THE RESTORATION OF THE REFORMED CHURCH OF AITON 2018–2020 CASE STUDY, CONDITION SURVEY BY FACILITY CONDITION INDEX

The professional restoration of an initially Catholic, and then, after an 18th-century reconstruction, Reformed, single-tower church of medieval origin, having mixed walls and an eclectic roof structure, following two consecutive, incorrect interventions. 
The technical condition of listed buildings is the indicator of their general structural condition. To assess errors and damage, I have compiled a new method that includes a sample to follow, as well as damage assessment tables, recommended procedures, and calculations. This calculation method shows the structural condition of listed buildings and the value of the approximate restoration costs. I present this procedure through the presently ongoing survey and restoration process of a listed building in Aiton, near Cluj-Napoca, Transylvania.


HISTORY OF THE CHURCH
The first documented mention of Aiton, a settlement next to Cluj-Napoca, was in 1320 and 1323, as Ohthunth de Comitatu de Kulus, listed as a church settlement. Owned, in the 15 th century, by gentry families, then later, from the 18 th century onwards, by the Zeyk, Kemény, Tisza and Bethlen families. The church is listed as a national monument, under number CJ-II-m-B-07515. From the original Catholic church, the Romanesque doorway and a detail of the coffered ceiling, made in 1795, on a dark green background with floral patterns, have survived. The original doorway, and the remaining form of the sanctuary, dated by archaeologists to the 14 th century, then the present surviving condition denotes the end of the 17 th , the beginning of the 18 th century. The floor plan of the church also suggests that it was originally used by the Catholic community and later transformed into a Reformed church due to the age of the Reformation and the Protestant religion of the aforementioned families. In place of the sanctuary, a gallery is erected with a small pump organ, which was later equipped with electric bellows. During the present renovation, the wooden gallery and organ built on the site of the sanctuary will be restored with the help of famous wood restorers from Transylvania. The last famous families of the settlement are the Tisza family of Ineu, the Zeyk family of Zeyk, and the Sándor family of Csíkszentmihály (Mihăileni). The latter are descendants of the Székelyrabonbans. This is also confirmed by a chalice considered sacred by them. The Sándor family has a mansion in Aiton to this day. The current restoration and complete renovation is the result of the attitude of the locals, the enthusiasm of the devout community. The church visible today stands on the original, 14 th -century foundations in a 19 th -century neo-Gothic form, having burned down and re-erected several times throughout the ages. It underwent two unprofessional interventions, first between 1955-1960, and then in 1996. By the mid-20 th -century intervention, the rotation of the southern wall had already been noticed, which they wanted to stop by installing reinforced concrete buttresses. However, these, sitting on foundations laid to inadequate depth (not on the same level as the foundations of the church), rotated and broke away from the wall and the south-west corner of the church, due to the differentiated foundation, tearing out entire pieces of wall and masonry construction. Thus, instead of a support force, pulling forces were brought into the southern church wall. This pulling force was exacerbated to an even greater extent by the multiple swelling and shrinkage of the wet clayey soil under the foundations of the buttresses, as a result of the rainwater discharged here. The survival of the southern wall is due to a pair of metal anchors running along the vault and gallery of the inner balcony, as well as owing to the walls of the side entrance and the semicircular masonry of the old sanctuary. In 1996, the already cracked north wall was reinforced, by chasing out the section above the foundations around the building and installing a reinforced concrete ring beam, as well as applying a layer of cement mortar cladding reinforced with a welded iron mesh to the full height of the wall above it. Thus, with this, the soil moisture was absorbed in an even higher proportion and height in the already partially soaked walls, and the material quality and load-bearing role of the northern and eastern walls were compromised. In addition, reinforced concrete sidewalks were poured around the building, and a concrete strip was poured by the walls in the interior to secure the footing and bricks. By doing so, they prevented the walls from being ventilated above the foundations in the absence of horizontal insulation. On-site inspection conducted in 2018 by the designers (Moebius Engineering Ltd., Cluj-Napoca) drew attention also to the biochemical damage that affected the wood of the roof structure, and, which stated that 80-90% of the wood structure got damaged by fungi and its components were severely rotten; the rafter is unreliable in terms of strength. It is recommended to replace the roof completely, to include the roof covering and tinsmith work.

