Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering

2015 Edition
| Editors: Michael Beer, Ioannis A. Kougioumtzoglou, Edoardo Patelli, Siu-Kui Au

Seismic Strengthening Strategies for Heritage Structures

  • Dina D’AyalaEmail author
  • Sara Paganoni
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35344-4_199
  • 158 Downloads

Introduction

The global seismic behavior of historic masonry buildings is highly influenced by the integrity of the connections among vertical and horizontal structural elements, to ensure the so-called box behavior. This, providing the transfer of inertial and dynamic actions from elements working in flexure out-of-plane to elements working in in-plane shear, leads to a global response best suited to the strength capacity of the constitutive materials and hence enhanced performance and lower damage level. Notwithstanding the importance of connections’ integrity, analytical checks of existing connecting elements, or design of new elements to strengthen existing connections, are generally based on qualitative rules or simplified overall checks, rather than rigorous analytical approach. The “Guidelines for Earthquake Resistant Non-Engineered Construction” were first published by the International Association for Earthquake Engineering (IAEE) in 1986 specifically with the objective of...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Benedetti D (2004) Increasing available ductility in masonry buildings via energy absorbers. Shaking table tests. Eur Earthq Eng 18(3):3–16MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. Borri A, Castori G, Grazini A, Giannantoni A (2007) Performance of masonry elements strengthened with steel reinforced grout. In: Fiber-reinforced polymer reinforcement for concrete structures – FRPRCS-8, Patras, 16–18 JulyGoogle Scholar
  3. Borri A, Castori G, Grazini A (2009) Retrofitting of masonry building with reinforced masonry ring-beam. Constr Build Mater 23(5):1892–1901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA, 356. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  5. California Historical Building Code (2007) California code of regulations. Title 24, part 8. California Building Standards Commission, International Code Council, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. Casadei P, Agneloni E (2008) Advance composites applications on historical structures in Italy: Case studies and future developments 6th International Conference on Structural Analysis of Historical ConstructionGoogle Scholar
  7. Chuxian S, Guiqiu L, Wenchao W (1997) The design of brick masonry structure with concrete column. In: XI brick and block masonry conference, ShanghaiGoogle Scholar
  8. CNR-DT 200 R1/2013. Guide for the Design and Construction of Externally Bonded FRP Systems for Strengthening Existing Structures, ROMA – CNR October 10th 2013 – release of May 15th 2014Google Scholar
  9. Corradi M, Grazini A, Borri A (2007) Confinement of brick masonry columns with CFRP materials. Compos Sci Technol 67:1772–1783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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(1):81–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. D’Ayala D, Paganoni S (2014) Protocol for testing and design of dissipative devices for out-of-plane damage Struct Build 167(1):26–40Google Scholar
  12. D’Ayala D, Speranza E (2003) Definition of Collapse Mechanisms and Seismic Vulnerability of Historic Masonry Buildings. Earthquake Spectra 19(3):479–509. doi:10.1193/1.1599896Google Scholar
  13. D’Ayala D, Yeomans D (2004) Assessing the seismic vulnerability of late Ottoman buildings in Istanbul. In: IV international seminar on structural analysis of historical constructions – SAHC04, PaduaGoogle Scholar
  14. DD CEN/TS 1992-4-1:2009. Design of fastenings for use in concreteGoogle Scholar
  15. Di Ludovico M, D’Ambra C, Prota A, Manfredi G (2010) FRP confinement of tuff and clay brick columns, experimental study and assessment of analytical models. J Compos Constr 14(5):583–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eligehausen R, Mall R, Silva JF (2006) Anchorage in concrete construction. Ernst Sohn, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  17. EN 1991-1:2002. Eurocode 1- Actions on structuresGoogle Scholar
  18. EN 1992-1:2004. Eurocode 2- Design of concrete structuresGoogle Scholar
  19. EN 1993-1:2005. Eurocode 3- Design of steel structuresGoogle Scholar
  20. EN 1995-1:2004 + A1:2008. Eurocode 5- Design of timber structuresGoogle Scholar
  21. EN 1996-12005. Eurocode 6- Design of masonry structuresGoogle Scholar
  22. EN 1998-1:2004. Eurocode 8- Design of structure for earthquake resistance. Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildingsGoogle Scholar
  23. EN 1998-3:2005. Eurocode 8- Design of structure for earthquake resistance. Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildingsGoogle Scholar
  24. EN 15129:2009: Anti-seismic devicesGoogle Scholar
  25. EOTA, European Organisation for Technical Assessments (2010) TR 029, Design of bonded anchors, Sept 2010. Downloaded at www.eota.eu. Accessed 8 Jan 2014
  26. EOTA, European Organisation for Technical Assessments (2013) TR 045, Design of metal anchors for use in concrete under seismic actions. Downloaded at www.eota.eu. Accessed 8 Jan 2014
  27. Gigla B (2004) Bond strength of injection anchors as supplementary reinforcement inside historic masonry. In: XIII international brick and block masonry conference, Amsterdam, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  28. Gigla B (2010). Comparison of failure of injection anchors as supplementary reinforcement inside masonry and concrete. In: VIII international masonry conference, Dresden, pp 2019–2028Google Scholar
  29. Gigla B, Wenzel F (2000) Design recommendations for injection anchors as supplementary reinforcement of historic masonry. In: XII international brick and block masonry conference, Madrid, pp 691–706Google Scholar
  30. Giuffrè A (1993) Sicurezza e conservazione dei centri storici: il caso di Ortigia. Laterza, Roma-BariGoogle Scholar
  31. Hamoush SA, McGinley MW, Mlakar P, Scott D, Murray K (2001) Out-of-plane strengthening of masonry walls with reinforced composites. J Compos Constr 5(3):139–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Indirli M, Castellano MG, Clemente P, Martelli A (2001) Demo-application of shape memory alloy devices, the rehabilitation of S. Giorgio Church Bell-Tower. In: VI international symposium on smart structures and materials – SPIE 2001, Newport BeachGoogle Scholar
  33. Ministero deri Beni Architettonici e Culturali, Italia, Guidelines for evaluation and mitigation of seismic risk to cultural heritage : (2007) Cangemi Editore S.p.A.Google Scholar
  34. Karantoni F, Fardis M (1992) Effectiveness of seismic strengthening techniques for masonry buildings. ASCE 118(7):1884–1902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Krevaikas TD, Triantafillou T (2006) Masonry confinement with fiber-reinforced polymers. ASCE J Compos Constr 9(2):128–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mandara A, Mazzolani FM (2001) Energy dissipation devices in seismic up-grading of monumental buildings. In: III international seminar on structural analysis of historical constructions – SAHC01, GuimarãesGoogle Scholar
  37. Marcari G, Manfredi G, Pecce M (2003) Experimental behaviour of masonry panels strengthened with FRP sheets. In: Tan KH (ed) 6th international conference on fibre-reinforced plastics for reinforced concrete structures, World Scientific, Singapore, pp 1209–1218Google Scholar
  38. Mayorca P, Meguro K (2004) Proposal of an efficient technique for retrofitting unreinforced masonry dwellings. In: XIII world conference on earthquake engineering, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  39. Miranda E, Taghavi S (2005) Approximate floor acceleration demands in multistory buildings. I: formulation. J Struct Eng 131:203–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. OPCM (2005) No. 3431, May 3, 2005. Official Bulletin no. 107, May 10, 2005 (in Italian). Gazzetta Ufficiale – Serie Generale n. 107Google Scholar
  41. Priestley MJN (2000) Performance based seismic design. In: XII world conference of earthquake engineering, AucklandGoogle Scholar
  42. Spence R, D’Ayala D (1999) Damage assessment and analysis of the 1997 Umbria-Marche earthquakes. Struct Eng Int 9(3):229–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tomazevic M (1999) Earthquake-resistant design of masonry buildings. Imperial College Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. Tumialan G, Huang P-C, Nanni A, Silva P (2001) Strengthening of masonry walls by FRP structural repointing. In: Burgoyne CJ (ed) 5th international conference on fibre-reinforced plastics for reinforced concrete structures, Thomas Telford, Cambridge, pp 1033–1042Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic EngineeringUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Ziegert|Roswag|Seiler Architekten IngenieureBerlinGermany