Advertisement

Meccanica

, Volume 53, Issue 7, pp 1931–1958 | Cite as

Engineering simulations of a super-complex cultural heritage building: Ica Cathedral in Peru

  • Maria Pia Ciocci
  • Satyadhrik Sharma
  • Paulo B. Lourenço
New Trends in Mechanics of Masonry

Abstract

The Cathedral of Ica, Peru, is one of the four prototype buildings involved in the ongoing Seismic Retrofitting Project, initiative of the Getty Conservation Institute. The complex historical building, which was heavily damaged by earthquakes in 2007 and 2009, can be divided into two substructures: an external masonry envelope and an internal timber frame built by a construction method known as quincha technique. This study makes use of the information available in literature and the results obtained from experimental campaigns performed by Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú and University of Minho. Nonlinear behaviour of masonry is simulated in the numerical models by considering specified compressive and tensile softening behaviour, while isotropic homogeneous and linear behaviour is adopted for modelling timber with appropriate assumptions on the connections. A single representative bay was initially studied by performing linear elastic analysis and verifying the compliance with the various criteria specified by the applicable normative to discuss the actual failure of Ica Cathedral. Afterwards, the structural behaviour of the two substructures composing the Cathedral is evaluated independently. Finally, the interaction of these two substructures is investigated by performing structural analysis on the entire structure of Ica Cathedral. Several structural analysis techniques, including eigenvalue, nonlinear static and dynamic analyses, are performed in order to: (1) evaluate the dominant mode shapes of the structure; (2) validate the numerical models by reproducing the structural damage observed in situ; (3) estimate the structural performance; and (4) identify the main failure mechanisms.

Keywords

Unreinforced masonry building Quincha-adobe system Finite element (FE) modelling Nonlinear analysis Safety assessment 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was carried out with funding from the Getty Seismic Retrofitting Project under the auspices of the Getty Conservation Institute (GCI). This work is also partially financed by FEDER funds through the Competitivity Factors Operational Programme–COMPETE and by national funds through FCT–Foundation for Science and Technology within the scope of the projects POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007633 and PTDC/ECM-EST/2777/2014.

