Catalogación de las unidades de almacenamiento vertical de cereales de la red básica de Castilla y León, propuesta de una nueva clasificación y posibilidades de reutilización

  1. Fernández Fernández, Manuel Vicente
Supervised by:
  1. Victoriano Marcelo Gabella Director
  2. José Benito Valenciano Montenegro Director

Defence university: Universidad de León

Fecha de defensa: 29 January 2016

Committee:
  1. Manuel Méndez Lodos Chair
  2. Juan Antonio Boto Fidalgo Secretary
  3. Matías Carnero López Committee member
Department:
  1. INGENIERÍA Y CIENCIAS AGRARIAS

Type: Thesis

Abstract

Wheat has been, and still is, the main bread-making cereal in Europe. In the 20th century, wheat production in Spain was rising until the outbreak of the Spanish Civil war in 1936. This war led to the need for regulation and intervention in markets in order to prevent speculation. To do this, organizations -supported by the construction of a national network of storage units- were created. The storage units are buildings in which wheat is received and stored until its dispatch. They may be horizontal or granaries and vertical or silos and macrosilos. In Spain there are 141 storage units in the so-called basic network; 54 of them are in Castilla y León, 50 correspond to vertical storage units (here in after called UAV) and 4 to horizontal storage units. Castilla y León also has other 197 units in the secondary network, and only 122 of them correspond to vertical storage units. The lack of use of a facility leads to its obsolescence and deterioration. Since 2001, the grain storage network has not had a practical use and only maintenance works and repairs have been conducted. All this, in the long run, entail genuine economic losses that serve no purpose to make this type of facilities work as might be wished. As the classification made by the FEGA includes in the same type UAV built in very far-off dates and with important technological and constructive variations among them, a new typological classification is needed. Few proposals of restoration seeking an alternative use or revaluation have been carried out and performed in Spain for this type of building. The aims of this work are to catalogue the vertical storage units belonging to the basic network of Castilla y León, by checking its current state, to propose a new typological classification more in keeping with its architectural reality and, finally, to evaluate the possibilities for reuse based on adaptation projects implemented or proposals for the UAV reuse at the level of Spain. The results show that the construction of the vertical storage units in the Castilla y León basic network was carried out between 1951 and 1984 and that it has an irregular distribution throughout the Castilla y León territory. There are 50 vertical storage units distributed in 37 localities, with higher density in the provinces of Valladolid, Burgos and Palencia. The storage capacity of these units, as well as its technology, increased over time. The variation of the type of vertical storage units is very variable, although the most common is type D. The most common cells, the basic unit of storage, are the squared ones. Only 20% of the vertical storage units are in a proper state. The new typological classification, for the network storage units (basic more secondary) in Castilla y León, proposes to establish 27 groups instead of the 18 existing today. This new classification proposes to divide the current typology A into four categories (A1000, A2000 and A3000, A3500), the current typology B into two categories (original B and B7500), the current typology D into five categories (D1, D2, D3, D4 and D5) and the current typology TR into two categories (TR Medina de Rioseco-Toro and TR BurgosPalencia); the rest would remain with the same current classification made by the FEGA. The evaluation of the possibilities for re-use these UAV of the Castilla y León basic network allows to establish three categories of municipalities. One group is formed by the larger municipalities (population greater than 2,000 inhabitants), where any of the completed actions or projects could be feasible; another group of municipalities, the very depopulated municipalities (population less than 200 inhabitants), for which after analysis, no project shows a favorable rating; a third intermediate group of municipalities where just acceptable low-budget tourism projects would be presented.