The value of multiple earthquake missions: the EEFIT L’Aquila Earthquake experience

Abstract

In November 2012 EEFIT launched its first ever return mission to an earthquake affected site. The L'Aquila Earthquake site was chosen as this is a recent European event of interest to the UK and European earthquake engineering community. The main aims of this return mission were to document the earthquake recovery process and this paper presents an overview of the post-disaster emergency phase and transition to reconstruction in the Aquila area after the earthquake. It takes an earthquake engineering perspective, highlighting areas mainly of interest to the fields of structural/seismic engineering and reconstruction management. Within the paper, reference is made to published literature, but also to data collected in the field during the return mission that would not otherwise have been available.

Use of the Knowledge-Based System LOG-IDEAH to Assess Failure Modes of Masonry Buildings, Damaged by L'Aquila Earthquake in 2009

“…The city of L'Aquila was hit by an earthquake of Mw 6.3 on 6th April 2009. Although this earthquake had a rather modest magnitude compared to worldwide events, it is still considered as one of the most catastrophic events in Europe for the widespread damage and collapse of masonry buildings in the historic center and its long-term evacuation (D'Ayala and Paganoni, 2011;Tertulliani et al, 2011;Rossetto et al, 2014;Bertelli et al, 2018).…”

“…The large majority of these, seismically vulnerable due to their poor maintenance, improper strengthening/retrofitting, and unsuitable structural interventions, are concentrated in the historic city center. The authors visited the historic city centers of L'Aquila in several occasions between 2010 and 2013, to assess the building performance (D'Ayala and Paganoni, 2011) and to document the earthquake recovery process (Rossetto et al, 2014). During these visits, extensive data were collected to characterize masonry buildings with reference to structural details, constraints, and crack type/severity, with the intent to investigate the causes of the observed damage and identify failure modes.…”

Conservation Principles and Performance Based Strengthening of Heritage Buildings in Post-event Reconstruction

“…Well known examples of the lethality of heritage buildings are the collapse of the vaults of San Francis of Assisi basilica in the 1997 Umbria Marche earthquake (Spence and D'Ayala 1999), the collapse of several timber and mud vaulted roofs caused by the 2007 Pisco earthquake in Peru' (Cancino 2010 Rossetto et al 2014), which have seen their historic centers evacuated while waiting for funds and strategies to repair and rebuild. Montez and Giesen (2010), observe that the lack of provisions in Chile for the retrofit of historic buildings creates two options: to leave the building untouched or to adapt the structure to the present code, introducing reinforced concrete or steel elements.…”

“…In conjunction with a return mission to L'Aquila organized by EEFIT in November 2012, (Rossetto et al 2014), the author had the opportunity to inspect a small number of building sites where conservation and repair projects were underway. These visits provide some insight on how retrofitting strengthening projects are implemented.…”

Multicriteria Decision-Making Method for Sustainable Site Location of Post-Disaster Temporary Housing in Urban Areas

“…Improper site selection is a major problem that has caused dissatisfaction with regard to the DP of previous natural disasters, such as Istanbul, Turkey, in 1999 (Johnson 2007b, c); Bam, Iran, in 2003 (Ghafory-Ashtiany andHosseini 2008;Khazai and Hausler 2005); L'Aquila, Italy, in 2009 (Rossetto et al 2014); and the Great Eastern Japan Earthquake in 2011 (Shiozaki et al 2013). In general, according to most relevant studies, the site location factors that cause DP to be dissatisfied are: (1) losing previous social communities; (2) not fitting in new communities; (3) inadequate access to urban facilities, such as shopping centers, recreation centers, and so on; (4) large distance from the new location to previous activities (job, university, and previous private property); and (5) concern about private property.…”