Compliance with ethical standard

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Aguilar R, Marques R, Sovero K, Martel C, Trujillano F, Boroschek R (2015) Investigations on the structural behaviour of archaeological heritage in Peru: from survey to seismic assessment. Eng Struct 95:94–111. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.03.058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Angelillo M, Lourenço PB, Milani G (2014) Masonry behaviour and modelling. In: Angelillo M (ed) Mechanics of masonry structures, CISM international centre for mechanical sciences, vol 551. Springer, Italy, pp 1–26. doi: 10.1007/978-3-7091-1774-3 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ARTeMIS (2014) Modal Users’ Manual SVS–Structural Vibration Solutions A/SDenmarkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Betti M, Galano L, Vignoli A (2015) Time-history seismic analysis of masonry buildings: a comparison between two non-linear modelling approaches. Buildings 5:597–621. doi: 10.3390/buildings5020597 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blondet M, Vargas J, Tarque N (2008) Observed behaviour of earthen structures during the Pisco (Peru) earthquake of August 15, 2007. In: proceedings of the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, China, 12th–17th Oct 2008. http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/14_01-1031.PDF
  6. 6.
    Cancino C, Farneth S, Garnier P, Vargas Neumann J, Webster F (2009) Damage assessment of historic earthen buildings after the August 15, 2007 Pisco. Peru Earthquake, The Getty Conservation InstituteGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cancino C, Lardinois S, D’Ayala D, Ferreira CF, Dávila DT, Meléndez EV, Santamato LV (2012) Seismic retrofitting project: assessment of prototype buildings. The Getty Conservation Institute, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carbajal F, Ruiz G, Schexnayder CJ, ASCE F (2005) Quincha construction in Peru. Pract Period Struct Des Constr 10:56–62. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0680 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Castellazzi G, Gentilini C, Nobile L (2013) Seismic vulnerability assessment of a historical church: limit Analysis and nonlinear finite element analysis. Adv Civ Eng. doi: 10.1155/2013/517454 Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chopra AK (2012) Dynamics of structures: theory and applications to earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    CSI (2014) Analysis reference manual for SAP 2000, ETABS SAFE and CSiBrisge BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    EN 1995-1-1 (2004) Eurocode 5: design of timber structures—Part 1-1: general–common rules and rules for buildings. CEN, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    EN 1996-1-1 (2005) Eurocode 6: Design of masonry structures—Part 1-1: general rules for reinforced and unreinforced masonry structures. CEN, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Endo Y, Pelà L, Roca P (2016) Review of different pushover analysis methods applied to masonry buildings and comparison with nonlinear dynamic. J Earthq Eng, 1–22. doi: 10.1080/13632469.2016.1210055Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Faria R (1994) Seismic evaluation of concrete dams via continuum damage models. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of MinhoGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    FEMA 306 (1998) Evaluation of earthquake damaged concrete and masonry wall buildings—basic procedures manual (ATC-43 Project). ATC—Applied Technology Council, Redwood CityGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ferreira CF, D’ Ayala D, Fernandez Cabo JL, Diez R (2013) Numerical modelling of historic vaulted timber structures. Adv Mat Res 778:517–525. doi: 10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.778.517 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Greco F, Karanikoloudis G, Mendes N, Lourenço PB (2015) Experimental in situ testing campaign on adobe historic structures in Peru, within the Getty SR Project. Report 2015-DEC/E-30. University of Minho–TecMinho, GuimaraesGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hilber HM, Hughes TJR, Taylor RL (1977) Improved numerical dissipation for time integration algorithms in structural dynamics. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 5:283–292. doi: 10.1002/eqe.4290050306 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hurtado Valdez P (2009) Masonry or wooden vaults?: the technical discussion to rebuilt the vaults of the cathedral of lima in the seventeenth century. In: Kurrer KE, Lorenz W, Wetzk V (eds) proceedings of the third international congress on construction history, Cottbus, Germany, 20th–24th May 2009. NEUNPLUS1, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lourenço PB, Mendes N, Ramos LF, Oliveira DV (2011) On the analysis of masonry structures without box behaviour. Int J Archit Herit 5:369–382. doi: 10.1080/15583058.2010.528824 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lourenço PB, Sharma S, Ciocci MP, Greco F (2015) Seismic assessment of Ica Cathedral (Current Condition), Peru. Report 2015-DEC/E-34. University of Minho–TecMinho, GuimaraesGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lourenço PB, Trujillo A, Mendes N, Ramos LF (2012) Seismic performance of the St. George of the Latins church: lessons learned from studying masonry ruins. Eng Struct 40:501–518. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.03.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Milani G (2013) Lesson learned after the Emilia-Romagna, Italy, 20–29 May 2012 earthquakes: a limit analysis insight on three masonry churches. Eng Fail Anal 34:761–778. doi: 10.1016/j.engfailanal.2013.01.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mendes N (2012) Seismic assessment of ancient masonry buildings: shaking table tests and numerical analysis. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of MinhoGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mitma M, Grover J, Jorge E, Alva H (2005) Microzonificación de la ciudad de Ica frente a sismos e inundaciones. http://www.cismid.uni.edu.pe/descargas/redacis/redacis27_a.pdf
  27. 27.
    NTC (2011) Nuove norme tecniche per le costruzioni e circolare esplicativa. Decreto Ministeriale Infrastrutture 14 gennaio 2008–Circolare 2/02/2009 n°617/C.S.LL.PP. DEI, Roma (in Italian)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    OPCM 3431 (2005) Primi elementi in materia di criteri generali per la classificazione sismica del territorio nazionale e di nuove normative tecniche per le costruzioni in zona sismica. Ordinanza P.C.M. n. 3431 del 3 Maggio 2005. Modifica dell’ordinanza n. 3274 del 20 Marzo 2003. Italy (in Italian)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ramos LF (2007) Damage identification on masonry structures based on vibration signatures. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of MinhoGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    RNE E.010 (2006) Reglamento Nacional de Edificaciones: Norma Técnica E.010 “Madera”. Decreto Supremo N° 011-2006-vivienda (05 Mar 2006). Ministerio de Vivienda, Construcción y Saneamiento, Peru (in Spanish)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    RNE E0.30 (2006) Reglamento Nacional de Edificaciones: Norma Técnica E.0.30 “Diseño Sismorresistente”. Decreto Supremo N° 011-2006-vivienda (05 Mar 2006). Ministerio de Vivienda, Construcción y Saneamiento, Peru (in Spanish)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    RNE E0.30 (2016) Reglamento Nacional de Edificaciones: Norma Técnica E.030 “Diseño Sismorresistente”. Decreto Supremo N° 003-2016-vivienda (24 Jan 2016). Ministerio de Vivienda, Construcción y Saneamiento, Peru (in Spanish)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rodríguez Camilloni H (2003) Quincha architecture: the development of an antiseismic structural system in seventeenth century Lima. In: Huerta S (ed) Proceedings of the first international congress on construction history, Madrid, 20th–24th January 2003. Instituto Juan de Herrera, Spain, pp 1741–1752Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    SEiSMOSOFT (2013) Seismoartif v2.1. PaviaGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    SEiSMOSOFT (2013) SeismoSignal v5.1. PaviaGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Selby RG, Vecchio FJ (1993) Three-dimensional constitutive relations for reinforced concrete. Tech Rep 93–02, University of TorontoGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Taucer F, Alarcon J, So E (2009) 2007 August 15 magnitude 7.9 earthquake near the coast of Central Peru: analysis and field mission report. Bull Earthq Eng 7(1):1–70. doi: 10.1007/s10518-008-9092-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    TNO DIANA (2014) Diana manuals. http://tnodiana.com/DIANA-manuals
  39. 39.
    Tomaževič M (1999) Earthquake-resistant design of masonry buildings. In: Tomaževič M (ed) Series on innovation in structures and construction. Imperial College Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    USGS (2017) United States Geological Survey, Earthquake Hazards Program. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/. Accessed 10 Apr 2017
  41. 41.
    Vecchio FJ, Collins MP (1986) The modified compression field theory for reinforced concrete elements subjected to shear. ACI J 83(22):219–231. doi: 10.14359/10416 Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Vicente E, Torrealva DE (2014) Mechanical properties of adobe masonry of historical buildings in Peru. In: Meli R, Peña F, Cháves M (eds) Proceedings of the 9th international conference on structural analysis of historical constructions (SAHC 2014), Mexico City, 14th–17th Oct 2014. http://www.hms.civil.uminho.pt/sahc/2014/topic10-fullpaper005.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ISISE, Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of Minho, Campus de AzurémGuimarãesPortugal
  2. 2.UME SchoolIstituto Universitario di Studi Superiori (IUSS)PaviaItaly

Personalised recommendations