ASSESS AND DETERMINE THE CONDITION OF THE BUILDING
I propose a method that I myself have developed and used several times to fully assess and determine the condition of the building. I developed this method in my doctoral dissertation defended in 2011, which gives the extent of damage to the listed building in a final condition evaluation table and determines the appropriate interventions based on the calculated values. The calculation is based on decades of construction experience.
The method is the following: Let us first review the characteristic damages of mixed, stone and brick-walled, wooden-roofed listed buildings, on the basis of which we inspect the building: • Planning deficiencies / subsequent incorrect interventions (loading, repairs).
• Lack of horizontal wall ties, damage to old wood or metal anchors.
• Uneven settling of foundations as a result of groundwater, soaking, landslip.
• Chemical and biological damage to wall components.
• Biochemical or fire / water damage to wooden roof structures.
• Cracking, water seepage, deflection of masonry slabs, loss of elements.
• Moisture or biochemical damage to wooden floor constructions, coffered ceilings. Let us now list the professional reinforcement interventions: • Installation of metal anchors or tensioning straps, replacement of old elements.
• Installation and casting of reinforced concrete ring beams.
• Reconstruction of stone and brick slabs.
• Substitution, replacement, reinforcement of wooden roof elements.
• In case of major damage, complete roof replacement.
• Reinforcement of floor structures with professional interventions.
• Replacement and supplementation of the elements of wooden floor structures and coffered ceilings.
Determining the extent of damage by calculating the facility condition index (in the case of 1-4-storey historic buildings).

Determining the extent of damage by calculating a quality index:
Where 'Di' is the tabular scoring value, 'Ci' is the type of damage, and 10 is the maximum score which determines a perfectly good structural condition that existed at the time of handover. 'D' represents the score given from 1 to 10, based on the damage experienced. These values are given in the following tables, compiled for each subunit, based on the extent of any possible damage. At the same time 'i' shows the enumerated parameter and the type of damage.
Brick or stone masonry structures consist of the following five subunits: 1 Foundations, 2 Load-bearing walls, 3 Floor structures, 4 Roof structures, 5 Secondary subunits. The scoring method and value of the degree of defects and damage (D) in the structure of brick and stone walls are included in the catalogue compiled for the said five subunits.
The catalogues identify the most common errors and suggest appropriate intervention procedures.

4-8
Partial under-casting to even out foundations. Strengthening of settled walls.

1.3
Water seepage under the foundations, settling caused by floods, cracking in the foundations.

3-6
Elimination of causes. Under-casting or reinforcements made by sheathing.

1.4
Rotations and cracks caused by soil pressure.

3-9
Stabilisation and fixing of batters and sloped terrain. Strengthening of foundations. Partial or complete demolition of the building, part of a building.
Material replacement repairs, proper mortar injections, etc.

1.7
Cracks and structural deficiencies appearing in basement walls, loss of elements, elements of basement wall detaching, coming loose.

4-8
Cutting, chiselling of brick or stone strips. Replacement and supplementation of elements and materials of appropriate quality (from demolition or with new similar materials). 1.8 Levelling or filling damp, wet basements with soil or materials left over from demolition to support the walls, or in hope to displace water as a result of improper and unprofessional interventions.

4-8
Removal of fill material. Drying basements subsequent to exploration and elimination of causes of water seepage. Carry out the necessary reinforcements to repair the damage.

1.9
Unprofessional, bituminous, pool-type basement insulation, in the hope of displacing the groundwater seepage, subsequent to improper, previous repair interventions.

4-6
Elimination of water seepage possibilities, with correct, professional procedures, drainage, external wall insulation. Removal of internal insulation, assurance of drying of walls and floors, original walking surfaces. Possible material replacement, reinforcements, restorations after removal of damaged elements.

4-6
Replacements, additions, reinforcements, repairs, pulling into position, hoisting with the implementation of bracing and trusses.

