Advertisement

Earthquake damage assessment of masonry churches: proposal for rapid and detailed forms and derivation of empirical vulnerability curves

  • Sergio LagomarsinoEmail author
  • Serena Cattari
  • Daria Ottonelli
  • Sonia Giovinazzi
Original Research

Abstract

The post-earthquake damage assessment represents the first step after an emergency to support not only the safety of people, but also the preservation of buildings through the realization of prompt and effective provisional interventions. The issue is of particular relevance in case of monumental assets such as churches that are the focus of the paper. In Italy, since 1997 the post-earthquake damage assessment of churches has been carried out using a specific form, which was formally approved in 2001 by the Italian Civil Protection. Being the most advanced tool available in the literature within this specific field, the Italian form has been widely used also internationally. It follows the approach based on the decomposition of the church into macroelements. Although the latter has found wide confirmation through the interpretation of real damage, some critical issues were raised in relation to the versatility of the form and the reliability of the damage index that the approach provides. The post-earthquake damage assessment of 48 unreinforced masonry churches located in New Zealand, hit by the Canterbury earthquake sequence 2010–2011, represented an unprecedented opportunity, at international level, to investigate and to address the aforementioned issues. Starting from some weaknesses of the actual form, a new proposal (named CAF-D) for the damage assessment of unreinforced masonry churches has been developed and presented in the paper. The new form is still based on the macroelement approach, but it considers, in a separate way, the macroelements and the seismic damage modes they might develop, thus overcoming the limitation of the fixed number of damage mechanisms identified a priori by the current Italian form. The more reliable damage assessment approach that such form aims to achieve is the prelude to the development of a specific vulnerability model, derived by combining an empirical and an expert elicitation approach. A specific vulnerability model developed for New Zealand churches, derived by implementing the proposed CAF-D form and the related damage assessment procedure, is presented in the last part of the paper.

Keywords

Unreinforced masonry churches Damage assessment form Emergency management tool Vulnerability curves 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research is the result from the collaboration between the University of Genoa (Italy) and the University of Canterbury (New Zealand), for participation in the project “Vulnerability analysis of unreinforced masonry churches” launched and funded by the New Zealand Earthquake Commission, EQC 2014 (EQC Project 14/660). The authors would like to express also their gratitude to Arianna Bazzurro, Matilde Pinna and Francesca Porta, who contributed to the application of the CAF-D form to the 48 churches in Canterbury region.

Supplementary material

10518_2018_542_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.2 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 1261 kb)

