Advertisement

Nominal Life of Interventions for Monuments and Historic Structures

  • Constantine C. SpyrakosEmail author
  • Charilaos A. Maniatakis
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 962)

Abstract

This work presents a methodology that harmonizes the modern philosophy of seismic codes with the engineering and archaeological practice of interventions on cultural heritage structures. By introducing the notion of “nominal life of intervention, ΤΔ”, and use of attenuation relationships, an easy to apply procedure is proposed that allows application of less extended interventions on monuments and satisfies both the aesthetic and archaeological criteria, provided that the nominal life of these interventions satisfies an acceptable limit. Following the proposed methodology, rehabilitation measures are designed for a specific performance level that is associated to a certain nominal life, after which the structure should be re-evaluated. Utilizing attenuation equations, it arrives at a simple to apply procedure and diagrams that can be used to evaluate and design interventions in heritage structures. The methodology could serve as a stepping stone to address the challenging task of balancing public safety with acceptable interventions on historic structures in many countries with high seismicity and rich cultural heritage.

Keywords

Nominal life of interventions Cultural heritage structures Monuments Seismic performance levels 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The investigation was performed as a task of the research project “Seismic Protection of Monuments and Historic Structures – SEISMO” co-financed by the Greek Ministry of Education and the European Union under the action “THALES” within the context of the Operational Programme – Education and Lifelong Learning, NSRF 2007–2013.