2-5
Cleaning based on the extent of spread. Reinforcements carried out subsequent to material, roof element or complete roof replacement, antifungal treatments. 5.6 Appearance of subsequent cracks in new partitions placed on incorrect foundations (tiles, parquet, and plastic floors) at the corner of the meeting of the floor structure and the walls.
3-6 Wall demolition, dismantling and removal of the floor underneath, followed by wall reconstruction. 5.7 Cracks and torn off sections appearing at the corners between the load-bearing walls and partitions, due to the lack of suitable ties.
3-4 Demolition of partitions and appropriate reconstruction of masonry construction.
5.8 Cracks appearing in the incorrect walling of openings and doors, due to the insertion and retention of old door-window frames.
3-4 After demolition of masonry and removal of old frames, wall reconstruction by professionally tying the old and new wall into each other.
3-4 Reinforcements, repairs, partial or complete replacement, depending on the extent of damage.
*Note: The tables are not exhaustive in terms of possible damage and can therefore be supplemented at a later stage.
Calculation of facility condition index for all building structural subunits (foundations, load-bearing walls, floor structures, roof structure, auxiliary structures) (1) 'Ist' quality index for a structural subunit (foundation, load-bearing walls, floor structures, roof structures, partitions, coverings, gutters, drains, building engineering, etc.). Coefficient 'k', in relation to duration, is given in the following table: 'Ist' the general consistency index calculation, where 'Ist' is the facility condition index or quality index calculated per subunit (according to the damage scores of the catalogues and tables given in the literature).
'P' is the weighted ascertainment and determination of the subunits according to their role in the structure (value between 0 and 0.5 in general).
In our case study, the calculation of the general facility condition index of the Reformed Church of Aiton: The study was carried out for 6 structural sub-assemblies, namely: 1) Foundation sub-assembly 2) Subassembly resistance walls 3) Sub-assembly of walled floors (charcoal bolts) 4) Wood floor sub-assembly 5) Wooden sander sub-assembly 6) Secondary structural sub-assemblies (partition walls, coverings, etc.) Calculate quality indices on the above-mentioned sub-assemblies using the tables above. The repeated flooding of the foundation ground over the years has caused movements at the foundation level.
1.4 D = 0 C4 = 10 No injuries or fractures caused by the push of the earth were found.
1.6 D = 3 C6 = 10-3 = 7 Faulty drainage installations caused moisture infiltrations into the walls, causing local degradation by falling mortar from joints and cracking masonry elements.
1.7 D = 6 C7 = 10-4 = 6 Local stone falls to the soles of masonry causing gangrene. 1.8 D = 6 C8 = 10-4 = 6 The destructive effect was high moisture through capillary in the walls, towards the vaults and higher towards the balcony.
1.9 D = 0 C9 = 10 No damage 1.10 D = 0 C10= 10 No damage Technical status index of the foundation sub-assembly according to the relationship: Damping to the walls due to lack of ventilation and water infiltrations in the absence of horizontal waterproofing.
2.3 D = 3 C3 = 7 Cracks in the walls, caused by Subsidence of foundations.

D = 4 C4 = 6
Cracks in the exterior walls due to a lack of upper belts at bridge level.

D = 3 C5 = 7
Cracks in the corners due to lack of weaving between the longitudinal and transverse walls. The floor areas of adjoining wooden beams were attacked by anaerobic mushrooms.

D = 4 C2 = 6
Rotting ends of the floor beams were found, especially in eaves areas.

D = 5 C3 = 5
The deformation of the arrow floors was found above those admitted in the middle of the openings, due to large permanent loads and insufficient stiffness of the floor beams.
3.3.4 D = 4 C4 = 6 Wooden floorboards framed by wooden belts did not ensure sufficient stiffness for the transmission of horizontal loads to the walls. The wrapper was largely degraded, and was supplemented with several kinds of worn tile. 5.6 D = 5 C6 = 5 Walls were found improperly placed. 5.7 D = 5 C7 = 5 Part of the secondary walls were not tied to the walls of resistance by weaving, but only folded resulting in cracks in the corners. 5.8 D = 4 C8 = 6 Gaps were found in the doors, with the original wooden frames left around the filling masonry, with no connection between them.
In accordance with its historical value, appropriate partial or complete conservation techniques and solutions must be determined. Conservation of dilapidated state.
Classification based on facility condition index: According to Table 7 of the condition classes, the value of 40.05 corresponds to class IV. Intervention proposals for condition class IV: Structural reinforcements (foundations, walls), replacement of roof structure and roof covering, replacement of ceiling, general renovation.

CALCULATION OF COMPLEXITY FACTOR
The complexity factor can be either Tc = 1, 1.2 or 1.5, depending on the degree of decoration of the building. This can also be determined by the period of art history of the building (Romanesque, Gothic, Renaissance, Baroque and Rococo, eclectic, postmodern or Art Nouveau, Byzantine, Moorish, (Wallachian Renaissance), etc.).

SURVEY OF STATISTICAL DATA
Consideration and crediting of professionally executed, completed restorations, according to building types, separately.

CHOOSE THE CHEAPEST AND MOST EXPENSIVE FROM THE RIGHT TYPE
These are denoted by 'Vo' and 'Vd'.

ADD INFLATION RATE
Rin = obtained from statistical data from the inflation table of the national, annual construction works.

GF = SEVERITY FACTOR
An exponential function of the value of damage between 0.01 and 100. The values of the severity factor, based on the condition index table (Table 8), are as follows: Monument Building Restoration Value: Rv

SOURCES OF FUNDING
None.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
None.
The Restoration of The Reformed Church of Aiton 2018-2020 Case Study, Condition Survey by Facility Condition Index