the mezzanine and upper floors. Except for a new coat of paint, minor repairs and a change of roofing, the main structure and the facade of the heritage building would remain unchanged. The bulk of the refurbishment works would be on the court area located in the main building. Since the refurbishment designer’s team is to make use of the basic value in the building and with it create a new life for the ageing building, the Batu Gajah District Court Complex would be maintained as it was a heritage building.
References and Bibliography
1. Ahmad, A.G. (1997). British Colonial Architecture in Malaysia 1800-1930. Museums Association of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur.
2. Avramidou, N (2001). Application of Quality Assurance Systems in the Rehabilitation of the Architectural Heritage. 7th International Conference on Inspection, Appraisal, Repairs & Maintenance of Buildings & Structures, 11-13 Sept 2001. Nottingham, United Kingdom
3. Brochner, J & Holm, M (2000). Contractual Relations and Information Flows to Building Users in Refurbishment Project. Information and Communication in Construction Procurement, Proceedings W92 Procurement System Symposium, 24-27 April 2000, Santiago, Chile.
4. Burden, E. (2004). Illustrated Dictionary of Architectural Preservation. Mc Graw Hill, New York.
5. Chapman, C. and Ward, S. (2003). Transforming Project Risk Management into Project Uncertainty Management. International Journal of Project Management, 21:97-105.
6. Fee, C.V. (2006). Landmarks of Perak. Raja Nazrin Shah Publications Sdn. Bhd., Kuala Lumpur.
7. Friedman, D. (2000). The Investigation of Buildings. W.W. Norton & Company, New York.
8. Higgs, J.S. (2000). Structural Assessment and Re-measurement Survey for Ipoh Railway Station. Materials Consultants (Asia) Sdn. Bhd. Project Reports, Selangor.
9. Highfiled, D. (2000). Refurbishment and Upgrading of Buildings. E & FN Spoon, London.
10. IRM (The Institute of Risk Management), (AIRMIC) The Association of Insurance and Risk Managers and (ALARM) The National Forum for Risk Management in the Public Sector (2002). Risk Management Standard. The Institute of Risk Management, London.
11. Mansfield, J.R (2002). What’s in the Name? Complexities in the Definition of “Refurbishment”. Property Management. 20(1):23-30.
12. Mansfield, J. and Reyers, J. (2000). Conservation Refurbishment Projects: A Comparative Assessment of Risk Management Approach. The Cutting Edge-The Real Estate Research Conference of the RICS Research Foundation, Sept 6-8, 2000.
13. Marsh, P. (1983). The Refurbishment of Commercial and Industrial Buildings. Construction Press, London.
14. Reyers, J (2003). Risk and Liability for Consultants Advising on the Built Heritage. Structural Survey, 21(1):8-15
15. Reyers, J. and Mansfield, J. (2001a). A Practitioner Perspective on Risk Management in Conservation Refurbishment Projects. COBRA Conference Papers.
16. Reyers, J. and Mansfield, J. (2001b). The Assessment of Risk in Conservation Refurbishment Projects. Structural Survey, 19(5):238-244.
17. Spada, M.D. (2002). The Home Inspection Book. South-Western, Ohio.
18. Tyler, N. (2000). Historic Preservation; An Introduction to its History, Principles and Practice. W.W. Norton & Company, New York.
19. Watt, D.S. (1999). Building Pathology; Principles and Practice. Blackwell Science, Oxford.