References

  1. 1.
    Oliveira, C.S., Çaktı, E., Stengel, D., Branco, M.: Minaret behavior under earthquake loading: the case of historical Istanbul. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dynam. 41, 19–39 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    GEER-EERI-ATC: Earthquake Reconnaissance January 26th/February 2nd 2014 Cephalonia, Greece events. GEER Association Report No. GEER-034 in collaboration with EERI and ATC, Version 1, 6 June 2014Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Somerville, P.G., Smith, N.F., Graves, R.W., Abrahamson, N.A.: Modification of empirical strong ground motion attenuation relations to include the amplitude and duration effects of rupture directivity. Seismol. Res. Lett. 68, 199–205 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Spyrakos, C.C., Maniatakis, C.A., Taflambas, J.: Evaluation of near source seismic records based on damage potential parameters: case study: Greece. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 28, 738–753 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Spyrakos, C.C., Maniatakis, C.A., Kiriakopoulos, P., Francioso, A., Taflampas, I.M.: Performance of a post-Byzantine triple-domed basilica under near and far fault seismic loads: analysis and intervention. In: Asteris, P.G., Plevris, V. (eds.) Handbook of Research on Seismic Assessment and Rehabilitation of Historic Structures, vol. II, pp. 831–867. IGI Global Editions, Hershey (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alavi, B., Krawinkler, H.: Consideration of near-fault ground motion effects in seismic design. In: Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, article 2665. New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Upper Hutt, N.Z. (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maniatakis, C.A., Spyrakos, C.C.: A new methodology to determine elastic displacement spectra in the near-fault region. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 35, 41–58 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Spyrakos, C.C., Maniatakis, C.A., Taflambas, J.: Critical evaluation of near field seismic records in Greece. In: Syngellakis, S. (ed.) Earthquake Ground Motion - Input Definition for Aseismic Design, pp. 1–10. Wessex Institute of Technology Press, Southampton (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maniatakis, C.A., Spyrakos, C.C., Kiriakopoulos, P.D., Tsellos, K.P.: Seismic response of a historic church considering pounding phenomena. Bull. Earthq. Eng. 16(7), 2913–2941 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Spyrakos, C.C., Pugi, F., Maniatakis, C.A., Francioso, A.: Evaluation of the dynamic response for a historic Byzantine crossed-dome church through block joint and kinematic analysis. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Techniques Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering COMPDYN 2015, pp. 2354–2364. Institute of Structural Analysis and Antiseismic Research, National Technical University of Athens, Greece (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Spyrakos, C.C., Touliatos, P., Patsilivas, D., Pelekis, G., Xampesis, A., Maniatakis, C.A.: Seismic analysis and retrofit of a historic masonry building. In: Syngellakis, S. (ed.) Retrofitting of Heritage Structures - Design and Evaluation of Strengthening Techniques, pp. 65–74. Wessex Institute of Technology Press, Southampton (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Spyrakos, C.C.: Finite Element Modeling in Engineering Practice. Algor Publishing Division, Pittsburg (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Spyrakos, C.C., Raftoyannis, J.: Linear and Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis in Engineering Practice. Algor Publishing Division, Pittsburg (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lemos, J.V.: Discrete element modeling of the seismic behaviour of stone masonry arches. In: Pande, G., Middleton, J., Kralj, B. (eds.) Computer Methods in Structural Masonry, 4th edn, pp. 220–227. CRC Press, London (1998)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lourenco, P.B., Milani, G., Tralli, A., Zucchini, A.: Analysis of masonry structures: review of and recent trends in homogenization techniques. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 34, 1443–1457 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lagomarsino, S., Penna, A., Galasco, A., Cattari, S.: TREMURI program: an equivalent frame model for the nonlinear seismic analysis of masonry buildings. Eng. Struct. 56, 1787–1799 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Roca, P., Cervera, M., Gariup, G.: Structural analysis of masonry historical constructions. Classical and advanced approaches. Arch. Computat. Methods Eng. 17(3), 299–325 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Oliveira, D.V., Basílio, I., Lourenço, P.B.: FRP strengthening of masonry arches towards an enhanced behavior. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Bridge Maintenance, Safety and Management (IABMAS 2006), 3, Porto, Portugal (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Credali, L., Ussia, G.: Composite materials technologies in constructions structural retrofitting: new developments and applications in historical buildings and applications in seismic zone. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering COMPDYN 2011, pp. 1866–1882. Institute of Structural Analysis and Antiseismic Research, National Technical University of Athens, Greece (2011)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Spyrakos, C.C., Kiriakopoulos, P.D., Smyrou, E.: Seismic strengthening of the historic church of Sts Helen and Constantine in Piraeus. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Techniques Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering COMPDYN 2011, pp. 2401–2413. Institute of Structural Analysis and Antiseismic Research, National Technical University of Athens, Greece (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Spyrakos, C.C., Francioso, A., Kiriakopoulos, P.D., Papoutsellis, S.: Seismic evaluation of the historic church of St. Nicholas in Piraeus before and after interventions. In: Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Techniques Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering COMPDYN 2013, pp. 3015–3029. Institute of Structural Analysis and Antiseismic Research, National Technical University of Athens, Greece (2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Spyrakos, C.C.: Ενίσχυση κατασκευών για σεισμικά φορτία (Strengthening of structures for seismic loads). Technical Chamber of Greece, Athens (2004). (in Greek)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Alaggio, R., Benedettini, F., De Sortis, A., Lucarelli, V.: Structural identification of monuments in Rome using ambient vibration measurements. Ιn: Proceedings of EVACES 2011 – 4th International Conference on Experimental Vibration Analysis for Civil Engineering Structures, Varenna, Italy (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Russo, S.: On the monitoring of historic Anime Sante church damaged by earthquake in L’Aquila. Struct. Control Health Monit. 20(9), 1226–1239 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    De Stefano, A., Matta, E., Clemente, P.: Structural health monitoring of historical heritage in Italy: some relevant experiences. J. Civ. Struct. Health Monit. 6(1), 83–106 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Spyrakos, C.C., Fessas, C.P., Andrikopoulos, G.A.: Health monitoring of a monument at Acropolis using an expert acquisition system and wired optical strand devices. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Techniques Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering COMPDYN 2017, pp. 2651–2658. Institute of Structural Analysis and Antiseismic Research, National Technical University of Athens, Greece (2017)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    The Athens Charter for the Restoration of Historic Monuments. First International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments, Athens (1931)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    International Council on Monuments and Sites – ICOMOS: International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter 1964). Second International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments, Venice (1964)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Congress on the European Architectural Heritage: The Declaration of Amsterdam, Amsterdam (1975)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Italian Building Code: Linee Guida per la valutazione del rischio sismico del patrimonio culturale allineate alle nuove norme tecniche per le costruzioni (Guidelines: Assessment and mitigation of seismic risk of cultural heritage with reference to the 2008 Italian Building Code), G.U. No. 47 (2011). (in Italian)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN): EN 1998-3:2004. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings. CEN, Brussels, Belgium (2004)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Steenbergen, R.D.J.M., Vrouwenvelder, A.C.W.M.: Safety philosophy for existing structures and partial factors for traffic loads on bridges. Heron 55(2), 123–139 (2010)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN): EN 1998-1:2004. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 1: General rules, seismic action and rules for buildings. CEN, Brussels, Belgium (2004)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Earthquake Planning Protection Organization (EPPO), Harmonization Team of Code of Interventions to Eurocodes: Code of Structural Interventions (CSI), Final Harmonized Text, English temporary version V1 (2012)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Borri, A. Candela, M.: Strutturisti e Restauratori: Sicurezza Vs conservazione? Problemi, dubbi e proposte, anche alla luce di esperienze successive al terremoto dell’Aquila (Structural engineers and Restorers: Security and Conservatism? Problems, doubts and proposals, also in the light of subsequent experience after the L’ Aquila earthquake). In: Proceedings of the XVI National Congress “L’ Ingegneria Sismica in Italia”, pp. 5–26. ANIDIS, L’ Aquila (2015). (in Italian)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lagomarsino, S.: The seismic prevention as a tool for the conservation of cultural heritage. Ingenio 26 (2014)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Papazachos, B.C., Papaioannou, Ch.A., Margaris, B.N., Theodulidis, N.P.: Regionalization of seismic hazard in Greece based on seismic sources. Nat. Hazards 8, 1–13 (1993)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Spyrakos, C.C.: Seismic risk of historic structures and monuments: a need for a unified policy. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Techniques Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering COMPDYN 2015, pp. 2423–2439. Institute of Structural Analysis and Antiseismic Research, National Technical University of Athens, Greece (2015)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Spyrakos, C.C.: Modern approaches for the earthquake protection of cultural heritage structures - review and proposal. In: Proceedings of the 4th National Conference of Restoration. ETEPAM, Thessaloniki (2015)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Spyrakos, C.C.: Bridging performance based seismic design with restricted interventions on cultural heritage structures. Eng. Struct. 160, 34–43 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory for Earthquake EngineeringNational Technical University of AthensZografos, AthensGreece

Personalised recommendations