Comparison of seismic analysis methods applied to a historical church struck by 2009 L’Aquila earthquake

Comparative Seismic Assessment of a Medioeval Masonry Church in Southern Italy

“…In FIGURE 5 the deformed shapes near collapse provided by pushover analyses, with indication of the location of control points and the corresponding pushover curves (on the right) are also represented to give an idea of the active failure mechanisms and the amount of displacement reached by the different nodes monitored during the analyses. Only X-and Y-load cases are shown for the sake of conciseness, but it is interesting to notice that failure mechanisms are always local, a peculiar behavior for such kind of structures [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. Similar results are found by the authors for the seismic load applied along the positive directions of the geometric axes (i.e.…”

“…The safety assessment under horizontal loads is done using a variety of numerical approaches [9][10][11][12][13][14], ranging from Response Spectrum Analyses RSAs, non-linear static (pushover) and limit analyses.…”

Comprehensive FE numerical insight into Finale Emilia Castle behavior under 2012 Emilia Romagna seismic sequence: Damage causes and seismic vulnerability mitigation hypothesis

“…Historic masonry structures exhibit peculiar characteristics that make their analyses with standard design and generalist assessment methods (similar to the ones currently used for reinforced concrete) definitely unsuited. Few papers recommending specific seismic analyses for the safety assessment of historical or existing buildings/churches without box behavior are available for instance in [20][21][22][23], but according to authors' experience, the research is still open for castles, that are peculiar structures needing dedicated numerical approaches.…”

Refractive index model to determine the vulnerability curves for different building typologies

“…To overcome the problem of the heterogeneity of the data, the studies considered have expressions and considerations based on the correspondences between the different macroseismic scales and the damage levels (ATC-13, 1985;Achard and Goula, 1988;Abeki et al, 1989;Bolt, 1999;Okada and Takai, 2000). We remark that, about the recent L'Aquila (Italy) earthquake (Mw = 6.3, Global CMT) that occurred on April 6, 2009, several damage studies of the L'Aquila earthquake have been published (such as: Formisano et al, 2012;Lagomarsino, 2012;Karakostas et al, 2012;Kontoes et al, 2012;Endo et al, 2015), of which a critical examination has been conducted by Douglas et al (2015). Irpinia (Italy) (Braga et al, 1982) 23.11.1980 Mont Chenoua (Algeria) (Farsi and Belazougui, 1992) Figures 9 to 17 provide a comparison between the data collected in literature and the vulnerability curves from our model for various BTM typologies.…”