References

  1. Anagnostopoulou M, Bruneau M, Gavin HP (2010) Performance of churches during the darfield earthquake of september 4, 2010. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 43(4):374–381Google Scholar
  2. Angeletti P, Ferrini M, Lagomarsino S (1997) Rilievo e valutazione della vulnerabilità sismica delle chiese: un esempio in Lunigiana e Garfagnana. In: Proceedings of VIII ANIDIS conference, Taormina, vol 2, 22–24 Sept 1997 (in Italian)Google Scholar
  3. Bernardini A (ed) (2000) The vulnerability of buildings: national scale evaluation of the seismic vulnerability of ordinary buildings. CNR—Gruppo Nazionale per la Difesa dai Terremoti, Rome (in Italian)Google Scholar
  4. Binda L, Modena C, Casarin F, Lorenzoni F, Cantini L, Munda S (2011) Emergency actions and investigations on cultural heritage after the L’Aquila earthquake: the case of the Spanish Fortress. Bull Earthq Eng 9:105–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braga F, Dolce M, Liberatore D (1982) A statistical study on damaged buildings and an ensuing review of the M.S.K76 scale. In: Proceedings of the 7th European conference on earthquake engineering, AthensGoogle Scholar
  6. Cancino C (2011) Damage assessment of historic earthen buildings after the august 15, 2007, Pisco, Peru earthquake. Getty Conservation Institute, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  7. Cattari S, Degli Abbati S, Ferretti D, Lagomarsino S, Ottonelli D, Tralli A (2013) Damage assessment of fortresses after the 2012 Emilia earthquake (Italy). Bull Earthq Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9520-x Google Scholar
  8. Cattari S, Ottonelli D, Pinna M, Lagomarsino S, Clark W, Giovinazzi S, Ingham J, Marotta A, Liberatore D, Sorrentino L, Leite J, Lourenco PB, Goded T (2015) Preliminary results from damage and vulnerability analysis of URM churches after the Canterbury earthquake sequence 2010–2011. In: Proceedings of New Zealand society for earthquake engineering technical conference. 10–12 Aprile, Rotorua, NZGoogle Scholar
  9. D’Ayala D, Paganoni S (2011) Assessment and analysis of damage in L’Aquila historic city centre after 6th April 2009. Bull Earthq Eng 9:81–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. D'Ayala D, Benzoni G (2012) Historic and traditional structures during the 2010 Chile earthquake: Observations, codes, and conservation strategies. Earthq Spectra 28:S425–S451.  https://doi.org/10.1193/1.4000030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. da Porto F, Silva F, Costa C, Modena C (2012) Macro-scale analysis of damage to churches after earthquake in Abruzzo (Italy) on April 6, 2009. J Earthq Eng 16(6):739–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. D’Ayala D, Galasso C, Putrino V, Fanciullacci D, Barucco P, Fanciullacci V, Bronzino C, Zerrudo E, Manolo M, Fradiquela C et al (2016) Assessment of the multi-hazard vulnerability of priority cultural heritage structures in the Philippines. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on natural hazards and infrastructure, Chania, Greece, 28–30 June 2016Google Scholar
  13. De Matteis G, Criber E, Brando G (2016) Damage probability matrices for three-Nave Masonry churches in Abruzzi after the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake. Int J Archit Herit 10:120–145.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2015.1113340 Google Scholar
  14. Doglioni F, Moretti A, Petrini V, Angeletti P (1994) Le Chiese e il Terremoti: Dalla Vulnerabilità Constatata nel Terremoto del Friuli al Miglioramento Antisismico nel Restauro, Verso una Politica di Prevenzione. Edizioni Lint, Trieste, Italy (In Italian)Google Scholar
  15. Faccioli E, Cauzzi C (2006) Macroseismic intensities for seismic scenarios estimated from instrumentally based correlations. In: Proceedings of the first european conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Ginevra, 3–8 September, 2006, CD-ROMGoogle Scholar
  16. Faenza L, Michelini A (2010) Regression analysis of MCS intensity and ground motion parameters in Italy and its application in ShakeMap. Geophys J Int 180(3):1138–1152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferreira CF, Quinn N, D’Ayala D (2014) A logic-tree approach for the seismic diagnosis of historic buildings: application to adobe buildings in Peru’. In: Proceedings of second European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Istanbul, 24–29 Aug 2014Google Scholar
  18. Giovinazzi S (2005) The vulnerability assessment and the damage scenario in seismic risk analysis. Dissertation, Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina, Braunschweig and University of FlorenceGoogle Scholar
  19. Giuffrè A. (1993) Sicurezza e Conservazione dei centri storici. Il caso Ortigia, Bari, Laterza, 133, 8Google Scholar
  20. Goded T (2016) Assignment of macroseismic intensity to the sample of 48 churches hit by the 2010–2011 Canterbury seismic sequence, Private CommunicationGoogle Scholar
  21. Goded T, Cattari S, Lagomarsino S, Giovinazzi S, Ingham JM, Marotta A, Liberatore D, Sorrentino L, Ottonelli D, Pinna M, Clark W (2016) Vulnerability analysis of unreinforced masonry churches (EQC 14/660)—Final Report, GNS Science Consultancy Report 2016/53Google Scholar
  22. Goded T, Lewis A, Stirling M (2018) Seismic vulnerability scenarios of Unreinforced Masonry churches in New Zealand. Bull Earthq Eng 16(9):3957–3999.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-018-0351-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grünthal G (1998) European Macroseismic Scale 1998 (EMS-98). Cahiers du Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie 15, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  24. Guerreiro L, Azevedo J, Proença J, Bento R, Lopes M (2000) Damage in ancient churches during the 9th of July 1998 Azores earthquake. In: Proceedings of XII world conference on earthquake engineering. January 30–February 4, Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  25. G.U. no. 116, Dipartimento della Protezione Civile (2001) Scheda per il rilievo del patrimonio monumentale—Danno alle chiese, G.U. n. 116, 21 Maggio 2001 (in Italian)Google Scholar
  26. G.U. no. 47, Recommendations P.C.M. (2011) Assessment and mitigation of seismic risk of cultural heritage with reference to the Technical Code for the design of constructions, issued by D.M. 14/1/2008. Directive of the Prime Minister, 9/02/2011 (suppl. ord. no. 54) (in Italian)Google Scholar
