Seismic Vulnerability of Buildings in Historic Centers: From the “Urban” to the “Aggregate” Scale

Seismic vulnerability assessment of urban centers is a challenging issue that needs to be faced accurately for the earthquake risk of large territorial areas. The selection of suitable methods is a crucial aspect that must be treated according to different evaluation processes, depending on the size of the problem and on the available calculation capacities. A possible strategy consists in analyzing large stocks of buildings, so to include in the analyses all those structural parameters that characterize their response and to involve the variability of the considered features. This would require a high computational effort that should be addressed to the investigation of the response of a large number of models. For this reason, simplified procedures based on engineeristic judgements, are commonly considered a viable way to be undertaken in order to predict damage scenarios. Alternatively, the attention could be focused on a limited number of buildings that are judged to be representative of the whole stock. In this case, more sophisticated analyses could be carried out and the obtained results could be extended to the whole urban center. Based on this premise, this paper presents the results obtained through the application of two different seismic vulnerability methodologies on the historic center of Campotosto, in Italy, which was hit by the last 2016 Central Italy earthquake. The first is an empirical method, applied considering a large stock of 130 buildings, which was calibrated by the authors after the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake for historical centers that are similar to the one studied in this paper. The latter, is a method based on analytical formulations dealt with by the Vulnus software, developed at the University of Padua in Italy, which was used for evaluating the seismic vulnerability of an aggregate building, which has been considered representative of the historic center. The final aim is to compare, also in the light of the damage observed after the 2016 earthquake, the damage scenarios, expressed in terms of fragility curves, derived from the two applied methodologies, in order to prove their reliability and to stress the possible issues related to their implementation at different scales.

[1]  Roberto Paolucci,et al.  Record Processing in ITACA, the New Italian Strong-Motion Database , 2011 .

[2]  Federico M. Mazzolani,et al.  Ambient vibration tests on three religious buildings in Goriano Sicoli damged during the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake , 2010 .

[3]  Lucrezia Cascini,et al.  Large displacement analysis of dry-jointed masonry structures subjected to settlements using rigid block modelling , 2017 .

[4]  Giuseppe Brando,et al.  The effects of L’Aquila earthquake on the St. Gemma church in Goriano Sicoli: part I—damage survey and kinematic analysis , 2015, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

[5]  S. Lagomarsino,et al.  Macroseismic and mechanical models for the vulnerability and damage assessment of current buildings , 2006 .

[6]  24 .-Some Experimental Results on the Strength of Brick Masonry Walls , 2022 .

[7]  Lucrezia Cascini,et al.  LiABlock_3D: A Software Tool for Collapse Mechanism Analysis of Historic Masonry Structures , 2018, International Journal of Architectural Heritage.

[8]  Humberto Varum,et al.  Seismic vulnerability assessment of historical urban centres: case study of the old city centre in Seixal, Portugal , 2013, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

[9]  F. Sabetta,et al.  Damage patterns in the town of Amatrice after August 24th 2016 Central Italy earthquakes , 2018, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

[10]  Gianfranco De Matteis,et al.  Seismic vulnerability assessment of historic centers: description of a predictive method and application to the case study of scanno (Abruzzi, Italy) , 2018, International Journal of Architectural Heritage.

[11]  Rosario Gigliotti,et al.  Damage Reconnaissance of Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall Buildings after the 2015 Gorkha, Nepal, Earthquake , 2017 .

[12]  J. Mendes,et al.  Seismic vulnerability and risk assessment: case study of the historic city centre of Coimbra, Portugal , 2011 .

[13]  Antonio Formisano,et al.  Simplified and refined methods for seismic vulnerability assessment and retrofitting of an Italian cultural heritage masonry building , 2017 .

[14]  Serena Cattari,et al.  Seismic behaviour of ordinary masonry buildings during the 2016 central Italy earthquakes , 2019, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

[15]  Giuseppe Brando,et al.  The effects of L’aquila earthquake on the St. Gemma church in Goriano Sicoli: part II—fem analysis , 2015, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

[16]  Luigi Sorrentino,et al.  Performance of a Far-Field Historical Church during the 2016–2017 Central Italy Earthquakes , 2019, Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities.

[17]  Lucie Vandewalle,et al.  Damage identification using modal strains identified from operational fiber-optic Bragg grating data , 2018 .

[18]  Enrico Spacone,et al.  Predictive model for the seismic vulnerability assessment of small historic centres: Application to the inner Abruzzi Region in Italy , 2017 .

[19]  Antonio Formisano,et al.  Local- and global-scale seismic analyses of historical masonry compounds in San Pio delle Camere (L’Aquila, Italy) , 2017, Natural Hazards.

[20]  Stefano Lenci,et al.  Numerical model upgrading of a historical masonry building damaged during the 2016 Italian earthquakes: the case study of the Podestà palace in Montelupone (Italy) , 2017 .

[21]  Antonio Formisano,et al.  Theoretical and Numerical Seismic Analysis of Masonry Building Aggregates: Case Studies in San Pio Delle Camere (L’Aquila, Italy) , 2017 .