Damage and performance evaluation of masonry churches in the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake

Brandonisio, Giuseppe; Lucibello, Giuseppe; Mele, Elena; Luca, A. De

doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2013.01.021

Cited by 193 publications

(76 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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.…”

Section: Discussion Of the Resultssupporting

confidence: 54%

“…Concerning the participating mass ratio of each vibration mode, a small contribution is usually observed, [10], therefore, in order to well describe the dynamic behavior of the structure, it was necessary to take into account several successive modes, obtaining a total participating mass ratio greater than 85% of the total mass, as prescribed by the Italian code. Even if the graph cannot be read easily, because of the great number of bullet points, it is very clear that almost all vibration modes are associated to low excited mass (less than 10%) but with peaks concentrated on the maximum acceleration of the spectrum.…”

Section: Discussion Of the Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, it has been shown in [10], that they can provide a preliminary insight into the activation of possible partial failure mechanisms.…”

Section: Numerical Analyses Conductedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Comparative Seismic Assessment of a Medioeval Masonry Church in Southern Italy

Cundari¹,

Failla²

2017

Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering (COM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussion Of the Resultssupporting

confidence: 54%

Section: Discussion Of the Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, it has been shown in [10], that they can provide a preliminary insight into the activation of possible partial failure mechanisms.…”

Section: Numerical Analyses Conductedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparative Seismic Assessment of a Medioeval Masonry Church in Southern Italy

Cundari¹,

Failla²

2017

Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering (COM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Safety and functionality of buildings and infrastructures that constitute the urban environment strongly affect the quality of the life of a community (D'Ayala and Paganoni 2011;Brandonisio et al 2013) and, in the case of Italy, where the territory is characterized by a massive presence of historic and monumental buildings, life quality is intensely connected with the functionality and the safety of these historic structures. These buildings, as demonstrated by the recent earthquakes in L'Aquila (April 2009) (D'Ayala and Paganoni 2011) and Reggio Emilia (May 2012) (Fragonara et al 2016), are extremely vulnerable to seismic loads.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seismic Risk Assessment of Historic Masonry Towers: Comparison of Four Case Studies

Bartoli

Betti

Monchetti

2017

J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper focuses on the seismic risk assessment of historic masonry towers according to the Italian "Guidelines for the Assessment and Mitigation of the Seismic Risk of the Cultural Heritage." The latter identifies a methodology of analysis based on three different levels of evaluation, according to increasing requirements on the structural knowledge: LV1 (analysis at territorial level), LV2 (local analysis), and LV3 (global analysis). Regardless of the methodology of analysis, the more advanced the achieved level of knowledge, the higher the reliability of these approaches becomes. In this field, a fundamental task is the estimation of the uncertain parameters (both material properties and boundary conditions) affecting the structural behavior. The effect of these uncertainties on the global structural response is herein approached through the discussion of an illustrative case study of some of the historic masonry towers in the city center of San Gimignano (Siena, Italy). The seismic risk of these towers was analyzed in the framework of Seismic Risk of Monumental Buildings (RiSEM is the Italian acronym), a research project granted by the Tuscany Regional Administration, and this paper summarizes the results obtained for two of the preceding three levels, which highlights a few issues concerning the seismic risk of historic masonry towers. Useful conclusions are drawn in order to quantify, when performing an LV3 approach through nonlinear models, the effects of the uncertainties on the seismic risk evaluation of such structural typology. The paper, in particular, confirms once more how strongly the effect of confinement reflected on tower seismic performances and stresses that specific attention should be paid to the definition of the effective portion of the structure to be considered as confined (with respect to adjacent buildings).

show abstract

Distinct element modeling of the in‐plane response of a steel‐framed retrofit solution for URM structures

Damiani

DeJong

Albanesi

et al. 2023

Earthq Engng Struct Dyn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents the results of a numerical study aimed at assessing the effectiveness of an innovative steel modular retrofit system on improving the in-plane lateral capacity of unreinforced masonry (URM) load-bearing structures. The investigated retrofit solution consists of modular steel frames fastened to the external surface of masonry piers through chemical anchors. Distinct element models are built and calibrated against experimental data coming from a series of in-plane quasi-static tests performed on piers in both bare and retrofitted conditions. Two different masonry typologies are considered herein: one made up with solid clay bricks and lime mortar, assembled in a header bond pattern, and the other with typical Italian hollow clay units and cement-lime mortar, arranged in a Flemish bond pattern. A simplified microscale approach, combined with a mesh-refinement strategy, is adopted to decrease computational demand without losing numerical accuracy. All in-plane failure mechanisms, such as mortar and unit tensile failures, as well as masonry crushing for high compressive stresses, are included in the developed numerical models. Moreover, a methodology to explicitly account for the contribution of the investigated retrofit in the distinct element method (DEM) framework is presented and discussed. The proposed modeling strategy yielded a good prediction in terms of lateral stiffness, lateral strength, hysteretic response, and crack pattern for unreinforced and strengthened specimens. A novel set of metrics is proposed to quantitatively assess the retrofit performance benefits.

show abstract

Damage and performance evaluation of masonry churches in the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake

Cited by 193 publications

References 18 publications

Comparative Seismic Assessment of a Medioeval Masonry Church in Southern Italy

Comparative Seismic Assessment of a Medioeval Masonry Church in Southern Italy

Seismic Risk Assessment of Historic Masonry Towers: Comparison of Four Case Studies

Distinct element modeling of the in‐plane response of a steel‐framed retrofit solution for URM structures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About