  27. G.U. no. 55, Direttiva P.C.M. 23 febbraio (2006) Approvazione dei modelli per il rilevamento dei danni, a seguito di eventi calamitosi, ai beni appartenenti al patrimonio monumentale (in Italian)Google Scholar
  28. Heritage New Zealand (HNZ)—Pouhere Taonga (2014) The List—Rārangi Kōrero. http://www.heritage.org.nz/the-list. Accessed during December 2013 and January 2014
  29. Ingham JM (2008) The influence of earthquakes on New Zealand masonry construction practice. In: Proceedings of the 14th international Brick and Block Masonry conference. Sydney, Australia, 17 Feb 2008–20 Feb 2008Google Scholar
  30. Ingham JM, Lourenco PB, Leite J, Castelino S, Colaco E (2012) Using simplified indices to forecast the seismic vulnerability of New Zealand unreinforced masonry churches. In: Proceedings of Australian earthquake engineering society 2012 conference. 7–9 December, Gold Coast, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  31. Lagomarsino S (2006) On the vulnerability assessment of monumental buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 4:445–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lagomarsino S (2012) Damage assessment of churches after L’Aquila earthquake (2009). Bull Earthq Eng 10(1):73–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lagomarsino S (2015) Seismic assessment of rocking masonry structures. Bull Earthq Eng 13(1):97–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lagomarsino S, Cattari S (2015) PERPETUATE guidelines for seismic performance-based assessment of cultural heritage masonry buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 13(1):13–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lagomarsino S, Giovinazzi S (2006) Macroseismic and mechanical models for the vulnerability assessment of current buildings. Bull Earthq Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-006-9024-z Google Scholar
  36. Lagomarsino S, Podestà S (2004a) Seismic vulnerability of ancient churches: I: damage assessment and emergency planning. Earthq Spectra.  https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1737735 Google Scholar
  37. Lagomarsino S, Podestà S (2004b) Seismic vulnerability of ancient churches: II. Statistical analysis of surveyed data and methods for risk analysis. Earthq Spectra.  https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1737736 Google Scholar
  38. Lagomarsino S, Podestà S (2004c) Damage and vulnerability assessment of churches after the Molise earthquake—2002. Earthq Spectra. 20(S1):S271–S283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lagomarsino S, Cattari S, Ottonelli D, Bianchini N (2017) Report di sintesi sulle curve di fragilità ottenute per le classi tipologiche in muratura individuate a partire dai dati delle schede AEDES del terremoto de L’Aquila muratura, ReLUIS Project report (In Italian)Google Scholar
  40. Leite J, Lourenco PB, Ingham JM (2013) Statistical assessment of damage to churches affected by the 2010-2011 Canterbury (New Zealand) earthquake sequence. J Earthq Eng 17(1):73–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lourenco PB, Oliveira DV, Leite JC, Ingham JM, Modena C, da Porto F (2013) Simplified indexes for the seismic assessment of masonry buildings: international database and validation. Eng Fail Anal 34:585–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Magalhães JM, Vicente R, Ferreira T, Varum H, Costa A, Lagomarsino S, Curti E (2012) Seismic vulnerability of churches in Faial and Pico islands, Azores. In: Proceedings of15th world conference on earthquake engineering. 24–28 September, Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  43. Marotta A, Goded T, Giovinazzi S, Lagomarsino S, Liberatore D, Sorrentino L, Ingham JM (2015) An inventory of unreinforced masonry churches in New Zealand. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 48(3):171–190Google Scholar
  44. Marotta A, Sorrentino L, Liberatore D, Ingham J (2017a) Vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry churches following the 2010–2011 canterbury earthquake sequence. J Earthq Eng 21(6):912–934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Marotta A, Sorrentino L, Liberatore D, Ingham J (2017b) Seismic risk assessment of New Zealand Unreinforced Masonry Churches using statistical procedures. Int J Archit Herit 12(3):448–464.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2017.1323242 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Modena C, Da Porto F, Casarin F, Munari M, Simonato E (2010) Cultural heritage buildings and the Abruzzo earthquake: performance and post-earthquake actions. Adv Mater Res 133–134:3–17.  https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.133-134.3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Murphy JR, O’Brien LJ (1977) The correlation of peak ground acceleration amplitude with seismic intensity and other physical parameters. Bull Seismol Soc Am 67:877–915Google Scholar
  48. Musson RMW, Grünthal G, Stucchi M (2009) The comparison of macroseismic intensity scales. J Seismol 14(2):413–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Novelli V, D’Ayala D (2015) LOG-IDEAH: LOGic trees for identification of damage due to earthquakes for architectural heritage. Bull Earthq Eng 13(1):153–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Parisi F, Augenti N (2013) Earthquake damages to cultural heritage constructions and simplified assessment of artworks. Eng Fail Anal 34:735–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Penna A, Calderini C, Sorrentino L, Carocci C, Cescatti L, Sisti R, Borri A, Modena C, Prota A (2019) Damage to churches in the 2016 Central Italy earthquakes. Bull Earthq Eng (accepted)Google Scholar
  52. Sorrentino L, Liberatore L, Decanini LD, Liberatore D (2014) The performance of churches in the 2012 Emilia earthquakes. Bull Earthq Eng 12:2299–2331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. USGS (2011) US Geological Survey ShakeMap: South Island of New Zealand February 22nd, 2011. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/shakemap/global/shake/b0001igm/
  54. Whitman RV, Reed JW, Hong ST (1973) Earthquake damage probability matrices. In: Proceedings of 5th European conference on earthquake engineering, Rome, pp 2531–2540Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil, Chemical and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of GenoaGenovaItaly
  2. 2.Laboratory for the Analysis and Protection of Critical Infrastructures (APIC)ENEA Casaccia Research CentreRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations